IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i5p2832-d511374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Zero-Waste Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Model for the Iron and Steel Industry in Developing Countries: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yolandi Schoeman

    (Centre for Environmental Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)

  • Paul Oberholster

    (Centre for Environmental Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)

  • Vernon Somerset

    (Chemistry Department, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville 7535, South Africa)

Abstract

The iron and steel industry is a major global industry that consumes vast quantities of energy and causes environmental degradation through greenhouse gas emissions and industrial waste generation, treatment, and disposal. There is a need to manage complex iron and steel industrial waste in Africa, which requires a system engineering approach to zero waste management as informed by multi-criteria decision-making. The purpose of the current study was to develop a hybrid four-step multi-criteria decision-support model, the i-ZEWATA (Industrial Zero Waste Tiered Analysis). I-ZEWATA acts as a road map to understand, design, assess, and evaluate the iron and steel industrial waste systems with the ultimate objective of moving towards and achieving a zero-waste footprint. The results demonstrate that iron and steel waste can be identified, visualized, prioritized, and managed to promote zero-waste by applying a system-engineered approach. Additionally, relationship patterns to environmental, social, operational, and economic aspects with system behavioral patterns and outcomes were identified. It was clear from the case study in South Africa that, although technology and solution investment is essential, waste management, valorization, and treatment components require a concerted effort to improve industrial waste operational management through effective zero-waste decision-support towards a circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Yolandi Schoeman & Paul Oberholster & Vernon Somerset, 2021. "A Zero-Waste Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Model for the Iron and Steel Industry in Developing Countries: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2832-:d:511374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2832/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2832/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Pesce & Chenyi Shi & Andrea Critto & Xiaohui Wang & Antonio Marcomini, 2018. "SWOT Analysis of the Application of International Standard ISO 14001 in the Chinese Context. A Case Study of Guangdong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Pavel Castka & Charles J. Corbett, 2016. "Governance of Eco-Labels: Expert Opinion and Media Coverage," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 309-326, May.
    3. repec:aud:audfin:v:20:y:2018:i:48:p:388 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Vargas, Luis G., 1994. "Reply to Schenkerman's avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 420-425, May.
    5. Ulutaş, Berna Haktanırlar, 2005. "Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1146-1161.
    6. Yolandi Schoeman & Paul Oberholster & Vernon Somerset, 2020. "Value Stream Mapping as a Supporting Management Tool to Identify the Flow of Industrial Waste: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Rodica Pamfilie & Daniela Firoiu & Adina-Gabriela Croitoru & George Horia Ioan Ionescu, 2018. "Circular Economy – A New Direction for the Sustainability of the Hotel Industry in Romania?," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(48), pages 388-388.
    8. Spatari, S. & Bertram, M. & Fuse, K. & Graedel, T. E. & Rechberger, H., 2002. "The contemporary European copper cycle: 1 year stocks and flows," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 27-42, August.
    9. Peter Oosterveer & Somporn Kamolsiripichaiporn & Rajah Rasiah, 2006. "The ‘Greening’ of Industry and Development in Southeast Asia: Perspectives on Industrial Transformation and Environmental Regulation; Introduction," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 217-227, May.
    10. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    11. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    12. Andrea Chiarini, 2014. "Strategies for Developing an Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chain: Differences Between Manufacturing and Service Sectors," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(7), pages 493-504, November.
    13. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    14. Aragonés-Beltrán, P. & Chaparro-González, F. & Pastor-Ferrando, J.P. & Rodríguez-Pozo, F., 2010. "An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 249-264, January.
    15. Zamani-Sabzi, Hamed & King, James Phillip & Gard, Charlotte C. & Abudu, Shalamu, 2016. "Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 92-117.
    16. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    17. Pavel Castka & Charles J. Corbett, 2016. "Erratum to: Governance of Eco-Labels: Expert Opinion and Media Coverage," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 401-401, May.
    18. Luis Miguel Fonseca & José Pedro Domingues & Maria Teresa Pereira & Florinda Figueiredo Martins & Dominik Zimon, 2018. "Assessment of Circular Economy within Portuguese Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    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. Jandieri, Gigo, 2022. "A generalized model for assessing and intensifying the recycling of metal-bearing industrial waste: A new approach to the resource policy of manganese industry in Georgia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(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. Jose Martino Neto & Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Miguel Angel Ortiz-Barrios & Antonella Petrillo, 2023. "Compatibility and correlation of multi-attribute decision making: a case of industrial relocation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 831-852, July.
    2. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    3. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    4. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    5. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    6. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    7. Xiaoli Zhao & Pavel Castka & Cory Searcy, 2020. "ISO Standards: A Platform for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    9. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    10. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    11. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    12. Noorollahi, Younes & Ghenaatpisheh Senani, Ali & Fadaei, Ahmad & Simaee, Mobina & Moltames, Rahim, 2022. "A framework for GIS-based site selection and technical potential evaluation of PV solar farm using Fuzzy-Boolean logic and AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 89-104.
    13. Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS," MPRA Paper 59887, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Mumtaz Karatas, 2017. "Multiattribute Decision Making Using Multiperiod Probabilistic Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 318-334, July.
    15. Dominik Zimon & Jonah Tyan & Robert Sroufe, 2019. "Implementing Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Reactive, Cooperative, and Dynamic Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    17. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    18. Roszkowska Ewa & Wachowicz Tomasz, 2019. "The Impact of Decision-Making Profiles on the Consistency of Rankings Obtained by Means of Selected Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Amy H. I. Lee & He-Yau Kang & You-Jyun Liou, 2017. "A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Photovoltaic Solar Plant Location Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Wen-Hsiang Chiu & Wen-Cheng Lin & Chun-Nan Chen & Nien-Ping Chen, 2021. "Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process to Analyze the Development of the Green Energy Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, July.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2832-:d:511374. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.