Development and operation of a waste management system in Alberta, Canada

McQuaid-Cook, Jennifer; Simons, C.S.

doi:10.1016/0734-242x(89)90036-0

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Siting new hazardous waste facilities in North America in the 1980s was particularly difficult due to concerns from Love Canal and other uncontrolled sites. The best-known example of successful siting at the time was in Alberta Canada, where the usual ‘top down’ planning was replaced by an innovative approach based on decentralisation of decision-making authority and full and meaningful public involvement ( McQuaid-Cook and Simons, 1989 ; Rabe, 1992 ; Kuhn and Ballard, 1998 ).…”

Section: From 1980s – Ramping Up Technical Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the past to plan for the future: An historical review of the evolution of waste and resource management 1970–2020 and reflections on priorities 2020–2030 – The perspective of an involved witness

Wilson

2023

Waste Manag Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving waste and resource management (WaRM) around the world can halve the weight of plastics entering the oceans, significantly mitigate global heating and contribute directly to 12 of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Achieving such results demands understanding and learning from historical evolution of WaRM. The baseline is 1970, prior to environmental legislation. Early steps in the Global North focused on the ‘technical fix’ within strictly enforced legal frameworks, first bringing hazardous wastes and municipal solid wastes (MSW) under control, then gradually ramping up environmental standards. Using modern technologies to the Global South often failed due to institutional and financial constraints. From 1990, focus switched to integrating technical and governance aspects: local institutional coherence, financial sustainability, provider inclusivity, user inclusivity, national legislative and policy framework. The Global North rediscovered recycling, using policy measures to promote segregation at source; this relied on new markets in emerging economies, which had largely disappeared by 2020. The Global South is making progress on bringing wastes under control, but around 2.7 billion people lack access to waste collection, while ~40% of collected MSW is open dumped or burned – a continuing global waste emergency. So, much remains to be done to move further towards a circular economy. Three policy priorities are critical for all countries: access to sustainable financing, rethinking sustainable recycling and worldwide extended producer responsibility with teeth. Extending services to unserved communities (SDG11.6.1) requires a people-centred approach, working with communities to provide both quality services and decent livelihoods for collection and recycling workers.

show abstract

Section: From 1980s – Ramping Up Technical Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the past to plan for the future: An historical review of the evolution of waste and resource management 1970–2020 and reflections on priorities 2020–2030 – The perspective of an involved witness

Wilson

2023

Waste Manag Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the plebiscite The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 47, no 2 (2003) held in Swan Hills, 79 percent of participating voters supported the proposal, thereby facilitating its development (notwithstanding opposition from Aboriginal residents in the region). As the firstever North American case of a community willingly accepting-indeed, even requesting-the siting of a noxious facility, Swan Hills became a precedent setter in the facility-siting literature (see, e.g., McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989;Paehlke and Torgerson 1992;Rabe 1992Rabe , 1994Fischer 1993;Dryzek 1997;Kuhn and Ballard 1998).…”

Section: Questioning Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps even more troubling has been the treatment of this precedent-setting case in the noxiousfacility-siting literature. In the many 'agreeable' reviews of the Swan Hills experience (see, e.g., McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989;Fischer 1993;Rabe 1992Rabe , 1994Dryzek 1997; Kuhn and Ballard 1998) the term 'community' is used unproblematically when, in truth, the bestowing of idealized community characteristics, such as an intense concern for the land, on the town is in fact problematic. Had this siting process been used in a community of people with greater attachment to and concern for the local environment, the outcome would likely have been very different.…”

Section: Questioning Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the credibility and capacity of community‐based resource management

Bradshaw

2003

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews and critiques a potential innovation in resource and environmental management as a means of stimulating further research and refinement. Given the perceived limitations of top‐down, centralized management of natural resources, calls for the devolution of authority for local resources to local communities have increasingly been expressed. Proponents of community‐based resource management argue that, situating decision‐making closer to the place of resource use and subjecting decision‐makers to the repercussions of their decisions creates the potential for more flexible and prudent resource management. Further, by empowering communities to develop their own strategies for local economic development, greater community stability may be achieved. However, neither of these potentials will be realized if the credibility and capacity of communities are assumed rather than interrogated. These hypothesized contingent conditions of effective community‐based resource management are described and illustrated based on two examples in western Canada in which communities have been empowered to determine the use of local resources: the siting of a hazardous‐waste treatment facility near the town of Swan Hills, Alberta; and the development of the Community Forest Pilot Project in British Columbia. These examples raise a series of concerns and questions that suggest a need for further, in‐depth investigation. Ultimately, by identifying barriers to effective community‐based resource management, a more refined model of this potentially innovative approach can be fostered. Cette dissertation étudie et critique une innovation potentielle quant à la gestion de l’environnement et des ressources dans le but de stimuler des recherches plus approfondies et d’affiner les résultats. Étant donné les limitations perçues d’une gestion centralisée et descendante des ressources naturelles, on demande de plus en plus fréquemment que les collectivités locales soient responsables de la gestion des ressources locales. Les partisans d’une gestion des ressources par les collectivités avancent qu’en rapprochant la prise de décision du lieu d’utilisation des ressources et en soumettant les décideurs aux répercussions de leurs décisions, on favorise potentiellement une gestion plus souple et plus prudente des ressources. De plus, en habilitant les collectivités à déterminer leurs propres stratégies de développement économique local, une plus grande stabilité des collectivités est possible. Toutefois, ni l’un ni l’autre de ces potentiels ne seront réalisés si l’on admet sans les mettre en question la crédibilité et la capacité de gestion de ces collectivités. Ces conditions contingentes d’une gestion efficace des ressources par les collectivités sont décrites et illustrées par deux exemples provenant de l’Ouest du Canada, où les communautés ont toute discrétion quant à l’utilisation des ressources locales : l’implantation d’un centre de traitement des déchets dangereux près de la ville de Swan Hills, dans l’Alberta, et l’exécution du ...

show abstract

Analysis of solid waste management systems in Alberta and British Columbia using provincial comparison

Bruce

Asha

2016

Can. J. Civ. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, waste management in Alberta (AB) and British Columbia (BC) from 1996 to 2010 are examined with respect to generation characteristics and management efficiency. The daily average waste generation rates in AB and BC were 3.34 kg/capita and 2.50 kg/capita, respectively. It was found that annual family income has a positive relation with residential waste generation in both provinces, as did the proportion of educated citizens. Gross domestic product was positively related to non-residential waste generation in AB, and negatively related in BC. Annual agricultural farm cash receipts were positively related to non-residential waste generation in both provinces, and AB’s industry earnings were significantly higher. Between 1998 and 2010, the average diversion rate in AB was 15.1%, and BC’s was 32.9%, which place them on opposing sides of the national average (23.4%). Total operating expenditures were similar in both provinces, yet BC’s waste diversion was more than double AB’s.

show abstract

Development and operation of a waste management system in Alberta, Canada

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Learning from the past to plan for the future: An historical review of the evolution of waste and resource management 1970–2020 and reflections on priorities 2020–2030 – The perspective of an involved witness

Learning from the past to plan for the future: An historical review of the evolution of waste and resource management 1970–2020 and reflections on priorities 2020–2030 – The perspective of an involved witness

Questioning the credibility and capacity of community‐based resource management

Analysis of solid waste management systems in Alberta and British Columbia using provincial comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About