According to the analysis of the weight of the evaluation criteria by the AHP (Table 6), the environmental dimension is evaluated to be the most important (0.636), followed by economic (0.217) and social dimensions (0.147). Molinos-Senante et al. (2014) seemed the first to propose evaluation criteria for the social dimension in sustainability assessment, but its importance is lower than that of the environmental impact associated with large and old WWTPs, consistent with previous findings (Lizot et al. 2021).

Table 6

Final weights of evaluation criteria

DimensionWeightEvaluation criteriaWeightFinal weightRank
Economic 0.217 Capital cost 0.371 0.081 6 
O&M cost 0.629 0.137 2 
Environmental 0.636 Improvement of biological reactors 0.107 0.068 7 
First flush treatment during the storm event 0.090 0.057 8 
Advanced treatment processes 0.083 0.053 11 
Odor impact 0.128 0.082 5 
Recycling possibility 0.129 0.082 4 
Sludge disposal 0.269 0.171 1 
Energy independence 0.194 0.123 3 
Social 0.147 Effective land use 0.365 0.054 10 
Public acceptance 0.366 0.054 9 
Willingness to pay tariff 0.269 0.040 12 
DimensionWeightEvaluation criteriaWeightFinal weightRank
Economic 0.217 Capital cost 0.371 0.081 6 
O&M cost 0.629 0.137 2 
Environmental 0.636 Improvement of biological reactors 0.107 0.068 7 
First flush treatment during the storm event 0.090 0.057 8 
Advanced treatment processes 0.083 0.053 11 
Odor impact 0.128 0.082 5 
Recycling possibility 0.129 0.082 4 
Sludge disposal 0.269 0.171 1 
Energy independence 0.194 0.123 3 
Social 0.147 Effective land use 0.365 0.054 10 
Public acceptance 0.366 0.054 9 
Willingness to pay tariff 0.269 0.040 12 
View Large

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.
Accept