SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE
GREEK ISLANDS
A. KARKAZI*, S. SKOULAXINOY*, A. MAVROPOULOS*, E. FAGOGENI*
*EPEM S.A. Department of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management, Athens,
Greece
SUMMARY: The disposal of solid waste in an environmental way in the case of small and
medium size islands requires a particular effort. The problem of waste management in the islands
concerns many European countries that have island complexes. The Greek case is representative,
since the population in the insular territory is greater than in other countries that have islands and
reaches up to 15% of the total population. The aim of this paper is to present a methodology for
the design of a sustainable waste management strategy applied in the prefecture of Cyclades
(case study), with the use of a number of software tools in each stage of the planning. This
management solution has been approved at the Prefecture and Region level and its
implementation is under way by the Greek Authorities
1. INTRODUCTION
The problem of waste management in the islands concerns many European countries that have
island complexes. The Greek case is representative, since the population in the insular territory is
greater than in other countries that have islands. Almost 15% of the Greek population lives in
islands, percentage that is greater than the one of the other countries and can be compared only
with this of Italy (12%) (European Commission, 1996). The Cylcades islands, which consist the
case study of this paper, are a small group of islands clustered together in the Aegean in the
shape of a rough circle, which comprises of 39 islands of which 24 are inhabited.
In the islands of small and medium size, waste management in an environmental friendly way
demands significant effort. The main problems on islands are the lack of adequate infrastructure,
the seasonal fluctuations of the population that is reflected to the waste generation, the climatic
conditions, the sensitivity of the ecosystems, the lack of sufficient land, the deficiency of water
stock, the pollution of underground water, the costly transport of the recyclables to the mainland
where collection centers exists. On the other hand, as the tourism is the main economic activity,
the rational waste management (reflected in the cleanliness of coasts and streets) constitutes the
main parameter that the tourists take into account for selecting their holiday’s destination.
Consequently, local authorities often have to make a relatively greater effort in the field of waste
management than local authorities on the mainland, irrespective of the fact that islands usually
have to pay more for the same result.
The paper presents the methodology that has been developed for the formulation and the
selection of the best waste management scenario in the Cyclades islands. This management
1
solution has been approved at the Prefecture and Region level and its implementation is under
way by the Greek Authorities
2. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF WASTE MANAGEMENT-DESIGN DATA
2.1 Design data
The main element, in order to design a waste management system, is the good knowledge of the
profile of the area in question, as well as the prediction of the future trends. The data needed for
the design can be divided into two levels: the 1st consists of the general characteristics of the
whole study area and the 2nd the local data. The information needed for each level is:
1st level: a) population data/ population distribution b) quantity and distribution of waste c)
composition of waste.
st
2 level: a) existing infrastructure for the collection, the treatment and the disposal of waste b)
socio-economic data (infrastructure/GDP/ energy availability /drinking water availability etc.) c)
climate conditions d) geological – hydrological – hydrogeological data.
The inventory and the calculations that have been conducted for the islands of Cyclades show
that:
• Up to now, no specific strategy, has been developed regarding the waste management
• Entire system of waste management faces problems, in the sense of temporary storage,
collection, transfer, treatment, and disposal.
• Few recycling programs have been established and mainly are performed by private firms
and on a very limited scale.
• No treatment of organic waste is taking place.
• The common practice for the waste management is the uncontrolled dumping.
• Almost total absence of collection services for special waste.
• The permanent population is 98.482 inhabitants (census 2001),
• The municipal solid waste is of 73.500 tn/year, while the inerts are of 82.000 tn/year. The
quantity of waste is expected to increase during the next decade by 6%.
• There is an important potential of agricultural and stockbreeding waste, as well as significant
quantities of wastewater treatment sludge. These quantities represent 64% of the total
quantity of waste, while municipal waste and inerts represent 36%. Taking into consideration
that the greatest part of the agricultural waste cannot be collected and treated in an organized
way, it was calculated that only 20% of these type of waste can be conveyed to organized
management systems.
• Waste management is too expensive because productivity tends to be low. Currently, the
average cost of waste management is estimated to be 98.3 €/ton. At the Prefecture level the
annual management expenses are 7,3Mil.€, which represents 0.85% of the GDP of the
Prefecture.
• Waste management costs exceed available funds.
• Finally, the citizens are not sufficiently aware of risks of daily incorrect waste management.
The lack of correct knowledge often bring about the rejection of correct waste management
plans (NIMBY syndrome)
The waste production per island, the seasonal distribution, and the qualitative characteristics
of the waste are presented in the following Figures 1, 2, 3.
Q UANTITIES (ΤΝ)
11940
7900
10000
11500
9900
12000
11000
14000
8000
3540
3800
TINOS
2630
KEA
ANDROS
2600
MILOS
1780
IOS
920
ANTIPAROS
1700
700
SERIFOS
1200
550
KITHNOS
240
KOUFONISI
420
180
SIKINOS
FOLEGANDROS
140
ANAFI
250
130
DONOUSA
KIMOLOS
115
SXINOUSA
240
70
ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΑ*
2000
THIRASIA
4000
SIFNOS
6000
TN/YEAR
Figure 1. Annual production of waste
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
23.956
22.619
53.831
50.826
2001
2011
YEAR
TOURIST PERIOD
REST OF YEAR
Figure 2. Temporal distribution of waste
90
80
percentage %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Liquid organic fraction
combustible
Recyclable
Qualitative characteristics
Figure 3. Qualitative characteristics of the waste
SANTORINI
PAROS
SIROS
MIKONOS
NAXOS
AMORGOS
0
3. DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The methodology, that has been followed, is a “top down approach” that consists of three stages.
Stage 1- firstly the joint management area, that will be served from an integrated management
system is decided, by taking into account the geographic, environmental, socio-economic and
institutional parameters. Stage 2- secondly, the potential treatment methods that could be further
examined are indicated, based on the available techniques, the amount of the waste and the
market issues regarding the recyclables that are going to be produced. Stage 3 - for
the optimum scenario, from stage 1, the best available treatment technology, based on stage 2, is
selected. The followed methodology is presented in Figure 3. Stage by stage the methodology is
analyzed further down
SELECTION OF
OPTIMUM
SCENARIO
1 DESIGN OF ALETRANATIVE
SCENARIOS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT UNITIES
CRITERIA:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
TECHNICAL
SOCIAL
‘’FILTER’’
QUANTITIES
OTHER KINDS OF
WASTE
2.PREREQUISITE
FOR THE
APPLICATION
‘’FILTERING’’
OF
METHODOLOGIES
INTENDED
MANAGEMENT PLAN
3. FORMULATION
OF ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIOS TREATMENT &
DISPOSAL
Figure 4. Methodology for the design and selection of the optimal scenario.
3.1 STAGE 1- Alternative scenarios for the management areas
Mainly, there are three alternative management strategies: a) single strategy: each island
establishes its own management system, b) joint strategy: groups of islands are formed (joint
management areas), in order to establish cooperation on waste management options c) tandem
strategy: for islands close to mainland all waste can be transported to this mainland. (European
Commission, 1996)
The aim is to have integrated management of solid waste, in each management area, i.e.
collection, transport, treatment, and disposal. However, the choice of the main strategy is
influenced by many parameters. Thereat, in practice waste management in islands is a
combination of the above strategies.
Based on the above, alternative scenarios regarding the choice of the main strategy, have been
formulated taking into consideration the following parameters:
A. Production of solid waste: This parameter is linked to the population distribution in each
management area. The objective is to formulate scenarios with different produced quantities. The
seasonal distribution of the quantities, due to the touristic character of the islands, is indirectly
included in this parameter. The critical magnitude is this case, is the quantity produced during
winter, when only the permanent population is on the islands. The waste quantity produced
during winter determines to a great extent, the environmentally sustainable and economically
feasible of a treatment facility.
B. Spatial, technical and economic parameters: The second parameter is the existing ship
network for the connection of the islands throughout the year. The basic elements, which
incorporate the spatial distribution of the islands, are:
The total quantities transported according to the selected strategy. Apparently, the larger the
quantities transported, the greater the transportation cost is.
The frequency of connection among the islands in each scenario. The critical factor is the
frequency of connection during winter, where the connection is often difficult, due to the
weather conditions in the Aegean Sea and the bad harbor infrastructure in some islands.
The location of the islands in the archipelago. Not all the islands can co-operate with other
islands mainly due to the absence of connection among them. Joint of islands that are far
from each other is avoided, since their connection is very difficult.
C. Environmental parameters: The important factor is the impact of each proposed
management scenario in the environment: a) in long term b) as far as its credibility is concerned.
Based on the previous parameters, four alternative scenarios, regarding the strategy, have
been formulated:
Scenario 1: Each island constitutes of a single management area, and consequently there
are 24 management areas.
Scenario 2: In this scenario, a combination of the single and the joint strategy has been
followed. Hence 6 groups of islands are formulated, including a total of 20 islands. For
each group, one island is foreseen to host the waste management facilities, while the rest
of the islands in the group transfer their wastes to the “host” island. Each island of the 4
remaining constitutes of a single management area.
Scenario 3: In this scenario, a combination of the single and the joint strategy has been
followed. Hence 3 groups of islands are formulated, including a total of 9 islands. For
each group, one island is foreseen to host the waste management facilities, while the rest
of the islands in the group transfer their wastes to the “host” island. Each island of the 15
remaining constitutes of a single management area.
Scenario 4: In this scenario, a combination of all the strategies has been followed. Hence 3
groups of islands are formulated, including a total of 9 islands. For each group, one island
is foreseen to host the waste management facilities, while the rest of the islands in the
group transfer their wastes to the “host” island. Two of the islands transfer their wastes to
the mainland. Each island of the 13 remaining constitutes of a single management area.
In order to select the optimum scenario among the 4 above mentioned a multicriteria method
was utilized. In order this to be done, a number of criteria were designed and examined, and the
relative weights were assigned (Simos, 1990). Three categories of criteria were designed and
examined, each one comprising of sub-criteria, which are tabulated in Table 1
Table 1: Designed criteria
Social - institutional criteria
Environmental criteria
Technical-economic criteria
Κ1: Accordance to the existing legal framework
Κ2: Social acceptance
Π1: Recovery / Material recovery rate R
Π2: Landfill diversion / landfill diversion rate D
Ο1 : Transfer cost
Ο2 : Degree of transfer difficulty among islands
K1: in this criterion the compatibility of each scenario to the EU and national legislation is
evaluated. The best scenario is the one that presents higher potential to meet the following
targets: 1) reduction of waste, 2) recycling and recovery of materials and 3) energy recovery and
utilization. Not all the islands are large enough to contain a waste facility and not all the waste
amounts are large enough to make a waste treatment system environmentally sustainable and
economically feasible. Therefore, the best scenario according to this criterion is the one that
includes large groups of islands where large amount of waste are produced and consequently the
meet of targets is more feasible.
K2: in this criterion the best scenario is the one that has the acceptance of the local
Authorities and the citizens. The following actors have been considered in this analysis: 1) the
Municipalities, 2) the Regional administration of the South Aegean Sea, 3) the Prefecture of the
Cyclades complex, and 4) NGO’s. Interviews and questionnaires have been utilized in order to
contact sound results.
Π 1: in this criterion the material recovery rate, R, is evaluated. R, constitutes a standard for
the protection of the environment that each scenario achieves, as it represent the rate of the
recovered material thus the amount that returns back to productive cycle. In that stage R has
been calculated by assuming that only source separation of dry recyclables in each scenario
occurs. Initiatives for waste prevention and source separation can be taken regardless of the
choice of waste treatment strategy. Therefore, no other treatment has been considered at this
point since the aim of this stage is to select the optimum scenario regarding the management
areas.
Π 2: in this criterion the landfill diversion rate, D, is evaluated. D, constitutes a standard for
the conformation to the EU Directive 99/31 for the sanitary landfill. The parameter D represents
the amount of waste that does not end to the landfill. The same assumption as in Π1 applies
here.
O1: in this criterion the transfer cost of the waste is evaluated. The best scenario according to
this criterion is the one where small or zero amounts of waste are transferred.
O2: in this criterion the degree of transfer difficulty among the island is evaluated. Three
elements are considered in order to evaluate scenarios: 1) total of waste amounts transferred, 2)
waste produced during the tourist period and 3) harbor infrastructure in the island.
Scenarios were evaluated using the multicriteria analysis tool ELECTRE III (Maystre et. al,
1994). According to ELECTRE III, the first in hierarchy scenario, regarding the management
areas was the 3rd one.
3.2 STAGE 2- Waste treatment strategy
In that stage, for the optimum scenario the possible solutions for treatment and disposal is been
examined. Not all the islands are large enough to contain a waste facility and not all the wastes
amounts are large enough to make a waste treatment system environmentally sustainable and
economically feasible. Moreover, not all the islands have the hydro-geological conditions to
allow the establishment of a landfill or other treatment plant. Final, not all the capital and the
operational costs of the treatment and disposal methods could be afforded from all the islands.
The methodology used for the evaluation of the scenarios is the one developed within the
framework of the research project “Research for the evaluation of alternative techniques and
technologies of treatment and disposal of municipal waste – application in the Aegean islands”,
(NTUA,1997) slightly modified. The methodology consists of various steps, from which only the
two first have been utilized: 1) the exclusion of alternative solutions on the basis of the
composition and quantities of waste and 2) the prerequisites for the application of treatment and
disposal technologies. The treatment methods that have been examined are 1) composting, 2)
anaerobic digestion 3) incineration 4) pyrolisis and 5) gasification
Step 1: this step works as a “filter” in order to narrow down the number of possible treatment
technologies that can be applied. The “filter” requires as an input waste quantities and
composition for each management area. Subsequently, through an “if” function (excel
spreadsheet) it determines whether a technology is feasible for the area based on the input data.
The “filter” contains for each technology the minimum waste input quantity (i.e for biological
treatment the minimum quantity of organic matter) for the technology to be technically and
economically feasible. The minimum waste input quantity was determined based on operational
data of similar facilities throughout Europe and Greece.
Step 2: this step contains sever prerequisites developed for each technology. In order to
develop them a number of elements have been addressed: 1) existing legislation regarding
products composition and environmental impacts, 2) market issues, 3) technical issues i.e types
of waste that can be treated, technology complexity etc.
Based on Step 1 & 2 the technologies that can be further examined are: composting, anaerobic
digestion, and incineration.
3.3 STAGE 3- Formulation of the overall strategy
The results from Stage 1 and 2 are utilized here in order to formulate the overall strategy for
Cyclades Prefecture.
For the optimum scenario four alternatives, regarding the treatment technology, have arisen,
depending on the characteristics of the management area (waste quantity and composition,
market issues etc):
Scenario 3- Alternative 1(3.1): Source separation, Composting, landfilling
Scenario 3- Alternative 2 (3.2): Source separation, Anaerobic digestion, landfilling
Scenario 3- Alternative 3 (3.3): Source separation, Composting, Incineration, landfilling
Scenario 3- Alternative 4 (3.4): Source separation, Anaerobic digestion, Incineration,
landfilling
In order to select among the above alternatives, the procedure that has been followed was
based on economic and environmental parameters, which are presented below:
• Capital cost
• Operational cost
• Material recovery rate, R
• Landfill diversion rate, D
For each alternative, the capital and operational cost was calculated based on data from
similar installations in Europe and Greece.
For the calculation of the material recovery rate, R and landfill diversion rate, D, a Life Cycle
Assessment tool, for waste management has been utilized (IWM-1 model, v. 1998, P.R. White,
et.al) which quantifies the amount of the pollutants (liquid-gaseous) that are emitted to the
environment due to the entire waste management system implemented and determines, the rate
of the recovered material (R), the landfill diversion rate (D) and the energy that could be
produced from the waste treatment.
In order to make a holistic evaluation that compromises all of the economic and
environmental parameters, four environmental cost- benefit indicators were developed:
• Capital cost over Material recovery rate - Rc
• Operation cost over Material recovery rate – Rop
• Capital cost over landfill diversion rate - Dc
• Operation cost over landfill diversion rate – Dop
The critical point is to accomplish a solution, which combines high environmental
performance with low capital and operational costs. For the representation of the combination,
four diagrams have been created. Figure 5, presents the recovery rate indicator along with the
capital cost of each alternative. Low capital cost and high recovery rate, thus high Rc, indicate
the preferable alternative. The same rationale applies for Figure 6,7 and 8.
40%
70
35%
60
30%
50
25%
40
20%
30
15%
20
10%
10
Scenario
5%
0
0%
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
CAPITAL COST MEURO
R%
Figure 5. Correlation of R and capital cost - Rc
120,00
40%
35%
100,00
30%
25%
20%
15%
80,00
60,00
40,00
10%
5%
0%
20,00
Scenario
0,00
3.1
3.2
R%
3.3
3.4
OPERATION COST EURO/TN
Figure 6. Correlation of R and operation cost - Rop
52%
120,00
50%
100,00
48%
80,00
46%
60,00
44%
40,00
42%
20,00
0,00
40%
3.1
D%
3.2
3.3.1
3.3.2
OPERATION COST EURO/TN
Figure 7. Correlation of D and operation cost - Dop
52%
70
50%
60
50
48%
40
46%
30
44%
20
42%
10
Scenario
40%
0
3.1
3.2
D%
3.3
3.4
CAPITAL COST MEURO
Figure 8. Correlation of D and capital cost – Dc
The combination of the economic figures with the environmental dimension of each alternative
clearly indicates the ascendancy of 3.1, which includes source separation, composting, and
landfilling. Alternative 3.1 is preferred opposite the others due to:
The relative low capital and operational cost
The good performance regarding the recovery of materials and the diversion from landfill
4. CONCLUSIONS
To date, solid waste management at all stages of production, handling, storage, transport,
processing, treatment and ultimate disposal is a social and political imperative. The aim of a
waste management strategy should be to accomplish successfully a combination of the optimum
economic scenario with high environmental standards together with social acceptance.
The design and the selection of the waste management strategy cannot and should not be
based on one of the three angles: technocratic, environmental, and economical, because it will
most certainly lead to failure.
The methodology presented associates modern waste management tools, which give to the
designed strategy a multidimensional prospective and increased the possibilities for acceptance
in Administrative and Public level.
Since 2002, the Regional Administration of the South Aegean Sea, has adopted the designed
waste management strategy and has began its application.
5. REFERENCES
European Commission (1997). Codes of practice for waste management on islands
NTUA (1997). Methods and Technologies for the disposal of waste.
Maystre L.Y, Picte J, Simos J (1994) “ Méthodes multicritères ELECTRE : Description, conseils
pratique et cas d’application à la gestion environnementale” Presses polytechniques et
Universitaires Romandes, EPFL, Suisse
P.R White, M. Franke and P. Hindle, (1995) “Integrated Solid Waste Management – A Life
Cycle Inventory”
EPEM S.A, (2001) «Solid waste management plan for the Periphery of South Aegean»
Study ΕΕΤΑΑ (1995) «Diagnosis of practices for the waste management and the development of
management plans in the Greek islands», MEDSPA-91 –1/GR/002/GR/02.
Simos J. (1990) Evaluer l’ impact sur l’invironment , Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires
Romandes, Suisse