IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p14867-d969134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Criteria Analysis for Evaluating Constructed Wetland as a Sustainable Sanitation Technology, Jordan Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed M. N. Masoud

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, Via Branze, 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Marika Belotti

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, Via Branze, 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Amani Alfarra

    (Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 00100 Rome, Italy)

  • Sabrina Sorlini

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, Via Branze, 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

Abstract

There is a growing demand for integrating an assessment tool to select wastewater treatment alternatives based on sustainability in the Jordanian wastewater sector. The sector in Jordan has a unique and critical situation that has raised concerns among stakeholders, including donors, and international and national organizations, to carefully select a sustainable treatment system for each case. The Jordanian government set a tool to distinguish between treatment systems, and this tool is mainly focused on financial criteria. However, the sector needs to integrate assessment tools with a wider consideration of other sustainability criteria. Usually, stakeholders are not equipped with a clear methodology to perform sustainability assessments. Therefore, this study proposes and develops a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) tool to evaluate wastewater treatment alternatives from a sustainability perspective for a case study in Jordan—Al Azraq town. Firstly, the study explored the decision and organizational context of the wastewater sector through several interviews. Secondly, assessment criteria and indicators were proposed to compare three proposed treatment alternatives. Finally, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied with composite scores to evaluate wastewater treatment alternatives. Finally, The results of the composite scores indicated that French Constructed Wetland (FCW) was the best option for this case study, with a score of 3.13, followed by Stabilization Pond (SP) as the second sustainable option, with a score of 2.67, and lastly, Activated Sludge (AS), with a score of 2.07. Several conclusions have been highlighted during the process development, such as the importance of selecting sustainability indicators carefully, and engaging stakeholders during the design and implementation of the assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed M. N. Masoud & Marika Belotti & Amani Alfarra & Sabrina Sorlini, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Analysis for Evaluating Constructed Wetland as a Sustainable Sanitation Technology, Jordan Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-24, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14867-:d:969134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14867/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14867/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shervin Hashemi, 2020. "Sanitation Sustainability Index: A Pilot Approach to Develop a Community-Based Indicator for Evaluating Sustainability of Sanitation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Hugé, Jean & Waas, Tom & Eggermont, Gilbert & Verbruggen, Aviel, 2011. "Impact assessment for a sustainable energy future'Reflections and practical experiences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6243-6253, October.
    3. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    4. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Tom Waas & Jean Hugé & Thomas Block & Tarah Wright & Francisco Benitez-Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability Assessment and Indicators: Tools in a Decision-Making Strategy for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Isabel Domínguez & Edgar Ricardo Oviedo-Ocaña & Karen Hurtado & Andrés Barón & Ralph P. Hall, 2019. "Assessing Sustainability in Rural Water Supply Systems in Developing Countries Using a Novel Tool Based on Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-22, September.
    7. Adaman, Fikret & KaralI, Nihan & Kumbaroglu, Gürkan & Or, Ilhan & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2011. "What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 689-698, February.
    8. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Alexandros I. Stefanakis, 2019. "The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Jeffrey C. Cegan & Ashley M. Filion & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 123-133, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jiean Ling & Eve Germain & Richard Murphy & Devendra Saroj, 2021. "Designing a Sustainability Assessment Framework for Selecting Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Technologies in Corporate Asset Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Tobias Engelmann & Daniel Fischer & Marianne Lörchner & Jaya Bowry & Holger Rohn, 2019. "“Doing” Sustainability Assessment in Different Consumption and Production Contexts—Lessons from Case Study Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Aleksandra Płonka & Mariusz Dacko & Łukasz Satoła & Aneta Dacko, 2022. "The Idea of Sustainable Development and the Possibilities of Its Interpretation and Implementation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Etheldreder Trecia Koppa & Innocent Musonda & Sambo Lyson Zulu, 2023. "A Systematic Literature Review on Local Sustainability Assessment Processes for Infrastructure Development Projects in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-37, January.
    6. Philipp Kranabitl & Clemens Faustmann & Hannes Hick, 2021. "Decision Making for Sustainable Technical Applications with the SMH Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Roope Husgafvel, 2021. "Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-35, October.
    8. Anastasiia Moldavska & Torgeir Welo, 2015. "Development of Manufacturing Sustainability Assessment Using Systems Thinking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Catherine Le Roux & Marius Pretorius, 2016. "Conceptualizing the Limiting Issues Inhibiting Sustainability Embeddedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    10. Justyna Patalas-Maliszewska & Hanna Łosyk, 2020. "An Approach to Assessing Sustainability in the Development of a Manufacturing Company," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    12. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Svatava Janoušková & Tomáš Hák & Bedřich Moldan, 2018. "Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Sungjo Hong & Ihl Kweon & Bum-Hyun Lee & Heechul Kim, 2019. "Indicators and Assessment System for Sustainability of Municipalities: A Case Study of South Korea’s Assessment of Sustainability of Cities (ASC)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, November.
    16. Johan Du Plessis & Wouter Bam, 2018. "Comparing the Sustainable Development Potential of Industries: A Role for Sustainability Disclosures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, March.
    17. Kajsa Borgnäs, 2017. "Indicators as ‘circular argumentation constructs’? An input–output analysis of the variable structure of five environmental sustainability country rankings," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 769-790, June.
    18. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    19. Catherine Dezio & Davide Marino, 2018. "Towards an Impact Evaluation Framework to Measure Urban Resilience in Food Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    20. Marcellinus Essah, 2022. "Gold mining in Ghana and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring community perspectives on social and environmental injustices," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 127-138, February.

    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:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14867-:d:969134. 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.