2016, hermann-et-al-Mineração em aterros sanitários desenvolvendo um método de avaliação abrangente

Prévia do material em texto

Waste Management & Research
2016, Vol. 34(11) 1157 –1163
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions: 
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X16657610
wmr.sagepub.com
Introduction
The rising demand for raw material, observable since the turn of 
the millennium (Weber, 2012), and the intention of the European 
Union to reduce the consumption of primary raw materials and to 
improve the efficiency of raw materials (European Commission, 
2010), mean that other sources of raw materials should be 
exploited besides conventional mining. Urban mining is a term 
that designates activities to exploit a town as a source of second-
ary raw material (Fricke, 2009). A subsection of urban mining is 
landfill mining (LFM), which exploits landfills as potential 
sources of secondary raw material. Waste deposited in the past is 
mined, processed and supplied to physical and/or energetic con-
version. Only the non-recoverable part is deposited again 
(Rettenberger, 2010). A list of previous LFM projects can be 
obtained from Bothmann et al. (2002) and Bockreis and Knapp 
(2011), among other sources. 
To what extent such projects are economically feasible 
depends on various criteria. The economic success of a LFM pro-
ject is essentially determined by the amount of potential second-
ary raw materials (such as metals) and their related proceeds, but 
even more by the costs of excavating and processing waste, and 
of disposing any non-recoverable waste. These costs are very 
much affected by the composition of the landfill. Based on past 
projects (like BMBF, 1995; Nispel, 2012; Raga and Cossu, 2014) 
and the results presented by Wolfsberger et al. (2014), landfills 
are very heterogeneously composed and mined waste is often 
strongly contaminated. This fact often prevents the direct use of 
potential secondary raw materials in present recycling or produc-
tion processes (contamination levels are too high). To meet targets 
and requirements of the Waste Framework Directive (European 
Commission, 2008) regarding landfilling and to keep the propor-
tional amount of redeposited materials as low as possible, the 
mined waste has to be processed. At least such alien substances 
(like stones) that can impair the respective conversion (physical 
Landfill mining: Developing a 
comprehensive assessment method
Robert Hermann, Tanja Wolfsberger, Roland Pomberger 
and Renato Sarc
Abstract
In Austria, the first basic technological and economic examinations of mass-waste landfills with the purpose to recover secondary 
raw materials have been carried out by the ‘LAMIS – Landfill Mining Österreich’ pilot project. A main focus of its research, and 
the subject of this article, is the first conceptual design of a comprehensive assessment method for landfill mining plans, including 
not only monetary factors (like costs and proceeds) but also non-monetary ones, such as the concerns of adjoining owners or the 
environmental impact. Detailed reviews of references, the identification of influences and system boundaries to be included in 
planning landfill mining, several expert workshops and talks with landfill operators have been performed followed by a division 
of the whole assessment method into preliminary and main assessment. Preliminary assessment is carried out with a questionnaire 
to rate juridical feasibility, the risk and the expenditure of a landfill mining project. The results of this questionnaire are compiled 
in a portfolio chart that is used to recommend, or not, further assessment. If a detailed main assessment is recommended, defined 
economic criteria are rated by net present value calculations, while ecological and socio-economic criteria are examined in a utility 
analysis and then transferred into a utility-net present value chart. If this chart does not support making a definite statement on the 
feasibility of the project, the results must be further examined in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Here, the benefit of the particular 
landfill mining project per capital unit (utility-net present value ratio) is determined to make a final distinct statement on the general 
benefit of a landfill mining project.
Keywords
Landfill mining, ecological and economic assessment, net present value, utility analysis, comprehensive assessment, cost-
effectiveness analysis
Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria
Corresponding author:
Robert Hermann, Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Franz Josefstraße 18, 
Leoben, Austria. 
Email: robert.hermann@unileoben.ac.at
657610WMR0010.1177/0734242X16657610Waste Management & ResearchHermann et al.
research-article2016
Original Article
mailto:robert.hermann@unileoben.ac.at
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0734242X16657610&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-07-26
1158 Waste Management & Research 34(11)
or energetic) must be removed. This results in additional costs 
accruing to the landfill operator. The total expense to be accepted 
in a LFM project is often hard to tell in advance (Krüse, 2015). 
But because financial investment is an essential argument for 
or against LFM in most cases, a very precise statement of the 
costs is indispensable. Economic factors have to be comple-
mented, according to Hermann et al. (2014a), with ecological 
(environmental or other) and socio-economic (like the interests 
of adjoining owners) factors when the feasibility of a LFM pro-
ject is assessed. Economic factors are easily evaluated in terms 
of money. Ecological and socio-economic criteria, however, 
may be more difficult to assess and quantify. Yet including 
them in the assessment method requires a detailed rating of 
each factor.
So far, only selected economic values like costs and revenues 
or technological requirements are available for a comprehensive 
ecological and economic assessment of LFM projects, there are 
various projects and studies but still no standardised assessment 
tools at an international level (e.g. Bernhard et al., 2011; Bölte 
and Geiping, 2011; Frändegård, et al. 2013; Gäth and Nispel, 
2010; Jones et al. 2013; Nispel, 2012; Rettenberger, 2012). The 
reason is that regional influencing factors like land recycling 
(restoring a landfill after LFM), surface recycling, reuse scenar-
ios, varying prices at the secondary raw material markets, opera-
tor’s structures or synergies and costs saved by the aftercare of 
landfills are often insufficiently or not at all integrated in present 
assessment methods.
That’s why the ‘Landfill Mining Austria research project’, or 
LAMIS for short, has been initiated. The purpose of this project 
was to characterise Austrian mass-waste landfills (an official 
Austrian landfill type used for landfilling untreated or pre-treated 
solid municipal waste) with regard to types and amounts of 
deposits, the precise chemical characterisation of potential sec-
ondary raw materials and the identification of any recovery meth-
ods. Based on that, and also on interviews with experts, different 
workshops with landfill operators and reference data (see 
Hermann et al., 2015a), a comprehensive assessment method for 
LFM projects has been developed. This method helps landfill 
operators simulate LFM on their landfill in advance, and with 
little effort in money and staff, to decide for or against perform-
ing LFM. All statements and explanations in this article are based 
on scientific–practical preliminary information published in 
Hermann et al. (2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b) and Wolfsberger 
et al. (2014, 2015a, 2015b).
The objective article unites the developed processes in the lit-
erature mentioned above to a holistic assessment procedure for 
LFM projects, with leaving the landfill in aftercare being the 
defined reference scenario.
The LAMIS research project has helped gain various results 
and/or parameters that have been published in Hermann et al. 
(2015a) and Wolfsberger et al. (2015b). The difference the pre-
sent article makes is its comprehensive approach, i.e. individual 
data (results and/or parameters)of previous work, used for devel-
oping a comprehensive assessment method.
Materials and methods
The comprehensive assessment method presented in the article 
has been developed considering the following tasks.
•• Definition of the system boundaries.
•• Identification of influencing factors.
•• Identification and choice of appropriate assessment 
methods.
•• Development of the assessment method.
Definition of the system boundaries 
The definition of spatial and temporal system boundaries cru-
cially affects the choice of assessment methods and the result of 
the following comprehensive assessment. In general, spatial sys-
tem boundaries (e.g. landfill site, plant, etc.) can be easily deter-
mined, but establishing temporal system boundaries is not 
generally available. The latter have to be individually defined for 
each project and adapted to the local conditions on site. The pre-
sent examinations, made within the scope of the LAMIS research 
project, have supplied the basis on which all required steps, from 
mining, processing and sorting, to supplying a marketable mate-
rial or product by the landfill operator, have been established to 
define the spatial system boundary. Hermann et al. (2015b) 
described this procedure in detail. The temporal system boundary 
also affects the results of a comprehensive assessment. More on 
defining temporal system boundaries is also available from 
Hermann et al. (2014a). Since the LAMIS research project deals 
only with mass-waste landfills in Austria, the temporal system 
boundary has been defined based on the Austrian landfill direc-
tive (BMLFUW, 2008) that stipulates the aftercare term of a 
mass-waste landfill with a high proportion of untreated munici-
pal solid waste as 40 years.
Identification of influencing factors
A comprehensive assessment of LFM projects needs to, among 
other things, examine and quantify all influencing factors in 
advance (van Passel et al., 2013). A final result of the assess-
ment that would provide the greatest benefit for the user is only 
achieved if all factors are safely included. They have already 
been collected and published by Hermann et al. (2014a) when 
they were also classified into the following groups: Economic, 
ecological, technological, organisational (socio-economic) and 
political and juridical factors. For details, see Hermann et al. 
(2014a).
Identifying and choice of appropriate 
assessment methods
There are no standardised and proven decision procedures for the 
comprehensive assessment of LFM projects that would not need 
appropriate adaptation. Hermann et al. (2015a) therefore exam-
ined and rated various assessment methods for whether they are 
Hermann et al. 1159
suitable for LFM projects. The huge variety of factors excludes 
the exclusive use of single-criteria decision processes (processes 
with single target values, say, the profit comparison calculation or 
the net present value (NPV) method). They can be applied in addi-
tion, however, or in parallel with assessing the absolute benefit of 
decisions options, or to obtain data for the decision process 
(Schuh, 2001). Based on the examinations of Hermann et al. 
(2015a), the multi-criteria decision analysis group has been 
selected for assessing the ecological and socio-economic criteria 
(Wolfslehner et al., 2005). The multi-attribute decision making 
procedures have been chosen from this group, to be precise: The 
utility analysis that is part of this group has been taken. The NPV 
method (mono-criteria assessment method) has been chosen as a 
combination method to rate the economic factors.
Development of the assessment 
method
To keep the effort of the landfill operators in assessments as low 
as possible, the newly developed comprehensive assessment 
method has been divided into two steps.
Preliminary assessment
•• Questionnaires.
•• Estimation of landfill contents.
Main assessment
•• Estimation of costs and proceeds.
•• Assessment of economic factors by means of the NPV 
method.
•• Assessment of ecological and socio-ecological factors by 
means of utility analysis.
A summary of the complete assessment method is shown in 
Figure 1.
Preliminary assessment
The preliminary assessment applies a questionnaire with 12 
questions (Hermann et al., 2015b). They rate the juridical feasi-
bility and the risk and technological investment of LFM (see 
Hermann et al., 2014a). The juridical feasibility is covered by one 
question only, concerning any conflicts with applying regula-
tions. If ‘Yes’ is answered here, then every subsequent evaluation 
can be waved.
The other criteria (economical, ecological, technological or 
socio-economic) are rated on a scale of low/good (1) about aver-
age (2) to high/bad (3). The interviews with the landfill operators 
have shown that the following question especially is hard to 
answer in advance: ‘How high, do you think, are the amount and 
quality of the particular landfill deposit?’.
Figure 1. Comprehensive assessment procedure (see Hermann et al., 2015b).
LM: landfill mining; NPV: net present value; Utility: utility analysis. 
1160 Waste Management & Research 34(11)
Results of initial examinations (like drilling and mining on-
site) enable an exact rating of the quality of potential secondary 
raw materials on the given scale. If such information is not avail-
able, the landfill operator has to estimate the quality of the waste 
based on historical data. Investigation results from municipal 
waste can be used for mass-waste landfills, for example. To 
answer the question about amounts, a method of how to assess 
landfill content has been developed during the LAMIS research 
project that has been published in Wolfsberger et al. (2015a). It 
allows determining amounts of potential secondary raw material 
based on historical data (like recordings of the administration, 
documents of authorities, eyewitness accounts) and taking the 
decomposition in the landfill body and the biologically degrada-
ble proportion of every waste fraction into account. More about 
this method is available in Wolfsberger et al. (2015a).
The results of the questionnaire enter a portfolio chart that is 
displayed in a nine-field matrix (see Figure 2). The examined 
LFM project is represented by a dot in the portfolio, drawn from 
this superficial first assessment with regard to the expectable 
investment and the risk assessment. The location of the dot in the 
matrix tells the landfill owner, within the basic conditions preva-
lent at the site, whether a detailed main assessment of the present 
project should follow.
Main assessment
The combined main assessment examines the economic criteria 
(see Hermann et al., 2015a) with the NPV method (economic 
feasibility of both options) and the ecological and socio-eco-
nomic criteria in a utility analysis of both scenarios (performing 
an LFM project or leaving the landfill in aftercare).
Rating economic criteria. Correctly computing the NPV of a 
LFM project requires that the costs and expectable revenues or 
savings are already known. They may be hard to assess in advance, 
as already mentioned. That is why a simulation method has been 
developed during the LAMIS research project that allows, on the 
one hand, determining the amounts and qualities of the output 
flows that can be gained from mining and mobile on-site process-
ing of the waste. Additionally, disposal costs and expectable sec-
ondary raw material revenues can also be assessed. On the other 
hand, personnel costs, costs for investment, operation, mainte-
nance and insurance and other parts of the LFM project follow 
from the chosen mobile processing and its throughput. The meth-
odology is described in detail by Wolfsberger et al. (2015b) and 
will therefore not be repeated here. The overall result of the simu-
lation method is the annual expense (mining, processing and dis-
posal costs combined), autonomously converted during the model 
calculations into the financial effort required for the wholeterm of 
decommissioning. Comparing this financial effort with the 
expectable revenues (from secondary raw material, regained sur-
face area, re-use) discloses the remaining costs or revenues for the 
whole term of the particular LFM project. This number is used to 
compute the NPV. The NPV is the total amount of all project-
related receipts and payments during the intended term (40 years), 
discounted at a discount rate from the initial time (t = 0). For mass-
waste landfills it is assumed that the costs will most likely exceed 
the possible proceeds, so that such LFM projects will indicate a 
negative NPV. 
The NPV of the reference scenario (leaving the landfill in 
aftercare) has been computed based on the level of stipulated 
reserves (see BMLFUW, 2008), which depends on the type of 
landfill, deposit and regulatory requirements. Since Austrian 
landfill operators are obliged to guarantee these amounts, the fig-
ures are known to them and, as a result, the effort to obtain this 
input parameter of the comprehensive assessment is obviously 
low. The discount period is 40 years (temporal system boundary), 
as said before.
Rating ecological and socio-economic criteria. Hermann et al. 
(2015b) have shown that the utility analysis is a somewhat subjec-
tive method because the importance of the criteria must be 
weighted against each other. That is the reason why no percentage 
weightings (say, criterion 1 = 60%, criterion 2 = 20%, and so on) 
have been assigned to the individual ecological and socio-economic 
criteria, so that the utility analysis can be refined and, hence, the 
assessment be made more objective. The user should merely 
decide which criterion is considered more important than another. 
*Table 1, for example, weighs the ecological criterion 1 (EC1) as 
important as the ecological criterion 2 (EC2) but more important 
than criteria 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. This process is accordingly repeated 
for all criteria. Then it is added up how often each criterion has 
deemed more important than others. Six times in Table 1, EC1 has 
been rated more important than other criteria and once as impor-
tant as criterion EC2, resulting in a number of 6.5. Relating this 
number to the total of criteria facilitates the computation of rela-
tive proportions of every criterion as a percentage. In this manner, 
the subjective perception and rating is reduced.
The utility analysis and the required basic examinations of the 
hierarchical target system, the decision problem and the collec-
tion, definition and description of the essential criteria have been 
published in the preceding examinations of Hermann et al. 
(2015a) and Hermann et al. (2015b) and are omitted here. The 
utility value is, like the NPV, calculated for both scenarios, 
emerging from a simple multiplication of the weighted factor of 
the respective criterion (see Figure 3) with a score assigned to the 
criterion:
 Utility value = weighting factor * scorecriterion criterion criiterion (1)
 Total utility value Utilityvaluecriterion= ∑ (2)
Figure 2. Sample portfolio chart from the preliminary 
assessment (see Hermann et al., 2015a).
Hermann et al. 1161
Scoring is described in Hermann et al. (2015b) and therefore only 
summarised here, based on ecological criteria as an example. 
Table 1 shows that altogether, seven ecological criteria have been 
defined (EC1–EC7). Hermann et al. (2015b) characterises them 
in detail. EC1 describes, for instance, the hazard to surface and 
ground water. Scores of 1 and 5 may be assigned to every crite-
rion, with each score being specifically defined. For EC1, these 
would be as follows.
Score 1: Known pollutant hazard in the landfill body – promi-
nently increased hazard.
Score 2: Supposed pollutant hazard in the landfill body – slightly 
increased hazard.
Score 3: No change of the hazard.
Score 4: Landfill volume for the most part removed – slightly 
lower [risk of] pollutant emission.
Score 5: Landfill volume completely removed – no pollutant 
emission.
Assuming that the examined LFM (complete decommissioning) 
takes 4 years, as the simulation method suggests (Wolfsberger 
et al., 2015b), it is reasonable to expect that the pollution of the 
present ground water will not change much during this time, 
which is why a score of 3 is assigned to these 4 years. Since the 
landfill is completely cleared within these 4 years, there is no 
hazard during the other 36 years (full temporal system boundary 
= 40 years), which allows a score of 5 points. Hence, a score of 
4.8 (or (4 × 3 + 5 × 36)/40) arises for EC1 in the LFM scenario. 
The ‘Leaving the landfill in aftercare’ scenario is rated in the 
same manner.
Utility-NPV chart. The partial results of the NPV calculation and 
the utility analysis are entered in a utility-NPV chart for further 
assessment. Figure 3 shows a sample chart with indicated utility 
values and NPVs of a hypothetical LFM project and a landfill in 
aftercare, using aftercare as the reference scenario. If the exam-
ined LFM project is associated to quadrants II or III, based on the 
calculated NPV and utility values, the landfill operator may 
receive a definite recommendation. If the project is located in 
quadrant II, then the LFM has a better NPV and utility values, 
which is why the project seems reasonable. A LFM project in 
quadrant III, however, has utility values and NPVs that are infe-
rior to those of the reference scenario, hence, this project is not 
recommended.
If the examined project is associated with quadrant I or IV 
though (Figure 3), this means that one criterion (either NPV or 
utility value) is worse than that of the reference scenario. The 
sample LFM project in Figure 3 has a better utility value than the 
reference scenario, but a much inferior NPV.
No definite decision on the preference of either option can yet 
be made in this case, requiring further assessment. The approach 
is to compare the dimensionless proportionality factor ‘utility-
NPV ratio’ of both options (see equation (3)).
 Utility NPVratio utility value NPV− = / (3)
In the total assessment say, the LFM project may now have a 
lower utility-NPV ratio than the landfill in aftercare, indicating 
that the benefit from investing one Euro is lower than that of the 
reference scenario. In this case, LFM is not recommended. But if 
the utility-NPV ratio of the LFM is higher than that of the refer-
ence scenario, LFM will seem beneficial and is recommended, 
based on the effected inputs of the user.
Table 1. Pair-by-pair comparison of the weighting of ecological criteria (Hermann et al., 2015b).
Ecological criteria 
 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 
EC1 1 1=2 1 1 1 1 1 
EC2 2 2 2 2 2 2 
EC3 3 3 3 3 7 
EC4 4 5 4 4 
EC5 5 5=6 7 
EC6 6 7 
EC7 7 
Number; Total 6.5* 6.5* 4* 3* 2.5* 1.5* 4* 28
Share 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.14 1
Weighting in % 23 23 14 11 9 6 14 100
Figure 3. Utility-NPV chart.
1162 Waste Management & Research 34(11)
Conclusions
The separation, described and performed here, of the comprehen-
sive assessment of a LFM project into preliminary and main 
assessment has shown that a preliminary investigation into the 
general feasibility of such a project is advantageous to a landfill 
operator. The preliminary investigation is done easily, quickly 
and without vast human or financial resources, by using a ques-
tionnaire. Answering the question concerning the amount of 
potential secondary raw materials has proven to be feasible with 
the method proposed by Wolfsberger et al. (2015a). Next, the 
more expensive main assessment should be carried out, but only 
if the preliminary result has been positive. Its separation into eco-
nomic assessment by computing the NPV and an ecological and 
socio-economic assessment by executing a utility analysis allows 
separate ratings of both criteria blocks. Effects on the assessment 
criteria of defined economic, ecological and socio-economic 
measures or modified basic conditions can be thereby rated 
understandably andquickly. The economic factors (costs and 
proceeds) may be gained from the simulation method of 
Wolfsberger et al. (2015b).
Often the economic factors present, like external costs for 
removal, remediation contributions, decommissioning costs and 
revenues from reusing a landfill site, prevent the performance of 
an LFM project on merely economic grounds. Including the util-
ity value, which can be much higher in a LFM project than in 
aftercare by integrating the utility-NPV ratio into the assessment, 
may achieve a positive total result of the comprehensive assess-
ment in spite of an inferior NPV of LFM. As a result, a LFM 
project would not compellingly require a better NPV than after-
care. An example to that extent has been shown by Hermann 
et al. (2015b) for the case of a specific Austrian mass-waste land-
fill. In total, several slightly improved costs and revenues can 
also contribute to the benefit of a LFM project in total, despite the 
utility value remaining constant, as may public subsidies.
Basically, more research is needed to deepen the investigation 
results described here. Quality and amount of NPV and utility 
value input data must be determined and checked. In addition, an 
extensive sensitivity analysis of all parameters is necessary to 
rate different scenarios.
Declaration of conflicting interests 
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to 
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support 
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This 
work was financed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency 
(FFG).
References
Bernhard A, Domenig M, Reisinger H, et al. (2011) Deponierückbau. 
Wirtschaftlichkeit, Ressourcenpotenzial und Klimarelevanz [Landfill 
mining, economics, resource potential]. Wien: Walter B, Weißenbach T, 
pp.100.
Bölte S and Geiping J (2011) Siedlungsabfalldeponien – Nachsorge oder 
Rückbau? [Municipal solid waste landfills – Aftercare or deconstruc-
tion?]. University of Applied Science – Fachhochschule Münster, 
Münster, 15 February 2011.
BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und 
Technologie) (ed.) (1995) Reconstruction of old landfills shown by the 
examples of Schöneiche and Schöneiche Plan [Abfallwirtschaftliche 
Rekonstruktion von Altdeponien am Beispiel Schöneiche und Schöneiche 
Plan]. Berlin: Projektträger Umweltbundesamt, Abfallwirtschaft und 
Altlastensanierung, Endbericht.
BMLFUW (Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft Umwelt und 
Wasserwirtschaft) (ed.) (2008) BGBl. II Nr. 39/2008 Verordnung über 
Deponien (Deponieverordnung – DVO) [Austrian Landfill Ordinance]. 
Vienna, Austria: BMLFUW.
Bockreis A and Knapp J (2011) Landfill Mining – Deponien als Rohstoffquelle 
[Landfill mining – Landfills as a source of resources]. Österr Wasser- und 
Abfallw 63: 70–75.
Bothmann P, Doedens H, Eitner R, et al. (2002) Umlagerung und Rückbau 
von deponierten Abfällen [Relocation and mining of landfilled waste], 
issued by DWA German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste 
e.V.- ATV-DVWK/VKS Fachausschuss 3.6 ‘Deponien’. Hennef (ATV-
DVWK-Arbeitsbericht).
EC (European Commission) (ed.) (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on 
Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Brussels, Belgium: European 
Commission.
European Commission (2010) Enterprise and Industry Improving 
Framework Conditions for Extracting Minerals for the EU. Abridged 
report of the ad-hoc working group on exchanging best practice on land 
use planning, permitting and geological knowledge sharing, raw materi-
als supply group. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission – Enterprise 
and Industry.
Frändegård P, Krook J, Svensson N, et al. (2013) A novel approach for envi-
ronmental evaluation of landfill mining. Journal of Cleaner Production 
55: 24–34.
Fricke K (2009) Urban mining – nur ein Modebegriff. Müll und Abfall 10: 
489.
Gäth S and Nispel J (2010) Ressourcenpotenzial von ausgewählten 
Hausmülldeponien in Deutschland [Resource potential of selected 
household waste landfills in Germany]. In: Proceedings of the 10th 
Depotech conference, Leoben, 3–5 November 2010. Karl E. Lorber, 
Josef Adam, Alexia Aldrian, Astrid Arnberger,Alberto Bezama, Gernot 
Kreindl, Peter Müller, Daniela Sager, Renato Sarc, Klaus Wruss, 
Leoben, pp.375–380. 
Hermann R, Baumgartner RJ, Sarc R, et al. (2014a) Landfill mining in 
Austria: Foundations for an integrated ecological and economic assess-
ment. Waste Management & Research 32:9(S): 48–58.
Hermann R, Vorbach S and Wipfer H (2014b) Multikriterielle 
Bewertung von Landfill Mining Projekten [Multi-criteria assess-
ment of landfill mining projects]. In: Pomberger R (ed.) Proceedings 
of the 12th DepoTech conference: Abfallwirtschaft, Abfalltechnik, 
Deponietechnik und Altlasten [Waste management, waste technol-
ogy, landfill technology and contaminated sites], Montanuniversität 
Leoben/Österreich, 4–7 November 2014. Eigenverl. IAE - Inst. für 
Nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft und Entsorgungstechnik, Leoben, 
pp.587–592.
Hermann R, Baumgartner RJ, Vorbach S, et al. (2015a) Evaluation and selec-
tion of decision-making methods to assess landfill mining projects. Waste 
Management & Research 33: 822–832.
Hermann R, Baumgartner RJ, Vorbach S, et al. (2015b) Holistic assessment 
of a landfill mining pilot project in Austria – Methodology and applica-
tion. Waste Management & Research 34: 646–657.
Jones PT, Geysen D, Tielemans Y, et al. (2013) Enhanced landfill mining in 
view of multiple resource recovery: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner 
Production 55: 45–55.
Krüse T (2015) Landfill mining – How to explore an old landfill’s 
resource potential. MSc thesis, Technische Universität Wien und 
Hermann et al. 1163
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Available at: http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/
files/PubDat_238235.pdf (accessed 27 July 2015).
Nispel J (2012) Resource potential of municipal solid waste landfills, 
example of the landfill site Hechingen [Ressourcenpotential von 
Hausmülldeponien am Beispiel der Kreismülldeponie Hechingen]. 
Schriftenreihe zu Bodenkunde, Landeskultur und LandschaftsECologie, 
Band 59, Gießen: Justus-Liebig-Universität.
Raga R and Cossu R (2014) Landfill aeration in the framework of a reclama-
tion project in Northern Italy. Waste Management 34: 683–691.
Rettenberger G (2010) Deponierückbau: Technik, Wirtschaftlichkeit, 
Perspektiven [Landfill deconstruction: Technique, economics, pros-
pects]. In: Deponietechnik 2010, Band 35, Hamburg, 1–2 February 2010. 
Hamburg: Verlag Abfall aktuell.
Rettenberger G (2012) Deponierückbau – Traum und Wirklichkeit 
[Excavation of landfills – dream and reality]. In: 16th Internationales 
Symposium Wasser, Abwasser, Energie, Symposium zur nachhaltigen 
Abfallwirtschaft [16th international symposium on waste, waste water 
and energy, symposium on sustainable waste management], International 
Congress Center, Munich, 7 May 2012. Vienna, Austria: International 
Solid Waste Association.
Schuh H (2001) Entscheidungsorientierte Umsetzung einer nachhalti-
geren Entwicklung, Empirische Analyse, theoretische Fundierung 
und Systematisierung am Beispiel der natürlichen Ressource Wasser 
[Decision-making-oriented implementation of a sustainable develop-
ment. Empirical analysis, theoretical foundation and systemization 
using the natural resource water as an example]. Dissertation, Berlin, 
XIX, 410 S.
van Passel S, Dubois M, Eyckmans J, et al. (2013) The economics of 
enhanced landfill mining: Private and societal performance drivers. 
Journal of Cleaner Production 55: 92–102.
Weber L (ed.) (2012) Der österreichische Rohstoffplan [Raw material ini-
tiative of Austria], Archiv für Lagerstättenforschung, 26, Geol. B.-A., 
Vienna, Austria.
Wolfsberger T, Höllen D, Sarc R, et al. (2014) Landfill mining – case study: 
Characterization and treatment of excavated waste from Austriansanitary 
landfill sites and estimation of the resource potential. In: ISWA World 
congress, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 8–11 September, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Wolfsberger T, Nispel J, Sarc R, et al. (2015a) Landfill mining – Development 
of a theoretical method for a preliminary estimate of the raw material 
potential of landfill sites. Waste Management and Research 33: 671–680.
Wolfsberger T, Pinkel M, Polansek S, et al. (2015b) Landfill mining – 
Development of a cost simulation model. Waste Management & Research 
34: 356–367. 
Wolfslehner B, Vacik H, Lexer MJ. (2005) Application of the analytic net-
work process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management. 
Forest Ecology and Management 207: 157–170.
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_238235.pdf
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_238235.pdf