IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3742-d176316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental-Economic Analysis of Integrated Organic Waste and Wastewater Management Systems: A Case Study from Aarhus City (Denmark)

Author

Listed:
  • Marianne Thomsen

    (Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

  • Daina Romeo

    (Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

  • Dario Caro

    (Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

  • Michele Seghetta

    (Centre for Environment and Agricultural Informatics, Cranfield University, College Rd, Wharley End, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK)

  • Rong-Gang Cong

    (Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of the environmental and economic performances of four integrated waste and wastewater management scenarios in the city of Aarhus in Denmark. The purpose of this analysis is to deliver decision support regarding whether (i) the installation of food waste disposers in private homes (AS1) or (ii) separate collection and transport of organic waste to biogas plants is a more viable environmental and economic solution (AS2). Higher environmental benefits, e.g., mitigation of human health impacts and climate change, are obtained by transforming the existing waste combustion system into scenario (ii). Trade-offs in terms of increased marine eutrophication and terrestrial ecotoxicity result from moving up the waste hierarchy; i.e., from waste incineration to biogas production at wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic sludge digestion. Scenario (i) performs with lower energy efficiency compared to scenario (ii). Furthermore, when considering the uncertainty in the extra damage cost to the sewer system that may be associated to the installation of food waste disposers, scenario (ii) is the most flexible, robust, and less risky economic solution. From an economic, environmental, and resource efficiency point of view, separate collection and transport of biowaste to biogas plants is the most sustainable solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianne Thomsen & Daina Romeo & Dario Caro & Michele Seghetta & Rong-Gang Cong, 2018. "Environmental-Economic Analysis of Integrated Organic Waste and Wastewater Management Systems: A Case Study from Aarhus City (Denmark)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3742-:d:176316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3742/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3742/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rong-Gang Cong & Mette Termansen & Mark V. Brady, 2017. "Managing soil natural capital: a prudent strategy for adapting to future risks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 439-463, August.
    2. Weidema, Bo Pedersen, 2009. "Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1591-1598, April.
    3. Brady, Mark & Hedlund, Katarina & Cong, Rong-Gang & Hemerik, Lia & Hotes, Stefan & Machado, Stephen & Mattsson, Lennart & Schulz, Elke & Thomsen, Ingrid K., 2015. "Valuing Supporting Soil Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: a Natural Capital Approach," MPRA Paper 112303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Cong, Rong-Gang & Hedlund, Katarina & Andersson, Hans & Brady, Mark, 2014. "Managing soil natural capital: An effective strategy for mitigating future agricultural risks," MPRA Paper 112155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Yang Zhou & Bo Yang & Jingcheng Han & Yuefei Huang, 2018. "Robust Linear Programming and Its Application to Water and Environmental Decision-Making under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. David Palma-Heredia & Manel Poch & Miquel À. Cugueró-Escofet, 2020. "Implementation of a Decision Support System for Sewage Sludge Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Emma Lindkvist & Magnus Karlsson & Jenny Ivner, 2019. "Systems Analysis of Biogas Production—Part I Research Design," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-12, March.

    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. Mark V. Brady & Jordan Hristov & Fredrik Wilhelmsson & Katarina Hedlund, 2019. "Roadmap for Valuing Soil Ecosystem Services to Inform Multi-Level Decision-Making in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2015. "Mitigation of Large-Scale Biofuel Expansion with Smallholder Conflict: Modelling of Land Use Dynamics using Control Theory for Policy Design to Sustain Food Security and Improve Productivity," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 225669, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2018. "Soil Fertility Management by Transition Matrices and Crop Rotation: On Spatial and Dynamic Aspects in Programming of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Sahrbacher, Christoph & Brady, Mark & Dong, Changxing & Sahrbacher, Amanda, 2015. "Potential impact of CAP’s Ecological Focus Areas on soil fertility," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212284, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    6. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Durand-Morat, Alvaro & Meredith, Kylie & Parajuli, Ranjan & Thoma, Greg & Henry, Christopher G., 2021. "Holistically valuing public investments in agricultural water conservation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    7. Bell, David R. & Silalertruksa, Thapat & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Kamens, Richard, 2011. "The net cost of biofuels in Thailand--An economic analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 834-843, February.
    8. Ahlroth, Sofia, 2014. "The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 34-41.
    9. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    10. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    11. Dejan Živkov & Suzana Balaban & Marijana Joksimović, 2022. "Making a Markowitz portfolio with agricultural commodity futures," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(6), pages 219-229.
    12. Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı & Elçin Filiz Taş, 2023. "Single Score Environmental Performances of Roof Coverings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, March.
    13. Jørgen Dejgård Jensen & Henrik Saxe & Sigrid Denver, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of a New Nordic Diet as a Strategy for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.
    14. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    15. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Jakub Jan Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2023. "External Environmental Costs of Solid Biomass Production against the Legal and Political Background in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-27, May.
    16. S. Ferreira & M. Cabral & N.F. da Cruz & P. Simões & R.C. Marques, 2017. "The costs and benefits of packaging waste management systems in Europe: the perspective of local authorities," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(5), pages 773-791, May.
    17. Xiao-Chen Yuan & Bao-Jun Tang & Yi-Ming Wei & Xiao-Jie Liang & Hao Yu & Ju-Liang Jin, 2015. "China’s regional drought risk under climate change: a two-stage process assessment approach," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 76(1), pages 667-684, March.
    18. Brady, Mark & Hedlund, Katarina & Cong, Rong-Gang & Hemerik, Lia & Hotes, Stefan & Machado, Stephen & Mattsson, Lennart & Schulz, Elke & Thomsen, Ingrid K., 2015. "Valuing Supporting Soil Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: a Natural Capital Approach," MPRA Paper 112303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Marcell Mariano Corrêa Maceno & Samuel João & Danielle Raphaela Voltolini & Izabel Cristina Zattar, 2023. "Life cycle assessment and circularity evaluation of the non-medical masks in the Covid-19 pandemic: a Brazilian case," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8055-8082, August.
    20. Nguyen, Thu Lan Thi & Laratte, Bertrand & Guillaume, Bertrand & Hua, Anthony, 2016. "Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 13-23.

    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:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3742-:d:176316. 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.