TNF

Sa

b

a

ARR2AA

KREDTBZ

1

lEcfuaowtaai

(

h0

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

jo ur nal home p age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / resconrec

he use of bio-waste to revegetate eroded land areas in Ylläs,orthern Finland: Toward a zero waste perspective of tourism in theinnish Lapland

ari Piippoa,∗, Arttu Juntunena, Sirpa Kurppab, Eva Pongrácza

Thule Institute, Centre of Northern Environmental Technology (NorTech Oulu), University of Oulu, FI-90014 Oulu, FinlandMTT Agrifood Research Finland, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 14 January 2014eceived in revised form6 September 2014ccepted 28 September 2014vailable online 31 October 2014

eywords:evegetationrosionigestateourism

a b s t r a c t

Lapland is one of the most attractive nature-tourism areas in Europe, and tourism is vital for local econ-omy. However, recreational tourist activities such as skiing, hiking and horse riding deteriorate the uniqueand vulnerable nature of Northern Finland. Erosion and wearing of tourist areas negatively affects biodi-versity and ecosystem services and reduce the attractiveness of the region. Tourism is also the source ofother environmental disturbances such as wastes. Currently, in Lapland, the prevalent waste treatmentmethod is disposal, and wastes are transported over long distances due to lack of recipient facilities forwaste management. The suggestion for sustainable waste management Scenario presented in this paperis to find a synergistic solution to both of these problems, by local treatment of bio-waste in an anaerobicdigestor and utilization of digestate to revegetate eroded land. It is proposed that bio-waste is co-digestedwith sewage sludge and offal from slaughterhouses in Ylläs in the municipality of Kolari. An estimated500–1000 t of digestate could be produced and used in tourist areas annually. Experiences from existing

io-wasteero waste

seasonal bio-waste collection schemes and interviews of local tourist enterprises and tourists indicatethat there is willingness to extend the source separation of wastes. Assessment of the digestion Scenariosuggests that economic costs of investment could be offset by avoided costs and by additional environ-mental and social benefits. It is concluded that this zero waste approach could lead to an improved imageof Lapland as a sustainable tourist destination.

. Introduction

Ecosystem services are critical to the functioning of the Earth’sife-support system and are irreplaceable (Costanza et al., 1997).cosystem services are products of ecosystem functions benefi-ial to human societies, such as clean air and water, food, soilormation, waste treatment, but also recreation and spiritual val-es. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005),bout 60% of the ecosystem services studied are being degradedr used unsustainably. Northern conditions, such as long and darkinters; short, cool and bright summers make Northern ecosys-

ems unique and especially vulnerable. Plants in the North are

dapted to live in circumstances where the soil is infertile andcidic, the growing season is short and the weather is chang-ng abruptly. The productivity of Northern plants is lower than

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+358 294487607.E-mail addresses: sari.piippo@oulu.fi (S. Piippo), arttu.juntunen@oulu.fi

A. Juntunen), sirpa.kurppa@mtt.fi (S. Kurppa), eva.pongracz@oulu.fi (E. Pongrácz).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.09.015921-3449/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

in the South and the morphology of the plants is different (Laineet al., 2007). Nordic ecosystems are also slow to recover fromdisturbances (Ruth-Balaganskaya and Myllynen-Malinen, 2000).Recreational tourist activities such as skiing, hiking and horse ridingcause increasing pressure on the nature in Northern Finland (Törnet al., 2009), and have considerable impact on local ecosystems(Kangas et al., 2009). The Northern areas are especially sensitiveto trampling; even after very low intensities of down stamping,the coverage of vascular plants decreases directly (Törn et al.,2006, 2009). Tourism has thus caused the degradation of natu-ral resources and ecosystems (Blancas et al., 2011). At the sametime, tourism is the source of other environmental disturbances,wastes in particular. The prevalent situation in Kolari is not sus-tainable since part of the bio-waste is transported to landfill amongmixed waste. This also represents noncompliance with the EULandfill Directive (1999/31/EY) and the national strategy of Finland

aiming to reduce the amounts of biodegradable waste going tolandfill. Our suggestion is to find a synergistic solution to bothof these problems, by local utilization of bio-waste to revegetateeroded land.

1 rvatio

oiMr2adtao(mlatcapaeoatibaewap

ttmYamwlplEssLawo

2

2

iwoaiab(ago

0 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conse

In order to find an optimal solution for bio-waste managementption for Kolari, there is a need for an integrated approach tak-ng into account economic, environmental and social perspectives.

ulti-criteria analysis (MCA) is used to identify compromises foresolving such complex policy planning problems (Herva and Roca,013). As planning for sustainable municipal solid waste man-gement has to address several inter-connected issues, systemynamics (SD) have also been used to understand these interac-ions (Kollikkathara et al., 2010). A limited amount of research haslso been carried out on the integration of the SD method withther methods used in the waste sector. The study of Pubule et al.2014) combined MCA and SD to seek best options for bio-waste

anagement for the Baltic States. They have also highlighted aack of the integration of MCA and SD approaches into waste man-gement. Their study concluded that the optimal solution needo be based on a set of specific environmental, economic, techni-al, and social criteria identified for local conditions (Ibid.). To theuthors’ knowledge, there are no earlier studies providing a com-rehensive view of a zero waste municipal solid waste strategy in

sparsely populated Nordic aspect. Due to the lack of publishedvidence, we gathered the data from numerous local sources forur investigation, including personal visits, and used them for thepproximation of the amount of bio-waste generated, specifica-ion of the treatment method for bio-waste, and calculations of thedentified economic, environmental and social aspects of differentio-waste management scenarios. Our proposal also considers thespects of tourism and biodiversity restoration, by the use of thend-product for revegetation purposes based on field studies oforn areas. The extensive data acquisition and interdisciplinary

pproach provides a new perspective and novelty value for thisaper.

In this study, the wearing of vulnerable Northern areas byourism-based activities is described and methods for revegeta-ion are proposed. The present status of municipal solid waste

anagement and especially separate bio-waste collection in thelläs tourist area of Finnish Lapland is presented. Further, thettitudes of local tourist enterprises and tourists toward environ-ental issues are presented and the willingness of tourist to sortaste is evaluated. Finally, suggestions for a more efficient uti-

ization of bio-waste and use of bio-waste based substrates areroposed. It is suggested that, ultimately, these measures could

ead to a zero waste stance of tourism in the Finnish Lapland.arlier studies from Kolari were restricted to the economic fea-ibility of anaerobic digestion (AD) of collected bio-waste on amall scale and they deemed it to be unprofitable (Kalmari anduostarinen, 2009; Tomperi et al., 2014a,b). Our hypothesis is that, ifvoided costs and added benefits are also included, AD of bio-wasteith the local utilization of all end-products would be a feasible

ption.

. Background

.1. Theoretic approach and methods

Tourism is extremely important for local economy, however,t also contributes to escalating amounts of wastes. In our earlier

ork (Tomperi et al., 2014a,b), we concentrated on the devel-pment of a sustainable waste management concept for touristreas in Lapland. Especially bio-waste generated by the tourismndustry was in our focus. The need for sustainable bio-waste man-gement solutions was established by an earlier survey performedy the “Keep Lapland Tidy” association in the tourism industry

Pidä Lappi Siistinä ry, 2010). The survey established that, especiallyccommodation and nutritional operations; hotels, restaurants androcery stores produce significant amounts of bio-waste (20–30%f all the municipal solid waste generated) and consider bio-waste

n and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

management as one of the problem areas. Most enterprises sorttheir wastes, especially recyclables and make efforts of food wastereduction. However, they are interested in further enhancing wastesorting and in a more sustainable bio-waste management solu-tion. In order to respond to this research need, we choose to assessthe potential of small-scale, decentralized bio-refinery solutions forsustainable bio-waste management in Lapland. Our first case studyarea was the Kolari municipality. The reason for selecting Kolariwas the existence of a bio-waste collection scheme; bio-waste isbeing collected separately from tourist centers during the touristseason (Lapin ELY, 2012). The municipality also had data availableon collected bio-waste amounts.

Technical and economic analyses were performed for chosenbiorefinery solutions (Tomperi et al., 2014a,b). The economic fea-sibility of anaerobic digestion (AD) of collected bio-waste in Kolarihas also been studied by Kalmari and Luostarinen (2009) with theexpectation that the plant would use waste water sludge and sep-arately collected bio-waste as feedstock material and a gate feewould be charged for incoming waste. They reported that it ismore or less unprofitable to produce biogas in order to be usedin CHP plants without financial investment support and feed-intariff. Tomperi et al. (2014a) also highlighted that the seasonalvariation and lack of separate collection off-season is challengingfrom a technical design point of view. Personal interviews withlocal entrepreneurs, hotels, restaurants and grocery stores as wellas environmental and health authorities conducted during 2011in Kolari revealed that they would welcome a year-round bio-waste collection system. However, even with year-round bio-wastecollection, the calculated energy potential of bio-wastes was esti-mated to cover the annual energy consumption of only 10 people(Tomperi et al., 2014b). The feasibility study concluded that, onlyconsidering the biogas potential of bio-waste, AD is not economi-cally feasible. We asserted that the feasibility of AD would improve,if digestate, the by-product of AD was utilized e.g. for the revegeta-tion purposes of areas worn by tourism (Ibid.). One of our mainmotivations was to look at bio-waste management from a zerowaste perspective. The zero waste perspective guides people tomimic sustainable natural cycles in their way of utilizing resources(The Zero Waste International Alliance, 2013). Local utilization ofbio-waste based substrates would reduce the volume of waste,conserve and recover resources as valuable materials for other pur-poses, leading to a zero waste status in bio-waste management.

For this current study, the wearing of vegetation in tourist areasin Ylläs was studied in July 2013. The surroundings of tourist cen-ters in Ylläsjärvi area and Äkäslompolo area, parts of hiking trailsand downhill skiing slopes were assessed by visual observation.It was observed that the environment at the most actively usedtrail and areas is heavily or moderately worn, indicating a needfor restoration and revegetation measures. This lead to the sug-gestion of alternative scenarios for bio-waste utilization and thesustainability assessment of their impacts on local communities.

2.2. Interplay of tourism and nature in the Finnish Lapland

Due to the unique nature of Northern areas, Lapland is consid-ered as one of the most attractive nature-tourism areas in Europeand tourism is vital for the area’s economy (Uusitalo et al., 2006).The Finnish Lapland (hereinafter referred to as Lapland), shown inFig. 1, is also the most sparsely populated region of Europe. The sur-face area of Lapland is 100 369 km2 which is over 25% of the totalsurface area of Finland, but the number of permanent inhabitantswas only 183 488 in 2010, 3.5% of Finnish population. This makes

population density in Lapland less than two inhabitants per km2

(Lapin ELY, 2012). As Fig. 1 illustrates, municipalities are small andfar apart, the main road infrastructure is scarce in places, whilsttourist attractions abound.

S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22 11

nfrast

osTw2ftmrtapwpdtota

stnst2tmauot

eomL

Fig. 1. Map of Finnish Lapland indicating i

The economic structure of Lapland is different from other areasf Finland, since it consists more of primary production and publicector and less of industry and private services (Lapin ELY, 2012).he estimation of Lapland’s direct incomes achieved by tourismas about 595 million euro in 2010 (Lapland’s Tourism Strategy,

008). In 2009, the long term plan for tourism in Lapland was tourther increase tourism income and double the employment inourism services by 2030. In contrast to the under 200 000 per-

anent inhabitants, in 2010, there were over 2 million tourismelated overnight stays in Lapland. The area circled in Fig. 1 markshree popular tourist destinations; the Ylläs, Levi and Pallas touristreas. For example, the Ylläs tourist centre in the small munici-ality of Kolari is the third most visited tourist centre of Lapland,hilst the local population of Kolari decreased to 3800 during theast decades. In addition, tourist visits are highly seasonal. Mostomestic tourists visit Lapland during spring time and interna-ional tourist during Christmas holidays (Ylläs Nyt, 2006). Manyf the tourist areas in Lapland have been branching out from theraditional skiing business toward summer season activities, suchs e.g. golf courses to ensure a year-round tourist attractiveness.

Tourists are well aware of issues concerning climate change andustainability, and environmental protection is increasingly impor-ant to travelers (UNWTO, 1999). According to an international andational nature travel survey, nature, nature-based activities andafety are among the major issues based on which internationalourists are choosing a destination (MEK, 2010; Tyrväinen et al.,011). Sustainability, including aspects such as pollution preven-ion, locality, maintaining the natural environment, recycling and

inimizing consumption are important to Finnish visitors. Peoplere willing to protect the nature, select local services and prod-cts, minimize consumption and sort their wastes. Also the wearingf the environment is an important environmental concern forourists (Tyrväinen et al., 2011).

Although tourism, especially nature tourism, is largely depend-

nt on the quality of the environment, it also lowers the qualityf the environment and hence the attractiveness of the environ-ent to tourists (Järviluoma, 2006). International tourists visiting

apland gave positive feedback on the peacefulness and natural

ructure and the location of tourist centers.

values of their destination but negative feedback about environ-mental services in the area. Tourists from Switzerland reported thatmissing sorting and recycling possibilities were the reason for notcoming back again, which indicates that people prefer to maintaintheir habits and values also when travelling. International touristswere willing to sort their wastes and use fewer energy and waterin order to protect the environment. Visitors also found importantpreserving local plant and animal species by using only markedtrails (Staffans and Merikoski, 2011). This latter issue is especiallyimperative, in order to minimize wearing and prevent the erosionof tourist areas.

2.3. Erosion processes and vulnerability of the Northern habitats

Wearing means a partial or total destruction of the field andbottom layer of vegetation and top layer of the soil, and it usuallyis caused by trampling (Karjalainen, 1994). Resistance to wearingusually refers to the resistance of vegetation but it may also meanthe resistance of the top layer of soil. The vulnerability of soil toerosion depends on the soil type. Fine earth has good structure,water content and growth potential but it is especially vulnerable toerosion. Also sand dunes and ridges formed from sorted stone mate-rials with thin layer of humus are sensitive to erosion (Nenonen,1992). Sorted materials e.g. sand and gravel are prone to erosion intrails with plenty of visitors. Unsorted materials e.g. till are rathertolerant to trampling but till freezes easily, which brings the stonesto the surface easing the washing of fine material away with melt-ing water, thus promoting erosion. Organic soil types are wearingaway easily. Wearing of vegetation also accelerates erosion.

The severity and extent of wearing has been studied in thetourist area of Ylläs, in Lapland in Pallas-Yllästunturi NationalPark. The Ylläs tourist area is mostly based in Pallas-YllästunturiNational Park located in its southern part. Ylläs area is suitablefor nature tourism; however, built areas encompass on pristine

nature. Ylläs has dry upland soils with pine forests which are poorlyor fairly poorly tolerant to trampling. Sandy till is the most com-mon soil type in the area. Most of the trails are going throughfells, ravines and bogs and the trails were used for both skiing and

12 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

F egetad a heah osed b

hmimriAphaamflmaaholig

ttth(tttmetrPowsmdr

ig. 2. Signs of erosion and wearing due to recreational use in Ylläs area. (a) forest vesignated trail (duckboards); (c) grass replaced shrub-dominated local species oneavy use does not affect the attractiveness of skiing slopes in winter times; (f) exp

iking. Erosion in trails was compared to surrounding vegetation,easuring the depth and width of trails and studying soil qual-

ty and depth. The trails were mainly in good condition and onlyildly worn out except the most vulnerable areas such as unpaved

avines, mires and slopes. Some areas are also eroded because melt-ng snow exposed the stones in the trail (Uusitalo et al., 2006).ccording to Sulkava and Norokorpi (2007), recreational use hasartially or completely destroyed the herb-layer, ground-layer andumus layer in the rest areas of Pallas-Yllästunturi National Parknd there was positive correlation between the extent of wearingnd the number of visits and habitat type. The hardiest environ-ents were the pine-dominated and moderately dry mineral soil

orests, whereas particularly vulnerable were alpine heaths, dryichen-dominated forests and mountain birch forests. In all sum-

er and winter trails, the most altered habitat types were alpinend boreal heaths with vulnerable vegetation slow to regener-te, mountain birch groves, nutrient-poor fell meadows and borealerb-rich forests. The number of visitors affected the level of deteri-ration. Both in rest areas and trails, the evergreen shrubs in terrainevel were destroyed easily by active use as well as forest mossesn ground-layer, whereas the free spaces were taken over by hardyrasses (Sulkava and Norokorpi, 2007).

The overall impacts of recreational use are also related to theype of the recreational activity, number of visits and vegetationype. For example, trails caused by horse riding are as deep as hikingrails, even though the number of riders is low. Cross-country skiingas the least effect on trails because of the protecting snow coverSulkava and Norokorpi, 2007; Törn et al., 2009). However, alsohe winter use of trails, especially the use of snowmobiles and all-errain vehicles caused the wearing which could be observed duringhe summertime. In some areas, tourists use other routes than

arked trails, which caused further wearing of vegetation (Uusitalot al., 2006). Ski slopes are especially vulnerable to environmen-al degradation when the vegetation layer and top soil layers areemoved which expose the slopes to erosion. For example in theallas-Yllästunturi National Park, it was observed that the coverf Myrtillus and Empetrum shrubs significantly decreased and theyere replaced by tall grasses or sedges. Also some sensitive moss

pecies were replaced by more common species. In addition, in dryineral soil site, the soil was revealed when the vegetation was

estroyed and, at mesic mineral soil sites, stones and detritus wasevealed (Sulkava and Norokorpi, 2007).

tion worn out on a casual hiking route; (b) vegetation is eroded even outside thevily worn hiking trail; (d) wearing and erosion in the neighborhood of hotels; (e)are land of skiing slope during summertime.

According to the studies of Ruth-Balaganskaya and Myllynen-Malinen (2000) in Ylläs, the most disturbed areas (i.e. areas thatare machine-graded to the bare soil with hardly any nutrients andorganic matter left) are not likely to recover unassisted. To preventerosion, ski slopes are often revegetated (Kangas et al., 2009; Ruth-Balaganskaya and Myllynen-Malinen, 2000). Revegetation can bepromoted by the implementation of growth substrate, addingorganic material (soil, humus), inserting fertilizers and bringing theplant material (seeds or seedlings) (Laine et al., 2007). Studies inSwiss Alps show that machine-graded downhill ski runs could beimproved by using biodegradable wood–fiber mats and garden soil(Fattorini, 2001). As eroded areas are commonly filled with peatand fertilizers, and nonnative species are used to revegetate skislopes, revegetation may affect soil nutrient levels, vegetation char-acteristics and invasion of nonnative plants (Kangas et al., 2009).Therefore, revegetation of Northern areas needs to be carefullyplanned and, if plant material is selected, it should be suitable forthe local ecosystem and the harsh growing conditions (Fattorini,2001; Pihlajaniemi et al., 2008).

Personal field investigations in the tourist area in Ylläs (Äkäs-lompolo and Ylläsjärvi areas) during summer 2013 revealed thatthe vegetation in the area has suffered from tourist activities. Hik-ing in the Ylläs area has affected the vegetation and caused wearing(Fig. 2a). In many parts, the trails are well established (road-liketrails), and the original vegetation has not suffered if only themarked trails were used. However, it was observed that the num-ber of side-trails (Fig. 2b) increases in higher altitudes. In someplaces, there were grass species growing among forests speciesin the middle of the broad trail (Fig. 2c). Especially in higher alti-tudes, the soil erosion has been quite harsh and lots of roots andstones were revealed (Fig. 2a). The fell peak has not much vegeta-tion but the trail can be seen as the stones are quite worn out insome places.

The surroundings of the most important tourist attractions(hotels, ski slopes, shops) are quite heavily worn and in many placesthe bare ground is visible (Fig. 2d). During the summer, it is observ-able that the native forest vegetation has been removed from thedownhill ski slope area and the lower parts of the ski slopes are veg-

etated by grass (Fig. 2f). It is noteworthy that the original vegetationhas not revegetated the slope area and it seems that the local nativevegetation is not able to recover unassisted if the tourism activ-ities are going to continue in the area. Wearing has not affected

S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22 13

Table 1Waste statistics and landfill coverage in Lapland, Finland as compared to the European Union (Finnish Environment Institute, 2007; Lapin ELY, 2012; van Vossen and Prent,2011).

European Union Finland Lapland

Surface area (km2) 4324,782 338,432 100,369Population 503,492,041 5434,357 183,488Population density (person/km2) 116.4 16.1 1.8Amount of MSW (kg/person) 513 468.8 500.1Number of MSW landfills Appr. 150,000 76 3

amossuw

agmimrdiaewuhstttaevic

2

aMtwfitatsU

fiSstm

ti

to the image of Lapland as a sustainable tourist destination. Even ifbio-waste was sorted and collected year-round, the amounts areinsufficient to warrant their energy use. Therefore, a secondarybenefit of bio-waste digestion needs to be considered.

Table 2Amount of mixed waste and collected bio-waste in Finland, Lapland and Kolari(kg/person) in 2010 (Lapin ELY, 2012; Tomperi et al., 2014a,b).

Coverage of one landfill (km2) 28.8

ttractiveness of the area during winter time (Fig. 2e), which is theost important tourist season. However, if a year-round tourist use

f the area is desired, the visual attractiveness of the area duringummer must be improved. The changes in the vegetation can beeen even from a long distance (Fig. 2f) so the revegetation meas-res are extremely important if the extension of the tourist seasonas planned.

Major issue to consider when inserting digestate to the vulner-ble Northern ecosystem is to ensure that the nutrient level of theround will not become too high. Excessive amounts of nutrientsay cause leaching and may have negative impact on the function-

ng of the organisms in the ecosystems. Digestate should provideissing organic material for the eroded areas and should be used to

eplace commercial fertilizer. When considering revegetation usingigestate as a fertilizer and/or growth substrate, it is obvious that it

s not reasonable to carry the material to the highest part of the fellss the vegetation there does not need much nutrients which couldasily been eroded or washed away causing eutrophication in theater sheds located in the area. Most suitable areas for digestatese would be the lower parts of the ski slopes and the neighbor-ood of the tourist areas as the transportation distances would behort and there is not much difference in altitudes. The vegeta-ion in the area could use some extra substrate easily. Especiallyhe lower parts of the ski slopes seem to be suitable place to usehe digestate to help to establish native vegetation which is morettractive to the tourist and, most importantly, prevent the furtherrosion and invasion of nonnative species. As summertime touristisits to Ylläs area plausible owing to the beauty of Northern nature,t would be reasonable to provide them with the landscape theyan value.

.4. The prevalent municipal solid waste management system

While the population of Lapland is only 3.5% that of Finland, themount of landfilled municipal solid waste (MSW) is 6% of the totalSW produced in Finland (Lapin ELY, 2012). This is partially due to

he lack of infrastructure, sorting possibilities and collection net-ork in Lapland. The high amount of tourists is also contributing

actor (Tomperi et al., 2014a). Currently, 27% of MSW is recoveredn Lapland. The progress of MSW recovery in Lapland is slowerhan in other parts of Finland because of the large area, the smallmounts of generated waste and the long transportation distanceso waste centers and utilization facilities (Lapin ELY, 2012). Table 1hows the differences in population and MSW amounts in Europeannion, Finland and Finnish Lapland.

The main treatment option for MSW in Lapland has been land-lling. In 2011, only three landfills were in operation in Rovaniemi,imo and Tornio. As Table 1 illustrates, the coverage area of aingle landfill site in Lapland is considerably larger than evenhe Finnish average and, consequently, transportation distances of

ixed wastes are remarkably long, up to 600 km.In case of Kolari, wastes collected from the municipality are

ransported to the transfer station in Kolari where unsorted MSWs compressed and packed to containers and transported about

4453 33,456

200 km to landfill in Tornio. If the amount of wastes transportedto Tornio was reduced by recovery, transportation costs, the use offossil fuels and the release of greenhouse gases would be reduced(Lapin ELY, 2012).

The annual amount of biodegradable wastes in Lapland is esti-mated to be 44 600 t. About two thirds of biodegradable MSW isunsorted and therefore is landfilled with mixed waste or inciner-ated (Lapin ELY, 2012). The share of bio-waste in MSW (includingsource separated bio-waste and bio-waste left in mixed waste) isabout 20–30%. It is estimated that the amount of bio-waste pro-duced in households is considerable, about 50–56 kg per inhabitant,and most of food-based bio-waste originates from the preparationof food (Lapin ELY, 2012; Mattila et al., 2011). When consideringthe number of inhabitants, and seasonal occupants in Lapland, theestimated amount of produced bio-waste is about 10 000 t per year,of which 4564 t were collected in 2008. Bio-waste is collected sep-arately in Rovaniemi, Kemi, Tornio and Ranua city centers fromcompanies, public facilities and from the largest residential build-ings. Table 2 illustrates the amount of mixed waste and collectedbio-waste in Finland, Lapland and Kolari. In Kolari, bio-waste iscollected for composting from hotels and restaurants and largeshopping centers during the tourist season. Therefore, the amountof collected bio-waste per inhabitant is remarkably lower than inFinland on average, although higher than the Lapland average.

Table 2 intends to illustrate that a considerable part of bio-wastein Lapland ends up with mixed waste. From another view, there isa remarkable unused bio-waste potential in Lapland. There are 18composting plants in Lapland, of which most are in connection withwaste water treatment plants (Lapin ELY, 2012). As a future devel-opment, a new large-scale AD plant to utilize some 4000–5000 tof bio-waste, sludge and ash, and producing 5700 MW h of energyannually in the form of biogas, is under consideration in Rovaniemi(Napapiirin Residuum OY, 2013), but funding decision has not yetbeen made.

Further to the European Landfill Directive, in 2016, only 25%of biodegradable MSW can be landfilled. In many municipalitiesthroughout Finland, mixed waste is increasingly headed for incin-eration in order to comply with the Directive. There are currentlyno waste incineration facilities in Lapland, the nearest facility is inOulu (Fig. 3). In case of Lapland, should waste transport to Oulu forincineration be considered, this would mean wastes being trans-ported over even longer distances. This would also negatively affect

Finland Lapland Kolari

Mixed waste 282.6 362.7 364.9Collected bio-waste 55.9 21.8 27.9

14 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

ies, sl

2l

iiotaw2boaDwife

Fig. 3. Location of landfills, waste transfer stations, composting facilit

.5. Utilization of bio-waste for revegetation purposes andegislative constraints

As bio-waste is not only a source of energy but also of nutrients,t is more reasonable to be used as material instead of landfilling orncineration (Chen and Chen, 2013). The total solid matter contentf bio-waste varies, and is 25–30% on average. The nitrogen con-ent of bio-waste is 14–28 g/kg, phosphorus content 1.8–2.8 g/kgnd pH 4.5–6 (Toukola et al., 2011). Biologically treated organicaste can be recycled back as nutrients for use on land (Holm et al.,

011). This would also help in restoration of eroded areas causedy tourisms. One of the common ways of producing fertilizer fromrganic waste is composting. In a composting process, biodegrad-ble material is degraded microbiologically in aerobic conditions.uring the process, water and carbon dioxide are released along

ith heat energy. The end-product is a nutritious, humus contain-

ng compost which can be utilized as a fertilizer and raw materialor different substrates. Compost improves soil structure, cationxchange capacity, water retention and increases the nutrient

aughterhouses and landfill gas pumping plant and incineration plant.

content of soil. Composting can be done in a closed process orin open stacks. Closed reactor is required when material of ani-mal origin (other than manure) is treated. Manure, sewage sludgeand plant material can be composted in open stacks. Open stackscan also be used as a post-maturation phase after a closed process(MMM, 2008).

In anaerobic digestion (AD), biodegradable material is microbi-ologically degraded in anaerobic conditions. End-products derivedfrom the AD reactor are biogas and digestate. Biogas can be uti-lized in heat and electricity generation or, after purification, fedinto a natural gas network or used as transportation fuel. Biogascontains about 60% of methane and 40% of carbon dioxide and theenergy content of biogas is about 6 kW h/N m3. The digestate is richin soluble nutrients, for example, organic nitrogen compounds aremostly dissociated to ammonium nitrogen. Organic compounds

in the digestate that have not been degraded improve the car-bon balance of the soil and can also increase biological activity.Inserting digestate on land may have other advantages than pro-viding the nutrients, since it can improve soil quality and water

S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22 15

in the

reedtdtpaobiuHg2

iptor

Fig. 4. The role of AD toward a zero waste strategy with

etention, reduce the requirements for herbicide use, and reducerosion (Hansen et al., 2006a; Møller et al., 2009; Thangarajant al., 2013). From slurry digestate, soil enrichment material canerived through (i) mechanical drying and post-maturation, (ii)hermal drying, or (iii) granulating. Liquid fraction formed in therying process can be used as an organic fertilizer as such, ifhe raw materials are of plant or animal origin. The use of end-roducts as fertilizer do not significantly increase microbiologicalctivity of soils and no significant phytotoxicity (i.e. toxic effectn plant growth) has been detected (Marttinen et al., 2013). It haseen found that the end-product from wastewater treatment facil-

ties utilizing thermophilic digestion process was also suitable forse after dewatering, if it fulfils hygiene criteria (MMM, 2008).ence, it is concluded that properly treated end-products of bio-as plants are safe to use for fertilizing purposes (Hansen et al.,006b).

When considering the use of digestate, the temperature dur-ng the anaerobic digestion is an important factor. Thermophilic

rocess is preferable since the higher temperature kills most ofhe pathogens and seeds of non-native plant species possiblyccurring in the biomass. However, depending on source mate-ial, the process and the end use of digestate, mesophilic process

legislative framework (based on Marttinen et al., 2013).

may also be sufficient (Engeli et al., 1993; Marttinen et al., 2013;Termorshuizen et al., 2003). Whereas the end-product of com-posted or mechanically–biologically treated municipal solid wastecan only be used for land remediation, landfill covering and restora-tion schemes (Einola et al., 2008; Farrell and Jones, 2009), thedigestate of the AD plant using source separated bio-waste couldbe used as a fertilizer or soil improvement material for reveg-etation purposes (Bolan et al., 2013) and it could be used asorganic material replacing peat (Holm et al., 2011; Myllymaa et al.,2008).

In order to ensure the safety of fertilizer products, environ-mental legislation has been tightening gradually in the 2000s(Marttinen et al., 2013). Fig. 4 illustrates the treatment require-ments for different raw materials and the associated legislativeframework. The treatment and utilization of AD residues are reg-ulated in the Finnish National Fertiliser Product Act (539/2006),Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Decree 24/11 (Record No1784/14/2011) on fertilizer products, European Parliament and

Council Regulation 1069/2009, and its complementary act No142/2011.

In spring 2011, also a Decree on products of animal originunfit for human consumption entered into force (Lindholm, 2013).

1 rvatio

AceFrntcsttsti

3

sczt

buw2htgdavo

3w

pilttDt

t1nps

RiSiRR

ifatd

6 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conse

ccordingly, the pretreatment and optimization of the AD pro-ess needs to be carefully considered (Holm et al., 2011; Marttinent al., 2013). In 2011, there were about ten biogas facilities ininland producing nutrient products from waste-based raw mate-ials (Marttinen et al., 2013). The first biogas facilities producingutrients were designed under conditions, where no informa-ion on end-product requirements was available. With increasedooperation and understanding between operators, authorities andcientists, the approach and legislation concerning waste utiliza-ion has been developed to serve better all parties. It is suggestedhat, applying AD and/or composting to bio-wastes comprehen-ively in Lapland, the amount of landfilled wastes and wasteransports would reduce, thus contributing to a zero waste strategyn Lapland.

. Results and discussion

In order for Lapland to become a well-known destination forustainable tourism, use of renewable resources and energy effi-iency is a pronounced strategic objective (Lapin liitto, 2009). Aero waste strategy in bio-waste management would contribute tohis goal.

As the production of bio-waste in Lapland is seasonal, otheriomass sources need to be considered to ensure feedstock vol-mes rendering AD plants profitable. One suggestion is to useastewater sludge and/or offal from slaughterhouses (Lapin ELY,

012). As illustrated in Fig. 3, there are a number of slaughter-ouses in Lapland, which also face legislative pressures in handlingheir wastes. Treatment of biodegradable waste by AD with bio-as recovery is environmentally preferable to composting since theigestor can also produce biogas to be used in energy productionnd reduce GHG emissions and, in addition, is viable for a widerariety of feedstock (Bacenetti et al., 2013) including sludge andffal.

.1. Three alternative scenarios for future in Kolari contrastedith the status quo

The prevalent situation in Kolari is that the mixed waste is trans-orted to the local waste transfer station where the unsorted MSW

s compressed and packed to containers and transported 187 km toandfill in Tornio (yellow arrow on Fig. 5). As the bio-waste collec-ion for composting in Kolari is only seasonal and regional, most ofhe bio-waste is in the mixed waste fraction and taken to Tornio.ue to the tightening legislation, the prevalent situation is not likely

o be continued.In Scenario 1, all the MSW, including bio-waste, would be

ransported 317 km to incineration plant with annual capacity of20 000 t of feedstock in Oulu (blue arrow on Fig. 5). In this Sce-ario, the nutrients of bio-waste would be lost in the incinerationrocess and the transportation distance would be longer than thetatus quo.

In Scenario 2, bio-waste would be transported 165 km toovaniemi to be treated in larger-scale AD plant with annual capac-

ty of some 4000–5000 t of feedstock (green arrow on Fig. 5). In thiscenario, bio-waste would be collected e.g. to the large containersn the transfer station, from which they would be transported toovaniemi. Nutrients would be utilized but they would be used inovaniemi area, possibly for forestry purposes.

In Scenario 3, bio-waste would be collected and treated locallyn the small-scale AD plant with annual capacity of 1000–2000 t of

eedstock in Kolari. In this case, the bio-waste would be collectednd transported to the AD plant with garbage truck. The transporta-ion distances would be short and the nutrients of bio-waste asigestate would be utilized locally in Kolari area.

n and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

3.2. Assessment of the economic, environmental and socialimpacts of the scenarios

The advantages and disadvantages of current bio-waste man-agement system in Kolari and of the three alternative scenarioswere assessed based on nine indicators. The economic indicatorswere transportation distance, investment costs, and gate fee for thewaste treatment option. The environmental indicators were lostenergy potential, GHG equivalent of waste treatment options, andnutrient loss. Finally, the social indicators assessed were aware-ness and image, compliance with the waste management hierarchy(WMH) and social impact (local job creation). These values werequantified and converted to values of 0 to 1 and illustrated in aradar chart (Fig. 6). The value 0 is given for the best option and 1 forthe worst performance in terms of the given indicator. Therefore,the larger the area of the radar, the worse the overall sustainabilityof the scenario is.

The data and calculations used in Fig. 6 are presented inAppendices 1–3. Table 3 summarizes the key advantages and dis-advantages of each Scenario from environmental, economic andsocial points of view.

From economic aspects, Scenario 3 is the best in terms of trans-portation and gate fee. However, the investment costs are thehighest in this Scenario because of the establishment costs of the ADplant. It is, however, noteworthy that the investment stays in Kolari.The gate fee and transportation distances (also entailing emissions)are the highest in Status quo and in Scenario 1.

From the environmental aspect, Scenarios 2 and 3 both fare well.The larger-scale AD plant to be built in Rovaniemi is assumed to pro-duce more energy. In the Status quo, landfilling, the energy contentin bio-waste is lost whereas it is utilized in incineration. However,in Scenario 1, the energy gain benefits Oulu, not Kolari. All the nutri-ents are lost in both landfilling and incineration. These options alsohave the highest GHG equivalent as well. While the nutrients arerecovered in both Scenarios 2 and 3, in case of 3 they benefit localbiodiversity.

From a social point of view, Scenario 3 is clearly the most benefi-cial, and Status quo is the worst. A local AD plant would e.g. providework, increase awareness and improve the image of tourist areas.In addition, Scenarios 2 and 3 comply best with the waste manage-ment hierarchy while Status quo is noncompliant if the bio-waste istransported to landfill with mixed waste. Moreover, it is also non-compliant with the EU Landfill Directive and the national wastestrategy aiming at reducing the amounts of biodegradable wastegoing to landfill.

Both Scenarios 2 and 3 are considerably more advantageousthan the Status quo, if also avoided costs and added benefits con-sidered. However, in Scenario 3, all the advantages (jobs, energy,nutrients, image) benefit the local environment and society. There-fore, our suggestion for the future is Scenario 3, which embodies thehighest local benefits and avoided costs.

3.3. Discussion

It is suggested that the disadvantages of current managementsystem outweigh those of advantages, and the economic, environ-mental and social advantages of our suggested Scenario with localtreatment and utilization of bio-waste are considerable when com-pared to disadvantages. A major drawback is costs of establishinga new system. However, on a long term, it is expected that thealternative Scenario would generate savings from avoided costs andadded values. Although there will be additional costs when trans-

porting digestate for the revegetation purposes locally, the trans-portation distances for digestate would be considerably shorterand the amount of digestate smaller than the original amountof bio-waste. It is also noteworthy that, from environmental

S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22 17

Fig. 5. Transportation distances of bio-waste. Prevalent situation: Most of the bio-waste transported to landfill in Tornio among mixed waste (yellow arrow); potential futureS native( rred to

aa

Lra(tgetmha

cenario (1): bio-waste transported to incineration plant in Oulu (blue arrow); alterFor interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is refe

nd social perspectives, there are considerable advantages, suchs restoring biodiversity and improving the image of the area.

According to the biogas plant feasibility study by Kalmari anduostarinen (2009), the amount of bio-waste collected from restau-ants and grocery stores in Kolari would be about 600 t annually. Inddition, the inhabitants of Kolari would produce 190 t of bio-wasteassuming a moderate average of 50 kg/person bio-waste produc-ion by households (Mattila et al., 2011)). With additional bio-wasteeneration by tourists in their accommodation facilities, the carefulstimation of bio-waste produced could be 1000 t annually. When

reated by AD, the amount of digestate produced could be esti-

ated to be 500 t. The amount of digestate that can be used perectare annually for fertilization purposes when using bio-wastend waste water sludge feedstock is about 25 t annually (Marttinen

future Scenario (2): bio-waste transported to AD plant in Rovaniemi (green arrow). the web version of this article.)

et al., 2013). Hence, the total amount of digestate produced inKolari could be spread over a land area of 20 ha. It is notewor-thy that these figures apply to digestate used in agriculture, andthe amount of digestate feasible for revegetation in the Northernnature is considerably lower, as the tolerance for excess amounts ofnutrients is lower. However, as the area used for tourism is consid-erably larger than 20 ha, there is no danger of digestate produced inexcess.

If bio-waste was co-digested with waste water sludge, theamount of biomass to be treated would be 1600 t annually (Kalmari

and Luostarinen, 2009). Considering also offal from slaughter-houses, the total amount of offal in Lapland is about 2000 t annuallyfrom 16 slaughterhouses (Lapin ELY, 2012). Therefore, the maxi-mum speculative amount of digestate to be produced in Kolari is

18 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

Table 3Advantages and disadvantages of current bio-waste management system and the three bio-waste utilization scenarios.

S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22 19

Table 3 (Continued )

Fig. 6. Radar chart of economic, environmental and social aspects of Status quo and three scenarios. Value 0 represents the best option and value 1 the worst.

2 rvatio

lt

4

tgtieoatceiecsfntc

0 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conse

ikely to be under 1000 t, which is still a very reasonable amounthe area could utilize.

. Conclusions

The already existing seasonal collection of bio-waste fromourist areas in Ylläs and interviews of local restaurants, hotels androcery stores as well as tourists indicate that there is willingnesso extend the source separation of wastes. As well, studies on wear-ng of Northern tourist areas point out the vital need to regenerateroded areas. As both the amounts of bio-waste and the severityf erosion caused by tourism are critical problems in the touristreas of Lapland, the zero waste perspective of bio-waste diges-ion and local use of digestate for revegetation purposes need to bearefully considered. The calculations presented in this paper arestimates; therefore, further studies will be needed before the real-zation of this Scenario is considered. Exact waste amounts, logisticxpenses, expected and avoided costs would need to be carefullyalculated and weighed, to ensure economic and environmentalustainability (Sonesson et al., 2000). Establishment of a biogasacility in Kolari will require also safe storage for digestate, as it can-

ot be spread when the ground is frozen. A key concern is to ensurehe safety of digestate use. The physical, biological and chemi-al characteristics (leaching nutrients, contaminants) of digestate,

Data used in scenarios.

Status quo Sce

Bio-waste generated (t) 1000 100Transportation distance km 187 317Transportation per one trip

Consumption (l) (25 l/100 km)Costs Euro (1.5 e/l)Emissions (kg) (1.1 kg/l)

46.7570.1351.43

79.11887.

Investment costsEstablishment of the AD plant (euro)(15 years)Emptying costs of the sortedbio-waste (including transportation)(euro/t)

–

–

–

–

Gate fee incl. VAT (euro/t) 140.12 (Jäkälä,2014)

114jäte

Energy produced (MW h/t) 0 0.8200

Value of energy (euro/MW h) 0 43

GHG emissions of treatment (CO2

ekviv) kg/tonne350 (Myllymaa,2012)

189200

Value of nutrients (MTT, 2014)NP

00

00

Added local employment 0 0

WMH Landfilling Ene

Image (0–10) 0 3

n and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

local conditions affecting to the use of digestate (soil type, rainfall,severity of erosion) and the vulnerability of surrounding ecosys-tem including groundwater (Holm et al., 2011) need to be studied.If digestate was not suitable for revegetation purposes in erodedareas due to excess of nutrients or contaminants endangering sur-rounding nature or water supplies, it could be used for landscapinglocally in the less vulnerable environments such as in recreationalareas, roadways and embankments. The involvement of local peo-ple and local enterprises from the start is also vital to success toensure participation. Awareness and knowledge of sorting wastesand conservation of nature need to be enhanced (Keramitsoglouand Tsagarakis, 2013). It is suggested that, ultimately, this zerowaste proposal could lead to an improved image of Lapland as asustainable tourist destination.

Acknowledgements

The funding provided by the Kone Foundation (Sari Piippo’spersonal scholarship) and the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation(Sustainable waste management solutions for tourist centers inLapland project, nros 201000398, 201100055 and 201300454) aregratefully acknowledged.

Appendix A. Appendix 1

nario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

0 1000 1000 165 10

25.88

18

41.2561.8845.38

2.53.752.75

–

60(Myllymaa et al.,2008)

Circa 380 000(Vilkkilä, 2007)60(Myllymaa et al.,2008)

.07 (Oulunhuolto, 2014)

50.00 (Jäkälä, 2014) 25.00 (Kalmari andLuostarinen, 2009)

3 (Virtavuori,9)

1.26 (NapapiirinResiduum OY,2013)

1 (Tomperi et al.,2014a) (Kalmariand Luostarinen,2009)

43 43 (Virtavuori,9)

−135 (Virtavuori,2009)

−135 (Virtavuori,2009)

1 euro/kg1.8 euro/kg

1 euro/kg1.8 euro/kg

1 5rgy use Material and

energy useMaterial andenergy use, local

use of the endproduct

7.5 10

A

A

A

V

R

B

B

B

C

C

E

E

F

S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22 21

ppendix B. Appendix 2

nnual values calculated for 1000 t of bio-waste produced in Kolari using the values described in Appendix 1.

Status quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Transportation (one way)Consumption (l)costs EuroEmissions (kg)

116917531286

198129722179

103115471134

2509469

Investment costsAD plant/yearEmptying costs (including localtransportation) of bio-waste*

––

––

–60,000*

30,00060,000*

Gate fee incl. VAT (euro/t)Used in Kolari

140,1200

114,0700

50,0000

25,00025,000

Energy produced (MW h)Used in Kolari

00

8300

12600

10001000

Value of energyUsed in Kolari

00

35,6900

54,4700

43,00043,000

GHG emissions of treatment (CO2

ekviv)350,000 189,000 −135,000 −135,000

Value of nutrients utilizedUsed in Kolari

00

00

69000

69006900

* Reduces the emptying and transportation costs of mixed waste, not taken into account.

ppendix C. Appendix 3

alues used in the radar chart. The scale is from 0 to 1, value 0 is given to the best option and value 1 to the worst.

Status quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

EconomicTransportation distance 0.5 1 0.4 0Investment costs 0 0 0.5 1Gate fee 1 0.8 0.35 0

Avg. econ. 0.5 0.6 0.42 0.33

EnvironmentalEnergy lost 1 0.4 0 0.2Waste treatment GHG equivalent 1 0.85 0.25 0.25Nutrient loss 1 1 0 0

Avg. environ. 1 0.75 0.08 0.15

SocialSocial impact 1 1 0.8 0WMH compliance 1 0.75 0.25 0.25Awareness and image 1 0.7 0.25 0

Avg. social 1 0.82 0.43 0.08

Average total 0.83 0.72 0.31 0.19

eferences

acenetti J, Negri M, Fiala M, González-García S. Anaerobic digestion of differentfeedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas process.Sci Total Environ 2013;463–464:541–51.

lancas FJ, Lozano-Oyola M, Gonzáles M, Gurrero FM, Caballero R. How to use sus-tainability indicators for tourism planning: the case of rural tourism in Andalusia(Spain). Sci Total Environ 2011;412–413:28–45.

olan NS, Thangarajan R, Seshadri B, Jena U, Das KC, Wang H, Naidu R. Landfillsas a biorefinery to produce biomass and capture biogas. Bioresour Technol2013;135:578–87.

hen CC, Chen YT. Energy recovery or material recovery for MSW treatments? ResourConserv Recycl 2013;74:37–44.

Fattorini M. Establishment of transplants on machine-graded ski runs above tim-berline in the Swiss Alps. Restor Ecol 2001;9(2):119–26.

Finnish Environment Institute. Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016.Finnish Environment Institute; 2007, 〈https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38407/SY 16 2007.pdf?sequence=1〉.

Hansen TL, Chistensen TH, Schmidt S. Environmental modelling of use of treatedorganic waste on agricultural land: a comparison of existing models for life cycleassessment of waste systems. Waste Manage Res 2006a;24:141–52.

Hansen TL, Bhander GS, Chistensen TH, Bruun S, Jensen LS. Life cycle modellingof environmental impacts of application of processed organic municipal solidwaste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Manage Res 2006b;24:153–66.

Herva M, Roca E. Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives based onecological footprint and multi-criteria analysis. Ecol Indic 2013;25:77–84.

ostanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value ofthe world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997;387:253–60.

inola JKM, Sormunen KM, Rintala JA. Methane oxidation in a boreal climate in anexperimental landfill cover composed from mechanically-biologically treatedwaste. Sci Total Environ 2008;407:67–83.

ngeli H, Edelmann W, Fuchs J, Rottermann K. Survival of plant pathogens and weedseeds during anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 1993;27(2):69–76.

arrell M, Jones DL. Critical evaluation of municipal solid waste composting andpotential compost markets. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:4301–10.

Holm PE, Jensen LS, McLaughlin MJ. Utilization of biologically treated organic wasteon land. In: Christensen TH, editor. Solid waste technology and management.Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2011 (Chapter 9.10).

Jäkälä. Prices for waste treatment; 2014, 〈http://www.jakala.fi/hinnat/〉.

Järviluoma J. Tutkimus luonnon merkityksestä matkailun vetovoimatekijänä

neljässä Lapin matkailukeskuksessa. In: Turistin luonto. Rovaniemi: Universityof Lapland, Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 96; 2006 (Ph.D. Thesis).

Kalmari E, Luostarinen J. Esisuunnitelma Kolarin biokaasulaitoksesta [Preliminarystudy of Kolari biogas plant—in Finnish]. Leppävesi, Finland: Metener Oy; 2009.

2 rvatio

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

N

O

P

2 S. Piippo et al. / Resources, Conse

angas K, Tolvanen A, Kälkäjä T. Ecological impacts of revegetation and managementpractices of ski slopes in Northern Finland. Environ Manage 2009;44:408–19.

arjalainen E. Maaston kuluminen Seitsemisen kansallispuistossa. Sarja A 21. Van-taa, Finland: Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja; 1994.

eramitsoglou KM, Tsagarakis KP. Public participation in designing a recyclingscheme towards maximum public acceptance. Resour Conserv Recycl2013;70:55–67.

ollikkathara N, Feng H, Yu D. A system dynamic modeling approach for evaluatingmunicipal solid waste generation, landfill capacity and related cost managementissues. Waste Manage 2010;30:2194–203.

aine K, Pihlajaniemi H, Kananen S, Siuruainen M, Hämäläinen A, Kauppila T,et al. Pohjoisen matkailuympäristön kestävät kasvit. Publication of the project“Tourist Destinations as Landscape Laboratories—Tool for Sustainable Tourism”.Oulu, Finland: Kalevaprint Oy; 2007.

apin ELY (elinkeino-, liikenne-ja ympäristökeskus). Lapin alueellinen jätesuun-nitelma vuoteen 2020 [Lapland’s regional waste plan until 2020]. Rovaniemi,Finland: Lapin ELY (elinkeino-, liikenne-ja ympäristökeskus); 2012.

apin liitto. Lapland’s regional plan [Lapin maakuntasuunnitelma 2030]. Lappi:Pohjoisen luova menestyjä; 2009.

apland’s Tourism Strategy. Lapland’s tourism strategy 2011–2014. Rovaniemi:Regional Council of Lapland; 2008, ISBN 951-9244-51-4, Publication A22/2008.

indholm J. Biojätteen käsittelyn vaihtoehtoselvitys, raportti. Helsingin seudunympäristöpalvelut–kuntayhtymä HSY. FCG suunnittelu ja tekniikka oy;2013.

arttinen S, Paavola T, Ervasti S, Salo T, Kapuinen P, Rintala J, et al. Biokaasu-laitosten lopputuotteet lannoitevalmisteena. In: MTT raportti 82. Jokioinen,Finland: MTT; 2013.

attila T, Myllymaa T, Seppälä J, Mäenpää I. Materiaalitehokkuuden parantamisenja jätteiden vähentämisen ympäristöinnovaatioiden tarpeet. In: Ympäristömin-isteriön raportteja 3/2011; 2011.

