ASSESSMENT OF BIO-WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND SPATIAL

VARIABILITY

S. SCHMIDT AND C. PAHL-WOSTL

USF, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Department of Resource Flow
Management, University of Osnabrueck – Albrechtstraße 28, 49069 Osnabrueck,
Germany

SUMMARY: In some European countries several separate collection systems of kitchen and
garden waste have been introduced in order to produce bio-waste compost. In addition a huge
variety of treatment technologies and ways to reuse or dispose further products exist. Thus
different bio-waste management systems are working in parallel. Each system shows specific
advantages. Collecting and treating bio-waste and using the products affect the environment and
have to be financed. Therefore the assessment of bio-waste systems has to include all sub-
systems and faces some difficulties. The complexity of the system and methodological,
modelling and substantial uncertainty play an important role while assessing waste management
systems. It is necessary to take into account spatial variability because it affects the results of a
life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-waste systems. In this paper a concept to include spatial
variability in LCA is presented.

1. OBJECTIVES OF BIO-WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

1.1 Introduction
In addition to the objectives of the European waste management policy the German Commercial
and Industrial Waste Management Act aims at promoting the recycling and reuse of waste
materials in order to protect the natural resources and to ensure an ecologically compatible
disposal of waste. The main principle points out that firstly the production of waste should be
prevented. Secondly, produced waste should be recycled if prevention is out of reach. As a last
resort waste should be disposed. Legally recycling can be achieved either by exploiting the waste
materially, e.g. using the nutrients of compost, or by using the waste energetically. Priority
should be given to the “most ecologically compatible” alternative taking into account the
emissions, the protection of natural resources, the produced or required energy and the depletion
of pollutants in waste materials or in its products. The question arises how to assess waste
management systems in order to find out the most ecological compatible alternative.
In order to meet the legal requirements the districts or the municipal waste associations being
responsible for waste disposal began to collect waste materials separately, especially glas, paper
and bio-waste containing kitchen and garden waste of the households and the commerce.

Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 6 - 10 October 2003
 2003 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
In Germany only separately collected bio-waste is allowed to be treated to bio-waste compost
serving as fertilizer. Thus the natural resources of phosphate are preserved and the natural
nutrient cycle is restored. Furthermore the residual waste benefits from the separate collection of
bio-waste. It reduces the organic portion of the residual waste and avoids additional technical
treating efforts, emissions and dislocations during its deposition.
On the other hand introducing the separate collection of bio-waste raises the amount of waste
which has to be collected and treated by the districts. Therefore additional financial efforts and
organization might be necessary. Based on experience bio-waste dustbins attract organic waste
materials formerly used in the gardens (Wiemer/Sprick, 1996).

1.2 Separate collection and treatment of bio-waste in Germany and counteractive trends
In Europe the majority of the countries have been pushing the aerobic and anaerobic treatment of
organic waste materials. Therefore a separate collection system for bio-waste has been
introduced. The European Landfill Directive and national guidelines appear to be more
responsible for this trend than the expected ecological or economic benefits of composting or
fermenting bio-waste (Barth, 2000). Nevertheless bio-waste is being collected separately in
Norway, Sweden, Italy, Austria, Suisse, Flanders, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Germany
(Barth, 2002). The separate collection of bio-waste is prepared and will be introduced in
Denmark, Catalonia, Wallonia and Great Britain, whereas Finland and France are still organizing
its start (Barth, 2002).
In Germany there is a long tradition to collect bio-waste separately, mostly bio-waste dustbin
in combination with pick-up system. But taking a closer look at the level of the districts in
Germany about 25 % did not introduce the bio-waste dustbin (Fricke et al., 1998). The turnout of
the bio-waste dustbin varies from 50 % to 80 % so that even in districts with an area-wide
separate collection every third household does not use the bio-waste dustbin because of private
gardening (Fricke et al., 1998). Only about 35 % of all German inhabitants use the bio-waste
dustbin (UBA, 2003). This shows that the separate collection of bio-waste can be realized
differently and does not work automatically area-wide.
Meanwhile in Germany some trends evoke a lively discussion about the bio-waste
management system and the separate collection of bio-waste. Recently the financial burden of
most German districts has increased. Thus they allow for all possibilities to reduce the public
expenditures, i.a. waste management system and separate collection. Secondly, new technologies
for residual waste have been established. They reduce the organic portion of residual waste
technically so that it is not necessary to collect the bio-waste separately. Finally the German
Federal Environmental Agency presented a draft of a soil protection concept (Seier, 2002). In
order to protect the natural functions of the soil, it proposes strict limits for the reuse of bio-waste
compost on agricultural areas. The discussion among experts regarding its consequences for the
bio-waste collection and treatment is still controversial. Considering these trends the assessment
of bio-waste management systems is important. It regards a complex system and takes into
account ecological, economic and juridical subjects.

2. STATE OF ART OF THE ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

2.1 Demands on assessing waste management systems

Ecological impacts are based on balances of material and energy flows (Gruhler/Deilmann,
1999). Assessments based on ecological balances have a long tradition, although a number of
open questions still seem to be of immediate interest (Bringezu, 2000; Brunner, 1999; Baccini et
al., 1985). There are a huge variety of methods or concepts available: e.g. life cycle assessment,
eco-efficiency, resource flow assessment, ecological balancing and material intensity per
functional unit (listed in: Hartard, 2000). Sometimes the terms are used synonymously, although
the assessment methods differ in
• the manner and amount of established criteria (quantitative or qualitative criteria, only
ecological criteria, only criteria concerning one environmental medium or one environmental
problem e.g. global warming potential, ecological and economic criteria etc.)
• the manner and amount of examined parameters
• the way of weighting and aggregating parameters and criteria and single results
• the definition of system boundaries and the main question to be examined
• the assumptions and the definition of allocation rules
• the way to implement the benefit of waste management systems (e.g. credit items, sinks etc.)
• the way to treat uncertainty and variability (e.g. of data).
Uncertainty plays an important role in assessing waste management systems and in decision
making because uncertainty in the input of an assessment process affects its outcome.
Uncertainty is generated by parameter or data uncertainty, by subjective elements “due to
choices” and by variability (Huijsbregts, 1998a). To give an example, the life cycle assessment
(LCA) has passed a period of international standardization (EN ISO 14040ff). Some work steps
are described in detail and some general requirements are defined in order to improve the
reconstruction of results of LCA studies. But there still remain “subjective” elements, e.g. the
definition of the main question and the weighting of criteria although different recommendations
are published how to weight and assess criteria in LCA (BUWAL, 1998; UBA, 1999).
While choosing an assessment method, its characteristics, especially its advantages and
disadvantages have to be considered. Fundamental restrictions or uncertainties of an assessment
method occur in each examination based on this method.
Additionally independently of the chosen assessment method system-immanent restrictions
occur whenever the system is assessed because of inaccurate, inhomogeneous or contradicting
results of measurements and lack of data. Furthermore spatial and temporal uncertainty may also
have an impact on the results of the assessment. Therefore it has to be examined, especially when
the objects of investigation become more complex. That applies to assessing of bio-waste
management systems.

2.2 Results of examinations about bio-waste management systems

The bio-waste system forms only one part of a waste management system. In some countries
methods to examine the integrated waste management systems are being developed (i.a. White et
al., 1999, Sundberg, 1998, Thornloe et al., 2001). A simulation model for organic waste
management system including sewage sludge has been worked out (Sonnesson, 1998). Bio-waste
management systems have been primarily assessed in countries with a separate collection system
for bio-waste. Ecological or economic comparisons are predominating and only a few studies
combine both aspects. The main focus lays on the comparison of different sub-systems, mostly
treatment techniques, particularly composting and anaerobic treatment. The studies differ in
examining transportation, in analysing the production facilities and in implementing the benefits
of the produced materials in the assessment
In consideration of the specific assumptions, the comparison of several organic waste
treatment techniques including its benefits shows the following results (Vogts et al., 2002):
• The emissions in the air, especially the nitrogen cycle, contribute mostly to the environmental
impact. Thus measurements to improve the function of biofilters and techniques to minimize
emissions while storing intermediate products or while spreading compost on agricultural
 areas are important.
• The bio-waste treatment techniques and its benefits contribute only to a small extent to those
criteria considered to be of high ecological importance (e.g. global warming potential or
carcinogenic risk potential). They contribute much more to the criteria of lower importance
(input of lead and cadmium in soil or eutrophication).
• Each bio-waste system contributes to specific benefits to a specific extent. Thus the results for
assessing bio-waste management systems differ in the following criteria: consumption of
mineral ressources, input of lead in soil, photochemical ozone creation potential and
eutrophication (water).
• The produced and the required energy and the comparable processes according to the extent
and number of specific benefits of the bio-waste management system affect the result of the
assessment more than different treatment techniques.
Taking into account the definition of system boundaries and the assumptions it seems to become
evident that the priority should be given to the reuse of privately collected and treated bio-waste
(Vogt et al., 2002). If bio-waste is collected and treated in municipal treatment plants
fermentation is assessed ecologically better than composting because of the production of bio-
compost and bio gas whereas the combustion of bio-waste does not show ecological advantages
compared to the biological treatment (Edelmann/Schleiß, 1999).

3. ASSESSMENT OF BIO-WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

3.1 Assessing environmental impact and costs of bio-waste management systems

In order to assess bio-waste management systems the bio-waste potential per inhabitant and year
forms the basis of the assessment and serves as the functional unit (see Fig. 1).

bio-waste potential functional unit: management of

bio-waste potential of a person/year
sub-system transport

costs … sub-system … and revenues

resources collection waste
energy emissions into air, water, soil…
sub-system
water & air treatment
energy

sub-system
disposal/reuse

resources sub-system: benefit

transp.

energy comparable processes emissions into air, water, soil…

water & air (incl. transport) energy
1. input data 2. sub-systems of 3. output data
bio-waste management

Figure 1. Scheme of bio-waste management sub-systems, input and output data.

The environmental impact and the expenses of all sub-systems have to be inventoried. They can
be divided into input and output data including emissions to the environment, the production of
waste, the production and the consumption of energy and resources and the costs or revenues.
The construction of the plants and the infrastructure can be examined too although it is difficult
to decide to what extent these parts of the system should be included because they are often
serving other issues as well. The bio-waste management system contains several sub-systems
(collection, treatment, transport, reuse/disposal and a comparable process) which again consist of
sub-systems, e.g. the treatment process is divided in aerobic and anaerobic treatment, the
anaerobic treatment is divided into mesophilic and thermophilic procedures etc..
Each treatment technique produces products aiming at serving specific benefits. The benefits
of the waste management system substitute so-called equivalent or comparable processes. For
example, the aerobic treatment produces bio-waste compost which can be used as a fertilizer.
Thus bio-waste compost substitutes artificial fertilizer. There are a few possibilities to consider
the benefits of a bio-waste system. The environmental impact caused by the comparable process
(e.g. the production of artificial fertilizer) can be credited to the environmental impact and the
costs of the former sub-systems (e.g. the composting of bio-waste).

3.2 System boundaries of the bio-waste management system

In order to assess bio-waste management systems completely the collecting system and the
transportation of bio-waste have to be included. The different types of the collection system are
important because it channels the amount of kitchen and garden waste and affects the amount
and the composition of separately collected bio-waste, privately reused bio-waste and the
organic portion of residual waste (see Fig. 2). Having introduced a separate collection system for
bio-waste, three different bio-waste flows have to be modelled. Without separate collection
system only two bio-waste flows are relevant.

1. bio-waste potential consists of…

kitchen waste garden waste
collection systems …
without with
separate collection of bio-waste separate collection of bio-waste
2. bio-waste materials flows and
their treatment … …if possible
organic portion privately collected separately collected
of residual waste (+ reused) bio-waste bio-waste

mechanical treatment mechanical

(e.g. grinding, sorting) treatment

stabilisation/drying aerobic anaerobic treatment aerobic treatment

3. products and
their benefis …
“combustible” fraction waste (deposition) bio gas bio-waste compost
supply of energy supply of energy supply of nutrients
(e.g. electricity, heat) (e.g. electricity, heat) and of humus

Figure 2. Scheme of bio-waste material flows and sub-systems of bio-waste management system.
Bio-waste material is collected privately to be used as bio-waste compost in the own garden. The
privately collected bio-waste is treated aerobically in open boxes or piles. Although sometimes
anaerobic periods occur it is assumed that it is used only as bio-waste compost (see dotted arrow
in Fig. 2). Separately collected bio-waste contains non biodegradable fractions. The mechanical
treatment separates varying portions of these materials so that they are transferred to deposition
or combustion (see dashed arrow in Fig. 2). Only the anaerobic treatment of separate collected
bio-waste produces both bio gas and bio-waste compost (see broken arrow in Fig. 2).

3.3 Assessing the environmental impact of bio-waste management systems with LCA
LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with
a product or with service systems throughout its life from raw material acquisition through
production, use and disposal (EN ISO 14040, 1997). According to the standard LCA works out
an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a system, evaluates the potential environmental
impacts associated with those inputs and outputs and interprets the results of the inventory
analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the objectives of the study.
According to its definition, LCA is not developed to assess economic aspects. But as LCA is
based on material and energy flows which are linked to financing, the costs and the revenues of
the examined systems may be calculated as well. Thus the material and energy flows serve as the
basis for the environmental and for the microeconomic evaluation.
In general, the interpreting of the results of LCA is limited because of remaining subjective
elements in spite of standardization. Assumptions in the models, the lack of data and spatial or
temporal dimensions limit the significance of results as well. LCA does not end with an overall,
general conclusion but rather with a series of results because of trade-offs and complexities at
each level of the system. Additional limitations become relevant if one assesses bio-waste
management systems with LCA:
• Benefits of systems can be taken into account as long as there are existing comparable or
equivalent processes. Using bio-waste compost improves the physical characteristics of the
soil, but recently there are difficulties to describe a comparable process.
• In general the definition of system boundary restricts the examination to one year. Thus it is
difficult to regard long-term environmental impacts or changes due to length of time.
• While using bio-waste compost nutrients are kept in the nutrient cycle and they can be reused
again in the following season. The support of the natural nutrient cycle, respectively
discharging nutrients by combustion of bio-waste cannot be incorporated.

4. SPATIAL VARIABILITY AND BIO-WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

4.1 Spatial aspects in LCA

In the discussion about methodological structures of LCA uncertainty and variability have to be
distinguished because they show specific characteristics and need to be made operational
differently. Uncertainty comes from lack of data, model assumptions or incomplete descriptions
of sub-systems (Huijsbregts, 1998a). In principle there are techniques to integrate uncertainty in
LCA and to examine their significance on the results, e.g. sensitivity analysis, probabilistic
uncertainty analysis, fuzzy logic computations, Bayesian statistics, analytical uncertainty
propagation methods, calculation with intervals or stochastic modelling (Huijbregts, 1998b).
Temporal and spatial variability are “stemming from inherent variations in the real world”
(Huijsbregts, 1998a). The implementation of spatial aspects in LCA is difficult. First of all, the
ultimate goal of LCA is not the optimization of technical solutions for an actual position, but to
provide fundamental information for decision making. This is described as the “notion of spatial
independence” of LCA (Rubik, 1997). In principle results of LCA studies focus on general and
global issues so that all work steps are independent of spatial aspects or actual positions. This
means that e.g. the sensitivity of the surrounding or real environment is not taken into account for
assessing the environmental impact. In contrast to the environmental impact assessment LCA
describes the potential environmental impacts without any relation to an affected environment.
On the other hand the definition of system boundaries requires limitations in space. According
to the main question to be tackled by an LCA data belong to a certain geographical area. The
basis for data can be the spatial linkages of the examined materials flows or the conditions in a
continent, a nation, a district or any other administrative or political unit. Economic criteria may
also serve to limit the system boundaries, e.g. the market area of a product. The larger the surface
of the spatial system boundaries become, the more difficulties arise to describe the objects of the
system. Thus criteria are necessary to judge the relevance of spatial linkages and to cut them off.
An analysis of the geographical limits of system boundaries in LCA revealed that rarely
criteria are published to define its spatial limits (Gruhler/Deilmann, 1999). Mostly there are hints
about the content of data describing phenomena in certain administrational units, e.g. average
distances between production and selling of products in a nation. Often it seems to be impossible
to find consistent criteria to fix the spatial limits so that the functional linkages determine the
spatial limits.

4.2 Implementation in LCA

Spatial variability is defined as regional differences in emission inventories, in environmental
sensitivity and in distance to political targets which can be addressed by multi-media modelling
and by operationalisation in inventories and characterisation factors (Huijsbregts, 1998). Another
possibility is to define compartments or types of spatial units and to describe the relation between
the spatial units and sub-systems, e.g. the characteristics of sub-systems change according to
specific types of spatial units. After that the inventory analysis and the impact assessment can be
modified for each type of spatial unit.
Problems may arise because it is difficult to find adequate criteria to describe spatial units
according to the main question of the assessment study. Furthermore spatial units might be
distinguished with the help of criteria but there are not any data available to describe the
characteristics of each spatial unit for the inventory analysis.

4.3. Spatial variability and bio-waste management systems

The goal of this research work it to find out if spatial variability plays a role for assessing bio-
waste management systems and to proof if there are bio-waste management systems that show
ecological and/or economic advantages in characteristic spatial units. In order to judge spatial
variability different types of spatial units have to be distinguished. The production and the use of
bio-waste are linked to the population. Therefore the density of population and the utilizations of
areas serve as criteria to describe different types of spatial units. The spatial units include highly
dense agglomeration (more than 300 inhabitants/km2 and a city with more than
300.000 inhabitants) and rural areas (less than 100 inhabitants/km2 and cities with less than
100.000 inhabitants). On the basis of German geographical data for each type of spatial unit the
average amount and kind of land use (settlements, agricultural area etc.) are found out.
According to the types of spatial units the relation between spatial units and the characteristic
of each bio-waste sub-systems have to be examined. The spatial unit affects the following sub-
systems of bio-waste management systems:
• Bio-waste potential: the amount and the composition of bio-waste potential depend on several
factors. Among others, the type of building (individual one or two family houses, row houses,
apartment building, and high-rise building) and its specific area of garden and specific
population density determine the amount of garden waste per inhabitant and year. A lot of
factors affect the amount of kitchen waste, e.g. the household size and standard of living.
• Transport: distances for collection and distances between treatment and use of products
• Treatment: according to the bio-waste potential and the collection system the amount of bio-
waste which needs to be treated varies. Furthermore cooperation may improve or support
central or peripheral treatment plants and varies the capacity of the plant.
• Benefits of bio-waste management system: the land use and the market for product in peculiar
determine the bio-waste management system. If the farming has to dispose its own liquid
manure or sullage or if there are only a few agricultural areas the separate collection of bio-
waste and the composting seems to be unnecessary, too expensive or has to be transported far
away so that it is assessed to be ecologically disadvantageous.
On the other hand the assessment of specific bio-waste management systems may lead to
different results in different spatial units. In the first step the following several main choices or
questions for the bio-waste management system are formulated:
• central versus peripheral treatment of bio-waste materials
• separate versus no separate collection of bio-waste (a variety of different separate collection
systems has to be regarded, e.g. bring-system of only garden waste and bio-waste dustbin)
• relevance of private gardening: maximum support of private gardening and no support of
private gardening where the separate collection of wastes is possible
• different amount and composition of bio-waste potential and of collected bio-waste material
• market or need of products of the bio-waste management system.
For every question two extreme options can be found. Each extreme option can be examined in
each type of spatial unit. According to the definition of spatial unit agglomeration and rural area
can be distinguished. The environmental impact of the extreme option of each type of spatial unit
will be estimated. The results of the LCA of two extreme options in one type of spatial unit can
be compared (e.g. A 1 and A 2, see Table 1) as well as the results of the LCA of one extreme
option in two different types of spatial units (e.g. A 1 and R 1). If there are not any significant
differences in the results of the options, the spatial variability can be disregarded. If there is a
difference in the results, the type of spatial unit can be altered, e.g. rural areas and rural areas
with urbanised parts, in order to find out the spatial characteristics under which a bio-waste
management system is assessed ecologically better than another.

Table 1 – Examined alternatives according to extreme options and types of spatial unit.
Type of spatial unit
Main question Extreme option agglomeration rural area
transport - catchment area of central A1 R1
treatment plant peripheral A2 R2
collection separate A3 R3
no separate A4 R4
private gardening support A5 R5
no support A6 R6
amount of bio-waste potential without garden-waste A7 R7
with garden waste A8 R8
5. CONCLUSIONS

The higher the complexity of a system becomes, the more difficulties arise in describing the
system, defining the system boundaries and in assessing the environmental impacts. Therefore it
becomes important to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant sub-systems and to fix the
system boundaries with the help of criteria.
Modelling materials and energy flows of complex bio-waste management systems and
assessing those systems ecologically is restricted. The discussion about the objectives as the
guidelines for the assessing process is as important as the methodological improvement of LCA
or the analytical examination of scientific details.
According to the main question the assessment process should deal with uncertainty and
variability. Therefore the importance of uncertainty factors has to be examined and their impact
on the results of an assessment has to be studied.
There are existing techniques to deal with uncertainty in LCA. As yet the application is not
common practice. Spatial and temporal variability seem to be difficult to integrate. Before using
sensitivity analysis for spatial variability, criteria for spatial limitations have to be defined and
spatial phenomena have to be examined in order to reveal correlations between spatial units and
systems.
Besides the technical implementation of techniques to implement uncertainty, priority should
be given to the assessment process and to the involvement of decision makers or addressees of
an assessment study. It seems to be evident that the results of a LCA are more easily interpreted
and used the better the users of the LCA are integrated in the assessment process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

These results are part of a Ph.D. project ending in 2004. The authors wish to thank the German
Environmental Foundation for the financial support of the research work.

REFERENCES

Baccini, P., Baechler, M., Brunner, P. & Henseler, G. (1985) Von der Entsorgung zum
Stoffhaushalt. Müll und Abfall, n. 4, pp. 99-108
Barth, J. (2002) Europa behandelt biologisch. Müllmagazin, n. 3, pp. 31-35
Barth, J. (2000) Stand und Perspektiven der biologischen Abfallbehandlung in Europa. in: Bio-
und Restabfallbehandlung IV. Wiemer, K. & Kern, M. (eds), Witzenhausen. pp. 132-142
Bringezu, S. (2000) Ressourcennutzung in Wirtschaftsräumen: Stoffstromanalysen für eine
nachhaltige Raumentwicklung. Wuppertal
Brunner, P. (1999) Von der Abfallwirtschaft zum Ressourcenmanagement. Österreichische
Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, n. 5/6, Vol. 51, pp. 134-139
BUWAL, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (1998) Bewertung in Ökobilanzen mit
der Methode der ökologischen Knappheit: Ökofaktoren. Bern
EN ISO 14040 (1997) Umweltmanagement Ökobilanz. Brüssel
Edelmann, W. & Schleiss, K. (1999) Ökologischer, ökonomischer und energetischer Vergleich
von Vergärung, Kompostierung und Verbrennung fester biogener Abfallstoffe. Bundesamt
für Energie und Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft der Schweiz (eds). Bern
Fricke, K. & Turk, T. Ingenieurgemeinschaft Fricke + Turk GmbH (1998): Bundesweite
 Umfrage zur getrennten Bioabfallsammlung
Gruhler, K. & Deilmann, C. (1999) Ökobilanzierung im Kontext planerischer Interessen. IÖR
Schriften, n. 31, Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung (eds). Dresden
Hartard, S. (2000) Entwicklung einer Indikatormethode zur Effizienzprüfung von
Getrenntsammelsystemen in der Abfallwirtschaft. Schriftenreihe des Lehrstuhls
Abfallwirtschaft und des Lehrstuhls Siedlungswasserwirtschaft, n. 5. Weimar
Huijsbregts, M. (1998a) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA – Part 1: General
framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in LCA. The international journal of
LCA, Vol. 3, n. 5, pp. 273-280
Huijsbregts, M. (1998b) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA – Part 2: Dealing with
parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in LCA. The international journal of
LCA, Vol. 3, n. 6, pp. 343-351
Rubik, F. (1997) Ökologische Produktpolitik: von der Beseitigung von Stoffen und Materialien
zur Rückgewinnung in Kreisläufen. Stuttgart
Seier, H. (2002) Bioabfallsammlung und Verwertung am Scheideweg?. in: Biomasse und
Abfallwirtschaft, 63. Informationsgespräch des ANS e.V. Fricke, K; Burth, M & Wallmann,
R.. Berlin, pp. 175-183
Sonesson, U. (1998) System analysis of waste management – The OWARE model, transport and
compost sub-models. Doctoral thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala
Sundberg, J. (1998) MIMES/Waste – a system engineering model for the strategic planning of
regional waste management systems. in: Systems Engineering models for waste management.
Proceedings from the international workshop. Sundberg, J., Nybrandt, T. & Sivertun, A.
(eds). Gothenburg, pp. 85-96
Thorneloe, S.A., Weitz, K.A., Nishatala, S.R. (2001) U.S. case studies using municipal solid
waste decision support tool. Proceedings Sardinia 2001, 8th international waste
management and landfill symposium, Cagliari, pp. 515-522
UBA, Umweltbundesamt (1999) Bewertung in Ökobilanzen nach ISO 14042 und 14043. Berlin
UBA. Umweltbundesamt (2003) Daten zur Umwelt, DZU 2000, Verwertung von Bioabfällen,
in: http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/dzu/default.html from 09.04.2003
Vogt, R., Knappe, F., Giegrich, J. & Detzel, A. (2002) Ökobilanz Bioabfallverwertung.
Initiativen zum Umweltschutz, n. 52. Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (eds). Berlin
White, P., Franke, M. & Hindle, P. (1999) Integrated solid waste management. Gaithersburg
Wiemer, K. & Sprick, W. (1996) Die Bedeutung der Eigenkompostierung im Gesamtkonzept der
biologischen Abfallbehandlung. in: Bio- und Restabfallbehandlung III, Wiemer, K. & Kern,
M. (eds), Witzenhausen, pp. 139-159