Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management
Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centr...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Vinyes, Elisabet [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2012 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer-Verlag 2012 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: The international journal of life cycle assessment - Springer-Verlag, 1996, 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2012 ; number:2 ; day:07 ; month:08 ; pages:445-455 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2051198454 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2051198454 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230504090424.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2012 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2051198454 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 650 |a 330 |a 333.7 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 690 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Vinyes, Elisabet |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2012 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer-Verlag 2012 | ||
| 520 | |a Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Life cycle assessment (LCA) | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Life cycle costing (LCC) | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sustainability | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Oliver-Solà, Jordi |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ugaya, Cassia |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rieradevall, Joan |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gasol, Carles M. |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The international journal of life cycle assessment |d Springer-Verlag, 1996 |g 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 |w (DE-627)211584533 |w (DE-600)1319419-7 |w (DE-576)059728728 |x 0948-3349 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2012 |g number:2 |g day:07 |g month:08 |g pages:445-455 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-UMW | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-ARC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-TEC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-FOR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_30 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_267 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2016 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2012 |e 2 |b 07 |c 08 |h 445-455 | ||
| author_variant |
e v ev j o s jos c u cu j r jr c m g cm cmg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:09483349:2012----::plctoolstuecoigiws |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2012 |
| publishDate |
2012 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z doi (DE-627)OLC2051198454 (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Vinyes, Elisabet verfasserin aut Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2012 Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability Oliver-Solà, Jordi aut Ugaya, Cassia aut Rieradevall, Joan aut Gasol, Carles M. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2012 2 07 08 445-455 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z doi (DE-627)OLC2051198454 (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Vinyes, Elisabet verfasserin aut Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2012 Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability Oliver-Solà, Jordi aut Ugaya, Cassia aut Rieradevall, Joan aut Gasol, Carles M. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2012 2 07 08 445-455 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z doi (DE-627)OLC2051198454 (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Vinyes, Elisabet verfasserin aut Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2012 Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability Oliver-Solà, Jordi aut Ugaya, Cassia aut Rieradevall, Joan aut Gasol, Carles M. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2012 2 07 08 445-455 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z doi (DE-627)OLC2051198454 (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Vinyes, Elisabet verfasserin aut Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2012 Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability Oliver-Solà, Jordi aut Ugaya, Cassia aut Rieradevall, Joan aut Gasol, Carles M. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2012 2 07 08 445-455 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z doi (DE-627)OLC2051198454 (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Vinyes, Elisabet verfasserin aut Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management 2012 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2012 Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability Oliver-Solà, Jordi aut Ugaya, Cassia aut Rieradevall, Joan aut Gasol, Carles M. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 18 2012 2 07 08 445-455 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455 volume:18 year:2012 number:2 day:07 month:08 pages:445-455 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability |
| dewey-raw |
650 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Vinyes, Elisabet @@aut@@ Oliver-Solà, Jordi @@aut@@ Ugaya, Cassia @@aut@@ Rieradevall, Joan @@aut@@ Gasol, Carles M. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2012-08-07T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
211584533 |
| dewey-sort |
3650 |
| id |
OLC2051198454 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2051198454</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504090424.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2012 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051198454</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vinyes, Elisabet</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag 2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment (LCA)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle costing (LCC)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sustainability</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Oliver-Solà, Jordi</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ugaya, Cassia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rieradevall, Joan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gasol, Carles M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)211584533</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1319419-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)059728728</subfield><subfield code="x">0948-3349</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:07</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:445-455</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-UMW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-ARC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">07</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield><subfield code="h">445-455</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Vinyes, Elisabet |
| spellingShingle |
Vinyes, Elisabet ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment (LCA) misc Life cycle costing (LCC) misc Social assessment misc Sustainability Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management |
| authorStr |
Vinyes, Elisabet |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)211584533 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
650 - Management & auxiliary services 330 - Economics 333 - Economics of land & energy 690 - Buildings |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0948-3349 |
| topic_title |
650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Social assessment Sustainability |
| topic |
ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment (LCA) misc Life cycle costing (LCC) misc Social assessment misc Sustainability |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment (LCA) misc Life cycle costing (LCC) misc Social assessment misc Sustainability |
| topic_browse |
ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment (LCA) misc Life cycle costing (LCC) misc Social assessment misc Sustainability |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
211584533 |
| dewey-tens |
650 - Management & public relations 330 - Economics 690 - Building & construction |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 |
| title |
Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2051198454 (DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p |
| title_full |
Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management |
| author_sort |
Vinyes, Elisabet |
| journal |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| journalStr |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2012 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
445 |
| author_browse |
Vinyes, Elisabet Oliver-Solà, Jordi Ugaya, Cassia Rieradevall, Joan Gasol, Carles M. |
| container_volume |
18 |
| class |
650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Vinyes, Elisabet |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z |
| dewey-full |
650 330 333.7 690 |
| title_sort |
application of lcsa to used cooking oil waste management |
| title_auth |
Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management |
| abstract |
Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. © Springer-Verlag 2012 |
| abstractGer |
Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. © Springer-Verlag 2012 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. © Springer-Verlag 2012 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Oliver-Solà, Jordi Ugaya, Cassia Rieradevall, Joan Gasol, Carles M. |
| author2Str |
Oliver-Solà, Jordi Ugaya, Cassia Rieradevall, Joan Gasol, Carles M. |
| ppnlink |
211584533 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:48:23.243Z |
| _version_ |
1803618775992369152 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2051198454</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504090424.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2012 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051198454</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-012-0482-z-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vinyes, Elisabet</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag 2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. Methods The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Results and discussion Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. Conclusions The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment (LCA)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle costing (LCC)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sustainability</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Oliver-Solà, Jordi</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ugaya, Cassia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rieradevall, Joan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gasol, Carles M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2012), 2 vom: 07. Aug., Seite 445-455</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)211584533</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1319419-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)059728728</subfield><subfield code="x">0948-3349</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:07</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:445-455</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0482-z</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-UMW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-ARC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">07</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield><subfield code="h">445-455</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398181 |