VIABILITY OF WASTE TO ENERGY PROCESSES IN MEETING THE UK’S 2050

CLIMATE CHANGE TARGET

Author:

EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY, UK

Supervisor:
 Declaration

I, [Author's name], hereby declare that this dissertation titled " Viability of Waste to
Energy Processes in Meeting the UK’s 2050 Climate Change Target" is my original
work and has not been submitted to any educational institution or separately for another
degree or qualification. The study presented herein stands for my research work except
where otherwise stated, and it has been completed during the 2024 academic year. The
sources used or those that are referred to in this dissertation have been fully
acknowledged.

Signed: [Author's Signature]

Date: [Date of Submission]

1
 Acknowledgments
I first and foremost would like to thank everyone who in one way or other has helped me
to complete this dissertation. First and foremost, I want to express my deep appreciation
to my supervisors for their excellent mentoring guidance, support and encouragement
that I received during the research. They, experts and professionals, are the ones who
have a big influence on how this work has been carried out. In addition, I would like to
send my thanks to all the instructors and staff of Edinburgh Napier University who kindly
provided their help and expertise during the course of my research. I owe a lot to my
workmates and friends who have kept me cheerful and boosted me whenever I seemed
to be feeling down.

I am deeply grateful to my workplace supervisors for the moral and financial assistance
they provided for this research project. Without their stalwart support, this dissertation
would have been really hard if not impossible. I would also like to extend my sincere

2
regards to the participants of this study for giving their time and their cooperation. Their
insights have added colour to the research results and helped in making the research
findings solid and deep. In addition to this, I owe much gratitude to my family who have
been always supportive, encouraging and understanding during my whole journey. They
are the pillar that I draw strength and encouragement from.

Thank you so much for all your help and kindness.

Abstract
The dissertation analyses the potential of the Waste to Energy (WtE) processes to
achieve 2050 climate change objectives in the United Kingdom. In a mixed-methods
approach combining methodological triangulation of quantitative surveys and qualitative
interviews, the study provides an in-depth examination of the advantages and
disadvantages WtE technologies in the wider political agenda of environmental
sustainability and policymaking. Research findings indicate that the plant operators
have mastered both the drawbacks and potential of WtE as their technical capabilities
improved. Although WtE is considered as an important step in UK’s move towards a
low-carbon economy, there are a number of issues that need to be
resolved. Methodological pitfalls, which emphasise the balance of quantitative and
qualitative data collection methods indicate the need for a better approach in
succeeding research. Further on, the research brings two constraints, geographical and
demographic which underscores the need for further study including a wider geography
and more diverse population. Through a wider variety of stakeholders and perspectives,
future studies will arrive at a more holistic view of the social, economic, and

3
environmental effects of WtE technologies. The dynamic nature of environmental
problems and the unstable environment policy landscape is an additional point which is
also discussed in the dissertation. In the future, straightening out the research may
include designing long-term studies to capture changing technologies, policy settings,
and socio-economic factors. This way, scientists and lawmakers will be able to generate
stronger and more robust solutions for incorporating WtE approaches into the overall
climate mitigation plan. This dissertation, therefore, presents a crucial basis for research
and policy interventions aimed at driving climate change mitigation and sustainable
development through WtE technologies. When WtE technologies are collectively utilized
and the decisions are well-informed, it can lead to the optimal future that has
sustainability and resilience for the United Kingdom and beyond.

Contents
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................1
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................................2
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................5
1.1 Research Background................................................................................................................5
1.2 Research Problem.......................................................................................................................8
1.3 Research Questions....................................................................................................................8
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives...................................................................................................9
1.5 Significance of the study...........................................................................................................9
1.6 Glossary of Key Terms.............................................................................................................10
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................12
2.1Theoretical Framework..............................................................................................................12
2.1.1 The Waste Hierarchy Framework....................................................................................12
2.1.2 A pragmatic theory for sustainable waste management...........................................14
2.2 Conceptual Literature...............................................................................................................15
2.2.1 Municipal solid waste in the UK......................................................................................16

4
 2.2.2 Waste Management in the UK..........................................................................................17
2.2.3 Energy and Climate Change in UK.................................................................................18
2.2.4 Waste recovery technologies in the UK........................................................................21
[Link] Thermal Conversion........................................................................................................22
[Link] Thermochemical Conversion........................................................................................22
[Link] Biochemical Conversion................................................................................................23
2.2.5 Benefits and challenges of waste recovery technologies in the UK......................24
2.3 Empirical Literature...................................................................................................................26
2.4 Gaps in Existing Literature......................................................................................................33
2.5 Summary of chapter..................................................................................................................34
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................35
3.1 Research Philosophy....................................................................................................................35
3.2 Research Design....................................................................................................................36
3.2.1 Research Approach............................................................................................................36
3.2.2 Research Strategy..............................................................................................................36
3.3 Sampling......................................................................................................................................37
3.3.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................37
3.3.2 Sampling Population..........................................................................................................37
3.3.3 Sample Size..........................................................................................................................37
3.3.4 Sampling Technique..........................................................................................................39
3.3.5 Research Participant..........................................................................................................39
3.4 Data Analysis and Presentation.........................................................................................40
3.5 Potential Limitations to the Research...................................................................................41
3.6 Ethical Implications...................................................................................................................42
3.7 Chapter Summary......................................................................................................................43
4.0 Results and Analysis....................................................................................................................44
4.1 Sample..........................................................................................................................................44
4.2 Data Collection and Analysis..................................................................................................45
4.2.1 Questionnaire......................................................................................................................45
4.2.2 Interviews..............................................................................................................................50
4.3 Summary......................................................................................................................................53
5.0 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................54
5.1 Effectiveness of WtE technologies........................................................................................54

5
 5.2 Measures for improved WtE....................................................................................................56
6.0 Limitations, Recommendations for Future Studies and Conclusion................................58
6.1 Limitations...................................................................................................................................59
6.2 Recommendations for future studies...................................................................................59
6.3 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................59
7.0 References.......................................................................................................................................61
8.0 Appendices......................................................................................................................................67
Survey.................................................................................................................................................67
Interviews...........................................................................................................................................83
Questionnaire....................................................................................................................................84
Site visit (Pics)...................................................................................................................................90

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

The world has witnessed rapid growth in urbanisation, industrialisation, technological

evolutions, and many other dramatic changes. These shifts have placed great pressure
on businesses as they strive to adapt to the changing complex environments and stay
profitable. Concurrent with the increasing pressure from the stakeholders who have
become increasingly aware of the importance of environmental sustainability,
governments put businesses under pressure to practice sustainable practices to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and comply with the climate action goals (Minhas,
Gerassimidou and Iacovidou, 2023; Subiza-Pérez et al., 2023). Compared to the recent
past, the world today has reached a state where it is inevitable to develop sustainable

6
cities by utilising and conserving the available resources while strategically tackling
environmental issues. Unfortunately, human actions deter this outcome. According to
Farghali et al. (2023), about two-thirds of global warming is driven by human action,
particularly the unconventional consumption of energy. Other major drivers include
excessive pollution from the transport sector, factories, commercial buildings,
households, and even energy generation plants. Implementing effective policy
frameworks should be able to address these challenges and the rising issue of waste
growth (Anandarajah and Strachan, 2010).

Across many cities, a multifactorial challenge that governments are struggling to tackle
is municipal solid waste (MSW). This is a major issue that exacerbates climate change
and global warming. According to Abubakar et al. (2022), global municipal solid waste
increased from 1.3 billion tonnes in 2012 to 2.1 billion tonnes in 2016. In the UK, waste
levels have been stubbornly high in the past. A large portion of the waste is municipal
and business waste; municipal solid waste increased by around 3.5% per year over the
last millennium but has slowed down in recent years (Jamasb and Nepal, 2010). For
years, landfills have remained the widely used waste management technique in the UK.
In 2018, over 50.8 million tonnes of municipal solid waste ended up in landfills (Minhas,
Gerassimidou and Iacovidou, 2023). In an effort to shift focus to more environmentally
friendly methods, the UK government introduced a Landfill Tax in 1996. However, the
landfills have remained vast in the country, triggering the need for tax increment. As of
2023, any waste that is taken to landfills is charged £102.10 per tonne, an increase from
£98.60 per tonne in 2022 (HMRC, 2023). Even with these interventions, the municipal
waste management problems have persisted. Marti and Puertas (2021) claim that the
country has achieved a drastic shift toward incineration, and in recent years, waste-to-
energy recovery techniques seem to have gained more recognition and adoption.

As of 2018, recycling and recovery methods became the most commonly preferred
final-stage waste treatment methods in England, accounting for over 96.5 million tonnes
of waste (DEFRA, 2022). Landfills were second, with over 44 million tonnes of waste,
followed by land and water treatment at 17 million and backfilling at 11 million tonnes.
Waste-to-energy (WtE) recovery accounted for only 7 million tonnes. Although WtE

7
techniques are not as common as other approaches, a number of studies have found
them to be one of the most effective approaches for mitigating the rising waste levels
(Huckelba and Van Lange, 2020; Kulkarni and Anantharama, 2022; Rezania et al.,
2023). WtE has emerged as a crucial solution for waste treatment (Cui, Wei and Ji,
2024). WtE technologies are advanced waste management processes that are
integrated to treat waste while concurrently recovering usable energy – heat and
electricity (Rezania et al., 2023). These solutions are a resourceful alternative for
helping the UK meet its 2050 climate action goals, specifically its zealous ambition to
achieve net zero carbon emission.

The UK implemented a 25-year Environment Plan in 2018 that set out the
environmental goals the country targets to achieve. This plan was revised at the end of
2023 and dubbed the ‘Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP)’. This policy framework
also originates from the Environment Act 2021, which describes long-term, legally
binding targets for restoring the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of the
same. The EIP highlights ten key targets that are pillars of the UK government’s climate
change action plan, the central goal being to achieve recovery from the negative impact
of climate change and global warming on the country. One of the key deliverables set
out by the plan is the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measure. According to
the EPR approach, as explained by DEFRA (2022), every producer is responsible for
developing measures to ensure and finance waste management associated with their
products or materials. Similarly, the EIP contains Renewable Obligation (RO) that
encourages electricity generation companies to transition to renewable energy sources.
Compounded with these measures are the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
(RTFO), whose role is to facilitate the decarbonisation of the transport sector, and the
Renewable Heat Programme (RHP), which aims to incentivise households to implement
renewable energy consumption sources. All these policy measures, among others not
listed, seek to achieve one common goal: to help the UK achieve its 2050 climate
change targets synchronous with the Net Zero energy transition initiative. Crucially, the
UK government has aligned these targets with the UN’s Sustainable Development

8
Goals with the aim of achieving environmental sustainability and the general well-being
of the people.

The UK government has set several caps, such as carbon footprint, to curb greenhouse
emissions, including those from waste management processes. Although the UK is on
the right path as per the recent review by the Green Alliance (2023), and conventional
methods like incineration have offered greater input in achieving positive progress with
its targets, various challenges and barriers exist. These range from lack of adequate
support, poor incentives for WtE firms, and annoyingly high costs, among others.
Besides, there are concerns as to whether these techniques could be counterproductive
and have negative repercussions on people and the ecosystem. However, a number of
researchers have highlighted that even though waste-to-energy recovery methods have
concerns, they have promising potential (Minhas, Gerassimidou and Iacovidou, 2023;
Rezania et al., 2023; Subiza-Pérez et al. 2023). There is a need for more studies that
critically evaluate the effectiveness of waste-to-energy processes and provide more
insights that could help shed light on the viability of WtE processes in helping the UK
achieve its 2050 climate change targets. This study seeks to fill this specific knowledge
gap.

1.2 Research Problem

Despite the far-reaching benefits of waste recovery, there is limited understanding of the
effectiveness, social impact, feasibility, and environmental implications of WtE
processes in the context of the UK’s 2050 climate change targets. Moreover, it is
unclear whether certain WtE methods do more harm than good. For instance,
incineration is a viable alternative to landfilling, but evidence suggests that it results in
an increase in greenhouse emissions by nearly 3% (Minhas, Gerassimidou and
Iacovidou 2023). Subiza-Pérez et al. (2023) also noted that people living near WtE
plants are concerned about the impact of the emissions and heat levels on their health,

9
including concerns about cancer and inhalation problems. However, these problems are
common in plants that have old technologies. Although no evidence has found most of
the concerns to be practically true with plants that strictly adhere to the set standards
and have implemented new innovative technologies, these concerns cannot be ignored.
Besides these apprehensions, Rezania et al. (2023) highlight the plight of many
companies, identifying several barriers, including unsupportive policy measures and
highly costly capacity expansion requirements. In regards to the alignment with the UK’s
policy framework, according to Jamasb and Nepal (2010), the government’s approach is
rather a flexible strategy than a stringent waste management policy. All these issues
imply the need to assess whether waste-to-energy processes can be a viable option in
such an environment or whether they pose more harm than good.

1.3 Research QuestionsTo what extent is the energy from waste technology in the UK
effective?
1. How can energy from waste technology help the UK meet its climate change target?
2. What are the benefits and challenges of energy from waste technologies in the UK?
3. What possible measures can be taken to improve the existing energy recovery
technologies to meet the UK’s 2050 climate change target?1.4 Research Aim and
Objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate the viability of waste-to-energy conversion

technologies in meeting the United Kingdom’s 2050 climate change targets. To achieve
this aim, the research will address the following objectives:
1) To understand the waste-to-energy technology processes in the United Kingdom
2) To assess the effectiveness of waste-to-energy technology in the United Kingdom
3) To investigate whether the energy from waste technology can help the UK meet its
2050 climate change target
4) To evaluate secondary literature evidence and link with the primary findings to
propose possible ways of improving this technology in meeting the UK’s 2050
climate change target

10
1.5 Significance of the study

Effective waste management and environmental sustainability are key targets for
countries, as they are considered vital for ecological well-being at large. Hence, it is
needed to address the impeding risks of growing waste disposal, stemming from
urbanisation and rapid industrialisation, on the ecological environment. This study will
provide insights to policymakers by weighing the environmental implications of waste
generation in the UK and its economic development in terms of the 2050 climate set
goals. The findings of this study will also help the UK government agencies,
environmental conservation organisations, waste management and energy recovery
companies and other stakeholders to understand ways in which the existing innovation
of energy production from waste as secondary raw material is playing a role in helping
the UK meet its climate change goals. This research will also attempt to proffer possible
improvements in energy recovery technologies and draw a conclusion on the potential
of new systems for climate change mitigation, contributing insights to innovative
companies (Anandarajah and Strachan, 2010) . The UN commissioned 17 SDGs in
2015 with the goal of achieving worldwide sustainable development across three major
dimensions: environmental, economic and social stability. These goals are nuanced and
interlinked purposively to end poverty, hunger, and climate change while improving
access to health and education needs, as well as promoting equality and economic and
sustainable development, among other aims. Waste management is a broad aspect
cutting across multiple sectors and many target areas of sustainability in the UN’s SDG
(Bhadouria et al. 2023).

1.6 Glossary of Key Terms

The keywords in this study are briefly described as given below:

 Climate action: Initiatives and measures undertaken by individuals,

organisations, governments and international institutions to address climate
change and its impacts.

11
  Carbon footprint: The amount of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide
(CO2), emitted either directly or indirectly over a specified period of time by
individuals or organisations.
 Circular Economy: An economic model concerned with increasing resource
efficiency, minimising waste, and optimising the conversion and consumption of
energy.
 Environmental sustainability: The maintenance of environmental quality,
ensuring that ecological balance and biodiversity are preserved.
 Incineration: A waste management process where waste is heated at high
temperatures in facilities known as incinerators so as to convert the waste to
either gases, ash or heat energy.
 Landfilling: A waste management practice where solid waste is buried in dug
pits or designated areas called landfill sites. The waste is isolated so as to
mitigate its impact on the environment and public health in general.
 Pyrolysis: A thermal process that involves heating organic materials, such as
biomass, at high temperatures so as to convert them to gases, liquids, and solid
residues for either energy recovery or heat recovery.
 Recovery: The process of extracting energy or any useful materials from waste
before disposal. It involves methods such as recycling, composting, and energy
recovery from waste materials.
 Recycling: The process of collecting, sorting, and converting waste materials
into raw materials or new products, therefore minimising environmental pollution.
 Sustainable cities: Urban centres designed and developed with environmentally
beneficial standards
 Municipal solid waste: The non-hazardous waste generated by households,
commercial establishments, and institutions consisting of commonly used items
such as food waste, paper, and plastics, among other materials.
 Waste to energy: Processes that involve technology whereby solid waste is
converted to energy in the form of heat, electricity or fuel, therefore reducing the
amount of waste and, hence mitigating environmental impacts.

1.7 Structure of the Thesis

12
The structure of the remaining part of the thesis is as follows:

Chapter Two: This part presents an extensive conceptual, empirical, and theoretical
literature review.
Chapter Three: The following section is devoted to research methodology. First of all,
an introduction to the ideal ground of research philosophy is given. This is followed by a
methodological critique of the research design and approach using methodological
review. Further, the chapter shows the sampling method and a rationale of the sample
population. Here, we also examine the limitations of the research methodology and the
study validity. We do so, bearing in mind the academic research ethics.
Chapter Four: This section presents the results of a survey and analysis of primary
data. Fundamentally, this chapter link the research problem, the questions, and the
hypothesis to the secondary data presented in the literature review.
Chapter Five: This chapter draws a conclusion. The section commences with the
statement of the study questions and hypothesis. A short restatement of the study
findings and their relevance to the target audience follows this.
Chapter Six: In this chapter, the research limitations are critically evaluated.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

As the UK intensifies its efforts to meet its 2050 climate change targets, researchers are
increasingly interested in evaluating how various approaches could be of help. Waste
recovery technologies have been investigated by numerous researchers and have been
found to be potential solutions for helping countries mitigate the rising waste
management issues. However, there are limited studies that have specifically
investigated the viability of these solutions in meeting the UK’s climate change targets.
In this section, the researcher explores various themes and evidence that could offer
more insights into the viability, feasibility, and effectiveness of these innovative

13
solutions. The chapter will also evaluate the gaps in the existing literature and explore
challenges and opportunities that future studies, including this, should consider
addressing. Conclusively, this chapter will offer a solid foundation for the subsequent
chapters, more especially chapter four of primary data analysis.

2.1Theoretical Framework

Investigating the viability of waste-to-energy recovery in meeting the UK’s climate

change targets of 2050 requires a robust theoretical framework. In this section of the
literature review, two theoretical frameworks are explored within the context of
sustainable waste management: the Waste Hierarchy Framework and Pragmatism
Theory. The former highlights the waste treatment options, while the latter addresses
the practical significance and adaptive measures for sustainable waste control. A
combination of these two concepts helps to understand the viability of waste-to-energy
recovery technologies in achieving the Environmental Improvement Plan’s goals.

2.1.1 The Waste Hierarchy Framework

Waste management in the United Kingdom is primarily founded on the “waste

hierarchy” framework. (DEFRA, 2022). According to the framework, prevention of waste
is the most ideal strategy, while disposal is the least preferable approach based on their
environmental impact and influence on the circular economy. The waste hierarchy was
conceptualised in 1975 by the EU as a framework for waste management, providing
foundational insights for designing waste management policies and interventions
(Münster and Lund, 2010). It has since then become the foundation upon which the
UK’s waste management policies are based on.

14
Figure 2.1: Waste Hierarchy (DEFRA, 2022)

Velenturf and Purnell (2017) argue that even if this framework is strictly followed, it may
not provide a long-term sustainable solution to managing the surging waste growth.
Based on the argument that prevention is more environmentally friendly than recovery
or reuse in a typical universe, all waste would be prevented. However, in reality, due to
various practical, economic, and social reasons, this only remains a theoretical
conceptualisation (Münster and Lund, 2010). In most cases, where prevention does not
work, reuse or recycling are the ideal measures. Although this research acknowledges
that prevention, reuse and recycling methods remain critical measures in the waste
management hierarchy, they are not versatile methods for complex municipal solid
waste and some waste that cannot be recycled. Therefore, it can be argued that
prevention is rather an intervention that merely focuses on the production side and does
not extend to the actual phases where waste is generated through consumption or use.
As Jamas and Nepal (2010) stated, according to the ‘Waste hierarchy’, the typical
stages in the process of conventional waste management are reuse or recycling.
However, these alone do not offer promising results. Other disposal and recovery
methods that utilise techniques like gasification and pyrolysis have proven to be more
effective.

Arguably, the waste hierarchy framework does not offer interventions beyond waste
reuse and recycling. While these methods are environmentally friendly alternatives, they
do not yield greater results on certain types of waste (Jamas and Nepal 2010). In recent

15
decades, the concept of waste recovery has gained recognition as a more versatile
waste management option that not only helps to minimise the negative impacts of waste
on the environment but also yields heat and energy (Münster and Lund, 2010). Due to
the concerns of contamination of groundwater and the scarcity of land to support the
process of landfilling, the UK government has embarked on the construction of massive
WtE plants (Kulkarni and Anantharama, 2022). Waste-to-energy recovery methods
offer wide-ranging solutions to waste management compared to traditional methods,
with some methods, such as gasification, offering not only waste-to-energy recovery but
also waste-to-products. Nevertheless, it is crucial to evaluate the viability of the
effectiveness of recovery methods in meeting the UK’s 2050 climate change targets with
an approach that provides a nuanced understanding of the economic, environmental
and social implications of waste.

2.1.2 A pragmatic theory for sustainable waste management

The UK, and the world at large, is facing practical and grievous challenges.
Sustainability has emerged as a concept to address the salient issues of environmental
degradation and climate change, as well as inequality. A majority of these issues are
multifactorial but primarily are a result of human actions, especially through commercial
and industrial activities. As the negative impact of waste persists, it is important to build
upon knowledge that integrates the beliefs, social experiences, and concerns of multiple
stakeholders. Pragmatism is a philosophical framework that underpins the importance
of real-life experience in generating theory, views, and beliefs (Okrusch, 2010; Baker
and Schaltegger, 2015). Pragmatism theory stresses the need to provide ‘true’ and ‘fair’
knowledge about structural systems (Campos and Vaz, 2021). It also focuses on
understanding the process through which people come to understand the problems they
are facing. In relation to environmental and waste management, this philosophy
underpins the need for the development of policies that promote social cooperation and
adaptation. An extreme of the pragmatic philosophy, which is critical in understanding
the role of different stakeholders in the formulation of waste management policies, is the
environmental pragmatism framework. This concept holds that real and pressing
environmental problems should be addressed through practical and meaningful

16
approaches involving moral deliberations with multiple stakeholders (Okrusch 2010).
Katz and Light (1996) buttressed that environmental pragmatism is the new strategy for
sustainable environmental management. This concept argues that dwelling on the
imperatives of theoretical arguments hinders the ability to implement sustainable
interventions. It goes beyond theory and advocates for research into the benefits of
moral pluralism. Moral pluralism posits that there may not be a single, universally
accepted ethical decision-making theory (Campos and Vaz, 2021). It urges
policymakers to apply normative moral reasoning. Although, at times, different views
may conflict, integrating different perceptions based on reality increases the adaptive
capacity. Environmental pragmatism, therefore, allows the shift from theoretical debates
to sectorial word thoughts, discussions and solutions to practical issues prevailing in the
waste management and the energy sectors (Katz and Light 1996). However, this does
not mean that theoretical debates should be avoided in their entirety. It is important to
increase engagement with stakeholders and minimise unnecessary theoretical debates
so as to achieve political consensus quickly (Campos and Vaz, 2021). This enables
policymakers to develop measures that take note of the real-life concerns and
challenges impacting the achievement of effective waste management and the UK’s
ability to achieve its environmental recovery goals.

2.2 Conceptual Literature

This section shall critically identify and discuss the key themes and concepts relating to
waste-to-energy technologies in the context of meeting the UK’s 2050 climate change
targets. The section begins by providing an overview of municipal solid waste in the UK.
It then proceeds with the critical assessment of the waste management strategies in the
UK, followed by an overview of the WtE methods that are employed in the country to
offer sustainable solutions to waste growth. Included in this chapter, also, is a
discussion of the benefits and challenges, as well as opportunities, as investigated in
previous studies by other scholars.

17
2.2.1 Municipal solid waste in the UK

It has been observed that the increase in urban population has fuelled increased
consumption of inputs, such as energy resources, food, and other products,
subsequently leading to increased outputs in the form of waste (Bhadouria et al., 2023).
Urban metabolism, the processes through which urban cities convert energy, resources,
and minerals into the built-in environment and waste, has borne the municipal solid
waste (MSW) challenge. MSW is a global environmental crisis, and the need for
effective waste management is imperative across all countries, including the United
Kingdom. Residual waste, non-hazardous waste material such as plastic cans that
cannot be reused, accounts for a large portion of the UK’s MSW (Minhas, Gerassimidou
and Iacovidou, 2023). Unfortunately, a significant percentage of this waste ends up in
landfills. For years, the UK has been relying on dumpsites as the primary waste
management technique (Kabir and Kabir, 2022). In 2018, over 44 million tonnes of
MSW were dumped in landfills. The combustion of MSW at landfills has been the major
relied-upon solution, dating back to the 19th century (Kumar et al., 2021). Landfills have
several severe consequences on the environment and human life, such as health risks,
contamination of soil and destruction of natural habitats, emission of unpleasant odours,
and high costs of maintenance. In the 20 th century, regulated landfills were equipped to
treat contaminated water and generate some biogas. In recent decades, the
government introduced a mixture of measures to reduce overreliance on landfills and
encourage the shift to more reliable methods of waste management. Compelled by the
increasing scarcity of resources and the increasing harm of landfills on people and
biodiversity, the UK government has made significant efforts to advance other methods
of waste management (Kulkarni and Anantharama, 2022). In recent years, it has been
observed that the shift has been increasingly directed toward waste recovery
interventions Kabir and Kabir (2022). WtE are alternative recovery solutions that provide
broad benefits, enabling the country to counter the rising waste issues while at the
same time generating useful outputs in the form of energy and respective byproducts.
Nevertheless, some techniques also have concerns like increasing emissions from the
incineration processes. Anandarajah and Strachan (2010) argued that proper waste

18
management policy interventions should address the correlation between economic
growth and waste growth.

2.2.2 Waste Management in the UK

The priority of the UK government’s Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) is to

maximise the utilisation of resources and reverse the degradation of the natural
environment, particularly by minimising waste. By 2050, the government targets to
achieve a 100% Net Zero transition and to leave future generations with a state that is
free of avoidable plastic waste (DEFRA, 2022). The government aims to create a more
robust circular economy where resources are used optimally. Waste management
policies in the UK are generally implemented by the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). DEFRA has various interventions to control and minimise
the reliance on landfills, encouraging recycling and recovery. One way the authority has
achieved this is through the implementation of a Landfill Tax. This tax was enacted by
the government in 1996 and has since played a pivotal role in discouraging improper
waste management and landfill overflow. However, landfilling has remained a concern
for years. In order to achieve improvement, the landfilling rates have increased annually
by nearly 8 pounds per tonne since 2011 (Kabir and Kabir 2022). Currently, as of 2023,
the landfill tax is £102.10 per tonne (HMRC, 2023). Due to these interventions, there
has been a gradual decline in landfilling. According to DEFRA (2022), the gradual
increase of Landfill Tax has caused total waste in control of municipal authorities to
decline from 79% in 2000/01 to 8% of total treated wastes in 2018. However, the total
amount of waste sent to recycling plants has increased significantly to 41% from 12%. A
greater proportion of waste sent to incineration plants has also increased to 48% from
9% (DEFRA, 2022). There has been remarkable progress so far, but the achievements
can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of multiple authorities and stakeholders.

The main regulator of waste management in the UK is the Environmental Agency. This
agency determines, through case-by-case analysis, the issue of permits for waste
recovery or disposal. Waste collection, on the other hand, is regulated by waste
collection authorities (WCA) with the oversight of district councils. WCAs were formed to

19
ensure waste collectors adhere to the provisions of the Environment Act of 2021 that
dictate how waste is separated and prepared for either recycling, reuse, or recovery.
Another key area is the regulation of waste disposal. Waste Disposal Authority (WDA)
play the crucial role of managing how waste collected by municipal authorities is
disposed of and treated. The combined efforts by these government agencies,
government and non-government environmental protection bodies, and other
stakeholders help to achieve the government’s waste reduction targets (Kabir and Kabir
2022).

The UK government published the Resources and Waste Strategy in 2018 to ensure
greater compliance in waste collection and disposal. This policy’s primary goals are to
achieve zero food waste, avoidable plastics and waste, to improve the municipal waste
recycling rate by 65%, and to ensure that waste sent to landfills does not exceed 10%,
all to be achieved before 2050 (DEFRA, 2021). The strategy sets out a framework to
help authorities, businesses, and the general public, work collaboratively in minimising
the negative impacts of waste on the environment and ecosystem. To support this
strategy, the government also implemented the ‘polluter pays principle’ that requires
that the cost of pollution be borne by those that cause it rather than those that are
impacted. Based on this principle, the costs of waste pollution are to be borne by the
original producers of the waste producers or the subsequent waste holders (DEFRA,
2021). These strategies are among the several interventions that the UK government
has adopted to achieve enhanced waste management across the country.

2.2.3 Energy and Climate Change in UK

Responding to the dual challenge and abatement of energy poverty and climate crises,
the UK government submitted it NDC in accordance with the Paris agreement to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), via the Climate
Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, to cut emission by 68% in
2030 using 1990 as baseline and achieving a NetZero emission status by 2050 (UK
wide). Nonetheless, Scotland aims to achieve this 5years earlier in 2045, Scotland act
(2019) with interim reduction of 75% in 2030, Northern Ireland 48%, the Northern
Ireland Act (2022) and Wales 63%, through Wales regulation (2021). The policies for

20
zero emission are accessed by the parliamentary committee, scrutinized by the climate
change committee (ccc) while the spending is audited by the NAO. Table 2.1 elucidates
the projection of the CO2 reduction to the 1990 baseline up to 2037 by year.

Table 2.1: The UK 12-year Carbon budget as to the reduction in the 1990 baseline.
Source: UK NetZero Policy Tracker (2023), June Update.

7 Carbon budgets the UK can emit in a five-year period.

Year Emission Cap % Reduction to 1990

baseline
2008 to 2012 3,018 MtCO2e 26%

2013 to 2017 2,782 MtCO2e 32%

2018 to 2022 2,544 MtCO2e. 38%

2023 to 2027 1,950 MtCO2e 52%

2028 to 2032 1,725 MtCO2e 58%

2033 to 2037 965 MtCO2e 78%

2038 to 2042 To be set in 2025

Court Case filed against the UK government “2021 Net Zero Strategy”: The UK
government developed and implemented a strategy through a collection of initiatives
outlined in the Net Zero Strategy (2021) which was published on November 8th, 2020.
The Strategy intend to expand upon broader government policies, namely the ten-point
plan for a green industrial revolution, prioritizing innovation, green financing, and
environmental protection. Though On July 18th, 2022, the English High Court ruled that
the 2021 Net Zero Strategy was "insufficient" and "unlawful" in reaching the 2050 net
zero objective, in response to a challenge made against the UK Government by Friends
of the Earth, ClientEarth, and the Good Law Project. On March 30, 2023, the
government released an updated list of promises. Following the high court's ruling and
the independent assessment the government was asked to provide details on how its
policies will help achieve the 2050 NetZero aim. The 2021 Net Zero Strategy was

21
updated with the Net Zero Growth Plan (2023), which emphasized the implementation
and scaling up of technology for decarbonizing transportation, industry, housing, and
electricity. UK NetZero Policy Tracker (2023).

The Progress on the UK Climate Change Target. In the (UK) Progress Report for
June 2023, it expressed a declining level of confidence that the UK will fulfil its mid-term
goals by the year 2050. This indicated that the UK was not on pace to meet its NetZero
carbon target, with only confirmed policies covering 28% of the required emission cuts
and no policies covering 13% of the required reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Of
the required reductions, 29% are covered by policies that are currently undergoing
consultation, while 21% are only the government's overarching goals without any
measures in place. Below are some of the findings from the UK June 2023 assessment
of the development of climate change, which emphasizes the possibility that the
government may fall short of achieving its net zero objective even if it is reaffirmed due
to policy gaps. In order to ensure that the UK meets its legal obligations to avert the
disastrous effects of climate change, much faster action is required. The longer policy
gaps exist, the more difficult, objectives will be to achieve. Most industries have gaps
that require new policies to guarantee there is no failure to create or deliver on current
policies. Current observation as explained in Table 2.2 below shows waste have no new
plan to address the 18% emission from fluorinated gases and waste, on the other hand
Carbon capture utilisation and storage has helped the industrial sector decently
progress towards emission reduction.

Table 2.1: findings from the UK June 2023 assessment. Source: UK NetZero Policy
Tracker (2023).s

Sector Observation
Waste and The 18% of emissions from this sector are not being addressed by
Fluorinated any new legislation, and the majority of the measures put up in this
gases parliament are still being consulted.
Industry The funding of 5 Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage initiatives
relating to industry with projected emissions from decreased oil and

22
 gas refineries is principally responsible for the progress.
Transport transport industry in a more difficult situation than anticipated.
Power Of all the sectors, the power industry has the best chance of
achieving the necessary emissions reduction objectives.
Three months subsequent to the June progress report, on September 20, 2023,
presenting the government's "new approach to Net Zero” Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
speech.

“An approach to achieving Net Zero is one that is more reasonable and pragmatic, with
emphasizes on energy efficiency, embracing the amazing potential of the green
industry, and taking the necessary concrete actions to establish whole new industries
productively creating huge stream of well-paying jobs across the nation. Our
exceptional capacity to create new technologies that benefit the entire globe is one of
the most potent contributions we can make”. UK NetZero Policy Tracker (2023).

The “New” UK Energy Act 2023, and DEFRA Strategy: With the goal of delivering
cleaner, affordable, and secure energy production," the Energy Act 2023 was passed
ten years after the previous Energy Act of 2013. Developed from the British Energy
Security Strategy (2022) which pledge to invest in domestic energy from a wider range
of sources. This will reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, mitigate the danger of high
costs in global markets, and preserve the robustness of the UK's energy supply. (The
UK's Plans and Progress to Reach Net Zero by 2050). Subsequently from DEFRA
(2018) the strategy outlines waste reduction, encouraged resource efficiency, and
transition to a circular economy in order to protect the stock of material resources.

2.2.4 Waste recovery technologies in the UK

Waste-to-energy technologies provide solutions to the waste disposal of industrial

sludge, municipal cities, and medical hazardous waste. These solutions turn solid,
gaseous, and liquid wastes into a form of energy and other output products that can be
beneficial to daily economic activities, like in the transportation and electricity sectors
(Hoang et al., 2022). Energy recovery in this context is the process of converting non-

23
recyclable waste materials into something useful while considering its effects on the
environment and people, and its impact on the economy. Waste-to-energy conversation
technologies are classified into thermal, thermochemical, and biochemical methods. A
critical evaluation of these commonly used WtE techniques in the UK is given below.

[Link] Thermal Conversion

The thermal conversion method involves an application of direct heat as the leading
mechanism for waste material to generate energy. The thermal process reduces the
byproducts while producing higher-quality with high energy content bioenergy products
through optimisation. The most commonly used technology in this method is
incineration, where waste is burnt at higher temperatures ranging between 800
Degrees Celsius to 1200 Degrees Celsius (Kamaruddin et al., 2023). The waste
treatment technology can reduce the waste mass and volume by 70% and 90%,
respectively, while ensuring heat and power are generated. Different wastes can be
processed in this particular technology including organic, paper, and plastic waste. The
products from the incinerator are gases, ash, and heat. In the waste gas system, gas
products such as nitrogen, water vapour, and carbon dioxide from the incineration
process are managed and treated to reduce their impact on the environment.

[Link] Thermochemical Conversion

Thermochemical waste-to-energy conversion technology uses chemical reactions

together with heat to produce energy-rich products. The conversion process can be
taken under an oxygenic or anoxygenic atmosphere. Generally, the integration of
different thermochemical technologies improves the efficiency of energy recovery from
waste. Processes involved in this method include gasification and pyrolysis, and the
potential energy types include electricity, liquid fuels, heat, and steam. The difference
between these two methods is the amount of oxygen used in each process. The
pyrolysis process doesn’t involve air, while gasification involves the presence of air.
Gasification uses MSW as fuel and involves a limited supply of oxygen to prevent a
complete combustion process. Gasification is generally considered in place of

24
incineration because its products get treated or rather cleaned before being used. This
approach prevents greenhouse gas emissions to the environment, reducing pollution
than traditional incinerators. The municipal waste is converted into syngas at high
temperatures, which can be applied in various industries, including fertilisation and
transportation, which is an alternative to natural gas (Tsekos, 2024). The process is
capable of handling non-recyclable plastics efficiently while preventing the emission of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, not all materials are effective for
gasification. Therefore, proper sorting should be employed to minimise potential risks
associated with poor handling or pre-processing. According to Oliveira et al. (2022),
plasma gasification is a recent technological advancement that uses plasma torches to
improve the gasification process, including controlling temperatures and conversion
rates, leading to overall improvement and diversification of its applicability.
The pyrolysis process takes place without the presence of oxygen using a catalyst to
produce pyrolysis oils or bio-oils and gases (Cui et al., 2024). The components in the
end product include carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. Pyrolysis is critical in
manufacturing, such as the production of ethylene applications. The products of this
process differ from those of gasification. Pyrolysis products include heat and
combustible liquid and gas, while the products of gasification are heat and combustible
gas. In terms of end products, gasification includes water vapour, which is not available
in the pyrolysis. Additionally, the heat temperatures in pyrolysis range between 350-600
degrees Celsius, while in gasification, 800-1200 degrees Celsius (Tsekos, 2024).
Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) involves an acid catalyst and high temperatures
(180-250°C) to turn wet organic waste into hydrochar, which is analogous to fossil fuels.
Rich in carbon, hydrochar has benefits over coal mining and can be used as fuel or as a
coal alternative (Maniscalco et al., 2020). It can be used in gasification and improves
the condition of the soil. HTC allows for speedier processing because it does not require
pre-treating feedstock, unlike pyrolysis. This environmentally beneficial process
effectively uses wet waste, aiding in trash management and the creation of sustainable
energy.

25
[Link] Biochemical Conversion

This technological method consists of anaerobic digestion and fermentation which uses
biological processes to break down organic waste materials to produce results.
Microorganisms are utilised to aid energy production from waste and produce electricity.
The end products include biogas, bioethanol, and biohydrogen beneficial for managing
solid waste. The pre-treatment of biomass improves conversion efficiency. Sustainable
waste management relies heavily on biochemical processes, which convert trash into
bioenergy sources. Because of their adaptability, they may be used in many industries
and support a circular economy.
Anaerobic Digestion: Using the organic portion of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a
feedstock, anaerobic digestion (AD) is the process of breaking down organic waste by
microorganisms in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic digestion produces liquid
digestate, fibre, and biogas during this process. Food waste contains a large amount of
organic content, which makes it well-suited for AD treatment and has a lower carbon
footprint than trash from traditional landfills (Cui et al., 2024). The generated biogas can
be used as a renewable alternative to natural gas in the production of heat and power.
Nutrient-rich leftovers like fibre and liquid digestate can be processed further to produce
power or used as fertilisers. The biogas from AD mainly consists of methane, carbon
dioxide, traces of water vapour, and other gases. However, there have been concerns
about the cost of maintenance and proper handling of biogas to prevent leaks of
hazardous gases to the environment.
Fermentation: Organisms employ the natural process of fermentation to transform
organic resources into useful compounds. There are two basic ways it might happen:
anaerobic (without air) and aerobic (with air). Bio-hydrogen is produced by photo-
fermentation, which is fuelled by light and certain bacteria and provides a renewable
energy source (Cui et al., 2024). Yeast drives the process of alcoholic fermentation,
which converts carbohydrates into carbon dioxide and ethanol for use in beverages and
biofuels. A novel method called electro-fermentation uses electricity to boost microbial
activity. When hydrogen fuel is generated chemically or by fermentation, it burns cleanly
and releases just water. This process, alongside other approaches discussed above,

26
has a wide range of uses in waste management, manufacturing, and sustainable
energy, spurring innovation in renewable resource development.

2.2.5 Benefits and challenges of waste recovery technologies in the UK

Waste recovery technologies in the UK offer a considerable advantage by aiding

renewable energy production and lessening dependence on fossil fuels. As stated by
Ram et al. (2021), these techniques have the potential to produce power and heat
through waste-to-energy conversion, thus mitigating non-renewable resource usage.
This shift towards sustainable energy generation can cut down greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as lay the groundwork for an eco-friendlier future of energy
production, as per Heinberg and Fridley (2016) study. Furthermore, waste recovery
technologies offer a resolution to the issue of redirecting rubbish away from landfills.
Such techniques enable us to abstain from depositing garbage into these sites as an
effort to mitigate negative environmental impacts associated with disposal activities like
groundwater pollution and methane emissions responsible for greenhouse gases. This
approach not only eases the burden on limited landfill space but also promotes circular
economy undertakings by recuperating resources formerly deemed as wasteful streams
(DEFRA, 2020). In addition, waste recovery technologies support the UK's Circular
Economy goals by enhancing resource effectiveness and reducing unnecessary waste.
Groundbreaking techniques such as recycling or composting extract valuable materials
from discarded sources, which not only preserve natural resources but also decrease
our reliance on fresh ones (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021). This pledge parallels
the administration's ecological plan to shift towards a circular economic system.

Although waste recovery technologies offer a host of advantages, their widespread

adoption and efficacy in the UK are undermined by several obstacles. One prime
challenge is related to technological intricacy and expense. According to Elavarasan et
al. (2022), findings, incorporating state-of-the-art waste recovery methods necessitates
considerable investment in infrastructure and a skilled workforce, which could pose
monetary constraints for stakeholders - public as well as private alike. Moreover,
operating these technologies may encounter operational difficulties due to complexity,
thereby mandating persistent maintenance/upgrades.

27
The public's perception and willingness to accept waste recovery facilities present a
significant hurdle. According to research conducted by Brummer (2018), communities
commonly resist the establishment of such facilities due to apprehensions about air and
water pollution, noise disruption, as well as unpleasant odours. Such sentiments can
slow down or halt important progress towards creating sustainable waste management
methods by causing delays in developing critical infrastructure for recovering waste.
(Subiza-Pérez et al., 2023). Besides these concerns, significant hurdles may also result
from regulatory and policy barriers. Giorgi et al. (2022) claimed that the UK's waste
management regulatory framework is intricate and divided, creating inconsistencies that
pose uncertainties for stakeholders. The absence of clear policy direction coupled with
unsupportive regulations could discourage investment in waste recovery projects, thus
obstructing innovation within this sector (Rezania et al., 2023). Despite waste recovery
technologies showing great potential in tackling waste management issues and
achieving climate change objectives in the UK, these and many other challenges act as
major hindrances undermining their viability in meeting the climate change targets.

2.3 Empirical Literature

This section of the literature review examines recent studies on the viability of waste-to-
energy technologies in meeting climate change action goals, particularly those relating
to the UK’s Environmental Improvement Plan 2050 climate change targets. Over recent
years, researchers interested in urban metabolism have delved into the evaluation of
the effectiveness and potential of recovery processes in mitigating waste growth and its
associated predicaments. These empirical studies have explored various variables that
are critical in understanding the viability of these solutions in meeting the UK’s climate
change targets.

Aria and Cuccurullo (2017) used R program software (Bibliometrix) and WebOfScience
(as the Database) to evaluate the relevance, theme evolution, and future of waste to
energy processes in waste management and climate change. Key words inserted were
“waste-to-energy processes”, climate change”, and “energy from waste”, adopted

28
timespan of 24years (2000-2024), from 500 documents with 1,299 authors. The
generated plot shows increase in scientific production annually except for 2016 & 2020.
comparatively, year 2020 takes the lead for annual scientific citation, most true, due to
lockdown (coronavirus epidemic) as waste management/treatment was significantly low.
Thematic evolution from the nominal topic of “WTE” (energy) were observed to “change
practices adoption” which includes (recovery, management, climate, and public
education), and circular economy integration (figure 2.1). Linking these findings with the
primary findings of the current study will provide more insights to stakeholders on the
current state of waste-to-energy and their role in predicting future opportunities for
growth and innovative advancements.

29
Figure 2.1: Relevance and thematic evolution of waste to Energy processes.
(Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)

30
Recently, Yang et al. (2023) reviewed the circular economy interventions, primarily
focusing on waste management. This study is a systematic literature review aiming to
clarify circular economy strategies as an effective measure to meet climate change
targets. The paper describes circular economy as an economic model concerned with
increasing resource efficiency, minimising waste, and optimising the conversion and
consumption of energy. The review underpins three key circular economy tenets:
eliminating waste, regenerating ecosystems, and recirculating materials. The process of
energy recovery was found to be one of the key solutions to minimising carbon
emissions. Combined with other circular economy strategies, energy recovery can help
the UK reduce carbon emissions by nearly 45% before 2030 and assist the UK in
achieving its net-zero carbon emission targets by 2050. Tsui & Wong, (2019) that in the
years to come, the focus of sustainable MSW management will shift from protecting the
environment to recovering resources from waste streams; that the circular economy
principles are fundamental to the emergence of the bioeconomy; and AD technology, in
conjunction with numerous waste biorefinery techniques, will undoubtedly play a crucial
role in this process. With buttress to material cycle, that AD makes it easier for organic
wastes to be separated into solid and liquid forms. The versatility of AD is its greatest
strength, enhancing sustainability connections to numerous cutting-edge waste refinery
technologies and sustainable agriculture to address waste challenges and global
nutrients recycling.

Way et al. (2022) empirically analysed the relevance of technology in the process of
decarbonising the energy sector as a critical aspect of addressing climate change while
also highlighting cost challenges that are considered to be a barrier to technology
implementation. Way et al. (2022) highlight that the adoption of technological strategies
is the endeavour to decarbonise the energy sector is highly influenced by issues of cost,
which superficially seems to be higher; however, the execution of energy-economy
models has proved to produce cost-effective energy transition processes based on the
cost improvements and low rates of deployment of renewable energy. Marti and Puertas
(2021), as well, also conducted a meta-analysis of data from the Sustainable
Governance Indicators project and the OECD, with data referring to 2018, in an attempt
to establish the influence of environmental policies on waste management in various
31
countries. From their analysis, they hold that several countries have adopted strategies
that are aligned towards achieving a circular economy practice as a strategy of waste
management. Such strategies are anchored on policies and sustainable practices
designed to ensure effective protection of the environment.

Similarly, Sharma et al. (2021) also conducted a study literature analysis to establish
the relevance of the circular economy approach as a system of solid waste
management towards the realisation of UN-SGDs in post-COVID recovery. Sharma et
al. (2021) underscores that circular economy, as a strategy for solid waste
management, is critical and relevant in a recovering economy. As such, in their view,
adopting principles of Circular Economy in solid waste management would be a critical
strategy in integrating the three primary pillars of sustainable development. Such
integration, when executed in a symbiotic manner, is essential in the recovery of energy
and materials from waste and the design of timeless products that extend the service
life of systems. This kind of regenerative model, according to Sharma et al. (2021), is
essential in establishing a balanced integration of economic performance, social
inclusiveness, and environmental resilience tailored towards benefiting both the current
and future generations. For an effective execution of circular economy, Sharma et al.
hold that a smarter approach is essential to ensure a linear flow of materials so as to
eliminate the disposal of materials, and such transitions require highly swift and cogent
policies.

Minhas, Gerassimidou and Iacovidou (2023) conducted a quantitative study in which

they analysed the status of residual waste management in London. They highlight that
in the management of residual waste in the UK, one of the most significant challenges is
the lack of evidence regarding the status of residual waste in the UK, creating more
strain in the process of enhancing sustainability and circularity in the systems of waste
management. In their analysis, they hold that there is no synonymity between circularity
and sustainability, highlighting that residual waste cannot be avoided in the life of the
people; hence, making it imperative for strategies to be adopted that facilitate proper
management of the wastes that cannot be recycled or cannot be reused in a manner
that is “environmentally safe, cost-efficient, socially acceptable, and technologically

32
viable” (p.1282). Therefore, the adoption of a circular economy strategy, which entails
incineration treatment of wastes, would be critical in capturing the embedded
multidimensional value of such wastes, hence creating positive results or outcomes.
Minhas, Gerassimidou and Iacovidou (2023) recognise that in the waste and resource
management systems, there are significant trade-offs that must be appreciated. As
such, they observe that the “ability to view and orchestrate residual waste management
in a way that returns the maximum net positive value whilst accommodating
potential trade-offs is of the utmost importance” (p.1282).

Then (Peng et al., 2023) evaluated the viability of agricultural, industrial, and municipal
waste into energy. That around 15 million tons of food waste are produced yearly in the
United Kingdom, where each individual wastes 234 kg of food. Anaerobic digestion
systems have the potential to replace 61.46% of natural gas and 38.54% of coal
consumption in the United Kingdom through the valorisation of agricultural solid waste
and food waste. Additionally, if used as animal feed, this may result in a 1.8-million-
hectare reduction in land use. Compared to traditional solvent extraction, microwave-
assisted extraction is a greener, more ecologically friendly method of extracting liquid
fertilizers.

Huckelba and Van Lange (2020), using literature and theoretical analyses, conducted a
review of the reality of climate change and the possible strategies that can be adopted
to survive the menace past the year 2050. The authors observe that climate change is
associated with significant consequences, especially within the context of social life.
Further, they underscore that the inaction against climate change can be explained
using psychological and behavioural theories or models. In their view, institutions such
as the media, local groups in the community, educational institutions, scientists as well
as governments, all have a role to play in addressing the challenge of climate change.
They hold that strategies such as the creation of awareness may be a significant tool in
surviving climate change and the associated effects in the future.

(Albert et al., 2022) Methane consumption (non-domestic natural gas), made up 571,464
GWh, or 65%, of the total gas consumed in the United Kingdom in 2018. Heat was
generated by burning all of this gas, a portion of the heat generated was utilized to

33
power industrial operations, while the remainder was transformed into electricity by the
power production sector. But the great bulk of the heat was wasted rather being used.
Out of over 25 million houses, only 450,000 were heated by district heating networks as
of 2019. A large number of these networks run on CHP or EfW systems. Incineration
facilities are engineered to guarantee that their flue gases attain a minimum
temperature of 850 ◦C, rendering them a superior heat resource. DEFRA (2018) reports
that biomass power plants have an efficiency of around 36% while EfW power plants
ranges from 15% to 27% efficiency. Pyrolysis in the absence of oxygen, escalates to
700–800 °C. Consequently, biomass power plants have a sizable supply of waste heat
accessible. It is anticipated that the combined waste heat from UK industry and energy
generation is close to 391,000 GWh annually. There are ways to recover and make use
of this waste heat, such in a district heating system.

Jamas & Nepal (2010) , evaluated the economic and environmental implications of waste
management solutions in the UK, their study offers a social cost-benefit analysis, with a
particular focus on waste-to-energy (WtE) as a renewable resource. According to official
baseline forecasts, the demand for heat and electricity in 2030 is expected to be 31.5
TWh and 418 TWh, respectively. According to their scenarios and conclusions, almost
34% of the power produced in the UK in 2006 came from coal. By their model in 2030,
WtE will provide 3.1% and 32.4% of all electricity and heat demand, respectively. This
means that WtE electricity will make up 15.5% of the 20% target for renewable
electricity, and in the case of high carbon prices, WtE can replace 6,854,839 tonnes of
CO2 equivalent to 425 million euros produced by a coal-fired plant. in conclusion,
waste-to-energy (WtE) continues to be a practical waste treatment method that
produces clean energy.

Omer, (2008) , discusses the emphasis on low-carbon technologies in the UK

environment, Encouraged the thoughtful use of renewable energy, such as in the use of
buildings, which may greatly improve user savings, comfort, and productivity.
Moya et al. (2017)
The pyrolysis process has several benefits, including the use of waste
materials to create various bioproducts and the production of syngas that may be
utilized in fuel cells, building heat pumps, among other energy-related applications.

34
While fuel cells and combined heat and power (CHP) systems have already gained
traction in the Netherlands. (Münster & Lund, 2009) , If the government's main objective is
to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, then producing syngas for CHP is the greatest
option. Should reducing greenhouse gas emissions be the main objective, then using
organic waste to produce biogas for CHP should be considered. The worst-case
scenarios, however, would include waste combustion for heat or not utilizing it at all for
energy.

(Moya et al., 2017) reviews the energy recovery by Waste-To-Energy processes

employing municipal solid waste (MSW). The CHP bio-refinery is one example of this
process. Syngas may be converted into bioenergy product using an integrated
gasification system coupled with a fuels synthesis plant. Portugal utilizes the integrated
system in Porto. This system includes an incinerator, gasification plant, and an organic
composting facility. Ninety percent of the energy produced by the self-sufficient plant is
sold to the electrical grid. What is more like a co-location.

2.4 Gaps in Existing Literature

Despite existing related empirical studies providing immense knowledge, they also have
some weaknesses. For instance, many existing studies are limited in the exploration of
socio-economic and political factors that influence waste recovery technology
implementations. While many studies concentrate on technical aspects, they often
neglect broader contextual factors which can either facilitate or hinder adoption. Critical
determinants like public perception, policy frameworks, funding mechanisms, and
stakeholder engagement are frequently overlooked or understudied but play an
essential role in the success of waste recovery initiatives. Another weakness is the
absence of a nuanced comprehension of environmental impacts and trade-offs linked to
diverse waste recovery methods. Though these technologies possess the potential to
decrease greenhouse gas emissions and ease landfill pressure, they may cause
unintentional effects on air and water pollution. Prior studies have regularly fallen short
in evaluating such trade-offs adequately or giving suggestions for reducing related
adverse implications. Moreover, need for more research that focuses on scrutinising the
coherence between waste recovery technologies and the United Kingdom's climate

35
change targets. In addition to this, it remains uncertain whether these targets can be
met through embracing such technology. Despite some studies acknowledging their
potential in mitigating climate change effects, a more thorough investigation into their
real contribution must be carried out, along with understanding what obstacles are
associated with expanding its implementation to meet high-level environmental
objectives.

2.5 Summary of chapter

This literature review has explored the current landscape of waste recovery
technologies in the UK within the context of meeting climate change targets by 2050. It
began by establishing theoretical frameworks for waste management and highlights
both The Waste Hierarchy Framework and Pragmatism Theory as guiding principles.
The review then delved into conceptual literature discussing challenges posed by
municipal solid waste and identified various strategies employed to manage such
situations within the UK's borders. It has also addressed how emerging waste-recovery
tech can provide viable alternative solutions. Notably highlighted is a shift toward more
substantial reliance on wastage interventions that generate energy or helpful products
while addressing increasing waste issues alike. This chapter has also highlighted the
efforts of the UK's government, as delineated in their Environmental Improvement Plan
(EIP), to optimise resource utilisation while reducing waste. However, various
challenges, such as insufficient longitudinal studies and socio-economic considerations,
along with different stakeholder perspectives, have been identified. It is crucial to
address these gaps through holistic approaches towards waste management for
achieving climate change goals effectively and sustainably using advanced
technologies.

36
 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides a detailed overview of the research methods employed to

investigate the viability of waste-to-energy processes in meeting the United Kingdom's
(UK) 2050 climate change target. The study utilised a mixed-method approach, which,
according to Östlund et al. (2011), incorporates both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies to offer a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter. This chapter
covers the study area, sampling population, data collection techniques, and analytical
methods employed in the research. Combining semi-structured interviews and
structured questionnaires, the study aimed to capture diverse perspectives from
stakeholders involved in waste management, energy production, policy-making, and
academia. The research endeavoured to contribute valuable insights to inform
sustainable waste management strategies and climate change mitigation efforts in the
UK.

3.1 Research Philosophy

The research philosophy underlying this study is pragmatic. This philosophy aims to
bridge theory and practice by addressing real-world challenges in waste management
and climate change mitigation. Revez and Borges (2018) explain that pragmatism
acknowledges the complexity of the research problem and seeks practical solutions
grounded in empirical evidence. Pragmatism enabled the researcher to combine
qualitative methods with quantitative methods (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2023), in
order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the viability of waste-to-energy
processes in meeting climate change targets. The pragmatic research philosophy
recognises the importance of interdisciplinary perspectives, drawing on insights from
waste management, renewable energy, environmental policy, and other relevant fields
to inform decision-making. By prioritising the application of research findings to address
societal issues, the pragmatic philosophy aligned with the overarching goal of this study:

37
to assess the viability of waste-to-energy processes in meeting the UK's 2050 climate
change target.

3.2 Research Design

3.2.1 Research Approach

The research design encompasses both qualitative and quantitative methodologies,

reflecting the multifaceted nature of the research problem. Turner et al. (2017) suggest
that combining qualitative and quantitative data results through triangulation enhances
the validity and reliability of the results. A mixed-method approach was employed to
provide a comprehensive understanding of the viability of waste-to-energy processes in
meeting the UK's 2050 climate change target. This research design further incorporated
semi-structured interviews and the distribution of structured questionnaires to key
stakeholders in the waste-to-energy sector.
3.2.2 Research Strategy

For the quantitative approach, structured questionnaires were disseminated among a

diverse array of stakeholders, encompassing waste management, energy production,
environmental policy-making, and academic research. These questionnaires were
meticulously designed to elicit quantitative data on factors such as attitudes toward
waste-to-energy technologies, perceived barriers and facilitators, and opinions
regarding policy interventions. As per Damluji et al. (2024), by utilising closed-ended
questions and Likert scales, questionnaires aided in standardising responses, enabling
statistical analysis to discern overarching trends and patterns within the sample.
As for the case of the qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with select participants representing key stakeholder groups. According to Osborne and
Grant-Smith (2021), through open-ended questions and probing techniques, interviews
captured rich qualitative data, providing contextual depth and understanding. These
interviews followed a predetermined set of questions while allowing for flexibility and
exploration of emergent themes. The semi-structured format permitted participants to
elaborate on their responses, offering nuanced insights into their experiences,
perceptions, and attitudes toward waste-to-energy processes.

38
3.3 Sampling

3.3.1 Study Area

The study focused on Scotland within the broader context of the United Kingdom (UK).
Scotland’s significance lies in its alignment with the UK's commitment to mitigating
climate change and transitioning towards renewable energy sources, making it an ideal
setting for this study. With ambitious targets to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, there is a critical need to examine alternative energy sources such as waste-to-
energy processes. The study aims to provide insights that are not only relevant to
Scotland’s sustainability initiatives but also applicable to broader UK strategies for
mitigating climate change and transitioning towards a renewable energy future.

3.3.2 Sampling Population

Efforts were made to ensure geographical diversity and representation from various
regions of the UK, considering regional differences in waste management practices,
energy infrastructure, and policy contexts. The study involved the inclusion of
participants from diverse backgrounds and sectors, which encompasses sectors crucial
to waste management, energy production, environmental policy-making, and academic
research on renewable energy and climate change mitigation altogether. The total
estimated population size across all sectors amounts to over 5,000 stakeholders.

3.3.3 Sample Size

Determining the sample size for this research involved balancing the need for statistical
rigour with practical considerations such as resource constraints and the diversity of the
study population. Given the mixed-method approach employed in this study, which
included both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the sample size was
determined separately for each data collection method.

Yamane's formula was used to estimate the ideal sample size for the questionnaire.
Assuming 5,000 stakeholders in total across all these sectors and given a margin of
error of 5% (expressed as a decimal, e=0.05), we can use Yamane's formula to
calculate the sample size as follows:
39
 𝑛 = __N___
1 +Ne²
Where;
n = The desired sample size
N = Size of the population.
e = The margin error in the calculation

Application of the formula was employed to reach the following sample size;
n= 5,000___
1+(5,000×0.05²)
= 370.37
= 370 respondents

Based on the above estimation, this study recruited a total of 370 participants. However,
the actual response rate was 73%; hence, the number of respondents who undertook
the structured questionnaires was 269. According to Holtom et al. (2022), this is an ideal
response rate and could be attributed to the desirable research design approach that
the study adopted.

For semi-structured interviews, Islam and Aldaihani (2021) explained that sample size
can be determined based on the principles of saturation, whereby data collection
continues until no new information or themes emerge from additional interviews. This
iterative process allows for in-depth exploration of diverse perspectives and ensures
that a comprehensive understanding of the research topic is achieved. While the exact
sample size for interviews may vary depending on the complexity and variability of the
data, efforts were made to interview a sufficient number of participants to capture the
breadth and depth of stakeholder perspectives. Based on these assumptions, the study
recruited 30 participants to undertake the semi-structured interviews. This sample size
provided sufficient depth and richness in the data to uncover key themes and insights
relevant to the research question while also allowing for flexibility in data collection and
analysis.
40
3.3.4 Sampling Technique

The sampling technique employed in this research involved a combination of purposive

sampling and stratified sampling. The purposive technique was applied to the
questionnaire population. Campbell et al. (2020) defined purposive sampling as
deliberately selecting specific individuals, cases, or elements based on predetermined
criteria that align with the research objectives. Purposive sampling was used to select
participants who possess relevant expertise and insights into waste-to-energy
processes, ensuring that the sample comprises individuals with diverse perspectives
and experiences. This approach allowed for the targeted recruitment of stakeholders
from various sectors, such as waste management, energy production, policy-making,
and academia, thus enhancing the representativeness and comprehensiveness of the
sample.

On the contrary, stratified sampling was used to select participants for the interviews.
This technique involves dividing the sampling population into distinct strata based on
relevant characteristics such as sectoral affiliation, geographical location, and level of
expertise. Tipton (2013) explained stratified sampling as a research technique
undertaken to ensure that the sample accurately represents the population by dividing
the population into subgroups or strata and then selecting samples from each stratum.
This stratification ensured that each subgroup within the population was adequately
represented in the sample, allowing for meaningful comparisons and analyses across
different segments of stakeholders. By combining purposive sampling with stratified
sampling, the research achieved a balanced and representative sample that
encompasses the diversity of perspectives and experiences relevant to the research
topic.

3.3.5 Research Participant

Research participants in this study included stakeholders from various sectors involved
in waste management, energy production, environmental policy-making, and academic
research related to renewable energy and climate change mitigation. Participants from
the waste management industry, including representatives from waste collection,

41
recycling facilities, and waste-to-energy plants, offered insights into operational
challenges, technological advancements, and best practices in waste management and
energy production. Additionally, energy sector experts from both conventional and
renewable energy domains, such as policymakers, energy producers, and researchers,
contributed their expertise in energy market dynamics, technological innovations, and
policy frameworks, informing discussions on the role of waste-to-energy processes in
the UK's energy transition. Environmental policymakers from governmental bodies,
NGOs, and regulatory agencies also provided insights into policy incentives, regulatory
frameworks, and governance mechanisms relevant to waste-to-energy initiatives.

The survey participants were recruited through invitations that were sent out via official
organisational emails. For the interviews, however, the interviewer visited the
companies within the vicinity physically and issued a consent form. Upon acceptance,
the researcher sent out a digital questionnaire link through multiple channels, the initial
targets of which were specified, such as email, mobile, and social media accounts. No
participant was paid to participate in this research, as those who undertook it did so
voluntarily.

3.4 Data Analysis and Presentation

Data analysis in this study involved both qualitative and quantitative techniques to
comprehensively examine the viability of waste-to-energy processes in meeting the
UK's 2050 climate change target. The quantitative analysis employed statistical
techniques of multiple regression analysis, variance analysis, and correlation analysis to
examine relationships between variables and identify significant predictors of the
viability of waste-to-energy processes. Ngo and Hoang (2014) described multiple
regression analysis as a method used to determine the relationship between dependent
variables (like carbon emissions reduction) and independent variables (like investment
in waste-to-energy, infrastructure, and policy support). Variance analysis was employed
to assess the variation in responses across different demographic groups or
stakeholder categories. Correlation analysis was used to examine the strength and

42
direction of relationships between variables, such as the correlation between public
attitudes towards waste-to-energy and government policies.

On the other hand, thematic analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data
obtained from the interviews. Denzin and Lincoln (2017) defined thematic analysis as a
methodological approach used in this study, which entails a series of systematic steps
to analyse interview transcripts and extract significant insights. In the context of this
research, thematic analysis was conducted through a structured approach. First, the
researcher immersed in the interview transcripts, carefully examining each one multiple
times to familiarise themselves with the content and gain a comprehensive
understanding of the data. Then, relevant sections of the transcripts were systematically
coded to identify meaningful units of data related to key themes and concepts, such as
attitudes towards waste-to-energy technologies, barriers and facilitators to
implementation, and potential policy implications. These codes were then organised into
broader themes and sub-themes based on their similarities and relationships, allowing
for a structured categorisation of the data. Through an iterative process of review and
refinement, themes were continuously assessed and revised to ensure accuracy and
consistency in data interpretation.

Finally, the researcher interpreted the identified themes in relation to the research
objectives, drawing conclusions and offering insights into the viability of waste-to-energy
processes and their potential contribution to meeting the UK's climate change targets.
The findings of the study were presented in a comprehensive report that synthesises
qualitative and quantitative insights into the study. The report included detailed
descriptions of key themes and patterns identified through thematic analysis,
supplemented by quantitative data summaries and statistical analyses. Visual aids such
as tables, charts, and graphs were used to illustrate key findings and enhance
readability.

3.5 Potential Limitations to the Research

Potential limitations to the research include a limited sample size. The actual number of
stakeholders in the entire United Kingdom is large. However, due to the cross-sectional

43
nature of this research, the researcher could not exhaustively cover a large area. As
such, a large number of the participants were drawn from Scotland. This has a
significant impact on the generalizability of the findings. Another limitation with a similar
impact is a high subjectivity to bias. The purposive sampling method, as Saunders,
Lewis, and Thornhill (2023) observed, is highly subjective due to sampling bias and can
contribute to a limited number of participants. This also has the potential to impact the
generalizability as well as the reliability and validity of the findings. Additionally, the
generalizability of findings could have been affected by the specific context of the UK's
waste management and energy infrastructure. These are large sectors with various
industries within them. Perhaps tailoring the study to a specific sub-segment could have
improved the research’s specific area of focus. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of
waste management policies and technologies posed challenges in capturing current
trends and developments.

3.6 Ethical Implications

Research ethics is a crucial aspect of every study involving human participants.

According to Barrow, Brannan, and Khandhar (2022), it is the duty of a researcher to
ensure human subjects are not vulnerable to any misconduct, abuses or exposures that
could harm them in any way. This research has adhered to research ethical guidelines
set out by Edinburgh Napier University and those of appropriate regulatory bodies. To
begin with, and as Dooly, Moore and Vallejo (2017) highlighted, it is not always easy for
new researchers to anticipate ethical issues that might emerge; it is important,
therefore, to have an ethical form and a statement that communicates to the subjects
what issues might arise and the extent to which their privacy and safety are
safeguarded. Forms were generated and approved by the ethics research committee
that contained closures for obtaining informed consent from participants, ensuring
confidentiality and anonymity of data, and maintaining integrity during data collection
and analysis. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, their voluntary
participation, and their right to withdraw at any time without repercussion. Furthermore,
the participants’ data was securely stored and kept in the university’s care for a
maximum period of 12 months. Only the principal researcher can access this data, and

44
it can only be used by the university upon obtaining consent only for research purposes.
The participants have a right to access their information and can request that the
information be deleted within the specified time.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided a comprehensive overview of the research methods

employed in investigating the viability of waste-to-energy processes in meeting the UK's
2050 climate change target. A mixed-method approach incorporating both qualitative
and quantitative methodologies has been utilised to offer a holistic understanding of the
research topic. Qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews was
analysed using thematic analysis to identify key themes and insights. Quantitative data
gathered through structured questionnaires was analysed using statistical techniques of
multiple regression, variance, and correlation analysis to examine relationships between
variables and identify significant predictors. These methods enabled the researcher to
explore the complexities and nuances of waste-to-energy technologies and inform
policy and decision-making towards achieving sustainable energy and environmental
goals.

45
 4.0 Results and Analysis

This chapter contains the results of the quantitative and qualitative methodologies
conducted to address the following research questions:

1. To what extent is the energy from waste technology in the UK effective?

2. How can energy from waste technology help the UK meet its climate change
target?
3. What are the benefits and challenges of energy from waste technologies in the
UK?
4. What possible measures can be taken to improve the existing energy recovery
technologies to meet the UK’s 2050 climate change target?Conversely, this
chapter provides analyses of the questionnaire and the interview findings in
connection with the research questions, and the secondary findings elucidated in
Chapter 2, the literature review. This chapter also provides a summary of the
sampling population, including critical elements such as characteristics of the
sectors and the nature of energy recovery operations in the UK. The chapter
includes descriptive statistics, using charts and tables to summarise the key
findings. These complementary data representations are contained in the
appendices. In addition to this, the chapter provides a summary of the
procedures that were followed to arrive at the results, along with the common
findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses. A summary of the findings
is also provided as a conclusion to the chapter.

4.1 Sample

The targeted niche for the survey includes operators and individuals in the UK’s waste-to-
energy (WtE) operations, waste management authorities, Sustainability experts and

46
researchers, NGOs, Government parastatals, related energy, and NetZero project
establishment. Examples of key respondents include participants from LARAC- The leading
voice for local authorities on recycling, waste, and resource management (CIWM) -Chartered
Institution of Waste Management (EI)- Energy Institute (APM)- Association for Project
Management, County councils, (ADEPT)- Association of Directors in environment, Planning and
Transportation, (NAWDO)- National Association of Waste Disposal Officers, SUEZ-UK, VIOLA
UK, LRES, (ESA-UK)-Environmental Services Association. The study had targeted 370
participants for the quantitative data. In the end, the survey collected responses from 269
participants a 73% post-survey comment by experts in WtE operations. Appendix 1 provides a
summary of the sampling population for the quantitative study. The major industries within the
waste management and energy sector were represented in the survey, with 82 (30.5%)
representing waste management, 62 (23.0%) from energy/electricity production, 55 (20.4%)
representing policymakers, 39 (14.5%) from the academic realm, and the remaining 30 (11.2%)
from other subsectors (Appendix 1).

The number of years the participant’s company has been in varied between less than a year to
more than ten years. The majority of the parties have been operating in their respective industry
for 5-10 years, represented by a sample size of 40.5%, followed by 10+ years with a size of
28.3%, 1-5 years 23.0%, and less than one year 7.8%.

One hundred thirty-three participants (49.4%) work in medium-sized companies with 51-500
employees, 87 (32.3%) work in large companies with over 500 staff, and 43 (16%) work in
small-scale companies with fewer than 50 employees. Additionally, data about the primary type
of energy recovery methods used by these companies reveal that 33% of the companies prefer
incineration, 28.4% focus on anaerobic digestion, 27.7% gasification, 14.4% pyrolysis, 11%
hydrothermal, 7.6% fermentation and the remaining 0.4% pursue decarbonisation approaches.

For the qualitative study, the research had initially sought out 30 participants to undertake the
semi-structured interviews. In the end, constrained by time and resources, ten expert interviews
were collected from 2 conferences and five WtE plant site visits.

47
 4.2 Data Collection and Analysis

4.2.1 Questionnaire

Because the research methodology for the study is mixed, the process of data collection
followed to phases. In the first phase, data was comprehensively collected for the
survey questionnaire. The first step in the process involved crafting the questionnaire.
This involved developing concise and precise questions aligned with waste-to-energy
recovery methods and the UK’s climate change targets. A preliminary questionnaire
was generated and tested by a select group of experts before the final survey was
published online on Google Forms. Once the survey was created, an embedded link
was generated, which was shared with the prospective audience primarily via email and
social media. A summary of the survey questions is provided in the Appendix. The
survey was brief and interactive, allowing participants to provide responses which were
automatically stored by the Google Forms’ spreadsheets. This offered ease of data
collection and overcame the challenges associated with manual data input. After the
data was collected and a reliable response rate was presumed, the process of coding
and preparing the data set for analysis began. The analysis of the survey data primarily
utilised the SPSS software and focused on various statistical measures, including
descriptives, regression analysis and inferences. The following paragraphs disclose the
findings that emerged in relation to the four questions stated above.

To answer the first research question, to what extent is the energy from waste
technology in the UK effective, specific variables that were evaluated from the
questionnaire include:

1. How effectively does waste-to-energy recovery technologies contribute

toward achieving the UK’s 2050 climate change targets compared to
conventional methods like landfilling?

With the above question as the variable and primary methods or residue
management and WtE as independent variables together with the rate of efficiency,
descriptive statistics show an average mean of greater than 1.41 and an average

48
standard deviation of 0.577(Appendix 26). These coefficients indicate a perfect
relationship implying that as the efficiency and effectiveness of the waste-to-energy
technologies improves, the efficacy in facilitating the achievement of the climate
change targets also improves.

Regression analysis using ANOVA shows a sum of squares of 48.975, degrees of

freedom (df) of 3, and a mean square of 16.325 with an F value of 143.63, which
considerably exceeds the significance value of 0.001. With this, therefore, we can
reject the null hypothesis and hold that the WtE technologies are significantly
effective in influencing the attainment of the UK’s climate change targets.

2. How can energy from waste technology help the UK meet its climate change
target?

The analysis of descriptives for the second research question, with a focus on the
survey question: to what extent do you feel Waste-to-energy technologies align with the
UN’s SDG goal 7 ‘Ensure Affordable and Clean energy for all, show a mean of 1.99 and
a standard deviation of 1.006, indicating a significant correlation. The analysis of
regression, on the other hand, shows a sum of squares of 249.273, df of 5, a mean
square of 49.855 and an F-value of 816.472 (Appendix 27). With a significance value of
0.001, these values indicate a significant distribution; thus, the null hypothesis can be
rejected and uphold that energy from WtE technologies can significantly help the UK
meet its climate change targets.

3. What are the benefits and challenges of energy from waste technologies in the
UK?

Energy from waste technologies, based on existing literature evidence, has significant
benefits but also poses or experiences significance challenges that could hinder the
achievement of the climate change targets. Generally, the findings reveal that WtE
technologies are critical alternative methods for conventional waste management that
help to reduce the challenges associated with landfilling.

49
Another major benefit of these technologies is that of helping the UK attain a
sustainable circular economy. When asked to rate this on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
indicating the highest rank, a large number of respondents agree that the WtE
technologies significantly promote circular economy approaches, with 42.4% rating a 4,
25.3% 3, and 22.3% 5. In comparison, only 10.1% cumulatively gave lower ratings of 1
and 2 (Appendix 12).

Besides the circular economy benefits, results also show that WtE technologies support
the UK in improving its innovation, infrastructure and industrial development, in line with
SDG9. The opinion of 128 (47.6%) experts substantially supports this imperative, and
another 52 (19.3%) express strong support, 70 (26.0%) moderate support, while only 15
(15%) expressed limited support (Appendix 11). The majority, therefore, agree that WtE
technologies are contributing greatly toward the evolution of new innovative systems for
waste management and technological development.

WtE technologies also benefit the UK in its efforts to mitigate climate change, a goal
that is also embodied in SDG 13. Results show 75 (27.9%) of the respondents agree
that WtE has greatly helped, while 40.9% express significant contribution, 24.2% imply
moderate help, and only 4.1% object that there is little help (Appendix 10). These
findings generally agree that WtE technologies have a significant role in meeting the
UK’s climate change targets.

Similarly, responses on the benefit of WtE in generating clean energy with respect to
the attainment of SDG goal 7, highlighted in question 2 above, underscore the benefits
of WtE technologies in the UK’s transition to Net Zero energy. The chart below, showing
the standard deviation and mean, shows that these factors are indeed significant as
benefits of WtE technologies.

50
Figure 3.1: Descriptive Statistics SDG 7,9&13

Despite the benefits, WtE technologies encounter many challenges. Many participants
expressed concerns in regard to the release of carbon and other greenhouse gases.
According to the empirical study by Ome (2008) and (Münster & Lund, 2009), while WtE
technologies have led to reduced carbon emissions, processes such as biogas
generation and the production of syngas through gasification and other emissions from
pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion result in gaseous emissions that add to the existing
problems. There is also a perception of high health risks from the pollutants, an
increase in heat emission contributing to increased urban heat effect, and various
disruptions of the ecosystem and diversity. The table below summarises these findings.

51
Figure 3.1: Specific concerns of WtE

4. What possible measures can be taken to improve the existing energy recovery
technologies to meet the UK’s 2050 climate change target?Various measures were
highlighted by the respondents as crucial for improving the existing technologies. More
emphasis was directed toward implementing waste reduction strategies based on the
Waste Hierarchy Framework in Figure 2.1: (DEFRA, 2022) argued that prevention of
waste is the most critical method in waste management; however, Velenturf and Purnell
(2017) uphold that in an ideal world, this is not achievable. Hence, other methods, such
as investing in renewable energy products, supporting policy advocacy for
environmental regulations, and conducting regular reviews and measurement metrics,
supersede waste prevention. A majority of the participants had also sighted investment
in research and development aiming at improving WtE technologies as very crucial.
Other than that, collaboration with stakeholders is paramount, with participants
supporting joint industrial projects, knowledge and information sharing, outreach

52
programs, capacity building programs, and conducting regular training programs on
emerging WtE approaches.

4.2.2 Interviews

Like the survey, the first step in the interviews involved creating questions. Precise
and concise interview questions were generated and tested with a pilot group of
experts to ensure their validity, clarity, and relevance in order to elicit responses from
the targeted audience. Transcripts from 10 interviews were generated and imported
into the NVIVO 14 software for ground-up open coding. This process entails
generating codes from the data itself, rather than preconceived notions. With NVIVO
Coding, the data was run to generate automatic codes. From the coding, 46 codes
were generated. The software was run again to identify key themes, where seven
major themes were identified, namely, circular economy, facilities, generation,
recycling, treatment, waste, waste management, and WtE. The interlink between
these themes and the respective codes was determined. Following the hierarchy
chart in Appendix 28, the key themes are discussed below.

[Link] Waste and Waste management

Waste and waste management, in general, are the main themes of this research, where
municipal solid waste is the focal aspect. Over 11 codes were generated in regard to
waste. All the interviewees addressed at least one of these codes.

One interviewee, a Northumberland County Council member, in response to the type

of waste they emphasise specified that their major focus is on residual biodegradable
waste. The respondent revealed that a number of operators in the county are rather
concerned with the disposal of biodegradable waste with the aim of reducing
methane as much as carbon emissions. However, EFW operators such as Violia and
SUEZ who have built EFW facilities through gaining PFI / PPP contracts with WDA's,
have implemented a mix of waste treatment and energy recovery techniques.

When asked how effective waste-to-energy recovery technologies contribute toward

achieving the UK’s 2050 climate change targets compared to conventional methods like

53
landfilling, one respondent opined that both anaerobic digestion and incineration can be
rated as highly effective, but pyrolysis and gasification are relatively effective thermal
processes for waste treatment and improved energy efficiency compared to
incineration.

Interviewees also cited the need for effective waste management practices in general.
This term has been used repeatedly in this dissertation; however, it is a complex term
that is nuanced between the integration of different approaches to waste management
besides waste recovery. According to the expert, an effective waste management
system integrates refuse, reduction, reuse, repurpose, and finally, recycling with the aim
of promoting a green and clean environment for sustainable economic development. An
interviewee stressed that investment in recycling infrastructure, in particular, should be
prioritised. For this to be achieved, however, there is a need to overcome hauling or
transportation barriers.

As a means to proper waste management, a key theme relating to waste management

policies also emerged – the enforcement of stricter rules and regulations. A policymaker
emphasised that in order to promote sustainable waste management, it is important to
prioritise sustainable consumption and production, encouraging consumers to choose
products with minimal packaging. Additionally, a holistic approach that promotes
transboundary waste management is paramount to ensure that waste generated from
other parts does not negatively impact the UK.

[Link] Waste treatment and WtE facilities

Waste treatment and WtE facilities were other major concepts which materialised from
thematic analysis. According to one interviewee, waste-to-energy treatment facilities
offer two-way solutions: they are able to mitigate haulage problems while powering
thousands of households. This offers energy and a clean environment that supports
SDGs 7 and 13.

A respondent in one of the EFW companies in the UK raised concerns regarding the
attention that is being directed to waste to energy recovery. This concerned expert
argues that, while pursuing energy recovery, it is important to also invest in pre-

54
treatment methods which address resource recovery. Similarly, another interviewee
emphasised the need for policy mechanisms that encourage the installation of different
waste treatment methods. An anonymous expert calls for the integration of
hygienisation and feedback and circular economy for full WtE utilisation, as this results
in resource efficiency.

[Link] Recycling

Majority of the respondents, in general, were of the opinion that WtE plants should
integrate conventional recycling processes. Recycling, according to the waste hierarchy
illustrated in Figure 2.1, is the third most effective methods of waste management after
prevention and reuse, and which comes before recovery. The importance of recycling,
therefore, cannot be overemphasised. According to one expert, WtE facilities are not
cheap to operate considering the high carbon capture and storage capacity
requirements. In comparison, sorting and recycling facilities overcome haulage and
social problems related to WtE plants and creates more economic opportunities and
even helps mitigate the reliance on exports. Integration of these systems into the EFW
systems results in increased output. Based on the data provided by the expert, Mark-
inch CHP from a plant could have 60MWh generating capacity, C. 5.5MWh Auxiliary
power, C.380k tonnes of fuel used per annum (80% waste wood and 20% forestry
thinning on a weight basis), Valmet CFB boiler and Siemens steam turbine, and
Qualified Combined Heat and Power Plant that receives ROC (renewable Obligation
Certificate) subsidies.

Experts emphasise the importance of recycling methods to address over-consumption

and minimise solid recyclable materials to EFW and landfill. According to the
interviewee, while advocating for an increase number of energy recovery programs, it is
also important to promote the establishment of more recycling plants across the country
and support research that is centred on improving recycling rates and efficiency.

[Link] Circular Economy

The influence of WtE on circular economy has been cited severally in empirical studies, which
uphold the role of establishing approaches that promote the circular flow of products in the

55
economy (Sharma et al., 2021; Gerassimidou and Iacovidou, 2023; Yang et al. (2023;
Tsui and Wong, 2019). According to two experts, the successful way to ensure WtE
approaches are promoting the circular economy principles is through the integration of
different methods. EFW facilities should align their approaches with these principles in
order to ensure the waste that is used as input does not only generate heat and energy
but also generates other products which can be recycled and reused.

4.3 Summary
This chapter has explored several concepts that emerged from the semi-structured
interviews and surveys. The chapter has presented the key findings, which include that
energy recovery methods can significantly help the UK attain its 2050 climate change
targets and can help the country generate clean energy for a green and healthy
environment. In addition, the findings show several benefits of these technologies,
including helping achieve SDGs 7, 9, and 13. The opinions of the interviewees also
underscore the utilisation of a mix of different EFW methods and the adoption of stricter
or flexible policies that incentivise the adoption of different methods. A combination of
reuse, recycling, recovery, as well as prevention methods can help the UK meet its
climate change targets while promoting the creation of a circular economy.

5.0 Discussion

A discussion of the key findings is appended in this chapter. The section identifies and
discusses key themes and issues arising from the primary data analysis and connects
with the findings. Moreover, this discussion acts as a bridge between the empirical
evidence presented in Chapter 2 (literature review) and the findings disclosed in
Chapter 4. By linking the primary findings with secondary evidence, the study seeks to
fill the limitations in the existing literature discussed in Chapter 2, subsection 2.4. To
achieve this, the chapter explores the objective disclosures from the audience to

56
provide true and fair knowledge of the existing challenges and opportunities of energy
recovery systems. This approach relies on the concept of pragmatism underpinned in
the theoretical review.

5.1 Effectiveness of WtE technologies

Instead of expressing disapproval of energy recovery, a large number of participants are

of the opinion that WtE systems have a focal place in the UK’s Environmental
Improvement Plan (EIP). The analysis has established that WtE technologies can be an
effective means for helping the UK meet its climate change targets (Yang et al. 2023).
According to the findings, they can help the UK achieve SDG7 on affordable clean
energy, SDG 9 on improved innovation, industry and innovation, and 13 on Climate
Action. Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technologies have become a crucial part of the global
fight against climate change and promotion of sustainable development. The UK, where
environmental crimes and renewable energy sources are of great importance, this
integration of WtE systems into the EIP represents a progressive solution to climatic
change challenges (Sharma et al., 2021). The major benefit of WtE technologies is their
capacity to deal with the environmental problems of waste disposal and even produce
sustainable energy at the same time. Waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities are unique in that
they divert waste from landfills and incineration hence helping to cut emissions of
methane and reducing the pressure on landfills as the country seeks to hold a small
space for landfills.

This is therefore a contribution to sustainable waste management practices the UK has

committed to. In addition, the gas and electricity generated through WtE procedures
could contribute significantly to the country's greenhouse gas emissions reduction
goals. As shown in the analysis, WtE systems can be used for the achievement of
SDG7 (Sustainable Development Goals Seven) that focuses on affordable clean energy
by providing a renewable source of energy that can be relied upon (Thorneloe et al.
2020). This not only brings the nation energy security but also builds up a more
diversified and resilient energy mix. Furthermore, WtE technologies promote innovation
and economic growth as new avenues are opened for R&D and

57
employment. Sustainable waste management procedures involve the use of latest
technology and processes, hence leading to the transformation of environmental and
resource recovery engineering. Moreover, the fact that WtE systems will be
incorporated within the Environmental Improvement Plan is in tandem with the UK's
aspirations in dealing with the international climate change problem as well as
promoting sustainable development (Yang et al. 2023). Through the use of WtE
technologies, the UK allows pledges of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)
and SDG 13 (Climate Action) to be fulfilled showing the UK's commitment to establish a
greener future with a high degree of resilience.

5.2 Measures for improved WtE

The UK, based on the findings, has to rely on a mix of different Waste-to-energy
methods in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in regards to attaining the UK’s
2050 Climate change targets. Rezania et al. (2023), as provided in the conceptual
literature, regards the integration of different advanced waste management processes
as an innovative way to attain improved effectiveness of WtE. This also agrees with the
empirical study by Sharma et al. (2021) which emphasises the relevance of integrating
different approaches in order to realise a system that is nuanced between the circular
economic principles and the UN’s SDGs. A major measure that needs to be addressed
concerns the implementation of policies. Inadequate or supportive policies has been
cited as a challenge in many parts across the world (Minhas, Gerassimidou and
Iacovidou, 2023; Rezania et al., 2023; Subiza-Pérez et al., 2023), the participants in the
current study’s survey acknowledge the UK’s efforts in implementing supportive policy
mechanisms. However, this does not mean that the government’s efforts are
unquestionable. Based on the prior findings by Jamasb and Nepal (2010), the UK
government’s approaches are rather a flexible strategy than a stringent waste
management measures. The government and the WtE companies, in cooperation with
numerous stakeholders, have a role to play in making WtE options as a viable tool for
making the UK meet its 2050 Climate Change targets.

58
Besides the implementation of supportive policy frameworks, multiple measures have
also been cited in theory. As described in section 2.1.2, however, this research is based
on the pragmatic approach, which stresses the need to understand the people’s true
and fair view of the problems they are facing (Okrusch, 2010; Baker and Schaltegger,
2015; Campos and Vaz, 2021). The findings from the primary data analyses, therefore,
underscore the importance of juxtaposition of theoretical findings with true and objective
human experiences. Consequently, this study advocates for the consideration of the
measures, which were obtained from the experts and professionals within the critical
waste and energy recovery sectors.

The survey respondents have suggested many measures. Based on a thematic

analysis of the suggestions, however, only major common themes are emphasised as
multiple suggestions were similar. A detailed summary of the policy recommendations is
contained in Appendix 25. Many experts stress the need for integration of multiple
waste-to-energy technologies to improve waste management practices and reduce
environmental impact and landfill usage. The Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in 2022 emphasised the implementation of the Waste Hierarchy
Framework, which assumes that multiple methods of waste management have varied
efficacy. According to Rezania et al., (2023) and Cui, Wei and Ji (2024), while WtE
systems have considerable benefits, there is no denying that integration of multiple
methods leads to better sustainable results.

Respondents also underscore the need for strict penalties for waste management policy
violations so as to reinforce compliance and accountability among individuals and
businesses. In addition to this, collaboration among government, industry, academia,
and civil society is crucial for effective waste management strategies, fostering
innovation and resource sharing. Financial incentives for advanced waste-to-energy
technologies are also necessary to stimulate innovation and private sector involvement.
Survey respondents, like the majority of the interviewees, also acknowledged the
implementation of nationwide recycling programs for enhanced resource conservation
and pollution reduction, promoting a circular economy. Integrating waste reduction and
recycling targets into national climate action plans ensures accountability and tracks

59
progress towards sustainability goals. This holistic approach aligns waste management
with broader environmental objectives, driving continuous improvement.

Many points were also raised from the interviews. Suggestions and comments were
mostly around change, such as stricter regulation and policy, more Investment in
recycling infrastructure and residue treatment, driving waste management up the
hierarchy, and sustainable consumption and production, while others called for climate
education, governmental collaboration with society and industry, advancement of WtE
processes with carbon capture technology, circular economy, and waste-to-resource to
broaden the scope of effective waste management., and this perfectly correlates with
the thematic evolution map of WTE in chapter 2 (Figure 2.2) by bibliometrix analysis
software as adopted earlier by the researcher for the trend. Below is a summary of the
suggested measures.

S/N Most Comment and suggestion Frequency

1 Promote circular economy principles, for 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7
maximize waste and resource efficiency
2 More campaign on waste to resources other 1, 2,3,4
than waste to energy
3 More Investment in recycling infrastructure and 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
residue treatment
4 Enforce stricter environmental penalties and 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
EPR scheme.
5 Policy for stricter waste treatment based on 1
LCA
6 Waste Prevention and reduction programmes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
(sustainable production and consumption)
7 Climate change and Public Education 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
8 Collaboration between government, industries, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
and civil society for effective waste
management
9 Improved Waste-to-energy processes adoption 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
and technology advancement e.g. with CCUS
10 Financial support, incentive, and regulation 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

60
 6.0 Limitations, Recommendations for Future Studies and Conclusion

The final chapter of this dissertation provides a critical identification and evaluation of
the limitations encountered in this research. It provides evidence-based
recommendations for the action of the targeted audience, as well as insights for future
studies. By discussing the limitations of the current study, this chapter aims to provide
insights for future researchers on how to improve their scope and the validity of their
studies. This will enable future studies to critically evaluate their sample size, research
methodology and design, and potential biases that might deter the generalizability, as
well as the validity and reliability of the findings. By examining the limitations and
recommendations, this chapter acts as a foundation for rigorous expansive research on
the potential of energy recovery technologies in meeting the UK’s climate change
targets. Lastly, a thorough conclusion is appended that stresses the findings and the
significance of the study.

6.1 Limitations

Although this study adopted a mixed methodology that combined quantitative and qualitative
methods, which, according to Malina, Nørreklit and Selto (2011), offers a window to analyse
complex concepts and relations, it is obvious that one method was given more attention than
the other. This is a potential shortcoming that Östlund et al. (2011) highlighted, arguing that a
major weakness of the mixed methodology is that a researcher obviously prioritises one method
over the other. Agreeably, the current research might have been more biased toward the survey
than the interview, and this can be observed in the sampling. While this research managed to
obtain a substantial number for the quantitative method (survey), it is largely constrained by the
small sample size of the semi-structured interviews. This is an indication that more attention and
time was dedicated to conducting the surveys than the interviews.

The study is also limited to the study area. Although the study focuses on the wider United
Kingdom, a majority of the participants were drawn from within Scotland. It would have been
appropriate to target a larger and wider population across the UK. Covering a broader
population would result in more insights and give a clear picture of the state of WtE technologies
in the broader UK. This challenge was more prevalent in the qualitative method than in the
quantitative surveys. This is largely due to the geographical, time, and financial constraints.

61
Similarly, the study also covered limited demographics. According to the findings, a majority of
the respondents are experts and professionals in sectors of waste management, energy
production, environmental policy-making, and academic research, but only a small percentage
represents individuals from other sectors. According to the concept of environmental
pragmatism discussed in 2.1.2, multiple-stakeholder participation is paramount in order to
address real and pressing environmental concerns (Katz and Light, 1996; Okrusch, 2010;
Campos and Vaz, 2021). Multiple stakeholders can be able to deliberate on controversial
topics and mitigate unnecessary biased debates to arrive at a political consensus when
developing waste management policy interventions. By extending the participation to individual
consumers, therefore, the study could have obtained more insights regarding the social
perceptions of modern waste management technology. Moreover, extending the demographics
to other groups could have resolved biases stemming from cohort attributes. Expanding the
demographics to include attributes such as annual revenue, location, environmental attributes,
and employment demographics can help understand how different groups perceive the
effectiveness of energy recovery methods.

The cross-sectional study design inherent in the methodology is another key limitation of the
study. While cross-sectional studies are important for evaluating aspects within a limited period,
they do not over information about variables that are likely to change over time. Besides, the
UK’s Climate change targets are long-term goals; hence, there is a likelihood that the current
implications of WtE methods of these goals may change over time as technologies for
decarbonisation, transport, energy generation, and infrastructure ( Way et al., 2022), are
constantly changing.

6.2 Recommendations for future studies

The limitations described above could affect the application of the findings to a broader setting.
Overcoming the shortcomings in future studies, therefore, cannot be over-emphasised. The first
issue that future studies should take into consideration is to extend the coverage to a larger
population. For studies that are focusing on a broader population area, for instance, the UK, it is
recommendable to have a large sampling population distributed evenly across the region. It is
also recommended that future studies investigating the implications of WtE in relation to climate
change aspects include more variables, including social, political, economic, political and
geopolitical forces. This is important because many underlying factors, directly or indirectly,
influence the effectiveness of energy recovery technologies. It is also recommended that future

62
studies include more demographic factors. Including attributes such as location, income levels,
and sustainability practices, other focusing on the methods of WtE will help understand the
juxtaposition between environmental and socioeconomic variables. This can also extend the
significance of the study to more stakeholder groups and sectors, including the healthcare
system, education and research, and other areas outside the waste management realism,
creating opportunities for multisectoral collaboration, which results in holistic approaches to
solving environmental waste management issues.

Future studies are also advised to address the complex dynamic issues that overcome over
time. As aforestated, the UK’s Climate change targets are long-term, extending to 2050. It is
therefore recommendable that researchers explore the various energy recovery variables over
an extended period of time, say five or more years. This approach, commonly referred to as
longitudinal, will result in a robust understanding of the effectiveness of sustainable energy
recovery systems, taking into account aspects such as changes in policy frameworks, WtE
technological advancements, improvements in feedstock composition or quality, and societal
developments, among others. By examining these forces over a longer period of time, future
studies can be able to provide results and recommendations that bear sustainable benefits to
both the current and future generations.

6.3 Conclusion

The future of sustainable waste management lies in the integration of waste recovery
technologies. The journey through this dissertation was to apply the concept of the
Waste to Energy (WtE) which can be utilized in attaining the ambitious climate change
targets set by the UK for 2050. The research has been conducted using a mixed-
method approach, which includes a quantitative survey and qualitative interview with the
purpose to explore both the opportunities and challenges of these innovations in relation
to the environmental sustainability and the policy-making fields.

It becomes evident that though the Waste to Energy processes can be a part of the
solution in achieving the climate objectives of the UK, serious considerations and
challenges of these processes need to be addressed. The results of the research have
revealed the vital role of eliminating the shortcomings of the methods
employed. However, the unequal treatment of quantitative surveys and qualitative

63
interviews suggests that the study next time should be executed in the way that will use
mixed methods. Moreover, the study is also restricted geographically and
demographically and therefore it is important to undertake broader research which
includes a more diverse population and larger area so that not just stakeholders’
perspective but also societal contexts are comprehensively understood. Besides, the
research points out to the fact that the environmental issues are dynamic and that
environmental policies are also evolving. To incorporate the changing technologies,
policy environments, and socio-economic factors being reformed along time, future
research should primarily employ the longitudinal approach. Through this approach,
future research projects will not only be able to respond to the needs of today but also
be able to adjust to future uncertainties. Therefore, the solutions proposed will be both
effective and sustainable. This study lays the groundwork for further studies and actions
on how we can use Waste to Energy technologies in our journey towards meeting the
2050 UK climate change target. Through identifying the constraints and a
comprehensive approach to environmental and socio-economic issues, researchers and
policymakers will walk the path of Waste to Energy products into the general design to
overcome climate change and provide for a green environment. Emulation of this
process can be done through collaborative efforts and informed decision-making. These
efforts can lead to a future where sustainable and resilient societies will be built through
the use of Waste to Energy processes.

64
 7.0 References

Abubakar, I. R. et al. (2022) ‘Environmental sustainability impacts of solid waste management practices in
the Global South’, International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(12717), pp. 1–26.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912717.

Albert, M. D. A., Bennett, K. O., Adams, C. A., & Gluyas, J. G. (2022). Waste heat
mapping: A UK study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160.
[Link]
Anandarajah, G., & Strachan, N. (2010). Interactions and implications of renewable and
climate change policy on UK energy scenarios. Energy Policy, 38(11), 6724–6735.
[Link]
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science
mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
[Link]

Baker, M. and Schaltegger, S. (2015) ‘Pragmatism and new directions in social and
environmental accountability research’, Accounting auditing & accountability, 28(2), pp.
263–294.

Barrow, J. M., Brannan, G. D. and Khandhar, P. B. (2022) Research Ethics. StatPearls

Publishing.

65
Bhadouria, R. et al. (2023) ‘Urban metabolism and global climate change: An overview’,
in Urban Metabolism and Climate Change. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.
3–22.

Butterworth, B. (2023) ‘Closing the urban waste loop-delivering environmental and

financial sustainability’, in Urban Metabolism and Climate Change. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, pp. 183–207.

Campbell, S. et al. (2020) ‘Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case

examples’, Journal of research in nursing: JRN, 25(8), pp. 652–661.

Campos, A. S. and Vaz, S. G. (2021) ‘Justificatory moral pluralism: A novel form of

environmental pragmatism’, Environmental values, 30(6), pp. 737–758.

Cui, W., Wei, Y. and Ji, N. (2024) ‘Global trends of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies in
carbon neutral perspective: Bibliometric analysis’, Ecotoxicology and environmental
safety, 270(115913), pp. 1–15.

Damluji, A. A. et al. (2024) ‘SCAI manual of standard operating procedures for performing
scientific surveys’, Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions,
3(3), pp. 1–7.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2017) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2021) Waste Management Plan for
England. Available at:
[Link]
[Link] (Accessed: 2 March 2024).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2022) Resource efficiency and
waste reduction targets: detailed evidence report. Available at:
[Link]
targets/supporting_documents/Resource (Accessed: 2 March 2024).

66
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2023) Environmental Improvement
Plan 2023: First revision of the 25 Year Environment Plan. Available at:
[Link]
[Link] (Accessed: 2 March 2024).

Dooly, M., Moore, E. and Vallejo, C. (2017) ‘Research ethics’, in Qualitative approaches
to research on plurilingual education / Enfocaments qualitatius per a la recerca en
educació plurilingüe / Enfoques cualitativos para la investigación en educación plurilingüe.
[Link], pp. 351–362.

Farghali, M. et al. (2023) ‘Seaweed for climate mitigation, wastewater treatment,

bioenergy, bioplastic, biochar, food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics: a
review’, Environmental chemistry letters, 21(1), pp. 97–152.

Green Alliance (2023) Net zero policy tracker: June 2023 update », Green Alliance.
Available at: [Link]
update/ (Accessed: 2 March 2024).

HM Revenue and Customs (2023) Landfill Tax rates, [Link]. Available at:
[Link]
rates-from-1-april-2013 (Accessed: 2 March 2024).

Hoang, A. T. et al. (2022) ‘Perspective review on Municipal Solid Waste-to-energy route:

Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular economy’, Journal of cleaner
production, 359(131897).

Holtom, B. et al. (2022) ‘Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment
framework’, Human relations; studies towards the integration of the social sciences, 75(8),
pp. 1560–1584.

Huckelba, A. L. and Van Lange, P. A. M. (2020) ‘The silent killer: Consequences of

climate change and how to survive past the year 2050’, Sustainability, 12(9), pp. 1–22.

Islam, A. and Aldaihani, M. F. (2021) ‘Justification for adopting qualitative research

method, research approaches, sampling strategy, sample size, interview method,
67
saturation, and data analysis’, Journal of International Business and Management, 5(1),
pp. 1–11.

Jamas, T., & Nepal, R. (2010). Issues and options in waste management: A social cost-
benefit analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
54(12), 1341–1352. [Link]

Jamasb, T. and Nepal, R. (2010) ‘Issues and options in waste management: A social
cost–benefit analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK’, Resources, conservation, and
recycling, 54(12), pp. 1341–1352. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.05.004.

Kabir, Z. and Kabir, M. (2022) ‘Solid waste management in developing countries: Towards
a circular economy’, in Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Singapore: Springer
Nature Singapore, pp. 3–36.

Kamaruddin, M. A. et al. (2024) ‘Treatment and management of hazardous solid waste

stream by incineration’, in Handbook of Environmental Engineering. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, pp. 285–335.

Katz, E. and Light, A. (eds) (1996) Environmental Pragmatism. London, England:

Routledge.

Kulkarni, B. N. and Anantharama, V. (2022) ‘Solid waste to energy: A prognostic for sound
waste management’, in Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Singapore: Springer
Nature Singapore, pp. 2047–2078.

Kumar, A. et al. (2021) ‘Solid waste to energy: Existing scenario in developing and
developed countries’, in Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Singapore: Springer
Singapore, pp. 1–23.

Maniscalco, M. P., Volpe, M. and Messineo, A. (2020) ‘Hydrothermal carbonization as a

valuable tool for energy and environmental applications: A review’, Energies, 13(16), pp.
1–26.

Mariyam, S. et al. (2022) ‘A critical review on co-gasification and co-pyrolysis for gas
production’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161(112349).

68
Marti, L. and Puertas, R. (2021) ‘Influence of environmental policies on waste
treatment’, Waste management (New York, N.Y.), 126, pp. 191–200.

Mazumdar, S. et al. (2023) ‘Towards achieving net zero by 2050 in the UK – Stakeholder
perspectives in integrated urban planning’, Futures, 152(103197), pp. 1–12.

Minhas, N., Gerassimidou, S. and Iacovidou, E. (2023) ‘Residual waste management in

London, England: a reality check’, Environmental monitoring and assessment, 195(11).

Moya, D., Aldás, C., López, G., & Kaparaju, P. (2017). Municipal solid waste as a valuable
renewable energy resource: A worldwide opportunity of energy recovery by using Waste-
To-Energy Technologies. Energy Procedia, 134, 286–295.
[Link]

Münster, M. and Lund, H. (2010) ‘Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying

energy system analysis’, Waste management (New York, N.Y.), 30(7), pp. 1251–1263.

Münster, M., & Lund, H. (2009). Use of waste for heat, electricity and transport-Challenges
when performing energy system analysis. Energy, 34(5), 636–644.
[Link]
Omer, A. M. (2008). Focus on low carbon technologies: The positive solution. In
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (Vol. 12, Issue 9, pp. 2331–2357).
[Link]

Ngo, D. and Hoang, T. (2014) ‘The steps to follow in a multiple regression analysis’, In
Proceedings of the SAS Global forum, pp. 22–25.

Okrusch, C. M. (2010) Pragmatism and environmental problem-solving: a systematic

moral analysis of democratic environmental decision-making in Butte, Montana. University
of Oregon.

Oliveira, M. et al. (2022) ‘A review on plasma gasification of solid residues: Recent

advances and developments’, Energies, 15(4), pp. 1–21.

Osborne, N. and Grant-Smith, D. (2021) ‘In-Depth Interviewing’, in Methods in Urban

Analysis. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 105–125.

69
Östlund, U. et al. (2011) ‘Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed
method research designs: a methodological review’, International journal of nursing
studies, 48(3), pp. 369–383.

Peng, X., Jiang, Y., Chen, Z., Osman, A. I., Farghali, M., Rooney, D. W., & Yap, P. S.
(2023). Recycling municipal, agricultural and industrial waste into energy, fertilizers, food
and construction materials, and economic feasibility: a review. In Environmental
Chemistry Letters (Vol. 21, Issue 2, pp. 765–801). Springer Science and Business Media
Deutschland GmbH. [Link]

Revez, J. and Borges, L. C. (2018) ‘Pragmatic paradigm in information science research:

A literature review’, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 7(4), pp. 583–593.

Rezania, S. et al. (2023) ‘Review on waste-to-energy approaches toward a circular

economy in developed and developing countries’, Processes (Basel, Switzerland), 11(9),
pp. 1–18.

Shahbaz, M. et al. (2023) ‘A review of waste management approaches to maximise

sustainable value of waste from the oil and gas industry and potential for the State of
Qatar’, Fuel (London, England), 332(126220), pp. 1–25.

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2023) Research methods for business
students. 9th edn. London: Pearson Education.

Sharma, H. B. et al. (2021) ‘Circular economy approach in solid waste management

system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery’, The Science of the
total environment, 800(149605), pp. 1–19.

Subiza-Pérez, M. et al. (2023) ‘Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: health, politics

and environmental impacts’, Journal of risk research, 26(10), pp. 1101–1118.

Tipton, E. (2013) ‘Stratified sampling using cluster analysis: a sample selection strategy
for improved generalizations from experiments: A sample selection strategy for improved
generalizations from experiments’, Evaluation review, 37(2), pp. 109–139.

70
Tsekos, C. (2024) ‘Development of experimental and analytical/modelling methods for the
investigation of biomass pyrolysis and gasification in a novel indirect fluidized bed reactor’.
Delft University of Technology.

Tsui, T. H., & Wong, J. W. C. (2019). A critical review: emerging bioeconomy and waste-
to-energy technologies for sustainable municipal solid waste management. In Waste
Disposal and Sustainable Energy (Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 151–167). Springer.
[Link]

Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B. and Burton, R. M. (2017) ‘Research design for mixed
methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap’, Organizational research
methods, 20(2), pp. 243–267.

Velenturf, A. and Purnell, P. (2017) ‘Resource Recovery from waste: Restoring the
balance between resource scarcity and waste overload’, Sustainability, 9(9), pp. 1–17.

Way, R. et al. (2022) ‘Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy
transition’, Joule, 6(9), pp. 2057–2082.

Yang, M. et al. (2023) ‘Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and
other environmental issues’, Environmental chemistry letters, 21(1), pp. 55–80.

8.0 Appendices
Survey
Appendix 1

71
Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

72
Appendix 5

Appendix 6

73
Appendix 7

Appendix 8

74
Appendix 9

Appendix 10

75
Appendix 11

Appendix 12

76
Appendix 13

Appendix 14

Appendix 15

77
Appendix 16

Appendix 17

78
Appendix 18

Appendix 19

79
Appendix 20

Appendix 21

80
Appendix 22

Appendix 23

81
Appendix 24

Appendix 25
Given an opportunity, what major policy issue would you advocate for in regard to waste
management practices that can help the UK meet its 2050 climate change actions?

Given an opportunity, what major policy issue would you advocate

for in regard to waste management practices that can help the UK
meet its 2050 climate change actions?

95 responses

82
Promoting circular economy principles to minimize waste generation and maximize
resource efficiency.
Every industry should atleast adopt one or more waste-to-energy technologies to
ensure effective waste management poratice
Climate and public education with more campaign on waste to resources order than
waste to energy alone.
More campaigns on climate change
Investment in recycling infrastructure and education
Implementing EPR schemes to ensure that producers are responsible for the entire
lifecycle of their products, including collection, recycling, and disposal.
Waste to energy
Consistent recycling to optimise capture of recyclables, as this would give a stable
base for thermal treatments of non-recyclables. AND introduce into policy a
consistent decision making mechanism based on LCA that helps decision maker to
decide the best treatment route for wastes.
Waste reduction in the population
Penalities for those who go against waste management policies
addressing over-consumption, making recycling work to reduce plastics to EfW and
organics to landfill and carbon capture utilisation and / or storage!
Greater public education and improved consistency in recycling nationally
circular economy strategy
circular economy strategy can help reduce carbon emmissions
I think government environmental organs should put penalties on those who break
environment
The environmental organization should put penalties for those who break policies
Composting can be effective
Introduction modern ways of waste control
Extended Producer Responsibility
Promotion of Sustainable Consumption and Production
Investing in advanced waste-to-energy technologies
Encouraging consumers to choose products with minimal packaging, buy goods made
from recycled materials, and adopt practices like repair and reuse can help reduce
waste generation.
Government put in control measures on waste Management
Incentives and Regulations
Collaboration between government, industry, academia, and civil society is essential
for developing and implementing effective waste management policies and
initiatives.
adopt practices like repair and reuse can help reduce waste generation.
Education and Awareness Campaigns
recycling infrastructure, such as sorting facilities and recycling plants
anaerobic digestion and thermal treatment, can help extract value from waste
anaerobic digestion and thermal treatment

83
Invest in Advanced WtE technologies
Employ effective waste management systems
Penalities for those who break environmental sustainabikity goals
implement stronger WtE technoloigies
Work with other countries and international organizations to harmonize standards
share best practices, and address global challenges such as plastic pollution and
electronic waste with other interested bodies
Penalities for those farms that don't impliment WtE technologies
financial support is crucial in these intiatives
Impliment strict rules governing waste management practices
Environmental advocacy
New imprved technologiues
communiuty involvement
Organizations to invest in waste management practices
New residue treatment systems to be implemented
community awareness should be prioritized
Establishing financial incentives for investment in advanced waste-to-energy
technologies
Enhancing public awareness and education on the benefits of waste-to-energy
technologies
Developing comprehensive national strategies to integrate waste-to-energy
technologies into the circular economy
Implementing stricter regulations on landfilling to incentivize waste diversion to
energy recovery technologies
Incentives for Waste Reduction
Mandatory Food Waste Reduction Targets
Ban on Single-Use Plastics
A major policy that I can advocate is to implement a comprehensive all around
economy framework.
I will use the integrated plan to refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, and finally recycle
which is aimed to promote a clean and healthy environment for sustainable socio
economic development of the the nation.
Impliment environemental policies
Implementing a comprehensive nationwide recycling program to increase recycling
rates and reduce landfill waste.
Investing in advanced waste-to-energy technologies to convert waste into clean
energy.
Educating the public about the importance of waste reduction and proper waste
disposal methods.
Establishing community composting programs to divert organic waste from landfills
and reduce methane emissions.
Supporting research and development efforts to innovate new methods for waste
management and recycling.

84
Implementing extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes to hold manufacturers
accountable for the end-of-life disposal of their products.
Encouraging the adoption of reusable products and packaging to reduce reliance on
single-use items.
Enforcing stricter penalties for environmental violations related to improper waste
management.
Promoting the use of decentralized waste management systems to reduce
transportation emissions associated with waste disposal.
Supporting initiatives to reduce food waste at all stages of the supply chain, from
production to consumption
Promoting the development of markets for recycled materials to create economic
incentives for recycling.
Implementing a nationwide ban on single-use plastics to reduce plastic pollution and
encourage sustainable alternatives.
Introducing a comprehensive recycling program with incentives for households and
businesses to participate actively.

Regression Analysis
Appendix 26
How effectively does waste-to-energy recovery technologies contribute toward
achieving the UK’s 2050 climate change targets compared to conventional
methods like landfilling?

85
Appendix 27
To what extent do you feel Waste-to-energy technologies align with the UN’s
SDG goal 7 ‘Ensure Affordable and Clean energy for all’?

86
87
 Interviews
Appendix 28

88
 Questionnaire
Appendix 29
What sector does your company primarily operate in?
Waste management
Energy production
Environmental policy-making
Academic research
Other
How long has your company been operating?

Less than 1 year

1-5 years
5-10 years
More than 10 years

What is the size of your

company?
Small (1-50 employees)
Medium (51-500 employees)
Large (501+ employees)
Waste-to-Energy Operations

what type of waste-to-energy technology does your company

utilize? (Select all that apply)

Incineration
Anaerobic digestion
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Hydrothermal
Fermentation
Carbonization

How would you rate the efficiency of your energy recovery

processes?

Very efficient
Somewhat efficient
Neutral

89
Inefficient
Very Inefficient

How does your facility control emissions generated during energy

conversion processes to ensure environmental compliance? (Select
all that apply)

Electrostatic precipitators
Scrubbers
Catalytic converters
Other pollution control technologies
We comply with all environmental regulations

What is the primary method of residue management at your WTE

facility?

Transporting the residues to designated landfill sites for final disposal

Recycling of metals or inert materials
Waste residues are utilized in the production of construction materials.
Energy Recovery technologies are used
Climate Change

How effectively does waste-to-energy recovery technologies

contribute toward achieving the UK’s 2050 climate change targets
compared to conventional methods like landfilling?

Very effective
Effective
Neutral
Ineffective
Very ineffective

To what extent do you feel Waste-to-energy technologies align

with the UN’s SDG goal 7 ‘Ensure Affordable and Clean energy for
all’?

Strongly aligned
Aligned
Moderately aligned
Slightly aligned
Not aligned ineffective

90
To what extent do you feel the waste-to-energy technologies have
helped the UK fulfil the UN’s SDG13 on climate action?

Strongly helped
Significantly helped
Moderately helped
Little help
No help
To what extent have waste-to-energy technologies support the UK
with the UN’s SDG 9 on innovation, infrastructure and industry?
Strongly supported
Substantially supported
Moderately supported
Limited support
No support

in a scale of 1 to 5, 1 indicating low ranking and 5 the highest

rank, how do you rank waste-to-energy technologies in helping the
UK achieve a circular (resources conservation)?

Do you think waste-to-energy technologies will become the most

relied upon method in the next 5 years?

very likely
Likely
Not sure
Somewhat likely
Not likely
Challenges And Barriers

What are the main obstacles that Waste-to-Energy (WtE)

initiatives must overcome to meet the UK's climate change
targets? (Select at least 2)

Regulatory barriers and permitting challenges

Negative public perceptions and community opposition
technical limitations and operational inefficiencies
Lack of sufficient government support and funding
High initial costs of installation, Maintenance, and Infrastructural development

91
How do you perceive the impact of controversial public
perceptions surrounding Waste-to-Energy (WtE) on its ability to
effectively mitigate carbon emissions and support climate change
goals in the UK?

Negatively impacts effectiveness

Moderately impacts effectiveness
Does not significantly hinder effectiveness
Significantly promotes critical evaluation

What specific concerns are associated with the Waste-to-Energy

technologies, particularly regarding their impact on environment
and climate change? (Select at least 2)

Increase in heat emissions contributing to urban heat island effect

Release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases

Perception of health risks from air pollutants and toxic emissions

Disruption of local ecosystems and biodiversity

Poor uk policy leads to sub optimal outcomes

Modern EtW are designed to be CHP ready limited urban heat connections. Carbon storage is not proven technology

and retro fitting is expensive and space to install such technology.

do you rate the general future potential of Waste-to-Energy

initiatives?

In light of environmental and health issues, how do you see the

adoption of Waste-to-Energy projects regarding public opinion in
the UK?

Widespread acceptance and support

Strong acceptance and support

Moderate support

92
Limited acceptance and support

Strong opposition

In what ways does your company contribute to promoting

sustainable developments in waste management and energy
production?

Investing in renewable energy projects

Implementing waste reduction strategies

Supporting policy advocacy for environmental regulations

Conducting performance reviews

Does your company engage in research and development activities

aimed at improving waste-to-energy technologies?

Yes

No

How does your company collaborate with other stakeholders (e.g.,

government agencies, NGOs, local communities) to enhance
sustainability in waste management and energy production?
(select all that apply)

To what extent do you think waste-to-energy communities should

modify their strategies to achieve positive environmental impact
to spur widespread acceptance?

93
Strongly modify

Slightly modify

Somewhat modify

Should not modify

Do you think waste-to-energy technologies are viable options for

helping the UK meet its climate change actions, considering their
social impact?

Yes

No

Slightly modify

How confident are you that if the current concerns and challenges
are mitigated the UK can attract massive investments in the
waste-to-energy sector?

Extremely confident

Confident

Moderately confident

Slightly confident

Not confident

Given an opportunity, what major policy issue would you advocate

for in regard to waste management practices that can help the UK
meet its 2050 climate change actions?

94
Site visit (Pics)
Picture Evidence below.

95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108