POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY USING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

255

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

PUBLISHED DATE: - 28-11-2024
DOI: -

https://doi.org/10.37547/tajiir/Volume06Issue11-22

PAGE NO.: - 255-272

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN
YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY USING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Titi Tiara Anasstasia

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Mineral Technology, UPN Veteran

Yogyakarta, Jl. Padjajaran no 104, Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Tissa Ayu Algary

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Mineral Technology, UPN Veteran

Yogyakarta, Jl. Padjajaran no 104, Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Arika Bagus Perdana

Department of Communication Science, Faculty of Social and Political Science, UPN Veteran

Yogyakarta, Jl. Tambak Banyan No. 2 Caturtunggal, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Corresponding Author:- Titi Tiara Anasstasia

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

Abstract

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

256

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

INTRODUCTION

Up to the present, waste remains a serious
problem for developing countries, including
Indonesia. Poor solid waste management leads to
various environmental problems such as water,
soil, and air pollution (Abdel-Shafy and Mansour,
2018). Yogyakarta and its neighboring cities are in
need of waste management efforts, especially after
the Piyungan Landfill, which is the foundation for
landfilling waste in Bantul, Sleman, and Yogyakarta
Regencies, has stopped operating. This certainly
raises concerns for areas included in the scope of
Piyungan landfill services. The waste management
system in Yogyakarta predominantly applies the
end-of-pipe (EOP) principle, with the general
operating system still being open dumping. This
method is considered incapable of addressing
waste problems such as waste piles, the emergence
of illegal waste disposal sites, land limitations, and
environmental pollution, all of which ultimately
have an impact that can be felt by the community
(Muthmainah 2007; Radyan Danar et al., 2019).
Open dumping is widely used in waste
management due to improper planning of the
waste management system, low funding, and law
enforcement of applicable regulations (Salvia et al.,
2021; Yazdani et al., 2015).

In addition to reducing landfill capacity, open
dumping operations also may potentially lead to
several environmental impacts. These include
leachate, greenhouse gases, and heavy metal
contamination in soil (Ali et al., 2014; Siddiqua et
al., 2022; Vaverková, 2019). Open dumping
requires a large area of land to accommodate
waste. Before being disposed of in a landfill, waste
is usually accommodated in a Temporary Shelter
(TPS) or Waste Transfer Depot. However, the
existence of temporary shelter has not significantly
reduced the amount of waste entering the landfill.
As of 2023, Sleman Regency is recorded as the
largest contributor to the volume of waste entering

the Piyungan Landfill. Several rural areas still do
not have a controlled waste management system.
This suggests that the EOP method with an open
dumping operating system is not an appropriate
and sustainable method of waste management in
the Sleman Regency.

The amount of generation, location, composition,
and characteristics of waste are the most
considered factors in waste management (Gallardo
et al., 2016). Waste generation and location will
affect the fleet requirements for waste
transportation. The utilization of fossil fuels during
transportation will also contribute to emissions in
the

environment.

The

composition

and

characteristics of waste will be a contributing
factor in the formation of leachate, GHG, and
contaminants that can be released to the
environment such as organic matter and heavy
metals.

Leachate is a liquid that develops from waste piles
when compounds in the waste dissolve as
rainwater seeps in (Tchobanoglous & Kreith,
2019). Meanwhile, GHGs are gases resulting from
waste decomposition such as CH4, H2S, CO2, and
NH3 which can further lead to an increase in the
concentration of greenhouse gases that cause
global warming (Reddy et al., 2017; Werkneh,
2022). Several other studies also investigated
various

environmental

impacts,

including

acidification potential, eutrophication potential,
and human toxicity potential (Dangi et al., 2023;
Kossakowska & Grzesik, 2019; Sharma et al., 2023;
Shekoohiyan et al., 2023). The value of potential
environmental impact can serve as one of the
approaches

to

determining

a

more

environmentally friendly waste management
scenario (Arushanyan et al., 2017; Aziz &
Nurunnissa, 2022). Aiming to consider the best
solution for sustainable waste management, Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is regarded as one of the

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

257

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

tools that can be utilized to evaluate waste
management performance. According to ISO
14040: 2006, stages of LCA consist of goal and
scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle
impact assessment, and interpretation. Several
studies employed LCA to determine the
appropriate waste management scenario for a
particular area (Buratti et al., 2015; Fernández-
Nava et al., 2014; Khandelwal et al., 2019). In
general, the waste management scenarios
considered are based on the generation,
composition, and characteristics of waste
generated from a specific area. The results
obtained from LCA can provide a foundation for
decision-making in solid waste management
strategies and regulations (Pérez et al., 2020;
Rajendran et al., 2021; Torkayesh et al., 2022).

Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) is a crucial component in
LCA study (Dangi et al., 2023). Input and output
data are collected based on the scope of this study
through measurement, estimation, and calculation
(Farhan et al., 2024). Emission resulting from
waste decomposition and combustion, and fossil
fuels are calculated. Waste-to-Energy becomes the
most preferred scenario in waste management.
This aligns with the waste management triangle,
which indicates that waste conversion is a better
alternative to landfilling. Waste can be utilized in
alternative fuels such as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
and pellet fuels (Mohan et al., 2023; Wei et al.,
2024). Anasstasia et al. (2020) found that domestic
waste with a potential heating value of 3,883
kCal/kg utilized in the cement industry could
reduce GWP by 10% compared to open dumping.
Additionally, RDF and biomass can also be used as

alternatives to fossil fuels for generating electricity
(Karpan et al., 2021; Kusumaningrum & Munawar,
2014; Rimantho et al., 2023). Numerous benefits
can be obtained by converting waste into
alternative fuels such as reducing the rate of waste
generation; preventing the spread of diseases
caused by waste; minimizing the potential for
water, soil, and air pollution caused by waste;
achieving economic gains; and obtaining
renewable energy sources from waste (Hajam et
al., 2023; Rezania et al., 2023). In this study, the
Cradle-to-Grave LCA approach was employed to
calculate the potential environmental impacts of
the existing waste management system in Sleman
Regency and to analyze the potential benefits of
implementing a waste processing scenario into
renewable fuels by comparing the potential impact
values.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Case study area

Waste is generally managed by local governments
and non-governmental organizations. Waste
management carried out by the local government
begins with collecting waste using containers (C)
and transporting them using garbage carts to the
Transfer Depot (TD) or Temporary Shelter (TPS).
The waste is then transported to the landfill
communally. On the other hand, non-
governmental organizations manage the waste by
directly transporting it to the landfill (DD). At TD
and TPS, waste reduction is possible to be carried
out by processing the waste into compost and
selling some that still have economic value. Based
on the territory, Solid Waste (SW) comes from
urban and non-urban areas (Fig.1).

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

258

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Figure 1. Waste management system in Sleman Regency

Solid waste is generated by a variety of sources,
including residental areas, markets, educational
institutions, offices, hotels, shops, restaurants, and
so on. Waste is transported from the sources to the
TPS using motorized carts. Subsequently, the
waste is transported from the TD and TPS to TPA
Piyungan using dump trucks. SW is disposed of at
the TPA Piyungan in a partially controlled landfill
or even inclined towards open dumping. Waste
originates from two sources: the collection and

sorting process units, and directly from the source
of waste itself. SW is transported to the TPA using
dump trucks, covering an average distance of
20.12 km. It is sent 2 times a day from the Transfer
Depot, 2 times a week from the TPS, and 2 times a
day from the private sector. The number of active
dump trucks is 36 units. In total, there are 14 TD
managed by the government and 209 TPS
managed by both the government and the private
sector (Fig.2).

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

259

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Figure 2. Distribution of temporary shelters and transfer depots in Sleman Regency

DATA COLLECTION

The waste sampling was carried out in accordance
with SNI 19-3964-1994. The samples were
collected from the TPS and TD to determine their
composition and characteristics. Based on the data
taken from the Environmental Agency of Sleman
Regency, the average waste generation in this
regency from 2028 to 2023 was 31.41% of organic
waste, consisting of food waste, vegetable waste,
and garden waste. The remaining waste consisted
of plastic waste (26.18%), paper (25.13%), glass
(5.24%), metal (4.71%), toxic hazardous waste
(6.81%), and residue (0.52%).

Scenario

Scenario 1: Business as Usual (BAU).

Generally, waste management in Sleman Regency
includes collection, delivery, and open dumping.
Throughout 2028-2023, on average, 51% of waste
had been managed by the local government, while
49% remained unmanaged (Fig.1). The managed
waste is collected at temporary waste disposal
sites (TPS) and transfer depots. Once collected, it is

then disposed of in the landfills. Meanwhile,
unmanaged waste is either burned or dumped on
open land, usually in areas outside the range of the
Sleman Regional Government, such as rural
regions.

Scenario 2: Full Landfilling.

This scenario begins with the collection of waste
from residential areas, offices, markets, and so on.
Waste is collected using motorized garbage carts
or pickups and then transported to the landfill. It is
assumed that Sleman Regency still uses the
Piyungan landfill.

Scenario 3: Full Pellet and RDF.

This scenario follows the same initial stages as
scenario 3, except that it applies to all waste
generated. Therefore, no waste is burned openly or
disposed of in landfills. This scenario does not
require landfills for landfilling. The processing of
RDF and biomass pellets is performed at the TPS or
TD.

Scenario 4: Pellet, RDF, and several unmanaged
waste.

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

260

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

The initial stages of this scenario are similar to
those of scenario 1, except that the waste managed
by the Local Government is processed into RDF
and Pellets. Ecoenzymes are utilized to process
organic waste and residues into pellets
(Winaningsih et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2022).
Meanwhile, the remaining waste such as
combustible solid waste is shredded to become
RDF. There are two assumptions of scenario, with
the waste group already segregated when received
at TD and TPS.

LCA framework

Goal and scope definition.

The current study aims to calculate the potential
environmental impact of waste management in
Sleman Regency and compare it with WTE-based
waste management as an alternative scenario. The
purpose of the alternative treatment scenario
provided is to improve the performance of waste
management in Sleman Regency with lower
environmental impact. The Functional Unit in this
study is the total amount of waste managed in
Sleman Local Government within a single year.
System boundary in this study is illustrated in
Figure 3. The scope of this study is Cradle-to-Grave,
encompassing the entire lifecycle of waste from its
entry to the end of its life phase.

Figure 3: The system boundary of the solid waste management

Life cycle inventory.

Inventory data were obtained from the input and
output data of each process unit, which were
derived from field measurements, calculations,
interviews, and literature data. The inputs
included the use of resources, energy, and fuel,
while the outputs included emissions, waste, and
products produced (Table 1). Data related to waste
generation and composition were obtained from

the inventory data of the Environmental Agency of
Sleman Regency. Meanwhile, the characteristics of
waste were obtained from the results of waste
sampling derived from TPS and TD.

Haulage, bulldozer, and excavator emissions

Emission from the use of diesel fuel was calculated
based on with Equation 1 . The results revealed
that in one year, the garbage trucks traveled an
average distance of 27,819.33 km/truck and an

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

261

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

average diesel fuel needed was 4,164.22 liters/truck.

Emission = ∑ (𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙

𝑎

𝑥𝐸𝐹

𝑎

)

𝑎

(1)

Where: Emission= CO

2

, CH

4

, and N

2

O (kg); Fuel= Fuel Consumed (liter); EF= Emission Factor (CO

2

=74.52

t/TJ; CH

4

=0.005 t/TJ; N

2

O=6.00E-04 t/TJ).

-

Landfill gas estimation

In scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the emission values resulting from landfilling were calculated based on IPCC
(2006), utilizing Equation 2 to Equation 6, assuming that greenhouse gases would be formed in
approximately 6 months (Toha & Rahman, 2023)

𝑄 (𝑇, 𝑋) = 𝐴 𝑥 𝐾 𝑥 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝑇 𝑥 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝐹 𝑥 𝑀𝐶𝐹 𝑥 𝐿𝑜(𝑋) 𝑥 𝑒

−𝐾(𝑇−𝑋)

(2)

A=

(1−𝑒

−𝑘

)

𝑘

(3)

K=

𝑙𝑛 2

𝑡.5

(4)

𝐿𝑜 = 𝑀𝐶𝐹 𝑥 𝐷𝑂𝐶 𝑥 𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑓 𝑥 𝐹 𝑥

16
12

(5)

𝐷𝑂𝐶 = 0.4𝐴 + 0.17𝐵 + 0.15𝐶 + 0.30𝐷

(6)

Where: K = Methane generation constant; Lo = Potential methane production; A = correction factor; t.5=
the half-life the waste (3 years); DOC = Degradable Organic Carbon; DOCf= dissimilated organic carbon; F=
Fraction of Methane (F=0,50); A= paper+ rags; B= leaves+hay+straw; C=fruit and vegetables; D= Wood.

-

Estimation of leachate production

Leachate formed from the landfills was calculated using a standard method that is relatively easy and does
not include many parameters, assuming that 75% of it originates from rainfalls, according to equation 7
(Choden et al., 2022; Ibrahim et al., 2017). According to BPS Data 2023in Yogykarta Province, the average
annual rainfall is 221.92 mm.

𝑉 = 0.15 𝑥 𝑅 𝑥 𝐴

(7)

Where: V= volume of leachate discharge in a year (m

3

.year

-1

); R= annual rainfall (m); A= surface area of

the landfill (m

2

)

Table 1. Life cycle inventory of every 1 ton of waste management

Scenario

Input

Unit

Output

Unit

SC-1:BAU

Solid waste

1.00E+00

t

Solid waste. in landfill

1.91E-01

t

Diesel

4.20E+00

l

Ash

4.04E-02

t

Electricity

7.81E+00

kWh

CO

2

2.55E+00

t

Land

1.26E-06

l

CH

4

2.51E-02

t

Soil cover

1.44E+01

m

3

N

2

O

9.07E-05

t

Leachate

4.20E-03

m

3

year-1

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

262

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Scenario

Input

Unit

Output

Unit

Cd

1.60E-02

kg

Cr

9.32E-02

kg

Cu

1.84E-01

kg

Fe

7.87E+00

kg

Ni

1.78E-02

kg

Pb

1.52E-01

kg

Zn

7.35E+00

kg

SiO

2

1.99E-02

kg

Ca

1.42E+02

kg

Mg

2.68E-02

kg

K

1.12E+01

kg

Na

8.91E+00

kg

BOD

8.41E-03

kg

COD

6.30E-03

kg

TOC

1.26E-02

kg

TSS

8.41E-04

kg

Nitrogen

4.20E-05

kg

Ammonia

4.20E-05

kg

Nitrat

2.10E-05

kg

Phosphorus

2.10E-05

kg

Calcium

8.41E-04

kg

Magnesium

2.10E-04

kg

Potassium

8.41E-04

kg

Sodium

8.41E-04

kg

Chloride

8.41E-04

kg

Sulfate

2.10E-04

kg

Iron

2.10E-04

kg

SC-2: All

Open

Dumping

Solid waste

1.00E+00

t

Solid waste. in landfill

1.00E+00

t

Diesel

1.74E+01

l

CO

2

9.56E+03

t

Electricity

7.81E+00

kWh

CH

4

3.12E+00

t

Land

5.35E-06

ha

N

2

O

3.72E-01

t

Soil cover

6.09E+01

m

3

Leachate

1.78E-02

m

3

year-1

BOD

3.56E-02

kg

COD

2.67E-02

kg

TOC

5.34E-02

kg

TSS

3.56E-03

kg

Nitrogen

1.78E-04

kg

Ammonia

1.78E-04

kg

Nitrat

8.90E-05

kg

Phosphorus

8.90E-05

kg

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

263

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Scenario

Input

Unit

Output

Unit

Calcium

3.56E-03

kg

Magnesium

8.90E-04

kg

Potassium

3.56E-03

kg

Sodium

3.56E-03

kg

Chloride

3.56E-03

kg

Sulfate

8.90E-04

kg

Iron

8.90E-04

kg

SC-3: RDF &

Pellet

Solid waste

1.00E+00

t

Biomass

2.40E+05

kCal

Diesel

7.77E+00

l

Fluff RDF

2.88E+06

kCal

Electricity

1.61E-03

kWh

CO

2

1.27E+01

t

Ecoenzym

2.24E+04

mL

CH

4

2.52E-02

t

N

2

O

1.02E-04

t

Wastewater

2.92E+01

kg

SC-4: RDF.
Pellet. and

Unmanaged

Solid Waste

Solid waste

1.00E+00

t

Fluff RDF

9.80E+01

kg

Diesel

2.00E+00

l

Biomass

1.53E+01

kg

Electricity

7.81E+00

kWh

Unmanaged waste

8.09E+02

kg

CO

2

5.55E+07

kg

N

2

O

1.89E-02

kg

CH

4

1.82E-01

kg

Cd

1.60E-02

kg

Cr

9.32E-02

kg

Cu

1.84E-01

kg

Fe

7.87E+00

kg

Ni

1.78E-02

kg

Pb

1.52E-01

kg

Zn

7.35E+00

kg

SiO

2

1.99E-02

kg

Ca

1.42E+02

kg

Mg

2.68E-02

kg

K

1.12E+01

kg

Na

8.91E+00

kg

Abu

4.04E+01

kg

CO

2

1.26E+03

kg

CH

4

1.71E-09

kg

N

2

O

2.06E-10

kg

CO

2

2.55E-05

kg

CH

4

. landfill

3.19E+00

kg

Waste water

5.13E+01

kg

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

264

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

The inventory data is still unable to show the
potential impact value of some types of waste
management. The LCIA stage aims to convert
values derived from inventory data into impact
values, particularly from the use of resources and
emissions charged to the environment. In this
study, the CML-1A Baseline and ILCD 2011
Midpoint+ methods were employed. This method
can generate environmental impact categories,
including Global Warming Potential (GWP),
Acidification Potential (ADP), Eutrophication
Potential (EP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP),
and Land Use Potential (LUP). The selection of
impact categories was based on important issues
that typically result from waste management and
analysis of several inventory data (Table 1).
Normalization was utilized to determine which
impact categories are the most important to be
discussed and become the main review in
comparing the most environmentally friendly
waste management scenarios, which will be
further discussed in the interpretation section.

Interpretation

Interpretation is the final stage of this LCA study.
Identifying key issues across various impact
categories is necessary to establish the most
appropriate

environmental

improvement

priorities. The identification of important issues
was determined based on the normalization
results. The three most relevant impact categories
for discussing significant issues, based on the
normalization and weighting results, highlight
some inventories that have the greatest influence
on the impact value. Interpretation was carried out
for the impacts related to Global Warming
Potential (GWP), Acidification Potential (ADP),
Eutrophication Potential (EP), Human Toxicity
Potential (HTP), and Land Use Potential (LUP).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Environmental impact of BAU scenario

Concerning the selection of the most appropriate
scenario to be applied for waste management in
Sleman Regency, it has been discussed previously
that there are 3 alternative scenarios. According to
the field data collected, which are summarized in
Table 1 about data inventory, the amount of waste
generated in Sleman Regency was the same at
approximately 38,333.2 tons.y-1. However, only
about 19% of waste was managed by the Regional
Government in the existing condition. Meanwhile,
the impact category results for each scenario are
summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Summary of potential environmental impact value of BAU scenario

Impact Category

Impact Assessment

Unit

Global Warming Potential

4.90E+03

kg CO

2

eq.

Acidification Potential

2.78E-03

kg SO

2

eq.

Eutrophication Potential

4.92E-02

kg PO

4

eq.

Human Toxicity Potential

2.06E+01

kg 1,4-DB eq.

Land Use

4.71E-08

kg C deficit eq.

Table 2 and Fig 4 exhibits that waste management
activities, from collection to open dumping (BAU),
have the potential to generate environmental
impacts such as Global Warming Potential,
Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential,
Human Toxicity, and Land Use. This impact value

is derived from both direct emissions and indirect
emissions. For the Global Warming Potential
(GWP) measured in kg CO2 eq, it is evident that the
open dumping stage has the greatest influence on
the magnitude of the impact value. This is because
open dumping generates a significant amount of
gases from waste decomposition, such as CH4. The

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

265

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

majority of these gases are produced from the
decomposition of organic waste, which is the most
dominant among other types of waste. The
Acidification Potential (ADP) impact was

calculated in kg SO2 eq. The largest ADP impact
value comes from the waste transportation
process to the landfill site (TPA).

Figure 4. The primary contributor to environmental impacts in the BAU Scenario

During the waste transportation process, indirect
emissions or background data from fuel
consumption are produced. Consequently, the
impact value increases with higher fuel usage. The
amount of fuel used depends on the amount of
waste transported to the landfill. Concerning the
Eutrophication Potential (EP) impact, it was
calculated in units of kg PO4 eq. The results suggest
that the largest contributor to the impact is
indirect emissions from burning waste of
unmanaged waste. This also applies to the
potential impact of Human toxicity (HTP). In terms
of Land Use Potential (LUP), the largest
contribution of impacts is generated from open
dumping of waste in landfills. These results
indicates that the two most significant
contributors of impact are emissions from the
open dumping process and the transportation of
waste to landfills.

Comparison between BAU scenario and other
scenarios

The results of the input and output inventory
serves as foundation for determining the value of
potential impacts, particularly those related to the
use of resources and emissions released to the
environment. The analysis of impact normalization
using the World 2000-CML-IA-Baseline method
revealed that the most significant impacts on
waste management were Global Warming
Potential, Acidification, Eutrophication, and
Human Toxicity.

After comparing the three scenarios, it was found
that Scenario 3 yielded the lowest impact value
among the others (Fig.5). Scenario 1 generated the
highest impact value for the GWP category.
Scenario 2 had the highest impact value for the
ADP and LUP categories. Meanwhile, Scenario 4
recorded the highest impact value for the EP and
HTP categories.

Comparison of the impact contributions of the
four scenarios at the midpoint level

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

266

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Figure 5. Comparison of impacts of normalized waste management scenarios

Global warming potential (kg CO

2

eq.).

Global Warming Potential (GWP) refers to an
environmental impact caused by the release of
greenhouse gases, which contributes to the

increase in Earth’s temperature (Muralikrishna &

Manickam, 2017). Some emissions such as CO

2

,

CH4, and NO2 are classified in the GWP impact
category (EPA, 2024). The composition of waste
was dominated by those containing Degradable
Organic Carbon. According to the approach
utilizing Equations 2 and 6, the DOC content in
waste leads to the formation of CH4 gas as a result
of the decomposition process, which in turn
contributes to the GWP impact value. CH4
emissions become an impact hotspot for Scenario
1, Scenario 4, and Scenario 2 as a result of open
dumping in waste management. SO2 and NOX
emissions mostly come from indirect emissions
due to the use of fossil fuels. Fossil CH4 emissions
also contribute to the impacts in Scenarios 2 and 3
as direct emissions from fuel use, even though they
are not dominant. Fuel use during the production
process of pellet and RDF (collection, sorting, and
shredding) generates direct emissions that cause
GWP impacts (Fig. 6a)

Acidification Potential (kg SO

2

eq.).

Acidification Potential (AP) is an impact that can
produce acid rain. Emissions classified under AP
are sulfur dioxide (SO

2

), nitrogen oxide (NOx),

nitrogen monoxide (NO), and several others
(Dincer & Abu-Rayash, 2020). Some emissions

such as SO2 and NOx are impact hotspots. One of
the consequences of the open burning of waste is
the production of ash from combustion.
Additionally, emissions generated from fossil fuels
during the production process are considered
indirect emissions (Fig. 6b).

Eutrophication Potential (kg PO

4

eq.).

Eutrophication Potential (EP) generally occurs due
to an increase in nutrient levels in the water caused
by nitrogen and phosphorus, leading to an increase
in phytoplankton productivity (Banar et al., 2009).
In the BAU scenario and Scenario 4, the impact
value is attributed to PO4 produced from ash
generated by burning waste and released into the
environment. Meanwhile, when all waste is
disposed of in landfills (Scenario 2), several other
emissions, including NO3, COD, NOx, N2O, and
Phosphorus, contribute almost equally. In Scenario
3, the largest contribution comes from N2O
emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels
during waste collection and the production of
pellets and RDF (Fig. 6c).

Human Toxicity Potential (kg 1.4-DB eq.).

Human toxicity refers to the adverse effect on
humans due to the toxicity of chemicals released
into the environment (Mio et al., 2022). Waste
combustion activities produce several metals that
can be released into the environment (Scenario 1
and Scenario 4) such as Pb, Br, and Mb, which are
emitted into the air or contained in the combustion
ash. Meanwhile, in scenario 2, leachate from open

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

267

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

landfilling has the potential to release several
metals that can lead to human toxicity impacts. As
for Scenario 3, the impact hotspot arises from
utilizing ecoenzyme in biomass pellets production,
with the actual impact value stemming from the
background data of ecoenzyme production (Fig.
6d).

Land Use Potential (kg C deficit).

Land use is an impact caused by land intervention
due to land conversion, including occupation
(Vidal-Legaz et al., 2016). Land occupancy from
scenarios with open waste disposal (Scenarios 1, 2,
and 4) is the impact hotspot. This suggests that
without waste treatment, land use impacts will
increase. As for Scenario 3, the reliance on
ecoenzymes in the production of biomass pellets
requires land transformation to ensure the
availability of raw materials (Fig. 6e).

Sensitivity analysis

Several researchers have employed sensitivity
analysis to assess the significance of variables in

generating impacts. In this case, the scenario of
converting waste into biomass pellets and RDF is
the best scenario in terms of the lowest impact
value. However, the contribution analysis reveals
that fuel use in waste collection and the production
of pellets and RDF results in hotspots. Therefore,
determining possible steps when the scenario is
implemented is necessary. The use of fuel in waste
collection depends on the amount of waste
transported.

The sensitivity analysis results (Table 3) exhibit a
decrease in the GWP and EP impact values when
scenario 3 was implemented with waste reduction
at the beginning of the collection. The lower
amount of waste leads to lower fuel use, resulting
in lower potential impact values across all five
impact categories. The reduction of waste fuel use
depends on the amount of waste managed. When
the waste entering the transfer station or transfer
depot is less than that in the initial scenario, the
fuel required for waste transportation and
segregation will also be significantly reduced.

Limitations of the study

This research is a prediction of the potential
impacts of several waste management options that
can be implemented in Sleman Regency using LCA.
The limitation of this research was the lack of

secondary data related to ecoenzyme production.
To overcome this, vinasse data from Global
libraries (GLO) were used. LCA analysis can help to
determine environmentally friendly management
scenarios in waste management that are relative
rather than absolute.

a)

b)

c)

d)

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

268

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

e)

Figure 6. Impact contributor: a) GWP ; b) ADP; c) EP; d)HTP; dan e) LUP

CONCLUSION

According to the LCA results, the environmental
impact generated from the existing scenario is not
the most effective scenario for waste management.
The impact value is caused by direct emissions
from waste and fuel use. Emissions from waste
may be released into the atmosphere, leading to
GWP impacts. Meanwhile, the use of fossil fuels
contributes to ADP, EP, and HTP impacts.
Additionally, EOP with open dumping operation
causes LUP impact. Enhancing the usability of
waste for producing biomass pellets and RDF could
significantly reduce the potential impact for every
1 ton of waste managed. GWP value decreased
from 4.90E+03 to 37.87 kg CO2 eq. (-99.20%), ADP
value from 2.78E-03 to 2.96E-06 kg SO2 eq. (-
99.9%), EP value from 4.92E-02 to 7.59 kg PO4-eq.
(-99.8%), HTP value from 2.06E+01 to 3.70E-04 kg
1.4 DB eq. (-100%), and LUP value from 4.71 to
2.11E-03 kg C deficit eq. (-100%). Furthermore,
processing waste into biomass pellets and RDF,

along with waste reduction, could decrease GWP (-
10.11%) and EP (-3.43%) for every 1 ton of waste
managed. The results of this LCA study can serve
as a consideration for stakeholders in Sleman
Regency in determining waste management with
lower environmental impact. Particularly, it is
important to focus on waste reduction from the
upstream by ensuring that supporting facilities,
such as waste storage to waste transportation, as
well as technological readiness for waste
processing, are well-considered. Finally, further
studies on the techno-economics of the WTE
option is necessary to evaluate the economic
perspective of waste management that have lower
environmental impact.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to DLH
Sleman Region for the insightful discussions and
valuable feedback during the development of this
study. We also thank the fieldwork team in data
collection. Special thanks to the PLP Laboratory

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

269

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Department of Environmental Engineering UPN
Veteran Yogyakarta for providing access to their
facilities and equipment which made this research
possible.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest related to this study.

REFERENCES

1.

Abdel-Shafy, H. I., & Mansour, M. S. M. (2018).
Solid waste issue: Sources, composition,
disposal, recycling, and valorization. In
Egyptian Journal of Petroleum (Vol. 27, Issue 4,
pp. 1275

–

1290). Egyptian Petroleum Research

Institute.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.07.003

2.

Ali, S. M., Pervaiz, A., Afzal, B., Hamid, N., &
Yasmin, A. (2014). Open dumping of municipal
solid waste and its hazardous impacts on soil
and vegetation diversity at waste dumping
sites of Islamabad city. Journal of King Saud
University

-

Science,

26(1),

59

–

65.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2013.08.003

3.

Anasstasia, T. T., Lestianingrum, E., Cahyono, R.
B., & Azis, M. M. (2020). Life Cycle Assessment
of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) for Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Management: Case Study
Area Around Cement Industry, Cirebon,
Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science

and

Engineering,

778(1).

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/778/1/012146

4.

Arushanyan, Y., Ekener, E., & Moberg, Å.
(2017). Sustainability assessment framework
for scenarios

–

SAFS. Environmental Impact

Assessment

Review,

63,

23

–

34.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.001

5.

Aziz, R., & Nurunnissa, S. (2022). Comparative
Life Cycle Assessment for Improvement of
Solid Waste Management System of Pariaman

Coastal Tourism Area. Indonesian Journal of
Environmental

Management

and

Sustainability,

6(2),

42

–

52.

https://doi.org/10.26554/ijems.2022.6.2.42-
52

6.

Badan Pusat Statistik. (n.d.). Rainfall (Ch) per
Month based on Monitoring Station 2023.
Retrieved

August

12,

2024,

from

https://bantulkab.bps.go.id/indicator/151/5
3/1/curah-hujan-per-bulan.html

7.

Banar, M., Cokaygil, Z., & Ozkan, A. (2009). Life
cycle assessment of solid waste management
options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste
Management,

29(1),

54

–

62.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2007.12.
006

8.

Buratti, C., Barbanera, M., Testarmata, F., &
Fantozzi, F. (2015). Life Cycle Assessment of
organic waste management strategies: An
Italian case study. Journal of Cleaner
Production,

89,

125

–

136.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.01
2

9.

Choden, Y., Pelzang, K., Basnet, A. D. R., & Dahal,
K. B. (2022). Modeling of Leachate Generation
from Landfill Sites. Nature Environment and
Pollution Technology, 21(3), 993

–

1002.

https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2022.v21i03.
006

10.

Dangi, M. B., Malla, O. B., Cohen, R. R. H.,
Khatiwada, N. R., & Budhathoki, S. (2023). Life
cycle assessment of municipal solid waste
management in Kathmandu city, Nepal

–

An

impact of an incomplete data set. Habitat
International,

139.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.10
2895

11.

Dincer, I., & Abu-Rayash, A. (2020).
Sustainability modeling. Energy Sustainability,
119

–

164. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

270

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

12-819556-7.00006-1

12.

EPA. (2024, April 11). Overview of Greenhouse
Gases.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvie
w-greenhouse-gases

13.

Farhan, M., Taha, M. M., Yusuf, Y., Sundi, S. A., &
Zakaria, N. H. (2024). Environmental
Assessment on Fabrication of Bio-composite
Filament Fused Deposition Modeling Through
Life Cycle Analysis. Pertanika Journal of
Science and Technology, 32(S2), 37

–

48.

https://doi.org/10.47836/PJST.32.S2.03

14.

Fernández-Nava, Y., Del Río, J., Rodríguez-
Iglesias, J., Castrillón, L., & Marañón, E. (2014).
Life cycle assessment of different municipal
solid waste management options: A case study
of Asturias (Spain). Journal of Cleaner
Production,

81,

178

–

189.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.00
8

15.

Gallardo, A., Edo-Alcón, N., Carlos, M., & Renau,
M. (2016). The determination of waste
generation and composition as an essential
tool to improve the waste management plan of
a university. In Waste Management (Vol. 53,
pp.

3

–

11).

Elsevier

Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.04.0
13

16.

Hajam, Y. A., Kumar, R., & Kumar, A. (2023).
Environmental waste management strategies
and vermi transformation for sustainable
development. In Environmental Challenges
(Vol.

13).

Elsevier

B.V.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100747

17.

Ibrahim, T. N. T., Mahmood, N. Z., & Othman, F.
(2017). Estimation of leachate generation from
MSW landfills in Selangor, Malaysia. Asian
Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and
Environmental Sciences, 19(1), 44

–

49.

18.

Karpan, B., Abdul Raman, A. A., & Taieb Aroua,

M. K. (2021). Waste-to-energy: Coal-like refuse
derived fuel from hazardous waste and
biomass mixture. Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, 149, 655

–

664.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.03.009

19.

Khandelwal, H., Thalla, A. K., Kumar, S., &
Kumar, R. (2019). Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management options for
India. Bioresource Technology, 288(May),
121515.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121
515

20.

Kossakowska, K., & Grzesik, K. (2019). Life
cycle assessment of the mixed municipal waste
management system based on mechanical-
biological treatment. Journal of Ecological
Engineering,

20(8),

175

–

183.

https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/111323

21.

Kusumaningrum, W. B., & Munawar, S. S.
(2014). Prospect of bio-pellet as an alternative
energy to substitute solid fuel based. Energy
Procedia,

47,

303

–

309.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.22
9

22.

Mio, A., Fermeglia, M., & Favi, C. (2022). A
critical review and normalization of the life
cycle assessment outcomes in the naval sector.
Bibliometric analysis and characteristics of the
studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.13326
8

23.

Mohan, R. K., Sarojini, J., Rajak, U., Verma, T. N.,

& Ağbulut, Ü. (2023). Alternative fuel

production from waste plastics and their
usability in light duty diesel engine:
Combustion, energy, and environmental
analysis.

Energy,

265.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.12614
0

24.

Muralikrishna, I. V., & Manickam, V. (2017). Air

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

271

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Pollution

Control

Technologies.

Environmental

Management,

337

–

397.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811989-
1.00014-2

25.

Muthmainah,

L.

(2007).

Encouraging

Participation and Building Synergy: Moving
Away from Ecological Stagnation in Waste
Management. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu
Politik,

11(2),

153

–

286.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp
.11000

26.

Pérez, J., Lumbreras, J., & Rodríguez, E. (2020).
Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool
for the design of urban solid waste pre-
collection and collection/transport systems.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.10
4988

27.

Radyan Danar, O., Rohmasari, A., & Amelia
Novita, A. (2019). Inovasi Pelayanan dalam
Pengelolaan Sampah: Studi pada Bank Sampah.
In Asti Amelia Novita/ JIAP (Vol. 5, Issue 3).

28.

Rajendran, N. A., Jimi, Q. L. A., & Sharaai, A. H.
(2021). Contribution of Life Cycle Knowledge
towards Environmental Performance of ISO
14001 Certified Malaysian Companies:
Analysis of ISO 14001 and Selected Life Cycle
Management Tools. Pertanika Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanities, 29(4), 2189

–

2205.

https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.4.05

29.

Rezania, S., Oryani, B., Nasrollahi, V. R., Darajeh,
N., Lotfi Ghahroud, M., & Mehranzamir, K.
(2023).

Review

on

Waste-to-Energy

Approaches toward a Circular Economy in
Developed and Developing Countries. In
Processes (Vol. 11, Issue 9). Multidisciplinary
Digital

Publishing

Institute

(MDPI).

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11092566

30.

Rimantho, D., Hidayah, N. Y., Pratomo, V. A.,
Saputra, A., Akbar, I., & Sundari, A. S. (2023).

The strategy for developing wood pellets as
sustainable renewable energy in Indonesia.
Heliyon,

9(3).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e142
17

31.

Salvia, G., Zimmermann, N., Willan, C., Hale, J.,
Gitau, H., Muindi, K., Gichana, E., & Davies, M.
(2021). The wicked problem of waste
management: An attention-based analysis of
stakeholder behaviours. Journal of Cleaner
Production,

326.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.12920
0

32.

Sharma, A., Ganguly, R., & Gupta, A. K. (2023).
Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste
generated from hilly cities in India

–

A case

study.

Heliyon,

9(11).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e215
75

33.

Shekoohiyan, S., Hadadian, M., Heidari, M., &
Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H. (2023). Life cycle
assessment of Tehran Municipal solid waste
during the COVID-19 pandemic and
environmental impacts prediction using
machine learning. Case Studies in Chemical and
Environmental

Engineering,

7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100331

34.

Siddiqua, A., Hahladakis, J. N., & Al-Attiya, W. A.
K. A. (2022). An overview of the environmental
pollution and health effects associated with
waste landfilling and open dumping. In
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
(Vol. 29, Issue 39, pp. 58514

–

58536). Springer

Science and Business Media Deutschland
GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-
21578-z

35.

Srinvasa Reddy.N, V., Satyanarayana. S., & G.,
Sudha. (2017). Bio Gas Generation from
Biodegradable Kitchen Waste. International
Journal of Environment, Agriculture and

THE USA JOURNALS

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INNOVATIONS AND RESEARCH (ISSN- 2642-7478)

VOLUME 06 ISSUE11

272

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajiir

Biotechnology,

2(2),

689

–

694.

https://doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.2.15

36.

Tchobanoglous, G., & Kreith, F. (2019).
Handbook of Solid Waste Management. In
Environmental Health, Third Edition (2nd ed.).
McGraw-Hill

Companies.

https://doi.org/10.1036/0071356231

37.

Toha, M., & Rahman, M. M. (2023). Estimation
and prediction of methane gas generation from
landfill sites in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Case
Studies in Chemical and Environmental
Engineering,

7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100302

38.

Torkayesh, A. E., Rajaeifar, M. A., Rostom, M.,
Malmir, B., Yazdani, M., Suh, S., & Heidrich, O.
(2022). Integrating life cycle assessment and
multi criteria decision making for sustainable
waste

management:

Key

issues

and

recommendations for future studies. In
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
(Vol.

168).

Elsevier

Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112819

39.

Vaverková, M. D. (2019). Landfill impacts on
the environment

—

review. In Geosciences

(Switzerland) (Vol. 9, Issue 10). MDPI AG.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences910043
1

40.

Vidal-Legaz, Beatriz., Ant

ó

n, A. ., Maia De Souza,

Danielle., Sala, Serenella., Nocita, Marco.,
Putman, Ben., & Teixeira, R. F. M. . (2016).
Land-use related environmental indicators for

life cycle assessment : analysis of key aspects in

land use modelling. Publications Office.

41.

Wei, Z., Cheng, Z., & Shen, Y. (2024). Recent
development in production of pellet fuels from
biomass and polyethylene (PE) wastes. In Fuel
(Vol.

358).

Elsevier

Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130222

42.

Werkneh, A. A. (2022). Biogas impurities:
environmental and health implications,
removal technologies and future perspectives.
In Heliyon (Vol. 8, Issue 10). Elsevier Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e109
29

43.

Winaningsih, I., Suramta, S., & Mala, Y. (2023).
Karakterisasi Pelet Pupuk Organik Berbahan
Eco Enzyme. KOVALEN: Jurnal Riset Kimia,
9(3),

258

–

265.

https://doi.org/10.22487/kovalen.2023.v9.i3.
16541

44.

Wu, J., Ebadian, M., Kim, K. H., Kim, C. S., &
Saddler, J. (2022). The use of steam
pretreatment to enhance pellet durability and
the enzyme-mediated hydrolysis of pellets to
fermentable

sugars.

In

Bioresource

Technology (Vol. 347). Elsevier Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126
731

45.

Yazdani, M., Monavari, M., Omrani, G. A.,
Shariat, M., & Hosseini, M. (2015). Municipal
solid waste open dumping Municipal solid
waste open dumping, implication for land
degradation Municipal solid waste open
dumping. Solid Earth Discuss, 7, 1097

–

1118.

https://doi.org/10.5194/sed-7-1097-2015