A triple bottom line evaluation of solid waste management strategies: a case study for an arid Gulf State, Kuwait
Esra Aleisa,Rawa Al-Jarallah
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1410-z
2017-10-30
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Abstract:PurposeWe extend a life cycle assessment (LCA) embracing both economic and social perspectives to develop an integrated solid waste management system for Kuwait. This study considers the domestic waste generated by households and waste generated commercially. Six municipal solid waste (MSW) scenarios (SR1, SR2, …, SR6) are evaluated using a triple bottom line (TBL) approach that incorporates environmental, financial, and social bottom lines (social BLs).MethodsWithin the TBL framework, the environmental BL employs LCA in accordance with ISO 14044. The financial BL is calculated using capital and operational costs as well as the associated recycling revenues. The social BL applies macro-economic indicators that examine the effects of a given MSW scenario (SR) on the inhabitants. To integrate the TBLs, we apply an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) because of its advantage of pairwise unit-free rescaling. The relative importance of each BL is determined by considering the political, legal, socio-cultural, and economic climates of the country. The relative weights are cross-multiplied with indicators from each BL to calculate a composite sustainability index (CSI) for the proposed MSW SR.Results and discussionThe environmental BL (LCA) indicates that global warming, acidification, and human toxicity are the most adversely affected impact categories, considering the local conditions and waste composition. Environmentally, SR1 (landfilling) scored the worst in almost all impact categories and, thus, was labeled the worst-case scenario environmentally. SR6 (composting, recycling, and incineration) performed the best from an environmental perspective. Financially, landfilling (SR1) is the most economical scenario. Any SR that focused on incineration (SR2 and SR5) was financially unfavorable. The scenarios that involved composting were scored as financially reasonable (SR3, SR4, and SR6). From a social acceptability perspective, SR2 (incineration) scored the highest, while SR1 (landfills) scored the lowest. Finally, across the TBL framework, SR4 (composting and incineration) had the highest CSI based on the relative importance scheme adopted for each BL.ConclusionsAlthough they are often overlooked in most LCA studies, the financial and social aspects are indispensable to proving feasibility and credibility at a strategic level. The complexity of financial and social formulations in LCA is inherited from the difficulty in quantifying emissions and other impacts. In addition, from a social perspective, the contingent risks and associated uncertainty vary widely across cultures, ideologies, and degrees of development and are further complicated because of the scarcity and uncertainty of the data.