Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Regional approach of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) T

management in France
⁎ ⁎⁎
Jean-Baptiste Bahersa, , Junbeum Kimb,
a
Laboratoire Espaces et Sociétés (UMR ESO 6590 CNRS), Ecole des Métiers de l’Environnement (EME), de Rennes, France
b
CREIDD Research Centre on Environmental Studies & Sustainability, Department of Humanities, Environment & Information Technology (HETIC), University of
Technology of Troyes, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Waste management regulation is generally impacted by Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) implementa-
Waste electrical and electronic equipment tion, such as Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). The main goal of this article is to explicit the
(WEEE) WEEE chain and flows using the material flow analysis (MFA) method and to contribute to the understanding of
Recovery and recycling chain the EPR implementation in a specific case study by examining operational activities of WEEE regional and urban
Waste management
flows. A detailed case study of the EPR implementation for WEEE in the Midi-Pyrénées Region and the Toulouse's
Metabolism
urban area was conducted. Based on a MFA of the WEEE chain, results give an insight into operational activities
Regional approach
dealing with circulation of waste material. It reveals the main dysfunctions of this WEEE management system,
including lack of involvement of local authorities and consumers, dispersion channels and a low recycling rate at
the local level. The roles of recycling operators, social economy companies and EPR compliance are also im-
portant to recover more resources from waste and to close the recycling loop.

1. Introduction waste flow management because it offers the opportunity to investigate

Since the concept of urban metabolism was first introduced
(Wolman, 1965), several studies have been conducted on this issue, as
reviewed by Zhang (2013). Regional or urban metabolism refers to the
exchange processes where regions or cities convert raw materials, en-
ergy, and water into the built environment, human biomass, and waste
(Decker et al., 2000). The regional level can be chosen with respect to
biophysical and political system definitions, even if socioeconomic
statistics are not always updated or even available (Kennedy et al.,
2011). The concept of regional metabolism analyses the relationship
between material flows, environmental assessment, and social prac-
tices. The material flow analysis (MFA) method is often used to un-
derstand national metabolism, but also pollution from human or in-
dustrial activities at regional and urban scales (Fischer-Kowalski and
Haberl, 2007). This tool examines the socio-ecological conditions that
influence flows in order to support a basis for material flow manage-
ment and dematerialization strategies (Barles, 2009). MFA also enables
new understandings of material and energy flows within the city
(Brunner, 2002; Broto et al., 2012) that can be integrated into policy
making and land planning.
A MFA approach linked to agent analysis can be considered to study
each waste path (Binder, 2007). We refer to the term “waste chain” as
defined by Yuan et al. (2011): “a chain consisting of a series of waste
management activities. Wastes pass through all activities of the chain in
order and at each activity the volume of waste is minimized by various
waste management activities”.
Therefore, the WEEE chain is a system which involves different
operators, activities and factors. A multi-scale analysis of waste chains
is also relevant to understand waste flows and policy dysfunction
(Berlin et al., 2008; D’Alisa et al., 2012), but further studies about the
concept of proximity and the role of local activities are required (Barles,
2010). MFA is not only focused on the legislative framework but also on
the “blind spots” of regional management systems (Binder et al., 2004).
MFA has proven to be useful in understanding pollution from
human or industrial activities, i.e. to study the “Metabolism of
Anthroposhere” (Baccini and Brunner, 1991), and can be applied at
different scales according to the study’s objectives (Binder et al., 2004;
Erkman, 2004; Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011). In order to perform the
environmental assessment of a WEEE management system, Kiddee et al.
(2013) presents an overview of several tools including MFA, LCA and
Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). This study shows that these approaches
present different benefits but can be complementary to evaluate the

⁎
Corresponding author at: EME, avenue Robert Schuman 35170 Bruz, France.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author at: UMR CNRS 6279, University of Technology of Troyes, 12 rue, Marie Curie, BP 2060, Troyes Cedex, 10010, France.
E-mail addresses: jeanbaptistebahers@ecole-eme.fr (J.-B. Bahers), junbeum.kim@utt.fr (J. Kim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.016
Received 10 May 2017; Received in revised form 10 October 2017; Accepted 10 October 2017
Available online 18 October 2017
0921-3449/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
system's environmental impact. Many studies have been conducted
with a LCA approach (e.g. Hischier et al., 2005; Van Eygen et al., 2016),
an input-output model (Leigh et al., 2012) or a characterization of
WEEE flows at different scales (see for instance in Seattle (Lee et al.,
2010), in China (Yang et al., 2008), in the U.S. (Kahhat et al., 2008), in
Korea (Manomaivibool and Hong, 2014); in Denmark (Parajuly et al.,
2017), in Switzerland (Duygan and Meylan, 2015), in Pakistan (Imran
et al., 2017). Unlike the other tools, MFA aims to analyze material and
energy flow throughout all the chain’s steps, including treatment steps
where waste fractions are either recovered into secondary materials or
sent to final disposal. Even though many studies tackling WEEE systems
and management exist (Ng et al., 2016), the approaches in specific
regions or urban scales were not well studied and analyzed. The un-
derstanding of the WEEE chain is an important issue to reveal how local
recycling systems contribute to the region's operations.
Therefore, the goal of this article is to contribute to the under-
standing of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) implementation,
such as WEEE management, in regional and urban areas. Being fun-
damental to this study, the WEEE flows were considered in depth by
examining the operational activities of recycling, collection, resource
recovery, etc. Also based on the analysis of WEEE chain flows in the
Midi-Pyrénées Region, the study intends to explore the potential of a
regional approach in order to generate useful quantitative analysis for
waste management.
2. WEEE management system in the Midi-Pyrénées region
WEEE includes a large family of devices such as TVs, computers,
mobile phones, white goods (e.g. fridges, washing machines, dryers,
etc.), home entertainment and stereo systems, toys, toasters, or kettles,
which present an average lifespan of two to ten years and a mass of
0.1 kg to 45 kg (STEP, 2012). WEEE production is growing ex-
ponentially: between twenty and fifty million tons per year across the
world and between 8.3 and 9.1 million tons per year in Europe alone
(STEP, 2012). The end-of-life of WEEE is a global issue (Williams et al.,
2008) given that these products contain hazardous materials (such as
brominated flame retardants, chlorinated substances, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), refrigerant gas, cadmium, mercury, lead, and forty
elements including metals). However, WEEE represents a significant
source of valuable metal resources (Charles et al., 2017; Cucchiella
et al., 2015; Vadoudi et al., 2015).
Collection and treatment of WEEE is regulated by European direc-
tives, (Directives 2002/96/CE and 2012/19/EU), the latter deems
producers financially and logistically responsible for WEEE at the end-
of-life stage (called the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility).
Producers are required to organize and finance the take-back, treat-
ment, and recycling of WEEE, in addition to meeting mass-based re-
cycling and recovery targets (the financial flows are described in
Fig. 1). This regulation framework is a part of a growing trend in EPR
for waste which results in both economic and political incentives for
waste recovery and green design (Lifset et al., 2013). EPR is a gov-
ernmental instrument which “if applied appropriately, could sub-
stantially influence and change the way industry and society produce,
use, and dispose of materials […] and could be one of the mechanisms
by which circular economies can be realized” (Mayers et al., 2005,
p171). This approach puts forward solutions for skills coordination,
new links of proximity and new dynamics of the specific stakeholder
systems.
2.1. The roles of national, regional and urban stakeholders
The French program’s implementation is the result of the joint
participation of various parties, including EPR compliance organiza-
tions, city and local governments, retailers, refurbishers, consumers,
and collection, processing and recycling operators. Therefore, the roles
46
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
of these stakeholders greatly influence and shape the current practice of
the WEEE management system. In the following discussion, some in-
sights concerning these roles and perspectives are provided.
1) EPR compliance and relations with French ministry and OCAD3E
(coordinating center for WEEE management).
Four compliance schemes have been agreed by the French Ministry
of the Environment, who sets the specification requirements. These four
French EPR compliance organizations (Eco-Systèmes, ERP, Ecologic,
Recylum) are created by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and
brand owners, according to their professional association (for example,
Eco-Systemes includes members of the Association of Manufacturers of
Household EEE, the Federation of Commerce and Distribution and the
Collective System of Industries of Multimedia and Electronics). These
non-profit companies (called “eco-organisms” in France) aim at orga-
nizing and financing the take-back, treatment, and recycling of WEEE to
meet mass-based recycling and recovery targets. They get visible fees
(see Fig. 1) from the consumers through the retailers (Favot et al.,
2017) and they provide financial support for local governments, re-
furbishers, and logistics and treatment operators. If they are certified by
the French government, EPR compliance organizations do not operate
in every region and urban area. They operate in a free market to pro-
vide the service of e-waste collection, transport and treatment, under
the supervision of a coordinating center (called OCAD3E in French).
Each country in the European Union (EU) is free to set up a compliance
scheme (or schemes) for EPR implementation. As a result, the schemes
can differ widely, depending on each country's organization and the
status of companies. The coordination is sometimes very strict, if it
supervises compliance schemes thoroughly and maintains the role of
management regarding the conventions with local authorities.
2) Regional and local governments
Local governments, on a voluntary basis, establish a take back
system to selectively collect household WEEE at container parks. Some
municipalities do not want to be involved in the collection (because it is
supposed to be the retailers’ role). The municipalities receive com-
pensation for their collection efforts by the French EPR compliance
organizations. Municipalities are also required to provide campaigns to
inform citizens about WEEE management and related disposal chan-
nels. They are not involved in the EPR governance, although these
authorities have to establish and organize household and hazardous
waste management plans.
3) Retailers
Retailers of EEE, as local stakeholders, are required to establish a
take back system of WEEE brought back by consumers. They are equally
obliged to promote WEEE recycling. Retailers are an excellent urban
network for collecting wastes but it requires space in shops to handle
WEEE.
4) Refurbishers (enterprises of social economy)
Stakeholders, as part of the reuse and reemployment sector, are also
expected to contribute to WEEE management by recovering used ap-
pliances. They mostly consist of companies that contribute to the social
economy of urban areas. They repair, reuse, and refurbish waste in
order to sell second hand electric appliances to other consumers. It is
quite difficult for them to maintain profitability.
5) Consumers
Consumers are responsible for returning their WEEE to the
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
collection points on a voluntary basis. They are expected to dispose of
WEEE properly by using the institutional channels of EPR compliance
schemes. We consider this to be Extended Consumer Responsibility. This
“doing the right thing” behavior results from complex interactions
(Capurso, 2014) between several factors such as individual practices
(driven by values, attitudes and moral norms (Miliute-Plepiene et al.,
2016)), perception and awareness (Borthakur and Govind, 2017).
6) Operators of collection, processing and recycling
Operators of the processing, treatment and transport phases are
eventually involved in WEEE management on behalf of service provi-
ders for the EPR compliance organizations. These stakeholders operate
at the international, national, regional and local levels according to
their activities. Different types of operators exist:
Some specialize in logistics. They aim to collect WEEE from busi-
nesses and from households under contract by municipal authorities.
They then organize the transport to specialized WEEE processors at the
national level (logistic contractors of EPR)
- Some are metal shredders and specialists in processing WEEE cate-
gories. They receive sorted appliances, mono-flows and ‘pre-
shredded’ material for treatment. There is strong competition in
processing technology investments and waste volumes. EPR com-
pliance organizations select one operator per region and by type of
WEEE.
- Some are operators of material recycling (metal, plastic, glass). They
collect at the local level and dismantle waste regardless of whether a
compliance scheme exists or not. These recycling companies are
especially focused on downstream material flows (metal, plastic or
glass) for international trading.
- Some are specialists in recycling and processing of special hazardous
WEEE or components from dismantled WEEE (printed wiring
47
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
Fig. 1. Product and Financial flows related
to the management of WEEE in France.
(Adapted from ADEME, 2012)
boards, capacitors, other hazardous materials). These are niche
markets at the national level.
The Midi-Pyrénées Region (population 2.8 million in 2007 and 2.9
million in 2011) and its largest city, Toulouse with a population of 1.2
million inhabitants, are relevant regional scales for studying WEEE
management because all types of stakeholders (institutional, industrial,
retail, waste collectors, waste recyclers, incineration plants, and com-
panies of social economy) are present (Bahers et al., 2015). The main
operators are located in the urban area of Toulouse. They provide an
urban network for recovering and recycling wastes. The Midi-Pyrénées
Region case is instructive because it shares some implementation fea-
tures with other regions, but also has some unique features that facil-
itates the field study. Indeed, the maturity of the Midi-Pyrénées Region
for EPR implementation creates a unique opportunity to do an in-depth
analysis of certain regulatory design choices. This is due to the re-
markable involvement of ORDIMIP (Observatory of the Waste in the
Midi-Pyrénées Region). This observatory helped contribute to this
study, as it has the role of establishing the regional plan for hazardous
wastes management (such as WEEE). For example, ORDIMIP (Bahers,
2014) decided in 2009 to oppose the compliance scheme management’s
decision to transport WEEE to border regions in France. There is no
clear regulation to prohibit this kind of decision, even if the principle of
proximity is supposed to be respected.
3. Methodology and data collection
3.1. Model analysis of the WEEE regional flows
Fig. 2 presents our model, which demonstrates the connections
between the operations of the WEEE production chain in the Midi-
Pyrénées region in France. The steps used for describing the chain,
according to UNEP (2007), are: imports, products' consumption, WEEE
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
production, collection and treatment in compliance scheme,1 recycling,
recovered materials, collection in scrap metals,2 landfill and incinera-
tion.3 The three last steps concern the dispersion of WEEE through
unofficial channels and informal recycling (Yoshida et al., 2016). This is
the reason why, Capurso (2014) called them “dispersion channels”, in
opposition to compliance schemes. Dispersion channels include WEEE:
- within unsorted waste due to household mismanagement,
- stolen from collection points,
- contained in scrap metal managed by metal recyclers,
- legally and illegally exported.
The inputs correspond to the electrical and electronic equipment,
which are imported to the Midi-Pyrénées region. The recovered mate-
rials correspond to the output flows, which are the processes' products
and co-products. They are composed of recycled materials (ferrous and
non-ferrous metals, plastics, glass, printed wiring boards, cables, mo-
tors, batteries). Other outputs are the incinerated materials (oils, ha-
zardous materials, liquid refrigerant, plastic pellets, plastic mixture),
which are burnt in incineration plants for industrial waste or cement
manufacturers. The stocks, as the MFA method suggests, are the dif-
ference between outputs and inputs.
3.2. Data collection
The sources of data come from field work, literature reviews and
reports from the French environmental agency (ADEME) (cf. Table 1).
Some of this data are obtained from national socioeconomic databases
(SINOE, INSEE) with the ratio of population in the French Midi-Pyr-
énées region (the “consumption” and “sales” steps), but the field work
constitutes the most important set of data. Three quantitative ques-
tionnaires were sent to the 20 companies operating in WEEE manage-
ment depending on their activity (waste collection, recycling, pre-
treatment, shredding, treatment), in 2008 and updated in 2012, in-
cluding input and output flows for individual material balance calcu-
lation. All the companies were identified in the ORIDIMIP database,
which greatly facilitated the study. In addition, qualitative spatial in-
formation (flows' origin and destination) was collected. These data were
aggregated to keep each firm’s data confidential because of possible
commercial agreements between companies.
In addition, forty semi-structured surveys were conducted between
2010 and 2012 with different stakeholders in the Midi-Pyrénées Region
and the Toulouse urban area in order to check data consistency. The
following stakeholders were surveyed for this study: 12 waste compa-
nies directors: 3 social companies managers: 2 EPR compliance scheme
managers: 4 state government engineers: 2 professional federation re-
presentatives: 4 regional and departmental government engineers: 7
local government engineers: 2 NGO representatives: 4 scientific experts.
They were also asked for their opinion about several topics, such as:
- A description of their organization, scale of action and development
opportunities;
- Relationships with private and public stakeholders;
1
Appliance owners can deliver WEEE to a municipal collection point (or container
park) or retail collection point. Basically, the compliance schemes have contracts in place
with all municipalities and retailers to collect and recycle all WEEE obtained.
Alternatively, WEEE can be reused by the second-hand market. Appliances can be given
to second-hand shops or charity initiatives which will repair and sell the second-hand
products so that they are reused.
2
Some WEEEs are collected outside a compliance scheme. When WEEE is mixed with
scrap metal, local scrap recyclers recover metals from WEEE without dismantling the
hazardous components and recycling the precious metals. Thus, hazardous components
and precious metals are landfilled.
3
Unfortunately, WEEE flows often go directly into the municipal waste treatment
without being pre-treated. For instance, small devices are thrown away with residual
household waste, which is sent to incineration plants or landfills.
48
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
- Economic and environmental efficiency of WEEE management sys-
tems;
- Dysfunctions and perspectives regarding the regional and urban
WEEE flows.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Patterns of WEEE chain
For the purpose of this study, the WEEE chain is focused on two
specific years: 2007 (the first complete year of WEEE management) and
2011. Although the data collection of two separate years was challen-
ging, we expected this to produce some interesting insight. The field
work was carried out in 2008 and 2012. The year 2007 represents the
launch of the WEEE chain. It makes it possible to study how the chain
operated before the regulation. The year 2011 represents a year of
stability. Since 2011 (see Table 2), the efficiency of WEEE collection has
been changing gradually. Collection gradually increased and did not
experience any significant changes until 2015. It meets one objective of
the study, which is to understand how the WEEE chain evolves over
time.
Finally, the flows can be described according to their characteristics
for two patterns of WEEE chain (for years 2007 and 2011). They are
expressed in kilotons per year (kt/year) and in kilograms per inhabitant
per year (kg/inhab/year). Figs. 2 and 3 respectively show the different
flows of WEEE chain at different levels for years 2007 and 2011.
The main points from Figs. 3 and 4 are described below;
- Consumption is increasing slightly (3%)
- The compliance scheme is growing significantly (from 2.9 kg/inhab
to 8.8 kg/inhab)
- Other activities are decreasing (especially the “Collection in scrap
metals” because in 2011 few metal recyclers belonged to the com-
pliance scheme) from 12 kg/inhab to 7.8 kg/inhab).
- More municipalities have contracted with EPR compliance organi-
zations (reduction of 37% of incineration and landfill − from
14.4 kg/inhab to 9.7 kg/inhab)
- The reuse rate is still low even if it is growing slightly.
- The recycling rate for the WEEE treatment is much better in 2011.
- The main chains for outputs (landfill and recycling) have not
changed.
4.2. Understanding the geography of WEEE collection
For the present case study, the compliance scheme represents only a
small part of WEEE flows. In 2007, only around 2,9 kg/inhab of the
WEEE were recovered by compliance scheme organizations in the Midi-
Pyrénées and, in 2011, this rate grew to 8.8 kg/inhab corresponding to
44% of the WEEE deposit (see WEEE collected by region in Fig. 4).
Table 2 shows that the sector is not evolving at a significant rate
(ADEME, 2016). Since 2011, the rate of increase has been up to only
15% (4 kt). It means that trends do not change much. The shift toward
compliance in WEEE collection observed between 2007 and 2011 was
due to better management rather than an increase in installed capacity.
Indeed, there is no change in the WEEE chain for both MFAs. No re-
cycling activity has been developed since 2007 in the region. In other
cases, like in South Korea, the PRO did commit financial resources to
reverse logistics and recycling facilities (Manomaivibool and Hong,
2014). This might explain why no so much improvement could be
found after 2011 in the Midi-Pyrénées case.
In Fig. 4, the stakeholders involved in both parts of the WEEE col-
lection compliance scheme or dispersion channels are presented. It is
interesting to notice that local authorities collect much more WEEE
from consumers than retailers do. This is because consumers are still
discovering the take back system and are not yet accustomed to it. Thus,
they are more familiar with municipal collection paths. This was
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55

Table 1
Data sources of flows and stocks represented in Fig. 2.

The flows and stocks through steps Main sources Observations & additional investigation

Imports → Consumption
Consumption → WEEE generation
Consumption stocks
WEEE generation → Collection in compliance scheme
WEEE generation → Incineration
WEEE generation → Landfill
WEEE generation → Collection in scrap metals
Collection in compliance scheme → Treatment
Treatment in compliance scheme →
Incineration & Recycling & Landfill
Collection in scrap metals → Recycling & Landfill
Recycling → Recovered materials
National E-waste register from SINOE (Information Population ratio in Midi-Pyrénées (1.2 millions of inhabitants)
system) (ADEME, 2012) in t/inhab. (INSEE)
French assessment of WEEE (ADEME, 2012) in t/ Population ratio in Midi-Pyrénées
inhab.
Difference between input flows (from imports) and In order to respect the mass balance principle of MFA
outputs flows (WEEE generation).
(ADEME, 2012)
Quantitative study from field work (2008, 2012) in
kg/year
Qualitative surveys of urban municipalities (2008,
2012) in kg/year.
Qualitative surveys of rural municipalities (2008, In order to respect the mass balance principle of MFA between
2012) in kg/year input flows (from “WEEE generation”) and outputs flows
Quantitative study from field work (2008,2012) in Completed from qualitative surveys of metal recyclers (in
kg/year 2012).
Quantitative study from field work (2008, 2012) in
kg/year
Quantitative study from field work (2008, 2012) in
kg/year
Qualitative surveys of metal recyclers and Consistent with the Swiss take-back system (Hischier et al.,
FEDEREC (French professional organization of 2005), since the metal rate in WEEE is around 60%.
recyclers). (2008, 2012) in kg/year
Qualitative surveys of metal recyclers (2008, 2012
in kg/year).

