ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

LCA: A decision support tool for environmental assessment

of MSW management systems
Chalita Liamsanguan, Shabbir H. Gheewala
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha-Uthit Road,
Bangmod, Tungkru, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
Received 19 January 2006; received in revised form 1 December 2006; accepted 4 January 2007
Available online 12 March 2007

Abstract
Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be successfully applied to municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems to identify the overall
environmental burdens and to assess the potential environmental impacts. In this study, two methods used for current MSW
management in Phuket, a province of Thailand, landlling (without energy recovery) and incineration (with energy recovery), are
compared from both energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission points of view. The comparisons are based on a direct activity
consideration and also a life cycle perspective. In both cases as well as for both parameters considered, incineration was found to be
superior to landlling. However, the performance of incineration was much better when a life cycle perspective was used. Also, landlling
reversed to be superior to incineration when methane recovery and electricity production were introduced. This study reveals that a
complete picture of the environmental performance of MSW management systems is provided by using a life cycle perspective.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy consumption; Greenhouse gas emission; Life cycle assessment; Municipal solid waste management

1. Introduction
Currently, Thailand is confronted with a high amount of
municipal solid waste (MSW) and its inappropriate
management, especially open dumping and non-sanitary
landll. These problems pose harm to the environment as
well as human health. At the moment, major concerns
associated with waste management are not only public
health and safety but also sustainable development. For
sustainable development, MSW management has to be
balanced between environmental effectiveness, economic
affordability and social acceptability to ensure the quality
of life now and for coming generations. Concerning the
environmental sustainability of MSW management systems, energy and resource conservation and reduced
environmental impacts are desirable. To evaluate the
performance of MSW management systems, life cycle
assessment (LCA) is a useful tool.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 2 4708309 10x4139;
fax: +66 2 8729805.
E-mail address: shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th (S.H. Gheewala).

0301-4797/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.003

LCA has been dened as a technique for assessing the

environmental aspects and potential impacts associated
with a product, by compiling an inventory of relevant
inputs and outputs of a product system; evaluating the
potential environmental impacts associated with those
inputs and outputs; and interpreting the results of the
inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in
relation to the objectives of the study (ISO, 1997).
LCA is a methodology considering the entire life cycle of
products and servicesfrom cradle to grave (from raw
material acquisition through production, use, and disposal). It is thus a holistic assessment methodology of
products and services. LCA has been proven to be a
valuable tool to document the environmental considerations that need to be part of decision making towards
sustainability (UNEP, 2003).
LCA has been successfully utilized in the eld of solid
waste management to assess environmental impacts of
solid waste management systems (Harrison et al., 2000), to
compare the environmental performance of different
scenarios for management of mixed solid waste (Denison,
1996; Mendes et al., 2004; Finnveden et al., 2000; Arena

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

et al., 2003; Chaya and Gheewala, 2006; Wanichpongpan

and Gheewala, 2006) as well as of specic waste fractions
(Finnveden and Ekvall, 1998; Ross and Evans, 2003).
A systems approach does not always need to use impact
assessment. In many cases, inventory data alone are
sufcient for an evaluation (McDougall and White,
1998). The term life cycle inventory (LCI) is used to
indicate that a study has excluded the impact assessment
phase (Frijriksson et al., 2002).
Using LCA, an MSW management system is evaluated
based on a system wide or life cycle perspective. A system
that generates energy, such as incineration with energy
recovery, is credited with reducing the amount of energy
(and the associated resource use and emissions) that would
otherwise need to be generated, typically at a power plant.
If MSW management systems are compared in isolation
without accounting for the system-wide environmental
impacts, referred in the study as a direct activity
consideration, such a limited perspective may not provide
a complete picture of environmental impacts.
This study demonstrates a life cycle perspective evaluation of MSW management systems. Phuket, a province
in the southern part of Thailand, was selected as the
study site. Two methods currently used for MSW management in Phuket, landlling (without energy recovery)
and incineration (with energy recovery) are compared from both the energy consumption and the greenhouse gas emission points of view. The comparisons are
based on a direct activity consideration as well as a life
cycle perspective. The results of this study reveal the
advantage of using a life cycle perspective in MSW system
evaluation.
2. Current Phuket MSW management
Phuket is an island province in the south of Thailand
stretching 49 km from north to south and 19 km from east
to west with a total area of 570 km2. With beautiful beaches
along the western and southern parts of the island, Phuket
is a major tourist attraction.
MSW in Phuket is collected and transported to the
treatment and disposal center, where it is weighed and
separated based on source and characteristics of the waste,
to be managed by three methodsincineration, recycling,
and landlling. Flow of current Phuket MSW in a 1-year
period (July 2003June 2004) obtained from Phuket
Municipality is illustrated in Fig. 1. Of the 133 374 tons
of MSW collected in the 1-year period, an estimated 71%
was sent for burning in incinerator, 26% landlled, and 3%
sorted and recovered for recycling.
3. Methodology
In this study, a comparison between the two methods
used for current Phuket MSW management, landlling
(without energy recovery), and incineration (with energy
recovery) is performed. The environmental burdens con-

133

sidered in the evaluation are energy consumption and

greenhouse gas emission. To compare the two methods of
MSW management, a xed reference point for the
environmental evaluation, called functional unit, is dened
as 1 ton of MSW treated. For fairness of comparison, the
same characteristics of waste are assumed to be treated by
both landlling and incineration. Waste characterization
information obtained from monthly reports of Phuket
incineration plant is illustrated in Table 1.
The evaluation includes activities that are of direct
concern in MSW management and also activities that
supply services to or interact with MSW management
methods as illustrated in Fig. 2. Direct and indirect
activities associated with MSW management methods
contributing to energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emission are listed in Table 2 and Fig. 2. Energy
consumption for ash management is included in the
calculations, however, greenhouse emissions are not since
the ash is inorganic in nature. Based on the existing
practice that there is no gas collection and aring system in
Phuket landll and with the assumption of 10% methane
oxidation in landll cover (IPCC, 2001), 90% of the
methane produced is released to the atmosphere. Although
carbon dioxide is also emitted from the landll, it is not
considered because, being of biomass origin, it does not
contribute to global warming. The landll leachate is
treated by pond system, which is the common method in
Thailand. The energy and resource requirements are thus
negligible. The main impact from this system would be on
land use, which is not within the scope of this study.
Transportation is not included in the system boundary as
the collection and transportation of waste is common to
both the waste management systems and hence will not
inuence the comparative result.
Findings from the study are presented based on two sets
of boundary conditions (Table 2):
(1) a direct activity consideration, limited to only those
processes that lie within MSW management method
itself and
(2) a life cycle perspective, considering direct activities as
well as other processes interacting with MSW management system. Since the function of landlling is solid
waste management, whereas the function of incineration is solid waste management with electricity production as a supplementary function, to make the systems
comparable, the incineration is credited with the
avoided emissions from the alternative process of
producing an equivalent amount of electricity. The
average electricity mix of Thailand is used for calculating the credits. Environmental burdens in the modied
system are the environmental loads from the incineration minus those from the conventional power plants.
In this way, both MSW management methods can be
compared based on the same function which is solid
waste management as illustrated in Fig. 3 (Finnveden
and Ekvall, 1998).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
134

C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

MSW collection
133 374 tons
364 tons/day
Industries

34 057 tons
93 tons/day
Landfilling

Weighing
station

Recyclable materials
4 172 tons
11 tons/day

33 141 tons
90 tons/day
Sorting

66 214 tons
181 tons/day

28 969 tons
79 tons/day
Accumulation in refuse pit
3 842 tons
(Before period 2 300 tons)
Bottom ash
15 505 tons
42 tons/day

Wastewater
treatment plant

8 167 tons as leachate

22 tons/day
85 436 tons
233 tons/day
Incineration

Fly ash
1 953 tons
5 tons/day

End users
Electricity
12 586 289 kWh
34 389 kWh/day

Fly ash landfilling

Fig. 1. Current Phuket MSW management system.

Table 1
Phuket waste characteristic
Waste composition (%)
Plastic
Food
Wood/ grass
Paper
Cloth
Rubber/ leather
Incombustible
Others
Waste property
Density (kg/m3)
Moisture content (%)
Low heating value (kcal/kg)

27.71
18.12
13.65
11.45
3.06
1.85
15.44
8.71
379
41
1750

the waste (Harrison et al., 2000). CH4 emitted from

landll was calculated by using CH4 emission factors of
different waste fractions in MSW (Sandgren et al., 1996).
Energy consumption and emissions to air from the Thai
electricity production were obtained from the study of the
Thailand Environment Institute (TEI, 2003). In the TEI
study, the system boundary includes only the power
generation process in power plants, i.e. fuel combustion
and air pollution control. Extraction, processing and
transportation fuels, and construction of power plants
are not included. Data of energy and greenhouse gas
emissions relating to diesel production and lime production
were derived from BUWAL 300 and ETH-ESU (1996),
respectively.
4. Results

Information about energy consumption of the MSW

management systems was collected from the actual
processes at the study site. The environmental parameters
contributed by direct activities, which were not available
in the study area, were derived from literature. Fossil
CO2 emitted from incineration system was calculated
by using emission factors for various types of plastics in

The comparative information in this section includes the

energy consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions of
the two MSW management methods, landlling (without
energy recovery), and incineration (with energy recovery).
The comparisons are based on a direct activity consideration and a life cycle perspective. The environmental
parameters are expressed per functional unit, which is
1 ton of MSW treated.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

135

MSW

Energy

Accumulation in refuse pit

GHG
Leachate
Energy

Electricity
production

Avoided energy

Leachate treatment
Energy

Energy

Avoided electricity
production
from power plant

MSW combustion
Energy
Flue gas

Diesel production

Air pollution
control

Bottom ash
Energy

Avoided GHG

MSW

GHG

GHG
Ash disposal

Lime
Fly ash

Energy

Lime production

Energy

Energy

Diesel
production

GHG

GHG

MSW

Energy

MSW spreading and

compaction

MSW degradation

GHG

GHG

Leachate
Leachate treatment
* not traced back
Fig. 2. Flow diagram for energy and greenhouse gas emission. (a) ow diagram of incineration (indirect activities are indicated by dashed lines), (b) ow
diagram of landlling (indirect activities are indicated by dashed lines).

4.1. Energy consumption

The comparison between the energy consumption for
landlling and incineration using a direct activity and a life
cycle perspective is illustrated in Table 3.
From Table 3, based on the direct activity consideration,
energy in the form of electricity and diesel required by all
processes related with the incineration is 354 MJ/ton of
MSW treated, whereas the electricity recovered from waste
combustion is 530 MJ/ton of MSW treated. The net energy
consumption equals to 176 MJ/ton of MSW treated.
Although the energy consumed at the landll by engines
for MSW spreading and compaction is less than that for
incineration, the effect of energy recovered from incinera-

tion compensates for the energy used thus making it

superior to landlling.
With a life cycle perspective, the energy consumption is
quantied by adding the net amount of energy consumed
as in the direct activity consideration with the energy
consumed by all related activities listed in Table 2. Since
the methane gas generated in landll is not recovered and
utilized for energy, no credits from energy recovery are
accounted for evaluation. Thus, the energy consumption in
landlling increases to be 30 MJ/ton of MSW treated.
In the case of incineration, 1458 MJ of primary energy
at power plants is avoided due to electricity recovered
from the incineration. This is much more than that added
by other related activities, resulting in a net energy

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

136

Table 2
Direct and indirect activities associated with MSW management methods
contributing to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission
Environmental
parameter

Description of direct and indirect activities

Energy
consumption

Incineration
Direct activity
Electricity and diesel oil used for MSW
combustion
Electricity used for leachate treatment
Indirect activity
Energy used for electricity production in power
plant
Energy used for diesel production
Energy used for lime production
Landfilling
Direct activity
Diesel oil used for MSW spreading and
compaction
Indirect activity
Energy used for diesel production
Incineration
Direct activity
Emissions from the incinerator arising from MSW
combustion
Emissions from combustion of diesel used to
operate incinerator
Indirect activity
Emissions from conventional power plant
Emissions from diesel production
Emissions from lime production
Landfilling
Direct activity
Landll gas from MSW degradation
Emissions from diesel engines during MSW
spreading and compaction
Indirect activity
Emissions from diesel production

Greenhouse gas
emission

Incineration

MSW
management

Electricity
production

Power Plant

Electricity
production

Landfilling

MSW
management

Fig. 3. System comparison from a life cycle perspective.

consumption of 1048 MJ/ton of MSW treated. This is

much less than that in the case of direct activity
consideration.
In both cases, the incineration is the preferred method
over the landlling based on energy consumption. However, incineration works out to be even more advantageous
when a life cycle perspective is used.
4.2. Greenhouse gas emission
The greenhouse gases from the processes of MSW
management considered in the evaluation are fossil CO2,
CO, CH4, and N2O. For global warming, the reference

substance is CO2. All greenhouse gases are expressed in the

units of kg CO2 equivalents/ton MSW treated. The
equivalency factor for potential contributions from greenhouse gases to global warming over a time horizon of 100
years are 1 for carbon dioxide, 2 for carbon monoxide, 23
for methane, and 296 for nitrous oxide (Ramaswamy et al.,
2001). The comparison between the greenhouse gas
emission from landlling and incineration using a direct
activity and a life cycle perspective is illustrated in Table 4.
For direct activity consideration, amount of greenhouse
gases emitted from the MSW management system itself is
accounted. With this consideration, landlling produces
more greenhouse gas emission (in CO2 equivalents) than
incineration. For landlling, the maximum contribution,
1311 kg CO2 eq./ton MSW treated, is from methane produced during MSW degradation. For incineration, the
most important greenhouse gas is fossil carbon dioxide
from MSW (plastic portion) combustion contributing
736 kg CO2 eq./ton MSW treated, the remaining being
from CO. Although biodegradable waste fraction is also
burnt in the incinerator, the carbon dioxide emitted is not
accounted for in the evaluation because, being of biomass
origin and hence part of the global carbon cycle, it does not
contribute to global warming.
With a life cycle perspective, amount of greenhouse gases
emitted from the MSW management itself along with those
from all related activities listed in Table 2 are accounted.
For incineration, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the life cycle perspective case is less than that in the
direct activity case because of the avoided electricity
production from conventional power production resulting
in avoided greenhouse gas emissions. After adding the
greenhouse gas emissions from the indirect activities and
the credits from avoided conventional electricity production, incineration produced the net greenhouse gas emission of 637 kg CO2 eq./ton of MSW treated.
For landlling, the greenhouse gas emissions in the life
cycle perspective case is equal to that in the direct activity,
1313 kg CO2 eq./ton of MSW treated, due to a very slight
effect on greenhouse gas emission from the indirect
activities.
Incineration performs better than landlling for both
direct activity as well as life cycle perspective. However, as
before, the life cycle perspective offers more advantage to
incineration due the conventional electricity production
displaced. Landlling would similarly benet from
methane collection and energy conversion as discussed
later in this study.
5. Interpretation
A closer analysis of the results from the previous section
revealed that incineration required a large amount of
energy for waste combustion. This may be due to high
moisture content of the waste to be burnt (41%). The
performance of the incineration in the case of energy
consumption might be better if more biodegradable waste

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

137

Table 3
Energy consumption of incineration and landlling.
Activities

MSW combustion (electricity)

MSW combustion (diesel)
Leachate treatment (electricity)
Ash management (diesel)
Energy recovery (electricity)
MSW spreading and compaction (diesel)
Electricity production (primary energy)
Lime production
Diesel production
Net energy consumption

MJ/ton of MSW treated

Direct activity consideration

Life cycle perspective

Incineration

Incineration

Landlling

311
20
12
11
530

Landlling

311
20
12
11
22

176

22
1458
46
10
1048

22

7
30

Table 4
Greenhouse gas emission of incineration and landlling.
Activities

kg CO2 eq./ton of MSW treated

Direct activity consideration
Incineration

MSW combustion
MSW degradation
MSW spreading and compaction
Lime production
Diesel production
GHG avoidance due to energy recovery
Net greenhouse gas emission

Life cycle perspective

Landlling

737

Incineration
737

1311
2

737

is separated before sending to the incinerator. In terms of

greenhouse gas emissions, high amount of fossil carbon
dioxide is emitted due to plastic burning. This performance
might be improved by increasing the percent efciency of
plastic separation. The energy recovered from waste
incineration, however, would be decreased because a large
fraction with high energy content is separated out. Thus,
the strategy of plastic separation to be treated by either
landlling or recycling should be assessed against the
strategy of incineration including plastic fraction.
The emission of greenhouse gas from landlling, which is
dominated by methane, would be substantially reduced by
introduction of gas collection and aring system to convert
the methane gas to carbon dioxide which, being of biomass
origin, will not contribute to global warming. Additional
credits can be obtained if the collected methane is utilized
as an energy source.
For the purpose of estimation, the heating value of
methane is set at 50 MJ/kg. It is assumed that 50% of CH4
produced is collected to produce electricity by an engine
with 35% efciency and 10% of uncollected CH4 is
oxidized in landll cover. Therefore, 45% of CH4 is
emitted to the atmosphere. Results from the analysis of
landlling with energy recovery indicate that 50% of

Landlling

1313

1311
2
9
0.2
109
637

0.3
1313

greenhouse gases are reduced resulting in a net greenhouse

gas emission of only 657 kg CO2 eq./ton of MSW treated,
based on direct activity consideration, as a consequence of
reduction of CH4 emitted from landll. Credits obtained
from electricity production from the recovered methane
leads to further reduction of greenhouse gas when
considered in life cycle perspective. About 59% of greenhouse gas reduction is obtained resulting in net greenhouse
gas emissions of 544 kg CO2 eq./ton of MSW treated.
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by recovering
landll gas and producing electricity makes landlling
preferable to incineration. The same trend reversal is
observed for the case of energy. When the methane is
collected and electricity produced, landll turns out to
perform better than incineration in a life cycle perspective.
In this case, the net energy consumption of landll is
1494 MJ/ton of MSW treated, as compared to
1048 MJ/ton of MSW treated for incineration.
6. Conclusions
This study compares energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from landlling (without energy
recovery) against incineration (with energy recovery) based

ARTICLE IN PRESS
138

C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala / Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2008) 132138

on a direct activity (base case) consideration and a life cycle

perspective. For both cases and both parameters, incineration was found to be superior to the landlling. However,
landlling reversed to be superior when landll gas is
recovered for electricity production.
This study demonstrates that a complete picture of the
environmental performances of MSW management systems is provided by using a life cycle perspective. Life cycle
assessment could serve as an invaluable tool for assessing
environmental sustainability of waste management systems, single as well as integrated ones.
The results of this study are dependent on the actual
MSW characteristics and management in Phuket province.
The results of the environmental evaluation in other areas
may be different due to MSW characteristics, technology,
spatial and temporal factors, and related information.
Also, an integrated waste management system based on
separation of waste, with different waste fractions going to
different waste management technologies, would be more
efcient than a single option such as incineration or
landlling. However, in the case of small communities
where only a single option may be economically viable, the
results of the study are of direct relevance.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the Phuket Municipality and
Kumjornkit Construction Company Limited for providing
data. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment is also acknowledged for all support. Comments of
the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L., Perugini, F., 2003. The environmental
performance of alternative solid waste management options: a life
cycle assessment study. Chemical Engineering Journal 96, 207222.
Chaya, W., Gheewala, S.H., 2006. Life cycle assessment of MSW to
energy schemes in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, in press.
Denison, R., 1996. Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling,
landlling, and incineration: a review of recent studies. Annual Review
of Energy and Environment 21, 191237.
ETH-ESU, 1996. Oko-inventare von Energiesystemen FRISCHKNECHT et al. third ed. 1996.

Finnveden, G., Ekvall, T., 1998. Life cycle assessment as a decisionsupport toolthe case of recycling vs. incineration of paper. Resource,
Conservation and Recycling 24, 235256.
Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Moberg, A., 2000. Life Cycle
Assessments of Energy from Solid Waste. Stockholms Universitet,
Sweden.
Frijriksson, G. B., Johnsen, T., Bjarnasottir, H. J., Slentnes, H., 2002.
Guidelines for the use of LCA in the waste management sector.
Nordtest Project no. 153701.
Harrison, K.W., Dumas, R.D., Barlaz, M.A., 2000. Life-cycle inventory
model of municipal solid waste combustion. Journal of the Air and
Waste Management Association 50, 9931003.
IPCC, 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
ISO, 1997. Environmental standard ISO 14040, Environmental managementlife cycle assessmentprincipal and framework, Reference
Number: ISO 14040: 1997(E).
McDougall, F., White, P. R., 1998. The use of life cycle inventory to
optimize integrated solid waste management system: a review of case
studies. Paper presented at systems engineering models for waste
management International Workshop in Goteborg, Sweden, 2526
February 1998, /http://www.entek.chalmers.se/josu/art-fmc.htmS.
Mendes, R.M., Aramaki, T., Hanaki, K., 2004. Comparison of the
environmental impact of incineration and landlling in Sao Paulo City
as determined by LCA. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 41,
4763.
Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., Hauglustaine, D., Haywood, J.,
Myhre, G., Nakajima, T., Shi, G.Y., Solomon, S., 2001. Radiative
forcing of climate change. In: Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J.,
Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A.
(Eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientic Basis. Contribution to
Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and
recycling a plastic-based packaging system. Journal of Cleaner
Production 11, 561571.
Sandgren, J., Heie, A., Sverud, T., 1996. Utslipp ved handtering av
kommuanalt avfall. Statens forurensningstilsyn (SFT). TA-number
1336/1996. In: Frijriksson, G.B., Johnsen, T., Bjarnasottir, H.J.,
Slentnes, H. (Eds.) Guidelines for The Use of LCA in the Waste
Management Sector. Nordtest Project no. 153701. 2002.
Wanichpongpan, W., Gheewala, S.H., 2006. LCA as a decision support
tool for landll gas-to-energy projects. Journal of Cleaner Production,
in press.
TEI, 2003. Final Report for the Project on Life Cycle Assessment for
Asian CountriesPhase III. Thailand Environmental Institute, Thailand.
UNEP, 2003. Environmental management tools: life cycle assessment,
available from: /http://www.uneptie.org/pc/pc/tools/lca.htmS.