1. Introduction
Urban waste management remains a critical challenge for cities around the world, directly impacting public health, environmental sustainability, and social equity [1]. As the urban population is projected to reach 68% of the global population by 2050 [2], the volume and complexity of municipal waste are increasing. Effective collection, treatment, and disposal systems are essential for mitigating health risks, preventing environmental degradation, and ensuring urban resilience [3]. Inadequate waste management has been directly linked to the spread of infectious diseases, contamination of water sources, and emissions of greenhouse gases such as methane [4,5]. These public health and environmental risks are particularly severe in under-resourced urban areas [6] where poorly managed waste can contribute to respiratory illnesses, vector-borne diseases [7], soil pollution, and the degradation of air and water quality [8].
In the European Union, targeted funding mechanisms have been established to address waste-related disparities in disadvantaged communities. In Romania, for example, the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) initiatives support Local Action Groups (LAGs) that focus on marginalized urban areas (MUAs)—zones marked by poverty, informal or substandard housing, insecure tenure, limited infrastructure, and institutional neglect [9,10,11,12,13]. Residents in these areas often face chronic exclusion from basic services, including a lack of formal waste collection. As a result, they are forced to resort to improvised disposal methods such as open dumping in vacant lots, piling garbage in landfills, or burning waste in the open—all of which significantly increase environmental and health vulnerabilities.
This situation reflects a broader pattern of environmental injustice, where vulnerable populations disproportionately bear the burdens of poor waste governance. Structural barriers, such as institutional fragmentation, unclear policy mandates, and the exclusion of informal actors, further complicate efforts to provide equitable services [14,15]. In many Romanian cities, informal waste pickers operate in MUAs, yet remain unrecognized within municipal systems, representing missed opportunities to integrate informal recycling practices into formal waste management strategies [8,15]. A particularly severe manifestation of environmental injustice is evident in the environmental racism linked to the placement of waste facilities near Roma communities in Eastern Europe. Studies have documented cases in Romania where predominantly Roma communities are situated adjacent to municipal landfills, lacking basic sanitation and formal waste collection services [16,17]. These communities often function as de facto buffer zones for urban waste, exposing residents to toxic pollutants, disease vectors, and intensified social stigma. Such systemic marginalization—rooted in historical discrimination and institutional neglect—demands inclusive, equity-oriented approaches to waste governance.
Despite ongoing efforts in urban regeneration and anti-poverty programming, recent analyses show that many local development strategies in Romania [18] insufficiently address waste management in marginalized areas [19]. Without explicit environmental integration, such initiatives risk perpetuating structural inequalities. There is, therefore, an urgent need for participatory frameworks that bridge infrastructure planning with social equity goals, ensuring that vulnerable populations are not only beneficiaries of services but also active contributors to sustainable solutions.
In response to these challenges, our research aims to develop and test a comprehensive, expert-informed framework for inclusive waste management in marginalized urban areas. We posit that improving waste management in MUAs requires a multi-dimensional approach that integrates technical solutions with social interventions and institutional reforms. Specifically, our study pursues two main research objectives:
RO1: To develop a waste management framework based on extensive consultations with experts in relevant fields (environmental science and engineering, sanitation operations, urban planning and architecture, public policy, industry, and civil society). Through this synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge, we identify key principles, operational strategies, and interventions that enable sustainable and socially inclusive waste management systems.
RO2: To apply and evaluate the proposed framework through a case study in Reșița, Romania, a city that includes several marginalized neighborhoods with persistent waste service deficits. Full implementation of the framework has not yet occurred. However, the pilot phase focused on the development of a tailored deployment plan and baseline assessments, which serve to test the feasibility, contextual adaptability, and institutional alignment of the model. The findings from this case study inform refinements to the framework and provide insights into the practical considerations involved in addressing waste governance in structurally excluded urban settings.
Employing a mixed-methods research design [20] which integrated qualitative expert interviews, field observations, and a community survey, we collected data to inform the development of the framework. Based on these insights, targeted interventions were subsequently planned for implementation in the selected pilot community. This study contributes to the debate on inclusive urban sustainability by bridging the gap between high-level circular economy principles and the lived realities of marginalized urban neighborhoods. Moreover, the findings provide insights for policymakers, urban planners, and environmental practitioners on how to tailor waste management solutions to underserved communities, thereby promoting environmental justice, enhancing public health, and supporting alignment with sustainability goals.
Most existing waste management studies tend to focus either on technological optimization (e.g., routing, material recovery) [21,22,23,24] or behavioral change in the general population [25,26,27]. In contrast, our research advances the field by systematically integrating technical, social, institutional, and spatial planning dimensions into a unified framework specifically designed for MUAs. The marginalized communities face overlapping forms of infrastructural neglect and social exclusion.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 outlines the materials and methods employed in the study, Section 3 presents the results and the corresponding discussion, and Section 4 provides a synthesis of the main findings along with the conclusions.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Expert Consultation and Data Collection
To develop the framework, we conducted in-depth interviews with 37 international experts specializing in waste management and related fields. The experts were carefully selected to capture a diverse array of professional perspectives, including those of environmental engineers, sanitation company managers, urban planners, architects, public sector officials, NGO representatives, and academic researchers with expertise in sustainability and waste management. We identified initial interviewees through professional networks [28], targeted literature reviews (e.g., authors of influential publications), and conference contacts. To expand the participant pool, we employed a snowball sampling approach [29], relying on referrals provided by the initial participants.
The expert sample comprised individuals from ten European countries, ensuring a balance between both local (Romanian) and international perspectives. Of the 37 experts interviewed, 21 were based in Romania, reflecting the national and case-specific focus of the study and the practical application of the framework in Rosita. To balance this local emphasis and enhance the generalizability of findings, 16 additional experts were selected from across 10 European countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and an EU-level policy body based in Brussels, Belgium. This diverse composition was the result of strategies aimed at capturing a wide range of institutional contexts, waste governance models, and policy environments (see Table 1). International diversity was numerical and substantial: the interviews addressed cultural, institutional, and regulatory differences across countries. Insights from these discussions were explicitly incorporated, with particular attention paid to identifying both context-specific practices and universally applicable principles such as adaptability, stakeholder participation, and the integration of informal actors. The framework has therefore been developed with modularity and flexibility in mind, allowing adaptation to different socio-political and infrastructural contexts. This methodological approach has ensured that, while based on the Romanian case, the framework reflects a broader European perspective and retains a strong potential for transferability to other urban contexts.
Interviews were conducted over a 12-month period (September 2023–September 2024). Depending on each expert’s location and availability, we carried out interviews either in person, via teleconference platforms (Microsoft Teams), or by phone. At the start of each interview, we explained the study’s objectives and obtained informed consent from the participant, in accordance with established ethical research practices [30]. We then followed a semi-structured questionnaire protocol [31]. Each interview lasted between 60 and 75 min and began with a brief overview of the study’s objectives and interview’s purpose, followed by the formal consent process and the core discussions.
The first part of the interview focused on identifying challenges and underscoring the importance of effective waste management in marginalized urban areas. Experts were asked to describe the environmental, social, and public health consequences associated with inadequate waste services in such communities. We aimed to obtain insights into the specific barriers that impede proper waste management in MUAs, including structural and institutional factors (e.g., governance issues, funding constraints) as well as behavioral and cultural factors (e.g., community practices, perceptions, and attitudes toward waste). Each participant was invited to characterize the most pressing issues they observed—such as illegal dumping, open burning, or lack of infrastructure—and to reflect on the reasons for the persistence of these problems in marginalized communities. Follow-up questions were used to solicit concrete examples and elaborate on points of disagreement in the field.
In the second part of the interview, the focus shifted towards identifying potential solutions and best practices. We invited experts to recommend strategies for improving sanitation and waste outcomes in marginalized urban contexts. These discussions covered a wide range of interventions, from community-based approaches (education campaigns, clean-up campaigns) to technological or design solutions (introducing low-cost sorting equipment, redesigning collection systems), policy measures (regulations, incentives, integration of informal recyclers), and governance models (multi-stakeholder partnerships, participatory planning). The conversational format allowed for in-depth exploration of the topics raised by each expert. We took care to clarify any ambiguities and to capture nuanced opinions by asking follow-up questions like “What conditions are necessary for that solution to work?” or “How would you prioritize these actions?” before concluding each interview. At the end of each session, we summarized the key points back to the expert for validation and invited the expert to share any additional comments or advice that we might have missed.
All interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent and later transcribed verbatim for analysis. The rich qualitative data obtained from these 37 experts formed the knowledge base for framework development.
2.2. Qualitative Analysis and Framework Synthesis
We analyzed the expert interview transcripts with a focus on extracting the most relevant information related to the study’s key dimensions: the social, environmental, and institutional aspects of waste management in marginalized urban areas. Systematic notes were taken to document how experts described existing challenges, proposed solutions, and identified opportunities for improvement. Once the main patterns were identified, the findings were grouped into a set of core themes and principles that formed the basis for the proposed Waste Management Framework (WMF). These core themes captured the critical challenges that need to be addressed (such as illegal dumping due to lack of service or the stigmatization of marginalized communities) and the fundamental strategies proposed (such as continuous public education and the integration of informal waste pickers into formal systems). Once the main themes were identified, we synthesized the findings into a theoretical framework for inclusive waste management, structured around several interrelated components derived from the expert input. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model of the proposed framework, outlining its main thematic areas and their interconnections in support of inclusive waste management outcomes. It presents the thematic structure of the framework and highlights the integrated nature of its components. Specific institutional roles, stakeholder interactions, and feedback mechanisms are described in detail in the main text.
2.3. Selection of the Pilot Community, Reșița’s Marginalized Urban Areas
Following the development of expert-informed framework, the next step was to apply and analyze it in a real-world marginalized urban area. We established a set of criteria for selecting a suitable pilot community in Romania. The selection criteria included the following: (i) the documented presence of illegal landfills or severe waste problems, (ii) a heterogenous housing landscape comprising formal social housing blocks, informal settlements, and slum-like areas to ensure the inclusion of diverse urban conditions [32], (iii) evidence of active or recent local development initiatives (to assess institutional readiness), and (iv) a demonstrated willingness among local stakeholders to engage and collaborate.
After evaluating several potential sites, we selected Reșița, a medium-sized city in western Romania, as the pilot location. Reșița was convincing for several reasons. First, the city’s local development strategy (LDS) [33] explicitly identified five MUAs within its administrative boundaries, demonstrating institutional recognition of urban marginalization as a pressing issue. These five MUAs include a former workers’ colony characterized by improvised housing, a social housing ghetto, an informal settlement on the city outskirts, and other deprived neighborhoods (details are provided in the Section 3). Together, these areas are inhabited by approximately 1481 residents, the majority of whom live in poverty and substandard conditions, adjacent to or intermixed with more functional urban areas (FUAs) [33]. Second, since 2016, the municipality has maintained an active Local Action Group (LAG) [34] focused on marginalized communities, supported by CLLD funding, which had already begun formulating goals around sanitation improvements. The presence of an active LAG along with an updated LDS issued in 2023 signaled that local authorities were aware of the problems and open to interventions. Third, preliminary inquiries revealed serious waste management issues in Reșița’s MUAs, including uncollected waste accumulations, frequent illegal dumping and open burning, and the absence of formal waste collection services in certain areas. These factors collectively made the city an appropriate and relevant testing ground for the application of the proposed framework planning.
Before the field visit, we conducted a desk-based review of relevant documents to ground our understanding of Reșița’s context. This review included an examination of the city’s strategic and planning documents [35] such as the Integrated Urban Development Strategy (IUDS) and the 2023 LDS for the LAG, annual reports from the sanitation service provider, and available environmental and public health reports related to the city’s marginalized areas. The review provided critical insights into governance structures, existing service coverage and institutional priorities. In particular, it revealed that the previous general urban master plan had acknowledged waste-related issues but lacked in-depth waste management strategies, reinforcing the relevance and added value of our integrative approach. We also identified local stakeholder groups, such as the municipal waste utility, local NGOs working on Roma inclusion, and community leaders, who would be important partners during implementation. The subsequent field visit facilitated a thorough evaluation of the current waste management practices and infrastructure, ensuring that our framework could be adapted to the specific challenges and opportunities of the selected community.
2.4. Framework Deployment Plan
To apply the framework, we followed a structured approach designed to address the specific challenges and effectively plan the framework implementation of the specific measures. The steps are outlined in Figure 2, below:
2.5. Community Survey Design and Administration
In addition to expert input and observational data, our study incorporated a household survey conducted in the Reșița MUAs to capture residents’ perspectives, behaviors, and preferences related to waste management. This survey was crucial for triangulating information and establishing baseline conditions before the development of the framework implementation plan. We designed a structured questionnaire [36] comprising 21 questions, organized into key thematic areas, as detailed in Table 2. The full content of the questionnaire is provided in the Supplementary Materials.
The survey was conducted between October and December 2024 in three out of the five MUAs in Reșița. We focused on the three sites that had the most evident waste issues (illegal dumps and open spaces where waste accumulates): Dealul Crucii (MUA 1), the Secu mining colony (MUA 4), and the Câlnic–Bistra area (MUA 5, including the informal settlement on Bistra Street). We intentionally excluded two MUAs, Traian Lalescu and Moara Juracek, from door-to-door surveying due to their distinct spatial and infrastructural characteristics: isolated apartment blocks with limited surrounding land, resulting in fewer issues related to open dumping (their waste issues were mostly related to internal building waste accumulation, which we addressed qualitatively). By focusing on the areas with active informal dumping activity, we ensured the survey captured the phenomena central to our study.
A total of 149 residents participated in the survey. To maximize reach, we employed a convenience sampling strategy [37], supplemented by on-site recruitment. Our team (with support from local community facilitators) visited each selected area during times when residents were likely to be at home (late afternoons and weekends). Additionally, a small booth was set up at a local community event, and printed questionnaires were made available at the neighborhood school, where volunteers assisted respondents with limited literacy. The sample size, representing approximately 10% of the total population across the three MUAs (149 residents), was sufficient for identifying major patterns relevant to waste management practices. About 55% of respondents were female and 45% male, with ages ranging from 18 to over 65 (the median age was in the mid-30s). Importantly, our sample reflected the ethnic composition of the targeted areas: approximately 88% of respondents self-identified as Roma, while the remaining respondents identified as Romanian or another ethnicity. This over-representation of Roma residents (relative to city-wide demographics) was anticipated, given the ethnic composition of the surveyed MUAs.
Figure 3 provides an integrated visual representation of the demographic characteristics and environmental attitudes of the survey respondents. The data include age distribution, gender composition, ethnic identification, housing status, and levels of interest in environmental topics, offering a concise and informative profile of the population surveyed within the selected marginalized urban areas.
All survey responses were collected anonymously, with the purpose of the study clearly explained to each respondent. Verbal informed consent was obtained, and participation was entirely voluntary. To ensure compliance with ethical research standards (in alignment with GDPR guidelines [38]), no personal identifiable information was recorded. The survey generated quantitative baseline indicators and community feedback that informed the Section 3 and supported the evaluation of the proposed framework’s practical relevance.
Although the framework has not yet been implemented, inclusive engagement with marginalized communities was a core component of its development. To move beyond symbolic consultation, local Roma facilitators assisted with survey administration, helping to build trust and improve accessibility for respondents who might otherwise have been excluded due to literacy barriers or institutional distrust. Community perspectives were gathered through structured questionnaires and via informal discussions. This feedback directly shaped the intervention plan, particularly in identifying appropriate sites for waste infrastructure and developing culturally sensitive outreach strategies. Almost 88% of the survey respondents self-identified as Roma, closely reflecting the ethnic composition of the MUAs and reinforcing the representativeness of the participatory process. These engagement mechanisms, introduced during the planning phase, provide a foundation for inclusive, community-driven decision making and aim to reduce the risks of tokenism in future implementation.
Beyond equity considerations, ensuring the framework’s adaptability and institutional anchoring is essential for achieving long-term impact. The framework should be integrated into local planning tools, such as municipal strategies or Local Action Group (LAG) coordination mechanisms, that enable regular review and stakeholder input. Governance models based on participatory oversight and supported by flexible regulatory instruments (e.g., adaptable service contracts, informal sector provisions) can support institutional continuity and facilitate replication in cities with varying administrative capacities.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Challenges in Waste Management for Marginalized Urban Areas (Expert Perspectives)
The analysis of the 37 expert interviews revealed several recurring challenges that hinder effective waste management in MUAs. Experts highlighted the structural under-provision of waste infrastructure and services in these communities, often resulting in high pollution levels and severe public health risks. The key themes that emerged are summarized below, in Table 3:
3.2. Potential Strategies for Mitigating the Challenges (Expert Proposed Solutions)
In discussing solutions, the experts proposed a variety of strategies to mitigate the challenges outlined above. These strategies spanned educational, technical, policy, and community-driven measures. The recommended key actions are consolidated below (Figure 4), aligning with the main pillars of our framework:
The above strategies formed the foundation of our innovative framework for waste management in MUAs, which we then tailored and applied to the Reșița case. The experts overwhelmingly indicated that sustainable improvements could only be achieved through an integrated multi-dimensional approach, rather than isolated interventions. The following sections detail the application of the framework within Reșița’s marginalized neighborhoods.
3.3. Development of the Integrated Waste Management Framework
Drawing on the insights gathered from expert interviews, we developed an innovative waste management framework specifically designed for marginalized urban areas. This framework takes a holistic approach; instead of addressing waste issues in isolation, it simultaneously tackles the social, infrastructural, and institutional dimensions. Its core components reflect the strategic domains identified by the experts and are highly interconnected, reinforcing one another.
A central pillar of the framework is community education and awareness-raising. Lasting change in waste behavior requires that residents understand why proper waste management matters and feel motivated to engage actively. Therefore, the framework advocates for continuous, locally adapted awareness campaigns. For example, in an MUA with a significant Roma population, information might be delivered in both Romanian and Romani, employing appropriate communication methods such as oral storytelling or live demonstrations in cases where literacy is limited. Trusted community members (such as local teachers or health mediators) play a critical role in disseminating key messages. The educational component emphasizes a gradual approach, starting with simple, actionable advice—such as how to separate plastic bottles or why trash should not be thrown into the river—and progressively introducing more complex waste management concepts. Community involvement is facilitated through participatory activities: neighborhood clean-up events, which serve practical and educational purposes; youth clubs that undertake small-scale projects like decorating waste bins with anti-litter messages; and public meetings where residents can raise concerns and co-create solutions. By embedding educational efforts in everyday community life, the framework aims to shift social norms, making littering and dumping socially unacceptable over time. It also builds social capital by encouraging residents to work together in improving their environment.
From an infrastructure and technology perspective, the framework emphasizes equitable access to waste services across all urban areas, including informal settlements and peripheral zones, even if that requires creative solutions. The framework suggests the deployment of appropriate technologies scaled to local conditions; for instance, in areas with existing formal collection systems, durable plastic dumpsters with clearly marked compartments for “recyclables” and “other waste” are recommended. In shack areas, where space and mobility are limited, smaller containers or waste bags may be provided to facilitate manual transport to centralized collection points. Recognizing budget constraints, the framework advocates for cost-effective innovations like community-managed composting sites for organic waste (supported by community volunteers trained through the education component), and low-tech sorting centers where local workers separate recyclables from mixed waste using a simple conveyor belt. To increase operational efficiency, route optimization using geospatial mapping tools is also incorporated. In practice, the waste collection schedules can be adjusted to accommodate peak waste generation periods, such as market days in MUAs, thereby preventing overflow and service disruption. Moreover, the framework not only installs infrastructure but ensures its maintenance; a broken bin or uncollected waste can erode community trust and participation, so maintenance schedules and rapid-response mechanisms for repairs are integrated.
A robust policy and regulatory support underpin the framework. It incorporates local-level measures such as ordinances mandating waste service coverage in MUAs, financial support mechanisms to subsidize access for low-income households, and the integration of informal recyclers through licensing schemes or service contracts. For example, one policy in the framework could be automatic enrollment of all new housing units—regardless of formal property documentation—into the municipal waste billing system, thereby removing administrative barriers to service access for residents of informal settlements. Another policy provision enforces anti-dumping and anti-burning regulations through a balanced approach that combines deterrence with education (the framework recommends starting with warnings and education, followed by sanctions if non-compliance persists). Also, the framework aligns with higher-level policies like national recycling targets by including the MUAs in the city’s overall waste accounting for recyclables collected, ensuring these neighborhoods contribute to (and benefit from) broader sustainability goals.
Urban planning integration represents a distinctive and proactive element of our framework. By ensuring that city planners incorporate waste logistics into their designs, problems can be mitigated before they arise. This may involve reserving space within dense neighborhoods for vehicle-accessible waste collection points rather than building on every inch and leaving no room for bins. It could involve installing drainage and cleaning facilities during road upgrades to prevent waste-related issues. Importantly, the framework recommends participatory planning such as community mapping exercises where residents identify where waste tends to accumulate and suggest intervention locations. This inclusive approach helps create designs that are more likely to be used and respected by the community.
The framework also encourages cross-sector collaboration. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are leveraged to address gaps in expertise or funding. For example, a private waste management firm might provide a mobile recycling unit on weekends to an underserved area as part of their corporate social responsibility, while a social enterprise could operate a community compost farm with municipal support. NGOs and community-based organizations are key partners for outreach and trust-building, often maintaining closer relationships with marginalized groups than municipal authorities. The framework envisions regular coordination meetings between the municipality, private contractors, NGOs, and community representatives to align efforts. It supports flexible models, such as public–private or public–community hybrid services. For example, the city might provide a small stipend or equipment to a community cooperative that organizes waste pickup in an informal settlement, effectively subcontracting the service in a way that empowers local actors. This approach not only improves service delivery but can also create a sense of local responsibility and creates employment opportunities.
Finally, the framework is designed to be flexible and context-sensitive, recognizing that MUAs vary significantly in their needs and conditions. An inner-city deteriorated apartment block has different needs than a semi-rural informal settlement. Therefore, it is built as a modular set of actions that can be adapted to local priorities. For example, in areas where water contamination is a big concern, the environmental clean-up and protection module may be prioritized, including community education on the risks of dumping in water and practical measures such as installing waste barriers in drainage channels. In contexts marked by social tension, the community engagement module might be prioritized initially to build trust before introducing stricter rules. The framework promotes inclusion not only in outcomes but also throughout the process, treating community members as co-implementers rather than passive recipients. This approach is critical to bridging equity gaps in urban services, as it empowers marginalized residents to actively contribute to the improvement of their environment.
The framework presents a scalable, inclusive, and practical model for improving waste management in marginalized areas. It aims to conserve environmental resources, reduce disposal costs, and generate local economic opportunities through job creation in recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy initiatives (see Figure 5).
The framework addresses multiple dimensions concurrently, creating a feedback loop: educational efforts boost community cooperation, which makes infrastructure use more effective; improved infrastructure and services build trust and encourage residents to maintain cleanliness, thereby justifying sustained policy support and investment. In essence, the framework operationalizes the concept that solving waste management in marginalized areas is not just about waste—it is about fostering inclusive urban development.
An important recommendation that emerged is that the implementation of such a framework requires dedicated expertise and monitoring. We note that having a specialized team or facilitator (such as an urban environmental expert or a community liaison officer) overseeing the process greatly enhances the chances of success. This expert can adapt strategies in real time and ensure that initiatives are culturally sensitive and feasible. Furthermore, as improvements are made, data gathered (like reductions in illegal dumping or increases in recycling volumes) should be fed back into local decision making to reinforce the case for continued support.
Figure 5 presents a visual representation of an inclusive waste management framework that emphasizes the dynamic, interconnected, and mutually reinforcing nature of its components. The framework highlights feedback loops, multi-directional influence, and integration across pillars. For example, improvements in infrastructure (e.g., better waste collection systems) can build trust and encourage residents to maintain cleanliness and participate in local initiatives, thereby reinforcing education and community engagement. Policies and regulatory measures mandate infrastructure coverage and provide financial support, also enabling economic measures such as incentives for participation and the integration of informal recyclers. Design and planning contribute by allocating space for infrastructure and creating opportunities for employment, particularly for marginalized groups. Public–private partnerships are cross-cutting, facilitating collaboration across several domains; for instance, private firms can provide infrastructure, NGOs can lead education campaigns, and social enterprises can operate composting or recycling initiatives. Economic measures also feed back into education (by motivating behavior change) and policy (by justifying support through demonstrated success). Additional measures, such as monitoring, evaluation, and community feedback loops, interact with all other pillars, ensuring ongoing adaptation and improvement. All components converge toward a central outcome, explicitly represented in Figure 5 as “inclusive outcomes”, which symbolizes the goal of achieving equitable, participatory, and sustainable waste management systems.
The draft framework was refined by iteratively cross-checking it against the interview data to ensure that it accurately and comprehensively reflected the experts’ insights. We also aligned the framework with circular economy principles (waste reduction, recycling, resource recovery) and environmental justice (equitable service provision, community inclusion), since the experts frequently invoked these concepts.
To position the proposed framework within the broader field of integrated waste management, we compared its structure and guiding principles with two widely recognized models: the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM) framework promoted by UN-Habitat [51] and the Zero Waste City model proposed by authors of [48]. The ISWM approach emphasizes the integration of technical, environmental, financial, institutional, and social aspects of waste systems, with a strong focus on stakeholder involvement. However, ISWM was primarily designed for formal urban contexts and tends to provide high-level guidance, often lacking the granularity needed for deeply marginalized communities where basic services and institutional inclusion are lacking. Similarly, the Zero Waste City framework aims to minimize waste through design, behavior change, and systemic reforms, but its implementation has been tested mainly in high-capacity urban settings where infrastructure, enforcement, and public awareness are already well developed.
In contrast, our proposed framework specifically addresses the multidimensional vulnerabilities of marginalized urban areas (MUAs), which are typically excluded from both municipal services and participatory processes. In contrast to existing models, our framework introduces operational mechanisms for informal settlement contexts, such as flexible infrastructure implementation, culturally adapted education strategies, and direct integration of informal recyclers into service chains. In addition, the framework integrates environmental justice and community empowerment not only as cross-cutting concerns, but also as fundamental pillars shaping implementation from the outset. These distinctions make the model scalable and adaptable to contexts where environmental risks intersect with social exclusion, as exemplified by the Reșița MUAs. This adapted approach represents a novel contribution to the literature on inclusive and sustainable urban waste governance.
3.4. Case Study in Reșița’s MUAs
3.4.1. Overview of Reșița’s Marginalized Areas
Following the methodology and framework described earlier, we developed a context-specific intervention plan for the five identified MUAs of Reșița. This section details the context of these areas and the baseline findings from our initial site assessments and community survey, which guided the implementation steps. Reșița, a city of about 70,000 inhabitants, has five distinct marginalized urban areas that were delineated in its local development strategy [33] based on socio-economic criteria. These areas are shown in Figure 6 (Reșița map with MUA locations), below.
A short description of the five MUAs in Reșița is included in the Supplementary Materials. According to the latest data, the total population across all of the MUAs is 1481, while the adjacent functional urban areas are inhabited by approximately 9438 people. Thus, roughly 14% of Reșița’s population lives in or directly around these marginalized zones, highlighting that this is not a marginal issue but a significant part of the city’s social landscape.
3.4.2. Initial Site Observations
Our field visits to these areas, conducted in October 2024, revealed critical waste management challenges. We observed numerous illegal dumpsites scattered especially in and around MUA 4 (Secu colony) and MUA 5 (Bistra informal settlement). These ranged from piles of household garbage on street corners to larger dumps of mixed waste (household refuse, construction debris, and even animal carcasses) in wooded areas and ravines adjacent to the communities. In MUA 4, for example, one major dump was located in a former mine pit, out of sight from the main road; locals admitted they had been throwing waste there for years due to the lack of services. Irregular collection was noted; in MUA 1 (Dealu Crucii), the city’s waste truck reportedly came only once every two weeks up the steep road, which was insufficient, and often the truck could not reach the top, leading residents to dump waste downhill. MUA 5 had no formal collection at all before our intervention—residents either burned their trash or dumped it in a nearby stream bed.
Open burning of waste was commonly witnessed. We frequently smelled and saw smoldering fires where residents burned piles of mixed waste, including plastics (to reduce volume or deter vermin). This practice creates toxic smoke and likely contributed to the respiratory health issues we heard about. Indeed, during one visit, the health mediator told us she believed the constant burning of trash was causing an uptick in breathing problems among the settlement’s children. The burning also leaves behind ash and partially burned residues which further contaminate soil and water.
Waste segregation at the source was virtually nonexistent initially. Almost all waste was disposed of as mixed refuse. The concept of recycling was unfamiliar to most residents (as our survey would later quantify). We saw that even in areas where the city had placed a few containers (like in MUA 2’s block area), people dumped all kinds of waste around the bins rather than inside them, because by the time the truck came, the bins were overflowing. There were no recycling centers or drop-off points anywhere near these communities. Any recycling that did occur was informal: a few individuals scavenged metal or PET bottles to sell, but they often tore open trash bags to do so, leaving the remaining waste scattered on the ground.
The environmental impacts were visible. In MUA 4, we noted leachate leaking from large dumps into a nearby creek, likely contaminating it. In MUA 5, waste was dumped into a stream that flows towards a small lake, raising concerns about water pollution that could affect not just that community but others downstream. Soil testing we conducted (with portable kits) near one dump indicated high nitrate levels, likely the result of decomposing organic matter and improperly discarded animal manure. The aesthetics of these areas were poor: piles of garbage in public spaces meant children often played next to the rubbish, and we saw rats and stray dogs frequenting the dumps. These conditions pose clear public health hazards: beyond the risk of vector-borne diseases (rats can spread leptospirosis, and mosquitoes breed in rainwater that collects in litter), the community also faces direct injuries (we heard of kids getting cuts from sharp metal in the dumps) and indirect effects like stress and social stigma.
Photographs taken during this assessment (Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9) illustrate the situation: Figure 7 shows an overflowing collection point in Colonia Secu with waste scattered around and being burned at one edge; Figure 8 shows the Bistra informal settlement with no bins in sight and trash accumulating along a fence line; Figure 9 shows a large quantity of scattered household waste deposited at the base of a slope, adjacent to overgrown vegetation and a narrow, unpaved road flanked by steep hillsides, with extensive illegal dumping along the roadside.
The sanitation situation in the MUAs of Reșița is presented in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, below.
Further, we reviewed Reșița’s Integrated Urban Development Strategy (IUDS 2023) [52] to understand how it acknowledges and addresses local needs. The IUDS explicitly listed several key needs and gaps in waste management for the city, which corroborated our observations (Table 4 below):
These documented needs strongly aligned with the objectives of our proposed framework. In fact, they served as a form of validation, confirming that local authorities recognized issues such as the lack of separate collection, poor service coverage in MUAs, and the prevalence of illegal dumping.
3.4.3. Stakeholder Mapping
During the initial assessment, we identified key stakeholders relevant for the Reșița case. They included the Reșița City Hall (particularly the environmental management unit and the social services department), the local waste management company (a public service concessionaire responsible for city-wide garbage collection), the LAG team who had community facilitators in these areas, and community-internal stakeholders like informal leaders, the school mediator in one community, and a Roma activist in another. Engaging them early, we found that municipal officials acknowledged the problem but cited lack of citizen compliance and resources as challenges. Community members, on the other hand, often voiced that the city “abandons” them—e.g., “They only come to collect votes, not our garbage”, as one resident said bitterly. This gap in perception underscored the importance of building trust through quick action.
3.4.4. Analysis of Survey Responses in Reșița
Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the waste management situation in Reșița. A detailed explanation of each figure is provided in the Supplementary Materials.
Major deficiencies in waste management services were revealed across marginalized areas in Reșița. Only 16% of households benefit from formal waste collection, while over half store waste informally or burn it. Waste separation is nearly absent, and awareness of composting is extremely low (only 8%). Despite infrastructure investments, informal practices persist: 59% collect scrap metal, and many reuse waste for heating or income. These materials likely include construction debris, bulky household items, and electronic waste, which are prohibited from disposal at public collection points [56]. Encouragingly, 73% of respondents are willing to engage in educational campaigns, and 66% would join clean-up actions, showing potential for civic involvement. However, awareness of ongoing initiatives is low (13%), and 64% express disinterest in improvement projects. Community priorities include more frequent waste collection, better access to disposal points, and improved recycling services.
An analysis of the problems and needs of the population in the MUAs in Reșița regarding waste management—based on the site visit and survey data—revealed that MUAs face at least one of the following situations mentioned in Table 5, below:
3.5. Framework Deployment Matrix
The successful implementation of the innovative framework requires a structured, participatory, and phased approach, adapted to local realities. The implementation must be guided by collaboration between key stakeholders, including local authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), and Local Action Groups (LAGs). Each component of the framework corresponds to specific actions, supported by the stakeholders best positioned to deliver them. To further enhance clarity and usability, the five-phase deployment plan is summarized in Table 6, with key objectives, lead actors, and expected timelines:
The framework deployment phase corresponds to the planning stage, during which localized planning, stakeholder engagement, and diagnostic activities are conducted prior to full operational rollout. Although full implementation has not yet taken place, we recognize the importance of defining how impact will be measured in the next phase. The specific indicators for tracking progress include expected improvements in formal household access to municipal waste collection, reduction in the number and severity of illegal dumping hotspots, increased participation in clean-up and educational activities, increased adoption rates of recycling and source separation, improved infrastructure functionality, measurable gains in public awareness, fewer waste-related complaints, and more frequent coordination meetings between stakeholders.
4. Conclusions
Our study aimed to develop and implement an innovative framework for waste management in marginalized urban areas, using expert knowledge and a case study approach. In doing so, we addressed a multitude of challenges: inadequate infrastructure, community disengagement, and institutional neglect that often hinder effective waste services in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The expert-informed framework we formulated integrates educational initiatives, infrastructure upgrades, policy reforms, and community participation into a cohesive strategy.
Unlike most academic frameworks that remain theoretical, the framework in our paper has been tested for planning in real-world conditions through a comprehensive pilot in five marginalized neighborhoods of Reșița, Romania. Its adaptability across different urban typologies (e.g., informal settlements, post-industrial ghettos) enhances its scalability to other European and global contexts.
Regarding RO1, the research successfully synthesized expert insights into a coherent, multi-dimensional framework built around five critical pillars: stakeholder mobilization, education and awareness, infrastructure adaptation, supportive policy, and ongoing monitoring. This framework represents a novel contribution by explicitly centering marginalized communities and structuring interventions to simultaneously promote environmental justice, institutional reform, and behavioral change. Responding to RO2, the Reșița pilot demonstrated that the framework is both feasible and adaptable to diverse urban contexts. It led to tangible early outcomes: improved service coverage, enhanced community participation, and more responsive governance mechanisms. Stakeholders confirmed the framework’s practicality and its potential for replication, though they also emphasized the need for locally tailored delivery and sustained engagement. A key recommendation emerging from the pilot is the need to treat the framework not as a fixed solution, but as a living instrument. It should be reviewed and updated annually, incorporating new data, emerging challenges, and community feedback. This adaptive cycle ensures relevance and long-term effectiveness.
Ultimately, the study confirms that marginalized urban communities—often perceived as passive recipients of service—can become proactive agents of environmental improvement when given the tools, voice, and institutional support. The framework thus represents a scalable strategy to embed equity and sustainability in urban waste management systems.
While participatory design is frequently referenced in urban planning, this study is innovative in how it combines global expert knowledge (via 37 international interviews) with local stakeholder insights (from community members, NGOs, and municipal actors). This dual-level co-creation ensures the framework is both evidence-based and deeply grounded in field realities, which is rarely achieved in municipal waste interventions.
While this study focuses on the framework’s development and local adaptation, full-scale implementation in Reșița is planned as a subsequent phase. The current results should thus be interpreted as planning, pre-implementation diagnostics. Based on the baseline survey and field observations, future impact will be assessed using indicators such as changes in formal collection coverage (% of households with access), reduction in observed illegal dumping sites (tracked via geo-tagged mapping), and community participation rates in engagement activities. These metrics will allow for systematic evaluation of the framework’s effectiveness over time.
The study is, however, limited by its scope as a single-city pilot. Cultural, economic, and administrative differences may affect replicability. The lack of longitudinal data at this stage means outcomes such as sustained behavioral change or health impacts remain speculative.
Future research should expand upon the findings of this study through several avenues. Longitudinal evaluations are necessary to assess the sustainability of behavior changes and infrastructure outcomes, particularly in terms of waste reduction, health improvements, and economic efficiency. Comparative studies across different geographic and cultural contexts would help determine the framework’s universality and its need for local adaptation. In addition, research into the integration of digital and low-tech innovations—such as community-based mobile reporting tools or modular waste collection points—could enhance the framework’s responsiveness and inclusivity. Finally, exploring synergies with broader urban systems, such as public health, employment, and housing policies, would help to fully embed waste management in the larger goal of urban equity.
Although this study is rooted in the Romanian context, the potential applicability of the proposed framework to broader international contexts warrants critical reflection. Urban areas in the Global South often operate under governance conditions marked by a high degree of informality, limited institutional capacity, and weak enforcement mechanisms. While certain elements of the framework—such as alignment with EU funding structures or reliance on formal municipal mandates—are context-specific, its core principles remain generally transferable. These include participatory diagnostic methods, the structured inclusion of informal actors, and the proposal of flexible infrastructure options tailored to underserved environments. Examples of such planned infrastructure include communal waste collection points on the peripheries of settlements, mobile waste disposal stations, and community-managed composting units which are designed to operate in contexts without formal road access or patchy service coverage. However, successful adaptation in non-European contexts would require contextualization to local institutional arrangements, ownership regimes, and socio-political dynamics. Future research should assess the applicability of the framework in diverse urban typologies, especially those characterized by informal governance or fragmented authority.
To ensure that the framework remains a living instrument and not a one-off intervention, its revision cycle must be institutionalized within the local governance ecosystem. One approach is to formally embed the framework into the municipality’s annual planning and budgeting process, linking waste management performance reviews with Local Development Strategy (LDS) updates. Local Action Groups (LAGs) or cross-sectoral urban planning units can be designated as responsible entities for coordinating revisions and stakeholder feedback. Regulatory mechanisms, such as municipal ordinances requiring annual reporting on waste service equity or performance in marginalized areas, can further reinforce continuity. Internationally, cities like Ljubljana (Slovenia) and Ghent (Belgium) offer relevant models, having successfully integrated adaptive waste governance into municipal strategies through participatory planning, performance indicators, and strong alignment with circular economy goals. Drawing on these models, we recommend that Romanian municipalities seeking to adopt the framework consider similar institutional anchoring mechanisms.
In conclusion, the framework presented in this study is not static; its core strength lies in its flexibility and responsiveness to local needs and conditions. By committing to its annual review and update, municipalities can ensure the framework evolves with their communities, fostering continuous improvement.
Conceptualization, O.L.; methodology, C.I., A.D., I.N. and O.L.; software, M.Ș.; validation, C.I., A.D., I.N., O.L., E.R., M.A. and M.Ș.; formal analysis, C.I., M.Ș. and M.A.; investigation, C.I., A.D., I.N., O.L., E.R., M.A. and M.Ș.; resources, A.D. and A.N.; data curation, C.I., A.D., I.N., O.L., E.R. and M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.I., I.N. and O.L.; writing—review and editing, C.I., A.D., I.N., O.L., E.R., M.A., A.N. and M.Ș.; visualization, M.Ș.; supervision, O.L., A.D. and C.I.; project administration, C.I., A.D., I.N., O.L., E.R., M.A. and M.Ș.; funding acquisition, A.D. and A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Conceptual model of WMF. Source: produced by authors.
Figure 2 Framework deployment plan in Reșița. Source: produced by authors.
Figure 3 Respondent profile. Source: authors, based on data collected in Reșița.
Figure 4 Recommended key actions suggested by experts. Source: authors.
Figure 5 Interconnected components of the inclusive waste management framework. The diagram illustrates the mutually reinforcing relationships between the key pillars—education and community engagement, infrastructure, policy and regulatory measures, urban design and planning, economic measures, public–private partnerships, and additional contextual and feedback mechanisms. The arrows reflect bi-directional and multi-directional influences. The central outcome, “inclusive outcomes” is supported by all pillars through iterative processes and continuous feedback loops. This framework emphasizes adaptability, integration, and systemic improvement. Source: the authors.
Figure 6 Delimitation of land covered by LDS Reșița and 5 MUAs. Source: 2023 local development strategy; figure created by authors.
Figure 7 MUA 4 in Reșița, Colonia Miniera Secu. Source: authors’ photographs, 2024.
Figure 8 MUA 5 in Reșița, Informal settlement, str. Bistra. Source: authors’ photographs, 2024.
Figure 9 MUA 1 Dealul Crucii. Source: authors’ photographs, 2024.
Figure 10 Household key WM practices in Reșița. Source: authors, based on survey results.
Figure 11 Data on informal WM and reuse practices among respondents.
Figure 12 Knowledge and practice of composting [
Figure 13 Willingness to engage in WM activities. Source: authors, based on survey results.
Figure 14 Improvement priorities identified by respondents in surveyed marginalized areas of Reșița regarding local waste management system. Source: authors, based on survey results.
Background of the 37 experts interviewed.
| Profile | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental scientists and engineers | 8 | 22% |
| Sanitation operators | 7 | 19% |
| Urban planners and architects | 6 | 16% |
| Waste management practitioners and consultants | 9 | 24% |
| Public policy makers and authorities’ representatives | 4 | 11% |
| Academics and researchers | 3 | 8% |
Main content of structured questionnaire.
| Factors | Questions |
|---|---|
| Socio-demographics | We asked respondents about their age, gender, ethnicity, and housing status (owner, tenant, or informal occupant) to contextualize the data and check representation across community sub-groups. |
| Current waste practices | Questions in this section inquired how households typically dispose of their waste (e.g., use municipal collection, dump it in an open area, burn it, etc.), whether they separate any materials for recycling or reuse, and if they engage in informal waste-related activities (like collecting scrap metal or using waste as fuel). We included specific yes/no and multiple-choice questions, such as “Do you burn household waste (plastic, paper, etc.)?” and “Where do you mostly put your garbage?” |
| Knowledge and awareness | To assess residents’ familiarity with waste management concepts, we asked whether they had heard of terms like composting, recycling, or seen any local campaigns about waste. One question was, “Have you heard of composting as a way to manage organic waste? If yes, do you practice it?” to estimate both awareness and adoption. |
| Attitudes and willingness | We presented scenarios to measure willingness to participate in improvement efforts. For instance, “Would you be willing to join community clean-up actions in your area?” (Yes/No/Maybe), and “How interested are you in attending workshops on waste reduction and recycling?” We also asked about willingness to separate waste if provided with the necessary resources, and preferences for incentives (e.g., lower fees) to encourage participation. |
| Perceived priorities and issues | An open-ended question and a checklist were used to learn what residents see as the biggest waste problem in their area (options included infrequent collection, insufficient bins, illegal dumping, health problems, etc.) and what improvements they most want to see (e.g., “more frequent trash pickup”, “free dumpsters provided”, “stricter enforcement against littering”, etc.). |
| Engagement with authorities | We asked if residents were aware of any ongoing initiatives by the city or NGOs to improve cleanliness and if they had ever reported a waste issue or contacted authorities about it. |
Key themes resulting from interviews with experts.
| Challenge Area | Summary of Experts’ Insights |
|---|---|
| Behavior and environment | Experts emphasized that the absence of regular waste collection and clean public spaces negatively influences resident behavior and community morale. As one expert noted, “visible cleanliness can reinforce positive behaviors and community pride”. This insight aligns with the existing literature demonstrating the correlation between environmental cues and pro-environmental behavior [ |
| Illegal dumping | Illegal dumping was unanimously identified as a major concern, particularly in areas with absent or irregular waste collection. Experts described how open dumping contributes to soil and water pollution and attracts vermin. These concerns corroborate the findings of [ |
| Budgetary constraints and technical gaps | Several experts highlighted that financial limitations and insufficient technical capacity hinder municipalities from extending formal services to marginalized zones. An expert observed, “Even when funds exist, there may be insufficient know-how to design inclusive systems”. These insights are echoed in equity-focused urban planning research [ |
| Social responsibility and health | A recurring theme was the societal obligation to protect environmental health. Experts advocated for shared responsibility and educational outreach to support behavioral change, consistent with the findings in [ |
| Community education and awareness of WM practices | Low levels of environmental awareness were identified as a core barrier. Experts emphasized the role of informal educators (e.g., teachers, community health workers) in increasing waste literacy. This view is supported by empirical studies on localized educational strategies [ |
| Social stigmatization and exclusion | Experts underscored that unmanaged waste exacerbates social stigma and perpetuates exclusion. One planner described this as “garbage becoming part of the identity imposed on these communities”. Such dynamics are explored in depth by the authors of [ |
| Poverty and specific local challenges | Economic difficulties and insecure tenure were described as key obstacles to accessing waste services. Informal recycling was noted as both a survival strategy and a gap in policy integration. These observations mirror findings in sustainability studies focused on rural and under-resourced settings [ |
| Waste as a resource in the circular economy | Experts linked improved waste practices to reductions in methane emissions and enhanced material recovery, particularly in underserved areas. These views reflect circular economy strategies with climate mitigation co-benefits [ |
| WM and urban planning | Urban planners stressed the necessity of embedding waste infrastructure from the outset in spatial design. Retrofitting was described as cost-inefficient and often exclusionary. This is consistent with urban planning research advocating for holistic, design-integrated waste systems [ |
Needs highlighted in IUDS. Source: authors.
| Needs | Findings |
|---|---|
| Related to the provisions of the current legal framework | The city had not fully implemented the legally required four-fraction waste separation system (particularly lacking separate collection for metals and only partial for glass in apartment blocks). In single-family home areas (which includes some MUAs), recycling collection was insufficient. No system was in place for hazardous household waste collection. Meeting future recycling targets set by national law 211/2011 on the waste regime [ Construction waste recycling needed improvement (construction debris often ended up illegally dumped). The need to expand the collection system in line with urban expansion was identified. |
| In the field of housing sanitation | More underground waste container platforms with controlled access need to be developed, which the city had started installing downtown (though none were in MUAs yet). Garbage trucks suitable for narrow or hard-to-access streets and with compartments for separate waste streams need to be acquired. Individual home composting for organic waste in houses must be implemented. |
| Regarding sanitation of the areas adjacent to the municipality | Uncontrolled dumps in forests, valleys, and roadsides (implying many such dumps exist around Reșița) need cleaning up. The population must be motivated or compelled to participate in selective collection and recycling (for example, by requiring all residents, even in outlying settlements like Doman, Secu, Câlnic, etc., to have waste collection contracts). Collection sites and containers (improve hygiene) must be regularly sanitized. Illegal waste deposits at city entrances and along access roads, which tarnish the city’s image and cause pollution, need to be eliminated. |
Synthesis of needs based on site visit observations and IUDS findings. Source: authors.
| There is a low level of sanitation in common living spaces and in the basements of buildings, but also on green spaces and vacant lots. In some cases, the rains bring an alluvium of garbage from the neighborhood into households. |
| The degree of connection of the MUAs to the sanitation service is lower than in the rest of the city, with several causes contributing to this fact: The lack of public sanitation service in the MUAs (in informal housing areas). The lack of contracts with sanitation service operators due to the low incomes of the population. Very few inhabitants have a stable job; they generally work as day laborers or without employment contracts and are dependent on social benefits on the guaranteed minimum income. The interruption of the sanitation service due to the debts accumulated when paying the sanitation fee. The lack of property documents for the land/house leads to the impossibility of concluding contracts for utilities (including sanitation services). The difficult accessibility of some MUAs, which is due to improper, unpaved, and/or very narrow roads which prevent the access of sanitation machines, especially in the Colonia Minieră Secu MUA. |
| A lack of education regarding hygiene and keeping clean in the home and in the community, throwing garbage out the window, next to the garbage bins, or in the surroundings of the living space. |
| Deficiencies in waste collection, like insufficient and/or improvised bins or a long collection period. |
| The lack of separate collection of waste; although some of the MUA residents obtain income from the sale of the recyclable parts of the waste, the fractions that are not of interest are thrown into the mix. |
| Using waste for heating homes, polluting the environment and causing health problems. |
| The existence of illegal landfills, including in sanitary protection areas, which contributes to environmental pollution and to the increase in the degree of illness of the population in the area and perpetuates the negative image of the MUAs. |
| A high degree of chronic diseases among the population of the MUAs, due on the one hand to improper waste management (incineration and disposal), but also to living in squalid conditions, poverty, and hunger. Studies conducted worldwide show a link between poor waste management and the increase in the incidence of diseases [ |
| Increased amounts of manure, which are stored in improper conditions and pollute the soil with nitrates and nitrites. |
Framework deployment matrix in Reșița. Source: authors.
| Phase | Focus Area | Timeline | Lead Actors | Objective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stakeholder Mobilization and Framework Adaptation | Months 1–2 | Municipal authorities, NGOs, LAGs, CBOs | Establish governance structure; localize framework through consultations and capacity-building. |
| 2 | Education and Community Engagement | Months 2–6 | NGOs, CBOs, schools, municipality | Raise awareness of segregation, recycling, and health through tailored campaigns and events. |
| 3 | Infrastructure Development | Months 3–10 | Municipal departments, private contractors | Install inclusive infrastructure; optimize logistics using GIS, particularly in irregular or high-density urban layouts; support decentralization. |
| 4 | Policy and Regulatory Implementation | Months 6–12 | Local government, legal advisors | Enact enabling policies, incentivize compliance, and control illegal dumping. |
| 5 | Urban Integration and Sustainable Planning | Months 6–18 | Urban planning departments, local authorities | Embed waste goals into city planning; enable access and sustainable neighborhood design. This includes allocating space for waste facilities, ensuring truck access, and applying sustainable neighborhood design principles. |
| 6 | Economic and Institutional Sustainability | Months 8–20 | Economic departments, private sector, NGOs | Develop circular economy models (resource recovery and circular economy opportunities, focusing on compost production, plastic recycling, and upcycled materials); support social enterprises; leverage public–private synergy. Micro-grants or social enterprise models can be used to support local initiatives (e.g., waste pickers’ cooperatives). |
| 7 | Additional Contextual Measures | Ongoing from Month 6 | NGOs, CBOs, municipality | Adjust operations to local needs (e.g., clean-up events, flexible pickups, feedback loops). These interventions should remain flexible and locally tailored. |
| 8 | Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning | Months 6–24+ | Municipality, academic partners, CBOs | Establish indicators and feedback systems to track results, refine, and scale interventions. Regular feedback loops with community members should be maintained to refine and adapt implementation strategies. |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
1. Wilson, D.C.; Velis, C.; Cheeseman, C. Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat Int.; 2006; 30, pp. 797-808. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005]
2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2018; Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html (accessed on 25 February 2025).
3. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.C.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development. World Bank. 2018; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/d3f9d45e-115f-559b-b14f-28552410e90a (accessed on 15 January 2025).
4. Giusti, L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Manag.; 2009; 29, pp. 2227-2239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.03.028] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19401266]
5. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.A.; Pirani, S.L.; Connors, C.; Péan, S.; Berger, N.; Caud, Y.; Chen, L.; Goldfarb, M.I.; Gomis, M.
6. Lissah, S.Y.; Ayanore, M.A.; Krugu, J.K.; Aberese-Ako, M.; Ruiter, R.A.C. Managing urban solid waste in Ghana: Perspectives and experiences of municipal waste company managers and supervisors in an urban municipality. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0248392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248392] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33705483]
7. Omang, D.I.K.; John, G.E.; Inah, S.A.; Bisong, J.O. Public health implication of solid waste generated by households in Bekwarra Local Government area. Afr. Health Sci.; 2021; 21, pp. 1467-1473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v21i3.58]
8. Mukherjee, P.K.; Das, B.; Bhardwaj, P.K.; Tampha, S.; Singh, H.K.; Chanu, L.D.; Sharma, N.; Devi, S.I. Socio-economic sustainability with circular economy—An alternative approach. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 904, 166630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166630]
9. Gaman, F.; Iacoboaea, C.; Aldea, M.; Luca, O.; Stănescu, A.A.; Boteanu, C.M. Energy Transition in Marginalized Urban Areas: The Case of Romania. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116855]
10. Parlamentul României. Legea nr.350/2001 a Amenajării Teritoriului și Urbanismului, Modificată Prin Legea nr.151/2019; Parlamentul României: Bucureşti: Bucureşti, Romania, 2019.
11. Ghid de Intervenție Urbanistică Participativă în Așezările Informale din România, Asociația Make Better 2023. Available online: https://locuireinformala.ro/resurse/ (accessed on 25 February 2025).
12. Guvernul României. Ordonanța de Urgență nr. 183/2022 Privind Stabilirea Unor Măsuri Pentru Finanțarea Unor Proiecte de Regenerare Urbană; Guvernul României: Bucureşti, Romania, 2022.
13. Raport Privind Așezările Informale din România, 2022 Ministerul Dezvoltării, Lucrărilor Publice și Administrației. Available online: https://www.mdlpa.ro/pages/habitat (accessed on 20 February 2025).
14. Pires, A.; Graça, M.; Ni-Bin, C. Solid waste management in European countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. J. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 92, pp. 1033-1050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024]
15. Dias, S.M. Waste pickers and cities. Environ. Urban.; 2016; 28, pp. 375-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956247816657302]
16. Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Petrescu, D.C.; Oroian, I.G.; Safirescu, O.C.; Bican-Brișan, N. Environmental Equity through Negotiation: A Case Study on Urban Landfills and the Roma Community. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2016; 13, 591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060591]
17. Dunajeva, J.; Kostka, J. Racialized politics of garbage: Waste management in urban Roma settlements in Eastern Europe. Ethn. Racial Stud.; 2021; 45, pp. 90-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1863442]
18. Vincze, E. Landfill: Space of Advanced and Racialized Urban Marginality in Today’s Romania. SPAREX Working Paper. 2012; Available online: http://sparex-ro.eu/wp-content/uploads/landfill-Clujadvanced-marginality2012.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025).
19. Iacoboaea, C.; Luca, O.; Șercăianu, M.; Aldea, M.; Păunescu, M.; Popescu, A.L. Towards Sustainable Modes for Remote Monitoring in Waste Management: A Study of Marginalized Urban Areas in Romania. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 2400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16062400]
20. Almeida, F. Strategies to perform a mixed methods study. Eur. J. Educ. Stud.; 2018; 5, pp. 137-151.
21. Akbarpour, N.; Salehi-Amiri, A.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.; Oliva, D. An innovative waste management system in a smart city under stochastic optimization using vehicle routing problem. Soft Comput.; 2021; 25, pp. 6707-6727. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05669-6]
22. Bing, X.; Bloemhof, J.M.; Ramos, T.R.P.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.; Wong, C.Y.; van der Vorst, J.G. Research challenges in municipal solid waste logistics management. Waste Manag.; 2016; 48, pp. 584-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.025]
23. Abdallah, M.; Talib, M.A.; Feroz, S.; Nasir, Q.; Abdalla, H.; Mahfood, B. Artificial intelligence applications in solid waste management: A systematic research review. Waste Manag.; 2020; 109, pp. 231-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.057] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32428727]
24. Hoang, A.T.; Varbanov, P.S.; Nižetić, S.; Sirohi, R.; Pandey, A.; Luque, R.; Ng, K.H.; Pham, V.V. Perspective review on Municipal Solid Waste-to-energy route: Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 359, 131897. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131897]
25. Raghu, S.J.; Lewlyn, L.R.R. Behavioral aspects of solid waste management: A systematic review. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.; 2020; 70, pp. 1268-1302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2020.1823524]
26. Concari, A.l.; Gerjo, K.; Martens, P. A systematic literature review of concepts and factors related to pro-environmental consumer behaviour in relation to waste management through an interdisciplinary approach. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 4452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12114452]
27. Corsini, F.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Exploring waste prevention behaviour through empirical research. Waste Manag.; 2018; 79, pp. 132-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.037]
28. Agamuthu, P.; Hansen, J.A. Universities in capacity building in sustainable development: Focus on solid waste management and technology. Waste Manag. Res.; 2007; 25, pp. 241-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07079155]
29. Parker, C.; Scott, S.; Geddes, A. Snowball sampling. SAGE Research Methods Foundations; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019; 13p.
30. Sutrop, M.; Lõuk, K. Informed consent and ethical research. Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 213-232.
31. Shoozan, A.; Maslawati, M. Application of interview protocol refinement framework in systematically developing and refining a semi-structured interview protocol. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Education and Social Sciences (ACcESS 2023); Mataram, Indonesia, 2–3 November 2023; SHS Web of Conferences: Les Ulis Cedex A, France, 2024; Volume 182, 04006.
32. Swinkels, R.; Stanculescu, M.; Anton, S.; Koo, B.; Man, T.; Moldovan, C. Atlasul Zonelor Urbane Marginalizate din Romania; Banca Mondială: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
33. Strategia de Dezvoltare Locală a Grupului de Acțiune Local Reșița. 2023; Available online: https://galresita.ro/strategia-de-dezvoltare-locala/ (accessed on 10 February 2025).
34. Grupul de Acțiune Local Reșița. Available online: https://galresita.ro/despre-noi/ (accessed on 10 February 2025).
35. Luca, O.; Gaman, F.; Răuță, E. Towards a national harmonized framework for urban plans and strategies in Romania. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041930]
36. Cheung, A.K.L. Structured questionnaires. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1-3.
37. Manohar, N.; MacMillan, F.; Steiner, G.Z.; Arora, A. Recruitment of research participants. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 71-98.
38. Rochel, J. Ethics in the GDPR: A blueprint for applied legal theory. Int. Data Priv. Law; 2021; 11, pp. 209-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipab007]
39. Valenzuela-Fernández, L.; Escobar-Farfán, M. Zero-Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Mapping Analysis. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 16269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142316269]
40. Nguyen, A.T.; Nguyen, N.; Phung, P.; Yến-Khanh, N. Residents’ waste management practices in a developing country: A social practice theory analysis. Environ. Chall.; 2023; 13, 100770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100770]
41. Kalogiannidis, S.; Kontsas, S.; Syndoukas, D.; Chatzitheodoridis, F. Integrative mechanisms towards zero emissions regional planning: An enabler of regional development $ da case study of Europe. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy; 2024; 14, pp. 450-463. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.15604]
42. Rajesh, P. Solid waste management-sustainability towards a better future, role of CSR–a review. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2019; 15, pp. 762-771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2018-0286]
43. Sultana, S.; Islam, S.; Jahan, F.; Khatun, F. Awareness and practice on household solid waste management among the community people. Open J. Nurs.; 2021; 11, pp. 349-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2021.115031]
44. Brotosusilo, A.; Utari, D.; Negoro, H.A.; Firdaus, A.; Velentina, R.A. Community empowerment of waste management in the urban environment: More attention on waste issues through formal and informal educations. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag.; 2022; 8, pp. 209-224.
45. Sekito, T.; Prayogo, T.; Dote, Y.; Yoshitake, T.; Bagus, I. Influence of a community-based waste management system on people’s behavior and waste reduction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2013; 72, pp. 84-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.001]
46. Filčák, R.; Stager, T. Ghettos in Slovakia. Confronting Roma social and enviromental exclusion. Anal. Krit.; 2014; 36, pp. 229-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/auk-2014-0203]
47. Mihai, F.C.; Gündoğdu, S.; Markley, L.A.; Olivelli, A.; Khan, F.R.; Gwinnett, C.; Gutberlet, J.; Reyna-Bensusan, N.; Llanquileo-Melgarejo, P.; Meidiana, C.
48. Zaman, A.U.; Lehmann, S. Urban growth and waste management optimization towards ‘zero waste city’. City Cult. Soc.; 2011; 2, pp. 177-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2011.11.007]
49. Simatele, D.M.; Dlamini, S.; Kubanza, N.S. From informality to formality: Perspectives on the challenges of integrating solid waste management into the urban development and planning policy in Johannesburg, South Africa. Habitat Int.; 2017; 63, pp. 122-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.018]
50. van de Klundert, A.; Anschütz, J. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management: The Concept—Tools for Decision-makers. Experiences from the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (1995-2001); WASTE: Gouda, The Netherlands, 2001; 46p.
51. Available online: https://www.primariaresita.ro/portal/cs/resita/portal.nsf/AllByUNID/programe-si-strategii-000043b6?OpenDocument (accessed on 10 February 2025).
52. Guvernul României. Ordonanța de Urgență nr. 92/2021 Privind Regimul Deșeurilor; Guvernul României: Bucureşti, Romania, 2021.
53. Konecčnyý, O. The Leader Approach Across the European Union: One Method of Rural Development, Many Forms of Implementation. Eur. Countrys.; 2019; 11, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/euco-2019-0001]
54. Ayilara, M.S.; Olanrewaju, O.S.; Babalola, O.O.; Odeyemi, O. Waste management through composting: Challenges and potentials. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 4456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12114456]
55. Rashid, M.I.; Khurram, S. Food waste recycling for compost production and its economic and environmental assessment as circular economy indicators of solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 317, 128467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128467]
56. Gupta, P.; Sharma, A.; Bhardwaj, L.; Gupta, P.; Sharma, A.; Bhardwaj, L. Solid Waste Management (SWM) and Its Effect on Environment & Human Health. Preprints; 2023; 2023090384.
57. Vinti, G.; Bauza, V.; Clasen, T.; Medlicott, K.; Tudor, T.; Zurbrügg, C.; Vaccari, M. Municipal Solid Waste Management and Adverse Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 4331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084331]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Șercăianu Mihai 1
; Neagu Ancuța 3
; Răuță Emanuel 4 1 Faculty of Civil, Industrial and Agricultural Engineering, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, 020396 București, Romania; [email protected] (C.I.); [email protected] (I.N.); [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (O.L.); [email protected] (M.Ș.)
2 Faculty of Building Services, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, 020396 București, Romania
3 The Faculties and the Research, Development and Innovation Management Center, Technical University of Civil Engineering, 020396 București, Romania; [email protected]
4 Department of International Relations and European Integration, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 030167 București, Romania; [email protected]