IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v57y2019icp20-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis for environmentally conscious solid waste treatment and disposal technology selection

Author

Listed:
  • Govind Kharat, Manoj
  • Murthy, Shankar
  • Jaisingh Kamble, Sheetal
  • Raut, Rakesh D.
  • Kamble, Sachin S.
  • Govind Kharat, Mukesh

Abstract

Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is a major challenge for developing countries due to an enormous and rapid increase in waste generation rates, environmental issues and financial constraints for proper management. Poorly managed municipal solid waste (MSW) causes severe detrimental consequences to society like financial and aesthetic degradation, contamination of natural resources, environmental pollution and is a serious health hazard. The selection of appropriate MSW treatment and disposal technology is a multi-criteria decision-making process. This paper presents an evaluation method that can aid decision-makers to prioritise and select appropriate MSW treatment and disposal methods even under uncertain conditions. It adopts a systematic three-stage evaluation method. The first stage utilizes the Fuzzy Delphi method to obtain the critical factors for the evaluation of technology alternatives. In the second stage, the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process is applied to obtain the weights and importance degree of each criterion as the measurable indices of the technologies by fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices. Finally, the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique is used for the selection of appropriate treatment and disposal technology alternative. The applicability of the proposed approach is demonstrated with an illustrative example and the results are analyzed. The fuzzy multiple-criteria approach applied in the study accommodates both quantitative and qualitative data, and thus, makes the uncertain decision-making process more objective and analytical. The study highlights the importance of ‘‘appropriate scale” and how the priority order of technologies changes under various domains of experts. The results reveal that the developed model can successfully help the decision-makers to determine the priority sequence of the MSW treatment and disposal scenarios taking into account the interest of relevant stakeholders. In view of the real-world scenario, it is proven to be efficient, practical, and case-independent for effectively managing MSW and supporting the existing MSWM systems in both developed and developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Govind Kharat, Manoj & Murthy, Shankar & Jaisingh Kamble, Sheetal & Raut, Rakesh D. & Kamble, Sachin S. & Govind Kharat, Mukesh, 2019. "Fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis for environmentally conscious solid waste treatment and disposal technology selection," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 20-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:57:y:2019:i:c:p:20-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X15300385
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.005?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. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Lin, Ching-Torng & Chiu, Hero & Chu, Po-Young, 2006. "Agility index in the supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 285-299, April.
    4. Milutinović, Biljana & Stefanović, Gordana & Dassisti, Michele & Marković, Danijel & Vučković, Goran, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis as a tool for sustainability assessment of a waste management model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 190-201.
    5. Yousaf Ali & Zain Aslam & Hammad Sajid Dar & UbaidUllah Mumtaz, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision analysis of solid waste treatment options in Pakistan: Lahore City—a case in point," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 528-543, December.
    6. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    7. Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebeci, Ufuk & Ruan, Da, 2004. "Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 171-184, January.
    8. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    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. Sharma, Mahak & Antony, Rose & Sehrawat, Rajat & Cruz, Angel Contreras & Daim, Tugrul U., 2022. "Exploring post-adoption behaviors of e-service users: Evidence from the hospitality sector /online travel services," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Estefani Rondón Toro & Ana López Martínez & Amaya Lobo García de Cortázar, 2023. "Sequential Methodology for the Selection of Municipal Waste Treatment Alternatives Applied to a Case Study in Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Hailin Wu & Fengming Tao & Bo Yang, 2020. "Optimization of Vehicle Routing for Waste Collection and Transportation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Nasrollahi, Maedeh & Ghadikolaei, Abdolhamid Safaei & Ghasemi, Rohollah & Sheykhizadeh, Morteza & Abdi, Mehdi, 2022. "Identification and prioritization of connected vehicle technologies for sustainable development in Iran," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Wenna Wang & Zhujie Chu & Tianyue Zhang, 2022. "Synergy Degree Evaluation of Stakeholder Engagement in Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Case Study in Harbin, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    7. 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).
    8. Zhang, Long & Bai, Wuliyasu & Xiao, Huijuan & Ren, Jingzheng, 2021. "Measuring and improving regional energy security: A methodological framework based on both quantitative and qualitative analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Liu, Liyi & Tu, Yan & Zhou, Xiaoyang, 2022. "How local outbreak of COVID-19 affect the risk of internet public opinion: A Chinese social media case study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    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. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2019. "Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    12. Mrówczyńska, M. & Skiba, M. & Sztubecka, M. & Bazan-Krzywoszańska, A. & Kazak, J.K. & Gajownik, P., 2021. "Scenarios as a tool supporting decisions in urban energy policy: The analysis using fuzzy logic, multi-criteria analysis and GIS tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(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. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    3. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    4. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    5. Alev Taskin Gumus & A. Yesim Yayla & Erkan Çelik & Aytac Yildiz, 2013. "A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Osseweijer, Floor J.W. & van den Hurk, Linda B.P. & Teunissen, Erik J.H.M. & van Sark, Wilfried G.J.H.M., 2018. "A comparative review of building integrated photovoltaics ecosystems in selected European countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1027-1040.
    7. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    8. Rakan Alyamani & Suzanna Long, 2020. "The Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in Sustainable Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    10. Murat İnce & Tuncay Yiğit & Ali Hakan Işik, 2020. "A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-GA Method for Test Sheet Question Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 629-647, April.
    11. Wei-Ming Wang & Hsiao-Han Peng, 2020. "A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Evaluation Framework for Urban Sustainable Development," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    13. 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.
    14. Fanhui Zeng & Xiaozhao Cheng & Jianchun Guo & Liang Tao & Zhangxin Chen, 2017. "Hybridising Human Judgment, AHP, Grey Theory, and Fuzzy Expert Systems for Candidate Well Selection in Fractured Reservoirs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    15. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    16. Aliakbar Kamari & Stefan Jensen & Maria Leonhard Christensen & Steffen Petersen & Poul Henning Kirkegaard, 2018. "A hybrid Decision Support System for Generation of Holistic Renovation Scenarios—Cases of Energy Consumption, Investment Cost, and Thermal Indoor Comfort," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    17. Balci, Gökcay & Cetin, Ismail Bilge & Esmer, Soner, 2018. "An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in Izmir," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 294-304.
    18. Yu-Cheng Wang & Tin-Chih Toly Chen, 2019. "A Partial-Consensus Posterior-Aggregation FAHP Method—Supplier Selection Problem as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Behrooz Noori, 2015. "Prioritizing strategic business units in the face of innovation performance: Combining fuzzy AHP and BSC," International Journal of Business and Management, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 3(1), pages 36-56, February.
    20. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene & Deepak Sharma, 2018. "An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing with Sustainable Energy Development Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.

    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:teinso:v:57:y:2019:i:c:p:20-29. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.