CATWOOD – Reverse Logistics Process Model for Quantitative Assessment of Recovered Wood Management

Boštjan Vimpolšek; Andrej Lisec

doi:10.7307/ptt.v34i6.4101

Authors

Boštjan Vimpolšek Kostak Company
Andrej Lisec University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v34i6.4101

Keywords:

reverse logistics, transportation, mechanistic modelling, LCA, societal LCC, recovered wood

Abstract

Modern environmental and economic challenges in waste management require transition from linear to circular economic flow. In practice, this entails considerable challenges that include the change of material circle flux, the application of mathematical modelling and the use of life cycle thinking – also in the field of recovered wood (RW). To this end, the reverse logistics process model CATWOOD (CAscade Treatment of WOOD) with mechanistic modelling for detailed planning of the RW reverse flow with regular collection, innovative (cascade) sorting based on RW quality and environmentally sound recovery has been designed. As a decision support, the quantitative methods of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and societal life-cycle costing (SLCC) have been incorporated into the CATWOOD, which can choose among a few alternative scenarios. A case study has been performed in the Posavje region in Slovenia, which has discovered that reverse logistics scenarios for reuse are environmentally friendlier than those for recycling or energy recovery, but also more costly, mainly because of extensive manual labour needed and less heavy technology involved in sorting and recovery processes. Sensitivity analysis has exposed that modifying the values of the input parameters may change the final LCA and SLCC results in scenarios observed.

References

Szichta P, et al. Potentials for wood cascading: A model for the prediction of the recovery of timber in Germany. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 2022;178: 106101. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106101.

Sirkin T, Ten Houten M. The cascade chain - A theory and tool for achieving resource sustainability with aplication for product design. Resource, Conservation & Recycling. 1994;10(3): 213-276. doi: 10.1016/0921-3449(94)90016-7.

European Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, L 312/3; 2008.

European Commission. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, L 150/109; 2018.

European Commission. A new circular economy action plan - For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Brussels: COM(2020) 98 final; 2020.

European Commission. Guidance on cascading use of biomass with selected good practice examples on woody biomass. Brussels: Publications Office; 2018.

Thonemann N, Schumann M. Environmental impacts of wood-based products under consideration of cascade utilization: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;172: 4181-4188. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.069.

Jarre M, et al. Transforming the bio-based sector towards a circular economy - What can we learn from wood cascading? Forest Policy and Economics. 2020;110: 101872. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.01.

Rehberger M, Hiete M. Allocation of environmental impacts in circular and cascade use of resources – Incentive-driven allocation as a prerequisite for cascade persistence. Sustainability. 2020;12(11): 4366. doi: 10.3390/su12114366.

Besserer A, et al. Cascading recycling of wood waste: A review. Polymers. 2021;13: 1752. doi: 10.3390/polym13111752.

Leturcq P. Wood preservation (carbon sequestration) or wood burning (fossil-fuel substitution), which is better for mitigating climate change? Annals of Forest Science. 2014;71: 117-124. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0269-9.

Höglmeier K, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K. Potentials for cascading of recovered wood from building deconstruction – A case study for south-east Germany. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 2013;78: 81-91. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.07.004.

Ratajczak E, et al. Resource of post-consumer wood waste originating from the construction sector in Poland. Resource, Conservation & Recycling. 2015;97: 93-99. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.008.

Husgafvel R, et al. Forest sector circular economy development in Finland: A regional study on sustainability driven competitive advantage and an assessment of the potential for cascading recovered solid wood. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;181: 483-497. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.176.

Faraca G, Boldrin A, Astrup T. Resource quality of wood waste: The importance of physical and chemical impurities in wood waste for recycling. Waste Management. 2019;87: 135-147. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.005.

Iždinský J, Vidholdová Z, Reinprecht L. Particleboards from Recycled Wood. Forests. 2020;11: 1-16. doi:10.3390/f11111166.

Vahabzadeh AH, Yusuf RBM. A content analysis in reverse logistics: A review. Journal of Statistics & Management Systems. 2015;18(4): 329-379. doi: 10.1080/09720510.2014.927605.

Kazemi N, Mohan Modak N, Govindan K. A review of reverse logistics and closed loop supply chain management studies published in IJPR: A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Production Research. 2019;57(15-16): 4937-4960. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1471244.

Burnard M, et al. The role of reverse logistics in recycling of wood products. In: Muthu SS. (ed.) Environmental implications of recycling and recycled products. Springer Science+Business Media; 2015. p. 1-31.

Mobtaker A, et al. A review on decision support systems for tactical logistics planning in the context of forest bioeconomy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2021;148: 111250. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111250.

Geldermann J, et al. Improved resource efficiency and cascading utilisation of renewable materials. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;110: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.092.

Taskhiri MS, Garbs M, Geldermann J. Sustainable logistics network for wood flow considering cascade utilisation. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;110: 25-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.098.

Trochu J, Chaabane A, Ouhimmou M. Reverse logistics network redesign under uncertainty for wood waste in the CRD industry. Resource, Conservation, & Recycling. 2018;128: 32-47. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.011.

Taskhiri MS, et al. Optimising cascaded utilisation of wood resources considering economic and environmental aspects. Computers and Chemical Engineering. 2019;124: 302-316. doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.01.004.

Trochu J, Chaabane A, Ouhimmou M. A carbon-constrained stochastic model for eco-efficient reverse logistics network design under environmental regulations in the CRD industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;245. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118818.

Vimpolšek B, Androjna A, Lisec A. Modelling of post-consumer wood sorting and manipulation: Computational conception and case study. Wood Research. 2022;67(3): 472-487. doi: 10.37763/wr.1336-4561/67.3.472487.

Hegedić M, Štefanić N, Nikšić M. Assessing the environmental impact of the self-propelled bulk carriage through LCA. Promet – Traffic&Transportation. 2018;30(3): 257-66. doi: 10.7307/ptt.v30i3.2445.

ISO 14040. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO); 2006.

ISO 14044. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO); 2006.

Rivela B, et al. Life cycle assessment of wood wastes: A case study of ephemeral architecture. Science of the Total Environment. 2006;357: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.04.017.

Puy, N, Rieradevall J, Bartroli J. Environmental assessment of post-consumer wood and forest residues gasification: The case study of Barcelona metropolitan area. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2010;34: 1457-1465. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.04.009.

Högelmeier K, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K. Utilization of recovered wood in cascades versus utilization of primary wood - A comparison with life cycle assessment using system expansion. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2014;19(10): 1755-1766. doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0774-6.

Kim MH, Song HB. Analysis of the global warming potential for wood waste recycling systems. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014;69: 199-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.039.

Risse M, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K. Resource efficiency of multifunctional wood cascade chains using LCA and exergy analysis, exemplified by a case study for Germany. Resource, Conservation & Recycling. 2017;126: 141-152. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.045.

Bais-Moleman, et al. Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;172: 3942-3954. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.153.

Röder M, Thornley P. Waste wood as bioenergy feedstock. Climate change impacts and related emission uncertainties from waste wood based energy systems in the UK. Waste Management. 2018;74: 241-252. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.042.

Faraca G, Tonini D, Astrup TF. Dynamic accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from cascading utilisation of wood waste. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;651: 2689-2700. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.136.

Corona B, et al. Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of energy generation from waste wood and forest residues: The effect of resource-efficient additives. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;259: 120948. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120948.

Khan MMH, et al. Environmental impacts of wooden, plastic, and wood - polymer composite pallet: A life cycle assessment approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2021;26: 1607-1622. doi: 10.1007/s11367-021-01953-7.

Niu Y, et al. Prolonging life cycles of construction materials and combating climate change by cascading: The case of reusing timber in Finland. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 2021;170: 105555. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105555.

Dahlbo H, et al. Construction and demolition waste management - A holistic evaluation of environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;107: 333-341. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.073.

Risse M, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K. Eco-efficiency analysis of recycling recovered solid wood from construction into laminated timber products. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;661: 107-119. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.117.

Ziari H, Behbahani H, Amini AA. A framework for economic evaluation of highway development projects based on network-level life cycle cost analysis. Promet – Traffic&Transportation. 2015;27(1): 59-8. doi: 10.7307/ptt.v27i1.1553.

De Menna, et al. Life Cycle Costing of food waste: A review of methodological approaches. Waste Management. 2018;73: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.032.

Dhillon BS. Life Cycle Costing for engineers. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010.

Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G, Ciroth A, Lichtenvort K. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. New York: CRC Press; 2008.

Ricardo–AEA. Update of the handbook on external costs of transport. Report for the European Commission, DG MOVE, Ricardo–AEA/R/ ED57769 (1), 2014.

Martinez–Sanchez V, Kromann MA, Astrup TF. Life cycle costing of waste management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Management. 2015;36: 343-355. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033.

Jaunich MK, et al. Lifecycle process model for municipal solid waste collection. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2016;142(8). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001065.

Vimpolšek B, et al. Models for Life Cycle Assessment: Review of technical assumptions in collection and transportation processes. Technical Gazzete. 2019;26(6). doi: 10.17559/TV-20181209160911.

Christensen T, et al. Application of LCA modelling in integrated waste management. Waste Management. 2020;118: 313-322. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.034.

Sandhu GS, et al. In-use activity, fuel use, and emissions of heavy-duty diesel roll-off refuse trucks. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2015;65(3): 306-323. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2014.990587.

Altholz V. Verordnung über Anforderungen an die Verwertung und Beseitigung von Altholz. Altholzverordnung – AltholzV, BGBl. I S. 3302, 2002.

Vimpolšek B, Leskovar J, Lisec A. Circularity of bulky waste: A case study of Krško in Slovenia. In: Elselmy A-S. (ed.) Towards a sustainable blue economy: A publication of the International Maritime Transport and Logistics Conference, 20-22 March, 2022, Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria: AASTMT; 2022. p. 161-170.

Curtis EM III, Dumas RD. A spreadsheet process model for analysis of costs and life cycle inventory parameters associated with collection of municipal solid waste. North Carolina State University for the Department of Civil Engineering; 2000.

European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on requirements relating to gaseous and particulate pollutant emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile machinery. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, L 252/53; 2016.

Baumann H, Tillman AM. The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA – An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB; 2004.

Huijbregts M, et al. ReCiPe2016. A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report I: Characterization. Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen; 2016. https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/downloads [Accessed 15th Apr. 2022].

Chen S, Keys KL. A cost analysis model for heavy equipment. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2009;56(4): 1276-1288. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2008.07.015.

El Khatib SA, et al. Hydrotreating rice bran oil for biofuel production. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2018;27(4): 1325-1331. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.08.003.

Groot J, et al. A comprehensive waste collection cost model applied to post-consumer plastic packaging waste. Resource, Conservation & Recycling. 2014;85: 79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.019.