Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Comparative LCA of two approaches with different emphasis on energy

or material recovery for a municipal solid waste management system
in Gipuzkoa
G. Bueno a,n, I. Latasa b, P.J. Lozano b
a

Department of Electronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Alameda Urquijo s/n, 48013 Bilbao, Spain
Department of Geography, Prehistory and Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Toms y Valiente s/n,
01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 20 May 2014
Received in revised form
20 March 2015
Accepted 1 June 2015

Two alternative approaches for an integrated municipal solid waste management system (MSW-MS)
have been confronted in the province of Gipuzkoa, in the north of Spain, during the last decade. While
one of them prioritizes energy recovery from mixed residual waste in an incineration plant, the other
approach gives precedence to material recovery of separately collected waste. Which system would
present a lower environmental impact and be more desirable from a sustainability perspective?
Answering this question is hindered by the fact that recovered energy and materials are not directly
comparable or directly substitutable with each other.
Based on the powerful framework provided by life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, this work
performs a comparative LCA of overall environmental impacts of these two alternative approaches,
showing that comparisons of alternative systems in terms of direct energy recovery or direct material
recovery should be avoided in favor of other indicators already proposed in the LCA framework, such as
the Cumulative Energy Demand category from Ecoinvent, or the global warming potential and the
Abiotic Resources Depletion categories from the CML 2001 method.
Applying the LCA framework, this work shows that when a high share of waste is collected
separately, and processes assumed in the background system are adequately characterized, especially
the production of the electricity mix, then prioritizing material recovery provides better results even in
environmental categories tightly related to fossil energy consumption, such as the global warming
potential impact category.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
Municipal solid waste (MSW)
Material recovery
Energy recovery
Waste management

Contents
1.

2.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.
Waste management strategies in Gipuzkoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.
Objectives of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Goal and scope denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Waste prevention derived from the broadening of selective collection in Gipuzkoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Characterization of background and foreground processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

450
450
451
452
452
453
453

Abbreviations: acid, Acidication impact category from CML 2001 method; ard, Abiotic Resource Depletion impact category from CML 2001 method; eutro, Eutrophication
impact category from CML 2001 method; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; gw, Global Warming impact category from CML 2001 method; htox, Human Toxicity impact category from
CML 2001 method; ILCD, International Reference Life Cycle Data System; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; LCA, life cycle assessment; LCA-IWM, LCA Tools
for the Development of Integrated Waste Management; MBP, mechanical biological pre-treatment; MSW, municipal solid waste; MSW-MS, municipal solid waste
management systems; P, product; PE, primary energy demand; ph-tox, Photo-oxidant Formation impact category from CML 2001 method; RM, resource material demand;
SC, separate collection; WFD, Waste Framework Directive; WP, waste prevention; WtE, Waste-to-Energy, incineration plant with energy recovery
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 94 601 41 34; fax: 34 94 601 42 59.
E-mail addresses: gorka.bueno@ehu.es (G. Bueno), itxaro.latasa@ehu.es (I. Latasa), pedrojose.lozano@ehu.es (P.J. Lozano).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.021
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

450

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

3. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A.
System expansion to determine avoided burdens
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

1. Introduction
The aim of integrated municipal solid waste management
systems (MSW-MS) is to give an adequate treatment to collected
waste with a minimum environmental impact under affordable
costs. These systems comprise all the treatment and processing
steps underwent by collected fractions of municipal solid waste
(MSW) generated in a specic area, from temporary storage and
collection through nal disposal of secondary uxes generated in
processing plants. In order to improve sustainability and minimize
impacts, some waste treatmentssuch as incineration or anaerobic digestionaim at recovering energy from waste, while others
are focused on preparing the waste for material recovery. In fact,
integrated MSW-MS normally combine different kinds of material
and energy recovery.
1.1. Waste management strategies in Gipuzkoa
Local administrations in Spain have been redening their
municipal waste-management systems for more than a decade.
On one hand, they are obliged to comply with European Directives
regarding minimum recovery and recycling rates for packaging
wastes and closure of landlls; on the other hand, many administrations have to face up to the saturation of landll sites. This is
the case, for example, in the Basque province of Gipuzkoa, where
64% of all MSW generated in 2012 was derived to landlls. This
gure, actually, is similar to the values registered in nearby
provinces and regions in Spain, as can be checked in Table 1,
which shows the percentages of MSW derived to nal treatments
that year in the three Basque provinces and Spain. There, treatment of MSW has been mainly based in landlling and to a much
lesser degree in energy recovery; material recovery, on the other
hand, has remained below 40% for many years [14].
With a population of 731 thousand inhabitants in 2013,
Gipuzkoa is administratively divided into eight municipality commonwealths. Historically, municipality commonwealths are the
administrative bodies that have been in charge of the collection
and treatment of municipal waste, especially through its disposal
to controlled landlls. Fig. 1 shows the trend of MSW generation in
Gipuzkoa between 2000 and 2013, altogether with planning
objectives established by the provincial administration in 2008
(DdP-2008 Strategy, for year 2016 [5]) and in 2012 (EDDdP-2012
revision Strategy [1], for 2016 and 2020).
MSW generation in Gipuzkoa increased since 2000 until 2006,
when a peak of 411 thousand metric tons was generated. During
that period around 80% of the MSW was mixed residual wastes
derived to landlls, as most of the waste was not separately

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

454
456
457
457
458

collectedfrom 15.3% in 2000 up to 25.5% in 2006. In order to

reduce environmental impacts related to such a big waste ux
being derived to landll sites, during those years the provincial
administration made a strong commitment to energy recovery of
the mixed residual waste. This commitment was materialized in
the DdP-2008 Strategy, approved in the beginning of 2008. This
planning projected a progressive increase in waste generation and
recycling until 2016. According to it, in that year 57% of the
generated waste would be separately collected and 53.3% could
be recycled [5]. Most of the resting mixed residual waste (213
thousand metric tons, annually) would be incinerated with energy
recovery. This strategy would have required the installation of at
least one new incineration plant in Gipuzkoa, although up to three
new plants were eventually considered [5,7]. It must be emphasized that the DdP-2008 Strategy was established previous to the
approval of the European Waste Framework Directive (WFD),
which sets a minimum target of 50% for re-use and recycling of
MSW by 2020 [8]. That target could be tightly achieved inside the
DdP-2008 Strategy by 2016, but some serious problems arise when
the evolution of MSW generation in Gipuzkoa after 2006 is
considered.
Since 2007 the MSW ux generated in Gipuzkoa has diminished steadily, as can be checked in Fig. 1. This reduction in waste
generation seems to be due, partially at least, to a social context
more sensible every year with recycling, re-use and environmental
impacts derived from landlling, as the decline started before the
economy got into recession by the end of 2008. At that moment,
MSW generation in Gipuzkoa had already diminished by 15%
when compared to 2006 levels. By 2013 the reduction was 22%,
and 35% less than the forecast for 2016.
After the approval of the DdP-2008 Strategy and the WFD in
2008, some municipalities boosted an alternative approach in
order to avoid the installation of any new incineration facility in
the province. This alternative strategy was mainly based on a

Table 1
Final treatments of MSW in 2012 in Gipuzkoa and nearby regions (other Basque
Provinces and Spain).
Final treatment

Gipuzkoa (%)

Bizkaia (%)

Araba (%)

Spain (%)

Landlling
Energy recovery
Material recycling
Composting

64
0
29
7

28
36
36
o1

63
2
34
1

63
10
17
10

Fig. 1. Historical evolution of the MSW ux in Gipuzkoa, and planning objectives

established by the DdP-2008 Strategy (for year 2016) and those established by the
EDDdP-2012 revision Strategy (for years 2016 and 2020). Broken lines are eye
guides. Source: [1,5,6].

