Decentralized Community Composting: Past, Present and Future Aspects of Italy

sustainability
Review
Decentralized Community Composting: Past, Present
and Future Aspects of Italy
Cecilia Bruni 1 , Çağrı Akyol 1, * , Giulia Cipolletta 1 , Anna Laura Eusebi 1, *,
Donatella Caniani 2 , Salvatore Masi 2 , Joan Colón 3 and Francesco Fatone 1
1 Department of Science and Engineering of Materials, Environment and Urban Planning-SIMAU,
Marche Polytechnic University, via Brecce Bianche 12, 60131 Ancona, Italy; [email protected] (C.B.);
[email protected] (G.C.); [email protected] (F.F.)
2 Engineering School, University of Basilicata, viale dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy;
[email protected] (D.C.); [email protected] (S.M.)
3 BETA Tech Center, Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya, C/de la Laura 13, 08500 Vic,
Barcelona, Spain; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Ç.A.); [email protected] (A.L.E.);
Tel.: +39-0712204911 (Ç.A.)

Received: 4 April 2020; Accepted: 17 April 2020; Published: 19 April 2020
Abstract: Italy is among the top biowaste-generating countries in Europe, and has a well-structured
waste management framework with quite a number of centralized composting facilities. In recent
years, there has also been huge interest from local communities in decentralized composting. Although
decentralized community composting is common in some countries, there is still a lack of information
on the operative environment together with its potential logistical, environmental, economic, and social
impacts. Considering the national Italian legislation on community composting as well as successfully
implemented projects at EU level, Italy can set a model especially for Mediterranean countries
that intend to build decentralized composting programs. Therefore, in the context of this review
paper, a brief overview of the composting process was presented together with main applications
in centralized and especially in decentralized composting, while the main focus was kept on the
operative and legislative information gathered from Italian community composting. There is a huge
difference in the number of composting plants between the regions, and the lack of centralized facilities
in the central and southern regions can be supported by decentralized solutions. Decentralizing
waste treatment facilities and thus creating local solutions to urban waste management strategies will
help to achieve the resource recovery and valorization targets in line with the circular economy.
Keywords: biofertilizer; community composting; decentralized composting; municipal solid waste;

recycling; organic waste management
1. Introduction
There is an unavoidable increasing trend of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation worldwide.
In 2016, the total waste generated in the EU-28 with respect to all economic activities and households
was equal to 2538 million tonnes; furthermore, 486 kg MSW/capita were generated in the EU in 2017 [1].
In a broader food–water–energy nexus perspective, when these streams with a rich mix of organic
compounds are wasted, the resources used to produce, collect, treat, process and transport them, are all
wasted, and this results in significant losses in energy and water [2,3]. In this regard, decoupling
economic growth from the environmental impacts associated with waste generation is a priority target
of the EU [4].
Bio-economy seems to be the key factor to follow a sustainable path towards a smart and green
future in the EU. Bio-economies are bio-based economical solutions that aim to reduce the dependence
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3319; doi:10.3390/su12083319 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3319 2 of 20
on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [5]. EU member states are already obligated
to reduce the amount of biodegradable MSW sent to landfills and to recycle organic fractions using
more environmentally friendly technologies regarding the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) and Waste
Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). In recent years, the EU has adopted a series of measures to comply
with such requirements [6]. For instance, the European Commission (EC) adopted the “Circular
Economy Package”, which hosts revised legislative proposals on waste with a greater common target
for the recycling of municipal waste and lower limits for municipal waste going to landfills. The target
for recycling of municipal waste by 2035 is set to 65% in the revised legislative framework on waste.
In this regard, the EU promotes the implementation of precise measures and actions among its members
in order to enhance current conditions and build a legal framework for the proper management of
MSW [7]. As a result, the amount of waste recycled (material recycling and composting) rose from
39 million tonnes in 1995 to 116 million tonnes in 2017 at an average annual rate of 5.0%. Furthermore,
the recovery of organic material by composting has grown with an average annual rate of 5.2%
from 1995 to 2017. Recycling and composting together accounted for 46% in 2017 relative to waste
generation [1]. In some countries, like Italy, there are explicit and detailed rules set by legislation
under waste law. However, the standards on the use and quality of compost differ considerably
within EU members, mostly due to differences in soil policies [8]. Platforms such as the European
Compost Network (www.compostnetwork.info) brings all European biowaste organizations and their
operating plants, research, policy making, consultants and authorities together and creates a network
for sustainable recycling practices in composting.
The benefits of reusing or recycling urban waste are neither fully understood nor officially
recognised and confirms the fragmentation of policy and institutions along urban–rural lines [9].
While still being a “conventional” method, composting is still considered among the most preferred
urban waste management practices. Following the newly developed technologies and innovative
processes, composting is now more enhanced and even highly encouraged at the community-scale by
governments with recent legislations. Italy is one of the countries that adopts community composting,
based on the 2016 national legislation [10]. While many recent projects at EU level have been
demonstrating community composting all over Italy, this work aims to review the status of innovative
decentralized composting practices in Italy at the community level by discussing institutional structure
and site-specific replications for urban biowaste management. The following sections start with
the organic waste management structure in Italy, followed by a general overview of composting
process and further scale down to a decentralized composting network, and give complementary
information regarding the current status in Italy. We believe that the given perspectives in this paper
can present a model for Mediterranean countries that are eager to improve their sustainable waste
management strategies.
2. Organic Waste Management in Italy

In Italy, as in many other countries, organic waste represents the main fraction of MSW, and the
percentage of MSW that is recycled and composted in Italy has more than doubled itself in from 2004
to 2016, according to the European Environmental Agency [11]. Between 1997 and 2017, the amount
of organic waste collected separately increased by a factor of 10, and in 2015 nearly 6.1 million
tonnes of food and garden waste were collected separately in Italian municipalities, accounting for
100 kg/inhabitant/year [12]. Today, Italy is one of the EU countries leading the separate collection of
MSW and specifically of organic waste. In addition, Italy is among the top EU member countries
with the greatest proportion of wastes sent for composting [13]. Biowaste accounted for 41.2% of all
MSW source separated in Italy in 2016. In 2018, 58% of all MSW was source separated, with peaks of
about 72% in the Regions of Veneto and Trentino Alto Adige and other seven Italian Regions with
more than 60%. Nowadays, about 35 million of inhabitants in Italy are involved in intensive collection
schemes for biowaste (food waste and green waste), diverting about 6.5 million tonnes of biowaste
from disposal to recycling [14].
Waste management in Italy is represented by a set of policies, procedures and/or methodologies that
identify the management of the entire waste process as its primary objective, from production to final
destination. Management involves several stages, such as collection, transport, treatment (i.e., recovery
or disposal) and finally recycling and therefore, the possible reuse of waste materials. In a scenario in
which the EU sets new recycling targets to meet the principles of a circular economy, as well as the
production of municipal waste tending to increase (from 29,651,720 tonnes in 2014 to 30,164,520 tonnes
in 2018) [14], the correct management of waste becomes a fundamental tool to meet the objectives of
circularity and sustainability. In this regard, Italian legislation has implemented the principles defined
by the EU with Legislative Decree 152/2006 "Environmental regulations" (subsequently amended with
Legislative Decree 205/2010) (D.Lgs. 152) [15]. In fact, the decree (Part Four, Title I, Chapter I, Articles
179 to 182) contains rules on the correct management of waste. In this sense, particular attention is
paid to the waste management hierarchy, in which the priority measures of the best environmental
waste management practices are established. Specifically, higher priority is associated with prevention,
preparation for reuse and recovery activities, while landfilling is associated with the minimum priority,
since it is no longer considered a sustainable way of waste management. Figure 1A shows the changes
in the final destination of wastes in Italy over recent years, where there is a decreasing trend in
landfilling and increasing interest in biological treatment.
The need to respect this scale of management options requires attention precisely on the initial
steps of waste management, i.e., not only the reduction of waste production (where possible) but above
all their adequate collection. To this end, each region, on the basis of indications provided by the
Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea (MATTM), establishes
the criteria for the separate collection of waste (i.e., paper and cardboard, glass and metals, plastic
and fraction organic) intending to promote high-quality recycling and to meet the necessary quality
criteria for the various recycling sectors. The selective interception of various product fractions allows
individual categories of waste to be subjected to specific treatment cycles for the recovery of waste
materials and their valorization as a new recycled product.
Special attention is paid to the separate collection of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW) as it represents one of the most critical solid waste flows to be treated both in quantitative
and qualitative terms. From a quantitative point of view, OFMSW represented about 40.4% of the total
separate waste collection in 2018 and its production is continuously increasing (from 5,720,000 tonnes
in 2014 to 7,079,800 tonnes in 2018 in total) [14]. Figure 1B shows the differentiation of OFMSW
production between the regions of Italy in 2018. From a qualitative point of view, the OFMSW, being
mainly made up of wet (i.e., domestic residues of food waste) and a green fraction (i.e., excerpts and
prunings) can become an essential source of renewable energy and compost.
Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 12,12,
2020, x FOR
3319 PEER REVIEW 4 of 20 4 of 20
A B
120
180
100
160
kg OFMSW/inhabitant/year
kg/inhabitant/year
80 140
2014
120
60 2015
100
2016 80
40 2017 60
2018 40
20
20
0 0
Organic Paper Plastic Glass Wood Metal WEEE Textile Construction
fraction and
demolition
C 12000000
D
900000 Composting plant
10000000
800000
tonne OFMSW/year
700000 Integrated aerobic and anaerobic digestion
8000000
plant
tonne/year
2014 600000
6000000 Anaerobic digestion plant
2015 500000
2016 400000
4000000
2017 300000
2000000 2018 200000

