Based on observations in Cleveland regarding waste management practices,, the whole point of waste management in a city such as Cleveland is to succeed in combining the efficiency of public authorities, while relying on the involvement of the already existing population.

It is about combining technical development and confidence in local players. As it stands, municipalities seek to take effective action, relying on waste management indicators provided by developed countries. However, in view of the differences in the context, this objective is impossible to achieve in the medium term.

On the other hand, American cities are now seeking to reconnect with the practice of recycling and the daily handling of waste by the population using bins and dumpster rentals. Why then seek to eliminate this participation in North America when we are trying to reinstate it elsewhere?

Finally, the fierce fight waged against the illegal practices of recyclers is futile in the short term, in an urban context where a large part of the population lives in conditions of poverty and where informality represents more than half of economic activities. .

Therefore, Cleveland and its American counterparts may seek to take advantage of elements perceived to be weaknesses, by moving directly from self-management of waste to shared management, without even going through the public management system.

The transition from the first to the second and, finally, to the third system requires a series of long and costly adaptations to put in place. To move from a self-management system to that of public management, a significant financial investment is needed to modernize the infrastructure, using dumpster near me services and other junk disposal operations.

This effort has already been largely achieved in Cleveland with the upgrading, between 2000 and 2010, of the five controlled landfills. The transition from one system to another is done, however, by losing an important asset of the self-management system: the involvement of the population.

However, this involvement of the population is essential for the establishment of a shared waste management system. The generalization of household waste recycling is based most of the time on selective collection at source. It therefore implies a sharing of tasks between the public authorities which ensure the collection, transport, treatment and recovery of waste, and the population which is responsible for preliminary sorting.

This involvement of the population still exists in the self-management system. It is gradually eradicated during the transition to the public management system. The challenge of the transition to the third system is to maintain the technical improvement resulting from the public management system, while recovering the factor of involvement of the population from the self-management system.

There is therefore a major interest in leading the modernization of infrastructure and the stimulation of the culture of recycling at the same time, in order to move directly from the self-management system to the shared management system while reducing overall pollution.

This change would make it possible to target financial investments directly on infrastructures allowing the recycling of waste. Above all, it would make it possible to take advantage of an already existing competence in waste handling on the part of the population. It would also be possible to rely on the intermediary network of recyclers, in order to improve waste management while improving their working conditions.

It is obviously necessary to change the conditions for handling waste by recyclers, in order to limit the spread of risks. The direct transition to the third system would then be facilitated by the fact that there is not yet any disdain for the waste object.

Support for informal recycling and dumpster rental circuits would then be an asset for local public authorities. It is in this perspective that a number of municipalities are already working in Cleveland, and the surrounding counties.

Comments are closed.