FUTURE SCENARIO ANALYSIS WITHIN

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND LIFE CYCLE

ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS

V. BISINELLA, T.H. CHRISTINSEN AND T.F. ASTRUP

Technical University of Denmark, Department of Environmental Engineering,

Bygningstorvet, Building 115, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

SUMMARY: Waste management systems are characterized by a long lifetime after design and
construction and their assessment should also take into consideration their long-term
sustainability. The combined use of future scenarios from the management engineering field
and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can provide a consistent method to assess potential
evolutions of the present-day systems. This study provides an overview on future scenario
principles and noteworthy case studies within the field of waste management and LCAs of
waste management systems. In order to provide insightful assessments, it is recommended to
quantitatively identify important aspects from a preliminary LCA and to quantitatively identify
also the important aspects ultimately governing the future scenarios’ LCA results.

1. INTRODUCTION

Waste management plays a fundamental role for the sustainability of our society. Waste
management operates transversally across sectors, aiming at maximizing the recovery of
resources within the waste, while minimizing potential emissions to the environment with
engineered solutions. For this reason, selection of the most suitable combination of waste
collection, treatment and disposal as early as the design stage is crucial. With this respect, Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA; ISO, 2006a, 2006b) is often used in order to quantitatively assess and
compare the environmental sustainability of waste management solutions (Laurent et al., 2014).
However, the design phase can only account for the potential performance of the waste
management systems. Waste management, on the other hand, is characterized by long time
frames, due to the delay between design and implementation, but mostly due to the long
operational phase, which can last for decades in the future (e.g. Brogaard et al., 2013; Höjer et
al., 2008). Actual performances of the technologies, site-specific waste characteristics and
background context in which the solutions are assessed might therefore ultimately differ from
the design stage. A thorough assessment aiming at supporting decisions should thus examine
potential evolutions of the present-day system in order to indicate which waste management
solutions are most sustainable also on a long term (e.g. throughout their lifetime).
So far, potential changes with respect to the design phase have been addressed in LCA with
“scenario analysis”, which consisted in testing the influence on the results of the assumptions

Proceedings Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium/ 2 - 6 October 2017
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy / © 2017 by CISA Publisher, Italy
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

taken (e.g. different waste treatment technology or different energy system context). In
particular, the assumptions on the potential background context were often found to heavily
affect the LCA results (e.g. Fruergaard and Astrup, 2011; Tonini et al., 2013). Future scenario
analysis, or foresight, is a well-established practice in the field of management engineering
developed for systematically examining potential future situations. Future scenarios could thus
provide a consistent basis for formulating assumptions about future waste management
systems and the contexts in which they will operate.
This article summarizes the results of a doctoral work that thoroughly investigated the use of
future scenarios within waste management and LCAs of waste management systems (Bisinella,
2017). The article aims at providing general outlook of the main principles of foresight
contextualized to the cases in the literature where future scenarios have been employed within
the field of waste management and LCAs of waste management systems in order to provide
examples of good practice, limitations and recommendations.

2. FUTURE SCENARIOS: PRINCIPLES

Future scenarios, also known as future or foresight studies (also scenarios, future scenario
analysis, or similar), are methods developed within the management engineering field in order
to investigate future situations. Future scenario methods have been used since the 1960s for
military and corporate strategy, political transition, and community-based natural resources
management (Bohensky et al., 2011). Future scenarios might therefore be useful for addressing
modern global environmental challenges such as climate change and long term sustainability
(Varum and Melo, 2010). Commonly known future scenarios are those used within global
climate and energy reports (International Energy Agency, 2016; IPCC, 2007).
Future scenarios are not forecasts or predictions of the future (Harries, 2003; Meristö, 1989),
but rather several plausible alternative visions describing a range of possible futures (IPCC,
2000; Siddiqui and Marnay, 2006; Wiek et al., 2006). The aim of the future scenario method is
to highlight important aspects in the present-day system that will drive future developments
(Kosow and Gaßner, 2008; Schnaars, 1987; Wiek et al., 2006). As an example, important
aspects for the waste management sector are background conditions such as policies and
regulation, subsides, involvement of society, but also more specific technical aspects such as
waste management technologies, waste composition, etc.
Figure 1 summarizes phases and terminology of the future scenario process. The phases
carried out iteratively are: goal and scope definition, identification of important aspects and their
potential future developments, definition of a consistent number of scenarios and development
of narratives describing the future scenarios within their context (Godet, 2000; Jarke, 1999;
Kosow and Gaßner, 2008; Rasmussen, 2011; Rosenbaum et al., 2012). The goal and scope
phase defines which question the future scenario aims to answer and the “type” of future
scenario. Widely recognized future scenario types within the foresight and LCA community are
those identified by Börjeson et al. (2006):
§ Predictive scenarios (probable, what will happen?)
§ Explorative scenarios (possible, what can happen?)
§ Normative scenarios (preferable, how can a specific target be reached?).
The process of generating the future scenarios increases the knowledge of the analysed system
by promoting communicability and transparency across disciplines and integrating qualitative
and quantitative knowledge and inputs from different study fields. For this reason, future
scenarios can be used for supporting decisions and policy-making (Godet, 2000; Rasmussen,
2011; Wiek et al., 2006).
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

FUTURE SCENARIO FUTURE SCENARIOS: TERMINOLOGY

BUILDING PHASES Time horizon

EXPLORATIVE
(1) Goal and scope definition Possible, what can
happen?
PREDICTIVE
Probable what NORMATIVE
will happen? Preferable, how can a
specific target be reached?

Qualitative • Workshops, Delphi surveys

(2) Identification of key • Participatory methods, Expert panel
scenario aspects and
their future states
Quantitative

(3) Integration of key

aspects and
consistency check • Product/technology alternatives
• Model (also by the author)
• Expert-based (also author)
(4) Selection of a small • Policy-based
number of scenarios • Ready-made (models, reports)
Ex/ IPCC, IEA scenarios

(5) Scenario transfer

Figure 1. Typical building phases and terminology of the future scenario process. The
terminology is subdivided according to the future time horizon. Based on Börjeson et al. (2006),
Rasmussen (2011), Kosow & Gaßner (2008), Ringland & Schwartz (1998), Godet (2000).

3. FUTURE SCENARIOS WITHIN WASTE MANAGEMENT

The present section provides examples of use of future scenarios within waste management
and LCAs of waste management systems.

3.1 Future scenarios applied to waste management systems

Future scenarios applied to the general waste management system have been used within a
limited number of studies. The waste management system was conceptually described in
Münster et al. (2013) as being “nested” in wider external systems, such as economy, legislation,
and politics. In this context, future scenarios have been used in order to portray such external
influences by integrating qualitative and quantitative knowledge of various sources and
disciplines. Noteworthy examples are the use of expert-based quantitative future scenario
techniques such as Formative Scenario Analysis (FSA) (Scholz and Tietje, 2002) and Cross-
Impact Balance Analysis (CIBA) (Weimer-Jehle, 2006) in Switzerland. Future scenarios were
used in order to merge literature and stakeholders’ knowledge on uncertain future developments
affecting the waste management system. The FSA approach was used for a case study
focusing on recycling of construction and demolition waste (Spoerri et al., 2009), while the CIBA
approach was used for glass packaging waste (Meylan et al., 2013). Both approaches were
also combined for a waste incineration case study (Saner et al., 2011). The studies provided a
contextualized vision of the waste management system based on the interaction of societal,
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

policy and economic factors and ultimately generated a number of consistent scenarios.

3.2 Future scenarios within LCAs of waste management systems

The combined use of future scenarios and LCA was investigated in a systematic literature
review by Bisinella et al. (2017). The literature review focused on all peer-reviewed journal
articles that jointly used future scenarios and LCA, across all sectors and topics. In total, 262
articles were retrieved and thoroughly analysed according to their LCA and future scenario
characteristics, as well as the modelling implications derived by combining the two methods.
Waste management and disposal articles were 33 and substantially contributed to articles
combining future scenarios and LCA from 2013 to 2016. This indicates the increasing interest in
assessing the long-term sustainability within the waste management field (Figure 2). However,
the observed quality of the studies was generally rather low: only half of the LCA studies was
found compliant with the ISO quality standard for LCA and only 6 articles made reference to
well-acknowledged future scenario methods. The future scenario terminology was only seldom
properly used, the future scenario building phases rarely specified. Only half of the studies
stated the time horizon of the study.
Six publications proposed the method utilized within the article as a possible new framework
methodology for assessing the long-term sustainability of waste management solutions. Levis et
al. (2013; 2014) and Münster et al. (2013) suggested modelling the waste management system
with a dynamic, optimization perspective and including economy and capacity effects in the
future waste management scenarios. Moreover, Münster et al. (2013) and Moora & Lahtvee
(2009) especially focused on modelling the energy system, as the background aspect usually
influencing the outcomes of waste-LCAs, especially if carried out with a consequential
approach. Meylan et al. (2014) took into account economic factors as well, but based the study
on consistent future scenarios methods based on stakeholders’ knowledge and CIBA. Lastly,
Villares et al. (2016) applied future scenarios to a design-stage process.

6
Number of publications

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year

Figure 2. Number of publications combining future scenarios and LCA for assessing waste
management solutions subdivided according to year of publication. Modified from Bisinella et al.
(2017).
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

In most of the studies and in all proposed methods the future scenarios were investigated
externally from the LCA model, which was only the very last step of the modelling sequence in
all cases. The effect of the implementation of the future scenarios on the LCA model was
assessed by means of scenario analysis on the future scenario assumptions and evaluating the
variations in the LCA results. Therefore, even if the future scenarios created may be consistent
and elaborate, direct application of the formulated scenarios in LCA does not constitute a
systematic improvement with respect to “scenario analysis” LCA so far. Results may still be
intrinsically bound to the assumptions, serving limited guidance to decision-making and scenario
planning, or potentially addressing aspects that ultimately do not influence the LCA results. For
example, in the case of the Swedish project TOSUWAMA (Towards Sustainable Waste
Management; Finnveden et al., 2013; Söderman et al., 2016), the effect of future waste policies
was investigated with a combination of a general equilibrium model, an economic optimisation
model and LCA. The future scenarios were found to hardly affect the LCA results.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

Although being a flexible tool, the future scenario analysis practice is characterized by
specific terminology, rationale and methods (Börjeson et al., 2006). In order for future scenarios
to be effective, transparent and communicable for waste management applications, it is
necessary to possess the essential knowledge and lexicon of foresight, as well as an updated
overview of successful cases of its application within waste management and LCAs of waste
management systems. In particular, the use of future scenarios combined with LCA should not
compromise the quality of the LCA study.
Bisinella et al. (2017) provided general recommendations and a checklist for the combined
use of future scenarios and LCA (Figure 3). First of all, the goal and scope of LCA and future
scenarios should preferably be in accordance, with clearly specified time horizon of the study.
The modeller should specify the steps and techniques used for the future scenario formulation
(e.g. Figure 1), as well as the LCA model characteristics according to the ISO standard.
Moreover, combined model characteristics should be specified, such as the part of the LCA
model affected by the future scenario, whether a baseline scenario is included, the total number
of scenarios assessed, etc.
In particular, if the goal of the modeller is to provide a quantitative assessment and to support
decisions with LCA, it is recommended to carry out a preliminary LCA in order to identify the
important aspects that are actually influencing the model result and that should be explored by
the future scenarios. Important aspects in LCAs of waste management systems can be
systematically identified with sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, or with Global Sensitivity
Analysis (GSA) approaches, such as the one presented in Bisinella et al. (2016). GSA allows a
fast identification of the limited number of model input values that govern most of the LCA
results. Moreover, an application of the GSA approach also on the LCA results of the future
waste management scenarios allows identifying the important aspects ultimately governing the
results and controlling the effect on the model mechanisms caused by the implementation of
future scenarios (e.g. Bisinella et al., 2017b). The ultimate important aspects may differ from
those identified in the present-day system: this information should be considered an integrating
part of the future scenario process and be communicated to the final receiver of the LCA.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The long-term sustainability of alternative waste management systems can be assessed as

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

early as the design stage using future scenarios and combining future scenarios with LCA.
However, knowledge of the future scenario methods and techniques, as well as compliance with
LCA ISO standards, is crucial in order to provide transparent and communicable studies. Future
scenarios can increase the knowledge of the present system by combining quantitative and
qualitative knowledge belonging to different areas. In order to provide effective LCAs of future
waste management systems, it is recommended to carry out a GSA on a preliminary LCA to
identify important aspects to be explored in the future scenarios. Finally, a subsequent GSA on
the LCAs of future waste management systems allows identifying the aspects ultimately
governing the results.

GOAL AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

(Common between LCA and future scenarios)
q Goal of the study
q Scope of the study: Time horizon, geographical scope
q Future scenario type: Predictive, explorative, normative (Börjeson et al., 2006)

FUTURE SCENARIOS AND LCA CHARACTERISTICS

FUTURE SCENARIOS FORMULATION LCA: MINIMUM QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

q How are important scenario aspects q Functional unit definition

identified? (e.g. Bisinella et al., 2016) q LCI or LCIA?
q Where are the important scenario aspects q Declare LCI data modelling approach:
located? Attributional, consequential, metadata
q Is a specific technique/model used to q Declare impacts assessed (more than
determine the future states of the one)
important scenario aspects? q Declare if costs are included
q What are the future scenarios based q Declare if infrastructure is included:
upon? (Product or technology alternative, capacity, consctruction impacts, etc.
model, expert-based scenarios, policy- q Data quality: Is the quality of the data
based, ready-made) compliant with the goal and scope of the
q When scenarios are ready made, discuss study? How is this handled? (Temporal,
consistency and representativeness with geographical, technological
respect to goal and scope of the study representativeness, etc.)
q Are scenarios a discrete number or a q Are sensitivity and/or uncertainty
continuous distribution? analysis carried out?

COMBINED MODEL CHARACTERISTICS

q Declare part of LCA affected by future scenarios (background system, impact assessment
method, normalization, weighting)
q Is a baseline/business-as-usual scenario included?
q What is the final number of assessed scenarios?
q Is time modelled statically or dynamically? Are the results retrieved for multiple time horizons?

Figure 3. Example of recommended procedure for the combined use of future scenarios and
LCA. Modified from Bisinella et al. (2017).

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support is acknowledged from the Danish Research Council through the IRMAR
project grant, as well as from the Technical University of Denmark and from the Danish
Environmental Protection Agency (Miljøstyrelsen).
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

REFERENCES

Bisinella, V., 2017. Future scenario development within Life Cycle Assessment of waste
management systems. PhD Thesis. Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical
University of Denmark (DTU), Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Bisinella, V., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2017a. Future scenario modelling within Life Cycle
Assessment: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. Submitted.
Bisinella, V., Conradsen, K., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2017b. Integrated uncertainty and
scenario analysis for Life Cycle Assessments of future waste management systems Environ.
Sci. Technol. Submitted.
Bisinella, V., Conradsen, K., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2016. A global approach for sparse
representation of uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessments of waste management systems. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 21, 378–394.
Bohensky, E., Butler, J.R. a., Costanza, R., Bohnet, I., Delisle, A., Fabricius, K., Gooch, M.,
Kubiszewski, I., Lukacs, G., Pert, P., Wolanski, E., 2011. Future makers or future takers? A
scenario analysis of climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21, 876–
893.
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2006. Scenario types and
techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures 38, 723–739.
Brogaard, L.K., Riber, C., Christensen, T.H., 2013. Quantifying capital goods for waste
incineration. Waste Manag. 33, 1390–1396.
Finnveden, G., Ekvall, T., Arushanyan, Y., Bisaillon, M., Henriksson, G., Gunnarsson Östling,
U., Söderman, M., Sahlin, J., Stenmarck, Å., Sundberg, J., Sundqvist, J.-O., Svenfelt, Å.,
Söderholm, P., Björklund, A., Eriksson, O., Forsfält, T., Guath, M., 2013. Policy Instruments
towards a Sustainable Waste Management. Sustainability 5, 841–881.
Fruergaard, T., Astrup, T., 2011. Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA perspective.
Waste Manag. 31, 572–82.
Godet, M., 2000. The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning Tools and Pitfalls. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 65, 3–22.Höjer, M., Ahlroth, S., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden,
G., Hjelm, O., Hochschorner, E., Nilsson, M., Palm, V., 2008. Scenarios in selected tools for
environmental systems analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1958–1970.
Harries, C., 2003. Correspondence to what? Coherence to what? What is good scenario-based
decision making? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 70, 797–817.
International Energy Agency, 2016. Energy Technology Perspectives 2016. OECD/IEA, Paris,
France.
IPCC, 2000. Summary for Policymakers: Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2006a. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework -
ISO 14040. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2006b. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines
- ISO 14044. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jarke, M., 1999. Scenarios for Modeling. Commun. ACM 42, 1–2.
Kosow, H., Gaßner, R., 2008. Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis, Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik. Bonn, Germany.
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.,
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

Christensen, T.H., 2014. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems--part I:
lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 34, 573–88.
Levis, J.W., Barlaz, M.A., DeCarolis, J.F., Ranjithan, S.R., 2013. A generalized multistage
optimization modeling framework for life cycle assessment-based integrated solid waste
management. Environ. Model. Softw. 50, 51–65.
Levis, J.W., Barlaz, M.A., DeCarolis, J.F., Ranjithan, S.R., 2014. Systematic Exploration of
Efficient Strategies to Manage Solid Waste in US Municipalities: Perspectives from the Solid
Waste Optimization Life-Cycle Framework (SWOLF). Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 3625–3631.
Meristö, T., 1989. Not forecasts but multiple scenarios when coping with uncertainties in the
competitive environment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 38, 350–357.
Meylan, G., Seidl, R., Spoerri, A., 2013. Transitions of municipal solid waste management. Part
I: Scenarios of Swiss waste glass-packaging disposal. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 8–19.
Moora, H., Lahtvee, V., 2009. Electricity scenarios for the Baltic states marginal energy
technology in Life Cycle Assessments - A case study of energy production from municipal waste
incineration. Oil Shale 26, 331–346.
Münster, M., Finnveden, G., Wenzel, H., 2013. Future waste treatment and energy systems -
examples of joint scenarios. Waste Manag. 33, 2457–2464.
Rasmussen, L.B., 2011. Facilitating Change - Using Interactive methods in Organizations,
Communities and Networks. Polyteknisk Forlag. Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Ringland, G., Schwartz, P., 1998. Scenario planning: managing for the future, Second ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK.
Rosenbaum, E., Benini, L., Ciuffo, B., 2012. Development of sustainability scenarios. Scope and
methodologies. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and
Sustainability. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Saner, D., Blumer, Y.B., Lang, D.J., Koehler, A., 2011. Scenarios for the implementation of EU
waste legislation at national level and their consequences for emissions from municipal waste
incineration. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 57, 67–77.
Schnaars, S.P., 1987. How to Develop Scenarios. Long Range Plann. 20, 105–114.
Scholz, R.W., Tietje, O., 2002. Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and
qualitative knowledge. Sage Publications, London, UK.
Siddiqui, A.S., Marnay, C., 2006. Addressing an Uncertain Future Using Scenario Analysis.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley, CA, USA.
Söderman, M.L., Eriksson, O., Björklund, A., Östblom, G., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G.,
Arushanyan, Y., Sundqvist, J.-O., 2016. Integrated Economic and Environmental Assessment of
Waste Policy Instruments. Sustainability 8, 411.
Spoerri, A., Lang, D.J., Binder, C.R., Scholz, R.W., 2009. Expert-based scenarios for strategic
waste and resource management planning—C&D waste recycling in the Canton of Zurich,
Switzerland. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 592–600.
Tonini, D., Martinez-Sanchez, V., Astrup, T.F., 2013. Material resources, energy, and nutrient
recovery from waste: Are waste refineries the solution for the future? Environ. Sci. Technol. 47,
8962–8969.
Varum, C.A., Melo, C., 2010. Directions in scenario planning literature – A review of the past
decades. Futures 42, 355–369.
Villares, M., Işildar, A., Mendoza Beltran, A., Guinee, J., 2016. Applying an ex-ante life cycle
perspective to metal recovery from e-waste using bioleaching. J. Clean. Prod. 129, 315–328.
Weimer-Jehle, W., 2006. Cross-impact balances: A system-theoretical approach to cross-impact
analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73, 334–361.
Wiek, A., Binder, C., Scholz, R.W., 2006. Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures
Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017

38, 740–766.