DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/ijpd.7.1.14-20

Decision Analysis of Alternative River Debris to Landfill Transportation Systems in Jakarta

*Mega Mutiara Sari  -  Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Planning, Universitas Pertamina, Indonesia
Takanobu Inoue  -  Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology,, Japan
Regil Kentaurus Harryes  -  Faculty of Vocational Studies, Universitas Pertahanan Indonesia, Indonesia
Shigeru Kato  -  Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan
Iva Yenis Septiariva  -  Study Program of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Sapta Suhardono  -  Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Suprihanto Notodarmojo  -  Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Kevin Foggy Delu  -  Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Planning, Universitas Pertamina, Indonesia
I Wayan Koko Suryawan  -  Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Planning, Universitas Pertamina, Indonesia
Received: 14 Feb 2022; Published: 28 Feb 2022.
Editor(s): Rukuh Setiadi, Ph.D

Citation Format:
Abstract

River debris in Jakarta is generated in several locations by conventional transportation. Waste transportation with traditional models is usually not time-efficient, primarily when river debris is generated every time. Transport systems that can be used for river debris include compactor systems, pre-compactor systems, and baller systems. This research uses literature study and secondary data in determining alternatives. Meanwhile, the alternative selection was carried out using the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. This study uses four criteria for selecting alternatives: initial capital, type of transport container, operation and maintenance, and processing capability. The utility value of waste transportation with compaction and pre-compacting systems does not significantly have utility values of 0.722 and 0.833, respectively. At the same time, the baller system has a utility value of 0.222. This shows that the compacted system is more suitable to be applied to SPA river debris in Jakarta. The presence of a pr-compactor can also reduce the water content in-river debris.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext View|Download |  Research Instrument
Turnitin (Plagiarism Check)
Subject
Type Research Instrument
  Download (1MB)    Indexing metadata
Email colleagues
Keywords: baller system; compactor system; decision analysis; pre-compactor system; river debris

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
  1. Ahmad, S., Wong, K. Y., Tseng, M. L., & Wong, W. P. (2018). Sustainable product design and development: A review of tools, applications and research prospects. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 132, 49–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.020
  2. Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). In International Series in Operations Research and Management Science (Vol. 277). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9_17
  3. Ballestero, E., & Romero, C. (1991). A theorem connecting utility function optimization and compromise programming. Operations Research Letters, 10(7), 421–427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6377(91)90045-Q
  4. Hao, Y., Quan, L., Cheng, H., Xia, L., Ge, L., & Zhao, B. (2018). Potential energy directly conversion and utilization methods used for heavy duty lifting machinery. Energy, 155, 242–251. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.015
  5. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. (2013). Public Works No.03/PRT/M/2013 concerning the Implementation of Waste Infrastructure and Facilities in the Handling of Household Waste and Types of Household Waste. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat Republik Indonesia
  6. Khedrigharibvand, H., Azadi, H., Teklemariam, D., Houshyar, E., De Maeyer, P., & Witlox, F. (2019). Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0035-5
  7. Kuehn, J. A. (1981). Solid Waste System Feasibility Guide for Local Decisionmakers in the Rural Ozarks (No. 449). US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
  8. Mojtahedi, M., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., & Newton, S. (2021). Sustainable vehicle routing problem for coordinated solid waste management. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23, 100220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100220
  9. Nemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K., & Rousta, K. (2022). Design affordance of plastic food packaging for consumer sorting behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 177, 105949. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105949
  10. Pawar, P. R., Shirgaonkar, S. S., & Patil, R. B. (2016). Plastic marine debris: Sources, distribution and impacts on coastal and ocean biodiversity. PENCIL Publication of Biological Sciences, 3(1), 40–54
  11. Rech, S., Macaya-Caquilpán, V., Pantoja, J. F., Rivadeneira, M. M., Jofre Madariaga, D., & Thiel, M. (2014). Rivers as a source of marine litter – A study from the SE Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 82(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.019
  12. Sheavly, S. B., & Register, K. M. (2007). Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 15(4), 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0074-3
  13. US-EPA. (2002). Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision Making. EPA
  14. Yadav, V., & Karmakar, S. (2020). Sustainable collection and transportation of municipal solid waste in urban centers. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101937. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101937
  15. Yu, P. L. (1973). A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems. Management Science, 19(8), 936–946. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.19.8.936
  16. Zakaria, S. N. F., Aziz, H. A., Hung, Y.-T., Mojiri, A., & Glysson, E. A. (2021). Mechanical Volume Reduction BT - Solid Waste Engineering and Management: Volume 1 (L. K. Wang, M.-H. S. Wang, & Y.-T. Hung (eds.); pp. 297–343). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84180-5_5
  17. Zopounidis, C., Dimitras, A. I., & Le Rudulier, L. (1998). A Multicriteria Approach for the Analysis and Prediction of Business Failure in Greece BT - Operational Tools in the Management of Financial Risks (C. Zopounidis (ed.); pp. 107–119). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5495-0_7

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.