Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

Environmental and economic assessment of sustainable municipal solid T

waste management strategies in Iran
Abtin Maghmoumi, Fatima Marashi, Ehsan Houshfar*
School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Waste management in urban areas has always been a major concern for municipalities. The gigantic population
Waste management growth results in massive waste production, leading to a worrying rise in the level of greenhouse gas emissions, a
GHG emissions major global issue. The most common techniques for energy recovery from waste are WTE and landfill gas
WTE plant plants. In this research, four different waste management scenarios have been investigated, and the emitted
Landfill
GHGs are analysed using the IPCC guideline for municipal solid waste (MSW) in Tehran. Furthermore, the total
Sensitivity analysis
cost of each scenario is calculated. Also, effect of various parameters, such as plant usage, methane recovery
factor, and MSW heating value, on the emissions is evaluated. The results depict that among all the investigated
alternatives, scenario 3 (in which 50 % of the waste was burned in WTE plant, 30 % landfilled, and 20 %
recycled) has the least GHG emissions in the target region. For a more thorough analysis, a cost comparison
between the scenarios was performed, indicating that landfilling with recovery is the most economical option.
Focusing on various technical, economic, and environmental aspects of waste management, this paper provides a
comprehensive framework for a combined plan of action in the waste management sector of Iran.

1. Introduction Several studies have analysed different MSW management scenarios

As the urban population is growing at a rapid rate, managing mu-
nicipal solid waste (MSW) is an environmental concern all over the
world. Tehran, the capital of Iran with a population of more than 8
million, generates over 3 million tonnes of MSW in a year (Tavana
et al., 2019). Currently, almost all of the MSW collected from Tehran is
open-dumped in suburban areas. As a result, problems such as severe
air, groundwater, and surface water pollution have arisen near open
landfill dumping sites. If this practise persists, there will be no place left
to dump the MSW in a near future. To solve this problem, new MSW
management methods must be implemented. Recently, waste-to-energy
(WTE) has been recognized as an MSW management strategy to control
the pollution and simultaneously generate electricity and/or heat from
MSW. There are currently different WTE technologies implemented
around the World, e.g. incineration, landfilling with recovery, and
anaerobic digestion (AD). Our calculations, based on the IPCC method
(Jensen & Pipatti, 2001), shows that large dumpsites in Tehran emit
889.6 kg CO2 eq. per tonne of waste in a year; thus, WTE has to be
considered as one of the main solutions to minimize these GHG emis-
sions. Considering Iran’s situation, incineration and landfilling with
recovery are well-suited technologies, as they are mature and well-de-
veloped for different conditions and capacities.
using available WTE technologies. Yang et al. evaluated carbon emis-
sion from different waste components and waste sectors using life cycle
analysis. The study is done on Xiamen city located in Southeast Asia,
and emissions related to generation, transportation, and disposal of
waste are considered in the analysis. Also, waste composition variation
and their emissions are evaluated from 2015 to 2050 (Yang, Xu, Gao,
Guo, & Huang, 2018). Islam et al. compared different MSW manage-
ment scenarios for Bangladesh aiming to minimize GHG emissions.
These scenarios include landfill with recovery, WTE, and material re-
covery facility (MRF). They recommended that a combination of WTE
and landfilling with recovery is the optimal procedure (Islam, 2017). In
a more recent similar study, further detailed sustainable approaches are
recommended for Bangladesh and other developing countries to reduce
greenhouse gases from the treatment of urban waste (Shams, Sahu,
Rahman, & Ahsan, 2017). Woon et al. evaluated GHG emissions from
four defined MSW management scenarios in Hong Kong. The scenarios
consisted of landfill extension and advanced incineration facility. They
further conducted a sensitivity analysis to discover the effect of dif-
ferent parameters on the GHG emissions (Woon & Lo, 2013). Tan et al.
evaluated the economic and environmental impact of incineration,
landfill, and AD for Taman Beringin, Malaysia (Tan, Hashim, Lee, Taib,
& Yan, 2014). Two years later, Fazeli et al. reviewed different waste

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: houshfar@ut.ac.ir (E. Houshfar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102161
Received 26 August 2019; Received in revised form 27 March 2020; Accepted 27 March 2020
Available online 25 April 2020
2210-6707/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Maghmoumi, et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161

Nomenclature Abbreviations

CFj Carbon fraction of component j [-] AD Anaerobic digestion

DOC The fraction of degradable carbon in waste [-] EAC Equivalent annual cost
DOCF The fraction of degradable carbon decomposed [-] FOD First order decay
dmj Dry matter fraction of component j [-] GHG Greenhouse gas
F Recovery rate of methane from LFG [-] IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change
FCFj Fossil carbon fraction of component j [-] LCA Life cycle assesement
MCF Methane correction factor [-] LFG Landfill gas
OX Oxidation factor [-] MRF Material recovery facility
R Recovery rate of methane [-] MSW Municipal solid waste
WFj The weight factor of component j [-] MSWM Municipal solid waste management
RDF Refuse-derived fuel
Subscripts SLCP Short-lived climate pollutants
SRF Solid recovered fuels
j Component j TPP Tarasht power plant
WTE Waste to energy

management techniques used in Malaysia and stated that incineration,
gasification, and pyrolysis are applicable considering the high level of
moisture in Malaysia’s MSW composition (Fazeli, Bakhtvar,
Jahanshaloo, Che Sidik, & Bayat, 2016). Mavrotas et al. developed a
multi-objective mathematical model to find Pareto optimal candidate
solutions for a waste management framework in the Athens region in
Greece. To find an optimal solution, the GHG emissions were evaluated
in addition to the economic analysis. Each optimal solution presents the
corresponding technologies and their capacities (Mavrotas, Gakis,
Skoulaxinou, Katsouros, & Georgopoulou, 2015). Ouda et al. assessed
different MSW management strategies’ potential in KSA. They con-
sidered two possibilities for WTE, incineration, and refuse-derived fuel,
along with biomethanation (Ouda et al., 2016). Ali et al. evaluated the
environmental impact of different MSW management scenarios for
Pakistan and concluded that in terms of Emergy investment and net
GHG emissions, the scenario which consists of sanitary landfilling,
composting and recycling is the most applicable solution (Ali,
Marvuglia, Geng, Chaudhry, & Khokhar, 2018).
In Iran, most of the research and policy actions have been focused
on the northern region and especially on the incineration option (Feyzi,
Khanmohammadi, Abedinzadeh, & Aalipour, 2019). Malmir and Tojo
studied the changes in Tehran’s waste stream from 2008 to 2012. It is
concluded that the generated MSW increased by 10 % in these 4 years
(Malmir & Tojo, 2016). In a recent comprehensive study, Tavana et al.
investigated the possible electricity recovery from MSW in all of the
provinces’ capital cities in Iran to find a suitable substitute for fossil fuel
power generation. Also, suitable waste incineration plants are sug-
gested for each province (Tavana et al., 2019). In another study,
Akhavan Limoodehi et al. suggest five waste management scenarios for
Tehran’s MSW and compares them using the life cycle assessment (LCA)
method. The emissions of each scenario are obtained from the in-
tegrated waste management (IWM) model (Limoodehi, Tayefeh,
Heydari, & Ali, 2017).
Mayer et al. reviewed over 300 studies published in the field of
environmental LCA of WTE technologies. The studies included tech-
nologies such as AD, hydrothermal carbonization, pyrolysis, and in-
cineration. They suggested that AD and gasification have a lower en-
vironmental effect over a lifetime perspective (Mayer, Bhandari, &
Gäth, 2019). Arafat et al. studied the environmental impact of five
waste treatment methods with energy recovery; including incineration,
gasification, AD, bio-landfills, and composting. They compared the CO2
emitted from different components of waste in each method. (Arafat,
biological methods would outperform. Due to the distinct character-
istics of MSW in each city, a specific MSW management approach is
needed. Thus, based on the city dimension, organic fraction of MSW,
and wealth generated in the city, a guiding framework is proposed
(Aleluia & Ferrão, 2016). In a later study, Liu et al. used EaseTech
software to model five MSW management scenarios in China. Their
research depicts that because of high organic fraction (i.e., about 50–70
%) and moisture content (> 50 %), the net GHG emissions in China
differ from the developed countries (Liu, Sun, & Liu, 2017).
In this study, for the first time, different municipal solid waste
management (MSWM) scenarios are analysed for Tehran to produce
electricity from the waste sector. The goal of this study is to reach a
strategy for MSW management while minimizing GHG emissions and
costs. The data used in this research has been gathered from different
sources, such as statistical yearbooks, official information, and IPCC
report (Coburn, Pingoud, Thorsen, & Wagner, 2006). After data gath-
ering, the net GHG emissions and cost of different scenarios were cal-
culated and analysed. This article, thereby, aims to thoroughly in-
vestigate the feasible strategies and support decision-makers in the area
of solid waste management, highlighting the pros and cons of various
waste management scenarios.
2. Methodology
Tehran is the capital of Iran and the most crowded city in the
country. Hence, waste management has always been a problem. In this
research, four scenarios are determined and the GHG emissions and
economic feasibility of each strategy is evaluated. The scenarios consist
of incineration, landfill with energy recovery, and material recovery
facility (MRF), as summarised in Table 1. The calculations are done for
a 100-year time frame, but the final results are converted to a one-year
period. GHG emissions were calculated using the IPCC guideline
(Coburn et al., 2006). The output energy from the WTE technology is
used to offset the energy demand of a typical gas turbine power plant.
So, GHG avoidance can be calculated based on the power plant’s data.
The gas turbine power plant considered in this research is Tarasht
Table 1
Proposed MSW management scenarios for Tehran.
Scenario Incineration Landfill MRF
(tonnes MSW day−1) (tonnes MSW day−1) (tonnes MSW day−1)

Jijakli, & Ahsan, 2013). Scenario 1 8223 (100 %) 0 0

Aleluia and Ferrão reviewed waste production in low and middle- Scenario 2 0 8223 (100 %) 0
income Asian countries. In developing Asian countries, the organic Scenario 3 4112 (50 %) 2467 (30 %) 1645 (20 %)
fraction of MSW is generally more than 50 %, which suggests that Scenario 4 2467 (30 %) 4112 (50 %) 1645 (20 %)

2
A. Maghmoumi, et al.
power plant (TPP) located in downtown Tehran. The procedure to
calculate GHG avoidance is explained in section 2.2.
To estimate the percentage of the MSW treated in the MRF facility,
the suggested classification by Ouda et al. for the components of MSW
suitable for MRF was taken into account (Ouda et al., 2016). Thus,
waste components, including plastics and plastic bottles, textiles, paper
and cardboard, and leather and rubber, were suggested to be recycled.
The above-mentioned compositions make up 20 % of Tehran’s MSW
(Sanei, Houshfar, Nasiri, & Ashjaee, 2015).
2.1. GHG emissions
2.1.1. Incineration
Incineration of MSW leads to various GHG emissions. Based on the
IPCC report, the main gases which should be considered are CO2, CH4,
and N2O (Guendehou, Koch, Hockstad, Pipatti, & Yamada, 2006). Each
component of the waste stream has a different fossil carbon fraction,
which causes CO2 emissions during incineration. The specifications of
Tehran’s waste was adapted from a previous work of our group (Sanei
et al., 2015). Due to lack of data, the default values of IPCC for fossil
carbon fraction of different components of MSW were considered. The
following equation was adapted for calculating GHG emissions from the
incineration plant (Guendehou et al., 2006).
44
CO2 Emissions = MSW × ∑ (WFj × dmj × CFj × FCFj × OFj) × 12
j
(1)
Here, MSW is the portion of waste sent to the incineration facilities
(tonne), WFj is the weight factor of component j, dmj is the dry matter
fraction of component j, CFj is the carbon fraction of component j, FCFj
is the fossil carbon fraction of component j, and OFj is the oxidation
factor (default value of 1 has been taken into account).
To calculate the N2O emissions according to the IPCC guideline, we
have to either use the default values or use the country-specific values.
Due to lack of data, we implemented the default value for N2O emission
per tonne of waste (50 g N2O tonne−1 of waste), considering that the
incineration facility works continuously. Based on the IPCC report, in
well-functioning incinerators, CH4 emissions are negligible
(Guendehou, Koch, Hockstad, Pipatti, & Yamada, 2006).
2.1.2. Landfilling
The landfill with energy recovery facility is an anaerobic managed
landfill. To calculate the methane emissions from the landfill, the mass
balance method is used, given inadequate data for using the First Order
Decay (FOD) method. As IPCC states, the fraction of degradable carbon
in the MSW which is decomposed (DOCF) is used to calculate the GHG
emissions from landfilling (Jensen & Pipatti, 2001). The degradable
organic carbon (DOC) fraction of the MSW was selected based on the
IPCC default values. The recovery fraction is assumed to be 0.8.
16
CH4 Emissions = MSW × MCF × DOC × DOCF × F × × (1 − OX )
12
× (1 − R) (2)
Here, MSW (tonne) is the portion of waste sent to the landfill sites, MCF
is the methane correction factor (MCF is assumed to be 1 in this cal-
culation), DOC is the fraction of degradable carbon in the MSW stream,
DOCF is the fraction of degradable carbon decomposed, F is the fraction
of methane in the landfill gas (default value of 0.5 has been used), OX is
the oxidation factor (default value of zero), and R is the recovered
methane.
Following the IPCC recommendations, N2O emissions from land-
filling are not significant (Coburn et al., 2006).
2.1.3. Material recovery facility
Net GHG emissions of MRF are adapted from a comprehensive
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161
Mechanical Treatment (MT) analysis (Papageorgiou, Karagiannidis,
Barton, & Kalogirou, 2009). As mentioned before, 20 % of MSW is
treated in the MRF facility, where refuse-derived fuel (RDF), recyclable
metals, and residues are the outcomes. In general, RDF is an unspecified
fuel derived from the coarse fraction of the MSW treated in the MRF
facility before the biological treatment is applied. Papageorgiou et al.
substituted the coal used as the fuel in cement kilns with RDF; since
Attica has no waste incineration power plant. Therefore, in the current
study, the emission avoidance of coal was replaced with natural gas,
which is used as fuel in the incineration plant. Also, the RDF, which is
recovered from the coarse fraction, is calculated based on real domestic
data (Sanei et al., 2015).
2.2. GHG avoidance
Firstly, the amount of electricity produced through incineration was
calculated based on the heating value of MSW adapted from data of a
recent investigation (Sanei et al., 2015). The efficiency of the power
plant that uses the heat produced from MSW was adapted from a study
performed at Columbia University (Rodríguez, 2011). Knowing the
amount of produced electricity, the GHG avoidance could be defined as
the amount of emissions avoided to produce equal electricity in a ty-
pical power plant, which is TPP in this research. Based on the TPP’s
data, to generate 1 kW h electricity, 0.9707 kg CO2 eq. is emitted. For
landfilling, the same procedure was followed, only the amount of
electricity was calculated based on the methane recovery from landfill.
2.3. Cost analyses
A reliable cost analysis is arduous as the economy is on the verge of
collapse in Iran. However, considering the analogy between waste
characteristics in Iran and China, a cost estimation based on the WTE
incineration plant data in China seems to be the most accurate option.
For landfilling, the data of landfills in China were used, and MRF capital
and maintenance costs were adapted from a comprehensive cost ana-
lysis study performed for Canada (Inc., R.R.S. & S., 2012). To compare
the total cost of different scenarios, the calculation was done for 20
years—from 2015 till 2035—and to compensate different lifetime of
these different WTE methods in the cost analysis, equivalent annual
cost (EAC) was utilized. All costs were converted to USD2015.
2.3.1. Incineration
The capital cost of an incineration plant varies with the plant ca-
pacity. Thus, according to the data from China (Qiu, 2012), a function
for the cost of incineration plants based on the tonne of MSW was de-
rived. In the next step, the total cost of an incineration plant suitable for
Tehran’s MSW was calculated. For a better comparison between the
cost of an incineration plant and a landfill, the equivalent annual cost of
an incineration plant was calculated considering the fact that the op-
erating age of a landfill site is 1 year and after that only the methane
recovery takes place.
2.3.2. Landfill
According to a recent report (Zhou, Gong, Hu, Cao, & Liang, 2015),
the average cost of landfill per tonne of waste is 12.9 USD tonne−1. An
additional 2.5 USD tonne−1 was considered for purchasing the land
required for the sanitary landfill site. The area needed for the site was
calculated based on the volume of the MSW generated in a year in
Tehran, which is about 4,500,000 m3 year−1. The depth of the landfill
site is considered 6 m, and the land value is 10 USD m−2. The main
difference between landfilling and incinerating the generated MSW is
the area of land needed for each one of these methods. The area re-
quired for landfilling is much greater in comparison to the area needed
for building an incineration plant, taking into account that in land-
filling, the required area increases as untreated MSW enters the stream.
A. Maghmoumi, et al.
2.3.3. MRF
To obtain a function for the operating cost of an MRF facility, the
same procedure as the WTE incineration plant was followed based on
data of a detailed report (Inc., R.R.S. & S., 2012). As mentioned pre-
viously, 20 % of the MSW is treated in the MRF facility; thus, the MRF
facility recycles about 600,000 tonnes of MSW in a year. A large MRF
station is capable of handling about 50,000 tonnes year−1 of MSW. As a
result, 12 large MRF stations are required for Tehran. In the cost
modelling conducted by the Resource Recycling Systems and Stew-
ardEdge Inc. for Ontario, the total capital and operating cost is calcu-
lated for six models of MRF facilities. The equation which estimates the
cost per tonne of waste is derived from the capital cost calculations. It is
assumed that the facilities have 7.5 productive hours per 8 -h shift.
Furthermore, land costs are not included in this model (Inc., R.R.S. & S.,
2012). The labour cost varies in Iran and Canada and might cause a
small deviation in the calculations.
To calculate the capital cost of the MRF station, the estimated ca-
pital cost from the equation was converted to USD2015. The same life-
time of 20 years was considered for the EAC analysis.
2.4. GHG emission reduction from the energy recovery system
It is assumed that the electricity generated in the WTE plant is
displaced by the electricity generated in TPP. Because of the high
moisture content of Iran’s MSW, moving grate is the appropriate type of
incinerator, which has a grate-fired furnace, empty vertical passes, and
a vertical boiler based on Rodríguez (Rodríguez, 2011). The heat loss in
the furnace, ash bin, and the stack gases is 10 %, the thermal efficiency
of the turbine is about 28 %, and approximately 15 % of the electricity
produced is consumed by the plant itself (parasitic load). Also, the net
electric efficiency is 21 %. According to our previous investigations
(Sanei et al., 2015), the heating value of MSW in Iran is about 8.4 MJ
kg−1. Adapting the heating value of Tehran’s MSW and considering the
heat loss, turbine cycle efficiency, and the consumed electricity by the
plant, the energy from MSW exported to the grid is 0.496 MW h
tonne−1.
2.5. Sensitivity analysis on TPP fuel, MSW heating value, and CH4 recovery
rate
The sensitivity analysis is conducted to depict the effect of each
factor on the net GHG emissions. Accordingly, the value of the above-
mentioned factors was changed in a short-range to determine the var-
iation of net GHG emissions in each scenario. For the plant usage, the
range of 0.3–0.7 Sm3 kWh−1 of natural gas is chosen, based on the cycle
efficiency. The heating value of MSW varies in the range of 7–10 MJ
kg−1. The methane recovery rate varies from 0.6 to 1, based on IPCC
(Coburn, Pingoud, Thorsen, & Wagner, 2006). The methane recovery
rate of 1 is chosen to illustrate the ideal situation.
3. Results and discussion
In this section, the result of the analysis is explained thoroughly,
and the optimum scenario for MSWM is presented. It is necessary to
mention the fact that due to the absence of landfill with recovery sites
in Iran, the required data were adapted from countries with similar
conditions.
3.1. GHG emissions from different scenarios
The CO2 emitted from different WTE technologies has caused global
concern. Therefore, it is necessary to utilize a WTE technology with the
least GHG emissions. As shown in Fig. 1, the avoided and emitted GHG
emissions from different scenarios are studied. The first scenario (i.e.,
100 % incineration) has 396.14 kg CO2 eq. tonne−1 GHG emissions,
while the second scenario (i.e., 100 % landfill) has 296.53 kg CO2 eq.
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161
tonne−1 GHG emissions, i.e., 25.14 % lower than the first scenario. As
Fig. 1 illustrates, there is a great difference between scenario 1 and 2
from the GHG emission perspective, making scenario 1 the worst GHG
emitting scenario. The lower portion of the incinerated MSW in sce-
nario 4 compared to scenario 3, leads to 6.15 % difference between the
two scenarios.
3.2. GHG avoided from different scenarios
The avoided GHG emission is the GHG emitted from TPP to produce
the same amount of electricity in the WTE plant. As Fig. 1 illustrates,
the electricity generated from burning all of the MSW in an incineration
plant results in the most avoided GHG emissions. As expected, the
landfilling approach has the least avoided GHG, and based on Fig. 1, it
also has the least emitted GHG. Moreover, WTE incineration plants
have the most GHG emissions, nevertheless realizing the fact that they
avoid the most GHG emissions through electricity generation, brings
about the need for a profound comparison. Therefore, it is necessary to
consider the net GHG emissions. The results indicate that some sce-
narios may have negative net GHG emissions due to their high value of
avoided GHG.
3.3. Net GHG emissions
The difference between generated GHG emissions and avoided GHG
emissions presents the net GHG emissions, which is the best parameter
for comparing the gaseous pollutions in the four scenarios. The net GHG
emissions for all scenarios range from −97.98 to 41.41 kg CO2 eq.
tonne−1 of MSW at the reference year 2015, as shown in Fig. 2. The
negative value of net GHG emissions is due to electricity generation
from MSW and the corresponding avoided GHG emissions in fossil fuel
power plants. As the portion of landfilling increases, the net GHG
emissions increase, because emission avoidance due to incineration is
higher than landfilling in the current circumstances in Iran. This can be
pertinent to the fact that the methane generation in landfill is only
caused by the biodegradable portion of MSW (Woon & Lo, 2013). The
results indicate that landfilling (scenario 2) has the highest net GHG
emissions, so producing the lowest GHG emissions does not necessarily
lead to the lowest net GHG emissions.
Scenarios 1 and 3 nearly have the same amount of net GHG emis-
sions. Fig. 3 illustrates the share of each technology in the net GHG
emissions in scenarios 3 and 4. It is observed that by decreasing the
portion of incinerated waste in scenarios 3 and 4, the net GHG emis-
sions increase. The per cent of net GHG reductions, compared to sce-
nario 2, are approximately 307 %, 337 % and 275 % for scenarios 1, 3,
and 4, respectively. Based on the results, a combination of an in-
cineration plant with recovery, landfilling, and MRF is the best option
500
GHG Emissions (kg CO2 eq. tonneо1 of MSW)
Generated GHG Avoided GHG
400
300
200
100
0
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Fig. 1. Generated and avoided GHG emissions from different scenarios.
A. Maghmoumi, et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161

60 to manage waste in Tehran. However, scenario 1 shows a promising

41.42
value of net GHG emissions with a difference lower than five per cent
GHG Emission (kg CO2 eq. tonneо1 of MSW)

40
with the third scenario. So, a cost analysis on each scenario could
20
benefit the implementation of the better policy.
0
3.4. Net GHG emissions from different scenarios
-20

-40 The energy recovery system plays a crucial role in reducing net GHG
-60 emissions. The comparison between the GHG emitted in Fig. 1 and net
GHG emissions from Fig. 2 help to understand the effect of recovery on
-80 -72.56 net GHG emissions in different scenarios. As expected, each scenario
-85.67 with an energy recovery option has considerably lower net GHG
-100
-97.98
emissionscompared to the no-recovery systems. However, this contrast
-120
is more distinguishable in the first scenario, where the difference be-
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
tween the two net GHG emissions is about 480 kg CO2 eq. tonne−1 of
Fig. 2. Net GHG emitted from different scenarios. MSW. Furthermore, scenario 2 has the lowest level of emissions, not
considering the energy recovery system. Although considering the en-
40 ergy recovery system, it is the only scenario with positive net GHG
GHG Emission (kg CO2 eq. tonneо1 of MSW)

emissions.
20
20.71
12.43
0 3.5. MSW transportation GHG emissions
-25.70
-20 -42.84
MRF It should be noted that the GHG emitted from the transportation of
-40 MSW were neglected in this study, given its low value. It is re-
LandĮll
-60 -67.57 IncineraƟon
commended, however, to carry out a more detailed survey on the ef-
fects of transportation, especially for the regions which MSWs final
-80 -67.57
destination is distant. It is also necessary to point out that the con-
-100 sidered MSWM sites are located in different suburban regions of
Tehran. So the emitted GHG from transportation require complicated
-120 calculations.
Scenario3 Scenario4

Fig. 3. Net GHG emitted from different parts of scenario 3 and 4. 3.6. Cost analysis

140,000,000 The cost comparison is illustrated in Fig. 4. The results indicate that
landfilling is the cheapest scenario, although there is an excessive need
120,000,000
for purchasing land. All the facilities have initially a capital cost, and
100,000,000 after commissioning a constant maintenance and operation cost is
Cost (USD2015)

80,000,000 MRF added. As expected, the incineration plant has the highest capital cost,
LandĮll
in contrast to landfilling. Incineration is the major technology utilized
60,000,000
in scenarios 1 and 3, which makes them the two most expensive sce-
IncineraƟon
40,000,000 narios, with a 11 % difference in the capital cost. As stated, the in-
cineration plant is a highly-priced technology, and as it is shown in
20,000,000
Fig. 4, in scenarios 3 and 4, 87 %, and 52 % of the capital cost is due to
0 incineration. It is also necessary to note that landfilling the same
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
amount of incinerated waste leads to 62 % reduction in the capital cost.
Fig. 4. Equivalent annual cost of each scenario. The cost analysis makes the decision-making process even more
complicated, because scenario 3, which has the least net GHG emission,
200 is the second most costly scenario. Also, scenario 2 is the cheapest,
Net GHG Emission (kg CO2 eq. tonneо1 of MSW)

150 while it has the maximum net GHG emission.

100
3.7. Sensitivity analysis
50
0 The GHG emitted from different scenarios is dependent on several
Scenario 1
-50 parameters. It is necessary to evaluate the effect of different parameters
Scenario 2
-100 such as the plant usage, methane recovery rate, and the heating value of
Scenario 3
-150 MSW on the results. The sensitivity analysis demonstrates a better
Scenario 4
-200
perception of these relations.
-250
3.7.1. Plant usage sensitivity analysis
-300
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
The methane usage of the gas turbine power plant is a parameter
Plant Usage (m3 kWhо1) related to the plants’ efficiency, and it has a significant impact on the
net GHG emissions of each scenario, as Fig. 5 shows. The results in-
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis on the effect of plant usage on net GHG emissions. dicate that incineration is the most sensitive scenario to plant usage, as
the plant usage variation shifts it from the second most pollutant sce-
nario to the least pollutant scenario. Also, scenario 2 has the least de-
pendence on plant usage. Increasing the plant usage results in a 294.6

5
A. Maghmoumi, et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161

500

Net GHG Emission (kg CO2 eq. tonneо1 of MSW)

400

300

200
Scenario1
100
Scenario2
0 Scenario3
-100 Scenario4

-200

-300

-400
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Methane recovery factor
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis on the methane recovery rate.

100
Net GHG Emission (kg CO2 eq. tonneо1 of MSW)

50

0
Scenario 1
-50 Scenario 2
Scenario 3
-100 Scenario 4

-150

-200
10 9 8 7
HeaƟng Value (MJ kgо1)
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis on MSW heating value.

% and 126.5 % decrease in the net GHG emissions from scenario 1 and
scenario 2, respectively. It is obvious that the net GHG emissions of
scenario 3 follow the same variation as scenario 1, as 50 % of waste is
incinerated in this scenario.
It is concluded that the net GHG emission is affected by the policies
of fuel composition, especially if the incineration technology is utilized.
Improving the fuel composition and also the MSWM technology can
result in a significant reduction in cities' GHG emissions.
3.7.2. Methane recovery rate sensitivity analysis
The methane produced in the landfill plant is recovered and com-
busted for electricity generation. It is evident that by increasing the
recovery factor, net GHG emission decreases. This reduction is both as a
result of less release of GHG emissions and more avoided GHG emis-
sions. As Fig. 6 demonstrates, the methane recovery factor only affects
landfilling. In scenario 2, a 10 % change in the methane recovery factor,
results in a maximum 80 % change in the net GHG emissions. Methane
recovery factor’s impact on scenario 3 is less than scenario 4; because in
scenario 4 a greater portion of MSW is landfilled. To achieve a net-zero
GHG emission, the methane recovery factor must reach approximately
0.823. The recovery factor above this value leads to negative GHG
emissions in scenario 2. If the recovery factor reaches 0.871 and above,
landfilling releases less GHG emissions than incineration. So it is vital to
develop and utilize technologies with a higher methane recovery rate.
3.7.3. MSW heating value sensitivity analysis
The heating value of MSW varies with its composition. Hence it is of
great interest to study the impact of increasing the heating value. The
heating value only affects the incineration method, as Fig. 7 illustrates.
If the heating value of MSW increases, in the energy recovery process,
more energy is generated, so more electricity is produced. The pro-
duced electricity supersedes the electricity generated in the power
plant. In scenario 1, a 10 % increase in the heating value, results in
maximum 75 % increase in the net GHG emissions. For heating values
less than 6.2 MJ kg−1, the net GHG emissions of scenario 1 reache
values higher than scenario 2.
The heating value of MSW increases as the dry matter composition
increases. Low level of heating value is directly a result of high moisture
content in the MSW. MSW components such as paper, cardboard, and
plastic have a high heating value, in contrast to food waste, metals, and
glass. In Tehran, about 62 % of MSW consists of putrescible (Sanei
et al., 2015). Utilizing other waste management technologies such as

6
A. Maghmoumi, et al.
landfilling or composting for food and organic waste, is the preferred
option to improve MSW’s heating value.
4. Conclusion
The waste management condition is currently at a crisis level in
Iran. The purpose of the current study was to determine the environ-
mental-economic aspect of various waste management scenarios in Iran
to generate electricity from the waste sector and, thus, reduce the GHG
emissions. The scenarios include all the waste-to-value options: mate-
rial recovery, landfilling all the MSW, managing all of the MSW by
burning them in incineration plants with energy recovery, or using a
combination of the three possible options (landfill, incineration, and
MRF). The results indicate that the emissions decrease considerably
when applying the above-mentioned scenarios. Also, the impacts of four
controllable parameters were investigated through a detailed sensitivity
analysis. Considering the global effects of climate change, and the im-
portance of reducing fossil fuel consumption, the implementation of
WTE technologies to Iran’s waste management policy is deemed ne-
cessary. Moreover, waste incineration plant has the highest cost, and
scenario 3 (50 % incineration, 30 % landfill, and 20 % MRF) has the
least emissions among all the suggested scenarios. Thus, the best-per-
forming scenario with respect to the GHG emissions is the third sce-
nario, as landfilling is the cheapest option but with the largest GHG
emissions. A life cycle assessment research on the cost of GHG emis-
sions in each scenario could assist in finding the most feasible policy. A
policy to manage Tehran’s MSW with a focus on incineration plants can
be beneficial for both minimizing the GHG emissions and MSW man-
agement problems. The same research can also be conducted for several
different cities in Iran since the overall characteristic of waste is almost
similar. Finally, an extensive study on the waste specification in Iran
could help to define a long-term plan to minimize the GHG emissions
and MSW management costs simultaneously.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Aleluia, J., & Ferrão, P. (2016). Characterization of urban waste management practices in
developing Asian countries: A new analytical framework based on waste characteristics and
urban dimension. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.008.
Ali, M., Marvuglia, A., Geng, Y., Chaudhry, N., & Khokhar, S. (2018). Emergy based
carbon footprinting of household solid waste management scenarios in Pakistan.
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 131, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RESCONREC.2017.10.011.
Arafat, H. A., Jijakli, K., & Ahsan, A. (2013). Environmental performance and energy
recovery potential of fi ve processes for municipal solid waste treatment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071.
Coburn, J. B., Pingoud, K., Thorsen, G., & Wagner, F. (2006). Solid waste disposal. 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Vol. 5 Waste 40.
Fazeli, A., Bakhtvar, F., Jahanshaloo, L., Che Sidik, N. A., & Bayat, A. E. (2016).
Malaysia’s stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: A review. Renewable
Sustainable Cities and Society 59 (2020) 102161
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.
12.270.
Feyzi, S., Khanmohammadi, M., Abedinzadeh, N., & Aalipour, M. (2019). Multi- criteria
decision analysis FANP based on GIS for siting municipal solid waste incineration
power plant in the north of Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101513. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2019.101513.
Guendehou, G. H. S., Koch, M., Hockstad, L., Pipatti, R., & Yamada, M. (2006).
Incineration and open burning of waste. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Vol. 5, 1–26 Waste 5 https://doi.org/WAS-01.
Inc., R.R.S, & S (2012). Volume 3: Cost modelling, a study of the optimization of the blue Box
material processing system in Ontario.
Islam, K. M. N. (2017). Greenhouse gas footprint and the carbon flow associated with
different solid waste management strategy for urban metabolism in Bangladesh. The
Science of the Total Environment, 580, 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2016.12.022.
Jensen, J. E. F., & Pipatti, R. (2001). CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal.
Limoodehi, F. A., Tayefeh, S. M., Heydari, R., & Ali, M. (2017). Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management in Tehran 1. 207–218. https://doi.org/10.22097/
eeer.2017.47247.
Liu, Y., Sun, W., & Liu, J. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from different municipal solid
waste management scenarios in China: Based on carbon and energy flow analysis.
Waste Management, 68, 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.020.
Malmir, T., & Tojo, Y. (2016). Municipal solid waste management in Tehran: Changes
during the last 5 years. Waste Management & Research, 34, 449–456. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X16632056.
Mavrotas, G., Gakis, N., Skoulaxinou, S., Katsouros, V., & Georgopoulou, E. (2015).
Municipal solid waste management and energy production: Consideration of external
cost through multi-objective optimization and its effect on waste-to-energy solutions.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 1205–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.07.029.
Mayer, F., Bhandari, R., & Gäth, S. (2019). Critical review on life cycle assessment of
conventional and innovative waste-to-energy technologies. The Science of the Total
Environment, 672, 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.449.
Ouda, O. K. M., Raza, S. A., Nizami, A. S., Rehan, M., Al-Waked, R., & Korres, N. E.
(2016). Waste to energy potential: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 61, 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.
005.
Papageorgiou, A., Karagiannidis, A., Barton, J. R., & Kalogirou, E. (2009). Municipal solid
waste management scenarios for Attica and their greenhouse gas emission impact.
Waste Management & Research, 27, 928–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X09350787.
Qiu, L. (2012). Part I: Analysis of the economics of waste-to energy plants in China. Part II:
MSW sorting models in China and potential for improvement. 69.
Rodríguez, M. E. D. B. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis of a waste to energy plant for Montevideo;
and waste to energy in small islands executive summary. 66.
Sanei, H., Houshfar, E., Nasiri, J., & Ashjaee, M. (2015). Technical and economical analysis
of different moisture seperation methods from wastes.
Shams, S., Sahu, J. N., Rahman, S. M. S., & Ahsan, A. (2017). Sustainable waste man-
agement policy in Bangladesh for reduction of greenhouse gases. Sustainable Cities
and Society, 33, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2017.05.008.
Tan, S., Hashim, H., Lee, C., Taib, M. R., & Yan, J. (2014). Economical and environmental
impact of waste-T o-energy (WTE) alternatives for waste incineration, landfill and
anaerobic digestion. Energy Procedia, 61, 704–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2014.11.947.
Tavana, A., Emami Javid, A., Houshfar, E., Mahmoudzadeh Andwari, A., Ashjaee, M.,
Shoaee, S., et al. (2019). Toward renewable and sustainable energies perspective in
Iran. Renewable Energy, 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.022.
Woon, K. S., & Lo, I. M. C. (2013). Greenhouse gas accounting of the proposed landfill
extension and advanced incineration facility for municipal solid waste management
in Hong Kong. The Science of the Total Environment, 458–460, 499–507. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.061.
Yang, D., Xu, L., Gao, X., Guo, Q., & Huang, N. (2018). Inventories and reduction sce-
narios of urban waste-related greenhouse gas emissions for management potential.
The Science of the Total Environment, 626, 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.01.110.
Zhou, C., Gong, Z., Hu, J., Cao, A., & Liang, H. (2015). A cost-benefit analysis of landfill
mining and material recycling in China. Waste Management, 35, 191–198. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.029.