A criticism of applications with multi-criteria decision analysis that are used for the site selection for the disposal of municipal solid wastes M. Kemal Korucu a,⇑ , Bora Erdagi b a University of Kocaeli, Department of Environmental Engineering, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkey b University of Kocaeli, Department of Philosophy, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkey article info Article history: Received 15 December 2011 Accepted 3 July 2012 Available online xxxx Keywords: Municipal solid waste Final disposal Site selection Multi-criteria decision analysis abstract The main aim of this study is to criticize the process of selecting the most appropriate site for the disposal of municipal solid wastes which is one of the problematic issues of waste management operations. These kinds of problems are pathological symptoms of existing problematical human–nature relationship which is related to the syndrome called ecological crisis. In this regard, solving the site selection problem, which is just a small part of a larger entity, for the good of ecological rationality and social justice is only possible by founding a new and extensive type of human–nature relationship. In this study, as a problem- atic point regarding the discussions on ecological problems, the existing structure of the applications using multi-criteria decision analysis in the process of site selection with three main criteria is criticized. Based on this critique, fundamental problematic points (to which applications are insufficient to find solutions) will be defined. Later, some modifications will be suggested in order to provide solutions to these problematical points. Finally, the criticism addressed to the structure of the method with three main criteria and the feasibility of the new method with four main criteria is subjected to an evaluation process. As a result, it is emphasized that the new structure with four main criteria may be effective in solution of the fundamental problematic points. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction There are various approaches addressed to the source and solu- tion of the ecological and/or environmental problems in this day and age. The abundance of these approaches stems from the diver- sity in social and intellectual life and differentiation in interpreta- tion of ecological problems. Despite these differences it is possible to group ecological approaches under two categories. In the first category, the determinant factor is the ‘‘environmentalism’’ ap- proach focused on scientific and technological development and takes ‘‘material production’’ as its primary motivation. And in the second category, ecologists who consider the society, nature and universe as a whole and adopt a viable and cyclical approach are in the forefront. The evident examples of the first group are the governments, municipalities and industrialists of the developed countries that adopt the ‘‘sustainable environment’’ approach and those of developing countries that adopt the ‘‘polluter pays’’ prin- ciple. It is possible to ensample the second group as non-govern- mental organizations and entrepreneurs who highlight ethical and metaphysical concerns that hosts tens of approaches from ‘‘land ethics’’, ‘‘animal ethics’’, ‘‘deep ecology’’ to ‘‘biocentrism’’ and ‘‘animal-centrism’’ (Under, 1999). Of course, there are various politically oriented movements standing out of these groups such as eco-socialists, greens, eco-feminists and social-ecologists. De- spite its doubtfulness, it is possible to place these movements un- der the second category. 1 The tension between two groups and the internal differences of each remove the possibility of forming a ‘‘general will’’ over the source and solution of environmental and/or ecological problems. Therefore, the first group’s attempts for solution which conserve the speed of production and development (approaches of environ- mental management and development of environmental technolo- gies) and the radical criticism of the second group (struggles for returning to nature and wild life) are not able to generate a social influence through the solution of environmental and/or ecological problems. In the meantime, in order to survive, humans maintain their activities in the given system, and everything which is regarded as danger or crisis or problem is continuously reproduced (Wright, 2004; Foster, 1994). In this article, there will be no specific discussion among the approaches over the source and solution of environmental/ecological problem. Rather, ‘‘a simple question’’ corresponding to the ‘‘real’’ problem will be asked and then, some practical answers will be tried to be given to this question. It is 0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.003 ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: University of Kocaeli, Umuttepe Campus, Engineering Faculty, Environmental Engineering Department, 41380 Kocaeli, Tur- key. Tel.: +90 262 303 3203; fax: +90 262 303 3193. E-mail address: kemal.korucu@kocaeli.edu.tr (M. Kemal Korucu). 1 For some studies discussing contemporary approaches on environment and ecology see: _ Idem (2007), Gorz (1994), Cantzen (2000), Schumacher (2011), Bookchin (1980), Myerson (2001). Waste Management xxx (2012) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman Please cite this article in press as: Kemal Korucu, M., Erdagi, B. A criticism of applications with multi-criteria decision analysis that are used for the site selection for the disposal of municipal solid wastes. Waste Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.003