Assessing Global Waste Management: Alternatives to Landfilling in Different Waste Streams - A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review examines global strategies and enterprises for sustainable solid waste management, with a focus on alternative landfilling approaches. The study collected and analyzed a significant number of documents from different regions, revealing Asia as the major contributor (for the collected documents) (48.7%), followed by North America (24.3%) and Europe (15.8%). Recycling emerged as the most effective alternative waste treatment method, representing 52.3% of the documented approaches, with industrial recycling (22.6%) and residential/non-residential recycling (20.2%) as prominent categories. Food waste was a significant concern across regions, constituting 21.4% of the collected documents. Composting was widely adopted (15.4%) due to its simplicity and benefits for gardening and soil improvement. Other methods like biogas extraction, reusing, raising awareness, incinerating, redistributing, reducing, and fermentation accounted for 13.1% cumulatively. The study highlights the need for tailored waste management solutions based on regional challenges and successful practices. Promoting recycling infrastructure, composting, and waste reduction approaches are crucial to achieving sustainable waste management aligned with SDGs. Collaboration and knowledge-sharing between regions are essential to improve inefficient waste management mechanisms. Integrating the findings into policymaking and industry practices can lead to a more sustainable future with reduced environmental impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".