Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The holistic impact of integrated solid waste managementon greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket

Chalita Liamsanguan a,b, Shabbir H. Gheewala b,*

a Faculty of Industrial Technology and Management, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Prachinburi, Thailandb Environment Division, The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi,

126 Pracha-Uthit Road, Bangmod, Tungkru, Bangkok 10140, Thailand

Received 11 December 2007; accepted 13 December 2007

Available online 1 February 2008

Abstract

Continually increasing amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) and the limited capacity of the existing waste management system in Phu-ket have led to the consideration of integrated waste management system (IWMS). Life cycle assessment (LCA) was employed to compare thegreenhouse gas emissions expressed as global warming potential (GWP) of the existing waste management system (the base scenario) and otherthree IWMSs for Phuket MSW. Besides incineration and landfilling, the proposed scenarios include 30% source separation for recycling (sce-nario 2), anaerobic digestion (scenario 3) and both (scenario 4).

The functional unit is set as 1 t of Phuket MSW treated. Results from the impact assessment of the base scenario shows that the net GWP is1006 kg CO2 equivalent. Landfilling contributes to the highest potentials of this impact. The results from a holistic comparison show that sce-nario 4 is the best option among all the scenarios, contributing GWP of 415 kg CO2 eq., whereas the base scenario is the worst. The emission ofgreenhouse gas from landfilling is reduced by the introduction of landfill gas recovery and utilization for electricity production. By assumption,50% recovery of landfill gas leads to the GWP reduction around 58% by total GWP of landfilling and 36% by the net GWP of the whole systemin the base scenario. The study suggests that a policy that promotes source separation should be pursued, preferably combined with the appli-cation of landfill gas recovery for electricity. Policy promoting recycling is favorable over anaerobic digestion in the situation that both treatmentsystems could not be established at the same time. The major conclusion from the study is that results from the LCA can support PhuketMunicipality for decision-making with respect to planning and optimizing IWMS. It can benefit other municipalities or policy makers to applyin their waste management projects.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Global warming potential; Greenhouse gas emissions; Integrated solid waste management; Life cycle assessment; Municipal solid waste; Policy

1. Introduction

Management of municipal solid waste (MSW) has continuedto be an important environmental challenge. The threat of globalclimate change is also a serious issue and a driving force forchanges in MSW management systems in many countries,including Thailand, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Many opportunities exist for greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-sions reduction in MSW management systems. Incineration

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ662 8729014/5x4139; fax: þ662 8729805.

E-mail address: shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th (S.H. Gheewala).

0959-6526/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.008

allows energy recovery to displace electricity generated fromfossil fuel. The recovered energy can reduce the amount of en-ergy consumption and also emissions that would otherwise beproduced by other energy systems such as fossil-fired powerplants. Diverting organic materials from landfilling by com-posting or anaerobic digestion also reduces methane emissioncontributing to climate change. Moreover, soil conditionerrecovered from both systems and energy recovered from thelatter system can avoid the production of chemical soil condi-tioner and generation of energy, respectively, and the conse-quent reduction in GHG emissions. The reduction of energyand resource consumption by recycling is also a very interest-ing option for reduction of GHG emissions.

Table 1

Phuket MSW composition

Composition Amount (%)

Food waste 44.13

Plastic 15.08

Paper 14.74

Glass 9.67

Garden waste 5.26

Metals 3.44

Rubber/leather 2.28

Cloth 2.07

Stone/ceramic 1.39

Other 1.94

1866 C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871

Phuket, a province in the southern part of Thailand, is se-lected as the study site. MSW in Phuket is collected and trans-ported by trucks to the treatment and disposal center. Alltrucks are registered with the center according to the sourceof waste (community, hotels, market place, etc.) which reflectsthe characteristics of waste. After being weighed, the trucksare diverted to the appropriate waste management place ethe incineration plant, the separation plant and the landfillsite. Of the total MSW collected, an estimated 71% is sentto the incinerator, 26% landfilled and 3% sorted and recoveredfor recycling.

In 2004, MSW collected from communities in Phuket wasabout 364 t/day, tourism activities being an important contrib-utor. Management of Phuket MSW is currently in a criticalcondition because of the continually increasing amount ofMSW whereas the capacity of incinerator, the main treatmentsystem, is limited to 250 t/day. The issue is compounded dueto ineffective sorting and limited area of landfill site. A freshlook should therefore be taken at the MSW managementstrategy.

There is no single treatment system which is most appropri-ate for all waste fractions. Hence, MSW should be treated byan integrated approach. This paper presents the environmentalevaluation, focusing on GHG emissions, of the existing MSWmanagement system in Phuket. It also illustrates how emis-sions of GHG can be reduced by considering different inte-grated waste management systems (IWMSs). Life cycleassessment (LCA) is used as the evaluation tool in the study.There have not been many studies, and none in Thailand, eval-uating actual IWMSs. This study presents such an evaluationincluding environmental comparison between several inte-grated management options. The result from this study cansupport Phuket Municipality for decision concerning futureMSW management strategy. Moreover, it can be a useful dem-onstration for other municipalities or policy makers to apply intheir waste management projects.

LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental aspectsand potential impacts associated with a product (or service),by compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs ofthe product system; evaluating the potential environmentalimpacts associated with those inputs and outputs; and inter-preting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assess-ment phases in relation to the objectives of the study [1].

LCA considers the entire life cycle of products or servicesfrom cradle-to-grave (from raw material acquisition throughproduction, use and disposal). It is thus a holistic assessmentmethodology of products or services. LCA has been provento be a valuable tool to document the environmental consider-ations that need to be part of decision-making towards envi-ronmental sustainability [2,3].

LCA has been successfully utilized in the field of solidwaste management, for example, to assess differences in envi-ronmental performance between different waste incinerationstrategies [4] or relate activities such as flue gas cleaning pro-cess of MSW incinerators [5], to compare the environmentalperformance of different scenarios for management of mixedsolid waste as well as of specific waste fractions [6e12]. It

has also been successfully utilized for comparative assessmentof MSW systems in the Southeast Asian region [13e17].

2. Methodology

In this study, life cycle assessment (LCA) is used as evalu-ation tool. The technical framework for the LCA methodologyas defined in ISO 14040 [1] is explained below.

2.1. Goal and scope definition

The goal of this study is to evaluate GHG emissions of theexisting MSW management system and different IWMSsbased on life cycle perspective for Phuket MSW. Only GHGemissions are considered in this study as climate change isa priority area in Thailand particularly for policy making.The composition of Phuket MSW is specified in Table 1[18]. The functional unit (FU) providing a reference to whichthe inputs and outputs are related is defined as ‘‘1 t of PhuketMSW treated’’.

2.1.1. Comparative scenariosThe study is change-orientated (prospective). The existing

MSW management system in Phuket is defined as the basescenario (scenario 1). To better understand the effects of dif-ferent MSW management options, three different scenariosare considered in addition to the base scenario.

Scenario 2: 30% of recyclable materials are separated atsource and collected to be recycled. Other combustiblefractions are sent to be incinerated at the rate of 70%.The remaining fractions are disposed in landfill.Scenario 3: 30% of food waste and garden waste are sepa-rated at source and collected to be anaerobically digested.Other combustible fractions are sent to be incinerated atthe rate of 70%. The remaining fractions are disposed inlandfill.Scenario 4: by source separation, 30% of recyclable mate-rials are separated at source and collected to be recycledand 30% of food waste and garden waste are separatedand collected to be anaerobically digested. Other combusti-ble fractions are sent to be incinerated at the rate of 70%.The remaining fractions are disposed in landfill.

1867C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871

The value of 30% source separation has been chosen as it isthe national criterion. A high degree (70%) has been set for theseparation of combustible fractions for incineration as it isa feasible upper limit for the treatment and disposal center[19].

Waste fractions in each scenario are illustrated in Table 2.

2.1.2. System boundariesSystem boundaries delineate which processes are included

and excluded in the study as shown in Fig. 1. Unit processesenclosed by dashed line are currently implemented in Phuket.Currently, there are no recycling and anaerobic digestionplants in Phuket. In this study, sorted materials includingpaper, plastic, glass, aluminium and steel are assumed to betransported for recycling in other places around 750e900 kmfrom Phuket based on the actual situation. Anaerobic digestionis assumed to be established in Phuket.

The system boundaries include collection and transporta-tion of MSW from its source to be treated by various IWMSsin each scenario. It should be noted that equal amount of wasteof the same composition are treated in all scenarios. Besidesdirect processes relating to waste management systems, otherrelevant processes interacting with the waste management sys-tems are also included. Production of energy, i.e., electricityand diesel, are included as such energy is directly used inwaste management systems and background systems. Theelectricity used in Phuket facilities is provided by ElectricityGenerating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) [20]. Lime produc-tion is included as lime is used in air pollution control unit inthe incineration plant. Capital equipment is not included in thestudy as it is considered that emissions from production of theequipment are very small compared to those released duringthe use of the equipment. This assumption is consistent withother studies [21].

The system expansion approach is used in the evaluation incases where useful products are produced from the waste treat-ment system and displace the products produced from virginresources by other systems. Examples are electricity recoveredfrom incineration or anaerobic digestion, soil improvementfrom fertilizer produced in anaerobic digestion, and recycledproducts from recycling processes. These waste treatment sys-tems are expanded to include the alternative processes produc-ing an equivalent amount of the recovered products and arecredited from avoiding the production by those alternative pro-cesses. This is based on the assumption that the properties ofthe recovered product and the product from virgin resourcesare identical.

Table 2

Fractions of waste in each scenario

Waste management system Fractions of waste to be treated (t/FU)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Incineration 0.71 0.57 0.54 0.46

Landfilling

(without energy recovery)

0.26 0.30 0.31 0.26

Recycling 0.03 0.13 e 0.13

Anaerobic digestion e e 0.15 0.15

2.2. Inventory approach

This phase has been done for compiling all inputs andoutputs of resources, raw materials, energy and environ-mental emissions in the system boundaries illustrated inFig. 1.

Emission factors of MSW collection and transportationwere obtained from The Automotive Emission Laboratoryfollowing the methodology of Thai Industrial Standards In-stitute e TISI 1290 e 1995 and TISI 1295 e 1998. Energyconsumption and emissions in Phuket MSW managementsystem was mostly obtained from the study site. Fossil car-bon dioxide emitted from incineration system was calcu-lated by using carbon dioxide emission factors [22].Methane gas from landfill was calculated by multiplyingwaste fractions with the corresponding emission factors ob-tained from literature [23]. Emissions from exhaust of dieselengine used for spreading and compaction in landfill werecalculated by using emission factors [24]. Information ofmaterial recycling obtained from literature and databaseare as follows: paperboard [25], office paper and newsprint[26], plastic [27,28], glass and steel [29] and aluminium[30].

Other relevant data were obtained from literature and data-base. Some key references of relevant data are lime production[31] and diesel production [32]. Emission factors from thecombined conventional electricity production in Thailand of2001 (76.42% natural gas, 23.56% coal and 0.02% oil) [33]were used for computing the credits from using recoveredelectricity from waste treatment options.

In case of anaerobic digestion, the compost produced byit can be used as low-quality fertilizer (or soil conditioner).Based on the study of [34], the average amounts of N, P2O5

and K2O in 1 t of soil conditioner are 7.1, 4.1 and 5.4 kg, re-spectively. Emission factors from chemical fertilizer produc-tion as mentioned in Ref. [35] were used for computing thecredits from using recovered soil conditioner from anaerobicdigestion.

2.3. Impact assessment methodology

This study focuses on greenhouse gas emissions expressedas global warming potential (GWP). The equivalency factorsfor global warming (over a time horizon of 100 years) are ob-tained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) 2001 [36] and the Environmental Design of IndustrialProducts (EDIP) [37]. The GWP of CO2 is 1. CH4 and N2Ohave GWP of 23 and 296, respectively. According to IPCC,the GWP of CO varies between 1 and 3, hence the EDIP valueof 2 is considered.

2.4. Interpretation

Finally, useful results from inventory analysis and impactassessment are discussed in accordance with the goal andscope of the study. Additional scenarios are considered forlandfill gas recovery and utilization.

Electricity

Landfilling

Recycling

SourceSeparation

Sorting Incineration

MSW

MSW collection and transportation

MSW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

BACKGROUND SYSTEM Electricity

Materials

Energy

Materials

Chemicals

Natural resources

Emissions to air, water and soil

Anaerobic digestion

Landfilling

Compost

Fig. 1. System boundaries of all scenarios.

1868 C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Results from impact assessment

The result shows the contribution to GWP of each scenarioas presented in Table 3.

(a) Scenario 1: Result from impact assessment for the basescenario or scenario 1 shows that the net GWP is 1006 kg CO2

eq. In addition, it shows that major processes contributing toglobal warming are incineration and landfilling. MSW collec-tion and transportation present insignificant GWP as comparedto MSW treatment systems.

From background analysis of the incineration, high amountof fossil CO2 is generated during MSW combustion amount-ing to 474 kg CO2 eq. Plastic waste is the major factorcontributing to the greenhouse gas emissions in the combus-tion process. Due to electricity production at the incinerator,emissions from conventional power production are avoided.The avoided emissions of 70 kg CO2 eq. are included in thesystem by subtracting from gross emissions from the inciner-ation system, resulting in a net GWP from incineration of417 kg CO2 eq.

Table 3

GWP of each unit process in each scenario per FU

Waste management system GWP (kg CO2 eq.)/FU

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

MSW collection

and transportation

(by the municipality)

0.026 0.023 0.026 0.023

Incineration 417 180 248 176

Landfilling

(without energy recovery)

628 484 460 388

Recycling �39 �99 e �99

Anaerobic digestion e e �30 �30

Net GWP 1006 565 679 415

Landfill is the highest contributor to GWP in the base scenario.The potential comes directly from the emission of CH4 fromMSW degradation. Since there is no gas collection and flaringsystem at the Phuket landfill at present and with the assumptionof 10% methane oxidation in landfill cover, 90% of the methaneproduced is released into the atmosphere. Landfilling contributes628 kg CO2 eq. or approximately 62% of the net GWP.

Recovered products from recycling processes can replaceproducts manufactured from virgin resources, thus, impactsfrom the virgin manufacturing can be avoided. In aluminiumrecycling, for example, recycled aluminium ingot can replacealuminium ingot from bauxite ore. Therefore, impacts fromprocesses related to aluminium ingot production, i.e. bauxitemining, alumina production, anode production, electrolysis,ingot casting and transportation can be avoided. The avoidedemissions from virgin manufacturing are included in the sys-tem by subtracting these emissions from those in the recyclingsystem. Larger avoidance of emissions from virginmanufacturing than those in the latter case results in the neg-ative overall GWP of about 39 kg CO2 eq.

(b) Scenario 2: In scenario 2, less amount of waste to be in-cinerated results in the reduction in global warming effect ascompared to the base scenario. Much of food waste and gardenwaste diverted from landfilling to be treated by incinerationand paper diverted to be treated by incineration and recyclingyields reducing effect on greenhouse gas emissions. It is inter-esting to note that recycling contributes significantly to the re-duction in GWP. In this scenario the net GWP is 565 kg CO2

eq. or about 56% of that in the base scenario.(c) Scenario 3: As compared to the base scenario, reduction

in GWP is apparent in sorting out food waste and garden wastefrom landfilling. This is because CH4, mainly contributing toglobal warming, from organic waste degradation in landfillingis reduced. Moreover, as the electricity produced from anaer-obic digestion it is credited from avoided conventional elec-tricity production from the power plant and fertilizer

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1 3 4

Scenario

GW

P (

kg C

O2

eq./F

U)

Without LFG recovery With LFG recovery

2

Fig. 2. Comparisons of GWP regarding the considerations with and without

landfill gas recovery.

1869C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871

production, resulting in GWP of �30 kg CO2 eq. Less amountof waste to be incinerated additionally results in the GWP re-duction. The net GWP in this scenario is of 679 kg CO2 eq. orabout 67% of that in the base scenario.

(d) Scenario 4: This scenario is a combination of scenarios2 and 3. Recycling from the scenario 2 and anaerobic digestionfrom the scenario 3 are included in this scenario. The reduc-tion of GWP is effected by the credits from both recyclingand anaerobic digestion as well as reduction amount ofGHG from landfilling and incineration due to less amountof waste to be treated. This scenario presents the least GWPof 415 kg CO2 eq. among all the considered scenarios.

The order of preference when looking at global warming isthat scenario 4 is the best. Scenario 2 is better than scenario 3and the base scenario is the worst.

3.2. Effect of landfill gas recovery

As landfilling without energy recovery is the most com-monly used system in Thailand and is indicated as a major con-tribution to global warming, this study focuses on reducingglobal warming contributed by landfilling. The emission ofgreenhouse gas from landfilling, which is predominated bymethane, could be reduced when methane gas is collectedand combusted for energy recovery or incinerated in a flaringsystem to carbon dioxide which, being of biomass origin, willnot contribute to global warming. Additional credits can be ob-tained if the collected methane is utilized as an energy source.The analytical purpose of this section is to test the effect oflandfill gas collection and recovery for electricity production.

For the purpose of estimation, it is assumed that energy re-covery is related to methane gas alone. The heating value ofmethane is typically 50e55 MJ/kg and has been set at50 MJ/kg in this analysis. It is assumed that 50% of methanegas produced is collected to produce electricity by an enginewith 35% efficiency and 10% of uncollected portion is oxi-dized in landfill cover. Therefore, 45% of the methane gas isemitted to the atmosphere. Result from the analysis of landfill-ing with energy recovery compared to landfilling without en-ergy recovery is presented in Table 4.

From Table 4, 50% recovery of landfill gas leads to theGWP reduction around 58% by total GWP of landfilling.This is a consequence of reduction of methane gas fromMSW degradation and the credits obtained from electricityproduction from the recovered methane.

Graphical overview of the comparison of the net GWP ofall scenarios is presented in Fig. 2. It can be seen that all

Table 4

Comparison of GWP of landfilling with and without energy recovery in each

scenario

Waste management system GWP (kg CO2 eq.)/FU

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Landfilling

(without energy recovery)

628 484 460 388

Landfilling

(with energy recovery)

261 201 191 161

scenarios have better performance in global warming potentialwhen landfill gas is recovered for electricity production. Com-parison among all scenarios indicates that scenario 4 is still thebest option in this case in producing the least GWP. Althoughthe recovery and utilization of landfill gas is applied in evalu-ation, the ranking order of scenarios has not been changed.This can imply that the result from this evaluation is robust.

In the combustion process, plastic waste is the major factorgenerating fossil CO2 which contributes to global warming.The high potential of global warming could be reduced by in-creasing the efficiency of plastic separation. The energy recov-ered from waste incineration, however, would be decreasedbecause a large fraction with high energy content is separatedout. The effect of plastic separation is not within the scope ofthis study, the strategy of plastic separation to be treated by ei-ther landfilling or recycling should be further assessed againstthe strategy of incineration including plastic fraction.

4. Conclusion

Result from impact assessment of the existing waste man-agement system (the base scenario) shows that the net poten-tial to global warming is 1006 kg CO2 eq. Landfilling is thewaste management option contributing most to global warm-ing. This is because CH4 emitted from organic waste degrada-tion in landfill has high potential contribution to this impact.Recycling is the most preferred option in the base scenario.

The study reveals that diverting waste stream from landfill-ing or incineration to either recycling or anaerobic digestionresults in lower GWP compared to the existing system. Thescenario accompanied by source separation of waste for anaer-obic digestion and recycling plus incineration and landfilling(scenario 4) is the best treatment system among all scenarioswhereas the base scenario is the worst. The scenario includingrecycling plus incineration and landfilling (scenario 2) is fa-vorable over the scenario including anaerobic digestion plusincineration and landfilling (scenario 3). The emission ofgreenhouse gas from landfilling is reduced by the introductionof landfill gas recovery and utilization for electricity produc-tion. An assumption of 50% recovery of landfill gas leads toa 58% GWP reduction from the total GWP of landfilling.

1870 C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871

The study suggests that a policy promoting source separa-tion for the waste to be recycled and anaerobically digestedshould be pursued, preferably combined with the applicationof landfill gas recovery for electricity. In situations where re-cycling and anaerobic digestion cannot be established at thesame time, policy promoting recycling is more preferable.Separation of plastic fractions from the waste stream to beincinerated could be accomplished relatively easily. It issuggested as a first priority to be performed to improve theenvironmental performance of the incineration system.

The major conclusion from the study is that results fromLCA can support Phuket Municipality for decision-makingwith respect to planning and optimizing IWMSs and canplay a significant role in the development of future waste man-agement strategies. It can also be beneficial for other munici-palities or policy makers to apply in their waste managementprojects.

It is important to note that the results of waste managementsystem analysis are mostly dependent on the actual MSWcharacteristics and management in Phuket province duringthe considered period (July 2003eJune 2004). The results ofthe environmental evaluation in other areas may be differentdue to differences in MSW characteristics, technology, spatialand temporal factors, and related information.

In this study, four different scenarios and the effect of land-fill gas recovery are evaluated. There are still some aspectsthat would be interesting to study further. One example isthe effect of moisture content on energy efficiency of the in-cineration. Another example might be the analysis of otherprobable waste management systems or technologies as wellas other combinations of different strategies.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Joint GraduateSchool of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut’sUniversity of Technology Thonburi. The authors gratefully ac-knowledge the Phuket Municipality and Kumjornkit Construc-tion Company Limited for providing data. The authors alsoacknowledge comments from Dr. Sirintornthep Towprayoonand Dr. Chart Chiemchaisri during the research.

References

[1] ISO. Environmental standard ISO 14040. Environmental management elife cycle assessment e principles and framework. Reference number:

ISO 14040:1997(E); 1997.

[2] Gheewala SH. Application of life cycle assessment to cleaner production.

International Energy Journal 2003;4(1):5e15.

[3] UNEP. Environmental management tools: life cycle assessment. Avail-

able from: <http://www.uneptie.org/pc/pc/tools/lca.htm>; 2003.

[4] Bergsdal H, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG. Environmental assessment of

two waste incineration strategies for Central Norway. International Jour-

nal of Life Cycle Assessment 2005;10(4):263e72.

[5] Chevalier P, Rousseaux P, Benoit V, Benadda B. Environmental assess-

ment of flue gas cleaning processes of municipal solid waste incinerators

by means of the life cycle assessment approach. Chemical Engineering

Science 2003;58:2053e64.

[6] Mendes RM, Aramaki T, Hanaki K. Comparison of the environmental

impact of incineration and landfilling in S~ao Paulo city as determined

by LCA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2004;41:47e63.

[7] Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F. The environmental performance of

alternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment

study. Chemical Engineering Journal 2003;96:207e22.

[8] Ross S, Evans D. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling

a plastic-based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;

11:561e71.

[9] Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg A. Life cycle assessments of

energy from solid waste. fms 137. FOA-B-00-00622-222-SE. Stock-

holms universitet, Sweden; 2000.

[10] Sonesson U, Bjorklund A, Carlsson M, Dalemo M. Environmental and

economic analysis of management systems for biodegradable waste.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2000;28:29e53.

[11] Finnveden G, Ekvall T. Life cycle assessment as a decision-support tool ethe case of recycling vs. incineration of paper. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling 1998;24:235e56.

[12] Denison R. Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling, landfill-

ing, and incineration: a review of recent studies. Annual Review of

Energy and the Environment 1996;21:191e237.

[13] Chaya W, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy

schemes in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 2006;

15(15):1463e8.

[14] Wanichpongpan W, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment as a decision

support tool for landfill gas-to energy projects. Journal of Cleaner

Production 2006;15(18):1819e26.

[15] Aye L, Widjaya ER. Environmental and economic analyses of waste dis-

posal options for traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Management

2006;26(10):1180e91.

[16] Liamsanguan C, Gheewala SH. LCA: a decision support tool for environ-

mental assessment of MSW management systems. Journal of Environ-

mental Management, in press.

[17] Tahara K, Inaba A, Sakane Y, Kojima T. A case study of the garbage

treatment technology. Paper presented in the SETAC tenth LCA case

studies symposium, Barcelona, Spain; 2002. p. 141e4.

[18] PCD. Domestic waste utilization and minimization from municipalities

content and volume. The Pollution Control Department. Available

from: <http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_waste_municip.html>; 2003.

[19] Eriksson O, Reich MO, Frostell B, Bjorklund A, Assefa G, Sundqvist J-O,

et al. Municipal solid waste management from a system perspective.

Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13(3):241e52.

[20] EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand). Available from:

<http://www.egat.co.th>

[21] McDougall FR, White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated solid waste man-

agement: a life cycle inventory. 2nd ed. UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.; 2001.

[22] Sundqvist J-O, Finneveden G, Albertsson A-C, Karlsson S, Berendson J,

Hoglund LO. Life cycle assessment and solid waste e stage 2. AFR-re-

port 173. AFR. Swedish Waste Research Council; 1997.

[23] Sandgren J, Heie A, Sverud T. Utslipp ved handtering av kommuanalt av-

fall. Statens forurensningstilsyn (SFT). TA-number 1336/1996; 1996. In:

Friðriksson GB, Johnsen T, Bjarnasottir HJ, Slentnes H. Guidelines for

the use of LCA in the waste management sector. Nordtest project nr.

1537-01; 2002.

[24] Riso National Laboratory, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innova-

tion, Denmark. Emission factors for fuel combustion. Available from:

<http://www.risoe.dk/sys/esy/emiss_e/inventories.htm>

[25] Ongmongkolkul A, Nielsen PH. Life cycle assessment of paperboard

packaging produced in Thailand; 2002. Available from: <http://www.

howproductsimpact.net/box>

[26] Bystrom S, Lonnstedt L. Paper recycling: environmental and economic

impact. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1997;21:109e27.

[27] CE. Centrum voor Energiebesparing en schone technologie: verwijdering

van huishoudelijk kunststofafval, analyse van milieu-effecten enkosten.

The Netherlands: Delft; 15 September 1994. p. 69 [Bijlagen].

[28] PlasticsEurope. Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry. Associa-

tion of Plastics Manufactures. Available from: <http://www.

plasticseurope.org>; 2005.

1871C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1865e1871

[29] BUWAL 250. Okoinventare fur Verpackungen. Bern: Schriftenreihe

Umwelt 250; 1996.

[30] International Aluminium Institute. Life cycle assessment of alumin-

ium: inventory data for the worldwide primary aluminium industry;

2003.

[31] ETH-ESU, Frischknecht et al. Oko-inventare von Energiesystemen’’. 3rd

ed.; 1996.

[32] BUWAL 300, Dall’Acqua S. Separation into precombustion and combus-

tion for the different thermal energy carriers of BUWAL 250. EMPA, St.

Gallen; September 1997 [internal report, unpublished results].

[33] TEI. Final report for the project on life cycle assessment for Asian coun-

tries e Phase III. Thailand: Thailand Environment Institute; 2003.

[34] Fricke K, Vogtmann H. Biogenic waste compost, experiences of com-

posting in Germany. IGW; 1992.

[35] Patyk A. Balance of energy consumption and emissions of fertilizer pro-

duction and supply. In: Ceuterick D, editor. Vlaamse Instelling voor Tech-

nologisch Onderzoek. International conference on application of life cycle

assessment in agriculture, food and non-food agro-industry and forestry:

achievements and prospects. Brussels: Energy Division; 1996.

[36] IPCC. Third assessment report: climate change. intergovernmental panel

on climate change; 2001.

[37] Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L. Methodology, tools and case studies

in product development. In: Environmental assessment of products,

vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1997.