IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v36y2008i3p418-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple criteria decision analysis of treatment and land-filling technologies for waste incineration residues

Author

Listed:
  • Bollinger, Dominique
  • Pictet, Jacques

Abstract

In this paper, we present a real-world case realized in Switzerland on behalf of the federal agency in charge of the waste policy. The incineration of urban wastes generates hazardous residues that need specific treatment and/or land-filling technologies. The variety of local situations and appraisals led to the choice of very different solutions. Moreover, proponents were keen to propose new technologies. The purpose of this study was to provide the background for a national policy that would apply to all future projects. A working group with representatives of the national, county and local levels was in charge of this study. Multiple criteria decision analysis has been used as a framework integrating in a structured way inputs from policy and technology. Technology provides what is feasible (the alternatives and their characteristics); policy provides what is desirable (the criteria and their importance). The aggregation of these two types of inputs in a transparent way generates results that are hopefully understood by and acceptable for all actors. In the study, 23 alternatives were analyzed on about 25 criteria and sub-criteria. The aggregation took into account the group members' and "artificial" weights. The results did not bring forward any alternative in particular and thus tended to legitimate the various solutions adopted; nevertheless, some technologies could be seen as worse than many others. We emphasize here the difficulty to handle multiple results and present how we coped with this issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Bollinger, Dominique & Pictet, Jacques, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision analysis of treatment and land-filling technologies for waste incineration residues," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 418-428, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:418-428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(06)00125-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sevastjanov, Pavel & Dymova, Ludmila, 2009. "Stock screening with use of multiple criteria decision making and optimization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 659-671, June.
    2. Roy, B. & Figueira, J.R. & Almeida-Dias, J., 2014. "Discriminating thresholds as a tool to cope with imperfect knowledge in multiple criteria decision aiding: Theoretical results and practical issues," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 9-20.

    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:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:418-428. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.