Assessment of the municipal solid waste management sector development in Jordan towards green growth by sustainability window analysis

Journal Pre-proof Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Development in Jordan towards Green Growth by Sustainability Window Analysis

Husam A. Abu Hajar, Adiy Tweissi, Yousef A. Abu Hajar, Radwan Al-Weshah, Khaldoun M. Shatanawi, Rana Imam, Yasmin Z. Murad, Mohammad A. Abu Hajer PII:

S0959-6526(20)30586-2

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120539

Reference:

JCLP 120539

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date:

19 April 2019

Accepted Date:

10 February 2020

Please cite this article as: Husam A. Abu Hajar, Adiy Tweissi, Yousef A. Abu Hajar, Radwan AlWeshah, Khaldoun M. Shatanawi, Rana Imam, Yasmin Z. Murad, Mohammad A. Abu Hajer, Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Development in Jordan towards Green Growth by Sustainability Window Analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020), https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120539

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof

Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Development in Jordan towards Green Growth by Sustainability Window Analysis

Husam A. Abu Hajar a*, Adiy Tweissi b, c, Yousef A. Abu Hajar d, Radwan Al-Weshah a, Khaldoun M. Shatanawi a, Rana Imam a, Yasmin Z. Murad a, Mohammad A. Abu Hajer e, f

a

Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan (Tel: +962 6 5355000; Fax: +962 6 5355522). b

Director of eLearning Center, Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT), Amman 11941, Jordan (Tel: +962 6 5359 949; Fax: +962 6 5347295). c

Business Information Technology Department, King Talal School of Business Technology, Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT), Amman 11941, Jordan (Tel: +962 6 5359 949; Fax: +962 6 5347295). d

Head of Financial & Administrative Sciences Department, Aqaba University College, AlBalqa’ Applied University, Aqaba 77110, Jordan (Tel: +962 3 2019625; Fax: +962 3 2019628). e

Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Sociology, School of Arts, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan (Tel: +962 6 5355000; Fax: +962 6 5355522). f

Institute for Family Health, Noor Al Hussein Foundation, Amman 11110, Jordan (Tel: +962 6 5607460; Fax: +962 6 5606994).

*

Husam A. Abu Hajar is the corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal Pre-proof

Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Development in Jordan towards Green Growth by Sustainability Window Analysis

Abstract It has been argued recently that green growth is the only economic development pathway to secure a sustainable future. The Government of Jordan has launched a National Green Growth Plan aiming to facilitate the transition towards green growth in six priority sectors; amongst those is the solid waste management sector. Jordan Vision 2025 has set a 33% reduction target in the solid waste amounts disposed in landfills or dumpsites by 2025. This study examines the development of the municipal solid waste management sector in Jordan from sustainability standpoint and presents potential scenarios to attain Jordan Vision 2025 target and gradually place this sector on a green growth path. The Sustainability Window analysis tool was used to assess the sustainability of this sector over the 2010-2015 period. This tool identifies whether the economic growth maintains the social and environmental wellbeing using strong and weak environmental, social inclusion, and economic indicators. Three scenarios to address Jordan Vision 2025 target were proposed and compared using the Sustainability Window tool: Mechanical biological treatment-anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological treatmentcomposting, and incineration. It was concluded from the sustainability window analysis of the 2010-2015 data that the total number of jobs in the municipal solid waste management sector is a weak social inclusion indicator compared to the stronger one “jobs per 10,000 tonnes”. Likewise, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per tonne is a weak environmental indicator unlike the stronger “net GHG emissions”. It was also inferred from the Sustainability Window analysis that the 2010-2015 Jordanian municipal solid waste sector growth did not fulfill all sustainability criteria. The proposed future scenarios were compared and it was determined that the mechanical biological treatment alternatives fulfill all sustainability criteria regardless of the indicators’ strength, whereas the incineration scenario only satisfies the sustainability criteria using weak environmental indicators. Nonetheless, mechanical biological treatment-composting is the most attractive scenario from an economic perspective owing to the lower GHG mitigation cost of $18.3 per tCO2-eq compared to $35.5/tCO2-eq for the mechanical biological treatment-anaerobic digestion and $161.7/tCO2-eq for incineration.

Keywords: Green growth; municipal solid waste management; sustainability window analysis; greenhouse gas; sustainable development; climate change mitigation

1

Journal Pre-proof

1.

Introduction

Green growth (GG) is a low-carbon, climate-compatible development centered around growing the economy while improving the wellbeing of the society, the environment, and the ecosystem. GG is often invested in improving the productivity, resource efficiency, and employment in green sectors. The GG concept emerged internationally in 2012 after the Rio+20 Summit when 191 United Nations (UN) member states convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) to address the continuous environmental and ecological deterioration due to economic growth worldwide. The UNCSD parties concluded that it was time to transform the global economic growth into a greener one in pursuit of sustainable development (Barbier, 2011; Bina, 2013, Luukkanen et al., 2019a; Wanner, 2015). Twenty years earlier, World leaders met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCEP) in what was called back then the “Earth Summit” to shape a sustainable pathway for the global economic growth to mitigate the adverse environmental and societal impacts of development. The sustainable development (SD) term was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as one which meets the present needs without compromising the future generations’ ability to meet their own. SD was recognized as an international principle for economic growth in the Earth Summit, and the UNCEP parties signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with the aim to minimize the manmade climate disruptions and address the global warming consequences. By virtue of the UNFCCC, the signed parties made voluntary commitments to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and accordingly, many countries developed their action plans to meet their GHG reduction targets (Barbier, 2001; U.S. EPA, 2006). SD is an interdisciplinary development pathway which aims to achieve economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental quality simultaneously for the benefit of the current and future generations (de Vries & Petersen, 2009; Sauvé et al., 2016). The key difference between GG and SD is that the former promotes growth by steering public and private investments towards energy and resource efficient, environmentally friendly, and low ecological-footprint projects (Bina, 2013; Wanner, 2015). SD, on the other hand, is viewed by some as a passive revolution which calls for limits to growth in response to the environmental and social critiques of the modern industrial capitalism (Wanner, 2015). Others argued that the SD concept is a theoretical dream that is losing momentum due to its vagueness (Sauvé et al., 2016). Concerns were raised in the global community that GG adoption may undermine SD; however, GG was not intended to replace SD. In fact, GG is a subset of SD which aims to explore trade-offs and synergies amongst the SD three pillars: sustainable economic growth; social sustainability and justice; and environmental sustainability and justice (Bina, 2013; Luukkanen et al., 2019a; Wanner, 2015). Jordan is a small lower middle-income Arab kingdom located in the Middle East bordering Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, and Israel, and has a population of 9.9 million (World Population Review, 2018). Jordan suffers from natural resources scarcity, particularly freshwater resources which are decreasing at an alarming rate due to the unsustainable groundwater exploitation and the negative trend of precipitation in the recent decades (MoEnv, 2017). Jordan’s economic and social wellbeing is directly linked to the political status and relationship with its neighboring 2

Journal Pre-proof

countries (Kanaan & Kardoosh, 2002; MoEnv, 2017). The current economic growth scheme in Jordan is unsustainable due to the substantial dependence on imported fossil fuels which, under the politically unstable conditions in the region, may lead to energy insecurity in the Country. The net annual GHG emissions in Jordan were roughly 29,000 Gg CO2-eq in 2016 and are likely to double by the year 2030 should the current growth scheme continue. In terms of social development, growth is highly unbalanced between urban and rural parts of the Country, and there is a continuous loss of talent and skills to other economies due to the lack of challenging and skillful employment opportunities (MoEnv, 2017). Accordingly, the current economic growth does not attain the desired trade-off between the three sustainability dimensions. The Government of Jordan (GoJ) realized that green growth is the only promising future development pathway. Jordan Vision 2025 is a clear example of the GoJ’s serious steps to transform into an inclusive green economy which grows in an environmentallysustainable manner and ensures decent work and improved living standards to its citizens. Moreover, Jordan has ratified the Paris Agreement and made an unconditional commitment to reduce the GHG emissions by 1.5% and a conditional 12.5% contingent on international support. According to Jordan Vision 2025, the priority sectors for green growth in Jordan are energy, transport, water, agriculture, waste, and tourism (GoJ, 2015; MoEnv, 2017). The municipal solid waste (MSW) sector is one of the major contributors to GHG emissions worldwide and is always a key player in GHG mitigation action plans and initiatives. MSW management has evolved worldwide from open disposal, open burning, and ocean dumping to more environmentally sustainable practices such as sanitary landfilling, recycling, recovery, waste-to-energy, and composting. The environmental footprint of the MSW sector could be holistically appraised by considering the life-cycle assessment of the waste which comprises raw materials extraction, processing, manufacturing, transportation to markets, consumption, and waste management. Each step has its carbon footprint originating from energy consumption or from the disposal or incineration of the wasted materials (Bong et al., 2017; Dedinec et al., 2015; U.S. EPA, 2006). In most developing countries, MSW is collected and disposed in arbitrary open dump sites. More than 50% of the commingled MSW is of organic origin which can be attributed to the lifestyle in developing countries where people favor home cooking producing large quantities of unavoidable organic wastes. Recycling rates in developing countries fall in the 0 – 41% range, most of the recycling and recovery activities are undertaken by a social sector known as the informal recyclers or scavengers. Materials collected by this sector are often sold to middlemen, recycling workshops, or manufacturers. The informal recycling sector faces enormous socioeconomic challenges; therefore, integrating this sector into the MSW management plans and strategies and ending the exploitation of this large group of people is one of the potential SD outcomes in the MSW management sector (Khateeb et al., 2011; Troschinetz & Mihelcic, 2009). Egypt, for instance, is a fast growing developing country and its MSW is projected to reach 33 million tonnes in 2025. Currently, only 30% of the MSW is collected and disposed in unsanitary disposal sites (Khateeb et al., 2011). The informal recyclers group “Zabaleen” is one of the main pillars of the Egyptian MSW management system and has arguably developed one of the most 3

Journal Pre-proof

efficient resource recovery and recycling systems in the world. However, this group of traditional waste collectors is threatened by the privatization of the waste collection services; thus, restricting access of this group to garbage for the favor of technology-intensive corporations (Fahmi & Sutton, 2010). The state of MSW management is different in other Middle Eastern countries. For example, 25% of the MSW in the United Arab Emirates is composted and the rest is disposed in sanitary landfills with more than 60% methane recovery. Recycling in fact is one of the top MSW management priorities in several Gulf Cooperation Council Countries; nonetheless, landfilling is still the predominant disposal method (Gharaibeh et al., 2011; Khateeb et al., 2011). The MSW management sector in Jordan has witnessed considerable development over the past few decades. However, there is still a large room for improvement, as this sector accounts for roughly 10% of the Country’s net GHG emissions. The MSW collection coverage ranges from 75% in rural areas to 90% in urban areas. Approximately half of the MSW in Jordan is disposed in one sanitary landfill, Al-Ghabawi Landfill near the capital Amman. The other half is openly dumped in 17 disposal sites distributed in the different governorates of Jordan. These disposal sites lack the proper lining, leachate collection, and biogas recovery systems. Recycling and recovery are still insignificant in the Jordanian MSW management sector. Many environmental concerns often arise from the current MSW management practices such as the manmade or the incidental burning of waste at the disposal sites, the health and occupational risks to formal and informal labor involved in MSW management activities, water resources contamination potential, odor and air contamination, and the inconvenient conditions to those living in close proximity to MSW disposal sites. Municipalities and common services councils are responsible for the MSW collection and disposal as well as the management of the disposal sites in Jordan. Until now, the MSW management sector is operated with 30 – 60% cost recovery so the difference is subsidized from the municipalities’ budgets. The private sector involvement in the MSW management sector in Jordan is still limited which calls for policies and strategies to incentivize the engagement of the private sector in all stages (MoEnv, 2014; SweepNet, 2014). In fact, one of the hurdles the MSW management sector faces is the absence of an effective legal framework. Despite the numerous laws and regulations in the environmental protection context in Jordan, there is an urgent need for a solid waste management law and a national solid waste management strategy which shall organize the roles of the different stakeholders, minimize overlapping responsibilities, and facilitate the engagement of the private sector. Greening any sector is the configuration of the business and its infrastructure to provide better returns on human, natural, and economic capital investments coupled with GHG emissions mitigation, less waste production, and social disparities reduction. Greening the MSW management sector requires the adoption of waste avoidance and minimization, reuse, recycling, and recovery techniques. Several benefits can be gained as a result of greening the MSW management sector such as the environmental and ecological benefits by mitigating water resources depletion, soil degradation, and air pollution; social benefits by creating more jobs; and economic benefits by creating business opportunities such as recyclable materials sale, production of clean energy, sale of compost, and carbon credits. These benefits go along with 4

Journal Pre-proof

several sustainable development goals (SDGs) such as the no poverty; good health and wellbeing; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; sustainable cities and communities; and climate action by mitigating the GHGs (Elagroudy et al., 2016). In light of the Jordanian efforts towards embracing an environmentally-friendly and sociallyinclusive economic growth, this study examines the sustainability and GG potential of the MSW management sector in Jordan from economic, social, and environmental perspectives and proposes sustainable future alternatives. Waste management in Jordan is deemed a priority sector with high GG potential; thus, it is necessary to analyze the existing MSW management scheme to identify and overcome the weaknesses for future development pathways. The net annual GHG emissions for the MSW management sector were estimated based on recorded and forecasted annual MSW quantities up to 2040. The Sustainability Window (SuWi) analysis tool was used to assess the sustainability and GG potential of different MSW management scenarios through strong and weak environmental, social inclusions, and economic growth indicators. The suitability of the selected indicators was judged based on the 2010-2015 study period. Multiple future scenarios to attain the MSW management target determined in Jordan Vision 2025 were presented and compared with the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario in terms of sustainability criteria and cost of mitigation measures. The paper is structured as follows: Data and methods are discussed in Section 2. The results of the MSW management sector’s GHG emissions are presented in Section 3.1. The results of the SuWi analysis of the BAU scenario are presented in Section 3.2. Analysis and comparisons of future MSW scenarios are addressed in Section 3.3. Discussion of the results is presented in Section 4. Conclusions are outlined in Section 5.

2.

Data and Methods

2.1.

MSW management sector GHG emissions

The net GHG emissions of the MSW management sector for the 2007-2040 period were estimated using the mass balance and the first-order decay methods. The mass balance method only accounts for emissions from MSW disposed in a specific year, whereas emissions from undegraded MSW disposed in previous years are estimated using the first-order decay method (Dedinec et al., 2015; IPCC, 2006). The methane potential in year 𝑡 computed using the mass balance method in gigagram (Gg) methane per Gg waste is expressed as follows (Dedinec et al., 2015; IPCC, 2006): CH4 potential (t) = 𝛼 × 𝐷𝑂𝐶(𝑡) × 𝐷𝑂𝐶𝐹 × 𝐹 × 16 12

(1)

Where 𝛼 is methane correction factor (1.0 for managed landfills and 0.6 for open disposal sites); 𝐷𝑂𝐶 is the quantity of degradable organic carbon in the disposed MSW; 𝐷𝑂𝐶𝐹 is the fraction of organic carbon dissimilated (default value = 0.77); 𝐹 is the methane fraction in landfill biogas (default value = 0.5); and the 16/12 is the mass ratio of methane to carbon (on a molar basis). The methane correction factor default values presume that the dominant biological degradation in controlled landfills is anaerobic, whereas the process in uncontrolled disposal sites is both 5

Journal Pre-proof

aerobic and anaerobic leading to increased carbon dioxide concentrations on the expense of methane. 𝐷𝑂𝐶 in Gg carbon/Gg waste is a function of the qualitative characteristics of solid waste (fractions of different waste categories) and can be estimated using Equation 2 (Dedinec et al., 2015; IPCC, 2006): 𝐷𝑂𝐶 = 0.4 (paper) + 0.17 (garden) + 0.15 (food) + 0.3 (wood)

(2)

The proportions of the different categories in the Jordanian MSW mix are illustrated in Figure 1.

The methane potential (in Gg methane/Gg waste) is then multiplied by the total MSW quantity managed in year 𝑡 to evaluate the net emissions for that year. The annual MSW data in Jordan for the years 2010 – 2015 were obtained from official reports by the Jordanian Department of Statistics (DOS) (DOS, 2012; DOS, 2014; DOS, 2015; DOS, 2018) while data for previous years were found in MoEnv (2014). The future MSW annual quantities were forecasted using the 2015 per capita MSW generation (367.8 kg per year) and based on the medium population growth scenario presented by the Jordanian DOS (DOS, 2016) which predicts that the overall Jordanian population will increase from 9,401,993 in 2015 to 12,778,164 in 2040. Almost half of the MSW in Jordan is sanitary landfilled in Al-Ghabawi Landfill located near the capital Amman and managed by the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM), while the other half is openly disposed in 17 open disposal sites managed by common services councils in the different regions of the kingdom (SweepNet, 2014). Landfill biogas is only captured in Al-Ghabawi Landfill, and since methane is 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in terms of the 100-year global warming potential (GWP100) (IPCC, 2014), the practice initially was to flare the collected biogas without energy recovery. Recently, three electric generators with a total capacity of 4.8 MW were installed to utilize the biogas from three completed cells in Al-Ghabawi Landfill and these generators will be connected to the grid and the produced electricity will be sold to the National Electric Power Company (Arabiat, 2018). For this research calculations, it was assumed that half of the Jordanian MSW is disposed in a sanitary landfill with biogas recovery in place and the other half is disposed in open dumpsites. The first-order decay method estimates the net methane emissions in year 𝑡 as a result of undegraded previously disposed MSW as shown in Equation 3: CH4(𝑡) = ∑𝑥𝐴 × 𝑘 × 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝑇(𝑥) × 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝐹(𝑥) × CH4 potential × 𝑒 ―𝑘(𝑡 ― 𝑥)

(3)

Where 𝐴 is a normalization factor = (1 ― 𝑒 ―𝑘) 𝑘; 𝑘 is the methane generation rate constant (default value = 0.05); 𝑥 covers years for which data is added; 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝑇 is the total MSW generated in year 𝑥; and 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝐹 is the fraction of MSW disposed in designated disposal sites (Dedinec et al., 2015).

2.2.

Sustainability assessment of the MSW sector

6

Journal Pre-proof

Tracking GG and SD progress has been studied widely ever since the GG and SD gained global recognition. One-dimensional or multi-dimensional assessment tools aligned with the UN’s 17 SDGs were successfully developed and employed. Sustainability Window (SuWi) is a multidisciplinary tool which simultaneously assesses the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of existing or proposed alternatives. It assists policy and decision makers in achieving acceptable tradeoffs between the three pillars of SD and making informed decisions on the effective transition into a more inclusive green economy. SuWi is also a robust tool which captures undesirable consequences of economic growth such as a growth that harms the environment or a jobless growth. Nevertheless, this tool does not provide absolute sustainability levels but rather identifies a window of minimum and maximum growth rates through which the economic growth is environmentally and socially sustainable. In other words, SuWi determines the minimum economic growth that satisfies social sustainability and the maximum economic growth that fulfills environmental sustainability (Luukkanen et al., 2019a). The success of the SuWi analysis depends primarily on the selection of proper indicators. In this study, the net GHG emissions and the GHG emissions intensity per tonne of MSW were selected as environmental indicators and the total number of jobs in the Jordanian MSW sector and the number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes MSW were selected as the social inclusion indicators. Two indicators to measure the economic growth of the MSW sector in Jordan were tested: The first one is the annual revenue gained by municipalities as household fees charged to the residents’ electricity bills. The other indicator is the annual quantity of MSW collected and managed in tonnes. Even though revenue is an ideal indicator to evaluate the economic growth, it may not fully represent the growth of the MSW sector; due to the elevated expenses associated with MSW management in Jordan such that the cost recovery is barely 50% (SweepNet, 2014). This is due to the inefficient collection and management practices often followed by the municipalities besides the relatively low household fees per tonne MSW. Nonetheless, MSW management revenue could increase considerably if sustainable methods are practiced such as recycling, recovery, composting, and waste-to-energy. The second economic growth indicator is simply the annual MSW quantities. The basis for this selection is that economic growth is often associated with higher MSW generation, even though a slight decoupling of economic growth and MSW growth has been observed recently in high-income countries (UNEP, 2015). It is also assumed that the growth of MSW annual quantities is proportional to the growth of the MSW annual revenue; because this sector has not witnessed significant variations over the past few years in Jordan. The 2010-2015 was selected as a study period due to data availability. Municipalities’ annual revenue, total number of workers in the MSW management sector, and the annual MSW quantities data were obtained from the Jordanian DOS reports (DOS, 2012; DOS, 2014; DOS, 2015; DOS, 2018). The GHG emissions were estimated according to the mass balance and firstorder decay methods as described in Section 2.1 (Equations 1 and 2). The economic indicator value with respect to the base year (𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡/𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛0) was plotted on the xaxis and the social and environmental indicators’ values with respect to the base year (𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑡/𝑠𝑜𝑐0 and 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑡/𝑒𝑛𝑣0) were plotted on the y-axis such that the base year will have a value of 1 for all 7

Journal Pre-proof

three indicators. The plot will contain economic productivity lines with respect to the social and environmental indicators. A SuWi can be defined such that the economic growth in the final year does not yield a social indicator value less than the base year and an environmental indicator value greater than the base year. The SuWi limits, minimum growth which will not compromise the social wellbeing and maximum growth which will not adversely affect the environment, are defined by the following equations (Luukkanen et al., 2019a):

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 =

𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑐0

(3)

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 =

𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑣0

(4)

Where 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 are the lower and upper limits of sustainable economic growth, respectively; 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛0 and 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡 are the base and final years’ economic indicator values; 𝑠𝑜𝑐0 and 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑡 are the base and final years’ social inclusion indicator values; and 𝑒𝑛𝑣0 and 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑡 are the base and final years’ environmental indicator values.

2.3.

Sustainable future scenarios

GG is the future path of development as evident in Jordan Vision 2025, in which the GoJ has set GG targets for the different priority sectors. For MSW management, the desired goal is a 33% reduction in the MSW quantities landfilled or openly disposed by the year 2025, this is equivalent to 1.354 million tonnes reduction per year (GoJ, 2015). There are several scenarios that can be implemented to realize this goal such as source reduction, source separation and recycling, anaerobic digestion, composting, incineration, and mechanical biological treatment (MBT). Source reduction is the ultimate goal in MSW management as less materials are produced; thus, GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing and post-consumer services are avoided. Source reduction results in negative net GHG emissions meaning that significant GHG emissions generated during the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing of products, and the post-consumer services are avoided. For instance, source reducing aluminum cans, steel cans, glass, mixed plastics, and paper/cardboard results in net GHG emissions of -9.054, -3.516, 0.647, -2.263, -7.467 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2-eq) per tonne of material, respectively (U.S. EPA, 2006). It is worthy to mention that such estimates only consider making less of a product or using less material in the making of a product (e.g. lightweight aluminum cans) rather than substitution with another product. Recycling on the other hand is another attractive MSW management alternative which can considerably reduce the disposed MSW quantities and consequently GHG emissions. The net GHG emissions of different MSW management practices with respect to landfilling are depicted in Table 1. To demonstrate the environmental benefits of source reduction and recycling, source reduction of 100,000 tonnes of mixed recyclables with composition similar to the one shown in Figure 1 will yield a reduction 8

Journal Pre-proof

of 526 Gg CO2-eq in the net GHG emissions taking into account the avoided utility emissions, avoided manufacturing and other processes as well as the avoided landfill emissions. Recycling the same quantity will yield a net GHG emissions reduction of 287 Gg CO2-eq. Regardless of the high GHG mitigation potential of source reduction and recycling, the success of these alternatives depends primarily on the involvement and collaboration of many public and private stakeholders. For instance, source reduction necessitates manufacturers and consumers’ behavioral change towards the production and consumption of more durable products as opposed to single-use items. Recycling on the other hand requires education and awareness campaigns to inform the citizens and laborers on how to properly separate the different waste categories. The success of recycling depends on the commitment and involvement of the public and the availability of infrastructure and equipment to sustain recycling activities and collect/manage the source-separated recyclables (Troschinetz & Mihelcic, 2009). Currently, source-separation and recycling are of minor contribution in Jordan and are often carried out on pilot-levels in few selected neighborhoods in Jordan (Saidan et al., 2017). It is not clear whether source reduction or recycling will have a significant contribution in the near future for the attainment of the MSW reduction goals set in Jordan Vision 2025. Thus, these two alternatives will not be considered further in the discussion of the proposed future scenarios.

Table 1: Net GHG emissions (tCO2-eq per tonne MSW) for different MSW management practices compared to landfilling (U.S. EPA, 2006; Environment Canada, 2001) Material Aluminum cans Steel cans Glass Mixed paper Mixed metals Mixed plastics Mixed organics Mixed MSW

Recycling

Composting

Anaerobic digestion

Incineration

-14.995 -2.020 -0.363 -5.335 -5.820 -1.697 -

-0.334 -

-

0.121 -1.738 0 -2.182 -1.212 1.131 -0.334 -1.616

-0.442 -

For the foreseeable future, MSW management practices such as MBT, incineration, anaerobic digestion, and composting were addressed in the National Green Growth Plan (NGGP) as green alternatives for the development of the MSW management sector (MoEnv, 2017). MBT plants utilize a combination of mechanical separation techniques and biological stabilization processes such as composting and anaerobic digestion. MBT plants’ outputs may include recovered recyclables, stabilized organic matter (compost or digestate), biogas, refuse-derived fuel, and inert residual waste (Fei et al., 2018). The anaerobic digestion and composting methods are well known practices to stabilize and reduce the volume of organic waste leaving behind useful outputs (biogas and fertilizer). Incineration is the most widespread method for energy recovery from MSW globally due to the high volume reduction potential (up to 90%), energy production, 9

Journal Pre-proof

and killing of pathogens. On average, the incineration of one tonne MSW produces 15-40 kg of hazardous waste (gaseous pollutants and ash) which should be controlled using advanced measures (Abbasi, 2018; Angeli et al., 2018). Three alternatives were proposed and compared against the BAU scenario: MBT-anaerobic digestion, MBT-composting, and incineration. The analysis of the three alternatives is based on the assumption that 33% of the Country’s MSW will be diverted from landfills/disposal sites through the proposed alternatives while the remainder of the waste will be managed according to the BAU scenario. The alternatives were compared by SuWi analysis using the projected GHG emissions, number of workers in the MSW sector, total projected MSW quantities, and MSW management annual expenses. Job creation factors as reported by Elagroudy et al. (2016) and Goldstein (2014) were adopted in this study. The job factors for the collection and landfilling of 10,000 tonnes MSW are 5.6 and 1.0, respectively. Incineration of 10,000 tonnes MSW creates on average one job. For conventional material recovery facilities, the average number of jobs is 10 per 10,000 tonnes MSW, while the job factor for composting is 4 per 10,000 tonnes organic waste. Waste diversion processes including collection, processing, manufacturing, and reuse have greater job factors compared to the aforementioned practices (Elaghroudy et al., 2016; Goldsein, 2014). The job factor for anaerobic digestion is assumed to be equal to composting. The net GHG reduction below the BAU scenario was estimated for each proposed scenario using the factors presented in Table 1. For the material recovery part of the MBT, the GHG reduction factor is assumed equal to the recycling factor with the addition of GHG emissions resulting from operating the facility (emissions associated with waste recovery activities are not incorporated in the recycling emissions reported in Table 1). According to Cimpan et al. (2016), an advanced material recovery facility with a capacity of 100,000 tonnes per year requires an average electricity input of 96.5 kWh per tonne and an average diesel of 2.2 L per tonne of waste processed. The equivalent GHG emission factors are 7.07×10-4 tCO2-eq/kWh and 2.69×10-3 tCO2-eq/L diesel (U.S. EPA, 2019); thus, the operation of the recovery facility adds 0.0744 tCO2-eq per tonne MSW. It is assumed that the MBT has a recovery efficiency of 80%, and to achieve the desired reduction target as per Jordan Vision 2025, it is necessary to process 1.693 million tonnes annually through MBT plants, the composition of which is as shown in Figure 1, namely, the MSW mix will comprise 846,437 tonnes of organics, 270,860 tonnes of mixed plastics, 16,929 tonnes of mixed metals, 253,931 tonnes of mixed paper/cardboard, 33,857 tonnes of glass, and other waste materials. The recyclables (plastics, metals, paper, and glass) are assumed to be recovered fully while organics are recovered at 92% efficiency. Other waste categories will be disposed in landfills and disposal sites. Organics are either composted (MBTcomposting) or anaerobically digested (MBT-anaerobic digestion). The incineration alternative could achieve a 90% volume reduction of the waste; thus, the input MSW quantity to achieve the desired 33% reduction target is 1.505 million tonnes per year. The composition of the MSW to be incinerated is as shown in Figure 1. Incineration will also produce gaseous output and solid residuals (ash) which are assumed to be controlled and managed in an environmentally sustainable manner whereas the generated energy is recovered. 10

Journal Pre-proof

Due to the lack of accurate financial data on MSW management practices in Jordan, approximate costs for developing countries from Elagroudy et al. (2016) were adopted. The costs of sanitary landfilling, open disposal, composting, incineration, and anaerobic digestion per tonne MSW in developing countries are roughly $27.5, $6.5, $25, $70, and $50, respectively. These costs include the capital expenses, operation, and maintenance. Composting produces on average 440 kg compost per tonne organic input. The cost of composting stated earlier excludes the sale of the final compost. The costs of incineration and anaerobic digestion include the sale of net energy produced. Capital and operating expenses for material recovery facilities were adopted from Cimpan et al. (2016) who reported that the total annualized capital and operating expenses for material recovery facilities vary from $80 to $125 per tonne MSW. Therefore, an average of $102.5 per tonne was assumed in this study but this does not account for the sale of the recovered recyclables. The collection of MSW adds an average of $52.5 per tonne assuming the same collection process applies regardless of the disposal/management practice.

3.

Results

3.1.

Business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions

The MSW sector is one of the primary sectors contributing to Jordan’s net GHG emissions and accounting for roughly 10% of the Country’s total emissions (MoEnv, 2014). Figure 2 shows the net annual MSW sector’s GHG emissions for the 2007-2040 period. The GHG levels predicted in this study exceeded those reported in Jordan’s Third National Communication on Climate Change, in which the 2015 total MSW quantity was projected be 2.29 million tonnes corresponding to a population of 6.97 million (MoEnv, 2014). However, the real figures reported in the Jordanian DOS report (DOS, 2018) indicated that the overall MSW in 2015 reached 3.46 million tonnes when the actual population in the same year was 9.40 million. The discrepancy between the projected and the actual population figures can be attributed to the high number of Syrian refugees who began pouring into Jordan as a result of the ongoing civil war since 2011. Jordan hosted more than one million refugees over the past eight years; most of these refugees live in urban areas and are now integrated into the local communities whereas few still live in refugee camps in Northern Jordan. The influx of refugees has placed significant pressure on the aging infrastructure of the host communities. MSW management was one of the affected sectors by the wave of refugees as concluded from Figure 2. The annual MSW quantities and subsequently the GHG emissions witnessed a rapid increase after 2011. Nevertheless, the Syrian crisis may be coming to an end soon, and it is not anticipated that Jordan will be hosting refugees at the same rate observed in recent years. In fact, some refugees already returned back after the crisis settled down in many Syrian regions or resettled in other countries (Braizat, 2018). It is therefore predicted that the population will likely grow at a much slower rate compared to the 2011-2015 period. The forecasted BAU scenario portrayed in Figure 2 shows that the MSW sector’s GHG emissions will continue to rise to 6,567 Gg CO2-eq in the year 2040. The BAU scenario is based 11

Journal Pre-proof

on the assumption that the current MSW management practices will remain unchanged; that is half of the MSW is sanitary landfilled and the other half is openly disposed while recycling/resource recovery activities will remain insignificant in the Jordanian MSW management sector.

3.2.

Sustainability Window analysis

The SuWi analysis was conducted to assess the growth of the MSW management sector in Jordan from sustainability perspective over the 2010-2015 period. The total number of jobs/employees in the MSW management sector and the number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes MSW were used as social inclusion indicators while the GHG intensity per tonne MSW was used as the environmental indicator. The MSW economic growth was represented by two indicators: growth of the annual MSW quantities and the growth in municipalities’ revenue. The SuWi results are demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4. Line 1 in Figure 3 represents the economic growth with respect to the social and environmental indicators if growth endures the rate defined by origin (0,0) and the base year (1,1). Line 2 depicts the economic growth determined based on the origin (0,0) and the economic indicator value of the final year given that the social indicator value is 1.0 (similar to the base year). Similarly, Line 3 determines the final year’s economic indicator value given that the environmental indicator value remains as a unity. A horizontal line from the base year’s coordinates (1,1) crossing Lines 2 and 3 determines the minimum growth to satisfy the social inclusion criterion and the maximum growth to satisfy the environmental criterion.

It is clear from Figure 3 that the SuWi analysis tool did not provide realistic and useful results based on the data utilized. Using Equations 3 and 4, the sustainability limits are 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.93 and 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.68 when the MSW annual quantity in tonnes is the economic growth indicator whereas the limits are 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.43, and 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.25 when the municipalities’ revenue is the economic growth indicator. This implies that one or more of the selected indicators are inappropriate for SuWi analysis. By inspecting the green continuous series (environmental) in Figure 3, it can be concluded that the environmental criterion was satisfied as the growth of the MSW sector does not yield an increase in the GHG emissions intensity (𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑡 = 1). Nevertheless, GHG emissions intensity is considered a weak indicator compared to the stronger net GHG emissions indicator (Luukkanen et al., 2019a), but since the MSW management practices have not changed considerably over the study period, it can be safely assumed that the net GHG emissions will be proportional to the overall MSW quantities. Thus, it is impossible for the MSW sector to grow while the base year’s net GHG levels are maintained. If alternative MSW management practices such as incineration, material recovery, composting, and anaerobic digestion are employed, then it will be conceivable to maintain or even go below the base year’s GHG levels. The blue continuous series (social) in Figure 3 represents the social indicator vs. 12

