Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

A facility location model for municipal solid waste management system

under uncertain environment
Vinay Yadav a , A.K. Bhurjee d , Subhankar Karmakar a, b, c, * , A.K. Dikshit a, c, e
a
Centre for Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
b
Inter Disciplinary Program on Climate Change, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
c
Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
d
Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Science and Technology, Berhampur 761008, India
e
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change, School of Environment, Resources and Development (SERD) Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
Klongluang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

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

• An interval optimization approach is

proposed to solve facility location
model.
• Multi-parameter uncertainty is mod-
eled for MSW management systems.
• Economically best locations of
transfer station are identified under
uncertainty.
• The proposed methodology is demon-
strated over a complex urban center.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In municipal solid waste management system, decision makers have to develop an insight into the processes
Received 7 December 2016 namely, waste generation, collection, transportation, processing, and disposal methods. Many parameters
Received in revised form 25 February 2017 (e.g., waste generation rate, functioning costs of facilities, transportation cost, and revenues) in this system
Accepted 25 February 2017 are associated with uncertainties. Often, these uncertainties of parameters need to be modeled under a situ-
Available online 8 April 2017
ation of data scarcity for generating probability distribution function or membership function for stochastic
mathematical programming or fuzzy mathematical programming respectively, with only information of
Editor: Simon Pollard
extreme variations. Moreover, if uncertainties are ignored, then the problems like insufficient capacities of
waste management facilities or improper utilization of available funds may be raised. To tackle uncertainties
Keywords:
of these parameters in a more efficient manner an algorithm, based on interval analysis, has been devel-
Facility location problem
Interval analysis oped. This algorithm is applied to find optimal solutions for a facility location model, which is formulated
Municipal solid waste management to select economically best locations of transfer stations in a hypothetical urban center. Transfer stations
Optimization are an integral part of contemporary municipal solid waste management systems, and economic siting of
Uncertainty transfer stations ensures financial sustainability of this system. The model is written in a mathematical pro-
gramming language AMPL with KNITRO as a solver. The developed model selects five economically best
locations out of ten potential locations with an optimum overall cost of [394,836, 757,440] Rs.1 /day ([5906,
11,331] USD/day) approximately. Further, the requirement of uncertainty modeling is explained based on
the results of sensitivity analysis.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author at: Centre for Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India.
E-mail address: skarmakar@iitb.ac.in (S. Karmakar).
URL: http://www.cese.iitb.ac.in/people/facinfo.php?id=skarmakar (S. Karmakar).
1
Rs. is Indian currency and 1 Rs. = 0.015 USD as of 18th October 2016.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.207
0048-9697/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771
1. Introduction
Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is an important envi-
ronmental concern due to (i) rapid population growth; (ii) increment
in MSW generation rate; (iii) environmental protection; (iv) human
health risk; and (v) shrinking of disposal site options because of
urbanization (Huang and Chang, 2003; Xu et al., 2009a; Eiselt and
Marianov, 2015). Impacts on human health, ensuring environmental
protection and shrinking of disposal site options or land availability
for disposal sites have ruled out all the possibilities of having small
landfills and dumping grounds in the vicinity of human settlements.
Consequently, large sanitary landfilling has been found to be the only
viable option for disposal of MSW, for instance, the number of land-
fills in USA reduced from 8000 (in 1988) to 1908 (in 2010) (Stevens,
2002; Eiselt and Marianov, 2015). The reduced number of disposal
sites results longer MSW transportation routes. Larger collection vehi-
cles are found to be cost effective for longer transportation of MSW
as compared to smaller collection vehicles (Eiselt, 2007). Transfer
stations (TSs) are junctions of smaller and larger collection vehicles
known as primary collection vehicles (PCVs) and secondary collec-
tion vehicles (SCVs) respectively. Being a junction of PCVs and SCVs,
locations of TSs are very crucial as far as economical aspect is con-
cerned. Therefore, locations of TSs should be chosen such that the
overall cost of MSW management system is minimized similar to any
other facility location problems (e.g., fire stations, and warehouses)
(Owen and Daskin, 1998). TSs play an important role in collection
system such as (i) volume reduction due to compaction process; (ii)
transportation cost reduction; (iii) increment in collection frequency;
and (iv) flexibility in siting final disposal/processing facilities (Cui et
al., 2011; USEPA, 2002; Yadav et al., 2016b). This problem statement
is graphically depicted in Fig. 1. Additionally, modern TSs are fully
closed to prevent the entries of animals and flies, hence maintain a
hygienic condition in the vicinity. Therefore, facility location model
for TSs siting will help to improve the efficiency of collection system,
while decreasing the costs and health hazards. Yadav et al. (2016a)
proposed a facility location model for choosing economically best
locations for TSs among the given potential locations with determin-
istic parameters. This study is an extension of Yadav et al.’s (2016a)
model by including the inherent uncertainty of MSW management
system’s parameters with a demonstration on a hypothetical case
study. Also, an algorithm is developed to account the uncertainties of
variables and parameters of a facility location problem using interval
analysis approach. The next subsection reviews past efforts made to
implement facility location models in MSW management systems.
1.1. Facility location models for MSW management
Different approaches have been followed by the researchers to
establish a financially sustainable MSW management system for any
city. Fig. 2 describes these different approaches along with their
specific objectives and representative literatures. These approaches
include routing of vehicles under given circumstances (Beltrami and
Bodin, 1974; Chang et al., 1997; Karadimas et al., 2007; Benjamin
and Beasley, 2010); selection of appropriate locations from a number
of given potential locations (facility location problems) and expan-
sion of size or capacity of certain facility over a defined period of
time (Huang et al., 1994b; Nie et al., 2004; Li et al., 2008; Xu et
al., 2009b). Evidently, facility location problems are one of the most
prevalent approaches to make MSW management system financially
sustainable (Marks and Liebman, 1970; Gottinger, 1988; Kirca and
Erkip, 1988; Or and Curi, 1993; Costi et al., 2004; Badran and El-
Haggar, 2006; Yeomans, 2007; Yadav et al., 2016a). Facility location
problems are the broad classes of optimization problems that have
been widely studied in operations research fraternity (Hamacher and
Drezner, 2002; Melo et al., 2009; Laporte et al., 2015). Often, parame-
ters of MSW management systems are inherently uncertain in nature
761
(Huang et al., 1995; Wang et al., 2012) and ignorance of uncertainty
may lead to problems like the insufficient capacity of facilities or
incomplete collection of MSW generated. The next subsection con-
tinues the discussion on uncertainties in MSW management systems
through a comprehensive literature review.
1.2. Accounting for uncertainty
As already discussed, many system parameters in MSW manage-
ment system e.g., waste-generation rate, functioning cost of facilities,
transportation cost, and revenues are associated with uncertainties;
therefore, it is necessary to account for this system with uncertain-
ties of variables and parameters. In system analysis, there are several
approaches to deal with uncertainty such as stochastic program-
ming, fuzzy programming, and interval programming (Shmoys and
Swamy, 2006; Chang et al., 2008; Fan et al., 2012).
In stochastic programming, uncertainty is usually characterized
by a probability distribution of the parameters. In several MSW man-
agement studies, stochastic programming models have been devel-
oped by Gorelick (1990), Huang et al. (2001), Li and Huang (2006)
and Wang et al. (2012). However, the problem in this methodology
lying in difficulty to generate probability distributions with inade-
quate data e.g., daily MSW generation. It may be difficult to state a
reliable probability distribution for MSW generation as it fluctuates
within a certain interval (Marti, 1990). It has been further observed
that it is extremely hard to solve a large stochastic programming
with all uncertain data with given probability distributions (Birge
and Louveaux, 2011).
Fuzziness is another type of uncertainty characteristics and can
not be described by probability distributions (Möller et al., 2003).
In fuzzy mathematics, parameters are considered as fuzzy sets and
are described by possibility distributions. Fuzzy sets allow its mem-
bers to have different grades of membership (membership function)
within the interval [0, 1]. These membership functions of fuzzy
objective and constraints are determined subjectively by the decision
makers. In past, several studies have proposed MSW management
system with the inclusion of fuzzy programming e.g., Fan et al.
(2014), Karadimas et al. (2006), Ojo and Anyata (2009) and Srivas-
tava and Nema (2011). However, fuzzy models can not effectively
incorporate inherent uncertainties with imprecise coefficients of the
objective function and constraints (Huang et al., 1993). Also, it is dif-
ficult to create membership functions with very limited information
such as the extremes of waste generation rate (Almeida et al., 2011).
This issue leads to difficulties in generating sound decision schemes.
Huang et al. (1992) introduced the applications of algorithms
based on grey/interval programming in the field of MSW manage-
ment. In grey or interval programs, the values of parameters vary
within two known extreme values. These algorithms have the advan-
tage in type of input data requirement over fuzzy and stochastic
programming such as insufficiency of data for generating probability
distribution or fuzzy membership function (Sun et al., 2014). Also, an
effective communication of uncertain information can be achieved
using these algorithms (Huang et al., 1997). In last two decades, a
number of algorithms based on grey programming have been devel-
oped and proposed for MSW management systems, for example, grey
linear programming (Huang et al., 1993), grey dynamic programming
(Huang et al., 1994a), and grey mixed integer linear programming
(Huang et al., 1995). Further, Karmakar and Mujumdar (2006, 2007)
used interval grey numbers to address the uncertainty of fuzzy mem-
bership functions and expressed upper and lower bounds of fuzzy
membership functions as interval grey numbers.
To solve grey/interval programming problems, the two-step
method is used. In this method, the parent problem is transformed
into two submodels, one for the most favorable case and another for
the least favorable case. It is expected that interval solutions of these
submodels include all possible optimal solutions of each and every
762 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771

Fig. 1. Problem statement depicting the challenges in MSW management systems.

subproblem. However, Zou et al. (2009), Rosenberg (2009) and Chang
(2015) questioned the rationalities of the solutions obtained using
two-step method. Zou et al. (2009) found the problems of infeasi-
bility and nonoptimality in two step method. Also, submodels for
the most favorable case gives most optimistic solution, whereas sub-
models for the least favorable case gives most pessimistic solution.
Nevertheless, in practice, decision makers prefer a balanced deci-
sion and not a decision based on extreme conditions (Zou et al.,
2009). Further, Rosenberg (2009) found that in solution using two-
step method, the range of objective function is wider than objective
function range for best/worst scenarios. Subsequently, Huang and
Cao (2011) proposed a three-step method to address the infeasibility
issue of two-step method. Notwithstanding, the three-step method
made the problem of nonoptimality more severe (Chang, 2015). To
overcome all these issues, Bhurjee and Panda (2012) proposed alto-
gether a new algorithm for finding optimal solutions based on an
interval programming with uncertain parameters. In this method-
ology, parametric form of interval valued functions was considered.
However, this methodology had a limitation in terms of address-
ing integers, bilinear functions and uncertain decision variables.
Therefore, a novel algorithm is developed to solve a facility location
problem efficiently; which is a mixed integer bilinear problem with
uncertain decision variables and parameters. The developed method-
ology has been discussed in the forthcoming section.
2. Methodology
For the development of proposed methodology, the concept of
Bhurjee and Panda (2012) has been broadened to encompass interval
variables with bilinear constraints to solve ‘Facility Location Prob-
lems’. This approach considers parametric representation of interval
programming problems. The objective function of parametric repre-
sentation is aggregated to a deterministic equivalent of parent model
by multiplying with preference functions and then integrating the
resultant function. Deterministic equivalents are explicit programs
which have exactly same set of optimal solutions as parent model
(Ziemba and Vickson, 2014). It is also shown that for any preference
functions, obtained solutions will always be optimal.
Brief introduction to interval operations is given in this section.
Let [AL , AU ] with AL ≤ AU be an interval on the set of real numbers

Fig. 2. A tree chart on different optimization approaches for MSW management.

 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771 763

R, where AL and AU are lower and upper bounds. If AL = AU = A,
then A = [A, A] is called degenerate interval. The set of all closed
is any natural number between 1 and O.
intervals on R is denoted by I. The product space I × I × . . . × I is
 
 
Tn times
denoted by In and Cnv ∈ In , Cnv = C1L , C1U , . . . , CnL , CnU . Parametric
representation of any point in [AL , AU ] is defined as at = AL + t(AU −
AL ), t ∈ [0, 1]. Let ∗ ∈ {+, −, • , /} be a binary operation on the set of
real numbers. The binary operation  between two intervals [AL , AU ]
where, i is an index for sources i = {1, . . . , N} and j is an index for
facilities j = {1, . . . , O}, O
[Z L (Xnv , D), Z U (Xnv , D)] is the objective function; n = N ∗ O; Eq. (2),

Eq. (3) and Eq. (5) are inequality,  equality  and bilinear constraints
respectively. Fj , GLi , OCjL , OCjU , [TCijL , TCijU ], ALij , AUij , [BLj , BUj ] and CL are
 
system parameters. XijL , XijU , Dj and Eij are continuous and binary
variables respectively. The feasible set for GFLP is denoted by S, which
is the set of (Xnv , D) and satisfies Eqs. (2)–(6). The solution for GFLP is

and BL , BU ∈ I can be defined as follows: defined with respect to partial ordering as follows:

     ∗
AL , AU  BL , BU = at1 ∗ bt2 |t1 , t2 ∈ [0, 1] Definition 2.2. An interval (Xn∗ v , D ) ∈ S is said to be an optimal
  solution of GFLP if there is no (Xnv , D) ∈ S with
   
≡ min at1 ∗ bt2 , max at1 ∗ bt2 .
t1 ,t2 t1 ,t2

/ [BL , BU ]. For k ∈ R,
In the case of division, it is assumed that 0 ∈    
∗ ∗
Z L (Xnv , D), Z U (Xnv , D)  Z L (Xn∗ U n∗
v , D ), Z (Xv , D )
       
k AL , AU = {kat |t ∈ [0, 1]} ≡ min(kat ), max(kat ) . ∗ ∗
and Z L (Xnv , D), Z U (Xnv , D) = Z L (Xn∗ U n∗
v , D ), Z (Xv , D ) . (7)
t t

The set of closed intervals I is a partially ordered set (Ishibuchi Based on Definition 2.1 and parametric concepts for intervals, the
and Tanaka, 1990; Moore, 1966). In the partial ordering, two distinct parametric form of GFLP, named as GFLPt , is defined as follows:
intervals are compared with the corresponding element of the inter-
vals. Partial ordering considered in this paper is similar to Bhurjee 
O 
N 
O 
N 
O
and Panda (2012), which is given as follows: (GFLPt ) min zt (xu , D)  Fj ∗Dj + octj ∗xuij + tct
∗xuij
ij
j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1
(8)
Definition 2.1. For [AL , AU ], [BL , BU ] ∈ I,


N
[AL , AU ]  [BL , BU ] if and only if at ≤ bt ∀t ∈ [0, 1], subject to atij ∗ xuij ≤ bt
, j = {1, . . . , O
}, (9)
j
i=1

[AL , AU ] = [BL , BU ] if and only if at = bt for at least one t ∈ [0, 1], 

N
atij ∗ xuij = bt
, j = {O
+ 1, . . . , O}, (10)
j
i=1
L U L U
[A , A ] = [B , B ] if and only if at = bt ∀ t, that is

O
A L = BL , A U = B U . Dj ≤ CL (11)
j=1

GLi ∗ Eij ≥ XijL ; GUi ∗ Eij ≥ XijU ∀ i, j (12)

2.1. Facility location problem with uncertain parameters and variables
XijL ≥ 0 ∀ i, j; Dj , Eij ∈ {0, 1}∀i, j (13)
For decision variables (Xnv , D) ∈ In × RO , a general facility loca-
tion problem (GFLP) with uncertain variables and parameters has the
following form: where, octj = OCjL + tj (OCjU − OCjL ); tct
= TCijL + tij
(TCijU − TCijL );
ij  
atij = ALij + tij (AUij − ALij ); xuij = XijL + uij XijU − XijL ; b
tj = BLj +
  O  
min Z L (Xnv , D), Z U (Xnv , D)  Fj ∗ Dj tj
BUj − BLj ; tij , tij
, uij , tj , tj
∈ [0, 1] for every i, j. The feasible set for
 
j=1 GFLPt is denoted by S, which is the set of X L , X R , D ∈ Rn × Rn × RO
 O 
N     and satisfies Eqs. (9)–(13). The objective function zt (xu , D) of GFLPt is
⊕ OCjL , OCjU XijL , XijU a parametric function with parameters tj , tij
and uij . In order to find
i=1 j=1 deterministic equivalent GFLPI of GFLP, parametric function zt (xu , D)
 O 
N     is aggregated into a scalar function by multiplying preference func-
⊕ TCijL , TCijU XijL , XijU (1) tions and then integrating the resultant function. Mathematically,
i=1 j=1 GFLPI can be represented as
N 
       
subject to ALij , AUij XijL , XijU  BLj , BUj , j = 1, . . . , O
(2) (GFLPI ) min p1 (t, t
)p2 (u)zt (xu , D)dtdt
du,
i=1 (X L ,X R ,D)∈S 3n
N 
     
ALij , AUij XijL , XijU = BLj , BUj , j = {O
+ 1, . . . , O} (3) where p1 : [0, 1]2n → R+ and n
→ R+ represent prefer-
 1 p21 : [0, 1]
i=1  1  
ence functions; and 3n = . . . ; dt = j dtj ; dt
= i,j dtij
;

O
 0 0
 0

Dj ≤ CL (4)
 3n times
j=1 du = i,j duij . Preference functions p1 and p2 are the representa-
tion of decision maker’s preference over the objective function. For
GLi ∗ Eij ≥ XijL ; GUi ∗ Eij ≥ XijU ∀ i, j (5)
instance, at p1 (t, t
) = 1 and p2 (u) = 1, the decision maker is willing
to estimate solutions by keeping solutions of deterministic equiv-
XijL ≥ 0∀i, j; Dj , Eij ∈ {0, 1}∀i, j (6) alent at mean value of objective function. Further, it is proved in
764 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771

Theorem 2.1 that for any positive preference functions p1 and p2 , 3. Application on a hypothetical case study
obtained solutions will always be optimal for GFLP.
Since each tj , tij
and uij are mutually independent and lie between This section demonstrates an application of the developed
0 to 1, so the integration of objection function is a function of X , X , L U algorithm to solve a facility location problem for choosing best
and Dj only, that is h(XL , XU , D) (say). Hence GFLPI can be written as locations of TSs on a hypothetical case study in an economically
optimal manner. The hypothetical city covers an area of approxi-
mately 192 km2 . The population of this city is estimated to be 1.8
min h(X L , X U , D).
(X L ,X U ,D)∈S million by the end of year 2035, as time horizon of this study is
20 years. It is assumed that the population is uniformly distributed
across the city. MSW generation rate of the city will be [0.4, 0.5]
Theorem 2.1. If (XL* , XU* , D∗ ) ∈ S is an optimum solution of GFLPI , then
∗ kg/capita/day. MSW of city is composed of [40, 45]% compostable
v , D ) ∈ S is an optimal solution of GFLP for any preference functions
(Xn∗
materials and [15, 22]% recyclables. The city already has a land-
p1 and p2 .
fill site and a composting plant. These facilities are 20 km away
from the city boundary as shown in Fig. 3. Now, the municipal cor-
Proof. Let (XL* , XU* , D∗ ) ∈ S be an optimum solution of GFLPI . Assume poration wants to have TSs in the city. The municipality has also
that (Xn∗ ∗
v , D ) is not an optimal solution of GFLP, then there is some identified ten potential locations for TSs (see red stars in Fig. 3).
(Xv , D) ∈ S with satisfying the relation (7). From the definition of
n
However, as far as MSW generated in the city is concerned, ten
partial ordering in Definition 2.1, relation (7) becomes for some TSs are not needed for this city. Therefore, it is required to choose
(XL , XU , D) ∈ S best locations and number for TSs among given ten potential loca-
tions. The proposed facility location model will minimize overall
zt (xu , D) ≤ zt (x∗u , D∗ ), ∀t, u (14) cost of MSW management system by choosing the best location
for TSs among the potential locations. The next subsection pro-
and for at least one t̂ = t and û = u, vides the details of the proposed MSW management system with
TSs.
zt̂ (xû , D) = zt̂ (x∗û , D∗ ). (15)

For real valued functions p1 : [0, 1]2n → R+ and p2 : [0, 1]n → R+ , 3.1. Proposed MSW management scheme
the above relations (14) and (15) imply that for some (XL , XU , D) ∈ S
Fig. 4 describes the proposed scheme for MSW flow in the study
such that
area. The proposed scheme for MSW collection in the hypothetical
 
city includes (i) transportation of segregated MSW from sources (i.e.,
p1 (t, t
)p2 (u)zt (xu , D) dtdt
du < p1 (t, t
)p2 (u)zt (xu , D) dtdt
du. residential, commercial and institutional) to collection points in the
3n 3n
door to door collection manner using pre-primary collection vehicles
That is, for some (XL , XU , D) ∈ S, (PPCVs); (ii) transportation of accumulated MSW to TSs using PCVs;
(iii) transportation of MSW to composting plant or landfill using
    SCVs; and (iv) transportation of composting plant residuals to landfill
h X L , X U , D < h X L∗ , X U∗ , D∗ .
using special collection vehicles (SPCVs). Mathematical representa-
tion of cost associated with these four stages, fixed and variable
This is the contradiction that (XL* , XU* , D∗ ) ∈ S is an optimum costs of existing and proposed facilities are given in subsequent
∗
v , D ) is an optimal solution of GFLP. 
solution of GFLPI . Hence (Xn∗ paragraphs.
MSW generated at each source will be segregated as compostable
The proposed algorithm is summarized using pseudo-code for- waste, recyclables and waste to landfill. Recyclables will be col-
mat in Algorithm 1. The application of proposed algorithm on MSW lected periodically by private firms from all the generated sources,
management system of a hypothetical urban center is provided in and the municipal corporation is not responsible for this collection.
the subsequent section. MSW generators are encouraged to segregate recyclables at source as
recyclables are associated with direct revenues. MSW collector will
collect rest of the waste from doorstep using PPCVs on a daily basis.
PPCVs are small vehicles which can move inside narrow streets and
Algorithm 1. Steps of proposed algorithm in pseudo-code format. may be manual or automated. To avoid the commingling of MSW,
these PPCVs have inbuilt partitions. However, the distance traveled
by PPCVs will vary with the urbanization of the city. Also, it is dif-
ficult to generate geo-spatial data for narrow streets of the city. To
address this issue, the whole city is assumed to consist of Thiessen
polygons with respect to each and every collection point. Thiessen
polygons provide an individual area of influence around each and
every point of consideration (Okabe et al., 2009). In this case, the area
of influence of an individual polygon implies area of MSW collection
using a specific PPCV. PPCVs collect MSW from each polygon and
bring MSW to their respective collection points. In order to ensure  
p
an unsophisticated analysis, the average of all the perimeters pi
of Thiessen polygons is further equated to the perimeter of a square

N
p
grid (ps ) i.e., pi ≈ N ∗ ps , where N is the total number of collection
i=1
points or Thiessen polygons. These tiny square grids have collection
points at the intersection of diagonals (see Fig. 5). Then, maximum
distance traveled by any PPCV will be equivalent to the perimeter
 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771 765

Fig. 3. Map of study area with potential locations for transfer stations and MSW collection points.

 
¯ of these squares. Therefore, transportation cost using PPCVs
CP SCVs. SCVs are large trucks with the capacity of 15–20 tons. Com-
will be postable fraction of MSW will be transferred to SCVs without com-
paction as compostable waste is highly dense and do not require any
compacting. Also, compacted compostable waste creates an anaero-
  N   bic environment and requires a longer time period for final product
¯ TCP L , TCP U
CP GLi , GUi (16) (Tuomela et al., 2000). Transportation cost from TSs to landfill or
i=1
composting plant using SCVs will be

where, CP¯ is the perimeter of the square grids in km; i represents  P 

O      Q 
O    
L U L U
MSW collection points; [TCPL , TCP U TCjk , TCjk Xjk , Xjk ⊕ TCjlL , TCjlU XjlL , XjlU (18)
 ] is the transportation cost (in
j=1 k=1 j=1 l=1
Rs/ton/km) using PPCVs; and GLi , GUi is the MSW collected at
collection point i.
Segregated MSW from sources is transferred from PPCVs to PCVs where, k and l represent  composting
 plant and landfill respec-
U
at collection points. PCVs are comparatively bigger vehicles than tively; TCjk L
, TCjk and TCjlL , TCjlU are the transportation cost of
PPCVs with a capacity of 2–3 tons. Collection points are situated on MSW to be transferred from TSs j (= 1, 2, . . . , O) to composting
roads where PCVs take a halt on a specific time of the day. All the plant k (= 1, 2,. . . , P ) and
 landfill
 l (= 1, 2, . . . , Q ) in Rs./ton respec-
U
PPCVs reach at collection points before this specific time of day and tively; Xjk L
, Xjk and XjlL , XjlU are the amounts (in ton) of daily
transfer waste to PCVs. PCVs transport this waste to TSs. Therefore, MSW to be transferred from TS j (= 1, 2, . . . , O) to composting plant
transportation cost using PCVs will be k (= 1, 2, . . . , P ) and landfill l (= 1, 2, . . . , Q ) respectively.
Further, residuals of composting plant are transported using
SPCVs:
 O 
N    
TCijL , TCijU XijL , XijU (17)
 Q 
P    
i=1 j=1 L U L U
TCkl , TCkl Xkl , Xkl (19)
k=1 l=1

where, j represents TSs; [TCijL , TCijU ] is the transportation cost of  

MSW to be transferred from collection  point i (= 1, 2, . . . , N) to TS
j (= 1, 2, . . . , O) in Rs./ton; and XijL , XijU is the amount (in ton) of daily
MSW to be transferred from collection point i (= 1, 2, . . . , N) to TS
j (= 1, 2, . . . , O).
Compaction of non-recyclables and non-compostable MSW take
place at TSs. Compacted MSW is then transported to landfill using
L U
where, TCkl , TCkl is the transportation cost of MSW to be transferred
from composting plant k (= 1, 2, . . . , P ) to landfill l (= 1, 2, . . . , Q ) in
Rs./ton.
In addition to transportation costs, the cost function also includes
functioning cost of MSW management system. The functioning cost
is calculated by taking the sum of daily operational cost of existing
766 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771

Fig. 4. Proposed MSW management scheme with transfer stations in the hypothetical case study.
 
facilities (landfill and composting plant) and establishment cost of where, Fj is the establishment cost for the TS j, in Rs./day; OCjL , OCjU ,
TSs:    
OCkL , OCkU and OClL , OClU are operational cost for the TS j, com-

O 
N 
O
posting plant k and landfill l respectively in Rs./ton; Dj is the binary
Fj ∗ D j ⊕ [OCjL , OCjU ] [XijL , XijU ]
j=1 i=1 j=1
variable (=0 or 1), which is to take one if a TS is to be set up at
candidate location j (= 1, 2, . . . , O).
 P 
O     O 
P 
Q
Therefore, the objective function ([ZL , ZU ]) i.e., the total MSW
⊕ OCkL , OCkU Xjk
L U
, Xjk ⊕
management cost (in Rs./day) for this model will be
j=1 k=1 j=1 k=1 l=1
     
OClL , OClU XjlL , XjlU ⊕ Xkl
L U
, Xkl (20) min[Z L , Z U ] = Eq.(16) ⊕ Eq.(17) ⊕ Eq.(18) ⊕ Eq.(19) ⊕ Eq.(20) (21)
 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771 767

p
Fig. 5. Transportation of MSW using pre-primary collection vehicles (PPCVs); where pi is the perimeter of ith Thiessen polygon, ps is the perimeter of any square grid, and N is
the number of collection points.

The developed model includes following constraints: where, CTSj is the capacity of TS j in ton/day. These con-
straints also confined that TS j will set up iff it is selected by
1. Demand constraint i.e., all the MSW collected at collection model.
point i is equal to the MSW transported to TS j:

O
U
O 
Xjk ≤ CCPk ∀k = 1, 2, . . . , P (28)
   
XijL , XijU = GLi , GUi ∀i = 1, 2, . . . , N (22) j=1

j=1
where, CCPk is the capacity of composting plant k in ton/day.
  4. If collection point i chooses j as its TS, then all the MSW col-
where, GLi , GUi
is the amount of daily MSW collected at
lected at collection point i has to be transferred to TS j only.
collection point i.
2. Mass balance constraints i.e., the amount of daily MSW in
GLi ∗ Eij ≥ XijL ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , N, j = 1, 2, . . . , O (29)
and out of TSs and composting plants should be equal:

N 
  P 
  Q   GUi ∗ Eij ≥ XijU ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , N, j = 1, 2, . . . , O (30)
XijL , XijU = L
Xjk U
, Xjk ⊕ XjlL , XjlU ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , O
i=1 k=1 l=1

O
(23) Eij = 1 ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , N (31)
j=1
P 
    N  
L U
Xjk , Xjk = aL , aU XijL , XijU ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , O (24) where, Eij is the binary variable which takes one if TS
k=1 i=1 (j = 1, 2, . . . , O) has been chosen for collection point (i =
Q 
    O   1, 2, . . . , N).
L U
Xkl , Xkl = bL , bU L
Xjk U
, Xjk ∀k = 1, 2, . . . , P (25) 5. Constraint on maximum number of TSs i.e., the number of
l=1 j=1 TSs should not exceed the number of potential locations for
TSs CL:
where, [a L , a U ] is the compostable fraction of MSW gener-
ated in the city and [bL , bU ] is the fraction of compostable 
O
Dj ≤ CL (32)
waste to the residual of composting plant k.
j=1
3. Capacity constraints i.e., the quantity of MSW transported to
TSs, composting plant does not exceed their capacities:
6. Non-negativity constraint for amount of MSW need to be
collected:

N
XijU ≤ CTSj ∗ Dj ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , O (26)
i=1 XijL , Xjk
L
, XjlL , Xkl
L
≥ 0; ∀i, j, k, l (33)


P 
Q
U
Xjk + XjlU ≤ CTSj ∗ Dj ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , O (27) The proposed model is clearly a facility location model with
k=1 l=1 uncertain parameters and variables. The uncertain attributes of MSW
768 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771

subject to constraints

O 
O
XijL = GLi ; XijU = GUi , ∀i = 1, 2, . . . , N (34)
j=1 j=1


N 
P 
Q
XijL = L
Xjk + XjlL , ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , O (35)
i=1 k=1 l=1


N 
P 
Q
XijU = U
Xjk + XjlU , ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , O (36)
i=1 k=1 l=1


P 
N
L
Xjk = aL ∗ XijL ∀ j = 1, 2, . . . , O (37)
k=1 i=1


P 
N
U
Xjk = aU ∗ XijU ∀ j = 1, 2, . . . , O (38)
Fig. 6. Mosaic plot describing all the uncertain parameters with their respective k=1 i=1
sources of uncertainty (this figure is not to scale).

Q 
O
L
Xkl = bL ∗ L
Xjk ∀ k = 1, 2, . . . , P (39)
l=1 j=1

management systems (e.g., total MSW generated, the composition 

Q 
O
U
of generated MSW, the amount of MSW sent to different process- Xkl = bU ∗ U
Xjk ∀ k = 1, 2, . . . , P (40)
ing facilities and unskilled staff for maintenance of data inventory) l=1 j=1

induce uncertainty of parameters in the proposed model. The sources 

N
of uncertainty in these parameters may be classified in terms of (i) XijU ≤ CTSj ∗ Dj ∀ j = 1, 2, . . . , O (41)
seasonal variability; (ii) temporal variability; (iii) estimation error; i=1
(iv) measurement error; and (v) epistemological uncertainty. Fig. 6 
P 
Q
U
describes all uncertain parameters of proposed model with their Xjk + XjlU ≤ CTSj ∗ Dj ∀ j = 1, 2, . . . , O (42)
respective sources of uncertainty. The compilation of parameter k=1 l=1
values is given in the next section. 
P
U
Xjk ≤ CCPk ∀ k = 1, 2, . . . , P (43)
3.2. Data compilation k=1

