Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hokkane Main
Hokkane Main
JOURNAL
OF OPERATIONAL
RESEARCH
ELSEVIER European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
Abstract
We report on an actual application of the ELECTRE III decision-aid in the context of choosing a solid waste
management system in the Oulu region, Finland, in 1993. The Electre III method proved useful, especially when dealing
with environmental problems involving many decision-makers, and in cases where the outcomes of the various alternatives
remain to some degree uncertain. One of the main conclusions of our study is that all the proper landfill capacity available in
the planning region should be used up. In addition, the energy potential o f waste should be utilized within the region.
Therefore, the solution recommended for a solid waste management system was intermediate landfilling, composting and
RFD-combustion. The decision-makers commented positively on the method used and were satisfied with the options
recommended. The scheme will be implemented for use from the beginning of the year 1995. 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.
Table 1
Summary of the solid waste disposal alternatives for the Oulu region
Alternative Co-operation level Treatment method Number of treatment sites
IA Decentralized Landfill 17 landfills
IB Decentralized Landfill 17 landfills and 17 composting sites
Open composting
IC Decentralized Landfill 17 landfills, 17 composting plants and 1 RDF
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion
study, Caruso, Colorni and Paruccini (1993) have of demolition waste and industrial waste were 60 000
used the GFD-method, while Hokkanen et al. (1995) t o n s / a and 100 000 tons/a, respectively.
and Hokkanen and Salminen (1994) have applied the The starting-point for the present study was that
ELECTRE II and ELECTRE III methods, respec- each municipality took care of its own waste. The
tively. requirements stipulated in the Finnish Waste Act
The ELECTRE methods have proved useful deci- were not met, nor were the instructions given for
sion-aids in various real applications, e.g. in water dealing with municipal waste fully observed, either.
resource planning (Roy, Slowinski and Treichel, In most of the municipalities, waste was gathered in
1992), comparing energy alternatives (Siskos and unstaffed and unmonitored 'landfills' - without much
Hubert, 1983), weighing different options for a high concern for releases to the environment.
voltage route (Grassin, 1986) and assessments of The following waste treatment methods were con-
nuclear power plant siting (Roy and Bouyssou, 1986; sidered for the case in hand: sanitary landfilling,
Barda, Dupuis and Lencioni, 1990). incineration and composting. Incineration proved
In this paper, we will describe an actual applica- feasible, because in the planning area there are en-
tion of the ELECTRE III decision-aid (e.g., Roy, ergy producing facilities capable of incinerating the
1991; Vincke, 1992) in choosing a municipal solid RDF-fraction (RDF = refuse-derived fuel) in an en-
waste management system (MSWMS). ELECTRE vironmentally acceptable way. The amount of RDF
III was selected as the decision-aid mainly because was calculated to suffice for an energy production of
available environmental data tend to be imprecise in 72000 MWh, for which peat would otherwise be
cases like ours. As Electre I I I has proved fairly used. In addition to treatment methods, the present
insusceptible to variations in data and related param- study involved a definition of three levels of cooper-
eters (Vincke, 1992), an adequate amount of reliabil- ation: the decentralized (alternatives I), centralized
ity can be expected of analyses carried out by means (alternatives III) and intermediate systems (alterna-
of it. Furthermore, according to our own experience tives II) (see Table 1). All treatment methods, except
(Hokkanen et al., 1995; Hokkanen and Salminen, for incineration, were capable of being used either
1994), the abrupt change from strict preference to separately in each municipality or in intermunicipal
indifference, characteristic of ELECTRE II, may in- cooperation at various levels. RDF-combustion was
volve a high degree of risk, if the environmental data available only in the city of Oulu.
on hand are unreliable. ELECTRE III was pro- The decentralized system required of each munic-
grammed on a PC based on the descrip6on of the ipality to take care of its own waste. For the interme-
method by Skalka et al. (1986). diate system, the region was divided into realistic
'cooperation areas'. In the centralized system, waste
was to be treated at one single plant. The recycling
1. The problem level varied according to the treatment method em-
ployed. All the methods considered are in accor-
dance with Finnish environmental legislation in ef-
1.1. The planning region and feasible alternatives fect at present (Ministry of Environment, 1992a) and
in the near future (Ministry of Environment, 1992b;
The ELECTRE III decision-aid was applied to a Commission of the European Communities, 1991).
MSWM problem i n the Oulu district in Northern One objective was to utilize 50% of municipal waste,
Finland. The planning region consists of 17 munici- which included a target set for the level of recycling
palities; the total population of the region amounts to (30%).
roughly 185 000. Our objective was to find the most
sensible option for MSWM, a solution that would be 1.2. Decision-makers
applicable until the year 2010. The amount of munic-
ipal solid waste in the region adds up to about 80 000 In Finland the final decisions on environmental
tons/annum (a), out of which 15000 tons, mainly affairs of this order are taken by municipal councils,
paper and cardboard, was recyclable. The quantities after hearing proposals made by municipal boards
22 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
subordinate to them. The environment and technical preferences of the actors who are responsible for
committees of the municipalities are responsible for preparations define what will be suggested for imple-
preparations. They will be called decision-makers mentation, therefore we use their weights of impor-
(DM) throughout our paper. They have a highly tance for the different criteria and call them 'deci-
significant role, because - as stipulated in the Finnish sion-makers'.
Waste Act - the funds for solid waste management In addition, the supervisory body is composed of
are drawn from those by whom waste matter is all the potential interest groups involved: municipali-
produced. Thus the economic responsibility left to ties, municipal councils, regional planning associa-
the municipal councils remains fairly small. The tions and districts o f water and the environment. The
supervisory group oversees the project throughout its
course.
Table 2
Preliminary classification of objectives 1.3. Objectives and criteria
Economic (F, L, W, D):
Capital cost (F, L, D) In order to outline the criteria, the objectives of
Operating cost (F, L, D) the overall task were defined at first, and a prelimi-
Revenues (L, D) nary classification of them was made. A preliminary
Net cost per ton (L, W, D)
set of criteria was then drafted on this basis. It was
Net annual cost per household (D)
Financing arrangements (L) submitted to the supervisory group for approval.
Technical (F, L, W, D): Thus the final decision on the family of criteria to be
Feasibility (F, L, W, D) used was taken by the supervisory group.
Operating experience (L) In defining the objectives, we referred to the
Adaptability to local conditions (L, D)
literature on the subject, including the objectives
Reliability (L)
Continuous (L) stated in the Waste Act of Finland (Ministry of
Uninterrupted process (L) Environment, 1992b). The consequences relating to
Potential for future development (L) the various functional elements in MSWMSs as re-
Environmental (F, L, W, D): ported by Kaila (1987) were studied and weighed in
Global (F, L, D):
terms of objectives. After modifications carried out
Greenhouse effects (F, L)
Regional (F, L): by analysts, these aspects were then aggregated to
Releases of acidificative compounds (F, L) the objectives gathered from the literature. The pur-
Surface water dispersed releases (F, L, D) pose was to find a comprehensive, operational,
Releases to the air and water with health effects nonredundant and minimal set of criteria that would
(F, L, W, D)
represent the various objectives (Keeney and Raiffa
Local (F, L):
Environmental hygiene (D) 1976). Hundred and thirteen DMs participated in
Surface water dispersed releases (F, L, D) outlining the objectives; they also had an opportunity
Releases to air and water with health effects (F, L, D) to add to the list objectives they felt were important.
Political (L, D): A preliminary classification of the objectives is given
Public acceptance (L, D)
in Table 2.
Employment (L, D):
Number of employees (L, D) The preliminary classification comprised objec-
Resource recovery: tives involving economic, environmental, political,
Products recovered (F, L, W, D) employment and resource recovery viewpoints. The
Energy requirements; net effect on primary energy following eight criteria were selected:
supply (L)
g l Net cost per ton.
Market potential (L)
Land usage; volume reduction (L, D) g2 Technical reliability.
g3 Global effects.
F = objectives derived from the functional elements.
L = objectives found in literature.
g4 Local and regional health effects.
W = objectives stated in the Waste Act. g5 Acidificative releases.
D = objectives given by DMs. g6 Surface water dispersed releases.
J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen/ European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 23
I=11 tO s u r f a ~
II Io air
"
I I to ~.~tlrfa.~e
I I 1o air
II II I
RELATIVE EMISSION
FACTOR GRFENHOUSEEFFECT OF SO 2 NO X OF NITROGEN
Environmental criteria (g3--g6) area were based on the factual increase in such area
Within waste treatment, the main sources of re- each year. The following assumptions were taken as
leases are leachate and airborne releases from land- starting-points for the computations:
fills and other treatment processes (incineration, - The specific gravity of waste varied from 0.8 t / m 3
composting) as well as waste transport. to 0.450 t / m 3, depending on the machinery used.
The environmental aspects were considered in - The coverage soil was defined as 10% of the waste
four groups. All MSWMS alternatives produce dif- volume.
ferent types of releases. The environmental effect - The landfill depth was determined on the basis of
value was inferred by adding up the relative impact the actual situation.
values of each release. That is why the releases were The quality of leachate was taken from Ettala
aggregated to the total amount of a particular release (1986) and Ettala et al. (1988), who have studied the
or to the relative factor of a particular release (see quality of leachates in Finnish landfills. The average
Fig. 1). amount of total nitrogen is 66 mgN/1, cadmium
0.0054 mg/1 and lead 0.029 mg/1. The source
Leachate separation of municipal waste affects the quality of
The environmental effects of leachate depend on waste received in landfills. Accordingly, it was as-
the amount discharged and on the concentrations of sumed to affect the quality of leachate.
specific substances in it. The leachate discharge was The production of leachate continues long after a
estimated on the basis of real landfill areas during landfill operation is closed down, as do environmen-
the whole lifetime of each landfill and composting tal effects. Therefore post-operation leachate releases
site: were included in the computations. Post-operation
phase leachate composition was estimated according
Lx=Cx~Qi, (1) to the relationship between landfill age and leachate
i=1 composition as discussed by Ettala (1986), Belevi
where: and Baccini (1989), Ehrig (1983) and Ehrig and
L x Release of contaminant (kg). Stegman (1989).
Q Leachate discharge (m3).
c x Concentration of contaminant x in leachate Releases to the air
(kg/m3). Airborne releases are created during waste trans-
n Duration of releases (years). port and treatment. Landfill fires and disturbances in
In the Oulu region, the average annual rainfall is incinerator flue gas purification systems are not
550-650 mm and evaporation 250-300 mm (Na- within the scope of the present study.
tional Board of Waters and Environment, Finland, The total amount of gas over the time covered in
1987). The average leachate discharge per year can the plan includes gas production during the operating
thus be estimated at 300 mm. time as well as post-operation gas releases.
The area needed for composting plants was de-
rived from the amount of organic waste and mixture G m = G v ~ mi6gg v, (2)
material. Calculations of the future need for landfill i=1
Table 3
The average composition, content and density of landfill gas (Source: Ettala et al., 1988: Assmuth et al., 1990)
Gas Part of Average content in Density
landfill gas (%) landfill gas m g / m 3 kg/m 3
Nitrogen 5 1.25
Carbon dioxide 40 1.03
Methane 50 0.56
Mercury 0.0008
CxHx 218
J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen ~European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 25
Table 4
The typical emission factors and the range of variation using peat or RDF-waste as a fuel (Bostrt~m et al., 1990; Westas and Westerg~d,
1992; RVF 1993, real emission from J5msSnkoski paper and pulp mills)
Component Emission factor
Peal Variation range RDF Variation range
NO x 235 m g / M J 200-245 150 m g / M j 90-160
CO 2 110 g / M J 100-120 100 g / M J 80-110
N20 30 m g / M J - -
SO 2 120 m g / M J 102-157 180 m g / M J 120-400
dust 16.5 m g / M J 20 mg/MJ 10-60
As 10/zg/MJ 2-24 - -
Cd 0.5 p~g/MJ 0.07-1.5 0.02 m g / M J 0.02-0.06
Hg 0.01/~g/MJ 0.001-0.03 0.1 m g / M J 0.06-0.3
Pb 15/xg/MJ 2-51 0.1 m g / M J 0.1-0.2
airborne. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation Relative emission factors were generated for each
in different intensities. In our calculations, the vari- alternative by using emissions of lead and cadmium,
ous gases were combined according to their relative which were combined in relation to their weekly
greenhouse effect per kg: carbon dioxide (CO2), 1, rates not considered harmful to humans: cadmium
methane ( C H 4 ) , 7 0 , and dinitrogen oxide (N20), 200 0.007 mg/weight in kg and lead (Pb) 0.05
(NaturvNdsverket, i991). rag/weight in kg (L~SkintShallitus, 1990).
Table 6
The criterion values of the alternatives studied
Alternative Criteria
gl (min) g2 (max) g3 (min) g4 (min) g5 (min) g6 (min) g7 (max) g8 (max)
Cost Technical Global Health Acidificative Surface water Employees Resource
reliability effects effects releases dispersed recovery
releases
IA 656 5 552678 100 609 1190 670 14 13 900
IB 786 4 539 113 200 575 1190 682 18 23600
IC 912 4 486565400 670 1222 594 24 39767
hydrogen carbons (CH), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and d Demand for a particular waste (t/a).
hydrogen chlorine (HC1) were small and thus ex- In this case the criterion values of the alternatives are
cluded. given in Table 6.
A = (a, b, c . . . . . n) and a set of criteria DMs may also have a say in fixing the veto thresh-
( g l , g2 . . . . . gin). In this case the criteria are real- olds. With a large number of DMs, as in our case,
valued functions defined on set A so that gj(a i) this could not be carried out; the DMs were only
represents the performance or the evaluation of the asked to attach weights to the criteria.
alternative a ~ A on criterion gj. Depending on The evaluation procedures of the ELECTRE III
whether the target is to maximize or to minimize the model (Fig. 2) encompass the establishment of the
criterion gj(ai), the higher or lower it is, the better threshold function, disclosure of concord index and
the alternative meets the criterion in question. Conse- discord index, outranking degree, and the ranking of
quently, the multicriteria evaluation of an alternative alternatives, which are further elaborated in the fol-
a ~ A will be represented by the vector lowing.
Let q(g) and p(g) represent the indifference
g(a) = (g,(a), gz(a) ..... gin(a)). threshold and preference threshold, respectively.
The value gj(a) of the j-th criterion for alterna- If g(a) >1-g(b):
tive a is not fixed or known exactly. Its value is
(i) g(a)>g(b)+p(g(b))~aPb, (4)
affected by three phenomena (Roy et al., 1986):
- imprecision, because of the difficulty of determin- (ii) g(b) +q(g(b)) <g(a) <~g(b) +p(g(b))
ing it, even in the absence of random fluctuation; a Q b, (5)
- indetermination, because its method of evaluation
results from a relatively arbitrary choice between (iii) g(b)<~g(a) < ~ g ( b ) + q ( g ( b ) ) ~ a l b ,
several possible definitions; and (6)
- uncertainty, because the value involved varies with
where P refers to strong preference, Q weak prefer-
time.
ence, I indifference, and g(a) is the criterion value
All these three phenomena are well known at
of alternative a.
various levels of solid waste management. There is a
The establishment of a threshold function has to
variety of solutions for modelling these phenomena.
satisfy the subsequent constraint equations:
The concept of the pseudo-criterion and its two
thresholds allow all three phenomena to be taken (i) g(a) > g(b)
into account. Thus one is led to introducing so-called g( a) + q( g( a) ) > g( b ) + q( g( b ) ) ,
indifference and preference thresholds on the criteria
used in the comparison of alternatives. Each of the g( a) + p( g( a) ) > g ( b ) + p( g( b ) )(7)
gj's taken together with two thresholds denoted by (ii) For all criteria, p(g) > q(g).
qj and pj, respectively, constitute a pseudo-criterion
(Roy and Vincke, 1984; Vincke, 1992). pj(gj(a)) and qj(gj(a)) can be calculated according
When using the Electre III method, each alterna- to R o y ' s formula (Skalka et al., 1986):
tive is at first compared to the other ones, with the
aim of using the three aspects either to accept or to (i) pj(gj(a)) = ap + / 3 p g j ( a ) , (8)
reject, or, most frequently, to assess the outranking (ii) qj(gj(a)) = aq +/3qgj(a), (9)
relation: 'alternative a is at least as high in the
priority order as alternative b', or, more briefly, a where gj(a) is the evaluation value of alternative a
outranks b or, a S b. on criterion j. pj(gj(a)) and qj(gj(a)) can be solved
The following critical information is needed for in such a way that threshold values are (Roy et al.,
the method: 1986):
- weights of the criteria; - either constant (/3 equals to zero and a has to be
- preference and indifference thresholds; determined); or
- veto thresholds. - proportional to gj(a) (/3 has to be determined and
The latter two are generally determined by ana- a equals to zero); or
lysts. However, if it is possible in a real situation - of a form combining these two (both a and /3
involving a limited number of decision-makers, the have to be determined).
J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 29
com0,otoo,o, j l OoterM,na,,ooo,,,,m,,y,
the alternatives A of pseudo-criteria g j ]
The veto threshold vj(gj(a)) is defined for each
criterion j:
h vj( gj( a) ) = a v + flvgj( a). (13)
For each alternative a:
va ues of gj (a), pj [gj(a)], qj[gj(a)] A discordance index, d(a, b), for each criterion is
then defined as follows:
veto thresholds Outranking degree on ] da(a, b) = 0 if g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) <~pj(gj(a)),
v jig/a)] each criterion j(a,b)
1
importance indices of
(14)
Levels of discordance [ ~ the criteria dj(a, b) = 1 if gj(b) - g j ( a ) > vj(gj(a)),
Dj(a,b) ] Concordance index c(a,b)
(15)
T and
[ The degree of outranking S (a,b) I
I distillation O<dj(a, b) < 1
I Two complete preorders [ when
T
I p j ( g j ( a ) ) < g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) ~< v j ( g j ( a ) )
I One final preorder j
(linear interpolation), where pi(gj(a)) is the prefer-
Fig. 2. General structure of ELECTRE III. ence threshold value, qj(gj(a)) is the indifference
threshold value and vj(gj(a)) is the veto threshold
value for each criterion.
Concordance indeX and discordance index Finally, the degree o f outranking is defined by
A concordance index c(a, b) is computed for S(a, b):
each pair of alternatives: S( a, b) = c( a, b) if dj( a, b) ~< c( a, b)
1
Vj~J, (16)
c(a, b) = "Kj=l kacj( a, b),
1 - dj(a, b)
S(a, b) = c(a, b) I-I b) '
where K = k kj, (10) j~J(a, b) 1 -- c( a,
j=l otherwise, (17)
where kj is the weight of criterion j, and cj(a, b) is where J(a, b) is the set of criteria for which
the outranking degree of alternative a and alternative dj(a, b)> c(a, b).
b under criterion j, with:
cj(a, b)=O if g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) >pj(gj(a)), Ranking
The exploitation procedure used in ELECTRE III
(11)
is generally as follows:
cj(a, b ) = 1 if g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) ~ q j ( g j ( a ) ) , - Construct a complete preorder Z~.
- Construct a complete preorder Z 2.
(12)
- Construct the partial preorder Z = Z l A Z 2 as the
and final result.
0 < c j ( a , b) < 1 Z 1 and Z 2 are respectively constructed through a
descending distillation procedure and an ascending
when distillation procedure (for details of these procedures,
see, e.g. Maystre et al., 1994; Vincke, 1992). The
qj( gj( a) ) < gj( b) -- gj( a) ~ pj( gj( a) )
two rankings, Z~ and Z 2, are commonly not the
(linear interpolation). same. The final order could be obtained after the
30 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
downward order and upward order are averaged, that 2. The decision method must be quick and easy to
is, use. In real applications the DMs may not give much
time to the analyst to suggest a solution.
Z=(Z 1 +Z2).
3. The method should need as little preference
However, in case the two rankings are not 'close', information as possible. The DMs pointed out that
one is not able to build an acceptable complete their time is limited as regards concentrating on this
preorder. In this paper we use the procedure in which particular problem among all other duties they had.
alternatives a and b are considered incomparable in On the other hand, some of the criteria would appear
case their order does not remain the same in both difficult to understand for any DM. For example, the
rankings. environmental criteria were measured in a way that
may be difficult for nonexpert DMs. Consider, for
example, tradeoff questions between criteria 3 and 4.
3. Reasons for using ELECTRE III in this prob- 4. The method must have the capacity to deal
lem with imprecise data. Most of the criterion values of
the alternatives were imprecise, especially the esti-
On the basis of the literature, four basic ap- mates of different releases to the environment.
proaches to multiple criteria decision problem can be Therefore it is not possible to adopt a method which
found: 1) multiattribute utility theory (e.g., Keeney uses strict criterion values.
and Raiffa, 1976); 2) analytic hierarchy process (e.g., Providing reliable decision-aid to this problem,
Saaty, 1980); 3) outranking methods (e.g., Vincke, while fulfilling all these requirements seemed quite
1992); 4) interactive procedures (e.g., Steuer, 1986). demanding for any decision method. None of them is
Each one is different in t e r m s of collecting the perfect. The first three constraints make it difficult to
preference information from the DMs, in modelling use any decision method, which would need much,
the preferences and in producing the final solution. and reliable, preference information from the DMs.
In our case we identified the following constraints The DMs had no time a n d / o r did not want to
for the method to be applied: participate in assessing value/utility functions, or
1. The number of DMs must not limit the use of perform any pairwise comparisons. However, they
the method. In this case it was not possible to still insisted on expressing their opinions about the
identify a DM or a small group of them. The number importance of each criterion. In this case, MAUT
of DMs participating in the decision process was and AHP cannot be considered as realistic decision-
113, each with differing opinions. The task was to aids for them. Instead, the ELECTRE methods have
produce an acceptable compromise solution for them. been developed for this kind of situations. Obvi-
Table 7
The basic data for computing the threshold values needed for the socio-economic criteria
Coefficients Criteria
gi g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8
Cost Technical Global Health Acidifi- Surface Employees Resource
reliability effects effects releases water recovery
dispersed
releases
aq 30 1 4948770 -76 --2730 0 3 -2037
~q 0.02 0 0.086 0.42 2.39 0.21 0 0.21
ap 50 3 1647400 - 179 -- 9891 0 10 - 3588
~p 0.05 0 0.028 0.95 8.62 1.27 0 0.41
~v 91.4 3 4671800 278 494 621 20 7466
~v 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 31
ously, they lack the theoretical richness of, e.g., the g l: net cost per ton. Thresholds can be inferred
MAUT, but they can be successfully used as deci- from the observed fact that the estimation techniques
sion-aids in certain problems. They are easy to dis- used with this criterion can lead to an error of about
cuss with the DMs, and no difficult preference ques- + / - 25% in capital costs and + / - 10% in oper-
tions are needed. Clearly, the price for this is that a ating costs. The total error of 10% is quite usual.
great deal of preference information (which was not g2: technical reliability. Taking into account the
possible to obtain in this case) is not taken into standard deviations in the data (around 1) (Hokkanen
account; the only thing available is the importance et al., 1995), the threshold values were defined as
index of each criterion. follows:
The choice between the different ELECTRE - the difference of one was not considered convinc-
methods, on the other hand, was easy in this context. ing evidence of a preference, and
We opted for ELECTRE III, since it can easily take - the difference of two or more was taken to imply
the imprecise data into account. The ELECTRE IS strict preference.
method could also be used for Searching the best g6: s u r f a c e w a t e r dispersed releases. The varia-
compromise in this problem. However, the DMs tion of nitrogen in leachate is usually very large,
wanted to have the ranking of the alternatives, which from 50 m g / l to 150 rag/1 (Ettala, 1986; Ettala et
it does not provide. al., 1988). To take into account this linearly depen-
dent error range, we assumed that indifference re-
mains up to 80 mg and strict preference starts from
4. J u d g m e n t s needed by the ELECTRE I I I deci- 150 rag/1.
sion-aid gv: number of employees. The need for employ-
4.1. The thresholds ees can vary especially due to changes in resource
recovery and transport, because:
The preference and indifference threshold values - technical developments in waste transport and
were computed for each criterion as shown in Table treatment may be reflected in the demand for em-
7. The relationship between the criterion outcome ployees, and
and possible error range was inferred with the help the market in recycled waste may fluctuate over
of a regression analysis on the criteria g3, global time.
effects; g4, releases with health effects; gs, acidi- The veto values for all criteria were computed as
ficative releases; and g8, resource recovery level. the sum of the strict preference value and one half of
The error range was computed with the help of the criterion outcome.
variation in tile basic data (Table 4). The greenhouse
gases from landfills were assumed to variate between 4.2. The weights
0.2-1.5 m3/ton. The maximum values for heavy
metals in leachate were used as the basis for strict The weights, or indices of relative importance, are
preference, while the medium Values were taken as used in ELECTRE III to indicate the significance of
the basis for indifference (Assmuth et al., 1990). In a certain criterion to the DM. However, to capture
acidificative releases, the indifference values were the importance Of a criterion with a single number
assumed to be about 30% of strict preference values. may not be easy for the DMs. For a discussion of the
Resource recovery is mainly based on source separa- weights, see, e.g. Vincke (1992, p. 112) and Gold-
tion and, on the other hand, on centralized separation stein (1990). In a case like the MSWMS-problem,
in certain alternatives. More effective sorting may the number of DMs is often large and they do not
increase the risk of bad quality of sorted waste. give equal value to the individual weights. Thus, to
Currently, about 25% of paper and cardboard is be able to make use of the information on the
sorted incorrectly. The amount of organic waste importance of the various criteria, an inquiry needs
sorted incorrectly varies between 10-50% and that to be carried out. After that the data need to be
of light fraction ( = waste component available for formulated in some sensible manner, so as to obtain
incineration) ranges between 30-60% (Berg, 1993). the overall weights of the group.
32 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
In this study the group of subjects consisted of The values obtained were: gl: 0.27, g2: 0.26, g3:
113 DMs in charge of environmental and technical 0.016, g4: 0.096, gs: 0.047, g6: 0.09, g7:0.05 and
affairs in 17 municipalities in the Oulu region. The gs: 0.14.
paper-and-pencil version was used to obtain the It is difficult to judge, how well the weights given
weights for each criterion ( g l . . . . . gs)- Dubious as correspond to the DMs' actual opinions. However,
we were about the DMs' ability to determine weights, the sensitivity analysis is designed to capture the
we decided to use two different procedures for ac- possible biases in the given weights.
quiring the weights. This was done although in our
earlier paper (Hokkanen and Salminen, 1994) the
given weights were almost equal with both proce- 5. Result of the analysis
dures. The procedures were as follows: 1) the DMs
The ranking of alternatives by ELECTRE III (Fig.
were asked to assign the criteria weights ranging
3), indicates the benefit of a certain degree of inter-
from 1 to 7, 7 being the most important; 2) the DMs
municipal cooperation (e.g., alternatives IIBc, IIAc,
were asked to assign number 1 to the least important
IICb). Centralized systems may not be the best solu-
criterion, and then base the other importance values
tions in all cases, even if the Finnish Ministry of
on how many times more important they appeared
Environment has set them as its target (alternatives
than the least important criterion. Thus, if a criterion
IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, II1D). In an area with not much
was considered, say, 3 times more important than the
proper landfill capacity available, all of it should be
least important one, 3 was the value to be assigned to
used up. The energy potential of waste should also
it. However, again in the present inquiry, the average
be utilized within the region. Such emphases led us
and median weights showed only minor differences
to suggest the choice of intermediate landfilling,
between these two different procedures. In the analy-
composting and RDF-combustion (IIBc).
sis we will use the weights taken from type 1
questioning.
The final weights were determined on the basis of 6. Sensitivity analysis and discussion
majority. The highest (lowest) weight which could
obtain a majority (i.e., 57 DMs out of 113) was The ranking of alternatives remains, nevertheless,
considered to be the weight of the group. dependent on the values of the various thresholds
Table 8
The values used in the sensitivity analysis
The factor Criteria
changed
gl g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8
Cost Technical Global Health Acidificative Surface water Employees Resource
reliability effects effects releases dispersed recovery
releases
Weights':
min 0.25 0.2 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.11 0.04 0.06
max 0.35 0.3 0.39 0.20 0.04 0.18 0.08 0.17
No. of steps 16 11 21 22 14 11 5 12
Olp or [~p "
min 0.01 2 0.1 0.5 8.62 0.3 4 0.4
max 0.1 5 1.5 2 8.62 1.3 15 2
No. of steps 10 4 15 31 1 11 12 33
O~p or ~q "
ranked alternatives. However, distance measures reason, all of the proper landfill capacity should be
could not be inferred with the method used. The used up and the energy potential of waste should be
DMs also brought up a number of points they found utilized within the region. These considerations led
positive: the method was considered to minimize to the choice of intermediate landfilling, composting
both the time needed for decision-making and the and RFD-combustion. When the solution presented
possibilities of 'politicking'. in this paper is compared to the current practice, our
The discordance concept was considered impor- estimate is that FIM 60 million (over $10 million)
tant. However, the DMs suggested that the analysis will be saved during the time covered in the plans (to
should first be made without discordances. After the year 2010). The increase in the amount of recov-
that, it should be studied how the solution changes ered waste can be estimated at 30% (total amount
when the veto values stipulated in environmental 60%). Furthermore, there will be a smaller amount
legislation are taken into account, This comment of releases to the environment.
may reflect the DMs' interest in those stipulations; it 3) Within municipal decision-making, the DMs'
may be indicative of a need to find out whether there attitudes towards a decision-aid appear to correlate
is any 'sense' in the Finnish environmental legisla- with the extent they are required to contribute to it.
tion. The less the better, is the general attitude.
The authorities were satisfied with the decision-aid 4) The method lent itself well to presenting the
applied. One of the main reasons was that the method various aspects of the problem to be dealt with, and
forced them to approach the problem from a wide it also proved useful in working out a satisfying
variety of relevant viewpoints besides the costs in- solution. Another advantage brought up by the DMs
volved. was the modest time needed for the process. In
addition, the participants appeared to prefer simulta-
neous handling of all the criteria and consistent
7. Conclusion structuring of the problem. This was considered to
prevent the participants from indulging in 'politics',
From the preceding results and discussion, the with only a subset of criteria to be discussed.
following can be concluded:
1) The ELECTRE III method has proved a useful
tool in the choice of a MSWMS. Using this method, Acknowledgements
imprecision in the basic data could be taken into
account. This feature is of great importance, espe- The authors wish to thank Dr. John T. Buchanan,
cially in environmental applications. In the case dis- University of Waikato, New Zealand, and three
cussed here, there is no single DM whose prefer- anonymous referees for helpful comments. This re-
ences would constitute a basis for the analysis; in- search is supported, in part, by the Academy of
stead there is a large number of individuals who Finland.
participate in the process. As the DMs' contribution
to a ELECTRE III process can be limited to their
assigning weights to the various criteria, the method References
lends itself very well to cases involving a large
number of participants. Furthermore, when using this Aittola, J.-P., Viinikainen, S., and Roivainen, J. (1989), "The
emissions of PCDD/PCDF's and related compounds from
method, the procedure fulfils the requirements set for co-combustion of RFD with peat and wood chips", Chemo-
environmental impact analyses within the Finnish sphere 19, 353-359.
environmental legislation. Assmuth, T., Poutanen, H., Stranberg, T., Melanen, M., Penttil~i,
2) The results show that in the choice of a munici- S., and Kalevi, K. (1990), "Kaatopaikkojen ongelmaj~ttteiden
pal solid waste system, a certain degree of intermu- ymp~irist5vaikutukset. Riskikaatopaikkatutkimuksen p~i~ira-
portti" (Environmental impacts of hazardous wastes in land-
nicipal cooperation is advisable. In the Oulu region fills), Vesi- ja Ymp~iristShallitus julkaisuja, Sarja A n:o 67
studied here, only 4 to 5 out of the 24 landfills (National Board of Waters and the Environment,Series A, No.
operating in the area were up to standard. For that 67), Helsinki.
J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen /European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 35
Barda, O.H., Dupuis, J., and Lencioni, P. (1990), "Multicriteria Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., Rossi, E., and Ettala, M. (1995),
location of thermal power plant", European Journal of Oper- "The choice of a solid waste management system using the
ational Research 45, 332-346. ELECTRE II decision-aid method,', Waste Management and
Belevi, H., and Baccini, P. (1989), "Longterm assessment of Research 13, 175-193.
leachates from municipal solid waste landfills", in: Second Joffre, S.M., Laurila, T., Hakola, H , Lindfors, V., Konttinen, S.,
International Landfill Symposium Proceedings - Volume 1, and Taalas, P. (1990), "On the effects of meteorological
9-13 October 1989, Porto Conte (Alghero), Italy, C.I.P.A., factors on air pollution concentrations and deposition in Fin-
Milano, Italy. land,, in: P. Kauppi, P. Anttila and K. Kentt~imies (eds.),
Berg, P.E.O. (1993), K~llsortering, Teori, Metod och Imple- Acidification in Finland, Springer-Veflag, Berlin, 43-94.
mentering (Source Separation, Theory, Methodology and Im- Kaila, J. (1987), Mathematical Model for Strategy Evaluation of
plementation), Chalmers Tekniska H~Sgskola, Avhandling nr.9, Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems, VTT Publishers
G~teborg, Sweden. 40, Espoo.
Bostr~Sm, S., Backman, R., and Hupa, M. (1990), "'Energiatuotan- Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with Multiple
non ja -kulutuksen kasvihuonekaasujen p'~i~istiSt Suomessa" Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New
(Greenhouse gas emissions from energy production and con- York.
sumption in Finland), KTM Sarja D:186, Helsinki. Lagerkvist, A. (1986). Om Nedbrytnings- och Transportprocesser
Briggs, Th., Knnsch, P.L., and Mareschal, B. (1990), "Nuclear i Avfitllsupplag, Licensiatsuppsats, HiSgskolan i Lule~i, Lule~.
waste management: An application of the multicriteria L~i~tkintbhallitus (1990), "Yleiskirje n:o 1977", Helsinki (in
PROMETHEE methods", European Journal of Operational Finnish) (National Board of Health 1990: General letter).
Research 44, 1-10. Leschine, T.M., Wallenius, H., and Verdini, W.A. (1992), "Inter-
Caruso, C., Colorni, A., and Paruccini, M. (1993), "The regional active multiobjective analysis and assimilative capacity-based
urban solid waste management system: A modelling ocean disposal decision", European Journal of Operational
approach", European Journal of Operational Research 70, Research 56, 278-289.
16-30. Maystre, L.Y., Picted, J., and Simos, J. (1994), M~thodes Multi-
Commission of the European Communities (1991), "Proposal for crit~res ELECTRE, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires
a Council Directive on the landfill of waste", COM (91) 102 Romandes, Lausanne, Switzerland.
final, SYN 335, Brussels. Merkhofer, M.W., and Keeney, R.L. (1987), " A multiattribute
Ehrig, H.J. (1983), "Quality and quantity of sanitary landfill utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear
leachate", Waste Management and Research 1, 53-68. waste", Risk Analysis 7, 173-194.
Ehrig, H.J., and Stegmann, R. (1989), "Leachate production and Ministry of Environment (1992a), "Finnish Environmental Legis-
quality - results of landfill processes and operation", in: lation", General Management Division, Ministry of Environ-
Second International Landfill Symposium, Proceedings - Vol- ment, Helsinki, Finland.
ume 1, 9-13 October 1989, Porto Conte (Alghero), Italy, Ministry of Environment (1992b), "Waste Act", Draft version II,
C.I.P.A., Milano, Italy. Ministry of Environment, Helsinki, Finland.
Ettala, M. (1986), "Snow cover and maximum leachate discharge National Board of Waters and Environment (1987), Hydrological
of a sanitary landfill", Aqua Fennica 2, 187-202. Yearbook 1981-1983, Publication of the Water Research In-
Ettala, M., Rahkonen, P., Kitunen, V., Valo, O., and Salkinoja- stitute 66, Valtion painatuskeskus, Helsinki, Finland.
Salonen, M. (1988), "Quality of refuse, gas and water at a Naturv~irdsverket (1991), "Olika gasers bidrag till v~ixthuseffek-
sanitary landfill", Aqua Fennica 1, 15-28. ten - en jRmf'trelse" (The relative greenhouse effect of differ-
Goldstein, W.M. (1990), "Judgements of relative importance in ent gases), Naturv~rdsverket, rapport 3647, Solna, Sweden.
decision making: Global vs. local interpretations of subjective Roy, B. (1991), "The outranking approach and the foundations of
weight", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- ELECTRE methods", Theory and Decision 31, 49-73.
cesses 47, 313-336. Roy, B., and Bouyssou, B. (1986), "Comparison of two decision-
Grassin, N. (1986), "Constructing "population' criteria for the aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example",
comparison of different options for a high voltage line route", European Journal of Operational Research 25, 200-215.
European Journal of Operational Research 26, 42-57. Roy, B., and Vincke, Ph. (1984), "Relational systems of prefer-
Hokkanen, J. (1993), "J~itehuoltoj~irjestelmSn valinta monitavoit- ence with one or more pseudo-criteria: Some new concepts
teista menetelm~i~i hyv~iksik~iytf~ien" (The choice of a solid and results", Management Science 11, 1323-1335.
waste management system using the multicriteria methods Roy, B., Present, M., and Silhol, D. (1986), " A programming
ELECTRE I and II), Licenciate thesis, Dept. of Ecology and method for determining which Paris metro stations should be
Environmental Management, University of Jyv~iskyfft, renovated", European Journal of Operational Research 24,
Jyv~iskyl~i, Finland. 318-334.
Hokkanen, J., and Salminen, P. (1994), "The choice of a solid Roy, B., Slowinski, R., and Treichel, W. (1992), "Multicriteria
waste management system by using the ELECTRE III deci- programming of water supply systems for rural areas", Water
sion-aid method", in: M. Paruccini (ed.) Applying Multiple Resources Bulletin 28/1, 13-31.
Criteria Aid for Decision to Environmental Management, Saaty, T. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. New York.
36 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
Siskos, J., and Hubert, P. (1983), "Multicriteria analysis of the pollution in Europe: An interactive multicriteria tradeoff anal-
impacts of energy alternatives: A survey and a new compara- ysis", European Journal of Operational Research 56, 263-
tive approach", European Journal of Operational Research 277.
13, 278-299. Steuer, R. (1986), Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Com-
Skalka, J.M., Bouyssou, D., and Be mabeu, Y.A. (1986), "Electre putation and Application, Wiley, New York.
III et IV. Aspects m6thodologiques et guide d'utilisation", Vincke, Ph. (1992), Muhicriteria Decision-aid, Wiley, New York.
Document du Lamsade No. 25, 3 e 6dition, Laboratoire Westas, H., and Westerghrd, B. (1992), "Biobr'~_nsle i Avfall"
d'analyse et Mod61isation de Syst~mes pour 1'Aide h la Deci- (Biofuel in waste), Sveriges Plastf'6rbund, Stockholm.
sion, Univ6rsite de Paris-Dauphine. Wetzel, R.G. (1983), Limnology, Saunders College Publishing,
Stare, A., Kuula, M., and Cesar, H. (1992), "Transboundary air Philadelphia, PA.