Scenario-Based Extended Cost–Benefit Analysis for E-Waste Metal Recovery in Low-Income Countries: Evidence from an Integrated Model in Burkina Faso

Mahugnon Samuel Ahossouhe (), Harinaivo Anderson Andrianisa, Djim Doumbe Damba, Dongo Kouassi, Satyanarayana Narra and Alassane Sanou
Additional contact information
Mahugnon Samuel Ahossouhe: International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering, Ouagadougou 01 BP 594, Burkina Faso
Harinaivo Anderson Andrianisa: International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering, Ouagadougou 01 BP 594, Burkina Faso
Djim Doumbe Damba: International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering, Ouagadougou 01 BP 594, Burkina Faso
Dongo Kouassi: Laboratoire des Sciences du Sol de l’Eau et des Géomatériaux (LSSEG), Université Félix Houphouët Boigny (UFHB), Abidjan 01 BP V34, Côte d’Ivoire
Satyanarayana Narra: Department of Waste and Resource Management, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany
Alassane Sanou: Association Burkinabé pour la Promotion des Emplois Verts (ABPEV), 265 Avenue des Tansoaba Poolé, Ouagadougou 10 BP 13151, Burkina Faso

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 18, 1-22

Abstract: The value of electronic waste as an urban mine has been extensively demonstrated, particularly regarding its rich content in precious metals. However, little is known about the economic feasibility in informal recovery contexts like in Burkina Faso. Previous studies were focused on formal and industrialized systems, overlooking informal dynamics in low-income countries. This study addressed that gap by applying a scenario-based Extended Cost–Benefit Analysis to assess metal recovery pathways in Burkina Faso. Six scenarios were modeled, combining technological selectivity, variations in local collection costs, and policy incentives such as Extended Producer Responsibility and eco-taxes as well as socio-environmental co-benefits. Results showed that e-waste recovery in the informal sector became economically viable when technological, financial, and policy instruments were combined. At a reduced e-waste cost of 5 USD/kg, manual dismantling and bioleaching technologies allowed for net benefits of 6.34 and 6.85 USD/kg, respectively, corresponding to improvements of 136% and 133% compared to baseline losses. Even at 10 USD/kg, both methods remained viable with positive returns and benefit–cost ratios above 1.06. It is impossible to generate net benefits with an e-waste purchase price of 10 USD/kg without EPR or eco-tax mechanisms, unless the price is reduced to 5 USD/kg; this could impose enormous constraints on collection activities. These findings confirmed that no single factor is sufficient to achieve profitability, highlighting the need to integrate supportive policies, technological appropriateness, and environmental co-benefits, a combination that aligns with circular economy principles and is essential to unlock the full potential of e-waste recovery in low-income countries.

Keywords: circular economy; e-waste metal recovery; extended cost–benefit analysis; low-income countries; informal recycling; urban mine (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8351/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8351/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8351-:d:1751722

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().