Version of Record: [Link]

com/science/article/pii/S0956053X18305865
Manuscript_1193a825479a7e6dfc65cc5ceb600394

2 The Future of Waste Management in Smart and Sustainable

3 Cities: A Review and Concept Paper

4

5 Behzad Esmaeiliana, Ben Wangb, Kemper Lewisc,

6 Fabio Duartee,f, Carlo Rattif, Sara Behdadc,d*

7 [Link]@[Link], [Link]@[Link], kelewis@[Link], fduarte@[Link],

8 ratti@[Link], sarabehd@[Link]*

9
a
10 Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Western New England University, 1215

11 Wilbraham Road, Springfield, MA, 01119, USA. Tel: +1-413-782-1727

b
12 The H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,

13 755 Ferst Drive, NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA. Tel: +1-404-385-2068
c
14 Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University at Buffalo, SUNY, 318 Jarvis Hall,

15 Buffalo, NY, 14260, USA. Tel: +1-716-645-2593

d
16 Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, University at Buffalo, SUNY, 243 Bell Hall, Buffalo,

17 NY, 14260, USA. Tel: +1-716-645-5914

e
18 Urban Management, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
f
19 The Senseable City Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge,

20 MA, 02139, USA, Tel: +1-617-324-4474.

21

22

1
*Corresponding Author:
Sara Behdad, Assistant Professor, Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering Department, University at Buffalo, SUNY, 243 Bell Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260,
USA. Tel: 716-645-5914, Email: sarabehd@[Link]

© 2018 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
[Link]
23 Abstract

24 The potential of smart cities in remediating environmental problems in general and waste management, in

25 particular, is an important question that needs to be investigated in academic research. Built on an

26 integrative review of the literature, this study offers insights into the potential of smart cities and

27 connected communities in facilitating waste management efforts. Shortcomings of existing waste

28 management practices are highlighted and a conceptual framework for a centralized waste management

29 system is proposed, where three interconnected elements are discussed: 1) an infrastructure for proper

30 collection of product lifecycle data to facilitate full visibility throughout the entire lifespan of a product,

31 2) a set of new business models relied on product lifecycle data to prevent waste generation, and 3) an

32 intelligent sensor-based infrastructure for proper upstream waste separation and on-time collection. The

33 proposed framework highlights the value of product lifecycle data in reducing waste and enhancing waste

34 recovery and the need for connecting waste management practices to the whole product life-cycle. An

35 example of the use of tracking and data sharing technologies for investigating the waste management

36 issues has been discussed. Finally, the success factors for implementing the proposed framework and

37 some thoughts on future research directions have been discussed.

38

39 Keywords: IoT-enabled Waste Management, Sustainable and Smart Cities, Circular Economy, Product

40 Lifecycle Data

41

2
42 1. Introduction

43 In recent years, there has been some controversy over the role of technology in meeting sustainable

44 development goals. While traditionally, based on IPAT formula ( = ), technology (T) along with

45 Population (P) and the level of Affluence (A) are viewed as the main contributors to environmental

46 Impacts (I) (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1997)., later on, the IPAT equation has been reshaped to emphasize that

47 technology can influence environmental impacts in a positive way, = ( )/ (York, Rosa, and Dietz

48 2003) (Anderson 1998).

49 The role of technology becomes ever more important, as we experience the fourth industrial revolution

50 and new emerging infrastructure and capabilities offered by Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Blockchain

51 technology, and the Internet of Things (IoT). CPS is a new class of engineered systems that offer

52 coordination among physical and computational infrastructures and are the foundation of Industry 4.0,

53 smart factories, and other smart systems such as smart buildings, security systems, data centers and

54 medical systems (Khaitan and McCalley 2015). If the networking functionalities offered by the internet

55 are added to CPS, a new networking paradigm known as IoT is emerging where communications among

56 all types of physical entities would be possible over the internet (Han et al. 2013). In addition, the

57 capabilities offered by Blockchain technology for creating a decentralized public ledger facilitates

58 information sharing among various users involved in a system and opens the door for new transparent

59 business models.

60 IoT is expected to change the urban development and future cities, similar to other engineered systems.

61 The impact of technology and innovation on urban development was highlighted under the term “smart

62 city” (SC) coined in early 1990 (Gibson, Kozmetsky, and Smilor 1992) and most recently under the term

63 “City 2.0”. Various definitions and dimensions have been provided for a smart city (Albino, Berardi, and

64 Dangelico 2015), among these definitions, the one offered in (Caragliu, Del Bo, and Nijkamp 2011) is

65 close to sustainable development, where it suggests that a city is smart when the aim of investing in

3
66 cyber-infrastructure is to foster sustainable economic growth, better quality of life, and efficient

67 management of natural resources.

68 There is a shared definition of what makes a smart city and what constitutes a sustainable one, where a

69 smart city is not just about smart infrastructure but the extent at which such infrastructure assists in

70 achieving sustainable development objectives. For instance, waste generation is a fast-growing problem

71 of modern societies, particularly in growing urban regions. Around 1.7-1.9 billion metric tons of

72 municipal solid waste is generated every year worldwide (Environment and Programme 2010). If the

73 city’s population as a result of rural-urban migration is growing at the existing rate of 3-5 percent a year,

74 then the waste generation will double every 10 years (UN-HABITAT 2009). Although according to the

75 environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) by increasing income per capita, the environmental degradation, and

76 pollution decreases, the economy of scale and the population growth may offset the benefits of economic

77 development. Further, there are controversial discussions on the accuracy of EKC. According to Stern

78 (Stern 2004), the statistical evidence behind EKC are not robust and the relation between environmental

79 impacts and per capita income is not predictable. Waste generation is a concern for modern societies due

80 to both the service cost of waste collection, and the environmental issues of landfills. The IoT seems a

81 promising solution for handling waste collection and recovery operations in SCs (Zanella et al. 2014).

82 The number of studies that have discussed waste management practices in SCs is limited. The objective

83 of this paper is to first review the existing studies on the topic and then introduce a data-driven model for

84 waste management practices in SCs considering the circular economy concept.

85 Table 1 provides a list of previous review papers. As shown, the previous reviews were primarily focused

86 on either smart and sustainable cities or waste management. The scope of every previous review provided

87 is limited to the concept of SCs with one recent paper on ICT-enabled models for waste collection

88 (Anagnostopoulos et al. 2017).

89 The current paper proposes a conceptual framework for waste management in SCs. The proposed

90 framework consists of three main elements: (1) a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) framework for

4
 91 collecting product lifecycle data and monitoring a product over its entire lifespan, (2) new business

92 models compatible with circular economy and sharing economy concepts, and (3) intelligent

93 infrastructure for proper separation, on-time collection, and recovery of waste. The paper provides an

94 example of electronic waste (e-waste) tracking effort to show the feasibility of applying sensor-based

95 technologies in waste monitoring and management practices. Finally, several success factors towards

96 implementing the proposed framework have been discussed.

97

98 Table 1. Previous review papers and their scope

99

100 The remaining of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the research method. Section 3

101 discusses the role of technology, people and data in future SCs. Section 4 reviews the literature on waste

102 management in SCs. Section 5 introduces a framework for collecting product lifecycle data towards

103 proper waste recovery efforts. Section 6 provides an example of product monitoring through tracking

104 technologies for the case of electronic waste. Section 7 discusses several factors for successful

105 implementation of the proposed framework and finally, Section 8 concludes the paper.

106 2. Research Method

107 A four-step research method used in (Srivastava 2007) has been adopted to collect and analyze the

108 literature: defining unit of analysis, selecting the classification context, collecting publications, and

109 evaluation of materials. The literature has been reviewed under three main topics, namely smart cities,

110 sustainability, and waste management. The relevant studies have been searched through Engineering

111 Village, Inspec, Compendex, Knovel, NTIS & GeoRef databases for the timeframe of 1997 to July 2017.

112 Besides the point that these databases allowed the authors to find a wide range of publications, the

113 capabilities offered by the search tool of these databases enabled the authors to refine the search based on

114 vocabulary, document type, country, and publication year. Particularly, the resulting charts for publication

5
115 year helped the authors to identify and locate any missing traditional and new publications related to

116 keywords.

117 A single research paper or book has been considered as the unit of analysis. A set of key words including

118 waste management, smart cities, IoT enabled waste, sensor-based waste management, and RFID waste

119 has been used to find relevant publications. These key words have been applied with different

120 combinations of AND/OR operators to assure the collection of a sufficient number of studies. The

121 collected literature has been analyzed under two categories of problem context and methodology context

122 in order to cover both studies that have discussed waste management in smart cities and studies that have

123 developed methods to address such problems.

124 3. The Role of Data, Technology, and People in Smart and Sustainable Cities

125 To transform the urban environment into smart regions, many infrastructure and management-related

126 factors are involved. In this section, we will discuss the role of three factors of technology, data, and

127 people as highlighted by (Deloitte 2015) with particular emphasis on the role of data and citizens, as they

128 are among main driving forces of our proposed framework in Section 4. Later on in Section 4, we will

129 discuss that new business models and policies are important too. Technology or infrastructure is only one

130 element of this transformation, the collection of appropriate data toward defining smart solutions and

131 changes that smart solutions bring into consumer behavior are two other cornerstones of SCs (Deloitte

132 2015).

133 The collection of citizen-generated data is becoming more convenient as the number of smartphones and

134 mobile devices users are increasing. The number of mobile devices sold in the global market in 2015

135 reached an all-time high of 1.4 billion units of which 70% were expected to purchase to replace older

136 devices (Gartner 2016). Data collected through smartphones is one of the main elements of smart

137 communities. Data are often geo-referenced meaning that the data can be linked to a specific geographic

138 location through a pair of coordinates. In addition, data are often time-specific meaning that data are

6
139 relevant to a specific moment of time. The geo-referenced data not only are helpful for understanding the

140 behavior of individual citizens but also for extracting trends and community features.

141 Data can be categorized under 1) private social data generated mainly by citizens, and 2) information

142 about the public infrastructure collected by sensing technologies that are deployed for monitoring and

143 management purposes. We are reaching the point when ‘smart dust’, the pervasive network of millimeter-

144 size sensing and communication technologies are embedded in devices present in all daily activities

145 (Warneke et al. 2001). In addition to data collection, new advancements in data processing systems such

146 as edge and fog computing enable IoT users to localize their data processing needs and bring data

147 processing close to data collection nodes. This improves the system latency, removes the need for

148 centralized cloud servers, and reduces the computational costs as well as data privacy issues and energy

149 consumption (Shi et al. 2016).

150 Several sources of data can be used to retrieve smart communities’ data, ranging from the surveys

151 conducted by the US Census Bureau to datasets collected by various governmental departments and

152 private companies to apps and crowd-sensing where data acquisition is done by integrating readings from

153 various devices and embedded sensors carried by citizens. As an example of datasets available through

154 governmental agencies, SF OpenData publishes the data collected in the city of San Francisco under ten

155 main categories of 1) economy and community, 2) city management and ethics, 3) transportation, 4)

156 public safety, 5) health and social services, 6) geographic locations and boundaries, 7) energy and

157 environment, 8) housing and buildings, 9) city infrastructure and 10) culture and recreation (“SF

158 OpenData” 2017). Pan et al. (Pan et al. 2013) grouped the main devices for collecting data into four

159 categories: mobile devices, vehicles equipped with GPS devices, smart cards, and floating sensors.

160 Currently, data are collected essentially everywhere by different organizations, but what is missing is the

161 communication between different sources and the lack of an integrated and connected data cloud that can

162 be shared between different stakeholders (Steve Lohr 2014; Dasu and Johnson 2003). Pan et al. (Pan et al.

163 2013) have discussed that the data collected from SCs have been analyzed in the literature for the

7
164 following purposes: 1) prediction of the patterns and models of citizens behavior, 2) tracing the citizen

165 data at individual levels, 3) tracing the social relation and interactions among individual citizens, 4)

166 connection between region characteristics and residents behavior of each region, 5) visualization of

167 complex data and dynamics of city evolution, and 6) unwanted privacy issues and personal identity.

168 In addition to data, citizens made up another element of SCs as social machines. The sustainable cities

169 may seek ways to use the capabilities of disruptive technologies toward making proper changes in human

170 behavior, disruptive technologies that change consumer behavior toward pro-environmental behavior.

171 Chourabi et al. (Chourabi et al. 2011) categorized the critical factors of SC initiatives under eight

172 categories of management, governance, policy, technology, people, infrastructure, economy, and natural

173 environment.

174 The structure and dynamics of socio-technological communities formed in SCs contribute to

175 sustainability results. Cities are made up of both citizens and infrastructures for food, water, energy,

176 transportation, and other service activities. Therefore, they are considered as complex social-technological

177 systems, where citizens as human agents operate various technological systems (Nam and Pardo 2011a).

178 Sustainability requires critical insights into the way SCs are designed, the way citizens use technologies,

179 as well as the ways technologies, are valued and should be altered in more sustainable ways.

180 The technological systems can be divided into two types depending on the type of decision makers: 1)

181 systems that are built through decisions collectively made through public policy, and 2) systems that are

182 built through individual decisions by citizens. The waste generation system is categorized under the

183 second group, where the waste generation rate is influenced by decisions made by individuals. Arguably,

184 most of the decisions made by individuals are mainly based on technical criteria such as cost rather than

185 societal or ecological values (Miller, Sarewitz, and Light 2008). Therefore, waste management is

186 becoming a complex urban problem. The role of citizen behavior is further discussed in Section 4.2.2. We

187 should note that the relationship between citizens and technology is a two-way connection. While citizen

188 decisions influence waste management system, the waste management infrastructure surrounding

8
189 individual citizens also influence citizens behavior (Liboiron 2014). Cities require innovative, cross-

190 industry solutions to facilitate collection and disposal of solid waste. The solutions should be replicable,

191 adaptable, and scalable (Patil et al. 2017).

192 Ahvenniemi et al. (Ahvenniemi et al. 2017) conducted a study to compare the extent in which the concept

193 of SCs addresses the same concerns as the concept of sustainable cities. They compared the set of

194 performance assessment systems used in both SCs and sustainable cities and concluded that the existing

195 SCs frameworks do not sufficiently target the sustainability-related indicators, particularly environmental

196 indicators such as energy, waste, and water management are underrepresented. Neirotti et al. (Neirotti et

197 al. 2014) reported a different conclusion about the energy domain and concluded that renewable energy

198 and people mobility domains have received the most attention in many SC initiatives. The coverage of

199 waste management domain is still limited. Surprisingly, even in the context of sustainability, the set of 29

200 indicators used by United Nations Cities Reports and adopted by various organizations only include

201 energy and water consumed as main resources and does not include other types of resources such as solid

202 and hazardous waste (Cote et al. 2006).

203 Figure 1 shows the progress of the concept of the smart and sustainable city in the literature.

204

205 Figure 1. The progress of smart and sustainable cities in the literature, the number of published work from 1997-

206 July 2017 with the exact smart city-related terms in their titles derived from Engineering Village.

207

208 4. Review of IoT-enabled Waste Management Practices

209 In this section, first, we briefly provide an overview of waste management practices and then discuss the

210 major trends in waste management in SCs literature.

9
211 To the best of our knowledge about waste management literature, the studies on waste management have

212 been focused on three main objectives of 1) waste characterization, 2) waste quantification, and 3) waste

213 management practices.

214 Waste characterization studies mainly focus on sampling waste stream in different geographical regions

215 with the aim of sorting and classifying waste stream into several fractions such as organic, paper, metal

216 and plastic (Gomez et al. 2008)(de Vega, Benítez, and Barreto 2008). Waste quantification studies on the

217 other hand were mainly focused on estimating the amount of waste generation in a wide range of

218 industries such as construction (Bossink and Brouwers 1996), food (Parfitt, Barthel, and Macnaughton

219 2010), e-waste (Bigum et al. 2013), forestry waste (Castro et al. 2017), medical waste (Patwary et al.

220 2009), and ship scraping waste (Reddy et al. 2003). In addition to waste generated, estimations of waste

221 recycled, incinerated, landfilled, and composted have been of interest in the literature.

222 The existing management practices include three main practices: prevention practices (e.g. product

223 design), end-of-pipe strategies (e.g. recycling, waste separation, incineration, proper landfill), and

224 environmental restoration practices (Dornfeld 2013). Prevention practice studies have been mainly

225 focused on analyzing strategies such as waste minimization (Ajayi et al. 2017), improving residents

226 awareness (M. J. Clarke and Maantay 2006), and waste legislation (Cooper 2000). End-of-pipe strategies

227 on the other hand aimed at recovering the value still embedded in the waste stream through practices such

228 as proper and on-time collection (Wäger, Hischier, and Eugster 2011), recycling, waste repurposing

229 (Wadhwa, Bakshi, and Makkar 2015), waste separation methods both destination-separated collection and

230 origin-separated collection (Sukholthaman and Sharp 2016), reuse, recycling, and incineration or waste-

231 to-energy (Syngellakis 2014). Finally, environmental restoration strategies, also known as oops strategies

232 have been focused on restoring the damaged environment after waste streams leak to the environment. It

233 should be noted that among the above-mentioned three practices, prevention practices offer the highest

234 effectiveness with the lowest cost, while environmental restoration is the most expensive practice with the

235 lowest effectiveness (Dornfeld 2013).

10
236 Although a lot of work has been done on the waste management topic, the concept of IoT-enabled waste

237 management is quite new and the number of publications in this field is growing. The studies that have

238 addressed IoT-enabled waste management systems can be classified into the following four categories:

239 • Development of data acquisition and sensor-based technologies (Glouche and Couderc

240 2013)(Catania and Ventura 2014);

241 • Development of communication technologies and data transmission infrastructure (Medvedev et

242 al. 2015)(Chowdhury and Chowdhury 2007)(Longhi et al. 2012);

243 • Test the capabilities of IoT systems in field experiments (Hong et al. 2014) (Gutierrez et al. 2015);

244 and

245 • Truck routing and scheduling for waste collection operations (Anagnostopoulos, Zaslavsy, et al.

246 2015)(Ustundag and Cevı̇ kcan 2008)(Chang, Lu, and Wei 1997).

247 Several studies have discussed the overall system architecture of IoT enabled waste management systems

248 in which a number of bins are equipped with RFID tags for identification purpose, capacity sensors for

249 waste level detection, actuators to lock the bin lids once they are filled, and wireless antennas to transmit

250 sensor data to the network for waste collection operations (Longhi et al. 2012) (Anagnostopoulos,

251 Zaslavsy, et al. 2015) (Medvedev et al. 2015). Anagnostopoulos et al. (Anagnostopoulos, Zaslavsky, and

252 Medvedev 2015) have used the above-defined architecture integrated with a transportation system

253 consisting of a number of low and high-capacity trucks equipped with GPS spatial technologies to describe

254 the capabilities of IoT in both real-time monitoring of waste levels in trash bins as well as truck

255 navigations for efficient waste collection.

256 Hannan et al. (L. Zhang, Atkins, and Yu 2012) provided a review of ICT technologies in waste

257 management applications and classified the technologies into four groups of spatial technologies (e.g. GIS,

258 GPS), identification technologies (e.g. RFID, barcodes), data acquisition technologies (e.g. sensors,

259 imaging) and data communication technologies (e.g. GSM, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth). The last three groups have

260 received more attention in the waste management literature.

11
261 Before we start reviewing data identification, data acquisition, and data communication technologies, we

262 will briefly discuss the way spatial technologies have been used for waste management. Reviewing the

263 literature reveals that spatial technologies have been mainly used for the purpose of landfill site selection,

264 path planning, and routing optimization problems. For example, Ghose et al. (Ghose, Dikshit, and Sharma

265 2006) have developed a GIS-based routing model that define the optimal path for solid waste collection

266 based on the population density, the types of road, and road network. Sumathi et al. (Sumathi, Natesan,

267 and Sarkar 2008) have applied GIS-based data in a multi-criteria decision model to identify the optimal

268 site for a landfill construction. Sener et al (Şener et al. 2010) also have used GIS data for landfill site

269 selection. Leao et al. (Leao, Bishop, and Evans 2001) have conducted a dynamic analysis in the GIS

270 environment to quantify the demand of proper land for solid waste disposal over time.

271 One stream of literature has been focused on the development and application of identification and data

272 acquisition technologies. The identification technologies are mainly RFID-based. To name a few studies,

273 Glouche et al. (Glouche, Sinha, and Couderc 2015) developed an RFID-based framework for waste

274 identification in which digital information and QR codes attached to objects help users with correctly

275 sorting and placing wastes in trash bins. Chowdhury and Chowdhury (Chowdhury and Chowdhury 2007)

276 showed how municipalities can use an RFID-based automatic waste weighting and identification system to

277 identify stolen bins and communicate waste management information with individual households. Rada et

278 al. (Rada, Ragazzi, and Fedrizzi 2013) also discussed the way that using an integrated Web-GIS system

279 with RFID allows efficient waste separation in Italy. Al-Jabi and Diab (Al-Jabi and Diab 2017) also

280 pointed out the application of an integrated RFID card, weight sensor, and ultrasonic sensor in monitoring

281 the amount of waste that citizens drop in trash bins, and providing feedback reports to them. Abdoli

282 (Abdoli 2009) however questioned the environmental implications of RFIDs and commented that while

283 RFID tags facilitate the automatic identification of recyclable components in the solid waste stream, if

284 used broadly, it may result in dissolving toxic and valuable materials in the established recycling

285 processes.

12
286 The data acquisition technologies for detecting bin levels can be categorized under two groups of camera

287 (or image-based) and sensor-based technologies such as weighing, ultrasonic, and light-emitting diode

288 (LED) sensors (Elia, Gnoni, and Tornese 2015). Reverter et al. (Reverter, Gasulla, and Pallas-Areny 2003)

289 designed a point-level capacitive sensor for improving solid waste collection. Vicentin et al. (Vicentini et

290 al. 2009) also designed a sensorized container that allows measurement of the actual weight and volume of

291 the waste. They have tested the prototype of their design in the Pudong New Area, Shanghai. Medvedev et

292 al. (Medvedev et al. 2015) have extended the current sensor-based technologies by combining two types of

293 technologies and adding surveillance cameras as an assistive technology that can provide further evidence

294 to authorities in the case of an inefficient waste collection in inaccessible regions. Along similar lines,

295 Hannan et al. (Rada, Ragazzi, and Fedrizzi 2013) developed several image-processing algorithms to

296 analyze the information received from a camera for waste bin level detection. Catania and Ventura

297 (Catania and Ventura 2014) discussed the application of the sensor-based smart-M3 platform, an open-

298 source project, for real-time monitoring of waste bins with the aim of helping service providers avoid

299 collecting semi-empty bins and helping consumers to locate closest bins to them and be aware of the

300 fullness status of the nearest bins.

301 Another stream of literature has been focused on developing and employing communication and data

302 processing infrastructure. To name a few studies, Lata and Singh (Lata and Singh 2016) developed a web

303 interface to help authorities monitor trash bins with the data received through an embedded Linux board

304 from a wireless sensor network. Toma and Popa (Shyam, Manvi, and Bharti 2017) discussed three types of

305 IoT communication protocols available for machine-to-machine communication including Constrained

306 Application Protocol (CoAP), MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT), and Representational State Transfer

307 (REST). Mahajan and Chitode have shown the application of ZigBee as a data transmission technology for

308 bin monitoring in waste collection systems (Mahajan and Chitode 2014).

309 The third stream of studies has shown the applications of enabling technologies in different domains and

310 tested the capabilities in several pilot and field experiments. To name several studies, Zhang el al.

13
311 described the use of RFID technology in enhancing construction waste logistics (L. Zhang, Atkins, and Yu

312 2012). Tao and Xiang (Tao and Xiang 2010) proposed a conceptual information platform model for waste

313 cycle management in Wuhan city, China. Elia et al. (Elia, Gnoni, and Tornese 2015) discussed the

314 information flow required to design a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) strategy in solid waste management

315 systems based on the existing bin level detection and data transmission technologies. Hong et al. (Hong et

316 al. 2014) designed a food waste management system in which battery-operated RFID-based garbage bins

317 are connected through wireless communication to a server that informs administrators of the status of all

318 bins for timely food pickup schedules in the Gangnam district, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Gutierrez et al.

319 (Gutierrez et al. 2015) conducted a simulation experiment to test the efficiency and economic feasibility of

320 such smart systems for waste collection in the city of Copenhagen, Denmark. They have used a GIS

321 simulation environment along with graph optimization algorithms and available Open Data about the city.

322 Shyam et al. (Shyam, Manvi, and Bharti 2017) conducted a simulation using Open Data from the city of

323 Pune, India to estimate the cost to collect and dispose of wastes. On a separate note, Ho and So (Ho and So

324 2017) discussed the impact of media campaign emerging in smart cities on promoting the environmental

325 friendly life among Guamanians.

326 Finally, the research has shifted from developing sensor-based technologies and data transmission

327 infrastructure to support the use of such technologies. The main use of IoT-enabled technologies was for

328 the purpose of waste collection and scheduling problems.

329 To clarify the nature of waste management practices in SCs, we should note that waste collection in SCs

330 requires dynamic models rather than static planning approaches (Anagnostopoulos, Kolomvatsos, et al.

331 2015). The availability of capacity sensors and wireless communication infrastructure makes it possible for

332 municipalities to monitor trash bins status and adjust collection scheduling and routing problems

333 accordingly for each municipality region or even trash bin as a demand node (Castro Lundin, Ozkil, and

334 Schuldt-Jensen 2017). Anagnostopoulos et al. (Anagnostopoulos, Kolomvatsos, et al. 2015) analyzed

335 several dynamics collection routes models for waste collection in SCs. They have proposed four different

14
336 models including the dedicated trucks model, where a specific number of trucks are dedicated to waste

337 collection activities from a number of high priority trash bins, the detour models in which trucks can

338 deviate from their original routes to serve high priority region, the minimum distance model and the

339 reassignment model, where the demand nodes will be reallocated when new information is coming to the

340 system. Often, the objective of collection routes problems is to maximize on-time collection and minimize

341 waste depletion cost. McLeod et al. (McLeod et al. 2014) developed a vehicle routing and scheduling

342 method based on tabu search algorithms to show how remote sensing technology can facilitate more

343 efficient charity collection scheduling in the UK.

344 On a side note, Schafer commented that data privacy and data security concerns may limit the capabilities

345 of IoT-based waste management systems (Schafer 2014) since it opens the venue for having municipalities

346 access to individual household data.

347 The review of previous studies shows that studies about waste management in SCs so far have been

348 primarily focused on making waste monitoring, separation and collection more efficient with the help of

349 sensor-enabled solutions, however an effective waste management practice requires considering the whole

350 product lifecycle from design up to end-of-use stage, where various value-driven strategies can be adopted

351 during the product lifecycle to avoid waste generation rate and maximize waste management practices. We

352 should highlight that dynamic routing and scheduling optimization should not be the only motive for IoT-

353 enabled infrastructure, but the real value of such infrastructure is when the leakage of product value gets

354 minimum during its entire lifespan through the on-time and effective use of information collected from IT-

355 enabled infrastructure. Anagnostopoulos et al. (Anagnostopoulos et al. 2017) also provided a review of

356 ICT-based waste management models and emphasized on the need for defining a novel framework for

357 waste management efforts.

358 In the next section, we propose a framework for waste management in SCs with the aim of facilitating not

359 only collection efforts but also value extraction efforts from every unwanted device discarded by end

360 users.

15
361 5. An Integrative Framework for Waste Management in Smart Cities

362 To solve the waste management problem, a new form of waste collection and treatment is needed. In this

363 section, a conceptual framework for waste management in future cities is introduced in which the waste

364 management system is connected to the whole product life-cycle. We envision an ideal city with no waste,

365 where the waste of one system is minimized and becomes the nutrients for other systems. The transition to

366 becoming a Zero-waste smart city requires three strategies: waste prevention, proper waste collection, and

367 finally proper value recovery from collected waste.

368 Following the aforesaid research perspective, the overall scope of the proposed framework involves three

369 main interconnected elements as illustrated in Figure 2:

370 • Element 1: Infrastructure for the collection of product lifecycle data

371 • Element 2: Connected and involved citizens for sharing products and services to avoid waste

372 generation and facilitate the adoption of novel business models with the aim of waste prevention,

373 and value creation.

374 • Element 3: Intelligent and sensor-based infrastructure for proper upstream separation and on-time

375 collection of waste when a product reaches its end-of-life

376 This section discusses the necessity for addressing the design, development, and implementation of an

377 infrastructure for the collection of product lifecycle data that takes into account the synergistic nature of

378 the above three elements. Particularly, the proposed framework views ‘waste’ as a ‘resource’, puts

379 emphasis on waste reduction ‘upstream’, focuses on resource management (separating waste at the source

380 to increase value recovery rather than treatment), and aims at increasing efficiency by adopting the

381 concept of circular economy and economy of sharing.

382

383 Figure 2. The elements of the proposed framework for waste management in smart and connected communities

384

16
385 Similar to the guidelines suggested by the Logistics Management Institute on the green supply chain

386 (Logistics Management Institute 2005), smart waste management initiatives should move from

387 compliance to value creation. The traditional cost avoidance strategies on waste management are mainly

388 focused on assuring compliance, minimizing risk, maintaining health, and protecting the environment.

389 However, based on the ‘emerging value creation’ paradigm, smart waste management program should

390 raise productivity, empower relations among various stakeholders, encourage innovation, and enable

391 growth (Figure 3).

392 A considerable number of survey and interview-based studies have been conducted to identify factors

393 influencing the effectiveness of waste management practices. Improved legislation, enhancing public

394 awareness, novel treatment technologies, experienced personnel, waste pickers management, designing

395 waste collection practices based on citizens’ demographic factors, considering social outcomes of waste

396 management, centralized planning, and commercialization of the MSW industry are examples of

397 strategies suggested for enhancing waste management efforts (Rybova and Slavik 2016)(Al-Khatib et al.

398 2010)(Moghadam, Mokhtarani, and Mokhtarani 2009)(Suocheng, Tong, and Yuping 2001).

399

400 Figure 3. Policymakers should view waste management efforts in SCs as a strategic decision, not a tactical decision

401 (borrowed from the concept of a green supply chain in (Logistics Management Institute 2005))

402 5.1. Element 1: Infrastructure for collection of product lifecycle data

403 This element explores a model for data sharing between various stakeholders and communities in product

404 lifecycles in order to facilitate on-time separation, collection, reduction, and recovery of waste. We

405 envision a city in which the waste generated is minimized and the waste collected from households will

406 become the “food” for remanufacturing companies and waste recovery systems. While the focus of the

407 IoT-enabled literature discussed in Section 3 was on developing an infrastructure for efficient waste

408 collection and separation, the focus of the proposed concept in this paper is on waste reduction and

409 recovery. The ultimate goal of the proposed concept is to facilitate closing product lifecycle loop through

17
410 different philosophies and approaches suggested for resource recovery ranging from landfill mining to

411 urban mining and circular economy. Cossu and Williams (Cossu and Williams 2015) provided a

412 comprehensive discussion on various approaches and terminologies used for materials utilization, and

413 differentiate them based on different sources of materials and their origin (Natural vs. Anthropogenic

414 materials). For example, urban mining is an extension of landfill mining in which elements are recovered

415 from any kind of anthropogenic stocks such as buildings, industry products, and infrastructure (Cossu and

416 Williams 2015). Urban mining is particularly important to assure sufficient resource recovery from city-

417 wide infrastructure and buildings.

418 The objective is to develop a framework for the collection of product lifecycle data and tracing the citizen

419 data at individual product levels. The proposed platform is a promising solution for tracking various types

420 of products ranging from consumer electronics to home appliances and even food packaging. A system

421 architecture for information-sharing platform is needed for tracing product lifecycle data. To implement an

422 infrastructure for collecting product lifecycle data, four main questions should be answered: 1) what type

423 of data should be collected, 2) who should collect the data, 3) at what stage of product lifecycle the data

424 should be collected, and finally, 4) how the data could be used for extending product lifespan and the

425 closing product lifecycle loop. Answering these questions requires understanding the needs of various

426 stakeholders connected via the platform. Figure 2 shows different elements of the conceptual model for the

427 proposed waste management model.

428 5.1.1. Different Stages of Product Lifecycle

429 Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) is an approach to collect and utilize product-related information

430 continuously throughout the entire course of a product’s lifecycle (Kiritsis 2011). Within this model,

431 information flows between the different stages of the product lifecycle create closed knowledge loops. All

432 lifecycle participants have access to and can contribute to a shared product information database, with the

433 objective of using this knowledge to improve sustainability-related decisions. The product lifecycle can be

434 broken into three main stages as shown in Figure 4 with the following components (Hong-Bae Jun,

18
435 Kiritsis, and Xirouchakis 2007): 1) Beginning of Life (BOL) including Design and Manufacturing, 2)

436 Middle of Life (MOL) including Distribution, Use, and Service/Maintenance and 3) End of Life (EOL)

437 including Collection, Remanufacturing, Reuse and/or Recycling, and Disposal of residual waste. Different

438 knowledge loops can be defined within the product lifecycle. The focus of PLM should be on extracting

439 knowledge loops that facilitate elimination of waste, the extension of the product lifecycle, and adoption of

440 reuse, repair, and recycling strategies. Li et al. (Li et al. 2015) discussed the potential applications of ‘big

441 data’ in PLM and summarized several existing applications including production scheduling, supply chain

442 and mass customization based on big data.

443 The knowledge of the product lifecycle can help manufacturers move towards the elimination of waste and

444 emissions. For example, the information of consumer behavior and product usage time can help

445 remanufacturers estimate the future reusability of discarded devices (Mostafa et al. 2015), or estimate of

446 product disposal time help remanufacturers offer timely buy-back prices for on-time return of used

447 products such as consumer electronics for upgrade and recovery to designated remanufacturing channels

448 (Sabbaghi, Behdad, and Zhuang 2016). The use of smart meters for real-time monitoring of energy

449 consumption of production equipment and concepts such as condition-based monitoring and maintenance

450 are other applications of product lifecycle data.

451 Other examples include monitoring the rate of waste generation to help municipalities manage the on-time

452 collection and recovery of the waste. Such information also can be used to re-design the size and geometry

453 of trash bins for different regions. Overall, information sharing, collecting new types of data, the

454 possibility of emerging new business models, and the capability of higher utilization of idle resources,

455 reduction of wasted capabilities, and wasted lifecycle are other potentials for using product lifecycle data.

456

457 Figure 4. Three main phases of product lifecycle and data available in each phase

458

459 5.1.2. Implementation of Product Lifecycle Management Infrastructure

19
460 In the closed-loop PLM framework, PLM users have access to and are responsible for updating Product

461 Data Knowledge Management (PDKM) systems which integrate and manage all product data (Anke and

462 Främling 2005).

463 • Manufacturers and suppliers establish and maintain product details and component specifications.

464 • Retailers and customers register products, provide information regarding maintenance or service

465 events and provide feedback.

466 • Product embedded information devices (PEIDs) gather product data and send it to a PDKM

467 application where it is made available for use. PEIDs possess data gathering, data processing and

468 diagnosis, data storage, and communication functions. Some examples of PEIDs are on-board computers

469 and RFID (radio frequency identification) tags (H.-B. Jun et al. 2007).

470 This transformation has the potential to fundamentally transform the way citizens discard their devices, the

471 ways remanufacturers and municipalities offer services to citizens, and ultimately, the way recycling

472 infrastructure in cities will be managed. For example, Yang et al. (X. Yang, Moore, and Chong 2009) have

473 discussed how product lifecycle data enable preventive repair and maintenance services. Another example

474 is when the feedback from recycling experts and service providers can return back to designers since the

475 information flow is not interrupted after the product sale (X. Yang, Moore, and Chong 2009). These

476 solutions will also present cities and manufacturers with opportunities in terms of on-time collection,

477 governance and environmentally viable handling processes.

478 Current advancement in Blockchain and computing technology makes it possible to create decentralized

479 shared PLM platforms among various users in the supply chain to facilitate the exchange of information

480 between different stakeholders while satisfying data security and anonymity. It should be noted that the

481 design and architecture of PLM systems should be defined based on novel business models (e.g., selling a

482 service rather than a product, a sharing, and circular economy) rather than conventional business models.

483 Element 2 of the proposed approach explains this aspect further.

484

20
485 5.2. Element 2: Novel Business models: connected and involved citizens to share

486 products and service for waste prevention

487

488 5.2.1. New Business Models

489 Bélissent (Bélissent 2010) discussed the importance of considering new business models to ensure the

490 long-term viability of smart city projects. Kuk and Janssen (Kuk and Janssen 2011) discussed two different

491 models of SCs in the Netherlands - in one case business models precede the information flow and data

492 architecture and in the second model, the opposite direction is adopted. While the former model creates

493 business value faster, the latter is more resource-intensive and relatively slower in bringing value to the

494 general public.

495 To define a company’s business model, four main questions should be answered (Boons and Lüdeke-

496 Freund 2013)(Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010)(Frankenberger et al. 2013):

497 (1) Value proposition: what is the service or product offered by the business

498 (2) Value creation: how is the value created (e.g. processes, activities, supply chains)?

499 (3) Value delivery: who are the customers?

500 (4) Financial models: why is the value offered? What are the costs and benefits?

501 To fully adopt the capabilities of product lifecycle data platform, a new series of business models based on

502 the concept of extending the product lifecycle and closing the product lifecycle loop are needed. The

503 architecture and framework that is for the collection of product lifecycle data should be based on

504 sustainable models of the economy such as the economy of sharing and the circular economy (CE) that not

505 only cover the business aspect but also environmental and social aspects.

506 The sharing economy and smart societies are hands in hand concepts. The spread of intelligent technology

507 and connectivity of digital devices make it feasible for communities to advance the concept of the sharing

508 cities (Schaffers et al. 2011). An economic model in which the supply and demand sides are in immediate

21
509 contact, mainly through some online platforms, is defined as the sharing economy (Zervas, Proserpio, and

510 Byers 2014).

511 In the sharing economy model, since the supply side directly provides services or products to the demand

512 side, the transaction costs are often limited. In the majority of sharing economy models, users can play the

513 role of either the supply or demand side. In addition, the entity under trade is often ‘access to service’

514 rather than ‘owning the good’. The population density and the resources constraints favor economic

515 models that are based on shared resources (Gori Paula; Parcu, Pier Luigi; Stasi 2015). The sharing

516 economy is also known as Collaborative Consumption. Hamari et al. (X. Yang, Moore, and Chong 2009)

517 conducted a survey and reported that sustainability concerns, enjoyment to participate, and economic gains

518 are motivating factors behind people’s participation in the sharing-based business models.

519 The vision of SCs developed in this study is to promote the concept of sharing economy with the aim of

520 waste reduction and extending product useful life. The scope of sharing could vary from sharing of

521 resources and infrastructure to sharing of services, experiences, goods, and capacities (McLaren and

522 Agyeman 2015). Cohen and Munoz (Cohen and Muñoz 2016) categorized 18 potential sharing activities

523 under 5 groups of energy, food, goods, mobility and transports and space sharing, where each of these five

524 groups represents a new form of consumption production system and requires its own planning. Since the

525 concept of waste management is closely connected to sharing food and goods, it is expected that sharing

526 goods and foods highly influence the waste generation rate. To assure that the economy of sharing will

527 result in a sustainable city, an optimal cooperation between private and public business models are needed

528 to remove the conflicts between the objectives of service providers and local governments (Cohen and

529 Kietzmann 2014). According to Jenks and Jones (Jenks and Jones 2009), people have different

530 interpretations of a sustainable city, however there is a general consensus of opinion, and common basic

531 themes such as energy conservation, reuse and recycling efforts, and communication and green

532 transportation that inform sustainable development efforts in a city.

22
533 Another economic model that will be the focus of the proposed framework is the circular economy

534 concept. Favoring the circular economy is one of the six priorities highlighted by GDF SUEZ, a French

535 utility company, for developing a sustainable city (Hall 1988). While the concept of sharing economy is

536 quite new in the literature, the circular economy model has been the point of attention for almost a decade

537 (Figure 5).

538

539 Figure 5. The number of publications found in Engineering Village, Compendex, Inspec, NTIS, GeoRef and Knovel

540 databases till July 2017 with titles including the term “Circular Economy” or “Sharing Economy”

541

542 The concept of CE was originated in industrial ecology in 1970s, with the aim of adopting the concept of

543 resource cycling that exists in the natural environment in industrial systems to improve the performance of

544 such systems and reducing the need for the extraction of more resources by closing the product lifecycle

545 loop and promoting reuse and recycling of resources (Preston 2012). It is expected that a smart city will

546 perform based on the principles suggested in a circular economy.

547 Traditional views to the circular economy, including many design methodologies in the design for X

548 domain, largely focus on improvement of end-of-life recovery activities such as disassembly (Harjula et al.

549 1996) remanufacturing (Nee 2015) and recycling (Gaustad, Olivetti, and Kirchain 2010), but fail to

550 comprehensively consider the complete product lifespan, and the business opportunities that exist early on

551 at the end-of-use stage. Although recycling has received a lot of attention in the circular economy domain,

552 the circular economy is more beyond that just material recovery (J. Park, Sarkis, and Wu 2010b). The true

553 success of a circular economy depends on new business models that extract the actual value that still is

554 embedded in products. Examples of those business models are selling high-quality long-lasting products,

555 selling a combination of short-lived and durable products, and selling service rather than products. The

556 success of these business models depends on many factors ranging from the efficiency of supply chain and

557 brand reputation to product design strategies (Roos 2014).

23
558 Kirchherr et al. (Kirchherr, Reike, and Hekkert 2017) reviewed different definitions of CE and commented

559 that CE is sometimes mistakenly regarded as recycling and reuse efforts rather than a systematic shift in

560 economy systems. In addition, the role of consumers and business models are often ignored as the main

561 enablers of the CE. Ghisellini et al. (Ghisellini, Cialani, and Ulgiati 2016) discussed that CE has been

562 emerged to provide a balance between three pillars of sustainability and to decouple environmental

563 pressure from economic development. Witjes and Lozango (Witjes and Lozano 2016) also highlighted that

564 CE has been proposed to cover the social and economic aspects of sustainability and to overcome the

565 limitations of sustainable development efforts that were mainly focused on environmental issues. They

566 emphasized on the need for new service-oriented business models and mentioned the collaboration

567 between different stakeholders as a basis for developing service-oriented business models towards CE.

568 Bocken et al. (Bocken et al. 2016) pointed out the role of both business model and product design

569 strategies on the move to a CE in three aspects of slowing product loop (e.g. extending product lifecycle),

570 closing the loop (e.g. reuse, refurbish, recycle), and narrowing the loop (e.g. less resource use). Hollander

571 et al. (Hollander, Bakker, and Hultink 2017) also emphasized on the role of product design in the transition

572 from a linear to a CE system, supporting new CE strategies, and business models. While manufacturers

573 and businesses can benefit from new design strategies, which result in repairable, durable, and longer-

574 lasting products, they rarely adopt these types of design policies. Instead, design for limited repairs and

575 short-lived products are often adopted by businesses with the aim of increasing future demands and renew

576 purchases (Cooper 2004).

577 To alleviate the above-mentioned challenge on planned obsolescence by manufactures, one of the most

578 pressing areas of research in need of exploration is the connection between business models and design for

579 lengthening product lifespans strategies. For example, the possibility of adopting design-for-repair

580 strategies in a business context and the associated consequences on business profitability has remained

581 largely unexplored (Bakker et al. 2014). While a significant number of marketing studies have focused on

582 how and why consumers choose to buy new devices, relatively little research has focused on consumers’

24
583 usage and disposal behavior generally and repair specifically. Therefore, the business outcomes of eco-

584 design policies require more attention in the literature.

648 Lieder and Rashid (Lieder and Rashid 2016) reviewed the CE literature and mentioned that businesses

649 have been reluctant to adopt CE sufficiently since they still do not find sustainable development policies as

650 economically viable solutions. They commented that the need for support infrastructure, collaborative

651 business models, and ICT are among the factors needed for implementing CE strategy. Park et al. (J. Park,

652 Sarkis, and Wu 2010a) studied economic growth and environmental challenges facing businesses in China

653 and pointed out that the use of technological and evolving innovative practices is a feasible way to add

654 value to organizations in moving towards CE. Halstenberg et al. (Halstenberg, Lindow, and Stark 2017)

655 emphasized on the role of product lifecycle data, and information sharing platforms such as Product Data

656 Management (PDM) systems, and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems on facilitating the

657 exchange of by-products between different organizations involved in industrial symbiosis. Often ERP

658 systems connect different entities within one organization, we need to extend the concept of ERP to the

659 entire supply chain and create an integrated system for the whole product life cycle. The Blockchain

660 technology is a promising approach for making this objective a reality.

661 Since one of the priorities of CE efforts is to reduce the waste and keep products at their highest value,

662 product service systems as outlined in (Tukker 2015) and sharing economy seem to be promising solutions

663 toward CE. According to a report by Macarthur foundation (Kirchherr, Reike, and Hekkert 2017), a

664 number of factors put cities well positioned to drive CE efforts including a high concentration of resources

665 over small geographic regions, large-scale markets for new business models, opportunities for local

666 governments to implement CE related policies, and infrastructure equipped with digital technologies such

667 as geo-spatial information and asset tagging.

668 Zink and Geyer (Zink and Geyer 2017) has questioned the core concept of CE and pointed out the rebound

669 effect of CE in which the energy consumption of closing product lifecycle loop in some cases is higher

670 than a primary production, and can offset the benefits of CE. Along similar lines, Haupt et al. (Haupt,

25
671 Vadenbo, and Hellweg 2017) discussed the concepts of closed‐ and open‐loop collection and recycling

672 rates and mentioned that recycling rate is not a proper performance indicator for a CE system.

673 To sum up the discussion on new business models, we should note that different business models offer

674 different opportunities for value creation and resource utilization. For example, collaborative business

675 models enhance companies’ ability to build partnership, service-based business models increase

676 manufacturers ability in accessing and controlling an equipment along its entire lifecycle as well as

677 accessing new customer segments, cloud-based business models enables businesses to tailor products to

678 individual demands, sharing economy models increase the cost-efficiency of the process and help

679 companies focus on individuals as service providers, and finally circular economy approach enables

680 companies to optimize their value-creation processes. Overall, the proposed framework in this paper

681 supports manufacturers’ value-creation processes by offering capabilities for making the product lifecycle

682 more transparent through both data collection and analysis efforts.

683

684 5.2.2. The Economic Reasoning for the Implementation of SC and CE Strategies

685 An important question should be answered as if a circular economy or similar sustainability-related

686 models are economically viable business models, then why companies still have not adopted the

687 potentials of such model sufficiently (Planing 2015)? In this section, we briefly review the motivation of

688 key stakeholders to implement these models.

689 It seems that the principles of CE are not well integrated into different elements of business models.

690 Perhaps, the most important impediment towards adopting sustainable practices is for organizations to

691 identify business outcomes of such practices. Sarkis (Sarkis 2009) has emphasized the importance of

692 helping companies identify a business case for their sustainability practices. He provided several

693 examples of venues where businesses can gain value from sustainability practices. (1) cost reduction, (2)

694 continuity of business and availability of resources, (3) new revenue lines (e.g. alternative uses of wasted

26
695 materials and byproducts), and (4) brand reputation and legitimacy are examples of business outcomes for

696 sustainability efforts.

697 The rise in raw materials prices, new business models enabled by information technology, and the change

698 in consumer interests to a performance over ownership mindset are other motivations toward circular

699 economy (Planing 2015). Lacy and Rutqvist (Lacy and Rutqvist 2016) listed resources constraints,

700 technological development, and socio-economic opportunities or empowering consumers as main drivers

701 of a circular economy. According to Hawken and Lovins (Lovins, Lovins, and Hawken 1999), a

702 fundamental rethinking is needed about the structure and reward system of commerce. Businesses should

703 not focus on narrowly improving the eco-efficiency of their processes since it may result in a larger

704 saving of resources in the production of wrong products, in wrong places delivered through wrong

705 business models. Table 2 summarizes several motivations and challenges for businesses to move towards

706 circular economy models.

707

708 Table 2. Motivations and challenges for circular economy strategies and smart city models

709

710 William McDonough pointed out that businesses should focus on eliminating the concept of waste from

711 every link in their value chains while forming the infrastructure for shared prosperity. He also emphasized

712 that a paradigm shift is needed in the fundamental principles of commerce, where businesses should move

713 beyond the previous paradigm of “How much can I get from how little I give?” to “How much can we

714 give for all that we get?” (Lacy and Rutqvist 2016).

715

716 5.2.3. Citizens’ Behavior

717 Consumer behavior is expected to play a critical and difficult-to-predict role in both generation and

718 proper disposal of waste.

27
719 An extensive literature exists on understanding and motivating consumers recycling behavior, mostly

720 survey-based analyses identifying influential factors. Examples of factors driving recycling behavior are:

721 monetary incentive (Bucciol, Montinari, and Piovesan 2015), social influence (Goldsmith and Goldsmith

722 2011), regulations (Hicks, Dietmar, and Eugster 2005), psychological factors (S. Oskamp et al. 1991),

723 demographic (Saphores et al. 2009), convenience of recycling (S. Zhang et al. 2016), personal values

724 (Nordlund and Garvill 2002), awareness, ethnicity (Culiberg 2014), and attitude (Huffman et al. 2014).

725 However, eco-behavior is not limited to only recycling behavior but covers preventive behaviors such as

726 waste avoidance (Sekito et al. 2013), energy conservation (Chen, Taylor, and Wei 2011), extending

727 product lifecycle through repair, maintenance (Scott and Weaver 2014), and other green behaviors such as

728 sustainable consumption, purchase refurbished and used items (van Weelden, Mugge, and Bakker 2016),

729 consume less, consume locally (Hubacek et al. 2016), and sharing (Hawlitschek, Teubner, and Gimpel

730 2016) to name a few.