GLi ∗ Eij ≥ XijL ; GUi ∗ Eij ≥ XijU ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , N, j = 1, 2, . . . , O (44)

The data requirement of this model can be classified into four
categories: (i) MSW generation at source; (ii) capacities, fixed and
operational costs of TSs; (iii) operational costs of existing facilities; 
O
Eij = 1 ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , N (45)
and (iv) MSW transportation costs. The MSW generated in the hypo-
j=1
thetical city has been estimated to be [720, 900] TPD by the end of the
year 2035. As far as the data pertaining to TSs in the city is concerned, 
O

the capacity of TSs should be neither very small (increases the over- Dj ≤ CL, (46)
j=1
all cost), nor very large (makes TSs crowded with vehicles, and hence
reduces the collection efficiency). Consequently, the capacity for a XijL , Xjk
L
, XjlL , Xkl
L
≥ 0; ∀ i, j, k, l (47)
TS has been chosen as 250 TPD based on the methodology given in
Yadav et al. (2016a,b). Fixed and operational costs of TSs and opera-
where ℵ is total number of parameters in zt (xu ),
tional costs of existing facilities are taken as the typical cost values of
Indian urban centers. The MSW transportation costs along with the

N 
N 
O
layout of the study region are determined using geographic infor- ¯ ∗ TCP(t1 )
zt (xu ) =CP Gi (ti ) + TCij (tij )Xij (uij )
mation system (GIS). GIS is a digital computer application, which i=1 i=1 j=1
is designed to capture, storage, analysis, and display of geospatial      
Eq. (16) Eq. (17)
data. GIS further provides an ability to map, measure distances and
accumulation of all different associated information (Fischer, 2006). 
O 
P 
O 
Q
+ TCjk (tjk )Xjk (ujk ) + TCjl (tjl )Xjl (ujl )
The data compiled is used as parameter values of the mathemati-
j=1 k=1 j=1 l=1
cal model (see Eqs. (16)–(33)). This model is solved using developed   
algorithm (see Section 2). Results and analysis of results generated Eq. (18)

using developed algorithm are provided in the next section. 

P 
Q 
O
+ TCkl (tkl )Xkl (ukl ) + Fj ∗ Dj
k=1 l=1 j=1
4. Results and discussion      
Eq. (19) Eq. (20)

The proposed facility location model (see Section 3.1) is solved 

N 
O 
O 
P
+ OCj (tj )Xij (uij ) + OCk (tk )Xjk (ujk )
using developed algorithm (see Section 2). Parametric represen-
i=1 j=1 j=1 k=1
tation of proposed facility location model for the hypothetical   
city (see Eqs. (16)–(33)) and its deterministic equivalent is given Eq. (20)

subsequently. 
O 
P 
Q
+ OCl (tl )(Xjl (ujl ) + Xkl (ukl ))
 j=1 k=1 l=1
Minimize Z(X) = p1 (t)p2 (u)zt (xu )dtdu   
ℵ Eq. (20)
 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771 769

Fig. 7. Economically best locations for transfer stations in the hypothetical case study.

This deterministic equivalent for the hypothetical city is written For this analysis, parametric representation of uncertain parameters

in a mathematical programming language (AMPL) (Gay, 2015) and
solutions are found using KNITRO 5.2 as solver (Byrd et al., 2006).
This model is solved on Passpoli server of Industrial Engineering and
Operation Research, IIT Bombay with Debian 8.1 operating system.
The deterministic equivalent has 39,990 variables and 44,015 con-
straints. The solutions of the proposed model provides economically
best locations for TSs, details of the amount of MSW has to be trans-
ported using PCVs and SCVs in an economically optimal manner and
minimized overall daily cost for MSW management in the hypotheti-
cal city. As discussed in Section 3, the municipality has identified ten
potential locations for TSs siting. The model chooses five best loca-
tions out of given ten potential locations. These economically best
five locations can be seen in Fig. 7. The optimum overall cost for the
MSW management in the hypothetical city is found to be [394836,
757440] Rs./day ([5906, 11331] USD/day) approximately. Further, to
find the scope of having uncertainty analysis of proposed model a
comprehensive sensitivity analysis is performed.
is considered i.e., for any uncertain parameter AL , AU ∈ I, [AL , AU ] =
L U
{at = (1 − t) ∗ A + t ∗ A | t ∈ [0, 1]} (see Section 2). The sensi-
tivity index of any uncertain parameter is equal to the slope of their
respective linear function of sensitivity parameter t. The normal-
ized sensitivity index of each uncertain parameter is given in Fig. 8.
Higher value of sensitivity index implies higher sensitivity of param-
eter. As can be seen in Fig. 8, MSW collected at collection point i is
the most sensitive parameter of the model. This is intuitive as higher
collection of MSW will lead to higher costs for transportation and
processing. Compostable fraction of MSW is the second most sensi-
tive parameter as slight fluctuation in this fraction requires a special
attention in terms of transportation and processing. The operating
cost of landfill is the most sensitive among all of the operating costs
as the major fraction of the MSW is being sent to landfill. This is a
prevalent situation in many developing countries.

4.1. Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis is generally performed to determine which

