Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

Full length article

Identifying sustainable solid waste management barriers in practice using T

the fuzzy Delphi method
Tat Dat Buia, Feng Ming Tsaia, Ming-Lang Tsengb,c,*, MohD Helmi Alid
a
Department of Shipping and Transportation Management, National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan
b
Institute of Innovation and Circular Economy, Asia University, Taiwan
c
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taiwan
d
School of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kenbangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Solid waste management leads to resource loss and limited waste management approaches. Nevertheless, solid
Sustainable solid waste management waste management must be studied in terms of sustainability by both academicians and practitioners. There are
Solid waste management barrier barriers to understanding and challenges to maintaining sustainable solid waste management practices. Hence,
Fuzzy set theory this study collects a set of attributes, including seven aspects and 146 barriers, from the existing literature. The
Fuzzy Delphi method
barriers are the cause of poor sustainable solid waste management performance in practice due to limited re-
sources. Hence, this study aims to identify the major barriers presented as qualitative information; however, the
attributes need to be transformed into a comparable scale. This study applied the fuzzy Delphi method to acquire
valid and reliable attributes through qualitative information. The results show 44 essential barriers to sustain-
able solid waste management. Four aspects are included: (1) technical difficulties; (2) information sharing and
knowledge problems; (3) human resource limitations; and (4) financial and economic problems. The most im-
portant barriers are identified as household hazardous waste, insufficient funds for SWM research, local archi-
tecture, a lack of staff capability, and a lack of a standard process for data collection and analysis. The theoretical
and managerial implications are discussed.

1. Introduction be developed to realize these challenges as a valuable portfolio

The role of solid waste management (SWM) in improving sustain-
able development has become apparent (Ikhlayel, 2018). However,
SWM is facing management failures that lead to resource loss and
limited waste management approaches to emergencies and response
maintenance (Galante et al., 2010). SWM is a complex issue that in-
volves many technical, sociocultural, ecological, and political problems
(Chang et al., 2011). In this context, SWM is even more serious in
Vietnam, similar to other developing countries, due to high population
growth, unplanned and rapid urbanization, and serious health problems
due to insufficient public services (Guerrero et al., 2013; Khatib, 2011).
The practical system must address these difficulties, including in-
appropriate regulations, social control, low technical experience and
low financial resources that leave no resources for final safety handling
(Moghadam et al., 2009; Yukalang et al., 2017). Therefore, sustainable
solid waste management (SSWM) is needed to reconsider such chal-
lenges as they drive unsustainability and that approaches and attitudes
(Seadon, 2010; Aid et al., 2017). Hence, barriers remain to under-
standing these challenges, to find substitutes for unsustainable practices
and to integrate action plans that sustain waste management (Ikhlayel,
2018). Highlighting these barriers is a significant step towards im-
proving waste management consequences and implementing alter-
native solutions.
Improper SWM has been reported in prior studies (Ikhlayel, 2018;
Sharholy et al., 2008; Fernando, 2019). Shekdar and Tanaka (2004)
stated that SWM’s low social status would lead to strong apathy, which
is seen in the uncollected waste in many areas and the deterioration of
aesthetic and environmental qualities at uncontrolled disposal sites.
Shekdar (2009) reported that inappropriate design and poor opera-
tional management increase difficulties in identifying new sites for
disposal in terms of public opposition, the cost of land and a lack of
adequate land area. Moghadam et al. (2009) claimed that inadequate
funds, human resources and equipment reflect the low priority of SWM
compared to other municipal activities. Aid et al. (2017) argued that

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: btdat1991@gmail.com (T.D. Bui), chucktsai@email.ntou.edu.tw (F.M. Tsai), tsengminglang@asia.edu.tw (M.-L. Tseng),
mohdhelmiali@ukm.edu.my (M.H. Ali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104625
Received 27 May 2019; Received in revised form 10 August 2019; Accepted 30 November 2019
Available online 09 December 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T.D. Bui, et al.
there is an interplay between technical barriers and information-related
barriers that identify the potential of synergies and collaborations.
Fernando (2019) confirmed that the absence of a national policy has
caused tremendous negative environmental consequences and, despite
various programs being implemented under local governances with the
relevant authorities, has been unsuccessful in managing solid waste.
These issues lead to problems that impair human health and ultimately
result in an unsustainable economy, a damaged environment and bio-
logical losses (Sharholy et al., 2008). Thus, there is insufficient infra-
structure, weak strategic planning, a lack of legislation, staff capacity,
information systems, and engagement with programs, disorganized
waste management and financial issues that prevent SSWM (Yukalang
et al., 2017; Ikhlayel, 2018).
Prior studies have discussed the barriers to SSWM based on in-
dicator assessments (Srivastava et al., 2005; Aid et al., 2017). For in-
stance, Srivastava et al. (2005) applied strategic analysis to identify
threats and weaknesses to help municipal SWM mobilize and utilize
community resources. Aid et al. (2017) analyzed barriers to inter-or-
ganizational resource management and, in turn, uncover potential op-
portunities and risks in the waste management sector based on semi-
structured expert interviews. Yukalang et al. (2017) employed in-depth
interviews with individuals and focus groups to determine the barriers
to effective municipal SWM.
In reality, it is difficult to determine perceptions and judgments
from quantitative information. Linguistic ambiguity results in differ-
ences in meanings and interpretations of linguistic preferences because
linguistic preferences are considered to reflect perceptions. This study
proposes the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) to identify barriers to SSWM
to eliminate qualitative information and subjective preferences. Few
studies have addressed SSWM attribute justification with linguistic
preferences (Um et al., 2018; Yadav et al., 2017). Hence, the objective
of this study is to identify valid and reliable barriers to SSWM attributes
based on qualitative information.
Therefore, this study contributes as follows. (1) Collecting a valid
and reliable set of SSWM barriers; (2) understanding the barriers to
SSWM practice; and (3) forming an SSWM action plan for Vietnam. This
study provides guidelines for practitioners aiming to achieve SSWM
performance. The rest of this study is organized as follows. Section 2
addresses the SSWM barriers literature, the measurement attributes and
the proposed method. Section 3 discusses the case background and
describes the methods in detail. Then, the results using the FMD are
presented in Section 4. Section 5 provides the study’s implications. Fi-
nally, the study's limitations and suggestions for future study are given
in the last section.
2. Literature review
This section discusses the details of SSWM and the proposed barriers
that lead to poor performance. In addition, the proposed method is
addressed.
2.1. SSWM
Solid waste refers to waste produced from local neighborhoods,
commercial areas, industrial zones, or ordinary construction, as well as
from demolition processes and civic services (Ngoc and Schnitzer,
2009). Poor management of the waste stream is considered to have a
negative influence on health, the environment, and the economy. Rada
(2016) emphasized that given SWM, the preservation of environmental
safety is always a difficult issue because people generate increasing
amounts of waste as civilizations develop and generate increasing re-
quirements. Sisto et al. (2017) noted that abandoned or inappropriate
SWM results in serious problems, including harm to social health, da-
mage to ecological systems, deficiencies in biodiversity and negative
economic and social consequences. Kharat et al. (2018) claimed that
indiscriminate discarding of items and untreated pollution and waste
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625
problems increase ecological contamination, create environmental
pressures and even cause natural disasters. Rapid development, in-
creasing discrimination, and socioeconomic and political struggles;
hierarchy, responsibility and obligation issues; and international sti-
muli lead to local technical and nontechnical barriers that make SWM
immensely complex and uncertain (Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013).
Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to SSWM is necessary be-
cause SSWM is a system in which the resources used reflect human
demand for daily consumption and the sustainability of the natural
environment is ensured through appropriate waste management activ-
ities (Chang and Pires, 2015; Ikhlayel, 2018). SSWM must be capable of
handling waste production procedures and assessing the linkages be-
tween multiple effects from technical, societal and economic perspec-
tives. However, applications are not easy to implement because the
necessary assumptions are not realistic; quantifying the complexity
requires evaluating interfaces (Pires et al., 2011). Ngoc and Schnitzer
(2009) argued that increasing waste generation means that more en-
vironmental problems cannot be managed due to technical, financial,
public participation, institutional, regulatory and knowledge in-
adequacies. Asase et al. (2009) suggested that the elements influencing
the environmental issue of SSWM are a lack of control systems and
evaluation of the actual effects. Um et al. (2018) found that the sys-
tematic procedure of waste management is difficult to establish because
procedures are complex and time consuming when plans require gov-
ernment approval. These findings indicate that SSWM is still far from
approaching long-term targets.
Furthermore, SSWM not only is seen as a major player in enabling
resource transformation on a macro scale but also may produce new
business opportunities by radically developing a new approach to re-
source management (Aid et al., 2017). Singh et al. confirmed that
SSWM has developed by expanding the regulation of operational so-
lutions, such as landfills and hygiene, to offer higher-value operations,
such as materials recycling and energy recovery. Ikhlayel (2018) stated
that SSWM creates business and occupational opportunities by re-
cycling used materials and returning them to the value chain, which is
achieved by encouraging private sector involvement. Moreover, Lacy
and Rutqvist considered SSWM to play a significant role, given society’s
persistent demand for more a resource-efficient and circular economy.
Nevertheless, SSWM often faces problems when the local authorities are
incapable of confronting the shortage of financial support, adminis-
trative challenges, and the complexity of multidimensional systems
(Burnley, 2007; Sujauddin et al., 2008). The inadequate response to and
consequences of environmental degradation remain barriers, particu-
larly when developing sustainability (Mohammadi et al., 2019). Hence,
improving the evaluation and selection of an SWM solution is critical to
carrying out successful SSWM. It is necessary to indicate the barriers to
overcoming the disadvantages of SSWM.
2.2. Proposed method
Prior studies have approached SSWM barriers using qualitative as-
sessment (Srivastava et al., 2005; Aid et al., 2017; Yukalang et al.,
2017), and only a few studies have addressed attribute indication and
quantitative testing considering a sustainable approach, particularly
discussions based on linguistic preferences (Um et al., 2018). To in-
dicate the importance of SSWM barriers, this study proposes using an
FDM to screen out unnecessary attributes, form a hierarchical re-
lationship, and identify critical barriers based on experts’ judgment.
Fuzzy set theory is employed to convert experts’ linguistic preferences
into quantitative values based on human preferences, allowing high
uncertainty and retaining qualitative characteristics (Sadeghi et al.,
2016). The Delphi method is then adopted to assimilate all expert
judgments and eliminate unnecessary attributes (Tseng, 2009). This
combined method not only allows experts to barter their judgment
based on knowledge and experience but also simplifies a complex
problem by addressing the inherent uncertainty of a survey procedure
T.D. Bui, et al.
(Lee et al., 2018; Tseng et al., 2018).
This method has been employed in the literature. Chang et al.
(2011) exploited the FDM to obtain the crucial attributes for ap-
proaching hydrogen production technologies. Sanchez-Lezama et al.
(2014) applied this method to support uncertainty reduction from ex-
pert judgments when examining the features of the survey technique
and guaranteeing the quality of survey analysis. Jassbi et al. (2015)
offered a relational mode of organizational variables influencing com-
munities’ practice constitution. Tseng et al. (2015) identified the top-
ranking features of stakeholders’ considerations in sustainable supply
chain management and provided practical suggestions. Tseng and Bui
(2017) increased the accurateness of outcomes and reduced the un-
certainty of expert opinions to explore the efficiency of reinforcing
environmental policy. This method allows group decision making,
which addresses the number of selections by accomplishing rapid
convergence in predicting sentiments and then helping decision makers
shorten the time required to make decisions.
2.3. Proposed SSWM barriers
Prior studies have determined the influential attributes affecting
waste management systems in sustainability that facilitate technical,
environmental, financial, sociocultural, institutional and legislative
performance (Guerrero et al., 2013). However, these studies have
concentrated mainly on investigating strategic approaches to waste
minimization, increasing community awareness, and discarding reg-
ulation (Ajayi et al., 2017). The shortage of resources, notably funding,
equipment, capacity and skills, are bringing SSWM to the forefront
(Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). These systems are now presenting a com-
plicated challenge due to various attributes such as financial concerns,
land availability, infrastructure and facilities, time required, social ac-
ceptability and the impact they may have on the environment (Arıkan
et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2018; Soltani et al., 2015). Evolution is slowed
due to the difficulty of identifying barriers to policy and program im-
plementation, such as a lack of infrastructure, the capacity to follow
regulation, inadequate marketplace improvements, a lack of organiza-
tional experience and capability, knowledge barriers, a lack of quanti-
tative targets, and challenges in the economic ability to comply with
SSWM targets (Ikhlayel, 2018; Marshall and Farahbakhsh, 2013; Um
et al., 2018; Yukalang et al., 2017). Hence, this study proposes a set of
attributes including seven aspects and 146 barriers that comprise so-
ciocultural disadvantages (A1), financial and economic problems (A2),
technical difficulties (A3), operational weaknesses (A4), human re-
source limitations (A5), inappropriate regulatory and legislative fra-
meworks (A6), and information and knowledge problems (A7).
Bustos-Gallardo (2013) discussed how sociocultural disadvantages
(A1) may result in mass production and consumption, which have led
the current social system to face crises such as environmental con-
tamination, exhausted resources, and a surge of waste. This result can
be seen in the low social prominence of SWM and stronger apathy,
which can be explained by uncollected waste and the weakening of
artistic and ecological qualities in the environment (Shekdar and
Tanaka, 2004). Yukalang et al. (2017) stated that communication is
lacking between local government and the community and that there is
a lack of awareness among populations. Aid et al. (2017) indicated that
management may not have the capacity to identify and exploit potential
synergistic collaborations due to an unwillingness to cooperate, a mis-
trust of collaborative goals or doubts about fairness. Um et al. (2018)
suggested that the standard intended for waste and its recycled purpose
is unclear, which leads to social disbelief regarding recycled products.
Enormous amounts of generated waste are a consequence of rapid po-
pulation growth, economic and industrial development, and lifestyle
changes (Ikhlayel, 2018). Therefore, an efficient system that isolates the
influences opposing SSWM should be provided to improve public
awareness levels and require the effective participation of the com-
munity.
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625
Financial and economic problems (A2) arise from synergetic activ-
ities that are economically unsustainable or require unacceptable fi-
nancial risk, so stakeholders find them impossible to implement (Sakr
et al., 2011). This challenge becomes a quandary of inconceivable
magnitude on which both individual countries and international orga-
nizations must focus (Shekdar, 2009). Sharholy et al. (2007) and
Sujauddin et al. (2008) argued that the local government has failed to
design an SSWM system due to financial problems, given the major
expenditure required to provide the service, the lack of funds, resource
limitations, and users’ reluctance to pay. Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009)
found that there is an economic burden in terms of monetary capacity
and social affordability due to increased solid waste generation and
diversification created by increasing populations, changing consump-
tion patterns, income changes, urbanization and industrialization.
These findings indicate the urgency of reducing such financial and
economic barriers to enhance SSWM performance.
Prior studies suggest that the technical difficulties (A3) influencing
SSWM are associated with the absence of practical skills within in-
dividual, private and government organizations, weak infrastructure,
poor quality transportation, inadequate technologies and a lack of
consistent data (Moghadam et al., 2009; Fernando, 2019; Um et al.,
2018). Aid et al. (2017) revealed that there is a scarcity of technical
instruments that can be used to identify possible synergies and colla-
borations and that it may not be feasible to increase these resources in
every area. Um et al. (2018) argued that there are barriers to govern-
ment agreement to engage in recycling due to issues of potential harm.
SSWM strategies have failed to comprise a system, although it is em-
bedded in the technical practices of waste repurposing, waste separa-
tion, reuse, recycling, and ignition or waste-to-energy (Esmaeilian
et al., 2018; Sukholthaman and Sharp, 2016). Suitable technology
needs to be planned in coherence with waste quantities and char-
acteristics so that the system is in harmony with the prevalent operating
circumstances. Examining such barriers, beyond their technical aspects,
is required to improve waste stream management performance and
protect natural resources.
Shekdar (2009) defined operational systems as material control and
treatment procedures in which waste from different sources is collected,
separated, transported, processed and disposed; these steps are exe-
cuted by local government. Polidano (2000) proposed that operational
capacities could be achieved through the implementation of public
policy by associating institutional capabilities with environmental,
economic, social and technical issues to develop sustainability. How-
ever, this approach has not been successfully established due to in-
appropriate designs and poor operational management practices (A4)
(Shekdar, 2009). Sakr et al. (2011) stated that operational management
may not have the capability to recognize and achieve potential sy-
nergistic cooperation. Hence, traditional management approaches to
this problem must be reconsidered, as they create unsustainable so-
cieties with systems that fall short (Seadon, 2010). An effective SWM
system requires residents’ active participation, and public awareness
should be built to eliminate the negative impacts of waste on the en-
vironment and community as a fundamental provision (Ikhlayel, 2018).
Indicating operational weaknesses is essential for approaches to an ef-
ficacious SSWM.
Sharholy et al. (2008) and Moghadam et al. (2009) stated that there
are inadequate human resources (A5) mainly because the government
gives low priority to solid waste, with the end result being limited
training and personal skills in waste management techniques.
Vidanaarachchi et al. (2006) confirmed that SWM workers are asso-
ciated with low social status, which results in low motivation among
solid waste employees. Furthermore, the barriers also include the use of
an informal workforce in dangerous working conditions (Guerrero
et al., 2013; Khatib, 2011). Fernando (2019) showed that the majority
of environmental employees have little or no specialized background or
training in engineering and management, which leads to ineffective and
inefficient SWM. Although the SWM system has been amended, the staff
T.D. Bui, et al.
still have insufficient education to conduct their work, fulfill the role of
sanitation inspectors, develop public awareness, attend to adminis-
trative tasks in the office and perform fieldwork (Yukalang et al., 2017).
An intense emphasis on the absence of human resources is essential for
successful SSWM.
Nevertheless, inappropriate regulation and legislation (A6) are seen
as drivers of failure in SWM systems because practical policies com-
monly receive insufficient interpretation and application (Konteh,
2009). The uncertainty around implementing complex policies and
regulations serves as a barrier to instigating collaboration (van Beers
et al., 2007). Kihl and Aid (2016) reported that the legislation around
the waste classification of recycling material often results in expensive,
time-consuming and complicated governmental approval processes that
incidentally impede the reuse of valuable waste materials that could
provide subsidies for primary producers. Aid et al. (2017) argued that
unnecessary environmental legislation prevents positive environmental
activities and obstructs symbiotic transfers, such as the use of by-
products between organizations. These studies demonstrate the limited
capacity of governments to control SWM, as government actions are
frequently inadequate and inefficient (Khatib, 2011). Therefore, a
policy framework that integrates SSWM strategies is needed with re-
spect to availability standards and space for future generations
(Shekdar, 2009).
Additionally, the concept of information flows has major potential
to reduce the uncertainties related to the waste generation rate and to
attain effective operational planning to acknowledge this prospect, re-
sulting in making technology available to citizens as complex social-
behavioral systems (Esmaeilian et al., 2018). However, prior studies
have investigated the effects on SSWM and highlighted the lack of
professional knowledge and information sharing (A7) (Chung and Lo,
2008; Guerrero et al., 2013; Yukalang et al., 2017). Sakr et al. (2011)
noted that obstacles arise when there is a lack of information for action,
uncertainties in the required knowledge, or ambiguity in the informa-
tion on the market supply. Chung and Lo (2008) discussed the un-
available information and guidance related to environmental law, as it
is very scant in the public domain due to a lack of communication and
collaboration between local governments and communities. The pro-
vision of SSWM information is insufficient and needs to be adjusted to
allow easy assessment (Yukalang et al., 2017). Hence, SSWM must
overcome such information and knowledge barriers to improve general
knowledge and create awareness through education and technical
training (Hammed et al., 2018). The proposed barriers for the mea-
surement process are addressed in Table A1 in Appendix A.
3. Method
The SSWM background in Vietnam is discussed. Then, FDM is ex-
plained, and the analysis procedure is described.
3.1. Case background
The daily volume of solid waste in Vietnam is approximately
38,000 tons, at nearly 14 million tons per year (Vietnam Center for
Table 1
Transformation table of linguistic terms.
Linguistic terms (performance/importance) Corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers
Extreme (0.75, 1.0, 1.0)
Demonstrated (0.5, 0.75, 1.0)
Strong (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)
Moderate (0, 0.25, 0.5)
Equal (0, 0, 0.25)
4
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625
Environmental Monitoring Portal, 2018). It is important to implement
synchronous solutions, including waste separation at the source and
financial and technical mechanisms for waste disposal and recycling, to
effectively handle this amount of waste. In addition, the recovery and
disposal of discarded products is necessary to create conditions for
saving resources and overcoming the scattered and manual collection of
recycling that cause adverse impacts on the environment. However,
SWM in Vietnam addresses numerous barriers to achieving its sus-
tainable development goal.
Most solid waste is buried, thereby wasting land, when large
quantities could be recycled. In many areas, landfills are becoming
overloaded and seriously polluted. Overburdened waste dumps and
stored residuals are real environmental hazards. Furthermore, tech-
nology is inadequate, and policies are insufficient and do not syn-
chronize in the SWM system. The lack of technology and the lack of
investment resources for waste recycling also impede the system, and
Vietnam has not formed a linked market to promote recycling and
waste circulation. Therefore, it is necessary for the SWM system in
Vietnam to overcome these barriers to sustainability. Hence, this study
can help practitioners achieve a higher level of sustainable develop-
ment by identifying the barriers that result in negative SSWM perfor-
mance. This study forms a group of 17 experts, including 5 academi-
cians, 6 experts from the government sector and 6 experts from daily
SWM operations. These experts all have extensive experience in SWM in
Vietnam.
3.2. Fuzzy delphi method
Ishikawa et al. (1993) proposed the integration of fuzzy set theory
with the traditional Delphi method. In addition, Noorderhaben (1995)
applied FDM to reach a group decision by solving the fuzziness of ex-
pert judgments to improve the efficiency and quality of questionnaires.
Thus, the combination provided by FDM has the advantage of reducing
the number of interviews and the investigation time and offering a more
complete expression of experts’ knowledge. In other words, the FDM
can be applied to convert experts’ opinions into precise figures to fulfill
demand and generate additional benefits related to decision making
time and cost (Chen and Lee, 2013; Lee et al., 2018).
The value of the significance of attribute b is assessed by expert a as
j = (xab ; yab ; z ab) , a = 1,2, 3, …, n ; b = 1,2, 3, …, m ; then, weight jb of
n
element b is jb = (xb ; yb ; z b) , where xb = min (xab) , yb = ( 1 yab ) , and
1/ n
z b = max (z ab) . Thus, the linguistic terms and triangular fuzzy numbers
are transformed into linguistic values, as shown in Table 1.
To generate the convex combination value Db , the following equa-
tions are proposed by adopting a cut to generate the result (Wu et al.,
2016):
ub = z b (z b yb ), lb = xb (yb yxb ), b = 1,2, 3, …, m (1)
Generally, 0.5 is used to denote under the common situation. This
value can range from 0 to 1 based on whether the experts are positive or
negative perceivers. The precise value of Db can be generated as fol-
lows:
Triangular fuzzy membership functions for performance/importance
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Table 2
FDM round 1 – barriers screening out.
Initial barriers lb ub Db Decision

B1 0.009 0.866 0.435 Accepted

B2 (0.049) 0.924 0.450 Accepted
B3 0.266 0.984 0.558 Accepted
B4 (0.236) 0.736 0.309 Unaccepted
B5 0.625 1.000 0.656 Accepted
B6 0.020 0.855 0.433 Accepted
B7 (0.099) 0.974 0.462 Accepted
B8 (0.026) 0.901 0.444 Accepted
B9 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B10 0.030 0.845 0.430 Accepted
B11 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B12 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B13 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B14 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B15 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B16 0.010 0.865 0.435 Accepted
B17 (0.074) 0.949 0.456 Accepted
B18 (0.017) 0.892 0.442 Accepted
B19 (0.436) 0.936 0.359 Unaccepted
B20 (0.059) 0.934 0.452 Accepted
B21 (0.351) 0.851 0.338 Unaccepted
B22 (0.412) 0.912 0.353 Unaccepted
Fig. 1. Proposed analytical procedure. B23 (0.254) 0.754 0.314 Unaccepted
B24 0.258 0.992 0.560 Accepted
B25 (0.380) 0.880 0.345 Unaccepted
Db = (ub, lb) = [ub + (1 ) lb] B26 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
(2) B27 (0.042) 0.917 0.448 Accepted
B28 0.341 0.909 0.540 Accepted
where is utilized to describe the positivity level of a decision maker B29 0.006 0.869 0.436 Accepted
and to establish equilibrium across the fundamental judgments among B30 (0.054) 0.929 0.451 Accepted
the expert group. B31 0.034 0.841 0.429 Accepted
n
Then, = a = 1 (Db /n) is the threshold to filter the essential attri- B32 0.625 1.000 0.656 Accepted
butes. If Db , attribute b is accepted. Otherwise, it needs to be re- B33 0.309 0.941 0.548 Accepted
B34 (0.328) 0.828 0.332 Unaccepted
jected.
B35 (0.049) 0.924 0.450 Accepted
B36 (0.321) 0.821 0.330 Unaccepted
3.3. Proposed analytical procedure B37 (0.028) 0.903 0.444 Accepted
B38 (0.380) 0.880 0.345 Unaccepted
B39 (0.287) 0.787 0.322 Unaccepted
This study intends to evaluate experts’ perceptions of the major B40 0.274 0.976 0.556 Accepted
barriers to SSWM under the application of FDM. The method is im- B41 (0.015) 0.890 0.441 Accepted
plemented in two stages. In the first stage, the theoretical assessment of B42 (0.317) 0.817 0.329 Unaccepted
B43 (0.038) 0.913 0.447 Accepted
and proposed barriers to SSWM are collected from the literature and
B44 (0.009) 0.884 0.440 Accepted
expert consultants. Face-to-face interviews are conducted to assess the B45 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
experts’ knowledge and reliability. They are requested to indicate YES B46 0.000 0.875 0.437 Accepted
or NO for each barrier to confirm the validity. Then, the 2-round FDM is B47 (0.357) 0.857 0.339 Unaccepted
carried out in the second stage of this study to screen out unnecessary B48 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B49 0.006 0.869 0.436 Accepted
attributes and rank them based on their importance. The evaluation B50 (0.408) 0.908 0.352 Unaccepted
process is as follows (see Fig. 1). B51 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B52 (0.018) 0.893 0.442 Accepted
1 The probable attributes of SSWM barriers are collected from the B53 (0.037) 0.912 0.447 Accepted
B54 (0.417) 0.917 0.354 Unaccepted
literature. These proposed attributes are then finalized with the
B55 (0.342) 0.842 0.335 Unaccepted
experts through a group discussion. B56 (0.027) 0.902 0.444 Accepted
2 Round 1 FDM is employed to refine the essential attributes by ap- B57 0.274 0.976 0.556 Accepted
plying Eqs. (1) and (2). The questionnaire is created to allow the B58 (0.355) 0.855 0.339 Unaccepted
experts to complete an additional assessment based on the proposed B59 (0.049) 0.924 0.450 Accepted
B60 (0.425) 0.925 0.356 Unaccepted
barriers. B61 (0.002) 0.877 0.438 Accepted
3 Round 2 FDM assessment is executed to enhance the consistency and B62 (0.340) 0.840 0.335 Unaccepted
accuracy of measurement. From the round 1 result, the ques- B63 (0.363) 0.863 0.341 Unaccepted
tionnaire is reproduced to acquire the experts’ judgment for the B64 (0.053) 0.928 0.451 Accepted
B65 (0.415) 0.915 0.354 Unaccepted
best-performing evaluation. The FDM procedure is repeated to
B66 (0.279) 0.779 0.320 Unaccepted
generate the final set of SSWM barriers, and the important barriers B67 (0.099) 0.974 0.462 Accepted
are examined to offer precise implications for enhancing SSWM B68 (0.047) 0.922 0.449 Accepted
performance. B69 (0.364) 0.864 0.341 Unaccepted
B70 (0.077) 0.952 0.457 Accepted
B71 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
4. Results B72 (0.002) 0.877 0.438 Accepted
B73 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B74 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
This study proposed 146 barriers based on seven aspects of the in-
itial attributes. The summaries from rounds 1 and 2 of the FDM are (continued on next page)

5
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Table 2 (continued) Table 3

List of FDM - round 1 barriers result.
Initial barriers lb ub Db Decision
Initial set Renamed Barriers
B75 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B76 (0.036) 0.911 0.446 Accepted B1 B1 Social isolation between organizations
B77 (0.010) 0.885 0.440 Accepted B2 B2 Lack of engagement by the organization
B78 0.029 0.846 0.430 Accepted B3 B3 Lack of trust between organizations
B79 0.274 0.976 0.556 Accepted B5 B4 Aversion to change by the organization
B80 (0.018) 0.893 0.442 Accepted B6 B5 Resistance from community
B81 (0.461) 0.961 0.365 Unaccepted B7 B6 Lack of social responses participation
B82 (0.074) 0.949 0.456 Accepted B8 B7 Lack of engagement with waste separation activities
B83 (0.365) 0.865 0.341 Unaccepted B10 B8 Failing to observe signs
B84 (0.419) 0.919 0.355 Unaccepted B16 B9 Public health problems
B85 (0.244) 0.744 0.311 Unaccepted B17 B10 Household unsustainable behavior
B86 0.258 0.992 0.560 Accepted B18 B11 Lack of sufficient SWM performance and recognition
B87 (0.351) 0.851 0.338 Unaccepted B20 B12 Poor cooperation from residents
B88 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted B24 B13 Shortage of internally available capital
B89 (0.052) 0.927 0.451 Accepted B27 B14 Low results due to limited access to material
B90 0.341 0.909 0.540 Accepted B28 B15 Division of income and costs between organizations
B91 (0.000) 0.875 0.438 Accepted B29 B16 Uncertain financial margins
B92 (0.037) 0.912 0.447 Accepted B30 B17 Investment cycles differences
B93 0.013 0.862 0.434 Accepted B31 B18 High transaction costs
B94 0.625 1.000 0.656 Accepted B32 B19 Unstable market
B95 0.320 0.930 0.545 Accepted B33 B20 Unclear waste management fee collection system
B96 (0.333) 0.833 0.333 Unaccepted B35 B21 Invaluable waste
B97 (0.057) 0.932 0.452 Accepted B37 B22 Lack of finance funding for SWM handling capacities
B98 (0.331) 0.831 0.333 Unaccepted B40 B23 Immature market for waste recycling.
B99 (0.001) 0.876 0.438 Accepted B41 B24 Insufficient funds for SWM research.
B100 (0.351) 0.851 0.338 Unaccepted B43 B25 By-product requires complex processing before reuse
B101 (0.254) 0.754 0.314 Unaccepted B44 B26 Mis-match between industries
B102 0.274 0.976 0.556 Accepted B46 B27 Unsuitable material reuse
B103 (0.015) 0.890 0.441 Accepted B49 B28 Irregularity of waste collection,
B104 0.034 0.841 0.429 Accepted B52 B29 Alternative to final waste disposal
B105 (0.001) 0.876 0.438 Accepted B53 B30 Improper waste separation facilities.
B106 (0.011) 0.886 0.440 Accepted B56 B31 Increasing areas and quantity of wastes
B107 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted B57 B32 Problems with household hazardous waste
B108 (0.030) 0.905 0.445 Accepted B59 B33 Uncontrolled disposal sites
B109 (0.343) 0.843 0.336 Unaccepted B61 B34 Low percentage of on-site waste sorting.
B110 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted B64 B35 Lack of waste treatment capacity
B111 (0.006) 0.881 0.439 Accepted B67 B36 Lack of integrated solid waste management program
B112 (0.074) 0.949 0.456 Accepted B68 B37 Lack of necessary instruments and modern technology
B113 (0.328) 0.828 0.332 Unaccepted B70 B38 Lack of control over operation of disposal site
B114 (0.019) 0.894 0.442 Accepted B72 B39 Holistic facility management
B115 (0.018) 0.893 0.442 Accepted B76 B40 Local architecture
B116 0.290 0.960 0.552 Accepted B77 B41 Poor segregation activities
B117 (0.311) 0.811 0.328 Unaccepted B78 B42 Inadequate solid waste management;
B118 (0.030) 0.905 0.445 Accepted B79 B43 Inadequate Policy
B119 0.258 0.992 0.560 Accepted B80 B44 Lack of waste separation at source of its generation
B120 0.001 0.874 0.437 Accepted B82 B45 Lack of Engagement with Programs
B121 0.341 0.909 0.540 Accepted B86 B46 Lack of systematic planning of waste recycling facilities.
B122 (0.412) 0.912 0.353 Unaccepted B89 B47 No longer term sustainability thinking
B123 (0.021) 0.896 0.443 Accepted B90 B48 The focus on fixing individual problems
B124 (0.342) 0.842 0.336 Unaccepted B91 B49 Lack of the viability of the waste management system
B125 (0.254) 0.754 0.314 Unaccepted B92 B50 Reliance on linear extrapolations of recent short-term
B126 0.258 0.992 0.560 Accepted events.
B127 (0.380) 0.880 0.345 Unaccepted B93 B51 Absence of a strong controlling method
B128 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted B94 B52 Lack of homogeneity in the indicators used:
B129 (0.042) 0.917 0.448 Accepted B95 B53 Interventions may be irreversible
B130 0.341 0.909 0.540 Accepted B97 B54 Insolubility of the problem
B131 (0.328) 0.828 0.332 Unaccepted B99 B55 Lack of time and resources
B132 (0.033) 0.908 0.446 Accepted B102 B56 Lower labor productivity and quantity
B133 (0.009) 0.884 0.440 Accepted B103 B57 Lack of staff capability
B134 0.298 0.952 0.551 Accepted B104 B58 Staff have too great a workload
B135 (0.316) 0.816 0.329 Unaccepted B105 B59 Working conditions unsafety
B136 (0.461) 0.961 0.365 Unaccepted B106 B60 Lack of systems to ensure that staff are rotated through a
B137 (0.198) 0.698 0.300 Unaccepted range of job roles
B138 0.266 0.984 0.558 Accepted B108 B61 Tough administrative requirements
B139 0.361 0.889 0.535 Accepted B111 B62 Policy supporting the primary extraction industry
B140 0.015 0.860 0.434 Accepted B112 B63 Complex, uncertain legislation
B141 (0.328) 0.828 0.332 Unaccepted B114 B64 Conflicting interests
B142 (0.019) 0.894 0.442 Accepted B115 B65 Legal provisions
B143 (0.018) 0.893 0.442 Accepted B116 B66 Public apathy
B144 0.290 0.960 0.552 Accepted B118 B67 Producer risk and changing regulation.
B145 (0.311) 0.811 0.328 Unaccepted B119 B68 Incomplete WM related regulations.
B146 (0.029) 0.904 0.445 Accepted B120 B69 Lack of enforcement.
Threshold 0.406 B121 B70 Lack of institutional capacity
B123 B71 Absence of local strategy
B126 B72 Poor enforcement of legislation
(continued on next page)

6
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Table 3 (continued) Table 5

FDM List- round 2- barriers screening out.
Initial set Renamed Barriers
Barriers lb ub Db Decision
B129 B73 Lack of necessary information
B130 B74 Limited knowledge about the market B1 0.090 0.785 0.415 Accepted
B132 B75 Misinterprets time lags between intervention and effects B2 0.095 0.780 0.414 Accepted
B133 B76 Lacking contact and communication between companies B3 0.348 0.902 0.538 Accepted
B134 B77 Lack of information, education and communication B4 (0.135) 0.635 0.284 Unaccepted
resource materials for human resource development B5 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B138 B78 Lack of response and over-correction to employing B6 0.147 0.728 0.401 Accepted
stronger interventions B7 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B139 B79 Lack of a standard process of data collection and analysis B8 0.030 0.845 0.430 Accepted
B140 B80 Lack of information system and training program B9 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B142 B81 Implements irreversible interventions rather than B10 0.147 0.728 0.401 Accepted
mechanisms B11 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B143 B82 Limited information on potential benefits B12 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B144 B83 Lack of public–private–government partnership. B13 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B146 B84 Insufficient communication B14 0.145 0.730 0.401 Accepted
B15 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
B16 0.126 0.749 0.406 Accepted
B17 0.306 0.944 0.548 Accepted
Table 4 B18 0.062 0.813 0.422 Accepted
FDM- round 2 for aspects. B19 (0.378) 0.878 0.345 Unaccepted
B20 0.001 0.874 0.437 Accepted
lb ub Db Ranking
B21 (0.243) 0.743 0.311 Unaccepted
B22 (0.337) 0.837 0.334 Unaccepted
A1 (0.332) 0.832 0.333 7
B23 (0.126) 0.626 0.282 Unaccepted
A2 (0.057) 0.932 0.452 4
B24 0.267 0.983 0.558 Accepted
A3 0.309 0.941 0.548 1
B25 (0.286) 0.786 0.321 Unaccepted
A4 (0.362) 0.862 0.340 6
B26 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
A5 (0.060) 0.935 0.452 3
B27 0.029 0.846 0.430 Accepted
A6 (0.016) 0.891 0.442 5
B28 0.417 0.833 0.521 Accepted
A7 0.330 0.920 0.542 2
B29 0.106 0.769 0.411 Accepted
Threshold 0.444
B30 0.009 0.866 0.435 Accepted
B31 0.145 0.730 0.401 Accepted
B32 0.625 1.000 0.656 Accepted
shown in Tables 2–6, along with their weight and threshold for B33 0.362 0.888 0.534 Accepted
screening out attributes. In round 1, the initial set of SSWM barriers in B34 (0.213) 0.713 0.303 Unaccepted
Table A1 in Appendix A is evaluated based on the experts’ experience B35 0.017 0.858 0.433 Accepted
B36 (0.203) 0.703 0.301 Unaccepted
and judgment. After the evaluation, the linguistic terms are transformed
B37 0.053 0.822 0.424 Accepted
into corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers, as shown in Table 1. The B38 (0.286) 0.786 0.321 Unaccepted
FDM is applied to refine the important barriers, which are obtained in B39 (0.161) 0.661 0.290 Unaccepted
Table 2 with the threshold = 0.406. There are 84 barriers that are B40 0.298 0.952 0.550 Accepted
accepted and subsequently renamed, as shown in Table 3. B41 0.073 0.802 0.419 Accepted
B42 (0.197) 0.697 0.299 Unaccepted
Then, the refined set is used for input into round 2. In this round, the B43 0.036 0.839 0.429 Accepted
barriers set from round 1 along with the seven proposed aspects are B44 0.083 0.792 0.417 Accepted
reproduced for the experts’ redefinition. Table 4 shows the Delphi panel B45 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
with the importance weight and ranking of aspects. The results show B46 0.097 0.778 0.413 Accepted
B47 (0.251) 0.751 0.313 Unaccepted
that 4 aspects have an importance level above the threshold
B48 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
( = 0.444), and they are ranked from first to fourth as important as- B49 0.106 0.769 0.411 Accepted
pects; these include technical difficulties (A3), information sharing and B50 (0.331) 0.831 0.333 Unaccepted
knowledge problems (A4), human resource limitations (A5), and fi- B51 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
nancial and economic problems (A2). Table 5 denotes the degree of B52 0.069 0.806 0.420 Accepted
B53 0.038 0.837 0.428 Accepted
approval by the experts for the refined barrier from Table 3, in which B54 (0.346) 0.846 0.337 Unaccepted
44 barriers are accepted ( = 0.374), while the other 40 barriers are B55 (0.231) 0.731 0.308 Unaccepted
rejected. The final results are shown in Table 6, with the top 5 barriers B56 0.054 0.821 0.424 Accepted
ranked from most to least important being problems with household B57 0.298 0.952 0.550 Accepted
B58 (0.249) 0.749 0.312 Unaccepted
hazardous waste (B18), insufficient funds for SWM research (B12), local
B59 0.018 0.857 0.433 Accepted
architecture (B22), a lack of staff capability (B31), and a lack of a B60 (0.359) 0.859 0.340 Unaccepted
standard process for data collection and analysis (B42). These variables B61 0.094 0.781 0.414 Accepted
are then employed to provide implications for practice. B62 (0.228) 0.728 0.307 Unaccepted
B63 (0.261) 0.761 0.315 Unaccepted
B64 0.011 0.864 0.435 Accepted
5. Implications B65 (0.343) 0.843 0.336 Unaccepted
B66 (0.152) 0.652 0.288 Unaccepted
This section discusses the theoretical and managerial implications. B67 (0.073) 0.948 0.456 Accepted
The theoretical contribution of this study is deepened, and managerial B68 0.021 0.854 0.432 Accepted
B69 (0.262) 0.762 0.315 Unaccepted
guidelines for practitioners are provided.
B70 (0.033) 0.908 0.446 Accepted
B71 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
5.1. Theoretical implications B72 0.094 0.781 0.414 Accepted
B73 0.081 0.794 0.417 Accepted
B74 0.138 0.737 0.403 Accepted
This study provides theoretical understanding by identifying the
aspects that lead to poor SSWM performance. The results showed that it (continued on next page)

7
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Table 5 (continued) aspect that causes poor SSWM performance. These difficulties exist
because management and solid waste treatment techniques have not
Barriers lb ub Db Decision
been appropriately applied due to technical shortcomings regarding the
B75 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted general management process (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009). There is no
B76 0.040 0.835 0.427 Accepted focus on solutions to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover energy from
B77 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted waste, leading to a high volume of disposal, a lack of land funds, and
B78 0.000 0.500 0.250 Unaccepted
environmental pollution. Increased waste generation creates more en-
B79 0.298 0.952 0.550 Accepted
B80 0.069 0.806 0.420 Accepted
vironmental problems that are challenging to manage, and the im-
B81 (0.425) 0.925 0.356 Unaccepted plementation of SWM plans for local sustainable development remains
B82 (0.027) 0.902 0.444 Accepted slow. Furthermore, the scarcity of technical instruments makes it
B83 (0.264) 0.764 0.316 Unaccepted challenging to establish possible synergies and collaborations (Aid
B84 (0.348) 0.848 0.337 Unaccepted
et al., 2017). Therefore, technical requirements for SWM must be syn-
Threshold 0.374
chronized for waste management systems. There is a need for localities
and cooperating partners in both the public and private sectors to ac-
is essential to address technical difficulties (A3), information sharing tively seek appropriate technical tools to approach sustainability.
and knowledge problems (A4), human resource limitations (A5) and Proper technical implementation based on low cost technology that is
financial and economic problems (A2). technically and legally feasible to ensure efficient pollution treatment in
The result shows that technical difficulties (A3) are an important a way that is acceptable to the community is urgently required.
The information sharing and knowledge problems (A4) confirm the

Table 6
FDM List- round 2 aspect and barriers result.
Aspects Round 1 set Renamed Barriers Ranking

A1 Socio-culture disadvantages B1 B1 Social isolation between organizations 7 32

B2 B2 Lack of engagement by the organization 35
B3 B3 Lack of trust between organizations 7
B6 B4 Lack of social responses participation 44
B8 B5 Failing to observe signs 20
B10 B6 Household unsustainable behavior 43
A2 Financial and economic problems B14 B7 Low results due to limited access to material 4 41
B16 B8 Uncertain financial margins 39
B17 B9 Investment cycles differences 6
B18 B10 High transaction costs 26
B20 B11 Unclear waste management fee collection system 13
B24 B12 Insufficient funds for SWM research. 2
A3 Technical difficulties B27 B13 Unsuitable material reuse 1 19
B28 B14 Irregularity of waste collection, 9
B29 B15 Alternative to final waste disposal 37
B30 B16 Improper waste separation facilities. 14
B31 B17 Increasing areas and quantity of wastes 42
B32 B18 Problems with household hazardous waste 1
B33 B19 Uncontrolled disposal sites 8
B35 B20 Lack of waste treatment capacity 16
B37 B21 Lack of necessary instruments and modern technology 24
B40 B22 Local architecture 3
B41 B23 Poor segregation activities 29
B43 B24 Inadequate Policy 21
B44 B25 Lack of waste separation at source of its generation 31
A4 Operational weaknesses B46 B26 Lack of systematic planning of waste recycling facilities. 6 36
B49 B27 Lack of the viability of the Waste Management System 38
B52 B28 Lack of homogeneity in the indicators used: 27
B53 B29 Interventions may be irreversible 22
A5 Human resource limitations B56 B30 Lower labor productivity and quantity 3 25
B57 B31 Lack of staff capability 3
B59 B32 Working conditions unsafety 17
A6 Inappropriate regulation and legislation framework B61 B33 Tough administrative requirements 5 33
B64 B34 Conflicting interests 15
B67 B35 Producer risk and changing regulation. 10
B68 B36 Incomplete WM related regulations. 18
B70 B37 Lack of institutional capacity 11
B72 B38 Poor enforcement of legislation 33
A7 Information sharing and knowledge problems B73 B39 Lack of necessary information 2 30
B74 B40 Limited knowledge about the market 40
B76 B41 Lacking contact and communication between companies 23
B79 B42 Lack of a standard process of data collection and analysis 3
B80 B43 Lack of information system and training program 28
B82 B44 Limited information on potential benefits 12

8
T.D. Bui, et al.
tremendous challenge of gaining insights into complex SSWM pro-
blems, particularly when lacking the information and professional
knowledge needed to accomplish activities and address the issues of
uncertainty in the public domain or the marketplace (Chung and Lo,
2008; Sakr et al., 2011). There are barriers to accessing reliable in-
formation related to waste treatment knowledge regarding the mate-
rials left over for recycling or reuse, waste treatment, and waste dis-
posal. Hence, effective social communication networks are required to
share the necessary information with SWM stakeholders (government
officers, homeowners’ associations, private organizations or seminars/
trainings), and this aspect is the only one where academic theory cor-
relates with practice. Because knowledge and information are positively
related to education, attitude and behavior, it can be argued that these
are significant aspects for overcoming the insufficient provision waste
management system during operational processes. When aiming to
develop sustainable waste management systems, developing commu-
nication strategies and easy information assessment methods is neces-
sary to access knowledge, skills, and efficiency and to enhance opera-
tional and fiscal management in the context of SSWM.
Human resource limitations (A5) generate similar concerns. This
study supports the claims of inadequate human resources with limited
training and personnel skills in waste management techniques
(Sharholy et al., 2008; Moghadam et al., 2009). There are still relatively
few employees with specialized waste management skills, while the
assigned tasks are relatively large and complex. There is a shortage of
human resources with expertise in hazardous waste management, and
they are concentrated in municipal areas, leading to many inadequacies
in legal implementation in localities. In addition, waste workers are
associated with a low social position, which leads investment in
workers to receive low priority (Vidanaarachchi et al., 2006). There-
fore, successful SSWM requires a wide spectrum of skills in the work-
force in keeping with the demands of the system. To move towards
SSWM, professional staff must understand the optimal waste manage-
ment strategies. With the promotion of training activities and learning
and fostering knowledge, there is an urgent need to improve SWM
employees’ skills to meet current and future work requirements.
In addition, the impacts of financial and economic problems (A2)
are also confirmed. This study proved that the government has failed to
design an SSWM system due to financial problems from major ex-
penditures and insufficient monetary sustenance (Sharholy et al., 2007;
Sujauddin et al., 2008). Population increases, changes in consumption
behavior, economic development, changes in income, urbanization and
industrialization have led to an increase in the amount of solid waste
and the diversity of solid waste generated (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009).
However, resource mobilization, invested in the construction of treat-
ment areas and solid waste treatment plants, is still scarce; investment
in the management and treatment of solid waste is inefficient. Despite
the support given in solid waste treatment facilities, capacity and waste
treatment performance are not satisfactory. Moreover, financial in-
vestment in SWM is inadequate: the fee for collection and treatment
services is not appropriate, so investment in facilities and technologies
as well as the collection, transportation and treatment of waste is still
fragmented, spontaneous and ineffective. The current approach to fiscal
resources for SWM is not sustainable. As a prerequisite, the SWM
system must receive adequate investment. Capital spending for de-
signing and constructing technical and managerial infrastructure, col-
lection and transport facilities, and treatment zones is important.
Overall, major SSWM challenges consist of financial and economic
constraints, a lack of human resources, and a lack of technical instru-
ments associated with information sharing and knowledge problems.
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625
There is another phenomenon that makes the current form of waste
management unsustainable in the long term: along with the strong
development of urbanization, the amount of generated waste is in-
creasing and becoming increasingly complex, requiring appropriate
facilities for management. Hence, an interdisciplinary approach that
can gradually improve environmental-related issues in SSWM is ne-
cessary (Ikhlayel, 2018). Precisely establishing and operating SSWM in
relation to other integrated aspects must receive adequate attention to
meet development requests.
5.2. Managerial implications
The important barriers, including household hazardous waste (B18),
insufficient funds for SWM research (B12), local architecture (B22), a
lack of staff capability (B31), and a lack of a standard process of data
collection and analysis (B42), are discussed to provide practical insights
for SSWM in Vietnam. A linkage action plan to help improve perfor-
mance is delivered.
Household hazardous waste (B18) consists of plastics, paper, glass,
textiles, cellophane, metal objects, paint, pesticides, leftover health care
products, batteries with heavy metals and disposed wood treated with
antifungal and anti-termite chemicals. This type of waste is unwieldy
because it is composed of a wide range of composite materials.
However, waste separation at the source is rare due to the low
awareness among the community about the needs of SWM. Waste is not
classified appropriately, making recycling more difficult, while im-
ported advanced technologies are not effective. Therefore, changing
routine activities in the community can have a positive impact on the
situation by educating people about natural materials and energy re-
source consumption. Suitable technical tools to separate different kinds
of solid waste need to maintain hygienic, healthy and tidy urban and
open country environments. It is suggested that social media platforms
should be employed to launch complaints, provide waste-handling
knowledge, and enhance community awareness and attitudes.
Simultaneously, practitioners should innovate the waste collection
system by establishing a waste separation inventory center for trans-
portation and intermediate storage and improve the waste treatment
method.
To achieve sustainability, innovation is a vital requirement.
However, investment in SWM studies does not receive adequate at-
tention. Insufficient funds for SWM research (B12) are one of the bar-
riers that must be overcome. Most financial aid for SWM projects needs
to pass complicated approval procedures to allow for implementation
and planning, and few projects are willing to invest the necessary de-
gree of time, energy or resources. Thus, investment in local research
and knowledge generation should be emphasized before implementing
SWM interventions. Focusing on understanding the character of waste
generation, the local attitudes towards waste and waste handling, the
governance of waste and its dynamics, the opportunities and constraints
for reprocessing, and value chains for business development in SWM are
important to continually develop innovative technologies that result in
optimal program outcomes, thus increasing high-quality waste man-
agement services and minimizing the risk of distribution.
Local architecture (B22) is also an important barrier that needs to be
noted because it offers improvement or merges efficient waste-proces-
sing technologies with scenery design, accommodation, restoration, and
leisure activities. However, the current design may increase the alie-
nation of imported waste treatment technology and reduce motivation
to connect with the community because it is not integrated with the
surrounding environment. As the core waste treatment technology itself
T.D. Bui, et al.
remains constant, asynchronous local architecture and design meth-
odologies and operations may lead to unsustainable waste transporta-
tion, collection, landfills and persistent unhealthy prerogatives. Thus,
architecture that aims to minimize the negative environmental impact
of buildings through the efficient and modern use of materials that are
energy saving and environmentally friendly is encouraged for practice.
It is suggested that local authorities develop an ecological architecture
design to ensure the availability of current resources in the long run. A
sustainable approach to construction that develops smart growth while
maintaining architectural traditions and classical design can bring in-
creases in energy efficiency with minimal delivery, processing, and
transportation burdens for SWM.
A lack of staff capability (B31) is a major problem that leads to
ineffective SWM systems. Despite the major workload throughout the
whole system, human resources in SWM include mainly collectors and
manual workers. There is a shortage of specialized employees who are
familiar with complex technology and who have the required profes-
sional knowledge, and the system reveals weaknesses in management
and operations. For that reason, the demand for human resources in
SSWM is high. There is an urgent need to develop staff capabilities to
meet management requirements, strengthen facilities and equipment,
and apply science and technology. The study proposes that practitioners
should aim to improve the qualifications of officials (managers, exten-
sion workers, and researchers) from the central to local levels through
training regarding the operation and preservation of SWM.
Collaboration with university or research institutes is recommended to
educate and train professional labor and thereby to help provide high-
quality human resources that are capable of undertaking the responsi-
bilities related to SWM.
To handle the lack of a standard process of data collection and
analysis (B42), it is suggested that basic data elements or combinations
be developed to synthesize relevant information about complex SWM
phenomena for functional description and to support decision makers
by allowing them to compare reference points or measure completion.
It is important for practitioners to have data on the current state of the
local system. Background data include sources of generation, quantity
and composition of solid waste, treatment technology, financial re-
sources, stakeholder participation, institutions, and policies and reg-
ulations. It is suggested that practitioners design a common information
management system for SWM that is highly integrated from the local to
national levels; this system can provide transparent waste treatment
data and environmental standards for easy access. Using background
data, it is possible not only to identify the challenges and opportunities
of solid waste management systems but also all solutions.
In summary, Vietnam’s SWM system is not effective because there
are various problems that have not yet been addressed to maintain
social achievements and the environment. Developing a suitable solu-
tion given local conditions is important and urgent. These barriers re-
quire special attention and appropriate solutions to achieve accurate
SSWM performance.
6. Conclusions
SSWM has been identified as a critical issue in recent decades;
however, barriers remain that prevent the system from achieving sus-
tainable development performance. Hence, this study attempts to
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625
investigate experts’ perceptions of the problems to indicate the major
barriers that result in poor SSWM. A set of 146 barriers categorized into
seven aspects, including sociocultural disadvantages, financial and
economic problems, technical difficulties, operational weaknesses,
human resource limitations, inappropriate regulation and legislation
frameworks, and information and knowledge problems, is proposed for
analysis using FDM. Fuzzy set theory is applied to transform qualitative
information from experts into quantitative data. The Delphi method is
adopted to screen out unnecessary attributes and rank them according
to their importance. Thus, this study assessed experts’ linguistic pre-
ferences to provide valid and reliable results with both academic and
practical implications.
This study finds that technical difficulties, information sharing and
knowledge problems, human resource limitations, and financial and
economic problems are the most important aspects that have a negative
influence on SSWM. In particular, 44 of 146 barriers are indicated as
major barriers, among which household hazardous waste, insufficient
funds for SWM research, local architecture, a lack of staff capability,
and a lack of a standard process of data collection and analysis are
defined as the top important SSWM barriers. These barriers play a
significant role in undermining the sustainability of the SWM system,
which requires practitioners to pay great attention to sustainability
targets.
This study contributes to the SSWM literature by identifying the
major attributes causing unsustainable SWM and offers fundamental
theoretical and managerial implications. Essential technical difficulties,
information sharing and knowledge problems, human resource limita-
tions, and financial and economic problems have been found to limit
SSWM development. The problems of household hazardous waste, in-
sufficient funds for SWM research, local architecture, a lack of staff
capability, and the lack of a standard process of data collection and
analysis require special focus. Guidelines are implied for practitioners
to make appropriate decisions to overcome and foster SSWM. The ac-
tion plans are focused on these barriers and propose a better instrument
to achieve the sustainable development of the SWM system.
Nevertheless, limitations exist. First, the existing barriers were se-
lected from prior studies, which makes the proposed framework in-
complete. The extension should be promoted in future studies. Second,
this study employed the FDM to assess the attributes; however, the
method still displays weaknesses. The reliability of the technique is
based on expert confirmation. Therefore, it is recommended that an
added technical validity evaluation be constructed and that the sample
size be extended for future studies to avoid biases affecting the final
result. Third, generalizability is also a limitation because this study
focused only on the SWM in Vietnam. Investigating another country or
a comparison between the academic and practice sectors should be
conducted to enrich the literature.
Declaration of Competing Interest
No conflict of interests.
Acknowledgement
This project is partially supported from MOST108-2221-E-468 -004
-MY2.
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Appendix A

Table A1
Proposed measure barriers.
Barriers References

B1 Social isolation between organizations Aid et al., 2017

B2 Lack of engagement by the organization Aid et al., 2017
B3 Lack of trust between organizations Aid et al., 2017
B4 Aversion to collaboration and dependencies Aid et al., 2017
B5 Aversion to change by the organization Aid et al., 2017
B6 Resistance from community Aid et al., 2017
B7 Lack of social responses participation Yukalang et al., 2017
B8 Lack of engagement with waste separation Yukalang et al., 2017
activities
B9 Lack of attendance at community meetings Yukalang et al., 2017
B10 Failing to observe signs Yukalang et al., 2017
B11 Lack of Co-Operation Yukalang et al., 2017
B12 Community negative attitudes Yukalang et al., 2017
B13 Lack of concern for waste management Yukalang et al., 2017
B14 Publics blaming Yukalang et al., 2017
B15 Societal and management apathy Moghadam et al., 2009
B16 Public health problems Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013
B17 Household unsustainable behavior Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013
B18 Lack of sufficient SWM performance and Esmaeilian et al., 2018
recognition
B19 Population growth and immigration Yukalang et al., 2017
B20 Poor cooperation from residents Yukalang et al., 2017
B21 Limited environmental awareness, education Moghadam et al.
and attitudes among the society.
B22 Insufficient public participation Esmaeilian et al., 2018
B23 High investment costs Aid et al., 2017
B24 Shortage of internally available capital Aid et al., 2017
B25 Difficulty to acquire external investment capital Aid et al., 2017
B26 Long return on investment Aid et al., 2017
B27 Low results due to limited access to material Aid et al., 2017
B28 Division of income and costs between Aid et al., 2017
organizations
B29 Uncertain financial margins Aid et al., 2017
B30 Investment cycles differences Aid et al., 2017
B31 High transaction costs Aid et al., 2017
B32 Unstable market Aid et al., 2017
B33 Unclear waste management fee collection Yukalang et al., 2017
system
B34 Insufficient funding Yukalang et al., 2017
B35 Invaluable waste Yukalang et al., 2017
B36 Cut out of benefits. Aid et al., 2017
B37 Lack of finance funding for SWM handling Marshall and
capacities Farahbakhsh, 2013
B38 Lack of financial commitments Fernando, 2019
B39 Low value of recyclable waste Yukalang et al., 2017
B40 Immature market for waste recycling. Yuan, 2013
B41 Insufficient funds for SWM research. Yuan, 2013
B42 Distance-related barriers Aid et al., 2017
B43 By-product requires complex processing before Aid et al., 2017
reuse
B44 Mis-match between industries Aid et al., 2017
B45 Technical solutions not on commercial scale Aid et al., 2017
B46 Unsuitable material reuse Aid et al., 2017
B47 Lack of technical knowledge Aid et al., 2017
B48 Lack of waste collecting points, Yukalang et al., 2017
B49 Irregularity of waste collection, Yukalang et al., 2017
B50 Inadequate waste collection vehicles, Yukalang et al., 2017
B51 Limited access to waste bins, Yukalang et al., 2017
B52 Alternative to final waste disposal Yukalang et al., 2017
B53 Improper waste separation facilities. Yukalang et al., 2017
B54 Volume of waste Yukalang et al., 2017
B55 Space limitations Yukalang et al., 2017
B56 Increasing areas and quantity of wastes Moghadam et al., 2009
B57 Problems with household hazardous waste Moghadam et al., 2009
B58 Problems with plastic waste Moghadam et al., 2009
B59 Uncontrolled disposal sites Moghadam et al., 2009
(continued on next page)

11
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Table A1 (continued)

Barriers References

B60 Unavailability of door-step primary collection Moghadam et al., 2009

pattern in the city.
B61 Low percentage of on-site waste sorting. Yuan, 2013
B62 Poor waste reduction technique Yuan, 2013
B63 Improper disposal of waste Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013
B64 Lack of waste treatment capacity Fernando, 2019
B65 Insufficient land for final dumping, composting, Fernando, 2019
and recycling
B66 Vehicle requirement shortage Fernando, 2019
B67 Lack of integrated solid waste management Fernando, 2019
programmed
B68 Lack of necessary instruments and modern Fernando, 2019
technology
B69 Insufficient infrastructure for advanced Esmaeilian et al., 2018
technologies
B70 Lack of control over operation of disposal site Yukalang et al., 2017
B71 Flat land and flooding location Yukalang et al., 2017
B72 Holistic facility management Aid et al., 2017
B73 Inadequacy of proper disposal methods Fernando, 2019
B74 Insufficient waste infrastructures Yukalang et al., 2017
B75 Climate change Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013
B76 Local architecture Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013
B77 Poor segregation activities Fernando, 2019
B78 Inadequate solid waste management; Ngoc and Schnitzer,
2009
B79 Inadequate Policy Yukalang et al., 2017
B80 Lack of waste separation at source of its Moghadam et al., 2009
generation
B81 The resource scarcity Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013
B82 Lack of Engagement with Programs Yukalang et al., 2017
B83 Poor Communication Yukalang et al., 2017
B84 Lack of information Yukalang et al., 2017
B85 Inappropriate media Yukalang et al., 2017
B86 Lack of systematic planning of waste recycling Yuan, 2013
facilities.
B87 Low charge for landfilling construction waste. Yuan, 2013
B88 Low control of the SWM Cervantes et al., 2018
B89 No longer term sustainability thinking Seadon, 2010
B90 The focus on fixing individual problems Seadon, 2010
B91 Lack of the viability of the SWM system Seadon, 2010
B92 Reliance on linear extrapolations of recent Seadon, 2010
short-term events.
B93 Absence of a strong controlling method Fernando, 2019
B94 Lack of homogeneity in the indicators used: Cervantes et al., 2018
B95 Interventions may be irreversible Seadon, 2010.
B96 Time lags between intervention and effects are Seadon, 2010.
underestimated
B97 Insolubility of the problem Yukalang et al., 2017
B98 Other priorities in the company aid et al., 2017
B99 Lack of time and resources aid et al., 2017
B100 Lack of Planning and Strategy Yukalang et al., 2017
B101 Disregard or undervaluing the side effects of Seadon, 2010
intervention
B102 Lower labor productivity and quantity Fernando, 2019
B103 Lack of staff capability Yukalang et al., 2017
B104 Staff have too great a workload Yukalang et al., 2017
B105 Working conditions unsafety Ikhlayel, 2018
B106 Lack of systems to ensure that staff are rotated Yukalang et al., 2017
through a range of job roles
B107 Demanding logistic requirements Aid et al., 2017
B108 Tough administrative requirements Aid et al., 2017
B109 Permit requirements Aid et al., 2017
B110 Lack of supporting legislation Aid et al., 2017
B111 Policy supporting the primary extraction Aid et al., 2017
industry
B112 Complex, uncertain legislation Aid et al., 2017
B113 Inadequate and weak Legislation Yukalang et al., 2017
B114 Conflicting interests Yukalang et al., 2017
B115 Legal provisions Moghadam et al., 2009
B116 Public apathy Moghadam et al., 2009
B117 People wait for the government s action. Moghadam et al., 2009
(continued on next page)

12
T.D. Bui, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625

Table A1 (continued)

Barriers References

B118 Producer risk and changing regulation. Aid et al., 2017

B119 Incomplete WM related regulations. Yuan, 2013
B120 Lack of enforcement. Ngoc and Schnitzer,
2009
B121 Lack of institutional capacity Fernando, 2019
B122 Lack of partnerships and public cooperation Fernando, 2019
B123 Absence of local strategy Fernando, 2019
B124 Poor regulatory framework Fernando, 2019
B125 Political interference Fernando, 2019
B126 Poor enforcement of legislation Esmaeilian et al., 2018
B127 Weak and inadequate regulation Yukalang et al., 2017
B128 Political influence at the organization level Yukalang et al., 2017
B129 Lack of necessary information Aid et al., 2017
B130 Limited knowledge about the market Aid et al., 2017
B131 Limited information on collaboration methods Aid et al., 2017
B132 Misinterprets time lags between intervention Seadon, 2010
and effects
B133 Lacking contact and communication between Aid et al., 2017
companies
B134 Lack of information, education and Srivastava et al., 2005
communication resource materials for human
resource development
B135 The lack of integrated approach and system for Srivastava et al., 2005
SWM.
B136 Poor inter-sectorial co-ordination among the Srivastava et al., 2005
stakeholders.
B137 Disregards or undervalues the side effects of Seadon, 2010
intervention
B138 Lack of response and over-correction to Seadon, 2010
employing stronger interventions
B139 Lack of a standard process of data collection and Esmaeilian et al., 2018
analysis
B140 Lack of information system and training Yukalang et al., 2017
program
B141 Focuses on collecting and analyzing immaterial Seadon, 2010
data;
B142 Implements irreversible interventions rather Seadon, 2010
than mechanisms
B143 Limited information on potential benefits Aid et al., 2017
B144 Lack of public–private–government partnership. Srivastava et al., 2005
B145 Lack of transparency Cervantes et al., 2018
B146 Insufficient communication Yukalang et al., 2017

References
Aid, G., Eklund, M., Anderberg, S., Baas, L., 2017. Expanding roles for the Swedish waste
management sector in inter-organizational resource management. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 124, 85–97.
Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., Akinade, O.O., Alaka, H.A., Owolabi, H.A., 2017.
Critical management practices influencing on-site waste minimization in construction
projects. Waste Manag. 59, 330–339.
Ali, Y., Aslam, Z., Dar, H.S., Mumtaz, U., 2018. A multi-criteria decision analysis of solid
waste treatment options in Pakistan: Lahore City—a case in point. Environ. Syst.
Decis. 38 (4), 528–543.
Arıkan, E., Şimşit-Kalender, Z.T., Vayvay, Ö., 2017. Solid waste disposal methodology
selection using multi-criteria decision making methods and an application in Turkey.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 403–412.
Asase, M., Yanful, E.K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J., Amponsah, S., 2009. Comparison of
municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the
cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Waste Manag. 29 (10), 2779–2786.
Burnley, S.J., 2007. A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United
Kingdom. Waste Manag. 27 (10), 1274–1285.
Bustos-Gallardo, B., 2013. The ISA crisis in Los Lagos Chile: A failure of neoliberal en-
vironmental governance? Geoforum 48, 196–206.
Cervantes, D.E.T., Martínez, A.L., Hernández, M.C., de Cortázar, A.L.G., 2018. Using in-
dicators as a tool to evaluate municipal solid waste management: a critical review.
Waste Manag. 80, 51–63.
Chang, N.-B., Pires, A., 2015. Sustainable Solid Waste Management: a Systems
Engineering Approach. Wiley‐IEEE Press, New Jersey.
Chang, P.L., Hsu, C.W., Chang, P.C., 2011. Fuzzy Delphi method for evaluating hydrogen
production technologies. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (21), 14172–14179.
Chen, C.A., Lee, S.R., 2013. Developing the country brand of Taiwan from the perspective
of exports. Asian J. Empir. Res. 3 (9), 1223–1236.
Chung, S.S., Lo, C.W., 2008. Local waste management constraints and waste adminis-
trators in China. Waste Manag. 28 (2), 272–281.
Esmaeilian, B., Wang, B., Lewis, K., Duarte, F., Ratti, C., Behdad, S., 2018. The future of
waste management in smart and sustainable cities: a review and concept paper.
Waste Manag. 81, 177–195.
Fernando, R.L.S., 2019. Solid waste management of local governments in the Western
Province of Sri Lanka: an implementation analysis. Waste Manag. 84, 194–203.
Galante, G., Aiello, G., Enea, M., Panascia, E., 2010. A multi-objective approach to solid
waste management. Waste Manag. 30 (8-9), 1720–1728.
Guerrero, L.A., Maas, G., Hogland, W., 2013. Solid waste management challenges for
cities in developing countries. Waste Manag. 33 (1), 220–232.
Hammed, T.B., Wandiga, S.O., Mulugetta, Y., Sridhar, M.K.C., 2018. Improving knowl-
edge and practices of mitigating green house gas emission through waste recycling in
a community, Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Manag. 81, 22–32.
Ikhlayel, M., 2018. Indicators for establishing and assessing waste management systems
in developing countries: a holistic approach to sustainability and business opportu-
nities. Bus. Strategy Dev. 1 (1), 31–42.
Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., Mieno, H., 1993. The
max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 55 (3), 241–253.
Jassbi, A., Jassbi, J., Akhavan, P., Chu, M.T., Piri, M., 2015. An empirical investigation for
alignment of communities of practice with organization using fuzzy Delphi panel.
Vine 45 (3), 322–343.
Kharat, M.G., Murthy, S., Kamble, S.J., Raut, R.D., Kamble, S.S., Kharat, M.G., 2018.
Fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis for environmentally conscious solid waste
treatment and disposal technology selection. Technol. Soc.
Khatib, I.A., 2011. Municipal solid waste management in developing countries: further
challenges and possible opportunities. Int. J. Integr. Waste Manag. 35–48.
Kihl, A., Aid, G., 2016. Driving forces and inhibitors of secondary stock extraction. Open
Waste Manag. J. 9 (1).
Konteh, F.H., 2009. Urban sanitation and health in the developing world: reminiscing the

13
T.D. Bui, et al.
nineteenth century industrial nations. Health Place 15 (1), 69–78.
Lee, C.H., Wu, K.J., Tseng, M.L., 2018. Resource management practice through eco-in-
novation toward sustainable development using qualitative information and quanti-
tative data. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 120–129.
Marshall, R.E., Farahbakhsh, K., 2013. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Waste Manag. 33 (4), 988–1003.
Moghadam, M.A., Mokhtarani, N., Mokhtarani, B., 2009. Municipal solid waste man-
agement in Rasht City, Iran. Waste Manag. 29 (1), 485–489.
Mohammadi, M., Jämsä-Jounela, S.L., Harjunkoski, I., 2019. Optimal planning of muni-
cipal solid waste management systems in an integrated supply chain network.
Comput. Chem. Eng. 123, 155–169.
Ngoc, U.N., Schnitzer, H., 2009. Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in
Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manag. 29 (6), 1982–1995.
Noorderhaben, N., 1995. Strategic Decision Making. Addison-Wesley, UK.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., Chang, N.B., 2011. Solid waste management in European coun-
tries: a review of systems analysis techniques. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (4),
1033–1050.
Polidano, C., 2000. Measuring public sector capacity. World Dev. 28 (5), 805–822.
Rada, E.C., 2016. Solid Waste Management: Policy and Planning for a Sustainable Society.
Apple Academic Press, New Jersey, USA.
Sadeghi, J., Mousavi, S.M., Niaki, S.T.A., 2016. Optimizing an inventory model with fuzzy
demand, backordering, and discount using a hybrid imperialist competitive algo-
rithm. Appl. Math. Model. 40 (15-16), 7318–7335.
Sakr, D., Baas, L., El-Haggar, S., Huisingh, D., 2011. Critical success and limiting factors
for eco-industrial parks: global trends and Egyptian context. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (11),
1158–1169.
Sanchez-Lezama, A.P., Cavazos-Arroyo, J., Albavera-Hernandez, C., 2014. Applying the
Fuzzy Delphi Method for determining socio-ecological factors that influence ad-
herence to mammography screening in rural areas of Mexico. Cadernos de saúde
pública 30, 245–258.
Seadon, J.K., 2010. Sustainable waste management systems. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (16-17),
1639–1651.
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2008. Municipal solid waste
management in Indian cities–A review. Waste Manag. 28 (2), 459–467.
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Vaishya, R.C., Gupta, R.D., 2007. Municipal solid waste char-
acteristics and management in Allahabad, India. Waste Manag. 27 (4), 490–496.
Shekdar, A.V., 2009. Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach for
Asian countries. Waste Manag. 29 (4), 1438–1448.
Shekdar, A.V., Tanaka, M., 2004. Integrated Approach for Sustainable Solid Waste
Management in Some Asian Countries, CD-ROM of ISWA 2004 World Congress.
Sisto, R., Sica, E., Lombardi, M., Prosperi, M., 2017. Organic fraction of municipal solid
waste valorisation in southern Italy: the stakeholders’ contribution to a long-term
strategy definition. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 302–310.
Soltani, A., Hewage, K., Reza, B., Sadiq, R., 2015. Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria
14
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104625
decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: a review.
Waste Manag. 35, 318–328.
Srivastava, P.K., Kulshreshtha, K., Mohanty, C.S., Pushpangadan, P., Singh, A., 2005.
Stakeholder-based SWOT analysis for successful municipal solid waste management
in Lucknow, India. Waste Manag. 25 (5), 531–537.
Sujauddin, M., Huda, S.M.S., Hoque, A.R., 2008. Household solid waste characteristics
and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Waste Manag. 28 (9), 1688–1695.
Sukholthaman, P., Sharp, A., 2016. A system dynamics model to evaluate effects of source
separation of municipal solid waste management: a case of Bangkok, Thailand. Waste
Manag. 52, 50–61.
Tseng, M.L., 2009. A causal and effect decision making model of service quality ex-
pectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (4),
7738–7748.
Tseng, M.L., Bui, T.D., 2017. Identifying eco-innovation in industrial symbiosis under
linguistic preferences: a novel hierarchical approach. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1376–1389.
Tseng, M.L., Wu, K.J., Chiu, A.S., Lim, M.K., Tan, K., 2018. Service innovation in sus-
tainable product service systems: improving performance under linguistic pre-
ferences. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 203, 414–425.
Tseng, M., Lim, M., Wong, W.P., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-
loop network hierarchical approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (3), 436–461.
Um, N., Kang, Y.Y., Kim, K.H., Shin, S.K., Lee, Y., 2018. Strategic environmental assess-
ment for effective waste management in Korea: a review of the new policy frame-
work. Waste Manag. 82, 129–138.
Van Beers, D., Bossilkov, A., Corder, G., Van Berkel, R., 2007. Industrial symbiosis in the
Australian minerals industry: the cases of Kwinana and Gladstone. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1),
55–72.
Vidanaarachchi, C.K., Yuen, S.T., Pilapitiya, S., 2006. Municipal solid waste management
in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka: problems, issues and challenges. Waste Manag.
26 (8), 920–930.
Vietnam Center for Environmental Monitoring Portal, 2018. Tổng cục Môi trường: Đánh
giá, lựa chọn mô hình xử lý chất thải rắn để nhân rộng tại các địa phương. Aug 29
Retrieved from. http://cem.gov.vn/VN/TINTRANGCHU_Content/tabid/330/cat/
115/nfriend/3751242/language/vi-VN/Default.aspx.
Wu, K.J., Liao, C.J., Chen, C.C., Lin, Y., Tsai, C.F., 2016. Exploring eco-innovation in
dynamic organizational capability under incomplete information in the Taiwanese
lighting industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181, 419–440.
Yadav, V., Bhurjee, A.K., Karmakar, S., Dikshit, A.K., 2017. A facility location model for
municipal solid waste management system under uncertain environment. Sci. Total
Environ. 603, 760–771.
Yuan, H., 2013. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management in
construction projects. Ecol. Indic. 24, 476–484.
Yukalang, N., Clarke, B., Ross, K., 2017. Barriers to effective municipal solid waste
management in a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 14 (9), 1013.