城市生活垃圾运输决策模型研究

Fatih Kamaoğlu, Nesli Aydin
{"title":"城市生活垃圾运输决策模型研究","authors":"Fatih Kamaoğlu, Nesli Aydin","doi":"10.21324/dacd.1121301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The management of waste with minimum cost and the environmental burden has recently gained importance in the circular economy. In this study, alternatives for the transportation of wastes by rail and road were compared in terms of cost, environment and personnel requirement benchmarks by using the multi-criteria decision-making software - Right Choice (2.0). The transportation of waste by road is shown with Alternative 1, while the transportation by rail is represented by Alternative 2 (by loading waste-carrying trucks and trailers on the train), Alternative 3 (by loading only trailers on the train) and Alternative 4 (by loading only wastes on the train). As a result, it was determined that the optimum option to transfer the wastes is as specified in Alternative 4, to load only the wastes on the wagons. Importantly, the low operation-maintenance cost of Alternative 4, in other words, its high performance on this benchmark and the high relative importance of the operation-maintenance cost attributed by the stakeholders play a vital role. According to the sensitivity analysis results, Alternative 3 appears as another option close to Alternative 4 while Alternatives 1 and 2, however, remain as options to be evaluated where Alternatives 3 and 4 are not included in decision-making at all. The results of this study show that, depending on the scoring of the criteria in the decision tree, Alternative 4 or 3 could be a better option than the other alternatives, by reducing the number of alternatives and highlighting the good performers.","PeriodicalId":202583,"journal":{"name":"Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Decision-Making Model for the Transportation of Municipal Solid Wastes\",\"authors\":\"Fatih Kamaoğlu, Nesli Aydin\",\"doi\":\"10.21324/dacd.1121301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The management of waste with minimum cost and the environmental burden has recently gained importance in the circular economy. In this study, alternatives for the transportation of wastes by rail and road were compared in terms of cost, environment and personnel requirement benchmarks by using the multi-criteria decision-making software - Right Choice (2.0). The transportation of waste by road is shown with Alternative 1, while the transportation by rail is represented by Alternative 2 (by loading waste-carrying trucks and trailers on the train), Alternative 3 (by loading only trailers on the train) and Alternative 4 (by loading only wastes on the train). As a result, it was determined that the optimum option to transfer the wastes is as specified in Alternative 4, to load only the wastes on the wagons. Importantly, the low operation-maintenance cost of Alternative 4, in other words, its high performance on this benchmark and the high relative importance of the operation-maintenance cost attributed by the stakeholders play a vital role. According to the sensitivity analysis results, Alternative 3 appears as another option close to Alternative 4 while Alternatives 1 and 2, however, remain as options to be evaluated where Alternatives 3 and 4 are not included in decision-making at all. The results of this study show that, depending on the scoring of the criteria in the decision tree, Alternative 4 or 3 could be a better option than the other alternatives, by reducing the number of alternatives and highlighting the good performers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.1121301\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.1121301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,在循环经济中,以最低的成本和环境负担管理废物已变得非常重要。本研究使用多准则决策软件- Right Choice(2.0),从成本、环境和人员需求基准等方面对铁路和公路运输废物的替代方案进行了比较。通过公路运输的废物用方案1表示,而通过铁路运输的废物用方案2(在火车上装载装载废物的卡车和拖车)、方案3(在火车上只装载拖车)和方案4(在火车上只装载废物)表示。因此,确定转移废物的最佳办法是备选办法4所规定的,即只把废物装在货车上。重要的是,备选方案4的低运维成本(换句话说,它在该基准上的高性能以及利益相关者对运维成本的高度相对重要性)发挥了至关重要的作用。根据敏感性分析结果,备选方案3是接近备选方案4的另一个选项,而备选方案1和2仍然是待评估选项,而备选方案3和4根本不包括在决策中。本研究的结果表明,根据决策树中标准的得分,通过减少备选方案的数量并突出表现良好的备选方案,备选方案4或3可能是比其他备选方案更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Decision-Making Model for the Transportation of Municipal Solid Wastes
The management of waste with minimum cost and the environmental burden has recently gained importance in the circular economy. In this study, alternatives for the transportation of wastes by rail and road were compared in terms of cost, environment and personnel requirement benchmarks by using the multi-criteria decision-making software - Right Choice (2.0). The transportation of waste by road is shown with Alternative 1, while the transportation by rail is represented by Alternative 2 (by loading waste-carrying trucks and trailers on the train), Alternative 3 (by loading only trailers on the train) and Alternative 4 (by loading only wastes on the train). As a result, it was determined that the optimum option to transfer the wastes is as specified in Alternative 4, to load only the wastes on the wagons. Importantly, the low operation-maintenance cost of Alternative 4, in other words, its high performance on this benchmark and the high relative importance of the operation-maintenance cost attributed by the stakeholders play a vital role. According to the sensitivity analysis results, Alternative 3 appears as another option close to Alternative 4 while Alternatives 1 and 2, however, remain as options to be evaluated where Alternatives 3 and 4 are not included in decision-making at all. The results of this study show that, depending on the scoring of the criteria in the decision tree, Alternative 4 or 3 could be a better option than the other alternatives, by reducing the number of alternatives and highlighting the good performers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信