Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Assessing the environmental impact of waste management: A comparative

study of CO2 emissions with a focus on recycling and incineration
Marion Christine Unegg a, *, Karl W. Steininger b, Christian Ramsauer a, Mariana Rivera-Aguilar b
a
Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 11/3, 8010, Graz, Austria
b
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, Brandhofgasse 5, 8010, Graz, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Maria Teresa Moreira In waste management, the assessment of CO2 emissions offers the possibility to evaluate and compare the
environmental impact of different waste treatment processes. Here, we compare the performance of waste
Keywords: incineration with alternative thermal treatment scenarios and recycling scenarios to the primary production of
Waste management materials to analyze the respective CO2 emissions. The aim is to determine whether thermal and material
CO2 emissions
recycling of waste results in (net) CO2 surpluses or reductions, thus, showing whether it makes sense for climate
Thermal recovery
ambitions to recover waste, thermally or materially. A case study of an internationally active waste management
Material recovery
Emission reduction company in Austria is analyzed, conducting a life cycle assessment of its thermal and material waste recycling.
On thermal waste treatment the core of the analysis is the comparison with primary energy sources. Using waste
as an energy source, especially in cement plants and the paper industry, has proven to be an effective technology
for reducing CO2 emissions. We also find current practices in material recycling to be of lower CO2 emissions
than alternative primary material supply. Scaling results to the national level we find that for the case of Austria
current waste management practices have the potential to save an equivalent of 2.6% of Austria’s total CO2
emissions (all sectors) for thermal fractions and an equivalent of 1% for material recycling.

1. Introduction either be materially processed and recycled or safely disposed of in

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its
first Assessment Report, that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions occur in
the waste management sector and thus identified a potential for a pos­
itive contribution of the sector to greenhouse gas emission mitigation
(IPCC, 1990).
A reduction of CO2 emissions in waste management is achievable
either by thermal or material treatment processes. Thermal treatment is
the process of using waste as a substitute for fossil fuels. By converting
waste into refuse-derived-fuel (RDF), higher efficiencies and CO2 emis­
sion reductions can be achieved. In principle, waste incineration works
under a strong heat emission. Through this, organic materials are
transformed into carbon dioxide, CO2, and water vapor by means of
oxidation of oxygen and are thus released through the chimney of the
respective plant. Waste incineration in some regions of the world is
usually performed just as a means of waste disposal without heat re­
covery. This leaves a substantial potential unused, as from the inciner­
ation electricity and heat can be generated, as common already e.g. in
most of Europe. If solid residues remain after incineration, they can
landfills (Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, BMLUF, 2009). The substitution for other (fossil)
fuels can reduce system CO2 emissions, but success in this depends on
the quantitatively available alternatives it is evaluated against. Another
option in waste management is material recycling, and preparing waste
streams for this purpose. Waste should be materially processed accord­
ing to expediency, ecological objectives and best technical possibility. It
is important that the raw materials obtained from waste do not pose a
higher risk than a comparable primary raw material (Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, BMLUF,
2009). This will reduce CO2 emissions in primary material supply, with a
net effect subject to evaluation.
Some authors have found thermal treatments for energy recovery to
be the best performing methods to reduce the environmental impact of
waste management (Herva and Roca, 2013; Cheela et al., 2021; Wang
and Nakakubo, 2020; Rajaeifar et al., 2017). Istrate et al. (2020) high­
light uncertainty regarding the impact of incineration on human health
and other authors bring attention to the upstream fossil energy con­
sumption which increases the carbon footprint of thermal treatment

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marion.unegg@tugraz.at (M.C. Unegg).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137745
Received 9 December 2022; Received in revised form 22 May 2023; Accepted 6 June 2023
Available online 13 June 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.C. Unegg et al.
processes (Shadbahr et al., 2022; Pérez et al., 2018). Contrastingly,
Chew et al. (2022) conclude that material treatments would have the
lowest carbon footprint in Malaysia. Finally, a number of authors indi­
cate that an integrated approach combining both thermal and material
treatments could lead to the highest reduction potential (Pérez et al.,
2018; Michel Devadoss et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020).
Studies aiming to estimate the environmental impact of waste
management do so at a country level (Chew et al., 2022; Magazzino
et al., 2020; Malinauskaite et al., 2017; Michel Devadoss et al., 2021;
Mühle et al., 2010; Rajaeifar et al., 2017; Shang et al., 2021; Wang and
Nakakubo, 2020), city level (Cheela et al., 2021; Herva and Roca, 2013;
Khan et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Pérez et al., 2018; Shadbahr et al.,
2022; Wang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2015) or global level (Kumar and
Samadder, 2017). The present research contributes to the body of
literature by providing a new analytical perspective at a company level
in the specific context of Austria. The cooperation with a waste man­
agement company facilitated access to first-hand material-flow and
energy demand data, which allow for more accurate calculations and
could be useful in setting a benchmark for improved industry standards.
The aim of the analysis is to determine whether thermal and material
recycling of waste results in (net) CO2 surpluses or reductions, and thus
to show whether it makes sense at all for climate ambitions to recover
waste, thermally or materially.
To quantify both potentials, data on thermal and material waste
treatment was collected from an international waste management en­
terprise and analyzed to identify the overall potential for CO2 emissions
reduction of waste management. The waste management industry in
Europe today is a highly regulated and relatively advanced sector, which
in recent years has experienced the rise of recycling and Waste-to-
Energy technologies (Malinauskaite et al., 2017; Rajaeifar et al., 2017).
The preferred waste treatment method, if waste cannot be prevented,
should be reuse or recycling. If material recovery of the waste stream is
not possible, it should either be thermally recovered or – only as the very
last option – be disposed (European Commission, 2022). Based on the
circular economy package of the European Union, the criteria waste
avoidance, reuse and recycling should be encouraged (European Com­
mission, 2015). In waste management, the diversity of recycling possi­
bilities and the differences in input materials result in the composition of
different waste fractions.
In the analysis of this paper CO2 emissions from material and thermal
utilization are quantified and compared to the primary production of the
different waste fractions and primary energy sources. The results illus­
trate whether there is a potential of waste treatment for anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emission reduction, and if so, of which magnitude.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives an overview about
the CO2 emission calculations for thermal and material waste recovery.
Section 3 reports the CO2 emission effects from the use of waste as a
substitute fuel and from material recovery. Section 4 discusses the re­
sults, while Section 5 concludes.
2. CO2 emissions of thermal and material waste recovery
To quantify CO2 emissions from different waste treatment and use
options, the activities of an internationally active waste management
company were scrutinized. The company is a medium-sized enterprise
with operational plants in various countries. Their core business area is
in Austria and Central Europe.
The calculations were carried out on the basis of Life Cycle Assess­
ment (LCA). The system boundary was set across all thermal and ma­
terial recycling plants of the company within Austria. The waste stream
(see Fig. 1) was taken into consideration from the moment of the
collection within Austria and from the moment when it entered the plant
for imported waste streams (i.e. crossed the plant gate). From there, the
collection and transport of the waste to the respective treatment and
recycling plant as well as its treatment within the (respective further)
plant were measured. Data on the quantity flows of this company, both
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745
in the thermal and in the material area of waste recycling, allowed a CO2
emission analysis.
2.1. Method for calculating the emission effects of thermal recovery
processes
Materials suitable for thermal recovery, which were used for the CO2
emission calculations, are described in Table 1.
The respective material inputs for the individual recycling methods
were chosen as the starting points for the calculations. These material
inputs were assigned an input quantity in tons per year (t/year). Based
on Denner and Kügler (2006),1 the material inputs were assigned a
gigajoule value. CO2 emissions caused by the material input can be
derived when employing an emission factor, in tons of CO2 per gigajoule
(tCO2/GJ) and again depending on the type of the input waste stream.
The emission factors (EF) were taken from Denner and Kügler (2006)
and Schwarzböck et al. (2016: 415–427). More details to the emission
factors can be found in the Appendix, Section 1. The structure of the
thermal recovery method is the same for all three thermal procedures,
refuse-derived-fuel plants (RDF) waste incineration plants (WIP) and
fluidized bed plants (FBP). The CO2 emissions from the material input
thus are given by
[ ]
t CO2
CO2 material[t] = GJfactor total [GJ] ∗ EF (1)
GJ
The CO2 amount per ton material input equals the given conversion
factor (GJfactor) times the emission factor (EF) in tons of CO2 per GJ.
Here a distinction is made between fossil and biogenic CO2 emis­
sions. Most material streams cause both types of CO2 emissions. The
waste fractions with carbon of biogenic origin are to be evaluated as
climate-neutral (Mauschitz, 2009; Hoffmann et al., 2011; Schwarzböck
et al., 2016). In a study on the serious discrepancies between science and
politics on forest bioenergy, the question was raised whether biogenic
fractions, especially of materials that can be combined with wood, can
be considered climate-neutral (Norton et al., 2019). This study by Nor­
ton et al., 2019 could have an effect on the quantification of CO2
emissions of the recycling of waste paper. This approach suggests that
biomass from wood can only be considered renewable in the very long
term, as the CO2 offset can only be balanced back to zero through a
long-term growth buffer (Norton et al., 2019). For other material and
thermally recycled material flows, the issue described by Notron et al.,
2019 plays a relatively minor role. This is because these are already
waste materials and not, as described in Norton et al., products such as
pellets that are considered to be climate neutral. When waste is incin­
erated, flue gases are produced with an average of about 10 vol percent
CO2 in the air, which can again be seen as harmful to the climate and
thus underlines the relevance of sustainable waste management with a
long-term CO2 emission reduction (Treder, 2010). This distinction is also
applied in the calculation of CO2 emissions of thermal recovery. In order
to be able to classify the previously calculated CO2 emissions of the
waste input streams into their fossil and biogenic fractions, the list of
operator data and literature references on carbon contents and biogenic
fractions of substitute fuels of the Austrian Water and Waste Management
Association, 2004 2 was used.
The fossil and the biogenic CO2 emission share is given by the
following equation.
CO2X [t] = CO2 material [t] ∗ X share[constant]
(2)
X = fossil or biogenic
1
We refer to this original source as all more recent studies consistently use
these emission and energy factors, referring to Denner and Kügler (2006).
2
The more recent studies have been found to use this source as well, there­
fore citing here the original source. However, there is a lack of studies over the
last decade, indicating a research gap in studies of the operation of EBS plants.
M.C. Unegg et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745

Fig. 1. Illustration of the system boundary.

biogenic fractions and the above.

Table 1 [ ]
Types of waste for incineration (analysis based on Federal Ministry Republic of t
CO2 cc = CO2 fossil + CO2 biogenic + CO2 col. + CO2 tra. + CO2 proc. (4)
Austria Agriculture, Regions and Tourism, 2015). year
Plant Material Flow

Incinerators Waste oil & transformer oils

2.1.1. Scenarios for comprehensive net-emission comparison
Inert material The following scenarios have been developed for thermal recovery: a
Sewage sludge anaerobic and aerobic main scenario of current waste recycling flows and two types of alter­
Solvent-water mixture halogen-free native scenarios to compare to, A and B.
Non-hazardous medical waste
The main scenario quantifies the emission effects of the thermal re­
Municipal waste
Municipal waste-like commercial waste covery processes, based on data retrieved for all plants of the case study
European waste management company for the base year 2018. This
Cement plants using substitute Waste oil for thermal utilization main scenario covers the total CO2 emissions, composed of the following
fuels Scrap tire chips fractions: refuse-derived-fuel plants, waste incineration (WIP) and flu­
Recycled plastics
Contaminated sawdust
idized bed plants (FBP). RDF plants mostly supply energy to cement
High-calorific quality-assured substitute fuel plants, while the fluidized bed plants are mostly used in paper mills
produced (Mauschitz, 2018).
The thermal energy is generated by the direct incineration of the
Paper mills with fluidized bed Impregnated wood (RDF-hazardous waste)
respective waste input. In the comparison scenarios, the cement plant is
plants Light fraction residues packaging collection
Municipal waste – residues from waste paper not supplied with alternative fuels (processed from waste) but with hard
processing coal. In the paper industry the fluidized bed furnaces are fired with
Municipal waste – residues from mechanical natural gas. Since the use of waste inputs for thermal processes is of
treatment higher energy efficiency than that from fossil fuels, in order to achieve a
Municipal waste-like commercial waste
thoroughly adequate analysis some energy that is supplied in current
waste stream use (i.e. in the main scenario), but no longer is when fossil
resources of the same energy content are used, needs to be generated by
with the fossil share representing the fossil CO2 share assigned to the another technology, and we assume a district heating gas plant is
individual material flow groups, taken from Austrian Water and Waste employed for this purpose. The delta in the energy supply of the two
Management Association (2004). The numerical value of the fossil CO2 cases in terms of total thermal useful energy is 558 GWh (see Fig. 2).
fraction is a constant number between 0 and 1. To assess the net effect on CO2 emissions arising from the thermal
In order to obtain the comprehensive CO2 emissions, three further recovery process, the following scenarios for comparison are introduced.
activities need to be considered: the collection, the transport and the In scenario A CO2 emissions are determined which would arise from the
processing of the waste for the thermal recycling. equivalent use of energy from fossil fuels. In this scenario A, every
To be able to calculate the CO2 emissions resulting from collection current purchaser of RDF (RDF plants, fluidized bed plants) would then
and transport, emission-factors from Pomberger (2008) were used. The have to switch to other energy sources to generate the required heat or
processing emission factor is composed of the CO2 emissions from the electricity. Scenario A shows in a first step just the CO2 emissions
respective processes at the plant (energy consumption). Electricity implication that results directly by RDF plants and fluidized bed plants
consumption in the company under consideration is measured annually having to switch to fossil alternatives.
at each plant site. These consumptions were converted into a treatment Scenario B is more comprehensive. It not only allows a comparison
factor in kilograms CO2 per ton (Federal Environment Agency Austria, with the equivalent energy input from selected fossil primary energy
2017). sources that would be required to substitute for the treated waste, but
CO2 emissions in the waste collection/transport/processing per ton also takes into consideration that the thermal waste fraction would then
of input thus are given by: be available for other uses, and – given that landfilling is forbidden –
[ ] would need to be employed elsewhere. It is assumed that all is going into
tCO2
CO2 ccol./tran./proc. [t] = emission factorcol./tran./proc. ∗ quentity[t] (3) the waste incineration, thus substituting for fossil inputs in thermal
t input
power plants producing electricity and/or heat. In this scenario B, in
With the CO2 emissions of collection, transport or processing (CO2 addition fewer fossil inputs are used in thermal power plants, since the
col. / tran. / proc.)
included, the relevant emissions can be stated. The waste entire waste stream is now channeled to waste incineration plants (WIP),
collection emissions arise during the gathering of the individual bins on representing the comprehensive alternative scenario for use of treated
the trucks, the transport of the waste in the trucks to the plants and its waste in RDF plants and in fluidized bed plants. The latter allows the net
processing out of the trucks on to the plant. CO2 emission effect to be calculated for the alternative sole thermal
Finally, the total CO2 emissions (CO2 CC) are the sum of the fossil and recovery of waste. Moreover, in scenario B it is assumed that the entire

3
M.C. Unegg et al.
Fig. 2. Main scenario (thermal waste treatment) with the energy delta in useful
energy for scenario comparison, which is covered by a district heating gas plant;
GWh data from the case study.
waste stream generated is thermally degraded directly in a waste
incineration plant without any treatment. This incineration process
again generates thermal energy, substituting for processes based on
fossil energy. Scenario B is a direct way to compare the net CO2 emission
effect of current waste treatment (main scenario) versus the alternative
of sole thermal waste treatment in waste incineration (see Figs. 2 and 3).
[ t ]
Quentityfossil [t] = TRFvalue total thermal [GJ] ∗ GJemission factor
GJ
2.1.1.1. Scenario family A: fossil energy sources. The scenario family A
has the aim of showing how much fossil energy would be required if
there were no thermal processing and recycling of waste.
There are two variants, A1 and A2, differing in the emission factors
used. While in scenario A1 the emission factors of processing, transport
and collection were each specially weighted and included in the calcu­
lation, in scenario A2 a total emission value of Fritsche and Rausch
(2008: 3,12,20) was used. The advantage of the scenario A1 is the
possibility of individually including the transport factor. This allows a
closer look at the CO2 emissions generated in this area. However, the
emission value for the fossil energy carrier natural gas is not precisely
evident from the sources specified for comparison scenario A1. Since
natural gas is needed for the analysis in the comprehensive scenario B in
the cement plant case, scenario A2 was created, in which the results
from Fritsche and Rausch (2008: 3,12,20) were used, including gas but
lacking the disaggregated transport emissions.
The calculation method for scenarios A1 and A2 is based on the fossil
input material, while that for thermal utilization takes a different track.
Important sources in the area of emission factors for comparative sce­
nario A1 are the Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism (2017),
Drosihn et al. (2017) and Nagl et al. (2004). For comparative scenario
A2, Fritsche and Rausch in particular (2008: 3,12,20) are relevant for
determining the emission factors of the fossil fuels for further
calculations.
Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745
Fig. 3. Energy volumes for scenario family B, Fossil fuel use instead of RDF (in
GWh), with waste of the plants from the case study going solely to waste
(5)
incineration plants (WIP) substituting for their fossil inputs.
In order to obtain a starting point for the scenarios A1 and A2 cal­
culations, the total energy generated for the respective thermal utiliza­
tion category has been assigned to the respective fossil material input.
The GJ/t value from Mauschitz (2018) was used to determine the
quantity of fossil fuels required per year instead of waste. This is
calculated as follows:
CO2 savings or excess [t] = CO2 main scenario [t] − CO2 scenario B [t] (6)
The quantity of the respective fossil fuel in tons per year corresponds
to the total energy value of the respective thermal recovery form (TRF)
in gigajoules multiplied by the value in tons per gigajoule determined
from the literature by Mauschitz (2018).
2.1.1.2. Scenario B: waste incineration of the entire thermal waste
fraction. The approach for the calculation of scenario B is based on the
same one taken for the thermal recovery processes. The only difference
is that in the former calculation of scenarios A1 and A2 the total waste
quantities were treated as different fractions of the waste incineration
processes (RDF and input for fluidized bed plants). For scenario B the
distinction was no longer made between RDF treatment and the fraction
for fluidized bed plants, as this scenario assumes that waste is no longer
treated in this manner. In this case cement plants and paper mills use
primary (fossil) energy sources only. Adjustments were made in the
4
M.C. Unegg et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745

areas of efficiency and the heating value factor. This is necessary
because substitute fuel processing achieves much higher efficiencies
leading to a higher waste incineration rate. This also applies to the
calorific value of the separate input materials. By processing the waste
fractions, high, medium and low-calorific RDFs can be produced.
Thus, a higher calorific value can be achieved through this treat­
ment. Without this treatment, the calorific value factor was adjusted
accordingly for scenario B.
The net CO2 saving (or, if negative, CO2 excess) results from the
subtraction of the main scenario emission from total CO2 emissions of
scenario B.
recycling but also to obtain information about the CO2 savings or
excesses.
Calculation of the CO2 savings (if negative excess) in tons per year
[ ]
[ ] quentity
kgCO2
t material flow [t] ∗ EMFsavings t waste input
CO2 material total = (8)
year 1000
The CO2 savings (if negative excess) of material recovery in tons per
year correspond to the waste quantity depending upon material flow
type in tons per year multiplied by the he CO2-savings factor in kilogram
per ton waste input (and adjusting to achieve the result in tons).

3. CO2 emission effects from the use of waste as a substitute fuel

2.2. Method for calculating the emission effects of material recovery
processes
The individual waste streams were also allocated to material flow
groups. Each material flow group was divided into further waste flows.
This subdivision was chosen because there are different waste materials
in each higher-level material flow group. The respective waste stream
inputs were assigned to quantities in tons per year.
Initially, in the case of material recovery, it is possible to evaluate the
data directly using the units of mass (ton or kilogram). In addition,
material recycling plants have no energy extraction and therefore no
efficiencies need to be considered in the calculations. The CO2 emission
values and the CO2 savings values in the literature already include the
electricity consumption of the processing, the transport routes of an
average truck during collection and the transport of the waste between
the processing plants. The main sources of CO2emission values from
recycling are Eriksson et al. (2010), Frauenhofer Umsicht (2008) and the
Federal Environment Agency of Austria (2010).
Calculation of CO2 emissions in tons per year
[ ]
t quentitymaterial flow [t] ∗ EMFmaterial flow kgCO
and material recovery
3.1. Thermal processes
The analysis of CO2 emission-effects is subdivided into thermal and
material recovery, as shown in Fig. 4.
The emissions at the treatment sites are taken into account up to the
point of recycling or incineration. The CO2 emissions were calculated for
the materials used and the upstream manufacturing processes. In the
case of the energy used the primary and direct emissions were
considered.
3.1.1. Thermal CO2 emission effects
Each of the thermal recycling methods is considered separately and
emissions are produced in relation to the respective fraction of the input
quantity. To determine the total CO2 emissions from thermal recovery,
all specific CO2 emissions necessary for the thermal energy extraction
are calculated for the total input streams quantities. Thus, not only an
overview of the total CO2 emissions but also their origins in the
[ ] respective thermal utilization processes are given.
t
2

CO2 material total =

year 1000
∗ wasteinput[per year] (7) Table 2
Thermal CO2 emissions coefficients for the main scenario and its respective
The total CO2 emissions of the material recovery process in tons per waste fractions treated in waste incineration plants, refuse derived fuel (RDF)
year are equal to the waste quantity depending upon kind of material plants or fluidized bed plants, and splitting plants.
flow in tons per year multiplied by the individual CO2 emission factor Thermal CO2-emission tCO2/ton input waste stream tCO2/GWh
(EMF) in kilograms per ton waste input and divided by the factor 1000 to
Waste incineration plants 0.38 503
convert the value in tons per year. RDF plants 0.66 117
In the next step the CO2 emissions arising from the primary pro­ RDF for fluidized bed plants 0.62 496
duction of the respective material per year are calculated, in order to be Splitting plants 025 238
able to represent not only the total CO2 emissions from material

Fig. 4. Breakdown of recovery methods.

5
M.C. Unegg et al.
The CO2 emissions caused in the case of waste incineration corre­
spond to a quantity of 0.38 tons of CO2 per ton of input waste stream (see
Table 2). Scenarios A1 and A2 were drawn up for the waste incineration
plant case, in order to obtain a comparative value of how much energy
from fossil fuels would have to be used to provide the same quantity of
thermal energy.
3.1.1.1. Utilization of refuse-derived fuel plants with integration of scenario
A1 and A2. A quantity of 0.66 tons of CO2 per ton of input waste stream
is produced for the waste treatment in RDF plants (see Table 2). The
factor tons of CO2 per GWh, is considered for the fossil fuels in all
thermal utilization processes, depending on the input (hard coal, lignite,
etc.). Tables 3 and 4 show the CO2 emissions of the fossil fuels. The
absolute emission levels were calculated based on the thermal energy
from the main scenario. The respective fossil fuel input quantity was
calculated from the energy use.
The comparative scenarios A1 and A2 were used. In this case, the
CO2 savings from the use of substitute fuels become apparent. In prac­
tice, RDF is delivered from the processing plant to the cement plant. By
using processed waste as a substitute fuel, the fossil energy sources
found in nature can be conserved. Another advantage is that by col­
lecting and processing the RDF locally in Austria, the transport distance
to the cement plants can be kept much shorter than the transport dis­
tance of the fossil fuels.
In order for the input materials to be comparable, based on the
original amount of energy created from the combustion of the waste, it
was converted to the amount of energy needed for the fossil fuels to
respectively obtain the same energy output therefore the conversion
factors of Mauschitz (2028) were used in both scenarios. The emission
calculations are based on the factors in scenario A1 on Drosihn et al.
(2017), Nagl et al. (2004) and the Federal Ministry for Sustainability and
Tourism (2017). For scenario A2 the emissions were calculated based on
the factors of Fritsche and Rausch (2008) and the Federal Ministry for
Sustainability and Tourism (2017).
Significant CO2 savings per gigawatt hour can be seen in the specific
CO2 emissions. While the value for the refuse-derived fuel plants is about
117 tons of CO2 emissions per gigawatt hour, the values for the fossil
fuels are about three to four times higher for the same input quantity of
energy (see Tables 2–4). The specific CO2 emissions for heat generation
are particularly interesting in the case of waste incineration plants. As
the calculated values show, the extraction of heat energy from waste
incineration plants can generate either higher or the same CO2 emissions
as fossil fuels. If waste did not exist, natural gas in particular, with
244–331 tons CO2 per GWh would be preferable here to thermal heat
generation from waste. But with knowledge of the reality in this case,
the waste stream has already been generated. Since the entry into force
of the Federal Law on Landfills (Waste Management Act, on landfill
regulations), a ban has been placed on the dumping of waste that can be
subjected to mechanical-biological treatment (Waste Management Act,
AWG, 2016).
3.1.1.2. Evaluation of fluidized bed plants. The evaluation of fluidized
bed plants results in 0.62 tons of CO2 per ton of input (see Table 2). As
Table 3
CO2 emissions of the fossil fuels for scenario A1.
Material tCO2/ Sources
GWh
Hard Coal 376 Mauschitz (2018), Drosihn et al. (2017)
Lignite 587 Mauschitz (2018), Drosihn et al. (2017)
Heating oil 326 Mauschitz (2018), Nagl et al. (2004), Federal Ministry
light for Sustainability and Tourism (2017)
Heating oil 341 Mauschitz (2018), Nagl et al. (2004), Federal Ministry
heavy for Sustainability and Tourism (2017)
Natural Gas 244 Mauschitz (2018), Nagl et al. (2004), Federal Ministry
for Sustainability and Tourism (2017)
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745
Table 4
CO2 emissions of the fossil fuels for scenario A.
Material tCO2/ Sources
GWh
Hard Coal 436 Mauschitz (2018), Fritsche and Rausch (2008),
Lignite 463 Federal Environment Agency Austria (2017)
Heating oil 336
light
Heating oil 369
heavy
Natural Gas 331
with all thermal utilization methods, the utilization by fluidized bed
firing was also evaluated against the fossil scenarios. Since the thermal
recovery processes of the substitute fuel plants and the fluidized bed
plants are relatively similar, the differences between the recovery pro­
cesses themselves and the comparison scenarios can be found mainly in
the thermal and electrical efficiencies. The specific thermal CO2 emis­
sions per GWh are again particularly interesting in this case with a level
of 496 t CO2/GWh. In a simple comparison with fossil fuels, it appears
that those from the fluidized bed kilns are much higher. However, here
again it must be kept in mind that the waste quantity has already been
produced and cannot be landfilled.
Despite the similarity in the CO2 emissions per ton of input material
and the equally high CO2 emission quantities, the energy analysis re­
veals considerable differences. In fluidized bed firing, as well as in waste
incineration or in the splitting fraction supplied to waste incineration
plants, the loss of energy is considerably higher than in refuse-derived-
fuel plants. In direct comparison with fluidized bed combustion, this is
also due to the fact that RDF plants convert thermal energy very effi­
ciently, with an efficiency of 90%, into thermal energy. The energy
savings for converting the same thermal energy compared to fossil fuels
are most evident in RDF firing.
3.1.1.3. Evaluation of splitting plants. Splitting plants require a special
approach in order to be able to consider the CO2 emissions in thermal
utilization. The extent to which the respective waste management
company splits the delivered quantities, could not be precisely traced.
For this reason, the following assumption was made: according to the
federal waste management report, 46% of the waste in splitting plants is
used for thermal recovery. The remainder is deposited in landfills and a
small percentage of about 4% goes to material recovery (Winter, 2010).
The evaluation of the splitting plants results in 0.25 tons of CO2 per
ton of input (see Table 2). The specific CO2 emissions with 238 tCO2/
GWh are clearly below those of the fossil energy carriers (in median 375
t CO2/GWh).
3.1.2. Scenario B: waste incineration of the entire thermal waste fraction
In this scenario, it was assumed that the entire waste fraction is sent
for thermal recovery. The waste incineration plant generates energy in
the form of electricity and heat. The emissions from the generation of
electricity have been included, but the focus will be on the energy from
heat and the resulting CO2 emissions. In this scenario B it is assumed that
all waste is incinerated. A deposit of the waste in a landfill is not possible
due to the Austrian Landfill Ordinance 2016 (Waste Management Act,
AWG, 2016). The direct incineration of the entire waste input generates
thermal energy.
The thermal energy from the actual scenario and from the compar­
ison scenario result in a delta in the energy supply. This delta is
compensated in the actual scenario by a district heating gas plant. In the
comparison scenario, the cement plant is now supplied with hard coal
instead of substitute fuels.
Hard coal was chosen for the cement plants because most cement
plants in Central and Eastern Europe, which is the focal region for this
paper, use coal as their primary fuel. Accordingly, the boiler and the
firing systems used are designed for coal. Gas in cement plants is only
M.C. Unegg et al.
used to start the firing process and cannot be replaced. The substitution
is the use of coal. In Austria a decrease in the coal used has been ach­
ieved from one million GJ to about 670 thousand GJ from 2012 to 2018
(Mauschitz, 2018).
Natural gas was chosen as a reference material for fluidized bed
furnaces, because paper mills need energy from heat. The majority of
paper mills in Europe currently obtain this energy from natural gas. Gas
boilers in these power plants have specific service lives. Once this is
reached they are often converted to substitute fuel plants with a fluid­
ized bed furnace as their core component.
The district heating gas plant was chosen because numerous con­
struction projects are currently being implemented in Austria. These are
heated either with gas or district heating.
It can be determined by analyzing the numerical values whether a
CO2 saving is achieved by the thermal recovery processes or not. The
analysis of the data and the corresponding calculations were based on
the same energy quantities in the thermal recovery as in the comparison
scenario. To compensate for the surplus of energy resulting from the
comparison scenario, the district heating gas plant is calculated as an
extension in the actual scenario. The CO2 emissions per ton waste input
and respectively the CO2 per ton of former input waste stream, which is
in the comparative scenario no longer used. By analyzing the existing
data, we find, that the thermal processing achieves a CO2 saving of over
311,300 tons per year, respectively 3.57 tons per ton input material (see
Table 5). The market share of the waste fraction analyzed is about 15%
of the whole thermal and material recovery sector in Austria for the year
2020. The saving is equivalent to 0.4% of total (all sector) GHG emis­
sions of the country in that year. If the waste fractions analyzed were
representative for the Austrian overall waste sector, the CO2 savings due
to the current waste treatment would thus amount to an equivalent of
2.6% of total (all sector) country emissions.
3.2. Material recovery
Recycling not only helps to reduce CO2 emissions, but due to the
process used it also creates them. In contrast to thermal recovery, the
material recovered waste is not used to generate energy. In this case,
waste materials become raw materials for products again and thus
replace primary materials and avoid the emissions connected to their
production. Thus, a CO2 saving can be achieved in recycling by com­
parison with the CO2 emissions from primary production. In the analysis
of this recycling method all direct emission effects were considered. The
CO2 emission factors include those of the electricity demand for Austria,
an average transport route with a standard truck and the processing
method. The calculation was based primarily on the findings in the
studies by Gromke and Dentzel (2006) and the Federal Environment
Agency of Austria (2010). Based on these studies data, on the one hand
the CO2 emissions are calculated for the quantities of waste produced
Table 5
CO2 emissions arising within the comparison scenario B, allowing derivation of
the CO2 emission savings by waste treatment as performed by the case study
waste management company.
Thermal CO2-emissions for tCO2/ton of waste input material
comparison scenario B (respectively waste input material
substituted for)
Waste incineration only 0.56
Coal within the cement plant 2.84
Gas within the fluidized bed plants 2.01
Thermal CO2-emissions for energy tCO2/GWh
supply delta in scenario B
District heating plant 268
Comparison of the CO2-emissions tCO2/ton input material
from main scenario to scenario B
CO2- saving 3.57
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745
during recycling, on the other hand the CO2 savings compared to the
primary product are calculated. For further information about the
emission factors, see Appendix section 2.
Based on the data it can be concluded that waste paper and card­
board are the strongest fractions in terms of input quantity at the waste
management company investigated. It can be noted in the two paper-
intensive material flow groups that these have the highest CO2 savings
potential compared to primary production.
A high potential of CO2 savings can be identified in the sector of
ferrous metals (FE-metals), due to the fact that the raw material metal
can be used in the same way as its counterpart from primary production
if it is properly processed. Another fraction to be mentioned is that of
recycled plastics. The recycling of plastics not only enables a reduction
in emissions compared to the primary product but also sustainably re­
lieves the environment through the various possibilities of reuse in
production (Federal Environment Agency Austria, 2010).
It must also be considered at this point, that the recycling process
includes its own emissions, which are generated by the recycling process
itself. If these emissions, which occur during the recycling process for
the production of the secondary raw material, are included, we obtain
the actual CO2 savings of 117,604 tons through recycling for our case
study firm. The upscaling of this number to the overall Austrian market
is derived below, together with the alternative fuel employment results.
For the results of CO2 emissions per ton waste input and tons CO2
compared to the primary production see Table 6.
3.3. Results for the analysis of the CO2 emission effects through the use of
thermal and material recovery
The CO2 emission savings resulting from thermal and material re­
covery of a fraction of the current waste management sector, covering
15% of the market in 2020, is about 429,000 tons per year. This is
equivalent to roughly 0.6% of the total Austrian annual GHG emissions.
As an interesting mental experiment, it can be noted here that if every
company in the area of this market share made these savings, an emis­
sion saving of 3.6% of Austria’s GHG emissions would be possible.
Thermal treatment with a CO2 saving of over 311,300 tons is largely
due to the processing of the waste into substitute fuels. CO2 emissions
which are caused by the thermal recovery in incineration plants for
waste can be substantially compensated by the use of the substitute fuels
and thus make a relevant CO2 savings in thermal recovery possible.
Material recovery accounts for 117,600 tons of CO2 savings which
equals a CO2 saving per ton of 1.36 tons per ton input material (see
Fig. 5).
4. Discussion
Waste management has potential to contribute to the goal of not
exceeding 1.5 ◦ C of warming set in the Paris Agreement (Oxford Uni­
versity, 2022; UNFCCC, 2015). Not only emission reductions from the
thermal sector by using secondary fuels are important for achieving
long-term sustainability, but also and in particular recycling and the
Table 6
CO2 emissions per ton waste input and tons CO2 saved when compared to pri­
mary production.
Material group tCO2/ton waste t CO2 saving/t input compared to
stream primary production
Non-ferrous metals 1.53 6.4
Ferrous metals 0.25 2.81
Paper 0.93 1.28
Cardboard 0.93 0.45
Plastics 0.68 3.14
Old electrical 0.30 3.15
equipment
Wood 0.10 0.67
M.C. Unegg et al.
Fig. 5. A comparison of the CO2 emissions which arise through the material
recovery process, related to the CO2 savings through the use of secondary
material out of material recovery instead of primary production and the total
CO2 savings induced by the company through the material recovery process
after the own-emission deduction.
goal of a zero-waste cycle. In the area of waste treatment, through a
comparison of the potential alternative scenarios to the main scenario
(present situation) we find that the use of fossil fuels can be avoided,
resulting in a CO2 emission reduction.
In essence, it can be concluded that a waste management system
combining thermal and material recovery shows higher CO2 emission
savings compared to a system with only incineration. This finding is
consistent with the research of Pérez et al. (2018), Michel Devadoss et al.
(2021), and Wang and Nakakubo (2020). Although these studies do
suggest a combined approach as the most environmentally-friendly
waste management option, only Pérez et al. (2018) considered
Refuse-Derived-Fuels and none of them considered Fluidized-Bed-Plants
in thermal recovery, whereto we expand the analysis. Due to a high
diversity of specific parameters on both the national level (e.g. legal
regulations and waste treatment techniques) and the assessment method
used, it is not possible to compare the quantitative results of this paper
on a fully detailed level with other studies. However, for a cross-check of
the order of magnitude, Chew et al. (2022) show a possible reduction of
up to 2.2% of Malaysia’s GHG emissions, but the approaches differ in the
assessment method used and the waste treatment techniques observed.
There are many opportunities to reach a more sustainable waste
management. So-called smart waste methods are an unavoidable tech­
nology to optimize waste separation for consumers and collection lo­
gistics. CO2 emissions could be further reduced by more efficient waste
collection tours and the use of hybrid or hydrogen-powered trucks. In
addition, smart-waste technologies, such as scanning the contents of the
waste bins, could be used to make more efficient journeys. These tech­
nologies could have an impact on improved waste management by
transferring know-how.
There are two major points which are of interest for future studies.
Appendix
Section 1: Emission factors for thermal treatment
Waste incineration
Material group
Med. Waste non-hazardous
Old varnishes, old paints, dispersions and adhesives non-hazardous
Waste paints, varnishes, dispersions and adhesives non-hazardous
Municipal and similar industrial waste
Sewage sludge aerobic and waste water treatment without hazardous substances
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745
The first relates to the topic of digitization in waste management. Smart-
waste systems, which are currently still in a developing phase should not
only be implemented in practice, but should also be tested for their
validity and applicability to traceable waste paths. Progressive digiti­
zation could make the material flows of waste more comprehensible.
This would also facilitate the collection of data for emission calculations.
The second point for interesting future research would be a further
development of the concept of substitute fuels. Especially in the field of
efficiency in incineration plants, further research with technologies
could possibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more efficient
combustion.
5. Conclusion
This analysis calculated the CO2 emissions caused by waste man­
agement, along with the savings achieved by material and thermal
recycling methods, which were quantified by means of comparison
scenarios. The quantitative results are thus case-specific, but generalized
conclusions are appropriate for the orders of magnitude derived.
Employing the full range of refuse derived fuel plants, fluidized bed
plants, and splitting plants we find a CO2 saving of 3.57 tCO2 per ton of
waste input material, and a saving of 1.36 tons CO2 per ton of waste for
material recycling.
A final consideration is that for a long-term reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, a rethinking and a continuous development of the global
(waste) economy is inevitable. In this sense, further steps towards sus­
tainability should be tackled by investing in future technologies. In
addition to technological progress, the educational aspect should also be
considered, namely the continuous expansion and sensitization of the
public’s understanding of the environment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Marion Christine Unegg: Conceptualization, Case study imple­
mentation, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Karl W. Steininger: Supervision, Method­
ology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Christian Ramsauer:
Supervision. Mariana Rivera-Aguilar: Extended literature review,
writing literature extension in final version, graphical abstract, Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential. It is presented in
aggregate in the article.
Emission factor tCO2/GJ Source
0.0426 Schwarzböck et al. (2016)
0.0080 Specific measured by the company partner
0.0080
0.0599 Denner and Kügler (2006)
0.0951
(continued on next page)
M.C. Unegg et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745

(continued )
Waste incineration

Material group Emission factor tCO2/GJ Source

Inert material 0.0599

Solvent-water-mixture without halogen-free 0.0711
Waste oils for thermal recycling 0.0787
Solvents for thermal recycling 0.0711
RDF generation
EBS hazardous -fine splitting material 0.068 Denner and Kügler (2006)
Solvent mixture halogen-free 0.068
EBS quality assured high-temperature 0.0787
EBS quality assured medical 0.068
Solvent-water mixture without halogenated solvents of which 4000 subcontracted processing 0.068
Waste oils for thermal recycling 0.02243 Specifically measured by the company partner
RDF generation for FDP
Sewage sludge aerobic and anerobic 0.0951 Denner and Kügler (2006)
Waste oils for thermal utilization 0.0787
Solvent-water mixture without halogenated solvents 0.0711
Municipal waste; Residues from waste paper processing 0.0598
Municipal waste; Residues from mechanical waste treatment 0.0598
Municipal and similar commercial wastes 0.0599
Municipal and similar industrial waste 0.0599
RDF hazardous - recyclables - impregnated woods 0.0951
Splitting plants
Med. Non-hazardous waste 0.04 Schwarzböck et al. (2016)
Municipal waste - residues from mechanical processing 0.06 Denner and Kügler (2006)
Municipal and similar industrial waste 0.06
Sewage sludge anerobic 0.10
Residues from mechanical treatment 0.06
Municipal and similar industrial waste 0.06

Section 2: Emission factors for material treatment

Material recovery

Material flow Material group Emission CO2 saving compared Comment Source
group factor kgCO2/t to primary
input production kg/t

Non-ferrous Aluminum 1489.00 6261.00 Rotary current kiln, electricity mix Austria, Federal Environment
metals transport, standard truck Agency Austria
(2010)
FE metals Metal packaging/scrap 247.00 2183.00 100% scrap in an electric furnace, electricity mix Federal Environment
Austria, transport, standard truck Agency Austria
(2010)
Special grades of Printing, wet-strength papers, 933.00 1280.00 IFEU study, values for region south region Gromke und Detzel
recovered (2010)
paper
Waste glass flat glass, windshields 449.00 829.00 Secondary production Federal Environment
Agency Austria
(2010)
Cardboard Various Cardboards 933.00 1280.00 Same emission values as paper, since the fraction at Gromke und Detzel
the partner company is in the same material flow - (2010)
"waste paper"; IFEU study, values for the south
region
ABS/ABS-PC 703.00 3312.00 Secondary production Recyclize, Granulate, Federal Environment
electricity mix Austria, incl. Transport Agency Austria
(2010)
Agricultural films, big bags, 500.00 1190.00 Plastic recycles, incl. electricity, and transport Frauenhofer Umsicht
various technical plastics (2008)
EPP, EPS, Granulates. HDPE, 703.00 3312.00 Secondary production of recyclize, granulate, Federal Environment
mixed plastics, LDPE, PC, PET, Austrian electricity mix, incl. transport Agency Austria
PMMA, PP, PS, PVC, POM, Rolls (2010)
Electrical Electrical appliances without 301.00 1442.00 Part of "total old scrap", for small & large electrical Federal Environment
appliances hazardous properties appliances, electricity mix Austria, with reference to Agency Austria
the content of metals and recyclable plastic, incl. (2010)
transport
Waste wood Various woods 100.00 680.00 Processing of waste wood incl. recycling routes Frauenhofer Umsicht
(ann. electricity and transport (2008)

9
M.C. Unegg et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 415 (2023) 137745

References Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P.,
et al., 2017. Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context
of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 141, 2013–2044.
Austrian Water, Waste Management Association, 2004. Liste aus Betreiberangaben und
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128.
Literaturangaben zu Kohlenstoffgehalten und biogenen Anteilen von
Mauschitz, Gerd, 2009. Klimarelevanz der Abfallwirtschaft IV, Studie im Auftrag des
Ersatzbrennstoffen, PDF Document online. https://www.oewav.at/Page.aspx?ta
Bundesministeriums Fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft. Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft,
rget=196960&mode=form&app=134598&edit=0&current=293921&view=2056
Wien.
58&predefQuery=-1. (Accessed 23 March 2022).
Mauschitz, Gerd, 2018. Emissions from Plants of the Austrian Cement Industry for
Cheela, Venkata, John, Michele, Biswas, Wahidul, Dubey, Brajesh, 2021. Environmental
Reporting Year 2017. Association of the Austrian cement industry, Vienna.
impact evaluation of current municipal solid waste treatments in India using life
Michel Devadoss, P.S., Agamuthu, P., Mehran, S.B., Santha, C., Fauziah, S.H., 2021.
cycle assessment. Energies 14 (11), 3133. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113133.
Implications of municipal solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in
Chew, Zheng Ting, Zheng Xuan, Hoy, Kok Sin, Woon, Liew, Peng Yen, 2022. Integrating
Malaysia and the way forward. In: Waste Management, 119, pp. 135–144. https://
Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Waste Policy Targets to Identify Optimal Waste
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.038. New York, N.Y.
Treatment Configurations via Carbon Emission Pinch Analysis, 160.
Mühle, S., Balsam, I., Cheeseman, C.R., 2010. Comparison of carbon emissions associated
Denner, Monika, Kügler, Ingo, 2006. Development of a Sampling Concept for Substitute
with municipal solid waste management in Germany and the UK. Resour. Conserv.
Fuels. on behalf of the Federal Environment Agency of Austria for the Ministry for
Recycl. 54 (11), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.009.
Sustainability and Tourism, Vienna.
Nagl, Christian, Sterrer, Roland, Szednyj, Ilona, Wieser, Manuela, 2004. Emissions from
Drosihn, Detlef, Icha, Petra, Kuhs, Gunther, Sandau, Fabian, Pabst, Janette, 2017. Facts
Combustion Processes for Space Heat Generation. on behalf of the Federal
and figures on lignite and hard coal. Section 2 (5) (commissioned by the Federal
Environment Agency Austria, Vienna.
Environment Agency Germany, Dessau- Röslau).
Norton, Michael, Baldi, Andras, Vicas, Buda, et al., 2019. Serious mismatches continue
Eriksson, Elin, Per-Erik, Karlsson, Hallberg, Lisa, 2010. Carbon Footprint of Carton in
between science and policy in forest bioenergy. In: Global Change Bioenergy,
Europe Carbon Footprint Methodology and Biogenic Carbon Sequestration”. Swedish
EASAC’s Environmental Experts Call for Inter National Action to Restrict Climate-
Environmental Reserach Institute, Stockholm.
Damaging Forest Bioenergy Schemes. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Halle.
European Commission, 2015. Communication from the Commission to the European
Oxford University, 2022. Apolitical. “Public Servants and Climate Change: Reaching Net
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Zero?”. online course at Oxford University online: https://apolitical.co/microcourse
Committee of Regions - Closing the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular
s/en/reaching-net-zero. (Accessed 19 August 2022).
Economy. COM, Brussels, 2015) 614 final.
Pérez, Javier, Andrés, Juan Manuel de, Lumbreras, Julio, Rodríguez, Encarnación, 2018.
European Commission, 2022. Waste Framework Directive. https://environment.ec.
Evaluating Carbon Footprint of Municipal Solid Waste Treatment: Methodological
europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en#publications.
Proposal and Application to a Case Study, p. 205.
(Accessed 19 August 2022).
Pomberger, Roland, 2008. Development of Substitute Fuel for the HOT- DISC Process and
Federal Environment Agency Austria, 2010. Climate Relevance of Selected Recycling
Analysis of Waste Management Relevance, Dissertation. Institute for Sustainable
Processes in Austria (Vienna).
Waste Management and Waste Disposal Technology (IAE), University of Leoben,
Federal Environment Agency Austria, 2017. Calculation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Leoben.
Emissions from Various Energy Sources for electricity generation in Austria, online:
Rajaeifar, Ali, Mohammad, Ghanavati, Hossein, Dashti, Behrouz B., Heijungs, Reinout,
https://secure.umweltbundesamt.at/co2mon/co2mon.html. (Accessed 18 January
Aghbashlo, Mortaza, Tabatabaei, Meisam, 2017. Electricity generation and GHG
2022).
emission reduction potentials through different municipal solid waste management
Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism, BMNT, 2017. Standard Factors for Fuels
technologies: a comparative review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 414–439.
from the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory to Be Used for Level 2A in Austria
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.109.
(Vienna).
Schwarzböck, Therese, Helmut, Rechberger, Oliver, Cencic, Johann, Fellner, 2016. Share
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, 2009. Environment and water management,
of renewable energies and climate-relevant CO2 emissions from the thermal
BMLUF (2009). Water management, BMLUF. In: BMLUF (Ed.), Thermal Waste
utilization of waste in Austria. In: österr. Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, 68 (Vienna).
Treatment in Austria, White Paper - Figures, Data, Facts, 2nd Updated and Expanded
Shadbahr, Jalil, Ebadian, Mahmood, Gonzales-Calienes, Giovanna, Kannangara, Miyuru,
Edition (Vienna).
Ahmadi, Leila, Bensebaa, Farid, 2022. Impact of waste management and conversion
Federal Ministry Republic of Austria Agriculture, 2015. Regions and tourism. In: Waste
technologies on cost and carbon footprint - case studies in rural and urban cities.
to Energy in Austria, Whitebook, Figures, Data and Facts, 3rd Edition, Vienna.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 168, 112872 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fritsche, Uwe R., Rausch, Lothar, 2008. Determination of Specific Greenhouse Gas
rser.2022.112872.
Emission Factors for District Heating, on Behalf of the Federal Environment Agency
Shang, Di, Diao, Gang, Liu, Chang, Yu, Lucun, 2021. The impact of waste paper recycling
Germany (Dessau-Röslau).
on the carbon emissions from China’s paper industry. Environ. Manag. 67 (5),
Gromke, Uli, Dentzel, Andreas, 2006. Ecological Comparison of Paper Depending on the
811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01417-y.
Fibre Raw Material. for the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Treder, Martin, 2010. Die Antworten der Abfallwirtschaft auf den Klimagipfel von
Heidelberg GmbH (IFEU, on behalf of the ”Initiative Pro Recycling Paper”).
Kopenhagen, unter die Rahmenbedingungen des Klimaschutzes. In: Arnd, Urban,
Herva, Marta, Roca, Enrique, 2013. Ranking municipal solid waste treatment
Gerhard, DI Halm (Eds.), The Series of the Department of Waste Management,
alternatives based on ecological footprint and multi-criteria analysis. Ecol. Indicat.
Volume 11, at the Institute for Water, Waste and Environment of the University of
25, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.005.
Kassel. in cooperation with Association for the Promotion of the Departments of
Hoffmann, Gaston, Wunsch, Christoph, Schnapke, Antje, Schingnitz, Daniel,
Urban Development and Waste Management, Kassel.
Baumann, Janette, 2011. Nutzung der Potenziale des bioge nen Anteils im Abfall zur
Umsicht, Frauenhofer, 2008. Recycling für den Klimaschutz, Oberhausen. https://public
Energieerzeugung, im Auftrag des Umwelt bundesamt Deutschland (Hrsg.) (Dessau-
a.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-154402.html. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
Roßlau).
UNFCCC, 2015. Paris Agreement. United Nations. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/file
IPCC, 1990. Climate Change. The IPCC 1990 and 1992 Assessments (Canada).
s/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
Istrate, Ioan-Robert, Iribarren, Diego, Gálvez-Martos, José-Luis, Dufour, Javier, 2020.
Wang, Kehua, Nakakubo, Toyohiko, 2020. Comparative assessment of waste disposal
Review of life-cycle environmental consequences of waste-to-energy solutions on the
systems and technologies with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: a case study of
municipal solid waste management system. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 157, 104778
municipal solid waste treatment options in China. J. Clean. Prod. 260, 120827
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104778.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120827.
Khan, Shamshad, Anjum, Raheel, Raza, Syed Turab, Ahmed, Bazai, Nazir,
Wang, Dan, He, Jun, Tang, Yu-Ting, Higgitt, David, Robinson, Darren, 2020. Life cycle
Ihtisham, Muhammad, 2022. Technologies for municipal solid waste management:
assessment of municipal solid waste management in Nottingham, England: past and
current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Chemosphere 288 (Pt 1), 132403.
future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119636 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132403.
jclepro.2019.119636.
Kumar, Atul, Samadder, S.R., 2017. A Review on Technological Options of Waste to
Waste Management Act, AWG, 2016. Landfill Ordinance, Federal Law Gazette II No.
Energy for Effective Management of Municipal Solid Waste, 69. Waste management,
291/2016 available at. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfra
New York, N.Y., pp. 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046
ge=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20002086. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
Li, Ying, Zhang, Sumei, Liu, Chao, 2022. Research on greenhouse gas emission
Winter, Ingrid, 2010. Styrian State Waste Management Plan. Office of the Styrian State
characteristics and emission mitigation potential of municipal solid waste treatment
Government, Graz.
in beijing. Sustainability 14 (14), 8398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148398.
Zhou, Chuanbin, Huang, Heping, Cao, Aixin, Xu, Wanying, 2015. Modeling the carbon
Magazzino, Cosimo, Mele, Marco, Schneider, Nicolas, 2020. The relationship between
cycle of the municipal solid waste management system for urban metabolism. Ecol.
municipal solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions: evidence from Switzerland. In:
Model. 318, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.11.0.
Waste Management (New York, N.Y, 113, pp. 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2020.05.033.

10