Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Variable fleet size and mix VRP with fleet heterogeneity in Integrated
Solid Waste Management
Hossein Asefi a, Shahrooz Shahparvari b, *, Prem Chhetri b, Samsung Lim c
a
Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Zhoushan 316021, China
b
School of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
c
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) is a recent effective tool to manage with the growing
Received 24 August 2018 challenge of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The ISWM integrates all the system components (i.e. transfer,
Received in revised form treatment, recycling and disposal of wastes) to enhance the sustainable waste management whilst
17 April 2019
reducing operational costs. In this paper, we investigate an integrated framework of the Fleet Size and
Accepted 19 April 2019
Available online 15 May 2019
Mix Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) to optimize the cost-effective ISWM system. A novel bi-objective
Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model is developed to concurrently minimize the trans-
portation cost in the entire waste management system and total deviation from the fair load allocation to
Keywords:
Vehicle routing problem
transfer stations. A complete ISWM system with all interdependent facilities and multiple technologies,
Fleet size and mix VRP is developed to address a tri-echelon Fleet Size and Mix VRP with a heterogeneous fleet of vehicles under
Municipal solid waste multiple technologies and waste compatibility constraints. The model was solved for both the Pre-
Integrated solid waste management emptive and Non-Preemptive conditions using Lexicographic and Goal Programming optimization ap-
Lexicographic optimization proaches. The model was tested on a case of ISWM in the Southern part of Tehran, Iran.
Goal programming © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction by many local governments to effectively deal with the challenges

