State of the art report on economic models in BSR

The report examines the economic feasibility of ecotechnologies, specifically those focused on phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) recovery in wastewater and agriculture. It identifies a prevalence of private-cost analyses over social-cost assessments and notes that most recovery technologies are not currently market-competitive without subsidies or the inclusion of social externalities. The document outlines the application of Techno-Economic Assessments (TEA), Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), concluding that the social perspective significantly improves the perceived economic efficiency of these technologies.

• Economic feasibility is the primary decision criterion for implementing ecotechnologies, but it is interpreted differently by private investors (private benefits vs. costs) and decision-makers (social benefits vs. costs).
• Most economic literature on ecotechnologies focuses on private costs and directly observable cash flows, with a significant lack of studies incorporating social and non-market benefits.
• Phosphorus recovery technologies are generally not profitable because the market value of recovered P products is typically lower than the cost of recovery, especially when competing with large-scale mined phosphate rock.
• While many recovery technologies are not market-competitive, indirect private benefits, such as reduced maintenance costs from avoiding struvite precipitation in pipes and valves, can improve economic feasibility.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the most frequently applied model, but there is no standardized consensus on which impacts to include or how to conduct them.
• The economic efficiency of biogas and fertilizer production from manure is highly dependent on context-specific variables, including manure quantity, transportation distance, dry content, and price.
• Integrating a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant into wastewater treatment systems can reduce overall operational costs by 21% to 30%, despite requiring additional capital investment.
• Including social benefits, such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and eutrophication, increases the relative economic validity and perceived efficiency of recovery and reuse technologies.

APA

Carolus, J. (2018). State of the art report on economic models in BSR. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/state-of-the-art-report-on-economic-models-in-bsr.pdf

Chicago

Carolus, Johannes. State of the art report on economic models in BSR. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2018. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/state-of-the-art-report-on-economic-models-in-bsr.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Carolus |first1=Johannes |title=State of the art report on economic models in BSR |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=17 December 2018 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/state-of-the-art-report-on-economic-models-in-bsr.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{carolus2018state, author = {Carolus, Johannes}, title = {{State of the art report on economic models in BSR}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2018}, month = dec, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/state-of-the-art-report-on-economic-models-in-bsr.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }