Municipal Solid Waste Treatment/Disposal Alternatives Ranking Evaluation Using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Technique

IJEP 43(4): 330-338 : Vol. 43 Issue. 4 (April 2023)

Atul Sharma and N. R. Rawal*

Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh-211 004, India


The selection of municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal/ treatment alternatives is a perplexing task since the number of options available and each one has its pros and cons. In the present work, the ranking of MSW treatment/disposal options was done using the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) technique-analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The options considered were open dumping (OD), sanitary landfill (SLF), composting (COM), refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and incineration (INC) most commonly used solid waste treatment/ disposal methods in developing nations. Evaluation of each option was made under three main criterias : economic aspect, technological aspect and social and environmental aspects and under each criteria aspect, various sub-criterias were considered. The weightage of each criterion parameter was decided based on a questionnaire survey among experts. The results show that composting has the highest priority (0.26) and incineration receives the last priority. Sensitivity analysis was performed to check the stability of alternative ranking by varying the weightage between zero to one for all three main criterias. It was found that results were consistent in a wide range. So for decision-making authorities, it will help choose suitable options for the success of the whole waste management programme.


Municipal solid waste option selection, Analytical hierarchy process, Sanitary landfill, Composting, Incineration, sensitivity analysis



  1. Gupta, N., K.K. Yadav and V. Kumar. 2015. A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J. Env. Sci., 37(1):206-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2015.01.034.
  2. Sahu, S., N.J. Sindhu and P.K. Sharma. 2014. Review on solid waste management practice in India : A state of art. Int. J. Innovative Res. Develop., 3(3):261-268.
  3. Viji, D. 2012. Urbanization and solid waste management in India : Present practices and future challenges. Procedia Social Behavioural Sci., 37:437-447. DOI : 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03. 309.
  4. Figueira, J.R., S. Greco and M. Ehrogon. 2015. multiple criteria decision analysis : State-of-the-art serveys. International series in operations research and management science, Springer.
  5. Zeng, G., et al. 2007. Optimization of wastewater treatment alternative selection by hierarchy grey relational analysis. J. Env. Manage., 82(2):250-259.
  6. Temiz, I. and G. Calis. 2017. Selection of construction equipment by using multi-criteria decision making methods. Procedia Eng., 196 (June): 286-293. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.201.
  7. Karagoz, S., et al. 2020. A novel intuitionistic Fuzzy MCDM-based CODAS approach for locating an authorized dismantling center : A case study of Istanbul. Waste Manage. Res., 38(6):660-672.
  8. Torkayesh, A., et al. 2021. Landill location selection for healthcare waste of urban areas using BWM-gray MARCOS model based on GIS. Sustain. Cities Sci., 67 (January) : 102712. DOI:10. 1016/j.scs.2021.102712.
  9. Zolfaghary, P., Z. Mahdi and K. Hossein. 2021. A model for the use of urban treated wastewater in agriculture using multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) and geographic information system (GIS). Agric. Water Manage., 243 (August):106490. DOI: 1016/j.agwat.2020. 106 490.
  10. Rahimi, S., et al. 2020. Sustainable landfill site selection for municipal solid waste based on a hybrid decision-making approach : Fuzzy group BWM-MULTIMOORA-GIS. J. Cleaner Prod., 248: 119186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 119186.
  11. Savun-Hekinoglo, B., et al. 2021. Evaluation of water supply alternatives for Istanbul using fore casting and multi-criteria decision making methods. J. Cleaner Prod., 287:125080.
  12. Manupati, V.K., et al. 2021. Selection of the best healthcare waste disposal techniques during and post Covid-19 pandemic era. J. Cleaner Prod., 281:125175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125 175.
  13. Ali, S. A., et al. 2021. Sanitary landifll site selection by integrating AHP and FTOPSIS with GIS: A case study of Memari Municipality, India. Env. Sci. Poll. Res., 28(6):7528-7550.
  14. Abu, R., et al. 2021. Multi-criteria decision approach with stakeholders for food waste management. IOP Conference Series : Earth Env. Sci., 756(1).
  15. Belhadi, A., et al. 2020. Infectious waste management strategy during Covid-19 pandemic in Africa: An integrated decision-making framework for selecting sustainable technologies. Env. Manage., 66(6):1085-1104. DOI: 10.1007/ s00267-020-01375-5.
  16. Torkayesh, A., B. Malmir and M. R. Asadabadi. 2021. Sustainable waste disposal technology selection: The stratified best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Waste Manage., 122.100-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman. 2020.12.040.
  17. Mir, M.A., et al. 2016. Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in a multi-criteria decision analysis to develop an optimized municipal solid waste management model. J. Env. Manage., 166:109-115. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jenvman.2015.09. 028.
  18. Tramarico, C.L., V.A.P. Salomon and F.A.S. Marins. 2017. Multi-criteria assessment of the benefits of a supply chain management training considering green issues. J. Cleaner Prod., 142:249-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.05.112.
  19. Tsai, W. H., et al. 2010. AMCDM approach for sourcing strategy mix decision in IT projects. Expert Systems Applications. 37(5):3870-3886. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.11.031.
  20. Bottero, M., E. Comino and V. Riggio. 2011. Environmental modelling and software application of the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Env. Modelling Software. 26(10):1211-1224.
  21. Kalbar, P.P., S. Karmakar and S.R. Asolekar. 2012. Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology : A scenaria-based multiple attribute decision making approach. J. Env. Manage., 113:158-169. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jenvman. 2012.08. 025.
  22. Sharma, A., et al. 2008. Formulation of a landfill pollution potential index to compare pollution potential of uncontrolled landfills. Waste Manage. Res., 26(5):474-483.
  23. Municipal integrated and solid waste. 2000. Users manual.
  24. Komilis. D.P. and R.K. Ham. 2004. Life-cycle inventory of municipal solid waste and yard waste window composting in the United States. J. Env. Eng., 130(11):1390-1400.
  25. Hemidat, S., et al. 2019. Potential utilization of RDF as an alternative fuel to be used in cement industry in Jordan. Sustainability. 11(20): 5819.
  26. Tozlu, A. and E. Ozahi. 2016. Waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renewable Sustain. Energy Reviews. 54: 809-815.
  27. Martin, J. J. E., R. Koralewska and A. Wohlleban. 2015. Advanced solution in combustion-based WtE technologies. Waste Manage., 37:147-156.
  28. Hambali, A., et al. 2009. Composite manufacturing process selection using analytical hierarchy process. Int. J. Mech. Mater. Eng., 4(1):49-61.
  29. Xin-Gang, Zhao, et al. 2016. Technology, cost, a performance of waste-to-energy incineration industry in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Reviews. 55: 115-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.137.