Decision support for sustainable household waste processing: a comparative evaluation of ahp and fuzzy ahp
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/ijio.v7i2.17417Keywords:
Multi-criteria decision-making, Fuzzy AHP, Household waste management, Urban sustainability, Stakeholder engagementAbstract
Urban household waste management in developing countries faces increasing complexity due to population growth, land constraints, and socio-environmental considerations. This study proposes a comparative evaluation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP to support decision-making in selecting sustainable household waste treatment alternatives in Umbulharjo Sub-district, Yogyakarta City, Indonesia. Five sustainability criteria and five alternative treatment methods were identified through expert consultation and literature review. Primary data were collected from 20 household respondents using structured questionnaires. The AHP method applied a crisp pairwise comparison scale, while Fuzzy AHP incorporated linguistic assessments converted into Triangular Fuzzy Numbers to better handle uncertainty and subjectivity. The results demonstrate that while AHP prioritizes the burning method due to perceived simplicity and feasibility, Fuzzy AHP reveals a stronger preference for “Sorting, Hoarding, and Selling,” reflecting the community’s implicit environmental and economic concerns. The divergence in outcomes highlights the limitations of deterministic assessments in complex socio-technical systems and underscores the added value of fuzzy logic in capturing nuanced stakeholder preferences. By integrating quantitative and qualitative criteria within a hierarchical decision framework, this study contributes to the development of more context-sensitive and adaptive decision-support tools. The findings offer practical guidance for municipal authorities and urban planners seeking to align waste management strategies with cleaner production principles. The proposed methodological framework enhances transparency, inclusiveness, and responsiveness in sustainability assessments, supporting the transition toward more resilient and community-driven urban waste systems.
References
X. Meng and G. M. Shaikh, “Evaluating Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria and Green Finance Investment Strategies Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy WASPAS,” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 8, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15086786.
T. L. Saaty, “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures,” 1977.
D. Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649–655, 1996, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.
B. G. Demircan and K. Yetilmezsoy, “A Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Implementation of Smart Sustainable Waste Management Strategies,” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 8, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15086526.
Z. Zhang, “Application of Fuzzy Decision Support Systems in Risk Assessment of Southeast Asian Labor Market,” Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., vol. 17, no. 1, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44196-024-00556-y.
Y. D. and W. P. B. Zhang, C. -C. Li, “‘A Comparative Study Between Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Fuzzy Variants: A Perspective Based on Two Linguistic Models,’ in IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, , pp. 3270-3279, Nov. 2021,” vol. 29, n, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3018110.
I. Vinogradova-Zinkevič, “Comparative Sensitivity Analysis of Some Fuzzy AHP Methods,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 24, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.3390/math11244984.
D. Kalawi, T. Cakar, and B. Gurul, “Design of sustainable campus modal in Istanbul Gelisim University using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods1,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 3393–3415, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3233/JIFS-223778.
M. Faishal, M. N. Arfan, and H. M. Asih, “Reducing Environmental Impact on SME Metals Production Process Using Life Cycle Assessment and Analytical Hierarchy Process Method,” J. Ilm. Tek. Ind., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 84–94, 2020, doi: 10.23917/jiti.v19i1.10041.
T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” 2008.
A. Biswas, K. H. Gazi, P. M. Sankar, and A. Ghosh, “A Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Highway Restaurant Site Selection: AHP-TOPSIS Approach based on the Fuzzy Numbers,” Spectr. Oper. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2025, doi: 10.31181/sor2120256.
M. Ashek-Al-Aziz, S. Mahmud, M. Azizul Islam, J. Al Mahmud, and K. Md Hasib, “A Comparative Study of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Method for Inconsistent Data,” Int. J. Sci. Basic Appl. Res., vol. 54, pp. 16–37, 2020. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2101.01067
G. Yadav and T. N. Desai, “A fuzzy AHP approach to prioritize the barriers of integrated Lean Six Sigma,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1167–1185, 2017, doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-01-2016-0010.
H. M. Asih, A. Sutrisno, C. E. A. Wuisang, and M. Faishal, “Sustainability decision-making in poultry slaughterhouses: A comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP,” MethodsX, vol. 14, no. November 2024, p. 103193, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2025.103193.
F. Torfi, R. Z. Farahani, and S. Rezapour, “Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives,” Appl. Soft Comput. J., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 520–528, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.021.
S. Shahrabi-Farahani, A. Hafezalkotob, D. Mohammaditabar, and K. Khalili-Damghani, “Selection of sustainable industrial livestock site using the R-Number GIS-MCDM method: A case study of Iran,” Environ. Sustain. Indic., vol. 22, no. 3, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2024.100362.
D. C. Wilson, “‘Wasteaware’ benchmark indicators for integrated sustainable waste management in cities,” Waste Manag., vol. 35, pp. 329–342, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.006.
F. Pita and A. Castilho, “Separation of plastics by froth flotation. The role of size, shape and density of the particles,” Waste Manag., vol. 60, pp. 91–99, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.041.
M. Bilal, K. I. A. Khan, M. J. Thaheem, and A. R. Nasir, “Current state and barriers to the circular economy in the building sector: Towards a mitigation framework,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 276, p. 123250, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123250.
A. Vitorino de Souza Melaré, S. Montenegro González, K. Faceli, and V. Casadei, “Technologies and decision support systems to aid solid-waste management: a systematic review,” Waste Manag., vol. 59, pp. 567–584, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.045.
C. Zurbrügg, M. Gfrerer, H. Ashadi, W. Brenner, and D. Küper, “Determinants of sustainability in solid waste management - The Gianyar Waste Recovery Project in Indonesia,” Waste Manag., vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 2126–2133, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.011.
N. Ferronato and V. Torretta, “Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 16, no. 6, 2019, doi: 10.3390/ijerph16061060.
S. M. Gene, “The role of vegetated buffers in agriculture and their regulation across Canada and the United States,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 243, no. May, pp. 12–21, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.003.
P. Sirilertsuwan, S. Thomassey, and X. Zeng, “A strategic location decision-making approach for multi-tier supply chain sustainability,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 20, pp. 1–37, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12208340.
M. Sequeira, A. Adlemo, and P. Hilletofth, “A hybrid fuzzy-AHP-TOPSIS model for evaluation of manufacturing relocation decisions,” Oper. Manag. Res., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 164–191, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12063-022-00284-6.
S. K. Saraswat and A. K. Digalwar, “Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach,” Renewable Energy, vol. 171, pp. 58–74, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.068.
H. Ayadi, N. Hamani, L. Kermad, and M. Benaissa, “Novel fuzzy composite indicators for locating a logistics platform under sustainability perspectives,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 7, Art. no. 3891, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13073891.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Faishal, Hayati Mukti Asih, Endah Utami; Effendi Mohamad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal. Please also carefully read the International Journal of Industrial Optimization (IJIO) Author Guidelines at http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/ijio/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities tacitly or explicitly of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with the International Journal of Industrial Optimization (IJIO) agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
1.png)
