IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p3868-d1642158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives Based on Source Separation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Ömer Apaydın

    (Environmental Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Faculty, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpaşa Campus, 34220 Esenler, Istanbul, Türkiye)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of the separation of solid waste at the source on three different sustainable solid waste management scenarios using the analytic hierarchy process. In this context, the type of source separation method that would be most appropriate for three solid waste management scenarios was investigated (A1: material recycling facility + sanitary landfill; A2: material recycling facility + biological processes + sanitary landfill, and A3: thermal processes + biological processes + sanitary landfill) based on well-known solid waste management alternatives. Firstly, solid waste management scenarios were determined as decision points. Secondly, three solid waste collection options at the source (mixed: there is only one type of bin for all solid waste components; binary: paper + metal + plastic + glass, kitchen organics, and others; and triple: paper + metal + plastic + glass, kitchen organics, and others) were chosen as the main criteria affecting the decision points. Thirdly, fifteen sub-criteria were chosen based on the main criteria. In the process, not only the main and sub-criteria, but also stakeholders’ contributions are vital. For the pairwise comparison of all the criteria to be used in the study, the opinions of thirteen experts as stakeholders were obtained through face-to-face interviews. Within the scope of the zero waste vision, with a focus on environmental protection, the analytical hierarchy process was applied via pairwise comparisons of decision points and factors affecting the decision points. According to the results, in the case of mixed collection at the source, high preference rates were obtained for A1 as the decision point in terms of environmental (0.665), economic (0.699), social (0.510), and technical (0.544) criteria. In the case of binary separation at the source, A1 has high preference rates as the decision point in terms of environmental (0.553), economic (0.673), social (0.507), and technical (0.632) criteria. In the case of triple separation at the source, it is calculated that the A1 alternative has the highest preference values as the decision point in terms of environmental (0.558), economic (0.669), social (0.514), and technical criteria (0.611). Hence, the determining factor in the efficient integration of sustainable waste management with smart technologies is how waste is managed at the source. It is hoped that the results obtained in this study within the scope of the zero waste vision will assist decision-makers during sustainable municipal solid waste management processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ömer Apaydın, 2025. "Analysis of Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives Based on Source Separation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-35, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3868-:d:1642158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3868/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3868/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ömer Apaydin & Gül Sümeyra Akçay Han, 2023. "Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Collection Methods Focusing on Zero-Waste Management Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 2006. "Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 557-570, January.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    5. Ferraz de Campos, Victor Arruda & Silva, Valter Bruno & Cardoso, João Sousa & Brito, Paulo S. & Tuna, Celso Eduardo & Silveira, José Luz, 2021. "A review of waste management in Brazil and Portugal: Waste-to-energy as pathway for sustainable development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 802-820.
    6. Victor Arruda Ferraz de Campos & Luís Carmo-Calado & Roberta Mota-Panizio & Vitor Matos & Valter Bruno Silva & Paulo S. Brito & Daniela F. L. Eusébio & Celso Eduardo Tuna & José Luz Silveira, 2023. "A Waste-to-Energy Technical Approach: Syngas–Biodiesel Blend for Power Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-18, October.
    7. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    8. Andrzej Pacana & Dominika Siwiec & Jacek Pacana, 2023. "Fuzzy Method to Improve Products and Processes Considering the Approach of Sustainable Development (FQE-SD Method)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Kuei-Hu Chang & Yung-Chia Chang & Kai Chain & Hsiang-Yu Chung, 2016. "Integrating Soft Set Theory and Fuzzy Linguistic Model to Evaluate the Performance of Training Simulation Systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-29, September.
    10. Meng-Shiunn LEE, 2012. "Critical success factors influencing the transformation of the agricultural biotechnology industry in Taiwan," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(6), pages 249-263.
    11. Yu-Yu Ma & Chia-Liang Lin & Hung-Lung Lin, 2023. "Ranking of Service Quality Index and Solutions for Online English Teaching in the Post-COVID-19 Crisis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-24, September.
    12. David Palma & Richard Hodgett, 2025. "Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing in the Chemical Industry: A Qualitative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-23, April.
    13. Mingshen Shao & Dong Xu & Yuchao Wang & Ziyi Wang & Xingzhou Liang & Li Li, 2022. "Quantitative evaluation of weathering degree through Fuzzy-AHP method and petrophysics analysis for sandstone carvings," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(2), pages 1547-1566, June.
    14. Hsiao, Yao-Jen & Chen, Jyun-Long & Huang, Cheng-Ting, 2021. "What are the challenges and opportunities in implementing Taiwan's aquavoltaics policy? A roadmap for achieving symbiosis between small-scale aquaculture and photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    15. Cheng-Hua Yang & Huei-Ju Chen & Li-Chu Lin & Alastair M. Morrison, 2020. "The Analysis of Critical Success Factors for In-Town Check-In in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    16. Jerome G. Gacu & Junrey D. Garcia & Eddie G. Fetalvero & Merian P. Catajay-Mani & Cris Edward F. Monjardin, 2023. "Suitability Analysis Using GIS-Based Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Solar Power Exploration," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-28, September.
    17. Fabio De Felice & Laura Petrillo & Luigi Ranieri & Antonella Petrillo, 2019. "Previous Studies and Differences Between Lean Management and World Class Manufacturing," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1941-1966, November.
    18. Urošević, Branka Gvozdenac & Marinović, Budimirka, 2021. "Ranking construction of small hydro power plants using multi-criteria decision analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1174-1183.
    19. Yu-Yu Ma & Jwu-Jenq Chen & Chia-Liang Lin, 2022. "Research on the Priority of Service Quality Index for Online English Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Dual Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-24, October.
    20. de Castro-Pardo, Mónica & Pérez-Rodríguez, Fernando & Martín-Martín, José María & Azevedo, João C., 2019. "Modelling stakeholders’ preferences to pinpoint conflicts in the planning of transboundary protected areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3868-:d:1642158. 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.