731 Innovative solutions to control waste require an understanding of consumer behavior and derivation of

732 experimentally validated models that describe this behavior. A considerable number of studies in the

733 social-psychology literature have focused on describing the linkage between pro-environmental beliefs

734 and behavior applying theories such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1991), theory of

735 reasoned action (TRA) (H. S. Park, Levine, and Sharkey 1998) and value-belief-norm theory (Kollmuss

736 and Agyeman 2010)(Oreg 2006). While understanding the determinants of consumer behavior has

737 already been the point of interest in literature, and the role of external factors on environmental and

738 recycling behavior is highly analyzed, there is, however, no work on studying the role of external factors

739 related to IoT-based business models on motivating consumers’ participation in waste management

740 practices. Further, there is no integration of design-for-consumer participation in waste reduction and

741 recovery into SC literature.

742 The understanding and prediction of human behavior play a critical role in managing services offered in

743 smart communities and is a prerequisite for environmental solutions. Prediction of citizens’ behavior

28
744 mainly relies on collection and analysis of personal data. While data collected from citizens are essential

745 in improving the quality of services offered in smart communities, the individuals’ data privacy and

746 citizens’ right remain a challenge in smart societies (Martucci et al. 2017).

747 In addition to the uncertain behavior of citizens, prediction of citizens’ behavior is difficult due to the

748 point that people do not make decisions based on maximizing the utilities. Individuals’ decision-making

749 is often based on heuristics and rules of thumb rather than rational decision-making (Gigerenzer and

750 Selten 2002).

751 The need to address the environmental-based behavior of consumers is not something new. In fact,

752 addressing environmental-based behavior has a long tradition, particularly in social psychology (Stuart

753 Oskamp 1995) where it is accepted that sustainability initiatives cannot succeed without conscious pro-

754 environmental behavior on the part of individuals (Oakley and Salam 2014).

755 Research on green behavior has also applied established theories and models to analyze the pro-

756 environmental behavior of individuals. The oldest and simplest models of eco-behavior advance a linear

757 connection between environmental knowledge leading to awareness and concern (recognized as

758 environmental attitudes), resulting in pro-environmental behavior (knowledge attitude behavior).

759 The assumption behind these rationalist models is that educating people on environmental issues will

760 directly result in more pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). This is the same

761 assumption that still is used by governments and environmental NGOs to improve the public sustainable

762 development. While much research shows a significant association between attitudes and consumer green

763 behavior (Zhihua and Bo 2010) (Hansla et al. 2008), available research on the theory of planned behavior

764 and reasoned action suggests that attitudes translate into actual behavior only if all influencing factors are

765 favorable (Zhao et al. 2014) (Ajzen 1991) such as consequences and norms.

766 The discrepancy between holding pro-environmental attitudes and actual commitment to pro-

767 environmental behaviors is referred to as the ‘value-action’ gap (Young et al. 2010). According to TRA,

768 the person's relative strength of intention to perform a behavior depends on her/his attitude about the

29
769 consequences of the behavior and how he thinks other people will view the behavior if they performed the

770 behavior (recognized as social norms). Although TRA and TPB have extensively been employed in the

771 literature, the underlying assumption behind these theories is that people act rationally and neglect

772 unconscious motives.

773 Applying this assumption, many studies (including those in the environmental behavior area) have

774 modeled consumer behavior as an optimization problem wherein behavior is fully explained by

775 individuals maximizing their expected utility (Welsch and Kuhling 2011)(Chorus, Koetse, and Hoen

776 2013). However, assuming individuals as fully rational acting in a self-regarding manner, has certain

777 limitations. In fact, when decisions are complex, the decision-making process is constrained by available

778 information, time limitations, and cognitive constraints. Therefore, consumer choice generally deviates

779 from perfect rationality (Gsottbauer and van den Bergh 2011). A large body of evidence has been

780 amassed in the literature which runs contrary to the perfect rationality and self-interest assumptions of

781 TRA and TPB. Indeed, a range of theories have been developed to explain individuals’ “bounded or

782 limited rationality” including evolutionary theories such as the theory of constrained behavior by Heiner

783 (Heiner 1992), the theory of bounded rationality by Simon (Simon 1953), and prospect theory (and

784 various heuristic processes) suggested by Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman and Tversky 1979).

785 Specifically, prospect theory has been offered as an alternative to Neumann and Morgenstern’s expected

786 utility theory (Neumann and Morgenstern 1944).

787 Many patterns of human judgment and decision-making under risk and uncertainty which differ from the

788 rational choice expected utility theory, can be described through cognitive biases (Rachman 1997). Biases

789 are tendencies or cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) which individuals employ and which arise due to the

790 mind’s limited information processing capacity, social norms, etc. (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Two

791 decades of research in this area have created a substantial list of cognitive biases (Kahneman 1991) such

792 as information framing, loss aversion, hindsight bias, overconfidence bias, base-rate neglect,

793 representativeness/availability heuristic, and anchoring/adjustment heuristic, to name a few. To provide a

30
794 few brief examples, research in the area of information framing has shown that subjects’ choice among

795 alternatives is affected by the way a problem is described, or even by whom the situation is described

796 (Malenka et al. 1993), meaning that subjects may draw different conclusions from the same piece of

797 information depending on how the information is presented. Loss aversion research has demonstrated that

798 “the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it” (Kahneman,

799 Knetsch, and Thaler 1991). Anchoring and adjustment research has shown that human beings tend to rely

800 too heavily on the first piece of information they receive and insufficiently weight subsequent information

801 (Chapman and Johnson 1994). Many real-life environmental-related decisions involve ambiguous

802 information about risk. For example, protection against climate change (Z. J. Yang et al. 2014), utilization

803 of different energy sources (Viklund 2004), and risk of purchasing refurbished products. Understanding

804 cognitive biases and evolutionary theories of bounded rationality can help to explain consumers’

805 seemingly irrational decision-making processes in such domains.

806 For all the above-mentioned reasons, the decisions made by citizens and the human behavior are hard to

807 predict. Therefore, the rules and plans to operate smart communities with the ultimate purpose of waste

808 reduction and value recovery are difficult to determine.

809 5.3. Element 3: Intelligent and sensor-based infrastructure for proper separation and

810 on-time collection and recovery of waste

811 Element 3 is similar to the city-wide IoT-enabled waste management infrastructure discussed in Section 3.

812 As highlighted from the literature, the infrastructure for waste collection are mainly focused on installing a

813 set of data acquisition sensors in garbage bins with the aim of detecting the garbage level. The

814 municipalities and waste collection service providers will have the option to track weight and identity of

815 trash bins for each individual household and automate service management activities. Global System for

816 Mobile communication (GSM) technology makes it possible to assign a unique ID to each garbage bin. As

817 soon as the bin is full up to a specific threshold value, a notification signal will be sent to an authorized

818 garbage collection vehicle (Bashir et al. 2013; Medvedev et al. 2015; Gutierrez et al. 2015)(Patil et al.

31
819 2017). Medvedev et al. (Medvedev et al. 2015) highlighted the role of intelligent transportation systems in

820 offering new waste management services.

821 The IoT-enabled infrastructure is not only limited to smart bins and sensors, but it should be designed as

822 an integrated platform of smart devices, decision support systems, PLM systems described in Element 1

823 for the sharing and CE-based business models, geospatial technology, transportation systems with real-

824 time data sharing capabilities between service vehicles and drivers, and software packages to run dynamic

825 route optimization and scheduling for waste collection and separation efforts. Smart bins have different

826 applications ranging from tracking missing/stolen bins to facilitating the on-time recovery of perishable

827 food and recyclable materials. However, before implementing smart infrastructure, a cost-benefit analysis

828 is needed to justify the economic rationality behind using smart bins.

829 The importance of the on-time collection of waste is particularly important for product categories with a

830 high rate of technological progress (e.g. consumer electronics) and a high rate of degradation (e.g. paper).

831 The longer the products are stored and are not returned back for on-time recovery, the lower will be the

832 second-hand market values (Sabbaghi et al. 2015). Furthermore, upstream separation of waste categories

833 will improve the efficiency of downstream value recovery operations.

834 In addition, it should be noted that recently there has been a considerable advancement in waste treatment

835 technologies, however, the use of ICT within these technologies is very limited due to the high investment

836 cost and the heterogeneity of waste stream (Konig et al. 2015). Product recovery is becoming more

837 dependent on data flows that connect users, products, manufacturers, and remanufacturing infrastructure.

838 Design and operation of efficient recovery sites have come to require product lifecycle data. Opportunities

839 should be explored to allow manufacturers leverage data generated within product lifecycle time to offer

840 demand and supply-side services based on product lifecycle data. The replacement of material flows with

841 information flows improves the sustainability of smart cities (Jin et al. 2014). In the new concept of cities,

842 another input flow to any techno-socio-economic system is a data flow, where the data flow can be used to

843 increase the efficiency of available infrastructures.

32
844 To sum up, an integrated infrastructure is needed for proper waste separation, collection, and handling. Al-

845 Hader et al. (Al-Hader et al. 2009) suggested that the base for creating a city-wide smart infrastructure is

846 the concept of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) in which the existing legacy systems and interfaces are

847 integrated to form one single rich application. They suggested a list of required elements for an operational

848 GIS connected with the available utility networks to develop a standardized geospatial data model.

849 However, we should acknowledge that a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is needed to provide suitable

850 data for the evaluation of the infrastructure and the extent that the proposed infrastructure should be

851 implemented.

852

853 6. Example: The Use of Tracking and Data Sharing Technologies to Identify e-Waste

854 Paths

855 While the unavailability of data on SC practices and their cost-benefit analysis in general and waste

856 management in particular limits our ability in proving the full feasibility of the proposed concept, this

857 section provides an overview of the previous work of two of the authors in the use of tracking

858 technologies to collect product lifecycle for making waste management more transparent. The emphasis is

859 on tracking individual electronic waste items and the way the tracking information will reveal helpful

860 information about the lifecycle of each individual product towards policymaking and proper recovery

861 operations. First, we give an overview of challenges in handling e-waste and then will discuss how

862 tracking and data sharing technologies would enable manufacturers, city officials and policymakers with

863 valuable information on identifying e-waste problems.

864 6.1. E-waste Flows and the Corresponding Challenges

865 E-waste is one of the most complex pollution problems and the fastest-growing waste streams reaching an

866 all-time high of 41.8 million metric tons worldwide in 2014 (“Discarded Kitchen, Laundry, Bathroom

867 Equipment Comprises Over Half of World E-Waste - United Nations University” 2017). The terms Waste

33
868 Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) or e-waste are commonly used to refer to old electronics

869 (e.g., laptops, PCs, cellphones, solar panels, wearables) that are obsolete or no longer wanted by end users

870 (Bhuie et al. 2004). E-waste is a great cause of concern due to its high volume and the value and toxicity

871 of materials it contains (Cairns 2005).

872 Despite the importance of e-waste removal chains, the actual path that electronic and household

873 hazardous waste travels is complex and poorly understood. A significant portion of e-waste generated in

874 developed countries is exported to developing countries for recycling and/or disposal (Perkins et al.

875 2014). Although the current trade data between countries do not enable an accurate estimation of e-waste

876 flows (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2016), it is estimated that Asian and African

877 countries are the final destinations for recycling and disposal of approximately 75% to 80% of the global

878 e-waste generated (Perkins et al. 2014), and at least 50% of the US e-waste (BAN and SVTC

879 2002)(Kahhat et al. 2008).

880 E-waste exports result in an economic loss for the exporting country as well as severe environmental

881 pollution and human health issues in the developing world in exchange of some economic gains (Wang

882 and Gaustad 2012)(Kahhat and Williams 2012). While the toxicity of e-waste materials is of enormous

883 concern, illegal export has significant economic consequences (Lepawsky and Billah 2011) since a big

884 portion of e-waste is often recovered informally by burning or using of acid baths resulting in the

885 recovery of only a few materials rather than the full value embedded in used products. The complexity of

886 actual paths that electronic and household hazardous waste goes through and the resulting value leakage

887 are poorly understood. Currently, for various economic reasons and due to existing laws and regulations,

888 end-of-use products go through a chain of additional movements with unclear patterns and causality with

889 poor visibility.

890 There is no transparency about the flows of e-waste within the US, so there is no comprehensive

891 estimation about the portion of e-waste that may end up in formal recycling centers versus the portion that

34
892 is exported, even for those products collected through formal channels. Travel distance, final fate,

893 resulting value leakage, and network topology are examples of other unavailable information.

894 The opportunities that e-waste provides for recycling of rare earth elements, the growing rate of e-waste

895 in smart cities, and the complexity of handling e-waste compared to other waste streams are other reasons

896 behind selecting e-waste as a case study. According to Cossu and Williams (Cossu and Williams 2015),

897 e-waste is the backbone of urban mining due to its potential for recovering critical materials.

898 The next section describes the use of tracking technologies for facilitating the identification of e-waste

899 paths, as one sample of waste management problems.

900 6.2. Tracking and Data Sharing Technologies for Increasing the Visibility of E-waste Paths

901 The use of tracking devices has been common in biology for understanding the life of wild animals.

902 Recent advances in tracking technologies have enabled biologists to track animal movements in near real-

903 time (Robinson et al. 2017). One example is Mary Lee, a 1500-kilogram white shark that was tagged with

904 two tracking devices in 2012 and even has her own Twitter account, where her locations are reported to

905 her 36,000 followers when she makes surprising movements in different locations (Tibbetts 2017).

906 Advancements in location-enabled tracking technology are bringing us closer to understanding the global

907 flows of e-waste. It should be noted that the nature of tracking devices is different from tracking animals

908 in several aspects: first, biologists often see heterogeneity in migration routes taken by animals, yet such

909 patterns cannot be expected from electronics due to the variability in product types, lack of recycling

910 infrastructure, and locations of second-hand markets. Second, animal body masses often limit the possible

911 tracking technologies. However, except for certain types of electronics, the rest can be equipped with

912 current tracking technologies available in the market.

913 Several studies have shown the potential application of tracking technologies to prove the e-waste export

914 problem. The tracking of broken television sets using GPS tracking devices in a project by Greenpeace

915 International Group revealed the illegal efforts of UK formal recycling sectors by selling outdated items

35
916 as second-hand devices to developing regions and violating EU regulations. Another study was by

917 Offenhuber et al. (Offenhuber et al. 2012), where they installed GPS sensors on 2000 discarded items

918 from 12 different waste categories in the city of Seattle to observe the movement of municipal solid

919 waste. They found that among the solid waste, e-waste items have more random trajectories and travel

920 considerably longer, where they have received some sensor reports from Mexican border and British

921 Columbia regions. Interestingly, the longest travel distances were reported for products that are either

922 valuable or valueless such as e-waste and hazardous wastes. Their analysis revealed that over 95% of the

923 targeted trash reached to a proper end destination, but e-waste and hazardous waste did not follow the best

924 practices.

925 In another study, the Basel Action Network (BAN) in a joint project with the MIT Senseable City Lab

926 tracked certain types of electronics dropped in charities and recycling sites and showed the export of e-

927 waste from the US to other countries, mostly Asia (Basel Action Network 2017). The ability to track the

928 transportation routes of electronic equipment has provided crucial information about where the used

929 electronics end up depending on their origin (trash bin, take-back programs, and collection events) and

930 how they recover outside of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) hands. Lee et al. (D. Lee et al.

931 2018) illustrated that smartphones can be modified to last for more than three months to serve as

932 affordable location trackers. Complementing the tracking of the devices, a team of researchers visited

933 some of the sites where the e-waste ended up and confirmed that they were not recycling sites, but rather

934 a combination of informal facilities and dump sites (OPB/EarthFix 2016)([Link] 2016). Figure 6

935 shows an overview of the data collected in the “Monitor E-waste Transparency” project. Readers are

936 referred to Lee’s PhD dissertation as a reference for the details of deployments made in this project (D.

937 Lee 2015).

938 Although the example provided in this section does not fully fit into the three elements proposed in the

939 framework, it shows the feasibility of applying sensor-based tracking technology in waste management

940 issues.

36
941

942 Figure 6. Examples of a map generated from the e-waste tracking project [Ref: [Link]

943

944 7. Success factors for implementing the proposed framework

945 A considerable number of studies have been focused on suggesting methods for measuring SCs

946 performance. A team of experts who jointly led the European Smart Cities project have discussed that the

947 relative progress in 6 dimensions of governance (democratic processes), citizens (education), environment

948 (energy and resource consumption), transportation, economy, and living (social and health services)

949 determine the level of smartness of cities (Steinert et al. 2011). Several metrics have been suggested to

950 help cities access their performance in obtaining both smart and sustainability goals. The maturity model

951 developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI), standard indicators for city services and quality of life

952 offered by the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the IDC Smart Cities Maturity Scape are

953 examples of most widely adopted approaches (R. Y. Clarke 2017).

954 There are a number of enablers at work to increase the success of SC initiatives including efficient

955 infrastructure, social and human capital, cultural participation, regulatory incentives, and proper

956 management. The successful implementation of the proposed framework for waste management depends

957 on too many factors. Some of those factors are listed in Table 3 under five main categories of data,

958 technology, economy, the social aspect, and governance. Most factors would hold for SC projects in

959 general, but some are more important for waste management practices in particular.

960

961 Table 3. Examples of success factors of waste management practices in SC

962

963 The amount of waste generation rate in a city is an indicator of the system design and operational

964 inefficacies in the city’s urban management system. For example, insufficient access to local markets, and

37
965 inefficient waste collection infrastructure may influence product purchase and disposal behavior of

966 consumers. Therefore, waste generation itself is often a good test of a society’s sustainable development

967 compliance. It is unlikely that SC alone provides all the necessary elements for proper waste management

968 practices. While intelligent devices can unlock the circular economy potentials (Ellen MacArthur

969 Foundation 2016), other factors such as innovation, creativity, cultural change, and value-creating

970 thinking are needed to pair the circular principles and intelligent assets.

971 Overall, implementing the proposed framework requires a high degree of collaboration among different

972 stakeholders involved in the entire product value chain. While developing an integrated database might

973 not be an issue by itself, convincing different players to invest efforts in on-time data collection is a

974 challenge. Therefore, not only different players need to realize the business and sustainability outcomes of

975 such platform but extensive efforts are needed to alleviate political, legal, and commercial barriers

976 towards this integrated process. However, as we move forward to an Industry 4.0 era, it is expected that

977 cloud-based business models are well regulated and better equipped with strategies for handling legal and

978 commercial barriers such as intellectual property and data security. In addition, new business models

979 emerging from big data initiatives help manufacturers realize the business opportunities of product

980 lifecycle data.

981 An effective waste management requires implementation of best practices, not just atomization of existing

982 practices. In addition, waste management approaches should be compatible with citizens lifestyle such

983 that they do not reduce the flexibility in social life while reducing the waste generation rate and increasing

984 citizens life customizations. It is expected that embedded sensors, data collected from them, and resulting

985 real-time analyses move citizens toward sustainable behavior and serve as agents guiding environmental

986 behavior. This requires further analysis of the role of different factors ranging from socio-demographic of

987 citizens to individual conditions of the region. For example, municipalities need to consider different

988 calendars and schedules for waste collection depending on the volume, type, and timing of waste

989 generation in each neighborhood.

38
990 The number of case studies that investigated the idea of SCs as a new solution for sustainability purposes

991 is limited. To name a few, Solano et al. analyzed three Spanish smart cities based on their sustainability

992 strategies and concluded that governance, environmental management, citizen participation, and

993 entrepreneurship are among the success factors in SCs (Solano, Casado, and Ureba 2017).

994 Mosannenzadeh et al. (Mosannenzadeh et al. 2017) studied the implementation of an energy development

995 project in the city of Bolzano, Italy and provided a framework to help urban planners measure the

996 similarities and differences of their projects with previously implemented projects. Nijkamp and Perrels

997 (Nijkamp and Perrels 2014) provided an overview of energy and environmental planning in 12 different

998 European cities and concluded that inertia or the lack of resilience is a common element of urban change

999 processes.

1000 According to Dameri (Dameri 2017), although the existing practices help independent institutions to

1001 measure the degree of technical infrastructure implemented in cities, the number of existing practices to

1002 really verify the actual impact of current smart programs on the quality of life of citizens is very limited.

1003 Lee et al. proposed a framework for analyzing the implementation of SC concepts in three cities of San

1004 Francisco, Amsterdam, and Seoul Metropolitan City. Six key conceptual dimensions including urban

1005 openness to enable citizen-driven innovation, service innovation, partnership, urban proactiveness,

1006 integrated infrastructure, and effective governance structure are recommended dimensions for SC

1007 evaluation (J. H. Lee, Hancock, and Hu 2014). Lessons learned from the initiatives taken by the existing

1008 smart cities (e.g. Singapore, Barcelona, London, San Francisco and Oslo) can be used as guidelines for

1009 other cities putting long-term investments into SCs and the future of waste management.

1010 8. Concluding Remarks

1011 The paper provides a review of existing studies on IoT enabled waste management practices and offers a

1012 conceptual framework for overcoming the current gaps in waste recovery. It discusses that the transition

1013 of SCs into zero-waste sustainable cities requires four inter-related primary strategies - waste prevention,

1014 upstream waste separation, on-time waste collection, and proper value recovery of collected waste. The

39
1015 aim is to envision the design and development of an IoT-enabled waste management framework for smart

1016 and sustainable cities with particular emphasis on connecting waste management practices to the whole

1017 product life-cycle.

1018 The proposed framework rests on three core elements: 1) collection of product lifecycle data, 2) new

1019 business models based on connected and involved citizens for sharing products and service information to

1020 avoid waste generation, and 3) an intelligent sensor-based infrastructure for on-time collection and

1021 separation of waste to assure effective waste recovery operations. The first and second elements aimed to

1022 prevent waste, and the third element aimed to improve the efficiency of waste collection and recovery

1023 operations. The novelty of the proposed framework resides in the paradigm shift toward reducing waste

1024 and extending product lifecycle -- by defining a smart and connected infrastructure for the sharing and

1025 circular economies as well as by increasing the efficiency of waste collection activities. While the

1026 availability of product lifecycle data can support decision making at the end of life phase, the required

1027 infrastructure for collecting such data requires further studies.

1028 An example of the use of data sharing technologies in e-waste management has been discussed to show

1029 the application of monitoring the lifecycle of individual products on a better understanding of the waste

1030 generation and recovery patterns.

1031 Future work will improve this framework by taking a closer look at the effects of other factors such as

1032 regulation, policy, product design strategies, and technology on waste management. In addition, the

1033 proposed framework has taken a broad look at waste management and the issues emerging in this field.

1034 However, different waste types have different characteristics and management systems, sometimes not

1035 compatible with each together. The proposed product-lifecycle framework should be tuned and elaborated

1036 to be used based on the scope, needs, and boundary of each waste types. Furthermore, the proposed

1037 framework needs to be validated with real-world case studies to test the value of having access to product

1038 lifecycle data in solving waste generation and recovery issues in different regions and countries.

40
1039 To conclude, some thoughts on future research directions in waste management context are summarized

1040 here under three categories of objective, effects of emerging technologies and enabling factors.

1041 Objective: Traditional views to waste management, largely focus on improvement of waste collection

1042 efforts, but fail to comprehensively consider the complete product lifecycle and the circular economy

1043 opportunities exist over the entire product lifecycle. Waste management efforts should be focused on

1044 identifying value chains rather than waste removal chains. The purpose of waste collection and recovery

1045 infrastructure should not only be focused on automatizing existing processes, but rather on implementing

1046 best practices with the aim of creating values. Therefore, accessing the city needs and requirements is a

1047 required step before making a decision about the type of technology that should be adopted. Although

1048 sensor-based technologies and CPS have received sufficient attention in the SC domain, future cities are

1049 more beyond just high-performance technologies. The true success of SCs depends on new business

1050 models that extract the actual value that new technologies offer. In addition, the concept of waste in smart

1051 communities requires a new definition. It should go beyond just materials and cover all resources and

1052 values embedded in the system including materials, human capital, time, and efforts. It is expected that a

1053 smart city moves toward the elimination of all non-value added activities and resource.

1054 Adversary effects of emerging technologies: While the concept of SC proposes to apply various sensor-

1055 based computing capabilities across mobile devices to encourage green behavior among consumers, the

1056 adversary effect of such adoptions is not clear yet. It is critical to understand in what ways do the SC

1057 influences the implementation of sustainability initiatives. While SCs are potential sites of breakthrough

1058 innovations, they are centers of resource use, electronics, and smart infrastructure that should be managed

1059 properly. While employing the concept of information flows can have a huge potential to reduce the

1060 uncertainties pertaining to the amount and quality of waste generation rate and makes planning operations

1061 more effective, it is important to acknowledge the potential of rebound effects and the role of smartness in

1062 generating more uncertainties as a result of making technology available to citizens as complex social-

1063 behavioral systems.

41
1064 Enabling factors: An extensive research with contributions from across the fields of urban planning,

1065 economics, social science, engineering design and computer science is needed to fully understand various

1066 elements of an integrated waste management platform with the final vision of creating value rather than

1067 controlling waste. The design of a practical waste management concept requires collaboration among a

1068 multidisciplinary team of designers, behavioral scientists, computer scientists, consumers, civic society

1069 members, city leaders, manufacturers, recyclers, and remanufacturers. In addition, as new smart concepts

1070 are emerging for handling waste management practices, new sets of environmental standards, laws, and

1071 regulations should be developed to assure the quality of features established in smart infrastructure. In

1072 addition, future waste collection and management infrastructures should inter-operate with existing

1073 systems. The connection and inter-operability will facilitate the integration of waste management

1074 practices with other activities within smart communities.

1075

1076 Acknowledgement

1077 The US National Science Foundation has provided financial support for the conduct of the research

1078 under grant# 1705621 for Sara Behdad and Kemper Lewis. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions

1079 or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

1080 the views of the National Science Foundation.

42
1081 References:
1082 Abdoli, Sadjad. 2009. “RFID Application in Municipal Solid Waste Management System” 3 (3).
1083 International Journal of Environmental Research (IJER): 447–54.
1084 Ahvenniemi, Hannele, Aapo Huovila, Isabel Pinto-Seppä, and Miimu Airaksinen. 2017. “What Are the
1085 Differences between Sustainable and Smart Cities?” Cities 60. Elsevier: 234–45.
1086 Ajayi, Saheed O, Lukumon O Oyedele, Muhammad Bilal, Olugbenga O Akinade, Hafiz A Alaka, and
1087 Hakeem A Owolabi. 2017. “Critical Management Practices Influencing On-Site Waste
1088 Minimization in Construction Projects.” Waste Management 59. Elsevier: 330–39.
1089 Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
1090 Processes 50 (2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
1091 Al-Hader, Mahmoud, Ahmad Rodzi, Abdul Rashid Sharif, and Noordin Ahmad. 2009. “Smart City
1092 Components Architicture.” In Computational Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation, 2009.
1093 CSSim’09. International Conference On, 93–97. IEEE.
1094 Al-Jabi, Muhannad, and Mohammad Diab. 2017. “IoT-Enabled Citizen Attractive Waste Management
1095 System.” In Applications of Information Technology in Developing Renewable Energy Processes &
1096 Systems (IT-DREPS), 2017 2nd International Conference on The, 1–5. IEEE.
1097 Al-Khatib, Issam A, Maria Monou, Abdul Salam F Abu Zahra, Hafez Q Shaheen, and Despo Kassinos.
1098 2010. “Solid Waste Characterization, Quantification and Management Practices in Developing
1099 Countries. A Case Study: Nablus District–Palestine.” Journal of Environmental Management 91 (5).
1100 Elsevier: 1131–38.
1101 Albino, Vito, Umberto Berardi, and Rosa Maria Dangelico. 2015. “Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions,
1102 Performance, and Initiatives.” Journal of Urban Technology 22 (1). Taylor & Francis: 3–21.
1103 Alibasic, Armin, Reem Al Junaibi, Zeyar Aung, Wei Lee Woon, and Mohammad Atif Omar. 2016.
1104 “Cybersecurity for Smart Cities: A Brief Review.” In International Workshop on Data Analytics for
1105 Renewable Energy Integration, 22–30. Springer.
1106 Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros, Kostas Kolomvatsos, Christos Anagnostopoulos, Arkady Zaslavsky, and
1107 Stathes Hadjiefthymiades. 2015. “Assessing Dynamic Models for High Priority Waste Collection in
1108 Smart Cities.” Journal of Systems and Software 110. Elsevier: 178–92.
1109 Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros, Arkady Zaslavsky, Kostas Kolomvatsos, Alexey Medvedev, Pouria
1110 Amirian, Jeremy Morley, and Stathes Hadjiefthymiades. 2017. “Challenges and Opportunities of
1111 Waste Management in IoT-Enabled Smart Cities: A Survey.” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
1112 Computing. IEEE.
1113 Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros, Arkady Zaslavsky, and Alexey Medvedev. 2015. “Robust Waste
1114 Collection Exploiting Cost Efficiency of IoT Potentiality in Smart Cities.” In Recent Advances in
1115 Internet of Things (RIoT), 2015 International Conference On, 1–6. IEEE.
1116 Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros, Arkady Zaslavsy, Alexey Medvedev, and Sergei Khoruzhnicov. 2015.
1117 “Top--k Query Based Dynamic Scheduling for IoT-Enabled Smart City Waste Collection.” In
1118 Mobile Data Management (MDM), 2015 16th IEEE International Conference On, 2:50–55. IEEE.
1119 Anderson, Ray C. 1998. Mid-Course Correction. BOOK. Peregrinzilla Press.
1120 Anke, Jürgen, and K Främling. 2005. “Distributed Decision Support in a PLM Scenario.” In Proceedings
1121 of Product Data Technology Europe 14th Symposium, 26–28. Citeseer.
1122 Anthopoulos, Leonidas G. 2015. “Understanding the Smart City Domain: A Literature Review.” In
1123 Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities, 9–21. Springer.

43
1124 Arroub, Ayoub, Bassma Zahi, Essaid Sabir, and Mohamed Sadik. 2016. “A Literature Review on Smart
1125 Cities: Paradigms, Opportunities and Open Problems.” In Wireless Networks and Mobile
1126 Communications (WINCOM), 2016 International Conference On, 180–86. IEEE.
1127 Bakker, Conny, Feng Wang, Jaco Huisman, and Marcel den Hollander. 2014. “Products That Go Round:
1128 Exploring Product Life Extension through Design.” Journal of Cleaner Production 69. Elsevier: 10–
1129 16.
1130 BAN, The Basel Action Network, and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition SVTC. 2002. “Exporting Harm
1131 The High-Tech Trashing of Asia.” The Basel Action Network, Seattle.
1132 Basel Action Network. 2017. “E-Trash Transparency Project — Basel Action Network.” 2016. Accessed
1133 January 1. [Link]
1134 Bashir, Adil, Shoaib Amin Banday, Ab Rouf Khan, and Mohammad Shafi. 2013. “Concept, Design and
1135 Implementation of Automatic Waste Management System.” International Journal on Recent and
1136 Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN, 2321–8169.
1137 Beliën, Jeroen, Liesje De Boeck, and Jonas Van Ackere. 2012. “Municipal Solid Waste Collection and
1138 Management Problems: A Literature Review.” Transportation Science 48 (1). INFORMS: 78–102.
1139 Bélissent, Jennifer. 2010. “Getting Clever about Smart Cities: New Opportunities Require New Business
1140 Models.” Forrester.
1141 Bhuie, A K, O A Ogunseitan, J.-D.M. Saphores, and A A Shapiro. 2004. “Environmental and Economic
1142 Trade-Offs in Consumer Electronic Products Recycling: A Case Study of Cell Phones and
1143 Computers.” Electronics and the Environment, 2004. Conference Record. 2004 IEEE International
1144 Symposium On. doi:10.1109/ISEE.2004.1299691.
1145 Bibri, Simon Elias, and John Krogstie. 2017. “Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future: An Extensive
1146 Interdisciplinary Literature Review.” Sustainable Cities and Society. Elsevier.
1147 Bigum, Marianne, Claus Petersen, Thomas H Christensen, and Charlotte Scheutz. 2013. “WEEE and
1148 Portable Batteries in Residual Household Waste: Quantification and Characterisation of Misplaced
1149 Waste.” Waste Management 33 (11). Elsevier: 2372–80.
1150 Bocken, Nancy M P, Ingrid de Pauw, Conny Bakker, and Bram van der Grinten. 2016. “Product Design
1151 and Business Model Strategies for a Circular Economy.” Journal of Industrial and Production
1152 Engineering 33 (5). Taylor & Francis: 308–20.
1153 Boons, Frank, and Florian Lüdeke-Freund. 2013. “Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State-of-
1154 the-Art and Steps towards a Research Agenda.” Journal of Cleaner Production 45. Elsevier: 9–19.
1155 Bossink, B A G, and H J H Brouwers. 1996. “Construction Waste: Quantification and Source
1156 Evaluation.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 122 (1). American Society of
1157 Civil Engineers: 55–60.
1158 Bucciol, Alessandro, Natalia Montinari, and Marco Piovesan. 2015. “Do Not Trash the Incentive!
1159 Monetary Incentives and Waste Sorting.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 117 (4). Wiley
1160 Online Library: 1204–29.
1161 Cairns, C N. 2005. “E-Waste and the Consumer: Improving Options to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.”
1162 Electronics and the Environment, 2005. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Symposium
1163 On. doi:10.1109/ISEE.2005.1437033.
1164 Caragliu, Andrea, Chiara Del Bo, and Peter Nijkamp. 2011. “Smart Cities in Europe.” Journal of Urban
1165 Technology 18 (2). Taylor & Francis: 65–82.
1166 Castro, Ana Flávia Neves Mendes, Renato Vinícius Oliveira Castro, Angélica de Cássia Oliveira

44
1167 Carneiro, Ana Márcia Macedo Ladeira Carvalho, Cláudio Homero Ferreira da Silva, Welliton Lelis
1168 Cândido, and Rosimeire Cavalcante dos Santos. 2017. “Quantification of Forestry and
1169 Carbonization Waste.” Renewable Energy 103. Elsevier: 432–38.
1170 Castro Lundin, André, Ali Gurcan Ozkil, and Jakob Schuldt-Jensen. 2017. “Smart Cities: A Case Study in
1171 Waste Monitoring and Management.” In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference
1172 on System Sciences.
1173 Catania, Vincenzo, and Daniela Ventura. 2014. “An Approch for Monitoring and Smart Planning of
1174 Urban Solid Waste Management Using Smart-M3 Platform.” In Open Innovations Association
1175 FRUCT, Proceedings of 15th Conference Of, 24–31. IEEE.
1176 Chang, Ni-Bin, H Y Lu, and Y L Wei. 1997. “GIS Technology for Vehicle Routing and Scheduling in
1177 Solid Waste Collection Systems.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 123 (9). American Society
1178 of Civil Engineers: 901–10.
1179 Chapman, Gretchen B., and Eric J. Johnson. 1994. “The Limits of Anchoring.” Journal of Behavioral
1180 Decision Making 7 (4): 223–42. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960070402.
1181 Chauhan, Sumedha, Sumedha Chauhan, Neetima Agarwal, Neetima Agarwal, Arpan Kumar Kar, and
1182 Arpan Kumar Kar. 2016. “Addressing Big Data Challenges in Smart Cities: A Systematic Literature
1183 Review.” Info 18 (4). Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 73–90.
1184 Chen, Jiayu, J E Taylor, and His-Hsien Wei. 2011. “Toward a Building Occupant Network Agent-Based
1185 Model to Simulate Peer Induced Energy Conservation Behavior.” In , 883–90. Proceedings of the
1186 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2011). BT - 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC
1187 2011), 11-14 Dec. 2011: IEEE. doi:10.1109/WSC.2011.6147814.
1188 Chorus, Caspar G, Mark J Koetse, and Anco Hoen. 2013. “Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel
1189 Vehicles: Comparing a Utility Maximization and a Regret Minimization Model.” Energy Policy 61.
1190 Section of Transport and Logistics, Delft University of Technology, Delft 2628BX, Netherlands;
1191 Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands; PBL
1192 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd: 901–8.
1193 doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.06.064.
1194 Chourabi, Hafedh, Taewoo Nam, Shawn Walker, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, Sehl Mellouli, Karine Nahon,
1195 Theresa A. Pardo, and Hans Jochen Scholl. 2011. “Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative
1196 Framework.” In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
1197 2289–97.
1198 Chourabi, Hafedh, Taewoo Nam, Shawn Walker, J Ramon Gil-Garcia, Sehl Mellouli, Karine Nahon,
1199 Theresa A Pardo, and Hans Jochen Scholl. 2012. “Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative
1200 Framework.” In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference On, 2289–97.
1201 IEEE.
1202 Chowdhury, Belal, and Morshed U Chowdhury. 2007. “RFID-Based Real-Time Smart Waste
1203 Management System.” In Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference, 2007.
1204 ATNAC 2007. Australasian, 175–80. IEEE.
1205 Clarke, Marjorie J, and Juliana A Maantay. 2006. “Optimizing Recycling in All of New York City’s
1206 Neighborhoods: Using GIS to Develop the REAP Index for Improved Recycling Education,
1207 Awareness, and Participation.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 46 (2). Elsevier: 128–48.
1208 Clarke, Ruthbea Yesner. 2017. “Measuring Success in the Development of Smart and Sustainable Cities.”
1209 In Managing for Social Impact, 239–54. Springer.
1210 Cocchia, Annalisa. 2014. “Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review.” In Smart City, 13–
1211 43. Springer.

45
1212 Cohen, Boyd, and Jan Kietzmann. 2014. “Ride on! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy.”
1213 Organization & Environment 27 (3). SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: 279–96.
1214 Cohen, Boyd, and Pablo Muñoz. 2016. “Sharing Cities and Sustainable Consumption and Production:
1215 Towards an Integrated Framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production 134. Elsevier: 87–97.
1216 Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2016. “Quantitative Characterization of Domestic and
1217 Transboundary Flows of Used Electronic Products. Case Study: Used Computers and Monitors in
1218 North America.” Montreal, Canada. 126 pp.
1219 Cooper, Tim. 2000. “WEEE, WEEE, WEEE, WEEE, All the Way Home? An Evaluation of Proposed
1220 Electrical and Electronic Waste Legislation.” European Environment 10 (3). John Wiley & Sons,
1221 Ltd: 121–30.
1222 ———. 2004. “Inadequate Life?Evidence of Consumer Attitudes to Product Obsolescence.” Journal of
1223 Consumer Policy 27 (4): 421–49. doi:10.1007/s10603-004-2284-6.
1224 Cossu, Raffaello, and Lan Williams. 2015. “Urban Mining: Concepts, Terminology, Challenges.” Waste
1225 Management 45: 1–3.
1226 Cote, Raymond, Jill Grant, Aliza Weller, Yuting Zhu, and Corey Toews. 2006. “Industrial Ecology and
1227 the Sustainability of Canadian Cities.” In Nova Scotia, Canada: Eco-Efficiency Centre, Dalhousie
1228 University, Halifax, Report Prepared for The Conference Board of Canada.
1229 Culiberg, Barbara. 2014. “Towards an Understanding of Consumer Recycling from an Ethical
1230 Perspective.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (1): 90–97. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12068.
1231 Dameri, Renata Paola. 2017. “Urban Smart Dashboard. Measuring Smart City Performance.” In Smart
1232 City Implementation, 67–84. Springer.
1233 Dasu, Tamraparni, and Theodore Johnson. 2003. Exploratory Data Mining and Data Cleaning. Vol. 479.
1234 John Wiley & Sons.
1235 Deloitte. 2015. “Smart Cities, How Rapid Advances in Technology Are Reshaping Our Economy and
1236 Society.” [Link]
1237 “Discarded Kitchen, Laundry, Bathroom Equipment Comprises Over Half of World E-Waste - United
1238 Nations University.” 2017. Accessed February 17. [Link]
1239 relations/releases/discarded-kitchen-laundry-bathroom-equipment-comprises-over-half-of-world-e-
1240 [Link]#info.
1241 Dornfeld, David A., ed. 2013. Green Manufacturing. Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-
1242 6016-0.
1243 Ehrlich, Paul R, and Anne H Ehrlich. 1997. “The Population Explosion: Why We Should Care and What
1244 We Should Do about It.” Envtl. L. 27. HeinOnline: 1187.
1245 Elia, Valerio, Maria Grazia Gnoni, and Fabiana Tornese. 2015. “Designing Pay-As-You-Throw Schemes
1246 in Municipal Waste Management Services: A Holistic Approach.” Waste Management 44. Elsevier:
1247 188–95.
1248 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2016. “Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular Economy Potential.”
1249 Environment, United Nation, and Programme. 2010. “Framework of Global Partnership on Waste
1250 Management.” [Link]
1251 Frankenberger, Karolin, Tobias Weiblen, Michaela Csik, and Oliver Gassmann. 2013. “The 4I-
1252 Framework of Business Model Innovation: A Structured View on Process Phases and Challenges.”
1253 International Journal of Product Development 18 (3–4). Inderscience Publishers Ltd: 249–73.

46
1254 Gartner, Inc. 2016. “Gartner Says Worldwide Smartphone Sales Grew 9.7 Percent in Fourth Quarter of
1255 2015.” [Link]
1256 Gaustad, Gabrielle, Elsa Olivetti, and Randolph Kirchain. 2010. “Design for Recycling.” Journal of
1257 Industrial Ecology 14 (2): 286–308. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00229.x.
1258 Geng, Yong, Jia Fu, Joseph Sarkis, and Bing Xue. 2012. “Towards a National Circular Economy
1259 Indicator System in China: An Evaluation and Critical Analysis.” Journal of Cleaner Production 23
1260 (1). Elsevier: 216–24.
1261 Geng, Yong, Pan Zhang, Raymond P Côté, and Tsuyoshi Fujita. 2009. “Assessment of the National Eco‐
1262 Industrial Park Standard for Promoting Industrial Symbiosis in China.” Journal of Industrial
1263 Ecology 13 (1). Wiley Online Library: 15–26.
1264 Ghisellini, Patrizia, Catia Cialani, and Sergio Ulgiati. 2016. “A Review on Circular Economy: The
1265 Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems.” Journal of
1266 Cleaner Production 114. Elsevier: 11–32.
1267 Ghose, M K, ANIL KUMAR Dikshit, and S K Sharma. 2006. “A GIS Based Transportation Model for
1268 Solid Waste Disposal–A Case Study on Asansol Municipality.” Waste Management 26 (11).
1269 Elsevier: 1287–93.
1270 Gibson, David V, George Kozmetsky, and Raymond W Smilor. 1992. The Technopolis Phenomenon:
1271 Smart Cities, Fast Systems, Global Networks. Rowman & Littlefield.
1272 Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Reinhard Selten. 2002. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. MIT press.
1273 Giusti, L. 2009. “A Review of Waste Management Practices and Their Impact on Human Health.” Waste
1274 Management 29 (8). Elsevier: 2227–39.
1275 Glouche, Yann, and Paul Couderc. 2013. “A Smart Waste Management with Self-Describing Objects.” In
1276 The Second International Conference on Smart Systems, Devices and Technologies (SMART’13).
1277 Glouche, Yann, Arnab Sinha, and Paul Couderc. 2015. “A Smart Waste Management with Self-
1278 Describing Complex Objects.” International Journal On Advances in Intelligent Systems 8 (1 & 2):
1279 1–to.
1280 Goldsmith, Elizabeth B., and Ronald E. Goldsmith. 2011. “Social Influence and Sustainability in
1281 Households.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 35 (2): 117–21. doi:10.1111/j.1470-
1282 6431.2010.00965.x.
1283 Gomez, Guadalupe, Montserrat Meneses, Lourdes Ballinas, and Francesc Castells. 2008.
1284 “Characterization of Urban Solid Waste in Chihuahua, Mexico.” Waste Management 28 (12).
1285 Elsevier: 2465–71.
1286 Gori Paula; Parcu, Pier Luigi; Stasi, Maria Luisa. 2015. “Smart Cities and Sharing Economy.” 1028–
1287 3625. [Link]
1288 Goulart Coelho, Lineker M, Liséte C Lange, and Hosmanny M G Coelho. 2017. “Multi-Criteria Decision
1289 Making to Support Waste Management: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Methods.”
1290 Waste Management & Research 35 (1). SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 3–28.
1291 Gsottbauer, Elisabeth, and Jeroen C J M van den Bergh. 2011. “Environmental Policy Theory Given
1292 Bounded Rationality and Other-Regarding Preferences.” Environmental and Resource Economics
1293 49 (2). Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona,
1294 Edifici Cn-Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Cerdanyola, Spain; ICREA, Barcelona, Spain;
1295 Department of Economics and Economic History, Institute for Environmental Science: Springer
1296 Netherlands: 263–304. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9433-y.

47
1297 Gutierrez, Jose M, Michael Jensen, Morten Henius, and Tahir Riaz. 2015. “Smart Waste Collection
1298 System Based on Location Intelligence.” Procedia Computer Science 61. Elsevier: 120–27.
1299 Hall, Peter. 1988. Cities of Tomorrow. Blackwell Publishers.
1300 Halstenberg, Friedrich A, Kai Lindow, and Rainer Stark. 2017. “Utilization of Product Lifecycle Data
1301 from PLM Systems in Platforms for Industrial Symbiosis.” Procedia Manufacturing 8. Elsevier:
1302 369–76.
1303 Han, Chong, Josep Miquel Jornet, Etimad Fadel, and Ian F Akyildiz. 2013. “A Cross-Layer
1304 Communication Module for the Internet of Things.” Computer Networks 57 (3): 622–33.
1305 doi:[Link]
1306 Hansla, Andre, Amelie Gamble, Asgeir Juliusson, and Tommy Garling. 2008. “Psychological
1307 Determinants of Attitude towards and Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity.” Energy Policy 36
1308 (2). Department of Psychology, Goteborg University, P.O. Box 500, SE-40530 Goteborg, Sweden:
1309 Elsevier Ltd: 768–74. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.10.027.
1310 Harjula, T., B. Rapoza, W.A. Knight, and G. Boothroyd. 1996. “Design for Disassembly and the
1311 Environment.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 45 (1): 109–14. doi:10.1016/S0007-
1312 8506(07)63027-3.
1313 Haupt, Melanie, Carl Vadenbo, and Stefanie Hellweg. 2017. “Do We Have the Right Performance
1314 Indicators for the Circular Economy?: Insight into the Swiss Waste Management System.” Journal
1315 of Industrial Ecology 21 (3). Wiley Online Library: 615–27.
1316 Hawlitschek, Florian, Timm Teubner, and Henner Gimpel. 2016. “Understanding the Sharing Economy--
1317 Drivers and Impediments for Participation in Peer-to-Peer Rental.” In System Sciences (HICSS),
1318 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference On, 4782–91. IEEE.
1319 Heiner, R A. 1992. “Adaptive Stability with Limited Structural Knowledge,” J. Econ. Behav. Organ.
1320 (Netherlands), 18 (1). JO - Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization: 123–26.
1321 doi:10.1016/0167-2681(92)90058-J.
1322 Hicks, C., R. Dietmar, and M. Eugster. 2005. “The Recycling and Disposal of Electrical and Electronic
1323 Waste in China—legislative and Market Responses.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25
1324 (5): 459–71. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.04.007.
1325 Ho, Kevin K W, and Stuart So. 2017. “Towards a Smart City through Household Recycling and Waste
1326 Management: A Study on the Factors Affecting Environmental Friendliness Lifestyle of
1327 Guamanian.” International Journal of Sustainable Real Estate and Construction Economics 1 (1).
1328 Inderscience Publishers (IEL): 89–108.
1329 Hollander, Marcel C, Conny A Bakker, and Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “Product Design in a Circular
1330 Economy: Development of a Typology of Key Concepts and Terms.” Journal of Industrial Ecology
1331 21 (3). Wiley Online Library: 517–25.
1332 Hong, Insung, Sunghoi Park, Beomseok Lee, Jaekeun Lee, Daebeom Jeong, and Sehyun Park. 2014.
1333 “IoT-Based Smart Garbage System for Efficient Food Waste Management.” The Scientific World
1334 Journal 2014. Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
1335 Hubacek, Klaus, Kuishuang Feng, Bin Chen, and Shigemi Kagawa. 2016. “Linking Local Consumption
1336 to Global Impacts.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 20 (3). Wiley Online Library: 382–86.
1337 Huffman, Ann Hergatt, Brittney R Van Der Werff, Jaime B Henning, and Kristen Watrous-Rodriguez.
1338 2014. “When Do Recycling Attitudes Predict Recycling? An Investigation of Self-Reported versus
1339 Observed Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 38. Elsevier: 262–70.
1340 Jenks, Mike, and Colin Jones. 2009. Dimensions of the Sustainable City. Vol. 2. Springer Science &

48
1341 Business Media.
1342 Jin, Jiong, Jayavardhana Gubbi, Slaven Marusic, and Marimuthu Palaniswami. 2014. “An Information
1343 Framework for Creating a Smart City through Internet of Things.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal
1344 1 (2). IEEE: 112–21.
1345 Jun, H.-B., J.-H. Shin, D. Kiritsis, and P. Xirouchakis. 2007. “System Architecture for Closed-Loop
1346 PLM.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 20 (7). Taylor & Francis: 684–
1347 98. doi:10.1080/09511920701566624.
1348 Jun, Hong-Bae, Dimitris Kiritsis, and Paul Xirouchakis. 2007. “Research Issues on Closed-Loop PLM.”
1349 Computers in Industry 58 (8). Elsevier: 855–68.
1350 Kahhat, Ramzy, Junbeum Kim, Ming Xu, Braden Allenby, Eric Williams, and Peng Zhang. 2008.
1351 “Exploring E-Waste Management Systems in the United States.” Resources, Conservation and
1352 Recycling 52 (7): 955–64. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.03.002.
1353 Kahhat, Ramzy, and Eric Williams. 2012. “Materials Flow Analysis of E-Waste: Domestic Flows and
1354 Exports of Used Computers from the United States.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 67:
1355 67–74. doi:[Link]
1356 Kahneman, Daniel. 1991. “JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING: A Personal View.” Psychological
1357 Science 2 (3): 142–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00121.x.
1358 Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L Knetsch, and Richard H Thaler. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect,
1359 Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193–206.
1360 doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193.
1361 Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.”
1362 Econometrica 47 (2). Econometric Society: 263–91.
1363 [Link]
1364 Khaitan, S K, and J D McCalley. 2015. “Design Techniques and Applications of Cyberphysical Systems:
1365 A Survey.” IEEE Systems Journal 9 (2): 350–65. doi:10.1109/JSYST.2014.2322503.
1366 Khajenasiri, Iman, Abouzar Estebsari, Marian Verhelst, and Georges Gielen. 2017. “A Review on
1367 Internet of Things Solutions for Intelligent Energy Control in Buildings for Smart City
1368 Applications.” Energy Procedia 111. Elsevier: 770–79.
1369 Kirchherr, Julian, Denise Reike, and Marko Hekkert. 2017. “Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An
1370 Analysis of 114 Definitions.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127. Elsevier: 221–32.
1371 Kiritsis, Dimitris. 2011. “Closed-Loop PLM for Intelligent Products in the Era of the Internet of Things.”
1372 Computer-Aided Design 43 (5). Elsevier: 479–501.
1373 Kogan, Natalia, and Kyoung Jun Lee. 2014. “Exploratory Research on Success Factors and Challenges of
1374 Smart City Projects.” Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems 24 (2): 141–89.
1375 Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and
1376 What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8 (3).
1377 Routledge: 239–60. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
1378 ———. 2010. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-
1379 Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research, July. Taylor & Francis Group.
1380 [Link]
1381 Konig, Moritz, Julius Jacob, Tariq Kaddoura, and Amro M Farid. 2015. “The Role of Resource Efficient
1382 Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Smart Cities.” In Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), 2015
1383 IEEE First International, 1–5. IEEE.

49
1384 Kuk, George, and Marijn Janssen. 2011. “The Business Models and Information Architectures of Smart
1385 Cities.” Journal of Urban Technology 18 (2). Routledge: 39–52.
1386 doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.601109.
1387 Kyriazopoulou, Christiana. 2015. “Smart City Technologies and Architectures: A Literature Review.” In
1388 Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS), 2015 International Conference On, 1–12.
1389 IEEE.
1390 Lacy, Peter, and Jakob Rutqvist. 2016. Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. Springer.
1391 Lata, Kusum, and Shri S K Singh. 2016. “IOT Based Smart Waste Management System Using Wireless
1392 Sensor Network and Embedded Linux Board.” International Journal of Current Trends in
1393 Engineering and Research (IJCTER) 2 (7): 210–14.
1394 Leao, Simone, Ian Bishop, and David Evans. 2001. “Assessing the Demand of Solid Waste Disposal in
1395 Urban Region by Urban Dynamics Modelling in a GIS Environment.” Resources, Conservation and
1396 Recycling 33 (4). Elsevier: 289–313.
1397 Lee, David. 2015. “Transforming Waste Management Systems through Location Tracking and Data
1398 Sharing.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
1399 Lee, David, Dietmar Offenhuber, Fábio Duarte, Assaf Biderman, and Carlo Ratti. 2018. “Monitour:
1400 Tracking Global Routes of Electronic Waste.” Waste Management 72. Elsevier: 362–70.
1401 Lee, Jung Hoon, Marguerite Gong Hancock, and Mei-Chih Hu. 2014. “Towards an Effective Framework
1402 for Building Smart Cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco.” Technological Forecasting and
1403 Social Change 89. Elsevier: 80–99.
1404 Lepawsky, Josh, and Mostaem Billah. 2011. “Making Chains That (Un) Make Things: Waste–value
1405 Relations and the Bangladeshi Rubbish Electronics Industry.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B,
1406 Human Geography 93 (2). Taylor & Francis: 121–39.
1407 Li, Jingran, Fei Tao, Ying Cheng, and Liangjin Zhao. 2015. “Big Data in Product Lifecycle
1408 Management.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 81 (1–4).
1409 Springer: 667–84.
1410 Liboiron, Max. 2014. “Against Awareness, For Scale: Garbage Is Infrastructure, Not Behavior.” Discard
1411 Studies, Social Studies of Waste, Pollution and Externalities.
1412 Lieder, Michael, and Amir Rashid. 2016. “Towards Circular Economy Implementation: A
1413 Comprehensive Review in Context of Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 115.
1414 Elsevier: 36–51.
1415 Liu, Qian, Hui-ming Li, Xiao-li Zuo, Fei-fei Zhang, and Lei Wang. 2009. “A Survey and Analysis on
1416 Public Awareness and Performance for Promoting Circular Economy in China: A Case Study from
1417 Tianjin.” Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2). Elsevier: 265–70.
1418 Logistics Management Institute. 2005. “Best Practices in Implementing Green Supply Chains.”
1419 [Link]
1420 Lombardi, Patrizia, Silvia Giordano, Hend Farouh, and Wael Yousef. 2012. “Modelling the Smart City
1421 Performance.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 25 (2). Taylor &
1422 Francis: 137–49.
1423 Longhi, Sauro, Davide Marzioni, Emanuele Alidori, Gianluca Di Buo, Mario Prist, Massimo Grisostomi,
1424 and Matteo Pirro. 2012. “Solid Waste Management Architecture Using Wireless Sensor Network
1425 Technology.” In New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), 2012 5th International
1426 Conference On, 1–5. IEEE.

50
1427 Lovins, Amory B, L Hunter Lovins, and Paul Hawken. 1999. “A Road Map for Natural Capitalism.”
1428 Mahajan, Kanchan, and J S Chitode. 2014. “Waste Bin Monitoring System Using Integrated
1429 Technologies.” International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
1430 Technology 3 (7).
1431 Malenka, David J., John A. Baron, Sarah Johansen, Jon W. Wahrenberger, and Jonathan M. Ross. 1993.
1432 “The Framing Effect of Relative and Absolute Risk.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 8 (10):
1433 543–48. doi:10.1007/BF02599636.
1434 Martínez-Ballesté, Antoni, Pablo A Pérez-Martínez, and Agusti Solanas. 2013. “The Pursuit of Citizens’
1435 Privacy: A Privacy-Aware Smart City Is Possible.” IEEE Communications Magazine 51 (6). IEEE:
1436 136–41.
1437 Martucci, Leonardo A, Simone Fischer-Hübner, Mark Hartswood, and Marina Jirotka. 2017. “Privacy and
1438 Social Values in Smart Cities BT - Designing, Developing, and Facilitating Smart Cities: Urban
1439 Design to IoT Solutions.” In , edited by Vangelis Angelakis, Elias Tragos, Henrich C Pöhls, Adam
1440 Kapovits, and Alessandro Bassi, 89–107. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
1441 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44924-1_6.
1442 McLaren, Duncan, and Julian Agyeman. 2015. Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable
1443 Cities. MIT Press.
1444 McLeod, Fraser, Gunes Erdogan, Tom Cherrett, Tolga Bektas, Nigel Davies, Duncan Shingleton, Chris
1445 Speed, Janet Dickinson, and Sarah Norgate. 2014. “Improving Collection Efficiency through
1446 Remote Monitoring of Charity Assets.” Waste Management 34 (2). Elsevier: 273–80.
1447 Medvedev, Alexey, Petr Fedchenkov, Arkady Zaslavsky, Theodoros Anagnostopoulos, and Sergey
1448 Khoruzhnikov. 2015. “Waste Management as an IoT-Enabled Service in Smart Cities.” In
1449 Conference on Smart Spaces, 104–15. Springer.
1450 Meijer, Albert, and Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar. 2016. “Governing the Smart City: A Review of the
1451 Literature on Smart Urban Governance.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (2).
1452 SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 392–408.
1453 Miller, Clark;, Daniel; Sarewitz, and Andrew Light. 2008. “Science, Technology, and Sustainability:
1454 Building a Research Agenda, National Science Foundation Supported Workshop.”
1455 [Link]
1456 Moghadam, M R Alavi, N Mokhtarani, and B Mokhtarani. 2009. “Municipal Solid Waste Management in
1457 Rasht City, Iran.” Waste Management 29 (1). Elsevier: 485–89.
1458 Mosannenzadeh, Farnaz, Adriano Bisello, Corrado Diamantini, Giuseppe Stellin, and Daniele Vettorato.
1459 2017. “A Case-Based Learning Methodology to Predict Barriers to Implementation of Smart and
1460 Sustainable Urban Energy Projects.” Cities 60. Elsevier: 28–36.
1461 Mostafa, Sabbaghi, Behzad, Esmaeilian, Ardeshir, Raihanian Mashhadi, Willie, Cade, and Sara Behdad.
1462 2015. “Reusability Assessment of Lithium-Ion Laptop Batteries Based on Consumers Actual Usage
1463 Behavior (Technical Brief).” Journal of Mechanical Design 137 (12): 124501.
1464 Nam, Taewoo, and Theresa A Pardo. 2011a. “Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of
1465 Technology, People, and Institutions.” In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital
1466 Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, 282–91.
1467 ACM.
1468 ———. 2011b. “Smart City as Urban Innovation: Focusing on Management, Policy, and Context.” In
1469 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance,
1470 185–94. ACM.

51
1471 Nee, Andrew Y. C., ed. 2015. Handbook of Manufacturing Engineering and Technology. London:
1472 Springer London. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4670-4.
1473 Neirotti, Paolo, Alberto De Marco, Anna Corinna Cagliano, Giulio Mangano, and Francesco Scorrano.
1474 2014. “Current Trends in Smart City Initiatives: Some Stylised Facts.” Cities 38. Elsevier: 25–36.
1475 Neumann, John Von, and Oskar Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton
1476 university press.
1477 [Link]
1478 AAAMAAJ&pgis=1.
1479 Nijkamp, Peter, and Adriaan Perrels. 2014. Sustainable Cities in Europe. Routledge.
1480 Nordlund, Annika M, and Jörgen Garvill. 2002. “Value Structures behind Proenvironmental Behavior.”
1481 Environment and Behavior 34 (6). Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: 740–56.
1482 Oakley, Richelle L., and A.F. Salam. 2014. “Examining the Impact of Computer-Mediated Social
1483 Networks on Individual Consumerism Environmental Behaviors.” Computers in Human Behavior
1484 35 (June): 516–26. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.02.033.
1485 Offenhuber, Dietmar, David Lee, Malima I Wolf, Santi Phithakkitnukoon, Assaf Biderman, and Carlo
1486 Ratti. 2012. “Putting Matter in Place: Measuring Tradeoffs in Waste Disposal and Recycling.”
1487 Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (2). Taylor & Francis: 173–96.
1488 OPB/EarthFix. 2016. The Circuit: Tracking America’s Electronic Waste.
1489 [Link]
1490 Oreg, S. 2006. “Predicting Proenvironmental Behavior Cross-Nationally: Values, the Theory of Planned
1491 Behavior, and Value-Belief-Norm Theory.” Environment and Behavior 38 (4): 462–83.
1492 doi:10.1177/0013916505286012.
1493 Oskamp, S., M. J. Harrington, T. C. Edwards, D. L. Sherwood, S. M. Okuda, and D. C. Swanson. 1991.
1494 “Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 23 (4): 494–519.
1495 doi:10.1177/0013916591234005.
1496 Oskamp, Stuart. 1995. “Applying Social Psychology to Avoid Ecological Disaster.” Journal of Social
1497 Issues 51 (4): 217–39. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01356.x.
1498 Osterwalder, Alexander, and Yves Pigneur. 2010. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
1499 Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
1500 Pan, Gang, Guande Qi, Wangsheng Zhang, Shijian Li, Zhaohui Wu, and Laurence Tianruo Yang. 2013.
1501 “Trace Analysis and Mining for Smart Cities: Issues, Methods, and Applications.” IEEE
1502 Communications Magazine 51 (6). IEEE: 120–26.
1503 Parfitt, Julian, Mark Barthel, and Sarah Macnaughton. 2010. “Food Waste within Food Supply Chains:
1504 Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
1505 B: Biological Sciences 365 (1554). The Royal Society: 3065–81.
1506 Park, Hee Sun, Timothy R. Levine, and William F. Sharkey. 1998. “The Theory of Reasoned Action and
1507 Self‐construals: Understanding Recycling in Hawai’i.” Communication Studies 49 (3). Taylor &
1508 Francis Group: 196–208. doi:10.1080/10510979809368531.
1509 Park, Jacob, Joseph Sarkis, and Zhaohui Wu. 2010a. “Creating Integrated Business and Environmental
1510 Value within the Context of China’s Circular Economy and Ecological Modernization.” Journal of
1511 Cleaner Production 18 (15). Elsevier: 1494–1501.
1512 ———. 2010b. “Creating Integrated Business and Environmental Value within the Context of China’s
1513 Circular Economy and Ecological Modernization.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (15): 1494–

52
1514 1501. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.06.001.
1515 Patil, Shivani, Shraddha Zavare, Rashmi Parashare, Pooja Rathod, and Vanita Babanne. 2017. “Smart
1516 City Waste Management.” International Journal of Engineering Science 3990.
1517 Patwary, Masum A, William Thomas O’Hare, Graham Street, K Maudood Elahi, Syed Shahadat Hossain,
1518 and Mosharraf H Sarker. 2009. “Quantitative Assessment of Medical Waste Generation in the
1519 Capital City of Bangladesh.” Waste Management 29 (8). Elsevier: 2392–97.
1520 Perkins, Devin N, Marie-Noel Brune Drisse, Tapiwa Nxele, and Peter D Sly. 2014. “E-Waste: A Global
1521 Hazard.” Annals of Global Health 80 (4). Elsevier: 286–95.
1522 Planing, Patrick. 2015. “Business Model Innovation in a Circular Economy Reasons for Non-Acceptance
1523 of Circular Business Models.” Open Journal of Business Model Innovation 1: 11.
1524 Preston, Felix. 2012. “A Global Redesign? Shaping the Circular Economy.” Energy, Environment and
1525 Resource Governance 2: 1–20.
1526 Rachman, S. 1997. “A Cognitive Theory of Obsessions.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 35 (9): 793–
1527 802. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00040-5.
1528 Rada, E C, M Ragazzi, and P Fedrizzi. 2013. “Web-GIS Oriented Systems Viability for Municipal Solid
1529 Waste Selective Collection Optimization in Developed and Transient Economies.” Waste
1530 Management 33 (4). Elsevier: 785–92.
1531 Reddy, M Srinivasa, Shaik Basha, V G Sravan Kumar, H V Joshi, and P K Ghosh. 2003. “Quantification
1532 and Classification of Ship Scraping Waste at Alang–Sosiya, India.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 46
1533 (12). Elsevier: 1609–14.
1534 Reverter, Ferran, Manel Gasulla, and Ramon Pallas-Areny. 2003. “Capacitive Level Sensing for Solid-
1535 Waste Collection.” In Sensors, 2003. Proceedings of IEEE, 1:7–11. IEEE.
1536 Robinson, David P, Rima W Jabado, Christoph A Rohner, Simon J Pierce, Kevin P Hyland, and Warren
1537 R Baverstock. 2017. “Satellite Tagging of Rehabilitated Green Sea Turtles Chelonia Mydas from the
1538 United Arab Emirates, Including the Longest Tracked Journey for the Species.” PloS One 12 (9).
1539 Public Library of Science: e0184286.
1540 Roos, Göran. 2014. “Business Model Innovation to Create and Capture Resource Value in Future Circular
1541 Material Chains.” Resources 3 (1). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 248–74.
1542 Rybova, Kristyna, and Jan Slavik. 2016. “Smart Cities and Ageing Population-Implications for Waste
1543 Management in the Czech Republic.” In Smart Cities Symposium Prague (SCSP), 2016, 1–6. IEEE.
1544 Sabbaghi, Mostafa, Sara Behdad, and Jun Zhuang. 2016. “Managing Consumer Behavior toward On-
1545 Time Return of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment: A Game Theoretic Approach.”
1546 International Journal of Production Economics 182. Elsevier: 545–63.
1547 Sabbaghi, Mostafa, Behzad Esmaeilian, Ardeshir Raihanian Mashhadi, Sara Behdad, and Willie Cade.
1548 2015. “An Investigation of Used Electronics Return Flows: A Data-Driven Approach to Capture and
1549 Predict Consumers Storage and Utilization Behavior.” Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 36:
1550 305–15. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.11.024.
1551 Saphores, Jean-Daniel M, Hilary Nixon, Oladele A Ogunseitan, and Andrew A Shapiro. 2009. “How
1552 Much E-Waste Is There in US Basements and Attics? Results from a National Survey.” Journal of
1553 Environmental Management 90 (11): 3322–31. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.05.008.
1554 Sarkis, Joseph. 2009. “Convincing Industry That There Is Value in Environmentally Supply Chains.”
1555 Schafer, Burkhard. 2014. “D-Waste: Data Disposal as Challenge for Waste Management in the Inter-Net
1556 of Things.” International Review of Information Ethics 22: 12.

53
1557 Schaffers, Hans, Nicos Komninos, Marc Pallot, Brigitte Trousse, Michael Nilsson, and Alvaro Oliveira.
1558 2011. “Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open
1559 Innovation.” In The Future Internet Assembly, 431–46. Springer.
1560 Scott, Kristin A, and S Todd Weaver. 2014. “To Repair or Not to Repair: What Is the Motivation?”
1561 Journal of Research for Consumers, no. 26. Dr. Ekant Veer, Associate Professor, University of
1562 Canterbury: 1.
1563 Sekito, T, T B Prayogo, Y Dote, T Yoshitake, and I Bagus. 2013. “Influence of a Community-Based
1564 Waste Management System on People’s Behavior and Waste Reduction.” Resources, Conservation
1565 and Recycling 72. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Miyazaki, 1-
1566 1, Gakuen Kibanadai Nishi, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan; Regional Development and Planning Board
1567 of Semarang Municipality, Jl. Bukit Dahlia Raya No. 119, RT. 002 RW. 015, Sendangmul: Elsevier:
1568 84–90. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.01.001.
1569 Şener, Şehnaz, Erhan Şener, Bilgehan Nas, and Remzi Karagüzel. 2010. “Combining AHP with GIS for
1570 Landfill Site Selection: A Case Study in the Lake Beyşehir Catchment Area (Konya, Turkey).”
1571 Waste Management 30 (11). Elsevier: 2037–46.
1572 “SF OpenData.” 2017. [Link]
1573 Sharholy, Mufeed, Kafeel Ahmad, Gauhar Mahmood, and R C Trivedi. 2008. “Municipal Solid Waste
1574 Management in Indian Cities–A Review.” Waste Management 28 (2). Elsevier: 459–67.
1575 Shi, Weisong, Jie Cao, Quan Zhang, Youhuizi Li, and Lanyu Xu. 2016. “Edge Computing: Vision and
1576 Challenges.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 3 (5). IEEE: 637–46.
1577 Shuai, Wenjing, Patrick Maillé, and Alexander Pelov. 2016. “Charging Electric Vehicles in the Smart
1578 City: A Survey of Economy-Driven Approaches.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
1579 Systems 17 (8). IEEE: 2089–2106.
1580 Shyam, Gopal Kirshna, Sunilkumar S Manvi, and Priyanka Bharti. 2017. “Smart Waste Management
1581 Using Internet-of-Things (IoT).” In Computing and Communications Technologies (ICCCT), 2017
1582 2nd International Conference On, 199–203. IEEE.
1583 Simon, H.A. 1953. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” A1 - Simon, H. A.
1584 Solano, Sandra Escamilla, Paola Plaza Casado, and Sandra Flores Ureba. 2017. “Smart Cities and
1585 Sustainable Development. A Case Study.” In Sustainable Smart Cities, 65–77. Springer.
1586 Srivastava, Samir K. 2007. “Green Supply-Chain Management: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review.”
1587 International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1): 53–80. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x.
1588 Steinert, Kurt, Revital Marom, Philippe Richard, Gaspar Veiga, and Louis Witters. 2011. “Making Cities
1589 Smart and Sustainable.” The Global Innovation Index 2011: 87–95.
1590 Stern, David I. 2004. “The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve.” World Development 32
1591 (8). Elsevier: 1419–39.
1592 Steve Lohr. 2014. “For Big-Data Scientists, ‘Janitor Work’ Is Key Hurdle to Insights.” New York Times.
1593 [Link]
1594 [Link]?_r=0.
1595 Su, Biwei, Almas Heshmati, Yong Geng, and Xiaoman Yu. 2013. “A Review of the Circular Economy in
1596 China: Moving from Rhetoric to Implementation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 42. Elsevier:
1597 215–27.
1598 Sukholthaman, Pitchayanin, and Alice Sharp. 2016. “A System Dynamics Model to Evaluate Effects of
1599 Source Separation of Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Case of Bangkok, Thailand.” Waste

54
1600 Management 52. Elsevier: 50–61.
1601 Sumathi, V R, Usha Natesan, and Chinmoy Sarkar. 2008. “GIS-Based Approach for Optimized Siting of
1602 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill.” Waste Management 28 (11). Elsevier: 2146–60.
1603 Suocheng, Dong, Kurt W Tong, and Wu Yuping. 2001. “Municipal Solid Waste Management in China:
1604 Using Commercial Management to Solve a Growing Problem.” Utilities Policy 10 (1). Elsevier: 7–
1605 11.
1606 Syngellakis, S. 2014. Waste to Energy. Wit Press.
1607 Talari, Saber, Miadreza Shafie-khah, Pierluigi Siano, Vincenzo Loia, Aurelio Tommasetti, and João P S
1608 Catalão. 2017. “A Review of Smart Cities Based on the Internet of Things Concept.” Energies 10
1609 (4). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 421.
1610 Tao, Chen, and Li Xiang. 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste Recycle Management Information Platform
1611 Based on Internet of Things Technology.” In Multimedia Information Networking and Security
1612 (MINES), 2010 International Conference On, 729–32. IEEE.
1613 Tibbetts, John H. 2017. “Making MovesTracking Devices Transform Scientific Understanding of Animal
1614 Movement.” BioScience 67 (1): 7–13. [Link]
1615 Tukker, Arnold. 2015. “Product Services for a Resource-Efficient and Circular Economy – a Review.”
1616 Journal of Cleaner Production 97 (Supplement C): 76–91.
1617 doi:[Link]
1618 Tversky, A, and D Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science (New
1619 York, N.Y.) 185 (4157): 1124–31. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
1620 UN-HABITAT. 2009. “Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Pre-Publication Series.”
1621 [Link]. 2016. “Displaced Waste: MIT’s Senseable City Lab’s New App Monitors the Global
1622 Scattering Electronic Waste.” [Link]
1623 Ustundag, A L P, and Emre Cevı̇ kcan. 2008. “Vehicle Route Optimization for RFID Integrated Waste
1624 Collection System.” International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 7 (04).
1625 World Scientific: 611–25.
1626 Vega, Carolina Armijo de, Sara Ojeda Benítez, and Ma Elizabeth Ramírez Barreto. 2008. “Solid Waste
1627 Characterization and Recycling Potential for a University Campus.” Waste Management 28.
1628 Elsevier: S21–26.
1629 Vicentini, F, A Giusti, A Rovetta, X Fan, Q He, M Zhu, and B Liu. 2009. “Sensorized Waste Collection
1630 Container for Content Estimation and Collection Optimization.” Waste Management 29 (5).
1631 Elsevier: 1467–72.
1632 Viklund, Mattias. 2004. “Energy Policy Options-from the Perspective of Public Attitudes and Risk
1633 Perceptions.” Energy Policy 32 (10). Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics,
1634 P.O. Box 6501, Stockholm S-113 83, Sweden: Elsevier Ltd: 1159–71. doi:10.1016/S0301-
1635 4215(03)00079-X.
1636 Wadhwa, M, M P S Bakshi, and H P S Makkar. 2015. “Wastes to Worth: Value Added Products from
1637 Fruit and Vegetable Wastes.” Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau Reviews 10: 43.
1638 Wäger, P A, R Hischier, and M Eugster. 2011. “Environmental Impacts of the Swiss Collection and
1639 Recovery Systems for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Follow-Up.” Science
1640 of the Total Environment 409 (10). Elsevier: 1746–56.
1641 Wang, Xue, and Gabrielle Gaustad. 2012. “Prioritizing Material Recovery for End-of-Life Printed Circuit
1642 Boards.” Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 32 (10): 1903–13.

55
1643 doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.05.005.
1644 Warneke, Brett, Matt Last, Brian Liebowitz, and Kristofer S J Pister. 2001. “Smart Dust: Communicating
1645 with a Cubic-Millimeter Computer.” Computer 34 (1). IEEE: 44–51.
1646 Weelden, Eline van, Ruth Mugge, and Conny Bakker. 2016. “Paving the Way towards Circular
1647 Consumption: Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Refurbished Mobile Phones in the Dutch
1648 Market.” Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (February): 743–54.
1649 doi:[Link]
1650 Welsch, Heinz, and Jan Kuhling. 2011. “Are Pro-Environmental Consumption Choices Utility-
1651 Maximizing? Evidence from Subjective Well-Being Data.” Ecological Economics 72. Department
1652 of Economics, University of Oldenburg, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany: Elsevier: 75–87.
1653 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.04.015.
1654 Witjes, Sjors, and Rodrigo Lozano. 2016. “Towards a More Circular Economy: Proposing a Framework
1655 Linking Sustainable Public Procurement and Sustainable Business Models.” Resources,
1656 Conservation and Recycling 112 (Supplement C): 37–44.
1657 doi:[Link]
1658 Yang, Xiaoyu, Philip Moore, and Seng Kwong Chong. 2009. “Intelligent Products: From Lifecycle Data
1659 Acquisition to Enabling Product-Related Services.” Computers in Industry 60 (3). Elsevier: 184–94.
1660 Yang, Z Janet, Mihye Seo, Laura N Rickard, and Teresa M Harrison. 2014. “Information Sufficiency and
1661 Attribution of Responsibility: Predicting Support for Climate Change Policy and pro-Environmental
1662 Behavior,” Journal of Risk Research, . Department of Communication, State University of New
1663 York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; Department of Communication, University at Albany, State
1664 University of New York, Albany, NY, USA; Department of Environmental Studies, State
1665 University of New York C. doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.910692.
1666 York, Richard, Eugene A Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003. “STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic
1667 Tools for Unpacking the Driving Forces of Environmental Impacts.” Ecological Economics 46 (3).
1668 Elsevier: 351–65.
1669 Young, William, Kumju Hwang, Seonaidh McDonald, and Caroline J Oates. 2010. “Sustainable
1670 Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour When Purchasing Products.” Sustainable Development
1671 18 (1). Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,
1672 United Kingdom: 20–31. doi:10.1002/sd.394.
1673 Zacho, Kristina O, and Mette A Mosgaard. 2016. “Understanding the Role of Waste Prevention in Local
1674 Waste Management: A Literature Review.” Waste Management & Research 34 (10). SAGE
1675 Publications Sage UK: London, England: 980–94.
1676 Zanella, Andrea, Nicola Bui, Angelo Castellani, Lorenzo Vangelista, and Michele Zorzi. 2014. “Internet
1677 of Things for Smart Cities.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1 (1). IEEE: 22–32.
1678 Zervas, Georgios, Davide Proserpio, and John W Byers. 2014. “The Rise of the Sharing Economy:
1679 Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry.” Journal of Marketing Research. American
1680 Marketing Association.
1681 Zhang, Lizong, Anthony Atkins, and Hongnian Yu. 2012. “Knowledge Management Application of
1682 Internet of Things in Construction Waste Logistics with RFID Technology.” International Journal
1683 of Computing Science and Communication Technologies 5 (1). TechniaJOURNAL: 760–67.
1684 Zhang, Suopeng, Mingli Zhang, Xueying Yu, and Hao Ren. 2016. “What Keeps Chinese from Recycling:
1685 Accessibility of Recycling Facilities and the Behavior.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling
1686 109. Elsevier: 176–86.

56
1687 Zhao, Hui-hui, Qian Gao, Yao-ping Wu, Yuan Wang, and Xiao-dong Zhu. 2014. “What Affects Green
1688 Consumer Behavior in China? A Case Study from Qingdao.” Journal of Cleaner Production 63
1689 (January): 143–51. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.021.
1690 Zhihua, Ding, and Ning Bo. 2010. “Empirical Research of Two Attitudinal Variables of Ecologically
1691 Conscious Consumer Behavior.” In , 3963–66. 2010 International Conference on E-Business and E-
1692 Government (ICEE 2010). BT - 2010 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government
1693 (ICEE 2010), 7-9 May 2010: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/ICEE.2010.995.
1694 Zhijun, Feng, and Yan Nailing. 2007. “Putting a Circular Economy into Practice in China.” Sustainability
1695 Science 2 (1). Springer: 95–101.
1696 Zink, Trevor, and Roland Geyer. 2017. “Circular Economy Rebound.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 21
1697 (3). Wiley Online Library: 593–602.
1698
1699

57
 Tables

Table 1. Previous review papers and their scope

Previous review papers Scope
(Cocchia 2014)(Meijer and Bolívar Smart and digital cities concepts
2016)(Anthopoulos 2015)(Arroub et al. 2016)
(Kyriazopoulou 2015) Technologies and architectures in SCs
(Bibri and Krogstie 2017) Smart sustainable cities
(Talari et al. 2017) SC and the concept of Internet of Things
(Chauhan et al. 2016) SC and big data challenges
(Khajenasiri et al. 2017) Energy control in buildings of SCs
(Alibasic et al. 2016) Cybersecurity for SCs
(Shuai, Maillé, and Pelov 2016) Electric vehicles in SCs
(Giusti 2009) Waste management and human health
(Zacho and Mosgaard 2016) Waste prevention in waste management
(Goulart Coelho, Lange, and Coelho 2017) Decision-making methods to support waste management
(Beliën, De Boeck, and Van Ackere 2012) Solid waste collection
(Sharholy et al. 2008) Waste management in Indian cities
(Anagnostopoulos et al. 2017) ICT-enabled waste collection models

58
 Table 2. Motivations and challenges for circular economy strategies and smart city models

Motivations for moving towards circular economy

• Resource constraint and rise of commodity prices

• Change in consumer mentalities toward performance-based business models than ownership
• New socio-economic opportunities
• Changes in the structure of value chains and shared prosperity
• Technological development
• Laws, regulations, consumer and producer responsibility
• Brand reputation and legitimacy

Barriers towards the successful implementation of CE

• Insufficient infrastructure for advanced technologies (Su et al. 2013)

• Poor enforcement of legislation (Zhijun and Nailing 2007)
• Insufficient public participation (Liu et al. 2009)
• Lack of sufficient performance indicators and internationally recognized CE indicators (Geng et al.
2012)(Geng et al. 2009)
• The lack of a standard process of data collection and analysis

59
 Table 3. Examples of success factors of waste management practices in SC
Aspect Factors
Data Automatic product lifecycle data collection
Real-time data analysis
Data-driven decision making
Data sharing, open data
Data security and citizen privacy (Martínez-Ballesté, Pérez-Martínez, and
Solanas 2013)
Technology Intelligent & connected devices (Lombardi et al. 2012), new data
acquisition and communication technologies
Resilient infrastructure
Standardization of technology (Kogan and Lee 2014)
Economy Novel business models
Sharing economy, circular economy models
Social aspect Citizens participation, green behavior
Smart collaboration among stakeholders (Chourabi et al. 2012)
Technologies compatible with local culture
Reward-based systems
Governance Strategic planning
Non-governmental parties involvement (Nam and Pardo 2011b)
Laws and regulations compatible with circular economy concept

60
Figures

"Smart City" OR "Smart Cities" Sustainable "Smart City" OR

1112 Sustainable "Smart Cities"
1200
1000 30 25
759
800 17
504 20
600 12
338 9 10
400 269 10
200 1 1 1 2 2 7 19 62117 1 1
0 0
1997
2000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Figure 1. The progress of smart and sustainable cities in the literature, the number of published work from 1997-July
2017 with the exact smart city-related terms in their titles derived from Engineering Village.

61
 Element 1: Collection of Product Lifecycle Data, Full
Visibility throughout Product Lifecycle

Element 2: Novel Business models based on Product

Lifecycle Data

Element 3: City Infrastructure, Intelligent and

Connected Devices

Figure 2. The elements of the proposed framework for waste management in smart and connected communities

62
 Traditional waste management New value creation view
view
1. Assure compliance 1. Raise productivity
2. Minimize risk 2. Enhance relations
3. Maintain health 3. Support innovation
4. Protect the environment 4. Enable growth

Short term Long term

Tactical Strategic
Figure 3. Policy makers should view waste management efforts in SCs as strategic decision, not tactical decision
(borrowed from the concept of green supply chain in (Logistics Management Institute 2005))

63
 Design specifications
(materials, parts, Product Status, Condition Retirement condition,
components), Production of Use Reuse & Recycling Value
Information

Figure 4. Three main phases of product lifecycle and data available in each phase

64
 140 117
120 97 100
100 91 Circular Economy
80 65 Sharing Economy
49 44 50 56
60 36
40 27
15 19
20 2 8 9 9 2 8
0

Figure 5. The number of publications found in Engineering Village, Compendex, Inspec, NTIS, GeoRef and Knovel
databases till July 2017 with titles including the term “Circular Economy” or “Sharing Economy”

65
 A geomap view of 205 devices tracked in “Monitor e-waste transparency’ project

Overview of an LCD monitor transporting from Pittsfield, MA to Wengyuan, China (total travel distance: 862
km, travel duration, 296 days)
Figure 6. Examples of map generated from the e-waste tracking project [Ref: [Link]

66