Locating a waste treatment facility by using stochastic multicriteria

acceptability analysis with ordinal criteria

Group members:

Mohd Farid Mohd Shafie

S.Yasmin Grace

Saiful Zaidi

1. Introduction

Solid waste management company to build new solid waste management area near Lappeenranta (South Eastern), Finland

Problem : current landfills not able to satisfy recent requirement on the waste treatment

National waste plan requires recycling of municipal solid waste from 50% - 70% by year 2005

New waste treatment area will be more centralized waste treatment , less environmental (modern technologies applied)

Waste : households, agriculture and buildings sites. (Small amount hazardous pass through the plant)

current landfill use traditional process it leads to ugly scenery, land value and property decrease and slowing the development growth

Problem characterized as group MCDM problem : - no preference information was available - ordinal measurements for the criteria were available.

New waste treatment area : 2-4 years : composting plant, facilities and landfills 20 years : operating time of plant 15 years : for the equipment 100 years will remain in location but re planning might take place

2. Legislation & Participation

1

• Finnish legislation, more towards “direct and indirect” effects inside and outside of the territory of the Finnish project.

2

• all citizens affected by the project , allowed to participate in the EIA procedure to express opinions (written)

3

• Supervisory group (stakeholders) are formed to understand citizens opinion and public meetings were held.

six alternative , but only three of the alternative discarded because:

Close to the settlement areaToo valuable to the scenery and naturepublic meeting, they suggest four alternative for waste treatment area (Herttuanvuori, Kukkuroinmaki, Laapmaki and Ryosola)

3. Problem & Alternatives

• Negative view towards the plant effects : to traffic, comfort , recreational use, effect economy, decrease value in real estate and nature. Positive view new road improve the traffic connections

Citizens point of view

• Directly to the requirements of the legislation• 10 points that effects that from the project

The planner’s opinion

• 17 criteria, several criteria can not be measured including positive and negative effect which indirectly ranking produced by the experts approved by supervisory

Criteria

The ranking for the criteria based on the benefit to the environment.

1 – Best

2 – Better

3 – good

4 – worse

5. SMAA – O : Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability with Ordinal Criteria

Developed for discrete multicriteria problems

Based on exploring weight space in order to describe the valuation that would make each alternative the preferred one

SMAA –O method is descriptive.

Formula

6. Results of analysis

• There are alternative ways for performing the ordinal to cardinal scale mapping.– Use identical mappings from full range {1,……,4} [0,1],

for each criterion or– Choose the smallest sufficient range for each criterion

• For table 2 is the 1st approach- it shows that the best place Kukkuroinmaki and Herttuanvuori because they get high acceptability indicies (%).

• For table 3 is the 2nd approach-the result shows that the acceptabilities of Kukkuroinmaki and Herttuanvuori change slightly, but they still remaind the only widely acceptable alternatives.

• These conclude that the result are not sensitive to how the mapping was done

• After adding some constraints based on the data collected, the analysis was repeated.

• After looking at the result, decision maker (DM), chose Kukkuroinmaki alternative as the forthcoming location of the plant.

34 alternatives analyzed in detail and elimination of 2 poor

alternatives were done

2Evaluation on the social effects was successful

1The EIA process consider very good by the participants

7. Discussion