ORIGINAL PAPER

Scenario evaluation for the management of household solid waste
in small Brazilian municipalities

Rafael Mattos Deus1 • Rosane Aparecida Gomes Battistelle1 •

Gustavo Henrique Ribeiro Silva2

Received: 26 February 2016 / Accepted: 26 April 2016 / Published online: 19 May 2016

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract As achieving Brazil’s National Policy on Solid

Waste-based goals effectively is not simple, there are

alternatives such as intermunicipal cooperation by con-

sortium or privatization. Therefore, this study aimed to

evaluate the Greenhouse Gas emissions and energy use of

six scenarios in two landfills contexts (private and con-

sortium) for small municipalities (less than 100,000

inhabitants as per Brazilian standards) located in São

Paulo, Brazil. Through the technique of scenario building

and method of Waste Reduction Model was possible to

obtain the total energy, the amount of carbon dioxide

equivalent (CO2E) and carbon equivalent (CE) emissions.

The best scenario integrates composting and recycling,

reducing 72 % for CO2E and CE emissions, and saving

about 410 % in energy. The landfill consortium will only

take advantage, if the location is the most ideal as far as

possible. Small municipalities that do not dispose their

waste in landfills compatible with regulatory standards may

seek for intermunicipal cooperation and adopt integrated

waste-management programmes to reduce their environ-

mental impacts.

Keywords Household solid waste � Integrated waste

management � Recycling � Composting � Small

municipalities

Introduction and background

The municipal infrastructure includes water supply, solid

waste management, drainage systems, sewer services,

power generation facilities, roads, mass transportation,

power generation, telecommunications, public lighting,

security, post services, sidewalks, public greenery, etc. The

provision of infrastructure is essential and involves several

functions such as planning, finance, construction, owner-

ship, operation and maintenance (Alm 2015).

As for the solid waste system, it is a problem

accompanying completely human and urban development,

which recently experienced its compositional changes due

to the increase in the industrial production of products

like plastic. It can also be noted that only from the decade

of 1970s, waste began to have a major environmental

significance because it was covered in large global

meetings focused on the environment (Worrell and

Vesilind 2011). Therefore, different from the past when

there was no proper disposal for waste, today in the cities,

the waste are collected and disposed of to specific places

that are environmentally protected, such as sanitary or

bioreactor landfills (Sethi et al. 2013). Or it is processed

for reuse, although there are many municipalities in Brazil

which have irregular allocation of the waste disposal on

the open dumps (Ministério do Meio Ambiente 2012),

which means the waste have been disposed of in places

without leachate treatment, protection by a geomembrane

at the bottom and treatment of gases (Guerrero et al.

2013).

& Rafael Mattos Deus

rafaelmdeus@gmail.com

1 Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of

Engineering of Bauru, São Paulo State University - FEB/

UNESP, Av. Eng. Luiz Edmundo Carrijo Coube, 14-01,

Bauru, SP CEP 17033-360, Brazil

2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty

of Engineering of Bauru, São Paulo State University - FEB/

UNESP, Av. Eng. Luiz Edmundo Carrijo Coube, 14-01,

Bauru, SP CEP 17033-360, Brazil

123

Clean Techn Environ Policy (2017) 19:205–214

DOI 10.1007/s10098-016-1205-0

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10098-016-1205-0&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10098-016-1205-0&domain=pdf


It is not just enough to stimulate environmental aware-

ness in people, but the system must also have an efficient

and effective municipal infrastructure; the efficient infras-

tructure means the right use of the budget for the collec-

tion, transportation and right disposal of solid waste, and

the effective infrastructure means that the services have

been done to the entire population and all its surroundings

(Koushki et al. 2004).

Regarding the composition of municipal solid waste in

Brazil (Fig. 1), similar to other countries—whether devel-

oped or not, the largest share (51.4 %) of them is composed

of organic waste, with the materials that can be recycled

coming next (31.9 %) which are composed of glass, plas-

tics, paper, steel and aluminium (Massukado et al. 2013).

Although composting is environmentally an appropriate

type of treatment for organic waste, the application of this

treatment technology is very much limited in Brazil,

because of constraints such as the low separation rate of

organic materials, difficulty of process maintenance and

operation, difficult market penetration (Secretaria do Meio

Ambiente 2014a) and lack of investment and appropriate

technology for collection (Massukado et al. 2013). In 2008,

only 3.8 % of the Brazilian municipalities had composting

plants, whereas in the state of São Paulo, only 2.8 % of the

municipalities were having such units (Instituto de Pes-

quisa Econômica Aplicada 2012).

Regarding recycling, it can be stated that it has a great

potential for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases,

lower energy consumption and even lower water con-

sumption due to the substitution of virgin raw materials, as

highlighted by Menikpura et al. (2013), Zaman (2014),

Mahmoudkhani et al. (2014), and Fujii et al. (2014). The

amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Brazil avail-

able for sorting units for recycling were 1.5 % in 2000 and

1.4 % in 2008, while at the same time, the number of

municipalities using this system has risen from 4.5 to

11.6 % (Massukado et al. 2013).

Another important factor in the Brazilian context is

although there is an increase in the environmentally

appropriate method adopted for the final disposal, which

means the disposal of waste in sanitary landfills (disposal

of waste in place with soil sealing, lack of collectors, gas

drainage system, rainwater and leachate waters systems,

and then covered with soil) complying with operational

standards, there are still many municipalities that dispose

of waste on open dumps (disposal of waste on the soil

without any technical safeguards or controls) and con-

trolled landfills (disposal where the care is taken for only

recovering the waste mixed with soil) (Ministério do Meio

Ambiente 2012), for which guidelines have not been

effectively and clearly explained by the National Policy on

Solid Waste in Brazil—NPSW (Brasil 2010). The munic-

ipalities most affected by inappropriate disposal are the

small ones (Table 1). To change this scenario, the current

solid waste policy in Brazil stimulates municipalities to

adopt consortium management, i.e. an intermunicipal

cooperation, which can enable the implementation of joint

activities, pressure coordination and capacity of planning

vision and intervention (Matos and Dias 2011).

Through the consortium, it is possible to perform the

environmentally appropriate destination and treatment of

solid waste, eradicate open dumps and controlled landfill,

encourage recycling cooperatives and involve environ-

mental education to improve the selective collection

(Matos and Dias 2011).

Solid waste and climate change

The National Policy on Solid Waste in Brazil (NPSW),

which was decreed in 2010, explores several terms such as

final environmentally appropriate destination and inte-

grated management, and also exposits 11 principles and 15

key objectives. Then the NPSW discusses the instruments

used to achieve the goals, and one of those instruments is

intermunicipal cooperation, encouraging the adoption of

consortia or other forms of cooperation among federal

entities (Brasil 2010), in order to increase the exploitation

scales and reduction of the costs involved (de Jabbour et al.

2014).

According to NPSW, the municipalities must create an

integrated solid waste-management plan, including target-

ing of the reduction, reuse, selective collection, and recy-

cling; reducing the amount of waste sent for final disposal;

taking preventive and corrective actions, among others.

Organic, 51.4%

Metals, 
2.9%Steel, 2.3%

Aluminum, 
0.6%

Paper, 
cardboard and 

tetrapack, 
13.1%

Total plas�c, 
13.5%

Glass, 2.4%

General waste, 
16.7%

Fig. 1 Physical composition of municipal solid waste in Brazil.

Source: Massukado et al. (2013)

206 R. M. Deus et al.

123



Good practices recommended by NPSW include the fol-

lowing: increasing coverage of selective waste collection

and reverse logistics; decontamination of contaminated

areas; extinction of open dumps and rejection of disposal in

sanitary landfills, after exhausting all forms of treatment;

integration management covering reuse, recycling, com-

posting, recovering, and energy reutilization; introduction

of service charges; private and non-governmental organi-

zations’ partnerships; economic incentives, among others

(Brasil 2010).

The Art. 45 emphasizes the importance of public con-

sortia for NPSW because it allows for the management and

administrative decentralization, and affords priority in

obtaining the incentives established by the Federal

Government. After some consideration, the NPSW ends

with the stipulation of some deadlines, as the final disposal

in an environmentally appropriate way. This is a great

challenge, especially for small municipalities, which have

limitations in both financial and human resources, and thus

have lower intellectual capacity to develop effective pro-

jects and apply them, compared to medium or large

municipalities.

The NPSW complements the National Policy on Cli-

mate Change (NPCC) of Brazil; it is first clear that the

planet is undergoing changes in its various atmospheric

compositions, lands, biomes, among others. Most of

these changes are anthropogenic, which are

inevitable changes in all spheres of society, beyond the

formulation of specific government policies aimed at

sustainability, thus changing the current way (IPCC

2014a, b, c).

These climate changes have affected natural ecosys-

tems, biodiversity, agriculture, water resources, etc. The

distribution pattern of biomes in South America, as well as

their rainfall rates, may be more affected by climate

changes in addition to the changes in land use (Nobre et al.

2007).

Therefore, climate change, as an environmental sus-

tainability motivator of the treatment of waste (Zaman

2013), has stimulated the formulation of policies. In Brazil,

the NPCC was instituted in 2009., per Law No. 12,187. It

formalizes the voluntary commitment of Brazil to the

United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change

to reduce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions to range between

36.1 and 38.9 % of projected emissions by 2020 (Brasil

2009).

Regarding NPCC, the National Plan on Climate Change,

with the aims of reducing pressure on natural resources and

the promotion of energy conservation, outlines a target of

increasing the recycling of solid waste to 20 % by the year

2015 (Brasil 2008).

Decision support

There are two categories for the decision-making process

as the most effective forms of management: (1) Engi-

neering Systems, including, for example, economic opti-

mization and cost–benefit analyses, and (2) Evaluation

System, including, for example, the lifecycle assessment

(LCA). One difference between the two categories lies in

the kind of decision tools that are designed to inform. The

first one focuses on the support system design, while the

second one examines how a system is executed (Chang

et al. 2011).

One of the available various techniques and tools that

analyse solid waste-management systems (Pires et al.

2011) is the construction of scenarios, which deals with

complex and dynamic systems and is a part of the plan-

ning process to provide viable guidelines for decision

making. The technique of scenarios, such as a prospective

study, aims to describe alternative futures in order to

provide support in the decision making and choosing the

best alternative. Thus, this technique is the description of

a possible or a desirable future and the entire process or

path that connects with the initial situation (Buarque

2003). Therefore, scenarios can contribute to real options

on three main levels: (1) assisting in the identification of

future options; (2) helping in the timely decision for the

implementation of options; (3) providing important

information with respect to the evaluation process of real

options (Cornelius et al. 2005).

Table 1 Numbers of waste

destination units in 2000 and

2008 considering only the open

dumps, controlled landfills, and

sanitary landfills. Source:

Adapted from Ministério do

Meio Ambiente (2012)

Destination Open dumps Controlled landfill Sanitary landfill

Year 2000 2008 2000 2008 2000 2008

Municipality size Quantity of destination units

Small municipalities 4507 2863 1096 1226 773 1483

Medium-sized municipalities 133 42 130 78 125 207

Large municipalities 2 1 5 6 33 33

Total in Brazil 4642 2906 1231 1310 931 1723

Size of municipalities (population): small (\100,000); medium size (between 100,000 and 1 million); large

([1 million)

Scenario evaluation for the management of household solid waste in small Brazilian… 207

123



The use of scenarios is embracing and applicable to

various areas and objectives (Bradfield et al. 2005).

Therefore, the objective of this research is to create alter-

native scenarios of solid waste management for small

municipalities, propose and analyse the most appropriate

setting for the final disposal of solid waste in private and

public by consortium.

Materials and methods

This is a quantitative research involving secondary data

under simulations, a method widely used to analyse com-

plex systems, imitating the real system operations (Lind-

gren and Bandhold 2003).

This study focuses on nine small municipalities (less

than 100,000 inhabitants) of São Paulo state, Brazil

(Table 2). These municipalities have not received the

certification in the ‘‘Municı́pio VerdeAzul 2014’’ pro-

gramme, because of having low grades (80 points is the

minimum required for certification). This programme

stimulates and empowers municipalities in the imple-

mentation and development of a strategic environmental

agenda, within 10 policies, and one of them is solid waste

(Secretaria do Meio Ambiente 2014b). Moreover, none of

them has recycling and/or composting programmes, and

four of them have programme for final disposal on

irregular landfills.

The scenarios chosen for this research involve the pro-

jection of the status of solid waste management for the

future 15 years. They are for private implemented landfill

and supposed consortium, as follows:

• 1 regional landfill

• 1 regional landfill less 10 % of total waste generation

• 1 regional landfill plus 10 % of the total waste

generation

• 1 regional landfill with recycling of 20 % of the total

• 1 regional landfill with composting of 20 % of the total

• 1 regional landfill with recycling of 20 % and com-

posting of 20 % of the total.

This study established a target of 20 % over the total of

15 years, starting at 5 % and finishing with 35 %, with an

annual goal of 2 % increment. This goal was set due to the

low current capacity of Brazilian municipalities on com-

posting and recycling management (just 5.44 % of all), and

this goal was taken as the basis for the National Plan Cli-

mate Change that is 20 % for 2015 (Brasil 2008).

This study did not include the energy recovery in

landfills, even if it is environmentally important, because

there must be technical and environmental feasibility

(Brasil 2010), besides being recommended financially and

economically to populations over 200,000 habitats, and for

population less than this figure, changes in public policy

are necessary (Barros et al. 2014). Therefore, it would be

impracticable for the region of the municipalities consid-

ered under this study (total of 151,310 inhabitants). This

study also did not simulate the implementation of incin-

eration, even if it is scored as a great alternative especially

when there is energy recovery (Tan et al. 2014), but it is

not recommended for developing countries or non-OECD

(Aprilia et al. 2012).

Based on the more complex indicators classified by

Greene and Tonjes (2014), there are several models in the

literature that determine the best emission-reduction

options for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy

use. For this study, we used the Waste Reduction Model

(WARM), created by the US Environmental Protection

Agency, which has been widely used in various contexts

and academic papers (Morrissey and Browne 2004; Ver-

gara et al. 2011; Barros et al. 2013; Greene and Tonjes

2014; Mahmoudkhani et al. 2014; Lai et al. 2014).

The outputs are Energy Use in GJ (gigajoule), CO2E

(carbon dioxide equivalent), and CE (carbon equivalent)

emissions in Gg (gigagram). The data of GHG emissions

have been developed according to the Life Cycle Assess-

ment (LCA) using the estimation techniques produced by

Table 2 Municipalities

involved in this study and their

respective populations and

grades of the ‘‘Municı́pio

VerdeAzul 2014’’ programme

Source: IBGE (2010) and

Secretaria do Meio Ambiente

(2014b)

Municipality Population (2010) ‘‘Municı́pio VerdeAzul 2014’’

programme grade

A 2493 7.56

B 3696 0

C 10,223 31.73

D 30,091 34.66

E 77,039 37.38

F 6590 1.39

G 11,309 1.07

H 4077 9.25

I 5792 13.88

208 R. M. Deus et al.

123



GHG emission inventories (Environmental Protection

Agency 2006).

For projections of scenarios and analyses in the WARM

system, we used the gravimetric compositions shown in

Table 3, and indicated by sanitary municipal plans of the

municipalities involved.

For composting and recycling plants, both were by

consortium and centralizationed at the municipality were

chosen. To set the municipality to receive these materials

for recycling and composting, and landfill location of the

consortium, we used the centre of gravity method (Corrêa

and Corrêa 2009). This method tries to find the centre of

gravity of the locations by means of x and y coordinates as

follows:

Cx ¼
P

dixVi
P

Vi
e Cy ¼

P
diyVi

P
Vi

ð1Þ

where Cx = x coordinate (horizontal axis) of the centre of

gravity; Cy = y coordinate (vertical axis) of the centre of

gravity; dix = x coordinate of the i site; diy = y coordinate

of the i site; Vi = volume of waste generated i site.

In this case, the selected city was F, with an average of

45.9 km. It is noteworthy that the minimization of gas

consumption of the vehicles achieved with the decreasing

distance is a significant aspect to reduce the potential of

environmental impact (dos Santos et al. 2014).

The municipality responsible for the particular landfill is

D, which already operates a private intermunicipal landfill

with Quality Index Waste Landfill score of 9.4 in 2012

(CETESB 2013).

For the population projection, we used the data from the

State System of Data Analysis (SEADE) of the State of São

Paulo. The projection of generation of solid waste was

extracted from the Basic Sanitation Integrated Municipal

Plans of each municipality, as below:

Generation of MSW ¼ Population=2; 990:32ð Þ1:258 ð2Þ

From this formula, a production curve adjusted was

created by the following factor:

fa ¼ Pr � Pc

Pr
ð3Þ

where fa is the factor of adjustment (to adjust the points to

the resulting curve); Pr is the production of solid waste in

2010; Pc is the production calculated for the 2010

population.

The projection of municipal solid waste was calculated

using the following equation and adjustment factor:

Pp ¼ Pcþ ðPc � faÞ ð4Þ

where Pp is the projected production of solid waste; Pc is

the production calculated; and fa is the factor of

adjustment.

Results and discussion

As shown in Table 4, the baseline scenario of munici-

palities over the 15 years analysed emits 113.76

GgCO2E, 31.03 GgCE and consume 165.45 GJ. This

scenario has better results in all aspects analysed than

scenario 1 for the particular landfill, which emits 114.41

GgCO2E, 31.20 GgCE and consume 174.83 GJ, and the

scenario 1 to the consortium emits 114.12 GgCO2E,

31.12 GgCE and consume 170.71 GJ. However, these

differences are not considered as significant when viewed

in Figs. 2, 3 and 4, which is possible to check a low

difference that involves the change of the landfill site for

those municipalities.

The change of the landfill site in scenario 1 compared to

the baseline scenario reinforces the importance of transport

in the waste-management system. Because transport

worldwide is responsible for about 26 % of CO2 global

emissions (Chapman 2007), it is a major pollutant system

and also an environmental impact generator (dos Santos

et al. 2014). It also has a high energy consumption (Larsen

et al. 2009), and several LCA studies identify the distance

travelled as a fundamental basis for environmental impacts

(Yang et al. 2014).

Table 3 Gravimetric composition of household solid waste. Source:

Integrated Sanitation Plan of municipalities of this study

Components Gravimetric composition (%)

Paper/cardboard 9.60

Long-life carton 1.00

Rigid plastic 6.30

Soft plastic 6.70

PET packaging 0.60

Ferrous metal 1.40

Non-ferrous metal 0.40

Glasses 1.70

Polystyrene 0.20

Rags/cloths 2.20

Rubber 0.20

Subtotal 30.30

Organic 62.90

Wood 1.20

Ground/stones 2.10

Batteries 0.00

Miscellaneous 2.00

Losses 1.50

Subtotal 69.70

Total 100.00

Scenario evaluation for the management of household solid waste in small Brazilian… 209

123



In scenario 2 (Table 4), which is implemented to

achieve a goal of 10 % reduction of waste at source, there

is an incensement compared to the baseline scenario and

scenario 1 (Figs. 2, 3, 4). In scenario 2, the particular

landfill emits 102.97 GgCO2E, 28.08 GgCE and consumes

157.29 GJ, which represents a reduction compared to the

baseline scenarios of, respectively, 9.49, 9.48 and 4.93 %.

The consortium emits 102.71 GgCO2E, 28.01 GgCE and

consumes 153.64 GJ, which represents a reduction from the

baseline scenarios, respectively, of 9.71, 9.72 and 7.14 %.

This reduction confirmed for scenario 2 is caused mainly

by the reduction in the waste generation, and not by the

changes in the final disposal site, which in the case for most

municipalities is located at a greater distance. Recalling

that some municipalities have irregular landfills, the

reduction of total energy (Fig. 3) is therefore less pro-

nounced, probably due to the lower energy consumption of

transport (Larsen et al. 2009). Note also that for consor-

tium, the reduction is 2.21 % higher than that of a partic-

ular landfill, because the method for selecting the

consortium landfill site takes into account the distance and

the amount of waste, which would be the ideal distance

from the landfill for intermunicipal cooperation.

An important aspect of scenario 2 is the first principle of

the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle), and as Gentil et al.

Table 4 Comparison between

the scenarios of all

municipalities according to the

total waste sent to landfill,

15 years: emission of

Greenhouse Gases and Energy

use

Baseline scenario Scenarios—private landfill

1 2 3 4 5 6

CO2E (Gg) 113.76 114.41 102.97 125.85 59.02 86.53 31.14

Energy use (GJ) 165.45 174.83 157.29 192.19 -704.03 186.23 -676.73

CE (Gg) 31.03 31.20 28.08 34.32 16.10 23.60 8.49

Baseline scenario Scenarios—consortium

1 2 3 4 5 6

CO2E (Gg) 113.76 114.12 102.71 125.55 58.76 86.29 30.93

Energy use (GJ) 165.45 170.71 153.64 187.94 -691.96 183.80 -679.81

CE (Gg) 31.03 31.12 28.01 34.24 16.03 23.53 8.43

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Baseline
Scenario

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

Total of CO2E (Gg) 

Means of private and consor�um landfill

Fig. 2 Comparison of means of carbon dioxide equivalent (giga-

gram) emission between scenarios

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Baseline
Scenario

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

Total of Energy (GJ)

Means of private and consor�um landfill

Fig. 3 Comparison of the means of total energy (gigajoule) between

scenarios

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Baseline
Scenario

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

Total of CE (Gg)

Means of private and consor�um landfill

Fig. 4 Comparison of means of carbon equivalent (gigagram)

emission between scenarios

210 R. M. Deus et al.

123



(2011) show, it is important to consider the waste pre-

vention input within the system, because this factor has a

positive effect on various categories of impact, such as the

reduction of up to 12 % of the global warming potential.

An example of the application of the reduction principle is

the city of Cebu in Philippines, which achieved a reduction

rate of 30 % of municipal solid waste in 3 years, due to a

high degree of political commitment, planning and strate-

gic development, involving partnerships of stakeholders

(Premakumara et al. 2014).

In contrast to scenario 2, the scenario 3 (Table 4) sim-

ulates the growth of 10 % of the waste over time more than

the current trend, due, for example, to changes in con-

sumption patterns, resulting in positive correlation with the

increase of cities GDP (Adhikari et al. 2006). As expected,

the third scenario has the worst score of all the scenarios

(Figs. 2, 3, 4).

For the particular landfill, scenario 3 emits 125.85

GgCO2E, 34.32 GgCE and consumes 192.19 GJ, which

represents an increase over the baseline scenarios, respec-

tively, of 10.63, 10.63 and 16.16 %. The consortium sce-

nario emits 125.55 GgCO2E, 34.24 GgCE and consumes

187.94 GJ, which represents an increase over the baseline

scenarios, respectively, of 10.36, 10.36 and 13.59 %.

Again, we observe the difference, especially in energy

consumption (2.57 %), when comparing simulations

between final destination locations.

Similar to scenario 3 of this study, de Melo et al. (2009)

observed that the scenario achieving the highest financial

cost and methane production, among those of their studies,

was the scenario with an increase of 5 % in total waste

generation, showing the impact of increased waste gener-

ation. Note that if the world’s population does not have the

necessary socio-economic development and is without

increased environmental awareness, the growth trend of

waste generation will continue (Hoornweg et al. 2013).

Scenario 4, in which there is 20 % total recycling of

recyclable waste, has featured in all aspects analysed

(Table 4), mainly in energy consumption (Fig. 3). Con-

sistent with other authors, recycling has great potential to

reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, energy consumption

and even water consumption due to the substitution of

virgin raw materials (Menikpura et al. 2013).

Therefore, in a particular landfill, scenario 4 emits 59.02

GgCO2E, 16.10 GgCE and consumes an energy of 704.03

GJ, which is a huge reduction from the baseline scenarios,

respectively, of 48.12, 48.12 and 425.52 %. The consor-

tium emits 58.76 GgCO2E, 16.03 GgCE, and consumes an

energy of 691.96 GJ, which represents a reduction from the

baseline scenarios, respectively, of 48.35, 48.35 and

418.22 %. Note the significant differences in all the aspects

analysed, especially in energy consumption, which is the

best result compared to all other scenarios (Fig. 3). When

comparing the simulations between the final destinations’

locations, the difference is 7.3 % compared to the baseline

scenario for the total energy.

Scenario 5 (Table 4) involves 20 % of composting of

organic materials; this particular landfill scenario emits

86.53 GgCO2E and 23.60 GgCE, which represents a

reduction from baseline scenario of 23.94 % for both. The

energy consumption is 186.23 GJ, representing an increase

compared to the baseline scenario of 12.56 %. The con-

sortium scenario emits 86.29 GgCO2E and 23.53 GgCE,

which represents a reduction compared to the baseline

scenario of 24.15 % for both. The energy consumption is

183.80 GJ, representing an increase compared to the

baseline scenario of 11.09 %. Comparing the differences

between the locations of the landfill, the differences are

small: 0.21 % for CO2e and CE, and 1.47 % for energy

use.

The biggest advantage of scenario 5 is the lowest CO2E

and CE emissions (Figs. 2, 4) compared to baseline sce-

narios and 1–3 scenarios. Lou and Nair (2009) state that the

anaerobic decomposition that occurs commonly in landfills

producing CH4 has a global warming potential 25 times

greater than CO2. Taheri et al. (2014) used the Rapid

Impact Assessment Matrix and recommended composting

together with the landfill. However, the LCA of Abduli

et al. (2011) for Tehran shows that the combined landfill

and composting scenario has an environmental impact than

does the landfill scenario only. These authors conclude that

the landfill scenario is the most viable option in the envi-

ronmental and economic aspects of the city under study.

The disadvantage of scenario 5 is the increase in energy

consumption (Fig. 3), which is just more than that of sce-

nario 3, of 3.6 % compared to the baseline scenario, when

the setting is private and 2.5 % with the consortium. This is

due to the fact that the production of compounds, espe-

cially of higher quality, requires more energy (Lou and

Nair 2009).

Aye and Widjaya (2006) compared scenarios for various

treatments, such as centralized composting, landfill with

electricity production, biogas electricity generation and

landfill versus baseline scenario. Those authors concluded

that centralized composting has the highest potential for

success in the treatment of waste from traditional markets,

which are the second largest generators of waste after the

municipal solid waste in Indonesia. Composting has the

best cost–benefit ratio, in addition to moderate environ-

mental impacts.

Scenario 6 (Table 4), in which there is total recycling of

20 % of recyclable waste and composting of 20 % of

organic compounds, has featured in all aspects analysed,

especially in lower emissions of CO2E and CE (Figs. 2, 4),

because there is a great potential of recycling to reduce

emissions of greenhouse gases, energy consumption and

Scenario evaluation for the management of household solid waste in small Brazilian… 211

123



even water consumption due to the substitution of virgin

raw materials (Menikpura et al. 2013). Moreover, the lower

GHG emission occurs due to the integration of composting

and recycling system similar to study of Mahmoudkhani

et al. (2014), so the composting and recycling together has

great potential of GHG emission reduction and energy

consumption.

Thus, a particular landfill, in scenario 6, emits 31.14

GgCO2E, 8.49 GgCE and consumes an energy of 676.73

GJ, which is a huge reduction from the baseline scenario,

respectively, 72.62, 72.62 and 409.02 %. The consortium

emits 30.93 GgCO2E, 8.43 GgCE and consumes an energy

of 679.81 GJ, which represents a reduction from the

baseline, respectively, 72.82, 72.82, and 410.88 %.

Scenario 6 has the lowest emission values of CO2E and

CE and the second best result for the energy consumption,

because with the integration of recycling and composting,

GHG emissions greatly decrease compared to the baseline

scenario. The total energy consumption also decreases

(Fig. 3), and is negative, but slightly less than scenario 4,

by about 16.5 % for the particular landfill and 7.34 % for

the consortium. This difference is due to lower energy use

in composting.

Therefore, the improved scenario, from the analysis of

the data of tables and graphics, is the one due to the sce-

nario 6. For CO2E and CE emissions, this scenario for

particular landfill has an advantage of 24.5 %, for both

GHG emissions compared to scenario 4 and 24.47 % for

consortium. However, scenario 4 has an advantage over the

scenario 6 with a decreased energy consumptions of

16.5 % in particular landfill and 7.34 % in the consortium.

In scenario 6, the differences between the particular

landfill and the consortium are small. The consortium has

the advantage of 0.2 % of CO2E and CE emissions, com-

pared to the baseline scenario, and 1.86 % for the energy

consumption.

The excellent results of scenario 6 confirm the impor-

tance of integrated management as highlighted by Anto-

nopoulos et al. (2013), Menikpura et al. (2013), Song et al.

(2013) and Herva et al. (2014), which involves various

techniques, technologies, strategies and programmes to

achieve certain goals (Tchobanoglous and Kreith 2002).

Note that composting as a technology for the integrated

management is projected as the Strength, because it

employs a biological process with the possibility of getting

rich nutrients in organic fertilizers, while its weakness is

that only biodegradable waste can be used in addition to the

difficulty to control emissions. This technique has the

Opportunity to recover materials and turn them into fer-

tilizer and the possibility of generating biogas. The biggest

Threats of this process are the contamination of air, soil

and water due to inadequate management (Zaman 2013).

The Strength of landfill lies in the utilization of the

natural decomposition process with a large volume and in a

controlled environment. However, the Weakness is the

need for large areas for a long time, besides the difficulty in

controlling emission and the prohibitive cost. The Oppor-

tunity is the possibility to reuse biogas and the use of

landfills subsequently closed. Its greatest Threat is the

potential for environmental contamination of air, water and

soil due to inadequate management (Zaman 2013).

Final considerations

Small municipalities that do not have landfills compatible

with regulatory standards need to change this panorama

seeking intermunicipal cooperation with the creation of

public consortia or the privatization of the final disposal

system of waste in a particular landfill.

The increased waste due to GDP growth and economic

development without an integrated management increases

the environmental impacts related to greenhouse gas

emissions (CO2 and C equivalents) and energy consump-

tion. In this study, the growth of 10 % of the waste gen-

eration over time represents increases of 10.5, 10.5 and

14.9 % in CO2E, CE emissions and energy use,

respectively.

If a municipal programme, through a reduction in the

generation of waste, can contribute to the environmental

aspects of municipal solid waste management, which is

about 10 %, it can contribute to a reduction of 9.6, 9.6, and

6.0 % for CO2E, CE emissions, and energy use,

respectively.

The best scenario, regardless of whether it is through a

consortium or private, is the one that integrates techniques,

technologies, strategies and programmes to achieve maxi-

mum efficiency with the lowest energy consumption and

lower GHG emissions. In our studies, recycling and com-

posting (for 20 % of total years) contribute toward a huge

reduction of 72.7 % CO2E and 410,0 % of CE emissions

and avoid high energy consumption, respectively, causing

a difference of % in energy use; this is because recycling

reinstates raw materials back into the life cycle and avoids

new material extractions that consume higher energy.

The results showed a few differences between the con-

sortium and private landfills; thus, the landfill consortium

will only take advantage of the particular landfill, if the

location is the most ideally possible like the equilibrium

point, because the distance travelled by transport is an

important point of environmental impact. This means for

low environmental impacts, the small municipalities must

perform the following: (1) suit the current status of irreg-

ular disposal; (2) utilize integrated management with

212 R. M. Deus et al.

123



alternatives that avoid landfill disposal; (3) accomplish

intermunicipal cooperation (with public or private part-

nership), as recommended by the NPSW.

Future studies may incorporate economic aspects, such

as costs and revenue calculations, to allow for better

analysis of the results, in addition to the analysis of

potential energy and GHG emissions. These three assess-

ments provide valuable information for policy-making in

municipal solid waste-management practices in order to be

more efficient and effective in achieving the low cost,

energy benefits and environmental protection (Tan et al.

2014). Besides the above aspects, social aspects that would

also give strength to the study can be integrated in the

analysis (Aprilia and Tezuka 2013).

References

Abduli MA, Naghib A, Yonesi M, Akbari A (2011) Life cycle

assessment (LCA) of solid waste management strategies in

Tehran: landfill and composting plus landfill. Environ Monit

Assess 178:487–498. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1707-x

Adhikari BK, Barrington S, Martinez J (2006) Predicted growth of

world urban food waste and methane production. Waste Manag

Res 24:421–433. doi:10.1177/0734242X06067767

Alm J (2015) Financing urban infrastructure: knowns, unknowns, and

a way forward. J Econ Surv 29:230–262. doi:10.1111/joes.12045

Antonopoulos I-S, Karagiannidis A, Tsatsarelis T, Perkoulidis G

(2013) Applying waste management scenarios in the Pelopon-

nese Region in Greece: a critical analysis in the frame of life

cycle assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 20:2499–2511.

doi:10.1007/s11356-012-1139-y

Aprilia A, Tezuka T (2013) GHG emissions estimation from

household solid waste management in Jakarta, Indonesia.

J Energy Power Eng 7:661–668

Aprilia A, Tezuka T, Spaargaren G (2012) Household solid waste

management in Jakarta, Indonesia: a socio-economic evaluation. In:

Marmolejo Rebellon LF (eds) Waste management—an integrated

vision. InTech. Available from http://www.intechopen.com/books/

waste-management-an-integrated-vision/household-solid-wasteman

agement-in-jakarta-indonesia-a-socio-economic-evaluation

Aye L, Widjaya ER (2006) Environmental and economic analyses of

waste disposal options for traditional markets in Indonesia.

Waste Manag 26:1180–1191. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.

010

Barros RM, Filho GLT, Moura JS et al (2013) Design and

implementation study of a permanent selective collection

program (PSCP) on a University campus in Brazil. Resour

Conserv Recycl 80:97–106. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.09.005

Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL, Silva TR (2014) The electric energy

potential of landfill biogas in Brazil. Energy Policy 65:150–164.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.028

Bradfield R, Wright G, Burt G et al (2005) The origins and evolution

of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures

37:795–812. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003

Brasil (2008) Plano Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima: PNMC

Brasil. Comitê Interministerial sobre Mudança do Clima,

Brası́lia

Brasil (2009) Lei no 12.187, de 29 de dezembro de 2009: Institui a

Polı́tica Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima - PNMC e dá outras

providências, Brasil

Brasil (2010) Lei no 12.305, de 02 de agosto de 2010: Institui a

Polı́tica Nacional de Resı́duos Sólidos; altera a Lei no 9.605, de

12 de fevereiro de 1998; e dá outras providências. Brası́lia,

Brasil

Buarque SC (2003) Metodologia e técnicas de construção de cenários.

IPEA, Brası́lia

CETESB (2013) Inventário estadual de resı́duos sólidos domiciliares

2012. CETESB, São Paulo

Chang N-B, Pires A, Martinho G (2011) Empowering systems

analysis for solid waste management: challenges, trends, and

perspectives. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 41:1449–1530.

doi:10.1080/10643381003608326

Chapman L (2007) Transport and climate change: a review. J Transp

Geogr 15:354–367. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008

Cornelius P, Van de Putte A, Romani M (2005) Three decades of

scenario planning in shell. Calif Manag Rev 48:92–109

Corrêa HL, Corrêa CA (2009) Administração de produção e

operações: manufatura e serviços: uma abordagem estratégica.

Atlas, São Paulo

Environmental Protection Agency (2006) User’s Guide for WARM.

In: User’s Guide. WARM. http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/

tools/warm/Warm_UsersGuide.html. Accessed 13 April 2014

Fujii M, Fujita T, Ohnishi S et al (2014) Regional and temporal

simulation of a smart recycling system for municipal organic

solid wastes. J Clean Prod 78:208–215. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.

2014.04.066

Gentil EC, Gallo D, Christensen TH (2011) Environmental evaluation

of municipal waste prevention. Waste Manag 31:2371–2379.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.030

Greene KL, Tonjes DJ (2014) Quantitative assessments of municipal

waste management systems: using different indicators to com-

pare and rank programs in New York State. Waste Manag

34:825–836. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.020

Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management

challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag

33:220–232. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008

Herva M, Neto B, Roca E (2014) Environmental assessment of the

integrated municipal solid waste management system in Porto

(Portugal). J Clean Prod 70:183–193. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.

02.007

Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P, Kennedy C (2013) Environment: waste

production must peak this century. Nature 502:615–617. doi:10.

1038/502615a

IBGE (2010) Informações sobre os municı́pios brasileiros. In:

Informações sobre os municı́pios Bras. http://cidades.ibge.gov.

br/xtras/home.php. Accessed 13 April 2014

Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (2012) Diagnóstico dos

Resı́duos Sólidos Urbanos. IPEA, Brası́lia

IPCC (2014a) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change.

Contribution of working group III to the 5th assessment report of

the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge,

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

IPCC (2014b) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and

vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. contribution

of working group II to the 5th assessment report of the

intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge

IPCC (2014c) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and

vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of working

group II to the 5th assessment report of the intergovernmental

panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge

Jabbour ABLS, Jabbour CJC, Sarkis J, Govindan K (2014) Brazil’s

new national policy on solid waste: challenges and opportunities.

Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:7–9. doi:10.1007/s10098-013-

0600-z

Scenario evaluation for the management of household solid waste in small Brazilian… 213

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1707-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X06067767
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joes.12045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1139-y
http://www.intechopen.com/books/waste-management-an-integrated-vision/household-solid-wastemanagement-in-jakarta-indonesia-a-socio-economic-evaluation
http://www.intechopen.com/books/waste-management-an-integrated-vision/household-solid-wastemanagement-in-jakarta-indonesia-a-socio-economic-evaluation
http://www.intechopen.com/books/waste-management-an-integrated-vision/household-solid-wastemanagement-in-jakarta-indonesia-a-socio-economic-evaluation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.09.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10643381003608326
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008
http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/Warm_UsersGuide.html
http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/Warm_UsersGuide.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/502615a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/502615a
http://cidades.ibge.gov.br/xtras/home.php
http://cidades.ibge.gov.br/xtras/home.php
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0600-z
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0600-z


Koushki PA, Al-Duaij U, Al-Ghimlas W (2004) Collection and

transportation cost of household solid waste in Kuwait. Waste

Manag 24:957–964

Lai K, Li L, Mutti S, et al (2014) Evaluation of waste reduction and

diversion as alternatives to landfill disposal. In: 2014 Systems

and information engineering design symposium (SIEDS). IEEE,

pp 183–187

Larsen AW, Vrgoc M, Christensen TH, Lieberknecht P (2009) Diesel

consumption in waste collection and transport and its environ-

mental significance. Waste Manag Res 27:652–659. doi:10.1177/

0734242X08097636

Lindgren M, Bandhold H (2003) Scenario planning: the link between

future and strategy. Polgrave Macmillan, New York

Lou XF, Nair J (2009) The impact of landfilling and composting on

greenhouse gas emissions: a review. Bioresour Technol

100:3792–3798. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.006

Mahmoudkhani R, Valizadeh B, Khastoo H (2014) Greenhouse Gases

Life Cycle Assessment (GHGLCA) as a decision support tool for

municipal solid waste management in Iran. J Environ Health Sci

Eng 12:1–7. doi:10.1186/2052-336X-12-71

Massukado LM, Milanez B, Luedemann G, Hargrave J (2013)

Diagnóstico da Gestão de Resı́duos Sólidos Urbanos no Brasil:

uma análise pós PNSB 2008—ênfase na destinação final e nos

resı́duos orgânicos. Rev DAE 22–33

Matos F, Dias R (2011) A gestão de resı́duos sólidos e a formaçao de

consórcios intermunicipais. Rev em Agronegócios e Meio

Ambient 4:501–519

Melo LA, Sautter KD, Janissek PR (2009) Estudo de cenários para o

gerenciamento dos resı́duos sólidos urbanos de Curitiba. Eng

Sanit e Ambient 14:551–558. doi:10.1590/S1413-

41522009000400015

Menikpura SNM, Sang-Arun J, Bengtsson M (2013) Integrated solid

waste management: an approach for enhancing climate co-

benefits through resource recovery. J Clean Prod 58:34–42.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.012

Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2012) Plano nacional de resı́duos

sólidos. MMA, Brası́lia

Morrissey AJ, Browne J (2004) Waste management models and their

application to sustainable waste management. Waste Manag

24:297–308. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.005

Nobre CA, Lapola D, Sampaio G et al (2007) Relatório No. 6.

Mudanças Climáticas e possı́veis alterações nos Biomas da

América do Sul. Ministério da Saúde, São Paulo

Pires A, Martinho G, Chang N-B (2011) Solid waste management in

European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques.

J Environ Manag 92:1033–1050. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.

11.024

Premakumara DGJ, Canete AML, Nagaishi M, Kurniawan TA (2014)

Policy implementation of the Republic Act (RA) No. 9003 in the

Philippines: a case study of Cebu City. Waste Manag

34:971–979. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.040

Santos MFN, Battistelle RAG, Bezerra BS, Varum HSA (2014)

Comparative study of the life cycle assessment of particleboards

made of residues from sugarcane bagasse (Saccharum spp.) and

pine wood shavings (Pinus elliottii). J Clean Prod 64:345–355.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.039

Secretaria do Meio Ambiente (2014a) Plano de Resı́duos Sólidos do

Estado de São Paulo, 1st edn. SMA, São Paulo

Secretaria do Meio Ambiente (2014b) Municı́pio VerdeAzul. http://

www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/municipioverdeazul/. Accessed 17 Jan

2015

Sethi S, Kothiyal NC, Nema AK (2013) Stabilisation of municipal

solid waste in bioreactor landfills: an overview. Int J Environ

Pollut 51:57–78. doi:10.1504/IJEP.2013.053175

Song Q, Wang Z, Li J (2013) Environmental performance of

municipal solid waste strategies based on LCA method: a case

study of Macau. J Clean Prod 57:92–100. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.

2013.04.042

Taheri M, Gholamalifard M, Ghazizade MJ, Rahimoghli S (2014)

Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste

disposal site in Tabriz, Iran using rapid impact assessment

matrix. Impact Assess Project Apprais 32:162–169. doi:10.1080/

14615517.2014.896082

Tan ST, Hashim H, Lim JS et al (2014) Energy and emissions benefits

of renewable energy derived from municipal solid waste:

analysis of a low carbon scenario in Malaysia. Appl Energy

136:797–804. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.003

Tchobanoglous G, Kreith F (2002) Handbook of solid waste

management, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

Vergara SE, Damgaard A, Horvath A (2011) Boundaries matter:

greenhouse gas emission reductions from alternative waste

treatment strategies for California’s municipal solid waste.

Resour Conserv Recycl 57:87–97. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.

2011.09.011

Worrell W, Vesilind P (2011) Solid waste engineering, 2nd edn.

Cengage Learning, Stamford

Yang N, Damgaard A, Lü F et al (2014) Environmental impact

assessment on the construction and operation of municipal solid

waste sanitary landfills in developing countries: China case

study. Waste Manag 34:929–937. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.

02.017

Zaman AU (2013) Identification of waste management development

drivers and potential emerging waste treatment technologies. Int

J Environ Sci Technol 10:455–464

Zaman AU (2014) Measuring waste management performance using

the ‘‘Zero Waste Index’’: the case of Adelaide, Australia. J Clean

Prod 66:407–419. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.032

214 R. M. Deus et al.

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08097636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08097636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2052-336X-12-71
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522009000400015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522009000400015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.039
http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/municipioverdeazul/
http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/municipioverdeazul/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2013.053175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.896082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.896082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.09.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.09.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.032

	Scenario evaluation for the management of household solid waste in small Brazilian municipalities
	Abstract
	Introduction and background
	Solid waste and climate change
	Decision support
	Materials and methods
	Results and discussion
	Final considerations
	References