EK. Kansainvälinen luontomatkailututkimus 2010, 2. Helsinki, Finland: Matkailunedistämiskeskus; 2010. p. 49.

illennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.

MM. Lannoitevalmistesektorin tulevaisuuskatsaus vuosille 2009–2013, Työryh-mämuistio MMM 2009:1. Helsinki: Maa-ja metsätalouministeriö; 2008, ISBN978-952-453-456-7, ISSN 1797-4011. 2008.

øller J, Boldrin A, Christensen TH. Anaerobic digestion and digestate use: account-ing of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution. Waste Manage Res2009;27:813–24.

yllymaa T, Moliis K, Tohka A, Isoaho S, Zevenhoven M, Ollikainen M, et al. Jätteidenkierrätyksen ja polton ympäristövaikutukset ja kustannukset–jätehuollon vai-htoehtojen tarkastelu alueellisesta näkökulmasta. In: The Finnish environment.Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Environment Institute 39/2008; 2008.

yllymaa T. Jätteen synnyn ehkäisy ja materiaalien kierrätys orgaanisen jätteenkaatopaikkakiellon ratkaisijana. In: A national waste management conference10.10.2012; 2012.

TT. Prices for the fertilizers. Finland: Agrifood Research; 2014, 〈https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/kasper/pelto/peltopalvelut/fosforilaskuri 2014〉.

apapiirin Residuum OY. Kehittyvää ympäristönhuoltoa Lapissa Ajankohtaista.In: Ympäristöseminaari Luostolla 2013; 2013, 〈http://www.pidalappisiistina.fi/uploads/files/Residuum Luostolla 2013.pdf〉.

enonen S. Luoteis-Lapin luonto: ympäristön tila ja kantokyky, 116. Lapin seu-

tukaavaliiton julkaisuja. S arja A; 1992.

ulun jätehuolto. Prices for waste treatment; 2014, 〈http://oulu.ouka.fi/jatehuolto/english/〉.

idä Lappi Siistinä ry. Tunturialueiden matkailuyritysten jätehuollon kehittäminen.Kyselytutkimus matkailuyrityksissä; 2010.

n and Recycling 93 (2014) 9–22

Pihlajaniemi H, Siuruainen M, Laine K, Kananen S, Peteri SL, Hämäläinen A, et al.Kestävää viherrakentamisen ja ennallistamisen kasvimateriaalia pohjoisillematkailualueille. Maataloustieteen päivät 2008, http://www.smts.fi/mpol2008/index tiedostot/Posterit/ps077.pdf.

Pubule J, Blumberga A, Romagnoli F, Blumberga D. Finding an optimal solu-tion for biowaste management in the Baltic States. J Cleaner Prod 2014.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.053 (Available online 2 May 2014).

Ruth-Balaganskaya E, Myllynen-Malinen K. Soil nutrient status and revegetationpractices of downhill skiing areas in Finnish Lapland—a case study of Mt, Ylläs.Landscape Urban Plan 2000;50:259–68.

Sonesson U, Björklund A, Carlsson M, Dalemo M. Environmental and economic anal-ysis of management systems for biodegradable waste. Resour Conserv Recycl2000;28:29–54.

Staffans A, Merikoski T. Miten kestävä matkailualue tehdään? Käsikirja suunnit-teluun ja rakentamiseen. Aalto University; 2011.

Sulkava P, Norokorpi Y. Luontomatkailun vaikutukset kasvillisuuteen ja maastonkulumiseen Pallas-Yllästunturin kansallispuistossa. Metsähallituksen luonnon-suojelujulkaisuja. S arja A 166; 2007.

Termorshuizen AJ, Volker D, Blok WJ, ten Brummeler E, Hartog BJ, Janse JD, et al.Survival of human and plant pathogens during anaerobic mesophilic digestionof vegetable, fruit and garden waste. Eur J Soil Biol 2003;39:165–71.

Thangarajan R, Bolan NS, Tian G, Naidu R, Kunhikrishnan A. Role of organic amend-ment application on greenhouse gas emission from soil. Sci Total Environ2013;465:72–96.

The Zero Waste International Alliance. ZW definition; 2013 (Last accessed July 2013).〈http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/〉.

Tomperi J, Luoma T, Pongrácz E, Leiviskä K. Energy potential of biodegradable wastesin Kolari. Pollack Period 2014a;9(Suppl):5–15.

Tomperi J, Piippo S, Aikio O, Luoma T, Pongrácz E, Leiviskä K. Sustainable wastemanagement in Northern rural areas: local utilisation of bio-wastes. J Eng SciTech Rev 2014b (Submitted).

Toukola V, Sinisalo S, Sormunen K, Pulkkinen S. Properties of biowaste in Helsinkimetropolitan area. Helsinki: Ramboll Finland Oy. Helsinki Region EnvironmentalServices Authority; 2011 (HSY publications 6/2011), Abstract in English.

Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Hasu E, Järviluoma J. Kaupunkilomalla vai tun-turiluonnossa? Kotimaisten matkailijoiden näkemyksiä ja toiveita lappilaisestamatkailukeskusympäristöstä. In: Working papers of the Finnish Forest ResearchInstitute; 2011.

Törn A, Rautio J, Norokorpi Y, Tolvanen A. Revegetation after short-term tramplingat subalpine heath vegetation. Ann Bot Fenn 2006;43:129–38.

Törn A, Tolvanen A, Norokorpi Y, Tervo R, Siikamäki P. Comparing the impacts ofhiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest.J Environ Manage 2009;90:1427–34.

UNWTO. Global code of ethics for tourism. World Tourism Organization(WTO); 1999, 〈http://ethics.unwto.org/en/content/full-text-global-code-ethics-tourism〉 (Last accessed July 2013).

Uusitalo M, Sarala P, Tuulentie S. Elävä matkailumaisema–Ounasselän tun-turiseudun sekä Ylläksen ja Levin maisemaselvitys. In: Working papers of theFinnish Forest Research Institute 33; 2006.

van Vossen WJ, Prent OJ. Feasibility study sustainable material and energy recoveryfrom landfills in Europe. In: Thirteenth international waste management andlandfill symposium; 2011.

Vilkkilä T. Biokaasulaitos esimerkki maatilalle. In: Bioenergiakeskuksen julkais-

usarja. Esiselvitys; 2007 (BDC-Publications) Nro 28.

Virtavuori V. Appropriate treatment processes for bio-waste in the HelsinkiMetropolitan Area–benchmarking of greenhouse gas emissions; 2009 (YTV pub-lications 8/2009).

Ylläs Nyt. Tilastotietoa Kehittämissuunnitelman päivittämiseen; 2006.