ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

An approach to tackling the environmental and health impacts of

municipal solid waste disposal in developing countries
M.K.O. Ayomoha, S.A. Okeb,, W.O. Adedejic, O.E. Charles-Owabad
a
Department of Systems Engineering, University of Lagos, Nigeria
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Lagos, Nigeria
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yaba College of Technology, Nigeria
d
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Received 5 October 2005; received in revised form 18 January 2007; accepted 29 January 2007
Available online 23 March 2007

Abstract

Indiscriminate disposal of municipal solid waste in developing countries poses severe environmental and health threats. The study
proposes a new method for dealing with these problems. The hybrid structural interaction matrix (HSIM) was used to prioritise major
identifiable environmental health factors arising from improper solid waste disposal. The simplistic resource allocation model was
adopted to ensure optimality in the allocation of resources to prioritised factors. The study indicates that tackling environmental health
impacts from the most prioritised negative disposal factors through optimal allocation of resources, will either reduce or eliminate the
impacts associated with subsequent less prioritised factors that are direct consequences of the highly prioritised negative factors. The
method proposed will aid decision makers in knowing which set of systemic factors are to be given preference and to what extent at given
periods in time.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Municipal solid wastes; Waste disposal; Hybrid structural interaction matrix; Resource disbursement; Prioritisation

1. Introduction significantly to the increasing volume and toxicity of waste

The 21st century has experienced heightened economic
activities due to the industrial civilisation that has
characterised countries worldwide. Ziadat and Mott
(2005) note that the progression of modern civilisation
and associated continuous increase in population world-
wide contribute significantly to the increase in the quantity
and variety of waste generated. The ever-increasing
consumption of resources results in huge amounts of solid
wastes from industrial and domestic activities, which pose
significant threats to human health (Frosch, 1996).
Sangodoyin and Ipadeola (2000) state that the simple
nature and relatively small volume that characterised waste
in the past have been changing with the advent of
industrialisation and urbanisation. Continuing advance-
ment in science and technology is also, contributing
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sa_oke@yahoo.com (S.A. Oke).
generated (Sangodoyin and Ipadeola, 2000). For example,
advancements in aviation technology have led to an
increasing number of people patronising airports and
airline services. Consequently, the aviation industry world-
wide has a reputation for being a major polluter with
airports perceived to have negative environmental effects in
terms of waste production (Pitt et al., 2002).
Wastes are usually classified into different categories
such as biodegradable (i.e. decomposable wastes) and non-
biodegradable (i.e. non-decomposable wastes). Further
classification based on source could be categorised as
municipal (residential and commercial), industrial, and
construction and demolition wastes. This paper focuses on
municipal solid wastes.
The generation of wastes is not the contention but the
disposal of generated wastes. The threat posed by
inappropriate disposal of waste in the developing world
could be readily observed in the streets of towns and cities
that are littered daily with wastes. The campaign against

0301-4797/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.040
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.K.O. Ayomoh et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114
indiscriminate waste disposal also seems to have lost
its substance in many parts of the developing world.
For instance, improper disposal of organic solid waste
has serious environmental and health consequences.
Such practices contribute to widespread environmental
pollution as well as the spread of diseases (Gulec et al.,
2001).
Many experts have expressed grave concerns about
improper waste treatment and disposal. Townsend et al.
(2004) considered the implications of leaching of CCA-
treated wood for waste disposal. Other scholars have
suggested various measures for waste treatment, including
recycling, sanitary landfilling and incineration to produce
energy (Hjelmar, 1996; Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh, 2004).
Some positive achievements have been made in the design
and implementation of waste disposal systems, such as the
design and construction of sanitary landfills (Bacon and
McGrail, 2003). In some developing economies, a change
of attitude, from dumping of wastes in inappropriate places
to its economic utilisation through adequate treatment and
processing is advancing. Sangodoyin and Olorunfemi
(1996) reported the use of livestock wastes on small-
cultivated plots in Nigeria for economic utilisation of their
nutrients. However, Laughlin and Varangu (1991) criti-
cised governments for not giving much attention and
incentives to investors in waste disposal systems. The
authors stated that in many developing countries, govern-
ments have traditionally supported and encouraged
mining, logging, and the extraction of petroleum-based
products, through a series of favourable policies. However,
industries that refine and recycle secondary materials do
not have the same favourable tax incentives available to
make their activities cost-effective.
The ills of inappropriately disposed municipal solid
wastes are quite numerous to be mentioned. Health
deterioration, accidents, flood occurrences, and environ-
mental pressures are just a few of the negative effects.
Other environmental effects also include pollution of
surface and underground waters, unpleasant odour, pest
infestation and gas explosions. The perils associated with
inappropriate solid waste disposal, and associated environ-
mental health impacts should therefore be of utmost
concern to waste management experts (Themelis, 2002).
If waste pollution persists unchecked into the future, it may
lead to unprecedented health casualties.
The World Health Organisation (WHO), governments,
local health authorities, waste planning and disposal
authorities have over the years set standards and laws
regarding municipal waste disposal. These include;
(i) legislations relating to hazardous wastes; (ii) pollution
control which sometimes requires a licence from environ-
mental protection agencies before ‘‘controlled waste’’ could
be disposed in landfills or incinerators (Wills, 1995);
(iii) Environmental Protection Acts (EPA) (Wills, 1995);
(iv) and the principle of polluter-pays that requires a
polluter to finance the collection and disposal, or treatment
of its wastes (Geraghty, 2003).
109
These standards and laws have not been effectively
implemented, particularly due to inadequate management
capabilities and misappropriation of resources. The pro-
blem is further compounded in the developing world where
due to poverty individuals and organisations pursue
survivability rather than environmental improvement. As
a result, it is common to see heaps of landfills scattered
around places of domicile with severe environmental
impacts. Programmes such as; (i) creating awareness and
conducting training on municipal solid waste prevention;
(ii) public education programmes on recycling and compos-
ing of municipal solid wastes; (iii) purchase of equipment or
materials to initiate or expand the recovery or processing of
recyclable materials; and (iv) preparation of municipal solid
waste management plans are often lacking. The paper
examines environmental and health effects of inappropriate
municipal solid waste disposal using the hybrid structural
interaction matrix (HSIM) approach (Oke and Ayomoh,
2005). A resource allocation model, which is primarily
dependent on the weight value of each factor, that is, a
representation of their priority ordering was also incorpo-
rated to devise a measure for allocating resources to
identified disposal impacts.
2. Methodology
The HSIM concept presents a new way of examining the
environmental health implications of municipal solid waste
disposal, by integrating a weighted factor that enables
numerical analysis of ranked factors. The application of
the HSIM concept enables the formulation of dynamic
models in resource allocation. This provides a useful tool for
resource decision making, similar to other applications in
areas such as water resource planning (Hyde et al., 2005) and
data mining principles applied in the simulation of resource
allocation plans on farms (Ekasingh et al., 2005). Another
similar tool is the use of multi-objective optimisation
approach in resource allocation (Xevi and Khan, 2005).
The HSIM has been successfully tested in manufacturing
systems, particularly in maintenance resource planning
systems (Oke and Ayomoh, 2005), and in prioritising safety
engineering resources (Ayomoh and Oke, 2006).
In this study, some identifiable environmental health
impacts associated with improper municipal solid
waste disposal practices in developing countries were
identified, prioritised and weighted in importance, depend-
ing on the number of subordinate factors attached to a
factor. The simplistic resource allocation model was
adopted in allocating resources to the identified factors
based on the computed normalised weight of factors. The
purpose is to ensure optimality in resource allocation in
respect of the priority ordering of the factors. The HSIM
concept thus proposed in this study, adopts a root-cause
approach to dealing with environmental health impacts of
municipal solid waste by allocating more resources to the
most important negative environmental effects that arise
from inappropriate waste disposal.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
110 M.K.O. Ayomoh et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114
2.1. Identified health limiting factors
In this section, a brief description of the factors resulting
from inappropriate solid waste disposal, and their health
impacts are presented. However, an alternative approach
could be adopted by researchers interested in comparing
frameworks (Kay et al., 2000). The identified factors
provide the basis for the conceptual framework of the
proposed model. The factors, numbering from one to ten
are as shown below
1. Impedes breathing: People in affected areas, in an effort
to protect themselves from polluted air often cover their
noses while undertaking their activities. This is done at
the expense of the inevitable process of respiration.
2. Air pollution: The ambient air of affected areas is
undoubtedly polluted. This is confirmed by the irritating
odour perceived all around the affected areas. Also
present in the affected areas are varieties of microscopic
organisms clogged together in the ambient air.
3. Water pollution: When water bodies are converted to
waste disposal sites, they become polluted. The health
status of the users of such water sources cannot be
guaranteed especially when used for domestic purposes
(Walia, 1995; Barel-Cohen et al., 2006).
4. Exposure to pathogens: The entire areas affected by
illicit disposal practices are exposed to contaminants.
5. Causes ailment: Since the individuals in affected
communities are prone to disease outbreak, they
become susceptible to ailments of all sort.
6. Deteriorating health: This can result from frequent
ailments.
7. Induces body irritation: Vomiting, salivating, body
itches, are examples of irritations which could result
from exposure to pollutants from wastes.
8. Catalyses high blood pressure: The external body
reactions mentioned above have significant internal
effects. After a while, the cumulative internal stresses
could result in high blood pressure.
9. Soil pollution: Resulting from hazardous wastes and
decomposing organic wastes (Chih-Ju, 2006).
10. Death from diseases: Due to persistent exposure to
harmful pathogens in the environment and ailments.
2.2. Prioritisation of factors
2.2.1. The HSIM concept
The HSIM concept as introduced here, explains the
relationships between improper waste disposal systems and
environmental health. Unlike the structural interaction
matrix (SIM) concept, which shows the hierarchical
ordering of factors using the principle of subordination
and the hierarchical tree structured diagram (HTSD), the
HSIM in addition, integrates a weighting factor for further
numerical analysis of the factors in the hierarchy.
In the HSIM concept, a given element pair may interact
in several ways. However, only an interaction according to
some particular contextual relationship is relevant to the
problem under consideration. Often, contextual relations
consider orientations among factors influencing a system.
As a result, the principle of operation of HSIM has
orientation and direction associated with it. This results in
a special form of transitivity such that if eij ¼ 1, then
eji ¼ 0. Thus, if there is a relevant interaction between
elements i and j, then there cannot be a relevant interaction
between elements j and i. In this paper, the contextual
relationship used to develop the HSIM is thus defined as
follows: ‘‘does the occurrence of factor i depend on the
occurrence of factor j?’’ After a pair-wise relation of
factors, a no response by the decision-maker attracts 0
in the specified elemental space while yes attracts 1 (see
Table 1).
Mathematically, this is written as
(
1 if i depends on the occurrence of j;
eij ¼
0 if i does not depend on the occurrence of j;
where eij represents an element in row i and column j.
Fig. 1 explains the step-by-step procedure required to
establish the HSIM for a given set of factors. This is
followed by Fig. 2 which illustrates the basic steps required
to obtain the HTSD. The HTSD displays the prioritisation
order of a set of components or factors in a hierarchical
manner. It relies on the results obtained from HSIM. It is
described occasionally as a tree because its structure is such
that line segments or edges join a set of elements or
vertices. There can be one and only one path between every
pair of vertices.
2.2.2. Weight determination for prioritised factors
Weighting model: The model below was used to
determine the weight/intensity of importance of the
prioritised factors.
   
N SFi b
I RFi ¼  M SR þ ðM SR  CÞ ,
T NF T NF
M PSF
C¼  M SR ,
T NF
b ¼ N SFi þ 1,
where I RFi is the intensity of importance rating of factor i,
N SFi the number of subordinate factors to a particular
factor i, M PSF the maximum possible subordinate factors,
C the constant, b=T NF the variant ratio, T NF the total
number of factors, M SR the maximum scale rating.
2.2.3. Weight normalisation
The process of normalisation was carried out through
the following procedure:
1. A column matrix of the ratings was obtained as shown
in Table 2 for the 10 factors.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.K.O. Ayomoh et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114 111

Start Start

Step 1: List factors and number them serially

Step 1: Starting from the first row of SIM, locate

Establish a contextual relationship for these factors e.g. all elemental spaces containing “1”.
Step 2: “does factor i depend on factor j for actualisation?”

Draw a square matrix of dimension (n+1). Where n is the

total number of factors considered
Step 3: Step 2: Form subordination by using arrows to connect row
elements to the respective column elements where eij=1.
Divide diagonally the first elemental box of the
matrix and insert an i at the lower half and a j at the
upper half of the box
Step 4:

Number the row elements and the column elements from 1 to n

Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2 for the entire matrix

Step 5:
Carryout a pair-wise comparison of a row-
column element using the contextual relationship

Step 6:
Does the If an element a is subordinate to two or more elements b,
pair-wise relationship agrees Step 4: c , d e.t.c and b is in turn subordinate to c and d, reduce
with the contextual number of arrows by drawing only one arrow from a to
relationship? b; b to c e.t.c
Step 7:
No
Yes
Fill elemental space eij with “1”

Step 8: Fill elemental space eij with “0”

Repeat step4 for all subordinates until all subordinates
Step 5: are connected by only one arrow line, forming
hierarchy.
Repeat processes 6-9 until the entire matrix is filled up
Step 9:

Step 10: End

Fig. 1. A flow diagram for HSIM development. End

2. The nth root of each rating was determined where n is Fig. 2. A flow diagram showing HTSD framework.
the total number of factors considered.
3. The summation of the results in step 2 was computed.
4. The nth root for each factor in step 2 was divided by the 2.2.4. Resource allocation model
summation in step 3. In order to mitigate the effects of the identified health
limiting factors, the need arises for a model that could
These steps could be transformed into a model as distribute resources optimally in respect of the priority
follows: ordering of the different factors. The simplistic resource
allocation model below takes into cognisance the weight
1=n
X of each factor for an optimal resource distribution. It
N wi ¼ Pn i 1=n
, implies that highly prioritised factors that are the likely
i¼1 X i
root cause or initiating factors need more resource
where N wi is the normalised weight for factor i, N the total attention. This model opts for problem solving from the
number of factors considered, X i the initial value of factor i root cause and not just the effects. Below is a generalised
before normalisation. form of the model proposed for optimality in resource
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
112 M.K.O. Ayomoh et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114

distribution: Table 1
HSIM showing pair-wise relationship among factors
N wi i j
C i ¼ Pn  CT,
i¼1 N wi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X
n
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CT ¼ C i N wi ¼ C i N wi þ C iþ1 N wiþ1 þ C iþ2 N wiþ2 þ    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i¼1 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
þ C iþn1 sN wiþn1 þ C iþn N wiþn , 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
6 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
where, C T is the total available resources, N wi the 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
normalised weight of factor i, C i the resources available 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to each factor. 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
However, the model assumes that the factors are easily
identifiable. A shortcoming of the method is that it may not
be assured that it is completely unbiased.
4. Discussion
2.2.5. Resource allocation to identified factors
The present study prioritised the factors, which result
In this section, the normalised weights of the factors
from inappropriate solid waste disposal practices in
considered are introduced into the developed resource
developing countries. This was followed by a structured
allocation model. As stated earlier, the values for C i varies
order of subordination in a descending order of importance
from one factor to the other. However, factors on the same
(Ayomoh and Oke, 2006). As shown in Fig. 3, factors 2, 3,
priority level are assumed to be of equal importance hence
and 9 were accorded the highest priority level. They
apportioned the same resource quantity:
represent factors that are in direct contact with the
X
10 disposed solid wastes. Any environmental mishap on the
CT ¼ C i N wi ¼ C 1 N w1 þ C 2 N w2 þ C 3 N w3 þ C 4 N w4 health of an affected community begins with these factors.
i¼1 The second level of priority contains factors 1, 7, and 4.
þ C 5 N w5 þ C 6 N w6 þ C 7 N w7 þ C 8 N w8 þ C 9 N w9 These factors are the direct consequences of the factors on
þ C 10 N w10 . the top of the hierarchy. Factors in the second level are
directly involved in the initiation of subsequent factors on
3. Results the third and fourth hierarchy levels, respectively. Others
are factors 6 and 10 both on the fifth level of priority.
Table 1 represents the outcome of HSIM for the factors The intensity of importance of the different health
considered in this study while Fig. 3 shows the HTSD. factors arising from indiscriminate solid wastes disposal are
Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the weighting model in Section shown in Table 3 which illustrates the weight of each factor
2.2.2, the number of subordinate factors and weighting/ in relation to both the subject matter and other factors
intensity of importance rating of the factors, respectively. considered. The scale rating was assumed to range from 0
As demonstrated in Table 3, factors 2 and 3 were rated to 9 representing the fundamental digits (Oke and
highest among the factors, whilst factors 6 and 10 were the Ayomoh, 2005). The principle of weighting or assigning
least rated in terms of intensity of importance. Table 4 intensity of importance to factors is dependent on the
shows the outcome of the normalised weight for the number of subordinate factors available to a factor. The
considered factors. The normalised weights were calculated basis for this is to aid further numerical analysis of
as follows: prioritised factors.
X
10 The normalised weight of the factors was also computed.
CT ¼ C i N wi ¼ 0:12C 1 þ 0:13C 2 þ 0:13C 3 þ 0:12C 4 The summation of the normalised weight for the factors
i¼1 considered is usually equal to one. This makes it easy to
þ 0:11C 5 þ 0:08C 6 þ 0:12C 7 þ 0:12C 8 express the ratio of proportionality of the different factors.
As seen in the resource allocation model, the normalised
þ 0:12C 9 þ 0:08C 10 .
weight was used as the basis for allocating resources to
Although the normalisation factor weights were com- factors. This approach reveals that a factor i may have an
puted with the same constant value C, different nth root of equal weight value as another factor j, yet is lower than it in
X i were obtained as well as different normalised weight for the hierarchical position. This is shown in factors 1, 7, and
the factors. Factors 2 and 3 have the highest intensity of 9. Although with an equal weight value, because factor 9
importance rating of factors (the nth root of X i ) and the has been prioritised as a likely root cause of environmental
normalised weight for factors ðN wi Þ. health mishap, it is placed on a higher hierarchy than
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.K.O. Ayomoh et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114 113

Air pollution (2) Water pollution (3)

Soil pollution (9)

Places impediment on Induces body irritation Exposure to pathogens

breathing (1) (7) (4)

Catalyses high blood

pressure (8)

Causes ailment (5)

Deteriorating health
(6) Death (10)

Actualisation relationships among factors

Fig. 3. HTSD showing hierarchical ordering of factors.

Table 2 Table 4
Subordinate factors in the HTSD framework Normalised weight of factors ðN wi Þ

Factor Number of subordinate Factor Number of subordinate Factor number C I RFi 1=n X i N wi
number factors number factors
1 8.1 4.05 1.15 0.12
1 4 6 0 2 8.1 6.03 1.20 0.13
2 6 7 4 3 8.1 6.03 1.20 0.13
3 6 8 3 4 8.1 3.06 1.12 0.12
4 3 9 4 5 8.1 2.07 1.08 0.11
5 2 10 0 6 8.1 0.09 0.79 0.08
7 8.1 4.05 1.15 0.12
8 8.1 3.06 1.18 0.12
9 8.1 4.05 1.15 0.12
Table 3
10 8.1 0.09 0.79 0.08
Weighting/intensity of importance rating of factors
Total 9.58
Factor number Rating Factor number Rating

1 4.05 6 0.09
2 6.03 7 4.05
3 6.03 8 3.06
management systems by aiding the decision maker to know
4 3.06 9 4.05
5 2.07 10 0.09 which set of systemic factors are to be given preference and
to what extent at different points in time. Clearly, it is one
thing to know the ranking order of the factors and another
to know their respective weight of importance in order to
factors 1 and 7. The ranking of factors in hierarchy aid management decision making.
expresses the order or preference for implementation of
measures to tackle waste problems while the number of 5. Conclusion
subordinates attached to a factor determines its intensity of
importance or weight value. One basic merit of activity The paper presented an application of a decision science
prioritisation is that it serves as a guide to effective waste methodology for tackling the problems associated with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
114 M.K.O. Ayomoh et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 88 (2008) 108–114
inadequate municipal solid waste disposal management.
The concept of HSIM was used to demonstrate priority
ordering of some identified health limiting factors and their
weight determination. An appropriate method for allocat-
ing resources to factors was determined with the simplistic
resource allocation model. The study shows a fundamental
link between solid waste disposal, environmental health
and a management approach to allocating resources. A
framework to guide decision making on the negative
impacts of inappropriate solid waste disposal has been
presented. This could be especially useful in resource
disbursement in an effort to find lasting solutions to the
health impacts that result from waste disposal. Instead of
wasting scarce resources on tackling such problems on a
trial and error basis, a root cause approach has been put
forward. This entails problem solving from the causal
factors as depicted in the structured hierarchy shown in the
hybrid tree structural diagram.
This research work aims at advancing scholastic under-
standing of municipal solid waste management research.
The application of the HSIM concept in waste manage-
ment research is still in its infancy. In developing nations,
where inappropriate municipal solid wastes disposal is
quite significant, not much novel studies have been carried
out, especially, in the area of incorporating mathematical
models into solid waste disposal management. The present
study is an important intellectual tool for advancing waste
management research in developing countries. A new
concept that requires a more rigorous scientific approach
to solid waste management is thus proposed. Hopefully,
the academic community will work hard to refine and
incorporate new ideas into the concept to make it more
effective and workable in finding solutions to solid waste
disposal and environmental health problems confronting
the developing world.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the immense assis-
tance and motivation provided by the reviewers and the
editor. Their suggestions improved the quality of the paper
a great deal.
References
Ayomoh, M.K.O., Oke, S.A., 2006. A framework for measuring safety
level for production environments. Safety Science 44, 221–239.
Bacon, D.H., McGrail, B.P., 2003. Lessons learned from reactive
transport modelling of a low-activity waste glass disposal system.
Computers and Geosciences 29, 361–370.
Barel-Cohen, K., Shore, L.S., Shemesh, M., Wenzel, A., Mueller, J.,
Kronfeld-Schor, N., 2006. Monitoring of natural and synthetic hormones
in a polluted river. Journal of Environmental Management 78 (1), 16–23.
Chih-Ju, G.J., 2006. An efficient technology to treat heavy metal-lead-
contaminated soil by microwave radiation. Journal of Environmental
Management 78 (1), 1–4.
Dijkgraaf, E., Vollebergh, H.R.J., 2004. Burn or bury? A social cost
comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics 50,
233–247.
Ekasingh, B., Ngamsomsuke, K., Letcher, R.A., Spate, J., 2005. A data
mining approach to simulating farmers’ crop choices for integrated
water resources management. Journal of Environmental Management
77 (4), 315–325.
Frosch, R.A., 1996. Toward the end of waste: reflections on a new ecology
for industry. Daedalus 125 (3), 199–212.
Geraghty, K., 2003. An update on the WEEE and RoHS directives.
Circuit World 29 (4), 51–52.
Gulec, N., Gunal, B., Erler, A., 2001. Assessment of soil and water
contamination around an ash disposal site. Environmental Geology
40, 331–344.
Hjelmar, O., 1996. Disposal strategies for municipal waste incineration
residues. Journal of Hazardous Materials 47, 345–368.
Hyde, K.M., Maier, H.R., Colby, C.B., 2005. A distance-based uncertainty
analysis approach to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource
decision making. Journal of Environmental Management 77 (4), 278–290.
Kay, D., Pruss, A., Corvalan, C., 2000. Methodology for assessment of
environmental burden of disease, ISEE session on environmental
burden of disease, World Health Organisation Consultation, Buffalo,
August 2000, pp. 30.
Laughlin, B., Varangu, L.K., 1991. Accounting for waste or garbage
accounting: some thoughts from non-accountants. Accounting,
Auditing, and Accountability Journal 4 (3), 43–50.
Oke, S.A., Ayomoh, M.K.O., 2005. The hybrid structural interaction
matrix (HSIM): a new prioritising tool for maintenance. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 22 (6), 607–625.
Pitt, M., Brown, A., Smith, A., 2002. Waste management at airports.
Facilities 20 (5/6), 198–207.
Sangodoyin, A.Y., Ipadeola, S.F., 2000. Hazardous wastes: assessing the
efficacy of structures and approaches to management in Nigeria.
Environmental Management and Health 11 (1), 39–46.
Sangodoyin, A.Y., Olorunfemi, A.I., 1996. Nutrient benefits and
environmental aspects of land disposal of livestock waste. Environ-
mental Management and Health 7 (1), 33–38.
Themelis, N.J., 2002. Integrated management of solid wastes for New
York City. In: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Proceedings
of NAWTEC, pp. 69–86.
Townsend, T., Tolaymat, T., SoloGabriele, H., Dubey, B., Stook, K.,
Wadanambi, L., 2004. Leaching of CCA-treated wood: implications
for waste disposal. Journal of Hazardous Materials B114, 75–91.
Walia, A., 1995. A study on the characteristics leaching and toxicity of fly
as from I.P. thermal power station, Delhi, and the impact assessment
of its disposal on the limnology of river Yamuna. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Delhi, India, p. 169.
Wills, J., 1995. Managing our wastes. Environmental Management and
Health 6 (1), 25–28.
Xevi, E., Khan, S., 2005. A multi-objective optimisation approach to water
management. Journal of Environmental Management 77 (4), 269–277.
Ziadat, A.H., Mott, H., 2005. Assessing solid waste recycling opportu-
nities for closed campuses. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal 16 (3), 250–256.