Abstract
Purpose
Few studies have examined differing interpretations of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results between midpoints and endpoints for the same systems. This paper focuses on the LCIA of municipal solid waste (MSW) systems by taking both the midpoint and endpoint approaches and uses LIME (Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modeling, version 2006). With respect to global and site-dependent factors, environmental impact categories were divided into global, regional, and local scales. Results are shown as net emissions consisting of system emissions and avoided emissions.
Materials and methods
This study is divided into five segments. The first segment develops the LCIA framework and four MSW scenarios based on the current MSW composition and systems of Seoul, considering adaptable results from the hierarchy MSW systems. In addition, two systems are considered: main MSW systems and optional systems. Several “what if” scenarios are discussed, including various compositions and classifications of MSW. In the second segment, life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis is applied to define various inputs and outputs to and from MSW systems, including air (23 categories), water (28 categories) and land (waste) emissions, resource consumption, land use, recovered material, compost, landfill gas, biogas, and heat energy. The third segment, taking the midpoint approach, investigates the nine environmental impacts of the system and avoided emissions. In the fourth segment, this study, taking the endpoint approach, evaluates the damages, dividing the four safeguard subjects affected by 11 environmental impact categories of the system and avoided emissions. In these third and fourth segments, LCIA is applied to analyze various end-of-life scenarios for same MSW materials. The final segment defines the differences from the results in accordance with the two previous life cycle assessment methodologies (the LCIA and interpretations with respect to midpoints and endpoints).
Results and discussion
With the respect to midpoints, Scenario 1 (S1) using 100% landfills (L) is the worst performer in terms of global (global warming and resource consumption), regional (acidification, human toxicity, and ecotoxicity), and local (waste: landfill volume) impacts. In terms of all impacts except global warming and waste, Scenario 2 (S2) using 64.2% L and 35.8% material recycling (MR) was found to be the most effective system. With respect to global-scale endpoints, S1 was the worst performer in terms of human health and social assets, whereas the other scenarios with MR were poor and bad performers in terms of biodiversity and primary production. With respect to regional- and local-scale endpoints, S1 was the worst performer in terms of human health, biodiversity, and primary production, whereas Scenario 4 (S4) using 4.2% L (only incombustibles), 35.8% MR, 28.5% biological treatment (BT), and 31.5% incineration (I) was the worst performer in terms of social assets. S4 was the best performer in terms of global-scale endpoints, whereas S2 and Scenario 3 (S3, using 35.7% L, 35.8% MR, and 28.5% BT) were the best on regional- and local-scale endpoints, respectively. With respect to the monetization analysis, which considered net emissions and integrated all endpoints, S3 was found to be “the most effective system,” indicating US $31.6 savings per ton-waste.
Conclusions
The results of this study illustrate the differences in the LCIA outcomes and interpretations with respect to the midpoint and endpoint approaches. In addition, it would be possible to interpret the effect of each indicator on safeguard subjects by integrating separate midpoints. The LCIA results of each endpoint for the scenarios were generally consistent with those of each midpoint. However, the results changed dramatically when the main contributor was a new category not included in midpoint categories. The key advantage with respect to grouping impact categories in the midpoint and endpoint approaches can be described as “the simplification of midpoints and the segmentation of endpoints.”
Recommendations and perspectives
This research raises many questions that warrant further research. This method does not provide an uncertainty evaluation of input data at the inventory level; it addresses only the main contributor for each impact category to four endpoints. In addition, it would be beneficial to investigate the suitability of midpoints and endpoints for different stakeholders with a low or high level of environmental expertise by comparing previous studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bare J (2005) TRACI version 2.0 allowing more options and providing better science for bio-based impact assessment comparisons, T10 AM LCA and business benefits, BAR-1117-663346, SETAC
Bare JC, Gloria TP (2007) Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Cleaner Prod 16:1021–1035
Bare JC, Hofsterter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000) Life cycle impact assessment midpoints vs. endpoints—the sacrifices and the benefits. Int J LCA 5(6):319–326
Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3):49–78
Björklund A (2000) Environmental system analysis of waste management. Experiences from application of the ORWARE model, Doctoral dissertation. Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
BUWAL (1998) Life cycle inventories for packagings, vol.//.Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL). Environmental Series No. 250///, 3003 Berne, Switzerland
Curran MA (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice, Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/lca101.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2011
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) (1995) New York state environmental externalities cost study, volume 1: introduction and methods. Oceana Publications Inc., New York
ExternE (1998) Externalities of energy, European Commission EUR 16520 EN, Volume 7 http://www.externe.info/expolwp7.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2011
Finnveden G, Ekvall T (1998) Life-cycle assessment as a decision-support tool—the case of recycling versus incineration of paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 24:235–256
Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg A (2000) Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste, FMS, Stockholm, Sweden, http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/pdf/LCAofenergyfromsolidwaste.pdf. Accessed 26 Jun 2008
Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes—development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J LCA 1(11):81–88
Giegrich J, Schmitz S (1996) Valuation as a step in impact assessment: methods and case study. In: Curran, MA (ed) Environmental life-cycle assessment, McGraw-Hill, New York, 13.1–13.14
Goedkoop M (1995) Eco-Indicator 95. Final report, pre consultants, Amersfoort
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment—methodology report. Third edition, Pre Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The Netherlands http://www.pre.nl/download/EI99_annexe_v3.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2011
Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, Bruijn H, Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, xii+pp 692
Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 2: Scientific Background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Hardbound Vol 2, ISBN 0-412-80810-2, pp 584
Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Diun R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Backgrounds & Guide, Leiden
Heijungs R, Goedkoop M, Struijs J, Effting S, Sevenster M, Huppes G (2003) Towards a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Netherlands, http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_phase1.pdf. Accessed 26 Jun 2008
Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment, Part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J LCA 6(1):5–12
Itsubo N, Inaba A (2003) A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed. Int J LCA 8(5):305
Itsubo N, Inaba A (2005) Life-cycle environmental impact assessment method. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (JEMAI), Tokyo, Japan. ISBN 4-914953-96-X
Itsubo N, Inaba A, Matsuno Y, Yasui I, Yamamoto R (2000) Current status of weighting methodologies in Japan. Int J LCA 5(1):5–11
LCA Japan Forum (2006) LCA database. http://www.jemai.or.jp/lcaforum/index.cfm. Accessed 21 Jan 2008
Japan Paper Association (2006) LCA database. http://www.jemai.or.jp/lcaforum/index.cfm. Accessed 21 Jan 2008
Jolliet O, Pennington DW, Amman C, Pelichet T, Margni M, Crettaz P (2003) Comparative assessment of the toxic impact of metals on humans within IMPACT 2002. In: Dubreuil A (ed) Life cycle assessment of metals—issues and research directions, SETAC Press, ISBN 1-880611-62-7
Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J et al (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J LCA 9(6):394–404
KEMCO (2003) Korea Energy Management Cooperation, http://www.kemco.or.kr/up_load/pds/hongbo/b_9.ppt. Accessed 21 Jan 2008
Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments—implications for decision-making. Int J LCA 11(3):189–199
McDougall F, White PR, Franke M, Hindle F (2009) Integrated solid waste management: a life cycle inventory, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment (Part 2): current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30(5):721–739
Potting J, Schöpp W, Blok K, Hauschild H (1998a) Site-dependent life cycle impact assessment of acidification. J Ind Ecol 2:63–87
Potting J, Schöpp W, Blok K, Hauschild H (1998b) Comparison of the acidifying impact from emissions with different regional origin in life cycle assessment. J Hazard Mater 61:155–162
Schmitz S, Paulini I (1999) Bewertung in Ökobilanzen. Methode des Umweltbundesamtes zur Normierung von Wirkungsindikatoren, Ordnung (Rangbildung) von Wirkungskategorien und zur Auswertung nach ISO 14042 und 14043. Version '99. UBA-Texte 92/99. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, Germany
Seoul Environment Bureau (2006) Seoul City Statistics of Waste Disposal and Management in Seoul (in Korean). Seoul Environment Bureau, Seoul
Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000—General system Characteristics, CPM report, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, http://msl1.mit.edu/esd123_2001/pdfs/EPS2000.PDF. Accessed 21 Jan 2011
Steen B, Ryding SO (1992) The EPS Enviro-accounting method. Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Federation of Swedish Industries, Gothenburg
UNEP (2003) Evaluation of environmental impacts in life cycle assessment meeting report, Brussels, 29–30 November 1998, and Brighton, 25–26 May 2000
Volkwein S, Gihr R, Klöpffer W (1996) The valuation step within LCA: Part II. A formalized method of prioritization by expert panels. Int J LCA 1:182–192
White PR, Franke M, Hindle P (1999) Integrated solid waste management: a lifecycle inventory. Aspen Publishers Inc., New York
Yi S (2009) Life cycle assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management according to midpoint and endpoint approaches. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Yi S, Ishii S, Hanaki K, Yoo KY (2007) Energy recovery and avoided CO2 emissions of incineration plants in Seoul City (published on CD-ROM). International Solid Waste Management Association (ISWA), Amsterdam
Yi S, Yoo KY, Hanaki K (2011) Characteristics of MSW and heat energy recovery between residential and commercial areas in Seoul. Waste Manage 31(3):595–602
Yoo KY, Yi S (2001) A study on construction and management of food waste treatment facilities (In Korean). Seoul Development Institute
Yoo KY, Yi S (2007) Urban public material recovery facilities’ roles in the recycling market (In Korean). Korea Society of Waste Manage 24(4):330–337
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Urban Environment Department of Seoul Development Instituted (SDI) and Asian Natural Environmental Science Center (ANESC) of The University of Tokyo for their advice and contribution to this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Shabbir Gheewala
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yi, S., Kurisu, K.H. & Hanaki, K. Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 652–668 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0297-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0297-3