Table 1.
Literature review of WM studies using MCDM approaches
| Type of waste | Reference | Country | Contribution | Methodology | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solid waste management | Wang et al. (2018) | China | Evaluate waste-to-energy scenarios for municipal solid waste management | DEMATEL gray relational analysis |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Entirely based on qualitative judgments |
| Coban et al. (2018) | Turkey | Investigate the most suitable solid waste disposal solutions | TOPSIS PROMETTHE |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Entirely based on qualitative judgments |
|
| Aung et al. (2019) | Myanmar | Evaluate medical waste management systems | AHP analytical network process (ANP) |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Entirely based on qualitative judgments |
|
| Kharat et al. (2019) | India | Select the most environmentally conscious solid waste treatment and disposal | AHP fuzzy TOPSIS |
• Entirely based on qualitative judgments • Weak treatment of uncertainty |
|
| Wang et al. (2019) | China | Select the most appropriate energy conversion technology for agricultural waste management | Fuzzy AHP–VIKOR |
• Does not deal with a wide range of SW • Weak treatment of uncertainty |
|
| Wang et al. (2019) | Not specified | Evaluate solutions to mitigate the impact of municipal solid waste management services during floods | AHP |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Entirely based on qualitative judgments • Lacks results contextualization |
|
| Badi et al. (2019) | Libya | Evaluate solid waste treatment methods | AHP |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Entirely based on qualitative judgments |
|
| Sarkkinen et al. (2019) | Not specified | Propose optimal scenario to manage solid waste of tailing based on sustainability criteria | AHP life-cycle assessment (LCA) |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Lacks results contextualization |
|
| Ren and Toniolo (2020) | Not specified | Prioritization of alternatives for converting food-waste to energy |
Best-worst method (BW) Evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) Life-cycle assessment (LCA) |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Lacks results contextualization • Does not deal with a wide range of SW |
|
| Wastewater management | Narayanamoorthy et al. (2019) | India | Evaluate alternatives for wastewater reuse | Hesitant fuzzy criteria importance through intercriteria correlation hesitant fuzzy multiattribute utility theory | • Entirely based on qualitative judgments |
| Yao et al. (2020) | China | Evaluate and choose a suitable wastewater treatment technology | Interval-valued fuzzy sets | • Entirely based on qualitative judgments | |
| Munasinghe-Arachchige et al. (2020) | Not specified | Assess sewage treatment systems considering sustainability, affordability, reliability, and functionality | PROMETHEE |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Lacks results contextualization |
|
| Liu et al. (2020) | China | Select the most appropriate sewage treatment technologies for town areas | Fuzzy AHP TOPSIS |
• Entirely based on qualitative judgments • Weak treatment of uncertainty |
|
| Gherghel et al. (2020) | Not specified | Propose a sustainable approach for selecting alternatives for large wastewater treatment plants | SAW-PCT |
• Does not deal with the uncertainty of human judgments • Lacks results contextualization |