Relationship between GDP and Municipal Waste: Regional Disparities and Implication for Waste Management Policies

Abstract

This article analyses the relationship between various economic indicators, such as GDP per capita and socio-economic status, and municipal waste generation in Bulgaria compared to other EU countries. The study analyses how economic and social indicators in Bulgaria and other countries affect waste generation through multiple regression, hierarchical cluster, and comparative analyses. The objectives of the investigation include classifying countries according to the degree of relationship between GDP and municipal waste, comparing countries on these indicators, examining the profiles of different groups of countries according to their socio-economic status and the amount of waste generated, and analysing the relationship between GDP and municipal waste in different countries. Based on the results, sustainable waste management strategies are proposed, applicable not only in Bulgaria but also in other similar countries. This approach provides valuable guidance for formulating sustainable waste management policies and measures while highlighting the importance of economic and social factors in forming such strategies.

1. Introduction

1.1. Description of the Problem

Economic growth drives every country’s economy but often has a negative impact, especially on the environment. After the years of the Industrial Revolution, most European countries developed the linear growth model of extraction-production-consumption-disposal. It implies easy and cheap extraction of available and not limited resources, which does not stimulate their reuse. The last few decades have been characterised by enormous pressure on resources, necessitating their re-use and replacing the linear model with a circular one. The circular economy is associated with reducing waste through the reuse and recycling of products. This all helps towards attaining and boosting sustainability. Turning waste into a resource closes the circular economy cycle. An essential role in stimulating this process is played by European legislation, which aims to encourage recycling [1] and reduce landfill and waste of resources. The European Commission [2] reports a significant improvement in waste management policy thanks to European legislation enacted in the 1970s. However, the committee recognises that decoupling waste generation from economic growth “will require significant efforts across the value chain and in every household”. As part of the EU, Bulgaria must also meet the standards and criteria introduced by Europe. This process is a real challenge for Bulgaria given that high levels of waste generation characterise it, most of which is landfilled and a smaller proportion recycled. Thanks to the rules and regulations introduced in recent decades, our country has made significant progress, including in recycling. Although the recycling rate is below the recommended 50% to be achieved by 2020, the indicator is increasing steadily and sustainably at the national level. The targets set in European legislation are the main drivers for improving waste management policy, stimulating innovation, reducing resource wastage and influencing behaviour change.

Increased growth rates are often accompanied by more waste that negatively affects the environment. An in-depth examination of the correlation and reliance between these two indicators is necessary. Waste is an essential indicator of a country’s environmental status, while GDP measures economic growth. Therefore, this relationship can help understand the ecological consequences of economic growth and design better environmental and waste management policies. Investigating this relationship can lead to valuable conclusions about the sustainable development of the countries and predictions about their future economic and ecological trends.

The paper examines and analyses the EU-27 countries, identifying regional differences. Bulgaria has the most critical values in terms of the analysed indicators. Bulgaria is one of the countries in the European Union with the highest percentage of municipal waste per capita going to landfill. In 2020, about 61% of Bulgaria’s municipal waste ended up in landfills, compared to the European average of 24%. Compared to other EU Member States, Bulgaria is seriously behind in waste collection and treatment. According to a World Bank report, the issue of municipal waste in Bulgaria leads to annual economic losses of nearly EUR 300 million. These losses are linked to environmental pollution and the negative effect on tourism and the nation’s health.

Several problems emerge in municipal waste management in Bulgaria: underestimation of the packaging waste generated, heavy reliance on landfilling, lack of separate collection of biological waste, insufficient number of collection points for packaging waste and lack of economic incentives for separate disposal [3]. These factors limit the effectiveness of the waste management system and require attention and improvements. However, in recent years, steps have been taken in Bulgaria to improve the collection and treatment of municipal waste. In 2020, waste recycling in Bulgaria increased to 31.5%, compared to 19% in 2010. In addition, significant investments have been made in waste management infrastructure, leading to waste collection and treatment system improvements. These positive trends show that Bulgaria is taking the municipal waste problem seriously and is working to solve it. If the country continues to make the necessary reforms and investments in this area, this will positively affect the population’s health and the environment.

1.2. Literature Review

Many researchers have studied the correlation between economic growth, as measured by GDP, and the amount of household waste generated by a country’s population.

The so-called Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) is fundamental research in studying the relationship between economic growth and GDP. Kuznets’s studies examine the relationship between economic growth and income inequality [4]. As incomes increase, income inequality initially increases but gradually decreases after reaching a so-called turning point. In other words, income distribution is more unequal at lower economic growth rates. Income inequality gradually evens out as it rises. The so-called inverted U shape can graphically represent this relationship. It was subsequently named after its author or the Kuznets Curve. A few decades later, in the 1990s, the Kuznets Curve was rediscovered and used to prove the relationship between environmental quality and income per capita. The researchers concluded that the same curve can describe both relationships.

The environmental damage is minimal at deficient levels of per capita income. Furthermore, the public responsibility and concern for environmental problems is negligible. Gradually, the ecological quality deteriorates with industrialisation, urbanisation and population growth. At the same time, the state’s revenues are insufficient, and the government consequently allocates few resources to environmental spending. With rising incomes and industrialisation, ecological quality continues to deteriorate, but up to a point. Once this point is reached, the subsequent successive increase in per capita income improves the environment. A wealthy society is more responsible, informed and committed to environmental issues. It can invest resources in improving the quality of life. It can spend more on purchasing environmentally friendly and healthy products. New technologies are being developed to protect the environment. The richer a society becomes, its priorities are reordered and “the environment moves up in the hierarchy of human needs” [5].

Despite his criticism, Beckerman concludes that the surest way to improve the environment is to become rich. On the other hand, a wealthy state [6] can allocate more resources to ecology, spending them more efficiently. Several regulations are also passed to enforce regulatory measures to protect the environment. Environment degradation must occur before any improvements in environmental quality can occur.

An inverted U-shaped curve has been approved concerning different indicators to measure environmental quality [7,8,9,10]. According to Arrow [11], it is valid only for pollutants involving local short-term costs. Shafic and Bandyopadhyay also study the relationship between economic growth and the environment, concluding that it is “far from simple” [12]. Using eight indicators, they measure the environmental quality for 149 countries at different income levels from 1960 to 1990. Some indicators find that environmental quality improves as income increases; for others, there is first deterioration and then improvement, and for others, there is no relationship. They subsequently conclude that when environmental quality directly affects human health, higher incomes are associated with better ecological quality [13]. In cases where environmental problems can be externalised, no improvement in ecological quality is observed with increasing income [12,14].

Panayotou [15] proves the inverted U-shape hypothesis of the relationship between environmental degradation and economic development using data from developing and developed countries. Panayotou introduced the concept of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). Panayotou next [16] examines the relationship between economic growth and the environment in countries of the ECE region. He includes countries at different stages of economic growth, starting with poor countries with incomes below $1000, such as Tajikistan and coming to rich countries with incomes above $30,000. Panayotou finds that the poor and transition countries are on the left side of the turning point in the upward part of the Kuznets curve. In this part, economic growth is associated with environmental degradation. The rich countries are on the right side of the turning point in the downward part of the curve. However, Panayotou believes that even poor countries can improve the environment and “succeed in decoupling environmental pollution and resource use from economic growth” through structural, technological and policy change or a combination of the three.

Panayotou concludes that some countries may transition faster or slower to a cleaner environment depending on their political and institutional systems. Some technologies may cause overuse of natural resources or lead to global warming. Economic growth is not necessarily counterproductive for the environment but can be part of the solution. It can provide the resources needed to invest in cleaner technologies, improve institutions and increase environmental education and awareness. Economic growth can also stimulate innovation and the diffusion of cleaner technologies, as well as increase the elasticity and adaptability of society to environmental problems.

Grossman and Krueger [17] examine the relationship between economic growth and the environment, focusing on waste. They find that in the initial stages of economic growth, municipal waste increases as the consumption of goods and services increases. The achieved further economic development leads to innovations and technological improvements that allow society to consume more efficiently and produce goods and services with less waste. They argue that economic growth can be compatible with environmental protection, provided that effective waste management policies are adopted. Hence, including environmental protection costs in national GDP accounts can lead to a better measurement of real economic progress, also considering the environmental protection costs necessary to achieve sustainable growth.

Kinnaman [18] estimates the GDP and municipal waste generation relationship using an elasticity coefficient. The results show that the elasticity between GDP and municipal waste is between 0.8 and 0.9, meaning that for every 1% increase in GDP, municipal waste increases by 0.8–0.9%. Hence, the amount of waste households generate also increases with economic growth.

Asif Razzaq et al. [19] analyse the relationship between GDP and municipal solid waste generation in the USA. They use data from 1990 to 2017 and investigate the long-term relationship between GDP and municipal solid waste generation. This study confirms a unidirectional causal link between municipal solid waste recycling to economic growth, carbon emissions, and energy efficiency. These findings imply that any policy intervention related to municipal solid waste recycling leads to significant changes in economic growth and carbon emissions.

Inglezakis et al. [20] analysed the relationship between waste management and the economic situation in several countries—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Greece- from 2000 to 2013. They focus on the “decoupling principle” of economic growth from resource use, which falls within the policies of the EU [21]. The authors use population growth, gross domestic product (GDP), and municipal solid waste generation as critical indicators. These indicators are integrated into one composite index—the Municipal Waste Indicator (MWI), allowing easy comparison between countries and simplifying data analysis. The study concludes that the decoupling of economic growth from resource use occurs when the rate of increase in the environmentally relevant variable (such as waste generation) is lower than that of its economic driving force (such as GDP) for a given period.

Okumura et al. [22] examine the relationship between economic growth and waste treatment methods in Asian countries, including Japan, Korea, and China. The authors use statistical analyses and an analytical hierarchy process to examine how GDP per capita and other factors influence these countries’ incineration rate and composting of municipal waste. They find a positive correlation between GDP per capita and incineration rates. This means that higher levels of economic development are associated with higher waste incineration rates. Also, they find a negative correlation between GDP per capita and composting rates in Japan and China. This means that higher levels of economic development are associated with lower composting rates of waste. However, in the case of Korea, they find a positive correlation between GDP per capita and composting rates. The authors conclude that economic growth influences the choice of waste treatment options in Asian countries. Depending on the level of economic development, different countries choose different waste treatment methods, such as incineration or composting. According to Eurostat [23], incineration means thermal waste treatment in an incineration plant. At the same time, composting is a process of biological decomposition of biodegradable waste under controlled aerobic or anaerobic conditions. The choice between composting and incineration is associated with different social and environmental implications that must be considered when planning waste management policies.

Shah et al. [24] assess the consequences of economic growth, industrialisation, and foreign direct investments on municipal solid waste in OECD countries from 2000 to 2020. The study finds that economic growth and industrialisation evolve, increasing waste generation in OECD economies. The influx of foreign direct investments enhances waste production. However, the magnitude of the effect of foreign direct investments is lower compared to that of economic growth and industrialisation. Technological progress (research and development activities) is a significant factor in reducing waste generation. The latter stage of economic growth is still unfavourable for reducing waste generation in OECD countries.

Different scholars and researchers agree that there is a correlation between household waste and GDP, although this relationship can be estimated in other ways using other methods and data. Furthermore, how household waste is treated and managed depends on economic growth [25]. Each author reveals different aspects of this relationship by analysing factors that may influence it. However, the general opinion among the scientific community is that these two variables are interrelated, and their relationship can be used to understand the environmental consequences of economic growth and formulate future sustainable development strategies.

The relationship between municipal waste and GDP has been studied by the academic world and various organisations such as the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Environment Agency, etc. According to OECD, there is a positive relationship between municipal waste and GDP in many countries.

For example, in 2019, on average across OECD countries, there is a correlation of 0.84 between GDP and per capita municipal waste generation [26]. A higher GDP is associated with more municipal waste generated per capita. Of course, the value of the correlation can vary between countries depending on various factors such as the economy’s structure, demographic characteristics and waste management. World Bank data from 2010 to 2019 shows a positive correlation between GDP and municipal waste generation in major economies such as the US, China, Japan, Germany, etc. [27]. For example, the correlation coefficient is 0.87 for the US, 0.93 for China, 0.84 for Japan and 0.93 for Germany. However, there are countries where GDP growth is not accompanied by increased household waste, such as South Korea, where the correlation is only 0.09. The 2019 United Nations State of the World’s Environment Global Environment Outlook (GEO) report looks at various aspects of global environmental issues, including the problem of municipal waste. According to this report, about 2.01 billion tons of municipal waste is produced annually worldwide, and this is expected to increase by 70% by 2050 [28]. At the same time, the economic growth of the world economy is expected to increase if more efficient waste management methods and changing consumption patterns are implemented. In summary, UN data show that the relationship between municipal waste and GDP is complex and often depends on many factors, such as national economic and social conditions, waste management policies, the degree of industrialisation, etc. According to Eurostat, 502 million tonnes of municipal waste was generated in the European Union (EU) in 2020, down from 513 million tonnes in 2019. At the same time, the EU GDP grew by 2.2% in 2020 compared to the previous year.

The study focuses on the total amount of generated household waste without examining its composition or recycling rate. It aims to contribute to the expansion of knowledge in the field of waste management, provide valuable insights into the complex relationship between GDP and household waste, and suggest directions for improving policies and strategies for sustainable waste management in the future. However, further research could utilise more detailed data on waste composition to allow for a recycling-specific analysis.

1.3. Objective of the Study

The article aims to analyse the relationship between economic indicators—such as GDP per capita and socio-economic status—and municipal waste generation in Bulgaria compared with other EU countries. Using comparative, regression and hierarchical cluster analysis, the investigation examines how different economic and social factors in Bulgaria and other European countries influence waste generation. This analysis provides a basis for proposing sustainable waste management strategies that can be applied in Bulgaria and other similar countries.

1.4. Research Tasks

The authors focus on several essential research tasks:

• Perform multiple regression analysis for Bulgaria, where municipal waste generated is the dependent variable and GDP per capita, human development index, and population density are the independent variables. This will give us a better understanding of the factors that influence waste generation in Bulgaria and can serve as a basis for policies and measures for sustainable waste management;
• Classify countries according to the degree of relationship between GDP per capita and municipal waste per capita using hierarchical cluster analysis. This task is essential since it can demonstrate how countries can be separated into subgroups based on their similarities and differences concerning these two variables;
• Compare countries in terms of average GDP per capita and municipal waste per capita and analyse their differences. The research assumes that a high GDP per capita can be associated with a higher volume of consumption and, consequently, with higher amounts of waste produced by the population;
• Divide countries into categories based on their population’s income and the amount of waste generated and examine the profiles of each group. This can show how the socio-economic status of countries affects their environmental footprint;
• Perform a regression analysis to examine the relationship between GDP per capita and municipal waste per capita for different countries and determine the direction and strength of the relationship between these two variables. This will help to understand how economic growth, as measured by GDP, affects the environment, with regard to municipal waste generation.

2. Materials and Methods

Numerous scientific sources related to the relationship between economic growth and municipal waste generation in different world regions have been reviewed and analysed. The literature review mainly includes articles published in refereed scientific journals and other academic sources available in scientific databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, etc. Databases from globally recognised organisations such as Eurostat, World Bank, United Nations, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Human Development Report, and others are used in the study. This extensive and multifaceted literature review contributes to the reliability and quality of the data and analyses presented in the paper. It allows the authors to draw an overall picture and conclusions on the relationship between economic growth and municipal waste generation.

The study’s aim to measure Bulgaria against other EU countries in terms of municipal waste generation necessitates the selection of the 27 EU member states. This allows for a well-founded assessment of the situation in Bulgaria and proposes appropriate waste management strategies applicable in the EU context.

The study period from 2000 to 2021 has been chosen to provide a sufficiently long time interval, allowing analysis of trends and changes over time. This helps better understand the relationship between economic indicators and municipal waste generation. This period also includes significant changes in the economic and social environment that may impact waste production, such as economic crises, changes in waste management legislation, etc.

For the study, municipal waste generated is defined as waste generated from household activities and other sources managed as municipal waste. These include waste from households, offices, schools and other institutions, as well as from commercial and industrial activities similar in nature and composition to municipal waste. This waste can include various materials, including food waste, plastics, paper, glass, metals and others. The generation of municipal waste is an essential aspect of waste management and is linked to various factors, including economic and social conditions, consumer habits and waste management policies. Managing municipal waste is a complex process involving various methods, including recycling, incineration and landfilling.

For each of the mentioned countries, the following indicators are calculated:

$$\overline{g}=\frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{g}_i}}{n}$$

(1)

where $g_i$—GDP for a given country in the i-th year (n-number of years, n = 22), $\overline{g}$—average GDP over the 22 years

$$\overline{w}=\frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{w}_i}}{n}$$

(2)

where $w_i$—waste generated in the i-th year for a given country, $\overline{w}$—average waste generated over the 22 years

For this study, municipal waste generation includes all waste materials sent for landfilling, incineration, recycling, and recovery.

A multiple regression analysis [29,30] is performed for Bulgaria. Municipal waste generated is the dependent variable; independent variables are GDP per capita, human development index [31] and population density [32]. The annual values of these variables are used. The results of this analysis will give us a better understanding of the factors that influence waste generation in Bulgaria.

The study continues with a hierarchical cluster analysis [33,34] of the data related to European Union countries’ average GDP in euro/capita and household waste kg/capita. This approach enables the grouping of the countries in terms of their comparable levels of the variables surveyed and to ascertain the relative positioning of the countries.

A comparative analysis of the relationship between average GDP euro/capita and average household waste kg/capita has been carried out. This will help us to analyse the differences and draw conclusions on the relationship between economic development and waste production.

The grouping method divides countries into categories based on the income of the population and the amount of waste generated. This allows us to analyse the profiles of each group and how the socio-economic status of countries affects their environmental footprint.

Regression analysis [35,36] examines the relationship between GDP per capita and municipal waste per capita for different countries. The annual values of these variables are used. This helps to determine the direction and strength of the relationship between these two variables and understand how economic growth affects the environment, specifically municipal waste production.

The present study faces certain limitations. The investigation is limited by the period due to a lack of statistical data for a more extensive period. This could result in an incomplete understanding of the relationship between GDP and household waste on a global or regional scale. The economic, social, and environmental factors not included in the study could impact the connection between GDP and household waste.

3. Results

3.1. Multiple Regression Analysis Applied to the Indicators Studied for Bulgaria

The relationship between GDP and municipal waste in Bulgaria is of particular interest due to the following factors:

• The fact that Bulgaria has the lowest GDP per capita among the countries analysed highlights the country’s economic challenges and constraints. This may affect consumption habits and the ability of the population to avoid unnecessary waste, as well as investment in modern waste management technologies;
• Above-average municipal waste per capita. Despite Bulgaria’s low GDP per capita, municipal waste is above the average. Hence, the population generates significant waste despite the limited economic opportunities. Consumption habits, the approach to recycling and waste management are the factors that can cause this result. For example, according to Eurostat [23], the recycling rate in Bulgaria is 35.29% of total waste generated compared to 49.33% in EU 27. On the contrary, 50.25% of the waste generated in Bulgaria is landfilled, as opposed to 22.84% for the EU 27.

A multiple regression analysis is performed to analyse the relationship between municipal waste and GDP in Bulgaria covering the period 2000–2020. Municipal waste measured in million tonnes is the dependent variable in this analysis, while indicators related to economic growth, social development and population are included as independent variables.

GDP per capita (thousand euros) is the first independent variable. This indicator can serve as a measure of a country’s economic growth and well-being. Economically developed countries usually generate more waste due to a higher level of consumption, but also more efficient waste management systems [37,38,39,40].

The Human Development Index is an indicator of a country’s standard of living that gives information on the population’s economic, educational and health indicators. A higher index usually means a higher standard of living. Therefore, it can be linked to specific consumption patterns of the population that influence municipal waste generation. On the other hand, the Human Development Index can provide insight into the level of awareness of the population on the importance of environmental protection as well as the policies adopted by the government for waste management. This consideration can also influence the municipal waste generated in a country [41,42,43,44,45].

Population density persons/km² is a measure of population density. A larger population usually produces more waste due to a higher level of consumption. At the same time, higher population density is associated with more efficient waste management systems [27,46,47,48,49].

Analysing the relationship between GDP and municipal waste in Bulgaria can help us understand two main things:

First, the multiple regression analysis, including the GDP per capita, Human Development Index, and Population Density, can give us a more detailed insight into the impact of economic development on waste generation. This can help us identify relationships and dependencies between these factors and build a more comprehensive understanding of Bulgaria’s waste management trends and challenges. For example, we can understand whether a higher GDP generates more waste or whether the human development index impacts preferences and habits for sustainable waste management. Also, we can explore how population density can influence the waste generated.

Second, multiple regression analysis allows us to examine the existing relationships between factor variables and the municipal waste generated while controlling for the influence of other factors. This enables us to identify and analyse the significant factors explaining municipal waste in Bulgaria. Such an analysis can help develop sustainable waste management strategies and policies, focusing efforts on areas with the most important potential to reduce waste and improve the country’s sustainability.

Examining the relationship between GDP, Human Development Index, Population Density, and municipal waste can help us understand and justify the interaction between economic, social and environmental factors in sustainable development. This will provide us with valuable guidance to improve waste management in Bulgaria and achieve a more sustainable and environmentally responsible future.

In general, the regression model has the following form:

y = a₀ + a₁x₁ + a₂x₂ + a₃x₃

(3)

where a₀, a₁, a₂, a₃—coefficients of the equation, y—municipal waste (million tons), x₁—GDP per capita (thousand euros), x₂—Human Development Index, x₃—Population density persons/km².

Finding these coefficients, the following equation is obtained:

y = −18.95 + 0.93x₁ − 8.91x₂ + 0.4x₃

(4)

The calculated correlation coefficient is 0.9777, meaning a strong correlation exists between the independent and dependent variables. The coefficient of determination shows that the variation in the independent variables can explain 95.58% of the variation in the dependent variable. This is a high percentage and proves that the model is good at predicting municipal waste in Bulgaria. The regression model presented is statistically significant as Significance F is 0.00, less than α = 0.05.

Based on the results of the multiple regression analysis, we can draw the following conclusions about the influence of different factors on the municipal waste generated in Bulgaria:

Influence of GDP per capita: The regression coefficient for GDP per capita is positive (0.925) and statistically significant (p = 0.0019), indicating that a higher GDP per capita in the country leads to an increase in municipal waste. With every rise in GDP per capita by 1 thousand, municipal waste increases by 0.9252 million tonnes when other factors are constant. This result can be explained by the fact that higher living standards and economic growth encourage waste consumption and production.

Impact of HDI (Human Development Index): the regression coefficient for HDI is negative (−8.912) and statistically significant (p = 0.0452). This indicates that higher levels of human development associated with better education, health and social services can contribute to more effective waste management and a reduction in municipal waste generated. Municipal waste is reduced by 8.91 million tonnes for every unit of HDI growth.

Impact of population density: the regression coefficient for population density is positive (0.401) and statistically significant (p = 0.0001), indicating that a higher population density in a given area leads to increased municipal waste. When the population per square kilometre grows by a single person, municipal waste increases by 0.4012 million tonnes when other factors are constant. This can be explained by the higher concentration of people in a small area, which imposes a greater need for waste services and management.

In conclusion, the model illustrates the relationship between municipal waste and the independent variables used. However, it is still important to remember that the results may be influenced by other factors that are not included. The model’s predictive ability may be limited because it is based on data from 2000 to 2020, and new factors may emerge to influence the generated municipal waste. The model may need regular updating and revision of the coefficient values of the independent variables to be accurate and up-to-date for predictions in the future.

Based on the multivariable regression analysis results and the conclusions about municipal waste management in Bulgaria, we can propose specific measures for municipal waste management in the country. These measures are based on analysing the factors that influence the amount of municipal waste. A high GDP per person seems to increase municipal waste, which higher consumption and production can explain.

In this case, measures such as promoting sustainable consumption patterns, stimulating recycling and reducing unnecessary single-use items can help reduce municipal waste generated. Also, a high human development index (HDI) level is linked to more effective waste management. Investing in education, public services and health can facilitate more effective management and reduction of household waste. Population density also has an impact on the municipal waste generated. A larger population in a given area has a greater need for waste services and management. Here, separate waste collection and efficient waste storage and treatment systems can be encouraged. All these measures must be supported by cooperation between different sectors—government, business, public institutions and civil society.

At the same time, comparing Bulgaria’s waste management difficulties with those of other countries is beneficial. The analysis at the European Union level is essential for several reasons:

• Comparative analysis: Examining the situation at the EU level allows for comparisons between different countries. This can be useful in finding the most successful approaches that can be implemented in Bulgaria and in understanding the correlation between waste per capita and GDP per capita in a larger context;
• Political and legislative factors: The EU significantly impacts waste management policies and legislation. Examining data at the EU level can help comprehend the effect of these policies and laws on the relationship between waste and GDP;
• Economic integration: EU member states are closely economically joined. Investigating the correlation between waste and GDP across Europe can help forecast potential trends and issues;
• Data standardisation: The EU offers standardised data for all its members, enabling them to be compared and analysed;
• Improving waste management strategies: Extending the investigation to the EU level can help create more efficient waste management practices considering the member states’ diverse social and economic conditions.

3.2. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis According to Average GDP Euro/Capita and Average Municipal Waste kg/Capita

The grouping of the countries according to average GDP euro/capita and average municipal waste kg/capita is presented in the dendrogram of Figure 1. They are also colour-coded in Figure 2.

The resulting clusters are four:

The first cluster includes nine countries—Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria. These countries are characterised by lower average GDP per capita and higher average waste generated per capita compared to the other countries. These are countries lagging behind economically—mainly Eastern European and Baltic countries.

The following cluster contains two sub-clusters. The first includes five countries—Slovenia, Malta, Portugal, Greece and the Czech Republic. These countries with average GDP per capita and average waste generated per capita are higher than the first cluster but lower than the third cluster. The second sub-cluster contains three countries—Cyprus, Spain and Italy. These countries have an average GDP per capita and average waste generated per capita that are higher than those in the third cluster but lower than those in the first cluster. The second cluster highlights the need to improve waste management systems and introduce more efficient recycling and waste reduction practices.

Two sub-clusters are represented in the third cluster. The first sub-cluster comprises four countries (Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and the The Netherlands) with high average GDP per capita and relatively low average waste generated per capita. The second sub-cluster includes the following five countries—Austria, Finland, France, Belgium and Germany. These countries have high average GDP per capita and average waste generated per capita compared to the other clusters. This cluster includes countries with more developed economies and efficient waste management systems. However, they must continue to invest in sustainable practices and infrastructure to maintain the high level of waste management achieved. Countries from Western Europe and Scandinavia are represented in this group.

Luxembourg forms a separate cluster as it has an extremely high average GDP per capita and high average waste generated per capita compared to the other countries in the analysis. This could point to the direction of economic resources and focus on the growth of industries that can generate more waste.

3.3. Comparative Analysis of the Relationship between Average GDP Euro/Capita-Average Municipal Waste kg/Capita

The variables average GDP per capita ($\overline{g}$) and average municipal waste per capita ($\overline{w}$) are analysed for the 27 EU countries studied. Figure 2 shows that an overwhelming number of EU countries are concentrated in the lower upward part of the curve. This implies that any further increase in economic growth will still be associated with increased waste. Countries can be categorised according to the average GDP per capita level and analysed for each type’s average values of municipal waste generated per person. In this case, we will use the following categories:

• High GDP per capita: Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Germany;
• Medium GDP per capita: France, Italy, Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Portugal;
• Low GDP per capita: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia.

Here are some conclusions we can draw from the comparative analysis:

• Luxembourg has an extremely high average GDP per capita and correspondingly high levels of average household waste per capita. Compared to countries with similar levels of waste generated per capita, such as Denmark, Belgium and Austria, Luxemburg’s economic growth is nearly double, despite the similar levels of waste generated;
• Countries with high average GDP per capita are associated with higher average waste generated per capita levels than countries with medium and low GDP. This can be explained by more significant economic activity and higher consumption levels;
• Countries with medium GDP per capita are in an average position regarding average municipal waste per capita. Although the average GDP per capita is lower than high GDP per capita countries, the average waste generated per capita is not significantly lower;
• Low GDP per capita countries have various values for average municipal waste generated per capita. Although some low-GDP countries generate less waste (e.g., Romania and Poland), other countries such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Latvia have higher waste generated;
• Although Bulgaria has a low GDP per capita, its municipal waste generated per capita is relatively high. A parallel between Bulgaria and the other countries on the same horizontal line can be drawn—Hungary, Sweden and Estonia. Despite the significant reduction of waste per capita generated in Bulgaria in the last decades, the waste generation figures are still too high against the background of the insignificant GDP, which is two or more times lower compared to countries with similar waste generation figures. Consumption habits, the efficiency of the waste management system and other socioeconomic factors are among the factors that can influence this result.

While the comparative analysis shows a correlation between average GDP and average municipal waste per capita, it should be noted that this analysis looks at total waste generation quantities. It does not provide specific evidence on recycling rates or detailed waste composition. For a more in-depth analysis of recycling, data on individual waste streams would be needed.

3.4. Correlation between per Capita Income and Waste Generation

Differences can also be observed depending on the level of income received. This indicator is closely linked to the economic growth and GDP of the country. The World Bank divides countries into lower income, lower middle income, upper middle income and high income. None of the European countries is in the category of the first group. Bulgaria is the only country in the second group. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Romania are the four countries in the third group, and the remaining European countries belong to the last group. The waste generated by these three groups can be seen in Figure 3:

A well-visible trend is that high incomes are associated with more waste generated. The exception to this rule is the Lower Middle-Income group. Bulgaria is the only representative in this category, and all conclusions are related only to it. Waste per capita was significantly above the European average despite the low-income level in the country in 2000 when the country was still outside the EU. Bulgaria’s accession in 2007 and the adoption of several European waste management standards led to a gradual reduction in waste. It is evident already in 2010 but even more noticeable in 2021, when the figures fall below those of the High-income countries but are still above the Upper middle-income group. Low values of waste generated, influenced mainly by Romania and Poland, are typical for the Upper middle-income group. These are the countries with the least waste within the EU. However, in the last decade, there has been a more marked increase, more significant even compared to the high-income countries. There has also been an increase but at a slower pace.

3.5. Regression Analysis Applied to the Survey Data on GDP Euro/Capita and Municipal Waste kg/Capita

A regression analysis is performed with the dependent variable municipal waste per capita and the independent variable GDP per capita in the 27 EU Member States. The research attempts to predict how municipal waste per person varies with GDP per person. Statistically significant regression models (Significance F < 0.05) are obtained for 17 of the European countries studied, indicating that the relationship between municipal waste per person and GDP per person is not random in these countries. In 10 of the countries studied, the regression models are statistically insignificant (Significance F > 0.05).

The results of the regression analysis are presented in

Table 1. Regression analysis of the relationship between municipal waste (kg/person) and GDP (euro/person) in the EU-27 countries.

Country	Coefficient (B)	Standard Error	t-Value	p-Value	r
Lithuania	0.0119	0.0000	12.4200	0.0000	0.941
Latvia	0.0215	0.0020	9.0810	0.0000	0.897
France	0.1000	0.0000	5.0300	0.0000	0.747
Poland	0.0070	0.0000	3.2800	0.0038	0.591
Malta	0.0075	0.0000	2.7300	0.0132	0.521
Bulgaria	−0.0629	0.0100	−7.7500	0.0000	−0.866
The Netherlands	−0.0133	0.0000	−5.1000	0.0000	−0.752
Hungary	−0.0131	0.0000	−3.2500	0.0045	−0.588
Romania	−0.0194	0.0100	−3.2000	0.0038	−0.582
Greece	−0.0088	0.0000	−2.2300	0.0000	−0.446
Croatia	0.0376	0.0030	11.5800	0.0000	0.933
Italy	0.0193	0.0040	5.1810	0.0000	0.757
Czechia	0.0338	0.0060	5.2840	0.0000	0.763
Denmark	0.0184	0.0000	3.7600	0.0012	0.644
Portugal	0.0301	0.0060	4.7570	0.0001	0.729
Slovakia	0.0221	0.0000	7.2300	0.0000	0.850
Finland	0.0138	0.0000	3.8200	0.0010	0.650
Germany	0.0035	0.0217	1.5942	0.1266	0.336
Estonia	−0.0030	0.0045	−0.6512	0.5223	−0.144
Belgium	0.0053	0.0111	0.4768	0.6387	0.106
Ireland	−0.0015	0.0018	−1.3301	0.1992	−0.217
Spain	−0.0154	0.0159	−0.9709	0.3432	−0.212
Cyprus	0.0085	0.0046	1.8667	0.0767	0.385
Luxembourg	0.0067	0.0035	1.9266	0.0684	0.396
Austria	0.0049	0.0070	−0.1620	0.8730	0.117
Slovenia	0.0069	0.0051	1.3654	0.1873	0.292
Sweden	−0.0015	0.0133	−1.1036	0.2829	−0.240

.

The regression models for Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Croatia are statistically significant (Significance F < 0.05). The regression coefficients are positive and statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating that higher GDP per capita is associated with an increase in municipal waste per person. These countries have a very strong positive correlation between municipal waste per capita and GDP per capita, ranging from 0.850 to 0.941. The four countries have high R-squared values (0.805 to 0.870), indicating that the models can explain a large part of the variation in municipal waste per person on a GDP per person basis. This fact highlights the strong relationship and influence between economic development (GDP) and the amount of municipal waste generated in these countries. The increase in economic activity and income of the population has undoubtedly encouraged consumption, ultimately leading to more generated municipal waste.

The results show that this relationship is inherent in all four countries studied, but its intensity has some differences. For example, the increase in GDP per capita and household waste is more pronounced for Slovakia and Croatia than for Latvia and Lithuania. This may be due to differences in economic models, consumption habits and waste management infrastructure in these countries. A problem for Lithuania, Latvia and Croatia is the heavy reliance on landfilling and the limited levels of separately collected recyclables (especially bio-waste, plastics and metals), and for Slovakia, the fragmented management of municipal waste and the lack of sufficient bio-waste treatment capacity [1]. These recycling initiatives provide the context for waste management in these countries but are not directly related to the quantitative analyses of total municipal waste presented above. A good practice in Latvia is developing a website that provides information on the location of sorting facilities and associated waste separation practices. In Lithuania, home composters are available to promote composting. In Croatia, an online platform allows companies to publish data on the waste they generate and others to find and manage it.

The regression models examining the relationship between GDP per capita and waste generation per capita in Italy, Czech Republic, France, Portugal, Finland and Denmark are statistically significant (Significance F < 0.05). The regression coefficients are positive and statistically significant (p < 0.05) in all six countries, ranging from 0.0138 to 0.1000. This indicates that waste generation in these countries increases significantly as GDP increases. The R-squared values range from 0.414 to 0.583, implying that between 41.4% and 58.3% of the variation in waste can be explained by changes in GDP. This suggests that economic activity, as measured by GDP, has a moderate explanation of waste production. The correlation coefficients for these countries range from 0.786 to 0.650, indicating a strong positive relationship.

However, some countries report significant progress in municipal waste management and have increased recycling rates [1]. Denmark has established a robust system for managing its municipal waste with clear responsibilities for the participants involved—government, citizens and local authorities. The online knowledge-sharing platform is an excellent practice to help municipalities share information on successful municipal waste recycling practices. In France, extended producer responsibility, introducing a repairability index allowing consumers to choose electrical and electronic appliances that are easier to repair, labelling for recycled content, etc., have yielded promising results.

Finland has been successful with high recycling rates of municipal waste (41.6% in 2020). Despite high incineration rates (59.7% in 2020), the deposit return scheme for beverage packaging and the system for preparing wooden pallets for reuse performed well. The combined door-to-door and pay-as-you-throw scheme is good practice in Italy. It increased the separate collection rate from 48.5% to 72% and reduced by 15% the waste generated in just four years. The Czech Republic has also expanded its household waste recycling rate (45.5% in 2020) and reports the establishment of a Reuse Centre as good practice. This centre prevented 77 tonnes of municipal waste from entering landfills in one year. It is also used for educational purposes. Another part of this group of countries has additional challenges in dealing with municipal waste [1]. Portugal faces challenges such as insufficient infrastructure for separate collection and treatment of bio-waste and packaging, heavy reliance on landfilling (47.5% in 2020) and low levels of separately collected recyclables.

The regression models for Poland and Malta are statistically significant (Significance F < 0.05). The regression coefficients are positive and statistically significant (p < 0.05) for both countries, indicating that waste generation increases significantly with GDP growth. The R-squared values are 0.349 for Poland and 0.272 for Malta. This suggests that between 27.2% and 34.9% of the variation in waste can be explained by changes in economic activity as measured by GDP. The correlation coefficients are 0.591 for Poland and 0.520 for Malta, indicating moderately positive relationships between GDP and waste generation. Again, the analysis supports the hypothesis that higher economic development (as measured by GDP) is associated with higher amounts of municipal waste generation. Poland’s GDP grew continuously over the years analysed, except in 2020. Economic factors such as investment growth, increased business competitiveness, political stability and other measures to stimulate the economy are possible explanations for the mentioned GDP growth in Poland. Municipal waste per person in Poland is growing at a low rate, from 320 kg per person in 2000 to 362 kg per person in 2021. Poland faces problems such as low capture rates of bio-waste, limited capacity to treat separately collected bio-waste and a heavy reliance on landfilling, resulting in limited reuse of resources [3]. Identifying individual waste-generating households through the labelling of containers and garbage bags that improve separate waste collection and the promotion of composting through exemption from garbage fees are good practices in Poland.

GDP per capita in Malta increased from €13,750 thousand in 2000 to €22,760 thousand in 2021. Despite the fluctuations in per capita municipal waste in recent years (2018–2021), the values remain lower than in previous years. This may indicate an improvement in the efficiency of waste management systems and the implementation of sustainable practices in Malta [50]. However, low municipal waste recycling rates (10.5%) and limited waste recycling infrastructure are characteristics of Malta [3]. The high tourist activity, about 2.5 million people annually, also harms recyclable waste levels. Through the issuance of comic books, Malta is committed to raising public awareness of waste generation, collection, separation and disposal, including children in school.

The regression analysis for Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Greece and The Netherlands shows a negative regression coefficient, which means that as GDP per capita increases, municipal waste per capita decreases. For all five countries, the p-value is less than 0.05, meaning that the relationship between GDP and municipal waste is statistically significant. R-squared values range between 0.1988 and 0.5657. This means that between 19.88% and 56.57% of the variation in household waste can be explained using GDP. These countries have a negative correlation between GDP and household waste (−0.863 to −0.44), which supports the observation that as GDP increases, household waste decreases. The models are statistically significant (Significance F < 0.05)

The inverse relationship between GDP per capita and municipal waste per capita is a positive fact that can be explained by several reasons. First, higher GDP per capita can be linked to more advanced technology and more efficient use of resources, which reduces the amount of waste generated. Second, industry has shifted towards the service and information technology sectors in more developed economies. These sectors typically generate less municipal waste than industry. Third, people’s consumption behaviour changes as GDP and living standards increase. Wealthier societies focus more on longer-lasting products and recyclable materials, reducing waste generation. Fourth, more developed countries have more efficient waste management systems, including separate collection, recycling and treatment of waste. These activities reduce the volume of non-treatable waste and contribute to less waste generation. Finally, high public awareness of the importance of environmental protection and sustainable development can lead to a change in people’s behaviour and to a more responsible attitude towards waste. However, the above applies to The Netherlands, which has one of the highest GDP per capita of the 27 countries studied. The Netherlands invests in developing recycling infrastructure, including recycling centres and waste treatment facilities. These facilities allow for the efficient separation, sorting and recycling of different waste fractions. The recycling rate of municipal waste in the country is 56.8% in 2020, and only 1.4% of municipal waste is landfilled [3]. A ‘pay-as-you-throw’ system for waste collection is applied in The Netherlands. Citizens pay a fee depending on the amount of waste they produce. This system encourages citizens to reduce waste and actively participate in separate collection and recycling.

The other three countries (Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria) have Europe’s lowest GDP per capita. In this case, the inverse relationship between GDP per capita and municipal waste per capita is due to different reasons. All three countries are transition economies. Studies show that transition countries are improving their environment faster due to rising energy prices and sanctioning energy-intensive activities [51,52]. In addition, countries with low GDP per capita typically go through early stages of industrialisation and economic development. The production processes and resource consumption are generally less efficient at these stages and generate more waste. Countries with lower economic growth may face challenges in establishing an effective waste management infrastructure. Lack of separate waste collection, recycling and efficient treatment leads to more waste generation. All three countries have low recycling rates (13.7% for Romania, 32% for Hungary, 31.5% for Bulgaria in 2020) and high landfill rates (74.3% for Romania, 54% for Hungary and 61% for Bulgaria in 2020 [3]. Economic development and increasing incomes are the priorities in these countries rather than environmental sustainability and waste management.

Figure 4 presents a graphical interpretation of the statistically significant regression models across the 17 European countries.

The regression models for Luxembourg, Cyprus, Germany, Slovenia and Belgium are statistically insignificant (Significance F > 0.05). Although all five countries show a positive relationship between the independent and dependent variables (as the regression coefficients are positive), none of these relationships are statistically significant (p-values > 0.05). All five countries are in the rich country category according to the World Bank classification. They are most likely to be in the downward part of the EKC, where increased economic growth leads to less waste generation. This is all the result of government investment and a high degree of responsibility from higher-income societies. Another reason for the results may be the diversity in economic and social conditions. Each country studied has unique economic and social conditions that may influence the relationship between GDP and household waste. Differences in industrial structure, consumption habits, waste management policies and other factors may lead to a weak correlation between these indicators. Other factors influence the amount of municipal waste generated in a country, regardless of its GDP. Such factors include a well-developed waste management infrastructure, environmental awareness and education of the population, recycling and waste sorting policies, urban planning and regulation, etc. Luxembourg has a municipal waste recycling rate of 52.8% in 2020 and a poor landfill rate of 3.8% in 2020 [3]. The country can take pride in its excellent waste management system covering the disposal and recycling of almost all waste materials, including the disposal, treatment and recycling of electrical and electronic equipment. Germany is one of the leading countries in Europe for waste recycling. In 2020, around 69% of the country’s total waste is recycled or composted [3]. Landfilling in the country is less than 1%. Germany’s national deposit refund scheme is one of the first in Europe.

Slovenia is also known for its high recycling rate. In 2020, around 59.3% of the country’s municipal waste is recycled [3]. According to Eurostat, Belgium boasts all European Union countries’ highest recovery and recycling rates. The country recycles 79.2% of all waste in 2020, well above the EU average of 53% [23]. For packaging waste, Belgium shows a recycling rate of 94.9% in 2020. The last country in this group, Cyprus, has a high reliance on landfilling (67% in 2020), a low recycling rate (16.8% in 2020) and insufficient infrastructure and systems for separate collection and treatment of bio-waste [3]. Data show that Cyprus has achieved economic growth from 2000 to 2021, with increased GDP per capita. Municipal waste per capita has remained stable without significant fluctuations. However, the country needs to improve the efficiency of its waste management system [53].

The regression models for Ireland, Sweden and Spain are statistically insignificant (Significance F > 0.05). For the three countries, we can conclude that there is a negative correlation between the independent and dependent variables, but it is not statistically significant (p < 0.05). This means that although there is a tendency for the dependent variable to decrease as the independent variable increases, this relationship is not strong enough to be considered valid. The R-squared values indicate that the models explain a small proportion of the dependent variable’s variance, highlighting the models’ weak predictive power.

More efficient use of resources and less reliance on materials leading to waste explain this result. Ireland has a municipal waste recycling rate of 40.4% in 2020 and a landfill rate of 22.5% in 2020 [3]. Ireland is progressing in its municipal waste management, relying on producer responsibility and public awareness activities, despite low levels of waste separation and insufficient infrastructure for separate collection and treatment of biowaste. Sweden is known for its use of waste as a source of energy. The more significant part of the waste generates heat and electricity in highly efficient waste-to-energy facilities. This helps reduce fossil fuel use and the country’s carbon footprint [54]. Sweden has a landfill rate below 1% due to national bans on landfilling certain types of waste [3]. Spain has a high rate of landfilling of its municipal waste (52% in 2020) and an insufficient population covered by separate waste collection. However, highly efficient recycling schemes and a ‘pay as you throw’ system are good practices in the country, but these practices are only implemented in some cities.

