Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Substitution of peat, fertiliser and manure by compost in hobby gardening: User

surveys and case studies
Jacob K. Andersen *, Thomas H. Christensen, Charlotte Scheutz
Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Four user surveys were performed at recycle centres (RCs) in the Municipalities of Aarhus and Copenha-
Received 28 April 2010 gen, Denmark, to get general information on compost use and to examine the substitution of peat, fertil-
Accepted 10 July 2010 iser and manure by compost in hobby gardening. The average driving distance between the users’
Available online 17 August 2010
households and the RCs was found to be 4.3 km and the average amount of compost picked up was esti-
mated at 800 kg per compost user per year. The application layer of the compost varied (between 1 and
50 cm) depending on the type of use. The estimated substitution (given as a fraction of the compost users
that substitute peat, fertiliser and manure with compost) was 22% for peat, 12% for fertiliser and 7% for
manure (41% in total) from the survey in Aarhus (n = 74). The estimate from the survey in Copenhagen
(n = 1832) was 19% for peat, 24% for fertiliser and 15% for manure (58% in total). This is the first time,
to the authors’ knowledge, that the substitution of peat, fertiliser and manure with compost has been
assessed for application in hobby gardening. Six case studies were performed as home visits in addition
to the Aarhus surveys. From the user surveys and the case studies it was obvious that the total substitu-
tion of peat, fertiliser and manure was not 100%, as is often assumed when assigning environmental
credits to compost. It was more likely around 50% and thus there is great potential for improvement.
It was indicated that compost was used for a lot of purposes in hobby gardening. Apart from substitution
of peat, fertiliser and manure, compost was used to improve soil quality and as a filling material (as a
substitute for soil). Benefits from these types of application are, however, difficult to assess and thereby
quantify.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction processes and activities that take place within the system are taken
into consideration (ISO, 2006). One important impact category,
Composting is a common treatment method for biodegradable which is often given a high priority, is global warming (GW). In a
waste, especially in Europe. During composting, biodegradable GW context, composting contributes to emissions and it also
material is mineralised by the microbial communities present in avoids emissions. Emissions arising from the actual composting
the waste. The organic material is transformed primarily into process, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the degra-
water and CO2 and after a period of time a mature, humus-rich dation of organic matter and fossil CO2 emissions from diesel com-
material (compost) is produced. The primary benefit of composting bustion by heavy machinery at the composting facility are well
is that the compost can be used on land as a fertiliser or as a con- covered in the literature (Andersen et al., 2010a; Cabaraban
ditioner to enhance soil structure, thereby reducing the reliance on et al., 2008; Finnveden et al., 2000; Komilis and Ham, 2004; Recy-
industrial fertilisers and/or peat. Compost can be used in agricul- cled Organics Unit, 2003). The emissions which are avoided due to
ture, horticulture, landscaping and hobby gardening (private compost use on land (substitution of industrial fertilisers and car-
gardens). bon binding in soil) or from compost used in the production of
Environmental assessments are often performed as life cycle growth media (substitution of peat) are more difficult to assess be-
assessments (LCAs), in which the environmental impacts of all cause they deal with the end users of the compost and how they
apply the compost products. Substitution means that compost is
used instead of fertilisers and/or growth media, for example. In this
Abbreviations: GHG, greenhouse gas; GW, global warming; LCA, life cycle case, the avoided use of fertiliser and/or growth media entails the
assessment; RC, recycle centre. avoidance of some emissions related to the life cycle of these prod-
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Environmental Engineering,
Technical University of Denmark, Miljoevej, Building 113, DK-2800 Lyngby,
ucts, resulting in a saving of GHG emissions, for example. All con-
Denmark. Tel.: +45 45251591; fax: +45 45932850. tributions by composting related to GW were qualitatively and
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.K. Andersen). quantitatively described by Boldrin et al. (2009a) and in this study

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.07.011
2484 J.K. Andersen et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489

it became clear that the potential savings in GHG emissions from answers to the question on substitution. One simplified question
the substitution of peat and fertilisers were quite significant. There was incorporated into an existing survey on general satisfaction
is, however, a large variation in the savings, depending on the with the RCs which was carried out in September 2009 at five
assumptions in the calculations. An unknown in this context is RCs (Albertslund, Farum, Frederikssund, Gladsaxe and Værløse)
how much of the peat and fertilisers (and manure) are substituted in the Copenhagen area. The survey was in this case performed
by the use of compost. by the Municipality and all visitors to the RC were asked to answer
A few previous studies have included the substitution of peat, the questionnaire. 43% of the RC users (1832 out of 4293) had pre-
fertiliser and manure in environmental assessments of composting viously picked up compost and was thus asked the questions about
technologies. Raadal et al. (2010) assumed on a national level that substitution.
30% of the compost produced in Norway was used as a soil impro-
ver as a substitute for peat, that 60% was utilised as a substitute for 2.2. The questionnaire
fertiliser and that only 10% was not utilised. Thus it was assumed
that 90% of the compost produced was used as a substitute for The questionnaire used in Surveys 1–3 consisted of the follow-
either peat or fertiliser, and that this compost was used in a ra- ing general questions (see the most important answers in
tional way. In a global warming impact assessment by Smith Section 3.1):
et al. (2001), it was assumed that 20% of municipal solid waste
compost could substitute the use of peat in horticulture. The rest  Which type of compost is picked up (compost or compost mix)?
of the compost was assumed to go to agriculture as a substitute  How much (0–500 kg or >500 kg) and how often (first/second
for mineral fertilisers (50%) and to other uses such as landscaping time, x times a year) is compost picked up?
and restoration (20%). These previous attempts to estimate the  How is your garden kept/cultivated in general (use of compost,
substitution were based on qualified guesses and it is clear that peat, fertiliser, manure, other)?
the mechanisms of compost substitution are not well understood.  What is your experience with application of compost (scale
Thus there is a need for examining it in more detail to come up from really bad to really good)?
with more quantitative data on the levels of substitution. At the  What is the main reason for using compost (easy to get, envi-
moment there are no data on the substitution of peat, fertiliser ronmentally sound, good price, increased structure in soil,
and manure from application of compost in hobby gardening. other)?
The overall objective of this study was to estimate the substitu-  How do you assess the price of compost (too high or price not
tion of peat, fertiliser and manure by compost in hobby gardening. important)?
This was done using surveys performed at RCs in Denmark and  What is the size of the garden and the distance to the RC?
from home visits to gardens in Aarhus, Denmark. RCs in Denmark  Do you have other errands at the RC (delivering garden waste or
are local service centres where the citizens can bring bulky waste other)?
such as e.g. white goods, garden waste and construction and demo-  What do you do with the compost if there is a surplus after use
lition waste. In addition, the citizen can buy compost from the local (save for later, use extra, give it away)?
garden waste composting facility. A secondary objective was to
gather general information such as driving distances to RCs, rea- The essential issue on substitution was divided into two ques-
sons for using compost and perceptions of using compost in tions in Surveys 2 and 3. The first question (q.1) was for compost
gardens. users that used other soil improvers (peat, fertiliser, manure) apart
from compost and the second question (q.2) was for compost users
2. Methodology that only used compost:
q.1: ‘‘What is saved when you use compost in your garden: I use
2.1. User survey methodology
the same amount, less, or no peat, fertiliser and/or manure”?
The user surveys on compost use were performed using a ques- q.2: ‘‘What would you have used in your garden if you did not
tionnaire tailored to investigate the procedures of compost appli- use compost: nothing else, peat, fertiliser, and/or manure”?
cation and habits of compost users. The questionnaire was used
in four surveys; three in the city of Aarhus and one in the Copen- The questionnaire in Survey 4 was simplified to one question
hagen area. The surveys in Aarhus were carried out in August (q.3):
2008 (Survey 1, 64 interviews), April 2009 (Survey 2, 58 inter- q.3: ‘‘Does the compost fully, partly or not at all, substitute the
views) and May 2009 (Survey 3, 16 interviews). In total, the use of peat, fertiliser, and/or manure in your garden”?
authors carried out 138 surveys at a RC in Aarhus Municipality,
Denmark. The results from the original questionnaire (Survey 1)
were ambiguous in relation to the substitution question (see Sec- 2.3. Calculation of the estimated substitution
tion 2.2) and this was changed for the two following surveys (Sur-
veys 2 and 3). The questionnaire was improved by elaborating the The estimated substitution (Esub) is representing the fraction of
questions on substitution; specifically, how much peat, fertiliser compost users that actually used the compost as a substitute for
and manure was substituted by compost application in gardens. peat, fertiliser and/or manure. There were no assessment of the
Two different compost products were available at the RC in Aar- amounts substituted and the limitation of this fact has been ad-
hus; compost (<8 mm) and a compost mix consisting of 1/3 com- dressed in the discussion section. The Esub was calculated by
post (<8 mm), 1/3 soil (<10 mm) and 1/3 sand (sorted, washed assigning a value (in %) to each of the possible answers in the ques-
3 mm sand from a gravel pit). Surveys 1–3 were carried out by tionnaires, where q.1 was assigned 0% for the answer ‘‘same
the authors at the RC in Aarhus. All compost users (everybody that amount”, 25% for less and 100% for no peat, fertiliser and/or man-
picked up compost in the survey period) were asked and around ure, q.2 was assigned 0% for the answer nothing else and 100% for
90% of the compost users were willing to answer the questionnaire. peat, fertiliser and/or manure and q.3 was assigned 0% for the an-
Following the three surveys in the Aarhus Municipality, an swer not at all, 25% for partly and 100% for fully substituted peat,
additional survey (Survey 4, 1832 interviews) was carried out in fertiliser and/or manure. The choice of 25% substitution in q.1
the Copenhagen area. The aim was to increase the number of and q.3 was an assumption that influenced the overall estimated
 J.K. Andersen et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489 2485

substitution, but it was necessary since the questionnaire did not

offer a quantitative answer, but only provided the term ‘‘less is
used”. A sensitivity analysis of this parameter was performed in
the Results section (Section 3.3) where partly substitution was as-
sumed to be 50%. Where the questions on substitution were not
answered, these were assigned 0% substitution. A total of 74 an-
swers from Surveys 2 and 3, and 1832 answers from Survey 4 were
collected. The Esub was estimated according to Eq. (1).



nsub;fully þ nsub;partly  x
Esub ¼  100% ð1Þ
ntotal
where ntotal is the total number of answers, nsub,fully and nsub,partly
are the number of answers which indicated full (100%) and partly
(25% or 50%) substitution, respectively, and x is the fraction that
Fig. 1. Distribution (in.%) of transport distances from the home of the compost
was assigned to partly substitution (0.25 or 0.50). The equation users to the recycle centre. Data is from Surveys 1–3 (n = 138). n.a., no answer.
was used for peat (Esub,peat), fertiliser (Esub,fertiliser) and manure
(Esub,manure) substitution and the total substitution (Esub,total) was
calculated by adding the individual substitution ratios as shown The most popular product was the compost mix (compost/soil/
in Eq. (2). sand) as 65% of people chose the compost mix and the remaining
35% chose compost alone. Many of the compost users had to be ad-
Esub;total ¼ Esub;peat þ Esub;fertiliser þ Esub;manure ð2Þ
vised on which product to buy by the staff at the RC since it was
not clearly marked. It is, however, very important to be able to
2.4. Case studies (home visits) make the distinction because the compost is not suitable for direct
seeding.
Six case studies involving home visits to the compost users Most (77%) of the interviewed people replied that the compost
were performed in Aarhus in addition to the user surveys. These product was used as a general soil improver (for e.g. existing
were completed to check the consistency between answers to flower beds, hedges and pots) whereas the rest used it to seed
the user survey questionnaires and the actual application of com- flowers, plants and grass or as filling material in the garden or
post. During Surveys 2 and 3, ten compost users were randomly in pots. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of application layers that
asked to show how the application of compost was carried out in the compost users intended to spread out in their gardens. The
their gardens. Out of these ten, six compost users agreed to be part layer of the compost varied between 1 cm and 50 cm due to the
of the home visits and they were visited after answering the ques- large span of application purposes. The bigger application layers
tionnaire. During the application, pictures were taken and addi- in some of the cases (15–50 cm) indicated that the compost
tional information on compost application was recorded. The was used as filling material. Generally, the compost users had
home visits were carried out in April 2009 (Cases 1–5) and May good or very good experiences with compost use in their gardens
2009 (Case 6). and only 1.5% replied that they had bad or very bad experiences
(problems with e.g. weeds after application). The price (60 DKK
(8€) for compost and 80 DKK (11€) for the compost mix for
3. Results
a load of up to 500 kg of material) was considered reasonable
for most people (81%).
The results have been divided into three parts. The results from
the more elaborate Surveys 1–3 in Aarhus are covered first (Sec-
tion 3.1), then the issue on substitution in Surveys 2 and 3 in Aar- 3.2. Estimated substitution: Surveys 2 and 3 in Aarhus (n = 74)
hus (Section 3.2) and Survey 4 in the Copenhagen area (Section 3.3)
and finally the observations from the case studies (Section 3.4) are The answers for the estimated substitution of alternative soil
presented. improvers with compost in the Aarhus survey (Surveys 2 and 3)
are presented in Fig. 3. About one fifth (20%) of the compost users
3.1. Transport distances and compost application: Surveys 1–3 in fully substituted the use of peat by compost, whereas 8% answered
Aarhus (n = 138)

The distances from the RC to the homes of the compost users

ranged from 1 to 15 km and the average distance was 4.3 km
(Fig. 1). One out of five people interviewed (21%) came to the RC
just to buy compost, whereas 30% also delivered garden waste
and 34% had other errands. Most people (60%) used compost from
the RC once or twice a year and it was the first time for 27%. The
majority (92%) of the compost users filled up a small trailer with
compost (up to 500 kg compost) and most people (70%) could
transport the compost that they needed in one trip. An estimate
of the average amount of compost that was picked up per user
per year was 800 kg. This estimate extrapolated from the fact the
all compost users filled up the trailer (most often around 500 kg)
and that the average number of times that the compost users
picked up compost was 1.5 times per year. A large portion of those Fig. 2. Distribution (in %) of the application layers that the compost users were
interviewed (68%) answered that they would use extra compost planning to spread out in the garden. Data is from Surveys 2 and 3 (n = 74). n.a., no
products in the garden if they had a surplus at the end of use. answer.
2486 J.K. Andersen et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489

Fig. 3. Substitution of peat, fertiliser and manure by compost in Surveys 2 and 3 in

Aarhus (n = 74). ‘‘Full substitution” means 100% substitution, ‘‘partly substitution”
means 25% (or 50% for the sensitivity analysis) and ‘‘no substitution” means 0%
substitution.

that it was partly substituted. The estimated substitution using Eq.

(1) (with partly substitution being 25%) was 22%. The estimated
substitution was lower for fertiliser (12%) and manure substitution
(7%). Adding these numbers up resulted in a 41% substitution
(according to Eq. (2)).

3.3. Estimated substitution: Survey 4 in Copenhagen (n = 1832)

Fig. 4 presents the substitution of peat, fertiliser and manure

from Survey 4. The variations between the five RCs were small,
but the difference between the substitution of peat, fertiliser and
manure was quite significant. The highest estimated substitution
was for fertiliser (24%), then peat (19%) and the lowest for manure
(15%). In total this gives a substitution of 58%. The total number of
answers on full and partly substitutions are given in Table 1 for
Surveys 2–4. The questions included an option for answering
‘‘partly substitution”, and this could give rise to uncertainty since
the term ‘‘partly” can be interpreted in different ways. Therefore,
a sensitivity analysis of this parameter was performed. The esti-
mated substitution was calculated with ‘‘partly substitution” being
25% as well as 50%. Table 2 shows that when ‘‘partly substitution”
is assumed to be 50% it increases the estimated substitution signif-
Fig. 4. Substitution of peat (top), fertiliser (middle) and manure (bottom) by
icantly, from 41% to 47% in the Aarhus survey and from 58% to 83%
compost in Survey 4 (n = 1832). The data is from five RCs in the Copenhagen area
in the Copenhagen survey. (Albertslund, Farum, Frederikssund, Gladsaxe and Værløse). In this assessment, ‘‘full
substitution” means 100% substitution, ‘‘partly substitution” means 25% (or 50% for
3.4. Case studies the sensitivity analysis) and ‘‘no substitution” means 0% substitution.

The results of the case studies are summarised in Table 3. Com-

post mix was used in all six cases and the natural soil conditions in Table 1
Number of answers on the substitution questions from Surveys 2 and 3 (Aarhus) and
the gardens were quite similar (clayey soils). The findings from
Survey 4 (Copenhagen area).
these cases cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other areas of
the country because the purpose of application might change Type of Full substitution Partly substitution
substitution
according to the natural soil structure/quality. In many cases, other nsub,fully (number) nsub,partly (number)
soil improvers (peat, fertiliser, manure) were used in the garden. Survey 2 + 3 (n = 74) Peat 15 6
However, due to different application purposes than compost, no Fertiliser 6 10
substitution could be accounted (see the ‘‘substitution” column Manure 5 1
in Table 3). The case studies gave some important information on Survey 4 (n = 1832) Peat 138 817
the actual use of compost. The following were the most interesting Fertiliser 234 805
Manure 206 276
findings:

 In general, there was a good correlation between the question- Case 6) and as a substitute for soil or sand (mostly as filling
naires and the case studies. There were a few exceptions, though, material).
mainly with regard to the application layer of the compost (cases  The compost users found that the use of compost provided ben-
2 and 3) and one case of misinformation on the actual application efits even when it did not substitute the use of peat, fertiliser
(Case 4; see the column with general remarks in Table 3). and manure as the compost made the garden look good (due
 The compost was used for many purposes: as a general soil to the dark colour of the compost), improved plant output and
improver, as filling material, as a substitute for peat (only in improved the soil structure.
 J.K. Andersen et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489 2487

Table 2 noted that the above mentioned studies cannot be directly com-
Calculations of the estimated substitutions of peat, fertiliser and manure with full pared because the application purposes were different. In Smith
substitution being 100% and partly substitution being 25% (x = 0.25) and 50%
(x = 0.50), respectively.
et al. (2001), the compost was applied in commercial horticulture
and hobby gardening, while Raadal et al. (2010) did not specify the
Type of Parameter Actual substitution (%) application purpose. It is possible that compost could be utilised in
substitution
x 0.25 0.50 a more rational way in commercial horticulture compared to hob-
Survey 2 + 3 (n = 74) Peat Esub,peat 22 24 by gardening (as in this study). This was especially true in the case
Fertiliser Esub,fertiliser 12 15 of fertiliser substitution, which was significantly higher in the
Manure Esub,manure 7 7 studies by Raadal et al. (2010) (60%) and Smith et al. (2001)
Total Esub,total 41 47
(50%) compared to the Aarhus (12%) and Copenhagen (24%)
Survey 4 (n = 1832) Peat Esub,peat 19 30 surveys.
Fertiliser Esub,fertiliser 24 35
Manure Esub,manure 15 19
Total Esub,total 58 83 4.2. Limitations and use of the provided data

