The aim of this study was to establish sustainably feasible areas for the implementation of anaerobic co-digestion plants for agricultural wastes (cattle/swine slurries and cereal crop wastes). The methodology was based on the use of geographic information systems (GIS), the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and map algebra generated from hedges related to environmental, social and economic constraints. The GIS model obtained was applied to a region of Chile (Bío Bío Region) as a case study showing the energy potential (205 MW-h) of agricultural wastes (swine/cattle manures and cereal crop wastes) and thereby assessing its energy contribution (3.5%) at country level (Chile). From this model, it was possible to spatially identify the influence of each factor (environmental, economic and social) when defining suitable areas for the siting of anaerobic co-digestion plants. In conclusion, GIS-based models establish appropriate areas for the location of anaerobic co-digestion plants in the revaluation of agricultural waste from the production of energy through biogas production.
AngelidakiIEllegaardL (2003) Codigestion of slurry and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology109: 95–105.
4.
BatziasFASidirasDKSpyrouEK (2005) Evaluating livestock slurries for biogas production: A GIS based method. Renewable Energy30(8): 1161–1176.
5.
CarverSJ (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems5(3): 321–339.
6.
ChamyRVivancoE (2007) Potencial de biogas: Identificación y clasificación de los distintos tipos de biomasa disponibles en Chile para la generación de biogás [Biogas potential: Identification and classification of different types of biomass available in Chile for generating biogas]. Santiago, Chile: Proyecto Energías Renovables No convencionales en Chile (CNE/GTZ), pp. 35–65.
7.
El-MashadMHZhangR (2010) Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy slurry and food waste. Bioresource Technology101(11): 4021–4028.
8.
FlotatsXBonmatíAFernándezBMagríA (2009) Slurry treatment technologies: On-farm versus centralized strategies. NE Spain as case study. Bioresource Technology100(37): 5519–5526.
9.
FlotatsXCamposEBonmatíA (1997) Aprovechamiento energético de residuos ganaderos [Energy use of livestock waste]. 3rd Curs d’ Enginyeria Ambiental. Aprofitament energetic de residus organics, Lleida, Spain, 27–29 October, pp. 1–21.
10.
FogedHLFlotatsXBonmatiABPalatsiJMagriAScheldeKM (2011) Inventory of slurry processing activities in Europe. Technical Report No. I concerning “Slurry Processing Activities in Europe” to the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment. European Union: Project reference ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0007, pp. 25–27.
11.
GhafooriEFlynnPC (2007) Optimization the logistics of anaerobic digestion of slurry. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology30(7): 136–140.
12.
IshikawaSHoshibaSHinataTHishinumaTMoritaS (2006) Evaluation of a biogas plant from life cycle assessment (LCA). International Congress Series1932: 230–233.
13.
KalamarasSDKotsopoulosTA (2015) Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure and alternative crops for the substitution of maize in South Europe. Bioresource Technology172: 68–75.
14.
LehtomäkiAHuttunenSRintalaJA (2007) Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow slurry for methane production: Effect of crop to slurry ratio. Resources, Conservation and Recycling51: 591–609.
15.
MaJScottRDeGloriaSLemboAJ (2005) Siting analysis of farm-based centralized digester systems for distributed generation using GIS. Biomass and Bioenergy28: 591–600.
16.
MartinezJDabertPBarringtonSBurtonC (2009) Livestock waste treatment systems for environmental quality, food safety, and sustainability. Bioresource Technology100(22): 5527–5536.
17.
MassaroVDigiesiSMossaGRanieriL (2015) The sustainability of anaerobic digestion plants: A win-win strategy for public and private bodies. Journal of Cleaner Production104: 445–459.
18.
ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias) (2007) Agricultural census. Available at: http://www.odepa.cl/ (accessed 3 August 2015).
19.
PalmaRJiménezGAlarcónI (2009) Las energías renovables no convencionales en el mercado eléctrico chileno [Non-conventional renewable energies in the Chilean electricity market]. Santiago, Chile: Proyecto Energías Renovables No convencionales en Chile (CNE/GTZ), pp. 20–50.
20.
PanLYangSXDeBruynJ (2007) Factor analysis of downwind odours from livestock farms. Biosystems Engineering96(3): 387–397.
21.
RamachandraTV (2008) Geographical information system approach for regional biogas potential assessment. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences2(3): 170–184.
22.
SaatyTL (1990) How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research48: 9–26.
23.
SipahiSTimorM (2010) The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Management Decision48(5): 775–808.
24.
SIT-CONAF (Sistema de Información Territorial de la Corporación Nacional Forestal) (2013) Spatial planning base map of Chile. Available at: http://sit.conaf.cl/ (accessed 3 August 2015).
25.
Teira-EsmatgesMRFlotatsX (2003) A method for livestock waste management planning in NE Spain. Waste Management23(10):0 917–932.
26.
TompsonEQingbinWMinghaoL (2013) Anaerobic digester systems (ADS) for multiple dairy farms: A GIS analysis for optimal site selection. Energy Policy61: 114–124.
27.
ValdovinosCParraO (2006) La cuenca del Río Biobío: Historia natural de un ecosistema de uso multiple. Publicaciones Centro EULA: 1–25.
28.
VillamarCARodríguezDALópezDPeñuelaMVidalG (2013) Effect of the generation and physical–chemical characterization of swine and dairy slurries on treatment technologies. Waste Management & Research30(8): 820–828.
29.
WeitlandP (1999) Anaerobic waste digestion in Germany: Status and recent developments. Biodegradation11(6): 415–421.
30.
ZubaryevaAZaccarelliNDel GiudiceCZurliniG (2012) Spatially explicit assessment of local biomass availability for distributed biogas production via anaerobic co-digestion: Mediterranean case study. Renewable Energy39(1): 261–270.
