CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The hidden economic and environmental costs of eliminating kerb-side recycling

Anshassi, Malak, Townsend, Timothy G.·2023·Nature Sustainability
DOI 10.1038/s41893-023-01122-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41893-023-01122-8

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Anshassi, M., Preuss, B. & Townsend, T. G. Moving beyond recycling: examining steps for local government to integrate sustainable materials management. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 71, 1039–1052 (2021). · DOI
  2. Fitzgerald, G. C., Krones, J. S. & Themelis, N. J. Greenhouse gas impact of dual stream and single stream collection and separation of recyclables. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 69, 50–56 (2012). · DOI
  3. Larsen, A. W., Merrild, H., Møller, J. & Christensen, T. H. Waste collection systems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Manage. 30, 744–754 (2010). · DOI
  4. Wagner, T. P. & Broaddus, N. The generation and cost of litter resulting from the curbside collection of recycling. Waste Manage. 50, 3–9 (2016). · DOI
  5. Ikiz, E., Maclaren, V. W., Alfred, E. & Sivanesan, S. Impact of COVID-19 on household waste flows, diversion and reuse: the case of multi-residential buildings in Toronto, Canada. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105111 (2021). · DOI
  6. Kulkarni, B. N. & Anantharama, V. Repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal solid waste management: challenges and opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 743, 140693 (2020). · DOI
  7. Liao, N. et al. Can waste management system be a greenhouse gas sink? Perspective from Shanghai, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 180, 106170 (2022). · DOI
  8. Fei, X., Fang, M. & Wang, Y. Climate change affects land-disposed waste. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1004–1005 (2021). · DOI
  9. Duren, R. M. et al. California’s methane super-emitters. Nature 575, 180–184 (2019). · DOI
  10. Morris, J. Comparative LCAs for curbside recycling versus either landfilling or incineration with energy recovery (12 pp). Int J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 273–284 (2005). · DOI
  11. Kaplan, P. O., Ranjithan, S. R. & Barlaz, M. A. Use of life-cycle analysis to support solid waste management planning for Delaware. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1264–1270 (2009). · DOI
  12. van Ewijk, S., Stegemann, J. A. & Ekins, P. Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper. Nat. Sustain 4, 180–187 (2021). · DOI
  13. Borrelle, S. B. et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lau, W. W. Y. et al. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455–1461 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Dubois, G. et al. It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 52, 144–158 (2019). · DOI
  16. Schmidt, S. et al. Understanding GHG emissions from Swedish consumption—current challenges in reaching the generational goal. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 428–437 (2019). · DOI
  17. Castellani, V., Beylot, A. & Sala, S. Environmental impacts of household consumption in Europe: comparing process-based LCA and environmentally extended input–output analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 117966 (2019). · DOI
  18. Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589 (2020). · DOI
  19. Anshassi, M., Laux, S. J. & Townsend, T. G. Approaches to integrate sustainable materials management into waste management planning and policy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 148, 55–66 (2019). · DOI
  20. Andreasi Bassi, S., Christensen, T. H. & Damgaard, A. Environmental performance of household waste management in Europe—an example of 7 countries. Waste Manage. 69, 545–557 (2017). · DOI
  21. Gu, F., Wang, J., Guo, J. & Fan, Y. Dynamic linkages between international oil price, plastic stock index and recycle plastic markets in China. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 68, 167–179 (2020). · DOI
  22. Shamsuyeva, M. & Endres, H.-J. Plastics in the context of the circular economy and sustainable plastics recycling: comprehensive review on research development, standardization and market. Compos. Part C 6, 100168 (2021).
  23. Huang, Q. et al. Modelling the global impact of China’s ban on plastic waste imports. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 154, 104607 (2020). · DOI
  24. Gephart, J. A. et al. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597, 360–365 (2021). · DOI
  25. Christensen, T. H. et al. Application of LCA modelling in integrated waste management. Waste Manage. 118, 313–322 (2020). · DOI
  26. Levis, J. W., Barlaz, M. A., DeCarolis, J. F. & Ranjithan, S. R. Systematic exploration of efficient strategies to manage solid waste in U.S. municipalities: perspectives from the Solid Waste Optimization Life-Cycle Framework (SWOLF). Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 3625–3631 (2014). · DOI
  27. Rigamonti, L., Niero, M., Haupt, M., Grosso, M. & Judl, J. Recycling processes and quality of secondary materials: food for thought for waste-management-oriented life cycle assessment studies. Waste Manage. 76, 261–265 (2018). · DOI
  28. Anshassi, M. & Townsend, T. G. Reviewing the underlying assumptions in waste LCA models to identify impacts on waste management decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 313, 127913 (2021). · DOI
  29. Muneer, T. et al. Energetic, environmental and economic performance of electric vehicles: experimental evaluation. Transp. Res. Part D 35, 40–61 (2015). · DOI
  30. Orsi, F., Muratori, M., Rocco, M., Colombo, E. & Rizzoni, G. A multi-dimensional well-to-wheels analysis of passenger vehicles in different regions: primary energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic cost. Appl. Energy 169, 197–209 (2016). · DOI
  31. Samaras, C. & Meisterling, K. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3170–3176 (2008). · DOI
  32. van Vliet, O. P. R., Kruithof, T., Turkenburg, W. C. & Faaij, A. P. C. Techno-economic comparison of series hybrid, plug-in hybrid, fuel cell and regular cars. J. Power Sources 195, 6570–6585 (2010). · DOI
  33. Pero, F. D., Delogu, M. & Pierini, M. Life cycle assessment in the automotive sector: a comparative case study of internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric car. Procedia Struct. Integrity 12, 521–537 (2018). · DOI
  34. Elgowainy, A. et al. Cost of ownership and well-to-wheels carbon emissions/oil use of alternative fuels and advanced light-duty vehicle technologies. Energy Sustain. Dev. 17, 626–641 (2013). · DOI
  35. Doucette, R. T. & McCulloch, M. D. Modeling the prospects of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions. Appl. Energy 88, 2315–2323 (2011). · DOI
  36. Burnham, A. et al. Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains; (OSTI, 2021) https://doi.org/10.2172/1780970 · DOI
  37. Summary of Travel Trends 2017 National Household Travel Survey (US Department of Transportation, 2018); https://doi.org/10.2172/885762 · DOI
  38. Lakhan, C. Diversion, but at what cost? The economic challenges of recycling in Ontario. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 95, 133–142 (2015). · DOI
  39. Thorneloe, S. A., Weitz, K. & Jambeck, J. Application of the US decision support tool for materials and waste management. Waste Manage. 27, 1006–1020 (2007). · DOI
  40. Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Björklund, A., Eriksson, O. & Finnveden, G. What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manage. 27, 989–996 (2007). · DOI
  41. Gentil, E. C. et al. Models for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste Manage. 30, 2636–2648 (2010). · DOI
  42. Martin, E. W., Chester, M. V. & Vergara, S. E. Attributional and consequential life-cycle assessment in biofuels: a review of recent literature in the context of system boundaries. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 2, 82–89 (2015).
  43. Anshassi, M., Smallwood, T. & Townsend, T. G. Life cycle GHG emissions of MSW landfilling versus Incineration: expected outcomes based on US landfill gas collection regulations. Waste Manage. 142, 44–54 (2022). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Anshassi, M., & Townsend, T. G.
Venue
Nature Sustainability
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-05-22
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
919-928
ISSN
2398-9629
DOI
10.1038/s41893-023-01122-8
Cited by
26
References
3
Language
en
Licence

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