Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27909-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Hierarchy performance assessment of industrial solid waste utilization

— tracking resource recycling and utilization centers in China
Ning Wang1 · Xuexin Chai1 · Zhanqiang Guo2 · Chuanyin Guo1 · Junxia Liu2 · Jian Zhang1

Received: 11 July 2022 / Accepted: 21 May 2023 / Published online: 20 June 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The massive production and accumulation of industrial solid waste (ISW) have led to environmental pollution and natural
resource underutilization. China’s efforts to build trial industrial waste resource utilization centers provide strong support
for sustainable development. However, these centers and the factors driving ISW utilization have yet to be evaluated. This
paper utilizes context-dependent data envelopment analysis models without explicit inputs (DEA-WEI) to evaluate the overall
utilization performance of 48 industrial waste resource utilization centers in China from 2018 to 2020. It also builds a Tobit
model to assess which indicators and waste types affect overall ISW utilization. The results show overall ISW utilization
performance of centers in the sample has improved, with the average value falling from 1.7193 in 2018 to 1.5624 in 2020.
However, there are clear regional performance gaps, with East China having the highest utilization performance (1.3113)
while the Southwest had the lowest (2.2958). Finally, this paper proposes measures to improve the overall utilization of
industrial waste resources based on an analysis of the factors driving solid waste utilization.

Keywords Industrial recycling · Solid waste management · Resource utilization · Performance analysis · Data envelopment
analysis · Tobit model

Introduction to the European Union (EU) Green Deal, GHG emissions

Throughout the world, population growth, economic devel-
opment, rapid urbanization, and rising living standards have
greatly accelerated the depletion of natural resources and
waste generation, and this is especially acute in develop-
ing countries (Liu et al. 2017; Guerrero et al. 2013). The
world generates 2.01 billion tons of municipal solid waste
annually, with highly conservative estimates putting at least
33% of that managed in an environmentally unsafe man-
ner. Global waste is expected to reach 3.40 billion tons by
2050, growing at more than double the rate of population
growth in the same period (World Bank 2019). According
Responsible Editor: Ta Yeong Wu
* Jian Zhang
zhangjian@bistu.edu.cn
1
Beijing Key Lab of Green Development Decision
Making Based On Big Data, Beijing Information Science
and Technology University, Beijing 100192, China
2
China Association of Circular Economy, Beijing 100037,
China
need to be reduced considerably and this should also gen-
erate commensurate economic benefits. For the waste sec-
tor, the goal is to achieve reductions of nearly 40% by 2030
(Pelin and Mehmet 2022). As the world’s second-largest
economy, China became the biggest producer of solid waste
in 2004 due to its unprecedented urbanization, industriali-
zation, and steady improvements in living standards (Chen
et al. 2014). In addition, China became the world’s largest
carbon dioxide emitter in 2014. It is estimated that 1.6 bil-
lion tons of ­CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions was
generated from solid waste treatment and disposal in 2016,
equivalent to 5% of global emissions (World Bank 2019). In
contrast to China, many developed countries like Germany
and Japan have adopted systematic approaches to deal with
solid waste disposal. Likewise, the European Union and the
USA have developed complex and multifaceted solid waste
management systems by combining and coordinating new
technologies, economic approaches, and regulatory institu-
tions (Pires et al. 2011). These practices have led to posi-
tive changes in sustainable development and improved solid
waste management.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340 83331

Researchers use different models in academic studies Table 2  Comprehensive utilization of ISW (unit: million tons)
to predict and evaluate solid waste management efficiency ISW production ISW utilization Utilization rate
(Table 1) and put forward corresponding management meas-
ures and policy opinions based on the results. 2016 3092.10 1840.96 59.5%
These studies used the gray model (GM), two-stage data 2017 3315.92 1811.87 54.6%
envelopment analysis (DEA), ASTM D5231-92, waste 2018 3661.02 1935.82 52.9%
input–output model (IO), and other methods to predict 2019 3867.51 2061.59 53.3%
ISW generation and utilization. They also used correlation 2020 3675.46 2037.98 55.4%
analysis to assess solid waste management from economic Data for 2018 was estimated due to missing data
and climatic perspectives; examined the impact of indus-
trial structure, consumption patterns, export structure, and
technological changes on ISW generation and utilization; ISW utilization is a hot topic in China. Since the 1990s,
and explored the relationship between various industries and China has targeted comprehensive utilization of solid
ISW. However, due to the limited amount of sample data waste in its strategy for environmental protection. As part
available, there is little research on ISW utilization at the of the strategy, solid waste was separated into four major
city/industrial park level, and big data analysis needs to be categories: municipal solid waste, ISW, hazardous waste,
utilized for more in-depth research. and agricultural waste (Zhou et al. 2017). ISW is typi-
Globally, various industrial sectors are major resource cally further divided into general industrial solid waste
consumers and polluters, and the scale and intensity of and hazardous solid waste. Data from China’s National
industrial activity in China is the world’s highest. In 2020, Bureau of Statistics shows that total annual ISW produc-
China’s total ISW production exceeded 3.67 billion tons tion increased from 2409 million tons in 2010 to 3675
(Table 2; NBS (National Bureau of Statistics of China) million tons in 2020, up 52.5% in 10 years. So far, a total
2022). The low utilization rate of solid waste such as alu- of about 60 billion tons has accumulated, covering more
mina red mud, phosphogypsum, and steel slag, means the than two million hectares of land, and posing a significant
total average utilization rate is below 60%, leaving consider- threat to sustainable development. Thus, it is clear the
able room for improvement. comprehensive utilization of ISW is an important step

Table 1  Some research on solid waste management

Reference Research object Sample size Sample period Methodology

Adeniran et al. 2017 Characterizing solid waste gen- Four zones Three weeks American society of testing
eration, University of Lagos, material (ASTM) D5231-92,
Nigeria Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Waste
Sampling Draft Technical Guid-
ance methods
Ugwu et al. 2020 Quantification and characteriza- 52 waste collection points 2017–2018 ASTM D5231-92 method/stand-
tion of municipal solid waste ard
Yang et al. 2016 Analyzing and predicting indus- 24 industrial sectors 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 Regional IO analysis generation
trial solid waste production model
Guan et al. 2019 ISW production and relation- 22 economic sectors 2013 A composite waste input–output
ships among different sectors (WIO) model
Yang et al. 2020 Predicting ISW generation and ISWs in China 2006–2017 Metabolic gray model (MGM)
processing
Rakibul et al. 2022 Yard waste prediction 12 years of waste data 2007–2018 Gray model (GM)
Lema et al. 2019 Assessing the status of solid 413 households 2017 Cross-sectional design
waste management in Asella
Li et al. 2020 Industrial waste processing 30 provincial-level regions 2006–2010 Two-stage DEA with undesirable
treatment and recycling inputs
efficiency
Pathak et al. 2020 Assessing factors impacting 3300 households May 2016 A random sampling technique
waste generation
Guo et al. 2021 Factors affecting solid waste 16 years of data 2004–2019 A structural equation model
management in developing
countries

13
83332
in improving waste resource utilization efficiency and is
necessary for sustainable economic and social develop-
ment (Zhou 2021). Data shows that developing countries
have entered a period of rapid development in solid waste
reuse and recycling (Li et al. 2018). Most notably, the
carbon neutrality target proposed in 2020 puts forward
new requirements for ISW utilization.
Constructing ISW utilization demonstration centers
promotes utilization of ISW. With the continued role out
of ISW utilization centers, it is estimated that by 2030,
the total utilization of ISW in China will exceed 4 billion
tons, which will, directly and indirectly, reduce carbon
emissions by about 970 million tons per year (CACE
2021). Improving the efficiency at ISW utilization centers
will boost economic development and also be good for the
environment. To do this requires optimizing these centers
and developing industries that can utilize ISW, increasing
scientific and technological investment to accelerate utili-
zation, developing and integrating cutting-edge technolo-
gies, and converting scientific and technological break-
throughs into practical solutions. Before all this occurs,
we must first get a clear picture of the current situation,
by calculating and ranking ISW utilization efficiency. In
this way, differences between centers can be compared,
and appropriate targets can be set. However, trial ISW
utilization centers still suffer from low ISW utilization
and low added value. Thus, it is also necessary to evaluate
what factors drive solid waste utilization performance.
In order to track resource utilization at ISW centers
and provide a scientific basis for waste management, this
paper evaluates how each center performs in terms of ISW
resource utilization. It also analyzes what factors influ-
ence performance through the context-dependent DEA
model without explicit inputs (DEA-WEI model) and the
Tobit model. The structure of the paper is as follows:
The “Model” section introduces the DEA-WEI model
and selects output efficiency indicators; the “Results
and discussion” Sect. 3 shows ISW utilization rates and
ranks 48 industrial centers on these rates, analyzes the
factors influencing ISW utilization performance through
the Tobit model, and makes policy recommendations; the
“Conclusion” Sect. 4 summarizes the main conclusions
and findings of this study, and points out the limitations
and possible future research directions.
Model
As the need to research industrial pollution has grown in
recent years, the DEA model has seen increasing use to
evaluate industrial resource utilization.
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
DEA model development
DEA is a non-parametric method based on linear program-
ming that obtains an index of efficiency in order to assess the
performance of decision-making units (DMUs) with multi-
ple inputs and outputs (Sala-Garrido and Molinos-Senante
2020). Each DMU can adopt a weighting to maximize its
performance score in comparison to other units. DEA, intro-
duced by Charnes et al. (1978), and its model structure have
been applied to many different research settings. Standard
DEA models are typically created using the input and output
data of each DMU. However, some datasets lack inputs, or
the original input–output data cannot be easily recovered.
This is the case in this paper, as it is difficult to attain the
input data and statistics for overall ISW utilization, and only
output indicators can be used.
Despite this issue, DEA is still suitable for evaluating the
effectiveness of multiple outputs and inputs in the field of
waste utilization and circular economy. For instance, Fan
et al. (2017) used DEA to evaluate and rank the ecological
efficiency of 40 industrial parks in China in 2012 and find
critical factors influencing eco-efficiency. Al-Refaie et al.
(2016) evaluated the industrial sector’s energy efficiency and
productivity growth from 1999 to 2013 using DEA. Pelin
and Mehmet (2023) optimized the energy costs of ground-
water treatment using DEA. Giannakitsidou et al. (2020)
measure the environmental and circular economy perfor-
mance of 26 EU countries by implementing DEA using the
generated quantity of MSW per capita and the three dimen-
sions of the Social Progress Index as inputs and recycling
or cyclical material use rate as outputs. In addition to tradi-
tional DEA, other methods such as two-stage DEA are also
used in the field of resource evaluation: Shao et al. (2019)
and Wang and Feng (2020) evaluated the eco-efficiency of
China’s industrial sector using a two-stage DEA analysis
model with undesirable inputs to assess the efficiency of
recycling treatment and industrial waste reuse. Storto (2021)
implemented three different DEA-based models to meas-
ure municipal solid waste service productivity from 2010
to 2017.
In addition, Wang et al. (2020) measured the CE effi-
ciency of circular transformation pilot industrial parks
by developing an original DEA-RA model. Zhang et al.
(2020) developed a model using both DEA and inverted-
DEA to enhance the discrimination power of DMUs with
undesirable outputs. Halkos and Petrou (2019) examined
the efficiency of 28 EU member states for 2008, 2010,
2012, and 2014 by employing DEA and a directional
distance function to tackle undesirable outputs. Yu et al.
(2020) analyzed the ecological efficiency trends in indus-
trial enterprises in China’s coastal provinces using the
non-ideal output super-efficiency DEA model (US-DEA).
The above research shows how a standalone DEA method
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340 83333

or a DEA model in combination with other methods can 𝜃o∗ = max 𝜃 (2)
be used to evaluate industrial, ecological, and environ-
mental efficiency. However, few studies evaluate ISW n
utilization. Therefore, using big data on solid waste, this
∑
s.t. 𝜆j yrj ≥ 𝜃yro , ∀r
paper uses the DEA-WEI method to evaluate ISW resource j=1
utilization.
In some cases, we use outputs to evaluate waste utiliza- n
tion in industrial parks without explicitly considering the
∑
𝜆j = 1
inputs. In real-world scenarios, often only a section of an j=1
index is usable. In the DEA literature, DEA models for index
data have been widely used (Despotis 2005; Liu et al. 2011; 𝜆j ≥ 0, ∀j
Lahouel et al. 2020). Yu and Hou (2016) established a super
efficiency interval data envelopment analysis model based Next, we look at the output-oriented context-dependent
on traditional DEA, which not only discriminates the per- DEA model without inputs.
formance of efficient DMUs from inefficient ones, but can Defining J 1 = {DMUj , j = 1, … , n}, J l+1 = J l − El, where
also distinguish between the efficient DMUs. However, inef- E = {DMUo ∈ J l |𝜃 ∗ (l, o) = 1}, and 𝜃 ∗ (l, o) is the optimal
l

ficient DMUs are typically unable to quickly improve their
performance due to obstacles like technology limitations,
lack of available resources, and local government policies. In
the case of ISW resource utilization, issues such as a lack of
resources, policy, and technology make it difficult for centers
to quickly improve waste utilization performance.
Therefore, a more realistic target for an inefficient DMU
should be based on something easier to achieve. Progress
measures provide incremental goals for the performance
of inefficient DMU through different levels of best prac-
tice frontiers. In order to obtain relative practicality, some
scholars use a context-dependent DEA method by defining
the relative performance concerning a particular best prac-
tice context according to their evaluation contexts. Seiford
and Zhu (2003) developed an algorithm to remove the best
practice frontier to allow for the remaining inefficient DMUs
and then obtained a new second-level best practice frontier.
This can be extended to remove the second-level best prac-
tice frontier and obtain a third-level best practice frontier,
and so on, until no DMU is left. Eventually, the DMUs can
be partitioned into several levels of best practice frontiers.
Motivated by the above examples, we developed the
DEA-WEI model. This model can be used to assess perfor-
mance and efficacy, even though inputs are not taken into
account, as is the case when assessing waste utilization
performance in industrial parks.
Assuming each DMUj (j = 1, 2, ⋯ , n) has s outputs yrj ,
(r = 1,2,…,s) without explicit inputs. We first define the
production possibility set:
{( )|∑n ∑n
T = 1, yr |
| j=1
𝜆j yrj ≥ yr , ∀r;
j=1
𝜆j = 1;𝜆j ≥ 0, ∀j
According to definition (1) of production possibility set
for DMUo , we develop the following output-oriented VRS
envelopment DEA performance evaluation model without
inputs based on Lovell and Pastor (1999):
value to the following output-oriented model:
𝜃 ∗ (l, o) = min 𝜃(l, o) (3)
𝜆j ,𝜃(l,o)
n
∑
s.t. 𝜆j yrj ≥ 𝜃(l, o)yro , ∀r
j∈F (J l )
n
∑
𝜆j = 1
j∈F (J l )
𝜆j ≥ 0, j ∈ F(J l )
where F(J l ) signifies DMUj ∈ J l , and F(.) indicates the cor-
respondence from DMUj to the corresponding subscript
index set. When l = 1, model (3) degenerates into model
(2), and E1 consists of all the frontier DMUs. When l = 1,
model (3) provides the second-level best practice frontier
after removing the first level frontier DMUs, and so on. We
identify several levels of best practice frontiers in this man-
ner. El is the l th-level best practice frontier.
The following algorithm identifies these best practice fron-
tiers by using model (3).
Algorithm for stratifying DMUs:
Step 1. Set l = 1. Use model (3) to evaluate the entire set
of DMUs J 1 = {DMUj , j = 1, … , n} to obtain the first-level
frontier DMUs, and set E1.
Step 2. Exclude the frontier DMUs from future DEA runs,
} set J l+1 = J l − El. If J l+1 = ∅, then the algorithm stops.
Step 3. Use model (3) to evaluate the new subset of “inef-
(1) ficient” DMUs J l+1 to obtain a new set of efficient DMUs El+1.
Step 4. Let l = l + 1, go to step 2.
Thus, we obtain a stratification of the whole set of DMUs
in the algorithm.

13
83334
Indicators and data sources
The sample of 48 DMUs is drawn from the “Industrial
Resource Comprehensive Utilization Center List (Second
Batch).” These 48 industrial waste resource utilization cent-
ers were selected by the National Development and Reform
Commission of China, as they had a considerable amount
of ISW. As such they are the focal point of China’s efforts
to improve ISW utilization. In addition, the total amount of
solid waste generated from these sites increased from 700
million tons in 2018 to 770 million tons in 2020, while uti-
lization increased from 480 million tons to 630 million tons.
As such, these centers are significant for studying the per-
formance evaluation of ISW utilization. Data for Pingxiang
City, Jiangxi Province, was missing and was replaced by
data for Yanshan County, Jiangxi Province. In addition, other
missing data points have been checked and supplemented.
In ISW management, the input and output indicators are
not clearly defined (Geng et al. 2011). As various factors
may determine ISW resource utilization, there is no set of
standardized input data. Based on Zhou and Zhang (2019)
and Li et al. (2020), and the availability and accuracy of the
sample data, ISW utilization rate (waste utilization) and out-
put values (economic benefits) are used as output indicators.
The raw data are shown in Appendix 1, and the statistical
description of the data is shown in Table 3. Compared with
2018, the average ISW utilization rate and output value in
2020 increased by 18.8% and 57.5%, respectively. By imple-
menting advanced technology programs, the minimum value
of ISW utilization increased from 26.1 to 65.6%, an increase
of 151.3%. This reflects improvements to ISW utilization
at each center, with the ISW utilization rate growing more
than 50%. The maximum ISW utilization rate value also
improved. Despite that, the maximum and minimum val-
ues of ISW utilization output differ significantly between
2018 and 2020, indicating that there is still a large gap in
the utilization rate. According to DEA best practice, the
number of DMUs assessed should be more than five times
Table 3  Evaluation indicators and descriptive statistics
Output indicators ISW utiliza- ISW utilization
tion rate (%) output value (CNY
billion)
2018 Average value 70.1 6.24
Variance 236.3 8,199,720
Maximum value 116.6 45.34
Minimum value 26.1 0.23
2020 Average value 83.3 9.83
Variance 117.4 16,844,300
Maximum value 134.0 53.2
Minimum value 65.6 1.03
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
the number of input and output indicators; otherwise, many
effective DMUs may be ignored (Golany and Roll 1989). In
this study, the number of DMUs was 24 times the number of
indicators, in line with the research specification.
Results and discussion
LINGO software was used to calculate the overall ISW
resource utilization value for each DMU in 2018 and 2020.
The hierarchical method was used to generate the ratings
for the 48 centers in the sample. Where the DEA-WEI
evaluation value of the first layer is 1, DMU performance
is optimal. The overall utilization performance rating of
ISW resources in 2018 and 2020 is 19 and 18, respectively.
Performance evaluation of DMUs
The values of all DMUs in the first-layer effective frontier
are between 1 and 4.4674 in 2018, and between 1 and
2.0427 in 2020, showing the performance gap between
DMUs shrunk. Yanshan County and Xiangyang City had
the best overall utilization performance in 2018 and 2020;
Huzhou city and Zhengzhou city, industrial bases with
larger GDP, had the highest utilization performance in the
second tier. Jincheng, Anning, and Dongchuan (in Kun-
ming) had performance ratings lower than the 17th tier.
The performance rankings for 2018 and 2020 are shown
in Fig. 1. We analyze the performance gap between the
high-efficiency DMUs Yanshan and Xiangyang, and the
lowest-efficiency Jincheng, Anning, and Dongchuan.
Yanshan had the most efficient overall ISW utilization
in 2018 and 2020. Yanshan is rich in minerals and gener-
ates a lot of waste resources, mainly mine tailings. The
total utilization rate in 2020 was 130%, as all the solid
waste generated in 2020, plus the solid waste accumulated
in previous years was also processed. This efficient use of
solid waste resulted in considerable economic benefits.
For example, in 2018, 11.03 million tons of solid waste
was utilized, including 8.24 million tons of mine tailings,
generating more than CNY 300 million in economic profit.
The Yanshan Industrial Park has excellent technology,
equipment, R&D, and management, helping it achieve
these results. Their efficient resource recycling industrial
chain improves waste resource recycling efficiency while
also recovering and utilizing rare/precious metals (in both
recycling them and rendering them harmless); its man-
agement, made up of a team of four, also helps improve
performance. Finally, its location in central China means
labor costs are cheaper than the more economically devel-
oped coastal areas.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
Fig. 1  Evaluation values for 48 centers and 7 regions in 2018 and 2020 (Appendix 2)
Xiangyang is a vital automobile manufacturing
and phosphorus chemical base, rich in phosphate rock
resources. Its economy is dominated by heavy industry,
which produces various types of ISW in large quantities,
among them, phosphogypsum, fly ash, and about 7.95 mil-
lion tons of other bulk ISW in 2018. In the same year,
the overall utilization rate of solid waste reached 73.6%.
Xiangyang has formed a complete resource recycling
industrial system around industrial waste such as lead,
scrap steel, and aluminum. It has also cultivated industrial
clusters with gypsum production as the core. There are
eight enterprises with an output value exceeding CNY 1
billion, as such they are essential engines for Xiangyang’s
economic and social development. In 2018, industrial
waste such as scrap steel and aluminum scrap were almost
fully utilized, but the utilization rate of phosphogypsum
was less than 30%. However, as the technology at enter-
prises engaged in ISW utilization improved, total utiliza-
tion has continued to grow. By 2020, the total utilization
rate of phosphogypsum exceeded 60%.
One of the main reasons some locations performed
worse than others is the low utilization rate of solid waste.
For example, Jincheng is a typical mining city. Its eco-
nomic development has long relied on coal and it gen-
erates a large amount of ISW when producing industrial
83335
products. It generated 16.01 million tons of waste in 2018,
much more than other locations, but the overall utilization
rate was only 38.8%. The most common types of waste are
coal gangue and fly ash, and added value is relatively low,
resulting in low utilization. Over in Anning, the develop-
ment of traditional iron, steel and phosphorus industries
has encountered a bottleneck due to resource depletion.
In 2018, the comprehensive utilization rate of waste was
38.5%, while total phosphogypsum utilization added value
was low. However, as completion of the center drew to a
close in 2020, the utilization rate increased to 78%. Thus,
large amounts of solid waste resources became economic
resources, and Anning’s utilization rank went up four
places. Dongchuan is a typical resource-exporting mining
city and a source of raw materials for the copper industry.
It is also a resource-poor city focused on copper mining
and smelting. Its geographical location and lack of mineral
resources led to low utilization rates.
Figure 2 shows that some locations have significant
differences between 2018 and 2020, such as Xinyu High-
tech Zone (XYG), Jixi City (JC), Yulin City (YL), and
Fuquan City (FQ). Xinyu is a pilot city for dealing with
resource exhaustion. Due to the constraints of local eco-
nomic development, insufficient investment in science and
technology, lack of skilled workers, and the lack of public
13
83336
Fig. 2  Comprehensive utilization evaluation value of samples in 2018 and 2020 (the larger the number, the lower the performance)
technology platforms, Xinyu has not yet formed a techni-
cal support system to develop ISW utilization. While the
overall utilization rate of other bases has improved, XYG’s
utilization rate dropped from 70.4% in 2018 to 70.3% in
2020, so utilization performance fell seven levels in just
2 years.
Regional performance comparative analysis
To analyze performance trends on a larger scale, we divided
the sample into seven regions: North China (NC), Northeast
China (NE), East China (EC), Central China (CC), South
China (SC), Southwest China (SW), and Northwest China
(NW). Figure 1 shows the average value for the effective
frontier of the first layer in 2018–2020 for the seven regions.
Overall, ISW utilization in 2018–2020 has mostly improved.
In 2018, East China performed the best, with 1.3113; while
Southwest China was the worst, at 2.2958. There are sev-
eral major differences between these two regions which help
explain the gap.
From 2018 to 2020, the seven regions continued techno-
logical research, with more and more S&T achievements,
transformative projects, and high-tech enterprises. South
China’s performance improved dramatically due to progress
at Yulin city. Although the ISW performance in Southwest
China increased the most in 2020, reaching 1.7118, it still
ranks last among the seven regions. Furthermore, there is
still a big gap between East China and South China. Perfor-
mance in Northwest and East China fell. In the Northwest,
the reason for the decline was its poor location and lagging
technological development; East China was affected by the
diminishing marginal utility of its ISW utilization rate. This
indicates China’s waste utilization performance has promi-
nent regional characteristics, but regional gaps are narrow-
ing. Our findings are in line with the research results of Geng
et al. (2011), which showed a significant difference in ISW
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
management levels in different regions, with eastern regions
doing better than central and western regions.
Factors influencing performance
This section analyzes the factors influencing utilization effi-
ciency. The dependent variable is the performance of each
DMU, with values greater than one, in line with the Tobit
regression model.
Tobit model setting and variable selection
Technology research and development and the transforma-
tion of scientific and technological achievements into practi-
cal applications play a pivotal role in overall ISW utilization.
The three explanatory variables below represent the level of
science and technology at each location:
The proportion of technology research in the total output
value of the center (Rate R&D)
The number of technology transformation projects imple-
mented (Project S&T)
The number of high-tech and innovative enterprises
(High-tech Enterprise)
Rate R&D represents the technological innovation capa-
bility of each location, reflecting the government’s financial
support for the utilization of industrial resources. Project
S&T measures the ability enterprises in a location are able
to turn scientific and technological breakthroughs into prac-
tical applications, thereby increasing solid waste utilization
and adding value. Finally, High-tech Enterprise measures
the number of high-tech enterprises in a location. The more
high-tech enterprises there are, the better the industrial
structure is.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340 83337

As the evaluation value of ISW utilization is greater than improve ISW utilization performance. However, the Rate
one, the parameters estimated by ordinary OLS regression R&D in this study has an inhibitory effect on the utilization
will be biased and inconsistent. In this paper, the limited performance. It may be due to the technology not being fully
dependent variable Tobit model is used to analyze the main mature, or a large amount of research investment has not had
factors affecting the ISW utilization performance; using data a transformative effect on ISW utilization technology; also,
from 48 resource utilization centers in 2020 for regression, the small sample size may have caused a calculation error.
the Tobit model is: The other two factors do promote overall ISW utili-
zation performance. Project S&T encapsulates the idea
y = C + b1 × Rate R&D + b2 × Project S&T
(4) that the more projects implement S&T achievements, the
+ b3 × Hightech Enterprise + e better ISW utilization. Therefore, centers should actively
encourage technological innovation through policies that
where the dependent variable y is the evaluation values on
encourage implementing S&T achievements in various
the first-layer effective frontier in 2020 calculated by the
projects; promote efficient, high-value, and large-scale
DEA-WEI model in the “Results and discussion” section; C
ISW utilization; and generally push forward solid waste
is the intercept term; b1, b2, and b3 are the regression coeffi-
resource utilization.
cients of Rate R&D, Project S&T, and High-tech Enterprise,
High-tech Enterprise represents the number of high-
respectively; e is the residual term.
tech enterprises in a location. The scientific and techno-
logical research and development of high-tech enterprises
Empirical results analysis
can help break through any bottlenecks holding back devel-
opments in the ISW utilization industry. Strong intellec-
Using SPSSAU to estimate the Tobit model, the sample size
tual property protection is an important factor to create
was 48. The factors influencing ISW utilization are shown
technological innovation, as without IP protection, com-
in Table 4. The variance inflation factor (VIF) indicated no
panies will not invest resources in this area of technol-
severe multicollinearity among the explanatory variables.
ogy. To further stimulate development at ISW utilization
All three explanatory variables are generally correlated
enterprises, central and local government should introduce
with comprehensive utilization performance at a signifi-
new or adapt existing policies relating to land supply, tax
cance level of 0.1; Project S&T and High-tech Enterprise
reduction and exemption, construction funds, and invest-
positively impact utilization. Contrary to expectations, Rate
ment incentives.
R&D has a negative impact.
According to SAF (sensitivity analysis factor) = △y/y/
(△x/x), the greater the absolute value of the sensitivity
Impact of solid waste type on ISW utilization
coefficient, the stronger the sensitivity. When Rate R&D,
Project S&T, and High-tech Enterprise change by 10%, the
It is worth noting that the type of solid waste also affects
corresponding sensitivity coefficients are ± 36.9%, ± 49.3%,
overall utilization performance. The most common types of
and ± 47.4%, respectively. Therefore, the changes in the
ISW of the 48 centers in this study are fly ash, coal gangue,
three factors affect the first-level efficiency value to varying
mine tailings, metallurgical slag, chemical slag, desulfurized
degrees, and Project S&T is the main sensitivity factor. This
gypsum, and red mud.
is the theoretical support for each center to attract investment
Coal-fired power plants and other enterprises that con-
and increase projects. Generally, improving technological
sume large quantities of coal produce a great amounts of
research and development capabilities and introducing more
fly ash. Therefore, if utilization rates of fly ash are low, it
technical research teams and scientific research experts will
will quickly accumulate. As fly ash can be used in the pro-
duction of cement and building materials, higher volumes
of fly ash promote a general increase in the total utiliza-
Table 4  Tobit regression results tion rate in centers where fly ash is used effectively. For
example, in Zhengzhou, Xiangyang, Hefei, Tongling, and
Regression Standard error z-value p-value
coefficients other high-efficiency areas, fly ash utilization was 100%.
Another commonly produced ISW in locations with rich
Intercept 1.625 0.087 18.598 0.000 coal resources is coal gangue. Utilization of coal gangue
Rate R&D 0.008 0.004 1.77 0.077 in applications like power generation, cement, building
Project S&T − 0.008 0.004 − 1.947 0.052 materials, and backfilling goaf has pushed the utilization
High-tech Enter- − 0.006 0.004 − 1.728 0.084 rate of coal gangue to 53.7% in 2018. For example, cities
prise
like Changzhi, Qitaihe, and Gangcheng have relatively
log(Sigma) − 0.936 0.108 − 8.676 0.000
high ISW utilization performance as coal gangue is the

13
83338
main type of ISW produced. In comparison, Red mud has
the lowest utilization rate of the different types of ISW
assessed. Red mud is formed from solid waste discharged
when alumina is extracted from bauxite. With the annual
increase in alumina production and the gradual decrease
of bauxite grade, the production of red mud in China will
continue to increase. In 2018, the utilization rate of red
mud in China was less than 5%. Low red mud utilization
rates at Zibo (6.6%) and Jiaozuo (0.2%) cities in 2018
highlight this. As a result, the utilization performance
of ISW resources in these two cities was relatively low.
Therefore, large amounts of red mud at a center seri-
ously affect the overall utilization performance of ISW
resources.
Recommendations
In order to improve ISW utilization, this paper puts forward
the following suggestions.
Firstly, enhance the completeness of solid waste recy-
cling policies by developing circular economy incen-
tives at the regional level and increase financial sup-
port for infrastructure and other major projects related
to comprehensive utilization; setting up special funds for
ISW utilization, focusing on developing and promoting
utilization of advanced and applicable processes, tech-
nologies, and products; implementing preferential value-
added tax policy for products made via ISW utilization;
and increasing the tax rate rebate for products with poor
overall utilization performance: For example, red mud
could have 50% of the value-added tax refunded, while
phosphogypsum should aim for 70%. Project planning
and financial support should also focus on supporting
these waste projects.
Secondly, facilitate research into and diffusion of sci-
entific and technological achievements. Guide research
institutions to participate in the construction of enter-
prise technology R&D centers, strengthen talent training
and team building, encourage technological transforma-
tion and upgrading of enterprises, and promote resource
sharing. Areas with low performance should strengthen
technical cooperation and exchange, learn from proven
experience and technologies, introduce technologies with
economic benefits, adapt technology to local conditions,
and apply scientific and technological achievements.
Thirdly, focus on solid waste that is produced in large
amounts but has low utilization rates, starting with red
mud and mine tailings. First, research needs to be done
into innovative techniques that can increase ISW resource
utilization and have good economic benefits. From there,
these techniques can be used across sectors and regions to
boost utilization rates for these types of ISW.
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
Conclusion
This paper uses the DEA-WEI model to evaluate the ISW
utilization performance at 48 ISW utilization centers in
China and analyzes the areas with high/low utilization per-
formance and their changes. The results show the aver-
age utilization value has decreased from 1.7193 in 2018
to 1.5624 in 2020, and gaps in utilization performance
between different bases are narrowing. Yanshan and
Xiangyang ranked the best in comprehensive utilization
performance in both years: Yanshan’s utilization rate was
134% in 2020, and the utilization output value exceeded
CNY 11.9 billion; the utilization rate of phosphogypsum in
Xiangyang went from less than 30% in 2018 to more than
60% in 2020. Comparative analysis shows that Dongchuan
lags the other centers due to its geographical location and
mineral resource depletion. Other than some locations like
Xinyu High-tech Zone and Yulin city which have seen
large changes, the overall performance ranking of other
locations has not changed much. This paper finds regional
differences in comprehensive utilization efficiency, with
the highest efficiency in East China and South China and
the lowest in Southwest China. Still, policy guidance and
technological development have led to significant changes
in the Southwest region, whose evaluation value went from
2.2958 in 2018 to 1.7118 in 2020. Compared with other
regions, the overall utilization performance in Northwest
China has seen the slowest improvements due its disad-
vantages in technology and location. However, regional
differences in ISW utilization performance are narrowing.
A Tobit model was used to analyze which factors influence
ISW utilization performance and analyze how solid waste
type impacted ISW utilization. The findings are greater
amounts of solid waste such as fly ash, coal gangue, and
red mud affect regional utilization performance; this study
also found Project S&T and High-tech Enterprise have a
positive impact, while Rate R&D has an inhibitory effect
on utilization performance. This finding requires a larger
sample size for further in-depth analysis. This article has
some limitations. First, this research is limited to a dataset
of 2 years, so it is hard to draw conclusions on longer-
term trends. Second, a larger sample size is needed to
better understand which factors have an impact on ISW
utilization. Third, future research directions should focus
on richer data to further examine ISW utilization from
a productivity perspective (such as operations, resource
productivity, and management skills).
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​023-​27909-y.
Author contribution All authors have read and agree to the published
version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the study con-
ception and design. Conceptualization of ideas, research objectives,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
and objectives were proposed by Wang Ning. The methodology was
developed or designed by Chuanyin Guo. Investigation and data cura-
tion were performed by Zhanqiang Guo and Junxia Liu. The first draft
of the manuscript was written by Xuexin Chai and all authors com-
mented on previous versions of the manuscript. Reviewing and editing
were performed by Ning Wang and Jian Zhang. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Funding This work is supported by the Beijing Natural Science
Foundation (No. 9212005), Humanities and Social Sciences Fund
of Ministry of Education of China (No. 19YJC630047), and Scien-
tific Research Plan of Beijing Municipal Education Commission (No.
SM202011232004).
Data availability The datasets used and analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Adeniran AE, Nubi AT, Adelopo AO (2017) Solid waste generation
and characterization in the University of Lagos for a sustainable
waste management. Waste Manage 67:3–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​wasman.​2017.​05.​002
Al-Refaie A, Hammad M, Li MH (2016) DEA window analysis and
Malmquist index to assess energy efficiency and productivity in
Jordanian industrial sector. Energ Effic 9:1299–1313. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12053-​016-​9424-0
CACE (China Association for Circular Economy) (2021). Resource
report on circular economy supporting peak carbon dioxide emis-
sions. (In Chinese)
Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of
decision making DMUs. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/​0377-​2217(78)​90138-8
Chen XP, Pang JX, Zhang ZL, Li HJ (2014) Sustainability assessment
of solid waste management in China: a decoupling and decom-
position analysis. Sustainability-Basel 6:9268–9281. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3390/​su612​9268
Despotis DK (2005) A reassessment of the human development index
via data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 56:969–980.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​palgr​ave.​jors.​26019​27
Fan YP, Bai BY, Qiao Q, Kang P, Zhang Y, Guo J (2017) Study on
eco-efficiency of industrial parks in China based on data envelop-
ment analysis. J Environ Manage 192:107–115. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2017.​01.​048
Geng Y, Han WN, Ren WX (2011) A DEA-based evaluation method on
industrial solid waste management in China. Ecol Econ 2011:29–
33 ((In Chinese))
Giannakitsidou O, Giannikos I, Chondrou A (2020) Ranking Euro-
pean countries on the basis of their environmental and circular
