A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Waste Management
2.2. Sustainable Waste Management in Smart Cities
2.3. Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Sustainable Waste Management
- Value-based approaches:
- -
- Multi-attribute utility theory
- -
- Analytic hierarchy process
- -
- Weighted sum model
- Outranking approaches:
- -
- Preference ranking organization and method for enrichment evaluation
- -
- Elimination and choice expressing reality
- Goal-based approaches:
- -
- Technique for order preference by similarity
- -
- Data envelopment analysis
- Evaluation-based approaches:
- -
- Structural equation modeling
- -
- Interpretive structural modeling
- -
- Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory
3. Methodology
3.1. Constructing the Hierarchical Structure of the Problem
3.2. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP)
3.3. Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS)
3.4. Obtaining Decision-Maker Opinions
3.5. Dealing with the Experts’ Subjectivity
4. Results
4.1. Determination of Criterion Weights
- SLess atmospheric emissions = (6.57, 7.98, 9.63) ⊗ (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) = (0.20, 0.29, 0.41)
- SLess soil pollution = (5.22, 6.19, 7.32) ⊗ (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) = (0.16, 0.22, 0.31)
- SLess surface water pollution = (4.97, 6.05, 7.36) ⊗ (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) = (0.15, 0.22, 0.32)
- SEnergy recovery = (3.44, 4.10, 4.95) ⊗ (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) = (0.10, 0.15, 0.21)
- SNatural resources recovery = (3.06, 3.48, 4.05) ⊗ (0.03, 0.04, 0.04) = (0.09, 0.13, 0.17)
- SOperational feasibility = (3.93, 4.71, 5.55) ⊗ (0.08, 0.10, 0.11) = (0.32, 0.46, 0.64)
- SInnovativeness = (2.90, 3.48, 4.19) ⊗ (0.08, 0.10, 0.11) = (0.24, 0.34, 0.48)
- SNeed for qualified personnel = (1.91, 2.12, 2.41) ⊗ (0.08, 0.10, 0.11) = (0.16, 0.21, 0.28)
- SInitial investment costs = (5.15, 6.17, 7.35) ⊗ (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) = (0.25, 0.35, 0.49)
- SOperational costs = (4.11, 4.66, 5.28) ⊗ (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) = (0.20, 0.27, 0.35)
- SMaintenance costs = (3.30, 3.85, 4.52) ⊗ (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) = (0.16, 0.22, 0.30)
- STransportation costs = (2.50, 2.83, 3.26) ⊗ (0.05, 0.06, 0.07) = (0.12, 0.16, 0.22)
- SIncreased awareness on sustainable cities = (3.59, 4.36, 5.31) ⊗ (0.08, 0.09, 0.12) = (0.30, 0.41, 0.63)
- SIncreased quality of life in the city = (2.97, 4.02, 4.26) ⊗ (0.08, 0.09, 0.12) = (0.24, 0.38, 0.50)
- SNew employment opportunities = (1.90, 2.17, 2.55) ⊗ (0.08, 0.09, 0.12) = (0.16, 0.21, 0.30)
4.2. Ranking of the Strategy Alternatives according to the Weighted Criteria
4.3. Sensitivity Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Managerial Implication
5.2. Limitations of the Study
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Methodological Steps Used in Fuzzy AHP
Appendix B. Methodological Steps Used in Fuzzy TOPSIS
Appendix C. Summary of the Values of V(M2 ≥ M1) and V(M1 ≥ M2)
- V(SLess atmospheric emissions ≥ SLess soil pollution) = 1.00
- V(SLess atmospheric emissions ≥ SLess surface water pollution) = 1.00
- V(SLess atmospheric emissions ≥ SEnergy recovery) = 1.00
- V(SLess atmospheric emissions ≥ SNatural resources recovery) = 1.00
- V(SLess soil pollution ≥ SLess atmospheric emissions) = 0.65
- V(SLess soil pollution ≥ SLess surface water pollution) = 1.00
- V(SLess soil pollution ≥ SEnergy recovery) = 1.00
- V(SLess soil pollution ≥ SNatural resources recovery) = 1.00
- V(SLess surface water pollution ≥ SLess atmospheric emissions) = 0.63
- V(SLess surface water pollution ≥ SLess soil pollution) = 1.00
- V(SLess surface water pollution ≥ SEnergy recovery) = 1.00
- V(SLess surface water pollution ≥ SNatural resources recovery) = 1.00
- V(SEnergy recovery ≥ SLess atmospheric emissions) = 0.10
- V(SEnergy recovery ≥ SLess soil pollution) = 0.43
- V(SEnergy recovery ≥ SNatural resources recovery) = 0.48
- V(SEnergy recovery ≥ SNatural resources recovery) = 1.00
- V(SNatural resources recovery ≥ SLess atmospheric emissions) = 0.00
- V(SNatural resources recovery ≥ SLess soil pollution) = 0.15
- V(SNatural resources recovery ≥ SLess surface water pollution) = 0.21
- V(SNatural resources recovery ≥ SEnergy recovery) = 0.76
- V(SOperational feasibility ≥ SInnovativeness) = 1.00
- V(SOperational feasibility ≥ SNeed for qualified personnel) = 1.00
- V(SInnovativeness ≥ SOperational feasibility) = 0.57
- V(SInnovativeness ≥ SNeed for qualified personnel) = 1.00
- V(SNeed for qualified personnel ≥ SOperational feasibility) = 0.00
- V(SNeed for qualified personnel ≥ SInnovativeness) = 0.22
- V(SInitial investment costs ≥ SOperational costs) = 1.00
- V(SInitial investment costs ≥ SMaintenance costs) = 1.00
- V(SInitial investment costs ≥ STransportation costs) = 1.00
- V(SOperational costs ≥ SInitial investment costs) = 0.53
- V(SOperational costs ≥ SMaintenance costs) = 1.00
- V(SOperational costs ≥ STransportation costs) = 1.00
- V(SMaintenance costs ≥ SInitial investment costs) = 0.26
- V(SMaintenance costs ≥ SOperational costs) = 0.68
- V(SMaintenance costs ≥ STransportation costs) = 1.00
- V(STransportation costs ≥ SInitial investment costs) = 0.00
- V(STransportation costs ≥ SOperational costs) = 0.12
- V(STransportation costs ≥ SMaintenance costs) = 0.48
- V(SIncreased awareness on sustainable cities ≥ SIncreased quality of life in the city) = 1.00
- V(SIncreased awareness on sustainable cities ≥ SNew employment opportunities) = 1.00
- V(SIncreased quality of life in the city ≥ SIncreased awareness on sustainable cities) = 0.87
- V(SIncreased quality of life in the city ≥ SNew employment opportunities) = 1.00
- V(SNew employment opportunities ≥ SIncreased awareness on sustainable cities) = 0.03
- V(SNew employment opportunities ≥ SIncreased quality of life in the city) = 0.25
Appendix D. Summary of New Closeness Coefficient Values
Scenario | CCi (A1) | CCi (A2) | CCi (A3) | CCi (A4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.454 | 0.451 |
2 | 0.441 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
3 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
4 | 0.441 | 0.459 | 0.455 | 0.453 |
5 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
6 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.451 |
7 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.454 | 0.453 |
8 | 0.439 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.451 |
9 | 0.440 | 0.457 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
10 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
11 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
12 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
13 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.454 | 0.452 |
14 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
15 | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.453 | 0.452 |
16 | 0.410 | 0.423 | 0.419 | 0.417 |
17 | 0.437 | 0.458 | 0.450 | 0.443 |
18 | 0.408 | 0.422 | 0.417 | 0.413 |
References
- United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. 2020. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/10/wcr_2020_report.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2023).
- United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2019. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019 (accessed on 23 January 2023).
- United Nations. Water and Urbanization. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2018/10/WaterFacts_water_and_urbanization_sep2018.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2023).
- Camero, A.; Alba, E. Smart city and information technology: A review. Cities 2019, 93, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eremia, M.; Toma, L.; Sanduleac, M. The smart city concept in the 21st century. Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syed, A.S.; Sierra-Sosa, D.; Kumar, A.; Elmaghraby, A. IoT in smart cities: A survey of technologies, practices and challenges. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 429–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S.; Kar, A.K.; Gupta, M.P. Success of IoT in smart cities of India: An empirical analysis. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giovannoni, E.; Fabietti, G. What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and Its Applications. In Integrated Reporting; Busco, C., Frigo, M., Riccaboni, A., Quattrone, P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; Volume 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodland, R. The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1995, 26, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morelli, R. Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals. J. Environ. Sust. 2011, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seadon, J.K. Sustainable waste management systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1639–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petts, J. Municipal waste management: Inequities and the role of deliberation. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson-Djerf, J.; McDougall, F. Social factors in sustainable waste management. Warmer Bull. 2000, 73, 18–20. [Google Scholar]
- Esmaeilian, B.; Wang, B.; Lewis, K.; Duarte, F.; Ratti, C.; Behdad, S. The future of waste management in smart and sustainable cities: A review and concept paper. Waste Manag. 2018, 81, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hannan, M.A.; Al Mamuna, M.D.A.; Hussain, A.; Basri, H.; Begum, R.A. A review on technologies and their usage in solid waste monitoring and manage-ment systems: Issues and challenges. Waste Manag. 2015, 43, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kang, K.D.; Kang, H.; Ilankoon, I.M.S.K.; Chong, C.Y. Electronic waste collection systems using internet of things (iot): Household electronic waste management in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, P.; Van Fan, Y.; Zhou, J.; Zheng, M.; Liu, X.; Klemeš, J.J. Data-driven analytical framework for waste-dumping behaviour analysis to facilitate policy regulations. Waste Manag. 2020, 103, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gopikumar, S.; Raja, S.; Robinson, Y.H.; Shanmuganathan, V.; Rho, S. A method of landfill leachate management using internet of things for sustainable smart city development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 66, 102521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senthilkumar, R.; Venkatakrishnan, P.; Balaji, N. Intelligent based novel embedded system based iot enabled air pollution monitoring system. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2020, 77, 103172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoa, T.A.; Phuc, C.H.; Lam, P.D.; Nhu, L.M.B.; Trong, N.M.; Phuong, N.T.H.; Dung, N.V.; Tan-Y, N.; Nguyen, H.N.; Duc, D.N.M. Waste management system using iot-based machine learning in university. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2020, 2020, 6138637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, T.J.; Islam, M.S.; Misran, N.; Baharuddin, M.H.; Arshad, H.; Islam, M.D.R.; Chowdhury, M.E.H.; Rmili, H.; Islam, M.T. An internet of things based smart waste management system using lora and tensorflow deep learning model. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 148793–148811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastos, T.D.; Nizamis, A.; Vafeiadis, T.; Alexopoulos, N.; Ntinas, C.; Gkortzis, D.; Papadopoulos, A.; Ioannidis, D.; Tzovaras, D. Industry 4.0 sustainable supply chains: An application of an IoT enabled scrap metal management solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassou, M.; Bourekkadi, S.; Khoulji, S.; Slimani, K.; Chikri, H.; Kerkeb, M.L. Blockchain-based medical and water waste management conception. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 234, 00070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, Y.S.; Mukherjee, S.; Dutta, R.; Bhattacharya, S. A blockchain-based approach using smart contracts to develop a smart waste management system. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 7833–7856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahraman, C. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Fuzzy Sets. In Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Springer Optimization and Its Applications; Kahraman, C., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2008; Volume 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aouam, T.; Chang, S.I.; Lee, E.S. Fuzzy MADM: An outranking method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 145, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry 2019, 11, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajak, S.; Parthiban, P.; Dhanalakshmi, R. Analysing barriers of sustainable transportation systems in India using Grey-DEMATEL approach: A supply chain perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2021, 14, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanković, J.J.; Marjanović, I.; Papathanasiou, J.; Drezgić, S. Social, Economic and Environmental Sustainability of Port Regions: MCDM Approach in Composite Index Creation. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhiman, H.S.; Deb, D. Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy COPRAS based multi-criteria decision making for hybrid wind farms. Energy 2020, 202, 117755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saraswat, S.K.; Digalwar, A.K. Evaluation of energy sources based on sustainability factors using integrated fuzzy MCDM approach. Int. J. Environ. Sec. Manag. 2021, 15, 246–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Thanh, N. Sustainable Energy Source Selection for Industrial Complex in Vietnam: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 50692–50701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gervásio, H.; Simões da Silva, L. A probabilistic decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of infrastructures. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 7121–7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadegaridehkordi, E.; Hourmand, M.; Nilashi, M.; Alsolami, E.; Samad, S.; Mahmoud, M.; Alarood, A.A.; Zainol, A.; Hamsa, D.M.; Shuib, L. Assessment of sustainability indicators for green building manufacturing using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 122905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, T.C.; Lin, Y.C. A fuzzy TOPSIS method for robot selection. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2003, 21, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouyendegh, B.D.; Yildizbasi, A.; Üstünyer, P. Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection problem. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 2215–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thanh, N.V.; Lan, N.T.K. A New Hybrid Triple Bottom Line Metrics and Fuzzy MCDM Model: Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Food-Processing Industry. Axioms 2022, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.-L.; Nguyen, P.-H.; Pham, H.-A.; Nguyen, T.-G.; Nguyen, D.-T.; Tran, T.-H.; Le, H.-C.; Phung, H.-T. A Novel Integrating Data Envelopment Analysis and Spherical Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Steel Industry. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achillas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Karagiannidis, A.; Banias, G.; Perkoulidis, G. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: A literature review. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sobral, M.M.; Hipel, K.W.; Farquhar, G.J. A multi-criteria model for solid waste management. J. Environ. Manag. 1981, 12, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
- Erkut, E.; Moran, S.R. Locating obnoxious facilities in the public sector: An application of the analytic hierarchy process to municipal landfill siting decisions. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 1991, 25, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banai, R. Fuzziness in geographical Information Systems: Contributions from the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1993, 7, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnpratheep, K.; Zhou, Q.; Garner, B. Preliminary landfill site screening using fuzzy geographical information systems. Waste Manag. Res. 1997, 15, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, J.P.; Chiueh, P.T.; Hung, M.L.; Ma, H.W. Analyzing policy impact potential for municipal solid waste management decision-making: A case study of Taiwan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 51, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Önüt, S.; Soner, S. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1552–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Thanh, N. Optimal waste-to-energy strategy assisted by fuzzy MCDM model for sustainable solid waste management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albayrak, K. A hybrid fuzzy decision making approach for sitting a solid waste energy production plant. Soft Comput. 2022, 26, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topaloglu, M.; Yarkin, F.; Kaya, T. Solid waste collection system selection for smart cities based on a type-2 fuzzy multi-criteria decision technique. Soft Comput. 2018, 22, 4879–4890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, A.; Jakhar, S.K.; Chauhan, C. The interplay of circular economy with industry 4.0 enabled smart city drivers of healthcare waste disposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seker, S. IoT based sustainable smart waste management system evaluation using MCDM model under interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yörükoğlu, M.; Aydın, S. Assessment of smart waste management systems with spherical ahp method. In Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management, Energy, and Sustainability; AI4KMES 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Mercier-Laurent, E., Kayakutlu, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.R.; Mishra, S.; Kumar, C. Prioritizing the solution of cloud service selection using integrated MCDM methods under Fuzzy environment. J. Supercomput. 2017, 73, 4652–4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yucesan, M.; Gul, M. Hospital service quality evaluation: An integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 3237–3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karabayir, A.N.; Botsali, A.R.; Kose, Y.; Cevikcan, E. Supplier Selection in a Construction Company Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS. In Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making; INFUS 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1029; Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Cevik Onar, S., Oztaysi, B., Tolga, A., Sari, I., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baki, R. Evaluating hotel websites through the use of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2020, 32, 3747–3765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gülsün, B.; Erdoğmuş, K.N. Bankacılık Sektöründe Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ve Bulanık TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Finansal Performans Değerlendirmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg. 2021, 25, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banadkouki, M.Z.; Lotfi, M.M. Selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies using a combined fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Indust. Eng. Product. Res. 2021, 32, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padma, T.; Shantharajah, S.P.; Ramadoss, P. Hybrid Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Decision Model for Aquaculture Species Selection. Int. J. Inform. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2022, 21, 999–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajjipura Shankar, H.U.; Kodipalya Nanjappa, U.K.; Alsulami, M.D.; Prasannakumara, B.C. A Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Urged Baseline Aid for Execution Amendment of an Online Food Delivery Affability. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkayesh, A.E.; Rajaeifar, M.A.; Rostom, M.; Malmir, B.; Yazdani, M.; Suh, S.; Heidrich, O. Integrating life cycle assessment and multi criteria decision making for sustainable waste management: Key issues and recommendations for future studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 168, 112819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zorpas, A.A.; Saranti, A. Multi-criteria analysis of sustainable environmental clean technologies for the treatment of winery’s wastewater. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2016, 15, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, A.; Dixit, G. A novel hybrid MCDM framework for WEEE recycling partner evaluation on the basis of green competencies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 18017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coban, A.; Firtina Ertis, I.; Ayvaz Cavdaroglu, N. Municipal solid waste management via multi-criteria decision making methods: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilangkumaran, M.; Sasirekha, V.; Anojkumar, L.; Sakthivel, G.; Boopathi Raja, M.; Ruban Sundara Raj, T.; Siddhartha, C.; Nizamuddin, P.; Praveen Kumar, S. Optimization of wastewater treatment technology selection using hybrid MCDM. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2013, 24, 619–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, I.; Kabir, Z. Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Laarhoven, P.J.M.; Pedrycz, W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1983, 11, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da-Yong, C. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 95, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dursun, E. Supplier Selection by Using Fuzzy AHP Method and An Application in Textile Sector. Master’s Thesis, The Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology, Institute of Science and Technology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2009. (In Turkish). [Google Scholar]
- Sahu, N.K.; Sahu, A.K.; Sahu, A.K. Appraisement and benchmarking of third-party logistic service provider by exploration of risk-based approach. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 1121637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, C.; Won, J.-S. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and cooperative game theory combined multiple mobile robot navigation algorithm. Sensors 2020, 20, 2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K.P. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.-T.; Lin, C.-T.; Huang, S.-F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 102, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alptekin, N.; Eroglu Hall, E.; Sevim, N. Evaluation of websites quality using fuzzy TOPSIS method. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2015, 5, 221–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 1000minds. Decision-Making/Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA/MCDM). Available online: https://www.1000minds.com/decision-making/what-is-mcdm-mcda (accessed on 23 January 2023).
- Taskin Gumus, A. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 4067–4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellman, R.E.; Zadeh, L.A. Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 1970, 17, 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, H.J. Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1978, 1, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, J.L. Introduction to gray system theory. J. Grey Syst. 1989, 1, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Khuman, A.S. The similarities and divergences between grey and fuzzy theory. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2021, 186, 115812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000, 114, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, S.; Garg, D.; Luthra, S. Sustainable production and consumption: Analysing barriers and solutions for maintaining green tomorrow by using fuzzy-AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS hybrid framework. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 16934–16980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demircan, B.G. Determination of Sustainable Waste Management Strategies in Smart Cities Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Approach. Master’s Thesis, Institute of Science, Department of Environmental Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Martín, J.C.; Indelicato, A. Comparing a Fuzzy Hybrid Approach with Invariant MGCFA to Study National Identity. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alternative Number | Alternative Name |
---|---|
A1 | Integrating informal recyclable waste collection into a formal smart system |
A2 | A pay as you throw application leveraging blockchain technology |
A3 | IoT-Based community composting |
A4 | Preventing illegal sewage discharge by utilizing IoT |
Main Criteria | Sub-Criteria No. | Sub-Criteria Name | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental criteria (C1) | C1.1 | Less atmospheric emissions | [60] |
C1.2 | Less soil pollution | [60] | |
C1.3 | Less surface water pollution | [60] | |
C1.4 | Energy recovery | [61] | |
C1.5 | Natural resources recovery | [62] | |
Technical criteria (C2) | C2.1 | Operational feasibility | [48] |
C2.2 | Innovativeness | [48] | |
C2.3 | Need for qualified personnel | [63] | |
Economic criteria (C3) | C3.1 | Maintenance costs | [64] |
C3.2 | Transportation costs | [63] | |
C3.3 | Operational costs | [63] | |
C3.4 | Initial invesment costs | [63] | |
Social criteria (C4) | C4.1 | Increased awareness on sustainable cities | [64] |
C4.2 | Increased quality of life in the city | [60] | |
C4.3 | New employment opportunities | [65] |
Linguistic Term | Triangular Fuzzy Number Equivalent |
---|---|
Equally important | (1, 1, 1) |
Slightly more important | (2/3, 1, 3/2) |
Strongly more important | (3/2, 2, 5/2) |
Very strongly more important | (5/2, 3, 7/2) |
Definitely more important | (7/2, 4, 9/2) |
Environmental Criteria | Less Atmospheric Emissions | Less Soil Pollution | Less Surface Water Pollution | Energy Recovery | Natural Resources Recovery |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less atmospheric emissions | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.36, 1.69, 2.09) | (1.20, 1.58, 2.06) | (1.56, 1.97, 2.43) | (1.46, 1.74, 2.05) |
Less soil pollution | (0.48, 0.59, 0.74) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.09, 1.32, 1.59) | (1.37, 1.76, 2.24) | (1.28, 1.52, 1.76) |
Less surface water pollution | (0.49, 0.63, 0.84) | (0.63, 0.76, 0.92) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.50, 1.97, 2.54) | (1.35, 1.69, 2.08) |
Energy recovery | (0.41, 0.51, 0.64) | (0.45, 0.57, 0.73) | (0.39, 0.51, 0.67) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.18, 1.52, 1.91) |
Natural resources recovery | (0.49, 0.57, 0.69) | (0.57, 0.66, 0.78) | (0.48, 0.59, 0.74) | (0.52, 0.66, 0.84) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) |
Technical Criteria | Operational Feasibility | Innovativeness | Need for Qualified Personnel |
---|---|---|---|
Operational feasibility | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.59, 2.08, 2.63) | (1.34, 1.62, 1.93) |
Innovativeness | (0.38, 0.48, 0.63) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.52, 2.00, 2.56) |
Need for qualified personnel | (0.52, 0.62, 0.75) | (0.39, 0.50, 0.66) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) |
Economic Criteria | Initial Invesment Costs | Operational Costs | Maintenance Costs | Transportation Costs |
---|---|---|---|---|
Initial invesment costs | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.37, 1.64, 1.96) | (1.25, 1.58, 1.97) | (1.53, 1.94, 2.41) |
Operational costs | (0.51, 0.61, 0.73) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.35, 1.58, 1.82) | (1.25, 1.47, 1.73) |
Maintenance costs | (0.51, 0.63, 0.80) | (0.55, 0.63, 0.74) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.25, 1.58, 1.97) |
Transportation costs | (0.41, 0.51, 0.65) | (0.58, 0.68, 0.80) | (0.51, 0.63, 0.80) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) |
Social Criteria | Increased Awareness on Sustainable Cities | Increased Quality of Life in the City | New Employment Opportunities |
---|---|---|---|
Increased awareness on sustainable cities | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.48, 1.89, 2.35) | (1.10, 1.47, 1.95) |
Increased quality of life in the city | (0.42, 1.00, 0.67) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) | (1.54, 2.02, 2.58) |
New employment opportunities | (0.51, 0.68, 0.91) | (0.39, 0.49, 0.65) | (1.00, 1.00, 1.00) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Demircan, B.G.; Yetilmezsoy, K. A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086526
Demircan BG, Yetilmezsoy K. A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086526
Chicago/Turabian StyleDemircan, Bihter Gizem, and Kaan Yetilmezsoy. 2023. "A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086526