International Seminar on Infrastucture Development in Cluster Island Eastern Part of Indonesia, Baubau, Indonesia

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW METHOD FOR COLLABORATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING : MODELLING PHASE
Hamsah1, Mary Selintung2, Syarif Burhanuddin3 and Tri Harianto4 ABSTRACT: A few studies have been conducted to cope with environmental decision making whereas multiple parties engaged in decision making process. Among these few studies, some problems persist while applying method used. Unstructured methodology, time consuming process, detailed model avoidance, incapable to handle sustainability issue , unable to handle qualitative and quantitative measures at once are some of issues coming out. In this paper we propose a novel method that combining delphi, ahp and system dynamics simulation to assist solid waste decision making process with multiple parties involved. This method is capable to deal with complexity of solid waste management problem, generating a detailed decision without run time consuming process, easily to understand by decision maker and considering sustainability consequences of decision made. Keywords: solid waste management, collaborative decision making, Delphi, AHP, System Dynamics. INTRODUCTION Constant pressure from population growth has generated increasing number of solid waste that cities should manage. In most developing countries cities, municipal solid waste management still become expensive basic service that may take 20-50% city operational expenses while it covers only 30-80% of solid waste generated (Bartone, et. al. 1990). Yet, solid waste management is a local government compulsory task due to its huge consequences to city residents. In environmental side, poor solid waste management could cause deficient ground water quality and contribute to heavy metal contamination (Longe and Enekwechi 2007; Ogundiran and Afolabi 2008; Akoteyon et. al. 2011, Agrawal et. al. 2011), source of unpleasant odor (Sakawi et. al. 2011; Osei et. al. 2011), and released methan gases that contribute to global warming (Hoornweg, Thomas, and Otten 1999). Nonformal activities related to solid waste processing turn out to be a income generating activities for some people (Moreno-Sanchez, Maldonado and Sheldon 2003), while there possibility of using solid waste to generate power (Okeniyi et. al. 2012). In social aspect, electronic waste recycling from developed countries to less developed countries has provided an access to affordable computer devices, as it has presented job opportunity in this sector as well (Williams et. al. 2008). For health issues, though there are some reports that describe emerging possibility of solid waste management practice impact to human health, more effort should be put to confirm this impact (Porta et. al. 2009; Vrijheid 2000). Even so, preventive approach is better to be performed due to its risk to human health. At the present time, there is a tendency where government is not solely as decision maker for some strategic environmental policy. In case where government decision will have direct impact to community, intensive partnership with other parties should be performed particularly in decision making process. Charnley and Engelbert (2005) consider this tendency are due to highly demand from community to take larger part in decision making process that will have effects on their welfare. In addition there are some evidences from organizations that have taking advantage from community partnership in decision making process. In every community involved decision making, community are capable to deliver a credible result. Public contribution will be beneficial in assessing choice and very important to justify policy chosen when it is implemented (Renn, Blattel-Mink and Kastenholz 1997). Irvin and Stansbury (2004) believed that while government work in partnership with community in decision making, government will take advantage from

1 2

Civil Engineering Department Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Civil Engineering Department Hasanuddin University, Makassar, 3 Civil Engineering Department Hasanuddin University, Makassar, 4 Civil Engineering Department Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Note: Discussion on this paper is open until January 19th 2013

INDONESIA INDONESIA INDONESIA INDONESIA

49

Hamsah, et al.

shared valuable information from community and at the same time community could have justification for decision made. Regardless of this advantage, government and community partnership is still rarely practiced because it take longer time in decision making process and need relatively high cost. Else if the decision making process is unsuccessfully managed, it possibly cause more serious new problem. Wiedemann and Femers (1993) study confirmed that public participation procedure could create other problem if it is not appropriately directed. RECENT STUDIES There are a few studies discussing environmental decision making method particularly when engaging many parties in solid waste management decision making. Among these few studies are: 1. Aditya (2009) has demonstrated that geographical information system (GIS) could be applied for public involvement in infrastructure development decision making. However, public contribution in decision making process in this study was not administered systematically and well directed. 2. Stave (2002) employed System Dynamics (SD) to enhance public participation in environment decision making by providing participant a structured framework in examining policy choices. There are two benefits of using SD in collaborative decision making for this study: firstly, providing a structured thinking and also a problem learning procedure; secondly, a better scientific tool that could be utilized compare to other model available in term of process effectiveness. Nevertheless, using this model for public participation decision making has some limits. Firstly, if public participate voluntarily; it will be difficult to compel them to attend in every modeling and analysis session. Secondly, due to participant diversity of interest and view of point, all participants tend to avoid discussing model in detail. This way of behaving leads to produce a simpler model in order to satisfy all participants. Thirdly, there is a limit for participant willingness to change their mental model in viewing the problem. 3. Webler and Tuler (2001) used Q method in engaging public for river basin management decision making. When in regular survey asked statement has been determined, q method allows each participant to respond a statement and associate with other statement given. Factor analysis then is performed to assess correlation between statements and participants. 4. Merkhofer, Conway and Anderson (1997) applied multi-attribute utility analysis along with public involvement to determine hazardous waste management

facility site. They argue this method is suitable due to its ability to combine two kinds of assessment available while making a decision associated to environmental problems i.e. technical evaluation regarding impact results of options available and severity value of each impact. With this approach, technical experts have opportunity to communicate technical consideration and allow stakeholder have complete picture of the problem before making decision. In solid waste management decision making where local government along with other parties such as technical expert and community taking part in decision making process, then role attributes of each parties should be taking into account when considering suitable model for decision making. Local government in this context plays significant role with their managed fund and resources they have. On the other hand, local government has inadequate technical deliberation for optimal solid waste management options. On technical experts part, they have competence to appraise strategic / policy options available but lack of direct involvement in strategy implementation. Community is needed mostly to justify strategy implementation and also take part in decision evaluation based on their direct connection with solid waste problems and impacts. Beside paying attention to role attributes of each parties associated with solid waste management, a decision making model should be well directed, well structured, capable to control problem complexity and producing detailed decision without spend excessively time decision makers have, understandable by decision makers and allowing decision makers to evaluate its sustainability aspects in the long run. DELPHI METHOD Allowing public participation for making decision is not a simple task. To pack all parties preferences altogether with different knowledge and depth of understanding will probably lead to subjectively decision. Decision making by using solely simple discussion for example could be ended with a deadlock or decision made based only on personal charisma and persuasive domination if governed with multiple parties. Applying survey for multi parties decision making possibly leaves out possibility to have agreed decision because aggregated responses mean resulted in the survey is a arithmetical mean and could not imply every parties has the same response. Delphi Method could be applied to resolve this kind of issue. This method allows decision makers to examine complicated situation as usually exist in solid waste

50

Development of New Method for Collaborative Waste Management Decision Making : Modelling Phase

management problem where there is inadequate time and information available for decision makers (Shmelev and Powell 2006). With Delphi Method, group communication process is structured well to allow individual group as a whole reaching consensus when trying to solve complex issue (Linstone and Turoff 2002). Rowe and Wright (1999) argued that Delphi Method has four basic features e.g. anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback and statistical aggregation of group response. Anonymity could be administered by using questionnaire. Questionnaire allows participants to express their response freely without being affected by other participants reply or more common responses. Iteration process are administered by distributing similar questionnaire in certain times in order to allow participants to adjust or change the way they response after they notice new facts without feel to lose their face to other participants (see Figure 1). Between iteration, administrator gives participants with a controlled feedback by letting them know other participant opinion anonymously. Feedback could be in form of participant general response such as response mean or median or extraordinary view that may each participant be taking into account. At the end of iteration process, group final response is then drawn from statistical mean of each group responses. Generally, Delphi Method tends to have better accuracy in term of determining unstructured group response. Moreover, Powell (2003) considered that Delphi Method in particular known due to its capability to construct and organize group communication.

Fig.1 Delphi iteration process for proposed model. MULTI CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS Up to now, incorporate public participation in decision making process has rarely studied. Among these, multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model could be applied for government community collaboration in decision making (Seadon 2006). MCDA is also suitable when sustainability takes into consideration due to its ability to integrate many factors and participation from different stakeholders at the same time. Hung et. al. (2007) argued that a sustainable decision making model is not only including economic, environment and social aspect altogether but also let

community participate in decision making process. This model could compromise option for stakeholders and try to balance between scientific decision making and stakeholders value. Hence, sustainable solid waste management could be attained by using this model. Zeng et. al. (2005) moreover confirmed that decision making nature in real world for sustainable solid waste management require multiple issues should be consider at the same time including economic, environment and social as well. However, MCDA alone is not newly model for environmental problem decision making. Kiker et. al. (2005) noted that MCDA could be utilized in order to assess individual or group judgments. One of MCDA advantage in group decision making is its ability to take into account response similarity and dissimilarity among participants with different point of view in order to produce complete understanding over other participants values. There are 3 type of MCDA method based on how chosen solution is reached. Among these are (Linkov, et. al. 2004): 1. Optimization model, which uses numerical value to contrast an option to the others in single measure. Final number is developed from performance of each option against each criterion and then all these performance measure are segregated into an overall value. This model best suit when objective function is narrowly stated, clearly defined and easily measured and segregated. 2. Goal aspiration model is conducted by determining rate of preference for each criterion. This model try to find the best solution based on how closely each criterion and alternative to the goal. Therefore decision maker will look for goal achievement as many as possible. This model best suit when all relevant goals cannot be achieved at a time. 3. Outranking model is performed by compare two or more alternatives at once refer to each criterion to find out the best alternative. When decision maker preference result is aggregated for all criterions, this model then try to find sufficient evidence to show that an alternative is better than other. When we are difficult to aggregate value of each criterion, has vary measure scale and non-interchangeable measure unit, this model is better to be applied. Shmelev and Powell (2006) consider that MCDA has some advantages to be used by solid waste decision makers, such as: 1. Allowing comparison for many criterions and goals at once. 2. Flexible to define criterion used.

51

Hamsah, et al.

3. Be able to be used with quantitative and qualitative data. One of most popular MCDA model that is frequently applied for environmental management problem is analytical hierarchy process (AHP). AHP gains its popularity mainly due to its simplicity and easily to understand particularly for group decision making where variable comprehension and opinion exist among decision makers (Mohamadali and Garibaldi 2011). Its ability to appraise decision consistency is also other AHP advantage (Manaf, Basri and Basri 2008). AHP is decision making method that base on relative measure through pair wise comparison which is used to derive absolute scale in term of normalized ratio scale for each element. Normalized ratio scale then will be applied to determine priority (Saaty 2003). In AHP, decision makers make pair wise comparison between alternatives refer to each criterion. This process produces alternatives rank which comes from a combination between individual objective rank and relative priority (Dinc, et. al. 2003). In relation to the development of AHP model for this study, the factors considered were only four factors : environmental, economic, social and technical (see figure 2). These factors were dominant factors determining solid waste policy (eg Sahely et. al. 2005; Surjandari, Hidayatno and Supriatna 2009) although some studies also including other factors such as political, spatial, administration and community involvement Hokkanen dan Salminen 1997; Desmond 2006; Manaf, Basri and Basri 2008).

modeling and experiment, as well as its basic mental foundation that better represents human thinking. SD is among one of the method used to represent solid waste model recently. Leao et. al. (2001) argued that traditional planning method has failed due to its short term focused and relies only on transitional policy. New approach in urban planning and management then urgently needed with significant emphasis on sustainable development. When sustainability turn out to be long term commitment, then the new approach should be efficient consistently in the long run. To achieve this purpose, developing a new refined and efficient method is very important. This method has to be able to observe urban system evolution and anticipate its performance over time. In the sd model development for this study, several policy alternatives were developed by taking into account the interaction of some elements such as population factor, environmental impact and financial as well as infrastructure capacity (see figure 3).

Fig. 3 Elements interaction in SD solid waste management model PROPOSED METHOD FOR COLLABORATIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING A method applied to generate an optimal solid waste management policy based on collaborative effort in decision making process has been proposed. This method is developed by combining three methods mention above. The method exploits advantages of Delphi, AHP and SD models and constructs a new methodology that suit multi-parties decision making. With certain relationship, Delphi, AHP and SD can be combined to create a comprehensive model that helps decision making process for multiple parties. Delphi, AHP and SD relationship in this new methodology is described in the table 1 below.

Fig.2 AHP Model for Solid Waste Management SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION Fuchs (2006) argued that system dynamics (SD) is better used as an intuitive approach to model dynamic of a system; thanks to its capability to draw complex process and system, its possibility to simplify process

52

Development of New Method for Collaborative Waste Management Decision Making : Modelling Phase

Table 1 Process step of proposed method Pro ces s 1a 1b Process description Generate list of criterion Generate list of solid waste management policy option (general) Determine list of best criterion that will be referred in decision making process Develop AHP model Determine list of best policy (general) Develop solid waste SD model Determine best policy (in detail) Me thod Survey Survey Aiding tools Out put C1,c2 ,,cn P1,p2 ,,p n

Delphi

Tabulation, feedback

C1,c2 ,..,cnx

AHP

Microsoft excell Microsoft excell Stella ver.9.0 Stella ver.9.0

Delphi, AHP Survey

SD

AHP mode l P1,p2 ,..,pnx SD mode l Pn

CONCLUSION In order to assist solid waste decision making process with multiple parties involved, a novel method that combining Delphi, AHP and SD simulation is proposed. This method capable enough to control complexity of waste management problem, produce a detailed decision without consume excessive time, understandable and allow evaluating decision sustainability in the long run. By using the proposed method, an AHP model has been developed by considering environmental, economic, social and technical factors. A SD model which taken into account the interaction between population factor, environmental impact and financial as well as infrastructure capacity has also been developed. REFERENCES Integrating Collaborative and Participative GIS (in Indonesian), Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika. 15(1):1-20 Agrawal, A., Pandey, R., Agrawal, M.L. (2011). Impact of Solid Waste Leachate on Ground Water Sources-A Case Study, International Journal of Chemical and Environmental Engineering. 2(2):113-118.

Akoteyon, I.S., Mbata, U.A., Olaluda, G.A. (2011). Investigation of heavy metal contamination in groundwater around landfill site in a typical suburban settlement in Alimosho, Lagos-Nigeria, Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation. 6 (2):155-163 Bartone, C., Bernstein, J., Wright, F. (1990). Investment in Solid Waste Management, Opportunities for Environmental Improvement, Infrastructure and Urban Development Department The World Bank. Charnley, S., Engelbert, B. (2005). Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPAs superfund community involvement program, Journal of Environmental Management. 77: 165 182 Desmond, M. (2006). Municipal solid waste management in Ireland: assessing for sustainability. Irish Geography. 39(1):22-33 Dinc, M., Haynes, K.E., Tarimcilar, M. (2003). Integrating models for regional development decisions: a policy perspective, The Annals of Regional Science. 37:31-53 Fuchs, H.U. (2006). System dynamics modeling in science and engineering, System Dynamics Conference at the University of Puerto Rico Resource Center for Science and Engineering, Mayaguez, December 8-10, 2006 Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P. (1997). Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research. 98:19-36 Hoornweg, D., Thomas, L., Otten, L. (1999). Composting and Applicability in Developing Countries, Working Paper Series no. 8, Urban Development Division The World Bank, Washington DC. Hung , M. L., Ma, H.W., Yang, F.W. (2007). A novel sustainable decision making model for municipal solid waste management, Waste Management. 27: 209219 Irvin, R.A, Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?, Public Administration Review. 64(1):55-65 Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., (2005). Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.1(2):95108 Leao, S., Bishop, I., Evans, D., (2001). Assessing the demand of solid waste disposal in urban region by urban dynamics modelling in a GIS environment, Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 33: 289 313 Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., Seager, T.P., Kiker, G., Bridges, T. (2004). Multi-criteria decision

53

Hamsah, et al.

analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites, in Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, Linkov, I., Ramaand, A. (eds.), Kluwer, 2004:15-54 Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (2002), in The Delphi Method, Techniques and Applications, Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (eds.), accessed from http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf on 7th April 2012. Longe, E.O., Enekwechi, L.O. (2007). Investigation on potential groundwater impacts and influence of local hydrogeology on natural attenuation of leachate at a municipal landfill, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 4(1):133140 Manaf, L.A., Basri, H., Basri, N.E.A. (2008). UrusSisa: An Intelligent System for Integrated Solid Waste Management, Journal of Sustainable Development. 1(2):39-46 Merkhofer, M.W., Conway, R., Anderson, R.G., (1997). Multiattribute Utility Analysis as a Framework for Public Participation in Sitting a Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Environmental Management. 21(6):831839 Mohamadali, N.A.K.S., Garibaldi, J.M. (2011). Comparing User Acceptance Factors between Research Software and Medical Software using AHP and Fuzzy AHP. 11th UK Workshop on Computational Intelligence, Manchester, England, 79 September 2011 Moreno-Sanchez, R., Maldonado, JH., Sheldon, I. (2003). The role of scavengers in a dynamic model of solidwaste disposal and recycling in developing countries. First Latin American and Caribbean Congress on Environmental and Resource Economics, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, July 9 11, 2003 Ogundiran, O. O.; Afolabi, T. A., (2008). Assessment of the physicochemical parameters and heavy metals toxicity of leachates from municipal solid waste open dumpsite. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. 5 (2):243-250 Okeniyi, J.O., Anwan, E.U., Okeniyi, E.T. (2012). Waste characterisation and recoverable energy potential using waste generated in a model community in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(4): 232-240. Osei, J., Osae, S.K., Fianko, J.R., Adomako, D., Laar, C., Anim, A.K., Ganyaglo, S.Y., Nyarku, M., Nyarko, E.S. (2011). The Impact of Oblogo Landfill Site in Accra-Ghana on the Surrounding Environment. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences 3(6):633-636

Porta, D., Milanii, S., Lazzarino, A.I., Perucci, C.A., Forastiere, F. (2009). Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste, Environmental Health. 2009: 8:60 Powell, C.(2003). The Delphi Technique : myths and realities, Journal of Advanced Nursing. 41(4):376382 Renn, O., Blattel-Mink, B., Kastenholz, H. (1997). Discursive Methods In Environmental Decision Making, Business Strategy And The Environment. 6: 218-231 Rowe, G., Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis, International Journal of Forecasting. 15:353375 Saaty, T.L. (2003). Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in AHP/ANP generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables. ISAHP 2003, Bali, Indonesia, August 7-9, 2003. Sahely, H.R., Kennedy, C.A., Adams, B.J (2005). Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure systems. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32:72 85 Sakawi, Z., Sharifah, Mastura, SA., Jaafar, O., Mahmud, M. (2011). Community Perception of Odor Pollution from the Landfill, Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences. 3(2):143-146. Seadon, J.K. (2006). Integrated waste management Looking beyond the solid waste horizon, Waste Management. 12(6):1327-1336 Shmelev, S.E., Powell, J.R. (2006). Ecological economic modeling for strategic regional waste management systems, Ecological Economics 59:115 - 130 Stave, K. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions, System Dynamics Review. 18(2): 139 167 Surjandari, I., Hidayatno, A., Supriatna, A. (2009). Sytem Dynamic Model of Waste Management to Reduce Municipal Burdens (in Indonesian), Jurnal Teknik Industri. 11(2):134-147 Vrijheid, M.(2000). Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature, Environmental Health Perspectives. 108:101-112 Webler, T., Tuler, S. (2001). Public Participation in Watershed Management Planning: Views on Process from People in the Field, Human Ecology Review, 8(2): 29-39 Wiedemann, P.M., Femers, S. (1993). Public participation in waste management decision making: analysis and management of conflicts, Journal of Hazardous Materials. 33:355-368

54

Development of New Method for Collaborative Waste Management Decision Making : Modelling Phase

Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., Kavazanjian, E., Kim, J., Xu, M. (2008). Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of Global Reuse and Recycling of Personal Computers, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:64466454

Zeng, Y., Trauth, K.M.(2005). Internet-Based Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Support System For Planning Integrated Solid Waste Management, Journal Of Environmental Informatics. 6 (1):1-15

55