Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Long-term evolution of the climate change impacts of solid household

waste management in Lappeenranta, Finland
Mari Hupponen *, Jouni Havukainen, Mika Horttanainen
Department of Sustainability Science, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland

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

Keywords: Waste management processes have developed significantly in recent decades and will continue to change
Climate change alongside the associated environmental impacts. This paper examines the climate change impacts of historical
Historical development development in waste management, which has not received significant attention in the existing literature, while
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
also exploring possible future developments. The city of Lappeenranta in Finland was selected as a case study,
Municipal solid waste (MSW)
Recycling
and the climate impacts of household waste (HW) management were calculated for the actual situations in 2009
Waste management and 2019 and the foreseen situation in 2029. Separately collected waste fractions of mixed residual waste
(MRW), biowaste, cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass were included in the analysis.
The results show that the net climate change impact decreased considerably from 945 kgCO2-eq./tHW in 2009 to
-141 kgCO2-eq./tHW in 2019 mainly by directing the MRW to energy recovery instead of landfill. The emissions
responsible for climate change could be further reduced in 2029 by directing biowaste to digestion instead of
composting and by directing more fractions to recycling; e.g., plastic, the impact of which is affected by the
demand for recycled plastic. For the year 2029, the net climate change impact was -181 kgCO2-eq./tHW when heat
produced from MRW displaced natural gas and was as high as 142 kgCO2-eq./tHW if the heat substituted biomass
heat. The findings reveal that as energy production mixes and materials become less fossil carbon intensive, they
have a significant impact on the net climate impacts of waste management.

1. Introduction undergone major changes in recent decades. In 2009, 18% of municipal

Waste management is increasingly moving away from waste disposal
in landfills as European Union (EU) countries focus on alternative ways
of treating waste (Eurostat, 2021a). The EUlandfill directive (2018/850)
states that no more than 10% of municipal waste should be directed to
landfills by 2035. The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by at least 55% of the 1990 level by 2030. In addition,
it aims to be the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 and achieve
negative emissions thereafter (2021/1119). New international and na­
tional targets are being set to reduce the emissions from waste man­
agement, and the targets for the reuse and recycling of different waste
fractions are becoming increasingly stringent. According to the revised
waste directive, 55% of municipal waste must be recycled by 2025 and
60% by 2030 (2018/851). Consequently, recycling targets for packaging
waste will also increase. Furthermore, the EU has set stricter rules
governing how the amount of recycled municipal waste is calculated
(2019/1004).
The treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Finland has
waste was directed to energy recovery, 36% to material recovery, and
46% to landfill (Statistics Finland, 2010). In 2019, just 1% of MSW was
directed to landfill, 56% to energy recovery, and 44% to material re­
covery (incl. composting and digestion) (Statistics Finland, 2020).
Subsequently, the share of GHG emissions produced by Finland’s waste
sector in 2020 was 63% lower than that recorded in 1990. At the same
time, energy recovery has increased, but GHG emissions from waste-to-
energy plants and waste transportation are reported in the energy sector,
respectively. (Statistics Finland, 2021a.)
An estimated 510 kg of municipal waste per capita was generated in
2009 and 502 kg per capita in 2019 in the EU (27 countries) (Eurostat,
2021b). Municipal waste did not decrease in Finland: 478 kg per capita
was recorded in 2009 and 565 kg per capita in 2019, equating to
approximately 2.6 million tonnes of waste in 2009 and 3.1 million
tonnes in 2019 (Statistics Finland, 2010; Statistics Finland, 2020). While
municipal waste mainly consists of household waste (HW), it also in­
cludes similar waste from administrative, service, and business activities
(17.6.2011/646).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mari.hupponen@lut.fi (M. Hupponen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.11.038
Received 28 June 2022; Received in revised form 16 November 2022; Accepted 28 November 2022
Available online 15 December 2022
0956-053X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Hupponen et al.
The reform of Finland’s waste legislation package is ongoing in
Spring 2022 (Ministry of the Environment, 2021). Separate collection
and sorting will increase following the implementation of the Waste
Legislation Reform Package. In cooperation with Finnish Packaging
Recycling (extended producer responsibility organisation), Rinki, by
July 2023, municipalities must arrange the separate collections of the
glass, metal, plastic, and cardboard packaging waste generated in
buildings located in urban areas that house at least five apartments
(18.11.2021/978). Furthermore, at least 1000 recycling points should
be available (for buildings in rural areas and those buildings less than
five apartments in urban areas) for glass, metal, cardboard, and plastic
waste in Finland (25.11.2021/1029). In 2021, there were more than
1850 Rinki recycling points across Finland for cardboard, glass, and
metal packaging and more than 600 Rinki recycling points for plastic
packaging (Rinki, 2021). Meanwhile, the updated waste law prohibits
sending separately collected waste to incineration or landfill
(17.6.2011/646).
The impact of MSW management on climate change in different
cities has been studied in many papers by observing the current and
possible future waste management. For example, Saint Petersburg in
Russia (Zaikova et al., 2022), Delhi in India (Mandpe et al., 2022),
Moscow in Russia (Vinitskaia et al., 2019), São Paulo in Brazil (Liikanen
et al., 2018), Naples in Italy (Ripa et al., 2017) and Hangzhou in China
(Havukainen et al., 2017). Less attention has been paid to considering
the outcomes of the development of waste management in both histor­
ical and future contexts; namely, what changes have already been
observed in the region and what changes can be anticipated in the future
within a climate change context.
Only a few studies have evaluated the environmental impacts of
historical development in waste management. Habib et al. (2013)
studied the global warming potential (GWP) from the MSW manage­
ment of Aalborg in Denmark between 1970 and 2010. Zhou et al. (2018)
used the LCA to investigate the evolution of the MSW management in
Hangzhou from 2007 to 2016. However, neither of these studies
included future projections. Wang et al. (2020) looked at the GWP of
MSW management in Nottingham in England from 2001 to the future.
Poulsen and Hansen (2009) studied energy and GHG balance for organic
waste and used the historical data from Aalborg in Denmark between
1970 and 2005 but also included the year 2020 (which was in the future
at the time). Historical analysis of this nature can highlight trends in
environmental impacts, facilitate documentation of the impact of waste
treatment processes, and help identify whether the development is
progressing positively towards environmentally friendly waste man­
agement (Poulsen and Hansen, 2009). Christensen (2021) predicted that
there would be more historical LCA studies in the future and highlighted
the importance of using local waste composition data in the LCA studies.
This case study examined the HW produced in the city of Lappeen­
ranta in the South Karelia region of Finland. The GHG emissions of waste
management in South Karelia have been the subject of previous studies.
Hupponen et al. (2015) compared the consequences of landfilling to
energy recovery of source-separated mixed residual waste (MRW) in
three different waste incineration plants from the perspective of a rural
area in South Karelia. Liikanen et al. (2017) compared the rural area of
South Karelia to Hangzhou city in China from the perspective of MRW.
Lehikoinen (2020) projected how a new biogas plant, under construc­
tion at that time, would affect the GHG emissions of South Karelia by
comparing composting to digestion.
This study aimed to quantify the climate impacts of past, recent, and
foreseen future development in waste management while taking into
consideration the changes in the operating environment. This was ach­
ieved by three main processes:
1. Calculating the climate change impact of solid HW management in
the city of Lappeenranta over three different scenarios: The actual
situations in 2009 and 2019, and the future situation in 2029;
70
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
2. Recognising the climate change impact of different waste fractions
and treatment processes;
3. Identifying the factors that will most significantly affect HW man­
agement in the long-term from a climate change perspective.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Life cycle assessment, description of the study area, and scenarios
The climate change impact of HW management was quantified uti­
lising life cycle assessment according to ISO standards 14,040 (SFS-EN
ISO 14040, 2006) and 14,044 (SFS-EN ISO 14044, 2006). The functional
unit employed was one metric tonne of HW. The chosen climate impact
assessment methodology was CML 2001 - Aug. 2016 (Leiden University,
2016). This methodology was selected because its global warming po­
tential for a 100-year time horizon, excl. biogenic carbon, was aligned
with that approved by the IPPC (2013). LCA modelling was performed
using GaBi 6.0 (Version 10.6.0.110) life cycle modelling software
(Sphera).
The study area was the city of Lappeenranta, which is located in
South-East Finland near Russian border. Lappeenranta is the 13th
largest city in Finland. The city is a part of the South Karelia region (see
Fig. 1) and one of the nine owners of the local waste management
company Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto Oy, which is located in Konnunsuo,
Lappeenranta.
Waste management has changed over the past decades in the city of
Lappeenranta and is foreseen to develop further. Three scenarios were
selected for the study to quantify the associated climate change impacts.
The first scenario, Scenario 2009, presents the situation in the urban
area of Lappeenranta in 2009. Three areas of Lappeenranta, Nuijamaa,
Joutseno, and Ylämaa, were excluded from the study. The population of
the study area was 48 910 inhabitants and 8 863 buildings (Korttinen,
2010). The second scenario, Scenario 2019, represents the situation in
the urban and rural areas of Lappeenranta in 2019. The population of
Lappeenranta was 72 634 in Scenario 2019 (Statistics Finland, 2021b).
The population within the study increased in Scenario 2019 compared to
Scenario 2009 because it included people living in rural areas of Lap­
peenranta and the areas of Nuijamaa, Joutseno, and Ylämaa (which
were excluded in Scenario 2009). The third scenario, Scenario 2029,
anticipates the future situation in the urban and rural areas of Lap­
peenranta in 2029. The future was planned based on the situation in
autumn 2021. The same population was used as in Scenario 2019 and
16 736 buildings (Villanen, 2020). Based on Table 1, 50–63% of the HW
was produced in bigger buildings as opposed to detached houses,
although such buildings represented only 15–24% of the total building
count. The system boundary of the study, including unit processes from
waste collection to energy recovery, recycling, other recovery, or land­
filling, is presented in Fig. 2.
The study focused on separately collected household MSW man­
agement, including the following waste fractions: MRW (the so-called
leftover fraction after sorting), biowaste (food and kitchen waste,
easily decomposing fibrous materials, garden waste), cardboard (mixed
packaging, such as corrugated cardboard boxes, cardboard cans, card­
board packages, paper bags, egg cartons, empty toilet paper rolls),
plastic (plastic packaging, such as plastic packaging for food, plastic
bottles, plastic bags, styrofoam packaging), metal (small metal waste,
such as metal packaging and small household metal items) and glass
(glass packaging, such as glass jars and glass bottles). Paper, which
collection is organised by paper producers, was excluded from the study.
Also, glass, metal, and plastic from deposit-based systems were
excluded. The waste collection regulations according to number of
households and calculated waste amounts in different scenarios are
presented in Table 2. The data used in the current study are presented in
Supplementary Material, Sheet A.
The compositions of MRW (see Fig. 3) were from manual sorting
studies conducted in the South Karelia region by Teirasvuo (2011a;
M. Hupponen et al. Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81

Fig. 1. The city of Lappeenranta in the South Karelia region of Finland (Regional Council of South Karelia, 2020).

Table 1
Building types and population in the study areas of Lappeenranta.
Households in the Share of buildings in urban area Share of inhabitants in urban area Share of buildings in urban and rural Share of inhabitants in urban and rural
building of Lappeenranta a of Lappeenranta a areas of Lappeenranta b areas of Lappeenranta b
[%] [%] [%] [%]

1 76 37 85 50
2–4 12 10 9 9
5–9 3 7 2 6
10–19 4 14 2 10
20–29 3 18 2 13
30- 2 13 1 11

Reference Korttinen (2010) Korttinen (2010) Villanen (2020) Villanen (2020)

a
Based on 95% of inhabitants, which were connected to the specigic buildings in the urban area of Lappeenranta (excluded Nuijamaa, Joutseno and Ylämaa).
b
Based on 90% of inhabitants, which were connected to the specific buildings in the urban and rural areas of Lappeenranta.

2011b) in 2010 and 2011 (Scenario 2009) and by Viiru (2017) in 2017
(Scenario 2019). The composition of MRW in Scenario 2029 was
calculated based on Viiru (2017) and based on the changes in waste
management collection (see Table 2). The share of non-recyclable plastic
was significant in Scenario 2009 because plastic recycling had not yet
started.
The calculated recycling rates of different fractions are presented in
Fig. 4. The rejects from pre-treatments were not included in the mass of
recycled waste. The metals separated and recycled from the ash of
waste-to-energy plants, excluding the aluminium extracted from the ash
from the incineration of cardboard rejects, were included in the recycled
metals. (2019/1004.) The values used in the calculations performed in
this study are presented in Supplementary Material, Sheet A.
fuel in collections were partially biogas instead of diesel (see Supple­
mentary Material, Sheet A).
2.2.1. Collection from apartments
In Scenario 2009, the residents independently decided which com­
pany emptied their MRW and biowaste bins; as such, multiple com­
panies emptied the waste bins from the same streets (Ilvonen,
2010–2011). Data from other fractions of waste collected from apart­
ments were not available. In Scenario 2019, the city of Lappeenranta
was divided into five parts (Etelä Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020–2022). The
local waste management company organised the collection of different
waste fractions on behalf of the residents. As a consequence, several of
the companies that emptied the waste bins and containers from the same
street in Scenario 2009 no longer did so in Scenarios 2019 and 2029.

2.2. Waste collection, baling, reloading, and transportation

2.2.2. Collection from multi-compartment containers
In Scenario 2009, multi-compartment containers were not used in
The data used in the model is presented in Supplementary Material.
the study area. In Scenario 2019, two companies collected waste using
Collection data is presented in Sheet A, baling and reloading data in
370-litre containers in Lappeenranta. The other company started in
Sheet B, and transportation data in Sheet C. In Scenario 2029, the used

71
M. Hupponen et al. Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81

MRW SUBSTITUTION

* Brass, Cu, stainless steel

2009 Landfilling Recycling Al Al
2019: Pretreatment (37%) * of metals Steel Steel
2019 Reloading Treatment of ashes * C 2029: Salt Salt
Incineration A (boiler ash, APC, ash) Ash Gravel
2029
BIOWASTE SUBSTITUTION
Composting A Compost Peat
2009
Oil boiler Mineral fertilisers
Digestate (light fuel oil) 2019: Reject water 2019: Urea
2019
Liquid Mineral fertilisers
Digestion A Upgrading Biogas Diesel & petrol
2029
Flare (production & use)
Recycling of metals Al & Steel Al & steel
CARDBOARD SUBSTITUTION
2009: SE

** Other metals than Al

Baling & Recycling of Al Al Al
2009 Ash Gravel
reloading 2009 2019 & 2029
2019 Incineration Treatment of ashes
Recycling of cellulose fibres of reject (fly ash, ash) C
2029 2009: SE **
2019, 2029: FI Recycled fibres Virgin fibres
PLASTIC SUBSTITUTION
Baling & Granulate Virgin plastics
2019 Treatment of plastic Profile Timber pine
reloading
Incineration
2029 of reject A Treatment of ashes
Ash Gravel
Incineration of plastic A (boiler ash, APC, ash) C
2029: Salt Salt
METAL SUBSTITUTION
Reloading Separating & Landfilling of reject
2009
reloading *** Steel Steel

*** Brass & Cu

Reprocessing of steel
Reloading Al Al
2019 Reprocessing of Al
Pretreatment ***
Reloading 2009: Incl. crushing 2019: Incineration of reject A
2029 2019 & 2029: 2019: Steel & Al
Incl. also sieving
2029: Sorting *** Steel, Al & reject Treatment of ashes Ash Gravel
(boiler ash, APC, ash) C 2029: Salt Salt
2029: Incineration of SRF A

GLASS SUBSTITUTION
Reloading Pretreatment P Glass production Avoided
2009
Pretreatment 2009: DK calcination
Reloading 2019: UK (46%) & NL (54%)
2019 in harbour Energy
2029: EE
savings
Pretreatment P
2029 Virgin raw
2019: UK (46%) & NL (54%)
2029: EE materials
: Waste collection from apartments Reject P : Inluded propane at refinery
: Waste collection from recycling points : Included electricity grid mix / produced electricity
: Waste collection from multi-compartment containers : Included thermal energy / produced steam and heat
: Included light fuel oil / diesel at refinery : Included transport
A : Included auxiliary materials with transport : What was substituted?
C : Cement

Fig. 2. System boundary of the study, including the waste treatment and substituted energy and material flow of different waste fractions in Scenarios 2009, 2019,
and 2029.

2010 and collected cardboard, plastic, metal, glass, and paper in 2019
(Ylönen, 2019). Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto (2020) started the collection
in autumn 2019 by collecting the same fractions without paper.
In 2020, a new 660-litre multi-compartment container was intro­
duced (Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020). In Scenario 2029, the 370-litre
containers were changed to be similar, without paper collection, and the
660-litre multi-compartment containers were used for the collection of
cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass from 5 to 9 apartments per building
(Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020–2022).
2.2.3. Collection from recycling points
In Scenario 2009, waste was collected in recycling points in con­
tainers and in waste compactors (where waste is compacted to reduce its
volume). The containers consisted partly deep collection containers
(where part of the container is underground). There were 12 recycling
points for cardboard, 17 for glass, and 4 for metals.
In Scenario 2019, the local recycling points were maintained partly
by Rinki and partly by Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto. Waste containers were
widely changed to deep collection containers and waste compactors.
There were 31 recycling points for cardboard and glass, 30 for metal,

72
M. Hupponen et al. Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81

Table 2
Waste collection regulations and calculated waste amounts in Scenarios 2009, 2019, and 2029 (Images: Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto; Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto,
2020–2022; Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2022).
WASTE COLLECTION REGULATIONS HOUSEHOLD COLLECTION LOCAL COLLECTION

Waste bins Multi-compartment containers Recycling points

Waste bins

[households/building] or [waste amount] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a] [t/a]
a
Scenario 2009 2019 2029 2009 2019 2029 2009 2019 2029 2009 2019 2029
MRW 1 1 1 8181 9195 8794 – – – – – –
Biowaste 1 1 1 3008 3956 3956 – – – – – –
Cardboard 20 kg/week 10 or 20 kg/week 5 -b 369 369 – 30 86 228 491 463
Glass 30 kg/week 20 or 30 kg/week 5 -b 126 158 – 20 45 151 297 268
Metal 30 kg/week 20 or 30 kg/week 5 -b 70 84 – 8 18 67 136 124
Plastic c Not collected 30 (end of 2019) 5 – 131 283 – 25 80 – 229 355
a
Based on the updated Government Regulation on Waste (18.11.2021/978).
b
Data not available.
c
Plastic collection from recycling points started on 2016. Voluntary collection from households began in 2017. The collection from households had to be arranged from
20 households/building by the end of 2021.

Fig. 3. The composition of MRW in Scenarios 2009, 2019, and 2029 (Teirasvuo, 2011a; Teirasvuo, 2011b; Viiru, 2017).

and 13 for plastic. 2.3. Background energy system

In Scenario 2029, according to data provided by the Etelä-Karjalan
Jätehuolto (2020–2022), the number of collection points was the same
as in Scenario 2019. However, the number of points that included plastic
collection increased (Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020–2022). As such,
26 plastic collection points were assumed to be in use in Scenario 2029.
2.2.4. Baling, reloading, and transportation
The baling of cardboard was included in this study, but plastic was
not baled according to Koivunen (2021). Reloading MRW (Scenarios
2019 and 2029), cardboard, plastic (Scenarios 2019 and 2029), metal,
and glass after collection were taken into account in this study. Trans­
portations were predominantly calculated by using actual distances in
one direction between the real locations with the trucks carrying full
loads. An attempt was made to match the payload with reality.
2.3.1. Finnish electricity grid mix 2009, 2019 and 2029
The calculated emission factor for the electricity grid mix was 350
gCO2-eq./kWh for 2009 and 180 gCO2-eq./kWh for 2019. There has been a
shift from the use of fossil fuels to fossil-free methods to produce elec­
tricity, as seen in Supplementary Material, Sheet D. In Scenario 2029,
the electricity grid mix assumption was calculated based on the pre­
dictions of the energy mix available in autumn 2021. As such, the
calculated electricity grid mix was 85 gCO2-eq./kWh. The predictions are
presented in Supplementary Material, Sheet D.
2.3.2. Thermal energy from waste-to-energy plants
This study included two waste-to-energy plants. First, the waste-to-
energy plant in Riihimäki, where energy is recovered from MRW (Sce­
narios 2019 and 2029), rejects from the treatment of plastic (Scenarios
2019 and 2029), and rejects from pre-treatment of metal (Scenario
2019). The produced thermal energy was used as district heat in

73
M. Hupponen et al.
Fig. 4. The calculated recycling rates (%) in Scenarios 2009, 2019, and 2029.
Riihimäki and Hyvinkää. The environmental report produced by
Hyvinkään lämpövoima (2020) examined how heat from the waste-to-
energy plant replaced the use of natural gas while the use of bio­
energy simultaneously increased. Meanwhile, another source of district
heating energy in Riihimäki produced thermal energy by using biofuels
(Riihimäen Kaukolämpö). In Scenario 2019, thermal energy was
substituted with natural gas, while in Scenario 2029, the calculation was
performed separately for natural gas substitution and biomass substi­
tution. The second waste-to-energy plant that was the subject of this
study was located in Lahti, where waste is first gasified before the pro­
duced gas is combusted. The plastic that was not recycled (Scenarios
2019 and 2029) and a solid recovered fuel (SRF) from the pre-treatment
of metal (Scenario 2029) were transported to Lahti. Before 2019, the
thermal energy produced by the waste-to-energy plant replaced hard
coal. In 2019, the coal plant was closed and replaced by a biomass heat
plant. In Scenario 2019 of this study, the thermal energy of waste
replaced 25% of hard coal and 75% of biomass energy. In Scenario 2029,
the substituted thermal energy was produced entirely from biomass.
2.4. Waste treatment
2.4.1. MRW treatment
In Scenario 2009, the MRW was transported to a landfill in the area
of local waste management company in Lappeenranta. The generated
methane was calculated based on the waste fractions of the MRW (see
Fig. 3 and Supplementary Material, Sheet E). The landfill gas was not
collected.
MRW reloading and transportation to the waste-to-energy plant in
Riihimäki commenced in 2013. Since then, the share of MRW going to
energy recovery was exponentially increased such that in 2015 the full
amount of MRW was energy recovered. (Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto,
2019.) In 2016, an automated sorting plant, referred to as an eco-
refinery, opened as a part of the circular economy village (Fortum, a).
In Scenario 2019, 37% of MRW from South Karelia was directed to the
eco-refinery, and the remainder was directed to energy recovery. Metal
was the only waste fraction recovered from the eco-refinery in 2019.
Other fractions were directed to energy recovery due to impurities.
(Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020–2022.)
In Scenario 2029, it is projected that the total MRW amount will be
directed to the same waste-to-energy plant in Riihimäki without direc­
tion to the eco-refinery. This assumption was derived from the fact that
the 10-year contract will be in place until the end of 2023 and less and
less of MRW will go through the eco-refinery as the capacity will be
74
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
utilised for sorting cleaner source-separated plastics (Etelä-Karjalan
Jätehuolto, 2020–2022).
This study includes recycling steel and aluminium from the eco-
refinery (Scenario 2019) and from ash after combustion (Scenarios
2019 and 2029). The lower heating value as received (LHVar) and CO2,
fossil of MRW were calculated based on the waste fractions of the MRW
(see Fig. 3 and Supplementary Material, Sheet E) in Scenario 2019 (15,7
MJ/kgMRW and 518 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW) and in Scenario 2029 (15,3 MJ/
kgMRW and 456 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW). Other values are presented in the
Supplementary Material, Sheet E.
2.4.2. Biowaste treatment
Separating biowaste from MRW became mandatory in 2002 in Lap­
peenranta, long before the organic waste landfill ban in 2016 (2.5.2013/
331). In Scenarios 2009 and 2019, the biowaste was tunnel composted
with sewage sludge in the area of local waste management. However,
the tunnel compost plant burned down in the summer of 2008, and was
reopened in December 2009. During the reconstruction, biowaste was
windrow composted. (Vasander, 2021) As such, the data used in Sce­
nario 2009 was based on a one-month, real situation in 2009 or 2019
when the plant was in normal use. The values used within the model are
presented in the Supplementary Material, Sheet F. Home composting
was excluded from the study.
The compost was used as a raw material for growing production
(75%) and field fertiliser (25%) (Vasander, 2021). The avoided mate­
rials were peat and mineral fertilisers. In 2019, the local forest industry
started to utilise all the rejected water from the tunnel compost plant in
their wastewater treatment plant (Vasander, 2021). This was calculated
by avoiding the use of urea in Scenario 2019 (UPM, 2019).
In Scenario 2029, the biowaste was directed to a biogas plant that
was completed in 2020 in the same area as the local waste management
company. A small amount of metal was directed from pre-treatment to
recycling. The produced and compressed biomethane was directed
evenly to each of the five biogas stations in South Karelia. One of those is
in the same area as the of local waste management company. (Big,
2021.) The use of diesel and petrol in vehicles was avoided through the
use of biomethane. The biowaste-based digestate was separated into
liquid and solid fractions. The liquid fraction replaced the use of mineral
fertilisers, and the solid fraction, referred to as digestate, was composted
in the same tunnel compost employed in Scenarios 2009 and 2019
(Etelä-Karalan Jätehuolto, 2020–2022). The composted digestate
replaced the use of mineral fertilisers and peat. The data employed in the
model, presented in Supplementary Material, Sheet F, was from the real
M. Hupponen et al.
biogas plant, mainly from a period of 1–9/2021. Therefore, it should be
noted that the plant has not been in routine use for a long time, and
changes may be observed before 2029.
2.4.3. Cardboard treatment
In Scenario 2009, the cardboard was shipped and utilised in Sweden
as the majority of the cardboard from households in Finland were
exported in 2009 (Saarinen, 2009). The cardboard was baled and loaded
in Lappeenranta and transported via port by sea to Norrköping in
Sweden. The recycled fibre replaced virgin fibre. The separated plastic
was incinerated in their waste-to-energy plant in this study although the
plant was not opened until 2010 (Fiskeby Board, 2017). Metals were
directed to recycling (Fiskeby Board). The produced steam from the
plant was assumed to replace the use of process steam from biomass
(Fiskeby Board; Palm, 2009).
The conversion of a fine paper machine into a board machine was
completed in Varkaus in 2016, and a recycled fibre plant was re-
commissioned (Lindström, 2016). As such, the cardboard was directed
to Varkaus in Finland in Scenarios 2019 and 2029 (Kauppila, 2021). In
2020, a share of the separated collected household cardboard in Finland
was delivered for energy recovery, but Finland’s updated waste law
prohibits sending separately collected waste to incineration (17.6.2011/
646); as such, it was assumed that there would be domestic capacity for
cardboard recycling in the future.
The data used in the model was collected mainly from the Varkaus
mill. The recycled fibre replaced virgin fibre. The energy was recovered
from separated plastic and aluminium in one boiler and non-recyclable
fibres in another. (Saukkonen, 2021.) Aluminium recycling from the ash
was included in this study. The produced district heat was assumed to
avoid the thermal energy from biomass based on the fuel distribution of
the boilers. In Scenario 2019, the produced steam was assumed to avoid
50% of steam from hard coal and 50% of steam from biomass. In Sce­
nario 2029, the steam was assumed to fully replace the use of steam from
biomass because of the coal ban (29.3.2019/416). The data used in the
model is presented in Supplementary Material, Sheet G.
2.4.4. Plastic treatment
In Scenario 2009, plastic was yet to be separately collected. In 2016,
the first plastic refinery was introduced in Riihimäki in Finland (Saar­
inen, 2021). The collection of consumer plastic packaging began in the
same year, first from recycling points and then by voluntary collection
from households in 2017. In Scenario 2019, the plastic was directed to
the plastic refinery in Riihimäki (Kauppila, 2021). In total, 37% of the
collected plastic was directed to recycling (Miettinen, 2021). An esti­
mated 90% were used as plastic granulate and 10% as a plastic profile
(Fortum Waste Solutions, 2019). The recycled plastic grades were LDPE,
HDPE, and PP (Fortum, b). 6% of the collected plastic was energy
recovered as reject and 57% as plastic (MOT, 2021). The reject was
energy recovered in Riihimäki, and the plastic was assumed to be energy
recovered in Lahti (see 2.3.2).
In Scenario 2029, the plastic was directed to the new plastic recy­
cling plant in Riihimäki, which replaced the old plastic refinery. The
new plant was in the planning stage in autumn 2021, with a new two-
year agreement starting in 2022. This agreement includes six addi­
tional years as an option. (Saarinen, 2021.) 62.5% of the collected
plastic was assumed to be directed for reuse as a projected 60–65%
recycling rate can be reached in the next few years (Miettinen, 2021).
Based on the plans, PS is also recycled in this study (Uusiouutiset, 2021).
The same estimates were used, as mentioned in Scenario 2019, for
shares of granulate, profile, and reject. Consequently, 31% of the
collected plastic was energy recovered as a plastic. The data used in this
model is presented in Supplementary Material, Sheet H. Chemical
recycling methods are expected to increase in the future for more
difficult plastic qualities alongside mechanical treatment; however,
these provisions were excluded from this study (Saarinen, 2021).
75
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
2.4.5. Metal treatment
In Scenario 2009, collected metals were reloaded in Lappeenranta
and transported to Imatra, even if this started in 2010 (Ilvonen,
2010–2011). Metal fractions were roughly separated and reloaded
without reject in Imatra before being relocated to a pre-treatment/
crusher in Heinola, which also houses an aluminium smelter. The
recycling of (tin coated) steel, stainless steel, and aluminium was
included in this study. Steel scraps were assumed to be transported and
reprocessed in the steel mill in Imatra, and aluminium scraps were
assumed to be reprocessed in Heinola. The pre-treatment and treatment
data and substitutions employed in Scenarios 2009–2029 were based on
the values presented in the literature. However, a concerted effort was
made to ensure the processing methods were aligned with reality. The
data used in the model is presented in Supplementary Material, Sheet I.
In Scenario 2019, the metals collected in multi-compartment con­
tainers were reloaded and transported from Lappeenranta to Imatra.
Other collected metals were transported directly to Imatra. In Imatra,
the metals were reloaded and transported to the pre-treatment/ crusher
in Heinola (Nevalainen, 2021). This shredder light fraction was assumed
to be screened (Laine-Ylijoki et al., 2018). After screening, one part was
transported to energy recovery in Riihimäki (see 2.3.2), and the inert
part was transported to landfill. In Scenario 2029, the reject that was
directed to energy recovery in Scenario 2019 was sorted in the reject
processing plant that was opened in Heinola in 2020 (Kuusakoski,
2020). After undergoing sorting at the sorting plant, the separated
metals were directed to recycling. Manufactured SRF was assumed to be
directed to energy recovery in Lahti (see 2.3.2), which is closer than
Riihimäki, and the remainder was directed to landfill. The mass flows
and data used in this model are presented in Supplementary Material,
Sheet I.
2.4.6. Glass treatment
In Scenario 2009, the glass was collected from recycling points in two
rental containers and transported from Lappeenranta to the city of
Forssa. Transport was calculated in both directions. The glass cleaning
plant in Forssa was updated, and the new plant was opened in July 2010.
The values used in this study were based on the old and new treatments
from 2010 onwards. The cleaned and sorted glass were transported for
recycling both for the domestic market and export. The target was
selected according to the market situation; e.g., Denmark, England, and
Estonia. The material went to packaging glass production in those
countries (Heikkilä, 2011). The only glass factory in Finland, located in
Kotka, was closed in 2009; as such, the treatment in Denmark was
chosen for the current study (YLE, 2009). The treatment of reject (2%)
was omitted from the study (Heikkilä, 2011). In all Scenarios
2009–2029, the treatment data (incl. substitutions) were based on
literature. Energy savings in glass production were calculated with
heavy fuel oil in Scenario 2009. 1000 kg of glass was produced from
1200 kg of feedstock (Larsen et al., 2009).
In Scenario 2019, the glass was transported from Lappeenranta to the
port of Porvoo (Koivunen, 2020). Based on the 2018 data, 4% of the
glass was separated in the port and excluded from this study (Rinki,
2019). The remaining part was divided between England (46%) and the
Netherlands (54%) (Koivunen, 2021). The pre-treatment and treatment
values used in this study were the same as those used in Scenario 2009;
however, the country-specific electricity grid mix was considered, and
energy savings in glass production were calculated with natural gas (also
in Scenario 2029). The cleaned and sorted glass were transported from
Knottingley in England to a nearby glass factory in Knottingley (Rinki,
2015). Also, glass from the recycling facility in Heijningen in the
Netherlands was assumed to be transported to a glass factory in the
Netherlands.
In 2020, an agreement was signed to process the glass in Forssa in
Finland or Järvakandi in Estonia (Uusioaines, 2020). According to
Koivunen (2021), glass was directed from Lappeenranta via the port in
Porvoo to a glass cleaning facility in Järvakandi in 2021. After cleaning
M. Hupponen et al.
and sorting, glass was directed to a nearby glass factory in Järvakandi.
The same route was used for Scenario 2029, and the EU-28 electricity
grid mix in 2030 was used in GaBi instead of the country-specific elec­
tricity mix. The glass treatment data is presented in Supplementary
Material, Sheet J.
2.5. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was produced for MRW treatment in all Scenarios
2009–2029. In Scenario 2009, soil covers, and landfill gas collection was
added to the landfill. In Scenarios 2019 and 2029, the default LHVar of
10 MJ/kgMRW and default emission factor of 400 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW from
Statistics Finland (2019; 2022) were used instead of the calculated
values (see 2.4.1). Data used in sensitivity analysis is presented in
Supplementary Material, Sheet K.
The sensitivity analysis was performed for cardboard in Scenario
2019. Steam from 100% hard coal and 100% biomass was used in
substitutions instead of 50/50 of steam from hard coal and biomass. Five
sensitivity analyses were also performed for the newest separately
collected fraction, plastic, in Scenario 2019. First, natural gas was used
in plastic energy recovery to avoid thermal energy production instead of
hard coal (25%) and biomass (75%). Second, the incinerated part (57%)
of the collected plastic was recycled, which is considered to represent
maximum recycling in this study. Third, the shares of plastic fractions
were changed to ascertain the influence of the composition. Fourth, teak
was replaced instead of pine. Fifth, plastic profiles replaced concrete
instead of pine. Sensitivity analyses were not performed for the smaller
amount of total HW in 2029 compared to 2019 because the volume of
waste has continued to grow in the long term, as described in Chapter 1.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Climate change impact of HW management
The climate change impact of solid HW management in Scenarios
2009–2029 is presented in Fig. 5 with the supporting data available in
Fig. 5. The climate change impact of solid HW management in Scenarios 2009–2029 (emissions from glass production are included in avoided emissions).
76
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
Supplementary Material, Sheet L. According to the results, Scenario
2009 made the highest contribution to climate change: 945 kgCO2-eq./
tHW. The most significant factor was disposal of MRW into landfill
without landfill gas collection (941 kgCO2-eq./tHW). A major reduction in
climate change impact of HW management was observed between
Scenario 2009 (945 kgCO2-eq./tHW) and Scenario 2019 (-141 kgCO2-eq./
tHW) after the MRW was directed to energy recovery (the net climate
impact of MRW was -108 kgCO2-eq./tHW) instead of landfill. The pro­
duced energy made it possible to avoid using natural gas in heating and
avoid the production of electricity.
The best situation of solid HW management was observed in Scenario
2029: -181 kgCO2-eq./tHW. In this situation, the produced thermal energy
from MRW energy recovery was assumed to reduce the use of natural gas
(the net climate change impact of MRW was -98 kgCO2-eq./tHW), biowaste
was digested instead of composting, and more waste fractions were
separately collected and recycled. The situation of HW management
changed dramatically from the point of view of climate change to 142
kgCO2-eq./tHW when the energy recovery of MRW was assumed to reduce
the use of biomass in thermal energy production (the net climate change
impact of MRW was 223 kgCO2-eq./tHW) instead of the use of natural gas.
Furthermore, the lower carbon intensity of future electricity consump­
tion mix also affected the results for Scenario 2029 by reducing the
climate change benefits of displacing electricity. The change from Sce­
nario 2019 to Scenario 2029 can either reduce the climate change or
increase it, as seen in Fig. 5. As such, the role substituted fuel plays in net
climate change impact is significant. At the same time, the combustion
of MRW will emit GHG until a new technology is applied; e.g., carbon
capture and storage in waste incineration, as mentioned by Bisinella
et al. (2021). On the other hand, direct emissions were reduced in Sce­
nario 2029 when less MRW was energy recovered, and more waste
fractions were separately collected for recycling.
In Scenario 2009, the second most significant net impact on climate
change resulted from biowaste (34 kgCO2-eq./tHW), which also had the
second-highest waste share after the MRW. The climate change impact
was reduced by directing biowaste to digestion, as observed in Scenario
2029 (-20 kgCO2-eq./tHW), when compared with the climate change
M. Hupponen et al. Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81

impacts that resulted from composting in Scenarios 2009 and 2019, in
which the climate change impact was increased. Digestion makes it
possible to use biogas in vehicles instead of fossil fuels.
Noteworthily, the impact of metals was significant when considering
the mass of that waste fraction. Separately collected metals represented
0.6–1.5% of the total HW in Scenarios 2009–2029. Nevertheless, the
contribution of the metals to net climate change impact was -24 kgCO2-
eq./tHW to -42 kgCO2-eq./tHW. Also, the contribution of metals was higher
in Scenario 2019 than in Scenario 2029, even if more metals were
collected for recycling because less GHG emissions were avoided per
tonne of metal scrap.
The impact of plastic was 0% in Scenario 2009 because plastic
collection was not yet started in the study area. In Scenario 2019, the
impact of plastic was deemed to be insignificant in terms of net impact
(-0.4 kgCO2-eq./tHW) because only 37% of the collected plastic was
recycled. Recycling plastic avoided emissions; however, at the same
time, a part of the collected plastic was directed to energy recovery,
causing more emissions than recycling. The avoided energy recovery
emissions were calculated by using partly renewable energy (see 2.3.1
and 2.3.2). The situation was different in Scenario 2029 because more
plastic was collected, and as much as 63% of the collected plastic was
assumed to be recycled in the form of granulates and profiles, which
decreased the energy recovery of plastic. The net climate change impact
of plastic was -22 kgCO2-eq./tHW to -20 kgCO2-eq./tHW in Scenario 2029.
The impact of cardboard was -10 kgCO2-eq./tHW to -3 kgCO2-eq./tHW of
the net impact. The highest reduction impact was in Scenario 2019,
when the amount of collected cardboard was higher than that in Sce­
nario 2009, and the use of fossil fuels were partly avoided by the energy
recovery of reject, and fossil fuels were also partly used in
manufacturing the avoided virgin fibre. The impact was lower in Sce­
nario 2029 when more biofuels were included in the avoided emissions
calculations.
The contribution of the glass to climate change was -9 kgCO2-eq./tHW
to -4 kgCO2-eq./tHW of the net impact. The highest reduction was
observed in Scenario 2029, when the highest amount of glass was
collected and recycled, and the treatments took place in facilities located
the shortest distance from the city of Lappeenranta.

Table 3
The change of the climate change impact of HW management caused by the parameter changes in the sensitivity analysis.
Parameter/ Original value Changed value Original Result of Change References of
result
Scenario sensitivity sensitivity analysis
analysis
[kgCO2-eq./ [kgCO2-eq./tHW] [kgCO2-eq./
tHW] tHW]

MRW
Landfilling: Adding soil covers and landfill gas collection
2009 0% / 0% / No flaring a 75% / 36% / 99% a 941 177 -764 Chanton et al. (2009); EPA (2008); Niskanen et al.
(2013)
Energy recovery: Using average LHVar and CO2,fossil in Finland for MRW instead of calculated values
2019 15.7 MJ/kg 10 MJ/kg -108 -27 80 Statistics Finland (2019)

518 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW 400 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW

2029 15.3 MJ/kg 10 MJ/kg -98 -7 90 Statistics Finland (2022)

(natural 456 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW 400 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW

gas)
2029 15.3 MJ/kg 10 MJ/kg 223 203 -20 Statistics Finland (2022)

(biomass) 456 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW 400 gCO2, fossil/kgMRW

Cardboard
Assuming that the substituted steam is 100% produced from hard coal
2019 50% hard coal, 100% hard coal -10 -13 -3

50% biomass
Assuming that the substituted steam is 100% produced from biomass
2019 50% hard coal, 100% biomass -10 -7 3

50% biomass
Plastic
Using natural gas in plastic energy recovery to avoid thermal energy production
2019 25% hard coal, Natural gas -0.4 -9 -8 Lahti Energia (2020)

75% biomass
Recycling all the collected plastic (excl. reject) - “Maximum recycling”
2019 57% incinerated as 0% incinerated as -0.4 -37 -36
plastic plastic
Using other shares of plastic fractions
2019 10% HDPE 33% HDPE -0.4 0.2 0.5 Eskelinen et al. (2016)

51% LDPE 44% LDPE

38% PP 23% PP
Substituting teak
2019 Pine Teak -0.4 -0.5 -0.1 Astrup et al. (2009); Fortum (2018); Versowood
Substituting concrete
2019 Pine Concrete -0.4 -0.5 -0.1 Fortum (2018)

HDPE: High-density polyethylene

LDPE: Low-density polyethylene
PP: Polypropylene
a
Landfill gas collection / CH4 oxidised on transit across the soil covers / treatment efficiency for CH4 by flaring.

77
M. Hupponen et al.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis results
In Scenario 2009, the net climate change impact was significantly
reduced by adding landfill gas collection to the landfill (see Table 3). The
impact was lower than in Scenario 2029 when the energy recovery of
MRW was assumed to reduce the use of biomass in thermal energy
production. In energy recovery of MRW, the net climate change impact
was increased by using default values for MRW when thermal energy
was substituted with natural gas in Scenarios 2019 and 2029 but
reduced in Scenario 2029 when thermal energy was substituted with
biomass. Recycling plastic also affects the net climate change impact by
reducing the impact if plastic is directed to recycling instead of energy
recovery; however, this will only come into fruition if there is a demand
for plastic. The impact of other factors of plastic was negligible, almost
non-existent, regardless of whether the plastic profile replaced pine,
teak, or concrete.
3.3. Comparison to other studies
Hupponen et al. (2015) assumed there would be a flare at landfill to
which 75% of landfill gas was directed, and the remaining part of
methane was partly oxidised (36%) on transit across the soil covers. The
methane emissions increased significantly in this study when landfill gas
was not collected in Scenario 2009.
Bassi et al. (2017) observed that waste incineration can lead to both
environmental loads or savings, depending on the energy efficiency and
substitutions. Habib et al. (2013) substituted heat produced from coal,
and the GWP of MSW management was slowest in the Aalborg in
Denmark in 2010 during the period spanning 1970–2010, even if the
composting of biowaste increased climate change. Arushanyan et al.
(2017) described how Swedish waste management will continue to
decrease climate change impact in 2030; however, the positive impact
will be less significant as the used energy production will be less fossil
carbon-intensive.
Similar to the findings of the current study, a case study of a scenario
in Sweden in 2030 performed by Arushanyan et al. (2017) found that
emissions from waste incineration were the major source of environ­
mental impacts. These impacts were compensated by the benefits of
recycling virgin steel, virgin aluminium, and paper (Arushanyan et al.,
2017). The savings from virgin metals and paper were also highlighted
by Wang et al. (2020). Furthermore, the recycled part of collected
plastics were 70–77% in the studies of Arushanyan et al., 2017 and
Kemppi et al. (2020), and 85% in the study performed by Habib et al.
(2013). These rates were much higher than the 37% applied in the
current study based on the 2019 data from the plastic treatment plant
(Miettinen, 2021).
In Nottingham, England, the GWP of MSW management significantly
decreased from 2001 to 2016. However, the net climate impacts were
only negative in the future. (Wang et al, 2020.) In a study of environ­
mental impacts between 2007 and 2016 in Hangzhou, Zhou et al. (2018)
found that the best environmental behaviour was observed in 2010. This
was attributed to the high incineration ratio and implementation of
source-separated collection, so less waste was landfilled during that
year. Based on the findings of additional studies that have adopted a
historical perspective (e.g., Poulsen and Hansen, 2009; Wang et al,
2020), future MSW management is not yet linked to as less fossil carbon-
intensive energy production as in this study. Using a biomass in sub­
stitutions of heat production made a significant change in the net impact
on climate change. An increase in climate change impact was also pre­
sented by Bisinella et al. (2021) as the energy system changes to less
fossil carbon-intensive.
3.4. Limitations of the current study
This study has some limitations. The results only consider climate
change, which is currently considered the biggest health threat (World
78
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
Health Organization, 2021). In Scenario 2009, the widespread data
created challenges and e.g., distances for waste bins were taken from
literature. Also, the waste amounts of MRW and biowaste from apart­
ments were calculated based on waste amounts in South Karelia (kg/
person/a) and by using emptying intervals estimated by experts working
in the field. The challenges narrowed the study area compared to Sce­
narios 2019 and 2029 but the functional unit was chosen so that the
results can be compared. In Scenarios 2019 and 2029, the waste
amounts were calculated based on the actual emptying intervals; as
such, estimates were used to in the evaluate the amount of waste in bins,
containers, and compressors. Thus, it was possible to calculate actual
collection emissions and the used waste amounts were the same order of
magnitude with the actual waste amounts in the South Karelia (see
Supplementary Material, Sheet A). The waste compositions of MRW,
metals, plastic, etc., estimated based on the best available information to
describe the waste in the research area during the study years. More
accurate calculations can be verified using more precise compositional
data from the research area.
Assumptions were also applied in terms of the choice of some
treatment places, and the calculation can be refined for these; however,
the transport distances did not have a significant impact on the results
(except for biowaste in Scenarios 2009 and 2019), as can be observed in
Supplementary Material, Sheet L. Scenario 2029 was designed in
autumn 2021, which should be considered when reading the results.
There may be changes before 2029; for example, in the production of
electricity, where the waste fractions are treated, and the demand for
recycled materials and biomethane. The advantage is that the avoided
thermal energy in MRW energy recovery was calculated using a fossil
fuel (natural gas) and a renewable fuel (biomass) separately.
Substituting biomass in thermal energy production excluding biogenic
emissions, presents the minimum avoided impacts case.
LCA studies are usually done by assuming that biogenic CO2 emis­
sions have no climate change impact, as has also been done in this study,
since the combustion of biomass emits just as much of CO2 as the
biomass absorbed during its growth (Liu et al., 2018; Wiloso et al., 2016;
Wojtacha-Rychter et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). However, there is no
clear consensus among scientists regarding the carbon neutrality of
biomass fuels (Rojas et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2021). Some researchers
have become aware that the biomass fuels are not always carbon
neutral, as it requires decades to be compensated by regrowth, carbon
storage and sequestration are neglected etc. (Johnson, 2009; Liu et al.,
2018; Wiloso et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2021). In future, scientific pub­
lication may adopt more the concept of utilising complete inventory
rather than assuming carbon neutrality, which may lead with some
biomass, especially with forest biomass, even greater impact than fossil
fuels (Johnson, 2009; Liu et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2014; Wiloso
et al., 2016).
4. Conclusions
This study demonstrates how dramatically waste management has
changed in recent decades while highlighting how fundamentally it will
also change in the future. The first major change arose due to landfill
bans, which entailed that MRW was directed to energy recovery instead
of landfills. This prevents methane emissions from landfills, and energy
can be recovered at the same time. Recycling targets were subsequently
tightened year on year, and more waste was collected for recycling.
More investments were made in sorting and use of secondary raw ma­
terials. This development of recycling has made it possible to replace
fossil fuels and virgin materials. Waste has started to turn into a po­
tential resource as traditional raw materials dwindle around the world.
As the separate collection of waste increases, the fuel used in the
collection can be modified; e.g., to biofuel to reduce collection emis­
sions. However, the circulation of more waste does not necessarily
reduce emissions compared to prior years since energy production and
materials are increasingly becoming less fossil carbon-intensive. The
M. Hupponen et al.
heat produced by waste, which can be partially or completely fossil, is
no longer replacing just fossil fuels, but also renewable fuels. The elec­
tricity produced by waste is increasingly replacing renewable electricity,
and recycled materials will substitute fewer virgin materials. These
factors contribute to reducing substituted emissions over time per tonne
of waste. The composition of waste can simultaneously change as can be
seen in the case of MRW, when more fractions are collected for recy­
cling. There also needs to be demand for recycled materials, as shown
with the plastic fraction. The same situation is the case with the use of
biomethane from the biogas plant. The increase in plastic collection
volumes should also be reflected as an increase in demand for recycled
plastics to avoid the energy recovery of the collected plastic.
As such, although multiple studies have examined the impact of
waste management on climate change, there is a need to consider how
the picture will evolve as the world changes and recycling increases,
even if waste treatment does not change. The future situation creates an
opportunity for developing new technologies, such as carbon capture in
waste incineration as a part of HW will continue to energy recovery
despite increased recycling. Another opportunity is identifying new
methods of processing waste fractions when conventional treatment
methods are no longer sufficiently environmentally friendly.
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
Supplementary Material to this article can be found online.
Acknowledgements
This study was started in the JATKE EK (2010–2012) project, which
was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, the Regional
Council of South Karelia, and the waste management company in South
Karelia (Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto Oy). The waste management com­
pany played a significant role in providing data throughout the study.
Appendix A. Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material to this article can be found online at https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.11.038.
References
2021/1119. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and
amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate
Law’). Off. J. Eur. Union, L 243/1, 9 July 2021.
18.11.2021/978. Valtioneuvoston asetus jätteistä (Government regulation on waste) (in
Finnish). https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2021/20210978. (Accessed 6 April 2022).
25.11.2021/1029. Valtioneuvoston asetus pakkauksista ja pakkausjätteistä (Government
regulation on packaging and packaging waste) (in Finnish). https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/
alkup/2021/20211029. (Accessed 14 June 2022).
29.3.2019/416. Laki hiilen käytön kieltämisestä (Law banning energy use of coal) (in
Finnish). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2019/20190416. (Accessed 20 April
2022).
2.5.2013/331. Valtioneuvoston asetus kaatopaikoista (Government regulation on
landfills) (in Finnish). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2013/20130331.
(Accessed 8 June 2022).
17.6.2011/646. Jätelaki (Waste law) (in Finnish). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/
ajantasa/2011/20110646. (Accessed 6 April 2022).
2018/850. Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
May 2018 amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. Off. J. Eur.
Union, L 150/100, 14 June 2018.
2018/851. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Off. J. Eur. Union, L 150/109,
14 June 2018.
2019/1004. Commission implementing decision (EU) 2019/1004 of 7 June 2019 laying
down rules for the calculation, verification and reporting of data on waste in
79
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council and repealing Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 2384. Off. J.
Eur. Union, L 163/66, 20 June 2019.
Arushanyan, Y., Björklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., Ljunggren Söderman, M.,
Sundqvist, J.-O., Stenmarck, Å., 2017. Environmental Assessment of Possible Future
Waste Management Scenarios. Energies 10 (2), 247–274. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en10020247.
Astrup, T., Fruergaard, T., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of plastic: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (8),
763–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09345868.
Bassi, S.A., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., 2017. Environmental performance of
household waste management in Europe – An example of 7 countries. Waste
Manage. 69, 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.042.
Big, 2021. Tankkausasemat (Refueling stations) (in Finnish). https://big.fi/
tankkausasemat/#etela-karjala. (Accessed 2 November 2021).
Bisinella, V., Hulgaard, T., Riber, C., Damgaard, A., Christensen, T.H., 2021.
Environmental assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a post-treatment
technology in waste incineration. Waste Manage. 128, 99–113. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.046.
Fiskeby Board. Fiskeby Sustainable Strength. https://www.fiskeby.com/about-fiskeby/
sustainable-strength/?lang=en. (Accessed 21 April 2022).
Chanton, J., Powelson, D., Green, R., 2009. Methane oxidation in landfill cover soils, is a
10% default value reasonable? J. Environ. Qual. 38 (2), 654–663. https://doi.org/
10.2134/jeq2008.0221.
Christensen, T.H., 2021. Why do we still need LCA-modelling in waste management?
Waste LCA 3: Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Waste Management and
Resource Optimization III. ECI. Webinar 27 October 2021. http://engconf.us/
wastelca-3-life-cycle-sustainability-assessment-for-waste-management-and-resource-
optimization-iii-webinar/. (Accessed 2 November 2022).
EPA, 2008. Background information document for updating AP42 section 2.4 for
estimating emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. USA.
Eskelinen, H., Haavisto, T., Salmenperä, H., Dahlbo, H., 2016. Muovin kierrätyksen
tilanne ja haasteet (in Finnish). CLIC Innovation Report no. D4.1-3. Helsinki,
Finland. http://www.syke.fi/download/noname/%7B5903968F-2B4E-4BEA-BC45-
099C7D210D36%7D/117935. (Accessed 15 June 2022).
Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2019. Kuivajätteiden energiahyötykäyttö (Energy utilisation
of mixed waste) (in Finnish). https://indd.adobe.com/view/083eaf9e-45e5-4e7
8-a14f-8b34c1e1984a. (Accessed 14 October 2021).
Eurostat, 2021a. Municipal waste statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Municipal_waste_statistics. (Accessed 15 October 2021).
Eurostat, 2021b. Municipal waste by waste management operations https://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ENV_WASMUN__custom_1440626/default/table?
lang=en. (Accessed 15 October 2021).
Fiskeby Board. 2017. Fiskeby’s fully recycled chipboard. Published 11 April 2017.
http://www.circulary.eu/project/fiskeby-chipboard/. (Accessed 21 April 2022).
Fortum Waste Solutions, 2019. Fortum Waste Solutions Oy, Riihimäen
muovinkierrätyslaitos (Fortum Waste Solutions Ltd, Riihimäki plastic recycling
plant) (in Finnish). Environmental Permit Application. Published 4 November 2019.
Fortum, 2018. Esittelemme kierrätysmuovista valmistettuja Fortum Circo -profiileja
Viherpäivillä 14.–15.2. (We present Fortum Circo profiles made of recycled plastic at
Viherpäivät 14–15 February) (in Finnish). https://www.fortum.fi/media/2018/02/
esittelemme-kierratysmuovista-valmistettuja-fortum-circo-profiileja-viherpaivilla-
14-152. (Accessed 17 May 2022).
Habib, K., Schmidt, J.H., Christensen, P., 2013. A historical perspective of global
warming potential from municipal solid waste management. Waste Manage. 33,
1926–1933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.04.016.
Havukainen, J., Zhan, M., Dong, J., Liikanen, M., Deviatkin, I., Li, X., Horttanainen, M.,
2017. Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste management
incorporating mechanical treatment of waste and incineration in Hangzhou, China.
J. Clean. Prod. 141, 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.146.
Fortum, b. Kun muovilla on väliä (When plastic matters) (in Finnish). https://www.
fortum.fi/yrityksille-ja.-.yhteisoille/kierratys-ja-jatepalvelut/kierratys/muovit/
circo/kun-muovilla-valia. (Accessed 18 October 2021).
Fortum, a. The Circular Economy Village in Riihimäki, Finland. https://www.fortum.
com/about-us/sustainability-report-highlights/climate-and-resources/circular-
economy/circular-economy-village-riihimaki-finland. (Accessed 14 October 2021).
Heikkilä, J., 2011. Customer service Manager, Uusioaines, Forssa, Finland. Personal
communications 9 June 2011.
Hupponen, M., Grönman, K., Horttanainen, M., 2015. How should greenhouse gas
emissions be taken into account in the decision making of municipal solid waste
management procurements? A case study of the South Karelia region, Finland. Waste
Manage. 42, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.040.
Ilvonen, M., 2010–2011. Information officer, Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, Lappeenranta,
Finland. Personal communications in 2010–2011.
Hyvinkään Lämpövoima, 2020. Kaukolämpöä kiertotaloudesta, Ympäristöraportti 2019
(District heating from the circular economy, Environmental report 2019) (in
Finnish). https://hlv.fi/assets/files/pdf/ymparistoraportti/hlv_ymparistoraportti
_2019.pdf. (Accessed 19 April 2022).
IPPC, 2013. Climate change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/site
/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf. (Accessed 6 April 2022).
Jätehuolto, Etelä-Karjalan, 2022b. Taloyhtiöt (Condominiums) (in Finnish). accessed 16
May 2022. https://ekjh.fi/taloyhtiot/.
Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020. Hyödyksi! (In Finnish). Newsletter of Etelä-Karjalan
Jätehuolto 1/2020. https://indd.adobe.com/view/cf43b3f2-0f5c-489f-869b-
0a49f5574860. (Accessed 14 October 2021).
M. Hupponen et al.
Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto, 2020–2022. Local waste management company,
Lappeenranta, Finland. Data received from Huovinen O. (Operating Manager),
Hämäläinen E. (Logistician), Kaipia V. (Station Superintendent), Oksman H. (Quality
and Environment Manager), Pöllänen K. (Special Adviser). Personal communications
in 2020–2022 and visit to the company 8–9 June 2020.
Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto. Waste management of properties. https://ekjh.fi/en-waste-
management-of-properties/. (Accessed 16 May 2022).
Johnson, E., 2009. Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environ.
Impact Assess. 29 (3), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002.
Riihimäen Kaukolämpö. Teknologiaratkaisut (Technology solutions) (in Finnish).
https://www.rkloy.fi/kaukolammosta/teknologiaratkaisut. (Accessed 19 April
2022).
Kauppila, M. 2021. Production Superior, Encore, Lappeenranta, Finland. Personal
communication 6 October 2021.
Kemppi, J., Liikanen, M., Niskanen, A., 2020. Asumisessa syntyvien jätteiden
erilliskeräysvaihtoehtojen vaikutusten arviointi (Assessment of the impact of
separate collection options for household waste) (in Finnish). Report to the Ministry
of the Environment. LCA Consulting, Lappeenranta, Finland. Published 23 April
2020.
Koivunen, J., 2020. Regional Manager, Southern and eastern Finland, Finnish Packaging
Recycling Rinki, Finland. Personal communication 27 July 2020.
Koivunen, J., 2021. Regional Manager, Southern and eastern Finland, Finnish Packaging
Recycling Rinki, Finland. Personal communications 28 October 2021 and 3
November 2021.
Korttinen, M., 2010. Environmental inspector (deputy), Lappeenranta Regioń s
Environmental Office, Finland. Villanen J. from City of Lappeenranta was
responsible for data collection. Personal communication 5 October 2010.
Kuusakoski, 2020. Kuusakoski kehitti jälleen kierrätysprosessiaan – Uusi rejektilaitos
käynnistyi (Kuusakoski developed again its recycling process – A new reject plant
started) (in Finnish). Published 20 February 2020. https://www.kuusakoski.com/fi/
finland/ajankohtaista/2021/kuusakosken-uusi-rejektilaitos-kaynnistyi—
kuusakoski-kehitti-kierratysprosessiaan/. (Accessed 25 April 2022).
Laine-Ylijoki, J., zu Castell-Rüdenhausen M., Kaartinen, T., Kärki, J., Pellikka, T.,
Punkkinen, H., Saastamoinen, H., Wahlström, M., Pohjakallio, M., 2018. Report on
the situation of the treatment capacity of certain wastes and rejects and the market
of some waste-based materials in Finland (in Finnish). Ministry of the Environment.
The Finnish Environment 21/2018. Published 12 October 2018. https://julkaisut.va
ltioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161095/YMra_21_2018_jatteidenkasitte
lykapasiteetti.pdf. (Accessed 9 December 2021).
Lahti Energia, 2020. Lahti Energian vuosikertomus 2019 (Lahti Energia annual report
2019) (in Finnish). Lahti, Finland. https://www.expressmagnet.eu/pub/6/Lah
ti-Energian-vuosikertomus-2019/#p=9. (Accessed 17 May 2022).
Larsen, A.W., Merrild, H., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of glass: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (8),
754–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09342148.
Lehikoinen, M., 2020. Comparing the environmental impacts of composting and
digestion biowaste and wastewater treatment sludge. Master’s thesis. Lappeenranta-
Lahti University of Technology LUT, Degree Programme in Environmental
Technology, Finland. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2020090768822. (Accessed 11
May 2022).
Leiden University, 2016. CML-IA Characterisation Factors. Leiden, the Netherlands.
Published 5 September 2016. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/
research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors. (Accessed 7 June 2022).
Liikanen, M., Havukainen, J., Hupponen, M., Horttanainen, M., 2017. Influence of
different factors in the life cycle assessment of mixed municipal solid waste
management systems – A comparison of case studies in Finland and China. J. Clean.
Prod. 154, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.023.
Liikanen, M., Havukainen, J., Viana, E., Horttanainen, M., 2018. Steps towards more
environmentally sustainable municipal solid waste management - A life cycle
assessment study of São Paulo. Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 150–162. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.005.
Lindström, L., 2016. Kartonkia ja LVL-viilupuuta – Stora Enso juhli Varkaudessa
(Cardboard and LVL veneer wood – Stora Enso celebrated in Varkaus (in Finnish).
Paperi ja puu. Published 4 May 2016. https://paperijapuu.fi/kartonkia-lvl-
viilupuuta-stora-enso-juhli-varkaudessa/. (Accessed 7 October 2021).
Liu, W., Yu, Z., Xie, X., von Gadow, K., Peng, C., 2018. A critical analysis of the carbon
neutrality assumption in life cycle assessment of forest bioenergy systems. Environ.
Rev. 26, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0060.
Mandpe, A., Bhattacharya, A., Paliya, S., Pratap, V., Hussain, A., Kumar, S., 2022. Life-
cycle assessment approach for municipal solid waste management system of Delhi
city. Environ. Res. 212, 113424 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113424.
Miettinen, L., 2021. Suurin osa kodeissa lajitellusta muovijätteestä päätyi poltettavaksi –
MOT selvitti, kuinka hyvin muovin kierrätys onnistuu (Most plastic waste sorted in
homes ended up being incinerated – MOT found out how well plastic recycling
succeeds) (in Finnish). Published 5 April 2021. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11865230.
(Accessed 19 November 2021).
Matthews, R., Sokka, L., Soimakallio, S., Mortimer, N., Rix, J., Schelhaas, M.-J.,
Jenkins, T., Hogan, G., Mackie, E., Morris, A., Randle, T., 2014. Review of literature
on biogenic carbon and life cycle assessment of forest bioenergy - Final Task 1
report, EU DG ENER project ENER/C1/427, Carbon impacts of biomass consumed in
the EU. Forest Research, Farnham, UK. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/document/d
ownload/da18073f-c4ea-44af-964d-16feb92236df_en?filename=2014_05_review_
of_literature_on_biogenic_carbon_report.pdf. (Accessed 7 November 2022).
Ministry of the Environment, 2021. Jätesäädöspaketti (Waste Regulatory Package) (in
Finnish). https://ym.fi/jatesaadospaketti. (Accessed 6 April 2022).
80
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
MOT, 2021. Minne muovijätteesi oikeasti menevät? (Where your plastic waste actually
goes?) (in Finnish). Published 5 April 2021. https://areena.yle.fi/1-50654071.
(Accessed 19 November 2021).
Nevalainen, M., 2021. Foreman, Kuusakoski, Imatra, Finland. Personal communication
22 October 2021.
Niskanen, A., Värri, H., Havukainen, J., Uusitalo, V., Horttanainen, M., 2013. Enhancing
landfill gas recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 55, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.05.042.
Palm, D., 2009. Carbon footbrint of recycling systems. Master of Science Thesis.
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Energy and Environment,
Göteborg, Sweden. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/136412.
pdf. (Accessed 13 May 2022).
Poulsen, T.G., Hansen, J.A., 2009. Assessing the impacts of changes in treatment
technology on energy and greenhouse gas balances for organic waste and
wastewater treatment using historical data. Waste Manage. Res. 27, 861–870.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09349557.
Regional Council of South Karelia, 2020. Etelä-Karjala kartalla (South Karelia on map)
(in Finnish). https://liitto.ekarjala.fi/tietopankki/karttapankki/. (Accessed 14
October 2021).
Rinki, 2019. Vuosikertomus 2018 (Annual report 2018) (in Finnish). https://rinkiin.fi/
uutisrinki/vuosikertomus/vuosikertomus-2018/lahes-kaikki-pantittomat-
lasipakkaukset-kierratettiin-vuonna-2018/#7fd6de61. (Accessed 4 November
2021).
Rinki, 2021. Household packaging waste to Rinki eco take-back points. https://rinkiin.
fi/en/for-households/rinki-eco-take-back-points/#7fd6de61. (Accessed 6 October
2021).
Rinki, 2015. Lasin uudet tuulet (New winds of glass) (in Finnish). Published 1 June 2015.
https://verkkolehti.rinkiin.fi/lasin-uudet-tuulet. (Accessed 4 November 2021).
Ripa, A., Fiorentino, G., Vacca, V., Ulgiati, S., 2017. The relevance of site-specific data in
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The case of the municipal solid waste management in
the metropolitan city of Naples (Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 142, 445–460. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.149.
Rojas, C., Simon, F., Muñiz, I., Quintana, M., Irarrazaval, F., Stamm, C., Santos, B., 2022.
Trends in household energy-related GHG emissions during COVID-19 in four Chilean
cities. Carbon Manage. 13, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17583004.2022.2036243.
Saarinen, E., 2009. Paperiteollisuus investoi kierrätyskuituihin (The paper industry
invests in recycled fibers) (in Finnish). Uusiouutiset 20 (7), 8–9.
Saarinen, E., 2021. Riihimäelle uusi muovijalostamo (A new plastic refinery to
Riihimäki) (in Finnish). Uusiouutiset 32 (5), 18–19.
Saukkonen, T., 2021. Production Superintendent, Stora Enso, Varkaus, Finland. Personal
communications 3 and 4 November 2021.
Sphera. GaBi - the world’s leading LCA software. https://gabi.sphera.com/nw-eu-
english/index/. (Accessed 5 May 2022).
SFS-EN ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment.
Requirements and guidelines. Finnish Standards Association, Helsinki, Finland.
SFS-EN ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Principles
and framework. Finnish Standards Association, Helsinki, Finland.
Statistics Finland, 2010. Jätetilasto 2009 (Waste statistics 2009) (in Finnish).
https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/jate/2009/jate_2009_2010-11-23_fi.pdf. (Accessed
15 October 2021).
Statistics Finland, 2019. Fuel classification 2019. Updated 14 February 2019. http://
tilastokeskus.fi/static/media/uploads/tup/khkinv/khkaasut_polttoaineluokitus_
2019_v2.xlsx. (Accessed 3 May 2022).
Statistics Finland, 2020. Jätetilasto 2019 (Waste statistics 2019) (in Finnish). https://
www.stat.fi/til/jate/2019/13/jate_2019_13_2020-12-09_fi.pdf. (Accessed 15
October 2021).
Statistics Finland, 2021a. Suomen kasvihuonekaasupäästöt 1990–2020 (Greenhouse gas
emissions in Finland 1990–2020) (in Finnish). https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/static/
media/uploads/yymp_kahup_1990-2020_2021_23462_net.pdf. (Accessed 15 October
2021).
Statistics Finland, 2021b. Kuntien avainluvut (Key figures for municipalities) (in
Finnish). https://www.stat.fi/tup/alue/kuntienavainluvut.html#?active1=SSS&act
ive2=405&year=2021. (Accessed 14 October 2021).
Statistics Finland, 2022. Fuel classification 2022. Updated 18 February 2022. https://
www.stat.fi/static/media/uploads/tup/khkinv/khkaasut_polttoaineluokitus_2022.
xlsx. (Accessed 3 May 2022).
UPM, 2019. Kekkilän kompostissa valmistuu herkkuateria UPM Kaukaan
vedenpuhdistamon mikro-organismeille (Kekkilä compost prepares a delicacy meal
for micro-organisms to UPM Kaukaa water treatment plant) (in Finnish). Published
27 March 2019. https://www.upm.com/fi/ajankohtaista/artikkelit/2019/03/
kekkilan-kompostissa-valmistuu-herkkuateria-upm-kaukaan-vedenpuhdistamon-
mikro-organismeille/. (Accessed 9 December 2022).
Uusioaines, 2020. Pantittoman lasipakkausjätteen jatkokäsittely siirtyy ulkomailta
Forssaan (Further processing of glass packaging waste without deposit is transferred
from abroad to Forssa) (in Finnish). Published 30 September 2020. https://www.
uusioaines.com/pantittoman-lasipakkausjatteen-jatkokasittely-siirtyy-ulkomailta-
forssaan/. (Accessed 8 October 2021).
Uusiouutiset, 2021. Fortum suunnittelee Riihimäelle uutta muovijalostamoa (Fortum
plans a new plastic refinery in Riihimäki) (in Finnish). Published 7 July 2021.
https://www.uusiouutiset.fi/fortum-suunnittelee-riihimaelle-uutta-
muovijalostamoa/. (Accessed 8.10.2021).
Vasander, P., 2021. Area Production Manager, Kekkilä, Nurmijärvi, Finland. Personal
communications 11 October 2021.
Versowood. Noise barriers. Vierumäki, Finland. https://www.versowood.com/products/
earth-construction-and-roadbuilding/noise-barriers. (Accessed 17 May 2022).
M. Hupponen et al.
Teirasvuo, N., 2011a. Combustion properties and sampling of source separated
municipal solid waste in the South Karelia region (in Finnish). Master’s Thesis.
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Degree Programme in Environmental
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201104291476.
(Accessed 8 October 2021).
Teirasvuo, N., 2011b. Composition and combustion properties of source separated
municipal solid waste in densely populated area of Lappeenranta. Research Report.
Published 20 May 2011. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Environmental
Engineering, Lappeenranta, Finland.
Viiru, T., 2017. Quality survey of the household waste in South Karelia (in Finnish).
Bachelor’s Thesis. South-Eastern Finland University of Applied Sciences,
Environmental Technology, Finland.
Villanen J., 2020. Spatial Data Manager, City of Lappeenranta, Finland. Personal
communication 16 June 2020.
Vinitskaia, N., Zaikova, A., Deviatkin, I., Bachina, O., Horttanainen, M., 2019. Life cycle
assessment of the existing and proposed municipal solid waste management system
in Moscow. Russia. J. Clean. Prod. 328, 129407 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.129407.
Wang, D., He, J., Tang, Y.-T., Higgitt, D., Robinson, D., 2020. Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management in Nottingham, England: Past and future
perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119636 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119636.
Wiloso, E.I., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Fang, K., 2016. Effect of biogenic carbon inventory
on the life cycle assessment of bioenergy: challenges to the neutrality assumption.
J. Clean. Prod. 125, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.096.
81
Waste Management 157 (2023) 69–81
Wojtacha-Rychter, K., Kucharski, P., Smolinski, A., 2021. Conventional and alternative
sources of thermal energy in the production of cement – An impact on CO2
emissions. Energies 14 (6), 1539. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061539.
World Health Organization, 2021. Climate change and health. Published 30 October
2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-
health. (Accessed 17 June 2022).
Yang, L., Wang, X.-C., Dai, M., Chen, B., Qiao, Y., Deng, H., Zhang, D., Zhang, Y.,
Almeida, C.M., Chiu, A.S.F., Klemeš, J.J., Wang, Y., 2021. Shifting from fossil-based
economy to bio-based economy: Status quo, challenges, and prospects. Energy 228,
120533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120533.
YLE, 2009. Karhulan lasitehdas menee kiinni maanantaina (Glass factory of Karhula will
be closed on Monday) (in Finnish). Published 28 July 2009. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-
5290614. (Accessed 8 October 2021).
Ylönen, U., 2019. Kotitalousjätteistä kilpaillaan – Remeo jatkaa monilokerokeräystä
Lappeenrannassa (Compete of household waste – Remeo continues multi-
compartment collection in Lappeenranta) (in Finnish). https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-
11011541. (Accessed 2 May 2022).
Zaikova, A., Vinitskaia, N., Deviatkin, I., Havukainen, J., Horttanainen, M., 2022. Life
Cycle Assessment of Existing and Alternative Options for Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, Russia. Recycling 7 (2),
19. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling7020019.
Zhou, Z., Tang, Y., Dong, J., Chi, Y., Ni, M., Li, N., Zhang, Y., 2018. Environmental
performance evolution of municipal solid waste management by life cycle
assessment in Hangzhou, China. J. Environ. Manage. 227, 23–33. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.083.