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

strong commitment to separate collection of household wastes,

which would allow for the separate recovery of each material
fraction, and thus minimizing the need for nal disposal to
landlls and incineration. A change in the provincial government
in 2011 allowed a further implementation of this alternative
approach. The new provincial government revised the DdP-2008
Strategy in 2012, which materialized in an updated waste management planning for the period 20122016, the EDDdP-2012 revision
Strategy [1]. This updated planning took into account the new
waste generation trend after the 2006 peak, and reformulated
separate collection and recycling targets for years 2016 and 2020,
improving the targets imposed by the WFD: by the end of the
decade 76% of MSW generated in Gipuzkoa would be separately
collected, which could boost materials recycling well over 70%. In
the new planning, by 2020 the residual fraction would be reduced
down to 77 thousand metric tons annually, or 36% of the ux that
in the previous planning was supposed to be needed to feed the
new incineration facility, 213 metric tons. Under these circumstances of more ambitious recycling targets and less MSW generation the economical viability of the incineration facility would
be seriously jeopardized, as its functioning would diverge too
much from full capacity [9].
In the context of this socio-political debatenot exempt of
understandable economic conicts, as waste management
demands a signicant part of every municipal budget, even in
times of economic turndown, social agents and decision-makers
from Gipuzkoa have addressed our research group with questions
such as the following, to be answered from a technical and
scientic point of view: Which kind of recovery has to be given
precedence in a waste-management systemenergy or material
recovery? Which is the signicance of separate collection in an
integrated MSW-MS such as the one to be implemented in
Gipuzkoa?
1.2. Objectives of the study
The framework necessary to answer those previous questions is
already settled in the WFD, which establishes, through its waste
hierarchy, a legally binding priority order for waste management
in the EU [8]. Prevention and preparing for re-use rank at the top
of the hierarchy, followed by different kinds of material and
energy recovery. This hierarchy is not arbitrary, as the WFD states
that potential deviations from itand the choice among alternatives at each hierarchy levelhave to be justied by life cycle
thinking of the overall impacts. This is often achieved by the
application of life cycle assessment (LCA), which is a preferred and
standardized scientic approach for life cycle thinking. The basic
framework for LCA is provided by the ISO 14040 and 14044:2006
standards [10,11]. Handbooks are available for its application [12],
along with an international reference guide [13] and a guidance
for its application in waste management [14], where a number of
models have been developed during the last two decades [15]. The
use of these models abounds in the literature, and they are
especially suited for the assessment of integrated MSW-MS that
may combine energy and material recovery from waste. De Feo
and Malvano [16] use the WISARD LCA tool in selecting the best
MSW-MS for the Campania Region, in Southern Italy. Bovea et al.
[17] make use of SimaPro7 for the assessment of alternatives in the
Spanish town of Castelln de la Plana. Pire et al. [18] carry out an
LCA for a future MSW-MS in the Setbal peninsula, in the
Portuguese region of Lisbon, using the Umberto 5.5 software.
Tunesi [19] uses the WRATE modeling tool for the assessment of
different energy recovery strategies in England. Slagstad and
Bratteb [20] use EASEWASTE to assess different alternatives for
waste management in a new urban settlement in the city of
Trondheim, in central Norway. Song et al. [21] use SimaPro7 for

451

the assessment of environmental performance of MSW-MS in

Macau, China. Bernstad and la Cour Jansen [22] compare different
alternatives for the integrated management of household food
waste in the area of Augustenborg, Southern Sweden, using the
EASEWASTE LCA-tool. Eriksson et al. [23] study different MSW-MS
for the Swedish municipalities of Uppsala, Stockholm and lvdalen, using the ORWARE model. Merrild et al. [24] assess recycling
versus incineration in waste management systems in Denmark, by
modeling in EASYWASTE. Nadzirah Othman et al. [25] review six
life cycle assessments of integrated MSW-MS in Asian countries
that combine both energy and material recovery approaches.
The main objective in this work is to determine which
integrated MSW-MS may cause in the province of Gipuzkoa a
lower environmental impact and be more desirable from a
sustainability perspectiveeither a management system that
prioritizes energy recovery from mixed residual waste in an
incineration facility, or another one that gives precedence to
material recovery of separately collected waste. In order to
compare these two alternative approaches, this work carries out
a comparative LCA of these two alternatives, to be implemented in
a generic municipality commonwealth. The modeling of this
generic municipality commonwealth is based on the present
context of Gipuzkoa, and its detailed characterization is performed
in the following Section 2. We believe that the quantitative
assessment of environmental impact indicators in a generic
municipality commonwealth allows drawing some important
qualitative conclusions that may be valid not only for the whole
province of Gipuzkoa, but also for other provinces or regions with
a similar socio-economic situation and waste treatment conditions
in Spain, as shown in Table 1.
Some methodological choices may have important consequences when performing a comparative LCA of alternative
waste-management systems. Gentil et al. [15] reviewed the
importance of technical assumptions related to the denition of
the functional unit, system boundaries, and energy and process
modeling in LCA models, concluding that making different choices
may lead to contradictory results. Other important factors may
also have important effects when assessing the environmental
impact of waste-management systems, such as considering different waste prevention strategies, different collection systems, or
different spreading levels of separate collection. Regarding to
waste prevention (WP), Gentil et al. [26] evaluated several measures for municipal waste management; Slagstad and Bratteb
[20], on the other hand, quantied WP potential to reduce household waste generation in circa 17% for a new urban settlement in
Norway. Other studies have centered on the inuence of different
collection systems, altogether with different treatment options
[17,20,27]. The spreading of separate collection is also analyzed in
some comparative LCA studies [16,2832], but with quite different
ranges under consideration: while Buttol et al. [29] assumed very
limited variations in separate collection, Rigamonti et al. [30]
considered a range from 35% up to 60%, Calabr [31] from 15%
up to 50%, Consonni et al. [32] from 35% to 65%, and De Feo and
Malvano [16] from 35% up to 80%. But other studies do not
consider any increase in separate collection, e.g. Cimpan and
Wenzel [33] and Belboom [34] when comparing different pretreatments of residual waste, or Koci and Trecakova [35] when
comparing different treatments of mixed residual waste. Similarly,
the possibility to increase separate collection is absent in other
studies that compare different technologies for incineration
[36,37], that compare nal disposal to landll versus incineration
[38], different ways for energy recovery [39,40], or that compare
material versus energy recovery [24].
Taking all this into account, it is also an objective of this work to
check the importance of the spreading of separate collection
of MSW on the overall environmental balance of integrated

452

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

MSW-MS, along with other factors such as the presence of waste

prevention strategies, and the adequate characterization of the
electricity mix generation in the background process.
This work also aims to demonstrate that the LCA methodology
framework provides a set of indicators, such as the Cumulative
Energy Demand category from Ecoinvent, or the global warming
potential and the Abiotic Resources Depletion categories from the
CML 2001 method, that allow to assess and compare life-cycle
material and energetic consumption in systems of very different
nature that involve energy uxes and material resources not
directly comparable or directly substitutable with each other.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Goal and scope denition
As this study is centered in the proper accounting of different
environmental impacts when comparing systems, the attributional modeling principle has been chosen for this comparative
LCA, and the system expansion/substitution approach has been
considered for solving multifunctionality (Situation C1 in [13]).
The comparative LCA is carried out with the LCA-IWM tool [41].
The assessment tool of LCA-IWM allows comparing different
scenarios, based on the LCA methodology, considering all waste
management steps, from temporary storage through nal disposal
of secondary uxes generated in previous treatments, such as
recycling, incineration or composting. This tool was specially
designed for planning and optimizing waste-management systems
in areas that still require much effort to be adjusted to the state-ofthe-art in Europe, as is the case in Southern European countries,
and particularly in Spain.
The general diagrams of the two integrated MSW-MS modeled
with the LCA-IWM assessment tool in this work are shown
superimposed in Fig. 2, with the corresponding divergences
between them in uxes and processing steps.
Our model considers ve different waste ows separately collected: biowaste, glass, metals, plastics, and paper and cardboard, with

the specic compositions assumed in the LCA-IWM tool by default

for every parameter not specied from now on, LCA-IWM default data
should be assumed. The percentages of separately collected fractions
are specied in Table 2, and resemble those of Gipuzkoa in 2011 [1]. A
sixth primary ow corresponds to the residual waste collected in
mixed form, of which almost 70% is biowaste [42]. One of the key
differences between the two systems considered affects the treatment
of this residual ow. On one hand, in the system that prioritizes
material recovery, this mixed residual ow is transported to an
aerobic mechanical biological pre-treatment (MBP), where the organic
fraction is stabilized, the high caloric fraction is recovered for its
combustion in cement kilns, and the resulting secondary residual
waste is left ready for its safe disposal to landll. On the other hand, in
the alternative that prioritizes energy recovery, the residual ow is
directed to an incineration plant, and the ashes and the slag there
produced are also landlled, as the Basque legislation does not allow
for its use as gravel for road construction or similar.
Historically, MSW management systems in Spain have been
reliant on the disposal to landlls of not separately collected mixed
wastes. In 2006, as much as 80% of household wastes in Gipuzkoa
were collected this way [5]. In the nearby province of Bizkaia a
similar percentage was reached in 2013 [2]. In parallel, it is well
known that small sized incineration plants are seriously handicapped because of lower electric efciencies due to scale effects,
higher specic consumption of auxiliaries, and more conservative
design conditions and less sophisticated congurations, as economic constraints are tighter in them [43]. Incineration plants
perform better if incoming waste uxes are bigger. As they
normally recover energy from mixed wastes that cannot be
recycled, administrations do not nd much incentive to broaden
selective collection schemes that reduce incoming waste uxes to
incineration plants and may jeopardize their viability. This is
specially the case in Gipuzkoa, where annual household waste
generation barely exceeds 300.000 metric tons. On the contrary,
systems that prioritize material recycling should always try to
extend separate collection schemes, as only separately collected
waste can be most satisfactorily recycled. Coherent with this
reasoning, our modeling assumes different separate collection
levels for each system: 25% in the system with the incineration
plant, and 75% in the system with the aerobic MBP.
The two alternative MSW-MS analyzed in this work give
service to a population of 100,000 inhabitants living in 25,000
households in an area of 1000 km2 and generating an annual
waste ux of 50,000 metric tons when no waste prevention
strategies are put into action. These and other characteristics of
the functional unit are gathered in Table 3.
At this point, an adequate denition of the functional unit is
crucial. Several problems related to the denition of the functional
unit arise when performing a comparative LCA of structurally
different waste-management systems.

Table 2
Waste fractions considered in the functional unit.
Waste fraction

Fig. 2. Material ux diagram of the two integrated MSW-MS considered in

this work.

Mixed residual waste, of which

70% is bioresidue
Separately collected waste, of
which:
Paper and cardboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Biowaste
Total

System with
incineration (%)

System with
aerobic MBP (%)

75

25

25

75

24
11
5
15
45
100

24
11
5
15
45
100

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

453

Table 3
Characteristics of the functional unit, and of processes that diverge from default options in the LCA-IWM assessment tool.
Data input to the LCA-IWM assessment tool
Population
Area
Number of households
Waste generation
Reduction due to waste prevention
Temporary storage
Recycled materials
Mixed residual waste
Collection and transport
Recycled materials

100,000 inhabitants
1000 km2
25,000
50,000 metric tons/year
No waste prevention (0%); 20%
80 L sacks
1100 L plastic bins

150 days/year (biowaste)

100 days/year (others)
Mixed residual waste
310 days/year (as in Bilbao [44] or Donostia [45])
Fist pick-up distance
7.5 km
Average distance from sector to facilities 10 km
Efciency of incineration plant
25%
Electricity mix proles considered
211 g CO2/kW h (high penetration of renewables); 498 g CO2/kW h (mainly fossil generation)

One of these problems is to solve the allocation of impacts and

benets of different systems that are intrinsically multifunctional,
while maintaining the comparability of the systems through a
common functional unit to all of them. Along with the waste
management service, these integrated systems allow for the
recovery of different recycled materials and energy carriers. But
as these recoveries are complementary to the waste management
service, which is the common function to all systems, the functional unit of the systems compared in this work is dened as a
service: the collection and treatment of all household waste in the
dened area in one year. Once the functional unit is dened this
way, the multifunctionality problem can be solved by system
expansion/subtraction. This process is thoroughly explained
in Appendix A.
2.2. Waste prevention derived from the broadening of selective
collection in Gipuzkoa
Recent experience in several municipalities of Gipuzkoa shows
that the substitution of kerbside collection of mixed residual waste
by door to door collection of the different fractionsincluding a
very small residual fractionmay signicantly reduce the total ux
of the waste to be managed by the system. This is the case, for
example, of Hernani, a town of 19,300 inhabitants where the
implantation of door to door collection altogether with the
promotion of home and district composting and campaigns to
raise public awareness has led to a stable reduction of 28.6% in
total generated municipal solid waste (Fig. 3; [4648]).
This work compares two management systems with different
levels of separate collection (SC), and thus that implement waste
prevention strategies up to different levels. This would be an example
of waste prevention as a result of different system dynamics [49].
If the functional unit of the systems under comparison is dened
as the one that provides the service for collection and treatment of all
household waste in a given area and year, then comparability of
different waste-management systems is guaranteed only as long as
prevented waste generation remains equal in all systems. Otherwise,
the comparison must account for the avoided impacts in those
systems that prevent more waste generation. Ways to solve this
problem have been proposed [36,50,51]. Basically, these works
propose to consider the managed waste ux as the sum of the
collected and treated wastes plus a virtual ux corresponding to the
prevented waste. The burdens associated to the prevented waste
should be accounted, in that case, as avoided burdens of the wastemanagement system because of waste prevention. But this approach
is not exempt from problems [26]. It requires the quantication of a
dematerialized ux [50], and entails abandoning the zero-burden

Fig. 3. Evolution of municipal solid waste generated in Hernani (19,300 inhabitants, Gipuzkoa) in 2009, 2010 and 2011 before and after the implantation of door
to door collection in May 2010.

assumption, as upstream burdens carried about by prevented and

dematerialized waste should be accounted. As this approach complicates signicantly our comparative LCA, this work does without
considering any virtual ux associated with prevented waste, but
always keeping in mind that an accounting error of avoided burdens
is being committed in favor of those systems with less ambitious
prevention strategies.
2.3. Characterization of background and foreground processes
Electricity produced from waste, e.g. in incineration plants with
energy recovery, is credited in our comparative LCA with the
corresponding avoided burdens from power generation in the
background system. Thus, electricity generation may cause a huge
impact on the net environmental balance of the wastemanagement system. When crediting these avoided burdens,
comparative LCAs in the literature often consider national and
local electricity mixes with a very high penetration of fossil fuels
[29,35,37,38]. In some studies the electricity mix of the background system is not even characterized much farther than as
strongly based on fossil, and thus giving way to important avoided
burdens [52].
But LCA is often applied to systems that are being projected for
the near future [29,36,53] or although already functioning, that are
not expected to be dismantled soon [23]. If Attributional LCA is
applied for the modeling of future systems [54], it has to take into

454

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

account data from background processes as they are forecast to be

in the future, when the system under study is supposed to be put
into operation. In our study the new incineration plant in one of
the alternative systems would start operation not before 2015, and
would not nish its pay-off period until 2030 [9], being probably
in operation by the middle of the century. Taking into account that
the European Commission plans that, due to fossil energy depletion and ght against climate change, the European power sector
should reduce its GHG emissions between 54% and 68% in 2030
and between 93% and 99% by 2050 [55], the average production of
electricity to be considered in the background system cannot be
carbon intensive.
Actually, Spain has already reduced its electricity mix emissions
level from 430 g CO2/kWh in 2000 [56] down 236 g CO2/kWh in
2013 [57], and will probably reduce it further during the next
decade, well below 200 g CO2/kWh. Following this trend, our
comparative LCA will consider for the background system an
emissions level of 211 g CO2/kWh, corresponding to an electricity
mix with a high penetration of renewables. In order to perform a
sensitivity analysis of these avoided burdens, our study will also
consider another electricity mix, much more dependent on fossil
fuels, with an emissions level of 498 g CO2/kWh. These two
electricity mixes are characterized in the Ecoinvent-2000 database
[58] and can be used by the LCA-IWM assessment tool.
The need to correctly address the average process is also
applicable to products obtained from material recovery. When
assessing forecast systems, the LCA practitioner should also take
into account that the production technologies of paper, plastics,
ferrous metals, aluminum and organic fertilizerswhich are displaced by compostwill probably reduce their burdens in the
future, e.g. as it has occurred with the production of nitrogenous
fertilizers, where using best available techniques may signicantly
reduce N2O emissions and energy demand [22].
Also, sufcient information has to be provided about the assessed
processes for energy and material recovery. In the case of our
comparative LCA, these processes are those modeled by the LCAIWM assessment tool, and characterized in its documentation [59]:




 The incineration plant is equipped with grate ring and ue gas

cleaning (electrostatic precipitator for dust and y ashes; acid

ue gas scrubbing for removal of HCl, HF and heavy metals;
neutral SO2-scrubbing facility with suspended Ca(OH)2; lters
with activated carbon for removal of dioxines/furanes; and
Selective Catalytic Reduction for denitrication). The Waste-toEnergy plant (WtE) produces only electricity, as climatic conditions in Gipuzkoa would not guarantee sufcient heat
demand from a CHP plant [60]. A thermoelectric efciency of
25% has been supposed, so that the incineration plant reaches
the R1 status of the WFD [61].
For the recycling of plastics, it is assumed that plastics and
composites separately collected are composed by the following
seven fractions: HDPE, PET, LDPE lm, mixed plastics, liquid
beverage cartons, other composites, and contaminants (11%).
These fractions are sorted in a Material Recovery Facility, and
transported to recycling facilities. Recycled HDPE substitutes
primary HDPE for multi-layered bottles (1:1 basis). Recycled
PET substitutes primary PET for three-layered bottles (1:1).
Recycled LDPE lm substitutes primary LDPE for sacs (1:1).
Mixed plastics are recycled into plastic pickets, which replace
wood pickets (1:1 basis). Liquid beverage cartons are recycled
into pulp that substitutes primary pulp for domestic paper
(1:1). Rejects of sorting processes and some composites are
incinerated if the system has an incineration plant, otherwise
they are landlled.
Recycling of metals. To reprocess steel from scrap, rst it is
sorted to remove contaminants, so that it can be melted and

recast. Tinplate is electrolytically de-tined to produce steel.

Reprocessing of aluminum, which is much less energy intensive
than its production from virgin materials, requires sorting and
then melting in a furnace. Our model assumes that metals are
sorted in a Material Recovery Facility and transported to
recycling facilities, where tinplate steel is recycled into secondary steel, substituting primary steel in a 1:1 basis; aluminum is
recycled into secondary aluminum, which substitutes primary
aluminum in a 1:1 basis. Rejects of sorting processes (5%) are
landlled or incinerated.
Related to recycling of paper and cardboard, following LCAIWM, our model assumes that 1 kg of recycled pulp replaces
1 kg of primary pulp, and that cardboard is recycled into
cardboard. 2% rejects are derived to incineration if available;
otherwise they are landlled.
Different subfractions of glass (green, brown, clear, mixed glass)
are cleaned and crushed into broken glass in a Material
Recovery Facility and transported to a recycling facility. Rejects
(3%) of cleaning and crushing processes are landlled or
incinerated. Clean broken glass is recycled into glass, assuming
that 1 kg replaces 1.19 kg of raw materials.
The modeled landll is equipped with gas and leachate collection systems. The collected gas is utilized for energy production, and leachate is treated before discharge.
The composting process of the biowaste is modeled by the LCAIWM tool assuming the operation of a fully encapsulated
composting plant with a rst stage of intensive composting in
a box system, and a subsequent maturation step in enclosed
windrows. Obtaining high quality compost is not a problem
when the biowaste is separately collected. Its application brings
positive effects in form of nutrient and organic carbon supply,
along with carbon sequestration. Our modeling assumes
default parameters from the LCA-IWM tool, which imply the
substitution of mineral fertilizers in a 1:1 basis (based on the
nutrient content), the substitution of peatwhich is considered
a fossil resourcefor introduction of organic matter to the soil,
and carbon sequestration equivalent to 8.2% of the carbon
present in nal compost.

3. Results and discussion

In this section we present the results of the comparative lifecycle assessment of the two alternative integrated MSW-MS
whose characteristics have been previously detailed. These results
are gathered in Table 4. The scenario labeled as A25 models the
system in which 25% of waste is separately collected and the other
75% of mixed residual waste is treated in a WtE plant. The scenario
labeled as B75 models the system in which 75% of waste is
separately collected, and the other 25% of mixed residual waste
is subjected to aerobic mechanical biological pretreatment and
subsequent disposal of nonrecyclable inert materials to landll.
Scenarios A25 and B75 are modeled assuming a power system in
the background with a high penetration of renewables (emissions
level of 211 g CO2/kWh).
These two basic scenarios are complemented with other three
in which some of the simulation conditions are modied in order
to perform sensitivity analysis of some signicant parameters:

 In order to check the relevance of waste prevention and

recycling derived from the increase of selective collection,

scenario B25 resembles scenario B75 but where just 25% of
waste is separately collected, and there is no reduction in waste
generation due to prevention.
In order to check the relevance of the electricity mix assumed
in the background, A25C and B25C scenarios model the

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

455

Table 4
Parameter characterization and results of signicant impact categories for ve scenarios analyzed (A25, A25C, B25, B25C, B75), organized in four comparative pairs (A25CB25C, A25C-A25, B25-B75, A25-B75) with the changing parameters in each pair in bold type.
Scenario Mixed
residual
waste
treatment

Separate
collection
(%)

Reduction
due to
waste
prevention
(WP, %)

Electricity Abiotic
mix (g
resource
CO2/kW h) depletion
(ard, Mg Sbeq)

A25C
B25C

25
25

No
No

498
498

88.7
50.2

25
25
25
75
25
75

No
No
No
Yes, 20%
No
Yes, 20%

498
211
211
211
211
211

88.7
54.1
45.0
85.7
54.1
85.7

A25C
A25
B25
B75
A25
B75

Incineration
Aerobic
MBP
Incineration
Incineration
Aerobic MBP
Aerobic MBP
Incineration
Aerobic
MBP

Human toxicity
(htox, kg 1,4Dichlorobenzeneeq)

Photooxidant
formation
(ph-tox kg
Ethene-eq)

Acidication
(acid, kg SO2
eq)

Eutrophication
(eutro, kg PO4
eq)

Waste
landlled
(tonnes)

9.56
5.04

2.34
1.44

4.76
2.04

105
56.8

946
2,352

7790
27,175

9.56
4.76
4.32
11.09
4.76
11.09

2.34
1.60
1.55
1.79
1.60
1.79

4.76
3.15
1.80
6.55
3.15
6.55

105
64.5
50.7
139
64.5
139

946
353
2,549
907
353
907

7790
7790
27,175
9939
7790
9939

Global
warming
potential
(gw, Gg CO2
eq)

systems considered in scenarios A25 and B25, but assuming a

power system in the background that is carbon intensive (498 g
CO2/kWh).
Table 4 shows the ve scenarios analyzed, with the parameters
that differentiate each one, and their modeling results for six
signicant impact categories. These categories are those assessed
by the LCA-IWM tool following the CML 2001 method [12], and
they are identied as the most signicant when comparing wastemanagement systems. The rst two, abiotic resource depletion
(ard, measured in Mg Sb eq) and global warming potential (gw,
measured in Gg CO2 eq) are very good indicators of cumulative
material resource consumption (ard) and cumulative fossil energy
demand (gw), representing very good indicators of global energy
and material recovery. The other four impact categories analyzed
are human toxicity (htox, measured in kg 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-eq),
photo-oxidant formation (ph-tox, measured in kg Ethene-eq),
acidication (acid, measured in kg SO2 eq) and eutrophication
(eutro, measured in kg PO4 eq). Quantities of annual waste derived
to landlls are also gathered in Table 4 for each scenario, measured
in metric tons.
The rst pair of scenarios shown in Table 4 (scenarios A25CB25C) compare impact categories in both waste-management
systems when separate collection is 25%, and a carbon intensive
electricity mix is assumed in the background. The life cycle
assessment provides better results (more negative) in all impact
categories for scenario A25C, showing that it is environmentally
more benecial to incinerate the mixed residual waste than to
inertize and dispose of it to landll when just 25% of all generated
household waste is separately collected.
The Spanish power sector is undergoing a decarbonization
process that will strengthen in the coming decades. Hence it
seems more adequate to assume an electricity mix for the background system less reliant on fossil fuels than that considered in
scenarios A25C-B25C. The second pair of scenarios compared in
Table 4 (A25C-A25) allows a sensitivity analysis of the electricity
mix in the background. The comparison shows the consequence of
reducing the electricity emissions from 498 down to 211 g CO2/
kW h in the system with the WtE plant: all environmental impacts
remain benecial due to important avoided burdens, but they are
signicantly reduced, from 32% (htox) up to 50% (gw).
Another factor that has to be considered when comparing the
two alternative integrated MSW-MS is the possibility to increase
separate collection. Rigamonti et al. [30] state that the optimum
share for separate collection may be around 50% due to contaminations; but assuring high efciencies in the separate collection of
each fraction would locate the optimum well over 60%. Actually,

Slagstad and Bratteb [20] consider in their comparative assessment for a new urban settlement a feasible sorting efciency of
70% for food waste, and between 70% and 90% for all other waste
uxes. In our case, the third pair of scenarios compared in Table 4
(B25-B75) perform a sensitivity analysis of the spreading of
separate collection, comparing impact categories when it is 25%
and 75% in the management system that derives the mixed
residual waste to aerobic MBP. The results show important
improvements in all impact categories. This is due to the increased
avoided burdens that are accounted when tripling separate collection, and thus material recovery. The improvement is signicant
even in the global warming potential category, directly linked to
fossil energy consumption (increase of 156%). It has to be added
that this modeling underestimates the environmental benet of
increasing separate collection, as our modeling does not assign
avoided burdens to a waste prevention that is estimated in 20%.
Direct energy recovery from waste is an environmental
improvement when performed in a waste-management system.
But the expansion of separate collection schemes provides environmental benets through expanded material recovery that may
overwhelm those derived from energy recovery. A better result
from direct material recovery (e.g. recycling) when compared with
direct energy recovery (e.g. incineration) is conrmed by other
works [27,62,63], and supports the fact that the former is located
higher in the waste hierarchy [8]. This point is conrmed by the
last pair of scenarios compared in Table 4 (A25-B75), where the
waste-management system with an incineration plant that separately collects just 25% of all household waste is compared with
the system that separately collects 75% for material recovery, and
derives to aerobic MBP the mixed residual waste. This second
system (scenario B75) behaves better in all environmental categories except eutrophication, in which the gap between the two
systems is nevertheless signicantly reduced with respect to
results when separate collection is 25% in both systems (A25CB25C).
Giving priority to material recycling over direct energy recovery improves material recovery, and therefore scenario B75 shows
a better environmental impact in the Abiotic resource depletion
category (85.7 Gg Sb eq) than scenario A25 (54.1 Gg Sb eq). But
results show that overall energy recovery is also improved when
material recovery is prioritized: scenario B75 shows a better result
in the global warming potential category (11.09 Gg CO2 eq),
closely related to fossil fuels consumption, than scenario A25
(4.76 Gg CO2 eq). This is due to the fact that important quantities
of energy are required to produce materials that can be substituted
by recycled products. This energy consumption is avoided with
material recovery, and actually exceeds direct energy recovery

456

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

form waste in the considered systems. This is shown in Fig. 4,

which details the partial contribution of each management stage
and treatment process to the net environmental impact in scenarios A25 and B75.
Fig. 4 shows the importance of the avoided burdens in material
recovery from the separately collected plastics, paper, glass and
metals residues. The avoided burdens are especially important for
material recovery from plastics residues in the categories of abiotic
resource depletion and eutrophication; for recovery from glass in
human toxicity; and for recovery from paper in photo-oxidant
formation and acidication. Avoided burdens due to recovery from
metals seem to be less important in the category of human
toxicity, but are comparatively signicant in all other categories.
Credits for the avoided burdens in material recovery are also
important in the system with incineration, but these are less
signicant than in the modeled system with aerobic MBP of the
mixed residual waste. Actually, most of the credits come from the
recovery of materials separately collected, and therefore they keep
approximately proportional to the share of separate collection in
total waste collection. The increase of avoided burdens carried out
by the increase of the share of separate collection in one system
(B75) more than compensates for the credits gained in the other
system when those residues are incinerated as part of the mixed
residual fraction (A25). Those credits, besides, are limited to the
abiotic resource depletion and human toxicity categories, and to
the avoided burdens from the aerobic MBPinexistent in the
system with WtE plantand also limited to the impact categories
of human toxicity and eutrophication.
Composting biowaste provides some signicant environmental
credits, especially in the categories of global warming and human
toxicity. Inasmuch as composting of biowaste is not free of some
emissions, especially of ammonia [64], those reect with a signicant
impact in the category of eutrophication, and with a much lesser extent
in the categories of photo-oxidant formation and acidication. Composting brings about with it some environmental impacts that would
be inexistent in a management system where most of the biowaste is
incinerated. Nevertheless, assessment tools do not normally consider
some environmental benets of composting e.g. improvement of soil
health, fertility and water retention capacity, and reduced pesticide
consumption [14]. In addition, other alternatives to the aerobic

Fig. 4. Comparison of signicant impact categories of scenarios A25 (energy

recovery from 75% mixed residual waste, material recovery from 25% separately
collected waste) and B75 (material recovery from 75% separately collected waste,
aerobic MBP of 25% mixed residual waste), broken down into partial contributions
in each category from waste management stages and treatment processes that
make up both systems.

processing of biowaste to produce compost could be also considered

as alternatives to biowaste incineration, such as anaerobic digestion,
which, besides, allows for the direct recovery of energy by means of
biogas production, along with other material recoveries (digestate). The
consideration of these alternatives falls out of the scope of this paper,
but other studies have already addressed a more benecial net balance
of anaerobic treatments when compared with composting [27]. Nevertheless, composting is credited as a very suitable biowaste treatment
option for European Southern regions [65].
Another important environmental impact of the wastemanagement systems under analysis is the disposal to landll of
nal waste uxes, mainly rejected materials in recycling plants,
and slag and ashes from incineration. Although these secondary
wastes generated in incineration plants are not statistically
reported as part of the municipal waste data collected in Europe
[66], in many countries landlling is inseparable from incineration
if the complete life-cycle of municipal wastes is considered. This is
well known, for example, in land-scarce and incinerationintensive Singapore, where the spread of separate collection of
municipal waste is addressed as a key approach to reduce the need
of almost saturated landlls for the disposal of slag and ashes
generated in incineration plants [67].
Final waste uxes disposed of to landll in each scenario are
gathered in the last column in Table 4. While the system with
incineration and 25% of separate collection (scenarios A25, A25C)
manages annually 50,000 metric tons of waste and derives to
landll 7790 metric tons, the system without incineration under
the same conditions for separate collection (B25) derives to landll
27,175 metric tons of nal residues. From this comparison we may
conclude that incineration is a viable strategy to reduce the ux of
nal waste derived to landll; but not the only strategy. When
waste prevention and the spreading of separate collection are
implemented in our model, the system without incineration
(scenario B75) derives just 9939 metric tons to landll, which
supposes a reduction of 63.4%.

4. Conclusions
This work performs a comparative analysis of two alternative
approaches for an integrated MSW-MS to be implemented in the
Basque province of Gipuzkoa (Spain). These alternatives place different emphasis on energy or material recovery from waste, signicantly complicating their overall environmental assessment. In order
to solve this problem, LCA methodology provides a powerful framework for the overall sustainability assessment of systems that
combine different levels of energy and material recovery.
The comparative LCA of the two systems (results in Table 4)
shows that, when separate collection is limited to 25%, the system
with the incineration plant provides much better environmental
results in all impact categories, especially if an electricity mix very
dependent on fossil fuels is assumed for the background system. But
the results change drastically if the comparison is performed
considering that separate collection reaches 75%. This level of
separate collection is supported by evidence in municipalities of
the province of Gipuzkoa like Hernani, where the increase of separate
collection up to 80%, in conjunction with other waste prevention
strategies, has also carried with it important reductions in household
waste generation. Under these conditions the system that emphasizes separate collection and material recovery obtains better results
in all impact categories but eutrophication, when compared to the
system with the WtE plant. The improvement is especially signicant
in the category of abiotic resource consumption ( 58%), and in the
category of global warming potential ( 132% better).
The breakdown of each category result into partial contributions from waste management stages and treatment processes

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

shows the importance of the avoided burdens in material recovery

from the separately collected plastics, paper, glass and metals.
Under the conditions assumed in this work for the functional unit
operating in Gipuzkoa, it can be concluded that separately collecting a high share of wastewhich thereby can be derived to
recycling processes for material recoveryprovides better environmental results than deriving it as a mixed residue to an
incineration plant where energy is recovered in the form of
electricity. These superior environmental results are obtained even
in impact categories tightly related to fossil energy consumption,
such as the global warming potential category. The only impact
category in which the system with the incineration plant performs
better is eutrophication, due to ammonia emissions in composting
of biowaste.
Besides, both systems generate similar nal uxes to landll:
7790 metric tons in the system with the incineration plant, versus
9939 metric tons in the system without incineration. This shows
that spreading separate collection and promoting waste prevention may be such a good strategy as well as incinerating mixed
residual waste in order to reduce the quantity of residues nally
derived to landll.

Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Provincial Government of
Gipuzkoa (R&D Research Contract 2012.0485, Hiri hondakinei
buruzko txostena, haien tratamendu eta kudeaketa Gipuzkoako
Lurrandean).

Appendix A. System expansion to determine avoided burdens

System expansion/subtraction is performed to solve the allocation of impacts and benets of different systems that are intrinsically multifunctional. It is performed as follows.
Fig. A.1(a) shows a diagram of waste-management system i for
the treatment of waste Wi (the Service that determines the
functional unit); the system also produces a series of complementary products (Pj,i), and causes some specic impacts. In our study
we perform a screening LCA in which we focus on abiotic resource
depletion (ardi) and global warming potential (gwi) impact categories, as they are considered to show the following trend of most
important environmental impact categories [56]. RMi is the
resource material demand for the functioning of system i, and
PEi corresponds to primary energy demand, which is analogous to

Fig. A.1. (a) System i for treatment of waste Wi, which also produces a series of
complementary products (Pj,i), and causes some specic impacts ardi and gwi;
(b) production system of product j to be considered in expanded systems, which
requires of resource materials (RMPj) and primary energy (PEPj), and causes impacts
(ardPj, gwPj); (c) waste-management system i in which complementary coproducts
and corresponding inputs and impacts have been subtracted.

457

the Cumulative Energy Demand impact assessment method

implemented in the Ecoinvent database [68].
Multifunctionality is solved by system expansion [69]. In a rst
step, system expansion is performed in all compared systems until
all expanded systems produce identical quantities of common
products and services. Such system expansion is performed in
each system for each product Pj, making use of the corresponding
production blocks for each product (Fig. A.1(b)), in which production inputs and corresponding impacts are recorded. In coherence
with the attributional modeling principle, average processes in the
background system are considered for their characterization.
Secondly, production outputs and inputs related to all coproducts
complementary to the main service provided by the wastemanagement system are subtracted from all expanded systems,
using again the average processes in the background system. These
two steps can be condensed in just one step in which production
of every complementary coproduct is subtracted in each system
using the energy and material input demand and environmental
impacts that correspond for the production of each complementary product in the background system; the net result is shown
schematically in Fig. A.1(c).
The multifunctionality problem is solved in attributional LCA
by the accounting as avoided burdens of those impacts associated
with the production in the background system, with some specic
average processes, of the products substituted by the complementary coproducts. This way, a correct characterization of these
average processes is critical; actually, these avoided burdens are
so important that net environmental impacts are usually negative
in most systems and for most indicators: the net environmental
balance of the waste-management system results to be benecial
due to the substitution of other more harmful ways to produce the
coproducts in the background system complementary to the waste
management service.
When systems expansion/substitution is performed in order to
solve the multifunctionality problem, with the crediting of avoided
burdens, it is not fair to compare different waste-management
systems in terms of direct energy generation or direct material
recovery. When different systems (Fig. A.1(a)) are credited with
the avoided burdens associated to the production of the coproducts in each system (Fig. A.1(b)), the resultant systems that we
are actually comparing through the LCA neither produce energy
nor recover materials (Fig. A.1(c)), and consequently it is not
adequate to compare those systems in terms of directly generated
electricity, or of quantities of recycled materials. At best, a fair
comparison of produced coproducts should be made through the
expanded systems; but the result is previously known: all
expanded systems under comparison must provide exactly the
same coproductsaltogether with the service of the functional
unit, as that is actually the condition imposed to solve the
multifunctionality problem, indispensable to allow a fair comparison of environmental impacts. A similar argument is applicable
when we refer to efciency, e.g. of electricity generation. The
efciency of a waste-management system with an incineration
plant that presents a thermoelectric efciency of 25% is not better
than that of an expanded system that lacks incineration plants, as
the efciency of the latter is precisely the one of the background
system, i.e. a power system with highly optimized units [43].
From the previous reasoning, however, we may not conclude
that energy and material recovery is neither considered nor
quantied in comparative LCA. Indeed, they are accounted through
the avoided burdens linked to the production of the materials and
energy substituted by the coproducts, and thus credited to the
systems. As shown in Fig. A.1(c), the substitution of material Pj
with a recycled material in system i is credited with a negative
impact  ardPj,i in the eld of abiotic resource depletion, and a
negative impact gwPj,i in the eld of global warming, e.g. due to

458

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

the avoided consumption of fossil fuels needed to obtain product

Pj in the background system.
When these avoided burdens are credited, after subtraction,
they also appear among the inputs to the compared systems.
System i is credited with a negative input of resource materials
(  RMPj,i) and primary energy ( PEPj,i) due to the avoided consumption of materials and energy otherwise required to obtain the
product/material Pj, substituted by a particular recovered coproduct. For the case of primary energy, the term PEijPEPj,i
corresponds to the net primary energy demand of system i
subtracted the coproductswhich is analogous to applying the
Cumulative Energy Demand impact assessment method implemented in the Ecoinvent database [68]. RMijRMPj,i corresponds
to the net resource material demand for the functioning of system
i, subtracted the coproducts.
Net material and energy demands may be negative in this
calculation, as they correspond to a subtracted system that is
credited with some avoided burdens, and those may be signicant.
This negative net input ux of energy and materials, however,
should not be interpreted as a net positive output ux, as we are
considering subtracted (differential) systems. Its effect in the
overall balance is normally reected through the monetization
[14] of energy and materials recovered by the waste-management
system, which, through their market values, internalize the primary energy and resource materials required for their production
or fabrication in the background system [23,70].

References
[1] Diputacin Foral de Gipuzkoa. AURRERAPEN DOKUMENTUAREN GARAPENERAKO ESTRATEGIA 20082016 ESTRATEGIA DE DESARROLLO DEL DOCUMENTO
DE PROGRESO 20082016, http://www.gipuzkoaberri.net/WAS/CORP/DPDO
cinaPrensaDigitalWEB/descarga.do?
121110117116066073043104116115121106115110105116066070043104116105
110108116066055043116119105106115066054; 2012 [accessed 20.05.14].
[2] Diputacin Foral de Bizkaia. Observatorio Permanente de Residuos Urbanos
del Territorio Histrico de Bizkaia. Datos de residuos, http://www.bizkaia.net/
home2/Temas/DetalleTema.asp?
Tem_Codigo7709&idioma CA&bnetmobile 0&dpto_biz 9&codpath_biz 9|351|7709; 2012, 2013, 2014 [accessed 20.05.14].
[3] Mijangos F. Urban-rural duality and waste management. In: Proceedings of
the Klimagune workshop on opportunities and challenges for rural areas in
the context of climate change, http://www.bc3research.org/klimagune/
images/stories/workshop/2014/ponencias/KW2014_Fernando_Mijangos.pdf;
2014 [accessed 17.03.15].
[4] Eurostat. Municipal waste Database, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/
show.do?dataset=env_wasmun&lang=en [accessed 17.03.15].
[5] Diputacin Foral de Gipuzkoa. PIGRUG 2002-2016, Documento de Progreso
20082016, http://www4.gipuzkoa.net/medioambiente/dpro/doc/es/01Docu
mento_de_Progreso_CAST.pdf; 2008 [accessed 20.05.14].
[6] Consorcio de Residuos de Gipuzkoa. Tablas de datos de los Residuos Urbanos de
Gipuzkoa, http://www.ghk.eus/es/datos/gipuzkoa/gipuzkoa-2013 [accessed
16.01.15].
[7] Muoz I, Rieradevall J, Domnech X, Mil L. LCA application to integrated
waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain). Int J Life Cycle Assess
2004;9:27280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02978603.
[8] European Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
Off J Eur Union L; 2008. p. 312.
[9] European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB). Best
available techniques (BAT) reference document for Waste Incineration; 2006.
[10] ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management life cycle assessment principles
and framework. Brussels: CEN (European Committee for Standardisation).
[11] ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines. Brussels: CEN (European Committee for Standardisation).
[12] Guine JB, Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A. Handbook
on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher; 2002.
[13] EC-JRC-IES. International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook.
General guide for life cycle assessmentdetailed guidance. 1st ed. European
CommissionJoint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and Sustainability; 2010.
[14] EC-JRC-IES. Supporting environmentally sound decisions for waste managementa technical guide to life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment
(LCA) for waste experts and LCA practitioners. 1st ed. European Commission
Joint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and Sustainability; 2011.

[15] Gentil EC, Damgaard A, Hauschild M, Finnveden G, Eriksson O, Thorneloe S, et al.

Models for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste
Manag 2010;30:263648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004.
[16] De Feo G, Malvano C. The use of LCA in selecting the best MSW management system.
Waste Manag 2009;29:190115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.021.
[17] Bovea MD, Ibez-Fors V, Gallardo A, Colomer-Mendoza FJ. Environmental
assessment of alternative municipal solid waste management strategies. A
Spanish case study. Waste Manag 2010;30:238395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2010.03.001.
[18] Pires A, Chang N, Martinho G. Reliability-based life cycle assessment for future
solid waste management alternatives in Portugal. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2011;16:31637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0269-7.
[19] Tunesi S. LCA of local strategies for energy recovery from waste in England,
applied to a large municipal ow. Waste Manag 2011;31:56171. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.08.023.
[20] Slagstad H, Bratteb H. LCA for household waste management when planning
a new urban settlement. Waste Manag 2012;32:148290. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.018.
[21] Song Q, Wang Z, Li J. Environmental performance of municipal solid waste
strategies based on LCA method: a case study of Macau. J Clean Prod
2013;57:92100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.042.
[22] Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste
management systems current status and potential improvements. Waste
Manag 2012;32:243955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023.
[23] Eriksson O, Carlsson Reich M, Frostell B, Bjrklund A, Assefa G, Sundqvist JO,
et al. Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective. J Clean
Prod 2005;13:24152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.018.
[24] Merrild H, Larsen AW, Christensen TH. Assessing recycling versus incineration
of key materials in municipal waste: the importance of efcient energy
recovery and transport distances. Waste Manag 2012;32:100918. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.025.
[25] Nadzirah Othman S, Zainon Noor Z, Halilu Abba A, Yusuf RO, Abu Hassan M
Arifn. Review on life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management
in some Asian countries. J Clean Prod 2013;41:25162. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.043.
[26] Gentil EC, Gallo D, Christensen TH. Environmental evaluation of municipal
waste prevention. Waste Manag 2011;31:23719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2011.07.030.
[27] Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. A life cycle approach to the management of
household food waste a Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manag
2011;32:187996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.026.
[28] Koroneos CJ, Nanaki EA. Integrated solid waste management and energy productiona life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of Thessaloniki. J
Clean Prod 2012;27:14150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.010.
[29] Buttol P, Masoni P, Bonoli A, Goldoni S, Belladonna V, Cavazzuti C. LCA of
integrated MSW management systems: case study of the Bologna District. Waste
Manag 2007;27:105970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.010.
[30] Rigamonti L, Grosso M, Giugliano M. Life cycle assessment for optimising the
level of separated collection in integrated MSW management systems. Waste
Manag 2009;29:93444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.005.
[31] Calabr PS. Greenhouse gases emission from municipal waste management:
the role of separate collection. Waste Manag 2009;29:217887. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.02.011.
[32] Consonni S, Giugliano M, Massarutto A, Ragazzi M, Saccani C. Material and
energy recovery in integrated waste management systems: project overview
and main results. Waste Manag 2011;31:205765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2011.04.016.
[33] Cimpan C, Wenzel H. Energy implications of mechanical and mechanical
biological treatment compared to direct waste-to-energy. Waste Manag
2013;33:164858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.026.
[34] Belboom S, Digneffe JM, Renzoni R, Germain A, Lonard A. Comparing
technologies for municipal solid waste management using life cycle assessment methodology: a Belgian case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2013;18:151323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0603-3.
[35] Koci V, Trecakova T. Mixed municipal waste management in the Czech
Republic from the point of view of the LCA method. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2011;16:11324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0251-4.
[36] Scipioni A, Mazzi A, Niero M, Boatto T. LCA to choose among alternative design
solutions: the case study of a new Italian incineration line. Waste Manag
2009;29:246274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.04.007.
[37] Wittmaier M, Langer S, Sawilla B. Possibilities and limitations of life cycle
assessment (LCA) in the development of waste utilization systems applied
examples for a region in Northern Germany. Waste Manag 2009;29:17328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.11.004.
[38] Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landlling vs.
incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag
2012;32:101930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.023.
[39] Burnley S, Phillips R, Coleman T, Rampling T. Energy implications of the
thermal recovery of biodegradable municipal waste materials in the United
Kingdom. Waste Manag 2011;31:194959. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2011.04.015.
[40] Fruergaard T, Astrup T. Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA
perspective. Waste Manag 2011;31:57282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2010.09.009.

G. Bueno et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449459

[41] den Boer J, den Boer E, Jager J. LCA-IWM: a decision support tool for
sustainability assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag
2007;27:103245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.022.
[42] ALTAIR Ingeniera. Documento 1/2: Metodologa y caracterizacin de la
fraccin resto de los residuos domsticos generados en hogares y comercios,
y la fraccin resto de los residuos comerciales que se depositan en el mismo
contenedor, para el Territorio Histrico de Gipuzkoa, http://www4.gipuzkoa.
net/MedioAmbiente/gipuzkoaingurumena/adj/documentacion/CARACTERIZA
CION%202012-2013.pdf; 2013 [accessed 20.05.14].
[43] Consonni S, Vigan F. Material and energy recovery in integrated waste
management systems: the potential for energy recovery. Waste Manag
2011;31:207484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.013.
[44] Household collection schedule in Bilbao, http://www.bilbao.net/cs/Satellite?
c=BIO_Servicio_
FA&cid=3007556277&language=es&pageid=3000094417&pagename=Bilba
onet%2FBIO_Servicio_FA%2FBIO_Servi
cio&anclaServ=aB3&rutaCatServ=3003446956 [accessed 20.05.14].
[45] Household collection schedule in Donosita-San Sebastin, http://jokogarbia.
donostia.org/es/errefusa/ [accessed 20.05.14].
[46] Ayuntamiento de Hernani. Datos de recogida 2010, http://www.hernani.net/
images/stories/zerbitzuak/Atez_ate/2010eko_datuak.pdf [accessed 20.05.14].
[47] Ayuntamiento de Hernani. Datos de recogida 2011, http://www.hernani.net/
images/stories/zerbitzuak/Atez_ate/2011KO_BILKETAREN__DATUAK.pdf
[accessed 20.05.14].
[48] Mancomunidad de SanMarkos. Datos-ociales-municipios09 (Hernani).xls,
personal communication; 2013.
[49] Ekvall T, Assefa G, Bjrklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G. What life-cycle
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Manag 2007;27:98996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.015.
[50] Cleary J. The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle
assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological
issues. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15:57989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-010-0186-1.
[51] Nessi S, Rigamonti L, Grosso M. Discussion on methods to include prevention
activities in waste management LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:135873.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0570-8.
[52] Hong J, Li X, Zhaojie C. Life cycle assessment of four municipal solid waste
management scenarios in China. Waste Manag 2010;30:23629. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.03.038.
[53] Papageorgiou A, Barton JR, Karagiannidis A. Assessment of the greenhouse
effect impact of technologies used for energy recovery from municipal waste:
a case for England. J Environ Manag 2009;90:29993012. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.012.
[54] Ekvall T, Tillman A, Molander S. Normative ethics and methodology for life
cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 2005;13:122534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2005.05.010.
[55] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social committee and the
Committee of the regions: a roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon
economy in 2050, European commission SEC; 2011 288 nal.
[56] CO2Scorecard, http://www.co2scorecard.org/; 2014 [accessed 20.05.14].

459

[57] Red Elctrica de Espaa. El sistema elctrico espaol, AVANCE DEL INFORME
2013, http://www.ree.es/sites/default/les/downloadable/avance_informe_sis
tema_electrico_2013.pdf; 2013 [accessed 20.05.14].
[58] Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. ECOINVENT-2000 Data V1.01, LCI of
electricity supply mix in European countries, http://www.ecoinvent.org/
database/; 2003 [accessed 20.05.14].
[59] den Boer E, den Boer J, Jager J, Rodrigo J, Meneses M, Castells F et al.
Deliverable report on D3.1 and D3.2: environmental sustainability criteria
and indicators for waste management (Work Package 3). The use of life cycle
assessment tool for the development of integrated waste management
strategies for cities and regions with rapid growing economies LCA-IWM;
2005.
[60] Reimann DO. CEWEP energy report III (Status 20072010) results of specic
data for energy, R1 plant efciency factor and NCV of 314 European waste-toenergy (WtE) plants. Bamberg, Germany, http://www.cewep.eu/m_1069;
2012 [accessed 20.05.14].
[61] Gobierno Vasco. Proyecto tcnico y estudio de impacto ambiental del Centro
de Gestin de Residuos de Gipuzkoa, http://www.ingurumena.ejgv.euskadi.
net/r49-6172/es/contenidos/informe_estudio/gipuzkoako_hondakin_kudea
keta/es_doc/inicio.html; 2009 [accessed 20.05.14].
[62] Arafat HA, Jijakli K, Ahsan A. Environmental performance and energy recovery
potential of ve processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J Clean Prod
2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071, in press.
[63] Fricke K, Bahr T, Bidlingmaier W, Springer C. Energy efciency of substance
and energy recovery of selected waste fractions. Waste Manag 2011;31:6448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.11.017.
[64] Saer A, Lansing S, Davitt NH, Graves RE. Life cycle assessment of a food waste
composting system: environmental impact hotspots. J Clean Prod
2013;52:23444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.022.
[65] Cadena E, Coln J, Artola A, Snchez A, Font X. Environmental impact of two
aerobic composting technologies using life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2009;14:40110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0107-3.
[66] Eurostat, 2012. Guidance on municipal waste data collection, November 2012,
Eurostat Unit E3 Environment and forestry, guidance on municipal waste
data collection November2012, WASTE WG 5.2 b(2012), http://epp.eurostat.
ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/documents/Municipal_waste_statis
tics_guidance.pdf; 2012 [accessed 20.05.14].
[67] Khoo HH, Tan LLZ, Tan RBH. Projecting the environmental prole of Singapore's landll activities: comparisons of present and future scenarios based on
LCA 2012;32:890900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.010Waste
Manag 2012;32:890900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.010.
[68] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, et al.
Ecoinvent report no. 3. Implementation of life cycle impact assessment
methods: data v2.0. Dbendorf, Switzerland: Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories; 2007.
[69] Weidema B. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol
2001;11:433.
[70] Massarutto A, de Carli A, Graf M. Material and energy recovery in integrated
waste management systems: a life-cycle costing approach. Waste Manag
2011;31:210211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.017.