 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 —mth coor- dinate of utopian point; 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)→s2→s1→s0 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 5:1:1 s3a)→s1→s1→s0 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a) 10:1:1 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a) 1:5:1 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a) 1:10:1 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a) 1:15:1 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a) 1:1:2 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s3a) 1:1:5 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s3a)→s1→s0→s2 1:1:6 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s3a)→s1→s0→s2 1:1:10 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s0a)→s3→s1→s2 s3a)→s1→s0→s2 5:1:5 s3a)→s0→s2→s1 s3a)→s0→s1→s2 s3a) 1:5:5 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a)→s1→s2→s0 s3a) 5:5:1 s3a)→s2→s1→s0 s3a)→s2→s3→s0 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
|