Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A spatial modeling approach for siting, sizing and economic

assessment of centralized biogas plants in organic waste management
Sedat Yalcinkaya
Izmir Katip Celebi University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Environmental Engineering, Izmir, Turkey

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

Article history: Disposal of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) at landfills and direct application of
Received 23 September 2019 livestock manure onto soil are often restricted by regulations due to environmental concerns. These
Received in revised form regulations require the application of different technologies, such as anaerobic digestion, in the man-
3 January 2020
agement of OFMSW and livestock manure, and creates an opportunity for resource recovery. Since these
Accepted 6 January 2020
waste sources are geographically dispersed, siting and sizing of resource recovery facilities to minimize
Available online 10 January 2020
transfer distances are critical for the sustainable management of these waste. This study aims to
Handling editor: Sandro Nizetic investigate the sizing, siting, and economic feasibility of municipality owned centralized biogas plants in
the management of OFMSW and livestock manure through application of spatial modeling. A stepwise
Keywords: land suitability analysis was performed to determine potential plant sites followed by a location-
Biogas allocation analysis to analyze siting, sizing and transportation costs for increasing number of plants.
OFMSW Finally, an economic assessment was conducted to compare unit cost of electric energy and existing feed-
Manure in tariff for biogas plants. The methodology was applied to the city of Izmir in Turkey. 8 biogas plants
Facility siting
could be built in Izmir with a total installation size of 92 MWe and 10 $ cent/kWh unit cost of electric
GIS
energy. This study represents an important step in the establishment of a local decision support system
Decision support
in Turkey for the utilization of regional bioenergy sources, and organic waste management.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction opportunity for resource recovery from organic wastes. Such

Organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and live-
stock manure are two major organic waste sources. OFMSW cor-
responds to half of the total municipal waste by weight in general,
57% in Izmir Turkey (Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning,
2015a). It is also the major source of greenhouse gases emitted from
landfills and leachate. Livestock manure can cause serious pollution
in water resources when applied to the soil at rainy seasons and at
excessive amounts. For these reasons, disposal of OFMSW at land-
fills (Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, 2010) and direct
application of livestock manure onto soil (livestock manure is
currently being applied onto soil without any control) (Ministry of
Food Agriculture and Livestock, 2017a) are restricted by laws in
Turkey. The livestock farms are required to store and properly
manage the excess manure by 2021. Similarly, municipalities are
responsible for gradually reducing the amount of OFMSW sent to
the landfills by 2025. These regulations require the application of
different technologies, such as anaerobic digestion, in the man-
agement of OFMSW and livestock manure, and creates an
E-mail address: sedat.yalcinkaya@ikcu.edu.tr.
environmental infrastructures are often owned by municipalities in
Turkey.
Anaerobic digestion is a biological treatment method used for
the stabilization and recycling of organic wastes. Organic waste is
degraded by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen and biogas is
produced. The biogas is burned in cogeneration engines to generate
electricity and heat energy. Carbon dioxide is produced as a result
of the degradation of organic waste, which is 25 times less effective
greenhouse gas than the methane produced in landfills (European
Environment Agency, 2019). Anaerobic digestion not only produces
energy and stabilizes organic wastes, but also reduces greenhouse
gas emissions. Reducing the amount of solid waste going to landfills
and decreasing the nitrate pollution caused by livestock manure in
water resources are other benefits of anaerobic co-digestion of
organic waste. Digestion of various organic materials together in-
creases quality and quantity of biogas (Yalcinkaya and Malina,
2015a, 2015b) and improves process stability (Macias-Corral et al.,
2008).
Since organic waste sources are geographically dispersed, cor-
rect assessment of the bioenergy potentials, siting and sizing of
anaerobic digestion facilities (biogas plants) are crucial for plan-
ning. These assessments also help decision makers to minimize

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120040
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
transfer distances and transfer induced CO2 emissions for sustain-
able management of organic waste. Geographic information system
(GIS) with multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods has
been considered as a suitable approach for evaluating spatial dis-
tribution of bioenergy potentials, identification of suitable facility
sites and allocation of feedstock sources to potential plants.
In the literature, there are several studies combine exclusion and
preference analysis that address the identification of suitable fa-
cility sites (land suitability analysis). Ma et al. (2005), for instance,
proposed a GIS model for land suitability of potential biogas plants
using dairy manure in New York, US. Similar approaches conducted
by Zubaryeva et al. (2012) for a wide range of feedstock sources in
Lecce province, Italy and by Sharma et al. (2017) for the miscanthus
feedstock throughout the contiguous US. All three studies utilized
GIS to analyze bioenergy production, screen constrained areas and
process preference factors for the land suitability analysis. The
analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which systematically combines
qualitative and quantitative criteria for multi-criteria complex de-
cisions (Saaty, 2008), was employed to estimate appropriate
weights to the preference factors based on their relative impor-
tance. Silva et al. (2014), on the other hand, employed the Electre Tri
method for the estimation of preference weights. Franco et al.
(2015) proposed a fuzzy approach with GIS in land suitability
analysis for biogas plants. The approach utilized fuzzy weighted
overlap dominance methodology to obtain membership/suitability
degrees for each preference factor.
Recent studies involve sizing of bioenergy facilities besides
siting. Sliz-Szkliniarz and Vogt (2012) evaluated suitable facility
locations and plant specific biogas production capacities along with
economic assessment. Allocation of feedstock sources was per-
formed through proximity analysis without considering the real
road network, and MCDA methods were not utilized in site selec-
tion process. Ho €hn et al. (2014) estimated plant specific biogas
production capacities, and variation of plant capacities and trans-
portation distance at increasing number of plants. Land suitability
analysis and economic assessment were not conducted in this
study. Bojesen et al. (2014) investigated the spatial competition for
feedstock between the existing and planned biogas plants in
Denmark through service area and location-allocation analyses.
Location-allocation analysis was conducted for a specific number of
plants and a land suitability analysis was not carried out in this
study. The impact of incentives and plant capacity on the siting,
build order and feedstock utilization for biogas injection from
centralized anaerobic digestion facilities into the gas network were
studied for Ireland by O’Shea et al. (2016). An optimization model,
maximizing the net benefits, solved for 42 injection points (po-
tential biogas plant locations). The euclidean distance between
feedstock sources and potential plant locations was used in the
analysis instead of a real road network. Venier and Yabar (2017)
proposed an approach to analyze the optimum number and loca-
tion of biogas plants through a scenario analysis based on grouping
feedstock sources inside a buffer zone and statistical clustering of
feedstock sources. The authors asserted that there is no other study
conducting optimum siting and sizing of biogas facilities with
scenario modeling based on cluster analysis. The study does not
include a preference analysis for land suitability and economic
assessment. Allocation of feedstock sources to potential plants was
performed based on buffer zones instead of an allocation analysis
using the local road network. Spatial analysis for sizing and siting of
biogas plants utilizing multiple agricultural feedstocks in Catania
province of Sicily was conducted by Valenti et al. (2018). Four po-
tential biogas plant sites were selected based on feedstock avail-
ability. A buffer zone analysis with a radius of 45 km around the
predetermined 4 potential biogas plant sites was performed to
determine the service areas and transportation distances.
Laasasenaho et al. (2019) investigated the use of GIS based spatial
analysis to determine optimal locations of biogas plants and wood
terminals in the rural Kuudestaan region of Finland. Location
optimization tools in R software and Kernel Density analysis in
ArcGIS were used in their study. Areas with feedstock availabilities
greater than 100 kW energy equivalent and within a 10 km service
area were determined as optimum biogas plant locations. A land
suitability analysis was not carried out in this study. Sultana and
Kumar (2012) developed a more comprehensive approach on
siting and sizing of bioenergy facilities processes agricultural
biomass. Their approach includes land suitability analysis, location-
allocation analysis with road network, and economic assessment.
There are also studies used mathematical optimization programs.
For example; Silva et al. (2017) proposed a multiobjective mixed-
integer linear programming approach to analyze siting and sizing
biogas plants considering multiobjective nature of the problem.
The approach provided unique combinations of optimum solutions
for each objective.
Previous studies can be classified into two groups: 1) identifi-
cation of suitable locations (siting) for bioenergy facilities through
land suitability analysis and 2) determination of plant capacities
(sizing) through allocation of feedstock sources in addition to
siting. In the previous studies often agricultural residues, energy
crops or livestock manure alone have been utilized as the feedstock
for energy recovery purposes and OFMSW often ignored or partially
integrated into the system. On the other hand, integrated man-
agement of these organic wastes with OFMSW can provide
economically more sustainable management. However, waste
management differs from feedstock collection for energy produc-
tion; because waste management requires collection of all waste
regardless of an economic service area. This requires the intro-
duction of existing solid waste management system into the
modeling process and iterative location-allocation solution to
analyze the impacts of the number and capacity of biogas plants on
the system economics which is missing in the previous studies.
Therefore, there is still room for research in the development of a
comprehensive modeling approach especially in the context of
waste management.
This paper aims to develop a comprehensive GIS based multi-
criteria decision support model for siting, sizing and economic
assessment of municipality owned centralized biogas plants in the
management of OFMSW and livestock manure that incorporates
the existing solid waste management system. A stepwise spatial
analysis procedure was formed integrating the approaches in the
literature and considering the environmental and economic factors,
and existing solid waste management system. Several factors were
considered in the model: preference analysis with AHP to estimate
weights, and fuzzy logic approach to calculate membership/suit-
ability degrees; allocation of feedstock sources to potential plants
using the local road network; and relationship between the num-
ber of facilities, transport distances and plant capacities.
The presented GIS based multi-criteria decision support model
was implemented by performing a case study for Izmir in order to
promote more sustainable planning of organic waste at the
municipal level.
2. Materials and methods
The methodology consists of 6 steps: (1) establishing a geo-
spatial database for organic wastes, (2) analyzing the spatial dis-
tribution and recycling potentials of organic wastes, (3)
prescreening process for excluding limited use areas, (4) identifying
potential plant sites by multi-criteria decision analysis, (5) p-me-
dian solution approach to determine siting, capacity, transportation
distances and allocation of waste sources to the specified number of
 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
potential plants, (6) evaluating the relationship between the
number of facilities and transport distances to determine the op-
timum number of plants, and the economic assessment of the
system to calculate the unit cost of energy. The flowchart describing
the stepwise methodology is shown in Fig. 1.
2.1. Case study
The methodology developed in this study was applied in
mainland Izmir, excluding the islands. Izmir is located in western
Turkey on the Aegean Sea. The total area of the city is 11,891 km2
including metropolitan and urban areas (General Directorate of
Mapping, 2014). It is the 3rd most populous city in Turkey with a
population of 4,320,519 (TUIK, 2019). It consists of 30 districts and
1295 neighborhoods. Izmir was identified as one of the major
biomass rich cities in Turkey (DBFZ, 2011). One of the major reasons
for choosing Izmir for the case study is that it has the 5th, 3rd and
11th largest populations of poultry, cattle and sheep in Turkey,
respectively (TUIK, 2016). Large amount of organic waste and
dispersed locations of waste sources make planning even more
important for organic waste management in Izmir. Location of the
case study area is shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Geodatabase design and generation
The first work package includes data acquisition, field works,
and designing and generating a proper geospatial database. Loca-
tion of solid waste transfer stations, service areas, number of ve-
hicles, vehicle capacity and fuel consumption data were obtained
Fig. 1. Flowchart describing the stepwise methodology. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
3
from the Solid Waste Management Authority of Izmir Metropolitan
Municipality. Livestock numbers, genders, types and birth dates
data were collected from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at
the neighborhood scale. A detailed land use data were obtained
from the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. Land use data
was the primary data source used in designing exclusion criteria.
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model
(DEM) was used to create slope and evaluate elevation. Open-
StreetMap data was used to create a local road network. Energy
lines and transformers data were purchased from the General
Directorate of Mapping.
A large number of data were conducted in this research
including both vector and raster data types. Most of the geospatial
data were collected in vector formats in geographic coordinates
system, World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 1984). All geospatial
information was transformed to WGS 1984 UTM (Universal Tra-
verse Mercator) Zone 35 projected coordinate system in order to
maintain the integrity of raster analyses. The ArcGIS software,
version 10 and its spatial analyst and network analyst extensions
were used in this study.
2.3. Spatial distribution and energy potential of organic waste
OFMSW was calculated at neighborhood scale by multiplying
population, waste generation per capita and the ratio of OFMSW in
_
total solid waste. 57.39% of municipal solid waste collected in Izmir
was classified as OFMSW (food and yard waste) (Ministry of
Environment and Urban Planning, 2015a). The average amount of
_
municipal waste per capita generated in Izmir in 2016 (most recent
4 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
Fig. 2. The case study area. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
data) was 1.32 kg/person-day (TUIK, 2017). The rate of OFMSW in
the municipal solid waste and the amount of municipal solid waste
production per capita vary according to the socio-economic struc-
ture of the district/neighborhood. Average values were used for the
whole district since such data is not available and is not planned to
be produced within the scope of this project. In the presence of
these data, spatial distribution of wastes can be calculated in more
detail and accurately. The amount of livestock manure was calcu-
lated at neighborhood scale as well. The amount of slurry produc-
tion depending on the number, age, gender and type of livestock are
shown in Table A1 (Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock,
2017b).
The efficiency of converting biogas into electrical energy with
internal combustion engines varies between 38.1% and 45.7%
depending on the capacity of the engine (General Electric, 2018).
The conversion efficiency was taken as 40% in this study (h ¼ 0.4).
Energy potentials of OFMSW through anaerobic digestion was
calculated with Equation (1). N indicates population at neighbor-
hood scale; i ¼ index of neighborhoods; n ¼ total number of
neighborhoods. A is the rate of municipal solid waste production
(1.32 kg/person-day) and f is the ratio of OFMSW (%57.39 of total
municipal solid waste). MOFMSW indicates the unit methane gen-
eration for OFMSW. 74 m3 CH4/ton OFMSW was used in this study
(DBFZ, 2011). Lower heating value for methane (QM) is 37.2 MJ/m3
(Gomez et al., 2010).
X
n
1 ton
Energy PotentialOFMSW ¼ Ni  A  f   MOFMSW
1000 kg
i¼1
 QM  h
(1)
Energy potentials of livestock manure through anaerobic
digestion was calculated with Equation (2). H indicates the amount
of livestock manure (ton/year) at neighborhood scale; j ¼ index of
livestock type; m ¼ total number of livestock type at each neigh-
borhood; i ¼ index of neighborhoods; n ¼ total number of neigh-
borhoods. STS indicates total solids content and MLM indicates the
methane generation per unit of total solids. STS and MLM values
were indexed with j because their values vary depending on live-
stock type. D is the average density varying for poultry, cattle and
dairy cattle between 1009 and 1041 kg/m3 (Lorimor et al., 2004).
The value of D was taken as 1000 kg/m3 for all livestock types.
Collectible part of the total livestock manure in a farm is expressed
as a. Based on the observations obtained from the field studies and
data from the literature, a values were determined for different
animal types. Field studies were conducted according to animal
types in the livestock farms considering differences in waste char-
acteristics and waste storage methods depending on animal types.
It is considered that the analysis of animal manure characteristics
will be a costly and time-consuming process in all farms and that
the approach presented in the study will be sufficient for waste
management planning at municipal level since similar operating
conditions are applied for the same type of animals. It was also
observed that it is possible to keep the animals in closed areas and
to collect almost all of the manure in large industrial farms and
poultry houses. A large proportion of manure cannot be collected if
small enterprises with insufficient infrastructure or animals graze
in open areas. Most of the cattle, sheep and goat farms are owned
by small enterprises in Izmir according to the Izmir Directorate of
Provincial Agriculture and Forestry. STS, MLM and a values for
different livestock types are presented in Table 1.
X
n X
m
Energy PotentialLM ¼ Hij  STSj  MLMj  aj  D  QM
i¼1 j¼1
1 week
h
7 day
(2)
OFMSW and livestock manure availabilities and energy poten-
tials were then added to the attributes table of neighborhoods point
vector data. Spatial distribution of OFMSW and livestock manure
and energy potential were mapped for the entire city area per-
forming IDW (Inverse Distance Weighted) method on the available
neighborhood points. IDW calculates the weighted average of the
points to be interpolated depending on the distance to the data
points. The weight decreases as you move away from the data
source, while the weight increases as you approach the source.
OFMSW and livestock manure availability maps would then be
used to identify potential facility sites. Areas with high organic
waste availability would be preferred for the determination of
potential plant locations in the following steps.
 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
Table 1
Total solids content (STS), methane generation (MLM) and collectible ratio (a) for different types of livestock.
Livestock STSa (kg TS/kg manure)
Dairy Cattle > 24 months 0.11
Cattle > 24 months 0.11
Cattle 12e24 months 0.15
Cattle <12 months 0.15
Sheep 0.23
Goat 0.32
Poultry 0.16
a mez et al., 2010).
(Go
b
(DBFZ, 2011).
2.4. Prescreening analysis
Prescreening analysis was performed to exclude technically
(such as sloped land) and legally unsuitable areas for biogas plants.
Land use data was the primary data source used in prescreening.
Criteria considered in prescreening analysis were: (1) Protected
areas, national parks, areas with official protection status, such as
military zones, removed from the study area; (2) the restrictions in
the legislation on biogas plants were complied with (Ministry of
Environment and Urban Planning, 2015b); (3) buffer zones were
determined from literature (Silva et al., 2014; Sliz-Szkliniarz and
Vogt, 2012; Sultana and Kumar, 2012) if there is no regulation in
the legislation. Excluded and suitable areas with buffer zones are
presented in Table A2. Vector based analyses were conducted in
prescreening because the geospatial data were collected or pro-
duced in vector format. First, buffer areas were created for the areas
to be screened and then removed from the study area to determine
the suitable areas for potential biogas plant siting.
2.5. Identifying potential plant sites
Identification of potential plant sites consists of several
consecutive steps. First, a preference analysis combining weighting
by AHP and calculating spatial membership degrees with fuzzy
membership functions was performed for each preference factor.
Then, a suitability map with an index between 0 and 1 was created
by performing a weighted overlay analysis. Finally, areas with a
suitability index equal or greater than 0.79 were identified as po-
tential biogas plant sites (Sultana and Kumar, 2012; Zhang et al.,
2015) and converted into point vector data to be used in the next
step. All analyses except AHP analysis were performed in ArcGIS.
The influences of all factors are not equal in the site selection. So,
the AHP was used to assign weights to each preference factor
reflecting their relative importance. AHP is a MCDA method based
on the pairwise comparison of decision factors. Since the theory
and methodology of AHP were reported in detail by (Saaty, 2008,
1980), it was not elaborated in this paper. The first step in AHP is to
establish a hierarchical structure as the objective, criteria, and
factors of the model to be analyzed. Although many factors play a
role in the selection of biogas plant locations, it is not possible to
evaluate all of them due to data availability. The factors evaluated
within the scope of the project are categorized as economy,
resource availability, and topography. The most commonly used
factors in the literature, regional waste management characteristics
and data availability were considered in the determination of
preference factors. The Solid Waste Management Authority of the
Izmir Metropolitan Municipality was contacted for this purpose.
The preference factors and their weights by the AHP analysis are
presented in Table 2.
In classical set theory, each object belongs to a particular set or
not (0 or 1). Real world problems cannot be overcome completely
5
MLMa (m3 CH4/kg TS) a
0.14 0.5
0.14 0.5
0.14 0.5
0.14 0.5
0.11 0.5b
0.07 0.5b
0.19 0.99
with the mathematical methods developed based on classical set
theory. In fuzzy logic, each element of the set receives membership
degrees between 0 and 1, and the same element can belong to more
than one set at the same time. The model that will be developed in
this way will be more realistic and will make a more accurate de-
cision. Therefore, linear fuzzy membership functions with param-
eters specific to each preference factor were conducted to analyze
spatial membership degrees of each preference factor (Table 2), and
a raster map was created for each preference factor. The common
approach in scaling potential sites among the suitable areas is (after
prescreening): performing MCDA, such as AHP, to determine
weights for preference factors and then performing weighted
overlay. An additional application in such preference analysis is:
generating multiple zones for each preference factor and assigning
a score to each zone based on the influence. It complies with the
classical set theory. This study performs a combined preference
analysis using AHP for weighting preference factors, and fuzzy
membership functions for spatial scaling of each preference factor.
This method provides an integrated modeling approach and accu-
rate results in site selection process.
Finally, the site suitability index (SI) was calculated for each cell
performing a weighted overlay analysis using AHP weights and
fuzzy membership rasters as follows:
X
n
SI ¼ Wi  mi (3)
i¼1
where n denotes the total number of preference factors; i is the
index of preference factors; W stands for the weight reflecting the
relative importance of preference factors; m is the spatial mem-
bership degree (0e1) of preference factors for the cell.
2.6. Determination of siting, capacity, transportation distances and
allocation of waste sources to the specified number of potential
plants
Determination of siting, capacity, transportation distances and
allocation of waste sources to the plants are required to determine
the optimum number of plants and to make an economic assess-
ment. These operations were performed with ArcGIS’s location-
allocation application. The location-allocation application uses
the Dijkstra algorithm for the specified number of facilities to
generate the origin-destination matrix between facilities and waste
sources and identify the shortest routes. Then, with the p-median
solution approach, the optimum plant sites necessary for the
transportation of all wastes to the facilities with minimum cost
(minimum travel distance), allocation of waste sources to the
plants, and thus the plant capacities and transportation distances,
are determined. The mathematical formulation of the p-median
problem is as follows (Rolland et al., 1997):
6 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040

Table 2
Preference factors, AHP weights and minimum and maximum parameters for linear fuzzy membership functions.

Criteria Factor Weight Min Max

Economy Distance to roads 0.1667 1000 m 30 m

Distance to transfer stations 0.1667 10,000 m 0
Distance to wastewater treatment plants 0.0345 1000 m 0
Distance to power line 0.0938 1000 m 100 m
Distance to transformers 0.0938 1000 m 100 m
Distance to agricultural land 0.0546 2000 m 1000 m
Resource availability Livestock manure availability 0.2025 min max
OFMSW availability 0.0675 min max
Topography Slope 0.0589 15% 0
Elevation 0.0237 300 m 0
Land area 0.0374 1 ha 10 ha

fodder cultivated farmlands and parks. Since there is no significant

X
m X
n
commercial value of these products in Turkey, benefit analysis will
min ¼ wi dij zij (4)
i¼1 j¼1
not be applied for these products. However, areas closer to agri-
cultural lands were preferred during the determination of potential
Subject to: plant locations by MCDA in order to ensure the beneficial use of
compost.
X
n Although the management of OFMSW separately from other
zij ¼ 1 c i ¼ 0; 1; 2; …; m; (5) municipal wastes has been defined in the legislation, there are no
j¼1 practices for the collection of OFMSW separately in Turkey. First,
mixed municipal solid waste collected from districts and trans-
zij  yj c i ¼ 0; 1; 2; …; m and j ¼ 0; 1; 2; …; n; (6) ported to transfer stations by district municipalities. Collected
waste is transferred to larger vehicles and compressed at the
X
n transfer stations. Then, they are transported from transfer stations
yj ¼ p; (7) to landfills. Waste collection is carried out by district municipalities,
j¼1 while transfer from transfer stations to landfills and operation of
transfer stations are carried out by the Izmir Metropolitan Munic-
zij ; yj 2 f0; 1g c i ¼ 0; 1; 2; …; m and j ¼ 0; 1; 2; …; n; (8) ipality. The transportation system will remain the same for the solid
waste except transferring OFMSW to the planned biogas plants
Decision variables: instead of landfills. The livestock manure is not included in the
 existing waste management system. They are currently being
1; if waste source i is recycled at a facility located in j applied onto soil without any control. In the planned waste transfer
zij ¼
0; otherwise system, OFMSW will be transferred from transfer stations to biogas
plants by Izmir Metropolitan Municipality. Livestock manure will
 be transported directly from farms to biogas plants at producer’s
1; if a facility opened in j
yi ¼ expense. Therefore, the transfer cost of livestock manure was not
0; otherwise
taken into account. The planned organic waste transfer system is
where n is the total number of suitable facility areas identified in shown in Fig. 3.
the previous work package, p is the number of suitable facility areas The transportation costs were calculated based on the equation
that will be located (p < n); m is the total number of waste sources; below:
i ¼ index of waste sources; j ¼ index of potential facility sites; wi is
the demand weight of the waste source at point i (defined as the
X
m X
n
Qi
amount of waste); dij is the shortest distance between waste source TT ¼ 2  CF  PF  dij  (9)
and potential facility. It is aimed to minimize the total distance V
i¼1 j¼1
(cost) between the facilities and the waste sources with the
objective function shown in Equation (4). Equation (5) requires where j, I, m and n have the same use as previously identified; TT is
each waste source to be assigned to only one facility. Equation (6) the total transportation cost for all biogas plants ($/y); CF is the fuel
forces not to assign a waste source to a plant that is not open. consumption per km (L/km); PF is the fuel price ($/L); dij is the
Equation (7) restricts the number of plants to be opened to p. shortest distance (km) between waste source (transfer station) i
Potential biogas plant sites, waste sources, and road network and potential biogas plant j, calculated in location-allocation
were used as input in the establishment of location-allocation analysis; Q represents the organic waste generation rate (ton/y);
model. The model was then solved for the increasing number of V indicates capacity of transfer vehicle (ton). The equation is
plants (p ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 …, n). multiplied by 2 because the transfer vehicle will return to transfer
station each time after transferring waste to the potential biogas
2.7. Economic assessment plant. The capacity of the transfer vehicle (V) and the fuel con-
sumption per km (CF) were declared as 27 tons and 0.67 L/km by
An economic assessment was conducted considering costs and the Solid Waste Management Authority of the Izmir Metropolitan
benefits. Cost analysis includes investment, operation, and main- Municipality.
tenance (O&M) and transportation costs. Benefit comes from The unit cost values reported by the International Renewable
electricity generation. Stabilized treatment sludge resulting from Energy Agency (IRENA) were used in the economic assessment
anaerobic digestion can be used as a soil improver and fertilizer in (IRENA, 2012). The investment cost for anaerobic digestion power
 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
Fig. 3. The planned organic waste transfer system. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
systems was reported to be between 2574 and 6104 $/kW. The
average value (4339 $/kW) was used in this study. It includes the
equipment, feedstock handling and preparation machinery, engi-
neering and construction, and planning costs. Operation and
maintenance costs consist of fixed and variable costs. Fixed O&M
costs were reported to be between 2.1 and 7% of investment cost
per year. They consist of labor, scheduled maintenance, routine
component/equipment replacement, insurance, etc. Variable O&M
costs depend on the energy generation rate of the system and were
reported to be 4.2 $/MWh. They consist of unplanned maintenance,
equipment replacement, and incremental servicing costs. The
larger the plant, the lower the unit costs in anaerobic digestion
power systems due to the effect of economies of scale. Fixed unit
costs were used in this study because cost values depending on the
plant size were not available. The installation size (capacity, xp) and
energy generation rate (xe) were determined for each facility by
location-allocation analysis in the previous work package. The cost
equations are presented as follows:
Investment cost, I ($) ¼ 4339 xp (xp, kW)
O&M cost, O ($/y) ¼ 0.045 I þ 4.2 xe (xe, MWh)
The total annual cost for all biogas plants is calculated by
Equation (12) as follows:
X
n
Tc ¼ Ij a þ Oj þ TTj
j¼1
ið1 þ iÞT
a¼ 
ð1 þ iÞT  1
where Tc is the total annual cost ($/y); a is the annuitization co-
efficient; I is the investment cost ($); O is the O&M cost ($/y); TT is
the transportation cost ($/y); i is the discount rate; T is the lifetime
of the plant. T is generally calculated as 20 years for biogas plants
mez et al., 2010; IRENA, 2019; Sliz-Szkliniarz and Vogt, 2012).
(Go
Discount rate was taken as %10 (IRENA, 2019).
The total benefit is the revenue from electric energy generation.
The total annual electric energy generation is calculated as:
X
n 

