A New Framework Combining Public and Expert Judgements for Selecting Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Technologies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jmsd.202612506

Author(s)

Hongliang Zheng, Qi Chen, Chenyou Huang*

Affiliation(s)

School of Economics and Management, Guangzhou Institute of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Selecting an appropriate technology for municipal solid waste treatment requires balancing environmental performance, cost, and public acceptance, yet public and expert opinions are often inconsistent. This study develops an integrated ranking framework combining public and expert evaluations. Public needs and expectations were elicited through interviews and questionnaires and translated into satisfaction scores using cumulative prospect theory, while experts provided linguistic evaluations whose influence weights were adjusted according to each expert's forecast of the panel average to curb overconfidence. The two score sets were then aggregated through weighting, and the max–min criterion was applied to test ranking robustness under different scenarios. Applying the framework to Yunfu City, Guangdong Province, the results show that incineration achieves the highest composite score, followed by aerobic composting and landfill; the ranking remains unchanged when the weight of either the public or the experts is raised to 0.7, and incineration remains preferred under the max–min criterion, consistent with the city's planning direction of "incineration as the main route, landfill as the backstop, and biological treatment as the supplement." The proposed framework provides practical support for MSW technology selection and siting decisions and helps enhance public recognition of the selected technology.

Keywords

Municipal Solid Waste; Technology Selection; Public Preference; Wisdom of Crowds; Multi-Criteria Decision Making

References

[1] Soni A, Das P K, Kumar P. A review on the municipal solid waste management status, challenges and potential for the future Indian cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2023, 25(12): 13755-13803. [2] Liang X, Ji L, Xie Y, et al. Economic-environment-energy (3E) objective-driven integrated municipal waste management under deep complexities—a novel multi-objective approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2022, 87: 104190. [3] Seker S. IoT based sustainable smart waste management system evaluation using MCDM model under interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment. Technology in Society, 2022, 71: 102100. [4] Zewdie M M, Yeshanew S M. GIS based MCDM for waste disposal site selection in Dejen town, Ethiopia. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 2023: 100228. [5] Hanea A M, Hemming V, Nane G F. Uncertainty quantification with experts: present status and research needs. Risk Analysis, 2022, 42 (2): 254-263. [6] Kameda T, Toyokawa W, Tindale R S. Information aggregation and collective intelligence beyond the wisdom of crowds. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2022, 1 (6): 345-357. [7] Afrane S, Ampah J D, Jin C, et al. Techno-economic feasibility of waste-to-energy technologies for investment in Ghana: a multicriteria assessment based on fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 318: 128515. [8] Ravajiri E S, Jalali A, Houshfar E. Multi-objective optimization and 4E analysis of an integrated system based on waste-to-energy, solar PV, power-to-gas, and HDH-RO desalination. Energy Conversion and Management, 2023, 277: 116677. [9] Pang Q, Wang H, Xu Z. Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Information Sciences, 2016, 369: 128-143. [10] Chang J P, Chen Z S, Wang Z J, et al. Assessing spatial synergy between integrated urban rail transit system and urban form: a BULI-based MCLSGA model with the wisdom of crowds. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2022, 31(2): 434-448. [11] Koksalmis E, Kabak Ö. Deriving decision makers' weights in group decision making: an overview of objective methods. Information Fusion, 2019, 49: 146-160.