e-waste management is clearly ineffective and is determined by the market mechanism. In addition, workers in the informal sectors lack knowledge and tools, yet they are the main group active in sorting and dismantling waste. Thus, the e-waste management system does not meet the standard under the status quo. This research attempted to understand the trade-offs among the economic value and environmental effects of the current e-waste management system.
The study focused on four types of e-waste: cell phones; desktop computers; air conditioners, and televisions discarded in 2019. The e-waste estimates reported above can be divided into three categories according to the value of their parts: 1) waste or non-recyclable materials. For example, the non-recyclable materials are glass with lead content (TV screens), plastic, etc. which accounted for 24% of the total e-waste generated; 2) recyclable parts within the country, e.g., plastic, iron, copper and aluminum, which accounted for 70%, and 3) recyclable parts outside the country, e.g., circuit boards and batteries, which accounted for 6% of the total waste.
Based upon the LCA and LCC assessment results of the 2019 waste products, it was found that the air conditioner recycling management showed the largest amount of GHGs throughout the life cycle, although it provided the highest revenue for dismantlers and Thai recyclers. However, air conditioner waste management could help reduce LCA emissions if refrigerant is disposed of properly.
The main factors that affect LCA GHGs are the transportation distances from the waste generation to dismantling areas and recycling industries. Without proper organization between the life-cycle stages, the emissions from transportation contribute a significant portion. This result is similar to that in MK Jaunich, J DeCarolis, R Handfield, E Kemahlioglu-Ziy, SR Ranjithan and H Moheb-Alizadeh [24] study, who stated that the decline in using fossil-fuel-powered personal vehicles was found to be a key contributor to cost and carbon dioxide emissions.
With respect to the LCC assessment, it was found that dismantling and recycling all four types of e-waste in 2019 resulted in income in the range of 202.4–1,399 million THB ($6.8–$45.0 million). The income from the extraction of precious minerals from circuit boards and batteries was in the range of 587–3,010 million THB ($18.9–$96.7 million USD). Although the amount from parts that are exported to foreign recycling industries is small, it has a high value after the precious metals are extracted. The extraction and recycling of circuit boards and batteries generated a higher income than Thai recycling industries.
P He, H Feng, G Hu, K Hewage, G Achari, C Wang and R Sadiq [30] showed that the LCCs of recycling one waste feature phone and one waste smartphone in China are approximately US$ 2.34 and US$ 6.60, respectively. The LCCs of extracting high-tech minerals, such as cobalt and palladium, from one waste feature phone are US$ 6.035 for 1 g of cobalt and US$ 0.014 for 1 g of palladium. The LCCs of extracting 1 g of cobalt, palladium, antimony, beryllium, neodymium, praseodymium, and platinum from one waste smartphone are US$ 10.106, US$ 0.024, US$ 0.135, US$ 0.005, US$ 0.08, US$ 0.016, and US$ 0.006, respectively. The total value added from recycling and extracting minerals falls within the same range as those in Thailand.
It appears that the dismantling communities can earn profits from this practice; however, the reason that they gain only a slight profit is because they do not pay a landfill fee or a waste disposal fee. The local municipality covers the costs. In fact, dismantling TV CRTs costs more than its profit if the cost of e-waste disposal is included (lead contained in TV screens). Existing waste management systems should be revised to internalize disposal costs in the economy [31].
Changes in the attitudes of governments, appropriate legislation that addresses e-waste specifically, control of dumping electronic waste, implementation of EPR, and technology transfer for the sound recycling of e-waste are the keys for its effective management [32]. The Thai government has taken more than a decade to draft “The Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste Management Act”. At present, it is still in the drafting process and cannot be implemented anytime soon. Certain e-waste types may need to be charged a waste management fee because collection and recycling have more embedded costs and cannot rely solely on market determinants.
A better e-waste collection system is required, and collection guidelines and collection points will affect both profitability and GHGs. Therefore, collection, sorting, and dismantling centers by region (North, Central, West, Northeast, East and South) need to be established between dismantling facilities and recycling plants. Further, the transportation distance between each facility should not exceed 400 km. e-waste should be considered an opportunity to recycle or recover valuable metals (e.g., copper, gold, silver, and palladium), given their significant content of precious metals compared to mineral ores [33]. In addition, a full high-tech recycling plant in the country should be promoted to achieve the complete extraction of precious minerals.
Ending informal dismantling and recycling sectors should be made one of the high-priority policy objectives for governments. Many research articles that have studied this issue also have raised this point [34, 35]. The informal sector should apply the best affordable technologies and upgrade and qualify low- and medium-skilled laborers [36]. In addition, the practical feasibility of circular economy approaches and developing community commitment through stakeholders’ active engagement should be promoted [37] [38].
Finally, considering the public’s awareness and the human risk attitude during the e-waste recycling activities would be beneficial for organizations with respect to reducing potential adverse effects on society. Incentives may be needed to encourage people to discard e-waste at collection points and not together with their solid household waste [39]. The possible introduction of a carbon tax was also found to reduce the cost disadvantage of recycling rather than landfill disposal significantly [9]. Given the high level of environmental load associated with landfilling and the potential introduction of carbon taxes, the circular economy could be seen as a strategy to achieve appliances’ sustainability. Future studies of consumers’ e-waste disposal behaviour and awareness could be helpful to devise inclusive e-waste management strategies to address the current challenges [40].