Waste Management Value Chain as an Issue-Based Multi-Stakeholder Network
During the decision-mapping exercise (Workshop I), European recycling targets were frequently mentioned as important drivers for implementing changes in existing waste collection systems. Consequently, increasing collection or recycling rates was among the main targets of the discussed decision-making processes. However, in addition to European legislation, other drivers, such as new ideas originating from local waste management companies, the citizens, or other local actors, were highlighted. For example, it was mentioned that the increased interest of citizens in improving waste sorting sometimes initiated the process of change or speeded up the planned changes.
The described decision-making processes involved several actors: municipal actors (different city departments), public and private waste management companies, ministries, local policy makers, PROs, NGOs, transport companies and citizens. For example, when trying to find a location for a new civic amenity site or sorting centre (to improve sorting and reduce landfilling), there is a need to find a suitable location that would be accepted by the different departments of the city, and by the nearby residents and companies. Issues related to the availability of the service (transport and logistics) need to be considered, and permits related to environment, health and safety have to be acquired. The availability of necessary trucks and other equipment must be ensured by discussing and negotiating with potential service providers and contractors.
According to the experts, the main challenges related to the decision-making
processes discussed were:
-
Understanding and defining the problem: How the problem should be addressed, what kind of options are available, and where/how to find all necessary information.
-
Coordinating activities: Reaching consensus and ‘speaking the same language’ with different actors (including different municipal actors/authorities but also PROs, and private companies involved).
-
Engaging with citizens and other actors related to the process.
-
Implementing the decisions in practice and finding practical ways to monitor the performance.
Thus, many of the discussed challenges faced in the context of waste management were related to different phases of deliberation: the acquaintance phase and the first and second agreement phases. Although the goal of the network seemed to be common for many of the actors, the process was usually complicated by the fact that, in addition to the joint issue or problem, different actors have multiple other goals (such as optimising costs) that need to be negotiated during the process. There might also be conflicting regulations or unclear responsibilities between different city departments that could hinder the process.
The need for practical tools that could be used for facilitating and structuring different phases of the decision-making process and for engaging with stakeholders was highlighted during the workshop. Collecting feedback and reaching consensus between different actors were considered challenging and often laborious but important. The experts emphasised that a lot of time is spent getting the participants to speak the same language. This challenge is closely linked to the acquaintance or problem definition phase: how the different actors interpret the problem, what kind of changes would be required in the activities of each organisation, and who will need to pay the costs.
In a nutshell, the findings from the workshop illustrate in practice how an issue-based multi-stakeholder network should be formed when planning or implementing changes in waste collection. This is necessary, as proper functioning of the value chain and finding acceptable solutions require co-operation between several actors, including both public and private organisations and citizens. The length of the decision-making processes discussed during the workshop varied from months to years. Although the focus of the discussions was related to the deliberation phase, in most cases, the network should also continue its operation after the deliberation and action phases for the proper functioning of the value chain and to achieve the original target of the network (reaching the European recycling targets). In an ideal case, the network would be institutionalised in one way or another for the purposes of monitoring the performance, and making further adjustments in order to ensure reaching the targets.
Structured MCDM Workshops as Practical Tools for Deliberation
Actor contentment. None of the participating experts expressed disagreeing opinions about the results of the decision-making exercise, that is, a priority order of ideas/actions to improve local WEEE collection. Such a level of consensus was not taken as granted, as there were contrasting views in the beginning when the set of alternative actions was proposed. For instance, one expert coming from a similar region as the small case city, who was very active in the discussion, criticised the inclusion of “awareness-raising campaigns” by stating such effort was outdated and inefficient use of funds, whereas other experts had a completely opposite view about the importance of such action. The debate continued when the action was pairwise compared with other actions regarding the criteria (i.e., the cost of WEEE collection, climate impacts, collection increase and increase in local employment and GDP).
The results eventually indicated that “awareness-raising campaigns” were among the four potential actions to improve the WEEE collection in the case region, but it had the lowest priority based on the criteria. This indicates that the applied approach can increase the legitimacy of the decision by allowing the stakeholders to present, discuss and contest individual viewpoints during the deliberation. This may indicate that the experts who believed in the impact of awareness-raising campaigns were sufficiently content that the action made it to the shortlist or that their estimate of the anticipated performance of such actions was lowered based on the negative feedback on the action. However, the expert who did not wish to shortlist such action may have been content that it was given the lowest priority in the end.
Other contrasting views were revealed during the pairwise comparisons of the actions, particularly concerning enforcement of better practices to avoid processing of WEEE through illegal channels. The experts presented opposite views when comparing an increase in permanent WEEE collection points against enforcement of better practices to avoid WEEE processing through illegal channels. Here the discussion revealed interdependencies between the actions, as enforcement of better practices might be inefficient without adequate number of WEEE collection points. When comparing the enforcement of better practices, which was interpreted as surveillance and required interventions by authorities, to “defined single channel regulated collection,” the experts debated if some of the responses were based on experiences from conditions too dissimilar to the case region.
In the reported situation, sufficient deliberation and facilitation fostered a dialogue in which the disagreements were already processed during the phases of the MCDM prior to the ranking of the alternative actions, that is, during problem definition, definition of the set of alternative actions and when the stakeholders’ preferences and judgement were elicited.
The outcomes were formed as a result of intensive and goal-oriented exchange of views, which likely fostered a shared acceptance of the results, which we (for lack of a better measure) take as an indication of actor contentment. The direct feedback received from the experts included statements regarding the intensity or exhaustiveness of the exercise but also positive statements about its usefulness. One participating expert indicated an intent to transfer and use the method in another setting.
Enrichment of ideas. During the intensive two-hour workshop, the participants became familiar with some basic ideas of the MCDM methodology and backed their views by the experiences of their own countries and regions, thus creating knowledge sharing. Individual contributions varied among workshop participants, and some of the participants took on a more active role in leading the discussion and asking questions from others. In particular, those with experience in WEEE management in circumstances reminiscent of the case region actively proposed solutions and commented on others’ ideas. However, as the method required each participant to give their answers to each question, everyone was given the opportunity to explain their choice. Arguments against and in support of the presented views were abundant. Further, there was a vivid discussion and exchange of experiences, turning the session into a dynamic learning activity for participants and facilitators. The topics of the discussions also revealed differences in the regional, legal and demographic contexts in which the experts were working.
The experts were very active in providing WEEE collection improvement ideas. The ideas were often based on the personal experiences of the experts, which although might indicate that the answers were biassed towards solutions and perceptions that were most familiar to the experts and less applicable to the case region, promoted knowledge exchange as the experts were from various countries and had their work histories in different regional contexts. The experts even accused each other of such a bias during one pairwise comparison. The experts assessed the status quo of the case region’s WEEE collection, including the number and type of bring points, and proposed adjustments. The additional three improvement ideas in both groups were related to actions that were not touched upon in the initial description of the case region and were therefore not incremental changes to the collection system but completely new types of initiatives.
The two parallel groups working on the two case regions were successful in generating a set of ideas (about applicable improvement actions) that were sufficiently accepted by the group of experts, agreeing on a set of evaluation criteria and finally creating a priority order for the actions. In both groups, the experts were able to differentiate the potential performance of the actions according to the evaluation criteria. The final results showed a clear priority order for the actions based on their expected overall value. In addition to having a say on the problem definition, the experts were able to influence the opinions of their peers through argumentation, and there was an active exchange of views on the responses given on the evaluation scale. Due to the two-hour limitation of the duration of the dialogue, however, many of the debates were left open and unfinished. To sum, we believe the experts perceived that their ideas had a direct influence on the results, increasing the legitimacy of the outcome, as reflected in a high level of agreement regarding the results.
Overall judgement. In the designed workshop setting, the AHP functioned as a method for contesting the individual ideas and views of the decision makers. The structure of the approach, from the definition of alternatives and criteria to pairwise comparisons and criteria weighing, was applied in practice without problems. However, it took some time before the participants understood the logic of the exercises. One of the challenges was that no screen was available during the discussion, and thus the participants could not see the evaluation matrix, as it was only included within the laptop of the facilitator, who inserted the answers within the matrix. However, the participants could see the answers of other persons when sharing the results (scores from 1 to 9) on a post-it note. This provoked many questions and discussions, especially when the opinions were very much divided. This also highlighted how, due to varying regional circumstances, the participants sometimes came up with very different prioritisations, which were also accepted after each participant presented their argument.
The workshop was characterised by lively conversations and assessments of ideas, which stayed quite well within the context of the case region. Initial difficulties in carrying out the pairwise comparisons were experienced, which was alleviated by improving the definitions of the criteria and practising the procedure. The focus of the process management changed multiple times during the workshop. The focus was first on keeping track of the ideas and conversation, then on ensuring the functionality of the criteria, and finally on the execution of the MCDM methodology.
The duration of the workshop was limited to two hours, which necessarily narrowed down the scope of the assessment. Based on the workshop experiences, it is possible to perform a simple MCDM in a rather short time slot. However, perhaps half a day would be a more suitable duration, as it would allow for some iterations during the exercise.
The pairwise comparisons of the proposed actions were difficult to initiate. The accurate definition of performance parameters, such as cost per tonne of WEEE collected, often needed to be brought to the attention of the decision makers. The decision makers commented on the challenge of incorporating local situations, such as the scale of collection, into their estimates of the performances. In the end, we do not know the extent to which the decision makers’ answers were based on intuition affected by fundamentally different local situations. In the context of waste management, practical decision-making is often affected by a lack of measured data related to created, collected and recycled amounts of different waste fractions. This is a particular challenge, especially in the case of WEEE, since significant amounts of old equipment have unknown fates.