Economic growth in developing countries accelerated waste generation, and Thailand also is experiencing issues related to increased waste generation and improper waste management. The country’s domestic waste utilization is only 20%–26%. Efficient waste management and increased quantity of waste utilization is possible only by overcoming problems and constraints in reverse logistics (RL) systems in Thailand. To address these issues and constraints, this study aims to focus the investigation on the current practices in the RL systems. The study was conducted in Bangkok and its vicinity. An integrated approach of qualitative and quantitative methods was employed to investigate the systems’ and stakeholders’ characteristics and to explore the factors influencing and constraining RL practices. Data were gathered through: (1) existing literature and in-depth interviews of key stakeholders involved in RL; and (2) a questionnaire survey of 98 managers of separation centers (SCs) probing their practices and studying the factors influencing those practices. The findings showed that RL systems can be separated into three levels, i.e.
, downstream, middle stream and upstream. SCs are key stakeholders in RL of waste management, and they collect waste from downstream, manage waste in a systematic way and send it upstream. The factors influencing and the barriers in the flow of recyclable waste are related to environmental, economic and social aspects. The analysis shows that waste managed by a cooperative-like franchise of SCs perceived that their practices were more efficient than those of a non-franchise practices. Additionally, these SCs have more bargaining power with waste buyers and sellers to set prices in the RL system. The constraints in RL practice are related to finance, market, labor, management/technology and legal issues.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited