Cost-benefit analysis for recycling of agricultural wastes in Taiwan

被引:45
|
作者
Hsu, Esher [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Taipei Univ, Dept Stat, 67 Sect 3,Min Sheng East Rd, Taipei 104, Taiwan
关键词
Agricultural waste; Recycling; Cost-benefit analysis; Compost; Biomass fuel; Biogas;
D O I
10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.051
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Agricultural waste can be recycled in different ways. Cost-effectiveness is important information for investment decision-making of enterprises and policy-making of government to choose a profitable way to recycle agricultural waste. Therefore, this paper aims to present a cost-benefit analysis to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness between feasible recycling methods, and further propose cost-effective ways for recycling agricultural waste in Taiwan. Three recycling types of agricultural wastes, namely, composting, biogas power generation and biomass fuel are selected for cost-benefit analysis based on related regulations and policy supports of agricultural waste management in Taiwan. Primary data collected by sampling surveys conducted in 2018 supplemented by secondary data from national statistics are used for this study. Study results show that all three recycling types of agricultural wastes discussed in this study are profitable under corresponding economic conditions in 2018 with benefit/cost ratio greater than 1 and positive net present value; as expected, the cost-effectiveness of agricultural waste recycling varies depending on the recycling types, composition of input materials, and economic scales. Mixing chicken manure with other agricultural wastes for composting and using rice straw to make biomass fuel rods are estimated to have higher cost-effectiveness; livestock farms with small farming scale have relatively low biogas energy recovery efficiency; the cost-effectiveness of biogas power generation highly depends on fixed-in tariffs (FITs). Results imply that policy support for establishing co-processing centers of agricultural waste and differentiated FITs would be good measures to stimulate recycling efficiency of agricultural waste in Taiwan. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:424 / 432
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
    SPIES, PH
    SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1975, 43 (02) : 221 - 232
  • [2] Cost-benefit analysis of resource material recycling
    Leu, HG
    Lin, SH
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 1998, 23 (03) : 183 - 192
  • [3] Cost-benefit analysis of waste photovoltaic module recycling in China
    Liu, Caijie
    Zhang, Qin
    Wang, Hai
    WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2020, 118 : 491 - 500
  • [4] A cost-benefit analysis of landfill mining and material recycling in China
    Zhou, Chuanbin
    Gong, Zhe
    Hu, Junsong
    Cao, Aixin
    Liang, Hanwen
    WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2015, 35 : 191 - 198
  • [5] Environmental optimization in fractionating industrial wastes using cost-benefit analysis
    Stenis, J
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2004, 41 (02) : 147 - 164
  • [6] Cost-benefit analysis
    Miura, Grant
    NATURE CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, 2018, 14 (10) : 903 - 903
  • [7] COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    BJORNSTAD, P
    KJEMI, 1975, 35 (10): : 3 - 3
  • [8] Cost-benefit of reimbursement for pharmaceutical care in Taiwan
    Wu, Chien-Chih
    Tsai, Shu-Ling
    Ku, Pou-Jen
    Wu, Fe-Lin Lin
    Huang, Li-Jung
    Tseng, Wan-Yun
    Li, I-Hsun
    Wang, Ting-Ying
    Wang, Ming-Shyan
    Kuo, Li-Na
    Chang, Yuh-Lih
    Su, Hui-Chen
    Lin, Yu-Jing
    Cheng, Yih-Dih
    Chen, Chi-Hua
    Huang, Yu-Chia
    Wang, Chi-Chuan
    Shen, Li-Jiuan
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY, 2021, 4 (05): : 604 - 611
  • [9] Cost-Benefit Analysis and Optimization of Semiconductor Processing Water Recycling Strategy
    Pan, Qi
    Wang, Feng
    Yang, Hai-zhen
    FRONTIERS OF GREEN BUILDING, MATERIALS AND CIVIL ENGINEERING, PTS 1-8, 2011, 71-78 : 2772 - 2777
  • [10] Agricultural reuse of wastewater: nation-wide cost-benefit analysis
    Haruvy, N
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 1997, 66 (02) : 113 - 119