The regression models for Estonia and Austria have low R-squared values and non-significant p-values, meaning they do not explain the variation in the dependent variable and are not statistically significant. Therefore, other factors or influences are vital in determining the waste generated in these two countries. Austria is known for its high standards of waste management. It is one of the leading recycling nations in Europe [55]. The country uses extensive waste separation systems, with citizens separating waste into different fractions. Austria has achieved high recycling rates for packaging, paper, cardboard and glass (62.2% in 2020). In addition, it has developed programmes for bio-waste composting and energy recovery from waste. The municipal waste landfill rate is 1.8% [3]. Creating incentives for Austrian citizens to give electronic devices for repair instead of throwing them away through vouchers for half of the repair costs is a good practice in the country. Estonia is also a country with good waste management. It works actively to reduce waste and increase recycling [56]. The country offers incentives and rewards for citizens actively participating in recycling and waste reduction. Estonia emphasises the development of innovative technologies and recycling centres, such as the real-time data collection system. The country still has low rates of separate collection and recycling of municipal bio-waste (28.9% in 2020) but a high recycling rate of packaging waste—71.4% in 2020 [3].

Other modern methods, such as computer simulation, could further test the proposed measures and suggestions [57,58]. They bring with them the advantages of being low-cost and achieving fast results. This remains beyond the scope of this study but is part of the authors’ future work.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

• The multiple regression analysis focusing on Bulgaria shows that economic development and socio-demographic factors must be considered to achieve more sustainable and efficient municipal waste management in the country. It is essential to concentrate on the financial aspects of progress, including investment in waste infrastructure, promotion of recycling industries and innovation in sustainable resource management, not forgetting social and demographic factors, such as education and awareness of citizens;
• The cluster analysis shows regional differences in average GDP and average waste generated per person. Eastern European and Baltic countries have lower GDP per capita and higher waste generated per capita. Western European and Scandinavian countries have higher GDP and lower waste per person. Various economic factors and development levels explain those differences between the countries. Higher GDP in Western Europe and Scandinavia is linked with more advanced industrialisation, service development and higher living standards. At the same time, although Eastern European and Baltic countries have made economic progress, they still struggle with financial challenges and a lower level of development. Understanding these differences is essential for formulating policies and strategies for sustainable development and waste management. Regions with lower GDPs and higher waste can focus on improving economic infrastructure, energy efficiency and increasing recycling. In comparison, regions with higher GDPs can strive to achieve more sustainable economic models and waste management;
• The comparative analysis demonstrates a relationship between the average GDP per capita and the average waste generated per capita in most countries analysed. Specifically, higher GDP is generally associated with higher amounts of waste, while lower GDP is associated with less waste generated. This relationship can be explained in several ways. Countries with a higher GDP per capita have more advanced and intensive economies, leading to a higher production and consumption volume. This results in increased waste generated by industry, households and services. On the other hand, richer countries are starting to invest more in environmental protection. In this way, they create a better-developed infrastructure for waste collection, treatment and management, leading to more efficient waste management and reducing its negative environmental impact. Countries with lower GDP per capita have limited resources and weaker waste management infrastructure. They encounter challenges such as a lack of waste collection and treatment, inefficient use of resources and environmental problems;
• Some countries have no significant correlation between income and waste. These are primarily high-income countries in the lower part of the EKC or countries in transition. As a representative case, Luxembourg shows an economic growth rate twice as high as countries with comparable levels of waste generation, with no correlation between these indicators being observed;
• The regression analysis found a statistically significant relationship between GDP per person and household waste per person for most 27 countries studied. However, this relationship varies in strength and direction across countries, with an increase in GDP correlating in some cases with an increase in waste, while in others with a decrease, underscoring the importance of effective waste management and environmental protection policies.

The recommendations of this study can be divided into two groups:

• Sustainable waste management policies development:
  • Expanding the separate collection and recycling system: Policies should focus on promoting the separate collection and recycling of different types of waste, such as paper, plastics, metals and glass. This includes expanding the network of separate collection containers, providing education campaigns and educating citizens on proper separate collection;
  • Banning or restricting specific waste: The government can introduce bans or restrictions on certain types of waste with particularly harmful impacts on the environment and human health. Examples include prohibitions on certain plastic products or restrictions on using hazardous chemicals and substances;
  • Stimulating the processing and recycling industry: The government can provide financial incentives and support for developing a processing and recycling industry. Subsidies, tax breaks or funding for research and innovation in waste management could be a part of this policy;
  • Promoting the product life cycle and circular economy: Policies should promote the principles of the circular economy, where products are designed and manufactured to maintain a high degree of recyclability and reusability. Manufacturers may be required to produce easily disassembled and recycled products, promoting products’ long life through repair and refurbishment and encouraging sharing and reuse of items;
  • Raising awareness and education of citizens: Policies should include education campaigns and information programmes to raise citizens’ understanding of the importance of proper waste management and the opportunities for recycling and waste reduction. This can be achieved through media campaigns, educational programmes in schools and providing information through websites and social networks.
• Exchange of best practices between regions:
  • Organising workshops and seminars to share successful practices and experiences in waste management of different regions. Regions can draw from each other’s expertise and employ approaches that have been successful elsewhere;
  • Establishing online forums or discussion platforms where representatives from different regions can discuss their challenges, successes and ideas on waste management. This will create an opportunity for an active exchange of ideas and suggestions between professionals in the field;
  • Providing funding for pilot projects built on best practices in waste management. This will allow regions to test new and innovative approaches and share results and experiences with others;
  • Organising technical cooperation between regions where waste management specialists and experts can provide advice and assistance to regions that need to improve their policies and practices.

One limitation of the current analysis stems from only total municipal waste generation data. These data do not provide direct evidence of recycling rates and their relationship to GDP. This limitation arises from the study’s focus on aggregate municipal waste without examining its detailed composition. Future research could utilise more granular data on waste composition by material sent for recycling to analyse recycling percentages. This would enable a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between GDP and recycling rates. The total waste generation metric obscures trends in the underlying waste streams, as higher GDP countries may have reduced residuals to landfill/incineration by increasing recycling. With only total waste data, it is challenging to quantify recycling contributions across countries. More detailed waste composition data could clarify if higher GDP countries have succeeded in decoupling economic growth from landfill/incineration disposal via recycling and other waste diversion strategies. This represents a promising area for additional research.