|
Systematic Review of Sustainability Assessment Methodologies, Indicators, and Decision-Making Tools for Municipal Solid Waste Management |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | Trakarn Prapaspongsa |
| Title | Systematic Review of Sustainability Assessment Methodologies, Indicators, and Decision-Making Tools for Municipal Solid Waste Management |
| Contributor | Apirak Bumyut, Trakarn Prapaspongsa, Vladimir Strezov, Nazmul Huda, Witsanu Attavanich, Shabbir H. Gheewala |
| Publisher | Thai Society of Higher Education Institutes on Environment |
| Publication Year | 2569 |
| Journal Title | EnvironmentAsia |
| Journal Vol. | 19 |
| Journal No. | 1 |
| Page no. | 110-125 |
| Keyword | Sustainability assessment methodologies, Sustainability dimensions, Methodological gaps, Municipal solid waste, Systematic review |
| URL Website | http://www.tshe.org/ea/index.html |
| Website title | EnvironmentAsia |
| ISSN | 1906-1714 |
| Abstract | Municipal solid waste (MSW) is projected to increase continuously, reaching 3.88billion tonnes by 2050. Inadequate municipal solid waste management (MSWM) causespollution, human health issues, and climate change, hindering the sustainable developmentgoals. Sustainable MSWM plays an essential role in addressing these issues. Previous studiesimplementing various sustainability assessment methodologies to evaluate the environmental,social, and economic impacts of MSWM approaches faced various methodological challengesthat require future development. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review ofsustainability assessment methodologies applied in MSWM worldwide, identifying tools andexisting methodological gaps. Relevant articles from four major online databases have beenidentified: Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and PubMed. In total, fifty-eight articles wereanalyzed to provide an in-depth understanding of the application of sustainability assessmentmethodologies. The findings indicated that an integrated assessment and LCSA were themost common approaches. Reliability of sustainability assessment was challenged by threemain gaps: a lack of standardized methodologies, parameter uncertainty, and subjectivity indecision-making caused by inconsistent stakeholder selection and weighting. To address thesegaps, future assessments must enhance robustness by developing a standardized frameworktailored to local contexts, improving data quality procedures, refining weighting methods by combining subjective and mathematical approaches, and ensuring diverse stakeholderinvolvement throughout the assessment process. |
