Life cycle assessment applied to waste management in Italy: A mini-review of characteristics and methodological perspectives for local assessment

Water cycle

According to Italian literature, the water cycle analysis begins with resource management, namely water availability (Ruini et al., 2015), delivery (D’Ambrosio et al., 2020) and the organisation of the entire system (Del Borghi et al., 2013). Wastewater is then analysed, individually or simultaneously with biowaste (Di Maria et al., 2016) and food waste (Righi et al., 2013) in integrated or dedicated plants (Albini et al., 2018). Many LCA studies investigate different wastewater treatments (Lombardi et al., 2017) and pretreatments (Francini et al., 2019), also focusing on plant characteristics (Longo et al., 2017) and technological optimisation (Tomei et al., 2016). Comparison between different treatments at aerobic and anaerobic conditions is often presented (Baccioli et al., 2018; Buonocore et al., 2018; Postacchini et al., 2016; Vecchietti et al., 2013). The return of wastewater to the environment after treatment through irrigation (Moretti et al., 2019), by digestate (Monlau et al., 2015) or other products (Valentino et al., 2017) is also investigated. Footprints (Caivano et al., 2017; Caniani et al., 2019), economic (Zhang et al., 2019) and social (Di Maria and Sisani, 2019) aspects are also analysed.

Organic cycle

LCT is also used to assess the organic cycle from cradle to grave, including the entire agro-food sector (Notarnicola et al., 2017) and biowaste. Therefore, studies focus on cultivation (De Marco et al., 2018), agriculture and farming impacts (Guarino et al., 2019; Moresi, 2014). LCA of tomatoes (Garofalo et al., 2017) and mozzarella (Dalla Riva et al., 2017) are two examples; however, many other food chains have been investigated in Italy. In particular, wine (Iannone et al., 2016) and oil (Guarino et al., 2019) are extensively studied, and indicators for sustainable foods are suggested as well (Moresi, 2014). Moreover, studies address distribution, diet and consumer behaviour, including food waste (Corrado et al., 2019; Garcia-Herrero et al., 2019). Impacts of catering are assessed, considering energy and transport effects too (Mistretta et al., 2019). Waste management technologies for biowaste, including composting (Mancini et al., 2019), biofuel production (Poltronieri, 2016), digestion (Di Maria and Micale, 2015) and heat recovery (Bacenetti et al., 2016) are investigated and compared. Many studies address thermal recovery and energy production and assess the effects of different organic waste input, technologies and energy grids (Fusi et al., 2016). Recycling or reuse of food waste for nutraceutical and pharmaceutical uses is also suggested (Mirabella et al., 2014). Finally, possible benefits of incineration (di Maria and Micale, 2015) and landfill impacts are also assessed (Batuecas et al., 2019).

Product cycle

Sustainable policies in the entire supply chain of products appear to be desirable (Malandrino et al., 2017). Studies on the product cycle, from extraction to waste, are mainly developed from an industrial perspective (81% of publications). A total of 47 publications are case studies applied to specific sectors regarding appliances (Ardente et al., 2019), materials (Ferrari et al., 2014) or services (Zarei et al., 2019). Construction and demolition materials are frequently investigated (Mangialardo and Micelli, 2018; Orsini and Marrone, 2019). Ecolabel (Capitano et al., 2014) and eco-design (Ardente et al., 2015) are only partially examined. Economic aspects are addressed in many studies (at least one-third), whereas the social perspective is only directly assessed in a few publications. The need of new technologies (Mangialardo and Micelli, 2018) to overcome problems linked to material deterioration during recycling (Rigamonti et al., 2010) is highlighted by some authors. Moreover, research indicates to investigate the role of the dimension of plants in reducing environmental impacts related to processes (De Feo and Ferrara, 2017). Research also suggests that management changes in enterprises are the starting point towards a more sustainable supply chain (Brondi et al., 2018). In particular, coordination between offices dealing with purchases and sales appears to be decisive for the environmental improvement (Viani et al., 2016).

Impact of city and urban mining

Publications concerning impacts in cities analyse waste management, energy use and material and water consumption. Cities are the core of consumption patterns (Di Silvestre, 2017) and that of the significant increase in material and energy flows in recent decades (Petrillo et al., 2017). The LCA methodology seems useful for analysing environmental impacts of cities and districts (Mirabella et al., 2019; Palumbo et al., 2019; Petit-Boix et al., 2017); consequently, LCT applied to urban management (Mirabella et al., 2019) and city carbon accounting (Pulselli et al., 2019) are growing fields of interest.

Specific waste flows

Several publications address particular waste flows: thirteen studies focus on construction and demolition waste (WC&D), six on electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) and five on packaging. Other studies investigate general topics (Salladini et al., 2019) or single flows such as tyres (Gigli et al., 2019), absorbent hygiene products (Arena et al., 2016) and shredded automotive residue (Rinaldi et al., 2015). Waste recycling is the most investigated strategy (Simion, Fortuna, et al., 2013), and thermal recovery is also frequently examined (Lombardi et al., 2018). Some analyses are more comprehensive and cover the management of waste flows across an entire region (Borghi et al., 2018).

Municipal solid waste

MSW management is often examined as an entire system; LCA is generally used to compare different scenarios (Tascione and Raggi, 2012) including different phases and possible treatments. Optimisation methods (Digiesi et al., 2015) and the multifunctional approach (Lolli et al., 2016) are also investigated. Some studies address collection strategies (Bamonti and Bonoli, 2014) and also focus on economic performances related to different logistic solutions (De Feo, Ferrara, Iannone, et al., 2019). Thermal recovery, incineration and landfill impacts have been significantly investigated over the last 10 years (Lombardi and Carnevale, 2018; Postacchini et al., 2018). Rest-waste is an extensively studied MSW stream, usually managed as refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in mechanical–biological treatment plants (Rigamonti et al., 2019) or co-combustion plants (Rigamonti et al., 2012). Applying waste to chemicals by converting RDF to methanol or urea (Antonetti et al., 2017) is a convenient process for ecological (Iaquaniello, Salladini, et al., 2017) and economic purposes (Iaquaniello, Centi, et al., 2017). Impacts of MSW management processes are also investigated; for example, pollution abatement strategies produce impacts that cannot be neglected (Barjoveanu et al., 2018). Moreover, residues of waste management processes, such as ashes, have significant environmental impacts (Margallo et al., 2015); different end-of-life paths of ashes, mixing of different waste (Assi et al., 2020) and technological uses (Mostbauer et al., 2014) for new products (Barberio et al., 2010; Sappa et al., 2019) are assessed, focusing on the entire life cycle (Bosio et al., 2014; Di Gianfilippo et al., 2016, 2018; Margallo et al., 2015).

Planning policies

From a wider perspective, LCT is also used to evaluate planning policies and general tools as sustainable policies (Sonnemann et al., 2017) and recycling rates (Passarini et al., 2011), industrial policies (Ardente et al., 2010) and end-of-life treatments (Mengarelli et al., 2017). Different strategies for waste minimisation are studied using various tools, such as, environmental management tools for waste prevention (Sakai et al., 2017), indicators for achieving resource efficiency (Huysman et al., 2015), water footprint for policies (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013), flow optimisation for symbiosis scenarios (Brondi et al., 2018) and application of CE principles to recycling paths (Hertwich et al., 2019).

Goal and scope definition

Methodological selections deeply affect the reliability of outputs (Ingrao et al., 2019). In fact, LCA results typically depend on assumptions and selections made in the assessment planning (Righi et al., 2013). As expected, in the investigated LCA studies on waste, the selection of a coherent or original (Bartolozzi et al., 2017) functional unit influences the results (Loiseau et al., 2018). Therefore, its definition should be precise (Mirabella et al., 2019) and adapted for the technosphere and the ecosphere (Notarnicola et al., 2017). The composition of input waste affects results in terms of chemical content and toxicity (Ilari et al., 2019) or carbon content and greenhouse gas emissions (Antognazza et al., 2011). This is immediately observed with food waste composition (Castellani et al., 2019). The selection of including a process within boundaries is also crucial (Bosco et al., 2011). Moreover, burden shifting is common in LCA studies (Mirabella et al., 2013), and different system definitions lead to changes in environmental outputs.

Furthermore, some impacts are time dependent. For example, this is valid for a landfill leachate, since leaching behaviour affects environmental impacts over time (Di Gianfilippo et al., 2016). Therefore, selecting temporal boundaries (Zucaro et al., 2015) is important. Even products and components of goods have a shelf life, in terms of durability, which should be considered from a supply chain perspective (Montorsi et al., 2018).

Inventory analysis

The definition of avoided burdens and the allocation procedure is another point of interest. The choice to include or not the environmental benefits of recovered flows of materials and energy influences methodology and results. Many products and waste can be reused or recycled, however not for infinite number of cycles. Moreover, each cycle requires materials, energy and transport to be undertaken. In trying to solve problems, attributional and consequential LCA studies (De Menna et al., 2018; Pini et al., 2018) have been developed with different burdens and yield different results. Simultaneously, recovered energy and heat (Lombardi et al., 2015) must be calculated as avoided emissions. Their effect on the system always plays a central role. Avoiding the production of recycled or reused goods also affects the results (Mondello et al., 2017). Furthermore, bottom and fly ashes and all residues must be managed or disposed (Sappa et al., 2019); the flow of these materials must be accounted coherently. Finally, dedicated attention to the analysis of possible rebound effects in LCA stages is required (Vivanco et al., 2018).

Impact assessment

Waste studies may consider many environmental impacts (Masella et al., 2018) or a defined set of impacts (Ardente et al., 2010; Del Borghi et al., 2013). Global warming is the most studied impact (Castellani et al., 2019), for both transport (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010) and processes (Diacono et al., 2019). Considering only one impact may lead to misleading conclusions (De Feo et al., 2016), even if some categories sometimes overlap or may be grouped together (Bonamente et al., 2016; Del Borghi et al., 2013). One impact may decrease while another increases (Battini et al., 2014). Therefore, in most studies, the optimal outcome is not achievable (Rigamonti et al., 2014). As an example, CE indicators do not always overlap with life cycle indicators, and the optimal CE solution is not always the optimal scenario for all investigated impacts (Buonocore et al., 2018). Furthermore, the economic growth is not always coupled with the environmental sustainability, since LCA results are not always the optimal economic solutions (Venanzi et al., 2018). From a methodological perspective, characterisation factors are internationally defined; however, appropriate selection of local factors and weighting factors is crucial for the final assessment (Bertanza et al., 2017).

Interpretation of results

The opportunity to compare many different scenarios (Colangelo et al., 2018) with different impacts (Bartolozzi et al., 2017) is a strength of the LCA methodology. In contrast, the complexity of data may be a weakness. Impact category selection influences both the results of the environmental assessment (Fiorentino et al., 2015) and the benefits of compared scenarios (Mosna et al., 2016). Therefore, integrated indicators (Pergola et al., 2018) and multicriteria models (Brondi et al., 2018) are also constructed and investigated. Sensitivity analysis is a method that determines if the results of the LCA study are reliable and to what extent the assumptions affect results. Methods such as the Monte Carlo analysis (Neri et al., 2018) may be used for a more quantitative investigation. Uncertainty analysis and statistical analysis are often used in waste management to determine results (De Marco et al., 2018). Hotspots analysis (Castellani et al., 2017) is also useful to investigate the most crucial impacts or the fundamental stages (Ripa et al., 2014). Since LCA is an ancient and reliable tool and allows the analysis of its methodological limits by itself, consequently, the phase of interpretation of results must be properly conducted to avoid invalid findings.

Territorial synergies

Synergies between local plants and infrastructures, along with a strong relationship between communities and territory in an interdisciplinary framework among stakeholders (Palumbo et al., 2019), are all essential for sustainable product and waste management. Notably, well-defined logistics and appropriate local waste flow management are integral success points (Arena and Di Gregorio, 2014), mainly if managed at the regional scale (Bacenetti et al., 2015). Agreements with enterprises (Ardente et al., 2010) can also be strategic.

Transport impacts

Transport impacts (Righi et al., 2013) are crucial to diminish environmental pressure on territories (Ingrao et al., 2015). Traffic and transport contribution to the environmental pollution may be greater than that generated from waste treatment phases, even with material and energy recovery (Borghi et al., 2018). Moreover, changing the fuel used in waste collection trucks affects environmental impacts and the overall results (Zabeo et al., 2017). Consequently, location of plants (Accorsi et al., 2015; De Feo et al., 2016) and logistics are crucial to ensure advantageous waste management strategies (Ingrao et al., 2015; Venturini et al., 2014).

Proximity consumption

Consequently, proximity and local use of waste products are keys to success (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010). This is particularly true for food chains and local and organic products (Caputo et al., 2017) in sustainable rural areas (Grippo et al., 2019). Proximity is also useful for fuel, energy and heat recovery from plants (Cucchiella et al., 2019), contributing to symbiotic systems (Renzulli et al., 2016), even if larger decentralised plants are sometimes advantageous (Lombardi et al., 2015).

Energy efficiency

Efficiency in processes and products is crucial, since energy is often responsible for a great part of impacts in the waste management and in the supply chain (Hernandez et al., 2017). Environmental impacts and economic gains depend on the efficiency of the plants, by their location and dimensions (Iannone et al., 2016; Lombardi and Carnevale, 2018). Environmental results depend on national energy grid, both for consumption and for avoided burdens of energy and heat (Ingrao et al., 2019).

Waste hierarchy

The waste hierarchy proposed by European policies is not the optimal environmental solution in all situations (Manfredi and Pant, 2013). Increased source separation is not always the best choice if the system is not adapted to manage each waste flow (Consonni et al., 2011). Moreover, recycling processes may have more severe impacts than avoided ones; recycling is not always the best option, as it depends on certain conditions (Faleschini et al., 2016). Information and communication technologies also have environmental impacts (Bonvoisin et al., 2014). Furthermore, LCA helps to critically study prevention strategies (Nessi et al., 2012) while also considering possible differences between planned and real impacts (Toniolo et al., 2014). For example, the advantages of reuse depend on the number of cycles of reuse itself (Dolci et al., 2016). Therefore, results might be contradictory, and it can be difficult to find the optimal solution (Rigamonti et al., 2014).

Economic, social and political aspects

From an economic perspective, the local supply chain management may have certain advantages (Arena et al., 2016). The economic gain is dependent on dimensions and input material costs of plants (Sgroi et al., 2015), the variability of input, the number of citizens (Montorsi et al., 2018) and their distribution and density (De Feo and Malvano, 2012). Costs in the supply chain must be investigated (Orsini and Marrone, 2019), along with a market for the secondary raw materials produced.

Consequently, the social context and the role of citizens are critical. Household behaviours affect both consumption patterns (Vanham et al., 2015) and recovery rates (De Feo, Ferrara, Finelli, et al., 2019). Local stakeholders are also involved in the acceptance of plants and infrastructure (Hornsby et al., 2017). However, social dimensions have not yet been extensively investigated by Italian LCT studies in waste management.

Politically, long-term decisions (Pulselli et al., 2019) for the entire supply chain (Tencati et al., 2016) should be considered to provide stability to investments. Local accounting and management (Marchi et al., 2012) enable better solutions; each territory has its own characteristics regarding population density, existing plants, industry and social and institutional behaviour (Di Maria et al., 2018).

Comments on study mapping in Italy and worldwide

This mini-review conducted on Italian studies states that many aspects and different waste flows have been investigated by LCA practitioners. This multidimensional trend is also consistent with the international research (Wang et al., 2021), and different studies have been conducted on both overall waste management (Laurent, Bakas, et al., 2014) and product life cycles (Tukker and Jansen, 2006), or on specific waste flows, including biowaste (Lundie and Peters, 2005) or electronic waste (De Meester et al., 2019). In recent years, LCA studies have compared many worldwide predictive, explorative or normative scenarios and have analysed different territories, perspectives and options (Börjeson et al., 2006). Moreover, research has also investigated particular aspects, as engineering aspects of plants and technologies that can improve the performance of waste treatment (Liu et al., 2021).

Determining if all gathered and analysed data in LCA studies in Italy and worldwide could be used as a starting point to identify management strategies in local policies is an interesting research direction. In this context, could existing LCA studies provide some suggestions for environmental policies in Italy? Here, further insights into waste management can be revealed. However, from this literature investigation, current life cycle analyses of waste systems conducted locally and worldwide do not allow the identification of general suggestions on preferable management options that guarantee better sustainability, due to uncertainties (Lazarevic et al., 2010) and local specificities (Laurent, Bakas, et al., 2014).

The Italian data collected may be used to identify gaps in the research. Moreover, for some sectors, existing articles could be a starting point for future investigations.

However, not all studies are robust. To ensure fairness in the evaluation of reviewed publications that can be considered valid, compliance with a list of technical requirements is essential. This article provides some suggestions on this issue. In accordance with the results of this mini-review, more attention must be paid in the future to methodological aspects and transversal themes of the life cycle approach for waste management to improve the robustness of its results, as described in the following paragraphs.

Comments on methodological aspects and international literature

The results of this mini-review are in accordance with the highlights of the international scientific literature (European Commission, 2009). In international publications, limitations of the LCA methodology for waste management are similar to those found in this study and include the subjectivity of system boundaries definition, allocation problem, temporal aspects of data and impacts, presence of multi-input processes and of loops in recycling processes (Finnveden, 1999). Problems arise in each part of the methodology: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation of results (Laurent, Clavreul, et al., 2014).

System boundaries can be defined implicitly or explicitly, and these may be based on temporal windows (Hauschild et al., 2008), technical or environmental aspects, mass or economical weights (Finnveden et al., 2009). The consequential approach in the allocation procedure may allow for the expansion of system boundaries (Ekvall et al., 2016; Weidema et al., 2018). However, the definition of the allocation procedure is crucial and extensively discussed in the literature (Yang, 2016). If the boundaries of the system are overly enlarged, there is a risk that the uncertainties may become too large (Tabata et al., 2011). Many tools have been developed to support the use of LCA in waste management. Inventory analysis is conducted by commercially available software and databases, sometimes integrated with input–output models for hybrid LCA (Finnveden, 1999; Hendrickson et al., 1998), whereas the definition of the characterisation factors for the impact assessment is increasingly expanded in terms of both the endpoint and midpoint (Bare et al., 2000). To manage the effects of recycling and reuse of materials and energy, a compensatory system is often proposed (Eriksson et al., 2005). The scientific measurement of material and energy recoveries and the role of evaded burdens are matters of concern; there is considerable debate regarding the correctness of attributional or consequential LCA (Finnveden et al., 2009), accuracy of the consequential approach (Palazzo et al., 2020) and rigorous evaluation of the substitution of recovered materials (Viau et al., 2020). Depending on the environmental credits and burdens of recovered materials, waste hierarchy convenience should be modified to reflect local conditions (Khandelwal et al., 2019) based on local data (Ripa et al., 2017). Interpretation of results realises uncertainty analysis, since data, choices and flows contain errors; these errors cannot be neglected but need to be included in the study, mainly using statistic methods (Clavreul et al., 2012; Finnveden, 1999). This aspect is crucial in the decision-making process (Tillman, 2000). Weighting and normalisation phases may include bias and therefore should be avoided or carefully conducted (Heijungs et al., 2007). Some recommendations for LCA practitioners in solid waste management system analysis have been provided over the years (e.g. Laurent, Clavreul et al., 2014). Some authors suggest that fair comparisons between different LCA scenarios is difficult if assumptions and data are not presented transparently (Cleary, 2009). Results might be too subjective if there are many impacts and assumptions and a great number of multifunctionalities (Heijungs and Guinée, 2007).

The present work has confirmed the advantages and limitations of the LCA methodology for waste systems and has provided examples based on the studies conducted in Italy. Therefore, it identifies some possible weaknesses of research and possibilities of improvements for reviewed Italian articles. The list of weaknesses can be used by experts to verify whether the studies available can credibly guide policy choices. In this context, the importance of an independent critical review process of studies before public sharing is crucial.

Moreover, the transparency of assumptions, choices, uncertainties and errors offers local stakeholders more reliable data for the decision-making process. Therefore, this review outlines the need to define minimum requirements of methodology, transparency and communicability of the studies. This is particularly relevant in societies where scientific communication is produced and disseminated through mass media. Data need to be transparently shared with public and private actors.

Comments on transversal themes

This mini-review confirms that sustainable waste management through LCT in Italy is not a self-standing theme but includes many local and transversal aspects. The need for an integrated approach, which includes territorial characteristics, transport impacts, proximity and energy issues, waste hierarchy and social and economic concerns, is also recommended in the international literature.

For example, worldwide, many studies investigate the role of local transport impacts and provide suggestions for fuel use or plant locations (Larsen et al., 2009) or investigate the issue of the availability of reliable territorial data and research consensus for site-dependent characterisation factors for regional impact categories (Gallego et al., 2010). The importance of specific and local solutions is outlined by some studies that suggest decentralised waste management systems might be more flexible and can undergo sudden changes in dynamic production patterns, address volatility in the system and be more suitable to face fat-tailed events, the so-called Black Swans (Traven, 2019). Different strategies to include local features and waste issues in LCA have been suggested over the years and include, for example, life cycle inventory (McDougall and Hruska, 2000), waste management models for environmental assessment (Gentil et al., 2010; Kirkeby et al., 2006) and territorial analysis (Loiseau et al., 2018). Moreover, the critical analyses of the waste hierarchy and CE policies lead to multifaceted results that require deep interpretation and suggest that ‘zero waste’ is a remote target (Cherubini et al., 2009; Cossu, 2012). The LCT approach and sensitivity analysis may help to minimise the environmental trade-off between alternatives (Tabata et al., 2011), as global warming and landfill impacts, but a net scale of priorities is scarcely achievable. Globally, over the years, the environmental LCA for waste has been progressively more integrated with economic aspects (Reich, 2005), social issues (Bezama et al., 2019; Jarosch et al., 2020) and institutional governance (Ferronato et al., 2020). The participatory approach of different stakeholders is confirmed as essential for the sustainability of a local waste management (Blengini et al., 2012).

The data from the international literature may be used to integrate and improve national strategies and to focus on the areas that need further investigation. Regional and national environmental agencies may be further involved in creating useful databases. Cooperation between universities and local governments may be also promoted.

Burden shifting and organisational LCA

According to the current review, some comments and future research areas for integrating LCT and local supply chain and waste management in Italy have emerged. Waste studies with the LCT approach cover different topics, various waste streams and numerous fields of analysis. This may be also observed in another way; there are many possible different scopes and different system boundaries, originating from different goals.

As previously outlined, the change of the boundaries and conditions greatly influences results; consequently, some key questions arise. What are the correct boundaries for local planning? Should waste management or waste streams be the focus? Or is it better to adopt a circular approach considering the entire territory as a unique and confined system? What is the role of impacts in cities? What is the role of supply chain of products, wastewater or the agro-food sector? How can results of different systems be integrated? As noted, allocation procedure, consequential approach, avoided burdens and accounting of recycled materials and energy are critical to address these questions. If moving towards sustainability is desirable, burden shifting must be avoided.

Moreover, LCT may be implemented in a corrupt manner by any stakeholder. A researcher might build his/her system boundaries or conditions in order to move impacts outside the scope of his/her analysis; this shift might be performed with the purpose of making one waste treatment option better than another. Consequently, a strong and independent peer review is essential to prevent this risk when political selections for a territory must be undertaken. Similarly, movement of materials, energy flows, emissions or impacts outside a defined territory is a decision that diminishes local pollution but might have substantial external effects.

Therefore, it is necessary to integrate LCA results focused on wastewater, biowaste, supply chain, waste streams, MSW and plants in urban and territorial analysis. This integration must be scientifically conducted in order to suggest more comprehensive waste management strategies. If an environmental shift from a compartment to another is present, this must be evident in the interpretation of results.

Organisational LCA, as defined by ISO/TS 14072 (2014), is a methodology that focuses on the impacts of the entire organisation, considering different sites, production steps and auxiliary activities (Manzardo et al., 2018). This approach contemplates many products and services of the organisation, addressing multifunctionalities, -products and -sites.

The organisational LCA methodology might be used to investigate the local waste management system in its complexity. A new local organisational LCA might be studied to define the ‘organisation’ as the ‘territorial policy of waste’. All waste generation steps and all treatment plants might be considered as boxes of the entire organisation, that is, the territory in which the waste is managed. The “territorial policy of waste” might consider the “optimum territorial area” (ATO, ambito territoriale ottimale), the “local MSW management” or the “regional framework”, leading to different system boundaries for the local organisational LCA. This approach might help to measure the environmental shifting from a waste stream to another among different management steps.

Life cycle sustainability approach

Broadly, the life cycle sustainability approach (Kloepffer, 2008; Toniolo et al., 2020; Visentin et al., 2020) has become helpful in addressing different impacts of the product supply chain (López et al., 2020), waste management (Menikpura et al., 2012) and local policies (Federico et al., 2006; Feleki et al., 2018; Scipioni et al., 2009).

The life cycle sustainability approach might be more commonly used in Italy to address social, economic and institutional aspects (Sala et al., 2013); this might be an interesting field of research. However, since territorial waste management requires different expertise and interdisciplinary knowledge, the integration of LCT is envisaged, including life cycle sustainability and organisational LCA, with other different tools such as environmental management tools, audits, CE policies, material and flow analyses and SDGs.

A visual overview of interconnections between LCT and local waste management and of the more relevant findings of the mini-review is provided in Figure 7.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Life cycle sustainability management in an organisational perspective at local scale.

Open fields of research

The LCT approach to local waste management is still an open field of research.

From a methodological point of view, territorial life cycle methodology (Loiseau et al., 2018) is an alternative proposed by some authors in Italy to contribute to the achievement of a more consistent environmental assessment. Additionally, integration with different tools is suggested by other researchers: material flows (Daria et al., 2013), exergetic LCA (Talens Peiró et al., 2010), energy sustainability index (Lombardelli et al., 2017), policies incorporation (Sala et al., 2012), material and energy recovery strategies (Biganzoli et al., 2015) and CE (Carlini et al., 2019). The advantages and limitations of different strategies and boundaries may be outlined in future studies.

A local focus is imperative to ensure reliable results regarding waste management and is one of the more relevant issue to be solved. Therefore, the availability of specific data for waste flow, plants and policies for the analysis of local scale solutions is necessary (Blengini et al., 2012; Turconi et al., 2011). This objective can also be achieved by developing LCA databases for policy users (Sonnemann et al., 2017) and integrating them with territorial data (geographic information system) including plants, cities and industries (Migliore et al., 2017).

Local effects of waste policies should be outlined as well. For example, LCA results might be more closely linked soil management and erosion (Bosco et al., 2013; Lazzerini et al., 2016), models of air emissions dispersion, exposure and toxicity (Renzulli et al., 2016; Schiavon et al., 2014), or odours and noise.

Furthermore, communication of results needs to be improved by identifying simplified patterns to investigate results as streamlined indicators or environmental footprints (Capitano et al., 2017; Palumbo et al., 2019; Simion, Ghinea, et al., 2013). Scientific communication among stakeholders for complex studies should be simplified (Ripa et al., 2017) without affecting reliability.

Other similar methodological reviews might be conducted. In Italy, analysis may additionally focus on different environmental assessment tools, CE patterns, end-of-waste strategies or industrial ecology plans. Similar reviews could be performed in other countries.