Resources, Conservation and Recycling

35 (2002) 17–29 www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

An approach to the formal theory of waste

management
Veikko J. Pohjola *, Eva Pongrácz
Chemical Process Engineering Laboratory, Department of Process and En6ironmental Engineering,
Uni6ersity of Oulu, PO Box 4300, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland

Abstract

A solid foundation for a formal theory of waste management is offered in terms of

consistent building blocks: language, conceptual schemes, models, and sentence systems. The
language used to formulate the theory is the PSSP language, which is a formal modeling
language having certain unique features stemming from the ontology behind the language.
Via conceptual schemes, which are explications of domain concepts translated to the PSSP
language, the language is enriched to cover domain terms and to become the theory-language
of waste management. The models have functionality, which makes it possible to simulate
waste management. The functionality is implemented as mutual communication of objects
representing reality, i.e. activities and things acted on. The models are transparent dynamic
object hierarchies capable of providing a holistic view of waste management, providing
consistent explanation of all waste related concepts and offering a formal methodology of
waste management. The plausibility test requires more sentence systems, i.e. propositions
with empirical reference to waste management, to be included. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.

Keywords: Waste management; Formal theory; Concept system; Modeling language; Object formalism

1. Introduction

New scientific specialities may emerge by the scientification of human arts and
technologies. This follows a general pattern. An activity requiring specific skills
becomes a craft or profession. The skill is transmitted from masters to novices, but

* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 358-8-553-2357; fax: + 358-8-553-2304.

E-mail address: veikko.pohjola@oulu.fi (V.J. Pohjola).

0921-3449/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 3 4 4 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 1 6 - 1
18 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29

there will also be an attempt to formulate its content and rules of thumb and to
collect them into practical guidebooks. Such collections of rules may be based upon
everyday experience or pseudoscientific, magical and religious doctrines. A new
science is born, when the effectiveness of such rules is tested by scientific methods
and explained by scientific theories (Niiniluoto, 1995).
Theory is a group of propositions that are used to explain phenomena, or give a
concise view of a subject, and the system of these propositions, in which there’s a
scheme of relations between these parts. Formally, a scientific theory may be
considered as a set of sentences expressed in terms of a specific vocabulary. Theory
will always be thought of as formulated within a linguistic framework of a clear
specified logical structure, which determines, in particular, the rules of deductive
inference (Hempel, 1965).
Currently there is no conceptual framework that can be called the theory of
waste management. Obviously, the first questions to pose are: can there be any
theory of waste management and what are the benefits of it? It has been our
experience that many find the idea of a waste management theory disturbing and
are dubious about its justification. Building the theory of waste management is an
effort towards scientification of waste management. The primary aim of the theory
of waste management is to provide a holistic view of waste management, provide
explanation (definitions) of all waste related concepts and offer a formal conceptual
model (methodology) of waste management. Thus conceptualization and formaliza-
tion have a central role in theory building, and a proper modeling language
becomes the necessary prerequisite. If there is a language in which the primary aim
becomes achievable, then the theory of waste management is possible.
The general benefits of a theory of waste management would be those which are
the benefits of theories in general (quoting Ludwig Boltzmann: ‘Of all thinkable
matters the most practical is theory’). The insight that a theory gives us is much
deeper than what is afforded by empirical laws; and it is widely held, therefore, that
a scientifically adequate explanation of a class of empirical phenomena can be
achieved only by means of an appropriate theory (Hempel, 1966). The theory of
waste management would eliminate domain problems arising from restricted in-
sight, vague concepts and lack of generic models, and lead to better control of
waste related activities in society through sustainable development.
The following list of questions that the theory of waste management needs to
provide answers to, reflects the current conceptually vague status of waste manage-
ment (Pongrácz):
1. What is waste?
2. When does an object become waste?
3. Which objects shall be considered/rated as waste?
4. How can waste be turned into non-waste?
5. What is non-waste?
6. Can every waste be turned into non-waste?
7. Is there such a thing as ultimate waste that can (or will) never be turned into
non-waste?
8. What is waste management?
 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29 19

9. Is landfill a waste management option?

10. How does waste minimization fit into the description of waste management?
The list of the benefits of a theory of waste management would include
1. giving answers to the above questions, thus eliminating vagueness;
2. providing generic methodology of waste management;
3. aiding legislation in how to prescribe waste related activity.
It is our conclusion that the current need and the expected benefits of a theory
of waste management are self-evident. We will discuss the theory of waste manage-
ment in terms of the generic building blocks of theory suggested by Tudor (1982).
The building blocks are language, conceptual schemes, models, and sentence
systems. Their mutual relationship in the layer-cake and onion imageries, originally
presented by Feigl (see Tudor, 1982), is shown schematically in Fig. 1.

2. Language

The way people manipulate reality, i.e. act upon material things and upon other
activities, and the success of this manipulation, depend on the way they conceptual-
ize (describe or prescribe) reality. In other words, it matters what language or
concept system is used. From this perspective, it is only natural that there are also
specific theory-languages in science. Theory-languages share terms with everyday
language, but they use some terms in special ways and add new ones where
appropriate (Tudor, 1982). As pointed out by Tudor, there are theory-languages
not only in natural sciences. For instance, in sociology there is a more or less

Fig. 1. The structure of theory (Tudor, 1982).

20 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29

distinct Marxist language, which makes available certain key terms like class,
surplus-value, alienation, or consciousness. Thus, a theory-language is not indepen-
dent of the larger cultural and linguistic context. Of the building blocks of theory
the language is the most encompassing.
The language we have chosen to use to formulate the theory of waste manage-
ment is the PSSP language, which is a formal modeling language having certain
unique features not to be found in other modeling languages. The distinctive
features stem from the ontology behind the language (Pohjola and Tanskanen,
1998; Pohjola, 1999).
An ontological commitment can be seen as a set of metalevel decisions, which
reflect the modeler’s personal comprehension of what is a fruitful way to view the
world. It does not have a truth value and thus cannot be judged on that basis; what
matters instead is its utility. In fact, every human being commits himself to a certain
concept system when modeling, but usually this is done implicitly and even
unconsciously. When building a theory and, on that basis, the generic model—a
methodology— for how to manipulate reality, the concept system must be made
explicit. The development of the PSSP language is based on the following ontolog-
ical commitments.
(1) The world is made of real things and abstract things: The real things are what
we can build conceptual models for. The abstract things are what we use to specify
properties of real things. All the real things can be viewed as descendants of the
generic real thing.
The notion of the generic real thing is the cornerstone of the PSSP language. It
entails that all the real things can be modeled using a unified format, which is
inherited from the generic real thing. Representation of real things thus forms a
tree-like inheritance hierarchy. Notable here is that human activity is viewed as a
real thing to be represented in the same inheritance hierarchy as the things to be
acted on.
(2) The generic real thing can be formalized as an object ha6ing four attributes:
purpose, structure, state, and performance. (The acronym PSSP comes from the
initials of the four attributes.) The four attributes form a necessary and sufficient
set for describing all the properties of any real thing.
The commitment to object formalism leads to a natural and powerful way of
describing reality. If the real things are classified into artifacts and natural things,
the attributes purpose and performance may sound redundant. However, it is
possible for a natural thing to turn into an artifact and vice versa. The belonging
of a real thing to either subclass can then be decided on the basis of whether it is
possible to assign a value other than ‘unspecified’ to these attributes. For instance,
a human being as a natural animate thing can be assigned a purpose and a
performance in an organization as soon as he/she is subjected to education and
utilization by that organization. Also it has been possible, by referring to purpose
and performance, to arrive at a successful generic definition of waste (Pongracz and
Pohjola, 1997).
(3) The structure of a real thing has two dimensions: the topological structure and
the unit structure. The topology of a real thing can be modeled as a set of objects
 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29 21

Fig. 2. Syntax of the PSSP language (Extended BNF).

(nodes) belonging to the same class as the original object and a set of relationships
(links) between the nodes. The unit structure of a real thing can be modeled as a set
of objects (parts) belonging to classes other than the original object class and a set
of relationships (links) between the parts.
Structure has a specific role among the attributes. The structure of a real thing
becomes specified in terms of other real things instead of abstract things. The
attribute offers for the concept hierarchy two directions to expand. Describing
structure in the two dimensions can be argued to make it possible to describe the
structure of any real thing with any degree of detail no matter how complex the
structure may be. Representation in the two dimensions is rich enough for modeling
structures at any level of detail. The links in the two structural dimensions are
expressions, which are usually in the form of relation models and represent the
functionality of the real thing as temporal, spatial, and causal relationships between
states (state variables) of the structural sub-objects.
The highly unified format makes the PSSP language a powerful object-oriented
modeling tool. It combines a syntactical simplicity and semantic clarity with
representational richness. It is not domain specific and is thus ideally suited to
integration of knowledge from different disciplines. The syntax of the domain
independent top layer of the PSSP language is given in Fig. 2 in extended
Backus-Naur form. Note that the term ‘object’ is reserved to denote the formal
object-oriented representation of a thing.

3. Conceptual schemes

The introduction of a new scientific theory normally extends the language of

science in a manner that is not purely definitional (Hempel, 1973). A language
22 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29

offers a potential for various uses, which may produce different conceptual
schemes. Examples of this are given by Tudor (1982). The ‘humanistic’ Marxism in
the early writings and the ‘mechanistic’ one in the later work are two conceptual
schemes using the same Marxist language in different ways. A similar potential
would be under the general action theory for employing the basic terms of the
theory in different ways. Language and conceptual schemes are differentiated
mainly to draw attention to the process whereby the basic terms and operators
provided by the language are subject to systematic selection and emphasis.
At the conceptual scheme level of theory the language is extended to cover the
domain of the theory. Because PSSP is a formal language, this can be done by
applying the language syntax mechanically to new real thing sub-classes generated
from verbal explications of domain specific concepts. The most obvious sub-classes
at the upmost level of the real thing hierarchy are those of artificial and natural real
things, on one hand, and those of event type and non-event type of real things, on
the other hand. These two sets of sub-classes are parallel in the sense that both
artificial and natural real things can be either of event or non-event type. For
instance, artificial things include both man-made products (artifacts) and activities
upon such products, and natural real thing may refer, say, either to water or its
evaporation.
Sub-classes are mostly distinguished by the type of specification made in the
unit-structural dimension but also by specifications made under other attributes.
Natural things are identified by the fact that they cannot be assigned, by definition,
any purpose other than ‘unspecified’ (or ‘nil’). Thus, they cannot have any
performance either. The borderline between artificial and natural things is of special
interest both for manufacturing and waste management, because natural things can
be converted to artifacts and vice versa.
The conceptual schemes relevant for the theory of waste management are verbal
explications of domain specific concepts, expressed in the theory-language, aiming
to answer questions like those posed above in Section 1. We choose to focus here
on the formalization issue, i.e. on the mechanism how to extend PSSP to the
domain of waste management.
Consider the following verbal explication given in an earlier paper (Pohjola and
Pongrácz, 1999):
Waste management should be understood as a system composed of (1) physical
things, (2) human activities, and (3) links between and within (1) and (2). In such
a system the physical things would refer to waste related materials and processing
devices (like manufacturing, agricultural, and household equipment), while the
human activities would include any activities which are affected by, and which have
an effect on, these physical things. The system will be called waste management
system (WMS).
The explication turns to a conceptual scheme expressed in PSSP, when an
instance of WMS, say ‘The WMS’, is substituted for ‘thing’ on the left-hand side of
the first line of the syntax in Fig. 2. The scheme is obtained on the right-hand side
and looks, when none of the attributes are specified, as shown in Fig. 3.
 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29 23

Fig. 3. Conceptual scheme of waste management system (WMS) in the PSSP language.

Here WMS and Real Thing are the names of the WMS class and the generic real
thing class, respectively. The scheme can be refined at the WMS class level by
substituting appropriate domain specific physical things and human activities for
‘parts’, and their mutual relationships for ‘links’, on the left-hand side in Fig. 2. Let
the instances be named ‘The refuse’ and ‘The waste collection’. Then, for instance,
‘parts’ in the above scheme will first be refined to ‘part and part’ and then to the
partial scheme is shown in Fig. 4.
The links between the parts (the activity and the thing acted on) specify the
functionality of the WMS. They are, besides the ownership relation, causal relation-
ships between state variables of the parts. The ownership relation forms when the
purpose of the activity is specified. This assignment is often made by an agent at the
management level (including self-management). The specification can be viewed as
a transfer of the right to the agent behind the waste collection activity to
manipulate refuse in the named location (‘The litter box’), like to move it to the
dumping site. The scheme has been refined in Fig. 4 to include the ownership
relation by specifying the purpose of the activity named ‘The waste collection’ as
the verbal expression: to collect the refuse in ‘The litter box’.
The further on one advances in refining the scheme, the less generic the
specifications turn. If continued, the next step in refining the scheme would be
specifying the causal relationships between ‘The waste collection’ and ‘The refuse’.
That would imply specification of their parts for defining their state variables.
Obvious state variables of the refuse are its quantity and location, because their

Fig. 4. The partial conceptual scheme to be substituted for ‘parts’ in Fig. 3.

24 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29

values are what influence the state (rate) of the collection activity. The scheme has
been refined in Fig. 4 to include the ownership relation by specifying the purpose
of the activity named ‘The waste collection’ as the verbal expression: to collect the
refuse in ‘The litter box’.
The further on one advances in refining the scheme, the less generic the
specifications turn. If continued, the next step in refining the scheme would be
specifying the causal relationships between ‘The waste collection’ and ‘The refuse’.
That would imply specification of their parts for defining their state variables.
Obvious state variables of the refuse are its quantity and location, because their
values are what influence the state (rate) of the collection activity. The scheme
shown in Fig. 4 emphasizes the collection feature of the WMS but ignores, for
instance, the rate of refuse production and the issue why the product did turn to
waste and lost its original purpose for its original owner. Other schemes could be
built to emphasize the latter issues.

4. Models

The conceptual schemes are representations of reality and in that sense can be
regarded as models. For instance the scheme is in Fig. 4, when refined further, is
capable of describing the WMS at any level of detail. On the other hand, the
schemes themselves are pieces of reality as well, whose properties like structure and
functionality can be observed and specified in the corresponding metamodel. When
viewed from that perspective (metalevel), conceptual schemes do not usually have
the functionality and the performance required from a model to be useful in
simulating reality. This is simply because they are not usually built for that purpose.
As Tudor puts it (Tudor, 1982), the relations between models and the two ‘higher’
levels are not deductive in form. A model is created within a language and
conceptual scheme, but is not deduced from them. It is an imaginative construction
expressed within a particular framework.
Functionality is embedded in the structure of a thing. The structure is the set of
building blocks and their mutual relationships. Functionality arises from these
relationships. The structure of a PSSP model is a hierarchy of mutually communi-
cating objects. The objects are entities having the four attributes (purpose, struc-
ture, state and performance). Communication is information exchange between
objects. Objects are equipped with functionality of making the specifications under
their attributes accessible for monitoring and manipulation. The nature of this
functionality depends on how the objects are implemented. When implemented on
a computer, part of this functionality can be made automatic by providing objects
with proper methods. The rest of the inter-object communication has to be taken
care of by the user of the software.
What ultimately makes a PSSP model useful in simulating reality is the domain
knowledge in the form of causalities in possession of the objects or the model users.
This is knowledge about how the current status of one object depends on the
current status of another object. Consider the WMS scheme in Figs. 3 and 4. A
 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29 25

Fig. 5. Decomposition of WMS object into activity and target.

PSSP model built on the basis of the scheme is, at the most general level, an object
decomposing first to two mutually communicating sub-objects, Activity and Target,
as depicted in Fig. 5. The activity object knows about the current values of the four
attributes of the target object and is capable of sending messages to update these.
This representation can be used as a starting point for building a generic model for
waste management.
It has been shown that the generic activity upon target disaggregates into two
sub-activities: (1) the generic management activity communicating mainly with the
base level activity and with metalevel descriptions or prescriptions of the target, and
(2) the generic base level activity manipulating the target and/or its model directly.
In the context of design, this representational construct has been called the ‘design
cycle’ (Pohjola, 1999). In the WMS case the base level activity disaggregates further
into the refuse producing and refuse collecting activities. Applying the generic
model to the WMS case the simple model refines to what is depicted in Fig. 6.
Because the notation used in Fig. 5 becomes cumbersome when the model is
detailed, the simple graphical object notation developed for PSSP models has been
adopted. In this notation event, non-event, and composite types are distinguished
by shape, and decomposition and disaggregation denoted by nesting (Bogdanoff et
al., 2000).
The function of the model in Fig. 6 as a simulator of a WMS can be described
verbally as follows (with sub-models in parentheses and italics). Consider first
(RefuseProduction manipulating Product), i.e. RefuseProduction manipulating spe-
cifications under attributes of Product. This sub-model may simulate activities upon
things, like reading a newspaper or emptying a milk package, which modify some
properties of the things such that the agents behind the activities ultimately want to
get rid of these things. Getting rid of a thing within a waste management system
may take place by moving the thing (newsprint, empty package) to a litter box. This
is simulated by (RefuseProduction manipulating Product and Refuse), i.e. RefusePro-
duction manipulating the quantity of material in InteriorMaterial, which is a
sub-object of both Product and Refuse. The manager of the WMS is informed of
26 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29

