Principal of policy Analysis

8/7/2019 Principal of policy Analysis

1/22

0

Naples waste crisisPolicy analysis report

14/12/2010

Group 7

Jonathan Aarnouts

Adrian Cebalos Lopez

Andrija Petrusic

Abraham Pedroza

Yingyao WangMarina Georgieva


2/22

1

Table of contents

1. Introduction ............................. ........................ ................................ ...................... .......................... 2

2. Description of the causal relations in the system diagram ................................................. ............... 3

3. Alternatives ............................. ......................... ................................ ............................ .................... 4

4. Analysis of the alternatives ........................ ................................ ....................... ................................ 5

4.1 Impact table method ...................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 SMART table method ...................................................................................................................... 6

4.3 Results and suggestions .................................................................................................................. 7

5. Conclusions .............................. ........................ ................................ ...................... .......................... 7

Appendix A: System diagram and equations ........................................................................................... 10

Appendix B: Screening Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 15

Appendix C: Sensitivity analysis .............................................................................................................. 17Appendix D: Goal trees for public and private actor ............................................................................... 19

Appendix F: Extra reading materials ....................................................................................................... 20

References ............................................................................................................................................. 21


3/22

2

1.IntroductionThe waste management crisis in Naples occurred due to a series of events leading to a waste collection

scarcity. Lack of incinerators, health risk, overfull and closed landfills are some of the reasons that

initiated this crisis. In addition to all this, the illegal waste dumping effectuated by the Italian mafia led to

a strike of the municipal waste collection workers that contributed to enhance and make worse the

Naples waste crisis which current situation degree can be seen with the waste piling up on the streets.

Determining and moreover suggesting which of various alternatives will be the most suitable, robust and

that will achieve a given set of goals through a descriptive and analytical analysis is the objective of this

policy analysis.

Knowing the government interests of keeping the people from the region satisfied by the action

performed without expanding the available budget is a challenging task. Not only is the dissatisfaction of

the citizens but also the bad impression towards the other countries in Europe politically at stake. Hence,how can the waste crisis rapidly and efficiently (in terms of costs and quality) be solved without affecting

the interests of the citizens (hygiene) and private companies (profits)?

In consideration that the system is not only influenced by the previous circumstances but also it is

influenced by several external factors such as garbage production, garbage disposed, etc. These external

factors are not always known beforehand, but can appear during the analysis or even during the

implementation of the solution, thus the system boundaries are considered in this report as well.


4/22

3

2.Description of the causal relations in the system diagramThe main factor relating to the problem statement for the defined problem owner, namely the waste

commissioner, is the waste office budget since it reflects the causal relations in the system (Appendix A).

The available waste office budget is defined as the current available amount of money which can be used

to finance a solution for the crisis only affecting the Campagnia region. This budget is affected negatively

by the disposal, collection and recycling costs. Moreover, the waste office budget represents a factor

which is influencing the recycling, collection and disposal capacity which are actually the factors that

affect the total costs of waste management process.

As the waste commissioner is assigned by the government to solve the crisis within the available waste

office budget and is the responsible authority that represents the governments interest, he needs to

take care of how to keep the citizens from the region satisfied by the action performed regarding the

solution of the crisis. Waste commissioner has efficient waste management as his main goal objective.

High control of cost and efficient operational control can contribute to this. On one hand, for high controlof costs it is important to have low waste disposal cost and low waste collection costs. On the other hand,

efficient operational costs are defined by high waste disposal capacity, high waste collection capacity and

high waste recycling.

Taking into consideration the process of finding solution for the crisis and therefore the waste

management, the waste commissioner need to coordinate with the private companies, which are

representing another actor that influences the system. The interest and the wish of these private

companies is to maximize their profits. Due to the situation, some of the companies responsible for the

collection of the waste stopped operating. Furthermore, the lack of time to solve the crisis makes the

task for both types of companies more difficult to accomplish. Bigger profit from the contract is what theprivate companies have as their main goal objective. More efficient waste collection and higher income

contribute to this. More efficient waste collection is defined through bigger waste collection capacities

and lower operational costs, while higher income is defined through less penalties and more money for

collecting waste. The goal trees for both actors can be found in appendix D.

A main external factor that need to be taken into consideration and is influencing indirectly the system is

the Italian Mafia. They are affecting the amount of garbage dumped. The primary interest of the Italian

mafia is to continue with illegal dumping activities in order to make profit. In the current situation the

mafia is able to prevent the construction of new incinerators; any changes in this situation can have

negative consequences for them. However, the actions that can be used for reducing mafias activities are

not included in systems description.

Worth mentioning is the relation between the strikes against the government because of its inefficiency

in solving the crisis, money provided by the government and the waste office budget since it is not

immediately obvious. This relation depicts the situation in which more garbage dumped on the street

introduces bigger health risk for the citizens. The health risk for the workers involved in the process of

collecting, disposing and recycling the garbage is not taken into consideration. Therefore, the strikes that


5/22

4

may be initiated by the workers because of their dissatisfaction caused by the exposure to hazards are

not included in the description of the system. The health risk for the citizens is expressed by the

registered disease cases caused by exposure to environmental hazards. Having to deal with an increased

health risk, the dissatisfaction of the citizens becomes higher. Therefore, there will be more unsatisfied

people who will express their revolt and dissatisfaction via strikes against the government. Having to deal

with more strikes, the government becomes more concerned about the problem. This situation

furthermore affects positively governments willingness to invest more money for solving the crisis,

which means that the waste office budget will be expanded (increased).

However, the government and so the waste commissioner doesnt want to increase the budget, but want

to solve the crisis with the budget available. In order to prevent this happening, the waste commissioner

has to do the job correctly and take the appropriate actions which will result in removed garbage, less

hazardous environment, less diseases and therefore more satisfied citizens who will gave up the idea of

striking against the government.

3.AlternativesDuring the brainstorm session a variety of solutions to the problem were defined (Appendix B), however,

in a policy analysis is not efficient to make a detailed assessment of all the proposals, therefore it is

necessary to make a screening of the alternatives to filter the more suitable solutions for the problem.

To make the screening is necessary to define broad criteria that are easy to identify in each alternative.

In the analysis the criteria considered are effectiveness, practicality, and cost of solutions (at a low level

of detail). A practical solution is related to the usefulness of the solution, this means that in addition to

be easily implemented, it is easy to continue with its use. The effectiveness is a criterion, since all the

proposed solutions help to improve the conditions of the problem, but some do to a lesser extent.

The list below represents the most suitable alternatives identified through applying the screening

methods on the list of possible alternatives that can be found in Appendix B.

1. Increase own disposal capacity The most efficient way of increasing own disposal

capacity is by combining the first and second policy solutions. These joint policies

enable an increase in disposal capacity as a long term solution.

2. Increase own collection capacity Temporary hiring working force and necessary

trucks during the crisis and constant growth of collection capacity due to population

growth will resolve the crisis and reduce the probability for future crisis.

3. Increasing disposal capacity by making new contracts This solution applies to

transfer the responsibility of disposing activities to a third party. This policy can cost

more than others, but it will be more efficient. The problem of this alternative is that

waste office needs to be aware of the mechanisms that a disposing process is

conducting by the third party, whit big emphasis on environmental issues.


6/22

5

4. Increasing collection capacity by making new contracts This solution is similar to the

previous one; the difference is that a third party is hired for collecting waste but the

issues and worries of the waste office stay the same.

After selecting a small number of alternatives, a detailed analysis was made defining different criteria.

Those criteria are more quantitative and are focused on the approximate values that can be achievedwith the solutions or which can be a target value given by the actors. For the problem of garbage

collection in Naples, these criteria correspond to end user fees, the costs of the solution and capacities

for collection and disposal of the garbage.

Further, in the model there are some external factors that are difficult to control by the Waste

Commissioner, which in addition have a high uncertainty, so an evaluation of scenarios was made to

identify how it affected the different alternatives. In the analysis three scenarios regarding the Italian

mafia were identified: easy money, business-as-usual and risky business. The former scenario increases

the illegal dumping activities due to big profitability. The second scenario takes into consideration that

mafia continues the illegal activities in the same way. The latter scenario considers the situation in which

the crisis is solved by the government and the illegal dumping business becomes very risky due to the

increased control from the authorities.

The mafia activities are among the external factors that may have a greater effect in the solution, as

they impact the total cost of the solution as well as the capacities required for collection and disposal of

garbage. The easy money scenario requires more collection and disposal capacity, which leads to a

higher cost of the solution. The opposite happens in the risky business scenario.

.Analysis of the alternativesIn this chapter, we will analyze the four alternatives mentioned before by two main methods: impact

table and SMART table and some results and suggestions are given.

.1Impact table method

An impact table is a table in which each column corresponds to an alternative that is presented as a

possible solution. The rows represent the different criteria. The impact table can be used for decision

making by comparing the alternative solutions.


7/22

6

Criteria A0 A1 A2 A3 A4

Fees(/HH/month) 5 6,68 7,14 6,36 7,47

Total Cost(M) 793 1.298 1.506 1.342 1.462

Collection capacity(Ton/day) 10.000 12.161 12.881 12.161 12.881

Disposal capacity(Ton/day) 7.000 18.600 12.881 12.161 18.600

Recycling capacity(Tons/day) 2.025 2.025 2.025 2.025 2.025

A0 Zero option (not implementing a solution)

A1 Increase own collection and disposal capacities

A2 Increase the allocation of new collection and disposal capacities by making new contracts

A3 Increase own collection capacity and allocation of new disposal capacity by making new

contracts

A4 Increase own disposal capacity and allocation of new collection capacity by making new

contracts

The values of the fees for the different alternatives are calculated under the assumption that the NPV of

the alternative is zero, and all the other basic assumptions are the same as in the alternative 0. In each

option, the costs of the implementation of the solutions are included and then the fee is determined in

order to have a neutral NPV. The calculations of such values are included in the excel file attached.

.2 SMART table method

SMART stands for Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique. SMART is based on the impact table and

used to rank the different alternatives. SMART is however, more extensive than the scorecard model

since it uses weights to indicate the importance of each criterion and grades are given to the alternatives

to indicate the performance of this alternative for a particular criterion. Since the sums of the different

alternatives are relatively close to each other, a sensitivity analysis is performed to verify the robustness

of the alternatives. A detailed explanation of the sensitivity analysis and its results can be found in

appendix C. This appendix also elaborates on the assignment of the weights and the values for each

criterion.


8/22

7

Criteria Weight A0 A1 A2 A3 A4

Collection capacity(Ton/day) 3 0,00 0,75 1,00 0,75 1,00

Disposal capacity(Ton/day) 3 0,00 1,00 0,75 0,63 1,00

Total Cost(M) 2 1,00 0,50 0,00 0,33 0,17

Fees(/HH/month) 1,5 1,00 0,40 0,20 0,60 0,00

Recycling capacity(Tons/day) 1 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

Weighted sum: 4,50 7,85 6,55 6,69 7,33

Rank order: 5 1 3 4 2

4.3Results and suggestions

The results of the impact table show the different alternatives with their corresponding impact on each

criterion. The problem owner can use this table to select the solution that will be implemented. The

impact table doesnt say which solution is the best or whether all actors will prefer a certain solution.

The SMART table aids the problem owner by indicating which solutions are the favorable in his/her point

of view.

This report provides the problem owner 4 suitable alternatives, using the previously mentioned tools.

However a specific solution cannot be suggested, since the problem owner is the one that needs to make

a decision based on his/her preference. It is not up to the analyst to determine the final solution.

However, the alternative A1 is the most robust one, because is not too expensive and it provides a good

solution for the waste crisis.

For recycling capacity in the impact table, we can see all four alternatives do not influence it, so besides

considering which alternative should be chosen, the problem owner should make other policy at the

same time in order to improve the recycling capacity, for instance increase the recycling rate and

publicize the benefits of recycling widely with big efforts.

5.ConclusionsThe Campania region in Italy currently has to deal with a waste crisis. The municipality struggles with

overfull landfills and illegal mafia activities. This has lead to severe health risk for the citizens and strikes

from municipal workers who are responsible for the collection and disposal of waste in Naples. In their


9/22

8

efforts to solve the crisis, the government has appointed the waste commissioner to provide the citizens

with an efficient solution for the crisis, while not exceeding the available budget. Besides the fast

solution to the current situation, there are also measurements needed to prevent the crisis from

happening again in the future. Therefore the presented solutions both are aimed at solving on short

term the waste problem on the streets in the Campania region and on the long term by investing in the

total waste collection and disposal capacity.

In the process towards finding a solution, several policy analysis tools and techniques are used. These

tools and techniques helped in acquiring a profound understanding of the problem situation. The entire

situation is described in the system diagram. It contains all the actors with their respective goals and

wishes. These goals are translated into criteria that are used to assess possible solutions for the problem.

All possible solutions have been screened using two methods: an evaluation model and by using hard

constraints. The screening is needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. In other words, to reduce the

long list of possible solutions, to a short list with only the most suitable solutions. The four solutions or

alternatives that the most are suitable for the waste commissioner are: Increasing Campanias own

collection and disposal capacities (A1), increasing the allocation of new collection and disposal capacitiesof the Campania region by entering into new contracts with third parties (A2), increasing Campanias

own collection capacity and allocating new disposal capacity for the region by entering into new

contracts with external parties (A3), or increasing the disposal capacity of the Campania region and

allocate new collection capacity through contract agreements with third parties (A4). Next to the four

solutions there is also a zero-option of doing nothing. This option helps the problem owner to place the

alternatives in perspective.

The alternatives or solutions are also influenced by external factors such as the illegal mafia activities.

For each of the external factors, scenarios have been developed in order to determine their influence on

the proposed solutions under different circumstances. We identified three scenarios for the mafia: easymoney, business as usual and risky business that described an increased, unchanged or decreased level

of mafia activities.

Based on the screening and scenario analysis, we presented an overview of the scores of each

alternative for a certain criterion. This overview (also called the impact table) is an unbiased mean to

present the solution. The problem owner like any other actor- can use this table determine their best

solution. However, since this report is written upon instructions of the waste commissioner, we have

further analyzed the proposed solutions with the goals and wishes of this actor. The SMART table is

presents the outcome of this analysis. It shows that alternative one is the most robust and favorable

solution. This solution entails the hiring of new collection trucks and temporary employees to remove

the waste from the streets in the Campania region and dispose it on landfills and incinerators outside the

region. In the meantime, the foundation is laid out to prevent the crisis from happening again in the

future, by opening new landfills and constructing additional waste incinerators. A sensitivity analysis of

the different alternatives showed that this alternative is the most robust since it has a high ranking in

various weighting scenarios. This does not mean that this alternative is the cheapest solution nor that it

is the solution that will increase the collection and disposal capacity the most, but it does provide overall

the most beneficial solution. Finally, we need to remark that all four proposed alternatives do not


10/22

9

influence the recycling capacity. Our analysis showed that the recycling capacity nevertheless is a very

important criterion. Therefore we advise that the proposed alternative one is complemented by

additional measurements that positively affect the total waste recycling capacity.


11/22

Appendix A: System diagram and equations

Figure 1.1 System diagram


12/22

11

The figure 1.1 represents a system diagram which is used to summarize the results of the policy

analysis of the waste crisis in Naples.

This diagram is made according to the precisely defined goal trees for the public and private actors

and the corresponding problem statements for both of them. This diagram reflects the factors,

goals and criteria that are found to be very important in the presented system. Moreover, it showsthe means that have been identified and how they influence certain factors.

All the factors represented in the diagram are listed below in the following table 1.1, together with

the corresponding units.

FACTORS UNITS

Citizens of Naples Household

Garbage production by citizens Ton/day

Average garbage production by a household Kg/day/Household

Dumped garbage TonGarbage disposed by the mafia Ton/day

Strikes against government inefficiency strikes/week

Waste office Budget Euro/year

Money provided by the government Euro/year

Collection costs Euro/Ton

Collection capacity Ton/day

Garbage processed Ton/day

Recycling capacity Ton/day

Recycling costs Euro/Ton

Disposal capacity Ton/day

Disposal costs Euro/Ton

Total costs Euro/year

Garbage Fees for citizens Euro/month/household

Registered disease cases because of exposure

to environmental hazards (pollution)

Sick people/month

Collected money from garbage fees Euro/Year

Table 1.1 Factors and corresponding units


13/22

12

Taking into consideration the causal relations among the factors in the presented system diagram

and the table, the following equations are defined:

Disposal capacity(Ton/day)

+Waste office budget ()

T = Ey Wt-1 Ton/day = Ey E = Ton//day

Collection capacity(Ton/day)

+Waste office budget ()

N =^y Wt-1 ^ = Ton//day

Recycling capacity(Ton/day)+ Waste office budget ()

R = Ry Wt-1 R = Ton//day

Collection Cost (/Ton)

+Collection Capacity (Ton/day)

O = Oy A /Ton = Oy Ton/day O = No physical meaning of the dimensions

DisposalCost (/Ton)

+Disposal Capacity (Ton/day)

L = Oy P /Ton = Oy Ton/day O = No physical meaning of the dimensions

Recycling Cost (/Ton)

+Recycling Capacity (Ton/day)

I = Oy R /Ton = Oy Ton/day O = No physical meaning of the dimensions

Garbage processed (Ton/day)

+Collection Capacity (Ton/day)

+Disposal Capacity (Ton/day)

+Recycling Capacity (Ton/day)

B = Py MIN (A, P+R) P = dimensionless


14/22

13

Fees (/month/household)

+Total costs (/Year)

F = Oy T O = Year/(month*household)

The factor O implicitly involves the number of households and the conversion of the units

from years to months. In the excel sheet, the fees are calculated assuming that the NPV

equals zero, in order to recover all the costs. If the waste office has an annual budget to

subsidize the collection and disposal of the garbage, the total cost T should be discounted in

the available budget.

This formula is not directly used because the fees and the total costs for each year have a

different discount rate. If the fee is calculated independently for each year, the formula could

be used to determine the correct fee that need to be charged to the households.

Total costs (/Year)

+Collection costs (/Year)+Disposal costs (/Year)

+Recycling costs (/Year)

T = Yy O + Ny L + Gy I Y = dimensionless N = dimensionless G = dimensionless

For each year, the total cost is calculated as the sum of the costs of collection, disposal and

recycling. In the excel sheet, the recycling was assumed as zero, because none of the

alternatives include the policy of encourage the recycling in the city, then the total cost for

each year is the sum of the collection and disposal costs as cab be seen in the rows Cash out

() in the excel sheets. For this particular case the coefficientsY, N and G are equal to 1.

Collected moneyfrom garbage fees(/Year)

+Citizens (Household)

+Fees (/household/month)

N = Yy C y F Y = month/Year

This formula is used in the excel sheet under the name Collection Fees () where the

Citizens C is calculated dividing the Total number of citizens measured in persons by the

number of persons per household. The coefficient Y is used to convert the units from months

to years and is equal to 12.

DumpedGarbage (Ton)

+Garbage production by citizens (Ton/day)

+Garbage disposed by mafia (Ton/day)

-Garbage Processed (Ton/day)

D = \y G + Sy M Vy B \ = day S = day V = day


15/22

14

Garbage production bycitizens (Ton/day)

+Citizens (Household)

+ Average garbage production by a household (Kg/day/household)

G = Yy C y V Y = dimensionless

This formula is used in the excel sheet to calculate the amount of garbage produced in the

city per day. The factor Y is equal to 1, and the average garbage production by household V

takes into account the average number of persons per household.

Registered diseased people due to exposure to environmental hazards (sick people/ month)

+Dumped garbage (Ton)

E = Wy D W = sick people/month/ton

Strikes against government inefficiency(strikes/week)

+Registered diseased people due to exposure to environmental hazards (sick people/ month)

S = :y E : = No physical meaning of the dimensions

Moneyprovided bygovernment ()

+Strikes against government actions (strikes/week)

Y = Xy S X = /strikes/work

Waste office budget (/Year)

+Money provided by the government (/Year)

+Collected money from garbage fees (/Year)-Total costs (/Ton)

W = Yy Y + Ny N Gy T Y = TonN = TonG = Ton


16/22

15

Appendix B: Screening Alternatives

There are two options for screening the different alternatives: using harsh constraints (cut-off

method) or using a simple evaluation model (cream off method). Good criteria are quantifiable and

make it possible to measure and compare the different tactics. The criteria for the this analysis are

Investment (Costs and Time) and feasibility (achievability). Since not all the alternatives emerged

from the brainstorming are achievable some criteria needs to be taken in order to determine which

alternatives are reachable and which ones are not. Three important facts for doing the latter are

effectiveness, practicality and cost because this classification of the alternatives is not a detailed

classification is more general. The final combination alternative should solve the crisis on short-term,

so with little investment time. Furthermore, the solution should also be with the budget that is

provided to the problem owner, so the new investment cant be too large. On long-term, you are

investing more money (and have the time available) to open landfills and build new incinerators. In

the end you should come up with a solution so that it is unlikely that the crisis will return (have a

large enough waste (collection and disposal capacity). Of course you should look for a solution thaton long term is feasible and does not harm the health of the citizens in the region.

Table B.1 and B.2 contain the results of the screening process.

No Alternative Practical Effective Cost Total

1Increase the number of incinerators (own disposal

capacity)8 10 6 24

2 Open new landfills (own disposal capacity) 8 9 4 21

3Temporary increase own collection capacity by hiring

hew workers and renting more trucks7 8 6 21

4 Hire new collection capacity8 9 4 21

5 Hire new disposal capacity 8 9 3 20

6 Start large recycling campaigns 7 6 6 19

7 Sending more waste abroad 6 8 4 18

8Implement a collecting system by garbage

classification5 8 5 18

9 Enlarge waste office budget 7 8 3 18

10

Investigate whether there have been similar

problems/situations (anywhere in the world) in the

past and copy their solution

6 5 6 17

11 Increase taxes during the crisis period5 5 7 17

12 Increase garbage collection fees in the whole region 4 5 8 17

13 Hire an external party to solve the problem 9 3 2 14

14 Eliminate illegal activities of the Mafia 4 5 3 12

15Differential fees according to the amount of

produced garbage per household2 4 6 12

16 Business as usual 1 1 10 12

Table B.1 Cream off screening method


17/22

16

No Alternative Practical Effective Costs

1 Increase the number of incinerators (own disposal capacity) yes yes ++

13 Hire an external party to solve the problem yes yes ---

7 Sending more waste abroad yes yes -

2 Open new landfills (own disposal capacity) yes yes +

10

Investigate whether there have been similar

problems/situations (anywhere in the world) in the past and

copy their solution

yes no +

14 Eliminate illegal activities of the Mafia no no --

8 Implement a collecting system by garbage classification no yes 0

3Temporary increase own collection capacity by hiring hew

workers and renting more trucksyes yes +

6 Start large recycling campaigns yes no +

9 Enlarge waste office budget yes no --

15

Differential fees according to the amount of produced garbage

per household no no +

11 Increase taxes during the crisis period no no ++

12 Increase garbage collection fees in the whole region no no ++

5 Hire new disposal capacity yes yes +

4 Hire new collection capacity yes yes +

16 Business as usual no no +++

Table B.2 Cut off screening method

Below is a brief explanation of every remaining policy alternative and the expected policy impact

(what will be influenced / changed if this policy alternative is applied).

Increase own disposal capacity the most efficient way of increasing own disposal capacity is bycombining the first and second policy solutions. These joint policies enable an increase in disposal

capacity as a long term solution.

Increase own collection capacity Temporary hiring working force and necessary trucks during the

crisis and constant growth of collection capacity due to population growth will resolve the crisis and

reduce the probability for future crisis.

Increasing disposal capacity by making new contracts This solution applies to transfer the

responsibility of disposing activities to a third party. This policy can cost more than others, but it will

be more efficient. The problem of this alternative is that waste office needs to be aware of the

mechanisms that a disposing process is conducting by the third party, whit big emphasis on

environmental issues.Increasing collection capacity by making new contracts This solution is similar to the previous one;

the difference is that a third party is hired for collecting waste but the issues and worries of the

waste office stay the same.

The optimal solution is not only one of these policies, but a combination of 2 of them concerning the

collection and disposal capacity. According to the NPV table the best solution is the increase of own

disposal and collection capacities.


18/22

17

Appendix C: Sensitivity analysis

Table C.1 Sensitivity analysis

Since the resulting values from the SMART table lie close to eachother, a minor difference in the

chosen weights could possibly lead to a completely different ranking outcome. To be able to

provide the a reliable and robust answer, a sensitivity analysis is performed. For the sensitivity

analysis, 5 different weighting scenarios were developed. Each colum represents a different

weighting scenario with their corresponding weights for each criterium. The different scenarios

result in different weighted sums and ranking of alternatives. The values of the weigths are

ranging from 0 (no value) to 3 (very important). The range of weights is small (max 3 diffence),

since in this way all criteria still have an influence on the alternatives. When the range is to large,

only the criteria with the highest weigths determine the final ranking of alternatives. The first

weighting scenario is based on the problem owners preference. The waste commisioners

(problem owner) interest lies in solving the waste crisis effectively and timely. Therefore, the

heighest weights are allocated to the collection and disposal capacity. Of course, theres is a

budget, but this is of less importance. The recycling capacity is seen as an addition critria for the

alternatives and has therefore assigned weight of 1. In the cost focus scenario, the criteria

regarding the total cost and waste fees receive the largest weigth. The recycling scenario focusses


19/22

18

on the collection capacity and specifically on the recycling capacity. The final two scenarios assign

the most value to either the collection capacity or the disposal capacity.

The results from the scenario analysis show that the zero alternative (do nothing) is ranked the

lowest in nearly all scenarios except for the cost focus scenario, where it is the most favourable.

Furthermore, the analysis shows that in each weighting scenario, alternative 1 is ranked in the toptwo. Therefore, we can conclude that alternative 1 is the most robust and we advise the problem

owner to implement this alternative.


20/22

19

Appendix D: Goal trees for public and private actor

Goal tree for public actor: Waste commissioner

Efficient WasteManagement

High control ofcosts

Low waste disposalcosts

[/day]

Low wastecollection costs

[/day ]

Efficientoperational control

High wastedisposal capacity

[T/day]

High wastecollection capacity

[T/day]

High waste recyling

[ T/day]


21/22

20

Goal tree for private actor: Private companies

Appendix F: Extra reading materials

Bigger profit fromthe contract

More efficientwaste collection

Bigger waste

collection capacity

[T/day ]

Lower operational

cost

[/T]

Higher income

Less penalties[]

More money for

collecting waste

[/T]


22/22

21

References

Truck rental per month: http://www.rdk.com/garbage_trucks_for_rent.htm

Capacity per truck : http://www.rdk.com/inventory_details.php?unit_id=0M0077#go

incinerator with processing capacities :

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/SP/SP5/SP5_2.asp

Population Campagnia region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campania

Average salary + social contributions: http://www.worldsalaries.org/italy.shtml

Population increase: http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/poobah.htm

Inflation: http://just4business.eu/2008/11/inflation-rate-in-europe-down/

Garbage per person: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastesummary.htm

Persons per household: http://campania.indettaglio.it/eng/comuni/na/gragnano/gragnano.html

Incinerator operating costs:

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus GrnerWaste Incineration European State of the Art and New

DevelopmentsUniversityof Essen , Institute for Environmental Process Engineering and Plant

Design

Operational costs:

http://www.goodyear.eu/uk_en/sitewides/press/goodyearinthenews/2010/Goodyear_launches.js

p

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/landfill4.htm

http://www.no-incinerator.org/questions/incineration-costs.html

Documents

Principal of policy Analysis