economy performance: a DEA application in MSW. Waste Man-
age 109:181–191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2020.​04.​055
Golany B, Roll Y (1989) An application procedure for DEA. Omega
17:237–250. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0305-​0483(89)​90029-7
83339
Guan YR, Huang GH, Liu LR, Huang C, Zhai MY (2019) Ecological
network analysis for an industrial solid waste metabolism system.
Environ Pollut 244:279–287. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​
2018.​10.​052
Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management
challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manage
33:220–232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2012.​09.​008
Guo W, Xi BD, Huang CH, Li JX, Tang ZR, Li W, Ma CY, Wu WX
(2021) Solid waste management in China: policy and driving fac-
tors in 2004–2019. Resour Conserv Recy 173:105727. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2021.​105727
Halkos G, Petrou KN (2019) Assessing 28 EU member states’ environ-
mental efficiency in national waste generation with DEA. J Clean
Prod 208:509–521. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2018.​10.​145
Lahouel BB, Zaied YB, Song YY, Yang GL (2020) Corporate social
performance and financial performance relationship: a data envel-
opment analysis approach without explicit input. Financ Res Lett
39:101656. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​frl.​2020.​101656
Lema G, Mesfun MG, Eshete A, Abdeta G (2019) Assessment of status
of solid waste management in Asella town. Ethiopia BMC Public
Health 19:1261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12889-​019-​7551-1
Li N, Han RR, Lu XH (2018) Bibliometric analysis of research trends
on solid waste reuse and recycling during 1992–2016. Resour
Conserv Recy 130:109–117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​
2017.​11.​008
Li D, Wang MQ, Lee C (2020) The waste treatment and recycling
efficiency of industrial waste processing based on two-stage
data envelopment analysis with undesirable inputs. J Clean Prod
242:118279. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​118279
Liu W, Zhang D, Meng W, Li XX, Xu F (2011) A study of DEA models
without explicit inputs. Omega 39:472–480. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​omega.​2010.​10.​005
Liu LL, Liang YY, Song QB, Li JH (2017) A review of waste pre-
vention through 3R under the concept of circular economy in
China. J Mater Cycles Waste 19:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10163-​017-​0606-4
Lovell C, Pastor JT (1999) Radial DEA models without inputs or with-
out outputs. Eur J Oper Res 118:46–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0377-​2217(98)​00338-5
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics of China). (2017–2021). China
statistical yearbook. http://​www.​stats.​gov.​cn/​tjsj/​ndsj/​2021/​index​
ch.​htm. Accessed 8 April 2022.
Pathak DR, Mainali B, Abuel-Naga H, Angove M, Kong I (2020)
Quantification and characterization of the municipal solid waste
for sustainable waste management in newly formed municipalities
of Nepal. Waste Manage Res 38:1007–1018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​07342​42X20​922588
Pelin Y, Mehmet IY (2022) Economic performance index assessment
of an industrial wastewater treatment plant in terms of the Euro-
pean Green Deal: effect of greenhouse gas emissions. J Water
Clim Change 13:3100–3118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​WCC.​2022.​
146
Pelin Y, Mehmet IY (2023) Energy cost optimization of groundwa-
ter treatment using biochar adsorption process: an experimental
approach. Water Supply 23:14–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​WS.​
2022.​392
Pires A, Martinho G, Chang NB (2011) Solid waste management in
European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. J
Environ Manage 92:1033–1050. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​
an.​2010.​11.​024
Rakibul IM, Golam K, Wai NKT, Mithun AS (2022) Yard waste
prediction from estimated municipal solid waste using the grey
theory to achieve a zero-waste strategy. Environ Sci Pollut R
29:46859–46874. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​022-​19178-y
Sala-Garrido R, Molinos-Senante M (2020) Benchmarking energy
efficiency of water treatment plants: effects of data variability.
13
83340
Sci Total Environ 701:134960. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.s​ citot​ env.​
2019.​134960
Seiford LM, Zhu J (2003) Context-dependent data envelopment analy-
sis: measuring attractiveness and progress. Omega 31:397–480.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0305-​0483(03)​00080-X
Shao LH, Yu X, Feng C (2019) Evaluating the eco-efficiency of China’s
industrial sectors: a two-stage network data envelopment analysis.
J Environ Manage 247:551–560. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​
an.​2019.​06.​099
Storto CL (2021) Eco-productivity analysis of the municipal solid
waste service in the Apulia region from 2010 to 2017. Sustainabil-
ity-Basel 13:12008–12008. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su132​112008
Ugwu CO, Ozoegwu CG, Ozor PA (2020) Solid waste quantification
and characterization in university of Nigeria, Nsukka campus, and
recommendations for sustainable management. Heliyon 6:e04255.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​heliy​on.​2020.​e04255
Wang M, Feng C (2020) Regional total-factor productivity and environ-
mental governance efficiency of China’s industrial sectors: a two-
stage network-based super DEA approach - ScienceDirect. J Clean
Prod 273:123110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​123110
Wang N, Guo JL, Zhang XL, Zhang J, Li ZZ, Meng FF, Zhang BJ,
Ren XD (2020) The circular economy transformation in indus-
trial parks: theoretical reframing of the resource and environment
matrix. Resour Conserv Recy 167:105251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2020.​105251
World Bank (2019) Trends in solid waste management. https://​datat​
opics.​world​bank.o​ rg/w​ hat-a-w​ aste/t​ rends_i​ n_​solid_​waste_m
​ anag​
ement.​html. Accessed 20 February 2022.
Yang JM, Fujiwara T, Matsuoka Y, Wang W (2016) A systematic
approach to projecting industrial solid waste generation by indus-
trial sector in shanghai. J Mater Cycles Waste 18:81–92. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10163-​014-​0330-2
Yang Z, Chen H, Du L, Lu W, Qi K (2020) Exploring the industrial
solid wastes management system: empirical analysis of forecasting
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:83330–83340
and safeguard mechanisms. J Environ Manage 279:111627.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2020.​111627
Yu Q, Hou FJ (2016) A cross evaluation-based measure of super effi-
ciency in DEA with interval data. Kybernetes 45:666–679. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1108/K-​05-​2014-​0089
Yu SD, Yu WY, Chen T, Wang HY, Zhang SJ (2020) Spatial-temporal
distribution and convergence of eco-efficiency of industrial enter-
prises in coastal provinces of China. J Coastal Res 107:303–307
((In Chinese))
Zhang BJ, Guo JL, Wen Z, Li ZY, Wang N (2020) Ecological evalua-
tion of industrial parks using a comprehensive DEA and inverted-
DEA model. Math Probl Eng 2020:1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​
2020/​93978​06
Zhou J, Zhang R (2019) Efficiency evaluation of industrial solid waste
recycling utilization based on improved DEA model. Earth Env
Sci 295:032024. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 088/1​ 755-1​ 315/2​ 95/3/0​ 32024
Zhou BY, Sun CX, Yi HT (2017) Solid waste disposal in Chinese cities:
an evaluation of local performance. Sustainability-Basel 9:2234.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su912​2234
Zhou HC (2021) Comprehensive utilization of bulk solid waste is an
inevitable measure for efficiency reform. China Mining News 001.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​28106/n.​cnki.​nckyb.​2021.​000566
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.