Table 2 2007. These rates are quite good in comparison with the valorization
Evolution of WEEE flows 2011–2015 (in kt and t/inhab). targets. In 2011, the Midi-Pyrénées region reached 87% of recovered
(Source: ADEME, 2016)
materials within the compliance scheme, which is a good recovery rate.
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The MFA demonstrates the good performance of the treatment in the
compliance scheme. Table 2 shows the material balance for 2011 of all
WEEE collected in kt 24 24 25 26 28 companies contributing to the four WEEE compliance schemes as well
WEEE collected in t/inhab. 8,3 8,3 8,5 9,1 9,6 as the other companies (according to the surveys). These fractions were
derived from all additional treatment steps necessary to transform
WEEE either into secondary raw materials or waste-to-energy or final
disposal (Table 3).
emphasized to be a major dysfunction in the surveys of local govern-
The reuse of electrical devices (which is shown by the arrow “reuse”
ment engineers. Even if the compliance schemes pay for the service, the
in Figs. 3 and 4) is very low in the chain (0.01 kg/inhab in 2007,
fees do not cover all the costs, according to the engineers. Indeed, they
0.1 kg/inhab in 2011). Indeed, there is no reuse target in the directive,
consider that retailers should provide a more substantial effort so that
even though this solution provides social and environmental benefits
consumers choose the tack back system first. The operators of metal
(Lu et al., 2017; de Oliveira Neto et al., 2017). Reuse activities are
recycling towards the dispersion channels still collect a lot of WEEE as
represented by social economy companies in French initiatives. These
seen in Figs. 2 and 3.
companies have a significant presence in the WEEE chain, especially as
In 2002, the European directive set the WEEE collection target, with
logistics and dismantling operators. They seem to have the social le-
a minimum of 4 kg/inhab/year up to 2006, corresponding to 20% of
gitimacy of the compliance scheme that needs public approval. In the
the WEEE generated. This rate has been updated with amendments to
Midi-Pyrénées region, fifty non-profit organizations involved in WEEE
the directive (45% by weight of electrical appliances sold in 2016 and
management have been identified (eight in the urban area of Toulouse).
65% in 2019). Therefore, the compliance was not met in 2007, but was
Some of them have expanded their activities in order to take part in the
in phase in 2011 along with the new recommendations. However, the
compliance schemes and enlarged their manufacturing operations in
regions’ performance regarding the collection rate is very irregular. It is
order to increase their logistic and reuse capacity. Nevertheless, a few
partly due to differences between rural and urban regions where, in the
non-profit organizations have had significant difficulties answering
latter, WEEEs are abundant, whereas logistic costs are higher in rural
calls for tender. They have been eliminated from the WEEE manage-
areas where waste is spread out. The choice of a collection target ex-
ment system, because of the competition with industrial companies. It
pressed in mass is not appropriate for this context (Lifset and
is important to avoid this situation, because “their workers run the risk
Lindhqvist, 2008), because if white goods represent 50% of the weight
of switching between insecure jobs and unemployment” (Favreau et al.,
of appliance sold, they constitute only 5% of the total number of units,
2001). Reuse gives an opportunity to sell second hand devices to
IT and telecom appliances making up the greatest number of electrical
modest households. This is also a solution to bridge the digital gap,
appliances sold.
which causes a large fraction of the French population to not have their
The WEEE directive also set recycling targets for each category of
own electronic appliances (especially laptops). A large number of new
WEEE: between 75% and 90% of valorization (including incineration
social and economic innovations could emerge in the urban area of
and recycling) by average weight per appliance and between 50% and
Toulouse. Nevertheless, this activity needs a labor force which is very
80% of materials recovered by average weight per appliance. According
costly. In the absence of any reuse target in the directive, social
to the WEEE directive, recycling encompasses each process im-
economy companies and industries mentioned in the surveys choosing
plemented to extract useful materials, such as sorting, dismantling and
dismantling and shredding, these business activities being more lucra-
recovery. This is therefore a case of open-loop recycling. Regarding the
tive (Flipo and Gossart, 2009).
compliance scheme, 75% of the flow is recycled and 25% incinerated in

49
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
4.3. WEEE treatment at geographical scales
The WEEE chain's analysis (Figs. 2, 3 and 5) demonstrates the im-
portance of studying flows at various regional scales. First of all, the
surveys have shown that most collection companies within the com-
pliance scheme are located in the urban area of Toulouse. In fact, 88%
of the collection step of the compliance scheme occurs in the me-
tropolitan area, which shows that almost all flows from the Midi-Pyr-
énées region go through Toulouse’s urban area Nevertheless, a small
part of WEEE collected in the compliance scheme is treated only by one
specialized company located in the Toulouse area (16%) and by two
operators of material recycling which are in the Midi-Pyrénées Region
50
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
Fig. 2. WEEE flows in the Midi-Pyrénées
region (2007) in kt/year (and in kg/inhab/
year).
(16%). Thus, all steps are not managed in the Midi-Pyrénées region.
Within the dispersion channels, WEEE collected material is divided
equally between companies located in the Toulouse area and the Midi-
Pyrénées region, whereas the treatment step takes place mostly outside
(71%).
Thus, the proximity principle, which advocates that waste should be
managed close to their production site, is not followed. The secondary
materials market sends them throughout Europe and often to Turkey,
China and India. These countries buy various ferrous WEEE metals
(68% of the resulting fractions within the compliance scheme and 44%
within the dispersion channels, see Table 1) and non-ferrous metals
(4.5%) for smelting plants. Secondary material flows are sent to the
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
international, obeying the market's laws based on the London Metal
Exchange ('LME’) quotations. These flows represent a high volume of
exchange worldwide, with 135 million tons reported by (Lacoste and
Chalmin, 2007). The spatial approach reveals how these secondary raw
material flows produced in the Midi-Pyrénées region are dependent on
the international market economy. However, regional and local com-
panies involved in the waste recycling chain are bound to become ac-
tors of the circular economy (Lyons, 2005), but only one part of the
solution (Grosse, 2010). Nevertheless, three main limits regarding their
actions were observed:
- These industrial companies lose too many sources of recyclable
51
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
Fig. 3. WEEE flows in the Midi-Pyrénées
region (2011) in kt/year (and in kg/inhab/
year).
materials.
- They do not recover all resources. Those located in the Midi-
Pyrénées Region and the Toulouse's urban area merely recover
targeted resources (especially non-ferrous metals), which are easy to
sort and generate profits.
- The reintroduction of secondary material into a production cycle is
not achieved at a high enough rate at the local level (only 3%).
WEEE chain metabolism shows that the compliance scheme re-
covers more generated WEEE (from 8 kt in 2007–25.4 kt in 2011), but
the input flow (electric appliances sold) is also increasing (from 62 kt in
2007–64 kt in 2011). In addition, a big proportion of WEEE (32.4 kt in
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55

Fig. 4. Geographical map of WEEE collec-

tion according to stakeholders in ktons
(2011).

2011, see in Fig. 3 the steps of incineration, collection in scrap metals
and landfill after the WEEE production) is still not recovered by the
compliance scheme, even if this flow has reduced somewhat (down
from 48 kt in 2007). This continuous growth of device consumption is
not compatible with a reduced metabolism. The generated waste will
increase and consequently, so will the associated environmental im-
pacts (especially with the incineration and landfill of hazardous sub-
stances).
4.4. Regional approach of MFA as a tool for assessing chain
“dematerialization” and its evolution
The first finding of this study emphasizes the importance of spatial
analysis. Identifying the WEEE treatment sites and tracking the waste
once it leaves the urban area and region provides useful information.
Some studies have demonstrated that multi-scale analysis of waste
metabolism highlights the chain dematerialization (Barles, 2009), the
territory's heterogeneity and multi-scale solutions to the waste

Table 3
Resulting fractions of the material flow analysis of the four compliance schemes and the dispersion channels (2011 − from surveys).

Components Quantity in tons % Stakeholder Utilized as Market

Compliance Scheme
Batteries 33.0 0,13% Hazardous waste processor Secondary raw materials International
Capacitors 20.3 0,08% Hazardous waste processor Heat and electricity Regional
Other hazardous materials 305 0,12% Hazardous waste processor Heat and electricity Regional
Ferrous metals 17,508.1 68,87% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials International
Non-ferrous metals 724.5 2,85% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials International
Plastics 1,306.7 5,14% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials International
Cables 43.2 0,17% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials/Heat and electricity International
Screens(CRT & LCD) 1,482.1 5,83% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials/Heat and electricity National
Printed wiring boards 360.9 1,42% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw material International
Motors for household appliances 1,621.9 6,38% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials International
Metal-plastics mixture 818.6 3,22% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials National
Mixed waste 254.2 1,00% Waste company Landfill Regional
Plastic pellets 955.9 3,76% Incineration Heat and electricity Regional
Other materials 259.3 1,02% Incineration Heat and electricity Local
Reuse devices 0.3 0,1% Enterprise of social economy Refurbishing Local
Total (compliance scheme) 25,422 100%

Dispersion channels
Metals (ferrous and non-ferrous) (from recycling) 15,384 47% Operator of material recycling Secondary raw materials International
Mixed waste 7420 23% Waste company Landfill Regional
towards incineration (MWM) 3259 10% Muncipal waste site Heat and electricity Local
towards landfill (MWM) 6514 20% Muncipal waste site Landfill Local
Total (Dispersion channels) 32,578 100%

52
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
management crisis (D’Alisa et al., 2012). In this article, flows that are
exported outside of the regional level are highlighted. It is thus shown
that the “closing the loop” principle is not sufficiently followed at the
local level and this exportation represents a loss of resources for the
territory. Hence, the management of e-waste does not generate enough
positive impacts for the region’s economy.
The regional approach of metabolism investigates links between
53
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
Fig. 5. Geographical map of logistic and
treatment activities according to the scale in
ktons (2011) (MP = “Midi-Pyrénées”).
society and materials and in this case, the divergence of the objective in
preventing pollution and the increase of material consumption. In fact,
only 50% of WEEE is efficiently treated in the compliance schemes
within the scope of this case study. In addition, as suggest by another
study (Chancerel et al., 2009), a large amount of precious metal is lost
during the process. Reuse of devices concerns only 0.1% of the flows,
i.e. waste prevention is not favored over recycling and valorization.
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
Whereas the EPR principle makes improvements toward integrated
waste management possible (Ehrenfeld, 2009; Lifset et al., 2013), EPR
implementation is not efficient enough to reduce WEEE production.
WEEE regulation does not sufficiently support eco-design of products
and reuse to minimize waste production, which discredits the en-
vironmental progress of the WEEE directive (Flipo and Gossart, 2009).
Nevertheless, this is the major issue of dematerialization beyond the
end-of-pipe solutions of resource recovery and “despite the progress in
energy and material efficiency, the overall resource consumption is still in-
creasing … and threatening us.” (Bourg and Papaux, 2010). In addition,
regarding the energy efficiency of the WEEE chain, 8000 MWh
(ADEME, 2014) − i.e. 2.9 MWh/inhab– are consumed during the “use”
phase of electrical appliances, whereas only 4200 MWh are recovered
by waste-to-energy conversion in 2011 according to the ratio of KWh/
ton of waste incineration plants in France (SENAT, 2009).
Obviously, the methods selected have some limits, focusing only on
the end of the chain, as consumption practices and their rural and urban
diversity are not observed. However, motivations for recycling appli-
ances and the potential for mitigating these impacts through behavioral
changes are key points in managing WEEE flows (e.g. (Gutiérrez et al.,
2011; Tukker et al., 2010).
5. Conclusion
The goal of this paper was to show that material flow analysis at
regional approach is a sound basis for studying EPR implementation.
We conclude that it provides:
- A quantitative analysis of the material circulation between each step
of the chain at multiple spatial levels,
- An insight into main dysfunctions to manage this circulation.
The findings of this study reveal that significant improvements can
be made towards improving WEEE management. In fact, a big part of
WEEE flows in the Midi-Pyrénées Region are oriented towards disper-
sion channels. It means that EPR regulations should be less fragmented
and more effective. It should also aim at involving recovery-recycling
companies which “have a clear profit motive for improving the effi-
ciency of loop-closing networks” (Lyons, 2007). It is vitally important to
recover all resources from urban waste. The role of companies of social
economy should be oriented more towards creating new income-gen-
erating activities through local projects. It would impact the flow of
reuse, which is not that common in the chain. EPR implementation
should involve regional government, which may have a role of “re-
gional coordination”. It should evaluate the options for improving the
management of regional WEEE flows as well as its contribution or
closing the loop. In this study, the methods selected have some lim-
itations, focusing only on the end of the chain, as consumption practices
and behaviors, and their rural and urban diversity are not observed. For
the next step, a comparison with other European regions will be re-
quired using current data. Finally, the informal sectors should be in-
vestigated in more depth (Gu et al., 2016; Steuer et al., 2017). In further
studies, these aspects should be considered.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the French National Association for
Technological Research (ANRT) and Fournier Métaux SAS for the pro-
ject funding and the Observatory of the Waste in the “Midi-Pyrénées”
for their valuable assistance in providing data.
References
ADEME, 2012. Annual Report of WEEE Management System in France Collection
Repères. (114 p.).
ADEME, 2014. Projet REMODECE. (24p.).
54
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
ADEME, 2016. Annual Report of WEEE Management System in France Collection
Repères. (137 p.).
Baccini, P., Brunner, P.H., 1991. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. Springer-Verlag
Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K, Berlin; New York.
Bahers, J.-B., 2014. Métabolisme territorial et filières de récupération-recyclage: le cas
des déchets d’équipements électriques et électroniques (DEEE) en Midi-Pyrénées
[Territorial metabolism and recovery-recycling chain: WEEE management in Midi-
Pyrénées]. Développement Durable et Territoires 5http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/
developpementdurable.10159. [On line].
Bahers, J.-B., Capurso, I., Gossart, C., 2015. Réseaux et environnement: regards croisés sur
les filières de gestion des Déchets d’Équipement Électriques et Électroniques à
Toulouse et à Milan [Networks and environment: cross analysis for WEEE manage-
ment in Toulouse and Milan]. Flux 99, 32–46.
Barles, S., 2009. Urban metabolism of Paris and its region. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 898–913.
Barles, S., 2010. Society, energy and materials: the contribution of urban metabolism
studies to sustainable urban development issues. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 53,
439–455.
Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., Tillman, A.-M., 2008. Product chain actors’ potential for greening
the product life cycle. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 95–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2008.00001.x.
Binder, C.R., Hofer, C., Wiek, A., Scholz, R.W., 2004. Transition towards improved re-
gional wood flows by integrating material flux analysis and agent analysis: the case of
Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Switzerland. Ecol. Econ. 49, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.021.
Binder, C.R., 2007. From material flow analysis to material flow management Part I:
social sciences modeling approaches coupled to MFA. J. Cleaner Prod. 15,
1596–1604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.006.
Borthakur, A., Govind, M., 2017. Emerging trends in consumers’ e-waste disposal beha-
viour and awareness: a worldwide overview with special focus on India. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 117, 102–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.011.
Bourg, D., Papaux, A., 2010. Vers une société sobre et durable [Towards a Sober and
Sustainable Society], 1st ed. Presses Universitaires de France − PUF, Paris.
Broto, V.C., Allen, A., Rapoport, E., 2012. Interdisciplinary perspectives on urban meta-
bolism. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 851–861.
Brunner, P.H., 2002. Beyond materials flow analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 6, 8–10. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1162/108819802320971597.
Capurso, 2014. E-waste Management Policies and Consumers’ Disposal: a Comparative
Case-study Between Milan and Paris.
Chancerel, P., Meskers, C.E.M., Hagelüken, C., Rotter, V.S., 2009. Assessment of precious
metal flows during preprocessing of waste electrical and electronic equipment. J. Ind.
Ecol. 13, 791–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00171.x.
Charles, R.G., Douglas, P., Hallin, I.L., Matthews, I., Liversage, G., 2017. An investigation
of trends in precious metal and copper content of RAM modules in WEEE:
Implications for long term recycling potential. Waste Manage. 60, 505–520. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.018.
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Lenny Koh, S.C., Rosa, P., 2015. Recycling of WEEEs: an
economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 51, 263–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.010.
D’Alisa, G., Di Nola, M.F., Giampietro, M., 2012. A multi-scale analysis of urban waste
metabolism: density of waste disposed in Campania. J. Clean. Prod. 35, 59–70.
Decker, E.H., Elliott, S., Smith, F.A., Blake, D.R., Rowland, F.S., 2000. Energy and ma-
terial flow through the urban ecosystem. Annu. Rev. Energ. Environ. 25, 685–740.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.685.
Duygan, M., Meylan, G., 2015. Strategic management of WEEE in Switzerland–combining
material flow analysis with structural analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 103, 98–109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.005.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2009. Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming
Our Consumer Culture. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Erkman, S., 2004. Vers une écologie industrielle, 2e ed. Charles Léopold Mayer, Paris.
Favot, M., Veit, R., Massarutto, A., 2017. The ratio of EPR compliance fees on sales
revenues of electrical and electronic equipment in Italy. A circular economy per-
spective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.
012.
Favreau, L., Spear, R., Defourny, J., Laville, J.-L., 2001. Tackling Social Exclusion in
Europe: The Contribution of the Social Economy, 1st ed. Ashgate Pub Ltd., Aldershot,
Hants, England; Burlington, VT.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Haberl, H., 2007. Socioecological Transitions and Global Change:
Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Mayer, A., Bringezu, S.,
Moriguchi, Y., Schütz, H., Schandl, H., Weisz, H., 2011. Methodology and indicators
of economy-wide material flow accounting. J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 855–876. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00366.x.
Flipo, F., Gossart, C., 2009. Infrastructure numérique et environnement: l’impossible
domestication de l’effet rebond [Digital infrastructure and environment:the imposible
management of rebound effect]. Terminal 163–178.
Grosse, F., 2010. Is Recycling Part of the Solution? The Role of Recycling in an Expanding
Society and a World of Finite Resources S.A.P.I.EN.S. Surveys and Perspectives
Integrating Environment and Society.
Gu, Y., Wu, Y., Xu, M., Wang, H., Zuo, T., 2016. The stability and profitability of the
informal WEEE collector in developing countries: a case study of China. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 107, 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.12.004.
Gutiérrez, E., Adenso-Díaz, B., Lozano, S., Moreno, P., 2011. An exploratory study of
Spanish households’ WEEE disposal behaviour. Int. J. Soc. Syst. Sci. 3, 385–398.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSS.2011.043214.
Hischier, R., Wäger, P., Gauglhofer, J., 2005. Does weee recycling make sense from an
environmental perspective? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25, 525–539. http://dx.doi.
J.-B. Bahers, J. Kim
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.003.
Imran, M., Haydar, S., Kim, J., Awan, M.R., Bhatti, A.A., 2017. E-waste flows, resource
recovery and improvement of legal framework in Pakistan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
125, 131–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.015.
Kahhat, R., Kim, J., Xu, M., Allenby, B., Williams, E., Zhang, P., 2008. Exploring e-waste
management systems in the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 955–964.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.03.002.
Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., Bunje, P., 2011. The study of urban metabolism and its appli-
cations to urban planning and design. Environ. Pollut. 159 (8–9), 1965–1973. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.022.
Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., Wong, M.H., 2013. Electronic waste management approaches: an
overview. Waste Manage. 33, 1237–1250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2013.01.006.
Lacoste, E., Chalmin, P., 2007. From Waste to Resource: 2006 World Waste Survey.
Brookings Inst Press.
Lee, S.-J., Cooper, J., Hicks, G., 2010. Characterization of monitor recycling in Seattle,
Washington. Reg. Environ. Change 10, 349–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-
009-0106-8.
Leigh, N.G., Choi, T., Hoelzel, N.Z., 2012. New insights into electronic waste recycling in
metropolitan areas. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 940–950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2012.00525.x.
Lifset, R., Lindhqvist, T., 2008. Producer responsibility at a turning point? J. Ind. Ecol. 12,
144–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00028.x.
Lifset, R., Atasu, A., Tojo, N., 2013. Extended producer responsibility. J. Ind. Ecol. 17,
162–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12022.
Lu, B., Yang, J., Ijomah, W., Wu, W., Zlamparet, G., 2017. Perspectives on reuse of WEEE
in China: lessons from the EU. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.07.012.
Lyons, D., 2005. Integrating waste, manufacturing and industrial symbiosis: an analysis of
recycling, remanufacturing and waste treatment firms in Texas. Local Environ. 10,
71–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000309324.
Lyons, D.I., 2007. A spatial analysis of loop closing among recycling, remanufacturing,
and waste treatment firms in texas. J. Ind. Ecol. 11, 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1162/jiec.2007.1029.
Manomaivibool, P., Hong, J.H., 2014. Two decades, three WEEE systems: how far did EPR
evolve in Korea’s resource circulation policy? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 202–212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.011.
Mayers, C.K., France, C.M., Cowell, S.J., 2005. Extended producer responsibility for waste
electronics: an example of printer recycling in the United Kingdom. J. Ind. Ecol. 9,
169–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/1088198054821672.
Miliute-Plepiene, J., Hage, O., Plepys, A., Reipas, A., 2016. What motivates households
recycling behaviour in recycling schemes of different maturity? Lessons from
Lithuania and Sweden. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 113, 40–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.008.
55
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 129 (2018) 45–55
Ng, K.S., Head, I., Premier, G.C., Scott, K., Yu, E., Lloyd, J., Sadhukhan, J., 2016. A
multilevel sustainability analysis of zinc recovery from wastes. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 113, 88–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.013.
Parajuly, K., Habib, K., Liu, G., 2017. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
in Denmark: flows, quantities and management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 123, 85–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.004.
SENAT, 2009. “Sénat” Report No 571 2009–2010. . Available on http://www.senat.fr/
rap/r09-571/r09-5711.pdf.
STEP, 2012. StEP Annual Report 2012/2013. . Available on http://www.step-initiative.
org/files/step/StEP_AR/StEP_AR.html.
Steuer, B., Ramusch, R., Part, F., Salhofer, S., 2017. Analysis of the value chain and
network structure of informal waste recycling in Beijing, China. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 117, 137–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.007.
Tukker, A., Cohen, M.J., Hubacek, K., Mont, O., 2010. The impacts of household con-
sumption and options for change. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 13–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1530-9290.2009.00208.x.
UNEP, 2007. E-Waste | IETC. Available on http://www.unep.org/ietc/what-we-do/e-
waste.
Vadoudi, K., Kim, J., Laratte, B., Lee, S.-J., Troussier, N., 2015. E-waste management and
resources recovery in France. Waste Manage. Res. 33, 919–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0734242X15597775.
Van Eygen, E., De Meester, S., Tran, H.P., Dewulf, J., 2016. Resource savings by urban
mining: the case of desktop and laptop computers in Belgium. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 107, 53–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.032.
Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., Kavazanjian, E., Kim, J., Xu, M., 2008.
Environmental, social, and economic implications of global reuse and recycling of
personal computers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 6446–6454. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1021/es702255z.
Wolman, A., 1965. The metabolism of cities. Sci. Am. 213, 179–190.
Yang, J., Lu, B., Xu, C., 2008. WEEE flow and mitigating measures in China. Waste
Manage. 28, 1589–1597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.019.
Yoshida, A., Terazono, A., Ballesteros, F.C., Nguyen, D.-Q., Sukandar, S., Kojima, M.,
Sakata, S., 2016. E-waste recycling processes in Indonesia, the Philippines, and
Vietnam: a case study of cathode ray tube TVs and monitors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
106, 48–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.020.
Yuan, H.P., Shen, L.Y., Hao, J.J.L., Lu, W.S., 2011. A model for cost–benefit analysis of
construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 55, 604–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.004.
Zhang, Y., 2013. Urban metabolism: a review of research methodologies. Environ. Pollut.
178, 463–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.052.
de Oliveira Neto, G.C., de Jesus Cardoso Correia, A., Schroeder, A.M., 2017. Economic
and environmental assessment of recycling and reuse of electronic waste: multiple
case studies in Brazil and Switzerland. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 42–55. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.011.