The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of Global Reuse and Recycling of Personal Computers
Abstract
Reverse supply chains for the reuse, recycling, and disposal of goods are globalizing. This article critically reviews the environmental, economic, and social issues associated with international reuse and recycling of personal computers. Computers and other e-waste are often exported for reuse and recycling abroad. On the environmental side, our analysis suggests that the risk of leaching of toxic materials in computers from well-managed sanitary landfills is very small. On the other hand, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that the environmental impacts of informal recycling in developing countries are serious. On the basis of existing evidence informal recycling is the most pressing environmental issue associated with e-waste. Socially, used markets abroad improve access to information technology by making low-priced computers available. Economically, the reuse and recycling sector provides employment. Existing policies efforts to manage e-waste focus on mandating domestic recycling systems and reducing toxic content of processes. We argue that existing policy directions will mitigate but not solve the problem of the environmental impacts of informal recycling. There are many opportunities yet to be explored to develop policies and technologies for reuse/recycling systems which are environmentally safe, encourage reuse of computers, and provide jobs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2002) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643380290813462 · Cited by 2,522
Cited by
Reck, B. K., & Graedel, T. E. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1217501 · Cited by 852
Informal electronic waste recycling: A sector review with special focus on China
Chi, X., Streicher-Porte, M., Wang, M. Y. L., & Reuter, M. A. (2011) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.11.006 · Cited by 497
Khan, S., Anjum, R., Raza, S. T., Ahmed Bazai, N., & Ihtisham, M. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132403 · Cited by 438
E-Waste Recycling: Where Does It Go from Here?
Zhang, K., Schnoor, J. L., & Zeng, E. Y. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es303166s · Cited by 388
Environmental effects of information and communications technologies
Williams, E. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10682 · Cited by 304
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., Kavazanjian, E., Kim, J., & Xu, M.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2008-08-06
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 6446-6454
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2054402841
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.