Emergy Synthesis 9, Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Emergy Conference (2017)

31
An Emergy-LCA Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management:
Modelling Source-Separated Collection and Transportation Rates

Gengyuan Liu, Zhifeng Yang, Sergio Ulgiati

ABSTRACT
Waste management is a specific practice aimed at reducing the effects of waste materials on the envi-
ronment and increasing material and energy recovery. The Beijing Municipal Solid Waste Collection
and Treatment System has been slow to adopt new technologies capable to enable better treatment re-
sults. The aim of the present ecological-economic evaluation of different treatment technologies is to
achieve the maximum practical benefits from investments and to ensure the minimum environmental
impacts of waste flows based on variable source-separated collection and transportation rates. This
paper compared four garbage treatment systems, including separate collection and transportation, san-
itary landfills systems, fluidized bed incineration system, and the composting system in Beijing. Results
show that as far as the Source Separation Rate (SSR) increased, the yield of recycled materials and
sorted waste also rose. High SSR and Separated Transportation Rate (STR) could make recycling more
beneficial: however, if more than one approach is applied, it is possible to organize the different steps
in a way that minimizes costs and losses. A joint emergy-LCA method is applied in this study to assess
the environmental impact of input and output flows and suggest process improvement. The integration
offers a way to quantitatively and qualitatively assess costs and benefits, for aware and sound MSW
management.

INTRODUCTION
The Challenge of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Good Practices in Beijing
Municipal Solid Waste management is a complex task requiring the simultaneous modeling of
collection, transportation, disposal and recycling. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP,
2010) endeavors to implement a hierarchy of waste management practices to extract the highest possible
energy, material and environmental benefits out of the waste flows. Source Reduction is the first tier of
the solid waste management hierarchy. The separation of materials at the point of collection results in a
more homogenous and higher quality waste stream. Source separated material streams are less contam-
inated by other materials, and easier and less costly for recyclers to recover. Therefore, source separated
materials represent a higher value to recycling markets and may improve the environmental performance
and economic efficiencies of waste treatment options. However, just like other megacities (Agostinho
et al., 2013), almost 90% of MSW collected in Beijing is disposed in sanitary landfills, 2% is incinerated
and less than 8% is composted (BYB, 2011; www.chinabaike.com/t/31251/2014/0422/2110639.html).
The municipal solid waste collection and treatment system in Beijing is characterized by a garbage dis-

219
posal mode that overlooks the front-end section and emphasizes the back-end (Shu et al., 2013). Specif-
ically, garbage collection in Beijing is collected and transported to landfill sites for disposal as a mixed
material instead of being sorted, which causes a huge waste of valuable resources.
All these problems lead to a diversity and complexity of municipal solid waste collection and treat-
ment procedures which do not facilitate the planning and operation of source-separated collection neither
to know in depth the related transportation conditions. For instance, the majority of domestic garbage in
Beijing is food waste, which could be converted to valuable products like compost and mulch. However,
since Beijing has not implemented a complete source separation of garbage, and the present separation
and transportation recycling system achieves an insufficient sorting, the quality of the produced compost
cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, the garbage transportation is an essential step within the garbage sep-
aration and collection system. If the garbage is sorted when delivered by the households, but mixed when
transported, it is far from allowing appropriate and safe reuse. Therefore, in order to improve the quality
of materials collected for recovery, the sorted garbage should be transported separately (with likely
higher costs) in order to reduce the volume of residual waste to be landfilled. According to investigations
in Beijing, almost every manager of garbage separation and collection considers hard to find a factory
that is ready to receive separated garbage and reuse it. At present, the main way of Beijing’s garbage
management system is the mixed collection. The primary reason for this is that there’s no separation at
the frontend, as well as a lack of corresponding facilities for garbage separation, collection and trans-
portation. This short-sighted practice is likely to lead to exhaustion of the available and suitable landfill
areas in a small number of years and therefore is not sustainable nor desirable. Without a deep under-
standing of capabilities and effects of the different source-separated collection phases and transportation
rates, there is a real risk to slow down not only the operational practices but also the future development
of sustainable municipal solid waste collection and treatment system.

Evaluating and Integrating Technological Progress, Welfare and Environmental

Care
Due to the complexity of the aspects involved for effectively integrated MSW management, sev-
eral approaches have been developed worldwide to improve decision making. Traditional methods are
Analytical Hierarchy Process/Analytical Network Process (Erkut and Moran, 1991; Gemitzi et al., 2007;
Alavi et al., 2013), Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (Vaillancourt
and Waaub, 2002; Herva and Roca, 2013), Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (Hokkanen et al.,
1995; Aydi et al., 2012), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Cheng et al.,
2002; 2003; Su et al., 2010) and a combination of newer methods (Xi et al., 2010; Yesilnacar et al.,
2012; Karmperis et al., 2013). In recent years, biophysical assessment methods have been applied to
analyze the performances of a variety of technological systems. Material/Energy Flow Analysis, Cumu-
lative Exergy and Extended Exergy Analysis and Emergy Accounting have been suggested, among oth-
ers, to assess the appropriate resource use and environmental impact assessment, within a larger Life
Cycle perspective. Brown and Buranakarn (2003) first developed an integrated LCA-Emergy perspec-
tive by developing emergy-based indices of reuse and recycling, with case studies of construction mate-
rials. Much of the early research occurred within different case studies, e.g. management alternatives for
urban solid waste in Rome (Italy) (Cherubini et al., 2009); a Sulfuric Acid production system and a
Titanium Dioxide production system in Panzhihua in China (Zhang et al., 2011); an e-waste treatment
trial project in Macau (Song et al., 2013); investigating scenarios for MSW management in São Paulo
Municipality in Brazil (Mendes et al., 2013) and São Paulo’s Sorting and Composting Waste Treatment
Plant (Agostinho et al., 2013). Gala et al (2014) assess still open methodological issues in LCA and
emergy methods when dealing with waste management and suggest improvements and potential syner-
gies. Hornsby et al. (2016) outline the work carried out in Naples (Italy) as an example of a solid waste
management case study that is used to test and validate a much broader strategy, namely the need for
appropriate participatory and scientifically sound decision making processes summarised in a Roadmap.
Besides, biomass fuel with a marketable quality for CHP plants (Ripa et al., 2016) and four scenarios

220
for urban waste management (Fiorentino et al., 2015) based on the EU Waste Framework Directive
(WFD) are evaluated.
In this study, we applied the emergy method in order to point out the main advantages and potential
problems of selected approaches for waste management. Every single waste management facility is con-
sidered a priori by its supporter of manager as environmentally friendly. However, solid waste manage-
ment facilities require land (in the case of landfills), consume non-renewable natural resources for their
operation (in the case of transportation and infrastructures) and release a series of airborne pollutants
and leachates. Therefore, waste management facilities most often place a huge environmental burden on
the natural environment. The trade-offs between environmental gains of waste treatment and burdens
generated by the process have to be assessed in each case, which calls for the development of suitable
evaluation methods. The application of Emergy Analysis in MSW management is a very challenging
task to provide a comprehensive assessment of all factors including material, energy, labor/capital as
well as environmental impacts. Emergy analysis facilitates the comparison of diverse economic and
ecological costs and services in common units. It's therefore a well suited tool to evaluate the relative
sustainability of the MSW systems.
Being the emergy method a supply-side approach, focused on the environmental quality of re-
source flows used in a process, most of the previous emergy studies did not focus on the impact of
emissions on ecosystem and human health integrity, although some authors calculated the resource costs
of emissions and included them in the calculation of performance and sustainability indicators. Ulgiati
et al. (1995) first pointed out that the impact of emissions on natural and human-dominated ecosystems
requires additional emergy investment to take care of the damage or altered dynamics and make a system
or process sustainable. In following papers, the additional emergy was calculated for the environmental
services required to dilute emissions (Ulgiati and Brown, 2002), without however accounting for atmos-
pheric diffusion and chemistry. The use of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Eco-Indicator
99 impact assessment method (E.I. 99) was also proposed to evaluate the impact of emissions on human
health by using ecological cumulative exergy consumption (ECEC) analysis (Hau and Bakshi, 2004).
Brown and Ulgiati (2005) applied the emergy method to suggest a system view to ecosystem’s integrity
and also assess the emergy investment needed to restore ecosystem health. In seeking an effective model
in the analysis of pollutants, other authors developed hybrid LCA-based methodologies (Udo de Haes
and Lindeijer, 2001), where emissions are characterized by end-point impact factors related to human
and ecosystems health. Vassallo et al. (2009) evaluated the environmental externalities of a wastewater
treatment plant located along the Ligurian coast. All these authors point out that, while the environmental
services provided by nature for waste load dilution and buffering are generally considered as free by
analysts, they should be counted as a further cost in the total emergy budget of a process, in order to
account for airborne, waterborne and solid waste release to the environment.
This study aims at 1) estimating the cost and environmental performance of four municipal solid
waste collection and treatment systems in Beijing, based on LCA and emergy methodology; 2) compar-
ing the efficiencies of waste management based on different source separation rates (SSR) and source-
separated transportation rates (STR). The case studies addressed can provide beneficial suggestions for
integrated evaluation of local urban solid waste management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Emergy Assessment Method

Emergy is formally defined as all the available energy (exergy) previously used up directly and indi-
rectly to make a product or service (Odum, 1989; Scienceman, 1987; Odum, 1996) expressed in units of

221
solar equivalent joule (sej)1. Emergy Analysis is carried out through different steps including diagram-
ming the process, drawing an inventory of input (and sometimes output) flows, multiplying the input
flows by emergy intensity values named UEVs (Unit Emergy Values) in order to convert different input
flows into emergy units, and finally calculating the total emergy U driving the process and a set of
emergy performance indicators. UEVs are emergy per unit of product flow and can be expressed as
emergy per unit product’s exergy output (transformities, sej/J), per unit of mass output (specific emergy,
sej/g), per unit of monetary value (Emergy-to-Money Ratio, sej/currency unit), per unit of time (sej/hr),
per unit of area (sej/ha), etc. Values are referred to a planetary baseline, i.e. the total annual emergy
driving the Biosphere (Brown and Ulgiati, 2010), which is determined from the solar equivalences of
the three primary energy investments to the biogeosphere, i.e., solar radiation, residual and deep heat of
the Earth, and the gravitational attraction by the sun and the moon2.
Emergy assigns value to nature’s environmental support in terms of energy flows, materials, and
ecosystems services that contribute to life on Earth and specifically to human societies and economic
systems. A full explanation of the concepts, principles and applications of emergy synthesis can be found
in Odum (1996) as well as Brown and Ulgiati (2004). By accounting for quantity and quality of input
flows, keeping track of interactions among system components across scales, and identifying LCA-based
environmental impacts and savings of loop-closing strategies at all levels, emergy provides a suitable
systemic framework for assessing the performance and sustainability of processes (Geng, et al., 2013),
and - in this specific study – of urban waste management processes (Zhang, et al., 2010; Yuan et al.,
2011).
The advantages of emergy is that emergy also expands to the larger time scale of resource generation,
in so adding an estimate of renewability. Raugei et al (2005) pointed out the importance of keeping track
of renewable fractions within the emergy metabolic chain from background to foreground processes:
“When a given item from a process is supplied as an input to another process, its emergy is transferred
to the new process, so that the memory of previous processes is not lost. However, what is most often
lost is the information embodied in the share of R, N, and F, which characterizes each input flow. On
the scale of the new process, the flow is usually accounted for as purchased nonrenewable (F) in the
calculation of performance indicators. Thus, locally renewable driving forces seem to lose relevance as

1 In the last Emergy Conference (Gainesville, January, 2016) a decision was made about the unit of emergy. Instead
of seJ (capital J), referred to solar equivalent joule, the unit will be sej (small cap, not capital j), referring to solar
emjoule. Only the unit of the actual baseline remain seJ (capital J), in order to underline an equivalence factor
between the three driving forces of biosphere (solar, deep heat, gravitational). Further clarifications in Brown et al,
2016; Brown and Ulgiati, 2016.
2 Prior to 2000, the annual emergy driving the geobiosphere was calculated as 9.44E+24 sej/yr (Odum, 1996) as the

sum of solar radiation, deep heat and tidal momentum (calculated as solar-equivalent amounts). Odum et al. (2000)
recalculated the total emergy baseline as 15.83E+24 sej/yr to include the co-activities of solar, gravitational and
geothermal sources. Previously calculated UEVs must be multiplied by 1.68 (the ratio of 15.83/9.44) for conversion
to the new baseline. Brown and Ulgiati (2010) refined this calculation to 15.2E+24 sej/yr based on updated values
and the conversion of energy to exergy units. The emergy baseline is the reference for all main biosphere-scale
processes, the UEVs of which are also calculated under this assumption to set the UEV of solar radiation equal to 1
sej/J. All other UEVs of human dominated processes are calculated accordingly as the ratio of the required emergy
input flows to the output flow(s). In this study, we choose 15.2 × 1024 sej/yr as the annual emergy global baseline,
based on Brown and Ulgiati (2010). Unit Emergy Values (UEVs) calculated according to Odum (2000) baseline
can be left unchanged, because the difference falls within the uncertainty range of the Brown and Ulgiati (2010)
baseline, as pointed out by these Authors; UEVs calculated before the year of 2000 (9.44 × 1024 sej/yr baseline;
Odum, 1996) should be multiplied by 1.61. Very recently a new adjustment of the baseline (12.0E+24 sej/yr) was
published (Brown et al, 2016; Brown and Ulgiati, 2016), based on better data available and some conceptual im-
provement on the interpretation of the three major driving forces in the biosphere. However, although this deter-
mines a decrease of all the previously calculated UEVs (to be multiplied by a factor 0.76), we preferred to keep
reference to the Ulgiati and Brown (2010) baseline, in order to wait for a more complete set of new UEVs to be
available. Comparison among scenarios in this paper is not affected, considering that all of them refer to the same
baseline.

222
the observer moves farther and farther from primary processes. This practice is surprising within the
body of a theory based on the “memory” of a product history. We suggest that performance indicators
be calculated preserving the characteristics of the inputs (% R, N and F)”. Moreover, emergy includes
estimates of the resources invested to support Labor (the activity directly displayed within the process)
and Services (the indirect activities involved in the supply chain of resources before the process takes
place). Embodied in the way these supporting resources are calculated is the value of know-how and
infrastructure, which is almost never included in other methods (Ulgiati and Brown, 2014). For instance,
in embodied energy analysis, labor is credited as the metabolic energy that is needed to generate it and
is only accounted for when no other energy sources are input (i.e. only in subsistence economies); some
energy analysts use embodied energy (i.e. fossil energy) values for labor; in LCA practice, labor is most
often not accounted for as an energy input (Ulgiati and Brown, 2014). Finally, the special algebra of
emergy (memory algebra) is such that recycled resources are not accounted again, although they allow
the benefit to decrease the input resources. This characteristic (so-called zero-burden approach) is only
shared with LCA (Gala et al., 2015).

Description of the Municipal Solid Waste Management in Beijing

The life cycle flow-chart of MSW is depicted in Figure 1. The system boundary is the interface
between the waste management system and the environment or other product systems. The life cycle
starts once a material or product becomes waste, i.e. its owner discards it in the waste collection bins
(so-called zero-burden approach; Bala et al., 2014). MSW is collected either via sanitation workers or

Figure 1. Flowchart of urban solid waste destinations in Beijing.

223
via scavengers. Each collection method requires its own infrastructure, i.e. dedicated bins and collection
vehicles, followed by transportation to landfill of treatment plants. In the MSW management system,
the separate waste can either go to the landfill or the waste-to-energy facility. If the source-separated
waste is a dry flow (aluminum, glass and paper, etc.), it can go to the material reclamation facility; if it
is wet (kitchen leftovers, etc.) can go to the composting plant.
The municipal solid waste management process can be broadly divided into three phases: separated
collection, separated transformation, and separated treatment and recycling. Usually, the household ur-
ban waste is packed in plastic bags and left in waste containers, from which the waste is taken by a
collection team (official manual collection and special trucks for compaction), as well as unofficial scav-
engers collecting recyclable materials. The phase of separated collection and transportation plays an
important role in increasing recovery rates. Householders or sanitation companies that separate waste
before disposal help reduce the volume of residual waste to landfill and offer better opportunities for
recycling. Some researchers have pointed out that the informal recycling of waste by scavengers not
only constrains profits of the formal system, but also pollutes the environment if toxic substances leak
when waste is not properly disposed of (Besiou, et al., 2011). After collection, the Beijing municipal
waste is handled in conventional ways in sanitary landfills, incineration or composed (Figure 1).
In order to accomplish an emergy and LCA evaluation of the waste management process, all ma-
terial and energy resource inputs and outputs (emissions and products) must be preliminarily identified
and quantified (inventory) to be converted to emergy flows as well as emergy-based and LCA indicators.

(1) Collection and transportation

Collection of MSW can either occur in separate bins or mixed bags. Mixed bag collection is the
most widely applied method; however, separate collection is a prerequisite for successful material re-
covery. Figure 2 presents a systems diagram that shows components of as well as input and output flows
to the collection and transport stages of MSW management, including the process of sorting and recy-
cling. The input flows are MSW and the materials and energy for the required infrastructure and mainte-
nance (MSW temporary storage containers and vehicles needed for collection and transportation). The
output of these processes are again collected and sorted MSW and airborne emissions.

Figure 2. Life cycle inventory components of the collection and transportation phase. Note: R: Renew-
ables; MSW: Municipal Solid Waste; Eqp: Equipment; Infra: Infrastructure; L&S: Labor & Services;
Ele: Electricity.

