Allocation in recycling systems

An integrated model for the analyses of environmental impact and market value
  • Joost G. Vogtländer
  • Han C. Brezet
  • Charles F. Hendriks
LCA methodology

Abstract

‘Design for Recycling’ and dematerialization by enhancing the durability of products are major aspects of the quest for sustainable products. This article presents an LCA-based model for the integrated analyses of the product chain, its recycling systems, and its waste treatment systems at the ‘End of Life’ stage. The model is an extension of the EVR (Eco-costs/Value Ratio) model which has been published in this journal (Vogtländer et al. 2001), but can also be applied to other life cycle interpretation models, since the model as such is not restricted to the use of the eco-costs as a single indicator. The model has been developed to evaluate the design alternatives of complex products like buildings and cars. These products comprise several subsystems, each with its own special solution at the End of Life stage: Extending of the product life, object renovation, re-use of components, re-use of materials, useful application of waste materials, immobilization with and without useful applications, incineration with and without energy recovery, land fill.

Since complex product systems always comprise a combination of these design alternatives, a methodology is given to calculate and allocate the eco-costs of the total system in order to select the best solution for sustainability. The methodology is characterized by:
  1. A main allocation model of the recycling flow based on physical relationships,

     
  2. a strict separation of the market value, the costs and the ecocosts in the system,

     
  3. a main allocation model for extension of lifetime based on ‘depreciation of eco-costs’, parallel to economic depreciation.

     

Keywords

Allocation eco-costs eco-efficiency end of life EVR environmental impact LCA recycling renovation product-service systems single indicator sustainability waste materials 

References

  1. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997): Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J LCA 2 (3) 155–162Google Scholar
  2. Ekvall, T (2000): A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29, 91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frischknecht R (1998): Life cycle inventory analysis for decisionmaking. Scope-dependent inventory system models and context-specific joint product allocation. PhD dissenation ETH Nrl2599, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Gale BT (1994): Managing customer value, Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Gielen DJ (1999): Materialising dematerialisation. Integrated energy and materials systems engineering for greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Thesis Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Henley N, Shogren JF, White B (1997): Environmental economics, in theory and practice. Basingstoke, Mac MillanGoogle Scholar
  7. Huisman J, Boks C, Stevels A (2000a): Environmentally weighted recycling quotes — better justifiable and environmentally more correct. Design for Sustainability Research Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. Huisman J, Boks C, Stevels A (2000b): Applications and implications of using environmentally weighted recycling quotes in assessing environmental effeccs in the end-of-life of consumer electronics. Design for Sustainability Research Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim S, Hwang T, Lee KM (1997): Allocation for cascade recycling system. Int J LCA 2 (4) 217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klöpffer W (1996): Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment — A review. Int J LCA 1(1) 27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindeijer E, Huppes G (2000): Partitioning economic in- and outputs to product systems. Annex C from draft document ‘Life Cycle Assessment in Environmental Policy, Scientific Backgrounds’, CML, Leiden, www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/lca2/ index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen O-J, Ronning T, Ekvall T, Finnvelden G (1995): Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment, Nord 1995:20, Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  13. Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990): Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Porter ME (1985): Competitive advantage. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Nes CN, Cramer JM, Stevels ALN (1998): Determinants of replacement behaviour for electronic products. Care Innovation ’98, November 16–19, 1998, Austria Centre, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  16. Seijdel R (1994): Toerekening Recycling: de Estafette-methode. PRC Bouwcentrum, BodegravenGoogle Scholar
  17. Sirkin T, Ten Houten M (1994): The cascade chain. A theory and tool for achieving resource sustainability with applications for product design. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 10, 213–277Google Scholar
  18. Vogtlander JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks ChF (2001): The virtual eco-costs ’99: A single LCA-based indicator for sustainability and the eco-costs/value ratio (EVR) model for economic allocation. Int J LCA 6 (3) 157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vogtländer JG, Bijma A (2000) The virtual pollution prevention costs ’99: A single LCA-based indicator for emissions. Int J LCA 5 (2) 113–124Google Scholar
  20. Werner F, Richter K (2000): Economic allocation in LCA: A case study about aluminium window frames. Int J LCA 5 (2) 79–83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joost G. Vogtländer
    • 1
  • Han C. Brezet
    • 1
  • Charles F. Hendriks
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty Design Construction and Production, Section Design for SustainabilityDelft University of TechnologyDelft, GAThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty Civil Engineering and Geoscience, Subfaculty Materials Science GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelft, GAThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations