CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sustainable Environmental Management Through a Municipal Solid Waste Charging Scheme: A Hong Kong Perspective

Cheng, Cuicui, Zhou, You, Zhang, Lin·2022·Frontiers in Environmental Science
DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2022.919683
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Municipal solid waste (MSW) charging is a method of waste management that involves charging residents for garbage disposal. Due to the increasing levels of MSW, Hong Kong has planned to implement an MSW charging scheme in 2023. This article evaluates the potential efficacy and challenges of an MSW charging scheme in Hong Kong. We first summarize the experiences from Taipei and Seoul, which are two typical cities that have successfully implemented the charging scheme to handle MSW. Strong enforcement and good supportive resources in the two cities have resulted in highly effective MSW management. We then provide an IPAT analysis of the urgency of Hong Kong’s MSW concerns and a PEST analysis of the readiness of Hong Kong to implement MSW charging. We highlight the challenges with actionable suggestions for sustainable environmental management.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fenvs.2022.919683

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Alzamora, 2020, Review of Municipal Waste Management Charging Methods in Different Countries, Waste Manag., 115, 47, 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.020 · DOI
  2. Ardoin, 2020, Early Childhood Environmental Education: A Systematic Review of the Research Literature, Educ. Res. Rev., 31, 100353, 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353 · DOI
  3. Atchike, 2022, Waste-to-Renewable Energy Transition: Biogas Generation for Sustainable Development, Front. Environ. Sci., 107, 840588, 10.3389/fenvs.2022.840588 · DOI
  4. Chung, 2019, Analysis of Residents' Choice of Waste Charge Methods and Willingness to Pay Amount for Solid Waste Management in Hong Kong, Waste Manag., 96, 136, 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.020 · DOI
  5. Dhanshyam, 2021, Effective Policy Mix for Plastic Waste Mitigation in India Using System Dynamics, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 168, 105455, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105455 · DOI
  6. Fan, 2005, Management and Performance of Taiwan's Waste Recycling Fund, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc., 55, 574, 10.1080/10473289.2005.10464647 · DOI
  7. Ferreira, 2015, Contingent Valuation Method Applied to Waste Management, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 99, 111, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.013 · DOI
  8. Forslind, 2005, Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility: the Case of Sweden's Car Scrapping Scheme, J. Clean. Prod., 13, 619, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.017 · DOI
  9. Gupt, 2015, Review of Extended Producer Responsibility: A Case Study Approach, Waste Manag. Res., 33, 595, 10.1177/0734242x15592275 · DOI
  10. Hanisch, 2000, Is Extended Producer Responsibility Effective?, Environ. Sci. Technol., 34, 170A, 10.1021/es003229n · DOI
  11. Heimlich, 2008, Understanding Behavior to Understand Behavior Change: A Literature Review, Environ. Educ. Res., 14, 215, 10.1080/13504620802148881 · DOI
  12. Hong, 1999, The Effects of Unit Pricing System upon Household Solid Waste Management: The Korean Experience, J. Environ. Manag., 57, 1, 10.1006/jema.1999.0286 · DOI
  13. Jin, 2020, Does Education Increase Pro-Environmental Willingness to Pay? Evidence from Chinese Household Survey, J. Clean. Prod., 275, 122713, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122713 · DOI
  14. 2013, Study on Performance Evaluation of Food Waste Disposal System and Development Plan
  15. Lee, 2020, Restructuring Municipal Solid Waste Management and Governance in Hong Kong: Options and Prospects, Waste Manag. Res., 38, 1047, 10.1177/0734242x20945185 · DOI
  16. Lee, 1997, Environmental Education in Schools in Hong Kong, Environ. Educ. Res., 3, 359, 10.1080/1350462970030308 · DOI
  17. Lo, 2018, Towards Sustainable Consumption: A Socio-Economic Analysis of Household Waste Recycling Outcomes in Hong Kong, J. Environ. Manag., 214, 416, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.029 · DOI
  18. Lu, 2006, MSW Management for Waste Minimization in Taiwan: The Last Two Decades, Waste Manag., 26, 661, 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.10.005 · DOI
  19. Mak, 2019, Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour for Promoting Construction Waste Recycling in Hong Kong, Waste Manag., 83, 661, 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.016 · DOI
  20. McKerlie, 2006, Advancing Extended Producer Responsibility in Canada, J. Clean. Prod., 14, 616, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.08.001 · DOI
  21. Ng, 2019, An Assessment of Multi-Family Dwelling Recycling in Hong Kong: A Managerial Perspective, Waste Manag., 89, 294, 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.014 · DOI
  22. Puig-Ventosa, 2008, Charging Systems and PAYT Experiences for Waste Management in Spain, Waste Manag., 28, 2767, 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.029 · DOI
  23. Sakai, 2008, Unit-Charging Programs for Municipal Solid Waste in Japan, Waste Manag., 28, 2815, 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.010 · DOI
  24. Schultz, 2013, Does Connecting Kids Have an Impact on Conservation over the Long Term? Experts Advise, 55
  25. Su, 2007, Analyzing Policy Impact Potential for Municipal Solid Waste Management Decision-Making: A Case Study of Taiwan, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 51, 418, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.10.007 · DOI
  26. 2019, World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights
  27. Wiek, 2011, Key Competencies in Sustainability: A Reference Framework for Academic Program Development, Sustain Sci., 6, 203, 10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Yaman, 2020, Investigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Recovery Potential from Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices, Environ. Dev., 33, 100484, 10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100484 · DOI
  29. Yeshanew, 2018, Co-Production of Hydrogen and Methane from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste in a Pilot Scale Dark Fermenter and Methanogenic Biofilm Reactor, Front. Environ. Sci., 6, 41, 10.3389/fenvs.2018.00041 · DOI
  30. Yeung, 2018, Factors that Affect the Willingness of Residents to Pay for Solid Waste Management in Hong Kong, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 25, 7504, 10.1007/s11356-017-1009-8 · DOI
  31. York, 2003, STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic Tools for Unpacking the Driving Forces of Environmental Impacts, Ecol. Econ., 46, 351, 10.1016/s0921-8009(03)00188-5 · DOI
  32. Zhou, 2022, Sustainable Waste Management and Waste to Energy: Valuation of Energy Potential of MSW in the Greater Bay Area of China, Energy Policy, 163, 112857, 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112857 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, C., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, L.
Venue
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-06-22
Volume
10
ISSN
2296-665X
DOI
10.3389/fenvs.2022.919683
Cited by
12
References
1
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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