Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in the United States: Analysis of Current and Alternative Approaches (2025)
Chapter: 7 Benefits and Measuring Environmental Impacts and Externalities of Recycling Programs
7
Benefits and Measuring Environmental Impacts and Externalities of Recycling Programs
Summary of Key Messages
- Reducing use of virgin materials, especially those that are non-renewable: Extraction of non-renewable virgin materials depletes finite natural resources, emits greenhouse gasses, and destroys ecosystems (through deforestation, eutrophication, and acidification). Use of recycled materials in manufacturing reduces environmental damages by avoiding reliance on virgin materials.
- Reducing use and extending the service life of landfills: While risk is mitigated through their regulated design, permitting, and monitoring, landfills have the potential for unintended environmental contamination from the release of heavy metals, ammonia and other nitrogen compounds, acids, and salts, as well as organic compounds, through the release of gas or leachate. Recycling various materials can reduce environmental damages, including leaks and other unintended emissions, by reducing the use of landfills. Furthermore, a major benefit of recycling is extending the service life of landfills.
- Reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Greenhouse gases are emitted across the recycling process (e.g., collecting, sorting, remanufacturing). However, the largest source of those emissions is fossil-based energy sources in the remanufacturing process. Emissions reductions may be possible with changes to the local recycling infrastructure, recycling processes, and use of renewable energy in the remanufacturing process.
Recycling is one approach to managing materials that can help reduce waste, conserve resources, and limit environmental impacts. In addition to diverting materials from disposal, recycling contributes to broader resource efficiency efforts and supports industries that rely on recovered materials. While costs and logistical challenges are associated with recycling, its benefits are often considered in discussions of sustainability and waste management policies.
7.1 KEY RECYCLING BENEFITS
Recycling offers various potential benefits, including resource conservation, energy savings, waste reduction, and pollution mitigation. These benefits can contribute to more efficient material use and environmental management while also influencing economic and policy decisions. This chapter provides a more detailed discussion about the environmental benefits. The extent of these advantages depends on factors such as material type, recycling infrastructure, and participation rates.
7.1.1 Reducing Resource Depletion and Pollution from Virgin Material Extraction
Resource depletion and pollution are environmental concerns associated with the extraction of virgin materials. Extracting raw materials such as metals, minerals, and fossil fuels to create the products used every day by households and businesses requires extensive mining and harvesting, leading to the depletion of finite natural resources. The concern for natural resource use is especially high for nonrenewable resources, such as fossil fuels, whereas using resources such as paper or food has less impact from a resource management standpoint because these resources can be renewed or replenished. An additional concern is that extracting resources, whether renewable or nonrenewable, often involves clearing vast areas of land that damages ecosystems (Christensen et al., 2020; Psyrri et al., 2024; Ruan and Zou, 2024). What is more,
extracting and processing virgin materials produces emissions that can harm human health and degrade natural habitats if not regulated appropriately.
Recovering materials from the existing waste stream reduces the need for virgin material extraction (Anshassi and Townsend, 2024; Erkisi-Arici et al., 2021). This practice not only conserves finite resources but also minimizes the environmental damage caused by mining and drilling activities. Reusing materials already in circulation maintains the physical integrity of Earth’s natural resources and the health of ecosystems and global economies. Indeed, some materials—such as metals and glass—are near infinitely recyclable. Others—such as paper and plastics—can be recycled a limited number of times (e.g., paper can typically be recycled only 5–7 times, because the paper fibers are shortened during the recycling process).
7.1.2 Conserving Energy
Energy consumption is a critical aspect of the cradle-to-grave life cycle of a product, beginning from extraction of raw materials and continuing through product disposal (Bian et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2024). The equipment used to harvest and mine materials for product creation is typically powered by diesel, gasoline, and other fossil fuels. Once virgin or raw materials are extracted, they must be transported to manufacturing or processing sites, a process that relies heavily on fossil fuels to power trucks, boats (including barges), and trains. At the manufacturing or processing site, fossil fuels continue to play a role, as the machinery and equipment used to process materials into finished products are energy intensive. This is because many processed materials, such as aluminum, steel and glass, require high temperatures to be created from virgin materials.1 The life cycle energy demand does not end with the product’s use; even after it is discarded, energy is required to transport it to end-of-life treatment facilities. Whether the product is sent to a landfill, incinerated, or processed at a materials recovery facility (MRF), energy is needed to power the equipment that manages waste.
Recycling materials conserves the energy that would have been required to harvest and mine virgin raw materials. Recycling further conserves energy by eliminating the need to transport raw materials from extraction sites to manufacturing or processing facilities. Significant energy savings are generally achieved through “closed-loop recycling,” in which recycled material is used to produce its original product—examples include using recycled aluminum or steel to manufacture new cans and using recycled glass to manufacture new glass bottles.
On the other hand, open-loop recycling (e.g., using waste-paper as animal bedding or plastic bottles for construction material) often results in less energy savings compared with closed-loop recycling because the secondary products are typically of lower value or functionality than the original item. From a life cycle perspective, which considers all stages from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal, open-loop recycling introduces additional complexity. The equipment and processes required to convert waste into a new, often unrelated product can be energy- and resource-intensive. In cases where the secondary product replaces a material that is already low-impact or readily available, the offsets in energy use can be minimal—or even a net positive impact if transportation and processing impacts are high. Thus, while open-loop recycling may reduce landfill volume, it may not always produce a net environmental benefit, especially if the new life cycle requires more input than would have been used to produce the virgin equivalent. Evaluating these trade-offs is essential in sustainability assessments such as life cycle assessment, where recycling offsets must account for not only material diversion but also the quality, efficiency, and environmental load of the new product system.
7.1.3 Reducing Waste and Diverting from Landfills
Landfills are the primary method of waste disposal globally, but materials discarded in a landfill are intermixed with soils, dirt, and other waste. This mixing makes the postdisposal recovery of valuable
___________________
1 Energy savings are particularly significant for aluminum and steel production from recycled material rather than processing virgin material from their respective ores (Waste Trade, n.d.).
recyclable commodities—such as metals, plastics, and paper—challenging and often unfeasible economically (Jain et al., 2023; Suknark et al., 2023; Zhi et al., 2023). Likewise, in waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities, where materials are incinerated, the opportunity for closed-loop recycling is effectively lost. Incineration reduces most materials to ash, making them unsuitable for direct reuse in manufacture. However, WTE facilities that burn waste also generate electricity, displacing fossil fuel–generated electricity. They also recycle significant amounts of metals from the WTE ash, eliminate methane emissions from landfilled waste, and reduce the mass of landfilled waste by 70–80 percent.
