Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
AIMS Environmental Science, 8(1): 36–46.
DOI: 10.3934/environsci.2021003
Received: 03 December 2020
Accepted: 25 February 2021
Published: 05 March 2021
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/environmental
Case report
Home composting in remote and cross-border areas of the In.Te.Se.
project
Roberto Cavallo, Emanuela Rosio, Jacopo Fresta and Giada Fenocchio*
Erica Soc. Coop., 26 Santa Margherita, Alba, CN 12051, Italy
* Correspondence: giada.fenocchio@cooperica.it; Tel: +393341510917; Fax: +390173364898.
Abstract: The In.Te.Se. project - Innovation Territory and Services, for waste management in
scattered areas is an Interreg V-A France Italy (ALCOTRA) project, financed within the framework
of European cross-border cooperation programmes, in the Alpine region between France and Italy. On
the subject of the local exploitation of organic waste, it permits the experimentation of home
composting in scattered and cross-border areas in the Italian territories of the Province of Cuneo
(Consorzio Servizi Ecologia e Ambiente, CSEA) and in the French areas of the PACA Region
(Syndicat Mixte de Traitement des Ordures Ménagères des cantons du Guillestrois et de l'Argentièrois,
SMITOMGA), through the use of individual and collective, manual and electromechanical composters.
During the project it is estimated that a quantity of organic waste equal to about 2% of the not sorted
waste produced in 2019 has been valorised, in 3 municipalities of CSEA and 23 municipalities
followed by SMITOMGA where a separate collection circuit does not exist and it is conferred with
the general unsorted waste. Overall, 31.72 tons of compost are obtained. The environmental balance
deriving from the cooperation of the territories also makes it possible to estimate a negative balance
of CO2 produced, with 3212.78 kgCO2 avoided. The economic assessment of not sending the organic
component for disposal produced a saving for the two communities as a whole of €10,397.56,
involving only 15% of the total population in the municipalities investigated. At the same time, a
comparison with a separated collection system for the organic matter, determines the saving of
€27,295.73 considering the all tested area. The implementation of this good practice has the potential
to achieve interesting results from an environmental, social and economic point of view and to be
extended to further portions of the territory and has demonstrated the successful choice of cross-border
cooperation and the diversification of applied techniques.
Keywords: cooperation; organic waste; composting; exploitation; compost; home composting;
collective composting
37
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
1. Introduction
The In.Te.Se. project, France-Italy, is financed by the INTERREG V-A Alcotra Programme 2014–
2020, European Regional Development Fund, under priority axis 1 APPLIED INNOVATION
(innovation and development of innovative cross-border services) and involves 6 partners: Consorzio
Servizi Ecologia Ambiente (CSEA) project leader, Consorzio Albese Braidese Rifiuti (CoABSeR),
E.R.I.C.A. soc. coop., Communauté de Communes du Pays des Ecrins (CCPE), Syndicat Mixte
Intercommunal du Traitement des Ordures Ménagères du Guillestrois et de l'Argentièrois
(SMITOMGA), Communauté de Communes du Guillestrois et du Queyras (CCGQ).
The project defines an innovative model for the management of household waste, focused on
Reduction, Reuse and Recycling implemented in the Alpine area and in scattered areas and which
permits improving the quality of the service provided in the area and increasing its effectiveness and
efficiency in economic and environmental terms.
The main experimental activities carried out by the project concern the themes of prevention,
reuse, and innovation in pre-sorted waste collection and in particular self-composting.
Self-composting, carried out in scattered areas and for large producers, makes it possible to
exploit organic matter, transformed into compost, eliminating the wet waste collection service or
diverting it from the unsorted waste stream, enabling users to manage waste directly and independently
and reducing the impacts generated by it. The project involved 1070 users and 26 municipalities.
2. Materials and method
The self-composting experiment was carried out in two different ways:
• Individual composting, carried out individually by a single user through his/her own manual
composter;
• Community composting, carried out by several users in conjunction with one another, through
two types of composters: manual and electromechanical.
The activity was carried out in mountain and remote areas and led to the involvement of
residential and non-residential users in 26 municipalities, 3 Italian and 23 French, belonging to the
project areas.
None of the municipalities where the experiment was carried out had a waste collection service
dedicated only to the organic component, which is discarded by users with unsorted waste.
Table 1 shows the indication of the consortia and local authorities involved and the resident
population, in Table 2 the number of users actually involved, the type of composting carried out and
the type of composter used for household waste treatment is indicated for each municipality.
Table 1. List of the competent consortia and territorial authorities involved in the project
action and demographic data.
Competent consortium/
organisation
Resident population involved in
the experiment (number of
inhabitants actually involved)
Total resident population in the
municipalities where the
experiment is realised
CSEA (3 municipalities)
345
1306
SMITOMGA (23
municipalities)
2024
14736
TOTAL
2369
16042
38
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
Table 2. List of the involved areas, relative users (families, actually involved in the
experiment) and general type of self-composting and composter.
Municipality
Consortium
Number of
users involved
Type of self-composting
done
Type of composter
used
Melle
CSEA
115
Community self-composting
Electromechanical
Murello
CSEA
25
Community self-composting
Electromechanical
Ostana
CSEA
10
Community self-composting
Electromechanical
Ceillac
SMITOMGA
62
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Champcella
SMITOMGA
26
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Château-
Ville-Vieille
SMITOMGA
6
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Mont-
Dauphin
SMITOMGA
20
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Puy-Saint-
Vincent
SMITOMGA
8
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Saint-
Clément
SMITOMGA
11
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Abriés-
Ristolas
SMITOMGA
29
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Aiguilles
SMITOMGA
14
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Arvieux
SMITOMGA
14
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Molines en
Queyras
SMITOMGA
18
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Réotier
SMITOMGA
17
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Vars
SMITOMGA
12
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Risoul
SMITOMGA
39
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Saint-Crépin
SMITOMGA
100
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Saint-
Martin-de-
Queyrières
SMITOMGA
15
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
St. Véran
SMITOMGA
15
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Eygliers
SMITOMGA
116
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Freissinières
SMITOMGA
6
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Vigneaux
SMITOMGA
19
Individual and community
Manual
39
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
Municipality
Consortium
Number of
users involved
Type of self-composting
done
Type of composter
used
self-composting
La Roche de
Rame
SMITOMGA
28
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Guillestre
SMITOMGA
151
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Vallouise-
Pelvoux
SMITOMGA
70
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
Argentière-
la-Bessée
SMITOMGA
124
Individual and community
self-composting
Manual
TOTAL
1070
-
-
The composters used for the activity and the relative technical details are described in Table 3.
Table 3. Types of composters used and characteristics.
Type of composter
Treatment
capacity
Model
Number of
installations
Electromechanical community
composter installed in wooden housing
25 t/year
laCompostiera.it –
Sartori Ambiente
1
Electromechanical community
composter installed in wooden housing
10 t/year
Compost 10 - Ecopans
1
Electromechanical community
composter installed in wooden housing
5 t/ year
Compost 5 - Ecopans
1
Manual community composter made of
wood
600l–800l
Gardigame classique
NF024 - Gardigame
31
Manual individual composter made of
wood
300 l
Gardigame classique
NF024 - Gardigame
610
TOTAL
-
-
644
Electromechanical composters are semi-automatic machines, fed by connection to the power
mains and consist of two chambers, the first one for treatment and the second one for maturation, in
which the organic material passes through automatically to ensure its complete transformation into
compost. The equipment does not need to be connected to the sewer network because the liquids
produced are recirculated inside the chambers. The machines are equipped with automatic mixers
which ensure correct and continuous turning of the material inserted inside them, fans which provide
the necessary supply of oxygen to the process and automatic dosing units for the pellets (structuring
effect).
All models are also equipped with safety devices and automatic stoppage in case of danger or
anomaly, to ensure the safety of users during all the operating phases of the machinery. They have
ventilation systems and dedicated openings to allow air intake.
For the composter model laCompostiera.it there is an initial chamber of smaller dimensions (10
litres) intended for the placement of waste by the user, equipped with a mechanical shredder to shred
the waste and connected to the pellet storage department (structuring effect), inside which it is added
as required. The composter is equipped with a control panel through which it is possible to start the
40
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
transit of the material from the first to the second chamber and to proceed with the withdrawal of the
compost, as well as to set and control the parameters to trigger the correct aerobic biodegradation
process. Using this panel, it is also possible to remotely access the machine data.
The Ecopans composter models do not have a shredding chamber, so the organic waste is inserted
by the user directly into the first treatment chamber. The machines are equipped with control panel and
temperature sensors.
The manual community composters, made of wood, Gardigame classique NF024 model, consist
of two separate treatment sections closed by an upper wooden door, so that the biodegradable material
contained inside is moved manually by the operator from one compartment to the next, based on the
degree of maturation of the waste inside. From the second maturation chamber the compost is then
extracted once it has been obtained. Individual wooden composters of the same model consist of a
single module.
For the electromechanical composters installed in the wooden housings, a card or access key has
been provided only to the users interested in using it.
For wooden composters located outdoors, there is no type of access control or limit to the same.
All community composters are supervised by appointed and trained staff, who take care of
management.
The compost produced is currently made available to the community for private use, with possible
future uses in local farms. The use of compost as a soil improver causes a reduction in the use of
fertilizers.
The period of waste treatment in the composters varies according to the models, as specified below:
Table 4. Period of treatment of organic waste for each composter.
Composter model
Length of stay in
first chamber
Length of stay in
second chamber
Total period of treatment to
obtain compost
laCompostiera.it –
Sartori Ambiente
20 days
20 days
40 days (minimum period
indicated for the model,
increased up to 60 days in
operation)
Compost 10 - Ecopans
30 days
30 days
60 days
Compost 5 - Ecopans
30 days
30 days
60 days
Gardigame classique
NF024 – Gardigame –
modulo doppio
at least 30 days
at least 30 days
at least 60 days
Gardigame classique
NF024 – Gardigame –
modulo unico
single chamber
single chamber
at least 60 days
The period of experimentation is different depending on the sites, since the installation and start-
up of the composting activity does not take place simultaneously. Table 5 shows the period of
observation and monitoring of the experimentation, referred to each site.
41
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
Table 5. Period of experimentation monitoring.
Composter model
Experimentation period
Total duration of
experimentation
laCompostiera.it – Sartori Ambiente
December 2019 – September 2020
10 months
Compost 10 - Ecopans
March 2020 – September 2020
7 months
Compost 5 - Ecopans
December 2019 – September 2020
10 months
Gardigame classique NF024 –
Gardigame – double module
September 2019 – September 2020
12 months
Gardigame classique NF024 –
Gardigame – single module
September 2019 – September 2020
12 months
The use of electromechanical composters results in electricity consumption, that allow them to
function properly. The average annual consumption values for the models used are shown below.
Table 6. Electricity consumption attributed to electromechanical composters.
Composter model
Electrical annual consumption (kWh/year)
laCompostiera.it – Sartori Ambiente
900
Compost 10 - Ecopans
900
Compost 5 - Ecopans
900
The following assumptions are also considered for the monitoring of the trial:
• The average per capita production of organic waste, suitable for home composting, is 50
kg/inhabitant per year in France [1];
• Waste is discarded on average once a week by users [2,10];
• The average composition of users in Italy is 2.3 persons/user [3], while in France it is 2.2
persons/user [4];
• The yield of compost production starting from organic waste in a range between 20% and 40% of
the initial mass, so an average value of 30% is considered [5,6,10];
• The average specific mass of compost falls within the range 0.3 – 0.4 kg/l, so an average value of
0.35 kg/l has been used for the conversion from volume to mass of compost [5,6];
• The carbon sink effect in the soil is considered with a CO2 storage index equal to −17.6 kg CO2/t
organic waste sent for composting, considering the methodology applied to calculate the CO2 balance
determined by the use of compost in agriculture [7];
• The emission mitigation factor following the non-use of fertilizers for the land is set equal to −18.7
kg CO2/t organic waste sent for composting, for which the emissions avoided for the production of
fertilizer and for the production of ammonia and nitric acid are considered, seeing the methodology
applied to calculate the CO2 balance determined by the use of compost in agriculture [7];
• The greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factor of the electricity sector for the production of
electricityis 0.377 kgCO2/kWh [8]
• The average cost of CO2 is set at 24.18 € / t CO2, calculated on the average for the period
September 2019 – September 2020 [9].
For the 3 sites of Melle, Murello and Ostana, the volumetric or mass measurement of the compost
produced was directed, by the municipalities, with subsequent sending of the data to the reference
consortium (CSEA). From the produced compost data, the data relating to the organic waste conferred
by users were obtained.
42
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
For the 920 sites of all the French communities, the definition of the compost produced was carried
out by estimate, based on the assumptions made, and the definition was also made of the flow of
organic waste to the composters.
The average costs per tonne for the disposal of unsorted waste, containing the organic waste in
absence of the trial, at the CSEA and SMITOMGA sites for subsequent economic analysis are shown
below:
• Average cost for the disposal of unsorted waste containing organic waste at CSEA: 109.60 €/ton
of waste [11];
• Average cost for the disposal of unsorted waste containing organic waste at SMITOMGA:
97.90€/ton of waste [12,13].
On the other hand, if we assume the average cost of creating a dedicated organic waste collection
service as an alternative to the combined collection with unsorted waste, the parameters to be
considered would be the following:
• Average cost for the collection of organic waste at CSEA: 132.00 €/ton of waste [11];
• Average cost for the treatment of organic waste at CSEA: 88.00€/ton of waste [11];
• Average cost for the disposal of unsorted waste containing organic waste at SMITOMGA:
174.00€/ton of waste [12,13];
• Average cost for the treatment of organic waste at SMITOMGA: 86.00€/ton of waste [12,13].
3. Results
The results obtained through community composting and individual composting in the Italian and
French communities are presented below, with regard to each site involved in the experiment, in terms
of the quantity of organic waste conferred and the compost consequently obtained.
Table 7. Quantity of organic waste conferred to composters and compost produced in Italy.
Composter model
Conferred organic waste (kg)
Compost produced (kg)
laCompostiera.it – Sartori
Ambiente
3465
1050
Compost 10 - Ecopans
578
175
Compost 5 - Ecopans
429
130
TOTAL (kg)
4472
1355
Table 8. Quantity of organic waste conferred to composters and compost produced in France.
Composter model
Conferred organic waste (kg)
Compost produced (kg)
Gardigame classique NF024 –
Gardigame – modulo doppio
67,100
23,485
Gardigame classique NF024 –
Gardigame – modulo unico
34,100
11,935
TOTAL (kg)
101,200
30,360
Overall, at 30th September 2020, it is estimated that 105.67 tonnes of organic waste were not
conferred to the public service and were home composted with the production of 31.72 tonnes of
compost. This compost can be used directly by users in the municipalities involved as a soil improver
for gardens and vegetable gardens.
43
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
As far as the economic analysis is concerned, Table 9 shows the savings obtained from the non-
disposal of organic waste, which was not brought to the unsorted waste collection circuit.
Table 9. Savings deriving from the non-disposal of organic waste in Italy and France.
Competent consortium/organisation
Savings estimated during the course of the
project (€)
CSEA
490.08
SMITOMGA
9907.48
TOTAL (€)
10,397.56
On the basis of the relative unsorted waste disposal costs, the flow of which also includes
biodegradable waste of household origin, as at the 30th September 2020, it is estimated that the
experiment could produce a total saving of €10,397 if the Italian and French quotas are added together.
If, on the other hand, we compare the composting activity with the creation of a collection circuit
dedicated only to the fraction of organic waste, the resulting expenses for the collection, transport and
treatment service for each consortium would be as follows:
Table 10. Costs deriving from a possible dedicated collection system and related treatment
phase for organic matter in Italy and France.
Competent consortium/organisation
Costs estimated during the course of the
project (€)
CSEA
983.73
SMITOMGA
26,312.00
TOTAL (€)
27,295.73
The establishment of a specific collection system for the organic matter and its proper treatment
as an alternative to the composting would cost €27,295.73 for the two communities.
By carrying out the balance of CO2 emitted following the operation of the electromechanical
composters and CO2 avoided thanks to the carbon sink effect of the organic carbon sequestered in the
compost and the CO2 avoided following the non-use of fertilizers, the following results are obtained:
Table 11. Balance of CO2 equivalent resulting from the use of compost.
Action
Quantity of CO2 generated/avoided
(kgCO2)
Reference territory
Electricity energy consumption
+623.09
CSEA
Carbon sink capacity
−78.70
CSEA
−1781.12
SMITOMGA
Mitigation for the non-use of
fertilizers
−83.62
CSEA
−1892.44
SMITOMGA
TOTAL BALANCE (kgCO2)
−3212.79
-
Overall, it is estimated that the individual and collective home composting activity carried out
until 30th September 2020 avoided the emission of −3212.79 kg of CO2, which economically
correspond to an environmental benefit of −77.69 €.
44
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
If we consider the budget divided by territory, in the case of CSEA, with the results obtained so
far, we would not obtain a saving of carbon dioxide emitted and, on the contrary, a production equal
to 46078 kg would result, with an environmental cost of € 11.14.
4. Discussion
The implementation of home composting has made it possible to exclude from the unsorted waste
collection circuit a quantity equal to 4.47 tonnes of waste for the municipalities of the CSEA areas and
101.2 tonnes for the areas under SMITOMGA management.
Comparing these locally reused waste flows with the flow of unsorted waste collected during
2019 in the municipalities involved, it can be seen that:
• the quantity of waste sent for home composting in the CSEA area represents 1.6% compared to
the dry residual waste conferred during 2019;
• the quantity of waste sent for self-composting in the SMITOMGA area represents 1.9% compared
to the dry residual waste collected in 2019.
Comparing the estimated data relating to compost locally produced by users and referring it only
to the population actually involved in the experimentation (2369 people), on the basis of the average
number of components per user depending on the area involved, we see that the per capita amount of
compost produced per inhabitant in Italy is equal to 3.93 kg/inhabitant and for France equal to 15.00
kg/inhabitant during the project.
The environmental benefit deriving from the practice of self-composting translates into the
subtraction of 3212.79 kg of CO2, corresponding to −3.00 kg /CO2 for users specifically involved in
the experiment (1070 experimental users) and −0.20 kg CO2/ inhabitant considering the entire
population present in the test areas (16,042 inhabitants). If the balance was broken down by territory,
in the case of CSEA an environmentally positive benefit would not be achieved, or in the period
considered, there would be a production of CO2 resulting from the implementation of composting
using electromechanical composters, equal to 460.68 kg. Cooperation is therefore a fundamental
success factor, together with the choice to diversify the technologies used in experimentation.
From the economic analysis, it is obtained instead that the savings obtained from the non-disposal
of organic waste together with the dry residue, referring to the entire population of the municipalities
involved in the project action (1306 inhabitants for CSEA and 14,736 for SMITOMGA), is equal to
0.38 €/inhabitant for the Italian territories and on 0.67 € /inhabitant for the French municipalities. The
savings obtained are divided on the overall population of the municipalities where the experiment is
realised for each Consortium and not only on the only involved one, because the costs of the service
is generally referred to all the territory.
On the other hand, the comparison with other alternative solutions, such as the separate collection
of organic waste with a dedicated system, would again lead to additional costs, saved to the
communities through self-composting and amounting to €27,295.73 for the overall test area. It is
possible to estimate a saving of 0.75€/inhabitant for CSEA territories and of 1.79€/inhabitant for
SMITOMGA territory.
To these values it is possible to add the savings deriving from the overall CO2 balance, meaning
it as a joint parameter of the project areas, which converts into a saving of € 77.69 globally, or equal
to € 0.005/inhabitant (out of the total of 16,042 inhabitants).
At the same time, by separating the carbon dioxide balances between the territories, a cost of €
10.97 would be obtained for the CSEA area of competence (equal to € 0.008/inhabitant of the test area)
and a saving of € 87.43 for municipalities followed by SMITOMGA (corresponding to −0.006
45
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
€/inhabitant of the test area territory).
The amount of CO2 generated with the two collection systems (with unsorted waste and with
dedicated collection of the organic matter) was not calculated due to the multiple variables existing
and the complexity of the context considered.
5. Conclusion
The areas investigated with the experimentation of the In.Te.Se. project are scattered and remote
communities, where the collection service dedicated only to organic waste is not envisaged. Such waste
is consequently conferred together with the residual dry waste, conveyed for disposal without recycling.
The implementation of home composting in these areas, with particular reference to the 3
municipalities in the CSEA territory and the 23 municipalities covered by SMITOMGA, made it
possible to avoid sending for disposal a percentage equal to about 2% of the unsorted waste totally
produced by the same areas, a figure comparable to that of 2019 and involving only 15% of the
population living in the same areas.
The environmental benefit deriving from the implementation of the experimentation is
determined by the cooperation between the territories, which offset the carbon dioxide emissions
produced by the electromechanical composters, allowing for an overall balance of −3,212.79 kgCO2,
corresponding to −3 kgCO2 per user involved.
From the experimentation, it is estimated that a total of €10,597.56 will therefore be saved, due
to the non-disposal of biodegradable waste with the residual dry waste, which spread over the entire
population of the municipalities involved in Italy and France, amounts to a saving of €0.67 per
inhabitant. Comparing to a separate collection system with organic waste collection, the saved amount
would raise to €27,295.73, corresponding to €1.70 per inhabitant for the global test area considering
together CSEA and SMITOMGA territories.
To these values would be added € 77.69, corresponding to the savings deriving from the negative
balance of CO2 emissions (€ 0.005 saved / inhabitant).
The application of this good practice has shown to have valid potential for the local treatment and
enhancement of organic matter carried out directly by users, also in a collective and collaborative form,
as well as to reduce the environmental impacts of this fraction of waste on the overall cycle, dedicating
them an alternative channel to collection with residual dry waste or to the need for an ad hoc collection
and transport service with treatment. Also from an economic point of view, already from the first
months of experimentation it was possible to quantify the achievable savings.
Acknowledgments (All sources of funding of the study must be disclosed)
For the fundamental and precious work in the realisation of the In.Te.Se. project, our thanks go
to all the partners: C.S.E.A. (Environmental Ecology Services), Co.A.B.Se.R. (Consorzio Albese
Braidese Servizi Rifiuti), CCPE (Communauté de Communes du Pays des Ecrins), SMITOMGA
(Syndicat Mixte Intercommunal du Traitement des Ordures Ménagères du Guillestrois et de
l'Argentièrois), La Communauté de Communes du Guillestrois et du Queyras.
The In.Te.Se. project is funded under the INTERREG V-A Alcotra Programme 2014–2020,
European Regional Development Fund. The project contributes to the objective of the priority axis -
Applied Innovation.
46
AIMS Environmental Science Volume 8, Issue 1, 36–46.
References
1. ADEME (2018) Technical and economic study of the separate collection of bio-waste. Available
from www.ademe.fr/mediatheque
2. Bilitewski B, Härdtle G, Marek K (1997) Waste management, Springer.
3. ISTAT, Italian statistical yearbook, Population and families (2018) Available from
https://www.istat.it/it/files//2018/12/C03.pdf
4. SMITOMGA database, updated to the actual number of inhabitants and families (2020).
5. Di Claudia A, Gentilini P, Laghi F, et al. (2015) Municipal organic waste treatment (FORSU)
(FORSU), ISDE Italy.
6. Piedmont Region, Health Department, Health Promotion Sector and Individual and Collective
Prevention Interventions, Zicari G, (2009), Composting, Guidelines.
7. Available from:
https://www.venetoagricoltura.org/upload/pubblicazioni/COMPOST_E287/Low_02.pdf
8. ISPRA, Caputo A (2019) Atmospheric emission factors of greenhouse gases in the national
electricity sector and in the main European countries.
9. Available from: https://www.sendeco2.com/it/prezzi-co2
10. Italian National Agency for Environment Protection - Technical Regulations Unit (2002) The
recovery of organic matter from waste to produce quality soil improvers.
11. UTILITALIA (2016) Cost analysis of the separate collection of organic waste.
12. ADEME/ Department of Waste and Soils (2002) Study of the costs of collecting and composting
bio-waste from four Qualorg sites.
13. ADEME/ Technical coordination (2017) National cost benchmark for the public service for the
prevention and management of household and similar waste in 2014. Available from
www.ademe.fr/mediatheque
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
