Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An integrated multi-criteria decision-making method for hazardous waste disposal site selection

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the population growth and the rapid development of tech-economy, the industrialization process of cities has accelerated the generation of a large number of hazardous wastes, which has caused serious harm to human health and the ecological environment. The location of hazardous waste disposal sites plays an important role in hazardous waste management. Because of the multiple conflicting criteria and the inherent ambiguity of experts’ judgments, the location of hazardous waste disposal sites is regarded as a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making problem. This paper proposes an integrated method, which consists of a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and fuzzy axiomatic design (FAD), to determine the best hazardous waste disposal site. First, from the perspective of sustainability, an evaluation index system based on economic, social, and environmental criteria is built. Then, FAHP is employed to evaluate criteria weights. In the FAD application phase, the functional requirements (FRs) are determined by the five experts from different fields, and then, we use FAD to calculate the information content of alternatives and rank them. Finally, sensitivity analysis is performed on the change of criteria weight and the change of FRs, and the results show that the proposed hybrid method is a robust decision support tool for ranking alternatives. Moreover, the proposed method is flexible and can be used to solve the problem of hazardous waste disposal site selection in other developing countries or regions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El Monsef, H., & Smith, S. E. (2019). Integrating remote sensing, geographic information system, and analytical hierarchy process for hazardous waste landfill site selection. Arabian Journal of Geosciences., 12, 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrebi, M., & Abed, M. (2021). Decision-making from multiple uncertain experts: Case of distribution center location selection. Soft Computing., 25, 4525–4544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arikan, E., Simsit-Kalender, Z. T., & Vayvay, O. (2017). Solid waste disposal methodology selection using multi-criteria decision making methods and an application in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production., 142, 403–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asgari, N., Rajabi, M., Jamshidi, M., Khatami, M., & Farahani, R. Z. (2017). A memetic algorithm for a multi-objective obnoxious waste location-routing problem: A case study. Annals of Operations Research., 250, 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, X., & Zhou, J. H. (2021). Study on landscape construction of ecological garden based on ecological perspective. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin., 30, 402–405.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buyukozkan, G., Gocer, F., & Karabulut, Y. (2019). A new group decision making approach with IF AHP and IF VIKOR for selecting hazardous waste carriers. Measurement, 134, 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research., 95, 649–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, A., & Singh, A. (2016). A hybrid multi-criteria decision making method approach for selecting a sustainable location of healthcare waste disposal facility. Journal of Cleaner Production., 139, 1001–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danesh, G., Monavari, S. M., Omrani, G. A., Karbasi, A., & Farsad, F. (2019). Compilation of a model for hazardous waste disposal site selection using GIS-based multi-purpose decision-making models. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment., 191, 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatoyinbo, I. O., Bello, A. A., Olajire, O. O., Oluwaniyi, O. E., Olabode, O. F., Aremu, A. L., Omoniyi, L. A. (2020). Municipal solid waste landfill site selection: a geotechnical and geoenvironmental-based geospatial approach. Environmental Earth Sciences. 79.

  • Ghorani-Azam, A., Riahi-Zanjani, B., Balali-Mood, M. (2016). Effects of air pollution on human health and practical measures for prevention in Iran. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences the Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 21.

  • Kabir, G., & Sumi, R. S. (2015). Hazardous waste transportation firm selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy and PROMETHEE methods. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics., 7, 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman, C., Ertay, T., & Buyukozkan, G. (2006). A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach. European Journal of Operational Research., 171, 390–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagoz, S., Deveci, M., Simic, V., Aydin, N. (2021). Interval type-2 Fuzzy ARAS method for recycling facility location problems. Applied Soft Computing. 102.

  • Karaku, C. B., Demirolu, D., Oban, A., & Uluta, A. (2020). Evaluation of GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making methods for sanitary landfill site selection: the case of Sivas city, Turkey. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management., 22, 254–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, Ö., Alemdar, K. D., & Çodur, M. Y. (2020a). A novel two stage approach for electric taxis charging station site selection. Sustainable Cities and Society., 62, 102396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, Ö., Tortum, A., Alemdar, K. D., & Çodur, M. Y. (2020b). Site selection for EVCS in Istanbul by GIS and multi-criteria decision-making. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment., 80, 102271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyvanfar, A., Shafaghat, A., Ismail, N., Mohamad, S., Ahmad, H. (2021). Multifunctional retention pond for stormwater management: A decision-support model using Analytical Network Process (ANP) and Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA). Ecological Indicators. 124.

  • Kharat, M. G., Kamble, S. J., Raut, R. D., Kamble, S. S., & Dhume, S. M. (2016). Modeling landfill site selection using an integrated fuzzy MCDM approach. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment., 2, 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. Y., Nguyen, M. V. (2021). Mapping the complexity of international development projects using DEMATEL technique. Journal Of Management In Engineering. 37.

  • Lin, M. W., Chen, Z. Y., Xu, Z. S., Gou, X. J., & Herrera, F. (2021). Score function based on concentration degree for probabilistic linguistic term sets: An application to TOPSIS and VIKOR. Information Sciences., 551, 270–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, S. C., & Sudjatmika, F. V. (2016). Solving multi-criteria supplier segmentation based on the modified FAHP for supply chain management: A case study. Soft Computing., 20, 4981–4990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, H. G., & Li, X. (2021). Multi-period hazardous waste collection planning with consideration of risk stability. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization., 17, 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, K., Batool, S. A., Chaudhary, M. N., & Ul-Haq, Z. (2017). Ranking criteria for assessment of municipal solid waste dumping sites. Archives of Environmental Protection., 43, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallick, J. (2021). Municipal solid waste landfill site selection based on fuzzy-AHP and geoinformation techniques in Asir Region Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 13.

  • Moghaddas, N. H., & Namaghi, H. H. (2011). Hazardous waste landfill site selection in Khorasan Razavi Province Northeastern Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4, 103–113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Molla, M. U., Giri, B. C., & Biswas, P. (2021). Extended PROMETHEE method with Pythagorean fuzzy sets for medical diagnosis problems. Soft Computing., 25, 4503–4512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, S. L. C., Pelaez, J. L. S., & Rodriguez, P. C. G. (2021). Selection’s criteria for a non-hazardous solid waste disposal site. Review of Latin American environmental norms and their contrast with the Ecuadorian regulation. Revista Internacional De Contaminacion Ambiental., 37, 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocampo, L. A., Himang, C. M., Kumar, A., & Brezocnik, M. (2019). A novel multiple criteria decision-making approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy AHP for mapping collection and distribution centers in reverse logistics. Advances in Production Engineering & Management., 14, 297–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabbani, M., Heidari, R., Farrokhi-Asl, H., & Rahimi, N. (2018). Using metaheuristic algorithms to solve a multi-objective industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem considering incompatible waste types. Journal of Cleaner Production., 170, 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabbani, M., Heidari, R., & Yazdanparast, R. (2019). A stochastic multi-period industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem: Integrating NSGA-II and Monte Carlo simulation. European Journal of Operational Research., 272, 945–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimi, S., Hafezalkotob, A., Monavari, S. M., Hafezalkotob, A., & Rahimi, R. (2020). Sustainable landfill site selection for municipal solid waste based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Fuzzy group BWM-MULTIMOORA-GIS. Journal of Cleaner Production., 248, 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saatsaz, M., Monsef, I., Rahmani, M., & Ghods, A. (2018). Site suitability evaluation of an old operating landfill using AHP and GIS techniques and integrated hydrogeological and geophysical surveys. Environmental Monitoring And Assessment, 190(3), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6505-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science., 32, 841–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar, P., Ganapuram, S. (2021). Morphometric analysis using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and geographic information systems (GIS) for the prioritization of watersheds. Arabian Journal Of Geosciences. 14.

  • Stemn, E., & Kumi-Boateng, B. (2019). Hazardous waste landfill site selection in Western Ghana: An integration of multi-criteria decision analysis and geographic information system. Waste Management & Research., 37, 723–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torabi-Kaveh, M., Babazadeh, R., Mohammadi, S. D., & Zaresefat, M. (2016). Landfill site selection using combination of GIS and fuzzy AHP, a case study: Iranshahr Iran. Waste Management & Research., 34, 438–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unal, M., Cilek, A., & Guner, E. D. (2020). Implementation of fuzzy, Simos and strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis for municipal solid waste landfill site selection: Adana City case study. Waste Management & Research., 38, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Yeap, S. P. (2021). Using magneto-adsorbent for methylene Blue removal: A decision-making via analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Journal Of Water Process Engineering. 40.

  • Yildirim, V., Memisoglu, T., Bediroglu, S., & Colak, E. (2018). Municipal solid waste landfill site selection using multi-criteria decision making and GIS: Case study of Bursa province. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management., 26, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., & Solvang, W. D. (2016). An improved multi-objective programming with augmented epsilon-constraint method for hazardous waste location-routing problems. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health., 13, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H., Sun, X., Solvang, W. D., Laporte, G., Lee, C. K. M. (2020). A stochastic network design problem for hazardous waste management. Journal Of Cleaner Production. 277.

  • Zhong, Y. W., Li, H. L., Chen, L. L. (2021). Construction project risk prediction model based on EW-FAHP and one dimensional convolution neural network. Plos One. 16.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors are grateful for the valuable comments and suggestion from the respected reviewers. Their valuable comments and suggestions have enhanced the strength and significance of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Jinan University, 601 Huangpu Avenue West, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Jianghong Feng

Authors
  1. Jianghong Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianghong Feng.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Figures 9, 10, and 11.

Table 5 The TFNs corresponding to linguistic terms
Full size table
Table 6 Industrial hazardous waste production in Chengdu from 2013 to 2018 (unit: tons)
Full size table
Table 7 Fuzzy comparison matrix between the criteria
Full size table
Table 8 Fuzzy comparison matrix with respect to economic (C1)
Full size table
Table 9 Fuzzy comparison matrix with respect to society (C2)
Full size table
Table 10 Fuzzy comparison matrix with respect to environment (C3)
Full size table
Table 11 The integrated fuzzy comparison matrix of the criteria
Full size table
Table 12 Local weights and integrated fuzzy comparison matrix with respect to economic (C1)
Full size table
Table 13 Local weights and integrated fuzzy comparison matrix with respect to society (C2)
Full size table
Table 14 Local weights and integrated fuzzy comparison matrix with respect to environment (C3)
Full size table
Table 15 DMs’ judgments on FRs for the sub-criteria and comprehensive judgments for FRs
Full size table
Table 16 DMs’ judgments for alternatives with respect to sub-criteria
Full size table
Table 17 Aggregation on DMs’ judgments for alternatives
Full size table
Table 18 Scenarios with different criteria weights
Full size table
Fig. 9
figure 9

The intersection between \({S}_{1}\) and \({S}_{2}\)

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Examples of interrelationships between system, design and common range

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Example of representation methods in the context of TFNs

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feng, J. An integrated multi-criteria decision-making method for hazardous waste disposal site selection. Environ Dev Sustain 24, 8039–8070 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01772-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01772-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation