Main methodological characteristics in the reviewed sample
| Aspect | Main options/ shares | Notes | References (examples) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal of the study | Comparative analysis (87%), hotspot analysis (11%), other (2%) | LCAs mainly compare alternative treatment options | Aleisa and Alsaleh (2024); Nhubu et al. (2020) |
| Functional unit (FU) | Mass-based (84%, mostly 1 tonne of waste), energy-based (5%), output based (e.g. compost, biochar) (11%) | Mass-based FUs dominate (predominantly input-based) | Adhikari et al. (2024); Castellani et al. (2024) |
| System boundaries (SBs) | Not explicitly defined (83%), cradle-to-grave (5%), cradle-to-gate (5%), others (7%) | Although implicitly, waste-to-grave SBs are mainly adopted | Castellani et al. (2024); Liu et al. (2017) |
| Multi-functionality approach | Substitution/ avoided burden (66%), allocation (10%), system expansion (3%), not specified (21%) | Substitution preferred despite ISO’s hierarchy | Aleisa and Alsaleh (2024) |
| Inventory data | Secondary data only (48%), mixed (45%), primary only (3%) | Ecoinvent most used database; limited use of primary data | Nyitrai et al. (2023) |
| LCA software | SimaPro (31%), EASETECH (13%), LCA for Experts (11%), OpenLCA (2%), unspecified (43%) | Reflects database accessibility and regional preferences | Arfelli et al. (2023) |
| Impact assessment methods | ReCiPe (25%), CML (21%), IPCC (17%), other (37%) | ReCiPe and CML dominate for comprehensive midpoint coverage; IPCC is prefereed for climate change analyses | |
| Impact categories | Climate change (96%), acidification (47%), eutrophication (42%), human toxicity (43%), photochemical ozone (41%), energy demand (17%) | GHG emissions dominate assessment focus | Alsaleh and Aleisa (2023); Ni and Zhang (2024) |
| Sensitivity analysis | Performed in 51% of studies | Mainly on energy and transport parameters | Ni and Zhang (2024) |
| Uncertainty analysis | Performed in 17% of studies | Monte Carlo simulation most common | Lewerenz et al. (2023) |
| Aspect | Main options/ shares | Notes | References (examples) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal of the study | Comparative analysis (87%), hotspot analysis (11%), other (2%) | LCAs mainly compare alternative treatment options | |
| Functional unit ( | Mass-based (84%, mostly 1 tonne of waste), energy-based (5%), output based (e.g. compost, biochar) (11%) | Mass-based FUs dominate (predominantly input-based) | |
| System boundaries (SBs) | Not explicitly defined (83%), cradle-to-grave (5%), cradle-to-gate (5%), others (7%) | Although implicitly, waste-to-grave SBs are mainly adopted | |
| Multi-functionality approach | Substitution/ avoided burden (66%), allocation (10%), system expansion (3%), not specified (21%) | Substitution preferred despite ISO’s hierarchy | |
| Inventory data | Secondary data only (48%), mixed (45%), primary only (3%) | Ecoinvent most used database; limited use of primary data | |
| SimaPro (31%), EASETECH (13%), | Reflects database accessibility and regional preferences | ||
| Impact assessment methods | ReCiPe (25%), | ReCiPe and | |
| Impact categories | Climate change (96%), acidification (47%), eutrophication (42%), human toxicity (43%), photochemical ozone (41%), energy demand (17%) | ||
| Sensitivity analysis | Performed in 51% of studies | Mainly on energy and transport parameters | |
| Uncertainty analysis | Performed in 17% of studies | Monte Carlo simulation most common |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.