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

The report evaluates different systems for nutrient and carbon recovery in the Vantaanjoki (Finland), Fyrisån (Sweden), and Słupia (Poland) catchment areas. Using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) involving stakeholder weighting, the study compares baseline management against alternatives such as anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and source-separation. In Vantaanjoki, anaerobic digestion scored highest. In Fyrisån, source-separation was the most sustainable. In Słupia, nutrient extraction performed best, while source-separation was found to be potentially less sustainable than the baseline due to local context and low adoption rates.

• In the Vantaanjoki case study, the anaerobic digestion system alternative achieved the highest sustainability score, followed closely by the Pyrolysis + urea hygienization system; both outperformed the composting baseline.
• For the Fyrisån case study, the source-separation system was the most sustainable, followed by nutrient extraction and incineration, with all recovery systems scoring higher than the baseline.
• In the Słupia case study, the nutrient extraction system received a considerably higher score than other alternatives, while the source-separation system scored the lowest and could potentially be less sustainable than the baseline.
• The divergent results for source-separation between the Fyrisån and Słupia cases, despite using similar technologies, highlight the critical role of local context and stakeholder participation in sustainability assessments.
• Anaerobic digestion in Vantaanjoki was found to be economically superior to composting, generating a projected yearly profit of 1 MEuro compared to an annual cost of 3 MEuro for composting.
• Pyrolysis in the Vantaanjoki case was identified as having the highest annual cost at 8 MEuro, though this may be an overestimation due to the use of data from smaller plants.
• In the Fyrisån case, the nutrient extraction system (Alt 2F) demonstrated the best performance for global warming potential, eutrophication potential, and nutrient recovery.
• The Słupia case study revealed that a low fraction of source-separation (14%) is not a relevant choice as it provides small nutrient recovery benefits while increasing costs by approximately 30%.

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} }