100000
0 0
Landfill Incineration MBT Biological Home Other forms Use as source
treatment of composting of recovery power
the organic
fraction
Figure 1. (A) Distribution of solid wastes produced in Italy over recent years; (B) Region-based comparison of organic waste production in Italy in 2018; (C) Distribution
Figure 1. destination
of final (A) Distribution of solid
of waste wastes
in Italy overproduced in Italy
recent years; over recent years;
(D) Region-based (B) Region-based
comparison comparison
of organic waste of organicinwaste
final destination production
Italy in in Italy
2018 (obtained in modified
and 2018; (C) from
Distribution
the
of official
final destination
website ofof wasteSuperiore
Istituto in Italy over
per recent years; (D)
la Protezione e la Region-based comparison
Ricerca Ambientale of organic waste final destination in Italy in 2018 (obtained and modified from the
(ISPRA)).
official website of Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)).
Enhancement of OFMSW can take place through biological processes that combine integrated
anaerobic/aerobic treatment technologies, also thanks to the conversion of some already existing
composting plants. Based on the 2018 report of the Higher Institute for Environmental Protection
and Research (Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)), the Italian plant
equipment includes 339 operating units, with a total authorized capacity of approximately 10.3 million
tonnes. In particular, 281 plants are dedicated to aerobic treatment (composting) only; 35 plants
have integrated anaerobic/aerobic treatment systems; together with 23 anaerobic digestion plants [14].
It should be noted that, although the treatment capacity of the OFMSW allows the creation of further
developments in the sector, the distribution of the plants is uneven across Italy, as can be seen in
Figure 1C,D. This fragmentation has an overall consequence of the inability to be able to entirely treat
the quantities of waste produced in its territory and therefore depends on the need to export a share of
its organic waste to plants located in extra-regional territories. An analysis on waste exports showed
a flow direction from Central (Lazio, Marche, Tuscany and Umbria) and South (Abruzzo, Basilicata,
Calabria, Campania, Molise and Puglia) Italy to the North (Emilia-Romagna, Friuli-Venice Giulia,
Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont, Trentino-Alto Adige, Aosta Valley and Veneto). Furthermore, small
flow entities are detected between the northern regions as they are due to the principle of proximity
that it is possible to reach optimal levels of users served by exploiting the territorial proximity that
offers better technical-economic opportunities. Overall, it is recorded that the imports of waste are:
for Northern Italy equal to approximately 84.7% of the total OFMSW produced; for Central Italy
equal to approximately 8%; and Southern Italy equal to approximately 7.3% [14]. The reasons for
the variation are mainly due to the late industrialization of the southern regions, difficulties with
administrative issues and an economic imbalance between the municipalities that implement the
separate collection [16].
3. A Brief Overview of the Composting Process

Composting is defined as the controlled aerobic biological decomposition of organic matter into a
stable, humus-like product called compost, where mixing of organic wastes with other ingredients are
accelerated to optimize microbial growth [17]. Advantages and disadvantages of composting are widely
taken apart in the literature. In the most common sense of the practice, composting enables the recycling
of biowaste (i.e., kitchen waste, yard waste, agricultural waste) and reduces the amount of waste going
to landfilling, helps to cease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when properly managed, increases
soil fertility and biodiversity as well as decreases the need for chemical fertilizers when applied as
fertilizer, and contributes to raising awareness and promoting community-scale waste management
practice [6,18,19]. On the other hand, some concerns are also raised for improperly managed composting
applications, such as the formation of malodorous or toxic gases and bioaerosols [6,20], odor [21],
leachate [6] and a decrease in soil quality when heavily applied [22]. A general flow scheme of organic
waste management by composting is illustrated in Figure 2.
3.1. Critical Process Parameters in Composting

In general, the composting process is considered a consecutive four-phase process that is
characterized by changing temperature pattern as follows: 1) initial (mesophilic) phase (25–40 ◦ C)
2) thermophilic phase (35–65 ◦ C) 3) cooling (second-mesophilic) phase and 4) maturation phase.
Temperature is the key parameter as it regulates microbial activity [23]. The optimum temperature
range for composting is 40–65 ◦ C. The thermophilic phase is of utmost important for hygienization
(above 55 ◦ C), where human and plant pathogens are destroyed and weed seeds and insect larvae
are killed [24]. Optimum water content of a composting mixture should be around 50%–60%,
and at moisture content above 65%, oxygen transfer is inhibited, and the process tends to become
anaerobic [25,26]. Aeration is therefore another critical operating parameter for aerobic microbial
activity; hence, enough oxygen supply must be ensured [27]. The carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio
determines the nutritional balance as well as the properties of the final compost product [28]. A C/N
therefore depends on the need to export a share of its organic waste to plants located in extra-regional
territories. An analysis on waste exports showed a flow direction from Central (Lazio, Marche, Tuscany and
Umbria) and South (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise and Puglia) Italy to the North (Emilia-
Romagna, Friuli-Venice Giulia, Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont, Trentino-Alto Adige, Aosta Valley and Veneto).
Furthermore, small flow entities are detected between the northern regions as they are due to the principle of
proximity that it is possible to reach optimal levels of users served by exploiting the territorial proximity that
offers better technical-economic opportunities. Overall, it is recorded that the imports of waste are: for
Northern
ratio between Italy 25
equal
andto30approximately 84.7% of the
is usually considered totaloptimal
as the OFMSWratio
produced; for Central [29,30].
for composting Italy equal
A pHto
approximately 8%; and Southern Italy equal to approximately 7.3% [14]. The reasons for the variation are
of 6.7–9.0 also supports good microbial activity during composting, while acidification during the
mainly due to the late industrialization of the southern regions, difficulties with administrative issues and an
early thermophilic phase is probably one of the main causes of composting process failure as well
economic imbalance between the municipalities that implement the separate collection [16].
as responsible for the emission of odorous compounds (i.e., organic acids) [31]. Particle size and
3. A Brief Overview
distribution, porosityofand
the mixing
Composting Process
are also other parameters that eventually affect the performance of a
composting process [27]. Generally, materials used for composting are easily degradable and have
Composting is defined as the controlled aerobic biological decomposition of organic matter into a stable,
nutritional
humus-likeand fertilizing
product properties;
called compost, therefore,
where mixing less-compressible
of organic wastes with materials with beneficial
other ingredients structuring
are accelerated to
roles (called
optimize bulking
microbial agents
growth such
[17]. as straws,
Advantages andwood chips, sawdust
disadvantages etc.,) should
of composting always
are widely takenbeapart
added for
in the
anliterature.
efficientIncomposting
the most common sense of
process. the practice,
Those composting
materials can help enables the recycling
to adjust optimal of moisture
biowaste (i.e., kitchen
content as
waste,
well as yard
give waste,
enough agricultural
porosity to waste) and reduces
the mass the amount
and ensure of waste
the oxygen going to
passage landfilling,
within piles helps to cease
for microbial
greenhouse
activity gas (GHG)
[17,32]. emissions
Leachate when properly
absorption can alsomanaged, increases
be achieved soil fertility
by the addition andofbiodiversity as well[33].
bulking agents as
Indecreases
addition,theco-composting
need for chemicalcanfertilizers when applied
help to maintain as fertilizer,
the C/N and contributes
ratio, allow the moistureto raising
of theawareness
mixture to andbe
promoting
adjusted to community-scale
optimal values and waste management
even dilute somepractice [6,18,19].
possible On thesubstances
inhibitory other hand,(i.e.,
somemetals).
concernsTheare most
also
raised for improperly managed composting applications, such as the formation of malodorous or toxic gases
recommended option is to mix different wastes or by-products of low or no market value generated in
and bioaerosols [6,20], odor [21], leachate [6] and a decrease in soil quality when heavily applied [22]. A general
areas close to the centralized composting facilities [34].
flow scheme of organic waste management by composting is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. General flow scheme of organic waste management via composting.
3.2. Microbial Ecology of Composting

Microbial activity and diversity of a composting process are highly dependent on the
aforementioned environmental and operating conditions. The constant change in conditions
(temperature, pH, aeration, moisture, availability of substrates) results in stages of exponential
growth and stationary phases of various organisms [23]. The microbial consortia present at any
point of time are replaced by others in short intervals. During the composting process, bacteria
and fungi, named as nutritionally-specialized groups of microorganisms, are mainly involved in the
biodegradation of feedstock components. During the starting (mesophilic) phase, easily degradable
compounds like sugars and proteins are first degraded mostly by fungi, generally referred to as primary
decomposers. During this phase, fungi compete with bacteria for the easily available substrates and
soon are out-competed due to higher maximum specific growth rates of bacteria [24]. In addition
to fungi, a special phylum of bacteria, Actinobacteria (or actinomycetes) play an important role in
degrading complex organics such as cellulose, lignin, chitin, and proteins, prefer neutral or slightly
alkaline pH, and grow best when the environment is moist and the oxygen supply is enough [22,24,25].
Lower thermotolerance as well as higher cruciality of oxygen presence for fungi make them play a
negligible role during the thermophilic phase, except for the case of the composting of lignocellulosic
substrates. In that case, fungi can remain in the foreground throughout the process. Thermotolerant and
thermophilic bacteria can remain active also at higher temperatures. The cooling (second mesophilic)
phase is often characterized by an increasing number of organisms that degrade starch or cellulose
including both bacteria and fungi. Finally, in the maturation phase, the decrease in water potential
favors fungi and bacteria decline. Compounds that are not further degradable, such as lignin–humus
complexes, are formed in this phase and become predominant [24].
3.3. Composting Technologies

In a broad classification, composting systems can be divided into two: “windrow” and “in-vessel”.
The windrow systems refer to the accumulation of compost piles between 1.5–2 m high in the shape of
elongated windrows. Meanwhile, in-vessel systems are reactors where the composting takes place
and most of the current technologies use these systems. Windrow systems may be subdivided into
“turned windrow” and “forced air windrow (static pile)” based on the aeration method. In static
systems, air is either forced upwards through the composting mass or is pulled downwards and
through it. Meanwhile, turned windrow is a conventional system where piles are manually turned
and reconstructed. In-vessel systems, also called bioreactors, can be divided into two main types:
vertical and horizontal. Vertical reactors involve some type of cylindrical container or tank with a
capacity of more than 1500 m3 . Horizontal reactors are operated in the horizontal position and can be
further divided into channels, cells, containers and tunnels. In addition, in-vessel bioreactors can also
be classified as a function of the movement of the material as: static and dynamic. Another type of
reactor is the “inclined” reactor, or more commonly called rotating drum. Some of the designs of the
drums incorporate internal vanes which, combined with the rotating action of the drum, contribute to
the size reduction and mixing of the feedstock [35]. Many demonstrative- and/or full-scale composting
reactors use rotating drums and reported efficient performances [36–39]. The characteristics of each
reactor type were discussed in detail by other authors [35,40].
3.4. Composting Scales

Composting can be broadly applied at three scales of operations: (1) large-scale centralized
operations that are complex and serve vast geographic areas and sectors; (2) community-scale
or decentralized operations that serve primarily residential neighborhoods or community levels;
and (3) home/backyard scale operations that serve individual housing units [19]. At industrial level,
centralized composting facilities have been extensively studied and the number of treatment facilities is
increasing with respect to current waste management regulations [13,34,41]. Community composting
has also gained some attention and has been encouraged by national legislations in recent years, which
will be thoroughly reviewed and discussed in the following sections. Meanwhile, home composting
presents some potential environmental benefits such as the avoidance of collection, transportation
and management of biowaste [42–44]. However, home composting also brings some environmental
concerns: generation of GHG emissions and odor due to the absence of gas treatment systems [45,46],
insufficient elimination of pathogens due to the lack of adequate heating [47] and uncontrolled
leachate [48]. In fact, the GHG emissions from six home composting units were quantified as 0.4–4.2 kg
CH4 and 0.30–0.55 kg N2 O/Mg wet organic household waste, while total GHG emissions (in kg CO2
eq/Mg wet organic household waste) from home composting of OHW were found to be in the same
order of magnitude as for centralized composting plants [49]. Nevertheless, decentralized community
and home composting practices are still estimated to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions by
34% to 50%, and 40% by 2025, respectively, as compared to landfilling [50].
4. Decentralized Community Composting
4.1. General Overview

Considering the limitations of centralized waste treatment facilities originating from diverting
food waste and increased costs for collecting and transporting waste in long distances, some of
municipal composting programs may not be fully successful. In addition, high operational costs
and operational complexity are other factors that should be taken into consideration for centralized
systems [39,51,52]. At this point, alternative strategies must be identified and developed, such as
decentralized collection and treatment. Decentralized composting, also known as community
composting, refers to a community-scale network in a specific neighborhood that diverts and composts
biowaste in a controlled operative environment [19]. The main advantages of decentralized composting
over centralized systems are summarized in Table 1. In a broad perspective, decentralized composting
can help to decrease the cost and effort for transportation of waste for processing and treatment,
and further reduce the need to construct new disposal facilities, enable local reuse of organic matter,
create local small-scale enterprises as well as reduce costs associated with commercial fertilizer
purchase [19,53,54]. Furthermore, the final compost product is comparatively of higher quality due
to efficient separation and less intercontamination of wastes [55,56]. Community composting is thus
attracting some attention from policymakers, who consider this as a logical implementation [57].
However, some drawbacks are also faced during decentralized composting. The collection of organic
waste in containers may result in an uncontrolled degradation of organic matter that leads to odor
problems and leachate generation in the case of poor management [39]. Furthermore, logistic problems
can lead to unsatisfactory implementations [19]. In this regard, new composting technologies should be
well-addressed, and the information gathered from the operative environments should be thoroughly
analyzed for a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
Table 1. Main advantages of decentralized composting over centralized composting [55,58].
Centralized Decentralized
Transportation costs relatively high Transportation costs relatively low
High operation and maintenance costs Comparatively less maintenance costs
A high degree of specialized skills to operate and maintain Low level skills required
Advanced technology with highly mechanized equipment Simple technology with labor intense
Large facilities Small facilities
Low quality of compost due to poor separation of wastes High quality of compost since waste is efficiently
with high risk of contamination separated and risks for contamination are minimized
Final product to fields or local markets as
Final product transported to farms or regional markets
soil conditioner
4.2. Community Composting in the Operative Environment

When a decentralized composting system at the community-scale is demonstrated in a specific
city or urban area, current and future proposed land use availability, and status of vacant land and
community interest are initially considered within the regulatory frameworks. Once the location
type and the individual site within each area are selected, the composting capacity is latter calculated
within the city or specific region, based on the population size and waste generation trend [19].
The next step is then the decision on the composting technology. Most common composting reactors
were discussed in Section 3.3. Community composting reactors can be different, in other words,
“simpler”, than centralized composters. Plastic bins in any shapes (i.e., rectangular, cylindrical, conical)
are often used for community composting reactors [7,54]. Plastic drum reactors were also recently
reported [59]. These reactors can be operated in batch, semi-continuous or continuous mode, based on
the sustainability of the wastes. The reactor capacity is usually between 100–1000 L [7,59]. In most
cases, holes are constructed at the bottom or on the periphery for aeration and turning/mixing is
applied manually. Some examples of decentralized composting practices in Europe are presented
in Table 2. The biggest drawbacks of these bin-type reactors is the uncontrolled emission of GHGs,
such as methane, ammonia or nitrous oxide [41,50]; non-homogenous matrix of the final compost
product due to inadequate mixing [46]; odor and leachate [39]. For instance, gas emissions (i.e., (CH4 ,
N2 O, NH3 and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) of a bin-type composter were calculated in the
range of 30–148 kg CO2 eq/Mg leftovers of raw fruits and vegetables [48].
Table 2. Characteristics of selected decentralized composting systems in Europe.

