 So we have policy, data, and the work of the discussion. So my first stop was the policy intervention block. In this block, we have two presenters. The first presenter is Professor Nintai, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Policy in the University of Illinois at Chicago in the US. She has joint appointments at the Institute for Environmental Science and Policy. And her research and the teaching interests centered on integrating lifecycle perspectives and the locally specific data into environmental planning and the sustainable policy making. Welcome, Professor Nintai. Thank you all for the invitation. And thank you to everybody who has, who have worked together and have gathered the group, who share sincere interest in the work of the time in the government, who work here in the waste management studies. By accepting the invitation from fall, I didn't agree to talk about the best practice of waste management in the US, because the US didn't have the best way to do it. I will stop here because I know it's recording, so I'm not going to be too much on there. I will say my goal is to share with you my perspectives of material waste management issues, lessons learned, experiences from the part of it, meaning my topic part of it, and then trying to brainstorm some ideas, hopefully that'll help you have the afternoon session, right after lunch. All right, let's get started. So the presentation today includes four actually interconnected issues. The first one is about the current practice of standard of managing environmental and socio-economic issues for a long time. Yeah, you can think about environmental, system planning, typically managing from air, land, water, and that's typically a separate problem, so free economic analysis as well. The second issue is the challenges of financial liability and sustainability. I always tend to share this very common point, actually very beginning of my presentation, because when we talk about circular sustainability, we have to agree, we have to acknowledge the reality, no matter how many aspirations we have, environmental and sustainable policies have to be financially viable and simple first. So what it means for us is experience in a critical challenge. The third one is about the dilemma of social equity and economic efficiency. We do not hear a lot about the discussions on equity issues. I would just give you some examples today. Hopefully it will help you start thinking about it, how it will possibly incorporate the policy information process. Lastly, inspired by the session, how has the range, after this, talked about the role of data. I will also talk about my own research focusing on material flow analysis and how the material risk management data could support a low-polacy specific inhibition strategies. All right, let's get started. The first one is about the integrated material risk management approaches. So hopefully in this room, the role of material management will not be new to you. But I will highlight the two issues here. First one is the application about definition. What do we mean by diversion? So in the US, diversion means diversion from landfills on the scenarios. That means the materials that either recycled, manufactured, recovered, composted, then they will fall in the category of risk diversion. The second one, more importantly, is about the dynamic relationship as I've marked. You're very welcome here. Risk generation is a sum of risk disposal and the risk diversion. So a lot of times when we see policy making process focused on recycling rates or generation rates, rarely has a policy agenda integrated on this together. So intuitively, flow region will generate less than another region, but rarely do any recycling. Essentially, still all materials end up in landfills. It's not enough for central, right? But for regions who tend to generate a lot given the density of population, buildings, but they also recycle a lot. That means they need high diversion rate. Essentially, the waste that is pulled up actually will get less. So this dynamic relationship is not that clearly studied. And I don't think we actually, you nowadays have enough data information to clearly demonstrate how to manage all of the data. But one thing is clear in the example of economic implications on the end. Think about the collection process for the waste that generated all the data, right? We talked about the sorting process. So no matter how much we recycle, right? We're wasting the tonnage of it assuming the given number. If more materials go through the diversion process, less will be in the garbage truck. What it means is you're going to cost for garbage collection will increase, actually. Actually, we need a lot of municipalities who care about cost implications for them. So we'll talk about that. But I want to bring it up as an important issue was to think through the process as much as I always mentioned. So in the US, the federal government regulates the states are responsible for developing an update in southwestern plants every five years. However, it was never strictly enforced. No one really actually provided penalties if the waste management plants were not updated every five years. And the states mediate the responsibility to localities to have the plants made. So if a locality or county or city has a plan in place, most of the time it's focused on waste generation, only called remaining capacity. What it means is you're assuming the waste generation volume will increase along with the population growth will be in proportion. And then the locality will need to make sure that remaining capacity on landfills will be enough to accommodate for transition growth of waste. What is missing is a system real of that. Again, if you think about metabolic processes or life cycle processes, or the mix of material waste management structure needed. So some counties and states actually are ahead of others. I'm providing here as an example. Besides mitigating the impact of new facilities, they actually emphasize the top two. First one is to minimize the impact of existing facilities. Second is to avoid unnecessary expansion. Those are very important because in the US very often you see the regulations will only focus on the permitting process. Once this is approved, nobody really closely monitored that. So having focus of considerations of existing facilities in the long term is a big step forward. The second one is to avoid unnecessary expansion. In the US context, again, this is very important because of increasing public opposition to site new facilities because not in the backyard that locally unwanted land uses, then we see an increasing trend of expansion inside of building new landfills. Inclusive that you understand, inside of finding a new location for a new site, they basically just have the current landfills bigger, larger. So if you check into statistics in the US, the number of landfills actually have dropped over time. But if you look closer in terms of capacity of the landfills, actually the total volume can go bigger. So this is a very important issue to catch. And also planners have started considering material waste management new developments. In the past, typically this is all outside of land issues. As long as developers could identify where the waste will go, all sites can manage on a daily basis, good. Then planners or actual ones have considered including material waste management issues to new developments. If you know more or actually make, will be the integrating the plants and the goals. For example, that isn't here. Some of the examples not only in the US, but in North America. New York City, Chicago, Denver, and Colorado, and Vancouver in Canada. So you will see an interesting trend when the environmental goals are set related to material waste management is no longer in a standalone environmental plan. It's more like an indirect plan. And then every aspect of the goals actually work out together towards sustainability. So when you check the title, it may not be a waste management plan, a waste management goal, rather it is more like an all-in-one document. The one I like best is this case in Metro Vancouver in Canada. So here is an example that I see the true integration of material waste management goals into other sustainability goals. For example, they have included drinking water management plan for the morning. Some of them talk about disaster management, homeless management plan, emergency management plan, water, air, not a surprise, and some other hazardous waste. So on the parks and the green waste, for example. So here, when the waste management plan is updated, a lot of it should be required that other planners work better with other cost makers and other divisions, units, so to make sure that waste management is clearly fine and sustainable advantage in the goals setting process. So I was really encouraged when American Planning Association approached me in 2015. That was the first time that American Planning Association realized planners as a social scientist had a role to play in material waste management. And they asked me to produce this publication called Planning Forces. So it was a material waste management. So I brought a few copies today here. If you're interested, you can read the web one on the way out. Initially, the original print is much smaller. However, for sustainability reasons, American Planning Association stopped mass printing. So it distributed online, but I printed out a few copies, not very well. So I'll bring it to you if you're interested and share with it. So basically, in this group, I covered six aspects of it related to what the waste management, including the environment of supply, infrastructure, finance, economy, equity, and technology. My water, particularly to the economy session. So, for example, in the environmental category, and I talked about low-poly species from the NWM measures, we all know the waste hierarchy as suggested by UEPA. So here was a motivation by practitioners who argued that we should not always be against that new disposal. Because for some reasons, especially near term, it is feasible, it is cost-effective, and that's the way to maintain the secondary goals. And for some reasons, and they have their own unique challenges and maybe a unique government advantages, so it's more preferable to start recycling practice and likely to continue to come out of scale. So I started talking about compliance, regulatory issues, and then pilot those locally specific challenges and the plans across, you want to be air, water, land, noise, for example, and in connection with other significant plans as I have just showed on this slide. The second aspect is about infrastructure, where I talk about the need of considering planning for different types of infrastructure instead of just focusing on the landfill, per se. Also, in our planning process, planners in this room will know we typically will project into 20 years and then figure out how many people will be expected in the region and then estimate how much more waste they associate with this part of our production increase. I use this opportunity to argue we need to decouple what is the world of global economic production growth and how we could get there. And then here in the report, I should also acknowledge, I have about a page of events, so I could not expand further, but there was a 90-point aspect which I would not be able to elaborate on today is a health impact related to moisture waste management, which is still a limitation on this report. The third aspect is about finance. Here, I highlight the realistic in your market, right? And the household budget wisely and try to balance in the wonderful economic goals. For economy goals, this is more like a macro-level issue. So my co-author, Dr. Nancy Greenlee, discussed the job creation opportunities and how to promote industry development between both carrots and the states to more like encourage and the discourage, I encourage the marketers to do their previous green jobs and discourage those polluting activities. And then think about the ways that diverge the impact on regional aspect. I have a separate session in this publication related to equity, which I'll touch on a little bit today. Mostly, bring up the different aspects of it, the controversy surrounding the ways that the city is setting and how planners and policy makers and policy holders could work together to address that. And lastly, another is about the technology. So we talk about different ways and we call it a big data era, but I tend to say in terms of moisture waste management, we are not that lucky to have that big data. Big data might, if we could use the word, in waste management area, would be the heterogeneities, cross regions, inconsistencies, cross regions, that would be the big inconsistencies and heterogeneities. All right, let me get into some specific issues starting with the economics considerations, how to balance the market economy goals. So a few years back, I did this last cycle cost analysis of material waste management. So it covers the life cycle of landfill from construction to construction, operating mechanism, global cost, global. You can check if you live in the literature, likely you'll only see the cost data of the blue chart about construction, operating. There was a more immediately tangible impact as I put it here. So I include three steps of analysis, the first one, the short term problem, the direct impact with collection and transportation processing. So it's mostly related to the short term immediate impacts. But also I expand my study to cover the entire life cycle of waste management. So I include different scenarios, including landfills, new landfills, landfill expansion, recycling, and then mix of recycling and landfill like that. So my study covered probably the short term direct impacts, but also the long term direct impacts like facility maintenance, post-proper care, and long-term impact assessment. By the way, those all are required by USDA. And then also include indirect impacts as an isolated cost and non-procure effects. So my findings include those preventive activities incurred the lowest short term cost that nicely explain why landfills remain to be preferable over the past decade, even all the technology that runs in the US, and still not as used as primary method. But we see over time, we do see a cost jump because of the recurring cost of post-proper care maintenance. The short term cost considerations would degrade exactly. So during non-recessions, the cost concerns will become more pressing. So I did a study about waste management approaches during non-recessions, and where I made the budget cuts through literature review and the interviews of nearly thousands of literature. This is some of the general categories approaches I have identified. Apparently, if the municipalities want to add more revenue, they'll increase fees. Unfortunately, this increased fees will increase fees whole recycling. So for example, some spending amounts have charges are disturbed through that. And then because the services could include coverage, could include frequency, could include types of materials, privatized services improve efficiency, or control material flow. Interestingly, you may notice this is not actually not about in the US, by a student cost, but some of the regions would intentionally hold onto the waste, meaning not ship it outside, keep it all within our boundary so that our landfills would achieve the kind of scale to get the money and then we'll not need to pay for others. Essentially, what we found is, reduced the amount of material waste management budget actually may not necessarily compromising our performance. So to expand a little bit, I'm showing here a summary table of the market-based instruments. The first column shows the instruments that generate revenue, or expect it to generate revenue. Second one, meaning we need to have costs for these products. The third one will be non-revenue instruments, more like public services or revenue in the future. So more details in the reports. I will highlight the first column, revenue generating instruments for a few of them. I would also like to highlight this is not only charged market, actually it's improved transfer, for example the last one, tax disposal options, and then you use those actual fees to subsidize recycling. So in terms of net, actually it may not be more for society, but you'll be able to implement proof-based principles and have those activities like recycling that generate positive activities to be reliable. All right, so these are not new, actually, and as I was explaining earlier, in the US we also have recycling to work for once to the right, but it's not for the individual type of materials. It is for all types of materials, all together. So basically what it means is if households will recycle more, they will get two pounds to go to the retail stores. How this is implemented, for example, the recycling truck will go to the households, and then the truck will pick up the recycling bin that has an RFID tab attached to it, and then the truck will scan the tab, and then the truck also has a scale survey to it. So that information will be transferred to the company who will track the information, and then every month it will provide the customer with those amounts. Hey, as the truck programs have been there for, that is, it's not basically the more waste people generated in the bag or the bottle, then the more they pay. In the case of problem, they either check the impact, and they see the decrease in the garbage generation and more recycling behavior. I would like to point to the chart at the bottom, and actually during the session, they reduced the garbage collection from weekly to by weekly, and then they included the switch, and the yard with the bins, and then increased the weekly collection and added the different types of the recycling bins. Another one, which I would strongly allocate from the innovation perspective, and one of the few cases in the US that has been implemented at the city level is the voice of Philadelphia, one of the so-called surplus food recovery framework. Basically what they did is to connect grocery stores with the food, the producer of food processors. So by the end of the day, you'll get the information of surplus food from grocery stores, and you'll program it based on surplus food. They will program it into the menu, meaning cook those food based on the mix and the composition of them, and then sell the food, which is a very wide approach, and this is supported by USNPA. So we may go through the activity issues. Now, many of you may have realized, every city in the US is both an importer and an exporter of waste, basically to go from West Coast to East Coast, yet across the country and all the rest of the world. I'd also like to include some of the interesting codes that you may find very self-provoking. For example, former mayor of New York City said, the city's waste was a fair exchange for the city's cultural economic attribution to national life. The former official, you know, in the ESA, landfills and communities and work together and accept each other and actually benefit from each other. Some officials could even make it, oh, garbage is good, which is quite incontruous to what we perceive from the waste disposal of landfills. What they mean good is to claim the benefits of waste impact. For example, for communities who host landfills, they could get compensation, so-called host companies. Which is quite actually minimal, like a dollar per ton. But for those economically distressed communities, this means a lot, considering the gigantic volume of the waste they accept. But you can also imagine what it means, essentially it's a hotspot, being those communities eventually become the clusters of those unbearable facilities. So planning has a tool, so-called zoning, except for the residential uses from industrial, so use these spaces to protect the social welfare. And some of the evolving zoning orders have already considered those un-independent consequences to protect those communities. And I think they'll try now to have them carry unfair portion of the pollution impact. This is an interesting case to my surprise that Carlton Houston when I went on a toxic tour. So you see here is refinery in the Manchester community. Essentially, the refinery is about 20 feet away from the residences. Why that's the case? So in zoning planning, we say, okay, you as refinery or power plants, or those polluting facility owners, you cannot build a polluting facility not to residents or sensitive population. But the zoning planning department didn't say schools and residents cannot build a natural polluting facility. So the refinery owner was successful in lobbying the residences. And you want a school, right? You want new buildings, new houses, right? You want new community centers, right? All right, if you agree to have us located in community, we promise you all this. And this is how it happens. You see the playground next to the plant just deeper back to it. And you see the house right next door. 20 feet is about some meters, not at all that. So you get an idea what it means. Lastly, as a transition to the next session, as I mentioned, qualitatively I got to a multiple floor analysis program. And here we see the need of community-specific data because clearly the composition will be different. And the planning tools could facilitate the data collection even the current data constraints. Well, there are a lot of biobased tools and we're emerging technology supported tracking systems. But I also want to advocate for some of the missed opportunities. For example, city ordinance of cooking, public recycling and data reporting as required items. Markets, the rabbit data, for example, pay-as-you-show programs could be used to track down individual households and including most stakeholders, a lot we have also to media uses among residents, among businesses. We couldn't come down to that. But for communities, the actress group will now have the capacity to get the accurate data. Unlike water or electricity, you got the meters that we saw at the building level. You could see that. How to facilitate the collection process. So we give out a generic model in the food waste. Actually, I should start saying here, I'm showing two very different distinct cases, white food waste gathered in the batteries. So in terms of food waste, we divide this generic model basically separating the buildings in different types, residences, commercial wires, institutions, and other restaurants. And then checking the program for rates and figure out how the electricity in the 77 community in the Chicago area. And based on the estimated food waste generation will estimate the potential of donation, meaning those are edible food and could be recovered and reused with the planet. And as you see here, the red dots shows the density of the food supply donation potential and the yellow dots, the wrong ones show the location of the food banks. And we spatially imagine this together. What you see to the right is the index we developed. If it is red, you see branch here on the screen. It means those communities are in need of so-called food. If they show as blue, that means they have a lot more, but currently it's not collected. And we allocate for planning intervention and coordination to connect those neighborhoods by better and more efficient logistic planning. Essentially, the goal of this type of research is to argue that we should recognize opportunities in other areas. Now the challenges that Thomas Sheeway has to generate and the volume that is really opportunities that work. Opportunities we could take advantage of and also the common scale that are likely to achieve. So we could transform the challenges for opportunities. The second case that we had promised was for the U-Batteries. Similarly for E-Waste, it has these characteristics. But one thing I think particularly important from a planning perspective, from a long-term perspective, is the specific needs for children needs. For example, individuals may not easily assemble that at home. They need special facilities to do that and they do need a long time to get there. And good news is they do not need to assemble it all the time. So the U-Batteries, even at the end of their lifetime, it could be repurposed into energy storage. So we are trying to refine a model by considering the technology considerations in a dynamic maps plan scenario. And we also model different disciplines and we're trying to provide more accurate estimates at U-Batteries level. We also estimate at state and coffee levels. The case study at state level was in California where you see a majority of new enemies have been adopted and progressive adoption of renewable energy which we consider as an important opportunity to work with the youths locally. So those show the results. And this map shows the match of the energy storage demand and the opportunity for the U-Batteries units. Unlike the food waste scenario known here, the food waste has relatively small value in common terms. But they are scattered in a large amount of locations. For U-Batteries individually, they have a pretty significant residual value but they are not as many as they are scattered in the region. So this presents very different logistic and transformative challenges, apparently different for infrastructure planning and cost analysis as well. All right. Very quickly on to some key takeaway points. First one, sustainable policies need to be economically viable, and this is the first. Redistribution of cost benefits across regions, across sectors, across time, besides example, multiple examinations. Infimaging local solutions would be necessary for active specific planning at the region by the quality of the efforts and top-down and bottom-up approaches both needed education and innovation critical. Before I wrap up, I want to show you one image. So this is taken in a restaurant in Canada. If you look closely, you'll see a recycled paper, recycled plastics, and compost organics. So I'll also be interested to this restaurant to ask where is the garbage can, and that's the exact question the owner wanted to get. And if you advocate every client, customer in the restaurant, we want to achieve zero waste economy. All right. So I'll stop here. Thank you for your attention, Margaret, and I'll welcome your questions after.