Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Factors Influencing Regional Municipal Solid Waste

Management Strategies

Chungching Wang , Min-Der Lin & Chenfang Lin

To cite this article: Chungching Wang , Min-Der Lin & Chenfang Lin (2008) Factors Influencing
Regional Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies, Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 58:7, 957-964, DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.58.7.957

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.58.7.957

Published online: 24 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2323

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
TECHNICAL PAPER ISSN:1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 58:957–964
DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.58.7.957
Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association

Factors Influencing Regional Municipal Solid Waste

Management Strategies
Chungching Wang
Department of Soil and Environmental Science, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung,
Taiwan, Republic of China

Min-Der Lin
Department of Environmental Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan,
Republic of China

Chenfang Lin
Department of Soil and Environmental Science, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung,
Taiwan, Republic of China

ABSTRACT
Although regionalization policies have been proven as
good strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) manage-
ment in previous studies, the optimal allocation of the
waste stream is significantly affected by several influential
factors, thus further investigation of the impacts of these
factors on regional MSW management strategies is neces-
sary. This study demonstrated the impacts of waste-to-
electricity transformation coefficient (WETC) of incinera-
tors and the fluctuation of unit tipping fees on the
regional MSW flow/allocation of the Taipei metropolitan
area from practical and economic perspectives. Real-world
data and linear programming were used to obtain the
least-cost alternatives under different scenarios. Analyti-
cal results indicated some treatment facilities had geo-
graphic superiority and their priorities changed when ac-
tual WETCs of incinerators were considered. Treatment
facilities located at weighted centers were identified. The
allocation of MSW among incinerators and landfills is
affected by fluctuation of unit tipping fees within a cer-
tain range. Treatment facilities sensitive to the changes in
unit tipping fees were also identified. Regression equa-
tions were also established that can estimate the cost
items of MSW management scenarios with different unit
IMPLICATIONS
Although regionalization policies have been proven good
strategies for MSW management, influencing factors on
MSW management policies have rarely been investigated
because of the lack of real-world data. In this study, real-
world data of the Taipei metropolitan area in Taiwan were
analyzed by linear programming models to assess the im-
pacts of influencing factors on the regional MSW flow/
allocation from practical and economic perspectives. Such
information is very beneficial for MSW management policy-
making. This work is relevant to public discussion and may
establish useful guidelines for the MSW managements in
the Taipei metropolitan area.
tipping fees. The results of this study are very useful for
daily basis regulation of MSW administration.
INTRODUCTION
Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is a major
social and political issue worldwide. Different MSW man-
agement practices, such as source reduction, recycling,
and composting, have been adopted to divert waste from
the waste streams, thereby reducing the disposal capacity
needed for landfills and incinerators. Regionalization pro-
grams typically garner considerable attention in solid
waste management systems because they may have the
following benefits: (1) a large-scale and regionalized solid
waste management system can take the advantages of
economies of scale that do not benefit relatively smaller
municipalities, (2) environmental protection can be
achieved by relatively lower pollution prevention costs,
(3) regionalization programs reduce the number of facili-
ties and trained professionals required,1 and (4) the effi-
ciency in recovering energy can be enhanced.
Numerous studies have examined regionalization
planning programs for MSW.1–10 Considerable research
effort has been directed towards developing economical
optimization models for MSW flow/allocation from
sources to treatment/disposal facilities, such as waste re-
cycling stations, incinerators, and landfills.2– 6,11 Different
programming models have been developed for MSW
management planning.1–3,5–7,12–14 These approaches in-
corporate different concerns into models for siting and
determining the scale issues associated with transfer sta-
tions, recycling centers, incinerators, landfills, and dis-
posal facilities. The results also provide the best alterna-
tives under the specific considerations for MSW
management planning.
The authors of this study developed an optimization
model in a previous study10 for evaluating the effects of
regionalization of MSW management programs on a
three-authority metropolitan area using real-world data.
The results showed that cooperation in regional MSW

Volume 58 July 2008 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 957
Wang, Lin, and Lin
management is more economical and increases the oper-
ational efficiency of incinerators. Additionally, the mini-
mum treatment requirement for incinerators is very sen-
sitive to MSW flow allocation. However, the effects of
other parameters, such as the waste-to-electricity transfor-
mation coefficient (WETC) of incinerators, unit price for
selling electricity generated by incinerators, tipping fees
for disposing of MSW and incineration ash in landfills,
and transportation cost of MSW and incineration ash, on
regional MSW management strategies have not been in-
vestigated. Therefore, this study utilized the real-world
operational data of the Taipei metropolitan area to dem-
onstrate the influence of geographic location of MSW
facilities, unit tipping fees, and WETCs of incinerators on
the regional MSW flow/allocation from practical and eco-
nomic perspectives. Linear programming was used to ob-
tain the least-cost alternatives for MSW strategies under
different scenarios.
INTRODUCTION TO THE TAIPEI
METROPOLITAN AREA
The Taipei metropolitan area, located in the northern part
of Taiwan, has a total area of approximately 2500 km2 and
encompasses the Taipei City, Taipei County, and Keelung
City governments. Taipei City is the largest in Taiwan and
has the second-highest population density (9690 per-
son/km in 20012). The populations of Taipei City, Taipei
County, and Keelung City were approximately 2.63, 3.60,
and 0.39 million in 2001, respectively, and the amounts
of MSW treated daily were 2635, 3602, and 390 t, respec-
tively. Taipei City is divided into 12 municipalities; Taipei
County and Keelung City have 29 and 7 municipalities,
respectively. To simplify the optimization model, the
number of municipalities of Taipei and Keelung City were
respectively reduced to six and two districts in the model.
Figure 1. Locations of treatment and disposal facilities and municipalities in the Taipei metropolitan area. Different numbers show
municipalities designated by different administrations. Small circles mark incinerators, shaded circles mark MSW landfills, and shaded squares
mark ash disposal facilities. Figures in parentheses denote treatment capacity in the unit of t/day. For the Pali Landfill (G), 700 t/day are for MSW,
and 300 t/day are for ash disposal, denoted as G-1
958 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
There are six MSW incinerators, two MSW sanitary land-
fills, and three incineration ash disposal facilities in the
Taipei metropolitan area. Of these facilities, Taipei City
has three MSW incinerators (A, B, and C in Figure 1) and
one ash disposal facility (I); Taipei County has three MSW
incinerators (D, E, and F), one MSW sanitary landfill (G),
and two ash disposal facilities (J and G-1); and Keelung
City has only one MSW sanitary landfill (H). Figure 1
shows the treatment facilities and their geographic loca-
tions in the Taipei metropolitan area.
In Taiwan, the average MSW generated per capita per
day was 1.149 kg before 1998 and gradually decreased to
0.983 kg in 2005.15 The average amount of MSW collected
per capita per day had increased to a maximum of 1.143
kg before 1997 and has since gradually decreased to 0.667
kg in 2005 because of the stringent enforcement of re-
source reduction and recovery regulations. The recycling
rate (per weight) has therefore increased significantly
from 7.46% in 2001 to 28.93% in 2005.
To promote the practicability, the models proposed
in this study are all based on real operation data for the
Taipei metropolitan area in 2001.16 –19 Fees for transport-
ing MSW and incineration ash are both NT$5/t 䡠 km. The
transportation cost of MSW used in the models is defined
as the costs of conveying the collected MSW from each
district to treatment facilities. The transportation cost
does not include the costs of collecting MSW within each
district because each district needs to collect its MSW
regardless of which facility the MSW is assigned. Tipping
fees for both MSW and ash treatment are NT$1,600,
NT$1,876, and NT$500/t for Taipei City, Taipei County,
and Keelung City, respectively. The WETC was 230, 240,
400, 450, 460, and 460 kWh/t MSW for incinerators A, B,
C, D, E, and F, respectively, whereas the unit price of
selling electricity is NT$1.27/kWh. The generation rate of
Volume 58 July 2008

incineration ash is 20% of the amount MSW incinerated.
For each incinerator, at least 80% of its capacity must be
in service to ensure efficient operation. The currency in
the study is the NT dollar (U.S.$1 equals approximately
NT$33 in 2007). The LINDO software package run on a
Pentium 4/2.0G PC was used for optimization analysis.
OPTIMIZATION MODEL
The minimum-cost problem for each regionalization
MSW management scenario investigated in this study can
be expressed by the following mathematical statements.
The objective function is expressed as:
Minimize COST_TRAN ⫹ COST_TREAT ⫺ REVE_ELEC
(1)
where COST_TRAN represents the transportation costs ($)
of shipping MSW and incineration ash from their sources
to treatment facilities, i.e., incinerators or landfills; COST-
_TREAT represents the treatment costs ($), including tip-
ping fees for incinerators and landfills; and REVE_ELEC
represents revenues ($) from incinerators by selling gen-
erated electricity, which can be expressed as
冘冘
REVE_ELEC ⫽ 共PRICE j ⫻ MSW2INCI ij ⫻ WETC j 兲
j i
(2)
where PRICEj is the unit price ($/kWh) of electricity sold
($/kWh) by incinerator j; MSW2INCIij is the amount of
MSW (t) transported from municipality i to incinerator j;
and WETCj is the WETC (kWh/t MSW) of incinerator j.
Each incinerator has its own coefficient. The objective
function is conditioned by the following constraints.
For each municipality, the MSW it generates must be
shipped to available incinerators or landfills:
MSW_GENE i ⫽ 冘
j
MSW2INCI ij
(3)
冘
⫹ MSW2LAND ik ᭙i
k
where MSW_GENEi is the MSW generated by municipality
i (t); MSW2LANDik represents the quantity of MSW trans-
ported from municipality i to landfill k (t).
For each incinerator, the incineration ash must be
shipped to available ash disposal facilities:
ASH_GENE j ⫽ 冘
l
ASH_TRAN jl ᭙j (4)
where ASH_TRANjl is the quantity of ash (t) transported
from incinerator j to ash disposal landfill l, and ASH_GENEj
is the ash generated by incinerator j (t) and can be shown as
ASH_GENE j ⫽ 冘
i
MSW2INCI ij ⫻ ASH_RATE j ᭙j
(5)
where ASH_RATEj is the ash generation rate per unit mass
of MSW incinerated at incinerator j (t/t).
Volume 58 July 2008
Wang, Lin, and Lin
The next constraint is that for each incinerator, land-
fill, and ash disposal facility, the mass conservation law
must be satisfied, and their treatment capacity must not
be exceeded:
INCI_MSW j ⫽ 冘 i
MSW2INCI ij ᭙j (6)
LAND_MSW k ⫽ 冘 i
MSW2LAND ik ᭙k (7)
ASH_DISP l ⫽ 冘jl
ASH_TRAN jl ᭙l (8)
INCI_MSW j ⱕ INCI_CAPA j ᭙j (9)
LAND_MSW k ⱕ LAND_CAPA k ᭙k (10)
where INCI_MSWj is the total MSW (t) incinerated at
incinerator j; LAND_MSWk is the total MSW (t) disposed
at landfill k; ASH_DISPl is the total ash (t) disposed at ash
disposal landfill l; INCI_CAPAj is the designed treatment
capacity (t) of incinerator j; and LAND_CAPAk is the treat-
ment capacity (t) of landfill k.
Furthermore, for efficient operation, the daily amount
of MSW each incinerator incinerates must be maintained
above the lower limit percentage of its capacity:
INCI_MSW j ⱖ 共INCI_CAPA j ⫻ ␣ j 兲 ᭙j (11)
where ␣j is the percentage of designed capacity in opera-
tion of incinerator j (␣j is defined as 80% in this study).
SCENARIOS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
According to previous work by the authors,10 this study
proposed five scenarios on the basis of practical perspec-
tives to assess the impacts of the influential factors on
regional MSW management strategies. The tipping fees
were unified as NT$1,600/t MSW through the metropol-
itan area to: (1) simplify the regional MSW management
models; (2) eliminate the incentive of the low tipping fee
(NT$500/t MSW) of landfills in Keelung City because the
landfill is the last option for MSW treatment in Taiwan.
Each scenario is as follows.
• Scenario 1: The WETCs of all incinerators are set the
same with an average value of 400 kWh/t MSW,
and the incinerator operating constraint, eq 11, is
ignored.
• Scenario 2: This scenario is the same as scenario 1;
however, incinerator-operating constraint, eq 11,
is activated.
• Scenario 3: Each incinerator uses its own actual
WETCs, and the incinerator operating constraint
is ignored.
• Scenario 4: Each incinerator uses its own actual
WETCs; however, the incinerator operating con-
straint is activated.
• Scenario 5: This scenario is the same as scenario 1;
however, unit tipping fee is increased from
NT$1,600 to NT$8,000/t MSW through the met-
ropolitan area.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 959
Wang, Lin, and Lin

Table 1. The optimal results for MSW management strategies in the Taipei metropolitan area.

Alternative Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Expense (103 NT$/day) Transportation cost of MSW 384 411 420 418
Tipping fee of MSW 10,603 10,603 10,603 10,603
Transportation cost of ash 75 72 73 72
Tipping fee of ash 2,121 2,121 1,996 2,121
Total cost 13,183 13,208 13,092 13,213
Benefits from electricity sales 3,367 3,367 3,258 3,205
Net costa 9,816 9,841 9,834 10,008
Throughput of incinerators or landfills (t/day) A incinerator 900 (100%)b 900 (100%) 279 (31%) 720 (80%)
B incinerator 1,500 (100%) 1,222 (81%) 558 (37%) 1,200 (80%)
C incinerator 1,609 (89%) 1,440 (80%) 1,800 (100%) 1,440 (80%)
D incinerator 900 (100%) 900 (100%) 900 (100%) 900 (100%)
E incinerator 1,350 (100%) 1,085 (80%) 1,350 (100%) 1,287 (95%)
F incinerator 368 (27%) 1,080 (80%) 1,350 (100%) 1,080 (80%)
G landfill 0 0 0 0
H landfill 0 0 390 (100%) 0
Throughput of ash disposal landfill (t/day) I ash landfill 575 (23%) 628 (25%) 497 (20%) 588 (24%)
J ash landfill 450 (100%) 397 (88%) 450 (100%) 437 (97%)
G-1 ash landfill 300 (100%) 300 (100%) 300 (100%) 300 (100%)

Notes: aNet cost ⫽ (total cost) ⫺ (benefits from electricity sales); bNumbers in parentheses are percentage of throughput to treatment capacity for each treatment
facility.

The main goal of scenarios 1 and 2 is to assess the geo-
graphic superiority of treatment facility locations; there-
fore, all incinerators have the same WETC to eliminate
influence of the WETCs. On the other hand, scenarios
3 and 4 are for investigating the resulting waste flow/
allocation when the impacts of the actual WETC for each
incinerator are considered. Scenario 5, a management
alternative that standardizes the unit tipping fee through
the metropolitan area, is used to evaluate the effects of
unit tipping fee. On the basis of unit tipping fees in
Europe and the United States, which are NT$2340 – 6782
and NT$1540 – 4700/t MSW, respectively,20 the range of
unit tipping fee investigated in this study is NT$1600 –
8000/t MSW.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 and Figure 2 present the optimal policies for
scenarios 1– 4, including costs, benefits, and throughputs
for each MSW treatment and ash disposal facility. The
geographic superiority, impacts of WETC, and unit tip-
ping fees on treatment facilities can then be analyzed.
Geographic Superiority of Treatment Facility
Sites
Incinerators A, B, D, and E in scenario 1 are operated at
full capacity, indicating that they are chosen first among
all incinerators to treat MSW in the Taipei metropolitan
area (Table 1). Conversely, incinerator F only operated at
27% capacity, indicating that it is the last incinerator
considered because of its unfavorable location. However,
when the incinerator operating constraint was considered
in scenario 2, incinerators A and D were still operated at
100% capacity; however, the treatment throughputs for
incinerators B, C, and E all decreased. Notably, both land-
fills G and H had no loading at all in these two scenarios.
The geographic superiority of the six incinerators is as
follows: A and D are best; followed by B, E, C, and F; and
landfills G and H are last.
For ash disposal facilities, the analytical results for
scenario 1 demonstrated that sites J and G-1 are better
than I in terms of loading rate. Although its treatment
capacity is small, G-1 is the best option. When G-1 is full,
the remaining ash will then be distributed to I and/or J for
optimal arrangement.

Impact of WETC on Throughputs of Treatment

Figure 2. Comparison of throughputs of MSW treatment and ash
disposal facilities, denoted as the ratio of throughput of each
treatment facility to their treatment capacity, according to different
scenarios.
Facilities
The optimal result for scenario 3, in which each inciner-
ator uses its actual WETC, showed that treatment facilities
C, D, E, F, and H are all operated at full capacity, whereas
facilities A and B are operated at 31 and 37% of their
capacities, respectively, and G has no loadings. However,
when the incinerator operating constraint was imposed in
scenario 4, D remained at full capacity, whereas through-
puts for E, C, F, and H decreased by 5, 20, 20, and 100%,
respectively. We conclude that in real operational situa-
tions, the preferred sequence for the treatment facilities is
incinerator D, E, C, F, B, and A, and landfills H and G are
the last choices. This analytical result differs from the
preferred order on the basis of geographic locations as

960 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 58 July 2008
 Wang, Lin, and Lin

Table 2. The MSW flow for different treatment facility categories in different municipalities.

Treated by Incinerators Treated by Incinerators Treated by Landfills Treated by Landfill

MSW Sources Scenario in Taipei City in Taipei County in Taipei County in Keelung City

a
Taipei City (2635 t/day) 1 2635 0 0 0
2 2489 146 0 0
3 2386 249 0 0
4 2635 0 0 0
Taipei County (3602 t/day) 1 984 2618 0 0
2 683 2919 0 0
3 190 3351 0 61
4 335 3267 0 0
Keelung City (390 t/day) 1 390 0 0 0
2 390 0 0 0
3 61 0 0 329
4 390 0 0 0
Total throughput (6627 t/day) 1 4009 (95%)c 2618 (73%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2 3562 (85%) 3065 (85%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
3 2637 (63%) 3600 (100%) 0 (0%) 390 (100%)
4 3360 (80%) 3267 (91%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Maximum treatment 4200 3600 1000 390
capacityb

Notes: aFigures in parentheses denote total MSW of the municipality in t/day; bMaximum treatment capacity is the sum of maximum designed treatment capacity
of treatment facilities in each municipality; cNumbers in parentheses are percentage of throughput to treatment capacity for each treatment facility.

discussed previously. When the actual WETC is consid-
ered in benefit-cost analysis, the significance of geo-
graphic superiority of treatment facilities is reduced mark-
edly. Incinerator D is the weighted center of MSW
treatment facilities in the system because it simulta-
neously has a high WETC and site superiority.
The degree of impact of WETC on incinerators and
landfills is different significantly and can be evaluated by
comparing the change of MSW throughputs in scenarios
1 and 3. For example, incinerators A and B are favored
sites (fully operated in scenario 1) when geographic supe-
riority is the only concern (Table 1). However, because of
their low WETCs, they are the last choices (operated at
⬍40% in scenario 3) when actual WETCs of each incin-
erator were used. In contrast, incinerator F achieves
higher preference (operated at 27% in scenario 1 vs. 100%
in scenario 3) because of its high WETC. According to
analytical results, the impact on the loading rate of incin-
erator is positive to incinerator F and negative to inciner-
ators A and B as the unit price of electricity rises.

Table 3. The optimal results of scenario 5 in the Taipei metropolitan area.

Unit Tipping Fee (NT$/t) 1,600 1,920 2,080 2,240 2,400 2,560 2,720 3,200 4,800 8,000

Ratio to current unit tipping fee 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2 3 5
Transportation cost of MSWa 384 384 382 365 365 365 376 376 376 376
Tipping fee of MSWa 10,603 12,724 13,784 14,844 15,905 16,965 18,025 21,206 31,810 53,016
Transportation cost of asha 75 75 75 66 66 65 59 59 59 59
Tipping fee of asha 2,121 2,545 2,751 2,794 2,994 3,005 3,012 3,544 5,316 8,859
Total costa 13,183 15,728 16,992 18,070 19,330 20,400 21,472 25,185 37,560 62,310
Benefits from electricity salesa 3,367 3,367 3,359 3,168 3,168 2,981 2,813 2,813 2,813 2,813
Net costa,b 9,816 12,361 13,633 14,902 16,162 17,419 18,659 22,372 34,747 59,497
Throughputs of facilities (t/day)
A incinerator 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900
B incinerator 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
C incinerator 1,609 1,609 1,595 1,219 1,219 1,219 918 918 918 918
D incinerator 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900
E incinerator 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,319 1,319 1,319 1,319
F incinerator 368 368 368 368 368 0 0 0 0 0
G MSW landfills 0 0 0 0 0 368 700 700 700 700
H MSW landfills 0 0 14 390 390 390 390 390 390 390
I ash landfills 575 575 573 497 497 480 480 480 480 480
J ash landfills 450 450 450 450 450 450 444 444 444 444
G-1 ash landfills 300 300 300 300 300 244 184 184 184 184
All incinerators 6,627 6,627 6,613 6,237 6,237 5,869 5,537 5,537 5,537 5,537
All landfills 0 0 14 390 390 758 1,090 1,090 1,090 1,090

Notes: aUnit in thousand NT$/day; bNet cost ⫽ (total cost) ⫺ (benefits from electricity sales).

Volume 58 July 2008 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 961
Wang, Lin, and Lin

Another notable finding in scenario 3 is that treating

MSW at landfill H is more economical than treating it at
incinerators A and/or B because throughput of landfill H
increases from 0% in scenario 1 to 100% in scenario 3.
The reason is that, because of the low WETCs of inciner-
ators A and B, the benefits of electricity sales cannot cover
the transportation costs and tipping fees for incineration
ash.
The MSW flows of treatment facilities of different
authorities (Table 2) can be used to investigate the inter-
authority MSW flows. In scenario 1, 4009 and 2618 t of
MSW are incinerated in Taipei City and Taipei County,
respectively, which respectively accounted for 95 and
73% of their maximum treatment capacities of 4200 and
3600 t. However, because the actual WETCs of incinera-
tors in Taipei County are significantly higher than those
of incinerators in Taipei City, when the actual WETC of
Figure 4. Change of throughputs of incinerators and landfills for
each incinerator was used in scenario 3 all incinerators in
treating MSW with different unit tipping fee, denoted as ratio to
Taipei County were under full operation and only 63% of current unit tipping fee NT$1600/t. The throughputs of incinerators A,
Taipei City’s treatment capacity was in operation. We B, and D, for which throughputs do not change during modeling, are
conclude that whenever electricity sales price is suffi- not shown. The results of unit tipping fee from ratios 2 to 5 remain
ciently high to compensate for costs of transporting unchanged and are not displayed.
MSW, incinerators in Taipei County are the first choices
for incinerating MSW in the Taipei metropolitan area. times) and beyond, both sanitary landfills become oper-
According to the aforementioned analysis, it can be ated at full capacity and the throughput at each treatment
concluded that when the unit price of electricity sales
facility remains unchanged.
rises, the impact of WETC on throughput of incinerators
The throughputs at incinerators A, B, and D are not
and landfills becomes more significant.
affected by increasing unit tipping fees because of their
geographic superiority (Table 3). Nevertheless, when unit
Influence of Unit Tipping Fee on Throughputs of tipping fees increase to 1.3 and 1.4 times the current rate,
Treatment Facilities 14 and 390 t of MSW, respectively, are shifted from
Generally, as unit tipping fees rise, total MSW throughput incinerator C to H, reaching the full capacity of H,
of incinerators decreases and shifts to landfills for treat- whereas all 368 t of MSW of F are shifted to G when unit
ment because the benefits achieved by incinerators from tipping fees reach 1.6 times (NT$2560/t) the current
electricity sales cannot offset the increased tipping fees for rate. When unit tipping fees increase to 1.7 times
incineration ash. Table 3 summarizes the results for sce- (NT$2720/t) the current rate, an additional 301 t of
nario 5, with unit tipping fee ranging from the current MSW from C and 31 t from E are shifted to G, and G is
NT$1600 to NT$8000/t. As unit tipping fee rises to then operating at full capacity. The fluctuation of MSW
NT$2080/t, which is 1.3 times the current rate, some throughput at different treatment facilities is illustrated
MSW originally treated by incinerator(s) begins shifting in Figure 4.
to landfills for disposal (last two rows in Table 3). This
trend continues without change as unit tipping fees fur-
ther increase to 1.7 times the current rate, as shown in
Figure 3. When unit tipping fee reaches NT$2720/t (1.7

Figure 5. Change of throughputs of ash disposal landfills with

Figure 3. Change of total throughputs of incinerators and landfills different unit tipping fee, denoted as ratio to current unit tipping fee of
for treating MSW with different unit tipping fee, denoted as ratio to NT$1600/t. The throughputs of all ash disposal landfills with different
current unit tipping fee NT$1600/t. The results of unit tipping fee from unit tipping fee from ratios 2 to 5 remain unchanged and are not
ratios 2 to 5 remain unchanged and are not displayed. displayed.

962 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 58 July 2008
 Wang, Lin, and Lin

Influence of Unit Tipping Fee on Cost of MSW

Management System
To evaluate the influence of unit tipping fees on each cost
and/or benefit items of the MSW management system,
the relationships between the cost/benefit and unit tip-
ping fee are illustrated in Figure 6. The ordinate and
abscissa are represented as ratio to current cost/benefit
(cost ratio) and ratio to current unit tipping fee, respec-
tively, to make the figure more concise and comprehen-
sible. It can be observed that both the net cost and tipping
fees of MSW and ash generally increase as the unit tipping
fee of MSW increases. However, the transportation costs
of MSW and ash and benefits from electricity sales de-
crease when unit tipping fee increases. The fluctuations of
the cost/benefit items result from the changes of through-
puts of MSW incinerators and landfills summarized in
Table 3. This study regressed each relationship of the
MSW cost/benefit items (y) with respect to unit tipping
fee, which is designated as ratio (x) to the current unit
tipping fee of NT$1600/t. The regression equations listed
in Table 4 can be used to estimate cost items at different
unit tipping fees and are very convenient for MSW man-
agement decision-making process.

Figure 6. The relation of cost items of MSW to unit tipping fees. The
former is designated as the ratio to the current cost, whereas the
latter is designed as ratio to the current unit tipping fee of NT$1600/t.
According to analytical results, incinerators C, E, and
F, and landfills H and G are sensitive to the fluctuation in
unit tipping fees, whereas incinerators A, B, and D are not
affected. The reallocation of incinerator throughputs re-
veals that the throughputs of treatment facilities with
inferior geographical features will be reallocated first
when unit tipping fees increase. Conversely, the impacts
of unit tipping fees on treatment facilities with geo-
graphic superiority are minor. Furthermore, the through-
puts of ash disposal facilities showed that I is the most
sensitive to the increases to unit tipping fee, followed by
G-1 and then J, according to the decreased amount of
MSW incinerated (Figure 5). This information is very use-
ful for daily regulation of MSW treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the impacts of geographic loca-
tion of MSW facilities, WETC, and unit tipping fees on the
regional MSW flow/allocation from practical and eco-
nomic perspectives. Several linear programming models
were successfully used to determine the optimal (least
cost) MSW allocation for different scenarios. The results
of the optimal strategies indicated that when realistic
WETC is considered in the cost-benefit analysis, the sig-
nificance of geographic superiority of treatment facilities
is markedly counteracted. That is, WETC of an incinerator
plays an important role in optimal MSW allocation strat-
egies. Moreover, the allocation of MSW among incinera-
tors and landfills is also affected by the fluctuation of unit
tipping fees, and some treatment facilities were identified
to be sensitive to such fluctuations. Regression equations
of each cost item with respect to unit tipping fees of MSW
were also established and serve as an easy method to

Table 4. Regression equations of different cost items with respect to unit tipping fees (scenario 5) in the Taipei metropolitan area.

Error (%)
Ratio to Current Unit
Item (y) Regression Equation Tipping Fee (x) Minimum Maximum

Net cost y ⫽ ⫺395,957x3 ⫹ 1,358,989 x2 ⫹ 11,177,793x ⫺ 2,324,625 x ⫽1.0–1.7 0.00078 0.011

y ⫽ 12,375,038x ⫺ 2,378,332 x ⫽1.7–5.0 0 0
Transportation cost of MSW y ⫽ 647,633x3 ⫺ 2,573,338x2 ⫹ 3,319,882x ⫺ 1,010,585 x ⫽1.0–1.7 0.072 1.55
y ⫽ 375,845 x ⫽1.7–5.0 0 0
Tipping fee of MSW y ⫽ 10,603,200x x ⫽1.0–5.0 0 0
Transportation cost of ash y ⫽ 111,552x3 ⫺ 487,357x2 ⫹ 669,162x ⫺ 218,256 x ⫽1.0–1.7 0.048 5.37
y ⫽ 58,617 x ⫽1.7–5.0 0 0
Tipping fee of ash y ⫽ ⫺301,581x3 ⫺ 778,747x2 ⫹ 5,029,642x ⫺ 1,830,740 x ⫽1.0–1.7 0.097 2.42
y ⫽ 1,771,840x x ⫽1.7–5.0 0 0
Benefits from electricity sales y ⫽ 853,675x3 ⫺ 5,198,903x2 ⫹ 8,444,731x ⫺ 735,234 x ⫽1.0–1.7 0.067 2.4
y ⫽ 2,812,769 x ⫽1.7–5.0 0 0

Notes: y ⫽ The cost of different items, in NT$. x ⫽ Unit tipping fee, designated as the ratio to current unit tipping fee (NT$1600/t).

Volume 58 July 2008 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 963
Wang, Lin, and Lin
estimate costs of MSW management scenarios with vary-
ing unit tipping fees. The information presented in this
study will prove very useful for daily regulation of MSW
treatment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank anonymous reviewers for their opin-
ions that helped to improve this work.
REFERENCES
1. Chang, N.B.; Chang, Y.H.; Chen, Y.L. Cost-Effective and Equitable
Workload Operation in Solid-Waste Management Systems; J. Environ.
Eng. ASCE 1997, 123, 178-190.
2. Chang, N.B.; Lin, Y.T. Economic Evaluation of a Regionalization Pro-
gram for Solid Waste Management in a Metropolitan Region; J. Envi-
ron. Manage. 1997, 51, 241-274.
3. Abou Najm, M.; El-Fadel, M.; Ayoub, G.; El-Taha, M.; Al-Awar, F. An
Optimization Model for Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management
I: Model Formulation; Waste Manage. Res. 2002, 20, 37-45.
4. Everett, J.W.; Modak, A.R. Optimal Regional Scheduling of Solid Waste
Systems I: Model Development; J. Environ. Eng. 1996, 122, 785-792.
5. Huang, G.H.; Baetz, B.W.; Patry, G.G.; Terluk, V. Capacity Planning for
an Integrated Waste Management System under Uncertainty: a North
American Case Study; Waste Manage. Res. 1997, 15, 523-546.
6. Huang, Y.F.; Baetz, B.W.; Huang, G.H.; Liu, L. Violation Analysis for
Solid Waste Management Systems: an Interval Fuzzy Programming
Approach; J. Environ. Manage. 2002, 65, 431-446.
7. Vaillancourt, K.; Waaub, J.-P. Environmental Site Evaluation of Waste
Management Facilities Embedded into EUGE‘NE Model: a Multicrite-
ria Approach; Eur. J. Op. Res. 2002, 139, 436-448.
8. Tanskanen, J.-H. Strategic Planning of Municipal Solid Waste Manage-
ment; Resour. Conserv. Recyc. 2000, 30, 111-133.
9. Ley, E.; Macauley, M.K.; Salant, S.W. Spatially and Intertemporally
Efficient Waste Management: the Costs of Interstate Trade Restric-
tions; J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2002, 43, 188-218.
10. Lin, M.; Wang, C.; Lin, C. Evaluation of Solid Waste Management
Strategies in the Taipei Metropolitan Area of Taiwan; J. Air & Waste
Manage. Assoc. 2006, 56, 650-656.
11. Fiorucci, P.; Minciardi, R.; Robba, M.; Sacile, R. Solid Waste. Manage-
ment in Urban Areas Development and Application of a Decision
Support System; Resour. Conserv. Recyc. 2003, 37, 301-328.
12. Chang, N.B.; Wang, S.F. A Fuzzy Goal Programming Approach for the
Optimal Planning of Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Systems;
Eur. J. Op. Res. 1997, 99, 303-321.
964 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
13. Chang, N.B.; Wang, S.F. Solid Waste Management System Analysis by
Multiobjective Mixed Integer Programming Model; J. Environ. Manage.
1996, 48, 17-43.
14. Huang, G.H.; Baetz, B.W.; Patry, G.G. Grey Integer Programming: an
Application to Solid Waste Management Planning under Uncertainty;
Eur. J. Op. Res. 1995, 83, 594-620.
15. Yearbook of Environmental Protection Statistics, Republic of China; Envi-
ronmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan: Taiwan, Re-
public of China, 2006; pp 2-78 –2-79.
16. Annual Reports of Environmental Protection; Bureau of Environmental
Protection, Taipei City Government: Taiwan, Republic of China, 2001.
17. Year Reports of Operation, Maintenance and Environmental Monitoring of
Hsintein Refuse Incineration Plant; Bureau of Environmental Protection,
Taipei County Government: Taiwan, Republic of China, 2001.
18. Year Reports of Operation, Maintenance and Environmental Monitoring of
Shulin Refuse Incineration Plant; Bureau of Environmental Protection,
Taipei County Government: Taiwan, Republic of China, 2001.
19. Year Reports of Operation, Maintenance and Environmental Monitoring of
Pali Refuse Incineration Plant; Bureau of Environmental Protection,
Taipei County Government: Taiwan, Republic of China, 2001.
20. Environment in the EU at the Turn of the Century; Chapter 3.7; European
Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.
About the Authors
Chungching Wang is a Ph.D. candidate with the Depart-
ment of Soil and Environmental Science at the National
Chung Hsing University in Taichung, Taiwan. Min-Der Lin is
an associate professor with the Department of Environmen-
tal Engineering at the National Chung Hsing University in
Taichung, Taiwan. Chenfang Lin is a professor with the
Department of Soil and Environmental Science at the Na-
tional Chung Hsing University in Taichung, Taiwan. Please
address correspondence to: Min-Der Lin, Department of
Environmental Engineering, National Chung Hsing University,
250 Kuo Kuang Road, Taichung, Taiwan 402, Republic of
China; phone: ⫹886-4-22850509; fax: ⫹886-4-22862587;
e-mail: mdlin@nchu.edu.tw.
Volume 58 July 2008