See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5570922

Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir,

Turkey

Article  in  Waste Management · March 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.12.006 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

133 221

3 authors:

Müfide Banar Zerrin Çokaygil

Eskisehir Technical University Anadolu University
45 PUBLICATIONS   474 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   228 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aysun Özkan
Eskişehir Technical University
39 PUBLICATIONS   443 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Müfide Banar on 23 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options

for Eskisehir, Turkey
Mufide Banar *, Zerrin Cokaygil, Aysun Ozkan
Anadolu University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Environmental Engineering, Iki Eylul Campus, 26555 Eskisehir, Turkey

Accepted 3 December 2007

Available online 15 February 2008

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used to determine the optimum municipal solid waste (MSW) management strategy for
Eskisehir city. Eskisehir is one of the developing cities of Turkey where a total of approximately 750 tons/day of waste is generated. An
effective MSW management system is needed in this city since the generated MSW is dumped in an unregulated dumping site that has no
liner, no biogas capture, etc. Therefore, five different scenarios were developed as alternatives to the current waste management system.
Collection and transportation of waste, a material recovery facility (MRF), recycling, composting, incineration and landfilling processes
were considered in these scenarios. SimaPro7 libraries were used to obtain background data for the life cycle inventory. One ton of muni-
cipal solid waste of Eskisehir was selected as the functional unit. The alternative scenarios were compared through the CML 2000 method
and these comparisons were carried out from the abiotic depletion, global warming, human toxicity, acidification, eutrophication and
photochemical ozone depletion points of view. According to the comparisons and sensitivity analysis, composting scenario, S3, is the
more environmentally preferable alternative.
In this study waste management alternatives were investigated only on an environmental point of view. For that reason, it might be
supported with other decision-making tools that consider the economic and social effects of solid waste management.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction developed for planning of municipal solid waste manage-

Solid waste management is a complex and multidisci-
plinary problem that should be considered from technical,
economic and social aspects on a sustainability basis. For a
healthy environment, both municipal and industrial wastes
should be managed according to the solid waste manage-
ment hierarchy (prevention/minimization/recovery/incin-
eration/landfilling). For this purpose, different techniques
can be used. Studies on modeling of solid waste manage-
ment systems were started in the 1970s and were increased
with the development of computer models in 1980s. While
models in the 1980s were generally based on an economic
perspective (Gottinger, 1988), models that included
recycling and other waste management methods were
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 222 3213550x6400; fax: +90 222
3239501.
E-mail address: mbanar@anadolu.edu.tr (M. Banar).
ment systems in the 1990s (MacDonald, 1996). Models
developed in recent years have taken an integrated solid
waste management approach, and included both economic
and environmental analyses. Models have included linear
programming with Excel-Visual Basic (Abou Najm and
El-Fadel, 2004), Decision Support Systems (Fiorucci
et al., 2003; Haastrup et al., 1998), fuzzy logic (Chang
and Wang, 1997) and Multi Criteria Decision-Making
techniques (Hokkanen and Salminen, 1997).
One important aspect of waste management planning is
to ensure the identification of areas in which specific mea-
sures should be taken to reduce the environmental impacts
of waste management. To demonstrate the performance of
management alternatives in the decision-making process,
authorities, communities, industry and waste management
companies should consider environmental aspects in addi-
tion to the evaluation of technical and economic aspects. It
is accepted that life cycle assessment (LCA) concepts and

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.12.006
 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62 55

techniques provide solid waste planners and decision mak- Table 1

ers with an excellent framework to evaluate MSW manage- Composition of MSW in Eskisehir
ment strategies (Obersteiner et al., 2007). Component Composition (wt.%)
Environmental LCA is a system analysis tool. It was Paper–cardboard 10.07
developed rapidly during the 1990s and has reached a cer- Metala 1.26
tain level of harmonization and standardization. An ISO Glass 2.49
Plastic 5.62
standard has been developed, as well as several guidelines. Food 67.04
LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential Ash 3.87
impacts throughout a ‘product’ life (i.e., cradle-to-grave) Othersb 9.65
from raw material acquisition through production, use Total 100.00
and disposal. This is done by compiling an inventory of rel- Source: Personal communication with submunicipalities.
a
evant inputs and outputs of a system (the inventory analy- It was assumed that all metals are aluminum cans.
b
sis), evaluating the potential impacts of those inputs and This component includes predominantly yard wastes.
outputs (the impact assessment), and interpreting the
results (the interpretation) in relation to the objectives of aluminum, respectively) are sent directly to the reprocess-
the study (defined in the goal and scope definition at the ing facility. The restwaste (97%) is collected from curbside
beginning of a study). collection points and taken to the unregulated dumping
In the definition of LCA, the term ‘product’ includes not site. This unregulated dumping site is an open area where
only product systems but can also include service systems, the recyclable components of the waste are partially sepa-
for example waste management systems. LCA is currently rated (7%) manually under unhygienic conditions and piled
being used in several countries to evaluate treatment up there to recycle. Then, all of the recyclable materials are
options for specific waste fractions (Obersteiner et al., sent to the recycling facilities that are in other cities. The
2007; Buttol et al., 2007; Boer et al., 2007; Winkler and composition of the leachate from the current unregulated
Bilitewski, 2007; Borghi et al., 2007; Finnveden, 1999; dumping site is given in Table 2 (Banar et al., 2006).
Ozeler et al., 2006). Wastes have been dumped in a natural valley as con-
So, in the study presented in this paper, LCA methodol- trolled sustainable MSW management systems are not
ogy was used to analyze and to evaluate different alterna- practiced in this city. Therefore, in this study, five alterna-
tives that can be implemented to enable the targets tive scenarios to the current waste management system in
required by the European Landfill and Packaging and Eskisehir were developed, and these scenarios were evalu-
Packaging Waste Directives for solid waste management ated by the means of LCA. Flowcharts of the scenarios
in the city of Eskisehir, Turkey. The European Landfill are given in Fig. 1a–e.
Directive (1999) and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Scenario 1: This scenario was based on the current waste
Directive (2004) aim to reduce the amount of biodegrad- management system, incorporating some improvements. In
able municipal wastes going to landfill. Therefore in this this scenario, a material recovery facility (MRF) and a
study, SimaPro7 (2006) software has been applied to model landfill were added to the system. The percentages of recy-
the different waste management scenarios. All of the data cling and landfilling are same as for the current waste man-
needed for the life cycle inventory was gathered from the agement system. The recyclable fraction (3%) collected by
literature, the database of the software and the
submunicipalities.
Table 2
2. Description of the scenarios Composition of leachate at Eskisehir dumpsite
Parameters (mg/l leachate)
Because of increasing population and developing indus- Suspended solids 2080
try in Eskisehir, the quantities of municipal and industrial COD 4418
solid waste in the city are rising rapidly. Approximately BOD5 3044
N-org 255
750 tons of MSW is generated daily in Eskisehir. Two pri-
NO3 1361
vate companies are employed by the two submunicipalities Cl 9150
(Tepebasi and Odunpazari) to collect the municipal solid Na+ 132
wastes. Vehicles collect wastes in plastic bags that are dis- K+ 725
carded and piled up on the streets by the residents, and Ca+2 450
SO4 2000
transport the wastes to the unregulated dumping site to
Fe 8.08
dumped there at all hours of the day in an uncontrolled Zn 0.59
manner. Cu 5.63
The composition of the Eskisehir MSW is given in Ni 0.95
Table 1. Recyclables (paper/cardboard, glass and alumi- Cd 0.06
Pb 0.65
num) have been separated by scavengers and these materi-
als (2.04%, 0.71% and 0.25% of paper/cardboard, glass and Source: Banar et al., 2006.
56 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62

a MSW
100 %
Scavengers, 3 %
97 %

Others, mix Paper-cardboard Glass Aluminum

97 % 2.04 % 0.71 % 0.25 %

MRF

Papercardboard Papercardboard
3.40 % 2.04 %

Plastic Glass
2.00 % 0.71 %

Glass Aluminum
1.18 % 0.25 %

Aluminum
0.42 %

Others
90 %

Landfill
Recycling
(in other city)

Landfill
(in other city)

b MSW
100 %
Source separation, 9.72 %
90.28 %

Others, mix Paper-cardboard Glass Aluminum Plastic

90.28 % 5.04 % 1.25 % 0.63 % 2.81 %

MRF

Papercardboard Paper-cardboard
4.53 % 5.04%

Plastic Plastic
2.53% 2.81%

Glass Glass
1.12 % 1.25 %

Aluminum Aluminum
0.57 % 0.63 %

Others
81.53 %

Landfill
Recycling
(in other city)

Landfill
(in other city)

Fig. 1. Flowcharts of the scenarios (after efficiencies). (a) Scenario 1 (S1): 7.5% recycling + 92.5% landfilling. (b) Scenario 2 (S2): 15% recycling + 85%
landfilling. (c) Scenario 3 (S3): 15% recycling + 77% composting + 8% landfilling. (d) Scenario 4 (S4): 15% recycling + 85% incineration and (e) Scenario 5
(S5): 100% incineration. (The percentages represent the proportion of the total municipal solid waste stream.)
 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62 57

c MSW
100 %
Source separation, 9.72 %
90.28 %

Others, mix Paper-cardboard Glass Aluminum Plastic

90.28 % 5.04 % 1.25 % 0.63 % 2.81 %

MRF

Papercardboard Paper-cardboard
4.53 % 5.04%

Plastic Plastic
2.53% 2.81%

Glass Glass
1.12 % 1.25 %

Aluminum Aluminum
0.57 % 0.63 %

Organics
76.69 % Recycling
(in other city)

Others
4.84 %
Landfill
Composting (in other city)

Landfill Residuals

d MSW
100 %
Source separation, 9.72%
90.28 %

Others, mix Paper-cardboard Glass Aluminum Plastic

90.28 % 5.04 % 1.25 % 0.63 % 2.81 %

MRF

Papercardboard Paper-cardboard
4.53 % 5.04%

Plastic Plastic
2.53% 2.81%
e
Glass Glass
1.12 % 1.25 % MSW
Incineration Landfill
(100 %)
(100 %) Residuals
Aluminum Aluminum
0.57 % 0.63 %

Others
81.53 %

Incineration
Recycling
(in other city)
Residuals

Landfill Landfill
(in other city)

Fig. 1 (continued)
58 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62
scavengers is sent to the MRF, which was located on the
landfill site. The rest of the recyclables (4.30%) was sepa-
rated in the MRF. These two parts were processed sepa-
rately since their qualities are different. After separation,
recyclable materials are sent to the recycling facilities
located in other cities. Recycling efficiencies for these mate-
rials are 80% and 70% for the materials brought by scav-
engers and those separated in the MRF, respectively. The
residuals after the recycling process were landfilled in the
city where the recycling was undertaken. The restwaste
(92.70%) was landfilled in Eskisehir.
Scenario 2: In this scenario a source separation system
with efficiency of 50% was added as an improvement to
Scenario 1. The recyclables obtained from source separa-
tion (9.72%) were sent to the MRF, and after processing
they were sent to the recycling facilities in other cities to
recycle, at an efficiency of 92%. The recyclables mixed in
organic waste were also processed and sent to the recycling
facility with an efficiency of 70%. After the recycling pro-
cess, residuals are sent to the landfills.
Scenario 3: This scenario emphasizes the recovery of the
biologically degradable fraction. The flow of the system is
similar to Scenario 2 for recyclable materials, while organic
fraction (77%) from the MRF is transported to the compo-
sting facility. The residue from the MRF is sent to the land-
fill (8.24%).
Scenario 4: An incineration process was added to system
instead of a composting facility. In this case, all organic
wastes and the wastes from the separated recyclables are
transported to the incinerator (85%).
Scenario 5: In this scenario it was considered that all
MSW is sent to the incineration facility (100%).
3. Methodology
The LCA methodology has been used to conduct an
environmental comparison of the alternative scenarios to
the current waste management system. This evaluation
was conducted according to TSE EN ISO 14040 (1996).
According to TSE ISO 14040, an LCA comprises four
Waste source
Transport
MRF
Raw
Materials
Compost Composting Incineration
Energy
Landfilling
Fig. 2. System boundaries.
major stages: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory,
life cycle impact analysis and interpretation of the results.
3.1. Goal and scope definition
The aim of this study is to select an optimum waste man-
agement system for Eskisehir by evaluating, from an envi-
ronmental point of view, alternatives to the existing system.
It is thought that the results of the study would be helpful
for the Metropolitan municipality and submunicipalities of
Eskisehir.
3.1.1. Functional unit
The functional unit selected for the comparison of the
alternative scenarios is the management of 1 ton of munici-
pal solid waste of Eskisehir.
3.1.2. System boundaries
The system of the study starts with collection of MSW
from residential areas and includes waste transport, waste
treatment alternatives (recycling, composting and incinera-
tion) and landfilling of waste. The system was limited at the
landfilling of residual materials after treatment processes.
Life cycle analyses of the secondary materials obtained
from the recycling and composting processes were not con-
sidered. Fig. 2 shows the system boundaries.
3.2. Life cycle inventory
The data for life cycle inventory was gathered from
actual applications in Eskisehir, literature and the database
of the SimaPro7. The database of the software was
adjusted to the conditions in Turkey. The DQI (Data Qual-
ity Indicators) option of the software was used to select the
most suitable system for data quality indicators such as
time, geography, technology and representativeness.
3.2.1. Collection and transport
There are two submunicipalities in Eskisehir; Tepebasi
and Odunpazari. Tepebasi and Odunpazari were divided
Transport
Atmospheric
emissions
Recycling facility / facilities
Waterborme
Transport emissions
Solid emissions
Energy
Residuals
Energy
 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62 59

into 26 and 25 districts, respectively, according to the data 96 (2004) data for Turkey in collaboration with these
gathered from these submunicipalities. Half of the MSW in ratios. This average data was also used to calculate the
Odunpazari is collected on even days and the other part is emissions saved by energy displaced by energy from waste,
collected on single days of the week; the district where the i.e. landfill gas and incineration.
waste generation is high is collected every night. The MSW
is collected every day in Tepebasi. 3.2.3. Recycling and material recovery facility (MRF)
In this study, new infrastructure was considered to be Mixed recyclables and separated recyclables (depending
located at the same site to take advantage of economic on the scenario) were sent to a MRF. Electricity consump-
and environmental cost savings; therefore, it was assumed tion of the MRF for sorting equipment and compressing
that the MRF, compost facility, incinerator and landfill bales was 0.059 kW h/ton (Bovea and Powell, 2006).
were at the same site, which would decrease the environ- It was considered that processes before recycling were
mental and economic effects of transport. carried out in three ways scavengers, source separation
Private recycling facilities licensed by the Turkey Min- and MRF. Recycling data was obtained from the Buwal
istry of Environment and Forestry were investigated, and 250 library of the SimaPro7. Also, different efficiencies that
the closest recycling facilities were selected since there are were used for different collection types are given as
no facilities of this type in Eskisehir. The recycling facil-
ities in Ankara city (233 km) were selected for paper,  Source separation of recyclables: 50%.
plastic and aluminum recycling, while Kocaeli city  Separation of recyclables from mixed waste: 70%.
(219 km) was selected for glass recycling. The calculated  Recycling of recyclables after source separation: 92%.
total recycling rates and transport distances are given in  Recycling of recyclables collected by scavengers: 80%.
Table 3.  Recycling of recyclables after separation of recyclables
from mixed waste: 70%.
3.2.2. Electrical energy
The source ratios used in electric generation in Turkey
are given in the Table 4, according to the 2006 program 3.2.4. Composting
of TEIAS (The Transmission System Operator of Turkey). A chemical formula (C333H528O195N16PS) for composta-
A medium voltage mixed electricity profile of the city has ble waste (that includes food and yard waste) based on the
been created by using Buwal 250 (2004) and ETH-ESU Eskisehir MSW composition was formed by using elemen-
tal analysis (C, H, O, N, S, P) results taken from Tchoba-
noglous et al. (1993). Furthermore, N and P values for
Table 3 the compost produce were calculated by using this chemical
Total recycling rates and transport distances for the scenarios formula (28.2 kg N/ton waste; 3.9 kg P/ton waste). The
Collection (km/ Transport for recycling organic material obtained from the composting process is
ton MSW) Total recycling Transport used as a fertilizer. The avoided material is a chemical fer-
rates (%) distance (km) tilizer containing an equivalent amount of nutrients (N and
Scenario 1 4.11 Paper– 5.44 233 P). Also, CO2 and NH3 emissions after composting were
cardboard calculated by using the same chemical formula (1.85 ton
Plastic 2.00 233 CO2/ton waste; 0.37 ton NH3/ton waste).
Glass 1.89 219
Aluminum 0.67 233
The life cycle inventory data for the chemical N and P
Scenarios 4.11 Paper– 10.07 233 fertilizer avoided is obtained from the IDEMAT 2001
2/3/4 cardboard library of the SimaPro7. According to Bovea and Powell
Plastic 5.62 233 (2006), the energy consumption during the composting
Glass 2.49 219 process is due to electricity demand (54.4 MJ/ton of input
Aluminum 1.26 233
Scenario5 4.11 –
to the composting process) and the consumption of diesel
in the wheel loader, mills and strainers (555.5 MJ/ton of
Return of the collection vehicle from the waste area was not considered.
input to the composting process).

3.2.5. Incineration
Table 4
Electrical energy sources and their contributions in Turkey The incineration process was considered in scenarios 4
and 5. Scenario 5 does not have a recycling process. The
Energy sources Contribution of energy sources (%)
Buwal 250 library for the 2000 data was used for incinera-
Fuel-oil 2.9
tion of plastic, glass, paper and aluminum. Buwal 250
Coal 7.6
Lignite 21.8 (2000) data reflects the future technology, and the inciner-
Natural gas 44.7 ator of the year 2000 has a more advanced flue gas treat-
Hydraulic energy 23.0 ment and mainly catalytic deNOx treatment. It was
Total 100.0 determined that the incinerator of the year 2000 supplies
Source: calculated from 2006 program of TEIAS. the requirements of 2007.
60 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62

Atmospheric emissions from the incineration of organic
waste were calculated by using the chemical formula
(C333H528O195N16PS) of the organic fraction of MSW.
3.2.6. Landfilling
Landfill processes for the scenarios were performed by
using the Buwal 250 library of the SimaPro7. In these land-
fill processes, production of biogas is at 200 m3/ton wastes
(47% methane, 37% carbon dioxide, 13% nitrogen); 47% is
directly emitted into the air and 53% is combusted. Energy
production from biogas combustion is regarded as a co-
product without emissions. The use of methane produced
by the landfill is 31% of the total gas production for pro-
duction of electricity and heat. The final efficiency is only
11% of the total energy content of the gas produced. The
energy production is deducted in the energy use of the total
system and is product specific allocated, depending on the
degradability of the materials.
3.3. Life cycle impact assessment
In this study, six impact categories included by the
CML 2000 method (CML 2 baseline 2000 method is
an update from the CML 1992 method) were investi-
gated: abiotic depletion, global warming, human toxicity,
acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical oxida-
tion. Characteristics of the impact categories are dis-
cussed below.
3.3.1. Depletion of abiotic resources
This impact category indicator is related to extraction of
minerals and fossil fuels due to inputs in the system. The
Abiotic Depletion Factor (ADF) is determined for each
extraction of minerals and fossil fuels (kg antimony equiv-
alents/kg extraction) based on concentration of reserves
and rate of deaccumulation (Goedkoop et al., 2004).
of 100 years (GWP100), in kg carbon dioxide/kg emission
(Goedkoop et al., 2004).
3.3.3. Human toxicity
Characterization factors, expressed as Human Toxicity
Potentials (HTP), are calculated with USES-LCA, describ-
ing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances for an infi-
nite time horizon. For each toxic substance, HTPs are
expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/kg emission
(Goedkoop et al., 2004).
3.3.4. Acidification
The major acidifying pollutants are SO2, NOx, HCl and
NH3. What acidifying pollutants have in common is that
they form acidifying H+ ions. A pollutant’s potential for
acidification can thus be measured by its capacity to form
H+ ions. The acidification potential is defined as the num-
ber of H+ ions produced per kg substance relative to SO2
(Bauman and Tillman, 2004).
3.3.5. Eutrophication
Eutrophication is a phenomenon that can influence ter-
restrial as well as aquatic ecosystems. Nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) are the two nutrients most implicated in
eutrophication. Eutrophication potentials are often
expressed as PO4 3 equivalents (Bauman and Tillman,
2004).
3.3.6. Photochemical oxidation
This impact indicator defines substances with the poten-
tial to contribute to photochemical ozone formation as vol-
atile organic compounds (VOCs), which contain hydrogen
(not fully substituted) and/or double bond (s) (unsatu-
rated). The impact potentials are expressed as an equiva-
lent emission of the reference substance ethylene, C2H4
(Hauschild and Wenzel, 1998).

3.3.2. Climate change 4. Results

The characterization model as developed by the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is selected The results of the characterization analysis per func-
for development of characterization factors. Factors are tional unit (1 ton of MSW managed) for each impact cate-
expressed as Global Warming Potential for time horizon gory for each scenario are reported in Table 5. As shown in

Table 5
Characterization results
Scenarios S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Abiotic depletion 0.437 1.11 1.08 1.15 0.16
(kg Sb eq/ton waste managed)
Global warming (GWP100) 6990 6950 1360 1370 1510
(kg CO2 eq/ton waste managed)
Human toxicity 135 271 269 182 91.9
(kg 1.4 DB eq/ton waste managed)
Acidification 43.6 42.6 41.4 36.7 38.3
(kg SO2 eq/ton waste managed)
Eutrophication 37.9 37.8 9.13 9.89 9.98
(kg PO4 3 eq/ton waste managed)
Photochemical oxidation 1.63 1.57 0.0857 2.06 2.14
(kg C2H4/ton waste managed)
 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62
1000
100
10
1
EI99
Fig. 3. Results of sensitivity analyses using three LCIA methods.
the table, the investigated results for each impact category
are as follows:
Abiotic depletion: S5 is higher than the other scenarios;
S2, S3 and S4 are lower due to avoided raw material usage
through the recycling process.
Global warming: Methane is the most important impact
for landfill scenarios (S1 and S2). The global warming effect
for S4 and S5 mostly results from CO2. S3 is the best sce-
nario for this impact category.
Human toxicity: S5 has the highest human toxicity effect
due to nitrogen oxide, with a contribution of 100%. The
scenarios that include recycling (S2, S3 and S4) are better
than the others; when the background of the software
was investigated, it was seen that the avoided human toxic-
ity effect resulted from the recycling of aluminum.
Acidification: All of the scenarios except S3 show approx-
imately same trend for acidification from ammonia and
nitrogen dioxide in the air. S3 is the best scenario for this
impact category because of the displacement with fertilizer.
Eutrophication: The contribution to eutrophication
effect for S1 and S2 is shared by chemical oxygen demand
(COD) and ammonia at the rates of 74% and 25%, respec-
tively. Nitrogen dioxide is the dominant substance for the
eutrophication effect of S4 and S5. S3 has the lowest value
for this impact category due mostly to ammonia in the air.
Photochemical ozone depletion: S3 is the best scenario
in this impact category. Photochemical ozone depletion
effect for S1 and S2 results from methane. S4 and S5 have
higher values than S1 and S2 because of NO2 emissions.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In compliance with ISO 14042, a sensitivity analysis was
performed and three different impact assessment methods
(EcoIndicator’95, EcoIndicator’99 and EPS’00) were
applied to analyze their influence on the results. Results
are presented as points (Pt) on a logarithmic scale (see
Fig. 3). According to this figure, the order of alternative
scenarios from better to worse from the environmental
point of view is as follows:
 EcoIndicator’99: S3, S2, S1, S4, S5;
 EcoIndicator’95: S3, S4, S5, S2, S1;
 EPS’00: S3, S4, S5, S2, S1.
61
EPS EI95
These orders show that the composting scenario, S3, is
the more environmentally preferable. EPS’00 and EI’95
show the same order, while EI’99 has other results for
S1, S2 and for S4, S5.
In this study, waste management alternatives were inves-
tigated from only an environmental point of view. For that
reason, it might be supported with other decision-making
tools that consider the economic and social effects of solid
waste management.
References
Abou Najm, M., El-Fadel, M., 2004. Computer-based interface for an
integrated solid waste optimization model. Environmental Modelling
and Software 19, 1151–1164.
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2006. Alternative scenarios to meet the
demands of sustainable waste management. Journal of Environmental
Management 79, 115–132.
Banar, M., Ozkan, A., Kurkcuoglu, M., 2006. Characterization of the
leachate in an urban landfill by physicochemical analysis and solid
phase microextraction-GC/MS. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 121, 439–459.
Bauman, H., Tillman, A., 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA.
Studentlitteratur AB, Sweden.
Boer, J., Boer, E., Jager, J., 2007. LCA-IWM: A decision support tool for
sustainability assessment of waste management systems. Waste Man-
agement 27, 1032–1045.
Borghi, A., Binaghi, L., Borghi, M.G.M., 2007. The application of the
environmental product declaration to waste disposal in a sanitary
landfill. International Journal of LCA 12 (1), 40–49.
Buttol, P., Masoni, P., Bonoli, A., Goldoni, S., Belladonna, V., Cavazzuti,
C., 2007. LCA of integrated MSW management systems: case study of
the Bologna district. Waste Management 27, 1059–1070.
Chang, N., Wang, S.F., 1997. A fuzzy goal programming approach for the
optimal planning of metropolitan solid waste management systems.
European Journal of Operational Research 99, 303–321.
European Union. 1999. 99/31/EC: European Landfill Directive.
European Union. 2004. 2004/12/EC: European Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive.
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of
integrated solid waste management systems. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 26, 173–177.
Fiorucci, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Sacile, R., 2003. Solid waste
management in urban areas development and application of a
decision support system. Resources Conservation and Recycling
37, 301–328.
Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., Effting, S., 2004. SimaPro Database Manual
Methods library. PRé Consultants, Netherlands.
Gottinger, H.W., 1988. A computational model for solid waste manage-
ment with application. European Journal of Operational Research 35,
350–364.
62 M. Banar et al. / Waste Management 29 (2009) 54–62
Haastrup, P., Maniezzo, V., Mattarelli, M., Mazzeo Rinaldi, F., Mendes, I.,
Parruccini, M., 1998. A decision support system for urban waste
management. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 330–341.
Hauschild, M., Wenzel, H., 1998. Environmental Assessment of Products.
Scientific background, vol. 2. Chapman & Hall, UK.
Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., 1997. Choosing a solid waste management
system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of
Operational Research 98, 19–36.
MacDonald, M., 1996. Solid waste management models: a state of the art
review. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 23 (2), 73–83.
Obersteiner, G., Binner, E., Mostbauer, P., Salhofer, S., 2007. Land ll
modelling in LCA – a contribution based on empirical data. Waste
Management 27, S58–S74.
View publication stats
Ozeler, D., Yetis, U., Demirer, G.N., 2006. Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study.
Environment International 32, 405–411.
Personal communication with CEVKO-Turkish Authorized Recovery
Organization.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S.A., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste
Management. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Turkish Standards Institution (TSE), 1996. TSE EN ISO 14040: environ-
mental management: life cycle assessment: principles and guidelines
(Turkish Standard).
Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2007. Comparative evaluation of life cycle
assessment models for solid waste management. Waste Management
27, 1021–1031.