You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Quantitative Analysis of Critical Factors for the Climate Impact of Landfill Mining
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science & Technology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1021/acs.est.6b01275 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Laner, Oliver Cencic, Niclas Svensson, Joakim Krook |
| Abstract |
Landfill mining has been proposed as an innovative strategy to mitigate environmental risks associated with landfills, to recover secondary raw materials and energy from the deposited waste, and to enable high-valued land uses at the site. The present study quantitatively assesses the importance of specific factors and conditions for the net contribution of landfill mining to global warming using a novel, set-based modeling approach and provides policy recommendations for facilitating the development of projects contributing to global warming mitigation. Building on life-cycle assessment, scenario modeling and sensitivity analysis methods are used to identify critical factors for the climate impact of landfill mining. The net contributions to global warming of the scenarios range from -1550 (saving) to 640 (burden) kg CO2e per Mg of excavated waste. Nearly 90% of the results' total variation can be explained by changes in four factors, namely the landfill gas management in the reference case (i.e., alternative to mining the landfill), the background energy system, the composition of the excavated waste, and the applied waste-to-energy technology. Based on the analyses, circumstances under which landfill mining should be prioritized or not are identified and sensitive parameters for the climate impact assessment of landfill mining are highlighted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 22 | 26% |
| Engineering | 15 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,836,328
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#5,482
of 20,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,864
of 368,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#83
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.