IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v43y2023i1d10.1007_s10669-022-09885-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structured decision making for assessment of solid waste-to-energy systems for decentralized onsite applications

Author

Listed:
  • Anna E. Tovkach

    (Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering)

  • John C. Boyle

    (Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering)

  • Enoch A. Nagelli

    (Department of Chemistry and Life Science)

  • Corey M. James

    (Department of Chemistry and Life Science)

  • Pamela L. Sheehan

    (U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Demilitarization & Experimental Directorate, Army Futures Command, CCDC-AC)

  • Andrew R. Pfluger

    (Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering)

Abstract

In many situations centralized collection and treatment of solid waste is not practical. In these decentralized scenarios, onsite treatment can be used to meet treatment objectives such as maintaining public health and environmental quality, managing logistical constraints, generating power, and reducing solid waste production. For decades, the United States military has used open-air burn-pits (OBPs) to dispose of solid waste due to ease of use and low cost. However, OBPs have many negative consequences, including negative human health impacts, air quality impacts, and large quantities of residual waste. Waste-to-energy technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are alternatives to OBPs. This study presents a value-based, multi-step structured decision making (SDM) analysis of three pyrolysis technologies and three gasification technologies for solid waste-to-energy treatment on decentralized forward operating bases (FOBs) of three different sizes (120-personnel, 1,200-personnel, 12,000-personnel). The OBP was also considered for comparison. Forward deployed military soldiers were considered the stakeholders. A total of 18 value measures, constructed value measure plots, swing weights, and global weights were used to determine overall weighted values for comparative analysis of each technology considering four functional perspectives (human health and environment, waste reduction, logistical, and power generation). Results of this study suggest that both the functional perspective of the stakeholders and size of the community play an important role in determining the appropriate technology. Specifically, the SDM analysis found one gasification technology (labeled G1) and one pyrolysis technology (P1) had consistently higher overall values, suggesting these technologies were more appropriate from the perspective of the considered functional measures. A notable exception was the identification of the OBP as the most valuable and appropriate technology at the smallest military FOB size (i.e., a 120-person company-sized FOB) when logistical considerations were weighted most heavily. The value-based SDM approach presented in this study can be leveraged by others seeking to employ similar analyses for waste-to-energy technologies used in remote, on-site, self-sustainable scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna E. Tovkach & John C. Boyle & Enoch A. Nagelli & Corey M. James & Pamela L. Sheehan & Andrew R. Pfluger, 2023. "Structured decision making for assessment of solid waste-to-energy systems for decentralized onsite applications," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 54-71, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:43:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-022-09885-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-022-09885-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-022-09885-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-022-09885-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiong, Jie & Ng, Tsan Sheng Adam & Wang, Shuming, 2016. "An optimization model for economic feasibility analysis and design of decentralized waste-to-energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 239-251.
    2. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali & Rostom, Madona & Malmir, Behnam & Yazdani, Morteza & Suh, Sangwon & Heidrich, Oliver, 2022. "Integrating life cycle assessment and multi criteria decision making for sustainable waste management: Key issues and recommendations for future studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Kuznetsova, Elizaveta & Cardin, Michel-Alexandre & Diao, Mingzhen & Zhang, Sizhe, 2019. "Integrated decision-support methodology for combined centralized-decentralized waste-to-energy management systems design," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 477-500.
    4. Murphy, J.D. & McKeogh, E., 2004. "Technical, economic and environmental analysis of energy production from municipal solid waste," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 1043-1057.
    5. Margaret H. Kurth & Sabrina Larkin & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis: use in government agencies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 134-143, June.
    6. David G Hyatt & Nicholas Berente, 2017. "Substantive or Symbolic Environmental Strategies? Effects of External and Internal Normative Stakeholder Pressures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1212-1234, December.
    7. Rocco, Matteo V. & Di Lucchio, Alberto & Colombo, Emanuela, 2017. "Exergy Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production from Waste-to-Energy technology: A Hybrid Input-Output approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 832-844.
    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. Liu, Jianrui & Kua, Harn Wei & Wang, Chi-Hwa & Tong, Yen Wah & Zhang, Jingxin & Peng, Yinghong, 2023. "Extended exergy accounting theory to design waste-to-energy management system under uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(PB).
    2. Busola D. Akintayo & Oluwafemi E. Ige & Olubayo M. Babatunde & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Evaluation and Prioritization of Power-Generating Systems Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    4. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. William L. Smith & Yue Cai Hillon & Yanni Liang, 2019. "Reassessing measures of sustainable firm performance: A consultant's guide to identifying hidden costs in corporate disclosures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 353-365, February.
    6. Guelpa, Elisa & Bischi, Aldo & Verda, Vittorio & Chertkov, Michael & Lund, Henrik, 2019. "Towards future infrastructures for sustainable multi-energy systems: A review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 2-21.
    7. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Amir Noori & Hossein Bonakdari & Khosro Morovati & Bahram Gharabaghi, 2018. "The optimal dam site selection using a group decision-making method through fuzzy TOPSIS model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-488, December.
    9. Clementino, Ester & Perkins, Richard, 2020. "How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103046, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Ren, Siyue & Feng, Xiao & Wang, Yufei, 2021. "Emergy evaluation of the integrated gasification combined cycle power generation systems with a carbon capture system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Rubí Medina-Mijangos & Luis Seguí-Amórtegui, 2020. "Research Trends in the Economic Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1980 to 2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Murphy, J.D. & Power, N., 2009. "Technical and economic analysis of biogas production in Ireland utilising three different crop rotations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 25-36, January.
    13. Ricky Y. K. Chan, 2021. "Do chief information officers matter for sustainable development? Impact of their regulatory focus on green information technology strategies and corporate performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2523-2534, July.
    14. Andrzej Pacana & Dominika Siwiec & Jacek Pacana, 2023. "Fuzzy Method to Improve Products and Processes Considering the Approach of Sustainable Development (FQE-SD Method)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.
    15. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Preview of the June issue featuring literature reviews of MCDA and articles authored by students," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 121-122, June.
    16. Souad Ahmed Benromdhane, 2021. "A multi-attribute utility model for environmental decision-making: an application to casting," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 21-32, March.
    17. Strong, Peter & Shenvi, Aditi & Yu, Xuewen & Papamichail, K. Nadia & Wynn, Henry P. & Smith, Jim Q., 2023. "Building a Bayesian decision support system for evaluating COVID-19 countermeasure strategies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113632, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Milutinović, Biljana & Stefanović, Gordana & Dassisti, Michele & Marković, Danijel & Vučković, Goran, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis as a tool for sustainability assessment of a waste management model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 190-201.
    19. Bujak, Janusz Wojciech, 2015. "Production of waste energy and heat in hospital facilities," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 350-362.
    20. Lixiang Wang & Weian Li & Lujun Qi, 2020. "Stakeholder Pressures and Corporate Environmental Strategies: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, 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:spr:envsyd:v:43:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-022-09885-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.