sustainability

Article
Analysis of Economical and Environmental Costs for
the Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Treatment and
Disposal Scenarios through Multicriteria Analysis
(ELECTRE Method)
Lorena De Medina-Salas 1, *, Eduardo Castillo-González 2 , Mario Rafael Giraldi-Díaz 1
and Víctor Guzmán-González 1
1 Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Veracruzana, Circuito Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán s/n,
Zona Universitaria, 91040 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico; [email protected] (M.R.G.-D.);
[email protected] (V.G.-G.)
2 Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Veracruzana, Circuito Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán s/n,
Zona Universitaria, 91040 Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 31 August 2017; Accepted: 26 September 2017; Published: 30 October 2017

Abstract: Decision-making for the selection of treatment alternatives and landfilling of municipal
solid waste (MSW) is based on the experience and judgment of those management responsible,
without considering multicriteria analysis. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to determine
the treatment scenario and landfilling of MSW with the lowest environmental and economic costs in
a medium-sized city. The methodology included the definition and data processing of the project
(population, generation, and composition of MSW), for 16 years. In the design of scenarios, recycling,
composting, incineration with energy recovery, and landfilling treatments were proposed; later,
the combinations of treatments for each type of residue were generated. The results showed
36 scenarios, then the ELECTRE method was applied to the five with the lowest economical and
environmental costs. Finally from the latter, one dominant scenario was determined: organic waste
in composting; plastic, paper, and glass in recycling; and ‘others’ in landfilling. It is concluded that
the final decision on the scenario is adapted to the particular conditions of the locality.

Keywords: multicriteria; ELECTRE; MSW; treatment; scenarios

1. Introduction
The management of MSW is one of the most important environmental problems that governments
must take on. The increase of MSW is a serious concern for several countries [1]. It implies that strategic
planning must be carried out at all stages to ensure a management that minimizes environmental
impact. This is especially true since an inadequate decision could have adverse effects on economic,
social, legal, and environmental aspects. Therefore, government decisions should consider social
demands in order to generate an “intelligent management model” that identifies, compares, and selects
alternatives that are effectively adapted to specific conditions and flexibility for decision making in
both short and medium terms [2]. The stakeholders should then establish alternative options and
weights to apply to criteria [3].
Selection of the different physical, chemical, biological, or thermal treatments along with
landfilling depend directly on the MSW streams’ characteristics. Generally, the selection of
MSW treatment and landfilling are based on the knowledge, experience, and judgment of the
decision-makers [4]. However, due to its complexity, this decision has to have basis in the resolution of
models that allow the acquisition of the best management option.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758; doi:10.3390/su9111758 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 2 of 8

A useful tool for this type of assessment is multicriteria analysis; it can be used for environmental
planning and MSW management. The ELECTRE method was used for this research which sequentially
reduces the number of alternatives from a set of possibilities [5,6].
This method consists of two general phases: aggregation and exploitation. In the aggregation
phase, the concordance and non-discordance concepts are used to make pair comparisons of the
alternatives. It is useful for presenting the results that are expected for the given problem [7].
Due to the chemical makeup and physical characterization of MSW components, the treatments
of each waste stream can generate different combinations. This in turn, can lead to several alternatives
that have to be considered and assessed in terms of different criteria, with a large amount of data to be
managed, which complicates the decision process.
Therefore, it is necessary to establish a methodology that is reliable enough to be applied through
numerically valued criteria; and to obtain a smaller set of possible options of MSW treatments through
which a final decision can be made [6].
The different methods of MSW treatment that are currently used should be assessed according to
the objectives to be achieved. In addition to the above described, it is necessary to know the parameters
of generation and composition of MSW, including aspects such as population density, urbanization,
and technical characteristics for the operation of the suggested technology, as well as available land for
installation and the environmental impact associated with its implementation [8].
In addition to the technical aspects, it is very important to include the criteria of costs and financing,
technological ease, social acceptance, and environmental damage into any final decision-making [9].
Several studies have reported the application of multicriteria analysis tools [8,10–12]; and in
that same vein, the purpose of this research is to determine the MSW treatment scenario that has the
lowest environmental and economic costs in a medium-sized city with limited resources through the
following multicriteria analysis method “Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality” (ELECTRE) [13].

2. Methodology
The methodology for this project was divided into three phases: basic data; scenario design; and
scenario selection.

2.1. Basic Data

The basic data used took into consideration the quantification of MSW generation and composition.
The projection of the population selected was calculated for a 16-year timeframe as per the methods
established by the pertinent government agency [14]. Using these data, the quantity of each type of
waste generated was expressed in tons. To calculate per capita generation, an annual increase of 1% [15]
was taken into account, while composition percentages remained constant during the project’s scope.
The project data used for this study was a population of 86,696 inhabitants [16], per capita
generation of 0.504 kg/hab-d and composition: organic waste (55.83%), plastics (11.58%), paper
(7.33%), glass (2.57%), and others (22.69%) [17].

2.2. Scenario Design

Treatments were defined according to physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of MSW.
Each type of waste was identified from 1 to 5, as shown in Table 1. While the selection of the types
of treatment and landfilling of MSW were tailored to the social, environmental, legal, economic, and
political conditions of the selected population’s context. The symbol “X” represents the MSW treatment
corresponding to each waste stream.
Once each waste type was defined, a numerical order was assigned to the treatment options:
1 = recycling, 2 = composting, 3 = incineration, and 4 = landfilling. To be able to determine all possible
scenarios, combinations with residue streams (in the following order: organic matter, plastic, paper,
glass and ‘others’) were generated with each different type of treatment.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 3 of 8

Table 1. Types of treatment selected by waste stream.

Organic Waste: Others: Diapers,

Plastic: Rigid
Treatment Food and Paper Glass Paperboard, Tetrapack,
and Film
Garden Waste Non-Ferrous Metal
(1) Recycling X X X
(2) Composting X
(3) Incineration with energy recovery X X
(4) Landfilling X X X X X

The code for the first scenario is composed of the numbers 21114 which considers that organic
matter must be composted hence first digit of the code for this scenario is 2; plastic must be recycled
indicated by the digit 1; paper must be recycled indicated by the digit 1; glass must be recycled too
and it is also assigned the digit 1; and finally ‘others’ were assigned the digit 4 and must be landfilled.
The total generation of each waste stream during the project’s scope was expressed in tons and
then multiplied by the values reported by Peñuelas, Gómez-Limón, and Berbel [10]. The unit cost per
ton of treated waste was reported in both USD as well as per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions
processed by the type of treatment selected. Therefore the economic costs (EC) and the environmental
costs (ENC) of each stream of waste were obtained. The values of EC and ENC were added for all
possible combinations of each scenario. The associated costs for this study are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Every scenario contained two values, so they were placed in a Cartesian coordinate system: the
“x” axis corresponded to the ENC; and the axis “y” to the EC.

Table 2. Economic costs of treatment options by waste stream ($/t).

Organic Waste Plastic Paper Glass Others

Recycling (1) - 93.89 −67 20.12 -
Composting (2) 47 - - - -
Incineration (3) - 14.53 14.53 - -
Landfilling (4) 72 72 72 72 72
Source: Adapted from [10,18,19].

Table 3. Environmental costs of treatment options and landfilling of waste stream (CO2 /t).

Organic Waste Plastic Paper Glass Others

Recycling (1) - −1.30 −3.89 −0.31 -
Composting (2) 0.09 - - - -
Incineration (3) - 1.38 −0.49 - -
Landfilling (4) 0.47 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.48
Source: Adapted from [12,20–24].

2.3. Scenario Selection

After analyzing graphical representation, scenarios with lower economic and environmental costs
were selected to form the initial decision matrix [25]. The first column in the matrix contained values
obtained from the EC and the second column contained ENC values.
Because of the environmental and the economic costs considered for this research, it was necessary
to subjectively assign a weight or preferred weight vector (W) for data processing. The ELECTRE
algorithmic structure was applied to this matrix and W was defined for the EC and ENC giving a
weight of 50% for each one. However, W values may vary depending on the decision maker’s or
experts on MSW criteria [26].

W = (w1 = 0.5, w2 = 0.5)

 Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 4 of 9

ELECTRE algorithmic structure was applied to this matrix and W was defined for the EC and ENC
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 4 of 8
giving a weight of 50% for each one. However, W values may vary depending on the decision maker’s
or experts on MSW criteria [26].

The vector W was defined and using the W = initial

(w1 = 0.5, w2 = 0.5)matrix, the matrix of concordance index
decision
was calculated. TheThis
vectorled
W to
wasthe selection
defined of the
and using the‘ideal’ and ‘anti-ideal’
initial decision matrix, thepoints
matrixfor the EC andindex
of concordance ENC. The
was calculated. This led to the selection of the ‘ideal’ and ‘anti-ideal’
ideal point was where the EC and ENC reached a maximum level, whereas the anti-ideal point points for the EC and ENC. The was
ideal point was where the
the one that contained the minimum level.EC and ENC reached a maximum level, whereas the anti-ideal point was
the one that contained the minimum level.
The application of the ELECTRE method included [25]: (1) Standardization of the elements of the
The application of the ELECTRE method included [25]: (1) Standardization of the elements of
initial decision matrix;
the initial (2) standardized
decision and weighted
matrix; (2) standardized decision matrix;
and weighted decision (3) matrices
matrix; of concordance
(3) matrices of
and discordance; (4) discordance index; (5) thresholds of concordance and discordance;
concordance and discordance; (4) discordance index; (5) thresholds of concordance and discordance; (6) matrix of
concordant and discordant
(6) matrix of concordantdominance; anddominance;
and discordant (7) matrixand of aggregate
(7) matrix ofdominance.
aggregate dominance.
A graphical
A graphical representation
representation was created
was created from the from the matrix
matrix of aggregate
of aggregate dominance.
dominance. Each
Each alternative
alternative represented one of the graph’s vertexes, allowing the comparison
represented one of the graph’s vertexes, allowing the comparison of each alternative to one another of each alternative to and
one another and draw corresponding lines. As a result, the ELECTRE graph was generated composed
draw corresponding lines. As a result, the ELECTRE graph was generated composed of alternatives
of alternatives that did not dominate one another, those that were not a part of the core were removed
that did from
not dominate
the selectionone another, those that were not a part of the core were removed from the
process.
selection process.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
According to the population projected for the study area (Figure 1), there is a trend toward
population
According to increase, leading to projected
the population 123,919 inhabitants
for theinstudy
the year 2033.
area The total
(Figure 1),generation
there is ofa MSW
trendfortoward
the project horizon is shown in Table 4.
population increase, leading to 123,919 inhabitants in the year 2033. The total generation of MSW for
the project horizon is shown in Table 4.

130
Inhabitants number (thounsands)

125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

1. Population
FigureFigure projection
1. Population for
projection forthe
thelocality understudy
locality under study 2010–2033.
2010–2033.

TableTable 4. Total generation by waste stream (tons)

4. Total generation by waste stream (tons).
Organic
Total Generation in the Horizon of the Project Plastic Paper Glass Others
Total Generation in the Horizon of the Project OrganicWaste
Waste Plastic Paper Glass Others
352,734.72 196,931.79 40,846.68 25,855.45 9065.28 80,035.51
352,734.72 196,931.79 40,846.68 25,855.45 9065.28 80,035.51

A total of 36 scenarios of treatment and landfilling were obtained (Table 5) for the design of the
A total of 36after
scenarios scenarios
makingofalltreatment andpossible
combinations landfilling were
of each obtained
of the (Table
waste streams by5) forofthe
type design of the
treatment,
scenarioswith themaking
after assignment
all of the numerical order
combinations mentioned
possible of eachin of
thethe
methodology.
waste streams by type of treatment,
with the assignment of the numerical order mentioned in the methodology.

Table 5. Scenarios generated and their coding.

Scenario Coding Scenario Coding Scenario Coding

E1 21114 E13 21344 E25 41414
E2 23114 E14 23344 E26 43414
E3 24114 E15 24344 E27 44414
E4 21314 E16 21444 E28 41144
E5 23314 E17 23444 E29 43144
E6 24314 E18 24444 E30 44144
E7 21414 E19 41114 E31 41344
E8 23414 E20 43114 E32 43344
E9 24414 E21 44114 E33 44344
E10 21144 E22 41314 E34 41444
E11 23144 E23 43314 E35 43444
E12 24144 E24 44314 E36 44444
 E4 21314 E16 21444 E28 41144
E5 23314 E17 23444 E29 43144
E6 24314 E18 24444 E30 44144
E7 21414 E19 41114 E31 41344
E8 23414 E20 43114 E32 43344
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 5 of 8
E9 24414 E21 44114 E33 44344
E10 21144 E22 41314 E34 41444
E11 23144 E23 43314 E35 43444
When applying the unit costs to each of the scenarios, the EC and ENC costs were obtained as
shown in FigureE12 2. 24144 E24 44314 E36 44444
The five scenarios selected from Figure 2 with the lowest EC and ENC are shown in Table 6.
ThisWhen
showsapplying the unitwith
the alternatives costslowest
to eachEC
ofare
theC,
scenarios,
D, and E,the EC and
while ENC
those costs
with were
lower obtained as
environmental
shown in A
costs are Figure
and B.2.

Figure
Figure2.
2.Graphical
Graphicalrepresentation
representation of
of the
the EC
EC and
and the
the ENC
ENC of
of the
the scenarios.
scenarios.

The five scenarios selected fromTable

Figure
6. 2Initial
withdecision
the lowest EC and ENC are shown in Table 6. This
matrix.
shows the alternatives with lowest EC are C, D, and E, while those with lower environmental costs
are A and B. Scenario EC (US$) ENC (t/CO2 )
A (21114) 17,303,523.74 −100,144.62
B (24144) Table 6. 16,879,696.75
Initial decision matrix−38,370.15
C (24114) 16,409,389.90 −45,165.23
Scenario
D (23144) EC (US$)
14,532,238.02 ENC (t/CO2)
16,111.00
A (21114)
E (23114) 17,303,523.74
14,061,931.17 −100,144.62
9315.92
B (24144) 16,879,696.75 −38,370.15
The most favorable point (ideal point) would be to reach−45,165.23
C (24114) 16,409,389.90 an ENC of −100,144.62 tons of CO2
D (23144) 14,532,238.02 16,111.00
emissions to the atmosphere (which corresponds to scenario A) and with an EC of $14,061,931.17 USD
E (23114)
(scenario E). The anti-ideal 14,061,931.17
point is an ENC of 16,111.00 tons of9315.92
CO emissions to the atmosphere
2
(scenario D) and EC of $17,303,523.74 USD (scenario A).
The diagram obtained from the ELECTRE aggregate dominance matrix is shown in Figure 3.
The core is formed by scenario A which is the most favorable option of the five considered. The focus
should be on scenario A for the selection of treatment and landfilling for the 16-year scope of the
project. The applied analysis resulted in D and E scenarios with the lowest dominance degree.
Scenario A shows that organic waste must be subjected to composting treatment [26,27], whereas
plastic, paper, and glass must be recycled; ‘others’ must be sent to landfills. The EC and ENC cost for
this scenario is $17,303,523.74 USD and −100,144.62 tons of CO2 emissions, respectively.
Scenario D suggests that organic waste should composted, while the ‘others’ stream should be
sent to landfills paper and glass would be recycled, while plastics must be incinerated. The EC and
ENC for this scenario is $14,532,238.02 USD and 16,111.00 tons of CO2 emissions.
Both alternatives coincide in the recycling of paper and glass as an option for the treatment of those
waste streams. This is mainly due to economic potential and the existence of a recyclable materials
 Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 6 of 9

The most favorable point (ideal point) would be to reach an ENC of −100,144.62 tons of CO2
emissions
Sustainability to9,the
2017, 1758atmosphere (which corresponds to scenario A) and with an EC of $14,061,931.17 6 of 8
USD (scenario E). The anti-ideal point is an ENC of 16,111.00 tons of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere
(scenario D) and EC of $17,303,523.74 USD (scenario A).
market with exponential
The diagram growth
obtained from[28,29]. The competitive
the ELECTRE advantagematrix
aggregate dominance of recycling
is showninincomparison
Figure 3. to
the other types of treatment is the reduction of environmental costs associated with the management
The core is formed by scenario A which is the most favorable option of the five considered. The focus
process andbethe
should on depletion
scenario Aofforresources through
the selection the integration
of treatment of byproducts
and landfilling into the
for the 16-year supply
scope of thechain,
thusproject.
reducingTheCO
applied
2 analysis
emissions resulted
[30]. in D and E scenarios with the lowest dominance degree.

Figure3.3.Graphic
Figure Graphic diagram
diagramofofthe
thedominance
dominancematrix.
matrix.

Scenario A shows that organic waste must be subjected to composting treatment [26,27], whereas
In regards
plastic, paper, toand
the glass
organic waste
must fraction,‘others’
be recycled; the composting treatment
must be sent is considered
to landfills. The EC andin scenario
ENC cost forA due
to the environmental benefits for the community such as the improvement
this scenario is $17,303,523.74 USD and −100,144.62 tons of CO2 emissions, respectively. of the soils by incorporation
of nutrients of the
Scenario compostthat
D suggests [31]. This may
organic wastehave positive
should effects
composted, on the
while the flow of stream
‘others’ greenhouse
shouldgases
be as
wellsent to landfills
as the potential paper
to beand
anglass wouldoption
economic be recycled, while plastics
for marketing [32];must be incinerated.
meanwhile, scenarioTheEEC and that
shows
ENC foristhis
landfilling thescenario is $14,532,238.02
option with USD for
the least value andwaste.
16,111.00 tons of CO2 emissions.
Both alternatives coincide in the recycling
In addition to that, literature shows that organic of paperwaste
and glass as an option
incineration is afor the treatment
viable scenario of[11,12].
those waste streams. This is mainly due to economic potential and the
However, for this research, organic waste incineration was not considered due to the high existence of a recyclable
content of
materials market with exponential growth [28,29]. The competitive advantage of recycling in
humidity for this waste fraction and its operation cost [17,33].
comparison to the other types of treatment is the reduction of environmental costs associated with
In the case of scenarios D and E, treatment by incineration of plastic is considered due to its
the management process and the depletion of resources through the integration of byproducts into
highthecalorific
supply value (above
chain, thus 11 MJ/kg
reducing average [30].
CO2 emissions of calorific content [10]). This treatment contributes
to a reduction in CO
In regards 2 emissions
to the [34].fraction,
organic waste For scenario A corresponding
the composting treatment to plastic, lower
is considered EC andA ENC
in scenario
associated
due to were obtained.
the environmental benefits for the community such as the improvement of the soils by
incorporation of nutrients of the compost [31]. This may have positive effects on the flow of
4. Conclusions
greenhouse gases as well as the potential to be an economic option for marketing [32]; meanwhile,
scenario
Of the E 36shows that landfilling
scenarios obtained isinthe option
this with the
research, theleast
fivevalue
that for waste. the lowest EC and ENC
presented
In addition to that, literature shows that organic waste incineration is a viable scenario [11,12].
were selected. The ELECTRE method was used to identify the scenario with the highest degree of
However, for this research, organic waste incineration was not considered due to the high content of
dominance. This scenario considers composting for organic waste, recycling for paper, plastic and
humidity for this waste fraction and its operation cost [17,33].
glass, and
In landfilling for the ‘others’
the case of scenarios D and E,category.
treatment by incineration of plastic is considered due to its high
The ELECTRE method suggests
calorific value (above 11 MJ/kg average that the
of people
calorificwith the decision-making
content power
[10]). This treatment should select
contributes to a the
scenario that best
reduction in COconsiders the [34].
2 emissions area’sFor
particular
scenario conditions including
A corresponding population
to plastic, lowersize,
EC socioeconomic
and ENC
situation, and were
associated public policies. In this research, scenario A meets these requirements.
obtained.

Author Contributions: Lorena De Medina-Salas, Eduardo Castillo-González and Mario Rafael Giraldi-Díaz
4. Conclusions
conceived and designed the experiment; Mario Rafael Giraldi-Díaz and Victor Guzmán-González performed the
Of Eduardo
experiment; the 36 scenarios obtained in
Castillo-González this
and research,
Lorena the five that analyzed
De Medina-Salas presentedthe
thedata;
lowest
the EC
fourand ENCwrote
authors
the paper.
were selected. The ELECTRE method was used to identify the scenario with the highest degree of
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
ELECTRE Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality
EC Economical Cost
ENC Environmental Cost
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 7 of 8

References
1. De Souza, M.A.V.; Montenegro, G.S.; Faceli, K.; Casadei, V. Technologies and decision support systems to
aid solid-wate management: A systematic review. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 567–584.
2. Pérez, B.J.R.; Cerdán, P.A. Aplicación de las TIG para la Optimización de los Servicios de Recogida y Gestión de los
Residuos Sólidos Urbanos del Municipio de Aspe (Alicante); Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
3. Soltani, A.; Hewage, K.; Reza, B.; Sadiq, R. Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the
context of Municipal Solid Waste Management: A review. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 318–328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Duran, B.P. Método de Discriminación Entre Distintas Soluciones de Pilares Mediante Criterios de
Sostenibilidad. 2011. Available online: https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2099.1/12527/706-
TES-CA-4883_Pere_Duran_Bertran.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2017).
5. Contreras, F.; Hanaki, K.; Aramaki, T.; Connors, S. Application of analytical hierarchy process to analyze
stakeholders preferences for municipal solid waste management plans, Boston, USA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2008, 52, 979–991. [CrossRef]
6. Fatta, D.; Moll, S.; Tsotsos, D. Assessment of Information Related to Waste and Material Flows; European
Environmental Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003.
7. Govindan, K.; Brandt, J.M. ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 250, 1–29. [CrossRef]
8. Orta, D.V.M.T.; Yañez, N.I.; Monje, R.I.; Rojas, V.M.N.; Toscano, V.L.; Rentería, M.J.; Velázquez, P.K.;
García, S.E.I.; Hernández, R.N.M.; Hernández, R.L. Estudio de Evaluación de Evaluación de
Tecnologías Alternativas o Complementarias para el Tratamiento o Disposición Final de Residuos
Sólidos Urbanos. Informe Final. 2009. Available online: http://www.cmic.org.mx/comisiones/Sectoriales/
infraestructurahidraulica/publicaciones_conagua/RESIDUOS%20PELIGROSOS/EST-EVA2009.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2017).
9. Camacho-Rea, I.; Aguirre, R. Análisis Multicriterio y Evaluación del Beneficio Ambiental de la Incineración
de Residuos Sólidos Municipales en la Ciudad de México. Biblioteca Virtual de Desarrollo Sostenible y Salud
Ambiental BVSDE, 2005. Available online: http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsaidis/mexico2005/camacho.pdf
(accessed on 8 July 2017).
10. Peñuelas, M.J.M.; Gómez-Limón, R.J.A.; Berbel, V.J. Análisis de los planes de gestión de residuos urbanos:
Aplicación al caso andaluz. Rev. Estudios Reg. 2002, 62, 15–50.
11. Ionescu, G.; Rada, E.C.; Ragazzi, M.; Mărlescu, C.; Badea, A.; Apostol, T. Integrated municipal solid waste
scenario model using advanced pretreatment and waste to energy processes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013,
76, 1083–1092. [CrossRef]
12. Oyoo, R.; Leemans, R.; Mol, A.P.J. Comparison of environmental performance for different waste management
scenarios in East Africa: The case of Kampala City, Uganda. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 349–357. [CrossRef]
13. Botti, L.; Peypoch, N. Multi-criteria ELECTRE method and destination competitiveness. Tour. Manag. Perspect.
2013, 6, 108–113. [CrossRef]
14. National Water Comission. Methods of Population Projection; Technical Standard NT-011-CNA-2001. 2001.
Available online: http://info.ceajalisco.gob.mx/transparencia/pdf/ley/nom/cna/nt-011-cna-2001.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2017).
15. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Guía para la Gestión Integral de los Residuos
Sólidos Municipales; Subsecretaria de Gestión para la Protección Ambiental: Mexico City, Mexico, 2008.
Available online: http://www.sustenta.org.mx/3/wp-content/files/GUIA_GIRSM_SEMARNAT_2001.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2017).
16. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). 2010. Available online: http://www.beta.inegi.org.
mx/proyectos/ccpv/2010/ (accessed on 9 July 2017).
17. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). Responsible for the Project: Diego Corcho Sánchez,
Eduardo Castillo González and Lorena De Medina Salas. Desarrollo de un Sistema de Información para la Gestión
Integral de los Residuos Sólidos Urbanos Que Actualmente se Disponen en el Relleno Sanitario Regional de Pinoltepec
Ubicado en el Municipio de Emiliano Zapata, Veracruz; Clave VER-2007-C01-31766; CONACYT: Mexico City,
Mexico, 2010. Available online: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jVVs_VkfMwAJ:
2006-2012.conacyt.gob.mx/fondos/FondosMixtos/Documents/FOMIX-Veracruz_Sep_2012.pdf+&cd=4&
hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=mx (accessed on 9 July 2017).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1758 8 of 8

18. Maalouf, A.; El-Fadel, M. Effect of a food waste disposer policy on solid waste and wastewater management
with economic implications of environmental externalities. Waste Manag. 2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Menikpura, S.N.M.; Gheewala, S.H.; Bonnet, S.; Chiemchaisri, C. Evaluation of the effect of recycling on
sustainability of municipal solid waste management in Thailand. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2013, 4, 237–257.
[CrossRef]
20. Castrejón-Godínez, M.L.; Sánchez-Salinas, E.; Rodríguez, A.; Ortiz-Hernández, M.L. Analysis of Solid Waste
Management and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in México: A Study Case in the Central Region. J. Environ. Prot.
2015, 6, 146. [CrossRef]
21. Environmental Protection Agency Office (EPA). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors
Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office (EPA): Washington,
DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/warm/pdfs/WARM_Documentation.pdf
(accessed on 18 September 2017).
22. Friedrich, E.; Trois, C. Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from waste management processes for
municipalities–A comparative review focusing on Africa. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1585–1596. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
23. Morris, J.; Matthews, H.S.; Morawski, C. Review and meta-analysis of 82 studies on end-of-life management
methods for source separated organics. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 545–551. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Zhou, C.; Jiang, D.; Zhao, Z. Quantification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Predisposal Stage of
Municipal Solid Waste Management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 320–327. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Comaniţă, E.-D.; Ghinea, C.; Hlihor, R.M.; Simion, I.M.; Smaranda, C.; Favier, L.; Roşca, M.; Gostin, I.;
Gavrilescu, M. Challenges and opportunities in green plastics: An assessment using the ELECTRE
decision-aid method. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2015, 14, 689–702.
26. Liu, Y.; Xing, P.; Liu, J. Environmental performance evaluation of different municipal solid waste management
scenarios in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 98–106. [CrossRef]
27. Põldnurk, J. Optimisation of the economic, environmental and administrative efficiency of the municipal
waste management model in rural areas. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 97, 55–65. [CrossRef]
28. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities:
Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010; UN-HABITAT/Earthscan, Ed.; UN-HABITAT: London, UK;
Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
29. Nandy, B.; Sharma, G.; Kumari, S.; George, T.; Sunanda, Y.; Sinha, B. Recovery of consumer waste in India—A
mass flow analysis for paper, plastic and glass and the contribution of households and the informal sector.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 167–181. [CrossRef]
30. PNUMA. Guía para la Elaboración de Estrategias Nacionales de Gestión de Residuos (Avanzar Desde
los Desafíos Hacia las Oportunidades). 2013. Available online: http://cwm.unitar.org/publications/
publications/cw/wm/UNEP_UNITAR_NWMS_Spanish.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2017).
31. Shams, S.; Sahu, J.N.; Rahman, S.S.M.; Ahsan, A. Sustainable waste management policy in Bangladesh for
reduction of greenhouse gases. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 33, 18–26. [CrossRef]
32. Smith, A.; Keith, B.; Ogilvie, S.; Rushton, K.; Bates, J. Waste Management Options and Climate Change.
Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment. 2001. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/waste/studies/pdf/climate_change.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2017).
33. Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; Li, Y.; Li, X. Waste incineration industry and development policies in China. Waste Manag.
2015, 46, 234–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Gradus, R.H.J.M.; Nillesen, P.H.L.; Dijkgraaf, E.; Van Koppen, R.J. A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for
Incineration or Recycling of Dutch Household Plastic Waste. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 135, 22–28. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).