Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 15, pp 4879–4890 | Cite as

Solid waste collection system selection for smart cities based on a type-2 fuzzy multi-criteria decision technique

  • Murside Topaloglu
  • Ferhat Yarkin
  • Tolga Kaya
Focus

Abstract

Energy-efficient and eco-friendly information and communication technologies (ICTs) make increasingly significant contributions to daily life while supporting environmental protection and a sustainable economy. Smart city approach aims to integrate ICTs and physical devices to track, analyze, and optimize the parameters of urban operations and services. The purpose of this study is to suggest a type-2 fuzzy multiple criteria methodology to evaluate and rank alternative waste collection systems in a smart city environment. Type-2 fuzzy sets, whose membership functions are also fuzzy, can constitute a strong theoretical base to techniques which can handle problems with vague components. In this regard, type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS method is applied to a real case study from Eskisehir, Turkey. Considering the current needs of Tepebaşı  district, in which there are currently ongoing smart city projects funded by European Union, four alternative concepts are designed. Each of the concepts is based on a particular ICT. Analysis results show that the drone and the visible light communication-based collection systems are the most appropriate systems for the study area. To track the stability of the results to changes in the attribute weights, a sensitivity analysis is also provided. This study can be considered as one of the first attempts to evaluate the integration of emerging ICTs into smart waste collection systems using type-2 fuzzy sets.

Keywords

Smart city Municipal solid waste Emerging ICTs Type-2 fuzzy sets Multi-criteria Fuzzy TOPSIS 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abo-Sinna MA, Amer AH (2005) Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Appl Math Comput 162(1):243–256MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Khatib IA, Arafat HA, Basheer T, Shawahneh H, Salahat A, Eid J, Ali W (2007) Trends and problems of solid waste management in developing countries: a case study in seven Palestinian districts. Waste Manag (Oxford) 27(12):1910–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amponsah SK, Salhi S (2004) The investigation of a class of capacitated arc routing problems: the collection of garbage in developing countries. Waste Manag 24(7):711–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen TY (2014) An ELECTRE-based outranking method for multiple criteria group decision making using interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 263:1–21MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen SM, Lee LW (2010) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 37:2790–2798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen TY, Chang CH, Lu JFR (2013) The extended QUALIFLEX method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and applications to medical decision making. Eur J Oper Res 226(2):615–625MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Csáji BC, Kemény Z, Pedone G, Kuti A, Váncza J (2017) Wireless multi-sensor networks for smart cities: a prototype system with statistical data analysis. IEEE Sens J 17(23):7667–7676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekmekçioğlu M, Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Fuzzy multicriteria disposal method and site selection for municipal solid waste. Waste Manag (Oxford) 30(8–9):1729–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Estay-Ossandon C, Mena-Nieto A, Harsch N (2018) Using a fuzzy TOPSIS-based scenario analysis to improve municipal solid waste planning and forecasting: a case study of Canary archipelago (1999–2030). J Clean Prod 176:1198–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Etli P, Aksoylu SA (2016) Critical outlook to remourban project of Eskisehir Tepebasi municipality as a smart settlement. In: 5th International conference on smart cities and green ICT systems (SMARTGREENS 2016). pp 86–93Google Scholar
  12. Gutierrez JM, Jensen M, Henius M, Riaz T (2015) Smart waste collection system based on location intelligence. Proc Comput Sci 61(Supplement C):120–127 (, complex Adaptive Systems San Jose, CA November 2-4, (2015))CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu J, Zhang Y, Chen X, Liu Y (2013) Multi-criteria decision making method based on possibility degree of interval type-2 fuzzy number. Knowl Based Syst 43:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Izadikhah M (2005) An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Appl Math Comput 175:1375–1384zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Jovicic A, Li J, Richardson T (2013) Visible light communication: opportunities, challenges and the path to market. IEEE Commun Mag 51(12):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Sarı İU, Turanoğlu E (2014) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl Based Syst 59:48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahraman C, Onar SC, Oztaysi B (2015) Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature review. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8:637–666CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahraman C, Sarı İU (2012) Multicriteria environmental risk evaluation using type II fuzzy sets. In: Greco S, Bouchon-Meunier B, Coletti G, Fedrizzi M, Matarazzo B, Yager RR (eds) Advances in computational intelligence. IPMU 2012. Communications in computer and information science, vol 300. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  19. Khan LU (2017) Visible light communication: applications, architecture, standardization and research challenges. Digit Commun Netw 3(2):78–88MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim BI, Kim S, Sahoo S (2006) Waste collection vehicle routing problem with time windows. Comput Oper Res 33(12):3624–3642 (part Special Issue: Recent Algorithmic Advances for Arc Routing Problems)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Lajmi H, Kammoun HM, Zouari M, Alimi AM, Rodriguez JM (2017) Type-2-fuzzy rule base system based on ECUs communication in a smart city vehicular environment. In: 2017 International conference on advanced systems and electric technologies (IC\_ASET), IEEE. pp 460–466Google Scholar
  22. Lee LW, Chen SM (2008) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the extension of TOPSIS method and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. In: 2008 International conference on machine learning and cybernetic, Kunming, China. pp 3260–3265Google Scholar
  23. Ma X, Ma C, Wan Z, Wang K (2017) A fuzzy chance-constrained programming model with type 1 and type 2 fuzzy sets for solid waste management under uncertainty. Eng Optim 49(6):1040–1056MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendel JM, John RIB (2002) Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple. Fuzzy Syst IEEE Trans 10(2):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mirzazadeh F, Hadinejad F, Akbarpour Roshan N (2018) Investigating utility level of waste disposal methods using multicriteria decision-making techniques (case study: Mazandaran-Iran). J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:505–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohagheghi V, Mousavi SM, Siadat A (2016) Assessing E-waste recycling programs by developing preference selection index under interval type-2 fuzzy uncertainty. In: IEEE International conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), Bali. pp 1259–1263Google Scholar
  27. Morrissey A, Browne J (2002) The application of multicriteria decision making techniques in the assessment of waste management strategies. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 56:591–600Google Scholar
  28. Nădăban S, Dzitac S, Dzitac I (2016) Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Proc Comput Sci 91:823–831CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Nuortio T, Kytöjoki J, Niska H, Bräysy O (2006) Improved route planning and scheduling of waste collection and transport. Expert Syst Appl 30(2):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rajagopal S, Roberts RD, Lim SK (2012) IEEE 802.15.7 visible light communication: modulation schemes and dimming support. IEEE Commun Mag 50(3):72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Modell 45(7–8):801–813CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Torkamani F, Fallah S, Saadatmand M (2012) How urban management can use DSS to facilitate decision-making process: an application of fuzzy TOPSIS. J Am Sci 8(5):162–173Google Scholar
  33. Turan NG, Çoruh S, Akdemir A, Ergun ON (2009) Municipal solid waste management strategies in Turkey. Waste Manag (Oxford) 29(1):465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ugurlu S, Kahraman C (2011) Fuzzy multicriteria risk assessment for hazardous waste management: the case of Istanbul. J Risk Anal Crisis Response 1(1):29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vicentini F, Giusti A, Rovetta A, Fan X, He Q, Zhu M, Liu B (2009) Sensorized waste collection container for content estimation and collection optimization. Waste Manag (Oxford) 29(5):1467–1472 first international conference on environmental management, engineering, planning and economicsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vinodh S, Prasanna M, Hari Prakash N (2014) Integrated fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling method: a case study. Appl Math Model 38(19–20):4662–4672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang JW, Cheng CH, Huang KC (2009) Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 9(1):377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wibowo S, Deng H (2015) Multi-criteria group decision making for evaluating the performance of e-waste recycling programs under uncertainty. Waste Manag (Oxford) 40:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xi BD, Su J, Huang GH, Qin XS, Jiang YH, Huo SL et al (2010) An integrated optimization approach and multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the waste-management system of the City of Beijing, China. Eng Appl Artif Intell 23(4):620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353Google Scholar
  41. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8:199–249MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeng Y, Zhang R, Lim TJ (2016) Wireless communications with unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges. IEEE Commun Mag 54(5):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityMacka, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityMaslak, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations