A representative case is provided by Frost et al. [21], who quantified the carbon footprint of recovering rare earth permanent magnets from end-of-life hard disk drives (HDD) using primary operational data and international logistics. The study reports emissions of approximately 4.30 kgCO₂eq per magnet set under the BAU scenario, compared to 0.60 kgCO₂eq per set under the Recovery and Reuse (R&R) model, corresponding to an 84–86% reduction in global warming potential. The avoided emissions, estimated at 3.70 kgCO₂eq per recovered unit, were largely driven by the elimination of primary mineral extraction and refining. Comparable reductions have been reported for base and precious metals recovered from WEEE. For copper, recycling avoids approximately 1.29 tCO₂eq per ton of metal recovered relative to primary production [22], while system-level assessments indicate overall emission reductions of 70 – 90% for circular recovery routes. Despite these promising results, existing studies focus almost exclusively on industrialized regions and localized systems, leaving a clear gap in quantitative assessments of international urban mining pathways applicable to resource-producing countries such as Peru. 2.4.Circular economy implementation and gaps in emerging economies Despite the demonstrated environmental and economic benefits of urban mining, the literature reveals significant structural limitations in emerging economies, where WEEE management is largely restricted to collection and manual dismantling, with limited access to advanced metallurgical recovery technologies [23], [24]. Formal recycling rates typically range between 2% and 9%, while an estimated 44–61% of end-of-life electronic devices remain stored in households [25], [26]. In countries such as Brazil and Sri Lanka, more than 95% of generated WEEE is either exported or managed informally, resulting in the externalization of both environmental impacts and economic value. In Latin America, and particularly in Peru, there is a notable lack of region-specific studies quantifying the carbon footprint of WEEE management and directly comparing BAU and Recovery and Reuse (R&R) models under local energy and logistics conditions. This evidence gap limits informed policy design and highlights the need for applied research integrating traceability, circular economy principles, and climate mitigation within resource-producing countries. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Methodological approach This study applies a quantitative carbon footprint assessment within a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework to compare conventional primary mining (Business-AsUsual, BAU) with alternative urban mining recovery pathways (Recovery & Recycling, R&R). The methodological approach follows ISO 14044, ISO 14064-1:2018 [27], and the GHG Protocol [28]. The analysis focuses on Scope 1 emissions, including stationary and mobile combustion, and Scope 2 emissions associated with electricity consumption. A cradle-to-gate system boundary is adopted to ensure comparability between primary and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2