|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01000caa a22002652c 4500 |
| 001 |
NLM247000728 |
| 003 |
DE-627 |
| 005 |
20250218064825.0 |
| 007 |
cr uuu---uuuuu |
| 008 |
231224s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c |
| 024 |
7 |
|
|a 10.1177/0734242X15574563
|2 doi
|
| 028 |
5 |
2 |
|a pubmed25n0823.xml
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (DE-627)NLM247000728
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (NLM)25762565
|
| 040 |
|
|
|a DE-627
|b ger
|c DE-627
|e rakwb
|
| 041 |
|
|
|a eng
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Yetis, Ulku
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Solid waste management scenarios for Cetinje in Montenegro
|
| 264 |
|
1 |
|c 2015
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a Text
|b txt
|2 rdacontent
|
| 337 |
|
|
|a ƒaComputermedien
|b c
|2 rdamedia
|
| 338 |
|
|
|a ƒa Online-Ressource
|b cr
|2 rdacarrier
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Date Completed 24.02.2016
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Date Revised 02.12.2018
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a published: Print-Electronic
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Citation Status MEDLINE
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a © The Author(s) 2015.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a This study presents the options for source-segregation and selective collection of recyclable waste fractions for Cetinje, Montenegro, with the aim of meeting the European Union 50% waste recycling target in 2023, and extending collection and disposal system that builds on the existing strengths of the city. To this end, three options were considered: (1) source separation and separate collection of dry recyclable materials and central sorting of residual waste; (2) source separation and collection of co-mingled dry recyclable materials, and central sorting in a clean material recovery facility of comingled recyclables and central sorting of residual waste; (3) collection of mixed waste (current situation) and subsequent central sorting. Scenarios 1 and 2 were found to meet the European Union 50% recycling target in 2023, provided that a fast implementation of the new separate collection schemes to fine sort the co-mingled collected recyclable materials is available. Finally, a financial evaluation was made for the options and the investment and operational costs over a 20-year period were estimated. Unit costs for Scenario 3 were found to be lower than for Scenario 1 and 2. As Scenario 3 will not meet the future European Union recycling targets, Scenario 2 has been pointed as the most feasible scenario for Cetinje, with reference to the expected lower total costs compared with Scenario 1
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a Journal Article
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a Solid waste management
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a financial evaluation
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a optimum scenario
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a recycling
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Solid Waste
|2 NLM
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Jakobsen, Jens Bjørn
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Dilek, Filiz B
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Kıyık, Enver
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Mugoša, Sanja
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Novović, Jadranka
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Kerestecioglu, Merih
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 773 |
0 |
8 |
|i Enthalten in
|t Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA
|d 1991
|g 33(2015), 5 vom: 15. Mai, Seite 477-85
|w (DE-627)NLM098164791
|x 1096-3669
|7 nnas
|
| 773 |
1 |
8 |
|g volume:33
|g year:2015
|g number:5
|g day:15
|g month:05
|g pages:477-85
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15574563
|3 Volltext
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a SYSFLAG_A
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a GBV_NLM
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a GBV_ILN_350
|
| 951 |
|
|
|a AR
|
| 952 |
|
|
|d 33
|j 2015
|e 5
|b 15
|c 05
|h 477-85
|