Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

A flexible environmental reuse/recycle policy based on

economic strength
C.A. Tsiliyannis *

Aniǒn Environmental Ltd., 48 Favierou Str., Athens 10438, Greece

Accepted 30 June 2006

Available online 4 October 2006

Abstract

Environmental policies based on fixed recycling rates may lead to increased environmental impacts (e.g., landfilled wastes) during
economic expansion. A rate policy is proposed, which is adjusted according to the overall strength or weakness of the economy, as
reflected by overall packaging demand and consumption, production and imports–exports. During economic expansion featuring rising
consumption, production or exports, the proposed flexible policy suggests a higher reuse/recycle rate. During economic slowdown a
lower rate results in lower impacts. The flexible target rates are determined in terms of annual data, including consumption, imports–
exports and production. Higher environmental gains can be achieved at lower cost if the flexible policy is applied to widely consumed
packaging products and materials associated with low rates, or if cleaner recycling technology is adopted.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For solid waste management systems featuring recycle

The packaging recycling rate when expressed as the
amount recycled divided by the sum of the amounts recy-
cled and discarded has been used world-wide as the basis
of an environmental policy (USEPA, 2003; EC Directives
94/62 and 04/12). Typically, three criteria are used to assess
whether a parameter such as the recycling rate is successful
for policy formulation. These are
1. the quantity of wastes finally managed (landfilled or
incinerated);
2. the quantity of virgin material extraction and depletion
of natural resources;
3. the environmental impacts from manufacturing, includ-
ing water and energy demand.
*
Tel.: +30 210 520 5280; fax: +30 210 520 5281.
E-mail address: anion@otenet.gr.
but no reuse, increases in the recycling rate lead to
improvements in all three criteria above. When reuse
occurs, a decrease in the recycling rate could lead to
improvements in all three criteria; because of this, a mod-
ified combined reuse/recycle rate has been proposed (Tsil-
iyannis, 2005b). The combined reuse/recycle rate is the
sum of the reused and recycled annual quantity divided
by the overall annual consumption of the reused/recycled
product under consideration. It has been shown that
under certain assumptions the use of the combined
reuse/recycle rate as a policy parameter would ensure that
improvements in these criteria would correspond to
higher values of the reuse/recycle rate. One assumption
made by Tsiliyannis (2005b) is that consumption is not
growing. When consumption is growing, the recycling rate
can increase, while at the same time the performance
regarding the three criteria above can become worse. As
an example, Table 1 (USEPA, 1999, 2003) shows a signif-
icant increase in the recycling rate and in total discards.
Similar situations may appear if overall production is

0956-053X/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.015
4 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12

Nomenclature (all flows in tonnes per year)

a reuse loop feed flow = Pe + Inet W finally discarded waste flow

b reuse loop output flow = R + W
Cf flow of packaging reaching the con- Greek symbols
sumer = overall annual consumption = overall D difference between two years or systems to be
annual demand compared
f number of reuse trips per year P environmental impacts from manufacturing
Fnet Inet + OM  Re  OP including water and energy demand
Inet flow of net imported packaging product (empty k threshold related to consumption variation
and filled) = Ie + If  Ee  Ef n threshold related to production variation
M virgin raw material flow used to produce pack- r threshold related to trade flow variation
aging product q combined reuse/recycle rate =(RU + R)/
m maximum of {k,k + r,k + r + n} P + R + W) = 1  W/Cf
(RU
N total number of reuse trips in lifetime qmaterial Pall packaging forms; i¼1;...;k ½RUi þ Ri =
OM flow of recycled material from other sources ½RUi þ Ri þ W i 
entering packaging production Pall packaging Pforms;i¼1;...;k P P
½qi C fi = C fi ¼ 1  W i = C fi ;
OP flow of other products produced from recovered
i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k forms of packaging of a certain
packaging waste P
Pe packaging production flow (empty) material and denotes sum
P P P P
RU reuse flow qtotal packaging ½qj C fj = C fj ¼ 1  W j = C fj ;
r recycling rate =R/(R + W) j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; packaging materials
R recovered packaging waste flow
ru reuse rate = RU/Cf Subscripts
Rp recycled flow used to produce the same form of b 0.5 l beer bottles
packaging e empty
Re exported recovered packaging waste f filled
T lifetime, years r refreshment drink bottles
Ut net market accumulation of product: year 1 to t year t
year t (end of year t quantity present in the mar- w 0.75 l wine bottles
ket), tonnes

increased to meet higher demand (wastes, virgin raw indicating that environmental policy goals are not being
material extraction and manufacturing impacts all rise, met, even though improvements in all three criteria are
while the recycling rate rises) or if imports increase to sat- realized. For instance, if under falling consumer demand
isfy consumer demand (virgin materials and manufactur- the recycling rate falls slightly, but the exported recovered
ing impacts decrease, but wastes may increase albeit scrap decreases sharply, more recovered packaging waste
recycling rises). One can also imagine the opposite is directed towards production of the same packaging
situation in which the recycling rate might decrease in a product, resulting in lower quantities of virgin materials
contracting economy, with falling consumer demand, used and lower impacts from manufacturing.
It should be apparent from the above discussion that
setting appropriate targets for recycling and reuse rates
Table 1 for reduction of environmental impacts becomes signifi-
US waste generation and recycling (ton · 1000) cantly more challenging under an expanding or contracting
1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 economy with demand, production, and import–export
(a) Increasing wastes and recycling rates (r) flows varying.
r 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.2% 29.7% The specific questions raised in this work are:
R 5080 7257 13,154 30,119 61,689
W 74,843 102,603 124,375 156,036 146,238 1. What is the minimum reuse/recycle rate during eco-
Cf 79,923 109,860 137,529 186,154 207,927
nomic expansion in order to meet the three environmen-
(b) Recycling rate (r2) guaranteeing no increase of wastes tal criteria stated above?
k 0.2552 0.1371 0.1422 0.0421
2. What is the minimum reuse/recycle rate during eco-
r2 31.9% 45.6% 59.8% 64.0%
W 74,843 74,843 74,843 74,843 nomic contraction in order to meet the three criteria sta-
ted above?
 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12
3. Which is the minimum information required to deter-
mine this modified rate?
4. Which are the maximum variations in consumption,
production and net imports within which a pre-
specified rate still succeeds in guaranteeing environ-
mental performance enhancement under economic
variations?
5. Can more environmental gains be realized at lower cost
over a period of time featuring economic cycles with
growing and diminishing consumption, production and
net imports?
Section 2 presents the notation, the flow-diagram, the
main result and answers to questions 1–3 above. Sections
3 and 4 provide answers to questions 4 and 5.
2. Rate policy under varying economic conditions
2.1. Background and notation
In the combined reuse/recycle packaging flow-diagram
of Fig. 1, the annual production level in year t is denoted
by Pe,t. The net trade balance is denoted by Inet,t =
{Ie,t  Ee,t + If,t  Ef,t} where Ef = annual export of filled
packaging, Ee = annual export of empty packaging,
If = annual import of filled packaging, Ie = annual
import of empty packaging. The recycled packaging
waste (collected and reprocessed into new products) is
denoted by R, and reused packaging by RU (reuse = re-
turn/clean/refill). The recycled packaging is either repro-
cessed for production of the same packaging product
(Rp), exported as scrap (Re), or reprocessed to produce
other products (OP). Cf denotes the demand and con-
sumption of filled packaging, i.e., the total annual
amount of packaging reaching the consumer. The
demand for virgin materials is denoted by M and the
finally managed waste by W. The recycled material
recovered from products other than the specific packag-
ing and used for manufacturing the specific packaging
is denoted by OM.
Re
Rp
OP
R
Pe
Cf
M W
Inet
RU
OM
Fig. 1. Reused/recycled product flow-diagram.
5
2.2. Rising wastes and recycling rates
2.2.1. Examples
1. Table 1a depicts the 1960–2001 recycle (R) and dis-
card flows (W) for municipal solid waste in the US. During
1960–1990, despite the increase in r from 6.4% to 16.2%,
the total discard has been rising (from 75 to 146 Mt), while
the increasing recycling rate (from 16.2% to 29.7%) in
1991–2001 resulted in a slight decrease of final discard.
2. Paper packaging. Paper leads packaging (42% of
total packaging world-wide), followed by plastics (36%).
Table 2a shows a paper packaging system with rising con-
sumption, Cf, say from level 100 (corresponding to year
2000), by 3% per annum. Recycling of consumer discard
is intensified and recycle flow is increased, assume line-
arly, from the level of 45 to the value corresponding to
the EC94/62 target of 50% recovery for 2005. Although
the fixed 50% recovery target has been reached, both W
and M increased. Production and associated impacts have
also increased.
2.3. The combined reuse/recycle rate
Environmental performance of reused/recycled products
can be assessed via the single rate, defined in Tsiliyannis
(2005b)
RUt þ Rt RUt þ Rt Wt
qt ¼ ¼ ¼1 ð1Þ
C f;t RUt þ Rt þ W t C f;t
The combined reuse/recycle rate q, reduces to the well
known recycling rate (r = R/(R + W) in products that are
only recycled (products with no reuse, RU = 0). From
Examples 1 and 2, increasing q in an expanding economy
with growing consumption does not ensure reduction of
the environmental impacts in criteria 1–3.
It is of interest to list some extreme cases with regard to
environmental impacts.
(i) No wastes, W = 0, (q = 1); all input is recycled at
steady state (Pe + Inet = R) – see Eqs. (A.1), (A.2)
and (A.8) in Appendix 1.
(ii) No virgin raw materials, M = 0; production is based
on recycled material from the specific packaging or
other products, that is, Pe = Rp + OM (flow-diagram
1 or Eq. (A.4)). In practice, OM is one or more orders
of magnitude less than Pe and therefore Pe  Rp, i.e.,
production is based 100% on recycled packaging
waste.
(iii) No impacts from production, P = 0; production
should necessarily be zero, Pe = 0, implying (Eq.
(A.4)) that Rp = 0, M = 0, and OM = 0. Also R must
be zero (otherwise impacts >0 would result, due to
collection, transportation, baling) and RU = 0
(otherwise impacts due to transportation/wash/refill
would arise). In practice R > 0 and the minimum
value of P corresponds to zero production,
P ¼ PP e ¼0 ; impacts are then limited to recovery/
6 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12

Table 2
Cf R = Rp W DW r Pe M Dq k
(a) Increasing wastes and recycling rate, Example 2
2000 100.00 45.00 55.00 0.45 100.0 55.0
2001 103.00 47.59 55.41 0.407 0.46 103.0 55.4 0.0121 0.0165
2002 106.09 50.19 55.90 0.497 0.47 106.1 55.9 0.0110 0.0161
2003 109.27 52.78 56.49 0.590 0.48 109.3 56.5 0.0099 0.0158
2004 112.55 55.37 57.18 0.685 0.49 112.6 57.2 0.0090 0.0155
2005 115.93 57.96 57.96 0.784 0.50 115.9 58.0 0.0080 0.0152
(b) Policy (2.4.1(a)) for non-increasing wastes, Example 2
2000 100.00 45.00 55.00 0.45 100.0 55.0
2001 103.00 48.00 55.00 0.000 0.47 103.0 55.0 0.0160 0.0160
2002 106.09 51.09 55.00 0.000 0.48 106.1 55.0 0.0156 0.0156
2003 109.27 54.27 55.00 0.000 0.50 109.3 55.0 0.0151 0.0151
2004 112.55 57.55 55.00 0.000 0.51 112.6 55.0 0.0147 0.0147
2005 115.93 60.93 55.00 0.000 0.53 115.9 55.0 0.0142 0.0142

NH3 paper q = 3.4, p = 2.9

k n k+n r2 = k + n R W M DM = DW DP
(c) Policy (2.4.1 (b) iii) or Policy (5), Example 2
0.45 45.00 55.00 55.00
2001 0.16020 0.16893 0.1850 0.63 65.40 37.60 37.60 17.40 0
2002 0.01063 0.16893 0.1796 0.81 86.41 19.68 19.68 17.92 0
2003 0.00540 0.16893 0.1743 0.99 108.05 1.22 1.22 18.46 0
2004 0.00032 0.16893 0.1693 0.99 111.33 1.22 1.22 0.00 9.507
2005 0.00032 0.16893 0.1692 0.99 114.71 1.22 1.22 0.00 9.792

transportation/material separation/baling/transpor- k ¼ ð1  q1ÞDC f =C f 2 ð2Þ

tation of packaging waste to be used as OP, or to
be exported as scrap (Re), and to transportation,
washing and refilling of reused packaging. Therefore,
in practice:
(iv) Minimum environmental impacts: W = 0, M = 0,
Pe = 0 and P ¼ PP e ¼0 . Demand is covered by
imports and reuse. R = Re + OP, OM = 0.
(v) Low impacts: zero wastes and virgin materials; pro-
duction based solely on recycled consumer waste:
W = 0, M = 0, Pe = Rp, P ¼ PP e ¼Rp .
(vi) Maximum impacts: R = 0 and RU = 0. Production is
based on virgin materials and recovered material
from other products, Pe = M + OM (Eq. (A.4)). All
input is discarded as waste, a = Pe + Inet = W. Since
RU = 0, it follows that Cf = Pe + Inet (Eq. (A.10)),
i.e., production and imports must cover 100% of con-
sumption, while all produced and imported packag-
ing becomes non-recovered (landfilled or
incinerated) waste.
In actual systems the environmental impacts range
somewhere in between cases (iv) and (vi).
2.4. Main result: rate policy for reduced wastes, virgin raw
materials and manufacturing impacts
Let D denote the difference between two states of the
same packaging system, e.g., corresponding to different
years, (e.g., DW = W2  W1). The following characteristic
parameters are used:
n ¼ pDP e =½ðq  pÞC f 2 for q > p ð3Þ
ðn ¼ DP e =C f 2 for p ¼ q; n ¼ pDP e =½ðp  qÞC f 2 for p > qÞ
r ¼ ðF net 1  F net 2Þ=C f 2 ð4Þ
where Fnet = Inet + OM  Re  OP, p = oP/oR are the
environmental impacts (kg of pollution released per tonne
of manufactured product) associated with production
through recovered/recycled material and q = oP/oM are
the environmental impacts associated with production
from virgin raw materials. In general q > p. Values of p
and q are tabulated in White et al. (1995). Exceptions
where q < p occur, associated with specific impacts (e.g.,
aluminum can electricity consumption p = 4q).
Physically, k represents changes in consumption (Cf), n
relates to changes in production (Pe), and r relates to
changes in imports–exports of empty or filled packaging
(Inet), or to changes in exports of recovered scrap (Re), or
in OM or OP. For instance, if the production level is
increased to meet higher demand, manufacturing impacts
will rise; if imports rise to satisfy higher demand, then vir-
gin materials and manufacturing impacts fall. If produc-
tion relies more and more on recovered material from
other sources (OM increasing), then less virgin raw materi-
als are used for manufacturing. The opposite happens if
exported scrap (Re) increases or if OP increases (less recov-
ered packaging product is used to produce the same
product).
Impacts may be reduced by the following reuse/recycle
rate policy.
 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12 7

2.4.1. Conditions for reduced environmental impacts manufacturing impacts are reduced since ammonia is
(a) For any year t, system 2 has lower annual wastes if the ‘maximal’ pollutant (i.e., it features the max p/q),
and only if its combined reuse/recycle rate, q2, max(p/q)paper = p/qammonia (e.g., p/qTOC-water pollution = 0.8,
exceeds q1 by k, i.e., if q2  q1 > k. If q2  q1 = k, p/qN2O = 0.8, p/qHC = 0.7). It is impossible to increase
waste quantities are the same. r(=0.99) by k + n in year 2004; r is only increased by k. Then
(b) At steady state, in addition to condition (a): (i) Sys- ammonia emissions increase in 2004 but wastes and
tem 2 has lower virgin material requirements if and extracted virgin materials remain the same.
only if q2  q1 > k + r. If q2  q1 = k + r, virgin
materials are the same. (ii) System 2 has lower or 2.5. Flexible economic/environmental policy and minimum
the same environmental impacts from manufacturing information required
if and only if q2  q1 P k + r + n. (iii) System 2 has
lower environmental impacts in all criteria 1, 2 and 3 Table 3 gives the impact of changes in the main flows
if and only if q2  q1 P max{k,k + r and k + r + n}, associated with economic trends on criteria 1, 2 and 3
where max denotes the largest of the numbers in the and the corresponding signs of the parameters k, r and n.
brackets { }. In general, demand, production and net exports are
expected to increase in periods of economic expansion
For a proof see Appendix 2. Condition (a) is valid for and decrease in periods of economic contraction. The pol-
any two years, i.e., even during dynamic conditions. Con- icy guaranteeing no deterioration of all criteria in the same
dition (b) applies to steady state conditions. Conditions year is given by condition (b)-iii in Section 2.4: The equality
(a)–(b) provide answers to questions (1)–(3) raised in the corresponds to the minimum cost policy.
introduction. If between years 1 and 2 consumption q2 ¼ q1 þ m; m ¼ maxfk; k þ r; k þ r þ ng ð5Þ
expands (or contracts) from Cf1 to Cf2, then wastes are
reduced if the new reuse/recycle rate q2 exceeds q1 by k, Policy (5) maintains one criterion (W or M or P) constant
i.e., q2 > q1 + k. Similarly, if between two steady states and improves the other two (Table 4). If m = k, wastes re-
of the packaging system, consumption changes from Cf1 main constant in the current year, while virgin raw materi-
to Cf2, or if packaging trade changes the net flow Fnet, from als and manufacturing impacts drop. If m = k + r, raw
level Fnet1 to Fnet2, then virgin raw material demand for materials remain constant but wastes and manufacturing
packaging production is reduced if q2 > q1 + k + r. impacts drop. If m = k + r + n, manufacturing impacts re-
Finally, if consumption changes from Cf1 to Cf2, or if main constant for the current year but wastes and raw
net packaging trade changes (Fnet1 to Fnet2), or if, in order materials drop.
to meet the new demand, production changes from level The flexibility of policy (5) lies in the fact that m may be
Pe1 to Pe2, then environmental impacts due to manufactur- positive or negative following economic trends. Indicative
ing are reduced if q2 > q1 + k + r + n. The rate q should cases are given in Table 5. For instance, if growing demand
always satisfy q < 1. This constraint makes it more and is satisfied by increased imports, while production drops,
more difficult to compensate for large variations, when q then k > 0, n < 0, r < 0 and the new rate q(=qlast year + k)
is close to 1. leads to constant wastes, lower virgin materials and lower
Example 1. Minimum US recycling rate for non-increas- impacts from manufacturing (case 2, Table 5). If demand,
ing wastes in 1960–2001. The minimum US recycling rate imports and production grow, a higher q maintains con-
in Example 1, which guarantees non-increasing wastes stant either waste quantities (case 3 b, Table 5) or manufac-
for 1991 (and non-increasing raw materials under Fnet1 = turing impacts (case 3a, Table 5). Under rising demand and
Fnet2) is found to be almost four times the actual rate.
For 2001 it is almost twice the actual rate (Table 1b). Table 3
Example 2. Paper packaging. Table 2b shows the results Effect of rising (›) consumption, production, net imports, etc. on annual
of applying the policy q2 = q1 + k, in the paper packaging waste quantities (W), virgin materials (M) and manufacturing impacts (P)
Example 2 (Re = OP = Inet = OM = 0, i.e., r = 0): despite Cf› Pe› Inet› Re› OM› OP›
a 16% increase in consumption from year 2000 to 2005, k>0 n>0 r<0 r>0 r<0 r>0
both wastes and virgin raw materials do not increase W › › › fl › fl
(DW = 0 and DM = 0) if the recycling rate is increased M › › fl › fl ›
from 45% (2000 level) to 53% for 2005. P › › fl › fl ›
In order to maintain or to reduce manufacturing impacts,
q must be increased further as determined by condition (b)-ii
in Section 2.4.1: for paper max(p/q)i = p/qAmmonia = 2.9/ Table 4
3.4 = 0.9 and n is found from Eq. (3), n = 0.169 for 2000– Effect of flexible policy (5) on annual environmental impacts
2005. Table 2c presents the results of applying the policy Environmental impact m=k m=k+r m=k+r+n
q2 = q1 + k + n in years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Ammonia W Constant fl fl
emissions do not increase, while annual waste quantities M fl Constant fl
and virgin raw materials, W and M, are reduced. Other P fl fl Constant
8 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12

Table 5
Conditions for tighter (m > 0) or looser (m < 0) flexible rate policy, Eq. (5)
Flow! Cf Pe Inet or OM Re or OP m
1 › › fl ›
k>0 n>0 r>0 r>0 m = k + r + n (m > 0)
2 › fl › fl
k>0 n<0 r<0 r<0 m = k (m > 0)
3 › › › fl
a k>0 n>0 r<0 r<0 m = k + r + n if r < n (m > 0)
b m = k if n < r (m > 0)
4 › fl fl ›
k>0 n<0 r>0 r>0 m = k + r (m > 0)
5 fl fl fl ›
a k<0 n<0 r>0 r>0 m = k + r (m > 0 if k < r)
b (m < 0 if k > r)
6 fl fl › fl
k<0 n<0 r<0 r<0 m = k (m < 0)
7 fl › fl ›
a k<0 n>0 r>0 r>0 m = k + r + n (m > 0 if k < r + n)
b (m < 0 if k > r + n)
8 fl › › fl
a k<0 n>0 r<0 r<0 m = k + r + n if r < n (m > 0 if k  r < n)
b m = k + r + n if r < n (m < 0 if k  r > n)
c m = k if r > n (m < 0)

falling production, an increase in exported scrap (Re) gives
m = k + r, which maintains virgin materials constant and
lowers wastes and manufacturing impacts (case 4, Table 5).
If demand, production and exported recovered scrap drop,
then k < 0, n < 0, r < 0 and the policy m = k(<0) (case 6 in
Table 5) maintains constant wastes and lower other
impacts. In order for m to be negative, k should be nega-
tive, i.e., consumption must fall. A relaxed rate m < 0
may occur under rising production and rising net exports
(case 7b in Table 5). A decreasing consumption is necessary
but not sufficient to guarantee a relaxed policy, m< 0; see
case 7a in Table 5: demand falls slightly (k < 0) but produc-
tion increases sharply (n  0) to meet increased exports of
filled packaging (r > 0,  k < r + n, thus m = k + r + n >
0).
The flexible policy (5) is similar to the interest rate policy
of central banks: if economic contraction is imminent,
interest rates are lowered to promote development. Simi-
larly, policy (5), by decreasing reuse and recycling rates
(a looser environmental policy), allows more resources to
be used for economic expansion without environmental
compromise.
Application. Fig. 2 presents the application of policy (5)
in a reuse/recycle system in a time horizon of 20 years.
Demand rose overall from level 10–17 (it fell in years 6–9
and 13–16), production ranged from 3.1 to 4.7, net imports
from 0.2 to 0.4 and exported scrap from 0 to 0.1 (Fig. 2a).
Other data OM = 0, OP = 0, p = 0.4, q = 2. Policy (5) is
shown in Fig. 2b: the reuse/recycle rate, q, was relaxed in
periods of decreasing consumption, i.e., years 7–9 and
14–16. (e.g., year 7 corresponds to case 8b in Table 5).
Policy (5) succeeded in reducing impacts in all criteria
(Fig. 2c): in every year two of the criteria were improved
and the third remained constant. Overall, W fell from
annual level 2.8 to 1.6, M from 2.6 to 1.5 and P from
5.4 to 4.2.
3. Maximum demand and production for reduction of
environmental impacts
A rate policy is robust (improves criteria 1–3) within the
following range of allowed values in consumption Cf, pro-
duction, Pe, or Fnet flows:
q2 guarantees reduction of wastes if demand in year 2,
Cf2, satisfies
C f 2 < ð1  q1ÞC f 1=ð1  q2Þ ð6Þ
q2 guarantees reduction of virgin materials if Fnet2 satisfies
F net 2 > F net 1 þ ð1  q2ÞC f 2  ð1  q1ÞC f 1 ð7Þ
q2 guarantees reduction of manufacturing impacts if Pe2
satisfies
P e 2 < P e 1 þ ðq=p  1Þ½ð1  q1ÞC f 1  ð1  q2ÞC f 2
þ F net 2  F net 1 ð8Þ
Application. Plastic packaging (RU = 0). The 1995–1998
survey (YPEHODE, 2001) recorded consumption rising
from 177,000 to 235,000 tonnes/year, production rising
from 130,000 to 173,000 tonnes/year, net imports increas-
ing from 38,000 to 51,000 tonnes/year and recycling rang-
ing from 2.7% to 3.4%, while OP = OM = Re = 0, i.e.,
Inet = Fnet. Recent reports (FDIE Athens, 2006) show that
 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12 9

Cf x 10 demand increased at an annual pace of 4.3% from 1995 to

5 Inet 2005, while recycling remained at 3%. The new 2008 target
Re
4 Pe rate according to Directive EC04/12 is q2 = 0.225. Up to
which level of consumption, net imports and production,
3
does this guarantee that impacts in 2008 will not increase
2 compared to 2005?
1
Based on the recorded data, Cf2005 = 270,000 tonnes/
year. Application of (6) gives the maximum value
0 of demand for 2008: Cf2008 = 0.97/0.775 · 270,000 =
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
337,510 tonnes/year. Application of (7) with Cf2008 as
Year
found from (6), gives Inet2008 > Inet2005. Application of
1 (8) for energy consumption (p/q = 0.6) gives (Pe2008 
Pe2005) < 2/3(Inet2008  Inet2005). It follows that the new
0.95
EC Directive minimum rate q = 22.5% by year 2008 for
0.9 plastic packaging, if achieved, will guarantee no increase
0.85 in wastes, virgin materials and energy consumption, if
packaging demand level does not exceed 337,510 tonnes/
0.8
year, if imports do not fall below the 2005 level and if pro-
0.75 duction increase does not exceed 2/3 of the increase in
0.7
imports.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
year 3.1. Impact of new technology

W Intuitively, with cleaner production and reprocessing

6
M
technology, environmental impacts per reprocessed tonne
5
of recovered material are lower. If demand rises the
additional reuse/recycle effort to maintain performance
4 in criterion 3 is lower. This is included in policy (5) as
3
follows: cleaner technology lowers reprocessing emissions
per tonne, i.e., p becomes lower and from Eq. (3) n is
2 lower. Consequently, if consumption, Cf, is growing
1 (k > 0) and also production is rising, then k + r + n is
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 not as large and q is required to increase by a smaller
Year amount in order to maintain manufacturing emissions
at the same level. The long-term effect is that the overall
Fig. 2. Implementation of policy (5) (b) in a reused/recycled system environmental impact reduction is more moderate. The
reduces wastes, virgin material demand and manufacturing impacts (c)
despite variations in demand, imports–exports and production (a). The
opposite is true if q is reduced (cleaner manufacturing
rate policy is relaxed in years of economic slowdown (years 7, 8, 9 and 14, technologies using virgin materials) or if the ratio p/q
15, 16). increases.

Table 6
Simulation of the reused/recycled system in Example 3
t M a b U Cf C RU R W ru q r
(a) State S1, a = 1
1 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.75 1.00 2.25 0.40 0.10 0.82 0.96 0.80
2a 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.50 5.00 1.50 4.00 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.88 0.40
3 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.50 5.00 1.50 4.00 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.88 0.40
4 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.50 5.00 1.50 4.00 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.88 0.40

t M a b U Cf C RU R ru r k DPe n q2 Eq. (5) W DW

(b) State S2, a = 1.11. Adjusting q2 = 0.92 to avoid increase of SO2 emissions due to higher production (q/p = 2)
1 1.11 1.11 0.50 0.61 3.25 1.11 2.75 0.40 0.85 0.80 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.97 0.10 0.11
2a 0.71 1.11 1.11 0.61 6.00 1.72 4.89 0.62 0.81 0.56 0.0000 0.00 0.0185 0.92 0.49 0.11
3 0.49 1.11 1.11 0.61 6.00 1.72 4.89 0.62 0.81 0.56 0.0000 0.00 0.0185 0.92 0.49 0.11
4 0.49 1.11 1.11 0.61 6.00 1,72 4.89 0.62 0.81 0.56 0.0000 0.00 0.0185 0.92 0.49 0.11
N = 8, T = 1, Re = OP = OM = Inet = 0 (r = 0).
10 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12

Example 3. The reuse/recycle system of Table 6 at steady icy would be appropriate in order to reduce impacts. The
state S1 satisfies the consumption level of 5 with: new Directive 04/12 dictates that by December 31, 2008
OM = Re = Inet = OP = 0, N = 8,T = 1, M = Pe = a = 1, glass packaging waste recycling should by at least 60%
R + W = b = 0.5 for year t = 1, and R + W = b = 1 for (r P 0.60). Since 2006 production is zero, then Rp = 0,
years t > 1. Impact factors are q = 2,p = 1. M = 0, OM = 0. The reuse/recycle rate is found as
Suppose now that the same system must satisfy a higher
consumer demand Cf = 6. From the model in Appendix 1 qglass ¼ ðRUb þ RUr þ RUw þ RÞ=ðRUb þ RUr þ RUw
(Eq. (A.10)), the new demand is fulfilled if the production þ R þ W Þ ¼ 1  W =C f ð9Þ
level is 1.11. Policy (5) is determined as follows:
Table 7a gives the 1995–1998 and 2005, 2006 data. The val-
q1 = 0.88, k = (0.12 · 1)/6 = 0.020, Fnet1 = Fnet2, i.e.,
ues of p and q, namely, pSO2 = 2652 gr/ton glass packaging
r = 0, n = [1/9]/[(2  1) · 6] = 0.019. Then m = k + n =
and qSO2 = 3627 gr/ton glass packaging, are taken from
0.039 > 0 and q2 = 0.92 ensures that manufacturing
White et al. (1995). Wastes (W) have increased in 1996,
impacts remain the same, while wastes and virgin raw
1997, 1998 and remained at around 125,000 ton/year in
material extraction decrease (Table 6b). If cleaner repro-
2005–2006. The annual change in emissions (Eq. (A.14)
cessing technology is used and p drops to 0.4, then
in Appendix 2) is found to be DPSO2 1995–1996 =
n = 0.4 · [1/9]/[(2  0.4) · 6] = 0.0046 and q2 = q1 + m =
 3627 kg/year, DPSO2 1996–1997 =  14,508 kg/year (SO2
q1 + k + n = 0.90, which is less than q2 = 0.92 (lower recy-
emissions dropping in 1995–1997) and DPSO 21,99798 =
cling and reuse effort), but manufacturing impacts are still
3627 kg/year (SO2 emissions increasing in 1998) leading
maintained at the same level, while wastes and virgin mate-
to a total drop in emissions of 14,508 kg SO2 from 1995
rial extraction decrease.
to 1998. For 2006 a significant decrease (195,700 ton) in
SO2 emissions is in order.
3.2. Case study: glass packaging in Greece, 1995–2006
Table 7b gives k, r, nSO2, m and policy (5) which would
have achieved no increase in wastes: qnext year =
The principal reuse/recycle product is the 500 ml beer
qcurrent year + m, m = k for all years (case 2, Table 5 for
bottle (subscript b), covering almost 60% of glass packaging
years 1996 and 1997, and case 3b, Table 5 for year 1998).
consumption by reuse. Refreshment bottles (subscript r)
Policy (5) which is to keep q at 0.72 in 1996, increase q
and a portion of wine bottles (subscript w) are also reusable,
from 0.72 in 1996 to 0.74 in 1997, 0.76 in 1998 and 0.78
covering 5% and 3% of consumption, respectively. The rest
in 2005, 2006, would have stabilized wastes at the 1995
are single use recyclable glass. Net imports, Inet, and
level (100,000 tonnes) and prevented a 25% increase in
demand, Cf, are increasing; 1998 shows a strong increase
landfill space requirements. Table 7b presents the value
in net trade inflow due to a jump in filled imports (mainly
of the recycling rate, which corresponds to policy (5) and
alcoholic beverages), a trend which continued during subse-
the actual reuse: r should have increased to 26% in 1996,
quent years as well. Recent data (YOULA, 2006) show that
28% in 1997, 37% in 1998 and 42% in 2005– 2006. All recov-
demand remained steady at around 450,000 tonnes/year
ered glass packaging waste in 2006 (72,000 tonnes) must be
during the last 3 years, while recycling increased to
exported. This shows that, with consumption at around
46,000 tonnes/year, with 37,000 ton attributed to recycling
450,000 tonnes/year and reuse at around 280,000 ton/year,
by the refillers and 9000 tonnes to consumer recycled waste.
the EC04/12 Directive imposed rate of 60% recycling by
Reuse increased to 278,340 tonnes/year, due mainly to an
2008 may be unnecessarily high. This case study outlines
increase in the return of empty (0.5 l) beer bottles. Produc-
the theoretical potential of policy (5) and presents the cur-
tion fell by 25% in the last 5 years and it will be zero in 2006,
rent trend: economic reasons force EU firms to substitute
since the last remaining glass packaging manufacturer/recy-
glass packaging production by imports (and cut jobs), thus
cler (YOULA S.A.) has moved production to a new plant in
reducing virgin material demand and production impacts.
Bulgaria, with 50% lower manufacturing costs. Then
To reduce wastes, they need to maintain reuse/refilling at
Pe2005 = 65,000 ton and Pe2006 = 0, while imports are
high levels (as given by policy (5)), while the rising recovered
increasing by the same amount. (The decision to close the
glass packaging waste should be exported.
local glass facility in Elefsis, Attica, where 180 workers were
employed, was expedited by the recent 82% rise in natural
gas price and the more than 200 cuts in power supply in 4. Discussion
2005. In fact, glass factories in Switzerland, Austria, Den-
mark and Sweden have subdued to the pressure of low price Policy (5) is not the optimal policy in minimizing the
imports from Turkey and China. The remaining two glass total social cost (Turner et al., 1994), i.e., low waste quan-
facilities in Britain were closed in 2003, while the two tities, virgin materials or released pollutants at the lowest
remaining glass factories in France are to relocate produc- possible cost. However, the optimal policy is unknown; it
tion to the United Arab Emirates and China by 2007.) varies with the advent of technology, local conditions, eco-
The question addressed is how environmental impacts W, nomic conditions, pollution level and receptors. In addi-
M, and P have evolved during 1995–2005, how they have tion, the time lag between data acquisition and
been affected by these drastic changes and what type of pol- implementation usually renders obsolete the optimal value
 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12 11

by the time it is implemented. Policy (5) is an easily deter-

6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
0
OM

was applied
mined and implemented suboptimal policy requiring higher

Re if (5)
reuse/recycling effort during economic expansion and

0
0
0
0
12,539
71,789
OP

0 lower reuse/recycling effort during economic contraction.

0
0
0
0
0
To achieve the maximum impact reduction with the lowest

(b) Flexible policy (5) and corresponding recycling (R, r) which would have achieved non-increase or reduction of annual wastes, virgin materials and SO2 emissions for glass packaging
0
0
0
0
10,000
46,000
effort (and cost to the consumer), it is possible to target

(R + W)
Re

specific products by policy (5): from relation (A.15) in

r = R/

0.254
0.264
0.276
0.374
0.418
0.418
Appendix 3, the highest waste reduction in any material
0.6217
0.6186
0.6388
0.6185
0.6185
0.6185
(glass, aluminum, ferrous, paper, plastics) is achieved by
ru

R for policy increasing the rate q of the product featuring the lowest
(5) if RU q and relatively high consumption. For example, in the
as in (a)
0.254
0.250
0.247
0.213
0.268
0.268

local glass packaging market, this is the one-trip wine bot-

34,000
35,911
38,027
59,544
71,789
71,789
r

tle of 0.75 l (YPEHODE, 2001) qglass wine bottle = 0.17 and

Cf glass wine bottle/Cf glass = 0.12. Similarly (relation (A.16)
0.718
0.714
0.728
0.700
0.721
0.721

in Appendix 3) the most effective way to enhance environ-

D SO2 if (5)
was applied
q

mental performance of total packaging is to increase

5490

173,043
16,571
17,352
78,601
3627

3627

195,711
14,508

80,837

qplastics (plastics in the local market: qplastics < 5% and

Cf plastics/Cf total = 25%).
DSO2

was applied

5. Conclusions
51,000
50,000
46,000
47,000
13,250
0

M if (5)

51,000
48,089
41,973
21,456
0
0
M

Economic cycles are associated with variations in con-

sumer spending, industrial product orders, production level
101,778
103,894
125,411
125,656
125,656
99,867

and imports–exports. Reducing waste levels, virgin mate-

W if policy (5)

rial extraction and manufacturing impacts are the goals

W

was applied

of environmental policies. Arbitrary recycling or reuse

34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
46,000
46,000

rates may lead to increased impacts, while a fixed rate

99,867
99,867
99,867
99,867
99,867
99,867

appropriate for a rising economy may be expensive for

R

the consumer during economic slowdown. A rate policy

220,000
220,228
243,852
258,488
278,344
278,344

is more successful if it is adjusted based on economic, trade

(Eq. (5)) q

and reprocessing technology characteristics to compensate

RU

Flexible
policy

0.718
0.719
0.738
0.761
0.778
0.778

for changes in product demand, imports–exports, produc-

tion volumes and technology. The proposed flexible policy,
2911
6116
20,517
33,995
13,250
DFnet

in terms of an annually modified reuse/recycle rate, reduces

0.0017
0.0189
0.0226
0.0170
0.0000

impacts without excessive effort by following economic

trends. It is determined using past and current annual data
m
112,406
125,656
48,867
51,778
57,894
78,411

of overall consumption, production, import/exports of

Fnet

filled and empty packaging and pollution factors from

k+r+n

0.0141
0.0256
0.0200
0.1621
0.3944

manufacturing using virgin or recovered materials. Higher

1000
4000
1000
2150
65,250

environmental gains can be realized at lower cost by adopt-

DPe

ing cleaner recycling technology and by applying the flexi-

ble policy to packaging featuring low reuse recycle rates
0.0065
0.0029
0.0265
0.0306
0.0000
k+r

and relatively high consumption.

91,000
90,000
86,000
87,000
65,250
0
Pe

Appendix 1.
0.0076
0.0285
0.0065
0.1315
0.3944
25,348
38,876
32,101
7939

nSO2
DCf
Glass packaging, Greece 1995–2006

Reused/recycled packaging model (Tsiliyannis, 2005a)

Input to reuse loop
373,867
381,806
407,154
446,030
450,000
450,000
(a) Actual flows (ton/year)

0.0082
0.0160
0.0491
0.0477
0.0000

¼ at ¼ P e;t þ I e;t  Ee;t þ I f;t  Ef;t ¼ P e;t þ I net;t ðA:1Þ

Cf

Output from the reuse loop ¼ bt ¼ Rt þ W t ðA:2Þ

r
106,406
171,656
42,867
45,778
51,894
72,411

Recycle loop feedback : Rpt ¼ Rt  OPt  Ret ðA:3Þ

1996 0.0017
1997 0.0189
1998 0.0226
2005 0.0170
2006 0.0000
Inet

Recycle loop feed : OMt þ M t ¼ P e;t  Rpt ðA:4Þ

k

Accumulation : U tþ1 ¼ U t þ atþ1  btþ1 ; all t; U 0 is known

Table 7

Glass

1995
1996
1997
1998
2005
2006

ðA:5Þ
12 C.A. Tsiliyannis / Waste Management 27 (2007) 3–12
Overall consumption : C f;t ¼ ft U t1 þ 1=2ðft þ 1Þat
 1=2ðft  1Þbt
Reuse : RUt ¼ ft U t1 þ 1=2ðft þ 1Þðat  bt Þ ¼ C f;t  bt
Following a step change in the input at = Pe,t + Inet,t from
zero to level a, the steady state flows are given by
b¼a
U ¼ Ta  B
C f ¼ fU þ a ¼ RU þ a
where B is the total loss from the reuse loop in the transient
period, i.e., B = b1 + b2 +    + bT1 + bT.
Appendix 2
Proof of conditions (a) and (b) in Section 2.4.1:
(a)-(i) From Eq. (1)
DW t ¼ W 2  W 1 ¼ ð1  q2ÞC f 2  ð1  q1ÞC f 1
or DWt = Cf2  q2Cf2  Cf1 + q1Cf1 + q1Cf2  q1Cf2 or
DW t ¼ ðC f 2  C f 1Þð1  q1Þ þ ðC f 2  C f 1Þðq1  q2Þ
¼ ð1  q1ÞðC f 2  C f 1Þ  C f ðq2  q1Þ
or if k = (1  q1)DCf/Cf2
DW ¼ ðk  DqÞC f 2
Then DW 6 0 is equivalent to Dq P k.
(b)-(i) From Fig. 1 the overall steady state balance gives,
M = W + Re + OP  Inet  OM, from which it follows
that DM = DW + D(Re + OP  Inet  OM) = DW  DFnet
or
DM ¼ ðk þ r  DqÞC f 2
Clearly, DM 6 0 is equivalent to Dq P k + r.
(ii) For criterion 3 the difference in environmental
impacts from production is (Tsiliyannis, 2005b)
P2  P1 ¼ DP ¼ pDðRp þ OMÞ þ qDM
¼ pDP e þ ðq  pÞDM
It follows that improvement is achieved (DP < 0) if and
only if, pD(Rp + OM) + qDM < 0, or substituting DM
from (A.13) and dividing both sides of the inequality
by (the positive quantity) q Cf2, if and only if
DP/[qCf2] = p(DRp + DOM)/[qCf2] + (k + r  Dq) < 0 or
Dq > n + k + r, where in the general case (q > p) n is given
ðA:6Þ by Eq. (3a). If p = q then n = DPe/Cf2 and if p > q then
n = pDPe/(p  q)Cf2.
(iii) If q2 P q1 + max{k, k + r, k + r + n}, then (a), (b)-
ðA:7Þ
(i) and (b)-(ii) are simultaneously satisfied and the result
follows. h.
Appendix 3.
ðA:8Þ
ðA:9Þ The following relations may be easily shown from the
ðA:10Þ definitions of qmaterial and qpackaging (see nomenclature).
For the overall material, the reuse/recycle rate q satisfies
X
k
min qi 6 qmaterial 6 max qi 6 qi ðA:15Þ
i¼1;...;k i¼1;...;k
i¼1
where i denotes the various forms of a packaging material.
Similarly for the whole packaging, if j denotes the various
packaging materials, the reuse/recycle rate qpackaging
satisfies
ðA:11Þ X
min qj 6 qpackaging 6 max qj 6 qj ðA:16Þ
j j
j¼1
References
EC, 2004. European Commission, Directive 2004/12 modifying EC 94/62
on packaging and packaging wastes.
ðA:12Þ FDIE Athens, 2006. 19th Food and Drink International Exhibition,
Packaging and the Food and Drink Market. Available from:
<www.naftemporiki.gr>. (February 2006, Special Edition).
Tsiliyannis, C., 2005a. Dynamic modeling of packaging material flow
systems. Waste Management and Research 23, 155–166.
Tsiliyannis, C., 2005b. A new rate index for environmental monitoring of
combined reuse/recycle packaging systems. Waste Management and
Research 23, 304–313.
ðA:13Þ Turner, K., Pearce, D., Bateman, I., 1994. Environmental Economics.
Harvester.
USEPA, 1999. 1960–2001 MSW Generation, Measuring Recycling: A
Guide for State and Local Governments (EPA 530-R-97-011), and
USEPA National Source Resuction Characterization Report for MSW
in the US, EPA 530-R-99-034, November 1999.
USEPA, 2003. MSW in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures.
October 2003.
ðA:14Þ
White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 1995. Integrated Solid Waste
Management: A Lifetime Inventory. Blackie, Glaskow.
YOULA, S.A., 2006. www.tovima.gr (February 26, 2006).
YPEHODE, 2001. Packaging materials in Greece. Study commissioned by
the Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works (YPEH-
ODE), Final Report, December 2001, Publicly available since January
2002.