Next Article in Journal
Aquatic Biomass-Based Carbon Dots: A Green Nanostructure for Marine Biosensing Applications
Previous Article in Journal
An Overview of Biodiesel Production via Heterogeneous Catalysts: Synthesis, Current Advances, and Challenges
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Clean Technol.
Volume 7
Issue 3
10.3390/cleantechnol7030063
cleantechnol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors

by
Casper Boongaling Agaton
* and
Marween Joshua A. Santos
Department of Community and Environmental Resource Planning, College of Human Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños 4031, Laguna, Philippines
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Clean Technol. 2025, 7(3), 63; https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7030063
Submission received: 15 February 2025 / Revised: 16 July 2025 / Accepted: 18 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Approaches to Circular Waste Management: Leveraging Marine and Agricultural Resources for Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Waste-to-energy (WtE) are clean technologies that support a circular economy by providing solutions to managing non-recyclable waste while generating alternative energy sources. Despite the promising benefits, technology adoption is challenged by financing constraints, technical maturity, environmental impacts, supporting policies, and public acceptance. A growing number of studies analyzed the acceptability of WtE and identified the factors affecting the adoption of WtE technologies. This study aims to analyze these research hotspots, technologies, and acceptability factors by combining bibliometric and systematic analyses. An initial search from the Web of Science and Scopus databases identified 817 unique documents, and the refinement resulted in 109 for data analysis. The results present a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art, providing researchers a basis for future research directions. Among the WtE technologies in the reviewed literature are incineration, anaerobic digestion, gasification, and pyrolysis, with limited studies about refuse-derived fuel and landfilling with gas recovery. The identified common factors include perceived risks, trust, attitudes, perceived benefits, “Not-In-My-BackYard” (NIMBY), awareness, and knowledge. Moreover, the findings present valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and WtE project planners to support WtE adoption while achieving sustainable, circular, and low-carbon economies.

1. Introduction

Due to the increasing population and economic growth, the sustainable management of municipal solid waste (MSW) remains one of the challenging issues for developing and even developed countries. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report, the global generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) was around 2.1 billion tons in 2023 and is projected to grow up to 3.8 billion tons by 2050 [1]. This contributes to approximately 5% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [2]. If not properly managed, MSW poses adverse impacts on the health of humans and the environment [3]. This costs around USD 361 billion, including the social costs and externalities, and is expected to double to a staggering USD 640.3 billion in 2050 without drastic interventions [1].
To address these problems, different countries are implementing various strategies and technologies to decrease the environmental footprints of MSW. These include the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), segregation at source, composting, circular economy (CE), sanitary landfilling, and their combinations [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Another promising technology is waste-to-energy (WtE), which complement the previous strategies by closing the loop of a CE. It helps reduce the need for new landfills, processes unrecyclable wastes, supports recycling and the recovery of valuable materials, and contributes to energy security by converting wastes into usable fuel, heat, or electricity [10,11,12]. Moreover, energy utilization of MSW makes it possible to simultaneously solve several UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG 11, SDG 12, and SDG 13, by addressing waste management, improving public health, providing clean energy, promoting sustainable urban development, encouraging responsible consumption, and mitigating climate change [13,14,15].
As shown in Figure 1, WtE encompasses a range of technologies from biological treatment, thermal treatment, to landfilling. Biological treatment pertains to anaerobic digestion (AD) of the organic fraction of MSW, which involves a biodegradation process carried out by microorganisms without oxygen to produce biogas [16]. Thermal conversion includes incineration (burning all types of MSW) and refuse-derived fuel (RDF), which produces heat and power; pyrolysis or thermal decomposition of organic wastes that produce biochar, bio-oil, and syngas; and gasification of organic wastes that also produces syngas [11,17,18]. On the other hand, landfilling can be converted into a WtE facility if it captures landfill gas, usually composed of methane, and generates electricity or heat through turbines [11]. Moreover, landfill leachates can be processed through AD to produce biogas, microbial fuel cells, or biohydrogen [19].
In recent years, the increasing number of studies on WtE has brought scholars to review the literature from different perspectives, including technical, economic, environmental, and social perspectives. For instance, Kumar & Samadder [20] reviewed the global scenario of WtE technological options such as incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, AD, and landfilling with gas recovery. Hsu et al. [21] covered various perspectives, such as value chain analysis, thermal treatment, techno-economic analysis, life cycle assessment, power generation, and energy/exergy analysis. Ramos & Rouboa [22] also covered socio-economic and environmental aspects by reviewing the WtE literature on life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social impact assessment. Furthermore, several studies also employed multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). In one study, Vlachokostas et al. [23] applied MCDA, integrating economic, technological, environmental, social, and political factors in the decision-making process towards promoting WtE management strategies. Patil et al. [24] also applied MCDA using an analytical hierarchy process comparing WtE technologies with four aspects such as technical, sociocultural, economic, and environmental with fifteen sub-criteria.
Nonetheless, there is a limited review of the literature specifically focusing on the social acceptability of WtE technologies. To name a few, Ramos [25] conducted a literature review on social and sustainability assessments related to the thermal conversion of wastes. The study found that there is a lack of consistent reporting practices for social-LCA of WtE implementation and identified social concerns on employment, human health, accessibility, safety, and odor-related issues. Balla [26] applied a systematic literature review and revealed the factors affecting the social acceptability of WtE technology projects, including public perceptions of fairness, trust, and climate change. In the case of Ghana, Williams et al. [27] identified the factors challenging the implementation of WtE projects, such as limited funding, inadequate logistics, expertise and infrastructure, growing population, negative attitudes toward the environment, among others. These reviews, while providing an overview of the factors affecting the implementation of WtE technologies, analyzed limited samples of selected studies. A substantial number of WtE studies recently published were not included yet are worthy of investigation.
Hence, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive overview of current research hotspots in WtE as well as to present a more in-depth review of academic papers analyzing the acceptability of WtE technologies. Specifically, the study aims to (1) review the extant literature that analyzes the social acceptability of WtE technologies; (2) identify the research hotspots in the field; (3) provide a comprehensive overview of WtE technologies; (4) enumerate the factors affecting the adoption of WtE technologies; and (5) identify the knowledge gaps that serve as a basis for research direction. This study employs a combination of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. The results summarize the reviewed WtE literature, provide several insights into the social acceptability of WtE that need further research, and present implications that might be useful for policymakers, practitioners, and project planners for the successful adoption and implementation of WtE projects.

2. Materials and Methods

To provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the social acceptability of WtE, this paper combines bibliometric and systematic analyses. Bibliometric analysis is a systematic study carried out on scientific literature for the identification of patterns, trends, and impacts within a certain field [28]. It is used to analyze emerging trends in article and journal performances, collaboration patterns, and research constituents, as well as to explore the intellectual structure of a specific domain in the extant literature [29]. The main steps for bibliometric analysis are defining research objectives, literature search and data collection, data cleaning and processing, selection of bibliometric techniques, data analysis, visualization and interpretation, and reporting [28].
On the other hand, a systematic literature review is a research methodology that is transparent and reproducible, aiming to synthesize scientific evidence to answer a particular research question seeking to include all published evidence on the topic, and evaluating the quality of the evidence [30]. It comprises eight steps divided into three phases: (A) Review Planning Phase—(1) formulating research issue and (2) devising and verifying the review protocol; (B) Conducting Review Phase—(3) examining and searching literature, (4) filtering for inclusion, (5) evaluating quality, (6) data extraction, and (7) data analysis and synthesis; and lastly (C) Establishing Reports based on Review Outcomes—(8) summarizing the results in the form of reports [31].
Following previous studies [32,33], this review combines the advantages of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review to present a comprehensive overview of the literature, identify gaps, and recommend future directions for research and implementation of WtE projects. As shown in Figure 2, the sequence of steps includes (1) sample preparation and database selection, (2) adjustment and refinement of research criteria, (3) bibliometric information analysis, and (4) systematic review of WtE literature.
In the first step, the initial search was limited by the following inclusion criteria: (1) the acceptability of WtE is analyzed; (2) WtE processes MSW; (3) at least one of the WtE technologies is evaluated; and (4) factors affecting acceptability are presented. On the other hand, the following publications are excluded from this study: (1) WtE literature without a social acceptability component; (2) WtE beyond MSW, such as nuclear or radioactive wastes, wastewater, industrial heat waste, and carbon capture and storage; (3) conference proceedings and lecture materials without detailed analysis; and (4) professional and non-academic publications. The following combination of keywords was used as a search criterion: “social acceptability” OR “social acceptance” OR “public acceptance” OR “public acceptability” AND “waste-to-energy.” Meanwhile, the database selection was delimited to Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. The WoS Core Collection database, a product of Clarivate, is the world’s oldest, most widely used, and authoritative database of scientific and scholarly research publications and citations covering journals, proceedings, books, and data compilations [34]. To date, the WoS platform covers over 235 million records from over 34,865 journals, more than 157,000 books, over 314,000 conferences, more than 128 million patents, and over 15 million data sets. On the other hand, the Scopus database, a product of Elsevier, is one of the largest curated databases covering scientific journals, books, conference proceedings, etc., which are selected through a process of content selection followed by continuous re-evaluation [35]. Currently, Scopus covers 97.3+ million records from 368+ thousand books, 28.3+ thousand serials, and 2.33 million preprints. Google Scholar, albeit the most comprehensive database covering journals, books, conference papers, unpublished materials, and non-academic documents, has been greatly debated, and its low data quality raises questions about its suitability for research evaluation [32]. Hence, this review only covered the literature from WoS and Scopus.
The selection process for the literature review is presented in Figure 3. The preliminary search resulted in 650 documents from WoS and 679 from Scopus. Upon removal of 512 duplicates, there were 817 unique documents left. Documents from conference papers and proceedings were excluded due to the limited discussion of acceptability, methods, and methodology, which were crucial in the systematic literature review. Documents analyzing the social acceptability of other types of wastes were also removed, such as nuclear or radioactive wastes [36], wastewater [37,38], and carbon capture and storage [39]. Furthermore, review articles [25,40] were also removed. In total, 109 research articles were reviewed for the bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. The list of reviewed documents is presented in Appendix A, Table A1.
In the third step, research hotspots from bibliometric information were analyzed, including the country and year of publication trends, authors and institutions, journals, and the number of citations as of 5 February 2025. Finally, a systematic literature review was conducted focusing on the types of WtE technology and the factors affecting the acceptability and implementation of WtE projects.

3. Bibliometric Analysis of Waste-to-Energy Literature

3.1. Country and Year Trends

A total of 109 documents were reviewed for bibliometric analysis. These documents were published by authors from 38 countries. As presented in Figure 4, China has the highest number of documents published at 50 (46%), followed by Australia and the United Kingdom with 12 (11%), Germany, Greece and the United States of America with 7 (6%), Italy with 6 (6%), Spain with 5 (5%), Indonesia with 4 (4%), and the Czech Republic with 4 documents (3%). The top spot was expected as China has the highest number of WtE plants globally and the amount of MSW treated by WtE [1]. Among the top 10 countries, only 2 were from developing countries: China and Indonesia. This implies that developed countries play an important role in managing MSW with WtE technologies, while social acceptability research from developing countries is lagging relative to the trend in developed countries [41].
In terms of the year of publication, the review result, as shown in Figure 5, revealed an increasing trend in WtE literature on social acceptability. The post-pandemic period had the highest number of documents published, with 17 in 2022, 16 in 2023, and 13 in 2024. This trend is expected to be the increasing urban population densities, and the associated consumption pattern result in a rapid increase in the volume of waste generation. With the limited land in urban areas and the scarcity of new sites for landfills, the demand for WtE technologies is also increasing [42]. This requires thorough studies not only on the technical and economic aspects but also on these technologies’ environmental impacts and social acceptability. Moreover, the situation was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic as the infectious and hazardous medical wastes required immediate treatment, and WtE technologies were significantly considered to address the problem [43].
Meanwhile, the first two documents were published in 2010 by Jamasb et al. [44] who looked at the institutional and policy issues of WtE and Scheffran [45] on criteria for sustainable bioenergy infrastructure and life cycle. On the other hand, the most recent (in 2025) publication indexed in WoS was authored by Luna-delRisco et al. [46] who evaluated the socio-economic drivers of household adoption of biodigester systems for domestic energy in rural Colombia.

3.2. Journal Analysis

With the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary natures of WtE projects, the acceptability of WtE technologies was positioned in various subjects of management, sustainability, technology, energy, environment, and engineering (see Table 1). Out of 67 serials (journals and books), the top journals with the highest number of publications were Waste Management (11), Journal of Cleaner Production (10), Energy (4), Environmental Impact Assessment Review (4), Technological Forecasting and Social Change (3), Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessment (3), and Energies (3).
The top journals also received the highest number of citations, led by Waste Management with 558 and the Journal of Cleaner Production (289) as shown in Table 2. It can be observed that some journals with fewer publications received high citations including the International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering (141), Habitat International (100), and Sustainable Cities and Society (89). These journals have only one document, such as Amoo & Fagbenle [47] in the International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Huang et al. [48] in Habitat International, and Liu et al. [49] in Sustainable Cities and Society.

3.3. Institutional Analysis

The 108 documents were published by the authors from 189 institutions worldwide. As presented in Table 3, 7 out of the top 11 most productive institutions came from China, headed by Zhejiang Sci-Tech University with 13 documents. This was followed by the North China Institute of Science and Technology at #3 with eight, East China Normal University, Xiamen University and Tongji University at #6–10 with four, and lastly, Nanjing University of Science & Technology and Hefei University of Technology at #11–12 with three documents. Among the most recent works from Zhejiang Sci-Tech University include Zhou et al. [50] assessing the impact of psychological distance on public acceptance of waste-to-energy combustion projects, He et al. [51] evaluating the social license to operate waste-to-energy incineration projects, and Chen et al. [52] analyzing the effects of perceived stress on public acceptance of waste incineration projects. Other institutions in the top 10 are (2) Queensland University of Technology with 10 documents, (#4) Aristotle University with 7, (#5) Bond University with 5, and (#6–10) Cranfield University and University of Technology Sydney with 4 documents.
Similarly, 8 out of the top 10 most productive were included in the most-cited institutions, as presented in Table 4. The top 10 was headed by Zhejiang Sci-Tech University with 393 citations, followed by Queensland University of Technology, Aristotle University, North China Institute of Science and Technology, Cranfield University, Tongji University, East China Normal University, Nottingham Trent University, Xiamen University, and Hefei University of Technology.
It is interesting to note that Nottingham Trent University, which had only two documents, placed in the 8th spot. These publications were in collaboration with Cranfield University, such as Garnett & Cooper [53] analyzing the enhanced public engagement as a legitimizing tool for municipal waste management decision-making and Garnett et al. [54] presenting a conceptual framework for negotiating public involvement in municipal waste management decision-making.

3.4. Author Analysis

A total of 367 authors around the world studied the social acceptability of WtE technologies. As shown in Table 5, the top seven spots were dominated by five authors from China headed by (#1) Liu, Y. with 13 documents, followed by (#2–3) Cui, C. and Xia, B. with 10, and (#5–7) Ke, Y and Xu, M. with 4 documents. Other spots in the top are #4 Martin Skitmore from Australia with nine documents and #5–7 Christos Vlachokostas from Greece with four documents.
Likewise, Yong Liu from Zhejiang Sci-Tech University dominated the top 10 most-cited authors, as presented in Table 6. Among his most-cited publications include “Impact of community engagement on public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Empirical evidence from China” [55] with 109 citations and “Enhancing public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Lessons learned from a case study in China” [49] with 89 citations.
Other most-cited authors were Xia B. with 357, Vlachokostas C. with 270, Moussiopoulos N. with 266, Skitmore M. with 248, Sun C.J.Y. with 168, Cooper T. with 138, Garnett K. with 138, Ge Y. with 131, and Jiang X. with 113 citations. It can be seen that some of these authors were not included in the top seven most productive. For instance, Moussiopoulos N. ranked fourth with only three documents. His publications included Achillas et al. [56] analyzing the social acceptance of the development of a waste-to-energy plant in urban areas, Vlachocostas et al. [57] presenting a decision support system to implement units of alternative biowaste treatment for producing bioenergy and boosting local bioeconomy, and Vlachocostas et al. [58] evaluating the externalities of the operation of a municipal solid waste-to-energy incineration facility.
Another example in the list is CJY Sun with only three documents such as Sun et al. [59] estimating the impact of residential risk perception on the willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid having WtE power plants in the neighborhood, Sun et al. [60] identifying the determinants of risk perception and how the risk perception influences WtE facility expansion, and Cui et al. [41] investigating the potential risk factors in public–private partnership WtE incineration projects. Moreover, K. Garnett and T. Cooper only had two papers [53,54], XY. Jiang had two [41,49], and Y. Ge had two [49,61]. On the other hand, M. Xu [51,61,62,63] and YJ. Ke [50,51,62,63], despite having four papers each, were not included due to a lower number of citations.

4. Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy Technologies

With the growing interest in the application of WtE in addressing MSW management challenges, the acceptability of various WtE has been analyzed. This review presents the analysis of these technologies, the methodologies used in evaluating the acceptability of these technologies, and the factors affecting them.

4.1. Waste-to-Energy Technologies

While Figure 1 outlined seven WtE technologies, the reviewed literature included only six of these (see Table 7). Incineration has been mostly studied with 72 documents (66%), followed by AD with 46 (42%), gasification with 7 (6%), pyrolysis with 6 (6%), and RDF and landfill with gas recovery with 2 documents (2%). It can be observed that the total percentage is above 100%, as several studies analyzed and compared different WtE technologies. For instance, Mertzanakis et al. [64] compared incineration, AD, gasification, and pyrolysis using a holistic assessment of the scientific literature, a public survey, and an expert’s opinion survey. The study found AD as the most preferable choice due to its cost-effectiveness and lower environmental impact, while incineration became the most preferred choice if the social criterion is of high focus [64]. On the contrary, Neehaul et al. [65] found that AD ranked as the prioritized technology when the social acceptance indicator was identified as the critical criterion, while incineration emerged as the preferred technology when the social aspect was either attenuated or eliminated during the sensitivity analysis.
Incineration stands out as a practical and sustainable solution for MSW, given the potential adverse environmental consequences of landfilling. Incineration is economically profitable due to its ability to process large amounts of waste (50–80%) and generate significant energy, while other WtE technologies cannot process all types of waste [8,11,66,67]. The combustion of mixed plastic waste in an incinerator produces steam, which can be used to generate electricity with a net electrical efficiency of up to 40% [68] (see Table 8). Moreover, incineration is winning support among policymakers as it could reduce GHG emissions relative to landfilling and can recover recyclable resources, which contributes to the transition toward a CE [11,66,69]. On the contrary, incineration releases hazardous substances such as particulate matter, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, and other gaseous pollutants that may lead to air pollution, acidification, smog formation, and eutrophication [70,71]. Additionally, this also poses human health risks such as higher incidence of cancer and respiratory symptoms, congenital abnormalities, hormonal defects, and an increase in the sex ratio [72]. Hence, incineration is considered a “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) technology due to the perceived negative externalities, lack of accurate information about the technology, and lack of effective risk communication [73]. To make this technology sustainable, stringent emission standard should be implemented to limit the release of harmful substances to the environment. WtE feedstocks should be limited to non-hazardous waste materials such as organic wastes and certain types of plastics, while flue gas should be treated before being released into the atmosphere. As a waste management strategy, incineration must be integrated into the CE principles to complement other CE strategies such as waste reduction, segregation at source, composting, and recycling.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is another WtE technology that involves a biodegradation process of the organic portion of MSW, carried out by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen. It produces biogas, a methane-rich gas that can be used as fuel, and digestate, which is a source of nutrients that can be used as a fertilizer [74]. AD can be classified as a dry (60–75% water) process with clear advantages in terms of digester volume, water consumption, and the production of wastewater, or a wet (85–90% water) process with higher methane productivity, lower mixing and pumping costs, and can dilute peak concentrations of substrate and inhibitors [16]. Biogas from AD can be exploited for power production via gas turbines, internal combustion engines, gas turbine-based combined cycles, or internal combustion engine-based combined cycles, which can produce an energy efficiency of up to 50% [76]. AD can be economically feasible; however, it often faces challenges such as high installation costs and low biogas yields from traditional substrates [77]. While AD can significantly reduce food and agricultural wastes, it releases methane and nitrous oxides and may also contribute to eutrophication, acidification, and the formation of photochemical oxidants. To reduce the fugitive biogas emissions, any excess gas should be burned off by the flaring systems [75]. To optimize the process, parameters must be maintained at the optimal temperature, feedstock ratio, and pH conditions. Implementing physical, chemical, or biological pre-treatments can also break down complex organic materials, which increases methane production and reduces inhibitory compounds [78]. Co-digestion of wastes, such as food waste and municipal sewage sludge, followed by composting, combines the benefits of the processes while minimizing the negative impacts [79]. In terms of the products, the digestate can be utilized as biofertilizer and integrated into nutrient CE. Yet, potential pollutants and pathogens must be properly managed to avoid environmental contamination. Biochar can be integrated into digestate to reduce GHG emissions and improve soil health, contributing to a more sustainable AD process.
The third on the list is gasification, which is considered a suitable WtE method for the chemical co-processing of most sophisticated plastic wastes. It involves the thermal decomposition of solid carbonaceous materials in the presence of steam, oxygen, or carbon dioxide to produce a syngas comprising mainly combustible gases (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane), noncombustible gases (carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen), and trace amounts of other higher series of hydrocarbons [80]. The syngas produced from the gasification process can be used to produce other chemicals and generate heat, lighting, and electricity [22]. Compared to other technologies, the gasification technique is the most promising, environment-friendly, and economically cost-effective WtE technology [13,80]. Gasification has a cold gas efficiency of up to 70%, has lower emissions, and has potential for CCS [81,82]. Gasification is economically viable, particularly with supportive policies that cover its high capital costs [11]. Yet, among the negative environmental impacts are the production of syngas, which, if not properly managed, can lead to air pollution and GHG, as well as the generation of solid residues that may contain toxic substances, requiring careful disposal [83]. Moreover, its utilization is limited to plastics and their derivatives as compared to “burn all” waste using incineration [84]. To make this technology sustainable, feedstocks should be properly characterized to predict the behavior, identify issues, and optimize the WtE potential of gasification. Syngas cleaning can reduce emissions and improve energy recovery efficiency, while conversion into commercial products, instead of burning locally, can reduce local air pollution and increase social acceptance [85]. Introducing flue gas recirculation into membrane-based oxygen-enriched gasification of MSW can help regulate gasification temperatures and improve operational stability, reducing the risk of localized overheating and enhancing carbon conversion efficiency [86]. Additionally, gasification can be combined with other technologies, such as plasma gasification, solid oxide fuel cells, and combined heat and power systems, to enhance overall efficiency and reduce environmental impacts.
Another WtE technology is pyrolysis, which involves the thermal decomposition of organic materials into simple molecules at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen [87]. Applying heat (300 and 850 °C) indirectly to waste causes the thermal decomposition of the waste to produce biochar, bio-oil, and biogas [11,17]. In the thermal process, fractions of MSW with high moisture content are either removed from the MSW or pre-dried before pyrolysis to reduce the amount of heat that needs to be input into the facility [65]. Along with other thermal treatment technologies such as gasification and plasma gasification, pyrolysis was proven to have limited applicability due to the complexity of the processes, the inability to process a variety of waste streams that require pre-treatment, and lower net-energy recovery [87]. Pyrolysis shows promise, particularly for large-scale WtE plants that achieve positive NPVs and quick (1.42 years) payback periods [88]. It can convert 60–80% of plastic waste into liquid fuels, with yields of up to 85% in fast pyrolysis processes [89]. Yet, if not properly controlled, pyrolysis can produce harmful emissions such as volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and char, which can be beneficial for soil but may also require careful management to avoid leaching of contaminants [90]. Hence, advanced filtration and scrubbing systems must be employed to reduce emissions and improve air quality. Combining different types of feedstocks, such as plastics and biomass, can enhance the efficiency and yield of pyrolysis products. Optimization of process parameters, such as temperature, mixture ratio, and catalyst loading can also increase the yield and reduce negative environmental impacts. Moreover, pyrolysis by-products such as metals from e-waste and chemical feedstocks from plastics can be recovered to contribute to circular economy.
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is a type of fuel produced from the remaining organic and combustible non-recyclable components of MSW [91]. From RDF, a range of energy products can be derived, including heat, power, and biofuels, such as biomethane or biochar [92]. RDF can be a cost-effective alternative, especially when integrated with other waste management strategies, such as gasification and AD [93]. Its main advantages are the reduction in landfill waste and the generation of power from materials that would otherwise contribute to environmental issues. For instance, in the cement industry, using RDF instead of conventional fossil fuels demonstrated environmental benefits such as reduction in acidification, GHG emissions, eutrophication, summer smog, landfill costs, and carcinogenic risk potential [94]. However, the combustion of these fuels could raise hazardous gas emissions, such as NOx, SOx, CO2, and dioxins, as the cogeneration requires the treatment of flue gas [95]. Moreover, RDF to power technology is perceived to be greatly affected by completion risk, environment, health and safety, revenue risk, concessionaire risk, and planning risk [18]. To address these issues, high-quality RDF production through proper sorting and processing must be ensured to reduce emissions and improve combustion efficiency, while implementing strict emission controls during combustion can minimize its adverse environmental impacts [92]. Thermal treatments such as torrefaction, carbonization, and biodrying can reduce the moisture contents, making RDF more homogeneous, friable, and efficient. Furthermore, RDF can be integrated into other combustion technologies, such as co-gasification of biomass, to optimize syngas production and achieve higher efficiency while reducing environmental impacts.
Last on the list is landfilling with gas recovery, which refers to a sanitary landfill (SLF) equipped with a system that captures, manages, and often utilizes the gases generated from the decomposition of waste [97]. The process produces methane and carbon dioxide, which are naturally produced during the anaerobic breakdown of organic materials in the landfill. Among its advantages over traditional landfilling and open dumpsites are the reduction in GHG emissions, the production of renewable energy, improved air quality, and other societal benefits [20,98]. On the other hand, landfills have some disadvantages, like the generation of odors and leachate that can contaminate water resources [99]. Landfill gas recovery can be economically viable, particularly when combined with other waste management strategies. However, it is challenged by low efficiency of gas recovery and the management of SLF sites [100]. Landfill gas recovery is less efficient compared to other technologies, but it still provides a means to capture and utilize methane emissions from landfills [101]. To address these issues, significant infrastructure and maintenance are required to ensure effective gas capture and utilization and the sustainability of this WtE technology. Emissions can be mitigated by enhancing methane oxidation using technologies such as biocovers, biofilters, and bioreactors [96]. To address the problem of soil and groundwater contamination from landfill leachates, collection and treatment systems such as constructed wetlands can be integrated into the SLF [38]. Yet, CE strategies, particularly segregation at source, recycling, composting, and resource recovery, must be promoted to reduce the waste in SLF and minimize its environmental impacts.
Yet, microbial cells, microbial fuel cells, and landfill leachate are technologies that have not been analyzed from a social perspective. They are capable of transforming organic materials into valuable products such as energy and chemical compounds [102]. The technology remains at a laboratory scale, albeit offering promising results, because of the lack of industrial-scale applications due to difficulties in achieving stable performance under real operating conditions [103]. To utilize these technologies for the production of bioenergy/energy, technologies such as fermentation, anaerobic digestion (AD), supercritical water gasification (SCWG), and bio-electrochemical systems seem to be prospective options [19].

4.2. Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy

The social factors affecting the acceptability of a technology or intervention are crucial because they influence the project’s ability to be sustained, scaled up, or replicated [104,105]. This review analyzed the factors affecting the social acceptability of WtE technologies. The analysis identified 126 factors, as presented in a word cloud in Figure 6 and summarized in Table 9.
A total of 29 papers, or 27% of the documents, recognized the “perceived risks” as a major factor that hinders WtE adoption. The construction of WtE facilities faces considerable and strong opposition from local communities due to the perceived potential risks [55]. The level of public acceptance is low if the perceived potential risks to the environment/health of the local communities are high [61,62]. The potential health risks include adverse birth and neonatal outcomes, congenital anomalies, post-neonatal and infant mortality, and cancer [106]. Environmental risks include pollution, decrease in environmental quality, and environmental degradation [107]. Excessive risk perception would significantly increase the probability of opposing the WtE facility expansion as risks would result in social costs, such as a reduction in net benefits for operating WtE facilities and market failure in the housing market due to negative externalities [60].
Second to the list is “trust,” which includes the public trust in the institution, government, experts, developers, and private enterprises operating the WtE facility [66,84]. The trust serves as a foundation of cooperation and participation in the successful and effective implementation of MSW treatment policy, including WtE facilities [108]. Moreover, interpersonal trust and institutional trust have a significant impact on households’ perceived value of energy utilization, particularly from agricultural wastes [109].
The third factor identified in the reviewed literature is the “attitudes.” Understanding the public attitudes towards WtE projects forms a good interaction between the government, the private sector, and the public by encouraging the development of WtE projects, helping local governments prevent risks, and forming policy suggestions [51]. Another factor affecting the acceptability of WtE is the “perceived benefits.” Economic compensation effectively improves residents’ acceptance by being positively associated with their perceived economic benefit and trust in the local government [110]. The acceptance of WtE can be viewed at both individual and community levels, which can be attributed to the expectations of cost savings and improved health information, and gas and electricity produced from the WtE facility may, in return, bring financial benefits to the community as well as individual households [111]. Nonetheless, the government ought to offer attractive benefits and incentives for the rapid growth and development of WtE projects [112].
Meanwhile, if some projects may cause potential environmental or social risks, their construction will be protested and boycotted by the public [113]. This phenomenon is called “Not-In-My-BackYard” or NIMBY, which is demonstrated by residents in the surrounding area who adopt a protectionist attitude and take measures to resist and protest against the construction of an unwelcome facility near their homes [114]. On the other hand, if an established WtE plant with designs blending art and function serving the citizens for a long time has built up healthy relationships with the communities, the NIMBY syndrome is converted to the Beauty-In-My-BackYard (BIMBY) synergy [115].
Other major factors affecting the acceptability of WtE are awareness and knowledge. Public awareness pertains to familiarity with the concept of WtE technology, the national policies about WtE, and the technology’s environmental impacts [116,117]. The more residents are aware of the WtE project, the more they realize it provides more benefits and poses fewer risks [73]. Additionally, public awareness about various waste management issues can lower waste production and enhance management techniques [118]. Meanwhile, a higher level of knowledge would allow the public to have a better-founded evaluation of WtE-based products, and they could make an informed decision about whether these can become environmentally friendly alternatives contributing to policy goals for energy transition [119]. On the other hand, citizens with little to no knowledge are significantly less willing to pay compared to respondents with knowledge of WtE [120].

5. Conclusions

This study presented a literature review of the social acceptability of WtE technologies. The data refinement resulted in 109 documents from the WoS and Scopus databases. The year trends revealed research progress from 2 papers published in 2010 to 48 in the last three years. China emerged as a significant contributor to the literature related to the social acceptability of WtE technologies in terms of the highest number of publications as well as the most productive and most-cited authors and institutions. Over 20% of the papers were published in Waste Management and the Journal of Cleaner Production, which also received the most citations. Most of the papers analyzed the acceptability of incineration at 66%, followed by anaerobic digestion at 42%. Among the factors affecting the acceptability of WtE technologies were perceived risks, public trust, attitudes toward WtE, perceived benefits, and the NIMBY syndrome.
The major factors supporting the implementation of WtE technologies were trust, attitudes, perceived benefits, awareness, and knowledge. On the other hand, perceived risk and NIMBY syndrome were the barriers to implementing WtE technologies. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and WtE project planners to support WtE adoption while achieving sustainable, circular, and low-carbon economies.
  • Information, Education, and Communication (IEC). The acceptability of WtE depends on how well information about the technology, the project implementation, and its impacts are communicated to the public. IEC strategies such as public forums, stakeholder consultations, educational campaigns, and distributing IEC can foster positive perceptions while reducing resistance towards WtE technologies.
  • Community Involvement. Communities are more likely to accept WtE projects if they are well-informed, engaged, and invested. They can be involved in the conceptualization, participatory planning, implementation, decision-making, monitoring, and evaluation of the project. These activities foster transparency, collaboration, ownership, and long-term commitment, creating a positive relationship between the project and the community.
  • Environmental Safeguards and Transparency. Enforcing stringent environmental standards for emissions and waste management, employing advanced emission control technologies to control the risks, openly communicating the project benefits, sharing the progress monitoring of the project, and involving the community in decision-making improve the social acceptability of WtE. This builds public trust and mitigates resistance while fostering co-management of MSW through WtE technologies.
  • Systems Approach. A systems approach to planning and implementation considers the interdependencies of social, environmental, economic, and technological aspects of WtE projects. This approach ensures that all stakeholders are considered, concerns are addressed, and the technology is integrated sustainably within the community. This comprehensive, participatory, inclusive, and long-term WtE planning ensures that WtE technologies contribute to sustainable MSW management and energy production, gaining the trust and support of communities, turning NIMBY into BIMBY.

6. Future Research Directions

This study identified the research trends and hotspots in the social acceptability of WtE technologies and several factors affecting acceptability. The analyses also identified gaps and challenges that provided bases for future research directions. First, most studies on the social acceptability of WtE in recent decades tackled the cases of China and developed countries. Future studies may focus on the perspective of developing countries as they face significant challenges related to financing, transparency, waste management infrastructures, and technological limitations.
Second, there were only a few studies analyzing the acceptability of pyrolysis, gasification, and microbial fuel cells due to their limited applicability, the complexity of the processes, and the inability to process a variety of MSW. With their huge potential to complement other MSW management strategies, future studies may consider analyzing the acceptability of pyrolysis, gasification, and microbial fuel cells, particularly those that are still in the planning and feasibility stages of project cycle development. Moreover, the acceptability of other WtE technologies, such as gas recovery and anaerobic digestion of leachate from landfills, can be considered for further social acceptability analysis.
In terms of the social acceptability of WtE, the findings identified that the factors influencing acceptability focus more on individual reasons and perceptions. Future studies may explore other standpoints, such as the community, socio-ecological systems, and human ecological perspectives. These may be coupled with systems thinking perspective, power dynamics, future thinking, and social justice. Moreover, with the uncertain nature of acceptability, these factors may be quantified and considered in a real options analysis of the feasibility of WtE projects under uncertainties in social and environmental policies, WtE technological innovations, waste generation, and social acceptability of WtE technologies. Lastly, future studies must consider the social acceptability of WtE as an integral part of the decision-making process to address waste management issues towards achieving sustainable, circular, and low-carbon economies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.B.A. and M.J.A.S.; methodology, C.B.A. and M.J.A.S.; validation, C.B.A.; formal analysis, M.J.A.S.; investigation, C.B.A. and M.J.A.S.; resources, C.B.A.; data curation, M.J.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B.A. and M.J.A.S.; writing—review and editing, C.B.A.; visualization, M.J.A.S.; project administration, C.B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data in this study is summarized in Appendix A.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support from the Department of Community and Environmental Resource Planning (DCERP) of the College of Human Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Baños, the DCERP CREST Planning Lab, and the DCERP Urban Lab.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ADAnaerobic digestion
BIMBYBeauty-In-My-BackYard
CECircular economy
GHGGreenhouse gas
IECInformation, Education, and Communication
LCALife cycle assessment
MCDAMulti-criteria decision analysis
MSWMunicipal solid waste
NIMBYNot-In-My-BackYard
RDFRefuse-derived fuel
SLFSanitary landfill
UNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme
WoSWeb of Science
WtEWaste-to-energy
WTPWillingness to pay
3RsReduce, reuse, recycle

Appendix A

Table A1. A list of the reviewed literature.
Table A1. A list of the reviewed literature.
AuthorYearTitle
Achillas et al. [56]2011Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area
Ahmed et al. [112]2022Systematic analysis of factors affecting biogas technology acceptance: Insights from the diffusion of innovation
Ajieh et al. [121]2021Assessment of sociocultural acceptability of biogas from fecal waste as an alternative energy source in selected areas of Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria
Amir et al. [122]2015Socio-Economic Considerations of Converting Food Waste into Biogas on a Household Level in Indonesia: The Case of the City of Bandung
Amoo & Fagbenle [47]2013Renewable municipal solid waste pathways for energy generation and sustainable development in the Nigerian context
Asare et al. [120]2024Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Towards Waste Management in Ghana: Implications for Energy Production
Baxter et al. [123]2020How energy from waste (EFW) facilities impact waste diversion behavior: A case study of Ontario, Canada
Benassai [124]2023Environmental Conflict and Contingent Valuation Method: Setting Up a Pilot Study on Biogas Plants Acceptance in Emilia Romagna
Borges et al. [125]2023Scaling actors’ perspectives about innovation system functions: Diffusion of biogas in Brazil
Caferra et al. [126]2023Wasting energy or energizing waste? The public acceptance of waste-to-energy technology
Calle Mendoza et al. [127]2024Social acceptance, emissions analysis and potential applications of paper-waste briquettes in Andean areas
Chalhoub M.S. [128]2018Public policy and technology choices for municipal solid waste management a recent case in Lebanon
Chen et al. [52]2023Effects of perceived stress on public acceptance of waste incineration projects: evidence from three cities in China
Chen et al. [129]2022Demographic differences in public acceptance of waste-to-energy incinerators in China: High perceived stress group vs. low perceived stress group
Cong et al. [130]2021Exploring critical influencing factors for the site selection failure of waste-to-energy projects in China caused by the not in my back yard effect
Cudjoe & Wang [80]2024Public acceptance towards plastic waste-to-energy gasification projects: The role of social trust and health consciousness
Cui et al. [41]2020Determining critical risk factors affecting public-private partnership waste-to-energy incineration projects in China
Dolla & Laishram [18]2021Effect of energy from waste technologies on the risk profile of public-private partnership waste treatment projects of India
Ellacuriaga et al. [103]2022Is Decentralized Anaerobic Digestion a Solution? Analyzing Biogas Production and Residential Energy Demand
Emmanouil et al. [131]2022Pay-as-You-Throw (PAYT) for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Greece: On Public Opinion and Acceptance
Eom et al. [111]2021Social acceptance and willingness to pay for a smart Eco-toilet system producing a Community-based bioenergy in Korea
Falconer et al. [74]2020Anaerobic Digestion of food waste: Eliciting sustainable water-energy-food nexus practices with Agent Based Modelling and visual analytics
Fetanat et al. [17]2019Informing energy justice based decision-making framework for waste-to-energy technologies selection in sustainable waste management: A case of Iran
Fu et al. [132]2021Three-stage model based evaluation of local residents’ acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration project under construction: A Chinese perspective
Garnett & Cooper [53]2014Effective dialogue: Enhanced public engagement as a legitimising tool for municipal waste management decision-making
Garnett et al. [54]2017A conceptual framework for negotiating public involvement in municipal waste management decision-making in the UK
Ghimire et al. [133]2024Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception in public-private partnerships for waste-to-energy projects: A case study of Nepal
He, K. et al. [109]2020Rural households’ perceived value of energy utilization of crop residues: A case study from China
He, X. et al. [51]2023Evaluating the social license to operate of waste-to-energy incineration projects: A case study from the Yangtze River Delta of China
He, K. et al. [134]2018Rural households’ willingness to accept compensation for energy utilization of crop straw in China
Herbes et al. [119]2018Towards marketing biomethane in France-French consumers’ perception of biomethane
Hobbs et al. [135]2017Sustainability approach: Food waste-to-energy solutions for small rural developing communities
Hou et al. [136]2019Improving social acceptance of waste-to-energy incinerators in China: Role of place attachment, trust, and fairness
Huang, YL et al. [48]2015Public acceptance of waste incineration power plants in China: Comparative case studies
Huang, YS et al. [66]2022Perceptional differences in the factors of local acceptance of waste incineration plant
Jamasb et al. [44]2010Waste to energy in the UK: Policy and institutional issues
Jin et al. [137]2022A signaling game approach of siting conflict mediation for the construction of waste incineration facilities under information asymmetry
Joneset al. [84]2022Understanding public perceptions of chemical recycling: A comparative study of public attitudes towards coal and waste gasification in Germany and the United Kingdom
Kanto et al. [98]2015From waste-to-energy (An awareness campaign in converting waste into energy in supit urang Landfill, Malang, Indonesia)
Kong et al. [138]2023How Does Differential Public Participation Influence Outcome Justice in Energy Transitions? Evidence from a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Project in China
Lahl & Zeschmar-Lahl [139]2018Prerequisites for Public Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Plants: Evidence from Germany and Indonesia
Lee et al. [140]2021Subjectivity Analysis of Underground Incinerators: Focus on Academic and Industry Experts
Liu et al. [49]2019Enhancing public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Lessons learned from a case study in China
Liu et al. [110]2021aEffects of economic compensation on public acceptance of waste-to-energy incineration projects: an attribution theory perspective
Liu et al. [55]2018aImpact of community engagement on public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Empirical evidence from China
Liu et al. [141]2018bIdentification of Risk Factors Affecting PPP Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects in China: A Multiple Case Study
Liu et al. [61]2021bInfluences of environmental impact assessment on public acceptance of waste-to-energy incineration projects
Lu, J-W et al. [115]2019From NIMBY to BIMBY: An evaluation of aesthetic appearance and social sustainability of MSW incineration plants in China
Lu, JT et al. [142]2023Constraints affecting the promotion of waste incineration power generation project in China: A perspective of improved technology acceptance model
Luna-delRisco et al. [46]2025Evaluating the socio-economic drivers of household adoption of biodigester systems for domestic energy in rural Colombia
Martinat et al. [143]2017Interpreting regional and local diversities of the social acceptance of agricultural AD plants in the rural space of the Moravian-Silesian Region (Czech Republic)
Martinát et al. [144]2022Best Practice Forever? Dynamics behind the Perception of Farm-Fed Anaerobic Digestion Plants in Rural Peripheries
Martinát et al. [145]2020Rich or poor? Who actually lives in proximity to AD plants in Wales?
Mazzanti et al. [146]2021The biogas dilemma: An analysis on the social approval of large new plants
Mertzanakis et al. [64]2024Closing the Loop between Waste-to-Energy Technologies: A Holistic Assessment Based on Multiple Criteria
Neehaul et al. [65]2020Energy recovery from municipal solid waste in Mauritius: Opportunities and challenges
Niang et al. [147]2022How do local actors coordinate to implement a successful biogas project?
Nketiah et al. [148]2022Citizens? willingness to pay for local anaerobic digestion energy: The influence of altruistic value and knowledge
Pérez et al. [149]2020Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) production from biogas in waste treatment facilities: Assessing the potential impacts on economy, environment and society
Phillips et al. [150]2014Assessing the perception and reality of arguments against thermal waste treatment plants in terms of property prices
Qiao & Wang [151]2023An intuitionistic fuzzy site selection decision framework for waste-to-energy projects from the perspective of ‘‘Not In My Backyard’’ risk
Quan & Zuo [152]2022An Empirical Study of Public Response to a Waste-to-Energy Plant in China: Effects of Knowledge, Risk, Benefit and Systematic Processing
Quan et al. [114]2022Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis
Ren et al. [107]2016Risk perception and public acceptance toward a highly protested Waste-to-Energy facility
Ribeiro & Quintanilla [153]2015Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method
Roach [154]2013Examining public understanding of the environmental effects of an energy-from-waste facility
Sarker et al. [118]2024Household solid waste management in a recently established municipality of Bangladesh: Prevailing practices, residents’ perceptions, attitude and awareness
Scheffran [45]2010Criteria for a sustainable bioenergy infrastructure and lifecycle
Schumacher & Schultmann [155]2017Local Acceptance of Biogas Plants: A Comparative Study in the Trinational Upper Rhine Region
Shan et al. [108]2021The impact of environmental benefits and institutional trust on residents’ willingness to participate in municipal solid waste treatment: a case study in Beijing, China
Song et al. [156]2015Modeling the Concession Period and Subsidy for BOT Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects
Strano et al. [69]2019Communication as a prevention tool: A key lever for general acceptance of the role of incineration (waste-to-energy) and transformation plants towards circular economy
Subiza-Pérez et al. [157]2023Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: health, politics and environmental impacts
Subiza-Pérez et al. [106]2020Explaining social acceptance of a municipal waste incineration plant through sociodemographic and psycho-environmental variables
Sun et al. [60]2023Social cost of waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration siting: From the perspective of risk perception
Sun et al. [59]2019Public acceptance towards waste-to-energy power plants: a new quantified assessment based on “willingness to pay”
Suryawan et al. [117]2023Acceptance of Waste to Energy Technology by Local Residents of Jakarta City, Indonesia to Achieve Sustainable Clean and Environmentally Friendly Energy
Tahiru et al. [116]2024Public perceptions of waste-to-energy technology in developing countries: A case study of Tamale, Ghana
Talang & Sirivithayapakorn [91]2022Comparative analysis of environmental costs, economic return and social impact of national-level municipal solid waste management schemes in Thailand
Tehupeiory et al. [158]2023Evaluating Community Preferences for Waste-to-Energy Development in Jakarta: An Analysis Using the Choice Experiment Method
Upham & Jones [159]2012Don’t lock me in: Public opinion on the prospective use of waste process heat for district heating
van Dijk et al. [160]2024Public acceptance of biomass for bioenergy: The need for feedstock differentiation and communicating a waste utilization frame
Vlachokostas et al. [57]2020aDecision support system to implement units of alternative biowaste treatment for producing bioenergy and boosting local bioeconomy
Vlachokostas et al. [58]2020bExternalities of energy sources: The operation of a municipal solid waste-to-energy incineration facility in the greater Thessaloniki area, Greece
Wan et al. [161]2024Influence of Stakeholder Identities on Unfairness Perception of Local Residents toward Public Facilities: Neurocognition Evidence from the Case of Waste-to-Energy Projects in China
Wu et al. [162]2018Site Selection of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Plant considering Public Satisfaction by an Extended VIKOR Method
Xexakis & Trutnevyte [163]2022Model-based scenarios of EU27 electricity supply are not aligned with the perspectives of French, German, and Polish citizens
Xu, M & Lin [113]2023Accessing people’s attitudes towards garbage incineration power plants: Evidence from models correcting sample selection bias
Xu, MM & Lin [67]2020Exploring the not in my backyard effect in the construction of waste incineration power plants—based on a survey in metropolises of China
Xu, MM et al. [63]2023Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks
Xu, XM et al. [164]2024Examining behavioral strategies of residents and enterprises in the context of subsidy phase-outs for waste incineration power plants
Xue et al. [165]2021Residents’ intention to take collective action through participation in not-in-my-backyard protests in China
Yamane & Kaneko [166]2023Exploring the impact of awareness on public acceptance of emerging energy technologies: An analysis of the oil palm industry
Yang et al. [167]2019Bayesian-Based NIMBY Crisis Transformation Path Discovery for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China
Yu et al. [168]2022Unlocking key factors affecting utilization of biomass briquettes in Africa through SWOT and analytic hierarchy process: A case of Madagascar
Yuan et al. [169]2019Public perception towards waste-to-energy as a waste management strategy: A case from Shandong, China
Zabaniotou et al. [87]2014Analysis of good practices, barriers and drivers for ELTs pyrolysis industrial application
Zabaniotou et al. [170]2019Transition to bioenergy: Engineering and technology undergraduate students’ perceptions of and readiness for agricultural waste-based bioenergy in Greece
Zander et al. [171]2015Biogas production and society: Evidence from Germany
Zeng et al. [172]2024aSeeking information about waste-to-energy incineration projects: The role of objective knowledge and benefit perceptions in an extended PRISM
Zeng et al. [73]2024bUnderstanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects
Zeng et al. [173]2023Exploring the effects of information insufficiency on residents’ intention to seek information about waste-to-energy incineration projects
Zhang et al. [174]2021Identifying the Predictors of Community Acceptance of Waste Incineration Plants in Urban China: A Qualitative Analysis from a Public Perspective
Zhao, H et al. [175]2022Evaluation on the implementation effect of public participation in the decision-making of NIMBY facilities
Zhao, R et al. [176]2019Public risk perception towards power generation by municipal waste incineration: Word-frequency-based decision making
Zheng et al. [177]2021Residents’ acceptance towards waste-to-energy facilities: formation, diffusion and policy implications
Zhou et al. [50]2024Impact of psychological distance on public acceptance of waste-to-energy combustion projects
Zhou et al. [62]2022Exploring the effects of spatial distance on public perception of waste-to-energy incineration projects

References

  1. United Nations Environment Programme. Global Waste Management Outlook 2024; UN Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gautam, M.; Agrawal, M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Review of Global Scenario. In Carbon Footprint Case Studies; Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 123–160. [Google Scholar]
  3. Khan, S.; Anjum, R.; Raza, S.T.; Ahmed Bazai, N.; Ihtisham, M. Technologies for municipal solid waste management: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Chemosphere 2022, 288, 132403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Velasco, K.F.D.; Visco, E.S.; Geges, D.B. Perceived Impacts of a Community-Based Solid Waste Management Initiative in Santa Cruz, Laguna, Philippines. J. Hum. Ecol. Sustain. 2024, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Konstantinidou, A.; Ioannou, K.; Tsantopoulos, G.; Arabatzis, G. Citizens’ Attitudes and Practices Towards Waste Reduction, Separation, and Recycling: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hemidat, S.; Achouri, O.; El Fels, L.; Elagroudy, S.; Hafidi, M.; Chaouki, B.; Ahmed, M.; Hodgkinson, I.; Guo, J. Solid Waste Management in the Context of a Circular Economy in the MENA Region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sulewski, P.; Kais, K.; Gołaś, M.; Rawa, G.; Urbańska, K.; Wąs, A. Home Bio-Waste Composting for the Circular Economy. Energies 2021, 14, 6164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Langit, E.R.A.; Parungao, C.A.S.; Gregorio, E.T.A.; Sabo-o, A.J.M.; Dulay, B.A.Y.; Loren, D.D.; Patria, K.A.M.; Quines, B.A.B.; Dacumos, M.V.F.; Catabay, J.A.C.; et al. Feasibility Study of an Integrated Waste Management Technology System for a Circular Economy in the Philippines. J. Hum. Ecol. Sustain. 2024, 2, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gadaleta, G.; Notarnicola, M.; De Gisi, S. The Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam: An Environmental and Technological Analysis of Current and Future Scenarios. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Atstaja, D.; Cudecka-Purina, N.; Koval, V.; Kuzmina, J.; Butkevics, J.; Hrinchenko, H. Waste-to-Energy in the Circular Economy Transition and Development of Resource-Efficient Business Models. Energies 2024, 17, 4188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Agaton, C.B.; Guno, C.S.; Villanueva, R.O.; Villanueva, R.O. Economic analysis of waste-to-energy investment in the Philippines: A real options approach. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hachemi, H.; Seladji, C.; Negadi, L.; Bhandari, R.; Aryal, S.; Sacko, B.d.D. Improving municipal solid waste management in Algeria and exploring energy recovery options. Renew. Energy 2024, 230, 120861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vukovic, N.; Makogon, E. Waste-to-Energy Generation: Complex Efficiency Analysis of Modern Technologies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vukovic, N.; Makogon, E. Waste-to-Energy Generation: Complex World Project Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alam, S.; Rahman, K.S.; Rokonuzzaman, M.; Salam, P.A.; Miah, M.S.; Das, N.; Chowdhury, S.; Channumsin, S.; Sreesawet, S.; Channumsin, M. Selection of Waste to Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management—Towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Adami, L.; Schiavon, M.; Torretta, V.; Costa, L.; Rada, E.C. Evaluation of conventional and alternative anaerobic digestion technologies for applications to small and rural communities. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Fetanat, A.; Mofid, H.; Mehrannia, M.; Shafipour, G. Informing energy justice based decision-making framework for waste-to-energy technologies selection in sustainable waste management: A case of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1377–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Effect of energy from waste technologies on the risk profile of public-private partnership waste treatment projects of India. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 284, 124726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kumar, S.S.; Kumar, A.; Malyan, S.K.; Ghosh, P.; Kumar, M.; Kapoor, R.; Agrawal, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, V.; Singh, L. Landfill leachate valorization: A potential alternative to burden off resources and support energy systems. Fuel 2023, 331, 125911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hsu, H.-W.; Binyet, E.; Nugroho, R.A.A.; Wang, W.-C.; Srinophakun, P.; Chein, R.-Y.; Demafelis, R.; Chiarasumran, N.; Saputro, H.; Alhikami, A.F.; et al. Toward sustainability of Waste-to-Energy: An overview. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024, 321, 119063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ramos, A.; Rouboa, A. Life cycle thinking of plasma gasification as a waste-to-energy tool: Review on environmental, economic and social aspects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vlachokostas, C.; Michailidou, A.V.; Achillas, C. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Patil, S.C.; Schulze-Netzer, C.; Korpås, M. Current and emerging waste-to-energy technologies: A comparative study with multi-criteria decision analysis. Smart Energy 2024, 16, 100157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ramos, A. Sustainability assessment in waste management: An exploratory study of the social perspective in waste-to-energy cases. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 475, 143693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Balla, P. Capture Those Opinions! A Synthesis Analysis of the Types of Public Attitudes Measured in Waste-to-Energy and Carbon Capture and Storage Acceptance Research; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams, P.A.; Narra, S.; Antwi, E.; Quaye, W.; Hagan, E.; Asare, R.; Owusu-Arthur, J.; Ekanthalu, V.S. Review of Barriers to Effective Implementation of Waste and Energy Management Policies in Ghana: Implications for the Promotion of Waste-to-Energy Technologies. Waste 2023, 1, 313–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Passas, I. Bibliometric Analysis: The Main Steps. Encyclopedia 2024, 4, 1014–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lame, G. Systematic Literature Reviews: An Introduction. Proc. Des. Soc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. 2019, 1, 1633–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Varsha, P.S.; Chakraborty, A.; Kar, A.K. How to Undertake an Impactful Literature Review: Understanding Review Approaches and Guidelines for High-impact Systematic Literature Reviews. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases 2024, 13, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Agaton, C.B. Application of real options in carbon capture and storage literature: Valuation techniques and research hotspots. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Phulwani, P.R.; Kumar, D.; Goyal, P. A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Recycling Behavior. J. Glob. Mark. 2020, 33, 354–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Birkle, C.; Pendlebury, D.A.; Schnell, J.; Adams, J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alfee, S.L.; Islam, M.S. Assessment of public perception towards the radioactive waste management of Bangladesh. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2021, 140, 103916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bressani-Ribeiro, T.; Mota Filho, C.R.; Melo, V.R.d.; Bianchetti, F.J.; Chernicharo, C.A.d.L. Planning for achieving low carbon and integrated resources recovery from sewage treatment plants in Minas Gerais, Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 242, 465–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Guila, P.M.C.; Agaton, C.B.; Rivera, R.R.B.; Abucay, E.R. Household Willingness to Pay for Constructed Wetlands as Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment in Bayawan City, Philippines. J. Hum. Ecol. Sustain. 2024, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Akerboom, S.; Waldmann, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Agaton, C.; Sanders, M.; Kramer, G.J. Different This Time? The Prospects of CCS in the Netherlands in the 2020s. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 644796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mancini, E.; Raggi, A. Out of sight, out of mind? The importance of local context and trust in understanding the social acceptance of biogas projects: A global scale review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 91, 102697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cui, C.; Sun, C.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, X.; Chen, Q. Determining critical risk factors affecting public-private partnership waste-to-energy incineration projects in China. Energy Sci. Eng. 2019, 8, 1181–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Makarichi, L.; Jutidamrongphan, W.; Techato, K.-a. The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 812–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pitrez, P.; Monteiro, E.; Rouboa, A. Energy recovery from infectious hospital waste and its safe neutralization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2025, 105, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jamasb, T.; Nepal, R.; Kiamil, H. Waste to energy in the UK: Policy and institutional issues. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Energy 2010, 163, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Scheffran, J. Criteria for a Sustainable Bioenergy Infrastructure and Lifecycle. In Plant Biotechnology for Sustainable Production of Energy and Co-Products; Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 409–447. [Google Scholar]
  46. Luna-delRisco, M.; Arrieta González, C.; Mendoza-Hernández, S.; Vanegas-Trujillo, E.; da Rocha Meneses, L.; Rio, J.S.-D.; Castillo-Meza, L.E.; Santos-Ballardo, D.U.; Gómez Montoya, J.P. Evaluating the socio-economic drivers of household adoption of biodigester systems for domestic energy in rural Colombia. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2025, 73, 104146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Amoo, O.M.; Fagbenle, R. Renewable municipal solid waste pathways for energy generation and sustainable development in the Nigerian context. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2013, 4, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Huang, Y.; Ning, Y.; Zhang, T.; Fei, Y. Public acceptance of waste incineration power plants in China: Comparative case studies. Habitat Int. 2015, 47, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, Y.; Ge, Y.; Xia, B.; Cui, C.; Jiang, X.; Skitmore, M. Enhancing public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Lessons learned from a case study in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhou, Q.; Luo, X.; Gao, X.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Liu, Y. Impact of psychological distance on public acceptance of waste-to-energy combustion projects. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2024, 109, 107631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. He, X.; Xu, M.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Liu, Y. Evaluating the social license to operate of waste-to-energy incineration projects: A case study from the Yangtze River Delta of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 388, 135966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, J.; He, X.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M.; Liu, Y. Effects of perceived stress on public acceptance of waste incineration projects: Evidence from three cities in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 34952–34965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Garnett, K.; Cooper, T. Effective dialogue: Enhanced public engagement as a legitimising tool for municipal waste management decision-making. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2709–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Garnett, K.; Cooper, T.; Longhurst, P.; Jude, S.; Tyrrel, S. A conceptual framework for negotiating public involvement in municipal waste management decision-making in the UK. Waste Manag. 2017, 66, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Liu, Y.; Sun, C.; Xia, B.; Cui, C.; Coffey, V. Impact of community engagement on public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Empirical evidence from China. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Achillas, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Banias, G.; Kafetzopoulos, G.; Karagiannidis, A. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vlachokostas, C.; Achillas, C.; Agnantiaris, I.; Michailidou, A.V.; Pallas, C.; Feleki, E.; Moussiopoulos, N. Decision Support System to Implement Units of Alternative Biowaste Treatment for Producing Bioenergy and Boosting Local Bioeconomy. Energies 2020, 13, 2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vlachokostas, C.; Achillas, C.; Michailidou, A.V.; Tsegas, G.; Moussiopoulos, N. Externalities of energy sources: The operation of a municipal solid waste-to-energy incineration facility in the greater Thessaloniki area, Greece. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sun, C.; Ouyang, X.; Meng, X. Public acceptance towards waste-to-energy power plants: A new quantified assessment based on “willingness to pay”. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 2459–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sun, C.; Meng, X.; Ouyang, X.; Xu, M. Social cost of waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration siting: From the perspective of risk perception. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 102, 107204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, Y.; Xu, M.; Ge, Y.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M. Influences of environmental impact assessment on public acceptance of waste-to-energy incineration projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 304, 127062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhou, Q.; Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M. Exploring the effects of spatial distance on public perception of waste-to-energy incineration projects. Waste Manag. 2022, 143, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M. Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks. Land Use Policy 2023, 124, 106453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mertzanakis, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Toufexis, C.; Michailidou, A.V. Closing the Loop between Waste-to-Energy Technologies: A Holistic Assessment Based on Multiple Criteria. Energies 2024, 17, 2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Neehaul, N.; Jeetah, P.; Deenapanray, P. Energy recovery from municipal solid waste in Mauritius: Opportunities and challenges. Environ. Dev. 2020, 33, 100489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Huang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z. Perceptional differences in the factors of local acceptance of waste incineration plant. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1067886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Xu, M.; Lin, B. Exploring the “not in my backyard” effect in the construction of waste incineration power plants-based on a survey in metropolises of China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 82, 106377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cudjoe, D.; Wang, H. Plasma gasification versus incineration of plastic waste: Energy, economic and environmental analysis. Fuel Process. Technol. 2022, 237, 107470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Strano, L.; Pecoraro, D.V.; Pecoraro, N.; Gigli, C.; Amara, G. Communication as a prevention tool: A key lever for general acceptance of the role of incineration (waste-to-energy) and transformation plants towards circular economy. Procedia Environ. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2019, 6, 253–260. [Google Scholar]
  70. Luo, Y.; Ye, M.; Zhou, Y.; Su, R.; Huang, S.; Wang, H.; Dai, X. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Municipal Waste on Energy Incineration Technology for Power Generation Using Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. Toxics 2024, 12, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Juhasz, J.; Brezoczki, V.M.; Filip, G.M.; Munteanu, C. Consideration Regarding Gaseous Emissions Incineration of Households Waste from Maramure. County, Romania. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2024, 23, 1315–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sharma, R.; Sharma, M.; Sharma, R.; Sharma, V. The impact of incinerators on human health and environment. Rev. Environ. Health 2013, 28, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Zeng, J.; Duan, H.; Zhu, W.; Song, J. Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects. Energy 2024, 304, 132031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Falconer, R.E.; Haltas, I.; Varga, L.; Forbes, P.J.; Abdel-Aal, M.; Panayotov, N. Anaerobic Digestion of food waste: Eliciting sustainable water-energy-food nexus practices with Agent Based Modelling and visual analytics. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chew, K.R.; Leong, H.Y.; Khoo, K.S.; Vo, D.-V.N.; Anjum, H.; Chang, C.-K.; Show, P.L. Effects of anaerobic digestion of food waste on biogas production and environmental impacts: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 2921–2939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, H.; Li, J.; Liu, J.; Li, T.; Xu, G.; Liu, W. Thermodynamic and economic evaluation of a novel waste-to-energy design incorporating anaerobic digestion and incineration. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 252, 115083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sevillano, C.A.; Pesantes, A.A.; Peña Carpio, E.; Martínez, E.J.; Gómez, X. Anaerobic Digestion for Producing Renewable Energy—The Evolution of This Technology in a New Uncertain Scenario. Entropy 2021, 23, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Karthikeyan, P.K.; Bandulasena, H.C.H.; Radu, T. A comparative analysis of pre-treatment technologies for enhanced biogas production from anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic waste. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 215, 118591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gadaleta, G.; Todaro, F.; Giuliano, A.; De Gisi, S.; Notarnicola, M. Co-Treatment of Food Waste and Municipal Sewage Sludge: Technical and Environmental Review of Biological and Thermal Technologies. Clean Technol. 2024, 6, 852–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cudjoe, D.; Wang, H. Public acceptance towards plastic waste-to-energy gasification projects: The role of social trust and health consciousness. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 356, 120737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sesotyo, P.A.; Nur, M.; Suseno, J.E. Plasma gasification modeling of municipal solid waste from Jatibarang Landfill in Semarang, Indonesia: Analyzing its performance parameters for energy potential. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 125, 4009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lyons, B.; Bernardi, A.; Chachuat, B. Waste-to-X: Quantifying the enviro-economic performance of chemical production via municipal solid waste gasification. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2025, 57, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, B.; Gupta, R.; Bei, L.; Wan, Q.; Sun, L. A review on gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW): Syngas production, tar formation, mineral transformation and industrial challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 26676–26706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jones, C.R.; Lee, R.P.; Kaklamanou, D. Understanding public perceptions of chemical recycling: A comparative study of public attitudes towards coal and waste gasification in Germany and the United Kingdom. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 32, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tubino, M.; Adami, L.; Schiavon, M. Environmental impacts of waste-to-energy processes in mountainous areas: The case of an Alpine region. Int. J. Energy Prod. Manag. 2022, 7, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chuah, C.Y.; Anwar, S.N.B.M.; Weerachanchai, P.; Bae, T.-H.; Goh, K.; Wang, R. Integrating flue gas into membrane-based oxygen-enriched gasification of municipal solid wastes for enhancing waste-to-energy conversion. Fuel 2025, 400, 135739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zabaniotou, A.; Antoniou, N.; Bruton, G. Analysis of good practices, barriers and drivers for ELTs pyrolysis industrial application. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2335–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Fivga, A.; Dimitriou, I. Pyrolysis of plastic waste for production of heavy fuel substitute: A techno-economic assessment. Energy 2018, 149, 865–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hasan, M.M.; Haque, R.; Jahirul, M.I.; Rasul, M.G. Pyrolysis of plastic waste for sustainable energy Recovery: Technological advancements and environmental impacts. Energy Convers. Manag. 2025, 326, 119511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, S. Reviewing Air Pollutants Generated during the Pyrolysis of Solid Waste for Biofuel and Biochar Production: Toward Cleaner Production Practices. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Prateep Na Talang, R.; Sirivithayapakorn, S. Comparative analysis of environmental costs, economic return and social impact of national-level municipal solid waste management schemes in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 343, 131017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tahir, J.; Ahmad, R.; Martinez, P. A critical review of sustianable refuse-derived fuel production in waste processing facility. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2024, 24, 100687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Panepinto, D.; Blengini, G.A.; Genon, G. Economic and environmental comparison between two scenarios of waste management: MBT vs thermal treatment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 97, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Shehata, N.; Obaideen, K.; Sayed, E.T.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Mahmoud, M.S.; El-Salamony, A.-H.R.; Mahmoud, H.M.; Olabi, A.G. Role of refuse-derived fuel in circular economy and sustainable development goals. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 163, 558–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gałko, G.; Mazur, I.; Rejdak, M.; Jagustyn, B.; Hrabak, J.; Ouadi, M.; Jahangiri, H.; Sajdak, M. Evaluation of alternative refuse-derived fuel use as a valuable resource in various valorised applications. Energy 2023, 263, 125920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sughosh, P.; Anusree, N.; Prathima, B.; Sivakumar Babu, G.L. Sustainable Remediation of a Dumpsite. In Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019; Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 65–76. [Google Scholar]
  97. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Nhung, T.C.; Ramesh, B.; Srinivasan, S.; Rangasamy, G. A review on biological methodologies in municipal solid waste management and landfilling: Resource and energy recovery. Chemosphere 2022, 309, 136630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Kanto, S.; Nirwana, M.D.; Utami, I.H.; Sandra. From waste-to-energy (An awareness campaign in converting waste into energy in supit urang Landfill, Malang, Indonesia). Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res. 2015, 13, 4777–4789. [Google Scholar]
  99. Al-Hazmi, H.E.; Hassan, G.K.; Kurniawan, T.A.; Śniatała, B.; Joseph, T.M.; Majtacz, J.; Piechota, G.; Li, X.; El-Gohary, F.A.; Saeb, M.R.; et al. Technological solutions to landfill management: Towards recovery of biomethane and carbon neutrality. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 354, 120414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Pheakdey, D.V.; Quan, N.V.; Xuan, T.D. Economic and Environmental Benefits of Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in Phnom Penh Municipality, Cambodia. Energies 2023, 16, 3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Di Maria, F.; Sisani, F. Effectiveness of municipal solid waste incinerators in replacing other fuels. A primary energy balance approach for the EU28. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2018, 36, 942–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Ghazali, A.W.; Sanusi, S.; Johari, Z.A.; Mohd Zaini Makhtar, M. Microbial Fuel Cells (MFC) as an Alternative Energy Source: The Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Sustainable and Renewable Energy in Malaysia. In Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) Applications for Sludge Valorization; Green Energy and Technology; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 59–71. [Google Scholar]
  103. Ellacuriaga, M.; González, R.; Gómez, X. Is Decentralized Anaerobic Digestion a Solution? Analyzing Biogas Production and Residential Energy Demand. Eng 2022, 3, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Agaton, C.B.; Guila, P.M.C. Success Factors and Challenges: Implications of Real Options Valuation of Constructed Wetlands as Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment. Resources 2024, 13, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Agaton, C.B. Real Options Analysis of Constructed Wetlands as Nature-Based Solutions to Wastewater Treatment Under Multiple Uncertainties: A Case Study in the Philippines. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Subiza-Pérez, M.; Marina, L.S.; Irizar, A.; Gallastegi, M.; Anabitarte, A.; Urbieta, N.; Babarro, I.; Molinuevo, A.; Vozmediano, L.; Ibarluzea, J. Explaining social acceptance of a municipal waste incineration plant through sociodemographic and psycho-environmental variables. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Ren, X.; Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Tao, Y. Risk perception and public acceptance toward a highly protested Waste-to-Energy facility. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 528–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Shan, S.-n.; Duan, X.; Zhang, T.-t.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, H. The impact of environmental benefits and institutional trust on residents’ willingness to participate in municipal solid waste treatment: A case study in Beijing, China. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2021, 16, 1170–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. He, K.; Zhang, J.; Wang, A.; Chang, H. Rural households’ perceived value of energy utilization of crop residues: A case study from China. Renew. Energy 2020, 155, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, Y.; Cui, C.; Zhang, C.; Xia, B.; Chen, Q.; Skitmore, M. Effects of economic compensation on public acceptance of waste-to-energy incineration projects: An attribution theory perspective. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 64, 1515–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Eom, Y.S.; Oh, H.; Cho, J.; Kim, J. Social acceptance and willingness to pay for a smart Eco-toilet system producing a Community-based bioenergy in Korea. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ahmed, N.; Qamar, S.; Jabeen, G.; Yan, Q.; Ahmad, M. Systematic analysis of factors affecting biogas technology acceptance: Insights from the diffusion of innovation. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Xu, M.; Lin, B. Accessing people’s attitudes towards garbage incineration power plants: Evidence from models correcting sample selection bias. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 99, 107034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Quan, X.; Zuo, G.; Sun, H. Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Lu, J.-W.; Xie, Y.; Xu, B.; Huang, Y.; Hai, J.; Zhang, J. From NIMBY to BIMBY: An evaluation of aesthetic appearance and social sustainability of MSW incineration plants in China. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Tahiru, A.-W.; Cobbina, S.J.; Asare, W. Public perceptions of waste-to-energy technology in developing countries: A case study of tamale, Ghana. Clean. Waste Syst. 2024, 9, 100192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Suryawan, I.W.K.; Septiariva, I.Y.; Sari, M.M.; Ramadan, B.S.; Suhardono, S.; Sianipar, I.M.J.; Tehupeiory, A.; Prayogo, W.; Lim, J.-W. Acceptance of Waste to Energy Technology by Local Residents of Jakarta City, Indonesia to Achieve Sustainable Clean and Environmentally Friendly Energy. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2023, 11, 1110443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sarker, A.; Baul, T.K.; Nath, T.K.; Karmakar, S.; Paul, A. Household solid waste management in a recently established municipality of Bangladesh: Prevailing practices, residents’ perceptions, attitude and awareness. World Dev. Sustain. 2024, 4, 100120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Herbes, C.; Chouvellon, S.; Lacombe, J. Towards marketing biomethane in France—French consumers’ perception of biomethane. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2018, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Asare, R.; Mahama, A.; Williams, P.A.; Ahiekpor, J.; Aryee, A.; Asabo, R. Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Towards Waste Management in Ghana: Implications for Energy Production. In Innovations in Circular Economy and Renewable Energy in Africa; World Sustainability Series; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 67–85. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ajieh, M.U.; Isagba, E.S.; Ihoeghian, N.; Edosa, V.I.O.; Amenaghawon, A.; Oshoma, C.E.; Erhunmwunse, N.; Obuekwe, I.S.; Tongo, I.; Emokaro, C.; et al. Assessment of sociocultural acceptability of biogas from faecal waste as an alternative energy source in selected areas of Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 13182–13199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Amir, E.; Hophmayer-Tokich, S.; Kurnani, T. Socio-Economic Considerations of Converting Food Waste into Biogas on a Household Level in Indonesia: The Case of the City of Bandung. Recycling 2015, 1, 61–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Baxter, J.; Maclaren, V.; Bayne, J. How energy from waste (EFW) facilities impact waste diversion behavior: A case study of Ontario, Canada. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 158, 104759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Benassai, D.E.M. Environmental Conflict and Contingent Valuation Method: Setting Up a Pilot Study on Biogas Plants Acceptance in Emilia Romagna. In Sustainability in Practice; World Sustainability Series; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 265–277. [Google Scholar]
  125. Borges, C.P.; Silberg, T.R.; Uriona-Maldonado, M.; Vaz, C.R. Scaling actors’ perspectives about innovation system functions: Diffusion of biogas in Brazil. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 190, 122359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Caferra, R.; D’Adamo, I.; Morone, P. Wasting energy or energizing waste? The public acceptance of waste-to-energy technology. Energy 2023, 263, 126123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Calle Mendoza, I.J.; Gorritty Portillo, M.A.; Ruiz Mayta, J.G.; Alanoca Limachi, J.L.; Torretta, V.; Ferronato, N. Social acceptance, emissions analysis and potential applications of paper-waste briquettes in Andean areas. Environ. Res. 2024, 241, 117609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Chalhoub, M.S.; Foo, K.Y. Public policy and technology choices for municipal solid waste management a recent case in Lebanon. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2018, 4, 1529853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Chen, J.; He, X.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Cui, C.; Liu, Y. Demographic differences in public acceptance of waste-to-energy incinerators in China: High perceived stress group vs. low perceived stress group. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 948653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Cong, X.; Wang, L.; Ma, L.; Skibnewski, M. Exploring critical influencing factors for the site selection failure of waste-to-energy projects in China caused by the “not in my back yard” effect. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 1561–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Emmanouil, C.; Papadopoulou, K.; Papamichael, I.; Zorpas, A.A. Pay-as-You-Throw (PAYT) for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Greece: On Public Opinion and Acceptance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Fu, L.; Yang, Q.; Liu, X.; Wang, Z. Three-stage model based evaluation of local residents’ acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration project under construction: A Chinese perspective. Waste Manag. 2021, 121, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Ghimire, M.; Pandey, S.; Woo, J. Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception in public-private partnerships for waste-to-energy projects: A case study of Nepal. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2024, 79, 101414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. He, K.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, Y. Rural households’ willingness to accept compensation for energy utilization of crop straw in China. Energy 2018, 165, 562–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hobbs, S.; Morton, E.V.; Barclay, N.; Landis, A. Sustainability Approach: Food Waste-to-Energy Solutions for Small Rural Developing Communities. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. Annu. Rev. 2018, 13, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hou, G.; Chen, T.; Ma, K.; Liao, Z.; Xia, H.; Yao, T. Improving Social Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators in China: Role of Place Attachment, Trust, and Fairness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Jin, S.; Wang, Y.; Qian, X.; Zhou, J.; Nie, Y.; Qian, G. A signaling game approach of siting conflict mediation for the construction of waste incineration facilities under information asymmetry. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 335, 130178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kong, F.; Chen, S.; Gou, J. How Does Differential Public Participation Influence Outcome Justice in Energy Transitions? Evidence from a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Project in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Lahl, U.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Prerequisites for Public Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Plants: Evidence from Germany and Indonesia. Makara J. Technol. 2018, 22, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Lee, J.-h.; Shin, K.-h.; Park, J.-m.; Kim, C.-g.; Cho, K.-j. Subjectivity Analysis of Underground Incinerators: Focus on Academic and Industry Experts. Land 2021, 10, 1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Liu, Y.; Sun, C.; Xia, B.; Liu, S.; Skitmore, M.; Yang, D. Identification of Risk Factors Affecting PPP Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects in China: A Multiple Case Study. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 4983523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Lu, J.; Rong, D.; Lev, B.; Liang, M.; Zhang, C.; Gao, Y. Constraints affecting the promotion of waste incineration power generation project in China: A perspective of improved technology acceptance model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 186, 122165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Martinat, S.; Navratil, J.; Trojan, J.; Frantal, B.; Klusacek, P.; Pasqualetti, M.J. Interpreting regional and local diversities of the social acceptance of agricultural AD plants in the rural space of the Moravian-Silesian Region (Czech Republic). Rend. Lincei 2017, 28, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Martinát, S.; Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J.; Kulla, M.; Navrátil, J.; Klusáček, P.; Dvořák, P.; Novotný, L.; Krejčí, T.; Pregi, L.; Trojan, J.; et al. Best Practice Forever? Dynamics behind the Perception of Farm-Fed Anaerobic Digestion Plants in Rural Peripheries. Energies 2022, 15, 2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Martinát, S.; Cowell, R.; Navrátil, J. Rich or poor? Who actually lives in proximity to AD plants in Wales? Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 143, 105799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Mazzanti, M.; Modica, M.; Rampa, A. The biogas dilemma: An analysis on the social approval of large new plants. Waste Manag. 2021, 133, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Niang, A.; Torre, A.; Bourdin, S. How do local actors coordinate to implement a successful biogas project? Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 136, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Nketiah, E.; Song, H.; Obuobi, B.; Adu-Gyamfi, G.; Adjei, M.; Cudjoe, D. Citizens’ willingness to pay for local anaerobic digestion energy: The influence of altruistic value and knowledge. Energy 2022, 260, 125168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Pérez, V.; Mota, C.R.; Muñoz, R.; Lebrero, R. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) production from biogas in waste treatment facilities: Assessing the potential impacts on economy, environment and society. Chemosphere 2020, 255, 126929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Phillips, K.J.O.; Longhurst, P.J.; Wagland, S.T. Assessing the perception and reality of arguments against thermal waste treatment plants in terms of property prices. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Qiao, Y.; Wang, J. An intuitionistic fuzzy site selection decision framework for waste-to-energy projects from the perspective of "Not In My Backyard" risk. AIMS Math. 2023, 8, 3676–3698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Quan, X.; Quan, X.; Zuo, G.; Zuo, G. An Empirical Study of Public Response to a Waste-to-Energy Plant in China: Effects of Knowledge, Risk, Benefit and Systematic Processing. J. Syst. Sci. Inf. 2022, 10, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ribeiro, B.E.; Quintanilla, M.A. Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2015, 92, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Roach, I. Examining public understanding of the environmental effects of an energy-from-waste facility. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2013, 31, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Schumacher, K.; Schultmann, F. Local Acceptance of Biogas Plants: A Comparative Study in the Trinational Upper Rhine Region. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 2393–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Song, J.; Song, D.; Zhang, D. Modeling the Concession Period and Subsidy for BOT Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Subiza-Pérez, M.; Zabala, A.; Groten, D.; Vozmediano, L.; Juan, C.S.; Ibarluzea, J. Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: Health, politics and environmental impacts. J. Risk Res. 2023, 26, 1101–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tehupeiory, A.; Septiariva, I.Y.; Suryawan, I.W.K. Evaluating Community Preferences for Waste-to-Energy Development in Jakarta: An Analysis Using the Choice Experiment Method. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2023, 10, 809–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Upham, P.; Jones, C. Don’t lock me in: Public opinion on the prospective use of waste process heat for district heating. Appl. Energy 2012, 89, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. van Dijk, M.; Goedegebure, R.; Nap, J.-P. Public acceptance of biomass for bioenergy: The need for feedstock differentiation and communicating a waste utilization frame. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 202, 114670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Wan, X.; Luo, X.; Su, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, R. Influence of Stakeholder Identities on Unfairness Perception of Local Residents toward Public Facilities: Neurocognition Evidence from the Case of Waste-to-Energy Projects in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2024, 40, 04024037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wu, Y.; Qin, L.; Xu, C.; Ji, S. Site Selection of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Plant considering Public Satisfaction by an Extended VIKOR Method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 5213504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Xexakis, G.; Trutnevyte, E. Model-based scenarios of EU27 electricity supply are not aligned with the perspectives of French, German, and Polish citizens. Renew. Sustain. Energy Transit. 2022, 2, 100031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Xu, X.; Wu, Q.; Huang, Y.; Dong, C.; Feng, C. Examining behavioral strategies of residents and enterprises in the context of subsidy phase-outs for waste incineration power plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 443, 141077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Xue, M.; Zhao, J.; Hua, C.; Shen, H. Residents’ intention to take collective action through participation in not-in-my-backyard protests in China. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2021, 49, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Yamane, T.; Kaneko, S. Exploring the impact of awareness on public acceptance of emerging energy technologies: An analysis of the oil palm industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 414, 137593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yang, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, X.; Fu, L.; Guo, Q. Bayesian-Based NIMBY Crisis Transformation Path Discovery for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Yu, S.; Lew, V.; Ma, W.; Bao, Z.; Hao, J.L. Unlocking key factors affecting utilization of biomass briquettes in Africa through SWOT and analytic hierarchy process: A case of Madagascar. Fuel 2022, 323, 124298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Yuan, X.; Fan, X.; Liang, J.; Liu, M.; Teng, Y.; Ma, Q.; Wang, Q.; Mu, R.; Zuo, J. Public Perception towards Waste-to-Energy as a Waste Management Strategy: A Case from Shandong, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Zabaniotou, A.; Fytili, D.; Lakioti, Ε.; Karayannis, V. Transition to bioenergy: Engineering and technology undergraduate students’ perceptions of and readiness for agricultural waste-based bioenergy in Greece. Glob. Transit. 2019, 1, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Zander, K.; Christoph-Schulz, I.; Bürgelt, D. Biogas production and society: Evidence from Germany. In Know Your Food; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 89–94. [Google Scholar]
  172. Zeng, J.; Duan, H.; Zhou, Z.; Song, J. Seeking information about waste-to-energy incineration projects: The role of objective knowledge and benefit perceptions in an extended PRISM. Risk Anal. 2024, 44, 1743–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Zeng, J.; Li, M.; Pu, X.; Liu, L. Exploring the effects of information insufficiency on residents’ intention to seek information about waste-to-energy incineration projects. J. Risk Res. 2023, 26, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhai, K. Identifying the Predictors of Community Acceptance of Waste Incineration Plants in Urban China: A Qualitative Analysis from a Public Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Zhao, H.; Ge, Y.; Zhang, J. Evaluation on the implementation effect of public participation in the decision-making of NIMBY facilities. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Zhao, R.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, M.; Liu, X. Public Risk Perception Towards Power Generation by Municipal Waste Incineration. In Advanced Integrated Approaches to Environmental Economics and Policy; Advances in Finance, Accounting, and Economics; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 87–104. [Google Scholar]
  177. Zheng, J.; Yu, L.; Ma, G.; Mi, H.; Jiao, Y. Residents’ acceptance towards waste-to-energy facilities: Formation, diffusion and policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g001
Figure 1. Waste-to-energy technologies and their products.
Figure 1. Waste-to-energy technologies and their products.
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g001
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g002
Figure 2. Waste-to-energy literature review framework.
Figure 2. Waste-to-energy literature review framework.
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g002
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g003
Figure 3. Selection process for literature review.
Figure 3. Selection process for literature review.
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g003
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g004
Figure 4. Geographical distribution of WtE literature on social acceptability. (Figure generated by authors using Microsoft Excel).
Figure 4. Geographical distribution of WtE literature on social acceptability. (Figure generated by authors using Microsoft Excel).
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g004
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g005
Figure 5. Trends in year of publication.
Figure 5. Trends in year of publication.
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g005
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g006
Figure 6. Factors affecting the acceptability of waste-to-energy projects. Blue-colored texts are the most frequent factors.
Figure 6. Factors affecting the acceptability of waste-to-energy projects. Blue-colored texts are the most frequent factors.
Cleantechnol 07 00063 g006
Table 1. The journals with the most publications.
Table 1. The journals with the most publications.
RankTitle Total PublicationsPercentage
1Waste Management1110%
2Journal of Cleaner Production109%
3–4Energy44%
5–8Environmental Impact Assessment Review44%
5–8Technological Forecasting and Social Change33%
5–8Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessment33%
5–8Energies33%
Table 2. Top 10 most-cited journals.
Table 2. Top 10 most-cited journals.
RankTitleTotal Citations
1Waste Management558
2Journal of Cleaner Production289
3Resources, Conservation and Recycling190
4International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering141
5Energy108
6Habitat International100
7Environmental Impact Assessment Review92
8Sustainable Cities and Society89
9Technological Forecasting and Social Change88
10Sustainability85
Table 3. Top 12 most productive institutions.
Table 3. Top 12 most productive institutions.
RankInstitutionDocuments
1Zhejiang Sci-Tech University13
2Queensland University of Technology10
3North China Institute of Science and Technology8
4Aristotle University7
5Bond University5
6–10Cranfield University4
6–10East China Normal University4
6–10Xiamen University4
6–10Tongji University4
6–10University of Technology Sydney4
11–12Nanjing University of Science & Technology3
11–12Hefei University of Technology3
Table 4. Top 10 most-cited institutions.
Table 4. Top 10 most-cited institutions.
RankInstitutionCitations
1Zhejiang Sci-Tech University393
2Queensland University of Technology357
3Aristotle University324
4North China Institute of Science and Technology321
5Cranfield University197
6Tongji University167
7East China Normal University154
8Nottingham Trent University138
9Xiamen University119
10Hefei University of Technology111
Table 5. Top seven most productive authors.
Table 5. Top seven most productive authors.
RankAuthorDocuments
1Liu Y.13
2–3Cui C.10
2–3Xia B.10
4Skitmore M.9
5–7Ke Y.4
5–7Vlachokostas C.4
5–7Xu M.4
Table 6. Top 10 most-cited authors.
Table 6. Top 10 most-cited authors.
RankAuthorCitations
1Liu Y.400
2Xia B.357
3Vlachokostas C.270
4Moussiopoulos N.266
5Skitmore M.248
6Sun CJY.168
7–8Garnett K.138
7–8Cooper T.138
9Ge YJ.131
10Jiang X113
Table 7. Technologies that analyzed the acceptability of waste-to-energy.
Table 7. Technologies that analyzed the acceptability of waste-to-energy.
RankTechnologyTotal DocumentsPercentage
1Incineration7266%
2Anaerobic digestion4642%
3Gasification76%
4Pyrolysis66%
5–6Refuse-derived fuel22%
5–6Landfill with gas recovery22%
Table 8. Comparison of waste-to-energy technologies.
Table 8. Comparison of waste-to-energy technologies.
Technology/
Feedstocks		Environmental
Impacts 		Sustainability
Conditions		Energy
Efficiency		Economic
Feasibility		Sources
Incineration
MSW, medical waste,
hazardous waste,
sewage sludge		(+) Reduction in waste volume and GHG emissions compared to landfilling; energy and resource recovery
(−) Emission of harmful pollutants
(particulate matter, heavy metals,
dioxins, furans, other gaseous
pollutants), GHG, fly ash, and bottom ash; environmental and human health risks, social acceptance 		Implementing stringent emission standards, waste management
policies, R&D, and M&E
Sustainable feedstock management and flue gas treatment
Integrating incineration into the
circular economy principles
Community engagement and
transparency		<80%
(heat recovery)
<40%
(electricity)
<60%
(combined)		High[66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]
Anaerobic
digestion
Agricultural and food-
related wastes, wastewater sludge		(+) Reduction in food and other agricultural wastes,
energy production, nutrient
cycling, improved soil health
(−) GHG emissions, acidification, eutrophication, the formation of
photochemical oxidants		Process optimization through heat recovery, co-digestion, and
pre-treatment
GHG emissions and pathogen
reduction, and digestate
management		<50%Moderate[74,75,76,77,78,79]
Gasification
MSW, biomass,
carbonaceous wastes		(+) Produces syngas, lower GHG and pollutant emissions,
reduction in hazardous and toxic
by-products
(−) Pollutant emissions, soil and water contamination, high energy
consumption, health risks		Feedstock selection and
characterization; syngas cleaning and utilization
Flue gas recirculation to improve
efficiency; integration with other technologies; optimization of
operational parameters		<70%High[80,81,82,83,84,85,86]
Pyrolysis
Biomass, plastic wastes		(+) Converts waste to valuable
products, reduce hazardous waste,
minimized emissions, mitigation of
plastic pollution
(−) Emission of air pollutants, energy-
intensive, and potential toxicity		Feedstocks diversification to reduce environmental impacts
Process optimization to improve yield and efficiency
Integration with other technologies
to improve energy efficiency
Recovery of by-products and integration into the circular economy		<90%High[65,87,88,89,90]
Refuse-derived fuel
MSW,
industrial wastes		(+) Waste volume reduction,
lower heavy metal concentrations and reduced GHG emissions compared to
incineration
(−) Pollutant emissions,
competes with recycling		Thermal treatments to reduce
moisture content and enhance
production efficiency
Technology integration to improve carbon conversion efficiency and reduce environmental hazards		-Moderate[91,92,93,94,95,96]
Landfill with gas recovery
MSW, sewage sludge,
agricultural wastes,
food-related wastes		(+) Reduces GHG emissions,
produces renewable energy
(−) Incomplete gas capture;
residual emission of GHG and other harmful gases
Soil and groundwater contamination from leachates
Degradation of local ecosystems		Ensuring the efficiency of gas
recovery
Effective leachate management
Promoting resource recovery and contributing to a circular economy		<90%
(methane capture)		Moderate[97,98,99,100,101]
Table 9. The top seven most common factors affecting the acceptability of waste-to-energy technologies.
Table 9. The top seven most common factors affecting the acceptability of waste-to-energy technologies.
RankTechnologyTotal DocumentsPercentage
1Perceived risks2927%
2Trust2321%
3Attitudes2119%
4Perceived benefits1817%
5NIMBY1715%
6Awareness1514%
7Knowledge1110%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agaton, C.B.; Santos, M.J.A. Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors. Clean Technol. 2025, 7, 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7030063

AMA Style

Agaton CB, Santos MJA. Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors. Clean Technologies. 2025; 7(3):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7030063

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agaton, Casper Boongaling, and Marween Joshua A. Santos. 2025. "Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors" Clean Technologies 7, no. 3: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7030063

APA Style

Agaton, C. B., & Santos, M. J. A. (2025). Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors. Clean Technologies, 7(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7030063

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop