IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v52y2008i12p1391-1398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration

Author

Listed:
  • Merrild, Hanna
  • Damgaard, Anders
  • Christensen, Thomas H.

Abstract

The significance of technical data, as well as the significance of system boundary choices, when modelling the environmental impact from recycling and incineration of waste paper has been studied by a life cycle assessment focusing on global warming potentials. The consequence of choosing a specific set of data for the reprocessing technology, the virgin paper manufacturing technology and the incineration technology, as well as the importance of the recycling rate was studied. Furthermore, the system was expanded to include forestry and to include fossil fuel energy substitution from saved biomass, in order to study the importance of the system boundary choices. For recycling, the choice of virgin paper manufacturing data is most important, but the results show that also the impacts from the reprocessing technologies fluctuate greatly. For the overall results the choice of the technology data is of importance when comparing recycling including virgin paper substitution with incineration including energy substitution. Combining an environmentally high or low performing recycling technology with an environmentally high or low performing incineration technology can give quite different results. The modelling showed that recycling of paper, from a life cycle point of view, is environmentally equal or better than incineration with energy recovery only when the recycling technology is at a high environmental performance level. However, the modelling also showed that expanding the system to include substitution of fossil fuel energy by production of energy from the saved biomass associated with recycling will give a completely different result. In this case recycling is always more beneficial than incineration, thus increased recycling is desirable. Expanding the system to include forestry was shown to have a minor effect on the results. As assessments are often performed with a set choice of data and a set recycling rate, it is questionable how useful the results from this kind of LCA are for a policy maker. The high significance of the system boundary choices stresses the importance of scientific discussion on how to best address system analysis of recycling, for paper and other recyclable materials.

Suggested Citation

  • Merrild, Hanna & Damgaard, Anders & Christensen, Thomas H., 2008. "Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 1391-1398.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:52:y:2008:i:12:p:1391-1398
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344908001341
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.08.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Björklund, Anna & Finnveden, Göran, 2005. "Recycling revisited—life cycle comparisons of global warming impact and total energy use of waste management strategies," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 309-317.
    2. Anni Huhtala, 1997. "A Post-Consumer Waste Management Model for Determining Optimal Levels of Recycling and Landfilling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 301-314, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koller, Martin & Sandholzer, Daniel & Salerno, Anna & Braunegg, Gerhart & Narodoslawsky, Michael, 2013. "Biopolymer from industrial residues: Life cycle assessment of poly(hydroxyalkanoates) from whey," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 64-71.
    2. Minoglou, Minas & Komilis, Dimitrios, 2013. "Optimizing the treatment and disposal of municipal solid wastes using mathematical programming—A case study in a Greek region," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 46-57.
    3. Tiejun Dai, 2024. "Assessing the Ecological Cost of Material Flow in China’s Waste Paper Recycling System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Manfredi, Simone & Goralczyk, Malgorzata, 2013. "Life cycle indicators for monitoring the environmental performance of European waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 8-16.
    5. Lausselet, Carine & Cherubini, Francesco & Oreggioni, Gabriel David & del Alamo Serrano, Gonzalo & Becidan, Michael & Hu, Xiangping & Rørstad, Per Kr. & Strømman, Anders Hammer, 2017. "Norwegian Waste-to-Energy: Climate change, circular economy and carbon capture and storage," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 50-61.
    6. Klöckner, Christian Andreas & Oppedal, Inger Olin, 2011. "General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour—Applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in Norwegian student homes," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 463-471.
    7. Turner, David A. & Williams, Ian D. & Kemp, Simon, 2015. "Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 186-197.
    8. Ferrão, Paulo & Ribeiro, Paulo & Rodrigues, João & Marques, Alexandra & Preto, Miguel & Amaral, Miguel & Domingos, Tiago & Lopes, Ana & Costa, e Inês, 2014. "Environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of a packaging waste management system: A Portuguese case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 67-78.
    9. Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D. & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Griffiths, Steve & Bazilian, Morgan & Kim, Jinsoo & Foley, Aoife M. & Rooney, David, 2022. "Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    10. Allacker, K. & Mathieux, F. & Manfredi, S. & Pelletier, N. & De Camillis, C. & Ardente, F. & Pant, R., 2014. "Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Margallo, M. & Dominguez-Ramos, A. & Aldaco, R. & Bala, A. & Fullana, P. & Irabien, A., 2014. "Environmental sustainability assessment in the process industry: A case study of waste-to-energy plants in Spain," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 144-155.
    12. Murphy, Sinnott & Pincetl, Stephanie, 2013. "Zero waste in Los Angeles: Is the emperor wearing any clothes?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 40-51.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eduardo Ley & Molly K. Macauley & Stephen W. Salant, "undated". "Spatially and intertemporally efficient waste management: The costs of interstate flow control," Working Papers 97-07, FEDEA.
    2. Lazarevic, David & Aoustin, Emmanuelle & Buclet, Nicolas & Brandt, Nils, 2010. "Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 246-259.
    3. Silvia Bertarelli & Chiara Lodi & Stefania Ragni, 2022. "An optimal strategy to control mining and recycling of non-renewable resources," Working Papers 2202, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2022.
    4. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2008. "Waste Generation, Incineration and Landfill Diversion. De-coupling Trends, Socio-Economic Drivers and Policy Effectiveness in the EU," Working Papers 2008.94, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Don Fullerton, 2002. "The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 1, pages 1-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Sahlin, Jenny & Ekvall, Tomas & Bisaillon, Mattias & Sundberg, Johan, 2007. "Introduction of a waste incineration tax: Effects on the Swedish waste flows," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 827-846.
    7. Francisco J. André & Emilio Cerdá, 2001. "A Generalized Production Set. The Production and Recycling Function," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2001/07, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    8. Zhao, Yan & Deng, Wenjing, 2014. "Environmental impacts of different food waste resource technologies and the effects of energy mix," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-221.
    9. Egüez, Alejandro, 2020. "Compliance with the EU Waste Hierarchy: A matter of stringency, enforcement, and time," Umeå Economic Studies 981, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    10. Anni Huhtala & Eva Samakovlis, 2002. "Does International Harmonization of Environmental Policy Instruments Make Economic Sense?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(3), pages 259-284, March.
    11. Turner, David A. & Williams, Ian D. & Kemp, Simon, 2015. "Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 186-197.
    12. Chen, M.C. & Ruijs, A. & Wesseler, J., 2005. "Solid waste management on small islands: the case of Green Island, Taiwan," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 31-47.
    13. Francisco André & Francisco Velasco & Luis Gonzalez-Abril, 2009. "Intertemporal and spatial location of disposal facilities," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 23-49, March.
    14. Hervani, Aref A., 2005. "Can oligopsony power be measured? The case of U.S. old newspapers market," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 343-380.
    15. Hunt, Emily J. & Zhang, Chenlong & Anzalone, Nick & Pearce, Joshua M., 2015. "Polymer recycling codes for distributed manufacturing with 3-D printers," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 24-30.
    16. Matthew Gunter, 2007. "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Household and Municipal Recycling?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 4(1), pages 83-111, January.
    17. Di Corato, Luca & Montinari, Natalia, 2014. "Flexible waste management under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 174-185.
    18. van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2006. "Modelling and analysis of international recycling between developed and developing countries," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-26.
    19. Hottle, Troy A. & Bilec, Melissa M. & Landis, Amy E., 2017. "Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 295-306.
    20. Francisco André & Emilio Cerdá, 2004. "Landfill Construction and Capacity Expansion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 409-434, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:52:y:2008:i:12:p:1391-1398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.