Application of a Life Cycle Model for European Union Policy‐Driven Waste Management Decision Making in Emerging Economies
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19466830 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nemanja Stanisavljević (0000-0001-9484-1166, University of Novi Sad Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Environmental Engineering Novi Sad Serbia, corresponding author), James W Levis (0000-0002-0485-9619, Department of Civil Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh NC USA), Morton A Barlaz (0000-0001-8028-3917, Department of Civil Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh NC USA) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 341-355 |
| Publication date | 2018-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jiec.12564 |
| OpenAlex | W2602940722 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 32 |
Solid waste life cycle modeling has predominantly focused on developed countries, but there are significant opportunities to assist developing and transition economies to minimize the environmental impact of solid waste management (SWM). Serbia is representative of a transition country and most (92%) of its waste is landfilled. As a Candidate European Union (EU) country, Serbia is expected to implement SWM strategies that meet EU directives. The Solid Waste Life‐Cycle Optimization Framework (SWOLF) was used to evaluate scenarios that meet EU goals by 2030. Scenarios included combinations of landfills, anaerobic digestion, composting, material recovery facilities (MRFs), waste‐to‐energy (WTE) combustion, and the use of refuse‐derived fuel in cement kilns. Each scenario was evaluated with and without separate collection of recyclables. Modeled impacts included cost, climate change, cumulative fossil energy demand, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, total eco‐toxicity, and total human toxicity. Trade‐offs among the scenarios were evaluated because no scenario performed best in every category. In general, SWM strategies that incorporated processes that recover energy and recyclable materials performed well across categories, whereas scenarios that did not include energy recovery performed poorly. Emissions offsets attributable to energy recovery and reduced energy requirements associated with remanufacturing of recovered recyclables had the strongest influence on the results. The scenarios rankings were robust under parametric sensitivity analysis, except when the marginal electricity fuel source changed from coal to natural gas. Model results showed that the use of existing infrastructure, energy recovery, and efficient recovery of recyclables from mixed waste can reduce environmental emissions at relatively low cost
Business · Circular economy · Economics · Electricity · Energy recovery · Environmental economics · European union · Fossil fuel · Greenhouse gas · Industrial ecology · Life-cycle assessment · Municipal solid waste · Natural resource economics · Sustainability · Waste management · Engineering · Environmental Science · Municipal Solid Waste Management · Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance · Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
Environmental legislation and waste management efficiency in Italian regions in view of circular economy goals
Whole‐process and multi‐stakeholder‐based solid waste management framework construction for industrial parks
Suggested use? On evidence‐based decision‐making in industrial ecology and beyond
Additive inclusion in plastic life cycle assessments part I
| Citations per year | 0.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2024 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |