588586

research-article2015
WMR0010.1177/0734242X15588586Waste Management & ResearchHermann et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Evaluation and selection of decision-making

1­–11
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
methods to assess landfill mining projects sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X15588586
wmr.sagepub.com

Robert Hermann1, Rupert J Baumgartner2, Stefan Vorbach3,

Arne Ragossnig4 and Roland Pomberger1

Abstract
For the first time in Austria, fundamental technological and economic studies on recovering secondary raw materials from large
landfills have been carried out, based on the ‘LAMIS – Landfill Mining Austria’ pilot project. A main focus of the research – and the
subject of this article – was to develop an assessment or decision-making procedure that allows landfill owners to thoroughly examine
the feasibility of a landfill mining project in advance. Currently there are no standard procedures that would sufficiently cover all
the multiple-criteria requirements. The basic structure of the multiple attribute decision making process was used to narrow down on
selection, conceptual design and assessment of suitable procedures. Along with a breakdown into preliminary and main assessment,
the entire foundation required was created, such as definitions of requirements to an assessment method, selection and accurate
description of the various assessment criteria and classification of the target system for the present ‘landfill mining’ vs. ‘retaining the
landfill in after-care’ decision-making problem. Based on these studies, cost-utility analysis and the analytical-hierarchy process were
selected from the range of multiple attribute decision-making procedures and examined in detail. Overall, both methods have their
pros and cons with regard to their use for assessing landfill mining projects. Merging these methods or connecting them with single-
criteria decision-making methods (like the net present value method) may turn out to be reasonable and constitute an appropriate
assessment method.

Keywords
Landfill mining, assessment, multiple-attribute decision making, cost-utility analysis, analytical-hierarchy process

Introduction
While assessing the qualitative and quantitative potentials of sec-
ondary raw materials (see also Nispel and Gäth, 2014) in selected
Austrian pilot landfills and elaborating the accordingly required
technological framework, the ‘LAMIS – Landfill Mining Austria’
research project also develops a comprehensive economic and eco-
logical assessment and decision-making procedure for landfill own-
ers. Owners of promising landfills are facing the initial decision of
whether to keep their landfills in after-care or to initiate an environ-
mentally sustainable re-use or clean-up, potentially realised in the
course of a landfill mining project. However, apart from knowledge
of the specific local conditions and data, the landfill owner also
needs appropriate assessment and decision-making procedures to
make such a decision. This article addresses fundamental studies of
the approach to assessment, selection and application of available
procedures. There are no standard tools for complete multiple-crite-
ria assessment that would fully cover all relevant decision-making
situations, criteria and available information and which therefore
would be capable of coping with the complexity of the problem.
Concerning the assessment of landfill mining projects, mainly
For reducing complexity, current approaches to assessing land-
fill mining projects are limited to a few parameters, hence, they do
not take all applying parameters into account. Focusing on eco-
nomic variables, for instance, reveals that a couple of important
matters are not covered, such as avoided after-care and compli-
ance costs, or taxes on activities that are liable to payment, such as
the return of non-recoverable materials to the landfill, changes of
the fair market value of cleared sites on the real-estate market or
fictitious/potential revenue from regained landfill capacity gener-
ated by landfill mining (Nispel, 2012). Other ecological, organisa-
tional or socio-economic criteria like potential hazards, public
interventions by incentives like facilitated approval procedures or
re-use scenarios, are currently little taken into account, either. To
lower the risk of landfill owners making wrong decisions, all of
1Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria
2Universityof Graz, Graz, Austria
3Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
4UTC Umwelttechnik und GeoConsulting ZT GmbH, Vienna, Austria

economic feasibility discussions have been published so far, pre-

sented as cost and revenue calculations (Bernhard et al., 2011; Corresponding author:
Robert Hermann, Montanuniversitaet Leoben, 8700 Leoben, Franz
Bölte and Geiping, 2011; Gäth and Nispel, 2010; Nispel, 2012; Josefstraße 18, Austria.
Rettenberger, 2012). Email: robert.hermann@unileoben.ac.at

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

2 Waste Management & Research

Table 1.  Requirements for multiple-criteria assessment and decision-making procedures for landfill mining (Hermann et al.,
2014b).

Requirement Detailing/description
Comparison of alternatives The assessment procedure has to permit comparison of the two known
alternatives ‘implementation of a landfill mining project’ and ‘retaining the site
in after-care/decommissioning’.
Completeness Different criteria with qualitative and quantitative characteristic values must be
fully taken into account.
Future reference The evaluation procedure has to facilitate the comparison of options in terms of
future developments.
Uniqueness of the result At the end of the assessment, a clear statement on the value of the two options
should be available so that the landfill owners can create a hierarchy or
ranking.
Transparency, accountability and flexibility The assessment procedure should be obvious and comprehensible to users,
stakeholders and laymen. Subjectivity should be kept at a minimum. Criteria
or objectives that are first identified in the course of the assessment procedure
should be integrated.
Applicability and practicability The procedure should be simply and economically applicable with a reasonable
expense.
Validity and repeatability Repeating the procedure should produce the same result.
Macro-economic assessment From an economic perspective, the implementation of a landfill mining project
must be accessible.

these criteria must be included in the development of such an
assessment and decision-making procedure. Applicability and
feasibility, limited data available from landfill owners and use by
different private or public stakeholders are obstacles that may not
be ignored, either.
Basic studies to define relevant parameters and system bound-
aries in space and time have been executed by Hermann et al.
(2014a). The results presented in this article are based on them.
Assessment of landfill mining is a very complex affair that has
to include many qualitative and quantitative criteria. Therefore,
multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) procedures have to be
applied. Single-criterion decision-making (SCDM) procedures
(that is, procedures addressing one target variable only, like com-
paring profits or net present value) can achieve a full analysis only
if either all the criteria may be included in this target variable or if
a sequential application is feasible. This is neither suitable nor
reasonable when assessing landfill mining projects, however. The
applicability of SCDM procedures to landfill mining projects will,
therefore, not be discussed any further here, not even of those that
apply differing target variables. They are useful, though, as sup-
plemental or parallel procedures that help evaluate the absolute
favourability of certain options or gather information for decision-
making (Schuh, 2001).
When assessing landfill mining projects, the assessment and
decision-making procedures chosen have to meet specific
requirements that must be taken into account before the preferred
method is selected (Hermann et al., 2014b).
Materials and methods
Based on the requirements given in Table 1 and the fact that
many different criteria have to be taken into account for landfill
mining projects, MCDA was the procedure of choice (Wolfslehner
et al., 2005).
One key objective of landfill owners is to achieve the highest
added value that may be obtained in landfill mining. From focus-
ing on just this one criterion, however, does not necessarily fol-
low that the general project will succeed because recovering the
largest possible landfill surface, avoiding adverse effects on the
environment and local residents or producing the best social
benefits have to be considered, too. In this context, MCDA pro-
cedures have already been thoroughly examined in various sci-
entific articles on environmental issues (Solomon and Hughey,
2007), conservation management (Rohr, 2004) and groundwater
management (Schneck, 2006).
Among MCDA procedures, procedures for multiple-objec-
tive decision-making (MODM) and multi-attribute decision-
making (MADM) are distinguished (Hwang and Yoon, 1981).
In MODM, one out of an uncountable set of options is obtained,
while MADM compares countable and known options that can
be clearly distinguished (Zimmermann and Gutsche, 1991).
Figure 1 shows a classification of the MCDA procedures
and essential associated methods for decision-making that
address multiple-criteria target variables, according to Schuh
(2001).
Since there are essentially only two alternative options for
landfill mining projects (‘landfill mining’ or ‘after-care’), this
problem has been allocated to the group of MADM procedures.
Based on that allocation, the basic structure of the MADM flow
of Belton and Stewart (2003) and Geldermann and Lerche (2013)
has been applied to further processing the specific selection,
design and assessing of decision-making procedures for assess-
ing landfill mining projects. Figure 2 shows the process adapted
to the present problem.
The result was obtained and discussed in the individual sub-
process stages jointly with Montanuniversität Leoben, Graz
University of Technology, landfill owners, waste management
companies, recycling companies, processing and sorting machine

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

Hermann et al. 3

monetary non-monetary quantitative qualitative

May be transferred into a May not be transferred into

command variable a command variable
One-criteria procedures

Multiple criteria procedures

(MCDA)

MODM MADM

low compaction of the measures high compaction of the measures

Investigation of influencing variables, e.g. ABC

analysis

Representation of various aspects, such as

ecological efficiency analysis, socio-ecological
efficiency analysis, balance scorecard

Requirements for the decision-maker to state preferences

not required low medium high

Prevalence
Dominance Portfolios Direct Choice
procedures

Artificial neural Cost-effectiveness Cost-benefit Analytical hierarchy

networks analyses analysis process (AHP)

Multiple Attribute
Goal Programming Cost–utility analysis
Utility Theory
(MAUT)

Figure 1.  Decision-making procedures and methods (Schuh, 2001).

makers and public agents in guided workshops and expert selected procedure is generally applicable despite conflicting
meetings. interests. For that reason, this article chiefly refers to sources on
MCDA procedures and on expert workshops including in-depth
1. Identification of the problem. discussions with stakeholders in the range of the MADM process
2. Problem structure. (Figure 2). Data and information presented in ‘Results and dis-
3. Method building. cussion’ have been prepared in this manner.
4. Method selection.
5. Method evaluation.
6. Application of the method (not covered by this article). Results and discussion
Results
Individual interviews and group discussions with various public
and private landfill owners have been taken at the same time, Identification of the problem and problem structure.  As stated
such as with: in the previous section, MADM procedures are the foundation of
the decision-making process for landfill mining projects. They
-  communities and countries; need comprehensive treatment of the prevailing decision-making
-  waste management associations; problem, involving all stakeholders participating in the project.
-  operators of public private partnerships (PPP) models; and As a matter of principle, the first stage of the MCDA pro-
- companies; cess is to define the ‘landfill mining project feasibility test’ as
the overarching (or overall) objective and decision-making
being both decision makers and future users of the decision- problem, examining various influencing criteria and system
making procedure. This approach ensures common understanding boundaries (Hermann et al., 2014a). The overarching objective
of the decision-making problem, while warranting that the is a foundation of the required target system, divided into main

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

4 Waste Management & Research

Identification
of the problem

Method
Problem selection
Goals structure

Restrictions

Alternatives

Stakeholder Method
Uncertainties building
System limit
Defining
influencing
factors
Target
system Method
evaluation
Determine criteria Method
combination

Using and
Creating new
Sensitivity check the
alternatives
analysis method

Robustness
analysis

Figure 2.  MADM process according to (Belton and Stewart, 2003).

Landfill mining project feasibility tests Overall goal

Preliminary Main assessment

assessment
Technical/ Political/ Socio-
Economical Ecological Main criteria
organizational legal economic

T1 T2 T3 T4 L1 L2 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4
Sub-criteria
T5 EN5 EN6 EN7 EN8 EC5 EC6

EN9 EN10 EN11 EN12

Questionnaire
Landfill Mining After-care Options

End of the
assessment Portfolio chart

Main assessment decision-making method

Figure 3.  Target system of the decision-making problem according to (Hermann et al., 2014b).

criteria and sub-criteria. ‘Landfill mining’ and ‘retaining the Method building.  Based on expert interviews, the entire assess-
landfill in after-care’ were defined as options to be compared. ment procedure has been divided into preliminary and main
Figure 3 shows the target system described for the entire assessment and different main criteria have been allocated to
decision-making problem. the two stages (Figure 3). The reason was that a preliminary

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

Hermann et al. 5
Table 2.  Description of criteria for the preliminary assessment.
Sub-criteria
Political/legal main criterion
Legal framework (L1)
Political and administrative framework (L2)
Technical/organisational main criterion
Quality and quantity of landfill material (T1 and T2)
Age of the landfill (T3)
Technological investment (T4)
Databases (T5)
assessment of the landfill should precede the actual (main)
assessment to check the landfill’s general suitability for landfill
mining.
Preliminary assessment
This was based on a checklist that consists of 12 questions cover-
ing the technological/organisational main criterion with five sub-
criteria (T1–T5) and the legal/political main criterion with two
sub-criteria (L1, L2) (see Figure 3). The first legal sub-criterion
L1 was addressed by a question about the legal framework of the
project. When answered ‘no’, any further assessment is irrelevant.
The other questions are divided into assessing the risk and
assessing the expense of the landfill mining project with a score
of low/good (1) via medium (2) to high/bad (3) (Table 4). Two
out of the 12 questions from the questionnaire are listed here.
Risk
How do you rate the current evidence and documentation of the
landfill?
good (1)/medium (2)/bad (3)
Expense
How high do you estimate the approval and administrative
expense?
low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
The results of this questionnaire enter a portfolio chart, represent-
ing a matrix of nine fields, that has been established jointly with
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015
Description
 
In the run-up to a landfill mining project, it ought to be clarified
whether a legal framework is applicable, answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If ‘No’,
any further preliminary or main assessment will be obsolete.
A busy landfill mining project can collide with public or private
interests (by more dust, noise and traffic or other), which may provoke
opposition and produce a large administrative burden. Project
implementation may, as a result, become much more expensive, be
delayed or even prevented.
 
In the run-up, obtain a superficial assessment of the quality and
quantity of the deposited waste, i.e. whether it is suitable for the
intended kind of recovery, either material or thermal. Some basic
information on the type, amount and composition (such as treated,
untreated) of waste that may be found in the landfill is required to
reasonably continue planning measures for a landfill mining project.
Assessing a landfill’s age, including applying law on separate
collection and treatment of waste or its regional implementation/non-
implementation in the area of interest, is another way on how to make
at least some assumptions on quality and quantity of waste.
This criterion is intended to assess the basic technological investment
into a landfill mining project: accessibility of the site, details on the
landfilled waste, processing and separating, logistics and after-care.
Before assessing, examine the quality of any databases used for this
purpose. Poor, inconsistent or outright incorrect data may adversely
affect the results in quite a significant scope. Unreasonable investment
into production or remedy renders further assessment obsolete.
the landfill owners. The expense is entered on the abscissa and
the risk with its subdivisions of low/good (1), medium (2) and
high/bad (3) on the ordinate.
The superficial initial rating of the landfill mining project
assessed is represented by a dot in the portfolio describing the
expected expense and risk. The location of the dot emerges from
the computed mean value of the summed scores (1–3) obtained
from the individual questions on risk and expense.
Depending on its location in the matrix and the individual
conditions of the site, landfill owners may conclude on whether
a more detailed main assessment of the given project is feasi-
ble. Figure 4 shows what a portfolio chart of a preliminary
landfill mining project assessment may look like, note the
black dot. Here, risk and expense of a landfill mining project
are both rated as low. Therefore, continued main assessment is
recommended.
The exact definition and description of the various sub-
criteria is a prerequisite for a generally applicable and accepted
assessment and decision-making procedure. The following sub-
criteria were defined in consultation with stakeholders in work-
shops and discussions. They are listed below and their main
features described (Table 2).
Main assessment
Economic, ecological and socio-economic criteria including
division into sub-criteria were defined in the target system for the
following main assessment, based on the notes of Hermann et al.
(2014a).
6 Waste Management & Research

The requirements for ranking the preferences of landfill own-

high/bad
+/- - - - Continue assessment ers in Figure 1 are simultaneously integrated into the selection
a.) not recommended procedure, as well as the target system defined in this article.
Discussions and workshops with the landfill owners have helped
medium
Risk

+ +/- -
b.) consider case-by-case derive a shortlist of assessment and decision-making methods to
be included, whose ranking was classified as ‘medium’ to ‘high’
low//good

++ + +/- (see Figure 1). This way, landfill operators may satisfyingly con-
c.) recommended
tribute their own preferences with regard to criteria in the deci-
1

low/good medium high/bad sion-making procedure.

1 Expense 3
Figure 4.  Sample portfolio chart of the preliminary
assessment.
MADM: multi-attribute decision-making.
The technological/organisational and political/legal main cri-
teria and associated sub-criteria have already been included in
the overall procedure with the preliminary assessment; they are
therefore not reproduced here. The exact definition and descrip-
tion of the various sub-criteria is needed for the main assess-
ment, as for the preliminary assessment (Table 3).
Quantifying the criteria to obtain attributes requires their
specification by allocating a unit and an indication of maximisa-
tion or minimisation (Geldermann and Lerche, 2013). Measuring
the criteria is supported by the general approach to assessing
landfill mining projects.
•• Nominal scales: Classifications like Yes or No.
•• Ordinal scales: Measurements that may be attributed with
‘low’ to ‘high’.
•• Cardinal scales: Obtaining quantifiable values, such as
numbers.
Some effects of landfill mining cannot be definitely rated in car-
dinally quantifiable and/or monetary terms. The differing level of
data available from different landfill owners means that some
information needed to assess a project may not be available.
Hence, its environmental impact may be verified only with a cou-
ple of caveats that may affect the assessment of the project as a
whole, despite the formulation of objectives (Lisson, 2013).
Table 4 shows the sub-criteria described, including units and
scales and the allocation of preliminary assessment criteria to the
axes of the chart.
Method selection.  Figure 5 from Götze (2008) was preliminar-
ily applied to select appropriate methods (from the group of
MADM procedures) with regard to their applicability to landfill
mining projects.
The classification of the MADM methods in Figure 5 basi-
cally refers to the type and quality of information available from
decision-makers that has been used (landfill owners). It must be
considered whether there is any available at all and if it relates
rather to the criteria or to the two ‘landfill mining’ and ‘retaining
the landfill in after-care’ options. Information available for land-
fill mining projects will essentially relate to the criteria and be set
in cardinal or ordinal form (see Table 4).
If these allocations are applied to the selection procedure by
which the applicability of suitable MCDM procedures is assessed
(Moffett and Sarkar, 2006) and to the specific requirements for
the assessment and decision-making procedures in Table 1, the
cost-utility analysis and the analytical-hierarchy process emerge
as appropriate to the present assessment. For this reason both
methods are discussed and evaluated below.
Method evaluation
•  Cost-utility analysis (CUA).  CUA is a method for assess-
ing options; here ‘landfill mining’ vs. ‘retaining the landfill in
after-care’. An essential indicator of CUA is an established hier-
archical target system (see Figure 3) with the total utility value
at the top, and the cardinally or ordinally scaled sub-criteria at
the bottom. This is a multiple-dimension method that may even
include non-monetary variables, like in the assessment of land-
fill mining projects. Options are listed and associated weighted
sub-criteria provided. The ranking of all criteria is collected and
transferred to target values based on measurement scales. These
target values may be interpreted as grades, like in school (say, 1
to 5) (Heinisch, 2010). They are multiplied by the target weights
and thereby transformed into partial utility values that are then
added up, including the weightings, to result in distinct total util-
ity values for both options (Götze, 2008). The option of choice
emerges from comparing the utility values and favouring the one
that provides the higher value. The special significance of the
CUA is its merger of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effec-
tiveness analysis (CEA) (Schneeweiss, 1991). Otherwise more
emphasis can be placed on the costs by attaching a CEA to the
CUA. Consider the CEA as a continuation of the CUA and not a
distinct procedure.
The CUA is a common, handy and viable procedure with little
computational effort for decision-making in multiple-objective
problems. It also quantifies the non-monetary benefits of options,
allows comparisons to be made and to derive rankings according
to the preferences of decision-makers (landfill owners).
Its cons are the purely subjective rating and assessment of tar-
get criteria and weightings, the required cardinal measurement
level and the mutual independence of the criteria (or groups of
criteria), which is currently contested. Minor shifts in weighting
or scoring may alter the order of the ranking.
•  The analytical hierarchy process (AHP).  The AHP was
developed by Thomas L Saaty in the early 1970s for analysing
complex decision-making situations (Saaty, 1987). The ‘landfill
mining project feasibility testing’ problem addressed here is hier-
archical and split into sub-problems for easier handling. Different

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

Hermann et al. 7
Table 3.  Description of criteria for the main assessment.
Sub-criteria
Economic main criterion
Decommissioning and after-care costs of landfills
(EN1)
Costs of landfill mining (EN2)
Costs for external disposal (EN3)
Costs for internal disposal (new landfilling at the site)
(EN4)
Levy imposed on the landfilling of waste [ALSAG] for
activities that are subject to such levy (EN5)
Proceeds from selling secondary raw materials and
fuels (EN6)
Proceeds from after-care (EN7)
Funding for landfill mining projects (EN8)
Avoided after-care and compliance costs (EN9)
Proceeds from resuming landfill use (EN10)
Change in market value of the area (EN11)
Avoided costs not included in after-care costs (EN12)
Ecological main criterion
Potential hazards to surface water and groundwater
(EC1)
Potential hazards to soil/subsoil (EC2)
Release of greenhouse gases and locally impacting
pollutants (EC3)
Adverse effects of noise and vibration (EC4)
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015
Description
 
That refers to the total cash value of estimated future after-care
costs p.a. or of unpaid decommissioning costs discounted to the
date when the implementation of the landfill mining project is
decided about.
That refers to all the costs for implementing the project, including
start-up costs (exploration, planning, expertise, approvals, etc.),
construction costs, including additional costs for supervision,
concomitant emission and emission reduction and control, as well
as any costs for providing marketable secondary raw materials for
material or thermal recovery.
That refers to all costs for the external handling of non-recoverable
waste, including such that should or may no longer be landfilled at
the site, whether unprocessed or processed, or such that must be
processed before landfilling at the site (by incineration or other).
That refers to costs for upgrading the landfill site to the
current state-of-the-art needed, including but not limited to
planning and approval, building to upgrade landfill facilities and
decommissioning or new after-care costs for this landfill.
These costs consist of levies for any handling of residue from
landfill mining that are subject to such levies (like renewed
landfilling or incineration) and for packaging of wastes collected for
thermal or material recovery (to make substitute fuels, etc.).
That refers to proceeds obtained from selling packaged waste
for thermal or material recovery. Negative revenue (payments) is
included.
That refers to proceeds from reusing decommissioned landfills in
the after-care phase (for agriculture, forestry or other) and from
reusing a landfill site that has been completely cleared till the end
of the landfill mining project (operating or building area, etc.).
That refers to public subsidies granted to support the
implementation of landfill mining projects. Appropriate legal
provisions and tools (guidelines, eligibility criteria, etc.) are
required.
That refers to costs for after-care and decommissioning that the
landfill owner saves by implementing a landfill mining project.
If the use of the landfill is continued (by depositing residue from
landfill mining), the resulting after-care costs may be offset.
That refers to proceeds from continued operation of the landfill
(owing to recovered landfill volume), assuming additional waste
accepted from third parties.
That refers to any change in the market value of the site’s area
after landfill mining. This criterion is closely related to the ‘After-
care proceeds (EN7)’ criterion.
These refer to any costs that are not part of the ‘Decommissioning
and after-care costs of landfills (EN1)’ item, i.e. costs arising from
the age and condition of landfill facilities that are avoided by landfill
mining (restoring old leaky surface coverage, upgrading the landfill
gas collection system or other).
 
This criterion refers to reducing hazards to surface and
groundwater emerging from a landfill mining project.
This criterion refers to reducing hazards to soil/subsoil emerging
from a landfill mining project.
More or less diffuse greenhouse gas emissions (CH4, CO2) can arise
from a landfill in after-care, depending on its age. Any busy landfill
mining project will include such hazards as a result of opening
the landfill and of using diesel-powered vehicles, lorries and
processing units. Also reckon with dust exposure.
This criterion relates to any adverse effect of noise and vibrations
that may be emitted during a busy landfill mining project.
(Continued)
8 Waste Management & Research

Table 3. (Continued)

Sub-criteria Description
Adverse effects on the landscape or ecosystem (EC5) This criterion refers to any adverse effect on landscape or
ecosystem that may arise from a landfill under after-care, but be
lessened or eliminated by a landfill mining project.
Restoration area (EC6) This criterion refers to options of restoring a landfill in after-care
or after landfill mining.
Socio-economic main criterion  
Interests of land(fill) owners (SE1) The proposed planning and operation of landfill mining projects
may cause conflicts of interest between land owners (who desire
profit from leasing) and landfill owners (who want to avoid further
leasing costs) that have to be considered obstacles to the project
under assessment.
Interests of local residents and the public sector (SE2) This criterion assesses potential conflicts of interest that may
emerge between participants (local residents, municipalities,
public funding bodies) in a landfill mining project and the continued
retention of the landfill in after-care.
Area required for future reuse (SE3) This criterion refers to any area needed for reusing the former
landfill after the landfill mining project has been completed (like
expanding settled territory).
General social benefits (SE4) This criterion refers to the general benefit that a landfill mining
project provides to the community.

Table 4.  Scale level and unit description of the sub-criteria.

Subcriteria Scale level Unit

Preliminary assessment (checklist) Portfolio axes  
Legal framework conditions (L1) Not in the portfolio, Nominal Yes/no
abort criterion
Political framework conditions (L2) Risk Ordinal Good (1)/medium (2)/bad (3)
Administrative framework conditions (L2) Expense Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
Quality of landfill material (T1) Risk Ordinal Good (1)/medium (2)/bad (3)
Quantity of landfill material (T2) Risk Ordinal Good (1)/medium (2)/bad (3)
Age of the landfill (well for landfill mining) Risk Nominal Yes/no
(T3)
Technological investment (T4) Expense Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
Databases (T5) Risk Ordinal Good (1)/medium (2)/bad (3)
Main assessment  
Economic main criterion  
Decommissioning and after-care costs of Cardinal/monetary EURO
landfills (EN1)
Cost of the landfill mining (EN2) Cardinal/monetary EURO
Costs for external disposal (EN3) Cardinal/monetary EURO
Costs for internal disposal (EN4) Cardinal/monetary EURO
Levy imposed on the landfilling of waste Cardinal/monetary EURO
[ALSAG] (EN5)
Proceeds from selling secondary raw Cardinal/monetary EURO
materials and fuels (EN6)
Proceeds from after-care (EN7) Cardinal/monetary EURO
Funding for landfill mining projects (EN8) Cardinal/monetary EURO
Avoided after-care and securing costs Cardinal/monetary EURO
(EN9)
Proceeds from resuming landfill use Cardinal/monetary EURO
(EN10)
Change in market value of the area (EN11) Cardinal/monetary EURO
Avoided costs that are not included in the Cardinal/monetary EURO
after-care costs (EN12)
Ecological main criterion  
Potential hazards to surface water and Cardinal/ mg l-1
groundwater (EC1) concentration

(Continued)

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

Hermann et al. 9

Table 4. (Continued)

Subcriteria Scale level Unit

Potential hazards to soil/subsoil (EC2) Cardinal/ mg kg-1
concentration
Release of greenhouse gases and locally Cardinal/amount CO2 -Äquivalent
impacting pollutants (EC3)
Release of locally impacting pollutants Cardinal/ µg/m³
(EC3) concentration
Adverse effects of noise and vibration Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
(EC4)
Adverse effects on the landscape or Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
ecosystem (EC5)
Restoration area (EC6) Cardinal/area m2
Socio-economic main criterion  
Interests of landowners/landfill owners Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
(SE1)
Interests of local residents and the public Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)
sector (SE2)
Area requirement for a future re-use (SE3) Cardinal/area m2
General social benefits (SE4) Ordinal Low (1)/medium (2)/high (3)

Type of information Quality of information Groups of methodes

Dominance strategy
No
Maximin strategy
Information
Maximax strategy

Disjunctive approach
Aspiration level
Conjunctive approach

MADM
Lexicographic method
Ordinal
Aspect by aspect elimination
information
Permutation method
Information
about criteria Linear assignment method
Simple additive weighting
Cardinal Analytical hierarchy process
information Cost utility analysis
Cost effectiveness analysis
Prevalence procedures

Multiple attribute utility theory (MAUT)

Substitution rates
Hierarchical substitution rates method

Linear programming method for multiple -

Information about
dimension analysis of preferences (LINMAP)
preferences
Information Interactive simple additive
- weighting
about options
Information about
Multiple-dimension scaling with ideal point
distances

Figure 5.  Classification of MADM methods according to the type of information (Götze, 2008).

target and/or criteria levels are created on the lowest hierarchy
level that cover the options to be evaluated: ‘landfill mining’ vs.
‘retaining the landfill in after-care’ (see Figure 3).
With AHP, both qualitative and quantitative criteria can be
examined. The rating of the individual criteria is separately deter-
mined for each element of the higher level using paired compari-
sons (Götze, 2008).
According to Rohr (2004), basic characteristics of the AHP
method are:
· easy use;
· applicable to individuals and groups;
· promoting compromise and consensus;
· no extraordinary specialisation of the decision-maker is required;
· results can be passed on and are clearly understood.
In solving multiple-objective problems, the AHP serves many
purposes, such as predicting future developments. It can also
involve uncertainties about future environmental conditions by

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015

10 Waste Management & Research
including either a level with various kinds of such conditions or
scenarios in the hierarchy. Uncertainties about preferences
expressed in the paired comparison ratings can be examined with
sensitivity analysis (Götze, 2008). A drawback against the CUA
that should not be ignored is the high investment in time and
effort required to obtain data or to compute the AHP, because all
pairs of sub-criteria on any level have to be compared with each
element of the next higher level. For details of the procedure, see
Götze (2008).
Discussion  data from different landfills.
Dividing the assessment procedure into preliminary and main
assessment is advantageous with regard to providing an option
for landfill operators to obtain a preliminary assessment of a
landfill mining project’s feasibility with little effort in advance.
That is conveniently achieved with the described questionnaire
and the ranking in a portfolio chart. A subsequent, more elaborate
main assessment is only advisable if the preliminary assessment
has had a positive result. CUA and AHP were the best choices for
the main assessment from the group of MADM methods, accord-
ing to research presented in this article.
Comparing the pros and cons of both methods with regard to
assessing landfill mining projects, their merger may be benefi-
cial. This can be recommended insofar as the AHP may be applied
to a CUA framework for weighting the target criteria by paired
comparison. Furthermore, combining with SCDM methods, like
the net present value method, may be considered to derive the
economic part of the main assessment from the net present value
method, and the ecological and sociological part from the CUA
or AHP. Verifying the validity of assessment results by sensitivity
analysis is essential in this context. The extent to which the final
assessment results – especially the ranking of the two options –
are sensitive to variations of the input parameters is examined
here, i.e. how they vary themselves. This check is needed because
a large number of input parameters, whether factual data or
weightings, cannot be determined with perfect accuracy owing to
uncertainties in data collection, and even more in forecasting, as
well as value judgements, that may be contested. If the sensitivity
analysis reveals that the order of the two options is stable in spite
of varying input variables (mainly forecasts and weightings),
then a validated assessment can be assumed (Benz et al., 1998).
Note, however, that the decision-making procedure for assess-
ing landfill mining is only as good and accurate as any data entered.
Unreliable or missing input data will produce unreliable results.
Conclusions
Basically, there are no proven standard decision-making methods
for the overall assessment of landfill mining projects that could
be applied without corresponding adaptation.
Based on the studies presented in this article, the entire proce-
dure is divided into preliminary and main assessment, the former
obtained by a questionnaire and the latter by methods chosen from
the group of MADM procedures. Since a variety of criteria and
influencing factors are involved in such projects, and two options
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015
– ‘landfill mining’ or ‘retaining the landfill in after-care’ – have to
be compared, applying selected MADM procedures is the obvious
choice. The CUA and the AHP were chosen from this group and
assessed as stand-alone methods. Both approaches have pros and
cons that can, however, be solved by merging the methods.
The findings presented here show that more research is needed
in various fields. Above all, further testing the MADM methods
in actual projects would be desirable for checking the transpar-
ency, accountability, flexibility, applicability and practicality of
the MCDM methods examined and defined here by applying real
Another focus is studies on merging multiple and single-criteria
methods, especially economic methods like the net present value
method paired with CUA and AHP, as described in this article.
Testing the quality and quantity of landfill material deposited
in advance of a landfill mining project is a problem of its own.
Landfill owners are often lacking consistent data on the material
deposited in the past. Complex and costly investigations of the
landfill are then required to obtain such data. Simple approxima-
tions or estimate ratings of landfill contents would help operators
reduce costs and limit the overhead. Finally, reviewing the quality
and quantity of input data required for decision-making proce-
dures to evaluate different scenarios will need more research too.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Andreas Budischowsky, Tanja
Wolfsberger and Harald Wipfler for assistance in the discussion
about the decision-making procedures.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was financed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency
(FFG).
References
Belton V and Stewart TJ (2003) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Benz A, Dosch F, Fürst D, et al. (1998) Methods and Instruments of Spatial
Planning [Methoden und Instrumente Räumlicher Planung]: Manual.
Hannover: ARL, XII, 360 S.
Bernhard A, Domenig M, Reisinger H, et al. (2011) Landfill Mining,
Economics, Resource Potential [Deponierückbau. Wirtschaftlichkeit,
Ressourcenpotenzial und Klimarelevanz]. Wien: Umweltbundesamt.
Bölte S and Geiping J (2011) Municipal Solid Waste Landfills – Aftercare or
Deconstruction [Siedlungsabfalldeponien – Nachsorge oder Rückbau?].
University of Applied Science, Fachhochschule Münster, 15 February
2011, Münster.
Gäth S and Nispel J (2010) Resource potential of selected household
waste landfills in Germany [Ressourcenpotenzial von ausgewählten
Hausmülldeponien in Deutschland]. In: Proceedings of the 10th
DEPOTECH conference, 3–5 November 2010 pp.375–380. Leoben:
Eigenverlag Montanuniversität Leoben; Institute für nachhaltige
Abfallwirtschaft und Entsorgungstechnik.
Geldermann J and Lerche N (2013) Criteria decision-making analy-
sis [Leitfaden zur Anwendung von Methoden der multikriteriellen
Entscheidungsunterstützung]. Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen.
Hermann et al. 11
Götze U (2008) Investitionsrechnung: Investment Calculation. Models
and Analyses for the Assessment of Investment Projects [Modelle und
Analysen zur Beurteilung von Investitionsvorhaben]. 6th ed. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer, Online-Resource.
Heinisch T (2010) Development of a Decision-Making Analysis System
for Adaptation to the Climate Change Using Water Management as an
Example [Entwicklung eines Entscheidungsunterstützungssystems zur
Anpassung an den Klimawandel am Beispiel der Wasserwirtschaft].
Aachen: Shaker, XXII, 211 S.
Hermann R, Baumgartner RJ, Sarc R, et al. (2014a) Landfill mining in
Austria: Foundations for an integrated ecological and economic assess-
ment. Waste Management & Research 32: 48–58.
Hermann R, Vorbach S and Wipfer H (2014b) Multi-criteria assessment of
landfill mining projects [Multikriterielle Bewertung von Landfill Mining
Projekten]. In: Pomberger R (ed.) proceedings of the 12th DEPOTECH
conference, waste management, waste technology, landfill technology
and contaminated sites [Abfallwirtschaft, Abfalltechnik, Deponietechnik
und Altlasten], Montanuniversität Leoben/Österreich, 4–7 November
2014, pp.587–592. Leoben: IAE – Inst. für Nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft
und Entsorgungstechnik; Eigenverl.
Hwang CL and Yoon K (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Methods
and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Lisson M (2013) Development of a model for sustainable assessment of flood
control measures. Implementation in planning and project decision-
making [Entwicklung eines Modells zur Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung von
Hochwasserschutzmaßnahmen]. Dissertation, München.
Moffett A and Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design
of conservation area networks: A minireview with recommendations.
Diversity and Distributions 12: 125–137.
Nispel J (2012) Resource Potential of Houshold Waste Landfills on the
Example of the Regional Landfill Hechingen [Ressourcenpotenzial
von Hausmülldeponien am Beispiel der Kreismülldeponie Hechingen].
Gießen: Univ, XVI, 286 S.
Nispel J and Gäth S (2014) RoadMap – Mapping in case of land-
fill mining [Road-Map Rohstoffe aus Deponien - Erstellung eines
Rohstoffkatasters]. In: Pomberger R (ed.) proceedings of the 12th
DEPOTECH conference, waste management, waste technology, land-
fill technology and contaminated sites [Abfallwirtschaft, Abfalltechnik,
Deponietechnik und Altlasten], Montanuniversität Leoben/Österreich,
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on July 1, 2015
4–7 November 2014, pp.573–578. Leoben: IAE – Inst. für Nachhaltige
Abfallwirtschaft und Entsorgungstechni; Eigenverl.
Rettenberger G (2012) Excavation of landfills – dream and reality
[Deponierückbau - Traum und Wirklichkeit]. In: 16th international sym-
posium on waste, waste water and energy, symposium on sustainable
waste management [16. Internationales Symposium Wasser, Abwasser,
Energie, Symposium zur nachhaltigen Abfallwirtschaft], Internationales
Congress Center Munich, Munich 7 May 2012.
Rohr T (2004) Use of a multiple criteria decision-making process in
nature preservation management [Einsatz eines mehrkriteriellen
Entscheidungsverfahrens im Naturschutzmanagement]. Dissertation, Kiel.
Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is
used. Mathematical Modelling 9: 161–176.
Schneck A (2006) Optimisation of the groundwater management tak-
ing the issues of water supply, agriculture and nature preserva-
tion into account [Optimierung der Grundwasserbewirtschaftung
unter Berücksichtigung der Belange der Wasserversorgung, der
Landwirtschaft und des Naturschutzes]. Optimization of groundwater
management considering the demands of water supply, agriculture and
ecology Dissertation, Stuttgart.
Schneeweiss CA (1991) Planning [Planung]. Berlin, New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Schuh H (2001) Decision-making-oriented implementation of a sustainable
development. Empirical analysis, theoretical foundation and systemization
using the natural resource water as an example [Entscheidungsorientierte
Umsetzung einer nachhaltigeren Entwicklung, Empirische Analyse, theo-
retische Fundierung und Systematisierung am Beispiel der natürlichen
Ressource Wasser]. Dissertation, de, Berlin, XIX, 410 S.
Solomon DS and Hughey KF (2007) A proposed multi criteria analysis deci-
sion support tool for international environmental policy issues: A pilot
application to emissions control in the international aviation sector.
Environmental Science & Policy 10: 645–653.
Wolfslehner B, Vacik H and Lexer MJ (2005) Application of the analytic net-
work process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management.
Forest Ecology and Management 207: 157–170.
Zimmermann H-J and Gutsche L (1991) Multi-Criteria-Analyses: Multi-
Criteria Analysis. Introduction into the Theory of the Decision-Making with
Multiple-Objective Setting [Einführung in die Theorie der Entscheidungen
bei Mehrfachzielsetzungen]. Berlin: Springer [u.a.], XVI, 307 S.