In contrast, recycling is a form of material recovery that supports both waste reduction and landfill diversion (Galavote et al., 2024b; Huang, 2024; Klemeš et al., 2010; Mueller, 2013). By collecting and processing recyclable materials before they are discarded, recycling preserves the inherent qualities of these materials and enables them to be reused in manufacturing new products. In addition, recycling minimizes waste by diverting materials from disposal facilities, and it helps conserve landfill space and capacity of WTE furnaces. This conservation is particularly important because landfills are often challenging to permit and site. From a financial perspective, recycling offers those operating WTE facilities a means to recover valuable commodities such as aluminum and steel cans. These materials have a higher market value when recycled directly rather than being recovered after damage from incineration.
7.1.4 Preventing Pollution
Materials disposal through landfilling or incineration involve potential emissions to the air, soil, and water as the waste decomposes or combusts. Landfills pose possible environmental concerns because of the release of metals, ammonia, and organic compounds in the form of gas or leachate2 (de Oliveira et al., 2022; Lott et al., 2024; Ma et al., 2023; Reinhart et al., 2020). Leachate often contains high concentrations of heavy metals and, organic chemicals (measured as total suspended solids and total organic carbon). Other concerning emergent chemicals are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (Lott et al., 2024; Reinhart et al., 2010; Robey et al., 2024). Additionally, these chemicals can be present in landfill gas (de Oliveira et al., 2022; Galavote et al., 2024a; Ma et al., 2023). Diverting materials from landfills through recycling or other means can reduce the generation of these pollutant chemicals. Stringent regulations govern landfills and similar waste treatment facilities—such as those outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—but possibilities remain for leaks or unintended emissions into the environment. These emissions can affect local ecosystems adversely and pose risks to human health.
Materials themselves can also become pollutants, as evidenced in the widespread concern about marine plastic debris (Jambeck et al., 2015), much of which stems from river and coastal communities in the Global South (Geyer et al., 2017; Lebreton and Andrady, 2019; Meijer et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2017). The exact origin of these plastics is often unclear; they may either be imported plastic waste from the Global North, sold to facilities in the Global South for reprocessing and production, or they could have originated from within the local communities (Plastic Pollution Coalition, 2019), many of which lack adequate waste collection and infrastructure systems. Better waste and recycling management practices are critically needed, as well as improved infrastructure to prevent materials from becoming pollutants.
7.2 RECYCLING RATES: CURRENT SUSTAINABILITY METRICS
The recycling rate is one of the main metrics used to assess progress toward achieving better impacts on the environment and sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental, and social goals). Intended to measure the success of a waste diversion program, the traditional recycling rate is calculated as the recycled weight divided by total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated (including the weight of materials both for recycling and disposal). The point at which data are used to estimate the recycling rate can vary. For example, the recycled amount may be measured as recyclables are collected at the curb, or after the materials
___________________
2 When waste is exposed to precipitation, contaminants leach from the wastes, which creates a liquid mixture called leachate.
pass through a MRF where contaminates are removed. In that case, the data report the recycled commodities sold to end markets.
However, inherent issues with this metric remain (Anshassi et al., 2018). First, it does not distinguish between the environmental, economic, or social impacts of recycling different materials (e.g., 1 ton of recycled glass is considered equivalent to 1 ton of recycled aluminum cans, despite their vastly different impacts). Second, this measure neglects any impacts to social welfare (e.g., jobs produced, recycling participation). Third, the metric fails to account for the benefits of manufacturing or production improvements, such as lightweighting, or to consider the benefits of source reduction and waste minimization (because the recycled mass or volume is included in both the numerator and denominator). Fourth, the recycling rate is used for any waste component regardless of the availability of collection programs, sorting equipment, or end-markets. Fifth, this recycling rate can rise or fall over time for reasons unrelated to recycling. For example, the positive effects of economic growth or new technologies can appear to have negative effects on the recycling rate, because greater total household consumption raises the denominator, even without changing their recycling in the numerator.
These limitations highlight the need for a different assessment method for measuring recycling benefits and progress, especially for goal setting in sustainability initiatives. As part of other research, life cycle assessment has been proposed as a tool for developing new methods of evaluating progress toward sustainability. For example, the Sustainable Materials Management framework uses LCA to shape policy decisions. The next section details what has been learned about primary recycling materials using LCA, and it is followed by a review of the sustainable materials management framework.
7.3 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Decision-makers and policymakers frequently use LCA to evaluate the impacts of systems and policies on the environment, economy, and society. As a computer-based tool, LCA quantifies the environmental benefits or burdens associated with a material throughout its entire life cycle (Khandelwal et al., 2019). The life cycle stages typically start with the extraction of raw materials and extend through processing those materials, manufacturing, sale, use, and end-of-life management (Blikra Vea et al., 2018; Kirkeby et al., 2006; Laurent et al., 2014a; Reap et al., 2008a).
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed guidelines—ISO 14040 and ISO 14044—that outline the requirements for conducting an LCA (Guinée et al., 2011; Khandelwal et al., 2019; Pryshlakivsky and Searcy, 2013; Reap et al., 2008a; Yadav and Samadder, 2018). These guidelines describe four key phases: (1) goal and scope definition, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment, and (4) interpretation.
The results of an LCA are not exact measurements but potentials. For example, the greenhouse gas emissions estimated using LCA is the potential emissions footprint associated with the systems, evaluated as part of the goal and scope definition.
7.3.1 Waste Versus Product Life Cycle Assessment
When applying LCA to a waste management system, users can choose between a generic product LCA model or a specialized waste LCA model (Gentil et al., 2010). Product LCA models handle a single product from extraction to end of life, whereas waste LCA models assess heterogeneous materials comprising various waste fractions (see Table 7-1; see also Clavreul et al., 2014).
Product LCA models typically do not include the flexibility needed to model a functional unit with multiple waste fractions directly. However, some product LCA models offer supplementary add-on modules for landfilling or incineration end-of-life treatments. Practitioners may prefer waste LCA models over product LCA models, because waste LCA models provide an environment that includes all the necessary life cycle inventory and impact assessment methods to model multiple waste fractions under various treatment processes (Clavreul et al., 2014; Gentil et al., 2010). However, not all waste LCA models can handle complex systems with different waste treatment technologies. Waste management environmental modeling
usually reflects the environmental footprint associated with each material for various common end-of-life management options:
- Recycling includes transportation to the MRF and remanufacture facilities, sorting and processing at the MRF, and use of sorted recyclables as a secondary feedstock (to avoid emissions by not extracting virgin materials).
- Biological treatment covers transport, equipment uses, fugitive emissions, virgin fertilizer avoidance, and soil carbon storage.
- Thermal treatment involves the combustion process of waste fractions, use of ancillary materials for facility operation (e.g., ammonia), the transport of ashes, management of ash at a landfill, recovery of ferrous and nonferrous metal fractions from the ash, and the avoided emissions from electricity production and from not extracting virgin metals.
- Landfilling accounts for the use of materials for landfill construction, operation, closure, and postclosure care; emissions from landfill gas (e.g., methane generation) and from landfill leachate; and the offsets due to carbon storage and avoided emissions from natural gas extraction and electricity production from landfill gas recovery.
- Production encompasses all upstream stages before a product is consumed, including raw materials acquisition, processing, manufacturing, and associated transportation.
- Source reduction accounts for avoiding the production, consumption, or reuse of a product. Results are reported as negative values relative to production impacts.
TABLE 7-1 Produce and Waste Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Models
| Description | Systems Covered | Example Programs | Example Uses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product LCA Model | Handles a single product from its extraction to end of life. Does not directly model a functional unit with multiple waste fractions. Requires users to select the desired life cycle inventory (LCI) databases and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods, which typically are not preloaded into the user working environment. | Extraction of raw materials, processing of raw materials to a desired form, manufacturing form into a product, distributing to market, consumer use, and end-of-life management. | SimaPro, OpenLCA, LCA for Experts (formerly GaBi), Waste Resources Assessment Toolkit for the Environment (WRATE) | Measure the environmental impacts associated with a single product or material throughout its life cycle or at a certain life stage (e.g., manufacturing). |
| Waste LCA Model | Assesses a heterogeneous material containing various waste fractions and typically provides an environment that contains all the necessary LCI analysis and LCIA methods to model many waste fractions under various treatment processes. | Follows a “zero-burden” assumption, where the system starts at the collection of the product from a waste generator (e.g., home, business) then is transported to a waste management facility and treated. In cases where the material treatment involves recycling or remanufacturing, the emissions associated with a material’s extraction, processing, and manufacturing (i.e., upstream stages) are accounted for in the system. | Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST), Solid Waste Optimization Lifecycle Framework (SWOLF), Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Environmental Assessment of Environmental Technologies (EASETECH) | Compare the environmental impacts associated with various prospective solid waste management approaches. |
SOURCE: Anshassi and Townsend, 2020.
7.3.2 Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment
The LCA models described in Table 7-1 predict environmental impacts at the scale of a single MSW management system, or for a unit of material (mass or dollar value) processed and managed with an assumed set of technologies. Characterization factors are then used, expressed per unit mass (e.g., emissions or environmental health effect). More detailed and accurate calculations can be supported for a single site, a single MSW system, or a given technology, as permitted by data, expertise, models, and time. Furthermore, their results can be summed and aggregated to a state or national level, but only with knowledge of the inventory of sites, systems, and technologies across the area of aggregation. The effort needed to gather and evaluate this information is high, even for a single state, and might be prohibitive.
The economic input-output (EIO) LCA framework provides a rapid, although highly aggregated alternative. It starts with an estimate of material or dollar flows between sectors of the economy and then assigns a quantity of environmental impact to each unit of activity within each sector. Sectorial emissions or impacts are then calculated and summed to determine the total economy-wide impact, accounting for current or projected levels of direct sectorial activity and the indirect upstream activities that support them through the supply chain.
In its simplest form, the EIO-LCA framework allows users to evaluate environmental impacts associated with economic activities, drawing from environmental data that converts cost data to environmental impacts, plus financial data (e.g., import and export prices, purchase prices, value-added, price index data). The method has been applied in a number of national and regional studies of alternative product and process options (Castellani et al., 2019; San Miguel et al., 2024). In some cases, it is used in a hybrid approach, in which direct product or process models are first evaluated and then linked to an EIO model (Ercan and Tatari, 2015; Zhao et al., 2016). Databases and tutorial support for EIO-LCA models are available (Hauschild et al., 2018; Hendrickson et al., 2010; Nakamura, 2023).
The U.S. Environmentally Extended Input-Output model, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is based on EIO-LCA and tailored to the structure of the U.S. economy. It provides environmental impacts for various sectors and relies not only on EPA databases but also on financial data from the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
A few studies using the EIO-LCA approach are described here. First, Huang and Matthews (2008) conducted an economy-wide assessment of U.S. goods and services consumption using the EIO-LCA model, reporting:
Power generation contributes to nearly one fifth of the total embodied energy and greenhouse gas equivalent emissions in manufactured goods; and for the services and other institutions sectors, its contributions are more than one third. . . . Consumer purchases of waste management services are found to contribute to nearly a quarter of all cancer and non-cancer impacts in the entire economy, signaling the need for producer responsibility policy aimed to reduce toxic materials that eventually enter the waste stream. Subtotal supply chain analysis of packaging materials found that on an energy basis, there exist opportunities to expand the existing applications of deposit-refund programs on beverage containers to other goods. Agencies, companies, and industry groups can use sectoral and supplier contribution analyses to identify opportunities for reducing the life cycle impacts of their products.
Kumar and colleagues (2016) adapted and tailored an EIO-LCA model to estimate Indiana’s statewide greenhouse gas emissions from wind turbine electricity generation over its life cycle, from manufacturing through operations and decommissioning. They demonstrate that wind energy production is not entirely free of greenhouse gas emissions when considering all costs and life cycle stages.
DiStefano and Belenky (2009) explore the U.S. nationwide impact of converting (MSW) to methane in anaerobic digesters to generate renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save landfill space. The authors used the EIO-LCA model from Hendrickson et al. (2010) to calculate carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions from landfill activity and the projected reduction achievable from implementation
of nationwide anaerobic digesters. They project that these systems would result in greenhouse gas emissions savings equivalent to a nationwide emissions reduction of 1.9 percent, compared with U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 (DiStefano and Belenky, 2009). A significant portion of this projected reduction is achieved within the waste management and remediation sector.
Deniz and colleagues (2023) predicted environmental emissions and energy and material consumption from alternative packaging waste collection rates in Avcilar Municipality, Istanbul City, Türkiye. The EIO-LCA model results showed that, as the amount of packaging waste collection increased, the top two sectors responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions were the oil and gasoline production and the electricity production and supply sectors (Deniz et al., 2023).
In summary, compared with alternative, process-detailed methods using life cycle inventory and impact assessment steps, the EIO-LCA approach is at a coarser scale and has difficulty assessing effects of specific technologies in the MSW management and recycling system. Use of a hybrid LCA model may be able to address this problem. The EIO-LCA model may also be appropriate for evaluating national and state components of MSW impacts, in parallel with more detailed system studies or as a first step of analysis.
7.3.3 General Formula for Calculating Environmental Impacts
The simplified formula for calculating the potential environmental impact from recycling requires taking the difference between two estimated values: (1) calculated impacts of producing the same quantity of product from virgin materials; and (2) calculated impacts of producing the same quantity of product from recycled (or secondary) materials. When the net difference is taken, a net negative value means that the product made from recycled materials results in environmental damage avoidance. However, if the net difference is a positive value, then production using recycled materials results in no environmental avoidance and instead an additional environmental damage. For example, the greenhouse gas emissions for recycling aluminum cans (i.e., used beverage containers) typically results in net negative greenhouse gas emissions because producing one can using recycled material will generate fewer emissions than producing one can using virgin material. Using aluminum cans as a feedstock to produce a new aluminum can avoids the need to mine virgin aluminum ore (i.e., bauxite) and all the related emissions, energy, waste, and resources.
7.3.4 Key Recycling Modeling Assumptions in Life Cycle Assessments
Recycling primarily generates emissions or offsets related to MRF sorting, transporting to remanufacturing facilities, and the remanufacturing process itself (Anshassi and Townsend, 2021).3 While emissions from MRF sorting can vary by material and model, their contributions are generally negligible. For instance, Anshassi and Townsend (2021) reported that the average contribution of MRF sorting to the net greenhouse gas emissions potential environmental impact factor is approximately 15 percent across several models.
Table 7-2 presents key input assumptions and their defaults for each model along with other key assumptions related to recycling modeling. These models use technological separation efficiency to allocate the life cycle impact associated with MRF sorting on a material-specific basis. The Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool assumes the most aggressive separation efficiency is 99 percent for all materials, while the other models also assume high efficiencies (although specific to each material). Note the MRF separation efficiencies reported in Table 7-2 may differ from those cited earlier in the report (e.g., 87 percent), as the earlier values reflect more recent data, whereas the values in Table 7-2 represent default assumptions from the time the models were originally developed (or in the case of any updates).
___________________
3 Waste collection (i.e., transportation from household to MRFs) was not included in the models cited in Anshassi and Townsend (2021).
TABLE 7-2 Key Input Assumptions and Their Defaults for Each Assessment Model
| Parameter | WARM | MSW-DST | SWOLF | EASETECH | WRATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facility Management | |||||
| Facility Type | Not reported | Commingled recyclables with both manual and mechanical sorting with no advanced sorting technology | Commingled recyclables with both manual and mechanical sorting with some advanced sorting technology (i.e., optical glass, PET, HDPE sorter) | Commingled recyclables with both manual and mechanical sorting with no advanced sorting technology | Commingled recyclables with both manual and mechanical sorting with some advanced sorting technology (i.e., optical glass, PET, HDPE sorter) |
| Facility Lifetime | Not reported | Not reported | 30 Yrs | Not reported | 25 Yrs |
| Emissions from facility construction, operation, and decommission | Not Included | Not Included | Not Included | Not Included | Included |
| MRF Process | |||||
| MRF separation Efficiency | |||||
| Newspaper | 95% | 99% | 93% | 100% | 99% |
| Cardboard | 100% | 99% | 93% | 100% | 99% |
| Office Paper | 91% | 99% | 93% | 100% | 99% |
| HDPE | 92% | 99% | 93% | 90% | 49% |
| PET | 95% | 99% | 93% | 90% | 49% |
| Glass | 90% | 99% | 96% | 95% | 100% |
| Aluminum Cans | 100% | 99% | 93% | 100% | 100% |
| Steel Cans | 100% | 99% | 93% | 100% | 78% |
| Remanufacturing Process | |||||
| Distance to remanufacture (km), market type | |||||
| Newspaper | 414, U.S. | 322, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 250, European | 250, European |
| Cardboard | 1,086, U.S. | 322, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 250, European | 250, European |
| Office Paper | 414, U.S. | 322, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 250, European | 250, European |
| HDPE | 800, U.S. | 483, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 800, European | 144, European |
| PET | 800, U.S. | 483, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 800, European | 250, European |
| Glass | 573, U.S. | 322, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 100, European | 250, European |
| Aluminum Cans | 533, U.S. | 644, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 250, European | 250, European |
| Steel Cans | 533, U.S. | 805, U.S. | 100, U.S. | 250, European | 250, European |
| Remanufacture type | |||||
| Newspaper, Cardboard, Office Paper, HDPE, PET, Glass, Aluminum Cans, Steel Cans | All Closed-loop | ||||
| Substitution ratio (Mg of recycled material substituted per Mg of virgin material) | |||||
| Newspaper | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cardboard | 1 | 0.85 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Office Paper | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| HDPE | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Parameter | WARM | MSW-DST | SWOLF | EASETECH | WRATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substitution ratio (Mg of recycled material substituted per Mg of virgin material) | |||||
| PET | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Glass | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Aluminum Cans | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Steel Cans | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Recycled Input Ratio (Mg of product made per 1 Mg of recycled material) | |||||
| Newspaper | 0.94 | 1 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 1.32 |
| Cardboard | 0.93 | 1 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.89 |
| Office Paper | 0.66 | 1 | 0.65 | 0.84 | 0.99 |
| HDPE | 0.93 | 1 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.85 |
| PET | 0.94 | 1 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.76 |
| Glass | 0.98 | 1 | 0.97 | 1 | 1 |
| Aluminum Cans | 0.93 | 1 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 1 |
| Steel Cans | 0.98 | 1 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 1 |
| Forest Carbon Offset | Included | Not Included | Not Included | Not Included | Not Included |
NOTES: The data presented here reflect the time at which the study was published. Since then, updates to these models have been made, including the release of MSW-DST v2, which now shares more similarities with the assumptions used in SWOLF. EASETECH = Environmental Assessment System for Environmental Technologies; HDPE = high-density polyethylene; MRF = materials recovery facility; MSW-DST = Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool; PET = polyethylene terephthalate; SWOLF = Solid Waste Optimization Lifecycle Framework; WARM = Waste Reduction Model; WRATE = Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment.
SOURCE: Anshassi and Townsend, 2021.
Depending on the material, transportation contributions to greenhouse gas emission footprints typically range from less than 1 percent to 3 percent (Anshassi and Townsend, 2021). These models account for the transportation of recovered materials to remanufacturing facilities that are often hundreds of miles away. Some LCA practitioners have observed that transportation-related emissions are relatively minor compared with the emissions associated with sorting and remanufacturing materials (Rigamonti et al., 2017).
According to Anshassi and Townsend (2021), remanufacturing contributes the largest share to the net recycling potential environmental footprint across many environmental indicators and waste LCA models, and it exhibits the greatest variability in magnitude. For instance, aluminum cans generally show the largest environmental avoidance for most indicators and models, while glass tends to show the least avoidance. Most models indicate that cardboard may result in net added emissions (though the Waste Reduction Model associates cardboard with an avoidance [Anshassi and Townsend, 2021]). These materials are modeled using a closed-loop recycling approach, where the material is remanufactured back into the same product without significant quality degradation (Schrijvers et al., 2016). However, this modeling approach does not match reality for certain materials, such as plastics, where most recycling is open. That is, recycled plastic bottles are generally used for the manufacture of different products, such as textile fibers.
The models estimate the environmental impacts of remanufacturing based on the assumption that each ton of recycled material replaces a particular amount of virgin material in producing the same product (called the substitution ratio). Most models use a one-to-one substitution ratio. Although a closed-loop approach is used, model developers acknowledge that complete quality preservation is idealistic and therefore use a recycling–input ratio. This ratio is specific to each material and represents the amount of new product per metric ton of recycled material input (e.g., material-specific ratios ranging from 0.65 to 1.32).
7.4 REPORTED ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS FOR RECYCLING MATERIALS
The overall environmental impacts of recycling material categories vary widely, depending on the environmental indicator considered, because of the different processes involved in creating these products, spanning raw material extraction, manufacturing, usage, and end-of-life management. As noted in the previous section, assumptions and methodologies used to measure the impacts of recycling must be referenced against the production of products using virgin materials. Table 7-3 reports the environmental footprint—listed as emissions, pollutants, and resource usage avoided—for the most commonly recycled materials. The table is followed by a narrative explanation of the units used for each area.
TABLE 7-3 Environmental Footprints for Recycling Materials
| Material | Carbon Dioxide (kgCO2eq) | Energy (MJ) | Water (gallons) | Human Health Toxicity (CTUH) | Ecotoxicity (CTUe) | Eutrophication (kgNeq) | Acidification (kgSO2eq) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aluminum cans Steel cans | −8.3 to −16.3 | −135 to −194 | −8.8 | −3.4×10−9 to −3.0×10−6 | −0.4 to −53 | −1.2×10−3 to −5.5×10−3 | −0.044 to −4.7 |
| −0.8 to −2.5 | −10 to −19 | −0.6 | 3.9×10−6 to −2.6×10−7 | 0.6 to −7.1 | −4.1×10−5 to −5.6×10−4 | −0.0012 to −0.4 | |
| Plastic (PET and HDPE) Glass (mixed by color) | −0.4 to −2 | −19 to −55 | −0.4 | 2.8×10−8 to −4.0×10−7 | 0.01 to −15 | −1.7×10−3 to 8.9×10−4 | −0.0019 to −0.7 |
| −0.2 to −0.4 | −1.8 to −2.3 | −0.05 | 4.1×10−8 to −4.5×10−8 | 0.06 to −1.8 | −1.3×10−5 to −5.2×10−5 | −0.0010 to −0.03 | |
| Paper (newspaper and office paper) | 0.5 to −2.6 | 3.3 to −19 | 0.03 to −0.6 | 5.7×10−8 to −2.9×10−7 | 1.7 to −8.9 | 3.9×10−4 to −9.9×10−4 | 0.027 to −0.3 |
| Cardboard | 0.2 to −2.8 | 0.8 to −14 | 0.10 | 2.4×10−9 to −1.3×10−6 | 0.6 to −38 | −3.1×10−4 to −9.2×10−3 | −0.0003 to −0.14 |
NOTES: All negative units are avoidances per kilogram of recycled material; all positives are emissions per kilogram of recycled material. Data based on modeling emissions using WARM, MSW-DST v2, SWOLF, EASETECH, and WRATE.
Carbon Dioxide
Greenhouse gases absorb energy and slow it from escaping into space, which causes the Earth to warm. Greenhouse gas quantities are expressed as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCO2eq) per kg of material, to allow for comparison of global warming impacts of different gases relative to CO2; kgCO2eq is a measure of how much energy the emission of 1 kg of gas will absorb over a given period, relative to the emissions of 1 kg of CO2. Emissions levels, and their avoidance, depend on several factors, including the local recycling infrastructure, the type of energy used (renewable versus fossil fuels), and the specific recycling processes.
Energy
The amount of direct and indirect energy used throughout the life cycle of product from both nonrenewable and renewable energy sources is included in the energy use indicator. The energy savings achieved through recycling depend on several factors, including the efficiency of local recycling processes and the type of energy used in manufacturing (renewable versus nonrenewable). The justification for energy avoidance or additional energy needed for each material are the same as provided in the above section on carbon dioxide, because the largest sources of emissions or avoidances come from the use or offset of fossil-based energy sources in the remanufacturing process. Often the energy levels required to manufacture a new product using virgin sources are greater than when those required to recycle feedstocks.
Water
The water use indicator considers the amount of the water evaporated, incorporated into products, transferred to other watersheds, or disposed into the sea. Water savings from recycling translates to a reduction in the demand of water resources that are used heavily in production of new materials from raw sources.
Human Health Toxicity and Ecotoxicity
The release of toxic materials and exposure to humans via inhalation or ingestion are considered for various human health effects during LCA. The units are expressed as comparative toxic units (CTUh), interpreted as disease cases per kg of substance emitted. This measure indicates adverse impacts and includes cancer and other noncancer diseases (or total human toxicity potential). In contrast, ecotoxicity considers the release of toxic materials into an aquatic ecosystem. The units are expressed as comparative toxic units (CTUe), interpreted as the potentially affected fraction of species over time and volume per kg of substance emitted (or total ecotoxicity potential). These metrics provide a comparative measure of the potential health and ecological risks associated with different materials and processes.
Eutrophication
Eutrophication considers the enrichment of aquatic ecosystems from nutrients that cause undesirable algal growth (e.g., nitrates, phosphates). The units are expressed as kilograms nitrogen equivalence (kgNeq) to allow for comparison of nutrients in the water relative to nitrogen. For most materials, potential eutrophication impacts arise from the use of fossil fuels in the extraction of the virgin material and the electricity used in its manufacture. Other potential causes may be nitrogen or phosphate-based chemicals in the extraction and manufacturing processes.
Acidification
Acidification considers the increasing concentration of hydrogen ions within the environment due to the addition of acids. The units are expressed as kilograms sulfur dioxide equivalence (kgSO2eq) to allow for comparison of acids in the air relative to sulfur dioxide. A main concern from acidification is the impacts of acid rain on ecosystems, infrastructure, and human health. Like eutrophication potential, acidification sources come from the use of fossil fuels in the extraction of the virgin material and the electricity used in its manufacture, with other sources from the acids used in the beneficiation process of metals (aluminum and steel), processing of petroleum fractions for those used in plastics, processing of silica sand for glass, and pulping process needed to dissolve the wood fibers to produce paper pulp.
Not covered in this section are the environmental impacts of a curbside recycling system. For example, Anshassi and Townsend (2023) estimate that the average greenhouse gas emissions from a typical residential curbside recycling program amount to 0.046 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per household per year. The greatest sources of emissions are waste collection and landfilling waste, while the most significant offsets are achieved through recycling instead of landfilling materials such as metals, paper, and plastics.
7.5 SUSTAINABILITY MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
The concept of sustainable materials management first emerged from the EPA (2002) publication Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020. It was further developed in the EPA (2009) report Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead. These and other documents describe
the framework as a set of resource-efficient strategies implemented throughout the entire life cycle of materials and products, encompassing extraction, refinement, manufacturing, assembly, distribution, use, and end-of-life management (see Figure 7-1).
SOURCE: EPA, 2009.
Unlike traditional waste management approaches, which often focus solely on disposal, sustainable materials management aims to optimize the use of resources and minimize waste and pollutants at every stage. Local governments adopting this framework seek to create policies that promote the most efficient use of resources while mitigating environmental impacts. From a policy perspective, sustainable materials management represents a long-term, systemic approach to waste management that considers the interests of all stakeholders, both public and private.
As policymakers integrate sustainable materials management principles into regulatory frameworks, their goal is to foster sustainable production and consumption practices while transforming end-of-life management into a driver of enhanced sustainability and productivity. To guide their decisions, they rely on LCA models that quantify material flows across all life-cycle stages in terms of environmental, economic, and social impacts. LCA models not only track the pathways of material flows but also identify which economic sectors generate the most waste. Additionally, they evaluate the environmental and economic effectiveness of various waste management strategies, providing valuable insights into how different approaches impact sustainability.
7.6 REDUCING WASTE ENVIRONMENT FOOTPRINTS
Although specific needs and strategies apply to each material, this discussion focuses on two key categories that show exceptional promise for reducing waste: mixed paper—the largest component found in recycling bins—and food waste, which presents some of the most complex environmental challenges and has one of the lowest recovery rates. Addressing these two streams is critical for maximizing diversion and improving system-wide sustainability outcomes. Following a description of current policies and considerations for each of these materials, Table 7-4 describes the political feasibility of each scenario.
| Scenario | Has Local Government Adopted a Similar Scenario? | If So, How Is It Applied? | Policy Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Junk Mail Ban | Yes |
|
|
| Food Donation Mandate | Yes |
|
|
7.6.1 Reducing the Use of Mixed Paper
Several strategies can be employed to reduce the environmental footprint of mixed paper effectively. Encouraging residents to receive utility bills and bank statements electronically, rather than by mail, can significantly cut down on paper usage. Providing incentives for this transition can further boost participation. Additionally, instituting policies to minimize or prohibit unsolicited junk mail can also contribute
to paper reduction. Since much of the junk mail comes from credit card, mortgage, and insurance companies (Wambuguh, 2011), targeting these industries with specific policies could be particularly effective. In office, university, and business settings, reducing paper use can be achieved by limiting the number of prints allowed per employee and displaying individual print volumes to promote more mindful printing. Another simple yet impactful measure is configuring printers to default to double-sided printing, which can be implemented easily across various work environments. These measures collectively support a reduction in mixed paper consumption and its associated environmental impacts.
Over the past 2 decades, numerous countries have implemented national programs to help residents reduce the amount of junk mail they receive. In the United States, the “Do Not Mail Registry” allows residents to opt out of unsolicited advertising, such as preapproved credit card offers and insurance advertisements (Cain, 2005; Wambuguh, 2011). Similarly, France passed regulations requiring both producers and distributors of junk mail to participate in recycling and providing residents with “Stop Pub” stickers to place onto their mailbox indicating they opted out of receiving junk mail (Resse, 2005). Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have also enacted legislation providing their residents with stickers such as “No Junk Mail” or “No Junk Mail, Please!” (Liebig and Rommel, 2014; Resse, 2005; Simon, 2016). While these regulations have contributed to source reduction of paper waste, the retention rates for adherence to these stickers were relatively low, only 9 percent in France and 25 percent in Germany (Simon, 2016), further indicating ongoing challenges in consumer adoption.
7.6.2 Reducing Food Waste
Global recognition is growing about the environmental, social, and economic issues concerning the copious mass of food waste (Hannibal and Vedlitz, 2018; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014), and many countries have established food donation regulations and programs to combat the generation of waste (Busetti, 2019; Chen and Chen, 2018; De Boeck et al., 2017; Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2019; Halloran et al., 2014; Nomura, 2020; Redlingshöfer et al., 2020; Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016). Several U.S. states (e.g., California, Oregon) and cities (e.g., San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon) passed state-level food donation tax incentives (Chen and Chen, 2018). In Europe, France implemented a national policy mandating supermarkets to donate edible fractions to charitable organizations and placed a disposal ban on edible food (Busetti, 2019; Mourad, 2015; Redlingshöfer et al., 2020). Denmark, Belgium, Italy, and Romania advanced food donations through various similar regulations (Busetti, 2019; Redlingshöfer et al., 2020).
Several researchers have documented potential issues arising from food donation programs, including consumer misconception that donated food is unsafe for consumption, fragmented business structure of donation organizations, lack of flexibility and clarity in the regulations, and additional expenses incurred by donors and donation organizations (Busetti, 2019; De Boeck et al., 2017; Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2019; Sakaguchi et al., 2018; Schneider, 2013). The political viability of these programs is improved when local governments follow a multifaceted approach that includes consumer education and proactive planning with regulators and food supply stakeholders (Hamilton et al., 2015; Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016). Tevapitak and colleagues (2019) identified the criticality of collaboration between local governments and stakeholders to the beneficial management of water, an approach that can be extended to food waste. For example, both the United States and Italy passed a “Good Samaritan Act” to prevent liability disputes for food donors and donation organizations (De Boeck et al., 2017; Sakaguchi et al., 2018).
REFERENCES
Anshassi, M., S. Laux, and T.G. Townsend. 2018. Replacing recycling rates with life-cycle metrics as government materials management targets. Environmental Science & Technology 52(11):6544–6554. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06007.
Anshassi, M., and T.G. Townsend. 2020. Looking Beyond Florida’s 75% Recycling Goal: Development of a Methodology and Tool for Assessing Sustainable Materials Management Recycling Rates in Florida. Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, University of Florida.
Anshassi, M., and T.G. Townsend. 2021. Reviewing the underlying assumptions in waste LCA models to identify impacts on waste management decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production 313:127913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127913.
Anshassi, M., and T.G. Townsend. 2023. The hidden economic and environmental costs of eliminating kerbside recycling. Nature Sustainability 6:919–928. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01122-8.
Anshassi, M. and T.G. Townsend. 2024. Residential recycling in Florida: A case study on costs, environmental impacts, and improvement strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 206:107627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107627.
Bian, Z., J.-X. Lu, Y. Huang, D. Xuan, G. Ou, and C. Sun Poon. 2023. Recycling of waste glass in lightweight geopolymer using incineration bottom ash as a foaming agent: Towards energy conservation. Construction and Building Materials 400:132632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132632.
Blikra, V.E., V. Martinez-Sanchez, and M. Thomsen. 2018. A review of waste management decision support tools and their ability to assess circular biowaste management systems. Sustainability 10(10):3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103720.
Busetti, S. 2019. A theory-based evaluation of food waste policy: Evidence from Italy. Food Policy 88:101749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101749.
Cain, R.M. 2005. Federal do not call registry is here to stay: What’s next for direct marketing regulation? Journal of Interactive Marketing 19:54–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20031.
Chen, C., and R. Chen. 2018. Using two government food waste recognition programs to understand current reducing food loss and waste activities in the U.S. Sustainability 10:2760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082760.
Christensen, T.H., A. Damgaard, J. Levis, Y. Zhao, A. Björklund, U. Arena, M.A. Barlaz, V. Starostina, A. Boldrin, T.F. Astrup, and V. Bisinella. 2020. Application of LCA modelling in integrated waste management. Waste Management 118:313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.034.
Clavreul, J., H. Baumeister, T.H. Christensen, and A. Damgaard. 2014. An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies. Environmental Modelling & Software 60:18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.007.
De Boeck, E., L. Jacxsens, H. Goubert, and M. Uyttendaele. 2017. Ensuring food safety in food donations: Case study of the Belgian donation/acceptation chain. Food Research International 100:137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.08.046.
de Oliveira, F.D.G., N.M. Robey, T.J. Smallwood, C.J. Spreadbury, and T.G. Townsend. 2022. Landfill gas as a source of anthropogenic antimony and arsenic release. Chemosphere 307:135739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135739.
Deniz, R.F., C. Xiaoju, and N.H. Orak. 2023. Investigation of greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste management practices using an economic input-output life cycle analysis approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 420:138450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138450.
Diaz-Ruiz, R., M. Costa-Font, F. López-i-Gelats, and J.M. Gil. 2019. Food waste prevention along the food supply chain: A multi-actor approach to identify effective solutions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 149:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.031.
DiStefano, T.D., and L.G. Belenky. 2009. Life-cycle analysis of energy and greenhouse gas emissions from anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135(11):1097–1105.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead. https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-road-ahead.
Ercan, T., and O. Tatari. 2015. A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20:1213–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0927-2.
Erkisi-Arici, S., J. Hagen, F. Cerdas, and C. Herrmann. 2021. Comparative LCA of municipal solid waste collection and sorting schemes considering regional variability. Procedia CIRP 98:235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.036.
Fullerton, D. 2025. The circular economy. In T. Lundgren, M. Bostian, and S. Managi (eds.), Encyclopedia of Energy. Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics 2e(3):254–265. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91013-2.00050-2.
Galavote, T., G. de Lorena Diniz Chaves, L.H. Yamane, and R.R. Siman. 2024a. The effects of municipal waste reduction and recycling policies on the economic feasibility of landfill gas generation. Energy for Sustainable Development 81:101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101493.
Galavote, T., L.H. Yamane, N.S. de S.L. Cano, G. de L.D. Chaves, and R.R. Siman. 2024b. Waste management policies and impact of landfill diversion goals in gas-to-energy recovery. Waste and Resource Management 177:122–138. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.22.00011.
Gentil, E.C., A. Damgaard, M. Hauschild, G. Finnveden, O. Eriksson, S. Thorneloe, P.O. Kaplan, M. Barlaz, O. Muller, Y. Matsui, R. Ii, and T.H. Christensen. 2010. Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. Waste Management 30:2636–2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004.
Geyer, R., J.R. Jambeck, and K.L. Law. 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances 3:e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Guinée, J.B., R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici, T. Ekvall, and T. Rydberg. 2011. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environmental Science & Technology 45(1):90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v.
Halloran, A., J. Clement, N. Kornum, C. Bucatariu, and J. Magid. 2014. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy 49:294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005.
Hamilton, H.A., M.S. Peverill, D.B. Müller, and H. Brattebø. 2015. Assessment of food waste prevention and recycling strategies using a multilayer systems approach. Environmental Science & Technology 49(24):13937–13945. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03781.
Hannibal, B., and A. Vedlitz. 2018. Throwing it out: Introducing a nexus perspective in examining citizen perceptions of organizational food waste in the U.S. Environmental Science & Policy 88:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.012.
Huang, L. 2024. Fintech inclusion in natural resource utilization, trade openness, resource productivity, recycling and minimizing waste generation: Does technology really drive economies toward green growth? Resources Policy 90:104855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104855.
ICF International. 2016. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM): Management Practices Chapters.
Jain, M., A. Ashwani, and A. Kumar. 2023. Landfill mining: A review on material recovery and its utilization challenges. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 169:948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.11.049.
Jambeck, J.R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T.R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan, and K.L. Law. 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347:768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Khandelwal, H., H. Dhar, A.K. Thalla, and S. Kumar. 2019. Application of life cycle assessment in municipal solid waste management: A worldwide critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 209:630–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.233.
Kirkeby, J.T., H. Birgisdottir, T.L. Hansen, T.H. Christensen, G.S. Bhander, and M. Hauschild. 2006. Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Management & Research 24(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X06062580.
Klemeš, J.J., P. Stehlík, and E. Worrell. 2010. Waste treatment to improve recycling and minimise environmental impact, Selected papers from 11th Conference Process Integration, Modelling and Optimisation for Energy Saving and Pollution Reduction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(5):267–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.11.005.
Laurent, A., I. Bakas, J. Clavreul, A. Bernstad, M. Niero, E. Gentil, M.Z. Hauschild, and T.H. Christensen. 2014a. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Management 34:573–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045.
Laurent, A., J. Clavreul, A. Bernstad, I. Bakas, M. Niero, E. Gentil, T.H. Christensen, and M.Z. Hauschild. 2014b. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—Part II: Methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Management 34:589–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.004.
Lebreton, L., and A. Andrady. 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications 5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7.
Liebig, G., and J. Rommel. 2014. Active and forced choice for overcoming status quo bias: A field experiment on the adoption of “no junk mail” stickers in Berlin, Germany. Journal of Consumer Policy 37:423–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-9264-2.
Lott, D.J., S.J. Laux, and T.G. Townsend 2024. Analysis of ammonia-nitrogen removal kinetics by stage in pilot scale vertical flow wetlands treating landfill leachate in series. Chemosphere 360:142409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142409.
Ma, J., Y. Gu, L. Liu, Y. Zhang, M. Wei, A. Jiang, X. Liu, and C. He 2023. Study on the effect of landfill gas on aerobic municipal solid waste degradation: Lab-scale model and tests. Science of the Total Environnent 869:161875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161875.
Meijer, L.J.J., T. van Emmerik, R. van der Ent, C. Schmidt, and L. Lebreton. 2021. More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Science Advances 7:eaaz5803. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803.
Mourad, M. 2015. France moves toward a national policy against food waste (No. R-15-08-b). Natural Resources Defense Council.
Mueller, W. 2013. The effectiveness of recycling policy options: Waste diversion or just diversions? Waste Management, Special Thematic Issue: Urban Mining 33:508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.007.
Nakamura, S. 2023. A practical guide to industrial ecology by input-output analysis: Matrix-based calculus of sustainability. Springer.
Nomura, A., 2020. The shift of food value through food banks: a case study in Kyoto, Japan. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 17:243–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-019-00154-0.
Papargyropoulou, E., R. Lozano, J.K. Steinberger, N. Wright, and Z.-bin Ujang. 2014. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 76:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020.
Plastic Pollution Coalition. 2019. 157,000 Shipping Containers of U.S. Plastic Waste Exported to Countries with Poor Waste Management in 2018. Plastic Pollution Coalition.
Pryshlakivsky, J., and C. Searcy. 2013. Fifteen years of ISO 14040: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 57:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.038.
Psyrri, G., M.Z. Hauschild, T.F. Astrup, and A.T.M Lima. 2024. Recycling for a sustainable future: Advancing resource efficiency through life cycle assessment resource indicators. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 209:107759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107759.
Reap, J., F. Roman, S. Duncan, and B. Bras. 2008a. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment Part 1. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13:290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0008-x.
Reap, J., F. Roman, S. Duncan, and B. Bras. 2008b. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment Part 2. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13:374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0009-9.
Redlingshöfer, B., S. Barles, and H. Weisz. 2020. Are waste hierarchies effective in reducing environmental impacts from food waste? A systematic review for OECD countries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 156:104723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104723.
Reinhart, D., R. Joslyn, and C.T. Emrich. 2020. Characterization of Florida, U.S. landfills with elevated temperatures. Waste Management 118:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.031.
Reinhart, D.R., N.D. Berge, S. Santra, and S.C. Bolyard. 2010. Emerging contaminants: Nanomaterial fate in landfills. Waste Management, Special Thematic Section: Sanitary Landfilling 30:2020–2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.08.004.
Resse, A. 2005. “Stop Pub”: Can banning of junk mail reduce waste production? Waste Management & Research 23(1):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X05051523.
Rigamonti, L., A. Falbo, L. Zampori, and S. Sala. 2017. Supporting a transition towards sustainable circular economy: sensitivity analysis for the interpretation of LCA for the recovery of electric and electronic waste. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22:1278–1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1231-5.
Robey, N.M., Y. Liu, M. Crespo-Medina, J.A. Bowden, H.M. Solo-Gabriele, T.G. Townsend, and T.M Tolaymat. 2024. Characterization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other constituents
in MSW landfill leachate from Puerto Rico. Chemosphere 358:142141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142141.
Ruan, W., and B. Zou. 2024. Optimal strategies of critical mineral depletion and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 209:107793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107793.
Sahoo, K., R. Bergman, S. Alanya-Rosenbaum, H. Gu, and S. Liang. 2019. Life cycle assessment of forest-based products: A review. Sustainability 11:4722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174722.
Sakaguchi, L., N. Pak, and M.D. Potts. 2018. Tackling the issue of food waste in restaurants: Options for measurement method, reduction and behavioral change. Journal of Cleaner Production 180:430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.136.
Schmidt, C., T. Krauth, and S. Wagner. 2017. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea. Environnemental Science & Technology 51:12246–12253. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368.
Schneider, F. 2013. The evolution of food donation with respect to waste prevention. Waste Management, Special Thematic Issue: Urban Mining 33:755–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.10.025.
Schrijvers, D.L., P. Loubet, and G. Sonnemann. 2016. Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21:994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1069-x.
Simon, F. 2016. Consumer adoption of No Junk Mail stickers: An extended planned behavior model assessing the respective role of store flyer attachment and perceived intrusiveness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 29:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.003.
Suknark, P., S. Buddhawong, and K. Wangyao. 2023. Investigating the effect of waste age and soil covering on waste characteristics prior to landfill mining using an electrical resistivity tomography technique. Journal of Environmental Management 339:117898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117898.
Tevapitak, K., and A.H.J (Bert) Helmsing. 2019. The interaction between local governments and stakeholders in environmental management: The case of water pollution by SMEs in Thailand. Journal of Environmental Management 247:840–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.097.
Thyberg, K.L., and D.J. Tonjes. 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 106:110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016.
Townsend, T.G., and M. Anshassi. 2023. Sustainable construction materials management. In T.G. Townsend and M. Anshassi (eds.), Construction and demolition debris. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25013-2_11.
Wambuguh, O. 2011. Junk mail in residential homes in the United States: Insights from a sub-urban home in California. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55:782–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.03.011.
Yadav, P., and S.R. Samadder. 2018. A critical review of the life cycle assessment studies on solid waste management in Asian countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 185:492–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.298.
Yang, Y., H. Zhang, L. Wu, and M. Wang. 2024. Supply potential, carbon emission reduction, energy conservation, and sustainable pathways for aluminum recycling in China. Sustainable Production and Consumption 50:239–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.07.034.
Zhao, Y., M. Chen, S. Wu, Y. Zhang, D. Chen, and J. Zhang. 2024. Recycling of waste edible oil derivatives as phase change materials for building energy conservation. Journal of Cleaner Production 472:143451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143451.
Zhi, Y., S. Ma, J. Qin, Z. Zhao, and C. Zhou. 2023. Assessing the city-level material stocks in landfills and the landfill mining potential of China. Environmental Research 236:116737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116737.
