Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 254–265 | Cite as

Decomposition analyses of the municipal waste generation and management in Croatian and Slovenian regions

  • P. Korica
  • Đ. Požgaj
  • A. Cirman
  • A. Žgajnar Gotvajn


The purpose of this study is to analyse how much waste generation activity influenced the amounts of waste which were sent for recovery or landfilling in Croatian and Slovenian regions for the period 2010–2014. The analyses were conducted by applying two variations of logarithmic mean Divisia index analysis model: (1) one covering the economic activity which generates waste (household consumption) and (2) the second one covering the waste generation activity itself. By applying a novelty approach the results of these two models were combined to present the information more clearly. The municipal waste streams analysed were: paper, plastics, metal, glass, bulky waste, textile, bio-waste and mixed municipal waste. The results for both countries show that the waste generation as an activity did not have the dominant effect on the amounts of waste sent for recovery in all of the observed periods. In the case of waste sent for landfilling the results for Slovenia are the same; however, the results for Croatia show that the activity which generates waste had the dominant influence in most of the periods analysed caused by the fact that in average 93% of the municipal waste generated per year was sent to landfill.


Decomposition analysis LMDI Landfilling Waste recovery Waste generation 


  1. 1.
    Usui T, Takeuchi K (2014) Evaluating unit-based pricing of residential solid waste: a panel data analysis. Environ Resour Econ 2(58):245–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendelsohn R, Hellerstein D, Unsworth R, Huguenin M, Brazee R (1992) Measuring hazardous waste damages with panel models. J Environ Econ Manage 3(33):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mazzanti R, Zoboli R (2008) Waste generation, incineration and landfill diversion. De-coupling Trends, Socio-Economic Drivers and Policy Effectiveness in the EU. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. MilanoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag 33:220–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blengini G A, Genon G, Fantoni M (2011) LCA of integrated municipal solid waste management systems: case studies of Torino & Cuneo (Italy). In: Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cleary J (2010) The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological issues. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(15):579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G (2007) What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manag 27:989–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kiddee P, Naidu R, Wong MH (2013) Electronic waste management approaches: an overview. Waste Manag 33:1237–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brunner P, Rechberger H (2004) Practical handbook of material flow analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:337–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strömberg K, Ringström E (2004) Cost benefit analysis (CBA)—broader basis for decisions in integrated waste management. In: Integrated Waste Management and Life Cycle Assessment Workshop and Conference, 13–16th April 2004, Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen X, Pang J, Zhang Z, Li H (2014) Sustainability assessment of solid waste management in China: a decoupling and decomposition analysis. Sustainability 6:9268–9281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lykke Brix L, Bentzen J (2008). Waste generation in Denmark 1994–2005 an environmental and economic analysis. Working Papers from University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics 08-27: 1–20. ISBN 9788778823977Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lei H, Xia X, Li C, Xi B (2012) Decomposition analysis of wastewater pollutant discharges in industrial sectors of China (2001–2009) Using the LMDI I Method. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(9):2226–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ang BW (2005) The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide. Energy policy 33:867–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carmona MC, Collado RR (2015) LMDI decomposition analysis of energy consumption in Andalusia (Spain) during 2003–2012: the energy efficiency policy implications. Energ Effi 9(3):1–17. doi: 10.1007/s12053-015-9402-y Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tekla SS (2013) Eight methods for decomposing the aggregate energy intensity of the economic structure. Club Econ Miskolc TMP 9(1):77–84Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    EEA (2016) Municipal waste management—Croatia, Country fact sheet. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Accessed 10 Nov 2016
  18. 18.
    Republika Slovenija Računsko Sodišče (2015) Revizijsko poročilo Ravnanje s komunalnimi odpadki, številka: 321-5/2011/132. Republika Slovenija Računsko Sodišče, Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    CEAN (2016) Reports on Municipal Waste in the Republic of Croatia 2010–2014. Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature, Waste Department. Zagreb: Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature. Accessed 19 Feb 2016
  20. 20.
    Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2014/955/EU), Official Journal of the European Union, L 370, pp 44–86Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 312, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao C, Chen B (2014) Driving force analysis of the agricultural water footprint in China based on the LMDI method. Environ Sci Technol 48(21):12723–12731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ang BW, Choi K (1997) Decomposition of aggregate energy and gas emission intensities for industry: a refined Divisia index method. Energy J 18(3):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ang BW, Liu N (2007) Handling zero values in the logarithmic mean Divisia logarithmic Divisia index decomposition approach. Energy Policy 35(1):238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Croatian Bureau of Statistics Web site (2016). Accessed 29 Jan 2016
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Croatian Bureau of Statistics Web site (2016) Accessed 22 Feb 2016
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Eurostat-database (2016) Datasets “nama_gdp_p”, dataset nama_10_a64. Accessed 13 Jan 2016
  31. 31.
    Uusitalo L, Lehikoinen A, Helle I, Myrberg K (2015) An overview of methods to evaluate uncertainty of deterministic models in decision support. Environ Model Softw 63:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Croatian Agency for the Environment and NatureZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical TechnologyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations