An ANP Approach For Siting A Municipal Solid Waste Plant in The Metropolitan Area of Valencia

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
An Analytic Network Process approach for siting a municipal solid waste plant in
the Metropolitan Area of Valencia (Spain)
Pablo Aragonés-Beltrán a, *, Juan Pascual Pastor-Ferrando a, Fernando Garcı́a-Garcı́a b,
Amadeo Pascual-Agulló a
a
Department of Engineering Projects, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
b
Department of Economy and Social Sciences, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In this paper the Analytic Network Process (ANP) is applied to select the best location for the
Received 12 December 2008 construction of a municipal solid waste (MSW) plant in the Metropolitan area of Valencia (Spain).
Received in revised form Selection of the appropriate MSW facility location can be viewed as a complex multicriteria decision-
18 September 2009
making problem that requires an extensive evaluation process of the potential MSW plant locations and
Accepted 5 December 2009
Available online xxx
other factors as diverse as economic, technical, legal, social or environmental issues. The decision-making
process includes the identification of six candidate MSW plant sites and 21 criteria grouped into clusters
for the construction of a network. Two technicians of the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Agency acted as
Keywords:
Municipal waste management plant decision makers (DMs).
location The influences between the elements of the network were identified and analyzed using the ANP
Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) multicriteria decision method. Two different ANP models were used: one hierarchy model (that
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) considers AHP as a particular case of ANP) and another network-based model. The results obtained in
Analytic network process (ANP) each model were compared and analyzed. The strengths and weaknesses of ANP as a multicriteria
decision analysis tool are also described in the paper. The main findings of this research have proved that
ANP is a useful tool to help technicians to make their decision process traceable and reliable. Moreover,
this approach helps DMs undertake a sound reflection of the siting problem.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction presents two main problems (Lober, 1995): i) social opposition,

a phenomenon known as NIMBY (not in my back yard), NIMNBY
The purpose of municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment plants is (not in my neighbour’s back yard), NIABY (not in anyone’s back
to recycle most of the waste materials and transform them into re- yard) or BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone)
usable materials. Metals, paper, glass, plastics or organic matter can (Colebrook and Sicilia, 2007); and ii) the huge number of envi-
be re-used through simple transformations or more complex ronmental and social data to take into consideration when deciding
chemical and biochemical processes. Non-recyclable materials are on best plant location with the least nuisances, highest efficiency
transported to landfills or dump sites. Waste materials are trans- and likelihood of social acceptance.
formed and treated in solid waste treatment plants. The process Certain problems result from the plant’s operation, such as bad
includes waste collection and transportation to the plant, treatment odours and smells, noise, rubbish and litter in the surrounding
processes and transportation and dumping of non-recyclable waste environment or the generation of sewage effluents. These draw-
materials to the landfill. backs can be significantly reduced with proper design of the
These types of industrial plants belong to the group of obnox- industrial process, buildings and facilities. Another plant impact
ious or undesirable facilities. The location of the MSW plant results from solid waste collection vehicles that transfer MSW from
the collection points to the solid waste recycling plant and the non-
recyclable materials from the plant to the landfill. This impact also
affects other neighbouring municipalities that exist along the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 96 387 70 07x75651; fax: þ34 96 387 98 69.
garbage collection routes.
E-mail addresses: aragones@dpi.upv.es (P. Aragonés-Beltrán), jppastor@dpi.upv.
es (J.P. Pastor-Ferrando), fergarga@esp.upv.es (F. Garcı́a-Garcı́a), ampasag@etsii.upv. The factors involved in the selection of the best MSW plant
es (A. Pascual-Agulló). location are the huge area required for plant building (about 15
0301-4797/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.007
Please cite this article in press as: Aragonés-Beltrán, P., et al., An Analytic Network Process approach for siting a municipal solid waste plant in
the..., Journal of Environmental Management (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16
hectares), electric power needs (between 6 and 8 Mw) and the alternatives) as perceived by the decision maker (DM), and groups
need for a water treatment plant where to pump the effluents them into clusters. In this paper a new approach for siting MSW
generated during the waste treatment process. Therefore, the plant locations, based on the ANP is presented. After a thorough
problem of MSW management plant location can be considered revision of the related literature no references related to this
a multicriteria decision problem. specific siting problem have been found. In the field of solid waste
The problem of undesirable facility location selection has been management, ANP has been used by Khan and Faisal (2008) for
extensively studied in the literature. The mathematical models for prioritizing and selecting appropriate MSW disposal methods,
problem-solving have evolved from the single-criterion, maximin Banar et al. (2007) for choosing one of the four alternative landfill
models (maximizing the average or minimum distance between sites in Turkey; and Tuzkaya et al. (2008) for locating undesirable
the customers and the facility) (Hale and Moberg, 2003), to mul- facilities.
ticriteria models which include conflicting criteria in problem This new approach is illustrated by a case study in which the
analysis. Erkut and Newman (1989) classify the problems of ANP is used for selecting the optimal location of a MSW plant with
undesirable facility siting according to: number of facilities to be a capacity of 247,000 MT/year municipal waste, handled by the
located, solution space (network, tree or general), feasible region Metropolitan Waste Disposal Agency (EMTRE) of Valencia (Spain).
(discrete, continuous, other), distance measure, distance EMTRE manages the solid waste disposed of in the city of Valencia
constraints, weights, distance terms included (minimum distance as well as in other 44 municipalities of the Metropolitan Area.
to the solution set or sum of the distances to the solution set), Valencia is the third largest city in Spain, with 880,000 inhabi-
interactions considered and objective (single objective or multi- tants, but with the municipalities of the Metropolitan Area the
objective). They conclude that the real-world problem of undesir- population rises to about 1,500,000 inhabitants (Fig. 1). In this
able facility location selection is clearly a multiobjective decision area, about 700,000 tons of solid waste per year is disposed of
problem. (1.24 kg per day and person). At present one waste treatment plant
Different approaches have been proposed to solve multi- is in operation, currently being enlarged, and a new plant will soon
objective problems based on Multicriteria Decision-Making start working. Additionally there is a huge landfill not far from
(MCDM) models. Some authors have addressed the problem from Valencia where non-recyclable waste is collected and dumped.
a multiobjective approach, in which the set of feasible alternatives However, the construction of a third recycling plant is necessary.
is considered infinite. Recent versions of the method can be found For all these reasons, the location of a MSW treatment plant is
in Alumur and Kara (2007), Emek and Kara (2007) or Colebrook and a complex decision-making problem as it has to take into
Sicilia (2007). A different approach to the problem comes from the consideration the influences among conflicting criteria and the
use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques, which alternatives.
consider a finite and relative small set of alternatives, yet the The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents
number of criteria involved in the process is high. MCDA techniques the background of AHP and ANP methods. Section 3 describes the
incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to a decision decision-making process and the ANP modeling approach. Finally,
problem. Cheng et al. (2002) use MCDA techniques for supporting Section 4 presents the conclusions of the present work.
decisions of solid waste management (simple weighted addition
method, weighted product method, TOPSIS, cooperative game 2. Background of AHP and ANP
theory and ELECTRE). In a later work these authors integrate MCDA
and inexact mixed integer linear programming (IMILP) methods to The Analytic Hierarchic Process (AHP) and the Analytic Network
support the selection of an optimal landfill site (Cheng et al., 2003). Process (ANP) are two methods proposed by Saaty (Saaty, 1980,
PROMETHEE methods have been used by Queiruga et al. (2008) for 1996a, 2001, 2005, 2008). AHP is a well-known technique that
selecting potential locations of recycling plants for treatment of breaks down a decision-making problem into several levels in such
waste electrical and electronic equipment; Khalil et al. (2004) for a way that they form a hierarchy with unidirectional hierarchical
site selection for sustainable on-site sewage effluent disposal, relationships between levels. The top level of the hierarchy is the
Martel and Aouni (1992) for site selection of an airport, Vuk et al. main goal of the decision problem. The lower levels are the tangible
(1991) for the selection of a communal waste disposal facility site. and/or intangible criteria and subcriteria that contribute to the
ELECTRE methods have been used by Norese (2006) for locating an goal. The bottom level is formed by the alternatives to evaluate in
incinerator and a facility to store ashes and other wastes in Italy; terms of the criteria. AHP uses pairwise comparison to allocate
and Rey et al. (1995) for the location of a stabilized-waste storage weights to the elements of each level, measuring their relative
facility. Fuzzy TOPSIS has been used by Yong (2006) for plant importance with Saaty’s 1-to-9 scale, and finally calculates overall
location and Chu (2002a,b) for facility location and plant location. weights for evaluation at the bottom level. The method also
Recently other techniques combining GIS and fuzzy multicriteria calculates a consistency ratio (CR) to verify the coherence of the
decision-making have been applied for landfill sitting (Chang et al., judgments, which must be about 0.10 or less to be acceptable.
2008). Mathematical foundations of AHP can be found in Saaty (1994,
AHP techniques have been used by Dey and Ramcharan (2008) 1996b).
for the site selection of limestone quarry operations to support AHP is conceptually easy to use; however its strict hierarchical
cement production in Barbados; by Gemitzi et al. (2007), Kontos structure cannot address the complexities of many real-world
et al. (2003), Siddiqui et al. (1996), Sener et al. (2006) and Mum- problems. As a solution, Saaty proposed the ANP model, a gener-
molo (1995) for ranking potential MSW landfill areas; and by Wang alization of AHP. ANP represents a decision-making problem as
et al. (2009) combined with spatial information technologies for a network of criteria and alternatives (all called elements), grou-
landfill site selection. AHP and TOPSIS have been used by Oenuet ped into clusters. All the elements in the network can be related in
and Soner (2008) for solid waste transshipment site selection in any possible way, i.e. a network can incorporate feedback and
Turkey. complex inter-relationships within and between clusters. This
The Analytic Network Process (ANP) technique proposed by provides a more accurate modeling of complex settings. The
Thomas L. Saaty, the author of the well-known AHP method, has influence of the elements in the network on other elements in that
recently been gaining popularity. ANP incorporates the influences network can be represented with a supermatrix. This new concept
and interactions among the elements of the system (criteria and consists of a two-dimensional element-by-element matrix which
ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16 3
Fig. 1. Map of Valencia city and its Metropolitan Area.
adjusts the relative importance weights in individual pairwise (vi) Raising the weighted supermatrix to limiting powers until
comparison matrices to build a new overall supermatrix with the the weights converge and remain stable (limit
eigenvectors of the adjusted relative importance weights. supermatrix).
According to (Saaty, 2001), the ANP model comprises the
following steps: Some of the most recent applications of ANP to decision-
making problems have been as follows: R&D project selection
(i) Identifying the components and elements of the network and (Meade and Presley, 2002), (Mohanty et al., 2005); construction
their relationships. project selection (Cheng and Li, 2005); resource allocation in
(ii) Conducting pairwise comparisons on the elements. transportation (Wey and Wu, 2007); enterprise information
(iii) Placing the resulting relative importance weights (eigenvec- system project selection with regard to BOCR (Liang and Li, 2008),
tors) in pairwise comparison matrices within the supermatrix supplier selection (Gencer and Gürpinar, 2007), selection of
(unweighted supermatrix). logistics service provider (Jharkharia and Shankar, 2007),
(iv) Conducting pairwise comparisons on the clusters. contractor selection (Cheng and Li, 2004), purchasing decisions
(v) Weighting the blocks of the unweighted supermatrix, by the (Demirtas and Ustun, 2009), concept evaluation in a new product
corresponding priorities of the clusters, so that it can be development (Ayağ and Özdemir, 2007); evaluation of alternative
column-stochastic (weighted supermatrix). fuels for electricity generation (Köne and Büke, 2007) and for
ARTICLE IN PRESS
residential heating (Erdoğmuş et al., 2006); strategic The two EMTRE technicians have discussed with other techni-
e-business decision analysis (Raisinghani et al., 2007), asset cians from the Regional Government and the municipalities of the
valuation (Aragonés-Beltrán et al., 2008; Garcı́a-Melón et al., Metropolitan Area, as well as with technicians from similar Spanish
2008); choice of best management alternative of the supply chain entities. They have also discussed with politicians of the local and
in a company (Agarwal et al., 2006), selection of appropriate regional administrations. This way, the judgments of both techni-
countermeasures at the planning stage of site remediation cians have considered not only their own knowledge and experi-
(Promentilla et al., 2006); determination of the appropriate ence, but the opinions and perceptions of the technicians and
energy policy (Haktanırlar, 2005), product mix planning (Chung politicians consulted, although these have not formally participated
et al., 2005), selection of best actuation for end-of-life computers in the decision-making process.
(Ravi et al., 2005), facility location problem (Partovi, 2006), Fig. 2 shows the decision-making process followed in this study.
warehouse location for Digital Equipment Corporation (Sarkis and
Sundarraj, 2002). 3.2. Phase of problem analysis
The reasons for using an ANP-based decision analysis approach
in the present work are: (i) the location of a MSW treatment plant is The first step is related with the identification of the problem. At
a multicriteria decision problem; (ii) there are dependencies among the first two meetings between the Analysis Team and the Decision
groups of criteria and between these and the alternative sites under Maker the decision problem was formulated and the main goal of
evaluation that have to be analyzed; (iii) the detailed analysis of the the analysis process was identified as mentioned in the Introduc-
inter-relationships between clusters forces the decision makers to tion of the paper. Next, following Erkut and Newman’s recom-
carefully reflect on their project priority approach and on the mendations (1989), six potential plant locations were identified
decision-making problem itself. This helps DM to gain a better based on the technical specifications indicated by the engineers of
understanding of the problem and to make a more reliable final the team. At a second stage, the criteria for assessing the alterna-
decision. tives were identified and grouped into clusters for further ANP
The main drawback in the practical application of ANP is analysis in the synthesis phase.
a consequence of the complexity of the decision-making
problem to be analyzed. This complexity has to be incorporated 3.2.1. Identification of potential MSW plant locations
into the ANP model. To this end ANP prescribes a high number The Metropolitan Area of Valencia is located near the Mediter-
of comparisons that occasionally get to be complex to under- ranean sea, and it is a densely populated area that has all kind of
stand for DM not familiarized with the method. Hence, much infrastructures (highways, railway, industrial parks, local roads,
attention must be devoted to the elaboration of the question- port, airport), with an extensive farm land of vegetables and fruit
naires and the comparison process must be helped by a facili- trees (mainly orange trees) as an added value to the area, an
tator (Gómez-Navarro et al., 2009). Nevertheless, once the environmentally valuable natural park (the lagoon La Albufera),
method is understood by DM the questionnaires are easy to and the area is surrounded by mountains of considerable land-
answer. scaping and environmental value. Additionally, according to the
Spanish legislation on Land Use, MSW plants can only be built in
areas classified by the Administration as land for industrial use.
3. The decision process and the ANP modeling approach Taking all this into consideration, the process of finding suitable
locations for the construction of the MSW treatment plant started.
3.1. Description of the decision-making process According to the EMTRE’s forecasts the MSW plant should have
a capacity of 247,000 T/yr solid waste. A plant having this capacity
Following Saaty’s interpretation (Saaty, 2001), in the present requires an area of 10–15 ha and consumes between 6 and 8 MW. In
work the AHP method is considered a particular case of ANP. The addition to this, the MSW plant site should meet the following
decision-making process followed in the study was divided into specifications, according to the Spanish regulations (CMACV,
three phases: problem analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The 2002):
phase of problem analysis was common to the two decision
analysis models described below. In the phase of synthesis two 1. Minimize flood risks. The Metropolitan Area of Valencia, like the
decision analysis methods were used: an AHP-based hierarchical rest of the Spanish Mediterranean coast, is affected by heavy
model and an ANP network-based model that analyzed the influ- rains. For this reason, the Spanish Administration has elabo-
ences among network elements. The phases of synthesis and rated a map of flood areas. The locations selected for plant
evaluation were conducted separately, and input data processing building must be outside the flooding areas.
mode depended on the decision analysis model. 2. Maximize distance to nearby towns. The locations selected for
The study was developed jointly by two engineers (who acted as plant building must be as far as possible from any town,
DM), members of the Technical Unit of the Metropolitan Waste minimizing the number of residents in an area 5 km in radius
Disposal Agency of Valencia (EMTRE), directly nominated by the from the plant.
Agency’s chief officer and the research team of the Department of 3. Maximize distance to protected areas. In addition to the natural
Engineering Projects of the Polytechnic University of Valencia, who spaces protected by the Local Government, the municipalities
are experts in MCDA and who played the role of Analysis Team (AT). have also included certain protected areas in their urban
The two EMTRE members acted as a unique Decision Maker by planning plans. Therefore, the plant must be built far from
consensus. They were responsible for elaborating the report about these protected areas
the best location for the construction of a new MSW treatment 4. Minimize distance from the main roads (highways and primary
plant that the EMTRE’s chief officer had to submit to the Local roads). Important roads cross the Metropolitan Area of Valen-
authorities. This is a common practice of the Public Administration cia, both access roads to the city of Valencia and highways (the
in Spain, where policy makers and planners make their decisions Mediterranean Highway and the Highway to Madrid). The
based on the technical reports elaborated by their own technicians. location of the plant next to the main roads minimizes waste
These technicians need scientifically proved methodological tools transportation costs and reduces nuisances by avoiding
that help them to ground and justify their recommendations. crossing small towns.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. Decision making process.
5. Closeness to industrial parks. Higher level of priority was given

to those sites located near consolidated industrial parks likely Table 1
to be extended with the support of the local or state authorities. Structure of the hierarchy model.
6. Land planning. There are plans in the area for extending Goal Group Criteria Alternatives
primary infrastructures (high speed train and construction of
MSW plant location Plant exploitation C1. Distance to E.D.A.R. A
the highway around Valencia). In these areas no construction is in the Metropolitan costs C2. Distance to another B
allowed. Area of Valencia MSW plant C
C3. Distance to landfill D
It is important to mention that although the location of this kind C4. Municipalities and E
waste volume F
of plants, like any undesirable facility, raises opposition from the Facilities and C5. Accesses
affected communities this criterion was not taken into account in infrastructures C6. Water
this study because it was considered that all the alternatives for C7. Runoff and sewage
MSW plant construction would generate similar social opposition. systems
C8. Power
For this reason, this criterion does not influence the final decision of
C9. Roads
selecting one plant location or another. Environmental C10. Water sources
After an exhaustive study of the territory and the land use plans issues C11. Visual impact
of the different municipalities of the Area, six potential plant C12. Community
locations were selected and identified with letters A, B, C, D, E and F. affected by smells
C.13. Topography
Locations A and C stand to the north of the Metropolitan Area; C14. Cattle ways
locations B and E to the west; Location D to the south, near an C15. Archaeological sites
important industrial park; location F lies in an area close to the city C16. Flood areas
of Valencia within its municipal district (see Fig. 1). All plant loca- C 17. Protected areas
Legal C18. Land planning
tions meet the specification mentioned above.
requirements C19. Facilities and
infrastructures
3.2.2. Identification and clustering of the decision-making criteria C20. Environmental
At this stage, the decision-making criteria were identified. This issues
identification was based on the knowledge and the experience of C21. Nearby
municipalities
the DM. A literature review was also carried out. The main criteria
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 3. Structure of the relationships among clusters.
cited by different authors are: technical, financial, environmental, C2.- Distance to another MSW plant. It assesses the cost of taking
social and day-to-day operations and management (Khan and the waste to another treatment plant in case of plant failure. The
Faisal, 2008); natural factors (hydro geological, geological and closer the MSW plant is to another existing MSW plant the
topographical criteria), and artificial factors (accessibility, infra- better.
structure, urban centres, villages and land use) (Sener et al., 2006); C3.- Distance to landfill. It assesses the cost of transporting the
cost of transporting, number of people in the bandwidth for waste from the MSW plant to the landfill. The closer the MSW
hazardous waste type, amount of hazardous waste (Alumur and plant is to an existing landfill the better.
Kara, 2007); accessibility by motorway, distance from the nearest C4.- Municipalities and waste volume. It assesses the cost
motorway, population, necessity of new roads, impact on land- equivalent to the distance that the garbage vehicles have to
scape, agricultural value, natural habitat protection (Norese, 2006); drive from the centre of the town to the MSW plant. The closer
economic (land, personnel and energy costs), infrastructural the MSW plant is to the towns weighted by the annual amount
(facility access, proximity to inhabited areas) and legal objectives of waste generated by each town the better.
(Queiruga et al., 2008).
At the end of this process, the DM, with the support of the AT, Group 2: facilities and infrastructures
identified 21 criteria that were grouped as follows: C5.- Accesses. It assesses the availability of suitable road accesses
through which waste disposal vehicles can drive.
Group 1: plant exploitation costs C6.- Water. It assesses the availability of a drinking water source.
C1.- Distance to a Waste Water Treatment Plant (EDAR). It assesses C7.- Runoff and Sewage system. It assesses the availability of
the cost of transporting lixiviated waste to the EDAR. The closer water runoff and sewage systems (proximity to gullies and
the MSW plant is to the EDAR the better as this reduces public sewage systems).
investment costs. C8.- Power. It assesses the availability of connection to the
electric power distribution system. The closer the connection to
the power distribution system the better.
Table 2
Example of the questionnaire about prioritization of elements: Compare the Table 3
following elements in the group legal requirements according to their influence upon Example of the questionnaire about prioritization of clusters: Compare the following
accesses in the group facilities and infrastructures. groups that have some influence upon the cluster Environmental issues.
Which has the greatest importance or A B Equally Which has the greatest importance or A B Equally
influence? important influence? important
To what extent? Very strong To what extent? Very strong
Relative Strong Extreme Relative Strong Extreme
A: Land use planning. A: alternatives.

B: infrastructures. B: plant exploitation costs.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4 Table 6
Priorities of the locations depending on the decision model used. Comparison of the priorities of the criteria clusters.
Alternatives AHP Priority Ranking ANP Priority Alternatives Clusters AHP ANP Clusters
B 0.219 1 0.252 F Environmental issues 0.439 0.369 Environmental issues
E 0.218 2 0.232 B Legal requirements 0.269 0.300 Legal requirements
F 0.213 3 0.195 E Exploitation costs 0.229 0.178 Exploitation costs
C 0.153 4 0.116 D Facilities and infrastructures 0.062 0.154 Facilities and infrastructures
D 0.118 5 0.103 A
A 0.079 6 0.101 C
C17.- Protected areas. It assesses the proximity of the plant to pro-

C9.- Roads. It assesses the kind of roads that link the plant tected natural areas. The farther from the protected area the better.
location with the different municipalities of the Area. The closer
the MSW plant is to primary roads the better to minimize traffic Group 4: legal requirements
problems and reduce fuel consumption. C18.- Land planning. It assesses the land use classification of each
plant location (urban, urbanizable, industrial, rural, etc). The
Group 3.- Environmental issues. fewer the administrative requirements for adequate land use
C10.- Water sources. It assesses the proximity to aquifers classification the better the alternative of plant location.
(underground water) and possible contamination by filtration of C19.- Infrastructures and facilities. It assesses the existing infra-
effluents from the plant. structures and facilities that must be diverted for plant
C11.- Visual impact. It assesses the visual impact generated by the construction (electricity, gas, irrigation systems, etc). Their
plant on the environment. existence in a certain site involves complex administrative
C12.- Community affected by bad odours and smells. It assesses procedures to be approved by the local administrations and
the communities affected by bad odours and smells in case of companies responsible for the facility.
failure of the plant protection systems. It is assessed consid- C20.- Environmental issues. It assesses the procedure to follow in
ering the residents living within a distance of 5 km from the case of the existence of archaeological remains, cattle ways or other
plant. issues managed by the Regional Department of Environment. The
C13.- Topography. It assesses the topography of the terrain. The best plant location will be the site with the fewer environmental
less the levelling and earth works required, the better. problems more likely to obtain the required environmental permit.
C14.- Cattle ways. It assesses the effects of the plant on cattle C21.- Nearby municipalities. It assesses the number of munici-
ways. In Spain there are still cattle ways protected by old rights. palities near the plant so that the fewer the municipalities near
If the construction of the infrastructures affects the cattle way, it the plant, the better. This will reduce the administrative process
has to be diverted to respect the cattle way rights. to obtain the necessary licenses for plant construction that
C15.- Archaeological sites. It assesses the possibility of finding depend on each municipality.
archaeological remains in the plant site. In the Area there are
many places likely to have archaeological remains.
3.3. Phase of data synthesis
C16.- Flood areas. It assesses if the land is likely to be affected by
an accidental leak of the plant’s effluents. The lower the risk the
In this phase, the decision criteria were weighted; then each
better the plant location.
alternative was valuated for each criterion so as to obtain the
desired final priority order of the locations under study. For this
purpose in the present work the AHP and ANP methods are used
Table 5 following two main decision analysis models: one hierarchy model
Comparison of the priorities of the criteria depending on the decision model used.
and another network-based model. Following is a description of
Criteria AHP ANP Criteria each decision analysis model.
C3.- distance to landfill 0.149 0.110 C20.- environment
C10.- water sources 0.123 0.085 C19.- infrastructures 3.3.1. The hierarchy model
C15.- archaeological sites 0.096 0.071 C15.- archaeological sites
In this model the main goal of the problem is placed at the top
C16.- flood areas 0.091 0.067 C21.-nearby municipalities
C18.- land planning 0.090 0.061 C17.- protected areas
vertex: location of a MSW management plant with a capacity of
C19.- infrastructures 0.084 0.056 C16.- flood areas 247,000 T/yr solid waste in the Metropolitan Area of Valencia (Spain).
C20.- environment 0.084 0.056 C10.- water sources At the bottom of the hierarchy lie the six potential locations. The
C4.- municipalities and waste 0.050 0.054 C3.- distance to landfill intermediate levels show the criteria grouped into two levels.
volume
(Table 1)
C17.- protected areas 0.045 0.051 C5.- accesses
C12.- community affected by 0.037 0.047 C12.- community Once the hierarchy is established, the process follows three
smells affected by smells steps: i) criteria weighting, ii) evaluation of the candidate plant
C14.- cattle ways 0.028 0.047 C2.- distance to locations for each criterion, and iii) results and findings. The first
another plant two steps are based on pairwise comparison matrices for the
C9.- roads 0.026 0.044 C7.- runoff and
sewage system
different levels and sublevels. In order for the DM to give his
C5.- accesses 0.024 0.039 C1.- distance to EDAR judgments on each matrix, a questionnaire was designed with the
C2.- distance to another plant 0.021 0.039 C11.- visual impact following question: Given a certain higher-level control criterion
C21.-nearby municipalities 0.011 0.038 C18.- land planning (e.g. facilities and infrastructures) and two lower-level criteria,
C11.- visual impact 0.010 0.037 C4.- municipalities
Which criterion is more important and to what extent according to
and waste volume
C1.- distance to EDAR 0.010 0.033 C13.- topography Saaty’s 1-9 scale?. Next, another questionnaire was designed to
C13.- topography 0.009 0.023 C9.- roads evaluate the different alternatives based on their relative criteria
C7.- runoff and sewage systems 0.008 0.018 C8.- power levels using questions such as: Given a certain criterion and two
C6.- water 0.003 0.018 C6.- water alternatives to compare, which alternative better satisfies the crite-
C8.- power 0.002 0.006 C14.- cattle ways
rion and to what extent according to Saaty’s 1–9 scale?. For those
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 7
Sensitivity analysis modifying influences among criteria and alternatives in unweighted supermatrix.
Unweighted supermatrix values Priorities

Iteration
C20 vs F C20 vs B B vs C20 C20 vs F A B C D E F
1 0,2285 0,1502 0,1146 0,2282 0,1122 0,2246 0,1095 0,1206 0,2058 0,2273
2 0,457 0,1502 0,1146 0,2282 0,1133 0,2244 0,1100 0,1204 0,2050 0,2269
3 0,6855 0,1502 0,1146 0,2282 0,1143 0,2242 0,1105 0,1202 0,2041 0,2266
4 0,6855 0,3004 0,1146 0,2282 0,1143 0,2215 0,1111 0,1201 0,2049 0,2281
5 0,457 0,3004 0,1146 0,2282 0,1132 0,2217 0,1105 0,1203 0,2057 0,2285
6 0,2285 0,3004 0,1146 0,2282 0,1121 0,2220 0,1100 0,1205 0,2066 0,2289
7 0,2285 0,4506 0,1146 0,2282 0,1120 0,2193 0,1105 0,1203 0,2074 0,2304
8 0,457 0,4506 0,1146 0,2282 0,1131 0,2191 0,1111 0,1201 0,2065 0,2301
9 0,6855 0,4506 0,1146 0,2282 0,1142 0,2189 0,1116 0,1199 0,2056 0,2297
10 0,6855 0,4506 0,2292 0,2282 0,1106 0,2321 0,1079 0,1184 0,2019 0,2291
11 0,457 0,4506 0,2292 0,2282 0,1097 0,2314 0,1076 0,1187 0,2030 0,2295
12 0,2285 0,4506 0,2292 0,2282 0,1089 0,2307 0,1074 0,1190 0,2041 0,2299
13 0,2285 0,3004 0,2292 0,2282 0,1091 0,2328 0,1070 0,1192 0,2035 0,2283
14 0,457 0,3004 0,2292 0,2282 0,1100 0,2335 0,1073 0,1189 0,2024 0,2279
15 0,6855 0,3004 0,2292 0,2282 0,1108 0,2342 0,1075 0,1186 0,2012 0,2275
16 0,6855 0,1502 0,2292 0,2282 0,1111 0,2364 0,1072 0,1189 0,2006 0,2259
17 0,457 0,1502 0,2292 0,2282 0,1103 0,2356 0,1069 0,1191 0,2017 0,2263
18 0,2285 0,1502 0,2292 0,2282 0,1094 0,2349 0,1066 0,1194 0,2029 0,2267
19 0,2285 0,1502 0,3438 0,2282 0,1067 0,2451 0,1038 0,1183 0,1999 0,2262
20 0,457 0,1502 0,3438 0,2282 0,1073 0,2468 0,1038 0,1179 0,1985 0,2257
21 0,6855 0,1502 0,3438 0,2282 0,1079 0,2484 0,1038 0,1175 0,1972 0,2252
22 0,6855 0,3004 0,3438 0,2282 0,1074 0,2470 0,1040 0,1172 0,1976 0,2269
23 0,457 0,3004 0,3438 0,2282 0,1068 0,2453 0,1040 0,1176 0,1990 0,2274
24 0,2285 0,3004 0,3438 0,2282 0,1062 0,2437 0,1040 0,1180 0,2004 0,2278
25 0,2285 0,4506 0,3438 0,2282 0,1057 0,2422 0,1041 0,1177 0,2008 0,2295
26 0,457 0,4506 0,3438 0,2282 0,1063 0,2438 0,1042 0,1172 0,1994 0,2290
27 0,6855 0,4506 0,3438 0,2282 0,1069 0,2455 0,1042 0,1168 0,1980 0,2286
28 0,6855 0,4506 0,3438 0,4564 0,0993 0,2445 0,0966 0,1136 0,1898 0,2562
29 0,457 0,4506 0,3438 0,4564 0,0992 0,2427 0,0972 0,1143 0,1920 0,2546
30 0,2285 0,4506 0,3438 0,4564 0,0991 0,2410 0,0978 0,1150 0,1942 0,2529
31 0,2285 0,3004 0,3438 0,4564 0,1000 0,2425 0,0980 0,1154 0,1942 0,2499
32 0,457 0,3004 0,3438 0,4564 0,1001 0,2442 0,0974 0,1148 0,1920 0,2515
33 0,6855 0,3004 0,3438 0,4564 0,1002 0,2460 0,0969 0,1141 0,1899 0,2531
34 0,6855 0,1502 0,3438 0,4564 0,1011 0,2475 0,0971 0,1146 0,1899 0,2499
35 0,457 0,1502 0,3438 0,4564 0,1010 0,2458 0,0977 0,1153 0,1920 0,2483
36 0,2285 0,1502 0,3438 0,4564 0,1009 0,2441 0,0982 0,1159 0,1941 0,2467
37 0,2285 0,1502 0,2292 0,4564 0,1036 0,2338 0,1011 0,1171 0,1970 0,2473
38 0,457 0,1502 0,2292 0,4564 0,1040 0,2345 0,1008 0,1165 0,1952 0,2490
39 0,6855 0,1502 0,2292 0,4564 0,1043 0,2352 0,1005 0,1160 0,1934 0,2506
40 0,6855 0,3004 0,2292 0,4564 0,1037 0,2330 0,1005 0,1156 0,1936 0,2537
41 0,457 0,3004 0,2292 0,4564 0,1033 0,2323 0,1008 0,1161 0,1954 0,2520
42 0,2285 0,3004 0,2292 0,4564 0,1030 0,2316 0,1010 0,1167 0,1973 0,2504
43 0,2285 0,4506 0,2292 0,4564 0,1023 0,2295 0,1010 0,1163 0,1975 0,2533
44 0,457 0,4506 0,2292 0,4564 0,1027 0,2302 0,1008 0,1158 0,1957 0,2550
45 0,6855 0,4506 0,2292 0,4564 0,1030 0,2309 0,1005 0,1152 0,1938 0,2567
46 0,6855 0,4506 0,1146 0,4564 0,1067 0,2174 0,1043 0,1168 0,1977 0,2571
47 0,457 0,4506 0,1146 0,4564 0,1061 0,2178 0,1043 0,1172 0,1992 0,2554
48 0,2285 0,4506 0,1146 0,4564 0,1055 0,2181 0,1042 0,1177 0,2008 0,2537
49 0,2285 0,3004 0,1146 0,4564 0,1059 0,2208 0,1041 0,1179 0,2004 0,2509
50 0,457 0,3004 0,1146 0,4564 0,1065 0,2205 0,1041 0,1175 0,1989 0,2526
ARTICLE IN PRESS
(continued)
Unweighted supermatrix values Priorities

Iteration
C20 vs F C20 vs B B vs C20 C20 vs F A B C D E F
51 0,6855 0,3004 0,1146 0,4564 0,1072 0,2201 0,1041 0,1170 0,1973 0,2543
52 0,6855 0,1502 0,1146 0,4564 0,1076 0,2229 0,1039 0,1174 0,1969 0,2513
53 0,457 0,1502 0,1146 0,4564 0,1070 0,2232 0,1039 0,1178 0,1985 0,2496
54 0,2285 0,1502 0,1146 0,4564 0,1064 0,2235 0,1039 0,1182 0,2000 0,2480
55 0,2285 0,1502 0,1146 0,6846 0,1006 0,2224 0,0983 0,1159 0,1941 0,2687
56 0,457 0,1502 0,1146 0,6846 0,1006 0,2220 0,0977 0,1151 0,1918 0,2727
57 0,6855 0,1502 0,1146 0,6846 0,1007 0,2214 0,0971 0,1144 0,1894 0,2770
58 0,6855 0,3004 0,1146 0,6846 0,0998 0,2186 0,0969 0,1139 0,1894 0,2813
59 0,457 0,3004 0,1146 0,6846 0,0998 0,2192 0,0975 0,1147 0,1918 0,2770
60 0,2285 0,3004 0,1146 0,6846 0,0997 0,2196 0,0981 0,1154 0,1942 0,2729
61 0,2285 0,4506 0,1146 0,6846 0,0989 0,2169 0,0979 0,1150 0,1942 0,2770
62 0,457 0,4506 0,1146 0,6846 0,0990 0,2164 0,0973 0,1142 0,1918 0,2812
63 0,6855 0,4506 0,1146 0,6846 0,0990 0,2159 0,0967 0,1135 0,1894 0,2856
64 0,6855 0,4506 0,2292 0,6846 0,0952 0,2296 0,0928 0,1118 0,1854 0,2852
65 0,457 0,4506 0,2292 0,6846 0,0955 0,2289 0,0938 0,1128 0,1882 0,2809
66 0,2285 0,4506 0,2292 0,6846 0,0957 0,2283 0,0947 0,1137 0,1909 0,2767
67 0,2285 0,3004 0,2292 0,6846 0,0968 0,2305 0,0951 0,1142 0,1911 0,2724
68 0,457 0,3004 0,2292 0,6846 0,0965 0,2311 0,0942 0,1133 0,1884 0,2765
69 0,6855 0,3004 0,2292 0,6846 0,0962 0,2318 0,0932 0,1124 0,1856 0,2807
70 0,6855 0,1502 0,2292 0,6846 0,0973 0,2340 0,0936 0,1130 0,1859 0,2762
71 0,457 0,1502 0,2292 0,6846 0,0976 0,2334 0,0946 0,1139 0,1886 0,2720
72 0,2285 0,1502 0,2292 0,6846 0,0978 0,2327 0,0955 0,1147 0,1912 0,2680
73 0,2285 0,1502 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0958 0,2422 0,0933 0,1139 0,1890 0,2657
74 0,457 0,1502 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0954 0,2439 0,0922 0,1129 0,1862 0,2695
75 0,6855 0,1502 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0949 0,2456 0,0910 0,1119 0,1832 0,2733
76 0,6855 0,3004 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0936 0,2440 0,0904 0,1113 0,1828 0,2779
77 0,457 0,3004 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0941 0,2422 0,0916 0,1123 0,1858 0,2740
78 0,2285 0,3004 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0946 0,2406 0,0928 0,1132 0,1887 0,2702
79 0,2285 0,4506 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0933 0,2389 0,0922 0,1126 0,1884 0,2745
80 0,457 0,4506 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0928 0,2406 0,0910 0,1116 0,1854 0,2784
81 0,6855 0,4506 0,3343057 0,6656943 0,0923 0,2423 0,0898 0,1106 0,1824 0,2825
criteria with a quantitative value the estimates were normalized For the determination of the influences between the elements of
by dividing the criterion value by the total sum of values. In all the network a zero-one interfactorial dominance matrix was used
judgement matrices it was verified that their consistency ratios (Saaty, 2001) whose elements aij take the value 1 or 0 depending on
were less than 0.1. The results of the hierarchy model are shown in whether there is or there is not some influence of element i on
Tables 4 and 5. element j. The rows and columns of the matrix are formed by all the
elements of the network.
3.3.2. The network model In ANP, the numerical data can be represented graphically and
The decision problem was modelled using a single network thus show the influence pattern of the network. This step is
consisting of 5 clusters, the four groups of criteria and the cluster essential for further development of the process because if all the
of the alternatives. The procedure followed is as described complexity of the real-world case study is to be transferred to the
below: model, the DM has to accurately identify the influences of some
elements upon others based on his knowledge and experience. If
3.3.2.1. Determination of the network. This step requires the DM to the DM fails to identify one influence, the model will not take it into
have a good understanding of the problem using the advice given account and some valuable information will be lost. For this reason
by the AT based on the data gathered in previous stages. The steps the DM was asked about the influences that each criterion exerted
needed for the construction of the network are: i) determination of on the other criteria. We assume that the alternatives exert some
the elements, ii) determination of the clusters, and iii) determina- influence on the criteria and vice versa. Therefore it was not
tion of the influence network. The first two steps of identification necessary to answer the questions in the questionnaire corre-
and clustering of criteria have been described in the section sponding to this section.
Problem Analysis. It can be observed that neither cluster contains As there are 21 criteria, this means 441 questions of the type ‘‘Do
more than seven elements. you think that criterion Ci has any influence on Cj?’’. To facilitate the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Sensitivity analysis modifying alternatives-criteria

0,3000
and criteria-alternatives influences
0,252
0,2500
0,232
0,195
0,2000
Priority
0,1500
0,116
0,103
0,1000
0,101
A
B
C
0,0500
D
E
F
0,0000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81
Iteration
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis modifying influences among criteria and alternatives in unweighted supermatrix.
DM’s task, the AT designed a questionnaire. Annex 1 shows the element eij of cluster Cj (e.g. the four criteria of the group ‘‘legal
resulting interfactorial dominance matrix. requirements’’ exert some influence on the criterion ‘‘accesses’’
With the data collected from the questionnaire the decision within the group ‘‘facilities and infrastructures’’). To determine
model was built with the help of the Super Decisions v1.6.0. which elements (among those that have some kind of influence) of
software (www.superdecisions.com) and Superdecisions-Q Ck have more influence on element eij of Cj, a reciprocal pairwise
(http://sdq.webs.upv.es). Fig. 3 shows the relationships among the comparison matrix is built with the elements of Ck. In order to fill in
clusters. each component of the matrix n(n ÿ 1)/2 questions (n being the
number of elements of Ck that influence eij) have to be answered.
3.3.2.2. Determination of element and cluster priorities. This stage This procedure is repeated for each cluster whose elements exert
includes all the steps of the ANP model. The first step consists of some influence on element eij of Cj. In this way, for each column of
assigning priorities to related elements in order to build the the eij elements of the unweighted supermatrix we can identify
unweighted supermatrix. To this end, each criterion is analyzed in blocks corresponding to each of the clusters that exert some kind of
terms of which other criteria exert some kind of influence upon it; influence on that element and whose values form the eigenvector
then the corresponding pairwise comparison matrices of each that represents the relative influence of the elements of each cluster
criteria group are generated in order to obtain the corresponding on element eij.
eigenvectors. Due to the fact that in the case study different elements from
The procedure is the following: let’s suppose that some or all the different clusters have influences on one element the
elements (criteria or alternatives) eik of cluster Ck influence one unweighted matrix is non-stochastic by columns. Thus,
Sensitivity analysis modifying intercriteria influences from Sensitivity analysis modifying cluster matrix
and over C20 0,3
0,3
0,25
0,25 A
A
0,2
Priorities
B B
0,2
Priorities
C 0,15 C
0,15 D
D
E 0,1
0,1 E
F
0,05 0,05 F
0 0
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 10% 20% 30%
Variation Variation
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis modifying influences among criteria. Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis modifying cluster matrix.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
according to Saaty (2001), all clusters that exert any kind of Table 8
influence upon each group have to be prioritized using the Sensitivity analysis: comparison of the alternatives in the ANP original model with
the ANP model without influences between criteria.
corresponding cluster pairwise comparison matrices. The value
corresponding to the priority associated with a certain cluster ANP original model Alternatives ANP without influences Alternatives
weights the priorities of the elements of the cluster on which it 0.252 F 0.246 F
acts (in the unweighted supermatrix), and thus the weighted 0.232 B 0.244 B
0.195 E 0.180 E
supermatrix can be generated. Annex 1 shows the unweighted
0.116 D 0.124 D
and weighted matrices. 0.103 A 0.108 C
To this end, a new questionnaire about priorities was designed 0.101 C 0.100 A
to be answered by the DM. This questionnaire analyzed each
element (criteria or alternatives) in terms of which of the other
In the AHP model the priorities are independent of the analyzed
elements that have influence on it and belong to a certain cluster
plant locations and the influences among criteria are not taken into
exerts a greater influence on it and to what extent. This is done by
consideration.
means of the pairwise comparison method. The questionnaire was
However, the results of the ANP model show the complexity of
designed as a multiple-choice test and organized into tables that
the problem. In the ANP model, the priorities are affected by the
grouped the questions relative to the pairwise comparison
influences among elements. The fact that some criteria exert some
matrices. The consistency ratios of the judgement matrices were
influence upon others, but even more important, the fact that we
always lower less than 0.1. Tables 2 and 3 show an example of the
are analyzing certain specific location alternatives makes some
questionnaire.
criteria which seem very important in the hierarchy model lose
importance; or vice versa, some criteria considered of little
3.3.2.3. Calculation of the limit matrix and resulting prior-
importance by the DM, gain importance when analyzing the
itization. By raising the weighted supermatrix to successive powers
influences shown by the model. This is the case of criterion C20
the limit matrix is obtained. The results of the model are shown in
‘‘Environmental issues’’, which in the ANP model presents the
Tables 4 and 5 and in Annex 1.
highest weight value (11%) whereas in the AHP model it appears in
position seven (8.4%). Criterion C3 ‘‘Distance to landfill’’ obtains the
3.4. Phase of evaluation of results
highest weight value (14.9%) in the AHP model, whereas it falls
down to position eight (5.4%) in the ANP model.
Table 4 shows the results obtained with each model of the study.
When cluster weights are analyzed in each model (obtained
There are noticeable differences between both decision analysis
from the sum of the weight values of the criteria within the
models. The hierarchy model provides similar results for alterna-
clusters) we can observe that the priority order of the clusters is
tives B, E and F, all three with a priority value of 21%. By contrast,
similar in both models. In this way the cluster ‘‘environmental
although in the network-based model these three alternatives are
issues’’ has the highest value in both models (43.9% in the AHP
also the best options, there are differences in their priority values,
model and 36.9% in the ANP model). We can also observe that the
alternative F being the best rated option with a priority value of
degree of importance attributed to clusters ‘‘environmental
25.2%. If we look at the Table 4 we can observe that the order of the
issues’’ and ‘‘exploitation costs’’ in the AHP model has moved to
alternatives ranked in the last positions is also different in both
cluster ‘‘facilities and infrastructure’’ in the ANP model, and that
models, alternative C appearing in the last position in the network-
clusters ‘‘environmental issues’’ and ‘‘legal requirements’’ are
based model.
equally important. Table 6 shows the weight values of each criteria
Table 5 shows the weights obtained in each model. As can be
cluster.
observed in the table, the weights of the criteria in both models are
The AT recommended the DM to use the results obtained with
different. This is due to the fact that the information is handled
the ANP model. As stated by Saaty (2001, op.cit. 96) ‘‘the entries
differently in each model. In the AHP model the weights obtained
of the weighted supermatrix itself give the direct influence of any
reflect the inherent importance that the DM gives to each criterion.
Table 9
Sensitivity analysis: comparison of the weights of the criteria in the ANP original model with the ANP model without influences between criteria.
Criteria Weights (ANP without influences) Weights (ANP) Criteria

C19.- infrastructures 0.087 0.110 C20.- environment
C21.-nearby municipalities 0.084 0.085 C19.- infrastructures
C17.- protected areas 0.078 0.071 C15.- archaeological sites
C15.- archaeological sites 0.078 0.067 C21.-nearby municipalities
C20.- environment 0.074 0.061 C17.- protected areas
C10.- water sources 0.072 0.056 C16.- flood areas
C16.- flood areas 0.065 0.056 C10.- water sources
C02.- distance to another plant 0.061 0.054 C03.- distance to landfill
C03.- distance to landfill 0.058 0.051 C05.- accesses
C01.- distance to EDAR 0.058 0.047 C12.- community affected by smells
C12.- community affected by smells 0.054 0.047 C02.- distance to another plant
C04.- municipalities and waste volume 0.052 0.044 C07.- runoff and sewage system
C11.- visual impact 0.050 0.039 C01.- distance to EDAR
C13.- topography 0.037 0.039 C11.- visual impact
C18.- land planning 0.024 0.038 C18.- land planning
C06.- water 0.016 0.037 C04.- municipalities and waste volume
C09.- roads 0.015 0.033 C13.- topography
C08.- power 0.014 0.023 C09.- roads
C05.- accesses 0.010 0.018 C08.- power
C07.- runoff and sewage systems 0.007 0.018 C06.- water
C14.- cattle ways 0.006 0.006 C14.- cattle ways
ARTICLE IN PRESS
element on any other. But an element can influence a second original model reinforces the difference between the two best
element indirectly through its influence on some third element ranked alternatives (F and B). The changes observed are related to
and then by the influence of that element on the second’’. There the new limit priorities of the criteria. A readjustment of the
can be many hidden influences through indirect relationships. priorities has taken place. Nevertheless, the main five criteria are
The ANP model takes into consideration all the influences still the same in both models and their aggregate weight remains
perceived by the DM, whereas AHP does not consider influences constant (40% vs. 39,4%).
among elements. The ANP model is more complex than the AHP
model and this fact is the main weakness as well as the main 4. Conclusions
strength of the ANP method: Weakness in the sense of the
complexity of the model, and strength in the sense of the This paper presents a new approach for the selection of the
reflections, experience and better understanding by the DM on optimal location for the construction of an MSW management
the case study. plant, based on the ANP method (including AHP as a particular case
It is worth mentioning that the results coincided with the DM’s of ANP). This is a complex decision-making problem with many
initial intuition. Despite the efforts spent in answering the ques- different criteria and issues to take into consideration. A real-world
tionnaires, the DM conclusion was that they answered the ques- case is presented in this paper, in which two technicians of the
tions fast and that the questions helped them reflect on the Metropolitan Waste Treatment Agency of Valencia (Spain) had to
problem. This greatly helped them to select the optimal location present a report to the Chief Officer of the agency, who is respon-
for the construction of an MSW management plant. sible for submitting the proposal to the Local authorities. In Spain it
is a common practice that qualified engineers act as technical
3.4.1. Sensitivity analysis experts and give policy makers their opinion on a case study. For
Once the results are obtained, two different sensitivity analyses this reason the technical engineers need decision support tools that
have been undertaken. In the first one the influences between the help them in their decision-making process and that make their
elements of the model have been changed in a systematic way. The decision process traceable and reliable.
second one has erased the influences between criteria. As To this end, MCDA techniques are very useful as these tech-
a conclusion of these analyses we can state that the results obtained niques help DM handle all the data collected during the decision
are sufficiently stable. process. Among MCDA techniques, the ANP model allows analyzing
The sensitivity analyses through modification of the influences the influences among the different elements of the system as
consisted of three different studies: 1) modification of the influ- perceived by the DM.
ences of the alternatives on the criteria and of the criteria on the In this paper we used two decision analysis models, one hier-
alternatives, 2) modification of the influences among criteria and 3) archy model and another network-based model. Our conclusion is
modification of the influences among clusters. To carry out each of that the network-based model is better because the technicians
these studies those criteria (C20, C19, C15, C21 and C17) and those perceived the influences among the elements of the system. Yet the
alternatives (F and B) have been chosen which have the highest comparison analysis between both decision analysis models was
priority. Furthermore, the influence of the five criteria with the also useful because the analysis of the results with the hierarchy
lowest priority has been increased, as well. model allowed the decision makers to observe which criteria were
To illustrate the procedure of the first study, Table 7 and Fig. 4 most significant for them independently of the specific alternatives
show the results obtained when the influences of C20 on F, C20 on under study and to identify the influences among the elements of
B, F on C20 and B on C20 are simultaneously modified in the the systems. The analysis of the results obtained with the network-
unweighted matrix. The original values have been modified by þ/ÿ based model allowed the DM to observe which criteria that initially
50% in a three-step process, resulting in 81 possible combinations were considered as very significant, in the real model did not exert
which have generated 81 new rankings of alternatives. Fig. 4 shows such a great influence. This fact allowed for a deep reflection of the
that alternative F is better than alternative B, except for some cases process that was very useful in the analysis of results.
where the values are far away from the original ones. This analysis In this particular case study the technicians considered highly
has been carried out with the software Superdecisions. relevant the fact that the MSW plant was located near the landfill
Studies two and three have been made using Microsoft Excel where to transfer the non-recyclable materials as well as possible
and Matlab. In the second study the influences of the five criteria effects of the plant’s waste effluents on the water sources and
with the highest priority have been progressively reduced to aquifers of the area. However, when the problem was analyzed
increase the influence of the five criteria with the lowest priority. considering all possible influences among elements, these two
This process has generated multiple rankings, although the posi- criteria only had a secondary importance whereas the environ-
tion of the different alternatives in the rankings has not changed. mental issues and facilities and infrastructures turned out to be the
Fig. 5 shows how the ranking of priorities evolves when the most important factors.
influence of criterion C20 on the others decreases and the influ- The technicians were satisfied with the results of the decision
ence of the other criteria on C20 increases up to 30% in the process because of the deep reflection it involved. In addition, the
unweighted matrix. effort devoted to the analysis was not excessive because although
The third study analyses the influence among clusters, reducing they had to answer long questionnaires, the questions were easily
the influence of the most important clusters on each of the others and rapidly answered. The fact of having to perform pairwise
up to 30%. Fig. 6 shows that neither in this case there is a change in comparisons forced them to better address the issues, and was an
the ranking of alternatives. easy task for them.
For the second analysis the influences among criteria have been Although the new proposal has been specifically applied for
erased. Only the mutual influences between criteria and alterna- siting an MSW plant, ANP decision-making process can be adap-
tives were considered. Tables 8 and 9 show the new priorities of the ted to any type of decision-making problem, provided the criteria
alternatives and weights compared with the priorities of the orig- are correctly identified and there are some dependencies among
inal network model. them.
As a result of this analysis we can conclude that, in this case, As future work we suggest to use BOCR analysis and to improve
there are no relevant changes in the ranking of the alternatives. The the decision-making process to consider public participation.
Annex 1
Table 9
Interfactorial dominance matrix.
Alternatives Plant exploitation Facilities and Environmental issues Legal requirements
costs infraestructures
A B C D E F C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21
Alternatives A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Plant exploitation costs C1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facilities and infraestructures C5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Environmental issues C10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16
Legal requirements C18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13
14
Table 10
Unweighted supermatrix in the ANP model.
Alternatives Plant exploitation costs Facilities and infraestructures Environmental issues Legal requirements
Alternatives A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.022 0.034 0.023 0.044 0.256 0.423 0.320 0.071 0.142 0.047 0.116 0.125 0.167 0.048 0.047 0.114 0.034 0.053 0.092 0.225
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.346 0.336 0.119 0.105 0.256 0.068 0.320 0.071 0.324 0.209 0.448 0.125 0.167 0.265 0.113 0.266 0.336 0.065 0.229 0.474
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109 0.035 0.069 0.117 0.044 0.095 0.068 0.134 0.071 0.142 0.047 0.116 0.125 0.167 0.048 0.113 0.266 0.069 0.132 0.092 0.093
D 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.065 0.069 0.037 0.105 0.256 0.068 0.061 0.071 0.024 0.209 0.240 0.375 0.167 0.265 0.308 0.030 0.069 0.111 0.040 0.093
E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.346 0.336 0.119 0.463 0.043 0.186 0.032 0.357 0.324 0.047 0.060 0.125 0.167 0.109 0.308 0.056 0.336 0.319 0.092 0.089
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.590 0.185 0.156 0.585 0.238 0.095 0.186 0.134 0.357 0.043 0.440 0.020 0.125 0.167 0.265 0.113 0.266 0.156 0.319 0.456 0.027
Plant exploitation costs C1 0.700 0.045 0.210 0.080 0.045 0.542 0.000 0.040 0.100 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C2 0.100 0.417 0.107 0.425 0.417 0.060 0.000 0.106 0.000 1000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100
C3 0.100 0.417 0.158 0.282 0.417 0.067 0.000 0.411 0.900 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.654 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.900
C4 0.100 0.122 0.526 0.213 0.122 0.331 0.000 0.442 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000 0.000 0.000 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Facilities and infraestructures C5 0.056 0.072 0.090 0.111 0.426 0.175 0.125 0.500 0.125 0.750 0.265 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.290 0.125 0.900 0.000 0.640 0.778 0.654 0.564 0.778 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.000
C6 0.272 0.385 0.334 0.556 0.040 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.053 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000
C7 0.272 0.063 0.090 0.111 0.142 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 1000 0.000 0.055 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.235 0.111 0.164 0.319 0.111 0.000 0.333 0.833 0.000
C8 0.316 0.412 0.405 0.111 0.037 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.063 0.111 0.130 0.059 0.111 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000
C9 0.084 0.067 0.081 0.111 0.355 0.544 0.875 0.500 0.875 0.250 0.672 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.655 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Environmental issues C10 0.250 0.169 0.175 0.036 0.354 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.682 0.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.224 0.000
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C11 0.071 0.079 0.060 0.095 0.049 0.246 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.051 0.031 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.434 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.000

C12 0.154 0.221 0.121 0.119 0.058 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000
C13 0.071 0.058 0.113 0.234 0.058 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.252 0.000 0.248 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.625 0.000 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000
C14 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000
C15 0.071 0.195 0.070 0.234 0.127 0.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.316 0.145 0.000 0.467 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.370 0.000 1000 0.000 0.000 0.785 0.000 0.229 0.000
C16 0.067 0.058 0.173 0.234 0.272 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.147 0.000 0.236 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.131 0.000 0.000 1000 0.000 0.149 0.000 0.210 0.000
C17 0.300 0.208 0.274 0.034 0.069 0.205 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.147 0.121 0.236 0.467 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.066 0.000 0.216 0.000
Legal requirements C18 0.095 0.052 0.100 0.120 0.114 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.584 0.153 0.124 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.111 0.731 0.000 0.000 0.442 0.000
C19 0.095 0.052 0.300 0.360 0.676 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.352 0.660 0.235 0.000 0.125 0.875 0.000 1000 0.125 0.125 0.111 0.081 0.000 0.250 0.106 0.000
C20 0.249 0.300 0.300 0.106 0.105 0.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.266 0.423 0.174 0.661 0.000 0.875 0.125 1000 0.000 0.875 0.875 0.778 0.188 0.000 0.750 0.411 0.000
C21 0.560 0.595 0.300 0.413 0.105 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.101 0.073 0.043 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 1000
Table 11
Weighted supermatrix in the ANP model.
Alternatives Plant exploitation costs Facilities and infraestructures Environmental issues Legal requirements
Alternatives A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.169 0.017 0.025 0.017 0.021 0.125 0.206 0.169 0.058 0.084 0.028 0.085 0.074 0.096 0.028 0.028 0.066 0.027 0.035 0.052 0.143
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.260 0.252 0.090 0.050 0.125 0.033 0.169 0.058 0.192 0.124 0.326 0.074 0.096 0.157 0.067 0.153 0.274 0.042 0.129 0.302
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.027 0.052 0.088 0.021 0.046 0.033 0.071 0.058 0.084 0.028 0.085 0.074 0.096 0.028 0.067 0.153 0.056 0.086 0.052 0.059
D 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.049 0.052 0.028 0.050 0.125 0.033 0.032 0.058 0.014 0.124 0.174 0.222 0.096 0.157 0.182 0.017 0.056 0.072 0.022 0.059
E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.260 0.252 0.090 0.219 0.021 0.091 0.017 0.292 0.192 0.028 0.043 0.074 0.096 0.065 0.182 0.032 0.274 0.207 0.052 0.057
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.540 0.139 0.118 0.440 0.113 0.046 0.091 0.071 0.292 0.025 0.261 0.015 0.074 0.096 0.157 0.067 0.153 0.127 0.207 0.258 0.017
Plant exploitation costs C1 0.160 0.010 0.048 0.018 0.010 0.124 0.000 0.007 0.018 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C2 0.023 0.096 0.024 0.097 0.096 0.014 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.178 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004
C3 0.023 0.096 0.036 0.065 0.096 0.015 0.000 0.073 0.160 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032
C4 0.023 0.028 0.120 0.049 0.028 0.076 0.000 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Facilities and infraestructures C5 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.027 0.011 0.011 0.035 0.009 0.053 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.023 0.167 0.000 0.119 0.140 0.122 0.105 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.000
C6 0.017 0.024 0.021 0.035 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.010 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000
C7 0.017 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.009 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.007 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.020 0.030 0.059 0.020 0.000 0.056 0.122 0.000
C8 0.020 0.026 0.025 0.007 0.002 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.012 0.020 0.024 0.011 0.020 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000
C9 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.022 0.034 0.075 0.035 0.062 0.018 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Environmental issues C10 0.110 0.074 0.077 0.016 0.155 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.172 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C11 0.031 0.035 0.026 0.042 0.022 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.013 0.008 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000

C12 0.068 0.097 0.053 0.052 0.025 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.145
C13 0.031 0.025 0.049 0.103 0.025 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.042 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000
C14 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000
C15 0.031 0.085 0.031 0.103 0.056 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.037 0.000 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.029 0.000
C16 0.030 0.025 0.076 0.103 0.120 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.027 0.000
C17 0.132 0.091 0.120 0.015 0.030 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.031 0.060 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.012 0.000 0.028 0.000
Legal requirements C18 0.026 0.014 0.027 0.032 0.031 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.104 0.028 0.023 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.110 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.000
C19 0.026 0.014 0.081 0.097 0.182 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.065 0.121 0.047 0.000 0.019 0.136 0.000 0.155 0.019 0.019 0.017 0.012 0.000 0.046 0.017 0.000
C20 0.067 0.081 0.081 0.029 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.078 0.032 0.132 0.000 0.136 0.019 0.190 0.000 0.132 0.136 0.121 0.028 0.000 0.138 0.066 0.000
C21 0.151 0.160 0.081 0.111 0.028 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.182
15
ARTICLE IN PRESS
References Köne, AÇ, Büke, T., 2007. An analytical network process (ANP) evaluation of
alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy 35,
5220–5228.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2006. Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and
Kontos, T.D., Komilis, D.R., Halvadakis, C.P., 2003. Siting MSW landfills on Lesvos
leagile supply chain: an ANP-based approach. European Journal of Operational
island with a GIS-based methodology. Waste Management and Research 21 (3),
Research 173, 211–225.
262–277.
Alumur, S., Kara, B.Y., 2007. A new model for the hazardous waste location-routing
Liang, C., Li, Q., 2008. Enterprise information system project selection with regard to
problem. Computers and Operations Research 34, 1406–1423.
BOCR. International. Journal of Project Management 26 (8), 810–820.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Aznar, J., Ferrı́s-Oñate, J., Garcı́a-Melón, M., 2008. Valuation of
Lober, D.J., 1995. Resolving the siting impasse. Autumn95. Journal of the American
urban industrial land: an Analytic Network Process approach. European Journal
Planning Assotiation 61 (4), 482–495.
of Operational Research 185 (1), 322–339.
Martel, J.M., Aouni, B., 1992. Multicriteria method for site selection. Example of an
Ayağ, Z., Özdemir, R.G., 2007. An analytic network process-based approach to
airport for new Quebec. INFOR 30 (2), 97–117.
concept evaluation in a new product development environment. Journal of
Meade, L.M., Presley, A., 2002. R&D project selection using the analytic network
Engineering Design 18 (3), 209–226.
process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49, 59–66.
Banar, M., Kose, B.M., Ozkan, A., Acar, I.P., 2007. Choosing a municipal landfill site by
Mohanty, R.P., Agarwal, R., Choudhury, A.K., Tiwari, M.K., 2005. A fuzzy ANP-based
analytic network process. Environmental Geology 52, 747–751.
approach to R&D project selection: a case study. International Journal of
Chang, N.B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J.B., 2008. Combining GIS with fuzzy
Production Research 43 (24), 5199–5216.
multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region.
Mummolo, G., 1995. An analytic hierarchy process model for landfill site selection.
Journal of Environmental Management 87 (1), 139–153.
Journal of Environmental Systems 24 (4), 445–465.
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., Huang, G.H., 2002. Using multiple criteria decision analysis
Norese, M.F., 2006. ELECTRE III as a support for participatory decision-making on
for supporting decisions of solid waste management. Journal of Environmental
the localization of waste-treatment plants. Land Use Policy 23 (1), 76–85.
Science and Health. Part A 37 (6), 975–990.
Oenuet, S., Soner, S., 2008. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., Huang, G.H., 2003. An integrated multi-criteria decision
TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management 28 (9),
analysis and inexact mixed integer linear programming approach for solid
1552–1559.
waste management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 16,
Partovi, F.Y., 2006. An analytic model for locating facilities strategically. Omega-The
543–554.
International Journal of Management Science 34 (1), 41–55.
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., 2004. Contractor selection using the analytic network process.
Promentilla, M.A.B., Furuichi, T., Ishii, K., Tanikawa, N., 2006. Evaluation of remedial
Construction Management and Economics 22, 1021–1032.
countermeasures using the analytic network process. Waste Management 26,
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., 2005. Analytic network process applied to project selection.
1410–1421.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131, 459–466.
Queiruga, D., Walther, G., Gonzalez-Benito, J., Spengler, T., 2008. Evaluation of sites
Chu, T.C., 2002a. Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group deci-
for the location of WEEE recycling plants in Spain. Waste Management 28,
sions. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-based
181–190.
Systems 10 (6), 687–701.
Raisinghani, H.S., Meade, L., Schkade, L., 2007. Strategic e-business decision analysis
Chu, T.C., 2002b. Selecting plant location via fuzzy TOPSIS approach. International
using analytic network process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 20 (11), 859–864.
54 (4), 673–686.
Chung, S., Lee, A.H.I., Pearn, W.L., 2005. Analytic network process (ANP) approach
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2005. Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics
for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator. International Journal of
for end-of-life computers: aNP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers
Production Economics 96, 15–36.
and Industrial Engineering 48, 327–356.
Colebrook, M., Sicilia, J., 2007. Undesirable facility location problems on multi-
Rey, M., Soriano, P., Stampfli, E., 1995. Location of a stabilized-waste storage facility.
criteria networks. Computers and Operations Research 34, 1491–1514.
The case of francophone Switzerland. INFOR 33 (1), 50–62.
CMACV, 2002. (Consejerı́a de Medio Ambiente). Plan zonal de residuos de las Zonas
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mc Graw-Hill.
III y VIII. Orden del Consejero de Medio Ambiente (Generalidad Valenciana).
Saaty, T.L., 1994. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the
Diario Oficial de la Generalidad Valenciana. 4197. 25/02/2009. Valencia (2002).
AHP. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Demirtas, E.A., Ustun, O., 2009. Analytic network process and multi-period goal
Saaty, T.L., 1996a. The Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Dependence
programming integration in purchasing decisions. Computers and Industrial
and Feedback. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Engineering 56 (2), 677–690.
Saaty, T.L., 1996b. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
Dey, P.K., Ramcharan, E.K., 2008. Analytic Hierarchy Process helps select site for
Resource Allocation. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
limestore quarry expansion in Barbados. Journal of Environmental Management
Saaty, T.L., 2001. Decision Making with Independence and Feedback: The Analytic
88 (4), 1384–1395.
Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Emek, E., Kara, B.Y., 2007. Hazardous waste management problem: the case for
Saaty, T.L., 2005. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision
incineration. Computers and Operations Research 34, 1424–1441.
Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks. RWS Publications,
Erdoğmuş, Ş, Aras, H., Koç, E., 2006. Evaluation of alternative fuels for residential
Pittsburgh.
heating in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP) with group decision-
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making.
making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 10, 269–279.
Why pairwise comparisons are central in Mathematics for the measurement of
Erkut, E., Newman, S., 1989. Analytical models for locating undesirable facilities.
intangible factors. The analytic hierarchy/network process. Revista de la Real
European Journal of Operational Research 40, 275–291.
Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fı́sicas y Matemáticas (RACSAM) 102 (2),
Garcı́a-Melón, M., Ferrı́s-Oñate, J., Aznar-Bellver, J., Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Poveda-
183–191.
Bautista, R., 2008. Farmland appraisal based on the analytic network process.
Sarkis, J., Sundarraj, R.P., 2002. Hub location at digital equipment corporation:
Journal of Global Optimization 42, 143–155. doi:10.1007/s10898-007-9235-0.
a comprehensive analysis of qualitative and quantitative factors. European
Gencer, C., Gürpinar, D., 2007. Analytic network process in supplier selection: a case
Journal of Operational Research 137, 336–347.
study in an electronic firm. Applied Mathematical Modelling 31, 2475–2486.
Sener, B., Süzen, M.L., Doyuran, V., 2006. Landfill site selection by using geographic
Gemitzi, A., Tsihrintzis, V.A., Voudrias, E., Petalas, C., Stravodimos, G., 2007.
information systems. Environmental Geology 49, 376–388.
Combining geographic information system, multicriteria evaluation techniques
Siddiqui, M.Z., Everett, J.W., Vieux, B.E., 1996. Landfill siting using geographic
and fuzzy logic in siting MSW landfills. Environmental Geology 51 (5), 797–811.
information systems: a demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering-
Gómez-Navarro, T., Garcı́a-Melón, M., Acuña-Dutra, S., Dı́az-Martı́n, D., 2009. An
environmental pressure index proposal for urban development planning based ASCE 122 (6), 515–523.
on the analytic network process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29, Tuzkaya, G., Önüt, S., Tuzkaya, U.R., Gülsün, B., 2008. An analytic network process
approach for locating undesiderable facilities: an example from Istanbul,
319–329.
Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management 88, 970–983.
Haktanırlar B, 2005. Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey.
Vuk, D., Kozelj, B., Mladineo, N., 1991. Application of multicriterional analysis on the
Energy 30, 1146–1161.
selection of the location for disposal of communal waste. European Journal of
Hale, T., Moberg, C.R., 2003. Location science research: a review. Annals of Opera-
Operational Research 55 (2), 211–217.
tions Research 123, 21–35.
Wang, G., Qin, L., Li, G., Chen, L., 2009. Landfill site selection using spatial infor-
Jharkharia, S., Shankar, R., 2007. Selection of logistics service provider: an analytic
mation technilogies and AHP: a case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Envi-
network process (ANP) approach. Omega-The International Journal of
ronmental Management 90 (8), 2414–2421.
Management Science 35, 274–289.
Wey, W.M., Wu, K.Y., 2007. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource
Khalil, W., Goonetilleke, A., Kokot, S., Carroll, S., 2004. Use of chemometrics
allocation in transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46,
methods and multicriteria decision-making for site selection for sustenaible on-
985–1000.
site sewage effluent disposal. Analytica Chimita Acta 506 (1), 41–56.
Yong, D., 2006. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSYS. International
Khan, S., Faisal, M.N., 2008. An analytic network process model for municipal solid
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 28 (7–8), 839–844.
waste disposal options. Waste Management 28, 1500–1508.

An ANP Approach For Siting A Municipal Solid Waste Plant in The Metropolitan Area of Valencia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An ANP Approach For Siting A Municipal Solid Waste Plant in The Metropolitan Area of Valencia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

1. Introduction presents two main problems (Lober, 1995): i) social opposition,

2 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16 3

Fig. 1. Map of Valencia city and its Metropolitan Area.

4 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16 5

Fig. 2. Decision making process.

5. Closeness to industrial parks. Higher level of priority was given

6 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

Fig. 3. Structure of the relationships among clusters.

A: Land use planning. A: alternatives.

P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16 7

C17.- Protected areas. It assesses the proximity of the plant to pro-

8 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

Unweighted supermatrix values Priorities

P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16 9

Unweighted supermatrix values Priorities

10 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

Sensitivity analysis modifying alternatives-criteria

and criteria-alternatives influences

P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16 11

Criteria Weights (ANP without influences) Weights (ANP) Criteria

12 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

Plant exploitation costs C1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Facilities and infraestructures C5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Environmental issues C10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

the..., Journal of Environmental Management (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.007

Legal requirements C18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

the..., Journal of Environmental Management (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.007

the..., Journal of Environmental Management (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.007

16 P. Aragonés-Beltrán et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1–16

You might also like