Environmental and socio-economic evaluation of a groundwater bioremediation technology using social Cost-Benefit Analysis: Application to an in-situ metal(loid) precipitation case study

• Published in: The Science of the total environment Vol. 954; p. 176720
• Main Authors: Ibáñez, Jesús, Pérez-de-Mora, Alfredo, Santiago-Herrera, Mario, Belloncle, Benjamine, de Wilde, Herwig, Martel-Martín, Sonia, Blanco-Alcántara, David, Barros, Rocío
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01-12-2024
• Subjects: Bioremediation; Environmental Life Cycle Costing; Impact Pathway Approach; Life Cycle Assessment; Social Cost-Benefit Analysis; Bioremediation; Environmental Life Cycle Costing; Impact Pathway Approach; Life Cycle Assessment; Social Cost-Benefit Analysis
• DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176720
• EISSN: 1879-1026
• ISSN: 0048-9697; 1879-1026

Bioremediation can be an alternative or complementary approach to conventional soil and water treatment technologies. Determining the environmental and socio-economic impacts of bioremediation is important but rarely addressed. This work presents a comprehensive sustainability assessment for a specific groundwater bioremediation case study based on In-situ Metal(loid) Precipitation (ISMP) by conducting a social Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) using two different approaches: environmental Life Cycle Costing (eLCC) and Impact Pathway Approach (IPA). Externalities are calculated in two ways: i) using Environmental Prices (EP) to monetize Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results and metal(loid)s removed at field scale, and ii) following the IPA steps to determine the social costs avoided by removing arsenic contamination at full scale. The results show that, in the baseline scenario, the project is not socio-economically viable in both cases as the Net Present Value (NPV) is −129,512.61 € and − 415,185,140 € respectively. Sensitivity and scenario analyses are performed to identify the key parameters and actions needed to reach a positive NPV. For instance, increasing the amount of water treated per year to 90 m3 and assuming a 20 % increase in operation costs and a 60 % increase in construction costs can make the project socio-economically viable at the field scale, while a reduction in the social discount rate from a 4 % to a 2 % can lead to a positive NPV at the full scale. The approaches proposed in this work may be useful for practitioners and policymakers when evaluating the environmental and socio-economic impacts of bioremediation technologies at different scales and regions, as well as human health impacts caused by contaminants at the current legal limits.
[Display omitted]
•Life Cycle Assessment and environmental Life Cycle Costing are calculated in a bioremediation project at field scale.•Impact Pathway Approach is applied to illustrate the monetization of external revenues at full scale.•Social Cost Benefit Analysis can be performed using a top-down or a bottom-up approach.•Sensitivity and scenario analyses are performed to determine the point at which the Net Present Value becomes positive.•Social discount rates should be carefully chosen for the evaluation of long term projects.