IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6526-d1121592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Bihter Gizem Demircan

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpasa, Esenler, Istanbul 34220, Turkey)

  • Kaan Yetilmezsoy

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpasa, Esenler, Istanbul 34220, Turkey)

Abstract

The integration of smart city technologies into waste management is a challenging field for decision makers due to its multivariate, multi-limiting, and multi-stakeholder structure, despite its contribution to the ecological and economic sustainability understanding of cities. The success of smart sustainable waste management strategies depends on many environmental, technical, economic, and social variables, and many stakeholders are involved in these processes. Using fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods helps decision makers determine effective, affordable, and acceptable smart waste management strategies. Although MCDM methods are widely used in various environmental engineering applications, the determination of smart sustainable waste management strategies using these methods has not yet received enough attention in the literature. This study aims to contribute to this gap in the literature by evaluating four different smart waste management strategies using a hybrid fuzzy MCDM method. The performance of the proposed strategy alternatives according to fifteen sub-criteria (under four main criteria selected from the literature) was evaluated using a combined application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to obtain the ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS). For this evaluation, the subjective opinions of ten different experts working in academia, in the private sector, or in the public sector were obtained using prepared questionnaires. As a result, the sub-criteria of fewer atmospheric emissions (0.42), operational feasibility (0.64), initial investment costs (0.56), and increased awareness of sustainable cities (0.53) had the highest weight values in their main criteria groups. The performance ranking of the alternatives according to the closeness coefficient ( CC i ) values was obtained as A2 (0.458) > A3 (0.453) > A4 (0.452) > A1 (0.440), with A3 being slightly ahead of A4 due only to a 0.001 higher CC i value. To test the reliability and stability of the obtained performance ranking results, a sensitivity analysis was also performed using eighteen different scenarios, in which the weights of the different sub-criteria were increased by 25% or decreased by 50%, or they were assumed to be 1 and 0, or all sub-criteria in the same group had equal weight values. Since the performance ranking of the alternatives did not change, the ranking obtained at the beginning was found to be robust against the sub-criterion weight changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Bihter Gizem Demircan & Kaan Yetilmezsoy, 2023. "A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6526-:d:1121592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6526/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6526/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Erkut, Erhan & Moran, Stephen R., 1991. "Locating obnoxious facilities in the public sector: An application of the analytic hierarchy process to municipal landfill siting decisions," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 89-102.
    3. Nitin Kumar Sahu & Atul Kumar Sahu & Anoop Kumar Sahu, 2015. "Appraisement and benchmarking of third-party logistic service provider by exploration of risk-based approach," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1121637-112, December.
    4. Chen, Chen-Tung & Lin, Ching-Torng & Huang, Sue-Fn, 2006. "A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 289-301, August.
    5. Cengiz Kahraman, 2008. "Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Fuzzy Sets," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Cengiz Kahraman (ed.), Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, pages 1-18, Springer.
    6. Su, Jun-Pin & Chiueh, Pei-Te & Hung, Ming-Lung & Ma, Hwong-Wen, 2007. "Analyzing policy impact potential for municipal solid waste management decision-making: A case study of Taiwan," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 418-434.
    7. Dhiman, Harsh S. & Deb, Dipankar, 2020. "Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy COPRAS based multi-criteria decision making for hybrid wind farms," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    8. Thi-Ly Nguyen & Phi-Hung Nguyen & Hong-Anh Pham & Thi-Giang Nguyen & Duc-Thinh Nguyen & Thi-Hoai Tran & Hong-Cham Le & Huong-Thuy Phung, 2022. "A Novel Integrating Data Envelopment Analysis and Spherical Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Steel Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, June.
    9. Antonis A. Zorpas & Aspasia Saranti, 2016. "Multi-criteria analysis of sustainable environmental clean technologies for the treatment of winery's wastewater," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1/2), pages 151-168.
    10. 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).
    11. Judith Petts, 2000. "Municipal Waste Management: Inequities and the Role of Deliberation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(6), pages 821-832, December.
    12. Khan, Imran & Kabir, Zobaidul, 2020. "Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 320-333.
    13. Nesrin Alptekin & Elif Eroglu Hall & Nurdan Sevim, 2015. "Evaluation of Websites Quality Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Method," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 221-242, August.
    14. T. Padma & S. P. Shantharajah & P. Ramadoss, 2022. "Hybrid Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Decision Model for Aquaculture Species Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 999-1030, May.
    15. Aouam, T. & Chang, S. I. & Lee, E. S., 2003. "Fuzzy MADM: An outranking method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 317-328, March.
    16. Elena Giovannoni & Giacomo Fabietti, 2013. "What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and Its Applications," Springer Books, in: Cristiano Busco & Mark L. Frigo & Angelo Riccaboni & Paolo Quattrone (ed.), Integrated Reporting, edition 127, chapter 2, pages 21-40, Springer.
    17. Seker, Sukran, 2022. "IoT based sustainable smart waste management system evaluation using MCDM model under interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    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. Abdel-Mohsen O. Mohamed & Dina Mohamed & Adham Fayad & Moza T. Al Nahyan, 2024. "Enhancing Decision Making and Decarbonation in Environmental Management: A Review on the Role of Digital Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-34, August.
    2. Ediz Atmaca & Esra Aktaş & Hafsa Nur Öztürk, 2023. "Evaluated Post-Disaster and Emergency Assembly Areas Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Case Study of Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-26, May.

    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. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    2. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    3. V. Alpagut Yavuz, 2016. "An Analysis of Job Change Decision Using a Hybrid Mcdm Method: A Comparative Analysis," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 6(3), pages 60-75, March.
    4. Kannan, Devika & Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa & Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, 2014. "Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 432-447.
    5. Deveci, Muhammet & Pamucar, Dragan & Gokasar, Ilgin & Isik, Mehtap & Coffman, D'Maris, 2022. "Fuzzy Einstein WASPAS approach for the economic and societal dynamics of the climate change mitigation strategies in urban mobility planning," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    6. Baskaran, Venkatesan & Nachiappan, Subramanian & Rahman, Shams, 2012. "Indian textile suppliers' sustainability evaluation using the grey approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 647-658.
    7. Ziemba, Paweł, 2022. "Uncertain Multi-Criteria analysis of offshore wind farms projects investments – Case study of the Polish Economic Zone of the Baltic Sea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    8. Lokesh Nagar & Pankaj Dutta & Karuna Jain, 2014. "An integrated supply chain model for new products with imprecise production and supply under scenario dependent fuzzy random demand," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(5), pages 873-887, May.
    9. Colubi, Ana & Ramos-Guajardo, Ana Belén, 2023. "Fuzzy sets and (fuzzy) random sets in Econometrics and Statistics," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 84-98.
    10. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    11. Shen, Lixin & Olfat, Laya & Govindan, Kannan & Khodaverdi, Roohollah & Diabat, Ali, 2013. "A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier's performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 170-179.
    12. V. Alpagut Yavuz, 2016. "An Analysis of Job Change Decision Using a Hybrid Mcdm Method: A Comparative Analysis," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 6(3), pages 60-75, March.
    13. Shubham Gupta & Raghav Khanna & Pranay Kohli & Sarthak Agnihotri & Umang Soni & M. Asjad, 2023. "Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure using Fuzzy AHP – a case study in India," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 245-258, March.
    14. Yang Yu & Ray Qing Cao & Dara Schniederjans, 2017. "Cloud computing and its impact on service level: a multi-agent simulation model," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(15), pages 4341-4353, August.
    15. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Haris Doukas, 2017. "Analysis of policy scenarios for achieving renewable energy sources targets: A fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Energy & Environment, , vol. 28(1-2), pages 88-109, March.
    16. Hashemi, Seyed Hamid & Karimi, Amir & Tavana, Madjid, 2015. "An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved Grey relational analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 178-191.
    17. Peng Jia & Kannan Govindan & Tsan-Ming Choi & Sivakumar Rajendran, 2015. "Supplier Selection Problems in Fashion Business Operations with Sustainability Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Özgür Kabak & Da Ruan, 2011. "A comparison study of fuzzy MADM methods in nuclear safeguards evaluation," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 209-226, October.
    19. Busola D. Akintayo & Oluwafemi E. Ige & Olubayo M. Babatunde & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Evaluation and Prioritization of Power-Generating Systems Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.

    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:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6526-:d:1121592. 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.