The Role of Eco-Industrial Parks in Promoting Circular Economy in Russia: A Life Cycle Approach

Abstract

As an approach to move towards a sustainable waste management system, circular economy (CE) is gaining an increased interest by most countries. Russia is among the countries where the CE is one of the priorities of the country’s economy, with a market value of the CE is USD$ 755.05 billion. However, such a strategy is facing challenges and barriers which are country specific. This study aimed to review the status of the CE in Russia and to identify the obstacles that are hindering the country from achieving its objectives. Moreover, the study aimed to evaluate the role of eco-industrial parks (EIP) in Russia in promoting the CE model. The study findings indicate that the CE adoption in Russia is still in its early stages. To create an enabling environment for CE promotion in Russia, there is a need to overcome several institutional, technical, and social barriers. Russian higher educational institutions are playing a major role to create the critical mass of experts that will help the country transition towards a CE model. Using life cycle assessment (LCA) to analyze the environmental performance of one of the EIPs in Russia revealed that such enterprises are more sustainable than the business-as-usual scenarios, under which the generated solid waste is buried into landfill. The comparison shows that by diverting 1.813 million tons of mixed municipal solid waste that is generated in Moscow to EIP would lead to a reduction in environmental impacts. The total global warming potential of the EIP scenario is less, by 59%, than the direct landfilling scenario, while the eutrophication, acidification, smog, and ozone depletion are less, and fossil fuel depletion impacts under the second scenario are less, by 81%, 26%, 18%, and 81%, respectively. Furthermore, the health impacts including carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic, eco-toxicity were found to be 92%, 96%, and 96%, respectively, less than the baseline scenario.

1. Introduction

Since it contributes in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs), circular economy (CE) is becoming a popular concept that is being promoted by many countries and businesses around the world [1,2,3]. Circular economy aims to move from a linear economy model, to a more sustainable one in which products, materials, and resources are kept in the system for as long as possible and in which the generation of waste is minimized [4].

In Russia, the promotion of the circular economy is one of the priorities for the Russian economy. The estimated market value of the circular economy in the country is about USD$ 755.05 billion [5]. However, the CE model is still under development [6,7] and studies that deal with CE in Russia are still few [8,9]. Hence, the influence of circular practices on the formation of market requires further research [10]. Recent developments and changes in the waste management framework of the Russian Federation have considered that waste as a resource [11,12]. This has paved the way towards introducing the CE model into the country’s economy. Implementation of the concept of circular economy in Russia will not only reduce environmental contamination, but also will lead to acceleration in economic growth and to the creation of new jobs.

EIPs are gaining interest as an approach towards the promotion of CE [13,14,15,16], where such projects are building symbiotic relationships between various industries that reside in park areas to achieve waste reuse and recycling and pollution reduction [17]. In many countries, EIPs are emerging, where materials and resources are shared to optimize both economic and environmental performance [18]. For example, in Korea, EIPs have become a central element of Korean industrial innovation strategy to assist in the transition to CE [19].

Considering the fact that the real world-application of CE in EIP is still far from perfect [20] and the scarcity in the research that deals with the measurement and assessment of the circular economy within the eco-industrial parks, there is a pressing need for an evaluation system and approach to test the circular economy potential of such projects [13]. Furthermore, performance measurements of eco-industrial parks are difficult to obtain as the material and energy flows within these facilities are complex; they are available in different forms and measured by different units [21]. One of the issues that needs clarification at the level of industrial symbiosis clusters is the relationship between industrial ecology and circular economy concepts, which indicates the need to address such a gap in knowledge by conducting further research [22]. In addition, the available studies lack characterization of the EIPs’ organizational models and analysis of how these models are affecting EIPs’ sustainability [23]. Therefore, the issue of EIPs is becoming a research topic in the field of recycling economy [24].

Wenbo (2011) [13] used analytic network process (ANP) to evaluate the circular economy performance of five eco-industrial parks in China. The study found that the ANP method can be effectively applied to circular economy performance evaluation and consequently used in decision making. One of the limitations of such an approach is that the quantified indicator values are largely dependent on the experts’ opinion.

Tian et al. (2014) [25] studied the performance of EIPs in China. A group of ten metrics, including resource consumption, economic development, and waste emissions, were applied in the performance assessment process. The researchers found that absolute energy consumption, fresh water consumption, industrial wastewater generation, and solid waste production in 17 eco-industrial parks had been increased, while the average intensity of the emissions (tons of pollutant per million yuan invested) of the four metrics had been decreased. In addition to economic gain, Wang et al. (2019) [26] assessed the potential environmental impacts of an energy intensive EIP by adopting life cycle assessment (LCA). The results showed that LCA is an effective tool in evaluating environmental impacts. The study found that effective environmental impact reduction could be attained in terms of primary energy, greenhouse emissions, acidification, eutrophication, particulate matter emissions, and human toxicity.

One important issue of EIPs is to measure the environmental sustainability of their operations. An optimal EIP is one which minimizes negative impacts and maximizes positives ones. However, the question is how to measure such sustainability aspects in terms of social, environmental, and economic aspects [27]. Many studies recommended the use of quantitative environmental sustainability indicators. For example, Azapagic and Perdan (2000) [28] used ozone depletion as an environmental indicator, and income distribution as a social indicator, while the value added was used as an economic indicator.

Tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) have proven to be effective means in assessing the eco-efficiency of industrial parks [28]. Belaud et al. (2019) [29] provided a toolbox for developing an EIP in France by integrating the circular economy concept with life cycle thinking. Zhao et al. (2016) [24] used a multi-criteria decision making approach to develop a framework for assessing the performance of EIP from the perspective of circular economy. By applying the developed model to six EIPs in China, it was found to be an effective tool of assessment.

Recently, several studies used SimaPro software to conduct LCA analysis for assessing the environmental sustainability of various solid waste management options [30,31,32,33,34]. Out of 96 reviewed studies that used LCA in municipal solid waste management, 44 (46%) studies used the SimaPro model [35]. The most commonly used FU in the LCA of MSWM is 1 MT of waste, 88 out of total studies used it as an FU. [35]. However, few LCA studies were conducted in Russia to assess the environmental impacts of solid waste management. For example, Tulokhonova and Ulanova (2013) [36] assessed the environmental impacts of four solid waste management scenarios in Irkutsk using the integrated solid waste management Model. Another study used LCA to assess the environmental impacts of landfills in the Irkutsk region [37]. Kaazke et al. 2013 [38] conducted an LCA study to assess the environmental impacts of solid waste management practices in Khanty-Mansiysk and Surgut as compared to other alternatives. The researchers used the LCA-IWM model to compare various alternatives of solid waste management. Recently, Vinitskaia et al. (2021) [39] used LCA to evaluate the existing and the proposed municipal solid waste management system in Moscow. The study evaluated six scenarios of waste management and found that the largest emissions reduction potential was associated with the refuse derived fuel (RDF) option.

Eco-Industrial Parks in Russia

EIPs will become the basis for Russia’s promotion of circular economy [40]. Dorokhina (2018) [12] explored the possibility of adopting the Chinese experience in establishing the EIP in the Russian Federation. According to the Strategy for the Development of Industry for the Processing, Utilization, and Disposal of Industrial and Municipal Waste of the RF until 2030, an eco-industrial park (in Russian eco-techno park) is a united and interdependent complex of industries that utilize materials and energy flow in the process of waste treatment and utilization to manufacture new products, where scientific research and/or educational activities are integral parts of such complexes [15,41]. Thus, from the legislative point of view, an eco-industrial park is an industrial cluster that includes sorting, recycling, and disposal activities of waste within one site [12,42].

In nine regions of the Russian Federation, thermal schemes and regional programs for waste management (including MSW) have been approved. Such programs provide the possibility of the creation of eco-industrial parks. However, none of the regional programs gave a detailed definition and description of the eco-industrial parks; they only denote them as facilities for complex waste processing [41]. As such, this raises many questions on the role of EIP in promoting a CE model in the country.

One major goal of the Russian solid waste strategy is that by the year 2030, about 80% of generated solid waste will be diverted from landfills to recycling facilities as compared with the current level of 10%. The construction and operation of eco-industrial parks in Russia will help in achieving that goal [42]. Therefore, it is planned by the year 2030 to build and operate 70 eco-industrial parks [15]. Figure 1 shows the locations of operating, under construction, and planned EIPs in the Russian Federation.

Currently, eco-industrial parks are in operation in the Perm, Kurgan, Volgograd, Astrakhan, and Rostov regions, while another ten regional eco-industrial parks with a total capacity of more than 2 million tons per year are at various stages of operation, construction, and design in the Southern Federal District [43].

The main objective of this study was to review the status of the transition from a linear to circular economy in Russia and to identify the challenges that are facing such a transition. Furthermore, the potential role of EIPs in promoting the CE concept in Russia was analyzed by assessing the environmental impacts of a model EIP as a case study using life cycle assessment (LCA).

2. Materials and Methods

To achieve the objectives of the study, an extensive literature review on the status of CE both worldwide and in Russia was conducted. To understand the latest progress achieved in moving from a linear to a circular economy, searches within different databases, such as Scopus and web of science, and search engines, such as Google scholar, were carried out. The searches were based on two criteria, namely high impact journals and the relevant key words. As a result, scientific articles, reports, and documents were collected, reviewed, and analyzed. A critical analysis of the CE and the role of EIP in promoting such a model in Russia was carried out. Data on the EIP case study was collected. Information on the amounts and composition of solid waste in Russia was obtained.

2.1. Study Area: Case Study Eco-Industrial Park

For the purpose of this study, one of the EIPs in Russia was selected and its operations subjected to LCA analysis. It is one of the first EIPs in Russia for the sorting, processing, and disposal of municipal solid waste. The total area of the EIP is 1600 hectares. The annual capacity of the EIP is 1.813 million tons of mixed municipal solid waste that is generated in Moscow (the Moscow region generates a total annual amount of 11 million tons). The EIP has two sorting plants that recover recyclables from the mixed solid waste stream. Each plant has an annual capacity of 500,000 tons. The components recovered include ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass, paper, plastic, and electronic scrap. After sorting, food waste is directed to composting. The residual material, after sorting, is directed to a nearby sanitary landfill, where the produced compost at the EIP territory is applied as a cover on the top of the landfilled waste.

2.2. Life Cycle Assessment

To assess the ecological performance of the case study eco-industrial park, the LCA method is used in compliance with ISO 14040 standard. LCA is defined as a tool to assess the environmental benefits and burdens associated with waste management systems during its life cycle [44]. LCA analysis consists of four interrelated steps as follows:

2.2.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The goal and scope definition step includes the identification of the functional unit as well as the system boundaries. The primary goal of the study was to evaluate the role of the eco industrial parks in Russia in promoting the circular economy concept using a case study EIP. Environmental performance of the EIP was analyzed based on LCA using Simapro 9 Software version [45]. The functional unit (FU) used in the study was 1.813 million tons of municipal solid waste, where all the emissions and impacts were calculated based on this unit. To describe the environmental flows of the system, system boundary was determined. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the system boundary used in the study which indicates the inputs and outputs of the system. As can be seen, the boundaries of the system were limited to landfill and EIP processes. The collection and transportation activities of the solid waste were excluded from the LCA analysis.

2.2.2. Scenarios

In order to achieve the study objectives, it is important to identify the solid waste management scenarios. The study covers two scenarios, namely direct landfilling of solid waste, which is the main practice that is currently applied in Moscow (business as usual) as shown in Figure 2. Under this scenario, it is assumed that the whole amount of the solid waste (1.83 million tons) is diverted to the landfill. On the other hand, the second scenario is based on the fact that 1.813 million tons per year of municipal solid waste will be diverted from the landfill to the EIP, where it will be subjected to sorting and material and energy recovery. The recyclable items include metals, paper, and plastic. The organic fraction of the waste will be subjected to composting, while the energy recovery happens through incineration and briquettes-making from wood waste (Figure 3). The residual materials, after sorting the mixed solid waste, will be disposed of in a landfill.

2.2.3. Life Cycle Inventory

Life cycle inventory analysis identifies the list of materials as well as energy input and output. The data on the input and output were obtained from the documents published on the web about the EIP. This includes the annual amount of solid waste received on the facility from Moscow, the energy and water needed to run the facility, and the amounts of waste directed to recycling, energy recovery, and composting. Furthermore, the data on the recovered product types and amounts were collected. Table 1 shows the inputs and outputs from the EIP, while the composition of the solid waste generated in Moscow is shown in Figure 4. The compiled data from the LC inventory were introduced into SimaPro software version 9 [45]. Since the data on the waste quantities are available, and the waste treatment processes and recovery are well established, the cut-off approach was used in determining the level of environmental impacts [46]. The cut-off level used in the assessment was 1%. The main characteristics and assumptions for the LCA of the EIP processes are presented in Table 2.

2.2.4. Impact Assessment

In the LCA impact assessment phase, the impact categories are identified, and their magnitude is assessed. In this study, impacts were modeled by the widely used midpoint model for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts, TRACI 2.1, which has been expanded and developed for sustainability metrics and expresses impacts in terms of discrete environmental effects [48]. This method covers the following impacts categories followed by their units for each:

• Global warming (kg CO₂ eq);

• Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 eq);

• Smog formation (kg O₃ eq);

• Respiratory effects (kg PM2.5 eq);

• Acidification (kg SO₂ eq);

• Eutrophication (kg N eq);

• Toxic carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic substances (CTUh);

• Fossil fuel depletion (MJ surplus);

• Ecotoxicity (CTUe).

2.2.5. Interpretation

The interpretation stage includes presentation and analysis of the results. The highest impacts based on two scenarios are presented. To check the reliability and robustness of the results, sensitivity analysis was carried out. This was performed by investigating how the variation in the inputs values will affect the outputs. In this study, the impact of variation in the sorted solid waste quantity on the values of the emissions was assessed.

Figure 5 shows a flow diagram of the methodology followed in conducting the LCA analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Circular Economy in Russia

In Russia, the concept of circular economy is not mature enough, as is the case in many EU countries. The enabling drivers are not yet developed enough to move the country toward a more sustainable and efficient consumption and production system. The barriers and challenges that the adoption of CE in Russia faces come under three main categories as follows:

3.1.1. Administrative and Regulatory Barriers

Among the barriers that the adoption of a CE model in Russia faces are the absence of institutional support with appropriate structure and lack of public awareness and decision makers’ knowledge [7,49,50]. Therefore, decision makers need to better understand the CE principles in order to develop an appropriate supportive framework.

Bogoviz et al. (2021) [51] proposed an organizational administrative model for a CE in Russia. According to the model, a structural hierarchy has been proposed with higher levels of decentralization and dependence, in which the state role is limited to issuance of regulations and standards, monitoring of compliance, and finance. One core principle of the CE is the efficient use of resources by the industry. According to a survey conducted by Ratner et al. 2021 [49], Russian firms are suffering from the complexity of administrative and regulatory procedures to increase resource efficiency, where the rules and regulations are outdated, which is leading to high cost of projects to adopt resource efficiency. As a result, the use of renewable energy by the Russian industrial firms is very limited. Only 3.8% of the companies covered by the survey conducted by Ratner et al., 2022 [49], are using renewable energy. According to Liubarskaia and Putinceva (2021) [52], Russia is lacking well developed legislation for secondary resources circulation. This suggests the urgent need for radical changes in the regulatory frameworks to create enabling conditions for the industry to improve their resource efficiency.

3.1.2. Knowledge and Awareness Barriers

One of the prerequisites to institutionalize sustainable solid waste management approaches based on the principles of circular economy is the availability of qualified and trained human resources. Educational institutions including universities are agents of change for sustainability [53], and play a vital role in overcoming the issues of lack of awareness, consumers’ behavior, and knowledge in the field of CE [54,55]. In Russia, higher educational institutions can help in building capacity by preparing qualified human resources, in order to create a critical mass of experts that will enable the smooth transition of Russia towards a CE model. To achieve this objective, Russian institutions gradually started incorporating circular economy aspects into their curriculum (for example, RUDN University, Irkutsk National Research Technical University, Perm National Research Polytechnic University). In order to join the fragmented efforts, in 2021 the Russian environmental operator (REO), in collaboration with 15 Russian universities and leading companies specializing in solid waste management, formed a consortium for capacity building by training personnel in the field of CE. Moreover, within the framework of the working group on extended producer responsibility (EPR) representatives of leading higher education institutions, such as RUDN University and RANEPA, are actively involved in promoting the circular economy in training programs.

International agencies, such as the German International Association for Development (GIZ), also play a crucial role in the capacity building efforts. Within the framework of a project titled “Climate-Neutral Waste Management in the Russian Federation”, GIZ Russia took the initiative to develop training materials for decision makers working in the Russian waste sector, to build their capacities in order to introduce the circular economy principles into the Russian waste management system.

3.1.3. Financial Barriers

Access to finance is a major issue for the enterprises engaged in CE to improve their sustainability performance. According to the International Financial Corporation of the World Bank [56], the main barrier to the development of waste industry in Russia is the lack of finance to construct waste processing facilities. Larchenko et al. (20121) [50] reported that economic barriers, including financial support to enterprises, to adopting CE are one of the serious obstacles. The smaller the size of the firm, the more difficulty there is in obtaining finance [57].

In the EU, extended producer responsibility (EPR) principle has emerged as a significant tool which fosters the enforcement of the circular economy package [58], while in Russia, EPR is one of the pillars of the new regulatory package of solid waste management. According to the Federal Law FZ 89 of the year 2014 on Waste Production and Consumption, the EPR was introduced as a financial mechanism to help in the transition towards a circular economy. However, the proposed structure of the EPR policy has certain shortcomings [9]. For example, the environmental fees under the proposed EPR system for PET and paper are far below the cost of obtaining materials ready for recycling, which hinders the financial sustainability of recycling such items. Another issue that faces the adoption of EPR is the absence of a well-established market for secondary materials. However, starting from 2018, several materials, such as scrap metals, paper, car tires, polymers, electrical appliances, and electronic waste, have been banned from disposal into landfills, yet the market for secondary materials is still in its initial development stage [40,43]. The need for the involvement of all stakeholders, including generators of solid waste, manufacturers, and regulatory agencies, is a major factor in the successful implementation of an EPR system. Creating economic incentives for the enterprises, especially medium and small (MSE) ones, to adopt CE initiatives will decrease the risks for such businesses in investing in recycling, recovery infrastructure, and eco-technologies for closing the loop.

3.2. Eco-Industrial Parks and Circular Economy

EIPs play a significant role in promoting circular economy models. In Russia, such projects help in the adoption of the CE concept to achieve sustainable development in the country [59]. According to Ratner et al. (2022) [49], one of the preferred options for Russian firms to promote the CE on a company level, is to have demonstration projects and to enhance cooperation with enterprises in other sectors for waste exchange and material reuse. EIP lends itself as an appropriate vehicle to demonstrate the collaboration of various industries residing at the EIP level. Therefore, developing and operating EIPs can serve to achieve the objectives of the circular economy. However, in the Russian Federation, attention should be directed not only for the development of EIPs, but also for the optimization of their operations to promote the circular economy model [40].

The exponential increase in the amounts of solid waste generation and the absence of infrastructure for source separation of municipal solid waste is a serious problem that is reflected in the efficient operation of EIPs in Russia [60], and consequently on the circular economy concept [59,61]. Realizing this fact, the Russian government decided to move from traditional end-of-pipe technology into a more sustainable and integrated solid waste management approach, where the circular economy is one of the core pillars [62]. To achieve that, a territorial waste management scheme was introduced to all major cities of the country, and regional operators were appointed to implement waste management activities including transportation, utilization, and final disposal. According to the new arrangements, a two-bin source separation system is being introduced in Moscow [39]. Such arrangement will pave the way for better performance of EIPs to achieve the circularity objectives.

3.3. Life Cycle Assessment Analysis

Life cycle assessment was carried out in this study to assess the environmental and health impacts of the case of EIPs in Russia based on two scenarios. The baseline scenario mainly represented the business-as-usual conditions, where the solid waste generated is being hauled to an unsanitary landfill which lacks leachate and biogas management systems, while scenario 2 is diverting an annual amount of 1,813,000 tons from the landfill to the EIP with different treatment and recovery options, as shown in Figure 3.

The results of LCA characterization analysis for each impact category for both scenarios are presented in Table 3. As can be seen from the characterization table, the landfilling scenario has higher impacts when compared with landfilling under EIPs in all environmental impact categories. This is in line with the findings of Rajcoomar and Ramejeawn, (2016) [31], who reported that landfilling scenarios have the highest values of impacts. As shown in Table 2, the total global warming potential of the landfilling scenario is 9.05 × 10⁸ kg CO₂ eq. This global warming impact is mainly due to the fact that there is no gas control and management system in the landfill, where all the generated greenhouse gases are emitted to the atmosphere. Considering the total annual amount of the landfilled solid waste is 1.813 million tons, the per ton greenhouse gas emission is 500 kg CO2 eq/ton. This is in agreement with the value that was reported by Vinitskaia et al. (2021) [39], who found that landfilling in Moscow region is emitting 0.5 t CO2 eq per 1 ton of disposed solid waste. Another study by Abu Qdais et al. (2019) [63] found the greenhouse gas emissions from landfills is about 1115 kg CO2 eq/ton, which is more than twice of the value reported in the current study. This is may be attributed to the fact that the study by Abu Qdais et al. (2019) [63] was conducted for Jordan, where the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (food) is greater than 50%, and the country is located in a hot arid climate, which is not the case in Moscow, where the organic percentage is 25% and the city is located in a cold region. In addition to the greenhouse gases emitted, there are other air pollutants emitted under both scenarios that include PM 2.5, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and smog.

Under the second scenario, the landfill has a lower global warming potential than under the first scenario, as the biodegradable organic fraction of the solid waste is diverted from the landfill to be subjected for composting, where the landfill under this scenario receives only inert waste from the residues of the EIP processes with compost as a landfill cover. Moreover, it can be noticed from Table 3 that the second scenario (EIP) has less environmental and public health impacts by different percentages, except for the respiratory effect where the landfill scenario impact is less than the EIP scenario by 33%. The total global warming potential of the second scenario is less by 59% of the first scenario, while the eutrophication, acidification, smog, ozone depletion, carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic, eco-toxicity, and fossil fuel depletion impacts under the second scenario are reduced by 81%, 26%, 18%, 81%,92%, 96%, 96%, and 13%, respectively.

Each process of the EIP has a contribution to the various impacts categories. Figure 6 presents the results of LCA characterization of the EIP processes, which shows the share of each EIP process to various impact categories. It can be seen that the landfill has the highest share in the eutrophication and global warming impacts with 100% and 95%, respectively. These findings are also confirmed by other researchers [30,34]. Under the EIP scenario, the landfilling contribution to impacts other than global warming is minimal, ranging from zero to 10%. On the other hand, it can be observed that solid waste sorting has an environmental benefit for all impact categories, where it ranges from 20% for eutrophication to 95% for the respiratory effect impact category. Organics composting has a minimal share in all impact categories, ranging from 2 to 5%.

Table 4 shows sensitivity analysis as a result of diverting 10% and 20% of the solid waste from the landfill to the sorting process at the EIP. It can be observed that the environmental impacts have been decreased by different percentages ranging from 22% to 698%. For example, diverting 10% of landfilled solid waste to a sorting facility at the EIP led to a reduction in the global warming impacts from 2.60 × 10⁷ to −9.09 × 10⁷ kg CO2 eq (i.e., 249% decreasing). This may be attributed to the decrease in the volume of raw material mining as a result of recycling metals, glass, and different types of plastics. These percentages were doubled when the 20% of landfilling was reduced. This explains the large difference in global warming impacts when the quantity of sorting increases. Vintiskaya et al. (2021) [39] reported emission reductions of 90–1850% during sensitivity analyses for municipal solid waste management systems in Moscow.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Although circular economy models have been successfully adopted in many countries, the concept is still immature in the Russian Federation. The solid waste management in the country, until recently, was a disposal-driven system, where about 90% of the generated solid waste found its way in most cases to unsanitary landfill sites. Such practices are neither safe nor economic. The Russian government realized that such an approach does not serve the objectives of sustainability, and started making radical changes to the solid waste regulatory framework. The national solid waste management strategy calls for diverting 80% of the generated solid waste to recycling facilities by the year 2030, which will enhance the adoption of CE in the country. Despite this, there are still several challenges which need to overcome in order to secure a smooth transition to CE. Among such challenges is the low level of solid waste separation at source. Furthermore, the lack of enabling institutional framework and availability of human resources that are capable of leading the transition to CE are other issues that need to be resolved.

One of the aspects that could help in achieving sustainable solid waste management in Russia is the establishment of EIPs. Such enterprises divert significant amounts of items that exist in the solid waste stream from landfills to be reused and recycled as a result of material and energy recovery. By applying the LCA model to one of the operating EIPs in Russia, the study showed a decrease in both environmental and health impacts of an EIP scenario as compared to the baseline scenario where the waste disposed into landfills. Normalization of the assessed impacts has shown that eutrophication, carcinogenic, and global warming are the highest among all the impacts, while the ozone depletion, acidification, fossil fuel depletion, and smog impact categories are minimal.

The results of the study indicate the necessity of creating an enabling environment to efficiently adopt the CE principles in Russia. Russian universities are in a good position to lead the process of capacity building in institutions that are involved in the implementation of CE strategies. Such capacity-building efforts should be performed in a better collaboration with industry and public authorities. LCA is an effective tool to analyze waste management options based on their environmental performance. Applying the LCA analysis to one of the EIPS in Russia has shown that EIP recycling and recovery activities can reduce both environmental and health impacts, as compared to traditional waste management that relies mainly on landfilling. One of the limitations of the study is that the marketing of the products is not within the boundaries of the study. This is due to the absence of data on the marketing stage. Therefore, it is recommended that further LCA studies should be directed to assess EIPs’ performance that includes marketing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.A.A.-Q. and A.I.K.; Data curation, A.I.K.; Investigation, H.A.A.-Q.; Methodology, H.A.A.-Q.; Project administration, H.A.A.-Q.; Software, H.A.A.-Q.; Supervision, H.A.A.-Q.; Visualization, A.I.K.; Writing—original draft, H.A.A.-Q. and A.I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This paper has been supported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Location of eco-industrial parks in the Russian Federation.

Figure 2. Business as usual scenario where the solid waste is dumped into landfill (scenario 1).

Figure 3. Layout and system boundaries of the eco-industrial park (Scenario 2).

Figure 4. Physical composition of solid waste generated in Moscow Region [47].

Figure 5. Flow diagram of the methodology followed in conducting LCA analysis.

Figure 6. Contribution of each EIP process to various impacts categories.

Table 1

Materials and resources Input and output of the case study EIP.

	Input	Output
Solid waste quantity	1,813,000 ton/year	101,824 tons/year to landfill
Sorting	1,000,000 ton/year	Material recovery from sorting 245,115 t/y. This includes - Paper, cardboard 133,260.0 ton/year - Black metal 24,792.3 ton/year - Non-ferrous metal 11,598.3 ton/year - Glass 33,060.0 ton/year - Plastics (MIX) 42,404.8 ton/year. - Compost 300,000 ton/year
Composting (25% food of waste)	453,250 ton/year	300,000 ton/year
From bulky to RDF	270,000 ton/year	RDF, 193,802 t/y
WtE plant	253,200 ton/year	Energy, 35 Mwh
Plastic fraction	254,800 ton/year	PET, PE, PP46,852 ton/year
Water	390,000 m3
Electric Energy	35 Mwh
Natural gas	1,200,000 nm3

Table 2

Main characteristics and assumptions of the EIP processes.

Waste Treatment Process	Main Characteristics and Assumptions
Incineration with energy recovery	Design capacity of 253,200 tons per year, where all the energy recovered will be used for the operation of the EIP and will produce 10% ash that will be landfilled.
Sorting and material recovery facility	Two lines of sorting with an annual capacity of 500,000 tons each. It is assumed that all the solid waste received is mixed and not being subjected for sorting at source. Collection and transportation to the EIP are excluded from the LCA analysis.
Composting	All the biodegradable organic fraction is separated and subjected to composting. The amount of the solid waste that will be subjected to composting is 453,250 tons per year (25% of the generated waste) to produce 300,000 tons per year of finished compost. All the produced compost is assumed to be used as a final cover of the landfill that is located within the EIP boundaries.
Landfilling	It is assumed that all the residual waste, after separation and energy recovery, will be directed to the sanitary landfill. The estimated landfilled waste is about 101,824 tons/year and assumed to be inert; it will not be subjected to biodegradation.

Table 3

Values of all impact categories for the two landfilling scenarios.

Impact Category	Unit	Landfilling (S1)	Landfill Eco-Industrial Park (S2)	Percent Reduction/Increase
Global warming	kg CO2 eq	9.05 × 108	3.70 × 108	59%
Eutrophication	kg N eq	2,475,291	460,371.03	81%
Acidification	kg SO2 eq	249,148.17	184,625.32	26%
Smog	kg O3 eq	3,920,057.9	3,227,569.2	18%
Ozone Depletion	kg CFC-11 eq	6.9706184	1.2806006	81%
Carcinogenic	CTUh	3.7935234	0.26318803	92%
Non carcinogenic	CTUh	7.3697049	0.2988090	96%
Ecotoxicity	CTUe	1.64 × 108	5,372,424.5	96%
Fossil fuel depletion	MJ surplus	60,254,697	52,659,851	13%
Respiratory effects	kg PM2.5 eq	26,690.386	40,035.7	+33%

Table 4

Sensitivity analysis based on 10% and 20% diversion of solid waste from the landfill.

Impact Category	Unit	Emissions from EIP (Scenario 2)	Emission with 10% Conversion from Landfill	Emission with 20% Conversion from Landfill	Decrease in the Impact Category for 10% Diversion	Decrease in the Impact Category for 20% Diversion
Ozone depletion	kg CFC-11 eq	−16.721524	−21.146866	−25.572208	26.50%	53%
Global warming	kg CO2 eq	26,045,152	−90,906,690	−2.08 × 108	249%	698%
Smog	kg O3 eq	−14,728,371	−19,733,735	−24,739,099	33%	68%
Acidification	kg SO2 eq	−1,486,174.7	−1,909,028.5	−2,331,882.3	28.50%	57%
Eutrophication	kg N eq	340,068.98	263,239.19	186,409.4	22.60%	45%
Carcinogenic	CTUh	−14.434815	−17.961323	−21.487831	24%	49%
Non carcinogenic	CTUh	−44.415678	−55.6601	−66.904522	25%	50.6%
Respiratory effects	kg PM2.5 eq	−291,183.18	−368,841.4	−446,499.62	26.7%	53%
Ecotoxicity	CTUe	−2.52 × 108	−3.13 × 108	−3.74 × 108	24%	49%
Fossil fuel depletion	MJ surplus	−5.15 × 108	−6.46 × 108	−7.77 × 108	25%	51%

References

1. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ.; 2018; 143, pp. 37-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041]

2. Ghosh, S.K.; Agamuthu, P. Circular economy: The way forward. Waste Manag. Res.; 2018; 36, pp. 481-482. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18778444] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29848231]

3. Škrinjarí, T. Empirical assessment of the circular economy of selected European countries. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 255, 120246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120246]

4. Rodriguez-Anton, J.M.; Rubio-Andrada, L.; Celemín-Pedroche, M.S.; Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M. Analysis of the relations between circular economy and sustainable development goals. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.; 2019; 26, pp. 708-720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1666754]

5. Bogoviz, A.V.; Bruno, S. Will the Circular Economy Be the Future of Russia’s Growth Model?. Exploring the Future of Russia’s Economy and Markets; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2018; pp. 125-141.

6. Plastinina, I.; Teslyuk, L.; Dukmasova, N.; Pikalova, E. Implementation of circular economy principles in regional solid municipal waste management: The case of Sverdlovskaya Oblast (Russian Federation). Resources; 2019; 8, 90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources8020090]

7. Gadzhiev, N.G.; Murzak, N.A.; Mitenkova, A.E.; Skripkina, O.V.; Konovalenko, S.A. Problems of development of the circular economy as a factor in Russia’s sustainable development. South Russ. Ecol. Dev.; 2020; 15, pp. 155-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18470/1992-1098-2020-3-155-164]

8. Kalchenko, O.; Evseeva, S.; Evseeva, O.; Plis, K. Circular economy for the energy transition in Saint Petersburg, Russia. E3S Web Conf.; 2019; 110, 02030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201911002030]

9. Wiesmeth, H.; Starodubets, N.V. The management of municipal solid waste in compliance with circular economy criteria: The case of Russia 1. Econ. Reg.; 2020; 16, pp. 725-738. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2020-3-4]

10. Ilyina, L.A.; Garanina, M.P.; Ilyina, T.A.; Maslova, O.P. Creation of the Circular Economy in Russia as a Means of Acceleration Transition to the Market Path of Development. Circular Economy in Developed and Developing Countries: Perspective, Methods and Examples; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 157-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-981-720201023]

11. Kalioujny, B.; Ermushko, J.; Zhavoronok, A. Establishment of a strategy of circular economy increasing the well-being of society: Comparison of two national policies. SHS Web Conf.; 2016; 28, 01050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162801050]

12. Dorokhina, E.Y. Industrial and eco-industrial parks as a means for the resolution of regional conflicts in the use of natural resources. Econ. Soc. Polit. Recreat. Geogr.; 2018; 2, pp. 113-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24411/1728-323X-2018-12113]

13. Li, W. Comprehensive evaluation research on circular economic performance of eco-industrial parks. Energy Procedia; 2011; 5, pp. 1682-1688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.287]

14. Martín Gómez, A.M.; Aguayo González, F.; Marcos Bárcena, M. Smart eco-industrial parks: A circular economy implementation based on industrial metabolism. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2018; 135, pp. 58-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.007]

15. Alabaeva, N.S.; Velitskaya, S.V.; Malahova, O.S.; Koroliova, C.P. Development of eco-industrial parks in Russia and abroad. J. Econ. Bus.; 2019; 6, pp. 19-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24411/2411-0450-2019-10811]

16. Al-Quradaghi, S.; Zheng, Q.P.; Elkamel, A. Generalized framework for the design of eco-industrial parks: Case study of end-of-life vehicles. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 6612. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12166612]

17. Chertow, M.R. Industrial ecology in a developing context. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 335-349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8229-0_24]

18. Mousqué, F.; Boix, M.; Négny, S.; Montastruc, L.; Genty, L.; Domenech, S. Optimal On-Grid Hybrid Power System for Eco-Industrial Parks Planning and Influence of Geographical Position. Proceedings of the 28th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering; Graz, Austria, 10–13 June 2018; Elsevier Masson SAS: Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2018; Volume 43, ISBN 9780444642356

19. Park, H.; Shah, I.H.; Gideon, T.N.; Lee, D.; Huong, T.T.; Park, Y.; Urjinkham, R. Eco-industrial park—A eco-innovation tool of circular economy transition in Korea. Proceedings of the 2018 Circular Economy for Agro-Food Management; Ulsan, Korea, 13–15 June 2018.

20. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 143, pp. 710-718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055]

21. Fan, Y.; Fang, C. Assessing environmental performance of eco-industrial development in industrial parks. Waste Manag.; 2020; 107, pp. 219-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.008]

22. Di Baldassarre, G.; Sivapalan, M.; Rusca, M.; Cudennec, C.; Garcia, M.; Kreibich, H.; Konar, M.; Mondino, E.; Mård, J.; Pande, S. et al. Sociohydrology: Scientific Challenges in Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals. Water Resour. Res.; 2019; 55, pp. 6327-6355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023901]

23. Bellantuono, N.; Carbonara, N.; Pontrandolfo, P. The organization of eco-industrial parks and their sustainable practices. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 161, pp. 362-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.082]

24. Zhao, H.; Zhao, H.; Guo, S. Evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks by employing multi-criteria decision making approach for circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 142, pp. 2262-2276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.041]

25. Tian, J.; Liu, W.; Lai, B.; Li, X.; Chen, L. Study of the performance of eco-industrial park development in China. J. Clean. Prod.; 2014; 64, pp. 486-494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.005]

26. Wang, S.; Lu, C.; Gao, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, R. Life cycle assessment of reduction of environmental impacts via industrial symbiosis in an energy-intensive industrial park in China. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 241, 118358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118358]

27. Valenzuela-Venegas, G.; Salgado, J.C.; Díaz-Alvarado, F.A. Sustainability indicators for the assessment of eco-industrial parks: Classification and criteria for selection. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 133, pp. 99-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.113]

28. Azapagic, A.; Perdan, S. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A General Framework. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.; 2000; 78, pp. 243-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763]

29. Belaud, J.P.; Adoue, C.; Vialle, C.; Chorro, A.; Sablayrolles, C. A circular economy and industrial ecology toolbox for developing an eco-industrial park: Perspectives from French policy. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2019; 21, pp. 967-985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01677-1]

30. Erses Yay, A.S. Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid waste management: A case study of Sakarya. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 94, pp. 284-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.089]

31. Rajcoomar, A.; Ramjeawon, T. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management scenarios on the small island of Mauritius. Waste Manag. Res.; 2017; 35, pp. 313-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16679883]

32. Behrooznia, L.; Sharifi, M.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of two scenarios for managing an organic fraction of municipal solid waste in Rasht-Iran. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 268, 122217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122217]

33. Alamu, S.O.; Wemida, A.; Tsegaye, T.; Oguntimein, G. Sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste in Baltimore USA. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1915. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041915]

34. Özer, B.; Yay, A.S.E. Comparative life cycle analysis of municipal waste management systems: Kırklareli/Turkey case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 63867-63877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12247-0]

35. Khandelwal, H.; Dhar, H.; Thalla, A.K.; Kumar, S. Application of life cycle assessment in municipal solid waste management: A worldwide critical review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 209, pp. 630-654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.233]

36. Tulokhonova, A.; Ulanova, O. Assessment of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Irkutsk (Russia) using a life cycle assessment-integrated waste management model. Waste Manag. Res.; 2013; 31, pp. 475-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X13476745] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23444153]

37. Starostina, V.; Damgaard, A.; Rechberger, H.; Christensen, T.H. Waste management in the Irkutsk Region, Siberia, Russia: Environmental assessment of current practice focusing on landfilling. Waste Manag. Res.; 2014; 32, pp. 389-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14526633] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24692457]

38. Kaazke, J.; Meneses, M.; Wilke, B.M.; Rotter, V.S. Environmental evaluation of waste treatment scenarios for the towns Khanty-Mansiysk and Surgut, Russia. Waste Manag. Res.; 2013; 31, pp. 315-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12473792] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23381971]

39. Vinitskaia, N.; Zaikova, A.; Deviatkin, I.; Bachina, O.; Horttanainen, M. Life cycle assessment of the existing and proposed municipal solid waste management system in Moscow, Russia. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 328, 129407. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129407]

40. Yaroslavtsev, D.A.; Chekalin, V.S.; Liubarskaia, M.A. The Role of Information and Automation in Enhancing the Efficiency of the Functioning of Eco-industrial Parks in Russia. Adv. Econ. Bus. Manag. Res.; 2019; 47, pp. 933-937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/iscfec-18.2019.225]

41. Smirnova, T. And again defining the concept of Eco-Techno Park. Waste Handl.; 2020; 2, pp. 30-32.

42. Korotkovskaya, E.S.; Malinsky, I.G. Russian eco-technology parks as innovation element of the waste management system. Economic Development in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the II International Scientific Conference, Minsk, Belarus, 28 February 2020; Belarus State University: Minsk, Belarus, 2020; pp. 165-167.

43. Putinceva, N.; Kim, O.; Voronina, E.; Fugalevich, E.; Mikhailova, M.; Ushakova, E. Introduction of innovative technologies—A factor in the development of the waste management industry in Russia. Proc. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 940, 012024. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/940/1/012024]

44. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

45. SimaPro SimaPro. Available online: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro (accessed on 15 December 2019).

46. Nordelöf, A.; Poulikidou, S.; Chordia, M.; Bitencourt de Oliveira, F.; Tivander, J.; Arvidsson, R. Methodological Approaches to End-Of-Life Modelling in Life Cycle Assessments of Lithium-Ion Batteries. Batteries; 2019; 5, 51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/batteries5030051]

47. Bare, J. TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2011; 13, pp. 687-696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9]

48. Moscow Register of MSW. Territorial Scheme of Solid Waste Management in the City of Moscow; Department of Housing and Communal Services of Moscow: Moscow, Russia, 2019.

49. Ratner, S.; Lazanyuk, I.; Revinova, S.; Gomonov, K. Barriers of consumer behavior for the development of the circular economy: Empirical evidence from Russia. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11010046]

50. Larchenko, L.; Paranina, A.; Kulachinskaya, A.; Kuramshina, L. Opportunities and Challenges of Transitioning to a Circular Economy Model in Russian Regions. Proceedings of the ICEPP 2021, Efficient Production and Processing; Vankov, Y. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 190, pp. 291-297.

51. Bogoviz, A.V.; Revzon, O.A.; Poliakova, V.V.; Sumbatyan, S.L.; Morozova, N.G. Successful Manifestations of the Circular Economy in Modern Russia. Circular Economy in Developed and Developing Countries: Perspective, Methods and Examples; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2021; pp. 149-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-981-720201022]

52. Liubarskaia, M.A.; Putinceva, N.A. The Role of Secondary Resource Market in the Development of the Extended Producer Responsibility Mechanism in Russia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2021; 938, 012014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/938/1/012014]

53. Abu Qdais, H.; Saadeh, O.; Al-Widyan, M.; Al-tal, R.; Abu-Dalo, M. Environmental sustainability features in large university campuses: Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) as a model of green university. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2019; 20, pp. 214-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2018-0102]

54. Qu, D.; Shevchenko, T.; Saidani, M.; Xia, Y.; Ladyka, Y. Transition towards a circular economy: The role of university assets in the implementation of a new model. Detritus; 2021; 17, pp. 3-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2021.15141]

55. Salas, D.A.; Criollo, P.; Ramirez, A.D. The Role of Higher Education Institutions in the Implementation of Circular Economy in Latin America. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 9805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13179805]

56. IFC. Waste in Russia: Garbage or Valuable Resource? Scenarios for Developing the Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector, International Finance Corporation, World Bank. 2014; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/702251549554831489/pdf/Waste-in-Russia-Garbage-or-Valuable-Resource.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2022).

57. Aranda-Usón, A.; Portillo-Tarragona, P.; María Marín, L.; Scarpellini, S. Financial Resources for the Circular Economy: A Perspective from Businesses. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11030888]

58. Pouikil, K. Concretising the role of extended producer responsibility in European Union waste law and policy through the lens of the circular economy. ERA Forum; 2020; 20, pp. 491-508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12027-020-00596-9]

59. Saha, I.; Tatiana, S.; Smirnova, T.S.; Vladimir, A.; Maryev, V.A. Implementation of Eco-Industrial Park for Effectual Establishment of Circular Economy in Russia. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol.; 2021; 20, pp. 2031-2040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2021.v20i05.020]

60. Vorotnikov, A.M.; Bajanov, I.N.; Lijin, D.H. Eco-Techno Parks: Development Prospects, Priority areas of implementation and features of Financing. Probl. Natioal Strateg.; 2019; 55, pp. 144-155.

61. Bobylev, S.N.; Solovyeva, S.V. Circular economy and its indicators for Russia. Mir Novoi Ekon. = World New Econ.; 2020; 14, pp. 63-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2020-14-2-63-72]

62. Kurbatova, A.; Abu-Qdais, H.A. Using multi-criteria decision analysis to select waste to energy technology for a Mega city: The case of Moscow. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 9828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12239828]

63. Abu Qdais, H.A.; Wuensh, C.; Dornack, C.; Nassour, A. The role of solid waste composting in mitigating climate change in Jordan. Waste Manag. Res.; 2019; 37, pp. 833-842. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19855424] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31218931]