Accepted Manuscript

Integrated fuzzy AHP- TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling method:
A Case Study
S. Vinodh, M. Prasanna, N. Hari Prakash
PII:
DOI:
Reference:

S0307-904X(14)00110-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.007
APM 9895

To appear in:

Appl. Math. Modelling

Received Date:
Revised Date:
Accepted Date:

31 January 2012
11 February 2014
7 March 2014

Please cite this article as: S. Vinodh, M. Prasanna, N. Hari Prakash, Integrated fuzzy AHP- TOPSIS for selecting
the best plastic recycling method: A Case Study, Appl. Math. Modelling (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.
2014.03.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Integrated fuzzy AHP- TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling
method: A Case Study
S.Vinodh1,*, Prasanna, M.2 and Hari Prakash, N.3
* Corresponding author
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology,

Tiruchirappalli-620 015, Tamil Nadu, India

Email: vinodh_sekar82@yahoo.com
2,3

Graduate Student, Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology,

Tiruchirappalli-620 015, Tamil Nadu, India

2

Email: prasanna.krystal@gmail.com

Email: prakahari@gmail.com

Abstract
Due to the rapid depletion of natural resources and undesired environmental changes in a global
scale, it is necessary to conserve the natural resources and protect the environment. Industries
which manufacture plastic based products have the necessity to recycle plastics. There are
number of methods to recycle plastics. Since the selection of the best recycling method involves
complex decision variables, it is considered to be a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM)
problem. This article develops an evaluation model based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) and the technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to
enable the industry practitioners to perform performance evaluation in a fuzzy environment. The
purpose of the study is to determine the best method for recycling plastics among the various
plastic recycling processes. By observing the results, it is identified that mechanical recycling
process is found to be the best plastic recycling process using the integrated approach.
Page 1 of 30

Keywords: Multi-Criterion Decision Making; Analytic Hierarchy Process; TOPSIS; Recycling;

Plastics

Page 2 of 30

Integrated fuzzy AHP- TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling
method: A Case Study
Abstract
Due to the rapid depletion of natural resources and undesired environmental changes in a global
scale, it is necessary to conserve the natural resources and protect the environment. Industries
which manufacture plastic based products have the necessity to recycle plastics. There are
number of methods to recycle plastics. Since the selection of the best recycling method involves
complex decision variables, it is considered to be a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM)
problem. This article develops an evaluation model based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) and the technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to
enable the industry practitioners to perform performance evaluation in a fuzzy environment. The
purpose of the study is to determine the best method for recycling plastics among the various
plastic recycling processes. By observing the results, it is identified that mechanical recycling
process is found to be the best plastic recycling process using the integrated approach.
Keywords: Multi-Criterion Decision Making; Analytic Hierarchy Process; TOPSIS; Recycling;
Plastics
Notations
ri: Fuzzy geometric mean for criteria
aij: A fuzzy set in a fuzzy decision matrix which shows the effect of criteria i, on alternative j.
d+: distance of each alternative from the ideal solution
d-: gap of each alternative from the ideal solution
Page 3 of 30

CCi: Closeness coefficient of ith plastic recycling method

1. Introduction
Due to the rapid depletion of natural resources, many organizations have realized that recycling
of used products is important to achieve competitive advantage (Kaya and Kahraman 2011).
Plastics recycling have become one of the most important processes in manufacturing
organizations which produce plastic products. There are number of processes in recycling
plastics (Wienaah 2007). Selecting the best process for recycling plastics involves complex
decisions. Such a problem can be solved using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
approach. MCDM approach has become a main area of research for dealing with complex
decision problems. There are many studies that investigated the method about performance
evaluation among the given alternatives. In the literature, there are few fuzzy based methods
aimed at evaluating the relative performance considering multiple dimensions (Dagdeviren et al.
2009). The main purpose of this study is to utilize Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method under fuzzy
environment to identify and rank the best alternatives among the various plastic recycling
processes. Integrated Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS have already been applied to evaluate the
performance of global top four notebook computer Original Design Manufacturing (ODM)
companies (Sun 2010). This combination has not been yet explored in automotive component
manufacturing industries to identify the best alternative among the various plastic recycling
methods. In this case study, Fuzzy AHP is used to determine the preference weights of
evaluation. Then, the weights are adopted in fuzzy TOPSIS to improve the gaps of alternatives
between real performance values and achieving aspired levels in each dimension/criterion and
find out the best alternative for achieving the aspired/desired levels based on three recycling
Page 4 of 30

processes. The three recycling processes include chemical recycling, mechanical recycling and
energy recovery process (Wienaah 2007). The scope of the research study is to identify the best
recycling process among the alternatives for an automotive component manufacturing industry.
The identified best recycling method is subjected to implementation in the case organization.

2. Literature Review
The literature has been reviewed from the perspectives of plastics recycling and integrated
MCDM methods
2.1 Literature review on plastics recycling
Fletcher and Mckay (1996) proposed a model for recycling plastics and discussed about the
reduction of waste due to various recycling methods. They discussed about the total waste
obtained from the plastic recycling process and its importance. Richard et al. (2011) proposed a
device configuration for the optimization of recovery of plastics for recycling using density
media separation cyclones. They suggested it to be economically viable for industrial plastics
recycling operations and producing a number of different plastics with purity to be used as a
substitute for virgin material. Patel et al. (2000) have assessed the recycling and recovery
processes for plastics waste from all sectors in Germany in terms of their potential contribution
due to energy saving and Carbon di oxide abatement. They showed that plastics waste
management offers scope for reducing environmental burdens. Shent et al. (1999) summarized
the importance of plastic waste recycling and plastic waste separation based on review of plastics
waste recycling and the floatation of plastics. They concluded that the flotation of plastics is a
fairly flexible technique and could prove to be a useful process for the separation of mixtures of
several different types of plastics. Subramanian (2000) suggested the increasing awareness of
Page 5 of 30

plastics recycling and waste management in US. This study considered life cycle analyses and
management in plastics recycling as tools for decision making. Pacheco et al. (2012) have
studied about an overview of plastic recycling in Rio de Janeiro. The objective of this study was
to show how the plastic recycling has been carried out to indicate its own difficulty besides the
evaluation for recycling of post consumed plastics. Curlee (1986) discussed about the economic
and institutional issues in plastics recycling. The two major objectives of this study was to
discuss the quantities of plastic wastes that are candidates for different types of recycling process
and to discuss the major economic and institutional incentives and barriers faced by different
private- and public-sector decision-makers when considering plastics recycling.
2.2 Literature review on integrated MCDM methods
Opricovic and Tzeng (2002) have provided a compromise solution by comparing VIKOR
(VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian, means Multi criteria
Optimization and Compromise Solution) and TOPSIS method. The research compares the two
MCDM methods, VIKOR and TOPSIS by focusing on modeling aggregating function and
normalization, in order to reveal and to compare the procedural basis of these two MCDM
methods. Dagdeviren et al. (2008) have integrated AHP and TOPSIS under fuzzy environment
for the weapon selection process. This study proposed a systematic evaluation model to help the
actors in defence industries for the selection of an optimal weapon among a set of available
alternatives. Sun (2010) has proposed a model to evaluate the performance of global top four
notebook computer ODM companies. This study integrated two MCDM methods namely AHP
and TOPSIS under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy AHP was used to determine the preference weights
of evaluation. Then the fuzzy TOPSIS method was used to improve the gaps of alternatives
between real performances. Kaya and kahraman (2011) have integrated AHP and Elimination Et
Page 6 of 30

Choix Traduisant la REalit (ELECTRE) method under fuzzy environment to determine the
environmental impact assessment. They proposed an environmental impact assessment method
which was based on an integrated fuzzy AHPELECTRE approach in the context of urban
industrial planning. Ho et al. (2011) have combined decision making trial and evaluation
laboratory (DEMATEL) technique with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection
based on CAPM. They identified that the factors of the CAPM possessed a self-effect
relationship according to the DEMATEL technique. Kuo and Liang (2011) have combined
VIKOR with Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) techniques to evaluate service quality of airports
under fuzzy environment. They observed that this approach is an effective means for tackling
MCDM problems involving subjective assessments of qualitative attributes in a fuzzy
environment. Chen and Tzeng (2011) have created the aspired intelligent assessment systems for
teaching materials with Analytical Network Process (ANP) approach where weights are based on
DEMATEL technique. They have found that improvement in the efficiency and quality of the
authored Mandarin Chinese teaching materials may be extended to other learning Areas.
Chenayah et al. (2010) have proposed a qualitative multicritera decision aid by combining
ELECTRE and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation
(PROMETHEE) methods. They have shown that in the case of multiple decision makers, by
comparing the ranking derived from the aggregated outranking relation matrix with one of each
decision making with different interest involved in the decision process, it can be observed that
how much they are close or different using using the eigenvector method towards the collective
decision. Salminen et al. (1998) have compared multicriteria methods in the context of
environmental problems. This study analyzed the use of ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE I, II
decision-aids in the context of four different real applications to environmental problems in
Page 7 of 30

Finland. They have concluded that it is better to use several methods for the same problem
whenever possible. Chen and Chen (2010) used a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher
education. They proposed a novel innovation support system in which measurement criteria are
extracted from top six weights among all criteria. Hung (2010) has used an activity-based
divergent supply chain planning for competitive advantage in the risky global environment using
DEMATEL-ANP fuzzy goal programming approach. This analysis showed that identifying and
relaxing crucial constraints can play an important role in divergent Supply chain planning for
higher competitive advantage and lower risk.
Peng (2012) proposed an approach to assess the regional earthquake vulnerability by integrating
results obtained using different MCDM methods. The weights of several MCDM methods were
calculated using Spearmans ranking correlation coefficients. The MCDM method with highest
weight was trusted most and was used to provide final assessment by integrating other MCDM
methods. The method proved to produce a comprehensive assessment of regional earthquake
vulnerability. Gurbuz et al. (2012) proposed an evaluation framework which integrates MCDM
methodologies Analytic Network Process (ANP), Choquet Integral (CI) and Measuring
Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) used for evaluating
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) alternatives. The applicability of the framework was
illustrated using a case study of the ERP software selection of a company. Yeh et al. (2013)
found that both Critical Success Factors (CSF) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) affecting
the outcome of New Product Development (NPD) project. The authors used Fuzzy Decision
Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (FDEMATEL) to identify the correlation among critical
factors and Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) to establish weights to the factors that affect
Page 8 of 30

NPD. Moghimi and Anwari (2013) analyzed financial ratios of Iranian cement producers. The
authors proposed an integrated fuzzy approach in which fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(FAHP) was used to determine the criteria, where as Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) was used to determine the option rankings. The authors
suggested using this evaluation methodology to other sectors too. Zolfani et al. (2013) used two
MCDM methods for evaluating potential alternatives of locations for establishment of shopping
malls. Relative importance of criteria and weights were calculated using Stepwise Weight
Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA). Potential alternatives were evaluated using Weighted
Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS). The methodology was found to be applicable
for choosing location alternatives in other business case studies. Kabak and Dagdaviren (2014)
proposed a hybrid model integrating Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks (BOCR) and
Analytic Network Process (ANP) to determine energy status of Turkey and prioritize alternative
renewable energy resources. The methodology enabled taking precautions against the possible
risks. The model also helped in making effective decisions. Hu et al. (2014) developed a hybrid
MCDM model which combines DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP) and VIKOR. The method
prioritized the relative influence weights of dimensions and criteria. The method could handle
complex interactions and interdependencies thus facilitating the evaluation of various strategy
processes.
2.3 Research gap
Based on literature review, it is inferred that several researchers have attempted integrated
MCDM methods for several applications. But the usage of integrated MCDM in the context of
plastics recycling is found to be scant. Selection of the best plastic recycling method involves
complex decision variables. Since a single method is not sufficient to identify the best plastic
Page 9 of 30

recycling method, there exists a need to apply the integrated approach to solve this problem. The
case evaluates selection of best recycling method by evaluating using a set of twenty criteria.
This method solves problem in a fuzzy environment since both criteria and weights are vague in
nature. Furthermore, vagueness also exists in determining how each criterion impacts the
attributes for evaluation. In order to deal with vagueness and uncertainty associated with decision
making problem, fuzzy based methods are being used in the present study.
3. Methodology
This research aims to select the best method among various plastic recycling process using the
integrated AHP and TOPSIS techniques under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy AHP is used to
determine the preference weights of evaluation (Kaya and Kahraman 2011). Fuzzy TOPSIS is
used to improve the gaps of alternatives between real performance values and achieve aspiration
levels and to evaluate the best process based on the various characteristics of three plastic
recycling processes (Chen and Chen 2010).
3.1 Fuzzy AHP
AHP is a method which is used to solve complex decision problems by determining the relative
importance of a set of activities in a problem (Chenayah 2010). AHP method decomposes a
complex multi criteria decision problem into a series of interrelated decisions. However, the pure
AHP model has some shortcomings. AHP method is used in nearly crisp-information decision
applications; the AHP method creates and deals with a very unbalanced scale of judgment (Kaya
and Kahraman 2011); AHP method does not take into account the uncertainty associated with
the process involved. To overcome these problems, several researchers integrated fuzzy theory
with AHP to improve the uncertainty. Fuzzy AHP based on the fuzzy interval arithmetic with
triangular fuzzy numbers and confidence index a with interval mean approach to determine the
Page 10 of 30

weights for evaluative elements (Chen and Chen 2010). This research uses triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs) for the evaluation. The steps in Fuzzy AHP are presented as follows:
Step 1: Building the evaluation hierarchy systems for evaluating the best alternative among the
given alternatives considering the various criteria involved. The selection of best alternative will
be done based on building the hierarchical system.
Step 2: Determining the evaluation dimensions weights using Triangular Fuzzy numbers. This
research uses TFN for the pair wise comparisons and finds the fuzzy weights. The reason for
using a TFN is that it is intuitively easy for the decision makers to use and calculate. In addition,
modeling TFN has proven to be an effective way of formulating decision problems where the
information available is subjective and imprecise.
The computational process about fuzzy AHP is detailed as follows. A triangular fuzzy number a
can be defined by a triplet (a1, a2, a3). The membership function ~A(x) is defined. By

(Sun 2010)

