4.5 Article

Evaluation and selection of decision-making methods to assess landfill mining projects

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 822-832

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X15588586

关键词

Landfill mining; assessment; multiple-attribute decision making; cost-utility analysis; analytical-hierarchy process

资金

  1. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the first time in Austria, fundamental technological and economic studies on recovering secondary raw materials from large landfills have been carried out, based on the LAMIS - Landfill Mining Austria' pilot project. A main focus of the research - and the subject of this article - was to develop an assessment or decision-making procedure that allows landfill owners to thoroughly examine the feasibility of a landfill mining project in advance. Currently there are no standard procedures that would sufficiently cover all the multiple-criteria requirements. The basic structure of the multiple attribute decision making process was used to narrow down on selection, conceptual design and assessment of suitable procedures. Along with a breakdown into preliminary and main assessment, the entire foundation required was created, such as definitions of requirements to an assessment method, selection and accurate description of the various assessment criteria and classification of the target system for the present landfill mining' vs. retaining the landfill in after-care' decision-making problem. Based on these studies, cost-utility analysis and the analytical-hierarchy process were selected from the range of multiple attribute decision-making procedures and examined in detail. Overall, both methods have their pros and cons with regard to their use for assessing landfill mining projects. Merging these methods or connecting them with single-criteria decision-making methods (like the net present value method) may turn out to be reasonable and constitute an appropriate assessment method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据