Siting a municipal solid waste disposal facility, Part one: An evaluation of different scenarios for a site selection procedure

Abstract

The results showed that the possible changes in the decision structure could cause significant differences in the final decision related to selection of the most suitable sites. Furthermore, the results obtained in the study showed that the possible differentiations in the criteria weightings could also cause significant differences in the suitability ranking. Therefore, to get a reliable final decision, a statistical assessment of these differentiations should be made.

Siting a municipal solid waste disposal facility, Part II: The effects of external criteria on the final decision

“…The results of area requirements obtained by Korucu et al (2013b) for a real municipal solid waste disposal problem, which includes the determination of types of the disposal facilities and corresponding area requirements, were used as the reference data. The details of the decision tree with three phases (i.e., "Phase_1," "Phase_2," and "Phase_3") used for the determination of suitable sites for disposal facilities were given in Korucu and Erdagi (2012), while the details of the site selection procedure with GIS were given in Korucu et al (2013a).…”

“…In the application of the factorial experimental design, the criteria with the highest weight value in each main criteria group (i.e., public health and safety criteria group, economical criteria group and social criteria group) were defined as "main factors." These main factors are "distance from residential areas" (in public health and safety criteria group), "proximity to customers" (in economical criteria group), and "risk perception and approval of stakeholders" (in social criteria group), according to Korucu et al (2013a). Among them, the criterion of "risk perception and approval of stakeholders" could directly cause externalities in the management process.…”

“…Since the number of factors to be used in the factorial experimental design is 4 ("Distance from residential areas," "Risk perception and approval of stakeholders," "Proximity to customers" and "Visibility"), there should be a design including 4 2 experiments (or structure) when it is formed in two different levels of use (þ) and nonuse (-) of these factors in the GISsupported site selection process. The structures and the interaction types of these experiments are given in Table 1. The structure "A" in Table 1 is the structure where all main factors were used in the site selection procedure, and it was the only structure used by Korucu et al (2013a). In this study, the experiments were additionally performed by using all the structures given in Table 1 for 12 different scenarios separately.…”

Did we choose the best one? A new site selection approach based on exposure and uptake potential for waste incineration

“…The methodology is summarized in Figure 1. It is possible to use the details of three-phase location selection methodology used in the study from Korucu et al (2013). Decision tree and criteria weights used in the study for the aforementioned location selection methodology and criteria weights were formed by a 30-people decision team working in relation to solid waste management in the province of Kocaeli.…”

“…The location selection procedure used in this study is the section up to the third phase of the location selection structure consisting of three phases, as in Korucu et al (2013). By means of this application, 90 different sites suitable for the construction of an incineration plant (with an area larger than 15 acres) in the region in terms of all relevant criteria (N1, N2, N3… N90) were determined.…”