Inefficiency in municipal solid waste management in Luanda: economic costs and missed opportunities for recycling and circular economy (2010–2014)

Inefficiency in municipal solid waste management in Luanda: economic costs and missed opportunities for recycling and circular economy (2010–2014) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Method Article Inefficiency in municipal solid waste management in Luanda: economic costs and missed opportunities for recycling and circular economy (2010–2014) Agostinho Sousa Gonçalo, Manuel António Simão This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9153008/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Municipal solid waste (MSW) management represents an increasing challenge for cities in developing countries, often associated with linear models based on collection, transportation and final disposal in landfills. The literature has identified this model as economically inefficient, as it fails to incorporate mechanisms for recovering value from waste. This study aims to analyze the economic efficiency of MSW management in Luanda Province, Angola, over the period 2010–2014, by quantifying direct public costs and the economic value of recyclable materials not captured by the system. Methodologically, the study adopts a case study design based on secondary official data obtained from ELISAL and the Integrated Economic Management System (SIGE). The analysis includes the quantification of landfilled waste volumes, the calculation of total and average public costs per ton, and the estimation of the economic value of recyclable materials based on market prices by waste type. The results indicate that approximately 10.9 million tons of waste were disposed of in landfills, generating public expenditures exceeding 206 billion kwanzas. At the same time, an estimated 162.9 billion kwanzas in recyclable materials were not recovered, particularly plastics and aluminum, whose unit values exceed the average cost of landfilling. These findings reveal a structural economic efficiency deficit, characterized by the coexistence of high public costs and significant losses of economic value. The study concludes that reorienting public policies towards waste management models based on recycling, material recovery and circular economy principles is essential to improving the economic efficiency of the system. Agroecology municipal solid waste economic efficiency recycling circular economy public costs developing countries Angola Figures Figure 1 1. INTRODUCTION Municipal solid waste (MSW) management represents one of the main challenges faced by contemporary cities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where rapid urban growth has led to a significant increase in waste generation and growing pressure on urban infrastructure (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018). In these contexts, waste management systems are often structured around linear models based on collection, transportation and final disposal in landfills. The international literature has demonstrated that this model presents important structural limitations. According to Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012), dependence on landfilling is associated with high operational costs and increasing pressure on public budgets. Similarly, Kaza et al. (2018) show that systems with low recycling rates tend to exhibit lower economic efficiency and higher levels of resource waste. From a resource economics perspective, municipal solid waste should not be viewed solely as an environmental liability, but also as a potential economic asset. Studies by Wilson et al. (2013) demonstrate that materials such as plastics, metals, glass and paper have significant market value and can contribute to reducing system costs when integrated into recycling value chains. However, in predominantly linear systems, this value is often lost through landfill disposal. Furthermore, the circular economy literature highlights that material recovery can reduce the extraction of natural resources, improve economic efficiency and enhance the sustainability of urban systems (UNEP, 2011; World Bank, 2018). In this context, the absence of waste valorization mechanisms represents a significant source of economic inefficiency in developing countries. Despite growing international evidence, there is still a lack of empirical studies that jointly quantify public costs and the economic value of unrecovered waste in African cities. In Angola, and particularly in Luanda Province, this gap is even more pronounced, limiting the understanding of the economic efficiency of MSW management systems. In this context, the following research question is posed: to what extent does a landfill-based waste management model generate economic inefficiencies through the combination of high public costs and the loss of economic value from recyclable materials? To address this question, this study aims to analyze the economic efficiency of integrated MSW management in Luanda Province over the period 2010–2014 by quantifying public costs and the economic value of recyclable materials not captured by the system. Methodologically, the study adopts a case study design based on secondary official data from ELISAL and the Integrated Economic Management System (SIGE). The analysis includes the quantification of landfilled waste volumes, the calculation of total and average public costs per ton, and the estimation of the economic value of recyclable materials based on market prices by waste type. In addition, an economic efficiency deficit indicator is introduced, defined as the difference between the potential economic value of waste and the costs of the current management model. This study contributes to the literature by providing integrated empirical evidence on the economic inefficiency of waste management systems in urban contexts of developing countries, while also offering relevant insights for the formulation of public policies aligned with circular economy principles. The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework, addressing the concepts of municipal solid waste, recycling, circular economy and economic efficiency; Section 3 describes the methodology; Section 4 presents the empirical results; Section 5 discusses the findings in light of the international literature; Section 6 outlines policy implications; and finally, Section 7 presents the main conclusions of the study. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Concept of municipal solid waste and its economic and environmental relevance Municipal solid waste (MSW) refers to the set of discarded materials generated from domestic, commercial, institutional, and service activities in urban areas, including both organic and inorganic fractions with distinct physical, chemical, and economic characteristics (UN-Habitat, 2010; Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). Its management constitutes a core function of urban systems, not only for sanitary and environmental reasons, but also due to its direct impact on public expenditure, resource-use efficiency, and the sustainability of urban development. The international literature shows that increasing urbanization, population density, and changing consumption patterns have led to a continuous rise in waste generation, making MSW management one of the most costly urban services in developing countries (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018). In many of these contexts, waste-related expenditures represent a significant share of municipal budgets, particularly where systems rely predominantly on collection, transport, and landfill disposal. Beyond its operational dimension, MSW has growing economic relevance. Urban waste streams contain materials with potential for reuse, recycling, and recovery, implying that waste management should not be viewed solely as a disposal problem, but also as an issue of economic efficiency and resource utilization. Recent literature thus advocates a shift in perspective: waste is no longer considered merely an environmental liability, but rather a material flow with economic value, capable of generating revenue, reducing costs, and stimulating value chains associated with recycling and the circular economy (Wilson et al., 2013; World Bank, 2018). Accordingly, the importance of MSW can be understood across three interrelated dimensions: (i) an environmental and urban dimension, related to cleanliness, public health, and environmental protection; (ii) a fiscal dimension, given the high and recurrent public expenditures required for waste management; and (iii) an economic dimension, as waste streams contain recoverable materials whose non-utilization represents a loss of economic value. 2.2 Inefficient MSW management and its economic effects The literature on waste management shows that inefficiency arises when waste is treated under a predominantly linear model, in which management is limited to the sequence of collection, transport, and final disposal, without structured mechanisms for sorting, reuse, or material recovery (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993; Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). This linear model tends to concentrate public resources on short-term operational activities, without promoting waste reduction or value recovery. From an economic perspective, inefficient MSW management generates multiple negative effects. First, it results in high recurrent public costs, particularly in rapidly expanding urban areas where collection and transport logistics are more expensive. Second, it leads to the destruction of economic value, as recyclable materials with market demand are disposed of in landfills instead of being reintegrated into productive chains. Third, it increases pressure on landfill capacity, accelerating the need for new public investments in disposal infrastructure (Kaza et al., 2018; Guerrero et al., 2013). Empirical evidence supports this diagnosis. Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) show that landfill-dependent systems tend to exhibit lower financial efficiency and greater budgetary pressure. Kaza et al. (2018), in a global comparative analysis, demonstrate that countries with low material recovery rates are more dependent on public spending without corresponding economic returns. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2013) argue that the absence of waste valorization represents not only an environmental issue, but also a failure in urban resource efficiency. Thus, inefficiency in waste management can be understood as a double loss: on the one hand, the public sector incurs high costs to collect and dispose of waste; on the other, it loses the embedded economic value of materials. It is precisely at this intersection between public expenditure and lost value that the analytical relevance of this study lies. 2.3 Recyclable waste as an economic resource Recyclable waste refers to fractions of MSW that can be reintegrated into production processes through collection, sorting, processing, and industrial reuse. The main recyclable materials include paper and cardboard, glass, plastics, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including aluminum, all of which have varying economic value depending on market demand, processing costs, and material quality (Wilson et al., 2013). The economic relevance of recyclable waste stems from its role as a partial substitute for virgin raw materials. Its recovery reduces the need for natural resource extraction, lowers energy consumption in certain production processes, and generates revenue through the commercialization of secondary materials. In this sense, recycling is not only an environmentally desirable practice, but also a mechanism for economic efficiency and resource valorization. Empirical studies in developing countries show that the most economically valuable fractions are often plastics, metals, and aluminum, particularly where secondary markets are at least minimally structured (Aja et al., 2019; Makarichi et al., 2018). Recovering these materials can reduce the net cost of public waste management systems, generate additional revenue streams, and create economic opportunities along the recycling value chain. From an analytical standpoint, treating recyclable waste as an economic resource shifts the focus of the debate: the issue is no longer only “how much does waste management cost,” but also “how much economic value is lost when waste is not recovered.” This perspective underpins contemporary approaches to economic efficiency in waste management. 2.4 Recycling, the 5Rs hierarchy, and economic efficiency Recycling is part of a broader framework of sustainable waste management, commonly represented by the 5Rs hierarchy: reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, and reject. This model proposes a systemic reorganization of waste management based on prevention and progressive valorization, in contrast to the traditional linear model centered on collection and disposal (UNEP, 2011; Wilson et al., 2013). The 5Rs hierarchy reflects both economic and environmental prioritization. Reduction and reuse operate upstream, minimizing waste generation and, consequently, management costs. Recycling and recovery reintroduce materials and energy into production systems, creating additional economic flows. Finally, rejection—understood as the avoidance of non-sustainable or non-recoverable materials—contributes to system rationalization and allocative efficiency. From an economic perspective, the application of the 5Rs leads to efficiency gains throughout the waste management system. First, reducing the volume of waste sent to landfills lowers operational costs associated with collection, transport, and disposal. Second, recycling enables the recovery of marketable materials, generating revenue and reducing economic losses. Third, waste valorization stimulates job creation across sorting, processing, and commercialization activities. Fourth, it extends the lifespan of disposal infrastructure, postponing costly investments in new landfill facilities (Scheinberg et al., 2010; Kaza et al., 2018). Beyond technical and economic aspects, the effectiveness of the 5Rs hierarchy strongly depends on behavioral factors and societal participation. The literature highlights environmental education as a key driver for implementing these principles, as it shapes consumption patterns, promotes source separation, and enhances participation in recycling systems (UNEP, 2011; World Bank, 2018). Without active public engagement, the implementation of the 5Rs remains limited and system efficiency is compromised (Wilson et al., 2013). Therefore, recycling should be understood as an environmental, economic, and behavioral instrument. Its contribution to system efficiency extends beyond pollution reduction, encompassing cost savings, value generation, market development, and structural changes in production and consumption patterns. 2.5 Circular economy and the role of waste in the Sustainable Development Goals The circular economy represents an alternative paradigm to the linear model of production and consumption. Instead of the “take–make–dispose” logic, it aims to keep materials, products, and resources in use for as long as possible through strategies such as reuse, repair, recycling, and recovery (World Bank, 2018; UNEP, 2011). Applied to MSW management, the circular economy redefines waste as an economic resource rather than an environmental burden. This shift enhances resource-use efficiency, reduces waste generation, and creates new economic opportunities along recycling and recovery value chains. From a public policy perspective, the circular economy provides a strategic framework for reconfiguring waste management systems. By prioritizing material recovery and reducing reliance on disposal, it contributes to lowering operational costs, generating revenue, and integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. It also fosters institutional innovation, the development of secondary markets, and the organization of value chains based on resource recovery. However, the effective implementation of the circular economy depends not only on infrastructure and economic incentives, but also on social engagement and behavioral change. The literature shows that waste management policies tend to fail when they do not incorporate public participation and environmental education, which are essential for ensuring source separation and long-term system sustainability (World Bank, 2018; Wilson et al., 2013). The relevance of the circular economy is closely linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Improved waste management contributes directly to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by promoting cleaner and more efficient urban environments; to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by encouraging resource efficiency and waste reduction; to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) through the creation of green jobs; and to SDG 13 (Climate Action) by reducing emissions associated with improper waste disposal. Thus, the circular economy provides a particularly relevant theoretical and policy framework for analyzing economic efficiency in waste management. By shifting the focus from disposal to valorization, it enables waste to be interpreted as an economic asset whose recovery can generate fiscal, productive, and environmental benefits. 2.6 Analytical synthesis of the theoretical framework The reviewed literature converges on four central insights. First, municipal solid waste represents both a public management challenge and a potential economic resource. Second, landfill-based systems tend to generate high costs and material value losses. Third, recycling and the application of the 5Rs hierarchy can improve economic efficiency by reducing costs and recovering value. Fourth, the circular economy provides a strategic framework for reorienting waste management toward sustainability and resource efficiency. Based on this framework, the present study analyzes the case of Luanda Province by quantifying the relationship between public costs and unrecovered economic value, in order to assess the economic inefficiency of the current MSW management model. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Study design This study adopts a case study design with a quantitative, descriptive, and analytical approach, focusing on municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Luanda Province, Angola, over the period 2010–2014. The choice of a case study is justified by the economic and urban relevance of the province, which concentrates the largest share of waste generation in the country, as well as by the availability of administrative data that enable an integrated analysis of the management system. According to Yin (2014), the case study is an appropriate methodological strategy for analyzing contemporary phenomena embedded in complex real-world contexts, particularly when the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly defined. In the present study, this approach allows for an in-depth examination of the relationship between public costs and the loss of economic value within the waste management system. Source Authors’ elaboration based on public cartographic data and generated using artificial intelligence tools (2026). 3.2 Study area and empirical context The analysis focuses on Luanda Province, the main urban and economic center of Angola, characterized by high population density, rapid urban growth, and significant generation of municipal solid waste. The MSW management system in the province is predominantly based on collection, transportation, and final disposal in landfills, with particular emphasis on the Mulenvos Sanitary Landfill (MSL), the main disposal facility. The selection of this study area allows for the examination of an urban system representative of developing African contexts, where linear waste management models remain predominant. 3.3 Data sources and nature of data The study is based exclusively on official secondary data obtained from public institutions, namely: operational reports from ELISAL (2010–2014), containing data on quantities of municipal solid waste disposed of in landfills; data from the Integrated Economic Management System (SIGE), including public expenditures related to waste management, urban cleaning, and sanitation. The dataset includes information on annual waste volumes, material composition by type, and public expenditures associated with the waste management system. The use of official secondary data ensures institutional consistency and temporal comparability, and is a common approach in empirical studies on waste management in urban contexts (Kaza et al., 2018). 3.4 Analytical procedures The analysis was structured in three main stages: Quantification of landfilled waste Calculation of total and average annual volumes of municipal solid waste disposed of in landfills during the study period. Calculation of public costs Estimation of total public expenditures on waste management and calculation of average cost per ton, obtained by dividing total expenditures by total waste volumes. Estimation of the economic value of recyclable materials Identification of recyclable fractions (plastics, metals, glass, paper, and aluminum) and estimation of their economic value based on average market prices by material type. 3.5 Indicators of analysis Based on the collected data, the following indicators were defined: average cost per ton of landfilled waste (Kz/t); total economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials (Kz); unit economic value by waste type (Kz/t); economic efficiency deficit. The economic efficiency deficit is defined as the difference between the potential economic value of recyclable materials and the public costs associated with the current waste management model. 3.6 Limitations of the study Despite the robustness of the data used, the study presents some limitations. First, the analysis relies exclusively on secondary data, which implies dependence on the quality and level of detail of available institutional records. Second, the economic values of recyclable materials were estimated based on average market prices, which may not fully capture price variability. Additionally, the study does not incorporate indirect costs or potential benefits associated with alternative waste management systems, focusing instead on the analysis of the existing model. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Quantity of municipal solid waste landfilled The analysis of data for the period 2010–2014 indicates that a total of 10,910,528 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) were disposed of at the Mulenvos Sanitary Landfill (MSL). This corresponds to an approximate annual average of 2.18 million tons , highlighting the significant pressure exerted on the waste management system in Luanda Province. A growth trend in landfilled waste is observed between 2010 and 2013, followed by a slight decrease in 2014. Despite this variation, the overall pattern remains relatively stable throughout the period, characterized by the predominance of landfilling as the primary final disposal method. This pattern indicates the absence of structured mechanisms for diverting waste toward recycling or other forms of recovery, suggesting that the management system is strongly oriented toward final disposal. 4.2 Public costs and average cost per ton The data show that total public expenditures on waste management, urban cleaning, and sanitation in Luanda Province reached approximately 206,699,287,928 Angolan kwanzas during the study period. Based on this value, the average cost was estimated at approximately 18,940 Kz per ton of landfilled waste, calculated by dividing total expenditures by total waste volumes. This indicator reflects the unit cost associated with the prevailing waste management model, which is centered on collection, transportation, and landfill disposal. The observed value highlights a substantial level of public expenditure per unit of waste, without the incorporation of mechanisms for economic value recovery. 4.3 Economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials The analysis of the composition of landfilled waste reveals a high proportion of potentially recyclable materials. During the study period, it is estimated that approximately 9,546,712 tons correspond to recyclable fractions, including plastics, metals, glass, paper, and aluminum. Based on average market prices by material type, the total economic value of these materials was estimated at approximately 162,937,810,000 kwanzas . The analysis of unit values by material type shows significant variation. Aluminum presents the highest economic value per ton, followed by plastics and metals, while paper and glass exhibit relatively lower values. It is particularly noteworthy that, in some cases, the unit economic value of certain materials exceeds the average cost of landfilling. This finding indicates that materials with substantial economic potential are systematically being disposed of under the current system. 4.4 Analysis of the economic efficiency deficit The integration of results on public costs and the economic value of recyclable materials allows for an assessment of system performance through the economic efficiency deficit indicator. Considering total public costs of approximately 206.7 billion kwanzas and an estimated 162.9 billion kwanzas in unrecovered economic value, the results reveal a substantial economic efficiency deficit. This deficit arises from the combination of two main factors: on the one hand, high public expenditures associated with waste management; on the other, a significant loss of economic value due to the absence of material recovery. From an economic perspective, this finding indicates that the system not only generates considerable public expenditure but also prevents the creation of economic value from waste. In particular, the fact that certain materials exhibit economic values higher than the cost of landfilling reinforces the existence of a structural inefficiency in the current management model. 4.5 Summary of results The results allow for the identification of three structural characteristics of the waste management system in Luanda Province: strong dependence on landfilling as the dominant solution; high levels of public cost per unit of waste; significant loss of economic value associated with the non-recovery of recyclable materials. Taken together, these elements demonstrate that the current management model presents important limitations in terms of economic efficiency, providing the empirical foundation for the critical analysis developed in the following section. 5. DISCUSSION 5.1 Economic inefficiency and persistence of the linear model The results indicate that the municipal solid waste (MSW) management system in Luanda Province remains predominantly anchored in a linear model, based on collection, transportation, and landfill disposal. This pattern reveals high public costs per ton, associated with the absence of waste valorization mechanisms, thereby reflecting a structurally low level of economic efficiency. Landfill-centered systems are known to involve high operational costs while limiting the recovery of economic value from materials (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018). The international literature further demonstrates that, in cities of developing countries, dependence on landfilling tends to absorb a substantial share of public budgets without generating compensatory revenue streams, resulting in low economic efficiency in waste management systems (Kaza et al., 2018). From the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this configuration reflects a direct misalignment with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) , which promotes waste reduction and increased recycling and reuse. The predominance of landfilling observed in Luanda indicates a limited integration of these principles within the existing management system. 5.2 Loss of economic value, public participation, and resource waste The estimated economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials demonstrates that the current system leads to the destruction of resources with significant economic potential. This finding indicates that waste is being treated predominantly as a liability rather than as a productive asset. These results are consistent with recent evidence showing that inefficiencies in waste management systems in developing countries are closely linked to structural limitations in infrastructure and governance (Ferronato & Torretta, 2019). Materials such as plastics, metals, glass, and aluminum possess significant economic value when reintegrated into production chains, and their recovery is a key determinant of system efficiency (Wilson et al., 2013). The failure to recover these materials implies not only lost revenue but also increased pressure on natural resources. However, the low recovery rates cannot be explained solely by infrastructural constraints. They are also strongly influenced by limited public participation in waste separation at the source. The literature highlights that public engagement is a critical determinant of waste management performance, directly affecting recycling rates and overall system efficiency (Wilson et al., 2013). Moreover, World Bank (2018) findings indicate that waste management policies often fail when they do not incorporate effective mechanisms for social engagement and environmental education. In this regard, the absence of structured awareness and education strategies limits the operationalization of the 5Rs principles, thereby hindering the transition toward more efficient systems (UNEP, 2011). From a broader development perspective, these results also indicate misalignment with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) , as recycling represents a sector with high potential for job creation across the entire value chain, including collection, sorting, processing, and commercialization (Scheinberg et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013). Additionally, there is a direct impact on SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) , as the absence of sorting and valorization infrastructure constrains the development of industrial value chains associated with recycling, thereby limiting innovation and industrialization opportunities. 5.3 Efficiency deficit and implications for urban sustainability The analysis of the economic efficiency deficit reveals that the waste management system in Luanda combines high public costs with significant loss of economic value, resulting in a dual structural inefficiency. This outcome can be interpreted as a failure in resource allocation, as the system does not maximize the economic value of available materials. This interpretation is consistent with the resource economics literature, which emphasizes that the failure to internalize the value of materials leads to suboptimal decision-making and inefficiencies in production systems (Pearce & Turner, 1990). From a sustainability perspective, this situation has direct implications for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) . Inefficient waste management is associated with environmental degradation, increased pressure on urban infrastructure, and reduced quality of life, particularly in rapidly growing urban contexts (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Thus, the strong dependence on landfilling not only undermines economic efficiency but also limits the system’s capacity to contribute to more sustainable and resilient cities. 5.4 Transition toward valorization models, environmental education, and SDG alignment International experience demonstrates that transitioning from linear models to waste valorization systems can generate significant economic gains. Cities that have invested in recycling and circular economy approaches have succeeded in reducing operational costs, increasing revenues, and improving overall system efficiency (Kaza et al., 2018). Furthermore, the integration of recycling value chains, including the informal sector, has been identified as a key factor in improving material recovery rates and system performance (Scheinberg et al., 2010). However, the literature emphasizes that this transition is not solely dependent on technical investments, but also on the level of environmental awareness and public participation. The effective implementation of the 5Rs principles requires sustained behavioral changes supported by environmental education and public awareness programs (UNEP, 2011). In this context, environmental education emerges as a structural component of the transition toward a circular economy, enabling improved source separation, higher-quality recyclable materials, and greater overall system efficiency (Wilson et al., 2013; World Bank, 2018). These transformations are aligned with SDG 12 , by promoting efficient resource use, and with SDG 13 (Climate Action) , as reducing landfilling contributes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane emissions associated with waste decomposition in landfills (IPCC, 2006). In this regard, the case of Luanda Province reveals significant potential for improvement through the adoption of integrated strategies combining waste valorization, infrastructure investment, and environmental education. 5.5 Scientific contribution of the study This study contributes to the literature by providing an integrated empirical analysis of the economic efficiency of MSW management in an African urban context, combining public costs with the economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials. By introducing the concept of the economic efficiency deficit , the study offers an innovative analytical tool that enables simultaneous assessment of financial system performance and resource loss, contributing to the advancement of research on waste management in developing countries. Furthermore, by incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals and the behavioral dimension into the analysis, the study strengthens the link between economic efficiency, social participation, and sustainability. 5.6 Synthesis of the discussion In summary, the results demonstrate that the MSW management system in Luanda Province exhibits structural limitations that compromise its economic efficiency and its contribution to sustainable development. The predominance of landfilling, combined with high public costs and significant loss of economic value, reveals a model that is misaligned with multiple Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDGs 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 . Additionally, the limited integration of environmental education and citizen participation emerges as a critical factor constraining the effectiveness of recycling and waste valorization policies. These findings highlight the need for a structural reconfiguration of the waste management system, oriented toward material recovery, cost reduction, improved resource efficiency, and the strengthening of environmental education. 6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The results of this study demonstrate that the municipal solid waste (MSW) management system in Luanda Province presents significant structural limitations, reflected in high public costs, strong dependence on landfilling, and substantial loss of economic value due to the non-recovery of recyclable materials. These findings allow for the derivation of policy implications grounded not only in the empirical evidence but also in African and international literature on waste management efficiency. 6.1 Reorienting the management model: from landfilling to valorization The first policy implication concerns the need to reorient the current model, which is predominantly based on collection, transport, and landfill disposal, toward a system that incorporates material recovery and progressively reduces reliance on landfilling. The results show that the current model simultaneously generates high public expenditure and significant loss of economic value, reflecting structural inefficiency. This finding is consistent with international comparative literature. Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) and Kaza et al. (2018) demonstrate that landfill-dependent systems tend to experience greater financial pressure, particularly in rapidly growing cities. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2013) argue that integrated waste management systems perform better precisely because they incorporate material valorization as a core component. From a policy perspective, an economically rational strategy for Luanda should promote the transition from a linear model to a progressively integrated system based on waste prevention, sorting, recycling, and value recovery, in line with sustainable waste management principles. 6.2 Source separation, environmental education, and infrastructure investment The results indicate that a substantial share of landfilled waste has economic value, particularly plastics, metals, and aluminum. This implies that the absence of source separation and sorting systems is a key driver of the observed inefficiency. International evidence supports this conclusion. Kaza et al. (2018) show that cities implementing source separation and sorting mechanisms have reduced landfill volumes and improved system efficiency. Scheinberg et al. (2010) demonstrate that structured sorting significantly increases material recovery rates and reduces net management costs. However, the effectiveness of source separation depends heavily on public participation, making environmental education a central element of the process. Studies indicate that the absence of awareness and social engagement limits participation in recycling and undermines system performance (World Bank, 2018; Wilson et al., 2013). In this context, environmental education is a fundamental instrument for operationalizing the 5Rs principles and improving system efficiency (UNEP, 2011). From an African perspective, Guerrero et al. (2013) highlight that the lack of adequate infrastructure for sorting and recovery is one of the main barriers to modernizing urban waste systems. Therefore, a key policy implication is the combined investment in sorting infrastructure and structured environmental education programs, ensuring both technical capacity and social engagement. 6.3 Promotion of recycling markets and value creation The results show that the current system destroys economic value by disposing of materials with existing market demand. This implies that public policy should go beyond operational waste collection and incorporate a market-oriented approach to resource recovery. International evidence reinforces this argument. Wilson et al. (2013) show that efficient systems perform better when there is strong integration between public management and recycling markets. Aja et al. (2019) demonstrate that materials such as metals and plastics can generate significant economic benefits when integrated into value chains. Similarly, Makarichi et al. (2018) emphasize that economic viability depends on the existence of functional markets. In this context, public policies in Luanda should promote formal recycling markets through economic incentives, appropriate regulation, and support for value chain organization, enabling waste to be transformed into economic assets while reducing pressure on public budgets. 6.4 Productive inclusion of the informal sector Although this study focuses primarily on aggregate economic performance, the findings highlight the importance of structures capable of capturing value from recyclable materials. In many African contexts, this role is partially fulfilled by the informal sector. The literature shows that integrating the informal sector can significantly improve system performance (Scheinberg et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013). Informal actors play a crucial role in material recovery and can contribute to increased efficiency. In this context, public policies should promote the productive inclusion of the informal sector through mechanisms such as formalization, training, and organizational support. This approach can simultaneously enhance economic efficiency and social inclusion, aligning with broader objectives of inclusive growth. 6.5 Governance, institutional coordination, and transparency The results indicate that the current system generates high costs without corresponding value recovery, revealing governance weaknesses. The literature confirms that MSW system efficiency depends strongly on the quality of institutional coordination. Rodiæ and Wilson (2017) show that weak coordination undermines planning and system performance. Kaza et al. (2018) emphasize that transparency in cost accounting is essential for improving fiscal efficiency and decision-making. Therefore, strengthening governance should be a central policy priority, including: standardization of cost accounting systems; implementation of continuous performance monitoring mechanisms; improved institutional coordination across entities; systematic production of data on waste composition, flows, and costs. Without these institutional improvements, investments in infrastructure may have limited impact. 6.6 Organic waste valorization The data also highlight the significant share of organic waste in the total waste stream, which increases pressure on landfill capacity. The literature shows that organic waste valorization can significantly reduce landfill volumes and improve environmental performance (UN-Habitat, 2010; Kaza et al., 2018). In many developing countries, organic waste represents the largest fraction of MSW. Therefore, public policies should incorporate solutions such as composting and organic waste recovery systems, contributing to overall system efficiency and sustainability. 6.7 Urban sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals The identified policy implications are closely aligned with multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Waste valorization contributes to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) , job creation supports SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) , infrastructure investment aligns with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) , improved urban conditions support SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) , and reduced landfill emissions contribute to SDG 13 (Climate Action) (IPCC, 2014). In this sense, waste management should be understood not merely as an operational urban service, but as a strategic pillar of sustainable development. 6.8 Synthesis of policy implications In summary, improving system efficiency in Luanda requires a structural transformation based on the following key pillars: progressive reduction of landfill dependence; investment in sorting and recycling infrastructure; development of recycling markets; integration of the informal sector; strengthening of governance and transparency; valorization of organic waste; promotion of environmental education. African and international literature consistently shows that these measures can transform the waste sector into a driver of economic efficiency and sustainability. 7. CONCLUSIONS (FINAL VERSION – HIGH-IMPACT LEVEL) This study analyzed the economic efficiency of municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Luanda Province over the period 2010–2014 by quantifying public costs and the economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials. The results show that the current system is characterized by a strong dependence on landfilling, high operational costs, and a significant loss of economic value associated with the lack of waste valorization. The empirical analysis demonstrates that the existing model reflects a dual structural inefficiency : on the one hand, it imposes high financial burdens on the public sector; on the other, it leads to the destruction of resources with economic potential. This pattern reveals a suboptimal use of available resources and a weak integration of material recovery mechanisms within the waste management system. The findings also indicate that the absence of source separation, limited sorting capacity, and weak integration with recycling markets are key determinants of the observed economic inefficiency. In addition, the limited adoption of circular economy practices and low levels of public participation further reinforce the structural weaknesses identified. From a public policy perspective, the results suggest that improving system efficiency requires a transition from a linear model toward a waste valorization-based approach, including investments in sorting infrastructure, the promotion of recycling markets, the integration of the informal sector, and the strengthening of environmental education. More broadly, the study highlights that MSW management should not be understood merely as an urban cleaning function, but as a strategic sector with the potential to generate economic value, promote employment, and contribute to urban sustainability. The reconfiguration of the waste management system in Luanda may therefore play a central role in economic development and environmental improvement. ? 8. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Despite the relevance of the findings, this study presents several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the analysis is based on aggregated data covering the period 2010–2014, which may limit the ability to capture more recent dynamics in the waste management system in Luanda Province. Second, the predominantly informal nature of the waste sector poses challenges for obtaining detailed and accurate data, particularly regarding material flows and recycling activities occurring outside the formal system. Third, the estimation of the economic value of unrecovered waste is based on assumptions regarding waste composition and market prices, which may not fully reflect actual variations. Finally, the study focuses on a single territorial unit, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cities or contexts with different characteristics. ? 9. FUTURE RESEARCH The findings of this study open several avenues for future research on municipal solid waste management in African contexts. A first research direction involves updating and extending the empirical analysis using more recent data, allowing for the assessment of system evolution and the impact of potential policy reforms. A second important line of inquiry concerns the detailed quantification of recycling value chains, including the analysis of economic flows, market margins, and the role of the informal sector in material recovery. Further research could also explore the economic and environmental impacts of circular economy policies, including source separation systems, recycling programs, and organic waste valorization strategies. Another relevant area of investigation is the role of environmental education and public participation in improving system efficiency, particularly in understanding how behavioral changes influence economic and environmental outcomes. Finally, comparative studies across different African cities could help identify best practices and more efficient management models, strengthening the empirical basis for public policy design. ? 10. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY This study contributes to the literature on municipal solid waste management by providing an empirical analysis of economic efficiency in Luanda Province, a context that remains underexplored in international research. From a scientific perspective, the study introduces an integrated approach that combines public costs and the economic value of unrecovered waste, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of system performance. The introduction of the economic efficiency deficit concept represents a relevant contribution, as it allows for the simultaneous measurement of fiscal burden and economic value loss. From an empirical standpoint, the study provides evidence on the functioning of waste management systems in African contexts, helping to reduce existing gaps in the literature. From a policy perspective, the findings offer concrete guidance for improving system efficiency, highlighting the importance of waste valorization, market development, informal sector integration, and environmental education. Finally, the study reinforces the importance of situating waste management within the broader framework of the circular economy and the Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizing its role as a driver of economic development, social inclusion, and urban sustainability. References Aja, O. C., Al-Kayiem, H. H., & Zewge, F. (2019). Municipal solid waste management: From waste to energy recovery in developing countries . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 103, 1–14. Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management . Washington, DC: World Bank. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories . Geneva: IPCC. Johnson, M., Edwards, R., & Walters, J. (2012). Urban waste management challenges in African cities . Waste Management & Research , 30(9), 889–897. Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050 . Washington, DC: World Bank. Ferronato, N., & Torretta, V. (2019). Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16(6), 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060 Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., & Techato, K. (2018). The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 91, 812–821. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment . London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Rodiæ, L., & Wilson, D. C. (2017). Resolving governance issues to achieve priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries . Sustainability , 9(3), 404. Scheinberg, A., Wilson, D. C., & Rodic, L. (2010). Solid waste management in the world’s cities . UN-Habitat Report . London: Earthscan. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Vigil, S. (1993). Integrated solid waste management: Engineering principles and management issues . New York: McGraw-Hill. UN-Habitat. (2010). Solid waste management in the world’s cities . London: Earthscan. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication . Nairobi: UNEP. Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2013). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries . Habitat International , 30(4), 797–808. World Bank. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050 . Washington, DC: World Bank. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Additional Declarations The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9153008","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Method Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":607899872,"identity":"a17bc78f-8818-45e6-927a-e27b701871ef","order_by":0,"name":"Agostinho Sousa Gonçalo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2348-6623","institution":"Universidade de Évora – MED (Portugal) E Universidade Agostinho Neto (Angola)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Agostinho","middleName":"Sousa","lastName":"Gonçalo","suffix":""},{"id":607911814,"identity":"669423a2-23e5-4607-87c3-913cc9b666d7","order_by":1,"name":"Manuel António Simão","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4446-0569","institution":"Universidade Agostinho Neto (Angola)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Manuel","middleName":"António","lastName":"Simão","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-18 00:16:45","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":true,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9153008/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9153008/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104999517,"identity":"dd7f27e8-394e-4390-ac23-ae3c99a6b913","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-19 16:34:17","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":241729,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeographic location of the study area: Mulenvos Sanitary Landfill, Viana Municipality, Luanda Province, Angola.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9153008/v1/7aa38742679426a4f1dc5860.jpg"},{"id":105035685,"identity":"50dd1be1-cd5c-4abf-a89e-953b7e02fba7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:26:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1910011,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9153008/v1/c46b1a1f-69c7-4866-b8b1-327559064f74.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInefficiency in municipal solid waste management in Luanda: economic costs and missed opportunities for recycling and circular economy (2010–2014)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eMunicipal solid waste (MSW) management represents one of the main challenges faced by contemporary cities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where rapid urban growth has led to a significant increase in waste generation and growing pressure on urban infrastructure (Hoornweg \u0026amp; Bhada-Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018). In these contexts, waste management systems are often structured around linear models based on collection, transportation and final disposal in landfills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe international literature has demonstrated that this model presents important structural limitations. According to Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012), dependence on landfilling is associated with high operational costs and increasing pressure on public budgets. Similarly, Kaza et al. (2018) show that systems with low recycling rates tend to exhibit lower economic efficiency and higher levels of resource waste.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a resource economics perspective, municipal solid waste should not be viewed solely as an environmental liability, but also as a potential economic asset. Studies by Wilson et al. (2013) demonstrate that materials such as plastics, metals, glass and paper have significant market value and can contribute to reducing system costs when integrated into recycling value chains. However, in predominantly linear systems, this value is often lost through landfill disposal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the circular economy literature highlights that material recovery can reduce the extraction of natural resources, improve economic efficiency and enhance the sustainability of urban systems (UNEP, 2011; World Bank, 2018). In this context, the absence of waste valorization mechanisms represents a significant source of economic inefficiency in developing countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite growing international evidence, there is still a lack of empirical studies that jointly quantify public costs and the economic value of unrecovered waste in African cities. In Angola, and particularly in Luanda Province, this gap is even more pronounced, limiting the understanding of the economic efficiency of MSW management systems. In this context, the following research question is posed: to what extent does a landfill-based waste management model generate economic inefficiencies through the combination of high public costs and the loss of economic value from recyclable materials?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address this question, this study aims to analyze the economic efficiency of integrated MSW management in Luanda Province over the period 2010\u0026ndash;2014 by quantifying public costs and the economic value of recyclable materials not captured by the system. Methodologically, the study adopts a case study design based on secondary official data from ELISAL and the Integrated Economic Management System (SIGE). The analysis includes the quantification of landfilled waste volumes, the calculation of total and average public costs per ton, and the estimation of the economic value of recyclable materials based on market prices by waste type. In addition, an economic efficiency deficit indicator is introduced, defined as the difference between the potential economic value of waste and the costs of the current management model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the literature by providing integrated empirical evidence on the economic inefficiency of waste management systems in urban contexts of developing countries, while also offering relevant insights for the formulation of public policies aligned with circular economy principles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the theoretical framework, addressing the concepts of municipal solid waste, recycling, circular economy and economic efficiency; Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e describes the methodology; Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec16\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the empirical results; Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec22\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e discusses the findings in light of the international literature; Section 6 outlines policy implications; and finally, Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec39\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e presents the main conclusions of the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Concept of municipal solid waste and its economic and environmental relevance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMunicipal solid waste (MSW) refers to the set of discarded materials generated from domestic, commercial, institutional, and service activities in urban areas, including both organic and inorganic fractions with distinct physical, chemical, and economic characteristics (UN-Habitat, 2010; Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). Its management constitutes a core function of urban systems, not only for sanitary and environmental reasons, but also due to its direct impact on public expenditure, resource-use efficiency, and the sustainability of urban development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe international literature shows that increasing urbanization, population density, and changing consumption patterns have led to a continuous rise in waste generation, making MSW management one of the most costly urban services in developing countries (Hoornweg \u0026amp; Bhada-Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018). In many of these contexts, waste-related expenditures represent a significant share of municipal budgets, particularly where systems rely predominantly on collection, transport, and landfill disposal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond its operational dimension, MSW has growing economic relevance. Urban waste streams contain materials with potential for reuse, recycling, and recovery, implying that waste management should not be viewed solely as a disposal problem, but also as an issue of economic efficiency and resource utilization. Recent literature thus advocates a shift in perspective: waste is no longer considered merely an environmental liability, but rather a material flow with economic value, capable of generating revenue, reducing costs, and stimulating value chains associated with recycling and the circular economy (Wilson et al., 2013; World Bank, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the importance of MSW can be understood across three interrelated dimensions: (i) an environmental and urban dimension, related to cleanliness, public health, and environmental protection; (ii) a fiscal dimension, given the high and recurrent public expenditures required for waste management; and (iii) an economic dimension, as waste streams contain recoverable materials whose non-utilization represents a loss of economic value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Inefficient MSW management and its economic effects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature on waste management shows that inefficiency arises when waste is treated under a predominantly linear model, in which management is limited to the sequence of collection, transport, and final disposal, without structured mechanisms for sorting, reuse, or material recovery (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993; Hoornweg \u0026amp; Bhada-Tata, 2012). This linear model tends to concentrate public resources on short-term operational activities, without promoting waste reduction or value recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an economic perspective, inefficient MSW management generates multiple negative effects. First, it results in high recurrent public costs, particularly in rapidly expanding urban areas where collection and transport logistics are more expensive. Second, it leads to the destruction of economic value, as recyclable materials with market demand are disposed of in landfills instead of being reintegrated into productive chains. Third, it increases pressure on landfill capacity, accelerating the need for new public investments in disposal infrastructure (Kaza et al., 2018; Guerrero et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence supports this diagnosis. Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) show that landfill-dependent systems tend to exhibit lower financial efficiency and greater budgetary pressure. Kaza et al. (2018), in a global comparative analysis, demonstrate that countries with low material recovery rates are more dependent on public spending without corresponding economic returns. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2013) argue that the absence of waste valorization represents not only an environmental issue, but also a failure in urban resource efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, inefficiency in waste management can be understood as a double loss: on the one hand, the public sector incurs high costs to collect and dispose of waste; on the other, it loses the embedded economic value of materials. It is precisely at this intersection between public expenditure and lost value that the analytical relevance of this study lies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Recyclable waste as an economic resource\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecyclable waste refers to fractions of MSW that can be reintegrated into production processes through collection, sorting, processing, and industrial reuse. The main recyclable materials include paper and cardboard, glass, plastics, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including aluminum, all of which have varying economic value depending on market demand, processing costs, and material quality (Wilson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe economic relevance of recyclable waste stems from its role as a partial substitute for virgin raw materials. Its recovery reduces the need for natural resource extraction, lowers energy consumption in certain production processes, and generates revenue through the commercialization of secondary materials. In this sense, recycling is not only an environmentally desirable practice, but also a mechanism for economic efficiency and resource valorization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies in developing countries show that the most economically valuable fractions are often plastics, metals, and aluminum, particularly where secondary markets are at least minimally structured (Aja et al., 2019; Makarichi et al., 2018). Recovering these materials can reduce the net cost of public waste management systems, generate additional revenue streams, and create economic opportunities along the recycling value chain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an analytical standpoint, treating recyclable waste as an economic resource shifts the focus of the debate: the issue is no longer only \u0026ldquo;how much does waste management cost,\u0026rdquo; but also \u0026ldquo;how much economic value is lost when waste is not recovered.\u0026rdquo; This perspective underpins contemporary approaches to economic efficiency in waste management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Recycling, the 5Rs hierarchy, and economic efficiency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecycling is part of a broader framework of sustainable waste management, commonly represented by the 5Rs hierarchy: reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, and reject. This model proposes a systemic reorganization of waste management based on prevention and progressive valorization, in contrast to the traditional linear model centered on collection and disposal (UNEP, 2011; Wilson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 5Rs hierarchy reflects both economic and environmental prioritization. Reduction and reuse operate upstream, minimizing waste generation and, consequently, management costs. Recycling and recovery reintroduce materials and energy into production systems, creating additional economic flows. Finally, rejection\u0026mdash;understood as the avoidance of non-sustainable or non-recoverable materials\u0026mdash;contributes to system rationalization and allocative efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an economic perspective, the application of the 5Rs leads to efficiency gains throughout the waste management system. First, reducing the volume of waste sent to landfills lowers operational costs associated with collection, transport, and disposal. Second, recycling enables the recovery of marketable materials, generating revenue and reducing economic losses. Third, waste valorization stimulates job creation across sorting, processing, and commercialization activities. Fourth, it extends the lifespan of disposal infrastructure, postponing costly investments in new landfill facilities (Scheinberg et al., 2010; Kaza et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond technical and economic aspects, the effectiveness of the 5Rs hierarchy strongly depends on behavioral factors and societal participation. The literature highlights environmental education as a key driver for implementing these principles, as it shapes consumption patterns, promotes source separation, and enhances participation in recycling systems (UNEP, 2011; World Bank, 2018). Without active public engagement, the implementation of the 5Rs remains limited and system efficiency is compromised (Wilson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, recycling should be understood as an environmental, economic, and behavioral instrument. Its contribution to system efficiency extends beyond pollution reduction, encompassing cost savings, value generation, market development, and structural changes in production and consumption patterns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Circular economy and the role of waste in the Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe circular economy represents an alternative paradigm to the linear model of production and consumption. Instead of the \u0026ldquo;take\u0026ndash;make\u0026ndash;dispose\u0026rdquo; logic, it aims to keep materials, products, and resources in use for as long as possible through strategies such as reuse, repair, recycling, and recovery (World Bank, 2018; UNEP, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplied to MSW management, the circular economy redefines waste as an economic resource rather than an environmental burden. This shift enhances resource-use efficiency, reduces waste generation, and creates new economic opportunities along recycling and recovery value chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a public policy perspective, the circular economy provides a strategic framework for reconfiguring waste management systems. By prioritizing material recovery and reducing reliance on disposal, it contributes to lowering operational costs, generating revenue, and integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. It also fosters institutional innovation, the development of secondary markets, and the organization of value chains based on resource recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the effective implementation of the circular economy depends not only on infrastructure and economic incentives, but also on social engagement and behavioral change. The literature shows that waste management policies tend to fail when they do not incorporate public participation and environmental education, which are essential for ensuring source separation and long-term system sustainability (World Bank, 2018; Wilson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relevance of the circular economy is closely linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Improved waste management contributes directly to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by promoting cleaner and more efficient urban environments; to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by encouraging resource efficiency and waste reduction; to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) through the creation of green jobs; and to SDG 13 (Climate Action) by reducing emissions associated with improper waste disposal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the circular economy provides a particularly relevant theoretical and policy framework for analyzing economic efficiency in waste management. By shifting the focus from disposal to valorization, it enables waste to be interpreted as an economic asset whose recovery can generate fiscal, productive, and environmental benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Analytical synthesis of the theoretical framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature converges on four central insights. First, municipal solid waste represents both a public management challenge and a potential economic resource. Second, landfill-based systems tend to generate high costs and material value losses. Third, recycling and the application of the 5Rs hierarchy can improve economic efficiency by reducing costs and recovering value. Fourth, the circular economy provides a strategic framework for reorienting waste management toward sustainability and resource efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this framework, the present study analyzes the case of Luanda Province by quantifying the relationship between public costs and unrecovered economic value, in order to assess the economic inefficiency of the current MSW management model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Study design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a case study design with a quantitative, descriptive, and analytical approach, focusing on municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Luanda Province, Angola, over the period 2010\u0026ndash;2014. The choice of a case study is justified by the economic and urban relevance of the province, which concentrates the largest share of waste generation in the country, as well as by the availability of administrative data that enable an integrated analysis of the management system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Yin (2014), the case study is an appropriate methodological strategy for analyzing contemporary phenomena embedded in complex real-world contexts, particularly when the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly defined. In the present study, this approach allows for an in-depth examination of the relationship between public costs and the loss of economic value within the waste management system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; elaboration based on public cartographic data and generated using artificial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eintelligence tools (2026).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Study area and empirical context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis focuses on Luanda Province, the main urban and economic center of Angola, characterized by high population density, rapid urban growth, and significant generation of municipal solid waste. The MSW management system in the province is predominantly based on collection, transportation, and final disposal in landfills, with particular emphasis on the Mulenvos Sanitary Landfill (MSL), the main disposal facility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selection of this study area allows for the examination of an urban system representative of developing African contexts, where linear waste management models remain predominant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data sources and nature of data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study is based exclusively on official secondary data obtained from public institutions, namely:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eoperational reports from ELISAL (2010\u0026ndash;2014), containing data on quantities of municipal solid waste disposed of in landfills;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003edata from the Integrated Economic Management System (SIGE), including public expenditures related to waste management, urban cleaning, and sanitation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dataset includes information on annual waste volumes, material composition by type, and public expenditures associated with the waste management system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe use of official secondary data ensures institutional consistency and temporal comparability, and is a common approach in empirical studies on waste management in urban contexts (Kaza et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Analytical procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis was structured in three main stages:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eQuantification of landfilled waste\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalculation of total and average annual volumes of municipal solid waste disposed of in landfills during the study period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCalculation of public costs\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimation of total public expenditures on waste management and calculation of average cost per ton, obtained by dividing total expenditures by total waste volumes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEstimation of the economic value of recyclable materials\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentification of recyclable fractions (plastics, metals, glass, paper, and aluminum) and estimation of their economic value based on average market prices by material type.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Indicators of analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the collected data, the following indicators were defined:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eaverage cost per ton of landfilled waste (Kz/t);\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003etotal economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials (Kz);\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eunit economic value by waste type (Kz/t);\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eeconomic efficiency deficit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003eeconomic efficiency deficit\u003c/b\u003e is defined as the difference between the potential economic value of recyclable materials and the public costs associated with the current waste management model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Limitations of the study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the robustness of the data used, the study presents some limitations. First, the analysis relies exclusively on secondary data, which implies dependence on the quality and level of detail of available institutional records. Second, the economic values of recyclable materials were estimated based on average market prices, which may not fully capture price variability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the study does not incorporate indirect costs or potential benefits associated with alternative waste management systems, focusing instead on the analysis of the existing model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Quantity of municipal solid waste landfilled\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of data for the period 2010\u0026ndash;2014 indicates that a total of \u003cb\u003e10,910,528 tons\u003c/b\u003e of municipal solid waste (MSW) were disposed of at the Mulenvos Sanitary Landfill (MSL). This corresponds to an approximate annual average of \u003cb\u003e2.18\u0026nbsp;million tons\u003c/b\u003e, highlighting the significant pressure exerted on the waste management system in Luanda Province.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA growth trend in landfilled waste is observed between 2010 and 2013, followed by a slight decrease in 2014. Despite this variation, the overall pattern remains relatively stable throughout the period, characterized by the predominance of landfilling as the primary final disposal method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern indicates the absence of structured mechanisms for diverting waste toward recycling or other forms of recovery, suggesting that the management system is strongly oriented toward final disposal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Public costs and average cost per ton\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data show that total public expenditures on waste management, urban cleaning, and sanitation in Luanda Province reached approximately \u003cb\u003e206,699,287,928 Angolan kwanzas\u003c/b\u003e during the study period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this value, the average cost was estimated at approximately \u003cb\u003e18,940 Kz per ton\u003c/b\u003e of landfilled waste, calculated by dividing total expenditures by total waste volumes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis indicator reflects the unit cost associated with the prevailing waste management model, which is centered on collection, transportation, and landfill disposal. The observed value highlights a substantial level of public expenditure per unit of waste, without the incorporation of mechanisms for economic value recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the composition of landfilled waste reveals a high proportion of potentially recyclable materials. During the study period, it is estimated that approximately \u003cb\u003e9,546,712 tons\u003c/b\u003e correspond to recyclable fractions, including plastics, metals, glass, paper, and aluminum.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on average market prices by material type, the total economic value of these materials was estimated at approximately \u003cb\u003e162,937,810,000 kwanzas\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of unit values by material type shows significant variation. Aluminum presents the highest economic value per ton, followed by plastics and metals, while paper and glass exhibit relatively lower values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is particularly noteworthy that, in some cases, the unit economic value of certain materials exceeds the average cost of landfilling. This finding indicates that materials with substantial economic potential are systematically being disposed of under the current system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Analysis of the economic efficiency deficit\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of results on public costs and the economic value of recyclable materials allows for an assessment of system performance through the economic efficiency deficit indicator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsidering total public costs of approximately \u003cb\u003e206.7\u0026nbsp;billion kwanzas\u003c/b\u003e and an estimated \u003cb\u003e162.9\u0026nbsp;billion kwanzas\u003c/b\u003e in unrecovered economic value, the results reveal a substantial economic efficiency deficit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis deficit arises from the combination of two main factors: on the one hand, high public expenditures associated with waste management; on the other, a significant loss of economic value due to the absence of material recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an economic perspective, this finding indicates that the system not only generates considerable public expenditure but also prevents the creation of economic value from waste. In particular, the fact that certain materials exhibit economic values higher than the cost of landfilling reinforces the existence of a structural inefficiency in the current management model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Summary of results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results allow for the identification of three structural characteristics of the waste management system in Luanda Province:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman;\"\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003estrong dependence on landfilling as the dominant solution;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ehigh levels of public cost per unit of waste;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003esignificant loss of economic value associated with the non-recovery of recyclable materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these elements demonstrate that the current management model presents important limitations in terms of economic efficiency, providing the empirical foundation for the critical analysis developed in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Economic inefficiency and persistence of the linear model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that the municipal solid waste (MSW) management system in Luanda Province remains predominantly anchored in a linear model, based on collection, transportation, and landfill disposal. This pattern reveals high public costs per ton, associated with the absence of waste valorization mechanisms, thereby reflecting a structurally low level of economic efficiency. Landfill-centered systems are known to involve high operational costs while limiting the recovery of economic value from materials (Hoornweg \u0026amp; Bhada-Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe international literature further demonstrates that, in cities of developing countries, dependence on landfilling tends to absorb a substantial share of public budgets without generating compensatory revenue streams, resulting in low economic efficiency in waste management systems (Kaza et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this configuration reflects a direct misalignment with \u003cb\u003eSDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)\u003c/b\u003e, which promotes waste reduction and increased recycling and reuse. The predominance of landfilling observed in Luanda indicates a limited integration of these principles within the existing management system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Loss of economic value, public participation, and resource waste\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe estimated economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials demonstrates that the current system leads to the destruction of resources with significant economic potential. This finding indicates that waste is being treated predominantly as a liability rather than as a productive asset. These results are consistent with recent evidence showing that inefficiencies in waste management systems in developing countries are closely linked to structural limitations in infrastructure and governance (Ferronato \u0026amp; Torretta, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterials such as plastics, metals, glass, and aluminum possess significant economic value when reintegrated into production chains, and their recovery is a key determinant of system efficiency (Wilson et al., 2013). The failure to recover these materials implies not only lost revenue but also increased pressure on natural resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the low recovery rates cannot be explained solely by infrastructural constraints. They are also strongly influenced by limited public participation in waste separation at the source. The literature highlights that public engagement is a critical determinant of waste management performance, directly affecting recycling rates and overall system efficiency (Wilson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, World Bank (2018) findings indicate that waste management policies often fail when they do not incorporate effective mechanisms for social engagement and environmental education. In this regard, the absence of structured awareness and education strategies limits the operationalization of the 5Rs principles, thereby hindering the transition toward more efficient systems (UNEP, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a broader development perspective, these results also indicate misalignment with \u003cb\u003eSDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)\u003c/b\u003e, as recycling represents a sector with high potential for job creation across the entire value chain, including collection, sorting, processing, and commercialization (Scheinberg et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, there is a direct impact on \u003cb\u003eSDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)\u003c/b\u003e, as the absence of sorting and valorization infrastructure constrains the development of industrial value chains associated with recycling, thereby limiting innovation and industrialization opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Efficiency deficit and implications for urban sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the economic efficiency deficit reveals that the waste management system in Luanda combines high public costs with significant loss of economic value, resulting in a dual structural inefficiency. This outcome can be interpreted as a failure in resource allocation, as the system does not maximize the economic value of available materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis interpretation is consistent with the resource economics literature, which emphasizes that the failure to internalize the value of materials leads to suboptimal decision-making and inefficiencies in production systems (Pearce \u0026amp; Turner, 1990).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a sustainability perspective, this situation has direct implications for \u003cb\u003eSDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)\u003c/b\u003e. Inefficient waste management is associated with environmental degradation, increased pressure on urban infrastructure, and reduced quality of life, particularly in rapidly growing urban contexts (Hoornweg \u0026amp; Bhada-Tata, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the strong dependence on landfilling not only undermines economic efficiency but also limits the system\u0026rsquo;s capacity to contribute to more sustainable and resilient cities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Transition toward valorization models, environmental education, and SDG alignment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational experience demonstrates that transitioning from linear models to waste valorization systems can generate significant economic gains. Cities that have invested in recycling and circular economy approaches have succeeded in reducing operational costs, increasing revenues, and improving overall system efficiency (Kaza et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the integration of recycling value chains, including the informal sector, has been identified as a key factor in improving material recovery rates and system performance (Scheinberg et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the literature emphasizes that this transition is not solely dependent on technical investments, but also on the level of environmental awareness and public participation. The effective implementation of the 5Rs principles requires sustained behavioral changes supported by environmental education and public awareness programs (UNEP, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, environmental education emerges as a structural component of the transition toward a circular economy, enabling improved source separation, higher-quality recyclable materials, and greater overall system efficiency (Wilson et al., 2013; World Bank, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese transformations are aligned with \u003cb\u003eSDG 12\u003c/b\u003e, by promoting efficient resource use, and with \u003cb\u003eSDG 13 (Climate Action)\u003c/b\u003e, as reducing landfilling contributes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane emissions associated with waste decomposition in landfills (IPCC, 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regard, the case of Luanda Province reveals significant potential for improvement through the adoption of integrated strategies combining waste valorization, infrastructure investment, and environmental education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.5 Scientific contribution of the study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the literature by providing an integrated empirical analysis of the economic efficiency of MSW management in an African urban context, combining public costs with the economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy introducing the concept of the \u003cb\u003eeconomic efficiency deficit\u003c/b\u003e, the study offers an innovative analytical tool that enables simultaneous assessment of financial system performance and resource loss, contributing to the advancement of research on waste management in developing countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, by incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals and the behavioral dimension into the analysis, the study strengthens the link between economic efficiency, social participation, and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.6 Synthesis of the discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the results demonstrate that the MSW management system in Luanda Province exhibits structural limitations that compromise its economic efficiency and its contribution to sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe predominance of landfilling, combined with high public costs and significant loss of economic value, reveals a model that is misaligned with multiple Sustainable Development Goals, particularly \u003cb\u003eSDGs 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the limited integration of environmental education and citizen participation emerges as a critical factor constraining the effectiveness of recycling and waste valorization policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the need for a structural reconfiguration of the waste management system, oriented toward material recovery, cost reduction, improved resource efficiency, and the strengthening of environmental education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study demonstrate that the municipal solid waste (MSW) management system in Luanda Province presents significant structural limitations, reflected in high public costs, strong dependence on landfilling, and substantial loss of economic value due to the non-recovery of recyclable materials. These findings allow for the derivation of policy implications grounded not only in the empirical evidence but also in African and international literature on waste management efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1 Reorienting the management model: from landfilling to valorization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first policy implication concerns the need to reorient the current model, which is predominantly based on collection, transport, and landfill disposal, toward a system that incorporates material recovery and progressively reduces reliance on landfilling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results show that the current model simultaneously generates high public expenditure and significant loss of economic value, reflecting structural inefficiency. This finding is consistent with international comparative literature. Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) and Kaza et al. (2018) demonstrate that landfill-dependent systems tend to experience greater financial pressure, particularly in rapidly growing cities. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2013) argue that integrated waste management systems perform better precisely because they incorporate material valorization as a core component.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a policy perspective, an economically rational strategy for Luanda should promote the transition from a linear model to a progressively integrated system based on waste prevention, sorting, recycling, and value recovery, in line with sustainable waste management principles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2 Source separation, environmental education, and infrastructure investment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that a substantial share of landfilled waste has economic value, particularly plastics, metals, and aluminum. This implies that the absence of source separation and sorting systems is a key driver of the observed inefficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational evidence supports this conclusion. Kaza et al. (2018) show that cities implementing source separation and sorting mechanisms have reduced landfill volumes and improved system efficiency. Scheinberg et al. (2010) demonstrate that structured sorting significantly increases material recovery rates and reduces net management costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the effectiveness of source separation depends heavily on public participation, making environmental education a central element of the process. Studies indicate that the absence of awareness and social engagement limits participation in recycling and undermines system performance (World Bank, 2018; Wilson et al., 2013). In this context, environmental education is a fundamental instrument for operationalizing the 5Rs principles and improving system efficiency (UNEP, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an African perspective, Guerrero et al. (2013) highlight that the lack of adequate infrastructure for sorting and recovery is one of the main barriers to modernizing urban waste systems. Therefore, a key policy implication is the combined investment in sorting infrastructure and structured environmental education programs, ensuring both technical capacity and social engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3 Promotion of recycling markets and value creation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results show that the current system destroys economic value by disposing of materials with existing market demand. This implies that public policy should go beyond operational waste collection and incorporate a market-oriented approach to resource recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational evidence reinforces this argument. Wilson et al. (2013) show that efficient systems perform better when there is strong integration between public management and recycling markets. Aja et al. (2019) demonstrate that materials such as metals and plastics can generate significant economic benefits when integrated into value chains. Similarly, Makarichi et al. (2018) emphasize that economic viability depends on the existence of functional markets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, public policies in Luanda should promote formal recycling markets through economic incentives, appropriate regulation, and support for value chain organization, enabling waste to be transformed into economic assets while reducing pressure on public budgets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.4 Productive inclusion of the informal sector\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough this study focuses primarily on aggregate economic performance, the findings highlight the importance of structures capable of capturing value from recyclable materials. In many African contexts, this role is partially fulfilled by the informal sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature shows that integrating the informal sector can significantly improve system performance (Scheinberg et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013). Informal actors play a crucial role in material recovery and can contribute to increased efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, public policies should promote the productive inclusion of the informal sector through mechanisms such as formalization, training, and organizational support. This approach can simultaneously enhance economic efficiency and social inclusion, aligning with broader objectives of inclusive growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.5 Governance, institutional coordination, and transparency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that the current system generates high costs without corresponding value recovery, revealing governance weaknesses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature confirms that MSW system efficiency depends strongly on the quality of institutional coordination. Rodi\u0026aelig; and Wilson (2017) show that weak coordination undermines planning and system performance. Kaza et al. (2018) emphasize that transparency in cost accounting is essential for improving fiscal efficiency and decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, strengthening governance should be a central policy priority, including:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003estandardization of cost accounting systems;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eimplementation of continuous performance monitoring mechanisms;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eimproved institutional coordination across entities;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003esystematic production of data on waste composition, flows, and costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithout these institutional improvements, investments in infrastructure may have limited impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.6 Organic waste valorization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data also highlight the significant share of organic waste in the total waste stream, which increases pressure on landfill capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature shows that organic waste valorization can significantly reduce landfill volumes and improve environmental performance (UN-Habitat, 2010; Kaza et al., 2018). In many developing countries, organic waste represents the largest fraction of MSW.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, public policies should incorporate solutions such as composting and organic waste recovery systems, contributing to overall system efficiency and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.7 Urban sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe identified policy implications are closely aligned with multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Waste valorization contributes to \u003cb\u003eSDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)\u003c/b\u003e, job creation supports \u003cb\u003eSDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)\u003c/b\u003e, infrastructure investment aligns with \u003cb\u003eSDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure)\u003c/b\u003e, improved urban conditions support \u003cb\u003eSDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)\u003c/b\u003e, and reduced landfill emissions contribute to \u003cb\u003eSDG 13 (Climate Action)\u003c/b\u003e (IPCC, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this sense, waste management should be understood not merely as an operational urban service, but as a strategic pillar of sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.8 Synthesis of policy implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, improving system efficiency in Luanda requires a structural transformation based on the following key pillars:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eprogressive reduction of landfill dependence;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003einvestment in sorting and recycling infrastructure;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003edevelopment of recycling markets;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eintegration of the informal sector;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003estrengthening of governance and transparency;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003evalorization of organic waste;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003epromotion of environmental education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAfrican and international literature consistently shows that these measures can transform the waste sector into a driver of economic efficiency and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. CONCLUSIONS (FINAL VERSION – HIGH-IMPACT LEVEL)","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study analyzed the economic efficiency of municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Luanda Province over the period 2010\u0026ndash;2014 by quantifying public costs and the economic value of unrecovered recyclable materials. The results show that the current system is characterized by a strong dependence on landfilling, high operational costs, and a significant loss of economic value associated with the lack of waste valorization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe empirical analysis demonstrates that the existing model reflects a \u003cb\u003edual structural inefficiency\u003c/b\u003e: on the one hand, it imposes high financial burdens on the public sector; on the other, it leads to the destruction of resources with economic potential. This pattern reveals a suboptimal use of available resources and a weak integration of material recovery mechanisms within the waste management system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings also indicate that the absence of source separation, limited sorting capacity, and weak integration with recycling markets are key determinants of the observed economic inefficiency. In addition, the limited adoption of circular economy practices and low levels of public participation further reinforce the structural weaknesses identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a public policy perspective, the results suggest that improving system efficiency requires a transition from a linear model toward a waste valorization-based approach, including investments in sorting infrastructure, the promotion of recycling markets, the integration of the informal sector, and the strengthening of environmental education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore broadly, the study highlights that MSW management should not be understood merely as an urban cleaning function, but as a strategic sector with the potential to generate economic value, promote employment, and contribute to urban sustainability. The reconfiguration of the waste management system in Luanda may therefore play a central role in economic development and environmental improvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e? 8. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the relevance of the findings, this study presents several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the analysis is based on aggregated data covering the period 2010\u0026ndash;2014, which may limit the ability to capture more recent dynamics in the waste management system in Luanda Province.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the predominantly informal nature of the waste sector poses challenges for obtaining detailed and accurate data, particularly regarding material flows and recycling activities occurring outside the formal system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the estimation of the economic value of unrecovered waste is based on assumptions regarding waste composition and market prices, which may not fully reflect actual variations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the study focuses on a single territorial unit, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cities or contexts with different characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e? 9. FUTURE RESEARCH\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study open several avenues for future research on municipal solid waste management in African contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA first research direction involves updating and extending the empirical analysis using more recent data, allowing for the assessment of system evolution and the impact of potential policy reforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA second important line of inquiry concerns the detailed quantification of recycling value chains, including the analysis of economic flows, market margins, and the role of the informal sector in material recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther research could also explore the economic and environmental impacts of circular economy policies, including source separation systems, recycling programs, and organic waste valorization strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother relevant area of investigation is the role of environmental education and public participation in improving system efficiency, particularly in understanding how behavioral changes influence economic and environmental outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, comparative studies across different African cities could help identify best practices and more efficient management models, strengthening the empirical basis for public policy design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e? 10. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the literature on municipal solid waste management by providing an empirical analysis of economic efficiency in Luanda Province, a context that remains underexplored in international research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a scientific perspective, the study introduces an integrated approach that combines public costs and the economic value of unrecovered waste, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of system performance. The introduction of the \u003cb\u003eeconomic efficiency deficit\u003c/b\u003e concept represents a relevant contribution, as it allows for the simultaneous measurement of fiscal burden and economic value loss.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an empirical standpoint, the study provides evidence on the functioning of waste management systems in African contexts, helping to reduce existing gaps in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a policy perspective, the findings offer concrete guidance for improving system efficiency, highlighting the importance of waste valorization, market development, informal sector integration, and environmental education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the study reinforces the importance of situating waste management within the broader framework of the circular economy and the Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizing its role as a driver of economic development, social inclusion, and urban sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eAja, O. C., Al-Kayiem, H. H., \u0026amp; Zewge, F. (2019). \u003cb\u003eMunicipal solid waste management: From waste to energy recovery in developing countries\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 103, 1\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHoornweg, D., \u0026amp; Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). \u003cem\u003eWhat a waste: A global review of solid waste management\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: World Bank.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2006). \u003cem\u003e2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories\u003c/em\u003e. Geneva: IPCC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJohnson, M., Edwards, R., \u0026amp; Walters, J. (2012). \u003cb\u003eUrban waste management challenges in African cities\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eWaste Management \u0026amp; Research\u003c/em\u003e, 30(9), 889\u0026ndash;897.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., \u0026amp; Van Woerden, F. (2018). \u003cem\u003eWhat a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: World Bank.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFerronato, N., \u0026amp; Torretta, V. (2019). \u003cb\u003eWaste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 16(6), 1060.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph16061060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMakarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., \u0026amp; Techato, K. (2018). \u003cb\u003eThe evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 91, 812\u0026ndash;821.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearce, D. W., \u0026amp; Turner, R. K. (1990). \u003cem\u003eEconomics of natural resources and the environment\u003c/em\u003e. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRodi\u0026aelig;, L., \u0026amp; Wilson, D. C. (2017). \u003cb\u003eResolving governance issues to achieve priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 9(3), 404.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScheinberg, A., Wilson, D. C., \u0026amp; Rodic, L. (2010). \u003cb\u003eSolid waste management in the world\u0026rsquo;s cities\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eUN-Habitat Report\u003c/em\u003e. London: Earthscan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., \u0026amp; Vigil, S. (1993). \u003cem\u003eIntegrated solid waste management: Engineering principles and management issues\u003c/em\u003e. New York: McGraw-Hill.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUN-Habitat. (2010). \u003cem\u003eSolid waste management in the world\u0026rsquo;s cities\u003c/em\u003e. London: Earthscan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2011). \u003cem\u003eTowards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication\u003c/em\u003e. Nairobi: UNEP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilson, D. C., Velis, C., \u0026amp; Cheeseman, C. (2013). \u003cb\u003eRole of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eHabitat International\u003c/em\u003e, 30(4), 797\u0026ndash;808.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorld Bank. (2018). \u003cem\u003eWhat a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: World Bank.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYin, R. K. (2014). \u003cem\u003eCase study research: Design and methods\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Universidade de Évora","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"municipal solid waste, economic efficiency, recycling, circular economy, public costs, developing countries, Angola","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9153008/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9153008/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMunicipal solid waste (MSW) management represents an increasing challenge for cities in developing countries, often associated with linear models based on collection, transportation and final disposal in landfills. The literature has identified this model as economically inefficient, as it fails to incorporate mechanisms for recovering value from waste. This study aims to analyze the economic efficiency of MSW management in Luanda Province, Angola, over the period 2010\u0026ndash;2014, by quantifying direct public costs and the economic value of recyclable materials not captured by the system. Methodologically, the study adopts a case study design based on secondary official data obtained from ELISAL and the Integrated Economic Management System (SIGE). The analysis includes the quantification of landfilled waste volumes, the calculation of total and average public costs per ton, and the estimation of the economic value of recyclable materials based on market prices by waste type. The results indicate that approximately 10.9\u0026nbsp;million tons of waste were disposed of in landfills, generating public expenditures exceeding 206\u0026nbsp;billion kwanzas. At the same time, an estimated 162.9\u0026nbsp;billion kwanzas in recyclable materials were not recovered, particularly plastics and aluminum, whose unit values exceed the average cost of landfilling. These findings reveal a structural economic efficiency deficit, characterized by the coexistence of high public costs and significant losses of economic value. The study concludes that reorienting public policies towards waste management models based on recycling, material recovery and circular economy principles is essential to improving the economic efficiency of the system.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Inefficiency in municipal solid waste management in Luanda: economic costs and missed opportunities for recycling and circular economy (2010–2014)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-19 16:34:12","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9153008/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5a274293-b47a-479e-8dd1-6012784c7b99","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64684591,"name":"Agroecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-19T16:34:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-19 16:34:12","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9153008","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9153008","identity":"rs-9153008","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}