IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i14p3756-d247001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Potential, Performance and Feasibility of Urban Solutions: Methodological Considerations and Learnings from Biogas Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Lindfors

    (Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Roozbeh Feiz

    (Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Mats Eklund

    (Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Jonas Ammenberg

    (Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

Abstract

Many cities of the world are faced with multiple sustainability challenges, for example related to food and energy supply, transportation, waste management, clean air, and more. Preferably, these challenges are addressed with broad and interconnected solutions with the ambition of addressing several challenges simultaneously, in this paper referred to as multi-functional urban solutions. Implementation of multi-functional urban solutions requires well informed decisions, supported by knowledge about the potential contributions that the solutions can make to a more sustainable city as well as on issues that may hinder or facilitate their implementation. Thus, in this paper, we suggest a soft multi-criteria decision analysis method that can be used to gather and structure this knowledge. This method acknowledges the importance of incorporating local knowledge, is based on life-cycle thinking, and is flexible and open-ended by design so that it can be tailored to specific needs and conditions. The method contributes to existing practices in sustainability assessment and feasibility studies, linking and integrating potential and performance assessment with issues affecting solutions’ feasibility of implementation. This method offers a way for local authorities, researchers and exporting companies to organize and structure the diverse range of knowledge to be considered for more informed decisions regarding the implementation of multi-functional urban solutions. While the main contributions of the paper are methodological, brief descriptions of two studies that have applied this method to assess biogas solutions are shown as clarifying examples. One of these studies was performed in Chisinau, Moldova and the other in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Lindfors & Roozbeh Feiz & Mats Eklund & Jonas Ammenberg, 2019. "Assessing the Potential, Performance and Feasibility of Urban Solutions: Methodological Considerations and Learnings from Biogas Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3756-:d:247001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3756/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3756/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Michael Humphries Choptiany & Ron Pelot & Kate Sherren, 2014. "An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 445-458, May.
    2. Khan, Muhammad Imran & Yasmeen, Tabassam & Khan, Muhammad Ijaz & Farooq, Muhammad & Wakeel, Muhammad, 2016. "Research progress in the development of natural gas as fuel for road vehicles: A bibliographic review (1991–2016)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 702-741.
    3. Abhishek Chaudhary & David Gustafson & Alexander Mathys, 2018. "Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Jutta Geldermann & Otto Rentz, 2005. "Multi‐criteria Analysis for Technique Assessment:Case Study from Industrial Coating," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(3), pages 127-142, July.
    5. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 241-257.
    6. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    7. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    8. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    9. Vallejo, María Cristina & Burbano, Rafael & Falconí, Fander & Larrea, Carlos, 2015. "Leaving oil underground in Ecuador: The Yasuní-ITT initiative from a multi-criteria perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 175-185.
    10. Robert B. Gibson, 2006. "Beyond The Pillars: Sustainability Assessment As A Framework For Effective Integration Of Social, Economic And Ecological Considerations In Significant Decision-Making," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(03), pages 259-280.
    11. Ekener-Petersen, Elisabeth & Höglund, Jonas & Finnveden, Göran, 2014. "Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 416-426.
    12. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    13. Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    14. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1994. "Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 97-112, July.
    15. Asma Shahzad & Sara Hanif, 2014. "Techno-economic feasibility of biogas generation in Attari village, Ferozepur road, Lahore," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 977-993, October.
    16. Ruth Offermann & Thilo Seidenberger & Daniela Thrän & Martin Kaltschmitt & Sergey Zinoviev & Stanislav Miertus, 2011. "Assessment of global bioenergy potentials," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 103-115, January.
    17. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    18. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
    19. Linda Mayoux & Robert Chambers, 2005. "Reversing the paradigm: quantification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 271-298.
    20. Michael Martin & Frida Røyne & Tomas Ekvall & Åsa Moberg, 2018. "Life Cycle Sustainability Evaluations of Bio-based Value Chains: Reviewing the Indicators from a Swedish Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    21. Tomás B. Ramos, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment: Exploring the Frontiers and Paradigms of Indicator Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, February.
    22. Lönnqvist, Tomas & Silveira, Semida & Sanches-Pereira, Alessandro, 2013. "Swedish resource potential from residues and energy crops to enhance biogas generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 298-314.
    23. Brandt, Patric & Ernst, Anna & Gralla, Fabienne & Luederitz, Christopher & Lang, Daniel J. & Newig, Jens & Reinert, Florian & Abson, David J. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2013. "A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-15.
    24. Marco Bagliani & Egidio Dansero & Matteo Puttilli, 2010. "Territory and energy sustainability: the challenge of renewable energy sources," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(4), pages 457-472.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eftychia Ntostoglou & Dilip Khatiwada & Viktoria Martin, 2021. "The Potential Contribution of Decentralized Anaerobic Digestion towards Urban Biowaste Recovery Systems: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Yohannes A. Alamerew & Marianna Lena Kambanou & Tomohiko Sakao & Daniel Brissaud, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method of Product-Level Circularity Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    3. L. M. Fernández-Ahumada & J. Ramírez-Faz & R. López-Luque & A. Márquez-García & M. Varo-Martínez, 2019. "A Methodology for Buildings Access to Solar Radiation in Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Troullaki, Katerina & Rozakis, Stelios & Kostakis, Vasilis, 2021. "Bridging barriers in sustainability research: Α review from sustainability science to life cycle sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Idiano D'Adamo & Massimo Gastaldi & Ilhan Ozturk, 2023. "The sustainable development of mobility in the green transition: Renewable energy, local industrial chain, and battery recycling," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 840-852, April.
    6. Jonas Ammenberg & Sofia Dahlgren, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part I—A Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Gustafsson, M. & Anderberg, S., 2021. "Dimensions and characteristics of biogas policies – Modelling the European policy landscape," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Kanda, Wisdom & Hjelm, Olof, 2021. "Drivers for and barriers to the diffusion of biogas technologies through export," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Shabarish Shankaran & Tamilarasan Karuppiah & Rajesh Banu Jeyakumar, 2022. "Chemo-Sonic Pretreatment Approach on Marine Macroalgae for Energy Efficient Biohydrogen Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jörg Schweinle & Natalia Geng & Susanne Iost & Holger Weimar & Dominik Jochem, 2020. "Monitoring Sustainability Effects of the Bioeconomy: A Material Flow Based Approach Using the Example of Softwood Lumber and Its Core Product Epal 1 Pallet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-27, March.
    2. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Iker Etxano, 2020. "Weak or Strong Sustainability in Rural Land Use Planning? Assessing Two Case Studies through Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Attardi, Raffaele & Cerreta, Maria & Sannicandro, Valentina & Torre, Carmelo Maria, 2018. "Non-compensatory composite indicators for the evaluation of urban planning policy: The Land-Use Policy Efficiency Index (LUPEI)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 491-507.
    5. Roope Husgafvel, 2021. "Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-35, October.
    6. Jonas Ammenberg & Sofia Dahlgren, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part I—A Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    8. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    10. Paweł Ziemba, 2022. "Application Framework of Multi-Criteria Methods in Sustainability Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, December.
    11. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    12. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    13. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Valentin Grecu & Radu-Ilie-Gabriel Ciobotea & Adrian Florea, 2020. "Software Application for Organizational Sustainability Performance Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, May.
    15. Anastasiia Moldavska, 2017. "Defining Organizational Context for Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Cross-Disciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    16. Magdalena Krysiak & Aldona Kluczek, 2021. "A Multifaceted Challenge to Enhance Multicriteria Decision Support for Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-20, July.
    17. Matthew Cohen, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    18. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    19. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2000. "Ecological Economics: Themes, Approaches, and Differences with Environmental Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-080/3, Tinbergen Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3756-:d:247001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.