Social sustainability assessment of conversion technologies: Municipal solid waste into bioenergy using Best Worst Method

Document Type: IIEC 2020


1 Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

2 School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran


The majority of sustainability assessments of the bio based industries are primarily focused on the environmental and economic aspects, while social impacts are rarely considered. While overlooking social dimension can have a serious harmful impact across supply chains. To address this issue, this study proposes a modified systemic approach for a social sustainability impact assessment of the technology treatment for converting municipal solid waste to bioenergy based on a review on the common methodologies for assessing social impacts. To show the applicability and efficiency of the proposed framework, a sample of 8 experts were used to evaluate and prioritize social sustainability criteria, using a multi-criteria decision-making method called the ‘best worst method’ (BWM). The criteria are ranked according to their average weight obtained through BWM. The results of this study help bio industry managers, decision-makers and practitioners decide where to focus their attention during the implementation stage, to increase social sustainability in their bioenergy supply chains derived waste and move towards sustainable development.


Main Subjects

Ahmadi, H. B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., and Rezaei, J., (2017), Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126: 99-106.


Black, A. W. (2004). The Quest for Sustainable, Healthy Communities. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20(01), 33–44.


Blom M, Solmar C. (2009). How to socially assess biofuels: a case study of the UNEP/ SETAC code of practice for social-economical LCA – University Publication Master’s thesis in cooperation with the Division of Quality and Environmental Management at Luleå University of Technology, commissioned by Enact;


Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Langholtz MH, Leiby PN, Oladosu GA, Davis MR, Downing ME, Hilliard RE(2013). Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures. Ecol Indic;26:87–102


Efroymson RA, Dale VH, Langholtz MH. Socioeconomic indicators for sustainable design and commercial development of algal biofuel systems. GCB Bioenergy 2016.


European Commission. HORIZON 2020, (2016). Work Programme 2016 – 2017 Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy. European Commission Decision C,4614. h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-food_en.pdf


Hasenheit M, Gerdes H, Kiresiewa Z, Beekman V. Summary report on the social, economic and environmental impacts of the bioeconomy; (2016).

http://bio-step. eu/fileadmin/BioSTEP/Bio_documents/BioSTEP_D2.2_Impacts_of_the_ bioeconomy.pdf


Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., Akbarpour Shirazi, M. (2014), Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials, International Journal of Life Cycle Assess, 19: 620–645.


Ibáñez-Forésa,V., Boveaa, M.D., Coutinho-Nóbregab,C., Medeiros,H.R.D.(2019), Assessing the social performance of municipal solid waste management systems in developing countries: Proposal of indicators and a case study, Ecological Indicators,98:164-178.


Köppen S, Fehrenbach H, Markwardt S, Hennecke S. ,(2014), Implementing the GBEP Indicators for Sustainable Bioenergy in Germany. Final Report, ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung gGmbH and IINAS - International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy GmbH, Heidelberg, Darmstadt, Berlin; October. IINAS_2014_GBEP_


Kumara,A,  Sahb,B., Singhc,A.R. Denga, Hea,X., Kumarb,P., Bansa, R.C.,(2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ,69: 596-609.


Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Dael, M. V., Azadi, H., Lebailly, P., & Passel, S. V. (2018). Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82: 1839–1853,


Rafiaani, P., Van Passel,S., Lebailly,P., Kuppens, T., Azadi, H.(2016). Social Life Cycle Assessment in Biobased Industries: Identifying Main Indicators and Impacts. Submitted communication, SLCA 2016, Cambridge (USA)


Rezaei,J.,(2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method, Omega53: 49-57.


Rezaei,J.,(2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model, Omega64: 126-130.


Salimi,N., Rezaei, J.,(2017). Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method, Evaluation         and Program           Planning,66:147-177,


Siebert A, Sinéad O’Keeffe AB, Thrän D. (2016).Social life cycle assessment: in pursuit of a framework for assessing wood-based products from bioeconomy regions in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess


Vanclay F, Esteves AM, Aucamp I, Franks DM.,(2015). Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf.


Van Dam J, Faaij A, Rutz D, Janssen R. (2010), Socio-economic impacts of biomass feedstock production, Global BioPact project. Utrecht: Utrecht University;


Vis M, Dörnbrack A-S, Haye S.,(2014). Socio-economic impact assessment tools. Socio-Economic Impacts of Bioenergy Production. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; pp. 1-16. 10.1007/978-3-319-03829-2_1


UNEP-SETAC. Guidelines for social Life Cycle Assessment of products. United Nations Environmental Programme. Belgium: Druk in der weer; 2009.