Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik

Year 2011, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 11 - 23, 17.06.2011

Aysun Özkan Müfide Banar İlgın Acar Aydın Sipahioğlu

Abstract

Son yıllarda, katı atıklardan kaynaklanan çevre sorunlarının artması nedeniyle katı atığın çevresel ve ekonomik açıdan etkin bir şekilde bertaraf edilmesi zorunlu hale gelmiştir. Dolayısıyla, önemli bir karar verme problem olan katı atık yönetim sisteminin seçiminde ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel ve teknik faktörlerin birlikte ele alınması gereklidir. Bir katı atık yönetim sisteminde çeşitli kriterlerin değerlendirildiği farklı alternatifler olabilir. Bu durumda problem bir Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme problemi haline gelir. Nitekim bu çalışmada da Eskişehir için beş farklı sistem senaryosu (MRF, geri dönüşüm, kompostlama, insinerasyon ve düzenli depolama), ELECTRE III yöntemi kullanılarak sıralanmıştır. Bir günde 750 ton atığın çıktığı Eskişehir’de atıklar halen herhangi bir sızdırmazlık ve gaz toplama sisteminin olmadığı vahşi depolama sahasında depolanmaktadır. O nedenle etkin bir atık yönetim sisteminin kurulmasına ihtiyaç vardır. Çalışmada kurulan senaryolar S3>S2>S1>S4=S5 şeklinde sıralanmış olup, karşılaştırma ve hassasiyet analizi sonuçlarına göre Eskişehir için tercih edilmesi gereken senaryo S3 (15% geri dönüşüm+77% kompostlama+ 8% düzenli depolama) olarak belirlenmiştir

Keywords

Katı atık, Atık yönetimi, ELECTRE III, Çok ölçütlü karar verme

APPLICATION OF THE ELECTRE III METHOD FOR A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Abstract

In recent years, effective disposing of solid waste environmentally and economically has become
mandatory due to the increase in environmental problems resulted by the solid waste. Furthermore,
choosing a solid waste management system appears to be an important decision making problem.
Hence, economical, social, cultural and technical factors in choosing thesolid waste management systems
should be considered together. A solid waste management system may have different alternatives to be evaluated by considering several criteria.Hence, this type of problem is considered as Multi Criteria Decision Making problem. Therefore, in this study, there were five alternative system scenarios (MRF, recycling, composting, incinerating and landfilling processes) ranked by using ELECTRE III for Eskisehir city/Turkey.Eskisehir is one of the developing cities of Turkey where approximately 750
tons/day waste is generated in total. It is required to apply an effective MSW management system since the generated MSW is dumped in an unregulated dumping site that has no liner, no biogas capture, etc. Final ranking for scenarios was in the following order: S3>S2>S1>S4=S5. According to the comparisons and the sensitivity analysis, scenario S3 (15% recycling+77% composting + 8% landfilling) for MSW management system in Eskisehir should be preferred.

Keywords

Solid waste, Waste management, ELECTRE III, Multiple criteria decision making

References

• Abou Najm, M. and El-Fadel, M. (2004). Com- puter-based interface for an integrated solid waste optimization model. Environ. Model. Soft. 19, 1151-1164.
• Banar, M., Çokaygil, Z. and Özkan, A. (2009). Life Cycle Assessment Of Solid Waste Management Options For Eskısehır, Tur- key. Waste Manage. 29, 54-62.
• Banar, M. and Özkan, A. (2008). Characteriza- tion of Municipal Solid Waste in Eskise- hir City of Turkey. Environ. Eng. Sci.25(8), 1213-1219.
• Bovea, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2006). Alterna- tive scenarios to meet the demands of sus- tainable waste management. J. Envi- ron.Eng. 79, 115-132.
• Chang, N. and Wang, S.F. (1997). A fuzzy goal programming approach for the optimal planning of metropolitan solid waste man- agement systems. Eur. J.Oper. Res. 99, 303-321.
• DHV Consultants, (2006). Technologies and Site Selection for Solid Waste Incinera- tors, 64. Netherlands.
• Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 1045 p. Springer, Bos- ton, USA.
• Fiorucci, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M. and Sac- ile, R. (2003). Solid waste management in urban areas development and application of a decision support system. Res. Con.Recyc. 37, 301-328.
• Georgopoulou, E., Lalas, D. and Papagiannakis, L. (1997). Amulticriteria decision aid ap- proach for energy planning problems: The case of renewable energy options. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 103, 38-54.
• Gottinger, H.W. (1988). A computational model for solid waste management with applica- tion. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 35, 350-364.
• Haastrup, P., Maniezzo, V., Mattarelli, M., MazzeoRinaldi, F., Mendes, I. and Par- ruccini, M. (1998). A decision support system for urban waste management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109, 330-341.
• Hokkanen, J. and Salminen, P. (1997). Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis.Eur. J. Oper. Res. 98, 19-36.
• MacDonald, M. (1996). Solid Waste Manage- ment Models: a state of the art review. J. Sol. Waste Tech. Manage. 23(2), 73-83.
• Norese, M.F. (2006). ELECTRE III as a support for participatory decision-making on the localisation of waste-treatment plants. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 76-85.
• Ozkan, A. (2008). Utilization of different deci- sion making techniques for development of municipal solid waste management systems. phD Thesis, AnadoluUniversity, Graduate School of Sciences, Environ- mental Engineering Program, Eskise- hir/Turkey.
• Pearce, D.W., Brisson, I., (Ed. R.E. Hester and R.M. Harrison) (1995). The Economics of Waste Management, Waste Treatment and Disposal. 131-152, The Royal Society of Chemistry, UK.
• Rogers, M. and Bruen, M. (2000). Using ELECTRE III to Choose Route for Dub- linPort Motorway. J. Trans. Eng. 126(4), 313-323.
• Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decisions. 31(1), 49-73.
• Takeda, E. (2001). A method for multiple pseudo-criteria Comp.Oper. Res. 28, 1427-1439. problems.
• Tam, C.M., Tong, T.K.L. and Lau, C.T. (2003).ELECTRE III in evaluating per- formance of construction plants: case study on concrete vibrators. Const.Innova. 3, 45-61.
• TEIAS, 2007. http://www.teias.gov.tr/
• Vincke, Ph, (1992).Multicriteria Decision Aid. Wiley, NewYork.
• Zak, J. (2005). The Comparison Of Multiobjec- tive Ranking Methods Applied To Solve The Mass Transit Systems'Decision Prob- lems, Proceedings of the 16th Mini - EURO Conference and 10th Meeting of EWGT. 184-193.