Waste generation and resource recovery in Australia
Data sources and assumptions
Yüklə 1,1 Mb.
|
31.Data sources and assumptionsEach jurisdiction was asked to provide data on the tonnages: of each waste type; in each waste stream (MSW, C&I and C&D); by management (landfilled, recycled or used for energy recovery); in the reference year 2010/11 and, where available, in the financial years 2006/07, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2011/12. Jurisdictions were able to satisfy this request to different degrees. In most cases there were gaps for some waste types, categories, streams or management routes. In some cases data on hazardous waste was available from both hazardous waste tracking data and landfill data, and the figures were not always identical. No data were obtained for Qld (2006/07), NSW (2009/10) or NT (2006/07 to 2009/10). Qld was the only jurisdiction able to provide data for 2011/12. Data were also obtained from a range of industry sources to supplement the jurisdictional data. These included data from: the Plastics and Chemicals Industry Association (PACIA) (plastics); the ROU (organic waste recycling); the Australian Ash Development Association (ADAA) (power station ash); the Australia and New Zealand Biosolids Partnership (biosolids from sewage works); the Clean Energy Council (energy recovery from organic wastes); and waste industry websites (various waste streams). Demographic and economic data were obtained from the ABS. In some cases, values for a particular datum were available from more than one source. Greatest reliance was generally placed on jurisdictional waste data, where these were available. An alternative was used in a few cases where, in the professional judgement of the authors, there was good reason. For example, the tonnes of plastics recycled reported by the Qld Government were lower than those given for Qld by PACIA, so the industry survey was assumed to have identified additional tonnages and its total figures were applied. Where data were not directly available from either jurisdictional or industry data, gaps were filled, where it was considered prudent, by means of assumption and calculation. The assumptions were founded on the professional judgement of the authors, with consideration of the similarities and differences between jurisdictions and circumstances. The methods for gap filling included assuming that: Proportions or rates in a jurisdiction, time period, area or waste stream were similar to those in another. Rates or values in a jurisdiction or area had particular values. Snapshot waste stream audits in a jurisdiction were proportionally representative of the entire jurisdictional waste stream. Average values from combining the results of waste stream audits in several jurisdictions were representative of national averages, and were applicable to jurisdictions and waste streams lacking representative snapshot audits. Some combining of audit results was undertaken by the project team, and some by third parties (e.g. as part of a national study of C&I waste, or in establishing default values for use under National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting legislation). The major assumptions applied in compiling the jurisdictional and national waste data sections are specified in Table . Less significant assumptions are set all out in the ‘WGRRA database’ and ‘WGRRA data workbook’ adjacent to the calculation where the assumption is employed. In the database, assumptions are identified through the use of red font. Table : Major assumptions used in compiling the data for WGRRA
Yüklə 1,1 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||