IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p2168-d1604136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability Analysis of Commercial-Scale Biogas Plants in Pakistan vs. Germany: A Novel Analytic Hierarchy Process—SMARTER Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Fizza Tahir

    (Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
    Department of Bioprocess Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Rizwan Rasheed

    (Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan)

  • Mumtaz Fatima

    (Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan)

  • Fizza Batool

    (Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan)

  • Abdul-Sattar Nizami

    (Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
    Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

The development of biogas technology is essential as a renewable energy source, aiding global initiatives in sustainable energy production and waste management. Geographical, technological, and economic factors significantly vary the efficiency and viability of biogas facilities by area. This study compares the techno-economic, social, and environmental impacts of biogas plants in Germany and Pakistan using a multicriteria decision-making method that combines the Analytic Hierarchy Process and SMARTER. This research has determined the weighting factors and then assessed the comparative performance of six selected biogas facilities based on five different scenarios: (i) comprehensive base-case, (ii) environmental performance, (iii) economic performance, (iv) social performance, and (v) per-kW energy efficiency. Three of these biogas facilities are in Pakistan (a low–medium-income developing country) and three in Germany (a high-income developed country). The findings of the study indicate that technical performance is the most heavily weighted criterion, playing a crucial role in determining the overall sustainability scores. Germany’s Bioenergie Park Güstrow stood out as the leading performer, achieving sustainability scores of 63.1%, 72.9%, and 73.0% across the comprehensive base-case, environmental, and per-kW efficiency scenarios, respectively. In the same scenarios, the Gujjar Colony Biogas Plant in Pakistan recorded the lowest scores of 25.4%, 43.2%, and 53.0%. The plants selected from a developed country showed a progressive score of high impact towards sustainability in most of the scenarios. In contrast, plants selected from a developing country showed low bioenergy deployment due to various factors, highlighting the gaps and flaws in achieving optimized energy generation and sustainable growth. The critical techno-economic and socio-environmental findings of the study are vital for policymakers, industry, engineers, and other relevant stakeholders seeking to enhance the performance, scalability, and sustainability of biogas technologies across developing and developed economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Fizza Tahir & Rizwan Rasheed & Mumtaz Fatima & Fizza Batool & Abdul-Sattar Nizami, 2025. "Sustainability Analysis of Commercial-Scale Biogas Plants in Pakistan vs. Germany: A Novel Analytic Hierarchy Process—SMARTER Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2168-:d:1604136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2168/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2168/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bihter Gizem Demircan & Kaan Yetilmezsoy, 2023. "A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Anna Sobczak & Ewa Chomać-Pierzecka & Andrzej Kokiel & Monika Różycka & Jacek Stasiak & Dariusz Soboń, 2022. "Economic Conditions of Using Biodegradable Waste for Biogas Production, Using the Example of Poland and Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Khatri, Krishan Lal & Muhammad, Amir Raza & Soomro, Shakir Ali & Tunio, Nadeem Ahmed & Ali, Muhammad Mubarak, 2021. "Investigation of possible solid waste power potential for distributed generation development to overcome the power crises of Karachi city," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Balibrea-Iniesta, José & Rodríguez-Monroy, Carlos & Núñez-Guerrero, Yilsy María, 2021. "Economic analysis of the German regulation for electrical generation projects from biogas applying the theory of real options," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    5. Yongrong Xin & Muhammad Khyzer Bin Dost & Hamza Akram & Waqas Ahmad Watto, 2022. "Analyzing Pakistan’s Renewable Energy Potential: A Review of the Country’s Energy Policy, Its Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Marco Tamburini & Roberta Pernetti & Manuela Anelli & Enrico Oddone & Anna Morandi & Adam Osuchowski & Simona Villani & Cristina Montomoli & Maria Cristina Monti, 2023. "Analysing the Impact on Health and Environment from Biogas Production Process and Biomass Combustion: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-29, March.
    7. Bai, Dongbei & Jain, Vipin & Tripathi, Mamta & Ali, Syed Ahtsham & Shabbir, Malik Shahzad & Mohamed, Mady A.A. & Ramos-Meza, Carlos Samuel, 2022. "Performance of biogas plant analysis and policy implications: Evidence from the commercial sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Kurka, Thomas, 2013. "Application of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the regional sustainability of bioenergy developments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 393-402.
    9. Rasheed, Rizwan & Tahir, Fizza & Yasar, Abdullah & Sharif, Faiza & Tabinda, Amtul Bari & Ahmad, Sajid Rashid & Wang, Yubo & Su, Yuehong, 2022. "Environmental life cycle analysis of a modern commercial-scale fibreglass composite-based biogas scrubbing system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 1261-1271.
    10. Rehan, Mohammad & Raza, Muhammad Amir & Aman, M.M. & Abro, Abdul Ghani & Ismail, Iqbal Mohammad Ibrahim & Munir, Said & Summan, Ahmed & Shahzad, Khurram & Rashid, Muhammad Imtiaz & Ali, Nadeem, 2023. "Untapping the potential of bioenergy for achieving sustainable energy future in Pakistan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    11. Kapil Dev Sharma & Siddharth Jain, 2020. "Municipal solid waste generation, composition, and management: the global scenario," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(6), pages 917-948, 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. Emrah Kocak & Hayriye Hilal Baglitas, 2022. "The path to sustainable municipal solid waste management: Do human development, energy efficiency, and income inequality matter?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1947-1962, December.
    2. Kawther Saeedi & Anna Visvizi & Dimah Alahmadi & Amal Babour, 2023. "Smart Cities and Households’ Recyclable Waste Management: The Case of Jeddah," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Kumar, Aman & Singh, Ekta & Mishra, Rahul & Lo, Shang Lien & Kumar, Sunil, 2023. "Global trends in municipal solid waste treatment technologies through the lens of sustainable energy development opportunity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    4. Anna Konstantinidou & Konstantinos Ioannou & Georgios Tsantopoulos & Garyfallos Arabatzis, 2024. "Citizens’ Attitudes and Practices Towards Waste Reduction, Separation, and Recycling: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-36, November.
    5. Abdul-Wahab Tahiru & Samuel Jerry Cobbina & Wilhemina Asare, 2024. "A Circular Economy Approach to Addressing Waste Management Challenges in Tamale’s Waste Management System," World, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-24, August.
    6. Ferdoush, Md. Ruhul & Aziz, Ridwan Al & Karmaker, Chitra Lekha & Debnath, Binoy & Limon, Mohammad Hossain & Bari, A.B.M. Mainul, 2024. "Unraveling the challenges of waste-to-energy transition in emerging economies: Implications for sustainability," Innovation and Green Development, Elsevier, vol. 3(2).
    7. Thakur, Disha & Kumar, Sanjay & Kumar, Vineet & Kaur, Tarlochan, 2024. "Estimation of calorific value using an artificial neural network based on stochastic ultimate analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Sławomir Kasiński & Marcin Dębowski, 2024. "Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Source: Advances in Thermochemical Conversion Technologies and Environmental Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-33, September.
    9. Felicien Sebahire & Faridullah Faridullah & Muhammad Irshad & Aziz Ur Rahim Bacha & Farhan Hafeez & Jean Nduwamungu, 2024. "Effect of Biochar on Composting of Cow Manure and Kitchen Waste," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, September.
    10. Chi Ho Li & Tsz Ting Lee & Stephen Siu Yu Lau, 2023. "Enhancement of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Hong Kong through Innovative Solutions: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.
    11. Igor Donskoy, 2023. "Particle Agglomeration of Biomass and Plastic Waste during Their Thermochemical Fixed-Bed Conversion," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-25, June.
    12. Lynda Andeobu & Santoso Wibowo & Srimannarayana Grandhi, 2023. "Environmental and Health Consequences of E-Waste Dumping and Recycling Carried out by Selected Countries in Asia and Latin America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-28, July.
    13. Xiaotong Pan & Jian Tang & Heng Xia & Tianzheng Wang, 2023. "Online Combustion Status Recognition of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Process Using DFC Based on Convolutional Multi-Layer Feature Fusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-26, November.
    14. Marwa Hannouf & Getachew Assefa, 2018. "A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment-Based Decision-Analysis Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, October.
    15. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    16. Muhammad Amir Raza & Muhammad Mohsin Aman & Altaf Hussain Rajpar & Mohamed Bashir Ali Bashir & Touqeer Ahmed Jumani, 2022. "Towards Achieving 100% Renewable Energy Supply for Sustainable Climate Change in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    17. Wang, Zhiwei & Lei, Tingzhou & Chang, Xia & Shi, Xinguang & Xiao, Ju & Li, Zaifeng & He, Xiaofeng & Zhu, Jinling & Yang, Shuhua, 2015. "Optimization of a biomass briquette fuel system based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process: A study using cornstalks in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 523-532.
    18. Ewa Chomać-Pierzecka & Andrzej Kokiel & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Anna Sobczak & Dariusz Soboń & Jacek Stasiak, 2022. "Hydropower in the Energy Market in Poland and the Baltic States in the Light of the Challenges of Sustainable Development-An Overview of the Current State and Development Potential," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, October.
    19. Abdel-Mohsen O. Mohamed & Dina Mohamed & Adham Fayad & Moza T. Al Nahyan, 2024. "Enhancing Decision Making and Decarbonation in Environmental Management: A Review on the Role of Digital Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-34, August.
    20. Raza, Muhammad Amir & Khatri, Krishan Lal & Hussain, Arslan, 2022. "Transition from fossilized to defossilized energy system in Pakistan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 19-29.

    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:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2168-:d:1604136. 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.