parameters have the most influence on outputs of model. The pur-
pose of this analysis is to study how uncertainty of model output is
apportioned to different sources of uncertainty in input parameters
(Saltelli et al., 2004). It is also stated that uncertainty of a sensitive
input parameter propagates through the model and increases the
overall uncertainty (Hamby, 1994). Conclusively, the requirement
of uncertainty modeling may be explained based on the results of
sensitivity analysis. Further, for decision making under uncertainty
of parameters, sensitivity analysis plays an important role. Decision
makers know about the time window in which variation in a spe-
cific parameter take place and by knowing the sensitivity of that
parameter MSW management would be much convenient.
In the present study, the sensitivity of all uncertain parameters is
examined with respect to the change in the objective function value. Fig. 8. Sensitivity of uncertain parameters to the objective function.
770 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771
5. Conclusions
The economical viability of any municipal solid waste (MSW)
management system is an essential concern of municipalities. To
model an economically feasible MSW management system, mathe-
matical models are to be developed by taking constraints of limited
capacities of facilities and fixed methodologies of treatments into
account. Further, the presence of uncertain parameters (e.g., waste-
generation rate, functioning cost of facilities, transportation cost,
and revenues) makes these model more complicated. This compli-
cation should not be compromised for realistic out comes. In many
instances, the uncertainty present in MSW management system
parameters need to be modeled under a situation of data scarcity
for generating probability distribution function for stochastic mathe-
matical programming or membership function for fuzzy mathemat-
ical programming, with only information of maximum variations.
Grey programming is an optimization technique which can intrin-
sically model uncertainty with the knowledge of extreme variation
only. Perhaps this technique has a limitation in terms of infeasi-
bility and nonoptimality of obtained solutions. To address these
limitations, this paper has presented an algorithm based on interval
analysis to solve a facility location model under the situation of data
scarcity effectively. The developed algorithm considers parametric
representation of an interval programming problem. The objective
function of parametric representation is further aggregated to the
deterministic equivalent of parent model. The deterministic equiva-
lent is obtained by multiplying parametric form of objective function
with preference functions and then integrating the resultant func-
tion. It is also proved in Theorem 2.1, that obtained solutions will
always be optimal for any positive preference functions. This facility
location model has been used to find economically best locations of
transfer stations (TSs) in a MSW management system. The developed
algorithm is further demonstrated on a hypothetical city. The hypo-
thetical city has an area of 192 km2 with an estimated population of
1.8 million. The developed algorithm yields five economically best
locations out of given ten potential locations for TSs and the amount
of MSW need to be transferred using different collection vehicles.
Also, in order to identify the most sensitive uncertain parame-
ters in the proposed model a comprehensive sensitivity analysis is
performed.
The methodology presented in this study will be helpful for
municipal officials and researchers to model an economically opti-
mal MSW management system with uncertain parameters. More-
over, a real case study may be considered for a practical implemen-
tation of proposed facility location e.g., Nashik City (India). Under
the National Urban Sanitation Policy (2010) by Government of India,
city of Nashik got a poor sanitation score i.e., 40.123 out of 100
and MSW management is one of the key components for this score.
Nashik Municipal Corporation is also willing to have TSs in their
MSW management system. Cities like Nashik need more empha-
sis on research for an efficient MSW management system with TSs.
Therefore, the proposed model may be demonstrated on the city of
Nashik to describe its practical implications. However, the proposed
model is computationally rigorous and real case study may further
complicate it. Also, a command line interface is used to solve the pro-
posed model which is not as user friendly as graphical user interface.
Hence, some tools may be developed for providing a graphical user
interface to solve such type of problems.
Evidently, economical optimization is considered as the main
criteria for finding best locations for TSs. Therefore, this study may
be extended by including environmental factors in order to exam-
ine environmental feasibility and environmentally best locations for
the TSs. Further, if data is adequate for few parameters and variables
to generate probability distribution function, presence of past infor-
mation with the stakeholder to define membership functions and
with information of only extreme variations, then a methodology
may be developed with stochastic, fuzzy and interval programming
within the same optimization framework.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Industrial Engineering and Oper-
ation Research (IEOR), IIT Bombay, Mumbai for providing compu-
tational support. The authors would also like to thank the Asso-
ciate Editor and the anonymous reviewers for providing extremely
insightful comments, which has improved the quality of this
manuscript.
References
Almeida, A., Orduña, P., Castillejo, E., López-de Ipiña, D., Sacristán, M., 2011. An
approach to automatic generation of fuzzy membership functions using pop-
ularity metrics. World Summit on Knowledge Society. Springer., pp. 528–533.
Badran, M., El-Haggar, S., 2006. Optimization of municipal solid waste management in
Port Said - Egypt. Waste Manag. 26, 534–545.
Beltrami, E.J., Bodin, L.D., 1974. Networks and vehicle routing for municipal waste
collection. Networks 4, 65–94.
Benjamin, A., Beasley, J., 2010. Metaheuristics for the waste collection vehicle routing
problem with time windows, driver rest period and multiple disposal facilities.
Comput. Oper. Res. 37, 2270–2280.
Bhurjee, A., Panda, G., 2012. Efficient solution of interval optimization problem. Math.
Meth. Oper. Res. 76, 273–288.
Birge, J.R., Louveaux, F., 2011. Introduction to Stochastic Programming. Springer.
Byrd, R.H., Nocedal, J., Waltz, R.A., 2006. Knitro: an integrated package for nonlinear
optimization. Large-scale Nonlinear Optimization. Springer., pp. 35–59.
Chang, N.B., 2015. Sustainable Solid Waste Management: A Systems Engineering
Approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Chang, N.B., Lu, H., Wei, Y., 1997. GIS technology for vehicle routing and schedul-
ing in solid waste collection systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering 123,
901–910.
Chang, N.-B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J.B., 2008. Combining GIS with fuzzy mul-
ticriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. J.
Environ. Manag. 87, 139–153.
Costi, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Rovatti, M., Sacile, R., 2004. An environmentally sus-
tainable decision model for urban solid waste management. Waste Manag. 24,
277–295.
Cui, L., Chen, L., Li, Y., Huang, G., Li, W., Xie, Y., 2011. An interval-based regret-analy-
sis method for identifying long-term municipal solid waste management policy
under uncertainty. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 1484–1494.
Eiselt, H.A., 2007. Locating landfills - optimization vs. reality. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179,
1040–1049.
Eiselt, H.A., Marianov, V., 2015. Location modeling for municipal solid waste facilities.
Comput. Oper. Res. 62, 305–315.
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.
Fan, Y., Huang, G., Veawab, A., 2012. A generalized fuzzy linear programming approach
for environmental management problem under uncertainty. J. Air Waste Manage.
Assoc. 62, 72–86.
Fischer, M.M., 2006. Spatial Analysis and Geocomputation: Selected Essays. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Gay, D.M., 2015. The AMPL modeling language: an aid to formulating and solving opti-
mization problems. Numerical Analysis and Optimization. Springer., pp. 95–116.
Gorelick, S.M., 1990. Large scale nonlinear deterministic and stochastic optimization:
formulations involving simulation of subsurface contamination. Math. Program.
48, 19–39.
Gottinger, H.W., 1988. A computational model for solid waste management with
application. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 35, 350–364.
Hamacher, H.W., Drezner, Z., 2002. Facility Location: Applications and Theory.
Springer.
Hamby, D., 1994. A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environ-
mental models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 32, 135–154.
Huang, G., Baetz, B.W., Patry, G.G., 1992. A grey linear programming approach for
municipal solid waste management planning under uncertainty. Civ. Eng. Syst. 9,
319–335.
Huang, G., Cao, M., 2011. Analysis of solution methods for interval linear programming.
J. Environ. Inform. 17, 54–64.
Huang, G., Chang, N., 2003. The perspectives of environmental informatics and systems
analysis. J. Environ. Inform. 1, 1–7.
Huang, G., Sae-Lim, N., Liu, L., Chen, Z., 2001. An interval-parameter fuzzy-stochas-
tic programming approach for municipal solid waste management and planning.
Environ. Model. Assess. 6, 271–283.
Huang, G.H., Baetz, B.W., Patry, G.G., 1993. A grey fuzzy linear programming approach
for municipal solid waste management planning under uncertainty. Civ. Eng. Syst.
10, 123–146.
 V. Yadav et al. / Science of the Total Environment 603-604 (2017) 760–771
Huang, G.H., Baetz, B.W., Patry, G.G., 1994a. Grey fuzzy dynamic programming:
application to municipal solid waste management planning problems. Civil Engi-
neering Systems 11 (1), 43–73.
Huang, G.H., Baetz, B.W., Patry, G.G., 1994b. Waste ow allocation planning through a
grey fuzzy quadratic programming approach. Civ. Eng. Syst. 11, 209–243.
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., Huaicheng, G., Guangming, Z., 1997. A mixed integer linear program-
ming approach for municipal solid waste management. J. Environ. Sci. China 9,
431–445.
Ishibuchi, H., Tanaka, H., 1990. Multiobjective programming in optimization of the
interval objective function. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48, 219–225.
Karadimas, N., Loumos, V., Orsoni, A., 2006. Municipal solid waste generation mod-
elling based on fuzzy logic. 20th European Conference on Modelling and Simu-
lation: Modelling Methodologies and Simulation Key Technologies in Academia
and Industry. pp. 309–314.
Karadimas, N.V., Papatzelou, K., Loumos, V.G., 2007. Genetic algorithms for munic-
ipal solid waste collection and routing optimization. Artificial Intelligence and
Innovations 2007: From Theory to Applications. Springer., pp. 223–231.
Karmakar, S., Mujumdar, P., 2006. Grey fuzzy optimization model for water quality
management of a river system. Adv. Water Resour. 29, 1088–1105.
Karmakar, S., Mujumdar, P., 2007. A two-phase grey fuzzy optimization approach for
water quality management of a river system. Adv. Water Resour. 30, 1218–1235.
Kirca, Ö., Erkip, N., 1988. Selecting transfer station locations for large solid waste
systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 35, 339–349.
Laporte, G., Nickel, S., da Gama, F.S., 2015. Location Science. Springer.
Li, Y., Huang, G., 2006. Minimax regret analysis for municipal solid waste manage-
ment: an interval-stochastic programming approach. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.
56, 931–944.
Li, Y., Huang, G., Yang, Z., Nie, S., 2008. An integrated two-stage optimization model for
the development of long-term waste-management strategies. Sci. Total Environ.
392, 175–186.
Marks, D.H., Liebman, J., 1970. Mathematical analysis of solid waste collection. Pub-
lic Health Service Publication. vol. 2104. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Washington, D.C.
Marti, K., 1990. Stochastic programming: numerical solution techniques by semi-s-
tochastic approximation methods. Stochastic Versus Fuzzy Approaches to Multi-
objective Mathematical Programming Under Uncertainty. Springer., pp. 23–43.
Melo, M.T., Nickel, S., Saldanha-da Gama, F., 2009. Facility location and supply chain
management-a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 196, 401–412.
Möller, B., Graf, W., Beer, M., 2003. Safety assessment of structures in view of fuzzy
randomness. Comput. Struct. 81, 1567–1582.
Moore, R.E., 1966. Interval Analysis. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs.
Nie, Y., Li, T., Yan, G., Wang, Y., Ma, X., 2004. An optimal model and its application for
the management of municipal solid waste from regional small cities in China. J.
Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 54, 191–199.
Ojo, O., Anyata, B., 2009. Fuzzy based solid waste management method. Adv. Mater.
Res. 62-64, 728–735.
771
Okabe, A., Boots, B., Sugihara, K., Chiu, S.N., 2009. Spatial Tessellations: Concepts and
applications of Voronoi Diagrams. John Wiley & Sons.
Or, I., Curi, K., 1993. Improving the efficiency of the solid waste collection system
in Izmir, Turkey, through mathematical programming. Waste Manag. Res. 11,
297–311.
Owen, S.H., Daskin, M.S., 1998. Strategic facility location: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
111, 423–447.
Rosenberg, D.E., 2009. Shades of grey: a critical review of grey-number optimization.
Eng. Optim. 41, 573–592.
Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., 2004. Sensitivity Analysis in
Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. John Wiley & Sons.
Shmoys, D.B., Swamy, C., 2006. An approximation scheme for stochastic linear
programming and its application to stochastic integer programs. J. ACM 53,
978–1012.
Srivastava, A., Nema, A., 2011. Fuzzy parametric programming model for integrated
solid waste management under uncertainty. J. Environ. Eng. 137, 69–83.
Stevens, E.S., 2002. Green Plastics: An Introduction to the New Science of Biodegrad-
able Plastics. Princeton University Press.
Sun, W., An, C., Li, G., Lv, Y., 2014. Applications of inexact programming methods
to waste management under uncertainty: current status and future directions.
Environ. Syst. Res. 3, 1–15.
Tuomela, M., Vikman, M., Hatakka, A., Itävaara, M., 2000. Biodegradation of lignin in a
compost environment: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 72 (2), 169–183.
USEPA, 2002. Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-making. . United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).,
Wang, S., Huang, G., Yang, B., 2012. An interval-valued fuzzy-stochastic programming
approach and its application to municipal solid waste management. Environ.
Model Softw. 29, 24–36.
Xu, Y., Huang, G., Qin, X., Cao, M., 2009a. SRCCP: A stochastic robust chance-con-
strained programming model for municipal solid waste management under
uncertainty. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 352–363.
Xu, Y., Huang, G., Qin, X., Huang, Y., 2009b. a stochastic robust fuzzy interval linear
programming model for municipal solid waste management under uncertainty.
J. Environ. Inform. 14, 72–82.
Yadav, V., Karmakar, S., Dikshit, A.K., Vanjari, S., 2016a. A feasibility study for the
locations of waste transfer stations in urban centers: a case study on the city of
Nashik, India. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 191–205.
Yadav, V., Karmakar, S., Dikshit, A.K., Vanjari, S., 2016b. Transfer stations siting in india:
a feasibility demonstration. Waste Manag. 47, I–IV.
Yeomans, J.S., 2007. Solid waste planning under uncertainty using evolutionary simu-
lation-optimization. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 41, 38–60.
Ziemba, W.T., Vickson, R.G., 2014. Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance. Aca-
demic Press.
Zou, R., Liu, Y., Liu, L., Guo, H., 2009. REILP approach for uncertainty-based decision
making in civil engineering. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (4), 357–364.