Professional Documents
Culture Documents
X
n
j 1
w
j
;
where w
j
is the weight of criterion j.
As already mentioned, a discordance index d
j
(A
1
, A
2
) is also
taken into consideration for all pairs of alternatives and each
criterion j. Discordance index (d
j
) is evaluated with the help of
pseudo-criteria with a veto threshold (v
j
), which represents the
maximum difference V
j
(A
1
) V
j
(A
2
) acceptable to not reject the
assertion A
1
outranks A
2
, as follows:
- When V
j
(A
1
) V
j
(A
2
) p
j
, then there is no discordance and
therefore d
j
(A
1
, A
2
) 0.
- When V
j
(A
1
) V
j
(A
2
) >V
j
, then d
j
(A
1
, A
2
) 1.
Discordance index (d
j
) can be represented as follows:
8
>
<
>
:
V
j
A
2
V
j
A
1
p
j
5d
j
A
1
; A
2
0
p
j
< V
j
A
2
V
j
A
1
< v
j
5d
j
A
1
; A
2
V
j
A2V
j
A1p
j
v
j
p
j
V
j
A
2
V
j
A
1
v
j
5d
j
A
1
; A
2
1
The index of credibility d
A1A2
of the assertion A
1
outranks A
2
is
dened as follows:
d
A1A2
C
A1A2
Y
jF
1 d
j
A
1
; A
2
1 C
A1A2
; with
F
jF; d
j
A
1
; A
2
iC
A1A2
i
p
i
1:25$p
i
1:5$p
i
0:75$p
i
0:5$p
i
p
i
0:5,p
i
q
i
0:3$p
i
0:375$p
i
0:45$p
i
0:225$p
i
0:15$p
i
0 0:3,p
i
Variation (%) e 25% 50% 25% 50% p
i
p
i
q
i
0
p
i
pi
2
q
i
q
i
Table 5
Thresholds sensitivity analysis.
Scenarios Ranking
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Basic scenario Litochoro Veria and Polikastro Gazoros, Rizari and Paleokastro Vasilika
A Litochoro Veria and Polikastro Gazoros, and Paleokastro Vasilika
B Litochoro Veria Polikastro Gazoros Rizari, Paleokastro and Vasilika
C Litochoro Veria, Polikastro and Paleokastro Rizari and Gazoros Vasilika
D Litochoro Veria, Polikastro and Paleokastro Rizari and Gazoros Vasilika
E Litochoro Veria, Polikastro and Paleokastro Rizari and Gazoros Vasilika
F Litochoro Veria and Polikastro Paleokastro Rizari and Gazoros Vasilika
G. Banias et al. / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 2317e2326 2324
consequences of potential variations of parameter values, decision
variables and constraints could be studied by new model runs,
since the low computational time gives the opportunity for fast
reformed optimal solutions.
For sensitivity analysis purposes, the problem under study is
resettled with modied parameters (weighting factors and
thresholds). The ranking of alternatives can depend on the values of
the different thresholds. Sensitivity analysis is necessary to justify
the nal recommendation. In the present study, six variations
(scenarios AeF) of thresholds were considered, as depicted in
Table 4. Table 5 presents the ranking of the seven optimal locations
for developing a UAM in the RCM. For all scenarios, Litochoro
appeals the optimal solution which provides the decision maker
with additional condence that the UAM is better to be developed
in this specic location.
5. Conclusions
Assessing multiple criteria in the eld of the building envi-
ronment has gained a lot of scientic attention over the last years.
This paper presents a methodological framework to support
decision makers in their effort to assess multiple criteria for the
optimal location of a construction and demolition waste
management facility. The approach is successfully implemented in
the Region of Central Macedonia, Greece. The decision maker is
able to take into account either quantitative (e.g. distances, price
of sites etc.) or qualitative criteria (e.g. aesthetics, landscape
degradation etc.). ELECTRE III technique forms the mathematical
basis and a robust parameter analysis is realised for the area under
consideration, in order to evaluate and compare all available
alternatives. The location site of Litochoro is the solution that
optimally interlaces local acceptance, nancial viability and the
environmental burden which represents a vital issue for
consensus and eventually managerial efciency. Next best alter-
natives for the development of the UAM are the areas located in
Veria and Polikastro. Sensitivity analysis justies the nal
recommendation.
The methodology presented provides decision makers with
a tractable tool that could be employed either by private investors
or public authorities. The procedure could be easily adopted e with
slight modications and adjustments to the special requirements of
the problem under consideration e in order to solve similar prob-
lems in areas other than the one examined in the present analysis.
Necessary adjustments mainly have to do with the system regula-
tors specic objectives and strategic goals, as well as the
geographical characteristics of the area under study. The method-
ological framework is also not limited only to support the specic
decision; it can be also used in the effort to locate optimal sites for
the development of other types of required infrastructure, such as
collection points, sorting centres, etc. In all those cases, different
criteria may be decided to be utilised, but the overall methodology
may remain practically unaltered.
Decision makers should seek the most rational solution of an
optimisation problem according to their decision criteria. To that
end, multicriteria analysis can play a crucial role, since the formu-
lation potentialities are wide. Recently, the aforementioned need is
strengthened considering the fact that during the past years the
development of an efcient and socially acceptable CDW manage-
ment scheme has become a matter of major importance given the
potential environmental impacts of its absence. It should be
emphasised that efforts need to be commenced fromthe beginning
of a technical structures life cycle, its conceptual stage. It is then
when numerous potential design alternatives are generated and
roughly evaluated in order to obtain the most promising solution,
both for the structures construction and operational phase, as well
as for its alternative management at the end of its useful life
(Design for Deconstruction). However, regardless of any design
improvements, CDW will be always produced and thus would
present an issue of critical importance for the sustainability of the
building sector.
Nomenclature
CDW Construction and Demolition Waste
MMF Multicriteria Methodology Framework
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NSSG National Statistical Service of Greece
RCM Region of Central Macedonia
UAM Unit of Alternative Management
References
[1] Dorsthorst B, Kowalczyk T. Design for recycling. Design for deconstruction and
materials reuse. In: Proceedings of the International council for research and
innovation in building construction (CIB) Task Group 39 e Deconstruction
Meeting, Karlsruhe, 9 April 2002, 70e80; 2002.
[2] European Commission. Construction and demolition waste management
practices and their economic impacts. Final Report to DGXI European
Commission by Symonds, ARGUS, COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners
and PRC Boucentrum; February 1999.
[3] Garrido E, Calvo F, Ramos AF, Zamorano M. Methodology of environmental
diagnosis for construction and demolition waste landlls: a tool for planning
and making decisions. Environmental Technology 2005;26(11):1231e42.
[4] Fatta D, Papadopoulos A, Avramikos E, Sgourou E, Moustakas K, Kourmoussis F,
et al. Generationandmanagement of constructionanddemolitionwasteinGreece
eanexistingchallenge. Resources, ConservationandRecycling2003;40(1):81e91.
[5] Hendricks F, Nijkerk A, Van Koppen A. The Building Cycle. Aeneas, the
Netherlands; 2000.
[6] Shell S, Gutierrez O, Fisher L. Lifecycle building challenge website, US envi-
ronmental protection agency, design for deconstruction: the Chartwell school
case study. Available from: http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org; 2009 [Last
accessed 16.12.2009].
[7] Moussiopoulos N, Papadopoulos A, Iakovou E, Achillas Ch, Aidonis D, Anas-
taselos D, et al. Legislative framework on construction and demolition waste
management. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Envi-
ronmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics, SECOTOX/
CEMEPE, Eds. Kungolos A, Aravossis K, Karagiannidis A, Samaras P, Skiathos
island, Greece, 24e28 June, vol. 3; 2007. p. 1569e1575.
[8] Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J. Multiple criteria evaluation of rural buildings
regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment 2007;42:436e51.
[9] Wang W, Zmeureanu R, Rivard H. Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms
in green building design optimization. Building and Environment
2005;40:1512e25.
[10] Li DZ, Hui E, Leung B, Li QM, Xu X. A methodology for eco-efciency evalu-
ation of residential development at city level. Building and Environment
2010;45:566e73.
[11] Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G. Decision support
system for the optimal location of electrical and electronic waste treatment
plants: a case study in Greece. Waste Management 2010;30(5):870e9.
[12] Morrissey AJ, Browne J. Waste management models and their application to
sustainable waste management. Waste Management 2004;24(3):297e308.
[13] Ross T, Soland R. A multicriteria approach to the location of public facilities.
European Journal of Operational Research 1980;4(5):307e21.
[14] Guo P, Huang GH. Inexact fuzzy-stochastic mixed integer programming
approach for long-term planning of waste management-Part B: case study.
Journal of Environmental Management 2009;91:441e60.
[15] Erkut E, Karagiannidis A, Perkoulidis G, Tjandra S. A multicriteria facility
location next term model for municipal solid waste management in North
Greece. European Journal of Operational Research 2008;187(3):1402e21.
[16] Vego G, Kucar-Dragicevic S, Koprivanac N. Application of multi-criteria deci-
sion-making on strategic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia,
Croatia. Waste Management 2008;28:2192e201.
[17] Simes Gomes C, Nunes K, Xavier LH, Cardoso R, Valle R. Multicriteria decision
making applied to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega 2008;36:395e404.
[18] Norese MF. ELECTRE III as a support for participatory decision-making on the
localisation of waste-treatment plants. Land Use Policy 2006;23:76e85.
[19] Lahdelma R, Salminen P, Hokkanen J. Locating a waste treatment facility by
using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis with ordinal criteria.
European Journal of Operational Research 2002;142:345e56.
[20] Vaillancourt K, Waaub JP. Environmental site evaluation of waste manage-
ment facilities embedded into EUGENE model: a multicriteria approach.
European Journal of Operational Research 2002;139:436e48.
[21] Haastrup P, Maniezzo V, Mattarelli M, Rinaldi FM, Mendes I, Paruccini M. A
decision support system for urban waste management. European Journal of
Operational Research 1998;109:330e41.
G. Banias et al. / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 2317e2326 2325
[22] Hokkanen J, Salminen P. Locating a waste treatment facility by multicriteria
analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 1997;6:175e84.
[23] Iakovou E, Moussiopoulos N, Xanthopoulos A, Achillas Ch, Michailidis N,
Chatzipanagioti M, et al. Multicriteria matrix: a methodology for end-of-life
management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009;53:329e39.
[24] Rousis K, Moustakas K, Malamis S, Papadopoulos A, Loizidou M. Multi-criteria
analysis for the determination of the best WEEE management scenario in
Cyprus. Waste Management 2008;28(10):1941e54.
[25] Steuer RE, Na P. Multiple criteria decision making combined with nance: A
categorized bibliographic study. European Journal of Operational Research
2003;150(3):496e515.
[26] Hokkanen J, Salminen P. Choosing a solid waste management system using
multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research
1997;98(1):19e36.
[27] Queiruga D, Walther G, Gonzalez-Benito J, Spengler T. Evaluation of sites for the
location of WEEE recycling plants in Spain. Waste Management 2008;28:181e90.
[28] Roy B. Electre III; Algorithme de classement base sur une representation oue
des preferences en presence de criteres multiples. Cahiers de CERO 1978;20
(1):3e24.
[29] Roy B, Bouyssou D. Aide multicritere a la decision: methods et cas. Paris:
Economica; 1993.
[30] Rogers M, Bruen M. Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and
veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE. European
Journal of Operational Research 1998;107:542e51.
[31] Xiaoting W, Triantaphyllou E. Ranking irregularities when evaluating alter-
natives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 2008;36:45e63.
[32] Roy B, Present M, Silhol D. A programming method for determining which
Paris metro stations should be renovated. European Journal of Operational
Research 1986;24:318e34.
[33] Miettinen K, Salminen P. Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision
making problems with imprecise data. European Journal of Operational
Research 1999;119:50e60.
[34] Geldermann J, Spengler T, Renz O. Fuzzy outranking for environmental
assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 2000;115:45e65.
[35] Le Teno JF, Mareshal B. An interval version of PROMETHE for the comparison
of building products design with ill-dened data on environmental quality.
European Journal of Operational Research 1998;109:522e9.
[36] Roy B, Hugonnard JC. Ranking of suburban line extension projects on the Paris
metro system by a multicriteria method. European Journal of Operational
Research 1982;16a(4):301e12.
[37] Munier N. Multicriteria environmental assessment: a practical guide. Dor-
drecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004.
[38] Roussat N, Dujet C, Mehu J. Choosing a sustainable demolition waste
management strategy using multicriteria decision analysis. Waste Manage-
ment 2009;29(1):2e20.
[39] Maystre LY, Pictet J, Simos J. Mthodes multicritres ELECTRE, Description,
conseils pratiques et cas dapplication u la gestion environnementale. Lau-
sanne, Switzerland: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes; 1994.
[40] Moussiopoulos N, Nikolaou K, editors. Indicators for the environment and
sustainability of Thessaloniki. Hellenic ministry of environment, physical
planning & public works, organisation for the master plan and environmental
protection of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki, Greece, December (in Greek): Aris-
totle University of Thessaloniki, ISBN 978-960-98642-0-6; 2008.
[41] European Commission. Council Directive 2001/573/EC amending
Commission Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes. Brussels;
23 July 2001.
[42] Hellenic Republic. Draft Presidential Decree for the alternative management
of construction and demolition waste. Athens; 7 May 2007.
[43] Kikuchi R, Gerardo R. More than a decade of conict between hazardous
waste management and public resistance: A case study of NIMBY syndrome in
Souselas (Portugal). Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009;172:1681e5.
[44] Banias G. Development of a system for the optimal construction and demo-
lition waste management. PhD Thesis, Aristotle University Thessaloniki,
School of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thessaloniki,
June (in Greek); 2009.
[45] Google. Ofcial Google maps web site. Available from: http://maps.google.
com; 2009 [Last accessed 17.12.2009].
[46] National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG). Available from: http://www.
statistics.gr; 2009 [last accessed 16.12.2009].
[47] Hellenic Ministry of Economy and Finance. Ofcial website. Available from:
http://www.gsis.gr; 2009 [Last accessed 22.11.2009].
[48] Haralambopoulos D, Polatidis H. Renewable energy projects: structuring
a multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renewable Energy
2003;28:961e73.
[49] Kourmpanis B, Papadopoulos A, Moustakas K, Kourmoussis F, Stylianou M,
Loizidou M. An integrated approach for the management of demolition waste
in Cyprus. Waste Management and Research 2008;26:573e81.
[50] Laboratoire dAnalyse et Modlisation de Systmes pour lAide la dcision
(LAMSADE). ELECTRE IIIeIV software ofcial webpage. Available from: http://
www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/english/software.html#el34; 2009 [Last accessed
05.12.2009].
[51] Vlachokostas Ch, Achillas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Hourdakis E, Tsilingiridis G,
Ntziachristos L, et al. Decision support system for the evaluation of urban air
pollution control options: application for particulate pollution in Thessaloniki,
Greece. Science of the Total Environment 2009;407:5937e48.
G. Banias et al. / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 2317e2326 2326