Evaluation and Ranking of Waste to Energy Technologies Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods AHP-VIKOR , AHP -TOPSIS

Shahnazari, Arman; Pourdej, Hamed; Hakimi, Sareh; Banaeian, Narges

doi:10.48306/jumee.2024.462796.1048

Evaluation and Ranking of Waste to Energy Technologies Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods AHP-VIKOR , AHP -TOPSIS

Authors

Arman Shahnazari ¹

Hamed Pourdej ²

Sareh Hakimi ³

Narges Banaeian ⁴

¹ CEO and member of the board of directors of Arman Charkhe-e- Sabz-e- Caspian, Rasht city, Guilan, Iran

² member of the board of directors of Arman Charkhe-e- Sabz-e- Caspian,, Rasht, Guilan, Iran

³ 3CEO of Asmanroud Rahim Abad environmental non-governmental organization (NGO), Rahimabad, Gilan, Iran

⁴ Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Guilan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.48306/jumee.2024.462796.1048

Abstract

The most important objective of this paper is to provide an appropriate model for selecting best waste-to-energy technology for both private and public sector managers and investors. Urban waste management combined with energy recovery can be the most suitable solution not only for preserving environment but also for producing and supplying energy to urban and rural communities. Determining the most appropriate waste-to-energy technology is a challenging and complex process, requiring consideration of a wide range of diverse criteria. For this purpose, this study tries to apply two of the most widely used Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, TOPSIS and VIKOR. Anaerobic digestion (AD), incineration, and pyrolysis were chosen as the main options for waste-to-energy conversion technologies. These options were evaluated based on three main criteria: environmental, technical, and economic, each of which included various sub-criteria. The results of pairwise comparisons indicate that among main criteria, environmental criterion holds the highest score and importance, followed by the economic and technical criteria, respectively. To ensure reliability, the options were ranked using three different MCDM models methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), VIKOR, and TOPSIS. The overall results of the decision-making models show that incineration is the best waste-to-energy technology, followed by anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis in respective order.

Keywords

"Municipal solid waste"

"Waste-to-energy technologies"

"Analytic Hierarchy Process"

"VIKOR method "

"TOPSIS method"

1. Afrane, S., et al., Integrated AHP-TOPSIS under a fuzzy environment for the selection of waste-to-energy technologies in Ghana: a performance analysis and socio-enviro-economic feasibility study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022. 19(14): p. 8428 .https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148428

2.وحیدی، حسین.، عرب آبادی، رضا.، سلطانی نژاد، مرضیه.، انتخاب مناسب‌ترین روش تبدیل پسماند به انرژی با استفاده از مدل‌های VIKOR-AHP در فضای فازی: مطالعه موردی شهرداری کرمان، فصلنامه مدیریت شهری و مهندسی محیط زیست،1402. 1(1), 17-36. DOI: 10.48306/jumee.2023.394192.1002))

3.Scott, J, A., W, Ho., and P, K, Dey., A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems, Energy, 2012. 42(1): p. 146-156. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.074)

4. خان پوراقدم، سمیه.، قنبرزاده لک، مهدی.، مهتدی، مهرداد.، و صبور، محمدرضا، ارزیابی گزینه های دفع نهایی پسماند جامد شهری با استفاده از تلفیق روش های ارزیابی چرخه عمر و تحلیل سلسله مراتبی(مطالعه موردی: شهر تهران)، علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، 1398. 21(2 (پیاپی 81) )، 57-69. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/360849/fa))

5. Assamoi, B., Lawryshyn, Y., The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion, Waste Management. 2012. 32(5). 1019-1030.

6. Sharuddin, S, D, A., Abnisa, F., Daud, W, M, A, W., Aroua, M, K., A review on pyrolysis of plastic wastes, Energy conversion and management, 2016. 115, 308-326. Doi: 101016/jenconman201602037

7. Heo, H, S., Park, H, J., Park, Y, K., Ryu, C., Suh, D, J., Suh, Y, W., Kim, S, S., Bio-oil production from fast pyrolysis of waste furniture sawdust in a fluidized bed, Bioresource technology, 2010. 101(1), S91-S96. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.06.003

8. زینلی، ر.، هضم مشترک زباله جامد شهری با گلیسیرین خام و پیش تیمارفراصوت، 1394، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

9. AlNouss, A. Alherbawi, M., Parthasarathy, P., Althani, N., McKay, G., AlAnsari, T., Waste-to-energy technology selection: A multi-criteria optimisation approach, 2024. Computers & Chemical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.10859

10. Teimouri, F., Ebrahimi, A., Jalili, M., Alaghehbandan, HR., Sustainability Impact Assessment of Waste to Energy Technologies in Iran, 2019. J Environ Health Sustain Dev. 2019; 4(4): 885-94.

11. Mujtaba, M,A., Munir, A., Imran, S., Nasir, M,K., Muhayyuddin, M, G., Javed, A., Mehmood, A., Habila, M, A., Fayaz, H., Qazi, A., Evaluating sustainable municipal solid waste management scenarios: A multicriteria decision making approach, Heliyon, 2024. 10 (4):e25788. Doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25788

12. Alsulaili, A., Ali, O., Alenezi, N., and Al-Dabbous, A, N., Selection of municipal solid waste disposal technology using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Genetic Algorithm for Gulf Cooperation Council Countries, Journal of Engineering Research, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2024.03.015

13. Bhowmick, P., Das, S., Das, N., Identification of suitable sites for municipal waste dumping and disposal using multi-criteria decision-making technique and spatial technology: A case of Bolpur municipality, Birbhum district, West Bengal, Waste Management Bulletin, 2024, Vol, 2, No, 1, 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2024.02.001

14. Alam, S., Rahman, K, S., Rokonuzzaman, M., Salam, P, A., Miah, M, S., Das, N., Chowdhury, S., Channumsin, S., Sreesawet, S., Channumsin, M, Selection of Waste To Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management Towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability, 2022, 14, 11913. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911913

15. Al Theeb, N., Qdais, H, A., Qdais, F, H, A., and Habibah, O, Utilizing AHP-TOPSIS as multi-criteria decision approaches to select the best alternative for waste to energy technology, Jordan J, Mech, Ind, Eng, 2022, 16, 601-613.‏

16. Agbejule, A., Shamsuzzoha, A., Lotchi, K., Rutledge, K, Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Process to Select Waste-to-Energy Technology in Developing Countries: The Case of Ghana, Sustainability, 2021, 13(22):12863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212863

17. Shahnazari, A., Rafiee, M., Rohani, A., Nagar, B, B., Ebrahiminik, M, A., and Aghkhani, M, H, Identification of effective factors to select energy recovery technologies from municipal solid waste using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM): A review of thermochemical technologies, 2020, Sustainable energy technologies and assessments, 40, 100737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100737

18. غفارپناه، محسن.، حسین زاده، مهناز.، کاظمی، عالیه، مدلسازی سیستم پردازش و دفع پسماند شهری اصفهان با استفاده از رویکرد پویایی‌شناسی سیستم، پژوهش های نوین در تصمیم گیری، 1399، 5(2)، 81-109

19. صادقی، زین العابدین.، رضایی، جعفری، مریم.، و قاسمی نژاد، امین، بررسی نیروگاه های تجدیدپذیر با استفاده از تحلیل سلسله مراتبی، تاپسیس و ویکور، علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، 1399. 22(8 (پیاپی 99) )، 43-58 https://sid.ir/paper/397458/fa

20. منظور، د.، رحیمی، ع، ر، اولویتبندی نیروگاههای تولید برق در ایران با استفاده از مدلهای تصمیمگیری چند شاخصه. پژوهشنامه اقتصاد انرژی ایران، سال چهارم، شماره 14، 1394. 191- 215

21. داوودی نژاد، م.، بی پروا، پ، اولویت بندی فناوری های تولید انرژی از فرایندهای تصفیه فاضلاب به روش تحلیل سلسله مراتبی، نشریه انرژی ایران، 1394 ، شماره3

22. Bamdad, N., Mohammadzadeh-Basir, H., Narvankuhi, A., Emami, S., Saiedi, A., Site selection methodology for industries, 2007, Rahshah and Associates Engineers: 94: 54-5.

23. مومنی، م.، شریفی سلیم، ع ، مدل ها و نرم افزارهای تصمیم گیری چند شاخصه، 1391، تهران: نشرمؤلف.

24. قدسی پور، س، ح، فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی، 1387، تهران : انتشارات دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر.

25. میرغفور، س، ح.، عزیزی، ف، اسدیان اردکانی، ف، روشهای تصمیمگیری چند شاخصه، 1393. سازمان انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی، جهاد دانشگاهی واحد یزد.

26. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G, H., Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European journal of operational research, 2004, 156(2), 445-455.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

27. Chen, L, Y., Wang, T, C., Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR, International Journal of Production Economics, 2009, 120(1), 233-242.

28. Aldona, K, Bartlomiej, G, Analytical Hierarchy Process/Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution-based approach to the generation of environmental improvement options for painting process e Results from an industrial case study, 2015, Journal of Cleaner Production, 101, 360-367.