University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management, Latokartanonkaari 9, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 HY, Finland.
Waste Manag. 2012 Oct;32(10):1782-91. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.027. Epub 2012 Jun 20.
Pneumatic waste collection systems are becoming increasingly popular in new urban residential areas, and an attractive alternative to conventional vehicle-operated municipal solid waste (MSW) collection also in ready-built urban areas. How well pneumatic systems perform in ready-built areas is, however, an unexplored topic. In this paper, we analyze how a hypothetical stationary pneumatic waste collection system compares economically to a traditional vehicle-operated door-to-door collection system in an existing, densely populated urban area. Both pneumatic and door-to-door collection systems face disadvantages in such areas. While buildings and fixed city infrastructure increase the installation costs of a pneumatic system in existing residential areas, the limited space for waste transportation vehicles and containers cause problems for vehicle-operated waste collection systems. The method used for analyzing the cost effects of the compared waste collection systems in our case study takes into account also monetized environmental effects of both waste collection systems. As a result, we find that the door-to-door collection system is economically almost six times more superior. The dominant cost factor in the analysis is the large investment cost of the pneumatic system. The economic value of land is an important variable, as it is able to reverse the results, if the value of land saved with a pneumatic system is sufficiently high.
气力垃圾收集系统在新的城市住宅区越来越受欢迎,并且是传统车辆操作的城市固体废物(MSW)收集在已建成城市地区的有吸引力的替代方案。然而,气力系统在已建成地区的性能如何,这是一个尚未探索的话题。在本文中,我们分析了在现有人口密集的城市地区,假设的固定气力垃圾收集系统在经济上如何与传统的上门收集系统相比。气力和上门收集系统在这些地区都面临劣势。虽然建筑物和固定的城市基础设施增加了现有住宅区气力系统的安装成本,但垃圾运输车辆和容器的有限空间给车辆操作的垃圾收集系统带来了问题。我们在案例研究中用于分析比较垃圾收集系统成本效果的方法还考虑了两种垃圾收集系统的货币化环境影响。结果表明,上门收集系统在经济上几乎优越六倍。分析中的主要成本因素是气力系统的巨额投资成本。土地的经济价值是一个重要的变量,如果使用气力系统节省的土地价值足够高,它能够扭转结果。