Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention.

Waste prevention has been addressed in the literature in terms of the social and behavioural aspects, but very little quantitative assessment exists of the environmental benefits. Our study evaluates the environmental consequences of waste prevention on waste management systems and on the wider society, using life-cycle thinking. The partial prevention of unsolicited mail, beverage packaging and food waste is tested for a "High-tech" waste management system relying on high energy and material recovery and for a "Low-tech" waste management system with less recycling and relying on landfilling. Prevention of 13% of the waste mass entering the waste management system generates a reduction of loads and savings in the waste management system for the different impacts categories; 45% net reduction for nutrient enrichment and 12% reduction for global warming potential. When expanding our system and including avoided production incurred by the prevention measures, large savings are observed (15-fold improvement for nutrient enrichment and 2-fold for global warming potential). Prevention of food waste has the highest environmental impact saving. Prevention generates relatively higher overall relative benefit for "Low-tech" systems depending on landfilling. The paper provides clear evidence of the environmental benefits of waste prevention and has specific relevance in climate change mitigation.

Models for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions.

A number of waste life cycle assessment (LCA) models have been gradually developed since the early 1990 s, in a number of countries, usually independently from each other. Large discrepancies in results have been observed among different waste LCA models, although it has also been shown that results from different LCA studies can be consistent. This paper is an attempt to identify, review and analyse methodologies and technical assumptions used in various parts of selected waste LCA models. Several criteria were identified, which could have significant impacts on the results, such as the functional unit, system boundaries, waste composition and energy modelling. The modelling assumptions of waste management processes, ranging from collection, transportation, intermediate facilities, recycling, thermal treatment, biological treatment, and landfilling, are obviously critical when comparing waste LCA models. This review infers that some of the differences in waste LCA models are inherent to the time they were developed. It is expected that models developed later, benefit from past modelling assumptions and knowledge and issues. Models developed in different countries furthermore rely on geographic specificities that have an impact on the results of waste LCA models. The review concludes that more effort should be employed to harmonise and validate non-geographic assumptions to strengthen waste LCA modelling.