Chapter 5. Rethinking the public waste service
Figure 29.
III.
Positioning of each city compared to the models studied
Managing waste as common resource 1. Waste: a “common good” that confirms the empirical analysis
Our empirical analysis of the spatial and economic dynamics at play shows that urban solid waste has the characteristics of a common good: Economically, given that the potential revenues from recycling are substantial, dry waste appears as a rival good since its appropriation by one actor deprives others of its possible resale. Spatially, the absence of underground waste disposal networks, as well as the multiple intermediate reloading operations (transfer points, transfer stations), makes any exclusion impractical: it is virtually impossible to prevent waste from being intercepted (both in space and time) upstream of the municipal service. In fact, the most lucrative elements of a city’s discarded waste are often skimmed off upstream by informal collectors. In light of this empirical analysis, urban waste – rival and non-excludable – appears as a resource with the characteristics of a common good (Cavé, 2015), as defined by the originator of this concept (Ostrom, 1990). Considering stocks and flows of waste together 125 | TECHNICAL REPORTS– No. 54 – OCTOBER 2020