Fig. 6. Simple object model of waste management system. Shift of focus from collection to production
denoted by the dashed arrow.

both the quantity of refuse and the status of refuse collection activity. On the basis
of that information the manager controls or coordinates the refuse collection by
specifying sub-tasks and by feeding goals and resources to it. The WMS manage-
ment activities are simulated by the sub-model ((Management monitoring Refuse)
and (Management monitoring and manipulating RefuseCollection)). The sub-model
(RefuseCollection manipulating Refuse and Waste) simulates collecting material from
the litter box and transporting it further.
The WMS modeled is simple but complex enough to demonstrate that the
proposed modeling approach is capable of representing waste management in a
concise manner. The core of the model is the ‘design cycle’ made of Management,
RefuseCollection and Refuse. Due to object formalism, PSSP models can be easily
extended to include new features to end up with a truly holistic model of waste
management. For instance, the WMS model could be easily extended to include
recycling.

5. Sentence systems

Sentence systems, as the outmost building block of theory, is the layer, which
forms the interface between theory and reality. Demonstrated consistency with the
accepted sentence systems of a science is what is used to test the plausibility of
theories. According to Tudor (1982), sentence systems are interrelated sets of
statements, some of which may be discretely intelligible statements as to what is the
case (low-level empirical generalizations), while others, because of the terms in
which they are expressed, might not be amenable to such conceptual isolation. The
form, in which the statements of a sentence system are interrelated may be, but is
not exclusively deductive. With all layers of the theory-cake it is ‘consistency’,
which best describes the pattern of interrelation, both between and within elements.
 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29 27

Sentence systems, as interrelated sets of propositions with empirical reference to

waste management, include all domain knowledge, which is generally accepted in
the field and have sufficient consistency and rigor to be a part of the theory.
Consider the following set of propositions as a representative of a sentence system
of the theory of waste management (Pongrácz):
1. Sustainable waste management depends greatly upon how waste is defined.
2. Waste is a human concept, thus it cannot be defined without reference to
humans.
3. Ownership over a thing is having the right and responsibility to act upon the
thing, that is, to manipulate the properties of the thing.
4. Waste can be represented as a thing without a purpose and/or without an
owner.
5. The role of waste management is to give a new purpose and/or owner to waste.
6. In a sustainable manufacturing process, no output is without a specified purpose
and every product is produced for an owner.
7. Consumer awareness can be enhanced by educating consumers to be responsible
as owners.
It is clear that each of the other layers—language, conceptual schemes, and
models — support these statements. Take, for instance, the first statement. It is
already the ontology behind the PSSP language, which has made it possible to
redefine waste in a way to open new opportunities for waste management (Pongrácz
and Pohjola, 1999a). The same applies to integrating human activities to the things
to be acted on (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999b). The models become transparent
object hierarchies, which enhance communication, awareness, and responsibility. It
is clear, though, that many more sentence systems need to be included before a
plausible theory of waste management is completed.

6. Discussion

This paper takes a decisive step towards scientification of waste management. As

the starting point, the need and the benefits of the step were taken as granted and
the endeavor itself was not questioned. The focus is on proposing a consistent
foundation for a formal waste management theory in terms of the building blocks:
language, conceptual schemes, models, and sentence systems. The proposition of
using the PSSP language is the most crucial one. The PSSP language is a domain
independent formal construct built upon an all-encompassing ontology. In fact, the
language could be used as a building block of any theory. Via conceptual schemes,
which are explications of domain concepts translated to the PSSP language, the
language is enriched to cover domain terms and to become the theory-language of
waste management. The models have functionality, satisfying the requirements
posed at the metalevel, which makes it possible to simulate waste management. The
functionality is implemented as mutual communication of objects representing
reality, i.e. activities and things acted on. The models are transparent dynamic
object hierarchies capable of exposing a holistic view into waste management,
28 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29

providing consistent explanation of all waste related concepts and offering a formal
methodology of waste management. Thus, a solid foundation for formal theory of
waste management has been offered. The plausibility test, however, requires more
sentence systems, i.e. propositions with empirical reference to waste management,
to be included.
The greatest benefits of formalizing waste management will not be gained in
solving isolated waste management problems but rather when integrating waste
management into larger contexts. The PSSP approach has also been applied to
formalizing process design with an aim to make it safety, health and environment
(SHE) conscious (POEM, Pohjola, 2001). The resulting SHE conscious process
design methodology urges to consider waste management issues already at the
process design phase and turns attention to the waste prevention and minimization
at the generation site (see Fig. 6). This shift of focus can be interpreted to mean that
in the context of process design the greatest practical benefits of formalizing waste
management will be gained in the long run.
Also adaptation into a new way of thinking, implied by a new theory, takes time
and needs support. We need to educate new generations capable of viewing the
world differently. As a local effort in this vein, education of SHE conscious process
design, built on the PSSP approach, will start at the University of Oulu in 2002.

References

Bogdanoff M, Koivisto R, Nurminen J, Pohjola VJ, An innovative object-oriented approach to process

design. Paper Presented at the Third International Conference on Loss Prevention (Safety, Health
and Environment) in the Oil, Chemical and Process Industries. Singapore, Dec 4 – 8, 2000.
Hempel CG. Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York:
The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing, 1965.
Hempel CG. Philosophy of natural science. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
1966.
Hempel CG, The meaning of theoretical terms: a critique of the standard empiricist construal, In:
Suppe P, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for Logic, Methodology
and Philosophy of Science, Bucharest, 1971. Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1973.
Niiniluoto I. The emergence of scientific specialities: six models. In: Poznan studies in the philosophy
of the science and the humanities, vol. 44, 1995:211 – 23.
POEM home page, http://www.vtt.fi/aut/rm/projects/poem/
Pohjola VJ, Unified Representation of Conceptual Design. Paper Presented at the Second International
Workshop on Strategic Knowledge and Concept formation, Appi, Iwate, Japan, Oct 20 – 22, 1999.
Pohjola VJ, Tanskanen J, Phenomenon driven process design methodology: formal representation. In:
CHISA’98 Conference, Aug 23 – 28, 1998, Prague, Czech Republic. CD-ROM of full texts. Czech
Society of Chemical Engineering. Software and Design Magicware Ltd, 1998.
Pohjola VJ, Pongrácz E, Holistic representation of waste management knowledge. In: Proceedings of
the 15th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, Philadelphia,
USA, Dec 12– 15, 1999.
Pohjola VJ. POEM guide book, introduction to SHE conscious process design. Oulu, Finland:
University of Oulu Press, 2001.
Pongracz E, Pohjola VJ, The conceptual model of waste management. Paper presented at the EN-
TREE’97 Conference, Sophia-Antipolis (Nice), France, Nov 12 – 14, 1997. ENTREE’97 Proceed-
ings, UETP-EEE, Helsinki, Finland, 1997, p. 65 – 77.
 V.J. Pohjola, E. Pongrácz / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 35 (2002) 17–29 29

Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ, Object oriented concepts and definitions of waste and their role in legislation.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Solid Waste, Rome, April 7 – 9, 1999a, p. 1 – 9.
Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ, The importance of the concept of ownership in waste management. Proceedings
of the 15th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, Dec 12 – 15,
1999b, Philadelphia, PA.
Pongrácz E, Toward the Theory of Waste Management: Re-defining the Concepts of Waste and Waste
Management. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oulu. Submitted, under review. To be available at:
http://cc.oulu.fi/ pokemwww/theses/.
Tudor A, Beyond empiricism. Philosophy of Science in Sociology. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London,
UK, 1982.