Влияние реформ системы управления твердыми бытовыми отходами на благосостояние местных сообществ (на примере Москвы и Московской области) тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Агиамох Розалин Джорджевна

• Агиамох Розалин Джорджевна
• кандидат наук
• 2022

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Агиамох Розалин Джорджевна

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter 1 Municipal Waste Management in Russia - Policy & Collaborative Governance

1.1 Municipal Waste Reforms in Russia

1.1.1 Administration of Household Waste in Moscow

1.1.2 Stakeholders in Waste Collection and Treatment

1.1.3 Community Participation

1.2 Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Waste Management

1.3 Externalities in Waste Management

Chapter 2 Performance Management Drivers in Waste Management

2.1 Sustainable Development

2.1.1 SDG Benchmarking in Russia

2.1.2 National Indicators for SDG in Russia

2.2 Integrated Waste Management System

2.3 Comparative Case Study (Green Cities)

Chapter 3 Waste Cooperation & Performance Management

3.1 Factors Driving Cooperation in Moscow's Waste Sector

3.1.1 Municipal Convergence (Moscow City & Moscow Region)

3.1.2. Positive Bureaucracy

3.2 Qualitative Case Study - Nekrasovka & Lyubertsy

3.3 Current Municipal Waste Challenges within the Moscow Megalopolis

3.4 Quantitative Case Study - Property Pricing & Landfill Juxtapositions

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Влияние реформ системы управления твердыми бытовыми отходами на благосостояние местных сообществ (на примере Москвы и Московской области)»

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations estimates that by 2050 over 68% of the world's population will live in urban areasThis global trend signals an increase in housing demand, waste volume and additional pressure on public infrastructure which directly impacts community welfare. Today's global environmental crisis revolves around continuous waste generation and the inefficiency of most government systems to adequately manage waste treatment and disposal. Different cities usually adopt independent specialized categorization standards of Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) which often depends to a large extent on their budget, urban design and disposal methods. Innovative technologies are opening up new possibilities for waste management and some municipalities like San Francisco2, Capannori3, and Seoul4 are taking the lead in zero waste. However other mega-cities like Moscow are just catching up with the circular economy concept, yet learning from the experience of other cities may leapfrog into a more sustainable waste management system.

The Russian Federation is currently focused on the large-scale reform of its waste management system, this is key in driving sustainable development especially for large urban settlements like the Moscow megalopolis. The Moscow megalopolis is made up of Moscow city and the Moscow Region (also known as Moscow Oblast). The Moscow megalopolis is the most densely populated region in the entire country and accounts for the largest volume of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Russia. It has begun adjusting to the pressures of urbanization triggered by population growth rate5, housing boom and the new consumerism culture. Waste volumes have increased drastically over the past decade and this sudden surge in waste generation has led to

1 United Nations: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

2 San Francisco Department of the Environment: https://sfenvironment.org/striving-for-zero-waste

3 Zero Waste Research Centre Italy: http://www.rifiutizerocapannori.it/riiiutizero/

4 World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/south-korea-recycling-food-waste/

5 Russia's Urban Population Growth Rate https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL?locations=RU

4

landfill overfilling as the post-soviet waste management infrastructure is simply unable to cater to such volumes. Growing environmental and health concerns have resulted in some communities protesting for immediate landfill closures thereby placing further pressure on the current waste infrastructure.

Figure 1: Annual Municipal Solid Waste Generated Globally

(Kilograms/capita/day)

Source: World Bank (2019)

This study therefore provides insight to current waste management reforms including the inter-regional cooperation in waste management between Moscow City and the Moscow Region (Moscow Oblast). The study further evaluates the impact of waste policy and infrastructure reform on community welfare which is qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed through the review of related environmental policies, public opinion and property devaluation based on community proximity to waste disposal sites. The study will also review and evaluate the theoretical basis for the municipal solid waste management reforms as they tie to best practices in public administration.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is defined as refuse generated by households, industries, commercial and institutional establishments such as hospitals, schools, public spaces and includes market waste, yard waste and street sweepings (Schübeler, 1996). Municipal Solid Waste Management

(MSWM) is therefore a major responsibility of local governments to ensure the protection of public environmental health, ecological quality and sustainability as well as to maximize efficient resource utilization and promote local employment opportunities. The World Bank estimates that MSW generation levels would increase to approximately 2.2 billion tonnes per year by 2025; this estimate is largely influenced by the growing rate of economic development, urbanization and industrialization, public habits and local climate (World Bank, 2012).

Russia has been on a path towards the reform of its waste management sector for over twenty years. This process has been gradual due to administrative bureaucracy and has mostly involved the promulgation of new or amended legislature (Safonov et al., 2013). The country does not have a modern culture of sorting waste and not much recycling has been done since the 1980's this is reflected in various comparative studies of cities with similar income thresholds (Shmelev, 2019). Therefore, most of the recent traction in the waste reform process starting in 2016 seems to have been triggered by massive public scrutiny based on community concerns over public health and environmental hazards. Some studies conducted by Russian researchers reveal that performance challenges in Moscow's waste administration are attributed to the misfit of organizational management processes; specifically, the disconnected system of operations within a highly centralized and bureaucratic government system, poor regulatory oversight, ambiguous tariff system and the absence of a unified database and incentives for recycling (Korobova et al, 2019; Kulbachevski, 2018; Votyakova, 2018). The Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) estimates that the volume of waste generated annually between 2010 and 2017 had grown by 66.5% also that over

6.2 billion tons of industrial and household waste was generated in 20176. Russia's landfills are functioning at overcapacity and the Federal Government is now implementing new legislation that should create a more structured public administration process for Solid Waste Management (SWM) as well as provide transparency and reduced bureaucracy for industry stakeholders and investors. The Russian government is also amending environmental legislation and developing inter-municipal cooperation programs to support the waste reform. Environmental policies implemented in 2017 prohibit the landfill of certain grades of recyclable waste such as ferrous metal scrap and equipment containing mercury (Russian Federation, 2017). These new policies and related ecological levies are being implemented to ensure that manufacturers take more responsibility in managing the utilization of their products. Unfortunately, many manufacturers and importers still face multiple performance challenges such as incompatible waste classification systems, inconsistency in legal and regulatory frameworks, poor accounting and a defunct reporting system for waste packaging (UNIDO, 2017; AmCham 2016, 2017).

Russia's capital city 'Moscow' is among the largest urban cities in the world, with a population estimated at over 12 million it serves as a major hub for political, cultural and scientific activities in Eastern Europe (Russian Federation Bureau of Statistics, 2018). Like most urban cities, Moscow's rate of urbanization and living standards drives the increasing rate of waste generation which directly correlates to the quality of waste which could be utilized as a secondary resource. The dearth of technologies and recycling plants, as well as equipment shortage all pose huge challenges for waste administration, especially in an expanding capital city like Moscow. The new legislature attempts to centralize waste administration by introducing a one regional

6 State Report (in Russian) "On the Status and on the environmental protection of the Russian Federation in 2017 "// Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation. URL: https://gosdoklad-ecology.ru/2017/obrashchenie-s-otkhodami-proizvodstva-i-potrebleniya/otkhody-proizvodstva-i-potrebleniya/

7

operator system by 2022. The regional operator is expected to function as a quasi-government institution which will manage the entire waste management chain via a top-down approach. It is projected that this system will ensure synchrony of data management and project coordination. Nevertheless, MSWM in Moscow is still a complex system that involves over twenty different industries. Separate collection of waste or at-source sorting is still largely inefficient and mostly implemented by public facilities such as shopping malls, sport centers and hotels (Potemkina, 2014). At-source sorting in Moscow was launched in January 20207 marking the first stage of the city's recycling project. The city's department of housing and communal services (DHCS) is expected to equip each housing block and social facility with separate colour coded collection bins (blue for recyclables, grey for mixed waste). Collection vehicles have also been labelled based on the type of waste they transport.

The new waste management scheme under the National Ecology Project seems to imbibe the New Public Management principles. Nevertheless, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the waste collection system and waste is still largely unsorted. It is estimated that about 90 percent of Moscow's garbage goes directly into landfills which are currently at overcapacity as only 5-7 percent is recycled (RBTH8). The city is currently surrounded by fourteen landfills9 in its immediate periphery, twelve of which are located in the Moscow Region. Each of these waste sites is situated within close proximity (on average 600 meters) to residential communities. These landfills and waste disposal sites are mostly overfilled or have reached their maximum capacity and some have subsequently been turned into open waste dumps which currently pose serious environmental and health hazards to the surrounding communities. This

7 Moscow Mayor Official Website. URL: https://www.mos.ru/mayor/themes/5299/5732050/ (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

8 https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/334874-russia-waste-problems (accessed: 24 March 24, 2022)

9 Moscow Region Government. URL: https://mosreg.ru/sobytiya/novosti/news-submoscow/uzhe-bolee-20-poligonov-tbo-zakryli-v-podmoskove-s-2014-goda-6381 (accessed: 08 June, 2020).

8

situation has led to numerous community protests10 directed at the municipal authorities, petitioning them to permanently close down such sites and provide more sustainable waste management solutions to prevent further ecological damage. The government, in an attempt to deal with this crisis, has permanently closed down a total of thirty-nine landfills between 2013 and 2020. The decommissioning of such sites has triggered the need for innovative recycling methods and state-of-the-art waste processing plants. Multiple communities in the Moscow Region are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs regarding waste management in their territories. More importantly, they feel a sense of social injustice as the metropolis continues to transport the bulk of its solid waste to their regions (Vershinina & Martynenko, 2019). The government of Moscow, however, maintains cordial partnership dealings with the government of the Moscow Region and in the sphere of waste management both parties have a legally binding inter-municipal cooperation agreement which has been in effect since October 25, 2016. Although subsequently amended in 2019 (N 1 77-1109-1)11 this agreement generally allows free access and passage in transporting waste from Moscow city to the various landfills and waste processing plants in the Moscow region. Numerous protests were held between 2017 and 2018 in a bid to stop the transportation of waste from the capital to the region. According to the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation (2018), over 36,000 residents in the Moscow Region participated in public environmental protests between March 2017 and April 2018 citing the increased degradation to their health and surrounding environment. The most active environmental protests were held in the Archangelsk12, Tambov13, Yaroslavl14 and Tver15

10 Russia Business Today. URL: https://russiabusinesstoday.com/environment/protest-erupt-over-moscow-governments-waste-management-plan/ (accessed: 08 June, 2020).

11 Updated. URL: https://mosreg.ru/download/document/1027870 (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

12 27 Deputies from the Archangelskaya oblast oppose landfill construction next to Shies railway station (in Russian). URL: https://www.znak.com/2018-11-

08/27_deputatov_arhangelskoy_oblasti_vystupili_protiv_poligona_dlya_musora_iz_stolicy (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

municipalities, however, by the end of 2019 other regions had also staged protests over illegal open waste dumping and in their communities and had setup civic groups to boycott government plans to establish waste treatment plants16 in their communities. As part of the government's effort to curtail public sentiment with regards to its waste management policies and administrative reform, much effort has gone into designing the Territorial Scheme for Waste Management in Moscow11 (2019), the document outlines the city's waste management plan in partnership with the Moscow Region and is projected to process about 83 million tons of waste between 2020 and 2029. Projections also show the volume of waste in the city growing from 8 million tons/annum in 2020 to around 8.5 million tons/annum by 2029. There are currently 81 companies altogether that have been approved for recycled waste processing (paper, metal, glass, electronics and plastic) within Moscow city (31 companies) and the Moscow region (50 companies). However, as a result of growing public dissent, the amended cooperation agreement now includes data management and budgetary allocations from Moscow city to the Region for the establishment of new waste processing plants (Rub 13.5 Billion in 2019) and administrative operations (Rub 25 Billion 2019-2021). The updated agreement also contains an addendum on the proposed volume of waste to be processed by the region from 2019 to 2029 which is now estimated to range between 38.6 -49.8 million tons. This agreement thereby facilitates the construction of four thermal waste processing plants in the Moscow Region, each having an operating capacity of 700,000 tons/yr; two of which are expected to be in

13 Tambov Region protests against landfill (in Russian). URL: https://www.svoboda.org/a729671912.html (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

14 URL: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2795162.html (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

15 Anti-waste protests in Tver (in Russian). URL: https://bellona.ru/2019/09/11/antimusornye-protesty-teper-v-tverskoj-oblasti/ (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

16 Why ecological protests have become trendy in 2019 and their outcomes (in Russian). URL: https://7x7-journal.ru7articles/2020/01/01/nachalas-shiesizaciya-obshestva-pochemu-ekologicheskie-protesty-stali-trendom-2019-goda-i-k-kakim-posledstviyam-oni-privedut (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

11 Moscow Mayor Official Website. URL:

https://www.mos.ru/upload/documents/files/1934/1_Proektdokymenta.pdf (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

10

operation by 202218. Job creation, improved healthcare and social amenities are all promises that have been made by the Moscow municipality. However, communities in the region believe such cooperation may not be in their best interest. Community protests continue to oppose the construction of new waste processing and incineration plants despite the promise of new and advanced technologies. In some cases, communities have openly barricaded the entry of waste vehicles to their communities. The legitimacy theory and social contract theory are therefore applied in this study to highlight the different perspectives and standards of society.

Problem Statement

The performance assessment of urban infrastructure is often measured through the efficient supply of clean water and the administration of municipal waste (Teixeira, 2009). This assessment is essential for strategic policy planning and sustainable urban development. For decades urban planners have applied regional spatial development strategies to manage Moscow's exponential urban growth and attendant pressures on infrastructure. Various strategies including the development of 'satellite towns' have been applied to curtail housing demand and minimize the effects of industrialization. These satellite towns have metamorphosed into municipalities now considered collectively as the Moscow Region. A new urban challenge rules the day 'municipal solid waste', this problem is particularly complex as it involves a plethora of municipal factors and requires the collaboration of multiple government departments to ensure policy implementation, infrastructural development and social adaptation. Moscow city has historically acted as an administrative city and led a precedent of dissociation with industrial processing plants and such facilities have historically been positioned in the city outskirts. The city is also restricted in landuse and territorial expansion, thus depends largely on the region for support

18 News Archive (in Russian). URL: https://news.solidwaste.ru/2019/09 (accessed: 09 June, 2020).

11

in processing waste. The survival of Moscow's current territorial municipal solid waste management scheme therefore depends largely on the support of the Moscow region and the successful implementation of the inter-municipal cooperation agreement.

■ Industrial waste utilization and processing plants

■ Enterprises and landfills for waste utilization, neutralization and disposa

100.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

93

75 .

50 .

25

0 .

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 2: Waste Utilization in Russia

Source: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Russia19

Restructuring the waste sector is targeted at delivering a more competitive market which will drive new opportunities in the sector and provide both local and foreign stakeholders with long-term investment incentives. Some economic analysts project that the Russian waste management sector could evolve into a multi-billion-dollar business within a few years, provided the sector receives the necessary government support to mitigate fiduciary risks (Waste Recycling Magazine, 2017). In 2018, the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF20) which is the sovereign wealth fund of the Russian Federation

19 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26959VNR_2020_Russia_Report_English.pdf

20 https://rdif.ru/Eng_Index/

announced its partnership with Hitachi Zosen Inova21 to develop a number of waste-to-energy plants; the project is estimated at 150 billion rubles (RDIF, 2018). This is just one of many such Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) cooperation projects that have been implemented since the government commenced the active amendment of waste disposal policies in the Federation. The economic potential of this sector is set to impact communities at an outstanding level by providing millions of new job opportunities, reducing landfill waste by around eighty percent and improving the supply of electricity to the main power grid.

In this vein, there is an urgent need for improved data collection and exploratory studies by government agencies, research institutions and civic society organizations. Language barriers also pose huge challenges into cross-border partnerships and the demand for translation and documentation services continue to rise. The demand for statistical-model oriented studies is now more compelling than ever and this case study seeks to bridge the gap by providing a comprehensive overview of the current MSWM system in Moscow and ties this to the public system of municipal cooperation and evaluates the impact of MSWM on community welfare.

Study Objective & Practical Applications

This dissertation research project applies a mixed method research approach to help understand the impact of government waste management reforms on community welfare. The study describes Moscow's current waste management scheme and provides an analogy for the shift in procedures and related policies. The study also tests the impact of such policies by measuring the extant economic property value of residential buildings in close proximity to waste disposal sites. Community opinions are also explored through surveys

21 Hitachi Zosen Inova is a global leader in energy from waste systems (EfW)

https://rdif.ru/Eng_Portfolio/programma-po-ekologicheski-chistoi-pererabotke-musora-v-elektroenergiiu/

13

and focus group interviews. The main theoretical premise for the study is the application of Public Administration methods in municipal waste management. Understanding how Public Administration and New Public Management interconnect through Public Private Partnership deals within the waste sector and how new e-government tools facilitate stakeholder interaction and citizen participation in the new waste reform process.

In essence the study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the current system of MSWM in Russia's Capital City - Moscow. This study comes in the wake of increased global demand for ecological data mapping in the Russian Federation. According to an article by Joshua & Laura (2017), the dearth of environmental monitoring and data availability has been the result of extensive post-soviet bureaucratic restructuring and indirect political influence. Notwithstanding these challenges, the Russian government continues to invest substantially in E-governance and Open Government systems (Barabashev & Straussman, 2007) with the aim of improving intra-agency communication between the federal government, local and municipal authorities, civil society institutions, and citizens (Koznov et al., 2011; Koznov et al., 2016). Recent e-government surveys by the United Nations also list the Russian Federation as one of the top global emerging leaders in e-government development with a very high e-participation index (UN Reports, 2014-2016). The cooperation between the European Union and Russian Federation has also channeled substantial effort into prioritizing the environmental sector as a high-priority subject area in the regional advancement of Science, Technology & Innovation (STI).

The study therefore looks at externalities in the waste management sector form a public economics perspective and contributes to the theory of positive bureaucratic action. Max Weber's proposition for 'Bureaucracy' is analyzed

from three different perspectives: Within an organizational setting, within the employee qualification/tenure system and within the larger normative structure of government. Bureaucratic theory according to Olsen (2006) 'connotes a set of theoretical ideas and hypotheses concerning the relations between organizational characteristics and administrative mentality, behavior, performance and change'. Modern government as we know it is mostly bureaucratic, in the sense that there are specific procedural frameworks applied to population representation (elections) and rule of law (regulation). However, governance or public administration may not always be bureaucratic, in fact bureaucracy has been criticized over the years as being a redundant system of governance. The theory of positive bureaucratic action therefore reviews the 'positive' impact of bureaucratic action and processes. Suggesting this approach could be a solution to institutional collective action dilemmas and provides supporting material for further research into inter-regional and inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) in Russia specifically towards the evaluation of the ongoing cooperation between Moscow City and the Moscow Region on territorial waste management. Research presented herewith also contributes to socio-economic theories in interdisciplinary fields of study including urban and regional planning, public administration and economics, public policy and estate management. The study also provides insight to community perceptions and insights in the hope of advancing positive social change and collaborative governance.

Research Questions and Hypothesis

This study evaluates the current system of municipal solid waste management in the Moscow metropolis and assesses the impact on community welfare through observation from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. The study reviews waste management theories and compares them to existing practices. The objective being to explore the impact of existing waste policies

15

on communities and deducing their efficacy. In conclusion the study recommends the best practical models for resource utilization. The study addresses the following questions:

1. What are the existing theories and policies guiding SWM in Moscow?

2. Are these policies effective?

3. What are the main challenges and economic inefficiencies of the existing MSWM system?

4. How are communities affected by the recent waste reforms?

5. What is the best-case model for municipal solid waste management in Moscow?

To help answer these questions the study postulates three hypotheses:

H1: At-source sorting of waste is largely inefficient in Moscow: The study provides supporting case studies and information that shows a very low level of integration and sensitization in household at-source sorting of waste. Focus group interviews show that most of the citizenry do not find this system of waste collection efficient as there are no incentives and this system is challenging in a predominantly vertical apartment lifestyle setting. The impacts of COVID and general system management over the past few years have also hindered development in this sector.

H2: Communities located near landfills experience negative economic effects: The study provides supporting evidence that properties located near landfills or waste disposal sites are prone to economic devaluation. The study's regression analysis on property value shows that properties located in close proximity to waste disposal sites experience between 18 % - 35% devaluation when compared to similar properties in more ecologically friendly zones. Such

communities also tend to suffer from gentrification due to a mix-factor stemming from over-development and inefficient land-use.

H3: Spatial development factors are a key driver for municipal cooperation in metropolitan regions: The study reveals that key strategic decisions in Moscow stem from the challenges associated with spatial constraint. As an example, the current inter-regional cooperation in waste management between Moscow and the Moscow Region (Moscow Oblast) are also driven by the need for industrial facilities which due to the landuse act and city regulation are not allowed within the vicinity of the Moscow city. Also given the fact that the city is constrained in outward expansion it relies on cooperation with surrounding municipalities especially with regards to the provision of social services and infrastructure.

Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework

The study primarily evaluates the effect of waste policy reforms in a predominantly bureaucratic government. It contributes to the ongoing debate on: Public Administration vs New Public Management and tests whether the theory of collaborative advantage takes precedence over the theory of collaborative governance considering the extant local challenges (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Huxham & Vangen, 2013). Feoick's theory of institutionalised collective action (Feiock, 2013) helps provide insight to the motives (factors) behind inter-municipal cooperation and the effectiveness of such collective action within large municipalities. Specifically, the study opines that regional cooperation could to a large extent be 'interest based' and largely influenced by legitimization efforts (legitimation theory). The study also reviews critical variables that encourage such State action and weighs their application towards fostering better participatory governance especially towards fulfilling its social contract obligations with the community. A multiple-indicator approach (Barabashev, Makarov and Makarov, 2019) and comparative analysis is further

applied in examining the waste sector. Furthermore, the location theory by renown economists and sociologists: Thunen, Weber, Alonso, and Christaller provides a platform to analyze the direct economic impact of waste disposal sites on property value.

The methodology applied in this study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative research parameters. Three key topics have been reviewed in this study to provide a holistic view of the impact of policy change on inter-sectoral networks and the community as a whole:

- The Public Sector: Waste reform policy and Inter-municipal cooperation and its efficacy

- The Private Sector: Municipal waste management reforms and performance challenges.

- The Community: Impact of waste disposal on property value as a measure for evaluating community impact and welfare.

The following methods were used to test the proposed hypotheses:

• a systematic analysis of economic, social and cultural conditions, taking into account historical facts, environmental policy reforms in Russia.

• analysis of related statistical data from related studies, official and public documents as well as available statistics from the Russian Federal and Territorial waste schemes;

• surveys at the local level (Districts in Moscow and the Moscow Region);

• Case studies (comparative, qualitative and quantitative) of target sample populations.

The information base of the study was collated from multiple sources including the Russian Federal State Statistics Service - Rosstat, Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, the State Duma (Gosduma) regulatory and legal acts of Russia, Moscow and the Moscow Region (Moscow Oblast), previous theoretical and methodological studies on related topics, statistical data on the socio-economic development of Russia and its regions, information from the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor), data from The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (Minprirody), collated public polls and surveys of the population (regional, municipal and district level) from Domofund.ru and Mos.ru (Active Citizen) and own work, interviews with key stakeholders, learned academics and materials of periodicals and Internet resources.

Scope & Limitations

The study is focused primarily on the Moscow megalopolis (Moscow city and the Moscow region) and is limited to the analysis of household waste. Due to the sheer size of the population, single case qualitative and quantitative studies are applied to samples of the population. Such as Lyubertsy and Nekrasovka in determining public opinion in the sphere of inter-municipal cooperation and select districts within the outer city circle to determine the impact of waste disposal sites on property value. Thus, the factors influencing samples are used for quantitative assessment while more in-depth study via a wider municipality segment may provide further insight to other externalities. Much effort has been placed in making the survey representative of the entire population. However due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic the survey was conducted online which may inadvertently have excluded senior citizens with no internet skills form participating.

Dissertation Summary of Findings - Presented for Dissertation Defense

This study provides a comprehensive background analysis of the current municipal waste reform in Russia and focuses on the specific interaction and impact these reforms have on community welfare in the capital city and its immediate suburbia.

1. National strategic projects such as the 'Ecology Project' provides a framework for meeting the global sustainable development goals (SDG) in municipal waste management specifically goal 11, 12 and 14 which have been prioritized at both the national and regional level. The unified plan provides SDG indicators for SWM under Goal 3 'Comfortable and safe living environment' and specifically within the indicator 3.4 'Creation of a sustainable system for the management of municipal solid waste, ensuring 100 percent sorting of waste and reducing the volume of waste sent to landfills by half. The achievement of this goal is ensured by the implementation of an integrated solid waste management system which promotes the circular economy principles.

2. The Moscow megalopolis is currently facing challenges in the waste sector due to increased urban population growth rate22, housing boom and the new consumerism culture. Waste volumes have increased dramatically over the past decade and this sudden surge in waste generation has highlighted the inadequacy of existing waste processing infrastructure. The capital city generates over 8 million tons of solid waste annually, yet has only three incinerator plants with a collective capacity of around 1 million tons per year. The fact that most waste remains unsorted further complicates the situation and for the most part is landfilled. Spatial development however, remains a huge challenge for the metropolis. Environmental degradation and health complaints (from open landfills and illegal dump sites) continue to surge in the surrounding

22 Russia's Urban Population Growth Rate https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL?locations=RU

20

Moscow region. To address these issues, Moscow aims to achieve a sustainable level of circular economy by 2025 and plans to create new technological centres for processing, recycling and disposal of waste. To this end, the government has begun implementing policy reforms in the environmental sector and initiating new inter-regional and inter-municipal cooperation agreements with the Moscow region to facilitate unfettered access for waste export to the region for further processing and treatment.

3. The study reveals that performance challenges identified within the Moscow municipal solid waste management system are primarily triggered by the incompatibility of operating a bureaucratic public administration system alongside a quasi-market waste management model. The hard top-down approach driven by legislative reforms leaves little room for flexibility within the existing waste sector. Although the system advocates for greater efficiency, these excessive regulations and processes slow down project implementation and adaptability to new market trends. This situation also hampers innovation at the local levels and minimizes civic engagement. There is also no incentive for at-source sorting of waste which also supports hypothesis 1 which states that at-source sorting of waste is largely inefficient in Moscow.

4. The inter-municipal networks between both territories are interlinked at both Federal, State and Local government levels, however Moscow as a Federal city is seen to have overriding powers in terms of legislature and fiscal policies. The study analyses the drivers for cooperation between these municipalities and positively supports the theory that factors other than economics-of-scale drive inter-municipal cooperation. The shortage of MSW processing and treatment facilities is a pressing challenge throughout the country, however this is felt more acutely in Moscow and its surrounding region because of the population density and consumer lifestyle.

5. Legislative restrictions also make it impossible for Moscow City to establish landfills or accommodate such processing industries due to current urban planning constraints and land-use positioning of residential complexes. This pressing challenge has therefore led to the urgent need for cooperation between the city and its immediate suburbia. According to current legislature and official reports this partnership seeks to promote joint projects in waste management under mutually beneficial terms which would ultimately lead to economic growth for the Moscow Region and a more sustainable infrastructure waste system for both territories. The study findings show that cooperation between municipalities within this specific sector of waste management is primarily driven by the convergence of socio-cultural factors, common territorial boundaries, provision of public utilities and more recently city spatial constraints. It would be interesting to see how this partnership develops and if indeed positive bureaucracy and Moscow's regional waste export legitimization efforts would be successful in the long-term. This supports the argument in hypothesis 3 that spatial development factors are a key driver for cooperation in metropolitan regions

6. The study also shows that ecology plays an important role in economic decisions and impacts the daily lives of residents. The analysis of current real estate data and the qualitative study supports hypothesis 2 of the study which states that communities located near landfills experience negative economic effects:

• The ecological index is an important factor for Moscow residents when selecting properties for residential, business and retail purposes;

• Waste disposal sites have a negative impact on the surrounding local economy which is evident through property devaluation.

• The variance devaluation of properties located close to waste disposal sites in Moscow as compared to properties in other districts with similar economic indices is upwards of 17-20%; and 30-36% when compared to districts with above higher economic and ecological indices such as the western and south-western districts.

• Property prices are further devalued by about 1-3% for every 1 Km distance to the landfill depending on the economic purpose of property i.e., residential, business or retail.

7. Most people are generally reluctant to living in areas with a high pollution index, and most young families and elderly folk will seek locations in the suburban outskirts of town in the hope that city fumes and industrial pollutants will be much less in such areas, unfortunately the situation is not as straightforward in Moscow which positions its industries, landfills and waste incineration sites on the periphery of the city to avoid epidemiological outbreaks within the already congested metropolis accommodating over 12 million residents. This trend has resulted in increased pollution in the suburbs and lower property prices along the concentric MKAD ring road which also supports Hypothesis 2 in the study.

Practical Application of Study Findings

Waste management influences multiple factors in various sectors specifically public administration and spatial economics. The efficiency of structured processes and the implementation of new technologies in landfills and waste incineration plants can provide improved ecological welfare for the citizenry and boost local economy including realty value. As seen through multiple cases hedonistic sustainability is achievable and may be the only solution for such a densely populated metropolis like Moscow. This option will undoubtedly involve tremendous political will, large budgetary investments,

23

community buy-in as well as much creativity, but the outcome should definitely ensure better district ecology in the long-run. Interestingly the study reveals that this system is already gaining some foothold in practice with local property development companies that are working towards the remediation of decommissioned landfills. Also, since China banned the import of recycled waste more and more studies have come to show that recycling may not necessarily be sustainable or the best method of managing municipal waste.

Further research into various case studies of neighbourhood revitalization through hedonistic sustainability initiatives even at a local level could provide much needed socioeconomic and ethnographic perspectives for efficient urban planning. Nonetheless, considering the conditions of the multi-level hierarchical system of administration in Russia, further in-depth study on the current waste scheme in Moscow would be necessary to fully comprehend the impact of the waste reform specifically at the local self-governance level. Accordingly, this study provides essential background material for future research in this field with a focus on inter-municipal cooperation & municipal recycling. The paper has also presented some foundational basis for a more comprehensive assessment of the ongoing Moscow territorial waste management scheme 2020 - 2029.

Approbation of the work was carried out through the participation of the dissertation student in scientific international conferences:

1. Scientific Conference on Theory and Practice of Public Administration, Univerzita pavla jozefa safárika v kosiciach fakulta verejnej správy, Slovak Republic (February 2022). Report: «Solid Waste Management Externalities in Moscow».

2. The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference "Citizens' Engagement and Empowerment - The Era of Collaborative Innovation in Governance" Ljubljana, Slovenia (October 2021). Report: «Inter-regional cooperation

24

in waste management, new trends in Moscow and the Moscow Region».

3. 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference for PhD Students. (October 2020). Report: «Factors Driving Inter-municipal cooperation in Moscow» (also a member of the working committee).

Publications in Scopus-indexed journals:

1. Agiamoh R. G. (2020). "From Bureaucracy To Market? Ongoing Reform And Performance Challenges of Solid Waste Administration In Moscow," Public Administration Issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 5, pages 149-170 - 1.43 printer's sheets. (Q4 2020 SJR23)

2. Agiamoh R.G. & Larionova A.N. (2020). Impact of Waste Disposal Sites on Property Value in Moscow, Russia (2020), Urbanities-Journal of Urban Ethnography, vol. 10., no 2, pages 71 - 93 - 1.69 printer's sheets (author's contribution - 1,20 p.s). (Q2 2020 SJR24)

3. Agiamoh, R. G. (2021). Inter-Regional Cooperation in Waste Management: New Trends in Moscow and the Moscow Region. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2), pages 9-39 - 1.48 printer's sheets. (Q3 2020 SJR25)

Dissertation Scope & Structure:

The dissertation research was structured to cover three key topics: Waste management reforms in Russia, Inter-municipal cooperation in Moscow and Impact of Waste Disposal Sites on Property Pricing in select Districts in Moscow. A Top-down approach has been applied to give the reader a holistic

23 Scopus Journals. URL: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100778766&tip=sid&clean=0 (accessed: 20.01.2022).

24 Scopus Journals. URL: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100440513&tip=sid&clean=0 (accessed: 20.01.2022).

25 Scopus Journals. URL: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100208061&tip=sid&clean=0 (accessed: 20.01.2022).

view of the sector from both the public, private and community perspective. The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, conclusion, bibliography and appendix. The complete text of the work is presented on 201 page containing 14 tables and 20 figures (excluding tables and images presented in the appendix section).

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Агиамох Розалин Джорджевна

3.1.4. Summary

Inter-municipal cooperation has been functioning actively in Moscow since 2002 under Local Self Government. Cooperation between Moscow City and the Moscow Region started to take a formal approach in 2009 through the execution of Legal Agreements and is primarily focused on the provision of Social Infrastructure. Key Sectors for cooperation between Moscow City and the Moscow Region involve Transportation, Solid Waste Management, Healthcare and Debt Repayments. The factors driving cooperation between Moscow City and the Moscow Region stem from the following commonalities: Geographic location; territorial borders; history, tradition and culture; governance structure and budgets; shared social infrastructure.

Figure 13: Factors Driving Cooperation in the Moscow Waste Sector

Source: Author

Factors driving cooperation between Moscow City and the Moscow Region, could be identified as city expansion, population growth, spatial development constraints and economic resource planning, specifically human capital (Figure 13). In view of the challenges being faced by Moscow city with regards to the aforementioned, inter-regional cooperation is leveraged as a means of social contract legitimization, in the process of policy reform and regional development in a predominantly bureaucratic system.

Generally, the government appears to be moving towards a multi-faceted public administration approach and in some instances seems to be transitioning into New Public Management (NPM); especially in Moscow where e-governance is being introduced; however, it is unclear at the moment what administrative system will ultimately lead the waste reform. Private Public

123

Partnerships (PPP) are typically characteristic of NPM, yet the system remains largely centralized within a closed market system.

3.2 Qualitative Case Study - Nekrasovka & Lyubertsy

Gentrification often drives changes in the local housing market and boosts new businesses (Prato & Rosbrook-Thompson 2019), it could also be perceived as the precursor of neighbourhood revitalization as in the case of 'Nekrasovska' located in the South-Eastern Administrative okrug within the Lyubertsy District114.

Nekrasovka is considered one of the fastest growing micro-regions within the Moscow metropolis and provides mass housing for the middle income, especially young families. Nekrasovka is quite unique in its juxtaposition, as it is located within the Lyubertsy District of Moscow Region (Moscow suburb). Most of its current territory (the Lyubertsy fields) up until September 2011 was part of the Moscow Region. Lyubertsy for the most part is an industrial district and accommodates a much-disputed landfill which was operational between 1997 and 2000. This landfill was handed over to the Moscow authorities for remediation in 2009 but still bears ecological concerns for residents in the area.115.

114 Lyubertsy District Map: https://yandex.ru/maps/-/CCQpNWAcpC

115Lyubertsy Ecological Petition: https://democrator.ru/petition/ekologicheskaya-katastrofa-v-

lyubercahnekrasovkeko/

Figure 14: Map showing Nekrasovka landfill in close proximity to

residential buildings

Source: Yandex Maps116

Multiple industrial sites are also located within the vicinity resulting in overall poor ecological indices and low property pricing in the area. Nonetheless in recent years developers have been allocated land within close proximity of the old landfill site, less than 500 meters which is the standard norm for decommissioned sites. It is unclear if this development was spurred by modern urban planning considerations, developer lobbying or corruption

116 https://yandex.ru/maps/-/CCQpR0r21C

(Torsello, 2012) but the effects are vivid in the rapid neighbourhood revitalization of the district which includes state-of-the-art infrastructure and transportation routes. The announcement of the new 'Nekrasovka' subway line in 2012 increased property value by 7-10% and after the launch of four of eight stations along this line in June 2019 the property value of newly constructed residences increased by a further 6% regardless of the ecological considerations in the area117 and continues to rise steadily as more young families. Figure 15 shows the landfill next to a residential block with ongoing excavation works.

Figure 15: Nekrasovka Landfill located beside residential building

Source: Photo taken by Author

117 https://www.irn.ru/geo/rayon_nekrasovka/

Figure 16: Lyubertsy Moscow Region - Bus Transport Services

Source: Photo taken by Author

Gentrification is not only felt through the new real estate developments in the region but also via outward urban mobility as most young families seek affordable housing solutions within the periphery of the city in areas that have relatively good access to public transportation especially the subway. A measure of social inequality as described by Pardo & Prato (2020) can also be perceived within the social infrastructure differentiation between areas considered 'Moscow city' and 'Moscow region' despite being located in the same geographic area (less than ten-minute drive apart), photographic comparison is shown below in Figure 16 and 17.

Figure 17: Lyubertsy Moscow City - Subway Transport Services

'Nekrasovka Station'

Source: Photo taken by Author

3.3 Current Municipal Waste Challenges within the Moscow Megalopolis

The management of MSW systems is generally challenging for most governments and requires a tipping point for the overhaul of stagnant processes as well as the integration of new technologies, market systems and networks. The Russian Federation is at such a point, the government has taken decisive measures to provide the legislative backbone which should streamline the sector towards sustainability, nonetheless policies alone without stakeholder buy-in or reculturization may prove futile. The much-applauded recycling systems in San Francisco and Seoul have also been fraught with administrative challenges including public opposition and community protests, nonetheless these challenges have been managed over time through the active sensitization and network integration of all stakeholders in the waste management system. Since Moscow is just starting its journey into a zero-waste future it behooves the municipal administration to learn from the challenges faced by other cities in

overcoming similar hurdles; this strategy may also support the city leap-frog in the development of a unique sustainable waste management system. Some key challenges with the current waste classification system as identified by Dumnov et al. (2016) are presented below:

a) Landscaping and seasonal waste (e.g. snow) are classified under municipal communal waste but have different contractual licenses with local operators and varied storage and treatment facilities.

b) Renovation waste is also grouped under municipal communal waste but may be better classified as construction waste

c) The classification catalogue does not explicitly indicate how to handle pet waste from apartment complexes (e.g., litter and carcasses) considering there are over 52 million cats and dogs in Russia ranking it third globally for the number of cats alone118.

d) The classification does not cover used diapers and there is currently no special method for disposing of them in the communal system.

e) Food waste and organic waste from households, including decommissioned products from store shelves have not been properly classified under MSW to assist with at-source sorting of organic waste for compost. Some classifications are also duplicated.

According to the comparative case study and ISWM analysis provided in the previous chapter the problems within the waste management system tend to emanate after the waste has been collected - in the stages of waste disposal, treatment and recycling as well as the interaction of government with civic institutions and community sensitization. There is an obvious disconnect

118 Statistics on household pets in Russia: These numbers do not cover pet birds, fishes, rodents or reptiles. It is safe to assume that the number of pets in general could be upwards of 80 million https://www.interfax.ru/russia/631927

between government planning, administrative implementation and stakeholder networking; the broken loop in the chain depends largely on solving the issue of sustainable waste disposal and treatment. However, the government is taking steps towards filling the gaps in the system and this study provides much needed literature in understanding the municipal waste management system in transition.

Further improvement on data collection, central database management and stakeholder consultation would boost system-wide efficiency. The results of the multi-city analysis and general concept of the ISWM model and the benchmark performance indicators could be utilized towards further strategic planning within the sector. Integrating this categorization standard would also assist with bilateral cooperation especially with cities that have already implemented the ISWM evaluation model within their waste system. Lessons can be learned from Seoul and San Francisco to support cost-efficient fiscal planning (see Table 11) and one can also evaluate the current challenges in these cites to assuage or mitigate against system inadequacies (Won-Seok et al, 2015; Kaza et al, 2018; Zaman and Ahsan, 2019).

Table 11. MSW similarities with Moscow and current challenges in San

Francisco and Seoul

Similarities San Francisco Seoul

Qualitative Performance Indicators Single regional operator structure Policy regulation of plastic bags and at-source sorting Housing style (Apartments) Global Cities Index119 Policy regulation of plastic bags and at-source sorting

119 https://www.kearney.com/global-cities/2018

Quantitative Performance Indicators Utility fees almost at par Population GDP & GNI per capita Urban Growth Rate Air Pollution120 GIS System

Current MSW Challenges Devaluation of resources Plastic waste disposal (due to import ban from China) Increased waste generation Street Trash Devaluation of resources Plastic waste disposal (due to import ban from China) Low community buy-in for landfill expansion and new incineration plants Inadequate waste collection infrastructure Indiscriminate waste dumping

Source: By Author

3.4 Quantitative Case Study - Property Pricing & Landfill Juxtapositions

The empirical analysis of the dependence of the average cost of real estate in several Moscow districts relative to their proximity to waste disposal sites was conducted. All prices are in Russian Rubles. The model revealed that there is a dependence of the real estate price on the distance to the municipal landfill and or incineration plant.

Our analysis revealed that there is a negative dependence between the location of waste disposal sites and property value hence we reject the null hypothesis. Each Kilometer away from the waste disposal sites (landfills/incineration plants) on average increases the price of real estate by 22.3% for apartments, 1.2-1.3% for rented offices and 1% for rented shopping areas (retail space). The significance of the findings was verified using Fisher's

120 https://www. numbeo. com/pollution/

F-test, as well as Student's t-test. Both tests showed that our findings (models and coefficients) are significant at a significance level of 1%.

Generally, Moscow is considered to have moderate air quality based on the World AQI Ranking121. In 2017 Moscow ranked 8.4 and in 2018 fell to 10.1, so the volume of soil and air pollution identified were still within acceptable global parameters however the presence of smog, soot deposits and occasional foul-smelling odours is still largely felt in areas within a distance of 1-3 km from waste disposal sites. The effects of CO, NO and NO2 even in small amounts may still lead to health issues if inhaled over a prolonged duration and poor soil quality inadvertently affects the surrounding environment. It should be noted however that most of the major landfill sites are located in the outskirts of the Moscow metropolis in the Moscow Oblast (Moscow Region) and cases of air pollution poisoning have been recorded with children being the most affected122. So while official statistics and indicators may show acceptable levels of pollution, the actual case on ground may be significantly worse with unmonitored carcinogens polluting the atmosphere, especially considering that most of these plants have been operating for over forty years (example the garbage incineration plant No. 2 was built in 1975) and have only recently begun applying modern environmental safety measures which seem ineffective to majority of residents living in close proximity to the plants as they continue to complain of their deteriorating health123.

The indices on environmental quality provide supporting metrics for evaluating the districts most affected by industrial and anthropogenic emissions from the waste processing plants and the MKAD and could support future

121 World AQI Ranking: https://www.airvisual.com/world-air-quality

122 About 77 children were hospitalized in the Volokolamsk District of the Moscow Oblast in March 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/world/europe/russia-landfills-gases.html

123 Residents of the Eastern District continue to complain about worsening health conditions because of the waste disposal plant: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/15/moscow-trash-incinerator-spews-bright-purple-smoke-a66890

research on the environmental impact assessment of the MKAD highway. The study provides evidence to show that the impact of environmental factors on real estate prices in Moscow is quite significant and this determines the overall attractiveness of districts in the city. The table and figures below show an obvious negative correlation between average property prices and the location of landfills and waste disposal sites. Thereby, real estate prices are much lower in areas within 1-3 kilometers to landfills or waste incineration plants. Moreover, in neighbouring ecologically clean areas, the cost of apartments seems to grow significantly (Kurkino, Butovo, etc). This study further suggests that, despite other major variables in real estate selection such as distance from the city centre, metro location and social infrastructure, ecological factors play an important role in property selection and this trend has increased over recent years.

Table 12: Price variation by Km distance from landfill and incineration sites (Moscow)

District Apartments Offices Retail Space

% RUB, '000' % RUB, '000' % RUB, '000'

Salaryevo ("Salaryevo" Landfill) 2.81% 3.941 1.41% 0.132 0.99% 0.133

Otradnoye (Garbage incineration plant No. 2) 1.50% 2.280 1.55% 0.177 1.10% 0.162

Biryulovo West (Garbage incineration plant No. 3) 1.55% 2.167 0.89% 0.097 1.00% 0.137

Kosino-Ukhtomsky ("Nekrasovka" Landfill) 2.82% 3.886 0.85% 0.078 0.81% 0.099

Source: By Author

District Apartments Offices Retail Space Concentration of harmful substances in the air ^m3 Soil pollution index

CO NO NO2

Salaryevo 1.98518E-05 4.13083E-06 0.000506847 3.27012E-05 5.05455E-06 6.64321E-06 0.000250864

Otradnoye 0.000191146 1.26183E-05 9.6692E-09 4.88893E-06 0.000241155 8.74768E-06 0.000185166

Biryulovo West 7.48938E-05 0.000313339 1.52666E-05 3.15251E-05 4.71773E-05 2.15023E-05 0.000104968

Kosino -Ukhto msky 4.42901E-06 0.000266314 8.0513E-05 0.000350546 8.63652E-05 4.87568E-05 9.37042E-05

Source: By Author

The property price is further presented in the form of the regression model (Table 14):

y = a0 + alx (1),

Where:

y is the dependent variable - real estate price (thousand rubles) x is the independent variable distance to the landfill (Km)

a0 is the average property base price

a1 is the relative amount increase per km from the waste disposal site

Table 14: Regression Model

District Average Price (y = a0 + alx)

Apartments Offices Retail Space

Salaryevo ("Salaryevo" Landfill) y=140,355+3,941*x y=9,32335+0,132*x y=13,4234+0,133*x

Otradnoye (Garbage incineration plant No. 2) y=151,567+2,280*x y=11,3598+0,177*x y=14,7481+0,1642*x

Biryulovo West (Garbage incineration plant No. 3) y=139,382+2,167*x y=10,8901+0,097*x y=13,6616+0,137*x

Kosino-Ukhtomsky ("Nekrasovka" Landfill) y=137,861+3,886*x y=9,20893+0,078*x y=12,1562+0,099*x

Source: By Author

A survey of Moscow residents was also conducted to assess the environmental situation in the city districts. The survey was held online for a month (from June 24 to July 24, 2020) and was primarily promoted on the Yandex.Rayon service. Yandex.Rayon is an internet platform of Russia's tech giant Yandex. The service allows neighbours and local organizations to share information, request and offer services, jointly solve problems and improve life in their neighbourhoods.

During the survey period, 921 residents took part in the questionnaire, which is a representative sample of the city's population (19 additional responses were received after the survey period and after the results had been collated so for the purposes of this study the results for 921 respondents will be applied as was published by Agiamoh & Larionova (2020). The summary of the full survey is available in Appendix 3). The respondents were asked to indicate their age-group and area of residence in Moscow. The majority of the respondents were residents aged 25 to 64 years in approximately the same proportion (an average of 20% in each age-group variated by a span of 10 years), approximately 10% of the respondents were over 65 years old and 5% were aged between 18 to 24.

Figure 18: Survey of Moscow Residents (Question 4)

The survey revealed that the majority of Moscow residents (52.4%) do not sort their household waste even though they admitted their districts to be equipped with some form of at-source waste sorting system (for plastic, glass and paper waste). At the same time, 42.4% of respondents were already positively engaged in sorting their household waste, while 5.2% had not even known about such a possibility before the survey. For those currently sorting their household waste we evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their decision to continue sorting waste: 75% of respondents mentioned that they continued to sort their waste as usual and some mentioned they actually started sorting their household waste during the self-isolation period. 12.5% mentioned that they faced new challenges with sorting waste while only 10.5% had to completely abandon sorting their household waste due to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

With regards to neighbourhood pollution, 58.6% felt their neighbourhood was polluted and primarily attributed this to air (92.1%), noise (67.4%), water (29.6%) and solid waste (28.1%) pollution. 25% of respondents identified that they had some form of waste disposal plant located close to their residences and 37.4% had no idea if such facilities existed within their neighbourhoods. Interestingly, 71.7% of all respondents felt that the waste collection and sorting system in their neighbourhood was inadequate.

How would you rate these criteria when choosing a residential property?

■ Very Important ■ Important ■ Not Important

Property Price Distance from city center

Access to Public

Transport

Building Type

Ecological

Considerations

Developer

Figure 19: Survey of Moscow Residents (Question 5)

136

Respondents were also asked to rate key factors in their selection of residential property. Six factors were presented: property price, distance from the city center, accessibility of public transport, ecological situation in the area, type of building and developer. 661 people (71.7% of all respondents) assessed the environmental component 'ecological situation in the area' as 'very important', which surprisingly ranked higher than two other leading parameters - real estate prices and the availability of public transport. This goes to show that Moscow residents are highly sensitized about their environment and prefer residing in areas with good ecological conditions.

The focus group discussions provided further insight to the ecological situation in Salaryevo and Nekrasovka districts. The 'Salaryevo' landfill remediation covers 590,000 sq.m. the reclamation project, as approved by the Moscow Urban Planning and Land Use Commission, was initially planned to facilitate transport infrastructure in the region. Currently the project is being managed by a well-known mass housing property development company 'Pik Group'124 which has reported its successful efforts towards reducing leachate and bio-gas levels. As a result, the land use for the area was amended in 2016 providing allocations for new residential development in the area. Currently these buildings are situated 500 meters from the decommissioned landfill (Figure 20).

124 https://www.pik.ru/recultivation

Figure 20: Salaryevo Landfill Moscow

Source: Photo taken by the Author

During the site visit there was no foul smell in the area and residents were generally pleased with the landfill reclamation project. The same cannot be said for Nekrasovka, the ecological situation is notably worse. During multiple site visits to the district a recurring foul stench was noticed in the air emanating from the Lyubertsy Aeration Station (LOS) and waste incineration plant No.4. Some residents confirmed that the stench of hydrogen sulphide was a continuous phenomenon in the area and depended largely on the wind direction. Local residents are in the process of gathering signatures for a petition to combat air pollution in the area.

The main objective of this study is to understand the impact of the recent waste management reform on community welfare in Moscow. The study therefore focuses its theoretical premise on the application of Public Administration methods in municipal waste management in Russia's capital city Moscow and its immediate suburbia - the 'Moscow Oblast' (Moscow Region). The study also provides insight on how Public Administration and New Public Management inter-connect through Public Private Partnership deals within the waste sector and how new e-government tools facilitate stakeholder interaction and citizen participation in the new waste reform process.

The study reviews public and legal documents and provides a historical map to guide the reader's understanding of the ongoing waste reform in the Russian Federation. Good governance is also discussed from the perspective of local self-governance and inter-municipal cooperation. The principles of public economics within the Moscow waste sector are also reviewed from a Macro-economic and Micro-economic perspective. Government participation in the waste market is also discussed and market failures are highlighted through the extant waste market monopoly and cost of externalities from an environmental perspective.

The research questions are tackled through a mix of quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Findings reveal that:

• Public administration and bureaucratic processes guide the municipal waste management process in Moscow. The system is still mostly centralized and the new waste reforms are yet to be fully implemented in the capital city.

• The waste reform policies are still being introduced and implemented at a gradual pace, the recent COVID pandemic seems to have shifted the

government's focus to healthcare, so while new infrastructure is being introduced (such as different colour bins to promote at-source sorting of waste), not much is being done by way of policy implementation (there is still no government financial incentive to promote recycling or at-source sorting of waste at the local municipal level).

• The main challenges and economic inefficiencies of the existing MSWM system are inextricably linked to the treatment and disposal of large volumes of waste. The city's landuse policy prohibits waste treatment, processing and disposal within the city borders due to epidemiological safeguards. This has led to the export of city waste to the neighbouring suburbia - Moscow Oblast which in turn has raised community discontent and environmental protests. Spatial constraints, public relations and ultimately over-production of waste has led the government to seek innovative medium to long-term solutions via Public private partnerships, Inter-municipal cooperation and Inter-regional cooperation.

• Most communities in Moscow are generally going through a phase of gentrification. The city is growing exponentially, over 1,500 hectares of residential property has been built over the past five years which also triggers new infrastructure and adds pressure on the existing waste management system. Spillover effects from landfills, waste disposal sites and waste processing plants are increasingly being felt by city residents.

• Based on the situational analysis of the current situation in Moscow and having reviewed the proposed territorial waste management schemes alongside global best-practices; the best-case model for municipal solid waste management in Moscow would be an integrated solid waste management system to include modern incineration in the short to medium-term and at-source sorting of waste specifically organic waste in the long-

term alongside the circular economy concept by manufacturers to ensure full-cycle resource utilization. There is a global shift regarding 'recycling', countries are discovering that it is simply a delayed solution. For instance, the United Kingdom shipped over 7,000 metric tonnes of waste to nonOECD countries in one month alone 125. Counties such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey and Vietnam are seen as dumping grounds for such 'recycled waste'. In 2017 China the largest recycler of plastics banned the import of waste, now other countries are doing the same, so this is not a sustainable solution. The US, UK and most European countries have had their waste shipped back to them from developing countries. In December 2020, the EU banned its export of dirty and unsorted plastic to non-OECD countries.

The analysis of public data and structured surveys further reveal that there is a huge gap in information dissemination within the waste sector, data is duplicated because multiple agencies are handling the same or similar tasks. Nonetheless, the government's effort at streamlining the sector has shown some notable improvements especially through the integrated solid waste management scheme which promotes the circular economy concept.

National benchmarks for the global sustainable development goals (and in this case specifically those relating to municipal waste) also provide a good framework for evaluating the successful implementation of the new policies. This system ensures better public administration of the waste cycle including: waste classification, collection monitoring, identification and clearance of illegal dumps, promotion of at-source sorting of waste and an overall reduction of landfilled waste.

125 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/12/loophole-will-let-uk-continue-to-ship-plastic-waste-to-poorer-countries

In the course of the study, useful information was also gathered on Intermunicipal cooperation between Moscow city and Moscow Oblast, key factors driving the cooperation were identified as Moscow's municipal convergence, positive bureaucracy and spatial development. Common history, geographical borders and culture facilitate inter-municipal networks which are further strengthened by the necessary administrative oversight which comes from joint development agendas in both the central and regional economic zones. Since Moscow city is spatially constrained in developing outward (being surrounded by the Moscow region border) and legally constrained in establishing waste processing plants within the city (based on landuse acts); it therefore leverages its cooperation with the Moscow region to facilitate easy transportation of waste from the city to waste processing plants and landfills.

National strategic projects such as the 'Ecology Project' provides a framework for meeting the global sustainable development goals (SDG) in municipal waste management specifically goal 11, 12 and 14 which have been prioritized at both the national and regional level. The unified plan provides SDG indicators for SWM under Goal 3 'Comfortable and safe living environment' and specifically within the indicator 3.4 'Creation of a sustainable system for the management of municipal solid waste, ensuring 100 percent sorting of waste and reducing the volume of waste sent to landfills by half. The achievement of this goal is ensured by the implementation of an integrated solid waste management system which promotes the circular economy principles.

The Moscow megalopolis is currently facing challenges in the waste sector due to increased urban population growth rate126, housing boom and the new consumerism culture. Waste volumes have increased drastically over the past decade and this sudden surge in waste generation has highlighted the inadequacy of existing waste processing infrastructure. The capital city

126 Russia's Urban Population Growth Rate https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL?locations=RU

142

generates over 8 million tons of solid waste annually, yet has only three incinerator plants with a collective capacity of around 1 million tons per year. The fact that most waste remains unsorted further complicates the situation and for the most part is landfilled. Spatial development however, remains a huge challenge for the metropolis. Environmental degradation and health complaints (from open landfills and illegal dump sites) continue to surge in the surrounding Moscow region. To address these issues, Moscow aims to achieve a sustainable level of circular economy by 2025 and plans to create new technological centres for processing, recycling and disposal of waste. To this end, the government has begun implementing policy reforms in the environmental sector and initiating new cooperation agreements with the Moscow region to facilitate unfettered access for waste export to the region for further processing and treatment.

The study reveals that performance challenges identified within the Moscow municipal solid waste management system are primarily triggered by the incompatibility of operating a bureaucratic public administration system alongside a quasi-market waste management model. The hard top-down approach driven by legislative reforms leaves little room for flexibility within the existing waste sector. Although the system advocates for greater efficiency, these excessive regulations and processes slow down project implementation and adaptability to new market trends. This situation also hampers innovation at the local levels and minimizes civic engagement.

The inter-municipal networks between both territories are interlinked at both Federal, State and Local government levels, however Moscow as a Federal city is seen to have overriding powers in terms of legislature and fiscal policies. The study analyses the drivers for cooperation between these municipalities and positively supports the theory that factors other than economics-of-scale drive inter-municipal cooperation. The shortage of MSW processing and treatment facilities is a pressing challenge throughout the country, however this is felt

143

more acutely in Moscow and its surrounding region because of the population density and consumer lifestyle. Legislative restrictions also make it impossible for Moscow City to establish landfills or accommodate such processing industries due to current urban planning constraints and land-use positioning of residential complexes. This pressing challenge has therefore led to the urgent need for cooperation between the city and its immediate suburbia. According to current legislature and official reports this partnership seeks to promote joint projects in waste management under mutually beneficial terms which would ultimately lead to economic growth for the Moscow Region and a more sustainable infrastructure waste system for both territories. The study findings show that cooperation between municipalities within this specific sector of waste management is primarily driven by the convergence of socio-cultural factors, common territorial boundaries, provision of public utilities and more recently city spatial constraints. It would be interesting to see how this partnership develops and if indeed positive bureaucracy and Moscow's regional waste export legitimization efforts would be successful in the long-term. The study also shows that ecology plays an important role in economic decisions and impacts the daily lives of residents. The analysis of current real estate data and the qualitative study further reveals that:

• The ecological index is an important factor for Moscow residents when selecting properties for residential, business and retail purposes;

• Waste disposal sites have a negative impact on the surrounding local economy which is evident through property devaluation.

• The variance devaluation of properties located close to waste disposal sites in Moscow as compared to properties in other districts with similar economic indices is upwards of 17-20%; and 30-36% when compared to

districts with above higher economic and ecological indices such as the western and south-western districts.

• Property prices are further devalued by about 1-3% for every 1 Km distance to the landfill depending on the economic purpose of property i.e., residential, business or retail.

Most people are generally reluctant to living in areas with a high pollution index, and most young families and elderly folk will seek locations in the suburban outskirts of town in the hope that city fumes and industrial pollutants will be much less in such areas, unfortunately the situation is not as straightforward in Moscow which positions its industries, landfills and waste incineration sites on the periphery of the city to avoid epidemiological outbreaks within the already congested metropolis accommodating over 12 million residents. This trend has resulted in increased pollution in the suburbs and lower property prices along the concentric MKAD ring road.

Waste management therefore influences multiple factors in various sectors specifically public administration and spatial economics. The efficiency of structured processes and the implementation of new technologies in landfills and waste incineration plants can provide improved ecological welfare for the citizenry and boost local economy including realty value. As seen through multiple cases hedonistic sustainability is achievable and may be the only solution for such a densely populated metropolis like Moscow. This option will undoubtedly involve tremendous political will, large budgetary investments, community buy-in and much creativity, but the outcome should definitely ensure better district ecology in the long-run. Interestingly the study reveals that this system is already gaining some foothold in practice with local property development companies that are working towards the remediation of decommissioned landfills. Further research into various case studies of

neighbourhood revitalization through hedonistic sustainability initiatives even at a local level could provide much needed socioeconomic and ethnographic perspectives for efficient urban planning.

Nonetheless, considering the conditions of the multi-level hierarchical system of administration in Russia, further in-depth study on the current waste scheme in Moscow would be necessary to fully comprehend the impact of the bureaucratic process specifically at the local self-governance level. Accordingly, this study provides essential background material for future research in this field with a focus on inter-municipal cooperation & municipal recycling. The paper has also presented some foundational basis for a more comprehensive assessment of the ongoing Moscow territorial waste management scheme 2020 - 2029127.

127 See: Agiamoh R. G. (2020). "From Bureaucracy To Market? Ongoing Reform And Performance Challenges of Solid Waste Administration In Moscow," Public Administration Issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 5, pages 149-170.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Агиамох Розалин Джорджевна, 2022 год

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramov R.A., Strelchenko S.G., Derevyanko S.V. (2016). Interregional Cooperation within Integration Processes in the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Journal of Spatial Economics No. 4. P. 153-173 (In Russian) (accessed 03.02.2020) DOI: 10.14530/se.2016.4.153-173

Achillas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Karagiannidis, A., Banias, G., Perkoulidis, G. (2013), The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: A literature review. Waste Management and Research, 31(2), 115-129.

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative science quarterly, 61-89.

Agiamoh, R. (2020). From bureaucracy to market? Ongoing reform and performance challenges of solid waste administration in Moscow. Public administration issues, (5), 149-170.

Agiamoh, R. (2021). Inter-Regional Cooperation in Waste Management: New Trends in Moscow and the Moscow Region, The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy Volume XIV Number 2 Winter 2021

Agiamoh, R. G., & Larionova, A. N. (2020) Impact of Waste Disposal Sites on Property Value in Moscow, Russia1. Journal of Urban Ethnography 71. Urbanities, Vol. 10 ■ No 2- November 2020

Agranoff, R. and McGuire, M., (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press.

Akinjare, O. A., Oloyede, S. A., Ayedun, C. A., & Ajibola, M. A. (2011). Predicting Residential Property Values Around Landfill Neighbourhoods in Lagos, Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 211-222.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/59f2/c92e6f8f351278e5885081962eb09649 ca7e.pdf

Akinjare, O. A., Oloyede, S. A., Ayedun, C. A., & Oloke, C. O. (2011). Price Effects of Landfills on Residential Housing in Lagos, Nigeria. International journal of marketing studies, 3(2), 64-72. DOI: http s://doi.org/10.5539/ij ms.v3n2p64

Aldag, A. M., Warner, M. E., & Bel, G. (2020). It Depends on What You Share: The Elusive Cost Savings from Service Sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 275-289.

AmCham (American Chamber of Commerce) in Russia. 2016. Law on Production and Consumption Waste Accessed 12 November 2019, <https://www.amcham.ru/uploads/AmCham%20Policy%20Paper%20Waste %20Management%202016-04-06%20eng.pdf>

AmCham in Russia. 2017. Waste Management Law Bulletin (Feb 2017). Accessed 13 November 2019,

<https://www.amcham.ru/uploads/AmCham%20Waste%20Management%2 0Law%20Bulletin%202017-02.pdf>

Andrievskaya A. (2014) What is national ecology project and how Russia will change by 2024 (In Russian). URL: https://recyclemag.ru/article/takoe-natsionalnii-proekt-ekologiya.

Andronova I. (2016). Eurasian Economic Union: Opportunities and Barriers to Regional and Global Leadership. International Organisations Research Journal, vol. 11, no 2, pp. 7-23 (in Russian and English). DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2016-02-07.

Anschütz, J., IJgosse, J., & Scheinberg, A. (2004). Putting integrated sustainable waste management into practice. Waste Netherland.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543571.

Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y., & Shechter, M. (1999). Issues in designing an effective solid waste policy: the Israeli experience. The market and the environment: the effectiveness of market based instruments for environmental reform. UK: Edward Elgar, 389-406.

Aoyagi, K., Nas, P.J.M. and Traphagan, J.W. (eds.) (1995). Toward Sustainable Cities. Readings in the Anthropology of Urban Environments. Leiden Development Studies, No. 15. Leiden: Department CA/SNWS.

Babu, B.R., Parande, A.K., Basha, C.A. (2007), Electrical and electronic waste: A global environmental problem. Waste Management and Research, 25(4), 307-318

Babun, R.V. (2013). Agglomeration as an object of government (the Case Study of Southern Kuznetsk Basin cities). Reg. Res. Russ. 3, 392-396. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970513040023

Bae, S. (2010). Public versus private delivery of municipal solid waste services: The case of North Carolina. Contemporary economic policy, 28(3), 414-428.

Beloff, B. R., Beaver, E. R., & Massin, H. (2000). Assessing societal costs associated with environmental impacts. Environmental Quality Management, 10(2), 67-82.

Barabashev, A., Klimenko, A. V. 2017. Russian Governance Changes and Performance. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. (2017) 2:22-39. DOI 10.1007/s41111-017-0057-z

Barabashev Alexey, Makarov Alexey & Makarov Ivan (2019). "On The Improvement of Indicative Quality Assessment of Public Administration," (In Russian) Public Administration Issues, Higher School of Economics, Issue 2, pages 7-38.

Barabashev, A., Straussman, J. D. (2007) Public Service Reform in Russia, 1991-2006. In Public Administration Review. 67 (3)

Bartl, A. 2014. Moving from recycling to waste prevention: A review of barriers and enables. Waste Management & Research, 32(9_suppl), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14541986

Baud, Isa; Stelios Grafakos; Michaela Hordijk and Johan Post. 2001. "Quality of Life and Alliances in Solid Waste Management: Contributions to Urban Sustainable Development", Cities, Vol.18, No 1.

Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. The Journal of Policy Reform, 9(1), 1-24.

Bel, G., & Mur, M. (2009). Intermunicipal cooperation, privatization and waste management costs: Evidence from rural municipalities. Waste Management, 29(10), 2772-2778.

Bel, G., Fageda, X., & Mur, M. (2013). Why do municipalities cooperate to provide local public services? An empirical analysis. Local Government Studies, 39(3), 435-454.

Bel, G. and Warner, M. E. (2015). Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Administration, 93 (1), pp. 52-67.

Blaeschke, F. (2014). What drives small municipalities to cooperate? Evidence from Hessian municipalities (No. 14-2014). Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics.

Bobylev S. N., Kudryavtseva O. V., Solovieva S. V., Sitkina K. S. (2015) Sustainability Indicators for Russian Regions: Collective monograph M.: INFRA-M, ISBN 978-5-16-011709-6

Bobylev, S. N., & Solovyeva, S. V. (2017). Sustainable development goals for the future of Russia. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 28(3), 259265.

Borzel T. A. and Risse T. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism. Oxford Handbooks, Oxford University Press.

Brown, T. L., Potoski, M., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2008). Changing modes of service delivery: How past choices structure future choices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1), 127-143.

Brumann, C., & Schulz, E. (Eds.). (2012). Urban spaces in Japan: cultural and social perspectives. Routledge.

Buchakova M. A (2010). Inter-regional Coordination in the Sphere of Environmental Protection (In Russian) (accessed 03.02.2020) https ://cyberleninka. ru

Cartee, C. P. (1989). A review of sanitary landfill impacts on property values. The Real Estate Appraiser and Analyst, 55(1), 43-46.

Cavé, J. (2014). Who owns urban waste? Appropriation conflicts in emerging countries. Waste Management & Research, 32(9), 813-821.

Cetrulo, N. M., Cetrulo, T. B., Dias, S. L. F. G., & Ramos, T. B. (2020). Solid waste indicators in local sustainability assessment: a literature review.

Ambiente & Sociedade, 23.

Cho, S. H., Roberts, R. K., & Kim, S. G. (2011). Negative externalities on property values resulting from water impairment: The case of the Pigeon River Watershed. Ecological Economics, 70(12), 2390-2399.

Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation. 2018. Report on the efficiency of processing Municipal Solid Waste and proposals for public opinion on waste processing facilities (In Russian)

<https://www.oprf.ru/ru/1449/2133/1459/2589/2590/newsitem/480077PHPS ESSID=oaeddl5ct8hq4gobj6v5jr0730>

Clark, C. W. (2013). Commons, Concept and Theory of. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition) 2013, Pages 149-154 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00026-5 ISBN 9780123847201

Cleary, J. (2009), Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: A comparative analysis of selected peer reviewed literature. Environment International, 35(8), 1256-1266

Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1996). The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods. Cambridge University Press.

Curran T. & Williams I. D. 2012. A zero waste vision for industrial networks in Europe. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Volumes 207-208, 2012, Pages 37, ISSN 0304-3894, <https://doi.org/10.1016/jjhazmat.2011.07.122.>

Dallhammer E.,Derszniak-Noirjean M., Gaugitsch R., Hans S.,Zillmer S.,Gaupp-Berghausen M., Koscher R. ,Luer C. (2019) The impacts of metropolitan regions on their surrounding areas.European Committee of the

Regions, Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU Budget, European Union. D01:10.2863/35077

De Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2013). Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management.

Del Giudice, V., De Paola, P., Manganelli, B., & Forte, F. (2017). The monetary valuation of environmental externalities through the analysis of real estate prices. Sustainability, 9(2), 229.

Di Porto, E., Merlin, V. R., & Paty, S. (2013). Cooperation among local governments to deliver public services: A'structural'bivariate response model with fixed effects and endogenous covariate. GATE Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Économique Lyon--St Étienne Working Paper No. WP, 1304.

Ditsevich, Ya.B. (2016). Legislation on production and consumption waste and the practice of prosecutorial supervision in this area. Issues of Russian and International Law, (4), 138-153.

Dumnov A.D., Pyrozhkova N.V., Kharitonova A.Y. 2016. Municipal solid waste statistics: trends, problems, objects. Voprosy statistiki. 2016;(6):28-51. (In Russian) <https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2016-0-6-28-51>

Edwards, J., Burn, S., Crossin, E., & Othman, M. (2018). Life cycle costing of municipal food waste management systems: The effect of environmental externalities and transfer costs using local government case studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 138, 118-129.

Eshet, T., Ayalon, O., & Shechter, M. (2006). Valuation of externalities of selected waste management alternatives: A comparative review and analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 46(4), 335-364.

Eurostat. (2018), Waste statistics. Available from: https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Waste_statistics#Waste_ treatment (accessed 07 November, 2021).

Eurostat (2020). Statistics on regional typologies in the EU, https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Statistics_on_regional_typologies_in_the_EU

Evans, M., Kholod, N., Kuklinski, T., Denysenko, A., Smith, S. J., Staniszewski, A., ... & Bond, T. C. (2017). Black carbon emissions in Russia: A critical review. Atmospheric environment, 163, 9-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.026.

Farber, S. (1998). Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics, 24(1), 1-14.

Fehr, M., De Castro, M.S.M., Cal?ado, M.D.R. (2000), A practical solution to the problem of household waste management in Brazil. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 30(3), 245-257.

Feiock, R. C. (2013). The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 397-425.

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.

Federal State Statistics Service - Rosstat, 2020 https://eng.rosstat.gov.ru/ (assessed 22 November, 2021)

Ferreira M. E. (2018) Inter-municipal cooperation within the solid waste management network in Cuenca-Azogues Emerging Metropolitan Region.

[Master's Thesis] International Institute of Urban Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Netherlands.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/79c1/2a051572b61e00275ecb2845b478a61 39fed.pdf7_ga=2.89417887.584950513.1584269865-1694479459.1571651541

Finexpertiza. 2019. Russians accumulate up to 337 million cubic meters of garbage per year. Article in Russian accessed 22 October 2019, <https://finexpertiza.ru/press-service/researches/2019/337-mln-kubometrov-musora/?YEAR=2019&ELEMENT_C0DE=337-mln-kubometrov-musora>

Gabriel, F.B., El-Halwagi, M.M. (2005), Simultaneous synthesis of waste interception and material reuse networks: Problem reformulation for global optimization. Environmental Progress, 24(2), 171-180.

Gaevaya, E., Tarasova, S., & Udartseva, O. (2019, November). Development of territorial scheme of municipal solid wastes treatment in Tyumen region. In

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 337, No. 1, p. 012026). IOP Publishing.

Girard, P., Mohr, R. D., Deller, S. C., & Halstead, J. M. (2009). Public-private partnerships and cooperative agreements in municipal service delivery. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(5), 370-392.

Gorlov, V.N. (2017). Satellite cities are an attempt to disperse the population of Soviet cities. Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. Series: History and Political Science, (2), 93-99.

Grigoriev, V.N., Chunyaeva, A.V., & Volkov, G.N. (2012). Typical projects of waste recycling plants (In Russian). Modernization and Scientific Researches in the Transport Complex, 4, 284-291.

Grislain-Letrémy, C., & Katossky, A. (2014). The impact of hazardous industrial facilities on housing prices: A comparison of parametric and semiparametric hedonic price models. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 49, 93-107.

Gulin K.A. (2016) The problem of waste in Russia and its territorial characteristics (In Russian) Problems of territory Development. № 4 (84). pp. 7-23. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n7problema-othodov-v-rossii-i-ee-territorialnye-osobennosti/viewer

Gunko, M., Bogacheva, P., Medvedev, A., & Kashnitsky, I. (2018). Path-dependent development of mass housing in Moscow, Russia. In Housing estates in Europe (pp. 289-311). Springer, Cham.

Helbling, T. (2010). Back To Basics: What Are Externalities? Finance & Development, 47(004).

Henry, Rotich K.; Zhao Yongsheng and Dong Jun. 2006. "Municipal Solid Waste Management Challenges in Developing Countries - Kenyan Case Study", Waste Management, vol. 26, n° 1, pp. 92-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.007

Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. 2012. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. World Bank, Washington, World Bank. <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388>

Hulst, J. R. (Rudie), & van Montfort, A. J. G. M. (André). (2012). Institutional features of inter-municipal cooperation: Cooperative arrangements and their national contexts. Public Policy and Administration, 27(2), 121-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076711403026

Hunsicker MD, Crockett TR and Labode BMA. 1996. An overview of the municipal waste incineration industry in Asia and the former Soviet Union.

Journal of Hazardous Materials 47: 31-42.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.

Jackson J., Hertzog R., Swianiewicz P. Davey K. and Balducci M. (2010) Intermunicipal cooperation -Toolkit Manual. Council of Europe, UNDP and LGI-Open Society. http://www.municipal-

cooperation.org/images/4/4c/IMC_Toolkit_Manual.pdf

Joseph Kurian. 2006. "Stakeholder Participation for Sustainable Solid Waste Management", Habitat International, Vol. 30, pp. 863-871.

Jung, C., & Jeong, S. H. (2013). Effects of service characteristics on interlocal cooperation in US cities: A pooled regression analysis. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(5), 367-380.

Kaza, Silpa; Yao, Lisa C.; Bhada-Tata, Perinaz; Van Woerden, Frank. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317> License: CC BY 3.0 IGO."

Kelly Janet M. and Swindell David. 2003. A Multiple-Indicator Approach to Municipal Service Evaluation: Correlating Performance Measurement and Citizen Satisfaction across Jurisdictions. Wiley Online Library: <https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00241>

Klunert, A., & Anschutz, J. 2001. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management: The Concept: Tools for Decision-makers, experiences from the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (1995-2001). WASTE, Gouda, Netherlands.

157

Krase, J. and DeSena, J. 2015. Brooklyn Revisited: An Illustrated View from the Street 1970 to the Present. Urbanities, 5 (2): 3-19.

Krase, J. (2020). Gentrification around the World, Volume I: Gentrifiers and the Displaced. Springer Nature.

Koester, U. (2014), Food loss and waste as an economic and policy problem. Intereconomics, 49(6), 348-354.

Kolsut B. (2018). National Associations of Municipalities in Europe - Different Models of Institutionalized Political Cooperation. Geography, Environment, Sustainability. 2018;11(4):39-55. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2018-

11-4-39-55

Korobova, N., Larionov, A., Michelsen, J. D., Pulyayev, M., Ivanovskyy, S., Turilova, K., & Kuznetsova, M. (2019). Waste in Russia: Garbage or Valuable Resource? (No. 89177, pp. 1-93). The World Bank.

Kovalenko Kseniya and Kovalenko Nataliya. 2018. The problem of waste in the Russian Federation MATEC Web of Conferences 193, 02030 (2018) DOI 10.1051/matecconf/201819302030

Koznov, D., Andreeva, O., Nikula, U., Maglyas, A., Muromtsev, D., & Radchenko, I. (2016). Open Government Data in Russian Federation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05164.

Koznov, D. V., Samochadin, A., Azarskov, A., & Chevzova, J. (2011). Towards e-Government Services in Russia. In KMIS (pp. 294-301).

Kudryavtseva O., Solodova M., Korenevskaya D., Kutubaeva R., Tishkova A., Shchevyeva L. (2018) Perspectives of the Solid Waste Management in Moscow. Scientific Research of Faculty of Economics. Electronic Journal. 2018;10(2):64-87. (In Russian)

Kulbachevski Anton. (2018). Problems with waste management in Moscow City. Presentation at the Department of Chemistry, Moscow State University 2018. <http://www.chem.msu.ru/rus/ecology_2018/kulbalchevskii.pdf>

Ladygin, V. (2011). Possibilities to create a municipal business-incubator using the mechanisms of inter-municipal cooperation. Public administration issues, (2), 25-38.

Lavee, D., & Bahar, S. (2017). Estimation of external effects from the quarrying sector using the hedonic pricing method. Land Use Policy, 69, 541-549.

Leksin, V.N., Porfiriev, B.N. (2018) The Russian Phenomenon of Megalopolis-Type Cities. Reg. Res. Russ. 8, 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970518020065

LeRoux, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). City managers, career incentives, and municipal service decisions: The effects of managerial progressive ambition on interlocal service delivery. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 627636.

Li, R. Y. M., & Li, H. C. Y. (2018). Have housing prices gone with the smelly wind? Big data analysis on landfill in Hong Kong. Sustainability, 10(2), 341.

Lyakisheva V. G and Shlegel A. A. (2017) The Role of Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the Social-Economic Development of the Territory. Journal of Economics, Profession and Business. 2017 No. 3. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rol-mezhmunitsipalnogo-sotrudnichestva-v-sotsialno-ekonomicheskom-razvitii-territorii

Maier-Knapp Naila (2019). Contemporary Inter-regional Dialogue and Cooperation between the EU and ASEAN on Non-traditional Security Challenges (Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series). Routledge.

Manaf, Latifah Abd; Mohd Armi Abu Samah and Nur Ilyana Mohd Zukki. 2009. "Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Practices and Challenges", Waste Management, Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 2902-2906. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.015

Martinez-Sanchez, V., Levis, J. W., Damgaard, A., DeCarolis, J. F., Barlaz, M. A., & Astrup, T. F. (2017). Evaluation of externality costs in life-cycle optimization of municipal solid waste management systems. Environmental science & technology, 51(6), 3119-3127.

Mazein, A. (2021). Impact of sustainable development goals on strategic planning in the Russian regions. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 258). EDP Sciences.

Mazraani K. (2018) Musor ne othody, a vtorichnoe syr'e. [Garbage is not waste, but recycled materials] // Ekologiya rechnyh landshaftov po materialam I mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj ekologicheskoj konferencii. S. 141-146.

Mazzalay, V. (2011). Subnational regionalisation in Argentina: The effects of subjective interdependence and the relationships between actors on intermunicipal cooperation. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 30(4), 453-472.

McBride, L. S., & McBride, R. A. (2017). A repeatable strategic planning model for quasi-governmental port entities. In Encyclopedia of strategic leadership and management (pp. 1245-1264). IGI Global.

MEN, Michael, 2020. Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation Bulletin No. 9. On Waste Reforms. Available online (In Russian) https://ach.gov.ru/upload/iblock/462/46234b3e3624fcccbb8bace5c892f2f4.p df#page=3

Milenkovic, M., Vaseashta, A., & Vasovic, D. (2021). Strategic Planning of Regional Sustainable Development Using Factor Analysis Method. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 30(2).

Mironova, O.V. (2015). On institutional methods and approaches in the Russian practice of inter-municipal cooperation. Bulletin of the Astrakhan State Technical University. Series: Economics, (2), 57-64.

Mohtadi, T. (2016). The complementarity of improving quality of life and reducing environmental footprints in urban spaces: The argument for 'hedonistic sustainability'. Consilience, (16), 14-28.

Mohr, R., Deller, S. C., & Halstead, J. M. (2010). Alternative methods of service delivery in small and rural municipalities. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 894-905.

Moscow Population (2019)

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22299/moscow/population' Moscow, Russia Population 1950-2019. www.macrotrends.net. Retrieved 2019-12-20.

Mukhlynina, M., & Vedysheva, N. (2020). Legal aspect of the implementation of the UN sustainable development goals in the field of environmental management in Russia. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 169, p. 05006). EDP Sciences.

Nelson, A. C., Genereux, J., & Genereux, M. (1992). Price effects of landfills on house values. Land economics, 359-365.

Olsson, A. R., & Cars, G. (2011). Polycentric spatial development: institutional challenges to intermunicipal cooperation. Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, 31(2), 155.

Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(1), 1-24.

Otgaar A., Berg L. Speller C. (2008). Empowering Metropolitan Regions

Through New Forms of Cooperation. Routledge.

Pardo, I., & Prato, G. B. (Eds.). (2018). Legitimacy: Ethnographic and Theoretical Insights. Springer.

Pardo, I. & Prato, G. B. (Eds) (2020). Urban Inequalities, Ethnographically Informed Reflections, Palgrave Macmillan DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-517243

Parker, B. J. (2003). Solid waste landfills and residential property values. White Paper, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington, DC, 6.

Parthan, S.R., Milke, M.W., Wilson, D.C., Cocks, J.H. (2012), Cost estimation for solid waste management in industrialising regions precedents, problems and prospects. Waste Management, 32(3), 584-594.

Pasang, Haskarlianus; Graham A. Moore and Guntur Sitorus. 2007. "Neighbourhood-Based Waste Management: A Solution for Solid Waste Problems in Jakarta, Indonesia", Waste Management, Vol. 27, No 12, pp. 1924-1938. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.010

Phillips, K. J. O., Longhurst, P. J., & Wagland, S. T. (2014). Assessing the perception and reality of arguments against thermal waste treatment plants in terms of property prices. Waste management, 34(1), 219-225.

Pierce N. 1993. Waste management challenges in Russia, Ukraine, and Estonia. Waste Age 24: 194-196.

Prato, G. B., & Pardo, I. (2013). Urban anthropology. Urbanities, 3(2), 80-110.

Pokrovskaya, K.D., 2017. Separate waste collection system in cities and workers' settlements of the USSR in 1948-1956. High School of Economics, p.232

Potemkina Victoria (2014) Thesis on the Disposal of Solid Waste in the

Municipal Territory of Moscow, Faculty of Public Administration, HSE,

National Research University

Porfiryev, B. N., & Bobylev, S. N. (2018). Cities and megalopolises: The problem of definitions and sustainable development indicators. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 29(2), 116-123.

Prato, I. P. G. B., & Rosbrook-Thompson, J. (2019). Ethnographies of Urbanity in Flux: Theoretical Reflections. Edited by Italo Pardo, Giuliana B. Prato and James Rosbrook-Thompson, 2.

Pugin, K.G., 2014. Requirements for modern management system of production waste. Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russian Federation, p.67

Pukhova, M.M. (2018). Features of modern state policy in the field of waste management in Russia (In Russian). Monitoring Science and Technology, (S5), 42-46. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37539699

Ready, R. (2010). Do landfills always depress nearby property values? Journal of Real Estate Research, 32(3), 321-339.

Report on administration of ecological fees, 2019. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation. Available online (In Russian) https://rpn.gov.ru/activity/environment-fee/

Report on the Implementation Plan of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation for 2016-2021, 2016. Available

online (In Russian)

https: //www. mnr. gov. ru/docs/2016_god/_godovoy_otchet_za_2016_g_po_pl anu_deya telnosti_minprirody_rossii_na_2016_2021_gody/

Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Comparing solid waste management in the world's cities. Key-note paper at ISWA World Congress 2010. Urban Development and Sustainability-a Major Challenge for Waste Management in the 21st Century, Hamburg, Germany, 15-18.

Rodic, L., Wilson, D.C. (2017), Resolving governance issues to achieve priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(3), 404.

Rogoza Jadwiga (2018). A stinking business. Environmental issues, protests and big money in the waste business in Russia. Published by: Osrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia https://www.ceeol.com/search/gray-literature-detail?id=720092

Russian Federation. 1998. Federal Law of June 24, 1998 N 89-FZ "On Production and Consumption Wastes" (in Russian)

Russian Federation. 2014. Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia dated 04.12.2014 N 536 "On approval of the Criteria for classifying wastes as I-V hazard classes by the degree of negative impact on the environment" (in Russian)

Russian Federation. 2016. The rules for the treatment of solid municipal waste, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 11.11.2016, N 1156 (in Russian)

Russian Federation. 2018. Federal Waste Classification Catalogue, Order of Rosprirodnadzor of May 22, 2017 No. 242 (as amended on November 2, 2018 No. 451) (in Russian) <http://kod-fkko.ru/>

164

Sabyna E. N. (2016). Inter-municipal Cooperation: Reality and Opportunities (In Russian). Molodoy uchonyy (Young scientist) Journal. No. 24. - S. 233236. https: //moluch.ru/archive/128/35596/

Safonov, G., Bobylev, S., Perelet, R., Davydova, A., Kokorin A., et al. (2013). Sustainable Development in Russia. St. Petersburg, Berlin: German-Russian Exchange Berlin and Russian-German Environmental Information Bureau.

Sato, Y. (2017). Mottainai: a Japanese sense of anima mundi. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62(1), 147-154.

Scheinberg, Anne; Justine Anschütz and Jeroen Ijgosse. 2004. Putting Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Into Practice. Netherlands: WASTE.

<https ://www. eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain 1/Abteilungen/sandec/schwerpunk te/sesp/CLUES/Toolbox/t12/D12_1_Anschuetz_et_al_2004.pdf>

Schübeler, P., Christen, J., & Wehrle, K. (1996). Conceptual framework for municipal solid waste management in low-income countries (Vol. 9). St. Gallen: SKAT (Swiss Center for Development Cooperation).

Shishlo, N.S. (2015). Foreign experience in the development of satellite cities on the example of Great Britain and the Russian Federation (Doctoral dissertation, Encyclopedics).

Shmelev S. E. 2019. Sustainable Cities Re-imagined: Multidimensional Assessment and Smart Solutions. Routledge.

Shrestha, M. K., & Feiock, R. C. (2011). Transaction cost, exchange embeddedness, and interlocal cooperation in local public goods supply. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 573-587.

Shugrina E.S. (2016) Trends in the development of local self-government: key events 2015-2016. And their influence on the state of local self-government: A report on the state of local self-government in the Russian Federation: Current Challenges and Development Prospects, Ed. E. S. Shugrinoy. Moscow, Publishing house "Prospekt", 4-14.

Sim, N.M., Wilson, D.C., Velis, C.A. & Smith, S.R. 2013. Waste management and recycling in the former Soviet Union - Case study of Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan). Waste Management and Research, 31 (10 Supplement), 106-125

Sirola, N., Sutinen, U. M., Narvanen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Mattila, M. (2019). Mottainai! —A Practice Theoretical Analysis of Japanese Consumers' Food Waste Reduction. Sustainability, 11(23), 6645.

Skryhan H., Shilova I.,Khandogina O., Abashyna K and Chernikova O. 2018. 'Waste Management in Post-Soviet Countries: How far from the EU' DETRITUS Multidisciplinary Journal for Waste Resources & Residues,Volume 03 - 2018, pp 193-203. DOI 10.31025/26114135/2018.13657

Sokolova, N., 2020. Waste history. Electronic journal Lenta. Available online (In Russian)

https://lenta. ru/articles/2020/08/07/musor/?utm_referrer=mirtesen. ru

Solunin, M., 2020. Number of illegal landfills in Russia. Electronic Journal RBK. Available online (In Russian)

https://www.rbc.ru/business/20/05/2020/5ec38e8f9a7947efc4d67001

Song Weiqing (2007). Regionalisation, inter-regional cooperation and global governance. Asia Europe Journal 5(1):67-82. DOI 10.1007/s10308-006-0094-y

Soukupová, J., & Vaceková, G. (2015). Competition and municipal waste management expenditure: Evidence from the Czech Republic Olomouc Region. Scientific papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics and Administration. 35/2015.

Soukopová, J., & Vaceková, G. (2018). Internal factors of intermunicipal cooperation: What matters most and why? Local Government Studies, 44(1), 105-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1395739

State Report "On the Status and on the environmental protection of the Russian Federation in 2017"// Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation. URL: https://gosdoklad-ecology.ru/2017/obrashchenie-s-otkhodami-proizvodstva-i-potrebleniya/otkhody-proizvodstva-i-potrebleniya/ A.R. (2017) Musor kak produkt kul'tury: ot utilizacii k estetizacii [Garbage as a product of culture: from recycling to aesthetics] // Gorizonty gumanitarnogo znaniya. № 3. S. 99-104.

Sundell, A., Gilljam, M., & Lapuente, V. (2009). Patterns of Local Public Administration Reform: Perceived Effects and Determinants of Contracting and Intermunicipal Cooperation among Local Governments in Sweden. In APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper.

Suspitsyn, S. A. (2020). Regulatory Mechanisms of Russian Regional Development. Regional Research of Russia, 10(2), 172-181.

Tavares, A. F., & Feiock, R. C. (2018). Applying an institutional collective action framework to investigate intermunicipal cooperation in Europe. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(4), 299-316.

Teixeira, C.A. (2009). Municipal Solid Waste Performance Indicators.

Tikhomirova, L.A. (2008). Legislation of the Russian Federation on environmental protection: implementation problems.

167

The Mayor of Moscow Official Website. 2019. Report on the Territorial Scheme for Waste Management in Moscow, accessed 23 December 2019, <https://www. mos.ru/upload/documents/files/1934/1_Proektdokymenta.pdf>

The Moscow Region Territorial MSWM Scheme (2016), Moscow Region. In Russian Available Online (Assessed 14 May 2021) https://zinref.ru/000_uchebniki/04600_raznie_7/772_shema_musora_moskv a_2016/004.htm

The World Bank. 2019. Country Data (Korea, Russia and USA), accessed 21 October 2019, <https://data.worldbank.org/country>

Topic, M., & Biedermann, H. 2015. Planning of Integrated/Sustainable Solid Waste Management (ISWM) - Model of Integrated Solid Waste Management In Republika Srpska/B&H. Serbian Journal of Management. DOI: 10.5937/sjm10-7360

Torsello, D. (2012). The New Environmentalism? Civil Society and Corruption in the Enlarged EU. Farnham: Ashgate

Troschinetz, Alexis M. et James R. Mihelcic. 2009. "Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries", Waste Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 915-923. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.016

Tuktarov, Yu.E., & Dubinchina, S.V. (2015). Environmental projects: the impact of changes in legislation on waste management on the development of concession agreements. Law, (3), 39-49.

UN-Habitat. 2010. Solid waste management in the world's cities - Water and sanitation in the world's cities 2010, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Earthscan Ltd, London, UK; Earthscan LLC,Washington, DC, USA

UNIDO Centre for International Industrial Cooperation in the Russian Federation. 2017. Project Overview: BAT/BEP Center For Environmentally Safe Disposal Of Potentially Hazardous Consumer Products And Industrial Wastes. Accessed 13 November 2019.

<http: //www. unido. ru/upload/files/b/bat_bep_proj ect_overview_broshure_en g.pdf>

Unified Plan of the Russian Federation (2020) In Russian https://economy.gov.ru/material/dokumenty/edinyy_plan_po_dostizheniyu_n acionalnyh_celey_razvitiya_rossiyskoy_federacii_na_period_do_2024_goda _i_na_planovyy_period_do_2030_goda.html (Assessed 22 November, 2021)

Van de Klundert, A., Anschutz, J., & Scheinberg, A. (2001). Integrated sustainable waste management-the concept. Tools for decision-makers. Experiences from the urban waste expertise programme (1995-2001).

Vershinina I.A. and Martynenko T.S. (2019) Problems of Waste Recovery and Socio-Ecological Inequality. Ecology and Industry of Russia, Vol. 23. Issue 5. pp 52-55

Vershinina I., Kurbanov A., Liadova A. (2018) Industrial Zones in Modern Cities: a Source of Socio-Ecological Inequality or an Opportunity for Prosperity? Ecology and Industry of Russia. 2018;22(8):65-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18412/1816-0395-2018-8-65-71

Vertakova, Y., Plotnikov, V. (2017), Problems of sustainable development worldwide and public policies for green economy. Economic Annals XXI, 166(78), 4-10.

Votyakova, Olga. 2018. The organization of the unified system of waste management construction. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/365/6/062023

169

Warner, M. and Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 20 (2), pp. 315-336.

Weber, Max, 1864-1920. (1947). Max Weber, the theory of social and economic organization. New York. London. Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

Wilson, D. C., Rodic-Wiersma, L., Cowing, M.J., Whiteman, A.D., Stretz, J., & Scheinberg, A. 2013. Benchmark indicators for Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM).

Wilson, D. C, Rodic, L, Cowing, MJ et al. (7 more authors). 2015. 'Wasteaware' Benchmark Indicators for Integrated Sustainable Waste Management in Cities. Waste Management, 35. 329 - 342. ISSN 0956-053X https: //doi. org/10.1016/j. wasman.2014.10.006

Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C. A., & Alabaster, G. (2012). Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste management & research, 30(3), 237-254.

Won-Seok Y., Jun-Kyung P., Se-Won P., Yong-Chil S. 2015. "Past, present and future of waste management in Korea". Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 17 (2): 207-217. DOI:10.1007/s10163-014-0301-7. ISSN 1611-8227.

World Population Review 2020, (Moscow, San Francisco and Seoul) accessed 12 January 2020 <http://worldpopulationreview.com/>

Yablokov Alexey (2010) Environment and Politics in Russia. Russian Analytical Digest, May 27, 2010, No. 79. http://eng.yabloko.ru/Press/2010/10282010-yablokov-ecology.html

Zaman Atiq Uz. 2014. Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero waste management systems. Ecological Indicators, Volume 36, 2014. Pages 682-693, ISSN 1470-160X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.024.

Zaman A., Ahsan T. 2019. Zero-Waste: Reconsidering Waste Management for the Future. Routledge Studies in Waste Management and Policy. Routledge, 2019

Zullo, R. (2009). Does fiscal stress induce privatization? Correlates of private and intermunicipal contracting, 1992-2002. Governance, 22(3), 459-481.