IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p1916-d327843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment Alternatives: The Case of Oita City, Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Micky A. Babalola

    (Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739 8524, Japan)

Abstract

As the generation of food scrap, kitchen, and biodegradable wastes increases, the proper handling of these wastes is becoming an increasingly significant concern for most cities in Japan. A substantial fraction of food and biodegradable waste (FBW) ends up in the incinerator. Therefore, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) benefit–cost analysis technique was employed in this study to compare different FBW treatment technologies and select the most appropriate FBW disposal technology for Oita City. The four FBW treatment options considered were those recommended by the Japanese Food Waste Recycling Law: anaerobic digestion, compost, landfill, and incineration, which is currently in use. The fundamental AHP was separated into two hierarchy structures for benefit analysis and cost analysis. The criteria used in these two analyses were value added, safety, efficiency, and social benefits for benefit analysis, and cost of energy, cost of operation and maintenance, environmental constraints, and disamenity for cost analysis. The results showed that anaerobic digestion had the highest overall benefit while composting had the least cost overall. The benefit–cost ratio result showed that anaerobic digestion is the most suitable treatment alternative, followed by composting and incineration, with landfill being the least favored. The study recommends that composting could be combined with anaerobic digestion as an optimal FBW management option in Oita City.

Suggested Citation

  • Micky A. Babalola, 2020. "A Benefit–Cost Analysis of Food and Biodegradable Waste Treatment Alternatives: The Case of Oita City, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1916-:d:327843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1916/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1916/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wedley, William C. & Choo, Eng Ung & Schoner, Bertram, 2001. "Magnitude adjustment for AHP benefit/cost ratios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 342-351, January.
    2. Micky A. Babalola, 2019. "A System Dynamics-Based Approach to Help Understand the Role of Food and Biodegradable Waste Management in Respect of Municipal Waste Management Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & J. Willis, Robert & Deng, Hepu & Pan, Hongqi, 1999. "Task oriented weighting in multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 130-146, November.
    4. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Anagnostopoulos, K.P. & Petalas, C., 2011. "A fuzzy multicriteria benefit-cost approach for irrigation projects evaluation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(9), pages 1409-1416, July.
    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. Atsushi Shimahata & Mohamed Farghali & Masahiko Fujii, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Willingness of Dairy Farmers to Adopt Biogas Plants: A Case Study in Hokkaido, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Khan, Feroz & Ali, Yousaf, 2022. "Moving towards a sustainable circular bio-economy in the agriculture sector of a developing country," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Ziyao Fan & Huijuan Dong & Yong Geng & Minoru Fujii, 2023. "Life cycle cost–benefit efficiency of food waste treatment technologies in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 4935-4956, June.
    4. Indranil De & Rooba Hasan & Mubashshir Iqbal, 2022. "Natural Treatment Systems and Importance of Social Cost Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Luis Diaz-Balteiro & Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2020. "Sustainability as a Multi-Criteria Concept: New Developments and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-5, September.

    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. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    2. Mohammed Said Obeidat & Tarek Qasim & Aseel Khanfar, 2018. "Implementing the AHP multi-criteria decision approach in buying an apartment in Jordan," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 53-71, January.
    3. Burak, Selmin & Samanlioglu, Funda & Ülker, Duygu, 2022. "Evaluation of irrigation methods in Söke Plain with HF-AHP-PROMETHEE II hybrid MCDM method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    4. Prin Boonkanit & Kridchai Suthiluck, 2023. "Developing a Decision-Making Support System for a Smart Construction and Demolition Waste Transition to a Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-27, June.
    5. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    6. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    7. Nina Almasifar & Tülay Özdemir Canbolat & Milad Akhavan & Roberto Alonso González-Lezcano, 2021. "Proposing a New Methodology for Monument Conservation “SCOPE MANAGEMENT” by the Use of an Analytic Hierarchy Process Project Management Institute System and the ICOMOS Burra Charter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    8. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    9. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    10. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    11. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    12. Lim, Chulmin & Rowsell, Joe & Kim, Seongcheol, 2023. "Exploring the killer domains to create new value: A Comparative case study of Canadian and Korean telcos," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 277998, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    13. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    14. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Karasakal, Esra & Aker, Pınar, 2017. "A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 79-92.
    16. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    17. Rubio-Aliaga, Alvaro & García-Cascales, M. Socorro & Sánchez-Lozano, Juan Miguel & Molina-Garcia, Angel, 2021. "MCDM-based multidimensional approach for selection of optimal groundwater pumping systems: Design and case example," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 213-224.
    18. Saeed Nosratabadi & Gergo Pinter & Amir Mosavi & Sandor Semperger, 2020. "Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models," Papers 2003.13423, arXiv.org.
    19. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    20. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.

    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:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1916-:d:327843. 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.