Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 736-743
doi:10.4236/jep.2011.26085 Published Online August 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep)
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban
Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis
Agnieszka Generowicz1, Zygmunt Kowalski2, Joanna Kulczycka3
1Institute of Water Supply and Environmental Protection, Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland; 2Institute of Chemistry
and Inorganic Technology, Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland; 3Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute,
Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Poland.
Email: agenerowicz@pk.edu.pl, zkow@chemia.pk.edu.pl, kulczycka@meeri.pl
Received March 30th, 2011; revised May 8th, 2011; accepted June 17th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
Planning of waste management system in urban area should take into consideration many legal, technological, finan-
cial, economic, technical, ecological, social and spatial aspects. The aim of the paper is to propose the method, which
can be helpful in planning procedure of waste management system in European cities or regions, which comprise with
following steps: identification of produced volume and municipal solid waste characteristics in the region for providing
grounds to design a technological system, identification of other financial, economic, legal, social aspects for creation
of waste management scenarios, definition of the criteria allowing evaluate designed waste management scenarios
based on plan requirements, make an the multi-criteria analysis for choosing the best scenario in the region. Such
analyses were conducted to evaluate the proposed different waste management systems in city of Cracow in 2000, 2004
and 2007. This comparison of theses systems shows that evaluating criteria were tightened as a result of toughening
regulations of both Polish and the EU laws.
Keywords: Municipal Waste, Urban Area, Planning, Multi-criteria Analysis, Waste Management System
1. Introduction: Waste Management System
as a Base for Planning
In Poland, waste management plans worked out on the
national, provincial, county and district levels are one of
the most important instruments supporting the realization
of correct actions regarding waste management. The Act
on Waste [1] sets out the form and scope of these plans,
however the scope is very general. These plans can be a
tool for setting targets at national and local level, and
present challenges to local authorities and to plan neces-
sary facilities. However, to achieve sustainable waste
management the complex system should be implemented
for every urban area. The complex waste management
system should allow achieve many inconsistent goals:
technical, legal, economic, ecological, spatial, and social.
Planning and selection of waste management system
structure is a multi-stage process involving identification
of differences and common elements of variant solutions,
selection the most favourable solution, and evaluation of
operation results [2-6].
Planning scenarios of waste management system in the
urban area should be developed on the basis of existing
legal articles and local determinants, which determine
quality of generated waste stream and its size [3,5].
Waste characteristics provide grounds to design a tech-
nological system with more or less complex structure,
which has to ensure safe for environment proceeding
with all waste generated in the region [4,7]. The next
stage is to find criteria allowing evaluate designed tech-
nological system. These criteria should comprehensively
assess the functioning of a complex waste management
system. Taking into account the principles of sustainable
development, the following groups of criteria have been
proposed [2,8]:
Technical determining e.g. the degree of waste stream
reduction resulting from the system functioning, op-
eration time of landfill site for final wastes, reduction
in mass of biodegradable wastes, the volume of sec-
ondary materials recovered as a result of the system
functioning, energy recovery level, etc.
Ecological e.g. emissions from individual waste man-
agement system installations, emissions from means
of transport, the impact of complex waste manage-
ment system on natural environment, environmental
benefits resulting from waste stream reduction, emis-
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis737
sion reduction, etc.
Economic taking into account investment outlays and
the system operating costs, and possible economic
profits arising from the system functioning, e.g. prof-
its from the sale of secondary materials.
Social most difficult to use in measurable assessment,
which may take into account the following: approval
of system solution or individual technologies, possi-
bility to create new jobs, approval of the impact of
waste processing technologies on environment, but
also political criteria, compliance with directions in-
dicated by legal articles and waste management plans,
etc.
Spatial/regional in urban area the shortage of land for
waste facilities (landfills, incinerations) is a signifi-
cant problem, strengthening the NIMBY effect.
Legal/political according to strategy for the Malopol-
ska region the aim is to reduce the volume of waste
produced and to introduce of a system of waste recy-
cling and disposal, compatible with European stan-
dards [9].
Acceptance and calculation of individual criteria are
dependent on numerous factors and specificity of the city,
in which the system is expected to function. Description
of system functions should cover all criteria. Due to the
fact that not all of them are measurable and easy to
compute, some may be omitted in computational process.
In order to make computations easier, it is also possible
to combine individual groups of criteria, e.g. technical
and ecological [10-12].
2. Waste Management Systems in Cracow
City Scenarios Analysis
The total amount of municipal solid waste generated in
Cracow city was about 327,000 Mg in 2007. Waste is
generally collected through “one-container system”, with
variable capacity of containers and mainly (86%) dis-
posed on landfills (Barycz landfill in Cracow), about 4%
is composted and 10% separate collected, i.e. in 2007
there were 550 recycling banks, which allowed to collect
4537 Mg of metal, paper, PET bottles, and glass. Cracow
also plans to construct with the help of EU-fund a 240,000
Mg per year an incinerator plant, but as the protest of
local citizen was very strong, therefore many variants for
localisation have been taken into account. The introduc-
tion of new solutions in waste management system in
Cracow was necessary to be in accordance with Polish
and EU legal requirements and tasks indicated in waste
management plans. In 2007 in Cracow waste manage-
ment procedures were carried out according to the entries
in Municipal Waste Management Plan [13].
Continuation of current state model based on existing
infrastructure. When implementing scenario S0, it
will be required to extend the waste management
system by adding another landfill site not later than in
years 2017-2018. However, this scenario will not
meet requirements specified in the Law on Waste
[1,14] regarding reduction in mass of biodegradable
municipal waste sent for dumping after 2013.
Extension of sorting lines and adding new compost-
ing plant modules. When implementing scenario S1,
it will be required to build another waste sorting and
composting installations, mechanical and biological
unit for processing not segregated (mixed) municipal
waste, and landfill site in years 2017-2018. Addition-
ally, implementation of scenario S1 will require con-
siderable financial outlays for ecological education
and developing segregation “at the source”. The sce-
nario will also require construction of another landfill
site for final waste.
Extension of sorting lines and adding new compost-
ing plant modules. When implementing scenario S2,
it will be required to extend waste management sys-
tem by adding another waste sorting and composting
installations, mechanical and biological unit for proc-
essing not segregated (mixed) municipal waste(and
since 2016 also collected selectively), and to build
landfill site in years 2018-2019. Additionally, imple-
mentation of scenario S2 will require considerable fi-
nancial outlays for ecological education and develop-
ing segregation “at the source”. Functioning of this
scenario will also require adding landfill site for final
waste.
Taking into account thermal processing of waste, as
the system element. Implementation of scenario S3
will require first of all financial outlays for building
thermal processing plant for waste.
The scenarios are presented in Table 1 . For evaluation of
these scenarios, three groups of criteria, which describe the
system, are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
3. Multi-criteria Analysis as the Method
Used to Compare Scenarios of Waste
Management Systems
Multi-criteria analysis was proposed to compare these sce-
narios using proposed 11 criteria [11,12,15-19]. Compro-
mise programming method using the concept of arrang-
ing/ordering individual strategies according to their dis-
tance from predetermined ideal point X’ (x1’, x2’, ..., xM’)
was employed to solve the decision-making task. Coordi-
nates of ideal point xM’ are the most favourable values of
criteria. Mathematical notation of the method is an equation
defining criterion value, which aggregates the measure of
istance between examined strategy and ideal point: d
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
738
Table 1. Technical description of waste sce narios for the city of Cracow in 2007.
Elements system
S0—continuation of current
state—model based on
existing infrastructure
S1—extension of sorting
lines and adding new
composting plant modules
S2—extension of sorting
lines and adding new
composting plant modules
S3—taking into account
thermal processing of waste,
as the system element
Landfiling approximately 2 million m3
Composting plant for
green waste Two installations, each processing green waste amounting to 6000 Mg/year
Composting plant for
wet fraction Two-container system with
output of 45,000 Mg/year
Two-container system with
output of 65,000 Mg/year
Two-container system with
output of 12,000 Mg/year
Sorting plant 8000 Mg/year 16,000 Mg/year,
20,000 Mg/year
16,000 Mg/year,
25,000 Mg/year 16,000 Mg/year,
Mechanical and
biological processing For mixed waste (not segregated) municipal waste with out-
put of 120,000 Mg/year
Incineration plant – – 240,000 Mg/year
Large-size waste 12,000 Mg/year,
Recovery of
building waste 12,000 Mg/year 30,000 Mg/year
Selective waste
collection Sets of containers for selective waste collection—ultimately 750 sets ensuring collection of 9,000 Mg/year, 9 within the city
Export of municipal
waste to other region
Export of municipal waste reaching 70,000 Mg/year out of the system, and import of municipal waste into the system at the
level of ca. 7000 Mg/year until the end of 2012
Comments
Two-container
municipal waste
collection system
cover approximately
45% residents in the
City of Cracow
cover all residents in the
City of Cracow
cover approximately 12%
residents in the City
of Cracow
 
1
M
nmmNM
m
LSw x r


(1)
while the best strategy is selected according to the fol-
lowing rule:


;1,2,
min
jjn
n
S SLSLS

 
(2)
where: Lα(Sn)—measure of the distance between exam-
ined strategy sn and ideal point; Sn—selected strategy;
wm—weight coefficient for criterion m; m
x
—mth coor-
dinate of utopian point;
N
M—normalised criterion value;
M—number of criteria; α—power exponent measuring
deviation of strategy from utopian point X'—In—practice
1, 2 and is taken.
r
The method allows weigh criteria, and assign weights
to them, besides attributed values measuring achievement
of goals [11,16,19,20]. The outcome of completed com-
putations includes ordering of strategies for waste man-
agement system solutions in the region, depending on
assumed weights of criteria or weights of individual
groups of criteria. Final decision concerning selection of
shape and function for waste management system in the
region shall be made by decision-maker, who may as-
sume specific weights of criteria and accept resultant
solution, depending on preferences and needs of the re-
gion. Accepted waste management system solution shall
be verified after few years of its functioning and evalu-
ated once more [11,12,17,19].
4. Results of Multi-criteria Analysis for the
Selection of Waste Scenarios
For computational purposes it is necessary to adopt va-
lidity hierarchy of individual criteria, determining priori-
ties for decision-making process participants [8,10,11,16].
In case 1 weight 1 was assigned to each criterion. In the
second case, minimisation and recovery criteria were
given weight 5, while all other criteria—weight 1. Whe-
reas, in the last line minimisation and recovery criteria
and social and political criteria were given weight 5, and
economic criteria—weight 1. Analysis results are shown
in Table 4.
This method allows further weighing of criteria by us-
ing power exponent α in the formula. This exponent al-
lows to additionally weighing all deviations from ideal
point, proportionally to their size. The higher value α the
more important are high strategy deviations from ideal
point. Individual computational cases taking into account
various values of coefficient α are shown in three differ-
ent columns in Table 4. Ordering of strategies for waste
management system in Cracow is the outcome of the
nalysis, presented in the last column in Table 4. a
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis739
Table 2. Technical social and political criteria for identified scenarios of waste management in Cracow, after 2007.
Scenario [thousand Mg]
Criterion Limit specified in legal articles,
or best value S0 S1 S2 S3
K1 Reduction in the volume of dumped
municipal waste
44,000 Mg until the end of 2014 according
to Voivodship Waste Management Plan
52
(>100%)
95.3
(>100%)b
101.3
(>100%)b
243.5
(>100%)b
until the end of 2010
65,600 Mg
28.2
(43.1%)
33.3
(50.8%)
52.0
(79.3%)
34.6
(52.7%)
until the end of 2013
97,500 Mg
29.3
(30.0%)
102.6
(>100%)
120.1
(>100%)
154.2
(>100%)
K2
Reduction in the volume of dumped
biodegradable municipal wastes (requirement
of the Act on Wastes and 99/31/EC of 2011)c
until the end of 2020
123,700 Mg
29.3
(23.7%)
126.6
(>100%)
131.9
(>100%)
162.9
(>100%)
K3 Materials recovery 89,100 Mg 38.4
(43.1%)
72.9
(81.8%)
89.1
(100%)
51.6
(57.9%)
K4 Energy recovery 97.5 GWh 8 GWh
(8.2%)
4 GWh
(4.1%)
4 GWh
(4.1%)
97.5 GWh
(100%)
K5 Landfill site operation time counted since 2005 12 years
(31.6%)
13 years
(34.2%)
15 years
(39.5%)
38 years
(100%)
K6 Compliance with directions indicated by the
KPGO and WPGO 0/1 0 1 1 1
K7 Compliance with the EU directives 0/1 0 1 1 1
K8 Regional and prospective character of
the solution 0/1 0 0 0 1
K9 Social acceptance 0.86 0.4 0.83 0.83 0.86
a[16] assumes achieving the goal of reducing by the end of 2014 mass index for dumped municipal wastes to maximum 85%, compared to total mass generated in
a year; b[16] assumes achieving the goal of reducing mass of dumped municipal wastes to maximum 85% of generated municipal wastes by the end of 2014;
creduction in the volume of dumped municipal wastes, in target version (since 2013) it concerns all municipal wastes (excluding building and hazardous wastes)
generated in the city without importing and exporting wastes outside the system.
Table 3. Economic criterion for identified scenarios of waste management in Cracow, after 2007 [PLN].
Scenario 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Comparison of monthly charges per 1 resident in individual scenarios
S0 without
subsidy 6.72 8.06 9.32 9.73 10.18 10.6412.0712.56 13.0814.0017.41 18.17 18.8519.61
S1 without
subsidy 6.77 9.16 10.85 11.74 12.3713.0818.34 19.4020.23 21.4122.50 26.26 27.1828.38
S2 without
subsidy 6.77 9.51 11.28 12.33 13.1713.9517.97 19.2720.53 21.8923.07 27.20 28.7030.15
S3 without
subsidy 6.69 8.38 9.99 10.87 11.4312.0216.6117.2217.8718.8719.65 20.43 21.1722.05
S3 with
subsidy 6.46 8.15 9.66 10.37 10.9111.4813.8814.4715.0816.0116.77 17.53 18.2319.07
Comparison of management (disposal) costs for 1 Mg of wastes in individual scenarios [PLN/Mg]
S0 without
subsidy 306 366 422 440 459 478 540 560 580 618 764 793 817 844
S1 without
subsidy 308 416 492 531 558 588 821 865 898 945 987 1 146 1 1781 221
S2 without
subsidy 308 432 511 557 594 627 804 859 911 966 1 013 1 187 1 2441 297
S3 without
subsidy 305 381 453 492 515 540 743 767 793 833 863 891 917 948
S3 with
subsidy 294 370 438 469 492 516 621 645 669 707 736 764 790 820
Explanations: option without subsidy—in which the Municipality does not use opportunities to obtain subsidies from the European funds to purchase permanent
assets; option with subsidy—when the Municipality uses subsidies of this sort.
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis
740
Table 4. Multi-criteria analysis results for identified scenarios of waste management system for the City of Cracow after
2007.
Ordering of strategies
Validity hierarchy for the following criteria: minimisation and recovery
of wastes:social and political:economic α = 1 α = 2 α =
1:1:1 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)s2s1s0
5:1:1 s3a)s1s1s0 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)
10:1:1 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)
1:5:1 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)
1:10:1 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)
1:15:1 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)
1:1:2 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)s0s1s2 s3a)
1:1:5 s3a)s0s1s2 s3a)s0s1s2 s3a)s1s0s2
1:1:6 s3a)s0s1s2 s3a)s0s1s2 s3a)s1s0s2
1:1:10 s3a)s0s1s2 s0a)s3s1s2 s3a)s1s0s2
5:1:5 s3a)s0s2s1 s3a)s0s1s2 s3a)
1:5:5 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)s1s2s0 s3a)
5:5:1 s3a)s2s1s0 s3a)s2s3s0 s3a)
Sna)—acceptable strategy.
When examining multi-criteria analysis results, we
may state that:
In 39 computational cases, strategy S3 has been cho-
sen most frequently (thermal processing of waste as
an element of a complex waste management system)
38 times,
In remaining 1 case, strategy S0 has been selected,
which assumes implementation of an existing waste
management system. It is chosen in the case when we
take the economic criterion as the most important one
(10 times more important than the other ones),
Strategies S1 and S2 (“deep” segregation of waste
and composting) haven’t been chosen as the most fa-
vourable in any computational case,
Decision-maker may assume some limitations in the
strategy selection. In current computations, limita-
tions of this sort have been taken as the so-called ac-
ceptability threshold calculated as follows:

min
0, 1*
a
n
SLs
n
(3)
Acceptable strategies are indicated in Table 4 by “a)”,
and they constitute a solution for decision-making task as
the choice of strategy lying acceptably close to ideal
point.
5. Comparison of Multi-criteria Analysis
Results for the System of Waste
Management in Cracow Carried out
in Years 2004 and 2000
Programme [13] was developed in 2004. Based on its
guidelines, individual waste management strategies were
put to multi-criteria analysis. As in previous chapter, the
same method of multi-criteria selection compromise pro-
gramming was used in computations, whereas evaluating
criteria were taken according to the above-mentioned
plan. The five strategies were taken for the analysis (Ta-
ble 5):
Scenario S1 continuation of current state,
Scenario S2 extension of selective collection system,
Scenario S3 extended composting range,
Scenario S4 thermal processing system for waste.
Scenario S5 extension of segregation and processing of
fractions collected in a two-container system.
Multi-criteria analysis for individual strategies of
waste management in Cracow was carried out on the
basis of the 10 criteria presnted with the results for e
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis741
Table 5. Technical description of waste scenarios for the city of Cracow in 2004.
Elements system S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Landfill approximately 2 million m3
Composting plant 6000
Mg/year
two installations,
each processing green
waste amounting to
6000 Mg/year
two installations, processing
green waste and wet from
segregation amounting to
12,000 Mg/year
two installations, each processing green waste amount-
ing to 6000 Mg/year which may be extended up to
12,000 Mg/year; and additionally extendable up to
22,000 Mg/year for composting selectively collected wet
fraction and organic fraction separated in sorting plant
Sorting plant 20,000 Mg/year 20,000 Mg/year for one shift (according to scenario
guidelines designed for processing 60,000 Mg/year),
Incineration plant 200,000 Mg/year
Large-size waste 12,000 Mg/year
Selective waste collection sets of containers for selective waste collection
Export of municipal waste
to other region 80,000 Mg/year
Two-container municipal
waste collection system single-family houses, “dry” and “wet” fractions
every scenario in the Table 6. As before, the compromise
programming method has been used in computations.
When examining analysis results, we may state that:
In 24 computational cases, strategy 4 has been chosen
most frequently (thermal utilisation of waste as the
system element) 17 times,
In all other 7 cases, strategy 3 assuming extended
composting range has been chosen. This strategy is
selected in cases when assigned economic criterion
weight is 10,
As in previous chapter, decision-maker may assume
some limitations in strategy selection. In these com-
putations, limitations of this sort have been taken as
the so-called acceptability threshold calculated as
follows:

min
0.1
a
n
SLS
 n
(4)
Acceptable strategies are indicated in the table by
a)”, and they constitute a solution for decision-
making task as the choice of strategy lying acceptably
close to ideal point,
Multi-criteria analysis is only a tool arranging waste
management system strategies, whereas final decision
concerning system selection is made by decision-
maker; in 2004, Scenario 5 was chosen for imple-
mentation by the City of Cracow in spite of the fact
that in none of computational cases Strategy 5 was
selected as the most favourable,
Strategy 5 usually ranks second and in one case third,
Strategy 5 is most frequently selected second, after
Strategy 4 or 3 (chosen most often). Taking into ac-
count all criteria and assigning weights to them, we
may say that if the choice is between Strategy 4 and 5
strategy 4 is selected, and if we are choosing between
3 and 5 Strategy 3 is preferred. In spite of this, Strat-
egy 5 has been chosen for implementation.
Multi-criteria analysis for waste management system
in Cracow was carried out three times: in 2000 [11],
2004 and 2007. Each time, few waste management sce-
narios were taken for analysis, and among them, current
state analysis was always taken into account for com-
parison purposes as the starting scenario. Table 7 com-
pares final results of all analyses.
6. Summary and Conclusions
Selection of waste management strategy in the urban
area is a difficult decision-making problem, which
has to take into account different, often inconsistent
goals and tasks, and social-economic and political in-
terests.
Defined measuring criteria allow establish quantita-
tive and objectivised evaluation of waste management
system functioning in technical, related to nature,
economic and social aspects.
On the basis of defined indicators and multi-criteria
analysis it is possible to select most favourable sce-
nario for waste management system in the urban area.
The proposed methodology guarantees possibility to
carry out quantitative, multidimensional, and at the
same time objectivised evaluation of system solutions,
which would replace intuitive or requiring experts
opinions assessments used so far.
In case of Cracow, the proposed method has been
already employed three times, and this selection coin-
cides with experts assessments; nevertheless deci-
sion-maker always makes final decision concerning
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis
742
Table 6. Criteria and decision matrix for waste management scenarios in Cracow in 2004.
Scenario
Criteria
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
crit. 1—reduction in the volume of waste achieved in 2011, in [%], 21.1 45.9 46 10080.5
crit. 2—reduction of biodegradable waste – requirement of the EU directive, in [%] 30.7 46.9 65.3 10083.1
crit. 3—recovery of secondary materials, in [%] 37.7 83.7 83.7 91.2100
crit. 4—energy recovery (in scenarios without incinerating plant, energy recovery from landfill site) [GJ]8.2 8.2 8.2 1008,2
crit. 5—operation time of landfill site for processed waste, in [years] 11 12 13 27 14
crit. 6—compliance with directions indicated by the KPGO [21] and WPGO [13] 0 1 1 2 1
crit. 7—compliance with the EU directives 0 0 1 2 1
crit. 8—regional and prospective character of the solution 0 0 0 2 0
crit. 9—social acceptance 1 4 4 2 4
crit. 10—full monthly average financial charge per 1 resident [PLN/year] 4.0 4.52 4.68 6.355.27
Source: [22].
Table 7. Results of subsequent multi-criteria analyses for waste management system in Cracow.
Year Number of waste
management scenarios
Number of criteria
evaluating the scenarios
Choice of scenario with incinerating
plant in relation to the number of
computed cases
Additional remarks
2000 4 8 17/27 -
2004 5 10 17/24 Additionally, the criteria take into account
biomass reduction.
2007 4 11 62/63
Additionally, the criteria take into account
penalties administered by the EU for failing
to meet standards and the share of social
factor in decision-making process.
the system form.
Very good effect was obtained after including com-
munity side into the decision-making process for se-
lection of waste management system in the city.
Community not only discusses analysis results, but it
also is able to join in it by creating a waste manage-
ment scenario or specifying evaluating criteria, to
discuss computation results with experts, and to as-
sign weights to the evaluating criteria.
According to environment management requirements,
the proposed methodology allows carry out system
evaluation systematically, even in case of change in
the purpose or determinants in the city. This method
may be employed in continuous planning of a techni-
cal system implementing waste handling strategy,
which has been shown on the example of Cracow.
REFERENCES
[1] Local Government Act, “The Act on Waste of April 27,
2001,” Ministry of the Environment, Warszawa, 2001.
[2] Z. Kowalski and J. Kulczycka, “Cleaner Production as a
Basic Element for the Sustainable Development Strat-
egy,” Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, Vol. 4,
2004, pp. 35-40.
[3] J. Kulczycka (Ed.), “Principles for Municipal Waste Man-
agement in Poland and Selected European Regions Best
Practices,” IGSMiE PAN, Cracow, 2007.
[4] J. Kulczycka and Z. Kowalski, “Principles of Municipal
Waste Management in Poland and Selected Region of
Europe,” Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, Vol. 10,
No. 4, 2008, pp. 28-33. doi:10.2478/v10026-008-0043-1
[5] J. Kulczycka, Z. Kowalski and M. Cholewa, “Municipal
Waste Management in Polish National and Local Plans,”
Technology Magazine, Cracow University of Technology,
Vol. 2, 2008, pp. 13-24.
[6] R. Perman, Y. Ma and J. McGilvray, “Natural Resource
& Environmental Economics,” Longman, London, New
York, 1996.
[7] E. den Boer, A. Jędrczak, Z. Kowalski, J. Kulczycka and
R. Szpadt, “A Review of Municipal Solid Waste Compo-
sition and Quantities in Poland,” Waste Management, Vol.
30, No. 3, 2010, pp. 369-377.
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Planning of Waste Management Systems in Urban Area Using Multi-criteria Analysis743
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.018
[8] A. Generowicz and T. Stypka, “The Examples of Appli-
cation of Multi-criteria Analysis in Regional System of
Waste Managing,” In: 6th International Forum of Waste
Managing re: “Efficiency of Waste Managing”, Poznan/Li-
chen Stary, 2005.
[9] Local Government Act, “The Małopolska Region Devel-
opment Strategy for 2007-2013,” Marshal of the
Malopolska Region, Cracow, 2006.
[10] M. Garfì, S. Tondelli and A. Bonoli, “Multi-criteria Deci-
sion Analysis for Waste Management in Saharawi Refu-
gee Camps,” Waste Management, Vol. 29, No. 10, 2009,
pp. 2729-2739. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.019
[11] A. Generowicz, “Evaluation Indexes for Multi-criteria
Selection of Solution for Regional Waste Management
System,” Doctoral Dissertation, Cracow University of
Technology, Cracow, 2001.
[12] J. Hokkanen and P. Salminen, “Choosing a Solid Waste
Management System Using Multi-criteria Decision
Analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 98, No. 1, 1997, pp. 19-36.
doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00325-8
[13] Local Government Act, “Ocena Strategiczna Systemu
Gospodarki Odpadami Miasta Krakowa wraz z Wyborem
Wariantów Lokalizacji Zakładu Termicznego Przekształ-
cania Odpadów Komunalnych,” Cracow, 2007.
[14] C. Rosik-Dulewska, “Waste Management Rudiments,”
PWN, Warszawa, 2007.
[15] P. Aragonés-Beltrána, J. A. Mendoza-Rocab, A. Bes-Piáa,
M. García-Melónb and E. Parra-Ruizb, “Application of
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Jar-Test Results for
Chemicals Selection in the Physicalchemical Treatment
of Textile Wastewater,” Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol. 164, No. 1, 2009, pp. 288-295.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.08.046
[16] E. Erkut, A. Karagiannidis, G. Perkoulidis and S. A.
Tjandra, “A Multi-criteria Facility Location Model for
Municipal Solid Waste Management in North Greece,”
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 187, No.
3, 2008, pp. 1402-1421. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.021
[17] J. Górniak-Zimroz, “Using Decision-Making Support
Systems in Waste Management,” Scientific Works of
Mining Institute, Wrocław University of Technology, Vol.
118, 2007.
[18] I. Linkov, F. K. Satterstrom, G. Kiker, C. Batchelor, T.
Bridges and E. Ferguson, “From Comparative Risk As-
sessment to Multi-criteria Decision Analysis and Adap-
tive Management: Recent Developments and Applica-
tions,” Environment International, Vol. 32, No. 8, 2006,
pp. 1072-1093. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.013
[19] N. Roussat, Ch. Dujet and J. Méhu, “Choosing a Sus-
tainable Demolition Waste Management Strategy Using
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis,” Waste Management,
Vol. 29, 2009, p. 1220.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.010
[20] A. J. Morrissey and J. Browne, “Waste Management
Models and Their Application to Sustainable Waste
Management,” Waste Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2004,
pp. 297-308. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.005
[21] Local Government Act, “National Waste Management
Plan 2010,” Ministry of the Environment, Warszawa,
2006.
[22] A. Generowicz and Z. Grabowski, “Multicriterial Analy-
sis as a Help Tool in Choice of Solution of Regional
Waste Management System Based on Cracov Key
Study,” In: 4-th International Waste Forum, Efficiency of
Waste Management, Poznan, 29 May-1 June 2005.
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP