EUROPEAN

JOURNAL
OF OPERATIONAL
RESEARCH
ELSEVIER European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36

Theory and Methodology

Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria

decision analysis
Joonas Hokkanen a, * P e k k a S a l m i n e n b
a Paavo Ristola Ltd., Consulting Engineers, V~ini~nkatu 6, FIN-40100 Jyv~skyl~t, Finland
b University o f Jyvfiskylfi, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40351 Jyvfiskylfi, Finland
Received January 1995; revised October 1995

Abstract

We report on an actual application of the ELECTRE III decision-aid in the context of choosing a solid waste
management system in the Oulu region, Finland, in 1993. The Electre III method proved useful, especially when dealing
with environmental problems involving many decision-makers, and in cases where the outcomes of the various alternatives
remain to some degree uncertain. One of the main conclusions of our study is that all the proper landfill capacity available in
the planning region should be used up. In addition, the energy potential o f waste should be utilized within the region.
Therefore, the solution recommended for a solid waste management system was intermediate landfilling, composting and
RFD-combustion. The decision-makers commented positively on the method used and were satisfied with the options
recommended. The scheme will be implemented for use from the beginning of the year 1995. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Decision-aid; Multiple criteria; Waste treatment; ELECTRE III

O. Introduction requirements set for environmental impact analyses

in Finnish legislation.
The urgency of environmental problems has in
A variety of multicriteria methods has been used
recent years become generally acknowledged. More
in d e a l i n g with environmental problems. Merkhofer
and more effort is therefore being put into working
and Keeney (1987) have e m p l o y e d a traditional mul-
out realistic solutions to such problems. Instead of
tiattribute analysis in determining sites for the dis-
money-based considerations, there appears to be a
posal of nuclear waste; Leschine, Wallenius and
growing b o d y o f literature reporting on actual appli-
Verdini (1992) consider the problem o f locating
cations o f multiple criteria methods. This trend m a y
ocean disposal sites using Pareto Race; Briggs, Kun-
bring about better solutions to the pressing environ-
sch and Mareschal (1990) have made practical use of
mental problems, as the methods e m p l o y e d compel
the P R O M E T H E E and G A I A methods within nu-
decision-makers to take explicitly into account a
c l e a r Waste management; Stam, Kuula and Cesar
variety o f other viewpoints apart from the costs
(1992) have applied W i e r z b i c k i ' s reference point
involved. This also accords with the spirit o f the
method in studying transboundary air pollution in
Europe, to mention just a few examples. F o r solid
* Corresponding author. waste management, the focal point in the present

0377-2217/97/$17.00 © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0377-2217(95)00325-8
20 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36

Table 1
Summary of the solid waste disposal alternatives for the Oulu region
Alternative Co-operation level Treatment method Number of treatment sites
IA Decentralized Landfill 17 landfills
IB Decentralized Landfill 17 landfills and 17 composting sites
Open composting
IC Decentralized Landfill 17 landfills, 17 composting plants and 1 RDF
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion

llAa a Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills

llAb Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills and 4 composting sites
Open composting
IIAc Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills, 4 composting plants and 1 RDF-
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion

IIBa a Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills

llBb Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills and 4 composting sites
Open composting
llBc Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills, 4 composting plants and 1 RDF-
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion

IICa Intermediate Landfill 3 landfills

llCb Intermediate Landfill 3 landfills and 3 composting sites
Open composting
llCc Intermediate Landfill 3 landfills, 3 composting plants and 1 RDF-
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion

IIDa Intermediate Landfill 6 landfills

IIDb Intermediate Landfill 6 landfills and 6 composting sites
Open composting
IIDc Intermediate Landfill 6 landfills, 6 composting plants and 1 RDF-
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion

IIEa a Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills

llEb Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills and 4 composting sites
Open composting
llEc Intermediate Landfill 4 landfills, 4 composting plants and 1 RDF-
Open composting combustion site
RDF-combustion

IIIA Centralized Landfill 1 landfill

IIIB Centralized Landfill 1 landfill and 17 composting sites
Decenlralized Composting
IIIC Centralized Landfill, composting 1 landfill, 1 composting site
and RDF-combustion and 1 RDF-combustion site
IIID Centralized Landfill and RDF-combustion 1 landfill and 17 composting sites and 1 RDF.
Decentralized Composting combustion site
a The difference between these alternatives is that each of them has a different combination of cooperating municipalities.
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
study, Caruso, Colorni and Paruccini (1993) have
used the GFD-method, while Hokkanen et al. (1995)
and Hokkanen and Salminen (1994) have applied the
ELECTRE II and ELECTRE III methods, respec-
tively.
The ELECTRE methods have proved useful deci-
sion-aids in various real applications, e.g. in water
resource planning (Roy, Slowinski and Treichel,
1992), comparing energy alternatives (Siskos and
Hubert, 1983), weighing different options for a high
voltage route (Grassin, 1986) and assessments of
nuclear power plant siting (Roy and Bouyssou, 1986;
Barda, Dupuis and Lencioni, 1990).
In this paper, we will describe an actual applica-
tion of the ELECTRE III decision-aid (e.g., Roy,
1991; Vincke, 1992) in choosing a municipal solid
waste management system (MSWMS). ELECTRE
III was selected as the decision-aid mainly because
available environmental data tend to be imprecise in
cases like ours. As Electre I I I has proved fairly
insusceptible to variations in data and related param-
eters (Vincke, 1992), an adequate amount of reliabil-
ity can be expected of analyses carried out by means
of it. Furthermore, according to our own experience
(Hokkanen et al., 1995; Hokkanen and Salminen,
1994), the abrupt change from strict preference to
indifference, characteristic of ELECTRE II, may in-
volve a high degree of risk, if the environmental data
on hand are unreliable. ELECTRE III was pro-
grammed on a PC based on the descrip6on of the
method by Skalka et al. (1986).
1. The problem
1.1. The planning region and feasible alternatives
The ELECTRE III decision-aid was applied to a
MSWM problem i n the Oulu district in Northern
Finland. The planning region consists of 17 munici-
palities; the total population of the region amounts to
roughly 185 000. Our objective was to find the most
sensible option for MSWM, a solution that would be
applicable until the year 2010. The amount of munic-
ipal solid waste in the region adds up to about 80 000
tons/annum (a), out of which 15000 tons, mainly
paper and cardboard, was recyclable. The quantities
21
of demolition waste and industrial waste were 60 000
t o n s / a and 100 000 tons/a, respectively.
The starting-point for the present study was that
each municipality took care of its own waste. The
requirements stipulated in the Finnish Waste Act
were not met, nor were the instructions given for
dealing with municipal waste fully observed, either.
In most of the municipalities, waste was gathered in
unstaffed and unmonitored 'landfills' - without much
concern for releases to the environment.
The following waste treatment methods were con-
sidered for the case in hand: sanitary landfilling,
incineration and composting. Incineration proved
feasible, because in the planning area there are en-
ergy producing facilities capable of incinerating the
RDF-fraction (RDF = refuse-derived fuel) in an en-
vironmentally acceptable way. The amount of RDF
was calculated to suffice for an energy production of
72000 MWh, for which peat would otherwise be
used. In addition to treatment methods, the present
study involved a definition of three levels of cooper-
ation: the decentralized (alternatives I), centralized
(alternatives III) and intermediate systems (alterna-
tives II) (see Table 1). All treatment methods, except
for incineration, were capable of being used either
separately in each municipality or in intermunicipal
cooperation at various levels. RDF-combustion was
available only in the city of Oulu.
The decentralized system required of each munic-
ipality to take care of its own waste. For the interme-
diate system, the region was divided into realistic
'cooperation areas'. In the centralized system, waste
was to be treated at one single plant. The recycling
level varied according to the treatment method em-
ployed. All the methods considered are in accor-
dance with Finnish environmental legislation in ef-
fect at present (Ministry of Environment, 1992a) and
in the near future (Ministry of Environment, 1992b;
Commission of the European Communities, 1991).
One objective was to utilize 50% of municipal waste,
which included a target set for the level of recycling
(30%).
1.2. Decision-makers
In Finland the final decisions on environmental
affairs of this order are taken by municipal councils,
after hearing proposals made by municipal boards
22 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36

