Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Life cycle cost analysis of wastewater treatment: A systematic review

of literature
Muhammad Ilyas *, Freselam Mulubrhan Kassa, Mohd Ridzuan Darun
Faculty of Industrial Management, University of Malaysia, Pahang, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemeš The last two decades have witnessed a substantial increase in literature on the life cycle costing of Wastewater
treatment. Lack of commonly agreed methodology of life cycle costing resulted in the use of different frameworks
Keywords: and methodologies. Methods and approaches in conducting life cycle cost analysis are also evolving, and a
Economic assessment gradual shift from conventional to environmental and societal life cycle costing is witnessed in the last decade.
Lifecycle cost analysis
However, a detailed systematic review of methods and approaches of life cycle costing in Wastewater treatment
Life cycle assessment
is still lacking. A comprehensive and systematic review provides an opportunity to record existing development
Systematic literature review
Cost breakdown structure in the field and identify areas where more research is needed. For this purpose, this paper systematically reviews
Uncertainty the literature on the life cycle cost analysis of wastewater treatment, focusing on purpose, approach, method­
ology, integration with life cycle assessment, cost estimation, and dealing with uncertainty. The analysis of 83
identified case studies indicated that most of the studies are conducting for affordability and comparative
analysis. A gradual shift from conventional to environmental life cycle cost analysis is also observed. 44% of the
studies are integrated with Life cycle assessment through different methods. However, in these integrated
studies, life cycle cost analysis is used as a secondary tool to supplement the life cycle assessment. Analytical and
statistical methods are generally used for cost estimation. Deterministic methods are most common to deal with
uncertainties. Based on the comprehensive review of case studies, it is suggested that future research should aim
at developing a framework for life cycle cost analysis that could consider and allocate all costs associated with
the Wastewater treatment process.

1. Introduction The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

Over the past two decades, increasing awareness and sensitization
have been observed globally in various cost-effective models of waste­
water treatment (WWT). Various public and private authorities are
required to find efficient and effective ways of industrial wastewater
treatment. Researchers have been investigating WWT processes from the
technological, economic, social, and environmental perspective. At­
tempts have been made to combine these perspectives in a single case
study.
The lifecycle approach represents tools for economic and environ­
mental evaluation of products, services, or processes. Life cycle assess­
ment (LCA) and Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) are used for
environmental and economic assessment, respectively. Both of these
techniques are used to measure and quantify the impacts (environ­
mental and economic) associated with all stages of the product, process,
or service from cradle to grave.
classified LCC into Conventional, Environmental and Societal LCC.
Multiple methodological frameworks and established theory of the
computational structure on Conventional LCC exists. Moreover,
industry-specific international standards and guidelines (ISO 15686-5,
ISO 15663-2, IEC 60300-3-3, BS 3843, AS/NZS 4536) have been
developed for these methods. The case of Environmental LCC is less
clear, though its theory and methods are evolving but still lack unifor­
mity in methodology. Even the recent Code of Practice does not specify
any framework to use (Heijungs et al., 2013). Environmental LCC, which
Rebitzer et al. (2003) called as economic “cousin” of LCA, has not had
any widely established framework and commonly agreed methodology.
Although SETAC scientific group on LCC developed a methodology for
Environmental LCC (Hunkeler et al., 2008; Swarr et al., 2011), the
technique is still complicated and difficult to implement, data-intensive
and inherently imprecise. while societal LCC is still at an early stage of
development, and more research work is required.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ilyas@kiu.edu.pk (M. Ilyas), freselam@ump.edu.my (F.M. Kassa), mridzuand@ump.edu.my (M.R. Darun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127549
Received 21 July 2020; Received in revised form 14 May 2021; Accepted 15 May 2021
Available online 20 May 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Ilyas et al.
Within the field of WWT, LCCA and LCA were first applied in the late
nineteens. Since then, in the last two decades, there has been an
increasing volume of literature exploring the environmental and eco­
nomic analysis of WWT technologies, plants, and processes. A variety of
methods and frameworks has been employed to analyze the economic
and environmental impact of WWT. It is clear that LCCA is a valuable
tool to elucidate the broader economic impact of design, construction,
and operation decisions; however, different methods and frameworks
used in LCCA need to be thoroughly investigated to identify best prac­
tices and state of the art. With the growing interest of researchers and
practitioners in the use of LCC in the WWT process, it is imperative to do
a comprehensive review of the methods, procedures, models, and
practices. To the best of the author’s knowledge, to date, a compre­
hensive review on LCC of WWT processes does not exist. Therefore, this
paper aims to perform a systematic review of case studies in the field of
LCC of WWT.
In this backdrop, this study adopts a systematic review technique
recommended by (Khan et al., 2003). The focus of this study is LCC
approaches, methods, models, and its integration with LCA. Objectives
are:
1. To report the general trends in life cycle costing through a systematic
review. The analysis shall cover Life cycle costing goals, approaches,
frameworks, methodologies, cost estimating techniques.
2. To identify and report methods for integrating economic and envi­
ronmental impacts.
3. To explore the ways and means through which uncertainties are
addressed in LCCA.
2. Methods
Above mentioned objectives are addressed through a systematic re­
view proposed by (Adams et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2003; Lee et al.,
2016). Systematic review is widely used in many applied disciplines for
retrieving scientific information to facilitate the decision-making pro­
cess. (Pullin and Stewart, 2006). Framework for a systematic review is
fully developed in health sciences, and many other disciplines are also
using it due to its rigorous process and evidence-based analysis. The
purpose of using this method is to reduce subjectivity (Zamagni et al.,
2012).
The first step in the systematic review is to develop clear and specific
research questions (Khan et al., 2003; Pullin and Stewart, 2006). The
questions are critical to the process because they generate the literature
search terms and determine relevance criteria (Khan et al., 2001). The
questions should be applied in nature to address policy and practice
issues and, therefore, should be framed in consultation with industries
and practitioners (Pullin and Stewart, 2006). Developing a review pro­
tocol brings transparency and rigour to the study and can also serve as a
guideline for the reviewer by establishing inclusion and exclusion
criteria (Pullin and Stewart, 2006). Searching of keywords is also a
prerequisite to meet the requirements of the study (Ke et al., 2009).
The second step is to identify relevant work through relevant data
sources (Khan et al., 2003). This is to be done through a systematic
search in all possible databases, articles, journals, and periodicals. The
widest possible range of sources should be considered to capture infor­
mation (Pullin and Stewart, 2006). There should be a logical link be­
tween the articles selected and the research questions. Consequently,
data search should flow from research questions (Khan et al., 2003). The
preliminary search involves searching through keywords, abstracts, and
titles (Lee et al., 2016). These keywords are used in identified journal
databases (Ke et al., 2009).
The third step is to assess the quality of relevant research studies to
ensure academic rigour and precision. (Khan et al., 2003). For analysis
of relevant articles, quality assessment is an essential requirement to
move further. A preliminary search is required to be filtered (Lee et al.,
2016). A broad-spectrum of themes need to be narrowed down to reach
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
a logical conclusion. Therefore, a visual examination of the contents of
the articles needs to be done (Ke et al., 2009). Further, the methodology
of scientific work should also be examined to prevent systematic errors
and biases to establish quality (Moheret al. 1995). To achieve this end,
well-designed, high-quality studies may be included, and inferior studies
may be rejected. Alternatively, the effects of individual studies can be
weighted according to their position in the quality hierarchy. (Pullin and
Stewart, 2006).
Next is to summarize the evidence, which is carried out after identi­
fying relevant work and quality. Usually, data is summarized and clas­
sified in tables based on characteristics, themes, methodology, and
quality. The application of statistical tools can also be used (Khan et al.,
2003; Pullin and Stewart, 2006). Finally, the last step is interpreting the
findings to reach a logical conclusion (Fig. 1).
3. Results
3.1. Framing research questions for review
The central point of this review is to report and analyze general
trends in LCC regarding approaches, methodologies, cost estimation
techniques, LCC-LCA integration, and the way uncertainties are treated
in the analysis. The general research question being addressed in this
review is “What are the general trends in life cycle costing in terms of
approaches, methodologies, cost estimating techniques, integration
with LCA, and dealing with uncertainties."
3.1.1. Scoping the study
A crucial step in the systematic review process is to thoroughly
define the scope of the research question (Armstrong et al., 2011). This
review aims to report general trends in LCC. Only economic aspects are
discussed in this review. The economic aspect implies financial flows as
well as the monetary value attributed to social and environmental fac­
tors. The overall focus of this review is applied case studies. Theoretical
papers are not included in the review. Further, those cases are included,
which are mainly concerned with wastewater treatment (WWT). Few
case studies from waste treatment, water treatment, and energy pro­
duction from WWT, which uses similar methods and technologies, are
also included in the review.
3.1.2. Inclusion/exclusion criteria
The selection of articles is based on the inclusion-exclusion criteria.
The inclusion criteria are covering those articles which are published in
peer-review journals. Gray literature and articles written in languages
other than english are not included. Further, only case studies are
considered for review (Table 1).
Inclusion criteria were set, keeping in view quality parameters. A
total of 1600 papers were retrieved initially, and after applying quality
parameters, only 83 case studies were selected for detailed analysis.
3.1.3. Identifying search key words
The following keywords are identified for database search. “Life
Cycle Costing”, Life Cycle Cost analysis"," LCC”, “Life Cycle cost AND
framework”, “Life cycle cost AND estimation”, “Cost Estimation Tech­
niques”, “Cost Estimation Relation”, “Life Cycle Cost AND Case studies”,
“Life Cycle Cost AND Wastewater Treatment”, “Life cycle cost analysis
AND Waste treatment".
3.2. Identification of relevant work
LCC was originally designed by the US Department of Defense (DoD)
for the procurement of military equipment. LCC is predominantly used
in military and construction, but the adaptation of the LCC method by
other industries and sectors is gaining momentum, resulting in the
proliferation of literature across various fields of studies. Hence the use
of “Life cycle cost” or “Life Cycle Cost Analysis” as the keyword in a
M. Ilyas et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549

Fig. 1. Systematic review process.

Science and Scopus databases in a specific function of keyword or ab­

Table 1
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion Criteria
LCC case studies in WWT Secondary studies
Primary studies Non-English papers
Gray literature
Duplicate papers
Theoretical papers
stract or title. No restriction was made on a beginning date range to get a
historical perspective of LCC. Articles published up to 2020 are
considered for review. Search based on inclusion/exclusion criteria
resulted in 1600 articles. After applying inclusion-exclusion criteria and
considering only case studies related to wastewater treatment, 83 case
studies are considered for detailed review.
3.3. Assess the quality of the study

search engine generates a plethora of literature. Korpi and Ala-Risku
(2008) also noted that literature on LCC is quite fragmented and used
databases to identify LCC case studies instead of journals.
3.2.1. Selection of databases
Web of Sciences and Scopus are chosen for journal article search for
their broader coverage of peer-reviewed articles. Google scholar is also
utilized for the identification of additional case studies on the LCC of
WWTPs.
3.2.2. Perform preliminary search
A preliminary search was carried out through keywords in Web of
To ensure the quality of selected case studies inclusion criteria were
set keeping in view quality parameters. Visual examination of the con­
tents of papers is conducted by authors and papers were filtered keeping
in view inclusion criteria. Methods used in papers were assessed for their
quality and those papers were included in the review which takes a life
cycle view and includes acquisition and operation cost over the lifespan
of the process and employs dynamic or quasi dynamic models for eco­
nomic analysis. Only peer-reviewed case studies on LCC of WWT pub­
lished after 2000 are reported in this study. Introductions, book reviews,
forums, editorials, discussions, and standards are reviewed but not re­
ported and finally, 83 case studies are selected for detailed analysis.

3
M. Ilyas et al.
3.4. Summarizing the evidence
Important themes identified for analysis and synthesis are (1) pur­
pose of LCC analysis; (2) LCC approach; (3) Integration with LCA; (4)
Type of integration; (5) Cost estimation techniques and data collection;
(6) Cost aggregation, lifespan and discounting; (7) Comparison of cost
categories and technologies; (8) Uncertainty analysis. The Discussion
section revolves around a detailed analysis and synthesis of these
themes.
3.4.1. Time span
Case studies that are examined range from 2000 to 2020. The reason
for 2000 as a starting year is because, before 2000, a full-scale LCC in
WWT was not conducted. The first LCC study in WWT was reported in
1997. Most of the case studies are conducted in the last five years (63%).
From Fig. 2, it is clear that there is an increasing trend in conducting LCC
case studies. Further, it is pertinent to mention that case studies pub­
lished in the last five years are integrated with LCA, which means that
environmental analysis is also carried out along with economic analysis
(Fig. 2).
3.4.2. Distribution of case studies
The review is primarily on WWT; however, few studies from water
treatment, waste treatment, and energy production from WWT, which
uses similar technologies and methods, are also included in the review.
72% of the total reviewed case studies are WWT. These case studies are
published in 43 different journals. Journal of Cleaner Production pub­
lished most of the cases on LCC (12 case studies) followed by Journal of
Water, Science, and technology (6 case studies), Journal of water
research (5 case studies), Journal of Resource, Conservation & Recycling
(4 case studies), Waste Management and Bio-resource technology (3
case studies each) (Fig. 3).
3.4.3. Distribution of cases across countries
Selected cases were conducted in 30 different countries. USA has the
highest number of case studies (18), followed by China (10), India (6),
South Korea (5), UK, Japan, and Spain (4 each). 2 cases did not specify
the country (Fig. 4).
4. Discussion: interpretation of the findings
Based on an extensive review of 83 case studies, different themes are
identified and presented in section 3. In this section, these themes are
discussed in detail to find out and interpret relevant approaches,
Fig. 2. Temporal distribution of sample case studies.
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
integrations, and methodologies.
4.1. Purpose of study
LCC was initially designed to assist decision making for procurement
purposes from the client’s point of view (Korpi and Ala-Risku, 2008).
The purpose and nature of LCC depend on the product and process under
consideration. Smit (2012) mentioned that LCC can be used in different
ways and is useful in a wide range of applications such as alternative
solutions and source selection, evaluating affordability of a process,
managing and controlling the current budget, developing a profile of
future expenditures, analyzing cost reduction opportunities, assessing
areas of financial risks and uncertainties and improving processes of the
organization (Barringer et al., 1995; Korpi and Ala-Risku, 2008). clas­
sified LCC on the bases of purpose into the following categories:
Affordability studies measure the impact of LCC on budget and
operations.
Source selection studies compare competing products/process based
on LCC.
Design tradeoff studies evaluate the design aspect of process and plant
that impact LCC.
Repair level analysis quantifies maintenance demand and costs over
the life cycle of process or product.
Warranty and repair cost estimate the cost of failure of equipment
over the useful life.
Supplier sales strategy is conducted to give an overview to the clients
about operating costs and the initial cost of the product.
Greene and Shaw (1990) provide several types of LCC, which include
comparative analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, maintenance concept
analysis, LCC estimates for source selection, Trade studies, Cost-benefit
analysis, Repair level analysis, and provisioning analysis. Ratna Reddy
et al. (2012) included service delivery as a potential purpose in the
sustainable development paradigm.
Classification of case studies is based on (Barringer et al., 1995; Korpi
and Ala-Risku, 2008). As per classification, most of the case studies are
comparative studies (45), followed by affordability studies (25), Design
tradeoff (11), and Repair level analysis (2) (Fig. 5).
It is pertinent to mention here that 84% of the case studies on WWT
LCC are conducted for planning and budgeting (affordability) or alter­
nate selection (comparative). No case study was conducted for source
selection, warranty & repair cost analysis, and supplier sales strategy.
The possible reason is that WWT is considered a public service rather
than a business venture. In typical manufacturing products usually, LCC
is conducted as a tool for source selection, or warranty & repair cost
M. Ilyas et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549

Fig. 3. Distribution of case studies.

Fig. 4. Country-wise distribution of Case studies.

Fig. 5. Classification by purpose of the study.

analysis are performed. 4.2. LCC approach

Since the introduction of LCC in 1933 by the US Department of De­

fense for purchasing military equipment, the concept has witnessed

5
M. Ilyas et al.
enormous changes in its application and scope. Its application to other
sectors like construction, energy, and aircraft has increased. The meth­
odology of LCC has also evolved over a period of time. Currently, the
application of LCC is not restricted to source selection in purchases. It
has been used for design tradeoffs, optimization, planning, budgeting,
repair level analysis, and as a marketing tool.
Sustainable development practices have forced organizations to
focus on economic, environmental, and societal aspects and the conse­
quences of their product and services (Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2015).
Academicians and practitioners are trying to integrate these three as­
pects of life cycle management. (Heijungs et al., 2013; Rebitzer et al.,
2003).
SETAC classified LCC into conventional LCC, Environmental LCC and
Societal LCC. The goal, scope, system boundaries, application of dis­
count rate, and functionality are the basis of LCC classification (Rebitzer
et al., 2003).
Conventional LCC has its roots in public and military procurement
and was subsequently broadened in terms of purpose and application
when adopted by corporations. Conventional LCC is purely a financial
evaluation and takes into consideration various phases in the product
life cycle. Only internal costs, borne by anyone of the actor in the value
chain process are considered for analysis. The analysis is carried out
from the perspective of one actor, mainly manufacturer or user. The cost
estimation process considers the time value of money by discounting the
future cost.
Environmental LCC is strongly linked with environmental assessment
and has its roots in life cycle assessment. It takes into consideration the
cost borne by all actors. Along with internal costs, it also includes certain
external costs in its assessment, hence broadening the scope of Con­
ventional LCC. Mainly Environmental LCC is conducted parallel to LCA,
and the same system boundaries and life cycle inventory are utilized to
monetize and internalize externalities. This is why Environmental LCC is
also called LCA based LCC. Discounting and the time value of money is
not as rigorously applied as applied in Conventional LCC. Its method­
ology is still evolving, and academic discourse on its applicability can be
witnessed from case studies. Reich (2005) defined Environmental LCC as
a weighting of the environmental impacts of LCA in monetary terms.
Few authors (Hall et al., 2018; Rebitzer et al., 2003; Swarr et al., 2011)
linked Environmental LCC with sustainability and proposed a frame­
work for Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) by adding Envi­
ronmental LCC with LCA and Societal LCA.
Societal LCC has a link with cost-benefit analysis and takes into ac­
count the societal aspect. Societal LCC is the latest development in the
life cycle approach, and its methodology is still in its embryonic stage; a
detailed framework and model are yet to develop. However, Marti­
nez-Sanchez et al. (2015) proposed a unit cost model for Societal LCC
and conducted Societal LCC along with Conventional LCC and Envi­
ronmental LCC in the same case study. Societal LCC aims to evaluate a
given scenario’s economic efficiency at the societal level and estimate
welfare loss or gain (Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2015; Rigamonti et al.,
2019). Theregowda et al. (2016) proposed LC3 model by monetizing
external costs imposed on society through the direct or indirect envi­
ronment and health cost (Table 2).
It is pertinent to mention here that 44 case studies are conducted in
parallel to LCA, which shows that financial analysis and environmental
assessment is given equal importance. Detailed discussion on the inte­
gration of LCC and LCA is presented in the next section.
Table 2
LCC approach.
Approach Number of Case Studies Percentage
Conventional LCC 69 83%
Environmental LCC 12 14.6%
Societal LCC 2 2.4%
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
4.3. Integration with LCA
Out of 83 case studies, 44 (51.8%) have been integrated with LCA,
which triggered an interest to explore how these integrations are carried
out. Even though both LCC and LCA belong to the family of life cycle
approach, there are significant differences in their methodology and
techniques. LCA is typically applied for environmental assessment and
accounting for the environmental impact of product and services. Its
methodology is standardized and structured into four stages, which are
i) Goal and Scope definition, ii) inventory analysis, iii) impact assess­
ment, and iv) interpretation (Barrios et al., 2008). Three different types
of LCA’s used in case studies are Process-LCA, Economic-input output
LCA (EIO-LCA) and hybrid LCA. Regardless of differences, LCA and LCC
are combined in a single case study through different integration
methods. Miah et al. (2017) classified LCC-LCA integration into six types
(Type I to Type VI). This study adopts that classification and distributed
case studies accordingly.
4.3.1 Independent LCC & LCA can be defined as an independent
economic and environmental analysis of the same product or process.
Under independent integration, LCC and LCA are conducted on the same
case study, and results are presented in the form of a portfolio. 14 case
studies out of 44 are integrated through this type, such as Glick and
Guggemos (2013) conducted Economic input-output LCA and Conven­
tional LCCA focusing on sustainability consideration of Wastewater
infrastructure in the USA, Rashidi et al. (2018) conducted life cycle
economic and environmental assessments of emerging energy-efficient
WWT processes for Climate Change Adaptation, Kamble et al. (2019)
used LCC and LCA for economic and environmental performance eval­
uation of municipal WWTPs in India, Morelli et al. (2018) calculates
effect of nutrient removal and resource recovery on LCC and environ­
mental impacts of a small scale water resource recovery facility, Cash­
man et al. (2018) carried out LCA and LCCA of aerobic and anaerobic
membrane bioreactor systems, whereas (Diaz-Elsayed et al., 2017;
Longo et al., 2017) performed economic and environmental evaluation
using hybrid LCA and Conventional LCC (Fersi et al., 2015; Roldán et al.,
2020; Wang et al., 2016). used economic input-output LCA to perform
an economic analysis of WWTPs (Hong et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2014;
Vineyard et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2014). used process LCA to integrate the
economic and environmental evaluation of WWTPs.
4.3.2 Techno-Economic Environmental Integration (TEEI) can be
defined as an independent LCA and LCC on the same product/process
supplemented by technical analysis of product/process. Usually, techno-
economic and environmental assessments are carried out for a new
process or product at the feasibility stage. Six case studies (Lazic et al.,
2017; Mu et al., 2016; Schoen and Bagley, 2012; Sills et al., 2016; Xin
et al., 2016) were integrated through a techno-economic and environ­
mental assessment. Pretel et al. (2015) conducted a detailed techno­
logical, environmental, and economic assessment using a quantitative
sustainable design framework (QSDF). A detailed designed analysis of
Anaerobic Bioreactor Membrane (AnMBRs) is conducted for design
tradeoff.
4.3.3 LCA-LCC integration through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
(MCDA) combines and quantifies LCA and LCC with other input pa­
rameters to rank product/process alternatives. This tool is widely used
to compare the alternative course of action and to determine the best
from the group of alternatives. Seven case studies are integrated through
MCDA. Different types of MCDAs were used in these case studies.
Akhoundi and Nazif (2018) used the evidential reasoning (ER) approach
as MCDA and considered economic, environmental, technological, cul­
tural, and sociological aspects of wastewater reuse. Chhipi-Shrestha
et al. (2017) developed, tested, and implemented a decision support tool
named Fitwater, and ranked various WWT alternatives based on LCC,
health risk, amount of reclaim water, energy use, and corban emission.
Yoon et al. (2019) developed and calibrated an input-output decision
support model for wastewater infrastructure systems by incorporating
environmental, technical, economic, political, and social dimensions.
M. Ilyas et al.
Altarabsheh et al. (2016) propose a multi-objective optimization
approach for wastewater network rehabilitation that utilizes both LCA
and a semi-Markov deterioration model. Meerholz and Brent (2013)
developed an MCDA framework for the alternative selection of WWT
technology for Petrochemical industries by assigning predetermined
weights to each dimension and element. Dimensions include technical,
economic, and social aspects. Kalbar et al. (2016) developed a life cycle
and scenario-based decision support tool (TechSelect 1.0) to select WWT
alternatives. Zhou et al. (2019) developed and applied the environment,
energy, economy, and society (3E+S), MSDA model, from a life cycle
perspective for sustainability assessment. LCA is used for evaluating
environmental performance and energy consumption, LCC for recording
economic burden, and Societal LCA for reflecting social impacts.
4.3.4 LCA based LCC (ELCC) integrates LCA and LCC, using the same
system boundary, functional unit, and life cycle inventory. It enhances
LCC’s scope by including all costs incurred by more than one actor
(supplier, manufacturer, user or consumer, and/or EoL actor. (Rebitzer
et al., 2003). There is a noticeable increase in the number of ELCC
studies after the publication of its methodology by Swarr et al. (2011).
Twelve case studies used ELCC. Most of the cases studies (10) on ELCC
are published after 2011 such as Hall et al. (2018) explored the rela­
tionship between ELCC and sustainability using two detailed wastewater
case studies, Rigamonti et al. (2019) applied ELCC methodology to
assess the cost of processing municipal solid waste in Italy, Marti­
nez-Sanchez et al. (2015) developed a detailed cost model for the eco­
nomic assessment of solid waste management by including budget cost,
transfers, and externalities. The results are complemented by LCA for the
same system. Silalertruksa et al. (2012) evaluated the cost performance
of Palm oil Bio-diesel in Thailand by incorporating externalities in the
cost model. Chen et al. (2020) performed the economic and environ­
mental assessment of coal chemical WWTP in China through ELCC and
considered marginal external cost, based on willingness to pay. The
same approach is used by (Liai et al., 2017; Restianti and Gheewala,
2012; Theregowda et al., 2016) and integrated external costs with the
LCC of wastewater. Rebitzer et al. (2003) was the first to coin LCA based
LCC and applied ELCC to WWT and concluded that the life cycle in­
ventory is an excellent basis for identifying and allocating all of the
budgeted and external costs. Talang et al. (2020) added environmental
cost derived from the Life cycle inventory to operation and maintenance
cost and performed a life cycle cost assessment.
4.3.5 Integration through Eco-Efficiency: Eco-Efficiency can be defined
as a ratio of the value of a product or service and environmental per­
formance. In other words, it is a quantitative measure using a ratio of an
output divided by input (Muñoz et al., 2008). The value of a product or
service can be monetary, qualitative, or technical. (Miah et al., 2017).
The review of case studies shows that different kinds of indexes and
ratios are used to calculate eco-efficiency. Five case studies used LCA
and LCC for the determination of output and input to calculate
eco-efficiency for WWT, such as Muñoz et al. (2008) proposed an
Environmental- Economic index (EEI) as a sum of two components.
Product of the index factor related to environment and weighing factors
related to the environment are added to the index factor related to cost
and weighing factor related to cost. Resende et al. (2019) quantified the
economic and environmental performance (Eco-efficiency) of two
decentralized small-scale WWT systems. Lorenzo-Toja et al. (2016)
presented a methodological framework to perform the eco-efficiency of
WWTPs based on the combination of LCA and LCC in a quantitative
manner following the guidelines of ISO 14045. Barrios et al. (2008)
calculated the financial and environmental impact of water treatment
operations using eco-efficiency ratios. Abdallah et al. (2020) used
eco-efficiency assessment to combine the environmental footprint and
overall costs of the selected wastewater management systems (Fig. 6).
In some case studies, there is an overlap between these five types of
LCA-LCC integration; however, an effort has been made to differentiate
based on certain characteristics. Independent LCA-LCC and ELCC are
more common methods of integration than others. Integration through
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
Fig. 6. LCC-LCA integration.
ELCC is gaining momentum in the last five years.
Each type of integration has its strengths and weaknesses. Indepen­
dent LCA- LCC, which keeps LCA and LCC as separate criteria in a
transparent manner, is the easiest way to combine economic and envi­
ronmental results. The main drawback of this type of integration is the
tradeoffs between economic and environmental results. Integration
through TEE adds technological aspects to the assessment and is mostly
used in product/process feasibilities. Again, a tradeoff between these
three dimensions is a major challenge in choosing between alternatives.
Integration through MCDA uses multiple factors and combines their
output in indexes and portfolios that give a quantitative criterion for
selection between various alternatives. The problem with MCDA is in­
consistencies in selection criteria, requirement of intensive input data,
and is a time-intensive process. ELCC is introduced by SETAC during
2002–2005. The key feature of this method is the monetization of
environmental impact (externalities). Converting environmental im­
pacts and costs to a single monetary unit facilitates the decision-making
process; however, this method is facings certain methodological chal­
lenges, which include double counting of environmental impact and
discounting of future environmental impact to present value. Integration
through Eco-efficiency supports decision-making by avoiding potential
tradeoffs between environmental and economic criteria (Muñoz et al.,
2008). The single index and rating system is a potential weakness of this
method (Table 3).
4.4. Cost estimation techniques and data collection
Cost estimation refers to the act of cost approximation of a product/
process or system based on the available information. Jiran et al. (2014)
defined cost estimation as a process of predicting the total process cost
either in any process phase or for the whole process. In those studies that
combine LCA and LCC, cost estimation implies assessing the value or the
price something has, along with the measurement and calculation of
material flow (Rebitzer et al., 2003). Cost estimation is classified in
different ways. Hunkeler et al. (2008) classified cost estimation into a
top-down and bottom-up approach. They also elaborated formal and
informal methods of cost estimations and admitted that for ELCC, the
literature on cost estimation is scarce (Fabrycky and Blanchard, 1991;
Farr and Faber, 2018; Korpi and Ala-Risku, 2008). classified cost esti­
mation into detailed engineering, Analogy, and parametric cost esti­
mation (PCE); however, they ignored modern cost estimation methods
like artificial neural network (ANN) based estimation and Fuzzy logic
based estimation. For this review, cost estimation techniques are clas­
sified into analytical methods, statistical methods, and analogous
methods. Each category can be further classified into different methods.
Statistical methods are classified further into PCE and ANN methods.
Using a particular cost estimation technique depends on many factors,
which include the phase of the process, purpose of analysis, availability,
quality, and certainty of data. There is no single technique that could be
credited as the best technique; therefore, the application of any tech­
nique is contextual (Table 4).
In most case studies, cost estimation methods overlap, and differ­
entiation in the methods is blurred because methods are not mentioned
properly, especially in case studies that jointly conduct LCC and LCA.
M. Ilyas et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549

Table 3
LCC-LCA integration.
Reference LCC Type LCA Type Integration Type

CLCC ELCC SLCC Process EIO Hybrid Independent LCA-LCC TEE Integration MCDA Integration ELCC EE
Integration

Glick and Guggemos (2013) ✓ – – – ✓ – ✓ – – – –

Hall et al. (2018) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Chen Yi-jing (2006) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Lazic et al. (2017) ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – –
Rigamonti et al. (2019) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Reich (2005) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Rashidi et al. (2018) ✓ – – – – ✓ ✓ – – – –
Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Silalertruksa et al. (2012) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Muñoz et al. (2008) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – – – ✓
Kamble et al. (2019) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Resende et al. (2019) ✓ – – – ✓ – – – – – ✓
Lorenzo-Toja et al. (2016) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – – – ✓
Chen et al. (2020) – ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ –
Morelli et al. (2018) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Akhoundi and Nazif (2018) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ – –
Cashman et al. (2018) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Chhipi-Shrestha et al. (2017) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ – –
Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2017) ✓ – – – – ✓ ✓ – – – –
Longo et al. (2017) ✓ – – – – ✓ ✓ – – – –
Wang et al. (2016) ✓ – – – ✓ – ✓ – – – –
Sills et al. (2016) ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – –
Theregowda et al. (2016) – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ –
Pretel et al. (2015) ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – –
Vineyard et al. (2015) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Schoen and Bagley (2012) ✓ – – – ✓ – – ✓ – – –
Fersi et al. (2015) ✓ – – – ✓ – ✓ – – – –
Rebitzer et al. (2003) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Yoon et al. (2019) ✓ – – – ✓ – – – ✓ – –
Barrios et al. (2008) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – – – ✓
Altarabsheh et al. (2016) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ – –
Meerholz and Brent (2013) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ – –
Restianti and Gheewala (2012) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Mu et al. (2016) ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – –
Hong et al. (2009) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Xu et al. (2014) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Kalbar et al. (2016) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ – –
Liai et al. (2017) – ✓ – ✓ – – – – – ✓ –
Smith et al. (2014) ✓ – – ✓ – – ✓ – – – –
Zhou et al. (2019) ✓ – – – ✓ – – – ✓ – –
Xin et al. (2016) ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – –
Roldán et al. (2020) ✓ – – – ✓ – ✓ – – – –
Talang et al. (2020) – ✓ – – ✓ – – – – ✓ –
Abdallah et al. (2020) ✓ – – ✓ – – – – – – ✓

operation phase, a detailed engineering method can be applied, result­

Table 4
Cost estimation method.
Cost Estimation Method Numbers Percentage
Analytical 46 55%
Statistical 35 42%
Analogy 6 07%
The less emphasis on cost estimation can affect the validity and reli­
ability of LCCA. It is interesting to note that cost estimation is overly
simplified in the LCCA of WWTPs. The possible reason for this over­
simplification is the non-availability of detailed cost data. Further, when
LCC is combined with LCA certain tradeoffs in methods are made.
Different data sources are used for cost estimation. Data collection in
terms of resources consumed is the most critical and important part of
conducting LCCA. As it is a data-driven process, it requires time and
effort. The quality and ease of data collection define what method or
model can be applied and what analysis can be performed. Ilyas et al.
(2021). As we progress through different phases of process development,
data availability in terms of quality and quantity increases. At the initial
phase of process development, comprehensive data are lacking, and the
estimator has to rely on analogy and expert judgment, whereas, in the
ing in a more accurate estimation. It has been observed from the liter­
ature that in most cases, LCCA of WWT is conducted in the operation
phase, which gives comprehensive data; however, the estimator needs to
identify cost categories and elements before collecting data. Once cat­
egories are identified, the data source should be identified. The data
source could be internal (financial statements, internal Cost database,
etc.) or external (industrial reports, public statistics, etc.). Data can also
be collected from the existing literature. Once data is collected, it needs
to be prepared for analysis. As data is collected from different sources,
therefore it lacks uniformity and consistency. Data preparation implies
the changes and adaptations to make it applicable for LCCA (Smit,
2012). When actual cost data is not available, the value may be esti­
mated through parametric estimations. CERs play a significant role in
this situation. Most of the studies used internal records (61%) to collect
cost data, followed by databases (16%), past studies (10%), multiple
sources (8%), and surveys (5%). Mostly past studies are used to draw an
analogy of the cost (Table 5).
4.5. Cost aggregation and discounting
This section explains the economic analysis and economic indicators

8
M. Ilyas et al.
Table 5
Data source.
Data Source Count Percentage
Internal Records 51 61%
Database 13 16%
Past studies 8 10%
Survey 4 5%
Multiple sources 7 8%
used in case studies. While summing up the costs, the selection of
appropriate indicators like Net Present Value (NPV), Net Future Value
(NFV), Annual equivalent worth (AEW), and the way discounting is
carried out has an impact on the analysis. In the reviewed case studies, a
diverse range of indicators is used. Discounted cash flows have been
calculated through different formulas. The review of case studies shows
that different methods have been used for different types of LCC. In
CLCC, initial cost along with operation and maintenance cost is included
in aggregating costs of WWTPs while the end-of-life (Disposal cost/re­
sidual value) is ignored in most of the case studies. ELCC studies bifur­
cate costs into internal and external costs. Internal cost includes the
budget cost (Construction, operation, maintenance costs) and transfer
payment (taxes and subsidies). External costs or externalities that occur
outside the economic system are monetized through different ap­
proaches (Chen et al., 2020; Rigamonti et al., 2019). Those studies that
monetize the environmental impact and categorize it as environmental
cost are also considered ELCC (Liai et al., 2017; Talang et al., 2020).
The discount rate is a key variable in discounting future costs and an
essential element of LCCA. Discount rates can be derived from the op­
portunity rate of return expected from investing in an activity other than
the activity being studied (Kehily, 2011). In the case-studies, the dis­
count rate ranges from 4% to 10%. The discount rate applied in LCCA of
the private sector is higher than that of the public sector. Furthermore,
CLCC employs a higher discount rate than SLCC whereas, ELCC gener­
ally does not incorporate discounting in LCC calculation and analysis is
performed through a steady-state model as opposed to CLCC that em­
ploys dynamic or Quasi-dynamic model for cost analysis.
Through discounting, LCC of differing option is brought to a com­
parable base year. NPV is the basic tool for discounting and comparison
of the money values at different times. Most of the case studies used NPV
for incorporating the time value of money. Few case studies analyzing
the alternatives with different timespan used Equivalent Annual Cost
(EAC) such as Koul and John (2015) used Net Present Worth for LCC
calculation (Schoen and Bagley, 2012; Yerri and Piratla, 2019), calcu­
lated LCC using Present Worth Factor, Kamble et al. (2019) used Uni­
form Present Worth Factor to estimate present worth of O&M cost spent
every year (Diaz-Elsayed et al., 2017; Pretel et al., 2015), converted the
present value of each scenario into Uniform Annual Cost to consider the
varying lifespans of the system (Vineyard et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2015;
Yoon et al., 2019), applied EAC using annuity-due formulae to compare
options (Roldán et al., 2020; Tsagarakis and Papadogiannis, 2006),
applied Total Annual Economic Cost as a decision criterion, Xu et al.
(2019) calculated discounted lifetime costs using Net Annual Value. EAC
is calculated by transforming the equivalent value of cash flows into a
series of uniform annual payments. (Mulubrhan et al., 2016).
One of the most relevant and difficult aspects when conducting an
LCC is the definition of the lifespan considered in the analysis. The
lifespan considered in analysis has a huge impact on LCC results and it is
obvious that the longer the lifespan, the higher the operation and
maintenance cost. The weight of cost categories without the reference of
lifespan may lead to imprecise and unclear results. The significance of
lifespan in LCC is irrefutable however case studies in WWT did not give
due importance to life span and a large number of case studies (19 out of
83) did not specify the lifespan. Even those case studies which specify
the lifespan, has defined it without any evidence support that it repre­
sents an approximate life cycle of WWTPs. The estimated life of the
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
WWT range between 20 and 30 years except for few studies (Abdallah
et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2014; Stephan and Stephan, 2017; Vineyard
et al., 2015; Younis et al., 2020) used higher expected life of the WWTPs.
In these cases, the lifespan has been determined based on the design life
of the plant. The studies that focus on the WWT technologies determined
lifespan based on the technologies’ design or service life. Generally, case
studies did not specify the exact method through which they have
defined the lifespan. Zhao et al. (2019) are of the view that the timespan
of the installed equipment is usually considered to be the manufacturer’s
guarantee period, which is often 10–30 years, depending on the contract
and often obtained from the suppliers. Lee et al. (2017) used expert
opinion and fixed asset service life table (2013) for the determination of
service life. Tsagarakis and Papadogiannis (2006) reiterated that the
lifetime of WWT projects are difficult to estimate accurately since no
previous experience exists in most of the cases (Tsagarakis and Papa­
dogiannis, 2006; Zhou et al., 2019). suggest a sensitivity analysis of
lifetime to assess the risk over projects assumed lifetime.
4.6. Comparison of cost categories and technologies
The review of case studies shows that cost categories vary in different
types of LCC. In CLCC, initial cost and operational cost is included in
aggregating overall costs of WWTPs which are, to a great extent similar
to those proposed in ISO 15686-5 (2017). Most of the studies do not
include the end-of-life cost (only 9 out of 83 included EoL cost) in
examining the economic impact of alternative processes. This implies
disposal cost is negligible which does not have a huge impact on the
overall LCC result or the residual value of infrastructure is insignificant
at the end of life. Few studies also included replacement cost (13 out of
83). Generally, in WWT, the major contributors to operation cost are
energy cost, chemical cost, sludge disposal cost, and maintenance cost.
Most of the case studies structure their operational cost including these
cost items. The studies combining environmental and economic assess­
ment in one case study does not identify cost categories in detail, often
ignore replacement and end-of-life cost, making it difficult to make a
comparative analysis of cost categories in different stages of the life
cycle. Rashidi et al. (2018) noted that this practice is because economic
analysis in the field of WWTPs has received less attention than envi­
ronmental or technological assessment despite having its significant role
in the decision-making process. LCC studies of advanced WWT tech­
nologies are scarce, differing in age, geographical focus, methodologies,
and assumptions, making the comparison difficult (Tarpani and Aza­
pagic, 2018). Cost categories also vary in different WWT methods. Be­
sides these limitations, an attempt has been made to calculate and
compare the relevant share of each category’s cost percentage against
the total cost of different methods and techniques used in WWTPs.
Therefore, the discussion below should be interpreted with that in mind
(Table 6).
The comparison of cost categories makes it evident that the operation
and maintenance cost far exceeds the capital cost. Furthermore, the
operation cost depends on the technology used as different WWT tech­
nologies have different operations and capital costs. Ambre et al. (2019)
calculated LCC of 50m MLD WTP and found that the major cost driver
considering 30 years lifespan is the operation and maintenance cost,
which is 72.5% of the total LCC. Initial construction cost is the second
major cost, which is 22.2% of the total LCC, followed by the replacement
cost, which is 4.6% of the total LCC. Chen et al. (2014) found that energy
cost contributes 40% to the total operating cost of WWTPs. Glick and
Guggemos (2013) are convinced that community-scale technologies are
economically sustainable than the centralized system. They calculated
the LCC of 11 km sewer main and found that maintenance cost con­
tributes 15.3% of the total LCC over 25 years of lifespan, whereas the
first cost contributes 84.7% of the total cost. Hall et al. (2018) calculated
ELCC considering 20 years lifespan of two different cases and found that
operating cost is about 56% and 70% of total cost whereas capital cost
contributes 44% and 20% to the total cost. The second case was a novel
M. Ilyas et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549

Table 6
Cost categories.
Author LCC Type LCA Cost categories Included in LCCA Life span

Initial Cost Operation Cost Maintenance cost Replacement cost External cost EoL

Ambre et al. (2019) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – 30

Chen et al. (2014) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Glick and Guggemos (2013) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 25
Hall et al. (2018) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – 20
Fukushima (2006) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – –
Jiran et al. (2019) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ 10
Lazic et al. (2017) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Rigamonti et al. (2019) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ – 20
Reich (2005) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – –
Rashidi et al. (2018) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 20
Ratna Reddy et al. (2012) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – 20
Rawal and Duggal (2016) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ 20
Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2015) SLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – 20
Zhao et al. (2019) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – – – – 20
Zhu et al. (2012) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – √- 30
Shafiee et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ 25
Silalertruksa et al. (2012) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – –
Koul and John (2015) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 30
Younis et al. (2020) CLCC – ✓ – ✓ – – ✓ 100
Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – 30
Muñoz et al. (2008) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 15
Yerri and Piratla (2019) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 50
Kamble et al. (2019) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 50
Resende et al. (2019) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ 20
Linares et al. (2016) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Park et al. (2015) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – 20
Saleh et al. (2018) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – √- 15
Lorenzo-Toja et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Chen et al. (2020) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – 30
Morelli et al. (2018) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 30
Akhoundi and Nazif (2018) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 20
Cashman et al. (2018) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Chhipi-Shrestha et al. (2017) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – –
Lee et al. (2017) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Stephan and Stephan (2017) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 50
Nättorp et al. (2017) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 10
Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2017) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 30
Longo et al. (2017) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 10
Basrawi et al. (2017) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – – – – 25
Wang et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Sills et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 30
Theregowda et al. (2016) SLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ – 25
Pretel et al. (2015) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 20
Vineyard et al. (2015) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 75
Wood et al. (2015) CLCC – ✓ ✓ V – – – –
Takaoka et al. (2014) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Schoen and Bagley (2012) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 20
Lin et al. (2011) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – – – – 30
Brepols et al. (2010) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – 30
Oa et al. (2009) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Lim et al. (2009) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – –
Anilir et al. (2008) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Tsagarakis and Papadogiannis (2006) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 15
Fersi et al. (2015) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 20
Xu et al. (2019) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 30
Gillot et al. (1999) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Rebitzer et al. (2003) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Yoon et al. (2019) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Vipulanandan and Pasari (2005) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ 30
Tsagarakis et al. (2003) CLCC – ✓ ✓ V – – – 20
Barrios et al. (2008) ELCC ✓ – ✓ ✓ – – 25
Dogot et al. (2010) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – –
Stec and Słyś (2014) CLCC – ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – 30
Tee et al. (2014) CLCC – ✓ – ✓ – – – 100
Altarabsheh et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – 50
Bazhenov and Ustiuzhanin (2018) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 25
Meerholz and Brent (2013) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – –
Restianti and Gheewala (2012) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – –
Mu et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Li et al. (2011) ELCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Hosni et al. (2011) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ 20
Nam et al. (2017) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 30
Hong et al. (2009) CLCC ✓ V ✓ – – – – 30
(continued on next page)

10
M. Ilyas et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549

Table 6 (continued )
Author LCC Type LCA Cost categories Included in LCCA Life span

Initial Cost Operation Cost Maintenance cost Replacement cost External cost EoL

Xu et al. (2014) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – –

Kalbar et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – –
Liai et al. (2017) CLCC – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – 20
Smith et al. (2014) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 40
Zhou et al. (2019) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 25
Xin et al. (2016) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Roldán et al. (2020) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – 20
Talang et al. (2020) ELCC ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ – –
Abdallah et al. (2020) CLCC ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – 40

application of embryonic technologies in WWT, focusing on no waste.
Jiran et al. (2019) estimated the LCC of membrane system using the ABC
method and found that O & M cost contributed 79.9% of the total LCC
over 10 years lifespan, whereas membrane design and fabrication
contributed 10.6% of LCC. EoL contributes 9.5% to the total LCC. They
further divided the cost of each category into the overhead, material,
and labour cost. Lazic et al. (2017) compared treatment efficiency,
environmental impact, and LCC of eight advanced WWT processes. They
found that investment cost (CAPEX) is not directly related to effluent
quality. Operating cost (OPEX), on the other hand, are directly related to
effluent quality. This is because energy cost is more than 50% of the total
operating cost. .Upon evaluating the overall cost of eight 100,000 pe
plant size WWTPs with different technologies used for WWT. Lazic et al.
(2017) found that OPEX is the dominating cost over the 20 years of the
plant’s lifetime and therefore determines the overall LCC. For the eight
different WWTPs OPEX/NPV (%) is 56, 58, 54, 55, 57, 54, 53, and 51%.
Rashidi et al. (2018) calculated the LCC of three emerging processes,
membrane bioreactors (MBRs), microbial fuel cells (MFCs), and micro­
bial electrolysis (MEC), and compared them with the conventional
techniques (anaerobic, anoxic, and oxic, A2O). They found that A2O+
MFC has the lowest LCC as compare to the other three techniques. The
operational cost percentage over 20 years for A2O, A2O+ MBR, A2O+
MFC, A2O+ MEC are 52, 49, 38 and 44% respectively. Rawal and
Duggal (2016) compared the LCC of three different design options
(trickling filter, waste stabilization pond, activated sludge process). The
Operation cost of each option is 49.6, 16.2, and 57% respectively for
lifespan of 20 years. Based on LCC, Waste stabilization ponds are more
economical in the long run beside having high initial cost as compared to
the other two options. Koul and John (2015) compared LCC of Anaer­
obic Sludge Blanket (UASBR), Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) and
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) technologies. They found that
UASBR is more cost effective over a period of 30 years than the other two
technologies. Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) compared four advanced
WWT options, which are granular activated carbon (GAC), nano­
filtration (NF), solar-photo Fenton (SPF), and ozonation. They
concluded that the LCC’s main contributors over 30 years lifespan are
the operating costs (~ 80%–90%) for all the treatment methods.
Ozonation is the least expensive option to operate whereas, SPF is the
costliest. Muñoz et al. (2008) compared SPF, Lamp photo-Fenton (LPF),
and Ozonation options for WWT and found that LPF is the least expen­
sive among alternative options. The 15 years operational cost as a per­
centage of LCC for SPF, LPF, and ozonation is 62, 91, and 69%,
respectively. The capital cost of the LPF is approx. five times less than
the other two options. Kamble et al. (2019) carried out LCC of six
technologies; sequencing batch reactor (SBR), membrane bioreactor
(MBR), moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), activated sludge process
(ASP), soil biotechnology (SBT), and aerated lagoons (AL). From an
economic viewpoint, MBBR and ASP technologies are more viable as
compared to other technologies. The operation cost percentage for 50
years lifespan of SBR, MBR, MBBR, ASP, SBT, and AL are 42, 60, 32, 50,
1, 21%, respectively. Resende et al. (2019) compared the LCC of two
different constructed wetlands (CW) for WWT and found that the LCC of
hybrid CW is lower than those that use artificial aeration. The
operational cost for hybrid CW is 31%, and the one that utilizes artificial
aeration is 28% considering 20 years lifespan; however, the construction
and replacement cost of the second CW is higher than the hybrid CW
resulting in higher LCC. Linares et al. (2016) presented a detailed eco­
nomic analysis for 20 years lifespan of a hybrid forward osmosis –
low-pressure reverse osmosis (FO-LPRO) process, a conventional
seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination process, an MBR –
reverse osmosis – advance oxidation process (MBR-RO-AOP) and,
SWRO + MBR-RO-AOP for wastewater treatment and reuse. The most
economically feasible scenario is FO-LPRO with the lowest LCC. The
operational cost of the four scenarios mentioned above is 45, 61, 41,
47% respectively. Park et al. (2015) concluded that the capital cost of a
ceramic membrane WWTP is 16% larger than that of a polymeric
membrane WWTP. The yearly operating cost of the polymeric mem­
brane is 2.5 times larger than that of ceramic membrane WTP. The
replacement cost for polymeric membranes contributes around 60% of
the total cost for 20 years of operation (Saleh et al., 2018). compared
LCC of three centralized WWTPs; (Conventional Activated Sludge plant,
Oxidation Ditch plant, SBR plant) and two decentralized WWTPs
(Activated Sludge plant, Waste Stabilization Pond plant). They
concluded that oxidation ditch and Activated sludge are the most
economical methods for centralized WWTPs and decentralized WWTPs
respectively over a period of 15 years. Cashman et al. (2018) compared
LCC of the aerobic membrane bioreactors (AeMBR) and anaerobic
membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) and concluded that AnMBR costs
remained higher than the AeMBR under all scenarios for 20 years of
lifespan. Sills et al. (2016) compared the economic performance of
WWTP anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) with trickling filter (TF) and
anaerobic digestion (AD). The ABR is the least expensive technology
with an LCC in terms of 30 years NPV, which is 40% lower than the TF
assembly. Lin et al. (2011) calculated the LCC of a Submerged anaerobic
membrane bioreactor (SAnMBR) for WWT. They found that membrane
cost contributes 72% of the total life cycle capital cost, whereas energy
cost is the largest contributor (79%) in the life cycle operational cost.
Brepols et al. (2010) found that the capital and operational cost of the
MBR is higher than that of conventional activated sludge considering 30
years of operations. Fersi et al. (2015) calculated LCC over 20 years of
lifespan of anaerobic digestion used in WWTP for energy recovery and
found that operation cost represents about 33% of the total investment
cost and electricity cost is the biggest cost driver in operations and
represents about 73% of operational cost and 24% of investment cost.
Yoon et al. (2019) compared LCC of four different alternative scenarios;
on-site system, cluster system, satellite system and collective system.
Considering 20 years lifespan, the operational cost as a percentage of
EAC of each alternative is 39, 29, 25, and 13%, respectively. The total
cost of the on-site system is less than other alternatives. Tsagarakis and
Papadogiannis (2006) compared various components of operational
costs over a period of 15 years of different WWTPS in Greece. Personal
cost (48%), energy cost (36%), chemicals (7%), maintenance (8%), and
other costs (1%) are calculated as a percentage of total average cost.
From a technological viewpoint, waste stabilization pond (WSP) is the
most cost-effective system followed by extended aeration with air dry­
ing, then extended aeration with mechanical dewatering and finally the

11
M. Ilyas et al.
Red beds which are least cost-effective technology used for WWT. Dogot
et al. (2010) calculated the Relative share (%) of investment and oper­
ational costs for each component of 111 WWTPs. 75.6% of investment
cost represents equipment’s, construction, pipes and elec­
trical/mechanical work. From treatment method’s perspective, trickling
filters has the lowest operational cost (31 €/p.e) followed by the aerated
lagoon (34 €/p.e), then activated sludge (45 €/p.e), then biodisk (48
€/p.e). The natural lagoon has the highest operational cost (107 €/p.e).
Meerholz and Brent (2013) compared various technologies used in
petrochemical WWTPs and found that Retrofit MBBR has the maximum
affordability followed by MBBR, alternate aeration technology, biolog­
ical aerated filter (BAF), MBR, activated sludge, pure oxygen dosing, and
High-rate compact reactor (HCR) respectively. Li et al. (2011) compared
10 different techniques of WWT in petrochemical industries. Economic
assessment reveals that the traditional biological filter and coagu­
lation–flotation process is the least expensive techniques, respectively,
whereas, precipitation and biological aerated filters are the most
expensive techniques. Hong et al. (2009) compared five alternative
treatment scenarios, including incineration, composting, anaerobic
digestion, landfilling, and land application for sewage sludge treatment.
They claim that scenarios melting and incineration and melting with
digestion are economically affordable methods. Xu et al. (2014)
compared six scenarios and concluded that anaerobic digestion has the
lowest environmental and economic burden. Liai et al. (2017) applied
LCC to two different techniques in WWTPs and found that the blasting
aeration system is better than the surface aeration system. They also
found that LCC mainly depends on energy consumption as 50% of
operating cost over 20 years of lifespan is attributed to energy con­
sumption. Smith et al. (2014) made an LCC comparison of anaerobic
membrane bioreactor (AnMBR), high rate activated sludge with anaer­
obic digestion, (HRAS+AD) conventional activated sludge with anaer­
obic digestion (CAS+AD) and aerobic membrane bioreactor with
anaerobic digestion (AeMBR+AD) technologies in WWT processes. Both
HRAS+AD and AnMBR had lower life cycle costs for 40 years of lifespan
than CAS+AD and AeMBR+AD, respectively. Talang et al. (2020)
compared five treatment schemes; contact stabilization,
activated-sludge with nutrient removal, cyclic activated-sludge, two-­
stage activated-sludge, and vertical loop reactor activated-sludge. They
concluded that vertical loop reactor activated sludge is the most
cost-effective scheme with the lowest environmental impacts.
4.7. Uncertainty and risk analysis
LCC is a forecast of the future, and in any forecasting method, un­
certainties are inherent and embedded. Uncertainty in input values
means that actual outcomes may differ from estimated (Rawal and
Duggal, 2016). Ignoring uncertainties may result in misguided de­
cisions. Different authors used different methods to deal with un­
certainties, which can be classified into deterministic methods,
probabilistic methods, and Possibilistic methods.
Deterministic methods use point estimates and assume a singular
outcome. Sensitivity analysis is the most widely used deterministic
method to deal with uncertainty. Probabilistic methods include
randomly selected parameters in a variety of sampling methods. (Zhu
et al., 2012). Monte Carlo simulation is the most widely used probabi­
listic method. Possibilistic methods use much weaker statements of
knowledge and structure expert opinions for previously unknown or
largely missing values. ANN, Fuzzy logic techniques, and Markov Chain
methods can be classified as Possibilistic methods (Table 7).
In total, 62 case studies considered and incorporated uncertainty
analysis in their studies. 21 case studies ignored uncertainty in their
analysis. Most of the studies (51) used deterministic methods. The most
frequently applied deterministic methods is sensitivity analysis,
mentioned or used in 28 case studies (45%), and Scenario analysis,
mentioned in 18 case studies (29%). Other deterministic methods used
are regression analysis and scatter plots. Sensitivity analysis is
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
Table 7
Methods of uncertainty analysis.
Method Count Percentage
Deterministic Methods Sensitivity Analysis 28 45%
Scenario Analysis 18 29%
Others 5 8%
Probabilistic Methods Monte Carlo Simulation 5 8%
Others 3 5%
Possibilistic Methods Fuzzy Set Methods 1 1.6%
Markov Chain 1 1.6%
Others 1 1.6%
conducted by altering one or more parameters and assessing this alter­
ation’s impact on overall LCC. The most widely used and altered pa­
rameters are the discount rate, lifetime, and energy costs. Scenario
analysis is another widely used deterministic method. In most cases, two
different scenarios are developed and then subsequently compared.
In contrast to deterministic methods, where parameters are altered,
probabilistic methods assess parameters’ uncertainty by assigning
probability distribution functions (PDFs) to selected uncertain parame­
ters through sampling methods. Monte Carlo Simulation is the most
widely used sampling method. Out of 8 case studies that applied prob­
abilistic methods, 5 (Diaz-Elsayed et al., 2017; Longo et al., 2017; Sills
et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2012) applied Monte Carlo
Simulation. In contrast to Probabilistic methods, the Possibilistic
method can represent uncertainty with much weaker statements of
knowledge. The possibility function represents uncertainty by express­
ing the degree of possibility for a certain situation where data is
incomplete and ambiguous. Possibilistic methods like fuzzy logic tech­
niques provide a formal treatment for these kinds of incomplete and
ambiguous data, which are often based on expert judgments. However,
these methods are not widely used in WWT. Only 4 case studies
(Akhoundi and Nazif, 2018; Altarabsheh et al., 2016; Li et al., 2011;
Yoon et al., 2019) applied Possibilistic techniques to deal with
uncertainties.
In Summary, if we compare these three methods, Deterministic
methods are the easiest to use, and, thus, the most frequently used
methods to address uncertainties. However, their simplicity also limits
the extent of their usefulness in explaining uncertain parameters.
Probabilistic methods can provide insights into uncertainty in LCC, but
it requires complete historical data, which in most cases are not avail­
able or incomplete. Possibilistic methods can be used where data is
incomplete and ambiguous as this technique can give a formal treatment
to ambiguous information.
5. Future research direction
It has been noticed that in LCCA of WWTPs, most of the studies
partially analyzed LCC, especially when LCCA is integrated with LCA.
Aspects that are most often compromised are a lack of detailed cost
breakdown structure and oversimplification of LCC calculation. Modern
cost estimation techniques such as ABC, ANN and fuzzy logic are also not
employed. Further, the end-of-life cost is also ignored in the overall
analysis. While dealing with uncertainties, the Deterministic approach,
as opposed to the probabilistic approach, is used in most of the studies.
Future research should address these challenges by suggesting a
simplified, precise and easy to use LCC method that could increase the
applicability and validity of the analysis. Specific aspects which require
the researcher’s attention are:
• While there has been considerable research on LCC, most of the
literature is conceptual in nature. Little data on LCC application,
corresponding cost model and cost data is available.
• A growing number of researchers are interested in assigning mone­
tary values to environmental and social impacts to allow these as­
pects to be factored into LCC analyses. Although SETAC has provided
M. Ilyas et al.
some guidelines in this regard, still further efforts should be devoted
by the research community to the development of an integrated LCA-
LCC analytical framework, including guidance on system expansion,
data normalization, economic consequences and monetization of
externalities.
• Modern cost estimation techniques and process costing methods can
be integrated with LCC theory for comprehensive costing of activities
and accurate allocation of resources and overhead costs. Further, the
possibility of integrating Time driven Activity-Based Costing and
LCC theory can be explored.
• The lack of coherent approaches resulted in a high degree of vari­
ability among case studies in terms of methodologies. This hinders
the comparison of results and technologies used in WWT. A uniform
framework for LCCA of WWTPs and normalization of input data also
needs scholar’s and practitioners’ attention.
• End-of-life costing which is often excluded from LCC analysis of
WWT is another relevant research area that requires the researcher’s
attention. An improved and easy framework for the calculation of
disposal cost and end-of-life residual valuation can potentially in­
crease the worth of LCC.
6. Conclusion
The paper systematically reviewed empirical, peer-reviewed case
studies on LCCA of WWTPs and provided an in-depth analysis of various
aspects and practices of LCCA, ranging from the purpose of analysis to
dealing with uncertainties. Overall, we observed that the case studies in
LCCA of WWTPs are progressing well in the last two decades, evidenced
by the growing number of case studies published in the last five years.
Further, its application and methodology are rapidly evolving, broad­
ening its scope, witnessed by a systematic shift from conventional to
environmental and societal LCC. An increasing number of case studies
integrated environmental and economic aspects. Various methods of
integrating life cycle environmental and economic aspects are devel­
oped and applied which includes independent LCA-LCC integration, TEE
integration, MCDA integration, ELCC, and integration through eco-
efficiency are prominent.
It has been noticed that in LCCA of WWTPs, most of the studies
partially examined LCC, especially when LCCA is integrated with LCA,
hence compromising certain aspects of LCCA. Aspects that are most
often compromised are a lack of detailed cost breakdown structure and
oversimplification of LCC calculation. Modern cost estimation tech­
niques such as ABC, ANN and fuzzy logic are also not employed. Further,
the end-of-life cost is also ignored in the overall analysis. While dealing
with uncertainties, the Deterministic approach, as opposed to the
probabilistic approach, is used in most of the studies.
Future research should address these challenges by suggesting a
simplified, precise and easy to use LCC method that could increase the
applicability and validity of the analysis. Furthermore, modern cost
estimation techniques and process costing methods can be integrated
with LCC theory for comprehensive costing of activities and accurate
allocation of resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge University Malaysia Pahang for providing
financial and technical support for this research work through the TRGS
grant (RDU191802-3) and FRGS grant (RDU 1901213). We also
acknowledge the anonymous reviewers whose comments and sugges­
tions helped improve this manuscript.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
References
15686-5, I., 2017. ISO 15686-5—Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service-Life
Planning—Part 5: Life Cycle Costing. International organization for standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Abdallah, M., Shanableh, A., Elshazly, D., Feroz, S., 2020. Techno-economic and
environmental assessment of wastewater management systems: life cycle approach.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 82, 106378.
Adams, R.J., Smart, P., Huff, A.S., 2017. Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the
grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int.
J. Manag. Rev. 19 (4), 432–454.
Akhoundi, A., Nazif, S., 2018. Sustainability assessment of wastewater reuse alternatives
using the evidential reasoning approach. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1350–1376.
Altarabsheh, A., Kandil, A., Ventresca, M., 2016. Multi-objective Optimization Algorithm
for Sewer Network Rehabilitation Using Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Semi-markov
Deterioration Models. Paper Presented at the Construction Research Congress 2016.
Ambre, H., Saner, A., Bhoye, V., 2019. Life cycle costing of water treatment plant in the
nashik city. JoWPPR 3 (1), 25–30.
Anilir, S., Nelson, M., Allen, J., 2008. Designing a small-scale infra-free (IF) system for
community applications: managing energy, water and waste. J. Asian Architect.
Build Eng. 7 (1), 77–84.
Armstrong, R., Hall, B.J., Doyle, J., Waters, E., 2011. ‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane
review. J. Public Health 33 (1), 147–150.
Barringer, H.P., Weber, D.P., Westside, M.H., 1995. Life-cycle Cost Tutorials. Paper
Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Process Plant Reliability. Gulf
Publishing Company.
Barrios, R., Siebel, M., van der Helm, A., Bosklopper, K., Gijzen, H., 2008. Environmental
and financial life cycle impact assessment of drinking water production at Waternet.
J. Clean. Prod. 16 (4), 471–476.
Basrawi, F., Ibrahim, T.K., Habib, K., Yamada, T., Idris, D.M.N.D., 2017. Techno-
economic performance of biogas-fueled micro gas turbine cogeneration systems in
sewage treatment plants: effect of prime mover generation capacity. Energy 124,
238–248.
Bazhenov, V., Ustiuzhanin, A., 2018. Life Cycle Cost Management of Blower Station
Construction for Wastewater Utility. Paper Presented at the MATEC Web of
Conferences.
Brepols, C., Schäfer, H., Engelhardt, N., 2010. Considerations on the design and financial
feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Sci.
Technol. 61 (10), 2461–2468.
Cashman, S., Ma, X., Mosley, J., Garland, J., Crone, B., Xue, X., 2018. Energy and
greenhouse gas life cycle assessment and cost analysis of aerobic and anaerobic
membrane bioreactor systems: influence of scale, population density, climate, and
methane recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 254, 56–66.
Chen, B., Yang, S., Cao, Q., Qian, Y., 2020. Life cycle economic assessment of coal
chemical wastewater treatment facing the ‘Zero liquid discharge’industrial water
policies in China: discharge or reuse? Energy Pol. 137, 111107.
Chen, H.G., Li, C.Y., Xie, D.D., 2014. Economic Study on Sewage Treatment Engineering
Based on LCC. Paper Presented at the Advanced Materials Research.
Chen Yi-jing, Y.F., 2006. Life Cycle Costing of Scenories of Water Management System in
Tainan City. Paper Presented at the 2nd LCA Confrence Japan.
Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2017. Fit-for-purpose wastewater treatment:
testing to implementation of decision support tool (II). Sci. Total Environ. 607,
403–412.
Diaz-Elsayed, N., Xu, X., Balaguer-Barbosa, M., Zhang, Q., 2017. An evaluation of the
sustainability of onsite wastewater treatment systems for nutrient management.
Water Res. 121, 186–196.
Dogot, T., Xanthoulis, Y., Fonder, N., Xanthoulis, D., 2010. Estimating the costs of
collective treatment of wastewater: the case of Walloon Region (Belgium). Water Sci.
Technol. 62 (3), 640–648.
Fabrycky, W.J., Blanchard, B.S., 1991. Life-cycle Cost and Economic Analysis, vol.
135383234. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Farr, J.V., Faber, I., 2018. Engineering Economics of Life Cycle Cost Analysis. CRC Press.
Fersi, S., Chtourou, N., Jury, C., Poncelet, F., 2015. Economic analysis of renewable heat
and electricity production by sewage sludge digestion—a case study. Int. J. Energy
Res. 39 (2), 234–243.
Fukushima, Y., 2006. LCC Evaluation of Water Utilization System Development Scenario
in Tainan City. Paper Presented at the 2nd Japan. LCA Society Research Tokyo.
Gillot, S., Vermeire, P., Jacquet, P., Grootaerd, H., Derycke, D., Simoens, F.,
Vanrolleghem, P., 1999. Integration of wastewater treatment plant investment and
operating costs for scenario analysis using simulation. MEDEDELINGEN-Faculteit
Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen 64, 13–20.
Glick, S., Guggemos, A.A., 2013. Rethinking wastewater-treatment infrastructure: case
study using life-cycle cost and life-cycle assessment to highlight sustainability
considerations. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 139 (12), A5013002.
Greene, L.E., Shaw, B.L., 1990. The Steps for Successful Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Paper
Presented at the IEEE Conference on Aerospace and Electronics.
Hall, M.R., Priestley, A., Muster, T.H., 2018. Environmental life cycle costing and
sustainability: insights from pollution abatement and resource recovery in
wastewater treatment. J. Ind. Ecol. 22 (5), 1127–1138.
Heijungs, R., Settanni, E., Guinée, J., 2013. Toward a computational structure for life
cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9),
1722–1733.
Hong, J., Hong, J., Otaki, M., Jolliet, O., 2009. Environmental and economic life cycle
assessment for sewage sludge treatment processes in Japan. Waste Manag. 29 (2),
696–703.
M. Ilyas et al.
Hosni, A., Rust, G., Prior, K., Dvorak, B., 2011. Optimization of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Plant’s Pump Design: A Cost Approach. Paper Presented at
the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011: Bearing Knowledge
for Sustainability.
Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. Crc
press, Boca Raton.
Ilyas, M., Kassa, F.M., Darun, M.R., 2021. A Proposed Framework of Life Cycle Cost
Analysis for Petrochemical Wastewater Treatment Plants. Paper Presented at the
Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Offshore and Environmental
Engineering.
Jiran, N.S., Saman, M.Z.M., Mohd Yusof, N., Zakuan, N., 2014. Life Cycle Costing Model
for Hollow Fibre Membrane Module: A Review and Further Research. Paper
Presented at the Applied Mechanics and Materials.
Jiran, N.S., Saman, M.Z.M., Yusof, N.M., 2019. Life cycle costing model for the
membrane system. Asia Proc. Soc. Sci. 4 (1), 64–67.
Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2016. Life cycle-based decision support tool for
selection of wastewater treatment alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 64–72.
Kamble, S., Singh, A., Kazmi, A., Starkl, M., 2019. Environmental and economic
performance evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plants in India: a life
cycle approach. Water Sci. Technol. 79 (6), 1102–1112.
Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A.P., Cheung, E., 2009. Research trend of public-private
partnership in construction journals. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 135 (10),
1076–1086.
Kehily, D., 2011. SCSI Guide to Life Cycle Costing. Society of Chartered Surveyors
Ireland/Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., Antes, G., 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic
review. J. R. Soc. Med. 96 (3), 118–121.
Khan, K.S., Ter Riet, G., Glanville, J., Sowden, A.J., Kleijnen, J., 2001. Undertaking
Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD’s Guidance for Carrying Out
or Commissioning Reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
Korpi, E., Ala-Risku, T., 2008. Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies.
Manag. Audit J. 23 (3), 240–261.
Koul, A., John, S., 2015. A life cycle cost approach for evaluation of sewage treatment
plants. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Eng. 7, 2349-2163.
Lazic, A., Baresel, C., Kerchove, A., Dahlgren, L., 2017. Holistic wastewater reuse
solutions–evaluation of treatment efficiency, environmental impacts and costs. Int. J.
Water Wastewater Treat 3 (1).
Lee, C.K., Yiu, T.W., Cheung, S.O., 2016. Selection and use of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) in construction projects—past and future research. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 34 (3), 494–507.
Lee, K.H., Oh, J.-i., Chu, K.H., Kwon, S.H., Yoo, S.S., 2017. Comparison and evaluation of
large-scale and on-site recycling systems for food waste via life cycle cost analysis.
Sustainability 9 (12), 2186.
Li, C., Zhong, S., Duan, L., Song, Y., 2011. Evaluation of petrochemical wastewater
treatment technologies in Liaoning Province of China. Procedia Environ. Sci. 10,
2798–2802.
Liai, C., Hongxun, H., Weibiao, F., Eryan, Z., 2017. Comparative Research to Surface
Aeration and Blasting Aeration System Based on LCC Theory. Paper Presented at the
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
Lim, S.-R., Lee, H., Park, J.M., 2009. Life cycle cost minimization of a total wastewater
treatment network system. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (6), 2965–2971.
Lin, H., Chen, J., Wang, F., Ding, L., Hong, H., 2011. Feasibility evaluation of submerged
anaerobic membrane bioreactor for municipal secondary wastewater treatment.
Desalination 280 (1–3), 120–126.
Linares, R.V., Li, Z., Yangali-Quintanilla, V., Ghaffour, N., Amy, G., Leiknes, T.,
Vrouwenvelder, J.S., 2016. Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis–low pressure
reverse osmosis system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery. Water
Res. 88, 225–234.
Longo, S., Frison, N., Renzi, D., Fatone, F., Hospido, A., 2017. Is SCENA a good approach
for side-stream integrated treatment from an environmental and economic point of
view? Water Res. 125, 478–489.
Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Amores, M.J., Termes-Rifé, M., Marín-Navarro, D.,
Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2016. Benchmarking wastewater treatment plants under
an eco-efficiency perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 468–479.
Martinez-Sanchez, V., Kromann, M.A., Astrup, T.F., 2015. Life cycle costing of waste
management systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste
Manag. 36, 343–355.
Meerholz, A., Brent, A.C., 2013. Assessing the sustainability of wastewater treatment
technologies in the petrochemical industry. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 24 (2), 1–11.
Miah, J., Koh, S., Stone, D., 2017. A hybridised framework combining integrated
methods for environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing. J. Clean.
Prod. 168, 846–866.
Morelli, B., Cashman, S., Ma, X.C., Garland, J., Turgeon, J., Fillmore, L., Nye, M., 2018.
Effect of nutrient removal and resource recovery on life cycle cost and
environmental impacts of a small scale water resource recovery facility.
Sustainability 10 (10), 3546.
Mu, D., Addy, M., Anderson, E., Chen, P., Ruan, R., 2016. A life cycle assessment and
economic analysis of the Scum-to-Biodiesel technology in wastewater treatment
plants. Bioresour. Technol. 204, 89–97.
Mulubrhan, F., Mokhtar, A.A., Muhammad, M., 2016. Fuzzy Activity Based Life Cycle
Costing for Repairable Equipment. Paper Presented at the MATEC Web of
Conferences.
Muñoz, I., Malato, S., Rodriguez, A., Domènech, X., 2008. Integration of environmental
and economic performance of processes. Case study on advanced oxidation processes
for wastewater treatment. J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 11 (2), 270–275.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
Nam, Y., Choi, J., Kim, D., 2017. Developing LCC and risk analysis method for
dewatering facility based on its management history. Desalin. Water Treat. 96,
211–218.
Nättorp, A., Remmen, K., Remy, C., 2017. Cost assessment of different routes for
phosphorus recovery from wastewater using data from pilot and production plants.
Water Sci. Technol. 76 (2), 413–424.
Oa, S., Choi, E., Kim, S., Kwon, K., Min, K., 2009. Economical and technical efficiencies
evaluation of full scale piggery wastewater treatment BNR plants. Water Sci.
Technol. 59 (11), 2159–2165.
Park, S.H., Park, Y.G., Lim, J.-L., Kim, S., 2015. Evaluation of ceramic membrane
applications for water treatment plants with a life cycle cost analysis. Desalination
Water Treat 54 (4–5), 973–979.
Pretel, R., Shoener, B., Ferrer, J., Guest, J.S., 2015. Navigating environmental, economic,
and technological trade-offs in the design and operation of submerged anaerobic
membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs). Water Res. 87, 531–541.
Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and
environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 20 (6), 1647–1656.
Rashidi, J., Rhee, G., Kim, M., Nam, K., Heo, S., Yoo, C., Karbassi, A., 2018. Life cycle and
economic assessments of key emerging energy efficient wastewater treatment
processes for climate change adaptation. Int. J. Environ. Res. 12 (6), 815–827.
Ratna Reddy, V., Jayakumar, N., Venkataswamy, M., Snehalatha, M., Batchelor, C.,
2012. Life-cycle costs approach (LCCA) for sustainable water service delivery: a
study in rural Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2 (4), 279–290.
Rawal, N., Duggal, S., 2016. Life cycle costing assessment-based approach for selection of
wastewater treatment units. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 39 (2), 103–107.
Rebitzer, G., Hunkeler, D., Jolliet, O., 2003. LCC—the economic pillar of sustainability:
methodology and application to wastewater treatment. Environ. Prog. 22 (4),
241–249.
Reich, M.C., 2005. Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case
studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing
(LCC). J. Clean. Prod. 13 (3), 253–263.
Resende, J.D., Nolasco, M.A., Pacca, S.A., 2019. Life cycle assessment and costing of
wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 148, 170–177.
Restianti, Y., Gheewala, S.H., 2012. Environmental and life cycle cost assessment of
cassava ethanol in Indonesia. J. Sustain. Energy Environ. 3, 1–6.
Rigamonti, L., Borghi, G., Martignon, G., Grosso, M., 2019. Life cycle costing of energy
recovery from solid recovered fuel produced in MBT plants in Italy. Waste Manag.
99, 154–162.
Roldán, M., Bouzas, A., Seco, A., Mena, E., Mayor, Á., Barat, R., 2020. An Integral
Approach to Sludge Handling in a WWTP Operated for EBPR Aiming Phosphorus
Recovery: Simulation of Alternatives, LCA and LCC Analyses. Water Res., p. 115647
Saleh, M.Y., EL-Zahar, M.M.H., Ashour, N.M.M., 2018. Application of Life Cycle Cost
Analysis Method on Wastewater Treatment Plants in Egypt. Paper Presented at the
Twenty-First International Water Technology Conference, IWTC21 Ismailia.
Schoen, E.J., Bagley, D.M., 2012. Biogas production and feasibility of energy recovery
systems for anaerobic treatment of wool-scouring effluent. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
62, 21–30.
Shafiee, M., Brennan, F., Espinosa, I.A., 2016. A parametric whole life cost model for
offshore wind farms. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (7), 961–975.
Silalertruksa, T., Bonnet, S., Gheewala, S.H., 2012. Life cycle costing and externalities of
palm oil biodiesel in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 28, 225–232.
Sills, D.L., Wade, V.L., DiStefano, T.D., 2016. Comparative life cycle and technoeconomic
assessment for energy recovery from dilute wastewater. Environ. Eng. Sci. 33 (11),
861–872.
Smit, M.C., 2012. A North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework for life cycle costing.
Int. J. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 25 (4–5), 444–456.
Smith, A.L., Stadler, L.B., Cao, L., Love, N.G., Raskin, L., Skerlos, S.J., 2014. Navigating
wastewater energy recovery strategies: a life cycle comparison of anaerobic
membrane bioreactor and conventional treatment systems with anaerobic digestion.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (10), 5972–5981.
Stec, A., Słyś, D., 2014. Optimization of the hydraulic system of the storage reservoir
hydraulically unloading the sewage network. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S. 21 (2), 215–228.
Stephan, A., Stephan, L., 2017. Life cycle water, energy and cost analysis of multiple
water harvesting and management measures for apartment buildings in a
Mediterranean climate. Sustain. Cities Soc. 32, 584–603.
Swarr, T.E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A.C., Pagan, R.,
2011. Environmental Life-Cycle Costing: a Code of Practice. Springer, Germany.
Takaoka, M., Oshita, K., Iwamoto, T., Mizuno, T., 2014. Effect of co-managing organic
waste using municipal wastewater and solid waste treatment systems in megacities.
Water Sci. Technol. 69 (6), 1159–1166.
Talang, R.P.N., Sirivithayapakorn, S., Polruang, S., 2020. Environmental impacts and
cost-effectiveness of Thailand’s centralized municipal wastewater treatment plants
with different nutrient removal processes. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 120433.
Tarpani, R.R.Z., Azapagic, A., 2018. Life cycle costs of advanced treatment techniques for
wastewater reuse and resource recovery from sewage sludge. J. Clean. Prod. 204,
832–847.
Tee, K.F., Khan, L.R., Chen, H.P., Alani, A.M., 2014. Reliability based life cycle cost
optimization for underground pipeline networks. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 43,
32–40.
Theregowda, R.B., Vidic, R., Landis, A.E., Dzombak, D.A., Matthews, H.S., 2016.
Integrating external costs with life cycle costs of emissions from tertiary treatment of
municipal wastewater for reuse in cooling systems. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4733–4740.
Tsagarakis, K., Mara, D., Angelakis, A., 2003. Application of cost criteria for selection of
municipal wastewater treatment systems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 142 (1), 187–210.
M. Ilyas et al.
Tsagarakis, K., Papadogiannis, C., 2006. Technical and economic evaluation of the biogas
utilization for energy production at Iraklio Municipality, Greece. Energy Convers.
Manag. 47 (7–8), 844–857.
Vineyard, D., Ingwersen, W.W., Hawkins, T.R., Xue, X., Demeke, B., Shuster, W., 2015.
Comparing green and grey infrastructure using life cycle cost and environmental
impact: a rain garden case study in Cincinnati, OH. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51
(5), 1342–1360.
Vipulanandan, C., Pasari, G., 2005. Life cycle cost model (LCC-CIGMAT) for wastewater
systems. Pipelines 2005: Optimizing Pipeline Design, Operations, and Maintenance
in Today’s Economy, pp. 740–751.
Wang, Q., Liu, W., Yuan, X., Zheng, X., Zuo, J., 2016. Future of lignite resources: a life
cycle analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (24), 24796–24807.
Wood, A., Blackhurst, M., Hawkins, T., Xue, X., Ashbolt, N., Garland, J., 2015. Cost-
effectiveness of nitrogen mitigation by alternative household wastewater
management technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 150, 344–354.
Xin, C., Addy, M.M., Zhao, J., Cheng, Y., Cheng, S., Mu, D., Ruan, R., 2016.
Comprehensive techno-economic analysis of wastewater-based algal biofuel
production: a case study. Bioresour. Technol. 211, 584–593.
Xu, C., Chen, W., Hong, J., 2014. Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of
sewage sludge treatment in China. J. Clean. Prod. 67, 79–87.
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 310 (2021) 127549
Xu, M., Zhu, S., Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Fan, B., 2019. Spatial-temporal economic analysis
of modern sustainable sanitation in rural China: resource-oriented system. J. Clean.
Prod. 233, 340–347.
Yerri, S., Piratla, K.R., 2019. Decentralized water reuse planning: evaluation of life cycle
costs and benefits. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 339–346.
Yoon, S., Naderpajouh, N., Hastak, M., 2019. Decision model to integrate community
preferences and nudges into the selection of alternatives in infrastructure
development. J. Clean. Prod. 228, 1413–1424.
Younis, A., Ebead, U., Suraneni, P., Nanni, A., 2020. Cost effectiveness of reinforcement
alternatives for a concrete water chlorination tank. J. Build. Eng. 27, 100992.
Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buttol, P., Raggi, A., Buonamici, R., 2012. Finding life cycle
assessment research direction with the aid of meta-analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 16,
S39–S52.
Zhao, G., Nielsen, E.R., Troncoso, E., Hyde, K., Romeo, J.S., Diderich, M., 2019. Life cycle
cost analysis: a case study of hydrogen energy application on the Orkney Islands. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (19), 9517–9528.
Zhou, Z., Chi, Y., Dong, J., Tang, Y., Ni, M., 2019. Model development of sustainability
assessment from a life cycle perspective: a case study on waste management systems
in China. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 1005–1014.
Zhu, Y., Tao, Y., Rayegan, R., 2012. A comparison of deterministic and probabilistic life
cycle cost analyses of ground source heat pump (GSHP) applications in hot and
humid climate. Energy Build. 55, 312–321.