Linguistic variables take on values defined in its term set: its set of linguistic terms. Linguistic
terms are subjective categories for the linguistic variables. A linguistic variable is a variable
whose values are words or sentences in a natural or artificial language. Here, we use this kind of
expression to compare two criteria comparing evaluation dimension using nine basic linguistic
terms, as Perfect, Absolute, Very good, Fairly good, Good, Preferable, Not
Bad, Weak advantage and Equal with respect to a fuzzy nine level scale. Each
membership function (scale of fuzzy number) is defined by three parameters of the symmetric
triangular fuzzy number, the left point, and middle point.
Page 11 of 30

Step 3: Determining the weights for the criteria involved. Determination of weights for
evaluation criteria involves the following steps:
a. The pair-wise comparison matrix showing the preference of one criterion over the other is
build by entering the judgmental values by the decision makers. Since the values are linguistic
variables a triplet of triangular fuzzy numbers are entered.
b. The synthetic pair-wise comparison matrix is computed using geometric mean method
Geometric mean ri defined as
ri = (aij1 x aij2 aij10)1/10

(Sun 2010)

Step 3: The weight for each criterion is determined. This is done by normalizing the matrix.
wi = ri x ( r1 + r2 + r3 + +rn)-1

(Sun 2010)

Step 4: The Best Non-Fuzzy Performance (BNP) value for each weight is determined. BNP
value for a weight (l,m,u) is given by
BNP value = [(u-l) + (m-l)] / 3 + l

(Sun 2010)

Step 5: The criteria are ranked based on the BNP values. The criterion having larger BNP value
is considered to have a greater impact when compared with other criterion.
3.2. Fuzzy TOPSIS
The primary concept of TOPSIS approach is that the most preferred alternative should not only
have the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution (PIS), but also have the farthest
distance from the negative ideal solution (NIS) (Dagdeviren et al. 2009). TOPSIS has a relative
advantage that only limited subjective input is needed from decision makers and the ability of the
method to identify the best alternative quickly. The steps involved in Fuzzy TOPSIS are
presented as follows

Page 12 of 30

Step 1: Obtain the weighting of criteria from Fuzzy AHP. The result of Fuzzy AHP contains the
weights of each criterion under consideration.
Step 2: Create Fuzzy evaluation matrix. The judgmental values from decision makers for each
decision alternative corresponding to each criterion are tabulated with TFNs as entries.
Step 3: Normalize fuzzy decision matrix. The normalized fuzzy decision matrix is denoted by R
whose elements are [ri]mn ; i= 1,2 3m, where m is the total number of criteria.

(Sun 2010)

Where u+j is the maximum value in the entire fuzzy decision matrix
Step 5: Determine the fuzzy positive ideal and fuzzy negative ideal reference points. Fuzzy
positive ideal solution (FPIS) and fuzzy negative ideal solutions (FNIS) are defined by the area
compensation technique.
FPIS A+ = (vi+ vj+ vn+)

(Sun 2010)

FNIS A- = (vi- vj- vn-)

and vi = (1,1,1) x (wj)
Step 6: The distance from FPIS (d+) and gap from FNIS (d-) are identified by.

(Dagdeviren et al. 2009)

Where d(a,b) is the distance between the two fuzzy numbers a and b. It is defined as

(Dagdeviren et al. 2009)

Page 13 of 30

Step 7: The relative closeness to the ideal value is determined and alternatives are ranked
accordingly. The relative closeness is given by

(Sun 2010)

4. Case Study
The case study involves the selection of best recycling method using the Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS
technique. The case study of the proposed integrated model was applied in an automotive
component manufacturing organization located in Bangalore, India. The case organization
produces automotive components using plastics. To identify the best plastic recycling method the
integrated approach was used.
4.1 Plastic recycling process
The growth in automotive production has increased the number of vehicles that needs to be
recycled. The traditional approach for End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) option involves dismantling,
shredding and disposing in the landfill (Tien et al., 2014). The use of metals in automotive
manufacturing has drastically reduced in the last 30 years with more emphasis on use of plastic
components (Duval et al., 2007). The recycling of Fibre Reinforcement Plastics (FRP) in
automotive industry is the new challenge and automotive alliances are working for evaluating the
recycling options for automotive industries (Reinforced Plastics, 1998). 75% of ELVs total
weight is recycled and remaining 25% of Auto Shredder Residues (ASR) is disposed as landfill
(Nourreddine, 2007).
There existed a need for the case organization to recycle plastics. Lardinois et al. (1995) defined
recycling of plastics as the process by which plastic waste material that would otherwise become

Page 14 of 30

solid waste is collected, separated, processed and returned for further usage. There are three
major plastic recycling processes (Wienaah 2007). They are described below
4.1.1 Mechanical recycling process
Mechanical recycling involves the physical method of material reprocessing of waste
plastics into plastics products. The end products of consistent quality are generated by cleaning
and processing the sorted plastics. The post process of recycling depends on the kind of
operation, but usually involve inspection for removal of contaminants or further sorting,
grinding, washing and drying and conversion into either flakes or pellets.
4.1.2 Chemical recycling process
Chemical recycling or feedstock recycling involves the breaking action of polymeric product into
its individual components (monomers for plastics or hydrocarbon feedstock synthesis gas) and
broken components could then be fed back as input raw material to reproduce the original
product or others.
4.1.3 Energy recovery
Horrocks (1996) compared locked-in potential (LIP) in terms of calorific value for plastics with
conventional fuels. Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME) (2002-2003)
reported that western European industries are increasingly using energy recovery as the method
of plastic recycling. Wienaah (2007) applied energy recovery as one of the method of plastic
recycling for waste management in Ghana.
Plastics can be co-burned with other wastes or used as substitute fuel in several industry
processes. Certain other thermal and chemical processes like pyrolisis could be used for
recovering the energy content of plastic waste. The generated plastic waste on continuous
recycling loses their physical and chemical properties at their end- of-life phase.
Page 15 of 30

4.2 Criteria
There are certain criteria that are involved in the plastic recycling process. The post effect of the
plastic recycling process is well studied and based on the literature 20 criteria have been
identified. These criteria were verified and validated by the decision makers of the case
organization. The decision makers possess rich experience regarding the working culture of the
organization and plastics recycling and the inputs are gathered in terms of linguistic variables.
They are Economic performance, Financial health, Potential financial benefits, Trading
opportunities, Air resources, Water resources, Land resources, Mineral and energy resources,
Internal human resources, External population, Stake holder population, Macro social
performance (Vinodh 2010). Managerial ability, New technology acceptance, Interest support
groups, Customer Satisfaction Technical support and training (Yuksel and Dagdeviren 2010),
Technical capability, Managerial effectiveness, Management ability (Yuksel and Dagdeviren
2007).
4.3 Computation using Integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS
Step 1: The pair-wise comparison matrix for the fuzzy-AHP process was filled based on the
discussion with the decision makers. Decision makers provided the linguistic variables. The
linguistic scales are transferred to the corresponding fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy numbers are used for
incorporating views of decision makers for the criteria. The pair-wise comparison matrix
showing the preference of one criterion over the other is built by entering the judgmental values
of the decision makers. This will enable to determine the weights of criteria. An excerpt of pairwise comparison matrix for Fuzzy AHP process is shown in the Table 1.
Insert Table 1

Page 16 of 30

Step 2:

Fuzzy geometric mean is obtained. Each cell ri is described by Geometric mean

technique. That is
ri = (aij1 x aij2 aij10)
For example fuzzy geometric mean for the set (2, 3, 4) is given by
r = (1, 1, 1) x (1, 1, 1) . (2, 3, 4) 1/10 = (0.88, 1.14, 1.37)
The geometric mean is calculated by applying the above formula for values of decision makers
for each criterion. The other matrix elements are obtained by using the same computational
procedure as shown in Table 2
Insert Table 2
The values r1 to r20 refers to the Fuzzy geometric mean value. The values of fuzzy geometric
mean values for twenty criteria obtained by geometric mean calculation are a prerequisite to
determine the weights for twenty criteria. These values are used in the next step to calculate the
AHP weight for criteria.
Step 3: The weight of each dimension is calculated. Each cell wi is defined by
wi = ri x ( r1 + r2 + r3 + +rn)-1
For w1 = (1.81, 1.2, 1.216) x (20.098, 20.118, 20.136)-1 = (0.09, 0.06, 0.06). Similarly fuzzy
weights w1 to w20 are calculated. The weights are obtained for each criterion by dividing the
corresponding geometric mean with the sum of geometric means for all criteria.
The resulting weight is shown in Table 3.
Insert Table 3
The values w1 to w20 refers to the Fuzzy geometric mean value. These weights will enable the
prioritization of criteria. The weights determined using Fuzzy-AHP method is used for