224
(2) Landfilling
Landfilling, the first and oldest MSW treatment option, is a discrete area of land or excavation that
receives household waste. The types of landfilling facilities, all over the world, range from uncontrolled
dumpsites to highly engineered facilities with leachate and landfill gas (LFG) management. Figure 3
shows the major components as well as inputs and outputs of the life cycle landfilling process. When
MSW is landfilled directly, anaerobic biological degradation produces landfill gas and leachate. The
remainder is released as leachate (Obersteiner et al., 2007). Environmental impacts arising from landfills
are: leachate, emissions into the air (e.g. Methane and CO2, which are produced by microorganisms
within the landfill under anaerobic conditions), the energy costs in input (fuel and electricity) and mate-
rial inputs for the construction of the engineered landfills.
(3) Incineration
The most important input flows considered when compiling the LCI of an incineration plant are
shown in the systems diagram of Figure 4: MSW, electricity, other fuels (diesel, natural gas or even
coal), water and activated carbon (for air pollution control). On the other hand, the outputs are: flue gases
(SO2, NOx, CO, ash, etc), electricity generated and water discharge. The key factors in modeling incin-
eration in LCA terms are (Chen & Christensen, 2010): incineration technology (e.g. grated firing, fluid-
ized bed) and airborne emissions. Disposal of ash is also an important factor. In this study, we chose
fluidized bed as the most typical incineration technology used in Beijing.

(4) Biological treatment

Figure 5 presents the major inputs and outputs of MSW biological treatment. Two processes can be
included under the term “biological treatment”: composting and anaerobic digestion. Composting is an
aerobic process. The degradable organic carbon in the MSW is converted into CO2 while the residual
fraction has a high fertilizer content. The outputs include compost, i.e. mineralized organic matter with
nutrients, methane and landfill gas, the impact of which depend on their final destination (energy use or
airborne emissions).

Concre
MSW Ele. Diesel Sulf. Chem. L&S
te
0.23 17.3 0.38 0.05 0.27 47.7

Landfill Electricity
gas Small generating
R plants

Sanitary
landfills Landfill gas
Landfill
leachate

Sewage disposal Discharge after

system treatment
Unit:×1012seJ/t-waste

Figure 3. Life cycle inventory of landfilling. Note: R: Renewables; MSW: Municipal Solid Waste; Ele:
Electricity; Sulf: Sulfuric acid; Chem: Chemical cleaners; L&S: Labor & Services.

225
 Concre
MSW Ele. Lime DTC Diesel Diesel Ele. Lotion L&S
te

4.73 10.0 0.10 0.80 0.58 7.64 0.20 1.33 52.7

Electricity
Incineration
R boiler
Exhaust gas
Fluidized bed
Ash

Treatment Ash

Unit:×1012seJ/t-waste

Figure 4. Life cycle inventory components and flows of an incineration plant. Note: R: Renewables;
MSW: Municipal Solid Waste; Ele: Electricity; DTC: DTC-dithiocarbamate; L&S: Labor & Services.

Concre
MSW Ele. Water Ele. Diese L&S
te

2.18 2.64 0.13 5.08 5.92 38.8

LFG
R LFG

Biodigestor
& sivers Methane

Final
Compost
biodigestion
12
Unit:×10 seJ/t-waste

Figure 5. Life cycle inventory components of a composting process Note: R: Renewables; MSW: Mu-
nicipal Solid Waste; Ele: Electricity; L&S: Labor & Services; LFG: Landfill Gas.

226
Evaluating the Impacts of Emissions by Integrating Emergy and LCA

Many environmental impact assessment methods have been integrated into the LCA software (such
as SimaPRO, GaBi, OpenLCA). In this study, a preliminary assessment of impacts is performed accord-
ing to the framework of the Eco-Indicator 99 assessment method (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000;
Ukidwe and Bakshi, 2007). Such method, like all end-point life cycle impact assessment methods, suf-
fers from very large uncertainties intrinsically embodied in its procedure for assessment of final impacts.
Yet, it provides a preliminary - although uncertain - estimate of impacts to be used in the calculation
procedure of total emergy investment and losses. Damages to natural capital are expressed as the Poten-
tially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) of species in the affected ecosystem, while damages to human health
are expressed as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY), according to Goedkoop and Spriensma (2000),
Murray (1994), Zhang et al. (2009). Six kinds of environmental impacts are listed in Table 1, which
include human carcinogenic effects, human respiratory effects caused by organic substances, human
respiratory effects caused by inorganic substances, damages to human health caused by climate change,
damage to ecosystem quality caused by ecotoxic emissions, and damage to ecosystem quality caused by
the combined effect of acidification and eutrophication.
The impact of emissions on human health can be viewed as an additional indirect demand for resource
investment. Human assets (considering all their complexity: life quality, education, know-how, culture,
social values and structures, hierarchical roles, etc) can be considered as a local very slowly renewable
storage that is irreversibly lost due to the polluting production and use processes. Societies support the
wealth and relations of their components in order to provide shared benefits. When such wealth and
relations are lost, the investment is lost or calls for additional investment to restore (when possible) and
such a loss must be charged to the process that caused it. The emergy loss can be calculated as

Lw ,1   mi  DALYi   H (1)

Here, Lw,1 is the emergy loss in support of the human resource affected, i refers to the i-th pollutant,
m is the mass of chemicals released, DALY is its E.I. 99 impact factor and τH is the average unit emergy
allocated to the human resource per year, calculated as τH = total annual emergy/population. The rationale
here is that it takes resources to develop quality of life, expertise or work ability, culture and societal
organization. When it is lost, new resources must be invested for replacement (not to talk of the value
of the individual in itself, that is not quantifiable in physical terms).
PDF is the acronym for Potentially Disappeared Fraction of Species (Eco-Indicator 99, Goedkoop
and Spriensma, 2000). Such effects can be quantified as the emergy associated to the loss of local eco-
logical resources, under the same rationale discussed above for the human resource:

Lw ,2   mi  PDF（%）
i  E Bio (2)

Here Lw,2 is the emergy equivalent of impact of a given emission on natural resource, while PDF(%)
is the fraction potentially affected, measured as PDF×m2×yr×kg-1. A damage of one unit in E.I. 99 frame-
work means all species disappear from one m2 during one year, or 10% of all species disappear from 10
m2 during one year, etc. EBio is the unit emergy stored in the biological resource (sej×m-1×yr-1), which is
presented as the average emergy to support local wilderness, farming, forestry, animal husbandry or
fishery production, in other words the emergy value of natural capital (Campbell and Brown, 2012;
Dong, et al., 2014).
Additional damages from solid waste generation can be associated to land occupation for landfill and
disposal. This may be converted to emergy via the emergy/area ratio (upper bound, average emergy density

227
of economic activities) or even via the emergy intensity of soil formation (lower bound, average environmen-
tal intensity). Thus the related emergy loss (Lw,3) can be obtained using the total occupied land area multiplied
by the economic or environmental emergy intensity of such an area (choice depends on the area of the inves-
tigated system).

Efficiency Assessment of Waste Management Ii Beijing

Two main aspects can be identified to characterize the efficiency and effectiveness of urban waste
management, namely the Source Separation Rate (SSR) and the Source-separated Transportation Rate
(STR). Source separation refers to the separation of MSW into several categories at the generation source
according to the different characteristics of each material before further treatment. The MSW source
separation rate indicates the percentage of the amount of pre-separated waste versus the total amount of
waste generation. It represents the effectiveness of MSW source-separated collection in the city. The
amount of garbage after being separated from different sources per year is shown in Table 1.
Based on the current MSW generation in Beijing, the amounts from different waste production
sources can be calculated as a function of assumed source separation rates (Table 2). The total amount
of MSW in Beijing in 2012 was 6.50×104 t/yr and the current source separation rate in 2012 was about
50%. We made the assumptions that (1) when the source separation rate equals 0, transportation only
includes the mixed MSW which end up into the landfill; (2) when the source separation rate reaches
100%, which represents the other end of the spectrum, the MSW is totally source-separated in all the
sectors of Table 1; (3) intermediate rates of 20%, 50% and 80% are assumed for source-separated col-
lection between the two extremes.

Table 1. Garbage component fractions1 (%), Beijing, 2012.

Source Kitchen garbage (%) Recyclable material (%) Others (%) Sum
Residential area2 69.32 27.95 2.73 100
Marketplace 25.28 71.35 3.37 100
Restaurant 54.81 43.79 1.40 100
Business 32.35 52.91 14.74 100
School 42.70 44.60 12.70 100
Office building 42.85 55.02 2.13 100
1 2
Notes: Data source: http://www.cn-hw.net/html/51/201302/38325.html; The data in residential area is the
result of an investigation in seven residential area of Beijing (Beijing Solid Waste Administration Depart-
ment, http://www.bswad.org.cn/tabid/72/Default.aspx).

Table 2. Amounts of MSW per year at different source separation rates (104 ton/yr).
Waste yield at different source separation rates
waste composition
100%1 80%1 50%1 20%1 0%1
4
Others 61.49 179.19 355.75 532.30 650.00
Kitchen garbage3 297.83 238.26 148.91 59.57 -
Recyclable material 290.68 232.54 145.34 58.14 -
Sum2 650.00 650.00 650.00 650.00 650.00
Notes: 1 Source separation rates are defined as the mass of all separated waste divided by the total generation.
2
The total amount of MSW in Beijing in 2012 was 6.50×104 t/yr. Here, we use the same amount as the MSW
total amount of all the scenarios. 3 It is assumed here that all the separated kitchen garbage will be treated in
the composting process. 4 It is assumed here that 5% of the separated other garbage will be treated in the
incineration plant. The rest and unseparated garbage will be landfilled. (5% is the current ratio of burned
garbage in 2012.)

228
 STR was determined from the mass of waste transport-separated divided by the total mass of
MSW. If all waste were transported separately, STR would be 100%. The actually treated amount was
calculated based to the proportions of both SRT and SSR (see calculation equations in Table 3). Here,
x1, x2, and x3 mean the fractions of kitchen garbage, recyclable waste and mixed waste respectively after
the collection process. Parameters x1’, x2’ and x3’ mean the kitchen garbage, recyclable waste and mixed
waste respectively which need to be transported. The theoretical demand number of garbage trucks could
be calculated based on Table 3. The effective load values between ordinary truck (3.5 t/round trip),
kitchen waste truck (6 t/round trip) and recyclable waste truck (1.5 t/round trip) could be found in refs
(Wang et al., 2004).

RESULTS

Emergy Analysis of MSW Management Options

Results from the emergy analysis of the four investigated urban domestic waste treatment options
are shown in Tables 4-7. For the collection and transportation within Beijing, it was found that about
71.34% of emergy input is associated to the diesel used (for solid waste transport). The maintenance
cost and labor cost in this stage only cover 17.13% (5.20 × 1012 sej/t-waste). NOx, CO2 and SO2 are the
main gaseous emissions from fuel combustion in trucks.
For the sanitary landfills in Beijing, it was found out that more than 92.17% of emergy input came
from concrete (for constructing infrastructure in landfill), about 3.39% came from electricity inputs
(mainly using for leachate disposal), and about 4.44% came from sulfuric acid and chemical cleaners
used for leachate disposal. Fluidized bed incineration process mainly needed concrete (42.51%) and
other resource input (55.26%), which included coals as the oxidizer and DTC-dithiocarbamate and ce-
ments for ash treatment. In composting system, electricity, used for primary separation and composting,
covered 47.18% of the emergy input.

Table 3. MSW amounts at different source separation rates (SSR) and source-separated transportation
rates (STR).
STR (%)
0 20 50 80 100
SSR(%)
x1´=0 x1´=0 x1´=0 x1´=0 x1´=0
0 x2´=0 x2´=0 x2´=0 x2´=0 x2´=0
x3´= x3 x3´= x3 x3´= x3 x3´= x3 x3´= x3
x1´= 0 x1´= x1*20% x1´= x1*50% x1´= x1*80% x1´= x1
20 x2´= 0 x2´= x2*20% x2´= x2*50% x2´= x2*80% x2´= x2
x3´= x1+x2+ x3 x3´= x3+(x1+x2)*80% x3´= x3+(x1+x2)* 50% x3´= x3+(x1+x2)* 20% x3´= x3
x1´= 0 x1´= x1*20% x1´= x1*50% x1´= x1*80% x1´= x1
50 x2´= 0 x2´= x2*20% x2´= x2*50% x2´= x2*80% x2´= x2
x3´= x1+x2+ x3 x3´= x3+(x1+x2)*80% x3´= x3+(x1+x2)* 50% x3´= x3+(x1+x2)* 20% x3´= x3
x1´= 0 x1´= x1*20% x1´= x1*50% x1´= x1*80% x1´= x1
80 x2´= 0 x2´= x2*20% x2´= x2*50% x2´= x2*80% x2´= x2
x3´= x1+x2+ x3 x3´= x3+(x1+x2)*80% x3´= x3+(x1+x2)* 50% x3´= x3+(x1+x2)* 20% x3´= x3
x1´= 0 x1´= x1*20% x1´= x1*50% x1´= x1*80% x1´= x1
100 x2´= 0 x2´= x2*20% x2´= x2*50% x2´= x2*80% x2´= x2
x3´= x1+x2 x3´= (x1+x2)*80% x3´= (x1+x2)*50% x3´= (x1+x2)*20% x3´=0
Notes: x1+x2+x3= x1´+x2´+x3´ = the total amount of MSW to be managed.

229
Table 4. Emergy analysis of collection, transportation and recycling processes.1
UEV Solar emergy
Category Items Basic data per Unit ref
(sej/unit) (sej/t-waste)
After Odum
Concrete (infrastructure) 3.39 × 10-2 kg/ t-waste 2.59 × 1012 8.78 × 1010
et al., 2000
Bargigli & Ul-
Steel (Equipment) 2.92 × 10-1 kg/ t-waste 3.16 × 1012 9.23 × 1011
giati, 2003
J/ t-waste after Brown and
Electricity (Recycling) 6.50 × 105 1.74 × 105 1.13 × 1011
Ulgiati, 2010
Diesel (transportation-re- after Brown and
N 3.54 × 107 J/t-waste 1.11 × 105 3.93 × 1012
cycling) 3 Ulgiati, 2010
Diesel (transportation- after Brown and
9.29 × 105 J/t-waste 1.11 × 105 1.03 × 1011
incineration) 4 Ulgiati, 2010
Diesel (transportation- after Brown and
4.50× 106 J/t-waste 1.11 × 105 5.00 × 1011
composting) 5 Ulgiati, 2010
Diesel (transportation- after Brown and
4.39 × 107 J/t-waste 1.11 × 105 4.87 × 1012
landfill) 6 Ulgiati, 2010
Maintenance cost and
L&S 4.60 $/t 8.44 × 1012 This study 3.88 × 1013
services
Agostinho
Paper 5.25 kg/t-waste 6.52× 1012 3.42× 1013
et al, 2013
kg/t-waste Agostinho
Glass 2.08 3.63× 1012 7.55× 1012
et al, 2013
kg/t-waste Agostinho
Recycling Iron & steel 11.1 1.13× 1013 1.25× 1014
et al, 2013
kg/t-waste Agostinho
Plastic 10.2 9.83× 1012 1.00× 1014
et al, 2013
kg/t-waste Agostinho
Aluminum 3.13× 10-1 2.10× 1013 6.57× 1012
et al, 2013
NOx 3.07× 10-2 kg/t-waste
Transportation kg/t-waste
CO2 2.67
(recycling) 7
SO2 4.25× 10-3 kg/t-waste
NOx 3.81× 10-2 kg/t-waste
Transportation kg/t-waste
CO2 3.31
(landfill)
SO2 5.27× 10-3 kg/t-waste
NOx 3.90× 10-3 kg/t-waste
Transportation kg/t-waste
CO2 3.39× 10-1
(incineration)
SO2 5.40× 10-4 kg/t-waste
NOx 3.90× 10-3 kg/t-waste
Transportation kg/t-waste
CO2 3.39× 10-1
(composting)
SO2 5.40× 10-4 kg/t-waste
1 3
Notes: SSR = 50%, STR = 50%.; Recycled waste = 1 t × 145.34/650.00 = 0.2236 t. Diesel used in land-
filling waste transportation is 6.78 × 107 J/t-waste (Liu, et al., 2014). Diesel used in recycled waste trans-
portation = 0.2236 × 6.78 × 107 × 3.5/1.5 = 3.54 × 107 J/t-waste; 4 Burned waste = 1 t × (355.75/650.00) ×
5% ×50% = 0.0137 t. Diesel used in burned waste transportation = 0.0137 × 6.78 × 107 = 9.29 × 105 J/t-
waste; 5 Composed waste = 1 t × (148.91/650.00) ×50% = 0.1145 t. Diesel used in composed waste trans-
portation = 0.1145× 6.78 × 107 × 3.5/6 = 4.50 × 106 J/t-waste. 6 Landfill waste = 1- 0.2236 - 0.0137 - 0.1145
= 0.6482 t. Diesel used in landfilled waste transportation = 0.6482 × 6.78 × 107 = 4.39 × 107 J/t-waste. 7 NOx
emission = (3.54 × 107 J/t-waste /1000000000) × 0.89 = 3.07× 10-2 kg/t-waste; CO2 emission = (3.54 ×
107 J/t-waste /1000000000) × 75.5 = 2.67 kg/t-waste; SO2 emission = (3.54 × 107 J/t-waste /1000000000)
× 0.12 = 4.25× 10-3 kg/t-waste; Data source: Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, 2013

230
Table 5. Emergy analysis of sanitary landfill.
Solar
UEV emergy
Category Items Basic data per Unit References
(sej/unit) (sej/t-
waste)
Concrete (Infra- after Odum et al.,
6.68 kg/ t-waste 2.59 × 1012 2000 1.73 × 1013
structure)
after Brown and
Diesel (Landfill) 3.47 × 106 J/t-waste 1.11 × 105 Ulgiati, 2010
3.84 × 1011
Electricity after Brown and
1.34 × 106 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati, 2010 2.33 × 1011
(Landfill)
N Electricity after Brown and
0.00 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati, 2010 0.00
(Leachate disposal)
Sulfuric acid Brandt-Williams,
2.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste 2.65 × 1012 2001
5.30 × 1010
(Leachate disposal)
Chemical cleaners Brandt-Williams,
1.00 × 10−1 kg/t-waste 2.65 × 1012 2001
2.65 × 1011
(Leachate disposal)
Maintenance cost
L&S 5.65 $/t 8.44 × 1012 This study 4.77 × 1013
and services
Output Electricity 2.46 × 107 J/t-waste 2.64 × 105 This study 6.50 × 1013
CH41 1.83 × 101 kg/t-waste
2
CO2 3.35 × 101 kg/t-waste
LFG emis-
H2S3 1.30 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
sion
NH3 6.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste
CO 5.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste
Electricity CO2 8.20 × 101 kg/t-waste
generation NOx 1.70 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
4
SO2 9.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste
COD 3.00 kg/t-waste
−1
TOC 9.00 × 10 kg/t-waste
Leachate5 −2
SS 7.50 × 10 kg/t-waste
NH3-N 3.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste
Notes: 1 Methane emission from landfill is obtained by Q = k*L0*Rx*e-k(T-x) (Cherubini et al., 2009), in which
Q = methane emissions in the current year [m3/year]; L0 = 0.74 kg/m3, methane emissions by unit of waste;
Rx = amount of waste to landfill per year [t/year]; k = 0.05 L/yr, constant of methane production per year; x =
year from which wastes are disposed to landfill; T = current year. Here, we assume 70% of methane is col-
lected and used, 15% of methane is released to the atmosphere and the rest is flared. 2 CO2 content assumes
42% of the whole methane based on average landfill biogas composition; 3 3% of the disposed sulfur is emit-
ted to the landfill gas as H2S. 4 Our assumption: the sources of electricity are the same in % of China. 5 We
assume 1% of the carbon content in biodegradable wastes is emitted as COD to the leachate (Dalemo et al.,
1997). One gram of carbon is assumed as equivalent to 3 g of COD. 50% of the nitrogen content of biode-
gradable components is assumed to be emitted as total-N within the leachate. 70% of leachate will be collected
and treated and 30% will leak out without any treatment.

231
Table 6. Emergy analysis of fluidized bed incineration.
UEV Solar emergy
Category Items Basic data per Unit ref
(sej/unit) (sej/t-waste)
Concrete (infrastruc- after Odum
3.88 kg/ t-waste 2.59 × 1012 et al., 2000 1.00 × 1013
ture)
after Brown and
Electricity (transfer) 5.18 × 105 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010
9.04 × 1010
Electricity after Brown and
1.44 × 106 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010 2.51 × 1011
(pretreatment)
Brandt-Williams,
Limestone 1.00 kg/t-waste 1.02 × 1010 1.02 × 1010
2001
Electricity after Brown and
1.13 × 106 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010 1.97 × 1011
(incineration)
after Brown and
Diesel (Ignition) 6.91 × 107 J/t-waste 1.11 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010
7.64 × 1012
N after Odum,
Oxidizer (Coal) 2.90 × 108 J/t-waste 6.69 × 104 1996
1.94 × 1013
Lotion after Grönlund et
5.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste 2.65 × 1012 al., 2004
1.33 × 1011
(flue gas treatment)
Electricity after Brown and
7.20 × 105 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010
1.26 × 1011
(flue gas treatment)
DTC-dithiocarba- after Grönlund et
3.00 × 10−2 kg/t-waste 2.65 × 1012 al., 2004
7.95 × 1010
mate (ash treatment)
Cement Pereira and Ne-
5.58 × 101 kg/t-waste 1.04 × 109 bra, 2000
5.82 × 1010
(ash treatment)
Electricity after Brown and
7.56 × 105 J/t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010
1.32 × 1011
(ash treatment)
Maintenance cost
L&S 6.24 $/t 8.44 × 1012 This study 5.27 × 1013
and services
Output Electricity1 2.04 × 108 J/t-waste 3.61 × 105 This study 7.36 × 1013
2 kg/t-waste 11
Slag 1.66 × 10 4.43 × 10 This study 7.36 × 1013
CO22 1.26 × 103 kg/t-waste
CO 2
7.11 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
SO23 0.60× 10−2 kg/t-waste
Incineration NOx 3
3.63 × 10−3 kg/t-waste
HCL3 0.60× 10−2 kg/t-waste
HF 3
0.30× 10−3 kg/t-waste
PM10 1.64 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
1
Notes: We assume that the waste is incinerated in a mass-burn incinerator having energy recovery efficiency
of 15%; 2 The amount of CO2 and CO emitted was based on IPCC manual (which is calculated on the basis
of the oxidation of the anthropogenic sources of carbon. 3 The emissions per ton waste are cited from the Ref.
(Kremer et al., 1998).

232
Table 7. Emergy analysis of composting process.
UEV Solar emergy
Category Items Basic data per Unit ref
(sej/unit) (sej/t-waste)
Concrete kg/ t- after Odum et al.,
1.02 2.59 × 1012 2000 2.64 × 1012
(infrastructure) waste
Electricity (primary after Brown and
1.25 × 107 J/ t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010 2.18 × 1012
separation)
N Electricity after Brown and
2.92 × 107 J/ t-waste 1.74 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010 5.08 × 1012
(composting)
Agostinho et al,
Water 1.90 × 106 J/ t-waste 6.89 × 104 2013
1.31 × 1011
after Brown and
Diesel 3.27 × 107 J/ t-waste 1.11 × 105 Ulgiati., 2010
5.92 × 1012
Maintenance cost
L&S 4.60 $/t 8.44 × 1012 This study 3.88 × 1013
and services
Output Compost 4.82 × 102 kg/t-waste 8.36 × 1010 This study 4.03 × 1013
1
CH4 2.75 × 10 kg/t-waste
Primary
CO2 4.35 × 101 kg/t-waste
separation1
H2S 3.00 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
NH3 4.50 × 10−2 kg/t-waste
CH4 2.50 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
Compost- CO2 3.10 × 10−10 kg/t-waste
ing 1
H2S 2.64 × 10−1 kg/t-waste
NH3 3.33 × 10−2 kg/t-waste
1
Notes: The amount of emissions was based on IPCC manual. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/pub-
lic/2006gl/chinese/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_4_Ch4_Bio_Treat.pdf.

The emergy-based treatment costs are significantly different. Landfills without leachate disposal
system is the least expensive (1.02 × 1013 sej/t-waste), while the sanitary landfills system with leachate
disposal system needs 1.35 × 1013 sej per t-waste. The incineration system requires more emergy inputs.
For fluidized bed incineration process, 4.27 × 1013 sej are used for treating 1 t waste. Emergy demand
is much lower in the composting process (3.19 × 1013 sej/t-waste). Therefore, if the demand for ecolog-
ical services and the impacts from emission are disregarded, the sanitary landfill system seems to show
the best performance.

Emissions Impacts
Emissions impacts are calculated as explained in methods and shown in Table 8. Our study will
deal with emissions that are harmful to human and ecosystem health. Airborne emissions from both
waste transportation and treatments include SO2, dust, NOx and CH4 (causing respiratory disorders), and
CO2, N2O and again CH4 (contributing to climate change). Data about CO2, N2O and CH4 are calculated
as greenhouse gases released at local and global scales, based on direct and indirect energy consumption.
The ecological losses caused by water emissions were not considered due to a lack of the corresponding
coefficients. For sanitary landfill systems, the value of emissions impacts on human health was 3.82 ×
1012 sej/t-waste, which mainly came from the damages to human health resulting from CH4-caused cli-
mate change (62.54%), CO2 (18.87%, climate change) and NOx (14.74%, respiratory effects on humans

233
Table 8. Emergy analysis of emissions´ impacts (Unit: sej/t-waste).
Fluidized bed
Impact Sanitary landfills Composting Transportation1
incineration
category
Lw,12 Lw,23 Lw,1 Lw,2 Lw,1 Lw,2 Lw,1 Lw,2
11
CO2 7.21 × 10 - 7.91 × 1012 - 3.99 × 1012 - 3.65 × 1011 -
CO 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -
NOx 5.63 × 10 2.42 × 10 2.13 × 10 9.14 × 10 3.27 × 10 1.41 × 10 1.16 × 10 4.97 × 1011
11 12 12 12 12 13 11

SO2 1.47 × 1011 1.87 × 1011 1.23 × 1012 1.56 × 1012 6.92 × 1011 8.81 × 1011 1.50 × 109 1.91 × 109
TSP 0.00 - 1.83 × 1012 - 8.57 × 1011 - 0.00 -
N 2O 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 -
CH4 2.39 × 1012 - 0.00 - 3.83 × 1012 - 0.00 -
Sum 3.82 × 10 2.61 × 10 1.31 × 10 1.07 × 10 1.26 × 10 1.50 × 10 4.83 × 10 4.99 × 1011
12 12 13 13 13 13 11

Notes: 1 STR = 50%, SSR = 50%; 2 Lw,1 is the emergy loss in support of the human resource affected; 3 Lw,2
is the emergy equivalent of impact of a given emission on natural resource.

caused by inorganic substances). Ecosystem related losses mainly came from the damage to ecosystem
quality caused by the combined effect of NOx and SO2’s acidification and eutrophication. The emission im-
pacts of incineration and composting was much higher than those of the landfill systems. The human health
losses are 1.31 × 1013 sej/t-waste and 8.81 × 1012 sej/t-waste in fluidized bed incineration system and com-
posting system respectively. The largest contributor was the damages to human health resulting from CO2-
caused climate change (60.38% and 45.29%). Ecosystem losses were mainly caused by NOx’s acidifi-
cation and eutrophication. Results also indicate that human health losses caused by harmful air emissions
are ranked in this order: fluidized bed incineration > composting system> sanitary landfills, while the
ecosystem losses are ranked: composting system > fluidized bed incineration > sanitary landfills. The
different ranking is caused by the increased NOx release of the treatment processes (such as electricity
generation), which created a damage to ecosystem quality caused by the combined effect of acidification
and eutrophication.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of MSW Source-Separated Collection and Transportation

We accounted for the emergy costs of processes under different source separated collection and
transportation rates to assess a comprehensive understanding of environmental costs of the MSW col-
lection and treatment system (Table 9). The non-separated material was included in the mixed waste
to be treated in the landfill. The total emergy investments include the emergy input flows and the
emergy losses associated to environmental impacts. In general, Table 9 shows that, when STR is fixed,
the emergy benefit in collection phase increase as the SSR grows, while it’s inverse for the transporta-
tion phase. The emergy investment of waste treatment processes (landfill, incineration, and compost-
ing) are considered to be an inverse relation. When source separation rate equals to 0, all the wastes
are considered as the mixed waste and transported to the landfills. And there’s also no recycling mate-
rials collection and only a little electricity yield created by LFG. Along with the growth of SSR, the
emergy value of the yield of recycled materials and separated waste increases. High calorific value
waste is transported to fluidized bed incineration plant while food waste is composed. Meanwhile, high
SSR and STR could make recycling more beneficial, but the environmental impact (ecological and
economic losses) and emergy yield also increases since the source-separation alters the output of the
incineration and composting process.

234
 Table 9. Emergy based statistic input-output table of MSW system according to different source-sepa-
rated collection and transportation processes (unit: × 1012 sej/yr).
Collection of pre- Transportation of
Treatment of unsorted fraction
sorted waste pre-sorted waste
Emergy Landfill Incineration Composting
STR SSR Emergy Emergy cost of Emergy
cost of value loss asso-
(%) （%） trans-
separa- of the ciated to Emergy Emergy Emergy Emergy Emergy Emergy Emergy Emergy Emergy
porta-
tion recovered airborne cost loss output cost loss output cost loss output
tion
phase resources emissions
phase
0 0 - 4.97 0.13 90.96 51.16 173.79 - - - - - -

0 - - 4.97 0.13 90.96 51.16 173.79 - - - - - -

20
20 0.99 25.32 4.51 0.11 80.91 48.76 127.77 9.93 3.51 12.42 18.11 12.54 6.79

0 - - 4.97 0.13 90.96 51.16 173.79 - - - - - -

50 20 0.99 25.32 4.51 0.11 80.91 48.76 127.77 9.93 3.51 12.42 18.11 12.54 6.79

50 1.05 27.3 3.88 0.1 65.9 35.7 65 90.8 23.8 147 54.8 44.2 27.6

0 - - 4.97 0.13 90.96 51.16 173.79 - - - - - -

20 0.99 25.32 4.51 0.11 80.91 48.76 127.77 9.93 3.51 12.42 18.11 12.54 6.79
80
50 1.05 27.30 3.88 0.10 65.90 35.70 65.00 90.80 23.80 147.00 54.80 44.20 27.60

80 1.11 29.28 3.38 0.09 54.75 29.78 48.25 134.18 33.59 202.61 66.59 56.39 41.64

100 100 1.15 30.60 1.22 0.07 45.96 24.45 26.67 165.50 43.22 269.97 94.23 70.25 54.57

It is clear that a source separated collection or transportation rate of 100% is theoretical only, but
efficiency could be increased by targeted initiatives such as better guidance and education as well as
providing a better infrastructure for citizens. As an example, the deposit-return system of beverage cans
and bottles reaches a sorting efficiency near 100%. Such an efficiency, however, is not likely to be
achieved for the recovery of food waste. Nevertheless, a future target of 50% reuse or recycling can be
set and be expected to be feasible. This will depend on the future changes of waste composition, amount
of waste recovered as well as innovative recycling technology. Therefore, generation and recovery of
waste amounts and efficiency of collection scenarios should be carefully monitored in the future.
In general, internal motivations and the source-separated transportation rates (STR) are the key
parameters of the MSW system in Beijing. Environmental profit is the primary motivation, followed by
economic profit for residents, but environmental responsibility is a secondary motivation after environ-
mental profit. Thus, it is necessary to propose different policies to enhance separation activity by differ-
ent actors. There might two methods used to increase the separation ratio according to the key parame-
ters. First, secondary internal motivation is used to strengthen the effectiveness of the primary goal. For
example, economic means such as cash rewards or subsidy should be attractive to residents, and public
commendation may be widely accepted by students. Second, STR should be strengthened. It is suggested
that additional workers, improved vehicles, and increased collection frequency be implemented to ac-
complish this.

235
Comparison of Emergy Indicators

Results of collection and transportation process, and the three investigated treatment processes are sum-
marized in Table 10. Ecological services (among which oxygen for combustion processes and uptake or
dilution of pollutants) are included in R. The maximum useage was 5.62 × 1013 sej/t-waste in fluidized
bed incineration system, which is 30 times as much as the usage in transportation process. The emergy
loss associated with land occupation can be used referred to as a measure of the environmental impact of
discharged solid waste disposal, considering that household solid waste require about 0.27 m2/t (Liu et al.,
2011). Results in Table 10 show that the land occupation for landfill was 3.33 × 1013 sej/t-waste. Meanwhile,
the grate type incineration system could produce 1.47 × 1014 sej electricity out of 1 t separated solid
waste, while the collection process ranked 2.73 × 1014 sej/t-waste.
Results show that the total emergy use by the four processes without considering economic and
ecological losses are ranked in this order: incineration (9.08 × 1013 sej/t-waste) > sanitary landfills (6.59
× 1013 sej/t-waste) > composting (5.48 × 1013 sej/t-waste) > collection and transportation process (4.93
× 1013 sej/t-waste). After considering the impacts of emissions, the total emergy usages are: incineration
(1.15 × 1014 sej/t-waste) > sanitary landfills (1.05 × 1014 sej/t-waste) > composting (9.90 × 1013 sej/t-
waste) > collection and transportation process (5.03 × 1013 sej/t-waste). Emergy yield ratios (Y/U*) rank
as: collection and transportation process (5.43) > fluidized bed incineration (1.28) > sanitary landfills
(0.57) > current landfills (0.41). Results therefore suggest that presorting, collection and transportation
process is the most cost-effective process. Among the three treatment downstream processes (fluidized
bed incineration, sanitary landfills and current landfills), landfills show the highest electricity yield ratio
and lowest environmental impacts. If land is not scarce (low emergy density) due to geographical con-
straints, the attractiveness of landfills would be evident. Considering instead land scarcity, pre-sorting,
collection and recycling results to be the most effective alternative.

Table 10. The values of the emergy indicators (Unit: sej/t-waste)1.

Separation
Category Equation Collection and Landfill Incineration Composting
Transportation
N / 1.05 × 1013 1.82 × 1013 3.81 × 1013 1.60 × 1013
L&S / 3.88 × 1013 4.77 × 1013 5.27 × 1016 3.88 × 1013
Y / 2.73 × 1014 6.50 × 1013 1.47 × 1014 4.03 × 1013
Lw,1 Lw,1=∑mi × DALYi × τH 4.83 × 1011 3.82 × 1012 1.31 × 1013 1.26 × 1013
Lw,2 Lw,2=∑mi × PDF(%)i × EBio 4.99 × 10 11
2.61 × 10 12
1.07 × 10 13
1.50 × 1013
Lw,3 / - 3.33 × 1013 - 1.66 × 1013
U N + L&S 4.93 × 1013 6.59 × 1013 9.08 × 1013 5.48 × 1013
U* N + L&S + Lw,1 + Lw,2 + Lw,3 5.03 × 1013 1.15 × 1014 1.15 × 1014 9.90 × 1013
Notes: 1 STR = 50%, SSR = 50%.

236
Additional Policy Aspects of MSW Management in Beijing
In this study, we did not take the quantity of recyclables collected and disposed of directly by resi-
dents or scavengers into our account and estimates. Depending on household income, traditional cus-
toms, extent of awareness of conservation, culture, etc., residents in Beijing tend to sell valuable domes-
tic garbage. Low-value garbage, already in dustbins, garbage buildings and waste transfer stations, are
collected and separated by a huge garbage collecting group, and then are sold to market traders. Thus,
the garbage recycling approach in Beijing is trading-based separation. Before the garbage enters the
clearance process, one part of it goes into the trade-based separation conducted by residents, business
and administrative institutions; the other part is sorted by the public collecting system. This recycling
approach is similar to the dual recycling system in Germany, but it lacks regulations like garbage pro-
duction responsibility system, thus originating a Beijing-style garbage recycling terminal market. This
trade-based separation system has two effects: one is boosting the enthusiasm of the garbage source to
be collected and improving the collecting rate of relatively valuable waste; the other is lowering the
recycling of low-value waste. If the low-value waste enters the clearance process, the renewable resource
quality may be affected, with larger collection costs and environmental effects despite being recycled
by picking up. With the increase of residents’ income in China, the proportion of valuable waste in
residents’ disposal incomes will decrease, so the part recycled through such a way would become less.
Additionally, compared with developed countries, Beijing has the advantage of cheap labor availa-
bility. As renewable resources collection is a highly labor-intensive industry, relatively cheap labor be-
comes an advantage for Beijing to develop the renewable resources industry, in its first stage. However,
this industry also calls for high quality and technology from laborers. If the waste is randomly collected,
classified or dismantled, there might be severe harm to the environment and the laborers’ health. In the
long term, to ensure appropriate development of the waste management industry, it will be necessary to
improve the quality and welfare of the laborers and upgrade the recycling process.
Furthermore, the regulation of urban garbage is a systematic process, involving a large number of
officers, technicians and departments, and also it is professional and social driven. Functionally speak-
ing, neighborhood committees, street communities and property departments, among others, are in
charge of garbage sorting and recycling; Beijing cityscape management committees are in charge of the
clearance, transportation and disposal of garbage; the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Commerce are in
charge of the use of renewable resources and the recycling of wastes. Because the workload of this
systematic project is heavy and involves many actors, not all the departments have joined their forces in
processing. Moreover, residents do not know much about the waste management functions of these gov-
ernmental departments, so that there’re some obstacles for coordination. The management of renewable
resources in China is still affected by conflicting rules enforced by different authorities. Although the
responsibilities of these departments have been divided, there’re some power overlaps for some func-
tions. Central and local governments are establishing different departments to take care of the same
sectors. This phenomenon may definitely increase coordination and trading costs, as well as lowering
management efficiency. When facing lucrative projects, these departments will compete against each
other for management. If issues and problems come up, these departments may tend to shift responsibil-
ities. Further, functions overlapping will also negatively affect renewable resources recycling and reuse.
In addition, similar to other cities, the garbage management in Beijing adopts the mode of integrating
government administration and enterprises management. Apart from the role of manager and supervisor,
the government also takes on the role of executor, so the whole industry lacks effective mechanisms for
competition and supervision. With a huge cityscape management group, the sanitation sector does not
make an overall plan for garbage management. The heavy workload and working pressure for garbage
collection, transportation and disposal results in passive garbage management for the sanitation sector.
Therefore, there is room for improvement for the municipal solid waste management mechanism.
If the decision makers conclude that the alternative collection systems are all needed, and become
aware of their environmental impact and costs, they would have the opportunity of putting weight on
other aspects such as improvement of source-separated collection and transportation efficiency. It is

237
important to note that the results of this study are sensitive to assumptions regarding the potential utili-
zation of the recycled materials and waste treatment technology transformation. The actual options for
recycling and utilization depend strongly on the amount of separate collection and its quality. The
emergy-based accounting method can be used to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the economic
benefits, environmental loading, and sustainability of different MSW treatment systems for decision-
making and the whole process optimization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.
2016YFC0503005), the Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 51121003), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41471466, 71673029). Sergio Ul-
giati also acknowledges the contract by the School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, within
the framework of the National “One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan”.

REFERENCES
Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Bonilla, S.H.; Sacomano, J.B.; Giannetti, B.F. Urban solid waste
plant treatment in Brazil: Is there a net emergy yield on the recovered materials? Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2013, 73, 143–155.
Alavi, N., Goudarzi, G., Babaei, A.A., Jaafarzadeh, N., Hosseinzadeh, M. Municipal solid waste landfill
site selection with geographic information systems and analytical hierarchy process: a case study
in Mahshahr County, Iran. Waste manage. Res., 2013, 31(1), 98–105.
Aydi, A., Zairi, M., Ben Dhia, H. Minimization of environmental risk of landfill site using fuzzy logic,
analytical hierarchy process, and weighted linear combination methodology in a geographic infor-
mation system environment. Environ. Earth Sci., 2012, 68(5), 1375–1389.
Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, 2013. Report of Beijing garbage classification collection,
classification, transportation, sorting, processing research.
Besiou, M.; Georgiadis, P.; van Wassenhove, L.N. Official recycling and scavengers: Symbiotic or con-
flicting? Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2011, 218, 563–576.
Bilitewski, B.; Härdtle, G.; Marek, K. Waste Management; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1997, pp: 1–8.
Brandt-Williams. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: Folio #4; Center for Environmental Policy, Envi-
ronmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville; 2001. Available online:
http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/emergy/documents/folios/Folio_04.pdf. (accessed on 10 October
2013)
Brown M.T. and Buranakarn V., 2003. Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and
recycle options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38 (1): 1-22
Brown, M.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy measures of carrying capacity to evaluate economic investment. Popul.
Environ. 2001, 22, 471–501.
Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy, Transformity And Ecosystem Health. In Handbook of Ecological In-
dicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health; Jørgensen, S.E., Costanza, R., Xu, F.L., Eds.; CRC
Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005: pp. 333–352.
Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy Analysis and Environmental Accounting. In: Encyclopedia of Energy,
C. Cleveland Editor, Academic Press, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2004, pp. 329-354. http://www.sci-
encedirect.com/science/article/pii/B012176480X002424
Brown, M.T.; Ulgiati, S. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geobiosphere: A review
and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 2501–2508.
Burian, S.J.; Nix, S.J.; Pitt, R.E.; Durrans, S.R. Urban wastewater management in the United States:
past, present, and future. J. Urban Technol. 2000, 7, 33–62.

238
Campbell, D.E.; Brandt-Williams, S.L.; Meisch, M.E.A. Environmental Accounting Using Emergy:
Evaluation of the State of West Virginia; USEPA: Narragansett, RI, USA, 2005.
Chen, G.Q. Exergy consumption of the earth. Ecol. Model. 2005, 184, 363–380.
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., Huang, G.H. Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decisions
of solid waste management. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazard. Substances Environ. Eng.
A, 2002, 37(6), 37–41.
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., Huang, G.H. An integrated multi-criteria decision analysis and inexact mixed
integer linear programming approach for solid waste management. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 2003,
16, 543–554.
Cherubini, F.; Bargigli, S.; Ulgiati, S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies:
Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 2009, 34, 2116–2123.
Dalemo, M., Sonesson, U., Björklund, A., Mingarini, K., Frostell, B., Jönsson, H., Nybrant, T.,
Sundqvist, J.O., and Thyselius, L. ORWARE – A Simulation Model for Organic Waste Handling
Systems, Part 1: Model Description. Res. Cons. Recycl. 1997, 21, 17-37.
Erkut, E., Moran, S.R. Locating obnoxious facilities in the public sector: an application of the analytic
hierarchy process to municipal landfill siting decisions. Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci., 1991, 25(2), 89–
102.
Fiorentino, G., Ripa, M., Protano, G., Hornsby, C., Ulgiati, S. Life Cycle Assessment of Mixed Munic-
ipal Solid Waste: Multi-input versus multi-output perspective. Waste Manage. 2015, 46, 599-611.
Gala, A.B., Raugei, M., Ripa, M., Ulgiati, S. Dealing with waste products and flows in life cycle assess-
ment and emergy accounting: Methodological overview and synergies. Ecol. Mod. 2015, 315, 69-
76.
Gemitzi, A., Tsihrintzis, V., Voudrias, E., Christos, P., Stravodimos, G. Combining geographic infor-
mation system, multicriteria evaluation techniques and fuzzy logic in siting MSW landfills. Envi-
ron. Geol., 2007, 51(5), 797–811.
Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-indicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact
Assessment: Methodology Report; Pre. Consultans: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2000. Available
online: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/misc/EI99_methodology_v3.pdf. (accessed
on 10 October 2013)
Grönlund, E.; Klang, A.; Falk, S.; Hanæus, J. Sustainability of wastewater treatment with microalgae in
cold climate, evaluated with emergy and socio-ecological principles. Ecol. Eng. 2004, 22, 155–
174.
Hau, J.L.; Bakshi, B.R. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecol. Model. 2004, 178, 215–225.
Herva, M., Roca, E. Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives based on ecological footprint
and multi-criteria analysis. Ecol. Ind., 2013, 25, 77–84.
Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., Rossi, E., Ettala, M. The choice of a solid waste management system using
the Electre II decision-aid method. Waste Manage. Res., 1995, 13(2), 175–193.
Hoornweg, D.A.; Thomas, L. What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Working Paper 1, Urban
and Local Government, World Bank, Washington DC, 1999. Available online:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/urban/publicat/whatawaste.pdf. (accessed on 10 October
2013)
Hornsby, C., Ripa, M., Vassillo, C., Ulgiati, S. A roadmap towards integrated assessment and participa-
tory strategies in support of decision-making processes. The case of urban waste management. J.
Clean. Prod. 2016, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.189.
Jørgensen, S.E. The Thermodynamic Concept: Exergy. In Thermodynamics and Ecological Modeling;
Jørgensen, S.E., Ed.; Lewis Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
Karmperis, A.C., Aravossis, K., Tatsiopoulos, I.P., Sotirchos, A. Decision support models for solid
waste management: review and game-theoretic approaches. Waste Manage., 2013, 33, 1290–1301.
Kremer, M, Goldhan, G, Heyde, M. Waste treatment towards product specific life cycle inventories. An
approach of materials-related modelling. Int J LCA 1998, 3, 47-55.
Lei, K.P.; Wang, Z.S. Emergy Synthesis and Simulation for Macao. Energy 2008, 33, 613–625.

239
Lindeman, R.L. The trophic dynamic aspects of ecology. Ecology 1942, 23, 399–418.
Liu, G.Y.; Yang, Z.F.; Chen, B.; Ulgiati, S. Analysis of the scientific collaboration patterns in the emergy
accounting field: A review of the co-authorship network structure. J. Environ. Account. Manag.
2013, 1, 1–13.
Liu, G.Y.; Yang, Z.F.; Chen, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.X.; Zhao, Y.W.; Jiang, M.M. Emergy-based urban
ecosystem health assessment: A case study of Baotou, China. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer.
Simul. 2009, 14, 972–981.
Losowska M. Embodied energy counting of sustainable heat, power and steel processes. Master Thesis
of RES/The School for Renewable Energy Science in affiliation with University of Iceland & Uni-
versity of Akureyri. 2011, 53-54. Available online: http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946
/7735/20130/1/MagdalenaLosowska.15.02.11.pdf. (accessed on 10 October 2013)
Lotka, A.J. Elements of Physical Biology; Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1925.
Mendes, M.R.; Aramaki, T.; Hanaki, K. Assessment of the environmental impact of management
measures for the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste in São Paulo city. Waste Manag.
2003, 23, 403–409.
Murray, C.J.L.; Lopez, A.D.; Jamison, D.T. The global burden of disease in 1990: Summary results,
sensitivity analysis and future directions. Bull. World Health Organ. 1994; 72, 495–509. Available
online: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2486716/pdf/bullwho00414-0171.pdf. (accessed on 10
October 2013)
Odum, H.T. Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making; Wiley: New York, NY, USA,
1996.
Odum, H.T.; Brown, M.T.; Brandt-Williams, S. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation Folio 1: Introduction
and Global Budget; Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville; 2000.
Available online: http://www.epa.gov/aed/html/collaboration/emergycourse/presentations/Fo-
lio1.pdf. (accessed on 10 October 2013)
Pereira, J.T.V.; Nebra, S.A. Transformities and Exergetic Cost—A Discussion. In Emergy Synthesis:
Theory and Application of the Emergy Methology; Brown, M.T. Ed.; Department of Environmen-
tal Engineering Sciences: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 71–80.
Raugei, M., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S. A multi-criteria life cycle assessment of molten carbonate fuel cells
(MCFC)—a comparison to natural gas turbines. Int. J. Hyd. Energy, 30(2), 123-130.
Ripa, M., Fiorentino, G., Giani, H., Clausen, A., Ulgiati, S. Refuse recovered biomass fuel from munic-
ipal solid waste. A life cycle assessment. Applied Energy. 2016, doi:10.1016/j.apen-
ergy.2016.05.058.
Rushbrook, P.; Chandra, C.; Gayton, S.M. Starting Healthcare Waste Management in Medical Institu-
tions—A Practical Approach. In Copenhagen, Practical Health Care Waste Management Infor-
mation Series No. 1; WHO Regional Office for Europe:Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000;
EUR/00/5021817.
Sciubba, E. Beyond thermoeconomics? The concept of Extended Exergy Accounting and its application
to the analysis and design of thermal systems. Exergy Int. J. 2001, 1, 68–84.
Sciubba, E. Cost analysis of energy conversion systems via a novel resource-based quantifier. Energy
2003, 28, 457–477.
Sciubba, E.; Ulgiati, S. Emergy and exergy analyses: Complementary methods or irreducible ideological
options? Energy 2005, 30, 1953–1988.
Song, Q.B.; Wang, Z.S.; Li, J.H. Sustainability evaluation of e-waste treatment based on emergy analysis
and the LCA method: A case study of a trial project in Macau. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 30, 138–147.
Su, J.P., Hung, M.L., Chao, C.W., Ma, H. Applying multi-criteria decision-making to improve the waste
reduction policy in Taiwan. Waste Manage. Res: J. Int. Solid Wastes Public Cleans. Assoc, ISWA,
2010. 28(1), 20–28.
Suh, S. Theory of materials and energy flow analysis in ecology and economics. Ecol. Model. 2005,
189, 251–269.

240
Tarr, J.A. The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective; University of
Akron Press:Akron, OH, USA, 1996.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Waste Management Planning—An Environmen-
tally Sound Approach for Sustainable Urban Waste Management—An Introductory Guide for De-
cision-Makers; United Nations Publications: City, Country, 2004,
ISBN 92-807-2490-8.
Torres, N.V. S-system modeling approach to ecosystem: Application to a study of magnesium flow in a
tropical forest. Ecol. Model. 1996, 89, 109–120.
Udo de Haes, H.A.; Lindeijer, E. The Conceptual Structure of Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Final
Draft for the Second Working Group on Impact Assessment of SETAC Europe (WIA-2); SETAC:
Brussels, Belgium; 2001.
Ukidwe, N.U.; Bakshi, B.R. Industrial and ecological cumulative exergy consumption of the United
States via the 1997 input–output benchmark model. Energy 2007, 32, 1560–1592.
Ulgiati, S.; Brown, M.T. Quantifying the environmental support for dilution and abatement of process
emissions: The case of electricity production. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 335–348.
Ulgiati, S., Brown, M.T. Labor and Services as Information Carriers in Emergy-LCA Accounting. J.
Environ. Account. Manag. 2014, 2(2), 160-167.
Ulgiati, S.; Brown, M.T.; Bastianoni, S.; Marchettini, N. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate
the sustainable use of resources. Ecol. Eng. 1995, 5, 519–531.
Vaillancourt, K., Waaub, J.-P. Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded
into EUGENE model: a multicriteria approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2002, 139(2), 436–448.
Vassallo, P.; Paoli, C.; Fabiano, M. Emergy required for the complete treatment of municipal
wastewater. Ecol. Engin. 2009, 35(5), 687–694.
Wilson, D.C.; Velis, C.; Cheeseman, C. Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in de-
veloping countries. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 797–808.
Xi, B.D., Su, J., Huang, G.H., Qin, X.S., Jiang, Y., Huo, S.L., Yao, B. An integrated optimization ap-
proach and multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the waste-management system of the
City of Beijing, China. Eng. Appl. Artificial Intell., 2010, 23(4), 620–631.
Yesilnacar, M.I., Süzen, M.L., Kaya, B.Ş., Doyuran, V. Municipal solid waste landfill site selection for
the city of Şanliurfa-Turkey: an example using MCDA integrated with GIS. Int. J. Digital Earth,
2012, 5(2), 147–164.
Yuan, F.; Shen, L.Y.; Li, M.Q. Emergy analysis of the recycling options for construction and demolition
waste. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2503–2511.
Zhang, X.H.; Deng, S.H.; Wu, J.; Jiang, W.J. A sustainability analysis of a municipal sewage treatment
ecosystem based on emergy. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 685–696.
Zhang, X.H.; Deng, S.H.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Yang, G.; Li, L.; Qi, H.; Xiao, H.; Wu, J.; Wang, Y.L.; Shen, F.
Emergy evaluation of the impact of waste exchanges on the sustainability of industrial systems.
Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 206–216.
Zhang, X.H.; Jiang, W.J.; Deng, S.H.; Peng, K. Emergy evaluation of the sustainability of Chinese steel
production during 1998–2004. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1030–1038.

241
242