Characteristics of MSW and heat energy recovery between residential and commercial areas in Seoul

Yi, Sora; Yoo, Ki-Oug; Hanaki, Keisuke

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.008

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…MSW generation per capita at the local level Figure 9 shows MSW generation per capita for 20 major municipalities in Asia and Africa [4,5,17,22,[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]. Each municipal value exceeds the corresponding national value for MSW generation per capita (Figs.…”

Section: Fig 2 Msw Generation Per Capita In East Asia and The Pacifimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Pattaya (Thailand), a beach resort city approximately 160 km from Bangkok, has a much higher MSW generation per capita (1.00 kg day -1 ) [5] than the national average (0.64 kg day -1 ). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [50] Lusaka, Zambia [50] Dar es Salam, Tanzania [50] Dhaka, Bangladesh [51] Kolkata, India [52] Kathmandu, Nepal [53] Jakarta, Indonesia [54] Chennai, India [55] Nairobi, Kenya [56] Phnom Penh, Cambodia [57] Lahore, Pakistan [58] Tehran, Iran [59] Singapore [60] Beijing, China [61] Lagos, Nigeria [62] Shanghai, China [17] Hanoi, Vietnam [63] Seoul, Korea Rep. [64] Osaka, Japan [22] Bangkok, Thailand [5] Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia [4] MSW generation per capita (kg person -1 day -1 ) Definitions of MSW Generally municipalities or local governments have the responsibility of managing MSW, with a few exceptions such as in Malaysia, which shifted the responsibility for MSW to the federal government [68]. The existence of different definitions of MSW [69] makes it confusing to interpret and compare estimates of MSW generation in various countries.…”

Section: Fig 2 Msw Generation Per Capita In East Asia and The Pacifimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and their reliability

Kawai

Tasaki

2015

J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Per capita municipal solid waste (MSW) generation, a core indicator of environmental pressure, is a useful measure for evaluating the intensity of waste generation over time and comparing the intensities among cities or countries. We provide an overview of global data on MSW generation per capita at the national and local levels. Although the legal definition of MSW varies from country to country, we conceptualize MSW simply as the waste managed by or for municipalities as a public service. We note the current challenges in estimating MSW generation per capita in developing countries, including a lack of equipment (e.g., weighbridges), lower rates of MSW collection efficiency, and rural-urban migration, all of which may have negative effects on data reliability. Incomplete data compilation systems at the national level also result in lower reliability and reduce the comparability of national data. We suggest technical solutions for estimating MSW generation per capita at the local and national levels to improve reliability and comparability of data.

show abstract

Section: Fig 2 Msw Generation Per Capita In East Asia and The Pacifimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fig 2 Msw Generation Per Capita In East Asia and The Pacifimentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and their reliability

Kawai

Tasaki

2015

J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The avoided impact of material recovery was assessed by calculating the virgin material use and chemical fertilizer production. The actual categories of MSW materials collected in Seoul (Yi et al 2011) were reclassified and combined to those of waste inputs based on the life cycle inventory (LCI). Mixed waste in landfill processes was classified into paper (29.3% in S1, 10.9% in S2 and S3, and 0% in S4), glass (5.5% in S1 and 0% in S2, S3, and S4), steel (8.1% in S1 and 0% in S2, S3, and S4), aluminum (0.8% in S1 and 0% in S2, S3, and S4), plastics (6.5% in S1, 3.5% in S2 and S3, and 0% in S4), food waste (28.5% in S1 and S2, and 0% in S3 and S4), wood and other combustibles (14.5% in S1, S2, and S3 and 0% in S4), rubber (2.5% in S1, S2, and S3 and 0% in S4), and incombustibles (4.2% in S1, S2, S3, and S4), based on their components (particularly the organic fraction) and LFG generation.…”

Section: Development Of the Lcia Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The "household waste" included residential (household and small business) and commercial waste (generating waste more than 300 kg per day and excluding industrial waste). As mentioned in Section 2.2, based on a flow analysis of Seoul (4,077 thousand tons/year, Yoo and Yi 2007;Yi et al 2011), the composition of input waste varies according to different treatment and disposal facilities (Table 5). Waste collection and transfer and new construction of systems were excluded because they do not significantly impact final results (Finnveden and Ekvall 1998;Björklund 2000;McDougall et al 2009).…”

Section: Goal Definition and System Boundarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches

Kurisu

Hanaki

2011

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Few studies have examined differing interpretations of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results between midpoints and endpoints for the same systems. This paper focuses on the LCIA of municipal solid waste (MSW) systems by taking both the midpoint and endpoint approaches and uses LIME (Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modeling, version 2006). With respect to global and site-dependent factors, environmental impact categories were divided into global, regional, and local scales. Results are shown as net emissions consisting of system emissions and avoided emissions. Materials and methods This study is divided into five segments. The first segment develops the LCIA framework and four MSW scenarios based on the current MSW composition and systems of Seoul, considering adaptable results from the hierarchy MSW systems. In addition, two systems are considered: main MSW systems and optional systems. Several "what if" scenarios are discussed, including various compositions and classifications of MSW. In the second segment, life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis is applied to define various inputs and outputs to and from MSW systems, including air (23 categories), water (28 categories) and land (waste) emissions, resource consumption, land use, recovered material, compost, landfill gas, biogas, and heat energy. The third segment, taking the midpoint approach, investigates the nine environmental impacts of the system and avoided emissions. In the fourth segment, this study, taking the endpoint approach, evaluates the damages, dividing the four safeguard subjects affected by 11 environmental impact categories of the system and avoided emissions. In these third and fourth segments, LCIA is applied to analyze various endof-life scenarios for same MSW materials. The final segment defines the differences from the results in accordance with the two previous life cycle assessment methodologies (the LCIA and interpretations with respect to midpoints and endpoints). Results and discussion With the respect to midpoints, Scenario 1 (S1) using 100% landfills (L) is the worst performer in terms of global (global warming and resource consumption), regional (acidification, human toxicity, and ecotoxicity), and local (waste: landfill volume) impacts. In terms of all impacts except global warming and waste, Scenario 2 (S2) using 64.2% L and 35.8% material recycling (MR) was found to be the most effective system. With respect to global-scale endpoints, S1 was the worst performer in terms of human health and social assets, whereas the other scenarios with MR were poor and bad performers in terms of biodiversity and primary production. With respect to regional-and local-scale endpoints, S1 was the worst performer in terms of human health, biodiversity, and primary production, whereas Scenario 4 (S4) using 4.2% L (only incombustibles), 35.8% MR, 28.5% biological treatment (BT), and 31.5% incineration (I) was the worst performer in terms of social assets. S4 was the best performer in terms of global-scale endpoints, ...

show abstract

“…For the survey of social preferences, the illustrative expression was developed based on LCA findings of a study by the authors [12]. The LCA was conducted for USW scenarios developed from the SMA's existing waste flow and management plan [13] by using the LIME (life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling, 2006 ver.). For both midpoint and endpoint approaches, the LCA results for global-, regional-, and localscale impacts (Table 1) were grouped for additional interpretations.…”

Section: Midpoint and Endpoint Reinterpretations Of Lcamentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of LCA by Using Midpoint and Endpoint Interpretations for Urban Solid Waste Management

Yi¹,

Kurisu²,

Hanaki³

2014

JEP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most widely used methods of decision support. However, few studies have examined whether stakeholders prefer midpoint or endpoint approaches. In this regard, the present study examines the attitudes toward urban solid waste management, environmental issues, and scenario evaluations by using midpoint and endpoint interpretations of LCA results. This study introduces three types of social groups that typically respond to environmental conflicts: the individualist, hierarchist, and egalitarian groups. Although residents are likely to recognize global impacts as the most important issue, their view is likely to change depending on system and avoided emissions. Consistent with the Seoul Metropolitan Area's new policy designed to increase the incineration ratio, almost half of all respondents preferred the scenario. Noteworthy is that the respondents' preference for midpoint and endpoint decision-making tools is not consistent with that in previous studies. Most of the respondents indicated that the midpoint approach would be better in evaluating environmental systems.

show abstract

Characteristics of MSW and heat energy recovery between residential and commercial areas in Seoul

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and their reliability

Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and their reliability

Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches

Application of LCA by Using Midpoint and Endpoint Interpretations for Urban Solid Waste Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About