CEU eTD Collection creditsPhoto totheauthor ifnototherwise stated. and Sciences Environmental of Department the of Head Policy the from available is place take may exploitation and disclosures which under conditions the on information Further EASEWASTE. with Budapest in Environmental Sciencesand Policy,Budapest. European University, Central technologies and T. Dienes, (3) written the agreement. without an parties of conditions and third terms the by prescribe will use which University, the for of permission available made be not may and contrary, t (2) (inwriting)made thepermission Author. without of the be not be may instructions such with may accordance in made copies of Details process) any (by copies Library. University European any of part form Central must page This Librarian. the the from obtained in lodged and Author the by given instructions with accordance in only made be may extracts, of or full, in either (1) of intellectualNotes the copyrightand ownership on property rights: hesis is vested in the Central European University, subject to any prior agreement to the the to agreement prior any to subject University, European Central the in vested is hesis

, Central European University., Central European For bereferred should and reference bibliographic purposes thesis this toas: this in described be may which rights property intellectual any of ownership The Author. the with rests thesis this of text in Copyright

2012. Environmental assessment and policy options for solid waste systems waste solid for options policy and assessment Environmental 2012. ii

israin Departmen Dissertation, such copies made. Further made. copies such ois b ay process) any (by Copies

y such such y

t of of t CEU eTD Collection an of of learning.institute support this of in submitted qualification or been degree has another thesis for this application in to referred work the of portion No Author’s declaration

iii

or any other university or other other or university other any or Tamas DIENES

CEU eTD Collection municipal EASEWASTE, recycling, waste solid potential, warming global assessment, cycle Life Keywords: management with lower network environmental impacts. waste controllable and efficient more a becoming to system present the of development suggest the which in outlined and been have dissertation, recommendations the important of conclusion end the at discussed are results the of interpretation The impacts. 2008 from month each illustrat for data the on based prepared was analysis the however, Hungary. represents the that process a in categories 48 into classified and recorded were Budapest in units) business and family single family, (multi types generation waste three of samples authjor l hasf for model EASEWASTE the applies thesis This making. new legislationregarded is assessment, which inthe climate and pollution environmental on have can recycling impacts what and is, Budapest in recycling for capacity and nature T are inthe imp specifically interested and efficient be must more which Zrt. FKF of stakeholders keyThe collection, legislation. new yearsaccordingto coming in increased waste for selective on focusing possibilities evaluated been has examined Budapest of and activity management waste friendly its environmentally reviewed has also Budapest Zrt.,changes, management of FKF thecompany Parallel waste national these to system. controllable stricter, a building to contribute state A 2013. to and types waste specific of flows the control to established was Ltd. Nonprofit Agency in force into come will Directive years two system management waste The policy opti for thedegreeDoctorof of Tamas DIENES ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION i thesis his

most detailed waste composition study to date in Budapest and very likely in in likely very and Budapest in date to study composition waste detailed most

ing thetrend related collectionenvironmental its inselectivewaste and changes in

. A new Waste Law which in full in which Law Waste new A . n ot ae lf cce seset s ae o yal dt. n hs thesis, this In data. yearly on based is assessment cycle life cases most In ons for solid waste systems andtechnologiesons for solid , environmental impacts, Budapest, FKF Zrt.,, environmentalimpacts, Budapest, FKF

therefore never been applied before in Hungary. in before applied been never

provides numerical answers to the research question of what the the what of question research the to answers numerical provides

CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY Philosophy and Environmental and assessment entitled:

in Hungary in

submitted by: submitted act ofwasteenvironment. management onthe change Month andMonth October, Year submission: 2012. of iv . This issue had been been had issue This . has been fundamentally changed in changed fundamentally been has . In this thesis the solid waste management management waste solid the thesis this In . compliance with the EU Waste Framework Framework Waste EU the with compliance

n mr tasaet at management waste transparent more and

- we Ntoa Wse Management Waste National owned as a very important tool for decision a important very tool as By request of the author, laboratory laboratory author, the of request By in Budapest with EASEWASTE. in Budapest with

ife cycle assessment, which which assessment, cycle ife analyzed

with life cycle cycle life with pathways for for pathways the last the

2011 -

CEU eTD Collection

To Flóra To v

CEU eTD Collection the for Torill, and Ernst abroad: in friends and Beni immense patience, and support and Kerti Hungary: in friends sister, my parents, my to faithful am I least, not but Last alo me, to information useful documents. much provided Vámosi, who Oszkár especially Ltd.), Nonprofit Agency Management Waste (National Kft. Nonprofit Ügynökség Hulladékgazdálkodási Országos the at people all to thankful am I information andvaluable data. wit me provided who Borsi Zsuzsanna and Olgyay Siklóssy Mihály GáborKirály, Szabó, Attila especially research, my for information and data necessary the obtain to Közterület Fővárosi the at met I people The committee external my good artistic lightness mewith talksthatand fed creative thought Damgaard, the and Anders model EASEWASTE the me teaching for Hauschild and Michael as well as member Christensen, H. Thomas especially t at Professors the for thank to like would I addition, In and Maia Gachechiladze their best found way to Kulauzov Dora Czakó, Veronika i Pusztai, Csaba and Novikova, Alexandra Peev Mukhtarov, Plamen especially students fellow My his family)weekly inthe onalastperiod of basis thethesis writing. (and rest his from hours evening stealing while thinking academic of perspective larger c the during years three last the within to goes gratitude sincere My always advising process. tothe PhD and related being onissues helpful thank to like would IFurthermore, andpath. directedof thethesis essenceisafruitful the writingperiod myPhD during any time at consultation and help provided who University like would I spiritual and intellectual emotional, this journeyfrom the beginningthe very lastmoment. until of milestone every at me guided and inspired always has which knowledge and intelligence immense his for him thank to like would I research during myP directmy continuedand to then Master thesis supervisor my servedashe First studies. graduate mybeginningof the from mysupervisor servedas has who Illés, Zoltán Prof. supervisor my to gratitude deepest my express to like would I people during ofthesis. thepreparation this several of support and encouragement love, the without far this it made have not would I

o xedm prcain o rf aaaSee rm eta European Central from Steger Tamara Prof. to appreciation my extend to Prof.

encouragement throughout these years.encouragement throughout these Acknowledgements Pr Tibor Illés, particularly for the fruitful collaboration fruitful the for particularly Illés, Tibor of. ooperation with FKF Zrt. and for giving me the the me giving for and Zrt. FKF with ooperation

Alan Watt Watt Alan vi - give fenntartó Zrt. in Budapest where I was able able was I where Budapest in Zrt. fenntartó

me ideasmoments. inthedifficult from Central European University European Central from n addition Keti Medarova, Farhad Farhad Medarova, Keti addition n

ng with original thoughts and and thoughts original with ng he Danish Technical University, Technical Danish he my daughter, daughter, my s.

my relatives, Kati, Kati, relatives, my hD studies. hD h useful h

for for -

CEU eTD Collection 6 5 4 3 2 1

6.2 6.1 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.1 L L L L A D A ISTABBREVIATIONSOF ISTOF ISTOF ISTOF CKNOWLEDGEMENTS BSTRACT EDICATION Validity and reliability and Validity seminars and Conferences Interviews research Archival my for research output and input Data and analysis collection Data for thesis this Methodology processes wasteof management modeling of Methodology Methodological approach Theoretical framework recycling of Context CO Biogenic Literature review Research question, assumptions, objectives and outcomes users Potential Scenarios Background the of research Intr

R M L E S G W L I L I E R R K O NTEGRATEDWASTE MANA NTRODUCTION USTAINABLEDEVELOPME IFECYCLE ASSESSMENT NVIRONMENTALIMPACT IFECYCLE ASSESSMENT IFECYCLE ASSESSMENT XPECTEDOUTCOMES ESEARCHMETHODS ESEARCHOBJECTIVES ESEARCHASSUMPTIONS APSINTHELITERATUR EY RIGINALITYTHEOF RE P F T ETHODOLOGYFOR ASTEMANAGEMENT AND oduction IGURE ICTURES ABLES

RESEARCHQUESTION ......

......

...... S

2 ......

emission

......

...... and GHG emission GHG and

......

...... LCA

......

SEARCH ...... E ......

......

IN INTHE

......

ASSESSMENT MODELING ...... NT GEMENT ...... ITSIMPACT ON ...... OTHER COUNTRIESAND

...... Table ofContents Table ......

...... – EU ......

THE

......

...... REGULATION

...... EASEWASTE ......

......

...... GHG vii ......

......

EMISSION

...... CITIES ......

MODEL

......

..... 112 ..

153 151 146 144 140 136 135 135 121 118 XIV 21 78 2

. XV IV 19 14 85 82 78 74 69 57 46 35 30 29 28 25 23 22 21 XI IX VI

V 8 5 1 6

CEU eTD Collection 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7

A A A A A A A P A 10.3 10.2 10.1 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1

USZTAZÁMORLANDFILL NNEX NNEX NNEX NNEX NNEX NNEX NNEX NNEX Policy Policy options non and collected selectively the of Comparison fee Waste providers service Local Evaluation Budapestof solid waste management system Hungary in estimations treatment Waste descriptionShort of Hungarian waste management systems

Annexes References Limitations, recommendations for future research Conclusion Results of the environmental assessment W C S W W W W C E C T T ELECTIVEWASTE COLLE STIMATEDTRENDS FOR HE HE OLLECTIONVEHICLES A ONTRADICTIONINTHE URRENTTRENDS IN THE 3: 2: 1: 8: 7: 6: 5: 4: ASTEDISPOSAL IN ASTECOMPOSITION IN ASTEAMOUNT IN ASTEMANAGEMENT IN ASTEMANAGEMENT IN O I C U

NTERPRETATIO E T R L W R W R ORRELATIONWITHINCR H EU NIQUEIDEA FORANALY NVIRONMENTALIMPACT OCATIONALLOF OF TH HEDATA FOR THEINCI ECYCLINGRATESIN SO ESUL ECEIVEDDATAFROM TH UNGARIANLEGISLATION ASTEAMOUNT ASTEAMOUNTS ANDFUE ......

REGULATIONON WASTE TS OFTHE

......

...... NOF RESULTS B SITE B

...... , LCA UDAPEST

DISTANCES ANDFUEL C UDAPEST

DATA ...... B THEWASTE AMOUNT AND

ND CONSUMPTION ND CTION B H

UDAPEST MODELRUN FOR THER CITIES ...... UDAPEST UNGARIANWASTE MANAG NERATORIN CASE OF ZINGTHETRENDS EASEDRECYCLING RATE E WASTEE ISLANDS AND ME ME COUNTRIES BETWEEN

......

RESULTSTHEOF MODEL

...... LCONSUMPTION IN

ONWASTE MANAGEMENT

...... B

MANAGEMENT ...... UDAPESTWASTE

......

...... –

...... SHORTDESCRIPTION ...... viii 2008, ...... - ...... ONSUMPTIONIN

selectively coll selectively ......

......

A 2009, -

...... 2006, TO COMPOSITIONIN ARHUSAND ...... THE ...... S ANDSGLOBAL WARMING ...... - EMENTSECTOR

2001 ENERGYTREATMENT PLA

FOR

2010 12 ......

2007, ......

WASTEYARDSIN - 2008, 2010

ected recyclable waste recyclable ected ......

...... AND 2008

2008, ...... B UDAPEST ...... KG 2009, 2011 ......

J ...... H ANUARY /

...... CAPITA 2009, UNGARY ......

– ...... 2010, ......

GRAPHS ......

2010 ...... , B ......

......

- 2011

UDAPEST

POTENTIAL ...... D ND AND ND THE

ECEMBER

AND

......

- ......

......

TABLES ...... 2011

......

... 196 155 329 314 311 298 266 261 . 251 244 224 216 211 200 198 197 196 191 187 179 177 169 159 155 340 339 338 337 333 331 330 329 292 274 266

CEU eTD Collection (tons) 39. Table Amount ofthe 38. Tablecollected Amount ofthe recyclable waste(tons) 2010 37. Tableselectively Amount ofthe2008 and collectedby waste collection methods 36. Table Budapest Waste compositionin family, family SCBU forsingle multi and 2008 35. Table: amount Waste 34. Table: amount Waste 33. 32. Table: amount Waste 31. Table: amount Waste inthe detailed structureBudapest 2008 monthsin in per 30. Table Waste feesWestern insome cities, 2012 29. Table Waste feesHungarian insome cities, 201 28. Table Waste feesHungarian insome cities, 2010 27. Table Averagefeewaste inHungary dependingcity rates onthe size 26. Table Thesecollectcompanies in Budapest. waste the solid 25. Table Municipal generationcapita waste per 24. 23. Tablelandfill waste Amount ofthe in2010(t) 22. Table data for Example inaccuracy, the waste transported 21. Table data for Example inaccuracy, the waste transported 20. Table: The current 19. Table Planned and output recoveryamount inthe packaging 2012) (tons, waste 18. Table rate, Planned and packaging collection utilization 2012. 17. Table Waste treatmenttheEU method in 27,2009(%) 16. Table Amounttreatment ofwaste Hungary, in 15. 14. Tablelandfill fee Amount ofthe inHungary 13. Tablegas packaging Crude and oil of natural some demand products 12. Table andtheir The proposed required input sources 11. Table ofthe Research present objectives thesis 10 Table oftheassumptions Research present thesis 9. Table of Research thepresent thesis question 8 TableLCA, carbon Comparison of 7.Table 6 impactand sinks on GHG sources management fornet MSW 5. Table emissions various Components of strategies and their years4. TablemanagementLCA Different inthelast models waste for3. Table: eachfraction Chemical composition materialinEASEWASTE 2. Table 1. Table inEASEWASTE Potentialimpact environmental categories . Table Table: amount Waste Table Municipal waste solid collected (kg/capita/year) nearby cities ofthe Table impacts Possible oftheproductsystem fee,deposit andlandfill fee ......

...... Biological and fossil CO2 content CO2 ofBiological plastic andfossil fractions : Thewaste 48different fractions EASEWASTE in Biological and fossil CO2 content CO2 ofBiological paper andfossil fractions

69 operating inHungary 69 landfill sites ...... selectively and non – – – – ...... glass inBudapestforaluminum and selective inBudapest some in totalmonths anddisposal for 2008 in plastic some inBudapestmonths for 2008 in paperBudapestsome months in for

...... List ofTables footprint and ecologicalfootprint and footprint ix -

...... selectively collected paper, 2008 byselectively collected 2008 paper, months,

......

...... 1995 ......

2007, 2008and 2009 ...... 2

......

...... - ...... 2009

......

some months in 2008 in some months ......

......

.. . .

165 150 114 113 113 227 222 221 215 205 204 203 203 202 200 199 199 198 197 193 192 190 189 188 186 176 175 173 172 168 166

89 60 59 52 18 12 11

CEU eTD Collection 62. Table Rate waste waste ofthe for collection fractions, selective 2006 rates, (%) 2008June 61. Table of eachCH Contribution treatment processto rates, (%) 2008June 60. Table of eachCO Contribution treatment processto case ofdifferentrecycling rates 59. Table of thedifferent Contribution global treatment processestowarming potentialin higherrecycling rates, 2008 June 58. Tablethepotential Percentageswaste5x fractions by waste 3x, of case in of1x, 5x higher3x, recycling 2008,rounded. June rates, 57. Table Amounts oftheselective collectedand fractionscase potential waste in of1x, 3x and 5x higher56. Table 1x, Comparison of recycling 2008(t) June rates, selectively collectedfor waste types, waste 2008 ofthe55.Table potentially Comparison amounts recyclableand waste thepresently 54.Table Potentiallycollection waste recyclable waste for types, 2008 53. Table Potentially recyclable wastecollection waste for types, 2008 52. Tableselective Amount ofthe for collection waste waste 2008 types, 51. Table Rate waste waste ofthe for collection types, selective 2008 50. Tablemeasured Continuously pollutants km, 2008 andliters/tons fuelJune consumption/100 49. Table Selectively and collection non 2008 liters, June 48. Table Selectively and collection non and July47. Table June Comparisonconsumption of fuel 2008 (tons) 46. Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non (tons) months, 45. Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non (tons) months, 44. Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non (tons) 43. Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non (tons) 42 Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non (tons) months, 41. Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non (tons) months, 40. Tableselectively Amount ofthe and non

......

...... - - ...... selectively collection vehiclesselectivelycollection selectively - x ...... ------selectively collected glass, byselectively collected 2008 months,

selectively collected glass, byselectively collected 2011 months, selectively collected2011by aluminum, byselectively collected plastic, 2011 byselectively collected 2011 paper, months, selectively collected2008b aluminum, selectivel

...... - 2011 2011

......

...... collection vehicles, tons, km and km vehicles,collection tons, ...... y by collected plastic, 2008 ...... – 4 2

...... table emission atemission different recycling atemission different recycling ......

......

...... - - 2011 - ...... 2011 (tons) 2011 , km/tons, , km/tons, 2011 (%) 2011 ...... - - ...... 2010 2011 ......

......

...... y

247 246 238 237 235 234 232 230 229 303 292 291 289 283 282 279 276 276 276 275 275 255 247

CEU eTD Collection 35. Figure ofthe different (%) composition Average citytypes 2008, inHungary, 34 Figure and non Total, selective 33. Figurege in Trend 32. Figure landfill waste Amountofthe in 2010 (t) 31 30. Figure flowwaste for Planned 2016(1000 tons) 29. Figure w The 28. Figureflow waste for The 2004(1000 tons) 27. Figure 2004 ofthe waste, municipal solid Composition European insome 26. FigureLandfill MSW fee countriesfor (EUR/ton, 2011) 25. Figure waste The hierarchy 24. Figure framework Conceptual model inthe EASEWASTE policy 23. FigureenvironmentalInteraction andthe of assessment Budapest management waste theory 22. Figure theenvironmentalwithin framework Theoretical researchpolicies ofthe 21. Figure life of Whole cycle themunicipal User’sprotection Source: Manual EASEWASTE (2008) 20. Figure linking Causality web ofenvironmen emissions 19. Figure amanagementLCAand producta Comparison waste of LCA18. Figure conceptual The model 17. FigureImpactdifferent methodsonGHG emission ofthe treatment waste 16. FigureImpactdifferent GHG ofthe emission,EU policies on waste 15. FigureImpactwaste oftheprocesses onthe CO 14. Figure AllGreenho 13. Figure sector, thewaste gas in AllGreenhouse emission Hungary, 1990 2009 12. Figure emissionfrom thetons) AllGHG waste selected sector, countries, (million 1990 11 Figure emissionfrom thetons) AllGHG waste selected sector, countries, (million 10. Figuregas (CO2equivalent) netemission Greenhouse 9. FigureIaggregate greenhousegas Annex Totalof emissions Parties 1990 8. Figure inalandfill emission ofcarbon Sources 7 6. Figure byLULUCF, Emissions in2007excluding sectors Gg CO 5. Figuregas sources Greenhouse andassociated withthe material sinks cycle life management alternatives. 4. Figure 3. Figure the elements integratedwaste The of management 2. Figurechemical the Sample of for properties the 1. Figure wasteflows inEASEWASTE Possible . Fig . Figure ...... ure Biological and fossil CO2 in the EASEWASTE modelforBiological intheEASEWASTE CO2 fossil some waste ure and types ......

......

FunctionalLife ofthe elements Assessment Cycleofmunicipalwaste solid Recycling and disposal rates wasteRecycling and solid 2004 of themunicipal aste flow foraste 2009(1000 tons) neration ofneration waste municipal solid in2003and 2008 use gas emission in the waste sector, thewaste gas in emission use Hungary, 2009 ......

......

...... - selective waste amountselective in Budapest waste List ofFigures ...... xi

...... solid wastesolid ......

......

...... waste types 2

......

equivalent, EU,1995,

......

...... tal mechanisms on theareastal mechanisms of ......

......

2 ......

...... eq ...... 2006

......

- ...... 2016

2008 ...... - ...... - ...... 2009 2011

......

...... -

...... own ..

211 206 194 191 184 183 182 181 178 167 156 122 117 110 108 102 .

66 65 64 62 59 53 50 33 32 13 91 87 73 72 70 68 67 67

CEU eTD Collection selectively collectedfor waste types, waste 2008 62 Figure ofthe recyclable potentially Comparison presently amounts wasteand the 61. Figure:global warming All factors2008 by months 60. Figure:globalwarming factors2008 by months Some 2008 59. Figure theselective and of Correlation collection global waste warming by months LCA58. Figureall for results eve 2008 57. 56. Figure divided Budapest terms The in transport ofthewaste 2008 km/tons 55. Figuretheselective of Evaluation and non 2008 liter/tons 54. Figuretheselective of Evaluation and non 53. Figure the Ratenon of 52. Figure the Rateselectivelycollectedbetween of waste 2008, 2011in100%graphs 51. Figuregraphs ofthe Comparison selectiv cans, graphs 100% 2008,2011in 50. Figuregraphs ofthe Comparison se 2008, 2011in100%graphs 49. Figuregrap Comparison 2008, 2011in100%graphs 48. Figure (tons) 47. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) months, 46. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) 45. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) 44. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) 43. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) months, 42. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) 41. Figure selectively Graphof the and non (tons) 40. Figure selectively Graphof the and non ...... 39. Figureyears the Ratethreetypes of ofselectivecollection waste by 38. Figure Amountofthe 37. FigureyardsLocation inBudapest ofislands and waste waste 36. Figure ofBudapest composition Waste types, waste by 2008(%) FigureLCA oftheseveral Results modelimpact for for environmental bymonths - -

201 ......

2011 1

Comparison graphs non oftheComparison selectivelyand ......

...... -

2011 - ...... 2011

......

recyclabledifferent waste by the (tons) methods - ...... selectively between collectedwaste 2006and 2011

...... hs of the selectively and non hs ofthe selectivelyand ......

...... ry between month 2008and 2011 ...... lectively and non and lectively ...... ------xii selectively collected 2011byselectively aluminum, collected byselectively plastic, 2011 months, collected byselectively paper, 2011 months, collectedglass, byselectively 2008 months, collected 2008byselectively aluminum, collected byselectively plastic, 2008 months, collected byselectively paper, 2008 months, selectively collectedglass, byselectively 2011 months, ely and non ely and - - ......

selective waste collectionselective waste vehicles, collectionselective waste vehicles ...... - 2011 2011 ...... – - 2011

- - - - normal graph selectively glass, collected selectively aluminum collected selectively plastic, collected selectively paper, collected -

2011 2006 and 2011(tons) 2006 ......

......

...... per wasteper types ......

......

236 234 233 231 229 228 223 222 218 213 277 273 272 271 270 268 260 250 249 242 241 240 240 239 239 239 237

CEU eTD Collection selective rates, 2008(kg) collection waste June 67. Figure and dioxide 5 and incase Carbon emission methane 3x of1x, 5x 66. Figure 3xLCA and oftheincase1x, results global emissions warming of potential higher selective ofthe65. Figure 3x andLCA different 5xenvironmental 1x, model loadincase results of higherand 5x r 64 Figure inthewaste Changes compositionofthe different incase waste types of1x,3x selectively collected for waste types, waste 20 63 Figure ofthe recyclable potentially Comparison presently amounts wasteand the higher selective collectionwaste rates, 2008(kg) June ecycling (%) rates

waste rates, collection 2008 June

...... xiii 08

...... -

...... 2011 2011 ...... –

100 % graph

......

...... x higherx ......

290 286 286 285 278

CEU eTD Collection 14. Picturelandfilling Author at the area Emptying vehicles 15.Picture collection 12. Pictureflaring Biogas Composting collection, site 13.Picture Landfill10. Picture site,entrance11. Picturearea New buildingslandfilling for 8. Picture room9.Picture Control 7. Picture of the incineration facility 5. P 3. Picture Waste 2. Picture Collectionscheme bottles atsupermarkets PET ofand can aluminum 1. Picture icture theWaste ofthe Author in Nagytétény waste yardNagytétény waste the author and László and the authordirector ofthe Sámson, Waste - to - Energy ofthe upgrading 4.Picture Plant Results

......

...... List ofPictures - to - Energy Plant 6. Picture LiftingEnergy 6.Picture of waste Plant upin xiv ...... Emission values Emission

......

...... - to

- ...... EnergyPlant

......

257 257 256 255 254 254 253 224 217

CEU eTD Collection LCA KSH IWM IPCC ISO ISPA HIR GWP GHG FKFZrt. EPA EU EIA EDIP EC EASEWASTE DTU CH CO 2 - - 4

– - - European Commission – European Union

– - - –

Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Assessment – - – International for Sta Organization - - - Hulladék Információs Rendszer (waste Rendszer Információs Hulladék system) information Carbon dioxide

Life Cycle Assessment StatisztikaiKözponti Hivatal Environmental Protection Agency

Methane Instrument for for Policies Structural Pre horizon) time the Danish andDenmark) EPA DTU, Danish Technical University Danish Technical Environmental Design of IndustrialEnvironmental (LCA Design ofProducts methodology Intergovernmental PanelChange onClimate Glo Greenhouse Gas, Gas, Greenhouse IntegratedManagement Waste – Fővárosi Közterület bal Warming Potential (of greenhouse gases, relative to CO2, over a specified specified a over CO2, to relative gases, greenhouse (of Potential Warming bal -

Environmental Systems AssessmentWaste ofSolid andTechnologies

- fenntartó Zrt.Ltd.) Servicesfenntartó Public (Municipal Co. List of

–

Central Office Statistical

ndardization abbreviations

- Accession

developed bydeveloped

CEU eTD Collection UNFCCC SWMS SO SF SETAC SCBU RDF RFID Plan) OGyHT (National Agency Management Ltd.) Waste Nonprofit Kft. Nonprofit OHÜ NH NO MRF MSW MF MBT LULUCF LFG LCIA 2 – 3 x

–

– - – Single family – – - -

- Mu – -

Sulfur Dioxide

Refuse DerivedRefuse Fuel Nitrogen andDioxide Nitric Oxide – Landfill Gas

Ammonia Material RecoveryFacility

Mechanical BiologicalTreatmentMechanical

LifeImpact Assessment Cycle – Municipal Solid Municipal Solid Waste Radio Frequency Identification, Radio Frequency

- Small commercialSmall and business units –

l Solid Solid ManagementWaste System TheEnvironmental Society Toxicology of and Chemistry ti familyti -

–

Országos Gyűjtési és Hasznosítási Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési Országos L

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Frameworkon Climate United Nations Convention and Use, Land Use,and

–

Országos

- Useand Change Forestry

Hulladékgazdálkodási Ügynökség Nonprofit Kft. Kft. Nonprofit Ügynökség Hulladékgazdálkodási

xvi

Terv

(National Collection and Collection (National

Utilization

CEU eTD Collection Hungary in before used been never has systems management waste solid of assessment environmental 201 (Lemming as remediation site contaminated such of LCA and issue, assessment this on focused also have studies PhD Several 2010). (Riber incineration on w technologies management waste for specificallyeven or 2006.) Boldrin 2011; Jansen, and (Bernstad waste food or kitchen, (Merrild waste paper as such types waste of scope broad a for ha LCAanalysis Some resources. of loss the also and use) land (like local the to depletion) ozone and change climate (like global the from impacts environmental – a cycle Life systems. management waste differentof impacts environmentalthe for modeling friendly and tools managementrequiresunderstandable user readily systems (Bhander strategies. resource wast its in cycle assessment life of role the and use the emphasized recentlystrongly has Union European The countries. industrialized in attention growing of subject the are impacts environmental associated the and waste solid municipal of management The 1

s ashl (2006) Hauschild as Introduction

t al. et –

mhszs s hlsi to bcue t oes l relevant all models it because tool holistic a is emphasizes

08, o lnfls Mnrd 21 ad Manfredi and 2010 (Manfredi landfills or 2008.,) t al. et 00 Te eeomn o ssanbe oi waste solid sustainable of development The 2010) 1

man's needs,man's notevery greed.” but man's provides enoughevery“Earth tosatisfy

et al. et

et al. et hich are mostly focused focused mostly are hich 2011. and Hansen and 2011.

0.). The life cycle life The 0.). 2008.) or garden, garden, or 2008.) Mahatma Gandhi s been prepared prepared been s ssessment ssessment

t al. et e and e et al. et

CEU eTD Collection draw to possible becomes it format this Through decisions. different the of consequences the show to and collection waste selective the in trends the demonstrate to way proper t is This possible. also is months different the for analysis LCA a waste the and As waste 2011. collected and selectively not and 2006 collected selectively between the of month comparison the everyconsequence, for amounts waste selective the as obtained has author they because unique is data research The far. so Budapest in prepared been never have which fractions, waste 48 for made was study composition waste detailed a author, the of request by analysis, the For pollution the collection. is what question: research the answers waste numerically thesis the evaluation LCA the During selective the to regard high with Budapest in system management th thesis This discusses recycling. support therefore and landfilling waste avoid waste to the is in changes sector present management the of paths main the of One 2015. from compulsory selec that reason the collection indetail dueFirstand beanalyzed systemto evaluated must the selective waste requirements. EU with compliant not and low fairly are rates collection waste selective Budap on focuses thesis This highly as considered is it interestingand spotlight nowadays. above topic mentioned argumentations the of light the in and aue n cpct fo capacity and nature including climate change tive waste collection rates must be dramatically increased and will be will and dramaticallyincreased be must rates collection waste tive e environmental pollution of the present municipal waste waste municipal present the of pollution environmental e r r ccig n Budapest in ecycling s mncpl oi wse a i te ugra capital Hungarian the in as waste, solid municipal est .

data for the total waste amounts waste total the for data

n is mat on impacts its and environmental environmental

as well well as he CEU eTD Collection implement changed utterly been has system management waste the Hungary In andfollowed recommendations. by limitations als areresearch the of results The issues. environmental the on impact its and collection waste selective the to attentionhigh with system present the laterLCAresearch discusses managementwaste a and framework theoretical methodolog the the of description with continues then research key the The with findings stakeholders. the discuss to and scenarios, different for and system current an prepare to is therefore assess objective environmental research main The environment. the on have elements the impacts of type what also and impacts have elements technological which the on impact environment adverse significant a has system management waste every Naturally, objectives policymeasures that include qualitative and aswell. quantitative w basic as EU as the in legislation well management waste as solid municipal model present the on EASEWASTE information the of introduction the and research the of The background isthefollowing:originality structure theashort research describes of enviro the impactsglobalwarming. including and collection waste selective the of rate the between correlation ell as in Hungary. Later, the document shows the research question and the research the and question research the shows document the Later, Hungary. in as ell ed

and through the proposed environmental assessment it can be quantified quantified be can it assessment environmental proposed the through and a new new a o discussed in detail, along with a short description of the conclusions, conclusions, the of description short a with along detail, in discussed o Waste Waste ment analysis of Budapest waste management system both for the the for both system management waste Budapest of analysis ment Law beginning on 1 January 1 on beginning Law y that is necessary to reach the objectives. The Budapest Budapest The objectives. the reach to necessary is that y

2013, and additionally the new new the additionally and 2013,

since 2010 since

. Hungary . nmental nmental CEU eTD Collection necessarypresent toimprove the managementsystem several reveals paper methodology The rates. collection selective different of number a on based scen different on focus particularly not does research Güereca 2011; T. Trecakova and V. (Koci compared and analyzed been have scenarios management waste several higher potential during Although of rates. collection waste results selective impact environmental the regarding them enlightening decision local help to is paper this of purpose The Hungary. the in initiated be can which system controllable and transparent more a developing for relevant and important highly is research This etc. carbatteries packaging WEEE, as tires,such waste, flowswaste common agencycontrols resp other among and companies coordinating the from tasks the over taking is Ltd. Nonprofit Agency Management Waste National established newly the Hungary In moment. the at preparation under is Plan Management Waste National

- eae ise ad icse wa waste what discusses and issues related

t al. et

2006; Merrild 4

LCA case studies in other countries countries other in studies case LCA

t al. et arios new waste management system in in system management waste new .

- makers and strategy planners by by planners strategy and makers -

eae plc itreto is intervention policy related b 02 and 2012. ut rather focuses on scenarios on focuses rather ut onsibilities this state owned owned state this onsibilities Miliūtė 2009.) this this 2009.) Miliūtė CEU eTD Collection particularly in Scandinavian countries as well as in Germany, Austria and the the and Austria Germany, in as well as countries Scandinavian in particularly countries, European of majority the In making. decision and research management waste assessment cycle Life model. EASEWASTE the by prepared be will LCA the Meanwhile collection. waste selective the highlighting years. several covering th in provider service public a of management waste solid on focusing l first the be would study this date to Hungary In circulated soactually tothe back technology isproduced. nowaste proces the at where arrangements production some even or is treatment proper minimal is production waste which in technologies many are there Nowadays this mandatory. of because and damage, human and environmental serious legisl management waste Hungarian and international issue. complex this for solutions possible potential the highlights sector management waste the on focus global or regional more the as well Increase concern. global to local from ranging problem a as viewed is waste now and years the over strategies and demands, problems, shifting seriously. very warming t Union European the that improvements, fact the protection acknowledging environmental the for basis the is premise This shared. is legislation that expected is it this of because and Union, European the of part is Hungary 2

Background the of research The environmental assessment is based on the obtained data, and and data, obtained the on based is assessment environmental The The waste management system has gone through a history of of history a through gone has system management waste The

methods are becoming mor becoming are methods ife ks at mngmn ad global and management waste akes ative systems that waste can cause cause can waste that systems ative - cycle d environmental consciousness as consciousness environmental d It is commonly accepted in the the in accepted commonly is It sing stage the waste itself is is itself waste the stage sing - seset ( assessment

is detailed level level detailed is C) research LCA) e integrated to to integrated e CEU eTD Collection impacts environmental different the quantify to able be would which prepared been not analysiscomprehensivehas a reports,of these spite landfills.fromin However, emissions Long on Convention the to management waste solid from emissions GHG reported already has Hungary already. studies several by analyzed been has gases greenhouse and sector management waste the between correlation The and may approaches revealenvironmental consistent for their improving performanc systems management waste the within methods collection waste selective different the of impacts environmental the of evaluation quantitative a provide findings Our system. LCA computerized new of use the with experience a Technologies), and Systems Waste Solid of Assessment (Environmental EASEWASTE our describes paper This systems. management waste Life severalcountries. LCA legislation. Hungarian in systems management waste the of in terms in support decision for used now is transposed modeling fully been have all which 2008), (EC, Framewor Waste European the in recently more and 2005b) (EC, resources of use sustainable on Strategy Thematic the 2005a), (EC, waste of recycling and prevention the on Strategy Thematic the in concept this introduced has EU The 1999.). A. (Helias decisio for tool supporting a as regarded be to expected is LCA Netherlands, - yl seset(C)mdl aebcmn motn de important becoming are models (LCA) assessment cycle 2.1

Originality of the research research ofthe Originality - ag Tasonay i Pollution Air Transboundary range - ae mdl o aayig h Bdps wse manageme waste Budapest the analyzing for model based UNFCCC and emissions of SO of emissions and UNFCCC 6

–

the EASEWASTE model EASEWASTE the and made a study on GHG GHG on study a made and 2 , NH , cision support tools of tools support cision 3 , etc. emissions to emissions etc. , k Directive Directive k

n making n es. nt - CEU eTD Collection m numerous to led has research scientific This worldwide. studies, several in full including applied been has EASEWASTE integrated. been have resources ecot stored as such categories New well. as categories toxicity addresses it categories impact traditional the to addition in and facility, modeling system versatile a provides EASEWASTE system. management waste the in data inventory cycle life requires also model The database. new a establish can user the process this through and disposal and recovery treatment, collection, composition, waste for data necessary all define can user individual the which model the mentions (2007) Kirkeby As toxicity. warming, and global acidification, the e.g. categories, impact environmental and different translated into are aggregated characteristics these measurements laboratory serious of result a chemical each of emissions on data includes EASEWASTE scenario. a represent altogether modules these and system, management waste real the reflects that modules of number a of consists model EASEWASTE The system. the in found materi and normalization weighting, analysis, sensitivity al As Bhander cycle assessment life thecapacitytechniques. managementand of systems, (environmental ecological the of understanding an provide to date. to countries few a in applied been only has technology this and software EASEWASTE the developed recently University Technical m waste solid current the from warming) global as (such . (2010.) claimed, the model reports data at all of the LCA stages and an overall overall an and stages LCA the of all at data reports model the claimed, (2010.) . - scale assessments of waste management in Danish and other municipalities municipalities other and Danish in management waste of assessments scale 7

The aim of the EASEWASTE model is model EASEWASTE the of aim The xct ad pie groundwater spoiled and oxicity anagement system. The Danish Danish The system. anagement al balances for all substances substances all for balances al odeling areas of focus such as as such focus of areas odeling for materials and energy used used energy and materials for ) issues involved in involved issues )

(inventory), and as as and (inventory), s faeok in framework a is - related related waste et et CEU eTD Collection Human Toxicity, soil Nutrient Enrichment Acidification Ozone Depletion Formation Photochemical Ozone yearsGlobal Warming, 100 Potential Impact Category P categories: impact two GroundwaterSpoiled Resources and Stored introduced has furthermore model The toxicity. human and ecotoxicity enrichment, nutrient acidification, formation, ozone photochemical depletion, warming global impacts: environmental following the with assessment cycle life complete a provides and systems management waste from emissions environmental and consumption resource flow, waste calculates model The categories. impact different so pollution important most the identify to easy is it model the using By existin Bhander to According recycling efficiency of different waste the types. analyzing and incineration, versus recycling prevention, waste of importance the otential otential impact categories included in EASEWASTE are the following: gLCA waste solid modelshave followingat achieved the same the time:

environmental resource impacts and consumption. potential calculate to method assessment impact cycle life full a include to to be to betransparent and calculations in assumptions, to describe data and andcalculationmethods, document flexibilitymodifyand management waste processes, thedifferent tomodel

user

friendly and make results easily comprehendible and resultsfriendly make easilyand et al. et

(2010) this model was developed because to date, to because developed was model this (2010) HTs NE AC OD POFI GW100 Acronym

m kg NO kg SO kg CFC kg C kg CO Unit Toxicity 8

3 soil /person/yr

2 H 2 2 3 - 4 - - - eq. /person/yr - eq. /person/yr - 11 . (Christensen eq. /person/yr eq. /person/yr - eq./person/yr

et al.

2007) Regional Regional Regional Global Regional Global Physical basis

urces in the the in urces

no other no , ozone ozone ,

CEU eTD Collection wasteof thedifferentsolid types municipal al 2006). (Kirkeby et Figure for routes inEASEWASTE treatment, recovery 1.showsthepossible and disposal Waste T.H Christensen. Source: Resources GroundwaterSpoiled Ecotoxicity,chronic water Ecotoxicity, soil Human Toxicity,air Human Toxicity, water Management and Management

1 . Table .

Research Research

Source: own contribution based on Kirkebyon based contribution own Source: Potential environmental impact categories inEASEWASTE categories impact environmental Potential t al. et

1 . Figure Figure .

2007.

SGWR ETwc ETs HTa HTw Possible waste flows inEASEWASTE waste Possible xeine O Te s O LCA Of Use The On Experiences

m m m m m 9

3 3 3 3 3 water /person/yr water /person/yr water /person/yr air /person/yr water /person/yr et al. et

2006 - oeig ESWSE In (EASEWASTE) Modeling

Local Regional Regional Regional Regional

CEU eTD Collection ofdiscussion theHungaria 11 use generally we whereas Hungary Table in seen be can these and 2006.) i software EASEWASTE The external productions are as negative presented leading pollution emissions. toavoided avoided the Therefore, calculations. the in account into taken also is energy material the of case In system. the in consumed are that materials raw and energy external includes also model the disposal) and recovery treatment, transport, (collection, processes waste the Besides recycling the replaced external production of similar material or or material similar of production external replaced the recycling n and Budapestwaste solid management system). ncludes 48 different types of waste fraction (Kirkeby fraction waste of types different 48 ncludes - 12 general waste types (see more detailed at the the at detailed more (see types waste general 12 2 . It is a very detailed category compared to to compared category detailed very a is It . 10

et al. et

CEU eTD Collection format’sto this acceptanceunique analysis. as and avery detailed (Kirkebyconnectedandtypes chemicalare physical properties 40 faculty. Danish the of experience and expertise level high the of product the is and University Technical Danish the at research laboratory of years several after developed was EASEWASTE Waste composition is limited to 48 material fractions and to these wa these to and fractions material 48 to limited is composition Waste 2 . Table . Source: own contribution based on Kirkeby et al 2006 al Kirkebyet on based contribution own Source: : The 48 different waste fractions in fractions waste different The48 11

EASEWASTE

et al.

2006.) which adds adds which 2006.)

ste CEU eTD Collection yearsbeenseveral through developed analyses. oflaboratory detailed have characteristics chemical The evaluation. scenario management waste the of steps the during model the in followed be can fractions material the of properties chemical The No. No. 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 S P O Na N K H F Cl Ca C-tot fibers protein fat COD VS TS H2O Methane potential [Nm3 CH4/ton VS] Heating value [MJ/kg TS] 3 . Table . : Chemical composition for each material inEASEWA fraction each for composition Chemical Source: own contribution based on Kirkebyon based contribution own Source: Parameter 12

No. No. 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 PCB PAH NPE DEHP Zn Se Sb Pb Ni Mo Mn Mg Hg Fe Cu Cr Cd Br As Al et al et .

2006

Parameter

STE

CEU eTD Collection As Kirkeby waste the of influences characteristics emissions. includingenvironmental data theoutput the chemical relevant the with together data technological the as well as composition waste and amount waste the figure, this in illustrated is it As cont waste C individual no has waste glass the that instance for seen, be to can clearly features several connected composition are which characteristics chemical these From ent atall.

Source separation et al.

2 (2007.) pointed outthe modelincludes(2007.) thefollowing processes: . Figure Sample for the chemical properties of the waste types waste the of properties chemical the Sample Figure for .

CEU eTD Collection preparation thefollowingof anda runningscenario usually involves background steps: describes (2006) Kirkeby various disposal, and treatment waste and transportation waste collection, waste composition, and amount waste for data given the to According Scenarios External from processes, internal asare external aswell whichfollowing: the life uses model The 1.

Life cycleemissions inventory ofsubstances, and resources

processes

Materials, andoutput input energy,Fuel for combustion thermal Electricitygeneration Remanufacturing paper, glass, metals of etc. plastic, Landfilling Bottom ashtreatment Thermal treatment Use onland ofcompost andbiomass Biological and treatment (aerobic anaerobic) Mechanical treatment MRF’s and Collection and transport

- cycle assessment and thus includes potential environmental impacts environmental potential includes thus and assessment cycle

in the User Manual (2011) for the EASEWASTE model the the model EASEWASTE the for (2011) Manual User the in

cnro cn e ae As made. be can scenarios

CEU eTD Collection

8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2.

processesand according can sorted tomagnitude. be year a in person one expr step this so potentials, impact normalized the on weight political a introduces Weighting small one variable. to according model the of sensitivity the shows ratio sensitivity A year.person ina reference magnitude. to according person sorted be can and processes to or substances to related be can impacts into normalized Potentials Impact the converts Normalization targets, horizon. weighted by andresourcesare their supply re political by weighted are impacts comparable. Environmental importance. unequal made thereby and PE) of eachtheycategoryare to weightif assign a to choose can userFurthermore, the Equivalents, (Person unit same the and impact environmental of categories All accordingA sensitivity tomagnitude.calculatedratio at canlevel. this be sorted be can and processes to or substances to related be can Potentials Impact or m3 water, orair. soil e These process. treatment each from outputs the of composition the calculates model The composition: Output the process, be will products which orresidues. Mate rial flow: The model calculates all solid waste masses entering and leaving leaving and entering masses waste solid all calculates model The flow: rial

esses person equivalents defined as the politically targeted impact of of impact targeted politically the as defined equivalents person Tee egtd aus a b rltd o usacs r to or substances to related be can values weighted These .

Person

nvironmental impacts a impacts nvironmental equivalents are defined as the impact of one one of impact the as defined are equivalents 15

resource consumption are assigned assigned are consumption resource

re expressed in equivalents equivalents in expressed re

- qiaet. The equivalents.

duction duction CEU eTD Collection following areas: Christiensen As evaluation. impacts potential consumption. resource of as number well as burdens select environmental the quantifies a which categories impact environmental into data inventory aggregates method assessment impact The Impa functionalthis unit. of basis the on calculated are emissions environmental associated as well as consumption unit to actuallylinked is much very unit functional a of definition The deliver. will service or product a that function the relatedto B fr satn a LCA an starting efore 9. s d s

ct assessment

epending on the type of questions we want to answer. Energy and raw materials raw and Energy answer. to want we questions of type the on epending compost). in in assessing managementwood waste) materialfraction and (paper, in comparison of technologiesincineration), (landfill, (Herning, as Århus) well wast of assessments scale full several table. can or graphically expressed be may results final The

oprsn f oes o seii apiain (o eape land example (for applications specific for models of comparison

et al et

means

( In the results the p the results the In 2007) pointed out EASEWASTE has already been applied in the the in applied been already has EASEWASTE out pointed 2007) aig t teevrnet a i srpeetdi eey LCA every in represented is it as environment, the to savings t s ey important very is it as in the question askedquestion the

other countries, ositive 16

to define the "functional unit," which is is which unit," "functional the define to mngmn i Dns municipalities Danish in management e value means pollution, pollution, meansvalue

, as there may be several theremaybe as ,

be transported into an Excel an into transported be whereas

functional functional

negative negative - use of of use CEU eTD Collection active too not development, ofthe such as modelas t use aresearch meaning phase the or phase development the to leads which research the indicates line dotted the whereas model, same the of versions subsequent of launch means model the of name the to next line solid The decades few past the throughout countries different by developed were models following significant. really is value its therefore technologies management waste 150 uses for designed was model ORWARE The hypotheses. bad utilized have to proven were or companies, private by use for developed were some or currently, outdated are models these of Some previous. those from learnt lessons the been have tools LCA Waste c time this during and years previous in developed EASEWASTE. to addition in models management waste of evaluation LCA the for suitable are which models varying are there Naturally, Co evaluate forofwaste. strategies handling to and regulations and guidelines setting to for and used systems management be waste optimize can It sources. pollution significant identify and methods, compar technologies, to designed is EASEWASTE fluethe gas from incineration) in mercury compostingor volatilizationduring ammonium (e.g. waste the in substances from in the also but counted be can process al. process includes model The mparisonmodels other management waste with LCA (2007) emphasized (2007) , so not only the emissions that occur due to the waste man waste the to due occur that emissions the only not so , - specific as well as in as well as specific .

- put

- specific emissions which are originating directly originating are which emissions specific e different waste management strategies, strategies, management waste different e 17

- put onsequent models have benefited from from benefited have models onsequent - specific emissions, as emissions, specific ool.

organic waste, the WRATE model WRATE the waste, organic the active development phase and and phase development active the

Christiensen agement The The et . CEU eTD Collection these representing data prolonged lack significantly unfortunately while pollutants time long have can landfills because system the of parts difficult most the of one also is Landfilling use landfilling, status: following the for analysis detailed very a provides EASEWASTE available, models other most Unlike publications supporting findings. its high a represents Technologies model EASEWASTE The HOLIWAST, LCA(pl. ARES, WAMPS, SSWMSS, English in presented been not has or adequate really not is information models some In EASEWASTE WRATE HOLIWAST WAMPS LCA IWM SSWMSS IWM2 WISARD ISWM DST EPIC ARES MSWI LCA ORWARE MIMES Name Source: Source: - - LAND

CSR

Gentil

time horizons. time

4 Denmark UK EU Sweden EU Japan UK N.Z, Fr, UK, USA Canada Germany Germany Denmark Sweden Sweden Country et al. et . Table Different waste management LCA models in the last years last modelsin the LCAmanagement waste Different Table .

2010. 2010.

Models for waste life cycle assessment: Revi wastecycleassessment: life for Models 1994 –

niomna Assmn o Sld at Sses and Systems Waste Solid of Assessment Environmental

95 level of of level

96 -

on 97 -

ad uiiain f aeil ad r and materials of utilization land, credibility 18 98

00 - LAND, MIMES , has a large number of scientific scientific of number large a has ,

ew of technical assumptions oftechnical ew 03

and 05

MSWI). 06

07 ecycling.

CEU eTD Collection webpage(EASEWASTE 2009) for instance: following the for purposes different many for used be can EASEWASTE Potential users in the technical manual. explained and transparent are calculations technical the that note of also is It languages. is options, several of consists it all Above Technology providers Consultants and wastemanagementMunicipalities authorities

versus improved flue gas cleaning.versus improvedgas flue elect increased as such potentials development of Assessment waste existing in aspects environmental management systems. the of potentials Improvement Environmental ofdifferent assessment waste management options. from material energyrecoveryand recy savings, as well as loads environmental showing accounting, gas Greenhouse Assess environmental newservices. consequences public of Test thedifferent improvements in as better such treatment, technologies leachate systems, etc. collection new or technologies new options, management waste new Evaluate

user friendly, and can be used in different different in used be can and friendly, user

cling.

ricity consumption consumption ricity

potential users potential

CEU eTD Collection with stricter environmental policyand theincreasing public awareness. beenhas generation waste of amount the Budapest,In legislation. Union European the of terms the to respect with important increasingly become has control pollution where Hungary like and support decision for as strategicplanning used be can and consequences environmental overall the evaluating for suitable very are EASEWASTE like model a and methodology LCA The Researchers Service providers

loads and savings. m waste which on Analysis Assessmentschemes, ofrecycling systems collection etc. provided. services of data environmental the of structure comprehensive more the Present significant in the past years and the waste management system can be developed be can managementsystem yearswaste the andthe past in significant

well. This decision support tool can specifically be used in a countrya in used specificallycanbetool support decision This well.

anagement technologies contribute to environmental to contribute technologies anagement 20

CEU eTD Collection environmental the is What withthe environmentaldiscussion leadersZrt.: FKF of th impacts environmental related its and collection waste selective the of analysis detailed the For the potential higher waste recyclingrates isprovided. num exact the of determination a assessment, cycle life a Through Zrt. FKF of stakeholders main the by desired was this as potential, warming global including categories, impact environmental aims research This Hungary. in 2015 from compulsory be will which detail in evaluated is system collection waste selective present the thesis this in Therefore, method. disposal appropriate least the be to ac an is treatment thermal while activities Framework re prevention, waste Waste hierarchy, waste the the In Directive. in defined hierarchy waste the to regard high with Budapest to contribute to is research this of aim The 3

Research question, assumptions, objectives and outcomes

is study has identified the following research question, according to the the to according question, research following the identified has study is erical values of the different environmental impacts which are generated by by generated are which impacts environmental different the of values erical 3.1 pollution pollution aue n cpct fo capacity and nature

o nlz te mat f oi wse aaeet n h different the on management waste solid of impact the analyze to Key researchquestion Key including climate changeclimate rccig n Budapest in recycling r ceptable solution. Waste landfilling is accepted is landfilling Waste solution. ceptable 21 a more efficient waste management system in in system management waste efficient more a

- use, and recycling are supported supported are recycling and use,

n is mat on impacts its and

CEU eTD Collection necessary them. todouble check is possible, it cases if many for However, realistic. correct proper, and sufficient, model is EASEWASTE the prepare to given information and data the that assumes research This 2. Assumption several years andmonths if are detail more in evaluated be can pollution environmental that assumed is It 1. Assumption in not implementation is the agendafor future. thenear trans or incinerator second motor, (gas option technological other any with system present the comparing than important more be to accepted is collection waste selective the for areas improvement the above, the on Based 2015. from Hungary wil collection and Budapest in gradually 2013 from increased be will co EU an to due However, research. this to provided was data relevant where date earliest the is which 2006, since not signi increased been is not has rate this fractions thesis this in described some is it As unrealistic). for 50% reaching countries EU other some in whereas 2011, 1 (around small relatively is collection select waste the of rate the Budapest, environmental In potential. related warming determines global particularly so impacts, and rates recycling potential higher includes and Budapest in recycling waste of characteristics the analyses therefore research This

3.2

Research assumptions analyzed - financed project the door the project financed

instead of one year. instead ofone

- 2% by waste types in the years of 2006 of years the in types waste by 2%

- to -

door collection of selective waste waste selective of collection door fer station) which which station) fer l be mandatory in in mandatory be l ficantly ficantly ive ive -

CEU eTD Collection whereas impacts, environmental related in trend the observe and months different the eval LCA the prepare to able is author the data, necessary the on Based system. waste solid Budapest modelingthe for required whichareinputs necessary To acquire the Objective 1. their perspective and preferred bemade. will options key the with discussion a assessment, environmental the in scenarios different the of results the Accordingto assessment. this for model EASEWASTE the use will research This Budapest. of systems management waste solid municipal expected and fo options policy and assessment environmental the prepare To aim: Overall assumptionTherefore, this ofthesis has this been during preparation changed. Utiliz and Collection Waste National the of preparation the in resulted legislation and structure Hungarian the in changes later However, waste). packaging the of terms in (particularly No. the Earlier ofdiscussion wasteand hasbeen amount detail. compositionit described in and family single th assumed is It 3. Assumption ation Plan, so obligatory recycling rates are included in this official document. document. official this in included are rates recycling obligatory so Plan, ation

3.3 1 assumption was that Hungary is eager to reach European Union targets targets Union European reach to eager is Hungary that was assumption 1 at the waste generation per capita is different in the case of multi family, multi of case the in different is capita per generation waste the at

ml cmeca ad uies nt ( units business and commercial small Research objectives 23

SCBU )

stakeholders about stakeholders cases. During the the During cases. r the present present the r

uation for for uation

CEU eTD Collection had bee th request their to according so rates, recycling higher are options preferred preferr and perspectives their determine to aiming stakeholders, key the with findings the Discuss Objective 3. the technological werecalculated. alternatives not and impacts environmental related the Accordingly, rates. recycling higher imaginary dif the be to chosen were alternatives so collection, waste selective the on focuses the run main decision the the discussionswith to and system current the EAS of standpoint managerial and technological both from alternatives desirable major the determine to was 2 objective former Earlier modelforthe EASEWASTE them. a desirable major the Determine Objective 2. collection points. waste Budapest of map draft a is contribution own author’s the addition In previously. an types, waste 48 for request the at provided was composition waste detailed a inputs necessary the of collection the During individually. year single a on focuses research LCA other EWASTE model both for the alternatives and for the present system. However, after after However, system. present the for and alternatives the for both model EWASTE n evaluated.n ed options. When discussions occurred the key stakeholders identified that the that identified stakeholders key the occurred discussions When options. ed

analysis

which has never been been never has which lternatives acknowledging higher recycling, rates and run run and rates recycling, higher acknowledging lternatives

- makers this objective was modified as the research as objectivetheresearch this modified makers was 24

analyzed

in such detail in Budapest in detail such in

of the author author the of ese options ese ferent ferent

CEU eTD Collection The research isexpected Theoretical be: outcomes shall motivate Budapest management systempolicy. waste factors what understanding to contribute will results research The Zrt. FKF the of system basi the understand to help may research The first. evaluation LCA waste this have will who Budapest is it and Hungary in prepared been never has systems waste solid of modeling assessment cycle life that import most The outcomes. practical as outcomes. following the produce to expected is research this aims, and assumptions research above the on Based comply withthe strictEuropeaninterm Unionregulations to order in crucial been also has individuals of role the level, national the from Apart Government. Hungarian the and Union European the by affected strongly but Council, only not are management waste solid Budapest of direction the determine which decisions policy the Therefore Hungary. in state the is by activity directed legislative the and actors, main the remain States influential. highly be to tr policy in states and levels national of role the making, policy nation of role diminishing the making policy Union European concentrated the of result a as and management) waste and warming, global acidification, toxicity, environmental on debates transnational unfolding the of spite In 3.4

Expected outcomes Expected Outcomes of the research can be divided into theoretical as well well as theoretical into divided be can research the of Outcomes to contribute toourunderstanding of

c waste collection, transport, and treatment and disposal and treatment and transport, collection, waste c ant result of this research is produced by the fact fact the by produced is research this of result ant

s ofwaste management.

depending on the Budapest the on depending anslation has been found found been has anslation olto (including pollution - tts in states

CEU eTD Collection performed, cycle life with systems management waste Budapest’s of analysis assessment environmental the include will research The Practicalbe: outcomes shall alsoThe will beanalyzed. of operation vehicles thecollection andconsumption its waste everysingle at detail in evaluated be will fractions waste collected selectively not and collected selectively the of rate The collection. waste selective the of importance the as well as composition, amount, waste The well. as outcomes practical have will research This

The comparison of the selectively collected waste and the potentially potentially the and waste collectable which are fractions, waste unfortunatelydisposed of collected selectively the of comparison The sourcesthe main pollution and thecausingrespectively. factors determine can we assessment cycle life environmental the result the on Based improve thecurrent lev to developed be may that layouts system alternative different by achieved improvement the assess to easier be also will it model developed the With improvement ofenvironmental perspective. theexisting systemfrom an fo identify to and assess to contributes evaluation the How loss. resource of sources main the and impact of sources main the of identification support will impacts resource and environmental of analysis deeper the How

and i waste collection system will be analyzed in detail with high regards to the the to regards high with detail in analyzed be will system collection waste

t gives answers to the following questions: t givestothefollowing answers questions:

el ofimpacts.el a ssessment 26

. An . analysis of this type has never been been never has type this of analysis

cus points for for points cus

type. type. CEU eTD Collection well asrecommendations even forresearch be future will discussed. limitations the conclusion, the in Finally system. management waste Zrt. FKF the to regard makers decision and stakeholders key main the with discussed been already have which suggested, are options technological and policy important research this on Based

technology management waste what from and highest the is impact environmental Which the proposed alternatives and system current the of both assessment environmental the is What yards)waste Addition unique. also is which months consecutive the for analysis the as well as Budapest in date to prepared been not has which composition, waste special instance (for contribution own My recyclable waste operates recycling How

in Budapest, and which method collects the most most the collects method which and Budapest, in 27

ly mp n h wse sad and islands waste the on map a ally

as CEU eTD Collection public awareness. prevention waste for incentives and framework, regulatory life a integrating design product as such economy, recycling full a create help r would policies to of given combination be to needs priority the higher within again much material then raw economy, a as used be can which resource a becomes waste If decision tosupport tool clearly be can it mo EASEWASTE the review that determined literature the From thesis. this in evaluated management be will waste system sustainable and integrated proper, a while system, management give review literature The reliableconsistent data. and of lack the is constraints major the of one managementsystem waste solid a ofevaluation Wilson and warned have literatur the in articles scientific the As solution. all’ fits size ‘one no is there models management waste successful of diversity and variety the include insights Key assessment cycle life the of selection pub a provide to order in literature relevant the and from processes backgroundmanagement waste solid scientific and assessment essential environmental of the interlinkages disclose to is chapter this of aim main The 4

lications thatthese andissues totackle toprove are for significant future. the Literature review 4.1

Introduction - - making management inthesector. waste cycle

et al. et s a short picture on the main characteristics of the waste waste the of characteristics main the on picture short a s thinking (2012.) points out, it can be determined that during the during that determined be can it out, points (2012.)

del has proved to be a suitable, flexible and robust and flexible suitable, a be to proved has del approach, better collection processes, appropriate appropriate processes, collection better approach, 28

n rccig a wl as well as recycling, and e

- use and recycling. A A recycling. and use

e review review e –

CEU eTD Collection The Framework Waste Directi waste of development the years.management inthe recent towards directed been has attention much have systems analy and comparison the through and terms global typethe sys andofinterest of determine the field to has one tools these from and systems waste of effects environmental analyzing for tools several are There important. more much become thinking cycle life revision Framework this of consequence Waste the revised has Commission European The and assessment impact for input expertise requires characterization”. it other the on while hand, one the on loops recycling and analysis inventory for equations utilizes it since approach scenarios different management waste solid for nowadays a computer LCA to given attention major a been has there Recently, planning. strategy and processes making decision in important more become has assessment cycle Life ided tools, because LCA provides a holistic approach that is increasingly utilized utilized increasingly is that approach holistic a provides LCA because tools, ided

reducing impactsgeneration ofwaste and theenvironmental w on focus to and phase, waste the only not and materials and products of cycle life whole the account into takes that approach an introduce to “necessary 8. par 4.2

Life cycle assessment in the EU regulation in theEU assessment Life cycle

. As . Abeliotis ve thefollowing: (2008/98) states

et al et .

(2009) stated (2009) , as it can compare the environmental impacts of of impacts environmental the compare can it as , 29

z :” ation of different waste management waste different of ation LCA can be categorized as a hybri a as categorized be can LCA tem to be studied. Thinking in studied.Thinkingbe to tem

Directive and as a a as and Directive aste management,” d - -

CEU eTD Collection material raw include that systems integrated often highly are and complex today systems management waste the however landfill, local and a collection at waste disposal of primarily consisted systems management waste past, the In strategies havealready life introduced These legislation. waste existing of modernization and simplification the behind forces driving the are they as management, waste European the of evolution the for implications basic have strategiesEuropean interlinked two Theseresources. natural of use sustainable the and prevention waste increased through society” “recycling a become to Europe help Genti As more recently inthe European Waste and 2005) (EC, resources of use sustainable on Strategy Thematic the and 2005a), (EC, waste of recycling and prevention the on Strategy Thematic the in emphasized is concept life and thinking life which in strategies waste thematic Union’s European the in illustrated is This

yl icuig hi rpi, re g compromisingcirculation of thefree repair, their including cycle life whole their during resources of use efficient the facilitate and account full means the of one is Directive this in responsibility producer extended of introduction „The 27 par. more sharply focus into throughout the life management waste and generation waste of impacts environmental „the 9. par (01 camd te udmna ojcie f hs teai srtge i to is strategies thematic these of objective fundamental the claimed, (2011) l 4.3

- In cycle analyses are mentioned as really important tools (EC 2005d). (EC tools important really as mentioned are analysescycle tegrated waste management waste tegrated

to support the design and production of goods which take into into take which goods of production and design the support to Framework Directive Framework (EC, 2008). - cycle waste into thinking policy. 30 - use, disassembly and recycling without without recycling and disassembly use, oods on the internaloods onthe market.”

- cycle of resources”cycle

savings, prevention, prevention, savings,

- cycle This -

CEU eTD Collection IWM oftheintegrated system. The management elements waste areas follows: optimized environmentally an deliver to needed are which technologies management selecti the facilitates tools Assessment Cycle Life using landfilling and treatment technologies management sy management waste successful any of center the at are sorting and collection proper that demonstrates picture IWM The (IWM). Management Waste Integrated the of elements the and concept the represents figure following The socially ofwaste acceptable t methods and affordable economically effective, environmentally the combines it that meaning technical, of fulfillment simultaneous the requiring Municipal Integrated system. waste solid entire the to approach holistic a represents (IWM) Management Waste Integrated as landfillingend. at the well as steps processing other and combustion, composting, recycling, recovery, material

– are shown as equally important. Data based decision support support decision based Data important. equally as shown are

such as materials recycling, biological treatment, thermal thermal treatment, biological recycling, materials as such

oi at MW aaeet s eiu task tedious a is management (MSW) Waste Solid reatment (McDougall 31

economic on of the most appropriate waste waste appropriate most the of on

et al. stem. The four main waste waste main four The stem.

2001). and social constraints, constraints, social and

CEU eTD Collection Barlaz M.A.and Weitz K.A. (1995)followed beinthe can followingfigure: cycle life the of elements functional the Therefore system. cycle life the in account into taken be must them of all and processes technological different includes system management waste A way. Following collectionnecessary. atreatment is system,a suitable options range of a manageto sufficient not is method treatment single a that clear is it management, waste sustainable ( McDougall As ll materials in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in an environmentally effective effective environmentallyan in (MSW) Waste Solid Municipal in materials ll assessment et al. al. et 3 . Figure The Figure .

2001) emphasizes, along with the overall requirement for for requirement overall the with along emphasizes, 2001) of municipal solid waste management alternatives accord alternatives management waste solid municipal of

elements of the integrated waste management waste integrated the of elements Source: McDougall McDougall Source: 32

et al. al. et 2001

ing to to ing

CEU eTD Collection socially affordable, economically are acceptableeffective.environmentally and that systems create to need managers Waste been i have focus of areas three management waste solid regarding development sustainable IWM system. (IWM) LifeAssessment.of Cycle tool the using Management optimized becansystems Waste Integrated an form together them of All

4 . Figure . industry, and government. institutions commerce, fee), (waste inhabitants the including stakeholders key all to acceptable affordability Economic 3. 2. 1.

dentifiedand (Francke McDougall, 1999;Kirkeby 2005): Social acceptance Economical sustainability Environmental sustainability

Functional elements of the Life Cycle A Cycle Life the of elements Functional

Source: Source: means that the costs of waste management systems are are systems management waste of costs the that means

Barlaz M.A. and Weitz K.A. 19 Weitz M.A. and Barlaz

alternatives.

ssessment

of municipal solid waste management management municipal waste solid of 95

In summary, to ensure Into summary,

CEU eTD Collection itself. making decision the in account into also taken be must however, views, of point political assessment. environmental the on concentrates predominantly nor acceptance, social the account into take not does analysis LCA that reinforce to important very is it However, management system.(Kirkeby 2005). than stronger of are production energy of and benefits the materials when impact, avoided an indicate burdens Negative calculatedas thefollowing: (Clift to according system management waste a for LCA total The Development, 1987). as: needs report own their meet to generations Brundtland future the by defined PhD ” this been in has analyzed sustainability is sustainability Environmental environmental of issue the Only …development that meets the needs of the present wit present the of needs the meets that …development

– + means in as well as consumption resource in environmental air, to emissions waterand land. mitigated, is waste the system of management load environmental the that requires effectiveness Environmental the wasteand managementpriorities systemreflects ofthe community. thevalues c local the of needs the when occurs acceptability Social

avoided emissionassociated

environmental emission from emission environmental

the economic background, so life cycle assessment assessment cycle life so background, economic the because of of production materialsenergy. and

the waste management activities 34

” (World Commission on Environment and and Environment on Commission (World ” the environmental load from the waste waste the from load environmental the

hout compromising the ability of of ability the compromising hout ommunity are fulfilled, and fulfilled, are ommunity Economic et al., et

2000) can be be can 2000) , social and and social ,

thesis

CEU eTD Collection divided are which according tolocation: summarized, are cities different of analysis LCA the of findings main the brief, in Hereby model. EASEWASTE the only not and models, LCA different r this of Much prepared. been have China and France as such countries in waste the was example for studies other several are there then since and example Aarhus, of system management first The analyzed. been have modeling Assessment Cycle p been have that cities different for studies case and the research present governance of harmony the on cities. different the of strengths existing the focusing on build to need the and technology, as well as data, reliable and good impor very is it system management waste solid a of evaluation the During andexclusive can be reinforcing. mutually ove three The conditions. environmental the by constrained are society and economy Both pillars whichareregarded as highly 2005): important (UN developme sustainable The rlapping ellipses indicate that the three pillars of sustainability are not mutually mutually not are sustainability of pillars three the that indicate ellipses rlapping

economic demands. social equityand environmental, 4.4

Life cycle assessment in other countries and cities and in othercountries assessment Life cycle

nt concept also emphasizes these areas as the three main main three the as areas these emphasizes also concept nt

eae wt Life with repared

tant to obtain obtain to tant esearch used used esearch For the the For CEU eTD Collection potentials toxicity human to contributing so and waters surface and soil mercury on down the settles as plant, incineration the from mercury of emission air the by caused is conten arsenic becausethe of was soil via toxicity human potential the that showed (2005) Kirkeby recovery. energy to due place took which potential warming global saved the are impacts environmental that showed Results plant. incineration the at combusted was but separated, source been have could potentially that waste household organic the considers D Scenario digestion. anaerobic subsequent for organic impacts. environmental in differences the precisely more observe to order in prepared were scenarios sensitivity Several bags. material. organic for orga the when case the of consist B. alternative Scenarios biogas a and incineration an included A. Scenario LCAthe for thefollowing options: Kirkeby 2001. conducted in bags started plastic in organicwaste of sourceseparation The 140,000 waste solid municipal of tons and 81,000 about generate inhabitants The dwellings. inhabitants 300,000 approximately of consists Aarhus of municipality ( Kirkeby Aarhus, Denmark EU country

household waste was directed to th to directed was waste household 05 aaye te ie yl o Aru, Denmark Aarhus, of cycle life the analyzed 2005) –

West Europe Europe West

with

t in organic waste and the potential human toxicity via water toxicitywater human via potential the organic and wastein t ead o h peet dissertation present the to regard

cnro ws h cs we te separated the when case the was C Scenario 36 e optic sorting plant and pretreatment facility facility pretreatment and plant sorting optic e

nic waste was sorted correctly in the green green the in correctly sorted was waste nic

i hs h thesis PhD his n -

t e ot important most he

per year. per The . CEU eTD Collection themetalconsumption recycling as has energy net and acidification the Regarding individually. them transporting inhabitants the not and waste the collecting are that vehicles cleaning municipal the of case the in lower the than better even consump fuel yards,the as waste with selectivecollection and aspects, environmental the of terms in favorable most the door the that was consequence main The consumption. energy net potential warming global following: the are categories Impact The functionalyear. per was unit as accepted amount thewaste research: There model. IMW the with (2004) Salhofer & Beigl by analyzed were regions Salzburg the in areas rural few a of impacts environmental The AustriaSalzburg, and spring in environmental reasons 2004. organi all prohibited and plant sorting optic the closed municipality Aarhus that however, emphasized, (2005) Kirkeby are thathaveanddifferences. impacts aamount environmental smaller water. and soil via

3. 2. 1.

no recycling. recycling (door withsack yards,recycling withwaste

Acidification, photochemical ozone formation and nutrient enrichment nutrient and formation ozone photochemical Acidification,

oshl wsegigt icnrto u o financial to due incineration to going waste household c erious role. erious - to

- 37 door) collection,

tion of the collecting vehicles is is vehicles collecting the of tion ee he atraie i the in alternatives three were

, acidification potential and and potential acidification ,

- to

- door collection is is collection door CEU eTD Collection refuse of incineration with drying bio MBT (g) and co with drying bio MBT (f) treatment, aerobic with mechanical (e) gas, landfill the of recovery with landfills (d) flaring, by gas landfill the of incineration with landfills (c) recovery, slag incineratio without (b) recovery, slag with incineration (a) following: the as were scenarios seven The Republic. Czech the in systems management waste solid integrated for study life a of results the presents (2011) T. Trecakova and V. Koci CzechThe Republic EU country LCAmade studiesbeen have inEast also. andWestEuropeancountries against advantage environmental incineratio serious a has recycling and collection WEEE the Hischier Directive. WEEE European the by set standard, kg per stream collection waste traditional the from products collected of kg 11 separate to possible was it collection WEEE the During Switzerland. in systems collection operational an is which t comparison equipment electronic and electrical of waste for Hischier by prepared was Switzerland in research assessment cycle life The electricalSwitzerland, of waste electronic equipment and n. capita in 2004, therefore recycling them. This accomplishment exceeds the 4 4 the exceeds accomplishment This them. recycling therefore 2004, in capita –

e WC Rccig urne ad h S.E the and Guarantee Recycling SWICO he East Europe

- derived fuel from a monosource. monosource. a from fuel derived – - EE o te er 04 I his In 2004. year the for WEEE incineration of refuse of incineration –

et al. et

biological treatment (MBT) (MBT) treatment biological . N.S system was included included was system N.S - cycle assessment (LCA) assessment cycle

(2005) pointed out that out pointed (2005)

- de et al. ( al. et rived fuel, fuel, rived 2005) 2005) The The n CEU eTD Collection tested (IVL), Institute Research Environmental Swedish the by designed was it as model reasonable is It municipality. Alytus for (2009) was Miliūtė model by applied System) Planning Management (Waste WAMPS the countries Baltic In Lithuania Czech Republic and notasinglecity. L other unlike that stated be can it literature this evaluating After analysis. detailed more a in scenarios different the compare to and assessment objective fully a for factors) economic and technical, social, as (such aspects to appropriate be also would It sites. landfill the of closures long and detailed t declared of impacts is environmental it conclusions the In used. was incineration lowest the co RDF with Alternatively, technology drying bio MBT the when caused were burden. impacts environmental environmental greatest the causes MBT aerobic w landfills of management waste municipal mixed of system integrated the that concluded they result research a As model. management waste a not is 4 GaBi because well, as countries other in common is data proper the of lack the databas Professional 4 GaBi the from data production electric from provided were abroad. facility this for data necessary the plant this without and plant, mechanical a including debates reoccurring several been have there functional waste the unit. solid was treatment tonofmunicipal of1 n hs td te eerhr drvd h pluin rm isl osmto to consumption diesel from pollution the derived researchers the study this In -

Alytus municipality - em netr icuig h ftr evrnetl mat after impacts environmental future the including inventory term landfills

oteohrseaissol emd,uigbt a both using made, be should scenarios other the to

CA analyses, this one concerns the entire entire the concerns one this analyses, CA ithout landfill gas recovery and the the and recovery gas landfill ithout

e, which also justifies that justifies also which e, hat a comparison of the the of comparison a hat include several additional additional several include In the Czech RepublicIn the – biological treatment biological

that she used this this used she that - CEU eTD Collection virgin from materials of production the that is explanation likely most ecological The an benefit. in results recycling of effect positive a and landfilling, from originate re the categories, impact eutrophication well as researchers other by (Christensen justified is which warming, global to contributing be resul the on influence considerable a have not does 2) scenario in (especially process composting The scenarios. the of prioritization the that Nevertheless, landfill. than distances transport longer demand plants incineration the because transportation by caused emissions gas greenhouse larger show 5 and 4 3, Scenarios gases. greenhouse of amount significant a lan that fact the to mainlydue performance, poor show CO2 as expressed (GWP) potential impact warming global the of terms in results research Concerningthe solutions. possible for deadline European bio the of than landfilling later built waste be to Since planned scenarios. are their facilities in incineration included was treatment biological mechanical the Simi incineration. and and MBT recycling, (5) and recycling incineration (4) incineration, and MBT composting, recycling, (3) landfilling, and composting recycling, (2) landfilling, (1) scenarios: five following the identified (2009) (Estonia). SEI Institute Environment Stockholm and (Lithuania) APINI Engineering Environmental of Institute the with collaboration in calibrated and ifrne cue b tasot itne are distances transport by caused differences t al. et - degradable 20; Gentil 2009; ,

waste t al. et - equivalents, scenarios 1 and 2 involving landfilling landfilling involving 2 and 1 scenarios equivalents,

n ihai, hs facil this Lithuania, in , 2009). In terms of the acidification and the the and acidification the of terms In 2009). , sults are similar, so most of the emissions emissions the of most so similar, are sults ts, because biogenic CO2 is not considered to to considered not is CO2 biogenic because ts, 40

Miliute and Kazimieras (2009) highlight (2009) Kazimieras and Miliute dfilling of untreated waste releases releases waste untreated of dfilling larly to the Czech case study study case Czech the to larly

ninfcn i changing in insignificant ity represents one of the the of one represents ity Miliute and Kazimieras Kazimieras and Miliute CEU eTD Collection were cycle for life used Ankara assessment: Model IWM Özeler Turkey Ankara, Located EUcountry butnot inEurope (e.g.tax emissions)shouldbeconsidered onCO2 tax too. incineration of introduction the tax, landfill the alongside that emphasized (2009) Miliute Hungary, with again Comparing burden. environmental reduced a in result would which economic a be would be would it as cans) aluminum bottles, glass other bottles, (PET packaging beverage introd the urges also She decisions. strategic for tool suitable a is LCA that justifies also which process, LCA the decision a establish to was study her of targets main the of One oil. considerabl requires resources material

et al. et

incentive was also highlighted in the Hungarian legislation mentioned earlier, earlier, mentioned legislation Hungarian the in highlighted also was incentive 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. significant

(2005) showed the results of the Ankara research, Ankara the of results the showed (2005) 1 model 1 Collection Collection Collection Selective collection Collection

. Özeler pointed out that in th in that out pointed Özeler .

factor reducing landfilling and extending reuse and recycling. This This recycling. and reuse extending and landfilling reducing factor - - - -

uction of a mandatory deposit system to a wider range of of range wider a to system deposit mandatory a of uction transport transport transport transport –

– – – – transport transport

recycling recycling recycling landfilling

e amounts of raw energy such as coal and crude and coal as such energy raw of amounts e 41

–

landfilling – – -

landfilling composting inci e research the following 5 scenarios scenarios 5 following the research e neration neration

- -

landfilling utilizing landfilling - making system through through system making

the results of the the of results the

CEU eTD Collection Hong China Shanghai, ThereareevenLCA evaluation outside severaltheEuropean incities studies Union. Outside Europe and No.2was favorable. themost incinerati the of 4.because No. was scenario worst the toxicity human the Concerning favorable. most the was scenario 2 No. eutrophication, and acidification the of terms In significantly. most contributed 1 No. global while composting to the of least result the a as contributed warming 5 No. Version consumption. energy biggest the for energy the that accounted collection waswaste the scenario every in but 2, assessment scenario in less was consumption cycle life the of result The planned. were stations transf no 2. and 1. No. versions the in whereas stations were transfer waste centersthe for planned recycling 5, and 4, 3, number versions In recommended. were stations diff into divided was Ankara waste, the of density and amount the on Depending 3. No. is system management waste feasible and recommended most the that showed research The erent regions, and taking into consideration the logistic aspects three waste transfer transfer waste three aspects logistic the consideration into taking and regions, erent et al. 4. 3. 2. 1.

(2006) in China used the following 5 solid waste(2006) inChinamanagement used thefollowing 5solid scenarios:

Biological andmechanicaltreatment Biological andmechanicaltreatment Incineration Landfilling

– –

incineration composting

on on er er

CEU eTD Collection gatheredatinventory the life cycle stage. IWM the of version IWM the was evaluation LCA the in used tool main The and public healthpollution problems. The thefollowing: three inthewere study scenarios which landfilling, is practice common The in that fact awarene the environmental with Kuwait, justified be can amount This 2008. in kg/day) (0.88 Spain and kg/day) (0.95 Italy kg/day), (0.89 France kg/day), (0.93 Belgium kg/day), (0.95 UK e.g. W Solid Municipal of kg/day 1.4 produces Kuwait in citizen average the study their in written is it As waste. solid Al State Kuwait of incinerationgloba that was research the largest the for accounts landfilling and acidification the to level highest the to contributes of result main The potentials. eutrophication The Shanghai. area, environment Pudong in treatment waste t/day 2200 was unit functional The - ae ad etei 20) xmnd h lf cce seset f uat municipal Kuwait of assessment cycle life the examined (2009) Lettieri and Salem 3. 2. 1. l warming and potential. eutrophication l warming

collection collection collection 5. al impact categories were the following: global warming, acidification and and acidification warming, global following: the were categories impact al

Biological andmechanical treatment

- - -

transport transport transpor - 1 model. This model was run for each scenario based on the data data the on based scenario each for run was model This model. 1 t - - -

materials recovery facility materials recovery facility landfilling, landfilling, aste (MSW), which exceeds the major Western countries, countries, Western major the exceeds which (MSW), aste ss is much lower than in Western European countries. countries. European Western in than lower much is ss

poses a serious threat in terms of water and air air and water of terms in threat serious a poses 43

– - -

anaerobic digestionanaerobic incineration landfilling. - 2 model, which is a mod a is which model, 2

- landfilling,

– landfilling.

ified

CEU eTD Collection methods, treatment other with them compared and collection waste selective for analysis made have they communication, personal during stated 2012) (pers.comm István As several Hungarian landfill Kökény site. for options the not are which waste software, for SimaPro specialized or GaBi used typically has Hungary Such in Hungary. research in University Miskolc at teacher university a is she additionally and internationally an also is Tóthné Szita Clara 2007. 3.1.1. (GVOP tender GVOP a within management waste including sector Hungarian the in database LCA the developed Association the Hungary in Association LCA of leaderthe 2012), comm. (pers.István Zsolt to According and construction wastedemolition These asat well. be can found and WEEE, on studies other several are There B.P.). Szabó and T. Lifecyclethe coveredT.) Molnár and R. (Sándorfuels. authors when products, diesel and gasoline Life others: among management, waste solid of aspects different on 2012) pers.comm. K. (Szita 2005 since made been have studies several there Hungary In H of the life cycle assessment. result a as option management waste favored most the was and impact least the reached consuming ofacidification Scenario2was interms Scenario option. theworst potential. 3 1 Scenario and (GWP), Potential Warming Global of terms in best, was 3 Scenario that concluded was it conclusion the In ungarian studies ungarian

management

. Koneczny (et al. 2007) included the analysis of of analysis the included 2007) al. (et Koneczny . ae n eod atog i ws h lat fuel least the was it although second, in came 44 analyzed

the webpage recognized

- 2004 the environm the

assessment - 05 of LCAof Center. - 2830 between 0248/3.0)

expert in LCA research, research, LCA in expert

ental aspects of these these of aspects ental of polystirol (Szita K. (Szita polystirol of - cycle assessment of of assessment cycle

2004 - CEU eTD Collection mainly were however, research, n when produced LCA The worldwide. attention high drawn have systems management waste solid of LCA that prove can studies these conclusion, a As taking account hierarchy. into the waste a tax incineration the but tax landfill the only not implementing suggests also (2009) Miliūtė flaring. with only operate and waste organic accept do sites landfill Hungary,as in case the also is which gases, greenhouse of amount was untreated of landfilling that (2009) Miliūtė by proven been has it and systems, management waste solid from emissions gas greenhouse evaluate to systems management waste solid to used widely been had assessment cycle Life increase collection waste recycling efficiency selective the of rate increased the and distances transport waste plastic and paper of recycling the investigate even can analysis LCA factors. economic and social environmental, different on focused has LCA when cases some are there but GHGs the tar desired the to adjusted been have LCA the of results the Naturally, studies. relevant only few a summarizes above list the years, recent the in prepared been had studies LCA other Several service waste a provid for Hungary in made was research no aware is he as far as however er nor for consecutive months as was performed in this thesis. thesis. monthsaswasinthis er norconsecutive performed for gets. In many cases the aim is to decrease the energy consumption and consumption energy the decrease to is aim the cases many In gets. w at tetet ehooy a big nrdcd fr ntne in instance (for introduced being was technology treatment waste ew

types or the replacement of fuel by biomass. The reduction of the the of reduction The biomass. by fuel of replacement the or types

(Moberg A.2006.)

in either whole countries or select cities. It is common common is It cities. select or countries whole either in

analyze lso, which is again useful in Hungary in useful again is which lso,

h envir the te releases a significant significant a releases te netl impacts onmental

of CEU eTD Collection debate. and research much of subject the and concern environmental international serious a is change Climate Hungarianas well. cities work this following Presumably months. it consecutive in rates selective different the of impacts environmental the analyses as research previous beyond goes LCA waste solid Budapest on thesis present the firs the be would thesis this Hungary in and system, management waste solid their analyzing providers service waste for made been have abroad studies LCA Several important. highly it considers which Law Waste timely really is system management waste solid Budapest of evaluation LCA the that observed be can it studies above the on Based the gaps theliterature in are discussed. sum studies have toallstages applied waste been hierarchy. a analysis More descriptive of and LCA that concluded be can it but reviewed, been not have studies All tax. incineration from drawn re prevention, waste promote to be and to landfilled is that waste the of diversion the promote to important highly is it and impacts th hierarchy, waste the to according that proved results LCA the of Most assessed. be to had options different of aspects environmental the or treatment) MBH for Republic Czech the of case mary of these studies will be evaluated at the end of this topic, in chapter 4.6 when when 4.6 chapter in topic, this of end the at evaluated be will studies these of mary 4.5 hs suis hc hs eeac t Bdps sc a te nrdcin of introduction the as such Budapest to relevance has which studies these e landfilling disposal method is the worst in terms of the environmental environmental the of terms in worst the is method disposal landfilling e

Waste management and its impact on GHG emission GHG on itsimpact and management Waste Global warming (GW) is today one of the highest priorities on the the on priorities highest the of one today is (GW) warming Global

solid waste LCA studies can be made for additional additional for made be can studies LCA waste solid t of them. Compared with the above assessed studies studies assessed above the with Comparedthem. of t

particularly in the light of the new the of light the in particularly 46

- use and recycling. Good advice can be be can advice Good recycling. and use

Hungarian CEU eTD Collection one the ormore following processes: of reduc be can GHGs the USEPA management waste of field the in describes (2002) As emissions. GHG impacts series cycle life this along step every Virtually thesis inthis is discussed As it theproductsteps: includes thefollowing life cycle LCAgenerally environmental on issues. focuses cycle life factors these provi of can (LCA) result assessment a As constraints. regulatory as well as transport, and collection optimized issues, social issues, financing and cost characteristics, and functio the are decisions Local load. environmental lower achieve can options management waste that consequence the mitigation). GHG (including i taking without locally made waste of connection the evaluate often are decisions to management waste the Hungary In warming. global and management recommended highly is it so agenda public 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

materiala waste. whichbecomes or product the of disposed and using, transporting, making, when place take may It fuels. fossil of combustion specifically, consumption, Energy waste management. use byconsumers; and transportation of materialsandproducts markets; to manufacture ofpro extraction and ofraw processing materials; S e decision de trict strategies and financial incentives, however, can have have can however, incentives, financial and strategies trict n of many competing variables, including waste quantity quantity waste including variables, competing many of n nto account quantified measures on the environment environment the on measures quantified account nto ducts; ducts;

- upr tos Hwvr a mnind before, mentioned as However, tools. support 47

ed by affecting affecting by ed

CEU eTD Collection EPA researchwere tothe following shortlisted types thewaste 16items: the in analyzed types waste 40 are there EASEWASTE the In emission. GHG on effect h which preciselytypes waste importantis to the define it repeated alsothat be Itmust decrease andcombustion and landfill increase emissions, forestsequestration. carbon inst various have CH can consumption, energy options for management implications waste different and types waste Different is tree be should removal acceptedas constant. carbon thus and increases, trees in sequestered. stored carbon of amount the so removed, is than grown is biomass more case this in because growth, forest is carbon sequestering CO removing by concentrations warmin global to contribute mechanisms three first the that summarized be can It ance source reduction and recycling of paper products reduce energy consumption, consumption, energy reduce products paper of recycling and reduction source ance 3. 2. 1.

Glass; Steel Cans; Cans; Aluminum 4. 3. 2. But this is really only the ca the only really is this But

that remove theatmosphere carbonfor andit from long store periods. man or natural with associated is It sequestration. Carbon CH forsteel andmanufacturing useinaluminum needed is Lime lime. to converted is limestone when case the in released Non 4 -

emissions fromemissions landfills energy

- eae manu related . h fourth The g. 2

rm h amshr. n vdn eape for example evident An atmosphere. the from atrn eisos Fr ntne hn CO when instance For emissions. facturing se in expanding forest areas, while uptake and uptake while areas, forest expanding in se 48 4

–

emissions, and carbon sequestration. For For sequestration. carbon and emissions, this is themost is this significant GHG release. — abn sequestration carbon add

GHGs to the atmosphere and and atmosphere the to GHGs or concreteor production —

- made processes processes made reduces .

GHG GHG

ave ave

2 CEU eTD Collection product’s life cycle: res (2002) USEPA management. waste from LCA evaluates which study every of objects main sub different t Obviously 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4.

Yard Trimmings. Food and Discards; Medium Lumber;Dimensional Textbooks; Phonebooks; Office Paper; Newspaper; Magazines/Third Corrugated Cardboard; (polyethylenePET terephthalate)Plastic; LDPE (low HDPE (high

earch has earch CO (CO management Waste Manufacturing energy(fossil fuel emission in forest sequestration); carbon changes and emissions, other and energy fuel (fossil acquisition material Raw his list varies from the EASEWASTE waste fractions, but it justifies that the the that justifies it but fractions, waste EASEWASTE the from varies list his - categories of paper, plastic, aluminum cans, glass and kitchen waste are the the are waste kitchen and glass cans, aluminum plastic, paper, of categories 2

- and nitrous oxide (N oxide nitrous and densityFiberboard;

density -

density Plastic; polyethylene) examined the potential for these effects at the following points in a in points following the at effects these for potential the examined

class Mail; class

polyethylene) Plastic;

2 emissions associated with composting,non associatedwith emissions O) emissions from combustion, and CH and combustion, from emissions O)

s); and

emissions - biogenic biogenic CEU eTD Collection ways: following the in production greenhouse the influences generation waste the of source s row top the example, For strategy. management waste each by affected are sinks and sources GHG how shows picture This waste theLCA within emission management onGHG steps. of impact the illustrates which found be can picture following the study USEPA the In

5 . Figure Figure . combustors and landfills. as landfills, and soil in storage carbon by degree some to offset are emissions these landfills); from Greenhouse gas sources and and sources Greenhousegas Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. 2002. Agency. Protection Environmental U.S. Source:

well as avoided utility emissions from energy recovery at at recovery energy from emissions utility avoided as well hows that source reduction, selective collection at the at collection selective reduction, source that hows

sinks 50

associated with the materialcycle life the with associated

CEU eTD Collection i steps (USEPA 2002). emissions all across sinks) (and emissions of sum The managementGHG emission. impact on waste the decreases collection waste selective that proven again is it diagram this From Combustion trimmings) yarddiscards, Composting (food Recycling Source Reduction strategy MSW management

3. 2. 1.

does not result in GHG emissions fromdoes result waste not inGHG management. emissions and acquisition results inanincrease car inforest materials raw from manufacturing; emissions GHG reduces

and transportation Baseline process be manufactured. to these not considered are materials because emissions/sinks, No non avoided process virgin and inputs) manufacture from (compared requirements lower energy dueemissions to Decrease inGHG manufacturing to the baseline of relativeemissions, Decrease inGHG manufacturing and acquisition materials GHGs raw from transportation Process and

- energyGHGs

51 GHG sinks and sources No change carbon storage Increase insoil materials) (for organic carbon sequestration Increase inforest materials) (for organic carbon sequestration Increase inforest carbon storagesoil sequestration or Forest carbon

bon sequestration; and bon sequestration;

n the life cycle represents net net represents cycle life the n

N2O emissions, Non emissions transportation andemissions machineryCompost manufacturing stage counted inthe recycling are associated with emissions transportation Process and No emissions/sinks GHGs management Waste

- biogenic CO2,

CEU eTD Collection of thetotalGHG 1300MtCO emissions,andamountis its post of contribution direct The years. 20 in increase 27% MtCO 550 fromincreasedhave land global of amount The emissions. landfill from originating sector management waste the in sources GHG relevant most the are which emissions methane global Anthropogenic increase. 14% a for accounts which 2009, in ppm 386 CO atmospheric globally, that identified (2011) Gentil bemust recorded which as well, emis CH biggest the is landfilling emission, whereas GHG decreases recycling and reduction source that summarizes table The Landfilling 5 . Table Table . sion. During incineration CO incineration During sion. Components of net emissions for various MSW management strategies and and strategies management MSW various for emissions net of Components

Source: US US Source: inputs virginrecycled and the manufacture from dueemissions to and transportation Baseline process inputs virginrecycled and of the current mix manufacture from emissions current mix of current mix

2 - is required Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. 2002. Agency. Protection Environmental eq in 1990 to 700MtCO 1990 to in eq due to 2 GHG sources and sinks and sources GHG

and NO and 4

mte suc ad opsig ass CO causes composting and source emitter 2 52 to p

are generated, but the avoided fossil fuel use fuel fossil avoided the but generated, are No change

roduce the same amount of energy.roduceamount of thesame 2

ranged from 339 ppm in 1980 to 1980 in ppm 339 from ranged

- 2 consumer waste is less than 5% 5% than less is waste consumer 2 - - eq in 2010, which equates to a whichequatesto 2010, in eq eq

in 2005. fill methane emissions emissions methane fill

emissions and transportation utility emissions, storage, avoided long emissions, CH4 emissions transportation andemissions, avoided utility

- term carbonterm their impact on on impact their

CEU eTD Collection Land Use, Land The emissions. GHG national total the of 5.4% represented sector waste The 2007. in emissions GHG total to 6,9% agriculture in generated are CH sector this In 2007. in (12.5%) second the was agriculture while emissions, gas greenhouse 2007. in emission GHG total the to 75% contributing, sector energy the was sector emitting biggest the far, By carsairlines avoid orinorder CO to environmental the control and measure to difficult that fact the to due justified also is It for account reduction its of takingthesus into principles solution a find to attempt and process this analyze to important is it 2007, in Hungary in emission GHG total the to 5,4% only contributed sector waste the that fact the of spite In 4

and N and 6 . Figure Figure . 2 Source: National Communication to UNFCCC Hungary, 2009. Hungary, UNFCCC to Communication National Source: O emissions are taken into account. 77 % of the total N total the of % 77 account. into taken are emissions O Emissions by sectors in 2007excluding LULUCF, GgCO LULUCF, in2007excluding sectors Emissions by abn ixd fo fsi fes s h lret tm among item largest the is fuels fossil from dioxide Carbon . Industrial processes was the third largest sector contributing sector largest third the was processes Industrial . 2

emission. in the in 53

waste management waste

- Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) (LULUCF) Forestry and Change Use

eei cnr fr ntne ae on taxes instance for contra benefit tainable development. sector it is much more more much is it sector

2 O emissions O

CEU eTD Collection SO as (UNFCCC 2012). such gases greenhouse indirect the for as well as such as: conta UNFCCC the to reported data GHG The fuelfossil avoidance. and efficiency resource and energy improved materials, raw of conservation the through emission pollution the of reduction indirect for potential increasing and important an and recycling minimization, waste addition, In development. sustainable and protection, environmental health, public provide and load environmental the mitigate to available are recovery) gas landfill collection, waste selective as (such technologies environmentally mature, of range wide a sector: this from loads environmental waste Existing was determinedLand. largelybyForest carbon. of sink net a is sector iii.

vi. iv. ii. v. i.

SF6 HFCs PFCs N CH CO - management practices can provide effective mitigation of the the of mitigation effective provide can practices management 2

O 4 2

- – - -

– Sulphur hexafluorideSulphur

Carbon dioxide – Nitrous oxide Methane

Per fluorocarbons Hydro fluorocarbons

In 2007, the net removal was removal net the 2007, In

in estimates for direct greenhouse gases, gases, greenhouse direct for estimates in - 2 4.1 million tons CO tons million 4.1 Nx C and CO NOx, ,

re - use represent represent use - NMVOC NMVOC effe 2 , which , ctive ctive CEU eTD Collection Emissions CO2 Equation: the following2002): (USEPA way CO emitted estimated the for calculation The (Guendehouemissions. CO of emissions CO include emitted gases Relevant greenhousegaslike other emissions, types ofcombustion. Was of Burning Open and Incineration 5: Chapter at Inventories Gas Greenhouse National for Guidelines IPCC 2006 the In getssector only thenegativeimpacts. management waste the so sector, energy the in allocated are this of benefits the that fact due is this of part A textiles). synthetic (plastics; (C) carbon fossil containing waste (N largest MtCO 1300 approximately of emissions total with (<5%) emissions post (2007) Bogner to According Bogner. Jean was chapter this of author lead coordinating The 10) (Chapter management waste on chapter separate a includes III Group Working of Change Climate on Panel Intergovernmental the of Report Assessment Fourth The 2 O); in addition, minor emissions of carbon dioxide (CO dioxide carbon of emissions minor addition, in O);

source is landfill methane (CH methane landfill is source

- consumer waste is a small contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) (GHG) gas greenhouse global to contributor small a is waste consumer

= Σ 2

i (SWi rm at icnrto ae oe significan more are incineration waste from et al. al. et

• dmi 2006). •

CFi CFi

, methane (CH methane ,

• 4 te it can be seen that such practices are sources of of sources are practices such that seen be can it te ), followed by wastewater CH wastewater by followed ), FCFi FCFi 55 2 •

on the total amount of waste incinerated is is incinerated waste of amount total the on OFi) 4

) and nitrous oxide (N oxide nitrous and ) • 44/12

2 ) result from incineration of of incineration from result ) ta CH than t 4 2

- and nitrous oxide nitrous and eq in 2005. The The 2005. in eq 2 O). Normally, Normally, O). 4

n N and

t al., et to the the to 2 O

CEU eTD Collection Emissions CO2 Equation: 2002): CO the waste solid municipal a of case In Where

be specified) must (that others waste, clinical CW: waste, hazardous HW: sludge, sewage SS: ISW: 5.2), Equation using estimated waste, solid industrial not (if waste solid municipal MSW: i =type waste of incinerated/open 44/12 =conversion from CO2 Cto factor OFi factor, =oxidation (fraction) FCFi of fossilcarbon =fraction (fraction) in the total carbon, CFi =fraction (fraction) open or incinerated weight) (wet waste the in content matter dry = dmi burned, Gg/yr open or incinerated weight) (wet i type of waste solid of amount total = SWi inventory = emissionsin Emissions CO2 year,CO2 Gg/yr

MSW

of carbon in the dry of content), carbon (total (fraction) matter carbon • Σ • i (WFj

• dmj •

- CFj CFj 2 burned specified burned specified

emission can be estimated as follows (USEPA follows as estimated be canemission 56 •

FCFj FCFj

• Oji)

as follows: • 44/12

burned, burned, - CEU eTD Collection is biota and soils, waters, atmosphere, Earth’s the through cycle processes natural these that carbon of quantity the as discussed be to needs question This GW. to respect with CO biogenic the whether consideration into taking inclusion the over debate a been has There CO Biogenic WFj 1=with: Σj Where

rubber and metal, waste. glass, other leather,inert plastics, nappies, disposable waste, park and (yard) garden wood, waste, food textiles, MSW the of component = j 44/12 =conversion from CO2 Cto factor OFj factor, =oxidation (fraction) FCFj of fossilcarbon =fraction ofcomponent in thej total carbon CFj =fractioni of carbon burned, (fraction) open or incinerated MSW the of j component the in content matter dry = dmj incinerated open or burned) weight wet (as MSW the in j component of type/material waste of fraction = WFj burned, Gg/yr incin weight wet as waste solid municipal of amount total = MSW inventory = emissionsin Emissions CO2 year,CO2 Gg/yr

emission

n thedrycarbon j (i.e., content) matter ofcomponent

incinerated/open

57 of biogenic CO biogenic of

emission can be regarded as neutral neutral as regarded be can emission - burned such as paper/cardboard, paper/cardboard, as such burned 2

emission into the calculation the into emission

erated or open or erated

- - CEU eTD Collection much as C types waste c the of most and paper for least at (or minimal, is fossil C and total C as much nearlyas is biologicalC the that Budapest in 2009 for composition waste importan is It the C characteristics chemical composition waste the of case the in model EASEWASTE the In overall CO the between distinctions make should one emphasized (2009) Manfredi As growth. plant CO the case this In matter. be should of school One endLCA of the time horizon. the at landfill the in remaining carbon the for calculation and method the on agreement CO the through atmosphere the to back cycle would it conditions, natural under and photosynthesis, by atmosphere the from removed originally was waste biomass other and grass and paper in carbon The an by added quantity the than greater much ircle), however in case of plastic, the C fossil is much higher than C biological, nearly as nearlyas biological, C higherthan ismuch fossil C the plastic, of case in ircle),however

total, the C fossil CO fossil biogenic CO

considered as neutral to GW (GWP=0) because they originate from organic organic from originate they because (GWP=0) GW to neutral as considered 2 –

emission andemission thefollowing twoparts: total (see in the greentotal (see the inscreenshot squarepicture). of t to state this difference, as it can be observed in the screenshot picture of of picture screenshot the in observed be can it as difference, this state to t thought 2 -

emission. biological andthe C 2

emission and and emission

cet ta i a ie yl assmn, ignc CO biogenic assessment, cycle life a in that accepts

2 2

is generated by the same biological uptake of CO of uptake biological same the by generated is erdto proce degradation

fossil are distinguished. arefossil 58 thropogenic GHG sources (USEPA 2002.). (USEPA sources GHG thropogenic

ss Nvrhls, hr i sil o full not still is there Nevertheless, sses.

2 emissions emissions –

see red red see during CEU eTD Collection C as much as biological circle). (red nearly is total C the products, paper the for that seen clearly be can It containers Paper and cardboard Book, phone books Magazines Newsprints Material fraction fractionsSome are highlighted below: 7 . Figure Biological and fossil CO2 in the EASEWASTE model for model EASEWASTE in the fossil and CO2 Biological Figure .

6 . Table Table .

C – Biological and fossil CO2 content of paper fractions ofpaper content CO2 fossil and Biological total (% TS) 41.1 40.6 34.2 44.8

C 59 –

biological (% TS) 40.89 34.03 44.58 40.4

some waste types somewaste C –

fossil (%fossil TS)

0.2055 0.203 0.171 0.224

CEU eTD Collection landfills are counted. CH Likewise, activity. human for not it were cycle the enter not would counter not is release this because CO of emission The forestry (Christensen as well as industry energy the and industry waste whole the affects it also and compost, with amended soils and landfills in stored is which carbon biogenic the acknowledge different However, carbon of modeling LCA on studies recent the of most performed also and model EASEWASTE of school This (Christensen GW. to contribution negative a as indicated CO avoided an consideredas be should landfill CO biogenic of emissions If food. discarded and trimmings, yard paper, included are materials Biogenic square (green total C as much as nearly is fossil C that evident is it nevertheless, plastic, For plastic Non Hard plastic bottles Plastic Soft plastic Material fraction - recyclable ). -

rich waste (for instance: Grant instance: (for waste rich

though is represented by the Danish professors, who developed the the developed who professors, Danish the by represented is though are neutr are

7 .Table .Table

conig rnils r tkn pae n hs suis which studies these in place taking are principles accounting et al., 2

C rm obsin f osl abn ae one, W (GWP=1) GW counted, are carbons fossil of combustion from – Biological and Biological al to GW, then the biogenic carbon which can be found in the the in found be can which carbon biogenic the then GW, to al total (% TS)

2009). -

balanced by a recent uptake of CO of uptake recent a by balanced 79.9 77.2 71 82

fossil CO2 content of plastic fractions ofplastic content CO2 fossil

et al., et

C 60 –

2001; Raymer, 2006; Schmidt Schmidt 2006; Raymer, 2001;

biological (% TS) 2

emission; which means saving should be be saving should means which emission; et al., et 0.3995 0.355 0.386 0.41

2009; Gentil Gentil 2009;

C – 2

so these emissions emissions these so fossil (%fossil TS)

emissions from emissions et al., et et al., et

2009). 2009). 2007). 2007). 70.64 76.81 81.59

79.5

CEU eTD Collection carbon storage. composting sequestration, carbon forest with associated are recycling and reduction source Although on management waste of impact the considers analysis undergo CO converting photosynthesis, forest a in trees instance, For pool. carbon a to atmosphere the from carbon of transfer a represents it because storage carbon from differs nevertheless, sequestration, organ composted for true is same The landfill. the to furniture) (e.g., product a from moved is carbon as storage, carbon landfill respect, this In floor). decades several over or process combustion a during CO as released be eventually would carbon biogenic the as long as them records CO of timing the between difference any make not does approach is this how in discrepancy not is there and well, CH to conducive conditions anaerobic creates which waste, the landfilling of activity human the for not it were emitted be not would source the though Even cycle. natural in carbon’s balances disrupting by climate the alter to potential the have and activities human from resulting are emissions anthropogenic the highlights (2002) USEPA as However, — n atclr appli particular, in

abn trg mas ht adild rai mtras eut in result materials organic landfilled that means storage carbon 2

in the atmosphere to carbon in biomass. USEPA (2002) USEPA biomass. in carbon to atmosphere the in ain f ops t dgae soils degraded to compost of cation ics that lead to carbon storage in soil. Carbon Carbon soil. in storage carbon to lead that ics 61

formation. f abn s rmrl boei, CH biogenic, primarily is carbon of

assessed.

(e.g., decomposition on the forest the on decomposition (e.g., EASEWASTE covers this as this covers EASEWASTE forest carbon sequestration. sequestration. carbon forest t ut e oe ta this that noted be must It 2

— msin, o it so emissions, enhances soil soil enhances 2 , even even , 4 CEU eTD Collection landfills waste regional Green Hungarian the of production gas methane the on study The due totheir smallsignificance. N for provided is methodology No 9. Figure in illustrated are 1. Emissions (2002)USEPA occur may emissions GHG following the landfill the in picture this in seen be can it As 4. 3. 2. 1.

- Con (2007) calculates the GHG emission according to the IPCC Tier 1. 1. Tier IPCC the to according emission GHG the calculates (2007) Con without energywithout generation). CO of Emission of CO Emission Direct CH of emission Direct CO of emission

and 3. and :

are biogenic and thus not included in the model. These four sources sources four These model. the in included not thus and biogenic are 8 2 . Figure Sources of carbon emission in a landfill ina emission carbon of Sources Figure .

Source: Source: 2 from CH

rm eoee CH recovered from 4 2

European Environmental Agency2011a. Environmental European from anaerobic biodegradation from anaerobic biodegradation 4

oxidized inthe top oxidized lay 62

which is oxidized by flaring (with or or (with flaring by oxidized is which ers

emissions from landfills from emissions

CEU eTD Collection in 2007 and 1990 generallybeenhavebetweendecreasing emissions GHG that observed Itbecan calculatecan thefollowing it,but statements be determined: 2.5 of chapter in following the included 2005 in phase submission its during Study, Feasibility system management waste Dráva Mecsek The projects, recent scrutinized intensely most differen the calculate to used assessment cycle life no is there Hungary, in systems management co Union European present the In impactsinclude other environmental focuses study this However methodology.

these yearsthese between

in most EU countries EU most in

“Emission indicators: There is no data for the climate change so we are not able to able not are we so change climate the for data no is There indicators: “Emission t environmental impacts of solid waste management. For example, one of the the of one example, For management. waste solid of impacts environmental t Biogas Notsolved.” treatment: Methane: is ofitsvolume All CO 2 : All ofitsvolume: All is emitted tothe air (noand collection treatment). the

countries . The following table shows the total aggregate GHG emission emission GHG aggregate total the shows table following The .

. participating in theUNFCCCparticipating report in -

financed Cohesion Fund for regional solid waste waste solid regional for Fund Cohesion financed

emitted tothecollection air (no and treatment).

only on methane production and does not not does and production methane on only

CEU eTD Collection sustainable encourage to order practices andconsumption, production withmore inconnection efficient resource use. in policies waste existing of extension the a through and regulations, existing of implementation full to transition a follows: as listed are opportunities Development improvement. further for potential still is there reduced, considerably been have environment the on treatment waste of impacts the Although 9 . Figure Total aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of Annex I Parties 1990 IParties Annex of emissions greenhousegas aggregate Total Figure . Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2012 Change Climate on Convention Framework Nations United Source: 64

- 2009

lso lso

CEU eTD Collection be seen here. extracted capitab graph The decreasing. steadily is emission 2009 and net 1990 GHG between the of amount the generally that shows graph The Slovakia. and r are emissions, of source largest the Bulgariaand Hungary,levels emissionsof Denmark the while secondlyKingdom, United is Poland that observed be can it countries Union European Western or Eastern other with Hungary comparing when that shows table The elatively low in comparison. The smallest emissions totals are produced in Slovenia, in produced are totals emissions smallest The comparison. in low elatively asis for a more accurate comparison between the different countries, but trend cantrend but countries, different the between comparison accurate morea for asis Source: European Environmental Agency 2010b. Agency2010b. Environmental European Source: 10 . Figure Greenhouse gas net emission (CO2 equivalent emission (CO2 net Greenhousegas Figure .

in selected countries 1990 countries in selected 65

EEA greenhouse gas data viewer gas data EEAgreenhouse - 2009

hud e ple o a per a on applied be should )

CEU eTD Collection atotherlike this including countries, Hungary. a Poland of case in high still is sites disposal waste unmanaged from emission GHG of rate The countries. represented the of all in increasing is water waste commercial and domestic of rate the Also, dropped. been GHG the that reason the to due tons) 17 aroundisvalue this 2009 whereasin tons million 58 was it UKdecreased (in GHG the figures: these from drawn (199 period year nineteen this During figures. two these of data the between differences years 19 are There other. each with countries different the compare to order in basis capita per on based be should also figures These 11

Figure All GHG emission from the waste sector, selected countries, (million tons) 1990 tons) (million selected countries, sector, waste from the All GHG emission Figure Source: author own author Source: nd Romania, whereas there is no visibly seen value value seen visibly no is there whereas Romania, nd emissi contribution based on EEAon 2010b based contribution msin rm h wse etr has sector waste the from emission 66 on from managed waste disposal on land has land on disposal waste managed from on

- 2009) the following consequences can be be can consequences following the 2009)

drastically drastically . 6 million 6

CEU eTD Collection treatment wastewater from decreased further. emissions while importance gained incineration waste years, recent In land. on disposal waste solid was category largest the years, the all In 12 . Figure All GHG emission from the waste sector, selected countries, (million tons) 2009 tons) (million countries, selected sector, waste fromthe All GHG emission Figure 13 . Figure All Figure .

Source: author own contribution contribution own author Source: Source: author own contribution based on EEAon 2010b based contribution own author Source: Greenhouse gas emission in the waste sector, Hungary, 1990 Hungary, sector, waste inthe emission Greenhousegas 67

based on EEAon 2010b based

CEU eTD Collection Hungary, and commercial whiledomestic wastewater has dropped. be increased has landfilling waste managed and waste incineration from emission the GHG the of that stated conclusion be must a it graphs As two these not. of comparison or included is incineration waste hazardous whether waste onlyMSW (the incinerationBudapest the from emission GHG the analyzing drawnby be can picture interesting An years. these during increased was incineration the of capacity whi increased, incineration from emissions GHG definition. further needs disposal waste Managed down. shut were requirements EU with compliant not sites landfill several when 2009 after years the from drawn be can picture interesting on disposal waste managed to due increased were contributions GHG years: 19 these in tendencies following the conclude can we Hungary on Focusing - to - energy 14 . Figure All Greenhouse gas emission in the waste sector, Hungary, 2009 Hungary, sector, waste inthe emission All Greenhousegas Figure .

aiiy n ugr) ewe ad aft and between Hungary) in facility Source: author own contribution based on EEAon 2010b based contribution own author Source: 68

r h rnvto. t s o clear not is It renovation. the er ch is a natural result as the as result natural a is ch tween 1990 and 2009 in in 2009 and 1990 tween

land. However, a very very a However, land.

CEU eTD Collection long of lack the waste to and due mostly but guides methodological different the in inaccuracy the use to due generation resource between links direct up set to difficult is it However, waste. tur later or sooner is which of much EU, the in person per annually used are 16 average, in data (2010a.) Agency Environmental European of basis ver not often and the On use. materialclosely to is linked recycling prevention) waste(and effective. Waste sparse been have generation waste reduce to policies pressures, environmental reduce to highestpotential the has prevention Although resources. cycleof life the of stages all during impacts environmental reduce help can prevention Waste those incurredrecycling inthe processes. than greater are recovery and recycling by avoided impacts overall the cases most in impacts, environmental have also processes recycling Although processes. production in ener from emissions gasgreenhouse and pollution air and extraction; materials raw primary from impacts landfills; from methane as such installations treatment waste from emissions pressures: environmental of types three reduce primarily can policies Waste GHGContext recycling and of emission emitting sectors. GHG all of rate reduction highest the 1990, since % 34 by decreased have 27 EU the tha out pointed is which (2010a) Agency incineration, Environmental European evaluations. LCA waste the in considered the however, to due production electricity conventional of use t figure This akes into account only direct contributions, and does not factor in avoided avoided in factor not does and contributions, direct only account into akes t greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills and waste incinerators in incineratorsin waste and landfills from emissions gas(GHG) greenhouse t -

em time term - eis aa (uoen niomna Agency Environmental (European data. series

tons

2010a.) The The 2010a.) of materials materials of ned into into ned gy use gyuse y - - CEU eTD Collection European suchascountries, Germany Denmark, Unionrespectively. r recycling Hungary In lower. much is materials virgin the for need the as emission GHG on savings means Recycling Environmental Agency 2010a). (European materials. virgin for demand the reducing by 2008 in emissions equivalent a avoidedhave to estimated is EU27 the in waste municipal of recycling the addition, In emissions. less and use resource lower in results typically management waste good therefore Directive, Framework Waste EU the in presented Re more resources. and more using is Europe terms, absolute In affluence. increasing and growth economic to linked closely are Europe in generation waste and use resource overall in increases - use, recycling and recovery follow waste prevention prevention waste follow recovery and recycling use, 15 . Figure Impact of the waste processes on the CO the on processes waste the Impact of Figure .

Source: Source: European Environmenta European

ate is rather low, compared to the developed Western Western developed the to compared low, rather is ate 70

l Agency2011b. l 2

equivalent, EU, 1995, 2008 1995, EU, equivalent, in the EU Waste Hierarchy as as Hierarchy Waste EU the in round 47 million million 47 round

tons

of CO of 2 -

CEU eTD Collection 2002.) methanelandfills.(USEPA from emissions reducedof the because 2008,mostlyand 1995 % between by37 and dropped Switzerland Norway plus 27 EU the in sector management waste the from emissions GHG potential national to According (UN Change FrameworkonClimate United Nations reports Convention tothe environment. the on waste of pressures the mitigated clearly 10 last the in countries European Western some in realized a moreand recyclingprev singular tointegrating landfilling dependency on from shift to policy, related and sector management waste the in trend present The ar causedfugitive methane by the (Gugele emissions which management, waste from emissions GHG overall the of 2/3 about EU the account waste in resulted stricter directions These policies. the to due decreased by been followed savings had GHG Landfilling net incineration. biggest the far by is which 2008 and 1995 between amount enormous an in increased been has recycling of rate the that shows figure This - 15 countries for the year 2005, we can state that landfills account for for account landfills that state can we 2005, year the for countries 15

decreasing decreasing 71

net GHG emission in 2008. in emission GHG net

et al. , 2007; Skovgaard , 2007;Skovgaard – 15 years. This shift has has shift This years. 15 ention, has been ention, et al., management management Taking into into Taking FCCC), the FCCC), the e mainly mainly e 2008).

CEU eTD Collection earlier study. inthis described as implemented, be will tax landfill the Hungary in and Directive, Framework legislation Hungarian present The emissions. policies, EU of sternness g greenhouse banwill result inless landfill Frameworknamely Directive, the Waste the increased the to due that visualized is It emissions. GHG on impact significant a have policies management waste that shows clearly figure The 16 . Figure Impact of the different waste policies on GHG emission, EU emission, GHG on policies waste different the Impact of Figure

Source: European Environmental Agency2011b. Environmental European Source: 72

s n ul compliance full in is

with the Waste Waste the with

as as CEU eTD Collection Budapest. of islands waste the poor. also is fractions Because waste these of recycling the and separately collected not are textiles and wood Hungary In textiles. and wood evaluated he glass of instead however by made study recent a In respectively. glass and plastic, metal, cardboard, and paper waste, been have collection separate to approaches different and rate separation of levels Varying eventually values reach resulting negative savings. innet might however, it value; positive a still is emission GHG Netrecycling. of rate higher the future the in decrease to projected are and 1990 since decreasing have GHG emissions net that shows clearly figure this figures, previous the of results the Following aar ( Calabro osdrd n hs eerh hl fcsn o te s the on focusing while research this in considered

of this the current study evaluates glass waste, which is collected sepa collected is which waste, glass evaluates study current the this of 17 . Figure Impact of the differe the Impact of Figure . 09 te it f h sprt cletd ifrn wse ye ae simil are types waste different collected separate the of list the 2009) Source: European Environmental Agency2011b. Environmental European Source: Calabro’s nt waste treatment methods on GHG emission methods GHG treatmenton waste nt 73 pno i ta i trs f h patc the plastic the of terms in that is opinion

eparate collection of organic organic of collection eparate

rately in in rately

due to to due

ar, CEU eTD Collection distances (landfilltransport facilities donot the wastetreatment whilethe andincinerator) inf are potential warming global including impacts, environmental the of most of terms in both that stated be can it literature review literature the on Based aspects. practical as well as theoretical the in gaps identify helped review literature above The wastephasesas alsotypesor but organic for suchhazardous other waste. etc.) landfilling incineration, recycling, (prevention, treatment waste solid municipal focusi only not model, EASEWASTE the with made been have studies several addition, In publications. journal scientific contemporary the in used widely is method this also but model, this with familiar is author the that reason m EASEWASTE the by made were which studies LCA account thatthis into taken In be summary, must it e (for manufacturing isneeded and lime CO emissions process other of the avoidance of because also but process production the in needed energy the of reduction the Skovgaard r significantly materials, raw secondary of production the and recycling, that proven been has it review literature the on Based residual waste. the in materials combustible of percentage the in decrease a to led has rate separation t obvious Itis plastic. virgin with competitive not often are cost and quality its because industry the for attractive hardly is material raw secondary produced et al. et

4.6 , 2008; Choate 2008; ,

Gaps in the literature Gaps inthe et al. et , 2005; USEPA, 2002). It takes place not only due to to onlydue not place Ittakes 2002). USEPA, 2005; , 2

is emitted whenis emitted tolime). limestoneisconverted 74 educes GHG emissions (see for example example for (see emissions GHG educes

ape uig te and steel during xample research g n ifrn lvl o the of levels different on ng odel, not only because of the the of because only not odel,

focused predominately on the the focused predominately on hat the increase in the the in increase the hat

luenced by by luenced aluminum

CEU eTD Collection gapsThese indetailexplained as follows: are reviewing followinggaps theliterature were the identified: ( results environmental the in difference big make 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

iit (09 ad oi n Teaoa 21) r a ecpin focusing exception, an are (2011) Trecakova and Koci and (2009) Miliūtė b conducted study The rare. relatively is city, metropolitan a in especially a cycle life the of experience the on literature Europe, outside performed that even st relevant the of most while Furthermore, lackon theobtainedand dataofproper datagathering may occur. skeptical remain must researcher the that warned documents review Literature that reason the to due dependency, this for determined not were numbers Exact and respectively theenvironmentalimpacts. trends the showing months, different for LCA the analyzed which literature stud no were There data. yearly the from made are mostly evaluations LCA evaluations LCA the in methodology are and and thescenarios interpreted discussed as neglected, are issues policy rare analy direct the the scientific hardly Europeancountries, publications Eastern included place often, takes to seems inaccuracy data or data proper of lack chapters, conclusion the i was it

every single research project is unique and based on different data. data. different on based and unique is project research single every

dentified in the literature that literature the in dentified ssessment

sis between greenhouse gas and selective waste collection is collection waste selective and gas greenhouse between sis

f h Esen uoen at mngmn systems, management waste European Eastern the of 75

exact data were not provided but only at at only but provided not were data exact udies focus on Western research, or research, Western on focus udies Moberg 2006). 2006). Moberg

However, during during However,

ies in the the in ies

y CEU eTD Collection

4. 3.

whether toimplement. is realistic scenario thatspecific or impossible mentioning without scenarios some and methodology the on Publications focus literature. mostly reviewed the in included hardly are issues Policy date results. Ag Environmental European the of maps interactive (Christensen studies some in detail in discussed is CO2 biogenic the of question crucial the Moreover, issues. encom collection waste selective the and segregation waste of importance the on be both needed would analysis and research More research. my in topic distinguished awhich is 2011) Gentil (USEPA2002; collection selectivewaste andGHGs of theliteratureGaps were also in specifically present focusing In fee. product and (2009)addition as Miliūtė suggest well. tax incineration an tax landfill namely: Hungary, in agenda legislative same the (2009) Miliūtė by elaborated research the In cities. Hungarian some in located mechanical first establishm the considering is country the that claims research Czech The situation. Hungarian the to similar very is which 2011) Trecakova and (Koci 2006 in 75% was landfilling Republic Czech the In countries. European waste the as technolog research and present structure the management for relevant be would studies these Nevertheless, respectively. Republic Czech the and Lithuania on studies their economic

- biological treatment plant, technology which is presently presently is which technology plant, treatment biological asn wse rvnin n lnfl dvrin related diversion landfill and prevention waste passing

incentives are recommended which are on the political and political the areon arewhichrecommended incentives 76

t al. et ies are similar that of other Eastern Eastern other of that similar are ies 20; Gentil 2009; , ency also provided up provided also ency

t al. et on the connection on theconnection , 2009). The The 2009). , ent of the of ent

- to - CEU eTD Collection attitude ofother large the into insight gain to opportunity an provides capital the also and field this in runner k any or in engage not leaders do cities most municipal planners, policy as as context, Hungarian the in especially necessary well is approach This experts. technological as makers decision to solutions nece a is systems management ofwaste cycle assessment thatlife proven Generally been literature has from review it the scenariosanalyzed consulted with thedecision and are listed which been have theoretical. just or scenarios real are scenarios listed whetherthe explanations no are there cases several in that is author the of view of point the general in as discussed also is issues policy the regarding gap research th in detail in evaluated are emission gas greenhouse 1 appr. with 2006 years the the addressing approach, comparative a provide to aims research current the literature, the in gaps mentioned the of identification the After 5.

months datamonths andconsequence asimpact. environmental a their uniq quite seems research present the therefore basis, yearly a for standard elaborated be is LCA to the that seems practice It months. different on based LCA of analysis the included which literature no was there that emphasis to required is it Finally, . 7 million inhabitants. The environmental impacts, particularly the the particularly impacts, environmental The inhabitants. million 7 - 01 Te uhr conduct author The 2011.

municipalities. municipalities. ssary and desirable process. Such a study can provide provide can study a Such process. desirable and ssary ind of life cycle assessment. Budapest is the front front the is Budapest assessment. cycle life of ind ue work in terms of the elaboration of the different different the of elaboration the of terms in work ue

In the case of the present research, only those those only research, present the of case the In ed 77

an LCA evaluation of a metropolitan city city metropolitan a of evaluation LCA an

trends in the different months between months different the in trends e present thesis. The mentioned mentioned The thesis. present e

- makers.

CEU eTD Collection compromising theabilityoffuturegenerations meet to their own needs.” therefoThe Commission to leads often development deterioration, inthe quality people's notanimprovement, of lives. economic that fact the to Bruntland attention (the drew Development Commission) and Environment on Commission Nations United the 1987 in report Bruntland the in published first was development” “sustainable of idea The environment. global the of future the discuss to together nations developing and developed brought which Stockholm, in 1972 in Environment’ ‘Human on Conference t was environment, human the on meeting international major first The system. complex the in practice and ideology the locate clearly to order in definitions different the define to necessary is it problem, research the and topic main the discussing Before life cyclea also and assessment impact environmental development, sustainable includes it policies: following the with compliance its account into taking while evaluated be can research relevant the includes theo which The interaction. their used and policies be environmental will framework theoretical a aim, this reach To model. EASEWASTE throughthe Budapest in technologies and managementsystems the analyze to is research the of aim The 5

„a form of sustainable development which meets the needs of the present without without present the of needs the meets which development sustainable of form „a Theoretical framework ssessment 5.1

Sustainable development Sustainable .

re calledfor

environmental impacts of different waste waste different of impacts environmental retical framework for the present present the for framework retical

e UN he , when when , CEU eTD Collection design integrate and will nature science urbanization that preservation. other affected intheir daily lives. and resources natural of use the over decisions make groups some It as fail conventionally conceived, toprotect howmarkets, examines the environment generations future of behalf on capital natural save to need the with itself concerns It biodiversity. meanings disciplinar indifferent and environmentalism particular has global and concept reaching far a is It equity, making." decision guide must biodiversity futurity, of principles which in philosophy, sus that defines (1995) Basiago priority waste ofthe prevention. hierarchy,which iswaste first the by mainly resources, natural account into takes approach management waste This involve pollutingnor shouldit (Seafield theenvironment. Research) Itminority. making beabout should lifeforeveryone better and Thereasare part issues ofthis: twokey

s ihy motn i te ae f at mngmn sses a te sustainable the as systems, management waste of case the in important highly is In planning, it is the process of urban revitalization where there is a pursuit of a a of pursuit a is there where revitalization urban of process the is it planning, In where situations in justice environmental of advance the involves it sociology In n for accounting favor who those by advanced is it economics In of protection the with associated be to come has sustainability biology, “In resources, natural our up using recklessly or destroying involve not should this a profits bigger about just not is development

y settings: anblt cn e rgre a tnaon t a new a to tantamount as "regarded be can tainability

nd higher standards of living for a a for living of standards higher nd

atural resources. resources. atural

groups are are groups

CEU eTD Collection strategy development sustainableand environmental agendaof global ormeeting national Sustainable on Summit Devel World the for Johannesburg in was issue this in conference atmosphere and forests R the since progress the reviewed York New at conference The 1997. Conference York New the at diminished 1992 Conference Rio the during generated was that enthusiasm The can there be then hasanyresults. saidthatsince hardly been major many however sustainability, a than following.More results promised the with met not havedeclarations of development the in milestone a was meeting This of ‘coming age’ of movement. of theinternational environmental start official the as considered 1992 be the awareness; environmental international may 1972 in Conference Stockholm the If sustainable on declaration global first the development.the strategy The threepriority areas in were: indicated as to referred been This century. often 21st has the meeting of policy important most the be to in development Summit sustainable Earth Rio the was issue this in meeting next The whether guideareor should howthis apart they of, nature,and moral part from, choice.” ponder humans where domain the probes This resources. natural of use’ ‘sustainable

io Summit 1992, and found that the the that found and 1992, Summit io opment, in September 2002. This approach called for auditing our efforts for for efforts our auditing for called approach This 2002. September in opment, Sustainable utilization ofSustainable utilization speciesecosystems. and Preservationgenetic of diversity M preserv alternatively means it ethics, environmental In aintenanceecological essential of processes has not been increased significantly. increased been not has

environmental quality of our our of quality environmental 80

Rio Earth Summit represented a partial partial a represented Summit Earth Rio

The The

ation, conservation or or conservation ation, following

92 ht proclaimed that 1992

planet’s oceans, oceans, planet’s

decade later it it decade later

international

CEU eTD Collection making etc.), driven pricesetc.) Incase waste planning systemsapplies thesustainable management theoryto of this capital. natural conserving and settlements human regenerating equity, social working economy, natur of loss the for accounting systems, biological of the integrity maintaining time same the at and needs, human meet to way a finds it if succeed a these mentioned only will humanity that outlines criteria ‘sustainability’ Such sustainability. documentsof definitions and very be publications to many considered in are as (1995.), influential Basiago by set principles, basic in not The but practice. theory in only reached been has principle development” „sustainable the the between that seems it literature, mentioned the to According minority (Hargitai 2012). and forcontinuous negotiation demandtheEU atleast a from ministry’s in stayed level in strict T obligations. any without wishes with only up ended and failure a as regarded is conference Devel Sustainable on Conference Nations K.G (Anil met. been not have targets set previously the that determined easily be can it as . and Yunus M. 2004) M. Yunus and .

social equity (working power, decrease the unemployment, democratic decision democratic unemployment, the decrease power, (working equity social economic biological thepresentand (tosave flora faun systems

he protection of oceans, and over fishing was blocked by USA and Canada, Canada, and USA by blocked was fishing over and oceans, of protection he

iblt (o cost (not viability

. The latest conference in this issue was the Rio +20 United United +20 Rio the was issue this in conference latest The . - effective projects, affordable waste fee, market market fee, waste affordable projects, effective 81 pet ewe 20 between opment

a etc.), period of 1972 and 2002 2002 and 1972 of period - al resources from the the from resources al

22 June 2012. This This 2012. June 22 s the basic basic the s

- CEU eTD Collection II. inAnnex listed projects for used be must screening whereas I., Annex in listed projects all to applied EIA mandatoryImpactDirective (EC 1985) Assessment As the Environmental The environment.” effects following ofa projectonthe factors: the on effects significant indirect and direct the assess and identify,describe will assessment impact have environmental to likely are which projects ef environmental the of assessment the to apply shall Directive “This states: 1985) (EC Directive Assessment Impact Environmental the As significant likely the describe environmental a impactsproject. of can that process a is assessment environmental The takes account into avoidancefor andgeneration.future pollution thepresent the management in treated is waste that waste means sustainable practice common and studies different to According be taken consideration. into excessive cost)

and environmental aspects (waste principles, waste prevention etc.) must always must etc.) prevention waste principles, (waste aspects environmental and technolog available best example (for aspects technical 5.2

Environmental impact assessment impact Environmental

soil, water,soil, thelandscape, air,and climate huma material heritage. cultural assets andthe their interaction indents, aboveinthe first listed andsecond

the most environmentally friendly way possible, which also also which possible, way friendlyenvironmentally most the n beings, fauna and flora,n beings,faunaand

fects of those public and private private and public those of fects

y not entailing the the entailing not y have to be tobe have

CEU eTD Collection Instruments policytheEIA ofenvironmental within are: The are stages SEA and ofthefollowing: EIA the mainin two Environmental forms: exists assessment impactstheir potential to theservice and exchanges these ascribe to and provided, is service the which in way the by caused qu and identify to product, the by provided service “ as: defined be can product a of assessment Environmental

construct road plan, development resource water policy, management waste policy, energy an (e.g. programs and plans policies, of (SEA) assessment environmental Strategic power plants etc.) Environmental impa

and tomitigate them, impacts environmental adverse the anticipate to is purpose their Anticipatory: Monitoring. Decision making, andpublicparticipation,Consultation ImpactPreparation Environmental of Statement, the Mitigation, Prediction, Scoping, Screening, ion program (Bellinger

ct assessment (EIA) of individual projects (e.g. road construction, construction, road (e.g. projects individual of (EIA) assessment ct

” (Wenzel et al.” 1997). (Wenzel et et al. 2000) 83

niy h evrnetl exchanges environmental the antify

o eie n qatf the quantify and define to

CEU eTD Collection impactshuman or on c even or eutrophication potential, warming global as such EIA, the and LCA the of case in different are categories impact other Several needed. not is participation public LCA le is and participation public site not is LCA while installations, the surrounding environment site highly is EIA whereas disruption, physical of forms different on focus strong has often and impacts environmental relevant all account into takes EIA options. several of comparison for mostly is LCA while plants, industrial or environmental the of assessment an is EIA Generally impacts. local immediate the at looks only but operation the on perspective site highlynormally in an from impacts environmental of assessment is EIA mainThe the life and differencesEIA cycle are follows: between assessment as EIA process. re a the to similar as is way this in and mediums, environmental different and to load environmental stages similar includes assessment cycle life The

oslain n pbi priiain ehd we udraig the undertaking when methods assessment (Bellinger participation public and consultation and analysis technical and scientific both use they participative: and Technical in oneenvironmenta occurring those only not impacts environmental all consider they Integrative:

- specific and predicts actual effects on humans and ecosystems in the the in ecosystems and humans on effects actual predicts and specific - specific in contrast to LCA and it normally does not take a life cycle cycle life a take not normallydoes it LCAand to contrast in specific ultural heritage. ultural gally required in many parts of the world, while in case of of case in while world, the of parts many in required gally l medium, l medium, et al. et

2000). the model output in LCA is restricted. Normally, Normally, restricted. is LCA in output model the

84 impacts caused by major construction works construction major by caused impacts

stallation or local operation. It is is It operation. local or stallation - specific. EIA involves involves EIA specific. ut lo hw the shows also sult

CEU eTD Collection including: (LCA) assessment analy cycleLCA, inventory life the ofthe scope goaland definition of the cycle life for framework and principles the 14040:2006 describes ISO This 2006. 14040: ISO by revised been has standard in this and 1997, step important of regulations The an LCA. of methods was and procedures consolidating 14043:2000) ISO ISO14042:2000, 14041:1999, ISO 14040:1997, (ISO assessment cycle life for standards international of development The ISO standards. fr which in system management environmental only the is LCA that is important most the of one reasons several among and planning, environmental in tool analysis common most the be likelyto LCA is analysis environmental within highlighted, process. (LCIA) Assessment Impact Cycle Life with elaborated are impacts environmental the of evaluation and estimations quantitative LCA, the Within oth that prove can LCAenvironmentally friendly. tomake can befield. explorative used studiesinthis they LCA, through if hierarchy waste from away shift to states member the allows directive framework waste the of part A and decision making. research management waste to integrated more becoming are methods (LCA) assessment disposal. and use distribution, production, resources, of extraction including products of cycle life whole the evaluating for developed initially was and resources of consumption and impactsenvironmental evaluatingforthe tool a is cycle Lifeassessment 5.3

Life cycle assessment Life cycle

er versions are more more are versions er ames are defined in in defined are ames

the LCA begin in in begin LCA the As Benkő (2009) (2009) Benkő As sis (LCI) phase, (LCI) phase, sis

Life - cycle

- CEU eTD Collection defines study. ofthe thepurpose and activity the precedes which scoping, or initiation called element fourth a added Some resource LCAThe has de been assessing for models accurate and conservation from wasteenvironmental emissions andmanagement. detailed more for need the created has the energy renewable for but demand increasing the world, and management the waste of complexity of parts major in management waste governed long has hierarchy Waste The systems. management waste solid assessing in tool important an se to becoming is (LCA)Lifewaste. cycleassessment solid of amount particular a oftreatment applied be also can but products, material analyzing been for mainly developed has LCA standardization. and harmonization of level certain a reached has and 1990s the during rapidly developed (LCA) assessment cycle life Environmental LCA forthe useof valueconditions choices phases,and and opti phase, interpretation cycle life reportingLCA, andLCA, of critical review ofthe the thebetween limitations relationship the phase, (LCIA) assessment impact cycle life the

may bothquantitative and include qualitative mea It product. the of cycle life whole the throughout burden environmental the reduce to opportunities and need the of evaluation systematic a assessment: Improvement differentenvironmental load eff the assess and characterize to process quantitative a assessment: Impact the life cycle the process of data a Inventory: - fined asfined comprising threeinterrelated components: (Curran 1996) based process of qualifying the environmental releases throughout throughout releases environmental the qualifying of process based

sures ofimprovement. onal elements.

rvices, e.g. e.g. rvices, ects of the of ects increasing

CEU eTD Collection 3. 2. 1. steps (together with from theaddendums Abeliotis 2010and Moberg A.2006.): 4 following the has Assessment Cycle Life the standard 14040 ISO the to According

Impact Assessment This step focusesThis step the requireddata onall input of Life cycle impact assessment Life cycle inventory objectives and also thefunctional units this In Goal andscopedefinition According to these components the LCAAccording the components conceptual thefollowing: tothesemodel is

case not only the goal and scope must be defined but as well as the system the as well as but defined be must scope and goal the only not case

- LCI Goal Definition 18 and Scoping

. Inventory Figure The LCA conceptual model TheLCAconceptual Figure Source: Source: -

LCIA Curran, Mary Ann1996 Mary Curran,

87 Assessment Improvement

CEU eTD Collection and thesocial ofBudapest ofscope evaluation isout waste selective ofthisresearch. be re this can In described. development sustainable therefore follows, LCA social the and analysis cost asse cycLCA=life Sustainable formula: following total the LCA consider we If management systems. waste different of characteristics the evaluating for adapted properly be to proven not cycle life product for established were they as systems management t of structure the therefore purposes different for developed been has GaBi) as (such software such but systems, management analyzing waste for software LCA normal the use to made been have attempts Hungary In 4.

The evaluation ofthe Itsbe determined.are thefollowing: mainpoints must impacts environmental potential the of significance the and size the case this In Life cycle interpretation ss ment LCA analysis includes the cost and the social analysis as well as analysis social the and cost the includes analysis LCA

(SLCA)

Characterization, Classification, Determining impact categories, the . The initial phase of the process is the environmental LCA, while the the while LCA, environmental the is process the of phase initial The .

search, however, only the environmental part is part environmental the only however, search,

within the sustainable development framework it must be stated that stated be must it framework development sustainable the within utial LA = LCA Sustainable

results is theimportanttask is results phase.in this le asse le

ss ment

(LCA)

88 LCA+LCC+SLCA (Szita 2010) meaning: meaning: 2010) (Szita LCA+LCC+SLCA

he model is not detailed enough for waste waste for enough detailed not is model he + life cycle cost cycle life +

(LCC)

analyzed

assessment + social life cycle life social +

according to the the to according , as the cost the as , . It has has It .

CEU eTD Collection following steps: the includes basically which assessment, cycle life a to similar are result of levels The cycleLife LCAamongall, reliable and most thorough isconsidered evaluation. as the summary In necessary. are knowledge and software special EFT the and LCA the For EFT. for not but CFT and LCA to relevant is ISO standards international the Regarding Resource use Energy demand warming potential Global Eutrophication Changes inlanduse Acidification changeClimate impacts environmental Considered life ecological cycleassessment,the carbon the footprint is footprintand the of table comparison the out pointed (2012.) Biczó As (EFP). footprint ecological the and (CFP) footprint carbon the from different are assessment cycle life for indicators The

assessment of solid assessment solid managementsystems of waste

Table Table

Comparison + + + + + + + Emissions LCA

2012. Biczó on Based

of LCA, carbon footprint and ecological footprint footprint ecological and footprint carbon LCA, of

+ Emissions (CFT) footprint Carbon +

++ + occupation impact Area (EFP) footprint Ecological +

the following:

CEU eTD Collection product: life different the of scoping the in consider to relevant be may aspects following the system, management waste a For etc. incinerator an plant, composting facili recovery material vehicles, collection include could units technical The disposal. and recycling treatment, collection, as such system management waste whole the in place take which activities all involve would it system, management waste a In LCA2006) pointedinthewaste outthatsector since management has used been ( Güereca planning. strategical and making decision in role important very a plays it as evaluations management waste for used been typically has Assessment Cycle Life environmentrecycling aswell asand energy balances (Damgaard 2006 the account ( systems management life waste using solid integrated when impacts environmental the evaluate to used I product. a on LCA an to similar very is system management waste a on LCA an conducting for procedure The 4. 3. 2. 1.

politically targeted i equivalents person (targeted impacts environmental Weighted year)ofa one reference person in Normalized equivalents environmentalimpacts (person air) im environmental to Characterization Life

consumption of resources and potential impacts on human health and on the the on and health human on impacts potential and resources of consumption

- cycle inventory (of substances,cycle and inventory allresources emissions) (of n the EASEWASTE model a holistic and systematic approach is approach systematic and holistic a model EASEWASTE the n mpact of one person in a year) ofonempact person ina 90

Kirkeby 2006). The software takes into into takes software The 2006). Kirkeby pacts (g equivalents or m3water, soil or soil m3water, or equivalents (g pacts

cycle assessment on on assessment cycle defined as defined - ). cycle stages of the the of stages cycle

- defined as the as defined

ty (MRF), a a (MRF), ty

the impact the impact 1995. et al. et

CEU eTD Collection recycling the useof virgin in iscompared with material from offset the where material recycled of remanufacturing the at looks bit also it as afurther goes system management waste a But, etc.). landfill inert an in placed is which w a from residues incineration landfill, a (e.g. site disposal final its until bin, waste the in user bythe disposed is where it point the fromfollowed is waste bin a called is this stage disposal the at starts which system managemen waste solid a For grave. the is stage disposal the and cradle the is extraction cradle a be to said is LCA product normal A Disposal Use Distribution Transportation& Production extraction Raw material

Waste managementWaste Use Transportation and distribution Manufacture Raw material extraction

. Figure Comparison of a a Comparison of Figure . –

production production Source: based on McDougall McDougall on based Source: -

disposal of theproductdisposal

product and product 91 system LCA a for SWMS

- to - grave analysis where the raw material material raw the where analysis grave

a waste management LCAmanagement waste a

et al et

., (2003) (2003) ., manufacturing 2006) (Damgaard - to -

grave analysis. Where the the Where analysis. grave se obsin plant combustion aste

product for a LCA

CEU eTD Collection LCAUniversity2008), Denmark. ofthe consists followingfour of phases: (ISO a 14040 ISO standards, cycle life using is model EASEWASTE The managementLCA modeling. (Barton waste solid using by made been have studies several Therefore objectives. management wast special the reach to order in system management waste solid a in strategies and technologies,programs suitable the applyingchoosing forand solution aLCA be can The LCA wasteMain purposes management of system are thesolid following: the management. products, of LCA life a to it compares and system management waste the of boundaries system the shows figure This

In waste cyclemodeling summary:assessment management life ofsolid systems. To find the best soluti environmental impacts), dependingTo find solutions (negative environmental orpositive ontheresults systems), Evaluating (landfill, incinerator,composting thetechnologies and biogas Determine th Evaluatingfuture the impacts, Comparing alternatives, Collect andorganize data, - cycle assessment of a product. The five stages mean the system boundary in in boundary system the mean stages five The product. a of assessment cycle

whereas the last stage represents the system boundary in LCA of waste waste of LCA in boundary system the represents stage last the whereas e biggest environmental load inthe system,e biggest 14040, 1997 and together with the description of Technical Technical of description the with together and 1997 14040,

et al.,

92 1996; Barlaz on,

ssessment et al., Acrig o h LCA the to According . 1999).

CEU eTD Collection LCAwhich the answer. can not to also and LCA the by addressed be can that questions of types the determine exactly to important very is it therefore study, the of purpose the means research the of goal The and scope. goal the of declaration explicit an with start should study LCA an evaluation, any in As Goal scopedefinition and wasteas treatment sector thefollowing activities: develo (2008) Barlaz and Hauschild earlier phases. more or one of modification to leading feedback as serve may phase later a in gathered experience iterativeprocedurewhere LCAan consecutiveis fourphases,of LCA consists L mentionedabovethe with line arein phases fourThese

the assessment 2000) (ISO 14043, of elements key of analysis sensitivity including study the of scope and goal defined Interpretation 14042, 2000 (ISO system product the for profiles consumption resource and impact environmental assessment Impact that form life part of the product’s analysis Inventory goalDefinition of thescope and Goal

)

of the impact profile and resource consumption according to the the to according consumption resource and profile impact the of : preparing an inventory of inputs and inputs of inventory an preparing : : Using the results of the inventory analysis to prepare prepare to analysis inventory the of results the Using :

of 14041,1998) the study(ISO -

e te pcfc ecito o tee tp i the in steps these of description specific the ped cycle (ISO 14041, 1998) cycle (ISO 14041, 93

CA conceptual model. Although Although model. conceptual CA outputs from all processes all from outputs

CEU eTD Collection The detailed ofthese descriptions are thefollowing: and Barlaz (2008) stu LCA an of definition scope The Scope technology. the improving for information this use and technology of impact environmental the to contributes what determine to used be could LCA the of phase interpretation The study. treatment waste available int treatment, in considered be should and crucial are etc. technologies waste on and amount legislation waste The existing comparisons. for composition, used are LCAs that stated is it generally technologies to cleaning be gas may flue goal different Another compare base. resource the and environment the on impact overall the to least the contributes process treatment which define to order in methods treatment LCA an of goal the context management waste a In

Allocation forentering aswell processes other into systems The technologies The scale time study of the The be assessmentapplied criteria to boundaries andThe exchange the boundaries system over of The object ofthe study

The object thestudy of

representing thedifferentrepresenting processes -

the functional unit –

the functional unit dy must address the following issues by issues following the address must dy

could be to compare different waste waste different compare to be could or other technological process, so so process, technological other or

erpreting the outcome of the the of outcome the erpreting

Hauschild Hauschild CEU eTD Collection energy and material external of displacement the as well as products of use final the to related activities include processes downstream while system, core the to energy and processes. waste solid all processe Upstream representing system, core the of processes downstream and upstream the include boundaries system the system management waste solid a In definition and tho a of elaboration the means part this Therefore site. landfill even or incinerator facility, recovery material plant, composting the be can others the among units and technical boundary, The boundary. system the through flows the energy and mass of of quantification definition and identification clear on that based aware be be must should we perspective,decisions thinking cycle life the account into take we If arebottles thatthebottles are reused represented, provided 24 times. glas liters 40 versus cartons liters 1000 example for assessment the In 1985). Sundström (Lundholmand milk” 1000“packagingwas liters of theas functionaldefined of milk unit ex For The functionalLCAwastecould ofa include: management unit

products) residual for requirements units, emission (legal management waste the of Quality Duration of management the waste service composition Waste Quantitybewaste managed ofthe to ample, for a packaging study comparing cartoons and reusable glass bottles for for bottles glass reusable and cartoons comparing study packaging a for ample, System boundaries

delineation s can be regarded as the different activities related to input material material input to related activities different the as regarded be can s

of thewaste system management including:

rough rough s CEU eTD Collection used not generally.LCA’s cover the Barlaz Most 2008): should following impacts: (Hauschildand are these but impacts, environment working as socio well as the criteria, assessment include to attempts been have There al., Ha de Udo 1996, (ed.) Haes de (Udo LCA. the for categories impact environmental potential of overview an identified has SETAC data. relevant the of collection ensure to order in starts analysis inventory the before specified be must criteria assessment The the up make processes downstream background system.(Kirkeby 2005) and upstream the where system foreground production

Local impacts: Regional impacts: Global impacts: 2002). In addition the model includes the consumption of natural resources as well. well. as resources natural of consumption the includes model the addition In 2002).

Assessment criteria Land use Ec Human toxicity Terrestrial andaquatic eutrophication Acidification Photochemical depletion ozone Ozone depletion Global warming,

otoxicity (Björklund & Bjuggren, 1998). The core system is also known as the the as known also is system core The 1998). Bjuggren, & (Björklund

- cnmc n ehcl set as aspects ethical and economic es et et

CEU eTD Collection Itimpor is the safetybelow belimit. both might they but B, than better be always will A that point stand health a from matters it then B, scenario in than A scenario in lower are screenin emissions the if instance For scenarios. different initial the for appropriate is LCA well. as tools other by supported be should and alone, stand not should and making decision for tools the of one just is LCA that highlighted be must It considered. also is area assessment health under are values the whether in interested analy to is LCA of purpose main The The resourcebe assessedof: issues may interms

Consumption of renewableConsumption resources,example: for of non Consumption

Freshwater Groundwater Agricultural biomass Forest biomass Aluminum Iron Naturalgas Oil Accidents Radiation ofhabitatsDivision Odor

renewableexample: resources, for

z ad piie scenarios. optimize and e 97

tant to understand that the emissions from that theemissions understand to tant

limit

value

g when choosing between between choosing when g s bu , t in this case the risk risk the case this in t Some people may be be may people Some CEU eTD Collection resulting insavings. negative, be may impact environmental the so avoided, are materials virgin of production the then products, raw new of production the for used are recyclables when stated be can methane. like carriers energy or energy thermal electricity, and metals, plastics, paper, glass, like streams energy or material of number a generates waste management the waste where system the in necessary is processes output multiple of application The Allocation futurebe considered. developmentmay for technologies available best the and technologies average level national At system. management waste the in technology relevant the of identificationthe involves issue This Technological scope (Gentil analysis.during inventory the collected is that data the and technologies management waste the on depends It valid. be will study the of conclusions the until period the means practically scale time The Time scale and aggregated its what valuere is be not emissions releasing sectors other several are there as concentrations, canto directlyconverted they so release, daily the of part a just are system management waste the et al.

2010)

For landfilling the latest studies take into account 100 years account 100 For take studies into thelatest landfilling quired for the complex risk assessment.forquired thecomplex

It CEU eTD Collection rep LCA contain a of thorough data documentation sources. The outcome. overall the on influence greatest the has that data the on focusing analysis sensitivity a by guided be should data process of collection The LCA. the of outcome the to crucial is inventory the in data collected the of quality The Data qual incinerator, can soit regardedas technology be process emission. the of operation the and technology cleaning gas flue the but waste the of composition the to linked directly not is incinerator an from emission dioxin the instance For types. process the between difference the meaning facility, the of technology the from generated are data other while waste input the of composition wast individual different the of exchanges inventory, the In 2002). (USEPA review literature the through realized be can which consequences data, the in contradictions are there and However process. the of unit functional average an obtain to order in crucial is collection data general, In Data collection information are and inthefor input listed output therelevant processes. the of scope and goal the After Inventory analysis e management processes will be summed up. Some of the data originate from the the from originate data the of Some up. summed be will processes management e ity

, data collection is a crucial step, and in many cases data is inaccurate, is data cases many in and step, crucial a is collection data ,

waste management system, the emissions and resource resource and emissions the system, management waste 99

- specific and waste and specific

- specific emission specific

ort should should ort

CEU eTD Collection In cy thelife the environment asillustratedinthefollowingfigure. on effect their and emissions between relations the applying by protection of areas the on their potential into tointerpretemissions impacts is goalassessment The the theimpact of (Udo de Haes life of areas protection following the Today emissions. complex The Impact assessment thedifferenthave modelsLCA are waste discussed been when described. these stages, assessment impact the and inventory the in both system, the of modeling a tools software of number A LCAs. of review public and performance for prerequisite a is data process environmental with databases existing the of use The databases Use ofcomputer and tools

area of protection protection of area the to midpoint the of relation The possible. as protection of areas the to close as is which developed, is midpoint a until modeled are impacts where modeling, Midpoint

Man Natural resources, Natural environment, Human health, cle impact assessment two approaches exists to model theimpacts: twoapproaches exists impactcle assessment - et al., made environment.made mat assessment impact

1999): 1999): is considered in the weighting. This is the traditional approach to to approach traditional the is This weighting. the in considered is

yial icue a ag n large a includes typically

100

- cycle assessment are accepted accepted are assessment cycle me o ipt and inputs of umber re available to the to available re

CEU eTD Collection which could endpoint result ineasier interpretation mid from going in uncertainty to versus midpoint) at whether (stopping interpretation place takes discussion the Today (2008). d was figure The modeling. the midpoint of dominance the with approaches two the combine to tries research present The

(2000) andand Ryding Steen (1992.) Spriensma and Goedkoop by represented is method This results. the of interpretation improved is LCA the in uncertainty the of that school considers This thought protection. of areas the between weighting the is here weighting only The models. available best the using protection of areas the on effects to way whe represents modeling damage ormodeling Endpoint Wenzel are field Hauschild and and Potting (2005.) Guinée this in Experts assessments. impact cycle life

rawn based on EASEWASTE User’s Manual Manual User’s EASEWASTE on based rawn 101 et al.

(1996). . (1996). re impacts are modeled all the the all modeled are impacts re analyze

the uncertainty on on uncertainty the

by the developed developed the by t al. et

to endpoint, to

(1997), (1997), PO NH CO Toluene NOx SO nitril Acrylo Cadmium N HCFC22 CO2 Emissions 2 O 2 4

terr. enrichment Nutrient of systems Eutrophication of aquatic exposure Increasedenvironmental exposure Increasedhuman activeforcing Increasedradio atmosphere in the of chlorine Increasedcontent . formation Photochemical ozone protons Conversion releasing Figure Causality web web Causality Figure systems

CEU eTD Collection temperature Increaseatmospheric in

impactA Human linking emissions of environmental mechanisms on the areas of protection of areas mechanisms the on environmental of linkingemissions ozone ozone depletion Stratospheric Ecotoxicologicalimpact B EcotoxicologicalimpactA toxicological

growth Increasingalgal Increasing tropospheric conc. Increasingtropospheric ozone Smogepisodes of leaves Exposure soil or water soil Deposition on

Midpoints

B radiationB IncreasedUV impactB Humantoxicological temperature ocean Increase in

dead algae dead of Sedimentation DecreasingpH Reduced light input Reduced

Ecotoxicologicalimpact C

of UV radiation ofUV Non

- 102 rise Sealevel humaneffects

impactC Humantoxicological near bottom near Oxygendepletion metalsof Mobilisation composition Alteredspecies

habitats Lossof

Source: EASEWASTE User’s Manual User’s EASEWASTE Source: Endpoints

catch fishLoss of materials Lossof toxicity Human humans Damage to wood and Loss of crops biodiversity Lossof values cultural Lossof plants wildlife and Damage to

Areas of protection of Areas health Human

welfare Material (2008) m health Ecosyste

CEU eTD Collection are landfills of analysis The locations. different the in years several over released are are impacts the ofemissions impactwhen potentials Characterization the occurs Characterization nutrient acidification, on effect enrichment photochemicaleutrophication, formation or ozone andhuman toxicity. has which NOx instance for category; impact one influences which substances several are there Naturally, categories. impact the on effect potential identify to need we emission each forinventory the for that goobserve the in that consideration causali into taken be When should performed. it is categories definition impact scope the determining and goal the in beginning the at parameters In Classification andthe normalization theweighting are optional. while mandatory are characterization the and classification the 14040 ISO to According further described later: be will which of each following; the are which steps four has assessment cycle life The

hs tp n dniiain f h ipc ctgre ta wr coe a assessment as chosen were that categories impact the of identification an step this Weighting. andNormalization Characterization, Selection of impactand classification, categories ty web there is no overlap between the elements of the web. It is also important to important also is It web. the of elements the between overlap no is there web ty

thought

of as a total sum of the contributions from each emission which emission each from contributions the of sum total a as of 103

are aggregated; are therefore more than than more

CEU eTD Collection of examples all are basis capita per a and sector) economic an or region a (e.g. system term in change climate to contribution US national annual the as such year, specific a for and country, a example for region, specific a for results indicator overall using chosen generally is system reference The where Nk=Sk/Rk Equation: divided byreference a value. Pennington As The aimtypically ofnormalization is two Normalization (Manfrediwaste management2009). method over result emissions that fact the to due difficult

R isthereferenceR value. isthecategoryS from indicator thecharacteriz N isthe normalized indicator, k denotes theimpact category, theresultsto adjust tohave common dimensions. to placeLCIAa into broader and results context indicator

t al. et

20)pitd u te u o ec ctgr idctr result indicator category each of sum the out (2004).pointed

s of GWPs. Spatial scale, temporal scale, a defined defined a scale, temporal scale, Spatial GWPs. of s - fold 104

a time, even longer than in any other other any in than longer even time, a ation phase and

is is CEU eTD Collection where EI= ∑ V or EI= ∑ V Equation: applied inthe form weighting oflinear factors (Pennington often is Weighting results). normalized (or indicators category impact across comparison w factors numerical in results Weighting Weighting in effects Europeconsideredequivalent tobeof wouldbe importance. ecotoxicological and warming global of effects current total the example, application o ratios the ofacceptance implies direct that noted be should it impact However, different study. LCA of an importance within categories relative the judge directly help can or value. subsections, reference the choosing when account resultsNormalization provide can inp into taken be could that attributes

EI environmentalimpact istheoverall indicator, k k N S

k k

f different impacts as they exist today, meaning that, for for that, meaning today, exist they as impacts different f ut to grouping or weighting, as described in the next inthenext grouping weighting,described as ut to or hich are based on value choices to determine the the determine to choices value on based are hich 105

et al.

2004):

CEU eTD Collection there greatest As results. the final the possessing on importance impacts environmental and processes assumptions, the LCA, model the of figures key the identifies analysis sensitivity The phase. this of part includes Interpretation process. iterative an is itself LCA whole the as study, the of goal the reviewing in result may Interpretation decision. a make to necessary is which part one only is which impacts, environmental the the of terms in information additional require decision in them help to order in makers policy T research. whole the of goal defined the account into taking discussed are results the phase interpretation the During Interpretation natural from social economics. sciences andas sciences,also but behavioral well as from weighting a use scien include methods weighting to all However, all. at whether method of choice the in even and use, to method of choosing type when which also but factors, weighting choosing when involved values there are availableeither EU (Wenzel Denmark is or for targets reduction political on based impacts for method weighting a choices methodology value ethical and political social, involves weighting because as LCA, of element controversial a remains Weighting

S isthecategoryS from phase. indicator thecharacterisation N isthe normalized indicator and Vk isthe weighting for factor impact category k,

he output of the interpretation can be recommendations to recommendations be can interpretation the of output he

estvt analysis sensitivity 106

et al., may be uncertainty in the data inputs, the the inputs, data the in uncertainty be may

economic 1997; St - aig Ntrly decision Naturally, making.

and social impacts and not only only not and impacts social and

randdorf n te assessments other in tific aspects tific

hc i a indispensable an is which

et al. , 2005). , 2005). -

not only from from only not In the EDIP EDIP the In Not only Not only - -

makers makers mainly mainly

CEU eTD Collection treatment are methods required: management waste following the of characteristics waste detailed on The systems. LCA management the of elements different the on view broader a has (2010) Abeliotis Elements th of “bad”“good”answer; howeverLCA or comparative study. isa decision regulatory and Political caveats. many with presented be is point third The location. different totally a from decrease emission and location one from increase emission an from result may emission net aggregated an therefore resolution, nec is data uniform that mentioned be must it First, 2008.) Barlaz and (Hauschild limitations some to lead data required of amount large the and evaluation LCA the of complexity The Limitations Kaplan and (McCleese studies. LCI several by used and implemented easily be can which method, Carlo Monte the is technique usual most the this For range. estimated their in results the vary to helps analysis sensitivity

that only total emissions are presented and not emission rates. Finally, the results must must results the Finally, rates. emission not and presented are emissions total only that Composting Mechanical biological treatment Recyclingafter Collection and transport et al. say eody h netr tgsd o icueeisos ih spatial with emissions include not do stages inventory the Secondly, essary.

2005). e LCA waste

selectivewaste collection

aua 02 Sonnemann 2002; LaPuma 107

- makers often require a a require often makers t al. et

03 and 2003. CEU eTD Collection

Energy The structure theLCA can waste solid management of be inthe following seen figure:

Landfilling Incineration Source: Abeliotis, K. (2010) Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management Waste Solid inLifeMunicipal Assessment Cycle (2010) Abeliotis,K. Source: Ash Mixed waste collection Mixed treatment Thermal

RDF

Transport

21 . Figure Whole life cycle of the municipal waste of solid cycle the life Whole Figure .

Municipal Municipal

Residual Mechani biolo treatment solid waste generation waste solid

Methane gi c cal cal a l L

108

- andfilling

S Residual elective waste collection waste elective

Recycling Transport

Biol

ogical treatment ogical

Residual

Compost Metal Glass

Plastic Paper CEU eTD Collection be can research this illustrated inthefollowing figure. of background Therefore policy picture. the a policies mentioned in the described to be according can systems management waste solid the of these of interaction The system. management waste EU the of part is it but system, the in included also is management waste integrated The part of thefollowing concepts: cycle life the author to According years.for several site landfill Pusztazámor the for planned been has motor gas the of use the Budapest In soluti CO than GHG on implications serious more has it as important highly are landfills the from gas methane the of collections The furt and reprocessed.cases metaliscollected At incineration. many after recycled is waste collected selectively waste the the of Ideally all systems. in management occur facilities treatment waste the of all not as picture, general a shows structure The emission. the and resources used the contain not does figure This

Environmental impact assessment. Sustainable developmentand on is the use of the gas motor gas the of use the is on

assessment , as it can use much more CH more much use can it as , 2

. At many places it is done by flaring, but the best best the but flaring, by done is it places many At . 109

of the solid waste solid the of

policies and the life cycle a cycle life the and policies

4 management systems is is systems management

for energy production energy for ssessment her her .

Environmental Impact Assessment Life Cycle Assessment Assessment Life Cycle

CEU eTD Collection Life cycle assessment of solid waste management waste systems solid of assessment Life cycle 22 . Figure Theoretical framework of the research research the of framework Theoretical Figure .

110

within the environmental policies policies environmental the within

Sustainable development Sustainable -

own theory own

CEU eTD Collection environmental policies. cycle life the opinion, author’s a to according Therefore evalua elements. it environmental as assessment impact environmental The LCAoperations,which interms thescope of unlike theterritory. isbroader more i environmental the is than detailed assessment cycle life cases some In system. management waste a for it uses assessment cycle Life faun groundwater, etc. natureprotection, and flora on impact the as such activity environmental an of aspects Assessment Impact Environmental modified orgasms, sustain protection, air treatment, water waste efficiency, much energy change, climate also but management waste a only not includes it as theory broader is development sustainable However, load. environmental the of mitigation the part of are policies All ofthese The detailed ofthispicture description isthefollowing: ssessment ie cycle life

of the solid waste management systems can be located within these these within located be can systems management waste solid the of assessment assessment

nature protection, biodiversity,consumer protectionetc. , nevertheless, is also used for a product, but the present research research present the but product, a for used also is nevertheless, ,

f at mngmn systems, management waste of

mpact assessment and the EIA is mainly focused on site on focused mainly is EIA the and assessment mpact sustainable development sustainable

includes waste management and several other other several and management waste includes 111

e te mat n h different the on impact the tes

be agriculture, able

system, as they promote the the promote as they system,

however, is part of the the of part is however,

a, soil and and soil a, genetically CEU eTD Collection outcomes” and chapter. objectives assumptions, questions, “Research the in discussed been sub three the and objective main the to answer m the be to seems methods two these of combination The stages. later the in onlyemployed methods quantitative with methods qualitative utilizes research The interpretation. r the andLCA an benefits including waste ofBudapest management environmental assessment phenomenon research the of behavior and nature the of understanding greater a col data the for e.g. stages, research some for method quantitative as well as field policy the issues. reliability and validity also includes and m main assumptions, the discusses includes also It objectives. research the achieve to used were they how and why, methods, research of type the of explains It view. of point methodological a chapter This 6

lection and evaluation. As Patton (1990) emphasizes such a combined approach gives gives approach combined a such emphasizes (1990) Patton As evaluation. and lection Methodological approach esearch by enhancing its validity, providing a general picture, and facilitating facilitating and picture, general a providing validity, its enhancing by esearch

ims to describe the whole dissertation research process from a a from process research dissertation whole the describe to ims odeling related methodology issues highlighting data collection and collection data highlighting issues methodology related odeling

112 The research utilizes qualitative methods for for methods qualitative utilizes research The

- objectives of the research research the of objectives ost appropriate to to appropriate ost -

which have have which –

the the CEU eTD Collection Research assumptions environmental on impacts includingpollution climate change its and Budapest the is What Research question The research question,objectives and are assumptions

ae f ut fml, ige aiy and SCBU cases. family single family, multi of case in different is capita per generation waste 3. No. Assumption are correct proper, sufficient, realistic. and are that model EASEWASTE the prepare to given information and data the that 2. No. Assumption are years and months several if detail more in evaluated be can pollution environmental 1. No. Assumption analyzed aue n cpct fr eyln in recycling for capacity and nature

instead of instead

Table Research assumptions of the present thesis present the of assumptions Research Table . Table Research question of the present thesis present the of question Research Table . The research assumes research The It is assumed that the that assumed is It the that assumed is It one year one ?

113

hs s uiu mto i LCA in method unique a is This Comment desirable the perspectives the key of stakeholders to according formulated was question Research Comment future. the researchdetailedin requiresmore assumption This composition. waste the at the chapter system management in discussed Eva been has It inaccuracyin Hungary. issignificant data general However, times. several and proper, are model the for given was which data The demonstrated. trend the years and months different the of results by and evaluation,

the following: luation of Budapest solid waste waste solid Budapest of luation

can be visibly visibly be can analyzing discussed

the the

CEU eTD Collection discussion with the key stakeholders about their their about perspective bemade. will and options preferred stakeholders key the with discussion scenario different the of results the to According assessment. This this for model Budapest. EASEWASTE the use will of research systems management waste solid municipal expected and present the for options policy and assessment environmental the prepare To Research objectives:

h ky tkhles amn t determine their perspectives and preferred options. to aiming stakeholders, key the No. Objective Budapest waste solid system. for required are which inputs 1. No. Objective ihr eyln rts n rn the run and rates modelforEASEWASTE them. recycling account higher into taking alternatives desirable 2. No. Objective s in the environmental assessment a a assessment environmental the in s

3. 11 ics the Discuss o cur the acquire To

. Table Research Table Determine the major major the Determine

findings with with findings modeling

objectives of the present thesis present the of objectives necessary necessary 114

the the objective is a very detailed waste waste which detailed types, waste 48 for composition very a is this objective of output significant highly A Correct research question the formulate to helped and Correct are objective. relevant theoriginal to several which chapters discussed are recommendations conclusion and options policy selective the In rates. different recycling the on research focused the however determined, alternativ managerial and technological originally as Modified for future maps. waste Budapest col the on map draft In a is contribution own author’s addition before. prepared never had and author of request the by provided was lection points which can be a base base a be can which points lection

s were es

CEU eTD Collection this assumption. to answers find will research present my also and review literature and changed be assumption new the gases greenhouse on impact their and recycling waste collection, waste selective the of correlation the on focuses research present As scope ofthe present research. waste packaging and Collection (NationalOGyHT the on rates utilization and collection (mandatory) planned the determine to has Kft. Nonprofit and collection waste the controls company This 2012. January from operate to started and established Kft. Nonprofit (OHÜ stat new A research. present the writing of beginning the since sector management waste Hungarian the in changes fundamental several been have There path. research new the to me drove system management waste new the of structure organizational the However, the of terms in packaging waste). (particularly targets Union European the reach to eager is Hungary Originally 1.was thefollowing: No. assumption The modifications compa e -

owned company, the Országos Hulladékgazdálkodási Ügynökség Nonprofit Kft. Kft. Nonprofit Ügynökség Hulladékgazdálkodási Országos the company, owned Assumption No.1.

utilization of some waste types, including packaging waste. OHÜ OHÜ waste. packaging including types, waste some of utilization . Therefore this assumption has been revised and removed out of the the of out removed and revised been has assumption this Therefore .

the National Waste Management Agency Nonprofit Ltd.) was was Ltd.) Nonprofit Agency Management Waste National the red to the original assumptions andred objectives tothe originalarethe following: assumptions

Utilisation 115

Plan) for some waste types, including including types,waste some for Plan) come has been been has come

CEU eTD Collection Department, Olgyay Attila Environmental the of Head the by evaluation for proposed was rates) recycling higher 2006 of months the in either collection waste selective the of rates Different gases. greenhouse the on impact their and collection waste dissertation present The anew t incineration plantor a of impacts environmental the of analysis the be not will options scenario the Therefore years be will and prepared been have plans the station, transfer the Concerning government. Hungarian present the by supported also are which re waste prevention, waste preferably waste a Nevertheless, a waste that considered second leaders some that be can example good A support. environmental due tot future near implemented inthe are be unlikely to will which alternatives unrealistic up setting in point no is there Budapest of case the In present system the to and alternatives the for both model EASEWASTE the run to and system current managerial and technological both alternatives desirable major the Determine Originally2.was thefollowing: No. objective

(in XVIII. (in XVIII. Objective No.2. -

to d - istrict energy plant or a transfer station station transfer a or plant energy - to , down inPest side) , -

treatment plant is not at the prior the at not is plant treatment – -

Szabó (pers.comm. 2012) as different (pers.comm. 2012) Szabó scenarios. according to the revised assumption assumption revised the to according ransfer station. - use and waste recycling are the preferred options, options, preferred the are recycling waste and use 116 , but there are no detailed information about it. about it. information are nodetailed butthere ,

2011 or in th in or 2011

built in Ipacsfa street in the following following the in street Ipacsfa in built he lack of political, financial and political, financialand of lack he a b ueu fr Budapest for useful be can ity of the waste hierarchy, but hierarchy, waste the of ity e rates (three time, five times times five time, (three rates e – nlss h selective the analyses

to the the to . CEU eTD Collection solid for guidelines setting of purpose the waste present the on feedback give forlevel national orregional a ateither used becan model „the hence managementpolicy to available is software EASEWASTE The environmental ca assessment can it Budapest of system management waste solid municipal the improve to plans policy different are there Since Lifean iterative cycle assessment is process. quantitative and necessary results ofthe tocalculate the life cycle a policies and processes about understanding of depth increased with information detailed provide they because chosen are methods Qualitative alternative for theanalysis thehigher was rate of collection. selective waste decision key main the of discussion the During 23 . Figure Interaction ofenvironmental Interaction Figure . Budapest policy MSW

affect n affect the policy, which aren affect which above. thedescribed policy,

the environmental assessment and so the results of the the of results the so and assessment environmental the

LCA, environmentalassessment

assessment and the Budapest waste managementpolicy waste Budapest the and assessment 117

waste treatment” (Kirkeby (Kirkeby treatment” waste ssessment - aes f K Zrt FKF of makers .

. their desirable desirable their .

t al. et ehd are methods

2006).

CEU eTD Collection info more some obtain to order in contributors some with relationship a form to looking was author chapter this reading After 2007.) (Bogner Change. Climate on Panel Intergovernmental the of Report Assessment Contrib the in was which plan Mitigation 2007: Change Climate the in sector Management Waste the considered carefully author The means thatpolicy waste management emphasized. issues are also p be to need activities re for preparing prevention, waste 2008) (EC Directive Framework Waste the in hierarchy waste the follow to order In extent. terms in warming global to contribute also incinerators Waste operate. to allowed are requirements EU fulfill which those only date this After 2009. July before operation in even were which sites landfill for practice common the in Hungary and sites, landfill the from originate emissions the of majority The diminished. be ( % 4 ratearound a at emission GHG to contributessector climat the on managementwaste solid the particularly sector, management waste of impact the analyze to eager was author The model. get theEASEWASTE contact with in to able was author how describe to important is it methods research the discussing Before describes technology a management within suitable waste system. themost that strategy a prepare to order in useful definitely are model the of results the Therefore 6.1

Methodology for LCA modeling forLCA Methodology romoted by a more sophisticated public awareness campaign which which campaign awareness public sophisticated more a by romoted of CO of 2 , (even taking out the biogenic CO biogenic the out taking (even ,

waste disposal is landfilling. There were several several were There landfilling. is disposal waste e change. It can be seen that the waste management waste the that seen becan It change.e - use and recycling are the top priorities. These These priorities. top the are recycling and use 118

rmation and contacted Katarina Mareckova Katarina contacted and rmation

ution of Working Group III to the Fourth Fourth the to III Group Working of ution

EEA 2010b), a value which can can whichvalue a 2010b), EEA

2 ) but in a smaller a in but )

t al. et

CEU eTD Collection analysisa 2006 from months different the in collection waste selective the of state the on focuses mainly author the nevertheless, Budapest, of case the ma waste several studies LCA other In Specialty Budapest, Damgaard for research LCA his to relation in Professors Danish the to opportunity knowledge.obtain this beenauthor has 2008theincontinuouscorrespondence with Since the had who Hungarian only the represents author Today 2008. June stude PhD for training EASEWASTE the in part took so and Central University European of support financial the through Denmark to travel his organized author The training. their in part take recommended and warming global the on sector management of impact the analyze to suitable is which model EASEWASTE the developed H. Thomas Denmark. of University Technical l my forwarded Christensen Kjeldsen Peter 2009. February in place took which Defense Prospectus my to extent great a to contributed and invitation my accepted I TP290, Unit, Change Climate Sustainability, and Environment scientific respected these the of from Monni Out Suvi Finland. researchers, from Monni Suvi and Denmark from Kjeldsen Peter authors contributing the from and author lead a was who Slovakia from

refollowing: the of thisresearch comparedof terms in to scenarios studies other of LCA but also Thomas with H. but wo s the is who , nagement scenarios have been analyzed and compared to each other. In other. each to compared and analyzed been have scenarios nagement –

which have been described even in the literature review chapter review literature the in even described been have which ed f the of Head

Christensen and MichaelChristensen and Hauschild. European Commission Commission European Department of Environmental Engineering at the the at Engineering Environmental of Department 119

Christensen - 01 Te esn fr hs unique this for reasons The 2011. informed me that they have have they that me informed -

- 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy, (VA), Ispra 21027 DG JRC, Institute for for Institute JRC, DG etter to Thomas H. H. Thomas to etter

oty Ander mostly

the waste waste the

nts in nts s -

CEU eTD Collection

4. 3. 2. 1.

osbe I ohr tde ol yal dt ws sd o te d the for used was data yearly only studies other In possible. which not was months 2011, different the for analysis waste where studies other from different and 2006 between month every for amounts waste selective for figures exact the obtained author The selectiveyears. rate collection waste intheforthcoming door develop that is rate s collection waste selective the of increase the for reason Another an obligation inthe Hungarian legislation. also and Ltd. Nonprofit Agency Management Waste National established in increase will becau partly Hungary collection waste selective the of rate the that likelihood a is There detail. in evaluated and analyzed be must system collection waste selective are rates collection waste selective rela the Budapest in as well as Hungary In to the author’s o drawn. been have two version third accepted already the however when „designed” prepared, be to have options obligatory three systems management waste in Fund, Cohesion present the or ISPA former the planningof project caseof Inthe system.designed the availablefor conditions system, a in included are elements in which scenarios different evaluate to appropriate not is it framework LCA the In everal municipalities, including Budapest, received EU support in order to to order in support EU received Budapest, including municipalities, everal tively low and also not yet compliant to the EU requirements. First, the the First, requirements. EU the to compliant yet not also and low tively

are not considered as real options. In many cases different technological different cases many In options. real as considered not are - to

opinion opinion - door collection system, which is expected to result in a higher higher a in result to expected is which system, collection door se this is one of the most important mandates of the recently recently the of mandates important most the of one is this se sometimes sometimes this is artificial is this planning, and notrealistic. 120

however there are not enough feasibility feasibility enough not are there however

the total waste amounts as well as the the as well as amounts waste total the

f them were only only were them f iscussion. The The iscussion. According According

is CEU eTD Collection waste the regarding use. energy data and materials for data necessary inventory cycle life the as the well as characteristics all define can user the where framework environmenta the and consumption resource on system management waste solid municipal given the of impact the evaluates that model flexible user a create to order in developed was EASEWASTE moMethodology of yearswaste inthe last management scenarios inBudapest. waste methodology several reveals paper The 6. 5.

- related policy intervention would have on the environmental outcomes of different of outcomes environmental the on have would intervention policy related month betweenmonth 2011respectively 2008and res summarizestheoutput every for model the ran author and time, one year, one for model the running of instead as time more much takes it that is method this of disadvantage The this and hy potential warming global including pollution, less waste causes selective collection increasing the that is research the of assumptions the of One globalincluding warming. correlation th between draw to easy becomes it format this In collection. waste selective the of terms in decisions different the of consequences impact environmental is analysis monthly pothesis is analyzedpothesis is thereof. e rate of the selective waste collection and the environmental impacts impacts environmental the and collection waste selective the of rate e deling of of managementwaste deling processes better a

way to demonstrate the trends and to show the the show to and trends the demonstrate to way

- eae ise ad icse wa implications what discusses and issues related 121

- eisos I te oe i a is model the In emissions. l friendly, well documented and and documented well friendly,

ults. ults. The The

CEU eTD Collection methodologyLCA widely isthemost methodology used inDenmark. Laurent As standards. ISO the with compliance in is and Products) Industrial of Design (Environmental EDIP97 called is methodology The following the processes: consideration into takes model EASEWASTE

24 . Figure .

Conceptual framework in the EASEWASTE model EASEWASTE in the framework Conceptual Source: Damgaard 2006 Damgaard Source: 122

et al. et

(2011.) emphasizes the EDIP97 EDIP97 the emphasizes (2011.) at management waste

CEU eTD Collection indicators: prevention. waste improving and signals provide programs. to necessary Waste be prevention will indicators understandable National waste include the to Hungary has in Plan Directive Management Framework Waste the to According substance, materialorpr a before taken measures means ‘prevention’ that declares 13 and 12 Clause 3 Article in so prevention, waste for definition following the sets Directive Framework Waste can appliances where and how explain and awareness environmental the increase to aim which campaigns PR emphasize programs prevention Waste practice. in important as regarded not is it cases is prevention Waste Waste prevention is which Directive, Framework Waste discussed indetail inthe relevantlegislation. EU chapter onthe the from extracted hierarchy, waste the of de following the In

c) b) a)

the content of harmful human health; or the adverseenvironment generated impacts onthe waste and ofthe ofthe lifeextension span ofproducts; the quantity ofwaste,including through there scription it can be seen that LCA modeling was applied to every step step every to applied was modeling LCA that seen be can it scription

the most important part of the waste hierarchy, however in many many in however hierarchy, waste the of part important most the be repaired, or where products and services can be rented. The The rented. be can services and products where or repaired, be oduct hasbecomethatreduce:waste,

As Bartus (2010.) wrote there are three main types of of types main three are there wrote (2010.) Bartus As

substances in materials and products.substancesand inmaterials 123

- use ofproductsuse orthe

measure progress in in progress measure out n easily and Robust

CEU eTD Collection prevention expenditures means for ifit theoccurred less co waste choose will consumer the naturally as highlighted, be also can factors economic the prevention waste In action. into translate to expected is intention conditions, external attitude, (Cox norms. social wider and act person’s to able feel they whether a act: to intention one influence factors three that proposes behavior, which planned of theory the is analyzed widely most the of One 2006). Toleman (Tonglet behavior prevention waste predict or explain to either s other among aspect important most the have may behavior Public either. phase this in important highly is awareness public the but side regulatory a have can prevention Waste practice knownbyand therefore not players. thekey s phase, preparation scientific, in are indicators prevention waste the Hungary in presently that out pointed He consumption. material raw and sites landfill i new some indicators recommen 34 listed the from apart that highlighted He robust. and easy credible, accepted, relevant, aspects: following the to according them of all categorized and indicators available 34 analyses He indicators. prevention waste pre short a program prevention waste the For tages in the waste hierarchy. A number of authors have used behavior change theories theories change behavior used have authors of number A hierarchy. waste the in tages

environmental impact indicators. quantitative and qualitative, e wih r te olwn: CO following: the are which ded

124 2 -

study was made by Dienes Dienes by made was study msin CH emission,

sts. sts. et al. et 4

emission, diversion from from diversion emission, o it has not been used in in used been not has it o 2011) t al. et ndicators are also also are ndicators Under the proper proper the Under 2004, Gray and and Gray 2004, (2011) on the on (2011) CEU eTD Collection in used pulp chemical the example for newsprint; recycled for used is pulp mechanical when saved be can energy more that state (1998) Ekvall and Finnveden paper. of type pl which factors several are There life cycleassessments. management waste solid different of literature the on based types waste different the for account into take and Finnveden can We others. among (2006), WRAP and (2007), Wenzel and Villanueva (1998), Ekvall (2005), Finnveden and Björklund by emphasized is This general. in TyskenAs Recycling requiringwithout economic sacrifices. benefits environmental bringcan refilling Infact, packaging. beverage ofresourcenatural the of exploitation the mitigates and impacts environmental the of most reduces refilling life that emphasizes (2002.) Rowe and Platt and re disposal) or recycling, as (such real are which options compares mainly analysis LCA Re again. here repeated not is it So (2011). Vámosi by made was which work the to according compared were materials packaging refillable Re Preparing re for - use has been partly discussed in the description of the Hungarian legislation, as the as legislation, Hungarian the of description the in discussed partly been has use - use systems has not that exactrecycling. result such as systemshasnot use

g and Finnveden (2010) declares recycling saves more energy than combustion combustion energymorethan saves recyclingdeclares (2010) Finnveden gand

Paper, Newsprint Cardboard, and

- the pro and con justifications in terms of recycling versus incineration incineration versus recycling of terms in justifications con and pro the use

ay an important role in the energy savings, such as the the as such savings, energy the in role important an ay

125 - cycle analysis (LCA) studies (LCA) analysis cycle

- us e has a limited literature as the the as literature limited a has e

revealed that that revealed CEU eTD Collection advantageous. more be may incineration when exceptions three only be to seems there Finnveden 2005; Finnveden and Björklund 2004; savings energy an produce does recycling that state can we plastic, of recycling from use energy total the account into taking that indicates literature The the level ofenergy incasepaper savingsrecycling aswell of incineration. versus of efficiency recovery energy the Obviously, over advantage clear a have intermscombustion of lesser environmental2006,Merrild (WRAP impact will recycling energy, for fuels fossil replace to used ca biomass thereby saved the If biomass, recycling. material of save benefits environmental the we increasing than materials raw new of consumption the reduce we If can determinetheresults. kg 3.5 from ranges studies different the in range The cardboard. for than newsprint for larger usually are savings the that stated be can It kg. kg/ 0.35 is it cardboard and board corrugated for and kg/kg account into take we If incineration. of savings average the CO kg (2006), 1.25 is gases WRAP greenhouse by summarized studies the in newsprint, acidificat effect, of climate terms in savings shows newspaper of recycling that highlighted also He material. raw new of amount certain a replace to used be must material recycled of quantities large emphas (2004) Profu cardboard.

Plastic

o, urpiain ad rdcin f ht oxidants. photo of production and eutrophication, ion, /kg to −1.5 kg/kg; so it looks like that a number of key aspects key of number a that like looks it so kg/kg; −1.5 to /kg izes that the substitution factor matters as some cases cases some as matters factor substitution the that izes 2

equivalents/kg waste when recycling is compared to to compared is recycling when waste equivalents/kg the mixed paper and office paper, the figure is 1.2 1.2 is figure the paper, office and paper mixed the 126

h teml nieain ln determ plant incineration thermal the et al. et

2005; WRAP 2006). However, However, 2006). WRAP 2005; (Beigl and Salhofer and (Beigl et al.

2008). n be be n ines ines For

CEU eTD Collection if is packaging metal for outcome advantageous environmentally most the that declare also (2004) Salhofer and Beigl 2006). WRAP 2005; Finnveden and (Björklund impacts ot and use energy of terms in both gain general a provides recycling because well as literature the in justified is statement This burn. to material efficient an notis it as metal, caseof the friendly environmentalrecyclingmorein that is obvious Itis wasterecycling forcompared toincineration. CO kg 1.45 was change climate to contributing gases of savings average non combus for than recycling for lower generally are impact total climate and both use energy that show (2005) Finnveden and and Björklund eutrophication, oxidants. acidification, photo of change, production as climate advantages as clear such provides impacts plastic environmental of recycling the cases most in that indicates also literature The 2010). Tyskedng more and 2006 be (WRAP efficient may energy combustion cases, such In plastics. virgin kg 1 replace to required are kg 2 that so 1:0.5, e.g., assumed, is factor substitution high a which in situations be may exception third A wastewater. the with out go would mayonnaise undesirabl an mayonnaise, the recycling in whereas used, be may itself mayonnaise the in energy the as incineration, leftover contains which the as tubes such mayonnaise containers packaging soiled highly concerns exception Another 2005). in bench sitting as such cases in wood of plastic other replace not does plastic recycled the if is exception One - renewable

Metal materials such as plastic. For the studies included in WRAP (2006), the the (2006), WRAP in included studies the For plastic. as such materials

kindergartens 127

(Mølgaard 1995; Finnveden 1995; (Mølgaard

of recycled plastics plastics recycled of but is used instead instead used is but her environmental environmental her 2

equivalents/kg far as other other as far e case for for case e tion of of tion et al. al. et CEU eTD Collection significant a with fractions material the For alternative. treatment waste other any to tobesuperior wasteconsidered municipal solid iscommonlyRecycling of from materials Energy recovery waste. ranking on effect significant a have not does distance transport cardboard, and paper plastic, for as just general, in that read can we (2010) Tyskeng from study the In results. impact environmental the on effect limited systems collection the that maintain authors The equivalents/kg waste. a showed studyCO kg 0.8 of savings average an with This change climate to contributing gases of reduction impacts. environmental other and 2006) (WRAP use energy environmenta positive provides recycling glass literature to According a in further recoveryefficienciesof to analyzeincineration. study metal theslag the in after interesting be can It steel. CO for kg/kg kg 0.9 and 10.5 aluminum for was waste changeequivalents/kg climate to contributing gases concerning (2006) WRAP The average recyclingt when as compared savings and disposing ofwaste. material raw of production new over 80% by burden environmental reduces (aluminum) part important metals of recycling that show Schelling(1996) and Edwardsuse. energy an acidification and plays metals of recycling as recycled, and collected

Glass

ewe rccig n eeg etato from extraction energy and recycling between 128

o combustion intheo combustion studies included in n te rnprs odtos have conditions transports the and l gains in terms of terms in gains l in lowering lowering in

2 2

CEU eTD Collection fromemissions typ landfills because mostly hierarchy waste the of step last the is Landfilling sector. management waste the from emissions (GHG) gas greenhouse the of most for account landfills all, great a has waste of Landfilling Landfilling average Danish(Merrild household waste. in content limited their consideration into taking system management waste of some of recycling that showed also results the However, distances. long transported be cases most in can recyclables transport, of means right the with that showed this and recycling pre collection, from potentials impact environmental the Further, focus. in was category and impact which chosen boundaries system the plant, incineration the at recovery energy of level are there c For it. incinerating that and showed steel glass, results paper, The recycling when incineration. benefits environmental waste for as well as recycling compared been l have through waste household in fractions material six of incineration from and recycling from impacts environmental The rates. recovery energy high with plant cont energy

the material fractions can only contribute marginally in improving the overall overall the improving in marginally contribute only can fractions material the f cce seset suig high assuming assessment cycle ife ent this might not be the case if the treatment alternative is a waste a is alternative treatment the if case the be not might this ent

- treatment and transport was compared to the environmental benefit from from benefit environmental the to compared was transport and treatment ardboard and plastic the results were more unclear, depending on the the on depending unclear, more were results the plastic and ardboard ically last for veryically lastfor periods. long effect on the different environmental impacts and, above above and, impacts environmental different the on effect et al.

2012) 129

- efrac tcnlge fr material for technologies performance

aluminum

nta of instead - to - energy energy CEU eTD Collection by 2014. landfilled being waste organic 35% of maximum of target the with organic landfilled, be to waste of reduction gradual a determines waste of landfill the on 1999/31 Directive regulations the Currently, for years 20,000 and leachate. ( LFG for years 150 assumes WRATE and emissions leachate yearsfor 500 and emissions LFG for years 100 allows WISARD while horizon time year L EPIC/CSR, example For foreseeable. time this beyond as landfill, the for years 100 of horizon time a usually allow models LCA the summarized (2009) Manfredi As from ofthe the bottom landfill. leachate the by by initiated is step driven aerobic afterwards anaerobically while operation, recirculation is mechanism degradation the process this semi The allows a of betterthelandfill capacity utilization ( 1 to up density waste the increases which mass, waste the 10 la active of frame time the decrease to be can objective other or landfill the of life the in early production (LFG) gas landfill of amount higher results site landfill the during degradation waste the of optimization the out pointed (2009) Manfredi As decreaseaim isto theenvironmental impact which landfill conventional the besides sites landfill of types several are there However, buried. simply is waste where method, landfilling conventional the use we Budapest In - 15 years. Bioreactor landfills for example use recirculation of the collected leachate to leachate collected the of recirculation use example for landfills years.Bioreactor 15

- aerobic landfill technology was developed in Japan (Hanashima, 1999) and in in and 1999) (Hanashima, Japan in developed was technology landfill aerobic Gentil et al . 2010) allow less and less waste to be landfilled and the Council Council the and landfilled be to waste less and less allow

CA 130 - s. IWM and ORWARE models assume a 100 a assume models ORWARE and IWM -

span emissions from landfills are hardly hardly are landfills from emissions span

Benson – et al. 1.2 ton/m3 (wet) and therefore therefore and (wet) ton/m3 1.2

2007).

ndfill operation to operation ndfill injecting air flow flow air injecting - CEU eTD Collection typesco intheir waste some of landfilling the banned and further even moved have countries EU some 2012 By 2005). of as Germany and 1997, of as Denmark 1996, of as Netherlands the Today, some E

Norway: with > all waste banon Netherlands:categories of ban 1998, on35waste, Hungary: banon Germany: 2001,banon France: everything banon 2002, wastes, but‘residual’ Finland: waste, banonbiodegradable 2011, waste,Estonia: banonunsorted 2008, Denmark: forwaste suitable banon Belgium:waste ban onplastic landfilling, 2007, mechanical for exception treatmentwith acalorific waste valueKJ/kg > 6.600 dry substance,2008, the with waste on ban Austria: U member states have already banned the landfilling of organic waste (e.g. waste(e.g. organic already thelandfilling statesbanned of have member U untry (Dawkinsand Allan2010) o o o o o o o

Waste woodWaste composted and collected separately be to waste municipal biodegradable All Untreated municipal waste Any can that be municipal waste recovered non pre rubber scrap tires

2003, - treated waste treated waste

2006 and 2006

131 –

2015.

10% TOC, 2009

incineration, 1997, incineration,

- biological biological

CEU eTD Collection to the following(User fraction Manual 2012): ofItof emission generated. methane gas compared is tothe accordcan calculated be amount ofmethanegenerated. Therefore therelativeimportance the emission overall of In modeltheoverallEASEWASTE gasgenerated amount of the theoverall isbased on

United Kingdom Sweden: ban on o o o o o o o

engineering material, bicycle tyres, and tyres with an outside outside an diameter mm. than1,400 ofmore with tyres and tyres, bicycle material, engineering tyres used shredded and whole are notknown; environment the and/or man on effects whose and new, are which whi residues) laboratory as (such activities teaching or development and research from substances chemical establishments wastes clinical other and hospital flammable or flammable; highly corrosiv explosive, be would landfill a in which waste waste;liquid organicplastics) > waste (including 10% TOC sorted waste combustible

, ban on: , ban on:

–

which are infectious; (for 132 UK

–

source 2002,

is : – – Environment AgencyEnvironment 2010.)

from medical or veterinary veterinary or medical from apart from tyres used as as used tyres from apart ch are not identified or or identified not are ch –

2005, 2005, e, oxidising, oxidising, e,

ing ing

CEU eTD Collection Collected landfill gas becan four dividedgas into different options: landfill treatment where: Tot_gas_gen Equ

iii. iv. ii. i.

ation:

to anelectricitygas producingengine. combined plant heatand (CHP) andpower flareenerg (no vent (noenergy recovery), i =1,2,3,4(%) CH4_tpi Gas_gen_tpi Tot_CH4_pot of theassessment (m3) Tot_gas_gen

–

is thepercentof methanegenerated gas inthe“i”(%) period - –

–

is the percent ofgasis thepercent potential y recovery),

is the overall amount of gasgenerated amountis theoverall of throughout horizon the time

is thetotal waste methane (m3 potentialinlandfill CH ______

133

generated period intime “i”, (%)

)

CEU eTD Collection EASEWASTE. of impactan from went globalwarming that showed Damgaard (2011) results Amongthe model LCA waste the with modeled were examples landfill years. Several 100 first the within leached is metals of content the of 1% than less (2011), al years.by100 As presented after periodcontaminants Hau thelandfill time in of a remaining the for relevant is the It toxicity. of (eco) ‘stored’ toxicity called are human which contaminants, stored and ecotoxicity stored the introduced: are categories Christiensen long the consideration into Taking assessed by life convention a of impact gas environmental overall and the leachate reducing in of treatment importance The heat. and electricity of production for systems utilization gas or flares with systems collection covers, top oxidizing include can system The treatment. leachate as well as systems collection leachate and bottom liners include may controls leachate emphasized (2011) Damgaard As gas. landfill of amount significant a and leachate ca contaminated highly a produces generally Hungary, which landfilling, municipal Conventional account. into taken be are inventories the included. in years) of thousands over (even emissions future all However, o are years of thousands over place take which landfills from emissions time, in dilution a meant release slow the as landfill, the within compounds organic persistent highly or metals effect time long the for available measurements exact no was there as several years during as studies, LCA precise preparing in problem a posed has Landfilling When calculating the emissions from landfills, leachate and gas treatment must must treatment gas and leachate landfills, from emissions the calculating When et al. et - cycle (2007) highlighted that in the EASEWASATE model two new impac new two model EASEWASATE the in that highlighted (2007) - assessment (LCA) model. assessment inthe andEASEWASTE included ttd y Hauschild by stated - ie fet f h pluat i te landfill, the in pollutants the of effect time 134

t al. et

21) Teeoe h long the Therefore (2011). n be found in in found be n ften neglected. ften al landfill was was landfill al of the toxic toxic the of gas control control gas schild et schild et

- term t

CEU eTD Collection desirable options. and results research the discuss to helped which system management waste solid Budapest the to relation in stakeholders key the with made are Interviews documents. official available the review to order in necessary also was research Archival any require not did research present the as level, review literature the at only elaborated were studies Case detail. in described is it as 2012) in (mainly evaluation data and 2012) until 2008 from place took (which collection data includes research This Methodology thisthesis for and reliabilityarecovered. issues validity and research archival preparation thesis the for inevitable were which interviews inp data necessary the collection, data for schedule time and the methodology the during discusses It used thesis. present were of preparation which methods research different the describes chapter This surface waters. trea of emissions through released are contaminants of amounts slight treated, is leachate the that fact the of spite in because respectively), PE 0.003 to 0.002 eco in increase slight a in r can collection Leachate PE). 0.001 to PE (0.04 formation ozone stratospheric and PE) 0.002 to PE (0.02 formation ozone photochemical for calculated were improvements same The design. best the for PE −0.05 to dump open the for (PE) equivalents person 0.1 6.2

Research methods methods Research - toxicity and human toxicity via water (0.007E to 0.013PE and and 0.013PE to (0.007E water via toxicity human and toxicity

ut and data output of the model. Also, conferences and and conferences Also, model. the of output data and ut

135

ted wastewater to to wastewater ted

to identify their their identify to case studies. studies. case esult esult CEU eTD Collection took process collection data the that stated be must it general, In research. this for crucial most the was analysis data to related methodology the 2 Objective and 1 Objective For the data on focuses author chapter this in so chapter, that in exposed is work research individual system” management waste solid Budapest det The analysisData collectionand ITheBudapestare reasons why following: chose the

arena, gatheringwhich theinformation helped period. during management waste Budapest the in leaders to connections personal has author the for plans whichstation latersoftware evaluated can be inthe EASEWASTE are there as ev system or site Landfill Pusztazámor MSW the at treatment biogas Budapest a implementing the in changes be will there Budapest other bigger fundscities chance toreceivesmall than EU has door increase to collection during three launched be will project funded EU new a 2013, from landfillingcommon as ofHungary, inother here asparts is not thermal treatmentMSW Hungary, in Waste a has Budapest people, whichmillion isnearly thecountry. 20% of 1.7 of waste the treats it as system, management waste of scale large a has Budapest ailed data requirement and its evaluation are described in the “Evaluation of of “Evaluation the in described are evaluation its and requirement data ailed collectionanalysis andfromofview. themethodologicalpoint - years, big representinga project, itself o E to

eg Pat wih ae i uiu a ti i te only the is this as unique it makes which Plant, nergy

136

at Chapter 8. (page 199.) 199.) (page 8. Chapter at

as the whole whole the as en a transfer transfer a en - to - door door CEU eTD Collection the following fromZrt.: theFKF from data 2008 in collected data valuable first the Therefore tothemtheysubmitted us. additional data provided to were results and studies several as and interesting very research our found Zrt. FKF the environment new the 2010 of autumn the From provided. weredata of amount sufficient they until passed have years of plenty Zrt. FKF with meeting first the from lif a that seen be can It that elaborated. be can system offeredmanagement waste solid the for assessment was it 2008 September In Zrt. FKF with meeting a during afterwards and 2008 June in Denmark in model EASEWASTE the studied author The which tookplace thesecond of from 2011. half h and of, charge in was he company the for interest high a represented research my that realized Municipality Budapest the at Department Environmental the of Head new the when 2010 of end the at only was It in Hungary as as inBudapest well 2010. in ch political the to connected is delay serious this for likelihood biggest the but years, last the of crisis economic the to attributed be can delay this for Reasons project. the f over place

July for 2009) 2010.(totalamount waste yardswasteand door October amount 2009.(total and collection waste selective waste our years (2008 years our November 2011. For the data requirement mentioned above mentioned requirement data the For 2011. November - - 2012), which is far more that it was expected at the onset of of onset the at expected was it that more far is which 2012), to - door collection for the yearsdoor collection for the –

e initiated the processes to provide the required data, data, required the provide to processes the initiated e h wse opsto fr h 4 fractions 48 the for composition waste the 137

of 2006,2007and 2008), –

author waste islands, waste al leader of leaderof al

received cycle e –

ange was was

CEU eTD Collection Since beginning

visited thevisited environmental laboratory, 8 interviews, 23 meetings, 9 presentations, andseveral7 studies, from themwere ontheir studies uploaded webpage appr. 170 written pages in Hungarynot exist to the lack ofmeasurements. due (5 data some missing still is there Today April thewaste 2012(standards compositionanalytical for analysis) March data 2012.(clarifying pe the January for 2008 2012.(fuel consumption 2008, 2009,2010and partly 2011), yardsdoor islands, wasteand December 2011. (t November 2011. (technology, technological data2010), thelandfill until for forcomposition my research), for 2011and SCBU 2008,2009,2010and for 2011 Novemberfract 2011. (48 November 2010. (technology: technicalthe data waste for 2009) of24wasteOctober collectioncomposition for routes inBudapest 2010.(waste

work in2008wefollowingwork providedZrt: the toFKF

otal waste amount andotal waste selective waste collection plus this thesisplus ions waste compositionfor family singlefamily, multi -

to - door collection for the years and the door for ofcollection 2006,2007

rsonally at FKF Zrt.rsonally atmeeting FKF room) 138

- - 7% technical data), which mostly does mostly which data), technical 7% 2011),

which is the basics waste which isthebasics waste

- to - energy plant 2009) energy plant

–

waste waste

CEU eTD Collection Ithem. also discuss double Közterület years several a cycle life system management waste Budapest the evaluating For evaluat data for methodology the interpretationLCA result. ofthe of introduction the by detail, in followed discussed are data available the as well as data required the chapter this In Accordingyears which collection tookseveral tothe data generallybe stated that can it

- proved me. tobekindand helpful sp in however, in many amount, was cases it toclarifytheexact necessary me the samecertain occasions data in sent they that happened it so departments different from originated was data the uniform meas possess not do they means which data the for database uniform no has Zrt. FKF waste detail, compositionin carried out methodologyfor theinputdata, checked and consulted with the representatives of FKF Zrt. in order to clarify clarify to order in Zrt. FKF of representatives the with consulted and checked - fenntartó Zrt. (Municipal Public Services Co. Ltd.). The data obtained must be must obtainedLtd.). data ServicesCo. The Public (Municipal Zrt.fenntartó for author author for ed thedatathe software. withProfessors, theDanish whodeveloped urement units, (some ofthemurement units, werekg, etc.), some in intons, t o tee ifclis h dcso mkr ad h employees the and makers decision the difficulties these of ite fo 2009 (from

- 2012) to obtain the necessary data from Fővárosi Fővárosi from data necessary the obtain to 2012) 139

ssmn i took it ssessment o ad the and ion

CEU eTD Collection Waste generation data Input data:input model,i EASEWASTE the managementsystemin waste solid Budapest the of modeling Assessment Cycle Life the out carry to order In from each other: distinctive are that categories three into divided be can data necessary The data. obtained initiate were meetings several therefore quality, high a ensure ton carefully analyzed and checked double was obtained data the research the During output for and myData input research

Techno Measurable data: data:Statistical Numbergeneration of units o

logical data: For family single housing

o isac te ehooia dt o te eyln, composting, recycling, waste the of data technological the instance for ofthetypes,composition 48waste amount, selectivewaste in distances transported example for houses and SCBU instance for

to -

energy plant as wellenergy as plant landfilling. residential

–

small commercial units) andsmall business

140 structure, (single family houses, multi family multi houses, family (single structure,

t was necessary to obtain the followingthe obtain necessarywasto t kilometers

d in order to clarify the the clarify to order in d , waste amount, waste waste amount, waste ,

CEU eTD Collection transportationCollection the for different and waste types at theSorting the efficiencies for household different waste fractions Waste composition

liter/ton truck),liter/ton Collection vehi For commercial and SCBU (small business unit) For family multi housing For family single housing data areon theDanish therefore based laboratorycalcu H,N, Ca,Cl, Na,fossil, Mg Cd, content etc. Theof chemical these speciationtypes waste (H compositionforWaste thedifferentfractions waste amountWaste kg/person/year typePeople/unit

o o o o o

For types SCBU housingcollection For family collection multi housing For family single types collection housing For commercial and SCBU (small business unit) collectionwasteand schemescompositiondiffers For family (the multi twohousingare distinguished housing as types

cle, technology, fuel combustion (e.g.engine, 4.5 EURO 3

141

types –

it does not exist inHungary, does exist sotheit not 2

O, TS,Ash,C

lations)

between them)

- biological, C

- CEU eTD Collection 1 dataof theOutput environmental impact assessment described inthe “EvaluationwasteBudapestsolid system” indetail of 8. inChapter c waste and amount waste for data collected The potential different the thus and environmental impacts. system, management emissions waste of solid inventory an with calculates associated software the entries data these to According The functional thewaste is unit amount amountsWaste the and (waste for different waste technologies flow) types

aggregated based on an inventory of emissions contributing to these impact categories these impact to contributing emissions of anon inventory based aggregated

Acidification (SO Global (CO warming potential Thermal treatment(incinerationtype) Material recycling Ash treatment MRFs (materialfacility) recovery wasteLandfill (landfill mixed type) Energy utilization Biotechnology (anaerobic digestion Transportation(km) distances for treatmentfacilities thedifferent

- equivalents)

2 -

equivalents) per year Budapest.per in – 142

(e.g. glass(e.g. sorting) paper sorting, and composting)

omposition and its evaluation are are evaluation its and omposition 1

CEU eTD Collection By theevaluation the following canelaborated: analysis be Fromcarriedfollowing research theinputdata can out: the be

calculate the waste composition of an area depending on the co the on depending area an of composition waste the calculate waste determine collection theoptimal waste routes, the of terms in evaluation management, organization, data and collection data interpreting and evaluating theresults. for eachbetween 2006 months model EASEWASTE the for data input necessary the of utilization and collection the population, necessary) 2006 between months each collected selectively the of evaluation the on emphasis strong with treatment, waste Budapest the of analysis general water,etc. wood, Resource Fe, Al,Cu, of consumption oil, coal, Human toxicity (m Ecotoxicity (m Photochemical (C formation ozone Ozone depletion (CFC11 Eutrophi cationenrichment, (nutrient NO

soil, watersoil, or air)

soil, watersoil, air) or - equivalents) - - 2011 (for this the EASEWASTE model is not not is model EASEWASTE the this (for 2011 2011,

2 143 H

equivalents)

– 3

-- non selectively collected waste types in in types waste collected selectively non equivalents)

natural gas,

llection routes and and routes llection CEU eTD Collection and Budapest of case the in indicators performance environmental and rules containing negoti was it how and output the of quality and content the on information provides which data, secondary of collection the on information includes also It 2002). (Esterberg documents analys and collection the includes It policy. studying for method valuable a is research Archival Archival research

ated and agreed. Archival research has been used to explore the existing documents documents existingthe explore to used been has research Archival agreed.and ated s f ulc eod, ouet, eilto bcgon ad governmental and background legislation documents, records, public of is account aspecificobjective (such etc.as GHGs), decreasing revis increased collection, selectivewaste the to due waste landfilled the of diversion the by lifespan landfill the extension waste types, different and technologies different the at consumption fuel the of comparison increasing rate, theutilization biggest degree, the in emission environmental the to contributes technology which determine to 2006 between years the for months different the in impacts environmental the modeling thedisposedrecyclableextent waste would bebeneficial, calculated be can it analysis this of means by values, financial connected the and amounts exact the with system collection waste selective the of chart flow comparing theenvironmentalimpacts thedifferent in options, ion of former decisions in terms of the collection and technology, taking into into taking technology, and collection the of terms in decisions former of ion - 2011,

144

to what to CEU eTD Collection the following documents: reviewed have author documents other among information background necessary the For that research the for gathered contributed toansweringtheresearch and objectives was information attendance, event and interviews changes. explain Frankfort reliabilityand of research findings. waste primarystrengthenvalidityandthethe planned enrich to information used sourcesare Secondary data and present the about polic management information obtain to reviewed been had pages web and documents, policy and program legislative, Strategic, management. waste understan level. national on partly

- ding Nachmias and Nachmias (1996) suggest that se that suggest (1996) Nachmias and Nachmias National (such as official theNat documents proposed parameters, technical (its improvement etc.) site landfill the from Documents Waste parameters, emissionetc.) Budapest the from Documents National Management Waste Plans DevelopmentBudapest Plan, Environmental ManagementWaste for Budapest Plan LawHungarian Waste new FrameworkWaste Directive

the life cycle assessment as well as the structure of the Budapest solid solid Budapest the of structure the as well as assessment cycle life the By including a combination of data sources including archival research, research, archival including sources data of combination a including By ies, instruments and processes, as well as institutional structures. structures. institutional as well as processes, and instruments ies,

ouet nlss a a infcn cnrbto to contribution significant a had analysis Document

145

the assumptions. - to Energy Plant (its technical technical (its Plant Energy to ional Development etc.)ional Plan

condary data can also display and and display also can data condary

CEU eTD Collection semi the of part As was dictaphone the issues, sensitive some reveal to wanted they if however, this, for asked them of none but anonymity, keep to like would they if asked were respondents the 2006b), Trochim (e.g. of principles the and with comply conversation To questions. all the answered in involved became interviewees the cases many in However, interviewees stakeho key following the with meetings conference some as well as communications email interviews, personal formal included process This follow to me directed which effect” “snowball the area management waste the in stakeholders key the with semi some research this undertake to In order necessary.wereinterviews 3, Objective and 1 Objective of elaboration Forthe Interviews forotherfrom instance official the European Enviro documents or statistics Eurostat other with also and performed, wasdocuments other in data the with data this of comparison a this Following detail. that in before Budapest in sampled been whi categories waste 48 the for composition the obtain to requested author double was data the therefore important, very is validity data However,

Reporting papers, Documents from inspectorates, the environmental were

respected. They were asked beforehand about their time availability. time their about beforehand asked were They respected. - switched structured interviews, opportunity was provided for the informants to informants the for provided was opportunity interviews, structured

off and the relevant the and off

- tutrd open structured, 146

point was not presented in this research. this inpresented not was point - up with other respected respondents. respondents. respected other with up - ended interviews were conducted conducted were interviews ended lders: . The interviews were guided by by guided were interviews The .

confidentiality and anonymity and confidentiality

The nmental Agency. time time resources of the the of resources - ch have never never have ch checked. The The checked.

CEU eTD Collection waste the of manager environmental the Borsi, Zsuzsanna with conducted were interviews several 2011 and 2010 in Later bigger other the to similar become has waste solid Budapest’s of composition waste aggregated the today by Budapest, and countryside the of composition waste the between difference env the ofpurpose historymain the andabout talked Department.She Environmental the Headof former Koltainé, Pfeiffer Zsuzsanna with place took interview An research. my for stage wast the for data primary the receiving after 2009 November in conducted were interviews first The preparation stages. and result interpretation model the in punctuality and precision author’s the helped course EASEWASTE the document. also and engagement researchwith the DanishContinuous professors this in shown is which trend present the justified which Europe, throughout issues management personal waste mai solid of development the of monitoring continuous relevant or join collection to possible data was further It communication. and observation participant the provided for workshops and opportunity conferences at Attendance extent. great a in research email correspondence via place took communication personal Some informant. the of room meeting the facea on wereinterviewsconducted The managementoptions. to contributed greatly which inst important, for issues, emerging of identification found they topics about freely talk cities and rural areas in Hungary due to the dominancy of the packaging materials. packaging the ofdominancy the to Hungarydue in areas rural and cities ironmental laboratory. She emphasized that although that there was a large large a was there that although that emphasized She laboratory. ironmental e amount and the waste composition, which were however in the preparation the in however were which composition, waste the and amount e

or conducted on the telepho the on conducted or - to - ance the sampling, waste composition or waste waste or composition waste sampling, the ance incinerator plant, and Gábor Mile, the chief chief the Mile, Gábor and plant, incinerator 147

ne, however, they did not contribute to the to contribute not did they however, ne,

ig it, hc eald the enabled which lists, ling

other former PhD studentsPhD at former other - to - face basis mostly at the mostlyatbasis face CEU eTD Collection following respectableexperts: arethe with communication personal had author Zrt.,whom FKF within actors, main The present sector. waste management recommendations and policy options determinethe to used Intervieware isalsofor reality data integrated thatof related purposes toissues social and Budapest. Fe of manager g the is who Balatoni, Henrik instance for Zrt., FKF the of members not were who experts with communications personal several were there Naturally, stakeholders. key the res the finishing When data. invaluable provided Laboratory Environmental the of Head the Király, Gábor and times several me with communicated Department Environmental Olgyay Attila progressed, research the when Later research. my support also advisor technical former Siklóssy, Mihály end the to beginning the From facilities. these for data technological main the provided they plants, treatment waste enginee earch the results and the desirable options were discussed at the end of May 2012 with with 2012 May of end the at discussed were options desirable the and results the earch r of the Pusztazámor landfill site. Besides the history and the importance of their their of importance the and history the Besides site. landfill Pusztazámor the of r

János Bánhidy,János directorBudapest former of Waste the Centre inPusztazámor Management Waste Regional the of engineer main technical Mile, Gábor Ltd.Budapest Services Co. Municipal Public Olgyay Attila LajosLtd.Budapest Services Co. Director Klug, of Municipal Public - Group Zrt., the company what receives the collected selective waste of of waste selective collected the receives what company the Zrt., Group - zb, rsn Ha o te niomna dprmn of department environmental the of Head present Szabó,

148

for further development of the the of furtherdevelopment for - - to Energy Plant, Szabó, the Head of the of Head the Szabó,

eneral eneral ed ed CEU eTD Collection The required data thereforefollowingfrom were obtained the sources: Collection and transportation for the the for different waste types transportation and Collection different the fractionswaste for efficiencies Sorting Waste composition Numberof units Waste generation

Municipal Public Services Co. Ltd. Municipal Services Co. Public Budapest departmentof environmental ofthe Head Zsuzsannaformer Pfeiffer, Public Municipal Budapest Ltd.Services Co. of engineer chief former Siklóssy, Mihály Ltd. ServicesPublic Co. l environmental the of Head Király, Gábor Halász,József Head economic ofthe department Plant, Waste Budapest the of manager environmental Borsi, Zsuzsanna LászlóWaste present Sámson, Budapest of director the The parameters (H2O, thesewaste of types multi family typesFor collection housing single For familyhousing Wastekg/person amount People/unit betweenthem) differsschemes waste composition and astypes distinguished are multi family For (the two housing housing single For familyhousing For multi For single For familyhousing Na,Cd, N, Mgetc.content) TS,Ash, C fractions fractions for the Wastedifferent waste composition

familyhousing

biological, C biological,

fossil,Ca, H, Cl,

collection

149 Mihály Siklóssy, József Halász, Henrik Henrik Halász, József Siklóssy, Mihály Mihály Király, Siklóssy Gábor Halász, József Gábor Király Halász József Király, Gábor Pfeiffer, Zsuzsanna

aboratory of Budapest Municipal Municipal Budapest of aboratory ,

- to Energy Plant,

- to Energy Energy to

CEU eTD Collection thefollowing with haveWe results discussed key our FKF within Zrt.: stakeholders waste management system. wit discussed be can results cycle life the a and assessment environmental the provided, inputs required the With waste types and amounts typeswaste and (waste flow) Waste the for different technologies ssessment

Ltd. Co. Services Public Municipal Budapest of engineer chief Siklóssy, Mihály Olgyay Attila Zsolt Elter, Vice Gábor environmental Király,Head the laboratory, of in Bánhidy director the János, Budapest of Centre Management Waste Regional Pusztazámor the of director Mile, Gábor technology, 4.5 engine, (e.g. EURO 3 vehicle, Collection fuel combustion Thermal treatment (incineration type) Thermal(incineration treatment Materialrecycling Ashtreatment glass,sorting) paper (materialMRFs facility)recovery mixedLandfillwaste type)(landfill Energyutilization composting) Biotechnology and (biogas differenttreatment facilities distances Transportation for the (km) truck), liter/ton can be prepared. According to the research objectives, the interpretation of of interpretation the objectives, research the to According prepared. be can

12 . Table The required input and their proposed sources proposed their and input Therequired Table .

Szabó, Head oftheDepartment,Szabó, Environmental

director of FKF Zrt. ofFKFdirector h the main decision main the h

–

(e.g.

150 recycling Mihály Siklóssy. Waste (Budapest Borsi Zsuzsanna and (landfill) Mile Gábor Zrt.Balatoniemployer) FKF isnot (he

- makers in terms of the Budapest solid solid Budapest the of terms in makers Waste - to Energy Plant, to

- o nry ln) For Plant). Energy to

CEU eTD Collection EASEWASTE model was observed, the model that would prove to serve as the the as serve to prove would that model the observed, was model EASEWASTE direct the where important thesis, this of terms most in point” “turning the represents and project, research this in seminar the was This Denmark. Copenhagen, University, Technical Danish cycle softw EASEWASTE 14 Between CEEweb Academy9 onBiomass, renewable energy conference’. w Hungary 9 Biomass, on Academy CEEweb the was conference second The warming. global and management waste solid on focusing of context the within topic perfor CO of light the in biomass of `Use called paper, the of presentation conferencea event this At Authority. TechnologyandResearch fro U.S.A. 30 March between management” and technology twenty “The the in participated author The Conferences seminars and the opini com to necessary were interviews mentioned the 3 Objective For

LCA management the waste Budapest. solid of of ons of the main decision makers and discuss their desirable path in order to order in path desirable their discuss and makers decision main the of ons med, which was did not did was which med, assessment m the financial support of the Central European University and the National National the and University European Central the of support financial the m ee dsuso ws ed tte ‘oi boas n te Washington the and biomass ‘Solid titled held, was discussion a here - 22 June 2008, the author participated in a Summer University, where where University, Summer a in participated author the 2008, June 22 ion and the topic of the present research was finalized. In Denmark the the Denmark In finalized. was research present the of topic the and ion

for solid waste management systems. The training took place at the the at place took training The systems. management waste solid for are was taught was are

directly - 10 May 2008Esztergom, Hungary.

the

focus on life cycle assessment but related to the to related but assessment cycle life on focus

software whic software 151 2 -

third international conference on solid waste solid on conference international third emission and sustainable development` was was development` sustainable and emission

April 2 2008. in Philadelphia, PA, PA, Philadelphia, in 2008. 2 April

h is available to evaluate the l the evaluate to available is h - 10 May 2008 Esztergom, 2008 May 10 pare the results with the the with results the pare

analyze ife ife

CEU eTD Collection The paper. research this to used were results and conversations the therefore functional, still are which made were contacts and recorded were presentations Important discussed. cycof thelife scientific results and aspects different the for on debate rigorous a producedconference This discourse. forum international an creating and methodology LCA the developing natural we of as regulation resources and management the problems, environmental of analysis the non a is Chemistry) and Toxicology March G the at 2011. 1 on Lifestyles Sustainable on focusing Symposium, Study Case Assessment 17 SETAC the at made was presentation conference fourth author’s The high levelheld comprehensive issue. onthis lectures were clfield of inthe wasplayers by keyorganized. attended Thissession June 30 Inquiry, Interdisciplinary An Change: Climate University, Summer second the afterwards Shortly between 30June conference, Directive Incineration Waste for and Landfill Network Waste Enforcement on Training and Accession) Compliance (Environmental ECENA the in policy conferen third author’s The his researchBudapest from wasautumn of2011. obtained first the in for data valuablefirst the as 2012, fortrue is This model. EASEWASTE the at professors LCA the for of the continuously and Thisworkinterprets theresults foundation discusses ofdissertation. this le assessment and the different LCA evaluations at this conference had been LCAevaluations at conferencebeen andthe this assessment different had le ellért Hotel, in Budapest, Hungary. SETAC (The Society of Environmental Environmental of Society (The SETAC Hungary. Budapest, in Hotel, ellért - ll as research and development. This society played a great role in in role great a played society This development. and research as ll 2 July 2008 Gellért Hote 2008 2 July –

Budapest solid waste management system with the representatives and representativesand systemwiththe management waste solid Budapest 6 July, held at Central European University, Budapest, Hungary was was Hungary Budapest, University, European Central at held July, 6 ce presentations focused on the Hungarian waste management waste Hungarian the on focused presentations ce - profit, world profit, l, Budapest. l, 152

wide, professional society engaged in in engaged society professional wide,

imate change andimate the

Life Cycle Cycle Life CEU eTD Collection or credible are research qualitative of results the whether understanding involves understanding. of boundaries the within extent possible best the to pursued obj the dissertation this of purposes the For reliability and Validity Denmark. in training the attending before association professional the of foundation the initiated me a as author day this On Budapest. in 2008. May 20 on established was which Center, LCA by organized was conference This Hungary. in models LCA management waste possible the discuss to opportunity the was there conference this During 2012. March 13. Hungar Miskolc, in conference LCA VII. the was them among important most The presentation. poster or speaker a being without attended also were conferences Several format severalpublications were scientific by thisresearch. author obtained for the in and issued, been has publication desired a when informed was author the Gate Research Through topics. research similar concerning others by research related presents and follows which website a is which network, Gate Research the joined author the Later results. furt and 2010/4. Közlemények Európai Közép at transport management waste the articleon journal a published author Later,the identification gathering. and information co nversation with other participants at this event served as served event this at participants other with nversation mber of the foundation associations, along with other private individuals signed and and signed individuals private other with along associations, foundation the of mber

her publications are expected based on this thesis thesis this on based expected are publications her

153 ectivity and validity of research findings were findings research of validity and ectivity

additional

means for theme theme for means Credibility Credibility

y on on y this this - CEU eTD Collection during techniques Recording text. the interviewing causedwere inamanner deployed hasnot personal harm. that into incorporated not were interviewees respond in confidence and trust inspire to was goal the interviews conducting While dissertation. this of writing the during interviews the and research field the during activities all accompanied respect and Transparency 2002). on focuses ethics methods, correct with deals rigor Whereas and thenature the research topic. of of theresearch congruence place withthethe researchmethodstook needs strategyand in corresponding/consulti inter (with design research iterative by maintained been has researcher) (and research the of Credibility Trochim 2006a). methods procedures, of or Reliability results. explicitness and consistency the with its deals dependability verify to research the of ability the to connected closely is th of perspective the from believable

- ng with professionals/researchers in the same field. The design of of design The field. same the in professionals/researchers with ng active empirical and theoretical research steps) and and steps) research theoretical and empirical active

r oncens t ter (.. ie ad uemn 1994; Huberman and Miles (e.g. theory to connectedness or

e participants in the research (Trochim 2006a). This 2006a). (Trochim research the in participants e

154

ents. Direct quotations from the the from quotations Direct ents.

of the research process in terms in process research the of correct moral conduct (Ezzy (Ezzy conduct moral correct

CEU eTD Collection 7.1 ( on 2008 November 2008 19 of Council in the of and Directive Parliament European the Framework of 2008/98/EC Waste the legislation, new created has whole a ensured be and the which on principles, account into taken be must principles These on. built some is system friendly environmentally includes system management waste The FrameworkWaste Directive the hierarchy waste and consider thesis: theregulations tothis following principle related to have we Union European the of legislation management waste the into taking When waste solid Budapest the on management consequences serious have processes national these as future near the in trends expected the foresee to as well as legislation and changes Hun and European the in trends present the about information receive to necessary is it years, different the for model LCA the of results the as well as research environmental my of eva Before 7

ain oi wse aaeet I i rqie t bify umrz te current the summarize briefly to required is It management. waste solid garian Short descriptionShort of Hungarian waste management systems

The EU regulation on waste management on waste The EUregulation Packaging and FrameworkWaste Directive luating the Budapest solid waste management system and showing the results results the showing and system management waste solid Budapest the luating

system as well. system as well. t planning of different regional systems. Meanwhile the European Union Union European the Meanwhile systems. regional different of planning t Packaging Waste Directive Packaging Waste

155

Directive Directive CEU eTD Collection hierarch preferred following the recommends strongly EU the hierarchy waste the to According waste in order management policy: priority a as apply shall the Act hierarchy Waste waste Hungarian following new the in as well as Directive Framework Waste the In which comes forceof1January into as 2013. certain repealing and waste option favoured most Source: Source: y ofwaste management options:

author own contribution based on EC 2008. ( EC2008. on based contribution own author

e) d) c) b) a)

directives disposal. other recovery,e.g. energy recovery; and recycling; preparing re for prevention; 25 . Figure The waste hierarchy Thewaste Figure . ) and accordingly Hungary has a new Waste Act Act Waste new a has Hungary accordingly and ) (Waste Framework Directive 2008)

156 prevention;

- use;

preparing re for

Waste Framework Directive, 2008) Waste Directive, Framework recycling;

energy recovery;

- use; disposal

prevention and and prevention

CEU eTD Collection re recycling, promoting and outlines waste packaging of production which the limiting at waste aimed measures packaging and packaging on 1994 December 20 of 94/62/EC E the is regulation important most other The packagingDirective waste and Packaging on thinking if hierarchy waste the from diversion allows Directive Framework Waste The social impacts. and economic health, human environmental overall the as well as viability economic account: into taken be must principles following the management waste in highlighted, 2012. Biczó As most and first thewaste in important point hierarchy. the to contribute not does incineration the prevention waste of terms the of amount pollute large needs incineration also an and can environment itself incineration or as incineration safe, whether environmentally debates more several is landfilling are there that stated be must it However, - use and other forms of wasteand recovery. otheruse of forms eeain n mngmn o sc wse” E 20 Wse Framework Waste 2008 (EC Directive). waste.” such of management and generation life by justified is this where the from departing streams waste specific require may This outcome. environmental overall best the deliver that options the take encourage shall to measures States Member … hierarchy waste the applying “When 4. Article

can this. justify precaution, sustainability, technical feasibility, technical sustainability, precaution,

- yl tikn o te vrl ipcs f the of impacts overall the on thinking cycle

157 uropean Parliament and Council Directive Council and Parliament uropean

at t b eooia, o in so economical, be to waste and protection and

of resources, resources, of

hierarchy hierarchy l ife cycle cycle ife CEU eTD Collection of use better a in results management waste Improving resources. key EU’s the of one as waste using of possibilities the indicating recycled, is waste of 80% than more States On i waste solid incineration.total the of 40% or only average landfill to waste of tonnes billion 2.7 of dispose States Member e warns, (2011) Commission European the As of thewaste managemen steps different the analyze to necessary is it account, into taken is hierarchy waste the If Membergoals States toreach were the required 2008. by Union European the of most however 2012, by targets these accomplish to has Hungary attained: December contained 2012 thefollowing inpackaging targetsforwaste materials be must Thereforeaccording tothese Europeancountries shall notbelater thedate 31December than 2012. Eastern other some and Hungary waste packaging and packaging on 94/62/EC Directive 2005/20/E attain to order in environment the on impact their reducing systems reuse packaging develop to and waste, packaging Direc The

tive says that Member States should take measures to prevent the formation of of formation the prevent to measures take should States Member that says tive C of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005 amending amending 2005 March 9 of Council the of and Parliament European the of C

15 % for wood. 22.5 % for plastics and; 50 % for metals; 60 %glass, for board; and paper t systemcompare andenvironmentalt their impacts. two directives Hungary fulfill31 nolater should than

specifically

158 s re s

- e tres Acrig o h Directive the to According targets. set used or recycled, while in some Member Member some in while recycled, or used ach year in the European Union the the Union European the in year ach

CEU eTD Collection 7.2 s has databases proper of lack the However, system. controlled and coherent a form to aim will which regulations, implementing 40 around have will law waste latest The laws. new the follows regulation of deficiencies and mistakes significant the correct and Directive, fully Framework Waste are the with acts harmonious legislative Both törvény). (Termékdíj Act fee Product Environmental import most The Parliament on8.October2012thatcomes force into from 1.January 2013. Hungarian the by adopted been has Act Waste new a Directive, Framework Waste the sophisticated. more tocomply requirement as a Law in2000and onWaste Management Hungaryadopted the becoming is problems waste towards awareness environmental Additionally technologies. treatment waste and legislation national Hungarian to adapted was legislation EU the 2004 in Union European the joined Hungary that fact the to Due newoccurred piece oflegislation recently some and changed been had system management waste solid the Hungary in Therefore, forthe second thewhole started management waste 2010. sector half in of Hungarian the for opportunities equal and predictability accountability, controllability, transparency, achieve to order In lower impactsthe environment. on marke new establish can and resources

The Hungarian legislation on waste management onwaste legislation The Hungarian ant doctrines among them is the Waste Act (Hulladék törvény), and the the and törvény), (Hulladék Act Waste the is them among doctrines ant

h fre wse aaeet ytm Nw implementation New system. management waste former the lowed down the revision process. Additionally a lack of reliable of lack a Additionally process. revision the down lowed

market players, the preparation of new waste legislation legislation waste new of preparation the players, market

ts and employment opportunities together with the the with together opportunities employment and ts .

159

CEU eTD Collection force in into enter will and 2012 autumn at Parliament the by accepted be to expected is law This preparation. thorough a after 2012 October 8. on Parliament Hungarian the by accepted was Act Waste new a Hungary intro in Directive Framework Waste the to According Waste Law Law. Waste the including system, new the of preparation the delayed contradictions several and data duced, which replaces the former Waste Management Law. The Waste Law was was Law Waste The Law. Management Waste former the replaces which duced,

e lgsain ytm ad eemns h mnml 51 minimal required achievetargets. the order to servicein public companies the in ownership the determines and system, legislation new the of element important very a be will ownership state the of rate increased The and thepunishment for be stealingwill muchstricter. it service public The locations where soeasy isnot it tointroduce thedoor door the on based is it and 2015 from compulsory be will collection waste selective The bewill detail discussed lateralso. in which enacted inHungarysofar, been never whichIta has landfill fee, introduces FrameworkWaste later islisted inthe European Directive Unionlegislation. Waste the following materials and ter in Directive Framework products of cycle life whole account into take to necessary is it that states Law the assessment cycle life of terms In

2013. For research ofthe2013. this mainpoints neware lawfollowing: the the

- to - door collection system. Waste islands will be implemented at at implemented be will islands Waste system. collection door

provider will be the owner of the waste in the waste islands waste the in waste the of owner the be will provider ms of life cycle. The life cycle determination of the the of determination cycle life The cycle. life of ms 160

- to

- door system. collection

state/municipal %

CEU eTD Collection product. polluting environmentally produces it as producer the on tax a was which fee, product multination the rate, utilization given a of case the In waste. utilized and collected the of amount the of report to companies coordinating these entrusted companies multinational big the that means It system”. fee “product the under wa different of utilization and collection proper the were for responsible who companies coordinating several were there Hungary In change. important very another mention to necessary also is It 2012. January 01 on force into coming 2011, by accepted was and fee Product Environmental an introduced which 2011 of LXXXV Act new a of preparation the with began work Law Waste the Before ProductAct fee the practice management States withhigh inthe Member waste level. year. every increased progressively and 2013 from implemented be will fee landfill a waste, landfilled the decrease to order In possibility. final the only be shall landfilling and higher, be shall rates recycling decreased, be shall amount waste be shall Hungary in system management waste the targets: following the serve will regulations implementing its together and management system waste modern the of background legislative the serves Law Waste The o ownership are public companies in service already public of majority the that mention to important is It perating well.

–

rjce t te ubr f inhabitants of number the to projected 161

traceable al companies do not have to pay the the pay to have not do companies al

predictable for long for predictable

This also complies with complies also This ste types, which fall fall which types, ste

the Parliament in in Parliament the term, the the term, –

and CEU eTD Collection ManagementWaste A National the of tasks main the fee, product environmental the on Law the to According an accountable are conditions the as tasks management waste real, the which in Hungary and in controlled, operate can market efficient more a process this of result a As accountability.same the as well as players key the for conditions participation coordinat its representatives through EU the and state Hungarian the and players key the for transparency Kft. Nonprofit Ügynökség Hulladékgazdálkodási state t established, was company coordinating one only them of instead and down shut were companies coordinating three twenty the that was change Great eliminated. was payment fee product the from exemption The Hungary. in year this was from selective even rates the collection increase to and contradictions the resolve to frames appropriate provides legislation new The flows. material and waste the control to and regulations environmental stricter the enforce to order in 2011 in prepared was law new a Therefore the fate thewaste money of and the and controlled really not was it system, the in malfunctions several were there However, -

owned knowledge technologies onthelatest trends, and processes, management waste solid the improve to environmental product fee, the under productswaste the of activities and flowswaste nationallythe control to to make these contract thecompanies waste with utilize types, whocollect and ainl at Mngmn Aec Nnrft t. (Országos Ltd. Nonprofit Agency Management Waste National ea cmais hl rmi, ih rqieet o ou o te real the on focus to requirement a with remain, shall companies legal ing and controlling activities. In addition it provides the same same the provides it addition In activities. controlling and ing gencyare following: the

were known. notexactly 162

system with innovation and update update and innovation with system -

OHÜ).

This agency ensures the the ensures agency This mtvtn fr them. for motivating d

he he te te

CEU eTD Collection products: followin the to relevant are fee product the presently (2011) fee product environmental amount respective their of because environment the polluting are which products to applied are fees Product Product fee the are which incentives main following: three are there that conclude can we legislation the late the of result a as (2011) Development Rural of Ministry to According laid downintheEnvironmental product feeAct (LXXXV.law in2011.) basically is which principle, pay polluter the for incentive special a is there Hungary In Economic FKFZrt. nowadays inBudapest aswell. the of activities the influencing also is control stricter the for trend This management. i it and OHÜ the by replaced were companies coordinating the all of activity the Therefore s foreseen that a much stricter control will take place in Hungary in the solid waste waste solid the in Hungary in place take will control stricter much a that foreseen s

to improve waste theenvironmentalawareness management. thesolid in landfill fee. deposit refund the system and product fee,

incentives to promoteto incentives the waste

and and

car battery, packaging waste, of the containing materials. According to the Law on the the on Law the to According materials. containing the of

163

hierarchy prioritieshierarchy

st changes in changes st

g CEU eTD Collection be determined: can order following the term this it and product the of materials) (raw production primarily the is aspect important most the that out points summary (2011) Vámosi The under consideration deposit for refund the system: are which packaging, waste the following the included for studies LCA which 20 than system more of evaluation refund deposit the for prepared was research Relevant awaren environmental the rewards incentive this So back. money his receive will he as recycling toreceivesupermarket fee. extra Therefore this isentitled consumerinterested in he the and to battery spread be may bottles, PET it as but well as glass, glass beer wine champagne, for applied only is it (presently types waste packaging some on fee extra an pay consumer the that means system refund Deposit systemDeposit refund

ess behavior. Composite (forComposite examplejuice cartons) packaging. Glass and Alum plastic PET bottle,

inum paint toner) and when the consumer brings this product back to the the to back product this brings consumer the when and toner) paint

cans,

advertisement paper. crude products, oil tires, wasteand of electronic electric equipment (WEEE),

164

aluminum

cans, composite waste, or or waste, composite cans,

CEU eTD Collection deposit the so bottle, glass returnable the at smallest the and bottles PET way one the of case in most the are gasdemand natural and oil crude the that evident is it table this From objectives. management waste Productfeeand law 2011. O. Vámosi Source: gasequivalent are different for packagingthefollowing: the materials natural and oil crude the conclude can we (2011) Vámosi by lead research a Accordingto 4. 3. 2. 1.

production. Aluminum bottles PET materials, HDPE and depending onthe Composite Glass drinking packaging for determining the product fee amount. product the determining for drinkingpackaging 13 – . Table Crude oil and natural gas demand of some packaging products packaging demand some gas of natural and oil Crude Table .

9 MJ/kg istheenergy9 MJ/kg for demandfrom theproduction the raw materials,

cans –

28 MJ/kg is the energy demand for the production from the raw raw the from production the for demand energy the is MJ/kg 28 80 MJ/kg, produced is but it fro –

140 MJ/kg, as well as red mud is generated during the the during generated is mud red as well as MJ/kg, 140 165

aluminum m oil, m oil,

content,

Summary

Environmental analysis of the analysis of Environmental

CEU eTD Collection Municipal waste solid countries landfillare theamountfeesas ofthe follows: other the In also. Hungary in earlier out carried be to have may which step a actually is this and States,Member Union European other in feesalreadyhave Landfillintroduced and waste disposed the andincrease recycling thewaste prevention through collection. selective waste decrease to order in States Member Union European the in incentive common a is fee landfill However, 2015. by tons per 12,000 HUF to increased w it gradually and 2,000/ton HUF is waste solid municipal of landfilling of fee The the consumers lessandselective toconsume alsouse facilities. the to collection waste fe Landfill Landfill fee sizes. insmall PET and glass way composite. one aluminum, and of production size, the environment big the for in harmful Strongly bottles PET glass, returnable of: case the in beneficial consideration. into this take must system refund Wa ste type e is an incentive, which is to be paid after landfilling waste, therefore it forces forces it therefore waste, landfilling after paid be to is which incentive, an is e

14 . Table Amount of the landfill fee in Hungary fee landfill the of Amount Table .

Source: Waste Act 2011. Draft Act2011. Waste Source: 3 000 2013

166 Waste landfillWaste feeHUF/tons), (net

6 The study reveals that the production is production the that reveals study The 2014

000

9 2015

000

12 2016 ill be ill

000

CEU eTD Collection in Sweden, which i EUR 43 present the reach to increase gradual of years four take will it value EUR 40 the 12 HUF and EUR) 30 (appr. 2015 (appr. fro 10 EUR) 3000 HUF follows: as 2016, and 2013 between gradually increased be will it of amount the and Act Waste the in included is fee landfill The waste. generated the of recovery be will fee landfill The Lithuania,socialist countries: Slovakia, and Poland Estonia. Czech Republic, former the shows color red The etc.). German (Austria, forbidden is streams waste some waste where countries, the in high quite managementand recyclin is fee landfill the that shows graph The 26 . Figure Landfill fee for MSW in some European countries (EUR/ton, 2011) (EUR/ton, countries European MSWfor insome Landfill fee Figure . m 2013 which will be HUF 6000 in 2014 (appr. 20 EUR, HUF 9000 in HUF in EUR, in2014(appr.9000 which be 20 will HUF 6000 m 2013 s 37% ofthe 107,49EUR fees 37% inThe Netherlands. Source: also be implemented in Hungary and this incentive also serves the servesthe also incentive this and Hungary in implemented be also g is high. There are even some countries in which landfilling for landfillingfor inwhich someeven countries g are There ishigh. Source: own contribution based on CEWEP CEWEP on based contribution own Source:

000 in 2016 (appr. 40 EUR). It can be seen that with that seen be can It EUR). 40 (appr. 2016 in 000 167

CEU eTD Collection landfill fee system deposit refund product fee Incentive system fee. as asthelandfill well waste promote to order recyclin In and prevention management. waste efficient the establish to law basic a is it term long the in as feesystem, product the regulate to was important most the First, (2011) incentives main three the Comparing Summary the incentives of market andshall notincrease andwithin the inhabitants theillegal landfilling. f landfill the implementing waste.By thelandfilled amount of the todecrease year as as well of recovery every waste amount higher a reach to wishes legislation Hungarian the fee increased gradually the By Source: Ministry of Rural Development 2011. Impact assessment of the modifying recommendations for modifyingrecommendations the of Impact assessment 2011. Development Rural of Ministry Source:

we canwe summarize theconnecting measurements. and impact

. Table Possible impacts of the product fee, deposit system and landfill fee system deposit landfill and fee, product the of impacts Possible Table . landfilling rate to to other directions, rate waste landfilling decreasing use and recycling, re waste minimalisation, promoting prevention and minimalisation waste Impact g in the second step it is necessary to introduce the deposit fee fee deposit the introduce to necessary is it step second the in g ee the policy makers wish to avoid any disturbance in the the in disturbance any avoid to wish makers policy the ee

the environmental product fee Draft fee product theenvironmental

–

ae o te iity f ua Development Rural of Ministry the on based - 168 special waste waste for streams, special on landfilling ban against disposal, promotes recycling which targets, utilization obligatory recycling rates, rate, for targets national waste landfilling decreasing waste landfilling rate, decreasing Measurement

some waste typ at landfilling divert to maydifficult it be may high be costs administrative polluting products the environmentally lead less to consumption may it Comment

CEU eTD Collection 7.3 distance processingfurther for be shall short. the plant Development campaigns events, several arethere this of part a As awareness. targetto this environmental which theamount bespent ofbudget asitdetermines must on infrastructure. modern as well as recycling and elaborated. be must material the recycling collection, waste after and source production the from natural thefollowingbeensured: must statusofHungary threeconditions and environmental the improve to order In important. highly is recycling and collection pe waste the of amount the Hungary In the for background Hungarian sector management has waste described been indetail above. legislation new the and altered, been had legislation Hungarian accounta consistent to obstacle an be to expected not is this and prevail, will preparation careful more cautious, system management waste new the In also. Budapest in and Hungary These

Current trends in the Hungarian waste management sector waste Hungarian the in Current trends changes are necessary to understand the present waste management policies in in policies management waste present the understand to necessary are changes 3.) A utilization base is required near the selective collection locations, so the the so locations, collection selective the near required is base utilization A 3.) 2.) a much as waste of amount produced the From 1.) bility. Nationwide

is planning to involve is planningto

environmental awareness is required for the selection, collection collection selection, the for required is awareness environmental children environmental topromote behavior. r capita is increasing, so its selective waste waste selective its so increasing, is capita r 169

The present Product fee Law contributes contributes Law fee Product present The

s possible must be collected collected be must possible s

and the Ministry of Rural of Ministrythe and

CEU eTD Collection Law onthe fee product thenewspecific for waste regulations sets types. the whereastypes, waste differentof recyclingtargets the OGyHT)Terv, set Hasznosítási and Collection National the Hungary In of opportunity the marketplayers. for equality and predictability the ensures regulation management waste the in change This contr because system, new the to adapt to difficult be can it players market some for that mentioned be must It smaller. become burden administration producer’s the system new the In market. the guide competition attention high with process procurement public through service the order can OHÜ sector, industrial the of case the In utilization. and collection for conditions same the with them with contracts OHÜ and companies an collection waste the inhabitants the of case In sector. industrial the from comes other the and inhabitants by waste collected selectively the is them of One sources. two from originated be can obligations fee product the under o waste the of utilization and collection collective the manage and organize can coordinator, only the as OHÜ, OGyHT. the of targets the can to contribute market the on product the introduces first which player business the individual or the producer for opportunity provides Law fee Product The described 10pagesProduct incaseofthefee indetail repeated before sonot here. Act, system. obligation fee product the under fall which products the of waste the described was it As some pages before that before pages some

ol and the accountability become stronger also. also. stronger become accountability the and ol 170 o h sae eurmns n mawie let meanwhile and requirements state the to OHÜ Nonprofit Kft. is sole is Kft. Nonprofit OHÜ

Utilization d transport is made by the public service public the by made is transport d

Plan (Országos Gyűjtési és és Gyűjtési (Országos Plan f the products which fall which products the f

performance, so the the so performance, ly responsible for for responsible ly

This was was This

CEU eTD Collection landfills are sites being remediated. mainl are sites landfill regional operating presently The requirements. EU the to compliant not were which sites landfill existing the down shut to had Hungary 2009 July 15 By rate. collection full a is there that reach rate collection waste the Hungary In selective collection. waste the of rate the increase to order in established be must facilities recycling The legislation. Hungarian the in changes recent the on chapter the of in detail in type discussed was incentives This targets. recycling current the increase to order in implemented be must system deposit the than targets recycling EU these reach to able not is Hungary If 2014. by waste recyclable the and waste organic the within target recovery % 50 the reach to order In II.:in the OHT following the to according revised be must targets these Therefore Hungary. in capacities t reach to order in that evident is It we canberevised: the followingmust points state OHT former the of revision a As version. draft the from targets the determine to possible only is it so officially, published yet been not has Plan management Waste National The National Waste ManagementPlanHulladékgazdálko (Országos

must bemust ensured of by theend 2013. waste solid municipal 50% the of thermally) or material its in (either recovery the enduntil of 2013; selectiv

2020 the use of the selective waste collection facilities must be obligatory from from obligatory be must facilities collection waste selective the of use the 2020 e waste collection bins must be ensured for at least 80 % of the inhabitants inhabitants the of % 80 least at ensuredfor be must bins collection waste e

co y

hese targets it is necessary to enlarge the recycling recycling the enlarge to necessary is it targets hese - financed by the EU financial support. The closed closed The support. financial EU the by financed 171 ed 93% in 2007, and in Budapest we can say can we Budapest in and 2007, in 93% ed

dási Terv) –

II.

CEU eTD Collection years:the last can treatment and generation waste solid municipal The The are main targets following document inrelat the ofthe the entire country. collection island door the reallyso efficient,not systemis waste the However, 2008. in 12% was collection waste selective door the yardswaste and 100 and islands wasteare approximately8,000 Hungarythere Today in

Other Landfilled (thousand tons) Thermal treatment(thousandtons) Recycling(thousand tons) amount (thousand MSW tons) h lnflig ae ut e erae ad et eo 6 % y 04 n the in 2014 by % regional landfill sites. 60 below kept and decreased be must rate landfilling the the necessary be all must established infrastructure ofthefor inhabitants, waste by from theinhabitants plastic and metal glass, paper, the for ensured be must rates recycling 35% the (paper,glass andorganic), metal, plastic, types waste recyclable the in 40% above increased be must rates recycling the - to - or olcin ece mr ta 9000 naiat. h rt of rate The inhabitants. 900,000 than more reaches collection door (thousand tons) 16

. Table Amount of waste treatment in Hungary, 2007, 2008 2009 and 2008 2007, treatment in Hungary, waste of Amount Table .

Source: National Waste management Plan, draft Plan, management Waste National Source: Name

2014, and 50% by 2020, 2014, and 50% - to

172 - door collection system must be increased inincreasedbe system collection door must

2007

3 428 4 594 be seen in the following table in in table following the in seen be ion to this research: this ion to 229 383 554

2008 3 341 4 553 126 393 692

2009

3 212 4 312 406 665

the CEU eTD Collection 0 estimated are Kingdom the and United Portugal Romania, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, 27, EU the for Data European Union Member States. the of methods treatment the within displayed is situation Hungarian This EU27 average Bulgaria Romania Malta Lithuania Latvia Cyprus Czech Republic Slovakia Greece Poland Hungary Estonia Ireland Slovenia Portugal Spain U.K. Finland Italy France Luxembourg Belgium Denmark The Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany

equals less than 0,5 %, “.” indicates a real zero. zero. real a “.”%, indicates 0,5 lessequals than Name of the country 17 generation kg/capita . Table Waste treatment method in the EU 27, 2009 (%) 2009 EU27, inthe method treatment Waste Table . MSW Source: Eurostat Eurostat Source:

512.22 468 396 647 360 333 778 316 339 478 316 430 346 742 449 488 547 529 481 541 536 707 491 833 616 485 591 587 Landfilling News release News

54.85 100

173 62 52 48 46 45 32 17 99 96 95 92 86 83 82 82 78 75 75 62 62 5 4 1 1 1 0 Waste treatmentWaste method (%)

Incineration

37/2011 82011 March 37/2011 15.19 12 10 10 19 11 18 12 34 36 35 48 39 49 29 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 9 Recycling

18.59

14 17 14 13 14 32 34 15 26 24 11 18 27 36 34 32 36 30 48 0 1 4 3 7 2 2 8 Composting 11.30 11 12 24 14 12 32 16 20 24 14 28 14 40 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 6 2 7 2 4 2

CEU eTD Collection order collection todetermine theminimal and types. recycling of waste rates different rate utilization the includes OGyHT) and Collection National The players can decidetoget whether inreaching involved management thewaste targets. business and pu operational are requirements the state plan as activities to players key enables This types. waste by fee product the under fall which products the of waste the from amounts and rates utilization Terv Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési (Országos Plan Utilization and Collection National the is system the in element new A National Collection and th MSW one treatmentlocatedproduces inBudapest plant, whichis and only have we Hungary In recovery. energy any without burning means incineration whereas produced are heat and electricity waste the of combustion the during that means treatment thermal because table, this in treatment“ “thermal to shou “incineration” phrase the that suggested is it perspective author’s the From etc.). Denmark Netherlands, The Austria, Germany, as (such low is rate landfilling and high is rate incineration and composting recycling, the where system sophisticate management and level high a possesses and country the Bulgaria when and particularly etc.), countries, Romania European Eastern the predominantly as (such underperforming is system management waste country the than high is rate landfilling be can consequences following the data comparison EUROSTAT this From Utilization Utilization -

OGyH

s for for s Plan lc ad pcfcly eemnd o h market the so determined specifically and blic,

T) which determines the waste collection and and collection waste the determines which T) Plan (Országos Gyűjtési és Hasznosítási Terv, Terv, Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési (Országos Plan 2013 174

. The OGyHT was written by the OHÜ in in OHÜ the by written was OGyHT The . combined heat and power.combined heat ld be changed changed be ld

drawn: if the if drawn: waste d ermal

CEU eTD Collection packaging expected The increasing. also is utilization the market the on products the prepared was which (OgyHT), Terv Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési Országos latest the to According Source: rate (%) Utilization (t) amount utilization Planned (t) collection individual Ind (t) collection Consumption (t) collection Inh (t) partners industrial from Collection (t) amount utilization Min (%) utilization Minimal (t) generation Waste waste types are thefollowing: packaging the of terms in utilization and collection the of amount planned the that says It 2012. the in process system, management waste solid current latest the to according OGyHT the modify to right the has OHÜ The ependent, abitant

imal imal

Országos Gyűjtési és Hasznosítási Terv (OGyHT) 2012 version 01/2013. National 01/2013. version 2012 (OGyHT) Terv Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési Országos

rate rate

Utilization Plan Budapest, 2012. August 25. Országos Hulladékgazdálkodási Ügynökség Ügynökség Hulladékgazdálkodási Országos August 25. 2012. Budapest, UtilizationPlan

in August

320 592 285 000 227 886 379 810 84.4% Paper 60% 20 592 18

. Table Planned collection and utilization rate, packaging 2012. packaging rate, utilization and collection Planned Table .

2012 wea see can which pattern thatby 2012 outlines amount of increasing

Textile 15.8% 60% 114 190 30 30

(without (without

Metal Metal 96% 50% alu) 43 200 42 000 22 500 45 000 1 200

minum 16.1% 17 200 50% Alu 2 769

1 819 8 600 so the 01/2013 version was made on 25. August August 25. on made was version 01/2013 the so 500 450 175 -

Plastic 240 000 133 767 22,5% 55.7% 17 000 43 000 54 000 5 000

110 000 60.1%

Glass 66 148 16 000 22 000 28 000 66 000 60% 148

200 000 18.1% Wood

36 250 36 000 30 000 15% 250

posite 26.7% Com 23% 23 000

6 150 1 000 4 500 5 290 650 -

Collection and and Collection

608 908 396 530 609 120 Total 60% 60% 44 217 22 500 61 892

200 015

CEU eTD Collection of Ministry wa solid municipal the of % 10 only is However, thepackagingrecoveryamount from expected the is465 waste representing 1. recyclable the Therefore, composted. be can which waste organic the plastic, glass, paper, are: types waste recoveredpotentially the amount this of amount the Hungary In 465786 tonswh waste recovered and collected the and tons 794551 is 2012 for market the on waste Source: Országos Gyűjtési és Hasznosítási Terv (OgyHT’12), Budapest, 2011. 2011. Budapest, (OgyHT’12), Terv Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési Országos Source:

19 . amount recoveryand Planned output selective residual of the Utilization Composite Glass Wood Metal (without alu) Aluminum Paper and textile Plastic Packaging waste Table Table Rural Development Rural 5 million tons. 5 million ich means a58.ich means

Planned output and recovery amount in the packaging waste (tons, (tons, waste packaging amount the in recovery and output Planned

the municipal solid waste is 4. is waste solid municipal the

6 %utilization.

and the OHÜ will promote the selective waste collection. waste selective the promote will OHÜ the and On the market ste. In order to reach as high rate as possible, the the possible, as rate high as reach to order In ste. 176 143 280 195 794

20 98 47

522,9 369,2 341,5 898,8 612,3 920,7 885,5 551,0

5 million tons per year and from from and year per tons million 5 Planned recovery 272 465 61 26 96 6 138,1 September waste is 33,9 %, %, 33,9 is waste

305,3 000,0 727,3 940,1 142,4 733,2 786,4 1 800 786 tons, which tons, 786

metal and also and metal 2012)

15.

is is CEU eTD Collection 7.4 amount ofwaste orrecovered. isrecycled this of majority the countries other in systems environmental developed In landfilled. 300 annually, Hungary In and planning nationwide a ensure will hand, one implementation onthe other account hand,the into local takes needs and possibilities. on 2012, from Hungary in can waste packaging more 5 sector public the from collection waste selective the of result a as years following in then further, increases and satisfied been has amount this If OHÜ. with contracted according tons 000 80 is year this 62 was amount average.This national recycledin is 5% even not inhabitants, from MSW collected from system presentthe Within sector. service inhabitants the the from to % according 15 2012 is in OGyHT waste packaging the of rate recycling and collection The

Estimated trends for the waste amo waste forthe trends Estimated -

450 kg/capita municipal waste is generated which is mainly mainly is which generated is waste municipal kg/capita 450 be included. In summary, the new waste management system system management waste new the summary, In included. be

to the activities of the public service companies who companies service public the of activities the to

and 85% from the industrial, commercial and and commercial industrial, the from 85% and (Köztisztasági 2003). 177

unt and composition in Hungary in composition and unt

000 tons in 2010 and the plan for for plan the and 2010 in tons 000

- 6 % % 6

CEU eTD Collection not if technology, expensive most the not (e.g. Hungary for the technology develop appropriate to able be to and below mentioned aspects, the from technologies these compare to able be to base a serve also will thesis This result. will it consequences pre biological mechanica as (such adopted be can technologies same the rate what in questionable is it However, technologies. same the adopt Hungarywill that expectedis it technologies, Since as well as management theregionalwaste plans. Plan Management Waste National the of revision the finishing after only prepared be can plan management waste Budapest the that out pointed 2009) (pers.comm. A. Bartus As be can it so years, regarded last the in significantly changed not has composition waste The

the changes in EU legislation and the waste principles have influence on Hungarian on influence haveprinciples waste the legislationand EU changesin the

as present situation aswell. as presentsituation - treatment) and what sort of environmental, financial, legal and social social and legal financial, environmental, of sort what and treatment) 27 . Figure C Figure . Source: Source: omposition of the municipal solid waste, 2004 municipalwaste, solid the omposition of Ministry of Environment and Water. 2006. 2006. Water. and Environment of Ministry

178

most most l - CEU eTD Collection 2007 the of strategy Development the past the in situation the show To Waste Hungary in treatmentestimations promotes correspondingwaste hierarchy priorities. wit agrees fully government present The hierarchy. waste the follow properly not does Hungary requirements, EU strict the with 69 comply sites present landfill the Although size. geographical its to compared Hungary in sites landfill instan For sector. business the key this of in many appearing for "adventurers" weaker became market The competition. of field uneven observed the in gounpredictable became status their as bankrupt went companies some consequence, and several determined years last without the place in took strategy management investments waste improper the of result a As requirements. EU the of failure the in results also but disadvantageous environmentally colle waste selective the of requirements the behind lagging is Hungary Nevertheless, years. recent in stagnation observed from amo c and industry, inhabitants, the from fee product waste the of the under fall which tasks products the from waste the the of utilization and concerns treatment collection, Law fee Product new the of implementation The well as possible if abroad, calculations and comparisons thus study and communications personal and literature available the using with issue this analyze and review to going is thesis This necessary). unt of these products is over 1. over is products these of unt - 2016

(Ministry

f niomn ad ae 2006 Water and Environment of .

1 million tons yearly which increases every year apart apart year every increases which yearly tons million 1 179

to ad tlzto wih s o only not is which utilization and ction

ommerce and service sectors. The waste The sectors. service and ommerce

) was used. For the present the the present the For used. was ) al - system approach and as a a as and approach system ti dtriain and determination this h ce, there are too many many too are there ce, municipal solid waste solid municipal

as CEU eTD Collection as well. note to important is It common. most be will treatment biological mechanical the and increased be will waste recycled the so and collection waste selective the of amount the decreased, that seen be can It 2016. and 2009 2004, of years the for flows waste the show figures following The Estimated trends typeswaste. of different the of amount the for document official the is this as used, be can 2012 OgyHT

that the latter treatment option requires a new power plant and a new incineration incineration new a and plant power new a requires option treatment latter the that

h ted s h floig te mut f h lnfle wse il be will waste landfilled the of amount the following: the is trend the

180

CEU eTD Collection

incineration 155 +39 mixed Source: 28 waste 4050 . Figure Figure . 3904 (85%)3904 Landfilling 3855 collection

Ministry MB The waste flow for 2004 (1000 tons) (1000 2004 for flow Thewaste 40 waste +10

Waste of Environment and Water. 2006. 2006. Water. and Environment of 4591 loss amount 16 181 Biological

120 treatment Separate Home 460 (10%)460 waste composting collection selective Recycling 80

waste 340

from collection the

CEU eTD Collection

incineration 420 +105 mixed waste 3836 3293 (67%)3293 Landfilling 3112 collection Source: Source: 29 MB . 304 waste Figure +76

Waste Ministry of Environment and Water. 2006. 2006. Water. and Environment of Ministry 4950 loss

amount The 122

Biological waste flow for 2009 (1000 tons) (1000 2009 for flow waste 407 182 treatment Separate

Home 954 (19,3%)954 waste composting collection available selective Recycling 160 for 79 incineration waste 547 from collection

the

CEU eTD Collection

incineration 420 +105 mixed waste 3828 1985 collection Source: Source: 30 +355 . Figure Figure . MB 1423 Source: Source: waste

Waste Planned waste flow for 2016 (1000 tons) (1000 2016 for flow waste Planned 5688 loss amount Ministry of Environment and Water. 2006. 2006. Water. and ofEnvironment Ministry 2520 (442520 %) Landfilling 570 Biological incineration power 720 183 treatment Separate 298 plant

Home 1640 (29%)1640 plant 200 waste composting collection selective Recycling 220 75 waste 920 from collection the

CEU eTD Collection disposal landfilling the decreasingmethod is the increasing. incinerationmethod is while disposal and increasing is recycling the that foresee estimations The paper and 150 190 of collection 560 additional an increased be to has collection waste biologi mechanical the so targets, forused be must treatment landfilling the reach to enough not is t/year be will recycling The waste. of tons 000 generated total the of disposed be can 50% only 2016 by targets, the to According 31 . Figure .

000 tons of 000 tons

0 tn o pcaig at, 220 waste, packaging of tons 000 Recycling and disposal rates of the municipal solid waste 2004 solid municipal the of rates disposal and Recycling Source: Ministry of Environment and Water. 2006. Water. and Environment of Ministry Source: non 1423 000 tons 000 1423 - packaging 1860 000 tons while the incineration of 420 of incineration the while tons 000 1860

. In addition the present capacity of the selectivethe capacitypresent of the In . addition other selective waste). 184

000 tons of of tons 000

000 tons of new capacity (for the the (for capacity new of tons 000

non - pack - 2016

aging

waste waste 5688 5688

000 000 cal cal CEU eTD Collection Directorates: Environmental the of area the to according operation, in are sites landfill 69 following acco slightly modified was it sites, landfill operating current the for table the Agencyprovided Development Nationalthe As Felügyelőségek). Vízügyi és Természetvédelmi (Környezetvédelmi Directorates Natural ha can landfilling waste Nationally, of Environmentaccessed andcan site: at the be following Ministry the by launched was database HIR The technologies. treatment different (Hulladékgazdálkodási System, Information Rendszer Információs Management Waste the Hungary In to operate after 2009. permission have 53 only but sites landfill 178 at 2005 in place took landfilling waste The waste, theWaste management asStrategy was it as shown in well. mechanical 40 that note to important is It - biological treatment in 2004, but in the chart it was included in the landfilled landfilled the in included was it chart the in but 2004, in treatment biological

–

I) aaae rvds h dt fr h wast the for data the provides database HIR)

000 tons of municipal solid waste was treated by by treated was waste solid municipal of tons 000 rding to the present status. In Hungary at present the the present at Hungary In status. present the to rding ppen with the permit of the Environmental and and Environmental the of permit the with ppen 185

http://okir.kvvm.hu/hir/

aon i the in amount e

CEU eTD Collection

Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county county Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county Pest county Baranya county Somogy county Győr-Moson-Sopron Komárom-Esztergom county Vas county Zala county Vas county Észak-magyarországi KTVE Felső-Tisza-vidéki KTVE Közép-Tisza-vidéki KTVE Nyugat-dunántúli KTVE Észak-dunántúli KTVE Sourc Dél-dunántúli KTVE 20 e: own contribution to the National Development Agencydatabase Development National the to contribution own e: . Table . 3. Nagyecsed 2. Kisvárda 1. Nyíregyháza 3. Sajókaza 2. Hejőpapi 1. Bodrogkeresztúr 6. Kétpó 5. Szelevény 4. Jásztelek 3. Tiszafüred 2. Karcag 1. Cegléd 7. Görcsöny 6. Szigetvár 5. (Hetes) Kaposmérő 4. Som 3. Ordacsehi 2. Marcali 1. Kaposvár 7. Sopron 6. Fertőszentmiklós 5. Jánossomorja 4. Győr 3. Oroszlány 2. Tatabánya 1. Répcelak 7. Zalabér 6. Nagykanizsa 5. Zalaegerszeg 4. Csepreg 3. Kőszeg 2. Haraszitfalu 1. Szombathely : The current 69 operating landfill sites inHungary landfill operating 69 The current : 186

Nógrád county county Nógrád county Pest county Bács-Kiskun county Csongrád Tolna county county Tolna Fejér county Veszprém county Hajdú-Bihar county Békés county

Közép-Duna-völgyi KTVE Alsó-Tisza-vidéki KTVE Közép-dunántúli KTVE Tiszántúli KTVETiszántúli 5. Kecskemét 4. Felgyő 3. Hódmezővásárhely 2. Csongrád 1. Szeged 9. Cikó 8. Paks 7. Sárbogárd 6. Polgárdi 5. Székesfehérvár 4. Ajka 3. Zalahaláp 2. Királyszentistván 1. Veszprém 6. Berettyóújfalu 5. Hajdúböszörmény 4. Nádudvar 3. Debrecen 2. Gyomaendrőd 1. Békéscsaba 13. Nógrádmarcal 12. Salgótarján 11. Bátonyterenye 10. Csömör 9. Adony 8. Dömsöd 7. Dunakeszi 6. Gyál 5. Kerepes-Ökörtelek völgy 4. Pusztazámor 3. Tura 2. Dabas 1. Százhalombatta 8. Izsák 7. Vaskút 6. Kiskunhalas

CEU eTD Collection 7.5 and forms different in data the of transmission and collection the report to had players market the system legislation former the In types. waste some in other each with contradiction in were databases available where years past to opposed to easier and transparent more much become will data of provision The (Hulladék HIR the in Információs Rendszer seen be can data management waste many Hungary In other. data same the when cases several are there the that shown was it document this in earlier landfilling of description the During waste selective the collection. increase to order in awareness environmental the of of Ministry importance The them. use not do inhabitants the bins collection waste selective possess which locations in that fact important also is at collection waste selective no is there locations other at while well works collection waste selective the municipalities some In efficient. not is it therefore and nearby population Hunga collection in network waste selective the Similarly measures. comprehensive the of preparation of Ministry and low is capacity regions some in that fact the in results them of distribution improper the and capacity extra some in result maysites landfill the of numbers irrational the Nevertheless, all. The reason of the failure of the selective waste collection has not been analyzed. It analyzed. been not has collection waste selective the of failure the of reason The all.

Contradiction in the data the in Contradiction

n te rgos hr ae o mn lnfl sts Te oenet n the and government The sites. landfill many too are there regions other in

ua Development Rural ry is unevenly distributed, does not take into account the size of the of size the account into take not does distributed, unevenly is ry –

waste database. information system)

have to deal with this problem in addition to the the to addition in problem this with deal to have from two data sources are not consistent to each to consistent not are sources data two from 187

ua Development Rural

different deadlines to to deadlines different

be followed as followed be highlights the CEU eTD Collection 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 year A goodexampl different authorities. forms different to in product the on types data product. six or same five the report the to had for company vehicle companies a Therefore, several to report to had they also but fee product the of waste the on only not report to had industry vehicle the in operating companies the instance, For forms. different demanded organization not was supply data The contradictions. manag would which organization” „umbrella any not was there as discussed not was data this However, administration. of level high with expensive and difficult companies organizational the of work the made which organizations, several

basic were principlesdata ofcan not beproperly sothe thedata notthe same, the even cases many at However, also. authority tax the to reported be to had data

Central Office Statistical wasteAmount ofthe from transportedmixed theinhabitants (t)

source followingtable and can the illustratethe differences between them. Hivatal, Statisztikai (Központi Office Statistical Central the regional 10 the environment, environmental, and natureprotection management water inspectorates, the for responsible ministry the ( through system information Rendszer Információs management waste the e isthefollowing 21 . Table Example for the data inaccuracy, transported waste transported inaccuracy, data the ExampleTable . for 2 285357 2 383797 2 510446 2 527534 2 724451

–

HIR) is a source from the waste producer companies companies producer waste the from source a is HIR)

System W aste ManagementInformation un 188 formed with the same requirements so every so requirements same the with formed

products which fall under the the under fall which products e them and eliminate the the eliminate and them e 3 100215 2 886739 2 600331 2 2 333976 Hulladékgazdálkodási

493 659

OSAP) is also a also is OSAP)

difference valued. 814 858 502 942 390 475

89 885 33 875

CEU eTD Collection well. partic market the concerns which predictable reasonably be will management with eachstrategiesconsequence As thestate waste willbeinlinea planning ofthe other. industrial the for data the and disappear will contradictions these databases new the In summary ismissing m3soil thedata from supply. so2,146million construction highway the during indicated not were amounts theseHowever, permit. with is 1 and area, M6 the for m3 000 900 as recorded been M6 the of construction the during recorded soil extra the of amount the in abuse for possibility the and contradiction the for is example Another Difference 2009 2008 Year Transdanubia(Dél Southern in different example for is 04) 05 17 (EWC waste demolition and construction affairs environmental database the with contradiction also is there waste, demolition and construction the to regard With 2,2 million m3 in total in m3 million 2,2

from the Ministry of Rural Development Development Rural of Ministry the from

22 - Duná . Table Example for the data inaccuracy, transported waste transported inaccuracy, data the ExampleTable . for – ntúl) asntúl) can it be inthe following seen table.

. This amount is transported and landfilled to the nearby areas areas nearby the to landfilled and transported is amount This . n te el mut. h aon o te ol rm the from soil the of amount The amounts. real the and Development Ministry ofRural 189

36 000tons 45 000tons

300 000 m3 at the M60 area, wh area, M60 the at m3 000 300 – -

M60 highway. This number has has number This highway. M60 which is responsible for the the for responsible is which

HIR

24 000m3 30 000m3 54 ipants as as ipants

000 m3 ich ich

CEU eTD Collection This table can graphs be as shownin well: wefollowinginaccuracy: can the see Statisztikai (Központi Office Statistical Central the from data the compare we if instance For eachother. with line in not are differentsources the from data the that mention to important very is it landfilling waste the to regard With Zala county Veszprém county Vas county Tolna county Szabolcs Somogy county Pest county Nógrád county Komárom Jász Hajdú Győr Fejér county Csongrád county Borsod Békés county Bács Baranya county - - Nagykun - Kiskun county Moson - Bihar county - Abaúj - Szatmár - Esztergom county

Sopron county - -

Szolnok county Zemplén és Heves county

County - Bereg county Source: own contribution according to KSH and HIR sources HIR and KSH to according contribution own Source:

. Table Amount of the landfill waste in 2010 (t) in 2010 waste landfill the of Amount Table .

190 Amount of landfilled waste 2010 in (t) KSH KSH source

Hivatal 115 930 115 475 122 856 187 437 139 710 141 118 837 118 555 139 963 112 759 659 142 111 622 144 466 198 83 475 83 78 566 78 476 84 660 74 882 65 583 90

KSH) and the HIR database database HIR the and KSH) HIR sourceHIR

207 120 207 082 227 528 336 838 106 326 146 405 141 109 155 109 860 878 486 125 470 225 241 903 883 176 846 315 325 209 81 273 81 657 43 463 60 545 97

CEU eTD Collection 7.6 disposal and collection waste avoided the in HUF of millions authorities Budapest orcountry save to has also but rates recycling mandatory the deliver only not to has waste system Hungarian the as countries nearby the of management waste the briefly show to important become it management waste solid Budapest discussing Before the current research. construction and t battery, car as such well as streams waste other at place takes inaccuracy data The

Waste management in other cities othercities in management Waste -

demolition waste; however, these waste types a types waste these however, waste; demolition Source: own contribution according to KSH and HIR sources HIR and KSH to according contribution own Source:

32 . Figure Figure . Amount of the landfill waste in 2010 (t) in 2010 landfill the Amount waste of 191 –

short description short

re out of the scope of of scope the of out re

management management i res, res,

CEU eTD Collection capitals oftheEastern nearby the in is it as same the nearly while 1999), in kg/capita 510 and (550 countries (232 Budapest in in is capita it than lower significantly per is 1999) in waste kg/capita collected the of amount the that decreasing) is Budapest of population the that fact the from (above seen be can it table above the From ye the from Vienna and Munich as well as cities nearby the for data the describes table This (such as treatment) mechanicalcanavoided. biological be win for opportunity the co European Western the of technologies the account into Taking costs. Warsaw Vienna Sofia Prague Munich Budapest Bucharest Belgrade Name of the city Source: Linzner R., Municipal solid waste management in the City of Belgrade CityBelgrade the of management waste in solid Municipal R., Linzner Source: ars 1999 to 2001. (Linzner 2004.) 1999to2001.(Linzner ars Municipal solid waste collected (t) 24 426,118 581,800 650,000 817,257 321,300 240,300 723,326 1999 . Table Municipal solid waste collected (kg/capita/year) of the nearby cities nearby the of (kg/capita/year) collected waste solid Table . Municipal - 830,908 270,439 718,622 548,628 303,080 2000 –

– Europeancountries 284and 1999). 305kg/capita (202, in win solutions, as the import of the old fashioned technologies technologies fashioned old the of import the as solutions, win - - - perspectives perspectives 710,430 823,811 279,092 702,086 653,316 360,679 2001 - -

2004, Master Vienna Master Thesis, 2004, 1,615,369 1,602,673 1,133,183 1,186,855 1,315,254 1,838,753 1,908,698 1999 192 -

Inhabitants 1,610,500 1,608,656 1,142,152 1,184,000 1,247,934 1,811,552 1,868,556 2000 the cities of the Western European Western the of cities the

1,609,780 1,608,161 1,096,389 1,173,000 1,261,597 1,759,209 2,066,330 1,272,040 2001 –

Current situation and and Current situation 1999 Municipal solid waste untries provides provides untries 402 510 284 202 550 232 305 (kg/cap/year) -

2000 517 228 576 294

- - - - 2001 436 512 238 557 316 284 - -

CEU eTD Collection

25 . Table Source:

Municipal

European Environmental Agency2011c. Environmental European

waste generation per capita 1995 capita per generation waste 193

- 2009

CEU eTD Collection the population and notthe GDP. and consumption the by influenced is volumes waste growthin The stream. waste this for decoupling the achieving thus GDP, of that than slower been has it nevertheless, 2008, un increased been has it that say can we than capita per generation MSW the account into take we If crisis. economic the after reduced was generation waste solid Municipal 2008. until growth economic the of spite in 2000, since kg/capita 520 around remains EU the in waste solid economic municipal the of from generation the that generation shows table This waste growth. differentiate to is policy EU in step significant A 33 . Figure Trend Figure . Source: European Environmental Agency2010a. Environmental European Source:

in generation of municipal solid waste in 2003 2008 and in 2003 municipal waste solid of in generation

194

- 27 til

CEU eTD Collection and Belgium with less than 10%. landfilling Bulgaria isthe highestwith 98%andin in and thesmallest Romania The incineration. for went % 4.9 further a and % 43.6 was while rate recycling %, and recovery 51.5 was rate average its Union European the in 2006 in as dominant, still on ban and taxes landfill measures, and target recyclingby EU driven beenhasdevelopment This energyrecovery. with incinerated or recycled more and landfilled be to waste less promotes policy EU waste landfilling waste

195 for some waste types. However, landfilli However, types. waste some for

Denmark ng is ng CEU eTD Collection of number a and visits site interviews discussing str potential waste management the through done was This company. cleaning municipal capital’s the from modeling the for data required the obtain to necessary was it model ma waste solid Budapest’s of evaluation the For to the following reasons: according system management waste Hungarian the in status unique quite a has Budapest differentcollection rates compared waste selective and th examinedthe presentedresearch inthis model andas sothe well,Budapest can in seen be years coming col waste in selective and decrease that projected be can it sector management waste the in trends present the and system management waste Hungarian the introducing After 8

Budapest. Waste thermal waste solid only the with system), standardized bins, closed (isolated, containers collecting closed contains system the in Budapest co isamodern there 20 % ofHungary’s waste solid isgenerated here, Evaluation Budapestof solid waste management system

8.1

Waste management in Budapest in management Waste

lection as well as recycling as well as lection llection system, - to Energy Plant in the country is located in in located is country the in Plant Energy to 196

nagement system with the EASEWASTE the with system nagement

ategiesBudapest. for eir environmental emissions. environmental emissions. eir

will increase. The same trend trend same The increase. will

landfilling will will landfilling

CEU eTD Collection well, as waste the collect to entitled is however, company, This 6. út Repülőtéri Budapest Müll called: is company This Kft. Multiszint of subcontractor the is which company, additional one is there addition In 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 detail Table in 2 particip the with Co. consortium, a by collected is waste solid municipal The (Municipal companyCleaningBudapest The waste. solid of disposal the for price full the pay Budapest of owners property the as subsidized, not is service this Budapest provider service treatment waste local The Local service providers yearssupply amount inofthefor data 2006, the waste 2007and of 2008. to started Zrt. FKF the 2009 October In 2008. of autumn the in started was contact Initial

Bencsics József Bencsics József KereskedelmiMultiszint és Szolgáltató Kft. Ökont 2008.Környezetvédelmi Kft. Akont Kft. FIDO és Kft. Kereskedelmi Szolgáltató SzolgáltatóJÄGER ésKereskedelmiKft. LÉ Környezetvédelmi Kft. AVE Tatabánya Hulladékgazdálkodási és Hulladékgazdálkodási Kft. A.S.A. Magyarország Környezetvédelmi és Fővárosi Közterület - MA Kereskedelmi ésSzolgáltató Kft. MA Public Cleaning Maintenance Ltd.) 100is municipality% owned.

6 26 .

. Table These companies collect the solid waste in Budapest. solidwaste the collect TheseTable companies . ation of together ten companies (Siklóssy pers. comm) pers. (Siklóssy companies ten together of ation

Name -

fenntartó Rt. fenntartó Rt.

Source: Siklóssy pers.comm. Siklóssy Source: rnpr Kryztéem é Soglaó Kf Szolgáltató és Környezetvédelmi Transport

s eeal nt usdzd y uiiaiis In municipalities. by subsidized not generally is 197

1062 Budapest Podmaniczky u.85. 1194 Budapest Töltény 17. u. Lakatos1184 Budapest 61 út 1194 Budapest Töltény 17. u. 1106 Budapest u.4/b Gyakorló 1029 Budapest Ördögárok u.3. 1188 Budapest Kálmán Szigeti u.75. 2800 Tatabánya 2360 GyálKőrösi 53. út 1081 Budapest u.7. Alföldi –

led Fővárosi Közterület Fővárosi

by the Municipal Cleaning Municipal the by Address II. út“E” Erdész

- presented in presented fenntartó Zrt. fenntartó

63. t. 1112 1112 t.

CEU eTD Collection (selective islands waste 27. Table in presented as large quite are differences the and Hungary in Budapest in highest of cities bigger the Among theblockbut in offlats the biggerare bins1100lit municipalities it 2010, Association) Cleaning (Public fro study comprehensive nationwide a to According Waste fee invoice. an issue to right no has it as consortium, the of member full a not is company the but t a b jsiid y h fc ta i Bdps the Budapest in that fact the by justified be can It

Below 5,00 Between 5,00 Between 2,000 Between 10,000 Bigger than50,000 27 . The cost is based on a per bin basis. The bins are mostly 120 liters bins liters 120 mostly are bins The basis. bin per a on based is cost The . . Table Average waste fee rates in Hungary depending inHungary fee rates waste Average Table . Source: Köztisztasági Egyesülés (Public Cleaning Association) 2010. Association) Cleaning (Public Egyesülés Köztisztasági Source:

, waste yards,wastecompostingsite, landfilltreatment). andthermal, Population – – 2,000 – above 10,000

50,000

50,000 inhabitants it is found that the waste fee is the is fee waste the that found is it inhabitants 50,000

was possible to show the waste fees of the the of fees waste the show to possible was 198

ers. Waste fee (average) HUF/delivery

m the Köztisztasági Egyesülés Egyesülés Köztisztasági the m e is re on the city size city the on

higher level of service service of level higher

252 243 250 264 306

CEU eTD Collection http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarorsz%C3%A1g#Legn.C3.A9pesebb_telep.C3.BCl.C3.A9sek 2 W The upof frequencythefollowing: the thebinsis pick of For the population the data is 01.01.2011. source: source: 01.01.2011. is the data the population For aste fee theMunicipal soit Council, by isregulated

Source: websites of the websitescities of Source: three XIX. district, Kispest) example (for Budapest of suburbs the in sector residential the in week a twice XV. Rákospalota district), (like Budapest of border the at suburbs the in week a once Győr Szeged Budapest Nyíregyháza Pécs Székesfehérvár Debrecen Székesfehérvár Nyíregyháza Pécs Kecskemét Debrecen Győr Szeged Budapest Name the city of

times a week in the downtown (suchdistrict). atimes week intheas VII.

Source: Köztisztasági Egyesülés (Public Cleaning Association) 2010. Association) Cleaning (Public Egyesülés Köztisztasági Source:

Name the city of

29 28

. Table Waste fees in some Hungarian cities, 2010 cities, Hungarian in some fees Waste Table . . Table Waste fees in some Hungarian cities, 2012 cities, Hungarian in some fees Waste Table .

as well as personal communications with Ágnes Szintai Ágnes with wellcommunications personal as as

HUF/pick up Waste fee 199

Amount of waste fee waste (HUF)Amount of 219 241 264 343 358 396 487 575

is Population differentmunicipality. atevery

101 117 157 113 208 131 170 733

943 852 721 275 016 267 285 685

356 375 483 491 526 677 803

- Katona

CEU eTD Collection 8.2 http://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/ma48/ Cologne 4 http://www.deponia.hu/ Győr http://www.szkht.hu/page.fcgi?rx=&item=&nyelv=hu&menuparam3=12&type=3 3 the following can data be source this to According utilized. was Office Statistical Central the from data so success, complete a not was generation waste institutional and multi single, the for data Receiving necessary toobtain the required data. the of terms in methodology model,theEASEWASTE uncertainty aswhi factors solutions as thepossible well collection data the describes chapter following The increased feewastewill the that foreseenbecan it but level,income service anddifferences in to due Hungary and cities European Western the in fee the compare not can we Obviously the waste higher for feecities presented isconsiderable inTable the that see can we cities Union European other with unit same the compare we If Hungary. in cities other among Budapest in highest the is fee waste the that indicated clearly is It Zürich Budapest

–

http://www.gyorszol.hu/ind - Waste amount in Budapest in Waste amount

– http:

- http://www.awbkoeln.de/

Source: websites of the websitescities of Source: http://www.fkf.hu/portal/page/portal/fkf //www.stadt Rome Vienna Berlin Cologne Zürich taking into

Pécs

- Na zuerich.ch/content/ted/de/index/entsorgung_recycling/sauberes_zuerich.html#

- me the city of

http://biokom.hu/index.php/hulladzsi consideration that the landfill fee inHungary.consideration thatthelandfill be will implemented 30 ex.asp?inc=hulladekkezeles ,

, Münich . Table Waste fees in some Western cities, 2012 cities, Western in some fees Waste Table . Rome analyzed – -

http://www.amaroma.it/ http://www.awm 4

as well as personal communications Ágnes Szintai Ágnes wellcommunications personal as as : ,

Szeged

, - Debrecen 200 muenchen.de/

- menetrend

Amount of waste fee waste (HUF)Amount of –

http://www.aksd.hu/ , - Berlin 2012.html

–

http://www.bsr.de/9373.html , Nyíregyháza , Székesfehérvár

- .

http://www.thgkft.hu/

1130 1230 1711 2826 1374 - – Katona

, Vienna

ch were ch were –

CEU eTD Collection w collected selectively ofconsumption etc.) thevehicles of (amount available was data most the where year the year2008. of every formonths table the and total the of amount The amountWaste SCBU: 9653pieces. familyMulti pieces, 531474 housing: Single family pieces, housing: 216123 Total 757250flats. number of households: Total inBudapest2011:1721556people. population in Households

selectively This yearThis

201

collected waste can be seen in the following following the in seen be can waste collected

was used as the base year was base the this becauseas used was

aste, aste, CEU eTD Collection

Disposal total Selective Composting Selective total door-to-door - Selective total waste - yards Selective total waste - islands waste total selective Recyclable Residual waste from the selective waste collection Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - door-to-door door-to-door door-to-door door-to-door waste islands waste islands waste islands waste islands waste yards waste yards waste yards waste yards FKF Zrt. 31 . Table: Waste amount in the detailed structure in Budapest per months in 2008 months in per in Budapest structure detailed the amountin Waste Table: . Paper and cardboard total Paper and cardboard total Cardboard paper Mixed paper Paper and cardboard total Detailed tons Waste-to-energy Landfill site cans alu Total Alu cans total Alu cans total Alu cans total glass Total Total white glass Total colour glass Glass total White glass Colour glass Glass total White glass Colour glass plastic Total Plastic total Plastic total Plastic total paper Total Non selective total Non selective Waste totalWaste Source: own contribution from the obtained FKF Zrt.data FKF fromthe obtained contribution own Source: 50 128.54 48 356.99 29 480.14 18 876.85 January 1 771.55 1 640.29 1 698.15 2008 409.58 671.26 266.82 404.44 264.12 257.16 712.88 667.45 133.38 681.21 271.63 41.54 29.77 73.40 78.26 39.94 39.35 6.31 0.59 0.00 9.95 4.81 5.14 5.13 1.83 3.89 8.64

February 49 571.95 47 956.58 29 451.18 18 505.40 1 615.37 1 497.11 1 554.57 104.42 428.48 194.41 234.07 418.84 188.17 230.67 253.71 247.98 840.22 792.42 40.91 19.54 60.80 77.89 32.16 31.60 9.64 6.24 3.40 4.13 1.60 6.89 9.62 9.05 0.56 0.00 50 020.01 48 199.20 29 458.00 18 741.20 March 1 820.81 1 544.45 1 718.95 213.93 337.14 250.14 211.87 281.74 275.90 932.86 893.95 101.86 111.24 467.82 253.89 12.44 57.47 36.53 33.71 10.13 28.78 17.59 0.49 2.33 5.81 3.75 2.06 4.02 1.82 9.55 202 51 044.21 48 296.72 29 452.22 18 844.50 2 747.49 1 783.69 1 842.52 April

904.97 105.46 586.36 322.26 264.10 575.90 317.06 258.84 299.60 292.43 920.49 870.53 16.88 81.40 36.07 35.42 10.46 14.19 35.77 10.52 18.83 0.65 0.00 5.20 5.26 5.13 2.04

51 518.45 48 277.24 29 447.66 18 829.58 3 241.21 1 427.80 1 755.06 1 813.41 May 246.09 497.38 255.75 241.63 318.51 312.27 946.70 900.33 100.90 507.72 261.63 10.34 14.65 31.72 11.25 22.40 16.70 65.03 40.48 40.11 0.37 0.00 5.88 4.46 4.56 1.68 51 386.79 48 269.95 29 439.08 18 830.87 3 116.84 1 248.68 1 795.78 1 868.16 1 029.58 June 973.51 460.26 239.67 220.59 450.76 235.26 215.50 344.68 334.46 17.86 80.18 92.32 33.64 32.02 15.43 40.64 11.26 11.39 0.42 1.20 9.50 4.41 5.09 8.21 2.01 51 672.80 48 323.99 29 455.06 18 868.93 3 348.81 1 428.54 1 844.75 1 920.27 July 928.36 108.30 524.68 270.63 254.05 514.76 266.95 247.81 357.19 349.27 994.78 20.55 93.25 43.62 43.09 17.81 48.61 11.46 32.44 0.53 0.00 9.92 3.68 6.24 5.71 2.21 51 105.67 48 102.39 29 437.82 18 664.57 August 3 003.28 1 283.60 1 659.17 1 719.68 880.31 397.57 209.20 188.37 390.09 205.73 184.36 352.29 343.07 933.02 16.86 79.89 91.06 36.80 36.49 14.32 38.39 13.07 25.84

0.31 0.00 7.48 3.47 4.01 6.99 2.23 September 51 234.57 48 272.51 29 445.20 18 827.31 2 962.06 1 139.17 1 748.30 1 822.89 874.42 522.77 298.02 224.75 515.52 294.86 220.66 329.53 321.94 939.46 26.86 81.36 98.44 31.13 29.88 24.85 40.19 11.02 27.43 0.41 0.84 7.25 3.16 4.09 5.99 1.60 51 564.53 48 178.58 29 450.28 18 728.30 October 3 385.95 1 662.84 1 643.87 1 723.11 861.79 103.52 449.49 228.11 221.38 441.51 224.13 217.38 303.59 298.02 933.51 33.24 83.02 36.52 34.45 31.06 40.66 11.46 20.85 0.36 1.71 7.98 3.98 4.00 3.75 1.82

November 51 867.14 48 161.14 29 452.89 18 708.25 3 706.00 1 978.70 1 650.68 1 727.30 885.95 106.13 449.99 246.36 203.63 441.01 242.24 198.77 293.60 281.94 953.00 32.33 85.02 30.71 30.27 30.02 37.03 10.38 27.19 0.44 0.00 8.98 4.12 4.86 9.79 1.87 December 50 883.40 48 547.95 29 442.58 19 105.37 1 150.67 2 335.45 2 017.49 2 091.36 1 218.51 244.09 510.26 244.33 265.93 504.86 240.95 263.91 320.75 312.50 39.27 77.39 95.82 41.84 39.62 36.83 31.01 0.56 1.66 5.40 3.38 2.02 6.37 1.88 8.92 9.94

CEU eTD Collection first as time, requestedauthor. bythe newspape types paper other several are there model EASEWASTE the In type. collection yard waste the of case in only separated is which paper, cardboard clearly 32. Table paper,glassand plastic, door and yards waste islands, first 31. Table Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - door-to-door door-to-door waste islands waste islands waste yards waste yards ec) n te opsto o te wr ietfe i Bdps as, o the for also, Budapest in identified were them of composition the and etc.) r 33 32

includes the amount of the selectively collected waste fractions from waste waste from fractions waste collected selectively the of amount the includes . Table . . Ta .

shows that the waste analysis for paper is limited to mixed paper and and paper mixed to limited is paper for analysis waste the that shows ble Detailed tons Total paperTotal Paper and cardboard total Paper and cardboard total Cardboard paper Mixed paper Paper and cardboard total Total plastic Total Plastic total Plastic total Plastic total Detailed tons : Waste amount Waste : : Waste amount Waste : aluminum - to - door collection for the different waste fractions such as such fractions waste different the for collection door

plus organic waste. – –

plastic in Budapest for some months in 2008 months some for in Budapest plastic

paper in Budapest for some months in 2008 months some for in Budapest paper 2 January January 03 2008 2008

712.88 667.45 264.12 257.16 41.54 29.77

3.89 8.64 5.13 1.83 February February 840.22 792.42 253.71 247.98

40.91 19.54 6.89 9.62 4.13 1.60 analyzed March March 932.86 893.95 281.74 275.90 10.13 28.78 17.59 9.55 4.02 1.82

in detail (office paper, paper, (office detail in April April 920.49 870.53 299.60 292.43 14.19 35.77 10.52 18.83 5.13 2.04

May May 946.70 900.33 318.51 312.27 14.65 31.72 11.25 22.40 4.56 1.68

CEU eTD Collection canat be somesupermarkets per rewardedfor can collection its for cans, aluminum however relevant is condition same The islands. waste by collected therefore are amounts glassthe N moment. the at collection its for reward no is there but homes, inhabitants’ in found be can glass of amount large a However children. for hazard a be to considered door no is there glass, of case in that mentioned be must It polyethylene as such typesterephthalate(PET), or polypropylene(PP) etc. polystyrene(PS) plastic different the for n calculations are there nor plastic measurements In types. collection two other the by than collection island am the that seen be can it 33 table From Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - Selective collection - door-to-door door-to-door waste islands waste islands waste yards waste yards 34 . Table . : Waste amount Waste : Total white glass Total colour glass Glass total White glass Colour glass Glass total White glass Colour glass Detailed tons Total alu cans alu Total Alu cans total Alu cans total Alu cans total glass Total ,

their collection may be decreasedfacttheir may that2 HUF duecollection tothe – glass and and glass alu ount of plastic is by far the largest from waste waste from largest the far by is plastic of ount minum 204 January 2008 681.21 271.63 409.58 671.26 266.82 404.44 39.94 39.35

0.59 0.00 9.95 4.81 5.14

in Budapest for some months in 2008 months some for Budapest in February 428.48 194.41 234.07 418.84 188.17 230.67 32.16 31.60 0.56 0.00 9.64 6.24 3.40 - March . to 467.82 253.89 213.93 337.14 250.14 211.87

36.53 33.71 - door collection as it is is it as collection door 0.49 2.33 5.81 3.75 2.06 April 586.36 322.26 264.10 575.90 317.06 258.84 36.07 35.42 10.46 0.65 0.00 5.20 5.26 early all of of all early

May 507.72 261.63 246.09 497.38 255.75 241.63 either 40.48 40.11 10.34 0.37 0.00 5.88 4.46

CEU eTD Collection wasteyears can the for concluded of be 2006 total, the of amount the data aggregate 3 Table to similar table A residualfrom wasteisincinerated. collection the selective waste this of amount the for data incin the to added was amount years this no Inother 2008. from waste of proportion is There generation. waste any from independent Februar January, is trend the that assumed be can it and amount analyzingthis in point no is There March). in amount higher and December and June in amount (lower 7.85% and 4.58% between was amount this 2008 In November). October, in rates higher and May April, March, in amount (lower 7.05% and 3.81% between was rate the 2007 Novem August, February, in were amounts higher the and January, in the (2.92% waste shows selective recyclable which the to 4.6%, compared waste and residual 2.92% the of between proportion was amount this 2006 of year the In the selective therefore and collection from wasteresidual of which waste isa amount theresmall It that isa note important to is Disposal total Selective Composting Selective total door-to-door - Selective total waste - yards Selective total waste - islands waste total Recyclable selective Residual waste from the selective waste collection 35 FKF Zrt. . Table . : Waste amount Waste : Waste-to-energy Landfill site Detailed tons Non selective total Non selective 1 Waste totalWaste – . was completed for every year between 2006 between year every for completed was .

selective total and disposal in Budapest for some months in 2008 in months some for Budapest disposal in and total selective can notbefurthercan processed. non 205 - 50 128.54 48 356.99 29 480.14 18 876.85 January selectively 1 771.55 1 640.29 1 698.15 2008 - 2011: 2011: 133.38

73.40 78.26 6.31

49 571.95 47 956.58 29 451.18 18 505.40 February 1 615.37 1 497.11 1 554.57

104.42 collected and selectively collected selectively and collected 60.80 77.89 9.05 50 020.01 48 199.20 29 458.00 18 741.20 March 1 820.81 1 544.45 1 718.95

101.86 111.24 12.44 57.47

e, eebr. In December). ber, 51 044.21 48 296.72 29 452.22 18 844.50 - 2 747.49 1 783.69 1 842.52 April 2011. From this this From 2011. 904.97 105.46 16.88 81.40 erator as erator 51 518.45 48 277.24 29 447.66 18 829.58 3 241.21 1 427.80 1 755.06 1 813.41 May y and and y 100.90 16.70 65.03

CEU eTD Collection 34

Figure Figure Total, selective selective and Total, Source: own contribution from the obtained FKF Zrt.data FKF fromthe obtained contribution own Source: non - selective 206

waste amount in Budapest 2006 in Budapest amount waste

- 2011

CEU eTD Collection software alsohowtheThis is EASEWASTE requires data. theinput generationwaste from sources: three Budapest In graphFrombe comprehensive concluded: this thefollowing can

the rate selectivewaste of the isslightly increasing. amount low very is collection waste selective the attributed tothe high thecity. oftouristswhichvisit number be likely can months summer in waste of amount high The Austria). in example the and consumption food for decreasing winter the in inhabitants the for less left is money there that added also Siklóssy 2012). pers.comm (Siklóssy winter the in habits consumption changing the to due months, summer the in highest the and Janu December, November, in least the is waste the of amount the the to due (probably 2006 from general in decreasing slightly is waste of amount the economic –

iii. as well as in any other city other any in as well as ii.

waste fromcommercial (SCBU) thesmall and business units waste from family houses themulti waste from thesingle f waste amount in the winter can be seen in other countries as well (for well as countries other in seen be can winter the in amount waste

crisis) crisis)

amily houses – 207

it is possible to calculate the municipal solid solid municipal the calculate to possible is it

oprd o the to compared

non - selective ary, February ary,

waste waste CEU eTD Collection i w (kg) housingsector orintheSCBU Y where: Y Equation 2 i a of workers) sector inthe SCBU (capita) Xi where: X Equation 1 principles:following mathematical the by determined be can It different. are rates these that is thesis the of assumptions o One groups. three into capita per generation waste the separate to important is It is anumber, which can is anumber, which 1,2,3,… can be – i 1 1

(kg)

+ Y + X (capita)of total peoplewaste number relevant analysis the in 2 2 –

–

+ Y + X

amount of total waste generatedwaste amountrelevant oftotal area inthe amount of waste generated per year either in single family housing, multi family multi yearsinglefamily housing, in either generatedperwaste of amount – – – 3 3

Amount ofwaste Number total population of population either in single family housing, multi family housing or (number (number or housing family multi housing, family single in either population = w = a

be 1,2,3,… be generated per yeargenerated per

208

f the f CEU eTD Collection we i u λ l where: l Equation 4 housingsector orintheSCBU Y of workers) sector inthe SCBU (capita) Xi λ where: λ Equation 3 is anumber, which 1,2,3,… can be i i

i i i i

(kg/capita/year) i (kg/capita/year) (kg/capita/year) (kg/capita/year) * (kg)

λ are of aware the value that i Xi = Y

– u

i amount of waste generated per year either in single family housing, multi family multi yearsinglefamily housing, in either generatedperwaste of amount

– – – i

Amount ofwastecapita per Amount of minimum and maximum Amount ofminimum values population either in single family housing, multi family housing or (number (number or housing family multi housing, family single in either population – - - –

amount of waste per person per year ofwaste personamount per per year ofwaste personamount per per

minimum valuegenerated ofwaste theamount person minimum per minimum valuegenerated ofwaste oftheminimum person amount per λ

is between as well limit aas limit lower anupper

209

CEU eTD Collection formatprocess inthis the can modeldefault utilized whichEASEWASTE be datasets. generation waste same the have groups three these as calculation, for given was which three data the use necessaryto was it Therefore used. be can thesedata empiricalonly sectors, in generation waste the on data exact have not do we factor: Uncertainty housing is and SCBU, butit the in Even fromstructure. ourpersonal house estimate to is easiest the values these From of waste. level housingcommercialgenerates housing,orinthe level different single sector amount pe isevident,thata it as thesame notbe can values It that these known is Y X λ Equation 5 1 1 1 1 1 λ Y X 2 2 2 2 2

λ – Y X

model the value of of value the model

The relative values are notthe same 3 3

found value thatthis isdifferentcases. these in three

i s h sm fr ige aiy osn, ut fami multi housing, family single for same the is 210 λ

i as this value can be estimated with data data with estimated be can value this as

rson in the multi inthe multi rson

rate, a a rate, ly ly

CEU eTD Collection differentcity typesFigure and inHungary are presented in 3 Zrt. FKF from received data on based chapter this in discussed is Budapest in composition waste average The attentionneeded is theaccuracydata. toensure ofproper particular therefore and sector management which waste the parameters of important performance environmental most the of one is composition Waste 35 . Figure Average composition of the different city types in Hungary, 2008, (%) 2008, in Hungary, city types different the composition of Average Figure . 8.3

Waste composition in Budapest in Waste composition Source: constructed based constructed Source: hs nmes ee oprd ih h cmoiin f the of composition the with compared were numbers These 211

on FKF Zrt. laboratory data Zrt.laboratory FKF on

5 .

influence

the the

CEU eTD Collection followingand (Magyar2005b): Szabványügyi2005a Testület the categoriesare main The made. be must analysis detailed a October) around (generally 21420 21420 MSZ the to According years. 20 than more for regulations the to according composition waste the analyzed has which Zrt. FKF of laboratory analytical c waste the Budapest In (Koltaine 2009.pers.comm.). waste packaging of amount increased the to today by however, different, significantly was cities bigger the and villages small and wa the as decades cities last the in small different was rate municipality,This settlements. rank county the between differ significantly above the From - 9 tnad the standards 29

Textiles, Textiles, Composites, Cardboard, Paper, Biodegradable waste, Metal, Glass, Other combustible waste, Plastic, Hygienic waste, f igure it can observed that average waste composition does not not does composition waste average that observed can it igure

omposition is checked regularly by the city’s own environmental environmental own city’s the by regularly checked is omposition

at ms b aaye diy qatry n oc a year a once and quarterly daily, analyzed be must waste

212 –

the waste composition is roughly the same same the roughly is composition waste the

ste composition in the in composition ste - 28 and the MSZ MSZ the and 28 –

mostly due due mostly CEU eTD Collection 2008 composition 2006 for years the of months different the remarkable for some data composition Budapest waste Forthe waste as sub have categories main these of All as a base yearas abase well ascontent thehalogen goingwell ofanalyzed. theplastic toincinerator are

by waste types as well as by months in the different years. We considered We years. different the in months by as well as types waste by Small particlesSmall waste mm. < 20 Hazardous waste, Other 36 - . Figure Waste composition of Budapest by waste types, 2008 (%) types,2008 waste by Budapest composition of Waste Figure . 2010 was received. Therefore it was possible to show the waste waste the show to possible was it Therefore received. was 2010 , and the figures for this yearthe figures , and this for are presented inFigure 3 non Source: Source: - combustible constructed based on FKF Zrt. laboratory data Zrt.laboratory FKF on based constructed

waste, - categories as well, and by request the packaging packaging the request by and well, as categories 213

6 .

CEU eTD Collection be can houses family regarded houses. as family single the and houses family multi as regarded be can flats of block the where districts XIIIVII, VI, V, the represents it as SCBU, as regarded be can city inner The formulated. was houses family and city inner flats, of block for therefore and model the in represented are what types for estimation make to asked was Király Gábor laboratory, environmental the of leader the consequence, a As model. EASEWASTE the within required was what different are categories waste and types waste the However yearsamount ofwaste has the become summer. Accordingcan recent it in data2008and be from 2011, declared tothe that It ofwaste thattheamount thewinter be islessin in can stated and amount bigger

smaller than beforesmaller than economiccrisis. the institutions and the small businesses are, while the the while are, businesses small the and institutions 214

the waste compositions of the 48 waste 48 the of compositions waste the

CEU eTD Collection

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 Other nonOther combustibles Batteries litter Cat Ceramics Ash Stones,concrete Soil metalsOther Plasticaluminiumcoated foil Food(tinplate/steel) cans Aluminiumfoil and containers (aluminium) cans Beverage Non-recyclableglass Brownglass Greenglass Clearglass Vacuumcleanerbags combustiblesOther Cigarettebutts Plasticproducts (toys, hangers, pen) Rubber Shoes,leather Textiles Wood Disposablesanitary products (cloths, gloves) Cotton,bandages Diapers,sanitary towels, tampons Animalexcrementsand bedding (straw) flowers waste, Yard Nonrecyclable plastic plasticHard Plasticbottles Softplastic Dirtycardboard Dirtypaper Kitchentowels Juicecartons(carton/plastic/aluminium) Milkcartons(carton/plastic) cleanOther cardboard and cardboard Paper containers cleanOther paper Officepaper Booksand phonebooks Advertisements Magazines Newsprints Animalfood waste Vegetablefood waste 36 . Table Waste composition in Budapest for multi family, multifamily, for in Budapest composition Waste Table . Mixed(%) waste Source: FKF Zrt. environmental laboratory by request of author ofauthor request by laboratory Zrt.environmental FKF Source: SCBU 13,81 13,71 2011. 20,69 0,24 0,24 0,57 0,00 0,61 1,27 0,00 0,00 0,59 0,06 0,34 0,06 0,00 0,63 1,13 0,16 0,69 0,00 0,06 0,00 0,53 1,94 0,59 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,44 0,38 1,45 2,64 6,04 0,10 0,06 5,69 0,26 1,01 2,52 3,65 0,06 5,69 3,23 3,13 1,98 2,62 0,52 houses family 2011. multi 16,35 215 4,89 0,16 0,32 3,62 0,00 0,00 0,68 2,11 0,22 0,66 0,16 1,09 0,00 0,22 2,48 1,71 3,22 0,00 1,12 0,73 2,89 6,84 3,36 0,32 0,41 3,12 0,00 4,17 0,82 2,61 5,33 4,81 0,11 0,41 1,15 2,22 0,61 0,41 4,84 1,47 2,86 2,29 4,26 1,67 1,39 1,81 0,1

houses family single 2011. 17,68 8,65 0,10 2,62 1,01 4,95 2,12 0,95 0,32 0,70 0,00 1,48 0,64 0,57 0,14 1,88 2,00 0,00 3,26 1,19 2,65 0,15 0,10 0,13 3,89 1,82 0,67 0,70 3,20 6,44 1,00 1,11 2,38 3,69 1,80 2,02 0,26 0,19 1,27 0,45 6,39 1,41 0,93 4,89 0,2 0 0 2 houses family 2010. multi 14,36 0,87 2,13 3,51 4,63 2,04 6,87 0,20 0,41 1,14 0,00 4,22 0,00 1,41 0,47 1,11 0,20 1,74 0,66 0,68 0,54 2,32 0,00 0,87 0,00 4,36 1,03 2,86 3,18 3,51 0,28 0,66 3,13 0,15 4,92 0,54 1,11 5,92 3,64 0,70 0,24 0,14 2,66 0,75 0,86 4,28 2,48 2,22 houses family single 2010. single family and SCBU family and single 19,86 0,74 3,15 0,51 2,70 0,80 6,13 9,08 0,13 0,03 2,56 0,00 1,86 0,54 0,94 0,21 3,65 0,14 1,86 0,04 0,54 1,00 2,55 0,00 2,11 0,00 2,76 1,15 2,81 2,61 1,57 0,03 0,18 4,38 0,15 0,47 1,11 4,12 5,57 0,39 0,69 0,12 2,86 2,67 1,15 1,67 0,78 1,62 houses family 2009. multi 15,12 2,39 3,86 1,97 1,48 0,96 6,24 0,24 0,11 2,15 0,00 0,56 0,89 2,38 0,12 0,89 0,21 1,35 1,05 1,12 2,37 2,15 1,57 0,00 2,65 1,11 2,05 4,56 2,68 0,18 0,36 2,96 0,00 5,04 1,12 3,12 4,96 4,44 0,47 0,78 0,68 3,11 1,12 1,14 5,68 0,96 1,65 0 houses family

single 2009. 13,69 10,20 0,54 1,71 1,19 3,86 1,05 8,97 0,79 0,07 2,47 0,00 4,32 2,37 0,78 0,58 0,18 1,16 1,30 0,82 1,35 1,02 2,98 0,11 0,75 0,00 1,85 0,91 0,73 4,06 1,88 0,14 0,05 4,13 0,97 0,28 1,91 7,59 2,69 0,48 0,47 0,14 0,17 2,57 0,37 4,76 0,73 0,86 houses family 2008. multi 15,46 18,12 0,86 1,78 0,86 4,26 0,45 0,14 0,41 0,68 0,00 2,28 0,65 1,63 0,12 0,77 0,09 0,84 0,12 1,11 0,87 2,02 0,91 0,00 3,11 0,96 1,05 3,52 1,70 0,04 0,16 3,82 0,86 5,68 0,53 2,97 2,85 3,61 0,55 0,48 0,36 2,30 2,35 0,25 6,58 0,59 1,23 0

houses family single 2008. 10,68 15,77 11,68 0,78 1,28 1,79 3,24 0,86 0,84 0,06 1,98 0,19 1,24 1,68 2,15 0,24 1,07 0,20 0,97 0,43 0,37 2,01 0,45 0,00 0,26 0,00 2,75 0,86 0,98 2,74 1,67 0,28 0,27 3,08 0,99 0,57 2,64 6,56 4,06 0,87 0,54 0,12 2,46 1,88 0,35 2,70 1,52 1,90

CEU eTD Collection list, this to According 8. Appendix in presented is which prepared, was map a list this on based and website Zrt. FKF the on islands collection waste selective the of location plastic, (paper, your drop can you which in containers are these street, the in found be can islands collection waste The Waste collectionislands In wasteBudapest inthree types theselective are collected ways: graduallydoor the increase of as increased, highly be will low rather is collection waste selective the of rate the Budapest In and measures former the interpolations. to according author the by estimated were compositions collection made Zrt. FKF dissertation this for author the of request a as made was composition waste unique Budapest in made been never have calculations These for the first time but also separated also but time first the for

environmental laboratory environmental rm h bok f lt, adn ra n dwtw ae. Last area. downtown and area garden flats, of block the from door yardswasteand waste collection islands

8.4 - to

- door collecti Selective waste collection Selective waste

K Zt rcie HF blin U co EU billion 4 HUF received Zrt. FKF - to aluminum on. - door collection.selective waste .

Not onlyt Not

collect cans and glass) waste. You can find the exact the find can You waste. glass) and cans 216 he waste composition for 48 categories was categorieswas 48 for composition waste he

ion routes were established for the for established were routes ion

and neither in Hungary. This This Hungary. in neither and

, but f but , - financing for the the for financing rom year’s waste waste year’s mid

2013 it 2013

by waste waste the the CEU eTD Collection pers.comm door the whereas 2004, in started islands waste the with collection the 2001, in opened yard waste first the Budapest In yardBuda. sophisticated isthemost of allsites. existing Thislatest waste South Nagytétény, in 2012. July 5 on opened was one latest the Budapest, in yards waste waste, hazardous as well as demoli and construction types waste selective including waste, your of rid get can you facilities these In fence. with covered are which areas guarded are yards Waste Waste yards of waste islands respectively). (12 I. and (5) VI. (4), V. (2), VII. district as such downtown, the in located are islands waste of amount smaller A Budapest. of outskirts the in are waste (69 islan waste XXI.(67 islands), XIV. district in found be can islands waste most the that obvious is it and districts per islands waste the divides list This nearby. supermarkets TESCO or Auchan Bu in islands waste 940 are there .)

in districts VI.and VII.arein districts remarkably low. tion waste, tion ds), XXII. (66), X. (62), III. (59), XV. (56), XX. (54) which which (54) XX. (56), XV. (59), III. (62), X. (66), XXII. ds), 1 . Picture Nagytétény waste yard waste Nagytétény Picture . dapest. From these 933 are inside Budapest and 7 near near 7 and Budapest inside are 933 these From dapest. tires - to , garden waste and electronic waste. There are 16 16 are There waste. electronic and waste garden , - door collection began in 2006. (Klug 2012 2012 (Klug 2006. in began collection door

217

The numbers numbers The CEU eTD Collection

. Figure Location of waste islands and waste yards in Budapest yards waste islands and of waste Location Figure . k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Source: own contribution based on FKF Zrt.on based contribution own Source: a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E k ö n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

k e ö z n s l E l a n m e m b á m z e s z s . 1 l a a m c m t á u z s k ö . n 1 l E a c t u k ö n l E

E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E ö n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 218 l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

E E E E e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E

E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

ö n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n

. e 1 b m a e c z t s u l k a ö m n m l á E z E s E E . E 1 E E a E c E t E u E E k E ö E n E l E E E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

1 b m a e c z t s u l k a ö m n m l á E z E s E E . E 1 E E a E c E t E u E E k E ö E n E l E E E . m 1 e z a s c t l u a m k m ö á n z l s E E . E 1 E E a E c E t E u E E k E ö E n E l E E E E E

á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

m a a e c c z t t s u u l k k a ö ö m n n m l l á E E z E E s E E E E . E E 1 E E E E a E E c E E t E E u E E E E k E E ö E E n E E l E E E E E

n n e e b b m m e e z z s s l l a a m m m m á á z z s s . 1 . 1 a c a t c u t u k ö k n ö l n E l E E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

n m g m Á á z a s n . o 1 t a a K c - t i u a t k n ö i n z l S E E s E e E n E g E Á E E E E E E E E E E

databases a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l l a a m m m m á á z z s s . . 1 1 a a c c t t u u k k ö ö n n l l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E

c k t ö u n l k E ö E n E l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

E E E E E E b á m z e s z s . 1 l a a m c m t á u z s k ö . n 1 l E a E c E t E u E E k E ö E n E l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E n e b m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m c e t z u s k l ö a n m l m E á E z E s E E . E 1 E E a E c E t E u E E k E ö E n E l E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

E E E E E E E e a z b c s m t e u . z 1 s k ö a l n c a l t m E u m E á E k z E ö s E n E l . E E 1 E E E E a E E c E E t E E u E E E E k E E ö E E n E l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m e z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z c s t u . 1 k ö a n c l t E u E E k E ö E n E l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

E E E E E u m k e ök z nö s ln El l E a E m E m E á E z E s E E . E 1 E E a E c E t E u E k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E

1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Waste Waste islands Waste s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E

1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

. 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E yards

1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

1 l a a c m t m u á z k s ö n . l 1 E E a E c E t E u E E k E ö E n E l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E s l a m m á z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E z s . 1 a c t u k ö n l E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CEU eTD Collection bewill preparedZrt. by FKF inthe future. that Budapest of map waste digital detailed, more a of version draft a only is map This waste facilities. poss not do which districts some are there so yards, waste two are there XV districts the in and IV the In side. Pest in are others the while Buda, in located are 3 only yards waste 16 the from that seen be can it yards, waste the consideration into Taking thesein locations, but thein Pest side it is spreaded evenly. the and diffcollection wouldthebe as hills, Budathein mountains the in rare is ofthem location Budapest, throughout spreaded generally are islands waste that shows map The theand XII. lists district are repeated again, which is confusing. XI the blocks large these After district. X. after break any without block same the in are XII. and XI., X., districts the list Zrt. FKF the in that realized Author flats. of block new where well as VIII. district in observed be can It street. exact the without Office Mayor’s V. district says: locations the of identification The all. at found not ( map Budapest geo.hu/budapest_t%C3%A9rk%C in indicated not was but list, the in indicated loca the of display the during that comment to important is It Buda). North district, III. in instance (for sparse quite are islands collections waste the of number the where locations s (main islands waste by covered fully are which locations are there that seen clearly be can it map this From tions of the waste islands and waste yards, there were some streets which was was which streets some were there yards, waste and islands waste the of tions

it says: it treets, traffic junctions, around institutions etc.), however there are are there however etc.), institutions around junctions, traffic treets, Ciprus utca, új társasházzal szemben which means: opposite the the opposite means: which szemben társasházzal új utca, Ciprus 3%A9p ) such as Tulipánkert utca in district IV were were IV district in utca Tulipánkert as such )

219

sometimes

are not clear for instance it it instance for clear not are http://www.budapest ess these ess .

district icult - CEU eTD Collection Paper Door Alu Glass Plastic Paper yards Waste Alu Glass Plastic Paper islandsWaste door the from then and collection. The intheseandbelow: amounts differences for2010displayed 2008 yards waste islands, waste the from comes waste of amount thehighest collection waste ofselective threetypes from these can that seen be it 2008 for structure model the for data necessary the all includes which 33., Table From 2010:934t 2009: 700t, and 2011:1011tons. t, 315,3 2008: t, 94,2 2007: t, 103,5 2006: following: the were amounts collected The type. collection waste selective efficient most the is This capital. whole the cover will participating are houses 386 XIII. district for and addresses 900 XI. district addresses, 883 VII. district addresses, 391 V. district addresses: if number following the with districts, 4 in moment and districts some in 2006. in started collection waste of type This Door minum minum - -

to to

- - door door collection

cans cans

(lg escm. 02 Fo 1 Januar 1 From 2012) pers.comm. (Klug .

220

2008 (tons) 10679,69 5759,03 3626,94 220,07 102,71 455,25 426,01 69,78 7,74 y 2013. after gradual increase, it it increase, gradual after 2013. y

is operating at the the at operating is 2010 (tons) 11660,89 - 5756,72 4017,29

t 688,08 109,84 337,75 362,37 o - door door 9,42 74,8

CEU eTD Collection weFrom thecomparisontable state can the following: which is6.06%. remains which waste residual a always is there collection waste selective after that mention to note of is It junk waste, and within bethe can waste counted island collection . system statistics. rep system collection waste This Theamounts from waste type this ofcollectionare thefollowingwaste threetypes: for inhabitant system” categorynew a 2010 in that mentioned be It children.must small door the In Aluminum Plastic

door per 2 HUF by cansaluminum atsomesupermarkets. rewarded can people that fact the to related be to accepted is reason decreasing. The is islands waste the fromcansaluminum the of amount the has increased not significantly generally yards waste the in and islands waste the in collection waste selective the Glass: 388,11 83,319 Plastic: Paper: 498,61 . Table Amount of the selectively collected waste by by waste collected selectively the of Amount Table .

- cans to - to - door collection system there is no glass collection, it may be dangerous for for dangerous be may it collection, glass no is there system collection door - door collection is increasingdoor is collection considerably.

was introduced, which was not measuredintroduced,wascalculated whichin2008. not and was

from the selective waste collection, which was 1251 tons in 2008, in tons 1251 was which collection, waste selective the from

Source: own contribution based FKF Zrt.data based contribution own Source: resents collection from business offices, institutional or institutional offices, business from collection resents

221

22,59 collection methods 2008 and 2010 and methods2008 collection 5,69

–

“collectio n from n 223,34

22,41

other other

CEU eTD Collection collectedbe recyclable wastethefollowing created: can table door and yards waste islands, waste the If Compari door-to-door waste yard waste island door-to-door waste yard waste island son of the collected of son methods bythese amount three Paper Paper 12213,9 8591,49 38 705,72 349,2 71,24 364,6 2009 2006 . Figure Amount of the recyclable waste by the different methods(tons) by different the waste recyclable the Amount of Figure Plastic Plastic 3962,99 2589,07 168,66 38 73,77 21,33 55,97 . Table Amount of of Amount Table Alu Alu 404,66 315,04 22,65 9,41 5,52 5,74 Glass Glass 523,228 5102,78 108,07 6380,9 Paper Paper 12159,5 9212,43 the collected recyclable waste (tons) waste recyclable collected the 688,08 337,75 458,15 65,96 2010 2007 - 222 to Plastic Plastic 3768,18 - 223,34 64,008 3696,6 door collection system are compared to the the to compared are system collection door 22,59

74,8 Alu Alu 362,37 362,88 22,41 9,42 5,69 7,93 Glass Glass 6144,83 5435,28 109,84 527,12

Paper Paper 769,404 327,888 8883,62 10679,7

220,07 455,25 2011 2008 Plastic Plastic

272,484 4516,23 3684,86 78,132 22,59 69,78 Alu Alu

18,048 10,236 340,62 426,01 5,69 7,74 Glass Glass 6454,13 5759,03 93,384 92,76

CEU eTD Collection scheme, recycling and collection of type this use LIDL and TESCO Hungary in moment the At HUF. for exchange in bottles PET and cans aluminum back take supermarkets than stated be must It presently collection very this methodis low. door the why reason strong door the in collected not is glass while cans, aluminum Door low. relatively is door and yards waste by waste recyclable collected the of amount the Figure 39 38. and 39. and 38. . Figure Rate of the three types of selective waste collection by years per waste typ waste per years by collection selective waste of three types of Ratethe Figure

displays that the most of the waste is collected in waste islands, while islands, waste in collected is waste the of most the that displays - to

- n uaet ad presum (and Budapest in door collection is increasing in case of pape of case in increasing is collection door - to - door collection must be increased in the future, as as future, the in increased be must collection door 223

a bly in the whole country) some some country) whole the in bly - to - or ytm Ti i as a also is This system. door - to r and plastic and and plastic and r - door collection collection door es

CEU eTD Collection becomes landfilled or incinerated. and glass plastic, (paper, waste recyclable of amount significant a that seen be can it calculations From waste and collected selectively the of Comparison inhighmethod exists theUS. rateinother countriesand also amount low for here transported and islands waste the from stolen been have returned bottles PET and cans aluminum the cases many in result common a is it However shopping. while used be can which value a also is amount they although and inhabitants, the for incentive good clean receive they very a is This provider. service as public the of burden the lowering supermarket while waste recyclable the for efficient very is method collection This receiptthis tomake purchases. shopping use can inhabitant the and deposited is waste the when receipt a on printed are amounts aluminu each for 2 HUF give they and

2 . Picture Collection scheme of alu schemeof Collection Picture . alu minum

cans) can be found in the mixed waste, which eventually eventually which waste, mixed the in found be can cans)

minum

m can and HUF 1 for each PET bottle. The The bottle. PET each for 1 HUF and can m 224

can and P and can

of money. of non

do not receive high amount but this but amount high receive not do - ET bottles at supermarkets at bottles ET selectively This “alternative recycling” recycling” “alternative This

collected recyclable recyclable collected

CEU eTD Collection waste the in found still be can fraction waste recyclable much how calculate to useful be would it Therefore waste. mixed the in categories waste 48 the for composition waste environmenta the of head The W Paper notselective= total total)/100 Waste (P(%) selective x Papergiven selective = (waste number islands P P Where: P Equation: equationfor is obviouslyfor paper, thesimilar other types): waste the followin the with calculated be can waste recyclable potentially The disposed ofinthe landfill orby treatment. thermal is which waste useful potentially much too still is there but possible, not is recycling How waste. mixed the in paper) (e.g. type waste the of amount the plus paper) (e.g. type waste collected selectively the of amount the is This recycled. further be can which types waste the of amount the determine can collected selectively the of comparison the From wa wa = total total

–

– rate the wasteinthe paper total of waste = total Waste =Waste selective nonselective total +Waste total

Paper total= Paper selective+ Paper notse

l laboratory of FKF Zrt., Gábor Király determined the the determined Király Gábor Zrt., FKF of laboratory l 225 ever, according to experiences 100 % percent percent % 100 experiences to according ever,

waste yards waste lective and not selectively collected waste we we waste collected selectively not and

+ selectiveroutes)

g equations (the (the equations g

CEU eTD Collection applied inthe model: Forfollowing waste the paper categoriescalculated 8 types canbewaste and inthe48 Paper the potentially waste2011. types recyclable and in2008 of amount the of comparison a includes thesis This 2008. in paper collected selectively the only is which %, 1.64 around than higher much is rate paper recyclable potentially ( type waste collected selectively the only not includes amount this that important very instance, for this of Because fractions. wast recyclable potentially maximum the calculate to desired was it fractions waste 48 the for results method calculation the using By future. the in recycled and collected is it Hungary, and in selectively separated and collected not are types waste these but used, be also could or toys plastic the plastic, from instance for So 2008. is year base of. disposed being is which e.g. paper e.g.

No.8. No.7. No.6. No.5. No. 4. No. 3. u as the also but )

– – – - accordingly included in calculations and not incorporated in the modelcalculations anduntilaccordingly notincorporatedincluded in in – –

advertisements other clean p office paper, books books and phone magazines newsprints,

non

aper, aper,

It was calculated for every year taking into account that the that account into taking year every for calculated was It -

selectively

non

collected waste types as well. Thi well. as types waste collected 2008 226 -

recyclable

plastic can not be included. It is It included. be not can plastic

non - recyclable s is why the the why is s

plastic plastic e CEU eTD Collection paper can waste graph: inthe be mixed inthe following seen Accordingthe amount thecollected of tothese rateoftheand numbers selectivelypaper The are the numbers calculation as for follows: waste. mixed houses family single the in 13.55% and houses family multi the in 16.41% SCBU, in 12.98% are: categories 48 the in types waste these to related % in numbers the of amounts The total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total paper paper collected total selectively paper total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the paper in Paper total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total paper paper collected total selectively paper total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the paper in Paper 39

. Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table . and the average of them is 14.31%. Therefore 14.31% paper was calculated in the the in calculated was paper 14.31% Therefore 14.31%. is them of average the and No.10. No.9. –

– paperand containers, cardboard

other clean cardboard

non 65 983.39 62 614.84 49 995.16 48 207.04 2008 Jan 1 920.27 9 954.96 8 960.18 1 698.15 7 611.31 6 898.43 July 994.78 712.88 - 14.31 14.31 selectively 227

56 744.99 53 723.89 49 905.15 48 272.84

1 719.68 8 620.91 7 687.89 1 554.57 7 748.06 6 907.84 Febr Aug 933.02 840.22 14.31 14.31

collected paper, 2008 by months by 2008 paper, collected 60 991.78 58 009.17 52 729.85 50 896.26 1 822.89 9 240.57 8 301.11 1 718.95 8 216.11 7 283.25 March Sept 939.46 932.86 14.31 14.31

62 126.77 58 720.00 61 469.66 58 701.54 1 723.11 9 336.34 8 402.83 1 842.52 9 320.68 8 400.19 Oct Apr 933.51 920.49 14.31 14.31 56 829.15 53 105.44 60 234.98 56 980.33 1 727.30 8 552.39 7 599.39 1 813.41 9 100.59 8 153.89 Nov May 953.00 946.70 14.31 14.31 , (tons) , 54 894.73 52 536.17 59 681.11 56 548.67 2 091.36 8 736.44 1 218.51 7 517.93 1 868.16 9 121.69 1 029.58 8 092.11 June Dec 14.31 14.31

CEU eTD Collection The basicrequiredcalculation for numbersas follows: the are in waste. mixed plastic 4.47% be to calculated was it Therefore 4.47%. is them of average the and houses family single the in 6.56% and familyhouses multi the is: in 2.85% SCBU, in 4.01% categories 48 the in types waste these to related % in numbers the of amount The and applied inthe model: types waste 48 the in calculated be can category waste following the plastic For Plastic 40

. Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure . No. 17.

–

plastic bottles

non - selectively 228

collected paper, 2008 by months,(tons) by 2008 paper, collected

CEU eTD Collection wasteplastic inthe mixed canfollowinggraph: seen be inthe According theamount thecollected of tothese rateoftheand numbers selectivelyplastic total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total plastic plastic collected total selectively plastic total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in plastic Plastic total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total plastic plastic collected total selectively plastic total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in plastic Plastic 40 41 . Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table . . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure . Source: own contribution based on FKF data on based contribution own Source: non non 65 983.39 62 614.84 49 995.16 48 207.04 2008 Jan 1 920.27 3 156.07 2 798.88 1 698.15 2 418.97 2 154.85 July 357.19 264.12 - - selectively selectively 229 4.47 4.47

56 744.99 53 723.89 49 905.15 48 272.84 1 719.68 2 753.75 2 401.46 1 554.57 2 411.51 2 157.80 Febr Aug 352.29 253.71

collected plastic collected 4.47 4.47 collected plastic, 2008 by months,by (tons) 2008 plastic, collected 60 991.78 58 009.17 52 729.85 50 896.26 1 822.89 2 922.54 2 593.01 1 718.95 2 556.80 2 275.06 March Sept 329.53 281.74 4.47 4.47

62 126.77 58 720.00 61 469.66 58 701.54 1 723.11 2 928.37 2 624.78 1 842.52 2 923.56 2 623.96 , 2008 by months,by (tons) 2008 , Oct Apr 303.59 299.60 4.47 4.47 56 829.15 53 105.44 60 234.98 56 980.33 1 727.30 2 667.41 2 373.81 1 813.41 2 865.53 2 547.02 Nov May 293.60 318.51 4.47 4.47 54 894.73 52 536.17 59 681.11 56 548.67 2 091.36 2 669.12 2 348.37 1 868.16 2 872.41 2 527.73 June Dec 320.75 344.68 4.47 4.47

CEU eTD Collection The remainingare numbersfollows: as waste. found inmixed 0.86% that determined was it Therefore 0.86%. is them of average the and houses family single the in 0.97% and houses family multi the in 0.84% SCBU, in 0.8% categories is: 48 the thesetypes wastein relatedto % numbersin the of amount The applied in the model: For Aluminum total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total aluminium aluminium collected total selectively aluminium total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in aluminium Aluminium total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total aluminium aluminium collected total selectively aluminium total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in aluminium Aluminium 41 . Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table . aluminum

No. 37.

the following categorycalculated waste types inthe48waste be can and –

beveragecans (

aluminum non 65 983.39 62 614.84 49 995.16 48 207.04 2008 Jan

- 1 920.27 1 698.15 selectively July 582.11 538.49 454.52 414.58 43.62 39.94 ), 230 0.86 0.86

56 744.99 53 723.89 49 905.15 48 272.84 1 719.68 1 554.57 Febr Aug

498.83 462.03 447.31 415.15 collected 36.80 32.16 0.86 0.86 60 991.78 58 009.17 52 729.85 50 896.26 1 822.89 1 718.95 March Sept 530.01 498.88 474.24 437.71 aluminum 31.13 36.53 0.86 0.86 62 126.77 58 720.00 61 469.66 58 701.54 1 723.11 1 842.52 Oct Apr 541.51 504.99 540.90 504.83 , 2008 by by (tons) months, 2008 , 36.52 36.07 0.86 0.86 aluminum 56 829.15 53 105.44 60 234.98 56 980.33 1 727.30 1 813.41 Nov May 487.42 456.71 530.51 490.03 30.71 40.48 0.86 0.86 54 894.73 52 536.17 59 681.11 56 548.67 2 091.36 1 868.16

June can Dec 493.65 451.81 519.96 486.32 41.84 33.64 0.86 0.86 be be

CEU eTD Collection average the and houses family single the in 2.84% and houses family multi the in 4.01% SCBU, in 4.97% is: categories 48 the in types waste these to related % in amount The applied inthe model: Forglass thefollowingcategories waste beinthe 48wasteand can calculated types Glass graph: collected of amount selectively the of rate the numbers these to According 42 . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure .

No. 35. No. 34. No. 33. aluminum – – –

brown glassbrown greenglass glass,clear

in mixed waste can be determined and is presented in the following the in presented is and determined be can waste mixed in Source: own contri own Source:

non - selectively bution based on FKF data on based bution 231

collected aluminum

, 2008 by by (tons) months, 2008 , aluminum

and the the and

CEU eTD Collection glasscan wastecalculated beand inthefollowinggraph: mixed featured is inthe of amount the and glass collected selectively the of rate the numbers these to According The remainingare numbersfollows: as waste. mixed in contained is glass 3.94% that calculated was it Therefore 3.94%. is them of total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total glass glass collected total selectively glass total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in glass Glass total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total glass glass collected total selectively glass total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in glass Glass 42

Table Table

Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Source: own contribution based on FKF data on based contribution own Source: non 65 983.39 62 614.84 49 995.16 48 207.04 2008 Jan

1 920.27 2 991.70 2 467.02 1 698.15 2 580.57 1 899.36 July 524.68 681.21 - selectively 232 3.94 3.94

56 744.99 53 723.89 49 905.15 48 272.84 1 719.68 2 514.29 2 116.72 1 554.57 2 330.43 1 901.95 Febr Aug 397.57 428.48 3.94 3.94

collected glass, 2008 by months, by (tons) 2008 glass, collected 60 991.78 58 009.17 52 729.85 50 896.26 1 822.89 2 808.33 2 285.56 1 718.95 2 473.13 2 005.31 March Sept 522.77 467.82 3.94 3.94

62 126.77 58 720.00 61 469.66 58 701.54 1 723.11 2 763.06 2 313.57 1 842.52 2 899.20 2 312.84 Oct Apr 449.49 586.36 3.94 3.94 56 829.15 53 105.44 60 234.98 56 980.33 1 727.30 2 542.34 2 092.35 1 813.41 2 752.75 2 245.03 Nov May 449.99 507.72 3.94 3.94 54 894.73 52 536.17 59 681.11 56 548.67

2 091.36 2 580.19 2 069.93 1 868.16 2 688.28 2 228.02 June Dec 510.26 460.26 3.94 3.94

CEU eTD Collection houses: 13.99%, sothe average calculationsare 18.67%.as The is: follows: family single for and 19.19% is percentage the MF for 22.87%, was: it waste SCBU For Paper calculations, mentioned above,graphs thefollowing: and thenumbers the are the to according and well, as here included were types waste same The provided not were 2011 December and throughout researchthis the course of November for data the requests written severaland of oral spite in mentionedthat be must year it 2011 the fordata Regardingthe 43 . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure .

project. non - 2011 selective 233

collected glass, 2008 by months, by (tons) 2008 glass, collected

CEU eTD Collection The graphsfollowing showthe rates: total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total paper paper collected total selectively paper total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the paper in Paper total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total paper paper collected total selectively paper total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the paper in Paper 43 44 . Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table . . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure . 2011 Jan July

11418.56 10597.84 44796.55 8861.464 7993.374 non non 1766.54 1932.54 820.72 868.09 60193 56764 42814 18.67 18.67 - - selectively selectively 234 Febr Aug 63930.22 11964.14 11181.09 38894.84 1557.471 7678.182 6953.642

1751.11 783.05 724.54 59888 37245 18.67 18.67

collected paper, 2011 by months,(tons) by 2011 paper, collected collected paper, 2011 by months,(tons) by 2011 paper, collected Sept March 56277.67 10620.88 9883.898 54707.13 1951.454 10661.34 9703.733 1685.96 736.98 957.61 52940 51975 18.67 18.67 Oct Apr 56445.68 10662.04 9919.184 1909.058 10885.46 9954.284 1598.54 57622.6 742.86 931.18 53129 53317 18.67 18.67 May 60039.29 1868.874 10841.09 9981.169 859.92 53461 18.67 June 58870.91 1818.459 11028.41 10206.52 821.89 54668 18.67

CEU eTD Collection From calculations associatedgraphical is: these representation the The calculationare basicforas numbers the average waste. Thereforewas ofthem foundinmixed 3.72%. plastic is 3.72% the and houses family single the in 3.20% and houses family multi the in 5.33% SCBU, thes to related % in recorded amount The Plastic total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total plastic plastic collected total selectively plastic total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in plastic Plastic total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total plastic plastic collected total selectively plastic total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in plastic Plastic 44 . Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table .

2011 Jan July 2518.361 2111.621 44796.55 1946.721 1592.681 non 1766.54 1932.54 406.74 354.04 60193 56764 42814 3.72 3.72 - selectively e waste types in the 48 categories is: 2.64% in 2.64% is: categories 48 the in types waste e 235 follows: Febr Aug 63930.22 2639.464 2227.834 38894.84 1557.471 1689.885 1385.514

1751.11 304.371 411.63 59888 37245 3.72 3.72

collected plastic, 2011 by months,by (tons) 2011 plastic, collected

Sept March 56277.67 2393.398 1969.368 54707.13 1951.454 2300.274 1685.96 366.804 1933.47 424.03 52940 51975 3.72 3.72 Oct Apr 56445.68 2360.779 1976.399 1909.058 1983.392 1598.54 57622.6 2361.88 378.488 384.38 53129 53317

3.72 3.72 May 60039.29 1868.874 2384.493 1988.749 395.744 53461 3.72

June 58870.91 1818.459 2436.909 403.259 2033.65 54668 3.72

CEU eTD Collection The remainingare numbersfollows: as in mixedwaste. 0.96% that concluded be can it Therefore 0.96%. is them of average the and houses family single the in 1.48% and houses family is multi the in categories 1.09% SCBU, 48 the in types waste these to related % in calculations The Aluminum 45 . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure .

non

- selectively 236

collected plastic, 2011 by months,by (tons) 2011 plastic, collected aluminum : 0.34% in in 0.34% :

is found is

CEU eTD Collection be seengraph: inthe following and selective the of comparison the numbers these to According total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total aluminium aluminium collected total selectively aluminium total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in aluminium Aluminium total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total aluminium aluminium collected total selectively aluminium total non selected waste total non selective % waste, mixed the in aluminium Aluminium 45 46 . Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table . . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure .

non non 2011 Jan July 579.0844 544.9344 44796.55 438.7844 411.0144 1766.54 1932.54 - - 60193 56764 42814 selectively 34.15 27.77 selectively 0.96 0.96 237 Febr Aug 63930.22 610.5848 574.9248 38894.84 1557.471

1751.11 385.492 357.552 59888 37245 35.66 27.94

collected 0.96 0.96 collected Sept March 56277.67 54707.13 1951.454 1685.96 529.634 508.224 530.82 498.96 52940 51975 21.41 31.86 aluminum aluminum 0.96 0.96 Oct Apr 56445.68 531.4684 510.0384 1909.058 548.3932 511.8432 1598.54 57622.6 non 53129 53317 21.43 36.55 , 2011 by by (tons) months, 2011 , 0.96 0.96 , 2011 by by (tons) months, 2011 , - selective May 60039.29 1868.874 545.7156 513.2256 53461 32.49 0.96

June waste can can waste 58870.91 1818.459 562.9728 524.8128 54668 38.16 0.96

CEU eTD Collection The waste.of 2.92%.glass them is Therefore glass foundinthemixed 2.92% is of average the and houses family single the in 2.59% and houses family multi the in 4.41% SCBU, in 1.76% is: categories 48 the in types waste these to related % in figured The Glass total total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total glass glass collected total selectively glass total non selected waste total non selective % waste mixed the in glass Glass total waste waste collected selectively total recyclable total glass glass collected total selectively glass total non selected waste total non selective % waste mixed the in glass Glass 46

remainingare numbersfollows: as . Table Amount of the selectively and and selectively the of Amount Table .

2011 Jan July 2162.439 1657.509 44796.55 1932.809 1250.169 1766.54 1932.54

non 504.93 682.64 60193 56764 42814 2.92 2.92 - 238 selectively Febr Aug 63930.22 38894.84 1557.471 1588.174 1087.554

1751.11 1748.73 2269.5 520.77 500.62 59888 37245 2.92 2.92

collected glass, 2011 by months, by (tons) 2011 glass, collected Sept March 56277.67 2049.388 1545.848 54707.13 1951.454 1685.96 2112.85 1517.67 503.54 595.18 52940 51975 2.92 2.92 Oct Apr 56445.68 2001.237 1551.367 1909.058 2119.696 1556.856 1598.54 57622.6 449.87 562.84 53129 53317 2.92 2.92 May 60039.29 1868.874 2141.781 1561.061 580.72 53461 2.92

June 58870.91 1818.459 2151.456 1596.306 555.15 54668 2.92

CEU eTD Collection was different the for here seen be can and scaling, similar in rates the observe better to order in well as representation graphical 100% a into adapted were graphs, summarized The Summary graphs the comparison of 49 48

. Figure Comparison graphs of the selectively and and selectively the of Comparison graphs Figure . te types: . Figure Comparison graphs of the selectively and and selectively the of Comparison graphs Figure . 47 . Figure Graph of the selectively and and selectively the Graphof Figure .

non 100% graphs 100% graphs 100% - selectively 239

non non

- -

selectively collected glass, 2011 by months, by (tons) 2011 glass, collected selectively

collected plastic, 2008, 2011 in 2011 2008, plastic, collected collected paper, 2008, 2011 in 2011 2008, paper, collected

CEU eTD Collection the is for fraction smallest waste the of amount the However, observed. be can trend decreasing no shows it paper for and glass.recyclable rateofthe The wasteisincreasi at 4% also plastic, at 4% is it waste), mixed the in found basically the of 9% only is waste collected selectively the paper non the that concluded be can it 2011 and 2008 of as figures comparison these at Looking 50 51 . Figure Comparison graphs of the selectively and and selectively the of Comparison graphs Figure . - . Figure Comparison graphs of the selectively and and selectively the of Comparison graphs Figure . selectively aluminum

collected waste is much larger than the selec the than larger much is waste collected

–

appr. 1,200 appr. significant 2011 in 100% graphs in 100% 2011 tons 100% graphs 100%

increase, while for aluminum cans a minimal minimal a cans aluminum for while increase, , with , 240

non ng marginally in the case of glass, plastic ngof glass, plastic case marginally inthe non glass accounting for 2,000 2,000 for accounting glass

- selectively - selectively

non

collected collected -

selectively collected glass, 2008, 2011 in 2011 2008, glass, collected tively collected waste. For waste. collected tively aluminum aluminum

waste (which is (which waste –

and 28% at at 28% and

2,500 cans, 2008, 2008, cans, tons

, CEU eTD Collection Budapest in collected selectively are which included are types waste following the figure this In though rate. atslow still increasing, is waste collected selectively the of amount the that stated be can it However, more robust andselective stricter collectio a so of, disposed are waste recycled of amounts large that show graphs The markets. aluminum coll waste selective the cases many in previously mentioned was it rate.As collection highest the has paper selectivelycollected 8,000 tons

52 n frhr ercse: ae, lsi, glass, plastic, paper, reprocessed: further and

cans or the PET bottles have a value of 1 or 2 HUF in several shopping shopping several in HUF 2 or 1 of value a have bottles PET the or cans lsi, n 9,000 and plastic, . Figure Rate of the selectively collected waste between 2006 2006 between waste collected selectively of Ratethe Figure . Source: own contribution based on FKF Zrt. data FKF Zrt.ondata based contribution own Source:

tons

ae. eeal cmaig hm o ah te the other each to them comparing Generally paper. ection islands are burned or even raided as the the as raided even or burned are islands ection n method is determinedn methodis tobenecessary. 241

aluminum and 2011 (tons) 2011 and

and organic. The The organic. and

CEU eTD Collection for treatment, further whichare pers.comm. following (Balatoni 2012): the Fe of pre or utilization Fe as utilized be to are materials incoming the of All transporting ofFe themtothe site paper, collecting selectively is Zrt. FKF The the of rate selectively the waste, collected selectively increased the of consequence a As well. organic of amount

- Group Invest Zrt. revealed the exact locations of these waste types from their site their from types waste these of locations exact the revealed Zrt. Invest Group

53 collected waste is decreasing, though, still collected isdecreasing, waste though, still . Figure Rate of of Ratethe Figure . - treatment and their activity takes place according to the to according place takes activity their and treatment waste is low in the winter period which influences the total amount as as amount total the influences which period winter the in low is waste Source: own contribution based on FKF Zrt. data FKF Zrt.ondata based contribution own Source: non - - Group Invest Zrt.InvestGroup selectively 242

collected waste between 2006 and 2011 and 2006 between waste collected

aluminum

- a Group has the required permits for for permits required the has Group

significant amount.

cans, glass and plastic waste and and waste plastic and glass cans,

m. The director The m.

non -

CEU eTD Collection waste fractions are reprocessedinHungary. the only types waste these From consideration. into taken was city major each of distance the mentioned cities additional related the evaluation LCA the in Therefore processing locations useful: is waste the of listing a but research, my in included not are types waste following The

plastic: paper: Dunaújváros,Hungary refrigerators: andfrom Nyírbogát, Szeptemb materials WEEE: extracted from composite Republic drinkingCzech cartons: Zrt.and notFe landfill site or the Zalaegerszeg,glass: Sződ procedure) aluminum

plastic: Austria and amountChina insmall non ferrous Fehérvárcsurgó metals:

ganic waste and the mixed waste are transported to the Pusztazámor the to transported are waste mixed the and waste ganic

LDPE: Tiszaújváros TinnyePP/HDPE: within Hungary:PET - ferrous

– beverage can: mostly Great Britain, Manchester(can to can can to Manchester(can Britain, Great mostly can: beverage –

distance: 1640 1640 distance: 28 -

Zrt. Group metals: Budapest kilometers aluminum

–

, but these waste fractions areFKF , butthese fractions waste managed by

243 average: 110 – kilometers

Szentendre, Fót,Szentendre, Nagyréde

- average: 90 cans are transported are cans kilometers

60 kilometres,

kilometers were used and in the case of the the of case the in and used were kilometers

er: Bodajkstb.

abroad, while all other all while abroad, .

CEU eTD Collection 2009 2008 yearas are follows: presented corresponding and cars collection waste selective The locate. to difficult them making were vehicles The 9. new to total two final the bringing 2011 obtained, and 2010 in and vehicles, these of types 7 were there 2009 and 2008 In vehicles. collection waste selective the are „6085” with marked types other cleaning and for tunnel, are bridges, them of some but vehicles, of types 74 has Zrt. FKF collection For 3. 2. 1. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

6085 MAN 26.313FNLC 6085 MAN 26.313 LK6085 MAN 18.225 6085 MAN.26310 6*2 6085 MAN TGA 26.310 6085 MAN 6085 MAN 26.313 LK6085 MAN 18.225 6085 TGS 6085 MAN.TGA 23320 8.5 - MUT 0126320

26.313 FNLC Collection vehicles and consumption and vehicles Collection

transportation

- 2 BL

mechanisms. From these vehicles only those those only vehicles these From mechanisms. 244

list of the vehicles was not in order in 2008, in order in not was vehicles the of list

CEU eTD Collection 2011 2010 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 7. 6. 5. 4.

6085 MAN TGS26.4006X4 PALFINGER 6085 MAN TGS26.4006X4BL 6085 MAN TGA 26. 6085 MAN 26.313FNLC 6085 MAN 26.313 LK6085 MAN 18.225 6085 TGS 6085 MAN.TGA 23320 6085 MAN.26310 6085 MAN TGS26.4006X4PALFINGER 6085 MAN TGS26.4006X4BL 6*2 6085 MAN TGA 26.310 6085 MAN 6085 MAN 26.313 LK6085 MAN 18.225 6085 TGS 6085 MAN.TGA 23320 6085 MAN.26310 6*2 6085 MAN TGA 26.310 - - MUT 0126320 MUT 0126320 26.313 FNLC

310 6*2 310

- - - 2 BL 2 BL 2 BL - -

PK8502 B/A PK8502 B/A PK8502 245

- - MEILER MEILER

CEU eTD Collection transported required the addition In 2008. of summer the in waste collected selectively 4 Table Fuel (l) consumption Fuel (l) consumption Fuel Transport km Transport km Transport km Total waste (tons) Amount of Amount ofselective (tons) waste Months In we following data tocompare showthe order the tables: Necessary 5,95liter/ton 1ton: for consumption of thevehicles:Consumption 419liter 4119 /capita:Waste 406kg/capita Amount ofwaste: 691586 From theconsumption 9. 8. 7. consumption (l)consumption

6085 TGS 6085 MAN.TGA 23320 6085 MAN.26310

7 sos ht h aon o the of amount the that shows . non – – – -

total non selective collection selectivecollection selective 47 -

MUT 0126320 . Table Comparison of June and July 2008 consumption fuel 2008 July and June ComparisonTable of .

– - -

t selective collection non selective non collection total he following data Source: own contribution based on FKF Zrt. data FKF Zrt.ondata based contribution own Source:

waste (tons)

can becan calculated non

246

- selective

at i 1 tms oe hn the than more times 18 is waste

351 734 313 132 38 602 606 556 550 235 56 321 59 681,11 56 548,67 3 132,44 June for the year the2008: offor

335 945 375 662 39 717 653 580 594 420 59 160 65 983,39 62 614,84 3 368,55 July

CEU eTD Collection the in high low and sensitive, very is selection the of rate The actions. such many how and route one during collected be can waste selective selective total, the to data the applied and 2011 and 2008 between month every for vehicles collection waste selective the of data km and liter the collected study This non selective selective The datafollows: evaluationsthese are as from non selective selective The datafollowing are the the tons, for detail thecollecti selective waste full in analyze to problematic it making received, not was waste mixed the collecting are which vehicles the on information exact that factor uncertainty an was it research this In waste, f selective the for higher times 9.45 is consumption fuel of rate the however waste, mixed the in distances

48 49 . Table Selectively collection and and collection Selectively Table . . Table Selectively collection and and collection Selectively Table . uel consumption canconsumption uel beefficient. more

waste. Therefore it is assumed that in the case of a higher amount of selective selective of amount higher a of case the in that assumed is it Therefore waste. at aon pr ot acrigy I rmis nla hw many how unclear remains It accordingly. month per amount waste summer kilometers

period, however for however period,

is 10.04 times less for the selective collection waste types than for for than types waste selectivecollection the for less times 10.04 is consumption/100 km, 2008 June consumption/100 non on. non 56 548,67 3 132,44 - selectively - selectively

17,98 km/t 9,73 kilometers non t 247

- collection vehicles, tons, km and tons, vehicles, collection

selective collection vehicles, km/tons, vehicles, collection

and liters:

waste 550 235

56 321 12,32

5,54 – km

l/t due to its huge amount huge its to due kilometers in the winter period and and period winter the in

selective and selective liters liters

consumption /tons and fuel fuel and /tons are , June 2008 June , necessary 313 132 38 602 tons 56,91 68,54 non non

of of l – - -

CEU eTD Collection seengraphs: inthe following be can vehicles collection the for results The visible. fully not are changes small such

248

CEU eTD Collection 54 . Figure Evaluation of the selective and and the selective of Evaluation Figure .

non - selective 249

waste collection vehicles vehicles collection waste liter /tons 2008 /tons - 2011

years,show significant differences inthese only the all ofthein 2008not vehicles trans were used orthat some wasmonths) 328 The reason amounts for can in2008 thatthetotal thesmaller be

109

CEU eTD Collection liters 55 . Figure Evaluation of the selective and and the selective of Evaluation Figure . , whereas585 was it in2009 liters

226, in2010550

of consumption. ported less distances than in the following years. didnot ported thaninthe lessdistances amount following(tons) The non - liter selective 250

consumption in2008(forconsumption exampleinevery January consecutive

waste collectio waste

456

liters , and 553 n vehicles, km/tons2008 n vehicles,

646 for January646 for It that 2011. assumed is - 2011

CEU eTD Collection is remaining waste and waste landfilled, which shows thatthe current recycl rate of the of 60% appr. takes Rákospalota in inhabitants) not would (it landfi or mainlytreated thermallyis waste Budapest the In waste.areton ofselective mixed neededone than tocollect waste selectively which waste, theamount areof quite sparseand means waste that the of selectivelylocations collected amount same the collect to distances driving more each requires that vehicle is collection waste selective the for higher is consumption that reason The non the for than the for required is distance more waste of ton one of collection the For liter one for consumption the for than month each more collection waste selective for that display graphs two These - /ton for/ton the selective

collected waste is also very low. It is justified by the fact that more that fact bythe justified Itis low. veryalso is waste collected non

waste in June 2011. inJune waste be called be 8.6 non - selective

- selective Waste disposal in Budapest in Waste disposal tons

incinerator as it generates heat and power and gives them to the to them gives and power and heat generates it as incinerator

waste. The values are 22.07 km/to 22.07 are values The waste.

f wast of non

waste in June 2011. waste inJune - selective

i 14. is e

251 9 at cleto. h aon of amount The collection. waste liter

10 and waste selective the for /ton

ing in Budapest is about 4.4%. inBudapestabout ing is lled. The wasteThe lled. ns and 93. and ns

liters 5 km/tons for the for km/tons 5 - selective

to are consumed consumed are - energy plant energyplant kilometers liters

waste waste

. the the 83 83 of

CEU eTD Collection Where: Energy efficiency = (Ep using thefollowing formula: whereenergy equalefficiency orabove: to is only recovery called be can it facilities incineration waste solid municipal of case the In recovery and dispo notthermal thermal as considered is it II No. Appendix Directive Framework Waste 2008/98/EC the of formula the to according and 67%, is plant this of is rate efficiency energy The Waste

to Energy Plantto Energy Ei means annual excluding Ef energyEw and imported (GJ/year) calorific (GJ/year) of value thewaste tre the in contained energy annual means Ew the to contributing fuels from production of steam (GJ/year) system the to input energy annual means Ef commercial by use multiplied 1,1(GJ/year) the with in calculated energy is It electricity. or heat as produced energy annual means Ep

0,65 for installations permitted after0,65 for permitted installations 31December 2008, with accordance in applicable Community legislationbefore 1 permitted and operation in installations for 0,60

form of electricity being multiplied by2,6 and heat produced for for produced heat and by2,6 multiplied being electricity of form -

(Ef +Ef)) + × Ei))/(0,97 (Ew

sal.

252

ated waste calculated using the net the using calculated waste ated

January2009,

CEU eTD Collection cyclone 95% (Bánhidy 2008 isaccepted tobe the gasin fly the separationefficiencyof the and 2005, upgradedin facilitytreatment was Waste Budapest th and system cleaning dry semi a grates, roller 6 has It r 408 Waste Budapest the of capacity The Available Techniques waste for incineration. accorda in applied be shall formula This enovation, isactually sothe facility 11months. for inoperation

0 tn/er akoldig ht n h sme tee s las n mnh of months one always is there summer the in that acknowledging tons/year, 000

0. 97 is a97 is factoraccounting ashand energybottom radiation. for losses due to 3 . Picture Waste Picture . - to Energy Plant was built in 1982 and the flue gas filter of the thermal thermal the of filter gas flue the and 1982 in built was Plant Energy to - to - Energy Plant Plant Energy - to Energy Plant is 420,000 tons/year and it works at at works it and tons/year 420,000 is Plant Energy to 253

nce with the reference document on Best Best on document reference the with nce

4 ). . Picture Results of the upgrading the Picture Resultsof .

e boiler efficiency is 83%. The The 83%. is efficiency boiler e

CEU eTD Collection 140 to forwarded pers.comm.). is electricity the and system heating Waste the in created heat The 5 . Picture of the Author in the Waste in the Author of the Picture . 7 . Picture of the author and László Sámson, director of the Waste the of director and Sámson, László author of the Picture .

- o nry ln i ue b 2 00 iies n a in citizens 000 25 by used is Plant Energy to incineration facility incineration - to - Energy Plant Plant Energy

254

. Picture Lifting up of waste in the waste up of Lifting Picture .

0 ctzn (lg 2012 (Klug citizens 000 - to - Energy Plant Energy

district district

CEU eTD Collection many orno wascases data missing Waste the from obtained data The C CO NO SO HCl Total dust Pollutant the fol 76/2000/EC measure the continuously they 2012a) communication (email to Borsi to According regulation. similar is which decree Environment of Ministry (II.22) 3/2002 Waste the measures pollutant air the Considering x H 2

(in NO

lowing air pollutants: lowing pollutants: air

Source: Borsi Zs. 2012. Energetic manager of the Budapest Waste managerBudapest ofthe Energetic Zs.2012. Borsi Source: 2 )

8 . Picture Control room room Control Picture . 50 . Table Continuously Table .

esrd al average values (mg/Nm daily Measured Email communication 23.02.2012. Emailcommunication - t similar to the Danish and Swedish data set,soinsuch Danish andSwedish data tothe t similar to - Energy plant was inserted in the model, however in in however model, the in inserted was plant Energy 255

measured pollutants measured )

9 . Picture Emission Picture values . 130 - 10 10 o nry ln hs o olw the follow to has Plant Energy to - 180 - - 2 < 1 < 1 30 25 - 8

Limit values (mg/Nm

- to Energy Plant. Energy to

3 )

200 10 50 50 10 10

CEU eTD Collection years. plannedplant is tobeconstructed incoming power biogas a Therefore moment. the at used not but generated is gas more times five m 300 burn they presently and system collection biogas a has also It total capacity is4. height lan ofthe current the and 73% is Pusztazámor of rate filling present The Budapest. of west south the to km 28 is which Pusztazámor in landfilled is Budapest of waste remaining The PusztazámorSiteRegional Landfill was always with discussed it but used, was EASEWASTE from data default missing, was data the If data. Budapest and Aarhus the of comparison the for 2 Appendix see Please estimated. be to had it cases 10 . Picture Picture . dfill is 27 meters. The final height is expected tobe is 27meters.final 55 dfill is Theheight Landfill 3 million m 3 million

site, entrance buildings buildings entrance site,

Danish Professors beforehand. 3 .

256

. Picture New area for area PictureNew .

3 /h biogas. Currently Currently biogas. /h - 60 mete 60 landfilling rs, and the rs, and the

CEU eTD Collection is generation Leachate Budapest. in average yearly in on mm/year 533 depends is generation which precipitation, Leachate periods. the for described are equivalents for nor production gas in neither periods, different of analysation the for requirements no are there Hungary veryin Unfortunatelyis important. gasproduction generation and leachate model, Forthe also (Mile2008). planned tobedoubled i Budapest from waste organic collected The on are there and landfill, the of part is plant composting A Pictures were taken by Eszterby were taken Pictures 14 . Picture Author at the landfilling area landfilling atthe area Author Picture . 12 . Picture Biogas collection, flaring flaring collection, Biogas Picture .

the leachate periods (Siklóssy pers. comm. 2012) therefore Danish Danish therefore 2012) comm. pers. (Siklóssy periods leachate the

Tanka, National Waste Management Agency Nonprofit Ltd. AgencyNonprofit Management Waste National Tanka,

257

s composted here. The composting system is is system composting The here. composted s 15

. Picture Emptying collection vehicles collection Emptying Picture . 13 . Picture Compostingsite Picture . - site composting operations. operations. composting site

CEU eTD Collection control to important therefore is It earlier). equation the in shown (as fraction waste each m of maximum assumption an based on gasmodeled the is production model the In gasoxidation. partial receives it uncontrolled and cover soil The top the through stopped. passes fraction is production gas the period this After plant. (CHP) is combine the gas to diverted generated is amount the whole the of possible if 90% and collected that stated be can it 40 year to 3 not year is From collection practiced. gas the phase filling first the In period. each in specified be should g overall the of fraction The respectively. phase, methanogenic post the and phase methanogenic the phase, acetogenic the phase, filling the representing periods four into divided are assessment of years 100 the generation gas landfill the Concerning m3capacityis 30,000 100% ledtothe ofitis waste and watertreatment pla pool leachate the Budapest In purification. for plant treatment water waste the to diverted collection leachate e the lowers which assumed, is system lining the of failure partial aoperationyears of following20 the during However (95%). high efficiencycollection is ye 20 first the During efficiency. collection leachate overall the influences significantly also system line bottom the of behavior The periods. following the in generation leachate mass. waste the infiltrates leachate of amount significant a as larger, is generation leachate period first the In collection. gas for same the as 4) (period years 55 and 3) (period years 35 periods four into divided fficiency (70%). During the 40 years of operation collected leachate is entirely (100%) entirely is leachate collected operation of years 40 the During (70%). fficiency ars the bottom lining system is regarded as unfractured and therefore leachate leachate therefore and unfractured as regarded is system lining bottom the ars

Afterwards, when the final top soil is constructed it actually lowers the the lowers actually it constructed is soil top final the when Afterwards,

in the model as follows: 2 years (period 1), 8 years (period 2), 2), (period years 8 1), (period years 2 follows: as model the in 258

ethane potential for ethanefor potential d heat and power power and heat d nt. as production production as

CEU eTD Collection 55 that added further 2012) (pers.comm. Mile away). transported be can MW 3 remaining the so MW 2 use can itself site (the future the in gasenlarged motorin2013,whichcan a2MW beto5MW now)hope and toinstall they gasflare be inthe planning will by replaced gas seve (ithas motor for been phase thegasin the 2flares partly thewhich furnace ensures site.The theenergy in of or supply is estimat the of extracted the all of content C the measure then They extracted. be can year) amount next by (estimated top the from extracted be will gas the of all down. watered were they this of Because extractions that out turned it while bottom, the from extracted were gases previously that mention to important is It more. extract to impossible not is the of 30% opinion Mile’s In height. final its reaches landfill the when extracted be will only) pieces (57 wells gas That landfill. the of size the on depending increased gradually be can them of the in seen (pers.comn.2012 be Mile to According Annexes. can site landfill Pusztazámor the from obtained was which data The gasyears.low flowsafter of a number toperform of landfil large of size the on dependent is collected is gas when time of length The it. to routed be can gas more site, landfill Pusztazámor the at installed be will motor gas a If released theatmosphere. into the Finally oxidized. is much how and flared/energy, and collected is much how also and operation the of timeframe the in released is much how ed tobe55 l will keep producing gas for 35 years, where a smaller landfill will have too have will landfill smaller a where years, 35 for gas producing keep will l

landfill -

58 %gas andextracted notchanging. ofthe 58 flare They 100% mostly gradually changed the extraction method to upper gas extraction. If extraction. gas upper to method extraction the changed gradually

gas

still remains in the landfill, and only 70% is utilized and itand utilized onlyis and 70% landfill, in the remainsstill 259 ) there are 109 gas wells at the landfill, all all landfill, the at wells gas 109 are there )

- 8 o te xrce g extracted the of % 58

final portion is how much is is much how is portion final landfill the

landfill. A landfill. gas, and it it and gas, ral years ral as is is as CEU eTD Collection waste andas from Diósd. Sóskút citiesTárnok, theneighboring such accepts also center management waste regional Pusztazámor The Pusztazámor. to taken is part Southern the from waste the while district, XV. the in Rákospalota, in located Waste Budapest the to taken is part Northern the from Waste m Waste Budapest the to taken being is Budapest North from waste the as distance by determined is route waste The map. following the in seen be can Budapest of transport waste the in division The Waste routes 58% biogas is5,5 Nm 1 of content energy the and methane, unicipalities) aretaken being toPusztazámor.

56 - 5,8 kWh/Nm . Figure The divided Budapest in terms of the waste transport waste the of in terms The Budapest divided Figure . - to Energy Plant and the waste from South Budapest (and other other (and Budapest South from waste the and Plant Energy to 3 .

Pusztazámor landfill site landfill Pusztazámor 3 Waste

260 CH

to is 10kWh. The energy content of the 55 the of content energy The 10kWh. is - energy Plant Plant energy

to Energy Plant which is which Plant Energy to

CEU eTD Collection follo the conclude can we company owned municipality a is Zrt. FKF that fact the on Based present according evaluation. researcher tothe life cycleassessment the by raised were options technological and policy several addition In etc.). department main the plant, waste the of director the Zrt., FKF of director managing the (like company decision main the with discussions management high in consulted already have options Policy Zrt. FKF the of operation the of impacts environmental the reduce and efficiency the improve to order in considered be to need options Policy 9

Policy Policy options wing:

makingfaster, wouldbe market a was it if the whole system over is based ontheabove, efficiency can increased, be drivingin any force partcompetition, totake pos monopoly in is Co. Cleaning Municipal Budapest yearsbe spread the for outover the by not owned will costs the but 100% control, full representing a company, Municipality Budapest is Budapest in company service waste cleaning the

engineer

based company they would observe reve observe would they company based f h lnfl st, s el s h ha o te environmen the of head the as well as site, landfill the of -

secured,and more making it tooperate, expensive upfront 261

cost.

ition, so there is no any any no is there so ition, nues and also decision decision also and nues

- makers within the the within makers - to - energy energy

been been tal tal CEU eTD Collection following have recommendations made: been the within technology the improving For been discussed previously, important factors butthe most foll are the becan This Budapest. in ratherlow is collection of rate the that stated be must it collection, waste selective the consideration into Taking 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

ny n sit n 6 or) wl ipoe h uiiain ae f h tuk a truck, the of rate utilization the improve will hours), 6 and shift one only waste the cities is it Budapest in whereas Hungarian hours, 12 in and shifts two in other works vehicles collection several (in shifts two of introduction the if possible, ba daily a on later or monthly least at often, more place take must supply data data be provision should onelectronic bemust controlled, systemand the wasteensure get not andstolen, does it ident unique globally beshould installed inthe trucks be andshould monitored it system GPS a vehicles collection waste the of route exact the control to order in continuously is collection maintains at alowlevel, waste selective the if punishment any no is there collection minimal, is waste selective the of importance the about inhabitants the for information the political on influence. based often very are decisions the company owned state a being

ifier ifier

( GUID ) system ) 262 FKF Zrt. waste management system the the system management waste Zrt. FKF

attributing

can be installed to follow the route of of route the follow to installed be can

to several factors, which have have which factors, several to regularly owing:

sis, sis, nd CEU eTD Collection

11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6.

improve theoverall efficiencycollection utilization, ofthe truck transfer a include to consideration into taken be should it system moreand is inashort complex can period. notbeintroduced fee waste This inhabitant. the for incentive economic an representing smaller, compost and recyclables collect can inhabitant an if that meaning fees, waste different with combined collection be system throw you as pay a the implementation of theincentive s and process billing the helps It bin. the inside waste the of weight the track and times collection of number the track quality, sorting monitor operators traced. easily be can and tagged are containers waste the technology the establishing analyzing and thepresent optimizing routes, collection Gábor of collection than for islands thewaste and more can waste collected) be door of case the in collection waste selective the for required door the establish efficiently to help will it as conducted, be should door the of logistics the of evaluation an higherrate), backup a including (even trucks required the of amount total the lower will it therefore - to

Király, - door collection system, (it is assumed that less fuel consumption can be be can consumption fuel less that assumed is (it system, collection door

the recyclable waste in the mixed waste, which was determined by by determined was which waste, mixed the in waste recyclable the

r adio

- rqec identification frequency initiated able materials separately, than the waste fee is is fee waste the than separately, materials able - 263 based invoicing. based

, which is a system where selective waste waste selective where system a is which , - to - door selective waste collection system collection waste selective door

(

RFID

) system. With this this With system. )

tto i ti would this if station -

to foreseen enlarged enlarged foreseen - door collection collection door

This helps This o supports o CEU eTD Collection to waste and incineration waste towards opposition strong a was there past the In facilities. started deliberately Zrt. FKF the Recently information. required the obtain them let and public the to open become to is Zrt. FKF the that is options policy the of issues important most the of One PR highestthe recent themaximum trend amount. to preventwaste is and in torecycle in system management waste the in changes the to Due - energy plants but nowadays with the new management the FKF Zrt. is more more is Zrt. FKF the management new the with nowadays but plants energy 13. 12. activities

degradation can methane occur. uncontrolled and production hence anaerobic for risk a is there than stored is waste organic if as fraction, organic necessary not is heating when period summer or spring the in less and winter the in heat more generate to order in winter the for waste summer some reserve and pack reserve be should waste the of feasibility the Therefore production. heat and the electricity for winter in demand larger a be would there however winter, the in than waste the financial re (from feasible when flaring of instead used as be early should motor as gas begin and possible should site landfill Pusztazámor the of system biogas the

at the Waste at I i important is It . -

taken into consideration. It should be analyzed whether is it possible to possible it is whether analyzed be should It consideration. into taken to asons also), - to involve to energy plant consumes more municipal solid waste in the summer summer the in waste solid municipal more consumes plant energy - to -

Energy PlantEnergy inhabitants and let them to observe the operatio the observe to them let and inhabitants , nevertheless, that this is only feasible for the non non the for feasible only is this that nevertheless, , 264

Hungary as well as in Budapest in as well as Hungary

n of their their of n

- CEU eTD Collection in September Florence,Italy. 17 on obtained be will award communication The környezetünkért!). szolgálatában lakosság budapesti a Zrt. FKF (Az environment! inhabita Budapest the for service in is Zrt. FKF campaign: following the with countries 13 of applicants 21 from Competition Communication ISWA the in Agency) 48 MA Vienna the of front in and Authority Waste Manchester the (after place Zr FKF well. as Museum Cleaning Public the showing by closed was tour The building. the within facilities technical the see to them invited and they afterwards Plant Energy to Waste the of operation the about film short a public the showed Waste Budapest the at held was day open last The facility. their to public the invite they which in Day Open an organizes Zrt. FKF year Every competition. writing novel or competition drawing children’s as such for events future preparing also is Zrt. FKF awareness. environmental of importance the and facilities collection waste selective the about public the inform to order in undergroundBudapest the in advertisements use they and 2012 of summer the in was day open an instance For public. the with cooperation seeks and transparent

- to Energy Plant on 23. June June 23. on Plant Energy to 265

– nts

t. received received t. Tegyünk együtt a a együtt Tegyünk 2012, where they they where 2012, –

Let us save our our save us Let the inhabitants inhabitants the a second a

held as as held

CEU eTD Collection moment. this at even state the is which calculated, is flaring % 100 so started, even not has site landfill waste collection selective different the only so all, at change no have facilities treatment technological the and vehicles the system, collection the calculations, the at thesis this In collection. waste changes the of results the determine steadily to data)proper of lack the to due moment the at impossible is which comparison, daily a doing from (apart way only the is This rates. recycling waste and collection waste re therefore are options different Several decisions. different the of results the and trends the see orderto in months different yearfor but, one only for not model the run to decided was it research this In options. scenario different yearLCAThe casesonly inmost assessments one relevant for with are withpolicydiscussion makersBudapest management of waste the system. 201 by target mechanical a systemor composting size ora bigger technologicala plant biogas as power changes such EASEWAS The 10

Results of the environmental assessment

2 and beyond. Obviously the scenarios will be determined according to the the to according determined be will scenarios the Obviously beyond. and 2 - biological system. The EU requires Hungary to reach a higher recycling recycling higher a reach to Hungary requires EU The system. biological 10.1 TE software can evaluate different scenarios according to the planned planned the to according scenarios different evaluate can software TE rates have have rates

Unique idea for analyzing thetrends analyzing for Unique idea effect

on the model results. The biogas to energy system at the at The the biogastoenergyresults. system themodel on which are primarily due to the increased selective increased the to due primarily are which 266

sultant regarding different selective selective different regarding sultant

the comparison the of

CEU eTD Collection different graph: inanother scales have to need they as eliminated were impacts following the results model these From are shown. results aggregated the only here and detail, in 4 Appendix in seen be can month different 201 and 2010 2009, 2008, of years the for assessment LCA the of results The Model results yearsdifferent and some trends and months different the of results the of comparison and analysis detailed a Through wou rates these reality different. in however identical; are SCBU and SF MF, for rates generation waste the model the in that mentioned be must It data. cities other of control the with data statistical the on based calculated are rates generation waste different The

Ecotoxicity inWater, Chronic. Nutrient Enrichment, Stored Ecotoxicity inWater, GroundwaterSpoiled Res

consequence

ources,

267 s

can becan drawn.

1 for every every for 1 ld be be ld CEU eTD Collection decreasing due tothe increased collection: selective waste are impacts environmental following the that drawn clearly be can it figure this From 57 . Figure Results of the LCA model for several environmental impact by months for 2008 2008 months for by impact environmental several model for LCA the Resultsof Figure .

Acidification, Stored ecotoxicity insoil, Global warming, Human toxicity viawater, Resource depletion,

268

2011

CEU eTD Collection The impact followingenvironmental Inaddition the followingimpacts detail arethefollowing in (in decreasing figure):

Stratospheric (EDIP97): Ozone Depletion [PE] Ecotoxicity (EDIP97): inWater, Chronic [PE] Low Photochemical [PE] (EDIP97): Formation, Ozone NOx Nutrient Enrichment (EDIP97): [PE] Photochemical (EDIP97): High Formation, Ozone [PE] NOx Human Toxici Stored Ecotoxicity (EDIP): inWater [PE] Human ToxicityAir (EDIP97): [PE] via Ecotoxicity [PE] (EDIP97): inSoil GroundwaterSpoiled Resources: [PE] ty via Soil (EDIP97): [PE] ty(EDIP97): [PE] viaSoil

is slightly increasing:

269

CEU eTD Collection

58 . Figure all LCA results for every every results for LCA all Figure .

270

month

between 2008 and 2011 2011 and 2008 between

CEU eTD Collection shown as follows: and analyzed were emissions significant and familiar warming global the of terms In global warmingcan potential be as visualized follows: andcollection selectivewaste the between correlation the globalwarming,the of Interms displayed orderfigure tosee trend. inone in the the while m3, is in water recorded in ecoxicity as well as soil in ecotoxicity stored and resources groundwater spoiled water, in ecotoxicity stored of case in but kg, mostly following: the are Units 59 . Figure Correlation of of Correlation Figure .

the selective waste collection and global warming by months 2008 months warmingby andcollection global waste selective the selective

at aon i i tn. l o te iue we figures the of All tons. in is amount waste 271

- 2011 2011 re re

CEU eTD Collection the followingbegraph produced: can If weconsideration all ofthe into take 60 . Figure: Some global warming factors by months by factors Some warming Figure: . global

emissions 272

included in the globalincluded inthe warming potential

2008 - 2011 2011

CEU eTD Collection

61 . Figure . : All global warming factors by months by 2008 factors warming All global :

273

- 2011 2011

CEU eTD Collection the following inaverage: are fractions different the of percentages in collection waste selective the moment the At showwhat still increasedwill would mean. selective collection minor of be to expected is it but results, the to uncertainty little a add will this that acknowledged is It awareness. environmental of rate higher a reached have inhabitants the that assumption the provided changed, been not had consumption fuel the ( distances collection waste the however, increasing), is waste selective total the of rate the that account this In increased, originated is from butit the were rates recycling the Therefore well. as trend the shows it as year whole the for not and rates recycling higher imaginary with but month one for onlyrun was model the first environmental the to mean would collection selective increased what of understanding an get to rates collection waste selective increased for model the run years, necessaryand was LCA differentrun anforit Therefore to enoughthe not was to it the amounts ofthe differ decreases rates collection waste selective higher that assuming potential, warming global and systems management waste solid between relationship the on focuses research This rcdr te eyln rt ws nrae (codn t the to (according increased was rate recycling the procedure 10.2

warming potential warming with Correlation ent GHGs

non

- selective tons increased recycling rates and global and global rates increased recycling

. 274

waste is also decreasing if the rate of the the of rate the if decreasing also is waste

impact. In this case this In impact. relevance, and it it and relevance, tons kilometers

taking into into taking ) and and CEU eTD Collection Plastic Paper typesWaste potentially compostable recyclableas and waste well, %): and waste selective the including SCBU and MF SF, the for values years(aggregate different the in following the are types waste different the of amount the laboratory Environmental the of Head the Király, Gábor to According Organic Glass Aluminum Plastic Paper typesWaste the following tons: amounts in 662 2011: and 711 668 2010: 405, 661 2009: 586, amount total the If Organic Glass Aluminum Plastic Paper

52 51

. Table Amount of the selective waste collection for waste types, 2008 types, for waste collection waste selective the of Amount Table . . Table Table .

of waste is taking into account which are the following: 2008: 691 691 2008: following: the are which account into taking is waste of Rate of the selective waste collection for waste types,2008 waste for collection selectivewaste of the Rate 2008 2008 2008 11 554 11 355 1.67% 0.86% 0.06% 0.53% 1.64% 5 986 3 14.31

4.47

439 719

2009 2009 2009 275

0.06%, 0.63%, 1.97%, 15 780 13 071 2.38% 0.98%

17.98 6 488 4 205

5.47 436

133 tons than these percentages mean mean percentages these than tons 133

non

- selective 2010 2010 2010 0.058% 21 631 13 185 3.23% 0.93% 0.65% 1.97% 18.46 6 254 4 398

4.64 394

at, hwn th showing waste,

- 2011 - 2011

2011 2011 2011

0.69%, 18 221 0.98% 0.05% 1.49% 3.3%. 18.67 5 456 3 829 8 246

3.72 307 e

CEU eTD Collection Organic Glass Aluminum Plastic Paper tons types Waste presently collectedtypes waste inthedifferent the and recyclable potentially the for determined be can table following the summary a In Compost Glass Aluminum Plastic Paper typesWaste following amounts intons: 662 2011: and 711 668 2010: 405, 661 2009: 691586, 2008: following: the is waste of amount total the that account into take we If Composting Glass Aluminum 55

.Table Comparison amounts of the the of amounts Comparison .Table

54 53

.Table Potentially recyclable waste collection for waste types, 2008 types, for waste collection recyclable waste Potentially .Table . Potential

Table Potentially Table 99 89 27 315 30 925 6 015

019 299 2008

Collected collected waste for waste types,2008 waste for waste collected 2008

11 11 5 3

89 299 27 315 30 925 99

439 554 986 719 355

6 015 12.91 2008 types, for waste collection recyclable waste 3.94 0.86 019

Potential 118 936

31 85 36 190 6 460 potentially recyclable waste and the presently selectively selectively presently the and waste recyclable potentially

694 789 2009

2009

276 Collected 118 936

36 190 85 789 31

15 13

12.97 6 460

years. 133 tons than these than tons 133 6 4 4.79 0.97

694 436 780 488 205 071

Potential - 123 499 2011 2011 75 23 058 31 069 8 977

001 2010 –

2010 table 123 499

31 069 75 001 23 058 11.31 8 977

Collected 3.44 1.34

21 13 percentages mean the the mean percentages 6 4 -

394 631 254 398 185

2011 2011 (tons) - 2011 2011 (%)

Potential 123 686 19 81 251 24 2011 6 415

123 686 337 644 24 644 81 251 19 12.27 6 415

2011

2.92 0.96

337 Collected

18 221 8 5 456 3 829

307 246

CEU eTD Collection wastemore type,and organicwaste somore iscollected. th in interested not are people and increasing, is waste Organic improved. significantly be must it and neglected is collection Glass months. the over decreasing is amount the also cans aluminum and Plastic inhabitants. the at high is potential the and recycled, further pape of plenty are there as higher is percentage the paper, For paper. of case the in recovered not is waste potential the of 85% appr. that us shows graph This This resultthefollowing cangraphswell: be in as seen 62 have

Figure Figure

a significant reserve for the inhabitants, but as they can be rewarded for HUF, for rewarded be can they as but inhabitants, the for reserve significant a Comparison amounts of the potentially recyclable potentially the of Comparison amounts collected waste for waste types,2008 waste for waste collected 277

- 2011 2011

waste and the presently selectively selectively presently the and waste –

normal graph r types which can be be can which types r

CEU eTD Collection five am waste compostable and recyclable the multiply we If enviro the of impact potential throughLCA recycling incase ofhigher rates. investigation the to us leads This 2011. in than 2008 in higher even were recorded rates the Howevercomposting. in times 3.5 and glass of case in more t of case in and waste, mixed the in paper more times 9 is there paper, of case in that shows table The out. thrown is which waste residual the in waste recyclable and graph This here is 22 times more potentially recyclable waste in the mixed waste, while it is 5 times times 5 is it while waste, mixed the in waste recyclable potentially more times 22 is here 63

times theresultstimes and

Figure Figure Paper Waste clearly shows that there exists a significant amount of of amount significant a exists there that shows clearly Comparison amounts of the potentially recyclable waste and the presently selectively selectively presently the and waste recyclable potentially the of Comparison amounts

types collected waste for waste types,2008 waste for waste collected

original amount 1

tons 029.58 percentages

1.73 %

can 2008). (June be inthe following seen table

278

3x more amount3x 3 tons

088.74 - 2011 2011

–

100 % graph % 100 ount (tons) to three times and and times three to (tons) ount 5.18 %

potentially

5x more amount5x tons 5

147.9

collectable collectable aluminum

nmental nmental % 8.65

CEU eTD Collection waste. the mixed from more tons) (2058 1029 x 2 remove we collection waste selective bigger x 3 of case 56 is which 2008, June in waste) selective (non mixed the account wast mixed the from paper more remove we that important very is it calculation this In changed.been haswaste this within composition waste the and smaller of 5x or 3x the out take we if that is this for reason The compositions. waste changed the with made be to has calculation the so and rates recycling higher imaginary the with changing is fractions 48 the of composition waste the that considered be to Ithas changes mixedalso The with composition higherrecycling waste rates respectively. efficiencies sorting the for model the in installed were rates recycling these Therefore selective Total selective Total selective Total Organic Glass Aluminum Plastic 56

at cleto te te mut f h rmiig o slcie at is waste selective non remaining the of amount the then collection waste

. Table Comparison of 1x, 3x and 5x higher recycling rates, June 2008 (t) 2008 June rates, recycling higher 5x and 3x 1x, ComparisonTable of .

non

- 59 56564.27 3 1248.68

344.68 681.11 116.84 460.26 33.64

n.a. 2.09 0.77 0.06 0.58 n.a. n.a.

279

59 50 9 3 1 1

681.11 330.59 350.52 746.04 380.78 100.92 034.04

6.28 2.31 0.17 1.73 n.a. n.a. n.a.

564.27 59 40 18 e. If we take into into take we If e. 2 681.11 980.07 701.04 6243.4 1723.4

301.3 168.2

higher amount amount higher tons

, than in than , 10.45 3.85 0.30 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.9

CEU eTD Collection potent the of rate the representing 11.99%, is which (6035.23/50330.59)*100 therefore: is paper of rate The calculation. collection waste selective bigger times 3 the (50 waste remaining the in left are paper tons 035.23 6 that calculated was It 44 50 remaining the of content paper the determine therefore should It (non selective)waste. 15 facto waste selective more times 5 the for it calculate we If 9 is them of amount (total fraction waste selective single every of more times 3 out taking rem the of amount the calculate we If well. as paper including fraction waste selective the of terms in changes waste remaining the of composition waste the case this in paper more out take we if However, waste. selective) (non mixed left the in 2 out take we that means it than waste total the from waste selective more times 3 the out take we If Inareconsideringfollowin 2008 we June the

350.52 tons) than in the mixed waste 59 350.52 tons)thaninthemixed

096.91 tons 44 = 584.2

* 14.31%). total total ratemore of 14.31% paper: thepotential total amountofselectivelycollected paper: 1 (nontotal amountofmixed selective) waste:56 total amountofwaste: 59

059.12 more paper from the remaining 8 remaining the from paper more 059.12

amount of potential more paper in the mixed waste: 8 waste: mixed the paperin potential more of amount

096.91 tons remaining, which is the total amount of the remaining mixed remaining the of amount total the is which remaining, tons 096.91 respectively

681.11 tons,

681.11 280 g amounts: gamounts:

–

9 094.35 tons, so 6 035.23 to 035.23 6 so tons, 094.35

029.58 tons (1.64%) tons 029.58

350.52 = 50

564.27 tons, tons, 564.27

r, collection is: 59 is: collection r,

330.59 tonsremains. 094.35 tons (56 tons 094.35

aining waste after after waste aining

330.59 tons and and tons 330.59

ial paper in in paper ial

ns remains remains ns 330.59) in in 330.59)

681.11

564.27

–

CEU eTD Collection 56 the of % (3,94 tons 63 222 from tons 920,52 out take we rate, waste selective higher times 3 of case in Glass: 0,8% ofthe tons. remaining 44096,91 is which left is tons 351,89 so tons 134,56 out take we rate recycling more times 5 of 0,83% is which left is tons 419,17 then 33,64) x (2 tons 67,28 out take we If tons. 486,45 is amount remaining the cans: Aluminum remaining 44096.91tons. the of 2,61% is which left is tons 1149,7 so tons, 2528,42 the from tons 1378,72 out take wast selective higher times 5 of Incase tons). 50330,59 remaining the of 3,65% the non of total (4,47% the is removed which are tons, 56564,27 tons 2528,42 remaining the from tons 689,36 Plastic: accordingexampl tothe glass, plastic, fractions: remaining The model. These calculation. collection waste t in paper potential the of rate the is this so 9.02%, is which (3976.03/44096.91)*100 therefore: is paper the of rate The so the remaining is3976.03tons. paper 8094.35, is which waste paper mixed the from paper of tons more tons, 4*1029.58 from 4 remove we rate recyclinghigher potential times 5 of case In more calculation %incase (it wasone selectivecollection). 14.31 time waste of times 3 of case the in waste residual remaining the

e for paper.

6,7 os, o 381 tn i lf wih s ,% f the of 2,6% is which left is tons 1308,11 so tons), 564,27 he remaining mixed waste in case of 5 times more selective selective more times 5 of case in waste mixed remaining he

percentages

- eetv wse. o 890 rmis hc is which remains 1839,06 So waste). selective aluminum 281

of the remaining 50330,59 tons and in case in and tons 50330,59 remaining the of

therefore have been changed in the the in changed been have therefore

and organic have been calculated calculated been have organic and

118.32 more, whic more, 118.32 selective

waste collection collection waste

e rate, we we rate, e h comes comes h 8, CEU eTD Collection potential amounts: the for waste mixed the in following the is types waste different the of composition The Organic Glass Aluminum Plastic Paper The 2008):(June results inthe canfollowing followed be table 44096,91 tons. w moretimes recycling 5 rate case of in and remainingthe tons of 50330,59 9,55% is which remains tons 4805,09 than this from tons 2497,36 deduct we if (12,91%),so tons 7302,45 we If isleft 387,59tons tons so which is0,88% ofthe 44096,91tons. remaining 1841,04 out take we rate recycling more times 5 of case in and tons 50330,59 remaining 57 e take out 4994,72 tons leaving 2307,73 tons left which is 5,23% of the remaining remaining the of 5,23% is which left tons 2307,73 leaving tons 4994,72 out take e . Table Amounts of the collected and potential selective waste fractions in case of higher 5x 3x, of 1x, in case fractions waste selective potential and collected the of Amounts Table .

bev ognc at te mut f hs ye f at i te ie wse is waste mixed the in waste of type this of amount the waste organic observe

Glass Aluminum Plastic Paper collected tons

1x collection

1248 1029 460 344

potential tons 1x recycling rates, June 2008, rounded. 2008, June rates, recycling collection

7302 2228 2528 8094 486 14.31 %

3.94 0.86 4.47 collected tons

282

3x collection 3746 1380 1034 3089

101 3x collection

potential tons 11.99 %

0.83 3.65 4805 1308 1839 6035 2.6 419

5x collection collected tons 5x collection 9.02 % 6243 2301 1723 5148 168 0.88 2.61

0.8

potential tons

2307 1149 3976 387 352

CEU eTD Collection 0.84% from changed was rates MF the 0.93%, to down 0.97% from changed was SF the 37. No. for aluminum: the rate collection waste selective higher times three of case In cansAluminum been reduced and 2.34% to3.83%,1.66% respectively, sot have numbers these estimation, collection waste selective higher times five of case the In become 3.65%. average the so 3.27% to 4.01% from modified was rates SCBU the and % 2.32 to down f changed was rates MF the 5.35%, to down 6.56% from changed was SF the 17. No. for plastic: the rate collection waste selective higher times three the of case In Plastic been reduced and 8.54% to8.18%,10.34% 9.02%.average respectively, sotheir is hav numbers these rate, collection waste selective higher times five the of case the In 11.35%,become and theaverage 11.99%. to 13.55% from modified was rates SF the and % 13.74 to down 16.41% from changed changed was SCBU the 10. and 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. No. for paper: the collection waste selective higher times three of case In Paper As a consequencemodel thefollowing inthe changes made: been have 58 . Table Percentages of the potential waste by waste fractions in fractions by waste waste ofthe potential Percentages Table .

Organic

12.91 rates, June 2008 June rates, from 12.98% down to 10.87%, the MF rates was was rates MF the 10.87%, to down 12.98% from

283

9.55 case of 1x, 3x, 5x higher recycling recycling higher 5x 3x, 1x, of case heir average heir is2.61%.

5.23 rom 2.85% 2.85% rom

e CEU eTD Collection 9.02%waste). inthe remaining remai the collection higher times 5 of case in whereas %, 11.99 highertimes collectionwaste theremainingpaper selective recyclable potentially wasteis 3 at 14.31%, is paper for example for waste mixed the in waste recyclable potentially above discussed as example (for linear. is which higher 5x and 3x is rate recycling the that fact the of spite in linear not are composition waste the in changes the that shows graph following The collection. waste selective higher 5x or 3x 1x, consider followingThewaste remaining ofthe composition isthe differentif types waste inthe been have numbers reduced andso their 1.11% average 0.90% respectively, to0.63%, is0.88%. these collection waste selective higher times five of case the In 3.28% sothe average 2. become to 4.97% from modified was rates SCBU the and was 2.65% rates to down MF 4.01% from the changed 1.87%, to down 2.83% from changed was SF the 35. No. and 34. times three of case In Glass waste reduced andso their 0.72% average 0.78% respectively, to0.90%, is0.80%. been have numbers these rate collection waste selective higher times five of case the In become 0.83%. modified was rates SCBU the and 0.81% to down

higher selective waste collection for the aluminum: for No. 33. No. No. 33. No. for aluminum: the for collection waste selective higher

60%.

284

from 0.78% to 0.75% so the average the so 0.75% to 0.78% from ning potential paper is paper potential ning

the remaining remaining the

we we CEU eTD Collection The result Ecotoxicity Groundwater Spoiled inWater (EDIP): [PE], Resources: [PE], Stored [PE], (EDIP): Soil in Ecotoxicity Stored as: such values, higher much the to due eliminated be to had decreasing) were (which amounts larger model, the running After LCA results 64

Figure Changes in the waste composition of the different waste types in case of 1x,3x and 5x and 1x,3x of types incase waste different the of composition waste inthe Changes Figure

of the LCA thefollowing:of is the model

higher recycling rates (%) (%) rates recycling higher 285

CEU eTD Collection graph: following the see can we emissions potential warming global the account into Taking 65 66 . Figure LCA model results of the different environmental load in case of 1x, 3x and3x 1x, higher 5x of incase load environmental different the of modelLCA results Figure . . Figure LCA results of the global warming potential emissions in case of 1x, 3x and 5x higher higher 5x and 3x 1x, of in case emissions warmingpotential global the LCAresults of Figure .

selective waste collection rates, June June rates, collection waste selective selective waste collection rates, June 2008 2008 June rates, collection waste selective 286

2008 (kg) 2008

CEU eTD Collection nearlystill notsignificant can and also accordingly: andbe zero, GHGs, neglected of amounts the model the through elements, these From negative meaning topositive, net contributor. emission from turns value the Tetrachloride Carbon from but savings net means still 134a HFC was rankedThis list of inorder magnitude savings. ofnet The followingelements tothe global contribute warming potential: 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

1,1,1 Methane (CH4)emissions] [Air CFC 12(Dichlorodifluoromethane) emissions] [Air CFC 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) emissions] [Air HCFC emissions] 22(Chlorodifluoromethane) [Air CFC 113(Trichlo (CO)Carbon [AirMonoxide emissions] HCFC 21(Dichlorofluoromethane) emissions] [Air Dichloromethane emissions](Methylene Chloride) [Air Carbon Tetrachloride emissions] [Air HFC 134a emissions] (Tetrafluoroethane)[Air Halon (13 Hydrocarbones emissions] (HC) [Air (LaughingNitrous Oxide Gas) emissions] (N2O) [Air (CO2 Carbon Dioxide Carbon Emissions] Sequestered [Air - Trichloroethane emissions] [Air 01) [Air emissions] 01) [Air 4. 3. 2. 1.

Dichloromethane(M Hydrocarbones emissions] (HC) [Air HCFC 21(Dichlorofluoromethane) emissions] [Air 1,1,1 rotrifluoroethane) [Air emissions] [Air rotrifluoroethane) - Trichloroethane emissions] [Air -

Fossil) [Air emissions] Fossil) [Air

287

ethylene Chloride) [Air emissions] Chloride)ethylene [Air

h olwn cnrbtr are contributors following the

CEU eTD Collection Incineration Composting Recycling processes transport Collection and be can rates following the process determined: each of contributions the compare to order In landfillingand contributesimpacts. isanet saver, toavoided em the to contributor net a is composting and transport collection, that concluded be can it than considered, is recycling time one the If different werefollowing: treatmentprocesses divided tothe to important also is It 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

Landfill Incineration and Composting Recyclingglass, and including plastic, paper processes Collection and transport

10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5.

analyze Halon emissions] (1301) [Air CFC 113(Trichlorotrifluoroethane) emi [Air Carbon Tetrachloride emissions] [Air HCFC emissions] 22(Chlorodifluoromethane) [Air HFC 134a emissions] (Tetrafluoroethane)[Air CFC 11(Trichlorofluoromethane) emissions] [Air

h dfeet ramn poess f h eisos The emissions. the of processes treatment different the 30.78 % - - 0.16 % 7.16 % 1.53 % 288

3x issions, whereas recycling, incineration and and incineration recycling, whereas issions,

29.94 % - - 0.50 % 7.26 4.56 %

aluminum %

5x ssions]

- can recyclingcan

29.10 % - - 0.83 % 7.36 % 7.57 %

CEU eTD Collection displayed Ta punctual andestimated, notonly butmore isneeded time toidentify such more be may distances transport Also subjects. these on data more provide to able arenot d the in example for represented are factors These precise. more be may calculations the them eliminating emissions. increases, products paper of therefor recycling and reduction source if advantageous more by caused are savings potential warming global biggest of contribution decreas processes incineration and landfill of contribution the rates recyclinghigher with that displays clearly table This Landfill

59 ig no osdrto the consideration into king . Table Contribution of the different treatment processes to global to processes treatment different the of Contribution Table . e

redu However, it must be stated that there are several uncertainty factors and by by and factors uncertainty several are there that stated be must it However, cing energy consumption and decreasing combustion and landfill landfill and combustion decreasing and consumption energy cing the recycling process obviously increases with higher recycling rates. The The rates. recycling higher with increases obviously process recycling the ata on recycling facilities, which is not in the scope of FKF Zrt. so they they so Zrt. FKF of scope the in not is which facilities, recycling on ata es CO , however they are the majority of the net savings. The The savings. net the of majority the are they however , different recycling rates rates recycling different 2 75.01 %

n te CH the and 289

emissions

73.26 % abn eusrto, hc is which sequestration, carbon

h floig graph following the

warming potential in case of of incase warmingpotential

occurrences 71.52 %

can be be can .

CEU eTD Collection highertimes rates.current than emiss to useful also is It amountsimilar releasedduring production. secondary CO more releases production virgin the that fact the of because amount, smaller recycling different the fact the to due higher is recycling if advantage CO fossil the between made CO For landfill. the at place takes generally formation Methane recy 5x and recycling 1x of case in between landfill the to taken is methane) (less waste less that fact the to due higher is collection waste are selective the if emissions decreasing methane and (fossil) dioxide carbon that illustrates clearly graph This 67 . Figure Carbon dioxide and methane emission in case of 1x, 3x and 5x higher selective waste waste selective higher 5x and 3x 1x, of incase methaneemission dioxide and Carbon Figure . ions. The following table shows the proportion in the case of rates 1x, 3x and 5x and 3x 1x, rates of case the in proportion the shows table following The ions. relate

the proportion of each treatment process to CO to process treatment each of proportion the 2

and the biogenic CO biogenic the and collection rates, June 2008 (kg) 2008 June rates, collection

290

2 . For the fossil CO fossil the For .

itntos ut be must distinctions

methods results in results methods 2

there is a large a is there 2

and methane methane and cling rate. rate. cling 2

than the than

CEU eTD Collection Recycling processes transport Collection and 4 CH chan no organic wastetreatment. are there that fact the to due mainly rates, recycling higher 5x and 1x CO biogenic the For t Also the cases. CO amount of The CO on influence great have not does transport and Collection landfilling. than savings to contribution larger process recycling the rate, recycling higher times x 5 of case in However, impact. greatest second the has landfilling and rates), recycling higher by (decreasing saving this CO The Landfill Incineration Composting Recycling processes transport Collection and CO 60 . Table Contribution of each treatment process to CO to process each treatment of Contribution Table . 2

he landfilling phase displays a significant advantage for CO for advantage significant a displays phase landfilling he

emission is negative, showing net savings. Incineration contributes the most to most the contributes Incineration savings. net showing negative, is emission

it can be stated that there is not any significant difference between between difference significant any not is there that stated be can it 2 1x 1x 1x

emissions, mostly because the same distances are used in all of of all in used are distances same the because mostly emissions,

decreaseswith higher recycling rates. 101.30 % - - 32.71 % 14.07 % 25.73 % 12.85 % - 0.52 % 6.20 % June (%) (%) June 291

3x 3x 3x 3x

emission at different recycling rates, 2008 2008 rates, recycling different emission at - - 31.19 % 70.27 % 23.12 % 92.18 % 17.34 % 21.85 % - 1.45 %

if recycling is higher. higher. is recycling if 5x 5x 5x 5x

- 368.25 % - 29.83 % 84.12 % 27.17 % - 2.26 % 20.8 % 69.9 % ges in in ges has a a has

CEU eTD Collection stated be of theanalysis different treatmen can following the cases recycling higher the for run model the analyzing after and tables these Observing processes. different the for also and results can tables excel the model the From be can It case. first the concludedprocess that recycling decrease contributions. methane in amount methane the to compared were them of All rate. case the in % 661.4 and rate collection waste selective higher times x 3 of case in % 682.8 collection, waste selective 1x of case in % 708.8 is which calculated also was collection 1x the in amount methane the to landfilling T emissions. methane of amount smaller much a to compared is it as rate real a not is rate collection selective higher times x 5 of case in landfill the of butthe proportion collection selective high, is 1x case of inthe methane larger amount of contribution landfill of proportion the so rate, recycling higher with decreased drastically is methane the of amount the However, rates. recycling higher with decreases CH of amount The landfill. the from emissions of amount huge the to due contributor, net a representing positive, is it that stated be must it emissions methane of case the In Landfill Incineration Composting 61 . Table Contribution of each treatment process to CH to process each treatment of Contribution Table .

10.3

Interpretation of results ofresults Interpretation - 607.91 % 708.80 % t methods t 0.33 %

e band o sbtne LCA, substance for obtained be June (%) (%) June 292

of a 5 x higher selective waste collection collection waste selective higher x 5 a of

emission at different recycling rates, 2008 2008 rates, recycling different emission at - 1002.66 % 1146.25 % 4.83 % herefore, the proportion of of proportion the herefore,

nldn the including normalization - 3109.97 % 3483.1 % 25.22 %

o the to 4

CEU eTD Collection

6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

differentcollection rates waste selective si changing not is CO the and 12 CFC the of amount The herewell. as Sr. and Zn Cd, as well as mercury and TEQ) (Benzo{a}pyrene PAH is this for factor main The collection. value this that evident is It landfilling. as well as the of transport the by caused is water in Ecotoxicity selective value thatthis wouldincrease. recycling isassumed it NOx, by ammonia. caused and is phosphate It collection. waste selective of rate high with decreases the of case in high very is enrichment Nutrient contributor toN N more as collection waste selective increased the with increasing is gas) (laughing oxide nitrous The decreasedamount inthe case inalarge oflandfilling ifrecycling ishigher. paper, of case the in amount huge but a in dropped incineration, of case the in increased partly is it CO of terms In decrease. slight a shows CO while landfill), the to transported is waste less (as considerably CO gases greenhouse three these From landfill andrecycling ishigher. the to transported is waste less because mostly smaller, visibly are emission CO CO methane, the then higher, is rate collection waste selective the If

2 O.

2 O is transferred to the composting site and this is t is this and site composting the to transferred is O

Higher transport distances would increase the amount the increase would distances transport Higher f hr i mr tasot ple de o increased to due applied transport more is there If

293

(foss non aluminum il) and methane are dropping dropping are methane and il) - selective erae wt hg selective high with decreases non , and , - selective

waste transport, so it it so transport, waste nfcnl wt the with gnificantly

glass recycling but but recycling glass

waste as well well as waste 2

(fossil) and (fossil) he main he

CEU eTD Collection

10. 9. 8. 7.

collection. selective increased with redirected are landfilling of instead which chemicals smaller is value this therefore obvious is It mentioned. be can benzene toxicity ethyl and this xylenes chloride, phosphates, Partly For contributor. main the landfilling. is ammonia by caused are resources groundwater Spoiled yardand back combustion coal is mercury to contributor main the US the In control. pollution follow. cadmium and lead in result can secondly dioxins and first mercury by caused is This rate. recycling biggest the or smallest the either account into taking method disposal worst the far is this water via toxicity human at but replaced, is coal the as beneficial usually is Incineration not contributed inthe calculation. paper) in lignin as (such waste the in carbon biogenic stores it as beneficial is landfilling sequestration carbon etc. resources groundwater spoiled water, via toxicity human ozone stratospheric nutri soil, depletion, in ecotoxicity stored for responsible is Landfilling would befor lost recycling. so and landfill the at up end else would that resources saves collection selective no does is incineration at while biggest the of beneficial, more is value one the rate recycling higher of case is the in so contributors, landfilling depletion, resource account into Taking

burning at the moment.(Damgaardpers.comm.burning at 2012.) ent enrichment, ecotoxicity in water, human toxicity via air, air, via toxicity human water, in ecotoxicity enrichment, ent , since these emissions are caused by the above mentioned mentioned above the by caused are emissions these since ,

and so it will not will it so and cag significantly. change t

294

This can be mitigated with better air air better with mitigated be can This be degraded be that with higher recycling rate rate recycling higher with that It is explained that the the that explained is It However in case of of case in However , not combusted so so combusted not ,

CEU eTD Collection

13. 12. 11.

period set for calculations, so with increased recycling it can be a little bit bit little a be can diminished. it recycling increased with so calculations, for set period by caused cadmium, and detail lead copper, in and landfilling, by caused is water in ecotoxicity Stored value its Therefore recycling. decreases higher paper with selectivecollection. waste and plastic and incineration by made selective the for consumption fuel the is contributor greatest the acidification For amount electricity theincinerator canavoid.pers.comm. 2012) (Damgaard a to contribute not will it combusted warming global impacts which potential. carbon waste the of part fossil the releases fro credits gains it assumption). circle biogenic the to (due waste a In direct is landfill the of performance overall The savings. the to contribute and degrade not will and landfilled is paper) in lignin as (such waste the in carbon biogenic recalcitrant of amount large a that reason the to due is This side. negative the amoun biggest the far is sequestered carbon potential warming global the In transport rate. higher with increasing is value the therefore and landfilling partlyand transport of case in lead and Engine Diesel VOC by caused mostly is air via toxicity Human ly connected to whether the methane formation is properly controlled or not. not. or controlled properly is formation methane the whether to connected ly

waste, as well as landfilling and composting and t and composting and landfilling as well as waste, This fossil carbon is not considered a storage in a landfill, but as its not its as but landfill, a in storage a considered not is carbon fossil This - to

- energy plant this biogenic carbon will be released and assumed zero zero assumed and released be will carbon biogenic this plant energy

m the energy substitution, but on the other hand the WTE WTE the hand other the on but substitution, energy the m

which

295 are left in the landfill at the end of the time time the of end the at landfill the in left are

release. Thus it comes very important what important very comes it Thus release.

(Damgaard pers.comm. 2012) pers.comm. (Damgaard

he largest savings are are savings largest he

However

non t in t - , CEU eTD Collection fuels fossil replacing from originates partly which recovery energy direct as is This issue. key a is system management waste the in recycling and utilization energy that reveal will waste of LCA focus, political the in is potentials warming global If a not major contributor load. tothe environmental thus is system management waste operated and designed well A management. possib some provides person of use The cleaning. gas flue improved by decreased been since has incinerator the from impact toxicity human fro originates energy (CO potential a warming yielded global recycling in saving glass significant and paper from savings energy the and incinerator waste emissi where important categories toxicmay be also but of importance, be to warmingalwaysseems potential Global of recovering restricting and resource environmentalemissions. waste on models LCA using from managemen learned messages important most the of One practiceany more. common a not is landfilling States Member EU developed the in and option, desired least the to environmenta contributor different serious a is landfilling while potential, warming global including the mitigates recycling and collection waste selective that 2011b.) Gen 2002; (USEPA stated be can it all in All t systems is that waste management systems actually are fairly sound in terms in sound fairly areactuallysystems management thatwaste is systems t summarized m the replacement of a traditional coal based power plant. The high high The plant. power based coal traditional a of replacement the m lt t ass the assess to ility ons to air are significant. are air to ons l impacts. In the Waste Framework Directive landfilling is the the is landfilling Directive Framework Waste the In impacts. l til 2011; Bogner 2011; til

that this research also justifies what others have already already have others what justifies also research this that - qiaec a te nt o ptnil mat also impacts potential for unit the as equivalence overall 296 et al. et

The high CHP energy production from the the from production energy CHP high The

2007; European Environmental Agency Environmental European 2007; antd o te mat fo waste from impacts the of magnitude 2

– osl asmn ta te saved the that assuming fossil)

management systems systems management environmental

load, load, CEU eTD Collection LCA can model for a become results platform educatedmaking. balanced decision of scale large possessing modeling data LCA the way, this to In uncertainty. also and parameters of significance the to performed address is analysis sensitivity a that ensure and possible as accurately as flows system the both I used. to data the and boundaries) and (definition respect with properly out carried not if uncertain be can system management waste a of assessment LCA An warming. global to contribution important neglected, be utilized properly can not is treatment energy the if and however collection the for necessary is which energy then efficiently is content energy the If products. new creating for materials virgin material of recycling by indirectly and combustion at

297 is accepted by experts in several fields and and fields several in experts by accepted is

t is very important to use the actual waste waste actual the use to important very is t then energy spent in the collection is an an is collection the in spent energy then

fractions by replacing the reliance reliance the replacing by fractions utilized

CEU eTD Collection 2. Assumption years andmonths are several if detail more in evaluated be can pollution environmental the that assumed is It 1. Assumption Research wereassumptions following: the environmental the is What Research question. objectives have fulfilled been research the whether analyze to recommended is it finished been had research the Since load. environmental different the to related analyzed be can opportunities mitigation the and al It wastes, consumption. resource associated and emissions to attributable impacts the reducing for opportunities identifying for and (products) services and goods comparing for tool a is LCA well. as evaluation environmental the elaborate waste to solid Budapest’s was of assessment research present the of aim overarching The 11

Conclusion

pollution pollution aue n cpct fo capacity and nature

analyzed including

and in addition it is and it inaddition necessary todraw some

instead of one year. instead ofone climate changeclimate aaeet ytm, hc icue te LCA the included which systems, management rccig n Budapest in recycling r

298 so

recommends fields where the technologies technologies the where fields recommends

n is mat on impacts its and conclusion .

CEU eTD Collection system. waste solid Budapest modelingthe for required whichareinputs necessary To acquire the Objective 1. their perspective and made. preferred was options about stakeholders key the with discussion a assessment environmental the in scenarios different the of results the to According assessment. this for model EASEWASTE the waste management syste and solid expected municipal present the for options policy and assessment environmental the prepare To aim: Overall Researchaims hasbeen this composition described indetail. cases SCBU and family single family, multi of case in different is capita per generation waste the that assumed is It 3. Assumption study such butin cases calculated estimationsand is collection waste selective Budapest the for data the that stated be can it and discussed beenhas issue this document present Inthe isnecessaryit check todouble them. the prepare to given are that EASEW information and data the that assumes research The

ASTE model are sufficient, proper, correct and realistic. However, at many cases manyat However, realistic.and correct proper, sufficient,are model ASTE

Drn te icsin f h wse mut n waste and amount waste the of discussion the During .

299 correct. Some data was missing during the the during missing was data Some correct.

compati ms of Budapest. This research used research used Budapest. This ms of ti ve

data was utilized .

CEU eTD Collection Bogner 2011; AgencyEuropean Gentil 2011b.) Environmental 2002; (USEPA research other by justified been also with that showing climatechange, including pollution environmental on system management waste the rate recycling higher for potentials what proves and displays clearly It question. research the answered evidently have results research The of the researchConclusion the for res environment. decision for aspects important most the determining in effective is model the that conclusion, a make can the conclude to able is thesis the and completed been has research the assumptions and objectives question, research above the on Based and preferred options. perspectives their determine to aiming stakeholders, key the with findings the Discuss Objec run themodelfor EASEWASTE them. and rates recycling higher account into taking alternatives desirable major the Determine Objective 2. ihr eyln rts iiae lbl w global mitigate rates recycling higher tive 3.

the main characteristics of recycling in Budapest in recycling of characteristics main the

higher - aig n eain o h dfeet oeta ipc t the to impact potential different the to relation in making eyln rts niomna pluin s decreas is pollution environmental rates recycling are

earch question: earch question: . The thesis numerically proved numerically thesis The .

300

rig potential. arming answers to them. From the results one one results the From them. to answers

hs eut a also has result This are, and what the what and are, the impacts of of impacts the t al. et ing 2007;

and CEU eTD Collection further investigation. needs and composition waste Budapest the of case in detail in discussed is issue This 3. Assumption cases such In committee. the of mathematical me member external the is who Damgaard, Anders Prof. especially professors, Danish the with discussed was data missing This Hungary. covers. data obtained the However, exactly what clear became it consultations several After 2. Assumption In thefollowingwere thethesis trends data. annual solely of instead other each to compared are years different in months different if tha showed has research The 1. Assumption of the researchConclusion the for research assumptions:

in the technology some data was missing, as it was not previously measured in in measured previously not was it as missing, was data some technology the in b. a.

detail. selective, the of amount the in trends LCA assessmentfrom 2008 f collection waste selective (for time in trends thods werethods values. used these todetermine

t the environmental pollution can be be can pollution environmental the t analyzed - 301 2011) and also

non

selective

rom 2006 rom analyzed

and total waste in in waste total and - 2011, and for the the for and 2011,

in more detail detail more in CEU eTD Collection in anenvironmentally way. proper an in developed waste their place to further seeking Budapest of residents by be used be that and to system electronic has which points, collection waste Budapest the on author’s the data, obtained the on based addition, In used therefore cities inanyHungary future. other inthe be can composition fractions waste 48 the for methodology The thesis. this of purposes out carried fractions waste 48 was composition waste Budapest when time first the was it inputs necessary the of collection the During Objective 1. and theamount ofrecyclables left waste selective collected the of amount the between difference the that clear became It that higher collectionwaste decreases selective pollution. environmental manage waste solid Budapest that proved been has It Budapest model. theEASEWASTE systemwith waste solid management the for made been have options policy and assessment environmental The aim: Overall of the researchConclusion the for research objectives:

analyzed

AEAT mdl s n prpit to to tool appropriate an is model EASEWASTE is such detail. Never before was any composition analysis for analysis composition any was before Never detail. such is ment system with life cycle assessment. The model verified model The assessment. cycle life with system ment . This was prepared by request of the author for the the for author the of request by prepared was This .

in the mixed 302

waste issignificant. own contribution is also a draft map map draft a also is contribution own

analyze

the the CEU eTD Collection selective system: collection waste t Furthermore, 3. 2. 1.

ofas potentialenvironmentalsavings aspects. well as business a plastic, at 4% is selectively further recycled. be can which inhabitants from waste of amount significant a is There aincreasing, very isstill it low amount. slightly is waste collected selectively the of amount the that fact the of spite In increasedto 0.06%(2010).(2006) from 0.04% i it and (2010) 0.93% to (2006) 0.71% from glass the even from and (2010), 0.65% plastic to (2006) 0.37% for same the (2010), 1.97% to (2006) 1.24% from significantly raised not has paper collected selectively the of rate The (2010). 3.23% to (2006) from rapidly increased has waste organic of collection total Selective the waste. of 4.8% only around is waste collected selectively the that means It % (selective/total) Percentage Amount oftotal waste (t) waste (t) Amount ofselective the following paper, amounts for plastic, state can we Budapest in management waste solid the consideration into Taking 62 . Table Table . he following statements can be concluded after concluded be can statements following he

In case of paper the selectively collected waste is 9% of the the of 9% is waste collected selectively the paper of case In

waste (which is basically can be found in the mixed waste), as the rate the as waste), mixed the in found be can basically is (which waste Rate of the selective waste collection for waste 2006 fractions, waste for collection selectivewaste of the Rate

tu fr h auiu cn s el a te ae a slightly was rate the as well, as can aluminum the for true s lso 4% at 4% lso

730 288 aluminum 21 045 2006 2.88 303

688 171 and 28% at glass. at 28% and

24 991

aluminum 2007 3.63

691 586

33 270 cans, glass andorganicwaste: 2008 4.81 analyzing It is a huge loss in terms in loss huge a is It

661 405

39 542 2009 5.97 -

2010 the rate of the the of rate the

668 711 45 264

0.58% 2010 6.76 non

CEU eTD Collection

8. 7. 6. 5. 4.

taking account into that selectivebewill mandatory collection waste from 2015. process, this ameliorate will Law Waste new the Hopefully system. collection the cases many in however are increasing, inhabitants are Zrt. FKF of activities PR The increasedyears. significantly inthe last wa the in collection waste selective The to andlivelihood supporting management. waste people employ can which programs social any no are there moment the At items. basic buy to utilized be can which funds tur to attempt in bins waste with tamper who those often are citizens income lower that proven be to able beIt may issue. social a of somewhat Law. Waste new the by punished strongly and controlled strictly be o down burned are islands waste the often Very door co EU new the hopefully door the of rate the done been has waste collected selectively of majority The and anddistances associatedfuel a is consumption topic ofa research. further routes, collection waste the of optimization and Evaluation system. management liters in uncovered is issue interestingvery A -

to are needed to collect the recyclable was recyclable the collect to needed are - door collection. under informed under - to - or olcin s ey o. t a t b icesd and increased, be to has It low. very is collection door

- financed tender will contribute to an increased rate of of rate increased an to contribute will tender financed

or not even motivated to use the selective waste waste selective the use to motivated even not or 304

analyzing ste islands and in the waste yards has not has yards waste the in and islands ste te from the inhabitants in the presentthe in inhabitants the from te

r the waste is stolen, but this will will this but stolen, is waste the r

how many extra manyhow retrieve

via waste islands and and islands waste via waste, providing a a providing waste, n their contents into into contents their n kilometers

hs is This

and

CEU eTD Collection future the in operation their in model EASEWASTE the apply to desired Department o Head The issue. this regarding provided was information more no later but stations transfer waste for options make to desired also stakeholders key Several remainingareratesrates while are notlinear, theincreased linear. an 9.55% (12.91%, waste organic and 0.88%) and 2.6% or 2.61%), and 3.65% (4.47%, plastic to relevant is same The collection. waste selective higher times 5 account into take we pa 9.02% becomes and collection waste selective higher times three of case the in 11.99% becomes it and status, current the is which collection waste selective times 1 of case in 14.31% was it paper of case in as amounts: potential in following the is types waste different the of composition The this. reflect to waste mixed the in changed the were fractions waste that different the of important composition very was it rates recycling higher potential the calculating When the findingsDuring of recycling discussion thehigher the rates were m Objective 3. included thesis. inthis as collection, waste selective higher of impacts environmental the of evaluation LCA the alternatives, desirable major The Objective 2.

as discussed by the key stakeholders of FKF Zrt., were were Zrt., FKF of stakeholders key the by discussed as aluminum 305

(0.86%, 0.83% and 0.8%), glass (3.94%, (3.94%, glass 0.8%), and 0.83% (0.86%, per waste in the mixed waste if if waste mixed the in waste per d 5.23% respectively). The The respectively). 5.23% d

the mixed waste for the the for waste mixed the

f the Environmental the f entioned.

CEU eTD Collection Other important findings: sampling be should required. future the In year. a once only not and often more made be to waste the and berecommended is monthly) to composition least (at regularly data the collect should Zrt., FKF as such tr waste large a that recommends model the Zrt. FKF account into Taking Budapest. in institutions owned state other for it apply possible, if and regularly 3. 2. 1.

glass recycling. Therefore the glass recycling rate should be increased. It seems seems It increased. be should rate recycling glass the Therefore recycling. glass with problem particular has Hungary fulfilled. be also can waste packaging wood aluminu and plastic enough, be will amount the paper, of terms in that seems it 2012 September In requirements. EU the for enough be to as realistic are which rates, recycling the set and types continu is Agency The EU. the to obligation reporting the has and types waste these for responsible solely Ltd.AgencyNonprofit Managementwaste Waste is National fractions. The given for 2012 of end the by rates recycling EU the accomplish to has Hungary more where accurate information isavailable. it seek readers that encouraged is It research. this of scope the out is it but useful, a was It manycasesdata for different wastetypes. theofficial provide sources thesame in well, as countries other in but Hungary in only not common is inaccuracy Data ssumed that a rigorous evaluation of uncertainty and variability would be be would variability and uncertainty of evaluation rigorous a that ssumed ously reviewing the amount of the collected and recycled waste waste recycled and collected the of amount the reviewing ously

analyzed m cans can be found in the Hungarian market, and market, Hungarian the in found be can cans m 306

for these 48 fractions. Sampling is suggested suggested fractions.Samplingis 48 these for

nationwide representative nationwide amn institution, eatment

CEU eTD Collection

6. 5. 4.

storage that results from incomplete decomposition of yard trimmings. trimmings. trimmings. yard and yard food discarded of for option management decomposition a is incomplete Composting from results that storage trimmings avoids food (composting discards for landfilling than lower are composting from emissions GHG net The from waste recycling management. Paper the increases emissions avoids therefore and process manufacturing energy the in of emissions reduction the to due emissions, GHG lowest second Se extent. significant a to emissions GHG reduce to possibility a represents usually reduction Source the to compared company collectingthe inhabitants take individually. thewaste when vehicles service cleaning public the for lower is vehicles the of consumption fuel the even and separation post perform to need no is there clean, is waste the if that is that for reason The 2002) (USEPA yards. waste with collection selective the than better even and aspects, environmental Door types. management waste the among pollution environmental biggest the had landfilling cases many in impacts, environmental different the to contributor serious a is Landfilling before. management sector waste followingGHG The producesemissions: the collected were packaging wood and paper that c. b. a.

CH non CO 4 2 – -

biogenic CO fromemissions landfills; (USEPA2002). associatedemissions with composting, depending on gas management. Landfilling is credited wit credited is Landfilling management. gas on depending veral LCAs showed that for most materials, recycling has the the has recyclingmaterials, most for LCAs that showed veral 2 -

and nitrous oxide (N and oxide nitrous to -

door collection is the most fa most the is collection door CH 4

emissions), and higher than landfilling for yard for landfilling than higher and emissions), 307

2 O) from combustion,and in a higher amount than expected expected than amount higher a in sequestration of forest carbon.

vorable in terms of the of terms in vorable

- eae CO related collecting collecting

h carbon h

CEU eTD Collection

10. 9. 8. 7.

t s sue (n poe b svrl qain) ht h ihbtns ae a have multi houses, family single inhabitants of case in rates the(kg/capita) generation waste different that equations) several by proven (and assumed is It of thewaste hierarchy. a into taking Hungary in tool useful a be can which also, tax incinerationthe but tax landfill onlysuggests (2009) the not implementingMiliūtė the waste2002.) (USEPA sector in policies mitigation GHG emphasize to enough large are options management wa different the in factors emission in differences the Nevertheless, decisions. analyzing to limited is report this of scope The composting. and recycling, reduction, source altern the comparing for suitable are incinerators and landfills of case the in nevertheless, emissions, specific Material characteristics. material by than rather factors technology by determined are emissions net the and stream, landf and combustors gas that is landfill reason for The recovery). conditions average than national lower (under are MSW MSW mixed mixed landfilling of combustion from emissions GHG net The reducingprimary for thedemand resource sources. million 47 about of emission avoided waste solid municipal of recycling Union, European the in 2008 in that states which also, (2010a.) Agency Environmental European the by justified is It or combusting composting for factors emission the analysis, the in uncertainty the given Overall,

msin atr i trs f H a a osqec o sld waste solid of consequence a as GHG of terms in factors emission these materials

are similar (USEPAare 2002). similar

tons 308

f CO of

2 - qiaet rm bei from equivalent

ills manage a mixed waste waste mixed a manage ills

ccount the priorities the ccount tvs including atives ng created by by created ng ste CEU eTD Collection

16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11.

types, as due to the lack of Hungarian measurements it was necessary to count on count to necessary was it measurements Hungarian of lack the to due as types, waste different the of characteristics chemical the analyze to useful be may It TMT 15,polymers, heatseveral production, and marginal others). prod energy (marginal Hungary in detected not were which values more which values more measure should facilities Hungarian several that recommended is It can likely most some bear thesis present The fromZrt. the FKF provision data proper of lack the is research the of point weak a so landfilling), da necessary the to able provide not were facilities management waste Hungarian the cases several In be should process This route. analyzed inand optimized thefuture. one for necessary are kilometers many how many how clear not still is It of methane respectively. terms in emission GHG the mitigates drastically collection waste selective higher that showed clearly Results rates. recycling higher and collection waste selective i the that assumed was it however, (km), distances Itcollectionfuel withthe same notmake greater consumption. calculationsfor did study This further research. rate exact the but institutions, and houses family influence analyzed

the environmental load. In the Danish model there were several were there model Danish the In load. environmental the

analyzed

the GHG emissions in a higher rate of selective waste waste selective of rate higher a in emissions GHG the

technically data. incorrect ta (in case of MRF’s, incineration, composting and and composting incineration, MRF’s, of case (in ta

the trends in Budapest solid waste management, so management, waste solid Budapest in trends the tons

o 309 f selective waste one vehicle can collect and and collect can vehicle one waste selective f

can be determined only after after only determined be can

nhabitants can reach higher higher reach can nhabitants

uction, CEU eTD Collection

18. 17.

neetn aayi cn e efre t eaut te osmto hbt by habits seasons andby regions. consumption the evaluate to performed be can analysis Interesting if waste their locating in requi help provided be would capital the of inhabitants the additionally and location, their optimize to tool a stakeholders key the give door y collection waste islands, waste the of location the capita, per generation waste the account into taking Budapest, of map waste the draw to useful be can It the givenamount ofwaste fraction). val laboratory Danish - red. to - door collection as well as waste processing facilities. This process would would process This facilities. processing waste as well as collection door

ues. (for instance selenium, magnesium, chloride content of of content chloride magnesium, selenium, instance (for ues.

310

ards and and ards CEU eTD Collection mode the for developed especially is model The features. the all use to background engineering an requires it but fractions, individual of differentiation strong a with model (engineering) detailed and versatile a be to demonstrated is EASEWASTE when isi it etc. environment human acceptability, social costs, environment, working occupation, area as the that is limitation additional An m EASEWASTE added. be can residue or recipient additional no so flows, output residuerecipientsand emission of restrictedseta has method disposal limitation Other financial of thelife part cycle ofthe evaluation doesnotinclude the results. thesis This environmental theeconomic and ma Decision load. environmental different the to the related where analyzed be fields can opportunities recommends mitigation the it and technologies but systems management waste of part financial meteorology rising, level sea the is it change climate the of case in as (such impacts environmental the of connection interrelated the evaluate to thesis this of scope the of out is It problem. environmental a cycle life The 12

as Kirkeby (2006) emphasized, and t and emphasized, (2006) Kirkeby as Limitations, recommendations for future research mportant. o te oe acrig o ikb (06 ae ht e that are (2006) Kirkeby to according model the of s odel with its current EDIP methodology does not include impacts such such impacts include not does methodology EDIP current its with odel ssessment

, or even carbon credits). This thesis does not include the the include not does thesis This credits). carbon even or , a of a waste management system is a very complex complex very a is system management waste a of ssessment king should be based on the interpretation of both the both of interpretation the on based be should king

and it also canevaluatedand stage. also befurther it ina hese impact areas must be evaluated separately evaluated be must areas impact hese 311

ling of the handling handling the of ling ach treatment or or treatment ach

CEU eTD Collection impact toxic for substances important most the are which treatment, thermal of emis air of indications consumption, diesel largest the smallest and the fraction has material,which thepaper content of water among others: the to appropriate also is EASEWASTE in evaluation LCA future developments. door effective recommend to and consumption fuel efficiency, routes, collection the optimize to order in necessary is It hierarchy. waste the with line in is which recycling, and collection waste selective the of improvement the for recommended is research further management, waste solid Budapest of terms In and begeographical adjustable sothatbe coveragecan extended toother countries. m the of versions future the hopefully but context, Danish a in systems treatment waste units business commercial small and household of consumption) resource and impacts (environmental assessment environmental the supports model the of version current The disposal technologiesmoreand flexibility. al. appli facilitate to besignificantly improved to have that many however,issues Therestill development.are, further its of support in school research Recovery) Resources (Residual 3R Danish the int incorporated been has data much and studies, case real of number a of modeling the in used been has EASEWASTE as such wastes other support andlargedemolition commercial waste. not does it therefore, and wastes, solid municipal of odel shall support the inclusion of other waste types as well as economic evaluation, economic as well as types waste other of inclusion the support shall odel 2010).The improvements in consideration are to provide data for more treatment and treatment more for data provide to are consideration in improvements 2010).The ain y te ues te ta mdl eeoes (Bhander developers. model than other users other by cation

o it. Several research projects are currently underway under under underway currently are projects Severalresearch it. o

312

sion of Hg. and dioxins in the case the in dioxins and Hg. of sion analyze - to - door collection collection door

the following issues issues following the analyze for the the for

its its et et CEU eTD Collection collectiondifferent decreasesrespectiveindividually. environmentalpollution the waste selective increased the rate what regarding type, waste every for visible be can at times rates recycling higher 10 and paper at rates recycling higher times two instance (for factors different to be can it but amount, same the in rates recycling higher examined thesis The useful to appropriate is model The re prevention, waste of analysis detailed wasEASEWASTE successfully usedofthe hierarchy,including inevery stages waste the wouldbeofit the presentuseful to but thesis, is Hg much Th yearetc.etc. one during landfill the broughtto how and treatment, biogas by replaced be will flaring of case in results landfill the how pollution, groundwater the regarding crucial most the are substances infiltration yearly the what one), have will hopefully Budapest (if facility biogas the at produced is material digested much how categories, analyze for

the Hungarian waste management system in thefuture.waste in the Hungarian management system

h LA eut i te ae f nrae rccig ae, hc ices by increase which rates, recycling increased of case the in results LCA the aluminum

analyze

and three times more in case of gla of case in more times three and

these steps individually, a process which can be be can which process a individually, steps these - use, recycling, therma recycling, use, 313 analyze

ese issues are presently out of the scope scope the of out presently are issues ese

them.

is in a landfill, which leachate leachate which landfill, a in is

l treatment and landfilling. and treatment l

ss). In this way it it way this In ss). interesting

CEU eTD Collection M. Barlaz 1995. D., A. Basiago, 2010. PhD, G. Bartus the at Expert 2009. A. Bartus D., Dalley, J.R., Barton, waste Rákospalota the of Fe Director of J. Bánhidy, director managing Chief, 2012. H. Balatoni, Al Anil Szintai Ágnes 2010. K. Abeliotis, A., Togia K., Karaiskou K., Abeliotis 13 -

Salem S.M. S.M. Salem , References

K. G K. Management, pages 109 Környezetgazdaságtan Tanszék Water Management. T Ins Valley management’, communication.05. December. 2008 communication 19.July2012. Kuwait of Research State the in Management Waste 10 July 2004 Strategies, international and concern national of communication 6.05.2012 Harokopio University Greece 117 Global Vol11,No2,Pp Nest Journal, Greece. in level local and national the at casestudy a management: waste solid

. and M and A. - , Katona, National Waste Management Agency Nonprofit Ltd. personal personal Ltd. Nonprofit Agency Management Waste National Katona,

and Lettieri P. 2009. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Municipal Solid Municipal of (LCA) Assessment Cycle Life 2009. P. Lettieri and n Wiz .. 1995. K.A. Weitz and

ISSN 1450 - ,

119), John Wiley,119), John UK. Chichester, etrt fr niomna Poeto, aue Con Nature Protection, Environmental for pectorate Yunus

ie yl Assessment Cycle Life System Description, Description, System Methods of Defining ‘Sustainability’. Defining of Methods Waste Management mglzs niáoa (at peeto indicators) prevention (Waste indikátorai megelőzés A .

2004. and - 216X Vol.34 No.3(2009),216X pp.395 waste management department of the Middle Middle the of department management waste elephone conversation 20.02.2009. ae, .. 96 ‘ie yl assmn fr waste for assessment cycle ‘Life 1996. V.S. Patel,

India and the WSSD (Rio + 10), + (Rio WSSD the and India

and

CHIRON Bt.Tanácsadó Lasaridi K., 2009 K., Lasaridi Life 314 , 16,1 EPA Cooperative A

- n uiia Sld at Management Waste Solid Municipal in yl Suy f uiia Sld Waste Solid Municipal of Study Cycle - 3, 35 - - to 126 -

nry plant. energy . -

50.

uoen Journ European Current Current

. -

ru Ivs Zt Email Zrt. Invest Group

Decision support systems in systems support Decision (Sustainable Development, (Sustainable greement 832052, - 405 Science, Vol. 87, No. 1,No. 87, Vol. Science,

Johannesburg: Issues Johannesburg:

uaet Personal Budapest. l f Scientific of al evto and servation -

Danube Danube B .

ME ME -

CEU eTD Collection An A., Boldrin, K. Hashimoto, S. Gao, Q. Faaij, A. Diaz, C. Ahmed, Abdelrafie M. J., Bogner, Björklund,Bjugg A.and C. Björklun alkalm szemlélet Életciklus 2012. I. Biczó, G Bhander, A., Bernstad, Barlaz, C.H., Benson, 2008. T. Benkő C., George N., Lee E., Bellinger P. Beigl M Barlaz , and , management (EASEWASTE). Århus of Municipality the in management waste garden NY,Press, Kingdom USA. Cambridge, United York, andNew (eds) Meyer L.A. Dave, R. Bosch, P.R. Davidson, O.R. Fourth the to III Group Change Climate on Intergovernmental Panel the of Report Assessment Working of Contribution Mitigation. 2007: Change Pipa R. Mareckova, San Diego, life cycleassessment. waste manag Finnveden,d, A.,andG.2005. Cy Assessment Cycle Life DOI: of Journal m Press. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.026 waste food household bioreactor/recirculation landfills. Környezeti Folyamatmérnöki Tanszék practice planning gyakorlatba inTransitio Countries 102. systems. management waste Cagliari,Italy CISA; landfill. waste solid municipal modern a of inventory . , CamobrecoV , dln cpblte fr at mngmn technologies management waste for capabilities odeling cl ., .,

e S. Salhofer. 2004. Comparison of ecological effects and costs of communal communal of costs and effects ecological of Comparison 2004. Salhofer. S. 10.1007/s11367 and

Assessment in thewaste in Assessment management hitne, T Christensen, esn JK ad hitne, .. 2011 T.H. Christensen, and J.K. dersen, z életciklus Az la C la (1998), p.16 , 31 (7), , 31(7), ement strategies. [ nertn lf cce seset no h evrnetl process environmental the into assessment cycle life Integrating our Jansen, J. J. Jansen, our M.A., Lane, D.T. Lane, M.A., . , Repa E Repa , ] . ren uaet Műszaki Budapesti

tti, - 1560 - . 010 . and and . Air & meeting, annual Air management waste association's lmé itgááa környezettudatos a integrálása elemzés n –

1998. Waste modelling1998. Waste flow using analysis and substance

Central European University Budapest, Hungary Press A Swedish full Swedish A and . - , Ham R Ham , - 0156 and 1569. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.

2011 ashl, M Hauschild, . Zhang T.

Resour. Conserv. Resour. eore, osrain n Recycling and Conservation Resources, Recycling revisitedRecycling - aue A 2000 A. Paduret 7 WasteManagement and

. 315 .

. Budapest , Felker M Felker , azása a hulladékgazdálkodásban hulladékgazdálkodásban a azása A life cycle approach to the management of of management the to approach cycle life A

Rawe, J.M. 2007. Practice review of five five of review Practice 2007. J.M. Rawe,

2007. . s adsguoáy Eytm éii és Kémiai Egyetem Gazdaságtudományi és - Vlm 1, ubr 4 Number 15, Volume , scale case study. case scale

. ]. P ].

. 2010 ,

resentation 13.06.2012 and at Mngmn, n Climate In Management, Waste Recycl. . Evrnetl seset of assessment Environmental .

niomna Assmn in Assessment Environmental — .

Rousseau C Rousseau , 27,13 Life of cyclecomparisons EASEWASTE

, 44_4_,309 Proceedings Sardinia 99. Sardinia Proceedings

], Cambridge University University Cambridge ], 2011.01.010

Waste Management. Waste - . 29.

h International The folyamattervezési folyamattervezési . 1 .

999. – — [ 317.

Using Life Using . life cycle cycle life

Life cycle Life [B. Metz, 4, 83 41, , Gödöllő 403

Waste - 416

- , CEU eTD Collection December 4 of Council the of and Parliament European the of 2000/76/EC Directive 2011 T. Dienes 1996. Ann, Mary Curran, D.C., Wilson K., Strange V., Sharp S., Giorgi. J., Cox Doig A. and Finnveden G. R., Clift, B.P., Weidema, A.W., Larsen, A., Boldrin, E., Gentil, T.H., Christensen, G., Bhander T.H., Christensen. J., Sharfenberg, L., Pederson, A., Choate, CEWEP The management: waste municipal from emission gases Greenhouse 2009. P.S. Calabro ______2010. Zs. Borsi 00 n h icnrto o waste of incineration the on lex.europa.eu/L 2000 BudapestHumusz, indikátorokról York 193 2010: 28: prevention waste managementwaste Research. LCA in M June LCA Of Use Man Numbers df the by USA. Benefits Savings: Energy 12_cewep_ role ofseparatecollection. communication, conversation 4. communication 23. interview 20. 2012b. 2012a.

.Z. 2009. C balance, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming potentials warming global and emissions dioxide carbon balance, C 2009. .Z. fredi S., Boldrin A., Riber C. and Hauschild M. Hauschild and C. Riber A., Boldrin S., fredi .

www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Energy%20Savings.p 2007

. http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_557/852_2011

nrei mngr f h Bdps Waste Budapest the of manager Energetic Waste Budapest the of manager Energetic oeln o wse managem waste of modelling nrei mngr f h Bdps Waste Budapest the of manager Energetic ltnláy Mgaosáo aklaht hulladék alkalmazható Magyarországon a Előtanulmány

2009 Nov;27(8):707 . -

vol. 25no.3 _landfill_taxes__ - 10. –

oeig (EASEWASTE) Modeling 219 exUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0076:EN:HTML [ Pre

2010. –

niomna Lf Cce Assessment. Cycle Life Environmental

02.

- Trans IChem Trans td o te at p waste the on study rve o evidence of review a

2012.

idal . Lre A W, regad . Damg T., Fruergaard W., A. Larsen H., Lindvall 257 WasteManagement . -

bans_webiste.pdf

262 2000 - 15. Epub2009May 7.

06. -

and 316 E, 78 part B,E, 78part p.279:287. (2000), .

2012. The

Ferland, H. 2005. H. Ferland,

n systems. ent application of LCA to integrated solid integrated to LCA of application

In Waste Management and Research Research and Management Waste In .

eeto idctr i Hungary in indicators revention at Management Waste .

. and 29. 29.

S EPA, US 2009. p.2178 Blakey N. 2010. Household 2010. N. Blakey

- 2007. Experiences On The On Experiences 2007.

o nry Plant. Energy to - o nry Plant. Energy to - at Mngmn and Management Waste o nry Plant. Energy to Waste Management and and Management Waste

McGraw

ahntn DC, Washington –

and Hauschild, and

and 2187 - - megelőzési ( Hill. New New Hill.

http://eur

Resear

Personal

Formal Email aard., aard., - 12 ch ) ] - -

CEU eTD Collection ______2 ______University ______Technical ______Danish 1985. EC webpage, EASEWASTE E., Dawkins Man A., Damgaard 2006 A. Damgaard, 2005d. 2005c. the on Strategy Thematic A forward: resources of use sustainable Taking 2005b. waste. of recycling and prevention the on Strategy Thematic 2005a. waste. of landfill the on 1999/31/EC Directive Council 1999. December 20 of 94/6/EC Directive Council and Parliament European 1994. eti drcie.8 pp. directives.28 ML lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:01:EN:HT certain Parliament prevention andof Brussels,Belgium. waste.”COM recycling(2005) 666, MarchDirective onpackagingand 94/62/EC 2005amending packaging waste and thecommitteeregions.COM(2005) 32pp ofthe 666. committee social and economic European the Parliament, European the Council, waste. of recycling and prevention the of committee 2009/31/EC the and committee social and regions.COM(2005) 22pp. 670. economic European the Counc the and to Commission the from Communication Lthe European Communities, 182/1. 2003/35/EC 1994 onpackaging and pac and ( 97/11/EC emid=19 http://www.easewaste.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&It Final Report Communities and Population Water, Environment, technologies, gas and leachate landfill of management evaluation economic TechnicalDenmark;Of University EASEWASTE, & DST http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia 0. at Frame Waste 008. Directive 85/337 EEC on Environmental Impact Assessment as amended by by amended as Assessment Impact Environmental on EEC 85/337 Directive

and [c ited

Directive 2005/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council o Council the ofthe 2005/20/EC European andof Parliament Directive Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A thematic strategy on the on strategy thematic A forward: resources of use sustainable Taking Allan P. 2010. P. Allan

(cited 2009) at 15.09.

1 . rd S, erl H, Stens H., Merrild S., fredi n o te oni o 1 Nvme 20 o wse n repealing and waste on 2008 November 19 of Council the of and

7 July Comparative assessment of LCA of assessment Comparative — Volume 31, Issue 1532 Volume 31, 7,July 2011,Pages ABN 76 104 485 ABN 76 2012] ok iete Drcie 089/C f h European the of 2008/98/EC Directive Directve. work

atr hss Isiue f niomn & Resources, & Environment Of Institute Thesis, Master Landfill ban investigation ban Landfill

kaging waste

289 317

Communication from the Commission to the to Commission the from Communication

e and øe -

legalcontext.htm - modelling of solid waste systems: waste solid of modelling . Christensen. H. .

Depart il, the European Parliament, European the il, ye Cnutn Py Ltd Pty Consulting Hyder

- 1541 ) (cited at 11.09.2012)

ment of Sustainability, of ment

Official Journal of Journal Official

2011 .

http: LCA and and LCA

Waste //eur

f 9 f 9 -

CEU eTD Collection decision a as assessment cycle Life 1998. T. Ekvall, and G., Finnveden, Ezzy, D.2002. Edw Eurostat Newsrelease 37/20118March 2011 ______2 ______Agency Environmental European 2002. K. Esterberg, Agency Environment ______ards, D. W., and Schelling, J. 1996 J. Schelling, and W., D. ards, 2011c. 2011a. 2010b. To Roadmap 2011. 235 incinerat vs recycling of case The An alum switzerland countries generation of theEuropean Union municipal 4/2011. and Production. CopenhagenConsumption paper working ETC/SCP viewer http://www.eea.europa.eu/data the EuropeanUnion 2010 Companies. 2010 November West. (cited 50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/geho1110btew Aztec Drive, Waterside House Rio Agency Environment criteria. and procedures acceptance /* Regions. The Of Committee The Final */Brussles.Com/2011/0571 Final */20/09/2 /*Com/2011/0571 And European Committee The Social Council, The And Parliament, Economic European The To Commission The 011b. – 256.

Material Resources And Waste. And Resources Material 18

Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. Qualitative Analysis:Practice and

( Pr cited inium caseinium study. Waste opportunities Past and future climate benefits from better better from benefits climate future and Past opportunities Waste

E genos gs aa viewer data gas greenhouse EEA September - eu

jcin o Mncpl at Mngmn ad rehue Gases. Greenhouse and Management Waste Municipal of ojections - waste management in Europe. in management waste per - Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Social in Methods Qualitative

4 - 27

27 February2012) . (cited 15April 2012) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data

- capita - 2010 and

2012) - A Resource Efficient Europe. 2011. Communication From From Communication 2011. Europe. Efficient Resource A total - . in

Waste - . western -

2010a. in Trans IChemE,TransB, 205 74,Part - europe - and cetne t landfills at acceptance .

Municipal waste life cycle assessment. Part 1: Part assessment. cycle life waste Municipal europe The European Environment Environment European The 318

- - maps/data/data o o paper. of ion

eu European Topic Centre on Sustainable Sustainable on Centre Topic European

EEA, Copenhagen. Publications Office of Office Publications Copenhagen. EEA, - 27 - eu EEA, -

turkey - 15 - and Erpa Evrnet Agency. Environment .European

- . Copenhagen. Publications Office Publications Copenhagen. new - -

maps/figures/municipal croatia Resou - http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0 viewers/greenhouse -

member Boston: The MacGraw The Boston:

London, Routledge. . Conserv. r. . - – norway 222. udne n waste on Guidance - states State And Outlook Outlook And State

- - iceland support tool support - eu

Recycl. Recycl. 011 - 12 - - gases e

- - -

waste eu e.pdf - - Hill Hill - 24, —

- -

CEU eTD Collection B., Muik, G., , Grassi J., Graichen, M., Gager, S., Federici, O, Deuber, B, Gugele, Guendehou Green Lundie S. James, K. T., Grant, 1997 results, survey composting home National 2006. I. Toleman, and S. Gray, 2000. R. Spriensma, and M. Goedkoop, 2011. C. E. Gentil, 2010. al. et Gentil T. Christensen, and E. Aoustin, E., Gentil, Frankfort 1999 McDougall. R. F. and M. Francke, J., Johansson, G., Finnveden, - Con Con Incineration And Open Burning Of Waste Waste Roubanis, S., Monni, A., Leip, T., Koether, E., Kampel, Of A., Herold, R., Hartan, Burning Open 2010) March And nggip.iges.or.jp/public/20 Incineration Inventories Gas Greenhouse National for Guidelines management waste integrated financed Fund Cohesion investments and ISPA KIOP, beruházáso lehetőségei csökkentésének hulladékgazdálkodási Melbourne,Victoria. EcoRecycle Australia Scenarios Management Waste Packaging and Paper for Assessment September, Warwick pp.775 University, UK., Waste Sustainable B.V.,Consultants, Amersfoort, NL. life for method prevention Environmental Engineeringof Technical Denmark University waste and change assumptions. waste management. Sciences. Association 3 May recycling, use. practical 13 (3), 213 G 1: Part waste. solid from energy - ahis C ad . Nachmias D. and C. Nachmias, G.H.S. Kft. 2007. 2007. Kft.

New York, St. Martin St. York, New M , – Life ]

229.

oes o wse ie yl assmn: eiw f technical of Review assessment: cycle life waste for Models Waste Management .

- - cycle modelling of waste management in Europe: tools, climate tools, Europe: in management waste of modelling cycle Koch yl ipc assessment, impact cycle

F KO, SA s A orsó mgaóuó integrált megvalósuló forrásból KA és ISPA KIOP, A rt nentoa cneec o wse iiiain and minimisation waste on - conference international irst , 99 Beo Ars Erpa Rcvr ad Recycling and Recovery European Aires, Buenos 1999, 4, and Waste M

L. , Lind, P., and Moberg, Å. 2005. Å. Moberg, and P., Lind,

and Resource Management Resource 06gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_5_Ch5_IOB.pdf Hockstad

K. Sonneveld K. [ anagement and Possibilities to reduce the GHG emission from the from emission GHG the reduce to Possibilities s Press. .

h Tei Fbur 21 Depart 2011 February Thesis PhD 30 (2010) 2636 319

h Eco The eneral methodology and results. and methodology eneral nertd at mngmn: C ad its and LCA management: waste Integrated

. , üehzaáú á kibocsátás gáz üvegházhatású k . 2009. H.

R 1996.

Pipatti .

ehdlg report.2 Methodology - 2001

niao 99 indicator Research. eerh Met Research –

786. rehue a acutn and accounting gas Greenhouse

Conference Proceedings, 19 Proceedings, Conference . –

n M and Stage 2 Report for Life Cycle Life for Report 2 Stage 2648

iecceassmn of assessment cycle Life . oue Catr 5 Chapter 5 Volume

aaa 20 Yamada. –

os n h Social the in hods damage A

http://www.ipcc nd

J. Ind. Ecol., Ind. J. dto. Pré edition. in Victoria. Victoria. in ctd 19 (cited 06. - et of ment oriented oriented – IPCC 2005. – 21 - -

CEU eTD Collection mélypont valójában csúcs, nevében +20: Rio 2012. M. Hargitai away not Gone…but 2011. A. Schmidt and E Hansen S., IrvingOlsen M., Hauschild 2008. M.A. Barlaz and M. Hauschild Z. M. Hauschild 2005. J. Potting and M. Hauschild S. Bruun, T.H., Christensen, G.S., Bhander, T.L., Hansen, 1999. M. Hanashima, Halász, 2012. József. FKF Head ofthe Zrt. economicdeparment, 31May 2012 L. Güereca, M. Rikken, and T. Vermeire, D., Meent, de Van L., Oers, Van R., Heijungs, J., Guinée N., Rigler, E., Ritter, M., Schodl, B., Szemsova, J., J., Szemsova, B., Schodl, M., Ritter, E., Rigler, N., ae u dph n reality] in depth September but http://nol.hu/kulfold/rio_20__kornyezeti_csucs_dontesek_nelkul name long CyleInternational JournalAssesment ofLife of problem the addressing principle andmethod Management, and Engineering Manufacturing University Denmark of of Department 80 No. Denmark Copenhagen, Agency, Protection Environmental – and Research (EASEWASTE). land agricultural on waste solid municipal from impacts environmental of modeling cycle Cagliari Pula, di Italy, vol. Margherita S. Symposium. Landfill and Management Waste method. Fukuoka the type: Spain. Barcelona, for systems management biowaste Reso two of assessment Environment, NL. The Hague, 100 about chemicals. for data with beings human and ecosystems for effect and exposure 1996. 1990 inventory n. 7/2007,European Agency Environment gas report greenhouse Secretariat.Technical UNFCCC the to Submission 2007. report inventory Community European Annual

h EI 20 mtoooy Dani methodology. 2003 EDIP the P urces, Conservation andRecycling,urces, Conservation ., Gassó, S., Baldasano, J. Baldasano, S., Gassó, .,

C ipc assmn o txc releases. toxic of assessment impact LCA –

2005.)

2006. 2006. I, 313

2012) Netherlan , 24,153 Pollution control and stabilization process by semiaerobic landfill landfill semiaerobic by process stabilization and control Pollution

- 325. rm rsue t Impacts to Pressures From

EASEWASTE TrainingEASEWASTE course,Copenhagen Denmark, - Mnsr o Huig Sail lnig n the and Planning Spatial Housing, of Ministry d

166.

Spatial differentiation in life in differentiation Spatial

rceig Sardinia Proceedings

(VROM, no.1996/21).

M., and M., C i wse aaeet Itouto to Introduction management: waste in LCA 320 - em mat fo lnfls n LCA in landfills from impacts term

49, 32 Jiménez N .

h iity f h Environment, the of Ministry sh épszabadság épszabadság Volume 13,Number 7,547 - -

48 application of processed organic processed of application ie yl Ipc Assessment Impact Cycle Life -

Guerrero, P. 2006. P. Guerrero,

99 Svnh International Seventh 1999, and eei mdln o fate, of modeling Generic

cycle impact assessment impact cycle n Smgi Z 2007 Z. Somogyi, and esn LS 2006. L.S. Jensen, [ Rio+20: summit i summit Rio+20:

(Environmental News (Environmental 3 Jn 2012. June 23.

Waste Management Waste

(cited (cited

05 and 2005 Life cycle cycle Life

Technical Technical - 554 n the the n

Life The

— 15 :

CEU eTD Collection Kirke ______interview formal Zrt. FKF Laboratory, Environmental the of Head 2011. Gábor. Király, Life 2005. S.R. Ranjithan, and M.A. Barlaz, P.O., Kaplan, ______14040. ISO IstvánZs.communi 2012personal Hong, R. Hischier, R.,Wäger,P.,and A., Helias by, J. 2005 J. by, 14043. 14042. 14041. 14040. 2012. Head of the Environmental Laboratory, FKF Zrt. personal communication personal Zrt. FKF Laboratory, Environmental the of Head 2012. University Denmark of technologies,and 17 April 2012 21 October 2011 management unce under Geneva, Standardization, for Organisation Switzerland International interpretation, Geneva, Standardization, for Switzerland Organisation International assessment, impact for Organisation International analysis, inventory and Standardization, Geneva definition scope Internationalandguidelines. Organisation for (ISO), Standardisation Geneva Geneva,Internationalframework, Organisation for Switzerland Standardization, China. Pudong, Recycling, in BMT study of Case management: assessment cycle Life equipment electronic and electrical waste for (WEEE). systems recycling take and Swiss the back of impacts environmental The perspective? environmental an Practice? Available Best Current Assessment Accommodate Articles Commentary Assessment Impact

J., Wang,G. J., Udo de Haes, de Udo

1997. Environmental management Environmental 1997.

2000. Environmental management management Environmental 2000. management Environmental 2000. 99 Evrnetl management Environmental 1999. 06 Evrnetl management Environmental 2006. .

Modelling of life cycle assessment of solid waste management systems management waste solid of assessment cycle life of Modelling Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Assessment Review,

49, 129

4 (2)

F.,

and Guo, R.

PhD th PhD -

146 Gauglhofer, J. 2005 Gauglhofer, J. O .

S/I 14042 ISO/DIS rtainty. , Switzerland Switzerland , Jolliet.

esis, Institute of Environment and InstituteEnvironment of esis, cation 25 Z., Cheng X., Liu Q., Zhang P. Liu Q., Z., Cheng X.,

Journal of Industrial Ecology, Journal ofIndustrial 1999. How Does ISO/DIS 14042 on Life Cycle Cycle Life on 14042 ISO/DIS Does How 1999. 321

July - based integrated municipal solid waste waste solid municipal integrated based

– .

2012. 2012.

Does re WEEE Life – – – Int -

ie yl assessment cycle life Life Life Life ernational - cycle assessment assessment cycle

- - - cycle assessment assessment cycle assessment cycle eore, osrain and Conservation Resources, cycle assessment assessment cycle 25, 525 - yl bsd oi waste solid based cycle

cycling make sense from cycling from sense make

J. J. J ua o Lf Cycle Life of ounal

Resources,Technical and - 539

8, 155

Qian G. Qian –

Principles and Principles - requir – – – -

172. Life Life Goal and and Goal

R. R. ements ements - -

2006 cycle cycle

- .

CEU eTD Collection a o te niomna pout e (XX. a i 2011.) in law (LXXXV. fee product environmental the on Law Law onWaste 2011,draft D., Lavee S. Olsen, A., Laurent, ______Egyesülés Köztisztasági 2007 al. et Koneczny Department, Environmental the of Head Former 2009. Zsuzsanna. Pfeiffer Koltainé and V. Koci personal Ltd. Co. Services Public Municipal Budapest of Director 2012. Lajos Klug., M., Hauschild G.S., Bhander, T.L., Hansen, H., Birgisdottir, J.T., Kirkeby, T.H., Christensen, T.L., Hansen, H., Birgisdottir, J.T., Kirkeby, 2010 06 http://www.termekdijinfo.hu/jogforrasok/Documents/2011_LXXXV_tv_2011 Environmental Management a towards guidance and 2004 for consistent useinpractice. inventory European updated EDIP2003: Env view of point the the of from context services economic services, waste solid municipal the of characteristics összefüggései gazdasági szolgáltatás Technology Department management alapelv kérdései, általános ResearchJoint Institute for Sustainability Environment and Centre II Part Scenarios: Formal 20November interview. 2009. Republic method ofview fromthe ofthe point LCA communication life Management withinthe landfilling 2007 T.H., Christensen, EASEWASTE 2006. M. - 27.pdf ironment and Water, Waste ManagementironmentWaste andWater,Technology and Department 2007.

rckv T 2011. T. Trecakova tlpls hlaé kzlsnk elmő k jellemző kezelésének hulladék települési A

(cited 20 August 2012) August (cited 20 Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: technologies: and systems waste solid of assessment Environmental Is Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Economically Efficient? Efficient? Economically Recycling Waste Solid Municipal Is ]

, 27; 2007; 961 27; 2007;

iity f niomn ad ae, at Mngmn and Management Waste Water, and Environment of Ministry Waste Management Research I.,

E [

ulc laig Association Cleaning Public vrnetl seset f uiia Wse Management Waste Municipal of Assessment nvironmental and –

eald ie yl Assessments Cycle Life Detailed ashl, M. Hauschild, . .

Budapest The Internati oeln o evrnetl mat o sld waste solid of impacts environmental of Modelling – ei ie mncpl at mngmn i te Czech the in management waste municipal Mixed - yl aayi porm EASEWASTE program analysis cycle 970 40:926 [ eea qetos n picpe o te waste the of principles and questions General

f h pbi srie companies] service public the of 322

- 943. a közszolgáltatók szemszögéből [ szemszögéből közszolgáltatók a

onal Journal of Life Cycle Life onal Journalof Assessment Z. 2011. Normalization in EDIP97 and and EDIP97 in Normalization 2011. Z.

2006; 24; 3 24; 2006; . 2003. ].

Bhander, G.S., Hauschild Hauschild G.S., Bhander,

A - uoen Commission European 15

hulladékgazdálkodás

öltségviszonyai, a a öltségviszonyai,

iity of Ministry The main The

Waste

and . -

CEU eTD Collection 2001 P., Hindle, and M., Franke, P., White, F., McDougall, D.L. McCleese, H. Scharff T.H., Christensen S., Manfredi A., Niskanen, S., Manfredi, Cycle Life a in Landfilling Waste Solid of Assessment Environmental 2009. S. Manfredi _____ Magyar (HungarianInstitution) Szabványügyi Testület Standards M.L. MacDonald 1985 G. Sundström, and M.P. Lundholm, R., Linzner L emming G. 2010. G. emming _ _ 05. S 21420 MSZ 2005b. KIB 0 Novemb http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=0632058897 UK.ISBN Inventory. Cycle Life a Management: Cycleof Life Assessment. vehicles. combustion internal and electric for assessment and Research low of 2 1588 LCA of means by (Finland) landfill Ämmässuo Old the at options management gas of assessment Technical 2009. June Thesis PhD UniversityDepartment Denmark Engineering of Environmental EASEWASTE) model (LCA Perspective of determination sample, of Preparation material bythe selectioncategori composition of material wastes. municipal of Investigation wastes.Sampling standard ofwastes on Characterization Part J environmental profile, ABTetra Pak, Malmö,Sweden non and refillable and carton Brik andsituation perspectives 200 Environmental of Engineering TechnicalDenmark University of Department 2010 September Thesis PhD perspective. cycle ournal 009.06.003. 2004. – 1594. -

rai wse adil i a life a in landfills waste organic

of Solid Waste of Solid andManagement, Technology and er 2010)

Municipal solid waste management in the City of Belgrade of City the in management waste solid Municipal 19

Environmental assessment of contaminated sit contaminated of assessment Environmental

96. Solid waste management models: a state of the art review. review. art the of state a models: management waste Solid 96. LaPuma, P.T. 2002. Using Monte Carlo simulation in life cycle cycle life in simulation Carlo Monte Using 2002. P.T. LaPuma, at Mngmn, 29 Management, Waste , 28(2), 130 , 28(2),

- oeig (EASEWASTE)” modeling and - 9 tnad n hrceiain f ats at 29: Part wastes of Characterization on standard 29 - Christe 7, 230 140, DOI: 10.1177/0734242X09104127 4, Master Thesis, Vienna - sn T H 2009. H. T. nsen, 236. . and 323 R - esource and environmental impact of Tetra of impact environmental and esource eilbe ls bottles. glass refillable

Jacobs J. 2010. Environmental assessment Environmental 2010. J. Jacobs

Published by Blackwell Science, Oxford, Science, Blackwell by Published 9, 2601 (9), - yl perspective. cycle 28: Investigation28: of municipal

at Management Waste - 62 doi:10.1016/j.wasman. 2602.

Erratum to “Environmental “Environmental to Erratum

23 no2,73

. nertd Solid Integrated

es 2005a. MSZ 21420

e remediation in a life life a in remediation e International Journal International

Waste Management Management Waste Tetra Brik Aseptic Aseptic Brik Tetra

83.

- 632 ctd 20 (cited

9 (2009) 29 - – 05889

Current Current

Waste - 28 - 7.

CEU eTD Collection d for tools analysis systems Environmental 2006. A. Moberg Ju Miliute Jura Miliūtė of Ministry 2006. Water. and Environment of Ministry M. Miles, ______engin Chief 2008. G., Mile, A Larsen H., Merrild waste of assessment cycle Life 2008. H. T. Christensen, and A., Damgaard, H., Merrild, Mecsek Dráva M., Franke, P., White, F., McDougall, 2012. Chief engin Chief 2012. Technology Department of Urban Planning and Environment Environmental Environmental Environment and Strategies Stockholm Research. Planning Urban of Department Technology thesis. Licentiate example. an as management waste Swedish case the Lithuania. systems: management waste municipal of optimisation in assessment Institute. Energy Sciences, Lithuanian Technological Engineering Dissertation. Technology, Doctoral Of of Summary University Kaunas model. Draft 2011. fee product Budapest environmental the for recommendations modifying hatás javaslatának módosítási waste 2007 stratégiája fejlesztési source 2012 June December 2008 efficient of importance The energy distances. recovery and transport waste: municipal in materials key of incineration 52 (12), 1391 incineration. and recycling assessing in boundaries system and data technology of importance The management: paper Science inventory, cycle life a management:

ae n Saiks ugs aiirs 20. plcto o life of Application 2009. Kazimieras. Jurgis Staniskis and rate . ad uemn A. Huberman, and B., te. 2009. Integrated municipal waste management waste municipal Integrated 2009. te. ua Dvlpet 2011. Development. Rural waste management system book

. 22 June 22 June

Waste Management - . 2nd. Beverly Sage Publications. . 2nd.Hills: 2016

(04T) 2009, Kaunas(04T) 2009, –

1 W., . 398.

]

e 14 2011. er of the Pusztazámor landfill site, personal communication 4 communication personal site, landfill Pusztazámor the of er

and

e November 2006 2007 r f h Pstzmr adil ie ofca itriw 5 interview official site, landfill Pusztazámor the of er

hitne T Christensen

- 2016 M. 1994. 1994. M. and - isáaa Tervezet vizsgálata

kryztéem trédjó sóó törvény szóló termékdíjról környezetvédelmi A . 2005.

and [ 324 eeomn srtg o te uiia solid municipal the of strategy Development

Research Research

tlpls siád hulladékgazd szilárd települési A

ide P 2003. P. Hindle, . dto, . rn, onal Blackwell Cornwall, print, 3. edition, 2. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded expanded an analysis: data Qualitative

. Resources, Conservation and Recycling and Conservation Resources, Feasibility 2005 15June Study, Waste Management H. 2012. Assessing recycling versus versus recycling Assessing 2012. H. 2 June 2009 2 June

[ mat seset f the of assessment Impact ecision -

System decision support support decision System Integrated solid waste waste solid Integrated

2012. -

making, LCA and and LCA making, Royal Institute of Institute Royal Environmental Environmental

álkodás álkodás - cycle ] , CEU eTD Collection Life Molnár T. Molnár and R. Sándor 2012 L. Sámson C. Riber, A. Raymer, Profu. D. Rowe and B. Platt T., Rydberg O., Jolliet E., Lindeijer G., Finnveden J., Potting D.W., Pennington M. Patton, Ü., Yetis D., Özeler 3. 2012.version (OGyHT) Terv Hasznosítási és Gyűjtési Országos ______Olgyay Communication National disposal by impacts Environmental 1995. C. Mølgaard, _____ 2004. - zb, . 21a Ha o te niomna Dprmn, K Zt personal Zrt. FKF Department, Environmental the of Head 2012a. A., Szabó, 2012c. Head of the Environmental Department, FKF Zrt. personal personal Zrt. FKF Department, Environmental personal the Zrt. of FKF Head Department, 2012c. Environmental the of Head 2012b. Bay communication 04 life a ResearchWasteManagement and in incineration waste of assessment differentwood energy. of kinds from an 18th Street, 20009April NWWashington, DC 2002 assessment impact Current 2: Part assessment practice cycle Life 2004. G. Rebitzer California: Sage Publications. 2006. study case Ankara methods: management waste Ügynökség Utili and communication 31May2012 communication 22May2012 communication 17April 2012 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/hun_nc5.pdf waste. Badr GS, ashl, . and M. Hauschild, G.S., Bhander, ,

K. . 1990. Q. - Logi Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method method recovery energy and treatment as incineration waste Evaluating

405

P. 2006. P. Resour

environmental point ofview. environmental point Environment Int z to Plan ation – .

–

411

and and

2002. 2002. ce ietr f h Bdps Waste Budapest the of Director ulttv evalu Qualitative

eatet f niomna mngmn ad Logistic and management Environmental of Department A comparison of avoided greenhouse gas emissions when using using when emissions gas greenhouse avoided of comparison A

Conserv - eie GN 20. ie yl asset f uiia solid municipal of assesment cycle Life 2005. G.N. Demirer

5th National Communication to the UNFCCC Hungary 2009 2009 Hungary UNFCCC the to Communication National 5th June June Reduce, Reuse, Refill! Reuse, Reduce, ]

Budapest, 2012. ernational ernational ation and ation

- cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel products products diesel and gasoline of assessment cycle Biomass andBioenergy, to ad eerh methods research and ation , 26,96 4 May May 4 325 Recycl 30 (2004) 721

Mölndal, Sweden.

hitne, T. Christensen, - ing

02 rzgs Hulladékgazdálkodási Országos 2012 103. Institute for Local Self Local for Institute - ., cycle

15, 51 15,

of plas of – - International Environment

esetv (EASEWASTE). perspective

739 – - to 63.

. 2008. H. tic from municipal solid municipal from tic -

nry Plant.Personal Energy 30, 605

[ National Collection National .

- Newbury Park, Park, Newbury

617. - Environmental Reliance 2425 2425 Reliance

and

CEU eTD Collection rci, . 2006a. W. Trochim, Denmark. of University Technical ______2 K. Szita K. Szita H. Stranddorf, Steen, B. and S. Ryding, a by assessment 2003.Uncertainty F. Castells, and M. Schuhmacher, G.W., Sonnemann, 2008. LarsenH. andF.M. Andersen Villanueva,A., N., Hedal,Skovgaard,M., _ Siklóssy, Holm, H., J., Schmidt, Service Development and Research Seafield ______personal Zrt. FKF advisor, technical today engineer, chief Former 2012. http://www.lcacenter.hu/fileadmin/user_upload/publikaciok/B._Sandor_Renata_ http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb modelling ofso presentationLCAconference VI. Miskolc07. kuselemzese.pdf http://www.lcacenter.hu/fileadmin/user_upload/publikaciok/A_polisztirol_eletci Ministry Copenhagen, ofthe Environment, Denmark LCA News in Environmental weighting and of normalization valuation and evaluation design. for product Reportin B 1080) in principles impact environmental accounting environment a by produced electricity of waste incinerator. inventory cycle life a in simulation Carlo Monte wastegreenhouse management andgases. communication 31.May2012. communication 17February 2012. 27, 1519 paper. waste on study case Danish A hierarchy. waste the UK September _M._Sipos_Timea/Benzin_es_dizel_termekek_eletciklus_elemzese.pdf

012 M . 20 T. . 2 . . n Saó B. Szabó and T. http://www.srds.ndirect.co.uk/sustaina.htm .

e 012a. Former chief engineer, today technical advisor, FKF Zrt. personal Zrt. FKF advisor, technical today engineer, chief Former 012a.

0 Fntrhtsg eezsk [ elemzések Fenntarthatósági 10. - mail commu – . Hfmn, L., Hoffmann, K., 1530 2012)

P., Merrild, A. and A. Merrild, P.,

lid waste systems, wastelid course, PhD

(cited 23

. 1992. Journal of Cleaner of Production, Journal ni No. 78. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish Agency, Protection Environmental Danish 78. No. cation 14 The EPSenviron

September 2008. EASEWASTE model, Life Cycle Assesment Assesment Cycle Life model, EASEWASTE 2008. . ie yl assmn o te polystirol the of assessment cycle Life P.

and September

Christensen, P. 2007: Life cycle assessment of of assessment cycle Life 2007: P. Christensen, 326

, 9 s, nrdcin o Evaluation. to Introduction Schmidt 212)

- .[ 11 Seafield Terr, Portsoy AB45 2QB, 2QB, AB45 Portsoy Terr, Seafield 11

utial evaluations Sustainable – ETC/RWM workingETC/RWM 20 paper - cited

accounting method. An application ofaccounting application method. An 2012

pae n eetd EDIP97 selected on update

A 20. mat Categories, Impact 2005. A. , 12.

V, tchl, wdn (IVL Sweden Stockholm, IVL,

16 (cited (cited

2010. August 2 11, 279 22 June 2008 22 June

12 May 2009

- 292. 012]

Waste Management, Waste

]

)

power point point power

Municipal

(cited 23 (cited 08/1. - data.

CEU eTD Collection 2011. O. Vámosi Framewo Nations United Manual User 2002. (USEPA). Agency Protection Environmental US Assembly General Nations United Goedkoop, G., Finnveden, H.A., Haes, de Udo H. Haes, de Udo 1996. ed. H.A. Haes, de Udo Tyskeng S., P. M. Bates, and S. P. Phillips, M., Tonglet, ______2 nlss f h dikn pcaig o dtriig h pout e amount. fee product the determining for Summary packaging drinking the of analysis [ összefoglaló megha mértékének termékdíj a elemzése környezetközpontú http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php Denmark Documentedition, EPA n.530 Gases. Greenhouse 02 2009 on: Retrieved 2005. September 15 on Assembly General the by adopted Press,Florida Pensacola, 2002. O., Jolliet, E., Lindeijer, Mueller W., Krewitt, W., Klöpffer, O., Jolliet, P., Hofstetter, International Journal ofLife life on group working in indicators R. Wenk, SETAC Asce /August 2010 Incineration Waste and Recycling of to compared minimization waste recycling. behaviour: environmental pro householder http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ 00 - 17. 6b. and .

ie yl Ipc Assmn: tiig oad bs pr best towards Striving Assessment: Impact cycle Life 2012 - - 2010 G., Finnveden

ek R, le, S Olsen, R., Wenk, Europe, Brussels,Europe, Belgium A., Jolliet , O., Finnveden, G., Hauschild G., Finnveden, O., , Jolliet A.,

]

1999. emkí tréy s uldkadloái célok hulladékgazdálkodási és törvény Termékdíj Resources, pow .

life cycle impact assessment.Background document for the second the for document assessment.Background impact cycle life April. Documentation. EASEWASTE, Technical University of of University Technical EASEWASTE, Documentation. April. Product fee law and waste management objectives. management waste and law fee Product er pointpresentationApril2011.

Best available practice regarding impact categories and category category andcategories impact regardingpractice available Best eerh ehd Knowledge Methods Research

Life A Conservation andRecycling, Conservation Towards a me a Towards k ovnin n lmt Change Climate on Convention rk - yl ipc assmn o STC uoe (WIA Europe SETAC of assessment impact cycle

- . 2005

yl Assmn o Eisos n Sns second Sinks, and Emissions of Assessment Cycle - Comparing Energy Use and Environmental Impacts Environmental and EnergyUse Comparing , enntn D, otn, . and J. Potting, D., Pennington, ., cycle assessment, - R . -

02 327 ol Smi Outcome. Summit World

- thodology for life cycle impact assessment. impact cycle life for thodology 006.

Journal Of Environmental Engineering Environmental Of Journal . [c May 2002. 2004 M., Hauschild, M., Hertwich, E., E., Hertwich, M., Hauschild, M., ited 4, 66 4,

Solid Waste Management and and Management Waste Solid 10 eemnn te rvr for drivers the Determining

, M., , 42, 27

- August

74 and 4,167

Krewitt, W and Müller and W Krewitt, – 48.

[c 2012] eouin A/60/1, Resolution .

ited

áoáa céljából, tározása

Italcsomagolások te, . (eds.). B. Steen, actice.

Environmental Environmental

1 - 174. 7 July .

SETAC 2012] 2012 Base -

2). © - -

. .

CEU eTD Collection En on Commission World Resources and Water David C. Wilson Publ 1993. Femers. Susanne and Peter M. Wiedemann Alting L. and Hauschild M. H., Wenzel, ManagementWaste 2000,Actonwaste Act XLIIIof 2000 Wenz and A., Villanueva, United Nations, UniversityKingdom Oxford United Press, the UK recycling sector. materi key for comparisons cycle life of review international An recycling: Incities. of HazardousMaterials, decision management development product in studies AcademicUSA Publishers,Hingham, MA. case and tools Methodology, vol.1: 27(8), S29 e of review A landfilling?

Waste Management t al. et – S46. cin rgam (RP. 2006. (WRAP). Programme Action

2012. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 20 in management waste solid of analysis Comparative 2012.

iomn ad Development and vironment l H 2007. H. el, - aig Aayi ad aaeet f conflicts, of management and Analysis making:

Final U.K. Rep., Oxon, 33 (1993) 355 itn lf cce assessments. cycle life xisting an d .

Research 328 1997. ae waste Paper

- 368.

Environmental assessment of products, products, of assessment Environmental

30(3) 237 30(3)

. — management 1987. eyln, nieain or incineration Recycling, – c atcpto i waste in participation ic niomna bnft of benefits Environmental 254

u Cmo Future. Common Our

at Management, Waste

. Kluwer Kluwer . Journal als in als CEU eTD Collection landfill site and thePusztazámor waste Budapest fromthe data 1:Received Annex 14 Leachate production Gas production Year density Landfill height Landfill Composting Biogas energy Biogas production Methane content Budapest data landfill energy Bought electricity total) (from Electricity Total produced heat energy CO2 SO2 Nox dust pollutants Air Wastewater Bought water Fuel NaOH HCL Carbamid coal Active powder Lime Smoke cleaning additional materials: Metal waste residue cleaning Smoke Slag amount waste Incinerated Budapest incinerator data

Annexes

t/m3 m (kWh/m3) (Nm3/h) (CH4 %) MWh MWh GJ kg t t kg m3 m3 t kg kg t t t t t t t unit 2001

they measure only the amount, oxygen and temperature amount, the oxygen only measure they 2718960 312695 169866 380199 277228 816845 199480 605754 407904 12563 96702 37-41 55-58 1.347 51.06 2002 2584 4817 2009 417 328 929 611 5.7 87 9010 2003 12210 2004

14700 329 2005

30100 2006 22700 2007 - to 2228000 23900 - 2008 energy treatment pland pland treatment energy 1449000 26900 2009 3690000 29600 2010 2011

CEU eTD Collection Budapest and ofAarhus case in theincinerator for 2:Thedata Annex TMT15 kg unit/ton, kg unit/ton, FeCL, kWh unit/ton, quality, coal, energy production, fuel production in Marginal electricity kg CaCO3unit/ton, terminated, Incineration Hydrogen chloryde, HCL,kg Hydrogen chloryde, unit/ton, (2,3,7,8- Dioxin TCDD kg TEQ), unit/ton, kg unit/ton, particles, Unspecifides kg SO2, unit/ton, dioxide, Sulphur kg CO, Carbon unit/ton, Monoxide, kg unit/ton, NOx, Oxides, Nitrogen kg HF, unit/ton, Hydrogen fluoride, air Output- emissions Marginal kWh, heat produced at% coal quality, CHP, energy kWh, % quality, coal, energy production, fuel production incl. Marginal electricity kg unit/ton, NH3, Ammonia terminated kg NaOH, unit/ton, hydroxide, Sodyum EUkg (Heavy), (prod+comb)unit/ton, Oil Fuel kg unit/ton, Polymers, 330

3.40E-10 Aarhus 0.0037 6,2E-5 0.017 0.066 0.421 0.003 0.03 20,7 1.48 0.66 0.03 0.04 65,7 7.85 1,3 74 Budapest 1.27E-11 7,7E-5 0.046 0.082 0,803 0.421 0.003 0.03 0.21 1.84 0,63 0.03 0.04 11,8

6,3 74 62

Ecotoxicity in Water, in Chronic Ecotoxicity (EDIP97): [PE] Low (EDIP97): Formation, NOx Ozone [PE] Photochemical Enrichment (EDIP97): Nutrient [PE] [PE] (EDIP): Soil in Ecotoxicity Stored (EDIP97):High Formation, NOx Ozone [PE] Photochemical (EDIP97): Soil Humanvia [PE] Toxicity Water in [PE] Ecotoxicity Stored (EDIP): (EDIP97): [PE] Acidification (EDIP97):Air Humanvia [PE] Toxicity (EDIP97): [PE] Depletion Stratospheric Ozone (EDIP97): Soil [PE] in Ecotoxicity Groundwater [PE] Resources: Spoiled WarmingGlobal 100 Years (EDIP97): [PE] WaterHumanvia (EDIP97):Toxicity [PE] [PE] - Aggregated: Depletion Resource Ecotoxicity in Water, in Chronic Ecotoxicity (EDIP97): [PE] Low (EDIP97): Formation, NOx Ozone [PE] Photochemical Enrichment (EDIP97): Nutrient [PE] [PE] (EDIP): Soil in Ecotoxicity Stored (EDIP97):High Formation, NOx Ozone [PE] Photochemical (EDIP97): Soil Humanvia [PE] Toxicity Water in [PE] Ecotoxicity Stored (EDIP): (EDIP97): [PE] Acidification (EDIP97):Air Humanvia [PE] Toxicity (EDIP97): [PE] Depletion Stratospheric Ozone (EDIP97): Soil [PE] in Ecotoxicity Groundwater [PE] Resources: Spoiled WarmingGlobal 100 Years (EDIP97): [PE] WaterHumanvia (EDIP97):Toxicity [PE] [PE] - Aggregated: Depletion Resource Annex

3: Environmental impact results of the model for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 2010, 2009, model 2008, for of the results impact 3: Environmental

CEU eTD Collection January January 14 099.40 21 226,14 10 724,35 -1 897.26 -1 998,05 1 988.69 3 744.55 9 675.63 1 908,17 4 317,29 182.45 865.58 218.40 329.76 277.73 594.27 160.72 168,81 864,39 201,08 316,24 214,58 617,05 155,24 34.51 31,02 7.95 2.09 8,51 2,20 February February 12 737.17 21 190,06 10 706,12 -1 713.95 -1 917,31 1 796.55 3 382.77 8 740.80 2 228,85 4 309,95 164.83 781.95 197.30 297.90 250.90 536.86 145.19 199,15 956,97 238,55 364,33 306,98 616,98 159,66 31.17 40,52 7.18 1.89 8,57 2,21 March March 16 728.46 11 479.80 22 388,13 11 311,44 -2 251.03 -2 025,71 2 359.52 1 026.98 4 442.79 2 354,87 1 011,08 4 553,63 216.48 259.13 391.25 329.52 705.09 190.68 210,41 252,04 384,93 324,33 651,87 168,69 40.94 42,81 9.43 2.48 9,05 2,33 April April 18 548.71 12 776.79 26 097,84 13 185,74 -2 587.07 -2 361,37 2 243.64 1 027.14 4 925.98 2 745,07 1 178,61 5 308,16 205.17 244.19 378.10 255.17 786.38 198.56 245,27 293,80 448,71 378,07 759,88 196,64 10.38 35.04 10,55 49,91 2.75 2,72 3 May May 31

17 149.21 11 812.78 25 570,97 12 919,54 -2 306.53 -2 313,71 2 431.76 1 053.41 4 554.31 2 689,56 1 154,80 5 201,00 223.48 267.48 403.23 338.27 728.13 188.74 240,31 287,86 439,65 370,43 744,54 192,67 42.94 10,34 48,90 9.68 2.57 2,67 June June 17 618.95 12 090.90 25 340,02 12 802,86 -2 370.85 -2 292,80 2 485.14 1 081.65 4 679.29 2 665,36 1 144,39 5 154,03 228.00 272.92 412.08 347.06 742.62 200.84 238,15 285,27 435,68 367,10 737,81 190,93 43.12 10,25 48,46 9.93 2.62 2,64 2009 2008 July July 19 755.07 13 556.79 28 010,43 14 152,06 -2 658.30 -2 534,43 2 786.41 1 212.78 5 246.60 2 946,24 1 264,98 5 697,17 255.64 306.01 462.04 389.13 832.65 225.18 263,25 315,33 481,60 405,78 815,57 211,05 11.14 48.35 11,33 53,56 2.93 2,92 August August August August -

tables 17 412.23 11 949.03 24 091,42 12 172,01 -2 343.04 -2 179,36 2 455.96 1 068.95 4 624.38 2 537,76 1 088,78 4 900,07 225.32 269.72 407.24 342.98 733.91 198.48 226,70 271,56 414,60 349,57 701,46 181,55 42.61 46,13 9.81 2.59 9,74 2,51 September September

18 429.93 25 895,75 13 083,64 -2 479.98 -2 343,09 2 599.51 1 131.43 4 894.67 2 723,81 1 169,48 5 267,06 238.49 285.49 431.05 363.03 776.80 210.08 243,37 291,53 445,24 375,15 754,00 195,11 10.39 45.10 10,47 49,52 2.74 2,70 October October 17 995.29 12 349.15 26 379,31 13 327,95 -2 421.50 -2 386,84 2 538.20 1 104.75 4 779.23 2 774,67 1 191,32 5 365,41 232.87 278.75 420.88 354.47 758.48 205.13 247,92 296,97 453,55 382,15 768,08 198,76 10.14 44.04 10,67 50,44 2.67 2,75 November November 19 346.93 13 276.71 24 127,51 12 190,24 -2 603.38 -2 183,09 2 728.85 1 187.73 5 138.20 2 537,82 1 089,63 4 907,41 250.36 299.69 452.49 381.09 815.45 220.53 226,75 271,62 414,84 349,53 702,51 181,79 10.91 47.35 46,14 2.87 9,76 2,52 December December 16 405.13 11 257.92 23 304,73 11 774,54 -2 207.52 -2 108,69 2 313.91 1 007.13 4 356.92 2 450,95 1 052,40 4 740,06 212.29 254.12 383.69 323.15 691.46 187.00 219,00 262,33 400,66 337,56 678,55 175,59 40.15 44,56 9.25 2.44 9,42 2,43

CEU eTD Collection January 13 879,63 -1 968,66 1 891,75 2 122,44 9 099,60 January 174,07 820,00 208,31 313,99 261,73 568,69 137,41 32,73 7,45 2,00 February -2 021,50 1 992,14 1 772,99 9 997,83 9 573,06 187,18 870,04 223,81 339,75 275,79 633,94 149,09 35,81 8,04 2,20 12 318,38 -1 805,56 1 434,61 1 883,70 8 076,04 131,39 656,82 156,35 241,99 162,31 503,98 118,42 21,84 February 6,56 1,76 March -1 815,35 1 478,29 1 539,50 8 681,23 8 312,40 138,76 682,44 164,98 257,26 167,44 549,69 125,82 23,68 18 845,74 12 355,43 -2 762,30 2 194,79 1 004,86 2 881,85 6,92 1,90 201,01 239,21 370,21 248,32 771,04 181,17 10,04 33,41 2,69 March April 12 209,88 11 691,13 -2 553,23 2 079,17 2 165,26 17 937,78 11 760,16 -2 629,22 195,16 959,83 232,04 361,82 235,51 773,12 176,96 2 089,05 2 743,01 33,30 191,32 956,45 227,68 352,38 236,35 733,89 172,44 9,74 2,67 31,80 9,55 2,56 332 April May

20 185,53 13 233,81 -2 958,68 12 862,49 12 316,01 -2 689,69 2 350,82 1 076,30 3 086,73 2 190,30 1 011,14 2 281,00 215,30 256,21 396,53 265,97 825,86 194,05 205,59 244,45 381,16 248,09 814,45 186,42 10,75 35,79 10,26 35,08 2,88 2,81 June May 21 420,14 14 043,23 -3 139,64 2 494,60 1 142,13 3 275,52 228,47 271,88 420,79 282,24 876,37 205,92 13 401,27 12 831,90 -2 802,36 11,41 37,97 2 282,05 1 053,49 2 376,54 3,06 214,20 254,69 397,13 258,48 848,56 194,23 2010 10,69 36,55 2,93 July 2011 June 20 052,66 13 146,70 -2 939,20 2 335,35 1 069,22 3 066,41 213,88 254,52 393,92 264,22 820,42 192,77 10,68 35,55 2,86 13 139,46 12 581,22 -2 747,61 2 237,47 1 032,91 2 330,11 210,01 249,71 389,37 253,44 831,98 190,43 August August 10,48 35,84 2,87 19 975,15 13 095,88 July -2 927,84 2 326,32 1 065,09 3 054,56 213,05 253,54 392,40 263,20 817,25 192,03 10,64 35,41 2,85 13 435,42 12 864,60 -2 809,50 2 287,86 1 056,17 2 382,60 September 214,74 255,34 398,14 259,14 850,72 194,72 10,72 36,64 2,93 20 130,17 13 197,51 -2 950,56 2 344,37 1 073,35 3 078,26 August August 214,71 255,51 395,45 265,24 823,59 193,52 10,72 35,69 2,87 October 14 270,15 13 663,87 -2 984,05 2 430,01 1 121,79 2 530,63 228,09 271,20 422,87 275,24 903,58 206,82 11,38 38,92 3,12 18 674,11 12 242,91 -2 737,14 2 174,80 2 855,61 199,18 995,71 237,03 366,84 246,06 764,02 179,52 33,11 9,95 2,67 September November 12 558,95 12 025,37 -2 626,22 2 138,61 2 227,17 200,74 987,27 238,68 372,17 242,24 795,23 182,02 19 122,55 12 536,91 -2 802,87 10,02 34,25 2 227,03 1 019,62 2 924,18 2,74 203,96 242,72 375,65 251,96 782,37 183,83 10,18 33,90 2,73 October December 12 596,89 12 061,70 -2 634,15 15 241,57 2 145,07 2 233,90 -2 234,02 1 775,04 2 330,71 9 992,51 201,34 990,26 239,40 373,29 242,97 797,63 182,57 162,57 812,69 193,46 299,41 200,83 623,58 146,52 10,05 34,36 27,02 2,75 8,12 2,18

CEU eTD Collection graphs model run LCA ofthe 4:Results Annex

333

for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and 2010 2008, 2009, for

–

CEU eTD Collection

334

CEU eTD Collection

335

CEU eTD Collection

336

CEU eTD Collection 2011 2010 and Annex

5: Waste amounts and fuel consumption in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2008, 2007, in2006, consumption andfuel amounts 5: Waste

337

CEU eTD Collection Source: Eurostat Annex

Recycling rates in some countries between 2001 between countries insome rates Recycling

338

- 2010 kg/capita,

CEU eTD Collection

December Annex

7: Waste amount, distances and fuel consumption in 2008 January January 2008 in consumption fuel and distances amount, 7: Waste

339

CEU eTD Collection on: DF Based updated. as regarded be can it http://ww so 14.06.2012, on made was list This Budapest Annex I. District II.

No.

23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 12 11 10 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 8: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 w.fkf.hu/portal/pls/portal/!PORTAL.wwpob_page.show?_docname=2538191.P Törökvész út 86-tal szemben, parkolóban út Törökvész 86-tal szemben, út Törökvész 65. út Törökvész 23. út Törökvész 143/a út sarok- Nagybányai út utcatorkolata Temető - Hidegkúti fasor 129.Erzsébet Szilágyi - Lotz K. utca út 155.Szépvölgyi előtt út 38-cal szemben Szemlőhegyi utcaszemben Szakadék 4-gyel utca Rómer Flóris 6-tal szemben Rodostó utca 4. előtt szemben út 18/a,b-vel Pusztaszeri Páfrány utca 17-tel szemben Ördögárok utca utca- Csatlós út utca- Csalán Nagybányai Nagy tér Imre 3. utca út - Sólyomvölgy Máriaremetei oldal) út János utca- Hunyadi Máriaremetei sarok (szemközti utca Községház utca- Sóvirág sarok utcaKővári sarok Lajos utcaKossuth 17. sarok Waldorf iskola Kacsa utca - Gyorskocsi utca 33. oldal másik út 57Hűvösvölgyi 38/A,B,Cés között út - Sodrás utca Hűvösvölgyi szemben buszvégállomással út - régi Hűvösvölgyi út 306-talHidegkúti szemben út 140. Hidegkúti szélén parkoló előtt, kapu előtt utcaszemben, Hideg 2/B-vel Hidász utca út sarok- Pasaréti Hermann Ottó utca 15-17. útnál) utcaIstván Heinrich (Hűvösvölgyi út előtt Hárshegyi 3, iskola Leó utca Frankel 54. Leó út - ÜrömiFrankel utca út - Marczibányi tér Felvinci út 3/A Zöldmáli Felső utcaIstván 11. Fekete utca Antal - Szerb Erőd utca 2. Endrődi Sándor utca - Gábor Áron utca - Gábor Áron köz előtt utcai gyermekotthon Cseppkő Csatárka oldal másik utca 21-gyel szemben, út - LabancBudakeszi út csatlakozásánál előtt Szabó Battai Lőrinc lépcső isk. ált. út 51.Somlói elé támfal Sánc utca - Mihály utca tér Naphegy Mészáros utca 56/B utca - Zsolt utcaLogodi Lánchíd utcai - Öntőház parkoló utca út között (járda) krt. - Attila Krisztina körút - Mikó Krisztina utca Tádé utca, Kosciuszkó CBA áruház mellett utca - Orvos lépcső Gellérthegy Fortuna parkoló köz másik utcaCsalogány – Málna utca Address

Location of all of the waste islands and the 12 waste yardsin 12waste andthe islands all ofthewaste of Location 340 III. District

No. 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Zsirai Miklós utcaMiklós Zsirai 3. Záporelőtt utcai iskola Zab utca 3. szemben a parkolóval út SZTKVörösvári utca 2. Vizimolnár utca Vihar az (járda és között) 6.úttest számmal szemben utca 10.Veder u. sarok a sz. (Vihar végébe) parkoló utca Szőlő 72-78. parkoló számmal szembeni utca Szőlő 2-4.utca) (Viador utca mögött) (CBA utca Szőlő - Kiscelli út 41-43.Szépvölgyi előtt út 28-30. mögött) Szentendrei (Profi út előtt 2. (gyógyszertár) Szentendrei út 13. 17.és Szentendrei között Római tér parkoló út a18-cal BÉE szemben, előtt Remetehegyi út óvoda közötti utcaés –Pünkösdfürdő iskola Medgyesi oldal utcautca felőli - Napfény - Királyok Pünkösdfürdő parkolóban) mellett utcai iskola tér (Szérűskert Ferenc Pethe Perc utca, a PLUS áruház parkolójában utcai Dezső iskolánál Pais Orbán Balázs út 35.(garázssor előtt) utca 2.Nagymihály Matróz utca 8. bazársorMadzsar előtt utca buszmegálló HÉVJózsef lejáró, Madzsar utca 9-11.József Lukács György utca 5. utca 4.Lángliliom Lajos utca 105. mögött Lajos utca utca - Tél u. - Búza u. sarok Köles áruháza járdánPlus mögötti útja 192.Királyok utcamellett Kelta bölcsöde Jutas utca 89. út - Ürömhegyi Gyula Juhász utca 8. Jós utca 2-16. út Huszti - Búza utca sarok (körforgalom) Hunoru. sarok) utca 6/a.(Hévizi sz. előtt Hunor utca járdán) utca- Körte mögötti sarkán (iskola Lajos utcaKorvin Hollós 6. út - Meggyfa utcaHévizi sarok Hatvany behajtója) Lajos utca (gimnázium Hadrianus utca szemben 5-tel Gyógyszergyár utca, előtt a Krúdy iskola utcaFöld - Teszársz utcaKároly utcaEzüsthegy 28. utca Erdőalja utca - Remetehegyi Erdőalja út 136. buszforduló utcaDoberdó 2. utca) 4.és között (Kecske előtt Csobánka rendelő tér, Búza utca 10. Búza utca utca- Kazal sarok út Bogdáni 4. út Bécsi 229. út Bécsi 136. út Sándor Bécsi - Kocsis út sarok Bárczymellett) Gézakerítése utca (iskola Óbuda Auchan - Aquincum Arató tér Emil Address

CEU eTD Collection

VII. VII. VI. V. IV. District No. 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Városligeti fasor 39-43.Városligeti szervízút Dob utca 35. utca Podmaniczky 99. előtt utca Podmaniczky 113-mal szemben utca Podmaniczky - Eötvös utca sarok utcahíd Podmaniczky - Ferdinánd tér Hunyadi Hivatal Főpolgármesteri tér Erzsébet tér Hild tér Honvéd utca Virág utca, - Tél sarka parkoló utca parkoló Tulipánkert utcaTél 32. sor, ELMÜSzilaspatak előtt kerítés utca 13-mal Szilágyi szemben szemben László tér 2-vel Szent Rózsa utca 9. mellett szemben) (remízzel út 2/B Pozsonyi mellett Óceánárok utca 19. út Megyeri 210. parkolóban előtt Róza Laborfalvy utca - Hídláb utca út 44. Szilágyi (PLUS Külső parkoló) utcai parkoló mögötti patika Király végénél út - Erdősor út Káposztásmegyeri felőli között) utca Hajló I. Profi és (CBA Káposztásmegyer út utcaSzilágyi - Külső Járműtelep utca Homoktövis utca- Tófalva utca Homoktövis – utca Székpatak utca út - Reviczky sarok Fiumei Farkaserdő utca 21. mellett) utcaErdősor (szervizút út - Sporttelep Rózsa utca Elem utca vége parkoló 1-7. tömb mellett (parkolóban) Dugonics utca 21-gyel szemben mögött) utcaiskola Deák Ferenc (Faipari Bocskai utcatöltésnél) út - Váci (vasúti szemben utca, Autóklubbal Berda József utca utcaBercsényi - Deák Ferenc Baross utca utca- Izzó mellett) sarok (temető Bagaria utca (Gázgyármellett) kerítése Tomori Lipót tér, utcábanAschner Árpád út 149-cel szemben Árpád út 140-nel szemben Árpád út - Rózsa utca oldalán Árpád út - felüljáró Address 341 VIII. District

No. 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Verseny utca 12.Verseny utca Ádám Vay utca - Alföldi út utca-Salgótarjáni Törökbecse utca utcaTisztes - Osztály sarok tér 17-tel szemben Teleki sarok utcaDobozi László tér, felőli Teleki utca Szigony 10. utca 9. Szerdahelyi Százados út utca– Alajos Stróbl utca 7.Alajos Stróbl - Strázsa utca sarok utca 11.Alajos Stróbl utca Stáhly szemben 5-tel tér –Rezső utcaElnök sarok Práter utca 63-mal szemben Práter utcautca - Szigony Orczy út 35-tel szemben utca, Nagyfuvaros előtt az Auróra rendelő utca Nagy Templom 2. Mátyás tér Lujza utca 28. Lokomotív utcamögött) tér - Vagon (a templom köz 46-48.Leonardo da Vinci pápaJános Pál II. tér - Luther utcaszemben 4-gyel előtt utca, betonfal Kőris szürke Sándor Korányi utcautca Sámuel 19.7. - Diószeghy sarok Sándor Korányi utca 14-gyel szemben tér 8-9.Kálvária utca 20-szalJózsef szemben utca, Jázmin trafó előtt utca 6-10.Illés - Tömő utcautca szemben 32-vel sarok Illés Hungária krt. 12-14. előtt Hős utca 9. (MOLállomás) üzemanyagtöltő Horváth Stáció utcával Kis szemben Mihály tér, szemben tér 1-gyel Gutenberg utca Golgota tér - Delej utcaElnök 1. számmal szemben Dózsa György szemben út 1-gyel utcaDobozi 49-53-mal szemben utca Sámuel 42.Diószeghy Dankó utca 23. előtt utca, Ciprus társasházzal új szemben utcaCiprus - Százados út Ottó Bláthy utca 18. elé Ottó Bláthy utca Péter - Vajda Baross utca 111/b mögött Sándor utcaAsztalos 7. Sándor utcaAsztalos 16-tal szemben Address

CEU eTD Collection

IX. District No. 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Vágóhíd Vágóhíd utca 31. utca Lenkey sarok Vágóhíd utca 1-3. út 197 szemben Üllői kocsiszín bejáratával - villamos út 185.Üllői a parkolóban előtt, út 155.Üllői utcaTűzoltó 92. előtt Toronyház utca-Lobogó utca sarok szemben Toronyház utca, Csemegével Timót utca 3. előtt mögött utca benzinkút 2.Telepy sz. előtt, Távíró utca 15. Távíró utca Huber utca- Dési - járda Táblás utca 15-tel szemben út Soroksári 44.malom) (Ferencvárosi út Soroksári 108. gyár) előtt (Kemical utcaRéce - Osztag utca utcaút Pöttyös - Üllői tér utca ABC Napfény előtti utca 29-31.Napfény utca 26.Napfény (MOLállomás) üzemanyagtöltő utca 21.sarka parkoló Napfény előtti utcaNádasdy 2. parkoló melletti Profi utca Mihálkovics lakótelep, Mester utca 26. előtt Mester utca - Vágóhíd utca sarok 72. mellett Márton utca sarokutca - Vendel utca 3/aLiliom Toronyház Gyula Szki utcai mellett kerítés Lengyel út – Illatos Gubacsi előtt út sarok, iskola parkoló utca, Csemege Ifjúmunkás Hurok utca 5. utca Hentes 12. autószervíz előtt vége utca Haller út - Soroksári felőli út Gyáli 15/autca között a és Péceli szemben utca, a rendelőintézettel Füleki tér Ferenc utcaEpreserdő 8-cal szemben utcaEpreserdő 37.utca szervízút - Napfény utcaEpreserdő szemben 32-vel szemben utca közérttel Csengettyű Csarnok tér sarok) Csárdás köz (Ifjúmunkás Börzsöny utca 19. Börzsöny utca Huber utca - Dési utca Aszódi 7. mellett utca Aszódi - Ecseri út 19. Address 342 X. District

No. 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Zsombék utcautca Zsombék - Korall sarok Zágrábi utca - Gém utca utca Zágrábi utca- Kálavirág utca sarok - Ceglédi utca 2. Veszprémi utca Vaspálya 18. előtt utcaVásárló út 2/aÚjhegyi 1-3.sétány Újhegyi Tavas utcaszemben 2-vel utcaigazítva 9Szőlőhegy -11. szegélyhez trafónál között, Sörgyár utca - Gitár utca köz Somfa - Balkán utca út Miklós - Mádi Sibrik utca, Mach parkoló szervízút (Hungária krt. Salgótarjáni közelében) Pongrácz út 9., a CBA mögött Pongrácz út köz - Szalonka utcautca Ónodi - Kolozsvári utca szemben 62-vel Noszlopy utcaMélytó - Tóvirág utca között utca) utca, CBA (Szekfűvirág parkoló Medveszőlő 38.MÁV telep mellett Maglódi út 12. utca – Algyógyi utcaLiget 6. utca Lenfonó 16. Lavotta utca 1-7. parkoló Kővágó utca 18-cal szemben Csoma áruház Kőrösi S. út előtt - Penny utcaKőér 5. út 54.Kőbányai út 43/aKőbányai - 43/b között utcaKovakő 21. utca - Dolomit utca Korponai utca- Liget torkolat Kocka utca 7. utca Kismartoni 4. utca út - Váltó Keresztúri út 69. mellett Kerepesi utca 16. a sarkában parkoló Kéknyelű előtt, utcaKápolna utca - Vaspálya óvoda mellett Kada köz 1 - Harmat utca sarok út 85. Jászberényi út 109.Jászberényi utca út - Köszméte Jászberényi bejáró Ihász köz 2. melletti Hős utca 17. Hortobágyi utca - Rákos patak Hatház utcaszemben 2-vel Harmat utca 160-nal szemben Harmatutca Szőlővirág 8. utca sétány, mellett - Újhegyi Hangár utca 69-cel szemben Halom utca 31. otthona mellett mögött, idősek utca) garázssornál utca(Csilla vége, Gyöngyike Gyakorló utca 36-38-cal szemben Gyakorló utca sarka parkoló 11/A előtti Gőzmozdony utcaszemben 2-vel Gép utca - Luca köz utca utcaFagyal sarok mellett - sportpálya - Szegély utcaElőd 10-el szemben utcaDömsödi 29-cel szemben Bodza utca 38-cal szemben Bársonyvirág utca 24-gyel szemben utcaÁszok 5/D. utca 2.Agyagfejtő Address

CEU eTD Collection

XII. XI. District No. 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Zugligeti út 91. Zugligeti út 63. Zugligeti oldala Thomán másik parkoló utcaIstván 11-gyel szemben utca 12/a.Szilassy Szarvas Gábor út út - Zalai Ráth György utca 36. mellett) Diszkont Pagony utca (Plus utca Nógrádi utca - Szendrő út 6 -10.Kútvölgyi út 48/a-val szemben Kútvölgyi út 16.Kútvölgyi út Miklós 29-33.(KFKIThege főbejárat) Konkoly bejárata) központ út Miklós (Szabadidő Thege Konkoly Kázmér utca 21-gyel szemben Karthauzi köz (Match áruház mögött) utcaIgnótus 35-tel szemben Hegyhát út utca- Sötétvágás út utca út Gereben - Vas - Sashegyi Hegyalja Határőr út 17-tel szemben Hangya utca 37. (Csorna utcával szemben) Hadik András utca 23. Győri út Eötvös utca 59. parkoló) (Normafa utca 2/a utcaIllés Edvi (Lidérc sarok) Diósárok utcaparkoló 20/a-val szemközti Csörsz utca 47-tel szemben Bürök utcautca - Ágnes út 4/a.király Béla utca utca - Fegyvernek Vegyész utcaVahot 6. parkoló út - Tomaj út - Kondorosi utca Tétényi köz 1. Tétényi mellett fal út, zajvédő Szerémi sor 10.Szerémi – út Hamzsabégi utca Kristóf Samu - Pecz Szent utca utcaSolt 37-tel szemben út Sasad Rupphegyi Resort, Saru utca 11. Sáfrány utca parkoló Rodostó utca utca - Beregszász szemben Rátz László utca, iskolával út 23. Nándorfejérvári tér - PLUS áruházNagyszeben mellett út utcasarok Mezőkövesd - Fehérvári utca Menyecske 25. Parkja - Költők parkoló mögötti trafónál lépcső, út, Kelenhegyi Ménesi utca Leiningen sor Kővirág - Mustár utca, buszforduló út 37.Kőérberki garázsok előtt lakópark Kőérberki út út 7.sarok Kondorosi (PLUSZ- Fehérvári áruház) utca, Kocsis előtt sportpálya mellett) út L. - Thallóczy utcaépülete (BKV Kelenföldi mögött Harasztos utca, kollégium út Hamzsabégi 55-57. Gazdagréti tér Fraknó utca 32/b. előtt út 161.Fehérvári áruház utcaPlus (Andor sarok) Daróci utcautca 2. - Alsóhegy utca Csukló Csóka utca utcaCirmos utca - Boldizsár torkolata között) út utca- játszótér (piac Bükköny - Fehérvári Bukarest utca 19., végében parkoló mögött) utcakollégium (Schönherz József út - Irinyi Budafoki Brassó út 12 előtt Brassó út - Dayka Gábor utca utca Bikszádi 61. út Bártfai utca - Tétényi Bártfai Lipót utcautca - Fejér Auchan - Savoya Park Andor utca - Rátz László utca Andor utcautca - Albert park 14. Allende - Sáfrány utca 7/A buszvégállomás Address 343 XIII. District

No. 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Visegrádi utca 56.Visegrádi előtt Vágány utca 21. (MOLállomás) üzemanyagtöltő út Váci 132/b utca sarok rakpart - Besssenyei felső Újpesti út sarok út Újpalotai - Szekszárdi út - Váci sarok Turbina (Metró utcaszemben bejárat) 1-gyel Tomori utca 7. Tomori utca 29. Tomori utca - Agyag utca sarok, a piac csücske utca Teve 52. Tatai út 38. Tatai út 120. Taksony utca 7. Tahi utca 48/a (a Tahi köz torkolatában) (a Tahi Tomori utcaköznél) szemben 22-vel Tahi utca - Jász utcaMarket) sarok (Penny Szobor utca 4-8. utca László utca- Szent Szegedi sarok előtt) (CBA utca 9.Süllő F. utca Reitter 103. - Tahi utca utcaaz ORIGO29. Petneházy szemben házzal sz. mellett, Párkány utca (Gyógyszertár mögött) 46-tal szemben Párkány utca 20-szal szemben Párkány utca 10 - Víza utca sarok utcaPannónia 86. Országbíró utca utca szervízút - Dunavirág Népfürdő utca Mura utca út 1.- Váci előtt Madarász utca Viktor 29. utca - Faludi sarok piac - Kassák Lajos utcaLehel torkolat utcaKlapka 14-gyel szemben utca 12.Kerekes Kassák Lajos utca 66. Kárász utca 8. Jász utca 167. előtt Jász utca 108. utca sarok - Keszkenő otthona) (idősek utcaszemben Jakab 2-vel József utca sarokLehel Hun utcaszemben, 2-vel Gyula utcaHegedűs - Dráva utca Hajdú utca 5. Gyutacs utca - Hajdú utca 48. sarok utcaGyöngyösi 11-gyel szemben oldal tér másik Gyermek Göncöl utca 41-43. előtt Göncöl utca 40. utca 1.Gidófalvy utca Faludi 24. út Esztergomi 43. Dagály utca 8. utcaCsizma - Frangepán utca utca Cserhalom - Túróc utca sarok (Marina part) Csángó utca 30 - 36. Bulcsú utca szemben 5-tel Bodor utca 12. utca Béke 129. utca- Gyöngyösi sarok Árva utca 1. Dráva parkolójában utcai Profi Address

CEU eTD Collection

XIV. District No. 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Zsálya utca-nál autca-nál Zsálya utcaTihany 19-cel szemben sarka parkoló előtti iskola Zalán utca vége, Zalán utca - Gvadányi utca utca125.Vezér - Mogyoródi út Csarnok között) út Petőfi és (Hermina körút, parkoló Városligeti Ungvár utca - Rákospatak utca 97. Ungvár utca utca- Fűrész tér Újvidék út - RónaThököly utca út - FranciaThököly út sarkán út - DózsaThököly György út sarok TESCO - Fogarasi utca Tengerszem -Rákospatak utca 100. köz 12.Tengerszem Blanka u. 17- szemben tel Teleki körvasútsor 202-208.Szuglói előtt számú ingatlan körvasútsor 173Szuglói -174 között körvasútsor - Egressy út kereszteződésénél Szuglói utca Szervián 18-20. köz) (Kaffka mellett) út (az autókereskedés út - Kerepesi Szentmihályi a oldalán stadion út 41-gyel szemben Stefánia útja Róna utca királyné - Erzsébet Rákospatak utca 77. út Rákospatak kereszteződésénél) u. (Csömöri 13-27-tel szemben utca LIDL Pillangó TESCOés áruházak között park 7-9. Pillangó út utca - Kerepesi Ötvenes tér utcánál) 1-3.Örs vezér (Bolgárkertész Ormos utca - Dongó utca sarok, Dongó utca 8-cal szemben útja 1-3. Ond vezér útja 1-9.Nagy Lajos király Mogyoródi szemben út 64/b-vel Mogyoródi út 130. utca(Gvadányi sarok) Mogyoródi út - Öv utca utcaMiskolci 132. út mellett) - Fogarasi út (a töltés Mexikói Mályva tér 7. út sarok) Korong utca (Amerikai 23-mal szemben utca Kerékgyártó - Rákospatak utca utca Kerékgyártó útja - Nagy Lajos király utca út Kerékgyártó - Miskolci utca Kerékgyártó utca- Fűrész tér oldalában) (a Kassai közért Kacsóh Pongrác út 120-146. (autóbontó) Kacsóh előtt Pongrác út - Rákospatak felüljáró Irottkő park - Ungvár utca Hungária krt. 156-160. intézete Vakok Hungária köz Horváthutca Boldizsár 8-10. mögött) (Közért Gvadányi út 62-64. parkoló közötti Gvadányi út 33-39 előtt Gvadányi út 29/a előtt utcautca Füredi sarok- Vezér Fráter György u. 15 -17. Fogarasi utca - Gvadányi utca Smatch mellett Fogarasi utca - Bagolyvár utca óvoda Fogarasi u. út - Csernyus utca Egyenes 8. utca Egressy utca -Vezér mellett) bolt Egressy út 73/c (élelmiszer Egressy út 6. előtt Egressy út - Róna utca tér) út sarok Egressy út (Rákosmezei - Cinkotai út Csömöri 23. Sporttelep Iskolája) út (Hallássérültek út Csömöri - Cinkotai szemben utcaCsertő 12-14.OFFICE Centerrel mellett, Sportpálya Bartl szemben János u 1-gyel parkoló útja - Fogarasi út melletti vezér Álmos Dürer sor 25/aAjtósi stny. Palme - Olof Address 344

XV. XV. District

No. 13 12 11 10 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Harsányi Kálmán utca -Töltés Harsányi utcautcaKálmán -Töltés tér 8-cal szemben Géza fejedelem Gazdálkodó utcautca - Petrence Fő út 68. a posta szemben hátsó bejáratával parkoló utca, Erdőkerülő melletti SPAR út Fóti felől Epres sor, Régi - Lóvasút utcaköz Énekes szemben 12-vel utca Drégelyvár 7-11. utca Drégelyvár 43. mögött utca Drégelyvár 13-15. utca Ernő Cserba Elemér - Kiss utca sarok Bánkút utca, mögött SPAR köz mellett 8.Árendás iskola Address Wesselényi utcai piac Wesselényi utca - Őrjárat utca Wesselényi Vácrátót tér utca tér 5.sarokTörökszegfű - Csillagfürt TESCO - Pólus oldalánál) (ABC Tarpaiszemben tér 4-gyel utca utca) - Pázmány Taksony Péter sor (Dembinszky oldal) felőli Center Pólus park (játszótér, Szilas Korona Szent útja oldal bal utca Elek 16-tal szemben Székely parkolóban melletti út, felüljáró Széchenyi utca utca- Kosd Szántóföld út parkoló Sárfű utca - Szentmihályi Sárfű utca - Bánkút utca sarok út Fóti 2-4.Régi szervízút körvasútsor M3alatt Rákospalotai felüljáró utcánál Körvasútsor Drégelyvár Rákospalotai utcában Rákos út Mozdonyvezető 169-cel szemben, alatt utca, Pázmány Péter a felüljáró utca Pázmány Péter 74-gyel szemben Pattogós utca parkolója) 6-8. (iskola utca 47.Páskomliget CBA mellett terület parkPáskom kiépített 5. előtti Ozmán utca Korona - Szent utca sarok oldal parktér, felőli Obsitos Nyírpalota út 79/D járda Nyírpalota út szemben 72-vel Nyírpalota út 43. mögött Nyírpalota út 35. utca Neptun 88. szigeten utca terelő 96-tal szemben, Népfelkelő Nádastó park 1-3. az óvoda sarkánál Lőcsevár parkoló utca - Molnár utca szembeni Viktor óvodával Közvágóhíd tér 30. szemben) (olajgyárral Kőrakás park 12. oldal Kozák tér keleti rész) Kozák tér (M3-Bánkút utca felőli utcaCsobogós Lajos ltp. Kossuth hely új 2.mögött) (a templom utcaKontyfa 1. (Vásárcsarnok szemben) WC vel utcautca - Attila Kismező utca Késmárk parkoló 3. előtti köz - Nyírpalota Kavicsos utca parkolóban Hősök útja (Gyógyszertár)

CEU eTD Collection

XVII. XVII. XVI. District No. 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cziráki utca - Szolnoki utca utca sarok Cziráki - Szolnoki strand előtt Cinkotai szemben Bugac ABC-vel tér, út 102. Bökényföldi tér Árpádföldi szemben) (benzinkúttal Arany János utcai iskola utcautca - Olló 14.Alsómalom Address Vecsey utca - Gyolcsrét utcaVecsey 2. Újmajori utca 2.utca – Helikopter Újlak utca,mellett Plus Újlak utca 16. Újlak utca 120 - 124. Újlak utca 110. hátsó bejárat) utcai iskola (Újlak Újlak utca 11. mögött út TESCO - Pesti Tarcsai út - Tóalmás utca buszforduló Táncsics Mihály út - Damjanich utca saroknál Tabán utca 12. út utcasarok - Pesti Szigetcsép Herceg Imre utca út Szent - IV. szemben 52-vel Szántó Géza utca 63 utca - Temető Szabadság utca 28-cal szemben utcasugárútRákoskert - Kisérő sugárútRákoskert körút - Erzsébet út 27.Pesti - Újlak utca 49. parkoló alsó között, út 20-28.Pesti mögött, Malomárok utcában út 150-152.Pesti út (PLUS áruházPesti előtt) utcaNaplás 132. út, trafó előtt utcaLaffert - Péceli Kvasz András utca 1. út Kucorgó tér - Pesti utcaKaszáló 121-135-tel parkolóban szemben, utcaKaszáló 119. utcaKaszáló mellett - sportpálya Gyökér utca 7-9. mögött, a szervízút mellett utca 23.Földműves utca 68-76,Ferihegyi aoldalán bal Medical Center út SZTK hátsó mögötti szervízút szigetében Ferihegyi út 118 Ferihegyi parkolóban - Gyökér utca 6-tal szembeni utca Egészségház 24. 38.Egészségház mögött Dormánd utca 23. út HUNGÁRIA)34. Cinkotai (VOLVO előtt Baross utca 118. Bajza utca - Baross utca, Bajza utca 48-cal szemben Agyagos utca 40. ABC mögött Anna utca – Pajta utca kereszteződése 545. utca - 526. sor oldal utca felőli Zsarnó tér Anilin Zalavár utcautca - Kicsi Újszász utcaszemben bolttal (Borotvás Computer utcánál) Újszász utcautca sarok - Perjés utca Tiszakömlő 31-35, Üzbég oldalánál úti iskola sétány Sashalmi Határút Pesti 1/A utca Pálya utca- Rigó ltp. hely) (eredeti parkoló Olga utca 3/b szembeni Olga utca 10. Parkoló mögött HÉV Mátyásföld megálló Alsó tér Malomkerék Lándzsa utca Bejáratánál ltp. Mór Jókai szemben utca, rendőrséggel Gusztáv utca út torkolata - Szlovák Lajos autóparkolója utcaDióssy 28.belső főiskola 345

XVIII. XVIII. District No. 13 12 11 10 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fonal utcaFonal - Fáy utca Építő utca útja - Dolgozók Egressy Gábor utca 30-32. Csontváry utca 30. Csontváry utca 2. Csontváry utca 15. Bükk u 8 sor - Nyárfás Bókay Árpád utca - Fürst Sándor utca sarok előtt tér 1., szerelvénybolt Béke Liget Barcsay utca utca- Irányi Barcika tér utca Attila 1. - Gyömrői út sarok utca Ajtony 4. Address Zemplén utca 2.Zemplén parkoló előtti - tüzép utcaVasút 54-gyel szemben út - Piac tér Üllői út 661Üllői - Lőrincparkoló Center Tóth Árpád utca előtt - Lőrinci Temető út 20-szalThököly szemben mellett, gimnázium úti Thököly Tátrafüred utca tér - Szitnya utca Szövet 105-tel szemben vásárcsarnok mögött Szentlőrinc utca Szálfa utca- Vasút ltp.) a mellett(Alacska játszótér sorral Nyárfás szemben utcával utcaszemben - József Nefelejcs utca út - Halomi sarka Nagyenyed Mikszáth utcaKálmán utca - Aranyeső Martinovics tér Margó Tivadar utcautca a- Sallai kertnél Bókai Lugos utca - Malév uszoda LakatosSmatch ltp. úti parkoló utcaKolozsvár 27.utca - Kelet utca sarokKolozsvár sétány - Kondor Béla utcaKolozsvár - Csontváry utca 62. utca 6.Kézműves Emília utca laktanya Kappel - Halomi Kapocs utca vége parkoló parkoló téri Iker Havanna utca 43. Havannaa PLUS utcaszemben parkolóban 2-vel Havanna Match ltp. mögött üzlet Haladás utca,buszvégállomás volt tér Gyékény Goroszló utca, a Margó Tivadar utcánál

CEU eTD Collection

XIX. District XX. No. 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 Deák Ferenc tér Deák - Kulcsár Ferenc utca torkolata Bíró Mihály utca, McDonalds Baross utca 47. - Bíró Mihály utca Baross utca 25. Bácska tér 29/b utca Attila 26-tal szemben út utca - Helsinki Alsóteleki EAdy utca Harisnyagyárral volt szemben Vásár trafó tér, mellett utca Gereben Vas 142-146. Bottyán Vak utca - Eötvös utca sarok Bottyán Vak utca – utcaKosárfonó utca sarok út - Széchenyi Üllői út utca- Kosárfonó Üllői út utca- Jáhn Ferenc Üllői út - Arany János utcaÜllői sarok utcaszervízút - Klapka 2.Üllői mellett Tóth Árpád utca 19. előtt utca Toldi 3. utcaTemesvár - Karton utca utca utcával Temesvár szemben - Ipolyság Tartsay utcai - Zrínyi parkoló utca utcaFerenc szemben Puskás 1-gyel utca út - Bercsényi sarokPannónia utca utca Nagysándor - Petőfi József utca 18-22.Lehel János altábornagy utcaKiss szemben) (trafóházzal sarkábanparkoló uszodánál, Kispesti utca Katica utca - Teleki utca Attila - Nagysándor utcaJ. József utca Lajos Attila utca- Kossuth József utca Attila – utcaJáhn József Ferenc sarok utca utcaAttila - Hunyadi József utca 31.Dániel Irányi Lajos utcaGosztonyi szemben 1-gyel Garázs utca 3-5. Europark vége Eötvös út utca, felőli Üllői utcaDeák parkoló Ferenc –út, szervizút Üllői krt. 4.Corvin parkoló parkoló Bem utca szemközti 52-vel utca sarok Bem utca - Szigligeti Batthyány utca 18-calparkoló szemközti Bárczy tér István Artur utca 11.előtt szemben Endre Ady út szervízút - Rendőrséggel E Ady utca út - Toldi sarok (garázsok előtt) Address Zilah utca Zilah posta előtt Vörösmarty utca szemben 82-vel Vörösmarty atér, trafó mellett utca 28-calVizisport szemben Kulcsár utcaés Vasútsor aközött, Radvány utcával szemben Vágóhíd utca 59-cel szemben Vágóhíd utca 18-26. társasház előtt utcaTörök Flóris 33-mal szemben utcaTörök Flóris 2/a előtt előtt tüzép utcaTörökhatárút Flóris - Alsó kereszteződés, TESCO - Megapark Téglagyártó út 8-cal szemben utca 11. Téglagyár tér - Vizisport előtt támfal utca utca - Közműtelephely Téglaégető Tátra Sas tér, utcával szemben Tátra piac tér, oldalánál Tátra K. utca 100-zaltér - Kende szemben utca Szilágyság utca- Sajó utcaszemben 4-gyel Székelyhíd Szabadság utca 67-69. utca- Klapka utca bejárata) Serény 2. (Iskola Ritka utca - Ábrahám G. utca Rimaszombat utca 3-mal szemben Rákóczi utca 128. út sarok - Nagykőrösi utca 10-12.Pöltenberg utcaNyáry Pál 3. - Balassa utca utca Nagysándor 40/c-vel szemben József utca Nagysándor 18-calJózsef szemben utca út - Nagysándor 227.József Nagykőrösi Mátyás tér 15. király Magyarok tér szemben 12-vel Nagyasszonya Lajtha László utca széle játszótér utca 65.Köteles ABC előtt Lajos utcaKossuth járda 5. szemközti számú ház tűzfalával utcaKároly utca- Orsolya szemben sarokkal sétány - Vörösmarty utca sétány Kalmár Ilona - Berkenye János utca 6-6b János tér Hunyadi 2. út 9. Helsinki út 40. szervizúton Helsinki út 2-3. között Helsinki Határ út 7-10. Határ út 1. sarkábanParkoló utca –Fiume Mártírok utca utca Eperjes 47-tel szemben utca utca- Török Flóris Dessewffy XXI. District 346

No. 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Zsák Zsák Hugó utca 22. parkoló Zrínyi utca 6/a Óvoda 1-8.és ép. Zrínyi utca 23-mal szemben Zrínyi utcautca - Reggel utca Völgy 39-cel szemben 345. Vízmű ltp. B/2 mögött utcaFerenc Toldi 14-gyel szemben TESCO - Csepel utca Templom 15-17. parkoló előtti utcaTejút 2. Táncsics Mihály út 83-mal szemben utca út – Vezeték Szentmiklósi aiskola kék üzletház, László úti Szent út István 159-celSzent szemben út István 1-3.Szent út István - Erdőalja Szent út (MOLállomás) üzemanyagtöltő János altábornagy utca Kiss tér, Imre Szent 34-gyel szemben Szabadság utca 16/a-val szemben Rakéta utca 18-cal szemben Rakéta utca stny. - Kozmosz 1-9,sétány ErdősorPuli utca 165. mögött utca Ferenc végénél Petz - játszótér pavilonsor sétány, Nyuszi terület) kiépített mellett Nagykalapács utca (épület Mars utca 17. Makád utcautca - Kikötő Láng utcaKálmán parkoló utcaszemben Krizantém 2-vel utca Krizantém 24-gyel szemben Lajos szemben Markettel utca,Kossuth Penny Lajos utcaKossuth 142. Lajos utcaKossuth 130-cal szemben Lajos utcaKossuth 112-122. mögött Lajos utcaKossuth szemben 101-gyel ferdén tér Kokilla János altábornagy utcaKiss 65., ANTSZ mögött út István ház, 230.Szent müvelődési Királyerdei végében utca,parkoló Plus Kikötő Kapos utca szemben 3-5-tel utca Attila 63-mal szemben József tér Iskola út Ferenc 345.II.Rákóczi szemben) utca(buszmegállóval átkelő rév Hollandi lejárata öböl - Kis-Duna út 3-mal szemben Hollandi út 237-tel Hollandi szemben utca Festő szemben 3-5-tel utca rendelő Fecske orvosi sétány Erdősor Csikó utcai ltp., Erdősor utca 28-cal szemben Erdősor utca 179. parkoló előtti Duna5/B dűlő utcaMiklós 24-30.Cservenka piac 8.szemben kapujával Csepeli Erdősor 5. sétány Cirmos utcaelőtt, 149. mögött tér 4/a-val szemben Béke tér 1.Béke Bánya utcaABC-nél 25. mellett, Bányamellett) utcakerítése - Gombos tér (iskola utca Attila utca - József Bajcsy Zsilinszky Árpád utca 6. Akácfa utcábanszemben mosóval kocsi Akácfa utca 18-cal szemben Endre Ady utca 39-cel szemben Endre Ady utca 21-23. mögött Endre Ady utca 17-19. mögött Endre Ady út 3-5., a parkolóban Endre Ady út 13-15. toronyépület Address

CEU eTD Collection

XXII. District Location of Budapest, islands thewaste in XXII districts No. 15 14 13 12 11 10 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Zöldike utca - Liszt F. utca Zöldike utca 5.Zászlóvivő utca - XVI. XIII.utca utca XIII. szemben 82-vel utcai parkoló utca Vidám ltp.-Névtelen Úttörők tér útja 1. Flórián - Szent utca Tűzliliom Tompamellett utcai iskola TESCO - Campona út) utca Tenkes (Nagytétényi Tatárka utca 2. utca Szél 4. Sörház utca utca- Diófa széle parkoló mögötti SPAR Rózsakert utcai lakótelep, Rózsakert utca – Terv utca utca - Arany János utcaRegényes utcaszemben Pécsi 1/c-vel - Galgalakópark Óhegy utca utca üdülőtelep Növény út 74-76.Nagytétényi út 51 utca Nagytétényi - Növény út 374-376.Nagytétényi utca- Dűlő út 331-gyel szemben Nagytétényi út 298. Nagytétényi utca - Föld út 260.Nagytétényi - Pohár utca út 162.Nagytétényi út 149.Nagytétényi szervízút Mór út - Jókai utca Nagytétényi út - Bartók út Béla Nagytétényi Mező utca 60-nal szemben Mező utca 12. - Gádor utca Mátra utca 46. Mária 25-27. Terézia Leányka utca 30. parkoló mögötti parkoló) utcaKomáromi 23.előtti (Kiserdő út Komáromi 7/b utca Kiránduló - Avar utca utcautca Kereszt - Alsósas utcaKápolna 2-4.előtt iskola utca Attila 15-tel szemben József MórJókai utcautca - Művelődés a utca,parkolóban Játék a piac mellett, utca Játék utca- Kárpitos sarok Hittérítő út 1/a Hárosparkoló-részében utcai buszforduló Hajó utca OMV kút mögött utcaGyöngyszem 14. Gádor utca 97-99. előtt Gádor utca – Háros utca sarok utcaFüttyös a 14.parkolóban mellett, ABC Dunatelep-Dunafürdő Dózsa György út 164. - Török utca Dózsa György út 136. - Bem tábornok utca Diótörő utca 115/a utca 66-68-calDévény szemben Debrő utca - Síp utca Batthyány utca vége Bartók út Béla 165-167. Barackos út 143-mal szemben Barackos út 1-3. utcaBányalég 104. Anna utca 18. Anna utca 13-15.előtt gimnázium) Nagy Antal (Budai utca 66.Angeli út 166-168-calAngeli szemben Endre Ady út - Hasadék utca Address Own ofFKFon the lists contrinution based location of the waste yardslocation ofBudapest. in thewaste XXIII. District 347

III. Waste yards No. XXII. XXI. XVIII. XVII. XVI. XV. XV. XIV. XIII. XI. X. IX. VIII. IV. IV. 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Nagytétényi út 341-343.Nagytétényi u. 86. Péter Mansfeld fasor 15. Jegenye Gyökér köz 4. út Csömöri 2-4. Zsókavár u. 65. S. u. 119.Károlyi út 74.Füredi Tatai út 96. Bánk bán u. 8-10. köz 2.Fehér Ecseri út 9. Sárkány u. 5. út sarok Mihály u. Zichy - Istvántelki IV., Ugró Gyula sor 1-3. út 10/a Testvérhegyi mellett iskola Mikszáth általános Kálmán dűlő, Zsellér a Vágó köz, mellett sportpálya Török utca, híd előtt utcai közpark, amellett Templom Gyáli-patak Tartsay utca 21. Nyír utca közelében utcaSzitás út - Vecsés dűlő Szérűskert út László utcasarokSzent járda - Szentlőrinci László utcaSzent 165-169. Nyír utca 69. mellett mellett aMolnár pavilonok sziget, Lórév utca,előtt közért volt telep, Milleneumi után) Meddőhányó utca kertészet (az Oázis Láva utca 1. Kő utca, mellett játszótér utcaKő utca - Könyves amajor) mellett játszótér utca, (Péteri Kiskert mellett utca 1., Káposztásföld a szennyvízátemelő utcaHunyadi - Haraszti út sarok vasudvar mellett Hősök tere, út Grassalkovich 255. köz - HarasztiFűzfa út trafó előtt Dobó utca, mellett, játszótér út közelében) út (a Szentlőrinci Dinnyehegyi János utca Bólyai 9-11. Auchan - Soroksár, üvegvisszaváltó Address Zrt.

- XXIII andXXIII

Table of Contents