SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alphanumeric Journal / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 1

Global Criterion Approach for the Solution of Multiple Criteria Data Envelopment Analysis Model: An Application at Packaging Waste Collection and Separation Facilities

Talip Arsu(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, AKSARAY MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, TURİZM VE OTEL İŞLETMECİLİĞİ PR.)0000-0002-2580-166X
Nurullah Umarusman(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ, SAYISAL YÖNTEMLER ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-6535-5329
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this was it was determined which objective was closer to the global activity achieved.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Adverse effects of packaging waste on the environment and economic losses resulting from the use of untouched resources have made the recycling process compulsory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this paper, we analyzed the efficiency of 14 collection and separation facilities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this was it was determined which objective was closer to the global activity achieved.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Data Envelopment Analysis · Multiple Criteria Data Envelopment Analysis · Global Criterion Method

Abstract

Adverse effects of packaging waste on the environment and economic losses resulting from the use of untouched resources have made the recycling process compulsory. The success of the collection and separation of packaging waste, which are the most important phases in the recycling process, depends on the effective management of these processes. In this paper, we analyzed the efficiency of 14 collection and separation facilities. A Global- Multiple Criteria Data Envelopment Analysis model (G-MCDEA) based on a global criterion method was proposed for the solution of the multiple criteria data envelopment analysis model, which is organized as a three-objective multiple objective linear programming model. With the proposed model, the three objective functions were transformed into a single objective function, and the normalized grades of the distance from the ideal solution was calculated for each decision making unit. In this was it was determined which objective was closer to the global activity achieved.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arsu, T., Umarusman, N. (2020). Global Criterion Approach for the Solution of Multiple Criteria Data Envelopment Analysis Model: An Application at Packaging Waste Collection and Separation Facilities. Alphanumeric Journal, Volume: 8 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.625946

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30(9):1078-1092. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
  2. Bashiri M, Tabrizi MM (2010) Supply chain design: A holistic approach. Expert Systems with Applications 37(1): 688-693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.006
  3. Boychuk L, Ovchinnikov V (1973) Principal methods of solution of multicriterial optimization problems. Soviet Automatic Control 6:1-4.
  4. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6): 429-444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  5. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford L, Stutz J (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. Journal of econometrics 30(1): 91-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90133-2
  6. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Seiford L, Stutz J (1982) A multiplicative model for efficiency analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 16(5): 223-224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(82)90029-5
  7. Cimpan C, Maul A, Wenzel H, Pretz T (2016) Techno-economic assessment of central sorting at material recovery facilities–the case of lightweight packaging waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 112(5): 4387-4397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.011
  8. Costa NR, Pereira ZL (2010) Multiple response optimization: a global criterion‐based method. Journal of Chemometrics 24(6): 333-342. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1312
  9. Cruz NF, Ferreira S, Cabral M, Simões P, Marques RC (2014) Packaging waste recycling in Europe: is the industry paying for it? Waste management 34(2): 298-308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.035
  10. Cruz NF, Simões P, Marques RC (2012) Economic cost recovery in the recycling of packaging waste: the case of Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production 37: 8-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.043
  11. Dace E, Bazbauers G, Berzina A, Davidsen PI (2014) System dynamics model for analyzing effects of eco-design policy on packaging waste management system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87: 175-190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.004
  12. De Freitas Gomes JH, Júnior ARS, De Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Da Costa SC, Balestrassi PP (2012) Global criterion method based on principal components to the optimization of manufacturing processes with multiple responses. Strojniški vestnik-Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(5): 345-353. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2011.136
  13. De Jaeger S, Rogge N (2014) Cost-efficiency in packaging waste management: The case of Belgium. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 85: 106-115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.08.006
  14. Dewees DN, Hare M J (1998) Economic analysis of packaging waste reduction. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques 24(4): 453-470. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3552019
  15. Dixon-Hardy DW, Curran BA (2009) Types of packaging waste from secondary sources (supermarkets)–The situation in the UK. Waste management 29(3): 1198-1207. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.045
  16. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 120(3): 253-290. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100
  17. Ghasemi MR, Ignatius J, Emrouznejad A (2014) A bi-objective weighted model for improving the discrimination power in MCDEA. Eur J Oper Res 233(3): 640-650. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.08.041 Han GSA, Bektaş N, Öncel MS (2010) Separate collection practice of packaging waste as an example of Küçükçekmece, Istanbul, Turkey. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(12): 1317-1321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.05.007
  18. Hwang CL, Masud ASM (1979) Multiple Objective Decision Making - Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  19. Li XB, Reeves GR (1999) A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 115(3): 507-517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00130-1
  20. Mahapatra GS (2009) Reliability optimization of entropy based series-parallel system using global criterion method. Intelligent Information Management 1(3): 145. doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2009.13021
  21. Marques RC, Da Cruz NF, Carvalho P (2012) Assessing and exploring (in) efficiency in Portuguese recycling systems using non-parametric methods. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 67: 34-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.07.005
  22. Marques RC, Da Cruz NF, Simões P, Ferreira SF, Pereira MC, De Jaeger S (2014) Economic viability of packaging waste recycling systems: a comparison between Belgium and Portugal. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 85: 22-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.015
  23. Matsueda N, Nagase Y (2012) An economic analysis of the packaging waste recovery note system in the UK. Resource and Energy Economics 34(4): 669-679. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.06.001
  24. McCarthy JE (1993) Recycling and reducing packaging waste: How the United States compares to other countries. Resources, conservation and recycling 8(3): 293-360. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(93)90027-D
  25. Metin E, Eröztürk A, Neyim C (2003) Solid waste management practices and review of recovery and recycling operations in Turkey. Waste Management 23(5): 425-432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(03)00070-9
  26. Miettinen K (1999) Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Springer Science+Business Media: New York
  27. Millock K (1994) Packaging waste management in Sweden: a product charge. Resources, conservation and recycling 10(4): 349-375. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(94)90023-X
  28. Moheb-Alizadeh H, Rasouli SM, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2011) The use of multi-criteria data envelopment analysis (MCDEA) for location–allocation problems in a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 38(5): 5687-5695. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.065
  29. Nahman A (2010) Extended producer responsibility for packaging waste in South Africa: Current approaches and lessons learned. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(3): 155-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.006
  30. Ramos TRP, Gomes MI, Barbosa-Póvoa AP (2014) Assessing and improving management practices when planning packaging waste collection systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 85: 116-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.013
  31. Rigamonti L, Ferreira S, Grosso M, Marques RC (2015) Economic-financial analysis of the Italian packaging waste management system from a local authority's perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 87: 533-541. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.069
  32. Rubem APS, Brandão LC (2015) Multiple criteria data envelopment analysis–an application to UEFA EURO 2012. Procedia Computer Science 55: 186-195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.031
  33. San Cristóbal JR (2011) A multi criteria data envelopment analysis model to evaluate the efficiency of the Renewable Energy technologies. Renewable Energy 36(10): 2742-2746. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.008
  34. Saraj M, Safaei N (2012) Solving bi-level programming problems on using global criterion method with an interval approach. Applied Mathematical Sciences 6(23): 1135-1141.
  35. Shih CJ, Chang CJ (1995) Pareto optimization of alternative global criterion method for fuzzy structural design. Computers & structures 54(3): 455-460. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(94)00341-Y
  36. Umarusman N, Ahmet T (2013) Building optimum production settings using de novo programming with global criterion method. International Journal of Computer Applications 82(18): 12-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.5120/14262-2359
  37. Verma MK, Mukherjee V, Yadav VK (2016) Greenfield distribution network expansion strategy with hierarchical GA and MCDEA under uncertainty. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 79: 245-252. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.01.004
  38. Yadav VK, Jha DK, Chauhan YK (2012) A multi criteria DEA approach to performance evaluation of Indian thermal power plants. In Power System Technology (POWERCON), 2012 IEEE International Conference Book: 1-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/PowerCon.2012.6401451
  39. Yıldız-Geyhan E, Yılan-Çiftçi G, Altun-Çiftçioğlu GA, Kadırgan MAN (2016) Environmental analysis of different packaging waste collection systems for Istanbul–Turkey case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 107: 27-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.013
  40. Yu PL (1973) A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science 19(8): 936-946. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.19.8.936
  41. Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane JL, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. University of South Carolina: Columbia, pp 262–301.
  42. Zhao MY, Cheng CT, Chau KW, Li G (2006). Multiple criteria data envelopment analysis for full ranking units associated to environment impact assessment. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 28(3-4): 448-464. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2006.011222