Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Development and analysis of a sustainable garbage disposal model for

environmental management under uncertainty
Sumati Mahajan a, S.K. Gupta b,⇑
a
Department of Applied Sciences, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh 160012, India
b
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, 247 667, India

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

A generalized interval quadratic

programming problem (IQPP) is
formulated.

An efficient algorithm is proposed to
solve the problem.

Numerical examples are illustrated to
show the steps involved in the
algorithm.

A sustainable garbage model under
uncertainty is modelled and analyzed.

Pictorial representations are shown at
suitable places for better
understanding.

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

Article history: Environmental management is one of the most challenging tasks due to growing population and urban-
Received 28 August 2019 ization. Quadratic programming (QP) in operations research happens to be well equipped to deal with
Received in revised form 10 October 2019 such issues. The present study develops and analyzes a generalized concave QP optimization model hav-
Accepted 16 October 2019
ing interval parameters with an aim to handle garbage disposal model having a sustainable futuristic
Available online 18 December 2019
vision. Moreover, the model does away with the fundamental requirement of segregated waste at the
Editor: Huu Hao Ngo source itself. The proposed algorithm finds the infimum and supremum of the objective function by first
splitting it into two bi-level submodels. Both of the submodels are then investigated subject to the inter-
Keywords:
val parameters in the objective function as well as in the constraints. The solution methodology of the
Concave optimization model proposed algorithm is explained with the help of a numerical example dealing with concave optimization
Interval parameters followed by its application to environmental management. The comparison through figures with the
Quadratic programming existing models establishes its ecological and economical sustainability through prospective expansion.
Mixed terms Ó 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Environmental management

1. Introduction developing countries. There is little provision of garbage sorting

With the passage of time, dumping and disposing off facilities
continue to be further away from the residential areas resulting
in increased costs. The problem of garbage disposal is terrible in
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sumatimahajan@pec.ac.in (S. Mahajan), guptafma@iitr.ac.in
(S.K. Gupta).
at the root level. Hence, making a cost effective model with
prospective expansion that is applicable in general is highly desir-
able. Quadratic programming (QP) has been used for prospective
decision making in a variety of real life problems. Keeping in view
the flexible nature of data available, environmental management
can be best related to an application of QP with fuzzy or interval
parameters. QP is one of the most commonly used optimization
techniques where the nonlinear relationship takes place. Several

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135037
0048-9697/Ó 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037
attempts have been made to find an appropriate garbage disposal
model and consequently the most viable solution. In fact, many
environment related issues, e.g. water resources management,
power management, noise control, flood diversion and irrigation
water allocation have been handled using imprecise variables in
linear programming (LP), QP, dynamic programming, interval
mathematical programming, fuzzy mathematical programming
and stochastic mathematical programming methods.
Zimmermann (2011) pioneered fuzzy mathematical program-
ming after the introduction of fuzzy set theory by Bellman and
Zadeh, 1970. Study of the existing papers shows the inclusion of
different types of uncertainty by using interval or fuzzy parameters
in the objective function, constraint coefficients or the inequalities
in constraints being explored by various authors. Different ranking
methods, Zadeh’s extension principle, application of a-cut and
duality method are the commonly used techniques to solve opti-
mization problems in the absence of crisp parameters. Liu (2009)
used duality based approach to solve fuzzy QP problems (QPPs)
after applying a-cut. Later, Kaur and Kumar (2011) relied on the
ranking of fuzzy numbers to tackle fuzziness in LP. A relatively
new concept of optimistic, pessimistic and minimax regret
approaches to address different types of uncertainty for LP
problems was initiated by Thipwiwatpotjana and Lodwick
(2014). Further, a neural network technique was obtained to inves-
tigate fuzzy QP with the help of a-cut by Mansoori et al. (2018).
However, in case of nonlinear fuzzy programming, Chinnadurai
and Muthukumar (2016) utilized a-cut to obtain the solution of
linear fractional programming.
A minimization type nonlinear optimization model having con-
vex (concave) quadratic objective function with linear constraints
is called convex (concave) QP model. However, in the waste man-
agement (WM) problems, due to the fact that the cost functions
involved are having linearly decreasing behaviour, it never gives
rise to convex QP. In fact, the formulation turns out to be a concave
QP. A study on QPPs reveals varied types of efforts put in by differ-
ent authors. For instance, Cruz et al. (2011) proposed quadratic
parametric method for crisp QPPs with fuzzy constraints, Wu and
Liu (2012) developed a parametric QP method to optimize fuzzy
portfolio selection problems and Silva et al. (2013) experimented
with fuzziness in the cost function of QP using different
approaches. Kheirfam and Verdegay (2012) proposed sensitivity
analysis in fuzzy QP while an overview of the progress in fuzzy
mathematical programming was provided in Verdegay (2015).
Duality was used by Liu and Wang (2007) as well as Li and Tian
(2008) to solve convex QP with interval parameters whereas,
Syaripuddin et al. (2018) used best optimum and worst optimum
approach to solve the same.
A large number of researchers have also used inexact or interval
type parameters to incorporate volatile data or a range of mod-
elling parameters in various practical applications. Huang et al.
(1996) introduced a dynamic optimization model using inexact
parameters to effectively reflect climate change impacts. Interval
parameters in an LP model were used by Huang (1996) to study
water quality management, Li et al. (2007) for flood diversion plan-
ning, Jin et al. (2012) to allocate irrigation water and Huang et al.
(2015) to control noise in urban environment. Lu et al. (2011) used
inexact rough interval in LP to devise water allocation strategy for
irrigation, whereas Farhadinia (2014) used interval valued trape-
zoidal fuzzy numbers to explore sensitivity analysis in LP. In addi-
tion to applications on environmental issues, interval parameters
were used for group decision making with the help of preference
relation in Meng et al. (2017). Feng et al. (2017) carried out uncer-
tainty analysis of structures with hybrid random interval parame-
ters. Further, Li (2011) and Figueroa-García et al. (2019) discussed
matrix games and group fuzzy matrix games, respectively, using
interval valued fuzzy numbers.
With particular emphasis on the problem of WM, Kirca and
Erkip (1988) used transportation problem (TP) to tackle WM with
transfer stations. Huang et al. (1995) introduced a mixed grey inte-
ger programming approach to catch up with the uncertainty in
WM. To solve a concave QP problem, Chen and Huang (2001) sug-
gested a derivative algorithm for inexact QP which was further
used to solve robust interval QP model in Li and Huang (2012)
for transfer station based WM model. Kong et al. (2016) used dual-
ity to solve the same type of problem on WM and compared the
results with those of derivative algorithm. Li et al. (2012) proposed
a fuzzy stochastic QP to deal with the uncertain nature of param-
eters, but to govern inadequate data relating to WM through fuzzy
sets and probability distribution does not seem to be appropriate
as observed by Yadav et al. (2017). However, interval parameters
tackle these problems in a better way. Wang et al. (2012) worked
with interval parameters in addition to fuzzy-stochastic program-
ming approach using infinite a-cut in an effort to discretize cost
function of WM. Costi et al. (2004) provided a model by taking into
account the inherent details of WM whereas Li et al. (2008) devel-
oped a two stage WM optimization model with a scope to expand
the facility over a period of time. Lu et al. (2009) used LP with
interval parameters for WM with special emphasis on greenhouse
gas emission. A combination of fuzzy, stochastic and interval
parameters in an LP model was applied to the problem of WM by
Li and Chen (2011). An interval based regret analysis method
was suggested by Cui et al. (2011) as a measure for long term
WM model. Liu et al. (2013) used possibility measure for fuzziness
in constraints along with fuzzy parameters for the model whereas,
Fan et al. (2014) made use of fuzzy parameters and then applied
> a-cut to find the solution of WM problem. Yadav et al. (2017)
dealt with facility location model of WM for economic and feasibil-
ity reasons. A brief literature review of the related works is also
demonstrated in Table 1 and an overview of the mathematical
models applicable to garbage disposal is shown in Fig. 1.
Almost all the above mentioned studies follow an assumption of
segregation of waste at source and then LP or QP model is applied
to decide about cost/ facility location/ extension of facility size, etc.
Though, different ways to capture uncertain aspect of data have
also been suggested. A grave problem in dealing with WM arises
in case of absence of the waste segregation at the source level. In
that scenario, majority of the proposed models are not applicable.
This particular limitation of the existing approaches has been over-
come in the present study by providing an alternate approach
through generalized concave QP with interval parameters. In liter-
ature, different solution methodologies have been proposed to
solve convex QP. However, very limited work has been done to
solve concave QP models with interval parameters, which are usu-
ally implemented to tackle a WM problem. The paper not only
relates the physical significance of concave QP containing mixed
terms to environmental management system, but also gives an ele-
gant and simple approach to solve it.
In the present study, a new sustainable environmental manage-
ment model through generalized concave QPPs having interval
parameters is suggested. The contribution of the present work is
threefold improvement upon the existing works. First of all, it gen-
eralizes existing mathematical models applicable to garbage dis-
posal system by including mixed terms in concave QP. Secondly,
a computationally efficient and simplified algorithm is proposed
to solve the proposed concave QP model. Thirdly, a practical prob-
lem related to the garbage disposal system has been constructed
and solved using the proposed approach.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with basic
notations and definitions. Section 3 provides details of the model
formulation and the methodology followed by the flow chart.
Section 4 illustrates a numerical example for the implementation
of the proposed method. Section 5 provides an overview of the
 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037 3

Table 1
Brief literature review of related works Vs Proposed method.

Reference Parameters Model Application shown Methodology applicable

without waste segregation
at source?
Kirca and Erkip (1988) Crisp TP Waste management No
Huang et al. (1995) Grey numbers LP Waste management No
Huang (1996) Interval LP Water quality management –
Huang et al. (1996) Interval LP Climate change impact –
Chen and Huang (2001) Interval Concave QP Waste management No
Costi et al. (2004) Binary and Continuous LP Waste management Yes
Li et al. (2007) Interval LP Flood diversion management –
Li et al. (2008) Interval LP Waste management No
Lu et al. (2009) Interval LP Waste management No
Lu et al. (2011) Interval LP Irrigation water allocation –
Li and Chen (2011) Fuzzy, stochastic, interval LP Waste management No
Cui et al. (2011) Interval LP Waste management No
Jin et al. (2012) Interval LP Irrigation water allocation –
Li et al. (2012) Fuzzy-stochastic LP Waste management No
Wang et al. (2012) Interval valued fuzzy-stochastic LP Waste management No
Li and Huang (2012) Interval Concave QP Waste management No
Liu et al. (2013) Fuzzy LP Waste management No
Fan et al. (2014) Fuzzy LP Waste management No
Huang et al. (2015) Interval LP Noise control –
Kong et al. (2016) Interval Concave QP Waste management No
Yadav et al. (2017) Interval LP Waste management No
Proposed method Interval Concave QP Garbage disposal Yes

Waste management model Arithmetic operations

L;U L U
Let aL;U ¼ ½aL ; aU  and b ¼ ½b ; b  be two real intervals. Then.
Cost funcon
L;U L U
(i) aL;U þ b ¼ ½aL þ b ; aU þ b .
(
L U
L;U ½ka ; ka ; if k P 0;
(ii) For any k 2 R; ka ¼ U L
Constant Decreasing linear ½ka ; ka ; if k < 0:
L;U U L
(iii) aL;U  b ¼ ½aL  b ; aU  b .
(iv) a
Concave QP model L;U L L L U L U L U L
LP model L;U
:b ¼ ½minfa b ; a b ; aU b ; aU b g; maxfaL b ; aL b ; aU b ;
U U
a b g.

Waste segregated Waste segregated at Definition 2.2 Let A ¼ ½aL;U

ij nn be a symmetric interval matrix
other than source
at source and let P ¼ ½aLij nn and Q ¼ ½aUij nn be the corresponding crisp

Concave QP with matrices, then the matrix ½aL;U

ij nn is negative semi-definite if P
Concave QP without
mixed terms mixed terms and Q, both are negative semi-definite.
Throughout the paper, we denote I ¼ f1; 2; . . . ; mg and
Fig. 1. Mathematical models applicable in garbage disposal. J ¼ f1; 2; . . . ; ng.

3. Interval quadratic programming problem

feasibility criterion in the garbage generation and disposal process
flow with the help of a block diagram. To handle future expansion
In many real life applications, it is not always possible to imple-
plans, adaptability of the proposed model over the existing ones is
ment a mathematical model with crisp parameters. Interval
shown with the help of figures. An application to environmental
parameters provide a wider scope to deal with the problem in such
management with interval parameters is modelled, solved and
cases. Furthermore, a practical problem may not be reduced to a
analyzed. Section 6 lists advantages of the proposed methodology.
convex optimization model. Here, we formulate a concave QP
Finally, Section 7 draws conclusions regarding the proposed work
problem with interval parameters. In general, such model can be
with some interesting future directions.
formulated as follows:

P
n P
n P
n
2. Notations and definitions ðQPIÞ Minimize f ¼ cL;U
j xj þ 2
1
qL;U
ij xi xj
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
ð1Þ
This section reviews some basic definitions, notations and arith- P
n
L;U
metic operations on intervals.
subject to ij xj 6 bi ; xj P 0; 8i 2 I; j 2 J
aL;U
j¼1
Definition 2.1 A real interval aL;U is a non-empty set given by
where ½qL;U
ij nn is a negative semi-definite symmetric matrix.
aL;U ¼ ½aL ; aU  ¼ fa 2 RjaL 6 a 6 aU g
The value of the objective function will also fluctuate as the
where aL and aU are the infimum and the supremum of aL;U , modelling parameters are interval type. Since cLj 6 cUj ; qLij 6 qUij
L U
respectively. and xj P 0 for all i; j, assuming f and f as the infimum and the
4 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037

supremum of the objective function, respectively, the QPI model

Start
can be divided into the following two level sub-models as:
!
X
n X
n X
n
, , , ,
L Input , , , ; ∈ I, ∈ J,
f ¼ min
0
min cLj xj þ 12 qLij xi xj
S x in model (1).
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
! ð2Þ
X
n
subject to aij xj 6 bi ; xj P 0; 8i 2 I; j 2 J No
j¼1 ,
Is [ ] negave semi-definite?
×

and Yes
!
U
X
n X
n X
n
f ¼ max
0
min cUj xj þ 12 qUij xi xj
S x Min-Min type problem (2) Max-Min type problem (3)
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
! ð3Þ
X
n
subject to aij xj 6 bi ; xj P 0; 8i 2 I; j 2 J
Solve model (4) for Solve model (5) for
j¼1

where S0 = fðaij ; bi Þjaij 2 ½aLij ; aUij ; bi 2 ½bi ; bi  for all i and jg.
L U ,
=[ , ]
L
Infimum f
Method not
The infimum of the objective function in model (1) is provided End
applicable
by the problem (2). The inner and outer programs with the same
minimization operation can be combined into a single level model.
Fig. 2. Flow chart of the proposed approach.
Further, out of all possible feasible regions, the one having the
largest possible feasible region will give the best minimum value
L U
of f . of f . Therefore, the model (5) will be used to calculate the value
Hence, problem (2) is equivalent to U
of f .
! 9 Fig. 2 shows the flow chart representation of the proposed
P
n P
n P
n >
>
L
f ¼ min cLj xj þ 12 qLij xi xj >
> approach.
x =
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
ð4Þ
P
n >
>
xj P 0; 8i 2 I; j 2 J: > 4. Numerical example
U
subject to aLij xj 6 bi ; >
;
j¼1

U
Example 4.1 Minimize f ¼ ½1; 3x1 þ ½2; 4x2 þ ½8; 6x21 þ
Supremum f
½7; 5x22 þ ½1; 2x1 x2 subject to
We will make use of the following result by Hoffman (1981) to
U ½1; 2x1 þ ½3; 4x2 6 ½8; 12;
solve the problem (3) to find f :
Theorem 1 (Hoffman, 1981). There exists an extreme point x of ½6; 7x1 þ ½1; 4x2 P ½10; 15; x1 P 0; x2 P 0:
the convex compact set S which globally minimizes problem P
given below: Solution The problem is of concave QP optimization as the
matrices
P: minimize f ðxÞ    
8 0:5 6 1
qLij ¼ and qUij ¼
over S ¼ fx : g i ðxÞ 6 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mg 0:5 7 1 5
where f is a concave function defined throughout R and n
are negative semi-definite, because eigen values of qLij are 8:2071
g i ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ are convex functions defined on Rn whose gradi- and 6:7929 (both negative) and eigen values of qUij are 6:6180
ents are continuous. It is assumed that S is compact and that a point and 4:3820 (both negative).
in the strict interior of the feasible region exists. Using model (4), we get
In view of Theorem 1, the concave objective function needs to  
L
be investigated at all the possible end points only. As, f ¼ min x1 þ 2x2  8x21  7x22 þ x1 x2
x
L U
aLij 6 aUij ; xj P 0 and bi 6 bi , for all i and j, therefore
subject to
X
n X
n
aLij xj 6
L U
aUij xj 6 bi 6 bi : x1 þ 3x2 6 12;
j¼1 j¼1
7x1 þ 4x2 P 10;
It further implies that the model
! 9 x1 ; x2 P 0:
P
n P
n P
n >
>
min cUj xj þ 12 qUij xi xj >
>
x = Further, the model (5), yields
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
ð5Þ  
P
n >
> U
subject to aUij xj 6 bi ; xj P 0; 8i 2 I; j 2 J: >
L
> f ¼ min 3x1 þ 4x2  6x21  5x22 þ 2x1 x2
; x
j¼1
subject to
U
calculates the value of f over the smallest possible feasible region
x1 þ 2x2 6 4;
which gives the worst value of model (3) and hence, the best value
 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037 5

6x1 þ x2 P 15; 5.1. Limitations of the existing models

x1 ; x2 P 0: 1. The existing concave QP models (Chen and Huang, 2001; Li and

Solving the above two problems, we get
L at the source level itself. However, the proposed model removes
f ¼ 1140 at x1 ¼ 12; x2 ¼ 0
U
and f ¼ 84 at x1 ¼ 4; x2 ¼ 0:
Hence
f
L;U
¼ ½1140; 84:
5. Problem of environmental management
The problem of environmental management is commonly
encountered by most of the developing and under developed coun-
tries. It involves a large number of factors, mainly related to gar-
bage disposal from residential, commercial and other areas viz
choking of roads due to increased vehicular traffic resulting in
harmful gas emission, air pollution, ground water contamination
and related problems. Another important aspect is the develop-
ment of a plan, keeping in view future expansions in terms of
increased number of linked garbage generating areas and enhance-
ment in categories of garbage disposal facilities. The aim of the pre-
sent study is to overcome the limitations of existing models and
present a formulation to address the above stated problems. A
block diagram related to garbage and disposal process is shown
in Fig. 3.
Huang, 2012; Kong et al., 2016) have a basic requirement of
sorted garbage as per the available garbage disposal facilities
this limitation.
2. Keeping in view the growth of areas, linking of one more city to
the existing ‘f’ facilities will require at least ‘f’ more vehicles on
a daily basis, and consequently resulting in more traffic conges-
tion (as explained by blue dotted lines in Fig. 5) in the earlier
works (Chen and Huang, 2001; Kong et al., 2016).
3. In existing studies (Chen and Huang, 2001; Kong et al., 2016),
the addition of one more type of garbage disposal facility to
existing ‘n’ cities will lead to the daily addition of at least ‘n’
vehicles (as shown in Fig. 5 through red dotted lines).
4. The derivative algorithm (see Chen and Huang (2001)), used to
solve existing concave QP models is incapable to tackle mixed
terms.
5.2. Application to environmental management
The proposed method is executed on a garbage disposal system
for effective environmental management. We apply it on three
cities and two garbage managing facilities classified as non-
revenue generating and revenue generating viz dumping ground
and recycling plant. Total time duration is 15 years, which is fur-
ther split into 3 slots of 5 years each. As the collection and trans-
portation costs, dumping ground and recycling plant operating
costs, residue disposal cost and revenue from generated energy

Garbage generaon and disposal process flow Feasibility criterion

Garbage generang areas

Provision of increase in number
Residenal Commercial Health care Industrial of garbage generang areas
units units units units

Classificaon of garbage
Sorted -Developed countries
Non-revenue generang Revenue generang
Unsorted- Developing countries
Sorted Unsorted Sorted Unsorted

Key factors in disposal of generated garbage

Minimizaon of key factors
Cost Traffic Health Air Ground water
involved congeson hazards polluon contaminaon

Garbage disposal facilies

Non-revenue generang Revenue generang Increase in number of revenue

generang facilies
Dumping ground Recycling unit/ incinerator/
composng

Fig. 3. Block diagram for garbage disposal flow.

6 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037

mately 30% of the incoming garbage. The problem is to find an

appropriate quantity of garbage to be transferred to different
disposing off centers so as to minimize the total cost involved. In
the proposed model, the garbage picked from all the linked cities
is collected at a garbage sorting centre and then segregated on
the basis of dumping ground and recycling plant. Later, it is trans-
ported to the respective facilities. This deviation makes the mod-
elling of the system different from all of the previous efforts
(Chen and Huang, 2001; Kong et al., 2016) and hence leads to a
more realistic model. The QPI model not only considers the eco-
nomic factors viz revenue, transportation cost, operational and
maintenance cost of facilities, but also makes it simplified for
implementation even in view of future expansion plans.
Let
1. xijk be the garbage allocated to facility i from city j during
time slot k (tonnes/day) where i ¼ 1; 2 stands for the garbage
disposal facility (1 for dumping ground and 2 for recycling
plant), j ¼ 1; 2; 3 stands for the city, k ¼ 1; 2; 3 stands for
the time slot.
2. T k be the length of the time slot k = 365  5 (days) for all k.
3. GTRL;U
jk be collection and transportation cost from city j
during time slot k ($/tonne).
4. GOP L;U
k be operational cost of garbage sorting centre during
time slot k ($/tonne).
5. TRL;U
ik be transportation cost from garbage sorting centre to
facility i during time slot k ($/tonne).
6. OPL;U
ik be operational cost of facility i during time slot k
($/tonne).
7. FE be residue flow rate from recycling plant to dumping
ground (% of incoming garbage to recycling plant) = 0.3.
Fig. 4. Existing waste management models. 8. FT L;U
k be transportation cost for residue from recycling plant
to dumping ground during period k ($/tonne).
sales are imprecise, the most general formulation of QP with inter- 9. REL;U
k be revenue from recycling plant during period k
val parameters is the best fit to tackle it. The capacity of dumping ($/tonne).
ground is assumed to lie between 2:60  106 and 3:00  106 10. TDL;U be capacity of dumping ground (tonnes)= [2:60  106 ;
tonnes. The recycling plant capacity is 500 to 650 tonnes per day. 3  106 ].
The recycling plant on a mass basis generates residues of approxi-

Expansion plan in old model (excluding mixed terms)

Sorted Sorted Sorted Sorted

Garbage Garbage Garbage Garbage
generang generang generang generang
unit-1 (old) unit-2 (old) unit-3 (old) unit-4 (new)

Garbage disposal Garbage disposal Garbage disposal

facility -1 (exisng) facility-2 (exisng) facility-3 (planned)

Fig. 5. Possible scope of expansion in existing models.

 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037 7

Fig. 6. Diagrammatic representation of the proposed model.

P2 P3 P3
11. TIL;U
k be capacity of recycling plant in time slot k f2 ¼ i¼1 j¼1
L;U
k¼1 T k GOP k xijk .
(tonnes/day). (Operational cost of garbage sorting centre)
12. GGL;U
jk be garbage generation rate in city j during time slot k
P P3  P P P
f 3 ¼ 3k¼1 j¼1 T k ðTR1k x1jk þTR2k x2jk Þ ¼
2
i¼1
3
j¼1
3 L;U
k¼1 T k TRik xijk .
(tonnes/day).
(Transportation cost from garbage sorting centre to dumping
13. TGL;U
k be capacity of garbage sorting centre during time slot k
ground/recycling plant)
(tonnes/day). P P3  P P P
f 4 ¼ 3k¼1 j¼1 T k ðOP 1k x1jk þ OP 2k x2jk Þ ¼
2
i¼1
3
j¼1
3 L;U
k¼1 T k OP ik xijk .

Then, the garbage disposal problem can be formulated as: (Facility operating cost of dumping ground/recycling plant)
P P  
(EMP) Minimize f ¼ f 1 þ f 2 þ f 3 þ f 4 þ f 5  f 6 . where f 5 ¼ 3k¼1 3j¼1 T k FE FT L;U x2jk .
P P2  P P k

f 1 ¼ 3k¼1 L;U L;u L;U

i¼1 T k ðGTR1k xi1k þGTR2k xi2k þGTR3k xi3k Þ ¼
2 3
(Cost of disposal of recycling plant residue in dumping ground)
i¼1 j¼1
P P
P3 f 6 ¼ 3k¼1 3j¼1 T k REL;U
L;U k x2jk .
k¼1 T k GTRjk xijk :
(Revenue from sale of recycled items)
(Collection and transportation cost of garbage to garbage sort-
subject to
ing centre).
8 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037

Expansion plan in proposed model including mixed terms

Unsorted Unsorted Unsorted Unsorted

Garbage Garbage Garbage Garbage
generang generang generang generang
unit-1 (old) unit-2 (old) unit-3 (old) unit-4 (new)

Garbage sorng centre

Garbage disposal Garbage disposal Garbage disposal

facility -1 (exisng) facility-2 (exisng) facility-3 (planned)

Fig. 7. The proposed model.

Table 2
Rate of daily garbage generation and handling charges.

Time slot#1 ðk ¼ 1Þ Time slot#2 ðk ¼ 2Þ Time slot#3 ðk ¼ 3Þ

GGL;U
1k
[250, 350] [300, 400] [350, 440]
GGL;U
2k
[150, 250] [185, 265] [215, 285]
GGL;U
3k
[250, 350] [250, 350] [300, 400]
OPL;U
1k
[35, 37.5] [50, 53] [64, 65]
OPL;U
2k
[62.5, 63] [75, 77] [83.5, 87.5]
TRL;U ½0:0130X þ 11:55, ½0:0136X þ 12:17, ½0:0120X þ 10:05,
1k
0:0098X þ 15:40 0:0103X þ 16:15 0:0090X þ 14:02
TRL;U ½0:0144X þ 12:75, ½0:0149X þ 13:40, ½0:0130X þ 11:65,
2k
0:0109X þ 16:97 0:0113X þ 17:75 0:0098X þ 15:52
GOP L;U ½0:0180X þ 16:0, ½0:0175X þ 16:5, ½0:0170X þ 17:0,
k
0:0175X þ 18:5 0:0170X þ 19:0 0:0165X þ 20:0
GTRL;U ½0:00161X þ 1:508, ½0:00142X þ 1:263, ½0:00170X þ 1:530,
1k
0:00121X þ 1:950 0:00105X þ 1:689 0:00130X þ 2:050
GTRL;U ½0:00181X þ 1:602, ½0:00146X þ 1:392, ½0:00188X þ 1:684,
2k
0:00139X þ 2:130 0:00116X þ 1:858 0:00142X þ 2:254
GTRL;U ½0:00195X þ 1:765, ½0:00169X þ 1:531, ½0:00209X þ 1:845,
3k
0:00146X þ 2:395 0:00127X þ 2:035 0:00158X þ 2:470
FT L;U ½0:0065X þ 5:70, ½0:0070X þ 6:27, ½0:0076X þ 6:90,
k
0:0047X þ 7:65 0:0055X þ 8:38 0:0058X þ 9:25
REL;U
k
[15, 20] [22, 26] [25, 31]
TIL;U
k
[500, 650] [500, 650] [500, 650]
TGL;U
k
[850, 950] [950, 1050] [1050, 1150]

P3 P3  
xL;U L;U
6 TDL;U (Dumping ground capac- Remark 1. The different transportation costs as well as the
(I) j¼1 k¼1 T k 1jk þ FEx2jk
operational cost of garbage sorting centre are governed by the nat-
ity constraint),
P ural phenomenon of market and thus are approximated by
k 8k (Recycling plant capacity constraint),
(II) 3j¼1 x2jk 6 TIL;U decreasing linear functions which give rise to concave quadratic
P
jk 8j; k (Garbage disposal demand constraint),
(III) 2i¼1 xijk P GGL;U objective function containing mixed terms.
P2 P3 Using the data (Table 2), the problem (EMP) becomes:
(IV) i¼1 j¼1 xijk 6 TGL;U k 8k (Garbage sorting centre capacity P P P
2 3 3 L;U P2 P3 P3
constraint), (EMP1) Minimize f ¼ i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 cijk xijk þ i¼1 j¼1 k¼1
P2 P3 L;U
xijk P 0; 8i; j; k. r¼1 s¼1 qðijkÞðrskÞ xijk xrsk ÞT k .
 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037 9

Table 3
Values of coefficients cL;U
ijk .

ijk (111) (121) (131) (112) (122) (132) (113) (123) (133)
L;U [64:058; 73:35] [64:152; 73:53] [64:315; 73:795] [79:933; 89:839] [80:062; 90:008] [80:201; 90:185] [92:58; 101:07] [92:734; 101:274] [92:895; 101:49]
cijk
ijk (211) (221) (231) (212) (222) (232) (213) (223) (233)
L;U [74:468; 87:715] [74:562; 87:895] [74:725; 88:16] [82:044; 95:953] [82:173; 96:122] [82:312; 96:299] [84:75; 102:845] [84:904; 103:049] [85:065; 103:265]
cijk

Table 4
Values of coefficients qL;U
ðijkÞðrskÞ .

(ijk)(rsk) (111)(111) (211)(211) (111)(211) (111)(121) (111)(221) (212)(132) (211)(221)

L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0326; 0:0285] [0:0346; 0:0300] [0:0196; 0:0187] [0:0310; 0:0273] [0:0180; 0:0175] [0:0175; 0:0170] [0:0330; 0:0288]
(ijk)(rsk) (121)(121) (221)(221) (131)(231) (111)(131) (111)(231) (122)(232) (211)(231)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0328; 0:0287] [0:0348; 0:0302] [0:0200; 0:0190] [0:0310; 0:0273] [0:0180; 0:0175] [0:0175; 0:0170] [0:0330; 0:0288]
(ijk)(rsk) (131)(131) (231)(231) (122)(222) (121)(131) (211)(121) (222)(132) (221)(231)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0330; 0:0288] [0:0349; 0:0303] [0:0190; 0:0182] [0:0310; 0:0273] [0:0180; 0:0175] [0:0175; 0:0170] [0:0330; 0:0288]
(ijk)(rsk) (112)(112) (212)(212) (113)(213) (112)(122) (211)(131) (113)(223) (212)(222)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0325; 0:0284] [0:0345; 0:0300] [0:0187; 0:0178] [0:0311; 0:0273] [0:0180; 0:0175] [0:0170; 0:0165] [0:0330; 0:0288]
(ijk)(rsk) (122)(122) (222)(222) (133)(233) (112)(132) (121)(231) (113)(233) (212)(232)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0326; 0:0285] [0:0345; 0:0300] [0:0191; 0:0181] [0:0311; 0:0273] [0:0180; 0:0175] [0:0170; 0:0165] [0:0330; 0:0288]
(ijk)(rsk) (132)(132) (232)(232) (121)(221) (122)(132) (221)(131) (213)(123) (222)(232)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0328; 0:0286] [0:0347; 0:0301] [0:0198; 0:0189] [0:0311; 0:0273] [0:0180; 0:0175] [0:0170; 0:0165] [0:0330; 0:0288]
(ijk)(rsk) (113)(113) (213)(213) (112)(212) (113)(123) (112)(222) (213)(133) (213)(223)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0307; 0:0268] [0:0324; 0:0281] [0:0189; 0:0181] [0:0290; 0:0255] [0:0175; 0:0170] [0:0170; 0:0165] [0:0307; 0:0268]
(ijk)(rsk) (123)(123) (223)(223) (132)(232) (113)(133) (112)(232) (123)(233) (213)(233)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0309; 0:0269] [0:0326; 0:0282] [0:0192; 0:0183] [0:0290; 0:0255] [0:0175; 0:0170] [0:0170; 0:0165] [0:0307; 0:0268]
(ijk)(rsk) (133)(133) (233)(233) (123)(223) (123)(133) (212)(122) (223)(133) (223)(233)
L;U
qðijkÞðrskÞ [0:0311; 0:0271] [0:0328; 0:0284] [0:0189; 0:0172] [0:0290; 0:0255] [0:0175; 0:0170] [0:0170; 0:0165] [0:0307; 0:0268]

Table 5
L;U
Values of constraint coefficients amðijkÞ and bm

m n ijk 111 211 121 221 131 231 112 212 122 222 132 232 113 213 123 223 133 233 L;U
bm

1 Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k Tk 0:3T k ½2:60; 3:00  106
2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½500; 650
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½500; 650
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 ½500; 650
5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½350; 250
6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½250; 150
7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½350; 250
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½400; 300
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½265; 185
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½350; 250
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ½440; 350
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ½285; 215
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ½400; 300
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½850; 950
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½950; 1050
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ½1050; 1150

8
P
2 P
3 P
3 >
> CXðGTRL;U L;U
jk þ GOP k þ TRik Þ; i ¼ r ¼ 1; j ¼ s;
subject to amðijkÞ xijk 6
L;U
bm ;
xijk P 0; m ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 16 >
>  
>
>
>
> L;U L;U 2
> CX GTRjk þ GOP k þ TRik þ ðFT k ÞFE ; i ¼ r ¼ 2; j ¼ s;
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1
h i >
where qL;U L;U L;U >
>
ðijkÞðrskÞ is symmetric matrix with qðijkÞðrskÞ ¼ qðrskÞðijkÞ for all >
< CXðGTRL;U þ GOP Þ; i – r; j ¼ s
k
i; j; k; r; s. qL;U ¼ jk
ðijkÞðrskÞ >
> L;U
Denoting the constant part by CP and the coefficient of X by CX >
> CXðTR þ GOP Þ; i ¼ r ¼ 1; j – s;
>
> 
ik k

>
>
of the intervals containing X in Table 2, we have: > L;U 2
> CX TRik þ GOPk þ ðFT k ÞFE ; i ¼ r ¼ 2; j – s;
>
>
8 L;U L;U
>
:
> L;U
< CPðGTRjk þ GOP k þ TRik Þ þ OPik ; i ¼ 1; CXðGOP k Þ; i – r; j – s
L;U
cijk ¼  
>
: CP GTRL;U þ GOP k þ TRL;U þ ðFT L;U ÞFE þ OP L;U  REL;U ; i ¼ 2;
jk ik k ik k
L;U
and bm is given by
for any j and k,
10 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037

m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L;U L;U
bm TD TIL;U
1 TIL;U
2 TIL;U
3 GGL;U
11 GGL;U
21 GGL;U
31
L;U
GG12
m 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
L;U
bm GGL;U
22 GGL;U
32 GGL;U
13 GGL;U
23 GGL;U
33 TG1L;U TGL;U
2 TGL;U
3

After simplification, the coefficients cL;U L;U

ijk and qðijkÞðrskÞ are given in
The solution corresponding to the infimum and the supremum
the Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Moreover, the constraint coeffi- of the objective function is further shown with the help of his-
L;U tograms formed city-wise for all the slots. (DG stands for Dumping
cients amðijkÞ and bm are shown in Table 5.
ground and RP stands for Recycling plant in Figs. 8–10).
It is to be noted that the matrix qL;U
ðijkÞðrskÞ is negative semi-definite

as all the eigen values of the matrices qLðijkÞðrskÞ and qUðijkÞðrskÞ are non-
positive.
300
Now, to solve the problem (EMP1), we shall apply the algorithm
proposed in the article.
250
The equivalent model (4) to find the infimum of f is as follows:
P P P P2 P3 P3 P2 P3
L 2 3 3
k¼1 cijk xijk þ
L
f =Minimize i¼1 j¼1 i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 r¼1 s¼1 200 city 1-DG
city 1-RP
qLðijkÞðrskÞ xijk xrsk ÞT k .
150 city 2-DG
2 P
P 3 P
3
U
subject to amðijkÞ xijk 6 bm ; xijk P 0; m ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 16 city 2 -RP
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 100 city 3-DG
L
which gives f ¼ 233199861:45 and the values of the variables at city 3 -RP
which it is attained are given in Table 6. 50
Next, the model (5) to find the supremum of f is given by:
P P P P2 P3 P3 P2 P3
U 2 3 3
k¼1 cijk xijk þ
U 0
f =Minimize i¼1 j¼1 i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 r¼1 s¼1 Infimum (Slot #1) Supremum (Slot #1)
qUðijkÞðrskÞ xijk xrsk ÞT k .
Fig. 8. City wise optimum allocation in slot1.
2 P
P 3 P
3
L
subject to amðijkÞ xijk 6 bm ; xijk P 0; m ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 16
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1
U
which yields f ¼ 331665476:59 and the optimal solution is given
350
in Table 7.
Finally 300
L;U L U
f ¼ ½f ; f  ¼ ½233199861:45; 331665476:59 250
city 1-DG
which means that the cost of garbage disposal can be as low as 200 city 1-RP
$233199861.45 and cannot go beyond $331665476.59 in 15 years city 2-DG
time period. 150 city 2 -RP
city 3-DG
Table 6 100
city 3 -RP
L
Optimal solution for model f .
50
Time slot Facility type City Optimum garbage allocation xijk
ðkÞ ðiÞ ðjÞ (Tonnes) 0
Infimum (Slot #2) Supremum (Slot #2)
1 1; 2; 3 x111 ¼ 250; x121 ¼ 150; x131 ¼ 250
1 2 1; 2; 3 x211 ¼ 0; x221 ¼ 0; x231 ¼ 0
Fig. 9. City wise optimum allocation in slot 2.
1 1; 2; 3 x112 ¼ 0; x122 ¼ 0; x132 ¼ 85
2 2 1; 2; 3 x212 ¼ 300; x222 ¼ 185; x232 ¼ 165
1 1; 2; 3 x113 ¼ 0; x123 ¼ 0; x133 ¼ 215
3 2 1; 2; 3 x213 ¼ 350; x223 ¼ 215; x233 ¼ 85
Infimum of objective 233199861.45 400
L
function f
350

300
Table 7
U city 1-DG
Optimal solution for model f .
250
city 1-RP
Time slot Facility type City Optimum garbage allocation
200 city 2-DG
ðkÞ ðiÞ ðjÞ xijk (Tonnes)
city 2 -RP
1 1; 2; 3 x111 ¼ 106:65; x121 ¼ 0; x131 ¼ 250 150
city 3-DG
1 2 1; 2; 3 x211 ¼ 243:35; x221 ¼ 250; x231 ¼ 0
100 city 3 -RP
1 1; 2; 3 x112 ¼ 0; x122 ¼ 175; x132 ¼ 75
2 2 1; 2; 3 x212 ¼ 300; x222 ¼ 25; x232 ¼ 175
50
1 1; 2; 3 x113 ¼ 0; x123 ¼ 70; x133 ¼ 300
3 2 1; 2; 3 x213 ¼ 350; x223 ¼ 150; x233 ¼ 0 0
Supremum of 331665476.59 Infimum (Slot #3) Supremum (Slot #3)
U
objective function f
Fig. 10. City wise optimum allocation in slot 3.
 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037
6. Advantages of the proposed model over existing models
1. The proposed model includes mixed terms of the type xi xj ; i – j
in concave type objective function and thus generalizes the
models by Chen and Huang (2001) and Li and Huang (2012)
as well as Kong et al. (2016).
2. The number of variables and constraints in Chen and Huang
(2001) and Li and Huang (2012) are ‘2n’ and ‘2n þ 2m’, respec-
tively (in two steps). However, in the proposed approach, these
are drastically reduced to ‘n’ and ‘n þ m’, respectively. Hence,
the proposed method is computationally efficient also.
3. The model is applicable to all the cities, even if garbage is not
disposed off separately for each of the garbage disposal facilities
at the source level, thus making it more feasible and realistic.
4. In case of garbage collection centre being linked to ‘n’ cities and
‘f’ garbage disposal facilities, daily vehicular traffic reduces from
‘n  f ’ in the existing models (see Fig. 4) of Chen and Huang
(2001) as well as Kong et al. (2016) to ‘n þ f ’ in the proposed
model (see Fig. 6).
5. In view of addition of cities linked to the garbage disposal sys-
tem or increase in the number of garbage disposal facilities in
the future, the proposed model becomes more adaptable
(shown by blue and red dotted lines, respectively, in Fig. 7).
7. Conclusions and future directions
Disposing of garbage without proper planning has huge envi-
ronmental impacts and can cause serious problems related to
health and the economy. Many researchers are working to address
this particular issue by developing appropriate models and show-
ing its relevance in real situations. In the present article, a garbage
disposal problem is constructed which turns out to be a concave
quadratic optimization problem and further solved using the pro-
posed approach. Based on this, the following conclusions are
drawn:
1. The study presents a generalized concave type QP model involv-
ing all the parameters as intervals (rather than fixed real values)
and mixed terms of the type xi xj ; i – j. In general, a concave
optimization model may not have a global optimal solution.
However, the peculiar model framed herewith because of con-
cave QP objective function and linear constraints, always guar-
antees to have the global optimal solution (Hoffman (1981)).
The problem is further divided into two sub-problems, which
provide lower and upper bounds of the objective function.
2. The execution of the proposed approach helps in bringing down
the number of variables and constraints. The derivative algo-
rithm in Chen and Huang (2001) and Li and Huang (2012) to
solve waste management problem characterized by a concave
QP requires ‘2n’ variables and ‘2m þ 2n’ constraints (in two
stages). Moreover, the algorithm is not applicable to the models
involving mixed terms. However, the proposed approach uses
‘n’ variables and ‘n þ m’ constraints only. Hence, our approach
helps in solving a voluminous problem like garbage disposal
considerably.
3. The existing models used to tackle waste management prob-
lems are either having linear or concave QP without mixed
terms in the objective function. The latter case is more general
due to the fact that it replaces constant transfer/operating cost
functions by decreasing linear functions. However, if the entire
garbage collected from all the cities is segregated at the garbage
sorting centre, then from the different components of objective
function, the mixed terms arise which make the objective func-
tion, a general concave QP model. Thus, the existing models
(Chen and Huang, 2001; Li and Huang, 2012; Kong et al.,
11
2016) dealing with such problems become special cases of this
model from technical as well as implementation point of view.
4. The proposed model provides an effective environmental man-
agement by reducing the number of vehicles associated with
garbage disposal problem. It will cut down the daily vehicular
traffic in case of ‘n’ cities and ‘f’ facilities from ‘n  f ’ to ‘n þ f ’
and hence cost effective also. The model is quite versatile as
the inclusion of one more city to proposed garbage disposal
model will require only single additional vehicle, whereas, in
the existing models (Chen and Huang, 2001; Kong et al.
(2016)), ‘f’ additional vehicles will be required to dispose off
the garbage.
5. The proposed model is an effort in the direction to develop a
sustainable garbage disposal model by providing easy adapt-
ability to extension in the number of cities attached and
enhancement in the types of facilities allocated. Moreover, it
curtails the number of associated vehicles and is also applicable
in the absence of pre-segregated garbage scenario. Moreover,
the garbage sorting centres may be used to serve the purpose
of transfer stations in the process of garbage disposal manage-
ment as mentioned in Kirca and Erkip (1988), Li and Huang
(2012), Lu et al. (2009) and Yadav et al. (2017).
6. In this study, the assumption of considering decreasing linear
operating and transfer costs linked with the garbage sorting
centre gives a concave quadratic objective function. It will be
interesting to see the modeling and meaningful analysis of the
garbage model if some of the costs are governed by parabolic
type functions. Another important future direction is to extend
the proposed garbage model to multi-objective QPPs with inter-
val parameters. Proposed model uses only two facilities of
dumping ground and recycling plant to restrict the complexity
involved. The results of the article can also be further utilized
with more facilities viz incinerator and composting.
Credit Authorship Contribution Statement
Both the authors have equal contribution in the preparation of
the manuscript. No one else was involved in this research.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely acknowledge the valuable suggestions
and recommendations of the anonymous reviewer which has con-
siderably improved the presentation and quality of the paper. The
first author is also thankful to the Quality Improvement Pro-
gramme centre of IIT Roorkee and Punjab Engineering College,
Chandigarh along with All India Council of Technical Education
for their support to carry out this work.
References
Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage.
Sci. 17, 141–164.
Chen, M.J., Huang, G.H., 2001. A derivative algorithm for inexact quadratic program-
application to environmental decision-making under uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 128, 570–586.
Chinnadurai, V., Muthukumar, S., 2016. Solving the linear fractional programming
problem in a fuzzy environment: numerical approach. Appl. Math. Model. 40,
6148–6164.
12 S. Mahajan, S.K. Gupta / Science of the Total Environment 709 (2020) 135037
Costi, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Rovatti, M., Sacile, R., 2004. An environmentally
sustainable decision model for urban solid waste management. Waste Manag.
24, 277–295.
Cruz, C., Silva, R.C., Verdegay, J.L., 2011. Extending and relating different approaches
for solving fuzzy quadratic problems. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 10, 193–210.
Cui, L., Chen, L.R., Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H., Li, W., Xie, Y.L., 2011. An interval-based
regret-analysis method for identifying long-term municipal solid waste
management policy under uncertainty. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 1484–1494.
Fan, Y., Huang, G., Jin, L., Suo, M., 2014. Solid waste management under uncertainty:
a generalized fuzzy linear programming approach. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 31,
331–346.
Farhadinia, B., 2014. Sensitivity analysis in interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy
number linear programming problems. Appl. Math. Model. 38, 50–62.
Feng, J., Wu, D., Gao, W., Li, G., 2017. Uncertainty analysis for structures with hybrid
random and interval parameters using mathematical programming approach.
Appl. Math. Model. 48, 208–232.
Figueroa-García, J.C., Mehra, A., Chandra, S., 2019. Optimal solutions for group
matrix games involving interval-valued Fuzzy Numbers. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 362,
55–70.
Hoffman, K.L., 1981. A method for globally minimizing concave functions over
convex sets. Math. Program. 20, 22–32.
Huang, G.H., 1996. IPWM: an interval parameter water quality management model.
Eng. Optimiz. 26, 79–103.
Huang, G.H., Baetz, B.W., Patry, G.G., 1995. Grey integer programming: an
application to waste management planning under uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 83, 594–620.
Huang, G.H., Cohen, S.J., Yin, Y.Y., Bass, B., 1996. Incorporation of inexact dynamic
optimization with fuzzy relation analysis for integrated climate change impact
study. J. Environ. Manage. 48, 45–68.
Huang, W., Dai, L., Baetz, B., Cao, M., Razavi, S., 2015. Interval binary programming
model for noise control within an urban environment. J. Environ. Inform. 21,
93–101.
Jin, L., Huang, G., Fan, Y., Nie, X., Cheng, G., 2012. A hybrid dynamic dual interval
programming for irrigation water allocation under uncertainty. Water Resour.
Manag. 26, 1183–1200.
Kaur, A., Kumar, A., 2011. A new method for solving fuzzy transportation problems
using ranking function. Appl. Math. Model. 35, 5652–5661.
Kheirfam, B., Verdegay, J.L., 2012. Strict sensitivity analysis in fuzzy quadratic
programming. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 198, 99–111.
Kirca, Ö., Erkip, N., 1988. Selecting transfer station locations for large solid waste
systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 35, 339–349.
Kong, X.M., Huang, G.H., Fan, Y.R., Li, Y.P., 2016. A duality theorem-based algorithm
for inexact quadratic programming problems: Application to waste
management under uncertainty. Eng. Optimiz. 48, 562–581.
Li, D.F., 2011. Linear programming approach to solve interval-valued matrix games.
Omega 39, 655–666.
Li, P., Chen, B., 2011. FSILP: Fuzzy-stochastic-interval linear programming for
supporting municipal solid waste management. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1198–
1209.
Li, W., Tian, X., 2008. Numerical solution method for general interval quadratic
programming. Appl. Math. Comput. 202, 589–595.
Li, Y., Huang, G., 2012. Robust interval quadratic programming and its application to
waste management under uncertainty. Environ. Syst. Res. 1, 7.
Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H., Nie, S.L., 2007. Mixed interval-fuzzy two-stage integer
programming and its application to flood-diversion planning. Eng. Optimiz.
39, 163–183.
Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H., Nie, S.L., 2012. A mathematical model for identifying an
optimal waste management policy under uncertainty. Appl. Math. Model. 36,
2658–2673.
Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H., Yang, Z.F., Nie, S.L., 2008. An integrated two-stage optimization
model for the development of long-term waste-management strategies. Sci.
Total Environ. 392, 175–186.
Liu, F., Wen, Z., Xu, Y., 2013. A dual-uncertainty-based chance-constrained model
for municipal solid waste management. Appl. Math. Model. 37, 9147–9159.
Liu, S.T., 2009. A revisit to quadratic programming with fuzzy parameters. Chaos
Soliton. Fract. 41, 1401–1407.
Liu, S.T., Wang, R.T., 2007. A numerical solution method to interval quadratic
programming. Appl. Math. Comput. 189, 1274–1281.
Lu, H., Huang, G., He, L., 2011. An inexact rough-interval fuzzy linear programming
method for generating conjunctive water-allocation strategies to agricultural
irrigation systems. Appl. Math. Model. 35, 4330–4340.
Lu, H.W., Huang, G.H., He, L., Zeng, G.M., 2009. An inexact dynamic optimization
model for municipal solid waste management in association with greenhouse
gas emission control. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 396–409.
Mansoori, A., Effati, S., Eshaghnezhad, M., 2018. A neural network to solve quadratic
programming problems with fuzzy parameters. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 17,
75–101.
Meng, F., Tan, C., Chen, X., 2017. Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval
fuzzy preference relations: a comparative study. Omega-Int. J. Manage. Sci. 68,
17–38.
Silva, R.C., Cruz, C., Verdegay, J.L., 2013. Fuzzy costs in quadratic programming
problems. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 12, 231–248.
Syaripuddin, Suprajitno, H., Fatmawati, 2018. Solution of quadratic programming
with interval variables using a two-level programming approach. J. Appl. Math.
2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5204375.
Thipwiwatpotjana, P., Lodwick, W.A., 2014. Pessimistic, optimistic, and minimax
regret approaches for linear programs under uncertainty. Fuzzy Optim. Decis.
Making 13, 151–171.
Verdegay, J.L., 2015. Progress on fuzzy mathematical programming: a personal
perspective. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 281, 219–226.
Wang, S., Huang, G.H., Yang, B.T., 2012. An interval-valued fuzzy-stochastic
programming approach and its application to municipal solid waste
management. Environ. Model Softw. 29, 24–36.
Wu, X.L., Liu, Y.K., 2012. Optimizing fuzzy portfolio selection problems by
parametric quadratic programming. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 11, 411–449.
Yadav, V., Bhurjee, A.K., Karmakar, S., Dikshit, A.K., 2017. A facility location model
for municipal solid waste management system under uncertain environment.
Sci. Total Environ. 392, 175–186. 603, 760–771.
Zimmermann, H.J., 2011. Fuzzy Set Theory-and Its Applications. Springer Science &
Business Media.