Abstract
In public policy formulation, it is generally preferable to create several quantifiably good alternatives that provide very different approaches to the particular situation. This is because public sector decision-making typically involves complex problems that are riddled with incompatible performance objectives and possess competing design requirements which are very difficult—if not impossible—to quantify and capture at the time supporting decision models are constructed. There are invariably unmodelled design issues, not apparent at the time of model construction, which can greatly impact the acceptability of the model’s solutions. Furthermore, public environmental policy formulation problems often contain considerable stochastic uncertainty and there are frequently numerous stakeholders with irreconcilable perspectives involved. Consequently, it is preferable to generate several alternatives that provide multiple, disparate perspectives to the problem. These alternatives should possess near-optimal objective measures with respect to the known modelled objective(s), but be fundamentally different from each other in terms of the system structures characterized by their decision variables. By generating a set of very different solutions, it is hoped that some of these dissimilar alternatives can provide very different perspectives that may serve to satisfy the unmodelled objectives. This study provides a co-evolutionary simulation–optimization modelling-to-generate-alternatives approach that can be used to efficiently create multiple solution alternatives that satisfy required system performance criteria in highly uncertain environments and yet are maximally different in their decision space. This new stochastic approach is very computationally efficient, since it permits the simultaneous generation of good solution alternatives in a single computational run of the SO algorithm. The efficacy and efficiency of this technique is specifically demonstrated using an earlier waste management case to enable direct comparisons to previous methods. Waste management systems provide an ideal setting for illustrating the modelling techniques used for such public environmental policy formulation, since they possess all of the prevalent incongruencies and system uncertainties inherent in complex planning processes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Azadivar F (1999) Simulation optimization methodologies. In: Proceedings of the 1999 winter simulation conference. December 5–8, Phoenix, pp 93–100
Azadivar F, Tompkins G (1999) Simulation optimization with qualitative variables and structural model changes: a genetic algorithm approach. Eur J Oper Res 113: 169–182
Baetz BW (1990) Optimization/simulation modeling for waste management capacity planning. ASCE J Urban Plan Dev 116(2): 59–79
Baetz BW, Pas EI, Neebe AW (1990) Generating alternative solutions for dynamic programming-based planning problems. Soc Econ Plan Sci 24: 27–34
Baugh JW, Caldwell SC, Brill ED (1997) A mathematical programming approach for generating alternatives in discrete structural optimization. Eng Optim 28(1): 1–31
Bodner RM, Cassell A, Andros PJ (1970) Optimal routing of refuse collection vehicles. ASCE J Sanit Eng Div 96: 893–903
Brill ED, Chang SY, Hopkins LD (1981) Modelling to generate alternatives: the HSJ approach and an illustration using a problem in land use planning. Manage Sci 27: 314–325
Brown RV, Kahr AS, Peterson C (1974) Decision analysis for the manager. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Chang SY, Brill ED, Hopkins LD (1982) Efficient random generation of feasible alternatives: a land use example. J Reg Sci 22(3): 303–313
Chang SY, Brill ED, Hopkins LD (1982) Use of mathematical models to generate alternative solutions to water resources planning problems. Water Resour Res 18: 58–64
Coyle RG (1973) Computer-based design for refuse collection systems. In: Deininger R (eds) Models for environmental pollution control. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, pp 307–325
Ferrell WG, Hizlan H (1997) South Carolina counties use a mixed-integer-programming based decision support tool for planning municipal solid waste management. Interfaces 27(4): 23–34
Fu MC (1994) Optimization for simulation: theory vs. practice. INFORMS J Comput 14(3): 192–215
Fu MC (2002) Optimization via simulation: a review. Ann Oper Res 53: 199–248
Gendreau M (2002) Metaheuristics in vehicle routing. Presented at the Canadian Operational Research Society (CORS/SCRO) Meeting, Toronto
Gidley JS, Bari MF (1986) Modelling to generate alternatives. ASCE Water Forum 86: 1366–1373
Gottinger HW (1986) A computational model for solid waste management with applications. Appl Math Modell 10: 330–338
Hasit Y, Warner DB (1981) Regional solid waste planning with WRAP. ASCE J Environ Eng 107: 511–525
Haynes L (1981) A systems approach to solid waste management planning. Conserv Recycl 4(2): 67–78
Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
Huang GH, Baetz BW, Patry GG (1996) A Grey Hop, skip and jump method for generating decision alternatives: planning for the expansion/utilization of waste management facilities. Can J Civil Eng 23: 1207–1219
Huang G, Linton J, Yeomans JS, Yoogalingam R (2005) Policy planning under uncertainty: efficient starting populations for simulation–optimization methods applied to municipal solid waste management. J Environ Manage 77(1): 22–34
Kelly P (2002) Simulation optimization is evolving. INFORMS J Comput 14(3): 223–225
Lacksonen T (2001) Empirical comparison of search algorithms for discrete event simulation. Comput Ind Eng 40: 133–148
Law AM, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Liebman JC (1976) Some simple-minded observations on the role of optimization in public systems decision-making. Interfaces 6(4): 102–108
Linton JD, Yeomans JS, Yoogalingam R (2002) Policy planning using genetic algorithms combined with simulation: the case of municipal solid waste. Environ Plan B Plan Des 29(5): 757–778
Loughlin DH, Ranjithan SR, Brill ED, Baugh JW (2001) Genetic algorithm approaches for addressing unmodeled objectives in optimization problems. Eng Optim 33(5): 549–569
Lund JR (1990) Least cost scheduling of solid waste recycling. ASCE J Environ Eng 116: 182–197
Lund JR, Tchobanoglous G, Anex RP, Lawver RA (1994) Linear programming for analysis of material recovery facilities. ASCE J Environ Eng 120: 1082–1094
MacDonald M (1996) Bias issues in the utilization of solid waste indicators. J Am Plan Assoc 62: 236–242
Marks DH, Liebman JC (1971) Location models: solid waste collection example. ASCE J Urban Plan Dev 97(1): 15–30
Openshaw BW, Whitehead P (1985) A Monte Carlo simulation approach to solving multicriteria optimization problems related to plan making, evaluation, and monitoring in local planning. Environ Plan B Plan Des 12: 321–334
Pierreval H, Tautou L (1997) Using evolutionary algorithms and simulation for the optimization of manufacturing systems. IIE Trans 29(3): 181–189
Rubenstein-Montano B, Anandalingam G, Zandi I (2000) A genetic algorithm approach to policy design for consequence minimization. Eur J Oper Res 124: 43–54
Rubenstein-Montano B, Zandi I (1999) Application of a genetic algorithm to policy planning: the case of solid waste. Environ Plan B Plan Des 26: 893–907
Tchobanoglous G, Thiesen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste management: engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill, New York
Walker WE (1976) A heuristic adjacent extreme point algorithm for the fixed charge problem. Manage Sci 22: 587–596
Wang FS, Richardson FA, Richardson AJ, Curnow RC (1994) SWIM-interactive software for continuous improvement of solid waste management. J Resour Manage Technol 22(2): 63–72
Wenger RB, Cruz-Uribe BW (1990) Mathematical models in solid waste management: a survey. Presented at the TIMS/ORSA Conference Las Vegas
Yeomans JS (2002) Automatic generation of efficient policy alternatives via simulation-optimization. J Oper Res Soc 53(11): 1256–1267
Yeomans JS (2005) Planning using evolutionary simulation-optimization combined with penalty functions. Working Paper. York University, Toronto
Yeomans JS (2007) Solid waste policy planning under uncertainty using evolutionary simulation-optimization. Soc Econ Plan Sci 41(1): 38–60
Yeomans JS (2008) Applications of simulation-optimization methods in environmental policy planning under uncertainty. J Environ Inf 12(2): 174–186
Yeomans JS (2009) Simulation-optimization techniques for modelling to generate alternatives in waste management planning. Presented at the Computational Management Science Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1–3
Yeomans JS (2010) Waste management facility expansion planning using simulation-optimization with grey programming and penalty functions. Int J Environ Waste Manage (in press)
Yeomans JS, Huang G, Yoogalingam R (2003) Combining simulation with evolutionary algorithms for optimal planning under uncertainty: an application to municipal solid waste management planning in the regional municipality of Hamilton–Wentworth. J Environ Inform 2(1): 11–30
Zechman EM, Ranjithan SR (2004) An evolutionary algorithm to generate alternatives (EAGA) for engineering optimization problems. Eng Optim 36(5): 539–553
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper was submitted as one of many contributions on environmental management at the EURO XXIII conference hosted by the University of Siegen. The editorial work was done by Peter Letmathe (University of Siegen), Axel Tuma (University of Augsburg) and Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber (METU Ankara).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yeomans, J.S. Efficient generation of alternative perspectives in public environmental policy formulation: applying co-evolutionary simulation–optimization to municipal solid waste management. Cent Eur J Oper Res 19, 391–413 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-011-0190-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-011-0190-y