Journal Pre-proof

economic growth and it is obvious that the growth did not satisfy the social criterion as the number of jobs has decreased from 49.1 per 10,000 tonnes in 2010 to 42.5 per 10,000 tonnes in 2015. The other social inclusion indicator investigated was the total jobs in the MSW sector. In 2010, the total number of employees in the Jordanian MSW management sector was 10,152 when the annual MSW quantity was 2.07 million tonnes whereas the number increased to 14,709 in 2015 corresponding to an annual MSW quantity of 3.46 million tonnes (DOS, 2012; DOS, 2018). Using the total number of jobs in the sector as the social inclusion indicator instead of number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes, the SuWi limits become 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.15 and 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.68 when the annual MSW quantity is the economic growth indicator and the limits are 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.86, and 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.25 when municipalities’ revenue is the economic growth indicator (Figure 4). These limits are more realistic; however, the selection of the total jobs and the GHG emissions intensity as environmental and social indicators will always result in sustainable growth given that the number of employees in the final year is higher than the base year. In other words, the environmental criterion (GHG intensity) will be satisfied due to the proportional relationship between the net GHG emissions and the annual MSW quantities. Additionally, the total number of jobs will rise with a growing MSW sector so the base year’s social inclusion indicator level will be exceeded. Thus, it is concluded that the total number of jobs in the MSW management sector is a weak social inclusion indicator in comparison to the number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes MSW managed. To explain the unreasonable results with respect to the social inclusion criterion, the job factors for different MSW management practices were reviewed. According to Elagroudy et al. (2016) and Goldstein (2014), the average number of jobs for the collection and disposal of 10,000 tonnes MSW (either in sanitary landfills or open disposal sites) is 6.6. This is considerably lower than the average job factors observed in the Jordanian sector (49.1 employees per 10,000 tonnes in 2010 and 42.5 employees per 10,000 tonnes in 2015). Landfilling and open land disposal are not labor-intensive, yet 14,709 were registered as MSW management employees in 2015, 94% work in the collection services whereas the remaining 6% are in the environmental management and disposal side of MSW management. The inflated employment rate in this sector explains the inefficiency and the high costs associated with the MSW management in Jordan, particularly the collection part. Furthermore, the employment protocols often followed by municipalities including GAM are questionable. According to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the cost of management of one tonne MSW in Jordan is $60 – $100 which is considered relatively high compared to the $39 – $100 per tonne range reported for lower-middle-income countries (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). The Minister also pointed out that the high MSW management expenses suggest that the methods and practices employed by the municipalities are highly inefficient, particularly the collection services (Alrai Newspaper, 2017). One would think that there is a golden opportunity to exploit the human capital in the Jordanian MSW management sector towards more sustainable practices such as recycling, recovery, manufacturing based on recycled materials, composting, and waste-to-energy facilities as opposed to the less laborintensive landfilling and open disposal.

13

Journal Pre-proof

3.3.

Sustainable future scenarios

Three proposed future alternatives were analyzed and compared with the BAU scenario from environmental, social inclusion, and economic perspectives. The net GHG emissions of the BAU scenario are projected to reach 5,698 Gg CO2-eq by 2025 as demonstrated earlier in Figure 2. The reductions in the net GHG emissions as a result of adopting any of the proposed scenarios were computed using the factors presented in Table 1 for the different MSW categories. The recovery of 575,577 tonnes of recyclables through MBT plants is estimated to reduce the net GHG emissions by 1,955 Gg CO2-eq annually. The anaerobic digestion of 778,722 tonnes of organic waste yields a net reduction of the GHG emissions by 344 Gg CO2-eq whereas composting the same amount of organic waste yields a net GHG reduction of 260 Gg CO2-eq. Hence, the net GHG-emissions for the MBT-anaerobic digestion and MBT-composting scenarios are 3,483 and 3,399 Gg CO2-eq, respectively. The incineration of 1.505 million tonnes of mixed MSW on the other hand reduces the net GHG emissions by 509 Gg CO2-eq; accordingly, the incineration scenario produces 5,189 Gg CO2-eq net GHG emissions. The job factors introduced in Section 3.3 were used to estimate the overall number of jobs for each scenario. For the BAU scenario, 6.6 jobs are created on average for each additional 10,000 tonnes MSW managed (including collection). This will result in a total of 2,709 jobs equivalent to 4.10 million tons MSW managed in 2025, which is still considerably lower than the actual 2015 MSW sector employment figures. For the sake of sustainability comparison amongst the proposed alternatives using the SuWi tool, the number of jobs computed based on the job factors for the base year (2,282 jobs) was used instead of the actual number reported in the DOS reports (14,709); as the latter will certainly lead to unsustainable growth conclusion. The MBTanaerobic digestion and MBT-composting scenarios are projected to generate 4,551 jobs (including the 67% of the overall MSW quantity managed according to the BAU scenario). The incineration scenario is expected to have the same number of jobs as the BAU scenario (2,709 jobs). The annualized capital and operating expenses were estimated based on the collection and transportation of MSW besides the disposal method (landfilling, open disposal, incineration, or processing through MBT plants). The 2025 annual expenses for the BAU scenario are estimated at $285.22 million whereas the 2025 annual expenses for the proposed scenarios are $478.04 million, $456.88 million, and $367.53 million for the MBT-anaerobic digestion, MBTcomposting, and incineration, respectively. Nonetheless, the recyclables’ recovery is expected to offset some of the MBT’s annual expenses via the sale of these materials. Saidan et al. (2017) reported that the average market prices for mixed metals, mixed plastics, and paper/cardboard in Jordan are $400/tonne, $350/tonne, and $50/tonne, respectively. Glass currently has little to no value due to the absence of glass recycling in Jordan. Recovered glass was exported to Lebanon through Syria until the borders were closed due to the Syrian crisis. The sale of recovered recyclables is expected to generate an annual income of $114.27 million. The sale of compost will also offset the annual expenses of the MBT-composting alternative. The approximate price of compost in the Jordanian market is $45 per tonne so the net annual revenue from the sale of

14

Journal Pre-proof

compost is approximately $15.42 million. A summary of the social, environmental, and financial data for all scenarios is presented in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of the projected environmental, social, and financial data for the BAU and the proposed future scenarios in 2025 Parameter

Environmental

Social

Financial

GHG emissions (Gg CO2-eq) GHG intensity (Gg CO2-eq/Gg MSW) Total jobs Jobs/10,000 tonnes MSW Total annual cost Cost/tonne MSW

BAU

MBT-Anaerobic Digestion

MBTComposting

Incineration

5,698

3,483

3,399

5,189

1.40×10-6

8.57×10-7

8.37×10-7

1.28×10-6

2,709

4,551

4,551

2,709

6.6

11.2

11.2

6.6

$285,223,596

$363,772,943

$327,193,325

$367,534,885

$69.5/tonne

$88.6/tonne

$79.7/tonne

$89.6/tonne

The net Country’s GHG emissions (for all sectors) is projected to reach 39,343 Gg CO2-eq by the year 2025 (MoEnv, 2017). The MSW management sector accounts for approximately 14.5% of the Country’s net GHG emissions given the BAU scenario. The GHG reductions as a result of adopting one of the proposed alternatives are approximately 5.6% (MBT-anaerobic digestion), 5.8% (MBT-composting), and 1.3% (incineration). These reductions will contribute to the attainment of the Country’s nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement and may create additional revenue via carbon trade exchange. The relevant costs of GHG mitigation measures are $35.5/tCO2-eq for MBT-anaerobic digestion; $18.3/tCO2-eq for MBT-composting; and $161.7/tCO2-eq for incineration. Compared to other relevant studies, Dedinec et al. (2015) reported that the cost of GHG mitigation for MBT-composting in Macedonia range from $18.5/tCO2-eq to $34/tCO2-eq. Bong et al. (2017) demonstrated that composting is considered a superior alternative to anaerobic digestion for the management of organic waste in developing countries due to its low capital investment and technical complexity. The SuWi analysis was also conducted to compare the BAU and the proposed scenarios for the 2015-2025 period. The number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes MSW was used as a strong social inclusion indicator whereas the total number of jobs was used as a weak social inclusion indicator. Similarly, GHG intensity and the net GHG emissions were used as strong and weak environmental indicators, respectively. The indicator representing the economic growth of this sector was the annual MSW quantity. The SuWi limits for all scenarios are illustrated in Table 3. The growth ratio of the MSW sector between years 2015 and 2025 is 1.17, which is the ratio of the MSW quantity in 2025 to that in 2015. As shown in Table 3, the BAU scenario does not satisfy the SuWi limits under any case. Indeed, the limits were unreasonable when the number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes was the social inclusion indicator; as the lower SuWi limit is greater than 15

Journal Pre-proof

the upper limit. Similarly, the incineration scenario satisfied the SuWi limits only when the GHG intensity was the environmental indicator which is logical; because this scenario only results in 509 Gg CO2-eq GHG reduction compared to the BAU scenario. Thus, the net GHG emissions in 2025 will exceed those witnessed in 2015 indicating that the growth does not meet this environmental criterion. However, the weaker GHG emission intensity indicator resulted in enhanced environmental conditions in 2025 compared to 2015. The MBT-anaerobic digestion and MBT-composting scenarios satisfied all SuWi limits regardless of the indicators employed due to the substantial GHG mitigation potential and the increased number of jobs created. It is worth mentioning that if the actual 2015 number of employees in the MSW management sector as reported by DOS (2018) was used in the analysis, none of the scenarios would have satisfied all three sustainability dimensions. In summary, the MBT-composting scenario is the most attractive MSW management to attain the GoJ 2025 targets; as this scenario satisfied all sustainability criteria and is the least expensive one in terms of GHG mitigation cost in $/tCO2eq compared to the other scenarios.

Table 3: SuWi limits for different MSW management scenarios over the 2015-2025 period Case Total jobs as 𝑠𝑜𝑐 and total GHG emissions as 𝑒𝑛𝑣 Jobs per 10,000 tonnes as 𝑠𝑜𝑐 and total GHG emissions as 𝑒𝑛𝑣 Total jobs as 𝑠𝑜𝑐 and GHG intensity as 𝑒𝑛𝑣 Jobs per 10,000 tonnes as 𝑠𝑜𝑐 and GHG intensity as 𝑒𝑛𝑣

4.

MBTSustainability limits BAU Anaerobic digestion 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 1.00 0.59

MBTcomposting

Incineration

0.59

1.00

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥

1.00

1.61

1.65

1.08

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛

1.17

0.69

0.69

1.17

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥

1.00

1.61

1.65

1.08

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛

1.00 1.15 1.17

0.59 1.89 0.69

0.59 1.93 0.69

1.00 1.27 1.17

𝑆𝑊𝑚𝑎𝑥

1.15

1.89

1.93

1.27

Discussion

This study presented a systematic analysis of the MSW management sector in Jordan from sustainability standpoint. To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first research study to investigate this sector by simultaneously considering the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. Additionally, this study provided a methodological framework to apply the simple and effective SuWi tool to case studies in other countries and extend its application to other sectors. The MSW management sector accounts for roughly 10% of Jordan’s net GHG emissions and is amongst the priority sectors for development due to the rapid growth 16

Journal Pre-proof

it has witnessed over recent years besides the lack of efficiency and environmentally-friendly practices. The current MSW management scheme in Jordan involves collection and disposal of MSW in 18 disposal sites; only one of those is an engineered sanitary landfill while the other 17 are open dumpsites which lack the basic elements of engineered sanitary landfills. The net GHG emissions of the Jordanian MSW sector were calculated based on recorded and forecasted annual MSW quantities. When considering global warming potential, methane emissions are the main concern; because carbon dioxide generated from waste decomposition is of biogenic origins which does not add to the net GHG emissions despite its contribution to the overall global warming (Aljaradin & Persson, 2016). The 2015 and 2040 net GHG emissions of the MSW sector were estimated at 4,760 Gg CO2-eq and 6,567 Gg CO2-eq, respectively. These GHG figures were based on the assumption that the BAU scenario will prevail through 2040, that is half of the MSW is sanitary landfilled whereas the other half is openly disposed. These estimates are noticeably greater than the forecasts portrayed in MoEnv (2014) in which the 2015 and 2040 net GHG emissions of the MSW sector were projected to reach 3,301 Gg CO2-eq and 5,299 Gg CO2-eq, respectively. The discrepancy between this study’s estimates and the MoEnv’s projections is attributed to the rapid increase in the Jordanian population due to the influx of refugees since the onset of the Syrian crisis. Refugees began pouring through the northern borders since 2012 but due to the lack of reliable census data, the projected numbers undermined the sharp growth the Country has then experienced. The MoEnv (2014) estimates for the annual MSW quantities and net GHG emissions were based on a forecasted 2015 population of nearly 7 million whereas the actual 2015 population was 9.4 million. Consequently, 3.46 million tonnes MSW were actually collected and managed in 2015 according to the DOS data (DOS, 2018). Therefore, the GHG forecasts provided in this study are believed to be more realistic compared to those in MoEnv (2014), particularly that a slower growth scenario has been taken into consideration given the fact that refugee wave has slowed down markedly in the past two to three years and in fact some refugees already returned back or resettled in other countries. The SuWi tool was used to assess the sustainably of the MSW management sector over the 20102015 period. It was found that this sector does not fulfill all sustainability dimensions, especially when stronger indicators such as “jobs/10,000 tonnes” and “net GHG emissions” were used in the SuWi analysis. This is primarily due to the proportional relationship between the overall MSW quantities managed and the net GHG emissions of the BAU scenario, so the GHG intensity of open land disposal presumably remains constant. A decoupling of the proportional relationship between the net GHG emissions and the MSW quantities is expected only if alternative practices such as incineration, material recovery, composting, and anaerobic digestion are employed. Accordingly, the “net GHG emissions” as the environmental indicator will certainly lead to conclude that the BAU scenario is environmentally unsustainable. On the contrary, the BAU scenario will always be environmentally sustainable using the “GHG emissions intensity” indicator for the same reason. Hence, the “GHG emissions intensity” is a weak environmental indicator compared to the stronger “net GHG emissions”. This is in agreement with Luukkanen et al. (2019a) and Luukkanen et al. (2019b) who reported that environmental indicators expressed as intensity are typically weak indicators when used in the SuWi analysis. Similarly, the social sustainability criterion using the “total jobs” in the MSW 17

Journal Pre-proof

sector as the social inclusion indicator has been satisfied; because more jobs are created with a growing sector. However, using “jobs per 10,000 tonnes” led to concluding that the social sustainability criterion has not been met as the number of jobs dropped from 49.1 per 10,000 tonnes in 2010 to 42.5 per 10,000 tonnes in 2015. These numbers are much greater than the job factors for developing countries depicted in literature studies which suggest that on average 6.6 jobs are required per 10,000 tonnes MSW managed assuming non-labor intensive practices such as sanitary landfilling or open disposal. The inflated employment rates in the Jordanian MSW management sector raises several questions regarding the recruitment protocols followed by the municipalities. In fact, the disguised unemployment in the MSW sector is often addressed as a burden on the budgets of the municipalities and GAM. Workers seek to acquire the job title which entitles them to financial benefits without having real job tasks. The high employment rates have contributed to the inefficiency of the sector and the elevated waste management costs. On average, the cost range from $60 to $100 per tonne managed, which is deemed relatively high for developing countries where the MSW management practices are not sustainable nor labor or equipment intensive. The human capital in this sector can be viewed as a golden opportunity for embracing more sustainable practices such as recycling, recovery, manufacturing based on recycled materials, composting, and waste-to-energy facilities. Such practices will not only bring environmental benefits, but will also create real employment opportunities and economic benefits to potentially offset the elevated MSW management costs. Park et al. (2015) indicated that the waste management sector can play a key role in the green growth by providing high employment figure if sustainable practices such as recycling are employed and undertaken by the private sector. Therefore, the private sector involvement in the Jordanian MSW management sector is desired to attain the SD goals in this sector and fill the gaps in the current MSW management scheme. The fact that the MSW management sector is government-controlled weakens its technical and financial capacities due to the absence of market mechanisms and economic incentives. Multiple future alternatives were proposed and compared with the BAU scenario from environmental, social inclusion, and economic perspectives including MBT-anaerobic digestion, MBT-composting, and incineration. The prospects of these alternatives were developed based on the MSW reduction target set in Jordan Vision 2025 in which a 33% reduction in the MSW quantities disposed in landfills or open dumpsites is desired. The net GHG emissions of the BAU scenario are anticipated to reach 5,698 Gg CO2-eq by 2025. Adopting any of the proposed alternatives will result in lowering the BAU net emissions to different extents. The 2025 net GHG emissions of the proposed scenarios are estimated at 3,483 Gg CO2-eq, 3,399 Gg CO2-eq, and 5,189 Gg CO2-eq for the MBT-anaerobic digestion, MBT-composting, and incineration, respectively. Abu Qdais et al. (2019) indicated that the anaerobic digestion and composting of organic waste yield considerably less GHG emissions compared to landfilling and open disposal. They reported that the direct GHG emissions of the composting and anaerobic digestion of one tonne of organic waste are 104.1 and 197.1 kg CO2-eq per tonne, respectively. Nevertheless, the disposal of the same quantity in a sanitary landfill or in an open dumpsite results in 300 – 1,000 kg CO2-eq direct emissions. Assuming an average of 650 kg CO2-eq per tonne direction emissions in landfilling/open disposal, then the avoided emissions would be 545.9 and 452.9 kg CO2-eq per tonne for the composting and anaerobic digestion, respectively. In our study, it was 18

Journal Pre-proof

concluded that the anaerobic digestion achieves a higher net reduction in GHG emissions because the avoided utility emissions are taken into consideration if biogas is utilized for electricity generation; thus, lowering the net GHG emissions. In terms of employment opportunities, the MBT alternatives are more attractive compared to the less labor-intensive incineration and land disposal methods. The MBT alternatives will create a total of 4,551 jobs compared to 2,709 jobs for the incineration and BAU scenarios. It is worthy to mention that these estimates are based on the theoretical job factors for different MSW management practices and not the real employment figures in the Jordanian MSW management sector. The economic merit of the proposed alternatives was assessed by evaluating the average cost per tonne MSW managed. The least expensive proposed alternative is the MBT-composting with an estimated cost of $79.9/tonne compared to $88.6/tonne for the MBT-anaerobic digestion and $89.6/tonne for the incineration. All proposed alternatives are more expensive than the BAU scenario ($69.5/tonne). Nevertheless, the selection based on all sustainability dimensions favors the MBT alternatives. In particular, the MBT-composting is the most attractive and promising alternative due to its low GHG mitigation cost of $18.3 per tCO2-eq compared to $35.5/tCO2-eq for the MBT-anaerobic digestion and $161.7/tCO2-eq for incineration. Additionally, the MBTcomposting alternative is a promising one for developing countries due to its technical simplicity and low capital requirements compared to the other alternatives. Dedinec et al. (2015) indicated that MBT-composting is an attractive alternative for the MSW management in Macedonia due to the relatively low GHG mitigation costs ($18.5 – $34 per tCO2-eq). Bong et al. (2017) indicated that composting is a lower capital intensive and a less complex process compared to the anaerobic digestion. Ikhlayel et al. (2016) investigated different sustainable waste management scenarios in Jordan from environmental and economic perspectives. Alternatives such as material recovery facilities, energy recovery from sanitary landfills, incineration, composting, and anaerobic digestion of organic waste were compared and it was concluded that landfilling with energy recovery was the best alternative from environmental and economic standpoints. However; the comparisons were based on different recycling and recovery rates between the alternatives and the sale of compost was not incorporated in the economic analysis. Furthermore, the social dimension of sustainability, which was assessed by the number of jobs in our study, was not considered in Ikhlayel et al. (2016). The social dimension indeed was one of the key factors in our study which favored the selection of the MBT-composting and MBT-anaerobic digestion over the other alternatives. Alternatives such as MBT-composting not only create real employment opportunities, but also present a potential to integrate the informal recycling sector into the material recovery activities. In fact, most of the solid waste recycling and recovery activities in Jordan are undertaken by the informal sector which is composed of socially vulnerable groups who work at the different stages of the waste management hierarchy (containers, transfer stations, and disposal sites). Informal recyclers work under harsh socioeconomic conditions and their contribution is often overlooked even though most of the recycling and recovery in Jordan is attributed to those groups. People often engage in the informal recycling activities due to the high unemployment rates combined with the elevated poverty levels. Hence, scavenging has become more socially acceptable in recent years and is expected to remain in the Jordanian MSW management system due to the 19

Journal Pre-proof

poor economic conditions in the Country (Aljaradin et al., 2015). Therefore, the inclusion of the informal sector is one of the ultimate sustainability goals in the MSW sector which will bring several economic, environmental, and social benefits to the municipalities and the society. Currently, the informal recycling activities are focused on recovering dry recyclables such as paper/cardboard, metal, and plastic. Organics, which make up the majority of the MSW in Jordan, are ignored by the informal sector because such materials require further processing through biological treatment approaches to produce useful outputs. The integration of the informal sector must capitalize on the experience of this sector to separate and utilize the organic wastes to ultimately produce biogas and compost. The success of the proposed scenarios depends on several factor including government policy and financing, regulations enforcement mechanisms, public awareness, human and institutional capacity building, recycled-material market, land availability, and technological resources (Khateeb et al., 2011; Troschinetz & Mihelcic, 2009). Sustainable practices in solid waste management such as composting are not currently practiced on a large scale in Jordan. For example, there are only two full-scale composting plants which use animal manure as a feedstock. Those two plants are located in Deir Alla (in Jordan Valley) with 50 tonnes/day capacity and in Al Husainiat landfill (Mafraq governorate) with 40 tonnes/day capacity. Reasons why sustainable practices are not mature yet in Jordan include the low cost of disposal at the landfills/dumpsites and the weakness of compost market in Jordan due to the lack of awareness at the farmer and decision maker levels. Hence, to ensure the success of composting, farmers and decision makers need to be educated on the benefits of using compost to replace the chemical fertilizers. The environmental sustainability of landfilling can be enhanced further with an increase in the gas recovery efficiency. It was assumed in our study that the efficiency is nearly 35% based on the MoEnv estimates; however, other studies conducted in developed countries reported recovery efficiencies as high as 80% (Abu Qdais et al., 2019). There is often a lack of reliable legislative framework and adequate enforcing mechanisms to regulate the different stages of MSW management in developing countries. Another major challenge is the limited investment in this sector, and even if financial resources are available, these are often invested in infrastructure rehabilitation and the construction of new facilities with little to no regards to building human and institutional capacities and raising public awareness (Khateeb et al., 2011). To successfully transition the Jordanian MSW management sector to a green growth path, there are several priority actions to ensure the success and sustainability of relevant strategies and plans such as the development of clear governmental environmental policies and targets for waste minimization, reuse, recycling, and recovery; formalization of the informal waste scavenging to enhance labor conditions and improve the health and socioeconomic conditions of this social group; establishing technical and financial support programs and mechanisms; providing incentives for green solid waste management practices such as recycling subsidies, refunds, tipping fees, and green funds; supporting research and development in the sustainable solid waste management practices; and boosting public awareness to increase their contribution towards sustainable practices (Elagroudy et al., 2016).

20

Journal Pre-proof

5.

Conclusions

This paper examined the municipal solid waste (MSW) management sector in Jordan from a sustainability viewpoint. The Sustainability Window (SuWi) analysis tool was used to assess the sustainability of the Jordanian MSW sector over the 2010-2015 period. The SuWi tool provides a window of economic growth through which the growth satisfies both the environmental and social sustainability criteria. Indicators such as the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and GHG intensity were used as environmental indicators; number of jobs in the sector and the number of jobs per 10,000 tonnes were used as social inclusion indicators; and the annual MSW quantities and annual municipalities’ revenue were used as economic growth indicators. The GHG emissions were estimated using the mass balance and first-order decay methods based on past and forecasted annual MSW quantities. Other socio-economic data were obtained from official reports published by the GoJ. Three scenarios were then proposed to attain the waste reduction target defined in Jordan Vision 2025, namely: Mechanical biological treatment (MBT)anaerobic digestion, MBT-composting, and incineration. These scenarios were analyzed using the SuWi tool and were compared in terms of their sustainability and GHG mitigation costs. It was found that the net GHG emissions of the MSW management sector will rise to 5,698 Gg CO2-eq by 2025 should this sector grow as usual; thus, accounting for 14.5% of the Country’s overall GHG emissions. It was also concluded from the SuWi analysis over the 2010-2015 period that this sector does not satisfy the social inclusion criterion when the stronger indicator “jobs/10,000 tonnes” was used in the SuWi analysis compared to the weaker one “total jobs”. Similarly, the environmental criterion was only satisfied when the weaker “GHG intensity” was used as opposed to the stronger “net GHG emissions”. The SuWi was used to analyze the proposed future scenarios and it was determined that the MBT-anaerobic digestion and MBTcomposting fulfill the sustainability criteria regardless of the social, environmental, and economic indicators utilized. Incineration only fulfills the sustainability criteria using the weak environmental indicator “GHG intensity” whereas the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario does not fulfill the sustainability limits under any case. Nevertheless, the MBT-composting is the most attractive and promising alternative due to its low GHG mitigation cost of $18.3 per tCO2-eq compared to $35.5/tCO2-eq for the MBT-anaerobic digestion and $161.7/tCO2-eq for incineration. One of the main sustainability gaps in the Jordanian MSW management sector is the high number of registered employees which reached 14,709 in 2015. Consequently, the MSW management sector in Jordan shall capitalize on the massive labor force in this sector to transition into more sustainable and labor-intensive practices such as recycling, recovery, composting, waste-to-energy, and manufacturing from recycled materials as opposed to the existing practices of disposal in landfills and open dumpsites. Not only these practices serve the social sustainability goal, but also contribute to the attainment of environmental sustainability due to the lower GHG emissions of these alternatives compared to the BAU scenario.

21

Journal Pre-proof

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declarations of interest: none

22

Journal Pre-proof

References Abbasi, S. (2018). The myth and the reality of energy recovery from municipal solid waste. Energy Sustain Soc, 8(1), 26. Abu Qdais, H., Wuensh, C., Dornack, C., & Nassour, A. (2019). The role of solid waste composting in mitigating climate change in Jordan. Waste Manage Res,37(8), 833-842. Aljaradin, M., & Persson, K. M. (2016). The Emission potential from municipal solid waste landfill in Jordan. J Ecol Eng, 17(1). Aljaradin, M., Persson, K. M., & Sood, E. (2015). The role of informal sector in waste management, a case study; Tafila-Jordan. J Resour Manag, 5(1), 9-14. Alrai Newspaper. (2017). Ministry of Municipal Affairs: JD 400 million spent annually for solid waste collection and treatment. Retrieved from http://alrai.com/article/10418230/ Angeli, J. B., Morales, A., LeFloc’h, T., Lakel, A., & Andres, Y. (2018). Anaerobic digestion and integration at urban scale: Feedback and comparative case study. Energy Sustain Soc, 8(1), 29. Arabiat, O. (2018). Solid waste management in Amman and biogas production. Jordanian Engineers Association’s workshop on solid waste management in Jordan. Amman, Jordan. Barbier, E. (2011). The policy challenges for green economy and sustainable economic development. Natural Resources Forum (pp. 233-245). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Bina, O. (2013). The green economy and sustainable development: An uneasy balance? Environ Plann C, 31(6), 1023-1047. Bong, C., Lim, L., Ho, W., Lim, J., Klemeš, J., Towprayoon, S., Ho, C., Lee, C. (2017). A review on the global warming potential of cleaner composting and mitigation strategies. J Clean Prod, 146, 149-157. Braizat, F. (2018). Syrian refugees: Returning? The Jordan Times. Retrieved from http://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/fares-braizat/syrian-refugees-returning. Cimpan, C., Maul, A., Wenzel, H., & Pretz, T. (2016). Techno-economic assessment of central sorting at material recovery facilities–the case of lightweight packaging waste. J Clean Prod, 112, 4387-4397. Dedinec, A., Markovska, N., Ristovski, I., Velevski, G., Gjorgjievska, V. T., Grncarovska, T. O., & Zdraveva, P. (2015). Economic and environmental evaluation of climate change mitigation measures in the waste sector of developing countries. J Clean Prod, 88, 234-241. de Vries, B. J., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development: An assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecol Econ, 68(4), 1006-1019. DOS. (2012). Environmental Statistics: 2010. Amman, Jordan: Department of Statistics. 23

Journal Pre-proof

DOS. (2014). Environmental Statistics: 2011. Amman, Jordan: Department of Statistics. DOS. (2015). Environmental Statistics: 2012. Amman, Jordan: Department of Statistics. DOS. (2016). Population Projections for the Kingdom’s Residents during the Period 2015-2050. Amman, Jordan: Department of Statistics. DOS. (2018). Environmental Statistics: 2014-2015. Amman, Jordan: Department of Statistics. Elagroudy, S., Warith, M. A., & El Zayat, M. (2016). Municipal Solid Waste Management and Green Economy. Global Young Academy. Environment Canada. (2001). Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Submitted by ICF Consulting, Torrie-Smith Associates, and Enviros-RIS. Fahmi, W., & Sutton, K. (2010). Cairo’s contested garbage: Sustainable solid waste management and the Zabaleen’s right to the city. Sustainability, 2(6), 1765-1783. Fei, F., Wen, Z., Huang, S., & De Clercq, D. (2018). Mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste: Energy efficiency, environmental impact and economic feasibility analysis. J Clean Prod, 178, 731-739. Gharaibeh, E. S., Haimour, N. M., & Akash, B. A. (2011). Evaluation of current municipal solid waste practice and management for Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. Int J Sust Water Environ Syst, 2(2), 103-110. GoJ (2015). Jordan 2025: A National Vision and Strategy. Amman, Jordan: Government of Jordan. Goldstein, J. (2014). From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for California. Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, DC.: World Bank. Ikhlayel, M., Higano, Y., Yabar, H., & Mizunoya, T. (2016). Introducing an integrated municipal solid waste management system: Assessment in Jordan. J Sustain Dev, 9(2), 43. IPCC. (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Volume 5). Hayama, Japan: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Geneva, Switzerland. Kanaan, T., & Kardoosh, M. (2002). The story of economic growth in Jordan: 1950–2000. Amman, Jordan.

24

Journal Pre-proof

Khateeb, E., Al-Junidi, A., & Sawalha, I. (2011). Municipal solid waste management in developing countries: Future challenges and possible opportunities. Retrieve from: HYPERLINK "https://fada.birzeit.edu/handle/20.500.11889/2433" https://fada.birzeit.edu/handle/20.500.11889/2433 Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Vähäkari, N., O’Mahony, T., Korkeakoski, M., Panula-Ontto, J., Phonhalath, K., Nanthavong, K., Reincke, K., Vehmas, J. and Hogarth, N. (2019a). Green economic development in Lao PDR: A sustainability window analysis of Green Growth Productivity and the Efficiency Gap. J Clean Prod, 211, 818-829. Luukkanen, J., Kaivo‐oja, J., Vähäkari, N., O'Mahony, T., Korkeakoski, M., Panula‐Ontto, Vehmas, J., & Nguyen Quoc, A. (2019b). Resource efficiency and green economic sustainability transition evaluation of green growth productivity gap and governance challenges in Cambodia. Sustain Dev,27: 312-320. MoEnv. (2017). A National Green Growth Plan for Jordan. Amman, Jordan: Ministry of Environment. MoEnv. (2014). Jordan’s Third National Communication on Climate Change. A report submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Park, S., Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2015). Quantifying solid waste and recycling employment in Florida, USA: Trends in public and private sectors. Waste Manage Res, 33(12), 1127-1131. Saidan, M., Drais, A., & Al-Manaseer, E. (2017). Solid waste composition analysis and recycling evaluation: Zaatari Syrian Refugees Camp, Jordan. Waste Manag, 61, 58-66. Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloan, P. (2016). Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environ Dev, 17, 48-56. SweepNet. (2014). Country Report on the Solid Waste Management in Jordan. GIZ. Troschinetz, A. M., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2009). Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Manage, 29(2), 915-923. U.S. EPA. (2006). Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. United States Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA. (2019). Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator - Calculations and References. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculatorcalculations-and-references. UNEP. (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook. United Nations Environment Programme. Wanner, T. (2015). The new ‘passive revolution' of the green economy and growth discourse: Maintaining the ‘sustainable development’ of neoliberal capitalism. New Polit Econ, 20(1), 2141. World Population Review. (2018). Jordanian Population 2018. Retrieved from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/jordan-population/ 25

Journal Pre-proof

Figure captions: Figure 1: MSW composition in Jordan (SweepNet, 2014) Figure 2: Cumulative and projected GHG emissions for the Jordanian MSW management sector Figure 3: SuWi analysis for the growth of the Jordanian MSW management sector using GHG intensity as the environmental indicator, number of employees per tonne MSW as the social inclusion indicator and (a) MSW annual quantities as the economic growth indicator, and (b) municipalities’ revenue as the economic growth indicator Figure 4: SuWi analysis for the growth of the Jordanian MSW management sector using GHG intensity as the environmental indicator, number of employees in the MSW sector as the social inclusion indicator and (a) MSW annual quantities as the economic growth indicator, and (b) municipalities’ revenue as the economic growth indicator

26

Journal Pre-proof

Credit Author Statement Manuscript title: Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Development in Jordan towards Green Growth by Sustainability Window Analysis Author Husam A. Abu Hajar

Adiy Tweissi

Yousef A. Abu Hajar

Radwan Al-Weshah

Khaldoun M. Shatanawi

Rana Imam Yasmin Z. Murad

Contribution Conceptualization, overall manuscript preparation and editing, green growth and sustainable development review and comparisons, green growth in the Jordanian context, Jordanian policies and regulations on green growth and the priority sectors, development of alternatives, data collection, selection of the data analysis tool (SuWi), methods for the environmental/social/economic assessment, SuWi analysis, indicators validation, and discussion. Conceptualization, green growth and sustainable development review and comparisons, green growth in the Jordanian context, Jordanian policies and regulations on green growth and the priority sectors, screening the economic and social indicators, art and graphics work, manuscript preparation and editing. Conceptualization, green growth and sustainable development review and comparisons, Jordan’s green growth and the priority sectors, screening and validating the economic and social indicators, SuWi analysis, manuscript preparation and editing. Review of the solid waste sector in Jordan, green growth in the solid waste sector, comparisons with other countries, screening and validating the environmental indicators, manuscript preparation and editing. Development of alternatives, environmental analysis of alternatives, SuWi analysis and validation of indicators, discussion of the results. Development of alternatives, data collection from literature and reports, indicators data analysis, and discussion. Data collection, review of Jordanian policies and regulations, screening and selection of

Journal Pre-proof

Mohammad A. Abu Hajer

indicators, original manuscript preparation and editing, discussion of the results. . Screening and selection of social and economic indicators, data collection from Jordanian literature and reports, methods for the economic and social assessment of alternatives.

Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of interests ☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. ☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Journal Pre-proof

Others 16% Metal 1%

Organic 50%

Plastics 16%

Paper 15%

Glass 2%

Journal Pre-proof

7,000

Gg CO2-eq

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 2005

2010

2015

2020

2025 Year

2030

2035

2040

Journal Pre-proof

Social

Environmental

2

Line 1 Line 3

env & soc

1.5 Line 2 1

0.5

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

econ

2.5

3

(a) Social

Environmental

2

Line 1

Line 3

env & soc

1.5

Line 2

1

0.5

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

econ

(b)

2

2.5

3

Journal Pre-proof

Social

Environmental

2

Line 1

Line 2

env & soc

1.5

Line 3

1

0.5

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

econ

2.5

3

(a) Social 2

Environmental Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

env & soc

1.5

1

0.5

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

econ

(b)

2

2.5

3

Journal Pre-proof

Highlights:    

The sustainability of the solid waste management sector in Jordan was assessed using the Sustainability Window tool. The current growth scheme of the Jordanian solid waste management sector is not sustainable. Mechanical biological treatment plants are sustainable solid waste management alternatives. The least expensive mitigation measure is the mechanical biological treatmentcomposting with a cost of $18.3 per tCO2-eq.