Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 505–515 | Cite as

Investigating utility level of waste disposal methods using multicriteria decision-making techniques (case study: Mazandaran-Iran)

  • Fereshteh Mirzazadeh
  • Farhad Hadinejad
  • Narges Akbarpour Roshan


Regardless of collection and disposal systems of wastes, which are the main causes of pollution in cities and villages, attention to the health and hygiene of a society is not possible. Hence, we try to identify the most appropriate waste disposal method considering geographical and environmental conditions of Mazandaran province using multicriteria decision-making techniques (Analytical Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process), in an applied and descriptive research. To do so, we, first, identified the most effective alternatives and criteria in the field of waste disposal by taking into account the region’s environmental and geographical conditions through library studies and investigating various internal and external sources. Then, after compilation of questionnaires and distributing them among experts of municipalities and governor of the province, we determined effectiveness of the criteria and utility of the alternatives using the mentioned techniques. Our findings suggest that soil type and water level are the most important factors in selecting waste disposal method and recycling is the most appropriate waste disposal method in Mazandaran province.


AHP Fuzzy AHP MCDM Waste Waste disposal 

Supplementary material

10163_2017_611_MOESM1_ESM.doc (86 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 86 KB)


  1. 1.
    Saeednia A (1999) Green book of municipalities, 7th ed. Publication of Municipalities Organization, Tehran, pp 24–52Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yaqubi Tahamtan A, Nasirnia N (2008) Investigating the problems of urban waste disposal in Babol city. Dissertation, social and humanistic sciences, Mazandaran UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botkin D, Keller E (2007) Environmental science: earth as a living planet, 5th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Omrani Q (1998) Solid waste, first edn. Scientific publication center of Islamic Azad University, TehranGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poorahmad A, Habibi K, Mohammad Zahraee S, Nazari Adli S (2007) Using fuzzy algorithm & GIS for positioning urban equipments (case study: waste burial place of Babolsar city). J Environ Stud 33(42):31–42Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassani A (2005) Navigation program of urban solid waste disposal (case study: Babol city). Dissertation, art & architecture faculty, Mazandaran UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohammadi S, Ranjbar Z (2008) The effect of waste management on Bahnamir city tourism. Dissertation, social and humanistic sciences faculty, Mazandaran UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aliakbari E, Jamal Livani A (2011) Positioning the place of urban solid waste hygienic burial using AHP, case study; Bahnamir city. Geogr J Sci Res Season Mag Iran Geogr 9(30):95–111Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    JinJ, wang z, Ran S (2006) Solid waste management in Macao: practices and challenges. Waste Manage (Oxford) 26:1045–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomes C, Nunes K, Xavier L, CardosoR, Valle R (2008) Multi criteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega 36:395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shan L, Lie Y, Yan Q, Mei S (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Beijing City. Waste Manage (Oxford) 29:2596–2599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ekmekciog˘lu M, Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Fuzzy multi criteria disposal method and site selection for municipal solid waste. Waste Manage (Oxford) 30:1729–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El hanandeh A, El-zeinA (2010) The development and application of multi criteria decision making tool with consideration of uncertainty: the selection of a management strategy for the bio-degradable fraction in the municipal solid waste. BioResourc Technol 101:555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dursun M, Karsak EE, Karadayi MA (2011) A fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making framework for evaluating health-care waste disposal alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 38:11453–11462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abu Qdais H, Alshraideh H (2014) Selection of management option for solid waste from olive oil industry using the analytical hierarchy process. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 18(1):1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10163-014-0321-3 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mirzazadeh F, Hadinejad F (2015) Applying fuzzy AHP technique in waste disposal method selection, Waste Management, 38, a glance at the world, II.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naser Harati A, Vafaee F, Abdollahzadeh R (2010) Applying SWOT analysis on integrated management of coastal zones (case studies: 3 northern provinces). J Environ Sci Technol 12(4):129–142Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassanvand M, Nabizadeh R, Heidari M (2008) Analysis of urban solid wastes in Iran. Health Environ Mag 1(1):9–18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shemmeri T, Al-Kloub B, Pearman A (1997) Model choice in multicriteria decision aid. Eur J Oper Res 97(3):550–560MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marinoni O (2005) A stochastic spatial decision support system based on PROMETHEE. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19(1):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saaty TL (1980) The Analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanjay V, Ramachandran M (2006) Multi Criteria evaluation of demand side management (DSM) implementation strategies in the Indian power sector. Energy 31(12):2210–2225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bagranoff NA (1989) Using an analytic hierarchy approach to design internal control system. J Account EDP 4(4):37–41Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arbel AY, Orgler E (1990) An application of the AHP to bank strategic planning: the mergers and acquisitions process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moutinho L (1993) The use of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in goal assessment: the case of professional services companies. J Prof Serv Mark 8(2):97–114Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arunraj NS, Maiti J (2010) Risk-based maintenance policy selection using AHP and goal programming. Saf Sci 48(2):238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patrick E, Laurence W (1999) Application of analytic hierarchy process techniques to streamlined life-cycle analysis of two anodizing processes. Environ Sci Technol 33(9):1495–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chiang CM, Lai CM (2002) A study on the comprehensive indicator of indoor environment assessment for occupants’ health in Taiwan. Build Environ 37(4):387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Willett K, Sharda R (1991) Using the analytic hierarchy process in water resources planning: selection of flood control projects. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 25(2):102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchy process in conflict management. Int J Conflict Manag 1(1):47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kang HY, Ogunseitan O, Shapiro AA, Schoenung JM (2007) A comparative hierarchical decision framework on toxics uses reduction effectiveness for electronic and electrical industries. Environ Sci Technol 41(2):373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mustafa MA, Al-Bahar JF (1991) Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy processes. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 38(1):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gaudenzi B, Borghesi A (2006) Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method. Int J Logist Manag 17(1):114–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zayed T, Amer M, Pan J (2008) Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. Int J Project Manage 26(4):408–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Milosevic DZ (2003) Project management toolbox. Tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cengiz K, Ufuk C, Ziya U (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manag 16(6):382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Macharis C, Springael J, De Brucher K, Verbeke A (2004) PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur J Oper Res 153(2):307–317MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leung LC, Chao D (2000) On consistency and ranking of alternatives in Fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 124:102–113MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kulak O, Kahraman C (2005) Fuzzy multi-criterion selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Inf Sci 170:191–210MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weck M, Klocke F, Schell H, Ruenauver E (1997) Evaluating alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method. Eur J Oper Res 100(2):351–366MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yu CS (2002) A GP-AHP method for solving group-decision making AHP problems. Comput Oper Res 29(14):1969–2001MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kuo RJ, Chi SC, Kao SS (2002) A decision support system for selecting convenience store location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network. Comput Ind 47(2):199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Huang CC, Chu PY, Chiang YH (2008) A fuzzy AHP application in government sponsored R&D project selection. Omega 36(6):1038–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pan NF (2008) Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automat Constr 17(8):958–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cakir O, Canbolat MS (2008) A web-based decision support system for multicriteria inventory Classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst Appl 35(3):1367–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dagdeviren M, Yuksel I (2008) Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inf Sci 178(6):1717–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gumus AT (2009) Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):4067–4074MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bozbura FT, Beskese A (2007) Prioritization of organizational capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Int J Approx Reason 44:124–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fereshteh Mirzazadeh
    • 1
  • Farhad Hadinejad
    • 2
  • Narges Akbarpour Roshan
    • 3
  1. 1.Science Affiliation Research Institute of ShakhesPajouhIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and AccountingAllameh Tabataba’i UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesUniversity of MazandaranBabolsar, MazandaranIran

Personalised recommendations