Abstract: Both landfill taxes and Enhanced Waste Management (EWM) practices can mitigate the scarcity issue of landfill capacity by respectively reducing landfilled waste volumes and valorising future waste streams. However, high landfill taxes might erode incentives for EWM, even though EWM creates value by valorising waste. Concentrating on Flanders (Belgium), the paper applies dynamic optimisation modelling techniques to analyse how landfill taxation and EWM can reinforce each other and how taxation schemes can be adjusted in order to foster sustainable and welfare maximising ways of processing future waste streams. Based on the Flemish simulation results, insights are offered that are generally applicable in international waste and resource management policy. As shown, the optimal Flemish landfill tax that optimises welfare in the no EWM scenario is higher than the one in the EWM scenario (93 against (sic)50/ton). This difference should create incentives for applying EWM and is driven by the positive external effects that are generated by EWM practices. In Flanders, as the current landfill tax is slightly lower than these optimal levels, the choice that can be made is to further increase taxation levels or show complete commitment to EWM. A first generally applicable insight that was found points to the fact that it is not necessarily the case that the higher the landfill tax, the more effective waste management improvements can be realised. Other insights are about providing sufficient incentives for applying EMW practices and formulating appropriate pleas in support of technological development. By these insights, this paper should provide relevant information that can assist in triggering the transition towards a resource efficient, circular economy in Europe. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Increasing interest in sustainability has led to the development of sustainability assessment tools such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Due to methodological disparity of these three tools, conflicting assessment results generate confusion for many policy and business decisions. In order to interpret and integrate assessment results, the paper provides a framework that clarifies the connections and coherence between the included assessment methodologies. Building on this framework, the paper further focuses on key aspects to adapt any of the methodologies to full sustainability assessments. Aspects dealt with in the review are for example the reported metrics, the scope, data requirements, discounting, product- or project-related and approaches with respect to scarcity and labor requirements. In addition to these key aspects, the review shows that important connections exist: (i) the three tools can cope with social inequality, (ii) processes such as valuation techniques for LCC and CBA are common, (iii) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used as input in both LCA and CBA and (iv) LCA can be used in parallel with LCC. Furthermore, the most integrated sustainability approach combines elements of LCA and LCC to achieve the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). The key aspects and the connections referred to in the review are illustrated with a case study on the treatment of end-of-life automotive glass. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.