0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views16 pages

2022_Barma and Modibbo_JCCE

This research article presents a multiobjective mathematical optimization model for municipal solid waste management in Nigeria, focusing on the economic benefits of recycling and reusing recovered waste materials. The model demonstrates that at a 71.5% recovery rate, no budgetary provision is needed for waste disposal, as the benefits from recovered materials cover the costs. The findings aim to provide policymakers with valuable insights for effective planning and budgeting in waste management in the Abuja area and beyond.

Uploaded by

Ece Coşgun
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views16 pages

2022_Barma and Modibbo_JCCE

This research article presents a multiobjective mathematical optimization model for municipal solid waste management in Nigeria, focusing on the economic benefits of recycling and reusing recovered waste materials. The model demonstrates that at a 71.5% recovery rate, no budgetary provision is needed for waste disposal, as the benefits from recovered materials cover the costs. The findings aim to provide policymakers with valuable insights for effective planning and budgeting in waste management in the Abuja area and beyond.

Uploaded by

Ece Coşgun
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Received: 3 December 2021 | Revised: 9 January 2022 | Accepted: 12 January 2022 | Published online: 13 January 2022

Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering


RESEARCH ARTICLE 2022, Vol. 1(3) 122–137
DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCCE149145

Multiobjective Mathematical
Optimization Model for Municipal
Solid Waste Management with
Economic Analysis of Reuse/Recycling
Recovered Waste Materials
Modu Barma1 and Umar Muhammad Modibbo1,*
1
Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Modibbo Adama University, Nigeria

Abstract: Municipal solid waste management in developing countries like Nigeria did not consider benefits from reuse/recycling recovered
waste materials during solid waste evacuation and disposal. The benefits from recovered waste materials mostly go to informal waste vendors
and scavengers. This study developed a multiobjective mathematical programming model for waste evacuation and disposal, considering the
benefits of reuse/recycling recovered waste materials. Data were collected from the Abuja environmental protection board (AEPB), personal
interviews, and other stakeholders. The formulated model was solved using spreadsheet solver version 14.0. The study uses various daily
budgetary provisions for solid waste evacuation and disposal at a 15% recovery level of solid waste materials to observe the responses of the
model. The solution shows that at 71.5% recovery of reuse/recycling recovered waste material; no budgetary provision is required to evacuate
and dispose of the waste at the collection centers. Benefits realized from recovered waste materials are sufficient to evacuate and dispose of the
wastes. After a 71.5% level of recovery, the net benefit of $1,108.17 from recovered waste materials starts to accrue until the percentage
recovery level reaches 100%. The volume of waste shifted to the disposal sites was reduced to 74.5 tons (i.e., unrecoverable waste
material) which is 16.82% of the total waste generated per day, and 368.33 tons (83.18%) of waste materials were recovered. The study
will give the policymakers viable information to aid proper planning while budgeting and controlling solid-waste-associated problems in
the Abuja municipal area in particular and the country as large.
Keywords: multiobjective mathematical optimization model, goal programming model, economic benefit, reuse/recycling recovered waste
materials, budgetry provision, Abuja, Nigeria

1. Introduction with many environmental problems, such as groundwater


contamination, toxic fumes and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
Municipal solid waste (MSW) includes any discarded unwanted land contamination, and increases in pest and disease vector
material that is not liquid or gaseous. It comes from everyday product populations (e.g., rodents, flies, and mosquitoes) (US Environmental
packaging, grass clippings, street sweeping, demolition and Protection Agency, 2016). Other MSW management methods include
construction of buildings, clothing, discarded furniture, cans and source reduction, recycling, composting, incineration, etc. Solid waste
bottles, newspapers, food scraps, electronics, and batteries. These management is also a process that involves activities of collection,
wastes are generated mainly from homes, institutions such as source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing,
agencies, schools, and commercial sources such as motor packs, treatment, and disposal of discarded solid waste material in an
restaurants, and small businesses (Peter, 1996; US Environmental environmentally sustainable manner (Ahsan et al., 2014; Demirbas,
Protection Agency, 2016). 2011; Ding et al., 2021; Ravindraet et al., 2015; Williams et al.,
Before the 1970s, management of MSW generally consisted of 2008). Improper management of MSW causes a hazard to
depositing the wastes in open or excavated landfills, accompanied by inhabitants. Management of MSW is a significant problem in urban
open burning to reduce waste volumes. The method is associated centers of developing countries due to continuous increase in the
volume of waste due to rise in income, population growth, and
urbanization (Khanlari et al., 2012). It is one of the challenging issues
in our urban centers due to various interrelated factors such as
*Corresponding author: Umar Muhammad Modibbo, Department of
operational cost and environmental issues; it continues to be a big
Statistics and Operations Research, Modibbo Adama University, Nigeria. challenge in urban centers of developing countries (Asefi et al., 2015;
Email: [email protected] Sabeen et al., 2016).

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by BON VIEW PUBLISHING PTE. LTD. This is an open access article under the CC BY License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).

122
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Due to limited resources, proper management and control of these facilities before the waste disposal process. Several researchers
wastes have become a dilemma. Most of the agencies face a limited applied the optimization models, particularly goal programming and
budgetary provision for solid waste management. In developing its variants, in studying socio-economic problems related to
countries, the situation is acute due to rapid urbanization, environmental sustainability (Ahmadini et al., 2021; Modibbo et al.,
uncontrolled population growth rate, and little financial commitment 2021; AlArjani et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2021).
(Sarika, 2007; Sunil, 2005). Various studies reveal that about 90% Multiobjective mathematical programming has been adopted in
of MSW is disposed of unscientifically in open dumps, open improving policy performances on sustainable MSW management
burning, and landfills in developing countries, creating problems to strategies in Italy (Cucchiella et al., 2014). The study quantifies and
public health and the environment (Sharholy et al., 2008). evaluates the effects of the new waste diversion policy from landfills and
Municipal solid waste contains not only “valuable” but also uses economic indicators to define Italy’s waste facilities profitability.
recycling and reusable material such as metal, glass, paper, plastics, Asefi and Lim (2017) considered the economic, environmental, and
etc., which in many cases are unrecovered during the waste social factors in developing reliable and sustainable indicators for
management process. In most cases, the recovery of recoverable integrated MSW management using multicriteria decision-making
waste material is not formal, mostly carried out by scavengers and (MCDM) techniques. The study incorporates the ε-constraint method
informal waste vendors (Barma et al. 2014). A complex network to maximize the system suitability and minimize the transportation
approach has been adopted to manage municipal waste in Italy and fixed costs of the MSW system in Tehran. Waste generation has
(Cerqueti et al., 2021). The study analyzed the wastes separation been modeled recently using technology-specific bases due to the
percentages at the level of municipality, and studied the municipal growing demand for waste disposal capacity and recycling for future
distance role from plants in the waste management network. consumption (Chen et al., 2021).
Researchers used several mathematical approaches to various Recently, the MSW network and its potential destinations have
model activities of the solid waste management system in areas such been optimized using the MILP approach considering landfilling
as solid waste generation prediction, minimization of volume of waste and waste reduction process (Garibay-Rodriguez et al., 2018). Also,
generated, optimization of waste facilities operation, facility site an MILP model has been developed considering CO2 emissions and
selection, optimal routing of waste transport vehicle in the waste water consumption in a study on sustainable agricultural supply
management system, etc. (Nganda, 2007; Prawiradinata, 2004). chain networks using the concept of hybrid meta-heuristics
According to Yousefloo and Babazadeh (2020), the high rate of algorithms (Goodarzian et al., 2023). Awasthi et al. (2018) have
people influx into capital cities gave birth to the increase of waste modeled the correlation between e-waste and gross domestic
production and hence the need for policymakers to manage such products. Puchongkawarin and Mattaraj (2020) use superstructural
wastes for proper town planning of the scarce resources. They optimization to develop a decision-making tool for the optimal
proposed a bilevel multiobjective mixed-integer linear programming design of MSW facilities in Thailand. They formulated the problem
(MILP) model for designing and planning of MSW network as an MILP to maximize the profit under uncertainty. Similarly, Tsai
considering outsourcing via auctions. A sustainable MSW network et al. (2020) conducted a comparative study for the MSW management
has been designed and studied under uncertainty (Mamashli & attributes in different cities of Vietnam under uncertain environments.
Javadian, 2021). The study analyzed associated location risk based on The study identified 14 features and used the DEMATEL technique to
the case study population. Similarly, MSW disposal rates have been evaluate the causal relationships from different towns. Gu et al. (2021)
modelled during the COVID-19 pandemic using the waste fraction considered various MSW separation and compositions sources that
separation model (Vu et al., 2021). Ghosh et al. (2021) viewed the impact energy recovery potentials from incineration in Beijing. They
MSW problem from socio-ecological and techno-managerial used a differential equation model to predict the volume of MSW
perspectives and applied an artificial neural network to assess the generation in 2025 to reach 11,505,400 tons with a 2.255% “mean
situation in two different municipalities. absolute percentage error”.
Most studies on solid waste management did not consider the Among the several methods of MSW management, this study
economic benefits of recycling/reuse recovered waste materials considered reuse/recycling methods as one of the most effective,
during solid waste management. Several deterministic mathematical affordable, and sustainable strategies for solid waste management in
programming models have been used for planning and controlling Nigeria. Therefore, the study developed a multiobjective mathematical
solid waste management systems. Peirce et al. (1982) applied linear programming model to minimize generated volume of solid waste at
programming techniques to identify a cost-effective configuration of waste collection centers and disposal sites. The study considered the eco-
transportation routes, transfer stations, processing facilities, and nomic benefit from the reuse/recycling of recovered waste material. The
long-term storage impoundments for hazardous waste management. relative importance of the collection centers during waste evacuation and
The model gives optimal routes for the given structures of hazardous disposal, which is the standard practice, was also considered. Abuja
waste management facilities. Rakas et al. (2004) have developed a (Nigeria) municipal area was considered as the study area.
multiobjective model for determining locations of undesirable The paper is arranged as follows: Section I presents the introduction
facilities with conflicting criteria. The designed model helped and discusses related work in MSW management and the techniques
address critical questions, such as how many facilities locations are used. In Section II, the methodology of this study is presented. The
needed, how large each facility should be and so on. Alidi (1996) MSW management conceptual framework was designed, model
proposes a multiobjective optimization model using a goal assumptions, nomenclature defined, and finally, the mathematical
programming approach to manage hazardous waste generated by the model of the problem formulated. Section III discusses the method of
petrochemical industry properly. Chang et al. (2012) studied MSW data collection for the study. In Section IV, model implementation and
management integrating cost–benefit criteria and global warming the study area are discussed with the map showing locations of the
potentials for optimal planning of the SWM system in Pennsylvania. various wastes management facilities. Section V discusses the model
The study estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and optimizes results, analysis, findings, and managerial implications. The article
the net benefits, prioritizing the options for materials recovery concludes in Section VII with future scope for possible exploration.

123
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

2. Material and Methods incorporates user-supplied weights based on their relative


importance and sums up to give a single objective to be minimized.
The mathematical programming approach is a valuable Let the weighted model of a multiobjective optimization
technique in optimizing the MSW management system, evident problem with k objectives be given as follows:
from the above-reviewed literature. One of such techniques is goal
programming (GP). A typical mathematical programming model 9
P
k >
>
can be formulated as follows: Min : ZðXÞ ¼ wi fi ðxÞ >
>
>
>
i¼1 >
>
9 Subject to : >
>
Optimize ZðXÞ > =
>
> (2)
Subject to : = x2S >
(1) P >
>
>
k >
>
gi ðxÞð; ¼; Þbi >
> wi ¼ 1 >
>
; >
>
xi  0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
i¼1 >
;
wi  0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ;k
Where gi are the set of constraints with bi as available resources, and Z is
Where ZðXÞ denotes the objective functions, X represents the sets of
the objective function with X the set of decision vectors. Equation (1)
decision variables, and S represents the sets of constraints. Any set of
can be minimization or maximization in nature and can have single or
nonnegative weights wi may be used in equation (2). However, with-
multiple objectives. The constraints equation can take any form of the
out loss of generality, we can normalize all weights such
inequalities depending on the problem type and nature. The
optimization model (1) has several variants depending on the nature P
k
that wi ¼ 1.
of the problem. The algorithm is one of the MCDM techniques in i¼1
which decision problems with several conflicting criteria are Suppose the optimization problem in equation (2) has a single
considered (Hung et al., 2006; Minciardi et al., 2008). In this study, objective. In that case, it can be solved by existing methods such as
MSW management with reuse/recycling recovered waste material the graphical method (applied to two variables problems), sequential
was structured as a multiobjective decision-making (MODM) goal programming method, and multiphase simplex method
problem. The MODM problem can be divided into three parts: (Hung et al., 2006). The conceptual framework of the model is
preference, interactive, and nonpreference type (lexicographic, given in Figure 1.
multiattribute utility, and unknown utility) (Hung et al., 2006).
The interactive multiobjective decision making mathematical 2.2. Description of conceptual framework
programming approach was adopted based on WGP. representation of the waste flow
2.1. Weighted goal programming technique Figure 1 represents the network flow of waste from the
collection centre j(j = 1,2,3, : : : ,J) to the final disposal facilities
The WGP is one of the GP variants, and this study considered sites d(d = 1,2,3, : : : ,D) in the MSW management system.
the algorithm in developing the MSW management model in this Between the collection points and the disposal facilities are waste
study. The method involves determining the relative importance transfer stations t(t = 1,2,3, : : : ,T) and various waste processing/
of the attributes and aggregating them into some kind of overall diversion facilities p(p = 1,2,3 : : : , P). The flow of wastes of
objective. The optimization problem is solved to generate the type i from waste collection point j to a particular transfer station
optimal solution for a given set of attributes. The method weighs t, processing/diversion facility p, and disposal facility d (residual)
the objectives to obtain Pareto optimal solutions. Each objective is represented by xjti ,yjp
i i
,wjd . The flow of wastes of type i from a

Figure 1
Conceptual framework of the solid waste management system

124
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

particular transfer station t to a particular processing/diversion facility bijp = Cost of transportation per unit waste of type i from
ρ and disposal facility d is represented by gtp i i
and ktd , respectively. The collection center j to processing facility p
flow of volumes of residues from processing/diversion facility ρ to cijd = Cost of transportation per unit waste of type i from
disposal facility d, when the processing/diversion facility processes collection center j p to disposal facility d.
i
waste type i, is represented by vpd . The flow of fractional amount
nitp = Cost of transportation per unit waste of type i from
of recovered material r to the market from the collection center j is
transfer station t to processing facility
represented by ϕrj. The flow of fractional amount of material r to
the market from transfer station t is represented by λrt. The flow of qitd = Cost of transportation of unit waste of type i from transfer
fractional volumes of recovered material m (reuse/recycling waste station t to disposal facility d.
materials, compost material, refuse-derived fuel, etc.) to the market uipd = Cost of transportation of residue from processing facility
from the processing/diversion facility p is represented by ρmp. p to disposal facility d when waste type i is processed.
Waste collection center—the generated wastes are collected at γij = Cost of handling per unit waste of type i at collection
point sources representing neighborhoods referred to as waste center j.
collection centers, depots, or refuse dumpsites. This enables
generated wastes from a different household cluster to gather their Ait = Cost of handling per unit waste of type i at transfer station
waste in one place for accessible collection by smaller trucks to facility t.
various waste management facilities. Transfer stations—These are θr = Percentage of material r in the waste.
centralized facilities where waste from a cluster of collection ϕrt = Percentage of reused/recycled material r can be recovered
centers is unloaded from smaller collection trucks (containers) and at collection center j.
reloaded into larger vehicles for transportation to other facilities in
λrt = Percentage of reused/recycled material r can be recovered
the waste management system (Environmental Impact Assessment,
at transfer station t.
2010). Waste processing and diversion facilities—the waste
processing activities deal with the recovery of waste material and pmp = Percentage of recovered material m at processing/
recycling activities. diversion facility p.
Meanwhile, waste diversion deals with the transformation of Ψr = Per unit revenue (or benefit) of recycle/reused material r.
solid waste through combustion or incineration, treatment, and ψmp = Per unit revenue (or benefit) of recovered material m at
composting. The waste processing/diversion facilities tend to reduce processing/diversion facility p.
the volume of waste flows to disposal facilities. Sorted/separated
α = Percentage of waste from collection centers moved to
waste may come from waste collection centers, transfer stations, or
transfer stations.
waste processing/diversion facilities. At these facilities, recovered/
recycled waste materials are sent to the market, unrecovered but π = Percentage of waste from collection centers moved to
transformed waste (residue) are then sent to the disposal facilities. processing facilities.
Disposal facilities—The last option in the SWM system is the final ηtp = Percentage of waste moved from transfer station t to
disposal of the waste; this is the final destination of the wastes processing facility p.
that are not recovered. A standard method of final disposal of B = Budgetary allocation for waste management operation for a
solid waste, mostly in use, is sanitary landfilling (Kreith, 1994; defined period.
Zerbock, 2003).
TNetCost = Total net cost of solid waste management.

