Aggregated and disaggregated data about default emission factors in emissions accounting methods from the waste sector

The dataset presented in this article is related to the research article entitled “Towards improving emissions accounting methods in waste management: A proposed framework” (Maalouf and El-Fadel, 2019) [1] that examines the variability in aggregated and disaggregated emissions from waste management when using commonly adopted international methods (the UN IPCC 2006 Guidelines, the US EPA WARM, the EU EpE protocols, the Canadian IWM, and the UK IWM-2). The dataset presents the aggregated and disaggregated emission factors (EFs) used in existing accounting methods to estimate emissions from the waste sector. The EFs were retrieved from accounting methods to clarify their contribution to variability in estimating emissions across methods. The data contains three parts: aggregated EFs per tonne of waste category for individual waste management processes; disaggregated EFs per management process for a tonne of waste type; and emission flow diagrams of waste management systems for tested methods.


a b s t r a c t
The dataset presented in this article is related to the research article entitled "Towards improving emissions accounting methods in waste management: A proposed framework" (Maalouf and El-Fadel, 2019) [1] that examines the variability in aggregated and disaggregated emissions from waste management when using commonly adopted international methods (the UN IPCC 2006 Guidelines, the US EPA WARM, the EU EpE protocols, the Canadian IWM, and the UK IWM-2). The dataset presents the aggregated and disaggregated emission factors (EFs) used in existing accounting methods to estimate emissions from the waste sector. The EFs were retrieved from accounting methods to clarify their contribution to variability in estimating emissions across methods. The data contains three parts: aggregated EFs per tonne of waste category for individual waste management processes; disaggregated EFs per management process for a tonne of waste type; and emission flow diagrams of waste management systems for tested methods.

Value of the data
The data consist of aggregated and disaggregated emission factors that are adopted in existing accounting methods to estimate emissions from the waste sector.
A significant difference is evident in emission factors across tested methods. Data analysis accentuates the need for uniformity in emissions accounting methods and corresponding default parameters particularly emission factors.
The data can guide the estimation process of emissions from the waste sector. The data can influence decision making when assessing emissions mitigation measures and reporting targets under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreements or influence reduction targets using carbon credits to meet nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.

Data
The data presented in this article provides details about emission factors (EFs) used in estimating emissions from the waste sector. The data clarifies the contribution to the variability in emissions when using commonly adopted international methods (the UN IPCC 2006 Guidelines [2], the US EPA WARM [3], the EU EpE protocols [4], the Canadian IWM [5], and the UK IWM-2 [6]. These methods were selected because they are publically accessible, widely reported in the literature, and adopted by cities or countries where they were originally developed [7][8][9][10]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines in particular were supposedly put forth to standardize between methods at a global scale. The data consist of disaggregated EFs expressed in metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalents (MTCO 2 E) per characteristic unit and refer to EFs separated by waste category, gas, waste processes, and type of emissions (direct or Table 1 GWP for 100-year time horizon.

GHGs
Symbol First assessment report (FAR) IPCC [13] Second assessment report (SAR) IPCC [11] Third assessment report (TAR) IPCC [14] Fourth assessment report (AR4) IPCC [12] Fifth assessment report (AR5) IPCC a [15] Carbon dioxide CO 2 indirect). It also includes details on aggregated EFs (MTCO 2 E/ tonne of waste), which are the combined outcome of indirect-upstream, direct-operational, and indirect-downstream emissions from treating one tonne of waste by individual waste management processes. Note that waste always refers to wet waste. Moreover, given that the 100-year global warming potential (GWP 100 ) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) has evolved with time as outlined in (Table 1), the GWP 100 was adjusted in all methods to follow the IPCC, 1995 [11] reference definition. The latter was selected as a reference in all methods because most of them rely on the IPCC (1995) by default. Note that changing the GWP 100 affect emissions estimation. For instance, WARM uses IPCC, 2007 [12] resulting in 19% increase in GWP 100 of CH 4 , in comparison to IWM-2 that uses IPCC, 1995 [11].   [11]). c Disaggregated EF fuel g ¼ Emission factor of gas g from fuel combustion (MTCO 2 E/Liters of fuel) with 6.2 L of fuel consumed/tonne of waste collected in the study area GWP 100 ; IPCC [11]. d The absolute variability in EFs is calculated with respect to each method.

Experimental design, materials, and methods
Data on EFs for various waste management processes was collected through secondary sources of accessible reports, literature, Guidelines, and models/software. The data was categorized into:     2. EpE protocol. *Note that EpE does not provide methodologies to estimate avoided emissions from recycling, energy recovery from anaerobic digestion, landfill, and incineration as well as direct emissions from waste degradation during landfilling. Fig. 3. IWM. *During recycling IWM considers avoided emissions from plastics, glass, and metals **During incineration IWM only considers CO 2 emissions from paper, glass, metals, plastics, food, and others. ***During landfilling IWM only considers CH 4 emissions from paper, and food. Fig. 4. IWM-2. *During incineration IWM-2 only considers CO 2 emissions from paper, glass, plastics, textiles, food, and others **During landfilling IWM-2 only considers CH 4 emissions from paper, textiles, and organics. Fig. 5. WARM. *During recycling WARM considers avoided emissions from paper, plastics, glass, carpet, dimensional lumber, and metals **During incineration WARM only considers CO 2 emissions from paper, plastics, textiles, wood, food, and others ***During landfilling WARM only considers CH 4 emissions from paper, food, wood, and others.