TR ¼ KF  IT  Pej
j¼1
where TR is the total energy generated annually in all plants (kWh/
7
y); Pe is the annual amount of electric energy produced at plant j
(kWh/y); KF is power plant’s net capacity factor; IT is the internal
consumption rate. The capacity factor and internal consumption
rate were identified as 91.3% and 5% in a study conducted by the
Association of Electricity Producers, respectively (Association of
Electricity Producers, 2018). The unit cost of electric energy was
calculated by dividing the total annual cost to the total annual
electric energy generation ($/kWh).
In order to determine the optimum number of biogas plants,
total transfer distance - plant number graph was generated by us-
ing location-allocation analysis results for increasing number of
plants (p ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 …, n). The system was accepted to reach
stability when the change in total transportation is less than 5% as
the number of plants increases. The number of plants at this level
was considered as the optimum number of plants.
3. Results and discussions
(10)
3.1. Spatial distribution and energy potential of organic waste
(11)
Since the spatial distribution of OFMSW is directly proportional
to the population, the waste density is high in the city center (Izmir
Bay Area) and district centers and decreases towards rural areas.
The spatial distribution of livestock manure, on the other hand,
follows the opposite trend. In rural areas where livestock farming is
(12) more common, livestock density is high but decreases in city cen-
ters. Livestock manure density was calculated to be high in the
_
southeastern districts of Izmir €
(Kiraz, Odemiş, Tire, and Bayındır),
as well as Foça. The northern districts (Bergama, Kınık and Dikili),
Menderes and Kemalpaşa also have relatively high livestock
manure density. Energy generation from anaerobic co-digestion of
OFMSW and livestock manure is presented in Fig. 4. The energy
potentials are the highest at areas with human and livestock pop-
ulations, such as Foça and the southeastern part of Izmir. High
energy potentials were also calculated at the city center due to the
high OFMSW availability. The western peninsula (Çeşme, Kar-
aburun, and Urla) has the least amount of energy potential because
this region is mainly touristic and have large protected zones
(forests).
Waste availabilities and energy potentials for the study are
summarized in Table 3. OFMSW and livestock manure productions
were calculated as 3242 tons/d and 30,377 m3/d, respectively. The
total plant installation capacity of 92 MWe was calculated from
anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW and livestock manure. 51 MWe of
the installation capacity comes from livestock and 41 MWe was
calculated from OFMSW.
8 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
Fig. 4. Energy potential from anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW and livestock manure. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)
Table 3
Total waste availabilities and plant installation capacities for Izmir.
OFMSW, ton/d
Livestock manure, m3/d
Collectable livestock manure, m3/d
Installation capacity from OFMSW, MWe
Installation capacity from livestock manure, MWe
Total installation capacity, MWe
3.2. Land suitability and potential plant sites
Prescreening of technically and legally unsuitable areas nar-
rowed down the study area to 3% of the total area. The areas that are
technically and legally unsuitable for biogas plants (excluded area)
are shown blank in Fig. 5. The suitability of the remaining areas
from the prescreening analysis was indexed based on preference
factors, and the final land suitability map was prepared (Fig. 5). The
majority of areas with high SI were located close to the areas with
high livestock manure, transfer stations, and roads. These 3 pref-
erence factors made 50% of the total weight in site selection. Areas
with suitability indexes greater than 0.79 were chosen as potential
biogas plant sites to ensure economic and environmental sustain-
ability. There are sufficient siting options in the northern and
southeastern regions of Izmir; however, there is limited number of
suitable areas in the western peninsula, central region and city
center (Izmir Gulf Region). Therefore, 3 additional sites from the
western peninsula and 1 from the central region were chosen as
potential biogas plant sites in addition to the 16 potential sites with
SI > 0.79. These 4 additional sites are solid waste transfer stations.
Although they are located in restricted areas, such as agricultural
area and forest areas, the current use of land and additional land
availability were the reasons to choose them.
3242
30,377
3.3. Determination of the optimum number of biogas plants and
15,612
41 corresponding plant specific energy production capacities and
51 transport distances
92
Only one site was chosen from the areas with multiple potential
plant sites in nearby. 14 potential biogas plant sites remained
eventually. Transfer stations representing OFMSW sources and
neighborhoods with livestock farms representing livestock manure
sources were defined as waste sources in the location-allocation
analysis. 14 potential plant sites, 15 transfer stations, and 898
livestock farms are shown in Fig. 6. Unlike other biomass, all waste
must be collected in waste management systems. Therefore, a cut
off distance was not set for the location-allocation analysis. Waste
amount at each waste source was defined as demand weight. This
overweights the selection of potential sites that are closer to areas
with higher waste availability, in case of preference. The location-
allocation analysis was performed for increasing number of
plants from 1 to 14 in the same settings.
The total transportation distance and number of plants have a
negative exponential relationship as plotted in Fig. 7. The change in
transportation distance is significantly great for the first couple of
plants. It decreases as the number of plants increases. The system
reaches stability between 8 and 14 plants where the change is less
than 5% as the number of plants increase. The effects of number of
plants on transportation cost, average transportation distance, and
average and minimum plant sizes are shown in Table 4. More than 8
plants drastically decrease the minimum plant size from 7.5 to
1.3 MW. Therefore, 8 biogas plants were accepted as the optimum
 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040 9

Fig. 5. Land suitability for biogas plants. Potential biogas plant sites (SI > 0.79) and additional sites (TS) are shown with red and yellow dots, respectively. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 6. Potential biogas plant sites (candidate facilities) and waste sources (demand points) in the case study area. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
10 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040

closer locations to the major solid waste transfer stations. Plant ID 9

has the greatest average transportation distance because its service
area encompasses the western peninsula where waste sources are
in smaller amounts and dispersedly located.

3.4. Economic assessment

Turkey’s current energy policy aims to increase the share of

Fig. 7. Change in total transportation distance with increasing number of plants.
number of plants considering the effect of economies of scale. Total
transportation cost decreases by half when the number of plants
increases from 1 to 14. This cost does not include the transportation
cost of livestock manure. The maximum transportation distance for
manure was calculated as 20 km to have a positive energy input-
output ratio (Po €schl et al., 2010). The average transportation dis-
tance decreases from 83.5 to 17.5 km with increasing number of
plants. The average transportation distance for 8 plants is slightly
greater than the 20 km limit. This can be decreased if the waste
sources on the western peninsula are excluded from the system
(Fig. 8). There are 37 waste sources located in this part of the study
area. The total power obtained from them is just 1.02 MW, while
the average transportation distance is 54.2 km. Onsite composting
might be a better solution for these waste sources due to their
remote locations and low availabilities.
The allocation map for 8 biogas plants is shown in Fig. 8. All 913
waste sources were allocated to 8 biogas plants throughout the
study area by performing the methodology of Section 2.6. Alloca-
tion lines show the waste source e biogas plant connectivity and
were calculated using the actual road network. Half of the plants
are located in the south and southeastern regions. Two plants are
located in the north, 1 in the center close to the city center (Izmir
Bay Area), and 1 in the west close to the western peninsula.
Plant size, waste composition, number of waste source points,
total and average transportation distances for the chosen plant sites
are presented in Table 5. Half of the biogas plants are located in
areas where organic waste can be collected in larger amount from
shorter distances (Plant ID 3, 5, 13 and 14). These are the
economically most feasible plants. Two of the plants digest live-
stock manure alone (Plant ID 13 and 14). Plant ID 9 and 11 have the
largest sizes, and mainly process OFMSW due to their relatively
renewable energy in total energy production. The share of renew-
able energy in electricity production in Turkey was planned to be at
least 30% until 2023 (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources,
2014). The government ensures purchase guarantee for the first
ten years by a constant feed-in tariff of 13.3 $ cent/kWh for biomass.
After 10 years, the non-incentive purchase price of $ 4.3 cents/kWh
is applied. The average unit cost of electric energy for 20 years was
calculated as 10 $ cent/kWh in this study. It corresponds to the
average value of the IRENA’s calculation of 6e15 $ cent/kWh
(IRENA, 2012). The breakdown of the calculated unit cost indicates
that the investment cost dominates. Investment, O&M and trans-
portation costs account for 70%, 27%, and 3% of the total unit cost,
respectively. It must be reminded that the transportation of live-
stock manure is not included in unit cost. Transportation cost can
significantly increase with the transportation of manure due to its
vast number and dispersedly located sources.
11 $ cent/kWh is being paid with the existing feed-in tariff for a
biogas plant with a lifetime of 20 years which is slightly greater
than the unit cost of 10 $ cent/kWh. The average feed-in tariff for
biomass and waste for OECD countries in 2017 was 13.4 and 16.2 $
cent/kWh, respectively (OECD, 2019). The length of purchase
agreement varies between 10 and 25 years. Turkey is one of the
three countries having a 10-year length of purchase agreement.
Most of the other countries have 15e20 years of agreement lengths.
13.3 $ cent/kWh (11 $ cent/kWh for 20 years) feed-in tariff for
biogas in Turkey is relatively less among the OECD countries.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
The estimation of the unit cost of energy production was based
on a number of assumptions. An average value of OFMSW gener-
ation for the entire city was considered, average unit values for the
calculation of investment and O&M costs were utilized, a 20 year
lifetime was taken into account, a discount rate of 10% was used and
a constant fuel cost was considered. These assumptions are key
variables affecting the unit production cost and may involve
possible uncertainties. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was carried
out to analyze the extent to which these assumptions affect the
economic feasibility. The values of these assumptions were

Table 4
The effects of number of plants on transportation cost, average transportation distance, and average and minimum plant sizes.

j Plant ID Transportation cost ($/y) Average Distance (km) Average Size (MW) Minimum Size (MW)

1 11 3,090,835 83.5 92.0

2 3,5 3,229,277 51.7 46.0 36.7
3 2,5,11 2,382,744 37.3 30.7 16.5
4 2,3,5,11 2,101,131 31.4 23.0 8.6
5 2,3,5,6,11 1,919,573 30.3 18.4 8.6
6 2,3,5,6,9,11 1,683,612 25.1 15.3 8.6
7 2,3,5,6,9,11,13 1,683,612 23.2 13.1 8.6
8 2,3,5,6,9,11,13,14 1,683,612 21.4 11.5 7.5
9 2,3,5,6,7,9,11,13,14 1,628,604 20.6 10.2 1.3
10 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,11,13,14 1,628,604 20.0 9.2 1.3
11 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,13,14 1,575,549 20.2 8.4 1.0
12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13,14 1,564,720 19.1 7.7 1.0
13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 1,531,243 18.5 7.1 0.9
14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,507,293 17.5 6.6 0.3
 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040 11

Fig. 8. The location-allocation map for 8 biogas plants. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Table 5
Plant size, waste composition, number of waste source points, total and average transportation distances for the chosen plant sites.

Plant ID Size (MW) OFMSW (%) Manure (%) Number of Waste Source Total distance (km) Average distance (km)
Points

OFMSW Manure

2 9.8 17 83 1 202 5347 26

3 8.6 33 67 2 85 1574 18
5 12.9 20 80 1 94 1664 18
6 8.9 36 64 3 138 3327 24
9 16.0 87 13 5 100 3500 33
11 19.7 87 13 3 76 1561 20
13 8.7 0 100 0 100 1752 18
14 7.5 0 100 0 103 1544 15

changed from 50% to þ50% in steps of 10%. Fig. 9 shows the results
of the sensitivity analysis.
The greatest effect on the unit cost was observed in investment
and O&M costs. Investment and O&M costs were considered
together in the sensitivity analysis. Because they both are affected
by the size of plants, and investment cost is involved in the calcu-
lation of O&M costs (see Eq. (10) and Eq. (11)). A positive linear
relationship was observed between investment and O&M costs and
unit cost. Considering the minimum and maximum values indi-
cated in the economic analysis section, 50% to þ50% range is
acceptable for investment and O&M costs. A similar trend was
observed in the discount rate. The unit cost significantly increases
with the discount rate. An inverse relationship exists between the
plant lifetime and unit cost. The effect of plant lifetime is greater
when it is shorter. The lifetime of biogas plants is defined in the
literature at various intervals. Sultana and Kumar (2012), for
instance, considered a lifetime of 30 years. Bauen et al. (2010), on
the other hand, used a min of 5 years and a maximum of 20 years of
lifetime in their sensitivity analysis. The effect of lifetime is be-
tween 27% and 7% within the change 50% to þ50% range.
Feedstock availability (OFMSW and livestock manure) did not show
a great impact on the unit. Increase in feedstock availability in-
creases production costs, however, it also increases energy pro-
duction and keeps the unit cost in balance. Fuel cost affects
transportation costs and has a positive linear relationship with the
unit cost. It has a relatively small influence on the unit cost since
only the transportation of OFMSW is considered in this study.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
In this paper, a GIS based multi-criteria decision support system
was developed to analyze siting, sizing and economic sustainability
of publicly owned centralized biogas plants in organic waste
management through the integration of environmental and eco-
nomic factors and existing solid waste management system. First, a
land suitability model was conducted with combined exclusion and
12 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040
Fig. 9. Cost vs. model parameter sensitivity analysis. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
preference analyses. The preference analysis performs AHP for
weighting preference factors and fuzzy membership functions for
spatial scaling of each preference factor. Then, the areas with
suitability indexes greater than 0.79 were selected as potential
plant sites and used in location-allocation analysis. The results of
location-allocation analysis for the increasing number of plants
showed that the change in transportation distance decreased to
less than 5% after 8 plants and the minimum plant size drastically
decreased from 7.5 to 1.3 MWe. Therefore, 8 biogas plants were
accepted as the optimum number of plants considering the effect of
economies of scale. Installation sizes, feedstock compositions, total
and average distances of individual plants in these 8 selected sites
were also computed. The proposed solution considers only the
economic aspects and environmental constraints, however, this
kind of problem (siting undesirable facilities) includes social con-
cerns as well. Future works may focus on the development of a
multiobjective model involving economic, environmental and so-
cial impacts. Such a multiobjective approach will certainly enrich
the work. It should be noted that the findings obtained in this study
are dependent on unpredictable variables that are assumed as
constant, such as municipal solid waste production rate and live-
stock manure production rate. However, the methodology allows
the adjustment of such variables to include different assumptions.
Therefore, scenario analysis can be performed in future studies to
define different sizes of biogas plants and the economically feasible
minimum and maximum feedstock amount for each plant.
The unit cost of electric energy was calculated as 10 $ cent/kWh
for this study, which is slightly less than the 11$ cent/kWh feed-in
tariff for a biogas plant with lifetime of 20 years. Turkey’s feed-in
tariff for biogas plants utilizing waste and the length of the pur-
chase agreement are less than the average values for OECD coun-
tries. Increasing feed-in tariff and extending the length of the
purchase agreement will encourage the installation of new biogas
plants and help environmentally management of organic waste in
the country. In this paper, only the transportation of OFMSW was
considered in the calculation of transportation costs, due to the lack
of regulation in manure management yet. This underestimates the
true cost of feedstock transportation as well as the unit cost of
electric energy. Although the assumption will not change when the
legislation on manure management is implemented because of the
polluter pays principle, the transportation cost of manure has to be
taken into account once a transportation system is built.
The effective planning in organic waste management and
investments in clean energy technologies are strategically impor-
tant for Turkey to meet the growing energy needs and reduce the
pollution caused by organic wastes. In this regard, this study con-
stitutes an important step in establishing local decision support
systems to help reduce costs and protect the environment when
planning waste management systems and wisely plan the utiliza-
tion of regional bioenergy sources.
Author contribution statement
The article was single authored by Sedat Yalcinkaya.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Grant number 118Y043. The
author would like to thank Dr. Osman Kirtiloglu for his help in
creating the geodatabase, and to the Solid Waste Management
Authority of the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality for their input to
this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120040.
Nomenclature
N Population
A Rate of municipal solid waste production (kg/person-
day)
f Organic fraction of municipal solid waste ratio
MOFMSW Methane generation for OFMSW (m3 CH4/ton)
MLM Methane generation for livestock manure (m3 CH4/ton)
QM Lower heating value for methane (MJ/m3)
i, j Index notation
n, m Total number of elements in an index
 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040 13

H Livestock manure (ton/y) optimization, hierarchical clustering, location optimization, and kernel density
methods are useful for promoting distributed bioenergy plant planning in rural
STS Total solids content (kg TS/kg manure)
areas. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 32, 47e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/
D Average manure density (kg/m3) j.seta.2019.01.006.
SI Suitability index Lorimor, J., Powers, W., Sutton, A., 2004. Manure Characteristics. Iowa State Uni-
W Weight for preference factors versity MidWest Plan Service.
Ma, J., Scott, N.R., Degloria, S.D., Lembo, A.J., 2005. Siting analysis of farm-based
w Demand weight of waste source (1) centralized anaerobic digester systems for distributed generation using GIS.
d Distance (m) Biomass Bioenergy 28, 591e600. https://doi.org/10.1016/
z Binary decision variable (0 or 1) j.biombioe.2004.12.003.
Macias-Corral, M., Samani, Z., Hanson, A., Smith, G., Funk, P., Yu, H., Longworth, J.,
y Binary decision variable (0 or 1) 2008. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and
p Number of suitable facility areas the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresour. Technol. 99,
TT Total transportation cost ($/y) 8288e8293. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2008.03.057.
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, 2014. Türki_ye ulusal yeni_lenebi_li_r enerji_
CF Fuel consumption (L/km) eylem plani [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.eie.gov.tr/duyurular_
PF Fuel price ($/L) haberler/document/Turkiye_Ulusal_Yenilenebilir_Enerji_Eylem_Plani.PDF.
Ministry of Environment, Urban Planning, 2015a. Izmir _ _ 2014 Yılı Çevre Durum
Ili
Q Organic waste generation rate (ton/y)
Raporu [WWW Document]. URL. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/
V Capacity of transfer vehicle (ton) editordosya/izmir_icdr2014.pdf.
I Investment cost ($) Ministry of Environment, Urban Planning, 2015b. Mekanik Ayırma, Biyokurutma ve
O Operation and maintenance cost ($/y) Biyometanizasyon Tesisleri ile Fermente Ürün Yo €netimi Teblig i [WWW Docu-
ment]. URL. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/10/20151010-3.htm.
xp Installation size (kW)
Ministry of Environment, Urban Planning, 2010. Atıkların Düzenli Depolanmasına
xe Energy generation rate (MWh) Dair Yo € netmelik [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/
TC Total annual cost ($/y) eskiler/2010/03/20100326-13.htm.
a Annuitization coefficient Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, 2017a. Sularda Tarımsal Faaliyetlerden
Kaynaklanan Nitrat Kirlilig €
inin Onlenmesine Yo _ Tarım Uygulamaları
€ nelik Iyi
i Discount rate Kodu Teblig i [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/
T Plant lifetime (yr) 2017/02/20170211-12.htm.
TR Annual total energy generation (kWh/y) Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, 2017b. Sularda Tarımsal Faaliyetlerden
Kaynaklanan Nitrat Kirlilig €
inin Onlenmesine Yo _ Tarım Uygulamaları
€ nelik Iyi
KF Capacity factor Kodu Teblig i-Ekler [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/
IT Internal consumption rate eskiler/2017/02/20170211-12.htm.
Pe Plant energy production (kWh/y) O’Shea, R., Wall, D., Kilgallon, I., Murphy, J.D., 2016. Assessment of the impact of
incentives and of scale on the build order and location of biomethane facilities
and the feedstock they utilise. Appl. Energy 182, 394e408. https://doi.org/
Greek symbols 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.063.
OECD, 2019. Renewable energy feed-in tariffs [WWW Document]. URL. https://
ɳ Energy conversion efficiency
stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode¼RE_FIT#. accessed 7.19.19.
m Spatial membership degree (0e1) €schl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2010. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various
Po
a Collectable part of livestock manure biogas production and utilization pathways. Appl. Energy. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.05.011.
Rolland, E., Schilling, D.a., Current, J.R., 1997. An efficient tabu search procedure for
References the p-Median Problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 96, 329e342. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0377-2217(96)00141-5.
Association of Electricity Producers, 2018. 2020 sonrası YEK Teşvikleri Oneri€ Raporu Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv.
[WWW Document]. URL. http://www.eud.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020- Sci. 1, 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
sonrasi-yek-tesvikleri-oneri-raporu.pdf. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 26,
Bauen, A.W., Dunnett, A.J., Richter, G.M., Dailey, A.G., Aylott, M., Casella, E., Taylor, G., 11e19.
2010. Modelling supply and demand of bioenergy from short rotation coppice Sharma, B., Birrell, S., Miguez, F.E., 2017. Spatial modeling framework for bioethanol
and Miscanthus in the UK. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 8132e8143. https://doi.org/ plant siting and biofuel production potential in the U.S. Appl. Energy 191,
10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2010.05.002. 75e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.01.015.
Bojesen, M., Birkin, M., Clarke, G., 2014. Spatial competition for biogas production Silva, S., Alçada-Almeida, L., Dias, L.C., 2017. Multiobjective programming for sizing
using insights from retail location models. Energy 68, 617e628. https://doi.org/ and locating biogas plants: a model and an application in a region of Portugal.
10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.039. Comput. Oper. Res. 83, 189e198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.02.016.
DBFZ - Deutsches Biomasse Forschungs Zentrum gemeinnützige GmbH Torgauer Silva, S., Alçada-Almeida, L., Dias, L.C., 2014. Biogas plants site selection integrating
Straße, 2011. Türkiye’de Biyogaz Yatırımları Için _ Geçerli Koşulların ve Potan- Multicriteria Decision Aid methods and GIS techniques: a case study in a Por-
siyelin Degerlendirilmesi. WWW Document]. URL. http://www.biyogaz.web.tr/ tuguese region. Biomass Bioenergy 71, 58e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
files/docs/dbfz_turkiye_biyogaz_potansiyel_raporu.pdf. j.biombioe.2014.10.025.
European Environment Agency, 2019. Glossary:Carbon dioxide equivalent. WWW Sliz-Szkliniarz, B., Vogt, J., 2012. A GIS-based approach for evaluating the potential
Document]. eurostat. URL. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ of biogas production from livestock manure and crops at a regional scale: a case
index.php?title¼Glossary:Carbon_dioxide_equivalent. accessed 9.20.19. study for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16,
Franco, C., Bojesen, M., Hougaard, J.L., Nielsen, K., 2015. A fuzzy approach to a 752e763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.001.
multiple criteria and Geographical Information System for decision support on Sultana, A., Kumar, A., 2012. Optimal siting and size of bioenergy facilities using
suitable locations for biogas plants. Appl. Energy 140, 304e315. https://doi.org/ geographic information system. Appl. Energy 94, 192e201. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.060. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.052.
General Directorate of Mapping, 2014. Il _ ve Ilçe
_ €
Yüz Olçümleri [WWW Document]. _
TUIK, 2019. Temel Istatistikler. WWW Document]. Turkish Stat. Inst. URL. http://
URL. https://www.harita.gov.tr/images/urun/il_ilce_alanlari.pdf. www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod¼temelist. accessed 5.22.19.
General Electric, 2018. Jenbacher Reciprocating gas engines | GE power [WWW TUIK, 2017. Kişi Başı Ortalama Belediye Atıg ı Miktarı [WWW Document]. Turkish
Document]. URL. https://www.gepower.com/gas/reciprocating-engines/ Stat. Inst. URL. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn¼119&locale¼tr. accessed
jenbacher. accessed 8.17.18. 4.15.19.
Go mez, A., Zubizarreta, J., Rodrigues, M., Dopazo, C., Fueyo, N., 2010. Potential and _
TUIK, 2016. Hayvancılık Istatistikleri [WWW Document]. Turkish Stat. Inst. URL.
cost of electricity generation from human and animal waste in Spain. Renew. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/hayvancilikapp/hayvancilik.zul. accessed 4.16.19.
Energy 35, 498e505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.07.027. Valenti, F., Porto, S.M.C., Dale, B.E., Liao, W., 2018. Spatial analysis of feedstock
Ho€hn, J., Lehtonen, E., Rasi, S., Rintala, J., 2014. A Geographical Information System supply and logistics to establish regional biogas power generation: a case study
(GIS) based methodology for determination of potential biomasses and sites for in the region of Sicily. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/
biogas plants in southern Finland. Appl. Energy 113, 1e10. https://doi.org/ j.rser.2018.08.022.
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.005. Venier, F., Yabar, H., 2017. Renewable energy recovery potential towards sustainable
IRENA, 2019. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018 [WWW Document]. URL. cattle manure management in Buenos Aires Province: site selection based on
https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/May/Renewable-power-generation- GIS spatial analysis and statistics. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1317e1333. https://doi.org/
costs-in-2018. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.098.
IRENA, 2012. Biomass for Power Generation. https://doi.org/10.1365/s35152-013- Yalcinkaya, S., Malina, J.F., 2015a. Anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater
0395-6 [WWW Document]. sludge and un-dewatered grease trap waste for assessing direct feed of grease
Laasasenaho, K., Lensu, A., Lauhanen, R., Rintala, J., 2019. GIS-data related route trap waste in municipal digesters. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 104, 490e497.
14 S. Yalcinkaya / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120040

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.08.007. Comput. Electron. Agric. 114, 202e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/

Yalcinkaya, S., Malina, J.F., 2015b. Model development and evaluation of methane
potential from anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater sludge and un-
dewatered grease trap waste. Waste Manag. 40 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2015.03.013.
Zhang, J., Su, Y., Wu, J., Liang, H., 2015. GIS based land suitability assessment for
tobacco production using AHP and fuzzy set in Shandong province of China.
j.compag.2015.04.004.
Zubaryeva, A., Zaccarelli, N., Del Giudice, C., Zurlini, G., 2012. Spatially explicit
assessment of local biomass availability for distributed biogas production via
anaerobic co-digestion - Mediterranean case study. Renew. Energy 39,
261e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.021.