IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3831-d527432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing a Sustainability Assessment Framework for Selecting Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Technologies in Corporate Asset Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Jiean Ling

    (Research, Development and Innovation, Thames Water Utilities Ltd., Reading STW, Reading RG2 0RP, UK
    Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Eve Germain

    (Research, Development and Innovation, Thames Water Utilities Ltd., Reading STW, Reading RG2 0RP, UK)

  • Richard Murphy

    (Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Devendra Saroj

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

There is a growing demand for an integrated assessment to identify and select asset management options based on sustainability in the wastewater industry. However, water companies are often not equipped with a rigorous methodology and sufficient resources to perform sustainability assessments. Although many frameworks and tools for sustainability assessment have been developed in academia, practical challenges such as feasibility and usability remain when implementing sustainability assessment methods to support corporate decision-making. This study developed a Multi-Criteria Analysis based framework to evaluate wastewater treatment processes from a sustainability perspective. This study firstly explored the decision and organizational context of a water company with preliminary interviews and then applied the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with composite scores to evaluate wastewater technologies at a sewage treatment works. The preliminary interviews with stakeholders highlighted that the existing investment decisions were primarily driven by financial cost and compliance whilst calling for a wider consideration of other criteria. A selection of assessment criteria and indicators were then proposed to compare seven treatment technologies at a sewage treatment works. The results of composite scores indicated that the baseline activated sludge process (ASP) was the best option for this study. Experience from the development process highlighted usability, stakeholder engagement and the organizational context should all be considered as part of the design and implementation of the sustainability assessment. The insights from this study provide a valuable practical foundation for applying a multi-criteria approach to perform sustainability assessments and inform asset management decisions in the water company.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3831-:d:527432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3831/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3831/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. J. Foxon & G. Mcilkenny & D. Gilmour & C. Oltean-Dumbrava & N. Souter & R. Ashley & D. Butler & P. Pearson & P. Jowitt & J. Moir, 2002. "Sustainability Criteria for Decision Support in the UK Water Industry," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 285-301.
    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. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    4. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    5. Sala, Serenella & Ciuffo, Biagio & Nijkamp, Peter, 2015. "A systemic framework for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 314-325.
    6. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Roope Husgafvel, 2021. "Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-35, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Ye Sun & Tomohiro Akiyama, 2018. "An Empirical Study on Sustainable Agriculture Land Use Right Transfer in the Heihe River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    7. Anastasiia Moldavska, 2017. "Defining Organizational Context for Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Cross-Disciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Boggia, Antonio & Massei, Gianluca & Pace, Elaine & Rocchi, Lucia & Paolotti, Luisa & Attard, Maria, 2018. "Spatial multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: A new model for decision making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 281-292.
    9. Khalid Butti Al Shamsi & Paolo Guarnaccia & Salvatore Luciano Cosentino & Cherubino Leonardi & Paolo Caruso & Giuseppe Stella & Giuseppe Timpanaro, 2019. "Analysis of Relationships and Sustainability Performance in Organic Agriculture in the United Arab Emirates and Sicily (Italy)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Anastasiia Moldavska & Torgeir Welo, 2018. "Testing and Verification of a New Corporate Sustainability Assessment Method for Manufacturing: A Multiple Case Research Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-40, November.
    12. Arjan Kirkels & Vince Evers & Gerrit Muller, 2021. "Systems Engineering for the Energy Transition: Potential Contributions and Limitations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Jonas Ammenberg & Sofia Dahlgren, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part I—A Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Anastasiia Moldavska & Torgeir Welo, 2015. "Development of Manufacturing Sustainability Assessment Using Systems Thinking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, December.
    16. Andrea M. Prado & Ronald Arce & Luis E. Lopez & Jaime García & Andy A. Pearson, 2020. "Simulations Versus Case Studies: Effectively Teaching the Premises of Sustainable Development in the Classroom," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 303-327, January.
    17. Catherine Le Roux & Marius Pretorius, 2016. "Conceptualizing the Limiting Issues Inhibiting Sustainability Embeddedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3831-:d:527432. 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.