Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Operations Research

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

Review

Operations research in solid waste management: A survey of strategic

and tactical issues
G. Ghiani a, D. Laganà b, E. Manni a, R. Musmanno b, D. Vigo c,n
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Innovazione, Università del Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Energetica e Gestionale, Università della Calabria, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy
c
Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Available online 27 October 2013 Solid waste management (SWM) is an increasingly complex task, absorbing a huge amount of resources
Keywords: and having a major environmental impact. Computerized systems based on operations research
Solid waste management techniques can help decision makers to achieve remarkable cost savings as well as to improve waste
Optimization recovery. Nevertheless, the literature is quite scattered and disorganized. The objective of this paper is to
Strategic decisions present an updated survey of the most relevant operations research literature on SWM, mainly focusing
Tactical decisions on strategic and tactical issues. In addition to providing an extensive bibliographic coverage, we describe
the relationships between the various problems, and outline future research.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Strategic issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1. A MIP model for the strategic planning of a SWM system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2. Literature classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.1. Single-period location models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.2. Multi-period location models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.3. Multi-objective location models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.4. Location models integrating economical and social components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.5. Models with uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. Tactical issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1. Waste flow allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2. Districting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3. Collection patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4. Fleet and crew composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1. Introduction waste management one of modern society's most relevant issues.

The large and increasing amount of solid waste generated each
year in both industrialized and developing countries, along with
the public concern for environmental preservation, is making solid
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 39 0512093435.
E-mail addresses: gianpaolo.ghiani@unisalento.it (G. Ghiani),
demetrio.lagana@unical.it (D. Laganà), emanuele.manni@unisalento.it (E. Manni),
musmanno@unical.it (R. Musmanno), daniele.vigo@unibo.it (D. Vigo).
The Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is defined by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to include waste from
residential, multifamily, commercial, and institutional (e.g.,
schools, government offices) sources [1]. This definition excludes
many materials that are frequently disposed with MSW in land-
fills, including combustion ash, water and wastewater treatment
residuals, construction and demolition waste, and nonhazardous
industrial process waste. Each year in the European Union about
3 billion tonnes of waste are generated, and some 90 million

0305-0548/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2013.10.006
 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
tonnes of it are hazardous [2]. Moreover, the amount of waste
generated is rapidly increasing, with values close to 20% over a
period of 11 years (1995–2006) in North America and the EU [3].
The last U.S. EPA document on MSW generation in the U.S.A.
reports a production of about 250 million tonnes of waste in 2009,
and about 85 million tonnes of recycled and composted material,
leading to approximately 34% of recycling rate [1].
In this context, an integrated Solid Waste Management (SWM)
represents a real request and a big challenge at the same time.
A recent description of modern and integrated waste management
systems can be found in Tchobanoglous [4], whereas decision
support models and their practical impact on the Integrated Urban
Waste Management Framework are reviewed in the recent book of
Vigo et al. [5]. Studying a SWM system from an operations
research point of view implies modeling it through a multi-
echelon supply chain in which the following processes take place:
waste generation in regional districts; waste collection in transfer
stations; waste separation performed at the sources or in separa-
tion plants; waste treatment through incinerators, waste-to-
energy plants, reclamation plants, or composite plants; waste
disposal by land filling or land spreading.
SWM involves a number of strategic, tactical and operational
decisions, such as the selection of SW treatment technologies, the
location of treatment sites and landfills, the future capacity
expansion strategies of the sites, waste flow allocation to proces-
sing facilities and landfills, service territory partitioning into
districts, collection days' selection for each district and for each
waste type, fleet composition determination, and routing and
scheduling of collection vehicles. Given that dealing with each of
these aspects leads to solving several combinatorial optimization
problems, computerized systems based on Operations Research
(OR) techniques can help decision makers to achieve remarkable
cost savings. Several successful applications of OR methods have
been described in the last 40 years. Most of the models presented
in the literature aim at guiding the decision maker toward the
choice of the best strategy, selected among a set of options. Such
methods evaluate all the suitable alternatives at every stage of the
decision process. In some cases, the goal of the model is simple
(e.g., optimize waste collection routes for vehicles), while in others
it is more complex (e.g., evaluate alternative waste management
strategies). However, because SWM involves also institutional,
social, financial, economic, technical, and environmental factors,
no model described in the literature is able to capture all different
aspects to be considered. On the other hand, general models have
so many variables and constraints that solving them through
general-purpose solvers can be very hard and time consuming.
In general, the literature is still scattered and disorganized. Given
that a survey of all OR models in this area would require a very
long article, the focus of this paper is to concentrate on some of
the most important methodological contributions and the most
meaningful applications originating from the application of OR
techniques to strategic and tactical problems arising in SWM, as
well as to indicate future research directions.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes strategic planning issues (mostly arising at a regional
level), whereas Section 3 is devoted to tactical decisions. Finally,
Section 4 concludes the paper and outlines future research
directions.
2. Strategic issues
For planning purposes, a SWM system can be decoupled into
two major subsystems: a regional management system, and a
collection system. Each town is in charge of its own curbside
garbage collection, using either its own workforce from a
23
municipal or regional agency, or a contracted service. On the other
hand, the regional administration is responsible for the treatment
and disposal of the collected waste. The primary reason for this is
the existence of relevant economies of scale in waste transporta-
tion and disposal (see [6]). In the current literature, these two
subsystems are usually considered as separate, although remark-
able cost savings might result from an integrated approach. Given
a set of potential processing facilities and landfills (each character-
ized by a location and a number of additional technological and
economic features), the most relevant regional planning decision
amounts to determining which facilities should be built or used,
and how waste should be routed, processed and disposed so as to
minimize the total waste disposal cost, net of any revenue for
reclaimed material and generated energy. Building a new treat-
ment or disposal facility may take 1–4 years, while the operating
life of a facility is estimated to be around 15–30 years (similar
considerations hold for landfills). After this period, certain repla-
cements are required. Consequently, designing or re-designing a
regional SWM system is a strategic decision having long-lasting
effects. The main features to take into account are:
 Time: Decisions related to building a new facility or closing an
existing one affect a long-term planning horizon.
 Network structure: A multi-echelon logistic network is needed
to model all the strategic decisions.
 Commodities: The cost of transporting and disposing waste
depends heavily on the type of waste (municipal refuse,
industrial waste, farm refuse, demolition and construction
debris, etc.). Moreover, each waste type can be processed in a
limited number of ways (e.g., inert refuse cannot be
composted).
 Facility cumulative capacity: Landfills have an overall cumula-
tive capacity for waste disposal, which progressively reduces as
long as refuse are stored (see, e.g., [7]).
 Economies of scale: The operating cost of a facility is a concave
function of its activity level because of economies of scale that
may be achieved.
 Transshipment with waste transformation: Once a waste type is
processed in a facility, its own characteristics change (e.g., its
volume reduces). This peculiar feature can be modeled through
a network flow with gains (see, e.g., [8]).
 Objectives: Decision makers often pursue conflicting goals, such
as to locate facilities as close as possible to sources (to minimize
transportation costs), and to locate facilities as far as possible
from urban centers. In addition, SWM often gives rise to
sociopolitical issues that are difficult to model (see, e.g., [9,10]).
We now present a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) model that is
a generalization of models from the literature [11] and puts
together all the previous aspects, and then categorize the literature
with respect to it.
2.1. A MIP model for the strategic planning of a SWM system
The possible configurations of a SWM system to be designed at
the strategic level can be represented by a directed graph G ¼ ðV; AÞ
in which the vertex set V may be partitioned into four subsets:
VO representing sources, VS modeling potential transfer stations,
VP describing processing facilities (incinerators, waste-to-energy
plants, etc.), and VL representing landfills, disposal facilities and
markets for recycled products and energy. Arcs in set A correspond
to feasible shipments between sites (Fig. 1).
Decisions have to be made over a long-term horizon defined
over a set T of periods. Each period t A T may represent, for
instance, one year or several years. Moreover, in order to take into
account the possibility to manage different types of waste, we
24 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32

T
Recycled materials ∑ ∑ ∑ xtijw r aj jAVL ð5Þ
VS VP
t ¼ 1 w A W i A V:ði;jÞ A A

VO VL T
∑ ztj r 1 jAVS [ VP [ VL ð6Þ
t¼1

y1j r z1j jA V S [ V P [ V L ð7Þ

ytj  ytj  1 rztj t ¼ 2; …; T; j A V S [ V P [ V L ð8Þ

ztj A f0; 1g t ¼ 1; …; T; j A V S [ V P [ V L ð9Þ

ytj A f0; 1g t ¼ 1; …; T; jA V S [ V P [ V L ð10Þ

Energy
Fig. 1. Network representation of a SWM system. xtijw Z0 t ¼ 1; …; T; w A W; ði; jÞ A A: ð11Þ

denote by W the set of waste commodities, where each commodity

w A W represents a specific type of waste. Concerning the data
required to model a strategic SWM system, the following sets and
constants are given. Let qtjw denote the capacity of facility j A V S [
V P [ V L for commodity w A W in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T), and aj
denote the overall estimated capacity of landfill j A V L that cannot
be exceeded during the planning period. All the information
related to the total amount of waste generated at each source
i A V O in a given period t (t ¼ 1; …; T) for each commodity w A W is
represented by Gtiw . Observe that uncertainty may affect the value
of Gtiw . Finally, let bjww′ denote the reduction coefficient per unit
weight (or volume) of the waste commodity w A W into the waste
commodity w′ A W at facility j A V S [ V P . This coefficient is used to
describe how the waste flows are converted when they reach
a processing facility. The costs involved in these processes are:
a non-negative transportation cost per unit of waste cij that is
t
associated with each arc ði; jÞ A A, an initial cost f 0j for opening a
t
new facility j A V S [ V P [ V L in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T), a fixed cost f j
for operating facility j A V S [ V P [ V L in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T), and a
cost ptjw when processing a unit of waste of type w A W at facility
j A V S [ V P [ V L in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T). These costs are time-
dependent to account for possible variations over time. Decision
variables ztj are binary variables taking the value 1 if and only if a
facility j A V S [ V P [ V L is open in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T), 0 other-
wise. Variables ytj are also binary variables taking the value 1 if
facility j A V S [ V P [ V L is operating in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T), and
0 otherwise. Finally, variables xtijw represent the flow of waste
commodity w A W traversing arc ði; jÞ A A in period t (t ¼ 1; …; T).
A mathematical formulation of the problem is
T T
min ∑ ∑ ∑ cij xtijw þ ∑ ∑ ∑ ptjw ∑ xtijw
t ¼ 1 w A W ði;jÞ A A t ¼ 1 w A Wj A VS i A VO
T T
þ ∑ ∑ ∑ ptjw ∑ xtijw þ ∑ ∑ ∑ ptjw
t ¼ 1 w A Wj A VP i A VO [ VS t ¼ 1 w A Wj A VL
T
þ ∑ ∑
t t
ðf 0j ztj þ f j ytj Þ
t ¼ 1 j A VS [ VP [ VL
subject to
∑ xtijw ¼ Gtiw t ¼ 1; …; T; i A V O ; w A W
j A VS [ VP [ VL
In this formulation, the objective function aims at minimizing
the sum of all the costs incurred over the entire planning horizon.
Eqs. (2) impose that all the waste generated at each source is
collected, Eqs. (3) is flow balance conditions taking into account
volume reduction, inequalities (4) do not allow using a facility
which was not previously opened, imposing, at the same time,
that the amount of waste treated is no greater than the capacity of
the facility. Moreover, inequalities (5) impose that the total volume
of waste treated over the time horizon cannot exceed the overall
landfill capacity, and inequalities (6) guarantee that each inter-
mediate facility cannot be opened more than once over the time
horizon. Finally, inequalities (7) and (8) ensure that the values of ytj
and ztj (j A V S [ V P [ V L , t ¼ 1; …; T) are consistent. We observe
that some variables y1j may be fixed.
2.2. Literature classification
A large class of waste management facility location–allocation
problems is characterized by multiple, often conflicting objectives
such that the solutions provided by computerized systems based
on OR techniques are not effective for real SWM systems. There-
fore, considerable local oppositions are induced by the site selec-
tion of waste facilities, leading to arguments like BANANA (Built
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone), LULU (Locally
Unwanted Land Use), NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), NOPE (Not
On Planet Earth), or NOTE (Not Over There Either). Location
models taking into account either economical and social aspects
or conflicting objectives are developed in the papers we describe
in the following.
Given the large variety of characteristics that are incorporated
into the strategic models proposed in the literature, we introduce
a classification scheme for this problem family that will be used in
∑ xtijw
i A VO [ VS [ VP the paper to identify the specific variant at hand.
The classification is based on four fields p=s=c=o, each asso-
ð1Þ ciated with a significant component of the problem. The first field
“ p” corresponds to the problem periodicity: it takes value 1 if a
single period occurs and T if multiple periods are considered. The
second field “ s” is associated with the network structure and may
ð2Þ contain multiple subfields separated by commas:

C, if the optimal location of new collection sites is taken into

bjww′ ∑ xtijw ¼ ∑ xtjiw′ account,
i A V :ði;jÞ A A i A V:ðj;iÞ A A
S, if the presence of existing or new transfer stations is
t ¼ 1; …; T; jA V S [ V P ; w A W; w′ A W ð3Þ considered,
P, if either the opening of new processing facilities or optimizing
∑ xtijw rqtjw ztj the operating of existing processing facilities is evaluated,
i A V :ði;jÞ A A L, if existing or new landfill, disposal or market facilities are
t ¼ 1; …; T; jA V S [ V P [ V L ; wAW ð4Þ considered.
 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32 25

The third field “ c” describes additional constraints and character-
istics of the problem, again possibly separated by commas:
“ multiwaste”, if several types of waste are considered,
“ uncert”, if uncertainty in waste generation takes place.
Finally, field “ o” is associated with the optimization objectives:
TC, if transportation costs are minimized,
PC, if processing costs at the facilities are considered,
FC, if fixed costs either for existing facility operations or new
facility opening are included,
“multiobj”, if multi-objective optimization is explicitly considered.
Whenever the model does not include specific assumptions for one
of the above fields, the corresponding value is set “–”. An example of
the use of this classification scheme is 1/S,P/–/TC,FC that stands for a
single period problem that considers possible opening of transfer
stations and plants and minimizes transportation and facility setup
costs. Table 1 reports a summary of the main characteristics of some
of the most representative papers on regional planning.
2.2.1. Single-period location models
The first group of papers we describe emphasize the strategic
aspects of the SWM problem related to the location of the logistic
facilities in order to minimize the total SWM cost. They do not
consider the integration of these characteristics with other crucial
strategic aspects that have a strong impact on the performance of
the system, like the time-dependency, multi-commodity, and
uncertainty on the waste generation.
Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al. [12] consider a two-level location
problem described through a 1/P,L/multiwaste/TC,FC model, in which
the objective is to minimize the sum of the total fixed cost for
opening plants and waste disposal units, the total cost for shipping
flow from the plants to the customers, and from the plants to the
waste disposal units. They provide two alternative formulations, valid
inequalities, a Lagrangean lower bound, as well as a rounding
heuristic and a decomposition procedure. A number of researchers
have used similar models. Jenkins [13] utilizes a 1/S,P,L/–/PC,FC large
scale fixed-charge model, including shipments of recycled materials
to markets, to locate resource recovery plants in Southeastern
Ontario. He also performs a parametric analysis on both the objective
function coefficients and the constraints' right-hand-side. Kulcar [14]
describes a case study dealing with the optimization of the solid
waste collection in Brussels (Belgium). A two-phase approach based
on the combination of a branch-and-bound method with systems
engineering is developed to minimize waste transportation costs in a
major urban area. A 1/S,P/–/TC,FC capacitated location model is used
to determine the receiving terminal site and assess the need of a new
intermediate site between the collection routes and the incinerator. A
pure integer capacitated location model is also used to evaluate the
impact on the collection process of a possible reduction in the
number of depots.
Antunes [15] studies the MSW system of Central Portugal and
develops a 1/S,L/–/TC,FC MIP model, combining elements of a
p-median model and of a capacitated facility location model with

Table 1
Selected papers on strategic issues in SWM.

Article Collection Transfer Waste processing Landfill Economies Multi-period Multiple Uncertainty Multiple Exact Heuristic
site location station facility location location of scale capacity commodity objectives method method
location expansion

Antunes [15] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Antunes et al. [29] ✓ ✓ ✓
Badran and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ElHaggar [16]
Baetz et al. [7] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Baetz and Neebe ✓ ✓ ✓
[20]
Berger et al. [11] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Bloemhof- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ruwaard et al.
[12]
Cai et al. [35] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Caruso et al. [22] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Eiselt [19] ✓ ✓ ✓
Erkut et al. [25] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ferrell and Hizlan ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[9]
Fiorucci et al. [27] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Galante et al. [30] ✓ ✓ ✓
Ghiani et al. [10] ✓ ✓ ✓
Guo et al. [34] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Jenkins [13] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kulcar [14] ✓ ✓ ✓
Li and Huang [32] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Maqsood and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Huang [31]
Jenkins [13] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mitropoulos et al. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[17]
Noche et al. [28] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Rahman and Kuby ✓ ✓ ✓
[24]
Shekdar et al. [21] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Tralhão et al. [26] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Vigo et al. [5] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Yong and Huang ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[33]
26 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
transshipments, in which a maximum distance between sources
and transfer stations, and between transfer stations and landfills is
imposed. The model is solved through a general purpose solver,
evaluating the decrease in the costs related to transfer stations and
waste transportation. Badran and ElHaggar [16] present a model
for municipal solid waste management in Port Said (Egypt). The
proposed model aims at minimizing the municipal waste manage-
ment cost, determining the best location for collection sites among
a given set of candidate locations. A 1/S,P,L/–/TC,PC,FC MIP model
is used to describe the SWM system. Such a model provides
consistently better solutions than that previously implemented.
Mitropoulos et al. [17] study a three-echelon network design
problem with central treatment facilities, transfer stations and
landfills, where the goal is to minimize the total cost of the SWM
system. A 1/S,P,L/–/TC,FC MIP model is presented. Valid inequal-
ities based on those developed for the capacitated distribution and
waste disposal problem studied by Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al. [12]
and the two level network for recycling sand proposed by Barros
et al. [18] are illustrated to improve the proposed formulation.
Some of these inequalities are added to the root node of the search
tree to strengthen the lower bound and reduce computation time
significantly. Small instances are solved to optimality through the
presented model, while an interchange heuristic is designed to
find feasible solutions for large instances of the problem. The
effectiveness of this approach is tested within a research project
for the development of a SWM system for a specific region in
Greece.
Eiselt [19] evaluates how far the observed locations of landfills
and transfer stations deviate from the optimized (i.e., cost-mini-
mizing) solution. The location problem is modeled through a path-
based garbage transfer problem, in which the decision to locate
landfills and transfer stations at some sites is made by means of
binary variables. He develops a 1/S,L/–/TC MIP model, in which the
proportion of the garbage shipped directly from the customers to
the landfills and via transfer stations is represented by flow
allocation variables. Similar to hub location problems, a discount
is charged into the objective function whenever the garbage is
collected at the transfer stations and delivered to the landfills,
rather than shipped from the customers to the transfer stations or
landfills. Computational experiments are carried out with the aim
of comparing the performance of the proposed model with the
location plan implemented for the province of New Brunswick,
located in Eastern Canada.
2.2.2. Multi-period location models
Compared to the aforementioned papers, the following papers
focus either on dynamic (with respect to the demand that might
change over time) or multi-commodity aspects occurring in the
SWM system.
Baetz et al. [7] develop a dynamic programming approach to
solve a dynamic T/L/–/TC,PC,FC model with the aim to determine
the optimal sizing and timing for landfills and waste-to-energy
facilities. The planning horizon is discretized into time periods
with a facility expansion capacity possible only at the start of each
time period. Given a pair of landfill and waste-to-energy capa-
cities, the optimal allocation of waste is determined through a
linear program. A similar multi-period problem is considered by
Ferrell and Hizlan [9], that use a commercial MIP solver to face a
T/P,L/–/TC,PC,FC model after having performed a manual prepro-
cessing in order to make problem size reasonable, and by Baetz
and Neebe [20] whose objective is to determine an optimal
recycling facility development program. The goal is achieved by
solving a T/L/multiwaste/TC,PC,FC model.
Berger et al. [11] propose a T/P,L/multiwaste/TC,PC,FC,multiobj
flow model with multiple commodities, in which landfill and
processing facility capacity expansions can occur at a finite
number of time instants and the objective is to minimize the
overall discounted total cost. No tailored algorithm is presented in
this paper. Recently, Vigo et al. [5] report, among a collection of
other best practices, the application of a T/S,P,L/multiwaste/TC,PC,
FC model for the strategic design of a large network involving a
number of plants in Northern Italy.
The time dimension in the context of the location problem
of disposal sites and processing facilities is analyzed by Shekdar
et al. [21], who propose a T/P,L/–/TC,FC MIP model aimed at
minimizing solid waste handling costs over several development
phases of an urban area. This model faces a location problem of the
disposal sites and allocates the collection areas to the sites and
processing facilities in the long time horizon. The model is applied
to a real case to show its usefulness for long range planning
in cities.
2.2.3. Multi-objective location models
The following papers study the SWM system as location and
multi-commodity flow models where multiple objectives must be
optimized. Caruso et al. [22] present a 1/P,L/multiwaste/TC,FC,
multiobj model, in which multiple commodities and three differ-
ent objectives (the overall cost, the waste of recyclable resources,
and the environmental impact) are considered. The three objec-
tives are then combined into a parametric single objective accord-
ing to the weighting method. A set of approximate Pareto
solutions is then searched through an add-drop heuristic. Finally,
the reference point method [23] is used to help the decision-
maker in identifying the final solution. Rahman and Kuby [24]
propose a 1/S/–/TC,FC,multiobj model locating transfer stations,
where the focus is the compromise between minimizing trans-
shipment costs and maximizing the distance of the facilities from
the residential zones. Only transfer station facilities are consid-
ered, in which refuse is transferred from collection trucks to long-
haul trucks for more economical shipping to distant landfills. The
public opposition to the location of facilities near to the inhabi-
tants areas is measured by a decreasing function of distance from
facilities. A comparison study of the regional and prefectural SWM
planning in Central Macedonia is described in Erkut et al. [25]. The
prefectural plan is designed by locating waste facilities in each
prefecture. The regional plan allows cooperation between prefec-
tures, so that waste facilities are located to serve the entire region.
A 1/S,P,L/–/TC,PC,FC,multiobj MIP model is developed for the
location–allocation SWM municipal problem at the regional level.
The multiobjective problem is formulated as a lexicographic
minimax problem aiming at finding a nondominated solution
with all normalized objectives as close as possible. A solution
provided by such model consists of locations and technologies for
transfer stations, material recovery facilities, incinerators and
sanitary landfills, and waste flow between the locations.
Tralhão et al. [26] propose a 1/P/multiwaste/TC,FC,multiobj MIP
approach to identify the locations and capacities of multi-
compartment sorted waste containers. The model aims at deter-
mining the number of facilities to be opened, as well as the
respective container capacities, their locations, and the dwellings
assigned to each facility. The solution approach integrates an
optimization model in a Geographical Information System-based
interactive decision support system with the aim of minimizing
the following four objectives: (1) the total investment cost; (2) the
average distance from dwellings to the respective multi-
compartment container; (3) the number of individuals too close
to any containers; (4) the number of dwellings too far from the
respective multi-compartment container. The proposed approach
is tested on a case study raised the city of Coimbra (Portugal).
 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
2.2.4. Location models integrating economical and social
components
All the already cited papers typically use a general purpose
solver to solve a MIP model for the location problem related to the
transfer stations, processing facilities and landfills of a SWM
system. They are focused typically on the application of classical
location models to a subnetwork of the more complex SWM
network depicted in Fig. 1, and do not take into account the
integration of the solutions obtained through the location models
with economical and social components. The following papers
represent a first significant step to integrate location strategic
decisions within a more general SWM optimization problem as
described by the model illustrated in Section 2.1.
Integrated optimizer tools, or Decision Support Systems (DSS),
supporting the decision maker in order to assume solid waste
strategic decisions are frequently used in the real world context.
Fiorucci et al. [27] describe a DSS tested on the city of Genoa
(Italy), allowing to plan the optimal number of landfills and
treatment plants, and to determine the optimal quantities and
the characteristics of the refuse that must be sent to treatment
plants, to landfills and to recycling. The core of the DSS optimiza-
tion process is based on a constrained non-linear 1/P,L/multiwaste/
TC,PC,FC optimization problem, in which an objective function
including recycling, transportation and maintenance costs is
minimized over various constraints. A 1/S/–/TC,PC,FC,multiobj
optimization model integrating economical and environmental
aspects for a solid waste management system is proposed by
Noche et al. [28]. They develop a mixed-integer linear program-
ming model for municipal solid waste management of the city of
Duisburg (Germany) including different scenarios. The proposed
model aims at minimizing the total solid waste management
system costs by considering different restrictions such as logistic,
technical, environmental, and social constraints.
Antunes et al. [29] illustrate a three stage 1/S,P/–/TC MIP-based
approach helping the company responsible for the municipal
SWM system in the Litoral Centro area of Portugal to find the best
way to redeploy the existing SWM system. This study aims at
identifying the best possible location for a new generation of
incinerators with energy recovery, as well as the best locations,
capacities, and coverage areas for possible new transfer stations.
A three-stage solution approach is presented. The first stage consists
in finding the best municipalities to locate the incinerator and the
new transfer stations. The second stage reduces to the problem of
finding the best communities where to locate the incinerator within
the municipalities identified in the first stage. The third stage consists
in solving the classification problem of the industrial sites located
within the communities identified in the second stage according to
the relevant criteria. A MIP model is proposed to solve the problems
related to the first and second stage.
Recently, Galante et al. [30] have studied the localization and
dimensioning of transfer stations in the logistic chain of the solid
waste stream. A 1/S/–/TC,FC,multiobj integrated optimization
approach aiming at defining the number and type of vehicles is
also carried out. Two conflicting objectives consisting in the
minimization of both the total cost and the environmental impact
are considered in an integrated multi-objective optimization
approach. The methodology is applied in the context of the waste
management of the city of Palermo (Italy).
Ghiani et al. [10] study the problem of minimizing the total
number of collection sites to be located in a SWM system, chosen
among a set of candidate locations. Such an objective ensures not
only the reduction of the impact due to the presence of the
collection bins close to the residential sites, but also the reduction
of the overall cost related to the collection phase. The proposed
model determines also the optimal allocation of citizens to
collection sites by ensuring that each citizen is serviced by a
27
collection site which is within a threshold distance from his/her
home. Such a condition is achieved through peculiar constraints
added to the 1/C/–/– model.
2.2.5. Models with uncertainty
Very few papers deal with the uncertainty on the waste gen-
eration. Such papers typically address the waste-management
planning problem to minimize the associated treatment costs
through interval analysis, chance-constrained, stochastic, and
fuzzy programming approaches, where dynamic aspects and
economies of scale are modeled.
A 1/P,L/uncert/TC,PC Two-stage Interval Stochastic Program-
ming (TISP) model for the planning of SWM systems under
uncertainty is developed in Maqsood and Huang [31]. The pro-
posed approach is applied to a case wherein a solid-waste
manager is responsible for allocating waste from cities to disposal
facilities over a planning horizon. The uncertainty affects the
amount of waste generation in each of the cities at the time when
the planning decisions must be made. The objective function of
the TISP model minimizes the expected value of the SWM system
cost in the region. The uncertainty is expressed through intervals
and probability distributions of random variables, while penalties
come into play when policies represented by allowable waste-
loading levels are violated. The solution approach reduces the TISP
model into two deterministic submodels, which correspond to the
lower and upper bounds for the desired objective-function value.
A 1/P,L/uncert/TC,PC Interval-parameter Two-stage Mixed Inte-
ger Linear Programming (ITMILP) model is proposed by Li and
Huang [32] with the aim of supporting long-term planning of
waste management activities in the city of Regina, Canada. The
proposed model integrates both two-stage stochastic program-
ming and interval linear programming into a general MIP model.
The uncertainty is modeled through probability density functions
and discrete intervals related to random variables. The model
captures dynamic, interactive and uncertain aspects of the SWM
system in the city. The decision variables are both discrete and
continuous random variables. The discrete variables represent the
expansion options for waste management facilities in different
periods, while the continuous ones represent the optimized waste
flows from the city's residences to the waste management facil-
ities. The objective minimizes the total expected system cost by
achieving optimal plans for facility expansion/development and
waste flow allocation over the entire planning horizon. The
solution approach solves the presented model over three scenarios
based on different waste management policies.
An Interval MiniMax Regret Programming (IMMRP) method is
designed by Yong and Huang [33] for the planning of municipal
SWM system under uncertainty. Such method improves on the
existing interval programming and minimax regret analysis
methods by allowing uncertainties, presented as both intervals
and random variables of the optimization process. The IMMRP
takes into account the economic impacts of all possible scenarios
without any assumption on their probabilities. The developed
method is applied to a case study of long-term SWM planning
under uncertainty. The uncertainty arises in waste-generation rate,
and it is modeled by means of random variables; on the other
hand, some random events can only be quantified as discrete
intervals, leading to the concept of Interval Random Variable (IRV).
The decision maker does not know the probabilistic distribution of
the IRV. Based on this method, if the waste-flow level equals the
waste-generation rate, the system pays regular costs, leading to
minimum cost and regret levels, otherwise an excess regret is
generated due to the violation of the available resources.
A computational analysis is performed with multiple scenarios
associated with different cost and risk levels. The results show that
28 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32

the proposed approach is helpful for planning policies in the
context of waste management under a variety of uncertainties.
Uncertainty in both left- and right-hand-side parameters of
probabilistic constraints is tackled by means of intervals and
probability distributions by Guo et al. [34], who combine stochas-
tic programming, integer programming, and interval semi-infinite
programming approach for a SWM system. To address the uncer-
tainties affecting coefficients in both hand-sides of probabilistic
constraints through probabilistic distributions, robust optimiza-
tion model are proposed. In particular, Cai et al. [35] develop an
Interval-Valued Fuzzy Robust Programming (I-VFRP) model for a
municipal SWM system under uncertainty.
3. Tactical issues
At the tactical (or mid-term) level, several decisions must be
taken. Among them, the most representative are: allocating waste
flow among the facilities selected at the strategic level, partition-
ing the service territories into districts, choosing collection days
for each district and for each waste type, determining the
composition of the fleet and the crew.
A summary of the main characteristics of the papers concern-
ing tactical issues that are described in the following, is reported in
Table 2, at the end of this section.
3.1. Waste flow allocation
When waste generation is deterministic, the waste flow alloca-
tion problem is usually solved as a part of the more general
strategic planning models (see Section 2). Examples of such
papers, already described in the previous section, are those by
Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al. [12], Erkut et al. [25], Mitropoulos et al.
[17], and Ghiani et al. [10].
On the other hand, when uncertainty comes into play, the
waste flow allocation problem becomes much more complicated.
However, despite its importance and practical relevance, still very
few papers deal with it. Aspects which can be treated as uncertain
are: the processing cost of waste processed at the different
facilities, the cost of transporting waste among the facilities, the
waste generation at each district, the fraction of waste generated
at each district which is recyclable. As pointed out in Section 2,
typical solution approaches make use of stochastic programming
based algorithms.
Huang et al. [36] solve the problem of allocating municipal
waste flow under uncertainty using a case study from the
Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth in the Province of Ontario.
They propose an approach based on Grey Linear Programming
(GLP), a method that is able to deal with interval input data, in
which problems containing interval parameters are transformed
into a pair of deterministic submodels. When solved in tandem,
such models guarantee stable upper and lower limits for the
solution. This transformation is executed in a prescribed order
using the output from the first submodel as direct input into the
second submodel. The final output of the method is a set of stable
interval values for the objective function and for all decision
variables related to uncertainty, such as the quantity of waste
generated at each district. Using GLP, Huang et al. [36] are able to
determine a solution for the case study, in which the existing
system cost could be consistently reduced with only minor
changes to the existing waste management scheme.
Yeomans et al. [37] combine a genetic algorithm with simula-
tion to solve the problem of municipal waste flow allocation under
uncertainty, improving the work in Huang et al. [36]. In particular,
each candidate solution of the population set, which contains
uncertain elements such as the quantity of waste generated at
each district, is simulated to be evaluated. Then, based on the
results of the simulation phase, the genetic algorithm allows the
system to evolve toward better solutions, generating a new set of
candidates to be evaluated again by simulation. After termination,
the algorithm provides, in addition to the best solution, a number
of “good” solutions. In this way, the method could be used even for
policy comparisons purposes. The procedure is tested on real data
from the same case study as in Huang et al. [36]. When compared
to the results of such study, the proposed approach is able to
improve over them, with gains ranging from 4% to 6%.

Table 2
Selected papers on tactical issues in SWM.

Article Waste flow Zoning Collection Fleet and crew Uncertainty Exact Heuristic
allocation decisions composition method method

Altman et al. [59] ✓ ✓ ✓

Angelelli and Speranza [55] ✓ ✓
Baudach et al. [62] ✓ ✓ ✓
Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al. [12] ✓ ✓ ✓
Bommisetty et al. [56] ✓ ✓
Chu et al. [57] ✓ ✓
Eisenstein and Iyer [41] ✓ ✓ ✓
Erkut et al. [25] ✓ ✓
Ghiani et al. [10] ✓ ✓ ✓
Ghiani et al. [65] ✓ ✓ ✓
Hanafi et al. [42] ✓ ✓ ✓
Hansmann and ✓ ✓ ✓
Zimmermann [61]
Huang et al. [36] ✓ ✓ ✓
Ignall et al. [60] ✓ ✓
Labelle et al. [43] ✓ ✓ ✓
List et al. [63] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Male and Liebman [40] ✓ ✓
Mansini and Speranza [54] ✓ ✓
Mitropoulos et al. [17] ✓ ✓ ✓
Mourão et al. [53] ✓ ✓
Nuortio et al. [48] ✓ ✓ ✓
Sahoo et al. [44] ✓ ✓ ✓
Yeomans et al. [37] ✓ ✓ ✓
Yeomans [38] and Yeomans ✓ ✓ ✓
[39]
 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
Yeomans [38] further extends the work by Yeomans et al. [37]
combining the use of penalty functions with GLP into an Evolu-
tionary Simulation-Optimization (ESO) procedure. The computa-
tionally efficient GLP procedure [36] is used to quickly generate a
starting population to initialize the evolutionary algorithm. Then,
in order to allow ESO to explore regions beyond its feasible
boundaries, infeasible solutions are considered in a penalty-
based fashion, transforming the MSW model into an uncon-
strained stochastic minimization problem.
More recently, Yeomans [39] studies the possibility to use a
co-evolutionary simulation-optimization approach to generate
multiple solution alternatives in a municipal SWM system. Each
alternative solution generated is such that it is sufficiently differ-
ent from the others, so that it can provide quite different planning
perspectives. The approach is tested on the same case study as in
Yeomans et al. [37].
3.2. Districting
The purpose of the districting (or zoning) phase is to determine
collection districts. The districts must be such that the sum of solid
waste loads within each district does not exceed the capacity of
the vehicles that will perform the operations. The problem of
districting, especially in the context of location and (arc) routing, is
not widely addressed in the literature, or in many cases it is
assumed to be solved a priori, de facto neglecting the positive
impact it could have on the subsequent routing phase, or included
in the strategic issues.
Male and Liebman [40] propose a districting heuristic based on
the construction of an auxiliary graph, called cyclenode graph, in
which nodes represent trips and edges represent feasible trips
aggregations. The approach is based on the partition of an Eulerian
graph into cycles using a “checkerboard pattern”. This partition is
characterized by a large number of small cycles where every edge
of the graph belongs to exactly one of them. Such cycles are then
used to determine the districts.
Eisenstein and Iyer [41] approach this problem by devising
flexible schedules for garbage trucks in the city of Chicago. The
weight and time required to collect garbage from a single block are
modeled as random variables, whose parameters are estimated
from real data. They introduce a dynamic scheduling scheme that
uses flexible truck routes, with the flexibility deriving from the
possibility to visit the dumpsite once or twice a day. The choice of
a truck route is modeled as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), that
adjusts the number of dumpsite visits throughout the week to
maximize the service level. Given a sequence of n blocks to be
collected by a single truck over a work week, plus an additional
dummy block n þ1 with no weight and time requirements, the
state of the MDP is said to be i at day t if at the beginning of day t
the truck is starting to collect block i. At the beginning of each
morning, a decision a must be taken (a A A ¼ f1; 2g), concerning
whether to use a route which visits the dumpsite once (a¼ 1), or
twice a day (a ¼2). Given the probabilities pðjji; aÞ to transition to
state j following decision a in state i, the value function vt(i) is
defined as the maximum probability that a truck will complete all
assigned blocks by the last day of the week, given that it starts in
state i on day t. Since the system always begins in state 1 on day 1,
the objective is to determine a policy, i.e., a sequence of determi-
nistic Markov decision rules, that maximizes v1 ð1Þ. This is achieved
through backward induction. Empirical results of the impact on
data collected from sample wards show the possibility to obtain a
reduction in the number of truck routes required to perform the
garbage collection operations, ranging between 12% and 16%,
leading to over $9 million overall cost savings.
Hanafi et al. [42] study the weekly sectorization problem
regarding household waste collection, with the aim of determining
29
a fixed number of sectors which should be balanced with respect
to daily total time for collection tasks. For this problem, they
propose an optimization model that is not easily solvable for large-
sized instances. Thus, a local search heuristic that is based on the
definition of a new effective data structure (sectorization matrix)
is described. The proposed methods are tested on three real-world
instances (related to Quito in Ecuador and Echirolles and Saint-
Martin d'Heres in France) and 28 randomly generated instances.
Labelle et al. [43] present models and heuristics for partitioning
a city into sectors, with respect to snow disposal operations, and
for assigning the sectors to disposal sites. Even though this paper
is not directly related to SWM, it is worth citing it, because, as
pointed out by the authors, it is similar to the problem encoun-
tered in garbage collection operations. The sector design process
provides a set of sectors, each of which is assigned to a disposal
site. For this purpose, a districting problem needs to be solved first,
to define the boundaries of each sector, and an assignment
problem must be solved later, to associate sectors with disposal
sites. The goal is to minimize the overall cost for performing
operations, made up of operational costs, and fixed costs for
equipment. As a proxy for trucks fixed costs, the number of trucks
required for performing the operations is considered. Given that
the mathematical model may be very hard to solve because of
nonlinearities in the objective function, the authors develop a
heuristic procedure. The overall problem of sector design is
decomposed into two sequential sub-problems. First, they deter-
mine for each disposal site its area of influence; second, they
partition the area of influence for each site into sectors. The
objective of the first phase is to minimize relevant operational
costs; the objective for the second phase is to minimize the
number of trucks for the given zone assignments. These algo-
rithms are incorporated in a DSS built on a geographical informa-
tion system, and tested on the city of Montréal.
Sahoo et al. [44] discuss how to divide the area from which
waste is to be collected into districts in order to subdivide the
problem and make it more manageable. In particular, they propose
a mathematical model, as well as a two phase insertion algorithm,
in which a feasible solution is first generated, and then improved.
The first phase of the solution approach utilizes a k-means-
variant-balanced-clustering algorithm [45], that randomly selects
initial centroids, and then clusters the stops according to the
distances between the stops and the centroids. The second phase
makes use of an extended version of the insertion algorithm by
Solomon [46], and a simulated-annealing metaheuristic combined
with the CROSS exchange local-search method of Taillard et al. [47]
for further improvements.
Nuortio et al. [48] describe the zoning of a service territory in
Eastern Finland by determining vehicle routes and schedules for
the collection of municipal solid waste. The problem is modeled as
a Stochastic Periodic Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows
and a limited number of vehicles, which is solved by the Guided
Variable Neighborhood Thresholding (GVNT) metaheuristic [49].
The stochasticity lies in the accumulation rate of waste in each
container type, and in the travel times. The proposed approach is
made up of two phases. In the first phase, a feasible solution is
created with a hybrid insertion heuristic. Then, in the subsequent
phase, the GVNT metaheuristic is used to try to improve the initial
solution. GVNT is based on three well known metaheuristic
principles, namely guided local search [50], variable neighborhood
search [51], and threshold accepting [52]. When compared to the
current solution of the waste management company, it is shown
that significant improvements (up to 46%) can be obtained.
More recently, Mourão et al. [53] study the sectoring arc
routing problem, which has a natural application in waste collec-
tion. The aim is to partition the service territory into a number of
sectors, so that each sector can be covered by a set of vehicle trips.
30 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
The authors propose three heuristics to face this problem. The first
two heuristics are made up of two phases. In the first phase the
sectors are determined, whereas in the second phase vehicle
routes are obtained by solving a mixed capacitated arc routing
problem (MCARP). The two variants differ by the heuristic used for
the sectoring phase. In particular, the first sectoring heuristic,
called Circuit of Tasks Heuristic, adds to the selected sector the
tasks of a small demand circuit computed in a balanced graph.
On the other hand, the second sector heuristic, Single Task Heuristic,
adds one task at a time. Finally, the third heuristic, namely the
Best Insertion Heuristic, builds sectors and trips simultaneously.
In particular, each sector is initialized with a different seed-task,
and, in order to ensure that the different sectors are balanced, at
each iteration it is chosen to expand the sector with the least
workload. Then, to limit the increase in workload and to keep the
sectors as compact as possible, one task close to such a sector is
added to it. The three heuristics are tested on three groups with
five MCARP instances each, resembling waste collection opera-
tions in modern towns, old historical town centers, and low-traffic
suburban areas.
3.3. Collection patterns
Collection decisions mainly involve the choice of the collection
days when the different operations must be performed. In parti-
cular, important decisions concern the maximum number of
accumulation days (that is, the maximum number of days between
two consecutive removals), and the service frequency
(for instance, once or twice a week). In fact, if such decisions are
not taken properly (for instance, there are too many accumulation
days, or the service frequency is not adequate) the risk is that the
refuse removal is not uniform during the week and the trucks are
fully exploited only in some peak days, while they are only
partially filled in the other days. This would lead to increased
costs for the subsequent operational collection phase. Thus, a
minimization of the service costs can be obtained through a
minimization of the maximum quantity removed in a day (peak
quantity). This is the objective pursued by Mansini and Speranza
[54]. In this paper, the problem of the efficient management of
municipal household refuse collection at a tactical level is tackled,
aiming at deciding the collection days for a single city district. In
particular, municipal refuse generation is assumed to occur at a
constant rate and collection is supposed to be periodic. At each
collection site, the number of consecutive accumulation days must
be contained into a user-defined set. Mansini and Speranza [54]
consider the problem of minimizing the maximum amount (peak)
of refuse collected in a day. This choice is roughly equivalent to
minimizing the number of vehicles and crews required to collect
waste. By solving their model on data from the city of Brescia, the
authors are able to obtain a peak reduction ranging between 10%
and 16% (depending on the collection frequency), compared to the
peak values without using the proposed model.
The main limit of the above formulation is the absence of
differentiation between different waste commodities. Mansini and
Speranza [54] overcome such a limit by generalising it to the case
of separate collection of different types of refuse (organic waste,
glass, paper, etc.). As recyclable materials (such as glass and paper)
may have a longer accumulation period, the authors are able to
reduce peak by 18.5% in the considered case study.
A similar problem is tackled by Angelelli and Speranza [55].
In this paper, the authors consider a problem in which a fixed
number of vehicles is available for collecting waste. A number of
collection points is spread over the collection area, and each
point must be served at a given frequency. For instance, if the
frequency is twice a week, the manager in charge of the collection
operations can choose to serve that point on Monday-Thursday, on
Tuesday-Friday, or on Wednesday-Saturdays. In this case, (M-Th),
(Tu-F), (W-S) make up a list of feasible visiting schedules for such a
point. Finding a good visiting schedule is not trivial, because two
conflicting objectives must be optimized. First of all, the service at
each collection point must be frequent enough to prevent any
inconvenience to citizens. On the other hand, a very frequent
service would contribute in increasing the costs of the collection
operations. Angelelli and Speranza devise a model for such a
problem in which a number of days, the duration of the daily shift,
a fleet of vehicles, and a set of collection points (each of them with
an associated set of feasible collection schedules, where a collec-
tion schedule is a visiting schedule with additional information on
the demand for each day) are given. The goal is to find a set of
routes assigned to each vehicle on each day of the planning
horizon, so that every collection point is visited according to a
feasible collection schedule, no more than once on the same day.
The solution approach consists in a tabu search. First, a visiting
schedule is randomly chosen for every macro-point. Then, an
initial solution is built, and the algorithm starts to repeatedly
move from one solution to another by means of moves which
induce “small” changes in the current solution. After a fixed
number of iterations, the best feasible solution is returned. The
method is tested on two real cases, namely Val Trompia (in the
province of Brescia), and Antwerp (Belgium).
Bommisetty et al. [56] consider the problem of collecting
recyclable materials in a large university campus with many
buildings. Such problem involves a hierarchical decision process
to determine: (1) the weekly collection frequency as well as the
specific collection days in the week for each building (weekly
collection schedule); (2) the number of runs per day and the
buildings to be visited in each run; (3) the route in each run. The
problem is modeled as a Periodic Vehicle Routing Problem, which
is solved by means of a two-phase algorithm. In phase 1, the
buildings to be inserted on each day of the week are selected,
depending on their collection frequencies, ensuring that the
maximum available driving time for the day is not exceeded.
Phase 2 defines a set of routes for the assigned buildings, for each
day of collection, minimizing both travel and collection times.
In both phases, a Nearest Insertion Heuristic is used.
Another contribution is due to Chu et al. [57]. In this paper, the
authors study the Periodic Capacitated Arc Routing Problem, a
periodic version of the Capacitated Arc Routing Problem (CARP),
used to model municipal waste collection. They present both a
best-insertion greedy heuristic and a scatter search method. In the
latter, a small set of solutions, called reference set, is combined to
obtain new solutions. The approach is tested on instances derived
for 23 classical CARP instances, resembling waste collection
operations.
3.4. Fleet and crew composition
A large percentage of total solid waste management cost
related to waste collection (about 75% according to [58]), is due
to the equipment and the workforce. Therefore, optimizing such
aspects could result in significant cost savings. However, regard-
less of its importance, the problem of optimizing the fleet
composition and the crew assignment has not been much studied
in the literature with respect to solid waste management.
Seminal contributions are due to [59,60]. Altman et al. [59]
present a non-linear model for calculating manpower require-
ments for refuse collection. This model is used for matching work
shifts to curbside refuse demand so as to minimize weekly missed
collections, subject to union regulations and manpower and truck
constraints. The algorithm used for solving the non-linear model is
a modification of the gradient method, in which constraints are
handled in the objective function by means of penalty terms.
 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
Numerical computations were carried out on data related to some
districts in New York City. Ignall et al. [60] formulate linear
programs to model the assignment of sanitation crews to shifts
and days of the week on a single district basis. The goal is to
balance payroll cost and missed refuse collection, while satisfying
constraints due to available equipment and policies for granting
rest days. The models are solved by means of standard linear
programming routines, and extensions of the model to planning
for several districts simultaneously are pointed out.
More recently, Hansmann and Zimmermann [61] and Baudach
et al. [62] propose a three-phase approach to determine the route
plans and the crew schedules in a waste management system.
In particular, in Phase 1 they generate the daily crew tasks, including
the routes and the assignment to days, with minimum number of
crews required for the disposal process. Then, in Phase 2 they
generate the daily crew tasks (including routes and assignment to
days) with respect to the minimum number of crews from the
previous phase, ensuring a good “similarity” between the routes in
a daily crew task, and minimizing the maximum duration of a
daily crew task. Finally, Phase 3 amounts to assigning the employ-
ees to the daily crew tasks (from Phase 2) for all working days over
a year, optimizing the goals from the crew scheduling perspective.
The contribution by List et al. [63] is mainly focused on
radioactive waste disposal. However, the authors underline that
the model is also applicable to other types of waste disposal
problems where there are specific shipper requirements to be met
in particular markets (perhaps through contracts), there is uncer-
tainty in the actual set of shipments that will be offered over time,
and the acquisition of equipment requires significant lead times.
List et al. [63] develop a two-stage stochastic optimization pro-
blem, to take into account the stochasticity of some of the problem
characteristics, such as the total quantity of waste to be moved in
specific situations, or the processing rates at the sites. The problem
is modeled as a two-stage stochastic optimization problem, in
which decision variables are separated into first-stage variables,
and second-stage, or recourse variables. In this case, the truck and
package acquisition variables are the first-stage variables, because
they must be decided before values for the uncertain parameters
are revealed. The second-stage variables are represented by flow
variables for packages and trucks, which are scenario-dependent.
Another contribution of the paper is the extension of previous
work on robust optimization for fleet planning List et al. [64] to
include two distinct “risk” variables related to monetary and
“political” risk, respectively. Computational experiments show
that considering these risk terms is important in determining
the overall level of equipment acquisition.
Ghiani et al. [65] study the problem of simultaneously schedul-
ing crews and vehicles shifts. In particular, given a set of waste
management tasks to be performed by a single company in an
integrated urban waste management context, they propose both
an optimization model, and a fast constructive heuristic. As a
minor contribution, they also select, for each task, the best
combination of days of the week when it will be performed,
according to a pre-defined weekly frequency.
4. Conclusions
In this paper we reviewed the most significant literature on the
use of OR methodologies to improve SWM. In particular, we
focused on strategic and tactical issues. As can be easily seen from
the tables summarizing the papers described throughout the
review, many research directions would require additional work.
In fact, the existing literature focused on strategic SWM issues is
extremely rich of sectorial contributions aimed at finding the
optimal solution for reduced problems of the more complex and
31
general problem described in Section 2.1. More precisely, the
literature appears poor as far as aspects like time dimension,
multi-commodity, economies of scale, and uncertainty affecting
the waste generation rates and the transportation costs over a long
time horizon. On the other hand, a huge amount of research exists
about location problems occurring in SWM systems. More efforts
are required in order to develop efficient approaches devoted to
rich SWM strategic models, in which all the aforementioned
characteristics are carefully integrated. A new challenge is repre-
sented by studying and modeling a unified framework in which
decisions related to the collection sites, transfer stations, proces-
sing facilities and landfills location are combined with decisions on
shipping multi-commodity waste flows on the basis of how much
profitable is to convert fractions of the waste into recycling
materials and alternative energies. Recent advances in exact and
matheuristic methodology for solving large scale MIPs represent
new powerful tools to find quickly good quality solutions of more
complex optimization problems, as those occurring in SWM
systems. More precisely, branch-and-price guided search metho-
dology for integer programming, and “a priori” reformulations of
the problem to be embedded into a commercial MIP solver (a
similar approach has been shown to be able to solve a nontrivial
fraction of practical lot-sizing problems by Wolsey [66] and
Gicquel et al. [67]) represent suitable approaches. Tractability of
mathematical models like those devoted to SWM systems may be
dealt with by decoupling the problem into partial subproblems to
be optimized. In such a fashion, strategic aspects may be con-
sidered over a long-term planning horizon, while modeling the
impact of tactical decisions on the strategic solution through
tactical constraints modifying the solution obtained at each
iteration.
As to purely tactical issues, one aspect which is evident from
the tables, is that the literature integrating an important aspect
like uncertainty in tactical decisions is still scarce. In fact, very few
papers address the use of stochastic parameters such as waste
generation, or travel times. In addition to these findings, we note
that the a great part of tactical models related to SWM is mostly
oriented at minimizing costs. Of course, this makes sense, because
SWM decisions usually involve large monetary sums. However, the
socio-political aspects related to SWM are important issues that
should be taken into account more carefully, given the growing
public concern for environmental preservation, as also pointed out
in Section 1.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by the Italian National
Research Council, and by the Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Uni-
versità e della Ricerca Scientifica (MIUR) of Italy (Progetto di
Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale (PRIN), and Progetto Razionalizza-
zione ed Ottimizzazione del sistema di raccolta dei Rifiuti Solidi
Urbani (RACCORSU)). This support is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors also thank two anonymous referees for their useful
comments, which helped to improve the paper.
References
[1] E.P.A. U.S. Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2009 facts and figures.
Technical Report EPA530-R-10-012; 2010. URL〈http://www.epa.gov/osw/non
haz/municipal/msw99.htm〉.
[2] Blumenthal K. Generation and treatment of municipal waste. Technical Report
KS-SF-11-031; 2011.
[3] OECD. OECD Environmental Data, Compendium 2006–2008; 2008.
[4] Tchobanoglous G. Solid waste management. In: Nemerow NM, Agardy FJ,
Sullivan P, Salvato JA, editors. Environmental engineering: environmental
health and safety for municipal infrastructure, land use and planning, and
industry. 6th ed. New Jersey, USA: Wiley and Sons; 2008. p. 177–307.
32 G. Ghiani et al. / Computers & Operations Research 44 (2014) 22–32
[5] Vigo D, Bonoli A, Gricinella AC, Zarri G. Key elements for optimal integrated
USW - management - international experiences. Bologna, Italy: Esculapio;
2007.
[6] Kemper P, Quigley JM. The economics of refuse collections. Cambridge, MA,
USA: Ballinger; 1976.
[7] Baetz BW, Pas EI, Neebe AW. Trash management: sizing and timing decisions
for incineration and landfill facilities. Interfaces 1989;19(6):52–61.
[8] Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL, Orlin JB. Network flows. New York, USA: Prentice-Hall
Englewood Cliffs; 1993.
[9] Ferrell WG, Hizlan H. South Carolina counties use a mixed-integer program-
ming based decision support tool for planning municipal solid waste manage-
ment. Interfaces 1997;27(4):23–34.
[10] Ghiani G, Laganà D, Manni E, Triki C. Capacitated location of collection sites in
an urban waste management system. Waste Manage 2012;32:1291–6.
[11] Berger C, Savard G, Wizere A. EUGENE: an optimization-based decision
support system for long-term integrated regional waste management plan-
ning. Int J Environ Pollut 1998;13:437–49.
[12] Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Salomon M, Van Wassenhove LN. The capacitated
distribution and waste disposal problem. Eur J Oper Res 1996;88:490–503.
[13] Jenkins L. Parametric mixed integer programming: an application to solid
waste management. Manage Sci 1982;28:1270–84.
[14] Kulcar T. Optimizing solid waste collection in Brussels. Eur J Oper Res
1996;90:71–7.
[15] Antunes AP. Location analysis helps manage solid waste in central Portugal.
Interfaces 1999;29(4):32–42.
[16] Badran MF, El-Haggar SM. Optimization of municipal solid waste management
in Port Said – Egypt. Waste Manage 2006;26:534–45.
[17] Mitropoulos P, Giannikos I, Mitropoulos I. Exact and heuristic approaches for
the locational planning of an integrated solid waste management system. Oper
Res: Int J 2009;9:329–47.
[18] Barros A, Dekker R, Scholten V. A two-level network for recycling sand: a case
study. Eur J Oper Res 1998;110:199–214.
[19] Eiselt HA. Locating landfills – optimization vs. reality. Eur J Oper Res
2007;179:1040–9.
[20] Baetz BW, Neebe AW. A planning model for the development of waste
material recycling programmes. J Oper Res Soc 1994;45:1374–84.
[21] Shekdar AV, Krishnaswamy KN, Tiketar VG, Bhide AD. Long term planning for
solid waste management in India. Waste Manage Res 1991;9:511–23.
[22] Caruso C, Colorni A, Paruccini M. The regional urban solid waste management
system: a modeling approach. Eur J Oper Res 1993;70:16–30.
[23] Wierzbicki AP. The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization.
In: Fandel G, Gal T, editors. Multiple criteria decision making, theory and
application. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1980. p. 468–86.
[24] Rahman M, Kuby M. A multi-objective model for locating solid waste transfer
facilities using an empirical opposition function. Inf Syst Oper Res
1995;33:34–49.
[25] Erkut E, Karagiannidis A, Perkoulidis G, Tjandra SA. A multicriteria facility
location model for municipal solid waste management in North Greece. Eur
J Oper Res 2008;187:1402–21.
[26] Tralhão L, Coutinho-Rodrigues J, Ala¸da-Almeida L. A multiobjective modeling
approach to locate multi-compartment containers for urban-sorted waste.
Waste Manage 2010;30:2418–29.
[27] Fiorucci P, Minciardi R, Robba M, Sacile R. Solid waste management in urban
areas – development and application of a decision support system. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2003;37:301–28.
[28] Noche B, Rhoma FA, Chinakupt T, Jawale M. Optimization model for solid
waste management system network design case study. In: Proceedings of the
2nd international conference on computer and automation engineering; 2010.
p. 230–6.
[29] Antunes AP, Teixeira JC, Coutinho MS. Managing solid waste through discrete
location analysis: a case study in central Portugal. J Oper Res Soc 2008;59
(8):1038–46.
[30] Galante F, Aiello G, Enea M, Panascia E. A multi-objective approach to solid
waste management. Waste Manage 2010;30:1720–8.
[31] Maqsood I, Huang GH. Two-stage interval-stochastic programming model for
waste management under uncertainty. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2003;53
(5):540–52.
[32] Li YP, Huang GH. An inexact two-stage mixed integer linear programming
method for solid waste management in the City of Regina. J Environ Manage
2006;81(3):188–209.
[33] Yong PL, Huang GH. Minimax regret analysis for municipal solid waste
management: an interval-stochastic programming approach. J Air Waste
Manage Assoc 2006;56(7):931–44.
[34] Guo P, Huang GH, He L. ISMISIP: an inexact stochastic mixed integer
linear semi-infinite programming approach for solid waste management
and planning under uncertainty. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 2008;22
(6):759–75.
[35] Cai YP, Huang GH, Lu HW, Yang ZF, Tan Q. I-VFRP: an interval-valued fuzzy
robust programming approach for municipal waste management planning
under uncertainty. Eng Optim 2009;41(5):399–418.
[36] Huang GH, Baetz BW, Patry GG. Trash-flow allocation: planning under
uncertainty. Interfaces 1998;28:36–55.
[37] Yeomans JS, Huang GH, Yoogalingam R. Combining simulation with evolu-
tionary algorithms for optimal planning under uncertainty: an application to
municipal solid waste management planning in the regional municipality of
Hamilton–Wentworth. J Environ Inf 2003;2:11–30.
[38] Yeomans JS. Solid waste planning under uncertainty using evolutionary
simulation-optimization. Socioecon Plan Sci 2007;41:38–60.
[39] Yeomans JS. Efficient generation of alternative perspectives in public
environmental policy formulation: applying co-evolutionary simulation-opti-
mization to municipal solid waste management. Cent Eur J Oper Res
2011;19:391–413.
[40] Male JW, Liebman JC. Districting and routing for solid waste collection.
J Environ Eng Div 1978;104:1–14.
[41] Eisenstein DD, Iyer AV. Garbage collection in Chicago: a dynamic scheduling
model. Manage Sci 1997;43(7):922–33.
[42] Hanafi S, Freville A, Vaca P. Municipal solid waste collection: an effective data
structure for solving the sectorization problem with local search methods. Inf
Syst Oper Res 1999;37:236–54.
[43] Labelle A, Langevin A, Campbell JF. Sector design for snow removal and
disposal in urban areas. Socioecon Plan Sci 2002;36:183–202.
[44] Sahoo S, Kim S, Kim B, Kraas B, Popov A. Routing optimization for waste
management. Interfaces 2005;35:24–36.
[45] Kim BI, Kim S, Sahoo S. Balanced clustering algorithms for vehicle routing
problems. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Industrial Engineers annual
conference. Houston, USA; 2004.
[46] Solomon MM. Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problems
with time windows. Oper Res 1987;35:254–65.
[47] Taillard E, Badeau P, Gendreau M, Guertin F, Potvin JY. A tabu search heuristic
for the vehicle routing problem with soft time windows. Transp Sci 1997;31:
170–86.
[48] Nuortio T, Kytöjoki J, Niska H, Bräysy O. Improved route planning and scheduling of
waste collection and transport. Expert Syst Appl 2006;30:223–32.
[49] Kytöjoki J, Nuortio T, Bräysy O. Two efficient metaheuristics for huge scale
vehicle routing problems. Working paper. Department of Environmental
Sciences, University of Kuopio, Finland; 2004.
[50] Voudouris C, Tsang E. Guided local search. Eur J Oper Res 1998;113:80–119.
[51] Mladenović N, Hansen P. Variable neighbourhood search. Comput Oper Res
1997;24:1097–100.
[52] Dueck G, Scheurer T. Threshold accepting: a general purpose optimization
algorithm appearing superior to simulated annealing. J Comput Phys 1990;90:
161–75.
[53] Mour ao MC, Nunes AC, Prins C. Heuristic methods for the sectoring arc
routing problem. Eur J Oper Res 2009;196(7):856–68.
[54] Mansini R, Speranza MG. A linear programming model for the separate refuse
collection service. Comput Oper Res 1998;25(7–8):659–73.
[55] Angelelli E, Speranza MG. The application of a vehicle routing model to a
waste-collection problem: two case studies. J Oper Res Soc 2002;53(9):
944–52.
[56] Bommisetty D, Dessouky M, Jacobs L. Scheduling collection of recyclable
material at Northern Illinois University campus using a two-phase algorithm.
Comput Ind Eng 1998;35(3–4):435–8.
[57] Chu F, Labadi N, Prins C. A scatter search for the periodic capacitated arc
routing problem. Eur J Oper Res 2006;169(2):586–605.
[58] Shamshiry E, Nadi B, Mahmud AR. Optimization of municipal solid
waste management. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on
biology, environment and chemistry, vol. 1. Singapore: IACSIT Press; 2011.
p. 119–21.
[59] Altman SM, Beltrami EJ, Rappaport SS, Schoepfle GK. Nonlinear programming
model of crew assignments for household refuse collection. IEEE Trans Syst
Man Cybern 1971;SMC-1(3):289–91.
[60] Ignall E, Kolesar P, Walker W. Linear programming models of crew assign-
ments for refuse collection. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1972;SMC-2(5):
664–6.
[61] Hansmann R, Zimmermann U. Integrated vehicle routing and crew scheduling
in waste management (part I). In: Barnhart C, Clausen U, Lauther U, Möhring RH,
editors. Models and algorithms for optimization in logistics. No. 09261 in
Dagstuhl seminar proceedings. Dagstuhl, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-
Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany; 2009. URL 〈http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/
volltexte/2009/2185〉.
[62] Baudach J, Chmielewski A, Clausen U. Integrated vehicle routing and crew
scheduling in waste management (part II). In: Barnhart C, Clausen U, Lauther
U, Möhring RH, editors. Models and algorithms for optimization in logistics
No. 09261 in Dagstuhl seminar proceedings. Dagstuhl, Germany: Schloss
Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany; 2009. URL 〈http://
drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2009/2183〉.
[63] List GF, Wood B, Turnquist MA, Nozick LK, Jones DA, Lawton CR. Logistics
planning under uncertainty for disposition of radioactive wastes. Comput
Oper Res 2006;33:701–23.
[64] List GF, Wood B, Nozick LK, Turnquist MA, Jones DA, Kjeldgaard EA, et al.
Robust optimization for fleet planning under uncertainty. Transp Res Part E
2003;39:209–27.
[65] Ghiani G, Guerriero E, Manni A, Manni E, Potenza A. Simultaneous personnel
and vehicle shift scheduling in the waste management sector. Waste Manage
2013;33:1589–94.
[66] Wolsey L. Solving multi-item lot-sizing problems with an MIP solver using
classification and reformulation. Manage Sci 2002;48(12):1587–602.
[67] Gicquel C, Migeville N, Minoux M, Dallery Y. Discrete lot sizing and scheduling
using product decomposition into attributes. Comput Oper Res 2009;36:
2690–2698.