The estimated substitution provides indications about the pro-

4. Discussion portion of people that actually avoid using peat, fertiliser and man-
ure; however, it does not give any information on whether this
4.1. Estimated substitution substitution was based on mass or volume. Thus, this was only
an indicator of the attitude among private garden owners towards
The estimated substitution of alternative soil improvers by substitution with compost. Also, there was no assessment of the
compost was estimated as 22% for peat, 12% for fertiliser and 7% quantities substituted, which means that a few people substituting
for manure, and 19% for peat, 24% for fertiliser and 15% for manure large quantities of peat, fertiliser and/or manure could potentially
in the surveys for Aarhus (n = 74) and Copenhagen (n = 1832), influence the final estimated substitution. It would be very difficult
respectively. The numbers of total substitution were rather differ- (if possible at all) to quantify the amounts of peat, fertiliser and
ent between the surveys in Aarhus (Esub,total = 41%) and Copenha- manure that are actually being substituted since the compost users
gen (Esub,total = 58%). This could be due to many different factors, have little knowledge on the many different products, which
such as the difference in survey questions and differences in natu- would all be substituted in different amounts or volumes. These
ral soil conditions, garden sizes and the general way of maintaining limitations and uncertainties have to be taken into consideration
the garden in the two different areas. The surveys indicated that when performing environmental assessments. A calculation has
the substitution was much less than 100% and that the previous at- been performed to try and quantify the actual substitution based
tempts to include substitution in environmental assessments on the estimated substitution percentages. For the calculation,
might have been overestimated (90% substitution by Raadal et al. the average value of the estimated substitution from Survey 2 + 3
(2010) and Smith et al. (2001)). Boldrin et al. (2009b), however, as- and Survey 4 was taken. Based on this assumption, out of an
sumed 50% substitution of peat (the total substitution in this case amount of 1000 kg of compost, 205 kg would substitute peat,
was equal to the substitution of peat: Esub,total = Esub,peat, meaning 180 kg compost would substitute fertiliser and 110 kg compost
that there was no account of the substitution of fertiliser and man- would substitute manure. Assuming a substitution mechanism be-
ure in the study) in a LCA on garden waste management in Aarhus, tween compost and peat as described by Boldrin et al. (2010) (1:1
Denmark. In this case the peat substitution seemed to be overesti- volume based, which means 285 kg peat per 1000 kg compost). It
mated (50% in comparison to 30% in Raadal et al. (2010) and 20% in is thus estimated that 1000 kg compost would substitute 58 kg
Smith et al. (2001)), but the total substitution assumed seemed to peat. Fertiliser and manure should be substituted based on nutri-
be more realistic than those other mentioned studies. It has to be ent content. When assuming substitution ratios of 20%, 100% and

Table 3
Summary of the six case studies performed in Aarhus, Denmark.

Case Application Application Substitution General remarks

study layer (cm)a
1 Two existing beds for flowers 5–8 (10) No substitution accounted. In addition to compost, The compost was used to improve the poor
and hedges fertiliser was used, but for a different application structure of the natural soil
Establishment of bed for 5–8 (10) purpose
herbaceous perennials
2 Existing bed for clematis 8–10 (10) No substitution accounted. Compost was the only The compost was used as filling material instead of
Establishment of high bed 20 (10) soil improver used in the garden soil
3 Restoration of part of the lawn 30 (15–20) No substitution accounted. In addition to compost, The compost was used to improve the poor
Two existing flower beds 3 (15–20) peat and fertiliser were used, but for different structure of the natural soil
application purposes
4 Two existing beds for flowers 10 (10) No substitution accounted. In addition to compost, In the questionnaire, the compost user stated that
peat was used, but for a different application the compost would be used for establishment of
purpose lawn, which was not the case.
5 Establishment of front lawn 10 (10) No substitution accounted. In addition to compost, The compost was used instead of soil
peat was used, but for a different application
purpose
6 Establishment of bed for rhubarb 20 (30) 100% substitution of peat. The use of peat was The compost was used to improve the poor
Establishment of bed for bushes 20 (30) avoided when applying compost. In addition to structure of the natural soil
compost and peat, fertiliser was used, but for a
different application purpose
a
The number in parenthesis is the answer that the compost users indicated in the questionnaire.
2488 J.K. Andersen et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489

100% for N, P and K, respectively (Boldrin et al., 2009a), the poten- interviewed answered that they would use extra compost in the
tial amount of inorganic fertiliser and manure that is saved by garden if they had a surplus after the scheduled application. Another
using compost (1000 kg) becomes 0.2 kg N, 0.2 kg P and 2.1 kg K problem was that some of the people (21% according to the user sur-
for fertiliser and 0.2 kg N, 0.1 kg P and 1.3 kg K for manure (based vey) that picked up compost were at the RC just for that purpose. It
on the composition for the compost that was provided at the RC in would be more environmentally sound to deliver garden waste or
Aarhus (Andersen et al., 2010a)). other types of waste at the same time.

4.2.1. Sensitivity analysis on the estimated substitution 4.2.4. Recommendations

The calculated estimated substitution was based on the It is recommended that the two different types of products
assumption that partly substitution was equal to 25% substitution. (compost and compost mix) be better signposted. It is relatively
If this number is increased to 50%, the substitution would increase difficult for the compost users to tell the difference between the
(Table 2) from 41% to 47% and 58% to 83% for the Aarhus and products because they look much alike. Signs including the most
Copenhagen surveys, respectively. The peat and fertiliser substitu- important information (content of the product and cost) should
tion in the Copenhagen case (Survey 4), in particular, would in- be clearly visible for the compost user. It is also recommended that
crease significantly. This is because a very high proportion of short descriptions/product sheets (which are already available) are
compost users in the Copenhagen area replied that they were handed to the buyers of compost. This will enhance their knowl-
doing partly substitution (Fig. 4) compared to the compost users edge of the product, while emphasising the importance of using
in Aarhus (Fig. 3). compost rather than other growth media (such as peat). Another
more efficient way of optimising the use of compost is to have pro-
4.2.2. Significance from a GW perspective fessionals (commercial gardeners) utilise it. Professional gardeners
The estimated substitution of peat, fertiliser and manure with have a better knowledge of the product and they would most likely
compost does not have the same impact. From a global warming use the compost more rationally.
perspective there is a substantial difference between the savings
in CO2 emissions according to the product that the compost substi-
tutes. When using the compost on land, potential savings come 5. Conclusions
from carbon bound in soil and from the nutrient content in the
compost which can displace industrial fertilisers (N, P, and K). The user surveys indicated that the average driving distance
These potential savings add up to 19 to 145 kg CO2-equivalents from the homes of the users to the RC was 4.3 km and that the
(eq.) Mg1 wet waste (ww) (negative saving means additional load average amount of compost that each compost user picks up is
which could arise from extra N2O emissions when the compost is 800 kg per person per year. It was clear from the surveys that
mineralised) according to Boldrin et al. (2009a). If the compost the estimated substitutions of peat, fertiliser and manure were
substitutes peat in growth media, the potential savings are from far from 100%. Many compost users were not aware of the argu-
the avoidance of GHG emissions which occur during the extraction, ments for using compost instead of peat, fertiliser and manure in
transportation and use (i.e. mineralisation) of peat materials. These the garden, and therefore did not change the use of these products
potential savings can add up to 44 to 880 kg CO2-eq. Mg1 ww when applying compost. The substitution of peat, fertiliser and
(Boldrin et al., 2009a). To put this into perspective, the contribu- manure with compost has for the first time been assessed in appli-
tions from direct emissions from centralised composting of organic cation of compost in hobby gardening. The estimated substitution
waste (including CH4 and N2O emissions as well as fossil CO2 emis- was 22% for peat, 12% for fertiliser and 7% for manure (41% in to-
sions from combustion of diesel in engines) are 3–242 kg CO2-eq. tal), and 19% for peat, 24% for fertiliser and 15% for manure (58%
Mg1 ww (Andersen et al., 2010b; Boldrin et al., 2009a). in total) in the user surveys from Aarhus (n = 74) and the Copenha-
gen area (n = 1832), respectively. Thus, the estimated total substi-
4.2.3. Case studies tution was around 50%, which means that there is potential for
The six home visits in Aarhus added to the knowledge of compost improvement. The estimates are providing the fraction of compost
use in gardens and also supported most of the questionnaires and users that substitute peat, fertiliser and manure and are not giving
thereby added to the credibility of the surveys. The home visits con- any quantitative measure of the amounts substituted. One way of
firmed that only a few people think of compost as an alternative to using the compost in a more rational way (and thereby saving
peat, fertiliser and manure, but rather they see it as a cheap product emissions) could be to let professional gardeners use the compost
which is easy to get hold of. In many cases the users had no alterna- instead of private garden owners. The professionals are expected to
tive to compost, which means that because the parts of the garden have a higher level of knowledge and might be able to use the com-
where the compost was applied would have otherwise stayed unf- post more rationally. It was found from the user surveys and from
ertilised, the compost did not substitute anything. There was, how- the six case studies that compost is used in a range of different
ever, a benefit to the garden owners by using compost, even when ways in hobby gardening. Apart from substituting peat, fertiliser
no substitution took place. Some of these benefits were stated as a and manure it was also used as a general soil improver (with no
nicer soil colour, improvement of soil structure and increased substitution) or as a filling material (as a substitute for soil). Even
growth. From these case studies, it was also discovered that com- when compost is not substituting anything, there may still be ben-
post was often used as a filling material instead of soil (because it efits for each compost user, such as better soil structure, nicer gar-
was cheaper), which means substitution of soil. These additional den, better growth and a better economy, for example. However,
benefits are, however, not easily quantified and credited in environ- this cannot be easily quantified when doing environmental
mental assessments (such as LCAs). There might also be disadvan- assessments.
tages of using compost, which are also difficult to quantify. When
the compost users collected the compost, they most often filled up Acknowledgements
their trailers (the price for a half full and a full trailer was the same).
This means that all of the compost may have been used, which could We would like to thank the staff at the RCs in Aarhus and Vest-
potentially result in over-fertilising of the garden and lead to emis- forbrænding for their assistance in performing the user surveys in
sions such as the leaching of nutrients into groundwater. The risk of Aarhus and Copenhagen, respectively. Also, thanks to the six vol-
over-fertilising was supported by the fact that 68% of the people untary (anonymous) compost users in Aarhus, who were all very
 J.K. Andersen et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2483–2489 2489

kind and willing to share their experiences of compost application. Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Moberg, Å., 2000. Life cycle assessments of
energy from solid waste. Forskningsgruppen för Miljöstrategiska Studier,
Last but not least, the authors want to thank Alessio Boldrin who
Stockholm University, Sweden. ISBN 91-7056-103-6, ISSN 1404-6520. FMS
made useful comments and suggestions for improvement of the Report 2000:2. http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/pdf/LCAofenergyfromsolidwaste.
manuscript. pdf (accessed August 2010).
International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2006. ISO 14040, Environmental
Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework.
International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. Reference Number
References ISO 14040:2006(E).
Komilis, D.P., Ham, R.K., 2004. Life-cycle inventory of municipal solid waste and
Andersen, J.K., Boldrin, A., Christensen, T.H., Scheutz, C., 2010a. Mass balances and yard waste windrow composting in the United States. J. Environ. Eng. 130,
life cycle inventory for a garden waste windrow composting plant (Aarhus, 1390–1400.
Denmark). Waste Manage Res. doi: 10.1177/0734242X09360216. Raadal, H.L., Modahl, I.S., Lyng, K.A., 2010. Klimaregnskap for avfallshåndtering. Fase
Andersen, J.K., Boldrin, A., Samuelsson, J., Christensen, T.H., Scheutz, C., 2010b. I og II: Glassemballasje, metalemballasje, papir, papp, plastemballasje,
Quantification of GHG emissions from windrow composting of garden waste. J. våtorganisk avfall, treavfall og restavfall fra husholdninger (climate account
Environ. Qual. 39, 713–724. for waste management. Phase I and II: Glass packaging, Metal Packaging, Paper,
Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Møller, J., Favoino, E., Christensen, T.H., 2009a. Cardboard, Plastic Packaging, Wet Organic Waste, Tree Waste and Refuse Waste
Composting and compost utilisation: accounting of greenhouse gases and from Households). Avfall Norge – Rapport 5/2009 (In Norwegian). <http://
global warming contributions. Waste Manage Res. 27, 800–812. www.avfallnorge.no/content/view/full/6725> (accessed August 2010).
Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Christensen, T.H., 2009b. LCA-report: Environmental Recycled Organics Unit, 2003. Life Cycle Inventory and Life Cycle Assessment for
Assessment of Garden Waste Management in Aarhus Kommune. Department of Windrow Composting Systems. Report Prepared for NSW Department of
Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Environment and Conservation (Sustainability Programs Division), Published
Lyngby, Denmark. by Recycled Organics Unit, The University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Boldrin, A., Hartling, K.R., Laugen, M., Christensen, T.H., 2010. Environmental Australia.
inventory modelling of the use of compost and peat in growth media Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K., Bates, J., 2001. Waste Management
preparation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.003. Options and Climate Change. Final report to the European Commission, DG
Cabaraban, M.T.I., Khire, M.V., Alocilja, E.C., 2008. Aerobic in-vessel composting Environment. AEA Technology. Office for Official Publications of the European
versus bioreactor land filling using life cycle inventory models. Clean Technol. Communities, Luxembourg.
Environ. Policy 10, 39–52.