Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle?

By Andrew King, S. Burgess, W. Ijomah, C. McMahon. 2006

487 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil (2017, background): “Recycling has been identified as a key strategy for reducing pollution and depletion of natural resources, as well as for increasing energy savings (Cui and Zhang, 2008; Debnath et al., 2015; King et al., 2006; Zeng et al., 2015).”
The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options (2017, unknown): “A clear difference with the higher ROs is that recycled materials do not maintain any of the original product structure and can be re-applied anywhere (Graedel et al., 2011; Jawahir et al., 2006; King et al., 2006), wherefore recycled materials are also called ‘secondary’ materials (Worrell and Reut”
Application of Directed Energy Deposition-Based Additive Manufacturing in Repair (2019, background): “They showed that the final performance of repaired products was less than of the reconditioned or remanufactured parts [17].”
Mindful consumption: a customer-centric approach to sustainability (2011, background): “…because more energy- or cost-efficient substitutes have become available, for example appliances; and quite often, it is psychological, or what King et al. (2006) label “fashion obsolescence”—where the consumer finds new substitutes more attractive because of style or fashion consideration.”