Report from the multi-criteria analysis from workshop 2 with comparisons of the different alternatives in each case study and selection of eco-technologies for further use in WP5

This report details a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) conducted by the BONUS RETURN project to evaluate the sustainability of various eco-technologies for recovering nutrients and carbon from waste. The study focuses on three catchment areas: Vantaanjoki in Finland, Fyrisån in Sweden, and Słupia in Poland. By engaging local stakeholders to weight sustainability criteria, the report compares baseline management systems against alternatives such as anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and source-separation of wastewater.

• In the Vantaanjoki case study, which focused on managing horse manure, waste-grass, and source-separated blackwater, anaerobic digestion achieved the highest sustainability score, followed closely by pyrolysis combined with urea hygienization. Both alternatives were found to be more sustainable than the baseline composting system.
• For the Fyrisån case study, the source-separation system (Alt 3F) received the highest sustainability score, followed by the nutrient extraction system and the incineration system. All recovery-based alternatives outperformed the baseline system.
• In the Słupia case study, the nutrient extraction system (Alt 2S) achieved a considerably higher sustainability score than other alternatives. Conversely, the source-separation system (Alt 3S) received the lowest score and, depending on stakeholder weighting, could be less sustainable than the baseline system.
• The divergent results for the source-separation system between the Fyrisån and Słupia cases—despite using similar ecotechnologies—highlight the critical influence of local context and stakeholder participation in sustainability assessments.
• Anaerobic digestion in Vantaanjoki was found to be economically more effective than composting, projecting a yearly profit of 1 MEuro due to biogas sales, whereas composting had an annual cost of 3 MEuro.
• In the Fyrisån case, the nutrient extraction system (Alt 2F) demonstrated the best performance regarding global warming potential, eutrophication potential, and nutrient recovery, largely due to high nitrogen recovery and the resulting offset of mineral fertilizer production.
• The risk of exposure to pollutants is generally lower in systems that utilize pyrolysis or phosphorus extraction from ash, as high temperatures can degrade organic compounds and pharmaceuticals and remove certain heavy metals like cadmium.
• Stakeholder acceptance of recycled fertilizers varies by source; in Finland, farmers expressed more negative opinions toward products derived from human excreta (sewage sludge) compared to food or agricultural waste.

APA

Johannesdottir, S., Kärrman, E., Ljung, E., Anderzén, C., Edström, M., Ahlgren, S., & Englund, M. (2019). Report from the multi-criteria analysis from workshop 2 with comparisons of the different alternatives in each case study and selection of eco-technologies for further use in WP5. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/report-from-the-multicriteria-analysis.pdf

Chicago

Johannesdottir, Solveig, Erik Kärrman, Emelie Ljung, Christina Anderzén, Mats Edström, Serina Ahlgren, and Maja Englund. Report from the multi-criteria analysis from workshop 2 with comparisons of the different alternatives in each case study and selection of eco-technologies for further use in WP5. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2019. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/report-from-the-multicriteria-analysis.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Johannesdottir |first1=Solveig |last2=Kärrman |first2=Erik |last3=Ljung |first3=Emelie |last4=Anderzén |first4=Christina |last5=Edström |first5=Mats |last6=Ahlgren |first6=Serina |last7=Englund |first7=Maja |title=Report from the multi-criteria analysis from workshop 2 with comparisons of the different alternatives in each case study and selection of eco-technologies for further use in WP5 |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=15 April 2019 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/report-from-the-multicriteria-analysis.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{johannesdottir2019report, author = {Johannesdottir, Solveig and Kärrman, Erik and Ljung, Emelie and Anderzén, Christina and Edström, Mats and Ahlgren, Serina and Englund, Maja}, title = {{Report from the multi-criteria analysis from workshop 2 with comparisons of the different alternatives in each case study and selection of eco-technologies for further use in WP5}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2019}, month = apr, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/report-from-the-multicriteria-analysis.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }