PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Waste Management· 2026Q1

Territorial allocation of EU Cohesion Policy investment in household waste-management infrastructure

Mercedes Rodríguez, José Antonio Camacho Ballesta

Short summary

EU Cohesion Policy investment in household waste-management infrastructure (2014-2020) was more likely in regions with lower GDP per capita and institutional quality, but investment intensity was driven by waste management needs like landfill dependence and waste generation.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • EU Cohesion Policy investment in waste management infrastructure (2014-2020) was more probable in regions with lower GDP per capita and institutional quality.
  • Investment intensity in sorting-recycling infrastructure was linked to higher landfill dependence in recipient regions.
  • Investment intensity in treatment-disposal infrastructure was associated with higher municipal waste generation per capita in recipient regions.
  • The study analyzed 207 NUTS 2 regions across 22 EU Member States.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

This paper analyses the regional allocation of Cohesion Policy investment in household waste-management infrastructure across 207 NUTS 2 regions in 22 EU Member States during the 2014–2020 programming period. Although previous research has mainly examined waste-management outcomes and, in some cases, the effects of public support, much less is known about how infrastructure investment itself is distributed across territories. An original regional database is constructed from Kohesio project-location information and combined with baseline indicators of landfill dependence, municipal waste generation per capita, institutional quality, GDP per capita, population density and tourism intensity. The empirical strategy distinguishes between the extensive margin, defined as the probability that a region receives investment, and the intensive margin, defined as per capita investment intensity among recipient regions. It also separates investment in sorting-recycling measures from investment in treatment-disposal measures. The results show that investment receipt was more common in regions with lower GDP per capita and lower institutional quality, a pattern partly linked to the territorial structure of Cohesion Policy and cross-country programme take-up. Investment intensity, however, was more closely related to baseline waste-management conditions. Among recipient regions, higher total and sorting-recycling investment intensity was associated with stronger landfill dependence, while treatment-disposal investment intensity was more closely associated with municipal waste generation per capita. The allocation of waste-management investment is therefore better understood by considering not only whether support reaches a region, but also its intensity and the type of infrastructure financed.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Waste Management, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Political Science and International Relations

Political Science and International RelationsSocial Sciences