Evsel Katı Atıkların Taşınması İçin Karar Verme Modeli

Öz

Son zamanlarda, atıkların minimum maliyet ve çevresel yük ile yönetimi döngüsel ekonomi açısından önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, çok kriterli karar verme yazılımı - Right Choice (2.0), kullanılarak, atıkların demiryolu ve karayolu ile taşınması alternatifleri, maliyet, çevre ve personel ihtiyacı ölçütleri açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Atıkların karayolu ile taşınması, Alternatif 1 ile gösterilirken, demiryolu ile taşıma, Alternatif 2 (atık kamyonu ve treylerin trene yüklenmesi), Alternatif 3 (sadece treylerin trene yüklenmesi) ve Alternatif 4 (sadece atıkların trene yüklenmesi) ile temsil edilmektedir. Sonuç olarak atıkların taşınması için en uygun seçeneğin Alternatif 4'te belirtildiği gibi sadece atıkların vagonlara yüklenmesi olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu kapsamda, Alternatif 4'ün düşük işletme-bakım maliyeti, diğer bir deyişle, bu kıyaslamadaki yüksek performansı ve paydaşlar tarafından atfedilen işletme-bakım maliyetinin yüksek göreceli önemi rol oynamaktadır. Hassasiyet analizi sonuçlarına göre, Alternatif 3, Alternatif 4'e yakın bir başka seçenek olarak ortaya çıkarken, Alternatif 1 ve 2, Alternatif 3 ve 4'ün karar vermede hiç yer almadığı durumlarda değerlendirilecek seçenekler olarak kalmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, alternatiflerin sayısının azaltılarak iyi performans gösterenlerin öne çıkartılmasıyla, karar ağacındaki ölçütlerin puanlanmasına bağlı olarak Alternatif 4 veya 3'ün diğer alternatiflere göre daha iyi birer seçenek olabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Yük
• Döngüsel Ekonomi
• Maliyet
• Karar Verme Yazılımı
• Atık Yönetimi

A Decision-Making Model for the Transportation of Municipal Solid Wastes

Öz

The management of waste with minimum cost and the environmental burden has recently gained importance in the circular economy. In this study, alternatives for the transportation of wastes by rail and road were compared in terms of cost, environment and personnel requirement benchmarks by using the multi-criteria decision-making software - Right Choice (2.0). The transportation of waste by road is shown with Alternative 1, while the transportation by rail is represented by Alternative 2 (by loading waste-carrying trucks and trailers on the train), Alternative 3 (by loading only trailers on the train) and Alternative 4 (by loading only wastes on the train). As a result, it was determined that the optimum option to transfer the wastes is as specified in Alternative 4, to load only the wastes on the wagons. Importantly, the low operation-maintenance cost of Alternative 4, in other words, its high performance on this benchmark and the high relative importance of the operation-maintenance cost attributed by the stakeholders play a vital role. According to the sensitivity analysis results, Alternative 3 appears as another option close to Alternative 4 while Alternatives 1 and 2, however, remain as options to be evaluated where Alternatives 3 and 4 are not included in decision-making at all. The results of this study show that, depending on the scoring of the criteria in the decision tree, Alternative 4 or 3 could be a better option than the other alternatives, by reducing the number of alternatives and highlighting the good performers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Burden
• Circular Economy
• Cost
• Decision-Making Software
• Waste Management

Kaynakça

1. Apaydın O., Gonullu M. T., (2007), Route optimization for solid waste collection: Trabzon (Turkey) Case Study, Global NEST Journal, 9(1), 6-11. doi: 10.30955/gnj.000388.
2. Bauerlein V., King K., (2018), New York City’s Sewage Shipment Runs Afoul in Rural South, The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-sewage-shipment-runs-afoul-in-rural-south-1522402201, [Accessed 26 June 2021].
3. Coelho L. M. G., Lange L. C., Coelho H., (2017), Multi-criteria decision making to support waste management: A critical review of current practices and methods, Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 35(1), 3-28.
4. Eriksson L., Jaworska J., Worth A.P., Cronin M.T.D., McDowell R.M., Gramatica P., (2003), Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs, Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(10), 1361-1375.
5. Hung M. L., Ma H., Yang W. F., (2007), A novel sustainable decision making model for municipal solid waste management, Waste Management, 27(2), 209-219.
6. İnan M., Demir M., (2017), Rail Transportation and Effects of High Speed Railway Investments in Turkey: Eskişehir - Konya Example, The Journal of International Social Sciences, 27(1), 99-120.
7. Kamaoğlu F., (2022), Alternative transport methods for integrated waste management systems, Master Thesis, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Turkey.
8. Keirstead J., Jennings M., Sivakumar A., (2012), A review of urban energy system models: Approaches, challenges and opportunities, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3847-3866.

9. Mısır S.O., (2015), Kentsel katı atıkların taşınması ve transferi, Bitirme Tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs Universitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Samsun. (in Turkish).
10. Morrissey A. J., Browne J., (2004), Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management, Waste Management, 24(3), 297-308.
11. Or I., Curi K., (1993), Improving the efficiency of the solid waste collection system in Izmi̇r, Turkey, Through Mathematical Programming, Waste Management and Research, 11(4), 297-311.
12. Özkan A., (2008), Utilization of different decision making techniques for development of municipal solid waste management systems, Doctoral Thesis, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
13. Öztürk O., Öztürk O., (2018), Demiryolu denizyolu ve karayolunun ülkemizde enerji tüketimi ve çevresel etkiler açılarından karşılaştırılmaları, International Symposium on Railway System Engineering, 10-12 October, Karabük, Turkey, pp. 43-53.
14. Peirce J. J., Pierson B. A., (1983), Analysis of rail transfer for solid wastes in North Carolina, U.S.A, Waste Management and Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 1(2), 127-138.
15. Peterson C., (1996), Rail transport of municipal waste within the United States, Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 14(3), 319-325.
16. Rızvanoğlu O., Kaya S., Ulukavak M., Yeşilnacar M. İ., (2019), Optimization of municipal solid waste collection and transportation routes, through linear programming and geographic information system: a case study from Şanlıurfa, Turkey, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192, 9, doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7975-1.
17. Schriiffer B., (2006), Transport of Christchurch Solid Waste Road Transport Versus Rail Transport, Master Thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35463996.pdf, [Accessed 17 January 2023].
18. Sezer F. E. (2019), İstanbul’un avrupa yakasında oluşan katı atıkların demiryoluyla taşınması üzerine bir araştırma, Master Thesis. İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul.
19. Somplak R., Prochazkab V., Pavlasa M., Popela P., (2013), The logistic model for decision making in waste management, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 35, 817-822.
20. URL-1, (2006), Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, European Parliament and of the Council, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/? uri=CELEX:32006R1013 from=EN, [Accessed 08 August 2022].
21. URL-2, (2011), Transportation in Turkey, Country Report, Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications, http://www.comcec.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/Turkey.pdf, [Accessed 29 June 2021].
22. URL-3, (2012), Araçların Yüklenmesine İlişkin Ölçü ve Usuller ile Tartı ve Boyut Ölçüm Toleransları Hakkında Yönetmelik, Resmi Gazete Tarih: 8 Kasım 2012, Sayı: 28461, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/11/20121108-7.htm, [Accessed 29 June 2021]. (in Turkish).
23. URL-4, (2013), Energy Statistics, Energy and Natural Resources Ministry, https://www.resmiistatistik.gov.tr/detail/subject/enerji-istatistikleri/ [Accessed 29 June 2021].
24. URL-5, (2009), Future Projects of Our Organization, Republic of Turkey State Railways, http://www.tcdd.gov.tr, [Accessed 29 June 2021].
25. URL-6, (2019), Freight wagon handbook, Republic of Turkey State Railways, https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/uploads/images/ 2019/vg%20 rehberi%20d%C3%BCzenleme%2006_2019.pdf, [Accessed 29 June 2021].
26. URL-7, (2022), Tariff Tables Based on Electricity Bills, Turkish Electricity Distribution Inc., https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/ Icerik/3-1327/elektrik-faturalarina-esas-tarife-tablolari [Accessed 29 June 2021].
27. Van Hengel W., Kruitwagen P. G., (1994), Environmental risks of inland water transport, Water Science and Technology, 29(3), 173–179.
28. Vego G., Kučar-Dragičević S., Koprivanac N., (2008), Application of multi-criteria decision-making on strategic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia, Croatia, Waste Management, 28(11), 2192-2201.
29. Vidovic D., Niksic M., Susak M., (2022), Development of innovative rail wagons for transport of municipal waste “EKO-VAKO”, In M. Petrovic, L. Novacko, D. Bozic, & T. Rozic (Eds.), the Science and Development of Transport-ZIRP 2021 (155-165), Cham: Springer International Publishing.
30. Yadav V., Kalbar P.P., Karmakar S., Dikshit A.K., (2020), A two-stage multi-attribute decision-making model for selecting appropriate locations of waste transfer stations in urban centers, Waste Management, 114, 80-88.
31. Yaşar B., Eren Ö., (2008), Türkiye'de tarım sektöründe kullanılan petrodizelin çevresel etkileri ve biyodizel alternatifiyle karşılaştırılması, VII. Ulusal Temiz Enerji Sempozyumu, 17-18 Aralık, İstanbul, Turkiye. (in Turkish).
32. Yıldız-Geyhan E., Altun-Çiftçioğlu G. A., Kadırgan M. A. N., (2017), Social life cycle assessment of different packaging waste collection system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 124, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.003.