Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Economic, environmental and social optimization of solid waste T

management in the context of circular economy
Pradeep Rathore , S.P. Sarmah
⁎

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Rapid growth in population and urbanization is increasing the generation of solid waste as well as demand for
Circular economy natural resources. Moreover, increasing demand and fixed available quantity of natural resources are making the
MINLP problem more complex and challenging. It has been identified that; the concept of the circular economy can
PSO provide the solution to the problem. This study examines the economic, environmental, and social feasibility of
Solid waste
circular economy in municipal solid waste (MSW) management. This study proposes a concept for the utilization
Clean energy
India
of collected organic MSW by converting it into biogas and then use it as a fuel in a thermal power plant (TPP) to
reduce the burden on coal mines. A mixed-integer non-linear programme (MINLP) model is formulated for the
minimization of the total cost which is the sum up of (i) functioning cost, (ii) transportation cost, (iii) hiring cost,
(iv) environmental cost, (v) social cost, and (vi) penalty cost. The proposed system is validated by a case study on
a city Bilaspur, India. Developed model is evaluated for two scenarios: (i) present scenario, in which deseg-
regated MSW is collected from sources and dispose it to landfill, and TPP gets its fuel only from coal mine; and
(ii) proposed scenario, in which collected organic MSW is sent to biogas plant and from there, biogas is trans-
ported to TPP as a fuel. The model is solved for both the scenarios and identifies that the proposed system is
performing better. It is reducing the total cost of the present system by around INR 30,462,326 per day which is
consists of a reduction in functioning, transportation, environmental and social cost by INR 225580, 30120443,
113905 and 2397. In addition to that, it is also reducing the carbon emission by 186.43 tonnes daily. Further,
sensitivity analysis is performed by varying the collection efficiency and TPP capacity parameter for testing the
fitness of the model globally and in different cities. From the analysis, it is identified that the model is globally
implementable and best suited for cities having low TPP capacity.

1. Introduction landfills constitutes 4% greenhouse gas (carbon) emission globally,

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a threat to the global economy and
ecosystems (Darda, Papalas, & Zabaniotou, 2019). It is estimated that
globally 7 to 10 billion (10 9) tonnes of waste got generated annually
and MSW contributes 3.2 billion tonnes (Wilson, Rodic, Modak, Soos,
Carpintero, Velis, Iyer, & Simonett, 2015). From this generated MSW,
around 47% sent to landfills, 31% recycled and the remaining 22% got
incinerated (Tisserant et al., 2017). This indicates, nearly 70% MSW not
get recycled or reused. It is a huge loss of resource and it also demon-
strates the massive burden on primary resources (Zeller, Towa, Degrez,
& Achten, 2018). Add to that; it has been identified that, high extraction
of available resources and MSW treatment on landfills and incineration
plants have a negative impact on the environment and socio-economic
structure (Garibay-rodriguez, Laguna-martinez, Rico-ramirez, &
Botello-alvarez, 2018). For instance, emission of methane gas from
uncontrolled disposal in oceans threatening marine life, etc. (Lu, Zhang,
Hai, & Lei, 2017).
MSW generation mainly depends on two factors: population and
urbanization, and they are increasing rapidly. The urbanization level is
increasing since the last few decades. It was 30% in 1950, then rises to
54% in 2014 and expected to reach 66% by 2050 (World Urbanization
Prospects: the 2014, 2014). Dutta, Daverey, and Lin (2014), predicted
that by 2050, the planet would have 9 billion populations. These sta-
tistics are alarming to the world, as it is going to generate an enormous
amount of MSW and increase the resource extraction rate. For instance,
it has been identified that resource mining has reached a three times
higher level compared to the past four decades (Schaffartzik et al.,
2014), and it is not slowing down (Wiedmann et al., 2015). This in-
creasing resource mining can cause severe damage to the habitat of our
planet (Steffen et al., 2015). Therefore, currently, world leaders are

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pradeeprathore076@gmail.com (P. Rathore), spsarmah@iem.iitkgp.ac.in (S.P. Sarmah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106510
Received 15 May 2019; Received in revised form 19 February 2020; Accepted 24 April 2020
Available online 11 May 2020
0360-8352/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

Nomenclature (Km)
Fkl Distance travelled by vehicle from BGP ‘k’ to TPP ‘l’ (Km)
Index Gal Distance travelled by vehicle from coal mine ‘a’ to TPP ‘l’
(Km)
i Source of MSW generation Gal Distance travelled by freight wagon from coal mine ‘a’ to
j Landfill TPP ‘l’ (Km)
k Biogas plants Ecb Carbon emission from vehicle type ‘b’ (tonne/km)
l Thermal power plants Ecq Carbon emission from vehicle type ‘q’ (tonne/km)
a Coal mine Ecs Carbon emission from vehicle type ‘s’ (tonne/km)
b Type of road vehicles between sources ‘i’ and landfills ‘j’ or Ecw Carbon emission per tonne of MSW from landfill (tonne)
BGPs ‘k’ Ecp Carbon emission per tonne of coal from TPP (tonne)
q Type of road vehicles between BGPs ‘k’ and TPPs ‘l’ CT Carbon tax on carbon emission due to transportation (Rs/
s Type of road vehicles between coal mine ‘a’ and TPPs ‘l’ tonne of carbon)
r Type of freight wagon used in railway for coal transfer Cw Carbon tax on emission from landfill (Rs/tonne of carbon)
Cp Carbon tax on emission from TPP (Rs/tonne of carbon)
Set Cse Social cost conversion factor for emission (Rs/tonne of
carbon).
N Set of sources i Csn Social cost conversion factor for noise pollution due to
M Set of the landfills j vehicle (Rs/vehicle-Km)
K Set of bio plant k Csc Social cost conversion factor for congestion due to vehicles
L Set of TPPs l (Rs/vehicle-Km)
A Set of coal mines a Csa Social cost conversion factor for accidents due to vehicle
B Set of type of vehicles b (Rs/tonne-Km)
Q Set of type of vehicles q Cpt Penalty cost for unit-time violations of the maximum
S Set of type of vehicles s working time by vehicle
R Set of type of freight wagons r b Total number of vehicles of type ‘b’ available for trans-
ferring MSW from ‘i’ to ‘j’ or ‘k’
Parameter q Total number of vehicles of type ‘q’ available for trans-
ferring bio gas from ‘k’ to ‘l’
Chvb Fixed cost for hiring vehicle type b (Rs.) s Total number of vehicles of type ‘s’ available for trans-
Chvq Fixed cost for hiring vehicle type q (Rs.) ferring coal from ‘a’ to ‘l’
Chvs Fixed cost for hiring vehicle type s (Rs.) r Total number of freight wagons of type ‘r’ available for
Chtr Fixed cost for hiring freight wagon type r (Rs.) transferring coal from ‘a’ to ‘l’
TSLijb Transportation cost of transferring MSW from source ‘i’ to Vb Capacity of the vehicle type ‘b’ (tonne)
landfill ‘j’ using vehicle type ‘b’ (Rs/tonne/Km) Vq Capacity of the vehicle type ‘q’ (tonne)
TSBikb Transportation cost of transferring organic MSW from Vs Capacity of the vehicle type ‘s’ (tonne)
source ‘i’ to BGP ‘k’ using vehicle type ‘b’ (Rs/tonne/Km) Vr Capacity of the freight wagon type ‘r’ (tonne)
TBPklq Transportation cost of transferring biogas from BGP ‘k’ to i Service time at source ‘i’ by vehicle
TPP ‘l’ using vehicle ‘q’ (Rs/tonne/Km) j, k Service time at landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’ by vehicle ‘b’
TCPals Transportation cost of transferring coal from mine ‘a’ to t max Maximum allowable working time
TPP ‘l’ using road vehicle ‘s’ (Rs/tonne/Km)
TCPalr Transportation cost of transferring coal from mine ‘a’ to Decision Variable
TPP ‘l’ using rail freight wagon ‘r’ (Rs/tonne/Km)
Pi population at source ‘i’ Xijb Binary variable takes value 1 if vehicle type ‘b’ is selected
ni MSW generation rate at source ‘i’ (Kg/person/day) for transporting MSW from ‘i’ to ‘j’, otherwise 0
RLj Running cost of landfill ‘j’ (Rs/tonne) Xikb Binary variable takes value 1 if vehicle type ‘b’ is selected
RBk Running cost of BGP ‘k’ (Rs/tonne) for transporting MSW from source ‘i’ to BGP ‘k’ , otherwise
RTPl Running cost of TPP ‘l’ (Rs/tonne) 0
RCMa Running cost of coal mine ‘a’ (Rs/tonne) Xklq Binary variable takes value 1 if vehicle type ‘q’ is selected
f Frequency of MSW collection from sources for transporting bio gas from bio plants ‘k’ to TPP ‘l’,
i Collection efficiency of MSW at source ‘i’ otherwise 0
i Organic fraction of collected MSW from source ‘i’ sent to Xals Binary variable takes value 1 if vehicle type ‘s’ is selected
BGP for transporting coal from mine ‘a’ to TPP ‘l’, otherwise 0
k Fraction of organic MSW converted into biogas at BGP ‘k’ Xalr Binary variable takes value 1 if rail freight wagon ‘r’ is
CF Conversion factor of biogas into equivalent amount of coal selected for transporting coal from mine ‘a’ to TPP ‘l’,
al Fraction of coal coming to power plant ‘l’ from mine ‘a’ otherwise 0
using road transport dij , dik Binary variable takes value 1 if source ‘i’ selects landfill ‘j’
1- al Fraction of coal coming to power plant ‘l’ from mine ‘a’ or BGP ‘k’ for transmitting the MSW, otherwise 0
using rail transport Binary variable takes value 1 if a landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’ got
CAPj Capacity of landfill ‘j’ (tonne) selected for sending the MSW, otherwise 0
CAPk Capacity of BGP ‘k’ (tonne) Y Binary variable takes value 1 if desegregation of MSW is in
CAPl Capacity of TPP ‘l’ (tonne) practice, otherwise 0
Dij Distance travelled by vehicle from source ‘i’ to landfill ‘j’ Y Binary variable takes value 1 if segregation of MSW is in
(Km) practice, otherwise 0
Eik Distance travelled by vehicle from source ‘i’ to BGP ‘k’ Wij Amount of MSW going to landfill ‘j’ from source ‘i’ (tonne)

2
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
Hik Amount of MSW going to BGP ‘k’ from source ‘i’ (tonne)
Ukl Amount of bio gas produced from MSW ‘Hik ’ (tonne)
Ukl Amount of coal equivalent to biogas ‘Ukl ’ (tonne)
Qal Amount of coal going to TPP ‘l’ from coal mine ‘a’ (tonne)
Fig. 1. The current concept of circular economy (Mihelcic et al., 2003). The CE message is that, the resource and energy demand of inner circles is less, and they are
more economic as well. Therefore, it is required to maximize the time period of resources inside the inner circle.
focusing on an increase in the production of renewable energy and the
adoption of the concept of the circular economy (CE) (Korhonen, Nuur,
Feldmann, & Birkie, 2018).
The concept of CE was first presented in 1966 by the economist
Kenneth Boulding in his essay ‘The Economics of Coming Spaceship
Earth’ (Boulding, 1966). Then, it is further discussed by the environ-
mental economists Pearce and Turner in their book ‘Economics of
natural resources and the environment’ (Jensen, 1998). As per the
European Union (EU), the CE is supposed to ‘enhance global competi-
tiveness, substitute sustainable economic growth and create new jobs’
(European Commission, 2015). CE applies the Resource Recovery and
Reuse (RRR) system which involves a flow loop of resources (Fig. 1) for
the sustainable utilization of resources while enhancing the economy
(Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken, & Hultink, 2017). Simultaneously, it
also reduces the environmental pollution and cost of the production
system while increasing waste recycling (Andersen, 2007). For ex-
ample, MSW can be used as a resource to produce biogas which can be
used as fuel in power generation and reduce the dependency on coal.
This will decrease the pressure from coal mines and reduce environ-
mental pollution.
As mentioned earlier, resource extraction is going to increase in the
future; therefore, to reduce it, a rise in renewable energy sources is
required (Mihelcic et al., 2003). It is estimated that among the sources
of renewable energy, biofuel will provide the one-third fuel (Scarlat,
Dallemand, Monforti-Ferrario, Banja, & Motola, 2015). According to
Yadvika, Sreekrishnan, Kohli, and Rana (2004), biomethane or biogas
will play a very key role in MSW management (MSWM) under the
umbrella of CE. Biogas is a technology for renewable energy produced
from the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes, feedstock, agricultural
waste, etc. (Wall, McDonagh, & Murphy, 2017). It is a sustainable
technology for managing organic MSW.1 It converts the organic MSW
1
MSW is a composition of different type of waste like organic (fruit and
3
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
Tjb, Tkb Amount of time exceeds above given working hours at
landfill ‘j’ and BGP ‘k’ by vehicle type ‘b’ . It takes only
positive integer value, otherwise 0
into compost and biogas and emits a negligible amount of carbon (Jin,
Yang, Li, Liu, & Shan, 2017). Compost is used as an organic fertilizer
and biogas as an energy input in electricity generation, domestic
cooking, fuel in transportation vehicles, etc. (Ruiz, Juarez, Morales,
Munoz, & Mendıvil, 2013).
Apart from biofuels, there are many MSW treatment technologies
based on the type of MSW. For example: recycling technology for re-
cyclables, RDF (refuse-derived-fuel) technology for waste cloths, flam-
mable waste, composting for organic, etc. (Dasappa, Subbukrishna,
Suresh, Paul, & Prabhu, 2011; Mardoyan & Braun, 2015). But these
technologies are implementable only if collected MSW is segregated2
(Liu, Adams, & Walker, 2018). As mention before, around 50% of the
collected MSW sent to landfill. This percentage varies, depending upon
the status of the country and their collection efficiency (Fig. 2(a) and
(b)). According to the Moh and Manaf (2017) report, countries having
low-income (Ghana, Ethiopia, etc.) collect 50% or less of their gener-
ated MSW. While countries having middle-income (India, Thailand,
etc.) collect 50–80% and countries with high-income (US, UK, etc.)
collect higher than 90%. From this collected MSW, approximately 60%
transferred to landfills in low and middle-income countries while the
uncollected MSW considered as dumps (see Fig. 2(a) and (b)). A major
reason for sending the MSW in a landfill is the desegregation3 of solid
(footnote continued)
vegetable peels, food waste, etc.), recyclables (plastic, paper, metals, glass, etc.)
and toxic substances (paints, pesticides, used batteries, medicines) (Kausal
et al., 2012; Upadhyay, Jethoo, & Poonia, 2012).
2
Segregation of MSW is a scenario where different types of generated MSW
are kept in different types of bins. So that, the quality of MSW does not degrade
due to mixing of solid waste and it can be used for further processes (Rathore
et al., 2019).
3
Desegregation of MSW is a scenario where all types of generated MSW are
kept in only one type of bin. In this scenario all waste got mixed and become
useless for any further process (Rathore et al., 2019).
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
120%
100%
Waste collection rate
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
High Income Upper Lower
Middle Middle
Income Income
(a)
Fig. 2. Shows the (a) collection rate of different income countries, (b) waste disposal of low-income country. Source: World bank report 2012.
waste. Desegregation lowers the quality of waste and makes it useless
due to which it sent to landfills for final disposal (Rathore & Sarmah,
2018). Therefore, it is necessary that sources (households, commercial
and institutional establishments, parks and gardens, urban agriculture,
construction and demolition, and safety and healthcare facilities) seg-
regate their MSW at the point of generation (Kausal, Varghese, &
Chabukdhara, 2012).
This inappropriate practice of disposing of MSW has become a very
crucial issue for the global economy and environment. These issues are
the primary motivation for this study and the current study focuses on
the implementation of the circular economy on the MSWM system,
where segregated organic MSW collected from the households’, sent to
biogas plant (BGP) to produce the biogas. After that, produced biogas
will be sent to the thermal power plant (TPP) as a fuel to replace the
coal and to reduce the pressure on coal mines. This study proposes a
mixed-integer non-linear programming model (MINLP) with the ob-
jective of minimization of the total cost. The model is validated by a
case study of Bilaspur city, India. The novelty of the research lies in two
parts. First, the introduction of the concept of utilization of biogas
produced from collected organic MSW as an input in TPPs for reducing
the pressure from coal mines by imposing the CE concept. Second,
development of cost minimization MINLP model to perform the eco-
nomic analysis for the feasibility of the proposed concept. Apart from
these two novelties, the introduction of environmental and social costs
is also a contribution to the study in the domain. Along with this, the
study answers the following research questions.
(RQ1) Is the implementation of the circular economy in MSWM is
feasible and economical?
(RQ2) Is the proposed concept environmentally beneficial?
(RQ3) Does the proposed model has the same impact on lower,
medium and higher-income countries?
(RQ4) Does the proposed system is equally beneficial for all the
cities?
The remaining paper organized as follows. A brief review of the
literature presented in Section 2. Problem description and the devel-
oped mathematical model discussed in Section 3. Section 4 provides the
case study. Results and discussions along with sensitivity analysis made
in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 represents the practical implications,
conclusion, and future direction for the further research.
2. Literature review
The efficient management of MSW requires proper planning of MSW
collection, disposal, and recycling while considering the economic
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
Recycled
0%
Compost
1% Dumps
13%
Other Landfills
26% 59%
Lower
Income Income
1%
(b)
feasibility of numerous alternatives (Anghinolfi, Paolucci, & Robba,
2013). Over the years, researches have given their prime focus on the
collection of MSW only, as it constitutes around 80% expenditure share
in MSWM (Tavares, Zsigraiova, Semiao, & Carvalho, 2009;
Hemmelmayr, Doerner, Hartl, & Vigo, 2014). Apart from the collection,
many researchers have investigated the impact of various MSW solu-
tions (generation to disposal) on the environment using life cycle as-
sessments (Winkler & Bilitewski, 2007; Bernstad and la Cour Jansen,
2012; Astrup, Tonini, Turconi, & Boldrin, 2014). Along with this, Cost-
benefit analysis (Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh, 2004; Eshet, Ayalon, &
Shechter, 2005; Moutavtchi, Stenis, Hogland, Shepeleva, & Andersson,
2008), energy balance analysis (Dornburg & Faaij, 2006; Luoranen &
Horttanainen, 2007; Murphy & McKeogh, 2004) and various other
tools, e.g., multi-criteria decision analysis (El Hanandeh & El-Zein,
2009; Longden, Brammer, Bastin, & Cooper, 2007; Shmelev & Powell,
2006), were also considered in the literature, but to a very few extents.
Additions to them, other alternatives were also analyzed using opti-
mization models (Broitman, Ayalon, & Kan, 2012; Juul, Münster, Ravn,
& Ljunggren Söderman, 2013; Kan, Ayalon, & Federman, 2010). In most
of these studies, researchers have used mathematical programming
techniques (MPTs), such as integer programming (IP), linear pro-
gramming, multi-objective, and nonlinear programming to estimate the
minimum cost for the MSWM system. For instance, Münster and
Meibom (2011), developed a linear programming model to determine
the least-cost technologies to convert the MSW into energy while con-
sidering the carbon emission impacts. Further, Münster, Ravn,
Hedegaard, Juul, and Söderman (2015), improved the model to eval-
uate the capability of generating biofuel, biogas, and power from MSW.
Yedla and Parikh (2001), presented a quantitative cost-benefit analysis
of a landfill system with gas recovery by formulating a linear pro-
gramming model. They identified that it would be an immense cost
saving if MSW turned into gas. Similarly, Salvia, Cosmi, Macchiato, and
Mangiamele (2002), investigated the impacts of hike in landfilling fees
on the choice and implementation of MSW recycling decisions by using
a linear mathematical model. Later, Shadiya, Satish, and High (2012),
introduced the mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) models for
incorporating the complexities of the selection of various technologies,
processes, and capacities over a long period. Chang, Qi, Islam, and
Hossain (2012) proposed a MILP model to demonstrate the importance
of MSW recycling for reducing carbon emissions. Later, a similar type of
modeling approach was applied for evaluating the costs and profits for
different recycling rates of MSW (Santiba~nez-Aguilar et al., 2013).
Tan, Lee, Hashim, Ho, and Lim (2014), developed a multi-annual, MILP
model to optimize the selection of several RRR options, comprising
landfill gas flaring, incineration, facility of material recovery, and
composting. The model also incorporated the installation and operation
4
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
costs along with the effect of carbon emission on the environment. Lee,
Yeung, Xiong, and Chung (2016), applied an integer programming
method to investigate the alternatives of MSW transportation from
collection points to the recycling plant and the requisite capacities of
incineration plants and landfill sites. Cucchiella and D'Adamo (2016),
proposed a mathematical model to analyze the economic performance
of biomethane plant produced from the feedstock, organic fraction of
MSW, etc. Parker, Williams, Dominguez-Faus, and Scheitrum (2017),
studied the feasibility of the production of a large quantity of renewable
natural gas fuel for transportation. The authors developed a spatial
techno-economic model for the analysis of biofuel policies of the United
States. Chinnici, Selvaggi, D’Amico, and Pecorino (2018), investigated
the potential of biogas and second-generation bio methane obtained
from the Mediterranean feedstock. The authors also provided analytical
analysis to determine the quantity of biomass required for anaerobic
digestion. Bekchanov and Mirzabaev (2018) proposed an economic
optimization mathematical model to calculate the impact and economic
feasibility of compost production and marketing. The authors con-
sidered the organic waste for producing the compost and compared the
results with the cost of open dumping. Antoniou et al. (2019), devel-
oped a model to enhance the digestate for anaerobic digestion using
mixed agricultural waste.
Researchers have contributed to enhance the knowledge of MSWM
using various recycling technologies and mathematical models. It can
be observed from the literature; no one has modeled the input of biogas
in TPP and calculated the reduction in coal and carbon. Add to that, till
now researchers have proposed only linear and MILP models. The
proposed study bridges these gaps by introducing the MINLP model
considering biogas as input in TPP. The study will improve the math-
ematical models in the context of a circular economy and utilization of
MSW as a resource. It will also help researchers and practitioners in the
designing of MSWM from its generation to utilization in an economical
way.
3. Materials and methods
This section presents the proposed MINLP model for the proposed
concept. The originalities of the model are (i) consideration of coal
mines which provide coal to TPP, (ii) impact of transporting vehicles,
landfill, BGP, TPP, and coal mines on society and environment in terms
of cost, (iii) consideration of types of vehicles, (iv) multiple mode of
transportation, (v) time window, (vi) functioning cost of landfill, BGP,
TPP, and coal mines, and (vii) introduction of constraints which restrict
the source to transfer the various type of waste to respective landfills or
BGPs. Add to that; the model is developed considering two scenarios
desegregation (Y) and segregation (Y ) of MSW. The conceptual
Fig. 3. The conceptual structure of the proposed model showing all the facilities and flow of MSW, biogas, and coal.
5
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
framework of the model is presented in Fig. 3. In the figure, Xj or Xk and
dij or dik are binary variables, Xj or Xk will be 1 if landfill
( j = 1, 2, ...,M ) or BGP (k = 1, 2, ...,K ) got selected for MSW, whereas
dij or dik will be 1 if the source (i = 1, 2, ...,N ) choose landfill ‘j’ or BGP
‘k’. In the proposed conceptual framework, solid lines are demon-
strating the definite flow of waste from sources (i = 1, 2, ...,N ) to
landfill ( j = 1, 2, ...,M ) or BGP (k = 1, 2, ...,K ), whereas long dashed
lines are representing the likely possible movement of MSW from
sources to landfill or BGP.
3.1. Notation and assumptions
The notation developed to describe the model are explained during
the description of the equations and presented in Table A.
Assumption 1.. In most of the countries, organic MSW collected a daily
(Yadav, Karmakar, Dikshit, & Vanjari, 2016). Therefore, in this model,
all cost (functioning, transportation, environmental and social) has
been taken on a daily basis.
Assumption 2.. Carbon emission from coal mines not considered in the
model. As mines are full of carbon dust, consideration of emission from
mines will dominate the model and give a biased result.
Assumption 3.. In the proposed study it has been considered that
biogas will be used as fuel in TPP. But feeding biogas in traditional TPP
needs some modification in the input mechanism which is associated
with some cost. In the developed model these costs are not considered
because these are a one-time investment and in the long run, the
industry will quickly overcome this cost.
Assumption 4.. Carbon emission from BGP is very less compared to
TPP (Sims, Rogner, & Gregory, 2003). Therefore, the emission of carbon
from BGP is not considered in the model.
Assumption 5.. The running cost of a power plant using biogas is very
low compared to using coal as fuel (Chinnici et al., 2018; Mohan,
Chiranjeevi, Dahiya, & Kumar, 2018). Therefore, the running cost of
TPP using biogas has been neglected in the model.
Assumption 6.. The model is developed to assess the economic and
environmental feasibility of the concept. Therefore, revenue generated
from biogas, recycling, composting, RDF, and TPP not considered in the
model. Along with this purchasing and selling cost of MSW, biogas,
compost, recyclables, RDF pellets, coal, and electricity have not been
considered in the model.
Assumption 7.. Cost of conversion of biomass into biogas and
liquefaction of biogas for transportation not taken in the model.
Because the costs incurred in these processes are very less compared
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

to the costs of other components considered. equation which indicates the fraction of coal sent to TPP from coal
mines.
Assumption 8.. It is assumed that trains do not emit any carbon.
Because at present most of the trains run by electricity and emit a very N M B
less amount of carbon compared to road vehicles. Wij TSLijb Dij Xijb Y
i=1 j=1 b=1
Assumption 9.. Material loss due to transportation is negligible N K B

compared to the actual amount of material transported. Therefore, + Hik TSBikb Eik Xikb Y
i=1 k =1 b =1
the loss of material neglected in the model. K L Q
+ Ukl TBPklq Fkl Xklq+
Assumption 10.. Generally, TPPs take precautions to reduce carbon k = 1 l= 1 q= 1
emission as per government norms. But, in the proposed study, it has A L S
been assumed that the carbon emission is equal to the carbon emitted (Qal Ukll Y) al TCPals Gal Xals
by coal during burning. a=1 l=1 s =1
A L K R

Considering the above-mentioned assumptions following model is + (Qal Ukl Y) (1 al ) TCPalr Gal Xalr
a=1 l=1 k =1 r =1
developed.
(3)

3.1.1. Objective function
Total cost function (Z) is calculated by summing up the functioning
cost, transportation cost, hiring cost, environmental cost, social cost,
and penalty cost. All these costs are bear by the local authority re-
sponsible for MSW management without any profit and revenue gen-
eration. Therefore, it is required to minimize the total cost so that the
whole operation of the collection and processing of MSW can be per-
formed at least cost and effectively.
Minimize Z
= Eq. (2) + Eq. (3) + Eq. (4) + Eq. (11) + Eq. (10)
Hiring cost (HC): This cost includes the fixed cost of hiring vehicles
between (i) source and landfill; (ii) source and BGP; (iii) BGP and TPP;
(iv) coal mine and TPP via road; and (v) coal mine and TPP via rail. This
cost is applicable in mostly those cities where a municipality or local
authority hires a vehicle or firm for the collection and transfer of MSW.
Similarly, the hiring cost of the vehicle for transferring coal and biogas
will be included only if it is done by some other organization or hired
vehicle. Here, in this equation Chvb , Chvq , andChvs represent the fixed cost
of hiring a vehicle of b, q, and s. Whereas, Chtr represents the fixed cost of
hiring freight wagon of type r.
(1)
B N M B N K

Functioning cost (FC): It is obtained by taking the sum of the daily (Chvb Xijb) Y+ (Chvb Xikb) Y
b=1 i=1 j=1 b=1 i=1 k=1
running cost of landfills, BGPs, TPPs and coal mines. It includes mostly Q K L S A L
the cost of operations, maintenance, and resources like electricity + Chvq Xklq Y + (Chvs Xals )
charges, water charges, employee salaries, maintenance charges of q= 1 k=1 l =1 s=1 a=1 l=1

equipment, taxes, etc. (Yadav et al., 2016). In the equation R A L

RLj ,RBk ,RTPl , and RCMa represent the running cost (Rs./tonne) of the + Chtr Xalr
(4)
r=1 a=1 l=1
facilities (landfills, BGPs, TPPs and coal mines). For calculating the total
running cost of the facility it has been multiplied by the amount of MSW
Environmental cost (EC): Running of facilities and transferring of
(Wij and Hik ), biogas (Ukl ), and coal (Qal ) with the respective facility.
material emits carbon in the atmosphere. This emitted carbon harmful
Here, Wij representing the amount of MSW sent to ‘j’ from ‘i’. Similarly,
to the environment and increases air pollution (Zsigraiova, Semiao, &
Hik is the amount of MSW going to ‘k’ from ‘i’.Ukl is the amount of biogas
Beijoco, 2013). Therefore, to reduce the emission, nowadays, govern-
produced and sent to ‘l’ from ‘k’, and Qal is the amount of coal coming to
ments are incorporating the taxes on carbon emission (Zakeri,
‘l’ from ‘a’. Ukl is the amount of coal equivalent to the biogas in terms of
Dehghanian, Fahimnia, & Sarkis, 2015). The cost generated by these
energy. As it has been assumed that the running cost of TPP using
taxes is included here in EC. EC is a summation of (i) cost of carbon
biogas is negligible compared to coal. Therefore, in the third term of the
emission due to the transportation of MSW, biogas, and coal using road
equation ‘Ukl ’ has been subtracted from the ‘Qal ’. In the equation, Y and
transport; (ii) cost of carbon emission because of the burning of MSW at
Y are representing the desegregation and segregation scenario.
landfills; and (iii) cost of carbon emission due to the burning of coal in
N M N K
TPPs. Here, in Eq. (5), carbon cost due to transportation, landfills, and
Wij RLj Y+ Hik RBk Y TPPs have been presented byC T , C w , andC p . In addition, 1, 2 , and
i=1 j=1 i=1 k=1
K L A L 3 are explaining the total carbon emission from transportation, landfill,
and TPPs. However, in Eq. (6), Ecb , Ecq , andEcs are representing the
+ (Qal Ukl Y) RTPl + (Qal Ukl Y) RCMa
k=1 l=1 a=1 l=1 carbon emission (tonne/km) from vehicle types b, q, and s. Further, in
Eqs. (7) and (8), carbon emission from landfill and TPPs due to MSW
(2)
and burning of coal (per tonne) has been described by Ecw andEcp .
Transportation cost (TC): It is the addition of (i) transferring cost of
MSW between sources and landfills; (ii) transferring cost of MSW be- EC = C T 1 +Cw 2 +Cp 3 (5)
tween sources and BGPs; (iii) cost of transferring biogas from BGP to
TPP; (iv) cost of transferring coal from coal mines to TPP using road Where,
transportation; and (v) cost of transferring coal from mines to TPP using
rail transport. In Eq. (3), TSLijb , TSBikb , TBPklq , TCPals , and TCPalr re- 1
N M B N K B
present the transportation cost (Rs./tonne/Km.) of vehicle type b, q, s,
= (Ecb Dij Xijb) Y+ (Ecb Eik Xikb)
and r. Whereas, Dij , Eik , Fkl , Gal , and Gal are shortest road and rail routes i=1 j=1 b=1 i =1 k =1 b=1
between the facilities. Shortest distance has been calculated using GIS K L Q
software between source, landfill, BGP, TPP, and coal mine. Moreover, Y + (Ecq Fkl Xklq)
Xijb , Xikb , Xklq , Xals , and Xalr are binary variables that take value 1 if the k=1 l=1 q=1

respective vehicle type gets selected between the facilities, otherwise 0. A L S

As mentioned before, coal is transferred from mines to TPP using both Y + (Ecs Gal Xals )
a=1 l =1 s =1 (6)
road and rail networks. Therefore, al has been introduced in the

6
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

M M
collection, and collection efficiency of MSW at source i.
2 = Ecw Y Wij
i=1 j =1 (7) M
Wij = Pi ni f i Y i = 1, 2, ...,N
A K L j=1 (13)
3 = Ecp * (Qal Ukl Y)
(8)
a=1 k =1 l=1
ii. MSW entering to BGP ‘k’ should be equal to organic MSW collected
Social cost (SC): It can be defined as the cost of a negative impact on from source ‘i’. Here, i symbolizes the fraction of organic MSW.
society due to different kinds of pollution (Fankhauser, 1994). For ex- K
ample, as mentioned before, air pollution due to carbon emission from Hik = Pi ni f i i Y i = 1, 2, ...,N
vehicles, landfills and power plants cause global warming, health pro- k= 1 (14)
blems to a living being, etc. Likewise, noise pollution from vehicles also
causes health issues, and congestion in traffics raises both carbon and iii. All the MSW entering BGP ‘k’ should be converted into biogas and
noise pollution. In addition to that, accidents due to the running of sent to TPP ‘l’. In this constraint, k and CF denotes the fraction of
vehicles are fatal and can lead to even deaths of a living being (Maiyar organic MSW converted into biogas at BGP ‘k’ and conversion factor
& Thakkar, 2018). Therefore, in this study, the social cost of carbon of biogas into an equivalent amount of coal.
emission, noise pollution, congestion and accident due to road transport L K N K
have been considered. Along with this, carbon emission from landfills Ukl = Hik * k
and TPP also calculated. As there is no direct method for quantifying l=1 k=1 i=1 k =1 (15)
the ill effects of the air and noise pollution in terms of cost. Therefore, it K L K L
is required to use a conversion factor that converts the amount of Ukl = CF Ukl
pollution in terms of cost. In Eq. (9), conversion factors Cse , Csn , Csc , and k=1 l =1 k=1 l=1 (16)
Csa have been used to represent the carbon emission, noise pollution, 2. Capacity: These constraints ensure that entering MSW, biogas,
congestion, and accidents in terms of cost. Moreover, different types of and coal should not exceed the capacity of the landfill, BGP and TPP.
vehicles produce a different level of emission and noise, and it also
depends on the distance travelled by the vehicle. Therefore, 1 is used to i. MSW entering the landfill ‘j’ should not exceed its capacity (CAPj ).
show the calculation of distance travelled by different types of vehicle
N
between sources and facilities. Further, for considering the accidents by Wij Capj j = 1, 2, ...,M
different types of vehicles along with the weight carried by them is i=1 (17)
represented by 2 .
SC = Cse ( 1 + 2 + 3) + (Csn + Csc ) 1 + Csa 2 (9) ii. MSW entering the BGP ‘k’ should not exceed its capacity (CAPk ).
N
where, Hik Capk k = 1, 2, ...,K
i=1 (18)
1
N M B N K B
= (Dij Xijb) Y+ (Eik Xikb) iii. Coal and biogas entering the TPP ‘l’ should not exceed its capacity
i=1 j=1 b=1 i =1 k =1 b=1 (CAPl ).
K L Q A L S
A K
Y + (Fkl Xklq) Y + (Gal Xals ) Qal + Ukl Capl l = 1, 2, ...,L
k=1 l=1 q=1 a=1 l =1 s =1 (10) a=1 k=1 (19)
N M N K
2 = Wij Dij Y+ Hik Eik Y iv. The combined capacity of vehicles (Vb ) transferring MSW from
i=1 j=1 i=1 k=1 source ‘i’ to landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’ should be greater than the quantity
K L A K L
of the MSW generated.
+ Ukl Fkl Y+ (Qal Ukl *Y )* al *Gal +
k=1 l =1 a =1 k=1 l=1 N M B N M
A K L Xijb Vb Y Wij
(Qal Ukl *Y )*(1 al ) Gal i =1 j =1 b=1 i=1 j=1 (20)
a=1 k=1 l=1 (11)
N K B N K
Penalty cost (PC): As mentioned before, in many cities’ municipality
Xikb Vb Y Hik
hire a private firm for the collection and disposal of MSW. Thus, to i =1 k =1 b=1 i=1 k=1 (21)
restrict the collection and disposal of MSW within the working hours,
the municipality imposes a penalty on lateness. The firm has to pay the v. The combined capacity of vehicles (Vq ) transporting biogas from
penalty (Cpt ) if it exceeds the given working hours for the collection of BGP ‘k’ to TPP ‘l’ should be greater than the quantity of biogas.
MSW from sources and disposal of it at landfills or BGPs
K L Q K L
( Tjb and Tkb ).
Xklq Vq Y Ukl
PC = Cpt ( Tib Y + Tkb*Y ) (12) k= 1 l= 1 q= 1 k=1 l=1 (22)

vi. The combined capacity of vehicles (Vs ) transporting coal from mine
3.1.2. Constraints: ‘a’ to TPP ‘l’ should be greater than the quantity of coal.
1. Mass flow: This constraint is applied to ensure the flow of all
A L S A K L
generated MSW from sources to landfills or BGPs along with the flow of
Xals Vs (Qal Ukl *Y )*
biogas and coal. al
(23)
a=1 l=1 s =1 a=1 k=1 l =1

i. MSW entering to landfill ‘j’ should be equal to MSW collected from vii. The combined capacity of freight wagons (Vr ) transporting coal
source ‘i’. Here, Pi , ni , f, and i are representing the population at from mine ‘a’ to TPP ‘l’ should be greater than the quantity of coal.
source i, MSW generation rate at source i, frequency of MSW

7
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

A L R A K L N B
Xalr Vr (Qal Ukl *Y )*(1 al ) Xijb Y b j = 1, 2, ...,M
a=1 l=1 r=1 a =1 k=1 l=1 (24) i=1 b=1 (25)
3. Availability constraint: These constraints allow the resources to be B

used as per the availability. Xijb Y 1 i = 1, 2, ...,N ; j = 1, 2, ...,M

b=1 (26)
i. The number of vehicles transferring MSW between source ‘i’ and N B
landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’ should not exceed the availability ( b ) of the Xikb Y b k = 1, 2, ...,K
vehicle type ‘b’. i=1 b=1 (27)

Fig. 4. Study area Bilaspur city, India, along with all 55 wards.

8
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

B
disposal of MSW should be done within the working hours. In this
Xikb Y 1 i = 1, 2, ...,N ; k = 1, 2, ...,K constraint, j and k are service times at landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’ by vehicle
b=1 (28)
‘b’, and t max is Maximum allowable working time.
ii. The number of vehicles transporting biogas from BGP ‘k’ to TPP ‘l’ N M
Dij Xijb Y
should not exceed the availability ( q ) of the vehicle type ‘q’. N
i=1 j =1
Tib = i + b
+ j t max 0 i
K Q
i=1 Vavg
Xklq Y q l = 1, 2, ...,L
k= 1 q= 1 (29)
= 1, 2, ...,N ; b = 1, 2, ...,B (39)
Q
Xklq Y 1 k = 1, 2, ...,K ; l = 1, 2, ...,L N K
q=1 (30) N Eik Xikb Y
i=1 k =1
Tib = i + b
+ k t max 0 i
Vavg
iii. The number of vehicles transporting coal from coal mine ‘a’ to TPP i=1

‘l’ should not exceed the availability ( s ) of the vehicle type ‘s’.
L S = 1, 2, ...,N ; b = 1, 2, ...,B (40)
Xals a = 1, 2, ...,A
s
(31) else, Tib = 0 i = 1, 2, ...,N ; b = 1, 2, ...,B (41)
l=1 s=1

S Scenario selection constraint: This constraint restricts the selection of

Xals 1 l = 1, 2, ...,L; a = 1, 2, ...,A scenarios. Only one scenario can be selected at a particular instance.
(32)
s=1
Y+Y =1 (42)

iv. The number of freight wagons transporting coal from coal mine ‘a’
7. Non-negativity constraints: This constraint ensures that the amount of
to TPP ‘l’ should not exceed the availability ( r ) of the freight wagon
MSW, biogas, and coal should be positive or zero.
type ‘r’.
L R
Wij, Hik , Ukl, Ukl, Qal 0 i , j, k, l, a (43)
Xalr r a = 1, 2, ...,A
l=1 r=1 (33)
4. Case study
R
Xalr 1 l = 1, 2, ...,L; a = 1, 2, ...,A For the validation of the model, it is applied to an MSWM system of
(34)
r=1
Bilaspur city, India, as a case study. The developed model is generic in
4. Transferring: If a landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’ is chosen for transferring of nature, and for the specific problem, some additional assumptions have
MSW from source ‘i’, then all the generated MSW at source ‘i’ should be been made according to the existing MSWM system of the case study
sent only to chosen landfill ‘j’ or BGP ‘k’. area. Two scenarios considered in the model (i) desegregation; and (ii)
segregation. Desegregation represents the existing MSWM while; seg-
Pi*ni*f i dij Y Wij i = 1, 2, ...,N ; j = 1, 2, ...,M (35)
regation represents the proposed system. The present MSWM system
M and proposed system along with the assumptions are described in the
dij Y=1 i = 1, 2, ...,N subsequent sections.
j=1 (36)
4.1. Study area and current MSWM system
Pi *ni *f i i dik Y Hik i = 1, 2, ...,N ; k = 1, 2, ...,K (37)
K Bilaspur (Latitudes 210.37″ to 230.07″ N; Longitudes 810.12″ to
dik Y =1 i = 1, 2, ...,N 0
83 .40″ E) (Fig. 4) is a city in state Chhattisgarh, India. It is in the
(38)
k= 1
eastern part of the state. Currently, Bilaspur Municipal Corporation
Time window: This constraint makes sure that the collection and (BMC) is the local authority for MSWM and provides service to a

Fig. 5. Schematic flow chart of the existing waste collection and disposal system.

9
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
terrestrial area of 30.42 sq. km consists of 55 wards (N). The urban
produces MSW around 181 tonnes/day (TPD) of which households
contribute to 80% (Singh, Mishra, & Mishra, 2013). The collection ef-
ficiency ( i ) is about 60% (108 TPD) and the MSW generation rate (ni )
is around 365 g/capita/day (g/c/d). The composition of the MSW
produced is like organic ( i ) (40%); recyclables (8%); plastics (8%); and
inerts (textile, fine earth, rubber, etc.) (44%) approximately.
In the existing MSWM system (Fig. 5) BMC collects desegregated
MSW (Wij ) (Y =1; Y = 0 ) from households using 7 and 10 tonnes (Vb )
type of trucks (b) and dispose of it in landfill Kachhar (j). Kachhar, as
shown in Fig. 6, is the official and only landfill site (M = 1) (220.11″N,
820.06″E) of Bilaspur city situated around 15Kms away from the city. At
Kachhar the collected MSW is burnt, and as a result, causing air pol-
lution (Ecj ) a nd creating a nuisance environment for the habitat.
Meanwhile, TPP of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC)
(22°0.07″N 82°0.17″E) imports coal from Gevra coal mine (A = 1)
(220.20″N, 820.32″E) of Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh using both road
and rail transport (Fig. 6). For road transportation 12 and 16 tonnes (Vs )
trucks (s) are used and for rail transportation 54 and 56 tonnes (Vr )
freight cargo box (r) is used. From Gevra, around 60% (1 al ) coal
(Qal ) is sent through railway while, remaining ( al ) sent through road-
ways. NTPC is having 3 units of 660 MW and 2 units of 500 MW power
generating unit. In this study, only 1 unit of 660 MW has been con-
sidered.
4.2. Suggested MSWM system considering CE
In comparison to the present situation, this study proposes the im-
plementation of CE in MSWM for using the MSW as a resource for the
production of biogas (Fig. 7). In the proposed system, segregation of
MSW at source considered (Y =0; Y = 1) as per Clean India Mission
(Swachh Bharat Abhiyan) 2014 norms (CPHEEO, 2016a, CPHEEO,
Fig. 6. Showing the location of city Bilaspur, landfill Kachhar, NTPC and Coal mine Gevra in Chhattisgarh, India.
10
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
2016b). Similarly, according to the case study some more modifications
have been made in the model: (i) there is only one BGP and it is situated
at Matiyari, Bilaspur (K = 1); (ii) the collection and transfer of organic
MSW is done by BMC, therefore time window constraint is not applic-
able and penalty cost (PC) would be considered as 0; and (iii) all the
vehicles used for the collection and transfer of organic MSW, biogas,
and coal are owned by the parent organization, so there is no need for
hiring vehicle. Thus the hiring costs (Chvb , Chvq , Chvs , and Chtr ) can be
considered as 0.
The suggested MSWM system consists of two systems:
(i). Segregated organic MSW will be collected from households of all
the wards (i) and sent to BGPs (k) (see Fig. 7). For example, in this
case study, organic MSW will be collected from wards and sent to
the BGP at Matiyari (220.07″N, 820.15″E), Bilaspur, using 7 and 10
tonnes type of trucks.
(ii). Organic MSW (Hij ) will be converted into biogas (Ujl ) in BGP and
sent to NTPC (TPP) (L = 1) (220.07″N, 820.17″E) Sipat, Bilaspur,
using 15 tonnes (Vq ) truck (q).
This will help in reducing the amount of coal used as a fuel for
power generation.
The study conducted for a period of 5 years (2019–2024). According
to (Census of India, 2011), BMC used to serve about 355,745 in-
habitants and it is projected that by the end of the year 2024, the ser-
ving residents will reach to 434,676 (prediction of the inhabitants is
performed by taking an average of arithmetical and geometrical in-
crease method). The prediction of inhabitants presented in Fig. 7(a) and
the forecast of MSW generated by an individual (Fig. 8(b)) at a rate of
1.3% annually. The projected population divided among the wards as
per their current contribution to the total population of Bilaspur city.
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

Fig. 7. Schematic flow chart of the proposed collection and disposal system under circular economy concept.

Fig. 8. Shows forecasted (a) Population and (b) waste generation rate of Bilaspur city, India.

11
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
Table 1
Results of present and proposed scenarios.
Present scenario (INR)
Functioning cost (FC) landfill 63082
BGP 0 15140
TPP 7200000
Coal mine 6000000
Transportation cost (TC) Ward to landfill 448132
Ward to BGP 0 68128
BGP to TPP 0 5652
Coal mine to TPP via road 288960000
Coal mine to TPP via rail 491932800
Environmental cost (EC) Vehicle 25369
Landfill 7948
TPP 7800000
Social cost (SC) Emission 6244393
Noise 18740426
Congestion 28110640
Accident 52980
Total cost 854625769
5. Result and discussion
The proposed mathematical model is non-linear. Therefore, it is
solved using a metaheuristic approach. The common metaheuristic
approach which is effective and highly used for this kind of model is
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) approach (Maiyar & Thakkar, 2017;
Anescu & Paul, 2018; Mohsen, Pardalos, Taghi, Niaki, & Fügenschuh,
2019). Thus, to solve the developed model, PSO has been applied using
MATLAB R2017. The model is solved for both present and proposed
MSWM system and results are presented in Table 1. From Table 1 it can
be observed that in the present system the total cost incurred is around
INR 855 million (10 6) which consists of functioning cost (FC) (INR 13.3
million), transportation cost (TC) (INR 780.4 million), environmental
cost (EC) (INR 7.8 million) and social cost (SC) (INR 53.1 million).
Further, it can expand as (i) FC comprise running cost of landfill (INR
63,082), TPP (INR 7.2 million) and coal mine (INR 6 million); (ii)
transportation cost includes transferring costs between wards and
landfill (INR 448,132), and coal mine and TPP using road transport
(INR 289 million) and using rail transport (INR 492 million); (iii) en-
vironmental cost is summation of cost of emission from vehicles (INR
25,369), landfill (INR 7,948), and TPP (INR 7.8 million); and (iv) social
cost is made up of social cost of emission (INR 6.2 million), noise
pollution (INR 18.7 million), congestion (INR 28.11 million), and ac-
cident (INR 52,980). In addition to that, the total carbon emission
found to be (7,892 tonnes) which is a combination of emission from
vehicles (11 tonnes), landfills (18 tonnes), and TPP (7,800 tonnes).
For the proposed system from Table 1, it can be identified that the
total cost incurred is around INR 824 million, in which, FC is INR 13
million, TC is INR 750.2 million, EC is INR 7.7 million, and SC is INR
53.1 million. From these, (i) FC comprises running cost of BGP (INR
15,140), TPP (INR 7.1 million) and coal mine (INR 5.92 million); (ii) TC
include transferring costs between wards and BGP (INR 68,128), BGP
and TPP (INR 5,652), and coal mine and TPP using road transport (INR
273.2 million) and using rail transport (INR 477 million); (iii) EC is
summation of cost of emission from vehicles (INR 24,380), and TPP
(INR 7.7 million); and (iv) SC is made up of social cost of emission (INR
6.2 million), noise pollution (INR 18.73 million), congestion (INR 28.1
million), and accident (INR 52,628). In addition to that, the total
carbon emission found to be (7,705.57 tonnes) which is a combination
of emission from vehicles (10.57 tonne) and TPP (7,695 tonnes).
From the results, it can be observed that the proposed system is
reducing the total cost by about INR 30.4 million and carbon emission
by 186.43 tonnes daily. Along with this, it can also be identified that the
proposed system is reducing (i) FC by INR 225,580 due to a reduction in
the amount of coal (equivalent to biogas produced) from TPP and coal
mine. Add to that, difference in running cost of BGP and landfill also
12
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
Proposed scenario (INR) Reduction (INR)
13263082 0 13037502 225580
7103107
5919256
780380932 0 750260488 30120443
273208308
476978400
7833317 24380 7719412 113905
0
7695032
53148439 6244222 53146042 2397
18739677
28109515
52628
824163444 30462326
reduces the cost; (ii) TC by INR 30.12 million due to decrease in number
of trucks between wards to BGP and coal mine to TPP; (iii) EC by INR
11,3905 because of decrease in number of vehicles and removal of
landfill; (iv) SC by INR 2,397 due to decrease in number of vehicles
which leads to reduction in social cost of emission (INR 171), noise
pollution (INR 750), congestion (INR 1124), and accident (INR 352).
The impact of the proposed system over the present MSWM system can
be observed in Fig. 9.
5.1. Sensitivity analysis
To evaluate the robustness or effect of parameters in the model,
sensitivity analysis is performed. In this study, the impact of collection
efficiency ( i ) and TPP capacity (CAPl ) is analysed on the total cost.
5.1.1. Analysis of collection efficiency ( i )
As described previously, collection efficiency varies from country to
country. Therefore, to evaluate the feasibility and performance of the
proposed model globally. The effect of collection efficiency has been
analysed by varying it from 50% to 100% against the total cost of the
present system and proposed system (Fig. 10). From Fig. 10 it can be
observed that the proposed system is feasible and performing better
than the present system at every collection efficiency point. It is also
identified that an increase in i has very less effect on the present
system. While the proposed system keeps on decreasing with increasing
i value. This shows that the proposed model will perform better in
high-income countries compared to low-income countries considering
the same scenario. This also signifies that the proposed system is
globally applicable and improve the existing MSWM system.
5.1.2. Analysis of TPP capacity (CAPl )
TPP capacity varies among the cities. Therefore, an analysis is
performed to understand the relationship or effect of TPP capacity4 on
the total cost of the proposed system (Fig. 11). From Fig. 11 it can be
observed that the rate of increase in total cost is higher than the rate of
increase in TPP capacity. This shows that there is a non-linear re-
lationship between TPP capacity and the total cost of the proposed
system. Thus, it can be inferred that the proposed model will be much
more effective for TPP of lower capacity provided all the other para-
meters remain constant. Therefore, the proposed system will be more
suitable for the cities having similar MSWM condition and TPP of low
capacity.
4
Here TPP capacity represented in megawatt (MW).
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510

Fig. 9. Showing the comparison between present and proposed scenarios (a) functioning cost (b) transportation cost (c) environmental cost (d) social cost and (e)
carbon emission.

Fig. 10. Shows the effect of collection efficiency on total cost of present and proposed scenario.

6. Conclusion and future scope
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a very serious problem for the so-
ciety. It is becoming threatening due to urbanization and population
growth. Moreover, due to high demand for resources, natural resources
are depleting and meanwhile becoming costlier with time. However, if
generated MSW is managed properly, it can be used as a resource to
reduce the burden on natural resources. For example, bioenergy ex-
tracted from biomass of organic waste currently considered as the
biggest source of renewable energy and capable of providing fuel for
heating, electricity, and mobility (transport). Therefore, this study
proposes an MSW management (MSWM) system considering the cir-
cular economy in which organic MSW of households is converted into
biogas and used as a fuel in thermal power plants (TPP) to reduce the
burden on natural resource coal mines. The study develops a cost
minimization MINLP model to analyse the economic feasibility of the
proposed system in comparison to the present system where collected
MSW is disposed in the landfill.
For the validation of the model, a case study on Bilaspur city, India
has been considered. The model is solved using well established meta

13
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
Fig. 11. Shows the impact of variation in power plant capacity over total cost.
heuristic PSO method in software MATLAB R2017. From the results, it
is identified that the proposed MSW management system reduces the
total cost of the present system by INR 30,462,326 per day. It also re-
duces carbon emission by 186.43 tonnes daily. In addition to this, it is
also observed that the proposed system has reduced the cost of func-
tioning, transportation, environmental and social by INR 225580,
30120443, 113,905 and 2397 respectively. Further, the applicability of
the model in different countries and cities has been tested, sensitivity
analysis is done on parameters collection efficiency ( i ) and TPP ca-
pacity (CAPl ). From the analysis of ( i ), it is inferred that the proposed
system is applicable globally and best suited for high-income countries.
Further, from the analysis of CAPl , it is identified that the proposed
system is most suited for the cities having low capacity TPPs. From the
results, it is also observed that all the identified research questions are
answered. Implementation of circular economy in the present MSWM
system is feasible and economical; the input of biogas in TPP is en-
vironmentally beneficial; the proposed model is more impactful for
higher-income countries compared to lower-income countries, and de-
veloped model is more appropriate for the cities having low capacity
TPP.
The study can be extended in many directions. The supply of biogas
through pipes can be evaluated and analysed against road transport.
Integration of sources like hotels, restaurants, gardens, etc., in the
calculation of total MSW generation can be an interesting study. Effect
of variation in the frequency of collection ( f ) on the total cost to find
the optimum f value. Determination of optimal location of BGP to re-
duce the cost further. Relaxation of some assumptions for making the
model will be more realistic.
Author contributions
All authors have collaborated equally.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pradeep Rathore: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft. S.P.
Sarmah: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of Bilaspur Municipal
Corporation for providing the necessary data and having discussions
over the present situation and the feasibility of the proposed model.
References
Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on the environmental economics of the
14
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
circular economy. Sustainability Science, 2, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11625-006-0013-6.
Anescu, G., & Paul, A. (2018). A No Speeds and Coefficients PSO approach to reliability
optimization problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 120, 31–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.04.020.
Anghinolfi, D., Paolucci, M., Robba, M., & Taramasso, C. A. (2013.) A dynamic optimi-
zation model for solid waste recycling. Waste Management. 33(2), (pp. 287–296).
< http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.10.006 > .
Antoniou, N., Monlau, F., Sambusiti, C., Ficara, E., Barakat, A., & Zabaniotou, A. (2019).
Contribution to Circular Economy options of mixed agricultural wastes management:
Coupling anaerobic digestion with gasification for enhanced energy and material
recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.055.
Astrup, T. F., Tonini, D., Turconi, R., & Boldrin, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment of
thermal waste-to-energy technologies: Review and recommendations. Waste
Management, 37, 104–115.
Bekchanov, M., & Mirzabaev, A. (2018). Circular economy of composting in Sri Lanka:
Opportunities and challenges for reducing waste related pollution and improving soil
health. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 1107–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.08.186.
Bernstad, A., & la Cour Jansen, J. (2012). Review of comparative LCAs of food waste
management systems – Current status and potential improvements. Waste
Management, 32(12), 2439–2455.
Boulding, K. E. (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In Jarrett, H. (Ed.).
Environmental Quality Issues in a Growing Economy. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore. 3-4.
Broitman, D., Ayalon, O., & Kan, I. (2012). One size fits all? An assessment tool for solid
waste management at local and national levels. Waste Management, 32, 1979–1988.
Census of India. Provisional Population Totals e India Data Sheet. Office of the Registrar
General Census Commissioner, Government of India. Indian Census Bureau 2011.
< http://censusindia.gov.in/ > . [Accessed on 5 April 2016].
Chang, N.-B., Qi, C., Islam, K., & Hossain, F. (2012). Comparisons between global
warming potential and costebenefit criteria for optimal planning of a municipal solid
waste management system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2011.08.017.
Chinnici, G., Selvaggi, R., D’Amico, M., & Pecorino, B. (2018). Assessment of the potential
energy supply and biomethane from the anaerobic digestion of agro-food feedstocks
in Sicily. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.09.018.
Cucchiella, F., & D'Adamo, I. (2016). Technical and economic analysis of biomethane: A
focus on the role of subsidies. Energy Conversion Management, 119, 338–351.
Darda, S., Papalas, T., & Zabaniotou, A. (2019). Biofuels journey in Europe: Currently the
way to low carbon economy sustainability is still a challenge. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 208, 575–588.
Dasappa, S., Subbukrishna, D. N., Suresh, K. C., Paul, P. J., & Prabhu, G. S. (2011).
Operational experience on a grid connected 100kWe bio mass gasification power
plant in Karnataka, India. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 231–239. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.03.004.
Dijkgraaf, E., & Vollebergh, H. R. J. (2004). Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of
final waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics, 50(3–4), 233–247.
Dornburg, V., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2006). Optimizing waste treatment systems: Part B:
Analyses and scenarios for The Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
48(3), 227–248.
Dutta, K., Daverey, A., & Lin, J. G. (2014). Evolution retrospective for alternative fuels:
First to fourth generation. Renewable Energy. 69, 114–122.
El Hanandeh, A., & El-Zein, A. (2009). Strategies for the municipal waste management
system to take advantage of carbon trading under competing policies: The role of
energy from waste in Sydney. Waste Management, 29(7), 2188–2194.
Eshet, T., Ayalon, O., & Shechter, M. (2005). A critical review of economic valuation
studies of externalities from incineration and landfilling. Waste Management and
Research, 23(6), 487–504.
European Commission, 2015. Closing the Loop - an Action Plan for the Circular Economy.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
Brussels. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. [ Accessed on 25
Octuber 2017].
Fankhauser, S. (1994). The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: An expected value
approach. Energy Journal, 15(2), 157–184.
Garibay-rodriguez, J., Laguna-martinez, M. G., Rico-ramirez, V., & Botello-alvarez, J. E.
(2018). Optimal municipal solid waste energy recovery and management : A math-
ematical programming approach. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 119, 394–405.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular
Economy-a new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143,
757–768.
Hemmelmayr, V. C., Doerner, K. F., Hartl, R. F., & Vigo, D. (2014). Models and Algorithms
for the Integrated Planning of Bin Allocation and Vehicle Routing in Solid Waste
Management. Transactions Science, 48(1), 103–120.
Jensen, H. J. (1998). Self-organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in Physical and
Biological Systems. Cambridge University Press10.
Jin, Q., Yang, Y., Li, A., Liu, F., & Shan, A. (2017). Comparison of biogas production from
an advanced micro-bio-loop and conventional system. Journal of Cleaner Production,
148, 245–253.
Juul, N., Münster, M., Ravn, H., & Ljunggren Söderman, M. (2013). Challenges when
performing economic optimization of waste treatment. Waste Management, 33(9),
1918–1925.
Kan, I., Ayalon, O., & Federman, R. (2010). On the efficiency of composting organic
P. Rathore and S.P. Sarmah
wastes. Agricultural Economics, 41, 151–163.
Kausal, R. K., Varghese, G. K., & Chabukdhara, M. (2012). Municipal solid waste man-
agement in India — Current state and future challenges: A review. International of
Journal Engineering Science and Technology, 4(4), 1473–1489.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an
essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544–552.
Lee, C. K. M., Yeung, C. L., Xiong, Z. R., & Chung, S. H. (2016). A mathematical model for
municipal solid waste management e a case study in Hong Kong. Waste Management,
58, 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2016.06.017.
Liu, Z., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2018). Are exports of recyclables from developed to
developing countries waste pollution transfer or part of the global circular economy ?
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 22–23.
Longden, D., Brammer, J., Bastin, L., & Cooper, N. (2007). Distributed or centralised
energy-from-waste policy? Implications of technology and scale at municipal level.
Energy Policy. 35(4), 2622–2634.
Lu, J.-W., Zhang, S., Hai, J., & Lei, M. (2017). Status and perspectives of municipal solid
waste incineration in China: A comparison with developed regions. Waste
Management, 69, 170–186.
Luoranen, M., & Horttanainen, M. (2007). Feasibility of energy recovery from municipal
solid waste in an integrated municipal energy supply and waste management system.
Waste Management and Research, 25(5), 426–439.
Maiyar, L. M., & Thakkar, J. J. (2017). A combined tactical and operational deterministic
food grain transportation model: Particle swarm based optimization approach.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 110, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.
05.023.
Maiyar, L. M., & Thakkar, J. J. (2018). Modelling and analysis of intermodal food grain
transportation under hub disruption towards sustainability. International Journal of
Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.021.
Mardoyan, A., & Braun, P. (2015). Analysis of Czech Subsidies for Solid Biofuels.
International Journal of Green Energy, 12(4), 405–408.
Ministry of Urban Development. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE part I: An overview. Central
Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) 2016a;1–96.
http:// moud.gov.in/pdf/57f1e 55834 489Bo ok03.pdf. [Accessed 5 Nov 2017].
Ministry of Urban Development. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE part II: The manual. Central
Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organisation 2016b;1–604. http://cphee
o.nic.in/ Write ReadD ata/Cphee o_Solid Waste Manag ement 2016/Manua l.pdf.
[Accessed 5 Nov 2017].
Moh, Y. C., Manaf, L. A. (2017). Solid waste management transformation and future
challenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resource
Conservation Recycling 116, (pp. 1–14).
Mihelcic, J. R., et al., 2003. Sustainability science and engineering: the emergence of a
new metadiscipline. Environmental Science Technology 37, (pp. 5314-5324).
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es034605h.
Mohan, V. S., Chiranjeevi, P., Dahiya, S., & Kumar, N. A. (2018). Waste derived bioec-
onomy in India: A perspective. New Biotechnology, 40, 60–69.
Mohsen, S., Pardalos, P. M., Taghi, S., Niaki, A., & Fügenschuh, A. (2019). Solving a
continuous periodic review inventory-location allocation problem in vendor-buyer
supply chain under uncertainty. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 128, 541–552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.071.
Moutavtchi, V., Stenis, J., Hogland, W., Shepeleva, A., & Andersson, H. (2008).
Application of the WAMED model to landfilling. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 10(1), 62–70.
Münster, M., & Meibom, P. (2011). Optimization of use of waste in the future energy
system. Energy. 36(3), 1612–1622.
Münster, M., Ravn, H., Hedegaard, K., Juul, N., & Söderman, M. L. (2015). Economic and
environmental optimization of waste treatment. Waste Management, 38, 486–495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.005.
Murphy, J. D., & McKeogh, E. (2004). Technical, economic and environmental analysis of
energy production from municipal solid waste. Renewable Energy, 29(7), 1043–1057.
Parker, N., Williams, R., Dominguez-Faus, R., & Scheitrum, D. (2017). Renewable natural
gas in California: An assessment of the technical and economic potential. Energy
Policy. 111, 235–245.
Rathore, P., & Sarmah, S. P. (2018). Allocation of Bins in Urban Solid Waste Logistics System.
Harmony Search and Nature Inspired Optimization Algorithms. Springer, Singapore
485–495. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-0761-4_47.
Rathore, P., & Sarmah, S. P. (2019). Modeling transfer station locations considering
source separation of solid waste in urban centers: A case study of Bilaspur city, India.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 44–60.
Rathore, P., Sarmah, S. P., & Singh, A. (2019). Location-allocation of bins in urban solid
waste management: A case study of Bilaspur city, India. Environment Development
Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00347-y.
Ruiz, J. A., Juarez, M. C., Morales, M. P., Munoz, P., & Mendıvil, M. A. (2013). Biomass
gasification for electricity generation : Review of current technology barriers.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 174–183.
Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J. F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Banja, M., & Motola, V. (2015).
Renewable energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European
Union - An overview from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress
Reports. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 969–985.
15
Computers & Industrial Engineering 145 (2020) 106510
Salvia, M., Cosmi, C., Macchiato, M., & Mangiamele, L. (2002). Waste management
system optimisation for Southern Italy with MARKAL model. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 34, 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00095-7.
Santiba~nez-Aguilar, J. E., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., Betzabe Gonzalez-Campos, J., Serna-
Gonzalez, M., El-Halwagi, M. M. (2013). Optimal planning for the sustainable utili-
zation of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 33 (pp. 2607-2622) https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2013.08.010.
Schaffartzik, A., Mayer, A., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Loy, C., & Krausmann, F.
(2014). The global metabolic transition: Regional patterns and trends of global ma-
terial flows, 1950–2010. Global Environmental Change, 26, 87–97.
Shadiya, O. O., Satish, V., & High, K. A. (2012). Process enhancement through waste
minimization and multiobjective optimization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31,
137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.03.008.
Shmelev, S. E., & Powell, J. R. (2006). Ecological-economic modelling for strategic re-
gional waste management systems. Ecological Economics, 59(1), 115–130.
Sims, R. E., Rogner, H. H., & Gregory, K. (2003). Carbon emission and mitigation cost
comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for elec-
tricity generation. Energy Policy, 31(13), 1315–1326.
Singh, A., Mishra, A., & Mishra, B. (2013). Urban Sprawl Development and need
Assesment of Landfills for Waste Disposal : A Case Study of Bilaspur Municipal
Corporation of Chhattisgarh, India. Journal of Environmental Research Development,
7(4), 1718–1726.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs,
R., Carpenter, S. R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C. A., Folke, C. (2015). Planetary bound-
aries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science.
347(6223):1259855. < http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/
1259855 > [Accessed on 19 September 2017].
Tan, S. T., Lee, C. T., Hashim, H., Ho, W. S., & Lim, J. S. (2014). Optimal process network
for municipal solid waste management in Iskandar Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 71, 48–58.
Tavares, G., Zsigraiova, Z., Semiao, V., & Carvalho, M. G. (2009). Optimisation of MSW
collection routes for minimum fuel consumption using 3D GIS modelling. Waste
Management, 29(3), 1176–1185.
Tisserant, A., Pauliuk, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J., Fry, J., Wood, R., et al. (2017). Solid
waste and the circular economy: A global analysis of waste treatment and waste-
footprints. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 628–640.
United Nations, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: the 2014 Revision. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Publications. < http://esa.un.org/
unpd/wup/highlights/wup2014-highlights.pdf > [Accessed on 19 September 2017].
Upadhyay, V., Jethoo, A. S., & Poonia, M. P. (2012). Solid waste collection and segre-
gation: A case study of MNIT campus, Jaipur. International Journal of Engineering and
Innovative Technology, 1(3), 144–149.
Wall, D. M., McDonagh, S., & Murphy, J. D. (2017). Cascading biomethane energy sys-
tems for sustainable green gas production in a circular economy. Bioresource
Technology, 243, 1207–1215.
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., et al. (2015). The
material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112,
6271–6276.
Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Modak, P., Soos, R., Carpintero, A. Velis, K., Iyer, M., Simonett, O.
(2015). The Global Waste Management Outlook. Report. United Nations
Environmental Programme, UNEP. < http://www.greenreport.it/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/Global-Waste-Management-Outlook-2015.pdf > [Accessed on 05
May 2017].
Winkler, J., & Bilitewski, B. (2007). Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment
models for solid waste management. Waste Management, 27(8), 1021–1031.
World Bank. WHAT A WASTE : A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban
Development Knowledge Papers. 2012. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_
Final.pdf. (Accessed on 5 November 2017).
Yadav, V., Karmakar, S., Dikshit, A. K., & Vanjari, S. (2016). A feasibility study for the
locations of waste transfer stations in urban centers : A case study on the city of
Nashik, India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 191–205.
Yadvika, S., Sreekrishnan, T. R., Kohli, S., & Rana, V. (2004). Enhancement of biogas
production from solid substrates using different techniques –– A review. Bioresource
Technology, 95, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.010.
Yedla, S., & Parikh, J. K. (2001). Recovery for municipal solid waste management : A case
study. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 15(4), 433–447.
Zakeri, A., Dehghanian, F., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. (2015). Carbon pricing versus
emissions trading : A supply chain planning perspective. International Journal of
Production Economics, 164, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.012.
Zeller, V., Towa, E., Degrez, M., & Achten, W. M. J. (2018). Urban waste flows and their
potential for a circular economy model at city-region level. Waste Management, 83,
83–94.
Zsigraiova, Z., Semiao, V., & Beijoco, F. (2013). Operation costs and pollutant emissions
reduction by definition of new collection scheduling and optimization of MSW col-
lection routes using GIS. The case study of Barreiro, Portugal. Waste Management, 33,
793–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.015.