Abstract
The heterogeneity of solid waste generated by a large population of different socio-economic backgrounds in India makes it difficult to have a universal best treatment option. The present study reports a comprehensive assessment of six different technologies for managing yard waste using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): composting, incineration, landfill, anaerobic digestion, pelletization-gasification, and pelletization-pyrolysis. Four criteria, namely, environmental, economic, technical, and socio-political have been considered for evaluation, with each of these having further sub-criteria. The 4 criteria, 17 sub-criteria, and the 6 alternatives are evaluated using AHP for two different cases: one for calculated weights based on the objective, and other assuming equal weights for each criterion and sub-criterion. The pairwise comparison matrices are formed using data collected from literature and the responses recorded from the questionnaire survey. The results are then synthesized to find the most appropriate process for managing yard waste. For both, case 1 and case 2, pelletization-gasification (PG) was the most promising technology followed by pelletization-pyrolysis (PP). Landfill (LF) and incineration (IN) technologies proved to be the least preferred alternatives for managing yard waste. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate the effect of variation in importance of different criteria on the final rankings of the technology alternatives.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abba AH, Noor ZZ, Aliyu A, Medugu NI (2013) Assessing sustainable municipal solid waste management factors for Johor-Bahru by analytical hierarchy process. Adv Mater Res 689:540–545
Annepu RK (2012) Sustainable solid waste management in India. Waste-to-Energy Res Technol Counc. Columbia University
Armi M, Samah A, Manaf LA, Zukki M (2010) Application of AHP model for evaluation of solid waste treatment technology. Int J Tech Sci 1:35–40
Ashwekar P, Jiang Y, Pan H (2017) Feasibility study of energy recovery by incineration—a case study of the triangle wastewater treatment plant. Duke University
Asnani PU (2006) Solid waste management. India Infrastructure Report. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp 160–188
Axelsson C, Kvarnström T (2010) Energy from municipal solid waste in Chennai, India—a feasibility study
Babalola MA (2015) A multi-criteria decision analysis of waste treatment options for food and biodegradable waste management in Japan. Environments 2:471–488
Belgiorno V, De Feo G, Della Rocca C, Napoli RMA (2003) Energy from gasification of solid wastes. Waste Manag 23:1–15
Boldrin A (2009) Environmental assessment of garden waste management. Technical University of Denmark
ChaoKe, Hanchao Y, Dang F (2013) Application of AHP in selection of wind farm’s location. Int J Energy Sci 3:18–22
Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2007) Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 35:4027–4038
Chen Y-T (2016) A cost analysis of food waste composting in Taiwan. Sustainability 8:1–13
Chen WH, Peng J, Bi XT (2015) A state-of-the-art review of biomass torrefaction, densification and applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 44:847–866
Chhabra V, Shastri Y, Bhattacharya S (2016) Kinetics of pyrolysis of mixed municipal solid waste—a review. Procedia Environ Sci 35:513–527
Database of Waste Management Technologies [WWW Document], Accessed 14 June 2018. Waste Control
Department of Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi [WWW Document] Accessed 2 Oct 2018. http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/environment/Environment/Home/Campaign/Burning+of+leaves
Durgekar V (2016) Towards sustainable waste management through technological innovations, effective policy, supply chain integration & participation. Procedia Environ Sci 35:140–149
Eilrich FC, Doeksen G, Van Fleet H (2003) An economic analysis of landfill costs to demonstrate the economies of size and determine the feasibility of a community owned landfill in rural Oklahoma. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Alabama, p 1–21
Fernández-González JM, Grindlay AL, Serrano-Bernardo F, Rodríguez-Rojas MI, Zamorano M (2017) Economic and environmental review of waste-to-energy systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Waste Manag 67:360–374
FICCI (2009) Survey on the current status of municipal solid waste management in Indian cities and the potential of landfill gas to energy projects in India. New Delhi
Ghosh SK (2016) Sustainable SWM in developing countries focusing on faster growing economies, India and China. Procedia Environ Sci 35:176–184
Ghosh R, Kansal A (2014) Urban challenges in India and the mission for a sustainable habitat. Interdisciplina 2:281–304
Gidde, M., Kokate, K., Todkar, V., 2008. Municipal solid waste management in emerging mega cities: a case study of Pune City, In: Indo Italian Conference on Green and Clean Environment. Pune, p 441–450
Gumisiriza R, Hawumba JF, Okure M, Hensel O (2017) Biomass waste-to-energy valorisation technologies: a review case for banana processing in Uganda. Biotechnol Biofuels 10:1–29
Gupta N, Yadav KK, Kumar V (2015) A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J Environ Sci 37:206–217
Hornung A, Apfelbacher A, Sagi S (2011) Intermediate pyrolysis: a sustainable biomass-to-energy concept-biothermal valorisation of biomass (BtVB) process. J Sci Ind Res (India) 70:664–667
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2009) Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR Insight 22:201–220
Jaber J, Jaber Q, Sawalha S, Mohsen M (2008) Evaluation of conventional and renewable energy sources for space heating in the household sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 12:278–289
Jha AK, Singh SK, Singh GP, Gupta PK (2011) Sustainable municipal solid waste management in low income group of cities: a review. Trop Ecol 52:123–131
Joshi R, Ahmed S (2016) Status and challenges of municipal solid waste management in India: a review. Cogent Environ Sci 2:1–18
Jouhara H, Czajczyńska D, Ghazal H, Krzyżyńska R, Anguilano L, Reynolds AJ, Spencer N (2017) Municipal waste management systems for domestic use. Energy 139:485–506
Kahraman C, Kaya I (2010) A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 37:6270–6281
Kaliyan N, Morey RV (2010) Natural binders and solid bridge type binding mechanisms in briquettes and pellets made from corn stover and switchgrass. Bioresour Technol 101:1082–1090
Kim M, Jang YC, Lee S (2013) Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool. J Environ Manag 128:941–948
Kumar S, Smith SR, Fowler G, Velis C, Kumar SJ, Arya S, Kumar R, Cheeseman C (2017) Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. R Soc Open Sci 4:1–20
Madadian E, Amiri L, Abdoli MA (2013) Application of analytic hierarchy process and multicriteria decision analysis on waste management: a case study in Iran. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 32:810–820
Marshall RE, Farahbakhsh K (2013) Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Manag 33:988–1003
Melaré V d SA, Montenegro González S, Faceli K, Casadei V (2017) Technologies and decision support systems to aid solid-waste management: a systematic review. Waste Manag 59:567–584
Mohanty CR, Mishra U, Beuria PR (2014) Municipal solid waste management in Bhubaneswar, India—a review. Int J Latest Trends Eng Technol 3:303–312
Pandey S, Malik JK (2015) Industrial and urban waste management in India. New Delhi
Potdar A, Singh A, Unnnikrishnan S, Naik N, Naik M, Nimkar I (2016) Innovation in solid waste management through clean development mechanism in India and other countries. Process Saf Environ Prot 101:160–169
Pradhan P, Arora A, Mahajani SM (2018) Pilot scale evaluation of fuel pellets production from garden waste biomass. Energy Sustain Dev 43:1–14
Report of the Task Force on Waste to Energy (2014) New Delhi
Rural empowerment through biogas entrepreneurship [WWW Document], Accessed 14 June 2018. IIT Delhi. URL http://www.web.iitd.ac.in/.../Entrepreneurship%2520Models%2520on%2520 Biogas%2520for%2520Rural%25
Rynk R (2008) Monitoring moisture in composting systems. Biocycle:24–30
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26
Saaty TL, Hu G (1998) Ranking by eigenvector versus other methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Appl Math Lett 11:121–125
Saaty T, Vargas L (2000) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Saini S, Rao P, Patil Y (2012) City based analysis of MSW to energy generation in India, calculation of state-wise potential and tariff comparison with EU. Procedia - Soc. Behav Sci 37:407–416
Samah MAA, Manaf LA, Aris AZ, Sulaiman WNA (2011) Solid waste management: analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application of selecting treatment technology in Sepang Municipal Council, Malaysia. Curr. World Enviroment 6:1–16
Shamshiry E, Mokhtar MB, Abdulai AM, Komoo I (2015) Using the analytic hierarchy process to enhance sustainable solid waste management: case study of Langkawi Island, Malaysia. Environ Qual Manag 24:51–65
Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC (2008) Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities—a review. Waste Manag 28:459–467
Suriapparao DV, Vinu R (2015) Bio-oil production via catalytic microwave pyrolysis of model municipal solid waste component mixtures. RSC Adv 5:57619–57631
Thengane SK, Hoadley A, Bhattacharya S, Mitra S, Bandyopadhyay S (2014) Cost-benefit analysis of different hydrogen production technologies using AHP and fuzzy AHP. Int J Hydrog Energy 39:15293–15306
Tumuluru JS, Wright CT, Hess JR, Kenney KL (2011) A review of biomass densification systems to develop uniform feedstock commodities for bioenergy application. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5:683–707
Wang L, Chu J, Wu J (2007) Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 107:151–163
Yap HY, Nixon JD (2015) A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste Manag 46:265–271
Acknowledgements
This research has been funded by the Tata Centre for Technology and Design, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India, through project DGDON 422.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Appendix
Appendix
Pairwise comparison matrices for remaining 16 sub-criteria.
Volume reduction (VR) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/2 | 1/6 | 1/3 | 0.043 |
IN | 4 | 1 | 1/2 | 3 | 1/3 | 2 | 0.112 |
LF | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1/2 | 3 | 0.376 |
AD | 2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/2 | 0.053 |
PG | 6 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0.259 |
PP | 3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 2 | 1/4 | 1 | 0.156 |
λmax = 6.24, CI = 0.04 |
Utility consumption (UC) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 3 | 1/7 | 1/4 | 1/6 | 1/5 | 0.045 |
IN | 1/3 | 1 | 1/9 | 1/6 | 1/8 | 1/7 | 0.025 |
LF | 7 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0.387 |
AD | 4 | 6 | 1/4 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.115 |
PG | 6 | 8 | 1/2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.258 |
PP | 5 | 7 | 1/3 | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.170 |
λmax = 6.24, CI = 0.049 |
Safety & user-friendliness (SU) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 0.383 |
IN | 1/2 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0.251 |
LF | 1/7 | 1/6 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0.034 |
AD | 1/5 | 1/4 | 3 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.067 |
PG | 1/3 | 1/2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.161 |
PP | 1/4 | 1/3 | 4 | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.103 |
λmax = 6.16, CI = 0.032 |
Scalability potential (SP) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 1/2 | 1/5 | 2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.064 |
IN | 2 | 1 | 1/4 | 3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 0.102 |
LF | 5 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0.382 |
AD | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0.043 |
PG | 4 | 2 | 1/2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0.234 |
PP | 3 | 3 | 1/3 | 4 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.176 |
λmax = 6.17, CI = 0.035 |
Capital cost (CC) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 0.461 |
IN | 1/7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0.062 |
LF | 1/8 | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 1/6 | 1/5 | 0.042 |
AD | 1/9 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 1/7 | 1/6 | 0.029 |
PG | 1/3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0.239 |
PP | 1/4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.166 |
λmax = 6.25, CI = 0.05 |
Annual O & M cost (OC) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.090 |
IN | 1/3 | 1 | 3 | 1/7 | 1/5 | 1/6 | 0.046 |
LF | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/9 | 1/7 | 1/8 | 0.026 |
AD | 5 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0.394 |
PG | 3 | 5 | 7 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/2 | 0.179 |
PP | 4 | 6 | 8 | 1/2 | 2 | 1 | 0.265 |
λmax = 6.26, CI = 0.05 |
Land area (LA) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 1/4 | 1/2 | 1/6 | 1/9 | 1/8 | 0.028 |
IN | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 1/5 | 0.077 |
LF | 2 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/8 | 1/7 | 0.039 |
AD | 6 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.150 |
PG | 9 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.417 |
PP | 8 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.291 |
λmax = 6.27, CI = 0.05 |
Payback period (PP) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.177 |
IN | 1/3 | 1 | 5 | 1/2 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0.070 |
LF | 1/7 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/6 | 1/9 | 1/8 | 0.025 |
AD | 1/2 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.099 |
PG | 3 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.379 |
PP | 2 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.250 |
λmax = 6.27, CI = 0.05 |
Product demand (PD) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0.383 |
IN | 1/5 | 1 | 5 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/2 | 0.071 |
LF | 1/9 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/7 | 1/8 | 1/6 | 0.025 |
AD | 1/3 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 0.163 |
PG | 1/2 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.253 |
PP | 1/4 | 2 | 6 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.106 |
λmax = 6.21, CI = 0.04 |
Load on fossil fuels (LF) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 0.064 |
IN | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/2 | 0.101 |
LF | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/6 | 1/4 | 0.043 |
AD | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 0.250 |
PG | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.382 |
PP | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.160 |
λmax = 6.12, CI = 0.024 |
Pollution and emissions (PE) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1/2 | 0.292 |
IN | 1/7 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/8 | 0.030 |
LF | 1/4 | 3 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/6 | 0.060 |
AD | 1/5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1/4 | 0.126 |
PG | 1/3 | 4 | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1/5 | 0.090 |
PP | 2 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0.402 |
λmax = 6.31, CI = 0.06 |
Residue disposal (RD) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 1/3 | 3 | 1/5 | 1/7 | 1/6 | 0.046 |
IN | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0.090 |
LF | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/7 | 1/9 | 1/8 | 0.026 |
AD | 5 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.179 |
PG | 7 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.394 |
PP | 6 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.265 |
λmax = 6.26 CI = 0.05 |
Policy & subsidy (PS) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0.412 |
IN | 1/9 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/8 | 1/7 | 1/6 | 0.025 |
LF | 1/6 | 4 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.055 |
AD | 1/2 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.237 |
PG | 1/3 | 7 | 4 | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 0.163 |
PP | 1/4 | 6 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.108 |
λmax = 6.3, CI = 0.06 |
Health impact (HI) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/2 | 0.109 |
IN | 1/4 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 1/7 | 1/5 | 0.034 |
LF | 1/2 | 3 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 0.068 |
AD | 3 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 0.255 |
PG | 4 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.370 |
PP | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.164 |
λmax = 6.16, CI = 0.032 |
Community acceptance (CA) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 1/2 | 4 | 3 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.108 |
IN | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.165 |
LF | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/7 | 1/6 | 0.035 |
AD | 1/3 | 1/4 | 2 | 1 | 1/6 | 1/5 | 0.051 |
PG | 4 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0.386 |
PP | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.255 |
λmax = 6.165, CI = 0.033 |
Employment (EM) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CT | IN | LF | AD | PG | PP | Priority vector | |
CT | 1 | 4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0.073 |
IN | 1/4 | 1 | 1/6 | 1/5 | 1/8 | 1/7 | 0.029 |
LF | 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 0.164 |
AD | 2 | 5 | 1/2 | 1 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 0.106 |
PG | 5 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.374 |
PP | 4 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.255 |
λmax = 6.2, CI = 0.04 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thengane, S.K. Assessment of Different Technologies for Managing Yard Waste Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Process Integr Optim Sustain 3, 255–272 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-018-0070-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-018-0070-1