Sustainability of the usable solid waste market in Bogota (Colombia)

Muñoz, María del Pilar Sánchez; Redondo, Johan Manuel; Cerón, José Gabriel Cruz; Ibarra-Vega, Danny; Cortina, Abel Del Rio; Catumba-Ruíz, Jorge

doi:10.1590/2175-3369.013.e20200343

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific article • urbe, Rev. Bras. Gest. Urbana 13 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-3369.013.e20200343 copy

Sustainability of the usable solid waste market in Bogota (Colombia)

Sustentabilidade do mercado de Resíduos Sólidos Utilizáveis em Bogotá (Colômbia)

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This document shows a model that seeks the sustainability of the Usable Solid Waste (USW) market in Bogotá, based on System Dynamics (SD), in order to understand the complex behavior of the phenomena that should be presented in this city market in the context of sustainability. Dynamic hypothesis suggests that two negative feedback structures exits, one that represents demand and another that represents supply and that interact under the assumption of free market with government intervention. Different strategies were modeled on both the demand side and the supply side to manage the system. As conclusion, the linear way in which the USW market currently develops is not adequate. It is necessary to institutionalize the market using the price so that it contributes to its sustainability and that both demand and supply are encouraged at the same time. Besides, district policy oriented to supply must be in accordance with the national policy that encourages demand to use more USW. Likewise, the internalization by all the actors of the market and applicability of the norm is required. The creation of public-private partnerships is required for the development of innovative projects in this area.

Keywords:
Sustainability; Usable solid waste market; Systems Dynamics; Solid waste policy

WASTE	2014	2015	2016
Solid waste generated (tn)*	2.695.307	2.662.844	2.594.978
Solid waste disposed of in landfill (tn)	2.351.131	2.269.533	2.253.072
Solid waste used (tn)	344.176	393.311	341.906

Type of material	Percentage by weight per material
Organic material	42,24%
PET	23,39%
Paper	9,41%
Textile	8,13%
Paperboard	6,26%
Wood	2,58%
Glass	2,32%
Others	1,58%
Aluminum	1,39%
Rubber	0,89%
Leather	0,70%
Brick	0,41%
Ceramics	0,34%
Ash	0,17%
Mineral	0,11%
Bone	0,08%

Parameter	Value	Unit of measurement
Initial population (average 2014 to 2016)	7.878.783	Population
Initial solid household waste (average 2014 to 2016)	2.679.076	Tons
Initial USW (average 2014 to 2016)	359.797	Tons
Initial demand for USW (average 2014 to 2016)	359.797	Tons
Rate of net increase of the population	0,01254583	1/year
Per capita production of waste	0,302325	Tons/year
Rate of net increase in demand	0,01	1/year
Rate of use of recycling organizations	0,3	1/year
Reference price for USW	1.941	USD/Tons
Maximum price of USW	2.181	USD /Tons
Minimum price of USW	1.701	USD /Tons
Total unit cost of reference	1.585	USD /Tons
Elasticity	1	Adimensional
Learning coeficiente	0,5	Adimensional

Strategies		References
Citizen's disposition	Environmental education ( $E E$ )	Naime & dos Santos (2011Naime, R., & dos Santos, K. L. (2011). Diagnosis of solid waste management in the town of Dois Irmãos - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Gestao e Desenvolvimento Regional, 7(2), 301-314.) Vásquez (2005Vásquez, Ó. (2005). Modelo de simulación de gestión de residuos sólidos domiciliarios en la Región Metropolitana de Chile. Revista de Dinámica de Sistemas, 1(1), 27-52.) Peña & Rojas (2013Peña, A., & Rojas, F. (2013). Modelo sistémico en la gestión de residuos sólidos domiciliarios en la zona metropolitana de Huancayo - Perú. Congreso de Dinámica de Sistemas. Lima: Perú.) Expert judgment
	Public trash receptacles ( $T R$ )	Ávila et al(2011Ávila, S., Nieto, M., Jiménez, D., & Osorio, J. (2011). Análisis del impacto generado en un sistema de gestión integral de residuos sólidos por el aumento de los residuos al crecimiento de la población a través de Dinámica de Sistemas. La Dinámica de Sistemas: un paradigma de pensamiento. 9° Encuentro colombiano de Dinámica de Sistemas. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario.) Expert judgment
	Incentive that the CRA proposes in its tariff ( $T I$ )	Breukers (2017Breukers, L. (Abril de 2017). The European experience of (Pay As You Throw, PAYT). Conferencie presented at XVII Congreso Internacional en Gestión Integral de Residuos y Perspectivas Ambientales. Prevención, Reutilización y Sostenibilidad.) Sudhir et al (1997Sudhir, V., Srinivasan, G., & Muraleedharan, V. (1997). Planning for sustainable solid waste management in urban India. System Dynamics Review, 13(3), 223-246. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199723)13:3<223::AID-SDR127>3.0.CO;2-Q https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/... ) Guo et al (2016Guo, H., Hobbs, B., Lasater, M., Parker, C., & Winch, P. (2016). System dynamics-based evaluation of interventions to promote appropriate waste disposal behaviors in low-income urban areas: A Baltimore case study. Waste Management, 56, 547-560. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.019 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/... ) CRA. Resolución 720 de 2015 Expert judgment
Installed capacity available for use	Formalization ( $F_{R O}$ )	Ministerio de Vivienda, Ciudad y Territorio. Resolución 276 de 2016 Expert judgment
	Logistics in micro-routes and communication with operators ( $L O$ )	Franchetti & Spivak (2011aFranchetti, M., & Spivak, A. (2011a). Optimizing the stream. MSW Management, 21(2), 44-51., b) Ministerio de Vivienda, Ciudad y Territorio. Resolución 276 de 2016 Expert judgment
	Installed capacity reflected in the infrastructure ( $I$ )	Meira de Sousa Dutra et al (2018Meira de Sousa Dutra, R., Harue Yamane, L., & Ribeiro Siman, R. (2018). Influence of the expansion of the selective collection in the sorting infrastructure of waste pickers' organizations: A case study of 16 Brazilian cities. Waste Management, 77, 50-58. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05... ) CRA. Resolución 788 de 2017 Expert judgment
	Technology used $(T)$	Fidelis et al (2015Fidelis, R., Ferreira, M. A., & Colmenero, J. C. (2015). Selecting a location to install a plastic processing center: Network of recycling cooperatives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015... ) Expert judgment
Demand	Tax exemptions and deductions ( $T E$ )	Breukers (2017Breukers, L. (Abril de 2017). The European experience of (Pay As You Throw, PAYT). Conferencie presented at XVII Congreso Internacional en Gestión Integral de Residuos y Perspectivas Ambientales. Prevención, Reutilización y Sostenibilidad.). Expert judgment
	Proportion of investment that goes to research $(I_{I & D})$	Organization of American States (2016). CONPES 3874. (21 de November de 2016). Elizande (2009Elizande, A. (2009). ¿Qué desarrollo puede llamarse sostenible en el siglo XXI? La cuestión de los límites y las necesidades humanas. (U. B. Chile, Ed.) Revista de Educación (Número extraordinario), 53-75.). Expert judgment
	Foreign trade policy ( $F T P$ )	Expert judgment

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná Rua Imaculada Conceição, 1155. Prédio da Administração - 6°andar, 80215-901 - Curitiba - PR, 55 41 3271-1701 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil
E-mail: urbe@pucpr.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Editor:

Rodrigo Firmino