Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing

economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment
Imran Khan a, b, *, Zobaidul Kabir c
a
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore-7408, Bangladesh
b
Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
c
School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To attain the sustainable development goals of the United Nations with a focus on the circular economy,
Received 17 August 2019 it is necessary to explore every possible sustainable option in different sectors. Of these, sustainable
Accepted 28 December 2019 waste management and electricity for all are the two most vital goals. However, to date, sustainability
Available online 31 December 2019
assessments of waste-to-energy (electricity) generation technologies have been limited in scale with
respect to the three-dimensional sustainability framework (economic, environmental, and social). Most
Keywords:
often, the assessments were dominated by environmental factors/indicators, omitting the social and
Waste-to-energy
economic indicators. This study thus considered a large number of indicators (34) with due importance
Sustainable waste management
Waste-to-electricity
placed on the three dimensions of sustainability towards sustainability assessment of four waste-to-
Circular economy energy options; incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion (AD). Among the four
Developing countries technologies, AD and incineration are found as the most and least sustainable waste-to-energy tech-
nologies, respectively. Gasification, pyrolysis, and AD were found to be 33%, 65%, and 111% more sus-
tainable waste-to-energy generation technologies than incineration. These findings were then discussed,
paying particular attention to the developing world with a focus on Bangladesh, where waste-to-energy
generation is yet to be developed. This is important for policymakers’ future development plans for waste
management systems and renewable electricity generation in similar contexts of the developing world.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United
Nations (UN) is SDG-11, in particular, SDG-11.61: “By 2030, reduce
the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by
paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste
management”. It is a challenge to achieve this goal by 2030, globally,
since cities are expanding at a rate 1.5 times that of population
growth, as identified in the latest report of sustainable develop-
ment goals, 2018 [1]. Consequently, the generation of waste is
increasing rapidly, and it was estimated by the World Energy
Council (WEC) that more than 6 million tonnes of waste per day
will be generated by 2025 [2]. It was found that although three
* Corresponding author. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore, Bangladesh.
E-mail addresses: ikr_ece@yahoo.com, i.khan@just.edu.bd (I. Khan), zobaidul.
kabir@newcastle.edu.au, kabirz85@hotmail.com (Z. Kabir).
1 2
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11.
quarters of municipal solid waste (MSW) was collected, it was not
treated in a sustainable way [1]. Thus, waste management remains
a major challenge, particularly in the developing world. In addition,
the concept of circular economy is in line with the SDG-11.6, that is,
reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover. Try to reduce the waste in the
first instance; if possible, reuse something that we normally throw
away after single use; recycle something that is neither suitable for
reducing or reusing; and try to recover resources (e.g., waste to
energy) after all the three previous steps have been undertaken
[3,4].
On the other hand, SDG-72 which is set to “Ensure access to
affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” by 2030.
To date, progress in achieving this goal is very slow, for instance,
global renewable energy share increased slightly from 17.3% in 2014
to 17.5% in 2015 [1]. Moreover, there are many countries in Asia and
Sub-Saharan Africa, where access to electricity for their total pop-
ulations is yet to be achieved [5]. For example, 41 million people
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.132
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
have no access to electricity in Bangladesh [6].
A possible solution to these problems is waste-to-energy (WtE)
generation, particularly, electricity generation [7]. However, the
question remains: how sustainable will it be. In addition, most
previous sustainability studies in relation to WtE technologies have
been conducted in the developed world, and it was found that “…
lack of primary data and the under-representation of the life cycle
thinking concepts in developing countries are probably the main
reasons for the limited number of studies published for most devel-
oping regions” [8].
Moving towards a circular economy is one of the pre-requisites
for sustainable development, as it offers a number of benefits,
which include less environmental pollution by reducing green-
house gas emissions, improved security of supply of raw materials,
boosting economic growth and creating new jobs [9]. In addition,
studies suggest that a circular economy is ‘a condition for sustain-
ability, a beneficial relation, or a trade-off’ [10].
Most of the recent studies have paid attention to the sustain-
ability assessment of power generation technologies such as
renewable and non-renewable, or overall power generation system
sustainability for a country or region [100]. For example, Evans et al.
(2017) discussed the concepts of sustainability in relation to
different energy generation technologies. Similarly, sustainability
assessment of different generation technologies was conducted in
Ref. [11]. Power generation systems’ sustainability was assessed in
Refs. [12,13].
Studies to date have used the three-dimensional sustainability
assessment for WtE technologies, however with a limited number
of sustainability indicators, and their selection criteria vary from
one study to another. For example, a study in Serbia used only eight
indicators for the sustainability assessment of ‘waste is landfill’,
aerobic process, incineration, and anaerobic digestion. Of these
indicators, there were 3 environmental, 3 economic, and 2 social
indicators [14].
Another study conducted sustainability assessment of WtE
technologies using 5, 2, and 2 environmental, economic, and social
indicators, respectively. The authors assessed three WtE technolo-
gies: mechanical biological aerobic treatment without Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) energy recovery, mechanical biological anaer-
obic treatment and incineration with energy recovery and found
that incineration was the most sustainable WtE generation tech-
nology [15].
In Sri Lanka, a study considered only two municipal solid waste
(MSW) management systems in assessing their sustainability: open
dumping and sanitary landfill with gas recovery [16]. The authors
used 4, 1, and 3 indicators for environmental, economic and social
dimensions of sustainability and found that sanitary landfill with
gas recovery was sustainably better than open dumping.
Although sustainability assessments for electricity generation
from biomass were observed in the literature [17,18], WtE genera-
tion sustainability assessment, particularly, electricity generation
from waste in relation to the developing world has rarely been seen.
Therefore, the main focus of this paper is to close this gap in the
literature by assessing the sustainability of available WtE technol-
ogies using the sustainability framework (i.e., considering eco-
nomic, social, and environmental criteria) and discuss its potential
adoption in the developing world, particularly for Bangladesh, a
country that has not considered these technologies explicitly for
electricity generation.
Apart from these, a study in Serbia assessed the overall sus-
tainability of waste management systems for two cities and used
four sustainability criteria e waste, environmental, social, and
economic e with 3, 4, 2, and 3 indicators, respectively [19]. The
mechanical-biological treatment (recycling, composting and RDF
production) was found to be the most sustainable option. However,
321
the authors did not pay particular attention to waste to electricity
generation. In China, a sustainability model was proposed to assess
the sustainability of the MSW system, considering the life cycle
assessment (LCA), health risk assessment and full cost accounting
[20].
In recent years, the LCA approach has also been used extensively
in the literature in assessing environmental sustainability of WtE
systems. For example, sustainable waste management solutions for
the city of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil were investigated using the LCA
and found that involvement of anaerobic digestion along with
recyclable recovery provided the most environmentally sustainable
option [21]. Another study also used this method and found similar
results for the city of Sao Paulo in Brazil [22].
Environmental sustainability assessment was also conducted for
the WtE generation in the UK; the investigation was conducted for
incineration and biogas recovery from landfill waste using the LCA
approach [23]. The LCA was applied towards environmental sus-
tainability assessment of MSW management system of Sakarya,
Turkey [24]. Many other studies also used the LCA approach [102]
to assess the environmental performance of waste management
systems such as in China [20], Greece [25], Belgium [26], and Italy
[27].
In contrast with these studies, a study in China used a decou-
pling and decomposition analysis of the sustainability assessment
of solid waste management [28]. A study in Spain assessed the
environmental sustainability of WtE plants using as natural re-
sources sustainability and environmental burden sustainability as
the two main variables [29]. On the other hand, the LCA was also
used to evaluate the environmental impacts of a municipal solid
waste WtE plant and considered different operating conditions
such as cogeneration, power production only [30]. In Refs. [23,31],
they considered life cycle assessment of thermal (and landfill
biogas) WtE technologies in relation to sustainability.
The objective of this paper is twofold: first, to assess the sus-
tainability of WtE (i.e., electricity) generation technologies; second,
to discuss the potential of sustainable WtE generation technology
with respect to the developing world towards achieving sustain-
able development using Bangladesh as an example. To identify the
sustainable WtE (i.e., electricity) generation technology, a large
number of sustainability indicators will be used. In addition, the
results obtained will be discussed with respect to the sustainable
development potential in the waste management sector of
Bangladesh, as an example of the developing world.
Compared with recent literature, this study is novel and
completely different from many previous studies, including the
authors’ own work [32] for a number of reasons. For example,
previous work considered Bangladesh’s total power generation
expansion plan and assessed its sustainability up to 2041, including
solar, wind, hydro, gas, oil, and nuclear, whereas this work assesses
the sustainability of waste to energy generation technologies only.
Towards a sustainable power generation sector, every possible
sustainable option needs to be considered for future power gen-
eration expansion plans. However, the power generation expansion
plan of Bangladesh did not consider this WtE generation option
explicitly [33]. Thus, this work shows which WtE generation
technology needs to be adopted by Bangladesh for its sustainable
development. In the previous work [32], only 19 sustainability in-
dicators were used for the total electricity generation systems; in
contrast, 34 indicators are used for this study for the WtE genera-
tion technologies only.
The rest of the article is organized as follows: section 2 discusses
the methodology used for the analysis. Section 3 presents the re-
sults of analysis. Section 4 indicates the prospect of WtE generation
technology adoption in Bangladesh as a developing country. Sec-
tion 5 discusses the findings in the context of developing world. The
322 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
final section concludes the article.
2. Methodology
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an effective decision-
making approach, and has been extensively used for the sustain-
ability assessment of electricity generation and waste management
systems. A growing body of literature in the field of municipal solid
waste (MSW) management has used MCDA [34e36] (for an
extensive list of studies that considered MCDA, see Ref. [37]). In
addition, it has been found that “… MCDA is the most popular
framework employed in previous studies on MSWM (Municipal Solid
Waste Management); MCDA methods help multiple stakeholders
evaluate the often conflicting criteria, communicate their different
preferences, and rank or prioritize MSWM strategies to finally agree on
some elements of these strategies and make an applicable decision”
[37]. Therefore, MCDA has been employed for the sustainability
assessment of WtE generation technologies in this study. The step
by step methodology used for this sustainability assessment is
illustrated in Fig. 1. These steps are explained in the following
sections.
2.1. Selection of WtE generation technologies
According to the recent World Energy Council (WEC) report,
WtE conversion can be achieved through three processes: thermo-
chemical, bio-chemical and chemical [2]. These processes are
shown in Fig. 2. In thermo-chemical processes, the energy in the
waste is recovered through heating and the available processes are
incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis. These processes vary
depending on temperature and the amount of oxygen used.
Bio-chemical processes involve the use of micro-organisms (e.g.,
bacteria) to recover the energy from waste in the form of a gas or
liquid, which can then be utilized to generate electricity. Available
processes are anaerobic digestion, fermentation, landfill with gas
recovery, and use of microbial fuel cell.
Selection of WtE (electricity)
generation technologies
Sustainabilty criteria
selection
Identification of
sustainability indicators
Multi-criteria decision
analysis
Sustainability assessment
Identification of sustainable
WtE technology
Fig. 1. Methodology used for the sustainability assessment.
Incineration
Thermo-
Gasification
chemical
Pyrolysis
Waste
Anaerobic
Digestion
WtE Bio-chemical
Fermentation
Lanfill with gas
capture
Chemical Esterification
Fig. 2. Waste-to-energy generation technologies [2].
On the other hand, chemical conversion involves only esterifi-
cation, in which a reaction occurs between acid and alcohol to form
an ester.
Of these technologies, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and
anaerobic digestion were chosen for the sustainability assessment
because they are comparatively well-developed in the waste
management sector globally [38]. Moreover, these technologies can
be used even in the developing world as part of a proper waste
management system, if capital costs can be confirmed. Whereas,
‘landfill with gas recovery’ was not taken into account, as many
previous studies found that this is the least sustainable WtE con-
version technique, for example see Refs. [23,39]. Detailed descrip-
tion of these technologies can be found in some recent literature,
such as [38,40,41].
The other consideration for the selection of these technologies
for sustainability assessment was electricity generation opportu-
nities. The sustainability assessment of these selected technologies
will be conducted by taking into account the intended output of the
systems as electricity, as depicted in Fig. 3.
2.2. Sustainability criteria selection
“Sustainability provides a framework for integrating economic,
environmental and social interests into effective strategy” [42]. Thus,
this framework has been employed to assess the sustainability of
WtE technologies in this study and the main criteria are economic,
environmental, and social. Based on these criteria, different in-
dicators were selected from the literature.
2.3. Identification of sustainability indicators
Sustainability indicators are important for the local government,
community as well as for the country’s government in accounting
and monitoring their respective sustainable development goals and
targets [43]. To be more specific, indicators help to select the type of
data that need to be assessed to guide policymaking, and this al-
lows a comparison between regions and nations in relation to
sustainable development. At the same time, the sustainable plan
and policies can also be reflected through sustainable indicators.
Sustainability indicators can be selected in two different ways: (i)
top-down, which is used by policymakers, (ii) bottom-up, used by
local community or region [44,45]. The former involves in-depth
analysis in selecting indicators, whereas the latter mainly con-
siders a wide range of indicators. However, it is good practice to
select some common indicators that cover both categories. These
indicators must be easily understandable and comparable among
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333 323

Biogas
Anaerobic Digestion Gas Engine

Gasification

Electricity
Waste

Syngas
Refuse Derived Fuel
Gas Turbine

Pyrolysis Gasification

Steam
Incineration/Combustion Steam Turbine

Fig. 3. Electricity generation from waste using different technologies considered in this study (showing basic steps only).

different sustainability goals [44]. In addition, “ …. nobody can treated with care, and must always be related to other data” [45].
pretend that a single number can adequately express the often- Keeping these sustainability indicator selection criteria in mind,
complex relationships between social, economic, and environmental a related literature search revealed a total of 41 indicators,
issues. For that reason, the values given by indicators have to be including economic, environmental, and social indicators. Of these,

Table 1
List of sustainability indicators used for the analysis.

Criteria No. Indicators (Units of Measure) Major References Used as Data Sources

Economic 1 Capital cost (US$/tonne of MSW/year) [2,39,41,46-56]

2 Operational cost (US$/tonne of MSW/year)
3 Turbine price (US$)
4 Service life (in years)
5 Efficiency (%) [Turbine or Engine]
6 Temperature (in degree C)
7 Oxygen requirement (comparative measure)
8 Annual average calorific value required (MJ/kg)
9 Availability (%)
10 Maximum waste moisture that can handle (%)
11 Low BTU & wet waste handling capacity
12 High BTU waste handling capacity
Environmental 13 Land use (m2) [2,13,23,31,41,48,49,56e62]
14 Water use (comparative measure)
15 Pollutants generation (types)
16 Life cycle CO2 emission/kWh
17 Overall emissions (kgCO2-e/kWh)
18 SOx emission (mg/m3)
19 NOx emission (mg/m3)
20 Particulate matters (mg/m3)
21 Ash (% of fuel mass) RDF/Mass
22 Noise [Construction þ Operation þ Traffic] (comparative measure)
23 Dust (comparative measure)
24 Odour (comparative measure)
25 Litter (comparative measure)
Social 26 People displacement (comparative measure) [63e76]
27 Disturbance to existing social infrastructure and services (comparative measure)
28 Visual disturbance due to infrastructure (comparative measure)
29 Heat wave (comparative measure)
30 Public health risk (comparative measure)
31 New job creation (comparative measure)
32 Impact on land value (comparative measure)
33 Community acceptance (comparative measure)
34 Local economy development (comparative measure)
324 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
Fig. 4. Box and whisker plot shows variations in efficiency of different types of turbine used for electricity generation. Within each box, the horizontal line (and cross) is the median
(and average) efficiency, and the lower (and upper) edges of the box are the 25th (75th) percentile. Whiskers represent the upper and lower ranges. (Major data sources: [48e52]).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
7 overlapped with other similar type of indicators such as capital
cost and investment cost, visual disturbance and aesthetic view,
cancer and public health risks, CO2 emission and life cycle CO2
emission; thus, one of these was retained and the other was
eliminated. A total of 34 indicators were selected for the analysis, of
which 12 were economic, 13 environmental, and 9 social. It should
be noted that some economic indicators were completely technical
(e.g., turbine efficiency) but included as economic because tech-
nological improvement of any indicators requires financial
involvement. Another reason for the inclusion of these technolog-
ical indicators in the economic dimension was to maintain the
overall three-dimensional sustainability framework (i.e., economic,
environmental, and social). All these indicators are listed in Table 1.
If the indicators’ value varied over a range, the average value was
considered for those indicators. For instance, the turbine efficiency
varied over a wide range and thus the average was considered, as
illustrated in Fig. 4.
After obtaining all the indicators’ values (except qualitative ones
such as social indicators) these were interpreted in a common scale,
high, medium, moderate, and low, thus making it easy to assign
related weight during the MCDA, to be discussed in the multi-
criteria decision analysis section.
Regarding the selection of social indicators, particular attention
was paid to avoiding any overlap. Social indicators are completely
different from economic and environmental ones and are difficult
to select, as they are mainly qualitative, and need to be selected so
that their impacts can be scaled as high, medium, moderate and
low with respect to the WtE generation technologies considered in
this study. Also, the impacts were analysed according to whether
they were direct or indirect, and positive or negative. In this paper,
only direct and potentially significant impacts including positive
and negative were taken into account. In addition, selection of so-
cial indicators was made so that they are operational, reliable, value
relevant, and justifiable [77]. For example, ‘operational’ status en-
sures the selection capability of the decision makers.
All these indicators (including economic, environmental, and
social) have been selected for this analysis for a number of reasons.
First, they are frequently used in the literature for sustainability
assessment of different electricity generation technologies (see
Table 1). Second, most of these indicators are also used as the pa-
rameters for any new power plant’s environmental and social
impact assessment (ESIA). For example, see a recent ESIA report of
225 MW dual fuel (gas and oil based) combined cycle power plant
in Bangladesh [73]. In the case of social indicators, these are pre-
dominantly considered from different types of power plants’ ESIA
reports such as renewable [72], non-renewable [73]. Major data
sources that are used for this analysis are listed in Table 1.
2.4. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
For criteria selection, following considerations were taken into
account towards effective MCDA: (i) value relevance of the criteria,
(ii) understandability, (iii) measurability, (iv) non-redundancy, (v)
judgement independence, and (vi) balancing between complete-
ness and conciseness [77].
The general MCDA process is illustrated in Fig. 5. For this anal-
ysis, the goal was to assess the sustainability of four WtE generation
technologies and the criteria were economic, environmental, and
social, as listed in Table 1. Optimal conditions were chosen through
quantitative (e.g., most economic and environmental indicators)
and qualitative (e.g., social indicators) measures of different in-
dicators. The former were chosen through their numerical values
and the latter selected based on comparative measures as high,
medium, moderate, and low.
Different MCDA methods can be used for the study based on the
nature of analysis and information availability. However, the aim of
each method is to ensure more formalized and effective decision-
making process. Thus, the well-known subjective weighting
method: Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique Exploiting Ranks
(SMARTER) was used to rank the indicators [78,79]. Detailed step
by step procedure can be found in Refs. [78,80]. One of the main
advantages of SMARTER is its capability to explain the method of
evaluation more precisely than objective weighting methods [81].
If N is the number of total technologies considered, then the
weight of the indicator for the kth technology will be [32]:
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333 325

Where:
Goal
W cT : Total score reflecting the performance of technology T on
criterion c.
T: WtE generation technology; e.g. incineration, gasification.
c: Criterion; e.g. economic, environmental, social.
Criteria wk : Indicator specific assigned weight obtained from Equation
(1).

Alternatives Using Equation (3), the sustainability dimension (SD) for each
WtE generation technology was calculated:

Optimal 1
SDT ¼  W cT (3)
conditions Nc

Where:

SDT: Technology specific sustainability dimension.

Nc : Number of indicators for criterion c.
Weights W cT : Total score reflecting the performance of technology T on
criterion c.

Most of the used indicators were quantifiable through their

numerical values with units except the social indicators, for which
comparative measures were used. Therefore, weight assignment
was straightforward, and no expert opinion was necessary. For
MCD Method example, the economic factors such as capital costs, technological
efficiency, and temperature are quantifiable with specific numeric
values. On the other hand, the social indicators were chosen in such
a way that a clear comparative measure can be made. For instance,
as a public health risk, heat waves are comparatively higher for
incineration than others. In addition, every possible source of in-
Alternative formation in the literature was used to assign weights for the
ranking qualitative (i.e., social) indicators. A similar approach was also used
in Ref. [32].

2.5. Sustainability assessment

Using Equations (1)e(3) the sustainability dimensions for each

Best alternative
Fig. 5. Multi-criteria decision analysis process (Source: [77]).
WtE generation technology under investigation is calculated and
presented in the results section. Results reveal the most and least
sustainable WtE generation technologies.
3. Results

X
 In this section the results obtained from the sustainability

1 N 1 assessment are presented. The analysis of results suggest that
wk ¼ (1)
N i anaerobic digestion (AD) and incineration are the most and least
i¼k
sustainable options in relation to the waste to electricity genera-
Here, w1  w2  : : : : : : : :  wk , w1 þ w2 þ : : : : : : : þ wk ¼ tion, respectively. Sustainability of gasification and pyrolysis, on the
1, N ¼ 4, and k ¼ 1 to 4. other hand, sits between those two. However, pyrolysis was found
The calculated weights [using Equation (1)] of the indicators for comparatively more sustainable than gasification.
different WtE technologies are listed in Table A1 in the Appendix. In comparison (considering incineration as the reference tech-
The highest weight has been assigned to a WtE generation tech- nology), gasification was found to be about 33% more sustainable
nology that is comparatively better than others [32]. For instance, than incineration. This is predominantly due to the environmental
electricity conversion efficiency of a gas engine was found higher performance of gasification technology. Similarly, pyrolysis was
than others, thus, the highest weight was assigned to the gas en- also outperformed in the environmental dimension compared with
gine and the lowest to a steam turbine. incineration along the social dimension. As a result, pyrolysis was a
WtE generation technology-specific indicators’ weights were 65% more sustainable WtE generation technology than incinera-
added to obtain the total score for a WtE technology using Equation tion. Comparatively, AD was found to be more economic than the
(2). other technologies. Environmental indicators also contributed to a
X greater sustainability score, along with economic indicators for AD.
W cT ¼ wk (2)
Thus, AD was found as the best sustainable option in comparison
indicators
with incineration and was found to be 111% more sustainable than
incineration. All these differences can be seen in Fig. 6.
326 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
3.1. Environmental dimension
In the case of environmental sustainability dimension, anaer-
obic digestion scored highest followed by pyrolysis. Because AD
plant typically requires less land (although it depends on plant
capacity), emits less pollutants, has overall low emissions per kWh,
and produces less dust than other technologies. The least envi-
ronmentally sustainable WtE technology was incineration followed
by gasification.
3.2. Economic dimension
In terms of the economic sustainability dimension, AD has
outperformed other technologies, as mentioned earlier, and this is
due to comparatively low capital, operational costs, and turbine
price. In addition, AD typically uses gas engines to generate elec-
tricity, which is more efficient than turbines [51]. Furthermore, AD
requires less operational temperature (for digestion) than the other
technologies considered. The next most economic sustainable op-
tion after AD was found to be gasification, followed by pyrolysis. In
contrast, the least economic sustainable option was incineration.
3.3. Social dimension
The AD technology was also found to be the most sustainable
Fig. 6. Sustainability dimensions (i.e., economic, environmental, and social) of waste-to-energy generation technologies considering all the indicators as listed in Table 1.
option in relation to the social sustainability dimension. The AD
was found to be 49% more sustainable on the social dimension
compared to incineration; primarily the social indicators such as
visual disturbance due to technology involvement, heat wave
generation, public health risk, and community acceptance of the
project were found responsible. The next socially sustainable op-
tion was found to be pyrolysis due to its low people displacement
rate and minimal disturbance to existing social infrastructure.
Although incineration has achieved the highest score on the social
dimension compared with the other two sustainability dimensions
(i.e., environmental and economic), it was in the third position
within this dimension. The reasons for this were the positive im-
pacts on society from incineration, such as new job creation and
local economy development. The least socially sustainable option
was found to be gasification, which was about 13% less sustainable
than incineration within this dimension (see Fig. 6).
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
Impact determination of an input variable on the output of an
analysis with different alternatives is known as sensitivity analysis.
Sensitivity analysis indicates the robustness of the results obtained
from a model or system under uncertainty. It also reveals the
relationship between input variables and outcomes of a system.
For this analysis, the output will vary if there is a drastic change
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
Fig. 7. Stack height variation for incineration and gasification WtE plants. (Data source:
[49]). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the Web version of this article.)
in weight assignment of the indicators. However, this weight
assignment might vary for the indicators for which the unit of
measures used were comparable rather than exact numerical value.
For instance, most of the economic indicators had specific numer-
ical values (see Table 1), thus, weight assignment for these types of
indicators were straightforward without any uncertainty.
In this analysis, a gas engine was considered to generate elec-
tricity from biogas in AD, because in a developing country context,
the capital and maintenance costs for a gas engine are less than
those for a gas turbine [51]. Moreover, gas engines are easy to
install. It is to be noted that gas turbines can also be used instead of
gas engines in AD technology for electricity generation. Although
gas engines are more efficient than gas turbines [51], if a gas engine
in AD technology is replaced by a gas turbine there would not be
any change in the overall results of the analysis.
The same is true for environmental indicators except noise, dust,
odour, and litter, for which, weights were assigned through
comparative measures. On the other hand, all the social indicators’
weights were assigned based on comparative measures, that is,
qualitative synthesis. “… the purpose of a qualitative synthesis would
be to achieve greater understanding and attain a level of conceptual or
theoretical development beyond that achieved in any individual
empirical study” [82]. Thus, based on related qualitative synthesis
with the help of the literature and relevant data sources these
comparative measures were considered, and weights were
assigned. For example, ‘visual disturbance’ due to WtE plant
infrastructure (e.g., stack height) might vary between two tech-
nologies. Stack height variations between incineration and gasifi-
cation is illustrated in Fig. 7 [49].
Clearly, visual disturbance due to stack height for incineration
would be higher than gasification. Even though stack height is
increased for gasification, it is unlikely that the height would
exceed the incineration WtE plant with the same capacity.
Although this may be true, it is still possible to obtain different
results due to the change in qualitative indicators. Consideration of
each of these qualitative indicators with different drastic changes in
value might generate different results. However, detailed verifica-
tion of these changes is beyond the scope of this study and left for
future work.
4. Prospect in the developing world: the case of Bangladesh
While technologies to generate electricity from waste have been
developed to a substantial extent in many countries globally,
Bangladesh is still trying to opt into these technologies because of
327
the lack of technical information that could enhance possible in-
vestment. This section focusses on the possible adoption of po-
tential sustainable WtE generation technology given the
comparative analysis based on the results and current socio-
economic and waste management conditions of the country. A
recent feasibility study conducted by the Sustainable and Renew-
able Energy Development Authority (SREDA) in Bangladesh with
the support of UNDP with respect to WtE conversion found that the
waste in Bangladesh consists of ash (A), combustible (C) compo-
nent, and water (W) or moisture of about 10e20%, 20e30%, and
57e67%, respectively [56]. On average, wastes in Bangladesh
consist of 60.88% water, 26.06% combustible component, and 18%
ash. However, the conditions for a fuel (here waste) to be
combustible without any additional auxiliary fuel are: W<50%,
C>25% and A<60% [83]. These are depicted in Fig. 8.
Although the combustible component and ash content of Ban-
gladeshi waste are within the condition, water content is higher
than the standard. In addition, the combustible component is
marginally useful to be combustible (see Fig. 8). To check further,
these values are plotted in the ‘tanner triangle’ in Fig. 9. If a fuel falls
within the grey shaded area of this triangle, it indicates that the fuel
is combustible without any auxiliary fuels. Clearly, waste in
Bangladesh is not suitable for combustion as it falls outside the grey
shaded area (see Fig. 9).
Furthermore, the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research (BCSIR) found the calorific value of Bangladeshi waste is
about 6.048 MJ/kg [56], which is lower than the required value
(>7 MJ/kg) for a waste to be used for incineration or gasification.
Although the pyrolysis process is able to use the waste with lower
calorific value, the maximum water content that can be handled is
about 10% [56]. Although pretreatment of the waste can be carried
out to lower the moisture content and to improve the calorific
value, this requires additional energy. Thus, none of the three WtE
generation technologies is able to deal with Bangladeshi waste, due
to its composition. On the other hand, AD is the only available WtE
generation technology that can be used to treat Bangladeshi waste,
as it is able to treat waste with low calorific value (~4 MJ/kg) and
high water (~85%) contents [50]. The AD is not only suitable to deal
with Bangladeshi waste but also a sustainable option, found from
this analysis.
5. Discussion
The major challenges associated with WtE generation in relation
to three sustainability dimensions e economic, environmental and
social e are discussed in this section. These include the capital costs
for necessary facilities development, the vulnerability of the facil-
ities, the lower heating value, emissions and especially public
resistance to WtE generation [84].
Gasification and pyrolysis were considered as feasible alterna-
tives to incineration from a technical and financial point of view,
and were labelled as a less polluting technology, compared to
incineration. However, the “advanced technology and operating re-
quirements, highly specific waste input needs and high upfront capital
costs make this technology difficult to apply at scale” [85]. In addition,
these two technologies are not yet widely known by communities,
particularly in developing countries.
Both pyrolysis and gasification are relatively environment
friendly compared with incineration technology [86]. However,
there is a problem with economic viability. Due to high ‘operation
and maintenance costs’ the economics of the technologies can
further be measured as acceptable if the by-products (e.g., gas,
coke) have sufficient market value. In Bangladesh, marketing for
these products is yet to be created. Compared to all other WtE
technologies presented in this analysis, gasification and pyrolysis
328 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333

60.88

60
50

26.06

25

18
W C A

Fig. 8. Comparison between average waste contents (in %) in Bangladesh and the standard. W: water or moisture, C: combustibility, A: ash. Black Bars: Bangladesh average waste
contents; White Bars: Standard [Conditions for a waste to be combustible: W<50, C>25, A<60] [83].

are the most expensive [85].
It is possible to meet the demand of wastes in operating the WtE
power plant in Bangladesh given the density of municipal pop-
ulations. Public actors have almost no experience with WtE and
recruitment of skilled national staff is difficult for both public and
private sectors [85]. This is the current scenario in Bangladesh.
Additionally, the calorific value of waste in Bangladesh is less than
7 MJ/kg, with a high-water content. Given these conditions, this
analysis found that AD is relatively more suitable than any other
technologies. Globally, several countries are using AD technology,

Fig. 9. Tanner triangle showing the combustibility of Bangladeshi waste. Grey coloured area indicates the capability of any fuel to be combusted without any auxiliary fuels. Red
coloured area showing possible ranges of combustibility of Bangladeshi wastes. Black coloured area showing the average combustible point for Bangladeshi waste. (For inter-
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
particularly in Europe for treating MSW. For instance, in Denmark,
Germany and Switzerland, several anaerobic digesters that treat
MSW have been successfully implemented [87].
The AD is more environment friendly than any of the three
technologies given the minimal release of pollutants. The draw-
backs of anaerobic technology are: first, it requires a continuous
supply of waste; and second, segregation of waste before the main
process might be expensive. In Bangladesh, continuous supply of
the waste can be ensured either from the residential sector or from
agricultural waste, ideally both. Additionally, Bangladesh is a
tropical country with a warm to hot climate and therefore addi-
tional temperature requirements for the AD process might not be
necessary all year round. However, temperature control is neces-
sary for effective digestion. In terms of segregation of wastes, there
is already an informal system (i.e., scavengers) that separate the
recyclable items from the waste; the process may need to be
improved and more systematic given the requirements of the plant.
Segregation of wastes at source (e.g., households), which is very
common in the developed world [88], could be an effective
solution.
5.1. Sustainable WtE technology for Bangladesh
In terms of sustainability of the WtE generation technologies,
AD was found to be the sustainable option in relation to the waste
composition, continuous waste supply, socio-economic and envi-
ronmental factors, and could be a viable option for developing
countries towards sustainable development. Bangladesh was cho-
sen as a representative developing country to discuss the findings,
as the type of waste generated would be similar to that of other
developing nations, that is, dominated by water content [89].
5.1.1. Economic factors
The economic feasibility of a technology depends on its tech-
nical features, process efficiency, resource consumption and output
value including by-products. While incineration technology is
widely used for waste to energy generation, many municipalities
recognize the benefits of gasification over incineration [90]. The
syngas produced by gasification is multipurpose and can be used
for energy storage and power generation [90]. This difference al-
lows gasification to capture energy content from waste at a higher
efficiency, especially in the absence of a heat load. The ability to
clean syngas before it is combusted to produce electricity decreases
air pollutants from gasification.
Comparing gasification and pyrolysis, the products of pyrolysis
are char (solid residue), pyrolysis oils and combustible gases
(syngas). The net calorific value for the syngas produced through
pyrolysis is about 10e20 MJ/Nm3 and is suitable for liquid fuel
production [2]. However, an additional heat source is required for
pyrolysis to maintain the temperature of the overall process. On the
other hand, gasification is a thermal process. Syngas produced from
gasification has a relatively lower net calorific value (4e10 MJ/Nm3)
than pyrolysis. The gasification process is faster than pyrolysis [91].
In both processes, efficient energy recovery from syngas through a
gas clean process is costly.
Although Samolada and Zabaniotou (2014) found “pyrolysis
seems to be the optimal thermochemical treatment option compared
to incineration and gasification” [25], in general, from the economic
point of view, AD was found better than any of the three processes
mentioned above. This is because it requires comparatively lower
capital and operational costs [41]. For example, it requires a rela-
tively low operating temperature compared with the other three
WtE technologies [48]. Relatively less heat is required for producing
biogas. In addition, the calorific value for biogas (23 MJ/Nm3) is
higher than that for syngas [92]. The by-products (i.e., digestate) of
329
this technology are convertible to fertilizer. One of the main ad-
vantages of AD is that “it is very flexible as it can be designed in
multiple ways, according to the context in which is intended to
operate” [2]. If small scale waste to energy technology is used,
anaerobic technology is suitable in the context of the developing
world, like Bangladesh. Adoption of this technology has also been
suggested by two very recent feasibility studies undertaken by GIZ
and SREDA in Bangladesh [56,85].
5.1.2. Social factors
Incinerators are still viewed by the public to be incredibly
harmful to society including social disturbance, and disturbance to
the local community. Comparatively, establishment of an inciner-
ation power plant with certain capacity requires more land than
other available WtE technologies. Due to growing environmental
awareness, public opposition is forming against this technology
[84]. For example, in Shenzhen, China, the community protested
against the installation of an incineration power plant close to the
local community as it emits toxic pollutants [93]. Incineration
plants pose diverse health risks to the local community living close
to the plant [94].
In the context of developing world, in this case Bangladesh, one
of the most densely populated countries, displacement of people
from the project site may be necessary given the space required for
the plant. Pyrolysis and gasification technologies have relatively
more social acceptance than incineration, but are costlier than
anaerobic technology. Social acceptance of anaerobic technology is
higher than other technologies in the developing world [87]. Given
the results and other sources of supports, anaerobic technology can
be socially feasible in Bangladesh: visual disturbance, heat waves,
and public health risks, for instance, are comparatively lower for AD
than for other WtE technologies.
5.1.3. Environmental factors
Results show that from an environmental perspective anaerobic
technology is relatively more suitable than any other technologies.
Incineration generates more pollutants than any other options such
as pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic technologies. Incineration
emits more GHGs such as SOx, NOx, COx than pyrolysis, gasification
and anaerobic digestion. This technology also potentially causes
soil and water pollution due to heavy metals such as cadmium,
thallium and mercury in fly ash, and bottom ash [41]. In addition, it
is responsible for polluting air by releasing particulates, especially
PM10. There are also perceived health risks from highly carcino-
genic dioxins produced from incineration plants. It was also found
that noise from the operation of incineration plant is relatively
higher than for any of the three options. In contrast, noise from the
operation of anaerobic digestion is negligible due to its design.
In Bangladesh, air and soil pollution, particularly in urban areas,
is higher than the national standard because of industrial pollution.
Enforcement of environment law in Bangladesh is still weak [95]. In
this context, incineration technology would not be suitable due to
the high emission of pollutants. On the other hand, studies show
that anaerobic digestions technology emits almost half of CO2
emitted by incineration or pyrolysis and gasification technologies
from per unit MWh electricity generation [96e98]. Furthermore,
Bangladesh is a land-hungry country. In this situation, incineration
technology is less suitable compared with other technologies.
Notably, incineration technology requires relatively more land than
any other technologies with the same generation capacity [49].
5.2. Related findings in the literature
Anaerobic digestion was also found to be one a suitable WtE
generation technologies in many recent studies. For example,
330 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
Liikanen et al. (2018) found that “… the environmental impacts of
MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) management in Sao Paulo can be most
effectively diminished by anaerobic digestion of source separated
organic waste …” [22]. Similar environmental friendliness of AD
technology was also found by Ref. [21]. In an early study, Cherubini
et al. (2009) found that “… a sorting plant coupled with electricity
and biogas production is very likely to be the best option for waste
management …” [27]. Considering energy generation, economic
and environmental factors, AD was found to be better than landfill
gas recovery in Nigeria [87]. In contrast, Othman et al. (2013) found
that the adoption of the thermal treatment options for waste
management is suitable for low income countries [99].
Overall, as identified by Kumar and Samadder (2017) “… the
most feasible MSWM (Municipal Solid Waste Management) solu-
tions in developing countries are anaerobic digestion for organic
wastes, incineration for mixed MSW (other than biodegradable waste),
pyrolysis and gasification for specific type of wastes (plastic, tyre,
electronic equipment, electric waste, wood waste, etc.) and land-filling
for inert wastes.” Although this may be true from the waste man-
agement point of view, this analysis suggests that the most sus-
tainable option in WtE generation in Bangladesh is anaerobic
digestion.
5.3. Policy implications
It can be seen that waste composition in the developing coun-
tries is dominated by organic wastes, which is the case in
Bangladesh [89]. Considering organic waste (e.g., food waste)
dominated MSW, anaerobic digestion might be a sustainable waste
management solution, as well as electricity generation option for
the developing economies, where access to electricity for its total
population is yet to be achieved. Proper implementation of this
type of sustainable WtE generation project in such countries
require a national energy policy which needs to take into account
the following:
 Government support should be provided to institutions willing
to implement sustainable anaerobic digestion WtE projects.
 Government subsidies should be provided for AD-based WtE
generation power plant rather than for all WtE technologies.
 In the early stages, local government needs to play a vital role in
advertising the benefits of sustainable WtE generation plant,
particularly using anaerobic digestion.
 Governments should encourage the local establishment and
production of electricity from AD-based WtE generation. This
will ensure significantly reduced costs of electricity generation
from a sustainable source, local investment, and jobs. These
positive impacts will inspire other communities and localities to
adopt the same sustainable WtE plant.
 Joint-venture AD-based WtE projects with foreign companies
need to be encouraged. This will allow local institutions to learn
about the latest technology in relation to WtE generation.
Table A1
Weights assigned to different waste-to-energy generation technologies for economic, environmental, and social indicators, following the method as employed in Ref. [32].
Criteria No. Indicators
Economic 1 Capital cost (US$/tonne of MSW/year)
2 Operational cost (US$/tonne of MSW/year)
3 Turbine price (US$)
4 Service life (in years)
5 Efficiency (%) [Turbine or Engine]
6 Temperature (in degree C)
7 Oxygen requirement (comparative measure)
8 Annual average calorific value required (MJ/kg)
 Regulations towards a sustainable WtE generation need to be
established [101].
6. Conclusion
Sustainability assessment of four common waste-to-energy
generation technologies has been conducted in this study with a
particular focus on the developing world, Bangladesh in this case. In
addition, only electricity generation was considered in this
assessment. A three-dimensional sustainability framework was
used to assess the sustainability of the WtE generation technolo-
gies. A total of 34 indicators were used; of these, 12 were economic,
13 environmental, and 9 social. Results suggest that anaerobic
digestion and incineration were the most and least sustainable WtE
technologies, respectively. Furthermore, analysis found that
anaerobic digestion is also a sustainable WtE generation technol-
ogy in the developing world for a number of reasons: first, the
majority of wastes in the developing countries are organic wastes,
which are dominated by water content, and are thus, suitable for
anaerobic digestion. Second, anaerobic digestion is one of the very
flexible WtE generation technologies, which can be implemented
from very small to large scale in accordance with needs. Third,
compared with syngas produced from gasification and pyrolysis,
the calorific value of biogas obtained from anaerobic digestion is
high, and it is thus capable of generating more electricity through
combustion either using gas engines or turbines. Although this is
true, the efficiency of the gas engine or turbine also plays a vital role
in generating electricity. Overall, anaerobic digestion is socially,
economically, and environmentally viable waste-to-energy gener-
ation technology in developing countries like Bangladesh.
Although there are other WtE generation technologies available
such as plasma arc, fermentation, use of microbial fuel cell, and
esterification, these are not well established yet in treating waste
globally, are thus not included in this study, predominantly due to
data limitations, and are therefore left for future work.
On the other hand, landfill with gas recovery WtE generation
was found in the literature to be the least favourable option in
treating waste and is becoming obsolete nowadays due to its
negative social, economic and environmental impacts, particularly
environmental, and has thus not been included in this analysis.
Although this analysis found that waste compositions in the
developing world are similar and AD might be a sustainable WtE
generation solution, in reality this might vary. For country-specific
sustainable WtE generation policymaking, this type of analysis
needs to be conducted for that country and this study might serve
as a guideline. Future research should consider this issue.
Appendix
Incineration Gasification Pyrolysis Anaerobic Digestion
0.2708 0.1458 0.0625 0.5208
0.2708 0.0625 0.1458 0.5208
0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
0.2708 0.5208 0.0625 0.1458
0.0625 0.2708 0.1458 0.5208
0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
0.2708 0.1458 0.5208 0.0625
0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333 331

Table A1 (continued )

Criteria No. Indicators Incineration Gasification Pyrolysis Anaerobic Digestion

9 Availability (%) 0.2708 0.5208 0.0625 0.1458

10 Maximum waste moisture that can handle (%) 0.2708 0.1458 0.0625 0.5208
11 Low BTU & wet waste handling capacity 0.2708 0.1458 0.0625 0.5208
12 High BTU waste handling capacity 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208 0.0625
Environmental 13 Land use (m2) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
14 Water use (comparative measure) 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208 0.0625
15 Pollutants generation (types) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
16 Life cycle CO2 emission/kWh 0.0625 0.2708 0.5208 0.1458
17 Overall emissions (kgCO2-e/kWh) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
18 SOx emission (mg/m3) 0.0625 0.5208 0.1458 0.2708
19 NOx emission (mg/m3) 0.1458 0.5208 0.0625 0.2708
20 Particulate matters (mg/m3) 0.0625 0.5208 0.1458 0.2708
21 Ash (% of fuel mass) RDF/Mass 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
22 Noise [Construction þ Operation þ Traffic] (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.5208 0.2708
23 Dust (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
24 Odour (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.5208 0.2708
25 Litter (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.5208 0.2708
Social 26 People displacement (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.5208 0.2708
27 Disturbance to existing social infrastructure and services (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.5208 0.2708
28 Visual disturbance due to infrastructure (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
29 Heat wave (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
30 Public health risk (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
31 New job creation (comparative measure) 0.5208 0.2708 0.1458 0.0625
32 Impact on land value (comparative measure) 0.5208 0.2708 0.0625 0.1458
33 Community acceptance (comparative measure) 0.0625 0.1458 0.2708 0.5208
34 Local economy development (comparative measure) 0.5208 0.2708 0.1458 0.0625

References [15] I.S. Antonopoulos, G. Perkoulidis, D. Logothetis, C. Karkanias, Ranking

municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability
criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool, Resour. Conserv.
[1] UN, The Sustainable Development Goals Report, 2018, https://doi.org/
Recycl. 86 (2014) 149e159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.002.
10.18356/3405d09f-en.
[16] S.N.M. Menikpura, S.H. Gheewala, S. Bonnet, Sustainability assessment of
[2] WEC, World energy resources waste to energy, 2016, https://www.
municipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka: problems and prospects,
worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_
J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 14 (2012) 181e192, https://doi.org/10.1007/
Energy_2016.pdf, 2016.
s10163-012-0055-z.
[3] C. Kühl, B. Tjahjono, M. Bourlakis, E. Aktas, Implementation of circular
[17] A. Evans, V. Strezov, T.J. Evans, Sustainability considerations for electricity
economy principles in PSS operations, Procedia CIRP 73 (2018) 124e129,
generation from biomass, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.303.
1419e1427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.010.
[4] J. Kirchherr, D. Reike, M. Hekkert, Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
[18] N.H. Afgan, M.G. Carvalho, M. Jovanovic, Biomass-fired power plant: the
analysis of 114 definitions, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127 (2017) 221e232,
sustainability option, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 26 (2007) 179e193, https://
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
doi.org/10.1080/14786450701550434.
[5] I. Khan, Importance of GHG emissions assessment in the electricity grid
[19] B. Milutinovic, G. Stefanovic, V. Kyoseva, D. Yordanova, I. Dombalov, Sus-
expansion towards a low-carbon future: a time-varying carbon intensity
tainability assessment and comparison of waste management systems: the
approach, J. Clean. Prod. 196 (2018) 1587e1599, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Cities of Sofia and Nis case studies, Waste Manag. Res. 34 (2016) 896e904,
j.jclepro.2018.06.162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16654755.
[6] I. Khan, Drivers, enablers, and barriers to prosumerism in Bangladesh: a
[20] H. Li, V. Nitivattananon, P. Li, Developing a sustainability assessment model
sustainable solution to energy poverty? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 55 (2019)
to analyze China’s municipal solid waste management enhancement strat-
82e92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.019.
egy, Sustainability 7 (2015) 1116e1141, https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021116.
[7] R.E. dos Santos, I.F.S. dos Santos, R.M. Barros, A.P. Bernal, G.L.T. Filho, F. das
[21] L.M. Goulart Coelho, L.C. Lange, Applying life cycle assessment to support
G.B. da Silva, Generating electrical energy through urban solid waste in
environmentally sustainable waste management strategies in Brazil, Resour.
Brazil : an economic and energy comparative analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 231
Conserv. Recycl. 128 (2018) 438e450, https://doi.org/10.1016/
(2019) 198e206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.015.
j.resconrec.2016.09.026.
[8] A. Laurent, I. Bakas, J. Clavreul, A. Bernstad, M. Niero, E. Gentil,
[22] M. Liikanen, J. Havukainen, E. Viana, M. Horttanainen, Steps towards more
M.Z. Hauschild, T.H. Christensen, Review of LCA studies of solid waste
environmentally sustainable municipal solid waste management e a life
management systems - Part I: lessons learned and perspectives, Waste
cycle assessment study of S~ ao Paulo, Brazil, J. Clean. Prod. 196 (2018)
Manag. 34 (2014) 573e588, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045.
150e162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.005.
[9] European Parliament, Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits,
[23] H.K. Jeswani, A. Azapagic, Assessing the environmental sustainability of en-
Eur. Parliam. News, 2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/
ergy recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK, Waste Manag. 50 (2016)
headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-
346e363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.010.
importance-and-benefits. (Accessed 14 February 2019).
[24] A.S. Erses Yay, Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid
[10] M. Geissdoerfer, P. Savaget, N.M.P. Bocken, E.J. Hultink, The Circular Economy
waste management: a case study of Sakarya, J. Clean. Prod. 94 (2015)
e a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143 (2017) 757e768,
284e293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.089.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.

pez, A. del Can ~ o Gochi, [25] M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou, Comparative assessment of municipal
[11] J.J. Cartelle Barros, M. Lara Coira, M.P. de la Cruz Lo
sewage sludge incineration, gasification and pyrolysis for a sustainable
Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems,
sludge-to-energy management in Greece, Waste Manag. 34 (2014) 411e420,
Energy 89 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.11.003.
[12] N.B. Desai, S. Bandyopadhyay, Sustainability in power generation systems,
[26] T. Vandermeersch, R.A.F. Alvarenga, P. Ragaert, J. Dewulf, Environ. Sustain.
Encycl. Sustain. Technol. 1 (2017) 157e163, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
Assess. Food Waste Valorization Options 87 (2014) 57e64, https://doi.org/
12-409548-9.10045-4.
10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.008.
[13] E. Santoyo-castelazo, A. Azapagic, Sustainability assessment of energy sys-
[27] F. Cherubini, S. Bargigli, S. Ulgiati, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste
tems : integrating environmental , economic and social aspects, J. Clean.
management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration, Energy 34
Prod. 80 (2014) 119e138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.061.
(2009) 2116e2123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.023.
[14] B. Milutinovi
c, G. Stefanovi

c, M. Dassisti, D. Markovi
c, G. Vu
ckovi
c, Multi-
[28] X. Chen, J. Pang, Z. Zhang, H. Li, Sustainability assessment of solid waste
criteria analysis as a tool for sustainability assessment of a waste manage-
management in China: a decoupling and decomposition analysis, Sustain-
ment model, Energy 74 (2014) 190e201, https://doi.org/10.1016/
ability 6 (2014) 9268e9281, https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129268.
j.energy.2014.05.056.
[29] M. Margallo, A. Dominguez-Ramos, R. Aldaco, A. Bala, P. Fullana, A. Irabien,
332 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
Environmental sustainability assessment in the process industry: a case
study of waste-to-energy plants in Spain, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93 (2014)
144e155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.09.014.
[30] L. Lombardi, E.A. Carnevale, Evaluation of the environmental sustainability of
different waste-to-energy plant configurations, Waste Manag. 73 (2018)
232e246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.006.
[31] T.F. Astrup, D. Tonini, R. Turconi, A. Boldrin, Life cycle assessment of thermal
Waste-to-Energy technologies: review and recommendations, Waste Manag.
37 (2015) 104e115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.011.
[32] I. Khan, Power generation expansion plan and sustainability in a developing
country: a multi-criteria decision analysis, J. Clean. Prod. 220 (2019)
707e720, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.02.161.
[33] Government of Bangladesh, Power & Energy Sector Master Plan (PSMP2016),
Dhaka, 2016. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12269742.pdf.
[34] B. Vu cijak, S.M. Kurtagi
c, I. Silajd
zi

c, Multicriteria decision making in
selecting best solid waste management scenario: a municipal case study
from Bosnia and Herzegovina, J. Clean. Prod. 130 (2016) 166e174, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.030.
[35] M.M. Aghajani, P. Taherei Ghazvinei, N.M.N. Sulaiman, N.E.A. Basri, S. Saheri,
N.Z. Mahmood, A. Jahan, R.A. Begum, N. Aghamohammadi, Application of
TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in a multi criteria decision analysis to
develop an optimized municipal solid waste management model, J. Environ.
Manag. 166 (2016) 109e115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv
man.2015.09.028.
[36] M. Herva, E. Roca, Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives
based on ecological footprint and multi-criteria analysis, Ecol. Indicat. 25
(2013) 77e84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.005.
[37] A. Soltani, K. Hewage, B. Reza, R. Sadiq, Multiple stakeholders in multi-
criteria decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste manage-
ment: a review, Waste Manag. 35 (2015) 318e328, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2014.09.010.
[38] J. Dong, Y. Tang, A. Nzihou, Y. Chi, E. Weiss-Hortala, M. Ni, Life cycle
assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy
technologies: theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants, Sci.
Total Environ. 626 (2018) 744e753, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.01.151.
[39] F. Cucchiella, I. D’Adamo, M. Gastaldi, Sustainable waste management: waste
to energy plant as an alternative to landfill, Energy Convers. Manag. 131
(2017) 18e31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012.
[40] D. Moya, C. Alda
s, G. Lo

pez, P. Kaparaju, Municipal solid waste as a valuable
renewable energy resource: a worldwide opportunity of energy recovery by
using Waste-To-Energy Technologies, Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 286e295,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.618.
[41] A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder, A review on technological options of waste to
energy for effective management of municipal solid waste, Waste Manag. 69
(2017) 407e422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046.
[42] N.H. Afgan, M.G. Carvalho, The knowledge society: a sustainability paradigm,
CADMUS J. 1 (2010) 28e41. http://www.cadmusjournal.org/node/14.
[43] P. Newman, I. Jennings, Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and
Practices, Island Press, Washington DC, 2008.
[44] SCI, Indicators for Sustainability, 2012. https://sustainablecities.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/indicators-for-sustainability-intl-case-studies-
final.pdf. (Accessed 13 February 2019).
[45] N. Munier, Introduction to Sustainability: Road to a Better Future, first ed.,
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Printed, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1007/
1-4020-3558-6.
[46] T. Stringfellow, An independent engineering evaluation of waste-to-energy
technologies, Renew. Energy World (2014) 1e7. https://www.
renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/01/an-independent-engineering-
evaluation-of-waste-to-energy-technologies.html.
[47] D. Pauschert, Study of equipment prices in the power sector, ESMAP Tech.
Pap. (2009) 121. https://esmap.org/sites/default/files/esmap-files/TR122-09_
GBL_Study_of_Equipment_Prices_in_the_Power_Sector.pdf.
[48] U. Arena, Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasifi-
cation, Rev. Waste Manag. 32 (2012) 625e639, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2011.09.025.
[49] DEFRA, Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste, 2013. www.defra.gov.uk.
[50] B. Wilson, N. Williams, B. Liss, B. Wilson, A Comparative Assessment of
Commercial Technologies for Conversion of Solid Waste to Energy, 2013.
[51] Kawasaki, Main Characteristics of Gas Turbine and Gas Engine, Kawasaki
Heavy Ind. Ltd., 2018, p. 1. http://global.kawasaki.com/en/energy/solutions/
distributed_power/comparison.html. (Accessed 3 October 2018).
[52] G. Pirker, A. Wimmer, Sustainable power generation with large gas engines,
Energy Convers. Manag. 149 (2017) 1048e1065, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2017.06.023.
[53] Biomethane Regions, Introduction to the production of biomethane from
biogas A guide for england and wales. http://www.severnwye.org.uk/
fileadmin/Resources/SevernWye/Projects/Biomethane_Regions/Downloads/
BMR_D.4.2.1.Technical_Brochure_EN.pdf, 2013.
[54] D. Chen, L. Yin, H. Wang, P. He, Reprint of: pyrolysis technologies for
municipal solid waste: a review, Waste Manag. 37 (2015) 116e136, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.022.
[55] DEFRA, Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan, 2011.
[56] SREDA, Conducting a feasibility study on waste-to-energy conversion in six
municipalities in Bangladesh, Dhaka. http://www.sreda.gov.bd/files/SREDA-
UNDP_Bangladesh_FS-WTE_final report for uploading (1).pdf, 2017.
[57] J. Dong, Y. Tang, A. Nzihou, Y. Chi, E. Weiss-Hortala, M. Ni, Life cycle
assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy
technologies: theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants, Sci.
Total Environ. 626 (2018) 744e753, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.01.151.
[58] Z. Zhou, Y. Tang, Y. Chi, M. Ni, A. Buekens, Waste-to-energy: a review of life
cycle assessment and its extension methods, Waste Manag. Res. 36 (2018)
3e16, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17730137.
[59] B. Kamuk, J. Haukohl, ISWA guidelines: waste to energy in low and middle
income countries. https://www.iswa.org/index.php?eID¼tx_
iswaknowledgebase_download&documentUid¼3252, 2013.
[60] WEC, World Energy Resources, Waste to energy, 2013, https://doi.org/
10.1080/09297040802385400.
[61] F. Monnet, An introduction to anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. http://
www.remade.org.uk/media/9102/an introduction to anaerobic digestion nov
2003.pdf, 2003.
[62] World Bank, Municipal Solid Waste Incineration, Washington, D.C, 1999.
[63] AECL, Environmental & Social Impact Assessment of Dhaka Southern Power
Generations Limited (DSPGL), Dhaka, 2013. http://www.doreenpower.com/
pdf/dhakasouthern/1.DSPGL ESIA Report.pdf. (Accessed 26 March 2019).
[64] BCAS & ENVIRON, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Bibiyana
II Gas Power Project, Dhaka, 2014. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/
project-document/81605/44951-014-escar-01.pdf. (Accessed 26 March
2019).
[65] BCAS, Environmental and social impact assessment of summit narayanganj
power limited, dhaka. http://idcol.org/social/SNPL_II _ESIA.pdf, 2015.
(Accessed 26 March 2019).
[66] BETSCSL, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Study for 51 MW Gas
Fired Power Plant, Dhaka, 2015. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/422591467999968452/Environmental-and-social-impact-assessment-
ESIA-study-for-51-MW-gas-fired-power-plant. accessed March 26, 2019.
[67] BRTC-BUET, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of 55MW HFO-
Fired Power Plant Project at Singair, Manikganj, Dhaka, 2015. https://
www.tblbd.com/sites/default/files/DNPGL Manikganj power plant ESIA_
final version_13Nov2015.pdf. (Accessed 26 March 2019).
[68] BCAS, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Summit Barisal Power
Limited (110 MW), Rupatali, Barisal, Dhaka, 2016. http://idcol.org/social/
SBPL_ESIA.pdf. (Accessed 26 March 2019).
[69] CEGIS, Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for 2x660 MW Coal Based Thermal
Power Plant to Be Constructed at Kalapara, Patuakhali, Dhaka, 2016 (Vol-
ume-IV).pdf, https://rpcl.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/rpcl.portal.gov.
bd/publications/e4754a67_58a5_430b_a2c3_f75e87fd3299/SIA Report.
(Accessed 26 March 2019).
[70] Eastec Ltd, Environmental and Solar Impact Assessment of 249.6 kWp Solar
Mini Grid Power Plant, Dhaka, 2017. http://idcol.org/social/
Chapainawabganj_Eastec Limited_2018_09_12.pdf. (Accessed 26 March
2019).
[71] AECL, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Reliance Meghnaghat
750 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant, Dhaka, 2017. https://www.adb.org/
sites/default/files/project-documents/50253/50253-001-esia-en_2.pdf.
(Accessed 26 March 2019).
[72] EQMSCL, Environmental and social impact assessment report under feasi-
bility study for development of utility scale solar PV & wind projects in
Bangladesh, dhaka. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
449091539166909882/pdf/07102018-Final-ESIA-Report-of-Utility-Scale-
PV-Wind-Project-cleared.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 26 March 2019).
[73] NBL, Environmental and social impact assessment of 225 MW dual fuel ( gas
and HSD based ) combined cycle power plant ( bhola-II ), dhaka. https://
www.aiib.org/en/projects/approved/2018/_download/Bangladesh/esia-
nbbl-1.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 26 March 2019).
[74] EnvironQuest, Environmental and social impact assessment for the proposed
100MW solar independent power plant and 18 KM transmission line project,
lagos. https://www3.opic.gov/Environment/EIA/bauchisolar/Nigeria_ESIA_
June2017.pdf, 2017. (Accessed 31 March 2019).
[75] GEMSL, Environmental & social impact assessment (ESIA) of BQPS-III 900
MW RLNG based combined cycle power project (BQPS-III RLNG CCPP), kar-
achi. https://www.ke.com.pk/download/downloads/Environmental-and-
Social-Impact-Assessment-Report-of-900-MW-BQPS-III.pdf, 2017.
(Accessed 31 March 2019).
[76]] ERM, Environmental and social impact assessment of NEP : Upper Trishuli 1
Hydropower Project. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-
documents/49086/49086-001-eia-en.pdf, 2018. (Accessed 1 April 2019).
[77] M. Pavan, R. Todeschini, Multicriteria decision-making methods, in:
Ref. Modul. Chem. Mol. Sci. Chem. Eng., 2009, pp. 591e629, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-044452701-1.00038-7.
[78] W. Edwards, F.H. Barron, SMARTS and SMARTER, Improved Simple methods
for multiattribute utility measurement, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
60 (1994) 306e325.
[79] V. Belton, T.J. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: an Integrated
Approach, 2002.
[80] M.B. Barfod, S. Leleur, Multi-criteria decision analysis for use in transport
decision making. http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/104276012/DTU_Transport_
Compendium_Part_2_MCDA_.pdf, 2014.
[81] J.J. Wang, Y.Y. Jing, C.F. Zhang, J.H. Zhao, Review on multi-criteria decision
 I. Khan, Z. Kabir / Renewable Energy 150 (2020) 320e333
analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (2009) 2263e2278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
[82] R. Campbell, P. Pound, C. Pope, N. Britten, R. Pill, M. Morgan, J. Donovan,
Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay
experiences of diabetes and diabetes care, Soc. Sci. Med. 56 (2003) 671e684.
S 0277 -9536(02 )0 0064-3.
[83] A. Azapagic, S. Perdan, Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for
Engineers and Scientists, second ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2011.
[84] D. Zhang, G. Huang, Y. Xu, Q. Gong, Waste-to-energy in China: key challenges
and opportunities, Energies 8 (2015) 14182e14196, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en81212422.
[85] GIZ, Waste-to-Energy Options in Municipal Solid Waste Management-A
Guide for Decision Makers in Developing and Emerging Countries, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2009.187062.
[86] J. Dong, Y. Tang, A. Nzihou, Y. Chi, E. Weiss-Hortala, M. Ni, Z. Zhou, Com-
parison of waste-to-energy technologies of gasification and incineration
using life cycle assessment: case studies in Finland, France and China,
J. Clean. Prod. 203 (2018) 287e300, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.08.139.
[87] T.R. Ayodele, A.S.O. Ogunjuyigbe, M.A. Alao, Economic and environmental
assessment of electricity generation using biogas from organic fraction of
municipal solid waste for the city of Ibadan, Nigeria, J. Clean. Prod. 203
(2018) 718e735, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.282.
[88] L.A. Guerrero, G. Maas, W. Hogland, Solid waste management challenges for
cities in developing countries, Waste Manag. 33 (2013) 220e232, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008.
[89] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, What a Waste : a global review of solid waste
management, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/17388, 2012.
[90] B.M. Jenkins, R.B. Williams, Thermal technologies for waste management, in:
Calif. Integr. Waste Manag. Board Emerg. Technol. Forum, Sacramento, Cal-
ifornia, 2006. http://energy.cleartheair.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/
Jenkins.pdf.
[91] B. Staley, Summary of waste conversion technologies. www.
erefcontinuingeducation.org, 2013, 1-31.
333
[92] SGC, Basic data on biogas. www.sgc.se, 2012.
[93] M. Standaert, As China pushes waste-to-energy incinerators, protests are
mounting, Yale Environ. 360 (2017) 1e5. https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-
china-pushes-waste-to-energy-incinerators-protests-are-mounting.
(Accessed 24 October 2018).
[94] R.J. Roberts, M. Chen, Waste incineration - how big is the health risk? A
quantitative method to allow comparison with other health risks, J. Public
Health 28 (2006) 261e266. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
16868310.
[95] S. Momtaz, S.M.Z. Kabir, Evaluating Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment in Developing Countries, Second, Elsevier, 2018.
[96] A.U. Zaman, Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment tech-
nologies, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 7 (2010) 225e234. https://link.springer.
com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF03326132.pdf.
[97] G.C. Young, Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470608616.
[98] A. Whiting, A. Azapagic, Life cycle environmental impacts of generating
electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion, Energy 70
(2014) 181e193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.103.
[99] S.N. Othman, Z. Zainon Noor, A.H. Abba, R.O. Yusuf, M.A.A. Hassan, Review on
life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in some Asian
countries, J. Clean. Prod. 41 (2013) 251e262, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.09.043.
[100] I. Khan, Sustainability challenges for the south Asia growth quadrangle: a
regional electricity generation sustainability assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 243
(2020), 118639, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118639.
[101] Z. Kabir, I. Khan, Environmental impact assessment of waste to energy
projects in developing countries: general guidelines in the context of
Bangladesh, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. (2020), 100619, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2019.100619. In press.
[102] I. Khan, Greenhouse gas emission accounting approaches in electricity
generation systems: A review, Atmos. Environ. 200 (2019) 131e141, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.005.