DEGREE PROJECT IN STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30.0 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020
Environmental Assessment of Kayak using MFA & LCA
A Case Study at Melker of Sweden
Abhishek Srivastav & Spyridon Xenos
Examensarbetets nivå o poäng: Examensarbete, avancerad nivå (30 hp) Examen: Masterexamen (120hp)
Huvud/teknikområde: Teknik och hållbar utveckling; Miljöteknik och hållbar infrastruktur Skola: Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad
ISSN:
TRITA: TRITA-ABE-MBT-20714 ISRN:
Environmental Assessment of Kayak using MFA & LCA. A case study at Melker of Sweden Miljöbedömning av Kajak med hjälp av MFA & LCA. En fallstudie genomförd i samarbete med Melker of Sweden.
Key Words: Kayak; Fiberglass, Flax Fiber; Leisure Purpose; Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Resource-efficiency, Environmental Performance; Sustainable Recreational Activity.
Nyckelord: Kajak; Glasfiber, Linfiber; Fritidsändamål; Materialflödesanalys (MFA), Livscykelanalys (LCA); Resurseffektivitet, Miljöprestanda; Hållbar fritidsaktivitet.
Degree project course: Strategies for sustainable development, Second Cycle AL250X, 30.0 credits
Authors: Abhishek Srivastav & Spyridon Xenos Supervisor: Anna Björklund
Examiner: Göran Finnveden
Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering School of Architecture and the Built Environment KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Acknowledgments
We wish to express our sincere appreciation to Anna Björklund, our supervisor at KTH, for guidance throughout this project. The feedback and suggestions we received from Anna Björklund, assisted us in completing this degree project. We would also like to acknowledge the support from Melker of Sweden and the involved stakeholders, namely Tahe Outdoors and BComp. More specifically, we are indebted to express our wholehearted appreciation to Emil Gyllenberg for his assistance. May the true God bless all of you.
Abstract
Kayaking is a watersport activity that involves paddling performed within leisure purposes.
Although kayaking provides pleasure to the practitioners, there are some adverse environmental issues concerning the site used to perform kayaking due to the equipment. This paper identifies and analyzes the lifecycle stages in which negative environmental impacts are generated.
Melker of Sweden is an outdoor company specialized in delivering high-quality kayaks. This study aims to present an overview of the current environmental performance of Melker of Sweden’s kayaks. For this purpose, two environmental assessment tools are applied: material flow analysis and life cycle assessment.
The Material Flow Analysis (MFA) results show that the transport of material to the manufacturing unit generates a considerable amount of emissions. Additionally, hull manufacturing and assembling accessories were found to be the least resource-efficient operation among all. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results identify the transport of material and the manufacturing phase as the primary sources responsible for environmental impacts.
On the one hand, the use of epoxy resin and gel coat is the root cause of high contribution of the manufacturing phase. On the other hand, the use of flax fiber found to be the least contributing material to adverse environmental impacts.
This report also presents a list of recommendations regarding the import of material, the efficacy of the manufacturing operations, the type of raw material, and waste treatment alternatives.
Sammanfattning
Fysisk aktivitet kan innefatta olika fritidsaktiviteter, däribland friluftsliv. Kajakpaddling är en sådan friluftslivaktivitet, alltefter utövares syfte. I denna rapport är kajakpaddling en fritidsaktivitet där där utövarens naturupplevelse främjas. Oaktat fördelarna vid utövandet av denna aktivitet kan ej förbises faktum att det också kan medföras vissa negativa konsekvenser.
Denna masteruppsats har som mål att identifiera och analysera den miljöpåverkan och dennes efterspel som orsakats av en kajaks tillverkning.
Melker of Sweden är ett utomhusföretag specialiserat på att leverera kajaker av hög kvalitet.
I linje med företagets vision syftar denna studie till att undersöka den nuvarande miljöprestandan samt kvantifiera den potentiella miljöpåverkan från en kajaks livscykel. För detta ändamål tillämpas det två miljöbedömningsverktyg, nämligen en materialflödesanalys och livscykelanalys.
Materialflödesanalysen visar att mängden av utsläpp som genereras från transporten av material till tillverkningsenheten är enorm. Utöver detta var den hulltillverkning samt den montering av tillbehörsverksamheter bland de minst resurseffektiva tillverkningssteg.
Livscykelanalysen identifierar import av material och tillverkningsfas som de viktigaste källorna till miljöpåverkan. Å ena sidan är användningen av epoxiharts och gelbeläggning i tillverkningen grundorsaken till huvudbidraget. Å andra sidan är användningen av linfiber det minst bidragande material då det gäller negativa miljöeffekter.
I denna studie ges rekommendationer rörande import av vissa material och materialval, sätt att öka tillverkningseffektiviteten, typ av råmaterial samt avfallsbehandlingsalternativ.
Preface
This study is a part of a shared degree project between Abhishek Srivastav & Spyridon Xenos at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. It was conducted at Melker of Sweden for purpose to present an overview of the current environmental performance of Melker of Sweden’s kayaks.
The work was shared between Abhishek Srivastav & Spyridon Xenos by assigning different parts of the study to the individuals. Albeit this, a collaborative effort, during the Covid-19 pandemic, was performed to conduct the study and finalize the report. Continuous discussions and meetings were conducted during the study, followed by regular contact with the company representative and the university supervisor. SimaPro software was used to perform the LCA study. SimaPro classroom version was used, for educational purpose only. It was reviewed by Anna Björklund and Göran Finnveden, the supervisor and examiner at KTH. No formal third- party review was conducted throughout the study.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION:AIM,OBJECTIVES, AND OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 1
1.1BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1
1.2AIM AND OBJECTIVES 4
1.3THESIS OUTLINE 4
CHAPTER 2.RESEARCH DESIGN 6
2.1METHODOLOGY 6
2.2FRAMEWORKS 9
2.2.1MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS 9
2.2.3LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 11
2.3DATA QUALITY 13
CHAPTER 3.MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS 14
3.1MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS OF MELKER KAYAK 14
3.1.1PRODUCT AND SYSTEM 14
3.1.2MATERIAL FLOW INVENTORY 14
3.1.2.1MATERIAL FLOW INVENTORY FOR HULL MANUFACTURING 15 3.1.2.2MATERIAL FLOW INVENTORY FOR ASSEMBLING ACCESSORIES 15
3.1.3MATERIAL FLOW ASSESSMENT 16
3.1.3.1TRANSPORT OF MATERIAL 17
3.1.3.2KAYAK MANUFACTURING 20
3.1.3.3WASTE GENERATION 22
3.1.4IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 22
3.1.5INTERPRETATION 23
CHAPTER 4.LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 25
4.1LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF MELKER KAYAK 25
4.1.1GOAL OF THE STUDY 25
4.1.2SCOPE OF THE STUDY 25
4.1.2.1FUNCTION AND FUNCTIONAL UNIT 25
4.1.2.2SYSTEM BOUNDARIES 25
4.1.2.3GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES 27
4.1.2.4TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES 27
4.1.3CO-PRODUCT ALLOCATION 27
ALLOCATION FOR RECYCLING IN WASTE SCENARIOS 28
4.1.4CUT-OFF CRITERIA 28
4.1.5ASSUMPTIONS 28
4.1.6LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD AND IMPACT OF CATEGORIES 28
4.1.7LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) 29
4.1.7.1TRANSPORTATION 32
4.1.7.2MANUFACTURING PHASE 32
4.1.7.3PACKAGING 34
4.1.7.4DISTRIBUTION 35
4.1.7.5USAGE 35
4.1.7.6WASTE MANAGEMENT 36
4.1.8LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF VÄDERÖ 36
4.1.8.1TRANSPORTATION 37
4.1.8.2MANUFACTURING PHASE 37
4.1.8.3PACKAGING PHASE 38
4.1.8.4DISTRIBUTION PHASE 38
4.1.8.5USAGE PHASE 38
4.1.8.6WASTE MANAGEMENT PHASE 38
4.1.9REFLECTIONS ON THE REST KAYAK TYPES 38
4.1.10SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 39
4.1.10.1USAGE SCENARIOS 39
USAGE SCENARIO 1 40
USAGE SCENARIO 2 40
USAGE SCENARIO 3 41
4.1.10.2WASTE SCENARIOS 43
WASTE SCENARIO 1 44
WASTE SCENARIO 2 45
4.1.11LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION 47
CHAPTER 5.DISCUSSION 50
5.1UNCERTAINTIES 50
5.2MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS 51
5.3LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 52
5.4FURTHER DISCUSSION 53
CHAPTER 6.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55
6.1CONCLUSION 55
6.2RECOMMENDATIONS 55
REFERENCES 59
APPENDICES 67
APPENDIX A 67
APPENDIX B 75
APPENDIX C 92
QUESTIONNAIRES 92
QUESTIONNAIRE A 92
QUESTIONNAIRE B 94
QUESTIONNAIRE C 95
List of Figures
FIGURE 1.METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 7
FIGURE 2.MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK (GOULD AND COLWILL,2016) 10
FIGURE 3.THE LIFE CYCLE STAGES (REBITZER ET AL.,2004) 11
FIGURE 4.LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT PHASES (LEE &INABA,2004) 12
FIGURE 5.ORIGIN OF MATERIAL (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 17
FIGURE 6.EMISSIONS PER TRANSPORT MEANS 19
FIGURE 7.SANKEY DIAGRAM FOR KAYAK MANUFACTURING (ALL UNITS IN KG/KAYAK) 21 FIGURE 8.SANKEY DIAGRAM FOR HULL MANUFACTURING (ALL UNITS IN KG/KAYAK) 22
FIGURE 9.SIMPLIFIED FLOW CHART 26
FIGURE 10.KAYAK LAYOUT (SOURCE:MELKER OF SWEDEN) 30
FIGURE 11.DETAILED FLOW CHART 31
FIGURE 12.RAW MATERIAL USED FOR THE KAYAK MANUFACTURING 32
FIGURE 13.HULL & DECK MANUFACTURING 33
FIGURE 14.STICKING PROCESS 33
FIGURE 15.SEAT & SKEG 34
FIGURE 16.ASSEMBED ACCESSORIES 34
FIGURE 17.PACKAGING & STORAGE 35
FIGURE 18.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR VÄDERÖ 36 FIGURE 19.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR MANUFACTURING 37 FIGURE 20.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR ÖRSKÄR 39
FIGURE 21.IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION FOR USAGE SCENARIO 1 40
FIGURE 22.IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION FOR USAGE SCENARIO 2 41
FIGURE 23.IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION FOR USAGE SCENARIO 3 41
FIGURE 24.COMPARATIVE IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION FOR USAGE SCENARIOS 42 FIGURE 25.WASTE HIERARCHY AS IN WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (GHARFALKAR ET AL.,2015) 43 FIGURE 26.COMPANY & SOCIETAL BENEFITS (REDQUEEN,2018) 56
FIGURE 27.FLOW CHART FOR HULL MANUFACTURING 67
FIGURE 28.FLOW CHART FOR DECK MANUFACTURING 68
FIGURE 29.FLOW CHART FOR SKEG MANUFACTURING 69
FIGURE 30.FLOW CHART FOR SEAT MANUFACTURING 70
FIGURE 31.SANKEY DIAGRAM FOR DECK MANUFACTURING 71
FIGURE 32.SANKEY DIAGRAM FOR SEAT MANUFACTURING 72
FIGURE 33.SANKEY DIAGRAM FOR SKEG MANUFACTURING 73
FIGURE 34.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR ULVÖN 74 FIGURE 35.CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR RÖDLÖGA 74
List of Tables
TABLE 1.ORIGIN OF MATERIAL (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 14
TABLE 2.INPUT & OUTPUT FLOWS FOR KAYAK MANUFACTURING (ALL UNITS IN KG/KAYAK)(TAHE OUTDOORS,
2020) 15
TABLE 3.INPUT & OUTPUT FLOWS FOR HULL MANUFACTURING (ALL UNITS IN KG/KAYAK)(TAHE OUTDOORS,
2020) 15
TABLE 4.INPUT & OUTPUT FLOWS FOR ASSEMBLING ACCESSORIES (ALL UNITS IN KG/KAYAK)(TAHE OUTDOORS,
2020) 16
TABLE 5.TRANSPORTATION &GENERATED EMISSIONS 18
TABLE 6.DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE FOR WASTE TREATMENT OPERATIONS (DRZYZGA &PRIETO,2019);(ZABIHI ET AL.,2020);(GYPSUM ASSOCIATION,1992);(WELTER ET AL.,2001). 45 TABLE 7.DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE FOR WASTE TREATMENT OPERATIONS (DRZYZGA &PRIETO,2019);(ZABIHI ET AL.,2020);(GYPSUM ASSOCIATION,1992);(WELTER ET AL.,2001). 46 TABLE 8.COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR WASTE SCENARIOS 47
TABLE 9.DATA QUALITY FOR DATA OBTAINED BY MANUFACTURING UNIT 75
TABLE 10.DATA QUALITY FOR DATA OBTAINED BY MEETINGS 75
TABLE 11.DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALING 76
TABLE 12.18IMPACT CATEGORIES AND NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 77 TABLE 13.DECK MANUFACTURING INPUT (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 81 TABLE 14.SEAT MANUFACTURING INPUT (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 82 TABLE 15.SKEG MANUFACTURING INPUT (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 83 TABLE 16.INPUT MATERIAL FOR PACKAGING (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 84
TABLE 17.DISTRIBUTION STATIONS (TAHE OUTDOORS,2020) 84
TABLE 18.RESPONSIBLE FACTORS FROM TRANSPORT OF MATERIAL & THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (SWEDEN. SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,2003),(FET,2000),(AZEVEDO ET AL.,2013) 84
TABLE 19.KAYAK IMPACT CATEGORY ASSESSMENT 85
TABLE 20A.IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION FOR KAYAK 86
TABLE 21.IMPACT CATEGORIES WITH HIGHEST CONTRIBUTION OF KAYAK BODY 87 TABLE 22.CONTRIBUTION OF 4 MAIN MATERIALS IN IONIZING RADIATION 87 TABLE 23.CONTRIBUTION OF 4 MAIN MATERIALS IN WATER CONSUMPTION 87
TABLE 24.CONTRIBUTION OF 4 MAIN MATERIALS IN LAND USE 87
TABLE 25.IMPACT CATEGORIES WITH HIGHEST CONTRIBUTION OF ACCESSORIES 88
TABLE 26.IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE USAGE SCENARIOS 88
TABLE 27.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM ULVÖN MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS 89 TABLE 28.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM RÖDLÖGA MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS 90 TABLE 29.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM ÖRSKÄR MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS 91
Chapter 1. Introduction: Aim, Objectives, and Outline of the thesis
1.1 Background and Introduction
Since time immemorial, the concept of "well-being" is well engaged in individuals around the earth. Movies have been directed; books of all kinds have been written, and many studies have been performed to discover the "secret" recipe on reaching this state. Many definitions have been given to explain this term; according to the Cambridge Dictionary, well-being is defined as "the state of feeling happy and healthy" (Well-being, n.d). The question that arises from the definition is what the individual should do to be happy. In other words, are there any strategies that could be followed to accomplish this?
Happiness is a complex idea that is difficult to define as it "is used to denote different concepts" (Veenhoven, 2017). It can be affected by many factors regarding the individual;
health, status, income are some of them. Also, a vast number of strategies have been developed and charted for the individual's aid. For instance, Chris Tkach and Sonja Lyubomirsky have undertaken a report minuting such; these are "affiliation, partying, mental control, goal pursuit, passive leisure, active leisure, religion, and direct attempts at happiness"
(Tkach & Lyubomirsky, 2006). For the current study, the author's primary concern is what is connected to active leisure.
Leisure is necessary to reach eudaimonia or, in other words, the state of well-being (Wise, 2014). Also, according to Tkach and Lyubomirsky (2006), exercise, hobbies, and fitness, in general, are some essential factors that comprise the core of leisure. In other words, being active and exercising a hobby, can have beneficial effects on a person's well-being and thus form the ground so the seed of happiness can grow and prosper (Modi, 2017). An illustration that fits the essence of the previous sentence would be that one of a machine that works properly as all its parts, which comprise this machine, fulfill their role. Likewise, if the parts of a society function well, namely its people who are counted as individuals rather than as a whole, and engage themselves in activities they draw joy from, society flourishes and develops.
Development within a society is multidimensional. It comprises many leverages, among whose is the development of manufacturing units for every sort of material. This development has introduced both benefits but also countable drawbacks. Severe environmental impacts such as unrestricted and overexploitation of natural resources and discharge of GHGs (Greenberg, nd) are among those drawbacks. For this matter, different approaches and frameworks have been developed worldwide. The development of environmentally friendly products, less harmful and efficacious operations with improved energy and enhanced operational safety are some approaches (Abdullahi and Abdullah, 2015). As for the frameworks, many of these comprise versatile and broad policies. Such policies are in alignment with the approaches taken by the industries and address the matter of sustainability, which is elaborated next.
It was not before the late 1980s that sustainability and sustainable development appeared for the first time in the "Brundtland Report." The World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), by publishing this report, defined sustainability simultaneously.
Accordingly, sustainability was defined as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs" (Huang & Rust, 2010).
Sustainability comprises three pillars: environmental, economic, and social (Pleijel & Pleijel, 2012); sustainability's pillars are interrelated to each other. In contrast, the environmental pillar focuses on the reduction of environmental consequences and the economic on the fair distribution of the resource in-use, the social pillar is sustainability's primary focus as it facilitates societies that comprise satisfied individuals (ibid., 2012). The question that unfolds before us is how social sustainability is dimensioned?
Social sustainability is a complex phenomenon challenging to define (Hale et al., 2019).
According to Balaman (2018), it "can be defined as specifying and managing both positive and negative impacts of systems, processes, organizations, and activities on people and social life."
Supplementary, several indicators have been developed by scientists; Popovic et al. (2018) linked them to end-point-indicator among whose are human rights, labor practices, and decent work. Subsequently, social sustainability is a multidimensional phenomenon that can be viewed from different spectra, and thus for different reasons, equality, human rights, social cohesion, and quality of life are some. Of interest in this report is the latter, which is also interconnected to the concept of well-being. Subsequently, by engaging in recreational endeavors for the individual's delectation, one segment of well-being is getting addressed.
McCullough et al. (2018) define outdoor recreation as "non-competitive activities that primarily occur in nature as the term suggests." The awareness among the population for promoting public health, both mentally and physically, along with the economic benefits that emanate from them, has driven the interest of many people to engage in such activities (McCullough et al., 2018). They aimed to recharge the participants' physical, psychological, and intellectual batteries, which subsequently positively impacted the participant's overall health (Győri and Balogh, 2017). There is a wide variety of activities that can be included, such as paddling, trips in the forests and fields, cycling, fishing, hunting, garden work, outdoor bathing, diving, mountain climbing e.t.c. (Fredman et al., 2019). The object of interest in this study is paddling.
Paddling refers to manually navigating a small boat with the use of a paddle. Activities like kayaking, canoeing, and rafting fall into this category (Sayour, 2018). Kayaking is the main focus of this report. It refers to the activity where a small wide pole is used to propel and navigate a watercraft, namely a kayak. Although it is an exercise that can bring delectation to the practitioner, other vital issues need to be addressed. The setting of kayaking, namely water bodies, is accompanied by negative environmental impacts emanated from practicing it. Also, the manufacturing of the kayak per se and its entailed equipment, engage negative environmental impacts from their manufacturing. Thus, practitioners have to account for such parameters if they want to stay aligned with the existing legislative framework for diminishing any emanated environmental repercussions.
The 2030 Agenda is a prominent legislative framework that consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which are promoted by the United Nations (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). An additional complimentary instrument is the Paris Climate Agreement, focusing on dealing with climate change and mitigation measures (UNFCCC, 2015). Both two
instruments are used for promoting a legislative framework for sports federations and organizations. In a broader sense, though, a full spectrum of stakeholders could account for it. Considering the overall repercussions, the manufacturers do attain an enormous responsibility as the impacts of manufacturing are more significant than the usage phase. For the evaluation of the emanated impacts from processes, some tools come to their aid as follows.
Manufacturing processes require the processing of data, qualitative or quantitative.
Stakeholders can make use of such data for decision-making. Some tools for environmental decision-support are as follows; Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Substance Flow Analysis (SFA), Total Cost Accounting (TCA), and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) are solely a representative sample of those (Wrisberg et al., 2012). In this report, LCA and MFA are the tools in use. Wrisberg et al. (2012) state that "LCA aims at specifying the environmental consequences of products or services from cradle-to-grave." MFA is a tool that can be used both solely or combined to an LCA and used "to quantify the flows and stocks of material in arbitrarily complex systems" (Laner & Rechberger, 2016). Albeit emanated beneficial results when used independently, combining them "offers the potential for more consistent and reliable decision support in environmental and resource management (ibid., 2016).
As aforementioned, there is a wide range of activities within recreational purposes to choose from. That kind of activities can be practiced in various settings, like for example in national parks or in nature preserves and therefore they can add additional impacts on the surrounding environment. It is generally accepted though that, independently of the activity, these activities have impact on the environment (McCullough et al., 2018). Considering that such activities could be categorized in motorized, i.e. motor boating, or non-motorized activities, i.e. kayaking, the environment is affected differently. On the one hand, it is widely accepted that, the former activities do have more impact on the environment. On the other hand, the latter activities may have little or even no impact at all on the environment; this statement though, does not exclude these activities completely from causing environmental impacts.
A variety of studies has been conducted over the last decades upon the subject. Liddle &
Scorgie (1980) conducted a comprehensive study regarding the impacts originating in recreation activities; this report set the basis for further interest upon the subject. Some forty years later, Huddart & Stott (2019, p. 331), building upon the same basis, categorized three types of environmental impacts emanated to such activities, namely “physical impacts to aquatic vegetation, the spread of invasive species, erosion of banks and shores, water pollution and its costs”. Kayaking is one of these activities that contributes to similar environmental impacts. Although some studies, that concern the environmental impact from a kayak, have been conducted, no previous studies were performed with purpose of covering the entire life cycle of a kayak and associated environmental impacts.
Melker of Sweden is an established outdoor brand, which was founded in 2015 in Sweden.
The current thesis report results from the cooperation between the authors and the company owners with the adaptation and adjusting of the latter towards sustainability. This takes place through in-depth insight into the products and processes that take place within the production-chain. The kayaks are manufactured in Tallinn in Estonia, within Tahe Outdoors, facilitating the manufacturing of various brands of kayaks (Tahe Outdoors, 2020). Since its
startup, the stakeholders have focused on implementing methods leading towards sustainability; "As sustainable as possible" is Melker's motto formed in one of the initial meetings.
1.2 Aim and Objectives
Getting established worldwide is a desirable perspective for a startup company like Melker of Sweden. For that reason, striving towards sustainability is Melker of Sweden's primary focus.
Considering the goal of Melker of Sweden, the aim of the study is to provide the company an insight into its current environmental performance and provide recommendations for further improvement. For that reason, LCA is used as the primary environmental assessment tool. As a supportive tool to LCA, an MFA was also conducted. The current study would help the company to take a step forward to their future endeavors.
As aforementioned, Melker of Sweden focuses on being "as sustainable as possible." For that matter, the authors formed several objectives that fulfill the research aim of the study. The undertaken objectives are the leverages for assessing the environmental performance of Melker of Sweden's products and processes. The emanated results from the objectives will enlarge the company's scope for further future modifications within their operations; in other words, how to reach their goal towards sustainability. The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To trace the transportation route of the materials from the source to the manufacturing unit concerning solely the emissions generated.
2. To identify which manufacturing processes, based on their efficacy, significantly affect the overall environmental performance of Melker of Sweden kayaks.
3. To analyze the potential environmental impacts that account for the emissions generated during the transport of materials.
4. To determine the potential environmental impacts emanated from Melker of Sweden kayaks.
5. To identify the hotspots within the manufacturing processes.
1.3 Thesis outline
This part includes a short description of how this thesis report is organized. More specifically:
Chapter 2 Research Design. The chapter includes the methodologies and their appropriateness for successfully conducting the current report. Also, the framework used for the MFA and LCA is included.
Chapter 3 Material Flow Analysis. The current section includes the application of the MFA that was conducted in this report.
Chapter 4 Life Cycle Assessment. In this section, the LCA application is presented along with the analysis to determine the potential environmental impact.
Chapter 5 Discussion. This section contains a discussion based on uncertainties, and the emanated results from MFA and LCA.
Chapter 6 Conclusion and recommendations. The last section of the report includes a summary of the entire study, followed by recommendations that may be followed in the future.
Chapter 2. Research Design
This chapter provides an outline of the methodologies and frameworks used by the authors to conduct the study. Different phases and tools for obtaining the desired objectives are discussed and presented using a flow chart.
The current study uses a quantitative approach to assess the environmental performance of the Melker of Sweden kayaks. Two different environmental assessment tools, namely, MFA and LCA, are used to obtain the desired objectives presented in section 1.3. LCA was considered the primary tool used while MFA as a supportive tool for getting better results from LCA.
2.1 Methodology
The conducted study used several methods that are further described as step-by-step. Also, the methodological approach is presented in figure 1.
Figure 1. Methodological approach
Step 1: Conducted Literature Review
To fulfill the company's goal of being "as sustainable as possible," a discussion and literature review was conducted by the authors for aim formulation and to decide the objectives of the study. To achieve the study's aim and objectives, two different analytical tools are used, namely a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Material Flow Analysis (MFA). These two tools were selected based on the literature review and the objectives of the study.
The combined use of MFA & LCA has provided promising results in assessing the inefficiencies of the processes and potential improvement strategies. On one hand, MFA visualizes the
resource use efficiencies for the processes while on the other hand LCA is used to identify the hotspots to resource use and the associated environmental burdens. A combined assessment study can thus assist in identifying potential strategies to improve the resource efficiency of the processes and generate a strong feedback process to help the stakeholders in decision- making (Rieckhof and Guenther, 2018).
Also, a hybrid MFA-LCA study can assist to evaluate the generated transport emissions and environmental issues associated with it. MFA accounts the energy & material as a resource input for transport infrastructure and the GHG emissions as the output (Barret et al., 2002) while LCA evaluates the environmental pressure & human health impacts associated to the resource use and consequences of the generated GHG emissions (Eckelman, 2013).
Another benefit of using a combined MFA & LCA approach is in evaluating the environmental impact of the waste management system and strategies to reduce the impacts of several waste treatment alternatives. It has also provided results for assessing the opportunities to close the loop for the resource use and support circular economy (Turner et al., 2016). MFA describes the flow of material within the processes that provides the necessary data for performing different LCA scenarios (Rochat et al., 2013). The analysis of the LCA scenarios obtained from the data gathered through MFA evaluates the environmental impact and suggests sustainable waste management. Moreover, this data is also used as an indicator for the analysis of resource flow and increasing the efficiency of the raw material usage (Nakem et al., 2016).
Step 2: Data gathering
The data and information needed for the implementation of the current thesis were gathered in various ways. More specifically, data collection was mainly performed in the following ways;
a business trip to the manufacturing unit, through constant contact with the stakeholders (emails, Skype interviews), and also through a questionnaire that was handed out to them.
As none of the authors was acquainted with kayaking, the first data and general information were gathered from the Melker of Sweden owners. Also, a two-day trip was performed in the early stages of the study, where the authors had the opportunity to gather information related to the number and amount of input materials. The questionnaires prepared for the data gathering are presented in Appendix C.
Step 3: Data Processing
The gathered information was first distinguished as MFA, and LCA processes the data differently. Firstly, MFA solely uses the amount of input and output material within the manufacturing operations, and the assessment was performed based on literature review and data interpretation. Secondly, for the LCA implementation, the gathered information was introduced into the SimaPro 9 software, where the database Ecoinvent 3 was used. Ecoinvent 3 includes complete data for most of the raw materials. The materials that were not found in the database were created based on information from scientific articles.
Step 4: Data Presentation
As the obtained results from MFA and LCA are not identical, different presentation approaches were implemented. On the one hand, MFA used a Sankey diagram presenting the flow of materials, namely input, output, and waste generated in the manufacturing process. On the other hand, LCA uses characterization graphs that present the potential environmental impacts for different impact categories.
Step 5: Analysis
Lastly, analyses were performed to address the objectives of the entire study. That said, MFA analyzes the import of material from origin to the manufacturing unit and the resource efficiency for the manufacturing processes. LCA assesses the potential environmental impact for each life stage of the kayak. Besides, usage and disposal scenarios are created within the LCA study.
Step 6: Recommendations
A list of recommendations is provided at the end of the study. Different recommendations are provided for the two tools separately. Also, a combined recommendation is provided for waste generation and treatment.
2.2 Frameworks
The current study is conducted with a framework for LCA and MFA. For LCA, two ISO standards were followed; ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The MFA was carried out according to the MFA methodological framework (Gould and Colwill, 2016).
2.2.1 Material Flow Analysis
Material flow analysis (MFA) is an environmental management tool that helps perform analysis of material and energy input-output processes, resource use and stock calculations, and hotspot assessment within a system (Balanay and Halog, 2019). In other words, a material flow analysis is used to map and quantify the flow of materials within a system. The analysis is performed based on the law of conservation of mass to account for the flow of goods and substances within the system (Kaufman, 2012).
The environmental management tool MFA serves in many applications, but its significant role is resource and waste management. Based on the results obtained by tracking the flow of material within a system, a mass balance principle is applied to upgrade the current system into a Resource Efficient System (Silva, 2010); resource efficiency refers to “using the Earth’s limited resources in a sustainable manner while minimizing impacts on the environment”
(European Commission, n.d.). The mass balance principle helps in resource conservation and waste management, minimizing the environmental impacts of the system. Also, the information obtained from MFA identifies the source, type, and quantity of material, which has adverse effects on the environment (OECD, 2008).
MFA’s methodology used for the analysis is based on the mass balance principle, i.e., the mass of input and output should be equal. The methodology's primary focus is to locate and examine the inputs, outputs, and sources of waste material. For that purpose, an MFA framework is used within the study divided into five different phases. Figure 2 shows the different phases involved in the MFA Framework (Gould and Colwill, 2016).
Figure 2. Material flow analysis framework (Gould and Colwill, 2016)
Phase 1: Product and System
Phase one comprises the definition of a specific product being manufactured and the production system being investigated. Defining the product includes the description of the function and services that the product is intended to perform. Also, a description of all the raw materials used for the manufacturing processes is to be provided in this phase. For defining the production system, information about the spatial and temporal boundary is provided, which includes processing zones and manufacturing processes (Gould and Colwill, 2016).
Phase 2: Material Flow Inventory
Phase two includes the definition of input and output for each of the processes in the production system. A material flow model is prepared using a material flow chart or Sankey diagram, following the material balance principle. The material flow model accounts for the quantitative information about the input and output material and the waste being generated (Krolczyk et al., 2015).
Phase 3: Material Flow Assessment
The Material Flow Assessment phase is used to analyze the material flow model based on various performance measuring indicators. These performance measuring indicators are used to obtain a Resource Efficient Manufacturing Operation and increase the manufacturing processes' output. The purpose of using the indicators is to give an overview of the significant issues within the system and the materials accounting for most environmental impacts (OECD, 2008).
Product & System Material Flow Inventory
Material Flow
Assessment Improvement Strategies
Interpretation
Phase 4: Improvement Strategies
This phase involves the recommendation of potential improvement strategies for the processes with lower resource efficiency. The aim of defining the potential improvement strategies is to create an optimized manufacturing operation with less waste as output and reduce the production cost, leading to an increase in sales and profit. A new model is prepared by defining new material flow inventory for the product and system.
Phase 5: Interpretation
Interpretation is the final phase of the material flow analysis framework, which includes the assessment of new models prepared based on the improvement strategies. The interpretation phase considers the assessment based on material efficiency and environmental impacts in the new model.
2.2.3 Life Cycle Assessment Framework
The increasing awareness of environmental protection and assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with a product manufactured and consumed has led to the development of different methods and tools for better addressing these impacts. The assessment tools and methods are based on the standards from the ISO 14040, while the technical requirements and guidelines were based on ISO 14044 (Finkbeiner et al., 2006).
Life cycle assessment is a well-established environmental management tool, a cradle-to-grave environmental approach providing an insight into the environmental performance of a product and process within its life cycle. The aim behind conducting the LCA is to identify and quantify the potential environmental impacts through the assessment of products, processes, and activities within the premises (Curran, 2015).
The tool compiles and evaluates the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of the product system. The evaluation process tabulates the emissions and consumption of the resources at every relevant product's life cycle stage, namely, cradle-to-grave, raw material extraction, energy acquisition, production, distribution, use, and waste management. The analysis can be directed to other phases of the life cycle, which can be cradle-to-gate, gate-to- gate, and gate-to-grave (Rebitzer et al., 2004). Figure 3 presents different phases in which the LCA can be conducted for any product and process.
Figure 3. The life cycle stages (Rebitzer et al., 2004)
The ISO 14040 builds a relationship between the four phases of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), namely goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and life cycle interpretation. The relationship between the four phases is shown in Figure 4, which shows a systematic way of analyzing the environmental aspects (Lee
& Inaba, 2004).
Figure 4. Life cycle assessment phases (Lee & Inaba, 2004)
The evaluation process is typically performed in four different steps:
● Goal and Scope Definition
The first phase of the LCA includes the goal, which defines the reason behind conducting the study, based on the product's functions. Further, an insight into the intended audience and intended application of the study is provided (Rebitzer et al., 2004). The LCA scope provides detailed information about the system boundary of the study, i.e., which processes are going to be included and excluded. Also, the study's assumptions and limitations, the time, and geographical referencing are presented in the scope of the study (Nikkakyo.org, nd).
● Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI)
Life cycle inventory analysis is the data collection phase for the LCA study. The analysis looks for the input and output for the product or process, i.e., raw material and resources, different types of energy, water, and the emissions to air, land, or water (Ecochain, nd). LCI is a time- consuming, and iterative process as the analysis depends upon the data collection for the study. A lack of data collection can often lead to making modifications to the goal and scope of the LCA study (Nikkakyo.org, nd).
● Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
The third phase of the LCA study evaluates the significance of the potential environmental
categories, category indicators, characterization models, equivalency factors, and weighting values are used to translate the data obtained from the inventory analysis into the potential impact on human health and environment (Finkbeiner, 2006).
● Life Cycle Interpretation
The final phase of the study is to interpret the results obtained during the analysis. The interpretation is performed to evaluate the results based on the objectives of the goal of the study. As per ISO 14040:2006, the life cycle interpretation phase should identify the issues based on the LCI and LCIA and come up with conclusions, limitations, and recommendations for remediating the potential environmental impacts (Finkbeiner, 2006).
2.3 Data Quality
Data quality and assessment are also included in the study. Data quality is a meter that assesses the quality, usability, and utilization of the information for the implementation of a project. The implementation of the data quality assessment can benefit the stakeholders in future endeavors concerning further modifications of their products (Batini et al., 2009). More specifically, the more accurate the data is the more assistance is provided to the stakeholders in real-time decision-making, as it can support the fact that any decisions taken are based on accurate data; this leads subsequently to increased profitability (ORI, 2017).
In the current study, the data quality assessment is carried out by setting attributes that correspond to whether the data fulfills the criteria regarding quality, usability, and utilization.
Two different data quality assessment tables are created and presented in tables 11 and 12.
Table 13 includes the scaling used for the data quality assessment. Appendix B includes the aforementioned tables.
Chapter 3. Material Flow Analysis
3.1 Material Flow Analysis of Melker Kayak
The Material Flow Analysis was used to build up a Resource Efficient Manufacturing Operation. The system boundary for solely the MFA study is gate-to-gate. To perform this, the current analysis tracks the flow of input and output material in the manufacturing processes.
The following objectives were an aid within this analysis:
1. To track the import of the raw materials and the emissions involved within the transportation of raw materials from the origin to the manufacturing unit.
2. To identify the least resource-efficient manufacturing operation by evaluating the input, output, and generated waste.
3. To identify the different types of waste generated as different waste requires different waste treatment operations.
3.1.1 Product and System
An MFA is performed for Melker of Sweden's kayaks, which are manufactured by Tahe Outdoors. The kayak has a lifespan of 20 years and is used for leisure purposes. The primary raw materials used are gel coat, fiberglass, epoxy resin, and flax fiber. Additionally, the accessories that are assembled to the kayaks are also accounted for as input material.
The manufacturing operations are performed in Estonia, while the vast majority of the raw materials originate from different parts of the world. Besides, the current manufacturing operations are performed in the 2020 scenario.
3.1.2 Material Flow Inventory
As aforementioned, the majority of the raw materials originate among different international sources. Nevertheless, some materials originated in Estonia. Table 1 shows the amount of raw materials and accessories imported from different parts of the world.
Table 1. Origin of material (Tahe Outdoors, 2020)
Country Amount (Kg) Amount (%)
Canada 1.6 4.7
China 2.89 8.7
Estonia 3.87 11.7
Finland 0.88 2.6
France 0.94 2.8
Holland 0.4 1
Italy 0.35 1
Latvia 0.2 0.5
Thailand 0.5 1
United Kingdom 22 66
Total 33.6 100
For accounting the flow of materials within the manufacturing processes, a Sankey diagram is modeled for the entire manufacturing processes for the kayak. Also, separate Sankey diagrams are built for the manufacturing processes involved in Hull, Deck, Seat, and Skeg manufacturing. These diagrams are presented in figure 7 in section 3.1.3 and Figures 31, 32, and 33 in Appendix A.
Table 2. Input & output flows for kayak manufacturing (All units in kg/kayak) (Tahe Outdoors, 2020)
Process Input Output Waste Waste (%)
Hull Manufacturing 13.2 10.1 3.1 35
Deck Manufacturing 5.2 3.5 1.7 19
Sticking 2.2 1.4 0.8 9
Seat Manufacturing 2.2 1.4 0.8 9
Skeg Manufacturing 0.8 0.5 0.3 4
Assembling Accessories 10.0 7.9 2.1 24
Total 33.6 24.8 8.8 100
Note: Highlighted in red corresponds to processes with highest waste generation
Table 2 shows that hull manufacturing and assembling accessories appear to have the highest portion of generated waste compared to other processes. For that matter, a separate material flow inventory, regarding these two operations, is modeled.
3.1.2.1 Material Flow Inventory for Hull Manufacturing
Hull manufacturing is the process with the highest amount of input and waste generated.
Figure 6 presents the Sankey diagram for hull manufacturing. Table 3 shows the amount of input, output, and waste generated from each of the hull manufacturing operations.
Table 3. Input & output flows for hull manufacturing (all units in kg/kayak) (Tahe Outdoors, 2020)
Process Raw Material Input Output Waste Waste (%)
Gelcoat Layering Gelcoat 4 3.154 0.846 27
Fiberglass
Layering Fiberglass 2.14 1.89 0.304 9
Epoxy Layering Epoxy Resin 6 4.308 1.692 54.8
Flax fiber Layering Flax fiber 0.3 0.294 0.006 0.2
Applying Peel Ply Peel Ply 0.8 0.5 0.3 9
Total 13.24 10.14 3.1 100
Note: The highlighted row shows the least resource-efficient operation. Further explanation is provided in section 3.1.3
3.1.2.2 Material Flow Inventory for Assembling Accessories
Assembling the accessories contributes the second most in terms of the amount of input material and waste generation. The input, output, and waste generated are presented in table 4. Not all the processes involved in this step are included in the table. This is mainly because the vast majority of the processes have an insignificant waste generation compared to those included in the table.
Table 4. Input & output flows for assembling accessories (All units in kg/kayak) (Tahe Outdoors, 2020)
Process Raw Material Input Output Waste Waste (%)
Applying Hose
film Hose film 0.8 0.5 0.3 14
Applying
Masking tape Masking tape 0.2 0.18 0.02 1
Applying
Acetone Acetone 2 0.85 1.15 56
Applying Putty Putty 0.68 0.4 0.28 14
Applying Epoxy
Resin Epoxy Resin 0.54 0.32 0.22 11
Applying Clear
bond Clear bond 0.4 0.3 0.1 4
Total 4.62 2.55 2.07 100
Note: Not all materials are included in the matrix. Material with insignificant waste is not presented; The highlighted row shows the least resource-efficient operation. Further explanation is provided in section 3.1.3
3.1.3 Material Flow Assessment
The section Material Flow Assessment presents the result for the MFA study. These results are presented based on the information obtained from Material Flow Inventory analysis and are mainly concerned with evaluating the resource efficiency of the process. Besides, a material flow indicator, namely the Direct Material Input Indicator, is used for presenting the result obtained for the import of materials.
Direct Material Input Indicator
The Direct Material Input Indicator is used to track the materials domestically imported (within Estonian borders), which account for the manufacturing of a product. To identify the amount of material that is imported from other countries, the amount of domestically imported materials was tracked. The indicator accounts for all the materials used in production, consumption, and then sent for waste treatment (OECD, 2008). For kayak manufacturing, the raw materials and accessories are imported from different regions. For this purpose, figure 5 presents the results obtained from the direct material input indicator.
Figure 5. Origin of material (Tahe Outdoors, 2020)
3.1.3.1 Transport of material
As presented in figure 5, a significant portion of materials is being imported from the UK.
Resin, fiberglass, and gel coat originate in the UK. These materials have a substantial proportional contribution to kayak manufacturing. The UK thus stands in the highest place in the supply chain. The number of materials that are bought within the Estonian borders places Estoniain the second place after the UK. Also, China and Canada appear to have a high contribution to accessories and putty, respectively. Additional information concerning every country is presented below in table 5.
-1% 5% 1% 3%1%
12%
2%
9%
66% 1%
Origin of material
Latvia Canada Thailand France Italy Estonia Finland China Holland
United Kingdom
Table 5. Transportation & Generated Emissions
Country Transportation Distance (km) Amount (kg) Emission (kg CO2
eq.)
Canada Truck 235
1.6 0.377
Ship 7127
Truck 15
7377
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to seaport); Ship (from Saint John seaport in Canada to Muuga seaport in Estonia); Truck (from Muuga seaport in Estonia to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
China Truck 1041
2.89 1.972
Ship 19908
Truck 15
20964
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to seaport); Ship (from Huizhou seaport in China to Muuga seaport in Estonia); Truck (from Muuga seaport in Estonia to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
Estonia Truck 51 3.87 0.012
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
Finland Truck 138
0.88 0.012
Ferry 88
Truck 15
241
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to seaport); Ship (from Helsingfors seaport in Finland to Muuga seaport in Estonia); Truck (from Muuga seaport in Estonia to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
France Truck 3035 0.94 0.176
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
Holland Truck 2174 0.4 0.054
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
Italy Truck 2785 0.35 0.062
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
Latvia Truck 310 0.2 0.004
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
Thailand Truck 159
0.5 0.296
Ship 18755
Truck 15
18929
Transportation: Truck (from supplier to seaport); Ship (from Bangkok seaport in Thailand to Muuga seaport in Estonia); Truck (from Muuga seaport in Estonia to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
United Kingdom Truck 160
23.9 1.687
Ferry 1934
Truck 15
2109
Transportation: Truck (from manufacturing unit to seaport); Ship (from London gateway seaport in the UK to Muuga seaport in Estonia); Truck (from Muuga seaport in Estonia to Tahe Outdoors, Viimsi)
The emissions presented on table 5 are calculated with use of the following formula (McKinnon & Piecyk, 2010):
CO2 emissions = Transport volume (amount) x transport distance x average CO2 emission factor.
Average CO2 emission factor (Road Transport) = 62g CO2/ton-km Average CO2 emission factor (Maritime Transport) = 31g CO2/ton-km
Table 5 shows that the transport distance from supplier countries to the manufacturing unit in Estonia is the primary factor for higher CO2 emissions generated during the import of material. For example, the import of material from China shows the highest contribution to emissions. This is mainly because of the geographical distance between China and Estonia, namely 20,964 km.
Another factor that contributes to the generated emission is the amount of import material.
The geographical distance of Thailand to Estonia is almost the same as the distance from China to Estonia. However, a variation concerning the emissions within the two cases is observed in table 5. Responsible for the variation of the CO2 emissions for these two cases is the amount of transported material.
Worthy of being notable is the case of the United Kingdom. Although the travel distance from the United Kingdom to Estonia is significantly less compared to China and Thailand, the CO2
emission from the import is considerably high. This is mainly due to the higher amount of import material, namely 23.9 kgs.
Figure 6. Emissions per transport means 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Canada China Finland Thailand United Kingdom
%
Countries
Emissions per transport means
Road
Maritime
Two transport means are used for import of material, namely road and maritime transport.
Figure 6 presents the percentage contribution of each of the transport means. It is notable from the figure that the percentage contribution to the CO2 emissions of maritime transport is higher than that of road transport. The higher contribution from maritime is due to the larger distance that is covered by using ship. This is also in accordance with the information provided on table 5.
The carbon emission factor, as aforementioned, is double for the case of road transport compared to that of maritime. Figure 5 presents, though, a different approach. The reason behind this is the distance that is covered on sea is much greater than that is covered on land and thus the higher contribution share to the overall CO2 emissions is that of maritime. Lastly, the rest of the countries contribute to insignificant CO2 emissions compared to the aforementioned countries.
3.1.3.2 Kayak Manufacturing
Once the kayak manufacturing occurs, different results are withdrawn concerning the efficacy of the manufacturing processes and the type of waste generated. Regarding the manufacturing processes, hull manufacturing and assembling accessories are found to be the least resource-efficient operation.
Figure 7 presents the Sankey diagram for the processes involved in kayak manufacturing. The Sankey diagram shows the flow of material within the manufacturing processes and the amount of waste generated within each process. The width of the arrows presented in the Sankey diagram shows the proportion of material flow from one stage to the other. For further clarification about the amount of input material within the processes, tables 15, 16, 17, and 18 are presented in Appendix B.
Figure 7. Sankey diagram for kayak manufacturing (All units in kg/kayak)
Figure 7 shows that the proportion of input material coming from the storage, namely where the material is stored within the manufacturing unit, to the hull manufacturing operation is the highest among every operation-step. Assembling the accessories succeeds in the hull manufacturing operation. Besides, the amount of waste generated is following the same sequence concerning the operation mentioned above steps.
Firstly, concerning the hull manufacturing process, epoxy resin and gel coat layering appear to be responsible for the higher amount of waste generated than the other operations. Based on the mass balance principle (MBP), it was observed that the output from the processes above is proportionately lower to the input, as also presented on the following Sankey diagram in Figure 8. Secondly, for assembling-accessories, as can be seen in Table 4 in section 3.1.2.2, the amount of acetone applied to the kayak body is found to be the most waste generating process. Acetone is used for removing stains and scratches that were generated during the manufacturing process (Bigelow, 2011).
Figure 8. Sankey diagram for hull manufacturing (All units in kg/kayak)
3.1.3.3 Waste generation
The last observation concerns the type and amount of waste generated from the kayak's overall manufacturing processes. More specifically, Table 2 presents the amount of waste generated within the manufacturing operations. Acquiring knowledge concerning the specific type of waste generated can help select the most environmentally friendly waste treatment method. A broad scope of benefits can be withdrawn via waste segregation, as different waste treatment alternatives are laid before Melker of Sweden. The benefits of these waste treatment alternatives are further analyzed in the LCA chapter.
3.1.4 Improvement Strategies
The current section includes improvement strategies based on the results emanated from the Material Flow Analysis. The Material Flow Assessment pointed out areas that can be further improved. More specifically, the areas of improvements concern the
● Transportation, namely the emissions generated during the import of material
● Hull manufacturing process, namely the resource efficiency of 2 operations and
● Assembling the accessories, namely the use of acetone on the kayak body.
The aforementioned areas of improvement were pointed out based on the results obtained from the material flow assessment. Transportation is among these areas, due to the high C02
unit. Hull manufacturing and assembling the accessories found to be the processes with the highest waste generation among the manufacturing processes. The higher the generated waste within a process, the less is its resource efficiency; considering this, these processes appeared to be the least resource efficient and thus among the areas of improvement.
The improvement strategies that can be implemented by Melker of Sweden are stated as below:
● Local Suppliers for the raw materials and accessories
● Spray-guns for gel coat and epoxy layering and
● Isopropyl alcohol appliance on kayak body.
The implementation of these strategies and their beneficial outcomes are elaborated in the exceeding section, namely under interpretation.
3.1.5 Interpretation
As aforementioned, interpretation consists of the final phase of the MFA framework. Within this phase, a new model is established based on improvement strategies. However, no new model is presented for the following reason; Melker of Sweden is not the only stakeholder involved within the manufacturing operations. Tahe outdoor is the responsible company for kayak manufacturing. That said, decision-making involves more than one stakeholder. The interpretation of the following recommended strategies is solely based on the literature review.
● Local sourcing regarding the raw materials and accessories
For the import of materials, proper supply chain management is required concerning the transportation of raw materials and accessories. Shifting to a local (within Estonian boundaries) or nearby (within European boundaries) sourcing can help to reduce the emissions from the transportation phase (Cohen and Roussel, 2005). Additional key benefits of local sourcing are presented and furtherly elaborated in Section 6.2.
● Spray-guns for gel coat and epoxy layering
Spray guns for gel coat and epoxy layering are found to be more efficient in terms of waste generation. The use of sprays makes the process less time-consuming and highly accurate as a fine layer of gel coat is obtained with reduced brittleness (Aird, 2006). Additional factors have to be addressed before brushing, namely the gel-coat-formulation, the type of brush, and the way that the technique for applying the gel coat. Concerning the latter, the material should be applied "with long, sweeping strokes… always working up and toward a wet edge"
(ibid., 2006). Such issues do not exist when spraying, and for that reason, spraying is recommended.
● Isopropyl alcohol appliance on kayak body
Isopropyl alcohol, as a mild solvent replacing acetone, was found to be more environmentally friendly and will have less harmful emissions. The solvent is also found to be in a better position to remove scratches from the kayak body as it evaporates quickly with insignificant
oil traces (Capello, 2007). Although Isopropyl alcohol can cause respiratory problems to the user, compared to acetone, its influence is considerably less. Moreover, Isopropyl alcohol's toxicity levels are lower than those of other alternative solvents (Brugnone et al., 1983).
