Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Drivers for development of circular economy e A case study of Serbia

Marina Ili
c*
c, Magdalena Nikoli

Faculty of Ecology and Environment, Cara Dusana 62-64, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Poor waste management in developing countries indicates that waste generation is mostly associated
Received 15 February 2016 with the economic status of a society, their weak economy-social factors affected by the absence of
Received in revised form proper environmental legislation, nancial management and administrative capacities. Over the years,
1 June 2016
increasing amount of waste without any treatment is mainly disposed of on the existing dumpsites in the
Accepted 2 June 2016
municipalities. This practice not allows the exploitation of resources from waste, and represents a huge
loss of resources and threat to the environment and human health. Therefore, this problem is very
complex and requires constant adjustment of the situation, uctuations and the needs and demands of
Keywords:
Municipal waste
innovative solutions. This paper is focused on the drivers that have the biggest impact on waste man-
Municipalies agement in Serbia and improvement of the system by changing the impact of the drivers. The objective is
Drivers for development of waste related to waste management drivers in the context of circular economy. This includes establishing
management baseline data on waste and assessment of the current waste management system, setting future goals,
Comparative analysis identication of issues, plans for integrated waste management and their implementation. The paper
Circular economy identies bottlenecks that restrict Serbians sustainable development, such as low levels of reuse,
Zero waste recycling and recovery of waste, shortage of advanced technology, signicant waste disposal amounts
and weak economic incentives. The comparison is made with the Municipality of Ljubljana approach to
Zero waste practice and circular economy. This analysis depicts real opportunities for more sustainable
and efcient waste management in the municipalities and suggests a step forward towards the inte-
grating best Zero Waste practices in the municipalities in developing countries.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction administrative capacities (Muniafu & Otiato, 2010). It should be

Waste management is a challenge for the cities authorities in
developing countries mainly due to very limited funds for the solid
waste management sector provided by the governments, the
absence of understanding the factors that affect the different levels
of waste management, the low levels of services quality required
for protection of public health and the environment and interde-
pendence necessary to provide the entire handling system func-
tioning (Guerrero, Maas, & Hogland, 2013; Ogawa, 1996). Poor
waste management in developing countries indicates that waste
generation is mostly associated with the economic status of a so-
ciety, their weak economiesocial factors affected by the absence of
proper environmental legislation, nancial management and
Abbreviations: IWM, Integrated Waste Managemant; ISWM, Integrated Solid
Waste Management; GNI, Gross national income; MSW, Municipal Solid Waste;
PET, polyethylene terephthalate; WHO, World Health Organization.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: magdalenanikolic3@gmail.com (M. Nikoli

c).
mentioned that increased demand of resources has led to great
pressure on the environment and the need to shift from linear to
circular economy that will preserve the environment, increase the
value of the products, enable new economic growth and employ-
ment opportunities, reduction or complete elimination of waste.
Minimisation of waste generation and material through recycling
and reusing of products, will create economic and environmental
co-benets (EEA, 2016). Now Serbia has an opportunity to accel-
erate the process of improving waste management, recognizing
market failures and bottlenecks already established in over thirty
years long development of waste management systems currently in
economically developed countries, which have followed a linear
model of the economy. It is in a circular economy overlapping
economic interests with the interests of sustainable waste man-
agement and environmental protection. Republic of Serbia needs to
identify and promote the sustainable nancial models that could
cope with the demands of industrial waste, as a basis for the cir-
cular economy (IC, 2015). A practical waste management system
aims to provide environmental sustainability, economic

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.003
0197-3975/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
192 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
affordability and social acceptance for any specic region. With a
combination of waste streams, waste collection, treatment and
disposal methods combined in an optimum way as a part of a single
approach. IWM takes into consideration environmental, economic
and social aspects of waste management, in another words, the
total system and looks for the best applicable treatment methods
mix to minimise economic costs and to maximize environmental
protection and social benets. Thus, an IWM system will rather use
resources in the most effective way than move up waste manage-
ment hierarchy (DAlessandro et al., 2012). This article presents the
characteristics of the WM system in the Republic of Serbia in a
format that incorporates the complexity of each component of
waste management practise. The paper is intended to contribute to
lling the gap by proposing a guiding framework, which applica-
tion and usefulness is illustrated with the experiences of concrete
case-study from one municipality in the region.
The contributions of this article are threefold: rst, to depicts
real opportunities for more sustainable and efcient waste man-
agement in the municipalities and suggests a step forward towards
the integrating best Zero Waste practices in the municipalities in
Serbia; second, to establish baseline data on waste and assessment
of the current waste management system, setting future goals,
identication of issues, plans for integrated waste management and
its implementation; and third, to identify bottlenecks that restrict
Serbians sustainable development, such as low levels of reuse,
recycling and recovery of waste, shortage of advanced technology,
signicant waste disposal amounts and weak economic incentives.
Identifying its restricting characteristics and understanding the
implications will lead to better waste management performance.
1.1. Example of best practice e zero waste instead of incineration
A lot of recent interest has been paid to the waste management
globally, either arising from specic treaties to combat unemploy-
ment in developing countries (Ahmeda & Alib, 2004; Wilson, Velis,
& Cheeseman, 2006), or from pollution resulting from inadequate
waste management which is a major cause of diseases and affect
economic growth by increasing treatments cost and cleanup ac-
tivities (Joseph, 2006; Ekvall, Assefa, Bjo rklund, Eriksson, &
Finnveden, 2007; Permana, Towolioe, Aziz, Ho, 2015). Initiatives
to improve waste management, require participation of both public
and private sectors (Kirama & Mayo, 2016). The municipalities have
a key role to play in supporting changes towards achieving a zero
waste society (Zotos et al., 2009). If society shift toward zero waste,
alternative material pathways like composting and recycling will
become more attractive. Furthemore, recycling without compost-
ing cannot exist alone in a zero waste strategy, since bio and food
waste makes up a portion of the waste which can be treated by
composting. To make the best performance, operators must
consider factors including source material selection, employees
training, public awareness, simplicity of collection, and environ-
mental tradeoffs for different approaches to waste management
(Hottle, Bilec, Brown, & Landis, 2015).
Slovenia has been investing in modern waste management
infrastructure since 2004 when this country became a member of
European Union. At the time, waste management system in Ljubl-
jana was developed, and the national municipal waste manage-
ment plan included separate collection, regional mechanical
biological treatment plants, and two incineration plants (Oblak,
2015a). However, Ljubljana manage to avoid incineration and
achieve the highest separate collection rates, high recycling and
composting rates and to reduce the amount of waste sent for
disposal. Thus, average monthly waste management costs for
households is among the lowest in Europe. In ten years Slovenia
achieve to increase separate collection and decrease residual waste.
During the mentioned period, 55% of waste has recycled, 7% com-
posted, 1% incinerated and 38% landlled (Oblak, 2015b). The waste
management sector in Ljubljana has been subjected to major
changes over the years, with these changes continuing to occur.
Ljubljana generate a low amount of waste, 41% less than the EU
average, 61% of which was recycled or composted. Furthemore, the
quantity of recovered materials is increased by tenfold and the
amount of municipal waste landlled is reduced by 59% (Oblak,
2015a). This signicant improvement is the result of the imple-
mentation of a Zero Waste Strategy. With the clearly set goals and
persistence in implementation of established measures, Ljubljanas
waste management system produces excellent results. According
achieved, Ljubljana has already provided tools and incentives in
line with the circular economy model. From economic and waste
management perspectives, transition to a more circular economy
includes changes throughout waste value chains, adoption of new
ways of turning waste into a resource (EUR-Lex, 2014).
The city began with separate collection of paper, cardboard,
glass, other packaging and the residual waste in road-side con-
tainers in 2002. In 2006 city started to change the system intro-
ducing a door-to-door collection of bio waste and 10.8% of which
was collected. Since 2008, ordinary containers have been replaced
with underground collection points. In 2012 the roadside con-
tainers for paper and packaging was removed and the city started
collecting them door-to-door, with the same system as it started
collecting biodegradable waste. As a result of Implementation of
separate collection in 2012, 41.48% of packaging and paper was
collected. Quantities of separately collected fractions continued
growing to 55% in 2013 and 61% in 2014 (Oblak, 2015b). This suc-
cess has been driven largely by direct and indirect of citizens asked
to better sort their waste. Intensive communications campaigns
such was Get Used to Reuse initiative which, with the help of
music, a video manifesto, workshops and urban interventions
present a combination of digital communication tools and personal
contacts with citizens has proven to be a successful formula (EC,
2016b).
2. Presenting the framework
Circular economy is an opportunity for developing countries to
come to its principles, to improve waste management through the
use of all sorts of materials contained in waste, and their intro-
duction back into productive use in the economy, which will
signicantly contribute to more efcient use of resources, primarily
as a material for energy purposes (IC, 2015). Moving towards a
circular economy multiple steps have to be performed that include
economic interests with the interests of sustainable waste man-
agement and environmental protection. This analysis depicts real
opportunities for more sustainable and efcient waste manage-
ment in the municipalities. Where governmental ofcials have
better awareness and strong drivers to make changes, the actual
ofcials understanding toward circular economy development is
higher. In another word, implementation and realization of circular
economy development undoubtedly relies on municipal govern-
ment ofcials awareness (Xue et al., 2010).
Wilson (2007) list six broad groups of drivers for the develop-
ment of waste management, including public health, environ-
mental protection, climate change, the resource value of waste,
institutional and responsibility issues, and public awareness. They
were dened as groups of related factors that vary between
countries depending on local circumstances. Understanding that
one alone couldnt have inuence sustainable waste management,
but all related to the concepts of sustainable waste management.
Taking into account the applicability of some drivers of solid waste
management in every country, the focus is on other exclusive
 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
drivers as the starting points of each waste management scenario (a
municipality, city or entire country) (Agamuthu, Khidzir, & Hamid,
2009). Specically, we presents a framework that describes several
drivers for development of waste management and show how
available data can be compered viewed through the appropriate set
of drivers. System analysis and strategies in place for waste man-
agement can help to identify good and bad practise in local com-
munities that would contribute to a more sustainable waste
management in Serbia. This study relates waste management
drivers to circular economy in a developing country context. The
purpose of the study is to show that smaller municipalities can
make a surprising amount of change realized in a short period of
time. From municipal waste management perspectives, current
lines of analysis include: a) Measuring and monitoring the Strategic
Municipal Waste Management implementation. b) Updating and
analyzing municipal indicators as a tool to compare situations in
different municipalities c) Municipal benchmarkng, in order to
compare Ljubljanas performance with selected municipalities in
Serbia d) Provides up to date information on the most relevant is-
sues and show that municipalities of modest size and means have
lessons to offer. In particular, when developing circular economy,
information is needed for effective planning, including selected
drivers as a tool to achieve municipal waste management goals.
For this purpose we identied several groups of drivers
including basic driver, public health, resource management and
economic-nancial capacity. It is very important to clear that
selected Indicators present a tool to compare situations in different
municipalities.

Basic driver consist of two segments- Waste amount and waste
composition

Public health consist of one segment- Waste collection

Resource management consist of one segment - Mate-rials re-
covery through recycling

Economic-nancial capacity consist of one segment - Tariffs for
households and industry
Responding to the IWM approach and keeping the above
background in view, the survey has been conducted to study the
current situation, major problems and activities related with
managing municipal waste in 12 selected municipalities. The
analysis is based on the available data from selected municipalities
and the key features, problems, goals and the efciency of WM
system in Serbia are reviewed and discussed.
3. Basic driver
Basic driver annotate the correlation between economic pros-
perity and waste quantity, straightforward relationships between
the quantity of waste designated to the different components of the
waste generation and waste prevention (EC, 2014). Circular econ-
omy boost waste prevention through strict avoidance of waste
generation, qualitative and quantitative reduction at source, and
reuse of products (Ayalon, Brody, & Shechter, 2013). Taking all of
this into consideration, this unique driver serves as the starting
point, inuencing all the phases in a circular economy. Further-
more, it presents the basic data for forecasting sustainable waste
management operations.
3.1. Waste amount
The rst comparison is between the total amount of waste
generated and waste generated per capita in 12 municipalities. Due
to economic crisis in 1990s, the socioeconomic level of many people
in Serbia was changed and resulted in less consumption of many
193
materials. GNI per capita is often considered an indicator of a
countrys standard of living. According to data from The World
Bank, the GNI per capita in Serbia, converted to U.S. dollars using
the World Bank Atlas method, in 2012 was only 5.280 US$(WBG).
Thus, according to statistical data published on the website of the
Statistical Ofce of the Republic of Serbia, average net salary in
selected Municipalities in 2013 oscillated between 39,436 RSD in
Batocina (SORS, 2014). Net salary in Ljubljana, converted in RSD, is
134,280 RSD (EC, 2016b). So this simple comparison posed
considerable challenges. In other words, rate of waste generation is
highly inuenced by economic activity of each municipality,
including the degree of industrial development, living standard,
lifestyles, social environment, consumption and other inuence
factors of each particular community. Due to this reason the volume
of generated waste can signicantly differ between the
municipalities.
The data in Fig. 1 shows the variation of municipal waste gen-
eration in Ljubljana Municipality and across the 12 selected mu-
nicipalities in Serbia. It is clear that the amounts of generated
municipal waste differ. The deffernces between the data, big
range clearly shows the correlation between economic prosperity
and waste quantity. It is noted that Municipality Ljubljana is rate
the highest in terms of municipal waste generated per year.
Municipalitiy Nis reached production of 67,943 t/year, and then
municipalities Subotica and Pan cevo with 50,000 t/year. On the
other hand, municipality Bato cina shows low municipal waste
generation, only 2945.17 t/year. The deffernces between the data,
could be the absence of complete informations on waste quantities,
characteristics, especially content, and classication, so it is difcult
to estimate waste volume in the Republic of Serbia (Proki
c and
Mihajlov, 2012; Anthouli, Aravossis, Charitopouiou, Tot, & Vujic,
2013).
By comparison, the Municipalities Subotica, Stara Pazova,
Grocka, Batocina, Gornji Milanovac and Nis include Slovenian
Ljubljana Municipality show similar waste volume per capita, in
average 0.9 kg/capita/day. Then, Pan cevo, Pozarevac and Zaje car in
average 1.5 kg/capita/day (see Fig. 2). Pointing to the fact that most
of the data from the municipalities compliant the international
standards. With an exception of the of municipality Ca  cak with
4.5 kg/capita/day, indicate that some data have to be checked. Due
to different housing conditions in Serbian municipalities, volume
and composition of generated waste can signicantly differ be-
tween the municipalities (Batinic et al., 2011).
3.2. Waste composition
The amount and composition of waste generated interpolate the
essential data needed for the planning of waste management
practice. Thus, assessments of waste composition present rela-
tionship between the level of afuence and the generation of total
MSW or a material-related fraction, and identify signicant effects
of waste management activities on recycling quotas (Beigl,
Lebersorger, & Salhofer, 2008). In Slovenia different waste frac-
tions are collected separately, presenting an essential step towards
a more sustainable economy. There are different containers/bins for
packaging, paper and glass packaging as well as bio-waste covered
by door-to-door collection (EC, 2016a). There is signicant evidence
of the impact of single-stream collection systems on material
quality with respect to recycling and its economic value. Scrap
material quality is lower under single-stream collection than it is
under systems like container deposits, where materials are kept
separate. There is a particular concern that glass shards and PET
bottles can contaminate paper loads in a paper mill, and that glass,
plastic and aluminum containers cross-contaminate each other
(CRI, 2009).
194 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200

Fig. 1. Total municipal waste generated per year (t/year).

Fig. 2. Waste volume per capita.

Fig. 3. Waste composition in selected municipalities.

 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
Waste composition in Slovenian Municipality of Ljubljana and
12 selected municipalities in Serbia is given in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 illustrates the typical municipal solid waste composition
(excluding hazardous waste) in 12 Municipalities in Serbia and in
Municipality Ljubljana. Across the 12 selected municipalities in
Serbia, the highest proportion is made up of bio waste 52%, fol-
lowed by packaging waste 16% in almost all municipalities. In
municipalities Smederevo, Smederevska Palanka, Zajecar and Nis
PET and plastic bags contributes between 6.20% and 11%, followed
by municipalities Subotica, Stara Pazova, Pan cevo, Pozarevac and
 
Ca cak between 0.4% and 5% of the total MSW, respectively. By
comparation, the highest proportion of paper and cardboard is in
municipalities Smederevska Palanka, Pancevo and Zjecar with 9%
and the lowest in municipalities Ca  
cak and Pozarevac with 0.4%.
The proportion of glass takes about 5% in municipalities Pozarevac,
Smederevska Palanka and Nis, than municipalities Smederevo with

3.9%, Subotica and Pancevo with 3%, Stara Pazova with 2% and Cacak
and Zajecar with only 1%. On the other hand, in the Municipality
Ljubljana main waste fraction was packaging waste with 42%, fol-
lowed with 40.9% of paper, the proportion of bio-waste takes
22.80% and glass 17.10% (EC, 2015). As can be seen major fraction of
the MSW in 12 Municipalities in Serbia was Bio waste. If Serbian
Municipalities was committed to a zero waste strategy, they would
enable for this extremely rich resource to be turned into compost or
to biogas. However, in most of the selected municipalities in Serbia
Bio-waste/organic waste mixed with the residual waste is disposed
on the landll. Looking at the composition of the waste generated
in developing countries, one can conclude that the biodegradable
portion dominates mainly due to food and yard waste, and higher
paper and cardboard content (Visvanathan & Tra nkler, 2003).
4. Public health
In European union countries, public health is largely taken for
granted and is no longer a major driver. However, public health is
emerged as a key driver for waste collection in nineteenth century,
and still remains a key driver in developing countries (Wilson,
2007). According to Brunner & Fellner (2007) in developing
countries which spend 1e10 V capitae1 yeare1, the maintenance
of human health still suffers due to inadequate waste management
practice, and thus protection of human health is one of the main
objectives of waste management. The Circular Economy bring
health environment, protect public health through the mini-
misation of pollution as well as efcient use of recyclables before
become waste (Geng, Fu, Sarkis, & Xue, 2012). According to esti-
mation, 60% of generated waste in Serbia is collected on the orga-
nized way for disposal (NWMS). In developing countries only
30e70% of generated waste is collected and uncollected waste is
often disposed of into open dumps. Open dumping of waste pose
the biggest health risks (Ezeah, Fazakerley, & Roberts, 2013). Waste
directly impacts public health, affects people through its an proper
management leading to waste accumulation which attracts disease
vectors (Vergara & Tchobanoglous, 2012). Ansorted waste is
potentially infectious and cause respiratory illness from ingesting
or inhaling bioaerosols and volatile organics, dermatological
problems from direct contact with contaminated material, that may
led to the transmission of diseases like HIV and HVB infection
(Ezeah et al., 2013; Ladu, Lu, & Osman, 2011). Thus, open dumps
with mixed waste attract disease-carrying animals and increase
health risk vulnerable individuals such as children (Wilson et al.,
2006). The environment is responsible for as much as 20% of the
total burden of disease, and according to a WHO study published in
2007, the burden of disease from environmental health risks is
estimated as 27% of the total burden of disease in Serbia (WHO,
2009). Generally speaking, waste collection service does not
195
reach the entire population especially in rural areas. Percentage of
population covered by waste collection services in the municipality
is generally between 65% and 100% for urban areas with exception
of Grocka which do not have service coverage in urban areas. Waste
collection service in the municipalities in Serbia covers between
50% and 100% population in rural areas. The municipalities of
Smederevo, Zajecar and Pozarevac have nearly no service coverage
in rural areas. This results in a huge loss of valuable raw materials.
However, the collection system of municipal solid waste covers 99%
population in both urban and rural areas of Ljubljana (EC, 2016a)
(see Fig. 4). Separate waste collection is an essential step towards a
more sustainable economy and separating between glass, paper,
metal, and plastic has become obligatory last year.
Waste separation at source with 2-bin system for households is
planned in Serbia, but still it is sporadically implemented, mostly in
the areas of individual housing. In the urban areas with collective
housing and high density of population, containers on the streets
for separate waste collection of PET, aluminum and cardboard
packaging for recycling are planned (Ilic & Nikolic, 2016). The
predominant system for collection in most of the cities includes
containers for residual waste e the containers are common for
recyclable, compostable and non-compostable waste (no segrega-
tion of waste is performed). Out of the twelve benchmarked mu-
nicipalities in Serbia, the municipalities of Stara Pazova, Grocka,
Smederevska Palanka and Zajecar have no containers for recyclable
waste at all. However, Ljubljana implements a door-to-door
collection of four types of waste. In this municipality separately
collected waste accounted for 60% of waste collected/inhabitant.
The collection of paper, cardboard, packaging is provided by three
colour bins for paper and cardboard. Waste separation and collec-
tion of residual waste and organic waste is provided by separate
bins of different sizes (EC, 2015). Separate collection at source will
ensure high quality recycling, and present an essential step towards
a more sustainable economy. Also, poorly developed separate
collection systems are linked to low recycling rates (EC, 2014).
5. Resource management
The environment provides both renewable and non-renewable
resource base, which functions as an input for the economy
(Andersen, 2007). An effective economic system addresses both
environmentally and nancially benecial ways to plan and
manage material resources (Su, Heshmati, Geng, & Yu, 2013). Ac-
cording to De-min (2004) core of recycling economy is to use re-
sources circularly. One of the earlier attempts industrialization to
shows the importance of resources necessity for different sectors,
found that increase in use of natural resources as raw materials had
a signicant impact on recycling in the future. There is a need
therefore to evolve an efcient ecological cycle, based on reusing or
recycling of glass, metal and paper (Ozarslan et al., 2011). Having
invested in the construction of recycling centres to increase the
diversion of organics and recyclables from landlls, Serbia enables
an essential change in the manner of waste management and
provide the raw material for the development of the recycling in-
dustry and allow public utility (Filipovi
c and Obradovi
c-Arsi

c,
2012). Howewer, the recycling of municipal waste is not widely
practiced in Serbia. In fact, it is ten times lower than in the EU
Member States (NEAS, 2011). Howewer, Serbia as EU membership
candidate country, adopted the national Waste Management
Strategy 2010e2019. Beside the Law on waste management, the
Law on Packaging and Packaging Waste (Ofcial Gazette of RS, no.
36/09, 88/10) is aimed to ensure the recycling of packaging waste in
the most economically efcient manner, i.e. local recycled-material
market on the territory of the Republic of Serbia. Despite signicant
efforts to ensure progress in recycling, the greatest part of
196 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200

Fig. 4. Waste collection service.

packaging waste in Serbia is collected with municipal waste and
disposed in the dumps. Only in some cities such as Ca cak, primary
selection of packaging waste is organized. Out of twelve bench-
marked municipalities, only municipalities Cacak and Nis have
municipal collection programs which include recycling (Anthouli
et al., 2013. Circular economy has its roots in industrial ecology,
whereas in a natural ecosystem there are no wastes but only
products (Preston, 2012).
The percentage of mate-rials recovery through recycling in
selected municipalities is presented in Fig. 5.
From Fig. 5 it can be concluded that input of materials and po-
tential resources to the economy is very low and that the opposite
approach is a necessary prerequisite to the circulation of materials.
It can be seen that Serbian municipalities Grocka, Smederevo and
Smedervska Palanka have no packaging waste recycling. As shown
in the Figure, other municipalities with the highest recycling rate
 
are Pancevo with 11.2%, followed by Cacak (9.8%) and Zajecar (9.4%),
and the lowest in municipalities Batocina with 0.05% and Stara
Pazova and Po zarevac with 0.4%, in municipalities Nis, Gornji
Milanovac and Subotica recycling rate varies between 1% and 3.7%.
It was found that actually with average of 4.1% recycling in 9 mu-
nicipalities and no packaging waste recycling in 3 municipalities,
there is lack of waste sorting-out process, no consideration for
recycling wastes and no consideration for reusing wastes. However,
Fig. 5 demonstrate that level of package waste recycling in Ljubljana
is very high 39.5% (EC, 2014). Separate collection of individual
waste fractions, is a pre-condition for achieving high recycling
rates. Broadly speaking, high percentage of mate-rials recovery
through recycling in Ljubljana, can be seen as one current example
of implementing the concept of circular economy. Processing
municipal waste in the line with circular principles, could provide a
major economic opportunity for municipalities (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2013).
6. Environment
Residual materials discharged in the environment present the
loss of residual materials from the economic system (Andersen,
2007), but also represent the pollution of the environment. The
issue was related to low inevitable consequences of the practice of
waste disposal on the landlls, followed by technical standards,
focusing initially on leachate and gas control, refuse characteristics
and landlling operations (Wilson, 2007). An effective economic
system addresses both environmentally and nancially benecial

Fig. 5. The percentage of mate-rials recovery through recycling.

 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
ways to plan and manage material resources (Su et al., 2013).
Therefore, this driver focuse on protection of the environment
throughout the waste disposal methods practiced in municipalities
and trought nancially benecial ways to use materials. Beside
disposal as nal option, wide implemented waste treatment op-
tions are composting and incineration (Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh,
2004; Visvanathan & Tra nkler, 2003). At the same time bearing in
mind that primary goals are to foster implementation of integrated
solid waste management systems and protect the environment.
Fig. 6 points out that the largest percentage of waste was
landlled. Recycling is presented as small percentage, as it can be
seen in the Fig. 5, while other treatment options are not yet
developed. In order to identify local practices of waste treatment,
compared the treatment options in each municipality, it was found
that waste disposal on the landlls dominates with 100% in all 11
selected municipalities, while only the municipality of Stara Pazova
is composting 30% of waste. Municipality Ljubljana is distinguished
by 63% material waste recovery, and 37% waste disposal. During the
last ten years, European commitments such as prevention of waste
generation, re-use and maximum material recovery are being
effectively fullled with the implementation of a Zero Waste
Strategy. Ljubljana is on its way towards a zero-waste society (EC,
2016b).
7. Economic-nancial capacity
The main driver of waste management development in Serbia,
Economy, can be divided into the availability of funds and budget of
the local self-government and nancial inows charging users for
the collection and disposal of municipal waste. Even though sig-
nicant work has been completed on implementation of national
waste management strategy and realization of plans for waste
management improvement, the nanacial resources has been
relatively limited. This means that, besides the regulations in waste
management, the nanacial resources are provided by the limited
budget of the Republic of Serbia. Though, there are available sour-
ces of funding for environmental protection from the earmarked
budget, Serbia provides loans and grants for enterprises that have
been performing activities in waste management which contribute
to the economic mechanism that changes and adapts to the oper-
ation activities related to waste management (Pesi
c, Stankovi
c, &
Mili
c, 2012). Furthermore, nancial resources are also provided
from the budget of the local self-government and funds of legal
entities operating under the public statute created by local self-
Fig. 6. Waste treatment options.
197
government, than fees, donations and other sources of nancing
(Law of Waste Management, RS Ofcial Gazette, nos. 36/2009 and
88/2010). Financial inows charging users for the collection and
disposal of municipal waste is signicant economic instruments for
waste management. But, one of the major problem is low current
tariffs in municipalities. Three main reasons for low prices of waste
collection and disposal can be identied: Reason of social nature, by
which the price of utility services is not economic category, but a
social, and by now has become a social fact. As such it has direct
implications the living standard of the population. The second
reason is found in the character of the ownership of public com-
panies. And the third problem would be low degree of collection
service charges from the economy. Thus, there are a low degree of
collection of charges for utility services that varies as per munici-
palities e from 10% to 70% (National Waste Management Strategy
2010e2019). Regarding all above mentioned it is now clear that
low current tariffs for waste collection, transport, treatment and
disposal can hardly cover the costs of provision of a desirable and
necessary quality of municipal waste management. Howewer, in
Slovenia revenues from the landll tax were increasingly used to
build up recycling infrastructure. In line with implementation of EU
legislation, several changes in waste management were introduced
in recent years. Through changes to legislation, the commitment to
zero waste goals and introducing producer responsibility, tax sys-
tem have been established for collection and treatment of indi-
vidual types of waste, along with companies that ensure the proper
management of such waste. The rate of the landll tax in 2010 was
11 EUR/t (EEA, 2013). Furthemore, the adoption of the Zero Waste
strategy by Ljubljana in 2014, create a successful separate collection
system, further supported by implementation of pay-as-you-throw.
Innovative thinking and forming partnerships can alleviate some of
the waste collection and disposal nancial costs. The introduction
of pay-as-you-throw disposal fees for residual waste while disposal
of recyclables remains free or is offered at lower charges, has pro-
vide a nancial incentive for residents, which can in turn minimise
the amount of recyclables in residual waste. This system use re-
sidual waste collection fees as source of funding. As a result,
average waste management costs for households in Ljubljana less
than 100 V per year are among the lowest in Slovenia (Oblak,
2015b). Current tariffs for waste collection, transport, treatment
and disposal for hausholds and industry are presented in Table 1.
Evidently this comparation shows that many of the municipalities
in Serbia have low tariffs for households, about 0.04 V/m2 in
average. Only Bato cina with 1.3 V/m2 and Grocka with 4 V/m2 have
198 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
Table 1
Current tariffs for waste collection, transport, treatment and disposal (V/m2).
Households
Ljubljana (Slovenia) 7.96 (V/monthly)
Subotica (Serbia) 0.03 (for ats) (V/m2)
0.04(for houses) (V/m2)
Stara Pazova (Serbia) 0.06 (V/m2)
Pancevo (Serbia) 0.05 (V/m2)
Grocka (Serbia) 4 (V/m2)
Smederevo (Serbia) 0.03 (V/m2)
Pozarevac (Serbia) 0.03 (V/m2)
Smederevska Palanka (Serbia) / /
Batocina (Serbia) 1.31 (V/m2)
Gornji Milanovac (Serbia) 0.04 (withoutValue Added Tax) (V/m2)
 
Cacak (Serbia) 0.03 (V/m2)
Zajecar (Serbia) 0.03 (for physical person(entity)) 0.14(for legal person (entity)) (V/m2)
Nis (Serbia) 0.03 (V/m2)
the tariffs sufcient high for proper waste management service.
Moreover, the Municipality of Gornji Milanovac have tariffs without
Value Added Tax for both households and industry. Thus, munici-
palities Subotica and Zaje car have two different tariffs, Subotica
have one for houses and another little higher for ats and Zaje car
have one for legal person (entity) and another lower for physical
person (entity). In Table 1 the data show that current tariffs for
industry vary between 0.04 and 0.3 V/m2. Furthermore, munici-
pality Grocka have three different tariffs and municipality Zaje car
calculate charges per tour. This comparation revealed that tariffs
differ widely as to how in the Municipality the tariff system was set.
Also, it can be seed that Municipality Ljubljana residual waste
collection fee of 7.96 V become sustainable source of funding. There
is no question that taxes must be part of this solution, bearing in
mind that the landll tax revenue from municipal waste manage-
ment service goes to municipalities.
7.1. Investment effects develop of circular economy in
municipalities
Out of all analyzed municipalities in Serbia only municipality
 
Ca cak shows the beginning of the establishment of an integrated
waste management system. The introduction and process optimi-
zation of the primary selection of waste was through organized
collection of municipal waste from urban and suburban areas and
 
80% rural areas. In the municipality Ca cak the primary selection of
packaging waste is under development, and primary selection
currently covers 20% of its territory in individual households. Also,
this municipality has one recycling yard with 11 licensed facilities
for recycling of packaging waste. Also, composting plant has been
 
built in Cacak with the capacity of 500 tons/year. In addition, the
municipal landll is closed, since 2012 the municipal waste has
been disposed of at a regional landll Duboko. It can be concluded
 
that the municipality Ca cak has provided conditions for the reliable
collection and disposal of municipal waste. It is evident that
improving the waste management system indicates a signicant
improvement of the environment in the municipality, as well as
elimination of existing health threats of the population. These
projects matter, as there is strong evidence linking nancial ca-
pacity to waste management progress. Progress in this case is based
on an established regional waste management system and the
regional landll-built as part of a regional center for waste man-
agement 9 municipalities, and closure of the existing dumpsite. The
value of the investment amounts to 15 million euros. The invest-
ment is co-nanced by the nine municipalities, as well as the Eu-
ropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD loan), NIP,
Industry
/
0.09 (V/m2)
0.2 (V/m2)
0.06 (V/m2)
0.1/0.2/0.3(V/m2)
/
0.04/0.12 (V/m2)
0.22 (V/m2)
0.07 (withoutValue Added Tax) (V/m2)
0.08(V/m2)
41.5 (per tour)
55.3 (per tour)
0.07 (V/m2)
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA,
grants), the French government (grant) and the European Union
(grant) (RSWMOD, 2012). An important segment of the circular
economy is waste management, which plays an important role in
job creation, reduction or complete elimination of waste. In line
with this, the results showed that the rst step in establishing an
integrated waste management in municipalities just to invest in
projects whose value amounts to tens of millions of euros. From this
it follows that the biggest incentive for the development of waste
management in municipalities is precisely the drivers of the
economy - nancial capacity, which has been identied as a driver
and as a barrier. Environment and public health are the drivers that
inuence only after the successful implementation of the most
inuential economy - nancial capacity.
8. Conclusion remarks
Waste management systems in the municipalities in Serbia vary
dramatically in terms of services provided, disposal rates, disposal
options and methodologies for measuring waste and recycling rates
etc. Based on executed and comparative analysis of the obtained
diagrams, the most frequently used treatment option of municipal
waste continues to be a disposal of waste on the so-called illegal
dumps and uncontrolled dumps. After disposal, the most common
form of waste treatment in municipalities is recycling. Application
of specic options for the treatment of municipal waste in largely
depends on the economic indicators, and development of observed
municipality. The bottlenecks that restrict Serbians sustainable
development are low levels of reuse, recycling and recovery for
municipal wastes, shortage of advanced technology, signicant
waste disposal amounts and weak economic incentives. Further-
more, it was found that the biggest incentive for the development
of waste management in municipalities was precisely the economy
driver. Environment and public health are the drivers that inuence
only after the successful implementation of the most inuential
economy - nancial capacity. This paper has shown explicitly how
the analysis of selected drivers can be applied for different parts of
waste management in Serbia. Also, enable progress in modernizing
and improving the solid waste management sys-tem under all
kinds of circumstances.
In 12 selected municipalities in Serbia the majority of waste
ends up in landlls as mixed waste. Slovenian Municipality Ljubl-
jana adopted a Zero Waste approach which led to successful
separate collection system, further supported by implementation of
pay-as-you-throw. In order to advance towards a Circular Economy,
Zero Waste Europe recommends to moving towards a resource
 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
efciency. To implement circular economy, reduce, re-use and
recycling activities should be encouraged, which will result in a
reduced waste quantity on the landlls and, at the same time,
creation of green jobs. In line with this, consideration must be given
to the following:

Implementation of a door-to-door collection of four types of
waste, with underground collection units to be provided.

Separation at source results in higher quality recyclables
entering the recycling stream high material recovery with a
higher resource value.

Innovative thinking and forming partnerships can alleviate
some of the waste collection and disposal nancial costs. The
introduction of pay-as-you-throw disposal fees for residual
waste while disposal of recyclables remains free or is offered at
lower charges, has provide a nancial incentive for residents,
which can in turn minimise the amount of recyclables in re-
sidual waste. This system use residual waste collection fees as
source of funding.
This paper has suggested a novel approach for integrating best
Zero Waste practices in the municipalities in short period of time.
Obtained results will be a good basis for waste managers for future
decisions and directions of waste management development.
References
Agamuthu, P., Khidzir, K. M., & Hamid, S. F. (2009). Drivers of sustainable waste
management in Asia. Waste Management & Research, 27, 625e663.
Ahmeda, A. A., & Alib, M. (2004). Partnerships for solid waste management in
developing countries: Linking theories to realities. Habitat International, 28,
467e479.
Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on the environmental economics of
the circular economy. Sustainability Science, 2(1), 133e140.
Anthouli, A., Aravossis, K., Charitopouiou, R., Tot, B., & Vujic, G. (2013). Opportunities
& barriers of recycling in balkan countries: The cases of Greece and Serbia. www.
eedsa.gr. www.seswa.rs.
Ayalon, O., Brody, S., & Shechter, M. (2013). Household waste generation, recycling
and prevention. OECD studies on environmental policy and household behaviour
greening household behaviour overview from the 2011 Survey: Overview from the
2011 survey (p. 219).
Batinic, B., Vukmirovic, S., Vuji
c, G., Stanisavljevi

c, N., Ubavin, D., & Vukmirovic, G.
(2011). Using ANN model to determine future waste characteristics in order to
achieve specic waste management targets- case study of Serbia. Journal of
Scientic & Industrial Research, 70, 513e518.
Beigl, P., Lebersorger, S., & Salhofer, S. (2008). Modelling municipal solid waste gen-
eration: A review,Waste Management, 28, 200e214.
Brunner, P. H., & Fellner, J. (2007). Setting priorities for waste management stra-
tegies in developing countries. Waste Management and Research, 25, 234e240.
CRI. (2009). Understanding economic and environmental impacts of single-stream
collection systems. Avaliable from http://www.container-recycling.org/assets/
pdfs/reports/2009-SingleStream.pdf.
D Alessandro, G., Gnoni, G. M., & Mummlo, G. (2012). Sustainable municipal solid
waste management and recovery. In N. C. Madu, & C. H. Kuei (Eds.), Handbook of
sistainablility management (pp. 575e593). Singapore: World Scientic Pub-
lishing Co.Ltd.
De-min, C. H. E. N. (2004). Core if recycling economy is to use resources circularly.
China Population, Resources and Environment, 2, 0e3.
Dijkgraaf, E., & Vollebergh, R. J. H. (2004). Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of
nal waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics, 50, 233e247.
EC e European Commission 2014. COM. (2014). 398 of 2.7.2014. Towards a circular
economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. Brussels. Avaliable from http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/circular-economy-
communication.pdf.
EC e European Commission. (2015). Reference: 070201/ENV/2014/691401/SFRA/A2
assessment of separate collection schemes in the 28 capitals of the EU. Avaliable
from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/Separate%
20collection_Final%20Report.pdf.
EC- European Commission. (2016a). Indicator_7_Ljubljana_2016.Application form for
European green capital award 2016. Avaliable from http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/europeangreencapital/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Indicator_7_
Ljubljana_2016.pdf.
EC- European Commission. (2016b). Ljubljana European green capital 2016 EN.
Avaliable from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/ljubljana_european_green_capital_2016.pdf.
EEA. (2013). European environment agency, municipal waste management in Slovenia.
199
Avaliable from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/
municipal-waste-management-in-slovenia.
EEA Report No 2. (2016). Circular economy in Europe. Developing the knowledge base.
ISSN 1977-8449. http://dx.doi.org/10.2800/51444.
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjo rklund, A., Eriksson, O., & Finnveden, G. (2007). What life-
cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management.
Waste Management, 27(8), 989e996.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Avaliable from
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/
TCE_Report-2013.pdf.
EUR-Lex. (2004). Communication from the commission to the European parlament, the
council, the European economic and social commitie og the regions, towards a
circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe/* COM/2014/0398 nal *.
Avaliable from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uriCELEX%
3A52014DC0398.
Ezeah, C., Fazakerley, A. J., & Roberts, L. C. (2013). Emerging trends in informal sector
recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Management, 33,
2509e2519.
Filipovi
c, D., & Obradovi
c-Arsi

c, D. (2012). Strategic approach to waste management
planning in the Republic of Serbia- current situation and prospect. Bulletin of
the Serbian geographical society, 4, 143e156.
Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy
indicator system in China: An evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 23(1), 216e224.
Guerrero, A. L., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management challenges
for cities in developing countries. Waste Management, 33, 220e232.
Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., Brown, N. R., & Landis, A. E. (2015). Toward zero waste:
Composting and recycling for sustainable venue based events. Waste Manage-
ment, 38, 86e94.
Ilic, M., & Nikolic, M. (2016). Waste management benchmarking: A case study of
Serbia. Habitat International, 53, 453e460.
International Conference: Circular economy and waste management: Challenges
and perspectives for the republic of serbia ECO EXPO Fair: 19 to 20 . March
2015 Belgrade, Serbia. Available from: http://www.ecoexpo.rs/wp content/
uploads/Me%C4%91unarodna-konferencija.pdf.
Joseph, K. (2006). Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management.
Habitat International, 30, 863e871.
Kirama, A., & Mayo, A. W. (2016). Challenges and prospects of private sector
participation in solid waste management in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania.
Habitat International, 53, 195e205.
Ladu, C. L. J., Lu, X., & Osman, A. O. (2011). Solid waste management and its envi-
ronmental impacts on human health in Juba town - South Sudan. Nature and
Science, 9(12), 27e35.
Law of Waste Management, RS Ofcial Gazette, nos. 36/2009 and 88/2010. Law n
packaging and packaging waste (Ofcial Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no.
36/09).
Muniafu, M., & Otiato, E. (2010). Solid waste management in nairobi, kenya. a case
for emerging economies. The Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship
in Africa, 2(1), 342e350.
National Environmental Approximation Strategy for the Republic of Serbia. (2011).
The ofcial journal of the republic of Serbia, No. 80/11.
National Waste Management Strategy. (2010-2019). Ofcial gazette RS, No. 29/10.
Oblak, E. (2015a). Case study #5,The story of Ljubljana. Avaliable from http://
eurorazvitie.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CS5-Ljubljana-English.pdf.
Oblak, E. (2015b). Zero waste Slovenija. Avaliable from http://www.zerowasteitaly.
org/documenti/barletta/OBLAK_ZWSlovenia.pdf.
Ogawa, H. (1996). In Sustainable solid waste management in developing countries
paper was presented at the 7th ISWA international congress and exhibition, parallel
session 7, international perspective. Yokohama. Japan. October/November 1996.
Ozarslan, D. D., Altay, C. M., Arabaci, A., Fatih Altay, H., H., F., & Sivri, N. (2011). Ef-
fects of high economic importance of industrial branches on human life quality
and environment. International Journal if Electronic, Mechanical and Mecha-
tronics Engineering, 2(1), 86e91.
Permana, A. S., Towolioe, S., Aziz, N. A., & Ho, C. S. (2015). Sustainable solid waste
management practices and perceived cleanliness in a low income city. Habitat
International, 49, 197e205.
Pesi
c, A. P., Stankovi
c, J., & Mili
c, J. V. (2012). Analysis of possibilities for recycling
industry development e Multi-criteria approach. Facta Universitatis, Series:
Economics and Organization, 9(2), 241e255.
Preston, F. (2012). A global redesign? shaping the circular economy. Energy, Envi-
ronment and Resource Governance, 2, 1e20.
Proki
c, D., & Mihajlov, A. (2012). Contaminated sites. Practice of solid waste man-
agement in a developing country (Serbia). Environment Protection Engineering,
38(1), 81e90.
RSWMOD. (2012). Regional solid waste management project e Duuboko. Avaliable
from http://www.misp-serbia.rs/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/FS-duboko-
2012-EN.pdf.
SORS. (2014). Statistical Ofce of the republic of Serbia. Avaliable from http://webrzs.
stat.gov.rs/.
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in
China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production,
42, 215e227.
Vergara, E. S., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2012). Municipal solid waste and the envi-
ronment:A global perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 37, 277e309.
Visvanathan, C., & Tra nkler, J. (2003). In Municipal solid waste management in Asia- a
200 M. Ili
c, M. Nikoli
c / Habitat International 56 (2016) 191e200
comparative analysis, workshop on sustainable landll management 3e5
December, 2003; Chennai, India (pp. 3e15).
Wilson, C. D. (2007). Development drivers for waste management, waste management
& research, 25: 198e207.World health organization 2009. Environment and health
performance review, Serbia. http://www.euro.who.int/.
Wilson, C. D., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006). Role of informal sector recycling in
waste management in developing countries. Habitat International, 30, 797e808.
World Health Organization. (2009). Environment and health performance review,
Serbia. Dostupno http://www.euro.who.int/.
Xue, B., Chen, X. P., Geng, Y., Guo, X. J., Lu, C. P., Zhang, Z. L., et al. (2010). Survey of
ofcials awareness on circular economy development in China: Based on
municipal and county level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12),
1296e1302.
Zotos, G., Karagiannidis, A., Zampetoglou, S., Malamakis, A., Antonopoulos, I. S.,
Kontogianni, S., et al. (2009). Developing a holistic strategy for integrated waste
management within municipal planning: Challenges, policies, solutions and
perspectives for Hellenic municipalities in the zero-waste, low-cost direction.
Waste Management, 29, 1686e1692.