Ma, S; Li, Z and Zhang, J (2025) A multi-attribute group decision-making framework for site selection of waste-to-energy project considering public participation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(12), pp. 8326-8359. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – The waste-to-energy (WtE) project plays a significant role in the sustainable development of urban environments. However, the inherent "Not in my backyard" (NIMBY) effect presents substantial challenges to site selection decisions. While effective public participation is recognized as a potential solution, research on incorporating it into site selection decision-making frameworks remains limited. This paper aims to establish a multi-attribute group decision-making framework for WtE project site selection that considers public participation to enhance public satisfaction and ensure project success. Design/methodology/approach – Firstly, based on consideration of public demand, a WtE project site selection decision indicator system was constructed from five dimensions: natural, economic, social, environmental and other supporting conditions. Next, the Combination Ordered Weighted Averaging (C-OWA) operator and game theory were applied to integrate the indicator weight preferences of experts and the public. Additionally, an interactive, dynamic decision-making mechanism was established to address the heterogeneity among decision-making groups and determine decision-maker weights. Finally, in an intuitive fuzzy environment, an "acronym in Portuguese of interactive and multi-criteria decision-making" (TODIM) method was used to aggregate decision information and evaluate the pros and cons of different options. Findings – This study develops a four-stage multi-attribute group decision-making framework that incorporates public participation and has been successfully applied in a case study. The results demonstrate that the framework effectively handles complex decision-making scenarios involving public participation and ranks potential WtE project sites. It can promote the integration of expert and public decision-making preferences in the site selection of WtE projects to improve the effectiveness of decision-making. In addition, sensitivity and comparative analyses confirm the framework's feasibility and scientificity. Originality/value – This paper provides a new research perspective for the WtE project site selection decision-making, which is beneficial for public participation to play a positive role in decision-making. It also offers a valuable reference for managers seeking to effectively implement public participation mechanisms.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | indicator system; multi-attribute group decision-making; public participation; site selection; waste-to-energy project |
| Index terms: | aggregate, case study, project success, satisfaction, dimension, option, effectiveness, sustainable development, waste-to-energy, comparative analysis, game theory, manager, multi-criteria decision-making, public participation, preference, urban environment, methodology, decision-making, integration, site selection |
| Subjects: | research methods, decision-making and reasoning, health safety and environment, cognitive psychology, practitioner, waste management, materials science, performance management, project management theory and practice, decision analysis, organizational analysis, data collection methods, urban sustainability, project delivery, decision models, health monitoring assessment and metrics, participation process, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here