Cited by 25Municipal Solid Waste ManagementWaste Management and RecyclingRecycling and Waste Management Techniques

Evaluating the progress of the UK’s Material Recycling Facilities: A mini review

Ali, Muhammad, Courtenay, Peter·2014·Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy

Abstract

Over the last 15 years, the UK has made great strides in reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfill while also increasing the amount of waste being recycled. The key drivers for this change are the European Union Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) and the UK Landfill Tax. However, also playing their part are the growing numbers of Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs), which process recyclables. This mini review evaluates the current state of MRFs in the UK, through extensive secondary research, and detailed primary data analysis focussing on MRFs located in South-East England, UK. This study also explores technologies that aim to generate energy from waste, including Waste-to-Energy (WtE) and Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF) facilities. These facilities can have a huge appetite for waste, which can be detrimental to recycling efforts as some of the waste being sent there should be recycled. It was found that the waste sent to a typical UK MRF would recycle around 92% of materials while 6% was sent to energy recovery and the remaining 2% ended up in landfill. Therefore, the total estimated rejected or non-compliance materials from MRFs are around 8%. A key recommendation from this study is to adopt a strategy to combine MRFs with a form of energy generation, such as WtE or RDF. This integrated approach would ensure any residual waste arising from the recycling process can be used as a sustainable fuel, while also increasing the recycling rates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0734242x14554645

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ali, M., & Courtenay, P.
Affiliations
University of Portsmouth (GB)
Venue
Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy
Published
2014-11-12
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
1149-1157
ISSN
  • 0734-242X (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-3669
OpenAlex
W2115410988
Cited by
25
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Waste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
Keywords
recycling rate, landfill reduction, EU Landfill Directive, landfill tax, waste-to-energy, refuse-derived fuel, South East England
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Recycling, Waste Disposal Facilities

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