subordinate to them. The environment and technical preferences of the actors who are responsible for
committees of the municipalities are responsible for preparations define what will be suggested for imple-
preparations. They will be called decision-makers mentation, therefore we use their weights of impor-
(DM) throughout our paper. They have a highly tance for the different criteria and call them 'deci-
significant role, because - as stipulated in the Finnish sion-makers'.
Waste Act - the funds for solid waste management In addition, the supervisory body is composed of
are drawn from those by whom waste matter is all the potential interest groups involved: municipali-
produced. Thus the economic responsibility left to ties, municipal councils, regional planning associa-
the municipal councils remains fairly small. The tions and districts o f water and the environment. The
supervisory group oversees the project throughout its
course.
Table 2
Preliminary classification of objectives 1.3. Objectives and criteria
Economic (F, L, W, D):
Capital cost (F, L, D) In order to outline the criteria, the objectives of
Operating cost (F, L, D) the overall task were defined at first, and a prelimi-
Revenues (L, D) nary classification of them was made. A preliminary
Net cost per ton (L, W, D)
set of criteria was then drafted on this basis. It was
Net annual cost per household (D)
Financing arrangements (L) submitted to the supervisory group for approval.
Technical (F, L, W, D): Thus the final decision on the family of criteria to be
Feasibility (F, L, W, D) used was taken by the supervisory group.
Operating experience (L) In defining the objectives, we referred to the
Adaptability to local conditions (L, D)
literature on the subject, including the objectives
Reliability (L)
Continuous (L) stated in the Waste Act of Finland (Ministry of
Uninterrupted process (L) Environment, 1992b). The consequences relating to
Potential for future development (L) the various functional elements in MSWMSs as re-
Environmental (F, L, W, D): ported by Kaila (1987) were studied and weighed in
Global (F, L, D):
terms of objectives. After modifications carried out
Greenhouse effects (F, L)
Regional (F, L): by analysts, these aspects were then aggregated to
Releases of acidificative compounds (F, L) the objectives gathered from the literature. The pur-
Surface water dispersed releases (F, L, D) pose was to find a comprehensive, operational,
Releases to the air and water with health effects nonredundant and minimal set of criteria that would
(F, L, W, D)
represent the various objectives (Keeney and Raiffa
Local (F, L):
Environmental hygiene (D) 1976). Hundred and thirteen DMs participated in
Surface water dispersed releases (F, L, D) outlining the objectives; they also had an opportunity
Releases to air and water with health effects (F, L, D) to add to the list objectives they felt were important.
Political (L, D): A preliminary classification of the objectives is given
Public acceptance (L, D)
in Table 2.
Employment (L, D):
Number of employees (L, D) The preliminary classification comprised objec-
Resource recovery: tives involving economic, environmental, political,
Products recovered (F, L, W, D) employment and resource recovery viewpoints. The
Energy requirements; net effect on primary energy following eight criteria were selected:
supply (L)
g l Net cost per ton.
Market potential (L)
Land usage; volume reduction (L, D) g2 Technical reliability.
g3 Global effects.
F = objectives derived from the functional elements.
L = objectives found in literature.
g4 Local and regional health effects.
W = objectives stated in the Waste Act. g5 Acidificative releases.
D = objectives given by DMs. g6 Surface water dispersed releases.
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen/ European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 23

g7 Number of employees. management system, comprising all costs and rev-

g8 Amount of recovered waste. enues from onsite storage to final disposal.
These correspond to the objectives presented. Only The total amount of municipal solid waste was
political acceptability w a s excluded as a criterion, computed on the basis of the current amounts of
because it may in certain situations overlap consider- waste. The calculations of waste container costs were
ably with some other criteria. Moreover, for an based on the real costs and the real number of
individual DM, the political acceptability of a partic- containers, as reported by the waste contractors. The
ular solution does not necessarily depend on the costs of collection and transport were also calculated
system in question. A landfill plant, for example, can from the current costs in each municipality. Landfill
be generally accepted, but problems may arise when costs were worked out after field and map investiga-
the decision concerning its location is being taken. tions. Composting and RDF-production costs were
Certain criteria may also be strongly correlated. reported by the equipment producers. The income
This may be due to the existence of some factors from resource recovery was also taken into account
which affect both criteria in a parallel way. How- when calculating the net costs.
ever, because of the complexity of the links reflected
in these factors, internal correlations can hardly be Technical reliabiEty (g 2 )
avoided when redefining the family of criteria. Fur- Estimating the technical reliability of each altema-
thermore, eliminating one criterion because of its tive is by no means a simple task. In this case, such
strong correlation with another might destroy infor- estimates could only be made by experts. The DMs
mation that is not redundant (Vincke, 1992). placed particular emphasis on this criterion, how-
ever.
1.4. Evaluation o f the criteria For criterion values referring to technical reliabil-
ity, an expert questionnaire carried out in Uusimaa,
Net cost per ton (gl) Finland (Hokkanen et al., 1995) was drawn upon. In
This criterion includes all economic objectives that survey a number of experts have scaled the
and is operational. It represents the total annual cost technical reliability of alternative municipal solid
in FIM per produced waste ton in a given waste waste systems from 0 to 10.

[ COMPOS]ING I IINCINERATIONI I T~sPo~ I

i I
I l i ,

I=11 tO s u r f a ~
II Io air
"
I I to ~.~tlrfa.~e
I I 1o air

.~,s I ~'+ct II CC, Pb

.~.A, I co2,"p ,0"411 . II "g'~ Ic%NzO ,OH,, 'g''+ II +%'0 xl ICOn'"~° C",, I'*
I I I I
i I :
I ............. -..., ............................. t ...... .... t I
! ,..-.i
I
I I
I .._.1
I r
RELATIVE

II II I
RELATIVE EMISSION
FACTOR GRFENHOUSEEFFECT OF SO 2 NO X OF NITROGEN

Fig. 1. Environmentaleffects taken into accountin the choice of MSWMs.

24 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen /European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
Environmental criteria (g3--g6)
Within waste treatment, the main sources of re-
leases are leachate and airborne releases from land-
fills and other treatment processes (incineration,
composting) as well as waste transport.
The environmental aspects were considered in
four groups. All MSWMS alternatives produce dif-
ferent types of releases. The environmental effect
value was inferred by adding up the relative impact
values of each release. That is why the releases were
aggregated to the total amount of a particular release
or to the relative factor of a particular release (see
Fig. 1).
Leachate
The environmental effects of leachate depend on
the amount discharged and on the concentrations of
specific substances in it. The leachate discharge was
estimated on the basis of real landfill areas during
the whole lifetime of each landfill and composting
site:
Lx=Cx~Qi,
i=1
where:
L x Release of contaminant (kg).
Q Leachate discharge (m3).
c x Concentration of contaminant x in leachate
(kg/m3).
n Duration of releases (years).
In the Oulu region, the average annual rainfall is
550-650 mm and evaporation 250-300 mm (Na-
tional Board of Waters and Environment, Finland,
1987). The average leachate discharge per year can
thus be estimated at 300 mm.
The area needed for composting plants was de-
rived from the amount of organic waste and mixture
material. Calculations of the future need for landfill
Table 3
The average composition, content and density of landfill gas (Source: Ettala et al., 1988: Assmuth et al., 1990)
Gas Part of
landfill gas (%)
Nitrogen 5 1.25
Carbon dioxide 40
Methane 50
Mercury
CxHx
area were based on the factual increase in such area
each year. The following assumptions were taken as
starting-points for the computations:
- The specific gravity of waste varied from 0.8 t / m 3
to 0.450 t / m 3, depending on the machinery used.
- The coverage soil was defined as 10% of the waste
volume.
- The landfill depth was determined on the basis of
the actual situation.
The quality of leachate was taken from Ettala
(1986) and Ettala et al. (1988), who have studied the
quality of leachates in Finnish landfills. The average
amount of total nitrogen is 66 mgN/1, cadmium
0.0054 mg/1 and lead 0.029 mg/1. The source
separation of municipal waste affects the quality of
waste received in landfills. Accordingly, it was as-
sumed to affect the quality of leachate.
The production of leachate continues long after a
landfill operation is closed down, as do environmen-
tal effects. Therefore post-operation leachate releases
were included in the computations. Post-operation
phase leachate composition was estimated according
(1) to the relationship between landfill age and leachate
composition as discussed by Ettala (1986), Belevi
and Baccini (1989), Ehrig (1983) and Ehrig and
Stegman (1989).
Releases to the air
Airborne releases are created during waste trans-
port and treatment. Landfill fires and disturbances in
incinerator flue gas purification systems are not
within the scope of the present study.
The total amount of gas over the time covered in
the plan includes gas production during the operating
time as well as post-operation gas releases.
G m = G v ~ mi6gg v, (2)
i=1
Average content in Density
landfill gas m g / m 3 kg/m 3
1.03
0.56
0.0008
218
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen ~European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 25

Table 4
The typical emission factors and the range of variation using peat or RDF-waste as a fuel (Bostrt~m et al., 1990; Westas and Westerg~d,
1992; RVF 1993, real emission from J5msSnkoski paper and pulp mills)
Component Emission factor
Peal Variation range RDF Variation range
NO x 235 m g / M J 200-245 150 m g / M j 90-160
CO 2 110 g / M J 100-120 100 g / M J 80-110
N20 30 m g / M J - -
SO 2 120 m g / M J 102-157 180 m g / M J 120-400
dust 16.5 m g / M J 20 mg/MJ 10-60
As 10/zg/MJ 2-24 - -
Cd 0.5 p~g/MJ 0.07-1.5 0.02 m g / M J 0.02-0.06
Hg 0.01/~g/MJ 0.001-0.03 0.1 m g / M J 0.06-0.3
Pb 15/xg/MJ 2-51 0.1 m g / M J 0.1-0.2

where: quired. The average truck release coefficients are 5.0

G m amount of a gas (kg).
G v rate of gas production (m3/t-waste).
m yearly amount of waste (t).
gv share of a particular gas out of the total volume
of gas.
6g density of the gas (kg/m3).
n duration of release (years),
The rate of gas production G~ was assessed at 0.5
m 3 / t - w a s t e / a , when the waste amount remains be-
low 40000 tons, and 1.0 m 3 / t - w a s t e / a , when it
exceeds 40 000 tons. In this case the gas amount was
1 m 3 per waste ton only in the landfill receiving the
waste of the city of Oulu, the major regional centre.
The total amount of releases was based on the
composition values shown in Table 3. Post-operation
phase gas composition was estimated according to
landfill age and gas composition as described by
Lagerkvist (1986).
In order to compare the various options with and
g C O / k m , 15.5 g N O x / k m , 1.3 g H C / k m , 1.7 g
particles/kin (L~'fikint6hallitus, 1990). The amount
of greenhouse gas from waste transport was com-
puted using the product of average truck fuel con-
sumption, thermal value and amounts of various
gases. The basic data needed for computations is
presented in Table 5.
The environmental criteria chosen will be de-
scribed one by one in the following.
Global effects (g3)
The criterion 'global effects' represents the total
amount of greenhouse effects in each alternative.
The greenhouse effect involves the following re-
leases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH 4) and
dinitrogen oxides (N20).
The greenhouse effects (Fig. 1) include releases
from landfill, incineration and transport, all of them
i

without energy recovery, releases from alternative

energy production were also taken into account. Table 5
Peat, the primary fuel at the power plants in the The basic data and typical emission factors for computing the
greenhouse effect in waste transport (Bostr~m et al., 1990)
region, was selected as the alternative fuel. The
amount of airborne releases was estimated on the Component Emission factors
and other basic data
basis of the typical emission level from RDF-com-
bustion and peat-fired power plants in the Oulu Thermal value 43 M J / k g
Diesel oil:
region (Table 4).
g CO 2 / M J 74
The releases from waste transport were calculated mg C H 4 / M J 2
for the transport between the cities and the treatment mg NEO/MJ 32
sites. Contaminants originating from exhaust gases Average fuel consumption:
were estimated from average truck release coeffi- compactor 35 l / 1 0 0 "kin
trailer lorry 50 1/100 km
cients ( g / k m ) and the total transport distance re-
26 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen // European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36

airborne. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation
in different intensities. In our calculations, the vari-
ous gases were combined according to their relative
greenhouse effect per kg: carbon dioxide (CO2), 1,
methane ( C H 4 ) , 7 0 , and dinitrogen oxide (N20), 200
(NaturvNdsverket, i991).
Relative emission factors were generated for each
alternative by using emissions of lead and cadmium,
which were combined in relation to their weekly
rates not considered harmful to humans: cadmium
0.007 mg/weight in kg and lead (Pb) 0.05
rag/weight in kg (L~SkintShallitus, 1990).

Releases with health effects (g4 ) Acidificative releases (gs )

This criterion consists of those heavy metal re-
leases to air and water which affect health: lead (Pb)
and cadmium (Cd) from leachate as well as arsenic
(As) and mercury (Hg) from energy utilization. Or-
ganic micropollutants, dibenzodioxine (PCDD) and
furaans (PCDF), were excluded because of their
extremely small amounts (Aittola et al., 1989).
This criterion stands for the total amount of acidi-
ficative emissions. In Finland, the critical emission
level of gases causing acidification in nature is al-
most similar for each of them (Joffre et al., 1990).
Therefore, the environmental effect value was calcu-
lated by adding up the emissions of sulphur dioxide
(SO 2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The emissions of

Table 6
The criterion values of the alternatives studied
Alternative Criteria
gl (min) g2 (max) g3 (min) g4 (min) g5 (min) g6 (min) g7 (max) g8 (max)
Cost Technical Global Health Acidificative Surface water Employees Resource
reliability effects effects releases dispersed recovery
releases
IA 656 5 552678 100 609 1190 670 14 13 900
IB 786 4 539 113 200 575 1190 682 18 23600
IC 912 4 486565400 670 1222 594 24 39767

IIAa 589 9 559780715 411 1191 443 10 13 900

IIAb 706 7 532286214 325 1191 404 14 23 600
IIAc 834 6.5 470613514 500 1226 384 18 40667

IIBa 580 9 560987877 398 1191 430 10 13900

IIBb 682 7 532 224 858 314 1191 393 14 23 600
llBc 838 6.5 466586058 501 1229 373 22 41 747
llCa 579 9 561 555 877 373 1191 405 9 13 900
lICb 688 7 532302258 292 1191 370 13 23 600
llCc 838 6.5 465 356 158 499 1230 361 17 42467

IIDa 595 9 560500215 500 1191 538 12 13 900

IIDb 709 7 532974014 402 1191 489 17 23 600
llDc 849 6.5 474137314 648 1226 538 20 40667

IIEa 604 9 560500215 500 1191 538 12 13900

IIEb 736 7 532974014 402 1191 489 17 23600
IIEc 871 6.5 474 137314 648 1226 538 20 40667

IIIA 579 9 568 674 539 495 1193 558 7 13 900

IIIB 695 6 536936873 424 1195 535 18 23600
IIIC 827 7 457 184239 651 1237 513 16 45 167
IIID 982 7 457206 173 651 1239 513 16 45 167
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
hydrogen carbons (CH), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and
hydrogen chlorine (HC1) were small and thus ex-
cluded.
Surface water dispersed releases (g6)
This criterion covers the surface dispersed re-
leases from landfill and composting plants. In a vast
majority of lake conditions, the most important nutri-
ent factors causing the shift from a less productive
state to a more productive condition are phosphorus
and nitrogen (Wetzel, 1982). Nitrogen concentrations
in leachates are high and the phosphorus ones low
(Ettala et at., 1988). For this reason, nitrogen was
chosen to represent the surface water dispersed re-
leases.
Number of employees (g7 )
This criterion refers to the number of employees
dealing with waste treatment. The value for this
criterion was defined according to data gathered
from operating systems similar to the current ones.
The greater number of employees being a plus for
and alternative is due to the high unemployment in
Finland, therefore this criterion is considered to be
maximized.
Resource recovery level (g8)
This criterion infers the amount of waste that can
be recovered. There are three possibilities of adding
to the amount of recovered waste:
1. More effective source separation of paper and
cardboard and other recyclable waste.
2. Point 1 added by source separation of organic
waste.
3. Points 1 and 2 added by incineration of RDF-fuel.
The amount of recovered waste (RW) was com-
puted as follows:
RW = 1O0 1O0
if d>~ m * p / 1 0 0 * e / 1 0 0 ,
d, otherwise,
where:
RW Amount of a particular recovered waste (t/a).
m Total amount of municipal waste (t/a).
e Recovery efficiency (%).
p Proportion of a particular waste component out
of the total amount of waste (%).
27
d Demand for a particular waste (t/a).
In this case the criterion values of the alternatives are
given in Table 6.
1.5. The process
During the year 1992 the municipalities in the
planning region had acknowledged the problem
caused by new Finnish Waste Act. The existing
system used in dealing with waste could not be made
to meet the requirements of the Waste Act without
considerable costs. Therefore a supervisory group
was composed of all the potential interest groups in
the region for this problem.
In the first meeting, in February 1993, the super-
visory group set the objectives for the analysis based
on the analysts' suggestion. The analysts described
how the analysis will be carried out and a general
presentation of the multi-criteria method to be used
was given. Also the possible criteria to be used were
discussed, and the participants had a possibility to
add their own criteria to the preliminary list.
In the second meeting, in June 1993, the current
situation was discussed, and alternative possibilities
for dealing with the waste in the region were evalu-
ated with the DMs and the supervisory group. After
this, the criterion values were defined for the ac-
cepted set of alternatives. These values and how they
were obtained were presented to the DMs and the
supervisory group in August 1993.
Starting in September 1993, the weights for the
criteria were collected from technical and environ-
mental committees of the municipalities. In this phase
the participants had again a possibility to add criteria
to the analysis.
In December 1993 the preliminary solution for
solid waste management in the region was presented
to all municipalities and the supervisory group. The
solution was accepted by them and during winter/
spring 1994 all the municipal councils, one by one,
(3) accepted the solution suggested. The implementation
of the solution will start from the beginning of the
year 1995.
2. Description o f the E L E C T R E III method
The complex problem of a multicriteria choice is
usually formulated by using a set of alternatives
28 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
A = (a, b, c . . . . . n) and a set of criteria
( g l , g2 . . . . . gin). In this case the criteria are real-
valued functions defined on set A so that gj(a i)
represents the performance or the evaluation of the
alternative a ~ A on criterion gj. Depending on
whether the target is to maximize or to minimize the
criterion gj(ai), the higher or lower it is, the better
the alternative meets the criterion in question. Conse-
quently, the multicriteria evaluation of an alternative
a ~ A will be represented by the vector
g(a) = (g,(a), gz(a) ..... gin(a)).
The value gj(a) of the j-th criterion for alterna-
tive a is not fixed or known exactly. Its value is
affected by three phenomena (Roy et al., 1986):
- imprecision, because of the difficulty of determin-
ing it, even in the absence of random fluctuation;
- indetermination, because its method of evaluation
results from a relatively arbitrary choice between
several possible definitions; and
- uncertainty, because the value involved varies with
time.
All these three phenomena are well known at
various levels of solid waste management. There is a
variety of solutions for modelling these phenomena.
The concept of the pseudo-criterion and its two
thresholds allow all three phenomena to be taken
into account. Thus one is led to introducing so-called
indifference and preference thresholds on the criteria
used in the comparison of alternatives. Each of the
gj's taken together with two thresholds denoted by
qj and pj, respectively, constitute a pseudo-criterion
(Roy and Vincke, 1984; Vincke, 1992).
When using the Electre III method, each alterna-
tive is at first compared to the other ones, with the
aim of using the three aspects either to accept or to
reject, or, most frequently, to assess the outranking
relation: 'alternative a is at least as high in the
priority order as alternative b', or, more briefly, a
outranks b or, a S b.
The following critical information is needed for
the method:
- weights of the criteria;
- preference and indifference thresholds;
- veto thresholds.
The latter two are generally determined by ana-
lysts. However, if it is possible in a real situation
involving a limited number of decision-makers, the
DMs may also have a say in fixing the veto thresh-
olds. With a large number of DMs, as in our case,
this could not be carried out; the DMs were only
asked to attach weights to the criteria.
The evaluation procedures of the ELECTRE III
model (Fig. 2) encompass the establishment of the
threshold function, disclosure of concord index and
discord index, outranking degree, and the ranking of
alternatives, which are further elaborated in the fol-
lowing.
Let q(g) and p(g) represent the indifference
threshold and preference threshold, respectively.
If g(a) >1-g(b):
(i) g(a)>g(b)+p(g(b))~aPb, (4)
(ii) g(b) +q(g(b)) <g(a) <~g(b) +p(g(b))
a Q b, (5)
(iii) g(b)<~g(a) < ~ g ( b ) + q ( g ( b ) ) ~ a l b ,
(6)
where P refers to strong preference, Q weak prefer-
ence, I indifference, and g(a) is the criterion value
of alternative a.
The establishment of a threshold function has to
satisfy the subsequent constraint equations:
(i) g(a) > g(b)
g( a) + q( g( a) ) > g( b ) + q( g( b ) ) ,
g( a) + p( g( a) ) > g ( b ) + p( g( b ) )(7)
(ii) For all criteria, p(g) > q(g).
pj(gj(a)) and qj(gj(a)) can be calculated according
to R o y ' s formula (Skalka et al., 1986):
(i) pj(gj(a)) = ap + / 3 p g j ( a ) , (8)
(ii) qj(gj(a)) = aq +/3qgj(a), (9)
where gj(a) is the evaluation value of alternative a
on criterion j. pj(gj(a)) and qj(gj(a)) can be solved
in such a way that threshold values are (Roy et al.,
1986):
- either constant (/3 equals to zero and a has to be
determined); or
- proportional to gj(a) (/3 has to be determined and
a equals to zero); or
- of a form combining these two (both a and /3
have to be determined).
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36 29

com0,otoo,o, j l OoterM,na,,ooo,,,,m,,y,
the alternatives A of pseudo-criteria g j ]
The veto threshold vj(gj(a)) is defined for each
criterion j:
h vj( gj( a) ) = a v + flvgj( a). (13)
For each alternative a:
va ues of gj (a), pj [gj(a)], qj[gj(a)] A discordance index, d(a, b), for each criterion is
then defined as follows:
veto thresholds Outranking degree on ] da(a, b) = 0 if g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) <~pj(gj(a)),
v jig/a)] each criterion ¢j(a,b)
1
importance indices of
(14)
Levels of discordance [ ~ the criteria dj(a, b) = 1 if gj(b) - g j ( a ) > vj(gj(a)),
Dj(a,b) ] Concordance index c(a,b)
(15)
T and
[ The degree of outranking S (a,b) I
I distillation O<dj(a, b) < 1
I Two complete preorders [ when

T
I p j ( g j ( a ) ) < g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) ~< v j ( g j ( a ) )
I One final preorder j
(linear interpolation), where pi(gj(a)) is the prefer-
Fig. 2. General structure of ELECTRE III. ence threshold value, qj(gj(a)) is the indifference
threshold value and vj(gj(a)) is the veto threshold
value for each criterion.
Concordance indeX and discordance index Finally, the degree o f outranking is defined by
A concordance index c(a, b) is computed for S(a, b):
each pair of alternatives: S( a, b) = c( a, b) if dj( a, b) ~< c( a, b)
1
Vj~J, (16)
c(a, b) = "Kj=l kacj( a, b),
1 - dj(a, b)
S(a, b) = c(a, b) × I-I b) '
where K = k kj, (10) j~J(a, b) 1 -- c( a,
j=l otherwise, (17)
where kj is the weight of criterion j, and cj(a, b) is where J(a, b) is the set of criteria for which
the outranking degree of alternative a and alternative dj(a, b)> c(a, b).
b under criterion j, with:
cj(a, b)=O if g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) >pj(gj(a)), Ranking
The exploitation procedure used in ELECTRE III
(11)
is generally as follows:
cj(a, b ) = 1 if g j ( b ) - g j ( a ) ~ q j ( g j ( a ) ) , - Construct a complete preorder Z~.
- Construct a complete preorder Z 2.
(12)
- Construct the partial preorder Z = Z l A Z 2 as the
and final result.
0 < c j ( a , b) < 1 Z 1 and Z 2 are respectively constructed through a
descending distillation procedure and an ascending
when distillation procedure (for details of these procedures,
see, e.g. Maystre et al., 1994; Vincke, 1992). The
qj( gj( a) ) < gj( b) -- gj( a) ~ pj( gj( a) )
two rankings, Z~ and Z 2, are commonly not the
(linear interpolation). same. The final order could be obtained after the
30 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36

downward order and upward order are averaged, that
is,
Z=½(Z 1 +Z2).
However, in case the two rankings are not 'close',
one is not able to build an acceptable complete
preorder. In this paper we use the procedure in which
alternatives a and b are considered incomparable in
case their order does not remain the same in both
rankings.
3. Reasons for using ELECTRE III in this prob-
lem
On the basis of the literature, four basic ap-
proaches to multiple criteria decision problem can be
found: 1) multiattribute utility theory (e.g., Keeney
and Raiffa, 1976); 2) analytic hierarchy process (e.g.,
Saaty, 1980); 3) outranking methods (e.g., Vincke,
1992); 4) interactive procedures (e.g., Steuer, 1986).
Each one is different in t e r m s of collecting the
preference information from the DMs, in modelling
the preferences and in producing the final solution.
In our case we identified the following constraints
for the method to be applied:
1. The number of DMs must not limit the use of
the method. In this case it was not possible to
identify a DM or a small group of them. The number
of DMs participating in the decision process was
113, each with differing opinions. The task was to
produce an acceptable compromise solution for them.
2. The decision method must be quick and easy to
use. In real applications the DMs may not give much
time to the analyst to suggest a solution.
3. The method should need as little preference
information as possible. The DMs pointed out that
their time is limited as regards concentrating on this
particular problem among all other duties they had.
On the other hand, some of the criteria would appear
difficult to understand for any DM. For example, the
environmental criteria were measured in a way that
may be difficult for nonexpert DMs. Consider, for
example, tradeoff questions between criteria 3 and 4.
4. The method must have the capacity to deal
with imprecise data. Most of the criterion values of
the alternatives were imprecise, especially the esti-
mates of different releases to the environment.
Therefore it is not possible to adopt a method which
uses strict criterion values.
Providing reliable decision-aid to this problem,
while fulfilling all these requirements seemed quite
demanding for any decision method. None of them is
perfect. The first three constraints make it difficult to
use any decision method, which would need much,
and reliable, preference information from the DMs.
The DMs had no time a n d / o r did not want to
participate in assessing value/utility functions, or
perform any pairwise comparisons. However, they
still insisted on expressing their opinions about the
importance of each criterion. In this case, MAUT
and AHP cannot be considered as realistic decision-
aids for them. Instead, the ELECTRE methods have
been developed for this kind of situations. Obvi-

Table 7
The basic data for computing the threshold values needed for the socio-economic criteria
Coefficients Criteria

gi g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8
Cost Technical Global Health Acidifi- Surface Employees Resource
reliability effects effects releases water recovery
dispersed
releases
aq 30 1 4948770 -76 --2730 0 3 -2037
~q 0.02 0 0.086 0.42 2.39 0.21 0 0.21
ap 50 3 1647400 - 179 -- 9891 0 10 - 3588
~p 0.05 0 0.028 0.95 8.62 1.27 0 0.41
~v 91.4 3 4671800 278 494 621 20 7466
~v 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
ously, they lack the theoretical richness of, e.g., the
MAUT, but they can be successfully used as deci-
sion-aids in certain problems. They are easy to dis-
cuss with the DMs, and no difficult preference ques-
tions are needed. Clearly, the price for this is that a
great deal of preference information (which was not
possible to obtain in this case) is not taken into
account; the only thing available is the importance
index of each criterion.
The choice between the different ELECTRE
methods, on the other hand, was easy in this context.
We opted for ELECTRE III, since it can easily take
the imprecise data into account. The ELECTRE IS
method could also be used for Searching the best
compromise in this problem. However, the DMs
wanted to have the ranking of the alternatives, which
it does not provide.
4. J u d g m e n t s needed by the ELECTRE I I I deci-
sion-aid
4.1. The thresholds
The preference and indifference threshold values
were computed for each criterion as shown in Table
7. The relationship between the criterion outcome
and possible error range was inferred with the help
of a regression analysis on the criteria g3, global
effects; g4, releases with health effects; gs, acidi-
ficative releases; and g8, resource recovery level.
The error range was computed with the help of
variation in tile basic data (Table 4). The greenhouse
gases from landfills were assumed to variate between
0.2-1.5 m3/ton. The maximum values for heavy
metals in leachate were used as the basis for strict
preference, while the medium Values were taken as
the basis for indifference (Assmuth et al., 1990). In
acidificative releases, the indifference values were
assumed to be about 30% of strict preference values.
Resource recovery is mainly based on source separa-
tion and, on the other hand, on centralized separation
in certain alternatives. More effective sorting may
increase the risk of bad quality of sorted waste.
Currently, about 25% of paper and cardboard is
sorted incorrectly. The amount of organic waste
sorted incorrectly varies between 10-50% and that
of light fraction ( = waste component available for
incineration) ranges between 30-60% (Berg, 1993).
31
g l: net cost per ton. Thresholds can be inferred
from the observed fact that the estimation techniques
used with this criterion can lead to an error of about
+ / - 25% in capital costs and + / - 10% in oper-
ating costs. The total error of 10% is quite usual.
g2: technical reliability. Taking into account the
standard deviations in the data (around 1) (Hokkanen
et al., 1995), the threshold values were defined as
follows:
- the difference of one was not considered convinc-
ing evidence of a preference, and
- the difference of two or more was taken to imply
strict preference.
g6: s u r f a c e w a t e r dispersed releases. The varia-
tion of nitrogen in leachate is usually very large,
from 50 m g / l to 150 rag/1 (Ettala, 1986; Ettala et
al., 1988). To take into account this linearly depen-
dent error range, we assumed that indifference re-
mains up to 80 mg and strict preference starts from
150 rag/1.
gv: number of employees. The need for employ-
ees can vary especially due to changes in resource
recovery and transport, because:
- technical developments in waste transport and
treatment may be reflected in the demand for em-
ployees, and
the market in recycled waste may fluctuate over
time.
The veto values for all criteria were computed as
the sum of the strict preference value and one half of
the criterion outcome.
4.2. The weights
The weights, or indices of relative importance, are
used in ELECTRE III to indicate the significance of
a certain criterion to the DM. However, to capture
the importance Of a criterion with a single number
may not be easy for the DMs. For a discussion of the
weights, see, e.g. Vincke (1992, p. 112) and Gold-
stein (1990). In a case like the MSWMS-problem,
the number of DMs is often large and they do not
give equal value to the individual weights. Thus, to
be able to make use of the information on the
importance of the various criteria, an inquiry needs
to be carried out. After that the data need to be
formulated in some sensible manner, so as to obtain
the overall weights of the group.
32 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36

In this study the group of subjects consisted of The values obtained were: gl: 0.27, g2: 0.26, g3:
113 DMs in charge of environmental and technical 0.016, g4: 0.096, gs: 0.047, g6: 0.09, g7:0.05 and
affairs in 17 municipalities in the Oulu region. The gs: 0.14.
paper-and-pencil version was used to obtain the It is difficult to judge, how well the weights given
weights for each criterion ( g l . . . . . gs)- Dubious as correspond to the DMs' actual opinions. However,
we were about the DMs' ability to determine weights, the sensitivity analysis is designed to capture the
we decided to use two different procedures for ac- possible biases in the given weights.
quiring the weights. This was done although in our
earlier paper (Hokkanen and Salminen, 1994) the
given weights were almost equal with both proce- 5. Result of the analysis
dures. The procedures were as follows: 1) the DMs
The ranking of alternatives by ELECTRE III (Fig.
were asked to assign the criteria weights ranging
3), indicates the benefit of a certain degree of inter-
from 1 to 7, 7 being the most important; 2) the DMs
municipal cooperation (e.g., alternatives IIBc, IIAc,
were asked to assign number 1 to the least important
IICb). Centralized systems may not be the best solu-
criterion, and then base the other importance values
tions in all cases, even if the Finnish Ministry of
on how many times more important they appeared
Environment has set them as its target (alternatives
than the least important criterion. Thus, if a criterion
IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, II1D). In an area with not much
was considered, say, 3 times more important than the
proper landfill capacity available, all of it should be
least important one, 3 was the value to be assigned to
used up. The energy potential of waste should also
it. However, again in the present inquiry, the average
be utilized within the region. Such emphases led us
and median weights showed only minor differences
to suggest the choice of intermediate landfilling,
between these two different procedures. In the analy-
composting and RDF-combustion (IIBc).
sis we will use the weights taken from type 1
questioning.
The final weights were determined on the basis of 6. Sensitivity analysis and discussion
majority. The highest (lowest) weight which could
obtain a majority (i.e., 57 DMs out of 113) was The ranking of alternatives remains, nevertheless,
considered to be the weight of the group. dependent on the values of the various thresholds

Table 8
The values used in the sensitivity analysis
The factor Criteria
changed
gl g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8
Cost Technical Global Health Acidificative Surface water Employees Resource
reliability effects effects releases dispersed recovery
releases

Weights':
min 0.25 0.2 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.11 0.04 0.06
max 0.35 0.3 0.39 0.20 0.04 0.18 0.08 0.17
No. of steps 16 11 21 22 14 11 5 12
Olp or [~p "
min 0.01 2 0.1 0.5 8.62 0.3 4 0.4
max 0.1 5 1.5 2 8.62 1.3 15 2
No. of steps 10 4 15 31 1 11 12 33
O~p or ~q "

rain 0.01 1 0.1 0.05 2.22 0.1 l 0.1

max 0.03 2 0.6 0.6 2.39 0.21 5 0.4
No. of steps 3 2 lI 12 18 12 5 7
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
FINAL PREORDER OF ALTERNATIVES
1
[5~-] 10
Fig. 3. The final preorder of alternatives.
and indices of importance. A sensitivity analysis is
therefore recommended, so as to high-light which
priority order is convincingly justified by the model,
despite all the elements of arbitrariness involved
(Roy et al., 1986). In the present study, the analysis
was carded out on the basic data. The aim was:
1. To find out how the accuracy of the basic data
is reflected in the order of the various alternatives.
This was tested by changing /3p and j~q values for
each criterion separately by certain steps. /3 's being
zero, the sensitivity analysis was done by changing
ap and aq. The minimum and maximum values and
number of steps are shown in Table 8.
2. To find out how changes in the weights would
affect the ranking of the alternatives. In subsequent
analysis, the lower and upper quartile values of the
weights will be used in judging the sensitivity of the
obtained solution (Table 8).
3. To find out the effect of the veto values, when
their level exceeds that of credibility Cj(a, b).
33
The solution obtained is very stable for changes in
~p, flq, •p and aq, which all influence the threshold
values. The best solution (IIBc) maintained its posi-
tion all the time. The only relevant change took place
when the preference threshold was considerably low-
ered in criterion g6: in this case alternative IIBc was
ranked highest and IIAc second.
The solution is fairly insensitive to changes in the
weights. Among the originally highest ranked alter-
natives, the order remains the same.
Changes in the values of /3v, which, in turn,
affect discordance levels, have a considerable effect
on the final ranking. When the effect of discordance
was removed from the model, IIBb was ranked first,
and the alternatives with regional landfills (IIAa,
IIBa, IICa, IIDa, IIEa) tended to come in the second
place. This change was mainly due to criterion g4,
resource recovery level. The lower discordance of
this criterion increased the acceptability of alterna-
tives with a low resource recovery level. However,
the Finnish Waste Act includes the goal of a higher
resource recovery level. Therefore, the original solu-
tion was accepted. The transitional stage before the
RDF combustion can be carried out with the alterna-
tive IIBb.
A survey was conducted to find out the DMs
opinions about this decision-making process. In gen-
eral, all of them had a positive attitude towards the
method used, considering it a fine tool for these
kinds o f problems. The DMs pointed out that the
time they could spare for the process was limited. In
their opinion, any other task(s) in addition to evaluat-
ing the weights would have been too laborious. This
implies that any method requiring more preference
information might not be accepted in a decision-
making environment of this kind. Also, the DMs
were not willing to pay for more time-consuming
procedures.
The DMs showed little interest in the applicability
of the method used. Instead, their main concern was
that all the criteria they found pertinent would be
included in the analysis. The DMs did not take much
interest in the absolute values of the criteria; rather
they concentrated on the differences between the
criterion values. Some of the DMs would have liked
to know the exact distance between the various
alternatives in the final ranking, so as to fully grasp
the significance of the difference between the highest
34 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
ranked alternatives. However, distance measures
could not be inferred with the method used. The
DMs also brought up a number of points they found
positive: the method was considered to minimize
both the time needed for decision-making and the
possibilities of 'politicking'.
The discordance concept was considered impor-
tant. However, the DMs suggested that the analysis
should first be made without discordances. After
that, it should be studied how the solution changes
when the veto values stipulated in environmental
legislation are taken into account, This comment
may reflect the DMs' interest in those stipulations; it
may be indicative of a need to find out whether there
is any 'sense' in the Finnish environmental legisla-
tion.
The authorities were satisfied with the decision-aid
applied. One of the main reasons was that the method
forced them to approach the problem from a wide
variety of relevant viewpoints besides the costs in-
volved.
7. Conclusion
From the preceding results and discussion, the
following can be concluded:
1) The ELECTRE III method has proved a useful
tool in the choice of a MSWMS. Using this method,
imprecision in the basic data could be taken into
account. This feature is of great importance, espe-
cially in environmental applications. In the case dis-
cussed here, there is no single DM whose prefer-
ences would constitute a basis for the analysis; in-
stead there is a large number of individuals who
participate in the process. As the DMs' contribution
to a ELECTRE III process can be limited to their
assigning weights to the various criteria, the method
lends itself very well to cases involving a large
number of participants. Furthermore, when using this
method, the procedure fulfils the requirements set for
environmental impact analyses within the Finnish
environmental legislation.
2) The results show that in the choice of a munici-
pal solid waste system, a certain degree of intermu-
nicipal cooperation is advisable. In the Oulu region
studied here, only 4 to 5 out of the 24 landfills
operating in the area were up to standard. For that
reason, all of the proper landfill capacity should be
used up and the energy potential of waste should be
utilized within the region. These considerations led
to the choice of intermediate landfilling, composting
and RFD-combustion. When the solution presented
in this paper is compared to the current practice, our
estimate is that FIM 60 million (over $10 million)
will be saved during the time covered in the plans (to
the year 2010). The increase in the amount of recov-
ered waste can be estimated at 30% (total amount
60%). Furthermore, there will be a smaller amount
of releases to the environment.
3) Within municipal decision-making, the DMs'
attitudes towards a decision-aid appear to correlate
with the extent they are required to contribute to it.
The less the better, is the general attitude.
4) The method lent itself well to presenting the
various aspects of the problem to be dealt with, and
it also proved useful in working out a satisfying
solution. Another advantage brought up by the DMs
was the modest time needed for the process. In
addition, the participants appeared to prefer simulta-
neous handling of all the criteria and consistent
structuring of the problem. This was considered to
prevent the participants from indulging in 'politics',
with only a subset of criteria to be discussed.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. John T. Buchanan,
University of Waikato, New Zealand, and three
anonymous referees for helpful comments. This re-
search is supported, in part, by the Academy of
Finland.
References
Aittola, J.-P., Viinikainen, S., and Roivainen, J. (1989), "The
emissions of PCDD/PCDF's and related compounds from
co-combustion of RFD with peat and wood chips", Chemo-
sphere 19, 353-359.
Assmuth, T., Poutanen, H., Stranberg, T., Melanen, M., Penttil~i,
S., and Kalevi, K. (1990), "Kaatopaikkojen ongelmaj~ttteiden
ymp~irist5vaikutukset. Riskikaatopaikkatutkimuksen p~i~ira-
portti" (Environmental impacts of hazardous wastes in land-
fills), Vesi- ja Ymp~iristShallitus julkaisuja, Sarja A n:o 67
(National Board of Waters and the Environment,Series A, No.
67), Helsinki.
 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen /European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
Barda, O.H., Dupuis, J., and Lencioni, P. (1990), "Multicriteria
location of thermal power plant", European Journal of Oper-
ational Research 45, 332-346.
Belevi, H., and Baccini, P. (1989), "Longterm assessment of
leachates from municipal solid waste landfills", in: Second
International Landfill Symposium Proceedings - Volume 1,
9-13 October 1989, Porto Conte (Alghero), Italy, C.I.P.A.,
Milano, Italy.
Berg, P.E.O. (1993), K~llsortering, Teori, Metod och Imple-
mentering (Source Separation, Theory, Methodology and Im-
plementation), Chalmers Tekniska H~Sgskola, Avhandling nr.9,
G~teborg, Sweden.
Bostr~Sm, S., Backman, R., and Hupa, M. (1990), "'Energiatuotan-
non ja -kulutuksen kasvihuonekaasujen p'~i~istiSt Suomessa"
(Greenhouse gas emissions from energy production and con-
sumption in Finland), KTM Sarja D:186, Helsinki.
Briggs, Th., Knnsch, P.L., and Mareschal, B. (1990), "Nuclear
waste management: An application of the multicriteria
PROMETHEE methods", European Journal of Operational
Research 44, 1-10.
Caruso, C., Colorni, A., and Paruccini, M. (1993), "The regional
urban solid waste management system: A modelling
approach", European Journal of Operational Research 70,
16-30.
Commission of the European Communities (1991), "Proposal for
a Council Directive on the landfill of waste", COM (91) 102
final, SYN 335, Brussels.
Ehrig, H.J. (1983), "Quality and quantity of sanitary landfill
leachate", Waste Management and Research 1, 53-68.
Ehrig, H.J., and Stegmann, R. (1989), "Leachate production and
quality - results of landfill processes and operation", in:
Second International Landfill Symposium, Proceedings - Vol-
ume 1, 9-13 October 1989, Porto Conte (Alghero), Italy,
C.I.P.A., Milano, Italy.
Ettala, M. (1986), "Snow cover and maximum leachate discharge
of a sanitary landfill", Aqua Fennica 2, 187-202.
Ettala, M., Rahkonen, P., Kitunen, V., Valo, O., and Salkinoja-
Salonen, M. (1988), "Quality of refuse, gas and water at a
sanitary landfill", Aqua Fennica 1, 15-28.
Goldstein, W.M. (1990), "Judgements of relative importance in
decision making: Global vs. local interpretations of subjective
weight", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses 47, 313-336.
Grassin, N. (1986), "Constructing "population' criteria for the
comparison of different options for a high voltage line route",
European Journal of Operational Research 26, 42-57.
Hokkanen, J. (1993), "J~itehuoltoj~irjestelmSn valinta monitavoit-
teista menetelm~i~i hyv~iksik~iytf~ien" (The choice of a solid
waste management system using the multicriteria methods
ELECTRE I and II), Licenciate thesis, Dept. of Ecology and
Environmental Management, University of Jyv~iskyfft,
Jyv~iskyl~i, Finland.
Hokkanen, J., and Salminen, P. (1994), "The choice of a solid
waste management system by using the ELECTRE III deci-
sion-aid method", in: M. Paruccini (ed.) Applying Multiple
Criteria Aid for Decision to Environmental Management,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
35
Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., Rossi, E., and Ettala, M. (1995),
"The choice of a solid waste management system using the
ELECTRE II decision-aid method,', Waste Management and
Research 13, 175-193.
Joffre, S.M., Laurila, T., Hakola, H , Lindfors, V., Konttinen, S.,
and Taalas, P. (1990), "On the effects of meteorological
factors on air pollution concentrations and deposition in Fin-
land,, in: P. Kauppi, P. Anttila and K. Kentt~imies (eds.),
Acidification in Finland, Springer-Veflag, Berlin, 43-94.
Kaila, J. (1987), Mathematical Model for Strategy Evaluation of
Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems, VTT Publishers
40, Espoo.
Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with Multiple
Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New
York.
Lagerkvist, A. (1986). Om Nedbrytnings- och Transportprocesser
i Avfitllsupplag, Licensiatsuppsats, HiSgskolan i Lule~i, Lule~.
L~i~tkintbhallitus (1990), "Yleiskirje n:o 1977", Helsinki (in
Finnish) (National Board of Health 1990: General letter).
Leschine, T.M., Wallenius, H., and Verdini, W.A. (1992), "Inter-
active multiobjective analysis and assimilative capacity-based
ocean disposal decision", European Journal of Operational
Research 56, 278-289.
Maystre, L.Y., Picted, J., and Simos, J. (1994), M~thodes Multi-
crit~res ELECTRE, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires
Romandes, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Merkhofer, M.W., and Keeney, R.L. (1987), " A multiattribute
utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear
waste", Risk Analysis 7, 173-194.
Ministry of Environment (1992a), "Finnish Environmental Legis-
lation", General Management Division, Ministry of Environ-
ment, Helsinki, Finland.
Ministry of Environment (1992b), "Waste Act", Draft version II,
Ministry of Environment, Helsinki, Finland.
National Board of Waters and Environment (1987), Hydrological
Yearbook 1981-1983, Publication of the Water Research In-
stitute 66, Valtion painatuskeskus, Helsinki, Finland.
Naturv~irdsverket (1991), "Olika gasers bidrag till v~ixthuseffek-
ten - en jRmf'trelse" (The relative greenhouse effect of differ-
ent gases), Naturv~rdsverket, rapport 3647, Solna, Sweden.
Roy, B. (1991), "The outranking approach and the foundations of
ELECTRE methods", Theory and Decision 31, 49-73.
Roy, B., and Bouyssou, B. (1986), "Comparison of two decision-
aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example",
European Journal of Operational Research 25, 200-215.
Roy, B., and Vincke, Ph. (1984), "Relational systems of prefer-
ence with one or more pseudo-criteria: Some new concepts
and results", Management Science 11, 1323-1335.
Roy, B., Present, M., and Silhol, D. (1986), " A programming
method for determining which Paris metro stations should be
renovated", European Journal of Operational Research 24,
318-334.
Roy, B., Slowinski, R., and Treichel, W. (1992), "Multicriteria
programming of water supply systems for rural areas", Water
Resources Bulletin 28/1, 13-31.
Saaty, T. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
36 J. Hokkanen, P. Salminen / European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 19-36
Siskos, J., and Hubert, P. (1983), "Multicriteria analysis of the
impacts of energy alternatives: A survey and a new compara-
tive approach", European Journal of Operational Research
13, 278-299.
Skalka, J.M., Bouyssou, D., and Be mabeu, Y.A. (1986), "Electre
III et IV. Aspects m6thodologiques et guide d'utilisation",
Document du Lamsade No. 25, 3 e 6dition, Laboratoire
d'analyse et Mod61isation de Syst~mes pour 1'Aide h la Deci-
sion, Univ6rsite de Paris-Dauphine.
Stare, A., Kuula, M., and Cesar, H. (1992), "Transboundary air
pollution in Europe: An interactive multicriteria tradeoff anal-
ysis", European Journal of Operational Research 56, 263-
277.
Steuer, R. (1986), Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Com-
putation and Application, Wiley, New York.
Vincke, Ph. (1992), Muhicriteria Decision-aid, Wiley, New York.
Westas, H., and Westerghrd, B. (1992), "Biobr'~_nsle i Avfall"
(Biofuel in waste), Sveriges Plastf'6rbund, Stockholm.
Wetzel, R.G. (1983), Limnology, Saunders College Publishing,
Philadelphia, PA.