Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches Applied to Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Comprehensive Literature Review
<p>Trend of global Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment production, overall and per capita (adaptation by the authors of the data from [<a href="#B11-toxics-09-00013" class="html-bibr">11</a>]).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Supply chain structure.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Methodological steps used to develop the proposed review work.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Number of papers published per year.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Number of papers published per journal.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Number of papers published per country.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Spatial distribution of the case studies.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Temperature exchange equipment;
- Screens, monitors, and equipment containing screens;
- Lamps;
- Large equipment;
- Small equipment;
- Small IT and telecommunication equipment.
- Dumping acid used to remove gold into rivers;
- Leaching of substances from landfills or stored electronics;
- Particulate matter, dioxins, furans from dismantling electronics;
- Contaminants entering the water system and food system through livestock, fish, and crops;
- Exposure through food, water, air;
- Home based workshops;
- Inhaling fumes from burning wires and cooking circuit boards;
- Pregnant women working as recyclers;
- Ingesting contaminated dust on surfaces;
- Playing with dismantled electronics;
- Children and adolescents working in collection, dismantling, and recycling.
- −
- What are the main aspects of the WEEE supply chain that are addressed with MCDM tools?
- −
- What are the most widely used MCDM approaches?
- −
- What could be the future lines of research and development of MCDM approaches applied to the WEEE sector?
2. Materials and Methods
- The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is able to describe a complex problem through a hierarchical structure of the relationships between objectives, criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. Through the AHP approach, a complex decision making or planning problem is divided into its components or levels, which are ordered in an ascending hierarchical order. Elements and levels are compared to each other and related to an adjacent upper level. The final result is a set of priorities of relative importance between the various actions or alternatives [41].
- ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE) assigns higher ranks to alternatives that are preferred in most criteria and pass acceptable levels on all criteria at the same time [42].
- Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) evaluates the causal interdependence and association among the problem’s variables that is quantified on a scale of 0 to 4 [9].
- PROMETHEE is an outranking method that ranks alternatives on their deviation from the optimal point according to each criterion [43].
- The DELPHI method repeatedly collects expert opinions until a widespread consensus is reached with respect to the object of choice [44].
- Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a method that allows possible alternatives to be prioritized with the shortest distance from the ideal option and the greatest distance from the most disadvantageous, using appropriately quantified weights.
- Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) is an MCDM approach for optimizing multi-criteria problems of a complex system by selecting the alternative deemed most efficient from a set of different possibilities. Choices are made through a ranking index on the basis of closeness to the ideal solution.
2.1. Material Search
2.2. Material Selection
2.3. Material Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Descriptive Analysis
3.2. Analytical Analysis
4. Evaluation of Environmental Decision Criteria
- It recognizes the environmental issue as a significant decision making aspect, as well as economic, social, technical, and legal ones;
- It allows identification of an answer to the problem of WEEE management, improving its environmental impact, and reducing the effect that toxic substances can have on natural and biological receptors.
5. Possible Future Developments
6. Conclusions and Future Developments
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union DIRECTIVE 2012/19/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) 2012. 38–71.
- Parajuly, K.; Kuehr, R.; Awasthi, A.K.; Fitzpatrick, C.; Lepawsky, J.; Smith, E.; Widmer, R.; Zeng, X. FUTURE E-WASTE SCENARIOS; StEP: Bonn, Germany; UNU ViE-SCYCLE: Bonn, Germany; UNEP IETC: Osaka, Japan, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Forti, V.; Baldé, C.P.; Kuehr, R. E-Waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators; United Nations University: Bonn, Germany, 2018; ISBN 9789280890679. [Google Scholar]
- Pini, M.; Lolli, F.; Balugani, E.; Gamberini, R.; Neri, P.; Rimini, B.; Ferrari, A.M. Preparation for reuse activity of waste electrical and electronic equipment: Environmental performance, cost externality and job creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 222, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.T.; Huda, N. Reshaping WEEE management in Australia: An investigation on the untapped WEEE products. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaccari, M.; Zambetti, F.; Bates, M.; Tudor, T.; Ambaye, T. Application of an integrated assessment scheme for sustainable waste management of electrical and electronic equipment: The case of Ghana. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Achillas, C.; Aidonis, D.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Banias, G.; Triantafillou, D. A multi-objective decision-making model to select waste electrical and electronic equipment transportation media. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 66, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Holuszko, M.; Espinosa, D.C.R. E-waste: An overview on generation, collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Dixit, G. Evaluating critical barriers to implementation of WEEE management using DEMATEL approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 131, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shittu, O.S.; Williams, I.D.; Shaw, P.J. Global E-waste management: Can WEEE make a difference? A review of e-waste trends, legislation, contemporary issues and future challenges. Waste Manag. 2020, 120, 549–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adrian, C.S.; Drisse, M.B.; Cheng, Y.; Devia, L.; Deubzer, O. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, Flows and the Circular Economy Potential; United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)—Co-Hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA): Bonn/Geneva/Rotterdam, 2020. ISBN 9789280891140. Available online: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Environment/Documents/Toolbox/GEM_2020_def.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2020).
- Kiddee, P.; Naidu, R.; Wong, M.H. Electronic waste management approaches: An overview. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1237–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsydenova, O.; Bengtsson, M. Chemical hazards associated with treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimes, S.M.; Maguire, D. Assessment of priorities in critical material recovery from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Resour. Policy 2020, 68, 101658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, D.N.; Brune Drisse, M.N.; Nxele, T.; Sly, P.D. E-waste: A global hazard. Ann. Glob. Heal. 2014, 80, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tzoraki, O.; Lasithiotakis, M. Environmental risks associated with waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling plants. Encycl. Environ. Heal. 2019, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaccari, M.; Vinti, G.; Cesaro, A.; Belgiorno, V.; Salhofer, S.; Dias, M.I.; Jandric, A. WEEE treatment in developing countries: Environmental pollution and health consequences—An overview. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Prakash, C.; Barua, M.K. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. J. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 37, 599–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirisawat, P.; Kiatcharoenpol, T. Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 117, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lolli, F.; Ishizaka, A.; Gamberini, R.; Rimini, B.; Ferrari, A.M.; Marinelli, S.; Savazza, R. Waste treatment: An environmental, economic and social analysis with a new group fuzzy PROMETHEE approach. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2016, 18, 1317–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Generowicz, A.; Iwanejko, R. Environmental risks related to the recovery and recycling processes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Probl. Ekorozwoju 2017, 12, 181–192. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, H.; Hanafiah, M.M. An overview of LCA application in WEEE management: Current practices, progress and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Meester, S.; Nachtergaele, P.; Debaveye, S.; Vos, P.; Dewulf, J. Using material flow analysis and life cycle assessment in decision support: A case study on WEEE valorization in Belgium. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, C.; Williams, I.D.; Turner, D.A. Evaluating the carbon footprint of WEEE management in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 465–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Jung, I.; Choi, W.; Choi, S.O.; Han, S.W. Greenhouse gas emission offsetting by refrigerant recovery from WEEE: A case study on a WEEE recycling plant in Korea. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caetano, M.O.; de Leon, L.G.; Padilha, D.W.; Gomes, L.P. Risk analysis in the operation of waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling plants. Gest. e Prod. 2019, 26, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumacher, K.A.; Agbemabiese, L. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Towards comprehensive e-waste legislation in the United States: Design considerations based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 605–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bereketli, I.; Erol Genevois, M.; Esra Albayrak, Y.; Ozyol, M. WEEE treatment strategies’ evaluation using fuzzy LINMAP method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balde, C.P.; Forti, V.; Gray, V.; Kuehr, R.; Stegmann, P. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2017; United Nations University (UNU), I.T.U. (ITU) & I.S.W.A. (ISWA): Bonn/Geneva/Vienna, 2017. ISBN 9789280845556. Available online: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Documents/GEM%202017/Global-E-waste%20Monitor%202017%20.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2020).
- Islam, M.T.; Huda, N. Application of Material Flow Analysis (MFA) in Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Management: A Review. Proceedings 2018, 2, 1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Islam, M.T.; Huda, N. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)/E-waste: A comprehensive literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 48–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.; Avarmaa, K.; Klemettinen, L.; O’Brien, H.; Sukhomlinov, D.; Shi, J.; Taskinen, P.; Jokilaakso, A. Recovery of Precious Metals (Au, Ag, Pt, and Pd) from Urban Mining Through Copper Smelting. Metall. Mater. Trans. B Process Metall. Mater. Process. Sci. 2020, 51, 1495–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messmann, L.; Helbig, C.; Thorenz, A.; Tuma, A. Economic and environmental benefits of recovery networks for WEEE in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 222, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards Greater Security and Sustainability; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
- Chauhan, A.; Singh, A.; Jharkharia, S. An interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and decision-making trail and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method approach for the analysis of barriers of waste recycling in India. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2018, 68, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Felice, F.; Petrillo, A.; Autorino, C. Proposal of a multi criteria approach for a sustainable management model of electrical and electronic equipment. In Proceedings of the IFAC Proceedings Volumes 7th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management, and Control International Federation of Automatic Control, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 19–21 June 2013; IFAC: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2013; Volume 46, pp. 537–542. [Google Scholar]
- De Souza, R.G.; Clímaco, J.C.N.; Sant’Anna, A.P.; Rocha, T.B.; do Valle, R.D.A.B.; Quelhas, O.L.G. Sustainability assessment and prioritisation of e-waste management options in Brazil. Waste Manag. 2016, 57, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdullah, L. Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making and its Applications: A Brief Review of Category. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 97, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zeleny, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM): From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained? J. MultiCriteria Decis. Anal. 2011, 110, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrgott, M.; Figueira, J.R.; Greco, S. Argumentation Theory and Decision Aiding; Springer: New York, NY, USA; Dordrecht, The Netherland; Heidelberg, Germany; London, UK, 2010; Volume 142, ISBN 9781441959034. [Google Scholar]
- Lolli, F.; Ishizaka, A.; Gamberini, R.; Rimini, B.; Balugani, E.; Prandini, L. Requalifying public buildings and utilities using a group decision support system. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1081–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltani, A.; Hewage, K.; Reza, B.; Sadiq, R. Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: A review. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lolli, F.; Balugani, E.; Ishizaka, A.; Gamberini, R.; Butturi, M.A.; Marinello, S.; Rimini, B. On the elicitation of criteria weights in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods for a mobile application. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, M.; Jang, Y.C.; Lee, S. Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 128, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, S.; Amin, S.H. An integrated chance-constrained stochastic model for a mobile phone closed-loop supply chain network with supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 988–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, D.; Yang, Y.; Chai, X.; Xi, B.; Dong, L.; Ren, J. Mitigating pollution of hazardous materials from WEEE of China: Portfolio selection for a sustainable future based on multi-criteria decision making. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayant, A.; Gupta, P.; Garg, S.K.; Khan, M. TOPSIS-AHP based approach for selection of reverse logistics service provider: A case study of mobile phone industry. Procedia Eng. 2014, 97, 2147–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaya, I. Evaluation of outsourcing alternatives under fuzzy environment for waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 60, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoshand, A.; Rahimi, K.; Ehteshami, M.; Gharaei, S. Fuzzy AHP approach for prioritizing electronic waste management options: A case study of Tehran, Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 9649–9660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumar, A.; Dixit, G. An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-waste management practices in India: A novel ISM-DEMATEL approach. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 14, 36–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Dixit, G. A novel hybrid MCDM framework for WEEE recycling partner evaluation on the basis of green competencies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakash, C.; Barua, M.K. A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016, 7, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aalirezaei, A.; Shokouhyar, S. Designing a sustainable recovery network for waste from electrical and electronic equipment using a genetic algorithm. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 16, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Kumar, A. Assessing enablers of e-waste management in circular economy using DEMATEL method: An Indian perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 13325–13338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed Sultan, A.A.; Mativenga, P.T. Sustainable Location Identification Decision Protocol (SuLIDeP) for determining the location of recycling centres in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 508–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira de Almeida, A. Multicriteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection based on utility function and ELECTRE method. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007, 34, 3569–3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, B.D.O.; Guarnieri, P.; e Silva, L.C.; Alfinito, S. Prioritizing barriers to be solved to the implementation of reverse logistics of e-waste in Brazil under a multicriteria decision aid approach. Sustain. 2020, 12, 4337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yeh, C.H.; Liu, Y. Evaluating WEEE recycling innovation strategies with interacting sustainability-related criteria. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 618–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, C.H.; Xu, Y. Sustainable planning of e-waste recycling activities using fuzzy multicriteria decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, C.P. Modeling the e-waste mitigation strategies using grey-theory and DEMATEL framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 124035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, Í.; De Aquino, B.; Ferreira, J.; Guarnieri, P. The Proposition of a Mathematical Model for the Location of Electrical and Electronic Waste Collection Points. Sustainability 2021, 13, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Król, A.; Nowakowski, P.; Mrówczyńska, B. How to improve WEEE management? Novel approach in mobile collection with application of artificial intelligence. Waste Manag. 2016, 50, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowakowski, P.; Król, A.; Mrówczyńska, B. Supporting mobile WEEE collection on demand: A method for multi-criteria vehicle routing, loading and cost optimisation. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Büyüközkan, G.; Göçer, F.; Karabulut, Y. A new group decision making approach with IF AHP and IF VIKOR for selecting hazardous waste carriers. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 2019, 134, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamberini, R.; Gebennini, E.; Manzini, R.; Ziveri, A. On the integration of planning and environmental impact assessment for a WEEE transportation network - A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 937–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiruga, D.; Walther, G.; González-Benito, J.; Spengler, T. Evaluation of sites for the location of WEEE recycling plants in Spain. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banar, M.; Tulger, G.; Özkan, A. Plant site selection for recycling plants of waste electrical and electronic equipment in Turkey by using multi criteria decision making methods. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2014, 13, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Barwood, M.; Rahimifard, S. A multi-criteria assessment of robotic disassembly to support recycling and recovery. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wibowo, S.; Deng, H. Multi-criteria group decision making for evaluating the performance of e-waste recycling programs under uncertainty. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Achillas, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, T.; Banias, G. Decision support system for the optimal location of electrical and electronic waste treatment plants: A case study in Greece. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 870–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ravi, V. Evaluating overall quality of recycling of e-waste from end-of-life computers. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Wasan, P.; Luthra, S.; Dixit, G. Development of a framework for selecting a sustainable location of waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling plant in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 122645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iakovou, E.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Xanthopoulos, A.; Achillas, C.; Michailidis, N.; Chatzipanagioti, M.; Koroneos, C.; Bouzakis, K.D.; Kikis, V. A methodological framework for end-of-life management of electronic products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.H.; Wen, L.; Tsai, Y.M. Applying decision-making tools to national e-waste recycling policy: An example of Analytic Hierarchy Process. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 863–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aidonis, D.; Achillas, C.; Folinas, D.; Keramydas, C.; Tsolakis, N. Decision support model for evaluating alternative waste electrical and electronic equipment management schemes-A case study. Sustain. 2019, 11, 3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonnin, M.; Azzaro-Pantel, C.; Domenech, S.; Villeneuve, J. Multicriteria optimization of copper scrap management strategy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 99, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rousis, K.; Moustakas, K.; Malamis, S.; Papadopoulos, A.; Loizidou, M. Multi-criteria analysis for the determination of the best WEEE management scenario in Cyprus. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1941–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. WHAT IS THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS? Introduction In our everyday life, we must constantly make choices concerning what tasks to do or not to do, when to do them, and whether to do them at all. Many problems such as buying the most cost effective. 1988. [Google Scholar]
A | Research Questions | ||||
- What are the main aspects of the WEEE supply chain that are addressed with MCDM tools? - What are the most widely used MCDM approaches? - What could be the future lines of research and development of MCDMs applied to the WEEE sector? | |||||
B | Database | ||||
ScienceDirect | |||||
Scopus | |||||
C | Search Criteria | ||||
Search unit | Single journal article/conference paper/book chapter | ||||
Journal | All | ||||
Year | All | ||||
Article type | All | ||||
Language | English | ||||
Date of search | 25 November 2020 | ||||
D | Keywords for Papers Identification | ||||
Group A | Group B | ScienceDirect | Scopus | Total | |
WEEE | AND | Multi-Criteria analysis | 607 | 0 | 607 |
Multi-Criteria Decision Making | 429 | 0 | 429 | ||
Decision support model | 1198 | 23 | 1221 | ||
Management | 2775 | 945 | 3720 | ||
e-waste | Multi-Criteria analysis | 59,138 | 19 | 59,157 | |
Multi-Criteria Decision Making | 26,031 | 1 | 26,032 | ||
Decision support model | 77,062 | 19 | 77,081 | ||
Management | 210,204 | 1501 | 211,705 | ||
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment | Multi-Criteria analysis | 5217 | 0 | 5217 | |
Multi-Criteria Decision Making | 3025 | 0 | 3025 | ||
Decision support model | 6794 | 20 | 6814 | ||
Management | 13,730 | 1046 | 14,776 | ||
Total | 406,210 | 3574 | 409,784 |
E | Steps for Material Selection | ||
Duplicate removal | |||
Keywords and abstract assessment | |||
Application of inclusion criteria | |||
They only analyze WEEE | AND | ||
They apply MCDM exclusively | AND | ||
They present case studies | |||
Full text assessment | |||
F | Other Paper Sources | ||
From informal approach | |||
From snowball method |
I | Descriptive Analysis | |
Year | ||
Journal | ||
Country | ||
Type | Research paper | |
Review | ||
Others | ||
Material collection | PD—Protocol-driven | |
IA—Informal approaches | ||
SB—Snowball methods | ||
II | Analytical Analysis | |
WEEE management process analyzed | ||
MCDM approach | ||
Type of decision criteria | ||
Case study |
From search and selection protocol | 31 |
From browse approach | 2 |
From snowball methods | 11 |
Total | 44 |
Ref. | Collection | Transportation/Storage | Treatment | Export | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recycling | Reuse | Disposal (Incineration, Landfill) | ||||
[45] | Closed-Loop Supply Chain (CLSC) | |||||
[46] | Barriers to the sustainable development of WEEE treatment industry | |||||
[37] | WEEE reverse logistics model | |||||
[47] | Evaluation and selection of third-party logistics service | |||||
[48] | Selection of outsourcing firm for WEEE management | |||||
[49] | Evaluation of alternatives for WEEE management | |||||
[44] | Determine the WEEE priority to be included in the extended producer responsibility system | |||||
[50] | Analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of WEEE management | |||||
[9] | Analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of WEEE management | |||||
[51] | WEEE recycling partner evaluation | |||||
[18] | Prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics | |||||
[52] | Evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner | |||||
[53] | Designing a sustainable recovery network | |||||
[54] | A closed-loop supply chain with a circular economy approach | |||||
[19] | Prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers | |||||
[55] | Clustering and reducing supply chains complexity | |||||
[56] | Outsourcing contracts selection | |||||
[6] | New scenarios assessment | |||||
[57] | Prioritizing reverse logistics barriers | |||||
[58] | Innovation strategies for reverse logistics | |||||
[59] | Sustainable planning of WEEE recycling activities | |||||
[60] | Interdependence among the e-waste mitigation strategies (MS) by cause/effect analysis | |||||
[61] | Solutions for reverse logistics | |||||
[7] | Type of carrier to be used | |||||
[62] | Mobile collection with application of artificial intelligence | |||||
[63] | WEEE collection on demand | |||||
[36] | Improve WEEE management | |||||
[64] | Select hazardous waste carriers | |||||
[65] | Transportation network | |||||
[66] | Evaluation of sites for the location of WEEE recycling plants | |||||
[67] | Plant site selection | |||||
[14] | Material recovery from WEEE | |||||
[68] | Robotic disassembly to support recycling and recovery | |||||
[69] | Evaluation the performance of WEEE recycling programs | |||||
[70] | Units of Treatment and Recycling (UTR) | |||||
[71] | Recover primary constituents from computers | |||||
[72] | Location for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recycling plant | |||||
[28] | Assessment of three types of waste treatment | |||||
[73] | Assess the residual value, environmental burden, weight, quantity, and ease of disassembly of each component | |||||
[5] | Identify potential candidate products | |||||
[74] | Identify potential candidate products | |||||
[75] | Optimal WEEE management scheme among alternative options: recycling; reuse; disposal; export | |||||
[76] | Best copper waste management model | |||||
[77] | Alternative systems for the WEEE management |
Single Approach | Ref. |
AHP | [14,36,49,74] |
Fuzzy optimization method | [45,63,65,69] |
Multiple objective linear programming | [7,28,46,75] |
DEMATEL | [9,51,55,61] |
TOPSIS | [19,60,76] |
PROMETHEE | [66,77] |
CPP | [37,58] |
ELECTRE III | [70] |
WSM | [55] |
RRR | [68] |
MMM | [73] |
ISC | [6] |
MOGA | [53] |
MAGIQ | [71] |
Combined Approach | Ref. |
AHP and VIKOR | [47,52,53,64] |
AHP and TOPSIS | [18,48] |
AHP and Delphi | [5,44] |
BWM and VIKOR | [72] |
AHP-Fuzzy | [49] |
BOCR-TBL and ANP | [58] |
AHP and ANP with ELECTRE and PROMETHEE | [67] |
MAUT and PROMETHEE | [56] |
Genetic Algorithms (GA) and GRASP | [61] |
Ref. | Number of Criteria | Criteria Type | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental | Economic | Social | Technical | Legal | ||
[72] | 28 | X | X | X | X | X |
[58] | 28 | X | X | X | ||
[48] | 25 | X | X | X | X | |
[77] | 17 | X | X | X | X | |
[60] | 15 | X | X | X | X | X |
[45] | 14 | X | X | X | ||
[64] | 14 | X | X | X | X | |
[36] | 12 | X | X | X | X | X |
[75] | 12 | X | X | X | X | |
[37] | 11 | X | X | |||
[50] | 10 | X | X | X | X | |
[48,68] | 10 | X | X | X | ||
[66] | 10 | X | X | X | ||
[54] | 10 | X | X | |||
[6] | 9 | X | X | X | ||
[71] | 9 | X | ||||
[19,58] | 8 | X | X | X | ||
[54,60] | 8 | X | X | X | ||
[28] | 8 | X | X | X | ||
[67] | 7 | X | X | X | ||
[52] | 7 | X | ||||
[9] | 6 | X | X | X | X | |
[49] | 6 | X | X | X | X | |
[51] | 6 | X | X | X | X | |
[18] | 6 | X | X | X | ||
[74] | 6 | X | X | X | ||
[14] | 6 | X | X | |||
[46] | 5 | X | X | X | X | |
[73] | 5 | X | X | |||
[76] | 5 | X | ||||
[62] | 5 | X | ||||
[69] | 4 | X | X | X | X | |
[5,44] | 4 | X | X | |||
[70] | 3 | X | X | X | ||
[7] | 3 | X | X | |||
[56] | 3 | X | X | |||
[61] | 3 | X | X | |||
[63,65] | 3 | X | ||||
[55] | 2 | X | X |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marinello, S.; Gamberini, R. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches Applied to Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Comprehensive Literature Review. Toxics 2021, 9, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9010013
Marinello S, Gamberini R. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches Applied to Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Comprehensive Literature Review. Toxics. 2021; 9(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9010013
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarinello, Samuele, and Rita Gamberini. 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches Applied to Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Comprehensive Literature Review" Toxics 9, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9010013
APA StyleMarinello, S., & Gamberini, R. (2021). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches Applied to Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A Comprehensive Literature Review. Toxics, 9(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9010013