Next Article in Journal
Measurement and Evaluation of the Development Level of Health and Wellness Tourism from the Perspective of High-Quality Development
Previous Article in Journal
Building Community-Based Social Capital by Enhancing Individual Social Capital: The Case of Farmers in Turkey’s Konya Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Common Reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.) Biomass Suitability for Solid Biofuels Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 18
10.3390/su16188081
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:
Review

Challenges of Implementing Municipal Solid Waste Separation Policy in China

by
Zhuoya Ren
1 and
Ganggang Zuo
2,*
1
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
2
State Key Laboratory of Eco-Hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region of China, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(18), 8081; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188081
Submission received: 26 August 2024 / Revised: 11 September 2024 / Accepted: 13 September 2024 / Published: 16 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Issue on Waste Management for Environmental Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Rapid population growth, urbanization, and diverse production materials have led to a surge in municipal solid waste (MSW), harming the environment, climate, and sanitation. Despite China’s efforts to implement MSW segregation policies, results have been unsatisfactory. Research often emphasizes public participation, with less focus on the entire policy implementation process. This paper employed Smith’s theoretical model to comprehensively analyze the challenges of implementing a MSW segregation policy, using qualitative methods and secondary data from literature and policy documents. The findings revealed challenges at four levels: policy formulation, implementing agencies, target groups, and the external environment. Issues include policy ambiguity, unclear authority, government-enterprise cross-functionality, casual attitudes, implementer shortages, poor public participation, and economic disparities. To address these, the study recommends enhancing public engagement, clarifying responsibilities among agencies, and increasing financial support for disadvantaged areas to improve policy implementation.

1. Introduction

Rapid population growth, accelerated urbanization, and the diversification of production materials have resulted in the generation of massive amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) that are difficult to degrade in a brief period. The world generates approximately 2.01 billion tons of MSW, of which 33% is untreated. By 2050, the annual global production of MSW is anticipated to increase to 3.4 billion tons [1]. The environmental problems caused by MSW are becoming a global issue.
Improper MSW management, including inefficient collection, treatment, and disposal, contributes to environmental issues [2]. Leachate can contaminate groundwater and surface water with organic matter, macronutrients, heavy metals, and organic compounds [3]. Pathogens, toxic substances, and pollutants from improper disposal pose public health risks [4]. Open disposal attracts pests, risks viral transmission, and causes environmental hazards like fires, explosions, vegetation damage, and air pollution [5]. Solid waste contributes approximately 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions [6]. Developing countries with higher waste production and primitive treatment methods face the dual challenges of economic development and environmental protection [7].
As a developing nation with a swiftly expanding economy and urbanization, China also has severe MSW-related environmental issues [8]. China’s industrial solid waste generation has continuously increased in the past decade. Although the utilization of industrial solid waste is also rising, its growth rate is relatively modest compared to the generation rate, indicating that the utilization rate needs further improvement (see Figure 1). Additionally, approximately 60% of China’s cities are facing urgent concerns with MSW management [9]. Most of these cities continue to use hybrid collection methods for MSW as their primary management method. Approximately 90% of MSW is still disposed of in landfills. China’s MSW presents a severe hazard to the ecological environment, particularly concerning water, air, and soil pollution [10]. This issue arises from the country’s limited technical means and resources and regional development disparities. Reducing MSW production and improving recycling remain challenges for the government. To implement MSW management effectively, relevant policies based on research models and experience must be improved.
China’s MSW separation policy involves several phases. China has implemented the MSW separation policy since its reform and opening up in 1978. Before 1978, the local bureaucracy in China was the exclusive owner of the MSW management system. There was no regulation governing the separation of MSW and no statistical data collection on the types of solid waste, the total amount generated, or the disposal status [11]. In the 1990s, a new system emerged, and the Chinese government introduced initiatives to foster the separation of MSW. The Chinese government initiated persistent efforts to promote the separation of municipal solid refuse and implement a reasonable and effective system for the separation and management of municipal waste. As the total quantity of waste continued to increase at the turn of the 21st century, the Chinese government prioritized the source separation of waste and the need to separate waste at the source as much as possible [12]. Consequently, the Chinese government established eight pilot cities for the MSW source separation policy in 2000, including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Nanjing [13]. However, the outcomes of the implementation of the MSW separation policy have not been satisfactory. The waste separation policy has not been genuinely implemented in many cities and has even been canceled in places such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Based on the policy experience, the December 2016 meeting of the Central Financial and Economic Leadership Group emphasized the necessity to develop MSW separation systems in more regions [14]. The Implementation Plan for the Domestic Waste Separation System was released on 18 March 2017 by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Housing and Rural Development (MOHURD). This plan outlined the requirement for 46 cities to pilot the compulsory program for the mandatory separation of domestic waste. The year 2017 was an important turning point for China’s waste disposal, as it marked the beginning of the mandatory implementation of the MSW separation policy [15]. China intends to enhance waste management regulations and encourage localities to pilot commensurate policies in response to an unprecedented increase in solid waste volumes [16].
MSW management has long been a focus in China and the social sciences due to its environmental impacts. Despite its late start, China faces challenges in implementing MSW sorting policies due to its vast land area and large population. In contrast, developed countries like the United States and European nations have extensive experience in MSW management. They address environmental issues through various policy initiatives. Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata (2012) [17] highlighted that the U.S. had reduced waste production and increased recycling rates via incentives, innovative technologies, and producer responsibility. Europe, with its advanced MSW management, introduced the product responsibility system in the early 1990s, which was adopted by many countries for effective solid waste management [18]. Germany excels in MSW management, and achieved the world’s highest recycling rate in 2017 [19]. Its strict producer responsibility, recycling, and waste disposal programs have influenced other EU countries to adopt extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies, improving recycling rates [20].
Even though China’s solid refuse policy has been modified in response to social development, its implementation has a larger gap from the intended results. Several urban maladies induced by the rapid growth of cities in China, such as the proliferation of solid refuse, have significantly harmed sustainability. China collected and transported more than 2.4 billion tons of MSW in 2019 alone, and the total amount continues to rise [7]. The price China pays for such accelerated development is the devastation of the natural environment and the sacrifice of ecological resources [21]. Tong (2023) [22] noted that, by September 2020, only 15 of the 46 key pilot cities achieved an average solid waste recovery rate above 35%, falling short of the 2017 policy goal. Despite progress in waste incineration and resource utilization, China’s overall treatment capacity and environmental technology need improvement. Landfilling remains prevalent, and recycling is hindered by small, fragmented enterprises [23]. Wu (2022) [24] highlighted significant differences in waste sorting between China’s economically diverse eastern coastal areas and central and western regions. To maintain ecological and natural environments and achieve low-carbon and green development, China must address the proliferation of MSW and its disorderly management. The environmental problems posed by the current condition of MSW in China make it imperative to analyze the obstacles to the implementation of solid waste separation policies in China.
Therefore, it is essential to analyze the dilemma of implementing MSW policy in China and how it can be resolved. According to Ran (2017) [25], a paradox in China’s environmental politics is the vast disparity between central government policies and local implementation results. The research objective of this dissertation is to investigate why there is a disparity between central government policies and local implementation outcomes. The research question for this dissertation is as follows: What are the obstacles to implementing MSW segregation policies in China, and what factors contribute to them? To contribute to related policy and sustainability research in China, this study employed concepts from policy implementation theory and analyzed the factors affecting policy implementation through the four elements of Smith’s policy process model: policy formulation, implementing agency, target group, and external environment. The coordination of these elements is analyzed to identify the challenges of implementing the MSW separation policy in China. The framework is shown in Figure 2. This study aims to provide theoretical and conceptual insights into MSW separation policy and propose recommendations for addressing the challenges of implementing MSW separation policy. Additionally, it seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of current policies, identify best practices from different regions, and offer a framework for future policy development. The study also aims to enhance stakeholder engagement and raise public awareness about the importance of MSW separation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Analysis

Methods of analyzing secondary data based on stereotypical or quantitative secondary data have become popular over the decades based on the increase in the amount of research taking place in the social sciences, with publicly available data providing researchers with additional sources of information and adding more interpretations and results to the original work [26]. Secondary data facilitates researchers to access and utilize higher quality and larger datasets at a lower cost. Larger samples can be more representative of the target group while having greater validity and more generalized findings [27], along with a higher breadth of data. However, the method of analyzing secondary data also has limitations. The researcher employing the secondary data is often not the same person as the person involved in the data collection, creating a possibility that they are unaware of faults or nuances in the data that may be important to the interpretation of the article [28]. Despite the limitations of the method of analyzing secondary data, it is difficult to target bureaucrats and leaders in Chinese local governments for interviews due to financial constraints and geographical limitations. Hence, the approach of analyzing secondary data for academic literature and policy documents becomes a more suitable data source for this paper.
This study qualitatively examines the challenges in implementing MSW separation policies in China based on secondary data. The secondary data are extracted mainly from the academic literature and policy documents from Google Scholar, China Knowledge Network, and relevant Chinese government websites and comprise government statistics, laws, regulations, official announcements, proposals from the National People’s Congress, social survey results, and research conclusions. This article gives priority to content from governments and authoritative international organizations to ensure the accuracy of policy content and data information (including but not limited to the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China; the People’s Government of Yinzhou District, Ningbo; the People’s Government of Panyu District, Guangzhou; the People’s Government of Lanzhou; the World Economic Forum, etc.). At the same time, to reflect the validity of this article’s investigation, the data and literature related to policies in this article give priority to papers and studies published in recent years to ensure that the data used does not deviate significantly from the policy environment. The main policy documents related to MSW management in China are shown in Table 1. The data, primarily sourced from government announcements and news interviews with officials, are deemed credible. While the extensive data types and volumes cannot be exhaustively listed, all sources are appropriately disclosed or cited.
We first analyzed the establishment process of China’s MSW separation policies at the national level, along with the objectives of each stage, and identified the MSW separation system and the difficulties in policy implementation using secondary data. Secondly, we reviewed the national MSW separation policy implementation by various provinces and cities, including the local policies and objectives established after refining the national policy. Finally, we analyzed the implementation of MSW separation policies from national to regional levels based on secondary data from government announcements, news media, and research conclusions. Through these three aspects of secondary data analysis, we identified the challenges China faces in implementing MSW separation policies and proposed recommendations.

2.2. Smith’s Process Model of Public Policy Implementation

This study employs the Smith Model of Public Policy Implementation Processes [29] as a framework for analyzing the implementation challenge factors confronting China’s MSW separation policy. Even though the top-down analytical model is no longer deemed appropriate for many democracies, China’s policy implementation continues to rely on the top-down political structure and decentralized administrative system as the governance system. Most policies are formulated centrally and implemented locally (Ran, 2017). Smith’s model of the policy process offers a holistic perspective for analyzing the complex factors of policy implementation in China.
Smith (1973) [29] contended that policy implementation was shaped by a multitude of factors, with four key variables standing out. Firstly, the ideal policy encompasses both the legitimate and practicable aspects of a policy program. Secondly, the implementation agency, which includes the executing body responsible for enforcement, plays a critical role. This encompasses the attitudes, skills, and organizational structures of the implementers. Thirdly, target groups and policy recipients are crucial, particularly those whose behaviors must adapt due to policy decisions. Lastly, the external environment, which comprises the economic, cultural, and social contexts in which the policy operates, significantly influences its implementation. At the same time, these four variables are in a relationship of mutual constraints and influence in the policy implementation process. If the situation that creates “tension” is “dealt with”, it will be fed back to the policymakers and departments in the form of “feedback”; see Figure 3. This interactive process will effectively continue until the end of the policy life cycle. Problems with these four elements, either individually or in interaction with each other, will create implementation challenges for policy implementation.
In introducing this framework into the Chinese context, the policy on MSW separation in China is the first significant component of the policy-level analysis. The focus is on normative documents issued by the central and local governments. Communities in charge of source separation and publicity, governments in charge of collection and treatment, and social groups in charge of resource recycling make up the majority of implementing organizations, and this paper will examine their common issues. Residents, who are the most fundamental implementers of MSW separation, and the group affected by the policy, occupy an essential position in MSW separation. This paper concentrates on the effect of residents’ awareness and knowledge of refuse separation on their participation in public affairs. The external environment is analyzed primarily from an economic standpoint. By employing Smith’s policy implementation model for each of the four levels of policy implementation, the implementation challenges are analyzed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Policy Formulation Level

The problem of MSW in China is a long-standing and complex environmental issue, but the policy’s content is unclear. According to Honig (2006) [30], the provision of explicit action steps and command sequences reduces the complexity of policy implementation in complex areas. Implementers have difficulty enforcing policies effectively when policy content is ambiguous. MSW policy in China is formulated by the central government as a policy and plan at the macro level. At the micro-implementation level, local agencies then develop and implement more locally appropriate plans based on central government policies. However, an analysis of MSW separation policy documents developed by the central government reveals that the Implementation Plan for the MSW Separation System (IPMSS) specifies that public institutions and enterprises in forty-six pilot cities are to carry out mandatory separation of MSW and “polluter pays”. It also emphasizes the leading role of local governments as the implementers of MSW separation policies and proposes models such as urban smart sanitation systems to promote the practice of MSW separation [31]. However, there is no clear indication of the responsible nature of non-performance or slack performance in the policy document.
The MSW policy in China concentrates on the design of a system that does not explicitly specify the depth and scope of universal participation, despite establishing the requirements for universal participation. The IPMSS program makes only a cursory reference to “guiding residents to consciously and scientifically separate household waste”, and does not specify how this guidance is to be implemented. Cohen et al. (2005) [32] argued that the greater the ambiguity of the policy, the greater the likelihood that the organization responsible for its implementation will be able to press for its implementation, as this leaves room for flexibility on the part of the implementation organization’s free space. However, while this flexibility can help to promote policy implementation in some cases, policy ambiguity is not always conducive to effective implementation in the specific context of China. Local governments in China are responsible for redefining more detailed local policies based on central policies and are also the main implementers of domestic waste sorting policies. In this context, policy ambiguity has hindered the efficient implementation of waste-sorting policies. According to Matland (1995) [33], when policy objectives are ambiguous, policy implementers may fail to carry out the policy because they cannot comprehend it or misinterpret it. Lanzhou City in Gansu Province, for instance, as an important strategic area in the northwest region and the provincial capital, had its management measures promulgated in December 2018 and its separation and management policy implemented on 1 February, 2019. According to the Measures for the Management of MSW Separation in Lanzhou City (hereinafter referred to as the Measures in this section), the policy was formulated in light of the actual situation of the city to strengthen waste separation management; increase the level of reduction, resourcefulness, and harmlessness of domestic solid waste; and promote the construction of an ecological civilization [34]. However, the policy does not specify the reduction target or the degree of MSW separation; rather, it only establishes macro-level goals.
Melody (1997) [35] argued that, for policies to be effective, it was necessary to establish distinct objectives and devise modes of regulation that serve these objectives. According to Chapter 6 of the Measures, the people’s governments of municipalities and districts (counties) must establish and improve a comprehensive appraisal system for MSW separation and incorporate the results of the appraisal into the government’s performance appraisal system in accordance with prescribed procedures [34]. The administrative department in charge of environmental sanitation shall establish and enhance a supervision and inspection system for domestic refuse separation. The Measures do not specify how to establish and enhance the system of supervision and inspection for the separation of household refuse, nor do they outline a clear mechanism for supervision and punishment. It is difficult for implementing organizations to determine their responsibilities and duties when the means of policy implementation are ambiguous [33].
In the chapter on legal responsibility, the Measures state that the municipal or district (county) administrative department of municipal environmental sanitation will order corrections and impose a fine of less than two hundred yuan on an individual and a fine of more than two thousand yuan and less than ten thousand yuan on a unit [34]. However, garbage disposal is instantaneous, and it is extremely difficult for the administrative law enforcement department to collect evidence of the behavior of unclassified garbage disposal. The behavior of unclassified waste disposal is both instantaneous and universal, making accurate monitoring difficult to achieve, unless administrators are stationed at each waste disposal location. Therefore, the ambiguity of the policy may lead to confusion regarding the intent and purpose of the stated policy and how it will manifest itself in any given circumstance [36]. At the level of the idealized policy, clarity of objectives and scope of implementation is a crucial component of effective policy implementation [37], and it is difficult for implementers to enforce policies based on ambiguity.

3.2. Institutional Level of Implementation

The MSW management system in China (see Figure 4) classifies waste into four categories: food, other, hazardous, and recyclable [38]. Hazardous and recyclable waste have separate collection and treatment plans. Food and other waste are collected in collection buckets or transfer stations, then transported by food waste trucks or general garbage trucks to designated treatment plants in which active explanation technology will be used to treat these solid wastes [39,40]. Recyclable waste is sorted and processed before entering downstream enterprises, while the remaining waste is sent to treatment plants for final disposal.
The main implementing organizations of China’s MSW separation policy include community and grassroots implementers responsible for source separation and awareness-raising; local governments responsible for collection, transportation, and disposal; and social groups and enterprises for resource recovery. However, local governments are still in a dominant position in the implementation of the policy.
Community and grassroots implementers responsible for source separation and awareness-raising; local governments responsible for collection, transportation, and disposal; and social groups and businesses for resource recovery are the primary implementing organizations of China’s MSW separation policy. Separation staff and volunteers at the frontline of MSW separation in China, as key implementers of source separation, have a strong influence on the effectiveness of policy implementation in terms of their attitudes in the face of the policy.
According to Smith (1973) [29], an examination of implementing agencies revealed that comprehending policy implementation necessitates a thorough understanding of both the stable structure of implementation and the individuals responsible for executing the policy. This is because the policy has been implemented in several different ways, and it is important to understand how the policy is implemented. Unstable administrative organizations and unqualified personnel may reduce implementation capacity. During the implementation of MSW separation policies, because of insufficient professional knowledge, lack of awareness of separation, and a tedious working environment, grass-roots implementers do not understand or agree with the objectives of the policy, which results in a significant reduction in the effectiveness of policy implementation.
Mir and Singh (2021) [41] highlighted that the MSW management attitude of managers directly involved in solid waste disposal, particularly laborers, determines the effectiveness of MSW management activities. When investigating the current state of waste separation in Chaoyang District, Beijing, it was discovered that sanitation employees have a less meticulous approach to MSW separation due to the disorderly placement of municipal solid refuse. Instead, they transfer the solid refuse into a garbage truck and convey it away, not understanding how the subsequent garbage station handles it. This attitude is extremely detrimental to the implementation of the MSW separation policy.
As Zhang et al. (2023) [42] pointed out, in the early stages of the implementation of the segregation policy, the government needs to implement it through the services of recycling companies or other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and these implementing agencies need to play an educational and supervisory role. This makes it easier for citizens to completely refuse separation without excessive oversight. The majority of China’s grassroots organizations, particularly street offices and village neighborhood committees, have not established posts or appointed individuals to oversee the implementation of municipal waste separation, and street offices and neighborhood committees are overburdened with work, resulting in omissions in the policy’s implementation. Neighborhood committee staff at the grassroots level have several responsibilities, acting as promoters, instructors, and supervisors of MSW separation. Nonetheless, staff still need to deal with other tasks besides MSW separation, resulting in an increase in work intensity and a shortage of personnel [43].
Zhang et al. (2023) [42] also argued that each stakeholder in the MSW separation policy must comprehend their duties and responsibilities. The lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities can lead to difficulties in multiple facets of policy implementation, including regulatory processes. The policy process of MSW separation is plagued by multiple administrations and overlapping responsibilities. The lack of clarity in the main body of responsibility and the varying degree of implementation of the responsibilities of those in charge of different areas and departments have hindered the promotion and popularization of waste separation. When the division of powers and responsibilities in the public sector is not clear, the main links and institutions involved in the implementation of the same policy become more complex when various departments are involved.
Zhang et al. (2015) [44] noted that, in Guangzhou, the Guangzhou Municipal Commission of City Management (GCMC) is primarily responsible for MSW separation. However, environmental protection, education, planning, transportation, and finance departments are also involved. Public policy implementation requires multifaceted cooperation. The complexity of the organizations and the number of participants undoubtedly enhance the difficulty of policy implementation [45]. The confusion in the division of powers and responsibilities between government departments has resulted in increased regulatory difficulties. Although the City Council is the public body responsible for implementing the MSW separation policy, most of the time the implementation of the policy is still influenced by different departments. There are no clear laws, regulations, or policies that delineate the responsibilities of the public sector. The multi-sectoral involvement of government departments leads to confusion and negatively affects the effectiveness of policy implementation.

3.3. Target Group Level

Public participation has a positive role and significance for local bureaucracies in the implementation of their environmental policies [46]. In terms of MSW separation policy, Tian et al. (2022) [47] stated that public participation was regarded as one of the most crucial components of the waste management chain and that local governments provide more environmental services to meet the public’s environmental demands by strengthening environmental regulation. Increased public participation reduces the government’s cost of implementing environmental regulations. The public expresses its environmental demands to local governments through letters and visits, telephone calls, Internet reports, and environmental hearings. Effective supervision and constraints are placed on the implementation of environmental protection regulations by local governments. To a certain extent, this encourages local governments to increase their enforcement efforts. However, China lacks active public participation in the implementation of MSW separation policies. Failure to implement policy and regulatory goals in China is inextricably linked to deficiencies in civil society participation in local government implementation [48]. A weak awareness of MSW separation among residents and lack of scientific knowledge about separation are important factors contributing to low civic participation.
According to Vidanaarachchi et al. (2006) [49], public attitudes towards waste disposal are poor in many developing countries. Residents see the problem of MSW as having little relevance to them and should instead be attributed to the local bureaucracy. The citizens of China, a developing country, similarly place the blame for MSW on local governments and show dissatisfaction after policies are implemented. Nearly half of the public in China has negative feelings about MSW separation policies [50]. Such negative attitudes may discourage citizens from participating in the MSW separation policy. During an unannounced inspection of MSW separation in a community with more than 2000 households in Ningbo, the municipal government discovered that residents disposed of MSW in food refuse receptacles containing non-separated solid waste. In addition, random untreated MSW was left on the ground at another waste separation location in this community [51].
The same problem exists in Beijing and Guangzhou. Residents’ knowledge of sorting is still lacking, and there are cases where residents want to dispose of food waste but when confronted with bins labelled “food waste” and “other waste”, they throw the bags into the “other waste” bin. Other Waste bin (http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-07/02/c_1210176190.htm, last access date 1 August 2024) [52]. This still involved most residents, and there were different voices saying that they “don’t know how to separate”. The public does not take MSW separation seriously, and failure to separate at the source can lead to failure in the entire chain of MSW.
In the majority of Chinese cities, MSW separation policies are still advocated rather than mandated [53]. Only seven percent of China’s total number of cities have implemented mandatory refuse separation. MSW separation policies are mostly promotional in nature rather than supervisory. To a certain extent, this has led to the fact that the public’s awareness of solid waste separation remains low, and the concept of solid waste separation is superficial. This is despite China announcing the implementation of an MSW separation policy. However, in the absence of a formal and strict national law regulating the act of separation, and without sufficient incentives or penalties, the implementation of the waste separation policy is still not convincing enough to make residents believe that the MSW separation policy will be fully implemented [54]. Under the advocacy policy, there is no policy design for social and civic engagement, and community involvement is passive. In the absence of public awareness of MSW separation and related knowledge, it is unrealistic to expect the public to voluntarily participate in MSW separation to stimulate the formation of social-moral constraints. The current norm is rebounding and unsustainability due to the absence of stable social support. During MSW separation enforcement inspections conducted by the Shaoxing municipal government team office, it was discovered that MSW was placed arbitrarily in farmers’ markets and rubbish rooms in shopping malls, with recyclable and perishable bins mixed with untreated rubbish and waste paper [55].
Meanwhile, public participation remains challenging in some cities that have adopted mandatory policies. Using Shanghai as an illustration, Hou et al. (2020) [56] noted that the penalties and constraints of a mandatory MSW separation policy may cause the public to rationally choose separation behaviors in order to avoid risks. However, this forced choice may result in negative emotions such as public resistances and boycotts. This, in turn, may lead to a decline in support for mandatory MSW separation policies. As a result, many participants in the implementation of the MSW separation policy in Shanghai are abandoning solid waste separation and reverting to an earlier method of disposal once the regulatory burden is reduced. Thus, the lack of public awareness of separation and the lack of knowledge related to MSW separation can lead to low levels of public participation. The public shifts the responsibility for MSW separation to government departments and expects them to take full responsibility. This puts the implementation of the policy in jeopardy, which is the main challenge of policy implementation at the target group level.

3.4. Environmental Factors Level

It must be admitted that the whole chain of disposal of MSW separation is extremely costly. The social costs of MSW incineration and disposal, the whole process of separation, and the management of MSW have been reduced after MSW separation [57]. However, it should be noted that MSW separation still necessitates a larger initial investment. As MSW separation in China is still in its infancy, implementing the policy requires upgrading or replacing collection containers for separate drop-offs, increasing the number of vehicles for collecting and transporting MSW for separation, and constructing new storage points, connection points, sorting centers, and publicity bases. At the same time, the implementation of the policy requires a new assessment system for MSW separation, barrel-side monitoring, thematic publicity, third-party media coverage, and supporting safeguards. This requires significant financial investment, and MSW separation, collection, and transport costs increase yearly during the roll-out phase.
Nevertheless, as a developing nation, China’s urban development is still unequal. China has transitioned from a strictly state-controlled economic development model to a more developed market economy over the past four decades. Rapid urbanization has resulted in an unbalanced and disorganized urban system, with first-tier cities obtaining more socio-economic investment and infrastructure development than other cities [58]. Due to the uneven level of economic and cultural development, the policy of MSW separation has been largely covered by the experience base of long-term MSW separation work in the eastern coastal regions of China, as well as its economic and cultural advantages. However, in the central region and most of the western part of China, the overall development of the city is slow, economic development is lagging, and the process of its municipal household waste separation is hindered. The administrations of China’s mega-strategic cities such as Beijing and Shanghai have sufficient resources to support them. Government funding is crucial to the success of MSW management and environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Shanghai, particularly at the stage of waste collection, transportation, and disposal enterprises, but also in terms of human resources, management, and publicity [59].
Significant human, material, and monetary resources are required for MSW separation, particularly in pilot cities. There are subsidies for the purchase and distribution of small containers and sacks for household use, as well as for various community implementers. The average subsidy per domestic unit in Shanghai’s pilot communities was USD 3.8 (RMB 25.74) per 100 units [60]. During the pilot period, each region of Shanghai invested an average of RMB 1.37 million in investment costs, including the collection and treatment of separated waste, as well as investments in labor and apparatus [60].
Li (2018) [61] asserted that the more economically prosperous a province was, the more MSW it disposes of because it had the resources to do so. Financial allocations for the administrations of regions with a lesser level of economic development do not reach the level of subsidies in regions with a higher level of economic development. Separation policies for MSW have positive externalities for the environment and can have a positive effect on the environment, but they lack robust economic characteristics. As in Beijing, waste segregation has always resulted in a loss, with most benefits stemming from waste reduction. However, these benefits are not monetary in nature, but rather revenues from environmental protection [62]. Beijing, the capital of China, is still in the red despite the government’s substantial financial support, and the financial pressure on MSW separation policies is even more severe for third- and fourth-tier cities with more conventional and average levels of economic development. This has resulted in the obstruction of MSW separation policies in most of the economically underdeveloped central and western regions. This is because local administrations with lower levels of economic development continue to prioritize economic development. When local governments are faced with the double pressure of regional economic GDP development and performance appraisal, either on the side of the enterprise or for the sake of the interests of compromising environmental regulation and law enforcement, this leads to market mechanism “failure”. For local governments, the cost of destroying the environment is much lower than the cost of managing the environment [63].

3.5. Coordination Issues between Elements

The challenges to policy implementation posed by issues originating from the four factors themselves, namely policy, implementing agencies, target groups, and the external environment, have been analyzed separately in this study. It is important to note that the challenges to policy implementation posed by these four factors do not only exist in separate components but also interact with one another. Smith (1973) [29] noted that these four variables were in a relationship of mutual constraints and influences in the process of policy implementation, and that, if the situation that creates ‘tension’ was ‘resolved’, it was fed back to the policy in the form of “feedback”. If situations that create “tensions” were “addressed” and “feedback” was provided to policymakers and the sector, this interactive process will continue until the end of the policy life cycle.
Successful policy implementation requires the implementer to be able to cope with ambiguity and uncertainty during the policy implementation process [64]. However, street-level bureaucrats (frontline implementers) in the community lack knowledge of MSW separation, and their own knowledge and skills make it difficult for them to cope with policy ambiguity, resulting in policy implementation perplexity. The indistinct demarcation of responsibility for policy implementation hinders inter-organizational cooperation. When the target group is confronted with ambiguous policies, it is difficult to classify the general policy documents, and “how to classify” becomes a source of confusion. At the same time, when there are problems within the policy implementation organizations, the public may lose confidence in the organizations after the implementation of the policy. When the external economic environment is complex, particularly when the city’s level of economic development is unbalanced, the public lacks the vitality to deal with the situation. The public does not have much capacity to cope with issues that are irrelevant to their fundamental living conditions. Rather, income and health continue to be their primary concerns.
In an unbalanced economic environment, there is a disparity in the implementation efficacy between communities. Campos and Reich (2019) [65] pointed out that the implementation of policies depends on the availability or allocation of funds. In economically developed cities such as Shanghai, the city with the finest MSW separation policy in China, has been able to implement the policy thanks to substantial government funding, particularly for implementing organizations. The financial support enables the implementing agency to hire a larger number of dedicated personnel for oversight and management. When the external economic environment is complex, particularly when the city’s level of economic development is unbalanced, the public lacks the vitality to deal with the situation. The public does not have much capacity to cope with issues that are irrelevant to their fundamental living conditions. Rather, income and health continue to be their primary concerns. It is also difficult for the governments of less economically developed regions to devote more of their scarce resources to the implementation of policies. This unbalanced economic development has also led to some differences and challenges in the implementation of this policy.
The four key elements that appear in the text, policy level, implementing agency level, public level and economic level, not only independently pose challenges to MSW sorting policies but their interactions also complicate the policy implementation process. In an early study, Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) [66] pointed out that the powerful factors hindering successful implementation are due to the complexity of joint implementation and the combination of numerous removal points and veto capabilities. The more removal points there are, the more difficult it is to implement the policy.
These clearing points are such that, when a change occurs in one of them, the other clearing points may also trigger a chain reaction. Therefore, successful policy implementation is not determined by the resolution of challenges at a single level, but rather by the effective interaction and coordination of different levels. Hence, problems with the four factors in and of themselves, as well as coordination issues between the elements, have prevented China from obtaining satisfactory MSW separation policy outcomes.

4. Recommendations

On the basis of the preceding section’s analysis of the obstacles to policy implementation, policy recommendations are made as follows.
It is imperative to enhance the general comprehension regarding the separation of MSW. Residents are the primary source of the MSW separation policy and the policy’s primary target audience, so radio, advertisements, slogans, and internal community campaigns are required to sustain public awareness.
Multi-channel publicity measures are conducive to enhancing public awareness of the knowledge related to the classification of MSW. At the same time, the public will have a better understanding of the hazards of MSW and its impact on the environment and public health. South Korea has had early experience in publicity. Since 1995, South Korea has actively promoted the implementation of a series of policies for the classification of recyclable solid waste. Shvetsova (2018) [67] pointed out that after the implementation of the policy, the South Korean government carried out intensive publicity and education activities, teaching people how to sort recyclables and use government-designated garbage bags, and more importantly, making the public understand the purpose and significance of implementing waste management policies and reducing waste. The public’s environmental awareness largely affects their willingness to participate in the sorting of MSW. In Sweden, recycling is promoted as an environmentally friendly action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Through national advertising and media coverage, Sweden is known as a country with a high recycling rate, and citizens develop a sense of shared responsibility for recycling and identity as environmental stewards through such publicity [68]. As the source of MSW, higher public participation can reduce the difficulty of sorting MSW and the total amount of MSW in the entire process. This in turn promotes the effective implementation of the policy at the source.
However, we must be aware that, in the public participation aspect of policy implementation, we must pay attention to the interests of marginalized and vulnerable groups. We should try to promote the fairness of the policy without exacerbating inequality. As the South Korean government did in the ‘paid garbage bag’ system, supplementary policies such as subsidies and tax reductions for low-income marginalized and vulnerable groups should be adopted.
In addition, appropriate economic restrictions or incentives can be implemented. South Korea’s ‘paid garbage bag’ system, enacted in 1995, is an economic restriction that promotes the sorting and reduction of MSW through pre-payment for garbage bags and charging for garbage according to volume. In economically disadvantaged rural areas, low-income people receive appropriate financial assistance to reduce the burden caused by the fees they need to pay for MSW [67]. This policy has effectively reduced the total amount of waste and promoted waste sorting. South Korea ranks third in the world in terms of solid waste recycling rate, after Germany and Austria, with a recycling rate of over 50% [19]. According to Li et al. (2017) [69], residents engage in categorizing in the absence of reporting. Governments and businesses lack confidence in this situation and are therefore more interested in incentive schemes. Germany’s economic incentive measures can also be used as a reference: the deposit return system. This system is used to reduce waste generated by encouraging consumers to pay an additional fee on top of the net price of the product purchased, in order to promote public participation [70].
Develop an EPR framework that is more transparent and clearly defines the responsibilities of the public sector and the relationship between the government and the private sector. In the context of MSW separation in China, a clearer system of extended producer responsibility should be established, along with clarity regarding the roles of the public sector. China needs to elucidate and streamline the authorities specifically responsible for MSW separation in order to better designate supervisory responsibilities to specific implementing organizations. Simultaneously, a more transparent EPR system should be implemented, as is the case in the United States, where environmental internalization of products under EPR encourages the reduction of hazardous components [71]. A more specific and transparent EPR would be beneficial for China’s massive MSW industry.
To ensure the successful implementation of MSW separation policies, it is crucial to establish a robust accountability framework. This framework should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, including government agencies, waste management companies, and the public. By holding each party accountable for their actions, we can promote transparency, enhance compliance, and ensure that the policies are effectively enforced. Additionally, incorporating regular monitoring and evaluation mechanisms will help identify areas for improvement and ensure that the policies are achieving their intended outcomes. Ultimately, accountability is key to fostering a culture of responsibility and commitment towards sustainable waste management practices.
Improve the external environment for policy implementation by fortifying MSW separation infrastructure and establishing more specific and robust financial support. The government expenditures of China are not minimal by East Asian standards. However, it is too underfunded in key service areas to accomplish national objectives, particularly in impoverished and underdeveloped areas, and the government must better allocate public resources across the country to support the effective implementation of policy [72]. The allocations for regions and localities with limited economic development are increased to provide them with effective resources. However, Huang et al. (2014) [60] argued that financial assistance is not an effective long-term tool for MSW separation. For regions and localities with a low level of economic development, however, significant financial support at the initial stage of policy implementation is conducive to the early construction of a large number of infrastructures that provide MSW separation facilities.

5. Conclusions

Both top-down and bottom-up or integrated approach analyses have limitations, but based on China’s political characteristics, this study used the top-down Smith Policy Implementation Process Model, which was consistent with China’s policy implementation pathway, to analyze the constraints on the implementation of MSW separation policy. Under the analytical framework of Smith’s model of policy implementation, this paper examined the challenges of MSW separation policy implementation in China. The main conclusions are as follows.
  • The MSW separation policy in China is ambiguous, as evidenced by the fact that the policy and regulations present MSW separation as a macro-level goal but do not specify how it will be implemented or what the expected outcomes will be. Simultaneously, the policy does not specify the content of the supervisory responsibilities of the implementing agencies at all levels, and there are no clear means of implementation and supervision, making it challenging to implement the policy effectively.
  • At the level of implementing agencies, there exists a lackadaisical disposition among grassroots implementers towards the execution of the MSW separation policy, characterized by a general lack of awareness or concern regarding its implementation. However, the attitude of grassroots implementers is especially crucial to the MSW separation policy, and to a certain extent determines whether or not the policy can be implemented effectively on the streets.
  • Additionally, the paucity of personnel makes monitoring and implementing the policy at the local level more difficult. Cross-functionality and confusion among implementing organizations make it difficult to manage or supervise, and the fact that MSW separation is managed by various departments makes it challenging to rapidly identify the competent implementing organization when problems arise. The intersection of government and enterprise functions makes it difficult for enterprises to perform their market functions, resulting in poor connections between upstream, midstream, and downstream industries; there is also a lack of professional division of labor in the market, so the MSW separation system is still operating at a low level.
  • At the level of the target audience, the public is unaware of separation, and public participation is low as a result of this ignorance. For MSW separation policies, public participation is crucial to the success of the source phase of policy implementation, and a dearth of public participation will hinder the policy’s effectiveness. Local government expenditures resulting from unequal regional economic development also pose a challenge for policy implementation at the external level. The implementation of a policy to the separation of MSW necessitates a substantial financial and infrastructure investment up front. This is not a problem for cities with a high level of economic development, but there are insufficient municipal funds to support the implementation of the policy in economically disadvantaged regions. Additionally, MSW separation policies have less monetary benefits, but rather have environmental benefits, which can be a significant financial burden for economically underdeveloped regions.
  • The interactions between these four elements influence the coordination of implementation, and in the absence of sufficiently clear policy guidance it is challenging for implementing agencies and practitioners to deal with policies that lack clear objectives or that require relatively specialized implementing agencies and practitioners to implement such policies. However, not all agencies and personnel implementing MSW separation policies in China are technocrats, and the majority of grassroots implementers are community workers. Concurrently, the public at the level of the target group has difficulty grasping what MSW separation is in the face of an ambiguous policy, and how and why it should be done has become the greatest cause of confusion at this level. In the absence of a defined policy, it is challenging to implement financial support, and the necessary conditions for implementation are lacking in regions with a low level of economic development. When there are problems with the implementing organizations, the public is influenced by the attitudes of the implementing organizations’ personnel and may lose faith in the policy.
China’s policy on the separation of MSW is in its infancy, and the obstacles and problems encountered are crucial to the policy’s effective implementation. According to Smith (1973), when problems and tensions arise during the implementation of a policy, timely feedback and treatment can make policy implementation more effective. This paper proposes three policy recommendations, including increasing public awareness and knowledge, establishing a clearer extended producer responsibility system, clarifying the roles of the public sector and the government and enterprises, optimizing the external environment for the implementation of the policy, strengthening the infrastructure related to MSW separation, and establishing a more specific and robust financial support. To ensure the efficacy of China’s MSW separation policy, the Chinese government must perpetually monitor, modify, and enhance the policy so that MSW separation becomes a dynamic option and an ongoing effort in China’s pursuit of sustainable waste management.
In future research, different policy theory models can be used to conduct a comparative analysis of the factors influencing the implementation challenges of MSW sorting policies. The factors influencing the implementation of MSW sorting policies, including socio-cultural and political factors, can be explored in greater depth. The impact of MSW policies on the economies of regional and local governments can be investigated. In addition, a more detailed exploration of geographical factors can be carried out to analyze whether or not there are differences in the effectiveness of MSW policies in different regions with different economic developments. Proposals targeting different geographical characteristics can be made to better promote the success of policy implementation and improve the effectiveness and sustainability of China’s MSW management system.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.R. and G.Z.; methodology, Z.R.; validation, Z.R. and G.Z.; formal analysis, Z.R.; investigation, Z.R.; resources, Z.R.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.R. and G.Z.; writing—review and editing, G.Z.; supervision, G.Z.; project administration, G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kaza, S.; Yao, L. At a Glance: A Global Picture of Solid Waste Management; Green Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Batool, S.A.; Chuadhry, M.N. The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Methods on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kjeldsen, P.; Barlaz, M.A.; Rooker, A.P.; Baun, A.; Ledin, A.; Christensen, T.H. Present and Long-Term Composition of MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 32, 297–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Domingo, J.L.; Nadal, M. Domestic Waste Composting Facilities: A Review of Human Health Risks. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vaverková, M.D. Landfill Impacts on the Environment. Geosciences 2019, 9, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hoa, N.T.; Matsuoka, Y. The Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Reductions in Waste Sector in Vietnam. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2017, 22, 427–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ji, G.; Chen, Q.; Ding, Z.; Gu, J.; Guo, M.; Shi, L.; Yu, H.; Sun, H. High Mortality and High PCDD/Fs Exposure among Residents Downwind of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators: A Case Study in China. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 294, 118635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Li, Y.; Zhi, Q. The Status of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) in China and Its Clean Development. Energy Procedia 2016, 104, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xiao, L.; Zhang, G.; Zhu, Y.; Lin, T. Promoting Public Participation in Household Waste Management: A Survey Based Method and Case Study in Xiamen City, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cheng, H.; Hu, Y. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as a Renewable Source of Energy: Current and Future Practices in China. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3816–3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lou, Z.; Cai, B.-F.; Zhu, N.; Zhao, Y.; Geng, Y.; Yu, B.; Chen, W. Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories from Waste Sector in China during 1949–2013 and Its Mitigation Potential. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Minghua, Z.; Xiumin, F.; Rovetta, A.; Qichang, H.; Vicentini, F.; Bingkai, L.; Giusti, A.; Yi, L. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1227–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tai, J.; Zhang, W.; Che, Y.; Feng, D. Municipal Solid Waste Source-Separated Collection in China: A Comparative Analysis. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1673–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Meng, X.; Tan, X.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Tao, Y.; Qian, Y. Investigation on Decision-Making Mechanism of Residents’ Household Solid Waste Classification and Recycling Behaviors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guo, S.; Chen, L. Why Is China Struggling with Waste Classification? A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 183, 106312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, H.; Jiang, C. Local Nuances of Authoritarian Environmentalism: A Legislative Study on Household Solid Waste Sorting in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Daniel, H.; Perinaz, B.-T. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management; Urban Development Series; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yue, S.; Shi, X. Analysis of Government Roles in Garbage Classification. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 440, 042084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alex Gray Germany Recycles More than Any Other Country; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2017.
  20. Humphrey, G.B.; Gibbs, M.S.; Dandy, G.C.; Maier, H.R. A Hybrid Approach to Monthly Streamflow Forecasting: Integrating Hydrological Model Outputs into a Bayesian Artificial Neural Network. J. Hydrol. 2016, 540, 623–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lin, B.; Kuang, Y. Natural Gas Subsidies in the Industrial Sector in China: National and Regional Perspectives. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tong, L. Study on Recycling Indicators in the Context of the Broader Goal of Waste Segregation. Available online: http://www.caues-zhhw.org/newsinfo/5500408.html (accessed on 10 August 2023).
  23. Cheng, J.; Shi, F.; Yi, J.; Fu, H. Analysis of the Factors That Affect the Production of Municipal Solid Waste in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wu, L. Research on the Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Classification Policy in China. Master’s Thesis, Yanshan University, Qinghuangdao, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ran, R. Perverse Incentive Structure and Policy Implementation Gap in China’s Local Environmental Politics. In Local Environmental Politics in China; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 15–37. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sherif, V. Evaluating Preexisting Qualitative Research Data for Secondary Analysis. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung/Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 2018, 19. Available online: https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2821 (accessed on 12 September 2024). [CrossRef]
  27. Johnston, M.P. Secondary Data Analysis: A Method of Which the Time Has Come. Qual. Quant. Methods Libr. 2014, 3, 619–626. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cheng, H.G.; Phillips, M.R. Secondary Analysis of Existing Data: Opportunities and Implementation. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry 2014, 26, 371. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Smith, T.B. The Policy Implementation Process. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Honig, M. Complexity and Policy Implementation. In New Directions in Education Policy Implementation; The State Universityof New York: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  31. General Office of the State Council of China. Notification of the Implementation Programme of the Domestic Waste Separation System; General Office of the State Council of China: Beijing, China, 2017.
  32. Cohen, A.; Timmons, J.C.; Fesko, S.L. The Workforce Investment Act: How Policy Conflict and Policy Ambiguity Affect Implementation. J. Disabil. Policy Stud. 2005, 15, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Matland, R.E. Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 1995, 5, 145–174. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lanzhou Municipal People’s Government. Lanzhou City Municipal Solid Waste Separation and Management Methods; Lanzhou Municipal People’s Government: Lanzhou, China, 2019.
  35. Melody, W.H. Policy Objectives and Models of Regulation. In Telecom Reform: Principles, Policies and Regulatory Practices; Den Private IngeniØrfond, Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 1997; Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Melody%2C+W.H.%2C+1997.+Policy+objectives+and+models+of+regulation.+To+Dallas+Smythe+%281907-1993%29%2C+friend+and+colleague+of+many+contributors+to%2C+11.&btnG=%E3%80%91 (accessed on 12 September 2024).
  36. Fowler, L. Strategies for Dealing with Policy Ambiguities. Public Adm. 2023, 101, 1394–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sabatier, P.; Mazmanian, D. The Conditions of Effective Implementation: A Guide to Accomplishing Policy Objectives. Policy Anal. 1979, 5, 481–504. [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, H. Cost Calculation and Analysis for the Whole Process of MSW Classification: A Case Study in L City. Environ. Sanit. Eng. 2023, 1, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
  39. Cai, M.; Li, Y.; Yang, C.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, H. Activated Sludge Incineration Ash Derived Fenton-like Catalyst: Preparation and Its Degradation Performance of Methylene Blue. J. Inorg. Mater. 2024, 39, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, L.; Yan, D.; Xiong, Y.; Zhou, L. A Review of the Challenges and Application of Public-Private Partnership Model in Chinese Garbage Disposal Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mir, I.S.; Cheema, P.P.S.; Singh, S.P. Implementation Analysis of Solid Waste Management in Ludhiana City of Punjab. Environ. Chall. 2021, 2, 100023. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, A.; Xie, S.; Gong, Y.; Li, C.; Liu, Y. Barriers to Compulsory Waste Sorting for a Circular Economy in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 342, 118180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. People’s Government of Panyu District. Guangzhou Suggestions on Clarifying the Breakdown of Responsibilities of Various Social Parties in the “Waste Separation” Work; People’s Government of Panyu District: Guangzhou, China, 2015.
  44. Zhang, D.; Huang, G.; Yin, X.; Gong, Q. Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviors at the Source: Using SEM with the Theory of Planned Behavior in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9475–9491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lundin, M. Explaining Cooperation: How Resource Interdependence, Goal Congruence, and Trust Affect Joint Actions in Policy Implementation. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2007, 17, 651–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tu, Z.; Hu, T.; Shen, R. Evaluating Public Participation Impact on Environmental Protection and Ecological Efficiency in China: Evidence from PITI Disclosure. China Econ. Rev. 2019, 55, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tian, J.; Gong, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, Y. Can Policy Implementation Increase Public Waste Sorting Behavior? The Comparison between Regions with and without Waste Sorting Policy Implementation in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kostka, G.; Mol, A.P. Implementation and Participation in China’s Local Environmental Politics: Challenges and Innovations. In Local Environmental Politics in China; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vidanaarachchi, C.K.; Yuen, S.T.S.; Pilapitiya, S. Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka: Problems, Issues and Challenges. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 920–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Wang, H. Attitude of Chinese Public towards Municipal Solid Waste Sorting Policy: A Text Mining Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 142674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. People’s Government of Yinzhou District. Ningbo Shounan Squadron Carries Out Special Inspection on Waste Classification; People’s Government of Yinzhou District: Ningbo, China, 2023.
  52. Shu, J.; Wang, Y.; Guan, D.; Du, K.; Zhou, Y.; Jiang, G.; Yan, Z. Municipal Solid Waste Classification for 19 Years in Many Places Still “Cannot Be Divided”, Where Is the Difficulty? Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-07/02/c_1210176190.htm (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  53. Chu, X.; Chu, Z.; Wang, X.; Huang, W.-C.; Ni, Y. Comparative Analysis on the Performances of Implementing Compulsory and Advocative Policies in Municipal Solid Waste Classification. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 99, 106982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, D.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Y.; Du, H.; Tan, X.; Shi, L.; Ma, Z. Does Environmental Policy Help Green Industry? Evidence from China’s Promotion of Municipal Solid Waste Sorting. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, M. Official Law Enforcement! Shaoxing Joy City, Dalong Market and Others Inspected, Many Problems. Available online: http://www.shaoxing.com.cn/p/3048933.html (accessed on 17 August 2023).
  56. Hou, J.; Jin, Y.; Chen, F. Should Waste Separation Be Mandatory? A Study on Public’s Response to the Policies in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Song, G.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, C.; Liu, S.; Wang, Y.; Geng, J. Beijing Municipal Domestic Waste Incineration Social Cost Assessment Report; National Institute for Development and Strategic Studies: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 1–66.
  58. Liu, Z.; Liu, H.; Lang, W.; Fang, S.; Chu, C.; He, F. Scaling Law Reveals Unbalanced Urban Development in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 87, 104157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, M.-H.; Shen, S.-L.; Xu, Y.-S.; Zhou, A.-N. New Policy and Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Classification in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Huang, W.; Wang, J.; Dai, X.; Li, M.; Harder, M.K. More than Financial Investment Is Needed: Food Waste Recycling Pilots in Shanghai, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 67, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, J. Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Producing Law and Internet Technology-Based Enterprises in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 309. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zaki-Uddin-Ahmad/publication/331358278_Kinetics_and_Equilibrium_Study_of_Resorcinol_Adsorption_onto_Surface_Modified_Ordered_Mesoporous_Carbon/links/5c75d47f299bf1268d283b2b/Kinetics-and-Equilibrium-Study-of-Resorcinol-Adsorption-onto-Surface-Modified-Ordered-Mesoporous-Carbon.pdf#page=325 (accessed on 12 September 2024).
  62. Zhang, H.; Wen, Z.; Chen, Y. Environment and Economic Feasibility of Municipal Solid Waste Central Sorting Strategy: A Case Study in Beijing. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2016, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhao, L.; Shao, K.; Ye, J. The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Environmental Pollution and the Transmission Mechanism Based on Promotion Incentive Perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 2022, 29, 86634–86650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fowler, L. How to Implement Policy: Coping with Ambiguity and Uncertainty. Public Adm. 2021, 99, 581–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Campos, P.A.; Reich, M.R. Political Analysis for Health Policy Implementation. Health Syst. Reform 2019, 5, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pressman, J.L.; Wildavsky, A.B. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland: Or, Why It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1973; ISBN 978-0-520-02269-0. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shvetsova, O.A. Development of Environmental Management in South Korea: Practice of Industrial Waste Processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference”Management of Municipal Waste as an Important Factor of Sustainable Urban Development” (WASTE), St. Petersburg, Russia, 4–6 October 2018; pp. 3–6. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wheeler, K. The Largest Environmental Movement: Recycling and Consumption Work in Sweden; Department of Sociology University of Essex: Colchester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  69. Li, C.; Huang, Y.Y.; Harder, M.K. Incentives for Food Waste Diversion: Exploration of a Long Term Successful Chinese City Residential Scheme. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Antonov, E. Deposit-Refund Systems in Europe. Master’s Thesis, Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, Czech Republic, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  71. Hickle, G.T. Moving beyond the “Patchwork:” A Review of Strategies to Promote Consistency for Extended Producer Responsibility Policy in the US. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Asia, E.; Region, P. Deepening Public Service Unit Reform to Improve Service Delivery; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 08081 g001
Figure 1. The trend of industrial solid waste generation and utilization in China.
Figure 1. The trend of industrial solid waste generation and utilization in China.
Sustainability 16 08081 g001
Sustainability 16 08081 g002
Figure 2. The framework of this paper.
Figure 2. The framework of this paper.
Sustainability 16 08081 g002
Sustainability 16 08081 g003
Figure 3. Policy implementation process.
Figure 3. Policy implementation process.
Sustainability 16 08081 g003
Sustainability 16 08081 g004
Figure 4. The MSW management system of China.
Figure 4. The MSW management system of China.
Sustainability 16 08081 g004
Table 1. Development of MSW management policies in China.
Table 1. Development of MSW management policies in China.
YearPolicy NameResponsible Government AgencyKey Policy Content
1989Environmental Protection Law of ChinaNational People’s Congress (NPC)A legal framework for future MSW management policies.
1995Administrative Measures for MSWMinistry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MOHURD)Outlines the principles of MSW collection, transportation, and treatment but omits waste sorting and reduction.
2000Solid Waste Pollution Prevention and Control Law of ChinaNPCCovers industrial, hazardous, and domestic waste prevention and control with environmental standards and technical specifications.
2000Technical Policies for Urban Household Waste Treatment and Pollution Prevention and Control (Jiancheng (2000) No. 120)MOHURDPilot programs were set up for source separation of MSW in eight cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Nanjing.
2002Planning for the Construction of MSW Treatment FacilitiesState Council (PRC)Directed the rapid establishment of waste treatment infrastructure in major cities to enhance treatment capacity.
2010Opinions on Further Strengthening the Treatment of MSWMOHURDPrinciples of reduction, reuse, and harmless treatment were introduced, along with a pilot project to promote nationwide waste classification.
2017Implementation Plan for the Domestic Waste SortingGeneral Office of the State CouncilPilot compulsory waste sorting in 46 key cities, aiming to establish a waste sorting system by 2020 to enhance resource utilization.
2019MSW Management Regulations of ShanghaiHousing and Urban–Rural Development Administration of ShanghaiThe city enforces mandatory sorting of four waste types (recyclable, hazardous, wet, and dry), backed by strict regulations and law enforcement.
2019Administrative Measures for Domestic Waste in NanjingCity Management Bureau and Environmental Protection Bureau of NanjingFour waste types are classified, with community education and supervision enhancing residents’ and units’ sorting awareness.
2020MSW Management Regulations of BeijingCity Management Commission and Bureau of Ecology and Environment of BeijingEnforce four waste types of sorting, impose fines for non-compliance, and enhance public participation through promotion and community outreach.
2020MSW Classification and Management Regulations of ShenzhenUrban Management & Law Enforcement Bureau, Ecology & Environment Bureau of ShenzhenPromote waste sorting through intelligent systems and community education, with policies for residents and businesses, and an intelligent management system to enhance efficiency.
2020Measures for Domestic Waste Classification in ChongqingCity Management Bureau and Ecological Environment Bureau of ChongqingThe government promotes waste sorting, encourages enterprise participation in recycling, and gradually improves sorting facilities.
2020Regulations on the Management of Domestic Waste in TianjinCity Management Commission, Ecology and Environment Bureau of TianjinA four-category classification system has been implemented, emphasizing hazardous waste treatment and supervision, with an expanding scope.
2021MSW Classification and Management Regulations of GuangzhouCity Management & Law Enforcement Bureau, Ecological Environment BureauThe policy emphasizes community participation, with facilities gradually improving.
2021MSW Management Regulations of HangzhouCity Management Bureau, Environmental Sanitation Management CentreImplementing waste sorting through regulations, establishing sorting standards and processing procedures, and emphasizing resident participation.
2021MSW Classification and Management Regulations of ChengduCity Management Committee, Ecological Environment Bureau of ChengduPromotes waste sorting facilities, emphasizes community participation and education, implements a reward system, and enhances public involvement.
2021Measures for the Classification of Household Waste in Xi’anCity Management Bureau, Ecology and Environment Bureau of Xi’anDefines waste sorting standards, encourages resident participation, and promotes its importance through community activities.
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

Ren, Z.; Zuo, G. Challenges of Implementing Municipal Solid Waste Separation Policy in China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8081. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188081

AMA Style

Ren Z, Zuo G. Challenges of Implementing Municipal Solid Waste Separation Policy in China. Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):8081. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ren, Zhuoya, and Ganggang Zuo. 2024. "Challenges of Implementing Municipal Solid Waste Separation Policy in China" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 8081. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188081

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