arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2609.13713

Cross-sectoral emission interdependencies of waste management

Abstract

This study examines emission interdependencies within the waste sector and between waste and other economic domains, energy, transport, water, and communications, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies with emphasis on process-based and hybrid approaches. The analysis employs the EXIOBASE multi-regional input-output database. Statistical correlation is applied to identify commonalities and divergences in emission drivers. Results indicate strong correlations among certain landfill waste streams, particularly organic-based materials, as well as links between plastics and wood, suggesting shared decomposition or management pathways. Moderate correlations appear in cross-sectoral interactions, especially between waste, energy, and transport, while weak correlations are observed in processes with distinct treatment mechanisms, such as landfill versus wastewater. Methodologically, the study highlights challenges posed by high-dimensional datasets, including multicollinearity, which limit the effectiveness of linear models. These findings underscore the complexity of sectoral interdependencies and the need for both integrated and material-specific strategies. By demonstrating how systemic tools like EXIOBASE can capture these linkages, the research provides a foundation for constructing more robust emission models and informing targeted mitigation policies. The results contribute to advancing environmental accounting frameworks while offering practical insights for emission reduction planning across interconnected sectors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nikolaos Kalyviotis, Georgina Calypso Kalogerakis, Georgios Kolliopoulos. 2026-09-12. Cross-sectoral emission interdependencies of waste management. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13713

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN