Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

How does circular economy respond to greenhouse gas emissions reduction: T

An analysis of Chinese plastic recycling industries
⁎ ⁎
Zhe Liua,b,c, , Michelle Adamsb, Raymond P. Coteb, Qinghua Chena,d, , Rui Wue, Zongguo Wenf,
Weili Liub, Liang Dongg
a
School for Environmental Science and Engineering, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350007, PR China
b
School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2
c
Market Economy Research Center, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, PR China
d
Fuqing Branch of Fujian Normal University, Fuqing, Fujian province 350300, PR China
e
School of Business, Nanjing Normal University, No. 1 Wenyuan Road Qixia District, Nanjing 210023, PR China
f
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
g
CML, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With the necessity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction as a backdrop, the circular economy (CE) is
Circular economy increasingly being considered an effective response to this issue. Currently, China is facing a considerable
Plastic challenge as it tries to respond to Paris Agreement targets; however, in many respects China is ahead of other
GHG emissions nations as it relates to the implementation of such innovative strategies such as the circular economy policies.
Carbon dioxide
For over ten years, China has been investigating how the circular economy policies could be used to respond to
China
GHG emission issue. In particular, the effects of such economic development pattern needs to be identified as
well as the specific influence on GHG emissions reduction. This study presents an analysis of the Chinese plastic
recycling industries (CPRI) through this lens. Plastics were specifically targeted, as such waste generation re-
presents one of the highest fractions of global waste by mass, as well as the increasing public concerns of the
environmental impacts of post-consumer plastics waste. Integrating the concepts of circular economy in this
industry could be deemed an effective strategy, one which not only reduces post-consumer waste pollution, but
also mitigates GHG emissions. This study analyzes the trajectories, features and driving forces of GHG emissions
reduction achieved by the CPRI in the past ten years. The results show that the contribution of the CPRI to
[specifically] CO2 emissions reduction increased from 7.67 million tons (MT) in 2007 to 14.57 MT in 2016; the
scale factor and structure factor had significant impacts on GHG emissions reduction changes. A scenario ana-
lysis is presented based on projected impacts of various relevant national strategies. Finally, the policy im-
plications of the CPRI's further GHG reduction measures are proposed.

1. Introduction remanufacture, reduce, recover) [2,3]. In order to respond to intensive

1.1. Circular economy and GHG emissions reduction
The circular economy (CE) can be defined as an economic system by
which products are designed as restorative and regenerative with the
goal of utilizing products [as well as the components and materials] at
the highest value at all times, distinguishing between the technical and
biological aspects of the cycles [1]. Although there is no clear evidence
of an originator of the CE concept, the accepted principles of the CE
concept initially included the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) and then
expanded to encompass the 6Rs (reuse, recycle, redesign,
resource consumption and widespread environmental pollution, the CE
concept has been applied globally, albeit with varying degrees of suc-
cess. For instance, CE has been applied in the UK, Denmark, Switzer-
land, and Portugal for waste management. In Germany, CE has been
introduced into environmental policy with the intent of addressing is-
sues associated with raw material and natural resource use for sustained
economic growth. In Asia, CE-related initiatives aim to increase con-
sumers’ responsibility for material use and waste (e.g. Korea and
Japan). In North America, corporations have applied the notion of CE to
enhance reduce, reuse, and recycle programs, and to conduct product-
level life cycle studies [4].

⁎
Corresponding authors at: School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2.
E-mail addresses: zhe.liu@dal.ca (Z. Liu), cqhuar@126.com (Q. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.038
Received 12 March 2017; Received in revised form 1 April 2018; Accepted 14 April 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Z. Liu et al.
In China, the concept of CE is used as a mechanism for profitable
product development, new technology development, upgrading equip-
ment, and improving industry management. China's knowledge of CE
originated from European Union countries like Germany, the United
States of America (USA) as well as Japan, incorporating such learned
experiences explicitly into industrial policy linked to improved resource
efficiency and reduction goals, and the establishment of eco-industrial
park pilot projects. However, due to a socio-political context different
from most other nations, China's socioeconomic environment provides
an unique and ideal canvas for the new, expanded CE policies’ im-
plementation. In recent years, China's CE strategies have developed
rapidly, attributable to national political support. For instance, the
latest legislative support for CE was amended in 2009 [5].
Against the backdrop of necessary global GHG emissions reduction,
CE is considered as a powerful strategic response [6–8]. As the largest
global GHG emitter, China faces a considerable challenge in responding
to its agreed target of 40–45% GHG emissions reduction per unit gross
domestic production (GDP) by 2020 as compared to 2005 levels [9]. In
the past ten years, China has implemented CE policies at various scales:
the micro level, i.e. individual processes or companies; the meso level,
i.e industrial clusters or eco-industrial parks; and macro level, ie. ran-
ging from cities to national economies [10]. It is the effects of such
economic development patterns on GHG emissions reduction that was
discussed.
For example, despite their indisputable benefits and ubiquitous
presence in all corners of society, plastics [and thereby post-consumer
plastic wastes] have been found to have significant economic and en-
vironmental drawbacks linked to environmental pollution in terms of
single-use [11]. Chinese plastic production represents around 25% of
global plastic projection, with a total production of 75.61 MT. Mean-
time, as of 2015, the total mass of Chinese recycling plastic waste ac-
counted for over 50% ratio in the global recycling plastic waste – or
22 MT [12]. Simultaneously, public concerns about pollution caused by
post-consumer plastic waste have risen considerably.
Adopting CE strategies within the CPRI could be a win-win strategy
– reducing plastic waste while mitigating GHG emissions. Diverting
plastic waste in order to offset the use of virgin materials in plastic
production positively contributes to GHG emissions reduction [13,14].
However, due to the complexity of the supply-chains associated with
plastic waste, the study of the relationship between plastic waste and
GHG emissions at a national scale is limited. Eva et al. [15] conducted a
quantitative analysis on the GHG emissions linked to post-consumer
plastic waste recovery in Spain from the perspective of material and
energy. They considered the factors like the plastic waste quality, the
recycled plastic applications and the markets of recovered plastic pro-
ducts. However, no other scholarly research was found (at the time of
writing) regarding the impact on GHG emissions trends linked to plastic
waste recovery from a national perspective. Therefore, the experience
and contribution of the CPRI provides some novel insight to this per-
spective and starts to fill the knowledge gap by analyzing trajectories,
and better understanding the features and driving forces of GHG
emissions reduction within the CPRI in the past ten years. In addition, a
scenario analysis projecting out 15 years is presented for various re-
levant national strategies. Finally, the policy implications for the CPRI -
as a result of the drive for further GHG emissions reduction- are pro-
posed.
1.2. CPRI development
Plastics are used extensively around the world, bringing consumers
conveniences in their daily lives in the form of packaging, vehicles,
electronic device, and appliance – amongst other products. Its versati-
lity, and its lightweight but durable structure has lent to a growth in
global plastic production from 1.5 Mt in 1950 to 299 MT in 2013 [16].
In addition, it is estimated that global plastic production will increase
another 300% by 2050 – based on current projections [17,18]. For
1163
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169
Fig. 1. The Chinese plastic products consumption and waste generation.
example, the Chinese plastic industry has witnessed rapid growth even
in the last 8 years (see Fig. 1) [12], now representing 25% of global
plastic products. European Union Countries, North America, Middle
East and Africa, as well as Latin America account for 22.9%, 20%, 7.3%,
and 4.8% respectively. However, plastic waste generation has also in-
creased sharply each year as well. Against the backdrop of concerns
around continuing upward trends for GHG emissions, reutilization and
recovery of plastic waste is deemed as a [potential] key response to
such both issues. The reasoning is that plastic products originate from
fossil fuels – a carbon intensive resource. Therefore, reutilization and
recovery of plastic waste mean reducing fossil fuel inputs leading to a
reduction in the associated GHG emissions – at the same time post-
consumer plastic waste pollution is being reduced.
Under such circumstance, plastic waste recycling industries have
developed quickly in recent years. Westernized countries planned and
implemented recycling supply-chains much earlier than in other global
regions. For instance, Germany amended the “plastics waste package
items” from 1991, which regulated the obligation of collection, con-
duction and recycled reutilization among producers and retailers in the
life cycle span. Starting in the 1960, Japan began amending a series of
policies and regulations to with the intention of improving the man-
agement of solid waste.
Since its inception about 10 years ago, the CPRI has developed ra-
pidly under the auspices of national supportive policies. For instance, in
order to encourage CPRI development, the Chinese government ap-
proved 49 national-level circular economy parks; two thirds established
specific CPRI zones to facilitate CPRI development. To date, over 10
thousand enterprises have emerged, participating in the CPRI sector
around the nation. Spatially, they are mainly located in the economic
developed provinces such as Guangdong, Zhejiang and Fujian
Provinces. The amount of recovered plastic waste products increased
from 9 MT in 2009 to 17 MT in 2014. The corresponding ratio of plastic
waste recycling was improved from 25.70% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. In
addition, the shares ratio in mixing new plastic and recycled plastic was
around 3.35:1 in 2014 [12]. Products made from recycled plastic waste
are mainly for packaging products, household appliance, electronic
devices and vehicle plastic (see Fig. 2). Until the recent ban suggested
otherwise, it was believed that domestic recycling plastic waste alone
could not meet the demand for the CPRI – plastic waste was imported
from abroad every year (see Fig. 3) [12]. Importing plastic waste has
been seen to play a significant role in supplementing resource defi-
ciency of China, balancing trade as well as increasing job opportunities.
China imports most recently were recorded as 8 MT annually. The five
provinces importing the most plastic wastes were Guangdong (38.53%),
Fujian (12.82%), Zhejiang (11.44%), Shandong (8.81%), and Jiangsu
(7.66%) respectively, accounting for 79.27% of total importing mass.
Although the CPRI emerged much later than the recycling industries
in western countries, Fig. 3 shows that it has maintained a fast growth
in the past few years. As noted, the total amount of Chinese recycling
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 2. Flow chart of plastic waste recovery in the CPRI.
Fig. 3. Recycling plastic waste in China from 2011 to 2015.
Fig. 4. Comparative analysis on recycling plastic ratio among the main coun-
tries in the world.
plastic waste has been over 20 MT, accounting for over 50% ratio in the
global recycling plastic waste. However, when compared to the western
countries, the recycling ratio of Chinese plastic waste is much lower
(see Fig. 4) [12] suggesting that the CPRI has a lot of unexplored po-
tential.
2. Methodology
2.1. GHG emissions reduction evaluation
This study uses several methodologies to assess the GHG emissions
reduction benefits of the CPRI. An extended environmental input-
output model is used because it captures the energy consumption from
a supply chain perspective. The improved IPAT equation is then utilized
to identify the driving forces of GHG emissions reduction. A decom-
position analysis is then undertaken to quantitatively assess the driving
1164
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169
forces acting within the CPRI during the past ten years. Finally, we use
a scenario analysis to predict GHG emissions reduction associated with
different potential development patterns.
Due to the complexity and variability of Chinese plastic waste
compositions, as well as the different degrees of technical development
across different regions, a life cycle analysis of the CPRI from a national
perspective is very difficult to be conducted. Given this, we applied an
extended input–output model (EIO) to evaluate GHG emissions reduc-
tion contribution made by the CPRI. EIO originates from the standard
Leontief input–output (IO) while Leontief IO was originally developed
by Leontief as an economic technique that aimed to account for the
complex interdependencies of industries in modern economies by using
sectoral monetary transactions data [19]. In this instance, the IO model
has been extended to the two main models - namely environmental
extend input–output model (EIO) and multi-regional input–output
models (MRIO). MRIO has been further extended to cover interregional
and international trade [20]. The reason that EIO was selected is its
feature of capturing energy consumption flows in the economy [21]. In
addition, EIO is capable of capturing the energy consumption sector
from supply chain perspectives. In this regard, EIO can demonstrate the
energy consumption required to produce a unit of economic output
containing goods and services [22,23].
The original EIO is presented as Eq. (2-1):
X = Z + y = AX + y (2-1)
In this equation, X, which can be expressed as a vector, represents
total economic output; Z represents the matrix of intermediate demand;
y represents the final demand vector; and A represents the matrix of
economy's direct consumption referring to describe the relationships
among all sectors of the economy. This can be re-written as Eq. (2-2):
X = (I − A)−1y (2-2)
−1
The equation (I − A) is the Leontief inverse, which is non-sin-
gular. I represents the identity matrix. The equation indicates that both
the final consumption ‘‘y’’ and the corresponding intermediate con-
sumption (I − A)−1 from each economic sector are needed to be sa-
tisfied by the gross output.
In order to express GHG emissions reduction made by the CPRI, the
following equation is established.
Em = F (I − A)−1FD (2-3)
Em represents the GHG emissions reduction contribution of CPRI; F
represents the factor vector of the direct GHG emissions reduction for
the CPRI, which is the ratio between individual GHG emissions re-
duction and total output for the CPRI. GHG emissions reduction refer to
energy-related GHG emissions reduction and the GHG emissions re-
duction during the industrial process. I represents the identity matrix. A
is the direct consumption factor matrix. FD is the final demand vector.
The sectors of rubber and plastic products are the economic output
while the other sectors are considered zero.
Z. Liu et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169

2.2. Identifying the driving forces of GHG emissions reduction in the CPRI IPAT = P *S *R*E *T (2-10)

Compared to the traditional IPAT formula, this study extend the

IPAT is used extensively as a method for identifying impacts in the original factors from three different perspectives to five effect factors to
past dozens of years. In 1971, in order to demonstrate the relationships precisely reflect different aspect impacts for the GHG emissions re-
among the factors of environmental impact (I), population (P), afflu- duction contribution achieved by the CPRI development.
ence (A) and technology (T), [24] proposed the famous equation,
namely Impact = Population × Affluence × Technology or I = PAT.
2.3. Hybrid model of IPAT and index decomposition analysis for
Due to some considerable limitations from the original IPAT formula
quantitatively assessing the driving forces
[25], many studies have been conducted to improve the original IPAT
identity in order to incorporate more factors [26–28]. In this regard,
So far, there have been two main decomposition analysis methods
combining index decomposition analysis (IDA) with the IPAT formula is
typically used, namely, structural decomposition analysis (SDA) and
an improvement, which itself is an expansion of the original IPAT
IDA. These two decomposition analysis methodologies have their own
identity [29]. The most considerable advantage of this combination is
advantages and weaknesses. For instance, SDA is capable of quantifying
that this extended kaya formula can identify the relationship between
fundamental “sources” of changes under the circumstances of a wide
the driving forces and environmental impacts [30–32]. Under such
range of variables like economic growth, energy and material use and
circumstance, we applied this concept and improved the impact com-
environmental pollution emissions. Meanwhile SDA requires a reliable
ponents of the IPAT identity and transformed the original IPAT formula
IO table which is not easy to be acquired in certain circumstance.
into the equation with the five factors in order to quantitatively identify
Alternatively, IDA is another decomposition analysis method, which
their relationships related with CO2 derived GHG emissions (Eq. (2-4)).
was proposed in the late 1970s in order to demonstrate the impact
MT M GDP E changes in product mix on industrial energy demand [33]. In IDA, there
IPAT = PR × × R × × m
PR MT MR GDP (2-4) are two most often used index namely Laspeyres index and logarithmic
mean divisia index (LMDI). Each index has its own characteristic and
Here, IPAT represents the driving forces of GHG emissions reduction
has been widely used to track economy-wide and sectoral energy effi-
within the CPRI development over the past ten years. Gross Domestic
ciency trend [34–36].
Production (GDP) represents the economic “size” of the CPRI. PR re-
As mentioned above, if applying SDA, the available and reliable
presents the population employed to work in the field of the CPRI. MT
input-output table is needed, whereas IDA doesn't need such an input-
represents the total plastic waste generation per year. MR represents the
output table. In China, an input-output table for the CPRI is not avail-
proportion of recycling within the CPRI. Em is the (CO2 derived) GHG
able currently. Under such circumstance, we applied IDA as our de-
emissions reduction achieved by the CPRI development.
composition analysis method. In addition, LMDI, which is using an
P = PR (2-5) arithmetic mean weight function, has solved the issue of residual [37].
Therefore, LMDI is employed to identify the driving forces and impact
Here P represents population factor, referring to direct and indirect
factors for the GHG emissions change in the CPRI. The superscripts of 0
human labour pool within the CPRI. This factor reflects how the
and T denote the base line year (2007) and the final year (2016), while
amount of labour within the CPRI impact GHG emissions reduction. The
the t and t + 1 denote the current year (t) and the next year (t + 1)
higher of this value, the higher the contribution of human resource to
(Eqs. (2-11) and (2-12)). The whole calculation process can be found in
the CPRI's total GHG emission reduction.
the following equations from (2–13)–(2–17).
MT
S= ΔIPAT T = IPAT T − IPAT 0 = ΔIPATTP + ΔIPATTS + ΔIPATTR + ΔIPATTE
PR (2-6)
+ ΔIPATTT (2-11)
S represents the scale effect factor, referring to the ratio between the
total mass of plastic waste generation and size of the human labour pool ΔIPAT = IPAT t + 1 − IPAT t = ΔIPATP + ΔIPATS + ΔIPATR + ΔIPATE
within the CPRI. The higher of this ratio, the higher the potential for
+ ΔIPATT (2-12)
GHG reduction within the CPRI.
MR IPAT t + 1 − IPAT t Pt+1 ⎞
R= ΔIPATP = ln ⎛⎜ ⎟

MT (2-7) ln IPAT t + 1 − ln IPAT t ⎝ P t ⎠ (2-13)

R represents the structural effect factor, referring to the ratio be- IPAT t + 1 − IPAT t St+1
tween recycling plastic waste and total volume of plastic waste, in- ΔIPATS = t + 1 t
ln ⎛ t ⎞
⎜ ⎟

ln IPAT − ln IPAT ⎝ S ⎠ (2-14)

dicating the current development size of recycling plastic waste. The
higher of this ratio, the greater the utilization of plastic waste as a re- IPAT t + 1 − IPAT t Rt + 1
source input to new product streams. ΔIPATR = t + 1 t
ln ⎛ t ⎞
⎜ ⎟

ln IPAT − ln IPAT ⎝ R ⎠ (2-15)

GDP
E= IPAT t + 1 − IPAT t E t+1 ⎞
MR (2-8) ΔIPATE = ln ⎛
⎜ ⎟

ln IPAT t + 1 − ln IPAT t ⎝ E t ⎠ (2-16)

E represents economic benefit effect factor, referring to the eco-
nomic efficiency in the CPRI field. It means the economic efficiency per IPAT t + 1 − IPAT t T t+1
ΔIPATT = ln ⎛ t ⎞
⎜ ⎟

recycling plastic waste mass. The higher of the E, the higher the eco- t + 1
ln IPAT − ln IPAT t
⎝ T ⎠ (2-17)
nomic value of the CPRI.
Em
T= 2.4. Scenario analysis for the coming years
GDP (2-9)

T represents the technology factor, referring to the GHG emissions
reduction generated by unit GDP in the CPRI. It can be considered a
measure of the technological effort for GHG emissions reduction within
the CPRI. Based on the formulas mentioned above, I could be expressed
as
Six scenarios are developed to examine the effects of implementing
alternative strategies. The recycling ratio of plastic waste is set as the
change factor to predict the GHG emissions reduction in the following
years. The recycling ratio of plastic waste is set according to relevant
national strategies as presented in Table 1.

1165
Z. Liu et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169

Table 1 Table 2
Scenario analysis for CPRI from 2017 to 2030. The relevant CPRI data.
Category Recycling ratio Annual change in rates Year Chinese Chinese Chinese Employment GDP of the
plastics plastics total labour force in CPRI (RMB)
BAU 41.24% by 2030 0.86% waste waste plastics the CPRI
Scenario 2 50% by 2030 1.43% recovered recycling waste
Scenario 3a 70% by 2030 2.86% mass (MT) mass (MT) mass (MT)
Scenario 3b 80% by 2030 3.57%
Scenario 4a 52% by 2030 1.57% 2007 6.80 8.00 26.00 1.86E + 06 3.91E + 10
Scenario 4b 62% by 2030 2.28% 2008 7.50 9.50 29.50 1.92E + 06 4.10E + 10
2009 9.00 11.00 35.00 1.99E + 06 4.50E + 10
2010 10.00 12.00 41.70 2.06E + 06 4.77E + 10
2011 12.00 13.50 46.93 2.14E + 06 5.30E + 10
Scenario 1. : Business as Usual (BAU)
2012 13.50 16.00 52.29 2.23E + 06 5.70E + 10
In this scenario, we assume that during the years leading to 2030, 2013 16.00 13.66 54.67 2.30E + 06 6.37E + 10
2014 17.00 20.00 56.70 2.36E + 06 6.63E + 10
the CPRI will develop at the average ratio over the past ten years each
2015 18.50 22.00 58.80 2.42E + 06 7.03E + 10
year. Based on this assumption, we can predict the GHG emissions re- 2016 20.02 24.00 60.90 2.48E + 06 7.44E + 10
duction contributed by the CPRI by 2030.
Scenario 2. : 50% by 2030
In the second scenario, according to the national governmental plan
for the GHG emissions reduction each year can be demonstrated.
Scenario 3a. : Current ratio of recycling plastic waste in Japan (70%)
Japan is a highly cyclic society and economy, whose plastic re-
cycling waste ratio is 70% currently. We can predict GHG emissions
reduction trajectory by 2030 when China reach current Japans’ re-
cycling level of plastic waste.
Scenario 3b. : Targeted ratio of plastic waste reutilization in Japan
(80%)
Japan's targeted ratio for plastics recycling is 80%. Using this sce- Fig. 5. GHG emissions reduction in the CPRI from 2007 to 2016.
nario, if the CPRI develops fast enough to reach 80% ratio of recycling
plastic waste by 2030, GHG emissions reduction can be projected as 3. Results and discussion
well in the following each years.
Using the Eq. (2-3), the result of GHG emissions reduction achieved
Scenario 4a. : Current ratio of recycling plastic waste in the western
by the CPRI has been evaluated (see Fig. 5). In the past ten years, the
countries
rapid development of the CPRI, the GHG emissions reduction con-
Currently, plastics recycling in European Union countries, the USA tributed by the CPRI indicated a growth trend of almost 200%, in-
and Canada functions at about 52%. The assumption is based on a CPRI creasing from 7.67 MT in 2007 to 14.6 MT in 2016. During this same
ratio of 52% in 2030. Under such circumstance, GHG emissions re- temporal period, the Chinese government amended a number of re-
duction will be demonstrated in the 15 following years. levant policies and regulations in support of en CPRI development. For
instance, some CPRI enterprises were directed to be part of circular
Scenario 4b. : Targeted ratio of recycling plastic waste in European
economy industrial parks, where the enterprises can be entitled to tax
Union countries, the USA and Canada (62%). Also, we can see GHG
discount and even obtain fund from the government. Government
emissions reduction trajectory when China reaches the recycling target
agencies are developing tax policies to free up billions of dollars that
of 62% set in European Union countries, the USA and Canada by 2030.
are being invested in CE-oriented pilot projects. Examples include ap-
plications of clean production techniques in specific sectors, as well as
municipal and regional eco-industrial development to support resource
2.5. Data collection and treatment recovery in industrial practices [5]. So far, in the present circular
economy industrial parks, there have been over two thirds that have
The analysis used the most recently available input–output tables established specific zone for the CPRI.
(2012) to supply data on the rubber and plastic industrial database of From the Eqs. (2–4) to (2–10), the driving forces of employment,
China. Rubber and plastic products are considered to be the main population effect, scale effect, structural effect, economic efficiency
plastic products that could be substituted with recovered plastic waste effect and technology effect on GHG emissions reduction in the CPRI
products. In China, input-output tables are usually released every five from 2007 to 2016 were calculated (see Table 3). By applying IDA, the
years. According to the studied period span, input-output table in 2012 quantitative impacts of driving forces can be gained from the equations
is set as our standard year. In addition, according to our survey, in the from 2–11 to 2–17. Effects of driving forces on the trends witnessed in
products of the CPRI, there are three different levels in terms of their GHG emissions change in the CPRI are presented (see Fig. 6). From the
quality namely excellent level, middle level and low level. Their prices Fig. 6, we can see the trends linking driving forces for GHG emissions
are set in accordance with their levels, including which the costs of change in the CPRI. S (scale effect) and R (structural effect) were found
excellent level, middle level of low level of the CPRI products are to be the most significant driving forces on the GHG emissions change
7000 RMB per ton, 5000 RMB per ton, 3000 RMB per ton respectively. in the CPRI. This suggests that vast amount of plastic wastes resource
Each level CPRI products account for roughly one third of the total CPRI and increases in the amounts of recycling plastic waste were the pri-
quantity. Therefore, the GDP of CPRI and other relevant data from 2007 mary driving forces for GHG emissions reduction in the CPRI during
to 2016 can be calculated (see Table 2). this time. Conversely, it can be seen that the E (economic efficiency
effect) and T (technological advancement effect) did not have

1166
Z. Liu et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169

Table 3 use for waste disposal, Germany's CE Law sought to closed-loop re-
Driving forces on GHG emissions reduction in the CPRI. cycling since 1996. In Japan, one type of CE, the “eco-towns” program,
Year P (Number of Employees) S (MT/Capital) R T (MT/RMB) was initiated in 1996, goals of which was to reduce landfill require-
ments and promote product-specific recycling targets by implementing
2007 1.86E+ 06 1.40E− 02 3.08E− 01 1.96E− 04 product stewardship schemes, levies, and voluntary regulatory in-
2008 1.92E+ 06 1.66E− 02 3.22E− 01 1.96E− 04
itiatives for producers and consumers. In addition, in 2000, in order to
2009 1.99E+ 06 1.98E− 02 3.14E− 01 1.96E− 04
2010 2.06E+ 06 2.45E− 02 2.88E− 01 1.96E− 04
respond the challenges of shortages of landfill spaces and revitalizing
2011 2.14E+ 06 2.73E− 02 2.88E− 01 1.96E− 04 local stagnating industries, Japan initiated “Sound Material-Cycle
2012 2.23E+ 06 3.11E− 02 3.06E− 01 1.96E− 04 Society” policy [5]. China adopted notions of CE later than the western
2013 2.30E+ 06 3.20E− 02 2.50E− 01 1.96E− 04 countries; the first supportive law associated with CE was the “Cleaner
2014 2.36E+ 06 3.50E− 02 3.53E− 01 1.96E− 04
Production Promotion Law” which took effect in January 2003. The
2015 2.42E+ 06 3.77E− 02 3.74E− 01 1.96E− 04
2016 2.48E+ 06 4.06E− 02 3.94E− 01 1.96E− 04 subsequent law, “Law on Pollution Prevention and Control of Solid
Waste” was amended in 2005. In 2008, the development of CE was
supported further through the “Circular Economy Promotion Law”,
which took effect on January 1st, 2009. In this regard, the initial re-
cycling rates for plastic waste were much lower than the western
countries; however, it also goes to show that China has considerable
potential to develop the CPRI in the coming years. There are still a lot of
“low-hanging fruit”.
Plastic waste includes items ranging from clean, single-type plastic
items, dirty, single-type plastic items and mixed plastics. For instance,
water bottles can be classified as clean single-type plastic items, while
some packaging materials and the daily used plastic bags for garbage
collection can be sorted as dirty single-type plastic items. Mixed plastics
referred to plastics mixed with other non-plastic materials, for example
those used for food packaging or plastics that are combined with the
Fig. 6. Annual effects of driving forces for GHG emissions change in the CPRI materials like nylon, metal or cardboard in toys or tools to increase
from 2007 to 2016. performance. The materials of these products are typically made from
polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP) or
significant impacts on the GHG emissions reduction of the CPRI during polystyrene (PS) [38]. As noted, due to the complexity of plastic waste,
this time period. Instead, results show that although the CPRI devel- it is therefore difficult to conduct a life cycle analysis on the GHG
oped quickly in the regard of industrial technique, compared to the emissions reduction associated with the CPRI from a national per-
effects of the scale and structure of Chinese plastic waste generation, spective. Additionally, the CPRI enterprises have uneven distribution
the impacts of economic efficiency and technological advancement across the country, with different levels of technical capability and
were much lower. In addition, the size of the labour pool in the CPRI types of industrial energy provision. Available data is not sufficiently
did not show any evident impact on the emission trends. granular to capture the implications of such differences in operational
From Fig. 7, we can see the different scenarios implementation in conditions eliminating the possibility (at this point) to include the GHG
the CPRI that will impact GHG emissions reduction in the next fol- emissions linked to the recycling process directly. An additional com-
lowing years. If the CPRI follows the previous pace, in 2030, the BAU plication is that more and more plastic waste is being recovered and
shows a GHG emissions reduction of 35.12 MT. However, if a national used to produce products traditionally made from steel and aluminum –
target of 50% recycling/reuse is reached, scenario A demonstrates thereby offsetting more energy intensive products. This kind of sub-
46.93 MT of GHG emissions reduction over time until 2030. Compared stitution can further reduce the total GHG emissions but it is highly
to other nations, the level of reduction remains low. For instance, in the challenging to scope the system boundaries when trying to consider the
Fig. 7, we can see the effects of emission reduction when they reach the life cycle of these separate yet interrelated systems. Finally, con-
current recycling ratio and targeted recycling ratio from Japan, Eur- tamination has been shown to be a key challenge limiting the effective
opean Union countries and the USA. collection, categorization and diversion of plastic waste thus impacting
The western countries such as Germany and Japan were pioneers in the potential the efficacy of the recycling process [15] and – again –
the field of CE around the world. For instance, in order to reduce land introduces uncertainty when trying to calculate CPRI GHG outputs. In
future research, GHG emissions footprint from the perspective of a more
extended boundary such as from a global perspective should be in-
vestigated.

4. Policy implications and conclusions

Fig. 7. Scenario analysis for the CPRI development.
This study has demonstrated that over the past decade, GHG emis-
sions reduction within the CPRI has increased from 7.67 MT in 2007 to
14.57 MT in 2016. The scale factor and structure factor had significant
influence on this trend which represents approximately 0.1% of the
national total GHG emissions. Building on the trends identified in this
study, as well as incorporating the potential implications of new re-
levant national strategies a scenario analysis for the next 15 years has
been completed. It shows that compared to the western countries
around the world, the CPRI is still at an early stage. Considerable work
still needs to be done for the CPRI to reach its full potential as a positive
contributor to the GHG reduction via CE strategies. The policy im-
plications for achieving this potential, are proposed as follows:

1167
Z. Liu et al.
1) Establish a national data base including materials and energy input
and output table from a life cycle perspective for the CPRI. In the
national official statistics, there is not enough information related to
CPRI. Without a reliable database, a precise study is difficult to
complete.
2) Improve the legislative and regulatory environment to drive better
recycling ratios which are currently much lower than western
countries.
3) Increase technical capabilities and the use of more advanced tech-
nology to optimize the utility of recycled plastics – particular higher
value/quality plastics – such that it can be more readily substitutes
for energy intensive products like steel and aluminum. However, the
highly effective reutilization of plastic waste is not sufficient.
Improving the quality of domestic plastic waste is necessary to im-
prove the value-add linked to the CPRI.
In relation to the third point, recovering landfilled plastic wastes
could be considered another potential source for reutilization [39]. This
is important given the recent ban on importing plastic wastes into
China. Some researchers suggest that it is impractical to recover the
landfilled plastic wastes for the reutilization, due to the difficulties
associated with cleaning the materials [40]. However, landfilled plastic
wastes could be used as a material supply for thermal generation cur-
rently supplied by fossil fuels, thus contributing to further GHG emis-
sions reduction [41].
In January 2016, the New Plastics Economy was proposed in order
to reconsider the future of plastics in response to the report by the
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey &
Co. This new vision for plastics includes a more effective utilization and
reutilization system based on circular economy principles and estab-
lished an ambitious goal – the reuse and recycling of 70% of plastic
packaging, up from the current ratio of just 14%. In order to achieve
this goal, a set of concrete actions have been identified including
launching two global innovation challenges to kick-start the redesign of
materials and packaging formats, and building a set of global common
standards or a Global Plastics Protocol for packaging design, con-
centrating initially on the most impactful changes. Also, this initiative
intends to improve recycling systems by bringing together leading
businesses, philanthropists and policymakers to make this vision a
reality and delivering collaborative projects between participant com-
panies and cities. In this regard, the new plastics economy is being
positioned to bring about innovation at scale over the next number of
years.
Plastic waste generation in China has increased rapidly over the past
decade linked to the pace of economic development, despite govern-
ment implementation of measurements aimed at curbing such growth.
Most recently, the Chinese government amended the regulation to
prohibit the solid waste imported from abroad in 2017 [42]. However,
China is still the largest recycler of plastic waste in terms of total ma-
terial throughput; under such circumstance - particular if one considers
the ongoing pace of new plastic economy – there is a considerable
potential for the CPRI development. With the technological develop-
ment in the CPRI and the growing trend of substituting steel, aluminum
and other energy intensive metals with high-grade recovered plastics,
the potential of GHG emissions reduction to be achieved by the CPRI
will be significant in the future.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by Killam Trusts and National Natural
Science Foundation for Outstanding Young Scholars of China
(71522011). In addition, we appreciate the valuable comments and
contributions from those anonymous reviewers for this paper's im-
provements and final publication.
1168
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169
References
[1] Ellen Macarchur Foundation; 2016a. 〈https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
circular-economy〉.
[2] Jawahir IS, Bradley R. Technological elements of circular economy and the prin-
ciples of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia
CIRP 2016;40:103–8.
[3] Wu HQ, Shi Y, Xia Q, Zhu WD. Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in
China: a DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2014;83:163–75.
[4] Winans K, Kendall A, Deng H. The history and current applications of the circular
economy concept. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;68:825–33.
[5] Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S, Zhang P. Measuring China's circular economy. Science
2013;339:1526–7.
[6] Jonathan B, Julia KS, David AD, Phil P, Katy R. Managing critical materials with a
technology-specific stocks and flows model. Environ Sci Technol
2013;48:1298–305.
[7] Peters GP, Weber CL, Guan DB, Hubacek K. Environ Sci Technol
2007;41(17):5939–44.
[8] Wang NN, Chang YC. The development of policy instruments in supporting low-
carbon governance in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:126–35.
[9] Liu Z, Adams M, Cote RP, Geng Y, Chen QH, Liu WL, Sun L, Yu XM. Comprehensive
development of industrial symbiosis for the response of greenhouse gases emission
mitigation: challenges and opportunities in China. Energy Policy 2017;102:88–95.
[10] Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S. Sustainability, wellbeing, and the circular economy in
China and worldwide. Science 2016:76–9.
[11] Ellen Macarchur Foundation; 2016b. 〈https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
publications/new-plastics-economy-catalysing-action〉.
[12] China Plastics Processing Industry Association; 2017. 〈http://www.cppia.com.
cn/〉.
[13] Chen YC. Potential for energy recovery and greenhouse gas mitigation from mu-
nicipal solid waste using a waste-to-material approach. Waste Manag
2016;58:408–14.
[14] Ohnishi S, Fujii M, Ohata M, Rokuta I, Fujita T. Efficient energy recovery through a
combination of waste-to-energy systems for a low-carbon city. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.018.
[15] Eva SI, Carles MG, Joan R, Xavier G. Contribution of plastic waste recovery to
greenhouse gas (GHG) savings in Spain. Waste Manag 2015;46:557–67.
[16] Hong R. Plastic waste recycling and greenhouse gas reduction taking. Copenhagen
as an example from life cycle assessment perspective [Master thesis]. Denmark:
Department of Development and Planning. Aalborg University; 2012.
[17] European Commission. Green paper on a European strategy on plastic waste in the
environment. Brussels: European Commission; 2013.
[18] Plastic Europe. Plastics – the Facts 2014/15. An analysis of European latest plastics
production, demand and waste data. Plastic Europe; Brussels, 〈http://www.
plasticseurope.org/Document/plastics-the-facts-20142015.aspx?FolID=2〉.
[19] Dong HJ, Geng Y, Fujita T, Fujii M, Hao D, Yu XM. Uncovering regional disparity of
China's water footprint and inter-provincial virtual water flows. Sci Total Environ
2014;500–501:120–30.
[20] Liu Z, Geng Y, Lindner S, Zhao HY, Fujita T, Guan DB. Embodied energy use in
China's industrial sectors. Energy Policy 2012;49:751–8.
[21] Leontief W. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an in-
put–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 1970;52:262–71.
[22] Duchin F. Structural economics: measuring change in technology, life-styles, and
the environment. Washington, D.C., Covelo, CA: Island Press; 1998.
[23] Hubacek K, Guan D, Barrett J, Wiedmann T. Environmental implications of urba-
nization and lifestyle change in China: ecological and water footprints. J Clean Prod
2009;17:1241–8.
[24] Ehrlich PR, Holdrens JP. The impact of population growth. Science
1971;171:1212–7.
[25] Jordi R. The IPAT formula and its limitations. Ecol Econ 2002;42:1–2.
[26] Agnolucci P, Ekins P, Iacopini G, Anderson K, Bows A, Mander S, Shackley S.
Different scenarios for achieving radical reduction in carbon emissions: a decom-
position analysis. Ecol Econ 2009;68(6):1652–66.
[27] Janis B, Kuishuang F, Klaus H. Drivers of CO2 emissions in the former Soviet union:
a country level IPAT analysis from 1990 to 2010. Energy 2013;59:743–53.
[28] Waggoner PE, Ausubel JH. A framework for sustainability science: a renovated
IPAT identity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2002;99(12):7860–5.
[29] Liu Z, Geng Y, Sergio U, Park HS, Fujita T, Wang H. Uncovering key factors influ-
encing one industrial park's sustainability: a combined evaluation method of
emergy analysis and index decomposition analysis. J Clean Prod 2016;114:141–9.
[30] Hubacek K, Feng KS, Chen B. Changing lifestyles towards a low carbon economy: an
IPAT analysis for China. Energies 2012;5(1):22–31.
[31] Kaya Y. Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of
proposed scenarios. IPCC response strategies working group memorandum. Paris:
IPCC; 1989.
[32] York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking
the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol. Econ 2003;46(3):351–65.
[33] Ang BW, Zhang FQ. A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and en-
vironmental studies. Energy 2000;25:1149–76.
[34] Ang BW, Xu XY. Tracking industrial energy efficiency trends using index decom-
position analysis. Energy Econ 2013;41:1014–21.
[35] Ang BW, Zhang FQ, Choi KH. Factorizing changes in energy and environmental
indicators through decomposition. Energy 1998;23:489–95.
[36] Liu Z, Geng Y, Park HS, Dong HJ, Dong L, Fujita T. An emergy-based hybrid method
Z. Liu et al.
for assessing industrial symbiosis of an industrial park. J Clean Prod
2016;114:132–40.
[37] Liu Z, Geng Y, Adams M, Dong L, Sun LN, Zhao JJ, Dong HJ, Wu JJ, Tian X.
Uncovering driving forces on greenhouse gas emissions in China’ aluminum in-
dustry from the perspective of life cycle analysis. Appl Energy 2016;166:253–63.
[38] Astrup T, Fruergaard T, Christensen TH. Recycling of plastic: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag Res
2009;27:763–72.
[39] Wen ZG, Zhang CK, Ji XL. Urban mining's potential to relieve china's coming
1169
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 1162–1169
resource crisis. J Ind Ecol 2015;19(6):1091–102.
[40] Zhou CB, Fang WJ, Xu WY, Cao AX, Wang RS. Characteristics and the recovery
potential of plastic wastes obtained from landfill mining. J Clean Prod
2014;80:80–6.
[41] Yang N, Zhang H, Chen M, Shao LM, He PJ. Greenhouse gas emissions from MSW
incineration in China: impacts of waste characteristics and energy recovery. Waste
Manag 2012;32:2552–60.
[42] The State Council Document; 2017. 〈http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-
07/27/content_5213738.htm〉.