In your opinion, can the framework we developed for solid waste management contribute to the elaboration of strategies involving public authorities and private companies?
Aiming to improve the framework developed in the article "Identification of the elements and systematization of the pillars of Solid Waste Management" called Stakeholder Interaction for SWM development, we would like to hear the opinions of the scientific community so that we can improve it in other publications.
For this, we will make a brief exposition of this concept:
We have created a theoretical framework with four pillars for solid waste management, to improve the systematization of the actions of public authorities and private initiatives, increasing the efficiency of waste treatment and disposal processes.
- Public Management and Public Policies are the exclusive responsibility of the public authorities.
- Environmental Solutions and TBL are the responsibility of the public and/or private sector.
- Public Management and Environmental Solutions interfere directly with waste management.
- Public Policies and TBL act indirectly in waste management.
If you are interested in looking at the concepts in more detail, go to: https://qip-journal.eu/index.php/QIP/article/view/1717
The pillar "TBL" needs to be explained in a simpler way. What actors does it refer to? Could you clarify this through an example?
Thank you for your question, Mr. Szelényi. The TBL pillar is composed of the tripod of Sustainability: Economy, Society and Environment. This pillar can be developed by public authorities and private companies. The public sector can contribute in the organization of cooperatives for collectors, promote campaigns in which its citizens can exchange electronic waste for food (especially in developing countries), propose actions in which unemployed people can reform furniture discarded in the selective collection system and sell them, teach recycling activities for juvenile offenders to re-socialize, etc. Private companies can develop volunteer activities to collect waste in environmentally degraded places, invest in environmental projects aimed at reducing waste generation, improve the waste collection infrastructure conditions in the communities surrounding the companies, etc. I am at your disposal to continue the discussion. Best Regards!
Maximilian Espuny Here, in Hungary, the government subsidizes the creation of handicapped persons' non-profit co-operatives to disassemble old computers for re-using certain electronic components. This reduces e-waste, and for-profit companies can buy cheap second hand components. Other components go to incineration.
In this case:
- the government agency belongs to "Public Policy",
- the co-operative is at the same time "Environmental Solution" provider and TBL,
- the incinerator is again, "Environmental Solution", while
- those companies that buy and use the components are TBL, is it?
Dear Maximilian Espuny,
I congratulate for attempting a theoretical framework with four pillars for solid waste management. The generalizability of this theoretical framework may not be easy. However, you must try it first for "neighboring" sector. You may also compare this framework with other existing frameworks - for instance : Stakeholder theory, regulatory space theory, tripartism, institutions theory, network governance theory.
the elaboration of strategies involving public authorities and private companies
Hi Gábor Z. Szelényi! Thanks again for your thoughts! I think your associations are very much in line with our proposal! I just remain in doubt whether "government agency" would not be more appropriate for "Public Management", due to the fact that it takes care of the expediency of waste management. We consider Public Policy, more the interventions of creation of laws (like the legislative) or by actions of public departments that are not directly related to waste management, like urban planning, health, and education. But the other associations, I consider them perfect! A good week to you!
Thanks a lot for the recommendation, Brajesh Mishra. It really is an important step to be able to situate me and see how to develop this framework. So, I will make a comparative study with the existing frameworks on solid waste management, considering the ones you quoted me. Best regards!
Hi Thalita Laua Reis Campos! Thank you very much for participating in this discussion. I believe that TBL is essential for the development of solid waste management. In my vision, I suggested that it should be an indirect action because it doesn't directly operationalize waste treatment and disposal, but with actions that could improve its impacts on the environmental level (as in the case of developing awareness campaigns), social level (as in campaigns that encourage the exchange of waste for food), and economic level (encouraging the structure of the commercialization of recyclable items, so that the collectors can have better profit margins and can dedicate themselves to the activity because they are key players in the reduction of waste). In the case of Environmental Solution, I classified it as direct, because this pillar deals directly with the operationalization of waste management, such as thermal or biological treatment plants or the use of waste to produce renewable energy. But anyway, this is just an opinion in which I am analyzing its consistency, and the insights that you are providing me are very important. Best regards!
I think that the Theoretical Framework had a very important application to elucidate the future paths of this research.
- Badges
- Science topic