IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16397-d996739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decentralized Composting Analysis Model—Benefit/Cost Decision-Making Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Shira Daskal

    (The Natural Resources and Environmental Research Center (NRERC), University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel)

  • Omar Asi

    (The Institute of Applied Research, The Galilee Society, Shefa-Amr 2020000, Israel)

  • Isam Sabbah

    (The Institute of Applied Research, The Galilee Society, Shefa-Amr 2020000, Israel
    Prof. Ephraim Katzir Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Braude College, Karmiel 2161002, Israel)

  • Ofira Ayalon

    (The Natural Resources and Environmental Research Center (NRERC), University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel
    The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel)

  • Katie Baransi-Karkaby

    (The Institute of Applied Research, The Galilee Society, Shefa-Amr 2020000, Israel
    The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel)

Abstract

Municipal solid waste management is considered one of the major environmental challenges. Organic waste, especially food waste, usually accounts for over 50 wt% of municipal solid waste, yet, in most countries, it is the least recovered material. Decentralized composting aims to develop a new framework of waste management, building a closed-loop system for the composting of home, community, and commercial organic waste in urban environments. However, in some cases, decentralized composting is not economically and/or environmentally viable. Even when it is viable, various barriers and challenges need to be addressed in many cases. Different models in the literature address certain aspects of organic waste management, such as food waste treatment technology, recovery of energy, site selection, or environmental impact. The objective of this study is to provide guidelines and a methodological framework to quantify economic, social, operational, environmental, and regulatory aspects, in order to examine the viability and feasibility of decentralized composting projects at any given location. The decentralized composting analysis model proposed in this study has been developed with an innovative approach to decentralized composting project planning and design, an approach that is both holistic and very practical. The innovative model incorporates various aspects to examine the viability of decentralized composting projects based on benefit/cost criteria. In this respect, a result obtained through another model that examines a specific aspect of decentralized composting can be used as input for the model presented here. The decentralized composting analysis model provides a powerful tool for decision makers, based on the quantification of the decentralized composting project characteristics, and a benefit/cost index that takes into account the various impact variables. The decentralized composting analysis model allows examining the viability of the decentralized composting project in different scenarios, locations and options, and can help indicate the most viable alternative. In this paper, we describe the decentralized composting analysis model and its methodological framework, along with numerical examples to demonstrate its implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Shira Daskal & Omar Asi & Isam Sabbah & Ofira Ayalon & Katie Baransi-Karkaby, 2022. "Decentralized Composting Analysis Model—Benefit/Cost Decision-Making Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16397-:d:996739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16397/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16397/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin R. Jenkins & Elizabeth Kopits & David Simpson, 2009. "The Evolution of Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulation in the United States," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 104-120, Winter.
    2. Cecilia Bruni & Çağrı Akyol & Giulia Cipolletta & Anna Laura Eusebi & Donatella Caniani & Salvatore Masi & Joan Colón & Francesco Fatone, 2020. "Decentralized Community Composting: Past, Present and Future Aspects of Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Martin, M. & Williams, I.D. & Clark, M., 2006. "Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: A case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 357-395.
    4. Shaw, Peter J., 2008. "Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 775-784.
    5. Wilson, C.D.H. & Williams, I.D., 2007. "Kerbside collection: A case study from the north-west of England," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 381-394.
    6. Timlett, R.E. & Williams, I.D., 2008. "Public participation and recycling performance in England: A comparison of tools for behaviour change," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 622-634.
    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. Struk, Michal, 2017. "Distance and incentives matter: The separation of recyclable municipal waste," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 155-162.
    2. Muise, Isaac & Adams, Michelle & Côté, Ray & Price, G.W., 2016. "Attitudes to the recovery and recycling of agricultural plastics waste: A case study of Nova Scotia, Canada," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 137-145.
    3. Dhokhikah, Yeny & Trihadiningrum, Yulinah & Sunaryo, Sony, 2015. "Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 153-162.
    4. Waite, Steve & Cox, Paul & Tudor, Terry, 2015. "Strategies for local authorities to achieve the EU 2020 50% recycling, reuse and composting target: A case study of England," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 18-28.
    5. Boonrod, K. & Towprayoon, S. & Bonnet, S. & Tripetchkul, S., 2015. "Enhancing organic waste separation at the source behavior: A case study of the application of motivation mechanisms in communities in Thailand," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 77-90.
    6. Bernstad, A. & la Cour Jansen, J. & Aspegren, A., 2013. "Door-stepping as a strategy for improved food waste recycling behaviour – Evaluation of a full-scale experiment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 94-103.
    7. Byrne, Susan & O’Regan, Bernadette, 2014. "Attitudes and actions towards recycling behaviours in the Limerick, Ireland region," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 89-96.
    8. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Yeboah, Felix K. & Thorp, Laurie & Wilson, Aimee M., 2009. "Garnering input for recycling communication strategies at a Big Ten University," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(11), pages 612-623.
    9. Suttibak, Samonporn & Nitivattananon, Vilas, 2008. "Assessment of factors influencing the performance of solid waste recycling programs," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 45-56.
    10. Timlett, R.E. & Williams, I.D., 2009. "The impact of transient populations on recycling behaviour in a densely populated urban environment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(9), pages 498-506.
    11. Babaei, Ali Akbar & Alavi, Nadali & Goudarzi, Gholamreza & Teymouri, Pari & Ahmadi, Kambiz & Rafiee, Mohammad, 2015. "Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 94-100.
    12. Hancong Ma & Mei Li & Xin Tong & Ping Dong, 2023. "Community-Level Household Waste Disposal Behavior Simulation and Visualization under Multiple Incentive Policies—An Agent-Based Modelling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Guang Han & Ping Zhai & Liqun Zhu & Kongqing Li, 2023. "Economic Incentives, Reputation Incentives, and Rural Residents’ Participation in Household Waste Classification: Evidence from Jiangsu, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Baihui Jin & Wei Li, 2023. "External Factors Impacting Residents’ Participation in Waste Sorting Using NCA and fsQCA Methods on Pilot Cities in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-21, February.
    15. Fontecha, John E. & Nikolaev, Alexander & Walteros, Jose L. & Zhu, Zhenduo, 2022. "Scientists wanted? A literature review on incentive programs that promote pro-environmental consumer behavior: Energy, waste, and water," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    16. Massimo Beccarello & Giacomo Di Foggia, 2022. "Managerial Functions of an Independent Coordinating Body in the Governance of Waste Management," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-48, December.
    17. Timlett, R.E. & Williams, I.D., 2008. "Public participation and recycling performance in England: A comparison of tools for behaviour change," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 622-634.
    18. Zhaojing Yu & Bin Wang & Xiaoya Jiang & Weimin Zeng & Runlan Yu & Xiaoyan Wu & Li Shen & Xueling Wu & Jiaokun Li & Yuandong Liu, 2023. "Behavior and Biochemical Mechanism of High Iron Attapulgite Dosages Affecting Sewage Sludge Composting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-13, August.
    19. Zhang, Suopeng & Zhang, Mingli & Yu, Xueying & Ren, Hao, 2016. "What keeps Chinese from recycling: Accessibility of recycling facilities and the behavior," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 176-186.
    20. Prestin, Abby & Pearce, Katy E., 2010. "We care a lot: Formative research for a social marketing campaign to promote school-based recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 1017-1026.

    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:24:p:16397-:d:996739. 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.