Input-Output Analysis of Waste Management

A new scheme of hybrid life-cycle assessment (LCA) termed the waste input-output (WIO) model is presented that ex-plicitly takes into account the interdependence between the flow of goods and waste. The WIO model has two distin-guishing features. First, it expands the Leontief environmental input-output (EIO) model with respect to waste flows. It turns out that the EIO model is a special case of the WIO model in which there is a strict one-to-one correspondence between waste types and treatment methods. By relaxing this condition, the WIO model provides a general framework for LCA of waste management. Second, the WIO model takes into account the "dynamics of waste treatment", which refers to the fact that the input-output relationships of waste treatment are significantly affected by the level and composition of waste feedstock, by incorporating an engineering process model of waste treatment. Because waste treatment is expected to accept whatever waste is generated by industry and households, a proper consideration of this feature is vital for LCA of waste management. We estimated a WIO table for Japan and applied it to evaluating effects of alternative waste management poli-cies with regard to regional concentration of incineration and the sorting of waste with regard to flammability. We found that concentrating treatment in a small number of large incin-erators combined with an increased degree of sorting could decrease both landfill consumption and the emission of carbon dioxide.     

From Legal Transplants to Sustainable Transition

Extended producer responsibility (EPR), which assigns significant responsibility to producers to take back their end‐of‐life products to create incentives for redesign of products with lower life cycle environmental impacts, has come to a crossroad facing a trade‐off between the original innovation‐oriented regime design and the cost‐efficiency challenges in practice. This is particularly true in its implementation in non‐Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries as they are trying to transplant the “best practices” from OECD countries, for there is increasing skepticism as to whether EPR is suitable for developing countries at all. As an important producer of electronic products and destination of electronic waste (e‐waste) flows in the world, China has been expected to play a vital role in the evolution of global governance based on the idea of EPR, either to create new ways for producers to perform their end‐of‐life strategies, or to reshape the mode of production and consumption with its fast‐growing market. However, the establishment of EPR in China has been long and full of difficulties. This article reviews the status and trends in the establishment of an EPR system for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management in China. We use the framework of a multilevel perspective of transition theory in our analysis to characterize the complex interactions among various agents in the evolution of the Chinese system from initial innovation‐oriented design to the current efficiency‐oriented version. An ongoing research framework for evaluation of the EPR program in China is outlined as the research agenda in coming years.     

Considering Variations in Waste Composition during Waste Input‐Output Modeling

Concentrations of pollutants vary in wastes from different sources. However, existing waste input‐output (WIO) models do not take these differing concentrations into account. This article proposes a new category of model, which we are calling a waste input‐output model at the substance level (WIOS model). The WIOS model considers variations in waste composition. These variations potentially affect the life cycle inventory of the waste treatment stage. The proposed model is expected to produce more accurate results than existing WIO models that do not consider variations in the composition of wastes. In addition, the proposed model provides a method to trace substances undergoing waste treatment. In this article, use of the WIOS model is illustrated by simulating the overall environmental loads of total organic carbon from wastewater treatment at a facility in Germany. The results show that variations in the composition of wastes entering treatment significantly affect the modeled estimates of total environmental loads caused by wastewater treatment. In addition, the results of the proposed model are different from results given by existing hybrid input‐output WIO models that do not consider variations in the composition of wastewater as it undergoes treatment.     

Charging up Battery Recycling Policies: Extended Producer Responsibility for Single‐Use Batteries in the European Union,Canada, and the United States

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies have proven effective at raising consumer awareness, expanding waste collection infrastructure, and shifting costs of end‐of‐life (EOL) management from municipalities to stewardship organizations. Yet, such policies have been less successful in advancing waste management programs that ensure a net environmental benefit. This article analyzes how EPR policies for single‐use batteries in the European Union (EU), Canada, and the United States address the environmental costs and benefits of EOL management. Considering these EPR policies is instructive, because single‐use batteries have high collection costs and are of relatively low economic value for waste processors. Without deliberate planning, the environmental burdens of collecting and recycling such batteries may exceed the benefits. This article considers how EPR policies for single‐use batteries integrate performance requirements such as collection rates, recycling efficiencies, and best available techniques. It argues that for such policies to be effective, they need to be extended to address waste collection practices, the life cycle consequences of EOL management, and the quality of recovered materials. Such strategies are relevant to EPR policies for other products with marginal secondary value, including some textiles, plastics, and other types of electronic waste.     

India's E‐Waste Rules and Their Impact on E‐Waste Management Practices: A Case Study

India, like many other developed and developing countries, has adopted an extended producer responsibility (EPR) approach for electronic waste (e‐waste) management under its E‐waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. Under these rules, producers have been made responsible for setting up collection centers of e‐waste and financing and organizing a system for environmentally sound management of e‐waste. In this article, we use the implementation of these rules in Ahmedabad in western India as a case study to conduct a critical analysis of the implementation of India's Rules. Interviews of main stakeholder groups, including a sample of regulated commercial establishments, regulatory agencies enforcing the Rules, informal actors involved in waste collection and handling, as well as publicly available information on the implementation constitute data for our case study. Our results indicate that while there has been an increase in the formal waste processing capacity after the implementation of the Rules, only 5% to 15% of the total waste generated is likely channeled through formal processing facilities. While the EPR regulation forced the producers to take action on a few relatively inexpensive aspects of the Rules, the collection and recycling system has not been made convenient for the consumers to deposit e‐waste in formal collection and recycling centers. Based on our findings, we argue that Indian EPR regulation should go beyond simple take‐back mandates and consider implementing other policy instruments such as a deposit‐refund system. An important implication for developing countries is the need for careful attention to instrument choice and design within EPR regulations.     

A Supply‐Use Approach to Waste Input‐Output Analysis

In this article, we extend Namakura and Kondo's waste input‐output (WIO) framework by incorporating a supply‐use formalism, resulting in waste supply‐use tables (WSUTs). We present the theoretical underpinnings of the WSUT and, in particular, the transition from Nakamura and Kondo's WIO form to the new WSUT form. Further, we offer a mathematical proof of the equivalence of WIO and WSUT multipliers. We illustrate the workings of the WSUT calculus using economic and waste data for the Australian economy in 2008–2009.     

Identifying Lowest‐Emission Choices and Environmental Pareto Frontiers for Wastewater Treatment Wastewater Treatment Input‐Output Model based Linear Programming

This article proposes a linear programming model that is based on the wastewater treatment input‐output model (W²IO) to identify the lowest‐emission choice among alternative feasible options for wastewater treatment; this model can be considered as an application of the waste input‐output linear programming model (WIO‐LP) to wastewater issues. Using the data of the Tokyo metropolitan W²IO table, I apply this model to obtain the optimal wastewater treatment options under alternative scenarios. The Pareto frontiers of environmental loads are derived to show the trade‐off relationships among various types of environmental load and the effect of the introduction of high‐temperature incineration of dewatered sludge on the generation of environmental loads. The main conclusion of the study is that when all three types of environmental load (landfill level, global warming potential, and chemical oxygen demand) are considered, the introduction of high‐temperature incineration causes the widening of the Pareto frontier of environmental loads and also causes it to move closer to the origin.     

Producer Responsibility Organizations Development and Operations

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations are now in effect in 27 European Union member states and are applicable to up to 100 million tonnes of waste packaging, batteries, automobiles, and electrical and electronic products annually. This article investigates the implementation of EPR through a case study of European Recycling Platform (ERP) UK Ltd., the UK arm of one of the largest producer responsibility organizations (PROs) in Europe, recycling more than 1.5 million tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment to date. Previous research is extremely limited on the detailed operations of PROs. This case is presented as an example illustrating typical operational challenges PROs face in implementing EPR, such as how PROs gain an understanding of the waste management infrastructure and legislation in each country, collect sufficient volumes of waste using cost‐effective arrangements, and maintain uninterrupted collection, treatment, and recycling services. The case study provides new insights and context on the practical implementation of EPR regulations relevant for both policy makers and researchers.     

Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation

The goal of this article is to contribute to the understanding of how the multiple, and sometimes conflicting, stakeholder perspectives and prevailing conditions (economic, geographic, etc.) in the implementation locality shape extended producer responsibility (EPR) “on the ground.” We provide an in‐depth examination of the implementation dimension of EPR in a specific case study by examining concrete activities at the operational front of the collection and recycling system, and probing the varying stakeholder preferences that have driven a specific system to its status quo. To this end, we conduct a detailed case study of the Washington State EPR implementation for electronic waste. We provide an overview of various stakeholder perspectives and their implications for the attainment of EPR policy objectives in practice. These findings shed light on the intrinsic complexity of EPR implementation. We conclude with recommendations on how to achieve effective and efficient EPR implementation, including improving design incentives, incorporating reuse and refurbishing, expanding product scope, managing downstream material flows, and promoting operational efficiency via fair cost allocation design.     

Implementing Individual Producer Responsibility for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment through Improved Financing

Under the European Union (EU) Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment (WEEE) Directive, producers are responsible for financing the recycling of their products at end of life. A key intention of such extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is to provide economic incentives for producers to develop products that are easier to treat and recycle at end of life. Recent research has shown, however, that the implementation of EPR for WEEE has so far failed in this respect. Current WEEE systems calculate their prices according to simple mass‐based allocation of costs to producers, based on broad collection categories containing a mixture of different product types and brands. This article outlines two alternative approaches, which instead calculate charges for products sold by producers by classifying them according to their eventual end‐of‐life treatment requirements and cost. Worked examples indicate that these methods provide both effective and efficient frameworks for financing WEEE, potentially delivering financial incentives to producers substantial enough to affect their potential profitability and, as a likely consequence, the decisions relating to the design of their products. In particular they fulfill three important criteria required by the WEEE Directive: they can financially reward improved design, allocate costs of historic waste proportionately (on the basis of tonnes of new products sold), and provide sufficient financial guarantees against future waste costs and liabilities. They are also relatively practical for implementation because they are based solely on cost allocation and financing. Further research and investigation would be worthwhile to test and verify this approach using real‐world data and under various scenarios.     

Extended Producer Responsibility in the United States

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that requires manufacturers to finance the costs of recycling or safely disposing of products consumers no longer want. This article describes the evolution of EPR policies in the United States, focusing on the role of states as policy actors. For their part, federal lawmakers have not embraced EPR policies except to remove some barriers to state‐level initiatives. In the two‐decade period from 1991 to 2011, U.S. states enacted more than 70 EPR laws. In addition, manufacturers have implemented voluntary programs to collect and recycle products, but those efforts have proven largely ineffective in capturing significant quantities of waste products. With the help of new coalitions of diverse interest groups, recently states have renewed efforts to establish effective EPR programs, enacting 40 laws in the period 2008–2011. Several state initiatives suggest a more promising future for EPR.     

Recycle,Bury, or Burn Wood Waste Biomass?: LCA Answer Depends on Carbon Accounting,Emissions Controls,Displaced Fuels,and Impact Costs

This study extends existing life cycle assessment (LCA) literature by assessing seven environmental burdens and an overall monetized environmental score for eight recycle, bury, or burn options to manage clean wood wastes generated at construction and demolition activity sites. The study assesses direct environmental impacts along with substitution effects from displacing fossil fuels and managed forest wood sourcing activities. Follow‐on effects on forest carbon stocks, land use, and fuel markets are not assessed. Sensitivity analysis addresses landfill carbon storage and biodegradation rates, atmospheric emissions controls, displaced fuel types, and two alternative carbon accounting methods commonly used for waste management LCAs. Base‐case carbon accounting considers emissions and uptakes of all biogenic and fossil carbon compounds, including biogenic carbon dioxide. Base‐case results show that recycling options (recycling into reconstituted wood products or into wood pulp for papermaking) rank better than all burning or burying options for overall monetized score as well as for climate impacts, except that wood substitution for coal in industrial boilers is slightly better than recycling for the climate. Wood substitution for natural gas boiler fuel has the highest environmental impacts. Sensitivity analysis shows the overall monetized score rankings for recycling options to be robust except for the carbon accounting method, for which all options are highly sensitive. Under one of the alternative methods, wood substitution for coal boiler fuel and landfill options with high methane capture efficiency are the best for the overall score; recycling options are next to the worst. Under the other accounting alternative, wood substitution for coal and waste‐to‐energy are the best, followed by recycling options.     

基于物质流分析的废纸回收利用体系生态成本研究

废弃物回收利用在一定程度上对缓解资源和环境危机起到积极的作用,已经成为可持续发展的重要举措,但生产过程中消耗的资源、能源,排放的污染物同样也会对自然环境产生负面影响。为解决此问题,以废纸回收利用体系为例,基于物质流分析方法构建了生态成本核算模型,为废弃物回收利用体系优化提供基础。在对生态成本相关研究归纳总结的基础上,定义了生态成本的概念,界定了生态成本的研究内容,并分析基于物质流核算生态成本的可行性。生态成本是对生态负荷的价值化,主要分为资源耗减成本、污染产生和环境保护成本以及生态环境损害成本3部分。污染产生和环境保护成本可以通过将总成本按比例分配给正、负产品的方式求得,资源耗减成本和环境损害成本借助LIME方法核算,总生态成本是回收利用体系内部各项生态成本的总和。生态成本核算是评价生态负荷的重要手段,在废纸回收利用体系物质流动图的基础上,分析各生产流程生态成本的构成情况。提出的生态成本核算模型不仅适用于废纸回收利用体系,其他废弃物也同样适用。通过生态成本的核算,寻找到对生态环境影响较大的工序、流程,为废弃物回收利用体系经济与环境的双赢提供理论与实践指导。     

Comparative Analysis of Extended Producer Responsibility Policy in the United States and Canada

This article analyzes the policy choices and programmatic elements of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as implemented in the United States and Canada. The article traces the historical development of EPR in each country and defines common features of EPR in each nation. The U.S. states and the Canadian provinces have assumed the primary role, rather than the federal governments, for enacting producer responsibility requirements in their respective countries. However, the paths taken demonstrate several fundamental differences, including the prevalence of individual versus collective responsibility and the financing mechanisms implemented for EPR. Given the deepening experience with EPR and the breadth of its application to a widening array of products in the United States, the Canadian model for EPR is starting to receive more examination from policy makers in the United States, indicating that the policy and programmatic differences between the two nations may eventually be narrowing. The comparative policy analysis is illustrated through the lens of EPR regulatory efforts for waste electronics, with particular profiles of the programs in the State of Minnesota and Province of Ontario. Both approaches broadly reflect many of the policy considerations and governance and programmatic themes that dominate EPR programs in each country. Finally, the article offers recommendations for collaborative work between the United States and Canada to explore consistency between programs and other complementary strategies to support producer responsibility activities.     

Waste Costing as a Catalyst in Pollution Prevention Investment Decisions

This article presents a case study in a Nigerian firm of how waste costing can be applied to pollution prevention (P2) investment decisions. This case is informed by the priority accorded to P2 as a preferred alternative to end‐of‐pipe pollution control. It demonstrates that even in the absence of effective regulations in a developing country, cost accounting can spur P2 decisions by management through the system of waste cost allocation. The case used standard cost data from the Wonder Beauty Care Company and applied the activity‐based costing (ABC) system to waste cost allocation using waste cost drivers, which yielded another genre of waste costs—waste‐induced overhead. Subsequently, the waste‐induced overhead was applied to P2 investment analysis. This analysis indicated that the P2 investment alternative that incorporates the waste‐induced overhead produced a preferred alternative choice. The case further revealed that managers’ knowledge of waste costs in a Nigerian firm may influence their P2 decisions. The case illustrates practically a possible dual advantage of an improved costing system for Nigerian firms—cost reduction and cleaner production.     

Hybrid LCC of Appliances with Different Energy Efficiency (10 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background This paper is concerned with a life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) by the use of the waste input-output (WIO) quantity- and price model of air conditioners with different energy efficiency at the use phase (high-end, low-end and average models) that were available in Japan as of winter 2002. The functional unit is an air conditioner of the 2.5kW type that is used for 10 years, and then subjected to an end-of-life (EoL) process that is consistent with the Japanese law on the recycling of appliances. Methods This is the first simultaneous application of the WIO methodology to an LCA and LCC over the entire life-cycle of a product including the use phase, and represents a methodological extension (in the sense of considering the use phase) and integration (in the sense of a simultaneous application) of previous studies by us (Kondo and Nakamura, Int. J. LCA, 2004, Nakamura and Kondo, Ecol. Econ., 2005, in press). The main body of data is provided by the WIO table for the year 2000, an update of the previous table for 1995 that was used in the above WIO studies. Compared with the WIO table for 1995 that consisted of only about 80 industry sectors, the current one consists of about 400 industry sectors, and includes air conditioner as a separate sector. The data on the purchase price and efficiency of air conditioners indicate wide variations: the cheapest one (the low-end model) costs half of the most expensive one (the high-end model), but its efficiency is about half of the latter. Results and Discussion When the cost in the use and EoL phases is included, the low-end model becomes the most expensive one, and the high-end model with the highest purchase cost the least expensive. This reversal of the relative cost levels is attributed to the difference in the efficiency in the use phase. A sensitivity analysis indicates that a reduction of the electricity price in the use phase by about 40% does not alter the significant superiority of the high-end model over the low-end model. In spite of the largest amount of input in the production phase, the high-end model performs the best in terms of both global warming potential (GWP) and landfill, while the low-end model performs the worst. The use phase generates the largest amount of waste for landfill across the three models, the largest component of which is flyash generated from coal firing power plants. A possible internalization of externality in the form of carbon tax was found to work in favor of the high-end model. The cost advantage of the high-end model, however, is sensitive to the rate of discounting of future costs: discounting at 15% diminishes its advantage over the low-end model. Recommendation and Perspective The results indicate the effectiveness of the pricing based on the life cycle cost for achieving sustainability, that is, for promoting the shift of the demand away from appliances with low environmental performance to the one with higher environmental performance. Acceptance by society of pricing based on life cycle costing would require, among other things, an economy-wide standardization of the LCC concept (in a manner analogous to ISO-LCA) that can be used complementary to ISO-LCA.     

Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Savings Potential of Extended Producer Responsibility for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the United States

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation in the United States, which currently only exists on the state level, now includes three mattress EPR acts, which intend to shift the financial and operational burden of mattress end‐of‐life (EOL) management away from local and state government. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the original objective behind EPR is to reduce the environmental life cycle impacts of products. This article therefore quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) savings potential of mattress and boxspring recycling and reuse in the United States and also discusses labor implications and mattress design issues. We find that all three acts are unlikely to generate redesign incentives, but are expected to dramatically increase mattress collection and recycling. The collection and recycling of all 35 million EOL mattress and boxspring units estimated to reach the end of their lives in the United States every year would generate in the order of 10,000 jobs and GHG savings between 1 and 1.5 million metric tonnes.     

Transdisciplinary Development of a Life Cycle–Based Approach to Measure and Communicate Waste Prevention Effects in Local Authorities

Although waste prevention was promoted as the first priority for all EU member states in 2008, the actual implementation of activities has thus far been hesitant. Empirical evidence indicates that the reasons for this neglect include the limited measurability of waste prevention effects and the consequential lack of awareness, motivation, and incentive systems. Our research aims to quantify waste prevention and its environmental impacts and, ultimately, to motivate the efficient implementation of waste prevention concepts by a target‐group‐specific communication of the results. Embedded in a transdisciplinary research setting in close cooperation with practitioners, we develop a life cycle–based approach to calculate the effects of waste prevention in local authorities. This approach features an activity‐based analysis that facilitates the assessment of both reduction of waste generated and the related environmental effects. The methodology of life cycle assessment, used to calculate environmental impacts, is adapted to the specific requirements and constitutes an essential step in our measurement approach. Finally, we demonstrate the application of this approach. Five activities deriving from real‐world case studies are assessed. These case studies simulate the implementation of waste prevention in a mid‐sized German city. We are able to reveal potential waste reduction of 74% and potential reduction of other environmental impacts ranging from 28% to 62% of the targeted material streams.     

Mapping the Influence of Food Waste in Food Packaging Environmental Performance Assessments

Scrutiny of food packaging environmental impacts has led to a variety of sustainability directives, but has largely focused on the direct impacts of materials. A growing awareness of the impacts of food waste warrants a recalibration of packaging environmental assessment to include the indirect effects due to influences on food waste. In this study, we model 13 food products and their typical packaging formats through a consistent life cycle assessment framework in order to demonstrate the effect of food waste on overall system greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and cumulative energy demand (CED). Starting with food waste rate estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we calculate the effect on GHG emissions and CED of a hypothetical 10% decrease in food waste rate. This defines a limit for increases in packaging impacts from innovative packaging solutions that will still lead to net system environmental benefits. The ratio of food production to packaging production environmental impact provides a guide to predicting food waste effects on system performance. Based on a survey of the food LCA literature, this ratio for GHG emissions ranges from 0.06 (wine example) to 780 (beef example). High ratios with foods such as cereals, dairy, seafood, and meats suggest greater opportunity for net impact reductions through packaging‐based food waste reduction innovations. While this study is not intended to provide definitive LCAs for the product/package systems modeled, it does illustrate both the importance of considering food waste when comparing packaging alternatives, and the potential for using packaging to reduce overall system impacts by reducing food waste.     

Exploring the Use of Ecological Footprint in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Ecological footprint (EF) is a metric that estimates human consumption of biological resources and products, along with generation of waste greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in terms of appropriated productive land. There is an opportunity to better characterize land occupation and effects on the carbon cycle in life cycle assessment (LCA) models using EF concepts. Both LCA and EF may benefit from the merging of approaches commonly used separately by practitioners of these two methods. However, few studies have compared or integrated EF with LCA. The focus of this research was to explore methods for improving the characterization of land occupation within LCA by considering the EF method, either as a complementary tool or impact assessment method. Biofuels provide an interesting subject for application of EF in the LCA context because two of the most important issues surrounding biofuels are land occupation (changes, availability, and so on) and GHG balances, two of the impacts that EF is able to capture. We apply EF to existing fuel LCA land occupation and emissions data and project EF for future scenarios for U.S. transportation fuels. We find that LCA studies can benefit from lessons learned in EF about appropriately modeling productive land occupation and facilitating clear communication of meaningful results, but find limitations to the EF in the LCA context that demand refinement and recommend that EF always be used along with other indicators and metrics in product‐level assessments.