Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Optimal process network for municipal solid waste management in

Iskandar Malaysia
Sie Ting Tan a, Chew Tin Lee b, *, Haslenda Hashim a, Wai Shin Ho a, Jeng Shiun Lim a
a
Process System Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, 81310 Johor, Malaysia
b
Department of Bioprocess Engineering, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, 81310 Johor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ineffective management of municipal solid waste (MSW) may cause degradation of valuable land re-
Received 31 August 2013 sources and create long-term environmental and human health problems. A sustainable and efficient
Received in revised form waste management strategy is needed to balance the need for development, the quality of human life
2 December 2013
and the environment. This study aims to synthesis a MSW processing network to produce energy and
Accepted 3 December 2013
Available online 12 December 2013
value-added products for achieving economic and environmental competitiveness. An optimisation
model that integrates four major utilisation technologies was incorporated to facilitate a cost-effective
processing network. The model is able to predict the best mix of waste treatment technologies, fore-
Keywords:
Municipal solid waste (MSW)
cast the production of by-product from waste treatment process, estimate the facility capacity, forecast
Resource processing network the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission of the system, and eventually generate an optimal cost-effective
Waste treatment technologies solution for municipal solid waste management (MSWM). Four scenarios for MSWM were considered
Optimisation to analyse the economic impact of different waste utilisation alternatives: i) the business as usual (BAU)
Mixed integer linear programming (MILP) scenario as a baseline study, ii) the waste-to-energy (WTE) scenario, iii) the waste-to-recycling (WTR)
scenario, and iv) the mixed technology (MIXTECH) scenario. The MIXTECH scenario was able to provide
the best mix of waste utilisation technologies. The optimal waste allocation in terms of percentage
involved landfill gas recovery system (LFGRS) (14%), mass burn incineration (3%), material recycling fa-
cilities (MRF) (56%), and composting (27%). The optimal scenario would be able to achieve the renewable
energy (RE) target, achieve the recycling target and promote composting as the waste reduction alter-
native for the region being studied. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the optimal or MIXTECH
scenario to examine the effect of the RE target and GHG emission reduction target with respect to the
system cost and waste allocation to each technology. The proposed mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) model was applied for Iskandar Malaysia (IM) as a case study.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in the order of reduction of waste amount, reuse, recycle, compost

Municipal solid waste (MSW) refers to waste generated from
residential, commercial, institution and public parks (Fodor and
Klemes, 2012). Solid waste management (SWM) involves many
technologies associated with controlling waste generation,
handling and storage, transportation, processing and final disposal.
The hierarchy of SWM was formed since 1970s, several evolution,
different versions of solid waste treatment hierarchies exist. One of
those affordable hierarchies is suggested by Finnveden et al. (2005),
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ60 7 553 5594; fax: þ60 7 5538003.
E-mail addresses: ctlee@utm.my, chewtin@gmail.com, ctlee@cheme.utm.my (C.
T. Lee).
or recovery through incineration and finally landfill disposal. It
explained that the main objective of SWM is to treat the waste
generated. In addition, energy and recyclable material can be
recovered as by-products to achieve sustainable waste manage-
ment that is environmental friendly, economically reasonable and
socially acceptable (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002).
Rapid urbanisation, population growth and industrialisation
contribute towards large-scale increase of MSW in Malaysia. These
factors have changed the characteristics and composition of the
solid waste generated. The daily waste generation has also shown
an upward trend. Waste generation was 16,200 t in year 2001. This
amount increased to 19,100 t in 2005, 17,000 t in 2007 and 21,000 t
in 2009 (Ahmad et al., 2011). Due to the increased population
growth rate, the daily solid waste generated is estimated to be
31,000 t/d by 2020 (Johari et al., 2012).

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.005
 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58
Depending on its characteristics, the MSW can be preferentially
processed by different approaches. The present waste management
methods in Malaysia are highly dependent on landfill as only 5.5%
of the MSW is recycled and 1% is composted, while the remaining
94.5% of MSW is disposed on the landfill site (Periathamby et al.,
2009). The practice of waste segregation is random and unofficial
in Malaysia. Waste recycling is mainly performed by garbage
scavengers at the landfill sites. To date, SWM in Malaysia is at the
stage of transition and planning towards sustainable and effective
approaches. Ineffective management of waste may cause degra-
dation of valuable land resources, increase land costs, and create
long-term environmental and human health problems. Sustainable
and more efficient waste management strategies are needed to
reduce the heavy reliance on landfills. Malaysia aims to establish a
holistic framework that considers the trade-off involved in the
segregation process and the economic performance of different
MSW practices to achieve the national MSW recycling rate (22% of
the total MSW) by the year 2020 (Ministry of Housing and Local
Government, 2005). The segregation and recycling of waste are
essential to improve the performance of waste processing.
1.1. Literature review on waste management model
The complexity of SWM includes the prediction of solid waste
generation, selection of waste treatment technologies, selection of
facility sites, estimation of facility capacity, operation of the facility,
scheduling of the system and transportation of the waste. SWM can
be modelled through a system perspective (Seadon, 2010). System
analysis tools for supporting decision making in waste manage-
ment were developed since 1970s, these models can be categorised
into two groups: (1) system engineering (SE) models and (2) sys-
tem assessment (SA) models (Pires et al., 2011). The SA models can
be used to analyse the performance of an existing waste manage-
ment system, for example life-cycle assessment (LCA), risk assess-
ment, and material flow analyses (Juul et al., 2013). For instance,
Chen and Chang (2010) developed a range of SA models to assess
the performance of MSW recycling in Taiwan. The models included
the diffusion effect and the organisational learning effect as the key
variable for recycling performance, however, other variables such
as costing and environmental protection are not considered in the
models. The LCA tool is a popular tool to solve the complex issues of
SWM. For instance, Othman et al. (2013) reviewed the application
of LCA for the assessment of integrated solid waste management for
several Asian countries. The study focused on the assessment of
environmental impacts of various waste treatment technologies
and concluded that recycling, anaerobic digestion and thermal
treatments are effective technologies for the Asian countries.
Wanichpongpan and Gheewala (2007) used LCA as a decision tool
to assess the environmental impact of landfill gas-to-energy system
in Thailand, they concluded that a centralised landfilling facility is
environmental and economical beneficial as compared to small
landfills. Poeschl et al. (2012a, b) used LCA to analyse the biogas
production system and utilisation pathways from different input
sources including from MSW and feedstock. Liamsanguan and
Gheewala (2008) used LCA to assess the holistic impact of inte-
grated solid waste management towards the mitigation of green-
house gases emission in Phuket, Thailand. These LCA studies tend
to assess the waste treatment technologies focussing on the envi-
ronmental impact and with less consideration on the detailed
modelling and optimisation for the economical impact of the pro-
cesses. While SA models focus on the assessment and analysis of
the existing systems, SE models focus on the design and solution of
a waste management system. Methods such as multi-criteria de-
cision models (MCDM), simulation models, forecasting models,
cost-benefit analysis, and optimisation models are widely used in
49
the SE approach (Pires et al., 2011). The optimisation model
developed using SE model emphasises the design of a system by a
specific objective function which gives the best solution to the
objective function (Juul et al., 2013). Various types of techniques
have been implemented as an optimisation model for SWM. These
include the linear programming (LP), mixed integer linear pro-
gramming (MILP), non-linear programming (NLP), multi-objective
programming (MOP), stochastic programming, two-stage pro-
gramming, fuzzy method programming, and hybrid models. An
overview of the optimisation models for SWM are summarised in
Table 1.
The early stage of SE model developed for SWM focused on the
cost-effectiveness principle of LP with a single-objective optimi-
sation scheme (Juul et al., 2013). For example, Münster and Meibom
(2010, 2011) designed an energy system using the Balmorel model
to optimise the investment cost for different waste-to-energy
(WTE) technologies in the northern Europe. In addition, a LP
model was developed by Rathi (2007) to investigate the SWM
technologies that focused on composting by taking into account
both the economic and environmental impacts. Other LP model as
developed by Salvia et al. (2002) also addressed the similar issue of
waste management and emphasised on the analysis of one
particular technology. LP model is typically applied and limited to a
single process that does not support the evaluation and selection of
multiple technologies. More powerful modelling tools are needed
to conduct modelling work for SWM notably for the real case
studies that involve a range of uncertainties. For instance, more
complex modelling methods including mixed integer linear pro-
gramming (MILP), non-linear programming (NLP) (Chang et al.,
1997; Shadiya et al., 2012), stochastic programming (Guo and
Huang, 2009b), fuzzy logic (Yeh and Xu, 2013) and hybrid model
(Xu et al., 2010; Li and Chen, 2011; Chang et al., 2012) were
developed to assess the complex scenarios of SWM in the real
world. MILP is relatively simple and can be applied to consider the
complex scenario with uncertainties using the binary selection
function that facilitates the selection of multiple technologies and
dynamic planning of resource network for SWM. Badran and El-
Haggar (2006) proposed a MILP model for the optimal manage-
ment of MSW at Port Said, Egypt, with the objective of minimising
the waste collection and transportation costs. Dai et al. (2011)
designed a MILP model to assess waste allocation issue and the
expansion of capacity for the waste treatment facility. Santibañez-
Aguilar et al. (2013) determined the optimal supply chain network
for waste utilisation using MILP. Ng et al. (2013) developed a MILP
model to determine the waste-to-energy network that optimised
the cost, waste energy potential utilisation, and the carbon
footprint.
As presented in Table 1, many models were developed based on
various waste management technologies including composting,
recycling and disposal to optimise the economical factor. Relatively
fewer models have simultaneously considered the economical
factor based on energy system and WTE technologies such as that
by Münster and Meibom (2011). Ng et al. (2013) developed a WTE
processing network with integrated consideration for economical
and environmental factor. However, the model did not incorporate
other waste treatment alternatives such as recycling or composting.
As a whole, it is of great challenge and interest to integrate both the
waste management system and energy system into the modelling
works to achieve optimal economical and environmental
consideration.
1.2. Research objectives and scopes
In general, MSW in Malaysia is typically disposed in a bin or
container within the house premise and collected by the respective
50 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58

Table 1
Optimisation models for solid waste management.

Method Reference Objectives Focus Optimisation on

Energy Waste Economy Environment

system management

Linear programming Münster and Meibom To maximise economic utility of energy U U

Mixed integer linear programming
(MILP)
Non-linear programming (NLP)
Stochastic programming
Fuzzy logic model
Hybrid model
(2011, 2010)
Rathi (2007)
Salvia et al. (2002)
Badran and El-Haggar (2006)
Dai et al. (2011)
Santibañez-Aguilar et al. (2013)
Ng et al. (2013)
Chang and Chang (1998)
Shadiya et al. (2012)
Guo and Huang (2009)
Yeh and Xu (2013)
Xu et al. (2010)
Li and Chen (2011)
Chang et al. (2012)
consumers (Balmorel)
To integrate the best feasible method of U U
waste management in Mumbai, focus
on composting.
To minimise total system cost for waste U U U
and energy management
To minimise the waste collection and U U
transportation costs
To minimise cost of waste flow U U
allocation and facility capacity
expansion
To determine the optimal supply chain U U
network for the waste utilisation
To determine optimal processing U U U
network for waste-to-energy system.
To maximise short-term waste U U U
management strategies based on cost,
energy, and material recovery
To maximise profit, while minimizing U U
waste through source reduction
To minimise costs of capacity expansion U U
and waste flows
To minimise the sum of the squared U U
differences between individual e-waste
products’ best dimension sustainability
score
Interval-parameter stochastic robust U U
optimisation, waste flows, revenue
from WTE
Fuzzy-stochastic-interval linear U U
programming for supporting
Multi-objective programming and cost- U U U
benefit criteria on global warming
impact in waste management

regional private concessionaires. The wastes are firstly transferred
to transfer stations for compaction in compacting containers before
being sent to the wastes disposal sites. Some of the MSW is recycled
or composted; however, the predominant treatment methods for
MSW are landfills or the open dumpsites. Although there are
various models designed to address the MSW issues, the literature
indicates the lack of proposal for comprehensive waste manage-
ment in Malaysia which integrated technology selection for solid
waste treatment and waste-to-energy (WTE) treatment, mitigation
of GHG emission and optimisation of economical impact. Therefore,
this study aims to synthesise a cost-effective processing network
for integrated MSW in Malaysia that consider the following factors:
(a) Resource allocation
(b) Production portfolio
(c) Best available technology for an appropriate capacity and
time of construction
(d) Economical and environmental optimal for integrated solid
waste treatment and waste-to energy (WTE) treatment.
The proposed processing network of MSW was designed
through a MILP model. The MILP model integrated several waste
utilisation technologies, including the landfill gas recovery system
(LFGRS), waste incineration with energy recovery, material recy-
cling facilities (MRF), and composting. The proposed system aimed
to maximise the profitability of MSW processing network that
considered the product demand (energy demand and recycling
demand) and the carbon emission reduction target. The proposed
MILP model was applied in Iskandar Malaysia (IM) as a case study.
The MSWM system has been tested using different scenarios,
namely with or without the consideration of WTE and/or waste-to-
recycling (WTR) strategies to analyse the feasibility and best po-
tential for a future MSWM system in the IM region. It is envisaged
that the developed model can assist the waste management
planner to design and schedule a profitable yet sustainable MSWM
system for the region.
Section 2 presents the methodology of this study, a super-
structure that primarily contains the resource inputs, technology
alternatives and product streams was first constructed and then the
optimisation model and the constraints are presented. Section 3
presents the case study with the data and assumptions. It also
provides the conversion yield for each process, the feasibility
criteria for directing the segregated waste to a specific technology,
the economic data for the technology, resources (wastes and end
products) and incentives, and the flow rate of each waste directed
into a specific technology. In Section 4, the results covering product
portfolio, economical and environmental analysis under different
scenarios are discussed and compared.
2. Research methodology
2.1. Superstructure for model development
This study presents a utilisation system for MSWM considering
a set of representative waste treatment technologies that can
potentially be implemented in the IM region. A superstructure is
 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58 51

developed to illustrate the flow configuration of the MSWM, as REV represents the product revenues from the MSWM system as
shown in Fig. 1. In this study, the waste source, i, will be segregated described in Eq. (2). PROit is the production rate of product i during
by process, p, to be further classified into different categories of i period t. PRICEit denotes the unit price of product i in period t, which
(i.e. 1: food waste; 2: paper; 3: yard waste; 4: plastic; 5: glass and is obtained from the published price and manufacturing quotes.
ceramic; 6: metal; 7: textile). Assuming that the practice of waste X
segregation exists, different types of waste will be processed ac- REV ¼ PRICEit  PROit (2)
cording to their potential value. The system consists of four waste it
treatment technologies, p, (denoted by a, b, c, d) that covered two
types of WTE technologies, p (i.e., LFGRS and incineration) and two PCOST is the total processing cost of producing the value-added
WTR technologies, (i.e., composting and recycling through the product, as shown in Eq. (3). MATipt denotes the input rate of
MRF). For example, the food waste, i, will be allocated to three waste i into process p during period t. UPCOSTpt is the unit pro-
waste treatment technologies (composting, incineration, and cessing cost of process p at period t.
LFGRS). The four key waste treatment technologies would trans- X
form the segregated MSW into three key value-added products, i,
PCOST ¼ UPCOSTpt  MATipt (3)
ipt
(denoted by 8: compost; 9: recycled materials, and 10: electricity)
to fulfil the demand for products and renewable energy (RE). The
VCOST represents the total variable operating and maintenance
product, i, will be distributed to market for selling, e, or electricity
costs of the system as described in Eq. (4). In Eq. (4), UVCostpt is the
to the national grid, f.
unit variable cost of the corresponding process p at time t.
X
2.2. Model formulation VCOST ¼ UVCostpt  MATipt (4)
ipt
The complexity of an MSWM system is described by the
number of relationships among the components in the system. The capital cost CCOST is described by Eq. (5), where YPpz is the
The mathematical analysis of the cost-effective processing binary decision variable for purchasing technology p with capacity
network for a MSW is conducted by applying the MILP model z, while ACPCOSTpzt is the annualised capital cost of technology p
due to its simplicity and common use for solving the complex with capacity z at period t.
SWM issues. The objective and model constraints incorporated X
several aspects of economics, energy, recycling, waste segrega- CCOST ¼ YPpz  ACPCOSTpzt (5)
pzt
tion and waste to value-added product to represent the real
scenario in Malaysia. Two-step programming approaches (i.e.
simulation and optimisation) are used to evaluate the sustain-
2.2.2. Constraints
ability of the designed system. The simulation model is used to
To define the relationship among the variables and parameters
describe the energy production from waste and landfill gas
in this model, several linear equality, inequality and matrix
generation, while the optimisation model will provide an
manipulation constraints are developed in the following text.
optimal solution for the MSWM. The model is developed and
computed using the General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS,
version 22.9) (GAMS Development Corporation, 2013), a com- 2.2.2.1. Mass balance for resources. Two types of resources are
puter software for solving mathematical programming and introduced in the MSWM system: the internal resource and the
optimisation problems. external resource. RESit is the amount of resource i in the system
during time period t, as described in Eq. (6). EXRECit is the input rate
2.2.1. Objective function of the external resource, i, during period t, while SGRESipt is the
The optimisation model is formulated with an objective func- quantity of resource i generated within the system under process p
tion and several constraints. The objective function aims to maxi- through period t.
mise the overall profit (PROFIT) of the MSWM system as described X
RESit ¼ EXRECit þ SGRESipt cict (6)
by Eq. (1). This function consists of the revenue from product
p
selling (REV), processing cost (PCOST), total capital cost (CCOST) and
the variable cost (VCOST). The waste resource RESi that is fed into the respective process, p,
can be converted into a product PROit, either as a material product i,
PROFIT ¼ REV  PCOST  CCOST  VCOST (1) an energy product i, or both, with different conversion rate ((MATipt),

Fig. 1. The superstructure of the MSWM system.

52 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58
as described in Eq. (7). The potential conversion of resource-to-
product is explained via a superstructure as depicted in Fig. 1.
X according to the energy demand targeted by the policy makers
RESit ¼ PROit þ MATipt cict
p ence for energy produced from waste, the incentives (feed e in
2.2.2.2. Mass balances for processing unit. The mass balance for the
processing technology, p, is computed using Eqs. (8) and (9). In Eq.
(8), PRESpt is the quantity of the resource being processed by pro-
cess p at period t. The integration matrices of the corresponding
process, including the material process selection matrix (MPSMip)
and the process resource conversion matrix (PRCMpi), are described
by Eqs. (8) and (9).
X duced. Other technologies relevant to WTE were not considered.
PRESpt ¼ MATipt  MPSMip cpct
i
PRESpt  PRCMpi ¼ SGRESipt cicpct
2.2.2.3. Process sizing. The amount to be processed is governed by
CAPpz which is the capacity of the process with size z, as determined
in Eq. (10). The amount of processing material, PRESpt, must be less
than or equal to the process capacity CAPpz with the binary variable
YOPpzt to determine whether the process p should be operated at
size z during period t.
X
PRESpt  YOPpzt  CAPpz cpct
z 3.1. Case study e Iskandar Malaysia (IM)
2.2.2.4. Product demands. The market demand for each product
fluctuates over time. Thus, product, i, must fulfil the product de-
mand PRODEMit at time t, as described by Eq. (11).
PROit  PRODEMit cict
2.2.2.5. CO2 emissions. In addition to the economic constraints, the
system is also bounded by an environmental limitation: the carbon
emission of the waste treatment process CEPpt is the carbon emis-
sion from process p at period t, while CERT is the carbon emission
reduction target for the system. The carbon emission of the waste
treatment process in year 2005, CEPpt2005, is used as the baseline
value. To meet the annual carbon emission reduction target, the
emission from the process must be equal to or less than the
reduction requirement, as shown by Eq. (12).
X  X
CEPpt2005  CEPpt  ð1  CERTÞ  CEPpt2005 ct
p p
The carbon emission of each process, CEPpt, is denoted by Eq.
(13), where EFp is the emission factor for process p.
X establishing a new MRF, and adapting WTE facilities to utilise the
CEPpt ¼ MATipt  EFp ct
i
2.3. Scenario setting
To evaluate the impacts of different waste management options
on the utilisation system for MSW, four scenarios were constructed
in this study.
2.3.1. Business as usual (BAU) scenario
The BAU scenario represents the baseline study for the current
scenario in IM. Under this scenario, year 2005 was set as the current
practice year where most of the MSW was landfilled and a small
percentage was recycled. The BAU scenario assumes that no other
effort of MSWM is introduced other than the landfilling.
2.3.2. Wasteeto-energy (WTE) scenario
Under this scenario, the WTE production will be maximised
(7) (Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia, 2010b). To maximise the prefer-
tariff) for promoting the use of MSW for energy production are
included in the model formulation. Under this scenario, the WTE
practice including landfill gas recovery system (LFGRS) and waste
incineration were incorporated.
2.3.3. Waste-to-recycling (WTR) scenario
Under the WTR scenario, MSW utilisation through MRF and
organic waste recycling via composting technology were intro-
(8)
2.3.4. Mixed technology (MIXTECH) scenario
(9) The mixed technology (MIXTECH) scenario introduces all po-
tential MSWM practices available in the case study, there are
LFGRS, incineration, MRF, and composting. This scenario is
designed to achieve the maximum net profit for the proposed MSW
processing network without exceeding the product demand. An
optimal solution for MSWM is anticipated to fulfil every demand
without over- or under-production.
3. Case study and input data
(10)
Iskandar Malaysia (IM) is the third largest metropolis and the
most developed region in the Southern Peninsula of Malaysia. IM
aims to be transformed into a metropolitan by 2020. IM covers an
area of approximately 2217 km2 and has a population of 1.7 million
(11) with five flagship zones: Zone A (JB city centre), Zone B (Nusajaya),
Zone C (Western Gate Development), Zone D (Eastern Gate
Development), and Zone E (Senai-Skudai), as shown in Fig. 2. IM
was established in the year 2008 from four different municipalities
with an expanding population base and increased economic ac-
tivity due to its rapid development since 2008. Solid waste gener-
ation in IM increased by approximately 30% from 2005 to 2010 and
is expected to increase 50% by 2025. More than 95% of the waste is
directly disposed in three final disposal landfill sites located around
the region, as shown in Fig. 2. Only a small portion of the waste is
recycled informally. Of the three final disposal landfill sites in IM,
only one site involves a sanitary landfill with LFGRS; another two
(12) are conventional landfills or dumpsites. Table 2 projects the annual
waste generation in IM.
In an effort to improve the current SWM in IM, the city council
could introduce several measures, such as waste separation at
source, upgrading the current landfill into a sanitary landfill,
(13)
waste, as outlined in the Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia (2010a, b).
3.2. Input data
3.2.1. Waste data
The MSW in IM are categorised into seven fractions, namely
food, yard, paper, plastics, glass and ceramic, metal, and textile
wastes. The composition of the MSW is shown in Table 3. Organic
waste is the main component of MSW in IM, representing more
than 40% of the total waste. The MSW in IM has an average calorific
value of 16.68 MJ/kg (Low Carbon Society Blueprint for Iskandar
Malaysia 2025, 2012). The value was calculated based on the
moisture content, combustible content and ash fraction of 57%, 35%,
and 8.2% respectively.
 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58 53

Fig. 2. Five major flagship zones (A to E) of Iskandar Malaysia (Iskandar Malaysia, 2013) and the three major landfill sites.

Table 2 Table 5. The by-product selling price is presented in Table 6. To

Projection of annual waste generation in IM from year 2012 to 2025 (Blueprint for increase the development of RE in Malaysia, feed-in tariff policies
Iskandar Malaysia, 2010a). were designed to offer guaranteed prices for fixed periods of time
Year 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 for RE, depending on the types of technologies and capacity (Pusat
Annual waste 0.766 0.859 0.963 1.080 1.198 1.358 1.523 1.577
Tenaga Malaysia, 2010). The feed-in tariff for MSW in Malaysia is
generation (Mt) presented in Table 7. Table 8 presents the RE demand for IM.

3.2.2. Waste treatment technologies and related data
The four waste treatment technologies considered in this case
study included LFGRS, waste incineration with energy recovery,
MRFs, and large-scale composting facilities. The types of waste
allocated to each technology are shown in Table 4. The waste
treatment system would treat waste effectively by reducing the
volume and also generate by-products. For instance, the energy
produced from incineration and LFG was assumed to be converted
to electricity. The residue of the waste incineration process
included bottom ash and fly ash would be sold as the by-product,
while the treatment cost of the residue was included in the incin-
eration cost. Other by-products from waste treatment technologies
included compost and recycled materials. The input for each
technology in terms of cost analysis and emission rate is shown in
3.3. System boundaries and major assumptions
Several assumptions were made for the model developed in this
study:
(a) The practice of waste segregation assumed with a rate of
100%, the ideal value. Different types of waste were pro-
cessed according to their respective potential values.
(b) The recovery factors used for MRF is assumed to be 90%.
(c) The study aimed to synthesise an optimal processing
network for waste management. The system did not consider
the transfer and transportation cost of MSW.
(d) At least one year was required to construct the WTR plants
(MRF and composting) and three years for WTE plants
(LFGRS and incineration).

Table 3 4. Results and discussion

The composition and waste-related data in IM.

Types Composition (%)a LHV (MJ/kg)a Carbon Content (%)b In this section, the modelling and optimisation results generated
Food 41.1 5.26 41.47
for all four scenarios involving different waste treatment
Yard 2.5 0.48 37.37
Paper 20.9 3.08 42.61 Table 4
Plastic 22.2 5.38 60.93 Waste allocation to technologies.
Glass/Ceramic 3.6 0.01 0
Food Yard Paper Plastic Glass Metal Textile
Metal 2.0 0.01 0
Textile 7.7 2.48 60.42 LFGRS U U U U
Total/average 100 16.68 34.68 Incineration U U U U U U U
a Composting U U U
Low Carbon Society Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia 2025, 2012.
b MRF U U U U U
Tchobanoglous et al., 1993.
54 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58

Table 5 Table 7
Cost analysis and emission rate of technologies (EIA, 2010). Feed-in tariff for RE from MSW in Malaysia (Pusat Tenaga Malaysia, 2010).

Capital cost O&M cost Variable cost Operation GHG RE utilisation Year RM/kWh Degression (%)
time emissions
Biomass
USD/t USD/t USD/t d/y kCO2/t <10 MW 16 0.31 0.5
LRGRS 500 0.4 1.3 360 0.2 10 MW, 20 MW 16 0.29 0.5
Incineration 800 0.6 2.0 292 0.5 20 MW, 30 MW 16 0.27 0.5
Composting 250 0.2 0.5 292 0.05 Bonus for MSW 16 0.10 1.8
MRF 200 0.3 0.8 292 3.6 Biogas
<4 MW 16 0.32 0.5
4 MW, 10 MW 16 0.30 0.5
technologies are presented and discussed. Sensitivity analyses were 10 MW, 30 MW 16 0.28 0.5
Bonus for landfill 16 0.08 0.5
performed based on the optimal solution to evaluate the impact of
fluctuations in the product price, product demand and GHG
reduction demand on the system configuration with regards to the WTE and MIXTECH scenarios because the selling of by-products
profitability of the MSWM system. from recycling and composting alternatives was not financially
The data were input to the MILP model for the MSWM system favourable compared to energy as a by-product. Waste (98%) was
and optimised with the CPLEX solver (version 12.3) from GAMS suggested to be recycled (56% to MRF, 42% to composting), while
software (version 22.9) (GAMS Development Corporation, 2013). only 2% of unrecyclable waste was suggested to be landfilled.
To achieve the optimal solution of MSWM that would fulfil the
4.1. Comparison of different waste management scenarios targets of recycling and RE in IM, the MIXTECH scenario was pro-
posed. The optimisation result from Table 9 shows that the optimal
Table 9 shows the analysis of the MSWM system for all four profit of USD 101.85 M/y was achieved annually under the MIX-
different scenarios in IM, namely BAU, WTE, WTR, and MIXTECH. TECH scenario. The MIXTECH scenario suggested a best mix of
The BAU scenario assumed that there was no introduction of waste utilisation technologies to be implemented in IM with the
alternative waste treatment technologies and maintained the cur- maximum net profit and without exceeding the product demand.
rent practices of MSWM. Under the BAU scenario, 93% of waste The percentage of waste allocation were recommended to be 3, 14,
generated in IM was directly allocated to the landfill site, and the 56, and 27 for incineration, LFGRS, MRF and composting, respec-
remainder (7%) was recycled by the MRF. Meanwhile, there was no tively. The MIXTECH scenario promoted waste recycling and com-
energy or fertiliser production from the waste to achieve the posting due to their lower investment cost while introducing WTE
maximum value of waste utilisation. A negative annual profit was technology (LFGRS and incineration) to fulfil the RE target for IM.
predicted in the BAU scenario due to the high maintenance and The LFGRS exhibited good potential to generate sufficient energy
operation cost for managing the landfills without any revenue for the IM region. Waste incineration was less attractive due to its
generated from any value-added products from the waste. The BAU high investment cost. The MIXTECH scenario achieved the RE target
scenario also produces the highest carbon emission (3.285 Mt CO2 of IM (2285.71 GWh/y) with lowered GHG emissions (0.992 Mt CO2
eq/y) among all four scenarios. eq/y) compared to the other scenarios.
The WTE scenario was designed to anticipate a MSWM system
that considered two major WTE treatment technologies, namely 4.2. Optimal planning under MIXTECH scenario
the LFGRS and waste incineration. A total of USD 276.52 M/y of net
profit was obtained for the MSWM system under the WTE scenario, The MIXTECH scenario successfully planned an optimal solution
where 15% and 59% of waste was allocated for incineration and for the MSWM system as proposed for the IM region. Three main
LFGRS respectively. Only 27% of the waste was recommended for objectives for effective and sustainable MSWM planning were
recycling by the model. The energy production from the WTE achieved under the MIXTECH scenario, these included a best mix of
scenario was extremely high (8594.13 GWh) compared to the tar- waste utilisation technology with i) maximising the profit of the
geted renewable energy (RE) demand of IM (2285.71 GWh) MSWM system, ii) achieving the RE target demand, and iii) pro-
(Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia, 2010b). The overproduction of moting recycling and composting. The optimiser suggested a
energy in the form of electricity from MSWM increased the in- combination of incineration, LFGRS, MRFs and composting to be
vestment cost (USD 7692.86 M/y) and resulted in energy waste. implemented in IM. The MSWM planning for the period of year
Nonetheless, the WTE scenario showed the highest environmental 2013 to year 2025 is presented in Fig. 3.
protection with the lowest carbon emission (0.195 Mt CO2 eq/y) As indicated in Fig. 3, the earliest construction of waste treat-
among all scenarios. ment technologies would begin in 2012. The results suggested that
As an alternative to landfilling, maximal recycling and com- an incineration power plant of 10 Mt/y should be constructed by
posting capabilities were introduced under the WTR scenario 2012 in IM to achieve the RE target. In addition, two LFG plants
without the consideration of WTE. The lowest positive profit (USD should be constructed in 2013 and 2018 with capacities of 45 Mt/y
34.67 M/y) was predicted under the WTR scenario compared to the and 50 Mt/y. In addition, three recycling plants were suggested to
be constructed in 2013, 2014, and 2015 with capacities of 40 Mt/y,
Table 6 40 Mt/y and 22 Mt/y, respectively. Composting plants with capac-
Selling price of by-product. ities of 34 Mt/y and 36 Mt/y were recommended to be constructed
Price Reference by 2013 and 2020 as the landfill sites would become limited due to
Electricity, USD/kWh 124.40 Hashim and Ho, 2011
rapid development of IM in year 2013 and beyond.
Compost, USD/t 153.37 Rodionov and Nakata, 2011
Paper, USD/t 38.16 MHLG, 2012 Table 8
Plastic, USD/t 204.16 MHLG, 2012 RE demand from MSW in IM (Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia, 2010b).
Glass/Ceramic, USD/t 45.08 MHLG, 2012
Key targets for RE 2010 2015 2020 2025
Metal, USD/t 229.01 MHLG, 2012
Textile, USD/t 45.08 MHLG, 2012 RE from MSW (MW) e 25 50 50
 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58 55

Table 9 Sensitivity analyses of RE demand

Analysis of four scenarios for MSWM system in Iskandar Malaysia (IM).

Unit BAU WTE WTR MIXTECH

Financial planning
Net profit
Net profit M USD/y 43.09 474.04 34.67 101.85 Change of
energy
Total revenue demand
Total system cost M USD/y 58.53 7692.86 233.37 1787.14
Total revenue M USD/y 15.44 8164.29 268.04 1889.29 50%
Total system cost
Unit treatment cost M USD/t 0.0015 0.1100 0.0034 0.0400 30%
GHG emission Mt CO2 eq/y 3.285 0.195 1.459 0.992 20%
Unit treatment cost
Energy production GWh/y n/a 9594.13 250.30 2285.71 -20%
-30%
Percentage of waste allocation to technologies
Compost production -50%
Incineration % n/a 15 0 3
Landfill % 93 n/a n/a n/a
GHG Emission
LFGRS % n/a 59 2 14
MRF % 7 27 56 56
Energy production
Composting % n/a n/a 42 27
GHG emission percentage -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
Incineration % n/a 35 0 6
Landfill % 98 n/a n/a n/a Change in overall economic potential of MSWM
LFGRS % n/a 58 1 23
MRF % 2 7 9 3 Fig. 4. Sensitivity analyses for RE demand on the overall costing and GHG emissions of
Composting % n/a n/a 90 67 the MSWM system.

4.3. Sensitivity analyses
Sensitivity analyses were conducted to observe the effects of
energy demand and the GHG emission reduction target on the
configuration of the MSWM system in terms of waste allocation to
each technology. As MIXTECH scenario was found to be the best
scenario in this study, sensitivity analyses were conducted solely on
this scenario with respect to the change of the RE target and the
reduction of GHG emission target.
4.4. Sensitivity analyses on the RE target
One of the main products of the MSWM system was RE pro-
duction in the form of electricity. Fluctuation in energy demands
from MSW was expected to affect the configuration, profitability
and GHG emissions of the MSWM system under the optimal sce-
nario. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the MIXTECH sce-
nario by adjusting the energy demand within 0e50% increments
and decrements (i.e., 20%, 30% 50%, 20%, 30%, and 50%). Fig. 4
shows the change of RE target towards the profitability and GHG
emissions of the MSWM system. The increase in energy demand of
20%, 30% and 50% provided a positive impact on the overall eco-
nomic potential of the MSWM system in terms of net profit, total
the GHG emissions. The increase in energy demand by 30% and 50%
would reduce the GHG emissions to 25% and 14%, because both of
the WTE technologies (LFG and incineration) were implemented
with methane gas or energy recovery, which emitted less GHG to
the environment compared to the WTR technologies that did not
consider methane gas recovery (i.e., during anaerobic composting).
As the RE demand decreased to a lower level (i.e., 20%, 20%, 30%,
and 50%), an increment of GHG emissions was observed because
the waste utilisation by WTR technologies increased when the RE
demand decreased. Composting was found to be the major
contributor to GHG emissions among all four waste treatment
technologies proposed for the system. The composting process
which converted the MSW to compost through anaerobic digestion
released methane gas as the by-product. The methane gas was not
captured for reuse during composting in this study. Consequently,
the analyses tended to favour the behaviour of the WTE process due
to reduced GHG emissions.
Fig. 5 presents the sensitivity analyses correlating energy de-
mand with the change in waste utilisation in term of percentage (%)
of waste allocation to each waste treatment technology. As energy
Sensitivity analyses of energy demand on waste utilisation
100
Percentage of wasre allocation to technologies (%)

system cost, unit treatment cost and total revenue, and vice versa.
However, the net profit did not necessarily follow the incremental 90

trend as at some point, a decrease of net profit was observed with 80

higher energy demand (þ30% to þ50%). This was mainly due to the
70
increase in investment or capital cost of the WTE technology at a
larger capacity. The change in energy demand also tended to affect 60

50

60 40
Capacity of plant (Mt)

50 30
40
20
30 Incineration
LFG Reocvery system 10
20
MRF 0
10
Composting plant -50% -30% -20% 0% 20% 30% 50%
0 change of energy demand

Incineration Landfill gas capture Recycling Composting

Year
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analyses of RE demand for different percentage of waste allocation to
Fig. 3. MSWM system under the MIXTECH scenario. the MSWM system.
56
Sensitivity analyses of GHG emission
Net profit
Total revenue
Total system cost
Compost production
-350%-300%-250%-200%-150%-100% -50% 0% 50%
Change on overall economic potential of MSWM
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analyses for GHG emission reduction on the overall economic po-
tential and the production of compost in the MSWM system.
demand increased, the percentage of waste utilisation by WTE
technologies would increase. Under the MIXTECH scenario, as the
energy demand increased from the base level ((i.e. 0% or no change)
to 30%, waste allocation to LFGRS increased from 14% to 18% while
incinerated waste decreased. As the energy demand increased to
50%, the percentage of waste allocated to incineration increased to
20% while landfilled waste decreased to 4%. These results signifi-
cantly illustrated that the type and capacity of waste allocation
could significantly influence the cost for MSWM. As energy demand
changes within 0e50%, only three technologies (incineration,
LFGRS and composting) would result in significant change of the
percentages of waste allocation, recycling is least influenced by the
energy demand.
4.5. Sensitivity analyses on the target of GHG emission reduction
To examine the effect of the GHG emission reduction target on
the system configuration and profitability, a sensitivity analysis was
conducted based on the optimal result of the MIXTECH by adjusting
the GHG emission reduction targets with increments of 20%, 40%,
and 60% from the baseline year of 2005. Referring to Fig. 6, as the
GHG reduction target increased from 20% to 40%, no significant
change was observed in the overall economic potential in terms of
the total system cost, total revenue, and the net profit because the
GHG emissions generated under the MIXTECH scenario were
already in the range of lower than 40% of the reduction target in
Sensitivity analyses of GHG emission reduction on waste
utilisation
100
Percentage of waste allocation to technologies
90
80
70
60
50
40
(%)
30
20
10
0 ucation (MOHE) and University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for
0% 20%
Change of GHG emission reduction
Incineration Landfill gas capture
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analyses for the change of GHG emission reduction target on the
percentage of waste allocation in the MSWM system.
S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58
GHG emissions compared to the baseline. As the reduction target of
GHG emissions increased to 60% compared to the BAU scenario, a
negative impact of 300% to net profit was observed for the system.
A high percentage of the GHG reduction target would require the
Change of integration of large portions of WTE energy technology. This inte-
GHG
emission gration significantly increased the investment cost and hence
reduction overweighed the increase in the revenue generated. The increment
60% in the GHG reduction target also tended to reduce the production of
compost in the MSWM system. When the GHG emission targets
40% increase by 20%, 40%, and 60% from the baseline, the production of
compost would be reduced by 17%, 33%, and 42%, respectively. This
20%
result indicated that the composting technology emitted higher
levels of GHG through the anaerobic digestion process without the
recovery of methane.
Fig. 7 presents the configuration of waste utilisation for the
sensitivity analysis of GHG emission reduction. At the lower level of
GHG emission reduction targets (20% and 40%), there was no sig-
nificant impact on the configuration of the waste allocation. As the
GHG emission reduction target increased to 60%, the percentage of
waste utilisation by WTE technologies would increase by 18% for
incineration and 9% for LFGRS. In addition, the allocation of waste
for composting would decrease from 27% to 17%. This result illus-
trated again that the composting technology was the key contrib-
utor to GHG emissions.
5. Conclusions
A multi-period MILP model for optimising the MSWM system
was developed for the IM region in this study. This study indicated
that waste treatment technologies including incineration, LFGRS,
composting, and MRFs could provide attractive economic benefits
and RE options compared to the existing MSWM system in the IM
region. The developed model was tested using different scenario
settings to analyse the economic feasibility and potential of an
effective MSWM system. The model with the MIXTECH scenario
emphasised a cost-effective waste processing network that could
provide a maximum net profit of USD 101.85 M/y in IM. The best
mix of waste utilisation technologies in terms of % of waste allo-
cation to the following technologies were LFGRS (14%), incineration
(3%), recycling (56%) and composting (27%). The best mix of tech-
nology selection would be able to achieve the RE target and the
recycling target and promote composting as an improved waste
reduction strategy for the studied region. The results of the sensi-
tivity analyses explained that the technology selection of the
MSWM system was highly influenced by the costs of technologies,
product (RE) targets and GHG emission reduction targets.
This model could be extended to include the costs of land area
for LFG recovery and composting plants, as both technologies could
be economically beneficial but may be restricted by the availability
of land in a country. Moreover, the cost of transporting waste to the
processing plants, the variety of waste treatment technologies and
products, environmental factors and the locations of waste treat-
ment plants should be considered in the future.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Ministry of Higher Ed-
40% 60% providing the research grant under Vote No. Q.JI3.2525.01H52. The
authors also acknowledge the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) under the scheme of Science and Technology
Recycling Composting
Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS) for
the project entitled Development of Low Carbon Scenarios for Asian
Region.
 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58 57

Nomenclature YPpz Binary decision variable for purchasing technology p with

capacity z
Acronyms
BAU Business as usual scenario
GAMS General Algebraic Modeling System References
GHG Greenhouse gas
IM Iskandar Malaysia Ahmad, S., Kadir, M.Z.A.A., Shafie, S., 2011. Current perspective of the renewable
energy development in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 897e904.
LFGRS Landfill gas recovery system Badran, M.F., El-Haggar, S.M., 2006. Optimization of municipal solid waste man-
LP Linear programming agement in Port Said e Egypt. Waste Manag. 26, 534e545.
MILP Mixed integer linear programming Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia, 2010a. Integrated Solid Waste Management Blue-
print of Iskandar Malaysia. Johor Bahru, Malaysia. www.iskandarmalaysia.com.
MIXTECH Mixed technologies scenario
my/blueprint-for-iskandar-malaysia (accessed 01.12.13.).
MOP Multi-objective programming Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia, 2010b. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
MRF Material recycling facilities Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia. Johor Bahru, Malaysia. www.iskandarmalaysia.
MSW Municipal solid waste com.my/blueprint-for-iskandar-malaysia (accessed 01.12.13.).
Chang, Y.H., Chang, N.-B., 1998. Optimization analysis for the development of short-
MSWM Municipal solid waste management team solid waste management strategies using presorting process prior to in-
NLP Non-linear programming cinerators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Volume 24 (1), 7e32.
O&M Operation and maintenance Chang, N.-B., Chen, Y.L., Wang, S.F., 1997. A fuzzy interval multiobjective mixed
integer programming approach for the optimal planning of solid waste man-
RE Renewable energy agement systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 89 (1), 35e60.
RM Ringgit Malaysia Chang, N.-B., Qi, C., Islam, K., Hossain, F., 2012. Comparisons between global
SWM Solid waste management warming potential and costebenefit criteria for optimal planning of a municipal
solid waste management system. J. Clean. Prod. 20 (1), 1e13. http://dx.doi.org/
USD United State Dollar 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.017.
WTE Waste-to-energy scenario Chen, Y.-T., Chang, D.-S., 2010. Diffusion effect and learning effect: an examination
WTR Waste-to-recycling scenario on MSW recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (5), 496e503.
Dai, C., Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H., 2011. A two-stage support-vector-regression optimi-
zation model for municipal solid waste management e a case study of Beijing,
Sets China. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (12), 3023e3037.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2010. Updated Capacity Cost Estimates for
i Resource/product
Electricity Generation Plants (Washington, USA).
p Process/technology Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Moberg, A., 2005. Life cycle assessment of
t Period energy from solid waste - Part 1: general methodology and results. J. Clean.
Prod. 13, 213e229.
z Capacity of plant
Fodor, Z., Klemes, J.J., 2012. Waste as alternative fuel e minimising emissions and
effluents by advanced design. Process Safety Environ. Prot. 90 (3), 263e284.
Parameter GAMS Development Corporation, 2013. GAMS: General Algebraic Modeling System
(Version 22. 9). Washington, USA. www.gams.com (accessed 11.11.2013).
ACPCOSTpzt Annualised capital cost of technology p with capacity z Guo, P., Huang, G.H., 2009. Inexact fuzzy-stochastic mixed-integer programming
at period t (USD/t) approach for long-term planning of waste management e Part A: Methodology.
CERT Carbon emission reduction target for the system J. Environ. Manag. 91 (2), 461e470.
Hashim, H., Ho, W.S., 2011. Renewable energy policies and initiatives for a sus-
EFp Emission factor for process p. tainable energy future in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 4780e4787.
MPSMip Material process selection matrix Iskandar Malaysia, 2013. Five Year Progress Report. Johor Bahru, Malaysia. www.
PRCMpi Process resource conversion matrix iskandarmalaysia.com.my/iskandar-malaysia-brochures (accessed 01.12.2013).
Johari, A., Ahmed, S., Hashim, H., Alkali, H., Ramli, M., 2012. Economic and envi-
PRICEit Unit price of product i in period t (USD/unit) ronmental benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia.
PRODEMit Product demand for product i at time t (units/y) Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5), 2907e2912.
RESit Amount of resource i in the system during time period t Juul, N., Münster, M., Ravn, H., Söderman, M.L., 2013. Challenges when performing
economic optimization of waste treatment: a review. Waste Manag. 33 (9),
(t/y)
1918e1925.
UPCOSTpt Unit processing cost of process p in period t (USD/unit) Li, P., Chen, B., 2011. FSILP: fuzzy-stochastic-interval linear programming for sup-
UVCostpt Unit variable cost of the corresponding process p in time t porting municipal solid waste management. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (4), 1198e1209.
Liamsanguan, C., Gheewala, S.H., 2008. The holistic impact of integrated solid waste
(USD/unit)
management on greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (17),
1865e1871.
Variables Low Carbon Society Blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia 2025, 2012. Johor Bahru,
Malaysia. 2050.nies.go.jp/cop/cop18/SPM_LCS%20Blueprint_Iskandar%
CAPpz Capacity of the process p with size z 20Malaysia.pdf (accessed 01.12.13.).
CCOST Capital cost (USD) Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 2005. National Strategic Plan for Solid
CEPpt Carbon emission from process p in period t (t/y) Waste Management (Putrajaya, Malaysia).
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), 2012. Laboratory of Solid
EXRECit Input rate of external resource i during period t (t/y) Waste Management. Putrajaya, Malaysia. www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt/fileupload/
MATipt Input rate for material i into process p during period t hebahan/lab_sisa_pepejal.pdf (accessed 07.07.2013).
(units/y) Münster, M., Meibom, P., 2010. Long-term affected energy production of waste to
energy technologies identified by use of energy system analysis. Waste Manag.
PCOST Total processing cost of the resource (USD) 30 (12), 2510e2519.
PRESpt Quantity of the resource being processed by process p at Münster, M., Meibom, P., 2011. Optimization of use of waste in the future energy
period t (units/y) system. Energy 36 (3), 1612e1622.
Ng, W.P.Q., Varbanov, P.S., Klemes, J.J., Hegyhati, M., Bertok, B., Heckl, I., Lam, H.L.,
PROit Production rate of product i during period t (units/y) 2013. Waste to energy for small cities: economics versus carbon footprint.
PROFIT Overall profit (USD) Chem. Eng. Trans. 35, 889e894. http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1335148.
REV Product revenues of the MSWM system (USD) Othman, S.N., Noor, Z.Z., Abba, A.H., Yusuf, R.O., Hassan, M.A.A., 2013. Review on life
cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in some Asian coun-
SGRESipt Quantity of resource i generated within the system under
tries. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 251e262.
process p through period t (t/y) Periathamby, A., Hamid, F., Khidzir, K., 2009. Evolution of solid waste management
VCOST Total variable operating and maintenance cost of the in Malaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. J. Mater.
system (USD) Cycles Waste Manag. 11 (2), 96e103.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., Chang, N.-B., 2011. Solid waste management in European
YOPpzt Binary decision variable to decide whether the process p countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (4),
should be operated at size z during period t 1033e1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024.
58 S.T. Tan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 71 (2014) 48e58
Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2012a. Environmental impacts of biogas
deployment e Part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process
emissions to air. J. Clean. Prod. 24 (1), 168e183.
Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2012b. Environmental impacts of biogas
deployment e Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utili-
zation pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 24 (1), 184e201.
Pusat Tenaga Malaysia, 2010. Malaysia’s 2011 Proposed Solar, Biomass, Biogas and
Hydro Tariffs (Seri Kembangan, Malaysia).
Rathi, S., 2007. Optimization model for integrated municipal solid waste manage-
ment in Mumbai, India. Environ. Dev. Econ. 12, 105e121.
Rodionov, M., Nakata, T., 2011. Design of an optimal waste utilization system: a case
study in St. Petersburg, Russia. Sustainability 3, 1486e1509.
Salvia, M., Cosmi, C., Macchiato, M., Mangiamele, L., 2002. Waste management
system optimisation for Southern Italy with MARKAL model. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 34 (2), 91e106.
Santibañez-Aguilar, J.E., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Betzabe González-Campos, J., Serna-
González, M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2013. Optimal planning for the sustainable
utilization of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 33 (12), 2607e2622.
Seadon, J.K., 2010. Sustainable waste management systems. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (16e
17), 1639e1651.
Shadiya, O.O., Satish, V., High, K.A., 2012. Process enhancement through
waste minimization and multiobjective optimization. J. Clean. Prod. 31
(1), 137e149.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S.A., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management
e Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Tchobanoglous, G., Kreith, F., 2002. Handbook of Solid Waste Management, second
ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Wanichpongpan, W., Gheewala, S.H., 2007. Life cycle assessment as a decision
support tool for landfill gas-to energy projects. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1819e
1826.
Xu, Y., Huang, G.H., Qin, X.S., Cao, M.F., Sun, Y., 2010. An interval-parameter sto-
chastic robust optimization model for supporting municipal solid waste man-
agement under uncertainty. Waste Manag. 30 (2), 316e327.
Yeh, C.-H., Xu, Y., 2013. Sustainable planning of e-waste recycling activities using
fuzzy multicriteria decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 194e204.