Resource Cyclical Dynamics of
Electric and Electronic Equipment Waste
Man-Hyung Lee, Ph.D
Professor
Department of Urban Engineering,
Chungbuk National University
12 Gaeshin-Dong, Heungduck-Gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk, 361-763, Korea
Tel: 82-43-261-2369/Fax: 82-43-276-2369
E-mail: manlee@ cbu.ac.kr
Tae-Yong Kim, Ph.D
General Manager
Samsung Global Environment Research Center
467-14, Dogok-2Dong, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 135-856, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3458-3142/Fax: 82-2-3459-3149
E-mail: ty77.kim@samsung.com
and
Moonseo Park, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Department of Architecture,
Seoul National University
San 56-1 Shinrim-dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea
Tel: 82-2-880-5848/Fax: 82-2-871-5518
E-mail: mspark@snu.ac.kr
Abstract
As a practical means to upgrade urban sustainability, this paper focuses on
resource cyclical systems concerned with electric and electronic equipment waste
(EEEW) in Korea. Borrowing System Dynamics concepts and approaches, it
examines behavioral changes of EEEW dynamics to see whether the existing
management methods can be readjusted. The measurement is based upon both
reuse and material and thermal recycle simulation works in the individual stage
of EEEWdischarge, collection, and treatment, going beyond the traditional
recycle-onlycustoms. This research estimates that the newly introduced Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) system would definitely exert a significant impact
on the final stage of EEEW treatment, decreasing the final treatment volume in
the first half of the research period. The trend, nonetheless, would be reversed
in the second half, mainly owing to the additional waste volume originated from
the local government and recycling center. Sensitivity analysis poses, among
others, that the local government-supported reuse center should take charge of a
pivotal role in the EEEWmanagement and treatment in the long mm. The
research also shows that sufficient and necessary conditions for the EEEW
management and treatment should be given to the combined efforts,both from the
private sectors and the public domains. Based on these research findings, the
paper recommends that key stakeholders including theproducer and the public
organizations should devise how to carry out specific agenda centered around
partnership or network buildings.
Keywords: Resource CyclicalSystems, System Dynamics, Electric and Electronic
Equipment Waste (EEEW), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
1. Introduction
This study examines treatment characteristics of electric and electronic equipment
waste (hereafter EEEW), borrowing conceptsderived from the System Dynamics
(SD). Most of the existing documents focusing on the resource cyclical society
system have provided theoretical tools or practical means, going beyond the
statistical data analyses. For example, Mashayekhi (1993), Sudhir, Srinivasan, and
Muraleedharan (1997), Ulli-Beer (2003), and Ulli-Beer, Richardson, and Anderson
(2004) used SD modeling to analyze solid waste treatment issues. Ford in his
Modeling the Environment (1999) also suggested various SD models related to
the environment system. These studies point out structural relationships embedded
in feedback, time delay, and non-linearity, which provide a conceptual basis for
this research.
As the EEEW discharge and collection channels are so complicated, it is
essential to understand the system as a whole, ahead of suggesting any specific
treatment method. Research questions are centered around how causal
relationships are formed throughout the EEEW life cycles and discuss what types
of variables and feedbacks should be strengthened or not. The research covers
both explicit and implicit factors in dealing with the EEEW management in
Korea. The former emphasizes in-depth analysis of the current status quo and
unresolved tasks. In contrast, the latter stresses diagram formation and scenario
experiment, reflecting bottleneck and time delay factors. All of them would
contribute to reassigning appropriate roles among the key stakeholders including
the consumer, the producer, the local government, reuse centers, and recycling
centers.
Following the introduction, the EEEW conceptual models are proposed as the
comerstones for the causal map and flow-stock modeling works. After
quantitative model building and calibration, sensitivity analyses are carried out to
test the robustness of the model. In order to develop policy leverages, policy
feasibility and applicability are experimented in both quantitative and
qualitativemanners. Finally, the key research findings and discussion topics are
highlighted as the conclusion of this research.
II. EEEW Loops and Dynamics
1. EEEW Conceptual Loops
The electric and electronic equipment defined in this paper refers to the typical
household durable goods like televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners, and etc.
The equipment life cycle is composed of a series of activities, covering material
input, production, delivery, consumption, and discard.
The resource cyclical social system to be proposed in this study aims at
minimizing the discard volume per se. That is, if reuse and recycle methods
were adopted by the major stakeholders, it would contribute to minimizing the
final treatment volume. Reuse exemplifies the most appropriate type for the
resource cyclical social system, as it implies the fact that consumer(s) would use
the old product or its components, which have been discharged by the aboriginal
owners. Material and thermal recycles are also essential for the resource cyclical
social system, as raw materials and energy, all of which are extracted from the
discharged electric and electronic components, are again put into
production-consumption processes. If these circular flows work, it would be
possible for both producers and consumers to save money.
material input’
sf
+ production
final treatment.
Ne
+ Sette
Ne )
treatment
discharge +
Figure 1: Basic EEEW Structure for the Resource Cyclical Social System
From this perspective, Figure 1 presents the basic dynamic EEEW structure for
the resource cyclical social system. It shows how the key variables interact in
the processes of equipment production, consumption, discharge, and treatment. R1
focuses on continuous reuse of the discharged product as the second-hand
product. In contrast, R2 simply means component reuse. Lastly, the R3 loop
explains recycle circulation derived from the intermediate treatment. As
mentioned above, the shortest route for the resource cyclical social system should
be given to both Ril and R2 loops. If recycle-oriented policy resorts to a
convenient and inexpensive alternative to satisfy the pre-allocated volume
prescribed in the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) rules, it might result in
a dilemmaticsituation, meaning that the raw material input has to be increased
over time, which would produce the increased volume of the final treatment.
2. Electric and Electronic Resource Cyclical Loops
The reuse causal loops in Figure 2 are composed of 2 reinforcing and 3
balancing loops. Higher consumer consciousness on reuse and recycle leads to
more use of the second-hand electric and electronic equipment, which also
increases the total reuse volume (R1 and R2). In contrast, as consumer
consciousness expands the average product lifetime, it reduces the discarded
equipment volume, which in tum lowers collection activities in the local
government and reuse center (B1, B2, and B3).
eS, ee
+ +
corporate consumer preference for the second-hand equipment
environmental policy consciousness ’
Gu (@)
+ local government
average product _ illegal dumping —_ collection volume
lifetime volume + reuse volume
producer collection q 4.
“ht agua (2p (ef
+
equipment volume reuse center
collection
Figure 2: EEEW Reuse Causal Loops
Secondly, Figure 3 presents the basic recycle causal loops. Here 5 reinforcing
and 3 balancing loops are interrelated to each other. The recycled product and
components exert negative impacts on the average product lifetime. If the
product lifetime becomes longer, it would dampen the brand-new sales volume,
reducing the producer-collected waste volume (R1). If the producer has to
increase the replacement demand, the recycled volume would be expanded (R2).
In a similar context, there also exists a positive relationship between the
discharged product and components and the collection volume by the local
government unit or the reuse center. Therefore, the recycle volume would be
increased if the local government unit or local reuse center has to handle more
electric and electronicwaste (R3, R4, and R5). Reflecting the corporate
environmental policy, however, the business willingness for the product recycle
would yield a couple of balancing loops. First of all, the producer has to deal
with the extra burden originated from the recycle cost. In addition, as the central
government would levy a huge amount of fines when the prearranged recycle
target number is not achieved, the producer’s top priority is given on how to
minimize the recycle volume (B1, B2, and B3).
average product
ik —
% final Camere consciousness
@
egal dumping covets
Gollan local government oe policy
ht y- -_ collection a,
1 discarde
brand-new sales scarded Gp oN Lam ayn veilngness e
ohn equipment ee e4 product recycle
recycle tarket
volume
z
reuse center
le volume
discard ae a
Figure 3: EEEW Recycle Causal Loops
fines levied by the
je central government
Thirdly, illegal dumping in Figure 4 reveals 2 reinforcing and 3 balancing loops.
In fact, the reinforcing loops are the same as shown in Figure 2. Up to now,
illegally dumped electric and electronic waste has been handled either by the
individual consumer or the local government. This suggests that to reduce illegal
dumping, consumer consciousness should be upgraded. In addition, if the average
product lifetime is expanded and if both the local govemment and reuse center
facilitate product and component transaction in the second-hand market, it would
also contribute to the reduction of the illegally dumped volume (B1, B2, and
B3).
a,
Geawenae preference for the
conscious _ US second-hand equipment
= treatment
+ reuse volume
average ay dumped a local eo
ae ilegal dumping ___& collection <i
Solumie sl a and
at we cost Paueecedee
Gp sus volume
Ncssartca
equipment volume discard eZ ssopate volume
Figure 4: EEEW Illegal Dumping Causal Loops
In sum, Figure 5 represents the resource cyclical system, in which the EEEW
treatment processes are synthesized.
corporate
preference for the environmental policy
‘ois G@s secpnd-hand enipment
consciousness
emus <_ (a)
tome illegal dumping damped waste
fA
‘4
K ”,
Noes government,
collection volume
a aah,
discarded euipiment
volume
9
‘business willingness for
product recycle
collection and
transportation cost
reuse center
collection volumg fines levied by the
tral government
Sa ay recycle technology
brand-new sales
volume a B7) tecyole tarket
producer collection volume
volume Bd
Figure 5: EEEW Casual Loops for the Resource Cyclical Social System
3. Electric and Electronic Resource Cyclical Dynamics
Figure 6 highlights resource cyclical dynamics, representing the lifecycle of
electric and electronic equipment with stocks and flows. First of all, the
aggregation of domestic and imported product decides the total volume of
brand-new supply. Commonly, consumers use these durable goods for a certain
period of time. Once a consumer discharges the electric and electronic equipment
and its components, the law and ordinances make sure that the used product
should be properly collected either by the local government unit, reuse center or
producer in Korea. In the case of illegal dumping, the local government is the
first organization to take care of illegally dumped waste within its jurisdiction.
‘legal dumped
| cum F sovemmentcolected
ee a
—
second-hand
oo equipment ater in inal -——=C)
tenment
LS
ee
cube
y y y
pg equipmentin
mdacercolectedequpment je eae
y
recycled component
'
Figure 6: EEEW Stock-Flow Model for the Resource Cyclical Social System
If the collected product is reused by the local government unit, reuse center or
producer, it once again follows the same routes. The model assumes that in the
best scenario, around 70 percent of used electric and electronic products and
components are exported or in the worst scenario, treated as useless waste. It
means that neither of them is further considered in the model experiment. Even
though the local government joins the collection processes, the actual reuse
works are usuallyintermediated by the reuse center, except a few cases.
At present, the total volume of the electric and electronic waste collected by the
producer has been directed to therecycling processes, without exception. For the
policy experiment based on the reuse-oriented alternative, however, the model
also presupposes that the producer-collected electric and electronic equipment
would be on the reuse circle.
Lastly, the final treatment volume consists of incinerated and landfilled materials
handled by either the local goverment or reuse center and residuals provided by
the recycling center.
III. Modeling Building and Policy Experiment
1. Major variables
Using the theoretical frames derived from the previous researches, this research
puts emphasis on dynamic analyses based on status quo data. The major
variables in the model cover electric and electronic sales volume, supply ratio,
and collection volume from the local goverment unit, reuse center, and
producer. It also tries to figure out the reused and recycled volume originated
from various collection activities, in addition to the final treatment volume.
Table 1: Major Variables and Their Contents
Major Variables Contents
Equipment supply ratio
Imported equipme
Domest
Produ
Exporting
Reused volume colle
=Reeyeled volume coll
and 5 enter rea
EEEW measured by the weight aver
measured by the weight average (metals: 49.2%, nonferrous
4%, others’
=Reeyeled volume ied_by produce
Note: Purely modeling purposes, this research depends on internal data either
from Korean Association of Electronics Environment or Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd.
Due to available data, a handful of variables depend on the estimated figures.
For example, using internal documents kept at Korea Electronics Association, the
model recalculates the illegal dumping volume. Judging from the existing
household supply ratio, the model also assumes that non-households such as
administrative units, hospitals, schools, and other types of offices would account
for almost 20 percent of the household supply ratio. In a similar context, the
collected waste volume would be around 30 percent of the estimated waste
volume in a given period. Table 1 summarizes key variables and their attributes.
2. Model Calibration
Model calibration works for the resource cyclical system hinged on electric and
electronic equipment waste are carried out inthree steps. As diagramed in Figure
7, the first job is concemed with data input and the second with feedbacks. The
third loop in the figure symbolizes the synthesized calibration that has been done
for the EEEW model.
Figure 7: Calibration of EEEW Dynamic Model
In the procedures, the extended Bass models, which represent the aggregation of
both external and internal factors, have been used for the auxiliary variables.
Table 2 shows a list of the calibrated variables. In order to minimize the gap
between real data and the prototype scenario-based data, the model tries to
calculate innovation and imitation coefficients of each constraint.
Table 2: Calibrated Variables and Attributes
Variables and Constraints Contents
Objective variable minimize (model itself - model inputted data)*
e, word of mouse coefficient=0.0399004<0.1
word of moi ficient - income coefficient=0.412232
Spur
ew purchase weight in 19
d weight advertisement coeffi
0<1
d weight, word of mouse coefficient by purchase of brand-new
0.1185821
nt by purchase of brand-new
treatment weight
io of second-hand to
O<weight per reuse ce 900887322
O<reuse center, advertisement coeffici
O<reuse center, word of mouse coefficie!
Constraints
9448<20
B61076<1
n by local government, ratio o!
tion by local government, weit
O<reuse
O<reuse
Oreuse
by reuse center=0,0258447
ty imitation coefficient
O<local governm ci
O<local governm
OSlocal governm
O<local government, sense coefficient for recycle
3. Sensitivity Analysis on Illegal Dumping
Illegal dumping data derived from the existing documents at Korea Electronics
Association require a sensitivity analysis to measure the degree of their impact
on the system. Specifically, this study focuses on measuring the impact on
brand-new purchase, final treatment, and ferrous material volumes. It covers a
time span from 1985 to 2025.
After repeated experiments, the study confirms that the illegal dumping exerts
minimal impact on both brand-new purchase and final treatment volumes, even
though the recycled ferrous materials yield a relatively high degree of impact.
Among them, Figure 8 represents the sensitivity result on the final treatment
volume.
SensE
50% [75% {| -|95%| 100% [|
final treatment volume
600,000
450,000
300,000 ae
150,000
0
1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Time (Y ear)
Figure 8: Sensitivity Results on the Final Treatment Volume by the Illegal
Dumping
4. Base Models
Base models are derived from the dynamic movement of key variables. First of
all, purchase behavior (1989 - 2003)is represented in Figure 9. The purchase
volume dropped abruptly during the so-called ‘Asian foreign exchange crisis’
period. Aside from this, the ever-increasing trend in the purchase pattern has
been observed.
10M
8.5M
UA
7™M LY ——-
>—4 ;+—4
5.5M I
4M
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Time (Y ear)
Purchase of brand new product : BaseCase——2——_—_—+_ Units/Y ear
D Purchase of brand new product : InputD ata—2—2—_2—_2— 2 Uniits/Y ear
Figure 9: Electric and Electronic Equipment Purchase Pattern
Figure 10 presents the movement of producer collection (1995 - 2003). Even
though any producer collection activity did not exist until 1992, its movement
has shown a skyrocketing pattern since the adoption of the Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR)in 2000. It is expected that producer collection will be
accelerated in the near future as the consumer is entitled to trading of the old
product without any charge when she/he purchases a brand-new one.
2M
15M
1M
i ¥ |
ea
=
,—4 pF
500,000 _
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Time (Y ear)
Producer collection : BaseCase-+——2—_+—_4+-—__+>—_4+—_ ++ Units/Y ear
D Producer collection : InputD ata: 2 Units/Y ear
Figure 10: Producer Collection of Electric and Electronic Equipment Waste
In Korea, many local governments run the reuse center or financially support it.
Figure 11 yields the collection volume handled by the reuse center, from 1995
to 2002. Even though the reuse center has been under heavy pressure to expand
its capacity, the increase rate has become rather weakened over time.
400,000
300,000
200,000
a ane
100,000 =a 7
| r]
0 | 4]
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Time (Y ear)
Reuse center collection : BaseCase—t—_+—_4—_+>—_4+—_ ++ Units/Y ear
D Reuse center collection : InputData 2 Units/Y ear
Figure 11: Reuse Center Collection of Electric and Electronic Equipment Waste
Local government collection (1995 - 2002) is shown in Figure 12. The total
volume collected by the local government is separatedbetween legal discharge
with due levy and illegal dumping without any payment. As referred in the
above, this research has configuredillegal dumping data based on the existing
documents and expert group’s judgment. In general, even though the local
government collection has been in stable condition, recently, a diminishing trend
has been observed, probably owing to the increased producer collection.
800,000
600,000
| 4-4-7
400,000 i
| ++]
200,000
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Time (Y ear)
Local government collection : BaseCase—t——+ +—+—+ Units/Y ear
D Local government collection : InputD a2 9 9 2 9 Units/Y ear
Figure 12: Local Govemment Collection of Electric and Electronic Equipment
Waste
This study has built a series of base scenarios to enhance the models’relevance.
Among them, a base scenario dealing with the final treatment volume through
either incineration or landfill is presented in Figure 13. Annual treatment volume
reveals an overshoot-collapsing pattem, culminating in 2002. It may have
originated from the fact that a producer had to maximize its recycled volume
after the government legally institutionalized the producer recycling duty in 2003.
400,000
300,000
,—-#—
200,000
L~]
100,000 = +— tI
a , tT 4 | | 2]
| 4
0 a ea
he is
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Time (Y ear)
Final treatment volume : BaseCase —t + +t aS + + 1 Units/Y ear
Local government treatment volume : BaseCase 2 2 2 2 Units/Y ear
Reuse center treatment volume : BaseCase 3 3 Units/Y ear
Recycling center treatment volume : BaseCase ——4—-—_4—__4_4_4—_ Units/Y ear
Figure 13: Final Treatment Volume Pattern
5. Policy Experiment
1) Policy Experiment Scenarios
This research develops three different types of policy alternative scenarios, as
summarized in Table 3. At present, all of the producer collection volume is
confined to material or thermal recycle, regardless of equipment quality.
Therefore, Alternative 1 assumes that the reuse center supported by the local
government would handle 20 percent of producer collection volume. In contrast,
Alternative 2 presupposes that all the EEEW volume collected by the local
government and reuse center is put into material or thermal recycle processes,
departing from the existing customs hinged on a partial collection. The last
Alternative 3 tests waste movement if these two alternatives are concurrently
adopted. The analytical time span covers from 2005 to 2025.
Table 3: Summary of Policy Experiment Scenarios
Categories Contents
Reuse center supported by the local goverment would handle 20
percent of producer collection volume
All the EEEW volume collected by the local government is put into
material or thermal recycle processes
All the EEEW volume collected by the reuse center is put into
material or thermal recycle processes
Altemative 1
Altemative 2-1
Altemative 2-2
Altemative 2-3 Combining Alternative 2-land Altemative 2-2
Altemative 3 Concurrently adopting Alternative 1 and Altemative 2-3
2) Policy Implications
As summarized in Table 4, if Alternative 1 is adopted, the new purchase rate
would be significantly reduced over time: 211,986 units in 2006 to 364,032 units
in 2025. It may come from the fact that 20 percent of producer collection
volume would be handled by the reuse center supported by the local government
in the model. However, Alternative 2 gives only minimal impact on the
brand-new product. In fact, even if Alternative 2-3 is adopted, under which all
the EEEW volume collected by the local government and reuse center is put
into material or thermal recycle processes, its impact on a new phase for electric
and electronic equipment is 47,104 units in 2006 and 37,376 units in 2025,
respectively. Its amount is about 10 to 20 percent of Alternative 1’s. The same
movement is observed in Alternative 3, in which Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
are concurrently combined. In deciding Altemative 3’s value, Altemative 1 is
relatively stronger than Alternative 2.
The results partially explain why producers have not actively joined the reuse
movement of electric and electronic equipment. As the producer collection
volume is negatively interrelated to the new purchase rate, a producer would
resist any waste policy bound for equipment reuse. Even though a producer well
acknowledges the fact that reuse-oriented policy would lead to resource cyclical
society in the long run, it would definitely hesitate to accept the reuse campaign
which might significantly dampen a consumer's purchasing power. Furthermore,
as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)stipulates the fact that a producer
has to spend its own money to collect the used equipment for the material and
thermal recycle, it seems unlikely to expect that a producer would welcome the
reuse program.
Table 4: Impact on Brand-New Equipment Purchase
Categories 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025
Base Run 7,923,200 8,423,424 8,991,744 9,545,728 10,168,320
Altemative 1 211,968 238,080 281,088 323,072 364,032
Altemative 2-1 18,944 2,048 512 1,024 0
Altemative 2-2 28,672 29,184 32,256 34,816 36,864
Altemative 2-3 47,104 30,720 32,768 35,328 37,376
Altemative 3 258,048 268,800 313,856 358,912 403,456
Note: Numbers in Base Run represent the expected brand-new equipment volume (unit). Other
numbers imply the expected saving volume (unit)derived from the individual policy alternative.
In contrast, simulation works on the final treatment suggest thatAlternative 2 is
comparatively superior to Alternative 1. As spotlighted in Table 5, the reduced
final treatment volume based on Alternative 2-1would be 154,216 units in 2006
whereas that of Alternative 1 is 17,374 units in the same year. As in the case
of the new purchase rate, Alternative 3, or the combined effort, presents the
highest reduced number.
Table 5: Impact on the Final Treatment
Categories 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025
Base Run 321,502 237,859 220,897 235,122 254,176
Altemative 1 17,374 15,926 18,113 20,568 22,368
Altemative 2-1 154,216 66,686 36,072 32,336 35,883
Altemative 2-2 28,187 28,939 32,340 36,316 40,333
Altemative 2-3 182,507 95,889 68,609 68,867 76,516
Altemative 3 200,523 113,584 87,787 90,322 99,938
Note: Numbers in Base Run represent the expected final treatment volume (unit). Other numbers imply the expected saving volume
(unit)derived fromthe individual policy altemative.
If Alternative 2-3 is not available, it would bebetter to differentiate a time
schedule between Altemative 1 and Alternative 2. In the first half, it may be
more effective for the local government to take initiatives, adopting Alternative
2-1. In the second half, nonetheless, we should keep in mind that the reuse
center supported by the local government should take care of major roles for the
EEEW treatment, reflecting Alternative 2-2.
6. Discussion
As a derivative approach to social dynamic systems models, this study
demonstrates how to build resource cyclical society based on the dynamic cycles
of the electric and electronic equipment waste (EEEW), as a practical means to
upgrade urban sustainability. Major discussion topics are as follows.
First of all, owing to the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) adopted in
2003, the equipment producers in Korea are now burdened with the EEEW
recycling duty. Judging from the simulation experiments, the EPR system would
significantly contribute to the reduction of the final treatment volume in the first
half of the research period. The final treatment volume, which recorded the
highest in 2003, is supposed to be continuously diminished up to 2013.
However, the trend would be reversed after that point. It implies that the EPR
system alone may be at best insufficient or at worst useless in the second half.
Furthermore, as a producer has to collect the predetermined recycled units whose
volume is usually given by the Ministry of Environment in Korea, its top
priority is given to how to retrieve all the old equipment. For the replacement
demand, the producer does not hesitate to take back the old one free of charge.
In order to satisfy the target number for the recycled units, a producer knows
well that it may be a cheaper and more convenient way than buying junk items
on the black market.
Then, what happens if a producer adopts the reuse-oriented strategy? The
simulation results, among others, present two different signals. If the reuse center
supported by the local government reuses part of the producer-recycled volume,
it would definitely reduce both the required quantity of raw materials and the
final treatment volumes altogether. However, this strategy would be confronted
with unprecedented objection from the business arena, which is extremely
sensitive to the market trends. In the 20-percent scenario, the reduced
consumption volume of a brand-new product would be around 0.2 to 0.4 million
units per year. Therefore, without appropriate incentive provisions, it would be
difficult for the producers to voluntarily join the reuse-centered movement.
This research also confirms that the final treatment volume would be
significantly reduced with minimal impact on the brand-new product
consumption, if the local government transforms all the incinerated and landfilled
volume into thermal and material recycle. The reuse center's experiment also
repeats the similar trends, with a relatively weaker impact on the final treatment
volume. To enjoy the synergy effect, both the local government and the reuse
center togethershould take immediate actions to discourage the existing customs
hinged on incinerationlandfill treatment. Furthermore, they should prepare concrete
plans to implement a recycle-oriented strategy.
Particularly, the reuse volume handled by the local government has been
decreased over time. But the reuse center has shown the opposite trends whose
phenomena seem more preferable for the resource cyclical society. This research
also confirms that the reuse center is the most sensitive organization in treating
the electric and electronic equipment. The role and function of the reuse center
should be strengthened to enhance the level of resource cyclical society.
References
Coyle, G. (2004), Practical Strategy: Structured Tools and Techniques, Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
Ford, A. (1999), Modeling the Environment, Washington, D.C: Island.
Gilbert, N. and K. G. Toitzsch (1999), Simulation for the Social Scientist,
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Han, Ju-Seong (2004), "Channel of Collection and Regional Characteristics of
Cyclical Domestic Wastes," Journal of Korean Geographical Society, Vol. 39,
No. 1, pp.88-101.
Kim, Do-Hoon, Tai-Hoon Moon, and Dong-Hwan Kim (1999), System Dynamics,
Seoul: Daeyoung.
Kim, Tae-Yong (2004), Resource Cyclical Society and Business Roles, Seoul:
Samsung Global Environment Research Center.
Kim, Tae-Yong (2005), System Dynamics Modeling of Resource Cyclical System
towards Sustainable Urban Development: Case Study of Waste Electric and
Electronic Equipment, University of Seoul, Ph.D Dissertation.
Mashayakhi, A. N. (1993), "Transition in New York State Solid Waste System:
A Dynamic Analysis," System Dynamics Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.23-48.
McGarvey, B. and B. Hannon (2004), Dynamic Modeling for Business
Management: An Introduction, New York: Springer.
MoE (2002), The Second National Waste Management Master Plan toward
Establishment of the Sustainable Resource Recycle Society(2002~2011), Seoul:
Ministry of Environment.
Moxnes, E. (2000), "Not only the Tragedy of the Commons: Misperceptions of
Feedback and Policies for Sustainable Development," System Dynamics Review,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.325-348.
Munn, R. E. (1989), "Toward Sustainable Development: An Environmental
Perspective," in Archibugi, F. and P. Nijkamp(eds.), Economy and Ecology:
Toward Sustainable Development, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pearce, D. A. Markandya and E. B. Barbier (1989), Blueprint for a Green
Economy, London: Earthscan.
Stenstoem, Maria and Tom Ritchey (2004), Scenarios and Strategies for Extended
Producer Responsibility: Using Morphological Analysis to Evaluate EPR System
Strategies in Sweden, Swedish Defense Research Agency(FOI)
Sterman, J. D. (2000), Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World, Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Sudhir, V., G. Srinivasan, and V. R. Muraleedharan (1997), "Planning for
Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Urban India," System Dynamics
Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.223-246.
Ulli-Beer, Silvia (2003), "Dynamic Interaction between Citizen Choice and
Preferences and Public Policy Initiatives: A System Dynamic Model of
Recycling Dynamics in a Typical Swiss Locality,"Proceedings of the 21st
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, July 20-24, New
Y ork.
Ulli-Beer, Silvia, George P. Richardson, and David F. Andersen (2004), "A
SD-Choice Structure for Policy Compliance: Micro Behavior Explaining
Aggregated Recycling Dynamics," Proceedings of the 22nd Intemational
Conference of the System Dynamics Society, July 25-29, Oxford.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1999), "Group Model-building: Tackling Messy Problems,"
System Dynamics Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.379-401.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0