Building momentum for sustainable behaviors in developing regions using Locally Managed Decentralized Circular Economy principles

Chandni Joshi,Jeffrey Seay

Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering,University of Kentucky,Paducah,KY 42002,USA

ABSTRACT Despite the current threat from climate change,plastic collecting in the world’s oceans,and the steady loss of biodiversity,the world continually fails to take action with regard to our rapidly changing ecosystem.Unfortunately,waiting on governments to act is no longer a viable option.Rapid change is needed and the pace of diplomacy is simply too slow.Democratic governments are reactionary and taking action to solve future problems is not a priority,even as the threat of potential ecological catastrophe draws ever closer.Change is in the hands of individuals,and it is our decisions and behaviors that will influence the future of our planet and our ability to inhabit it.Therefore,building momentum for sustainable behavior must begin with individuals.The neoliberal approach to environmental protection posits that individuals are motivated by rational self-interest,and that economic incentives are necessary to achieve environmental goals.However,recent research suggests that monetary gain alone actually negatively impacts behavior,and often neglects the rural poor.As a result,models for projects designed to benefit the environment need more than just a monetary incentive,they must incorporate all three pillars of sustainability:environment,economy and society.One approach for building momentum for sustainable behavior with regard to municipal solid waste management,particularly in the developing world,is by implementing Locally Managed Decentralized Circular Economy (LMDCE) principles.This contribution will describe the role behavioral economics plays in the choices made by producers and consumers.The results of a case study on applying LMDCE principles in Uganda to manage waste plastic accumulation by conversion to fuel oil will be presented.

Keywords:Pyrolysis Fuel Pollution Appropriate technology Behavioral economics Municipal solid waste

1.Environment and Waste Plastic

1.1.Ecosystem deterioration and the tragedy of the commons

As the global population continues to grow,the impacts of human activities have overwhelmed the resiliency of the ecosystem.Climate is rapidly changing with serious adverse consequences[1]and mismanaged plastic waste has infiltrated every ocean [2]and every link of the food chain,including humans [3].This paradigm is well described by the scenario of the tragedy of the commons.This scenario was first described in 1833 by William Forster Lloyd[4]and is based upon the public usage of common grazing land in England.The scenario unfolds with a herdsman as a rational being seeking to maximize his personal gain via his access to common grazing land.This is accomplished by adding more animals to his herd.The benefit to the herdsman is obvious — additional profit from a larger herd.However,the additional animals grazing on common land reduces resources available to everyone,including the herdsman himself.Nonetheless,the loss of grazing capacity is shared by everyone,whereas the benefit is gleaned by the herdsman alone.The outcome of course is that the use of common resources works well when there is plenty for everyone,but leads to degradation and eventual conflict when the capacity is diminished.The tragedy of the commons is currently playing out with our current global ecosystem.For instance,in the past,lower human populations and less consumption meant the ecosystem was able to easily absorb the impact of human activity,and treating it as a common resource was sustainable.However,with the dual pressures of population growth and increasing consumption,the tragedy of the commons is becoming a global reality.

1.2.The global plastic challenge

The impacts of plastic in the oceans are easily visible.Natural ocean currents create 5 major gyres — huge rotating regions of open sea that collect floating waste materials [2].Once waste enters one of these gyres it is essentially trapped.Much attention has been given to what has been called“The Great Pacific Garbage Patch”.This refers to waste,particularly plastic which has been trapped in the Pacific gyre.Although the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has received most of the attention,each of the ocean gyres is accumulating significant amounts of plastic [2].Current estimates suggest that the oceans hold more than 5 trillion pieces of plastic weighing more than 250000 tons [5].Between entanglement and ingestion of material that was mistaken for food,mismanaged plastic waste has been detrimental to marine life.In fact,it is estimated that 2/3 of the world’s fish stock has ingested plastic [6].Unfortunately,a single piece of plastic can kill over and over.The animal killed by the plastic eventually decomposes,but the plastic remains and can continue to cause harm.Additionally,through the consumption of fish,as well as food packaged in plastic,humans are also adversely impacted[3].For instance,plastic chemicals absorbed by the body have been found to alter hormones [7].Another recent study from seven different European countries and Japan has revealed microplastics present in human feces [3].These findings verify the pervasiveness of plastic in the global environment.

Despite these concerns,plastic cannot be simply eliminated from the supply chain,nor is it practical or even always beneficial to do so.The alternatives to plastic goods and packaging include materials such as metals,glass,paper and cotton-based fabrics.As a result,an increased demand for metals would lead to increased mining and increased fuel demands for transportation of these heavy materials,resulting in increased prices and negative environmental impacts.Glass is heavy,energy intensive and prone to breaking.Increased cultivation of cotton and increased paper production will compete with land suitable for food crops,which is already in shortage due to population growth.Additionally,increasing land for cotton and paper production will lead to deforestation — a significant global threat.There are simply no suitable alternatives for plastic ready for deployment at an international scale,meaning that plastic is too cheap and efficient to be easily replaced.Thus,this phenomenon is currently leading to exponential growth in production,consumption,disposal and accumulation of plastic,challenging its management globally.

Previously,much of the world’s recyclable plastic was shipped to China to be re-manufactured.However,in January 2018,the country announced that it would no longer be a “dumping ground”for what it calls “foreign garbage”from other countries[8].China’s ban covers imports of 24 kinds of solid waste,including plastic.Prior to the ban,China had been processing much of the world’s exports of waste metals,papers and textiles,as well as more than half of the world’s plastic scraps at nine million metric tons per year [8,9].This sudden action has left Western countries scrambling to deal with a buildup of plastic and paper garbage while looking for new markets for the waste [9-11].However,the ban doesn’t only influence Western economies,developing economies have also been impacted.Unfortunately,infrastructure limitations have left governments in developing countries with no outlet for waste,an especially problematic scenario as previous research has demonstrated that many of the top 20 contributors to marine plastic debris are coastal developing countries [2].Hence,for waste plastic to be managed on land,governmental action is simply not enough.Waste plastic must be considered as an imminent threat to the environment by all individuals,who must be presented with readily-accessible,viable solutions to target waste accumulation within their communities.Subsequently,the behavioral economics of individual citizens along with their interactions with,perceptions of,and influences on their community should be analyzed to propose viable solutions for plastic management.

2.Economics &Sustainable Behaviors

2.1.Behavioral economics

Humans have evolved in concert with our ecosystem;however,rapid anthropogenic ecosystem changes are outpacing our ability to adapt.Our species is adapted to work in our own immediate self-interest.Groundbreaking research by George Ainslie in the 1970s concluded that behaviors that have a short-term payoff are favored over ones that only have benefits in the long term[12].This is known as hyperbolic discounting [12].The problem we are now facing,however,is that our behaviors with regard to consumption are causing severe damage to our ecosystem.The consequences of this behavior are discounted significantly by the general population.These problems associated with hyperbolic discounting are amplified in developing countries,since people have more immediate needs with regard to survival.Unstable governments,lack of strong institutions and lack of food,water and energy security make acting in the global best interest difficult or impossible.

Anthropogenic climate change,unsound waste disposal and loss of biodiversity are all happening at an alarming rate,but our global institutions have been unable to adequately address these problems.Much of the progress to date relies on altruistic behavior— consciously consuming less than one otherwise could to minimize one’s individual impact.Although altruism is a fundamental characteristic of human society [13],the problem with relying on altruistic behavior is twofold:first is the previously mentioned problem of our evolutionary predisposition to acting in our own self-interest;and second is the free rider problem.The free-rider problem describes our inherent distaste for others benefiting from our individual sacrifice.This problem has been observed in resistance to social programs,as well as resistance to sustainable consumption options that are perceived as being more expensive,less effective or less convenient than traditional options.Because of the issues that arise with both reliance on altruism and the fear of free-riders,many proposed solutions to environmental problems are rooted in the theory of neoliberal conservation.This theory posits that individuals are rational actors who always act in their economic self-interest.Neoliberalism combines conservation with markets such that conserved land and resources become fungible commodities [14].The result of this line of thought is that economic incentives are required to advance environmental protection;however these practices do not necessarily benefit the poor,or the environment[15].Quoting Igoe and Brockington[16]:

“...neoliberalism’s emphasis on competition,along with its rolling back of state protection and the social contract,create spaces in which local people are often not able to compete effectively.”

This clearly indicates that a new model of behavior that benefits the rural poor is needed.

2.2.Environmental protection and the fallacy of the rational actor model

The neoliberal approach to conservation and environmental protection is based on the assumption that individuals are rational actors.The principle of the rational actor is based on three tenets:that individuals are self-interested and attempt to maximize their own benefits;that they only respond to economic incentives;and that economic markets are free,mutual,and rational [17].However,recent research has suggested that new approaches are needed to model human behavior with regard to environmental protection [14,18,19].This research argues that individuals are not simply motivated by economic gain alone.As asserted by Peterson [19],giving the ecosystem an economic value to ensure protection undermines the consideration of alternative values.Gowdy [20],further asserts that:

“It is no longer tenable for economists to claim that the selfregarding,rational actor model offers a satisfactory description of human decision making.”

Additional research states that monetary incentives may actually be counterproductive [20-23].These economic incentives are not only counterproductive to individuals,but outcomes based on the rational actor model can actually erode communities [17].Contrastingly,motivation is actually multidimensional [17]and recent research has shown that equity and empowerment are often more important than monetary incentives [21].Therefore,to be effective,approaches must be rooted in all three pillars of sustainability,economic,environmental and social.

2.3.Breaking the Take →Make →Waste Paradigm

When it comes to consumption,the traditional Take →Make →Waste paradigm is firmly rooted in our collective human behavior.If something can’t be immediately reused to our economic advantage,our first inclination is to dispose of it.As previously described,this behavior is well described by the concept of the tragedy of the commons[4].In applying this principle,we see that the benefits to the individual of the Take →Make →Waste paradigm far outweigh the consequence to the individual since the adverse effects of ecosystem deterioration are shared among the entire population over an extended time horizon.This is particularly problematic with wastes which linger in the ecosystem,like plastic.Many researchers globally are studying the accumulation of waste plastic and its impact on marine and terrestrial life.A recent study compiled data from 192 countries bordering major bodies of water[2].This study concluded that 2.5 billion metric tons of solid waste was produced in 2010 by these countries and of that waste,8 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean[2].This plastic threatens sea life,birds and human health [2,5,7].Without regulatory intervention,which seems increasingly unlikely,breaking this paradigm will fall on the backs of consumers.New models of production,consumption and waste management that act in concert with,rather than in opposition to,established modes of human behaviors will be required.

2.4.Building momentum for sustainable behaviors

Sustainable behaviors are those that are economically beneficial,environmentally benign and socially responsible.If we are able to move past the paradigm of the rational actor model,we can propose potential solutions that rely on more than economics alone as motivating factors.Successful strategies will include environmental protection and social responsibility as well.To achieve these goals,a Locally Managed Decentralized Circular Economy(LMDCE)model is proposed for combatting the problems of wasteful consumption and mismanaged municipal solid waste.As will be described,LMDCE focuses on all three aspects of sustainability,meaning that it moves beyond the narrow confines of neoliberal conservation approaches.

3.LMDCE Principles

3.1.Impacts of infrastructure limitations on circular economy development

Breaking the Take →Make →Waste paradigm is an underlying principle and the first step towards building a circular economy.Thus far,circular economy models for various waste types have been considered and applied in regions with sufficient infrastructure to collect and sort valuable waste products to reuse,recycle or re-enter them into their respective manufacturing supply chains on an industrial scale [24,25].In addition to infrastructure,this approach requires capital and sophisticated equipment to reprocess the materials into their building blocks for entrance back into consumer products.Likewise,a waste plastic circular economy is also encouraged to reduce the production of virgin plastics.However,only 9% of plastics produced have been recycled [26]by both developed and developing countries to date.Developing countries have relied on an informal recycling sector via waste pickers to sort through dumpsites and unmanaged landfills to collect recyclable waste plastics[3,27,28].These plastics were previously shipped to China for remanufacturing.However,due to the recent bans from China on “foreign garbage”,waste picker jobs are currently being jeopardized [8-11].

Hence,there is a need for a locally-managed and decentralized,or distributed,circular economy for valuable waste products in regions lacking infrastructure,capital and tools to erect an industrial circular economy.In spite of these constraints,the solutions to waste management must rely on the involvement of local consumers,encouraging them to take ownership of their waste management,instead of relying on governmental and industrial assistance.This further requires a fundamental change in behaviors of individuals and their perception of waste.To change behaviors,an incentive is needed—one that is locally available and pays dividends in the local community.However,many projects designed to benefit and protect the environment have neglected their subsequent impact on local communities,decreasing citizen involvement and ownership of the projects [15].This failure to consider the impacts on local communities has negatively affected municipal solid waste (MSW) management in developing countries.

Due to infrastructure limitations,MSW often has no perceived value and is simply discarded after use.In return,this waste ends up on the streets,in waterways,or on open dumps.As a result,projects designed to manage MSW must give the waste a value so that it is considered as a resource by communities and will not be discarded.Moreover,in resource limited regions,supply chain constraints favor local solutions.For the case of MSW,this means applying decentralized collection and decentralized utilization.To address the aforementioned challenges by inclusion of community members,the concept of a LMDCE is proposed,as shown in Fig.1.

Using this approach,imported manufactured goods enter the circular economy cycle as the initial feed source.They are then used,reused,and collected after post use to generate valueadded products.Here,the participation of waste pickers is highly recommended and needed to decrease waste accumulation.The waste products,then,serve as local raw materials to produce goods,which once sold back to the community,generate entrepreneurial opportunities and boost the local economy.The only output from this cycle is any waste that cannot be reused,collected,or recycled by the community.Therefore,the waste stream exiting to the environment from the community is reduced.Additionally,the key of this decentralized approach is that everything is local and waste management is designed around and operated by the community.That is,collection,production and use are all managed in the local community.Of course this limits the scope of remanufacturing in rural regions,but this approach has a higher likelihood of success when implemented.The real benefit is that this approach does not require sophisticated infrastructure and provides needed locally focused incentives for decreasing waste accumulation.

Fig.1.Illustration of a LMDCE for infrastructure limited regions.

3.2.Appropriate technology

The concept of appropriate technology (AT) was first described by E.F.Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful[29].This concept of AT is summarized by Hazeltine,[30]as:

“Technological choices and applications that are small scale,decentralized,labor-intensive,energy efficient,environmentally sound,and locally controlled.”

AT is simply technology suitable for a specific region,designed to meet specific needs of certain individuals or communities [31].Though the details of what constitutes AT can vary between regions and applications,the description from Hazeltine [30]generally holds true.AT does however require tradeoffs.In most cases,the tradeoffs include:efficiency for simplicity;convenience for low cost;and automation for manual operation.The key benefit of AT is that it is easily deployable because it does not rely on a sophisticated infrastructure.AT is a way of achieving the societal benefits of sustainability,particularly in underdeveloped regions.This means that AT is not intended to reproduce industrial technology on a small scale but rather to design specific solutions appropriate for a given region or for a given community[32].AT is the mechanism by which LMDCE principles overcome infrastructure challenges in developing economies.

4.Applying LMDCE Principles in Uganda

4.1.Converting waste plastic to fuel oil

A method that can potentially be deployed using the LMDCE approach is the conversion of waste plastic into fuel oil,suitable for use as an alternative to diesel or kerosene fuels.Polyolefin plastic polymers like High and Low Density Polyethylene and Polypropylene and be converted into a liquid fuel at temperatures of 400°C-500°C via thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen,or through a process called pyrolysis[31,33].This process does not require catalysts to breakdown the plastic polymer chains;instead,it simply utilizes a viable heating source to decompose the plastic.Using this process,1 kg of waste plastic can be converted to 1 L of fuel oil [31].The chemistry is simple and via the application of AT,this process can be carried out on a small,local-scale in resource constrained regions [31].Employing this chemistry and technology as a case study,the application of LMDCE principles is illustrated.

Fig.2.Photograph of the UKATS process for converting post-consumer waste plastic into fuel oil.

4.2.LMDCE case study

The University of Kentucky Appropriate Technology &Sustainability (UKATS) research group has designed and lab tested an AT based technology for converting waste plastic into fuel.This technology is completely non-automated,requires no electricity to operate and is designed according to the availability of resources,capital,infrastructure and technical knowledge of individuals in developing countries.The technology is constructed from repurposed metal (preferably stainless steel drums) and has two parts— a batch retort vessel for conducting the thermal decomposition reaction that converts waste plastic to fuel oil,and an efficient,institutional sized,biomass fueled cookstove that provides the necessary heat to drive the reaction.A photo of the process is illustrated in Fig.2.As can be seen,the retort (inner barrel) is housed inside the cookstove (outer barrel).The process is initiated by igniting waste wood or other biomass sources in the cookstove to generate a steady fire.The plastic then melts,decomposes and vaporizes in the retort according to the energy provided by the fire.Vapor phase products from this process exit through a vent pipe,as shown in Fig.2,and the pipe is submerged in water to condense the products to fuel oil.This process is well described in previous literature as well [31,33].

Further,this process was tested for two years in Uganda at the Makerere University Agriculture Research Institute in Kabanyolo(MAURIK) to determine its feasibility and effectiveness.Specifically,operational and maintenance training was provided to local students,and the technology was tested to determine its success in converting locally sourced waste plastic,such as kaveeras(polyethylene grocery bags),jerry cans and plastic containers to fuel oil.The quality of the fuel generated was tested in a local multipurpose utility vehicle operated by a diesel engine.The goal of the initial testing was to identify operational and maintenance issues,resolving them to prepare the technology for deployment in a real-life scenario,such as for use by an entrepreneur to establish a business in the local community based on this process.

After initial testing,the process was provided at no cost to a local entrepreneur in the Mukono region,identified by the Rotary Club of Kampala,to convert post-consumer waste plastic into fuel oil.The process was typically operated 4-5 times per week by a homemaker,collecting on average 20-25 L of fuel from a feedstock of 20-25 kg of waste plastic.The temperature of the process was maintained between 450°C and 500°C.The plastic feedstock was collected from personal household waste or purchased from neighbors at a price of 500 UGX·kg-1.The biomass source utilized for heating the process was wood,purchased at 250 UGX·kg-1,and the fuel was sold to diesel truck drivers in the region at a price of 2500 UGX·L-1.After performing a simple economic assessment by factoring the costs of raw materials and the revenue generated from fuel sales,a 158% profit was obtained on average.The profit earned was almost double the daily average income of citizens in the nearby capital city of Kampala,having a lasting positive societal benefit on the entrepreneur’s family.Furthermore,it is noteworthy to mention that since these were preliminary field trials,the fuel was sold at a 30%discount when compared with the retail price of petroleum derived diesel fuel in the city,meaning there is an even greater profit potential present in this process,making it economically viable.

5.A Sustainable Path Forward

Finding a sustainable path forward for our global society is a significant challenge.However,this path forward must be firmly grounded in the three pillars of sustainability and must not rely on the outdated rational actor model.As illustrated in Fig.3,LMDCE provides a roadmap for this sustainable path forward.

LMDCE is a potential path that results in benefits for rural or developing economies without relying on the tenets of neoliberal conservation.Each step in the LMDCE has a local benefit.The local economy,the local environment and the local community see a direct benefit from successful implementation of a LMDCE.It is this feature of the LMDCE approach that provides the best chance for success in MSW management in infrastructure limited regions.

The waste plastic to fuel LMDCE provides a model for a sustainable path forward,as detailed in Fig.3.The case study clearly demonstrates this path.First,the process provides entrepreneurial opportunities and direct benefits to the economy by incentivizing collection of waste plastic and through the sale of generated fuel.Next,it provides environmental benefits by decreasing waste accumulation.Lastly,it encourages the community to take ownership of waste management,providing societal benefits that are shared by the entire community.

Fig.3.LMDCE principles provide a sustainable path forward for global waste management.

6.Conclusions

In conclusion,it is not the planet that needs saving -the earth will continue to turn with or without us -it is we humans who need saving from ourselves.Without a new approach to conservation,the tragedy of the commons awaits us.As previous research in the field of behavioral economics asserts,economic incentives alone are not enough to ensure success of environmental protection projects.Projects must be rooted in the three pillars of sustainability:environmental protection,economic viability and social acceptability.LMDCE is an approach that departs from neoliberal conservation and the rational actor model and incorporates all three aspects of sustainability.LMDCE is particularly suited to environmentally focused projects.The case study conducted in Uganda on converting post-consumer waste plastic into an economically viable fuel oil illustrates how the LMDCE approach can be successfully deployed in an infrastructure limited region.The results of the case study therefore demonstrate a local homemaker converting waste plastic to fuel oil in rural setting utilizing an AT based non-automated,low-cost technology.In return,perception of plastic waste is likely to be changed from that of simply waste accumulating on the side of the street to something valuable that should be picked up and repurposed via LMDCE,benefiting the environment,the local community and the entrepreneur socially and economically.

Acknowledgments

The contributions of Noble Banadda,Professor and Chair of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering and Mr.Ronald Kizza,graduate student at Makerere University are gratefully acknowledged.The resources provided at Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute in Kabanyolo (MAURIK) for testing the waste plastic to fuel oil technology are also gratefully acknowledged.Funding for the Kampala case study was provided by the Rotary Club of Paducah,Kentucky and the technology was disseminated through the assistance of Rotary Club of Kampala,Uganda.