Next Article in Journal
Syngas Quality in Fluidized Bed Gasification of Biomass: Comparison between Olivine and K-Feldspar as Bed Materials
Next Article in Special Issue
Climate-Smart Pest Management in Sustainable Agriculture: Promises and Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Consequence Assessment Model for Gasoline Transport: Belgrade Case Study Based on Multi-Agent Simulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integration of the Standalone ‘Risk Assessment’ Section in Project Level Environmental Impact Assessment Reports for Value Addition: An Indian Case Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15032599
sustainability-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

Environmental and Architectural Solutions in the Problem of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland: A Comparative Analysis

by
Agnieszka Starzyk
,
Kinga Rybak-Niedziółka
,
Przemysław Łacek
,
Łukasz Mazur
*,
Anna Stefańska
,
Małgorzata Kurcjusz
and
Aleksandra Nowysz
Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02 776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 2599; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032599
Submission received: 20 December 2022 / Revised: 10 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 1 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Monitoring and Impact Assessment for Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Thermal waste transformation plants (waste incineration plants) are a strong architectural accent in the existing site context. They often function as power plants or combined heat and power plants, producing heat and/or electricity by recovering energy from flue gases. The main objective of this study was to demonstrate the relationship between the architectural quality and protection of the natural environment through the technological solutions applied. The indirect aims of the study include the demonstration of the educational message conveyed through architectural and environmental solutions. The relationships defined by the objective were verified in comparative studies of eight operating waste incineration plants in Poland, located in: Bialystok, Bydgoszcz, Konin, Krakow, Poznan, Rzeszow, Szczecin, and Warsaw. The results were presented in three problem areas: (i) architectural quality, (ii) environmental solutions, and (iii) educational message. The results of the study led to the following conclusions: (i) waste incineration plants operating in Poland show a relationship between the architectural quality and broadly understood pro-environmental solutions, (ii) and all waste incineration plants operating in Poland show educational solutions.

1. Introduction

Architecture is a mirror of the life and social behaviour of each historical era [1]. In recent decades, industrialisation and economic growth have become evident, helping to improve the quality of life of the population in both urban and rural areas [2,3]. An increase in consumption and the progressively shorter life cycle of everyday items has dramatically amplified the amount of waste people produce. In recent years, there has been a noticeable increased social and legal movement toward ensuring the applicability of sustainable development and minimising the degradation of the environment by the growing amount of waste. The human impact on the environment is also evident in waste management and production [4,5]. To date, landfills are the most common solution in waste management [6,7]; unfortunately, however, they have a negative impact on the environment [7] and human health.
The massive increase in the production of municipal solid waste (MSW) has accelerated the need to implement incineration plants into the waste management system [8,9]. The technology of municipal waste incineration is used to minimise landfill space [10,11] and reduce the amount of waste, typically in incineration plants or waste-to-energy facilities. Optimal resource management is the key topic in waste management. The constant growth of urban industrial waste has become a complex and difficult to manage problem of modern society [12,13]. To overcome the challenges connected with the accumulation of rapid municipal solid waste, the waste-to-energy method appears to be the most promising due to better recycling methods and the reduction in waste in landfills, as well as a better energy security and a decrease in emissions [14]. The incineration process offers the opportunity for material recycling by recovering resources that would not otherwise be used [15]. As an example, the segregation of metals from bottom ash achieves more than a 90% potential for most ferrous and non-ferrous metals using modern techniques. In this way, bottom ash can replace natural resources of a similar nature, i.e., sand and gravel [16]. Furthermore, incineration plants become included in thermal conversion by the combustion of waste (municipal, industrial or hazardous, as well as sewage sludge). In Poland, there are eight plants performing the thermal conversion of municipal waste, they include installations in Bialystok, Bydgoszcz, Konin, Krakow, Poznan, Rzeszow, Szczecin, and Warsaw. Installations that serve the thermal conversion of municipal waste (including waste incineration plants and co-incineration in cement plants and fuel combustion plants) showed a total capacity of 2559 thousand tons, producing electric energy and heat. The lack of emphasis on environmental aspects during education means that the culture of treating waste as an integral part of the design process is essentially non-existent for those currently working in the construction industry. There is a need for the development of new waste management technologies that can effectively reduce the volume of waste and minimise the environmental impact [17,18]. Contemporary research pays particular attention to the need of increasing the efficiency of and bringing about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from combustion processes [19]. There are several barriers improving the environmental performance of construction waste management in remote communities by diverting construction waste from landfills. The most recurring barriers include: the cost and time involved in waste sorting and recycling, lack of incentives, industry culture, and a lack of education [20,21].

1.1. World Incinerator Architecture, Pro-Environmental and Pro-Social Solutions

The new use of waste incinerators as deepened possibilities for recycling materials, and also for obtaining electricity and heat, is increasingly being implemented in local legislation. They are also becoming contributors in the challenges of architects seeking to enhance the aesthetic quality and sustainability approach of such buildings. The selected international examples of modern waste incinerators are presented below.

1.1.1. Spittelau, Friedensreich Hundertwasser, Vienna, Austria

Waste incinerators are industrial plants for which functionality is paramount. However, the role of architecture in these facilities should not be underestimated, especially since some of them are located directly in the urban fabric. The concept of industrial buildings as an integral form of urban and social ingenuity has led to the idea of new building typologies and industrial aesthetics [22]. The Spittelau municipal waste incinerator (MWI) plant in Vienna (Figure 1) is primarily responsible for supplying heat to Vienna’s AKH hospital. The incinerator was designed to meet high environmental standards using state-of-the-art technologies, with the hope of making it as clean as possible for municipal waste incineration. The building was not to be an industrial monument, but a resident-friendly architectural structure, indicating with its appearance the ecological principles of the incinerator. The design work was entrusted to the architect Friedensreich Hundertwasser, whose vision was that this industrial architecture should reconcile technology, ecology, and art. The architect worked to transform the incinerator into a cheerful building with colourful facades and a golden ball on the chimney, an integral part of the Viennese landscape [23]. The green roof and tree canopy in front of the main building are a return to nature. The incinerator is an example of decorative postmodernism architecture, which makes an industrial building socially acceptable by introducing a radical aesthetic modification to its utilitarian appearance. The architecture of the waste incinerator has been exposed as a giant work of urban art. Spittelau, with its colours, materials, and decorations reminiscent of Neo-Gothic and Oriental elements, has become a tourist attraction for the city [22]. The plant receives around 250,000 tons of municipal solid waste per year, and 1% of this amount is non-infectious hospital-type municipal waste [24]. The Spittelau incinerator has a relatively low environmental impact due to the installation of high-efficiency flue gas treatment systems, which is involved with the high operating and investment costs of these treatment stages. In addition, the incinerator has a lower environmental risk than landfilling [25].

1.1.2. Amager Bakke, Bjarke Ingels Group, Copenhagen, Denmark

Industrial facilities located in the urban fabric are increasingly drawing attention to their connection with the surrounding city. Typically closed-off to the community, industrial plant spaces can be diminished by offering urban functions and open access to the community, making the factory in the context of the place [26]. Towering over the urban landscape, the Amager Bakke waste-to-energy plant in Copenhagen (Figure 2) was designed by the Danish architect Bjarke Ingalls. The location of the incineration plant features significant urban potential due to its close proximity to a new residential area, the Opera House, and the Queen’s Palace [16]. The facility exemplifies the challenge of sustainability in political and economic global interdependence [27]. Launched in 2017, the waste incinerator was designed with a ski slope integrated into the architecture on the roof of the facility, which engages the community and draws public attention [23]. The attraction drove up the cost and construction effort, while demonstrating the value associated with the urban integration of the site. In addition, the site includes public spaces such as a viewing platform and a café [26]. Moreover, city residents can also enjoy the rooftop climbing walls [16].
The architectural premise is complex due to the external expression, which requires a suitable shape for the double curved ski slope. At the same time, the complex shape had to meet the internal machinery requirements of the waste incinerator. The resulting complex structure was built using steel as the supporting material [28]. This state-of-the-art incineration plant is grate-fired (1680 tons per day) and burns domestic and industrial waste at average temperatures of 1025 °C [29]. Amager Bakke only accepts waste that cannot be recycled, which is good for both the environment and climate. Two identical incinerators in the facility have a capacity of 25–42 tons of waste per hour, and each ton of waste produces 0.8 MWh of electricity and 2.7 MWh of district heat. Purified smoke enters the Amager Bakke’s chimney, which earlier passed through a measuring station that continuously records the pollutant content and compliance with the environmental requirements [30].

1.1.3. Roskilde Incineration Plant, Erick van Egeraat, Roskilde, Denmark

The high level of incinerator architecture makes the community feel safe and comfortable. An example of such incinerator is the Roskilde Incineration Plant in Denmark [31] (Figure 3). The facade of the Roskilde Incineration Plant was designed by Erick van Egeraat, who interpreted the layout of the chimney in relation to the buildings in a sculptural way. The architecture is characterised by fragmented lines and recalls the nearby 13th century UNESCO-listed cathedral. The concept of the premise contrasts with the “form follows function” approach, as the façade is an independent part of architecture that proposes a solution to the integration of industrial architecture by obscuring it with a socially acceptable façade. The raw aluminium umber-coloured cladding with perforated openings wraps the monolithic block, creating its new identity [22]. A distinctive feature of the building is the laser-cut circular holes in the façade. Hidden interior lights illuminate the aluminium tower at night, symbolising the combustion taking place within it. Such a creative approach turns an undistinguished industrial building into a local landmark and it becomes an ornament to its surroundings [32].

2. Materials and Methods

As a result of preliminary research, the subject, territory, and time frame were outlined, and the methodology and research concept were established. The subject of the study are waste incineration plants. The territorial scope was limited to Poland. The study covered 8 completed waste incineration plants located in: Bialystok, Bydgoszcz, Konin, Krakow, Poznan, Rzeszow, Szczecin, and Warsaw. The time scope was limited to the 21st century, and historical solutions from the 20th century that do not meet modern requirements were not included in the study. Neither did the research cover buildings under construction or those which are planned to be constructed. The following methods were used: literature analysis and criticism, observation without intervention, cause–effect method, statistical method, case study, and the intuitive method based on authors’ personal experience. The intuitive method was the basis for undertaking the scientific study of the problem. The above methods allowed us to compare waste incineration plants located in Poland in the context of the stated objective.
The research was conducted in the following stages: (1) the analysis of the diagnosed research problem and its critique in the light of previous research, (2) literature studies to clarify the research dispositions, (3) the definition of the research methodology and tools, (4) the selection of existing and planned waste incineration plants in Poland, subject to selection due to the availability of space and research materials; as a minimum: (i) a scientific, popular science or popular description of the object, (ii) the possibility of site visits, available photographic material, or publicly available photographic material outside copyright protection, (iii) resources of public statistics; despite the incomplete background material, a decision was made to study all the sites realised in Poland, (5) a comparative study of the selected waste incineration plants targeting three problem areas described as: (i) the architectural quality, (ii) ecological solutions, (iii) and educational message, (6) the analyses of the materials and classification of research material, (7) the development of preliminary research results, critical evaluation of the course of own research, and written elaboration of results, and (8) the development of final research results. The starting materials for comparative research in the three problem areas (architectural quality, ecological solutions, and educational message) permeate each other, hence there are difficulties in their unambiguous separation.
The aim of the study is to demonstrate the relationship between architectural quality and care for the natural environment through the technological solutions applied. The posed research question is: are the ecological solutions applied linked to the architectural quality? The indirect aim of the study is to create environmental awareness and sensitivity in the context of differentiated solutions for the transformation of municipal waste.

2.1. Methods and Starting Materials for Comparative Study of Architectural Quality

The cause-and-effect method was used to determine to what extent architectural assumptions and attention to artistic and material solutions influence the final parameters of the facility, taking into account the relation of the incineration plant to its surroundings. In contemporary architecture, it is difficult to talk about styles; designers and participants in the discourse avoid clear-cut definitions and assignments to an unambiguously defined style. The formal and functional expectations of users vary, and thus the architectural language varies. Past historical periods tended to have a consistent definition of beauty for the era [33], now there are many variations of the term. Successive generations of architects–creators created their own architectural language and their own definitions, as Konrad Kucza-Kuczynski writes quoting Mark Leykam: “for a different scale, for different assumptions, for different societies” [34]. At present, discussions in the area of naming and specifying the styles of past eras are still unfinished, making it increasingly difficult to define and introduce terminology for contemporary architecture. Therefore, the terms trends and currents are used more often than styles. Several main ones can be identified in the field of contemporary high architecture and many varieties of popular architecture, from minimalism to expressive expressionism [35,36], often in connection with ecological solutions. Nowadays, many pro-environmental trends can be distinguished, of which three seem to be the most popular: ecological architecture, bioclimatic architecture, and sustainable architecture [37]. Ecological architecture is characterised by a form dependent on the requirements of an energy-saving design, implemented with respect to the natural environment. Structural, formal, and functional solutions are used to ensure maximum comfort at a minimum environmental cost, as well as to optimise the use of daylight and natural ventilation. Formal solutions are characterised by blending the building into the landscape [38], opening up the internal space to the surroundings, and using solutions that increase the user’s contact with nature. Important in green buildings is the use of renewable energy sources (RES). The educational message, i.e., the ecological message developed through architecture, is very important. Bioclimatic architecture is characterised by adapting the building to local climatic and biological conditions and respecting the socio-cultural context. Three priority problem areas have been identified in sustainable architecture: ecology, economy, and society. These aspects interpenetrate each other, but also differ in their definitions depending on the characteristics of the site and building, and the views of the author [39,40,41,42]. In contemporary design, the importance of solutions integrating forms of greenery with architecture is increasing; in addition to their environmental and technical roles, their social and cultural ranks are growing. In the context of the above analyses, the postulate to develop waste incineration facilities in harmony with the natural environment seems obvious. Closely related to the above is the criterion of contextuality, whether a waste incineration plant considers the broad context of the place or represents acontextual architecture.

2.2. Methods and Starting Materials for Comparative Environmental Studies

The issues were narrowed down by defining a limited number of variables characterising the waste incineration plants under study in the context of the stated research objectives. Using mathematical and computational methods, the relationships between the architectural solutions and the achievable parameters of incineration plants were investigated, taking into account the proportion of waste treated and the thermal and electrical energy generated (Figure 4a–d and Table 1).
On the basis of the characteristic parameters of individual incineration plants, the relationship between the amount of incinerated waste and the number of inhabitants was compared, as well as the relation of the incinerated waste to the generated heat and power. Most of the analysed plants are located in large urban centres, with the exception of the city of Konin, which is the least populous of the analysed cases. This is reflected in graph b, where the ratio of waste treated per capita in Konin is the highest, while in other cases, the values are much lower as the incineration plants serve more populous cities (Figure 4b). When comparing the generated profits in the form of heat and electricity in relation to the assumed capacity, the incineration plants in Krakow and Poznan are the most efficient in this respect, the incineration plant in Warsaw being the next most efficient in terms of the heat energy generated (Figure 4c). In this case, this is not reflected in the form of the electricity generated; this may be due to the ongoing construction works which aim to expand the incineration plant (Figure 4d).

2.3. Methods and Starting Materials for Comparative Studies of Educational Message

When analysing waste incineration plants, special attention should be drawn to the educational message, which is the pro-environmental message developed through architecture. In the case of industrial facilities, waste incineration plants being such, it is important to demonstrate and communicate to the community the idea of striving to transform the space from a selfish ecosystem into a responsible ecosystem, i.e., one whose functioning poses as little burden as possible on other ecosystems functioning on Earth [44].
The educational message of architecture is directly related to and dependent on the personal factors of the architecture user. The influence of human attitudes on the effectiveness of activities has been the subject of interdisciplinary research for years [45]. Important in this focus is the research of E. Scott Geller, a behavioural psychologist and the creator of the idea of Actively Caring, who indicated the factors shaping behaviour towards environmental protection and the interrelation of behaviour-based psychology (BBP) and person-based psychology (PBP). PBP defines the states and/or expectations that motivate people to be active in the context of caring for the environment, while BBP identifies tools for changing behaviour and attitudes. Geller defined the personal factors influencing the development of an active environmental attitude: self-esteem, a sense of belonging, a sense of self-efficacy, self-control, and optimism [46].
The starting materials were publicly available materials on educational messages, including educational pathways.

3. Results

The above methods were used in a comparative assessment of waste incinerators in Poland in three problem areas: (i) architectural quality, (ii) environmental solutions, and (iii) educational message.

3.1. Architectural Quality of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland

First, each location was examined in an urban context, assuming a subdivision into: (i) urban, (ii) suburban, and (iii) peripheral locations. Of the eight waste incineration plants operating in Poland, one has an urban location, four have a suburban location, and three have a peripheral location (Figure 5 and Table 2).
The next stage examined how the site fits into the existing context of the place with a focus on the natural context. Architectural and formal solutions were analysed; in the case of incineration plants, the technological solutions associated with the thermal waste treatment process have a significant impact. Three sites stand out in the context studied. (i) The waste incineration plant in Krakow is characterised by an architectural form blended in the surrounding natural landscape. The object was selected through an architectural competition (design: MANUFAKTURA NR 1 (architect Bogusław Wowrzeczka), Teller Architekci (architect Michał Teller), Łapiński Architekci (architect Filip Łapiński), and Prochem (architect Jakub Baczyński)), which translates into high-quality architecture and formal solutions distinguishing the object from typical industrial architecture. (ii) The waste incineration plant in Warsaw is characterised by formal solutions integrated with green forms. The object is located in an urban development with dominant industrial and residential functions; the combustion softened by greenery does not give the impression of dominance and softly fits into the context of the place. (iii) The waste incineration plant in Rzeszow is characterised by high-quality formal solutions typical for industrial architecture. The remaining surveyed facilities are located without an in-depth analysis of the architectural solutions in their locations and do not harmonise with the landscape. They are characterised by solutions typical of industrial architecture and do not stand out from other facilities with a similar function (Table 2).

3.2. Environmental Solutions of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland

In the following stage, the environmental solutions of the plants in question were examined (Table 2). The production of electricity and heat through an energy recovery from flue gases, referred to as green energy, was not included as a criterion. The production of electricity and heat is related to modern technologies and the requirements for waste incineration plants; this is implemented in all the plants studied. The process takes place by transferring heat from flue gas to water directed to the boiler in heat exchangers and turning it into steam at high temperatures. This steam first drives a turbine that transfers mechanical energy to an electric generator. It then enters the heat exchanger via the generator’s bleed and heats the water or steam that forms the energy carrier in the district heating network. Thermal energy can also be obtained by using flue gas condensation systems and heat pumps [47,48]. Of the eight facilities studied, only three used renewable energy sources, in Krakow, Rzeszow, and Warsaw. Exposed photovoltaic panels were used in only three cases.

3.3. Educational Message of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland

Educational activities in the form of lectures and opportunities to visit the facilities for different age groups in accessible spaces are performed in all surveyed plants (Table 2). The range of content varies and aims to raise awareness of the role of the waste management systems’ operation. Visitors have the opportunity to observe technological processes, including the import and unloading of waste into the bunker, and the thermal conversion of municipal waste. They are introduced to the problems and solutions of flue gas cleaning, electricity and heat generation, and process waste management.
The effectiveness of the educational message was examined in conjunction with the competences identified as future priorities in the educational process: cooperation (interacting and responding to the actions of others), emotional intelligence (understanding and responding to people’s emotions and needs), critical thinking (seeing multiple points of view and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of different ideas), cognitive flexibility (multi-directional thinking and realising multi-faceted challenges), problem solving (dealing with complex problems in real-life situations), and technical and digital competence (using technology to solve problems and find information) [49].
The results of the research carried out in accordance with the objective in the defined problem areas were described in points and are presented in Figure 6. The evaluation of the fulfilment of the criterion consists of assigning a logical value of “yes” (1 point) or “no” (0 points) with the maximum possible number of points being six. The highest number of points (6) according to the adopted criteria was given to the waste incineration plant in Warsaw. It was positively evaluated in all areas examined: fitting the facility into the landscape, opening up the internal space to the surroundings, the use of forms of greenery integrated with the architecture, maximising the user’s contact with nature, the use of renewable energy sources, and the educational message. Another positively rated object is the waste incineration plant in Krakow, which was positively rated in five of the areas examined: fitting the facility into the landscape, opening up the internal space to the surroundings, maximising the user’s contact with nature, the use of renewable energy sources, and the educational message. The waste incineration plant in Rzeszow was also rated positively in four of the areas examined: fitting the plant into the landscape, opening up the internal space to the surroundings, the use of renewable energy sources, and the educational message. The remaining analysed waste incineration plants demonstrate the fulfilment of only one criterion, the educational message; they do not demonstrate solutions in the other assumed criteria, i.e., fitting the facility into the landscape, opening up the internal space to the surroundings, the use of forms of greenery integrated with architecture, the maximisation of the user’s contact with nature, and the use of renewable energy sources.

4. Discussion

In 2004, when Poland became an EU member, it committed itself to the implementation of European legal regulations related to environmental protection, including waste management [50,51]. However, the process of transforming national policies and adjusting local regulations has taken a long time, and only recently a shift from landfill systems towards new technologies such as WfE has taken place. Currently, apart from the modern WfE described in the article, another eight facilities are planned, which will have a capacity greater than or comparable to 100,000 Mg per year (in Koszalin, Gdansk, Olsztyn, Lodz, Radom, Chrzanow, Tarnow, and Katowice) [52]. The best-known and most awarded in architectural and educational categories is the CopenHill/Amager Bakke incinerator in Copenhagen by the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). The facility operates in the waste-to-energy (WtE) system, where it processes approx. 440,000 tons of waste annually, providing heat for over 150,000 households and electricity for over 60,000 apartments. The investment is part of Copenhagen’s broad strategy to become carbon neutral by 2025. The facility is designed with meticulous attention to the landscape, perfectly fitting into it. Worth noting is the use of functional, material, and formal solutions that aim to blend the building with nature as much as possible, e.g., by using a 10,000 m2 green roof with utility functions, which in turn allows for a larger contact of man with nature. The rich functional program, where apart from the base incineration plant being also a sports (400 m of ski slope) and educational facility, makes it an important point in the city’s landscape. Notable are the technological issues related to solid waste incineration with the carbon capture and storage (CCS) method used here, which is a solution that allows, when burning about 600,000 tons of waste per year, to reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to 40 kg of CO2 per ton of combusted CO2 and the storage of 530 kg of biogenic CO2 per ton of incinerated waste [53,54,55]. Worth emphasising are the technologies used in the facility, such as grate boiler combustion, to ensure a high and stable operation availability, front-end SCR technology—to clean NOx at an over 95% efficiency—wet flue gas cleaning, to minimise their environmental impact, flue gas condensation and heat pumps to ensure a high thermal efficiency, high vapour parameters—to ensure a high electrical efficiency—a common steam turbine with no gearbox between the turbine and generator, the preparation of a low pressure turbine to ensure a maximum power generation, and flexible heating coupling to ensure the maximum heat sales to utilities [56]. The Danish incineration plant is one of the largest in Europe; so far, none of the Polish projects have obtained such an efficiency [52].
Another interesting Danish example of an innovative waste-to-energy incineration plant is the Roskilde project designed by Erick van Egeraat, the Incineration Line. The building has a very modern form, matching the colours of the façade with the industrial character of the city. The roof was formed as to match the proportions of the neighbouring factories. The incinerator powers about 40,000 households and processes around 350,000 tons of waste. It is a modern building using renewable energy sources, operating with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology, grate boiler combustion, wet flue gas cleaning, and flue gas condensation and heat pumps to ensure a high thermal efficiency [56]. Both objects have a landscape aspect in common. In the case of CopenHill, this means fitting into the layout of the existing surroundings while maintaining the dominant form imposed by the facility technology. In the case of the Incineration Line, where the building is also a dominant feature in the local landscape, its form, apart from being inspired by the neighbourhood, refers to the shape of a mountain [57,58].
A landscape form combining both effects of slope and dominance has an incinerator commissioned in 2017 on the Poolberg peninsula in Dublin, Ireland. The facility processes approximately 500,000 tons of non-recyclable waste, which generates approximately 1.5 million MWh per year and provides energy to approximately 50,000 households per year. The building is geared towards reusing ash and metal from incineration, with 90% of waste being disposed of. Despite the attractive form adapted to the surroundings and the use of waste-to-clean technology, the facility raises controversies related to its functioning [59].
An extremely characteristic object is the Spittelau waste incinerator in Vienna (Figure 1). The architecture of this building is typical of its designer Friedensreich Hundertwasser. The waste incineration plant in Spittelau supplies more than 60,000 households with environmentally friendly district heating and almost 50,000 households with electricity annually, and processes around 250,000 tons of non-recyclable waste. The original facility was built in the 1970s; in 2015, a comprehensive modernisation was carried out and the building was adapted to modern requirements related to environmental and climate protection. Besides burning waste, the Spittelau area offers other functions for the Viennese residents. Since 2009, a cooling centre has been located on this site, which Wien Energie uses to provide environmentally friendly cooling. A district cooling capacity of 17 MW corresponds to approximately 4860 conventional air-conditioning units. A power plant is also currently under construction. Out of 0.63 tons of waste per capita, 23% is recycled, 11% is composted, 63% is incinerated, and less than 3% is landfilled thanks to the operation of the incinerator. Vienna draws 25% of its heat from the district heating network in Spittelau. The building is equipped with modern technologies and uses recycling, aerobic, and anaerobic composting, three grate combustion WtE plants, and an RDF (refuse-derived fuel) fluidised bed incinerator [60,61]. The building is one of the most characteristic buildings of the Austrian capital. Despite the fact that it stands out in the city landscape, its form is of great artistic value and an important landmark in the urban structure of Vienna. The building is designed in a way that is integrated with nature through the use of partially green roofs and terraces. The facility is of educational importance for historical and landscape reasons and because of the latest technological solutions related with the circular economy [61]. The efficiency of the Roskilde and Vienna incineration plants is similar to the capacity of the largest incineration plant in Poland described in the study, which is in in Warsaw.
An interesting example of a very modern technological extension is the incineration plant in Brescia, Italy. The WtE in Brescia serves a population of 0.19 million, with two MSW lines in operation since 1998 and one dedicated biomass line added in 2004. It supplies a total of 568 kW/h of heat (nearly 40% of the annual heating energy supplied to the Brescia network). In 2008, the incineration plant produced electricity for 190,000 families and heat for 50,000 homes. At the same time, it saved 150,000 ton. The Brescia plant, one of the newest in the EU, was accredited in 2006 by the Global Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) as the best WtE facility in the world. Currently, the building is being modernised and adapted to the needs of the latest technologies related to the circular economy. The composition of the building fits into the landscape with its form, due to the emphasis on the natural relief of the land. It is a local dominant. The implementation lacks natural elements more directly related to the body of the building. The incinerator in Brescia offers an educational program related to the possibility of organising lectures and presentations of technologies used in the building [62,63,64]. Most Polish WfEs have a much lower capacity compared to the leading European incineration plants, but the planned development strategy related to the policy of increasing the number of such facilities in the country gives an opportunity to improve the current situation [65,66,67].
Cities that win plebiscites related to choosing the best one to live in usually have an orderly and modern system related to waste disposal and renewable energy. An example of the application of system solutions related to the entire urban infrastructure is Munich. This metropolis, with about 1.4 million inhabitants, has an integrated energy production system based on 70 different power plants supplying the city with energy from geothermal installations, wind power plants and a system of photovoltaic fields, and five incineration plants. Thanks to extensive social campaigns and the city’s strong commitment to a very consistent policy related to the circular economy, only 0.46 tons of municipal waste per capita were recorded. Of this amount of waste, 44% is recycled, 6% is composted, 49% is incinerated, and only 1%, consisting of inorganic waste, ends up in landfills. Energy recovery in Munich is one of the highest on record: 0.41 MWh of electricity plus 2.57 MWh of district heat per ton of MSW burned. According to data from 2009, 653,273 tons of MSW were burned, and energy sales amounted to 131,514 MWh/a of electricity and 744,772 MWh/a of district heat [68,69,70,71].

5. Conclusions

The results of the presented research allowed us to answer the research question posed: are the applied pro-environmental solutions correlated with architectural quality? We thus realised the set research objective by formulating the following conclusions:
  • Waste incineration plants operating in Poland show a relationship between architectural quality and broadly understood pro-environmental solutions. However, the conclusion in this problem area is statistically unfavourable, as the assessment is positive in the case of three incineration plants and negative in the case of five incineration plants, which did not show positive solutions in terms of fitting the facility into the landscape, opening the internal space to the surroundings, using forms of greenery integrated with architecture, maximising the user’s contact with nature, and using renewable energy sources.
  • All waste incineration plants operating in Poland demonstrate educational solutions that support the creation of environmental awareness and sensitivity in the context of diverse solutions for municipal waste transformation.
Very important in the context of shaping industrial architecture, here the architecture of waste incineration plants is ecological safety and adaptation measures for areas sensitive to climate change. The subjective sense of safety is as important as objective safety. There are no universal solutions; each site requires pre-designed research and creativity in the design process [72,73,74]. The research shows that the architectural quality, applied ecological solutions, and education in the field of municipal solid waste (MSW) combustion technologies significantly affect the perception of the waste incineration plant by the local community [75].
The municipal waste incineration process produces secondary waste: slag and fly ash, dust from filter cake dusting, and others. Slag accounts for about 25% of the incinerated waste and ash accounts for about 7.5%. Slag, after appropriate treatment, becomes an environmentally inert material and can be used economically, e.g., as construction aggregate in road construction. In the case of ash, the primary management method is storage (as hazardous waste—e.g., in mine workings). However, there are opportunities to process it to change its characteristics and enable economic use [43,47,48,76,77]. Modern waste incineration plants are characterised by increasing environmental concerns and, although being widely used, their activity remains controversial. The criticism focuses on pointing out the negative impact of using incineration over the use of other more efficient and cheaper methods of waste disposal; incineration, however, is simpler and quicker than recycling or composting.
Waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies should be used in the case of waste that cannot be reused or recycled, including part of municipal solid waste (MSW). Research in the field of modern combustion and MSW gasification technologies focuses on the environmental consequences of electricity and heat production from MSW combustion, indicating progress in the field of less invasive technologies [78]. Danger for the environment may also result from an improper operation in terms of the applied technologies. Operational errors can result in both environmental and economic costs [79].
Alternatives to MSW incineration include recycling or, in the case of organic waste, composting [80,81,82]. These methods should be considered first because they are less harmful to the environment. Compared to landfilling and incineration, recycling and composting do not release toxic elements and pollutants that contaminate the air, water, and soil [83,84]. The recycling strategy is to process materials to obtain the same or lower quality, which means a useful application of materials, which is a departure point in increasing circularity [85,86]. Other circular economy (CE) strategies include recovery (energy recovery during incarnation), reuse (product lifespan extension), and reduction (efficiency increase or lower consumption of natural resources) [87]. Recycling is an effective way of managing waste [88,89]. However, its efficiency depends on the socioeconomic policy of a country or municipality [84]. On household scale, the following materials may be collected separately and then some of them may be recycled: glass bottles and containers; plastic bottles and containers; aluminium, tin, and steel cans; paper and cardboard; batteries; pharmaceuticals and medicines; food waste; and garden waste. In order to achieve efficiency, waste collection services should include door-to-door collection; drop-off centres or containers; and a return with refund to the retailer or manufacturer [90].
Additionally, food and garden waste can be composted [91]. Composting is the biological decomposition of organic matter under controlled aerobic conditions to form a stable, humus-like end product that can be used for plant growth [92]. In this biological process, heat is generated and organic matter is transformed by using a diverse population of microorganisms [93]. Thermophilic aerobic composting gives an opportunity to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste. However, there are significant concerns about the quality of compost from MSW, such as a contamination with solids (glass shards and plastic fragments) and chemical or biological contamination [93,94]. Thus, the composting method needs to be optimised to gain high compost maturity, on which its quality depends [95]. Both composting and recycling are embedded in the CE paradigm [87,96,97,98,99,100]. Compost can be also used in the remediation and regeneration of contaminated and post-industrial sites [93]. These methods should be considered first in MSW management. Nevertheless, a significant correlation between socioeconomic foundations and waste recycling has been recognised [84]. Therefore, their effectiveness requires a profound system transformation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk), K.R.-N., P.Ł, Ł.M., A.S. (Anna Stefańska), M.K. and A.N.; methodology, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk) and P.Ł.; software, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk) and P.Ł.; validation, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk) and P.Ł.; formal analysis, Ł.M., A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk) and P.Ł.; investigation, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk) and P.Ł.; resources, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk), K.R.-N., P.Ł, Ł.M., A.S. (Anna Stefańska), M.K. and A.N.; data curation, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk), K.R.-N., P.Ł, Ł.M., A.S. (Anna Stefańska), M.K. and A.N.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk), K.R.-N., P.Ł, Ł.M., A.S. (Anna Stefańska), M.K. and A.N.; writing—review and editing, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk) and Ł.M.; visualization, P.Ł.; supervision, A.S. (Agnieszka Starzyk); project administration, Ł.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gropius, W. The Scope of Total Architecture, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-1-00-325289-4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mazur, Ł.; Bać, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Winkler, J.; Nowysz, A.; Koda, E. Evaluation of the Quality of the Housing Environment Using Multi-Criteria Analysis That Includes Energy Efficiency: A Review. Energies 2022, 15, 7750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Trach, Y.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E.; Melnychuk, V.; Melnychuk, G.; Mazur, L.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E. Using Local Mineral Materials for the Rehabilitation of the Ustya River—A Case Study. DWT 2021, 232, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lestari, P.; Trihadiningrum, Y. The Impact of Improper Solid Waste Management to Plastic Pollution in Indonesian Coast and Marine Environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Li, W.; Achal, V. Environmental and Health Impacts Due to E-Waste Disposal in China—A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Adamcová, D. Comparison of Technical Methods of Securing Closed Landfills in the Czech Republic and Poland. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2020, 18, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sauve, G.; Van Acker, K. The Environmental Impacts of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Europe: A Life Cycle Assessment of Proper Reference Cases to Support Decision Making. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abushammala, M.F.M.; Qazi, W.A.; Frrag, S.; Alazaiza, M.Y.D.; Younes, M.K. Site Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Plant Using GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2022, 72, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vaverková, M.D.; Paleologos, E.K.; Adamcová, D.; Podlasek, A.; Pasternak, G.; Červenková, J.; Skutnik, Z.; Koda, E.; Winkler, J. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill: Evidence of the Effect of Applied Landfill Management on Vegetation Composition. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 1402–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sahin, O.; Kirim, Y. 2.31 Material Recycling. In Comprehensive Energy Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1018–1042. ISBN 978-0-12-814925-6. [Google Scholar]
  11. Koda, E.; Rybak-Niedziółka, K.; Winkler, J.; Černý, M.; Osiński, P.; Podlasek, A.; Kawalec, J.; Vaverková, M.D. Space Redevelopment of Old Landfill Located in the Zone between Urban and Protected Areas: Case Study. Energies 2021, 15, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rajmohan, K.; Ramya, C.; Varjani, S. Trends and Advances in Bioenergy Production and Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Energy Environ. 2021, 32, 1059–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hanif, I. Impact of Economic Growth, Nonrenewable and Renewable Energy Consumption, and Urbanization on Carbon Emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 15057–15067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Khan, A.H.; López-Maldonado, E.A.; Alam, S.S.; Khan, N.A.; López, J.R.L.; Herrera, P.F.M.; Abutaleb, A.; Ahmed, S.; Singh, L. Municipal Solid Waste Generation and the Current State of Waste-to-Energy Potential: State of Art Review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 267, 115905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Langie, K.; Rybak-Niedziólka, K. Renaturisation of Local Rivers in City Landscape, Based on Sokolowka Trail Valley Design. DWT 2021, 232, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ramboll. From Amager Bakke: High-Efficiency Energy Recovery from Waste. 2018. Available online: Https://Ramboll.Com/Projects/Rme/Copenhill?Utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=Amager+Bakke+26102017 (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  17. Wilts, H.; Garcia, B.R.; Garlito, R.G.; Gómez, L.S.; Prieto, E.G. Artificial Intelligence in the Sorting of Municipal Waste as an Enabler of the Circular Economy. Resources 2021, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maisarah, M.; Bong, C.P.C.; Ho, W.S.; Lim, J.S.; Muis, Z.A.; Hashim, H.; Elagroudy, S.; Teck, G.L.H.; Ho, C.S. Review on the Suitability of Waste for Appropriate Waste-to-Energy Technology. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018, 63, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Llano, T.; Arce, C.; Finger, D.C. Optimization of Biogas Production through Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste: A Case Study in the Capital Area of Reykjavik, Iceland. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2021, 96, 1333–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Crawford, R.H.; Mathur, D.; Gerritsen, R. Barriers to Improving the Environmental Performance of Construction Waste Management in Remote Communities. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Podlasek, A. Modeling Leachate Generation: Practical Scenarios for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Poland. Env. Sci Pollut. Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Paleologos, E.K.; Caratelli, P.; Amrousi, M.E. Waste-to-Energy: An Opportunity for a New Industrial Typology in Abu Dhabi. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1260–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brinkley, C. The Conundrum of Combustible Clean Energy: Sweden’s History of Siting District Heating Smokestacks in Residential Areas. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Boos, R.; Stock, M.; Kuna, R.P. Samplings of PCDDs and PCDFs at the MWI Spittelau/Vienna. Chemosphere 1994, 29, 2051–2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Generowicz, A.; Kulczycka, J.; Kowalski, Z.; Banach, M. Assessment of Waste Management Technology Using BATNEEC Options, Technology Quality Method and Multi-Criteria Analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1314–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Herrmann, C.; Juraschek, M.; Burggräf, P.; Kara, S. Urban Production: State of the Art and Future Trends for Urban Factories. CIRP Ann. 2020, 69, 764–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ramiller, A.; Schmidt, P. Scale Limits to Sustainability: Transdisciplinary Evidence from Three Danish Cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 27, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nordestgaard, P.M.; Arndt, C.H. AMAGER BAKKE: A Steel Building with the Design Challenge of Creating a World Famous Recreational Roof. ce/papers 2019, 3, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ebert, B.A.R.; Geiker, M.R.; Kunther, W.; Kirkelund, G.M. Impact of Electrodialytic Remediation of MSWI Fly Ash on Hydration and Mechanical Properties of Blends with Portland Cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 309, 125193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Amager Ressourcecenter. Available online: https://www.a-r-c.dk/amager-bakke (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  31. 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]
  32. Emerson, R. 5 September 2014. VICE. Abgerufen Am von A Beautiful Waste-To-Energy Plant Glows in Denmark. Available online: https://www.Vice.Com/En/Article/3d5b33/a-Beautiful-Waste-to-Energy-Plant-Glows-in-Denmark (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  33. Eco, U.; de Michele, G. A History of Beauty; REBIS: Poznan, Poland, 2005. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  34. Kucza-Kuczyński, K. Zawód—Architekt. On Professional Ethics and Morality of Architecture; PW Publishing House: Warsaw, Poland, 2004. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  35. Kozłowski, T. Expressionist Tendencies in Contemporary Architecture; Publishing House PK: Krakow, Poland, 2013. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  36. Tobolczyk, M. Expressionism in European Architecture; Continuity of Tradition; Zeszyty Naukowe Vistula University, Series; Architecture, Nr 53(2)/2017; Publishing House AFiBV: Warsaw, Poland, 2017. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  37. Winkler, J.; Jeznach, J.; Koda, E.; Sas, W.; Mazur, Ł.; Vaverková, M. Promoting Biodiversity: Vegetation in a Model Small Park Located in the Research and Educational Centre. J. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 23, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Winkler, J.; Mazur, Ł.; Smékalová, M.; Podlasek, A.; Hurajová, E.; Koda, E.; Jiroušek, M.; Jakimiuk, A.; Vaverková, M.D. Influence of Land Use on Plant Community Composition in Vysocina Region Grasslands, Czech Republic. Environ. Protect. Eng. 2022, 48, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Banasik-Petri, K. Renzo Piano. Synergy of Architecture and Technology Exemplified by the Realization of The New York Times Building in New York City; Nr 4(54); Scientific Quarterly of Vistula University: Warsaw, Poland, 2017. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  40. Marchwiński, J.; Zielonko-Jung, K. Contemporary Ecological Architecture; Scientific Publishers PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2017. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  41. Ryńska, E.D. Bioclimatic Versus Architectural Form; Publishing House PW: Warsaw, Poland, 2001. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  42. Widera, B. The Process of Forming a Relationship with Nature in Contemporary Architecture; Publishing House PWr: Wrocław, Poland, 2018. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  43. Wielgosiński, G.; Czerwińska, J. Municipal Waste Incineration Plants in Poland; Nowa Energia: Poznan, Poland, 2019; Volume 4. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  44. Kubec, J. On Architecture at the Interface between Urban Areas and Open Landscapes; Silesian University of Technology Publishing House: Gliwice, Poland, 2017. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  45. Stefańska, A.; Cygan, M.; Batte, K.; Pietrzak, J. Application of Timber and Wood-Based Materials in Architectural Design Using Multi-Objective Optimisation Tools. CEB 2021, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Geller, E.S. Actively Caring for the Environment: An Integration of Behaviorism and Humanism. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wielgosiński, G.; Czerwińska, J. Consequences of the Implementation of the New BAT Conclusions for Incineration Plants; Nowa Energia: Poznan, Poland, 2020; Volume 1. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  48. Siekierski, M.; Majewska, K.; Podsiadło, S. Waste Management Thermal Waste Conversion—Incineration and Co-incineration Plants. MSR 2021, 38, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Starzyk, A. Pro-Environmental Architecture Aimed at Children—Future Challenges, Educational Message. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2020, 19, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Smol, M. Inventory of Wastes Generated in Polish Sewage Sludge Incineration Plants and Their Possible Circular Management Directions. Resources 2020, 9, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Central Statistical Office. Environment 2018; Central Statistical Office: Warsaw, Poland, 2019.
  52. Cyranka, M.; Jurczyk, M.; Pająk, T. Municipal Waste-to-Energy Plants in Poland—Current Projects. E3S Web Conf. 2016, 10, 00070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bisinella, V.; Nedenskov, J.; Riber, C.; Hulgaard, T.; Christensen, T.H. Environmental Assessment of Amending the Amager Bakke Incineration Plant in Copenhagen with Carbon Capture and Storage. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mendoza Beltran, A.; Cox, B.; Mutel, C.; Vuuren, D.P.; Font Vivanco, D.; Deetman, S.; Edelenbosch, O.Y.; Guinée, J.; Tukker, A. When the Background Matters: Using Scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models in Prospective Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Leung, D.Y.C.; Caramanna, G.; Maroto-Valer, M.M. An Overview of Current Status of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kirkeby, J.; Grohnheit, P.E.; Møller Andersen, F. Experiences with Waste Incineration for Energy Production in Denmark; Herrmann, I.T., Karlsson, K.B., Eds.; DTU Management Engineering: Roskilde, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wowrzeczka, B. Landscape Forms in the Architecture of Waste Management Facilities in Cities. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2019, 18, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Grudziecki, J.; Buachoom, P. The Landscape Architect’s Guide to the World of Solid Waste. Degree Project. University of Agricultural Sciences: Alnarp, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  59. Corrigan, R. Ireland and Incineration—A Very Long Engagement, Critical Social Thinking. Appl. Soc. Stud. 2011, 3, 99–111. [Google Scholar]
  60. Levaggi, L.; Levaggi, R.; Marchiori, C.; Trecroci, C. Waste-to-Energy in the EU: The Effects of Plant Ownership, Waste Mobility, and Decentralization on Environmental Outcomes and Welfare. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Siejka, M. The Use of AHP to Prioritize Five Waste Processing Plants Locations in Krakow. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chaliki, P.; Psomopoulos, C.; Themelis, N.; Stavroulakis, C. WTE Plants Installed in 10 European Cities. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Protection and Restoration of the Environment, Skiathos Island, Greece, 29 June–3 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bogale, W.; Viganò, F. A Preliminary Comparative Performance Evaluation of Highly Efficient Waste-to-Energy Plants. Energy Procedia 2014, 45, 1315–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bonomo, A. Waste-to-Energy in High Efficiency District Heating The Experience in Brecia, Italy. In Proceedings of the COGEN Europe – Euroheat & Power Beyond Electricity, Bruxelles, Belgium, 21 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ministry of Environment. Strategy for Treatment of Municipal Sewage Sludge in 2019–2022; Ministry of Environment: Warsaw, Poland, 2018.
  66. Ministry of Environment. Regulation of the Minister of the Environment: Catalogue of Waste; Journal of Laws 2020, Item 10; Ministry of Environment: Warsaw, Poland, 2020.
  67. Ministry of Environment. Act. of 14 December 2012 on Waste; Journal of Laws of 2013, Item 21; Ministry of Environment: Warsaw, Poland, 2013.
  68. EC 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030. 2014. Available online: Http://Eur-Lex.Europa.Eu/Legal-Content/EN/TXT/PDF/?Uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&-From=EN (accessed on 19 March 2018).
  69. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (EEG). Renewable Energy Source Act. 2017. Available online: Http://Www.Bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/Rene-Wable-Energy-Sources-Act-2017.Pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  70. Eurostat. Energy Balance Sheets European Commission—Eurostat; Publications Office of the EU: Luxemburg, 2017. [CrossRef]
  71. Kunz, F.; Weigt, H. Germany’s Nuclear Phase Out: A Survey of the Impact since 2011 and Outlook to 2023. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 2014, 3, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Starzyk, A. Social or Safe Space? In Socio-Economic Aspects of Polish Security in the XXI Century—Challenges and Threats; Publishing House of the Bogdan Jański University: Warsaw, Poland, 2015. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  73. Marchwiński, J.; Starzyk, A.; Kopyłow, O. The Energy Context of the Use of Building Materials in the Design of Energy Efficient Pre-School Buildings—An Architectural Viewpoint. Mater. Bud. 2022, 6, 34–38. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  74. Marchwiński, J.; Starzyk, A.; Kopyłow, O. Energy-efficient material solutions in kindergarten building architecture. Mater. Bud. 2022, 8, 48–51. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  75. 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]
  76. Wielgosiński, G. Municipal Waste Incineration Plants in Poland; Nr 4(69)/2019; Nowa Energia: Poznan, Poland, 2019. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  77. Wielgosiński, G.; Namiecińska, O. Municipal Waste Incinerators—A 2020 Perspective; Nr 1(49)/2016; Nowa Energia: Poznan, Poland, 2016. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  78. Bianco, I.; Panepinto, D.; Zanetti, M. Environmental Impacts of Electricity from Incineration and Gasification: How the LCA Approach Can Affect the Results. Sustainability 2021, 14, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wajda, A.; Jaworski, T. Optimization and Security of Hazardous Waste Incineration Plants with the Use of a Heuristic Algorithm. Sensors 2021, 21, 7247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vaverková, M.D.; Winkler, J.; Adamcová, D.; Radziemska, M.; Uldrijan, D.; Zloch, J. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill—Vegetation Succession in an Area Transformed by Human Impact. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 129, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vaverková, M.D.; Adamcová, D.; Winkler, J.; Koda, E.; Červenková, J.; Podlasek, A. Influence of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill on the Surrounding Environment: Landfill Vegetation as a Potential Risk of Allergenic Pollen. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Podlasek, A.; Jakimiuk, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E. Monitoring and Assessment of Groundwater Quality at Landfill Sites: Selected Case Studies of Poland and the Czech Republic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Song, J.; Wang, S.; Liu, X. Uncovering Regional Energy and Environmental Benefits of Urban Waste Utilization: A Physical Input-Output Analysis for a City Case. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 922–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Duan, H.; Zhao, Q.; Song, J.; Duan, Z. Identifying Opportunities for Initiating Waste Recycling: Experiences of Typical Developed Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Larcher, D.; Tarascon, J.-M. Towards Greener and More Sustainable Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage. Nat. Chem 2015, 7, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hussain, C.M.; Paulraj, M.S.; Nuzhat, S. Source Reduction and Waste Minimization—Concept, Context, and Its Benefits. In Source Reduction and Waste Minimization; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 1–22. ISBN 978-0-12-824320-6. [Google Scholar]
  89. Rajendran, K.; Lin, R.; Wall, D.M.; Murphy, J.D. Influential Aspects in Waste Management Practices. In Sustainable Resource Recovery and Zero Waste Approaches; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 65–78. ISBN 978-0-444-64200-4. [Google Scholar]
  90. Halvorsen, B. Effects of Norms and Policy Incentives on Household Recycling: An International Comparison. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 67, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bernal, M.P.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Moral, R. Composting of Animal Manures and Chemical Criteria for Compost Maturity Assessment. A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5444–5453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Reddy, N.; Crohn, D.M. Compost Induced Soil Salinity: A New Prediction Method and Its Effect on Plant Growth. Compos. Sci. Util. 2012, 20, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Farrell, M.; Jones, D.L. Critical Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Composting and Potential Compost Markets. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4301–4310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Déportes, I.; Benoit-Guyod, J.-L.; Zmirou, D. Hazard to Man and the Environment Posed by the Use of Urban Waste Compost: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 1995, 172, 197–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Iglesias Jiménez, E.; Perez Garcia, V. Evaluation of City Refuse Compost Maturity: A Review. Biol. Wastes 1989, 27, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Santagata, R.; Zucaro, A.; Viglia, S.; Ripa, M.; Tian, X.; Ulgiati, S. Assessing the Sustainability of Urban Eco-Systems through Emergy-Based Circular Economy Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 109, 105859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mazur, Ł. Circular Economy in Housing Architecture: Methods of Implementation. Acta Sci. Pol. Archit. 2021, 20, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F.; Bragança, L. Towards Circular and More Sustainable Buildings: A Systematic Literature Review on the Circular Economy in the Built Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nowysz, A.; Mazur, Ł.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E.; Winkler, J. Urban Agriculture as an Alternative Source of Food and Water Security in Today’s Sustainable Cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 02599 g001 550
Figure 1. Spittelau Incinerator Plant [author: C.Stadler/Bwag, licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 Available online: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Spittelau_%28Wien%29_-_M%C3%BCllverbrennungsanlage_%281%29.JPG/800px-Spittelau_%28Wien%29_-_M%C3%BCllverbrennungsanlage_%281%29.JPG, (accessed on 15 December 2022)].
Figure 1. Spittelau Incinerator Plant [author: C.Stadler/Bwag, licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 Available online: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Spittelau_%28Wien%29_-_M%C3%BCllverbrennungsanlage_%281%29.JPG/800px-Spittelau_%28Wien%29_-_M%C3%BCllverbrennungsanlage_%281%29.JPG, (accessed on 15 December 2022)].
Sustainability 15 02599 g001
Sustainability 15 02599 g002 550
Figure 2. Amager Bakke [author: Cabstarcz, licence: CC BY-SA 4.0, Available online: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/COPENHILL.jpg, (accessed on 15 December 2022)].
Figure 2. Amager Bakke [author: Cabstarcz, licence: CC BY-SA 4.0, Available online: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/COPENHILL.jpg, (accessed on 15 December 2022)].
Sustainability 15 02599 g002
Sustainability 15 02599 g003 550
Figure 3. Incineration Line in Roskilde [author: Jonas Jensen, licence: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, Available online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131236841@N03/25189217143/, accessed on 15 December 2022].
Figure 3. Incineration Line in Roskilde [author: Jonas Jensen, licence: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, Available online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131236841@N03/25189217143/, accessed on 15 December 2022].
Sustainability 15 02599 g003
Sustainability 15 02599 g004 550
Figure 4. (a) annual capacity of particular incineration plants, (b) amount of waste incinerated per capita, (c) ratio of heat produced to capacity, (d) ratio of electricity produced to capacity. Source: author’s study. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/ludnosc/powierzchnia-i-ludnosc-w-przekroju-terytorialnym-w-2022-roku,7,19.html, (accessed on 14 December 2022).
Figure 4. (a) annual capacity of particular incineration plants, (b) amount of waste incinerated per capita, (c) ratio of heat produced to capacity, (d) ratio of electricity produced to capacity. Source: author’s study. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/ludnosc/powierzchnia-i-ludnosc-w-przekroju-terytorialnym-w-2022-roku,7,19.html, (accessed on 14 December 2022).
Sustainability 15 02599 g004
Sustainability 15 02599 g005 550
Figure 5. Location of waste incineration plants in Poland (percentage share): urban 12%, suburban 50%, peripheral 38%. Source: author’s study.
Figure 5. Location of waste incineration plants in Poland (percentage share): urban 12%, suburban 50%, peripheral 38%. Source: author’s study.
Sustainability 15 02599 g005
Sustainability 15 02599 g006 550
Figure 6. Evaluation of waste incineration plants in Poland. Source: author’s study.
Figure 6. Evaluation of waste incineration plants in Poland. Source: author’s study.
Sustainability 15 02599 g006
Table
Table 1. Summary of characteristic parameters of particular waste incineration plants in Poland [43]. Source: author’s study.
Table 1. Summary of characteristic parameters of particular waste incineration plants in Poland [43]. Source: author’s study.
Location of Incineration PlantYear of ConstructionAnnual Capacity (Mg/Year)PopulationAmount of Waste Incinerated per CapitaPerformance (Mg/h)Generated Heat (MW)Ratio of Performance to Heat GeneratedElectricity Generated (MW)Ratio of Performance to Electricity Generated
Bialystok2016120,000293,4130.4115.5017.51.16.10.4
Bydgoszcz2016180,000334,0260.5423.0027.71.29.20.4
Konin201594,00069,0691.3612.0515.51.34.40.4
Krakow2015220,000802,5830.2714.1035.02.510.70.8
Poznan2017210,000545,0730.3913.5034.02.515.01.1
Rzeszow2018100,000196,3740.5112.5016.51.34.60.4
Szczecin2017150,000394,4820.3820.0032.01.69.40.5
Warszawa2000 (2022 expansion)305,2001,863,0560.165.409.11.71.40.3
Table
Table 2. Summary of research findings. Source: author’s study.
Table 2. Summary of research findings. Source: author’s study.
Location of Incineration PlantEmbedding the Object in the LandscapeOpening Up the Interior Space to the Outside WorldUse of Greenery Forms Integrated into the ArchitectureMaximising User’s Contact with NatureUse of Renewable Energy SourcesEducational FunctionsPoints Scored (Columns 2–7)
1234567
BiałystokPeripheralSituated in a wooded area, building does not fit into the existing landscape in terms of form or colourBuilding does not open up to the outside environmentLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureLack of solutions to bring users into contact with natureLack of renewable energy sourcesEducational trial1
BydgoszczSuburbanBuilding attempts to relate to the landscape in which it is set through the colours used, but its form stands out strongly against the surrounding greeneryBuilding does not open up to the outside environmentLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureLack of solutions to bring users into contact with natureLack of renewable energy sourcesEducational trial1
KoninPeripheralBuilding does not fit in the landscape in which it is located, a typically industrial developmentBuilding does not open up to the outside environmentLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureLack of solutions to bring users into contact with natureLack of renewable energy sourcesEducational trial1
KrakowPeripheralArchitectural form harmonises with the landscape. It stands out against the background of typical industrial buildings; the colour scheme of the building and the division of its mass into separate sections result that its form does not dominate or overwhelm the spaceBuilding opens up to its surroundings through use of glazing on the front façade, providing natural light and a view inside the buildingLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureGreen areas on the incinerator site with access for users, planted with tall greeneryPhotovoltaic installationEducational trial5
PoznanSuburbanArchitectural solutions typical of industrial buildings. Building does not harmonise with the landscape, which lacks similar buildings in the neighbourhoodBuilding does not open up to the outside environmentLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureLack of solutions to bring users into contact with natureLack of renewable energy sourcesEducational trial1
RzeszowSuburbanBuilding located in close proximity to a major urban centre. Its form is in harmony with the neighbouring industrial buildings, while at the same time being distinguished by architectural treatments unusual for such buildingsBuilding opens up to its surroundings through the use of glazing on the front façade providing natural light and a view inside the buildingLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureLack of solutions to bring users into contact with naturePhotovoltaic installation on the project siteEducational trial4
SzczecinSuburbanA typically industrial building that dominates and does not relate to its surroundings. Random forms and colours dominateBuilding does not open up to the outside environmentLack of forms of greenery integrated with architectureLack of solutions to bring users into contact with natureLack of renewable energy sourcesEducational trial1
Warszawa (undergoing expansion)UrbanBuilding located in the midst of urban, industrial, and residential development. High-quality form and materials, at first glance, do not give the impression of an industrial buildingBuilding opens up to the external environment through use of translucent wall claddingGreen roofs used on the building.Green roofs with user access are used, the area landscaped with tall and low vegetationPhotovoltaic installation on the project siteEducational trial6
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

Starzyk, A.; Rybak-Niedziółka, K.; Łacek, P.; Mazur, Ł.; Stefańska, A.; Kurcjusz, M.; Nowysz, A. Environmental and Architectural Solutions in the Problem of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland: A Comparative Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032599

AMA Style

Starzyk A, Rybak-Niedziółka K, Łacek P, Mazur Ł, Stefańska A, Kurcjusz M, Nowysz A. Environmental and Architectural Solutions in the Problem of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland: A Comparative Analysis. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032599

Chicago/Turabian Style

Starzyk, Agnieszka, Kinga Rybak-Niedziółka, Przemysław Łacek, Łukasz Mazur, Anna Stefańska, Małgorzata Kurcjusz, and Aleksandra Nowysz. 2023. "Environmental and Architectural Solutions in the Problem of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland: A Comparative Analysis" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032599

APA Style

Starzyk, A., Rybak-Niedziółka, K., Łacek, P., Mazur, Ł., Stefańska, A., Kurcjusz, M., & Nowysz, A. (2023). Environmental and Architectural Solutions in the Problem of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland: A Comparative Analysis. Sustainability, 15(3), 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032599

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop