Sustainability Assessment of Waste Management System for Mexico City (Mexico)—Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
- (1)
- Define the problem and determine the kind of knowledge sought.
- (2)
- Structure the decision hierarchy according to the goal of the decision in the following order: the objectives from a broad perspective, through the intermediate levels (criteria on which subsequent elements depend), up to the lowest level (which usually is a set of the alternatives).
- (3)
- Construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices. Each element of the matrix in the upper level is used to compare elements in the level immediately below.
- (4)
- Use the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weigh the priorities in the neighboring level. Do this for every element. For each element in the level below, add its weighed values and obtain its overall or global priority. Continue this process of weighing and adding until the final priorities of the alternatives in the bottom-most level are reached.
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Selection of Technical Alternatives
2.4. Waste Management Scenarios
2.5. Selection of Indicators
- overall waste management performance: landfill disposal rate; recycling rate;
- environmental indicators: GHG emissions (CO2 Equivalents) per Mg of MSW, acid gases emissions (nitrogen oxides) per Mg of MSW, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and mercury in soil (heavy metals in soil);
- economic indicators: investment and operational costs;
- social indicators: job creation and public acceptance.
2.6. Evaluation of Indicators
2.6.1. Overall Waste Management Performance
2.6.2. Environmental Indicators
2.6.3. Economic Indicators
2.6.4. Social Indicators
2.6.5. Ranking of Indicators
2.7. Limitations of Methodology
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Assessment of Indicators
3.2. Scenario Ranking
3.3. Sensitivity Analysis
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Oduro-Appiah, K.; Scheinberg, A.; Mensah, A.; Afful, A.; Kofi Boadu, H.; de Vries, N. Assessment of the municipal solid waste management system in Accra, Ghana: A ‘Wasteaware’ benchmark indicator approach. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 1149–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghazvinei, P.T.; Mir, M.A.; Ariffin, J. University Campus Solid Waste Management [Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Analytical Hierarchy Process]; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-3-319-43227-4. [Google Scholar]
- Rodić, L.; Wilson, D.C. Resolving governance issues to achieve priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries. Sustainability 2017, 9, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrissey, A.J.; Browne, J. Waste Management Models and Their Application to Sustainable Waste Management. Waste Manag. 2004, 24, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brunner, P.H.; Fellner, J. Setting priorities for waste management strategies in developing countries. Waste Manag. Res. 2007, 25, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Assessment Methods for Waste Management Decision-Support in Developing Countries. Available online: https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/eawag/islandora/object/eawag%3A13531/datastream/PDF/view (accessed on 30 December 2017).
- Elsaid, S.; Aghezzaf, E.H. A progress indicator-based assessment guide for integrated municipal solid-waste management systems. JSMCWM 2017, 20, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vučijak, B.; Kurtagić, S.M.; Silajdžić, I. Multicriteria decision making in selecting best solid waste management scenario: a municipal case study from Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Clean. Prod. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brans, J.P. Lingénierie de la décision. Elaboration dinstruments daide à la décision. Méthode PROMETHEE. In L′aide à la décision: Nature, instruments et perspectives d’avenir; Nadeau, R., Landry, M., Eds.; Presses de l′Université Laval: Québec city, QC, Canada, 1982; pp. 183–214. [Google Scholar]
- Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria. Decision-Making). Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiruga, D.; Walther, G.; González-Benito, J.; Spengler, T. Evaluation of sites for the location of WEEE recycling plants in Spain. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demesouka, O.E.; Vavatsikos, A.P.; Anagnostopoulos, K.P. GIS-based multicriteria municipal solid waste landfill suitability analysis: a review of the methodologies performed and criteria implemented. Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 270–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saaty, T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Piority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Achillas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Karagiannidis, A. The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: a literature review. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kling, M.; Seyring, N.; Tzanova, P. Assessment of economic instruments for countries with low municipal waste management performance: An approach based on the analytic hierarchy process. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 912–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Badri, M.; Al Qubaisi, A.; Mohaidat, J.; Al Dhaheri, H.; Yang, G.; Al Rashedi, A.; Greer, K. An analytic hierarchy process for school quality and inspection: Model development and application. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2016, 30, 437–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, Y.; Kallas, Z.; Realini Cujó, C. A multi-criteria stated method to analyze consumers’ preference and sensory evaluation towards omega-3 enriched eggs: The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). In Proceedings of the 29th Conference if the IAAE, International Association of Agricultural Economists, Milan, Italy, 1–3 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Schmoldt, D.; Kangas, J.; Mendoza, G.A.; Pesonen, M. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; ISBN 978-94-015-9799-9. [Google Scholar]
- Milutinović, B.; Stefanović, G.; Dassisti, M.; Marković, D.; Vučković, G. Multi-criteria analysis as a tool for sustainability assessment of a waste management model. Energy 2014, 74, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Jang, Y.C.; Lee, S. Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taboada-González, P.; Aguilar-Virgen, Q.; Ojeda-Benítez, S.; Cruz-Sotelo, S. Application of analytic hierarchy process in a waste treatment technology assessment in Mexico. Environ. Monit. Assess 2014, 186, 5777–5795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Araiza Aguilar, J.A.; Nájera Aguilar, H.A.; Gutiérrez Hernandez, R.F.; Rojas Valencia, M.N. Emplacement of solid waste management infrastructure for the Frailesca Region, Chiapas, México, using GIS tools. EJRS 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Morales, I.N.; del Consuelo Mañón-Salas, M.; del Consuelo Hernández-Berriel, M.; Ojeda-Benítez, S.; Carreño-de León, M.C. Selección de Municipios del Noreste del Estado de México y Estados Aledaños Mediante el Método AHP. In Proceedings of the Memorias 9 ENERS 2018, Guadalajara, Mexico, 13 June 2018; Dra. María del Consuelo Mañón Salas: Calimaya, Estado de México, Mexico, 2018; pp. 189–199. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez Jauregui Abdo, J.P. Sustainable Development of Domestic Water Supply in Emerging Megacities: The Case of the City of Guadalajara, Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, Brandenburg Technical University, Cottbus, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank, Data Bank, 2016. Available online: http://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico (accessed on 25 July 2018).
- INEGI. Encuesta Intercensal. Available online: http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic_2015_presentacion.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2017).
- PAOT, Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigaciones y Estudios sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo del IPN and Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Diagnóstico actual del flujo de residuos sólidos urbanos que se genera en el Distrito Federal, 2013. Available online: http://centro.paot.org.mx/documentos/paot/estudios/flujo_residuos_DF.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2018).
- Gómez, F.L.; Quintero, M.J. Acuerdan GDF y Edomex canalización de basura ante cierre de Bordo Poniente. La Jornada. 2011. Available online: http://www.jornada.unam.mx:8810/2011/12/22/capital/036n2cap (accessed on 5 March 2018).
- Bezama, A.; Aguayo, P.; Konrad, O.; Navia, R.; Lorber, K.E. Investigations on mechanical biological treatment of waste in South America: Towards more sustainable MSW management strategies. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menikpura, N.; Sang-Arun, J.; Bengtsson, M. Mechanical biological treatment as a solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from landfills in Thailand. In Proceedings of the ISWA World Solid Waste Congress, Florence, Italy, 17–19 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Guidebook for the Application of Waste to Energy Technologies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/pressreleases/Guidebook_WTE_v5_July25_2013.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2016).
- SEDEMA. El Inventario de Residuos Sólidos. 2016. Available online: http://www.sedema.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/IRS-2016.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- Beckmann, M.; Karl, H.C.; Thome-Kozmiensky, J. Waste-derived fuels—Opportunities and problems [Ersatzbrennstoffe—Chancen und probleme]. Aufbereit.-Tech. 2006, 47, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
- Thiel, S.; Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J. Mechanical-Biological Pre-Treatment of Waste–Hope and Reality. In Proceedings of the ISWA World Congress 2010—Urban Development and Sustainability—A Major Challenge for Waste Management in the 21th Century, Hamburg, Germany, 15–18 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Cencic, O.; Rechberger, H. Material Flow Analysis with Software STAN. J. Environ. Eng. Manag. 2008, 18, 440–447. [Google Scholar]
- Navarotto, P.; Dominguez Llauro, R. Materials recovery from municipal solid waste: ECOPARC 4 Barcelona a case study. In SIDISA 2012 Sustainable Technology for Environmental Protection; Bonomo, L., Ed.; Atti del Convegno Sidisa: Milan, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Cimpan, C.; Maul, A.; Jansen, M.; Pretz, T.; Wenzel, H. Central sorting and recovery of MSW recyclable materials: A review of technological state-of-the-art, cases, practice and implications for materials recycling. J. Environ. Manag. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hokkanen, J.; Salminen, P. Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1997, 98, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Quantitative assessments of municipal waste management systems: using different indicators to compare and rank programs in New York State. Was Manag. 2014, 34, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milutinović, B.; Stefanović, G.; Kyoseva, V.; Yordanova, D.; Dombalov, I. Sustainability assessment and comparison of waste management systems: The Cities of Sofia and Niš case studies. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 896–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- BLFUW-Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. Benchmarking für die österreichische Abfallwirtschaft. 2015. Available online: https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_247861.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- Andersen, J.K.; Boldrin, A.; Christensen, T.H.; Scheutz, C. Mass balances and life-cycle inventory for a garden waste windrow composting plant (Aarhus, Denmark). Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 1010–1020. [Google Scholar]
- Masood, M.; Barlow, C.Y.; Wilson, D.C. An assessment of the current municipal solid waste management system in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 834–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clavreul, J.; Baumeister, H.; Christensen, T.H.; Damgaard, A. An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies. Environ. Model Softw. 2014, 60, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirkeby, J.T.; Birgisdottir, H.; Hansen, T.L.; Christensen, T.H.; Bhander, G.S.; Hauschild, M. Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Manag. Res 2006, 24, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirkeby, J.T.; Birgisdottir, H.; Hansen, T.L.; Christensen, T.H.; Bhander, G.S.; Hauschild, M. Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid waste management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE). Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 793–799. [Google Scholar]
- Hauschild, M.; Goedkoop, M.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.; Schryver, A.D.; Humbert, S.; Laurent, A.; et al. Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. LCA 2013, 18, 683–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC (2007) Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- Møller, J.; Jensen, M.B.; Kromann, M.; Neidel, T.L.; Jakobsen, J.B. Miljø-og samfundsøkonomisk vurdering af muligheder for øget genanvendelse af papir, pap, plast, metal og organisk affald fra dagrenovation. Miljøprojekt nr. 1458. 2013. Available online: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2013/01/978-87-92903-80-8.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- IADB—Inter-American Development Bank (2015) Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/7177#sthash.1YBgmSCS.dpuf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- Münnich, K.; Mahler, C.F.; Fricke, K. Pilot project of mechanical-biological treatment of waste in Brazil. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsilemou, K.; Panagiotakopoulos, D. Approximate cost functions for solid waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christensen, T. Solid Waste Technology and Management; Wiley: Chichester West Sussex, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-405-17517-3. [Google Scholar]
- Friends of the Earth. More Jobs, Less Waste. 2010. Available online: https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_more_jobs_less_waste_0910.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- European Commission, Directorate-General Environment. 2001. Effects of Waste Management Policies. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/waste/pdf/waste_management_employment.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- Veolia (2017) Weekly Update—Invitation to Respond [Veolia—Mexico Thermo-Valorization]. Available online: https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Business%20and%20Human%20Right%20Resource%20Center%20Answer_EN_veolia.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2017).
- Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR Insight 2009, 22, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brunner, P.H.; Rechberger, H. Waste to energy-key element for sustainable waste management. Waste Manag. 2015, 37, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vujic, G.; Stanisavljevic, N.; Batinic, B.; Jurakic, Z.; Ubavin, D. Barriers for implementation of ‘‘waste to energy’’ in developing and transition countries: a case study of Serbia. JSMCWM 2017, 19, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Scenario | Description |
---|---|
Scenario a | Landfilling without landfill gas utilization 1928.33 Mg per day of waste (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass) is recycled, 1324.72 Mg per day of waste is composted, 69.09 Mg of waste is used for RDF production, 8745.21 Mg per day of waste is landfilled. |
Scenario b | Mechanical–Biological treatment 2878.05 Mg per day (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass) is recycled, 1508.22 Mg per day of organic waste (food and garden waste) is composted, the rest is landfilled. |
Scenario c | Anaerobic digestion with biogas utilization 2006.77 Mg per day of waste (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass) is recycled, 2501.97 Mg per day of waste is sent to anaerobic digestion plant, 940.36.98 Mg of waste is used for RDF production, the rest is landfilled. |
Scenario d | Incineration with energy recovery 2006.77 Mg per day (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass) is recycled, 2652.79 Mg per day of residual waste is sent to incineration plant. |
Indicators | Ranking of Importance | Indicators | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extreme importance | Very strong importance | Strong importance | Moderate importance | Equal importance | Moderate importance | Strong importance | Very strong importance | Extreme importance | |||||||||||
Landfill disposal rate | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Recycling rate | ||
Landfill disposal rate | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | GHG emissions |
Category | Criteria | Baseline | AD | MBT | Incineration | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall waste management performance | Landfill disposal rate (%) | 86 | 64 | 60 | 56 | Calculated by the authors (Mg of landfilled MSW/Mg of MSW collected) |
Recycling rate through formal sector (%) | 1 | 2 | 11 | 2 | Calculated by the authors (Mg of recycled MSW/Mg of MSW collected) | |
Environment | GHG (MgCO2eq Mg MSW−1) | 0.458 | 0.175 | 0.03 | −0.04 | LCIA IPCC2007 Analysis made in Easetech. Available in Supplementary Material |
Nitrogen oxides (kg) | 0.547 | −0.14 | −2.64 | 0.27 | LCI Analysis made in Easetech. Available in Supplementary Material | |
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (kg) | 0.27 | 0.21 | 3.66 | 0.39 | LCI Analysis made in Easetech. Available in Supplementary Material | |
Mercury in soil (kg) | 0.000003 | 0.00009 | 0.000002 | 0.000002 | LCI Analysis made in Easetech. Available in Supplementary Material | |
Economics | Investment costs ($ Mg−1) | 0 | 13.67 | 415.92 | 94 | Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos, 2006; Münnich, 2005 |
Operation costs ($ Mg−1) | 8.53 | 26.73 | 429.99 | 44.40 | Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos, (2006), Münnich, 2005; IDB (2015) | |
Social | Social acceptance | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | Evaluations done by authors based on the interview |
Number of jobs (Persons/day) | 320.76 | 12.83 | 32.77 | 14 | Calculated by authors based on Friends of the Earth (2010), European Commission, Directorate-General Environment (2001) Employment Effects of Waste Management Policies, SEDEMA (2016) |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tsydenova, N.; Vázquez Morillas, A.; Cruz Salas, A.A. Sustainability Assessment of Waste Management System for Mexico City (Mexico)—Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. Recycling 2018, 3, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030045
Tsydenova N, Vázquez Morillas A, Cruz Salas AA. Sustainability Assessment of Waste Management System for Mexico City (Mexico)—Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. Recycling. 2018; 3(3):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030045
Chicago/Turabian StyleTsydenova, Nina, Alethia Vázquez Morillas, and Arely Areanely Cruz Salas. 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Waste Management System for Mexico City (Mexico)—Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process" Recycling 3, no. 3: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030045