Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator framework

for waste-to-energy systems and a proposed metric of sustainability
Yih Tng Chong n, Kwong Meng Teo, Loon Ching Tang
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore,1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Studies of waste-to-energy systems have applied a varying range of indicators to assess their sustain-
Received 9 January 2015 ability. The sets of indicators prescribed were often based on the respective context and are therefore of
Received in revised form varying emphasis. Through a literature review, this research aims to develop a framework of sustain-
18 July 2015
ability indicators that can serve as a reference for future research in waste-to-energy systems. Sustain-
Accepted 20 November 2015
Available online 18 December 2015
ability indicators and their underlying factors from the three pillars of sustainability were consolidated
and structured under a proposed framework. As factors interlinking between the three pillars such as
Keywords: carbon schemes are critical for sustainability, they were identified and described within the framework.
Waste-to-energy The proposed framework is extended with a lifecycle dimension to facilitate lifecycle sustainability
Indicator assessments. This article presents a novel metric of sustainability (MOS). The proposed indicator fra-
Sustainability
mework and the MOS are applied in a case study to demonstrate their functions in sustainability
Sustainable development
assessments. The case highlighted the advantages of the MOS and the importance of considering systems
Lifecycle sustainability assessment
Sustainability metric
from a more holistic perspective, especially in practice where sustainability issues tend to fall within and
Index across boundaries of the economic, environmental and social lifecycles.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
2. Objective and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
3. An overview of WTE systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
4. Identifying indicators and factors through a literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
4.1. Environmental sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
4.2. Economic sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
4.3. Social sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
5. Interlinking factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
6. Organization of the indicators and factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
7. A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
8. A metric of sustainability-MOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
9. A case study of IUT Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
9.1. Environmental sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.1.1. Global warming potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.1.2. Energy resource depletion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.1.3. Landfill reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.2. Economic sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.2.1. Profit after subsidy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.3. Social sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
9.3.1. NIMBY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806

Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; CHP, cogeneration of heat and power; GHG, greenhouse gas; LCA, lifecycle assessment; LCSA, lifecycle sustainability assessment;
MOS, metric of sustainability; MSW, municipal solid waste; NIMBY, not-in-my-backyard; WTE, waste-to-energy
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 65 6516 2203; fax: 65 6777 1434.
E-mail addresses: ethan.chong@singaporetech.edu.sg (Y.T. Chong), kwongmeng@alum.mit.edu (K.M. Teo), isetlc@nus.edu.sg (L.C. Tang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.036
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
798 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
9.3.2. Source separation level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
9.4. Interlinking sustainability factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
9.5. Overall sustainability of IUT Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
10. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
1. Background
The worldwide trend of rapid mass migration into cities has
raised various issues of sustainability. In addressing the long term
viability of megacities, policymakers are keeping an eye on
environmental and social impacts while developing the engine of
economic growth. Energy and waste are two key elements in the
management of megacities. High energy consumption and
greenhouse gases emissions are among the concerns. At the same
time, megacities produce municipal and industrial waste at a high
rate, which require appropriate management to avoid pollution,
high landfill demand, social repulsion and other issues. In this
context, waste-to-energy (WTE) solutions have been applied in
cities to reduce waste volume and generate energy concurrently.
This study investigates the sustainability of WTE systems.
Numerous indices and sets of indicators of sustainability have
been proposed, many of which are listed and discussed in a review
by Singh et al. [1]. Existing metrics such as the Sustainability
Performance Index and Urban Sustainability Index are general and
do not specifically assess the sustainability of a system – WTE
system in this case. In addressing the sustainability of WTE sys-
tems, specific indicators are of interest.
Subjects of sustainability are often discussed in the context of
the three sustainability pillars –social, economic and environ-
mental. The sustainability of WTE systems can be described by
indicators that spread across the three pillars, including the
overlapping areas (as shown in Fig. 1). The robustness of WTE
solutions may not be assessed when looking at a small subset of
indicators, for example only those within one of the three pillars.
Further, it is well known that optimization in one dimension may
lead to unwanted effects in other dimensions. In this regard, sus-
tainability research has cautioned that an over-simplified picture
may derive and deliver misleading messages for decision-makers
[2,3]. Sustainability assessment of WTE systems therefore requires
an integration of information from multi-dimensional indicators
[4,5].
Extensive studies have investigated various WTE systems,
which were concerned with the environmental, economic and/or
the social aspects. Some studies considered indicators from a
Fig. 1. Sustainability pillars of WTE systems.
single pillar, while others concurrently accounted for two. To
consider the sustainability of WTE systems more holistically, a
range of research has applied indicators under all three pillars, for
instances, the studies of den Boer et al. [6] and Del Borghi et al. [7].
Further examples are as shown in Table 1.
The set of sustainability indicators applied in a study is usually
selected based on its local context, for instances, the policies in
question, data availability and opinions of the researchers. Hence,
as evident in Table 1, sets of indicators applied across studies are
of differing scopes, may overlap one another, and can be of dif-
ferent levels of generality. Due to the wide spectrum of applicable
indicators, a framework that consolidates and organizes the range
of indicators can be valuable to future studies of WTE systems.
In a sustainability assessment of a given system, the values of
the adopted indicators are often scaled, normalized, weighted and
aggregated to form a single index [1]. Using this approach, the
parameters and results can be subjective. Further, physical infor-
mation is usually lost in composite indices. A metric of sustain-
ability that can address these issues and be applied to the pro-
posed sustainability indicator framework is of interest in this
research.
2. Objective and methodology
The objective of this research is to propose a framework of
sustainability indicators and a metric of sustainability that can
serve as references1 for sustainability studies of WTE systems. As
the framework should cover a holistic range of indicators that may
be considered across WTE studies, relevant sustainability con-
siderations were identified and consolidated through a literature
review. The review focuses on sustainability studies of WTE. As
such, keywords applied in the literature search are energy, waste
and sustainability. It should be noted that the review was not
focused in the research per se, such as the technologies and the
implementations, but to as comprehensively as possible identify a
range of relevant indicators and factors. Subsequently, the con-
solidated range of sustainability considerations was then orga-
nized under a proposed WTE sustainability indicator framework.
To systematically organize the sustainability considerations, the
following schemes were adopted.
 Three pillars of sustainability – most existing studies have
already structured indicators based on the economic–social-
environmental categorization scheme. This scheme is employed
in the proposed framework for consistency.
 Indicators and underlying factors: within each pillar, sustain-
ability considerations can be at differing levels of generality. For
example, ‘global warming potential’ and ‘CO2 emission’ are
considerations at differing levels. In the proposed framework,
1
The indicator framework published by the United Nations Commission for
Sustainable Development has been applied to sustainability studies on the national
level [11]. On the other hand, the framework developed in this research is specific
for the level of WTE systems. The proposed MOS is generic and can be widely
applied to the sustainability assessment of other types of system.
 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
Table 1
Sustainability indicators identified in various studies of waste and energy systems.
Studies Sustainability indicators
Environmental
Bastin and Long- Air emission; land emission; sewage emission;
den [8] site footprint; site visual impact; displaced CO2
emissions; total external costs of waste road
transport
Genoud and Emissions of several pollutants (CO2, VOC, SO2,
Lesourd [9] NOx, particles; cadmium; CH4); radioactivity;
BOD; noise pollution
Menikpura et al. Global warming potential; acidification poten-
[10] tial; eutrophication potential; fossil fuel
consumption
the sustainability considerations were identified as either indi-
cators or their determining factors.
 Three types of interlinking factors: cross-interactions between
the three pillars of sustainability are commonly classified into
the eco-efficiency, social-economic and socio-environmental
categories (as shown in Fig. 1). Factors within these categories
(for example carbon schemes) have not been well-covered in
sustainability studies of WTE systems, although they are critical
for sustainability management [12]. Interlinking factors were
therefore identified and structured within the proposed
framework.
 Lifecycle phases: it is useful to consider the entire lifecycle of a
WTE system in sustainability assessments. While a relatively
large number of studies have applied the lifecycle approach in
assessing the environmental aspects of WTE systems, much
lesser research has applied it in economic and social assess-
ments [13]. A framework that organizes environmental, eco-
nomic and social considerations into the various lifecycle stages
is therefore proposed.
Having prescribed the WTE sustainability indicator framework,
its applicability in sustainability assessments is quantitatively
demonstrated through a metric of sustainability (MOS) to be
proposed in this article. An overview of a range of WTE systems is
briefly introduced in Section 3 and the development of the indi-
cator framework is reported from Sections 4 to 7. The MOS is
described in Section 8. A case study is presented in Section 9 fol-
lowed by the conclusion of this work in Section 10.
3. An overview of WTE systems
Currently, one of the common practices of waste disposal is
landfilling. Compared to direct landfilling, WTE approaches are
widely regarded as a fossil fuel replacement and landfill reduction
strategy [14]. Incineration is a common approach to energy
recovery from waste. The emergence of WTE alternative technol-
ogies has been fueled by the growing negative publicity on
incinerators and the rising demand for alternative energy [15]. For
example in Japan, incineration of food waste is avoided and
allowed only if recycling is not viable [16]. Two of the alternative
WTE technologies that have gained much attention are gasifica-
tion and anaerobic digestion (AD). Overall, the alternative
technologies2 offer economic effectiveness, considerable net
energy recovery and reduction of emitted pollutant and green-
house gases (GHG) [15,16,19]. In the recent years, smaller-scale
2
Descriptions and reviews of gasification and AD technologies can be found in
Fodor and Klemeš [17] and Rapport et al. [18].
799
Economic Social
Net cost per tonne processed; cost of waste Lorry traffic impact on local communities; jobs
transfer stations and road transport of waste; created; health of local community; community
technical maturity; flexibility and strategic ownership
value
Technical efficiency; renewability; production Notion of public good; land area requirement;
capacity upon demand; possibility of growth energy payback; number of persons working in
of the technology; production cost each energy technology; supply risk; use of local
energy resources
Capital cost; operation cost; maintenance Land occupation; damage to human health;
cost; environmental cost (externalities) employment opportunities
decentralized energy production systems have been gaining
attention in research and practice. This may be due to that the
locations of waste source and energy demand (electrical and heat)
often coincide geographically, and these locations are usually
decentralized over a larger area. One of the biggest sources of
waste is municipal solid waste (MSW), which includes waste
produced by household, offices, small businesses and services [17].
Therefore, there has been the concept of having more small-scale
WTE systems within urban local communities where the sources
of feedstock are located [14,20]. Studies have shown that in gen-
eral, decentralized WTE systems possess potential positive con-
tributions towards sustainability. On the other hand, centralized
large-scale production systems have been criticized for hiding
social and environmental costs of production by distancing their
activities from residential areas [21]. The studies considered in this
research include both small-scale and the more traditional cen-
tralized WTE systems. Despite being environmentally positive,
WTE systems have faced a great deal of economic and social
challenges in practice. As highlighted above, sustainability
assessments of WTE systems should therefore be holistic to
account for the different facets.
4. Identifying indicators and factors through a literature
review
In view of the research objective, the literature review per-
formed here focused on identifying sustainability considerations
(i.e. indicators and factors) which are required as the building
blocks of the proposed framework. Key sustainability considera-
tions, which we identify as indicators are differentiated from the
factors on which they depend. Generalizing the results of various
sustainability studies requires further analysis, as the factors and
data involved such as tax, waste composition and social norms
always vary across localities [22]. This review work therefore does
not emphasize on the generalization of the various studies. The
indicators and factors considered in the work are ones that are
applicable across WTE systems. Technical indicators that char-
acterize the performances of WTE systems (for example organic
waste stabilization efficiency) are often specific to technologies,
and are therefore not a focus for the purpose of this work. In the
following sub-sections, sustainability considerations under the
three pillars of sustainability – environmental, economic and
social – are reviewed and introduced.
4.1. Environmental sustainability
Lifecycle assessments (LCAs) and substance flow analysis are
methodologies applied to assess the environmental impacts of the
800 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809

different WTE technologies [23–25]. The approaches account for a
series of WTE processes as shown in Table 2. In these assessments,
types of waste treated, residues sent for landfilling, energy
requirements for pretreatment and direct/ indirect emissions were
some of the environmental factors considered. For example, an LCA
performed by Bernstad and la Cour Jansen [22] investigated
incineration, decentralized composting and centralized AD of
MSW. The applied environmental factors include waste collection,
transportation, plastic/paper bag usage, biogas composition,
energy balances, emission and residues. In another example,
Mezzullo et al. [26] performed a study on a small-scale AD plant,
showing that the production and use of derived biogas being
beneficial in terms of various indicators and factors including GHG
emission, carbon sequestration and fossil fuel replacement.
A key environmental issue of WTE solutions has been the
lifecycle emissions. The emissions may be direct during the pro-
cess or indirectly during other phases within the lifecycle, for
example, Mangoyana and Smith [21] noted that the reduction in
transportation distance in decentralized scenarios has led to lower
GHG emissions. Air emissions of GHG, CO, NOx, dioxins and
unburned compounds were some of the key environmental factors
considered in past studies [15,30].
A WTE system typically includes sub-systems to reduce
unwanted emissions. Processes such as wet-scrubbing, desul-
phurization, ammonia removal, acid dry neutralization, fabric fly
ash filtration, tar cracking and dioxin absorption are often imple-
mented to meet emission requirements. Pretreatment of biogas
has been considered as well, as it can be performed to remove
pollutants. It was noted that modern air pollution control tech-
nologies have allowed incineration plants to achieve minimal
environmental impact [28]. While many LCA studies do not
account for the emission reduction facilities, some studies do
[16,17]. To fully assess the environmental sustainability of a WTE
system, measures that reduce harmful effects such as those
Table 2
A Lifecycle overview of WTE systems.
Lifecycle phases Processes
Waste collection Transportation, waste transfer
Waste pre- Sorting, shredding, drying
treatment
Waste-to-energy Anaerobic digestion, gasification,
incineration
Emission control Desulphurization, tar cracking, ammonia
filtration, wet-scrubbing, wastewater
treatment
Waste disposal Landfilling
highlighted above ought to be considered. Impacts of the emis-
sions on human health as a key environmental indicator have been
studied [26,31,32]. Emissions that can cause damages to human
body systems include heavy metals, furans, dioxins, smog pre-
cursors and ammonia from digestate storage. Asthma, chest
infection and bronchitis are examples of the health risks.
Where the environment is concerned, energy consumption and
production during the lifecycle of WTE systems are of interest.
Energy consumption due to transportation, operation, feedstock
heating, MSW shredding and compaction were accounted for [29].
Sources of the energy include grid electricity, diesel and looped
energy produced by the WTE plants themselves. Energy produced
has been mainly in the forms of biogas, syngas and heat from CHP
(combined heat and power) configurations. The gaseous products
may be combusted to produce electrical energy via boiler, or
converted to fuel such as gasoline and methane [15]. In some
cases, heat energy is captured for municipal local use [14,33]. In
some studies, interests were not only in the energy usage and
generation, but also in the substitution effect considering the
origin of the substituted energy [22,29]. Substituted energy source
is context-dependent, which could be fossil fuel, hydropower, or
other renewable energy sources [19,23]. Apart from energy
resource replacement, environmental damages (e.g. GHG emis-
sion) avoided from the displacement of original energy sources
have also been considered [2]. For example, emission due to the
production of grid energy was compared to emissions from WTE
processes [24].
Countries with limited area for landfilling have been looking to
minimize the volume of waste produced, where landfill require-
ment is a key environmental indicator. WTE has been one of the
key strategies, as the digestate of the AD process can be used as
fertilizer and diverted from landfills [8]. Further, the displacement
of inorganic fertilizer was found to have positive impacts on some
environmental indicators, for examples, reduction in carcinogenic
effects, respiratory inorganics, climate change and fossil fuel
resource depletion [26].
Research described above provides important insights into the
key metrics to be considered in a WTE sustainability indicator
Examples
framework. The identified environmental indicators and their
[8,21] determining factors are as shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
[15]
4.2. Economic sustainability
[18,27]
[16,17,26,28] Economic sustainability implies that a WTE system secures
sufficient revenues to ensure an economically sound and con-
tinuous operation over a period of analysis [6]. The consideration
[14,29]
of economic sustainability is critical. As a case in point, the high

Table 3
Identified WTE environmental indicators.

Environmental indicators Remarks Examples

Global warming potential
Acidification potential
Eutrophication potential
Photochemical ozone formation
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Energy resource depletion
Landfill volume
Eco-toxicity and human toxicity
potential
Due to GHG emission, e.g. during transportation and combustion of waste and biogas. Common GHG are CO2, [2,22–24,31,34]
CH4, and N2O. Unit: kg CO2-eq
An impact on ecosystems through the increase in the acidity of water and soil. Acidifying substances include
SO2, SO3, NOx, HCl and HF. Unit: kg SO2-eq
An abnormal level of nutrient such as nitrogen load in the environment. Unit: kg NO3 or PO4-eq
Low-level ozone is hazardous to human respiratory system. NOx, CO, and SO2 are precursors of ozone due to
reaction with sunlight. Unit: kg C2H4-eq
The depletion of Earth's ozone due to the emission of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances. Unit: CFC-
11-eq
The usage of fossil fuel and its derivatives, e.g. heavy oils, natural gas, hard coal, kerosene and diesel. Unit: MJ [2,10,26]
-eq
The volume of waste sent to landfill via WTE processes compared to direct landfilling. Unit: Kg or m3 [14,25,28,29,32]
Contributed by carcinogens, respiratory inorganics and organics, particulates, and other substances harmful to [26,31,32]
the environment and human beings (e.g. dioxin and furan on mortality and chronic effects). Unit: ppm, kg 1,4-
dichlorobenzene equivalents per kg emission, or ITEQ ng/Nm3
 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809 801

Table 4
Identified WTE environmental factors.

Environmental factors Remarks Examples

System inputs Quantity and composition of MSW, biomass, food waste, water, land utilized and cracking catalyst. [23,34]
Lifecycle emissions Emission to air, land and water, during processes such as transportation, WTE and landfilling. They include CO2, N2O, CH4, NH3, [17,19,31]
NH, dioxins, furan, CO, SO2, NOx, SOx, HCl, HF, PM, NMVOC, H2S, heavy metal (e.g. Cd, Hg, Cr, Zn, Cu, and Pb), radioactivity and
ammonia.
Residues Bottom ash, fly ash, sludge, landfills, waste water and compost. [17]
Energy consumption Grid or locally generated electricity, diesel and kerosene, for transportation, operation, feedstock heating, MSW shredding and [29,31]
compaction etc.
Energy production Heat, electricity, biogas and syngas, with consideration of energy conversions. [14,15,33,35]

Table 5
Identified WTE economic indicators.

Economic indicators Remarks Examples

Profit/loss Overall profit or loss of a WTE operation. [6,18,33,39]

Municipal intervention Subsidy and incentives – for setting up and operating plant; for generation or use of renewable energy, e.g. carbon credit [18,21,27,30,31,39]
offset, renewable energy tax credits and price supports.
Taxation – tax of profit based on national/local tax rate; other taxes including energy sales tax (electricity and biofuel)
and carbon tax.
Risk Reference to technical maturity; possibility of technology growth, flexibility and strategic value. [8,9]

cost of bioenergy may impede the adoption of a WTE system, even
if it is environmentally and socially acceptable.
Economic sustainability of a system is underpinned by its cost
and revenue components (i.e. factors). It has been found that the
viability of WTE systems is quite often limited by the cost of
acquiring their feedstock [33]. In the case of gasification plants, the
high cost of biomass typically renders the cost of the produced
electricity far beyond that of the fossil fuel energy [30]. Further,
the cost of collecting and transporting feedstock can be significant
[36]. As such, strategically locating WTE systems at places where
feedstock is abundant can be expected to enhance economic via-
bility [37]. This led to the decentralization of WTE operations as
described in Section 3. It has been shown that distributed WTE can
be economically attractive due to lower transportation cost and
flexibility in managing waste availability [14]. Other than profit
and loss figures, economic risk of running WTE systems is another
key indicator of economic sustainability [8,9]. In the case of
decentralized systems, lower economic risk can be expected, as
the deployment can be flexible and stepwise in releasing capital
expenditure. The decentralization of WTE systems often translates
to the use of smaller-scale facilities. Small-scale plants are how-
ever more costly to run due to their usually less-than-optimal
scales of operation, while large-scale centralized scenarios tend to
have lower net cost per ton of waste processed. In many cases,
small-scale grid-connected renewable energy systems were hardly
economically competitive relative to using electricity from the grid
[38].
Due to the economic challenges of running WTE systems,
especially smaller-scaled and more environmentally-friendly ones,
government or municipal subsidies were reportedly a key eco-
nomic consideration required for their sustainability [27,30]. The
subsidies may be in the forms of carbon tax, biofuel tax break,
investment or public educational programme. To increase eco-
nomic viability, Mangoyana and Smith [21] suggested encouraging
a local bioenergy market. There have been other measures to
improve economic sustainability, for examples, through techno-
logical development and operating a set of WTE technologies in an
optimal configuration [18].
In this work, indicators of economic sustainability were iden-
tified. As shown in Table 5, they are namely profitability, municipal
intervention and the level of risk involved. A range of underlying
economic factors is presented in Table 6.
4.3. Social sustainability
In general, WTE systems require social acceptance and parti-
cipation to be sustainable [40]. Social involvement can be sup-
ported by legislation, for example in Japan where its Food Recy-
cling Law requires food waste emitters to report the amount of
food waste recycled [16]. There are various common drivers (i.e.
factors in this work) of social acceptance that support the sus-
tainability of WTE systems. For instance, social acceptance was
found to increase when WTE systems are perceived to promote
climate change mitigation [41]. The social acceptability of WTE
systems can also be enhanced if forms of local deficiencies or
requirements can be addressed, for example, when the produced
heat and electrical energy are tapped by the local industry or the
community for domestic use. WTE systems may meet other local
requirements including employment and fertilizer that can be
produced by anaerobic digestion. These social factors are espe-
cially relevant in rural areas where jobs and energy supply are of
greater concern. Studies have shown that the success rate of WTE
projects can be increased by having more bottom–up and deeper
social involvement. Such approaches include having community-
owned projects and conducting sensitization meetings with the
local community [41]. In community-led cases, the quality-of-life
of surrounding residents and community ties were shown to be
equally or more important criteria compared to other economic
and environmental factors [40]. Educational and information dis-
semination programme can aid in increasing social acceptance.
They function to reassure and persuade the public in, for exam-
ples, the ability of regulatory control in detecting hazardous
situations, the appropriateness of environmental standards, the
selection of site location, the appropriate emergency actions, and
the adequacy in technical expertize [42]. Taking reference from
past studies, other types of social factors that affect the sustain-
ability of WTE systems include the associated visual impact and
noise level [8,14,43].
The NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome is a key social
concern and therefore a key indicator identified in this review.
Factors driving the NIMBY syndrome include safety, method of
waste handling, and land space requirements [35]. Indoor leakage
of biogas containing carbon monoxide and methane may be a
public concern, although the chance of that occurring can be very
low. It is key to recognize that the community's perceptions
802 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809

Table 6
Identified WTE economic factors.

Economic factors Remarks Examples

Fixed capital cost Planning Planning activities, e.g. engineering design and environmental impact assessment. [18]
Land Site footprint and land acquisition. [33]
Equipment purchase Equipment including water scrubber, tar cracking unit, ash removal facility, gas engine, power transmis- [27,37,39]
sion, waste transfer station and control system.
Setup Site development and equipment installation, e.g., civil work, access roads, electrical distribution network, [33,27,37,39]
piping and assembly work.
Operating cost Depreciation Depreciation of installations, which can be calculated based on expected lifespan (using manufacturer [37,39]
data).
Maintenance Running and extraordinary repairs, and inspection cost. May be calculated as percentage of equipment [16,27,33,37,39]
cost.
Utility Energy and water supplies, e.g. electricity (to drive motors), water (in boiler and scrubber) and fuel (as [27,34,39]
pilot fuel and transportation).
Residual disposal Fees charge by residual (ash and waste water) collectors and landfill authority. [18,23,39]
Labor Function of man-hour requirement and unit cost, e.g. in operation, supervision and training. [27,30,33,37,39]
Raw material Transportation and pretreatment of raw materials, e.g. MSW, food waste and biomass. [8,23,27,30,37,39]
Insurance Can be calculated as a percentage of fixed capital cost. [18,33]
Regulatory fee Fees paid to the regulatory authority. [18]
Revenue Electricity Sale value of the generated electricity. [33,39]
Gas Sale value of the produced energy gas. [18]
Earth conditioner Earth conditioners produced in waste composting facilities. [34]
Heat Captured heat energy for sale or onsite applications (e.g. in dehumidification and heating). [33]
Waste collection Fee collected from the waste disposing party. [16,18]
Recovered materials Sale value of materials such as paper and cardboard, glass, metals and plastics. [6]

interlinking factors that can be classified under eco-efficiency,

Table 7
Identified WTE social indicators.
Social indicators Remarks
NIMBY syndrome NIMBY syndrome resulting in opposition
by residents in proximity to a WTE facility.
Source separation Level of household source separation and
level collection; households' willingness to
separate waste at source.
Social acceptability Acceptability by community stakeholders.
Social function and Social benefits due to WTE system; equi-
equity table distribution of system’s benefits and
detriments within a community.
socio-economics, or socio-environment (as depicted in Fig. 1).
They typically relate some benefits attained under a pillar at the
cost of another pillar. Past studies in WTE systems have not
Examples
explicitly identified and accounted for the interlinking factors of
[42] sustainability. It could be due to that relatively few studies have
simultaneously considered two or three of the pillars, which is
[22,25,45]
necessary to identify and study the interactions. In this work,
sustainability factors of WTE systems under the three interlinking
[6] categories are proposed, as shown in Table 9. They are based on
[6] the factors identified in Tables 4, 6 and 8. It should be highlighted
that, beyond identifying them here, their quantification and
valuation is a challenge in both research and practice [13].

especially regarding health have a major effect on the extent of

local opposition [14,42]. With higher awareness of emission con-
trol technologies, opposition to WTE plants has become relatively
rare [28]. However, it is still a key consideration, as shown in cases
where plans of WTE installations being changed in the face of
strong public protests [44].
Table 7 shows the identified social indicators, namely the
extent of the NIMBY syndrome, social acceptability, function and
equity, and the levels of source separation [6,25,42,45]. While the
NIMBY syndrome is related to ‘social acceptability’, it measures a
more specific aspect and the indication is particularly instructive
to policy-makers. The drivers behind these indicators as discussed
above are summarized in Table 8.
5. Interlinking factors
Rapport et al. [18] opined that a proper economic analysis
would need to consider the monetary value of environmental
benefits. An economic analysis along this line by Giugliano et al.
[31] accounted for renewable energy sources and energy saving
activities via the ‘green’ and ‘white’ certifications. Landfill tax and
carbon pricing are two other examples of environmental-
economic instruments that account for cost and benefits across
the pillars of sustainability [10,38,46].
Numerous factors identified in Tables 4, 6 and 8 are linked to
factors from another pillar of sustainability. They are the
6. Organization of the indicators and factors
The multi-faceted sustainability concerns of WTE systems were
identified and labeled as indicators and factors (i.e. factors deter-
mine the performance of the related indicators) as shown from
Tables 3 to 9. Based on the concept of the three sustainability
pillars shown in Fig. 1, the list of identified sustainability con-
siderations can be organized under a more defined structure, as
presented in Fig. 2.
The compartments within the structure can be populated with
the respective sets of indicators and factors listed from Tables 3 to 9
above. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that each interlinking factors (e.g.
of socio-economic type) is a factor of two indicators from the two
corresponding pillars (e.g. social and economic). For example, ‘land
use’ as an eco-efficiency interlinking factor is an economic (i.e. land
cost) and at the same time an environmental (i.e. land space uti-
lized) factor, impacting on both economic (e.g. profit via landfill fee
collection) and environmental (e.g. landfill reduction) indicators.
7. A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator framework
Lifecycle thinking has been applied to assess environmental
impacts (i.e. LCA), and to a much lesser extent, to assess economic
and social implications. In the context of sustainable development,
however, all three aspects are required to make well-informed
 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809 803

Table 8
Identified WTE social factors.

Social factors Remarks Examples

Community involvement Involvement of local community in the lifecycle of a WTE facility, e.g. sorting at source initiatives, community [8,14,21,40,42]
ownership and information exchange (education, reassurance and persuasion).
Legislation Regulations, e.g. to support recycling and waste sorting at source. [16]
Social impact Effects on the local community, including: traffic impact; noise pollution; odor presence; waste handling; local [6,8,10,14,20,21,35,41]
energy applications; local by-products applications; job creation; visual impact; damage to health; convenience;
and land space usage.
System safety Risk perception and safety considerations, including: emissions; explosion risk; hazard detection ability; environ- [6,14,35,42]
mental standards; site location; technical expertise; and emergency action plan.
Climate change mitigation Societal awareness of climate change mitigation due to WTE system. [21]
Energy security Societal awareness of increased energy security due to WTE system. [41]

Table 9
Proposed Interlinking sustainability factors of WTE systems (refer to the citations and details in Tables 3 to 8).

Proposed interlinking factors Remarks Crossover instruments

Eco-efficiency Land use To account for land uses, e.g. for landfills and WTE Landfill fee; landfill volume; tipping fee; land use cost.
installations.
Carbon schemes To account for carbon emission and sequestration. Carbon pricing; carbon credit; carbon tax.
Pollution management To account for pollution reduction measures and pollu- Pollutant mitigation cost (e.g. equipment and processes);
tant emissions. pollution fines.
Energy schemes To account for energy usage, saving and generation. Energy tax; renewable energy tax relief; clean energy sub-
sidy/incentive; energy pricing; energy sale value.
Socio-economic Local applications of Energy use, e.g. heat energy for boiling water and biogas Local market and infrastructure for generated energy and
products for transportation; bio-compost as fertilizer. by-products.
Job creation Employment generated for societal and economic Employments, e.g. in waste transportation, sorting, and WTE
benefits. operation.
Community Societal participation on economic basis; community- Waste sorting with economic incentives; investment in
involvement funded WTE system. educational programme; community funded co-ownership.
Energy security Investment in national or local energy security. Government funding; energy source in remote areas.
Socio-environment Green movements Societal efforts in environmental protection. NGOs and green initiatives.
Legislation The applications of law to change social behavior for Environmental protection regulations and enforcement, e.g.
environmental protection. in recycling practice and waste handling.

decisions [13]. This study further developed the organization struc-

ture depicted in Fig. 2, by extending it with a lifecycle dimension of
waste management by a typical WTE system. Indicators and factors
populated within the organizing structure (i.e. Fig. 2) can be dis-
tributed across the lifecycle phases in the proposed lifecycle-based
framework. The resulted framework with the allocated indicators
and factors identified through the literature review is shown in
Figs. 3–5 from three perspectives.
The proposed framework may be applied to assess the sus-
tainability of WTE systems. In particular, based on the set of pro-
posed interlinking factors, cost-benefit tradeoffs among the three
pillars of sustainability at specific phases of the lifecycle can be
managed. For example, the socio-economic ‘community involve-
ment’ factor represents an approach to increase social accept-
ability, such as through negotiation with community stakeholders
and public education campaign, which may come with economic
implications. It should be noted that while the framework is
general for applications across periods and locality, the constitut-
Fig. 2. An organizing structure of sustainability considerations.
ing indicators and factors should evolve as research progresses.
Sustainability indications of a given system can be arrived through
indicated in Fig. 2, an established framework of indicators is
methodologies of the respective three pillars, i.e. (environmental)
lifecycle assessment, lifecycle costing and social lifecycle assessment, applicable in gauging the overall sustainability of a given system.
all which contribute towards a holistic lifecycle sustainability assess- This section presents a metric of sustainability (MOS), which is
ment (LCSA). At present, LCSA is a relatively new concept and there is employed in Section 9 to demonstrate an application of the for-
no common or standard methodology to perform the assessment. The mulated WTE indicator framework in a sustainability assessment.
next section presents a metric that is applicable to provide an indi- There has been a wide range of indices or metrics that aims to
cation based on a sustainability assessment. measure sustainability. Some of them are specific to a category of
subjects (e.g. our planet, nations, cities, economies, eco-systems,
8. A metric of sustainability-MOS companies, services or products), while some of them are generic
in nature. They use a range of accounting methodologies that can
The purpose of constructing a framework of indicators here is involve scaling, normalization, weighting and aggregation. Over-
to provide a well-grounded basis for sustainability assessment. As views and examples of existing sustainability indices can be found
804 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
Fig. 3. Environmental indicators and factors in framework (refer to the citations and details in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 9).
Fig. 4. Economic indicators and factors in framework (refer to the citations and details in Tables 2, 5, 6 and 9).
in Singh et al. [1]. In this work, the proposed MOS is defined on a
generic level and can therefore be applied to other subjects as
listed above. The MOS is based on three novel principles that
depart from existing sustainability accounting methodologies. The
definition of the MOS through the use of the three principles is as
given below.
To measure the sustainability of system x using the MOS, a set
of sustainability indicators has to be firstly identified. The readings
of the I selected indicators are represented as variables u.
n o
U ðxÞ ¼ ui j i ¼ 1; …; I ð1Þ
The indicators can be selected from the proposed framework
established in Section 7, for example, u1 may represent the reading
of the global warming potential (GWP) indicator under the envir-
onmental sustainability pillar.
As U represents the various sustainability aspects of system x
using different scales and units, this work normalizes u to a
common sustainability measurement scale s (see Fig. 6). As such,
each indicator u defined in Eq. (1) will correspond to a sustain-
ability measurement variable s.
n o
SðxÞ ¼ si j i ¼ 1; …; I ð2Þ
Principle 1. : There is a point of neutral sustainability for every
measured aspect of a system.
In the measurement of sustainability, there is a tipping point
where a system is neither sustainable nor unsustainable. When
the balance of sustainability is tipped at this neutral point, the
aspect of the system that is measured will be considered as either
unsustainable or sustainable, depending on the direction of the
tipping. This neutral point on the indicator scale u is denoted as a
constant n (see Fig. 6). The measurement scale of sustainability s
with respect to the neutral point is as defined below.
8
< sðxÞ 40 if sustainable
>
sðxÞ: sðxÞ ¼ 0 if neutral sustainability ð3Þ
>
: sðxÞ o0 ifunsustainable
For example, u1 (i.e. GWP) of a system measures the emitted
greenhouse gases’ ability to trap solar radiation as heat and the
length of time it persists in the atmosphere, commonly taking carbon
dioxide (CO2) as the common denominator. In the case if system x is
capable of carbon sequestration, s1(x) will be positive, and negative if
GWP is positive in value. For the GWP of a system to be of neutral
sustainability (i.e. system x has no positive and negative impact on
environmental sustainability in the term of global warming), the
value of GWP has to be zero. In this case, u1(x)¼ n1(x)¼0 kg CO2-eq
will map to s1(x)¼0, with reference to Eq. (3).
Principle 2. : There is a threshold of unsustainability for every
measured aspect of a system.
The MOS assumes that for every measured aspect, there is an
extent at which the system will be rendered unsustainable. It is
suggested that the threshold level may take references from
practical (i.e. technical), policy or theoretical constraints. Con-
tinuing with the example of GWP, the threshold can be based on
an emission limit stipulated by the authority or scientific studies
(see more examples in the case study presented in Section 9). This
threshold level on the indicator scale u is denoted as a constant f.
Both in practice and theory, it can be seen that f a n. Under the
 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
Fig. 5. Social indicators and factors in framework (refer to the citations and details in Tables 2, 7, 8 and 9).
Fig. 6. Normalizing (mapping) from u to s.
MOS, the threshold level ui(x)¼ f i will be mapped to si(x)¼ -1 in
the process of normalization as shown in Fig. 6.
Based on Principles 1 and 2, the normalization of a given ui can
be performed using Eq. (4), where f a n.
ui  ni
si ðxÞ ¼ i
ni  f
Based on Eqs. 2 and 4, Eq. (5) can be applied to obtain the set of
sustainability measurements of a given system x.
(  ) pore, of which 10% was classified as food waste. 12% of the food
ui  ni 
S ðx Þ ¼  i ¼ 1; …; I ð5Þ
ni  f 
i
Principle 3. : A system is as sustainable as its least sustainable
aspect.
In general, existing composite indices of sustainability are
obtained through weightings and aggregation of the selected
indicators (see a review in Singh et al. [1]). The outcomes are
therefore dependent on the weights allocations, which can be
subjective based on stakeholders' opinions. Further, in practice,
the unsustainability of a system may not be due to a weighted
combination of some factors, but rather, due to the first limit of
unsustainability that the system encounters. In the case of WTE
systems, it can be due to the NIMBY syndrome behind local pro-
tests, or in many cases due to heavy financial losses. Therefore, in
deriving a sustainability measurement, the MOS is based on the
principle or logic that the least (normalized) sustainable aspect of
a system (i.e. the most restrictive bottleneck) is the effective sus-
tainability of the system. In other words, the sustainability of a
system x here denoted as sm (x) equates to the sustainability of
system x's least sustainable mth aspect, as given in Eqs. 6 and 7.
n  o Global.

sm ðxÞ ¼ min si ðxÞi ¼ 1; …; I ð6Þ
n  o
argmin  (ERD); (3) landfill reduction (LFR); (4) profit after subsidy (PAS) – a
m¼ si ðxÞi ¼ 1; …; I
i combined indicator of profits/losses and municipal intervention;
Using Principle 3, the MOS provides an indication of how well a
system may sustain based on the proposed scale s, with references
to a neutral point (Principle 1) and a threshold level (Principle 2).
805
This indication carries physical information, for example the
extent of carbon emission, which would have been inevitably lost
through weighting and aggregation procedures in the methodol-
ogies of composite indices. MOS therefore provides policy-makers
an absolute reference of sustainability. On the other hand, com-
posite indices may only indicate the relativities between systems
and without physical information, provided that the applied
weighting and aggregation schemes are the same over the com-
pared systems. As noted by Lancker and Nijkamp [47], a given
indicator does not say anything about sustainability, unless a refer-
ence value such as thresholds is given to it. Against this background,
the MOS prescribes an approach to an indication of sustainability.
ð4Þ
9. A case study of IUT Global
In 2012, over 7 million tons of waste was generated in Singa-
waste was recycled while the rest was sent to the four incineration
plants in Singapore. The produced ash and 10% of the unburnt
solid waste were disposed in Semakau Island – an offshore landfill
that accepts only inert and inorganic matters. The island started
operation in 1999 and is expected to last for only 30–40 years.
IUT Global was a Singapore-based business using AD technol-
ogies to convert food waste to biogas and bio-compost. IUT Global
planned the WTE facilities in two phases [48]. The first phase had
a capacity of 300 t of food waste per day, generating 3.5 MW of
power, while the second phase planned to have an additional
capacity of 500 t generating a further 6 MW of electrical power.
The digestate produced from both facilities was to be sent to a
respective composting plant, producing bio-compost that could be
used as mineral fertilizer replacement [24]. The plant started
operating in 2008 and ceased in 2011 after incurring three years of
losses.
This case study assessed the sustainability of IUT Global for the
year of 2009 using the developed sustainability indicator frame-
work and the proposed metric of sustainability (MOS). In 2009,
97,092 of the 570,000 t of food waste in Singapore were diverted
from incineration plants to the anaerobic digestion process in IUT
In this study, the sustainability indicators selected are: (1) glo-
bal warming potential (GWP); (2) energy resource depletion
ð7Þ
(5) NIMBY syndrome (NIMBY); and (6) source separation level
(SSL). The relevant lifecycle indicators and factors extracted from
Figs. 3 to 5 are presented in Fig. 7.
806 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809