2.3. Model assumptions 2.5. Model nomenclature


For any mathematical model, there are assumptions under xijt = Amount of waste typei moved from waste collection center
which the model can be formulated. The following are the j to waste transfer station facility t
assumptions in the present study: yijp = Amount of waste type i moved from waste collection
i. Wastes generated in each community are collected at designated center j to waste processing facility p
collection centers.
wijd = Amount of waste type i moved from waste collection
ii. Waste at collection centers is only moved to the transfer station
center j to waste disposal facility d
facility, processing/diversion facility, or disposal site base on
policy directives. gitp = Amount of waste type i moved from the waste transfer
iii. All waste management facilities have a percentage level of station t to waste processing facility p
recovery for the various recovered waste materials except for kitd = Amount of waste type i moved from waste transfer station
disposal sites. facility t to waste disposal facility d
iv. There is market value for reused/recycled waste material. vpd = Amount of residue moved from waste processing/div.
facility p to waste disposal facility d
2.4. Model parameters τijt = 0 indicates waste of type i from collection center j cannot
be moved to a transfer station t.
µj = The amount of wastes at the collection center j.
τijt = 1 indicates waste of type i from collection center j can be
Γt = Capacity of waste transfer station facility t
Q moved to a transfer station t.
p = Capacity of waste processing/diversion facility p δijp = 0 indicates waste of type i from collection center j cannot
Ωd = Capacity of waste disposal facility d. be moved to a processing/diversion facility p
aijt = Cost of transportation per unit waste of type i from δijp = 1 indicates waste of type i from collection center j can be
collection center j to transfer station facility t. moved to processing/diversion facility p

125
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

ςijd = 0 indicates waste of type i from collection center j cannot XX XX XX


wijd ς ijd þ kitd eitd þ i i
vpd lpd  Ωd ; 8d (10)
be moved to a disposal facility d i2I j2J i2I t2T i2I p2P
ςijd = 1 indicates waste of type i from collection center j can be
moved to a disposal facility d XXX X X X XX XX 
xjti τ tjt  α xjti τ tjt þ yjpi δijp þ wijd ςijd 0
hitp = 0 indicates waste of type i from transfer station t cannot be i2I j2J t2T j2J i2I t2T i2I p2P i2I d2D

moved to processing/diversion facility p (11)


h tp = 1 indicates waste of type i from transfer station t can be
i
XXX X X X XX XX 
moved to processing/diversion facility p yjpi δijp  π xjti τ ijt þ yjpi δijp þ wijd ς ijd 0
i2I j2J p2P j2J i2I t2T i2I p2P i2I d2D
e td = 0 indicates waste of type i from transfer station t cannot be
i
" !#
XXX XXX X
(12)
moved to a disposal facility d
gtpi hip  η xjti τ ijt 1  λrt θr ¼0 (13)
eitd = 1 indicates waste of type i from transfer station t can be i2I p2P t2T i2I t2T j2J r2R
moved to a disposal facility d
þ
lipd = 0 indicates residue from waste of type i from processing/ TNetCost þ s
2  s2 ¼ B (14)
diversion facility p cannot be moved to disposal facility d X j j
lipd = 1 indicates residue from the waste of type i from ω1 ¼ 1; ω1  0 (15)
j2J
processing/diversion facility p can be moved to a disposal facility d
j
s1 = Amount of waste not removed from the collection center j τ ijt ; δijp ; ςijd ; hitp ; eitd ; lpd
i
¼ ½0; 1 (16)

= The additional required amount of money in the waste
2
management operation for the defined period. xjti ;yjpi ; wijp ; gipi ; kitd ; vpd
i  0; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; I; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; J; t ¼ 1; 2; :::;

s
2 = The amount of money remained after waste management
T; p ¼ 1; 2; :::; P; d ¼ 1; 2; :::; D
operation for the defined period. (17)
j
2.6. Model formulation s1 ; s
2  0; j ¼ 1; 2; ::: ; J

Here, the above-defined parameters and nomenclature incorporating


the assumptions are considered to formulate the mathematical model for
3. Input Data
solid waste evacuation and disposal with economic benefits from
recovered waste materials and the relative importance of collection Data on MSW management in most urban centers of developing
centers. The model is formulated as a weighted goal programming countries are relatively unavailable compared with developed countries
where the deviations from the target goals are minimized as the (Ogwueleka, 2009). Personal interview was used to obtain relevant data
objective function—subjected to some constraints. from stakeholders. Data for the study were collected from Abuja
X j j
Municipal Area SWM Agency (AEPB), and other stakeholders such
Minimize : Z ¼ ω1 s1 (3) as private sectors/wastes management contractors and NGOs. Data
j¼J were also collected from some selected community members (Abuja
residents) and concerned resource personnel in the waste
Subject to management Agency- AEPB. Face-to-face interviews were used to
XX XX XX  X  collect data from the Budget and Finance Department of AEPB.
j
xjti τ ijt þ yjpi δijp þ wijd ςijd þ s1 ¼ µ 1  φrj θr ; 8j Data on types of waste were generated, and the quantity of waste
i2J t2T i2I p2P i2I d2D r2R generated in Abuja Municipal Area was obtained from the
(4) department of solid wastes management of AEPB.
X X X  Preliminary field investigation/observation was carried out to
XX XX
xjti τ ijt þ yjpi δijp þ wijd ςijd understand the existing solid waste management methods in practice.
j2J i2I t2T i2I p2P i2I d2D The preliminary field survey was also conducted to ascertain waste
X  X  collection centers, waste transfer stations, waste processing, and
¼ µj 1  φrj θr ; (5) disposal facilities. Volumes of wastes generated from various waste
j2J j2J collection centers and capacities of waste management facilities were
" !# obtained from the records of the waste management department of the
XX X XX XX agency-AEPB and Abuja waste management contractors.
xjti τ ijt 1 λrt θr  gtpi hitp  kitd eitd ¼ 0; 8t
i2I j2J r2R i2I p2P i2I d2D The various waste management costs were obtained from the
(6) Abuja waste management contractors, wastes pikers, informal
wastes vendors, wastes scavengers, and other interest groups and
XX  X  X X   X 
XX individuals (Abuja residents). They include fixed cost,
yjpi δijp 1  ρmp þ gtpi hitp 1  ρmp  i i
vpd lpd ¼ 0; 8p
i2I j2J m2M i2I t2T m2M i2I d2D transportation cost, waste processing cost, material recovery cost,
(7) and revenue from recovered waste material.
XX The fixed costs include the cost of acquiring the land and the
xjti τ ijt  Γt ; 8t (8) cost of obtaining waste management types of equipment and
i2I j2J tools. The transportation cost is the cost of moving the waste
XX XX between various facilities in the waste management system.
yjpi δijp þ gtpt hitp  Πp ; 8p (9) The processing cost is related to waste handling costs at various
i2I j2J i2I t2T facilities. Waste materials’ recovery cost is the recycled/reused waste

126
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Table 1 4. Study Area and Model Implementation


Waste type and percentage of waste type in Abuja
municipal area Abuja is the capital city of Nigeria. The city is located at the
country’s geographical center approximately at latitude 9o12 0 north of
S/No. Waste Types Percentage of Waste Type the equator and along longitude 7o11 0 east of the Greenwich Meridian
1 Organic matters 45.88 (Adama, 2007). It has an estimated population of 1.4 million people,
2 Paper waste 12.56 of which 405,000 live and work within the municipality (National
3 Nylon waste 11.56 Population Commission, 2008). It has a total land area of
4 Cardboards 7.56 approximately 713 km2 divided into six area councils, namely Abuja
5 Plastic waste 6.69 Municipal, Abaji, Bwari, Gwagwalada Kuje, and Kwali. The climate
6 Metals 3.3 is generally tropical, and it has tropical, mainly savannah vegetation
7 Glass/bottles 2.81 except for the southern fringes covered by secondary rainforest
8 Textiles waste 2.67 vegetation. Total annual rainfall in the city averages 1100 mm. The
9 Misc. combustible 3.22 city is located in a scenic valley of rolling grasslands in a relatively
10 Misc. noncombustible 2.03 undeveloped, ethnically neutral area. Its planners hoped to create a
11 Electronic waste (e-waste) 1.24 national city where none of Nigeria’s social and religious groups
12 Nonferrous metals 0.48 would be dominant (Ezeah & Roberts, 2012; Oyeniyi, 2011).
Total 100
The Government institution responsible for solid waste
Source: Waste audit report by resource recovery unit, AEPB, 2010. management in the City (Abuja Municipal) is the AEPB (Adama, 2007).
The Board’s solid waste management portfolio has the following
components: City cleaning (concessioned to local contractors in a
material type per ton in the waste stream. Revenue is the amount
public–private participation arrangement), street sweeping, litter
realized on the sale per ton of the recovered waste materials.
control, solid waste collection, transfer and vegetation control,
Percentage compositions of the various waste and waste materials
management of the garden, hospital, and waste evacuation.
that can be recovered were obtained from the records of the waste
Protection and improvement of air, water, land, forest, wildlife and
management department of the agency and other previous works
ecological quality, pollution control, and environmental health
(Ayuba et al., 2013). The cost of recovery of materials and the value
services are also among its mandates (Akoni, 2007). Therefore, MSW
of the recovered materials were estimated from informal
management is one of the central mandates of the Board. AEPB solid
waste vendors. The percentage levels of recovery of the various
waste department is responsible for the collection, transfer, waste
reuse/recycle waste materials in the various facilities were estimated
disposal, and waste material procurements and distribution in the city.
through interaction with experts in the waste management
department of AEPB and informal waste management vendors.
Criteria used during solid waste evacuation and disposal in the
4.1. Abuja municipal area solid waste management
collection centers were obtained from the Agency-AEPB. Pairwise system
comparisons of the criteria and pairwise comparisons of the
The Abuja municipal council is divided into 13 waste
collection centers concerning the criteria were carried out with the
management areas (waste collection area or district). These
agency’s representatives. The nine-point numerical rating scale of
collection centers are:: Garki 1, Wuse 1, Wuse 2, Central Area,
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Bhushan & Rai, 2004;
Gwarinpa, Maitama, Asokoro, Jabi, Durimi, Lugbe, Life Campe,
Saaty, 1990; Tarmudi et al., 2010) was used to determine the
Kado, and Wuye (Figure 3). Each of these areas is a concession
relative importance (priority weights) of collection centers.
to a private subcontractor in contract arrangement. Within the
Table 1 shows the waste type and composition of the waste at
contract period, all operational responsibility for the given area
Abuja municipal area. In contrast, Table 2 shows the amount of waste
rests on the subcontractor while the AEPB assumes a supervisory
in tons per month and per day in the collection centers.
role. The contractors collect the waste at various collection points

Table 2
Amount of waste in tons per month, per day in the collection centers
S/No. (j) Waste collection centers Amount of waste/Month Amount of waste/day μj
1 Garki I 872.36 29.80
2 Garki II 1,546.28 51.55
3 Wuse I 1,799.00 60.00
4 Wuse II 1,952.50 65.09
5 Central Area 924.77 30.83
6 Gwarinpa 864.87 28.83
7 Maitama 1,097.00 36.57
8 Asokoro 1,583.72 52.79
9 Jabi/Utako/Mboci 1,235.52 41.19
10 Durumi/Gudo/Apo 584.07 19.47
11 Lugbe 284.55 9.46
12 Kado 309.26 10.31
13 Wuye 208.08 6.94
Total 13,261.98 442.83
Source: Average Monthly collection of a waste report by contractors, AEPB, 2010.

127
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

in the respective area. The waste is not categorized or classified at evacuation and disposal, was considered. Incremental budgetary
the collection centers or transfer stations. However, some types of provisions of 1,215.01 USD at the interval were then used to see
wastes were piked by wastes pikers, wastes scavengers, and other the responses of the model. AEPB daily budgetary provision
individuals. The waste collection is carried out daily for most of (12,097.16 USD) for solid wastes evacuation and disposal in
the collection areas using compacting trucks, side loaders, open Abuja municipal area was then considered to solve the problem.
tippers, payloaders, roll-on roll-off trucks, etc. There is one The model was then solved for the various budgetary provisions at
recycling facility at Mpape and two transfer stations at Kubwa a 15% level of recovery of reuse/recycle recovered waste materials.
and Gudu. Abuja municipality has two waste disposal sites Table 3 summarizes the waste evacuation achieved in the diverse
located at Gosa and Ajata, a few kilometers from the city. collection centers for the budgetary provisions. In contrast, Table 4
summarizes amounts of wastes at disposal sites, amounts of reuse/
4.2. Waste transfer stations recycling recovered waste materials, and the values of the objective
function (z) of the model for the various budgetary provisions. For
There are two wastes transfer stations, at Kubwa and Gudu. example, a fiscal provision of 625.97 USD (row 1 of Table 3) shows
Kubwa transfer station is located along Kubwa expressway, and that all the wastes in collection centers 1 and 2 were evacuated, and
Gudu transfer station is situated in the center of the city, close to 17.97 tons out of 58.83 tons of wastes were removed from
Garki II. Wastes move to these transfer stations from collection collection center 4. The zero entries in the collection centers (2, 5, 6,
centers that are very close to them. Wastes from these transfer 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) show that no waste is removed in those
stations are later moved to recycle facility at mapped and disposal collection centers as indicated by the values of underachievement
j
facilities at Goza and Ajata for the final disposal of the wastes. deviation variables s1 ; for j ¼ 2; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13 (see
Table 5- excel solver solution).
4.3. Waste processing facility With 2,430.02 USD budgetary provisions, all the wastes at
collection centers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 were evacuated entirely (see
The waste processing facility present during this study is the Table 3, row 3). Similarly, out of 27.78 and 47.71 tons of wastes at
Mpape recycling plant. Wastes come into this plant from the collection centers, 5 and 8, 5.40 and 39.44 tons were evacuated.
collection centers and transfer stations at Kubwa and Gudu. The The values of the decision variables x31, x41, x21, x11, x41, x51, x81, and
primary activities in this plant are sorting recycled/reused w11,1 indicated the information (see Table 6—excel solver solution).
materials. Some of the recycled/reused materials recovered in Row 3, column 3 of Table 4 shows the total amount of wastes
these facilities include plastic waste, glass, bottles, electronic evacuated in the collection centers as 239.97 tons. Row 11 of
waste, polythene bags, metals, woods, and textiles waste. The Tables 3 and 4 shows the solution obtained from the agency (AEPB)
recycled materials are then taken to some bigger plants in daily budgetary provision (12,097.16 USD). It indicates that all the
Kaduna, Kano, and Lagos for further processing. Waste vendors wastes at the collection centers were evacuated, as shown by the
informally do these. j
value of underachievement deviational variables s1 ¼ 0:00; for j ¼
1; 2; . . . ; 13 and objective function value z = 0.00 (Table 7—excel
4.4. Waste disposal site solver solution). The total amount of 6,496.71 USD was left unused.
It is about 54% of the total daily budgetary provision by the agency
Abuja municipality has two waste disposal sites located at
for waste evacuation and disposal.
Gosa and Ajata, a few kilometers from the city. All the
unrecovered wastes from the collection areas, transfer stations,
and recycling facility are taken to one of these disposal sites
5.1. Percentage levels of recovery and amount of
daily. Three methods of waste disposal in practice at the disposal
sites are uncontrolled open dumping, uncontrolled open burning, waste moved to disposal sites with benefits from
and not engineered landfilling. Worldwide scientific research has recovered waste materials
conclusively demonstrated that the burning of waste produces air
toxins. The amount of these toxins depends on the composition The model was considered and solved for various percentage
of the waste (Saskatch Ministry of Environment, 2010). levels of recoveries of reused/ recycled recovered waste materials
Uncontrolled open dumping and not engineered landfill give rise in the waste management facilities for the daily budgetary
to the emission of gases and produce leaching effect. provision of AEPB ($12,097.16). Table 8 summarizes the
solutions from the solver. It includes amounts of waste evacuated
4.5. The map of the study area and disposed at the collection centers, amounts required to
evacuate the waste left unused after waste evacuation, amounts of
Figure 2 shows the study area map (Abuja municipal area waste moved to the disposal sites, and amounts of recycled/reused
council). Figure 3 is a map of the study area showing where the waste materials recovered.
wastes evacuation and disposal activities take place with the For example, row 1 of Table 8 shows that when the percentage
location of the various wastes management facilities. level of recovery of recovered waste materials in the various wastes
management facilities is zero (0.00%), it can be seen that all the wastes
5. Results Analysis and Discussion were evacuated and disposed of at the collection centers (442.83 tons).
The amount required to evacuate the wastes is 9,169.41 USD, amount
Multiobjective mathematical programming specifically the of money left unused was 2,301.77 USD. The volume of wastes
WGP models for waste evacuation and disposal with benefits moved to the disposal sites was 442.83 tons. Therefore, no
from reuse/recycling recovered waste materials, with comparable recoveries of waste materials were made (0.00 ton).
importance of collection centers, was developed during waste When the percentage recovery level was increased to 10%
collection. A model spreadsheet was constructed, and Microsoft (raw 2, Table 8), it can be seen that the volume of wastes
Excel Solver version 14.0 was used to solve the problem. Initial evacuated at the collection centers was 415.91 tons. The money
budgetary provision of 625.97 USD, and the fixed cost of waste required to vacate the wastes was reduced to 7,784.67 USD (some

128
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Figure 2
Abuja municipal area (Federal Capital City of Nigeria)

To
Kubwa NIGERIA

pe
B
! Dutsen Alhaji

wa
kj 1 !

To Mp a
ri
From
Z uba

Abuja FCT
Kubwa Ex
Karsana
p. & Mpape
Karsana Katampe Ext.
Kagini North PHASE II
Kar East PHASE III
sa n
aW Wupa
Kaba e st Bunkoro
Gw Sab Karsana Jahi Katampe
ag on G
wa i da South

G
Life Camp Study Area (Abuja Municipal Area)

w
Kafe

ar
# Kado
in
pa
Tasha Maitama
D ogw a 12 4

II
Mabushi
PHASE IV Dape G
w
# 6 Jabi # Wuse II # 7
Utako
ar
Idu
in
Id u $ Wuse I
$
pa
I nd Karmo #9 re
a
I
us
tria Mbora # 13 # 3 # 5 entral A
iyu
Nyanya
lA
re
a
ki b Wuye C
1
#8 !

$Garki#I Asokoro
Da
a

# 10 Ga rki II
ub

Kukwaba Karu!
#
Z

PH A
To

Institutions Durumi
2Guzape
& kj 2
a
ur

Research

SE I
Abuja Int. Airport Gudu
Ka

yi
o Du
bo a Jikwoyi
!
ow

y
ad

a og
uj o l
G

Ab c h n ge kw
o Kurudu !
# 11 Te illa
V Da a Wumba
1 ! g om
Lugbe a ko Ajata
Gosa ! ")
ak
as Lo 2 !
Py ")
ess Way Okande
Airport Expr Ketti
Kabusa
North Saraji
th tti
or e
N he r

! Giri
S

Ketti Sheretti
Cheche
a
m

Ketti East
ze
Po

m
u

IV ru
ar

Bu est
W

E Kpoto Gwar
AS W
PH
West
From Gwagwalada

Burum Legend
ce
Kpoto Bu e s t
East W
Kamusa Chafe
Buce # Collection Centres/Districts
& Recycling /Reuse facility
Perfun
Jaste kj Transfer Station
") Waste Disposal Sites
$ Dump Sites in Commercial Areas
! Settlement
Major Roads
FEDERAL CAPITAL CITY : PHASE I - IV
(ABUJA MUNICIPAL AREA) o Airport

waste materials recovered). The money left unused increased to Figure 4 shows the relationship between percentage levels of
4,574.21 USD (due to benefits from recovered waste materials). recovery of recycled/reused recovered waste materials at waste
The volume of wastes moved to the disposal sites was reduced to management facilities and the amount of money required to
378.95 tons (due to recovery of some waste materials made). The evacuate and dispose of the waste. The amount of money required
amount of recovered recycled/reused waste material was 63.88 to evacuate and dispose of the waste had its maximum value
tons. Similarly, the solutions to the other percentage levels of when the percentage level of recovery is zero (0.00%). This is
waste recovery with the same daily budgetary amount of obvious since all the wastes generated were disposed off with no
12,097.16 USD from AEPB are shown in Table 8. waste materials recovered. At this point, waste management costs

129
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Figure 3
Location of the various wastes management facilities in abuja municipal area

To
B
Kubwa
kj 1 wa
!
! Dutsen Alhaji

pe
ri

To M p a
From
Z uba

Kubw a Ex Mpape
p. &
Katampe Ext.
PHASE III PHASE II
Wupa Bunkoro

Jahi Katampe
G
w

Life Camp
ar

Kafe
# 12
in
pa
II

Kado Maitama
Mabushi 4
Dape
#6 # Wuse II #7
G
w
ar

Jabi Utako
in
pa

$ Wuse I $
#9
I

Karmo a
Mbora # 13 # 3 # 5 ntral Are
Wuye Ce #8 Nyanya
iyu

!
kib

$ #1 Asokoro
Da

Garki I

Kukwaba # 10 Garki II
#2 Karu !

PH A
Durumi
Institutions
kj 2
Guzape
&

SE I
a

Research
ur

Abuja Int. Airport Gudu


Ka

i
o Du
b oy Jikwoyi
!
a
ow
ad

y
G

og
u ja o l o Kurudu
# 11 A b c h n ge kw !
Te illa Da Wumba
V
1 ! om
a
og
Gosa
! ") Lugbe
a sa Lo
k 2 Ajata
!
k
P ya
Okande
")
ess Way
Airport Expr Kabusa
Saraji

ri

Legend

# Collection Centres/Districts ") Waste Disposal Sites


& Recycling /Reuse facility $ Dump Sites in Commercial Areas
kj Transfer Station Major Roads
! Settlement o Airport

continue to decrease as the percentage levels of recovery of waste After this point, the net benefit from recovered waste materials
materials increase. It was observed that the cost of waste started to accrue gradually and reached its maximum at 100%
management was at its minimum when the percentage recovery of recovery level. From the above analysis, it is clear that the
the waste materials was at 73% (73%); at this point, the cost of percentage level of recovery of recovered wastes materials in the
waste evacuation and disposal was entirely offset by the benefits various waste management facilities reduces the volume of wastes
from recycled/reused waste materials recovered from the wastes. moved to various waste management facilities and disposal sites

130
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Figure 4
Percentage of recovery level and amount of money required for waste evacuation and disposal

Table 3
Waste evacuation achieved in the collection centres with various budgeted provision
Amount
involve in
Budgetary wastes
provision Fixed cost evacuation
S/No. ($) involve ($) ($) Wastes evacuation in the waste collection centers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 625.97 625.97 0.00 26.93 0.00 54.23 17.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 1215.01 625.97 589.04 26.93 0.00 54.23 58.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.00 0.00
3 2430.02 625.97 1804.04 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 5.40 0.00 0.00 39.44 0.00 0.00 8.55 0.00 0.00
4 3645.02 625.97 3019.05 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 25.51 33.05 47.71 0.00 0.00 8.55 0.00 0.00
5 4860.03 625.97 4234.06 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
6 6075.04 625.97 5449.07 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
7 7290.05 625.97 6664.07 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
8 8505.05 625.97 7879.08 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
9 9720.06 625.97 9094.09 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
10 10935.07 625.97 10309.10 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
11 12097.16 625.97 11471.18 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
12 12150.08 625.97 11524.11 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27
13 13365.09 625.97 12739.11 26.93 46.59 54.23 58.83 27.86 26.06 33.05 47.71 37.23 17.60 8.55 9.32 6.27

131
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Table 4
Amount of waste at disposal sites, amount of waste materials recovered and value of z
Amount of Amount of
Total amount Amount of waste moved recycled/reused Amount Value of
Budgetary of waste waste not to disposal waste material used to Amount objective function- Z
provision removed removed sites recovered evacuate the left (weighted sum of
S/No. ($) (in tons) (in tons) (in tons) (in tons) waste ($) unused ($) deviation)
1 625.97 99.13 301.10 88.63 53.11 1409.66 0.00 22.67
2 1215.01 142.75 257.48 127.63 57.73 1998.70 0.00 17.85
3 2430.02 239.97 160.26 214.98 67.60 3213.71 0.00 10.23
4 3645.02 329.26 70.97 294.73 77.14 4428.72 0.00 3.94
5 4860.03 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5643.72 0.00 0.00
6 6075.04 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 1067.52 0.00
7 7290.05 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 2282.53 0.00
8 8505.05 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 3497.54 0.00
9 9720.06 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 4712.54 0.00
10 10935.07 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 5927.55 0.00
11 12097.16 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 6496.71 0.00
12 12150.08 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 7142.56 0.00
13 13365.09 400.22 0.00 359.64 83.19 5791.21 8357.57 0.00

Table 5
Model solution with fixed cost (625.97 USD) for waste evacuation and disposal
Original Final Original Final Original Final
S/No. Variable Value Value S/No. Variable Value Value S/No. Variable Value Value
1 x11 0.00 0.00 31 y51 0.00 0.00 61 w92 0.00 0.00
2 x21 0.00 0.00 32 y61 0.00 0.00 62 w10,2 0.00 0.00
3 x31 0.00 49.57 33 y71 0.00 0.00 63 w11,2 0.00 0.00
4 x41 0.00 0.00 34 y81 0.00 0.00 64 w12,2 0.00 0.00
5 x51 0.00 0.00 35 y91 0.00 0.00 65 w13,2 0.00 0.00
6 x61 0.00 0.00 36 y10,1 0.00 0.00 66 w11 0.00 31.78
7 x71 0.00 0.00 37 y11,1 0.00 0.00 67 w21 0.00 0.00
8 x81 0.00 0.00 38 y12,1 0.00 0.00 68 k11 0.00 0.00
9 x91 0.00 0.00 39 y13,1 0.00 0.00 69 k21 0.00 0.00
10 x10,1 0.00 0.00 40 w11 0.00 0.00 70 k12 0.00 13.62
11 x11,1 0.00 0.00 41 w21 0.00 0.00 71 k22 0.00 0.00
12 x12,1 0.00 0.00 42 w31 0.00 4.66 72 v11 0.00 55.19
13 x13,1 0.00 0.00 43 w41 0.00 15.17 73 v12 0.00 0.00
14 x12 0.00 0.00 44 w51 0.00 0.00 74 s1
1 0.00 0.00
15 x22 0.00 0.00 45 w61 0.00 0.00 75 s2
1 0.00 46.59
16 x32 0.00 0.00 46 w71 0.00 0.00 76 s3
1 0.00 0.00
17 x42 0.00 0.00 47 w81 0.00 0.00 77 s4
1 0.00 40.85
18 x52 0.00 0.00 48 w91 0.00 0.00 78 s5
1 0.00 27.86
19 x62 0.00 0.00 49 w10,1 0.00 0.00 79 s6
1 0.00 26.06
20 x72 0.00 0.00 50 w11,1 0.00 0.00 80 s7
1 0.00 33.05
21 x82 0.00 0.00 51 w12,1 0.00 0.00 81 s8
1 0.00 47.71
22 x92 0.00 0.00 52 w13,1 0.00 0.00 82 s9
1 0.00 37.23
23 x10,2 0.00 0.00 53 w12 0.00 0.00 83 s10
1 0.00 17.60
24 x11,2 0.00 0.00 54 w22 0.00 0.00 84 s11
1 0.00 8.55
25 x12,2 0.00 0.00 55 w32 0.00 0.00 85 s12
1 0.00 9.32
26 x13,2 0.00 0.00 56 w42 0.00 0.00 86 s13
1 0.00 6.27
27 y11 0.00 26.93 57 w52 0.00 0.00
28 y21 0.00 0.00 58 w62 0.00 0.00
29 y31 0.00 0.00 59 w72 0.00 0.00
30 y41 0.00 2.81 60 w82 0.00 0.00

132
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Table 6
Model solution with budgetary provision (2,430.02USD) for solid waste evacuation and disposal
Original Final Original Final Original Final
S/No. Variable Value Value S/No. Variable Value Value S/No. Variable Value Value
1 x11 0.00 0.00 31 y51 0.00 5.40 61 w92 0.00 0.00
2 x21 0.00 0.00 32 y61 0.00 0.00 62 w10,2 0.00 0.00
3 x31 0.00 54.23 33 y71 0.00 0.00 63 w11,2 0.00 0.00
4 x41 0.00 19.17 34 y81 0.00 0.00 64 w12,2 0.00 0.00
5 x51 0.00 0.00 35 y91 0.00 0.00 65 w13,2 0.00 0.00
6 x61 0.00 0.00 36 y10,1 0.00 0.00 66 g11 0.00 47.06
7 x71 0.00 0.00 37 y11,1 0.00 0.00 67 g21 0.00 30.19
8 x81 0.00 0.00 38 y12,1 0.00 0.00 68 k11 0.00 0.00
9 x91 0.00 0.00 39 y13,1 0.00 0.00 69 k21 0.00 12.94
10 x10,1 0.00 0.00 40 w11 0.00 0.00 70 k12 0.00 20.17
11 x11,1 0.00 0.00 41 w21 0.00 0.00 71 k22 0.00 0.00
12 x12,1 0.00 0.00 42 w31 0.00 0.00 72 v11 0.00 133.88
13 x13,1 0.00 0.00 43 w41 0.00 0.00 73 v12 0.00 0.00
14 x12 0.00 0.00 44 w51 0.00 0.00 74 s1
1 0.00 0.00
15 x22 0.00 46.59 45 w61 0.00 0.00 75 s2
1 0.00 0.00
16 x32 0.00 0.00 46 w71 0.00 0.00 76 s3
1 0.00 0.00
17 x42 0.00 0.00 47 w81 0.00 39.44 77 s4
1 0.00 0.00
18 x52 0.00 0.00 48 w91 0.00 0.00 78 s5
1 0.00 22.46
19 x62 0.00 0.00 49 w10,1 0.00 0.00 79 s6
1 0.00 26.06
20 x72 0.00 0.00 50 w11,1 0.00 8.55 80 s7
1 0.00 33.05
21 x82 0.00 0.00 51 w12,1 0.00 0.00 81 s8
1 0.00 8.27
22 x92 0.00 0.00 52 w13,1 0.00 0.00 82 s9
1 0.00 37.23
23 x10,2 0.00 0.00 53 w12 0.00 0.00 83 s10
1 0.00 17.60
24 x11,2 0.00 0.00 54 w22 0.00 0.00 84 s11
1 0.00 0.00
25 x12,2 0.00 0.00 55 w32 0.00 0.00 85 s12
1 0.00 9.32
26 x13,2 0.00 0.00 56 w42 0.00 0.00 86 s13
1 0.00 6.27
27 y11 0.00 26.93 57 w52 0.00 0.00
28 y21 0.00 0.00 58 w62 0.00 0.00
29 y31 0.00 0.00 59 w72 0.00 0.00
30 y41 0.00 39.66 60 w82 0.00 0.00

Table 7
Model solution with a 12097.16 USD AEPB daily budget for waste evacuation and disposal
Original Final S/ Original Final Original Final
S/No. Variable Value Value No. Variable Value Value S/No. Variable Value Value
1 x11 0.00 0.00 31 y51 0.00 21.92 61 w92 0.00 0.00
2 x21 0.00 0.00 32 y61 0.00 0.00 62 w10,2 0.00 0.00
3 x31 0.00 0.00 33 y71 0.00 33.05 63 w11,2 0.00 0.00
4 x41 0.00 0.00 34 y81 0.00 0.00 64 w12,2 0.00 0.00
5 x51 0.00 0.00 35 y91 0.00 0.00 65 w13,2 0.00 0.00
6 x61 0.00 0.00 36 y10,1 0.00 0.00 66 g11 0.00 0.00
7 x71 0.00 0.00 37 y11,1 0.00 0.00 67 g21 0.00 129.67
8 x81 0.00 0.00 38 y12,1 0.00 0.00 68 k11 0.00 0.00
9 x91 0.00 0.00 39 y13,1 0.00 6.27 69 k21 0.00 0.00
10 x10,1 0.00 0.00 40 w11 0.00 0.00 70 k12 0.00 0.00
11 x11,1 0.00 0.00 41 w21 0.00 0.00 71 k22 0.00 55.57
12 x12,1 0.00 0.00 42 w31 0.00 54.23 72 v11 0.00 224.02
13 x13,1 0.00 0.00 43 w41 0.00 0.00 73 v12 0.00 0.00
14 x12 0.00 26.93 44 w51 0.00 0.00 74 s1
1 0.00 0.00
15 x22 0.00 20.77 45 w61 0.00 0.00 75 s2
1 0.00 0.00
16 x32 0.00 0.00 46 w71 0.00 0.00 76 s3
1 0.00 0.00
17 x42 0.00 0.00 47 w81 0.00 0.00 77 s4
1 0.00 0.00
18 x52 0.00 5.95 48 w91 0.00 0.00 78 s5
1 0.00 0.00
(Continued)

133
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Table 7
(Continued )
Original Final S/ Original Final Original Final
S/No. Variable Value Value No. Variable Value Value S/No. Variable Value Value
19 x62 0.00 26.06 49 w10,1 0.00 0.00 79 s6
1 0.00 0.00
20 x72 0.00 0.00 50 w11,1 0.00 0.00 80 s7
1 0.00 0.00
21 x82 0.00 47.71 51 w12,1 0.00 0.00 81 s8
1 0.00 0.00
22 x92 0.00 37.23 52 w13,1 0.00 0.00 82 s9
1 0.00 0.00
23 x10,2 0.00 17.60 53 w12 0.00 0.00 83 s10
1 0.00 0.00
24 x11,2 0.00 8.55 54 w22 0.00 25.82 84 s11
1 0.00 0.00
25 x12,2 0.00 9.32 55 w32 0.00 0.00 85 s12
1 0.00 0.00
26 x13,2 0.00 0.00 56 w42 0.00 0.00 86 s13
1 0.00 0.00
27 y11 0.00 0.00 57 w52 0.00 0.00
28 y21 0.00 0.00 58 w62 0.00 0.00
29 y31 0.00 0.00 59 w72 0.00 0.00
30 y41 0.00 58.83 60 w82 0.00 0.00

Table 8
Sensitivity analysis to various percentage recovery levels of recovered waste materials
Amount
Daily of
Average per- budgetary Amount of Amount of waste Amount Amount Amount of recycle/
centage level of allocation wastes in the evacuated in the required to left waste moved Reuse Objective
recovery of by AEPB collection cen- collection centers evacute the unused to disposal recovered function
S/No. waste materials ($) ters (in tons) (in tons) wastes ($) ($) sites (in tons) (in tons) value-z
1 0.00 12097.16 442.83 442.83 9169.41 2301.77 442.83 0.00 0.00
3 10.00 12097.16 442.83 415.91 7784.67 4574.21 378.95 63.88 0.00
2 20.00 12097.16 442.83 386.59 5664.73 7581.85 321.27 121.56 0.00
4 30.00 12097.16 442.83 362.01 3990.73 10143.53 290.27 152.56 0.00
5 40.00 12097.16 442.83 335.09 2652.70 12369.26 248.27 194.56 0.00
6 50.00 12097.16 442.83 308.12 1649.23 14260.43 210.34 232.49 0.00
7 60.00 12097.16 442.83 281.20 780.82 16016.52 176.29 266.54 0.00
8 70.00 12097.16 442.83 254.27 100.40 17584.64 145.89 296.94 0.00
9 80.00 12097.16 442.83 227.35 –485.05 19050.50 118.95 323.88 0.00
10 90.00 12097.16 442.83 200.38 –853.64 20314.07 95.25 347.58 0.00
11 100.00 12097.16 442.83 173.46 –1108.17 21456.29 74.50 368.33 0.00
12 110.00 12097.16 442.83 173.46 –1108.17 21456.29 74.50 368.33 0.00
13 120.00 12097.16 442.83 173.46 –1108.17 21456.29 74.50 368.33 0.00

in the waste management system. This would reduce possible • minimize the volume of wastes in waste collection centers,
associated problems during waste management in the various • determine associated minimum cost of waste evacuation and
facilities, as less volume of wastes were moved to various waste disposal,
management facilities and disposal sites. • reduce the volume of wastes that can be moved to waste disposal
sites, and
5.2. Managerial insights and practical implications • economic benefits from reuse/recycling recovered waste materials
were also taken into account based on the percentage level of
A multiobjective mathematical programming model (WGP) for recovery of reuse/recycle recovered waste material considered.
solid waste management with comparable importance of collection
centers with economic benefits from recovered waste materials was The model formulated was solved using spreadsheet solver
developed. Solid waste management practice, particularly in urban 14.0. The model was solved for various solid waste budgetary
centers of developing countries such as Nigeria, does not consider provisions. Then AEPB daily budgetary provision of 12,097.16
economic benefits from reuse/recycling recovered waste materials USD for solid wastes evacuation and disposal in Abuja municipal
as part of the waste management system. The objectives of the area is at a 15% recovery level of reuse/recycle recovered waste
developed models are to: materials. The model was first solved for the daily fixed cost of

134
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

the solid waste evacuation (625.97 USD) and then for the total daily were recovered. All wastes at the collection centers were
budgetary amount of 12,15.01 USD to see the models’ responses. For evacuated and disposed of at the disposal sites at 9,169.41 USD.
the daily fixed cost of the solid waste evacuation (625.97 USD), the As the percentage recovery level increases, the volume of waste
solutions show that all the wastes in collection centers 1 and 2 were evacuated and disposed of decreases, the amount of money required
evacuated, and 17.97 out of 58.83 tons of wastes were removed from to evacuate and dispose of the waste decreases. Also, the amount of
collection center 4. However, no waste was removed in collection money left unused increases. At 71.5% recovery of reuse/recycling
centers 2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. The level of evacuation recorded recovered waste material, no budgetary provision (0.00 USD) is
here was as a result of benefits from recovered waste materials. required to evacuate and dispose of the waste. Benefits realized
Considering the AEPB daily budgetary provision for solid waste from recovered waste materials are sufficient to evacuate and
evacuation and disposal, the solution shows that all the wastes at dispose of the wastes. After a 71.5% recovery level, the net
the collection centers were evacuated. The total amount of benefit from recovered waste materials starts to accrue until the
6,496.71 USD was left unused, which is about 54% of the total percentage level of recovery is 100%. At this point, the net
daily budgetary provision for solid waste evacuation of the agency. benefit is 1,108.17 USD. The volume of waste shifted to the
The average daily solid wastes generation in Abuja municipal is disposal sites was reduced to 74.5 tons (unrecoverable waste
442.83 tons. With the daily budgetary provision of (12,097.16 USD), material), which is 16.82% of total waste generated per day, and
and at a 15% average recovery level of reuse/recycling recovered 368.33 tons (83.18%) of waste materials were recovered.
waste materials, the solution shows that 359.64 tons (81.21%) of The study is practical, beneficial financially and can help the
the total wastes were evacuated and disposed of at a sum of Nigerian government tackle solid waste management problems. By
5,791.21 USD, which is about 48% of the total amount. The extension, it will minimize environmental issues such as GHG
waste management facilities include the collection centers, transfer emissions, which directly or indirectly harms citizens near to the
stations, and recycled plants. Recovery of 83.19 tons of reuse/ waste management facilities. Moreover, the recycling of recovered
recycle waste materials was made, about 18.79% of the total waste materials benefits the governement’s revenue generation. This
waste generated. The contribution of about 6% (705.50 USD) of study can be replicable in other developing countries with minor
the total amount for the daily waste evacuation and disposal came modifications in the model assumptions. In the future, the study has
from recovered waste material at a 15% recovery level. extension potentials to consider the model under different uncertainty
The various percentage recovery levels for the reuse/recycling scenarios and use robust optimization techniques to solve the problem.
recovered waste materials at the waste management facilities were
then considered for the same daily budgetary provision to see the Funding Support
responses of the model. At a 0% recovery level, no waste materials
were recovered, all the wastes were moved to the disposal sites at This research received no grant from any organization or agency.
the cost of 9,169.41 USD. As the percentage recovery level
increases, the amount of money required to evacuate and disposed Conflicts of Interest
of the wastes decreases. The minimum amount (0.00 USD)
required to evacuate the waste reached at a 71.5% recovery level. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this
At this point, the cost of waste evacuation and disposal was offset work.
by the benefits from waste material recovered (no amount of
money or budgetary provision is required for the evacuation and References
disposal of the waste). Benefits realized from recovered waste
materials are enough to evacuate and dispose of the wastes in the Adama, O. (2007). Governing from above: Solid waste management
collection centers. Any amount realized after 71.5% recovery level in Nigeria’s new capital city of Abuja. Doctoral Dissertation,
is a net benefit from recovered waste materials until when the Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.
recovery level is 100%, where maximum net benefit of 1,108.17 Ayuba, K. A., Manaf, L. A., Sabrina, A. H., & Azmin, S. W. N. (2013).
USD was realized. The unused amount of money left and the Current status of municipal solid waste management practise in
amount of reuse/recycling material recovered continue to increase FCT Abuja. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth
as the percentage recovery level increases until 100%. Sciences, 5(6), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjees.5.5704
Ahmadini, A. A. H., Modibbo, U. M., Shaikh, A. A., & Ali, I. (2021).
Multiobjective optimization modelling of sustainable green
6. Conclusion and Future Work supply chain in inventory and production management.
Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(6), 5129–5146. https://
This study developed the multiobjective mathematical doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.03.075
programming model for solid waste management with economic AlArjani, A., Modibbo, U. M., Ali, I., & Sarkar, B. (2021). A new
benefits from recovered waste materials and the relative framework for the sustainable development goals of Saudi
importance of collection centers during waste evacuation. The Arabia. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 33(6),
model minimizes the volume of waste in the various collection Artilce e101477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101477
centers. It is evident from the solution that less volume of the Akoni, J. (2007). Municipal solid waste management in Abuja.
waste is moved to the disposal sites as the percentage level of Waste Management, 28(2), 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/
recovery of reuse/recycling recovered waste material at the waste j.wasman.2007.01.006
management facilities increases. Also, as benefits from recovered Alidi, A. S. (1996). A multiobjective optimization model for the
waste materials increass, more reuse/recycling recovered waste waste management of the petrochemical industry. Applied
materials are recovered. With the daily budgetary provision of Mathematical Modelling, 20(12), 925–933. https://doi.org/
12,097.16 USD by the Abuja municipal area solid waste 10.1016/S0307-904X(96)00106-0
management agency (AEPB), the solution for waste evacuation Ahsan, A., Alamgir, M., El-Sergany, M. M., Shams, S., Rowshon,
and disposal shows that, at 0% recovery level, no waste materials M. K., & Daud, N. N. (2014). Assessment of municipal

135
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

solid waste management system in a developing country. Ghosh, A., Pal, D., Acharya, S. K., & Biswas, A. (2021). Municipal
Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2014(1-11), 561935. waste management: from socio-ecological and techno
Asefi, H., Lim, S., & Meghrebi, M. (2015). A mathematical model for the managerial perspective. Journal of Community Mobilization
municipal solid waste location-routing problem with intermediate and Sustainable Development, 16(1), 279–288.
transfer stations. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Goodarzian, F., Shishebori, D., Bahrami, F., Abraham, A., &
19, https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v19i0.1151 Appolloni, A. (2023). Hybrid meta- heuristic algorithms
Asefi, H., & Lim, S. (2017). A novel multi-dimensional modeling for optimising a sustainable agricultural supply chain
approach to integrated municipal solid waste management. network considering CO2 emissions and water consumption.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1131–1143. https://doi. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.061 & Logistics, 10(1), 2009932. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Awasthi, A. K., Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Li, J., Rosa, P., Terzi, S., : : : , 23302674.2021.2009932
& Zeng, X. (2018). Modelling the correlations of e-waste quantity Gu, W., Liu, D., & Wang, C. (2021). Energy recovery potential from
with economic increase. Science of the Total Environment, incineration using municipal solid waste based on multi-
613–614, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.288 scenario analysis in Beijing. Environmental Science and
Bhushan, N. & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making: Pollution Research, 28, 27119–27131. https://doi.org/10.
Applying the analytical hierarchy process. Germany: 1007/s11356-021-12478-9
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-85233-864-0_8 Hung, M. L., Yang, W. F., Ma, H. W., & Yang, Y. M. (2006). A
Chang, N. B., Qi, C., Islam, K., & Hossain, F. (2012). Comparisons novel multiobjective programming approach dealing with
between global warming potential and cost-benefit criteria for qualitative and quantitative objectives for environmental
optimal planning of a municipal solid waste management management. Ecological Economics, 56(4), 584–593.
system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 1–13. https:// Khanlari, G., Abdilor, Y., Babazadeh, R., & Mohebi, Y. (2012). Land
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.017 fill site selection for municipal solid waste management using
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., & Gastaldi, M. (2014). Strategic GSI method, Malayer, Iran. Advances in Environmental
municipal solid waste management: A quantitative model for Biology, 6(2), 886–894.
Italian regions. Energy Conversion and Management, 77, Khan, M. F., Pervez, A., Modibbo, U. M., Chauhan, J., & Ali, I.
709–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.024 (2021). Flexible fuzzy goal programming approach in
Cerqueti, R., Cinelli, M., & Minervini, L. F. (2021). Municipal waste optimal mix of power generation for socio-economic
management: A complex network approach with an application sustainability: A case study. Sustainability, 13(15), 8256.
to Italy. Waste Management, 126, 597–607. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158256
10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.035 Kreith, F. (1994). Handbook of solid waste management. USA:
Chen, Y., Cai, G., Zheng, L., Zhang, Y., Qi, X., Ke, S., : : : , & Liu, G. McGraw-Hill
(2021). Modeling waste generation and end-of-life management Minciardi, R., Paolucci, M., Robba, M., & Sacile, R. (2008).
of wind power development in Guangdong, China until 2050. Multiobjective optimization of solid waste flows environ-
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 169, 105533. https:// mentally sustainable strategies for municipalities. Journal of
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105533 Waste Management, 28(11), 2202–2212. https://doi.org/10.
Demirbas, A. (2011). Waste management, waste resource facilities 1016/j.wasman.2007.10.003
and waste conversion processes. Energy Conversion and Mamashli, Z., & Javadian, N. (2021). Sustainable design
Management, 52(2), 1280–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. modifications municipal solid waste management network
enconman.2010.09.025 and better optimization for risk reduction analyses. Journal
Ding, Y., Zhao, J., Liu, J. W., Zhou, J., Cheng, L., Zhao, J., : : : , & of Cleaner Production, 279, 123824. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Hu, Z. T. (2021). A review of China’s municipal solid waste j.jclepro.2020.123824
(MSW) and comparison with international regions: Modibbo, U. M., Ali, I., & Ahmed, A. (2021). Multiobjective
Management and technologies in treatment and resource optimization modelling for analyzing sustainable
utilization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126144. development goals of Nigeria: Agenda 2030. Environment,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144 Development and Sustainability, 23(6), 9529–9563. https://
Environmental Impact Assessment (2010). Common municipal solid doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01022-3
waste management facilities’ technical guidance manual of the Nganda, M. K. (2007). Mathematical models in municipal solid
ministry of environmental and forestry government of India, waste management. Sweden: Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola.
New Delhi. retrieved from: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/ National Population Commission, (2008). 2007 Population census
writereaddata/form-1a/homelinks/TGM_%20Comman%20 figures. Retrieved from: http://www.population.gov.ng
Municipal%20Sold%20Waste%20Management_160910_NK. Ogwueleka, T. Ch. (2009). Municipal solid waste characteristics and
pdf management in nigeria. Journal of Environmental Health
Ezeah, C., & Roberts, C. L. (2012). Analysis of barriers and success Science & Engineering, 6(3), 173–180.
factors affecting the adoption of sustainable management of Oyeniyi, B. A (2011). Waste management in contemporary Nigeria:
municipal solid waste in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental The Abuja example. International Journal of Politics and
Management, 103, 9–14. Good Governance, 2(2), 1–18.
Garibay-Rodriguez, J., Laguna-Martinez, M. G., Rico-Ramirez, Peirce, J. J. & Davidson G. M. (1982). Linear programming in
V., & Botello-Alvarez, J. E. (2018). Optimal municipal hazardous waste management. Journal of the Environmental
solid waste energy recovery and management: Engineering Division, 108(5), 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.
A mathematical programming approach. Computers & 1061/JEEGAV.0001334
Chemical Engineering, 119, 394–405. https://doi.org/10. Peter, S. (1996). Conceptual framework for municipal solid waste
1016/j.compchemeng.2018.09.025 management in low-income countries. Switzerland: Swiss

136
Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering Vol. 1 Iss. 3 2022

Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Tarmudi, Z., Abdullah, M. L., & Tap, A. O. M. (2010). Evaluating
Management municipal solid waste disposal options by AHP-based
Prawiradinata, R. S. (2004). Integrated solid waste management linguistic variable weight. MATEMATIKA: Malaysian Journal
model: The case of central Ohio district. Doctoral of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1–14. https://doi.org/
Dissertation, The Ohio State University. 10.11113/matematika.v26.n.554
Puchongkawarin, C., & Mattaraj, S. (2020). Development of a Tsai, F. M., Bui, T. D., Tseng, M. L., & Wu, K. J. (2020). A causal
superstructure optimization framework for the design of municipal solid waste management model for sustainable cities
municipal solid waste facilities. Sustainable Environment in Vietnam under uncertainty: A comparison. Resources,
Research, 30(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-020-00071-7 Conservation and Recycling, 154, 104599. https://doi.org/10.
Rakas, J., Theodorovic, D., & Kim, T. (2004). Multiobjective 1016/j.resconrec.2019.104599
modeling for determining location of undesirable facilities. US Environmental Protection Agency (2016). Advancing sustainable
Transportation Research Part D, 9(2), 125–138. https://doi. materials management: 2014 fact sheet. Retrieved from: https://
org/10.1016/j.trd.2003.09.002 www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201611/documents/2014_
Ravindra, K., Kaur, K., & Mor, S. (2015). System analysis of smmfactsheet_508.pdf
municipal solid waste management in Chandigarh and Vu, H. L., Ng, K. T. W., Richter, A., Karimi, N., & Kabir, G.
minimization practices for cleaner emissions. Journal of (2021). Modeling of municipal waste disposal rates during
Cleaner production, 89, 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/ COVID-19 using separated waste fraction models. Science
j.jclepro.2014.10.036 of The Total Environment, 789, 148024. https://doi.org/10.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process, planning, 1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148024
priority setting, Resource allocation. USA: McGraw Hill. Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., Kavazanjian, E., Kim, J., &
Sarika, R. (2007). Optimization model for integrated municipal Xu, M. (2008). Environmental, social, and economic implic-
solid waste management in Mumbai, India. Environment and ations of global reuse and recycling of personal computers.
Development Economics, 12(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/ Environmental Science & Technology, 42(17), 6446–6454.
10.1017/S1355770X0600341X https://doi.org/10.1021/es702255z
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., & Trivedi, R. C. (2008). Yousefloo, A., & Babazadeh, R. (2020). Mathematical model
Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities–A for optimizing green waste recycling networks considering
review. Waste Management, 28(2), 459–467. https://doi.org/ outsourcing. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.008 Research, 59(17), 8259–8280. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
Saskatch Ministry of Environment (2010). The environmental iecr.9b06876
management and protection act, 2010. Retrieved from: Zerbock, O. (2003). Urban solid waste management: Waste reduction in
https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/api/v1/products/31893/ developing Nations. Retrieved from: https://www.mtu.edu/cege/
formats/81952/download
Sunil, K. (2005). Municipal solid waste management in India:
Present practices and Future challenge. Semantic Scholar. How to Cite: Barma, M. & Modibbo, U. M. (2022). Multiobjective Mathematical
Sabeen, A. H., Ngadi, N., & Noor, Z. Z. (2016). Minimizing the Cost of Optimization Model for Municipal Solid Waste Management with Economic
Analysis of Reuse/Recycling Recovered Waste Materials. Journal of
Municipal Solid Waste Management in Pasir Gudang Johor
Computational and Cognitive Engineering 1(3), 122–137, https://doi.org/
Malaysia. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science V, 10.47852/bonviewJCCE149145
7(5), 1819–1834.

137

You might also like