Page 17 of 30

evaluating three alternatives i.e. chemical recycling, mechanical recycling and energy recovery
for the set of twenty criteria. This weight is used in Fuzzy-TOPSIS method.
Step 4: The fuzzy decision matrix for the three plastic recycling processes was filled by the
decision makers. The decision matrix is obtained for the three alternatives for set of twenty
criteria. These details are shown in Table 4.
Insert Table 4
This table shows the fuzzy decision values based on the impact of criteria on plastic recycling
methods. Each value in the cell aij describes the impact of ith criteria on the jth alternative
Step 5: Normalize the fuzzy decision matrix by taking the largest fuzzy number out of the
complete set and divide it with all the fuzzy set.
In our case study 10.0 is the largest value. So the normalized fuzzy decision matrix is obtained
by dividing all the fuzzy numbers with 10.0. The normalized matrix will be used for determining
the positive and negative ideal solutions for the criteria.
Step 6: Determine the fuzzy positive ideal solution and fuzzy negative ideal solution by
identifying cost and benefit criteria. If it is a cost criteria v+ is set assigned to (1,1,1) and v- is
assigned to (0,0,0) and if it is a benefit criteria v+ is assigned (0,0,0) and v- as (1,1,1).
Step 7: Identify the distance of each alternative (d+) and the gaps associated with it (d-) by area
compensation technique and closeness coefficient is calculated. This will enable in identifying
the distances of three attributes from the ideal solution.
When fuzzy set a = (2, 3, 4) and b = (5, 6, 7) then
D(a,b) = [ 1/3 x [(5-2)2 + (6-3)2 + (7-4)2] ] 1/3 = 2.08
Table 5 and 6 shows the d+ and d- values correspondingly.
Insert Table 5
Page 18 of 30

Insert Table 6
5. Results and discussions
The BNP values from Fuzzy AHP are shown in Table 7.
Insert Table 7
It can be seen from the ranking of criteria, that criteria 1 is economic performance has the larger
impact. Similarly the weights of criteria can be compared with each other to know the relative
importance. These weights are used in the Fuzzy TOPSIS method along with the Fuzzy decision
matrix to identify the best method for plastic recycling.
The closeness coefficient is as shown in Table 8.
Insert Table 8
It is found that closeness coefficient ranks in the order of mechanical recycling greater than
chemical recycling greater energy recovery. This shows that mechanical recycling process is best
suited for the case organization. Mechanical recycling is the material reprocessing of waste
plastics by physical means into plastics products. The sorted plastics are cleaned and processed
directly into end products or into flakes or pellets of consistent quality acceptable to be
manufactured (Wienaah 2007). The steps taken to recycle post-consumer plastics typically
involve inspection for removal of contaminants or further sorting, grinding, washing and drying
and conversion into either flakes or pellets. Efforts are taken by the case organization towards
implementation of the mechanical recycling method.
6. Conclusion
In the growing competitive industrial scenario, recycling has become a major process in
manufacturing industries (Chenayah 2010). Industries which manufacture plastic based products
have the necessity to recycle plastics. There are number of methods to recycle plastics (Wienaah
Page 19 of 30

2007). Since selecting the best recycling method involves complex decision variables, it is
considered to be an MCDM problem. In this context, a case study was performed to decide the
best plastic recycling process. The importance of the dimensions was evaluated by industry
experts, and the uncertainty of human decision-making was taken into account using the fuzzy
concept. In our study, integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method was used. Mechanical recycling
process was found to be the suitable recycling process among the given alternatives. Fuzzy
TOPSIS has eliminated many procedures to be performed only in AHP-fuzzy AHP solution and
enabled the deviation of conclusion in a shorter time. Additionally, in the application, it was
shown that calculation of the criteria weights is important in TOPSIS method and they could
change the ranking. This case study enables the decision analysts to choose the suitable plastic
recycling method for their plastic manufacturing organization.
6.1. Limitations and Scope for future work
In the present study, integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS is used for selecting the best plastics
recycling process. In future, other techniques like Fuzzy ANP, ELECTRE, VIKOR and other
combination could be explored. The comparison of the results obtained from other integrated
techniques will help in better understanding of the criteria involved and in the selection process.

Page 20 of 30

References
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME), 2002-2003. Plastics in Europe-An
analysis of plastics consumption and recovery in Europe.
Automotive industry rises to challenge set by recycling, 1998, Reinforced Plastics, 42 (5), 40-42.
Chen J.K and Chen I.S., 2010, Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese
higher education, Expert Systems with applications, 37(3), 1981 1990
Chen, C.H., Tzeng, G.H., 2011. Creating the aspired intelligent assessment systems for teaching
materials. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 1216812179.
Chenayah, S., Chhaing, H., Takeda, E., 2010. Qualitative Multicriteria Decision Aid by
Eigenvector Method. The 14th Asia Pacific Regional Meeting of International Foundation
for Production Research.
Curlee, T.R., 1986. Plastics recycling: Economic and institutional issues. Conservation &
Recycling 9(4), 335-350.
Dagdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., Kilinc, N., 2009. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
methods under fuzzy environment. Expert systems with applications 36, 8143-8151.
Duval, D. and MacLean, H.L., 2007. The role of product information in automotive plastics
recycling: a financial and life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 11581168.
Fletcher, B.L., Mackay, M.E., 1996. A model of plastics recycling: Does recycling reduce the
amount of waste? Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17(2), 141-151.
Page 21 of 30

Grbz, T., Alptekin, S. E., & Iklar Alptekin, G. 2012. A hybrid MCDM methodology for ERP
selection problem with interacting criteria. Decision Support Systems 54(1), 206-214.
Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Aghdaie, M. H., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Morshed
Varzandeh, M. H. 2013. Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective;
an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Systems
with Applications 40(17), 7111-7121..
Ho, W.R.J., Tsai, C.L., Tzeng, G.H, Fang, S.K., 2011. Combined DEMATEL technique with a
novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. Expert Systems
with Applications 38, 1625.
Horrocks, R. A., 1996. Recycling Textile and Plastic Waste. Woodhead publishing Limited,
Cambridge, England.
Hu, S. K., Lu, M. T., & Tzeng, G. H. 2014. Exploring smart phone improvements based on a
hybrid MCDM model. Expert Systems with Applications.
Hung, S.J., 2011. Activity-based divergent supply chain planning for competitive advantage in
the risky global environment: A DEMATEL-ANP fuzzy goal programming approach.
Expert Systems with Applications.
Kabak, M., & Dadeviren, M. 2014. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by
using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Conversion and Management 79, 25-33.
Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., 2011. An integrated fuzzy AHP-ELECTRE methodology for
environmental impact assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 8553-8562.

Page 22 of 30

Kuo, M.S., Liang, G.S., 2011. Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service
quality of airports under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 1304
1312.
Lardinois, I. and Klundert, A., 1995. Plastic Waste: Options for Small Scale Recovery. The
Netherlands: Waste Consultants.
Moghimi, Rohollah, and Alireza Anvari. 2013, An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Approach and
Analysis to Evaluate the Financial Performance of Iranian Cement Companies, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.
Nourreddine, M., 2007. Recycling of auto shredder residue. Journal of Hazardous Materials A
139, 481-490.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operation Research 156, 445-455.
Pacheco, E.B., Ronchetti, L.M., Masanet, E., 2012. An overview of plastic recycling in Rio de
Janeiro. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60, 140-146.
Patel, M., Thienen, N., Jochem, E.,Worrell, E., 2000. Recycling of plastics in Germany.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29(12), 65-90.
Peng, Y. 2012. Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM
methods. Annals of Operations Research, 1-16.
Richard, G.M., Mario, M., Javier, T., Susana, T., 2011. Optimization of the recovery of plastics
for recycling by density media separation cyclones. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 55(4), 472-482.

Page 23 of 30

Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., Lahdelma, R., 1998. Comparing multicriteria methods in the context
of environmental problems. European Journal of Operational Research 104, 485-496.
Shent, H., Pugh, R.J., Forssberg, E., 1999. A review of plastics waste recycling and the flotation
of plastics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 25(2), 85-109.
Subramanian, P.M., 2000. Plastics recycling and waste management in the US. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 28 (3-4), 253-263.
Sun, C.C., 2010. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
methods. Expert Systems with Applications 37, 77457754.
Tian, J. and Chen, M., 2014, Sustainable design for automotive products: Dismantling and
recycling of end-of-life vehicles. Waste Management 34, 458-467.
Vinodh S., 2010, Assessment of sustainability using mult-grade fuzzy approach, Clean
Technologies and environmental Policy, 13(3), 509-515
Wienaah M.M., 2007, Sustainable Plastic waste management A case of Accra, Ghana., KTH
Land and Water resource engineering, TRITA-LWR Master Thesis LWR-EX-07-10.
Yeh, T. M., Pai, F. Y., & Liao, C. W. 2013. Using a hybrid MCDM methodology to identify
critical factors in new product development. Neural Computing and Applications, 1-15.
Yksel and Dagdeviren, 2007, Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis
A case study for a textile firm, Information Science, 177(2), 3364-3382
Yksel and Dagdeviren, M. 2010, Using the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) for Balanced
Scorecard (BSC): A case study for a manufacturing firm, experts system with application,
37(2),1270 1278
Page 24 of 30

Figures and Tables

Table 1. Excerpt of pair-wise comparison matrix for Fuzzy AHP
r1

r2

r3

r4

r5

r6

r7

r8

r1

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

r2

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.175, 1.196, 1.215)

(1.215, 1.231, 1.246)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

(1.215, 1.231, 1.246)

(1.116, 1.149, 1.175)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

r3

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.196, 1.215, 1.231)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

(1.196, 1.215, 1.231)

(1.215, 1.231, 1.246)

(1.196, 1.215, 1.231)

r4

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

(1.175, 1.196, 1.215)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

r5

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.196, 1.215, 1.231)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

(1.215, 1.231, 1.246)

r6

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.149, 1.175, 1.196)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

r7

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

(1.215, 1.231, 1.246)

r8

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

r9

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(1.231, 1.246, 1.259)

r10

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(1.000, 1.000, 1.000)

r11

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

r12

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

r13

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

r14

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

r15

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

r16

(0.812, 0.813, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

r17

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

r18

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.812, 0.803, 0.794)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

r19

(0.836, 0.823, 0.812)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.896, 0.871, 0.851)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

(0.851, 0.836, 0.823)

(0.871, 0.851, 0.836)

(0.823, 0.812, 0.803)

Page 25 of 30

Table 2. Fuzzy geometric mean for various criteria

r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
r10
r11
r12
r13
r14
r15
r16
r17
r18
r19
r20

(1.181,1.200,1.216)
(1.160,1.177,1.191)
(1.126,1.142,1.156)
(1.107,1.121,1.133)
(1.107,1.116,1.124)
(1.079,1.088,1.095)
(1.073,1.077,1.081)
(1.042,1.046,1.050)
(1.028,1.031,1.033)
(1.001,1.004,1.005)
(0.993,0.992,0.991)
(0.960,0.960,0.960)
(0.960,0.956,0.952)
(0.944,0.938,0.933)
(0.933,0.924,0.917)
(0.903,0.896,0.889)
(0.902,0.890,0.881)
(0.878,0.867,0.858)
(0.865,0.852,0.842)
(0.856,0.841,0.829)

Page 26 of 30

Table 3. Fuzzy weights of AHP process for various criteria

W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
W11
W12
W13
W14
W15
W16
W17
W18
W19
W20

(0.059,0.060,0.060)
(0.058,0.058,0.059)
(0.056,0.057,0.057)
(0.055,0.056,0.056)
(0.055,0.055,0.056)
(0.054,0.054,0.054)
(0.053,0.054,0.054)
(0.052,0.052,0.052)
(0.051,0.051,0.051)
(0.050,0.050,0.050)
(0.049,0.049,0.049)
(0.048,0.048,0.048)
(0.048,0.048,0.047)
(0.047,0.047,0.046)
(0.046,0.046,0.046)
(0.045,0.045,0.044)
(0.045,0.044,0.044)
(0.044,0.043,0.043)
(0.043,0.042,0.042)
(0.043,0.042,0.041)

Page 27 of 30

Table 4 Fuzzy decision matrix

Alternative
Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Chemical recycling

Mechanical recycling

Energy recovery

(6.000,8.000,9.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)

(5.000,6.000,7.000) (6.500,8.500,9.500) (4.000,5.000,6.000)
(4.000,5.000,6.000) (5.000,6.500,8.000) (7.000,8.000,9.000)
(7.000,8.000,9.000) (6.500,7.500,8.500) (5.500,6.500,7.000)
(6.000,7.000,8.000) (7.500,8.000,8.500) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
(4.500,6.000,7.500) (6.000,7.500,9.000) (6.500,8.000,9.500)
(6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
(5.500,7.000,8.500) (8.000,9.000,10.000) (5.000,6.500,7.000)
(6.000,7.000,8.000) (7.000,8.000,9.000) (7.500,8.000,8.500)
(5.000,6.000,7.000) (4.000,5.000,6.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
(6.000,7.000,8.000) (7.000,8.500,9.500) (4.000,6.000,8.000)
(4.000,5.000,6.000) (4.500,6.000,7.500) (7.000,8.000,9.000)
(7.000,8.000,9.000) (5.500,6.500,7.500) (5.500,7.000,8.500)
(5.000,6.000,7.000) (8.000,9.000,10.000) (5.500,7.000,8.500)
(6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
(6.000,7.000,8.000) (4.500,6.000,7.500) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
(5.500,7.000,8.500) (7.000,8.000,9.000) (6.000,7.000,8.000)
(5.500,7.000,8.500) (6.000,7.000,8.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
(8.000,9.000,10.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000) (5.000,6.000,7.000)
(4.500,6.000,7.500) (8.000,9.000,10.000) (4.500,6.000,7.500)

Table 5. d+ values for various alternatives in Fuzzy TOPSIS

Alternative

D+ value

Chemical recycling

0.517

Mechanical recycling

0.490

Energy recovery

0.520

Page 28 of 30

Table 6. d- values for various alternatives in Fuzzy TOPSIS

Alternative

D- value (x10-5)

Chemical recycling

2.47

Mechanical recycling

8.30

Energy recovery

2.13

Table 7 Crisp values of Fuzzy AHP weight for various criteria

BNP1
BNP2
BNP3
BNP4
BNP5
BNP6
BNP7
BNP8
BNP9
BNP10
BNP11
BNP12
BNP13
BNP14
BNP15
BNP16
BNP17
BNP18
BNP19
BNP20

0.0596012
0.0584602
0.0567218
0.0556857
0.0554434
0.0540603
0.0535428
0.0520009
0.0512273
0.0498816
0.0492954
0.0477204
0.0475242
0.0466348
0.0459688
0.0445439
0.0443005
0.0431459
0.0423953
0.04

Page 29 of 30

Table 8 Closeness Coefficient for the alternatives

Alternative

Closeness coefficient(x10-4)

Chemical recycling

4.7

Mechanical recycling

16.7

Energy recovery

4.1

Page 30 of 30