Table 10
MOS table for IUT Global case study.

i Indicator (unit for ui, ni and fi) ui ni fi si

1 GWP (kg CO2-eq /ton) 20.60 0.00 640.00  0.03

2 ERD (kW h/ton)  203.82 0.00 19.00 10.73
3 LFR (%) 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
4 PAS (million S$)  8.80 0.00  8.00  1.10
5 NIMBY (%) 2.50 0.00 10.00  0.25
6 SSL (%) 30.00 10.00 20.00  2.00

9.1.3. Landfill reduction

Fig. 7. Sustainability indicators and factors in the lifecycle of IUT Global.
Table 10 shows the values obtained under the MOS method for
the various indicators, which will be respectively discussed in the
sub-sections below.
For a WTE process to be neutral to the environment in terms of
landfill reduction, it has to reduce the waste volume by 100% since
only a rate of zero ton of ash per day sent to the finite landfill will
make it absolutely sustainable; the threshold of unsustainability
can be specified as 0% reduction, in cases where the WTE process
gives out 100% of the waste volume input (i.e. n3 ¼100; f 3 ¼0). In
the case of IUT Global, the only output from composting the
digestate is bio-compost [24], and therefore 100% of the processed
food waste is diverted from landfill (i.e. s3 ¼0). It is interesting to
note that incineration typically reduces waste volume by 80–90%,
giving a sustainability measurement s of  0.2 to  0.1, which is an
indication of unsustainability to a relatively small extent, com-
pared to say direct landfilling that can be of s¼  0.8 to  1.0
depending on the preprocesses.

9.2. Economic sustainability

9.1. Environmental sustainability
9.1.1. Global warming potential
To be environmentally neutral, a WTE plant has to result in a
net emission of 0 kg CO2-eq per ton of food waste processed. In
this case study, the threshold of unsustainability can be set at
640 kg CO2-eq/ton, which in general is a GHG emission rate from
the biggest contributor of waste management – incineration. The
selected threshold value is with reference to the GWP for Tuas
incineration plant as calculated based on an LCA study on IUT
Global performed in [24]. Therefore, n1 ¼0 and f1 ¼ 640. Due to
direct emission, indirect emission from net energy consumption,
and a relatively huge carbon saving from the bio-compost pro-
duced, the GWP of the IUT Global AD plant u1 is 20.6 kg CO2-eq
/ton, based on [24]. With the variable and two constants identified,
the normalized s1 can be computed as ‘  0.03’ using Eq. (4).
9.1.2. Energy resource depletion
The sustainability neutral point of energy resource depletion is
specified at 0 kW h per ton of food waste processed in this case.
The operations of IUT Global including pretreatment consumed
57 kW h/ton and produced 260.82 kW h/ton of energy [24].
Therefore, a resultant positive 203.82 kW h/ton of energy was
generated, i.e. an ERD u2 value of ‘  203.82 kW h/ton’. In contrast,
only a net 19 kW h/ton of energy could be derived from incin-
eration, rendering this aspect of IUT Global relatively more sus-
tainable. Therefore, the diversion of food waste from incineration
plants to IUT Global contributed to a net increase in energy per ton
of food waste processed. This led to a reduction in ui of the ‘energy
resource depletion’ indicator. As ERD is not the sole sustainability
indicator to be optimized, it is assumed that the local environ-
mental authority allowed a maximum ERD of 19 kW h/ton (using
incineration as benchmark) in cases where waste management
companies proposed to spend energy resources in improving other
sustainability performances such as reducing carbon emission.
Under this assumption, the f 2 value can be specified at 19 kW h/
ton. Upon normalization using Eq. (4), s 2 ¼10.73.
9.2.1. Profit after subsidy
The ‘profit after subsidy’ indicator requires an account of rev-
enues, costs and third party funding if any. A WTE can be deemed
neutrally sustainable when the PAS n4 ¼S$0.00. The threshold of
unsustainability in this economic aspect can be based on the
working capital cash flow figure, which a company has prepared
for absorbing losses that are made in the initial years of the
business. This study assumes that IUT Global has preplanned a
maximum threshold of S$8.0 million, which gives f 4 a value of
‘  8.0’.
There was no report of public funding or municipal financial
intervention applied in the business of IUT Global [48]. The rev-
enue of IUT Global mainly came from the generated energy and
waste collection contracts. Part of the energy generated (about half
a megawatt) was used by the plant itself, while the surplus was
sold to the national power grid. The bio-compost produced could
have formed part of the revenue. However, it was reported that
due to the low quantity produced, the compost was given away
free of charge to local farmers [49]. IUT Global incurred losses of S
$4.9 million, S$3.1 million and S$1.1 million respectively in 2009,
2008 and 2007, with its accumulated losses by 2009 amounting to
S$8.8 million [50]. In this case, u4 ¼  8.8, which can be normalized
to s4 ¼  1.1. The normalized value indicates that the PAS was
unsustainable (since negative) and had dropped past its threshold
of unsustainability on the s scale (i.e. s ¼  1.0).
9.3. Social sustainability
With reference to the proposed framework, two key social
indicators of the WTE system are considered here, namely the
NIMBY syndrome and the source separation levels (see Table 7,
Figs. 5 and 7).
9.3.1. NIMBY
There are aspects of a system that may not be immediately
quantifiable, especially under the social pillar such as the NIMBY
syndrome. To gauge the degree of NIMBY syndrome, signed
 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
petitions or typically surveys can be taken as references. The
quantitative value can take the form of percentage of opposing
residents in the proximity. A WTE plant that has neither local
opposition nor support can be said to be neutrally sustainable (i.e.
n5 ¼0%). The threshold of unsustainability can be assumed to be
based on an amount of opposition, for example f5 ¼10%, in which
case, the local authority may investigate and review the operation
of the WTE plant.
The plant of IUT Global was located in Tuas – an industrial
estate at the west end of Singapore – away from residential areas.
The digestion chamber was enclosed, and the outlet of the com-
posting plant was installed with bio-scrubbers. There was no
report of odor or health hazard problem from the bio-
methanisation process [48]. This study assumes that a survey
was conducted, indicating a minor NIMBY syndrome at u5 ¼2.5%,
which translates to a normalized value of s5 ¼  0.25.
9.3.2. Source separation level
In terms of the ‘source separation level’ indicator, IUT Global
was reported to have encountered considerable challenges. The
CEO of the company reported that the waste collected contained
between 25% and 35% impurities (i.e. u6 ¼30%), and that waste
that contained more than 10–15% impurities such as plastic,
metals and glass would lower the efficiency of the operation and
also increase wear and tear on equipment [51]. The neutral point
of sustainability can therefore be assumed as n6 ¼10%, and the
threshold level of unsustainability can be taken as f6 ¼20% in this
case study [51]. As a result, the sustainability of the company in
terms of SSL was s6 ¼  2.0. In this aspect, the sustainability of the
system was critically compromised.
9.4. Interlinking sustainability factors
Interlinking factors between the three pillars of sustainability
had or could have moderated the sustainability readings si derived
in the above sub-sections.
As mentioned in Section 9.1, the AD technology applied by the
IUT Global has a significantly lower GHG emission than the tra-
ditional incineration method used in Singapore. IUT Global was
therefore environmentally preferable. Carbon schemes, an eco-
efficiency factor identified in the framework (see Table 9,
Figs. 4 and 7) is a means of translating environmental contribution
to economic returns. With relevance to this interlinking factor, IUT
Global applied for certification from the United Nations Frame-
work Convention on Climate Change to allow the trading of carbon
credits [48]. As such, IUT Global could have benefited economically
from the carbon credit scheme. However, there was no evidence
that this interlinking factor had significant impact on the PAS or s4.
It can be seen from Table 10 that one of the greatest sustain-
ability woes of IUT Global stemmed from the highly unsustainable
‘source separation level’ s6. As illustrated in Fig. 7, the indicator
could have been influenced by both socio-environmental factors
(e.g. green movement and legislation) and socio-economic factors
(e.g. community involvements). An example of community invol-
vement as a socio-economic factor (during waste collection phase
shown in Fig. 5) was to encourage food waste separation through
providing economic incentives. It was noted that IUT Global did
consider having financial incentives for ones that perform
proper segregation, as well as investments in physical amenities
like waste chutes and bins [49]. It took two years of efforts and
discounted rates before IUT Global started to collect food waste
with lesser paper or plastics mixed within. This shows that the
socio-economic interlinking factor had an influence over the SSL
indicator. On the other hand, a socio-environmental approach to
address the issue was reportedly through raising the awareness of
the environmental benefits of food waste recycling (as reflected in
807
Fig. 3). IUT Global worked through associations to encourage food
businesses to go green by supporting food waste separation at
source. For example, the Eco-Food Court certification was a
scheme initiated to facilitate and encourage food waste segrega-
tion. Legislating food waste separation at source – another socio-
environmental factor – was then suggested to help step up the
food waste recycling rate [51]. However, legislation was not
effected in this case.
The discussion in this sub-section shows that interlinking fac-
tors are critical in analyzing the relationships of factors and indi-
cators between the three pillars, and therefore are necessary
considerations in a holistic sustainability assessment.
9.5. Overall sustainability of IUT Global
The results of the sustainability assessment of IUT Global using
the developed indicator framework and the proposed MOS are as
shown in Fig. 8. The ERD aspect is highly sustainable as AD pro-
duced methane and composting produced bio-compost that saved
significant amount of energy otherwise used in the production of
mineral fertilizer that it replaces. The system was neutral towards
LFR sustainability as it diverts all residues away from Semakau
landfill. The rest of the four measurements are on the side of
unsustainability (i.e. si o0), with PAS and SSL performing beyond
the thresholds (i.e. si o  1).
Using Eqs. 6 and 7, the sustainability of the IUT Global waste
management solution is calculated as sm(x)¼  2.0, where m ¼6. In
other words, the MOS indicated that the source sorting level s6 in
the operations of IUT Global rendered the system unsustainable
(since s m(x)o 0) by a factor of 2.0.
As a metric should, the MOS measurement reflects the situation
of the company. The business operation was challenged by
inadequate social practice of food waste sorting, which IUT Glo-
bal's economic sustainability s4 had hinged on. The low level of SSL
limited the throughput of the system [51], which in turn led the
company to perform at a financially unsustainable fashion (i.e. s4)
for a further two years before the business ceases.
The interactions or the lack thereof between the three pillars of
sustainability are evident in this case. Initiatives of socio-eco-
nomic, socio-environmental and eco-efficiency types would have
been recommended to help alleviate the situation (see corre-
sponding factors in Fig. 7). For example, legislation of social-
environmental nature to encourage food waste sorting as seen in
the case of Japan [16] could be applicable. Spending economic
resources on community involvement (i.e. socio-economic), such
as engaging the community from the start of the WTE project
planning was reportedly pivotal in many WTE projects [41]. The
environmental sustainability of the system (i.e. s1, s2 and s3) was
significantly better performing than the traditional incineration
approach. However, possibly due to inadequate eco-efficiency and
socio-environmental instruments (see Table 9 and Fig. 7), the
Fig. 8. Sustainability measurements of IUT Global using MOS.
808 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
environmental credits could not be effectively translated into
significant financial and social capitals that may support the eco-
nomic and social sustainability respectively.
Viewing the sustainability of a WTE system from a wide (three
pillars and interlinking factors) and deep (lifecycle) perspective
based on the proposed framework has, as seen in this case study,
facilitated a holistic sustainability assessment. The use of the
proposed metric of sustainability (MOS) provided an objective and
quantitative approach in putting various aspects of sustainability
into a single and coherent perspective. The use of MOS with its
results (e.g. Fig. 8) allows decision-makers to immediately perceive
the state of sustainability of an entire system. The MOS can
therefore be applied to support decisions in allocating resources to
more critical aspects, so as to strategically increase a system’s
overall sustainability (e.g. Eq. (6)).
The proposed indicator framework and the MOS led to the
structured interpretations and recommendations made in this
case study, without which, the case might have been much more
difficult to assess in terms of the different aspects and the relevant
raw data available.
10. Conclusion
With a spectrum of sustainability indicators applied in past
studies of WTE systems, a reference framework is envisioned to be
of interest to future studies. This research developed a framework
of WTE sustainability indicators by identifying and organizing a
range of relevant considerations (as described by Figs. 3–5); details
of the identified sustainability indicators and their underlying
factors are as described in Tables 3–9. In addition, this study
identified a set of interlinking factors, which have not been
explicitly identified and consolidated previously. With the sus-
tainability factors distributed over the lifecycle stages of WTE
systems, the proposed framework serves to advocate a more
complete study of the systems and through the interlinking fac-
tors, the framework allows lifecycle studies such as LCA, Social LCA
and Lifecycle Costing to effectively make cross-references.
The case study shows that only by simultaneously considering
the three pillars of sustainability, sets of interlinking factors that
are pivotal for supporting the sustainability of WTE systems can
then be taken into account. In hindsight of the case study, it can be
seen that a partial consideration of the introduced framework
whether in terms of the pillars or lifecycle phases could have
limited the insights that were derived in the sustainability
assessment.
A metric of sustainability (MOS) is proposed, which works with
the developed sustainability indicator framework. The novel MOS
is based on three general principles of sustainability, making it
applicable in other domains. The computations in MOS need not
involve subjective parameters (e.g. weighting) and physical infor-
mation is retained in its sustainability readings. Therefore, as
demonstrated in the case study, the MOS can provide a more
objective reference that is useful for decision-makers in strategi-
cally allocating resources to critical aspects, in improving the
overall sustainability of a system.
The proposed sustainability indicator framework and the MOS
are applicable in lifecycle sustainability assessments (LCSA). The
interlinking factors in the framework caution that LCSA is more
than stacking up the reports of three independently conducted
lifecycle assessments. In a way, this research highlighted the
importance of considering systems from a holistic perspective,
especially in practice where sustainability issues tend to fall within
and across boundaries of the economic, environmental and social
lifecycles.
Acknowledgment
This research is funded by the Singapore National Research
Foundation and the publication is supported under the Campus for
Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) pro-
gramme - Energy and Environmental Sustainability Solutions for
Megacities (E2S2).
References
[1] Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit aK. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 2009;9(2):189–212.
[2] Ulgiati S, Ascione M, Bargigli S, Cherubini F, Franzese PP, Raugei M, Viglia S,
Zucaro a. Material, energy and environmental performance of technological
and social systems under a Life Cycle Assessment perspective. Ecol Modell
2011;222(1):176–89.
[3] Lyytimäki J, Tapio P, Varho V, Söderman T. The use, non-use and misuse of
indicators in sustainability assessment and communication. Int J Sustain Dev
World Ecol 2013;20(5):385–93.
[4] Balkema AJ, Preisig H a, Otterpohl R, Lambert FJ. Indicators for the sustain-
ability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 2002;4
(2):153–61.
[5] Čuček L, Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z. A review of footprint analysis tools for mon-
itoring impacts on sustainability. J Clean Prod 2012;34:9–20.
[6] den Boer J, den Boer E, Jager J. LCA-IWM: a decision support tool for sus-
tainability assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 2007;27
(8):1032–45.
[7] Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M. A survey of life cycle approaches in waste
management. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14(7):597–610.
[8] Bastin L, Longden DM. Comparing transport emissions and impacts for energy
recovery from domestic waste (EfW): centralised and distributed disposal
options for two UK Countries. Comput Environ Urban Syst 2009;33(6):492–503.
[9] Genoud S, Lesourd J-B. Characterization of sustainable development indicators for
various power generation technologies. Int J Green Energy 2009;6(3):257–67.
[10] Menikpura SNM, Gheewala SH, Bonnet S. Sustainability assessment of muni-
cipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka: problems and prospects. J Mater
Cycles Waste Manag 2012;14(3):181–92.
[11] United Nations. Indicators of sustainable development : guidelines and
methodologies indicators of sustainable development :3rd Edition, New York;
2012.
[12] Rodriguez RR, Saiz JJA, Bas AO. Quantitative relationships between key per-
formance indicators for supporting decision-making processes. Comput Ind
2009;60(2):104–13.
[13] Ekvall T, Assefa G, Björklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G. What life-cycle
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Manag 2007;27(8):989–96.
[14] Longden D, Brammer J, Bastin L, Cooper N. Distributed or centralised energy-
from-waste policy ? Implications of technology and scale at municipal level
Energy Policy 2007;35(4):2622–34.
[15] Belgiorno V, De Feo G, Della Rocca C, Napoli RM a. Energy from gasification of
solid wastes. Waste Manag 2003;23(1):1–15.
[16] Takata M, Fukushima K, Kino-Kimata N, Nagao N, Niwa C, Toda T. The effects of
recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: based on the environ-
mental and economic evaluation of food recycling. Sci Total Environ
2012;432:309–17.
[17] Fodor Z, Klemeš JJ. Waste as alternative fuel – Minimising emissions and
effluents by advanced design. Process Saf Environ Prot 2012;90(3):263–84.
[18] Rapport J, Jenkins BM, Williams RB, Adams LS, Peace C, Petersen G, Leary M.
Current anaerobic digestion technologies used for treatment of municipal
organic solid waste. California: California Integrated Waste Management
Board; 2008.
[19] Haight M. Assessing the environmental burdens of anaerobic digestion in
comparison to alternative options for managing the biodegradable fraction of
municipal solid wastes. Water Sci Technol 2005;52(1–2):553–9.
[20] Antizar-ladislao B, Turrion-gomez JL. Decentralized energy from waste sys-
tems. Energies 2010;3(2):194–205.
[21] Mangoyana RB, Smith TF. Decentralised bioenergy systems: a review of
opportunities and threats. Energy Policy 2011;39(3):1286–95.
[22] Bernstad a, la Cour Jansen J. A life cycle approach to the management of
household food waste-A Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manag 2011;31
(8):1879–96.
[23] Khoo HH. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technol-
ogies. Waste Manag 2009;29(6):1892–900.
[24] Khoo HH, Lim TZ, Tan RBH. Food waste conversion options in Singapore:
environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ
2010;08(6):1367–73.
[25] Arena U, Di Gregorio F. A waste management planning based on substance
flow analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;85:54–66.
[26] Mezzullo WG, Mcmanus MC, Hammond GP. Good detailed LCA paper for the
environmental pillar Applied Energy of SD Life cycle assessment of a small-
 Y.T. Chong et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 56 (2016) 797–809
scale anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste. Appl Energy 2013;102:657–
64.
[27] Buragohain B, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Biomass gasification for decentralized
power generation: the Indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14
(1):73–92.
[28] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy-key element for sustainable waste
management. Waste Manag 2014.
[29] Perkoulidis G, Papageorgiou a, Karagiannidis a, Kalogirou S. Integrated
assessment of a new Waste-to-Energy facility in Central Greece in the context
of regional perspectives. Waste Manag 2010;30(7):1395–406.
[30] Zhou Z, Yin X, Xu J, Ma L. The development situation of biomass gasification
power generation in China. Energy Policy 2012;51(x):52–7.
[31] Giugliano M, Grosso M, Rigamonti L. Energy recovery from municipal waste: a
case study for a middle-sized Italian district. Waste Manag 2009;28(1):39–50.
[32] Consonni S, Giugliano M, Grosso M. Alternative strategies for energy recovery
from municipal solid waste part B: emission and cost estimates. Waste Manag
2005;25(2):137–48.
[33] Choy K, Porter J, Hui C, Mckay G. Process design and feasibility study for small
scale MSW gasification. Chem Eng J 2004;105(1–2):31–41.
[34] Daskalopoulos E, Badr O, Probert SD. An integrated approach to municipal
solid waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl 1998;24(1):33–50.
[35] Curry N, Pillay P. Convert ing food waste to usable energy in the urban
environment through anaerobic digestion. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE
electrical power energy conference. p. 1–4.
[36] Kothari R, Tyagi VV, Pathak A. Waste-to-energy: a way from renewable energy
sources to sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14
(9):3164–70.
[37] Wu CZ, Huang H, Zheng SP, Yin XL. An economic analysis of biomass gasifi-
cation and power generation in China. Bioresour Technol 2002;83(1):65–70.
[38] McHenry MP. Small-scale ( r6 kWe) stand-alone and grid-connected photo-
voltaic, wind, hydroelectric, biodiesel, and wood gasification system’s simu-
lated technical, economic, and mitigation analyses for rural regions in Western
Australia. Renew Energy 2012;38(1):195–205.
[39] Arena U, Di Gregorio F, Santonastasi M. A techno-economic comparison
between two design configurations for a small scale, biomass-to-energy
gasification based system. Chem Eng J 2010;162(2):580–90.
809
[40] Devine-wright P, Wiersma B. Opening up the ‘local’ to analysis : exploring the
spatiality of UK urban decentralised energy initiatives. Local Environ 2013;18
(10):0–18.
[41] Hiremath RB, Kumar B, Balachandra P, Ravindranath NH, Raghunandan BN.
Decentralised renewable energy: scope, relevance and applications in the
Indian context. Energy Sustain Dev 2009;13(1):4–10.
[42] Achillas C, Vlachokostas C, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G, Kafetzopoulos G, Kar-
agiannidis A. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Social acceptance for the
development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resourc Conserv
Recycl 2011;55(9–10):857–63.
[43] Karakosta C, Pappas C, Marinakis V, Psarras J. Renewable energy and nuclear
power towards sustainable development: characteristics and prospects.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:187–97.
[44] British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). China waste plant protest in Hang-
zhou 'injures dozens'. News China. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
china-27360779; 2014 [accessed 16.05.14].
[45] Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. Separate collection of household food waste for
anaerobic degradation-comparison of different techniques from a systems
perspective. Waste Manag 2012;32(5):806–15.
[46] Townsend AK, Webber ME. An integrated analytical framework for quantify-
ing the LCOE of waste-to-energy facilities for a range of greenhouse gas
emissions policy and technical factors. Waste Manag 2012;32(7):1366–77.
[47] Lancker E, Nijkamp P. A policy scenario analysis of sustainable agricultural
development options: a case study for Nepal. Impact Assess Proj Apprais
2000;18(2):111–24.
[48] Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). 9.5 MW Food waste based grid con-
nected power project implemented by IUT Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore.
UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism Project Design Document; 2006.
[49] Vaughan V. Food recycling plant going to waste. Singapore: Singapore Press
Holdings; 2010 The Straits Times 7 May 10.
[50] Lim R, Ng K. Recycling firm IUT global being wound up. Singapore: Singapore
Press Holdings; 2011 The Business Times (22 Mar 2011).
[51] Eco-business. Green waste management for Singapore’s food courts. http://
www.eco-business.com; 2011 [accessed 05.11.11].