Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01308-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Towards zero‑waste airports: a case study of Istanbul Airport

İsmail Özbay1   · Nebil Arda Gokceviz1

Received: 21 March 2021 / Accepted: 16 September 2021 / Published online: 20 October 2021
© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
In this day and age, an important indicator of sustainable waste management is zero-waste index. Zero-waste approach is
adopted by many organizations in different sectors. In this context, implementation of sustainable waste management at
airports, which have become the most vibrant centers of the transportation sector in the globalizing world, is one of the
important environmental issues. In this study, the activities carried out in the Istanbul airport in 2019–2020 within the scope
of sustainable waste management were evaluated within the framework of zero-waste approach. For this purpose, waste
characterizations for different zones in the airport have been presented. When the methods used in the disposal of the wastes
were examined, it was seen that recycling (43–49%) and landfilling (50–57%) took the first place. The results of the study
reveal that the pandemic restrictions implemented in 2020 have caused significant differences in the amount and composi-
tion of waste generated. The highest decrease in waste generation occurred in Zone A where terminal activities are located,
with 76%. This change was also reflected in the zero-waste index determined depending on the waste management strategies
applied, and the values calculated for 2019 and 2020 were found to be 0.35 and 0.26, respectively.

Keywords  Airports · Characterization · Pandemic · Recycling · Waste management · Zero-waste index

Introduction prefer innovative policies such as “zero waste” in order to

reduce the environmental impact of the wastes generated as a
Air travel has become one of the fastest, safest, efficient and result of operations, to provide economic benefits from these
comfortable modes of transport nowadays [1]. Journeys to wastes, if possible, and to comply with stricter rules [4, 6].
distant places take place in a shorter time and this situation Sustainability is the most important key word in the future
provides humanity with very important advantages in both roadmap of airports and thus more efficient airports that
cultural and commercial areas. The ever-increasing traffic consume less resources will emerge [7]. The most important
in aviation creates an impetus for the increase of operations environmental issues to be considered under the sustain-
by providing safe and better service [2]. About 4.3 billion ability topic of airports are noise pollution, air pollution and
passengers used the airline in 2018, according to the Interna- emission management, efficient energy use, waste manage-
tional Civil Aviation Organization [3]. Airports, on the other ment and protection of biodiversity [8]. Among these topics,
hand, become an important means of global air transport solid waste management and waste disposal have prevailing
where both passengers and aircraft are hosted 24/7 [4]. importance for environmental management of the global air-
As airports grow and/or their operations increase, they line industry. According to international air transport data,
create more environmental impacts, but there are also oppor- 5.7 million tons of cabin waste was produced in the sector
tunities to be more sustainable [5]. A significant amount of in 2017, and this waste volume can be duplicated in the next
waste is generated as a result of various activities carried 10 years [9]. It is mandatory to have an appropriate waste
out at airports, and this is considered to be one of the most management system at airports to prevent contamination of
important environmental issues of air transport. Airports airport sites and to prevent the attraction of wildlife that
may adversely affect the safety of operations [10]. Failure to
manage organic wastes effectively may cause an increase in
* İsmail Özbay greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global
iozbay@kocaeli.edu.tr
warming [11]. In addition, since airports are local organi-
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty zations, they should follow a policy in line with national /
of Engineering, Kocaeli University, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkey

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142 135

local waste management regulations and targets. Depending service network. For this purpose, waste characterization
on these reasons, researches on waste management prac- was carried out in different sources and the efficiency of
tices and strategies at airports have been getting increasing the applied waste management plan was evaluated with the
attention. calculated waste diversion rate and zero-waste index values.
A good and feasible integrated waste management system
should plan how to manage waste from source to the end
product with the cradle to grave principle. In solid waste Materials and method
management applications, the strength of each driver and
depth of interaction with other drivers exhibit significant Presentation of the studied airport
variations according to types of waste, utilized disposal
methods and even economic conditions [12]. Municipali- Istanbul airport, which is the only airport on the European
ties, tourism facilities, universities, factories and similar side of Istanbul, is 35 km away from the city center and aims
institutions that are waste producers today are working on to increase its competitive power by adopting the airport city
the zero-waste strategy in waste management [13–17]. The concept on the way to becoming a global center. The airport,
zero-waste strategy is based on preventing waste generation where the first flights started in October 2018, opened offi-
and promoting recycling, so the waste should not be dis- cially in April 2019. It has an area of approximately 7650
posed of by landfill or incineration [6]. The major objective hectares, is expected to be the largest airport in the world in
of zero-waste approach is to conserve natural resources by terms of passenger traffic with an annual passenger capac-
redesigning production process of the industry and adjusting ity of 200 million passengers when fully completed. At the
the consumption behaviors of people [18]. end of 2019, it was registered as the 14th airport serving the
Since waste management in airports is environmentally most passengers [27].
important, researches on the subject have gained attention in
recent years. Baxter et al. examined the waste management Characterization of the solid wastes
practices between 2002 and 2015 at Kansai International
Airport in detail and evaluated Air New Zealand’s waste The characterization study was made with samples taken
management program and strategies through the data col- from Atatürk Airport, the predecessor of Istanbul Airport. In
lected from different sources [4, 6]. Blanca-Alcubilla et al. this study, samples taken from 17 different points were used
have examined the results of the “Zero Cabin Waste” project for waste characterization which was performed according
realized with the European Union life program for Madrid to ASTM-D52231. The wastes, collected from trolley, ter-
Barajas airport [19, 20]. Parameshwar evaluated solid waste minal, office and catering, were kept at separate points. Then
management strategies at Bangalore International Airport waste samples were mixed sufficiently to ensure homogene-
between 2009 and 2011 [21]. Pitt and Smith researched ous composition. Enough amount of waste was taken from
waste management practices at United Kingdam airports this mixture to fill the measuring container with a volume of
considering the data provided from 6 airports operated by 0.5 ­m3 (1 × 1 × 0 × 5 m). In order to calculate the amount of
BAA (formerly the British Airports Authority) [22]. Dos waste according to flight lengths, this measuring cup was not
Santos et al. evaluated the waste management at Congonhas used for the waste coming from the aircraft. All the waste
Airport statistically using the fuzzy mathematical model generated during the flight was used in characterization.
[23]. Sarbassov et al. analyzed the composition of urban In the separation process, wastes are classified in 18 cat-
solid wastes produced at Astana International Airport and egories according to the European Commission’s “Method-
evaluated different waste management scenarios in terms of ology for the Analysis of Solid Waste (SWA-Tool)”. Three
greenhouse gas emissions [24]. Suhaimi et al. investigated different categories which are long flights (flights lasting
the factors affecting the strategic efficiency of solid waste more than 4 h), short flights (flights less than 4 h) and flights
management in Kuala Lumpur International Airports [25]. without free catering have been created for samples taken
Tofalli et al. analyzed the characterization of wastes gener- from aircraft.
ated by passengers during the flight based on the data of In order to determine the content of wastes generated dur-
airlines using Larnaca’s International Airport [26]. As can ing the flight, a characterization process was carried out on
be seen from the studies, there is no study on waste manage- samples taken from 7 different flights in total: three types
ment strategies in airports within the framework of the zero of International–Long Haul–Free Catering (IF–LH–FC),
waste concept. International–Short Haul–Free Catering (IF–SH–FC), Inter-
The aim of this study was to present the roadmap to be national–Short Haul–Paid Catering (IF–SH–PC), Domes-
followed in the creation of zero waste strategies in airports tic–Free Catering (DF–FC) and Domestic–Paid Catering
with the case study of Istanbul airport, which is the largest (DF–PC). More detailed characterization was performed
airport in Turkey in terms of both passenger capacity and for international long flights due to higher waste generation.

13

136 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142

Food unused during the flight is collected on trolleys and managed by different systems j (j = composted, recycled,
sent back to catering companies. Food returned is classi- etc.), SFij = Substitution factor for different waste streams
fied as waste by catering companies. In order to determine (i = organic, paper, plastic, etc.) for different management
the organic load potential of trolley wastes, characterization systems (j = compost, recycle, etc.) based on their virgin
studies were carried out with 2 different samples, both in material replacement efficiency, GWS (ton/year) = Total
domestic and international. Samples taken from the catering amount of waste managed (i = 1 to n, all waste streams).
companies are important participants of the waste compo- Zero waste index and waste diversion rate values were
sitions during characterization studies. In addition, wastes calculated based on actual waste data sent to the compost-
belonging to the airline company headquarters kitchen are ing facility, licensed institutions (paper-cardboard, plastic,
included in this category. Thus, a total of 4 characterization glass, metal), incineration plant and landfill. Substitution
studies (2 for catering companies and 2 for airline company factors for different waste streams have been accepted in
kitchens) were performed for this part on different dates. the light of data obtained from facility authorities.
Day and night periods were evaluated individually for char-
acterization of terminal wastes. In addition, the compositions
of the wastes coming from the offices of airline and cargo
companies have been revealed. Characterization results have Results and discussion
been graphed considering the cumulative values.
Dynamics of passenger and cargo for İstanbul
airport
Determination of waste recycling rate
and zero‑waste index Figure  1 shows the total number of local and interna-
tional passengers in Istanbul airport in 2019 and 2020.
Waste conversion rate is one of the main indicators used It is seen that international passengers were 75.4% and
to measure the performance of waste management systems. 68.2% of total passengers, respectively, in 2019 and 2020.
Waste diversion rate can be defined as the proportion of These ratios demonstrate the importance of the airport
waste that is recycled or composted (recyclables) instead of in terms of international passenger traffic. In 2019, the
being disposed by incineration or landfilling (garbage). The Istanbul airport reached 75 million passengers with the
following equation is used to calculate the waste diversion high acceleration in the increase of passenger transporta-
rate [28]: tion. There was a 2.8% increase in passenger transpor-
Weight of recyclabes
Diversion rate = × 100% (1)
Weight of garbage + Weight of recyclabes

The ‘waste diversion rate’ is a numerical indicator that tation in January 2020 compared to the same period of
defines the efficiency of waste management system. How- the previous year. However, monthly passenger transport
ever, the diversion rate may become inadequate to describe data decreased gradually after March 2020 due to the
the rate of processed material that actually reduces resource impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Applied restrictions
consumption [29]. The zero-waste index, on the other hand, has resulted a sharp decline in the number of passengers.
allows to measure environmental benefits (material substi- As the restrictions were partially cancelled in July 2020,
tution efficiency, energy and water savings, prevention of primarily domestic flights started again and the number of
greenhouse gas emission, etc.) of management systems [28]. monthly passengers started to exceed 1 million. The total
In the zero waste approach, it is targeted to use same materi- number of passengers in 2020 decreased by 66% compared
als repeatedly until optimum level of consumption. If reuse to 2019 and remained at the level of 23.2 million due to
is not possible, the materials can be recycled or recovered the pandemic restrictions.
from the waste stream. By this way, consumption of natural Istanbul Airport has been designed as an important
sources can be minimized [30]. Zero-waste index can be transportation base with its geopolitical location, new
formulated as in Eq. (2) as follows. and highly capable infrastructure, and more importantly,
∑n having both land, air and sea routes. The amount of cargo
i−1
(WMSij × SF ij ) hosted in the airport has increased from 590,962 tons to
ZWI = , (2)
869,289 tons in 2019–2020 period. These results have
∑n
1
GWS
indicated that cargo transportation has grown in quantity
whereZWI = Zero-waste index, WMSij (ton/year) = Amount despite the pandemic.
of waste streams i (i = organic, plastic, paper, metal, etc.)

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142 137

Fig. 1  Monthly domestic and

international passenger traffics
for 2019 and 2020 at İstanbul
Airport

Waste collection system of the airport cargo companies are located on the airside. Cargo companies
are the largest waste producer of airside outdoor buildings.
There are many businesses serving in different lines within Pallets (plastic and wood) and packaging materials used
the airport. Since the enterprises that provide similar ser- especially for the transportation of large-sized cargo lead
vices are located close to each other in the facility, it is pos- the wastes from this zone. In addition, there are hazardous
sible to collect the waste generation zones within the airport and industrial wastes from hangars in this zone.
in three classes according to their location and functions. Although waste management at Istanbul airport is man-
Zone A (Passenger Terminal & Carpark): these are the aged within itself in the mini-city mode, since it is a part
areas with the highest density at airports. The main waste of the urban system, it should follow a policy in line with
density at the passenger terminals stems from the mobile the strategies and objectives of local governments respon-
population. Waste collection boxes are placed in suitable sible for the management of the city's waste. In Istanbul,
places to collect the wastes created by the dense crowd. wastes are collected in 8 different transfer stations where no
Waste collection bins are designed with 4 cells for packaging separation process is performed and then transferred to the
recycling, paper recycling, glass recycling and other wastes. waste collection facilities located in the Asian and European
The wastes accumulated in the recycling bins are often col- regions. Recyclable portion of the waste stream is sent to
lected with wheeled vehicles during the day. The collected the material recovery facility while the organic portion is
wastes are first accepted in special containers in the waste transferred to the composting facility. The remaining wastes
rooms at the terminal and subjected to pre-separation. The are also landfilled and disposed [31]. Similarly, the wastes
wastes that are ready to be shipped are sent to the waste sort- generated at the airport are categorized as organic, recy-
ing facility suitable for their waste classes. Organic wastes clable and domestic wastes according to the present waste
are sent directly to the compost facility. management plan (Fig. 2). As can be seen from the figure,
Zone B (Landside Buildings): infrastructure of airports the main difference of waste management at airports from
is divided as air and land side. There are support buildings urban waste management is that the separation process is
and technical buildings in landside airports. Energy cent- carried out more effectively at the source. Organic wastes
ers, wastewater treatment plant, aircraft fuel farm, catering separated at source in dining halls and catering are directly
facilities, government buildings (governorship, police, gen- sent the composting facility. Packaging and other recyclable
darmerie, etc.) are in this category. The largest waste pro- materials collected in recycling bins are separated according
ducer of this category is catering facilities. Organic waste to their types in the waste separation facility with a feeding
from catering companies is sent directly to the composting capacity of 28 tons/h and then recycled by licensed compa-
facility. Wastes from all other buildings are collected in 4 nies. Domestic wastes, on the other hand, are separated as
categories: recyclable, glass, organic and other. recyclable, flammable and biodegradable in the waste sepa-
Zone C (Airside Buildings): aircraft and their serving ration facility. While combustible wastes are considered as
facilities are located in this zone. Ground handling build- energy sources in RDF facilities, biodegradable wastes are
ings and facilities, hangars, air traffic control towers and disposed of in the urban waste landfill. In order to develop

13

138 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142

Fig. 2  Waste management
strategies followed in Istanbul
Airport

flights are the main factors affecting waste generation [16].

The increase in the number of free treats, especially on long-
distance flights has caused a remarkable increase in waste
generation. Therefore, a positive correlation was observed
between waste generated per passenger and flight time.
Results of characterization studies showed that the rate
of recyclable packaging waste from all flights except for
domestic short-distance flights with paid catering is over
45%. The other prominent waste types are combustible
wastes with ratios in the range from 5 to 29% and liquid
wastes with ratios from 3 to 12%. The high percentage of
packaging wastes may be due to catering services includ-
Fig. 3  Waste generation amounts for different types of flights
ing packaged food and drinks during long-flights. Approxi-
mately 65% of organic waste is generated on domestic short-
haul flights with paid catering, while this rate varies between
strategies suitable for the zero-waste approach at airports, 6 and 17% on flights with free catering. The main reason for
the amount of waste generated at the facility and its charac- this can be explained by the fact that a very small amount
terizations should be presented accurately. The waste forma- of waste (approximately 3 kg per flight), is generated due
tion and applied disposal methods were evaluated based on to the fee being paid, and that most of the waste is the food
the waste data delivered to the disposal facilities for years that passengers bring with them. Since the food and drinks
2019 and 2020. left over from the catering service on the aircraft are sent to
the relevant catering company, they are considered as waste
Waste generation and characterization from flights from their facilities.

One of the most important sources of waste at airports is Characterization of waste production from airport
mainly due to flights with free refreshments. Waste forma- activities
tion per passenger were determined for the flights consider-
ing flight distances and catering conditions (Fig. 3). Istanbul Airport City, which includes hotels, offices, shop-
High waste generation (155–235 kg/flight) was observed ping and entertainment areas, hospitals, mosques, education
due to free catering on long-distance flights abroad. While buildings and logistics areas, is designed to be used by the
the waste generation per passenger is in the range of passengers using the Airport, domestic and international
0.6–0.9 kg on long-distance flights with free catering, this visitors. For this reason, it is very important to identify and
ratio decreases to 0.31 levels on short-haul flights. On short- effectively manage waste sources in sustainable airport cit-
haul domestic flights, on the other hand, waste generation ies such as Istanbul Airport. Waste production from cater-
per flight is reduced by approximately 83%, as catering is ing companies and kitchens, trolleys, terminal and offices of
paid. As can be seen from the figure, waste generation per cargo and airline companies that continue their activities in
passenger decreases to the level of 0.02 kg on flights where Istanbul Airport was also examined in this study.
catering is paid. Blanca-Albucilla et al. (2019) indicated that The composition of wastes from trolleys is different for
the length of flight and the number of menus offered in long domestic and international flights. Organic wastes with a

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142 139

ratio of 56.27% and recyclable materials with a ratio of In order to determine the composition of terminal wastes,
18.96% are densely observed in wastes originating from two separate studies were conducted for day and night
international trolleys, while 37.57% liquid waste and 33.88% period, and cumulative results are given in Fig. 4(c). It is
organic wastes stand out in domestic trolleys. When the clearly seen that terminal wastes are mainly consisted of
wastes originating from domestic and international trol- combustible and recyclable materials with ratios of 56% and
leys are compared according to their percentage by weight, 36%, respectively. Characterization results for the wastes
organic wastes with a ratio of 54%, recyclable materials with originating from the offices of cargo and airline compa-
a ratio of 18%, liquid wastes with a ratio of 12% and finally, nies are given in the Fig. 4(d). When waste compositions
15% other combustible wastes draw attention (Fig. 4(a)). of the two office types were compared, it was found that
Composition of the wastes originating from catering com- the main difference was in the amount of organic wastes.
panies and kitchens is given in Fig. 4(b). While the rate of The fraction of organic wastes for airline companies’ office
organic waste originating from catering companies is in the is 23.45% while this ratio was lower for cargo companies’
range of 30–42%; this rate is in the range of 60–79% for office (7.56%). Recyclable materials with an average of 43%
kitchen wastes of airline company. The ratio of recyclable and combustible wastes with an average of 43% have been
material content of catering and kitchen wastes is 14% which identified as important components in the general composi-
is remarkably lower than organic waste ratio (47%). tion of office waste.

Fig. 4  Composition of wastes from a Trolley, b Catering company and kitchen, c Terminal, d Cargo office and airline company

13

140 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142

Table 1  Waste per passenger at different airports

Airport Waste generation References
(kg/passenger)

Naples International Airport 0.14 [32]

Astana International Airport 0.24 [24]
Kansai International Airport 0.43–0.80 [4]
Congonhas Airport 0.50–4.00 [23]
Aberdeen Airport 0.26 [22]
Edinburgh Airport 0.21
Glasgow Airport 0.35
Heathrow Airport 0.41
Gatwick Airport 0.50
Fig. 5  Zonal waste collection at Istanbul Airport Stansted Airport 0.30
Southampton Airport 0.23
İstanbul Airport 0.39–0.52 This study
Quantity of waste generation and zero‑waste index
for Istanbul Airport

