Abstract
In ‘Notting Hill’, a movie from 1999, there is a central and famous scene where Anna (lovely film star) stands in front of William (book store owner) saying: ‘I’m also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her’. I enjoyed this charming ‘feel good’ movie for the first time in 2000. Today it strikes me that the situation is somehow similar to this enticing situation – as at least I experienced it – when around 1980, Waste Practice International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) was asked to love Science. As a matter of fact, ISWA did propose to SCIENCE by launching Waste Management & Research (WM&R) in March 1983. Thus, at least the engagement was evident, and the consequence was the birth of WM&R. But, to get the picture right regarding the appearance of WM&R, we need to go back to the early 1970s.
In 1970, I returned to my Alma Mater, The Technical University of Denmark, and started as assistant professor in the ‘Sanitary Engineering’ department. Water supply and wastewater treatment were then the main issues, while solid waste management was a non-issue. However, something had to be done with the solids from wastewater treatment (sludge), and this challenge was taken up by a Nordic (members from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark) Task Force consisting of two working groups, one for sludges and one for solid wastes. In 1974, the task force published its first draft results in the ‘NORDFORSK Publikation 1974:4’ (in Danish). It then presented a new common Nordic conceptual approach and terminology for waste management and research. In short, it says that a society exists and develops only by drawing on resources from the environment and that waste and wasting are inherent to life and activity in the society. However, by carefully mapping and considering flows and life cycles of elements, materials and products, it is possible through for example direct and indirect recycling to minimize impact on health and environment; and limit what ultimately has to be returned/discharged to the environment as useless and maybe dangerous materials. Zero ultimate discharge was – and is – a non-issue.
Sewage sludge is only one type of solid waste, but as such it guided us to an approach that was unique and useful in general: Trace the polluting agents and intervene where action is more effective and affordable. Classical epidemiology studies from the medical world were very helpful when designing new strategies for waste management and waste research. Famous examples were the John Snow studies in London around 1854 on the origin of cholera bacteria in drinking water; and the studies around 1970 on the impact of human intake (by air, water or food) of heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, lead and mercury). The medical prophylaxis mantra ‘better to prevent than cure disease’ was taken as an overarching guideline for solid waste education and research. Much inspiration was also found in articles in ‘Scientific American’ in 1972 on life cycles of, for example, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Student and faculty projects were designed in that spirit, and element and material flow analyses carried out in order to find alternatives to ‘end of pipe treatment technologies’ for both waste water and solid waste flows from modern societies. In this happy mood of believing in new paradigms for solid waste management, it was all about bridging and partnering and exploring opportunities.
So, when in 1979 ISWA decided to reinforce its Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), we were four guys in our late 30s, who were ready: John Skinner (United States), Werner Schenkel (Germany), Lucca Bonomo (Italy) and Jens Aage Hansen (Denmark). The STC, an advisory body to the Governing Board, was thus reinforced by two experienced administrators (Skinner and Schenkel) and two academics. I trust that we shared a vision for ISWA to better bridge between practice, science and administration; and we argued that professional working groups and an international journal should be first and adequate means to get on the right track. These suggestions were well taken, and the journal ‘Waste Management & Research’ (WM&R) appeared first time in print from Academic Press in London in March 1983.
For the period 1970 – now, I would like to pay homage to a few people who have had particular impact. In the specific WM&R context, David Wilson (United Kingdom) and Paul H. Brunner (Switzerland) were very good discussion partners when in 1980–1982 WM&R was conceptualized. At the same time, Robert B. Dean (United States) and Thomas H. Christensen (Denmark) agreed to become the first editors of WM&R. Thomas Christensen was already in solid waste at the Technical University of Denmark. Robert Dean came from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) where he had been in charge of advanced waste water treatment, but for private reasons he had recently moved to Copenhagen. For over a decade, the waste water sector (The International Water Research Association, IAWPR, now IWA) had already had its own prestigious journal with Samuel H. Jenkins as Editor in Chief (EIC). Robert B. Dean now bravely accepted the challenge of being EIC for a new and real journal in the field of Solid Wastes.
In a wider context, that is, considering the period 1970 – now, several individuals have contributed to significant steps forward within waste management and research. To mention a few: In the 1970s, tracer studies on heavy metals became more successful, in particular due to the chemical expertise of and the international ring analysis network set up by Jens Christian Tjell at the Technical University of Denmark. New quality standards were set for accuracy in the ppb range of chemical analyses, and environmental impact studies were improved accordingly. David C. Wilson published his comprehensive, system-oriented textbook ‘Waste Management’ with Oxford University Press in 1981, and he has published significantly in WM&R throughout. Paul H. Brunner took up the challenge presented above on material flow analyses and published together with Helmut Rechberger (A) a much more comprehensive account of principles and methodologies in the textbook ‘Handbook of Material Flow Analysis: For Environmental, Resource and Waste Engineers’ (published first in 2004, second edition 2016 by CRC Press). This work was preceded by the book ‘Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. Analysis, Evaluation, Design’ by Peter Baccini (CH) and Paul H. Brunner (published firstly in 1991and secondly in 2012 by MIT Press). Thomas H. Christensen (Editor) published an impressive two-volume textbook ‘Solid Waste Technology and Management’ with Wiley in 2011 and he too has been a very productive author with WM&R all through its existence.
WM&R now has a subtitle: The Journal for Sustainable Circular Economy. This new paradigm commits to health, environment, resources, climate and economy in a context that involves natural science, technology, social science and humanities. It represents a very significant step forward compared to the ambitions held by the founding fathers when in 1983 WM&R was conceptualized. Honestly, the then proposed linkage of practice and science was limiting science to being a good combination of natural science and technology. Over the past 40 years, we have learned that in waste management, in both the global North and the global South, successful endeavours and progress depend on combining practice and science and including not only natural science and technology but also in-depth understanding and mastering of social infrastructures and human relations. On this background, it seems prudent for WM&R in its move forward and solicit articles that include topics such as:
Social infrastructures and how they relate to the overarching goals (environment, health, resources, climate and economy) in a local or regional context. Such analyses and suggestion of solutions to Waste Management (WM) problems are particularly relevant in the developing world, where too often import technologies and solutions fail to serve the purpose of good waste management and service to society. Projects based initiatives by affected citizens, NGO’s and local organizations (public or private) may serve the goals better. A strong comment to this effect comes with the movie ‘Triangle of Sadness’ (2022 Palme d’Or winner), showing Armageddon when existing social structures are challenged or even reversed.
Agents of change: Universities as development hubs. This topic is also the title of an article on capacity building for sustainable development. It was a targeted activity for many universities during the two decades just before and after the turn of the millennium, see Hansen, J. A. & Lehmann, M., Journal of Cleaner Production
The new and ambitious title of WM&R suggests a look back to the happy days when launching the journal. The happy take then was that managers, administrators and university individuals agreed to the need of a new journal and a number of international working groups to advance waste management worldwide. I am sure that this present volume 41 of WM&R will provide significant ‘Food for Thought’ on vital topics regarding waste management in a past–present–future perspective. WM&R editors, ISWA officers and ISWA working groups can jointly activate researchers and managers to publish more on such updated list of relevant topics. And ISWA as such should try hard to enact real-life projects – maybe using the ‘development hub’ concept – through targeted and diligent partnering with organizations and institutions who finance projects in developing countries.
