Depletion of natural resources
In this impact category the situation is more complex, as the treatment options are more similar than in the case
of climate change. There are no clear-cut conclusions regarding the most preferable option. Only two studies take
resource depletion into account. Study no 2 shows that the classification of options depends on the specific
material in question. On the other hand, study no 3 is consistent for both materials it examines.
Figure 6 shows the relative difference of recycling versus the two remaining treatment options. Recycling appears
to be inferior to incineration for three cases out of five, but where recycling prevails, the relative difference is
greater. Two cases where incineration is better are from study no 3, which assumes a down-cycling of paper
products to corrugated board. This assumption is translated to an increased need for virgin fibres during the
recycling process which affects the results for resource depletion. The third case can be also justified by the
down-cycling assumption as it refers to a low quality paper, such as corrugated board, which can only be down-
cycled.
An analogous situation is observed when comparing recycling to landfill: the studies reviewed do not concur on
which is the best option. This impact category, therefore, depends heavily on the particular modelling
assumptions. Figure 7 indicates that landfill seems to be rather superior to incineration as more cases support this
argument.
Landfill causes relatively low direct impacts to resource depletion, since paper requires no particular treatment
before disposal. The superiority of the other options observed for some cases is explained mainly by the indirect
savings of resources brought by the energy or material recovery. There is one case for which landfill largely
appears to be the best option (case 2[CC]). This case simulates the treatment of corrugated board, which is a low
quality paper consisting of relatively more degraded fibres than other paper types. This means that the loss rates
from recycling are higher than for higher quality papers and so recycling cannot produce benefits as significant as
for other paper types. Consequently, in this study landfill appears to cause fewer burdens in this case. The results
of the study confirm this statement, as recycling has a net positive value only for this type of paper. The study
did not explore options for dealing with the fraction of the board which would not be recycled and how these
would affect the outcomes.
Incineration with energy recovery and recycling should be further investigated in site-specific studies in order to
give an accurate documentation of the prevailing technology.
This impact category is affected by a lot of processes which are aggregated in an LCA, so the disaggregation
necessary to determine which precise steps are responsible is quite difficult. In general, resource depletion is
affected by the energy input to the various treatment processes, and the amount of virgin material required for
recycling, as well as indirect process parameters such as incineration efficiency and landfill gas capture rate.
Table 9 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. recycling for depletion of natural resources for paper. A
positive value means that recycling is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that recycling causes more environmental
burden than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 2[NS] 2[CC] 2[MC] 3[PS] 3[EN]
Incineration with energy recovery 100% ‐70% 110% ‐30% ‐40%
Landfill 90% ‐260% 30% ‐10% ‐20%
Studies n°1, 4, and 5 do not include a comparison with recycling for this indicator and thus
are not included in this tableRecycling versus other alternativesTable 10 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. incineration with energy recovery for depletion of
natural resources for paper. A positive value means that incineration with energy recovery is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative
value means that incineration with energy recovery causes more environmental burden than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 2[NS] 2[CC] 2[MC] 3[PS] 3[EN]
Recycling ‐3040% 260% ‐780% 50% 70%
Landfill ‐510% ‐690% ‐560% 40% 30%
Studies n°1, 4, and 5 do not include a comparison with incineration wiht energy recovery for
this indicator and thus are not included in this tableIncineration with energy recovery versus
other alternatives