| Literature DB >> 28133432 |
Ottavia Zoboli, David Laner, Matthias Zessner, Helmut Rechberger.
Abstract
Material flow analysis is a tool that is increasingly used as a foundation for resource management and environmental protection. This tool is primarily applied in a static manner to individual years, ignoring the impact of time on the material budgets. In this study, a detailed multiyear model of the Austrian phosphorus budget covering the period 1990-2011 was built to investigate its behavior over time and test the hypothesis that a multiyear approach can also contribute to the improvement of static budgets. Further, a novel method was applied to investigate the quality and characteristics of the data and quantify the uncertainty. The degree of change between the budgets was assessed and showed that approximately half of the flows have changed significantly and, at times, abruptly since 1990, but it is not possible to distinguish unequivocally between constant and moderately changing flows given their uncertainty. The study reveals that the phosphorus transported in waste flows has increased more rapidly than its recovery, which accounted for 55% to 60% of the total waste phosphorus in 1990 and only 40% in 2011. The loss ratio in landfills and cement kilns has oscillated in the range of 40% to 50%. From a methodological point of view, the multiyear approach has broadened the conceptual model of the budget, making it more suitable as a basis for material accounting and monitoring. Moreover, the analysis of the data reconciliation process over a long period of time proved to be a useful tool for identifying systematic errors in the model.Entities:
Keywords: data reconciliation; industrial ecology; phosphorus; substance flow analysis (SFA); time series; uncertainty
Year: 2015 PMID: 28133432 PMCID: PMC5217078 DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ind Ecol ISSN: 1088-1980 Impact factor: 6.946
Figure 1Qualitative MFA model of the Austrian P budget. MFA = material flow analysis; P = phosphorus; F values in the ovals indicate the number assigned to each flow.
Indicators and criteria applied to assess the data quality
| Score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Reliability | Methodology of data generation is well documented and consistent (e.g., Standard documentation—Meta information of National Statistics; laboratory analytical methods). | Methodology of data generation is described, but not fully transparent. | Methodology is not described, but principle of data generation is clear. | Methodology of data generation is unknown (data presented without any metainformation). |
| Completeness | Complete acquisition of data (no extrapolation; for aggregated flows, data available for all goods). | Partially fragmented data (minor need for extrapolation; for aggregated flows, data available for majority of goods). | Fragmented data (considerable need for extrapolation; for aggregated flows, data available for minority of goods). | Highly fragmented data (major need for extrapolation; for aggregated flows, data available for less than one third of the goods). |
| Composition | Value is expressed in detailed categories (adequate to select correct P concentration for each category) or no categories exist (single/uniform P concentration). | Value is expressed in large categories. | Value is only partially expressed in categories. | No information on the composition is available (no basis to select appropriate P concentration). |
| Temporal correlation | Value relates to the correct year. | Deviation of 1 to 5 years. | Deviation of 6 to 10 years. | Deviation of more than 10 years. |
| Geographical correlation | Value relates to the studied region. | Value relates to comparable region/economy/society. | Value relates to less‐comparable region/economy/society. | Socioeconomically different region. |
| Further correlation | Value relates to the same product, the same technology, etc. | Value relates to similar technology, product, etc. | Values deviates from technology/product/…of interest, but still acceptable. | Value deviates strongly from technology…of interest; correlation unknown. |
| Expert judgment | Formal statement from qualified expert. | Robustly based estimation. | Weakly based estimation. | Speculation or crude assumption. |
Note. P = phosphorus.
Coefficients of variation (%) for quality indicators, according to score and sensitivity level (where it applies)
| Score | Sensitivity | 1 (%) | 2 (%) | 3 (%) | 4 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | — | 4 | 10 | 22 | 50 |
| Completeness | — | 0 | 10 | 22 | 50 |
| Composition | |||||
| Temporal correlation | Highly sensitive | 0 | 10 | 22 | 50 |
| Geographical correlation | Sensitive | 0 | 5 | 11 | 22 |
| Further correlation | Not sensitive | 0 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Expert judgment | — | 10 | 20 | 40 | 80 |
Note. “Composition,” “Temporal correlation,” “Geographical correlation,” and “Further correlation” are four independent indicators. They all have the same set of coefficients of variation that are determined by the three sensitivity levels (in the second column). That is why the coefficients of variation are aligned to the rows of sensitivity levels and not to the rows of the four indicators.
Figure 2Illustration of the analysis of change in the flows over time: (a) categories of the degree of temporal change and (b) applied tolerance levels to explore impact of different uncertainty levels on capability of detecting the changes. In this example, the indicated change would be rated as moderate for the first five pairs of columns and as constant for the last two (overlapping tolerance levels).
Figure 3Average scores of the six quality indicators calculated for the goods (mass per time), P concentration, and directly available P flows (P mass per time): (a) reliability; (b) completeness; (c) composition; (d) temporal correlation; (e) geographical correlation; and (f) further correlation. P = phosphorus.
Figure 4Degree of temporal change of 122 flows and eight stock change rates: (a) categorization according to the change with respect to the reference year 1990 and (b) categorization according to annual change. Results are shown for different tolerance levels (uncertainty thresholds used to determine whether or not temporal changes can actually be detected). The y‐axis indicates the number of flows and stock change rates in each category.
Figure 5Austrian P budget representing the year 1990. Units for flows and stocks are tonnes/y and tonnes, respectively. P = phosphorus; y = year.
Figure 6Austrian P budget representing the year 2011. Units for flows and stocks are t/y and t, respectively. The colors represent the change calculated over the entire time series with respect to 1990 (figure 5), taking SD as the tolerance level: (black) constant; (blue) moderately changing; and (red) extremely changing. P = phosphorus; t/y = tonnes per year; t = tonnes; SD = standard deviation.
Figure 7Comparison between input and reconciled values of the Composting subprocess: (a) sum of input flows and (b) sum of output flows.
Figure 8Time series of flows and stock change rates reproduced with their specific uncertainty: (a) total P input in the Waste management process; (b) total P recovery within the Waste management process; (c) total P used in cement kilns; and (d) total disposal of P in landfills. P = phosphorus.