Clustering Analysis of E-Waste Management in

BRICS and G7 Countries?

Lúcia Helena Xavier1[0000−0003−4177−5251] , Marcos Pereira de

2[0000−−0002−9609−8238]
Novais , Marianna Ottoni3[0000−−0002−0897−6177] , and
Hermann Nascimento4[0000−0001−5796−997X]
1
Centre for Mineral Technology - CETEM, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro,
RJ, 21941908 Brazil
lxavier@cetem.gov.br
2
Technology Management, Economics and Policy Program, Seoul National
University, Siheung-si, Republic of Korea
mnovais@snu.ac.kr
3
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro - PPE, Cidade Universitária, RJ, Brazil
mariannaottoni@ppe.ufrj.br
4
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro - Poli, Cidade Universitária, RJ, Brazil
hermann@poli.ufrj.br

Abstract. The management of waste electrical electronic equipment

waste (WEEE or e-waste) has motivated the development of regulatory
instruments in several countries, as well as specific management prac-
tices. However, the formalization of processes occurs differently accord-
ing to strategies and motivations of each nation. In this study we seek to
analyze the similarities that can indicate the main drivers to the adoption
of sustainable practices for the e-waste management. Thus, we analyzed
the through multiple regression and clustering of countries by multiple
regression analysis and k-means clustering algorithm, respectively. Were
considered GDP and e-waste generation as indicators from BRICS and
G7 countries. The findings suggest that the economic blocs partially in-
fluence the management of electronic waste and socioeconomic indices.
Indicators such as HDI and e-waste generation have a divergent influence,
GDP uniformly influences the population and has a significant impact.
The clusters formed show the importance of the e-waste generation po-
tential as a determining factor, an aspect also observed in the correlation
analysis. In this way, the analysis tools are complementary and reinforce
the possibility of using key-indicators in e-waste management.

Keywords: E-waste management · Indicators · Clustering.

1 Introduction

E-waste management is a challenge faced by nations seeking to balance the safety

and profitability of hazardous and valuable materials found in waste electrical
?
Supported by 3 CNPqNo 400555/2020-4.
2 L.H. Xavier et al.

electronic equipment (WEEE or e-waste). There were 78 countries covered by

environmental regulations focusing on eWaste management in 2019 [1], but not
enough solutions have been provided to the transboundary movement of this
category of waste. E-waste is the fastest growing category of waste in the world,
with an estimated annual growth rate of 3 to 5% in generation [2]. According to
[1], it is estimated that 39 million tons of raw material are needed for the produc-
tion of new electronic devices and part of it could come from electronic waste.
These authors also reveal that in 2019, 53.6 Mt of electronic waste were disposed
of in the world, of which 25 Mt of secondary raw materials could be recovered in
material value equivalent to 57 USD billion. Developed countries and emergent
economies have an important contribution in electronic devices consumption and
disposal. However, different solutions have been provided regarding the waste
management maturity and legal requirements. In developing countries, where
disposal techniques are not well established, the e-waste is mostly mixed in the
ordinary solid waste. As much as the e-waste is sorted and separated, the value
and reliability increase.

Fig. 1. Electronic waste generated worldwide from 2010 to 2019 (in million metric
tons). Source: Statista, 2020.

According to statistical data [4], in the last decade the e-waste generation
grew more than 1.5 million of metric tons each year (Figure 1), and it is pro-
jected a huge increasing until 2030, doubling the annual e-waste generation and
reaching more than 74 Mt [1].
 Clustering Analysis of E-Waste Management in BRICS and G7 Countries 3

2 Background
Solutions for waste management are motivated by economic, social and environ-
mental aspects. However, the decision-making process in e-waste management
is driven by regulatory [11][9] or economic aspects [5][6]. The regulation on e-
waste management was motivated by the high levels of consumption, scarcity
of natural resources, and short lifespan of devices [23]. Besides been the fastest
growing waste in the world [8], the e-waste represents potential risk of the en-
vironment and human health impacts [8][22]. Some developing countries still
receive hazardous waste from the transboundary shipment of e-waste [21] and
[18], on the contrary of Basel Convention proposal. BRICS is an acronym for the
major developing countries or emerging nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa. Previous studies were produced focusing in the formal and infor-
mal e-waste structure, evaluating e-waste generation and management issues in
developing countries [3][24][10][14]. The health impacts are well studied in China
and India [12][19][27], where the informal sector prevails in the e-waste manage-
ment. The G7 countries aggregate largest economies from developed countries in
the world: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United
States. According to [8], these countries present correlation of GDP with both:
population, e-waste collection and e-waste management. The comparison of key-
indicator on e-waste management from these countries could provide some infor-
mation about strategies or forecasting to support decision-making and regulation
structure for both economic blocs.

3 Method
This study analyzed the correlation of e-waste generation and specific indicators
related to social and economic aspects, as well as the clustering BRICS and G7
countries. The correlations allowed to identify similarities in the set of variables
analyzed through multiple regression analysis of e-waste generation and GDP
values for the year of 2019. The clustering analysis proceed the grouping of a
collection of objects into several classes composed of similar objects according
to specific characteristics. K-means is a clustering algorithm that can be applied
to provide solutions from required grouping techniques [17]. The clustering was
carried on with established dimensions for the total of twelve countries from
BRICS and G7 groups.

4 Results
The results are presented as follows, regarding the multiple regression analysis
and the clustering analysis.

4.1 Multiple regression analysis

The results for the regression analysis among the countries that make up the
BRICS economic bloc show that there is a strong correlation (0.98) between the
4 L.H. Xavier et al.

values for GDP and e-waste generation observed for the year 2019. However,
China’s distance from the other countries in the bloc is also notable, suggesting
a discrepancy and low degree of clustering with the other countries (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Regression analysis for BRICS countries GDP and e-waste generated in 2019.

The same pattern is observed for the G7 countries (Figure 3), with the dis-
tance from the United States and also a high degree of correlation (0.98) between
all the analyzed values for the year 2019. Possibly, the United States and China
could form the same block on issues related to the development of strategies and
public policies for the management of electronic waste due to their specificities.
When observing the values for the regression considering the countries of
both blocs together, there is no very significant correlation (0.77) and the United
States and China are very evident in the arrangement of points for the formation
of the curve (Figure 4). This distancing behavior motivated the performance of
clustering analysis.

4.2 Clustering
Other indicators of social, economic, environmental and technical potential were
analyzed and it was defined a set of key-performance-indicators according to
the criteria availability and reliability of data for the countries analyzed. In
Figure 5 are presented the dimensions impact for the set of indicators analyzed:
population, GDP, e-waste generation and HDI.
In Dimension 1, the indicators e-waste generation and the population were
the most important indicators, while in Dimension 2 the HDI was superior to the
second place, the GDP. In both dimensions, both with 25Thought the Principal
 Clustering Analysis of E-Waste Management in BRICS and G7 Countries 5

Fig. 3. Regression analysis for G7 countries GDP and e-waste generated in 2019.

Fig. 4. Regression analysis for BRICS and G7 countries GDP and e-waste generated
in 2019.
6 L.H. Xavier et al.

Fig. 5. Prioritizing the dimensions.

Component Analysis PCA it was evaluated the behaviour of the indicators when
analyzed according to the vectors formed in the main Dimensions. Figure 6
shows the behavior of the studied indicators. Except for HDI, all other indicators
point to the first and fourth quadrant as main components. HDI, in the second
quadrant could be discarded as lesser significant component in Dimension 1.
As presented in Figure 7, were found two clusters from the 12 countries
analyzed. In Cluster 1 are China, India, and United States, while in Cluster 2
are Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and
South Africa. The centroids are far from each other, what reveals that the clusters
are well established. In Cluster 1 countries are equidistant from the centroid,
but there is a considerable distance between them. The population is the key-
indicator that have distanced China and India from other emerging countries.
While GDP and e-waste generation were the key-indicators that kept China and
the United States together in the same cluster. Thus, it can be observed that
high population and GDP values result in greater consumption potential for
an expressive population. An interesting combination that can mean the high
generation of e-waste in the same geographic space. In this way, by bringing
together the two indicators, China is placed in a prominent place that may not
be reached by other countries in the short term. Likewise, the United States,
due to its high GDP, has a high consumption potential for a population not as
expressive as China and India. This may indicate a demand for labor to manage
the generated e-waste, as well as the low capacity to absorb e-waste from other
countries. The centroid in Cluster 2 presented equivalent distances for major
part of the countries, except for South Africa and Brazil. This can be explained
by specific values for the indicators analyzed. The GDP and e-waste generation
Clustering Analysis of E-Waste Management in BRICS and G7 Countries 7

Fig. 6. PCA variables analysis.

Fig. 7. Clustering proposal.

8 L.H. Xavier et al.

values for South Africa are the lower ones in the set of countries, and Brazil has
the third lowest HDI value.

5 Conclusion
This study focused on proposing an integrated method for selecting the best
site for MSW disposal in Shiraz, Iran. In doing so, the criteria involved were
primarily identified and assessed, and the sites suitable for waste disposal were
accordingly discovered and ranked. The results suggest that the economic blocs
partially influence the management of electronic waste and socioeconomic in-
dices. Indicators such as HDI and e-waste generation have a divergent influence,
GDP uniformly influences the population and has a significant impact. The
clusters formed show the importance of the e-waste generation potential as a
determining factor, an aspect also observed in the correlation analysis. In this
way, the analysis tools are complementary and reinforce the possibility of using
key-indicators in e-waste management. Future studies can consider both GIS
and multicriteria decision tools to reinforce the analysis and reach best fitted
results.

References
1. Forti, V., Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G., 2020. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2020.
Quantities, Flows, and the Circular Economy Potential. United Nations University
(UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – cohosted
SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Interna-
tional Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Rotterdam.
2. Ilankoon, I.M.S.K., Ghorbani, Y., Chong, M.N., Herath, G., Moyo, T., Petersen, J.,
2018. E-waste in the international context – A review of trade flows, regulations,
hazards, waste management strategies and technologies for value recovery. Waste
Management 82, 258-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.018.
3. Abbondanza, M.N.M., Souza, R.G. Estimating the generation of household
e-waste in municipalities using primary data from surveys: A case study
of Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil. Waste Management, (85), 374-384 (2019)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.12.040.
4. Statista, 2020. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/499891/projection-
ewaste-generation-worldwide/. Accessed in 20.May.2021
5. Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Lenny Koh, S. C., Rosa, P. Recycling of WEEEs:
An economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews (51), 263–272 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.010
6. Amankwah-Amoah, J. Global business and emerging economies: Towards a new
perspective on the effects of e-waste. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
(105), 20-26 (2016).
7. Ardi, R., 2016. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste Electrical
(WEEE) Management Systems in the Developed and the Developing Countries:
A Comparative Structural Study. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Engineer-
ing, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Process Engineering, Universität
Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
 Clustering Analysis of E-Waste Management in BRICS and G7 Countries 9

8. Awasthi, A.K., Wang, M., Awasthi, M.K., Wang, Z., Li, J. Environmental pollution
and human body burden from improper recycling of e-waste in China: A short-
review. Environmental Pollution (2018) DOI 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.037
9. Borner, L., Hegger, D.L.T. Toward design principles for sound e-waste governance:
A research approach illustrated with the case of the Netherlands. Resources, Con-
servation and Recycling, (134), 272-282 (2018).
10. Borthakur, A., 2020. Policy approaches on E-waste in the emerging
economies: A review of the existing governance with special reference
to India and South Africa, Journal of Cleaner Production (252) 119885
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119885.
11. Cao, J. Lu, B., Chen, Y., Zhang, X., Zhai, G. Zhou, G., Jiang, B., Schnoor, J.L.,
2016. Extended producer responsibility systems in China improves e-waste recycling:
Government policies, enterprise, and public awareness. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, (62), 882-894.
12. Chakraborty, P., Selvaraj, S., Nakamura, M., Prithiviraj, B., Cincinelli, A.,
Bang, J.J., 2018. PCBs and PCDD/Fs in soil from informal e-waste re-
cycling sites and open dumpsites in India: Levels, congener profiles and
health risk assessment. Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 621, 930-938,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.083.
13. Cossu, R., Williams., 2015. Urban mining: Concepts, terminology, challenges.
Waste Management, vo. 45, Pp 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.040.
14. Dutta, D., Goel, S., 2021. Understanding the gap between formal and informal
e-waste recycling facilities in India, Waste Management, Volume 125, pp. 163-171,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.045.
15. Graedel, T.E., 2011. The prospects for urban mining. Bridge 41: 43–50.
16. Ikhlayel, M., 2018. An integrated approach to establish e-waste management
systems for developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 170, 119-130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.137.
17. Jing, J., Ke,S., Li, T., Wang, T. Energy method of geophysical logging lithology
based on K-means dynamic clustering analysis,Environmental Technology and In-
novation (23) (2021),101534,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101534.
18. Lepawsky, J., 2012. Legal geographies of e-waste legislation in Canada and the
US:Jurisdiction, responsibility and the taboo of production. Geoforum, Vol. 43, 6,
Pp.1194-1206.
19. Li, W., Achal, V., 2020. Environmental and health impacts due to e-waste dis-
posal in China – A review. Science of The Total Environment (737) (2020) 139745
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139745.
20. Meester, S., Nachtergaele, P., Debaveye, S., Vos, P., Dewulf, J., 2019. Using ma-
terial flow analysis and life cycle assessment in decision support: A case study on
WEEE valorization in Belgium. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. vo. 142.
pp. 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.015.
21. Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., 2011. Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling
in the UK. Waste Management 31, 1307–1315.
22. Pascale, A., Sosa, A., Bares, C., Battocletti, A., Moll, M.J., 2016. E-Waste Informal
Recycling: An Emerging Source of Lead Exposure in South America. Annals of
Globe Health. vol. 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2016.01.016
23. Silva, A., Stocker, L., Mercieca, P., Rosano, M., 2016. The role of policy labels,
keywords and framing in transitioning waste policy. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 115, Pp. 224-237.
10 L.H. Xavier et al.

24. Silva, C.L., Weins, N., Potinkara, M., 2019. Formalizing the informal?
A perspective on informal waste management in the BRICS through the
lens of institutional economics, Waste Management, Volume 99, pp. 79-89,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.023.
25. Wallsten, B., Johansson, N., Krook, J., 2013. A Cable Laid Is a Cable Played: On
the Hibernation Logic behind Urban Infrastructure Mines. The Journal of urban
technology, (20), 3, 85-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2013.809222
26. Xavier, L.H., Ottoni, M., Lepawsky, J., 2021. Circular economy and e-waste man-
agement in the Americas: Brazilian and Canadian frameworks. Journal of Cleaner
Production 297, 126570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126570
27. Zeng, X., Huo, X., Xu, X., Liu, D., Wu, W., 2020. E-waste lead exposure and
children’s health in China. Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 734,139286,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139286.