Progress in Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Technologies in a Circular Economy: A Systematic Review

Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability Citation Agaton, C. B., Santos, M. J. A., & Calvelo, J. A. S. (2025). Progress in Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Technologies in a Circular Economy: A Systematic Review. Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability, 3(1), 6. doi: 10.56237/jhes-25-018 Corresponding Authors Janssen Andrew S. Calvelo Email [email protected] Academic Editors Caroline D. Piñon Maria Emilinda T. Mendoza Received: 04 August 2025 Revised: 22 September 2025 Accepted: 25 October 2025 Published: 28 October 2025 ©The Author(s) 2025. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Review Progress in Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Technologies in a Circular Economy: A Systematic Review Casper Boongaling Agaton , Marween Joshua A. Santos , and Janssen Andrew S. Calvelo Department of Community and Environmental Resource Planning, College of Human Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños 4031, Laguna, Philippines Abstract Waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies offer a promising solution to issues in solid waste management and energy sustainability. These technologies play a key role in a circular economy by converting non-recyclable waste into usable electricity, heat, and biofuels. Despite the benefits, its widespread adoption, particularly in developing countries, is challenged by several factors. This review analyzes the socio-economic and environmental impacts on the acceptability of WtE technologies. The initial search from Scopus identified 1533 unique documents, and the refinement resulted in 292 records for data analysis. Applying a systematic literature review, the analysis revealed a mixed public perception due to the perceived environmental and health risks, government and private project implementer transparency, public attitudes, and the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) effect. While they can cause economic disruptions in tourism, agriculture, and small businesses due to industrial expansion, communities can benefit from the creation of job opportunities, the building of public infrastructures, tipping fees, increased economic activities, and reduced costs for solid waste management using alternative solutions. Compared to landfilling, WtE’s environmental impacts are reduced air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to landfilling, conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, water contamination risks, land use, and soil quality issues. Among the WtE technologies, anaerobic digestion (AD) is the most acceptable, incineration is the most economically feasible, followed by pyrolysis and gasification, while AD, pyrolysis, and gasification have low environmental impacts. The interrelated factors revealed the interaction of the perceived socioeconomic and environmental impacts on the social acceptability of WtE technologies. The findings provide recommendations for future research as well as policies supporting the adoption of WtE as a circular economy technology for more sustainable and inclusive communities. Keywords— circular economy, human ecology, municipal solid waste management, sustainable development, waste-to-energy 1 1 Introduction Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is one of the pressing challenges nowadays for environmentalists, planners, and policymakers due to rapid population growth, urbanization, scarcity of land resources, and unsustainable consumption patterns. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) report, MSW generation is predicted to grow from 2.3 billion tonnes in 2023 to 3.8 billion tonnes by 2050, which will increase the cost (including externalities) from USD 361 billion to USD 640.3 billion if no urgent actions are taken [1]. Without proper management, MSW may pose risks to human and environmental health. Uncollected organic waste from bins and open dumps produces odor and attracts rodents, insects, and pests that transmit various kinds of diseases to humans, while leachates can contaminate underground and surface waters [2]. Studies in the last three decades also show that MSW stands as a substantial source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which significantly contributes to the larger issue of climate change [3]. Moreover, mismanaged MSW implies an underutilized resource for recycling and energy generation as well as lost economic opportunities [4]. One of the promising solutions to address MSW management problems is the system of circular economy (CE). This system involves the minimization of raw materials inputs of raw materials, reduction of waste outputs, and reintegration of products back to the economy when they reach the end of their life [5]. Integrating CE principles into MSW management creates a sustainable pathway that reduces waste generation and transforms waste into new products, which in turn, helps to reduce environmental footprint, create employment, and support the growth of ecofriendly economies [6]. This integration provides several benefits, such as minimizing resource depletion, energy consumption, and environmental pollution; stimulating innovation; creating new business models; generating employment opportunities; and reducing MSW management costs through resource efficiency, cost savings from waste disposal, and the creation of secondary markets for recyclable materials [7]. Yet, transitioning to CE faces several barriers. This transition needs transdisciplinary collaboration and co-creation among governments, the private sector, academe, and communities, highlighting the crucial role of education, technological maturity, and strict policy implementation [8]. Another factor is the consumers’ knowledge, awareness, and behavior, which hold a crucial role in the success of circular MSW management practices, as they can significantly influence the transition’s effectiveness [9]. Other challenges include infrastructure limitations, public awareness gaps, and the need for innovative technologies and policies to effectively manage and reuse materials [10,11]. Waste-to-energy (WtE) addresses CE challenges in MSW management by transforming nonrecyclable waste into usable materials and energy, which reduces reliance on landfills and promotes resource efficiency, aligning with the CE’s principles of resource conservation and waste minimization [12,13]. WtE is among the well-investigated and optimized technologies in MSW management strategies as it enables the recovery of energy as heat and electricity and facilitates the ‘cleaning’ of cycles by the destruction of hazardous organic substances [14]. Among the WtE technologies are incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion (AD), and landfill with gas recovery. WtE, as part of CE, creates additional benefits such as the reduction of the volume of waste sent to landfills, generation of usable energy from waste materials, recovery of valuable materials from waste streams, and reduction of GHG emissions compared to landfilling and fossil fuel-based energy production [15,16,17]. Despite the benefits, WtE technologies also face several challenges, including high overnight costs, emission control, and the need for robust waste management infrastructure, as well as potential environmental and health risks [18,19,20,21]. This gives an impetus to analyze the impacts and address the challenges to further support the adoption of WtE as a CE strategy in MSW management. In recent decades, several studies have analyzed the impacts of WtE, ranging from the technological aspect to economic feasibility and environmental benefits. Review papers summarize Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 2 this progress from different points of view. For example, Kumar and Samadder [22] compared the different WtE technology options for effective management of MSW. Makarichi et al. [23] analyzed the evolution of WtE incineration to evaluate the progress made in solving problems, past and present concerns, and prospects in the industry. Hoang et al. [12] categorized WtE technologies into direct and indirect approaches, taking the CE perspective. Vlachokostas et al. [24] reviewed the way, the scope, and the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for WtE management strategies and decision-making processes, such as economic, technological, environmental, social, and political aspects. Rasheed et al. [25] presented a framework for the evaluation, valorization, and emerging perspective of biomass-based WtE technologies and their socio-environmental impact. More recently, Brunner and Morf [14] discussed the historical development of WtE as an essential cornerstone for a CE. Agaton and Santos [26] analyzed the research hotspots, technologies, impacts, and factors affecting the public acceptance of WtE technologies. Furthermore, Adu et al. [27] analyzed the applications of Decision Support Systems (DSS) that balance the environmental, socio-economic, and technical dimensions of WtE technology selection and implementation, particularly MCDA, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This review aims to contribute to the literature by analyzing the impacts of WtE from social, economic, and environmental perspectives. Reviewing recent progress in socioeconomic and environmental impacts is crucial in understanding the benefits and challenges of WtE adoption, evaluating waste management and energy policies, advancing technological options for CE, addressing public concerns and acceptance of WtE technologies, and supporting the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, this paper aims to review the social acceptability of WtE, its economic costs and benefits, and its environmental impacts. To achieve these goals, a background on different WtE technologies is presented in the context of a CE first. A systematic literature review is applied to analyze the socioeconomic and environmental impacts and how they affect the social acceptability of WtE technologies. The findings of this review provide a basis for further research and policies supporting the adoption of WtE as a CE technology addressing issues of municipal solid waste management and energy security. 2 Waste-to-Energy Technologies in a Circular Economy A circular economy (CE) refers to an economic system that eliminates waste through the continuous utilization of resources as long as possible through practices such as repairing, reusing, recycling, and upcycling. Compared to the traditional linear model of “take-make-dispose”, CE promotes sustainability andreduces theenvironmental impactsofeconomicactivities[28]. InMSWmanagement, CE focuses on waste reduction, maximizing resource utilization, and promoting the reuse, recycling, and recovery of materials rather than disposal [29]. Hence, this approach shifts from the traditional linear model to a closed-loop system, aiming for a zero-waste and more resource-efficient economy. WtE complements the CE as a strategy for managing residual waste that can no longer be used, recycled, or composted. In a CE, the goal is to keep resources in use for as long as possible by returning the waste to the economy [30]. The waste hierarchy, Reduce →Reuse →Recycle →Recover →Dispose, guides how materials should flow [31]. As shown in Figure 1, WtE sits at the "recover" stage. This implies that WtE is not an ultimate solution to MSW management but a valuable endof-pipe solution for waste that can no longer be used or recycled. WtE aligns with CE through reduction of dependence on landfills while also decreasing greenhouse gas emissions (methane) and resource covery such as biogas, soil nutrients, and valuable metals [14,32,33]. When integrated thoughtfully in the CE, WtE supports a sustainable, more resource-efficient waste management system [8]. WtE involves a number of technologies and strategies ranging from biological treatment to thermal treatment to landfilling. Table 1summarizes the different feedstocks and products of conventional WtE technologies. Among the thermal treatment WtE technologies, incineration is Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 3 Figure 1. Waste-to-energy processes for municipal solid waste in a circular economy the most common and widely used worldwide due to its high efficiency, lower investment costs, and ability to burn different types of waste [18]. This technology employs the direct combustion of municipal solid waste to produce steam, which powers turbines to generate electricity [34]. On the other hand, this may discourage other CE processes (reduce, reuse, recycle) if utilized to burn all types of waste. If not properly treated, the technology may also release flue gas pollutants such as nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrochloric acid, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide [35]. Another thermal treatment technology is gasification, which involves a partial oxidation of plastic waste, industrial waste, biomass, and carbonaceous wastes at high temperatures to produce synthetic gas (syngas), which can be used for electricity generation or as a chemical feedstock [36]. This technology is cleaner than incineration as it produces minimal pollutants. However, the syngas produced has a lower calorific value and a potential for GHG emissions [37]. Plasma gasification is a specialized type of gasification that uses extremely high temperatures to decompose hazardous wastes, particularly medical wastes, into syngas [38]. Pyrolysis is another thermal treatment that decomposes plastic wastes and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, such as paper waste and biomass, in the absence of oxygen to produce biochar, bio-oil, and syngas [39]. These valuable products can be used in various industrial, agricultural, and environmental applications. Table 1. Feedstocks and products of WtE technologies Technology Feedstocks Products Energy Output Incineration Mixed MSW, hazardous waste, sewage sludge Electricity, heat High Anaerobic Digestion Agriculture and food waste, animal manure, sludge Biogas, digestate, compost Moderate Pyrolysis Plastic waste, paper waste, biomass Bio-oil, syngas, char Moderate Gasification Plastic waste, industrial waste, biomass, carbonaceous wastes Syngas, metals, vitrified ash High Landfill with gas recovery Mixed MSW, sewage sludge, agricultural wastes, food-related wastes Biogas, recovered materials Low Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 4 Although incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification are widely considered as favorable waste management strategies, they pose several challenges in integration with CE. If treated as a standalone solution, these strategies have been found to cause material loss, which undermines recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing efforts as valuable wastes are eliminated instead of achieving true circularity [40,41,42]. Moreover, energy recovery processes often result in by-products that are difficult to integrate into the same production cycles [43]. Resource loss and lack of circularity are counter to the principle of CE in maximizing resource efficiency and reducing waste. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological treatment that breaks down organic waste, such as agriculture and food wastes, animal manure, and sludge, by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen [44]. The process produces biogas, particularly methane, which can be used for heat or electricity generation, while the digestate and dried sludge can be used as liquid and solid fertilizers [45]. Forlandfilling, thegas, particularlymethane, produced from theanaerobicdigestion oforganic wastes in landfills, is captured and converted into energy [46]. Another byproduct of landfilling is its leachate, which can be further treated using anaerobic digestion to reduce the footprint of landfills while producing renewable energy from liquid waste [47]. 3 Systematic Literature Review This study applies a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive analysis of the literature on socioeconomic and environmental impacts of WtE and how these impacts affect the social acceptability of WtE technologies. A systematic literature review is a methodology that collects, identifies, and critically analyzes the extant literature through a systematic procedure, aiming to provide the reader with the current state of a subject and presenting point for further examination [48]. Following previous studies [26,49], this review combines the advantages of various systematic literature review methods to present a more inclusive view of the literature, identify the research gaps, and provide recommendations for policies and future research directions. As shown in Figure 2, the steps for the selection process for the literature review include (1) sample preparation, (2) data extraction, (3) data refinement, and (d) systematic review. In the sample preparation, the literature search was limited to the following inclusion criteria: (i) socioeconomic and environmental impacts were analyzed, (ii) WtE technologies process MSW, (iii) at least one of the WtE technologies was analyzed, and (iv) must not have been published earlier than 2016. The main reason for this is to focus only on the recent progress and advancements in WtE technologies and their acceptability in the current environment. However, relevant studies beyond the target range were added in the discussions. The following keywords were used in the database search: ‘waste-to-energy’ AND ‘social acceptability’ OR ‘social impacts’ OR ‘environmental impacts’ or ‘economic impacts or ‘feasibility’. The data collection was conducted in June 2025 using Scopus data search. The data was limited to Scopus database due to its comprehensive, highquality content covering diverse academic disciplines from its rigorous indexing of peer-reviewed literature, and global coverage providing a broad overview of the research landscape. The initial search identified 2283 documents from Scopus. Upon the removal of 750 duplicates, 1533 documents were left for the next step. The data were refined based on the following exclusion criteria: (i) records before 2016, (ii) not full articles such as conference proceedings, lectures, and chapters without complete analysis, (iii) review articles, (iv) studies not analyzing any of the WtE technologies, and (v) no impacts were analyzed such as social, economic, and environmental. Studies published later than 2016 were extracted to ensure that recent progress and advancements in WtE technologies and their acceptability in the current environment were analyzed. The data refinement excluded a total of 1241 documents, resulting in a total of 292 records included in the review. Finally, these records were analyzed in terms of the barriers and enablers of social acceptability, economic costs and benefits, positive and negative environmental impacts, and the interrelated impacts on social acceptability of WtE technologies. Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 5 Figure 2. Selection process for the systematic literature review 4 Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts of Waste-to-Energy 4.1 Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy The success of the MSW management strategy and technology project does not solely depend on technical performance or economic feasibility but also hinges on public acceptance, particularly in the affected community [50]. Studying the social acceptability of WtE is equally important to ensure that WtE projects are not only feasible but also accepted by the communities. As shown in Table 2, there are several factors affecting the acceptability of WtE technologies, which can enable or challenge the WtE adoption. 4.1.1 Enabling Factors for Social Acceptability The social acceptability of WtE facilities depends on a variety of enabling factors that shape public attitudes, trust, and willingness to coexist with WtE facilities. Successful public acceptance is crucial for the sustainable implementation and operation of WtE projects because, despite their environmental benefits, WtE plants often face community opposition due to perceived risks and local impacts. Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 6 Table 2. Feedstocks and products of WtE technologies Technology Social Acceptability Enabling Factors Challenges Incineration Low to Moderate Government support, awareness campaigns, economic and environmental gains Public resistance, air pollutant emissions, health risk perception Anaerobic Digestion High Lower emissions, renewable energy production, economic viability in regions with organic waste Initial setup costs, need for consistent organic waste supply Pyrolysis Low Potential for high energy recovery High capital and operational costs, technical complexity Gasification Low High energy efficiency, potential for cleaner energy High costs, technical challenges, public skepticism Landfill with Gas Recovery Moderate to High Cost-effective, reduces greenhouse gas emissions Limited to areas with existing landfill infrastructure, potential odor issues Given that widespread skepticism caused by the limited knowledge about the projects’ potential health and environmental issues is prevalent, public acceptance is a critical factor for WtE’s success [51]. For instance, Ren et al. [52] studied the connection between public acceptance and risk perception and found a significant statistical relationship, indicating that public acceptance can be improved with increased awareness and risk communication. Health consciousness and understanding of environmental impacts play a role in shaping positive attitudes towards WtE projects [53]. People who are more health-conscious and knowledgeable about environmental pollutants tend to be more concerned about potential risks from WtE emissions. However, when they also understand the strict regulations, advanced emission controls, and scientific consensus showing minimal health risks from modern, well-managed WtE plants, their anxiety reduces. Hence, effective communication of health safety data can then transform concern into acceptance because individuals feel reassured about their well-being and that of their community. Alazaiza et al. [54] identified that higher educational institutions have a crucial responsibility in increasing public understanding and awareness of solid waste management, which can serve as their foundation for acceptance towards WtE projects. As residents become more informed about the project, they tend to realize more advantages and fewer potential risks [55]. Moreover, public awareness functions as a foundation for the success of MSW management practices and the development of a CE [56]. Another factor enabling the social acceptability of WtE is the socio-economic status, including potential income from WtE projects and the community’s ability to see economic opportunities. For instance, the education level and potential income from the project were identified as the most determining factors for developing and implementing WtE in Indonesia [57]. The public is more likely to favor the implementation of WtE projects if they see direct or indirect economic advantages, such as job creation, local investment, and income generation linked to the WtE facility. Meanwhile, educated and economically better-off populations tend to understand the potential benefits better and are more willing to support or participate in such projects. Government trust is another factor that enables the adoption of WtE projects by shaping how Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 7 communities perceive risk, fairness, and the legitimacy of project processes. Trust in governmental institutions mediates public attitudes toward WtE by influencing confidence in authorities’ competence, transparency, and fairness in managing environmental and health risks associated with such facilities. For instance, Huang et al. [58] identified that social trust is a central factor underlying the acceptance of residents near a WtE plant in China. Trust in the local government strongly correlated with more favorable attitudes toward the project, even among individuals who acknowledged risks. On the other hand, the lack of trust amplified perceived risks and intensified opposition [58]. Hence, trust influenced public perceptions of risk and economic impact, acting as a psychological buffer that reduces uncertainty and mitigates emotional responses to potential hazards of WtE operations. Moreover, government trust affects acceptance through social capital or the networks and norms of cooperation in a community, which helps to build a shared understanding and collective support for WtE initiatives. When the government, the private sectors, and experts engage the communities, involve them in the planning and implementation processes, and communicate to the public about the benefits and risks of such projects, public trust is established, which enhances the attitude towards public acceptance of technologies [50,53]. 4.1.2 Challenges in Social Acceptability While WtE can reduce reliance on landfilling and generate renewable energy, it also involves the combustionofwaste, which can raise concernsabout airand waterpollution, as wellas thepotential for ash disposal. These issues are often exacerbated by misinformation and a lack of transparency, which can lead to strong public opposition, even in areas where WtE may offer significant advantages. Among the most common factors are perceptions about the risks, government trust, attitudes towards the technology, perceived benefits, “Not-In-My-BackYard” (NIMBY) syndrome, awareness of the project, and knowledge [26]. Although public perceptions of WtE, especially its benefits, can be a key factor in enhancing social acceptability, risk perceptions can also be a challenging aspect. For instance, Huang et al. [58] showed that risk perception is one of the underlying reasons for local acceptance of wasteincineration plants. In China, the risk perception threshold was shown to have a significant effect on the behavioral choices of communities living near WtE projects, and residents are more likely to be against WtE facilities if the perceived risks reach these thresholds [59]. Poorly managed WtE facilities tend to emit toxins such as dioxins/furans and heavy metals, which have serious potential health risks, leading to cancer and non-cancer diseases [60]. The by-products of these toxins also contribute to environmental risks, as there are also concerns about the safe management and disposal of bottom ash and other combustion by-products [60]. Moreover, Tait et al. [61]identified a range of adverse health impacts, including significant associations with some neoplasia, congenital anomalies, infant deaths, and miscarriage. Subiza-Pérez et al. [62] also stated that communities fear that these facilities will negatively affect the quality of air and water, which will eventually lead to broader ecological damage. These findings significantly influence social acceptability and often ignite opposition to WtE projects. The risk of NIMBY syndrome also poses a significant challenge in gaining social acceptance of WtE. Devine-Wright [63] referred NIMBY as the local opposition to infrastructure developments like WtE, which they perceive as undesirable because of its negative effects. The risk of NIMBY encapsulates the negative externalities from the construction and operation of WtE projects, where all of society shares the benefits while the external costs are shouldered by the members in the area where it is located [26]. Poor government decision-making, lack of public participation, and proximity to residences were identified as key factors contributing to NIMBY syndrome in WtE projects in China [58]. Xu et al. [64] also added that property loss, health, and ecological risks are also part of the factors to be considered in NIMBY facilities. Nevertheless, NIMBY syndrome can be converted into Please-In-My-Backyard (PIMBY) attitudes by providing substantive compensation Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 8 andmeaning-makingactions[65]. Moreover,thelackofgovernmentsupport, insufficientincentives, regulatory burdens, weak policies, and limited innovation capacity are also considerable nonfinancial barriers hindering the adoption of WtE technologies [66]. In the Philippines, policy gaps and conflicts exist between the current waste management framework which puts heavy emphasis on waste minimization, and the renewable energy framework, which explicitly promotes WtE technologies [67]. 4.2 Economic Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Economic feasibility of WtE is conducted to assess whether these technologies can be a financially sustainable, scalable, and practical strategy for MSW management [68]. While WtE offers several benefits to addressing energy security and environmental issues, it also involves significant capital, operational, and maintenance costs. Evaluating its economic viability ensures that WtE investments deliver long-term value to communities, local government units, and the private sector [69]. Beyond the financial perspective, WtE projects offer positive and negative externalities as shown in Table 3, which may affect the adoption of WtE technologies. Table 3. Feedstocks and products of WtE technologies Technology Economic Benefits Economic Costs Economic Feasibility Incineration High High Moderate to high Anaerobic Digestion Low Low to moderate High Pyrolysis High High High Gasification High High Moderate Landfill with Gas Recovery Low Low to moderate Low 4.2.1 Economic Benefits of Waste-to-Energy WtE technologies offer significant economic advantages. One of the most important benefits provided by WtE is converting municipal solid waste into heat or electricity, which addresses both energysecurityandMSWmanagementneeds [70]. Energygenerationisnotmerelyatechnicalresult but also a significant economic driver for Waste-to-Energy systems. Wang et al. [71] studied the energy potential from manure-basedbiogasin China and concluded thatthe energymay providefor 4-5% of the country’s total energy demand in 2017. Longfor et al. [72] also looked into the economic potential of biomass WtE and estimated that it could supply up to 38.9% of Cameroon’s electricity needs. Studies have also shown the possibility of rural electrification by applying biowaste in resilient energy systems designs that can provide energy in remote communities [73]. In the case of the Philippines, too much dependence on imported fuels for energy generation and high electricity tariffs provide additional incentive to utilize WtE as an alternative energy source [74,75]. Waste-to-Energy can also be beneficial to the economy through cost savings and revenue generation. Saha and Naidoo [66] investigated the utilization of WtE in South Africa and suggested that anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis could lessen waste management costs and generate revenue streams. Through WtE, the purchase of local goods and services, along with the payment of fees and taxes, continuously pumps revenues into the local economy [65]. Aside from direct financial advantages, WtE also contributes to a wider lens of economic development through the creation of jobs and providing support for local supply chains [76]. WtE contributes to the creation of new job opportunities within the fields of waste and renewable energy [66]. Saatchi et al. [77] also highlighted the creation of green jobs throughout the separate phases in the life cycle of waste, including transport, sorting, energy generation, and maintenance. Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 9 Statements and Declarations Funding Information This research received funding from the DCERP Urban Lab. Acknowledgment 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. The authors are also thankful to the support from the Local Government Unit of Bay, Laguna. Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Ethical Considerations Not applicable. Data Availability Not applicable. Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence The authors used Scopus AI to verify systematic analysis, Grammarly to verify grammatical errors and critique the sentence as concisely as possible, and Turnitin for plagiarism, similarity index, and AI detection. After using these tools, the authors reviewed and edited the manuscript as needed and assume full responsibility for the content of the publication. Author Contributions C.B.A.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing - original draft, supervision, and visualization. M.J.A.S.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data acuration, writing - original draft, and visualization. J.A.S.C.:conceptualization, validation, resources, writing - review and editing, and project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. References [1] United Nations Environmental Programme. (2024). Global Waste Management Outlook 2024: Beyond an age of waste - Turning rubbish into a resource.https://www.unep.org/resources/ global-waste-management-outlook-2024 [2] Abubakar, I. R., Maniruzzaman, K. M., Dano, U. L., AlShihri, F. S., AlShammari, M. S., Ahmed, S. M. S., Al-Gehlani, W. A. G., & Alrawaf, T. I. (2022). Environmental sustainability impacts of solid waste management practices in the Global South. International journal of environmental research and public health,19(19), 12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912717 [3] Bhattacharjee, S., Panja, A., Majumder, D., Hindorya, P. S., & Kumar, R. (2024). From garbage to global warming: A bibliometric analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste and its relationship with climate change. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(5), 10973–10998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04145-5 [4] Alshawaf, M., Alwaeli, M., Pikon, K., & Alolayan, M. (2025). The characterization of municipal solid waste in kuwait: A pathway to reform the waste management sector. Discover Sustainability,6(1), 208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01041-y Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 16 [5] Fan, Y. V., Lee, C. T., Lim, J. S., Klemeš, J. J., & Le, P. T. K. (2019). Cross-disciplinary approaches towards smart, resilient and sustainable circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 1482–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.266 [6] Bandh, S. A., Malla, F. A., Wani, S. A., & Hoang, A. T. (2024). Waste management and circular economy. In Waste management in the circular economy (pp. 1–17). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-031-42426-7_1 [7] Aiguobarueghian, I., Adanma, U. M., Ogunbiyi, E. O., & Solomon, N. O. (2024). Waste management and circular economy: A review of sustainable practices and economic benefits. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews,22(2), 1708–1719. https://doi.org/ 10 . 30574 /wjarr. 2024.22.2.1517 [8] Achillas, C., & Vlachokostas, C. (2025). Integrated waste management in the circular economy era: Insights from research and practice. Energies,18(3), 728. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390 / en18030728 [9] Afshari, H., Gurtu, A., & Jaber, M. Y. (2024). Unlocking the potential of solid waste management with circular economy and Industry 4.0. Computers & Industrial Engineering,195, 110457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110457 [10] Sesay, R. E. V., & Fang, P. (2025). Circular economy in municipal solid waste management: Innovations and challenges for urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Protection, 16(2), 35–65. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2025.162003 [11] Elegado, J. G., Reyes Jr, E. M., Tolentino, A. B., & Cordero-Bailey, K. S. (2025). Characterization of waste generated by households in the poblacion of irosin, sorsogon: A case study. Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability,2(3), 8. https://doi.org/10.56237/jhes24ichspd09 [12] Hoang, A. T., Varbanov, P. S., Nižetić, S., Sirohi, R., Pandey, A., Luque, R., Ng, K. H., & Pham, V. V. (2022). Perspective review on municipal solid waste-to-energy route: Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular economy. Journal of cleaner production,359, 131897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131897 [13] Traven, L. (2023). Sustainable energy generation from municipal solid waste: A brief overview of existing technologies. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering,8, 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100491 [14] Brunner, P. H., & Morf, L. S. (2025). Waste to energy, indispensable cornerstone for circular economy: A mini-review. Waste Management & Research,43(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1177/0734242x241227376 [15] Kurniawan, T. A., Liang, X., Singh, D., Othman, M. H. D., Goh, H. H., Gikas, P., Kern, A. O., Kusworo, T. D., & Shoqeir, J. A. (2022). Harnessing landfill gas (LFG) for electricity: A strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Jakarta (Indonesia). Journal of environmental management,301, 113882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113882 [16] Liang, X., Kurniawan, T. A., Goh, H. H., Zhang, D., Dai, W., Liu, H., Goh, K. C., & Othman, M. H. D. (2022). Conversion of landfilled waste-to-electricity (WTE) for energy efficiency improvement in Shenzhen (China): A strategy to contribute to resource recovery of unused methane for generating renewable energy on-site. Journal of Cleaner Production,369, 133078. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133078 [17] Themelis, N. J. (2023). Energy and materials recovery from post-recycling wastes: WTE. Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy,5(3), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-023-00138-2 [18] Agaton, C. B., Guno, C. S., Villanueva, R. O., & Villanueva, R. O. (2020). Economic analysis of waste-to-energy investment in the Philippines: A real options approach. Applied Energy,275, 115265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115265 [19] Khan, I., Chowdhury, S., & Techato, K. (2022). Waste to energy in developing countries—a rapid review: Opportunities, challenges, and policies in selected countries of Sub-Saharan Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 17 Africa and South Asia towards sustainability. Sustainability,14(7), 3740. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390/su14073740 [20] Gil, A. (2022). Challenges on waste-to-energy for the valorization of industrial wastes: Electricity, heat and cold, bioliquids and biofuels. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management,17, 100615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2021.100615 [21] Mor, S., & Ravindra, K. (2023). Municipal solid waste landfills in lower-and middle-income countries: Environmental impacts, challenges and sustainable management practices. Process Safety and Environmental Protection,174, 510–530. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.psep. 2023 . 04.014 [22] Kumar, A., & Samadder, S. R. (2017). A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Management,69, 407–422. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046 [23] Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., & Techato, K. - a. (2018). The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,91, 812–821. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.088 [24] Vlachokostas, C., Michailidou, A., & Achillas, C. (2021). Multi-criteria decision analysis towards promoting waste-to-energy management strategies: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,138, 110563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110563 [25] Rasheed, T., Anwar, M. T., Ahmad, N., Sher, F., Khan, S. U. - D., Ahmad, A., Khan, R., & Wazeer, I. (2021). Valorisation and emerging perspective of biomass based waste-to-energy technologies and their socio-environmental impact: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112257 [26] 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 [27] Adu, T. F., Mensah, L. D., Rockson, M. A. D., & Kemausuor, F. (2025). Decision support systems for waste-to-energy technologies: A systematic literature review of methods and future directions for sustainable implementation in Ghana. Heliyon,11(3). https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j. heliyon.2025.e42353 [28] Sreekumar, N., Sudheep, N., & Radhakrishnan, E. (2024). Framework for implementing circular economy in agriculture. In The potential of microbes for a circular economy (pp. 25–52). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15924-4.00009-6 [29] Allevi, E., Gnudi, A., Konnov, I. V., & Oggioni, G. (2021). Municipal solid waste management in circular economy: A sequential optimization model. Energy Economics,100, 105383. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105383 [30] Hazemba, M. (2024). Integrated waste management and circular economy. In Waste management in the circular economy (pp. 153–170). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1007 / 978 - 3 - 031-42426-7_8 [31] Awino,F.B.,&Apitz,S. E.(2024).Solidwastemanagementinthecontextofthewastehierarchy and circular economy frameworks: An international critical review. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management,20(1), 9–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4774 [32] Gupta, A. S., & Khatiwada, D. (2024). Investigating the sustainability of biogas recovery systems in wastewater treatment plants-a circular bioeconomy approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,199, 114447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114447 [33] Funari, V., Toller, S., Vitale, L., Santos, R. M., & Gomes, H. I. (2023). Urban mining of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) residues with emphasis on bioleaching technologies: A critical review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,30(21), 59128–59150. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26790-z Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 18 [34] Chen, Y., Fan, Y., Huang, Y., Liao, X., Xu, W., & Zhang, T. (2024). A comprehensive review of toxicity of coal fly ash and its leachate in the ecosystem. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,269, 115905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.115905 [35] Wang, T., Tang, J., Aljerf, L., Qiao, J., & Alajlani, M. (2025). Emission reduction optimization of multiple flue gas pollutants in municipal solid waste incineration power plant. Fuel,381, 133382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133382 [36] Chen, H., Song, X., & Jian, Y. (2024). Performance assessment of a municipal solid waste gasification and power generation system integrated with absorption heat pump drying. Energies,17(23), 6034. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236034 [37] Gharibi, A., Doniavi, E., & Hasanzadeh, R. (2024). A metaheuristic particle swarm optimization for enhancing energetic and exergetic performances of hydrogen energy production from plastic waste gasification. Energy Conversion and Management,308, 118392. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118392 [38] Tamoši ¯ unas, A., Milieška, M., Gimžauskait ˙ e, D., Aikas, M., Uscila, R., Zakarauskas, K., Fendt, S., Bastek, S., & Spliethoff, H. (2025). Plasma gasification of medical plastic waste to syngas in a greenhouse gas (CO2) environment. Sustainability,17(5), 2040. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390 / su17052040 [39] Pelagalli, V., Langone, M., Matassa, S., Race, M., Tuffi, R., Papirio, S., Lens, P. N., Lazzazzara, M., Frugis, A., Petta, L., et al. (2024). Pyrolysis of municipal sewage sludge: Challenges, opportunities and new valorization routes for biochar, bio-oil, and pyrolysis gas. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology,10(10), 2282–2312. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4ew00278d [40] Mattson, K. R., Pettersen, J. B., & Brattebø, H. (2024). Incineration economy: Waste management policy failing the circular economy transition in Norway. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,210, 107838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107838 [41] Pires Costa, L., Vaz de Miranda, D. M., & Pinto, J. C. (2022). Critical evaluation of life cycle assessment analyses of plastic waste pyrolysis. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10(12), 3799–3807. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c00265 [42] Sanjaya, E., & Abbas, A. (2023). Plasma gasification as an alternative energy-from-waste (EFW) technology for the circular economy: An environmental review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,189, 106730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106730 [43] Blažek, L. (2022). Innovation in the circular economy. ECIE 2022 17th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship.https://doi.org/10.34190/ecie.17.1.640 [44] Tischler Nizer, J. V., Correa da Cunha, G. S., de Assis, T. M., Camiloti, P. R., Vuitik, G. A., Edwiges, T., & Barana, A. C. (2025). Anaerobic digestion of organic fraction from municipal solid waste with methano production as objective: Acidification phase control with no chemicals. Environmental Technology,46(16), 3120–3129. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1080 / 09593330 . 2025 . 2456131 [45] Le Pera, A., Sellaro, M., Bencivenni, E., & D’Amico, F. (2022). Environmental sustainability of an integrate anaerobic digestion-composting treatment of food waste: Analysis of an Italian plant in the circular bioeconomy strategy. Waste Management,139, 341–351. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.12.042 [46] Ebrahimi toloun, S. A., Khoramnejdian, S., Zavareh, S. R. A., & Behbahaninia, A. (2025). Assessment of landfill gases by LandGEM and energy recovery potential from municipal solid waste of Robat Karim. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery,15(2), 2857–2866. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13399-023-05142-4 [47] Wang, X., Liu, X., Zhang, D., Lv, L., Liang, J., Sun, L., Liu, X., Gao, W., Zhang, G., Ren, Z., et al. (2025). Enhancing anaerobic digestion for treating landfill leachate based on S, N-modified biochar: Synergistic enhancement of microbes-to-pollutants and inter-microbes extracellular electron transfer. Journal of Cleaner Production,493, 144970. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j. jclepro.2025.144970 Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 19 [48] Carrera-Rivera, A., Ochoa, W., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX,9, 101895. https: //doi.org/10.3390/earth4010006 [49] Agaton, C. B., & Guila, P. M. C. (2023). Ecosystem services valuation of constructed wetland as a nature-based solution to wastewater treatment. Earth,4(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390/earth4010006 [50] 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. (2024). Feasibility study of an integrated waste management technology system for a circular economy in the Philippines. Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability,2(3), 3. https://doi.org/ 10 . 56237 / jhes24ichspd05 [51] Caferra, R., D’Adamo, I., & Morone, P. (2023). Wasting energy or energizing waste? the public acceptance of waste-to-energy technology. Energy,263, 126123. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j. energy.2022.126123 [52] Ren, X., Che, Y., Yang, K., & Tao, Y. (2016). Risk perception and public acceptance toward a highly protested waste-to-energy facility. Waste management,48, 528–539. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.036 [53] Cudjoe, D., & Wang, H. (2024). Public acceptance towards plastic waste-to-energy gasification projects: The role of social trust and health consciousness. Journal of Environmental Management,356, 120737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120737 [54] Alazaiza, M. Y., Alzghoul, T. M., Al Maskari, T., Amr, S. A., & Nassani, D. E. (2024). Analyzing the evolution of research on student awareness of solid waste management in higher education institutions: A bibliometric perspective. Sustainability,16(13), 5422. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390 / su16135422 [55] Zeng, J., Duan, H., Zhu, W., & Song, J. (2024). Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects. Energy,304, 132031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132031 [56] Etim, E. (2024). Leveraging public awareness and behavioural change for entrepreneurial waste management. Heliyon,10(21), e40063. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.heliyon. 2024 .e 40063 [57] Suryawan, I., Septiariva, I. Y., Sari, M. M., Ramadan, B. S., Suhardono, S., Sianipar, I. M. J., Tehupeiory, A., Prayogo, W., & Lim, J. - W. (2023). Acceptance of waste to energy technology by local residents of Jakarta City, Indonesia to achieve sustainable clean and environmentally friendly energy. Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems,11(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d11.0443 [58] Huang, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2022). Perceptional differences in the factors of local acceptance of waste incineration plant. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 1067886. https: //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1067886 [59] Quan, X., Zuo, G., & Sun, H. (2022). Risk perception thresholds and their impact on the behavior of nearby residents in waste to energy project conflict: An evolutionary game analysis. Sustainability,14(9), 5588. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095588 [60] Cole-Hunter, T., Johnston, F. H., Marks, G. B., Morawska, L., Morgan, G. G., Overs, M., PortaCubas,A.,& Cowie,C.T.(2020).Thehealthimpactsofwaste-to-energy emissions: Asystematic review of the literature. Environmental Research Letters,15(12), 123006. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1088/1748-9326/abae9f [61] Tait, P. W., Brew, J., Che, A., Costanzo, A., Danyluk, A., Davis, M., Khalaf, A., McMahon, K., Watson, A., Rowcliff, K., et al. (2020). The health impacts of waste incineration: A systematic review. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health,44(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1111/1753-6405.12939 Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 20 [62] Subiza-Pérez, M., Santa Marina, L., Irizar, A., Gallastegi, M., Anabitarte, A., Urbieta, N., Babarro, I., Molinuevo, A., Vozmediano, L., & Ibarluzea, J. (2020). Who feels a greater environmental risk? women, younger adults and pro-environmentally friendly people express higher concerns about a set of environmental exposures. Environmental Research,181, 108918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108918 [63] Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology,31(4), 336–343. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.001 [64] Xu, M., Liu, Y., Cui, C., Xia, B., Ke, Y., & Skitmore, M. (2023). Social acceptance of nimby facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks. Land Use Policy,124, 106453. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.landusepol. 2022 . 106453 [65] Song, L., Sun, Y., Song, J., Feng, Z., Gao, J., & Yao, Q. (2024). From “not in my backyard” to “please in my backyard”: Transforming the local responses toward a waste-to-energy incineration project in china. Sustainable Production and Consumption,45, 104–114. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.12.019 [66] Saha, K., & Naidoo, A. (2025). Waste-to-energy: Exploring the roadmap for energy generation from commercial waste in south africa. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 19(3), 632–666. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijesm-09-2024-0010 [67] Anonas, S. D. S., Eugenio, F. D. T., Flores, B.-H. F., Balite, P. H. M., Tomacruz, J. G. T., Limjuco, L.A.,&Ocon,J. D. (2023). Fromwaste torenewableenergy:Apolicy review on waste-to-energy in the philippines. Sustainability,15(17), 12963. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712963 [68] Farooq, A., Haputta, P., & Gheewala, S. H. (2024). Economic feasibility assessment of waste to energytechnologiesforthedevelopmentofasustainablemunicipalsolidwastemanagement system in thailand. Renewable Energy,233, 121155. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.renene. 2024 . 121155 [69] Chawla, Y., Chojnacka, K., Paca, M., Pudełko, A., Weron, R., & Zaleski, P. (2025). Cost-benefit analysis of a municipal waste management project: Using a survey of professional forecasters to provide reliable projections until 2035. Journal of Cleaner Production,494, 144945. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144945 [70] 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. (2024). Toward sustainability of wasteto-energy: An overview. Energy Conversion and Management,321, 119063. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enconman.2024.119063 [71] Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Lin, J. - G., Zhang, N., & Cao, W. (2021). Biogas energy generated from livestock manure in China: Current situation and future trends. Journal of Environmental Management,297, 113324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113324 [72] Longfor, N. R., Dong, L., Wang, J., & Qian, X. (2023). A techno-economic assessment on biomass waste-to-energy potential in Cameroon. Environmental Research Letters,18(10), 104031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acfbed [73] Babalola, S. O., Nel, J. J., Tshigo, V., Daramola, M. O., & Iwarere, S. A. (2022). An integrated waste-to-energy approach: A resilient energy system design for sustainable communities. Energy Conversion and Management,258, 115551. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.enconman. 2022 . 115551 [74] Agaton, C. B. (2017). Real options analysis of renewable energy investment scenarios in the Philippines. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development,3(3), 284–292. https://doi.org/ 10.21622/resd.2017.03.3.284 [75] Batac, K. I. T., Collera, A. A., Villanueva, R. O., & Agaton, C. B. (2022). Decision support for investments in sustainable energy sources under uncertainties. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development,11(3), 801–814. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.2022.45913 Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 21 [76] Samarasinghe, K., & Wijayatunga, P. D. (2022). Techno-economic feasibility and environmental sustainability of waste-to-energy in a circular economy: Sri Lanka case study. Energy for Sustainable Development,68, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.04.005 [77] Saatchi, P., Salamian, F., Manavizadeh, N., & Rabbani, M. (2024). A sustainable network design for municipal solid waste management considering waste-to-energy conversion under uncertainty. Engineering Optimization, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215x.2024.2408478 [78] Fernández-Gonzalez, J. - M., Grindlay, A. L., Serrano-Bernardo, F., Rodríguez-Rojas, M. I., & Zamorano, M. (2017). Economic and environmental review of waste-to-energy systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Waste Management, 67, 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.003 [79] Song, J. (2020). Economic, social, and environmental costs of the waste-to-energy industry. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, 492. https://doi.org / 10 . 1093 / acrefore/9780199389414.013.492 [80] Yang, Y., Wang, J., Chong, K., & Bridgwater, A. V. (2018). A techno-economic analysis of energy recovery from organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) by an integrated intermediate pyrolysis and combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Energy Conversion and Management, 174, 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.033 [81] Lourinho, G., Alves, O., Garcia, B., Rijo, B., Brito, P., & Nobre, C. (2023). Costs of gasification technologies for energy and fuel production: Overview, analysis, and numerical estimation. Recycling,8(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling8030049 [82] Eboh, F. C., Ahlström, P., & Richards, T. (2019). Evaluating improvements in a waste-to-energy combined heat and power plant. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering,14, 100476. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100476 [83] Mukherjee, C., Denney, J., Mbonimpa, E. G., Slagley, J., & Bhowmik, R. (2020). A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,119, 109512. [84] Casado, M. R., Serafini, J., Glen, J., & Angus, A. (2017). Monetising the impacts of waste incinerators sited on brownfield land using the hedonic pricing method. Waste Management, 61, 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.036 [85] Tol, R. S. (2023). Social cost of carbon estimates have increased over time. Nature climate change,13(6), 532–536. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01680-x [86] Cerqueira, C. Q., Lora, E. E. S., de Souza, L. L. P., Leme, M. M. V., Barros, R. M., & Venturini, O. J. (2025). Life cycle assessment of methanol production from municipal solid waste: Environmental comparison with landfilling and incineration. Resources,14(1), 12. https: //doi.org/10.3390/resources14010012 [87] Malinauskaite,J.,Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska,D.,Stanchev, P.,Katsou,E., Rostkowski,P., Thorne, R. J., Colon, J., Ponsá, S., Al-Mansour, F., et al. (2017). Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy,141, 2013–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128 [88] Dastjerdi,B.,Strezov,V.,Kumar,R., & Behnia, M.(2019). An evaluation ofthe potential of waste to energy technologies for residual solid waste in New South Wales, Australia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,115, 109398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109398 [89] Luo, Y., Ye, M., Zhou, Y., Su, R., Huang, S., Wang, H., & Dai, X. (2024). Assessing the environmental impact of municipal waste on energy incineration technology for power generation using life cycle assessment methodology. Toxics,12(11), 786. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390 / toxics12110786 [90] Christian, U., Bhalerao, Y. P., Patel, J., Mehta, P., Tejani, G. G., Singh, S., & Varshney, D. (2024). A comprehensivereviewofwaste-to-energy technologies:Pathwaysforlargescaleapplications. Applied Chemical Engineering,7(4). https://doi.org/10.59429/ace.v7i4.557 Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 22 [91] Alli, Y. A., Bamisaye, A., Bamidele, M. O., Etafo, N. O., Chkirida, S., Lawal, A., Hammed, V. O., Akinfenwa, A. S., Hanson, E., Nwakile, C., et al. (2024). Transforming waste to wealth: Harnessing carbon dioxide for sustainable solutions. Results in Surfaces and Interfaces,17, 100321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsurfi.2024.100321 [92] Liu, Y., Xu, M., Ge, Y., Cui, C., Xia, B., & Skitmore, M. (2021). Influences of environmental impact assessment on public acceptance of waste-to-energy incineration projects. Journal of Cleaner Production,304, 127062. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127062 [93] Liu, Y., Cui, C., Zhang, C., Xia, B., Chen, Q., & Skitmore, M. (2021). Effects of economic compensation on public acceptance of waste-to-energy incineration projects: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,64(9), 1515–1535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1834366 [94] Lair, A., Mansuy, M., Romand, C., Oberti, O., Pradels, C., Barina, G., Denoun, T., Venturini, M., & Trommsdorff, C. (2024). Enhancing landfill efficiency to drive greenhouse gas reduction: A comprehensive study on best practices and policy recommendations. Waste Management & Research,42(10), 889–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x241270951 [95] Edo, M. (2021). Waste-to-energy and social acceptance: Copenhill waste-to-energy plant in Copenhagen. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/T36_WtE-andSocial-Acceptance_Copnehhill-WtE-plant-in-Copenhagen.pdf [96] Yuan, X., Fan, X., Liang, J., Liu, M., Teng, Y., Ma, Q., Wang, Q., Mu, R., & Zuo, J. (2019). Public perception towards waste-to-energy as a waste management strategy: A case from Shandong, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,16(16), 2997. https: //doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162997 [97] Zhang, Z., & Lin, Y. (2023). Impact of perceived social justice on public acceptance toward waste disposal facilities: Evidence from China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,101, 107157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107157 [98] Ramos, A. (2024). Sustainability assessment in waste management: An exploratory study of the social perspective in waste-to-energy cases. Journal of Cleaner Production,475, 143693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143693 [99] Agaton, C. B., del Rosario, E. A., Nguyen-Orca, M. F., Salvacion, A. R., & Sandalo, R. M. (2024). Introduction to the Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability (JHES). Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability,1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.56237/jhes24ED Agaton, Santos, & Calvelo (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 3(1), 6 23