An efficient and sustainable disposal of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) is a major challenge for local authorities (Badran and El-
Haggar, 2006). The growing volume and diversity of MSW in
large cities attest to the urgent need to develop operational and
strategic plans to achieve sustainable goals and to mitigate the
potential risk of service failure (Tan et al., 2014). Dilapidated
transportation infrastructure, budgetary constraints and anachro-
nistic IT systems make it harder for municipal authorities to
develop a seamless and well-integrated MSW system. It is partic-
ularly problematic in cities in the developing countries, which have
experienced rapid population growth, industrial transformation
and increased urbanization.
Daily solid waste generation is estimated to reach to 31,000 t by
2020 (Tan et al., 2014). This puts municipal authorities under
immense pressure to reduce operational costs; whilst maintaining
sustainable waste management practices. Hence, an Integrated
Solid Waste Management (ISWM) was implemented in recent years
* Corresponding author
E-mail address: shahrooz.shahparvari@rmit.edu.au (S. Shahparvari).
of municipal solid waste management. The argument is to develop
a holistic system that integrates all components of MSW, including
transfer, treatment, recycling and disposal transportation, pro-
cessing and disposal operations (McDougall et al., 2008). An
effective MSW management system is “complete” if all the
mentioned system components are integrated or otherwise
“incomplete”.
Given the need to implement lean strategy and economic
rationalization of public service delivery, a reduction in operating
costs of MSW management systems is increasingly becoming one
of the major objectives for local municipal authorities (Chang et al.,
2011). To develop cost-effective ISWM systems, Operations
Research (OR) techniques are widely applied to optimize waste
flows, waste allocation and transportation routing such as Ghiani
et al. (2014) and Bing et al. (2016). There have been several
studies that developed solutions for the optimal distribution and
disposal of MSW. For example, Badran and El-Haggar (2006) pro-
posed a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model to
minimize the economic cost of the collection, transportation, and
processing of MSW in Port Said, Egypt. Eiselt (2007) utilized the
concept of hub location-allocation problem to optimize locations of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.250
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
landfills without integrating it with location-allocation of treat-
ment and recycling plants. Dai et al. (2011) proposed a MILP model
to plan capacity expansion of waste treatment and allocation cen-
ters while assuming only single type of MSW. Erkut et al. (2008)
developed an advanced multi-objective MILP model to solve the
Location-Routing Problem (LRP) for with key functions of an ISWM
system (transfer, recycling, treatment (incineration) and disposal).
Their model was able to incorporate multiple waste processing
technologies for recycling and treatment centers with respect to
MSW type compatibility. Yet, this model was unable to integrate
waste processing and disposal of hazardous MSW (e.g. household
hazardous waste).
Recently, Asefi et al. (2015b) proposed a MILP model in the
framework of LRP to minimize economic cost of ISWM system.
Edalatpour et al. (2018) developed a LP model to maximize profit of
an ISWM system in the framework of a material flow optimization
model (locations/technologies of the system facilities are pre-
determined and fixed). Edalatpour et al. (2018) developed a single-
objective model to optimize the MSW processing network for MSW
categories (i.e. just dry and wet), non-diverse waste processing
technologies and waste types. However, the model distinguishes
waste in a simplified categorization (i.e. just dry and wet) and
considers non-diverse waste processing technologies. Habibi et al.
(2017), on the other hand, developed a multi-objective optimiza-
tion model for location and capacity allocation for the ISWM in
Tehran, Iran. Vidovi
c et al. (2016) further advanced this under-
standing by generating a MILP model to maximize the economic
benefit of a two-echelon recycling network, which consists of
collection points, transfer stations, and end-users. Later, studies by
Harijani et al. (2017) and Asefi and Lim (2017a) have integrated
qualitative criteria of ISWM system to a MILP model to maximize
the economic output of the system while minimizing its non-
economic destructive impacts (e.g. social rejection) (Asefi and
Lim, 2017a). However, the social pillar of sustainability has
addressed as a constraint in the model by Harijani et al. (2017)
while the model proposed by Asefi and Lim (2017a) addressed
the social pillar as a distinct objective to be optimized by the
mathematical model.
Despite the growing body of knowledge in the field of ISWM
optimization models, the attempts to optimize and/or consider the
fleet of waste transportation vehicles in the ISWM system were
rare. Given the enormous waste transportation costs involved in
the ISWM system (Silva et al., 2017), it is important to develop new
approaches and methods to economize the logistics network
through optimizing waste collection and disposal using a fleet of
different waste handling vehicles. In addition, the separation and
disposal of hazardous MSW in the ISWM system is largely
neglected in the models developed during early 2000s (Asefi et al.,
2015b).
In addition to commonly probed decision-making questions in
ISWM optimization studies (i.e. location, waste allocation, and
process network), the available models investigating the optimi-
zation of the number of waste transportation vehicles in the
network are partially addressing the pressing issues underpinning
the search for end-to-end solutions for municipal waste manage-
ment. Arguably, a lack of fully integrated MSW system and waste
categorization problem (e.g. just recyclables and non-recyclables)
have affected the practical application of these models when
applied to complex real-world situations The limitations of the
methods employed by previous studies are also acknowledged by
Santiban~ ez-Aguilar et al. (2013) for the west-central part of Mexico,
Tan et al. (2014) for Iskandar city, Malaysia, and Xi et al. (2010) for
the case of city of Beijing, China.
This study, therefore, aims to develop a new model for the Fleet
Size and Mix VRP with heterogeneous vehicles tailored for a tri-
1377
echelon complete ISWM with specific modeling conditions and
complexities at each echelon. In this study, a novel bi-objective
MILP model is developed in which the first objective is to mini-
mize the total cost of transportation for both wastes and residues
by concurrently optimizing the fleet size (number and fixed-costs
of vehicles at each type) and identifying the suitable optimal
routes with respect to variable costs of the fleet estimated through
the distance traveled and load carried.
The remainder of this paper is presented in six sections. Section
2 presents the main contributions of the study, clarifying how it
bridges the research gap and elucidating the scope and framework
of the addressed problem. Section 3 presents the main contribu-
tions of the study, clarifying how it bridges the research gap and
elucidating the scope and framework of the addressed problem.
Section 4 explains the methodology used to solve the problem.
Section 5 discusses the numerical results. Managerial insights are
provided in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 provides conclusions and
points to possible avenues of study for future researchers.
2. Literature review
Municipal solid waste, commonly referred as garbage, trash or
rubbish, is generated by residential and commercial usage. The
management of solid waste is often the responsibility of municipal
or local government authorities. Solid wastes can also be biode-
gradable (i.e. food), recyclable (i.e. glass, paper), inert waste (e.g.
construction waste, dirt, debris), electrical and electronic waste,
hazardous waste (e.g. chemicals, paints), toxic waste (e.g. pesticide)
and biomedical waste (expired pharmaceutical drugs). The man-
agement of solid waste often consists of four major components:
recycling, composting, disposal and waste-to-energy via incinera-
tion. Waste management involves collection, waste handling, and
separation, storage, processing at the source, segregation, pro-
cessing, and transformation, transport and transfer. Given the
greater diversity of waste types, the process complexity and regu-
lation and compliance, the efficient and sustainable management of
MSW remain a major challenge for most municipal authorities.
The challenges associated with MSW management in terms of
(1) capacity-allocation and (2) waste flow optimization in ISWM
are mostly addressed in the frameworks of location-allocation and
Location Routing Problem (LRP) that generate the overall routing
plan for the ISWM system. Hence, the issues of (1) detailed vehicles
routing plan (consideration of vehicles in the system and finding
optimal routes plan vehicle by vehicle) and (2) fleet size optimi-
zation (optimal number and types of required vehicles) have
remained the key focus in the optimization of the ISWM in this LRP
studies. Some most recent instances are reviewed below.
The Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP), introduced Dantzig and
Ramser (1959), has been applied to combinatorial optimization
problems to design the optimal routes for a fleet of vehicles
servicing a set of known customers (Golden et al., 2008). In vehicle
routing optimization problems, the key issue is to optimally allo-
cate delivery orders to a fleet of vehicles (Repoussis and Tarantilis,
2010), specifically when the fleet of vehicles is heterogeneous. This
is because of the variability in their fixed and operational re-
quirements including capacity, equipment, speed and cost (Taillard,
1999). In addition, a heterogeneous fleet of waste transportation
vehicles requires effective decision-making by incorporating real-
world constraints of loading and carrying different types of waste
and residues. These waste types often need special handling care or
equipment or are not to be mixed by loading in the same vehicle
(e.g. hazardous waste and flammable waste materials). They need
to be separately handled.
The VRP with a variable fleet size and heterogeneity seeks to
minimize the total transportation cost by concurrently minimizing
1378 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
the fleet size (i.e. the number of vehicles and/or fixed cost of ve-
hicles) and the cost of variable vehicles. This is widely known as the
fleet size and mix VRP (FSMVRP). That is, the cost of using a mix of
heterogenous vehicles in the fleet must also be economized, in
addition to the cost associated with the fleet size (Golden et al.,
1984). FSMVRP, therefore, enables to determine the optimum
fleet composition and size, and design of depots for returning ve-
hicles and routes to serve customers with a heterogeneous fleet of
vehicles with varying capacities and fixed costs (Repoussis and
Tarantilis, 2010). The study by Rabbani et al. (2018) addressed an
industrial (hazardous) waste LRP with a heterogeneous fleet of
waste collection/transportation vehicles to minimize the cost of
transportation as the economic objective in a multi-objective MILP
model.
However, ignoring transfer stations in the network, their pro-
posed model cannot be assumed as a practical case for a complete
ISWM system. Also, the mentioned model assumed waste pro-
cessing technological diversification only for treatment centers and
the recycling centers considered to operate with singular technol-
ogy. The vehicles were not also allocated to specific depots and
assumed to be free to return to any depots in their presented model.
Moreover, proposing a two-stage approach in the mentioned study
(i.e. routing and transportation), their proposed model addressed
vehicles routing for only transportation of waste (from depots to
customers and then to recycling and treatment centers). That is,
transportation of residues from waste processing centers (i.e.
treatment and recycling centers) to disposal centers was not
included in the VRP framework and vehicles routes were not
determined for this significant part(s) of the ISWM system. In
addition, while the mentioned study addressed the problem in the
frame of VRP (not the Fleet Size and Mix VRP), optimization of the
fleet size was not addressed and it is assumed in their proposed
approach that the number vehicles (at each type) is pre-
determined so that the decision-maker finds a set of routes for
each of vehicles while the model is bound to utilize all the vehicles.
The mentioned dependency of the resulted routes to a pre-
determined number of vehicles could highly affect the optimality
of the final solutions and hence, the effectiveness of the mentioned
two-stage approach for real-world applications. Generalizing the
above shortcomings listed from minor to major, this is emphasized
on the necessity of addressing an efficient cost-effective Fleet Size
and Mix VRP for the ISWM system.
Jabbarzadeh et al. (2016) proposed a model to find optimal lo-
cations for the waste management system components while
minimizing economic (i.e. fuel consumption) and environmental
(i.e. greenhouse gas emissions) costs by finding the optimum un-
derlying routes and waste streams among the components. Yadav
et al. (2016) addressed a problem of transfer station site selection
in Nashik, India. Their proposed approach used a mathematical
model to minimize transportation costs while finding suitable lo-
cations for opening transfer stations. Later, Silva et al. (2017)
developed a MILP model to determine locations and capacities of
single-type treatment centers which treat single-type waste from
dairy farms. Recently, Sharif et al. (2018) proposed a model to
design a waste processing network and a method to find the
optimal outsourcing prices to optimize the economic profit of a
municipality and maximizes the economic profit of the bidders
participated in outsourcing. Most recently, Aydemir-Karadag (2018)
proposed a mixed integer model for the hazardous waste LRP to
locate the system facilities while optimizing the transfer of haz-
ardous waste and residues among the system facilities from the
perspective of environmental protection.
The scope of this study therefore extends the Waste Collection
Vehicle Routing Problem in which the collection phase covers
waste collection vehicles collecting waste from bins to deliver in an
unloading facility with the system components consist of a set of
depots, stops (customers), and dump sites (transfer stations or
landfill facilities) within the operational area (e.g. catchment areas).
For more details in Waste Collection Vehicle Routing Problem, the
readers may refer to Kim et al. (2006) an explanation of waste
collection VRP with time windows in real life problems; Buhrkal
et al. (2012): the applications of waste collection VRP in the city
logistics context and applied solution approaches; and Lin et al.
(2014): a survey of green VRP including past and future trends
waste collection VRP in this context.
The model can be considered as a Fleet Size and Mix VRP with a
heterogeneous fleet and multiple depots (i.e. transfer stations) in
which each vehicle is allocated to a particular depot and has to
return to the origin depot after serving the visited nodes. In the
elaborated tri-echelon network framework, transfer stations (de-
pots) serve as depots and waste sorting stations where waste are
balled in sorted packs prior to being loaded to higher-capacity
vehicles.
The second objective minimizes the total deviations of fair
waste allocation to transfer stations to optimize the balance of
loads between transfer stations and minimize the lost capacity of
the transfer station. The developed bi-objective MILP model is
formulated and solved using CPLEX solver and implemented for a
real-life case in the city of Tehran, Iran.
Previous studies addressed the problem in the frame of VRP (not
FSMVRP), yet there are research gaps that need to be addressed.
e The challenges associated with pre-setting the number of ve-
hicles (at each type) to identify a set of routes for each of
vehicles.
e The potential effects of a pre-determined number of vehicles
routes to ascertain the optimal solutions to tackle real-world
problems.
e The lack of integration of transfer stations and the waste pro-
cessing technology for treatment centers to represent a com-
plete ISWM system.
e The exclusion of transportation of residues from waste pro-
cessing centers (i.e. treatment and recycling centers) to disposal
centers in the ISWM system.
The novelty of this proposed model addresses the above-
mentioned research gaps in the current body of literature by
concurrently optimizing of fleet size and vehicle routing for a
complete ISWM system considering a fair load allocation to the
transfer stations in a tailored tri-echelon network.
3. Problem formulation
3.1. Problem framework
The problem framework is developed as a new variant of the
Fleet Size and Mix VRP for the ISWM. This new framework is
designed to deal with real-world complexities and operating con-
straints. These includeconsideration of multiple types of MSW,
multiple waste processing and disposal technologies, waste-
technology compatibility, heterogeneous fleet of vehicles, waste-
waste (i.e. waste-vehicle) compatibility, vehicles and facilities ca-
pacity limitations and the complete ISWM system with compo-
nents of transfer stations, treatment-, recycling- and disposal
centers. Multiple technologies of treatment (t2T), recycling (r2R)
and disposal (d2D) are assumed for these centers with respect to
multiple types of MSW/residues and the corresponding waste/
residue-technology compatibility. Transfer stations serve as de-
pots or transfer stations. Each vehicle is allocated to a particular
depot (i.e. transfer stations).
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
A heterogeneous fleet of vehicles requires a provide the
decision-maker to consider use of different vehicles technologies
(class, capacity, etc.) and waste-waste (i.e. waste-vehicle) compat-
ibility (Rabbani et al., 2018). This modeling capability to cope with
incompatible wastes and consider special care and equipment for
transporting different types of wastes including hazardous waste
(Boyer et al., 2013) is therefore needed. That is, transportation of
different types of waste need to be transported in specialized ve-
hicles compatible with the vehicle load provides the effectiveness
of the model to prevent the risky interactions between particular
sorts of wastes which may cause gas emissions and flame genera-
tion (Rabbani et al., 2018). While in the Fleet Size and Mix VRP it is
assumed that an infinite number of vehicles at each type is avail-
able, each type of vehicle has its specific characteristics including
loading capacity and waste type compatibility. The proposed model
therefore consider a heterogeneous fleet of vehicles involving ve-
hicles with three technologies adopted from Habibi et al. (2017):
waste collection vehicles (V), waste transportation semi-trailers (S),
residue transferring trucks (U). These vehicles also differ in waste-
vehicle compatibility.
The schematic view of the problem network formulated in this
study is shown in Fig. 1. With the assumption of segregated waste
collection, volumes of MSW (bo,i) in multiple types (o2O) are
accumulated at waste generation nodes (e.g. garbage, recyclable
and hazardous). As shown in Fig. 1, the lighter vehicle class waste
collection vehicles (qV) start their route from the allocated depots as
transfer stations, collect the compatible (no,q) waste from genera-
tion nodes and then unload it to their origin transfer stations. At
transfer stations, the collected wastes are sorted in different
amounts into more specified sub-types ðw2WÞ based on their
properties and compatibility attributes using different types of
waste processing technologies and disposal centers available in the
system at different amounts (pw,i). The larger vehicle class fleet of
semi-trailer waste transportation vehicles (qS) as larger vehicle
class start their route from their origin transfer stations, load the
compatible ðn0w;q Þ sorted waste from transfer stations and unload to
compatible recycling/treatment/disposal centers with compatible
technologies (g1w;t , g2w;r , g3w;d ). The wastes are processed at the waste
processing centers (i.e. recycling and treatment centers), with
Fig. 1. The ISWM system.
1379
compatible technologies and the proportions of recycled/recovered
materials of recycling centers (bw,r) and mass reduction at treat-
ment centers (zw,t) are released out of the ISWM network. This
processing of waste generates multiple types of residues (w2q)
such as hazardous and non-hazardous materials at the waste pro-
cessing centers in different amounts ðew;i Þ. The fleet of residue
transferring trucks (qU) start their routes from their origin depot
and load the compatible ðn00w;q Þ residue from treatment/recycling
centers and then unload it at the disposal centers with compatible
ðg4w;d Þ technologies. All vehicles (at each technology/type) must
then return to their allocated (origin) transfer stations after
unloading waste/residues.
The ISWM system is presented as a tri-echelon transportation
network to separately illustrate the processing and transportation
of waste (Fig. 2). While a traditional VRP or Fleet Size and Mix VRP
consist of three main segments of Depot(s), Customers (to be visited)
and Destination(s) (storage plants or factories), the new variant of
the Fleet Size and Mix VRP proposed in this study has different
combination of these segments at each echelon. For instance, De-
pot(s) and Destination(s) are the same set at the Echelon I; whilst
transfer stations play both the roles of Depot(s) and Customers at
Echelon II. This which cause its particular complexity.
The model aims to find the optimal allocation of waste/residues
to the system components. The problem concurrently minimizes
the fleet size, transportation cost and deviations of optimal load
allocation to transfer stations. The total cost of transportation in the
entire system is minimized by finding the minimum number of
required vehicles and the corresponding least cost vehicle routes
with respect to the fixed cost (e.g. cost of possessing) of vehicles
and variable (running) transportation cost associated with the
distance travelled and the load shipped.
The key assumptions in the modeling include:
- The amount of waste generations at each type is known for each
of the generation nodes.
- The capacities of all the system components are limited and
defined.
- Each vehicle is allocated to one depot at a time.
1380 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
Fig. 2. Tri-echelon logistics network and transportation system in ISWM: a schematic
demonstration.
- There exist multiple depots (transfer stations) as a multi-depot
problem.
- There are multiple types of treatment technologies (t2T),
recycling (r2R), and disposal technologies (d2D), with one of
them active at each treatment center.
- Each type of waste sorted at transfer stations is compatible to
exactly one of the treatment/recycling/disposal technology.
- Each type of residue generated at transfer stations is compatible
to exactly one of the disposal technologies.
- The amount of each waste/residue type accumulated at each
customer node (see customers at each echelon in Fig. 2) does not
exceed the capacity of the fleet.
- Each customer node is served once by a compatible vehicle.
- The partial waste/residue collection is not allowed.
- Vehicles at each type have the same capacity.
- Transportation cost is directly proportional to the distance
traveled and load shipped and vehicle types.
3.2. Mathematical model
In this study, we developed a novel bi-objective mixed-integer
optimization model to address the complexity of the ISWM Fleet
Size and Mix VRP. The model optimizes the ISWM system with
respect to two objectives:
- Minimizing the total cost of transportation in the ISWM system
imposed by the fixed costs (e.g. cost of purchase or possessing)
of the vehicles and variable (running) costs of the vehicles as
measured by the load and distance traveled of the vehicles.
- Minimizing the total deviation of the fair load allocation to
transfer stations in order to optimize the balance of workload
between the transfer stations and minimize their lost capacities.
The fair (balanced) allocation of waste to a transfer station is
estimated as the ratio of the capacity of the transfer station to
the total capacity of the transfer stations in the ISWM system.
The data gathered in this study indicates that some transfer
stations are underutilized whilst others perform to their full ca-
pacity. However, treatment centers operate to their fare load as
they work under certain technologies. The issue did not observe for
the other system components (e.g. treatment centers) as and allo-
cations of waste/residue to these facilities are almost fare because
of the need of particular waste/residue types for the certain types of
technologies. Hence, the second objective is formulated to fairly
allocate the capacity to the transfer stations. The proposed math-
ematical model therefore generates the following outputs:
- The load and type of waste/residue to be allocated/processed at
each system's component and technology
- The fleet (number and type) of vehicles to be employed in the
ISWM system
- The fleet (number and type) of vehicles required at each depot
- The routes of compatible vehicles to collect and transfer waste/
residues in the entire system (i.e. routes among the generation
nodes and all the system components)
- The load (amount and type) of vehicles on each segment of the
routes
The objective functions and constraints are formulated as
follows.
3.2.1. Objective functions
Equation (1) minimizes (i) the number and fixed costs of vehi-
cles at each type, (ii) the running cost of vehicles associated with
the load and distance traveled. Equation (1) involves six terms or
three pairs where each pair consecutively associates to an echelon
in consecutively (i.e. Echelons I-III). For each pair, the first term
counts for the fixed cost and the second term computes the variable
cost of the corresponding echelon. In doing so, the first term in
Equation (1) counts the fixed cost of each vehicle of Echelon I (i.e. v)
q
if the vehicle used where binary variable xi;j shows utilization of
q
vehicle q (xi;j ¼1) if the vehicle starts from the origin(s) of the
echelon (K) to destination(s) in the echelon (G). The second term in
Equation (1) computes the variable cost or transportation cost of
Echelon I for vehicles of the echelon (i.e. v) which departs from the
echelon origins (i.e. G for Echelon I) to the echelon customers/
destinations (i.e. G and K for Echelon I). The procedure explained
above is similarly applied for Echelon II (i.e. second pair of terms in
Equation (1)) and Echelon III (i.e. third pair of terms in Equation
(1)).
The second objective formulated in Equation (2) to minimize the
total deviation of fair load allocation to transfer stations to mini-
mize lost capacities of transfer stations and provide the load bal-
ance and fair allocation of waste to transfer stations. Equation (2)
represents deviations of the ideal load ratios of waste processing
(i.e. fair balance of loads) at transfer stations from actual loads of
waste processing at transfer stations on the basis of their capacities.
In doing so, the total lost capacities of transfer stations are summed
in Equation (2). That is, the ideal (i.e. fair balanced load) of a transfer
station is assumed as the ratio of the transfer station's capacity to
the total available capacity of transfer stations in the system (i.e.
summation of capacities of the transfer stations). The ratio of actual
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395 1381

load of waste processing at a transfer station is also calculated as

the total amount of waste (in all types) processed at the transfer
q
stations to the total amounts of the waste in the system (at all xi;j  zq  0 ci; j2G; cq2V2Q (5)
generation nodes).

P XX q
X X X q q q
X X X q
MinimizeF1 ðxÞ ¼ fq xi;j þ ci;j xi;j ui þ fq xi;j
q2V2Q i2Gj2K∪G q2V2Q q2S2Q
i2K j2G
P P P X X Xi2Kqj2M∪H∪L
þ cqi;j xqi;j uqi þ fq
xi;j (1)
i2K j2K∪M∪H∪L q2S2Q q2U2Q i2K j2M∪H
P P P q q q
þ ci;j xi;j ui
i2M∪H j2M∪H∪L q2U2Q

X X q
xi;j  ‫א‬K  1 cq2S2Q (6)
i2K j2K∪M∪H∪L
 P K 
 yj;o 
X pKj 
X X q
MinimizeF2 ðxÞ ¼ o2O
P K  P P  (2) xi;j ¼ zq cq2S2Q (7)
 p b 0
j2K  i o;i  i2K j2M∪H∪L
i2Ko2Oi 2G
0

X X q
xi;j  1 cq2U2Q (8)
i2K j2M∪H

3.2.2. Route structure: starting from depots X X

P P q xqi;j ¼ zq cq2U2Q (9)
The simplified equation term of i2DepotðsÞ j2CustomerðsÞ xi;j ¼ 1
i2K j2M∪H
is frequently utilized in similar studies (Rabbani et al., 2018) to
formulate utilization of vehicles and starting routes from depots.
q
However, using the term in the mentioned form (i.e. equality to 1) xi;j  zq  0 ci; j2M∪H; cq2U2Q (10)
forces to utilize every vehicle (as predetermined in the vehicle set)
resulting to the questionability of optimization the fleet size. This
shortcoming is effectively addressed in the proposed model by
stating a set of constraints (i.e. Eqs. (3)e(10)) to replace it. 3.2.3. Route structure: traditional VRP
Equation (3) ensures that a vehicle in Echelon I can start its route Equation (11) ensures if a vehicle in Echelon I entered to a
from at most one depot (i.e. K) to serve a customer (i.e G). This customer, must be out to either the next customer or the final
constraint enforces vehicle to be allocated at most one depot. destination. The constraint (11) is a traditional constraint of VRP to
Equation (4) shows that if a vehicle in Echelon I starts from an ensure a vehicle cannot finish its route before returning to its final
origin (depot) to serve a customer, then its corresponding variable destination or its origin (i.e. depot). Equations (12) and (13)
showing the vehicle usage (zq) equals to 1; otherwise 0. Equation describe the same constraint as Equation (11) for Echelons II and
(5) ensures that a vehicle in Echelon I cannot transfer between two III with respect to the corresponding origin, customer and desti-
customers unless the vehicle started its route from an origin nation nodes of the echelons.
(depot). That is, the starting point for a vehicle in Echelon I cannot X q
X q
be a customer. Equation (5) ensures that transferring between two xi;j  xj;i0  0 cj2G; cq2V2Q (11)
customers of Echelon I (i.e. G) by a vehicle of the echelon can be i2K∪G i0 2G∪K
conducted only if the vehicle is an assigned vehicle (i.e. zq ¼ 1). In X X
q q
other words, the equation ensures that a vehicle in Echelon I cannot xi;j  xj;i0  0 cj2K; cq2S2Q (12)
transfer between two customers unless the vehicle had started its i2K i0 2K∪M∪H∪L
route from an origin (depot). That is, the starting point for a vehicle
X X
in Echelon I cannot be a customer. Equations (6) and (7) describe xqi;j  xqj;i0 ¼ 0 cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q (13)
the same constraints as Equations (3) and (4) for Echelon II with i2K∪M∪H i0 2M∪H∪L
respect to the vehicles, the corresponding origin, customer and
destination nodes of the echelon. Equations (8)e(10) describe the
same constraints as Equations (3)e(5) for Echelon III with respect
to the vehicles, the corresponding origin, customer and destination 3.2.4. Route structure: serving customers (loading waste and
nodes of the echelon. residue)
Equation (14) ensures that for loading waste types, a customer
XX q
xi;j  1 cq2V2Q (3) node in Echelon I (i.e. G) must have one input compatible vehicle
i2K j2G per type of its accumulated waste which from either a previously
visited customer (i.e. G) or an origin node (i.e. K). Equations (15) and
XX q (16) describe the same constraint as Equation (14) for Echelons II
xi;j ¼ zq cq2V2Q (4)
and III with respect to the corresponding origin, customer and
i2K j2G
destination nodes of the echelons. Hereafter, when it is stated that
the same constraint applies to other echelons means that using the
1382 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

same explanation, new equations for the other echelons is yielded X X 

with consideration of the echelon vehicles, origins, customers. uqi  uqj þ no;q jqo xqi;j  no;q jqo
o2O o2O
X X q 
xi;j no;q ¼ 1 cj2G; co2O (14)  bo;j ci; j2G; cq2V2Q (22)
i2K∪G q2V2Q
X q
X
X X bo;i no;q  ui  no;q jqo ci2G; cq2V2Q (23)
xqi;j n0w;q ¼1 ci2K; cw2W (15) o2O o2O
j2K∪M∪H∪L q2S2Q
XX q q
X X xi;j bo;j no;q  uj cj2G; cq2V2Q (24)
xi;j n00w;q
q
¼1 ci2M∪H; cw2q (16) i2K o2O
j2M∪H∪L q2U2Q
!
X X  
uqj  no;q jqo þ xqi;j bo;j  jqo cj2G; cq2V2Q
o2O i2K
3.2.5. Route structure: vehicles allocation and returning to depots (25)
Constraint (17) enforces that if a vehicle in Echelon I starts from
a depot to visit a customer, then the vehicle belongs to the depot X X 
(i.e. origin depot) and cannot be served by other depots so that uqi  uqj þ n0w;q jqw xqi;j  n0w;q jqw
must back to the origin depot after visiting the customer nodes. w2W w2W

Equations (18) and (20) present the same constraint as equation  pw;j ci; j2K; cq2S2Q
(14) for Echelons II and III respectively. Constraint (19) forces that if
a vehicle in Echelon II departs from an origin (i.e. K) to a customer (26)
(i.e. M∪H) or a final destination (i.e. L), then must back to the origin. X X
Equation (21) presents the same constraint as Equation (19) for pw;i n0w;q  uqi  n0w;q jqw ci2K; cq2S2Q (27)
Echelon III. w2W w2W
X q q
X q XX
xi;j ¼ Z i ¼ xj;i ci2K; cq2V2Q (17) xi;j pw;j n0w;q  uj
q q
cj2K; cq2S2Q (28)
j2G j2G i2K w2W

X q
X q q X X 
xj;i  xi0 ;j ¼ Z j uqi  uqj þ n00w;q jqw xqi;j  n00w;q jqw
i2K∪M∪H∪L i0 2K w2q w2q
X q 
¼ xi00 ;j cj2K; cq2S2Q  ew;j ci; j2M∪H; cq2U2Q
i00 2M∪H∪L
(29)
(18)
X X
X ew;i n00w;q  ui  n00w;q jqw ci2M∪H;
q
q q cq2U2Q (30)
xi;j  xj;i0 ci2K; cj2M∪H∪L; cq2S2Q (19) w2q w2q
i0 2K
XX
X q q
X q xqi;j ew;i n00w;q  uqj cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q (31)
xi;j ¼ Z i ¼ xi0 ;j ci2K; cq2U2Q (20) i2K w2q
j2M∪H i0 2L

X X X q q
q
xi;j 
q
xi0 ;i ci2L; cj2K; cq2U2Q (21) uqj  n00w;q jqw þ xi;j ew;j  jw
i0 2M∪H w2q i2K
!
 cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q (32)

3.2.6. Route structure: evading sub-tours and vehicle loading

capacity
Equation (22) presents that a vehicle in Echelon I serve the next
customer to load its waste if the total load of vehicle after visiting
the customer does not exceed the remained capacity of the vehicle. 3.2.7. Route structure: unloading waste
Equation (23) ensures that if a customer visited by a vehicle in Constraints (33)e(35) enforce unloading waste at treatment,
Echelon I, the total demand (i.e. waste) of the customer will be recycling and disposal centers with compatible technologies.
loaded while the waste type loaded is compatible with the vehicle Unloading waste to a customer/destination node with a compatible
and does not exceed the total capacity of the vehicle. This equation technology is forced for treatment, recycling and disposal facilities
also ensures that partial collection load of nodes is not possible. by Equations (33)e(35), respectively. This set of equations guar-
Equations (24) and (25) ensures that the total demand of customers antee that a vehicle can unload its load to the corresponding
in Echelon I must be satisfied using the fleet of the system (i.e. destination only when the vehicle carries the compatible type of
compatible vehicles). Equations (26)e(28) state the same con- waste (compatibility with the vehicle) which is compatible to the
straints as Equations (22)e(24) for Echelon II. Equations (29)e(32) existing technology of waste processing at the destination.
state the same constraints as Equations (22)e(24) for Echelon III. XX
Constraints (22)e(32) state for vehicles’ load capacity limita-
q
xi;j  n0w;q g1w;t aM
t;j ci2K; cj2M; cq2S2Q (33)
w2W t2T
tions and traditional VRP constraints for evading sub tours (Rabbani
et al., 2018).
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395 1383

X X by compatible vehicles (compatibility of carrying waste type with

q
xi;j  n0w;q g2w;r aHr;j ci2K; cj2H; cq2S2Q (34) vehicle type).
w2W r2R
X X
X X yKj;o ¼ xqi;j uqi no;q cj2K; co2O (41)
q
xi;j  n0w;q g3w;d aLd;j ci2K; cj2L; cq2S2Q (35) q2V2Q i2G
w2W d2D
X X
xi;j ui n0w;q qf cj2M;
q q
yM
j;w ¼ cw2W (42)
q2S2Q i2K

3.2.8. Route structure: unloading residue X X

Given the same explanation as those for Equations (33)e(35), yH
j;w ¼ xqi;j uqi n0w;q cj2H; cw2W (43)
constraint (36) enforces unloading residue at disposal centers with q2S2Q i2K
compatible technologies.
X X
XX y1L xi;j ui n0w;q cj2L; cw2W
q q
q
xi;j  n00w;q g4w;d aLd;j ci2M∪H; cj2L; cq2U2Q j;w ¼ (44)
q2S2Q i2K
w2qd2D
(36) X X 00
y2L
j;w ¼ xqi;j uqi nw;q cj2L; cw2q (45)
q2U2Q i2M∪H

3.2.9. Demands at transfer stations

Constraint (37) states the amounts of different waste types
sorted at transfer stations for sending to waste processing and
disposal centers. 3.2.12. Supplying all demands
X Constraint (46) guarantees to supply all demand (generated
pw;j ¼ aw;j yKj;o cj2K; cw2W (37) waste) of generation nodes to transfer stations. Constraint (47)
o2O guarantees to supply all demand (sorted waste) of transfer sta-
tions to waste processing and disposal centers. Constraint (48)
guarantees to supply all demand (sorted residues) of treatment
and recycling centers to disposal centers.
3.2.10. Demands at waste processing centers
Constraints (38) and (39) state the amounts of residues gener- XX XX
bo;i ¼ yKj;o (46)
ated at treatment and recycling centers respectively. Constraint
i2Go2O j2K o2O
(38) computes the total residues generated at treatment centers on
the basis of ratios of mass reduction of input waste for different XX X X X X XX
types of wastes after different treatment processes performed by pw;i ¼ yM
j;w þ yH
j;w þ y1L
j;w (47)
different treatment technologies. Similarly, constraint (39) results w2W i2K j2M w2W j2H w2W j2L w2W

in the total amount of residues generated at recycling facilities on X X XX

the basis of the input waste to recycling centers and ratios of mass ew;i ¼ y2L
j;w (48)
reduction for different types of wastes after different recycling w2qi2M∪H j2L w2q
processes performed by different recycling technologies.
Constraint (40) states the amounts of different residue types
generated at treatment and recycling centers for sending to
disposal centers.
3.2.13. Facilities capacity limitations
XX  
cM
i ¼ yM M
i;w at;i 1  zw;t ci2M (38) Constraints (49)e(52) show the capacity limitations of the sys-
w2W t2T tem facilities. That is, the amount of total waste/residue processing
at a system facility cannot exceed the capacity of the facility. The
X X  
cHi ¼ y1L H total amounts of processed waste at a system's facility (i.e.
i;w ar;i 1  bw;r ci2H (39)
w2W r2R computed in constraints (41)e(45)) cannot exceed the available
capacities (for different types of input waste) of the system's fa-
X X cilities. In doing so constraints (49)e(52) applied to Transfer sta-
ew;i ¼ aM M M
t;i mw ci þ aH H H
r;i mw ci ci2M∪H (40)
tions, Treatment centers, Recycling centers, and disposal centers.
t2T r2R
X
yKj;o  pKj cj2K (49)
o2O
3.2.11. Facilities workloads (allocated waste/residue to system
X X
components) yM M
aM
j;w  pj t;j cj2M (50)
Constraints (41)e(45) show amounts of sorted, treated, recycled w2W t2T
and disposed waste/residue at the corresponding waste compo-
nents respectively. That is, the actual amounts of total waste/res- X X
yH H
j;w  pj aH
r;j cj2H (51)
idue processed at the system facilities are determined by Equations w2W r2R
(41)e(45). In doing so, each of these five equations counts the
processed waste for the corresponding facility (constraint (41) for X X X
y1L
j;w þ y2L L
j;w  pj aLd;j cj2L (52)
Transfer station, (42) for Treatment centers, …, (45) for Disposal
w2W w2q d2D
centers), on the basis of input compatible waste (compatibility with
available waste processing technology) transferred to these centers
1384 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

3.2.14. Variable types shown in Algorithm 1.

The non-negativity and binary variables of the model are pro-
Algorithm 1. The sequential lexicographic optimization algo-
vided in Constraints (53) and (54).
rithm - *Adopted from (Ocampo-Martinez et al., 2008)
þ
uqi ; pw;i ; ew;i ; yKi;o ; yM H 1L 2L M H ML HL
i;w ; yi;w ; yi;w ; yi;w ; ci ; ci ; ci;j ; ci;j 2R (53)
1: set the order of objectives F1>/>Fk
2: find z1 where z1 ¼ minF1 ðxÞ
xqi;j ; zq ; Z qi 2f0; 1g (54) 3: for i ¼ 2 to k 

4: find zi where zi ¼ min½Fi ðxÞFj ðxÞ  zj ; j ¼ 1; …; i  1
The nonlinear terms in objective functions and Equations (28), 5: end for 
(31) and (42)e(45) are modified by defining some auxiliary vari- 
6: The lexicographic optima is x where x 2fx 2SFj ðxÞ  zj ;
ables and constraints to form a linear mixed-integer programming j ¼ 1; …; kg.
model. The linearization approach is presented in Appendix II.
Stating the method in a two-level optimization order (Sun et al.,
1999), the addressed two-objective problem is solved in the
4. Solution approach e Multiobjective optimization
following order. Here, the first level optimization is z1 ¼
min½F1 ðxÞ : x 2S, where z1 is the optimum objective value. This
The proposed multi-objective optimization problem is shown as 1
Problem 4 where x is the vector of decision variables, F1(x), F2(x) are
optimization
    obtains the optimal decision set S ¼
level
x2S : F1 x ¼ z1 . The next level minimization is then obtains
the objective functions, and S is the feasible region for the Con-
straints (3)e(54). h i
z2 ¼ min F2 ðxÞ : x 2 S1 ;
minF1 ðxÞ
minF2 ðxÞ h i
s:t:
(I) S2 ¼ x 2 S1 : F2 ðxÞ ¼ z2 :
x 2 S;
Performing the sequential optimization method (See Algorithm
In this section, two well-known multi-objective optimization 1), the proposed model is reformulated into Problem II when the
methods (i.e. Lexicographic and Goal Programming) adopted to first objective is the dominant objective.
solve the problem (i.e. Problem I) are briefly presented. The
addressed problem are solved under two different conditions minF2 ðxÞ
(scenarios): Preemptive and Non-Preemptive objectives. The Pre- s:t:
emptive objectives define the condition that there is a strict F1 ðxÞ  z1 (II)
dominance order between the objectives ðuF i0 Þ  ðuF j0 Þ. In this and
case, a sequence of solves is implemented to optimize each objec- constraints ð3Þ  ð54Þ:
tive (Ignizio, 1976). The Non-Preemptive objectives represent the The Hierarchical Lexicographic Optimization (HLO) is a variant
condition when the priorities of the objectives can be reflected by a of Lexicographic optimization with a constraint relaxation
set of linear weights (ui). That is, in this condition, the decision- approach by slightly increasing the Right Hand Side (RHS) of the
maker can apply his/her preferences (i.e. the priorities of the ob- constrained objective (fj(x)) by a ratio of its optimal value (zj ). That
jectives) using a set of scalar weights. is, the HLO allows the higher dominance objectives to deviate ε%
from their optimums (Marler and Arora, 2004). Accordingly, the
4.1. Preemptive objectives HLO method is utilized by reformulating the proposed model into
 
Problem III (when wF 01  ðwF 02 Þ where 0 < εj  100.
To solve the proposed multi-objective model (i.e. Problem I), the
Sequential Lexicographic Optimization (SLO), Hierarchical Lexico- minF2 ðxÞ
graphic Optimization (HLO) and the Goal Programming (GP) are
s:t:
adopted.  ε 
F1 ðxÞ  1 þ 1 z1 (III)
100
4.1.1. Lexicographic optimization: SLO and HLO
and
The lexicographic method is a sequential approach in which the
decision-maker considers that the k objectives in the model follow constraints ð3Þ  ð54Þ:
a priority (dominance) order. The solution obtained by the lexico-
graphic method is a particular kind of Pareto-optimal solution
while a priority (importance) order for the objectives are consid-
ered (Ocampo-Martinez et al., 2008). 4.1.2. Goal Programming
Applying the lexicographic method to the multi-objective Goal Programming is a solution approach to optimize problems
problem (Problem I), a sequential order of single objective con- with multiple and conflicting objectives possibly measured in
strained optimization problems is solved. That is, the highest pri- nonhomogeneous units (Ignizio, 1985). The Goal Programming
ority objective function (e.g. F1) is first minimized subject to the method considers the objectives concurrently and minimizes the
original constraints. Then, the second objective function (e.g. F2) is total deviations of the objectives from their optimal values simul-
minimized while in addition to the original constraints, a new taneously. Accordingly, the Goal Programming is adopted in this
constraint (i.e. binding the first objective function to its optimal research to address minimizing the two objectives concurrently
value from the first step) is added to ensure that the highest priority when they are assumed at the same importance. The method
objective function preserves its optimal value. In general, when a proceeds by formulating an objective Fi ðxÞ into a Goal by using an
multi-objective minimization problem consists of k objective Aspiration Level Di. That is, the Goals are formulated into the form
function ordered from F1 to Fk, the sequential lexicographic opti- Fi ðxÞ  Di where  is a vector of relational operators f ; ¼ ;  g. In
mization method is implemented in a sequential algorithm as doing so, the positive and negative deviations from (i.e. slacks) from
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395 1385

the Aspiration Level are defined as dþ 

i  0 and di  0 to be added to Non-Preemptive objectives, the Weighted Goal Programming
the Goals terms. The method seeks to minimize the appropriate (WGP) is adopted to optimize the problem with respect to a com-
slacks (e.g. dþ
i in minimizing cost-based objectives) to obtain the bination of linear objective weights.
Goals. Accordingly, the proposed model is formulated in the form as
presented in Problem IV while it should be noted that we use the
Utopia point (i.e. the results by single-objective optimization for
the two objectives: D1 ¼ z1 and D2 ¼ z2 ) as the Aspiration Levels
and the objective function is scaled by multiplying dþ i with the 4.2.1. Weighted Goal Programming (WGP)
corresponding objective optimum value (i.e. 1/ zi ). The Weighted Goal Programming (WGP) is adapted to handle
þ þ
the two objectives while seeking to minimize the total deviations
mind1 þ d2 from the goals. The WGP takes the two goals into consideration
s:t: simultaneously using an achievement function in which the total
F1 ðxÞ  dþ 
1 þ d1 ¼ D1 weighted deviation from the goals is minimized. The method
F2 ðxÞ  dþ 2 þ d
2 ¼ D2
(IV) provides the decision-maker with the capability of reflecting his/
and her preferences regarding the relative importance of the goals into
constraints ð3Þ  ð54Þ; the model. Due to involvement of the two different goals with
dþ  þ 
1 ; d1 ; d2 ; d2  0: different measurement units, a kind of incommensurability appears
in the formulation of the goals. To tackle this issue, a scheme of
normalization needs to be adopted. Hence, we use a mostly-applied
normalization method by factoring the values of utopia (Karsak
4.2. Non-Preemptive objectives et al., 2003). Accordingly, using the WGP, the proposed problem
is reformulated into Problem V where ui denotes the weight coef-
P
Considering the two objectives of the addressed problem as the ficient for the goal i, and i ui ¼ 1.

Fig. 3. Map of the case study area- South of Tehran, Iran.

1386 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

Divisions (MDs) numbered 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20. Accordingly, the
dþ dþ waste generation nodes in the study are labeled as g1, g2, g3, g4 and
Minu1 2
þ u2 2
z2 z2 g5 representing MD12, MD15, MD16, MD19 and MD20 (see Fig. 7).
s:t: The waste generation nodes are supplying by three transfer stations
þ 
named Harandi, Azadegan, Shahre-rey. Respectively, the transfer
F1 ðxÞ  d1 þ d1 ¼ D1 stations (depots) are denoted by k1, k2, and k3. The waste pro-
þ  (V) cessing facilities serving the nodes involves a material recovery
F2 ðxÞ  d2 þ d2 ¼ D2
facility (h1) compatible with dry-recyclable, a compost facility (h2)
and compatible with wet-recyclable, a treatment center with inciner-
constraints ð3Þ  ð54Þ:; ation technology (m1), a treatment center with physical-chemical
technology (m2), a general disposal site (l1) and a sanitary land-
dþ  þ 
1 ; d1 ; d2 ; d2  0: fill cell (l2) compatible for hazardous waste/residue where all the
waste processing and disposal facilities are centralized in Aradkuh
(i.e. a center with 500 ha area located 35 km away from south of
5. Empirical results Tehran) (Asefi and Lim, 2017a). The southern part of Tehran and the
corresponding ISWM system is schematically displayed in Fig. 3.
The accuracy of the proposed model and the effectiveness of the Adopting from (Asefi and Lim, 2017a), it is assumed that waste at
solution approaches are testified by implementing the model for a generation nodes accumulated in three types of garbage (o1),
numerical experiment. The case study is chosen as the recently recyclable (o2) and hazardous (o3) and further sorted at transfer
conducted case in (Edalatpour et al., 2018) for the southern part of stations to w1 (compatible with l1), w2 (compatible with l2), w3
Tehran, Iran. The authority responsible for managing municipal (compatible with h1), w4 (compatible with h2), w5 (compatible
waste in Tehran is Tehran Waste Management Organization with m1) and w6 (compatible with m2). The waste processing
(TWMO). The southern part of Tehran covers five Municipality centers (treatment and recycling facilities) generates two types of

Fig. 4. Map of vehicle's with technology V.

 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
residues: non-hazardous residue ðw1Þ and hazardous residue ðw2Þ.
The problem is solved for one cycle/shift assuming two shifts a day
and two cycles per shift. The capacity of facilities and amount of
waste generation at southern Tehran derived from (Asefi and Lim,
2017a) and adjusted for one cycle while the proportions of
different waste types are adopted from the reported values in
(Abduli et al., 2015). The total proportion of mass reduction (release
out of network) at recycling centers is assumed as 80% and mass
reduction by incineration and physical-chemical treatment are
assumed as 80% and 20% respectively (Samanlioglu, 2013).
The loading capacities of trucks and semi-trailer vehicles are
considered as 63, 72 and 53 t for technologies v, s, and u respec-
tively (Habibi et al., 2017). For fixed cost of vehicles, we consider the
purchase cost and estimated by interviewing TWMO organization
members as $100,000, $130,000 and $70,000 for technologies V, S
and U respectively. To calculate the cost of transportation, actual
distances for each pair of nodes are derived from Google Map API.
The average fuel consumption for a truck is assumed 0.3 L per km
(Samanlioglu, 2013) and the average cost of fuel is considered as
$0.4 per litre in the study region. To consider the special care and
vehicle technology/equipment associated with shipping hazardous
waste/residue, the unit cost of transportation for this material type
is assumed to be 43% more than other waste types (Samanlioglu,
Fig. 5. Map of vehicle's with technology S.
1387
2013). To take into account other related costs of transportation
(e.g. insurance, vehicle depreciation, and driver wage), the constant
factor of 2 is multiplied by the unit cost of transportation (Boyer
et al., 2013). Table 1 summarizes the data and sources used in
this study.
The addressed problem is solved using CPLEX 12.3 on a com-
puter with Core i7 2.40 GHz processor and 16 GB RAM memory. To
initiate the solving, the fleet of waste management system is
assumed at total number of 60 vehicles with 20 vehicles for each
vehicle technology V: v01 , …,v20 ; S: s01 , …,s20 and U: u01 , …u20 ). The
obtained results by solving the model with respect to each objec-
tive function singularly are reported in Table 1. As can be seen in
Table 2, the utopia and nadir points are found at (2,505,154.507,
0:0001095273y0) and (3,635,621.537, 0.259) respectively.
Applying the Lexicographic optimization method using the HLO
approach, the optimal solutions by the method found at F HLO F1[F2 ¼
ð2; 505; 918:255; 0:021Þ and F HLO
F2[F1 ¼ ð2; 905; 576:515;

0:0001095273 y0) for  u F1 [
0 u0 F2 (i.e. minF2 F1 ¼ z1 ) and
0 
u F2 [u F1 (i.e. minF1 F2 ¼ z2 ) respectively. Assuming u0 F1 ≡u0 F2 ,
0 
the solution found at F GPF1≡F2 ¼ ð2; 705; 495:78; 0:00079 y0Þ  by
 þ
applying the Goal Programming method when solving mindþ 1 d2 ¼

d2 . The solutions obtained by the two multi-objective optimization
methods under the condition that the objectives are Preemptive are
1388 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
shown in Fig. 8 along with the results by single-objective
optimizations.
The overall performance of the system for single and multi-
objective objective optimizations is summarized in Table 3. It can
be seen that optimizing the transportation cost singularly (S1 )
resulted in being idle for one transfer stations (i.e. k3 which played
only as a depot) with load ratios of 0% while the other two transfer
stations forces to work with loads higher than their expected
balanced load. On the other hand, while minimizing the balance
deviation singularly ðS2 Þ resulted to almost fair distribution of load
to transfer stations, the transportation cost increased by almost 45%
compared to z1 . The multi-objective optimization (i.e. S3 , S4 and S5 )
achieved minimized costs when no transfer station is idle (i.e.
utilizing all the three transfer stations at almost fair ratios).
The results obtained by the HLO method when ε1 varied in a
dispersed range from the value resulting in the optimum of F1(x) to
the nadir (i.e. 1e40%) are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 9a The Pareto
frontier obtained by the method is also shown in Fig. 9b. The
conflicting behavior of the two objectives is also evident in this
case. That is, improvement in one objective cannot be achieved
without deterioration in another objective.
Considering the condition Non-Preemptive objectives, the re-
sults obtained by the WGP corresponding to a set of dispersed
Fig. 6. Map of vehicle's with technology U.
linear weights are presented in Table 5 and plotted in Fig. 10a.
Among the presented six solutions (S13eS18), it can be seen that
three solutions are non-dominated producing the efficient frontier
shown in Fig. 10b. This issue affirms that while the WGP is capable
to obtain non-dominated (efficient) Pareto optimal solutions, it may
also yield weakly Pareto or inefficient solutions along with Pareto
optimal solutions (Marler and Arora, 2004). A Pareto-optimal so-
lution is a solution which cannot be improved in one objective (e.g.
F1) without a deterioration in the other objective (e.g. F2). On the
other hand, while the lexicographic method evades producing
inefficient solutions, its drawback is the computational expanse of
having to solve a sequence of problems (Marler and Arora, 2004).
The definitions of the above solution types are presented in
Appendix III.
Implementing the model successfully, the corresponding results
to solution S3 (i.e. F HLO
F1[F2 ) as an instance of the obtained solutions
are reported in Tables 6 and 7 to provide more detailed outcomes
(see Figs. 4,5 and 6). The solution resulted to a reasonable fare
allocation of waste to the transfer stations (i.e. the total deviation of
almost 2.1% with no idle transfer station) while minimize the fleet
size (10, 12 and 2 vehicles for vehicles V, S and U) and found the
corresponding least cost routes by serving as more customer as
possible at each route.
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395 1389

Fig. 7. Map of waste collection to the g points.

Table 1
Data and sources.

No Data Source

1 Case study area (infrastructure and network) Edalatpour et al. (2018)

2 Waste at generation nodes and types Asefi and Lim (2017a)
3 The capacity of facilities and the amount of waste generation Asefi and Lim (2017a)
4 The proportions of different waste types Abduli et al. (2015)
5 The loading capacities of trucks and semi-trailer vehicles Habibi et al. (2017)
6 The unit cost of transportation for hazardous material type Samanlioglu (2013)
7 The fixed cost of vehicles Interview (TWMO)
8 The total proportion of mass reductions Samanlioglu (2013)
9 The distance of transportation Google Maps API
10 The average fuel consumption rate Samanlioglu (2013)
11 Other related costs of transportation Boyer et al. (2013)

6. Managerial implications

This study offers several practical insights that can inform

Table 2 evidence-based decision-making to help reduce operational costs,
Solutions for objective functions.
enhance sustainable practices and improve the efficiency of solid
minF1(x) minF2(x) waste management system. The findings of the developed model
F1(x) z1 ¼ $2; 505; 154:507 $ 3,635,621.537 can help identify deficiencies and supply chain bottlenecks within
F2(x) 0.259 z2 ¼ 0:0001095273y0 the current ISWM system. The model enables the authority to
1390 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

Fig. 8. : Multi-Objective optimization: Preemptive objectives.

Table 3
Performance of the ISWM system for different optimizations.

Solution Method Condition (Scenario) Number of vehicles Load at k1 (%) Load at k2 (%) Load at k3 (%) Total Total CPU
No. used VeS e U - Total Expected- Actual Expected- Actual Expected-Actual deviation cost Time (s)
($M)

S1 Single-objective ðz1 Þ Min F1 ðxÞ 8e12e 2 22 27.7e39.8 59.4e60.2 12.9e0 25.9% 2.51 725.68
S2 Single-objective ðz2 Þ Min F2 ðxÞ 14e15 e 4 33 27.7e27.7 59.4e59.4 12.9e12.9 0% 3.64 497.92
S3 Lexicographic Multi- u0F1 [ uF2 :Min
0 8e12 e 2 22 27.7e26.6 59.4e59.7 12.9e13.7 2.1% 2.51 1000.21
objective: HLO ðF HLO
F1[F2 Þ F2 ðxÞF1 ðxÞ  z1 ε1 ¼
1
S4 Goal Programming Multi- u0F1 ≡u0F2 :Min dþ þ
1 þ d2 13e13 e 2 28 27.7e27.7 59.4e59.4 12.9e12.9 0.1% 2.81 837.42
objective: GP ðF GP
F1≡F2 Þ
S5 Lexicographic Multi- u0F1 ≪u0F2 :Min 12e12 e 2 26 27.7e27.7 59.4e59.4 12.9e12.9 0% 2.91 1000.21
objective: HLO ðF HLO
F1≪F2 Þ F1 ðxÞF2 ðxÞ  z2 ε2 ¼
7

Table 4
Solutions by HLO.

Solution No. ε1 F1(x): Total cost ($M) F2(x): Total deviation (104) Pareto Optimality

S4 1 2.505918255 210 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)

S5 6 2.606067999 20 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)
S6 11 2.776022191 7.817583 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)
S7 15 2.845858342 7.817583 Weakly efficient
S8 20 3.005994678 7.275256 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)
S9 25 3.075893687 7.2753 Weakly efficient
S10 30 3.235753097 7.275257 Weakly efficient
S11 35 3.376235668 0.5781702 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)
S12 40 3.505523381 0.5781394 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)

estimate the under or over capacity of fleet to manage by solid fleet size and allocation; capacity allocation and vehicle routes
waste types in each echelon. That is, the municipal authorities can under different technological regimes. These outputs in turn will
then develop a system to isolate and manage different types of allow vehicles of different capacities and compatibilities to be
waste (eg. recyclable, hazardous, garbage) that must be collected assigned to the proximal facility, alleviate idling of vehicles and
and processed within the ISWM system. reduce fuel costs on inefficient routes.
The model, furthermore, provides the municipal authorities
with an effective decision support tool to inform optimal decisions
7. Conclusion
on fleet size, fleet allocation, capacity allocation and vehicle routes
across the entire ISWM system. An effective implementation of the
This study developed the Fleet Size and Mix VRP to optimize the
model will help develop a sustainable yet cost-effective waste
ISWM consisting of all the system components and to model the
management system. Municipal authorities will be able to identify
entire chain of waste/residue management (i.e. transfer stations,
the best and least costly sites for facilities; ascertain the optimal
treatment-, recycling- and disposal) with multiple waste
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395 1391

Fig. 9. Comparison of Preemptive and non-dominated solution for HLO.

Table 5
Solutions by WGP.

Solution No. Weights (u1,u2) F1(x):Total cost ($M) F2(x): Total deviation (104) Pareto Optimality

S13 (0.1, 0.9) 2.705628281 7.79236 Inefficient

S14 (0.3, 0.7) 2.705508867 7.275237 Weakly efficient
S15 (0.4, 0.6) 2.705391734 20 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)
S16 (0.7, 0.3) 2.705429742 7.817615 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)
S17 (0.8, 0.2) 2.705457855 10 Inefficient
S18 (0.9, 0.1) 2.705503217 7.275257 Efficient (non-dominated Pareto)

Fig. 10. Comparison of Preemptive and non-dominated solution for WGP.

Table 6 minimize the total deviation of fair load allocation to transfer sta-
Optimal solution by sequential lexicographic method (S3): fleet size. tions to optimize the workload balance among them.
Depot Number of Vehicles The study concludes that the Goal Programming yielded ineffi-
cient solutions; whilst the Lexicographic approach achieved non-
V S U Total
dominated solutions but evaded producing inefficient solutions.
k1 2 3 2 7
On the other hand, the Lexicographic approach necessitates higher
k2 5 5 0 10
k3 1 4 0 5 computation requirement to implement a sequence of problems.
Total 8 12 2 22 The ISWM model was tested using the case study in the southern
part of Tehran, Iran. The model obtained the optimal: (i) number
and type of vehicles; (ii) vehicle allocation to transfer stations
processing/disposal technologies. Optimal capacity to the ISWM (depots); (iii) vehicles routes and (iv) capacity allocation to the
system components was allocated by concurrently optimizing the system components and technologies. The results show that single-
fleet size, vehicle routes and fare load allocation to transfer stations objective optimization optimized one of the objectives in compar-
through the development of a bi-objective optimization model. ison to the multi-objective optimization which has achieved the
The ISWM system was designed as a tri-echelon network and optimal solution with almost fare load allocation to transfer sta-
solved in the framework of the Fleet Size and Mix VRP with het- tions and minimized total transportation cost.
erogeneous fleet of vehicles and multiple depots. This was con- This developed model is methodological innovative as it con-
ducted by determining optimal fleet size, allocated capacity and siders the real-world constraints and complexities representing
vehicle routes in order to (i) minimize the total transportation cost diversified MSW types, varying use of waste-processing disposal
(fixed and variable cost) of waste/residue management; (ii) technologies, waste-technology compatibility, heterogeneous fleet,
waste-waste compatibility, and facility and vehicle capacity
1392 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

Table 7
Optimal solution by sequential lexicographic method (S3): routes.

Vehicle Origin Depot Load type Route Route (final) load

Technology V
v01 k1 o1 k1 /g4 /g1 /k1 60.64
v03 k2 o1 k2 /g5 /g3 /k2 60.52
v04 k1 o2 k1 /g1 /k1 42.38
v05 k2 o2 k2 /g5 /k2 38.63
v14 k2 o2 k2 /g3 /g4 /k2 53.63
v18 k2 o3 k2 /g4 /g5 /g1 /g3 /g2 /k2 19.34
v19 k3 o1 k3 /g2 /k3 52.88
v20 k2 o2 k2 /g2 /k2 58.75
Technology S
s01 k2 w1 k2 /l1 /k2 57.717
s04 k2 w2 k2 /k3 /l2 /k2 14.187
s07 k2 w3 k2 /h1 /k2 69.621
s09 k3 w3 k3 /k1 /h1 /k3 46.77
s11 k3 w4 k3 /k2 /h2 /k3 70.937
s12 k1 w4 k1 /h2 /k1 25.755
s13 k3 w5 k3 /m1 /k3 5.288
s14 k2 w5 k2 /k1 /m1 /k2 33.389
s17 k2 w6 k2 /k1 /m2 /k2 16.694
s18 k3 w6 k3 /m2 /k3 2.644
s19 k1 w1 k1 /k3 /l1 /k1 38.975
s20 k1 w2 k1 /l2 /k1 5.151
Technology U
u01 k1 w1 k1 /h1 /h2 /m1 /m2 /l1 /k1 40.611
u11 k1 w2 k1 /h1 /m1 /m2 /h2 /l2 /k1 25.14

limitations. The ISWM model also provides decision support tools
to help local councils to identify options to minimize waste and
maximize product output. In addition, the performance of waste
treatment technologies is evaluated which will provide bench-
marking economic viability against sustainable waste management
goals and best practices to achieve the cleaner production strategy.
The results from this study will help the Tehran City Council in
achieving the strategic goals by providing empirical evidence to
support planning toward proper and Healthy collection of wastes
from production origins, quick and immune transportation of them
to the waste processing and disposal, making use of private sector
capacities. The optimal fleet size, allocated capacity and vehicle
routes will enable the local government to reduce transport and
disposal costs of waste and improve better utilization of transfer
stations and landfill sites. The cost variability computed in this
study for trucks, semi-trailers and residue transferring trucks in-
forms the municipal government or private operators to economize
the ISWM system. This will allow the industry to reduce transfer
costs, improve the service levels while operating on a full cost re-
covery principle. This saving from better utilization of assets can
then potentially reduce the household based garbage collection
charge, which is found to be a financial burden for deprived com-
munities in Iran. However, a range of waste reduction strategies
revolving around reduction, recovery, reuse, and recycling should
be deployed to increase the resource efficiency of waste processing
and disposal and a series of actions implemented to target the zero
waste production as a long-term goal.
The scope of the ISWM model will be further extended to
incorporate environmental indicators such as carbon emissions
across different decoupling nodes of the waste/residue manage-
ment cycle (i.e. transfer-treatment-recycling-disposal) with multi-
ple waste processing/disposal technologies. Future research will
improve the developed ISWM model by adopting heuristic
methods to generate solution approaches for larger cases where
computation requirements by exact methods are less stringent.
Uncertainty associated with variables such as amounts of waste
generation could also be integrated to enhance model's reliability
and applicability. Lastly, relaxing constrained assumptions in the
model (e.g. partial waste collection) could enhance the effective-
ness of the developed model in dealing with multiple scenarios.
Appendix A. Mathematical model e Nomenclature
The problem is defined on a graph F¼(N,A) where N is the set of
n nodes in the network and A is the arc set as A ¼ ði;jÞ : 0  i, j  n,
isj.

Sets and indices

g2 G waste generation nodes
k2 K transfer station nodes
m2 treatment center nodes
M
h2 H recycling center nodes
l2 L disposal center nodes
q2 Q fleet of vehicles \ Q ¼ V ∪S∪U vehicles technologies
v2 V fleet of collection vehicles
s2 S fleet of semi-trailer transportation vehicles
u2 U fleet of semi-trailer residue transferring vehicles
o2 O waste types accumulated at generation nodes
waste types sorted at transfer station nodes
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395 1393

(continued )

w2
W
w2 q residue types generated at treatment and recycling centers
t2 T treatment technologies
r2 R recycling technologies
d2 D disposal technologies

Parameters
fq fixed cost of vehicle q2Q
bo;i amount of waste type o2O accumulated at generation node i2G
cqi;j transportation cost of one unit waste/residue between nodes i and j by vehicle q2Q
no;q 1 if waste type o2O is compatible with collection vehicle q 2V2Q , 0 otherwise
n0w;q 1 if waste type w2W is compatible with transportation vehicle q 2S2Q
n00w;q 1 if residue type w2q is compatible with residue transferring vehicle q 2U2Q
aM
t;i
1 if treatment technology t2T exists at treatment center i2M; or 0 otherwise
aH
r;i
1 if recycling technology r2R exists at recycling center i2H; or 0 otherwise
aLd;i 1 if disposal technology d2D exists at disposal center i2L; or 0 otherwise
li;j traveling distance between nodes i and j2N
g1w;t 1 if waste type w2W is compatible with treatment technology t2T; or 0 otherwise
g2w;r 1 if waste type w2W is compatible with recycling technology r2R; or 0 otherwise
g3w;d 1 if waste type w2W is compatible with disposal technology d2D; or 0 otherwise
g4w;d 1 if residue type w2q is compatible with disposal technology d2D; or 0 otherwise
jqo maximum allowable load for vehicle q which is compatible with waste type o
jqw maximum allowable load for vehicle q which is compatible with waste type w
jqw maximum allowable load for vehicle q which is compatible with residue type w
aw;i ratio of sorting waste type w2W at transfer station i2K
bw;r proportion of total recycling of waste type w2W by recycling technology r2R
zw;t ratio of mass reduction of waste type w2W after treatment by treatment technology t2T
mMw
proportion of generated residues of a treatment center which is type of w2q
mHw proportion of generated residues of a recycling center which is type of w2q
‫א‬K number of transfer stations
pKi capacity of transfer station i2K
pM capacity of treatment center i2M
i
pHi capacity of recycling center i2H
pLi capacity of disposal center i2L

Decision variables
q
xi;j 1 if node i visited just after node j by vehicle 2Q ; or 0 otherwise
pw;i amount of waste type w2W sorted at transfer station i2K
ew;i amount of residue type w2q generated at treatment/recycling center i 2M∪H
zq 1 if vehicle q2Q is used; or 0 otherwise
Z qi 1 if vehicle q2Q is used and allocated to transfer station i2K; or 0 otherwise
yKi;o amount of waste type o2O processed at transfer station i2K
yM
i;w
amount of waste type w2W processed at treatment center i2M
yH
i;w
amount of waste type w2W recycled at recycling center i2H
y1L amount of waste type w2W disposed at disposal center i2L
i;w
y2L amount of residue type w2q disposed at disposal center i2L
i;w
cMi
total amount of residue produced at treatment center i2M
cHi total amount of residue produced at recycling center i2H
cML
i;j
amount of residue of treatment center i2M to send to disposal center j2L
cHL
i;j
amount of residues of recycling center i2H to send to disposal center j2L
uqi load of vehicle q2Q after visiting node i

Appendix B. Mathematical model e Linearization of

nonlinear terms xuqi;j  uqi ci2G; cj2G∪K; cq2V2Q (B.2)

 
xui;j  ui  1  xi;j M0
q q q
ci2G; cj2G∪K; cq2V2Q
Linearization I. : Linearization of xqi;j *uqi for the first echelon
(B.3)
Converting xqi;j uqi to xuqi;j in Equation (41) and objective function;
adding the following constraints to the model (Rabbani et al., 2018).
M0 > ∞
q
xui;j  0; ci2G; cj2G∪K; cq2V2Q (B.4)

xui;j  M 0 xi;j
q q
ci2G; cj2G∪K; cq2V2Q (B.1)
q q
Linearization II. : Linearization of xi;j ui for the second echelon
1394 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395

q q q
Converting xi;j ui to xui;j in Equations (42)e(44) and objective
xei;j;w  M 0 xi;j
q q
function; adding the following constraints to the model. ci2K; cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q ; cw2q
(B.17)
xui;j  M0 xi;j
q q
ci2K; cj2K∪M∪H∪L; cq2S2Q (B.5)
q
xei;j;w  ew;j ci2K; cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q ; cw2q
q q
xui;j  ui ci2K; cj2K∪M∪H∪L; cq2S2Q (B.6) (B.18)

 xeqi;j;w  ew;j  1
q q
xui;j  ui  1 
 xi;j M 0 ci2K;
q
 cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q ; cw2q
 xqi;j M0 ci2K; cj2K∪M∪H∪L; cq2S2Q (B.7)
(B.19)

xei;j;w 0; M 0 > ∞ ci2K; cj2M∪H; cq2U2Q ; cw2q

q
M0 > ∞
q
xui;j  0; ci2K; cj2K∪M∪H∪L; cq2S2Q
(B.8) (B.20)

q q
Linearization III. Linearization of xi;j *ui for the third echelon Linearization VI. : Linearization of Absolute function in Equation
q q q (2): second objective
Converting xi;j ui to xui;j in Equation (45) and objective function;
adding the following constraints to the model. Due to limit on utilizing the ABS function in linear program-
ming, the second objective function is redefined as below.
xui;j  M0 xi;j
q q
ci2M∪H; cj2M∪H∪L; cq2U2Q (B.9) ,
X
pKj pKi ¼ sEi : Expected load at transfer station i2K
i2K
q q
xui;j  ui ci2M∪H; 2dcj2M∪H∪L; cq2U2Q (B.10) (B.21)

 ,
q q X XX
xui;j  ui  1 yKj;o bo;i0 ¼ sAi : Actual load at transfer station i2K
 o2O o2Oi0 2G
 xqi;j M0 ci2M∪H; cj2M∪H∪L; cq2U2Q (B.11) (B.22)

xuqi;j  0; M0 > ∞ ci2M∪H; cj2M∪H∪L; cq2U2Q sAi  sEi ¼ sDi

(B.12) : Devition of fair load allocation at transfer station i2K
(B.23)
To form ABS (sD
i ), two new positive variables are defined as:
q
Linearization IV. Linearization of xi;j *pw;j
Converting xqi;j pw;j to xpqi;j;w in Equation (28) and adding the
sPlusDi  0 ci2K (B.24)
following constraints to the model.
sNegDi  0 ci2K (B.25)
xpqi;j;w  M 0 xqi;j ci2K; cj2K; cq2S2Q ; cw2W
where
(B.13)
sDi ¼ sPlusDi  sNegDi ci2K (B.26)
q  
xpi;j;w  pw;j ci2K; cj2K; cq2S2Q ; cw2W (B.14) Finally, sD 
i in Equation (2) is replaced by (sPlusi þ sNegi ) to
D D

form the
 second objective
 function in the form of MinimizeF2 ðxÞ ¼
P  D
j2K sPlusj þ sNegj .
D

xpqi;j;w  pw;j  1
 Appendix C. Pareto optimality definitions
 xi;j M0 ci2K;
q
cj2K; cq2S2Q ; cw2W (B.15)
While a single solution can represent the optimality in a single-
objective problem, in multi-objective optimization problems there
M0 > ∞
q
xpi;j;w  0; ci2K; cj2K; cq2S2Q ; cw2W is not a single-global solution to reflect optimality of a solution.
(B.16) Consequently, a set of points need to be determined which fit a
predetermined definition for an optimum. The Optimality concept
in multi-objective optimization is presented by Pareto Optimality
in a framework as below (Marler and Arora, 2004). A multi-
Linearization V. : Linearization of xqi;j ew;j .
objective optimization problem stated as minf ðxÞ ¼ ff1 ðxÞ; f2 ðxÞ; …;
Converting xqi;j ew;j to xeqi;j;w in Equation (31) and adding the fk ðxÞg s.t. x2X and have k (k  2) competing objective functions (f1 :
following constraints to the model. Rn /R) which are to be minimized simultaneously.
 H. Asefi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 1376e1395
Definition 1. A decision vector, x 2X, is efficient (Pareto optimal)
if there does not exist another vector x2X, xsx , such that f ðxÞ 
f ðx Þ, and fi ðxÞ  fi ðx Þ for at least one function. Hence, x 2 X is
efficient and f ðx Þ is non-dominated.
Definition 2. A decision vector, x 2X, is weakly efficient (weakly
Pareto optimal) if there does not exist another vector, x2 X, xs x ,
such that f ðxÞ  f ðx Þ. Hence, x 2X is weakly efficient and f ðx Þ is
weakly non-dominated.
Definition 3. A solution, x 2X, is supported if it is Pareto optimal
and there exist some real positive numbers (weights) u1 ; u2 ; …; uk
so that the solution is optimal with respect to the linear combi-
P location of transfer stations: case study in waste management system of Tehran.
nation of (weighted sum problem): minf ki¼1 ui fi ðxÞg s.t. x2 X with
coefficients u1 ; u2 ; …; uk . Otherwise the solution is non-supported.
Appendix D. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.250.
References
Abduli, M., Akbarpour Shirazi, M., Omidvar, B., Samieifard, R., 2015. A survey of
municipal solid waste generation in 22 regions of Tehran with solid waste
reduction approach. Tolooebehdasht 14, 23e33.
Asefi, H., Lim, S., 2017a. A novel multi-dimensional modeling approach to integrated
municipal solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1131e1143.
Asefi, H., Lim, S., Maghrebi, M., 2015b. A proof-of-concept framework of municipal
solid waste location routing problem. In: Australasian Transport Research
Forum (ATRF), 37th, 2015 (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia).
Aydemir-Karadag, A., 2018. A profit-oriented mathematical model for hazardous
waste locating-routing problem. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 213e225.
Badran, M., El-Haggar, S., 2006. Optimization of municipal solid waste management
in port \SaideEgypt. Waste Manag. 26, 534e545.
Bing, X., Bloemhof, J.M., Ramos, T.R.P., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., Wong, C.Y., van der
Vorst, J.G., 2016. Research challenges in municipal solid waste logistics man-
agement. Waste Manag. 48, 584e592.
Boyer, O., Sai Hong, T., Pedram, A., Mohd Yusuff, R.B., Zulkifli, N., 2013.
A mathematical model for the industrial hazardous waste location-routing
problem. J. Appl. Math. 2013, 435272 https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/435272, 10
pages.
Buhrkal, K., Larsen, A., Ropke, S., 2012. The waste collection vehicle routing problem
with time windows in a city logistics context. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 39,
241e254.
Chang, N.-B., Pires, A., Martinho, G., 2011. Empowering systems analysis for solid
waste management: challenges, trends, and perspectives. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 41, 1449e1530.
Dai, C., Li, Y., Huang, G., 2011. A two-stage support-vector-regression optimization
model for municipal solid waste managementea case study of Beijing, China.
J. Environ. Manag. 92, 3023e3037.
Dantzig, G.B., Ramser, J.H., 1959. The truck dispatching problem. Manag. Sci. 6,
80e91.
Edalatpour, M., Mirzapour Al-e hashem, S., Karimi, B., Bahli, B., 2018. Investigation
on a novel sustainable model for waste management in megacities: a case study
in Tehran municipality. Sustain. Cities Soc. 36, 286e301.
Eiselt, H.A., 2007. Locating landfillsdoptimization vs. reality. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179,
1040e1049.
Erkut, E., Karagiannidis, A., Perkoulidis, G., Tjandra, S.A., 2008. A multicriteria fa-
cility location model for municipal solid waste management in north Greece.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 187, 1402e1421.
Ghiani, G., Lagana , D., Manni, E., Musmanno, R., Vigo, D., 2014. Operations research
1395
in solid waste management: a survey of strategic and tactical issues. Comput.
Oper. Res. 44, 22e32.
Golden, B., Assad, A., Levy, L., Gheysens, F., 1984. The fleet size and mix vehicle
routing problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 11, 49e66.
Golden, B.L., Raghavan, S., Wasil, E.A., 2008. The Vehicle Routing Problem: Latest
Advances and New Challenges, vol. 43. Springer Science and Business Media.
Habibi, F., Asadi, E., Sadjadi, S.J., Barzinpour, F., 2017. A multi-objective robust
optimization model for site-selection and capacity allocation of municipal solid
waste facilities: a case study in Tehran. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 816e834.
Harijani, A.M., Mansour, S., Karimi, B., Lee, C.-G., 2017. Multi-period sustainable and
integrated recycling network for municipal solid wasteea case study in Tehran.
J. Clean. Prod. 151, 96e108.
Ignizio, J.P., 1976. Goal Programming and Extensions. Lexington Books.
Ignizio, J.P., 1985. Introduction to Linear Goal Programming. Sage Publications.
Jabbarzadeh, A., Darbaniyan, F., Jabalameli, M.S., 2016. A multi-objective model for
J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 9, 109e125.
Karsak, E.E., Sozer, S., Alptekin, S.E., 2003. Product planning in quality function
deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming
approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 44, 171e190.
Kim, B.-I., Kim, S., Sahoo, S., 2006. Waste collection vehicle routing problem with
time windows. Comput. Oper. Res. 33, 3624e3642.
Lin, C., Choy, K.L., Ho, G.T., Chung, S.H., Lam, H., 2014. Survey of green vehicle
routing problem: past and future trends. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 1118e1138.
Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S., 2004. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for
engineering. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 26, 369e395.
McDougall, F.R., White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2008. Integrated Solid Waste
Management: a Life Cycle Inventory. John Wiley and Sons.
Ocampo-Martinez, C., Ingimundarson, A., Puig, V., Quevedo, J., 2008. Objective
prioritization using lexicographic minimizers for MPC of sewer networks. IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 16, 113e121.
Rabbani, M., Heidari, R., Farrokhi-Asl, H., Rahimi, N., 2018. Using metaheuristic al-
gorithms to solve a multi-objective industrial hazardous waste location-routing
problem considering incompatible waste types. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 227e241.
Repoussis, P.P., Tarantilis, C.D., 2010. Solving the fleet size and mix vehicle routing
problem with time windows via adaptive memory programming. Transport.
Res. C Emerg. Technol. 18, 695e712.
Samanlioglu, F., 2013. A multi-objective mathematical model for the industrial
hazardous waste location-routing problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 226, 332e340.
Santiban ~ ez-Aguilar, J.E., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Gonza
lez-Campos, J.B., Serna-
Gonz
alez, M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2013. Optimal planning for the sustainable
utilization of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 33, 2607e2622.
Sharif, N.S., Pishvaee, M.S., Aliahmadi, A., Jabbarzadeh, A., 2018. A bi-level pro-
gramming approach to joint network design and pricing problem in the
municipal solid waste management system: a case study. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 131, 17e40.
Silva, S., Alçada-Almeida, L., Dias, L.C., 2017. Multiobjective programming for sizing
and locating biogas plants: a model and an application in a region of Portugal.
Comput. Oper. Res. 83, 189e198.
Sun, C., Ritchie, S.G., Tsai, K., Jayakrishnan, R., 1999. Use of vehicle signature analysis
and lexicographic optimization for vehicle reidentification on freeways.
Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 7, 167e185.


Taillard, E.D., 1999. A heuristic column generation method for the heterogeneous
fleet VRP. Oper. Res. 33, 1e14.
Tan, S.T., Lee, C.T., Hashim, H., Ho, W.S., Lim, J.S., 2014. Optimal process network for
municipal solid waste management in Iskandar Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 71,
48e58.
Vidovi
c, M., Ratkovi

c, B., Bjeli

c, N., Popovi

c, D., 2016. A two-echelon location-routing
model for designing recycling logistics networks with profit: MILP and heuristic
approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 51, 34e48.
Xi, B., Su, J., Huang, G.H., Qin, X.-S., Jiang, Y., Huo, S., Ji, D., Yao, B., 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, 620e631.
Yadav, V., Karmakar, S., Dikshit, A., Vanjari, S., 2016. A feasibility study for the lo-
cations of waste transfer stations in urban centers: a case study on the city of
Nashik, India. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 191e205.