IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v86y2014icp149-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool

Author

Listed:
  • Antonopoulos, I.-S.
  • Perkoulidis, G.
  • Logothetis, D.
  • Karkanias, C.

Abstract

The establishment of an integrated rational waste management system is a complex issue, which has to be clearly investigated and a widespread variety of environmental, social and economic criteria should be taken into consideration. Each different waste treatment alternative provides a specific environmental, social and economic performance. Therefore, the crucial environmental, social and economic criteria need to be identified, estimated and thoroughly examined. In this manuscript, mechanical biological aerobic treatment without RDF energy recovery, mechanical biological anaerobic treatment and incineration with energy recovery are compared and finally ranked according to their environmental, social and economic performance. Analytical hierarchical process was used to rank the performance in three examined pillars in the capacity range of 70–90kt. Incineration with energy recovery provides best performance due to the high amount of generated energy, whereas the other two options provide less capital costs. However, the performance of each treatment alternative is strongly dependent on the selection and weight of criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonopoulos, I.-S. & Perkoulidis, G. & Logothetis, D. & Karkanias, C., 2014. "Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 149-159.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:86:y:2014:i:c:p:149-159
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344914000603
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schenkerman, Stan, 1994. "Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 407-419, May.
    2. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
    3. Contreras, Francisco & Hanaki, Keisuke & Aramaki, Toshiya & Connors, Stephen, 2008. "Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management plans, Boston, USA," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 979-991.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
    6. Pires, Ana & Chang, Ni-Bin & Martinho, Graça, 2011. "An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion of the solid waste management system in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 7-21.
    7. Annekatrin Lehmann & Daniela Russi & Alba Bala & Matthias Finkbeiner & Pere Fullana-i-Palmer, 2011. "Integration of Social Aspects in Decision Support, Based on Life Cycle Thinking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Brent, Alan C. & Rogers, David E.C. & Ramabitsa-Siimane, Tsaletseng S.M. & Rohwer, Mark B., 2007. "Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 403-424, August.
    9. Greening, Lorna A. & Bernow, Steve, 2004. "Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 721-735, April.
    10. Judith Petts, 2000. "Municipal Waste Management: Inequities and the Role of Deliberation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(6), pages 821-832, December.
    11. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1983. "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 228-230.
    12. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    13. Cherubini, Francesco & Bargigli, Silvia & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2009. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2116-2123.
    14. Murphy, J.D. & McKeogh, E., 2006. "The benefits of integrated treatment of wastes for the production of energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 294-310.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caferra, Rocco & D'Adamo, Idiano & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2023. "Wasting energy or energizing waste? The public acceptance of waste-to-energy technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PE).
    2. Shi, Lei & Wu, Kuo-Jui & Tseng, Ming-Lang, 2017. "Improving corporate sustainable development by using an interdependent closed-loop hierarchical structure," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 24-35.
    3. Gdoura, Khadija & Anane, Makram & Jellali, Salah, 2015. "Geospatial and AHP-multicriteria analyses to locate and rank suitable sites for groundwater recharge with reclaimed water," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 19-30.
    4. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali & Rostom, Madona & Malmir, Behnam & Yazdani, Morteza & Suh, Sangwon & Heidrich, Oliver, 2022. "Integrating life cycle assessment and multi criteria decision making for sustainable waste management: Key issues and recommendations for future studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neshat, Aminreza & Pradhan, Biswajeet & Dadras, Mohsen, 2014. "Groundwater vulnerability assessment using an improved DRASTIC method in GIS," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 74-86.
    2. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    3. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    4. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    5. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    6. Virginia Racioppi & Gabriella Marcarelli & Massimo Squillante, 2015. "Modelling a sustainable requalification problem by analytic hierarchy process," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1661-1677, July.
    7. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    8. Pires, Ana & Chang, Ni-Bin & Martinho, Graça, 2011. "An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion of the solid waste management system in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 7-21.
    9. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    10. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    11. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    12. Bruno Domenech & Laia Ferrer‐Martí & Rafael Pastor, 2019. "Comparison of various approaches to design wind‐PV rural electrification projects in remote areas of developing countries," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), May.
    13. Kumar, N. Vinod & Ganesh, L. S., 1996. "A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 656-662, December.
    14. Talaei, Alireza & Ahadi, Mohammad Sadegh & Maghsoudy, Soroush, 2014. "Climate friendly technology transfer in the energy sector: A case study of Iran," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 349-363.
    15. Richard Hnilica & Martin Jankovský & Miroslav Dado & Valéria Messingerová & Marián Schwarz & Darina Veverková, 2017. "Use of the analytic hierarchy process for complex assessment of the work environment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 93-101, January.
    16. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    17. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    18. Ulloa, Carlos & Nuñez, José M. & Lin, Chengxian & Rey, Guillermo, 2018. "AHP-based design method of a lightweight, portable and flexible air-based PV-T module for UAV shelter hangars," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 767-780.
    19. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    20. Sobczyk, Eugeniusz J. & Kicki, Jerzy & Sobczyk, Wiktoria & Szuwarzyński, Marek, 2017. "Support of mining investment choice decisions with the use of multi-criteria method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 94-99.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:86:y:2014:i:c:p:149-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.