| Literature DB >> 36072260 |
Kannaphat Chuenwong1, Weerin Wangjiraniran1, Jakapong Pongthanaisawan1, Sulak Sumitsawan2, Tassamon Suppamit1.
Abstract
Waste generation rates have increased with rapid population and economic growth worldwide, especially in tourism cities. Nan Province and Luang Prabang (LPB) are twin cities that have been popular tourist destinations. The impact of unmanaged waste threatens the socioeconomic environment in both places. Three waste management scenarios were developed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the municipal solid waste (MSW) sector in Nan and LPB by 2030. Sensitivity and benefit-cost (B/C) analyses were performed, and alternative scenarios were proposed. With the use of available waste management technology, all developed scenarios in both locations could achieve net-zero emissions within the difference contexts of the city such as waste composition. From this study, on-site waste sorting is the key for waste management to achieve net-zero emissions. Sensitivity analysis revealed that, with an average carbon price of 28.42 USD/tCO2e, all scenarios in Nan and LPB were feasible, except for scenario 2 (off-site waste sorting) in LPB. This study found that it would be challenging but achievable to reach the net-zero emissions target. The challenge includes the increased on-site waste separation rate and raising public awareness concerning municipal solid waste management as well as its importance for effective waste management. These developed scenarios show a pathway for the waste sector to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 with available waste management technology in Nan and Luang Prabang, and the possibilities for other locations facing similar situations.Entities:
Keywords: Benefit–cost analysis; Greenhouse gas emission; Low-carbon city; Municipal solid waste; Net-zero emission; Waste management
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072260 PMCID: PMC9441310 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1The location of the study areas (source:Google Map, 2020).
Background information of Nan and Luang Prabang.
| Items | Nan city | Source | Luang Prabang city | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20,595 | ( | 90,400 | ( | |
| 7.6 | ( | 857 | ( | |
| 2,710 | ( | 106 | ( | |
| 2,370 | ( | 1532 | ( | |
| 0.85 | ( | 0.65 | ( | |
| Nan | ( | Luang Prabang | ( | |
Food waste | 6 | 51 | ||
Garden and Park waste | 27 | 23 | ||
Paper/Cardboard | 16 | 8 | ||
Textiles | 3 | 1 | ||
Plastics | 13 | 9 | ||
Metal | 10 | 1 | ||
Glass | 11 | 6 | ||
Others | 14 | 1 | ||
| 100 | 100 | |||
| 4.69% | 9.77% | |||
| Landfill | Landfill (Open dump) |
Waste management scenario description.
| Scenario | Description |
|---|---|
| Business-as-usual (BAU) | |
| Scenario1 ( | |
| Scenario2 ( | |
| Scenario3 ( |
Figure 2Waste management scenario 1(On-site waste sorting +Landfill).
Figure 3Waste management scenario 2 (Off-site waste sorting +Landfill).
Figure 4Waste management scenario 3 (On-site waste sorting +Off-site waste sorting +Landfill).
Avoided GHG emission and mitigation cost of waste management options.
| Waste management options | Avoided GHG emission (tCO2e/tons waste) | GHG Mitigation Cost (USD/tCO2e) | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| RDF (Paper, Plastic, Textile) | 0.48 | 50.30 | ( |
| Composting (On-site sorting) | 0.53 | 32.00 | ( |
| Composting mixed waste (Off-site sorting) | 0.38 | 32.00 | ( |
| Recycling (On-site) | 1.15 | 0 | ( |
| Recycling (Off-site) | 1.08 | 5.57 | ( |
Figure 5Projection of GHG emission from MSW sector in Nan and Luang Prabang from 2017 to 2030 (BAU).
Figure 6Share of on-site waste sorting ratio versus off-site waste sorting ratio for achieving the 2030 net-zero emissions in Nan and Luang Prabang.
Figure 7Net GHG emissions from the solid waste sector in 2030.
Input parameters of benefits and costs (B/C) analysis.
| Scenario | Mitigation options | Mitigation cost (USD/tonneCO2e) |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario 1 | On-site Recycling | 0.00 |
| Composting | 32.00 | |
| Scenario 2 | Composting (off-site) | 32.00 |
| Off-site recycling | 5.57 | |
| RDF | 50.30 | |
| Scenario 3 | On-site Recycling | 0.00 |
| Composting (on-site) | 32.00 | |
| Off-site recycling | 5.57 | |
| Composting (off-site) | 32.00 | |
| RDF | 50.30 |
Total waste management cost of scenario development in Nan and Luang Prabang 2030
| Total waste management cost (USD | Waste management Cost per Capita | GHG Avoided (tCO2e) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LPB | ||||
| S1 | 1,132,117 | 4.87 | 27,035 | |
| S3 | 1,188,280 | 5.11 | 24,781 | |
| S2 | 1,285,920 | 5.53 | 22,032 | |
| Nan | ||||
| S1 | 353,658 | 12.72 | 13,349 | |
| S3 | 379,739 | 13.66 | 15,697 | |
| S2 | 514,259 | 18.50 | 10,623 |
Tipping fee.
B/C ratio analysis of scenario development in Nan and Luang Prabang.
| Carbon price (USD/tCO2e) | Nan (B/C ratio) | LPB (B/C ratio) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S3 | S2 | S1 | S3 | S2 | |
| 39.79 (+40%) | ||||||
| 34.10 (+20%) | ||||||
| 28.42 (Avg. price 2017) | 0.86 | |||||
| 22.74 (−20%) | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.69 | |||
| 17.10 (−40%) | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.52 | ||