New approach for selecting a suitable recycling collection program for recovered paper and pulp recyclables using AHP-TOPSIS techniques

Abstract

In the past decade, the use of multiple-criteria decision analysis technology has dramatically increased in solving complex real-world problems in solid waste management. Likewise, many municipalities have paid attention to finding feasible solutions for disposal and recycling of solid waste due to the increase in waste generation rates worldwide. Therefore, policy-makers must determine which recycling program to be implemented among various recycling program options. In this paper, a new approach to select a recycling program for recovered paper and pulp recyclables was proposed using analytic hierarchy process–Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (AHP-TOPSIS) techniques. A set of essential parameters of the decision-making system were identified, and a numerical case to illustrate the procedure was conducted. Our findings show very encouraging results to use a combined model between AHP and TOPSIS to select a suitable recycling program for different recovered recyclable materials.

Keywords

Recycling selection multiple-criteria decision analysis solid waste management stream recycling programs analytic hierarchy process Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdel-Shafy

Mansour

MSM

(2018) Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 27: 1275–1290.

Aghajani Mir

Taherei Ghazvinei

Sulaiman

, et al. (2016) Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in a multi criteria decision analysis to develop an optimized municipal solid waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 166: 109–115.

Alavi

Goudarzi

Babaei

, et al. (2013). Municipal solid waste landfill site selection with geographic information systems and analytical hierarchy process: A case study in Mahshahr County, Iran. Waste Management & Research 31: 98–105.

Ali

Yadav

Anis

(2015) Assessment of hazardous waste management proposal: Using the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management 3: 315–327.

Bhushan

Rai

(2004) Strategic Decision Making. London: Springer-Verlag.

Cascadia Consulting Group (2006) Waste monitoring program. Analysis, November. Available at: https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/documents/wastemonitoring_report.ashx?la=en (accessed November 2020).

Damgacioglu

Hornilla

Bafail

, et al. (2020) Recovering value from single stream material recovery facilities – An outbound contamination analysis in Florida. Waste Management 102: 804–814.

Damgacioglu

Perez

Celik

(2018) Assessment and Evaluation of Contamination in Single Stream Recycling Systems Due to Broken Glass and Other Non-Recyclables. Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Report Number 11667. Available at: http://floridalandfillcapacity.com/files/Assessment_and_Evaluation_of_Contamination_in_Single_Stream_Recycling_Systems.pdf (accessed November 2020).

Fyffe

Breckel

Townsend

, et al. (2016). Use of MRF residue as alternative fuel in cement production. Waste Management 47: 276–284.

10.

Goodman

(2006) Single-Stream and Dual-Stream Recycling: Comparative Impacts of Commingled Recyclables Processing. Available at: https://www-mdpi-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/2079-9276/4/2/384/pdf (accessed November 2020).

11.

HDR (2012) An Assessment of Single and Dual Stream Recycling – Including Current Program Performance in Large Ontario Municipalities, 2012. Available at: https://www.niagararegion.ca/government/committees/wmac/pdf/2013/single-and-dual-stream-recycling-report.pdf (accessed November 2020).

12.

Hwang

C-L

Yoon

(1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making : Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-art Survey. Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag.

13.

Lakhan

(2015) A comparison of single and multi-stream recycling systems in Ontario, Canada. Resources 4: 384–397.

14.

Lantz

Morawski

(2013) The battle for recycling. Resource Recycling 32: 14–19.

15.

Maimoun

Madani

Reinhart

(2016) Multi-level multi-criteria analysis of alternative fuels for waste collection vehicles in the United States. Science of the Total Environment 550: 349–361.

16.

Miranda

Monte

Blanco

(2013) Analysis of the quality of the recovered paper from commingled collection systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72: 60–66.

17.

Morawski

(2009) Understanding Economic and Environmental Impacts of Single-Stream Collection Systems. Container Recyling Institue 1–32. Available at: https://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2009-SingleStream.pdf (accessed November 2020).

18.

Mueller

(2013) The effectiveness of recycling policy options: Waste diversion or just diversions? Waste Management 33: 508–518.

19.

National Association for PET Container Resources (2013) Report on Post-consumer PET Container Recycling Activity in 2012. 13. Available at: http://www.napcor.com/pdf/NAPCOR_2012RateReport.pdf (accessed October 2020).

20.

Nkosi

Muzenda

Zvimba

, et al. (2013) The current waste generation and management trends in South Africa: A review. International Conference on Chemical and Environmental Engineering 2: 303–308.

21.

O’Keefe

De Haag

Glazer

(2012) Materials Recovery Facility for Athens and Hocking Counties. In The Appalachia Ohio Zero Waste Initiative. Available at: http://ruralaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/App-D-MRF-Feasibility-Study.pdf

22.

Osra

Kajjumba

(2020) Landfill site selection in makkah using geographic information system and analytical hierarchy process. Waste Management & Research 38: 245–253.

23.

Paben

(2017) Gap widens between California’s recycling rate and its 2020 goal. Resource Recycling. Available at: https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2017/08/22/gap-widens-californias-recycling-rate-2020-goal/ (accessed November 2020).

24.

Pressley

Levis

Damgaard

, et al. (2015) Analysis of material recovery facilities for use in life-cycle assessment. Waste Management 35: 307–317.

25.

Qazi

Abushammala

MFM

Azam

(2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis of waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Sultanate of Oman. Waste Management & Research 36: 594–605.

26.

Rimantho

Cahyadi

Dermawan

(2012) Application analytic hierarchy process (Ahp): A case study of E-waste management in Surabaya, Indonesia. 1–10. Proceeding 8th International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management, 2012. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279959950_APPLICATION_ANALYTIC_HIERARCHY_PROCESS_AHP_A_CASE_STUDY_OF_E-WASTE_MANAGEMENT_IN_SURABAYA_INDONESIA (accessed October 2020).

27.

Saaty

(2008) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: Applications to decisions under risk. European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 1: 122–196.

28.

Sotamenou

(2019) Selection of the best solid waste management yaounde using an analytical hierarchy process. Advance in Environmental Waste Management & Recycling 2.

29.

The Associated Press (2018) Oregon recycling rate short of 2020 goal. Mail Tribune. Available at: https://mailtribune.com/news/top-stories/oregon-recycling-rate-short-of-2020-goal (accessed October 2020).

30.

Yadav

(2015) South Carolina solid waste management. Pollution Research 34: 93–102.

31.

Yusuff

(2016) Factors required for the successful management of a material recovery facility. MSc thesis. University of Johannesburg. Available at: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:23846?site_name=GlobalView (accessed October 2020).