Kyoto University Environment Preservation Research Center, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan; Pacific Consultants Co. Ltd., 3-22 Kanda-Nishikimachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8462, Japan.
Kyoto University Environment Preservation Research Center, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Waste Manag. 2018 Jan;71:2-9. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.014. Epub 2017 Nov 1.
In this study, the amount of prevented household waste in Kyoto city was quantified using three methods. Subsequently, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction by waste prevention was calculated in order to monitor the impact of waste prevention. The methods of quantification were "relative change from baseline year (a)," "absolute change from potential waste generation (b)," and "absolute amount of activities (c)." Method (a) was popular for measuring waste prevention, but method (b) was the original approach to determine the absolute amount of waste prevention by estimating the potential waste generation. Method (c) also provided the absolute value utilizing the information of activities. Methods (b) and (c) enable the evaluation of the waste prevention activities with a similar baseline for recycling. Methods (b) and (c) gave significantly higher GHG reductions than method (a) because of the difference in baseline between them. Therefore, setting a baseline is very important for evaluating waste prevention. In practice, when focusing on the monitoring of a specific policy or campaign, method (a) is an appropriate option. On the other hand, when comparing the total impact of waste prevention to that of recycling, methods (b) and (c) should be applied.
本研究采用三种方法量化了京都家庭垃圾的减排量。随后，计算了垃圾减排带来的温室气体（GHG）减排量，以监测垃圾减排的影响。量化方法为“与基准年相比的相对变化（a）”、“与潜在垃圾生成量相比的绝对变化（b）”和“活动的绝对量（c）”。方法（a）常用于衡量垃圾减排，但方法（b）是通过估计潜在垃圾生成量来确定垃圾减排绝对量的原始方法。方法（c）还利用活动信息提供了绝对值。方法（b）和（c）通过对回收利用采用类似的基准，使垃圾减排活动的评估成为可能。方法（b）和（c）的垃圾减排量明显高于方法（a），因为它们的基线不同。因此，设定基线对于评估垃圾减排非常重要。在实践中，当关注特定政策或活动的监测时，方法（a）是一个合适的选择。另一方面，当比较垃圾减排和回收利用的总影响时，应采用方法（b）和（c）。
