Abstract
The dataset reports an up-to-date overview of the selective biowaste collection with a focus on food waste and organic kitchen waste across 308 municipalities in Portugal, to assess the compliance with the EU Waste Framework Directive that made biowaste collection mandatory from 1st January 2024. Data were collected through a structured survey sent to the totality of the municipalities, complemented by systematic research in secondary official sources such as municipal web-sites, reports and statistical data. The questionnaire covered aspects such as coverage, collection models (nearby bring points, door-to-door, co-collection), sector-specific deployment (household collection, non-domestic collection), operational characteristics, and performance indicators (capture rates, cost per tonne). The dataset was structured and validated through cross-checking the multiple sources assessed, prioritising direct municipal questionnaire responses. It includes disaggregated data at a municipality level, including detailed information on the characteristics and efficiency of the initiatives, when available. The database allows the cross-comparison across Portuguese regions and potentially with other international systems, in terms of biowaste collection strategies with focus on food waste and organic kitchen waste. Municipalities in Portugal have been carrying out pilot experiences within their territories, but there is no systematic assessment of what has been carried out nor the results obtained. Given the limited available data, this dataset provides a valuable resource for policy design and further research on biowaste management initiatives to further assess their efficiency and adaptability to different municipal realities at a national and even European level. (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Abstract

Abstract
Architectural uncertainties arising from incomplete or unclear information pose significant challenges when making architectural decisions in Agile teams. Based on a limited number of case studies that employed a technique called ArchHypo, four patterns were identified that propose small adjustments in the development process to handle architectural uncertainties: Protective Guideline, Bring the Specialist, Plan for Preparation, and Quality Checkpoint. Although the patterns derived from these experiences can be useful in real projects, their applicability and consequences were based on limited evidence and specific scenarios. To address this issue, this paper presents an interview study with experienced software architects and engineers to gather further information on the application of these patterns. The research method employed semi-structured interviews to gather the experiences of professionals with the target practices, and thematic analysis was used to assess their recurrence, applicability, and consequences. The findings confirmed that most professionals recognized those practices in real projects and their suitability as actions in uncertainty management. Moreover, new positive and negative consequences, not previously documented in the patterns, were identified. As a result, this work contributes to the field by providing guidance to professionals on how to better evaluate the trade-offs of those patterns when applied to architecture uncertainty management.

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract