Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius
Purpose Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The international journal of life cycle assessment 2013-01, Vol.18 (1), p.155-171 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 171 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 155 |
| container_title | The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram |
| description | Purpose
Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles.
Methods
Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:
2006
) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions.
Results and discussion
Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option.
Conclusions
Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 % % flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1314393338</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2906923581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-5d1aa9ae1178ddf5b15eb101acd39c836dec98b77ad426286df543d805e4e8703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EEqXwAGyWWGAw-NpOnIyoKj9SEQxltpz4hqZKk2A7SNl4dILKwNLpLud8VzqEXAK_Bc71XQCQqWYcBONKaSaOyAxSUEwnXByTGc9VxqRU-Sk5C2HLuQCeJzPyveh2vfU21l9Im7pCWo5lg9SGgCHssI3Uto6GrqxtcwDoKjoEdLTvmhHjZmywRRrRY7-JG9vYiPT6bbm-oUUXY4OB1i19sYOvYz2Ec3JS2Sbgxd-dk_eH5XrxxFavj8-L-xUrlZCRJQ6szS0C6My5KikgwQI42NLJvMxk6rDMs0Jr65RIRZZOjJIu4wkqzDSXc3K13-199zlgiGbbDb6dXhqQoGQupcwmCvZU6bsQPFam9_XO-tEAN7-hzT60mUKb39BGTI7YO2Fi2w_0_5YPSj97QILO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1314393338</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar ; Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</creator><creatorcontrib>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar ; Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles.
Methods
Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:
2006
) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions.
Results and discussion
Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option.
Conclusions
Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 % % flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view to determine the sustainable disposal option of used PET bottles in Mauritius.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0948-3349</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-7502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Community involvement ; Containers ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Economic development ; Economics ; Energy recovery ; Environment ; Environmental Chemistry ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology ; Environmental factors ; Environmental impact ; Incineration ; ISO standards ; Landfill ; Landfills ; Life cycle analysis ; Life cycles ; Polyethylene terephthalate ; Product life cycle ; Recycling ; Social impact ; Social interactions ; Societal Life Cycle Assessment ; Sustainability ; Tourism ; Waste disposal</subject><ispartof>The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2013-01, Vol.18 (1), p.155-171</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2012</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-5d1aa9ae1178ddf5b15eb101acd39c836dec98b77ad426286df543d805e4e8703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-5d1aa9ae1178ddf5b15eb101acd39c836dec98b77ad426286df543d805e4e8703</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius</title><title>The international journal of life cycle assessment</title><addtitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</addtitle><description>Purpose
Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles.
Methods
Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:
2006
) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions.
Results and discussion
Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option.
Conclusions
Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 % % flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view to determine the sustainable disposal option of used PET bottles in Mauritius.</description><subject>Community involvement</subject><subject>Containers</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Economic development</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Energy recovery</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</subject><subject>Environmental factors</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Incineration</subject><subject>ISO standards</subject><subject>Landfill</subject><subject>Landfills</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>Polyethylene terephthalate</subject><subject>Product life cycle</subject><subject>Recycling</subject><subject>Social impact</subject><subject>Social interactions</subject><subject>Societal Life Cycle Assessment</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Tourism</subject><subject>Waste disposal</subject><issn>0948-3349</issn><issn>1614-7502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EEqXwAGyWWGAw-NpOnIyoKj9SEQxltpz4hqZKk2A7SNl4dILKwNLpLud8VzqEXAK_Bc71XQCQqWYcBONKaSaOyAxSUEwnXByTGc9VxqRU-Sk5C2HLuQCeJzPyveh2vfU21l9Im7pCWo5lg9SGgCHssI3Uto6GrqxtcwDoKjoEdLTvmhHjZmywRRrRY7-JG9vYiPT6bbm-oUUXY4OB1i19sYOvYz2Ec3JS2Sbgxd-dk_eH5XrxxFavj8-L-xUrlZCRJQ6szS0C6My5KikgwQI42NLJvMxk6rDMs0Jr65RIRZZOjJIu4wkqzDSXc3K13-199zlgiGbbDb6dXhqQoGQupcwmCvZU6bsQPFam9_XO-tEAN7-hzT60mUKb39BGTI7YO2Fi2w_0_5YPSj97QILO</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar</creator><creator>Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius</title><author>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar ; Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-5d1aa9ae1178ddf5b15eb101acd39c836dec98b77ad426286df543d805e4e8703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Community involvement</topic><topic>Containers</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Economic development</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Energy recovery</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</topic><topic>Environmental factors</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Incineration</topic><topic>ISO standards</topic><topic>Landfill</topic><topic>Landfills</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>Polyethylene terephthalate</topic><topic>Product life cycle</topic><topic>Recycling</topic><topic>Social impact</topic><topic>Social interactions</topic><topic>Societal Life Cycle Assessment</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Tourism</topic><topic>Waste disposal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Foolmaun, Rajendra Kumar</au><au>Ramjeeawon, Toolseeram</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius</atitle><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle><stitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</stitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>155</spage><epage>171</epage><pages>155-171</pages><issn>0948-3349</issn><eissn>1614-7502</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles.
Methods
Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:
2006
) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions.
Results and discussion
Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option.
Conclusions
Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 % % flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view to determine the sustainable disposal option of used PET bottles in Mauritius.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0948-3349 |
| ispartof | The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2013-01, Vol.18 (1), p.155-171 |
| issn | 0948-3349 1614-7502 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1314393338 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Community involvement Containers Earth and Environmental Science Economic development Economics Energy recovery Environment Environmental Chemistry Environmental Economics Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology Environmental factors Environmental impact Incineration ISO standards Landfill Landfills Life cycle analysis Life cycles Polyethylene terephthalate Product life cycle Recycling Social impact Social interactions Societal Life Cycle Assessment Sustainability Tourism Waste disposal |
| title | Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-31T16%3A12%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20life%20cycle%20assessment%20and%20social%20life%20cycle%20assessment%20of%20used%20polyethylene%20terephthalate%20(PET)%20bottles%20in%20Mauritius&rft.jtitle=The%20international%20journal%20of%20life%20cycle%20assessment&rft.au=Foolmaun,%20Rajendra%20Kumar&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=155&rft.epage=171&rft.pages=155-171&rft.issn=0948-3349&rft.eissn=1614-7502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2906923581%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1314393338&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |