Life cycle based approaches in assessing waste management options in the Finnish context

Helena Dahlbo

Life cycle based approaches in assessing waste management options in the Finnish context

Julkaisun otsikon käännös: Elinkaaripohjaiset lähestymistavat jätehuoltovaihtoehtojen arviointiin Suomen kontekstissa

Helena Dahlbo

Tutkimustuotos: Doctoral Thesis › Collection of Articles

Abstrakti

Jätemäärät kasvavat, uusiutumattomat luonnonvarat niukkenevat ja uusiutuviakin luonnonvaroja kulutetaan liikaa. Näiden ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi ja kilpailukyvyn parantamiseksi Eurooppa on mm. laatinut jätehierarkian, jolla pyritään minimoimaan jätteen syntyminen ja maksimoimaan hyödyntäminen. Jätehierarkiasta eli jätehuollon etusijajärjestyksen voidaan poiketa, jos se on tarpeen ympäristön kannalta parhaan ratkaisun aikaansaamiseksi. Ympäristön ja kustannusten kannalta kestävimpien jätehuollon vaihtoehtojen löytämiseksi tarvitaan elinkaaripohjaisia menetelmiä. Tässä työssä eräitä suomalaisia, metsäsektorin tuotteista peräisin olevia jätteitä sisältäviä jätevirtoja ja jätehuoltojärjestelmiä arvioitiin käyttäen elinkaariarviointia (LCA), yhteiskunnallisten elinkaarikustannusten arviointia (SLCC), ympäristöllisten elinkaarikustannusten arviointia (ELCC) ja materiaalivirta-analyysia (MFA). Tavoitteena oli selvittää tukevatko elinkaaripohjaiset ympäristö- ja kustannustarkastelut jätehierarkian noudattamista Suomessa ja tuoko menetelmien yhdistäminen lisäarvoa tukemalla päätöksentekoa. Lopuksi tutkittiin normalisointia mahdollisena LCAn tulosten ymmärrettävyyttä lisäävänä menetelmänä. Tehdyissä tapaustutkimuksissa ympäristö- ja kustannusvaikutustulokset eivät tukeneet selvästi jätehierarkiaa. Kaatopaikkasijoituksen ympäristövaikutukset olivat suuremmat kuin kierrätyksen tai energiahyödyntämisen, mutta kierrätettävän pakkauksen pienemmät kuin uudelleenkäytettävän. Sanomalehtijätteen energiahyödyntämisen ympäristövaikutukset olivat pienemmät kuin kierrätyksen, eri ympäristövaikutusluokkien tulokset kuitenkin vaihtelivat. Lisäksi kustannusvaikutusten arviointi osoitti energiahyödyntämisen ympäristökustannusten olevan korkeammat kuin kierrätyksen. Elinkaaripohjaisten menetelmien yhdistäminen paljasti jätehuoltojärjestelmien parannuskohteita; mm. yhdistämällä materiaalivirta-analyysi, elinkaariarviointi ja kustannustarkastelu voitiin tunnistaa jätejaekohtaisia mahdollisuuksia pienentää koko rakennus- ja purkujätteen jätehuoltojärjestelmän vaikutuksia. Lisäksi osoitettiin, että rakennus- ja purkujätteen 70 % kierrätystavoitteen saavutus vuoteen 2020 edellyttää parannuksia koko järjestelmässä. Tulokset osoittivat alueellisesti vaihtelevien kierrätystavoitteiden tarpeen yleiseurooppalaisten sijaan. LCA-tulosten ymmärrettävyyttä pystyttiin jossain määrin parantamaan liittämällä menetelmien kuvaukset viestintämateriaaliin. Myös erilaiset normalisointitekijät vaikuttivat ymmärrettävyyteen. Jätehuoltojärjestelmien mallinnuksessa merkittävimpiä epävarmuustekijöitä ovat oletukset materiaali- ja energiahyödyntämisen mahdollisista päästösäästöistä. Toimintaympäristössä tapahtuvat muutokset ja epävarmuus tulevaisuudesta vaikeuttavat mallinnusta ja rajoittavat tulosten käyttöä. Energiasektori ja kierrätysraaka-aineiden käytön muutoksilla voi olla vastakkaisia vaikutuksia jätehuoltojärjestelmien ympäristökestävyyteen, joten tarvitaan systeemisiä vaikutusarviointeja.

Julkaisun otsikon käännös	Elinkaaripohjaiset lähestymistavat jätehuoltovaihtoehtojen arviointiin Suomen kontekstissa
Alkuperäiskieli	Englanti
Pätevyys	Tohtorintutkinto
Myöntävä instituutio	Aalto-yliopisto
Valvoja/neuvonantaja	Sorvari, Jaana, Vastuuprofessori Seppälä, Jyri, Ohjaaja, Ulkoinen henkilö
Kustantaja	Aalto University
Painoksen ISBN	978-952-60-7957-8
Sähköinen ISBN	978-952-60-7958-5
Tila	Julkaistu - 2018
OKM-julkaisutyyppi	G5 Tohtorinväitöskirja (artikkeli)

Tutkimusalat

elinkaariarviointi
elinkaarikustannuslaskenta
materiaalivirta-analyysi
normalisointi
jätehierarkia
yhdyskuntajäte
rakennus- ja purkujäte
puu

YK:n kestävän kehityksen tavoitteet

Tämä tuotos edistää seuraavia kestävän kehityksen tavoitteita:

Pääsy asiakirjaan

http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-7958-5Lisenssi: Määrittelemätön

OpenUrl-saatavuus

Koko teksti

Siteeraa tätä

@phdthesis{dc6c58f3558048a6b354dcfd2df31493,

title = "Life cycle based approaches in assessing waste management options in the Finnish context",

abstract = "Amounts of waste are growing, non-renewable natural resources are becoming scarce and renewable resources are being over-consumed. To tackle these problems and to increase its economic competitiveness Europe has implemented waste strategies and the waste hierarchy to minimise waste generation and maximise waste recovery. Deviation from the hierarchy is acceptable if needed to reach the best environmental outcome. Life cycle (LC) based assessments are required to find environmentally and economically the most sustainable end-of-life and waste management (WM) solutions. In this study, Finnish waste flows and WM systems including waste or products from the forest sector were assessed with life cycle assessments (LCA), social life cycle costing (SLCC), environmental life cycle costing (ELCC) and material flow analyses (MFA). The aim was to evaluate whether results from LC-based environmental and economic assessments support the waste hierarchy order Finland and to find out whether the combination of approaches provides added value for decision-making. Normalisation as a tool to improve the understanding of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results was also studied. The results from the case-specific environmental and economic assessments did not clearly support the waste hierarchy order of WM options. Landfilling performed worse than recycling or incineration with energy recovery. In contrast, the use of recyclable packaging performed better than reusable packaging. Energy recovery of newspaper waste produced lower overall environmental impacts than recycling, the results varied in individual impact categories, however. In addition, the SLCC showed that due to its higher environmental costs, energy recovery was more expensive than recycling. The combined use of LC-based approaches revealed potentials for improving the performance of WM systems, e.g. the combination of MFA, LCA and ELCC identified the potential of different fractions for improving the overall performance of the WM system of construction and demolition waste (C&DW). Additionally, the joint assessment indicated that achieving the 70% recycling target for C&DW in 2020 requires major improvements in the system. The results indicated that regionally differing recycling targets may be required within Europe. The understanding of LCIA results was to some extent improved by including information on the LC approaches in the communication material for LCA non-practitioners. Also the use of different normalisation reference values increased had impact on the understandability. The impacts avoided due to the material or energy recovery of waste are one of the key factors in WM modelling, but changes in the operational environment and uncertainty about the future complicate this modelling and limit the applicability of the results. Changes in the energy sector and in the use of secondary materials might have conflicting effects on the environmental sustainability of WM and systemic assessments are required.",

keywords = "life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, material flow analysis, normalisation, waste hierarchy, municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste, wood, elinkaariarviointi, elinkaarikustannuslaskenta, materiaalivirta-analyysi, normalisointi, j{\"a}tehierarkia, yhdyskuntaj{\"a}te, rakennus- ja purkuj{\"a}te, puu, life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, material flow analysis, normalisation, waste hierarchy, municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste, wood",

author = "Helena Dahlbo",

year = "2018",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-952-60-7957-8",

series = "Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS",

publisher = "Aalto University",

number = "77",

address = "Finland",

school = "Aalto University",

}

TY - THES

T1 - Life cycle based approaches in assessing waste management options in the Finnish context

AU - Dahlbo, Helena

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Amounts of waste are growing, non-renewable natural resources are becoming scarce and renewable resources are being over-consumed. To tackle these problems and to increase its economic competitiveness Europe has implemented waste strategies and the waste hierarchy to minimise waste generation and maximise waste recovery. Deviation from the hierarchy is acceptable if needed to reach the best environmental outcome. Life cycle (LC) based assessments are required to find environmentally and economically the most sustainable end-of-life and waste management (WM) solutions. In this study, Finnish waste flows and WM systems including waste or products from the forest sector were assessed with life cycle assessments (LCA), social life cycle costing (SLCC), environmental life cycle costing (ELCC) and material flow analyses (MFA). The aim was to evaluate whether results from LC-based environmental and economic assessments support the waste hierarchy order Finland and to find out whether the combination of approaches provides added value for decision-making. Normalisation as a tool to improve the understanding of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results was also studied. The results from the case-specific environmental and economic assessments did not clearly support the waste hierarchy order of WM options. Landfilling performed worse than recycling or incineration with energy recovery. In contrast, the use of recyclable packaging performed better than reusable packaging. Energy recovery of newspaper waste produced lower overall environmental impacts than recycling, the results varied in individual impact categories, however. In addition, the SLCC showed that due to its higher environmental costs, energy recovery was more expensive than recycling. The combined use of LC-based approaches revealed potentials for improving the performance of WM systems, e.g. the combination of MFA, LCA and ELCC identified the potential of different fractions for improving the overall performance of the WM system of construction and demolition waste (C&DW). Additionally, the joint assessment indicated that achieving the 70% recycling target for C&DW in 2020 requires major improvements in the system. The results indicated that regionally differing recycling targets may be required within Europe. The understanding of LCIA results was to some extent improved by including information on the LC approaches in the communication material for LCA non-practitioners. Also the use of different normalisation reference values increased had impact on the understandability. The impacts avoided due to the material or energy recovery of waste are one of the key factors in WM modelling, but changes in the operational environment and uncertainty about the future complicate this modelling and limit the applicability of the results. Changes in the energy sector and in the use of secondary materials might have conflicting effects on the environmental sustainability of WM and systemic assessments are required.

AB - Amounts of waste are growing, non-renewable natural resources are becoming scarce and renewable resources are being over-consumed. To tackle these problems and to increase its economic competitiveness Europe has implemented waste strategies and the waste hierarchy to minimise waste generation and maximise waste recovery. Deviation from the hierarchy is acceptable if needed to reach the best environmental outcome. Life cycle (LC) based assessments are required to find environmentally and economically the most sustainable end-of-life and waste management (WM) solutions. In this study, Finnish waste flows and WM systems including waste or products from the forest sector were assessed with life cycle assessments (LCA), social life cycle costing (SLCC), environmental life cycle costing (ELCC) and material flow analyses (MFA). The aim was to evaluate whether results from LC-based environmental and economic assessments support the waste hierarchy order Finland and to find out whether the combination of approaches provides added value for decision-making. Normalisation as a tool to improve the understanding of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results was also studied. The results from the case-specific environmental and economic assessments did not clearly support the waste hierarchy order of WM options. Landfilling performed worse than recycling or incineration with energy recovery. In contrast, the use of recyclable packaging performed better than reusable packaging. Energy recovery of newspaper waste produced lower overall environmental impacts than recycling, the results varied in individual impact categories, however. In addition, the SLCC showed that due to its higher environmental costs, energy recovery was more expensive than recycling. The combined use of LC-based approaches revealed potentials for improving the performance of WM systems, e.g. the combination of MFA, LCA and ELCC identified the potential of different fractions for improving the overall performance of the WM system of construction and demolition waste (C&DW). Additionally, the joint assessment indicated that achieving the 70% recycling target for C&DW in 2020 requires major improvements in the system. The results indicated that regionally differing recycling targets may be required within Europe. The understanding of LCIA results was to some extent improved by including information on the LC approaches in the communication material for LCA non-practitioners. Also the use of different normalisation reference values increased had impact on the understandability. The impacts avoided due to the material or energy recovery of waste are one of the key factors in WM modelling, but changes in the operational environment and uncertainty about the future complicate this modelling and limit the applicability of the results. Changes in the energy sector and in the use of secondary materials might have conflicting effects on the environmental sustainability of WM and systemic assessments are required.

KW - life cycle assessment

KW - life cycle costing

KW - material flow analysis

KW - normalisation

KW - waste hierarchy

KW - municipal solid waste

KW - construction and demolition waste

KW - wood

KW - elinkaariarviointi

KW - elinkaarikustannuslaskenta

KW - materiaalivirta-analyysi

KW - normalisointi

KW - jätehierarkia

KW - yhdyskuntajäte

KW - rakennus- ja purkujäte

KW - puu

KW - life cycle assessment

KW - life cycle costing

KW - material flow analysis

KW - normalisation

KW - waste hierarchy

KW - municipal solid waste

KW - construction and demolition waste

KW - wood

M3 - Doctoral Thesis

SN - 978-952-60-7957-8

T3 - Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

PB - Aalto University

ER -

Life cycle based approaches in assessing waste management options in the Finnish context

Abstrakti

Tutkimusalat

YK:n kestävän kehityksen tavoitteet

Pääsy asiakirjaan

OpenUrl-saatavuus

Sormenjälki

Siteeraa tätä