Next Article in Journal
Misinformation as a Societal Problem in Times of Crisis: A Mixed-Methods Study with Future Teachers to Promote a Critical Attitude towards Information
Previous Article in Journal
Unveiling the Smart City Concept: Perspectives from an Emerging Market via the Social Representation Theory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Role of Government in the Construction of Zero-Waste Cities: A Case Study of China’s Pearl River Delta City Cluster
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15108160
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Characteristics of Solid Waste Management Policy in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area

by
Zhenjie Yang
1,
Canpeng Huang
2,
Fengjie Liao
3,
Fat Iam Lam
1,
Lue Li
1,
Quande Qin
3 and
Bi Fan
3,*
1
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, China
2
Institute of Collaborative Innovation, Macao University, Macao, China
3
College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8160; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108160
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 30 April 2023 / Accepted: 2 May 2023 / Published: 17 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Trend in Achieving ‘Zero Waste’ and Sustainable Consumption)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) plays an important role in China’s development strategy. With recent GDP growth and high population density, solid waste generation has emerged as a significant challenge for the region. This study sought to clarify GBA’s solid waste management policies by constructing a two-dimensional policy analysis framework covering nearly 99 available policy texts. This quantitative method provides an explanatory framework for solid waste management policy in GBA, identifying the main policy objectives and instruments as well as making comparisons. Additionally, given the variations in policy format resulting from regime differences, this paper utilizes a novel approach to encode the documents. The results of the study indicate that both Macao and Hong Kong have made greater progress than Shenzhen in waste management development. While Shenzhen is primarily focused on source control, Macao and Hong Kong have transitioned to the recycling stage, with Hong Kong having a more advanced system. It is recommended that Shenzhen increase its engagement in information sharing, learning, and collaboration with Macao and Hong Kong. Moreover, it is observed that Shenzhen’s waste management approach relies heavily on administrative measures, whereas Macao and Hong Kong have implemented social participation-oriented and economic incentives-oriented policies, respectively. There is also an adaptation deviation between Waste Collection and Treatment Development (WCTD) and the policy instruments used to achieve it in the three cities. It is imperative that the three governments utilize their policy tools in an effective manner and have a rational use of power and the performance of functions. These findings can provide recommendations for promoting inter-city learning and collaboration in the GBA.

1. Introduction

The growth of the economy, rapid urbanization, and industrialization have resulted in an increase in society’s production capacity and the consumption capacity of the population. This, in turn, has led to a steady rise in the amount of waste generated in cities, including domestic waste, construction waste, and hazardous waste [1]. The rate at which waste is being produced is a cause for concern, as improper waste management can harm the environment and human health, especially in developing countries [2]. Population growth is driving an increase in the use of natural resources [3]. The depletion of natural resources over time due to poor management practices is also a significant issue [4]. Solid waste not only contributes to pollution but also possesses valuable resources that could be utilized more effectively through proper management. Effective waste management can help conserve and optimize the use of natural resources and improve their utilization. The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) has become one of the world’s leading bay areas for its openness and economic dynamism [5]. However, there still exists a gap in the ecological and environmental quality of the GBA compared with other world-class bay areas, especially in the effective use of solid waste resources [6]. The annual generation of solid waste in all major cities in the GBA is intense, surpassing the 1800 tons per billion RMB generated in the United States [7]. Thus, the rational disposal and utilization of solid waste are imperative for safeguarding the ecological environment and supporting industrial transformation and upgrading in the GBA.
Waste management is a systemic and social issue that requires the collective efforts of all sectors of society. Factors such as public participation [8,9,10], public attitudes and behaviors [11,12,13], public-private partnerships [14,15,16], and the formulation and implementation of policies [17,18,19,20] impact waste management performance. The government, as the manager, holds a critical role in this process, and its actions can greatly impact and shape the performance of all sectors. Policies are the main tools and means by which the government can promote waste management. To improve waste management practices, the government must introduce relevant policies. The implementation of waste charges, the establishment of a solid waste collection network, and other measures that encourage public participation are effective ways to reduce waste. Hence, a policy-driven approach, in which the government outlines policy objectives and selects the appropriate policy instruments to achieve its goals [21], is of utmost importance.
The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) presents a unique challenge in waste management due to its distinct political and economic regimes that operate under the “one country, two systems” framework [22]. The differences in policy, including philosophy and the form of policy document, create inconvenience for overall waste management in the GBA. The complexities posed by this scenario have been recognized by several researchers who have attempted to address the issue. For instance, Yu et al. developed an innovative waste management capacity evaluation model to evaluate the construction waste management capacity of cities in the Greater Bay Area [23], with the objective of balancing waste management across different jurisdictions and policy contexts. Similarly, Xi et al. analyzed hazardous waste management in the GBA and provided relevant measures for the safe control and disposal of hazardous waste [7]. While the different political and economic regimes may pose difficulties in waste management in the Bay Area, they also lead to different options and variations in the waste management mechanisms of each city [24]. This diversity provides a reference for other cities to refine their own waste management practices and is often overlooked in previous studies of GBA. While some studies have focused on solving the difficulties caused by regime differences, studies exploring the value brought by these differences are rare. Chen et al. offer an insightful theoretical analysis of the differences between Macao, the Mainland, and Hong Kong in municipal waste disposal but lack a quantitative analysis [25]. Further research is thus necessary in this area.
Additionally, collaborative governance lies at the heart of waste management in GBA. While previous literature has primarily focused on collaborative governance within ecological and environmental governance [26,27] and atmospheric environment management [28,29], research in this field remains scarce. Some researchers have delved into waste management in specific cities within the GBA. For example, Li et al. highlighted the issue of engineering and decoration waste in Shenzhen, proposing an extendable waste management system for engineering decoration as a renovation strategy [30]. Zhang et al. studied household food waste in Shenzhen, identifying potential means of reducing HFW [31]. Jin et al. researched waste management in Macao, estimating future challenges faced in this area [32]. In order to promote collaborative governance, it is important to explore the management mechanisms in each city, which helps to better coordinate relationships and promote collaboration among cities. This will ultimately refine waste management practices throughout the region.
The economic growth of cities in the Greater Bay Area has led to a significant increase in environmental pressure. With high population density and substantial amounts of solid waste generated by GDP growth, effective waste management has become a critical issue. As each city’s governance capacity is limited, collaborative governance plays a crucial role in managing waste throughout the Greater Bay Area. Furthermore, given the “one country, two systems” framework, differences in education, culture, laws, and regulations have resulted in distinct waste management mechanisms across different cities. Thus, it is essential to understand the characteristics of each city and identify its strengths and weaknesses to facilitate exchanges and cooperation among cities. This will significantly aid in promoting effective waste management practices throughout the Greater Bay Area.
Therefore, from the angle of policy, this study employs a quantitative policy text analysis method to examine the characteristics of waste management mechanisms under different regimes within the GBA. Different from previous literature using this method, GBA is a region across three jurisdictions, resulting in a disparity in format between the policy documents of Macao and Hong Kong compared with those in mainland China, and it brings difficulties to using original approach to encode the policy unit. So, a sentence-by-sentence encoding approach was employed. And three cities were selected for analysis based on their distinctive waste management practices and high levels of economic development—Hong Kong, Macao, and Shenzhen. To capture the current state of their waste management mechanisms, 47, 31, and 21 policy documents were collected for each city, respectively. These documents were analyzed by categorizing the policy objectives and policy instruments used in each unit of analysis. The results of this analysis were used to evaluate the waste management mechanisms in each city and their preferences for policy instrument selection. By highlighting the differences in the waste management mechanisms across the three cities, this study provides valuable insights for other cities in the GBA to improve their own waste management practices. Based on the findings, practical suggestions for the three cities studied are also provided to address existing challenges in the waste management process.

2. Literature Review

In this paper, we utilize the policy text analysis method to examine and assess the waste management mechanisms of Macao, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. This section aims to review the relevant literature and synthesize previous findings on the policy objectives and policy instruments of waste management, as well as retrospectively review the existing studies on policy text analysis of waste governance.
The trend in waste management is now shifting toward a circular economy. However, the challenges faced are mainly at the societal level, including issues such as public vulnerability, public participation, attitudes, and behavior. Significant research has been conducted to address these challenges. For example, Yang et al. [33] have investigated the issue of emerging public health challenges and emphasize that improved solid waste management can mitigate pollution problems caused by poor management of secondary pollutants. Basu et al. [34] have considered industrial pollution in India from an environmental justice perspective, highlighting the importance of incorporating factors such as environmental justice, cultural disadvantage, and social disadvantage into waste management. Jiang et al. [10] have measured the effectiveness of social media campaigns related to waste management and revealed that informative knowledge campaigns can help improve household waste management. Park et al. [11] have examined the performance of municipal solid waste recycling programs in Florida, USA, demonstrating that citizen concern for the environment positively impacts the amount of recycling taking place. However, the study of waste management mechanisms remains limited to local studies. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the overall mechanism is still required.
Policy text analysis has gained significant attention in the field of policy science as it provides a precise and objective interpretation of policy variability [35]. The use of this computational method has reduced the uncertainty and subjectivity often associated with traditional qualitative policy analysis [36]. Recently, policy text analysis has been widely adopted in waste management research. Hao et al. utilized a basic content analysis approach to study the path of marine plastic waste management in China, Japan, and South Korea [37]. Ding et al. conducted a content analysis of China’s domestic waste classification policy, providing a deep analysis of its specific content and limitations as well as improvement strategies [38]. He et al. employed content analysis to retrospectively examine the policy-making coordination of municipal solid waste policies [39]. Fan et al. used a structured coding method to quantify China’s urban domestic waste policy and offer valuable suggestions [40]. Chen et al. proposed the use of an “objectives-instrument” model in waste management research, encoding policy text for quantification purposes [41].
Moreover, policy objectives refer to the intended outcomes and goals that policymakers aim to achieve through the implementation of policies [42]. Determining policy objectives involves analyzing the challenges and driving forces of waste management, which is crucial for the formulation of effective waste governance policies. Researchers have attempted to classify the policy objectives or identify the challenges in waste management. Bulkeley et al. categorize the modes of governing municipal waste into four types, namely Disposal, Diversion, Eco-efficiency, and Waste as a resource [43]. These modes represent the government’s approach to achieving distinct objectives through the deployment of a set of governmental technologies. In general, these four modes aim at refining waste disposal and its infrastructure, recycling waste, engaging the public, minimizing waste, and reusing materials. It is worth noting that these modes can coexist in a waste management mechanism. Bulkeley et al. further analyze the challenges faced during the progress of waste governance and identify institutional fragmentation, instability and uncertainty of waste management plans, limited financial resources, contracts, and markets, and limited public participation as barriers [44]. Pollans et al. categorize the barriers to waste management into three categories: social and political, institutional, and financial. These barriers can be summarized as a lack of public interest in waste management, institutional and spatial fragmentation, and a lack of financial resources [45]. The effective management of waste requires refinement of the institutional system, minimization of waste, recycling and reuse, active public participation, and financial support. Although financial support is considered a crucial instrument for waste management, it is not considered a standalone objective. The waste management process encompasses a full life cycle that includes waste dumping, collection, transportation, and disposal [46]. The management of these four stages is also a target of waste management policies. Aldieri et al. have further divided waste management into subcategories such as solid waste collection, material recovery, recycling and reuse, and waste disposal [47].
The policy instrument refers to the means and technologies employed by the government to achieve its policy objectives, serving as a bridge between policy objectives and outcomes [48]. The choice of policy instruments significantly impacts the waste management system and results in different waste governance mechanisms in cities. In previous studies, policy instruments have been classified into various types. Rothwell et al. categorize the policy instruments into three types [49]: supply type, demand type, and environmental type, based on the focus and impact areas of the policy instruments. Howlett et al. divide the policy instruments based on the degree of government involvement into compulsory type, mixed type, and voluntary type [50]. Montevecchi et al. evaluate the effectiveness of policy instruments through the lenses of regulatory, economic, and informational types [51]. In this paper, the policy instrument is divided into three types: command type, economic incentive type, and social participation type. Subtype instruments are the specific instruments used to advance waste management. The combination of subtype instruments creates diversity in waste governance across cities, providing valuable research opportunities. Bisaillon et al. and Finnveden et al. present an inventory of various policy subtype instruments, including information provision to citizens and companies, taxes on raw materials, and taxes on waste incineration, among others [52,53].
Indeed, some studies have focused on GBA’s waste management policies; however, these studies are mainly based on qualitative analysis and lack quantified data to display the waste management mechanism specifically. Furthermore, there is still a lack of multidimensional and systematic studies on GBA’s waste management policies. If GBA’s waste management wants to achieve results, it needs the joint efforts and cooperation of all cities in the region. Therefore, it is necessary to quantify the policy and systematically analyze GBA’s waste policy.

3. Methodology

Solid Waste Management: An Explanatory Framework

In this study, we develop an explanatory framework to analyze GBA’s solid waste management policy. The policy text analysis method is deployed to examine the policy. The contents of policy texts are converted into numerical data to facilitate quantitative analysis. This allows us to derive systematic and multidimensional information from large-scale and long-term policy texts. Exploring these characteristics of the solid waste management policies across GBA, the main concept and the dynamic change of the policy objectives and instruments are obtained. Additionally, a comparative study of the level of solid waste governance in GBA is conducted.
According to previous studies, the policy objectives have been classified into four categories: Promote Social Participation (PSP) [44], Waste Collection, Transportation, and Disposal (WCTD) [46], Improve Legal and Institutional System (ILIS) [45], and Reduction, Recycling, and Harmless (RRH) [43] in this paper. Their definition is shown in Table 1.
Additionally, this paper divides the waste management policy instruments into three types: command, economic-incentive, and social participation. The command-type instruments are further divided into institutional building, punishment, technical standards, and planning and control. The subtypes of the economic-incentive-type instrument include financial and technical support, marketization operations, taxes and charges, and rewards. The social-participation-type policy instruments are subdivided into encouraging participation, publicity, and education. Specify policy instrument subtypes as shown in Table 2.
The text coding is a popular method used in policy analysis [41]. As shown in Table 3, the coding process is conducted with the format of “city-policy number-analysis unit”. For example, the code “Macao-21-15” represents the 15th analysis unit of the 21st policy document in Macao. The policy text content is divided to analysis unit by item. And each analysis unit is analyzed to classify the policy objectives and instruments.
Considering the commonality of policies on the mainland, Shenzhen is chosen as a representative for solid waste management policy analysis. The data is collected from the Environmental Protection Department, Ministry of Finance, National Development and Reform Commission, and other central ministries and commissions on the official website. The keywords “solid waste management” and “solid waste” were used to search for relevant policy documents. It is combined with Peking University’s Magic Weapon Policy Database and the CNKI Policy Database to search and complete the policy. To accurately reflect the current waste management mechanisms, only valid and current policy documents were selected for analysis. The policy documents analyzed included local statutes, rules of local governments, and local normative and working documents [41]. After retrieving the policy documents, duplicates were removed, and a total of 99 policy documents were retained: 31 for Macao, 47 for Hong Kong, and 21 for Shenzhen, respectively. The procedure is shown in Figure 1.
To ensure the reliability of the encoding of the analysis units, we utilized a double-blind method and engaged two waste management mechanism researchers to independently encode the 99 policy documents. The results of the encoding were then compared with the initial coding, and it was found that there was a similarity and consistency of 80.1% and 82.2%, respectively, between the two codes and the initial code, exceeding the 80% threshold. This confirms the reliability of the initial results [54]. The opinions of the two researchers were then incorporated into the initial coding, resulting in the recoding of the analysis units. In total, 512 analysis units were encoded in the 99 policy documents.

4. Results

4.1. Policy Objective-Instrument in Three Cities

The findings show that the most favored policy instrument is consistent across the objectives of Promoting Social Participation (PSP), Waste Collection, Transportation, and Disposal (WCTD), and Improving the Legal and Institutional System (ILIS) in the three cities under consideration. However, the frequency of use of policy instruments for Reduction, Recycling, and Harmless (RRH) objectives varies slightly.
As indicated in Figure 2, the achievement of the objectives of Waste Collection, Transportation and Disposal (WCTD) and Improve Legal and Institutional System (ILIS) mainly relies on the Command-Type Instrument, accounting for over 85% in all three cities, with some even reaching 100%. The primary instrument used for Promote Social Participation (PSP) is the Social Participation Type. Among the three cities, the highest proportion of this instrument type is in Shenzhen, approximately 68.97%, followed by Macao (66.67%), and Hong Kong (55.56%), with the lowest proportion. The Command-Type Instrument is the least used among the three types of instruments. Additionally, the realization of Reduction, Recycling, and Harmless (RRH) in Macao and Shenzhen heavily relies on the Command-Type Instrument, at approximately 48.39% and 51.85%, respectively. Conversely, Hong Kong’s reliance on the Economic Incentive Type Instrument is greater, at 72.22%. In conclusion, the Command-Type Instrument is the most commonly used method across the three cities to achieve the various objectives.
The distribution of policy objectives across the three cities is depicted in Figure 3. It is notable that each of the cities has a distinct policy focus. As depicted in the results, Macao places the greatest emphasis on Reduction, Recycling, and Harmless (RRH), with a proportion of approximately 41.89%. The government of Shenzhen, on the other hand, prioritizes the improvement of the Legal and Institutional System (ILIS), with a proportion of over 50%. Meanwhile, Hong Kong places the highest priority on Waste Collection, Transportation, and Disposal (WCTD) at 37.33%.
Furthermore, the distribution of policy objectives in the three cities is diverse. Shenzhen places a greater emphasis on ILIS and WCTD, with the other two objectives accounting for a combined total of only 15.43%. In contrast, Hong Kong and Macao have more evenly distributed policy objectives, with small gaps in proportion and values ranging from 10% to 50%. Overall, the three cities exhibit different directions in their waste management governance.

4.2. Analysis of Policy Instrument Type in Three Cities

In this section, the number of each policy instrument type and subtype is counted based on the results of the encoding and classifying analysis unit in three cities. The findings demonstrate that each city has a distinct preference for the use of policy instruments. As depicted in Figure 4, the compositional structure of the instruments in these charts exhibits a high degree of diversity.
In this study, the frequency of each policy instrument type and subtype was analyzed in three cities. Results indicate that the command-type instrument was the most commonly used in all three cities, with percentages of usage exceeding 50%. Among the cities, Shenzhen demonstrated the greatest reliance on the command-type instrument, at 87.60%, followed by Hong Kong (65.33%) and Macao (55.41%). The social participation type was the most frequently used instrument in Macao (31.08%), while Hong Kong relied on the economic incentive type the most, at 24%. Shenzhen employed the other two instrument types to a much lesser extent, accounting for 4.41% and 7.99% of the usage, respectively.
In terms of subtype instruments, the results revealed that Planning and Control was the most commonly employed method in the three cities, accounting for approximately two-fifths of the total usage. In Macao, the most commonly used subtype instruments were Planning and Control (37.84%), Encouraging Participation (17.57%), Publicity and Education (13.51%), and Institutional Building (12.16%). Shenzhen frequently utilized Planning and Control (41.32%), Institutional Building (20.66%), and Punishment (17.36%) as means to achieve their policy objectives. In Hong Kong, Planning and Control (49.33%), Institutional Building (12%), and Tax and Charge (13.33%) were the commonly used subtype instruments in their policy setting.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the three cities have distinct tendencies in their application of policy instruments, in addition to their basic government functions. Macao places a greater emphasis on quality-oriented education and motivational methods, while Hong Kong tends to utilize economic instruments and encourages public participation in waste governance. Shenzhen primarily employs administrative means to address illegal behavior and raise awareness.
As demonstrated by Figure 5, Macao employs a higher frequency of instruments such as Encouragement of Participation and Publicity and Education compared with Hong Kong and Shenzhen, with a difference of 10%. Hong Kong has the highest usage of Tax and Charge (13.33%), whereas the other two cities have proportions lower than 5%. In terms of Institutional Building and Punishment, Shenzhen has the highest percentages, at 20.66% and 17.36%, respectively. Macao (12.16%) and Hong Kong (12.00%) also have frequencies of Institutional Building higher than 10%, while the use of Punishment is far below 5%. Financial and Technical Support, Marketization Operation, and Reward show similar proportions, with gaps of less than 5%. Furthermore, Planning and Control is a favored instrument in all three cities, with proportions surpassing 35%. Hong Kong (49.33%) has the highest frequency among the three cities, followed by Shenzhen (41.32%), while Macao (37.84%) has the lowest.
From the comparison of subtype instrument proportions, the three cities exhibit distinct characteristics in their waste governance mechanisms. Macao emphasizes promoting public participation, Hong Kong prioritizes the use of economic methods, and Shenzhen is characterized by its command-and-control approach.

5. Discussion

In the following section, we aim to compare and contrast the waste management mechanisms employed across three cities, utilizing the aforementioned results and analyzing their socio-economic implications. In light of these differences, we shall provide recommendations for each city to refine their respective waste management strategies. Additionally, we will compare our findings with global waste management practices and conduct a thorough analysis. Lastly, we will scrutinize both the strengths and limitations of this study.

5.1. The Difference in the Waste Governance Mechanism

The development of waste treatment systems follows a clear progression and regularity, as described in [24]. The analysis of the results highlights that the waste management mechanisms in the three cities differ, indicating that their urban waste treatment systems are at different stages of development. Waste disposal systems typically evolve through three stages: the end-of-pipe treatment stage, the source control and prevention stage, and the recycling stage [24]. Macao has reached the recycling stage, with RRH, PSP, and WCTD accounting for over 80% of the current system. The government places an emphasis on solid waste recycling and encourages public participation. Shenzhen is at the stage of waste reduction and green treatment, which is the source control stage. ILIS and WCTD make up the majority of the waste governance mechanisms in Shenzhen, indicating that the system is in its early stages of development and various institutions are not yet fully established. Refinements are still necessary for the waste disposal process in Shenzhen. In contrast, Hong Kong’s waste management system is at the recycling stage, similar to Macao. However, it is more mature and refined, with a balanced proportion of PSP, RRH, WCTD, and ILIS and improved supporting mechanisms.
When it comes to the selection of policy instruments, the extent of government intervention can be analyzed. The governments of each city bear the responsibility of enacting legislation and are required to establish legal institutions and construct an effective system. Excluding this factor, we can examine the preference for instrument selection and the extent of government intervention in each city. In Macao, the government tends to prefer the use of social participation-oriented instruments. This indicates that the government in Macao primarily functions as a propagandist, promoting greater public involvement in waste management. In Shenzhen, the frequent usage of command-oriented instruments demonstrates that the government holds a dominant position in most aspects of waste management. The government provides leadership and enforces implementation through administrative means, ensuring the attainment of waste management targets by various actors. Conversely, the government in Hong Kong tends to use economic incentive-oriented instruments in waste management. In comparison to the previous two cities, the government in Hong Kong places greater emphasis on the role of the market and uses various incentives to encourage social actors to participate in waste management activities, ultimately raising public awareness and voluntary participation in waste management.
Additionally, the correlation between policies and objectives also varies among each mechanism. The analysis of cross-statistical results among the three cities reveals that the correlation between policies and objectives in PSP, WCTD, and ILIS are relatively similar. The major differentiation is observed in RRH. Macao and Shenzhen primarily utilize command-type instruments in RRH, whereas Hong Kong frequently employs economic-incentive-type instruments. Similarly, Hong Kong utilizes a greater proportion of economic-incentive-type instruments in PSP compared with Macao and Shenzhen. Macao uses a slightly higher proportion of social-participation-type instruments in RRH compared with Shenzhen.

5.2. The Social-Economic Effect

The above analysis demonstrates differences in waste management mechanisms between Shenzhen, Macao, and Hong Kong. Due to varying stages and development characteristics, the existing mechanisms produce distinct social and economic effects. Macao and Hong Kong are ahead of Shenzhen in terms of development stage, having reached the recycling phase with a rapidly growing recycling industry. This shift towards recycling is beneficial for the local economy, providing increased tax revenue and job opportunities. The expansion of the industrial chain can further create enterprises and increase employment demand. In Hong Kong and Macao, the main means of waste management are economic incentive-oriented instruments and social participation-oriented instruments, respectively. These mechanisms strengthen environmental awareness, promoting a positive atmosphere throughout society.
In contrast, Shenzhen is at the source control stage, focusing on preventing and reducing waste in the process of social production and consumption. While this approach may slightly impact economic growth, it can promote the upgrading of consumption patterns and reduce waste generation. Additionally, Shenzhen prefers administrative means as its primary instrument, despite the perception of coercion associated with such methods. While this ensures social participation and desired results, it also poses a risk of popular discontent. In summary, each mechanism has its own specific advantages.

5.3. Suggestion for Three Cities

As previously stated, the waste treatment system in Shenzhen has yet to catch up to that of Hong Kong and Macao in terms of development stage, with certain shortcomings in its management mechanism. Despite notable advancements in waste management over the past decade in Shenzhen, there is still room for improvement, and lessons can be learned from the experiences of Hong Kong and Macao.
Firstly, the current waste management system in Shenzhen relies on administrative measures. There is a lack of initiatives aimed at encouraging and guiding citizens to participate in waste management. The government can take inspiration from the approaches adopted in Hong Kong and Macao and design targeted waste recycling programs with incentives to engage the public and increase their awareness of the importance of waste management. This will help foster a sense of environmental responsibility and encourage the development of sustainable waste separation and recycling habits [55,56,57]. Additionally, the government can establish partnerships with relevant stakeholders and organizations to promote source reduction and mobilize the efforts of the entire community. This will enhance collective participation and contribute to a more sustainable waste management system.
Secondly, the focus of waste management in Shenzhen is currently limited to waste reduction and proper disposal. However, the development of systems for waste separation and recycling is still in its early stages. The necessary infrastructure and recycling systems are yet to be fully established, and a mature market for the recycling industry is yet to be established. To address this, the government may consider implementing policies that offer economic incentives. For instance, the government could establish a large-scale recycling fund project and invest substantial amounts of money to attract recyclers, enhance the operational efficiency and capacity of the recycling industry, and encourage innovation in recycling technology. This would not only turn waste into valuable resources but also support the sustainable growth of the recycling industry. Additionally, providing local recyclers with land resources to build processing facilities could encourage investment from the industry while also optimizing urban planning.
Thirdly, Shenzhen can promote the transformation of government functions and further reforms. To advance the development of waste management in Shenzhen, it is crucial to undertake reforms and shift the government’s role. Streamlining government bureaucracy, decentralizing responsibilities, enhancing regulation, and improving services are effective ways to drive reforms. The government should take into account social needs, delegate authority to the market, manage the relationship between the market and the government, and play their respective roles in waste management. While granting power, it is important to increase oversight, improve regulatory mechanisms, and clarify government functions. Departments and agencies must treat different stakeholders equitably and perform their unique functions to avoid any gaps in the system. Furthermore, transforming government functions is an inevitable trend in waste management. To continuously improve waste management systems, the government must adjust its stance, reduce intervention, provide efficient services to the public, and create a convenient environment.
It is important to note that the mechanisms in Macao and Hong Kong are not without faults. The dominant policy instrument used in WCTD is the command-type, but it is crucial to supplement this with economic incentives and social participation policy instruments to effectively realize policy objectives [32]. This indicates a lack of alignment between policy objectives and the instruments used to implement them. Additionally, in RRH, the effective implementation of policy objectives requires a balanced use of all three policy instruments [32]. However, the current use of these policy instruments in Hong Kong is not well balanced, with insufficient use of command-type and social-participation-type policy instruments compared with economic incentives. This highlights an area where improvement is needed.

5.4. Comparison with World’s System

The production of urban waste is positively correlated with social and economic development, as well as material living standards. Developed countries, having undergone early economic development, possess a lengthy history of waste management that holds significant reference value for other nations. By the late 1990s, developed countries had entered the recycling phase, establishing facilities and industrial systems to collect, transfer, recycle, and prevent pollution across various types of renewable resources, such as scrap metals, plastics, used household appliances, and cars. Over time, these countries’ infrastructure, policies, regulations, and technology industry systems have gradually improved, while their focus has shifted towards the social dimension. Feo et al. [58] conducted a questionnaire survey in a southern Italian city and found that information disclosure was critical to gaining public support. Cimmuto et al. [9] assessed people’s awareness of waste management risk factors, demonstrating that awareness campaigns can raise public awareness and improve waste management. Chung et al. [59] explored the factors influencing the method and amount of waste charges, noting that the fairness and effectiveness of volume-based charging methods are crucial for determining the choice of charging method. Usui et al. [60] researched the long-term impact of unit pricing on waste generation and recycling, finding that the effects varied across different income groups. In comparison to the aforementioned three cities, these countries have made significant progress in waste management mechanisms. They have shifted their mechanisms towards recycling while simultaneously increasing attention to promoting public participation through the social factor. Therefore, there is still room for improvement in these three cities. Simultaneously, it can be seen that the suggestions supplied to three cities are reasonable and aligned with current waste management trends.

5.5. Advantage and Limitation

This study employs a policy text analysis method to quantify the waste management mechanisms in three cities, namely Shenzhen, Macao, and Hong Kong, providing an explanatory framework for the characteristics of urban waste management mechanisms in GBA. Given the significant amount of waste generated by economic development and a dense population, it is crucial for governments to pay close attention to this issue. However, differences in education, humanities, and law among these cities under the “One Country, Two Systems” policy have resulted in distinct waste management mechanisms. Understanding the unique characteristics of different cities is not only essential for mutual learning and cooperation but also for the overall coordinated governance of the GBA. This study adopts a quantitative method based on the “objective-instrument” model, which provides a certain degree of interpretability compared with previous qualitative analyses. Furthermore, due to differences in the format of policy documents caused by institutions, this study employs a sentence-by-sentence method to encode the policy documents from Macao and Hong Kong.
However, there are some limitations to this study. As the process of encoding the policy documents is completed manually, there is a certain level of subjectivity involved in this process, even though a double-blind method was employed to minimize bias. To address this limitation, we propose adopting natural language processing methods to classify policy objectives and instruments. Additionally, this paper solely analyzes the mechanisms from a policy perspective and should consider multiple dimensions in future research.

6. Conclusions

This study utilizes coding analysis as a text analysis method to examine the policy documents of Macao, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen. Due to the disparity in format between the documents of Macao and Hong Kong compared with those in mainland China, a sentence-by-sentence encoding approach was employed. The objectives and instruments of each analyzed unit were classified and tabulated to facilitate an analysis of the waste management mechanisms of the three cities.
It was found that Macao and Hong Kong are ahead of Shenzhen in terms of the development stage of their waste treatment systems, and there is a notable variation in the frequency of policy instrument utilization among the three cities. Macao places a greater emphasis on the use of social participation-type instruments, while Hong Kong favors economic incentive-type instruments. In contrast, Shenzhen primarily relies on command-type policy instruments.
Based on these findings, the following suggestions are provided for the three cities: (a) Shenzhen can enhance the collaborative participation of its entire community. (b) Shenzhen can explore more economically incentivized forms of policy support. (c) Shenzhen can advance its governmental functions by deepening reforms. (d) The three cities need to refine the adaptation deviation between their Waste Collection and Treatment Development (WCTD) and the policy instruments used to achieve its goals. (e) Hong Kong needs to enhance the balance of its instrument utilization in order to achieve its Reduction of Recycling Household (RRH) objectives.
Additionally, these recommendations could be useful to other cities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA). Other cities in the GBA could take reference from the current waste management mechanisms of Macao, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen as they develop their own waste management systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Y., Q.Q. and B.F.; methodology, Z.Y. and B.F.; coding, C.H.; validation, F.L. and Q.Q.; formal analysis, F.I.L. and Q.Q.; data collection, C.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.Y. and C.H.; writing—review and editing, B.F. and C.H.; visualization, C.H. and L.L.; supervision, Z.Y. and B.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Macao Polytechnic University (Grant No. RP/ESCHS-01/2021), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71701136), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (No. 2022A1515011009; 2021A1515010987), Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (No. JCYJ20210324093414039), and by NTUT-SZU Joint Research Program (No. 2023005).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available as request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bui, T.D.; Tsai, F.M.; Tseng, M.-L.; Ali, M.H. Identifying sustainable solid waste management barriers in practice using the fuzzy Delphi method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jagun, Z.T.; Daud, D.; Ajayi, O.M.; Samsudin, S.; Jubril, A.J.; Rahman, M.S.A. Waste management practices in developing countries: A socio-economic perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bilal, M.; Khan, K.; Thaheem, M.J.; Nasir, A.R. Current state and barriers to the circular economy in the building sector: Towards a mitigation framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arora, S.; Singh, B.; Bhardwaj, B. Strength performance of recycled aggregate concretes containing mineral admixtures and their performance prediction through various modeling techniques. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24, 100741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, C.; Zhao, Q.; Tang, H.; Qian, W.; Pan, L. How Well Do Three Tree Species Adapt to the Urban Environment in Guangdong-Hongkong-Macao Greater Bay Area of China Regarding Their Growth Patterns and Ecosystem Services? Forests 2020, 11, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. He, J.; Lai, X. Measuring and analyzing sustainable development goals in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Geogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2020, 36, 7. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. Xi, B.; Yang, T.; Zhao, R.; Jing, L.; Gong, T.; Huang, Q. Hazardous Waste Management in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area. Engineering 2022, 8, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bortoleto, A.P.; Hanaki, K. Report: Citizen participation as a part of integrated solid waste management: Porto Alegre case. Waste Manag. Res. J. Int. Solid Wastes Public Clean. Assoc. Iswa 2007, 25, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cimmuto, A.D.; Mannocci, A.; Ribatti, D.; Boccia, A.; Torre, G.L. Impact on knowledge and behaviour of the general population of two different methods of solid waste management: An explorative cross-sectional study. Waste Manag. Res. J. Int. Solid Wastes Public Clean. Assoc. Iswa 2014, 32, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jiang, P.; Fan, Y.V.; Klemes, J.J. Data analytics of social media publicity to enhance household waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Park, S.; Berry, F.S. Analyzing effective municipal solid waste recycling programs: The case of county-level MSW recycling performance in Florida, USA. Waste Manag. Res. J. Int. Solid Wastes Public Clean. Assoc. Iswa 2013, 31, 896–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, W.; Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Ren, X.; Tai, J. Public opinion about the source separation of municipal solid waste in shanghai, china. Waste Manag. Res. J. Int. Solid Wastes Public Clean. Assoc. Iswa 2012, 30, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fan, B.; Wu, T.; Zhuang, Y.; Peng, J.; Huang, K. The development of energy storage in China: Policy evolution and public attitude. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Omran, A.; Altawati, M.; Davis, G. Identifying municipal solid waste management opportunities in Al-Bayda City, Libya. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1597–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhou, Z.; Qin, Q.; Wei, Y.M. Government intervention in energy conservation: Justification and warning. Energy Econ. 2020, 90, 104840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Massoud, M.; El-Fadel, M.; Malak, A.A. Assessment of public vs private MSW management: A case study. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 69, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jaeger, S.D.; Eyckmans, J.; Rogge, N.; Puyenbroeck, T.V. Wasteful waste-reducing policies? the impact of waste reduction policy instruments on collection and processing costs of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1429–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gupta, B.; Arora, S.K. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Delhi—The Capital of India. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2016, 5, 5130–5138. [Google Scholar]
  19. Premakumara, D.G.J.; Canete, A.M.L.; Nagaishi, M.; Kurniawan, T.A. Policy implementation of the republic act (ra) no. 9003 in the philippines: A case study of cebu city. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Victor, D.; Agamuthu, P. Strategic environmental assessment policy integration model for solid waste management in malaysia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 33, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, L.; Qin, Q. China’s new energy vehicle policies: Evolution, comparison and recommendation. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 110, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ren, Y. A study on collaborative environmental monitoring and governance in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao’s Greater Bay Area. Urban Insights 2018, 10, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yu, B.; Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Wong, A.B.; Liao, Y.; Zuo, J. Self-fulfillment degree of construction and demolition waste management capability based on the triple-balance theory: A case study of guangdong-hong kong-macao greater bay area. Waste Manag. 2021, 133, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Du, H. The current situation of domestic waste management in Shanghai, difficulties and countermeasures. Sci. Dev. 2019, 9. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen, Y. Study on urban waste separation and recycling in Macao, China. China Resour. Util. 2020, 38, 5. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhou, W.; Mu, R. Exploring Coordinative Mechanisms for Environmental Governance in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: An Ecology of Games Framework. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xu, C.; Ma, L. Constraints and promotion path of environmental collaborative governance in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Geogr. Res. 2020, 39, 11. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yang, Z.; Ye, M.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J.; Pan, W. Simulation of Air pollution risk diffusion in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and its joint control mechanism. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2021, 46, 5. [Google Scholar]
  29. Liao, C.; Zeng, W.; Zhang, Y. Implications of US-Canada Transboundary air pollution prevention and control cooperation mechanism for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Environ. Manag. China 2019, 11, 4. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Z.; Deng, Q.; Bai, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, N.; Gong, Y. Management system for engineering and decoration waste: An exploratory study in Shenzhen. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 314, 115085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hui, Z.; Duan, H.; Andric, J.M.; Song, M.; Yang, B. Characterization of household food waste and strategies for its reduction: A shenzhen city case study. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 426–433. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jin, J.; Wang, Z.; Ran, S. Solid waste management in macao: Practices and challenges. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 1045–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yang, H.; Ma, M.; Thompson, J.R.; Flower, R.J. Waste management, informal recycling, environmental pollution and public health. Br. J. Soc. Med. 2018, 72, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Basu, P.; Chakraborty, J. Environmental justice implications of industrial hazardous waste generation in India: A national scale analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 125001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Isoaho, K.; Gritsenko, D.; Mkel, E. Topic modeling and text analysis for qualitative policy research. Policy Stud. J. 2019, 49, 300–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Fang, Q.; Elliott, M.; Ikhumhen, H.O.; Liu, Z.; Meilana, L. The Transformation of 40-Year Coastal Wetland Policies in China: Network Analysis and Text Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 15251–15260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hao, H.; Jiang, C. The path of transboundary marine plastic waste management in China, Japan, and South Korea from the perspective of the blue economy. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 9, 2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jianbiao, D.; Qianqian, Z. The content and limitations of the collaborative structure of Domestic Household waste sorting policy: An Analysis of 233 policy texts from 2000 to 2020. Adm. Forum 2022, 113–119. [Google Scholar]
  39. He, Z.; Chu, Z.; Zhao, M.; Zhuang, J.; Liu, F. Policy-making coordination of municipal solid waste policies in china: A content analysis. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 1073–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fan, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, Y. Research on China’s urban domestic waste classification policy based on text analysis. Renew. Resour. Circ. Econ. 2020, 13, 4. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, Y.; Rodin; Li, J. Quantitative research on domestic waste classification policy from the perspective of ‘goal tool’ adaptation—Taking 46 key cities as examples. Eco-economics 2022, 38, 198–205. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fan, Z.; Tan, H. Documentary quantitative research on big data development policies of local governments—Based on the perspective of policy ‘goal-tool’ matching. China Adm. 2017, 8, 252–267. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bulkeley, H.; Watson, M.; Hudson, R. Modes of Governing Municipal Waste. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2007, 39, 2733–2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bulkeley, H.; Watson, H.; Hudson, R.; Weaver, P. Governing municipal waste: Towards a new analytical framework. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2005, 7, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pollans, L.B. Trapped in trash: ‘modes of governing’ and barriers to transitioning to sustainable waste management. Environ. Plan. A 2017, 49, 2300–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tan, W.; Xi, B.; Zhao, X.; Dang, Q. Emerging Views on the Overall Process Treatment of Municipal Domestic Waste for the Sustainable Use of Landfills in China. Engineering 2020, 6, 733–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aldieri, L.; Ioppolo, G.; Vinci, C.P.; Yigitcanlar, T. Waste recycling patents and environmental innovations: An economic analysis of policy instruments in the USA, Japan and Europe. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, H.; Deng, T.; Wang, M.; Chen, X. Content Analysis of Talent Policy on Promoting Sustainable Development of Talent: Taking Sichuan Province as an Example. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rothwell, R.; Zegveld, W. An Assessment of Government Innovation Policies. Rev. Policy Res. 1984, 3, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Howlett, M.; Ramesh, M. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Am. Political Ence Assoc. 2009, 91, 548–580. [Google Scholar]
  51. Montevecchi, F. Policy Mixes to Achieve Absolute Decoupling: A Case Study of Municipal Waste Management. Sustainability 2016, 8, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Finnveden, G.; Bisaillon, M.; Noring, M.; Stenmarck, Å.; Sundberg, J.; Sundqvist, J.; Tyskeng, S. Nya styrmedel inom avfallsområdet. New Policy Meas. Waste Manag. 2009. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/86855776/Nya_styrmedel_inom_avfallsområdet (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  53. Finnveden, G.; Bisaillon, M.; Noring, M.; Stenmarck, Å.; Sundberg, J.; Sundqvist, J.O. Developing and evaluating new policy instruments for sustainable waste management. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 11, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, G.; Li, W. Analysis of China’s Network Media Policy from the Perspective of Policy Tools: Based on the National Policy Texts from 2000 to 2018. J. Intell. 2019, 38, 90–98. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hong Kong Resource Cycle Blueprint 2023. Available online: https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/tc_chi/environmentinhk/waste/waste_maincontent.html (accessed on 8 February 2021).
  56. Macao Solid Waste Resource Management Plan. Available online: https://www.dspa.gov.mo/pdf/20171227_SolidWastesManagementPlan_TC.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2017).
  57. Eco-Fun. Available online: https://www.dspa.gov.mo/ecofunweb/0press.aspx (accessed on 5 June 2011).
  58. de Feo, G.; de Gisi, S. Public opinion and awareness towards MSW and separate collection programmes: A sociological procedure for selecting areas and citizens with a low level of knowledge. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 958–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Chung, W.; Yeung, I. Analysis of residents’ choice of waste charge methods and willingness to pay amount for solid waste management in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2019, 96, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Usui, T.; Takeuchi, K. Evaluating Unit-Based Pricing of Residential Solid Waste: A Panel Data Analysis; Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University: Kobe, Japan, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 08160 g001 550
Figure 1. Research design flow chart.
Figure 1. Research design flow chart.
Sustainability 15 08160 g001
Sustainability 15 08160 g002 550
Figure 2. Policy objective-instrument collocation of each city.
Figure 2. Policy objective-instrument collocation of each city.
Sustainability 15 08160 g002
Sustainability 15 08160 g003 550
Figure 3. The proportion of policy objectives for each city.
Figure 3. The proportion of policy objectives for each city.
Sustainability 15 08160 g003
Sustainability 15 08160 g004 550
Figure 4. The proportion of policy instrument type.
Figure 4. The proportion of policy instrument type.
Sustainability 15 08160 g004
Sustainability 15 08160 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparison of the proportion of each subtype instrument.
Figure 5. Comparison of the proportion of each subtype instrument.
Sustainability 15 08160 g005
Table
Table 1. The definition of the policy objective.
Table 1. The definition of the policy objective.
Name of Policy ObjectivesDefinition
Promote social participationUse various means to attract enterprises, voluntary organizations and public participants to participate in the waste governance and undertake corresponding responsibilities
Reduction, recycling and harmlessReduction refers to the effect of reducing the amount of waste produced by encouraging enterprise producers and consumers to practice cleaner production and reducing the supply and use of disposable supplies through establishing the source reduction mechanism and other measures; Recycling refers to the direct use of domestic waste as raw material or its recycling to improve the resource utilization rate of waste; Harmless treatment refers to the harmless or safe treatment of biological or chemical hazardous substances in the waste
Waste collection, transportation and disposalThe government focus on the process of waste treatment and refines the infrastructure as well as the procedure of each step, so as to improve and standardize the whole process.
Improve Legal and institutional systemDefine the working mechanism and responsibility distribution, establish and improve the system and mechanism related to the classification of domestic waste, and guarantee it through relevant laws and regulations to achieve institutionalization and normalization
Table
Table 2. The definition of the policy instrument.
Table 2. The definition of the policy instrument.
CategoryPolicy Instrument SubtypeContents
Command-typeInstitutional buildingThe government establishes and improves the waste governance system and relevant working mechanism.
Planning and controlThe government formulates a special plan for waste governance, organizes, manages and standardizes the behavior of social entities, and supervises and manages waste treatment
Technical standardThe government formulates relevant technical standards and specifications for waste treatment and strictly requires the implementation of waste treatment
PunishmentThe government stops and warns against improper behaviors in the process of waste treatment by fines, administrative detention etc.
Economic-incentive-typeFinancial and technical supportUse subsidies to reward and support the development of new technologies for waste treatment
Marketization operationGive full play to the role of the market in resource allocation, guide and promote the market-oriented development of waste treatment
Tax and chargeFormulate relevant preferential tax policies and charge for waste generation and disposal
RewardGive economic or spiritual rewards to individuals or units who have made important contributions to the waste management
social-participation-typeEncourage participationEncourage and guide resident communities, enterprises and voluntary organizations to participate in the whole process of waste governance and make contributions
Publicity and educationPublicize and educate the public about the contents of waste treatment through official media
Table
Table 3. Policy document coding table (part).
Table 3. Policy document coding table (part).
File NameAnalysis UnitCODEPolicy ObjectivePolicy Instrument
⟪Measures of Shenzhen Municipality on Rewards for Reporting Illegal Ecological and Environmental Behaviors⟫In order to raise the public’s awareness of ecological and environmental rights, encourage the public to actively participate in ecological and environmental protection, report all kinds of ecological and environmental violations, and continuously improve the quality of the ecological and environmental conditionsShenzhen-1-1Promote social participationReward
……………
⟪Recycling of used clothes so easy⟫The Environmental Protection Department works with non-profit-making organizations such as The Salvation Army (Macao) for sorting and charitable re-donation/sale.Macao-15-4Reduction, recycling and harmlessEncourage participation
……………
⟪Municipal solid waste charges⟫Pilot recycling service programmes such as non-industrial and commercial waste plastics and kitchen wasteHong Kong-47-6Waste collection, transportation and disposalPlanning and control
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, Z.; Huang, C.; Liao, F.; Lam, F.I.; Li, L.; Qin, Q.; Fan, B. Exploring the Characteristics of Solid Waste Management Policy in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108160

AMA Style

Yang Z, Huang C, Liao F, Lam FI, Li L, Qin Q, Fan B. Exploring the Characteristics of Solid Waste Management Policy in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108160

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Zhenjie, Canpeng Huang, Fengjie Liao, Fat Iam Lam, Lue Li, Quande Qin, and Bi Fan. 2023. "Exploring the Characteristics of Solid Waste Management Policy in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108160

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop