4.4 Article

Evaluation of the Effect of Recycling on Sustainability of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Thailand

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 237-257

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-012-9119-5

关键词

Municipal solid waste; Recycling; Sustainability; Indicators; Life cycle assessment

资金

  1. Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landfilling and recycling, the predominant waste management methods in Thailand have been evaluated in a life cycle perspective using a case study in Nonthaburi municipality. The major focus was to identify the effects of the recycling activities on the sustainability of the existing waste management. A set of relevant indicators has been used to evaluate the ultimate damages/effects related to environmental, economic and social aspects of waste management methods, including valorisation. Damage to ecosystems and damage to abiotic resource were considered as the most relevant indicators to assess environmental sustainability. Life cycle cost was used as the economic indicator. Damage to human health and income based community well-being were considered as the most relevant indicators for social sustainability assessment. The results obtained showed that recycling contributes substantially to improving overall social, economic and environmental sustainability of the waste management system. In fact, the recycling of 24 % of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) was found to compensate the negative environmental, economic and social impacts resulting from the landfilling of the remaining 76 % of MSW. Furthermore, the quantified results in relation to sustainability of recycling reflect the progress made in realizing the policy targets and policy effectiveness in Nonthaburi. Thus, the results of this study could be used to convince stakeholders involved in waste management about the overall benefits of recycling and its influences on sustainability for promoting and strengthening recycling activities in Thailand.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据