Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo 1, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy.
Waste Manag. 2010 Nov;30(11):2370-82. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.010. Epub 2010 May 4.
The main aim of this study was to verify the efficacy of using an innovative criteria weighting tool (the "priority scale") for stakeholders involvement to rank a list of suitable municipal solid waste (MSW) facility sites with the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique known as analytic hierarchy process (AHP). One of the main objectives of the study was to verify the behaviour of the "priority scale" with both technical and non-technical decision-makers. All over the world, the siting of MSW treatment or disposal plants is a complex process involving politicians, technicians as well as citizens, where stakeholders who are not effectively involved strongly oppose (or even obstruct) the realization of new facilities. In this study, in order to pursue both the technical (select the best site) and social aims (all the stakeholders have to give their aware contribution), the use of the "priority scale" is suggested as a tool to easily collect non-contradictory criteria preferences by the various decision-makers. Every decision-maker filled in "priority scale", which was subsequently uploaded in the AHP tool in order to indirectly calculate the individual priority of alternatives given by each stakeholder (not using group aggregation techniques). The proposed method was applied to the siting of a composting plant in an area suffering from a serious MSW emergency, which has lasted for over 15 years, in the Campania Region, in Southern Italy. The best site (the "first choice") was taken as the one that appeared the most times at the first place of each decision-maker ranking list. The involved technical and non-technical decision-makers showed the same behaviour in (indirectly) selecting the best site as well as in terms of the most appraised criteria ("absence of areas of the highest value for natural habitats and species of plants and animals"). Moreover, they showed the same AHP inconsistency ratio as well as the same behaviour in comparison with a "balanced decision-maker" (who assigns identical weights to all the considered criteria). Therefore, the proposed criteria weighting tool could be widely as well as easily used for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites (or other kinds of alternatives) with the AHP or with other MCDM techniques, taking or not into consideration group aggregation methods.
本研究的主要目的是验证使用创新的标准加权工具（“优先级量表”）来衡量利益相关者对一系列适合的城市固体废物（MSW）处理设施选址的影响，并使用多准则决策（MCDM）技术中的层次分析法（AHP）进行排名。本研究的主要目标之一是验证“优先级量表”在技术和非技术决策者中的行为表现。在全球范围内，选址 MSW 处理或处置厂是一个复杂的过程，涉及政治家、技术人员以及市民，而那些没有得到有效参与的利益相关者会强烈反对（甚至阻挠）新设施的建设。在这项研究中，为了追求技术（选择最佳场地）和社会目标（所有利益相关者都必须做出贡献），建议使用“优先级量表”作为一种工具，以便方便地收集各种决策者之间没有冲突的标准偏好。每个决策者填写“优先级量表”，然后将其上传到 AHP 工具中，以便间接计算每个利益相关者（不使用群体聚合技术）给出的备选方案的个人优先级。所提出的方法应用于意大利南部坎帕尼亚地区一个遭受严重 MSW 紧急情况困扰 15 年以上的地区的堆肥厂选址。最佳场地（“首选”）被选为每个决策者排名列表中排名第一的场地。参与的技术和非技术决策者在（间接）选择最佳场地以及评估标准（“不存在对自然栖息地和动植物物种具有最高价值的区域”）方面表现出相同的行为。此外，他们在 AHP 不一致率以及与“平衡决策者”（将相同的权重分配给所有考虑的标准）的行为方面表现出相同的行为。因此，所提出的标准加权工具可以广泛且方便地用于利益相关者参与使用 AHP 或其他 MCDM 技术对 MSW 设施选址（或其他类型的替代方案）进行排名，无论是否考虑群体聚合方法。