The amount of waste collected from different zones of Istan- of passenger circulation, which is an important source of
bul airport is given in Fig. 5. As can be seen from the figure, the recyclable waste composition in the port, due to the
waste generation decreased by approximately 55% in 2020. restrictions in flight activities due to the pandemic. While
Before the pandemic in 2019, 40% of the waste collected the amount of waste disposed of by storing during the pan-
originated from zone A, 35% from zone B and 25% from demic process decreased by approximately 47%, the amount
zone C whereas in 2020, when restrictions were imposed of recyclable waste decreased by 61%.These results show
due to the pandemic, these rates were decreased to 21%, 51% that the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic cause the
and 28%, respectively. diversion rates of waste to decrease.
While significant decreases occurred in all zones com- Although the concept of zero-waste, which defines the
pared to the previous year, the highest waste reduction ideal waste and research management, is important for
occurred in Zone A (76%), where the terminal is located. sustainable waste management, it is a difficult process to
The decrease in total waste amounts can be attributed to perform for an organization or community [30]. The zero-
the decrease in the number of passengers, as well as due to waste index of Istanbul airport was determined as 0.36 and
the pandemic restrictions. For this reason, it would be more 0.26 for 2019 and 2020, respectively. Achieving the zero-
meaningful to evaluate the waste formations per passenger. waste target is possible by developing waste management
In 2019 and 2020, waste generation per passenger was deter- strategies in a way to reduce the tendency towards landfill-
mined to be 0.39 and 0.52 kg, respectively. It is thought that ing and incineration technologies. When examined waste
the amount of waste generation, which increases with the management in terms of waste diversion rate and zero-waste
decrease in the number of passengers, is due to the increase index in Adelaide city between 2003 and 2010, the com-
in the efficiency of the consumption of personnel working posting efficiency was increased from 61.5 to 79.9%, but
in airport activities. When these values are compared with since the recycling targets were insufficient, the zero-waste
other airports, waste generation per passenger at Istanbul index was only increased to 0.40 [29]. As it can be under-
airport is similar to those in the airports in Japan, Brazil stood from here, zero-waste strategies are applications that
and UK (Table 1). require extensive planning and long processes to increase
When waste disposal methods are examined, the organic recycling. At Istanbul airport, strategies should be developed
wastes separated at the source are sent directly to the com- to increase the rate of recycling and composting by reduc-
posting facility, while the other wastes are recycled after ing the amount of mixed waste by increasing the separation
being processed in the decomposition facility or disposed efficiency at the source.
in incineration or landfilling facilities. As can be seen from
Table 2, landfilling and recycling are widely preferred in the
management of waste generated at the airport. Conclusions
Waste diversion rate was calculated to evaluate the effi-
ciency of implemented waste management strategies and Istanbul Airport is one of Europe’s most important air-
it was determined as 52% and 44% for 2019 and 2020, ports with growing flight network and passenger capacity
respectively. This situation was caused by the cessation day by day. The major aim of this work was to evaluate

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142 141

Table 2  Waste diversion rate and zero waste index for waste management systems in Istanbul Airport
Indicators Waste type Virgin material 2019 2020
substitution efficiency
(tonnes) Managed of waste Substitution from Managed of Waste Substitution from
materials (tonnes) material (tonnes) materials (tonnes) material (tonnes)

Recycling Paper 0.84–1.00a 5256.76 4731.08 1413.75 1272.38

0.90b
Glass 0.90–1.00a 644.64 631.75 202.5 198.45
0.98b
Metal 0.79–0.96a 96.10 81.69 34.45 29.28
0.85b
Plastic 0.90–0.97a 2321.51 2205.44 766.45 728.13
0.95b
Mixed 0.25–0.45a 5493.45 1648.04 2920.45 876.14
0.30b
Compost Organic 0.60–0.65a 181.42 108.85 29.40 17.64
0.60b
Landfill Mixed 0.00 12,803.05 – 6814.37 –
İncineration Mixed 0.00 15.00 – – –
Total waste managed 26,811.93 12,181.37
Waste diversion rate (%) 0.52 0.44
Zero Waste Index 0.35 0.26
a
 Range of localized substitution factor [28]
b
 Substitution factors for waste separation facility, compost facility and licensed institutions in the airport

the efficiency of waste management practices at this airport plans and monitoring the percentage of meeting the tar-
based on waste diversion rate and zero-waste index. gets to be set. The data obtained from this study clearly
When the waste generation from flights is examined, revealed the points that should be focused while develop-
waste generation in the range of 0.6–0.9 kg/passenger flight ing the strategy. As airports host people from different
due to free catering on long-distance flights shows a decrease points with very different cultures, it is seen that consump-
over 50% in short-distance flights with free catering. On tion behaviors that increase the amount of waste can be
short-haul paid flights, on the other hand, it decreases to changed by economic practices rather than educational
0.02 kg/passenger flight level. Locations with the highest activities. Separation at source by utilizing industrial
percentage of organic waste at airports are catering estab- practices should be encouraged at airports to achieve zero
lishments, kitchens and trolleys (> 40%), while the locations waste targets. As a result, it is seen that the development
with the highest percentage of recyclable waste are terminals of efforts to prevent free catering flight policies within
and offices (40%). In waste management strategies, while the scope of zero-waste strategies will significantly reduce
the rate of waste sent to recycling was over 43%, the rate the amount of waste from flights. In order to increase the
of waste sent to composting remained at very low levels waste diversion rate and zero-waste index, efforts should
(< 1%). Since the study covers the 2019–2020 periods, it be made to separate the waste to be composted and recy-
also shows the effect of pandemic restrictions on waste man- clable waste at the source more effectively and to increase
agement. In 2020, due to the restrictions, waste generation the recycling rates. It is observed that the pandemic
rates decreased by 55%. However, when evaluated in terms restrictions caused a decrease in the efficiency of waste
of waste generation per passenger, there was an increase management due to external service practices. Increas-
of 33% compared to 2019. Waste diversion rate was 44% ing alternatives in waste management or reducing external
in 2020, while the zero-waste index was determined to be dependency will contribute to preventing these declines.
0.26. Results of this study concluded that politics on pollu- It is expected that outputs of this study will enlighten the
tion prevention are still insufficient and global approaches concerned authorities to improve waste management strat-
are also required besides institutional applications in order egies at other airports.
to achieve the zero waste targets at airports.
The efficiency of the zero waste approach can be Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 10163-0​ 21-0​ 1308-2.
improved by application of short, medium and long term

13

142 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2022) 24:134–142

References to provide a zero waste solution for the dairy industry. J Dairy Sci
99:1859–1867. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3168/​jds.​2015-​10059
18. Ayeleru OO, Okonta FN, Ntuli F (2018) Municipal solid waste
1. Clemes MD, Gan C, Kao TH, Choong M (2008) An empirical
generation and characterization in the City of Johannesburg: a
analysis of customer satisfaction in international air travel. Innova-
pathway for the implementation of zero waste. Waste Manage
tive Mark 4(2):49–62
79:87–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2018.​07.​026
2. Wang Y, Zhan J, Xu X, Li L, Chen P, Hansen M (2019) Meas-
19. Blanca-Alcubilla G, Bala A, Hermira JI, De-Castro N, Chavarri
uring the resilience of an airport network. Chin J Aeronaut
R, Perales R, Barredo I, Fullana-I-Palmer P (2018) Tackling
32(12):2694–2705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cja.​2019.​08.​023
international airline catering waste management: life zero cabin
3. ICAO (2018) Presentation of 2018 air transport statistical results.
waste project. State of the art and first steeps. Detritus 3:159–166.
International Civil Aviation Organization Web. https://​www.​icao.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​31025/​2611-​4135/​2018.​13698
int/​annual-​report-​2018/​Pages/​the-​world-​of-​air-​trans​port-​in-​2018-​
20. Blanca-Alcubilla G, Roca M, Bala A, Sanz N, De Castro N,
stati​stical-​resul​ts.​aspx. Accessed 8 February 2021.
Fullana-i-Palmer P (2019) Airplane cabin waste characteriza-
4. Baxter G, Srisaeng P, Wild G (2018) Sustainable airport energy
tion: Knowing the waste for sustainable management and future
management: the case of Kansai International Airport. Int J Traffic
recommendations. Waste Manage 96:57–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Transp Eng 8(3):334–358. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.7​ 708/i​ jtte.2​ 018.8​ (3).​
1016/j.​wasman.​2019.​07.​002
07
21. Parameshwar HK (2011) Solid waste management in airports:
5. Asinjo DA (2011) Environmental management at sustain-
a case study of Bangalore International Airport. Proceedings of
able airport models. Southern Illinois University Carbondale
International Conference on Green Technology and Environmen-
(Dissertation)
tal Conservation. IEEE Publisher, India, pp 152–158
6. Baxter G (2020) Sustainable airline waste management: a case
22. Pitt M, Smith A (2003) Waste management efficiency at UK air-
study of air New Zealand’s waste management Programs and
ports. J Air Transp Manag 9:103–111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
Strategies. Int J Traffic Transp Eng 10(3):351–370. https://​doi.​
S0969-​6997(02)​00063-7
org/​10.​7708/​ijtte.​2020.​10(3).​07
23. Dos Santos AJ, Mancini SD, Roveda JAF, Ewbank H, Roveda
7. Kaya SK, Erginel N (2020) Futuristic airport: a sustainable air-
SRMM (2020) A fuzzy assessment method to airport waste man-
port design by integrating hesitant fuzzy SWARA and hesitant
agement: a case study of Congonhas Airport, Brazil. J Air Transp
fuzzy sustainable quality function deployment. J Clean Prod
Manag 87:101838. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jairt​raman.​2020.​
275:123880. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​123880
101838
8. Santa SLB, Ribeiro JMP, Mazon G, Schneider J, Barcelos RL,
24. Sarbassov Y, Venetis C, Aiymbetov B, Abylkhani B, Yagofarova
Guerra JBSOD (2020) A Green Airport model: proposition based
A, Tokmurzin D, Anthony EJ, Inglezakis VJ (2020) Municipal
on social and environmental management systems. Sustain Cities
solid waste management and greenhouse gas emissions at interna-
Soc 59:102160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scs.​2020.​102160
tional airports: a case study of Astana International Airport. J Air
9. IATA (2021) International catering waste: a case for smarter regu-
Transp Manag 85:101789. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jairt​raman.​
lation, International Air Transport Association Web. https://w ​ ww.​
2020.​101789
iata.​org/​conte​ntass​ets/​821b5​93dd8​cd4f4​aa33b​63ab9​e3536​8b/​
25. Suhaimi HA, Nor FM, Nasir SM (2019) The strategic effective-
summa​ry-​icw-​case-​for-​smart​er-​regul​ation.​pdf. Accessed 22 May
ness on implementation of solid waste management at Kuala Lum-
2021.
pur International Airport Politeknik and Kolej Komuniti. J Soc
10. ICAO (2021) Waste Management at Airports. International Civil
Sci Humanit 4(1):76–84
Aviation Organization Web. https://​www.​icao.​int/​envir​onmen​tal-​
26. Tofalli N, Loizia P, Zorpas AA (2018) Passengers waste pro-
prote​ction/​docum​ents/​waste_​manag​ement_​at_​airpo​r ts_​bookl​et.​
duction during flights. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:35764–35775.
pdf. Accessed 22 May 2021.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​017-​0800-x
11. Munster M, Ravn H, Hedegaard K, Juul N, Söderman ML (2015)
27. Deveci M, Çiftçi ME, Akyurt IZ (2020) Strategical analysis and
Economic and environmental optimization of waste treatment.
the impact of Istanbul Airport on Turkish Airlines. J Econ Soc
Waste Manag 38:486–495. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​
Dev 7(1):71–80
2014.​12.​005
28. Zaman AZ, Lehmann S (2013) The zero waste index: a perfor-
12. Agamuthu P, Khidzir KM, Hamid FS (2009) Drivers of sustain-
mance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero
able waste management in Asia. Waste Manag Res 27:625–633.
waste city.’ J Clean Prod 50(1):123–132. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​42X09​103191
jclep​ro.​2012.​11.​041
13. Lugo M, Ail SS, Castaldi MJ (2020) Approaching a zero-waste
29. Zaman AZ (2014) Measuring waste management performance
strategy by reuse in New York City: challenges and potential.
using the ‘Zero Waste Index’: the case of Adelaide Australia. J
Waste Manag Res 38(7):734–744. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​
Clean Prod 66:407–419. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2013.​
42X20​919496
10.​032
14. Dileep MR (2007) Tourism and waste management: a review of
30. Song Q, Li J, Zeng X (2015) Minimizing the increasing solid
implementation of “Zero Waste” at Kovalam. Asia Pac J Tour Res
waste through zero waste strategy. J Clean Prod 104:199–210.
12(4):377–392. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10941​66070​18233​14
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2014.​08.​027
15. Mason IG, Brooking AK, Oberender A, Harford JM, Horsley PG
31. Ayvaz-Cavdaroglu N, Coban A, Firtina-Ertis I (2019) Municipal
(2003) Implementation of a zero waste program at a university
solid waste management via mathematical modeling: a case study
campus. Resour Conserv Recycl 38:257–269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
in İstanbul Turkey. J Environ Manage 244:362–369. https://​doi.​
1016/​S0921-​3449(02)​00147-7
org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2019.​05.​065
16. Pattanaik L, Duraivadivel P, Hariprasad P, Naik SN (2020) Uti-
32. Miedico M (2018) Sustainable growth management at Naples
lization and re-use of solid and liquid waste generated from the
international airport, Italy. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 215:233–240.
natural indigo dye production process—a zero waste approach.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​EID18​0211
Bioresour Technol 301:122721. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iorte​ ch.​
2019.​122721
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
17. Parashar A, Jin Y, Mason B, Chae M, Bressler DC (2016) Incorpo-
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ration of whey permeate, a dairy effluent, in ethanol fermentation

13