Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164

www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft
Computer-based interface for an integrated solid waste management
optimization model
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236,
Bliss Street, Beirut, Lebanon
Received 22 August 2002; received in revised form 5 September 2003; accepted 24 December 2003
Abstract
Planning a regional waste management strategy is a critical step that, if not properly addressed, will lead to an inecient inte-
grated solid waste management (ISWM) system. Regional planning aects the design, implementation, and eciency of the over-
all ISWM scheme. Consequently, decision-makers must look for optimized regional waste management planning to achieve a
successful strategy. The optimization of an ISWM strategy for an area requires the knowledge of available solid waste manage-
ment alternatives and technologies, economic and environmental costs associated with these alternatives, and their applicability to
the specic area. Decision-makers often have to rely on optimization models to examine the impacts of mass balance, capacity
limitations, operation, and site availability as well as to analyze dierent alternative options in the selection of a cost eective,
environmentally sound waste management alternative. In this context, the complexity associated with the formulation of optimi-
zation models may hinder its use, and consequently, user friendliness is a major concern. This paper presents an interface that
was developed to address this concern, that is to formulate the matrices associated with an integrated waste management optimi-
zation model.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Optimization; Linear programming; Modeling; Solid waste management
1. Introduction
In the absence of a single optimal waste management
alternative that can handle municipal solid waste
(MSW), the concept of integrated solid waste manage-
ment (ISWM)
1
has evolved with the philosophy of inte-
grating all available waste management options with
existing geographic, environmental, and socio-economic
conditions, in an attempt to better manage our waste.
Decision-makers and waste management planners are
currently faced with the increase in complexity, uncer-
tainty, multi-objectivity, and subjectivity of ISWM. The
decision process of MSW management has developed
from simple comparison between few single-waste-
management alternatives, to a larger number of combi-
nations through ISWM. Accordingly, the decision
process of ISWM must follow a more scientic and sys-
tematic approach to improve the quality of the resulting
decisions.
At this stage, decision-makers must be able to dis-
tinguish between an optimum decision, a good
decision, and a lucky outcome. The rst provides the
optimum feasible solution that satises all the pre-
determined constraints, and optimizes the required
objective function using operations research (OR) tech-
niques. The second is based on experience, trial and
error techniques, sensitivity analysis, and/or compari-
son of various ISWM combinations. It might lead to
near optimal decisions, however, with the increase in
the number of combinations in the decision process,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +961-3-228-338; fax: +961-1-744-

462.
E-mail address: mfadel@aub.edu.lb (M. El-Fadel).
1
An ISWM is reached when the use, eectiveness, and economics
of its functional elements (collection, transport/transfer, processing,
treatment, and disposal) have been assessed with corresponding inter-
faces and connections. It can thus be dened as the selection and
application of suitable techniques, technologies and management
options to achieve specic waste management objectives and goals
(Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).
1364-8152/$ - see front matter #2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.005
these techniques can no longer be used with the same
eciency. The third follows a non-scientic approach,
and outcomes, whether lucky or unlucky, are not
dependent on the decision quality.
Various issues of ISWM have been addressed
through OR methods (Table 1). A linear programming
(LP) waste management and planning optimization
tool was developed to assist decision-makers in provid-
ing an optimum waste management policy given the
available data (Abou Najm et al., 2002a,b). It presents
the information required for making a factual, analyti-
cal decision about the optimum waste management
alternative taking into consideration the economic and
environmental costs, along with various constraints
adopted to account for implemented or suggested poli-
cies, mass balance, capacity limitations, operation,
nance, and site availability. The interface developed in
this paper allows the use of this model by decision-
makers without the need of acquiring the knowledge of
LP optimization. The interface will automatically build
the essential matrices by just entering the required
data. Once the matrices are ready, specialized solvers
(Excel, Matlab, Lindo, etc.) can obtain the optimum
solution with no further complication.
2. Why optimization?
It is essential at the onset that decision-makers and
waste management planners dierentiate between the
relatively new concept of optimization, in comparison
to the more commonly used life cycle assessment
(LCA) computer modeling. Technically, the two con-
cepts are completely dierent. Optimization tools pro-
vide decision-makers with optimum ISWM policies for
any region based on economic and environmental
costs, mass balance, capacity limitations, operations,
Table 1
A literature review on the use of OR in MSW management
Reference Description
Nema and Modak (1998) An integer linear programming model was developed as a strategic design approach for the optimization of regional
hazardous waste management systems. The objective was to minimize total costs and risks
Haith (1998) An Excel spreadsheet, MSWFLOW, was developed as an accounting procedure for the exploration of MSW
management decisions
Daskalopoulos et al. (1998) A simple LP model that accounts for both the economic and environmental impacts of an IMSW system was used.
The model optimizes the waste management process for a single generation source. Environmental costs are those
associated with emissions of greenhouse gases, expressed in terms of equivalent global warming potential (GWP)
Huang et al. (1997) A solid waste decision support system (SWDSS) was developed based on an inexact mixed integer linear
programming (IMILP) to incorporate dierent types of uncertainties within its optimization process
Sundberg and Ljunggren
(1997)
A methodology was suggested for the integrated analysis of cost and environmental impacts by linking two modeling
approaches for the strategic ISWM planning: the MIMES/waste model and the LCA model
Rubenstien (1997) A multiple attribute decision system (MADS) was developed. The MADS model is a simulation-planning model that
is composed of two modules: screening and evaluation. The screening module assists in selecting feasible MSW
management alternatives based on constraints set by decision-makers. The evaluation module builds on the previous
module and economic and environmental impacts of MSW management and policy. The model accounts for only
environmental transportation costs in terms of vehicle emissions
Charnpratheep et al. (1997) The fuzzy set theory and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) were coupled into a raster-based geographic
information system (GIS) for the preliminary screening of landll sites
Kao et al. (1997) A prototype network GIS was developed for landll siting. Improving the prototype is currently underway through
introducing expert systems. That include a fuzzy expert system and a mixed-integer liner optimization subsystems to
implement multi-objective analysis
Ljunggren and Sundberg
(1997)
A one-period nonlinear programming model (MWS) was developed. This model analyzes SWM systems for a single
time period and optimizes the system for a dened objective function. The objective is to minimize the total cost of
MSW management systems. Environmental considerations are addressed through integrating emission constraints
and fees
Chang et al. (1996) MIP model was applied with the framework of dynamic optimization considering economic and environmental
factors
Barlishen and Baetz (1996) A mixed integer linear programming (MILP) was used in the optimization study with dynamic, multi-period model
formulation for facility location, timing, and sizing
Powell (1996) A multi criteria model was developed to evaluate six waste disposal options in a two dimensional matrix. Assessing
data was conducted in two ways: numerical or cardinal valuation when numerical data are present, and ordinal
ranking method when data are absent or unreliable
Bhat (1996) A simulation-optimization model was developed to obtain the optimal allocation of trucks for MSW management by
reducing traveling and waiting time costs. The simulation model estimates the waiting time of trucks and the
optimization model uses heuristic approach to nd the optimal allocation of trucks
Gottinger (1991) A xed charge mixed integer programming model which views regional waste management systems as network ows
was suggested. The mathematical formulation of the long range planning of locations and expansion of facilities for
regional waste management was also explored
1152 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
location, and site availability. On the other hand, LCA
models are not inherently structured to advise decision-
makers on what they must do with their waste. They
are assessment tools that present the environmental
and economic impacts of various ISWM policies so
that decision-makers can make more informed deci-
sions. In other words, the output of an optimization
tool is an ISWM policy, whereas that of an LCA
model is impact and total life cycle burden resulted
from an ISWM policy (which is part of the input to the
LCA model). This means that decision-makers using
only LCA models can only obtain the optimum ISWM
policy among the ISWM policies that they were able to
think of, by simply selecting the option with the least
impact (since LCA models only assess predetermined
policies). However, the optimum ISWM policy might
be a combination that was not thought of, and thus
was not assessed and analyzed by the LCA model.
Optimization tools comprise the approach to obtain
the optimum waste management policy whether pre-
determined or not.
3. The model
This section briey describes the mathematical for-
mulation of the LP model to be used in the systematic
analysis of the ISWM problem. In the model, the ow
network of the waste stream is divided into three main
sets (Fig. 1). The rst set consists of the generation
sources. The second is the intermediate facilities includ-
ing the processing facilities, the biological treatment
facilities, and the thermal treatment facilities. The last
set is the landlls.
Let I, J, K, R, U, and T be the total number of gen-
eration nodes, processing facilities, biological treatment
facilities, thermal treatment facilities, landlls, and time
intervals, respectively. The decision variables in the
model are the waste amounts transported from one
node, or location, to another (Table 2). They cover the
transport of waste in the eight possible paths (Fig. 1).
For simplicity, the term x was introduced to account
for all waste generation nodes and management facili-
ties. Similarly, the term y represents all waste manage-
ment facilities. Consequently, the term W
d
xyt
includes
any of the following terms: W
1
ijt
, W
2
irt
, W
3
iut
, W
4
jkt
, W
5
jrt
,
W
6
jut
, W
7
kut
, and W
8
rut
. All the remaining symbols rep-
resent predetermined parameters that can be changed
only once for every run.
3.1. Objective function
The general form of the objective function considers
the minimization of the amortized dierence between
Fig. 1. Waste stream ow network.
Table 2
Models decision variables
Decision variable Waste transported
From To At
W
1
ijt
a
Generation node, i Processing facility, j Time interval, t
W
2
irt
b
Generation node, i Thermal treatment facility, r Time interval, t
W
3
iut
c
Generation node, i Landll, u Time interval, t
W
4
jkt
d
Processing facility, j Biological treatment facility, k Time interval, t
W
5
jrt
e
Processing facility, j Thermal treatment facility, r Time interval, t
W
6
jut
f
Processing facility, j Landll, u Time interval, t
W
7
kut
g
Biological treatment facility, k Landll, u Time interval, t
W
8
rut
h
Thermal treatment facility, r Landll, u Time interval, t
a
i 1; . . . ; I, j 1; . . . ; J, t 1; . . . ; T.
b
i 1; . . . ; I, r 1; . . . ; R, t 1; . . . ; T.
c
i 1; . . . ; I, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.
d
j 1; . . . ; J, k 1; . . . ; K, t 1; . . . ; T.
e
j 1; . . . ; J, r 1; . . . ; R, t 1; . . . ; T.
f
j 1; . . . ; J, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.
g
k 1; . . . ; K, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.
h
r 1; . . . ; R, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1153
costs and benets of the whole ISWM system:
Minimize

T
t1
b
t
C
t
B
t
1
where C
t
is the costs associated with ISWM stream at
time t($); B
t
is the benet associated with ISWM
stream at time t($); b
t
is the discount factor, accounts
for the ination rate, f, and the nominal interest rate, r
as expressed in Eq. (2).
b
t

1 f
1 r
_ _
t1
2
The cost component of the objective function consists
of two major cost categories: conventional and
environmental (Tables 3 and 4).
4. Model constraints
The basic model constraint set consists of mass bal-
ance, capacity and material limitations, and policy
implementation constraints (Table 5).
Note that the last three sets of equations can be tes-
ted through the sensitivity analysis by simulating the
optimized solution with the targeted composting quan-
tities, material recycling percentages, and household
recycling material percentages, respectively.
4.1. Number of variables and equations in the model
The number of constraints and number of non-zero
terms for every constraint-equation is summarized in
Table 6. Let p and q denote the total number of
decision variables and constraints, respectively. They
will have the following values:
p T IJ IR IU JK JR JU KU RU
q T 2I 5J 3R 3K 2U 1
5. The need for an interface
The objective is to prepare and solve the following
general linear programming problem:
Objective function : minA
T
x
Subject to : Bx C
where A is a vector that constitutes the set of coe-
cients of the linear objective function. The matrix B
Table 3
Summary of the conventional and environmental cost component
Total cost of Mathematical representation (equation)
Transportation

8
d1
TC
xyt
W
d
xyt
_ _
3
Operation

8
d1
OC
d
y
W
d
xyt
_ _
4
Remediation

8
d1
RC
d
yt
W
d
xyt
_ _
5
Fixed construction

T
t1
CC
xt
6
Fixed expansion

T
t1
EC
xt
7
TC
xyt
, unit cost of waste transported from x to y at time t ($/ton);
W
d
xyt
, amount of waste transported from x to y at time t (tons); OC
d
y
,
unit operating cost at facility y ($/ton); RC
d
yt
, unit remediation cost
of pollution at facility y at time t ($/ton); CC
xt
, construction cost of
a new facility x at time t ($); EC
xt
, xed expansion cost of facility x
at time t ($).
Note: The xed construction and expansion costs are not decision
variables. They are numbers that should be added to the objective
function. To consider them as decision variables, integer linear pro-
gramming (ILP) should be introduced.
Table 4
Summary of the conventional and environmental benet component
Total income from Mathematical representation (equation)
Resource recovery
(recyclable)
a
m
PC
m
W
1
ijt
_ _
UC
m
8
Biological treatment
revenues
W
4
jkt
1 VR
k
C 9
Thermal treatment
revenues
W
2
irt
Th
ir
_ _
or W
5
jrt
Th
jr
_ _
10
Household recycling
income

T
t1
n
m
PC
m
RI
m

I
i1
G
it
11
a
m
, percent of material m in waste, sold as recyclable raw material at
time t (% ratio) (model parameter not variable); PC
m
, percent of
material m in SW (% ratio); UC
m
, unit selling price of material m ($);
VR
k
, volume reduction ratio at compost facility k; C, revenues from
biological treatment facilities, for composting, it is the compost unit
price ($/ton of waste); Th
ir
, revenues from thermal treatment facili-
ties with waste received directly from generation sources (without
separation or treatment), for incineration, it is the energy recovery
revenues from one ton of waste ($/ton of waste); Th
jr
, revenues from
thermal treatment facilities with waste received from processing facili-
ties (i.e. with higher energy content than Th
ir
) ($/ton of waste); n
m
,
percent material m sold as recyclable raw material from household
(% ratio) (model parameter not variable); RI
m
, recycling income for
material m ($/ton of waste); G
it
, generation amount at source i at
time t (ton).
Note: The household recycling income is not a decision variable. It is
a number that should be added to the objective function. To consider
it as a decision variable, ILP should be introduced.
1154 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
Table 5
Models constraints
Constraint (equation)
Mass balance constraints

J
j1
W
1
ijt

R
r1
W
2
irt

U
u1
W
3
iut
G
IT
1

M
m1
n
m
PC
m

_ _
with i 1; . . . ;I; and t 1; . . . ;T 12

I
i1
W
1
ijt
1

M
m1
a
m
PC
m

_ _ _ _

R
r1
W
5
jrt

K
k1
W
4
jkt

U
u1
W
6
jut
with j 1; . . . ;J; and t 1; . . . ;T 13

I
i1

M
m1
a
m;max
G
it

I
i1

J
j1
W
1
ijt
with t 1; . . . ;T 14
a
m,max
, maximum percent of material m in waste, sold as recyclable raw material at time t (% ratio).
Capacity limitation constraint
Cap
min;t;j

I
i1
W
1
ijt
Cap
max;t;j
with j 1; . . . ;J and t 1; . . . ;T 15
Cap
min;t;k

J
j1
W
4
jkt
Cap
max;t;k
with k 1; . . . ;K and t 1; . . . ;T 16
Cap
min;t;r

J
j1
W
5
jrt

I
i1
W
2
irt
Cap
max;t;r
with r 1; . . . ;R and t 1; . . . ;T 17
Cap
min;t;u

I
i1
W
3
iut

J
j1
W
6
jut

R
r1
W
8
rut

K
k1
W
7
kut
Cap
max;t;u
with u 1; . . . ;U and t 1; . . . ;T 18
Cap
min,t,x
, minimum capacity for facility x at time interval t; Cap
max,t,x
, maximum capacity for facility x at time interval t.
Material limitation constraints

K
k1
W
4
jkt
PC
comp

I
i1
W
1
ijt
with j 1; . . . ;J and t 1; . . . ;T 19

R
r1
W
2
irt
PC
inc:
G
IT
with i 1; . . . ;I and t 1; . . . ;T 20

R
r1
W
5
jrt
PC
inc:

I
i1
W
5
ijt
with j 1;::::::;J and t 1;::::::;T 21

U
u1
W
7
kut
! PC
ret;b

J
j1
W
4
jkt
with k 1; . . . ;K and t 1; . . . ;T 22
(continued on next page)
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1155
and vector C comprise the coecients of the linear
constraints, accounting for both equality and
inequality constraints. Table 7 summarizes the sizes of
the optimization problem components: A, B, and C.
As Table 7 indicates, the preparation of the optimi-
zation components is a complex task that requires time
and professional expertise. An interface was developed
to assemble these components given the user inputs.
Input to the interface includes detailed information
about the specic region of interest.
6. The interface
The interface was developed using an ExcelVisual
Basic environment. It is completely generic and
designed to request the required data input from the
user. It is composed of a set of Excel worksheets. The
Main Menu worksheet, which starts the interface, looks
for the major model parameters: I, J, K, R, U, and T
(Fig. 2). The call for data is generated by the model as
the user shifts between the worksheets (using the com-
mand buttons in the Main Menu). Worksheets respon-
sible for generation quantities, distances, and capacities
are: Generation Nodes (Fig. 3), Processing Facilities
(Fig. 4), Biological Treatment Facilities (Fig. 5), Ther-
mal Treatment Facilities (Fig. 6), and Landlls (Fig. 7).
The main input information required by these work-
sheets is described in Table 8.
Operational costs, benets, and waste management
alternatives properties are required by Cost and Policy
Data worksheet (Fig. 8). Costs include the operating
cost of every waste management facility in $/ton
depending on its capacity, policies, and technology
used. Consequently, the model accounts for dierent
operating costs for the same waste management alter-
native. Ratios of compostable (PC
comp
) and combust-
ible (PC
inc.
) materials, as well as ratio of returnable
material from biological (PC
ret,b
) and thermal (PC
ret,t
)
treatment facilities are also expressed in this worksheet.
Table 5 (continued )
Constraint (equation)

U
u1
W
8
rut
! PC
ret;t

I
i1
W
2
irt

J
j1
W
5
jrt
_ _
with r 1; . . . ;R and t 1; . . . ;T 23
PC
comp
and PC
inc.
, percentages of compostable or combustible waste (% ratio); PC
ret,b
and PC
ret,t
, percentages for returnable materials to landlls
from biological and thermal facilities, respectively (% ratio).
Policy implementation constraints
n
min;m
n
m
n
max;m
24
a
min;m
a
m
a
max;m
25
W
4
jkt;min
W
4
jkt
W
4
jkt;max
26
n
min,m
and n
max,m
, minimum and maximum percent material m sold as recyclable raw material from household (% ratio).
Table 6
Number of equations and non-zero terms for constraints
Equation number Number of
equations
Number of
non-zero terms
(12) IT JRU
(13) JT IRKU
(14) T IJ
(15) 2JT I
(16) 2KT J
(17) 2RT IJ
(18) 2UT IJRK
(19) JT IK
(20) IT I
(21) JT IJ
(22) KT UJ
(23) RT IUJ
Table 7
Sizes of the optimization problem components
Component Number of
rows
Number of
columns
Comments
A p 1 Vector
B q p Matrix
C q 1 Vector
p TIJIRIUJKJRJUKURU;
q T2I5J3R3K2U1.
1156 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
Environmental costs of prevention, treatment, health,
land depreciation, ecosystem and others in $/ton are
placed for every waste management facility in the
Detailed Environmental Costs worksheet (Fig. 9). Waste
composition, recycling and household separation poli-
cies and costs are pointed out in the Recycling and
Household Data worksheet (Fig. 10).
7. Main Menu worksheet
The Main Menu in the interface (Fig. 2) calls for the
main parameters in the model. The user needs to input
the following:
. The number of generation nodes, I
. The number of processing facilities, J
. The number of biological treatment facilities, K
. The number of thermal treatment facilities, R
. The number of landlls, U
. The number of time periods, T
The user will directly see the number of decision vari-
ables and number of constraints for the specied prob-
lem. Command buttons designed in the Main Menu
worksheet are to direct the user for data entry. A set of
generic worksheets will open to instruct the user of
what data needs to be input. Data required includes
the following:
Fig. 2. Main Menu worksheet.
Fig. 3. Generation Nodes Data worksheet.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1157
. Generation quantities
. Distances from generation nodes to waste treatment
and disposal facilities
. Distances from intermediate facilities to intermedi-
ate and ultimate disposal facilities
. Capacities of waste treatment and disposal facilities
. Conventional and environmental costs
. Waste management policies
The data-entry worksheets are generated in a format
that looks for data given the users input for the main
parameters.
8. Input worksheets
Data input worksheets will appear as the user presses
the corresponding command button in the Main Menu
worksheet. The naming of generation nodes, time inter-
vals, processing facilities, thermal treatment facilities,
composting plants, and landlls is generic using the
major inputs of the Main Menu. The representation of
a node or facility in all the interface worksheets is sim-
ply the index of that node or facility (I, T, J, R, K, or
U) and its number. It is completely generic using the
inputs of the Main Menu worksheet.
Fig. 4. Processing Facilities Data worksheet.
Fig. 5. Biological Treatment Facilities Data worksheet.
1158 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8.1. Generation Nodes Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 3), the user enters the gener-
ation quantities for each time interval and generation
node. The user needs also to input the distances from
every generation node, I, to each processing facility, J,
thermal treatment facility, R, and landll, U.
8.2. Processing Facilities Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 4), the user enters the mini-
mum and maximum capacities for each processing
facility, J, at every time interval T. The user needs also
to input the distances from every processing facility, J,
to each biological treatment facility, K, thermal treat-
ment facility, R, and landll, U.
8.3. Biological Treatment Facilities Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 5), the user enters the mini-
mum and maximum capacities for each biological
treatment facility, K, at every time interval T. The user
needs also to input the distances from every biological
treatment facility, K, to each landll, U.
Fig. 6. Thermal Treatment Facilities Data worksheet.
Fig. 7. Landlling Data worksheet.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1159
Table 8
Required input data for the model by the interface worksheets
Worksheet Required input (unit)
Main Menu (Fig. 2) Models main parameter: I, J, K, R, U, and T
Generation Nodes (Fig. 3) Waste generation quantities, G
it
, for every generation node, i (ton/day).
Distance between every generation node, i, and all other facilities: j, r, and u (km).
Multiply distances by unit transportation cost ($/ ton km) to get TC
ijt
, TC
irt
, TC
iut
.
Input-worksheets
Processing Facilities (Fig. 4) Minimum and maximum capacities (Cap
min,t,j
and Cap
max,t,j
) for all processing facilities, j (ton/day).
Distance between every processing facility, j, and all other facilities: k, r, and u (km).
Multiply by unit transportation cost ($/ ton km) to get TC
jkt
, TC
jrt
, TC
jut
.
Biological Treatment Facilities (Fig. 5) Minimum and maximum capacities (Cap
min,t,k
and Cap
max,t,k
) for all biological treatment facilities,
k (ton/day).
Distance between every biological treatment facility, k, and all other landlls, u (km).
Multiply by unit transportation cost ($/ ton km) to get TC
jkt
, TC
jrt
, TC
jut
.
Thermal Treatment Facilities (Fig. 6) Minimum and maximum capacities (Cap
min,t,r
and Cap
max,t,r
) for all thermal treatment facilities, r
(ton/day).
Distance between every thermal treatment facility, r, and all other landlls, u (km).
Multiply by unit transportation cost ($/ton km) to get TC
rut
.
Landlls (Fig. 7) Minimum and maximum capacities (Cap
min,t,u
and Cap
max,t,u
) for all landlls, u (ton/day).
Cost and Policy Data (Fig. 8) Unit transportation cost ($/ton km).
Operational costs (OC
j
, OC
k
, OC
r
, OC
u
) for all waste management alternatives ($/ton).
Benets from biological treatment facilities (C) ($/ton).
Benets from thermal treatment facilities (Th
ir
, Th
jr
) for waste coming directly from generation
sources and waste coming from processing facilities ($/ton).
Ratio of returnable material (PC
ret,t,
PC
ret,b
) from thermal and biological treatment facilities (%
ratio).
Ratio of compostable and combustible material (PC
comp
, PC
inc.
) (% ratio).
Detailed Environmental Costs (Fig. 9) Looks for all possible environmental costs: prevention, treatment, health, land depreciation,
ecosystem and others ($/ton) for:
Processing facilities, j (sum of all environmental costs gives RC
j
).
Biological treatment facilities, k (sum of all environmental costs gives RC
k
).
Thermal treatment facilities, r (sum of all environmental costs gives RC
r
).
Landlls, u (sum of all environmental costs gives RC
u
).
Recycling and Household Data (Fig. 10) Percent of material m in solid waste (% ratio) (PC
m
).
Percent of material m sold as recyclable raw material (% ratio) (a
m,max
).
Policy of recycling for material m sold as recyclable raw material (% ratio) (a
m
).
Policy of household recycling for material m sold as recyclable raw material (% ratio) (n
m
).
Recycling income from material m ($/ton of waste) (RI
m
).
Note: If unit other that ton/day was used, consistency should be considered in all other terms.
Fig. 8. Cost and Policy Data worksheet.
1160 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8.4. Thermal Treatment Facilities Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 6), the user enters the mini-
mum and maximum capacities for each thermal treat-
ment facility, R, at every time interval T. The user
needs also to input the distances from every thermal
treatment facility, R, to each landll, U.
8.5. Landlling Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 7), the user enters the mini-
mum and maximum capacities for each landll, U, at
every time interval T.
8.6. Cost and Policy Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 8), the user enters the trans-
portation cost in $/km, as well as the operational costs
in $/ton for every processing facility, J, biological
treatment facility, K, thermal treatment facility, R, and
landll, U. Benets from the biological and thermal
treatment alternative are also required in $/ton. The
interface allows for two benet values for the thermal
treatment alternative since waste that is thermally
treated without any pretreatment (in a processing
facility) is usually characterized by a lower BTU con-
tent than that of a processed waste. Other important
Fig. 9. Detailed Environmental Costs worksheet.
Fig. 10. Recycling and Household Data worksheet.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1161
policy parameters for biological and thermal treatment
alternatives as well as household separation and recy-
cling are introduced.
8.7. Detailed Environmental Costs worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 9), the user enters the
detailed environmental costs for every processing
facility, J, biological treatment facility, K, thermal
treatment facility, R, and landll, U. The detailed
environmental costs include the cost of prevention,
treatment, health impacts, land depreciation, and eco-
system degradation. Any additional factor that the user
wants to add can be entered in the others row for every
facility.
8.8. Recycling and Household Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 10), the user needs to provide
the percent material composition of waste. For every
waste material (or component), the user must input the
maximum allowable recycling range depending on the
material and waste properties as well as the recycling
and processing available technologies. Recovery bene-
ts from recycling and household separation must also
be supplied. Finally, recycling and household separ-
ation policies are entered by the decision-maker. Note
that for every waste component material, the sum-
mation of waste to be recycled and household-separated
must be greater than or equal to the maximum allow-
able recycling range.
9. Output sheets
As the user inputs all the required data in the pre-
viously described sheets, the Run button in the Main
Menu sheet will generate three sheets that provides the
objective function A, the matrix B, and the right hand
side matrix C. Fig. 11 shows a sample output of the
matrix B of a typical simulation.
10. Interface limitations
The interface design was completely generic. The
coding encountered is supposed to generate the
required matrices for a problem of any size. However,
given the fact that it was built using the ExcelVisual
Basic environment, the limitations of the interface are
consequently those of Excel and Visual Basic. Since the
most recent version of Excel allows the use of only 256
columns, the interface will be limited to a total number
of 256 decision variables.
11. Model application
The region of Northern Lebanon (Fig. 12) was con-
sidered as a case study in an attempt to demonstrate
the capability of the model (Abou Najm et al., 2002b).
Data were collected for the regions six counties, with
estimated population of 893,000, and daily waste gen-
eration of about 624 tons. The model provided as an
output, the optimum waste management policy for six
waste generation centers, six processing facilities, two
composting plants, one incinerator, and six landlls
Fig. 11. Sample output of the matrix B.
1162 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
Fig. 12. Layout of case study application.
Fig. 13. Typical model output.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1163
(Fig. 13). In other words, one simulation provided the
optimum solution for a problem of 150 decision vari-
ables, and a large number of possible waste manage-
ment combinations.
12. Conclusion
This tool was developed for the generation of the
optimization models three main matrices. This is con-
sidered a very time-eective tool as it saves decision-
makers, adopting this or similar model, all the time
required for building the model matrices. One step fur-
ther is to link this tool to an optimization solver that
will take the matrices from this tool and solve the opti-
mization problem. The output from the solver is an
array with a number of elements equal to the number
of the decision variables. The output from the solver
provides the optimum value for every decision variable.
One solver that can work perfectly well with this tool is
Matlab optimization toolbox, which is an excellent sol-
ver for LP problems.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are extended to the United States
Agency for International Development for its continu-
ous support to the Water Resources Center and
Environmental Engineering and Sciences Programs at
the American University of Beirut.
References
Abou Najm, M., El-Fadel, M., El-Taha, M., Ayoub, G., El-Awar, F.,
2002a. An optimization model for regional integrated solid waste
management: I. Model formulation. Waste Management and
Research 20, 3745.
Abou Najm, M., El-Fadel, M., Ayoub, G., El-Taha, M., El-Awar, F.,
2002b. An optimization model for regional integrated solid waste
management: II. Model application and sensitivity analysis. Waste
Management and Research 20, 4654.
Barlishen, K., Baetz, B., 1996. Development of a decision support
system for municipal solid waste management systems planning.
Waste Management and Research 14(1), 7186.
Bhat, V., 1996. A model for the optimal allocation of trucks for solid
waste management. Waste Management and Research 14(1),
8796.
Chang, N., Shoemaker, C., Schuler, R., 1996. Solid waste manage-
ment analysis with air pollution and leachate impact limitations.
Waste Management and Research 14(5), 463481.
Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, Q., Garner, B., 1997. Preliminary landll
site screening using fuzzy geographic information systems. Waste
Management and Research 15, 197215.
Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., Probert, D., 1998. An integrated
approach to municipal solid waste management. Resource, Con-
servation and Recycling 24, 3350.
Gottinger, H., 1991. Economic Models and Applications of Solid
Waste Management. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New
York.
Haith, D., 1998. Material balance for municipal solid waste manage-
ment. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 6775.
Huang, G., Baetz, B., Patry, G., 1997. SWDSS: a decision support
system based on inexact optimization for regional waste manage-
ment and planning application to the region of Hamilton
Wentworth. In: Air and Waste Management Association, 90th
Annual Meeting and Exhibition, 97-RA134A.03, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Kao, J., Lin, H., Chen, W., 1997. Network geographic information
system for landll siting. Waste Management and Research 15,
239253.
Ljunggren, M., Sundberg, J., 1997. A method for strategic planning
of national solid waste management systemsmodel and case
study. In: Air and Waste Management Association, 90th Annual
Meeting and Exhibition, 97-RA134A.04, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Nema, A., Modak, P., 1998. A strategic design approach for optimi-
zation of hazardous waste management systems. Waste Manage-
ment and Research 16, 210224.
Powell, J., 1996. The evaluation of waste management option. Waste
Management and Research 14(6), 515526.
Rubenstien, B., 1997. Multiple attribute decision system (MADS): a
system approach to solid waste management planning. In: Air
and Waste Management Association, 90th Annual Meeting and
Exhibition, 97-RA134A.02, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sundberg, J., Ljunggren, M., 1997. Linking two modeling approaches
for the strategic municipal waste management planning. The
MIMES/waste model and LCA. In: Air and Waste Management
Association, 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, 97-
RA134A.06, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S., 1993. Integrated Solid
Waste Management Engineering Principles and Management
Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore.
1164 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164