Demographic Reactor Waste/Reactor Leachate/Gas Operation Composting
Site Population Waste Origins Bulking Agent Aeration Mixing Reference
Characteristics Type/Model Volume Collection Mode Duration
Modular
5982 Residential area
composter
inhabitants, with shops and Yard waste and
Allariz (Spain) Shredded wood made of 1000 L - - - Continuous - [7]
density of 70 an kitchen waste
recycled
inhabitants/km2 industrial estate
plastic slat
Biofilter to treat
In vessel
Ballymun Apartment Household exhaust gases
89 apartments Wood pellet technology (Big 26 t/y - - Continuous - [60]
(Dublin-Ireland) complex kitchen waste from the
Hanna T-120)
Big Hanna
Organic waste, In vessel
Rotating
Dublin (Ireland) - Residential area primarily - technology (Big 2 m3 Biofilter Rotating cylinder Continuous - [61]
cylinder
catering waste Hanna T-120)
Batch reactor 24 h inside the
Catering, Forced
Catering (Oklin GG 10s Activated machine plus
Lithuania - biodegradable - 10 t/y ventilation - Batch [62]
company composting carbon filter maturation
waste system
machine) time outside
Mixing tool:
Compostadores SL.
Bin-type
Universitat Leftovers of raw Holes on Shredding tool:
composter
Barcelona (Spain) - Autònoma de fruit and vegetable - 0.5 m3 - the electric garden Continuous 12 weeks [48]
Model 400 RRR
Barcelona and pruning wastes periphery chipper
Compostadores SL
(BOSCH AXT
2500 HP)
Considering the negative impacts of conventional composting reactors on the environment,

new generation composting reactors are therefore highly promising. The greatest advantages of
these reactors are: pre-treatment units, biofilters, automatic mixing, leachate collection reservoirs
and aeration modules. For instance, a community-scale novel drum bioreactor was reported to be a
promising system for efficient pre-treatment of organic household wastes [39]. Noteworthy to mention
is that the composting process can last between nine and eleven weeks if mechanical mixing is applied,
and up to fifty weeks under static conditions. Currently promoted electromechanical reactors can
be generally divided in two main categories: systems with only one chamber and systems with a
double chamber. In the first case, the composter constitutes a rotating cylinder without any mechanical
tool inside, the waste is introduced, and the rotation allows mixing, aeration and advancement of
the material up to the exit point [61]. The two most-common producers of this kind of reactors are
Susteco AB, which produces the Big Hanna Composter (www.bighanna.com), and Italian City Net
(www.city-net.it). The two chamber machines work in a different way, and these systems are usually
equipped with a shredder and a mechanical mixing tool in both of the chambers; waste is introduced in
the first chamber where it is continuously mixed, and when the chamber is full, the second starts to be
filled, while the first is closed in order to complete the composting process. Two main manufacturers of
this kind of process are Jora, that produces the Jora Composter (www.joracomposters.com), and Italian
Ecopans (www.ecopans.it).
4.3. Socioeconomic Perception

In most agri-environmental programs, the lack of participation of interested stakeholders in
designing frameworks, the poor information basis to support policy formulation and the failure to
consider local specificities in the scheme design are reported to be the main reasons for low success
achievements [63]. In a recent survey [64], the farmers’ perception of compost production was found
to be 83.9%, in which the participants showed also a high, yet lower, willingness level (63.6%) of
the more salient option to produce compost themselves and use it in agriculture. In another survey,
67% of respondents indicated that they are interested or very interested in community composting
systems [65]. Without a doubt, public acceptance and encouragement are the key factors for a successful
decentralized composting implementation. As the actual processing volume is dependent on the
participation of residents in a community, low participation rates can be a major challenge in such
cases [19]. By community composting, local resources community participation can be established [66],
and people may be more motivated to reduce their food waste when they see it separated out from the
rest of their waste [65]. In a common sense, decentralized composting systems should be inexpensive,
require low maintenance and easy handling [59]. Identifying a suitable location in a city/region is
critical and logistical characteristics such as the distance from waste sources, need/use of compost,
demographic characteristics, and environmental characteristics such as drainage, potential or existing
environmental conditions, should be all considered during the identification. A lack of technical
support in operating and building community composting facilities has also been a critical challenge
in maintaining decentralized composting systems [19]. Hence, training and navigating the community
within the specific region is crucial.
5. Centralized Composting in Italy

Until a few decades ago, composting activities in Italy were carried out in large outdoor piles,
with limited mass turning and a long period of maturation. With the entry of the first environmental
protection framework law (Law 319/1976) put into force, the need to switch to solutions more respectful
to the environment came forward. Then, about 20 years ago, new draft regulations were mentioned
by [67] to win back then ongoing issues. After 20 years, drafts evolved into in-force legislations and
remarkable achievements are gathered.
Since 1997, great progress has been made in terms of organic waste management and specifically,
composting activities. To reach the EU objectives and targets regarding the recycling of MSW and
Sustainability 2020,12,
Sustainability2020, 12,3319
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11
11of
of20
20
the sustainable principles, it is mandatory to collect the biowaste separately in order to reduce the
1998 [68] to 281 plants in 2018 with an amount of waste treated of four thousand tonnes [14]. The distribution
non-compostable material for maximizing the recovery through composting and/or anaerobic digestion
of the centralized organic waste treatment plants in Italy are displayed in Figure 3A.
facilities [12]. As a consequence of the rise of separate collection of organic waste and specifically food
The actual total capacity is enough to recycle all organic waste separately collected in Italy, but an
and garden waste, there was a big growth in the number of composting facilities that increased from
unbalanced distribution of the facilities is observed as mentioned earlier, with a growing demand of new
72 running plants in 1998 [68] to 281 plants in 2018 with an amount of waste treated of four thousand
installation above all in southern regions [12]. As can be seen from Figure 3 (B), of the 281 centralized
tonnes [14]. The distribution of the centralized organic waste treatment plants in Italy are displayed in
composting plants, 62% are placed in the north regions, only 22% in south, and the remaining 16% are in the
Figure 3A.
center of Italy [14].
A
B
200 26
21
Number of plants
150 Anaerobic digestion and
composting
Anaerobic digestion
100
173
5 Composting
2
50 4
62
46
0
North Center South
.
Figure 3. (A) Number and distribution of centralized biowaste treatment plants in Italy by the year
2018
Figure(B)3.Share of operating
(A) Number andbiowaste treatment
distribution plants among
of centralized the north,
biowaste center
treatment and south
plants parts
in Italy by of
theItaly
year 2018 (B)
by the year
Share 2018 (obtained
of operating andtreatment
biowaste modifiedplants
from the official
among thewebsite
north, of Istituto
center andSuperiore peroflaItaly
south parts Protezione
by the year 2018
e(obtained
la Ricercaand
Ambientale
modified(ISPRA)).
from the official website of Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale
(ISPRA)).
The actual total capacity is enough to recycle all organic waste separately collected in Italy, but an
unbalanced
There aredistribution
both windrow of theand facilities is observed
in-vessel systemsas in mentioned
operation atearlier, with a growing
the moment demandthe
in Italy. Among of windrow
new installation above all in southern regions [12]. As can be seen from Figure
systems, the most common solution is the “turned windrow” which is also the principal composting system 3B, of the 281 centralized
composting
present in the plants,
Italian62% are placed
plants. Among inthe
thein-vessel
north regions,
systems, onlythe22%
mostin common
south, and the remaining
solutions are the16% are which
“biocells”
in
arethe center of Italy
horizontal, [14].
discontinuous, closed bioreactors with forced aeration through the flooring [69].
There
The material treated at Italianin-vessel
are both windrow and compostingsystems plantsin is
operation
mainly the at the moment
OFMSW thatinincreased
Italy. Among fromthe73% in 2004
windrow systems,
[70] to 81.6% thewith
in 2018, mosta common
composition solution
of 34.7%is the
of “turned
garden wastewindrow” whichofisfood
and 46.9% also waste
the principal
[14]. The second
composting
main fraction system
is the present
sludge and in theits Italian
treatmentplants. Among theplants
in composting in-vessel systems,
decreased from the17%mostin common
2004 [70] to 10.6%
solutions are the “biocells” which are horizontal, discontinuous, closed
in 2017 [14]. The remaining part is mainly constituted of agro-industrial waste [70]. Based bioreactors with forced aeration
on the input
through
feedstock,thecompost
flooring [69].
can be classified in three categories: “End of Waste”—Green Waste Compost (GWC)
The material
produced only bytreated at Italian
green waste, Biocomposting
Waste Compost plants(BWC)—produced
is mainly the OFMSW that increased
by green and foodfrom waste 73%
and Sludge
in 2004 [70] to 81.6% in 2018, with a composition of 34.7% of garden waste
Waste Compost (SWC)—produced by sludge as a co-feedstock [12]. The use of the compost product and 46.9% of food waste [14]. can be
The secondand
different, main fraction
mostly is thein
is used sludge and its (around
agriculture treatment in composting
70%) plants
[12]. Different decreased
studies testedfrom
the 17% in results
positive
2004 [70] to 10.6% in 2017 [14]. The remaining part is mainly constituted of agro-industrial
obtained through the application of compost in Italian culture, for example for soil and plant cultivation [71] waste [70].
Based on the[72].
or vineyard input Thefeedstock,
other 30%compost
of compostcan products
be classified in three
are sold categories:or“End
for gardening of Waste”—Green
landscaping uses; but, according
Waste Compost
to the Italian law(GWC) produced
on fertilizer, compostonlycanby also
green bewaste,
used inBio Waste
other Compost
organic (BWC)—produced
fertilizers as basic growing bysubstrate,
green and food waste and Sludge Waste Compost (SWC)—produced by sludge as
mixed growing substrate and/or organic-mineral fertilizer [12]. The quality of the compost product in Italy is a co-feedstock [12].
The use of
assured bythe
thecompost
“CIC Qualityproduct can beLabel”
Compost different,
(CQL)andthat
mostly
wasis used in agriculture
introduced by the Italian(around 70%) [12].
Composting and Biogas
Different studies tested the positive results obtained through the application
Association (CIC) in 2003 as a voluntary program to support the development of the biowaste management of compost in Italian
culture, for example for soil and plant cultivation [71] or vineyard [72]. The other 30% of compost
sector [12].
products are sold for gardening or landscaping uses; but, according to the Italian law on fertilizer,
6. Community
compost can also Composting
be used ininother Italy:organic
Legislation and Implementation
fertilizers as basic growing substrate, mixed growing
substrate and/or organic-mineral fertilizer [12]. The quality of the compost product in Italy is assured
In order to reach the Circular Economy Targets of Italy, the authorities do not have any intention to add
by the “CIC Quality Compost Label” (CQL) that was introduced by the Italian Composting and
more waste treatment facilities (like energy recovery, recycling and composting) in the near future. Rather,
they favor waste prevention, and decentralized solutions may potentially be a good move towards achieving
waste reduction, recovery and valorization targets. In recent years, the implementation of decentralized
Biogas Association (CIC) in 2003 as a voluntary program to support the development of the biowaste
management sector [12].
6. Community Composting in Italy: Legislation and Implementation

In order to reach the Circular Economy Targets of Italy, the authorities do not have any intention
to add more waste treatment facilities (like energy recovery, recycling and composting) in the near
future. Rather, they favor waste prevention, and decentralized solutions may potentially be a
good move towards achieving waste reduction, recovery and valorization targets. In recent years,
the implementation of decentralized composting systems has gained increasing importance thanks to
the potential benefits that these systems can bring in the context of integrated urban waste management.
In fact, the uneven distribution of centralized biological waste treatment facilities has also paved
the way for decentralized solutions in Italy, especially in small towns. The need to follow a more
modern approach for the treatment and recovery of waste, to be carried out as close as possible to the
places of production and with low environmental impact plants, has made it essential to integrate
the legislative landscape with specific rules for decentralized systems. Specifically, the legislation
currently in force for decentralized composting is the D.M. (Ministerial Decree) of 29 December 2016,
n. 266 “Regulation containing the operating criteria and simplified authorization procedures for
the composting of organic waste communities” [10]. This decree sets the criteria and procedures
for composting communities (from apartment buildings to associations) with the primary objective
of reducing the production of organic waste and the environmental impacts associated with the
management of the waste itself. For this purpose, as also defined in the D.Lgs. (Legislative Decree) of
3 April 2006, n. 152 on “Environmental standards” in article 180 paragraph 1-septies, the regions and
municipalities encourage the composting practices carried out in the place of production itself (such as
home composting and community composting) through specific planning tools and possible reductions
on the tax to users who carry out waste reduction practices (D.Lgs. 152/2006) [15]. Furthermore,
the implementation of decentralized composting can positively contribute to the achievement of the
EU target for the recycling of at least 55% of municipal waste by 2025.
According to the D.M. 266/2016 [10], the provisions apply to structures with a capacity of fewer than
130 tonnes/year, while for higher quantities, the Legislative Decree 152/2006 [15] applies. Additionally,
simplified procedures are provided for the start-up of community composting activities according to
the collective body (i.e., two or more domestic or non-domestic users established in a condominium,
association, consortium, company or other forms of association governed by private law) reports the
start of the activity to the territorially competent municipality. The latter comes from the communication
for the start of the activity with the local municipal waste manager. The Ministerial Decree 266/2016
also establishes the requirements for composting in terms of not only of biodegradable materials
and waste eligible for treatment (Annex 3) but also of the operating procedures and parameters of
composting (Annex 4—part A and B). Specifically, the following can be composted: biodegradable
kitchen and canteen waste (CER 20 01 08); biodegradable waste produced by gardens and parks (CER
20 02 01); sawdust, shavings, cutting residues, wood, veneers (CER 03 01 05) untreated and with a
size of less than 2 cm; bark and wood waste from paper processing if not added (CER 03 03 01); filter
material deriving from the periodic maintenance of the biofilter serving the equipment (CER 15 02 03);
paper and cardboard packaging (CER 15 01 01); wooden packaging (CER 15 01 03) in quantities not
exceeding 20% of the total waste introduced into the equipment; paper (CER 20 01 01) and cardboard
(CER 15 01 01) without ink and in quantities not exceeding 20% of the total waste introduced into
the equipment. The operating methods of the composting process must comply with the following
parameters:
(1) Temperature of the mass in the upper process (exclusively in electromechanical equipment) for at
least three consecutive days at 55 ◦ C;
(2) Compost production time not less than six months for static type equipment and not less than
three months for electromechanical type equipment;
(3) Residence time not less than one month for electromechanical equipment;
(4) Mixing is carried out according to management needs in the case of static equipment and at least
three times a day in the case of electromechanical equipment.
Based on the definition in Article 6 of the Ministerial Decree 266/2016 [10], the compost must
comply with the parameters of Annex 6, namely: humidity between 30% and 50%; maximum
temperature lower than 2 ◦ C compared to the environmental one; pH between 6 and 8.5; absence
of dangerous fractions. Furthermore, for specific applications on agricultural soils intended for the
production and sale of products for human or animal use, the compost produced must comply with
the characteristics of the mixed composted soil conditioner and the green composted soil conditioner,
under the Legislative Decree 29th April. 2010, n. 75 (D.Lgs. 75/2010) [73], regarding fertilizers and its
following modification by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, Decree of 10th July
2013 (Official Gazette (GU) of the General Series n.218 of 17-09-2013 [74]).
According to the Legislative Decree and its modification, for the compost categories mentioned
above, the minimum requirements of useful elements and/or substances are summarized in Table 3.
Furthermore, according to the current legislation on fertilizers, regardless of the type of soil conditioner,
the maximum permitted levels of heavy metals expressed in mg/kg and referring to the dry substance
are the following: total lead <140; total cadmium <1.5; total nickel <100; total zinc <500; total copper
<230; total mercury <1.5; total hexavalent chromium <0.5.
Table 3. Required parameters for final compost products obtained from community composters to be
used in soil applications as stated in the Italian Regulations [73,74].
Essential Components of Organic Minimum Requirements of Useful Elements and/or Substances

Type Designation
Wastes Parameter Unit Value
Humidity % <50
pH - from 6 to 8.5
Ornamental green maintenance waste,
Green composted
other plant materials such as virgin Organic Carbon on dry fraction % >20
soil conditioner
olive residues, crop residues, other Humic and fulvic Carbon on dry fraction % >2.5
(according to [73])
wastes of vegetable origin
Organic Nitrogen on dry fraction % of Ntot >80
C/N - <50
OFMSW from separate collection, Humidity % <50

from animal waste including pH - from 6 to 8.8
Mixed composted zootechnical sewage, from
agro-industrial activity waste and Organic Carbon on dry fraction % >20
soil conditioner
(according to [74]) from untreated wood and natural Humic and fulvic Carbon on dry fraction % >7
textile processing, waste and sludge,
matrices for the green composted Organic Nitrogen on dry fraction % of Ntot >80
soil conditioner C/N - <25
Compared to the national regulation for fertilizers (D.Lgs. n. 75/2010 [73] and its following
decree 10th July 2013 (GU n.218/2013)), the community compost regulation [10] addresses some minor
revisions to the main characteristics of the final compost product following to the aspects given below:
• Minimum humidity value addition;

• Maximum temperature value addition;
• No specific restrictions according to the size of foreign fraction in the compost.
Differently from the national regulation, community compost regulation sets some further
operating conditions such as:
• The percentage of the bulking agent is not less than 5% (w) of the total amount introduced into
the equipment;
• The emissions of electromechanical equipment are treated by a biofilter before being released.
Following the indication of the legislation, the application of community composting in Italy
with electromechanical equipment are more common than the one with static equipment, even that
the Italian Composting Association (AIC) has been developing a specific guideline for the use of
electromechanical equipment for small-scale composting. Actually, research activities related to
community composting in Italy started before the release of the community compost regulation D.M.
266/2016 [10], and dated back to 2012 with the “ASTRO” Project, at the Casaccia Research Centre, ENEA,
the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development,
has set up a small electromechanical machine for the treatment of organic waste and its transformation
into compost to be used as a fertilizer, as part of a one-year experiment. After that, the experimental
activities continued and different composters were tested during the years, including a Joraform
JK5100 composter. Following the new technologies, home and community composting in Italy are
becoming more widespread and different municipalities are supporting these activities also through
the free distribution of home composters to citizens who request them. At the national level, starting
from 2016, with the D.M. 266/2016 [10], regions can count the waste sent for domestic, proximity and
community composting in the separate collection quota, and specified that only the municipalities
that have regulated these activities will be able to insert the portion related to composting in the
separate collection percentage calculation. In 2018, the organic waste treated by home composting and
considered in the source separation percentage calculation was about 237,000 tonnes [14].
In addition to the research activities, different projects dealt with the implementation of community
composting systems. In Rome Airport, for instance, two big electromechanical composters of
1000 tonnes/year each was installed to treat all the biowaste produced by the restaurants and bars
of the terminal. In national territory, there are also other examples of smaller machines with a
maximum capacity of 130 tonnes/year that can be placed inside cities to collect wastes generated by
canteens, apartment buildings or small communities, but more often those systems are placed not
in the center of the town but a little decentralized, in a specific area used for waste collection, called
“Ecocentro”. AIC Association, in collaboration with Agriculture and Environment Center of Crevalcore
and the University of Bologna, analyzed the Italian applications of community composting. The study
showed that the total capacity associated with community composting in Italy is approximately
6390.5 tonnes/year and regions with the greatest diffusion of this type of activity are Puglia, Lazio,
Basilicata, Liguria, Campania and Calabria [75]. Finally, Italy is also largely involved in EU-funded
projects on community composting, one of them is “DECOST”, financed by the ENI CBC MED Program,
that aims to develop a new framework of waste management, building a closed loop system of organic
waste valorization integrating decentralized home and community composting systems within urban
agriculture (www.enicbcmed.eu/projects/decost).
7. Case of the Basilicata Region

The total source separation percentage in 2018 was of 47% in the Basilicata region. There is a great
discrepancy between the two provinces: a higher percentage of 52% is reached in Potenza, while in
Matera the source separation value is very low (below 40%) [76]. Figure 4A shows the fractionation of
wastes collected in Basilicata, where the total organic waste was of 34,942.7 tonnes and represents 37%
of all the source-separated waste in 2018. The other main fraction is the undifferentiated waste, with a
total amount of 105,182.7 tonnes in 2018. The main treatment plants of the region are the facilities
for the disposal or treatment of undifferentiated waste. As shown in Figure 4B, in fact, there are five
landfills, one associated with a mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plant for the stabilization of
the organic materials before the final disposal in landfill. There also two incineration plants in the
regional territory.
and represents 37% of all the source-separated waste in 2018. The other main fraction is the
undifferentiated waste, with a total amount of 105,182.7 tonnes in 2018. The main treatment plants of
the region are the facilities for the disposal or treatment of undifferentiated waste. As shown in Figure
4 (B), in fact, there are five landfills, one associated with a mechanical biological treatment (MBT)
plant for 2020,
Sustainability the stabilization
12, 3319 of the organic materials before the final disposal in landfill. There also
15 oftwo
20
incineration plants in the regional territory.
A B
120000
100000
80000
t/y
60000
40000
20000
.
Figure 4. (A) Fractionation of solid wastes collected in the Basilicata Region in 2018; (B) Biowaste
Figure 4.plants
treatment (A) Fractionation of solid
in the Basilicata wastes
Region collected
by the in the
year 2018 Basilicata
(obtained andRegion in 2018;
modified from (B)
the Biowaste
official
website of Istituto
treatment plants Superiore per la Protezione
in the Basilicata Region by ethe
la Ricerca Ambientale
year 2018 (obtained(ISPRA)).
and modified from the official
website of Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)).
The Basilicata Region is below the Italian average (58%) and even ranks as last among the regions
in terms TheofBasilicata
separate wasteRegioncollection.
is below the Furthermore,
Italian averagethere(58%)
are not
andany
evencentralized
ranks as lastcomposing
among the plants in
regions
the
in Basilicata region by
terms of separate 2020.collection.
waste This creates a wide potential
Furthermore, of demonstrative
there are sites for
not any centralized the research
composing andin
plants
development
the Basilicataofregion wasteby management activities
2020. This creates in Italy.
a wide In fact,
potential of the Regional Government
demonstrative sites for theof Basilicata
research and
has decided to of
development waste€25
allocate million to activities
management build fourincomposting
Italy. In fact,plants by 2021 Government
the Regional in the regional of territory,
Basilicata
inhas
response
decided to to
theallocate
absence€25 of million
treatment plantsfour
to build for the organic fraction
composting plants byof waste
2021 in[77].
the regional territory,
in response to the absence of treatment plants for the organic fraction of waste [77]. to treat both
So far, few projects focused on the demonstrative-scale composting practices
agricultural
So far,and fewfood wastes
projects in Basilicata.
focused on the In the context of “EU-Basilicata
demonstrative-scale compostingRegion practicesProject” (under
to treat both
MATMM UNCDD Program), a new on-farm composting approach was
agricultural and food wastes in Basilicata. In the context of “EU-Basilicata Region Project” (under proposed that aimed
toMATMM
accelerateUNCDD the maturation
Program),ofa cattle manure composting
new on-farm using poplar wood chips
approach as the bulking
was proposed that aimedagent.to
The composting
accelerate plant was built
the maturation in Matera
of cattle manureProvince
usingtopoplar
provide staticchips
wood piles and
as theforced ventilation
bulking agent. forThe
the simplicity of its management. Similarly, the PSR Basilicata Project called “Composta”
composting plant was built in Matera Province to provide static piles and forced ventilation for the coordinated
another
simplicity demonstrative study that
of its management. took place
Similarly, the in Potenza
PSR Province
Basilicata to called
Project compost manure and
“Composta” forestry
coordinated
residues. The composterstudy
another demonstrative consisted
that of
tooka composting
place in Potenzacell and a storage
Province platformmanure
to compost for the maturation
and forestry
phase [17]. The
residues. Finally, in this context
composter consistedof the
of ongoing “DECOST”
a composting Project,
cell and four pilot
a storage initiatives
platform for the arematuration
going to
bephase
implemented in different
[17]. Finally, Mediterranean
in this context countries
of the ongoing to treat 1500–2000
“DECOST” tonnes/year
Project, four of organic
pilot initiatives arewaste
going
intototal and to use the produced compost in urban agriculture projects. The Italian
be implemented in different Mediterranean countries to treat 1500–2000 tonnes/year of organic side of the activities
will
wastetakeinplace
total in andthetoPotenza and Atellacompost
use the produced provinces in of the Basilicata
urban agricultureRegion.
projects. OneThecentralized
Italian sideand a
of the
few decentralized
activities will takecommunity
place in theand home
Potenza composing
and systemsofwill
Atella provinces the be designed
Basilicata and integrated
Region. into
One centralized
the
and waste
a fewmanagement
decentralized system of the region
community and home withcomposing
a high expectance
systems of thebepublic
will involvement.
designed and integratedIt is
expected
into thethatwaste a total new wastesystem
management treatment capacity
of the regionranging
with a from
high 400 to 550 tonnes/year
expectance of the public willinvolvement.
be installed
(200–250 kg OFMSW/inhabitant/year)
It is expected that a total new waste in each pilot
treatment action depending
capacity ranging from on 400
the size
to 550 of tonnes/year
the targeted will town. be
The application of a decentralized community system together with the
installed (200–250 kg OFMSW/inhabitant/year) in each pilot action depending on the size of the urban agriculture program
will increase
targeted economic,
town. social and territorial
The application cohesion, and
of a decentralized reduce pressures
community system on the environment.
together with the urban
agriculture program will increase economic, social and territorial cohesion, and reduce pressures on
8. Future Perspectives and Concluding Remarks
the environment.
Based on the results of the successfully implemented projects, as well as on the perspectives
of the ongoing projects, planners and managers can integrate community composting to the
biowaste management framework of Italy, especially in small towns in the central and southern
regions. Since decentralized composting systems have often limited support from central authorities,
the encouragement and engagement of the citizens is utmost important. In this regard, public awareness
and technical expertise should be well established. While developing a decentralized composting
framework, the national legislation on community composting should be the main guideline, especially
while choosing the pilot sites and reactor systems in order to minimize possible adverse impacts on
the environment. In addition, more focus should be given on the community composting rather than
home composting, since it exhibits comparatively higher possibility of control mechanisms. Of course,
the local stakeholders (in this case, citizens themselves and/or farmers) should be well identified for
the valorization of the final compost products. When site-specific solutions are addressed carefully,
an added value on the recovery of biowaste within urban systems can be easily achieved. This model
applied in Italy can further present a relevant approach for other Mediterranean countries that have
similar regional characteristics with the interest of adopting decentralized community composting as
a part of their integrated solid waste management system. Especially in large cities, medium-scale
centralized composting facilities can be supported by small-scale decentralized composting to build
an ideal organic waste management strategy. Hence, local solutions on the recycling and recovery of
wastes can help to play a significant role on achieving and adopting national and EU circular economy
model in the following years. Further research is needed to identify socioeconomic characteristics and
particular needs in the regions where decentralized solutions are intended to be implemented.
Author Contributions: C.B.: project administration, investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original
draft preparation. Ç.A.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, supervision. G.C.:
investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation. A.L.E.: writing—review and
editing, supervision. D.C.: data curation, writing—review and editing. S.M.: data curation, writing—review and
editing. J.C.: project administration, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. F.F.: resources, project
administration, funding acquisition, conceptualization, writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This paper has been carried out with the financial assistance of the European Union under the ENI CBC
Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme—Project grant contract number A_B.4.2_0095 “DECOST—Decentralised
Composting in Small Towns".
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Eurastat. Waste Databese in Europe. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/data/database
(accessed on 18 February 2020).
2. Al-Rumaihi, A.; McKay, G.; Mackey, H.R.; Al-Ansari, T. Environmental impact assessment of food waste
management using two composting techniques. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1595. [CrossRef]
3. Hannibal, B.; Vedlitz, A. Throwing it out: Introducing a nexus perspective in examining citizen T perceptions
of organizational food waste in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 88, 63–71. [CrossRef]
4. Almendro-Candel, M.B.; Navarro-Pedreño, J.; Gómez Lucas, I.; Zorpas, A.A.; Voukkali, I.; Loizia, P. The use
of composted municipal solid waste under the concept of circular economy and as a source of plant nutrients
and pollutants. In Municipal Solid Waste Management; Saleh, H.E.-D., Ed.; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2019.
[CrossRef]
5. Pergola, M.; Piccolo, A.; Palese, A.M.; Ingrao, C.; Di Meo, V.; Celano, G. A combined assessment of the
energy, economic and environmental issues associated with on-farm manure composting processes: Two case
studies in South of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3969–3981. [CrossRef]
6. Wei, Y.; Li, J.; Shi, D.; Liu, G.; Zhao, Y.; Shimaoka, T. Environmental challenges impeding the composting of
biodegradable municipal solid waste: A critical review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 51–65. [CrossRef]
7. Comesaña, I.V.; Alves, D.; Mato, S.; Romero, X.M.; Varela, B. Decentralized composting of organic waste in a
European rural region: A case study in Allariz (Galicia, Spain). In Solid Waste Management in Rural Areas;
InTechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [CrossRef]
8. Cesaro, A.; Belgiorno, V.; Guida, M. Compost from organic solid waste: Quality assessment and European
regulations for its sustainable use. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 94, 72–79. [CrossRef]
9. Hofmann, P. Wasted waste—Disappearing reuse at the peri-urban interface. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 31,
13–22. [CrossRef]
10. D.M. 266/2016. Decreto Ministeriale 29 Dicembre 2016, n. 266: Regolamento Recante i Criteri Operativi e le
Procedure Autorizzative Semplificate per il Compostaggio di Comunita’ di Rifiuti Organici (GU Serie Generale n.45
del 23–02-2017); Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Roma, Italy, 2016.
11. EEA. Europen Environmental Agency Website. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu (accessed on 21
February 2020).
12. Consorzio Italiano Compostatori (CIC). Italian Composting and Biogas Association Presentation of the CIC’s
Quality Label for Compost; CIC: Rome, Italy, 2017; Volume 2, pp. 1–20.
13. Righi, S.; Oliviero, L.; Pedrini, M.; Buscaroli, A.; Della Casa, C. Life Cycle Assessment of management
systems for sewage sludge and food waste: Centralized and decentralized approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2013,
44, 8–17. [CrossRef]
14. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA). Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani; ISPRA, Rapporti
313/2019; ISPRA: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 978–88-448–0971-3.
15. D.Lgs. 152/2006. Decreto Legislativo 3 Aprile 2006, n. 152 Norme in Materia Ambientale. (GU Serie Generale n.88
del 14-04-2006-Suppl. Ordinario n. 96); Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Roma, Italy, 2006.
16. Malinauskaite, J.; Jouhara, H.; Czajczyńska, D.; Stanchev, P.; Katsou, E.; Rostkowski, P.; Thorne, R.J.; Colón, J.;
Ponsá, S.; Al-Mansour, F.; et al. Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a
circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 2017, 141, 2013–2044. [CrossRef]
17. Pergola, M.; Persiani, A.; Palese, A.M.; Di Meo, V.; Pastore, V.; D’Adamo, C.; Celano, G. Composting: The way
for a sustainable agriculture. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 744–750. [CrossRef]
18. Barthod, J.; Rumpel, C.; Dignac, M.F. Composting with additives to improve organic amendments. A review.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38. [CrossRef]
19. Pai, S.; Ai, N.; Zheng, J. Decentralized community composting feasibility analysis for residential food waste:
A Chicago case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101683. [CrossRef]
20. Lou, X.F.; Nair, J. The impact of landfilling and composting on greenhouse gas emissions—A review. Bioresour.
Technol. 2009, 100, 3792–3798. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Gutiérrez, M.C.; Siles, J.A.; Diz, J.; Chica, A.F.; Martín, M.A. Modelling of composting process of different
organic waste at pilot scale: Biodegradability and odor emissions. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 48–58. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
22. Tian, W.; Wang, L.; Li, Y.; Zhuang, K.; Li, G.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, X.; Xi, Y. Responses of microbial activity,
abundance, and community in wheat soil after three years of heavy fertilization with manure-based compost
and inorganic nitrogen. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 213, 219–227. [CrossRef]
23. Ince, O.; Ozbayram, E.G.; Akyol, Ç.; Erdem, E.I.; Gunel, G.; Ince, B. Bacterial succession in the thermophilic
phase of composting of anaerobic digestates. Waste Biomass Valori. 2020, 11, 841–849. [CrossRef]
24. Insam, H.; De Bertoldi, M. Microbiology of the composting process. Waste Manag. Ser. 2007, 8, 25–48.
[CrossRef]
25. Akyol, Ç.; Ince, O.; Ince, B. Crop-based composting of lignocellulosic digestates: Focus on bacterial and
fungal diversity. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 288, 121549. [CrossRef]
26. Bustamante, M.A.; Restrepo, A.P.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Pérez-Murcia, M.D.; Paredes, C.; Moral, R.; Bernal, M.P.
Recycling of anaerobic digestates by composting: Effect of the bulking agent used. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47,
61–69. [CrossRef]
27. Bernal, M.P.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Moral, R. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost
maturity assessment. A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5444–5453. [CrossRef]
28. Ince, O.; Ozbayram, E.G.; Akyol, Ç.; Ince, O.; Ince, B. Composting practice for sustainable waste management:
A case study in Istanbul. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 14473–14477. [CrossRef]
29. Guo, R.; Li, G.; Jiang, T.; Schuchardt, F.; Chen, T.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, Y. Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio and
moisture content on the stability and maturity of compost. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 112, 171–178. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
30. Kumar, M.; Ou, Y.L.; Lin, J.G. Co-composting of green waste and food waste at low C/N ratio. Waste Manag.
2010, 30, 602–609. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Sundberg, C.; Yu, D.; Franke-Whittle, I.; Kauppi, S.; Smårs, S.; Insam, H.; Romantschuk, M.; Jönsson, H.
Effects of pH and microbial composition on odour in food waste composting. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 204–211.
[CrossRef]
32. Huet, J.; Druilhe, C.; Trémier, A.; Benoist, J.C.; Debenest, G. The impact of compaction, moisture content,
particle size and type of bulking agent on initial physical properties of sludge-bulking agent mixtures before
composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 114, 428–436. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Yang, F.; Li, G.X.; Yang, Q.Y.; Luo, W.H. Effect of bulking agents on maturity and gaseous emissions during
kitchen waste composting. Chemosphere 2013, 93, 1393–1399. [CrossRef]
34. Gutiérrez, M.C.; Serrano, A.; Siles, J.A.; Chica, A.F.; Martín, M.A. Centralized management of sewage
sludge and agro-industrial waste through co-composting. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 387–393. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
35. Diaz, L.F.; Savage, G.M.; Eggerth, L.L.; Chiumenti, A. Systems used in composting. Waste Manag. Ser. 2007,
8, 67–87. [CrossRef]
36. Bhatia, A.; Madan, S.; Sahoo, J.; Ali, M.; Pathania, R.; Kazmi, A.A. Diversity of bacterial isolates during full
scale rotary drum composting. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1595–1601. [CrossRef]
37. Guo, W.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, N.; Hu, H.; Shen, W.; Huang, X.; Zhang, T.; Wu, P.; Li, Z. On site composting of food
waste: A pilot scale case study in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 130–138. [CrossRef]
38. Kalamdhad, A.S.; Singh, Y.K.; Ali, M.; Khwairakpam, M.; Kazmi, A.A. Rotary drum composting of vegetable
waste and tree leaves. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 6442–6450. [CrossRef]
39. Sakarika, M.; Spiller, M.; Baetens, R.; Donies, G.; Vanderstuyf, J.; Vinck, K.; Vrancken, K.C.; Van Barel, G.;
Du Bois, E.; Vlaeminck, S.E. Proof of concept of high-rate decentralized pre-composting of kitchen waste:
Optimizing design and operation of a novel drum reactor. Waste Manag. 2019, 91, 20–32. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
40. Mason, I.G.; Milke, M.W. Physical modelling of the composting environment: A review. Part 1: Reactor
systems. Waste Manag. 2005, 25, 481–500. [CrossRef]
41. Colón, J.; Cadena, E.; Pognani, M.; Barrena, R.; Sánchez, A.; Font, X.; Artola, A. Determination of the energy
and environmental burdens associated with the biological treatment of source-separated Municipal Solid
Wastes. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 5731–5741. [CrossRef]
42. Loan, L.T.T.; Takahashi, Y.; Nomura, H.; Yabe, M. Modeling home composting behavior toward sustainable
municipal organic waste management at the source in developing countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019,
140, 65–71. [CrossRef]
43. Vázquez, M.A.; Soto, M. The efficiency of home composting programmes and compost quality. Waste Manag.
2017, 64, 39–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Tatàno, F.; Pagliaro, G.; Di Giovanni, P.; Floriani, E.; Mangani, F. Biowaste home composting: Experimental
process monitoring and quality control. Waste Manag. 2015, 38, 72–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Barrena, R.; Font, X.; Gabarrell, X.; Sánchez, A. Home composting versus industrial composting: Influence of
composting system on compost quality with focus on compost stability. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1109–1116.
[CrossRef]
46. Martínez-Blanco, J.; Colón, J.; Gabarrell, X.; Font, X.; Sánchez, A.; Artola, A.; Rieradevall, J. The use of life
cycle assessment for the comparison of biowaste composting at home and full scale. Waste Manag. 2010, 30,
983–994. [CrossRef]
47. Fan, Y.V.; Lee, C.T.; Klemeš, J.J.; Chua, L.S.; Sarmidi, M.R.; Leow, C.W. Evaluation of effective microorganisms
on home scale organic waste composting. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 41–48. [CrossRef]
48. Colón, J.; Martínez-Blanco, J.; Gabarrell, X.; Artola, A.; Sánchez, A.; Rieradevall, J.; Font, X. Environmental
assessment of home composting. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 893–904. [CrossRef]
49. Andersen, J.K.; Boldrin, A.; Christensen, T.H.; Scheutz, C. Greenhouse gas emissions from home composting
of organic household waste. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2475–2482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Adhikari, B.K.; Trémier, A.; Barrington, S.; Martinez, J.; Daumoin, M. Gas emissions as influenced by home
composting system configuration. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 116, 163–171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Panaretou, V.; Vakalis, S.; Ntolka, A.; Sotiropoulos, A.; Moustakas, K.; Malamis, D.; Loizidou, M. Assessing
the alteration of physicochemical characteristics in composted organic waste in a prototype decentralized
composting facility. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 20232–20247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. De Kraker, J.; Kujawa-Roeleveld, K.; Villena, M.J.; Pabón-Pereira, C. Decentralized valorization of residual
flows as an alternative to the traditional urban waste management system: The case of peñalolén in santiago
de chile. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6206. [CrossRef]
53. Colón, J.; Cadena, E.; Colazo, A.B.; Quirós, R.; Sánchez, A.; Font, X.; Artola, A. Toward the implementation
of new regional biowaste management plans: Environmental assessment of different waste management
scenarios in Catalonia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 95, 143–155. [CrossRef]
54. Arrigoni, J.P.; Paladino, G.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Laos, F. Inside the small-scale composting of kitchen and garden
wastes: Thermal performance and stratification effect in vertical compost bins. Waste Manag. 2018, 76,
284–293. [CrossRef]
55. Araya, M.N. A review of effective waste management from an EU, national, and local perspective and its
influence: The management of biowaste and anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. J. Environ. Prot.
2018, 9, 652–670. [CrossRef]
56. Zhou, C.; Wang, R.; Zhang, Y. Fertilizer efficiency and environmental risk of irrigating Impatiens with
composting leachate in decentralized solid waste management. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1000–1005. [CrossRef]
57. Slater, R.; Aiken, M. Can’t you count? Public service delivery and standardized measurement challenges—The
case of community composting. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 1085–1102. [CrossRef]
58. Öberg, H. A GIS-Based Study of Sites for Decentralized Composting and Waste Sorting Stations in Kumasi,
Ghana. Master’s Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2011.
59. Manu, M.K.; Kumar, R.; Garg, A. Decentralized composting of household wet biodegradable waste in plastic
drums: Effect of waste turning, microbial inoculum and bulking agent on product quality. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 226, 233–241. [CrossRef]
60. Miller, S.; Wilson, A.; Warburton, R. Implementation of an Urban Community Composting Programme; STRIVE
Report: Wexford, Ireland, 2013.
61. O’Sullivan, M.; Curran, T. Biofilter performance in small scale aerobic composting. Biosyst. Eng. Res. Rev.
2011, 16, 153–156.
62. Kliopova, I.; Staniškis, J.K.; Stunžėnas, E.; Jurovickaja, E. Bio-nutrient recycling with a novel integrated
biodegradable waste management system for catering companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 116–125.
[CrossRef]
63. Fabiani, S.; Vanino, S.; Napoli, R.; Nino, P. Water energy food nexus approach for sustainability assessment
at farm level: An experience from an intensive agricultural area in central Italy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 104,
1–12. [CrossRef]
64. Al-Madbouh, S.; Al-Khatib, I.A.; Al-Sari, M.I.; Salahat, J.I.; Jararaa, B.Y.A.; Ribbe, L. Socioeconomic,
agricultural, and individual factors influencing farmers’ perceptions and willingness of compost production
and use: An evidence from Wadi al-Far’a Watershed-Palestine. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
65. Mcneill, B. The Viability of Community Composting at the Melbourne Food Hub; Independent Study Project (ISP)
Collection; SIT Study Abroad: Nairobi, Kenya, 2018; Volume 2957.
66. Yedla, S. Replication of urban innovations—Prioritization of strategies for the replication of Dhaka’s
community-based decentralized composting model. Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 20–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Favoino, E. The development of composting in Italy: Programs for source separation, features and trends of quality
composting and biological treatment of Restwaste; Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza: Monza, Italy, 1998;
pp. 1–19.
68. Fagnano, M.; Adamo, P.; Zampella, M.; Fiorentino, N. Environmental and agronomic impact of fertilization
with composted organic fraction from municipal solid waste: A case study in the region of Naples, Italy.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 100–107. [CrossRef]
69. ARPAV. Agenzie Regionale Perm La Prevenzione E Proteizone Ambientale Del Veneto Homepage. Available
online: https://www.arpa.veneto.it (accessed on 27 January 2020).
70. ATTI. Utilizzo del Compost da Frazione Organica dei Rifiuti Solidi Urbani: Attualità e Prospettive; ATTI: Napoli,
Italy, 2006.
71. Pinamonti, F.; Stringari, G.; Gasperi, F.; Zorzi, G. The use of compost: Its effects on heavy metal levels in soil
and plants. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1997, 21, 129–143. [CrossRef]
72. Pinamonti, F. Compost mulch effects on soil fertility, nutritional status and performance of grapevine.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998, 51, 239–248. [CrossRef]
73. D.Lgs. 75/2010. Decreto Legislativo 29 Aprile 2010, n. 75: Riordino e Revisione della Disciplina in Materia di
Fertilizzanti; GU Serie Generale n.121 del 26-05-2010—Suppl. Ordinario n. 106; Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca
dello Stato: Roma, Italy, 2010.
74. D.M. 218/2013. Decreto del Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali 10 luglio 2013. Aggiornamento
Degli Allegati del Decreto Legislativo29 Aprile 2010, n. 75, Concernente il Riordino e la Revisione della Disciplina in
Materia di Fertilizzanti (GU Serie Generale n.218 del 17-09-2013); Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Roma,
Italy, 2013.
75. Andries, L.I. Indagine Sulla Diffusione del Compostaggio di Comunità in Italia e Riorganizzazione dei Servizi di
Raccolta dei Rifiuti Urbani nel Centro Storico di Imola—Report; Università di Bologna: Bologna, Italy, 2019.
76. ISPRA. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale Website. Available online: www.catasto-
rifiuti.isprambiente.it/ (accessed on 24 March 2020).
77. Legambiente Basilicata. Available online: http://www.legambientebasilicata.it/rifiuti/217-finanziamenti-per-
gli-impianti-di-compostaggio-in-basilicata (accessed on 24 March 2020).
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Decentralized Community Composting: Past, Present and Future Aspects of Italy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decentralized Community Composting: Past, Present and Future Aspects of Italy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decentralized Community Composting: Past, Present and Future Aspects of Italy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: biofertilizer; community composting; decentralized composting; municipal solid waste;

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3319; doi:10.3390/su12083319 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Organic Waste Management in Italy

2000000 2018 200000

3. A Brief Overview of the Composting Process

3.1. Critical Process Parameters in Composting

Figure 2. General flow scheme of organic waste management via composting.

3.2. Microbial Ecology of Composting

3.3. Composting Technologies

3.4. Composting Scales

4. Decentralized Community Composting

4.1. General Overview

Table 1. Main advantages of decentralized composting over centralized composting [55,58].

4.2. Community Composting in the Operative Environment

Table 2. Characteristics of selected decentralized composting systems in Europe.

Considering the negative impacts of conventional composting reactors on the environment,

4.3. Socioeconomic Perception

5. Centralized Composting in Italy

6. Community Composting in Italy: Legislation and Implementation

Essential Components of Organic Minimum Requirements of Useful Elements and/or Substances

OFMSW from separate collection, Humidity % <50

• Minimum humidity value addition;

7. Case of the Basilicata Region

You might also like