Sustainability 16 06585

sustainability
Systematic Review
Optimization Techniques in Municipal Solid Waste Management:
A Systematic Review
Ryan Alshaikh 1, * and Akmal Abdelfatah 2
1 Engineering Systems Management PhD Program, American University of Sharjah,

Sharjah P.O. Box 26666, United Arab Emirates
2 Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah,
Sharjah P.O. Box 26666, United Arab Emirates; akmal@aus.edu
* Correspondence: g00052251@aus.edu
Abstract: As a consequence of human activity, waste generation is unavoidable, and its volume and
complexity escalate with urbanization, economic progress, and the elevation of living standards in
cities. Annually, the world produces about 2.01 billion tons of municipal solid waste, which often
lacks environmentally safe management. The importance of solid waste management lies in its role
in sustainable development, aimed at reducing the environmental harms from waste creation and
disposal. With the expansion of urban populations, waste management systems grow increasingly
complex, necessitating more sophisticated optimization strategies. This analysis thoroughly examines
the optimization techniques used in solid waste management, assessing their application, benefits,
and limitations by using PRISMA 2020. This study, reviewing the literature from 2010 to 2023, divides
these techniques into three key areas: waste collection and transportation, waste treatment and
disposal, and resource recovery, using tools like mathematical modeling, simulation, and artificial
intelligence. It evaluates these strategies against criteria such as cost-efficiency, environmental foot-
print, energy usage, and social acceptability. Significant progress has been noted in optimizing waste
collection and transportation through innovations in routing, bin placement, and the scheduling
of vehicles. The paper also explores advancements in waste treatment and disposal, like select-
ing landfill sites and converting waste to energy, alongside newer methods for resource recovery,
including sorting and recycling materials. In conclusion, this review identifies research gaps and
suggests directions for future optimization efforts in solid waste management, emphasizing the need
Citation: Alshaikh, R.; Abdelfatah, A. for cross-disciplinary collaboration, leveraging new technologies, and adopting tailored approaches
Optimization Techniques in
to tackle the intricate challenges of managing waste. These insights offer valuable guidance for
Municipal Solid Waste Management:
policymakers, waste management professionals, and researchers involved in crafting sustainable
A Systematic Review. Sustainability
waste strategies.
2024, 16, 6585. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su16156585
Keywords: solid waste management; optimization techniques; exact models; approximate models;
Academic Editor: Elena Cristina Rada hybrid models; IoT
Received: 25 June 2024
Revised: 23 July 2024
Accepted: 28 July 2024
Published: 1 August 2024 1. Introduction
Growing populations, urban development, and economic growth lead to heightened
production of solid waste in cities, raising significant issues regarding environmental harm,
public health risks, and the depletion of natural resources [1]. The World Bank reports that
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
about one-third of the 2.01 billion tons of annual municipal solid waste is not processed
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
sustainably and predicts this will rise to 3.40 billion tons by 2050, outpacing population
This article is an open access article
growth [2]. Edalatpour et al. [3] stated that the efficient and timely management of solid
distributed under the terms and
waste in urban areas is crucial because of the inherent toxins it contains, which pose signifi-
conditions of the Creative Commons
cant risks to human health, ecosystems, soil, water, and the broader environment. Moreover,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
solid waste management (SWM) systems’ treatment, processing, and transportation-related
4.0/).
operations negatively impact the environment, the atmosphere, and society [3]. Addressing
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156585 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6585 2 of 25
these issues requires the creation and administration of solid waste management systems
that are environmentally conscious and consider the interconnections between various
activities such as collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and landfilling.
There has been an urgent need for sustainable development over the past few years
due to all the issues brought on by the population growth, vast waste generation, insuffi-
cient waste management, global warming, and increasingly serious global environmental
issues [4].
Waste may take many different forms and can be characterized in a variety of ways [5,6].
Solid waste, originating from industrial, residential, and commercial sources, refers to any
discarded material resulting from human or animal activities considered un-wanted and
useless. This type of waste can be handled through various management strategies [7].
Landfills are hence often categorized as sanitary, municipal, building and demolition, or
industrial waste sites. Waste can also be categorized according to the substance it is made
of, including plastic, paper, metal, glass, and organic waste [8]. Moreover, waste that is
radioactive, combustible, infectious, poisonous, or non-toxic may be divided into categories
based on their potential for danger [9]. No matter where it comes from, what it contains,
or how hazardous it could be, solid waste needs to be managed in a systematic way to
follow environmental best practices. Thus, environmental planning must take solid waste
management into account since it is an important component of environmental hygiene [10].
Then again, the increasing volume of waste and the limited availability of land for waste
disposal have made it necessary to adopt innovative strategies to improve the waste man-
agement systems’ efficiency [11]. Due to the numerous inter-related processes and the highly
changeable demographic and socioeconomic aspects impacting the overall systems, waste
management procedures include complicated operations and non-linear characteristics [12].
Moreover, it might be challenging to implement SWM systems that work satisfactorily while
maintaining other environmental and health standards. Thus, optimization techniques
have emerged as a promising solution for optimizing solid waste management systems [13].
Optimization techniques use mathematical models, simulation, and heuristic algorithms
to find optimal solutions. To apply these techniques to SWM challenges, a comprehensive
review of existing work and findings is essential to encourage further improvements [14]. To
date, it appears that there has not been a thorough critical analysis evaluating the application
of optimization techniques across different SWM processes.
Thus, the objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of optimiza-
tion techniques used in solid waste management and their applications in different stages
of waste management processes. The aim of this article is to assist researchers in SWM
who are exploring various optimization techniques by discussing key research topics such
as the methods employed, their advantages and disadvantages, and their effectiveness.
This paper is structured in the following manner: It begins with the Methodology Section
outlining the systematic framework used, including the scope of work, research questions,
search and selection criteria, paper quality assurance, and data mining strategy. Subsequent
sections delve into the major optimization techniques identified in the survey, followed
by a detailed discussion of the various fields within solid waste management where these
techniques have been applied. The paper concludes by addressing the limitations and chal-
lenges encountered in implementing optimization techniques in solid waste management
and offers recommendations for future research.
2. Methodology
This section outlines the methodology followed to identify relevant studies and filter
them before examining the models used. The key goal of the systematic literature review
(SLR) was to establish an unbiased review method, which led to comprehension of outcomes
and credibility. SLRs were used to find, assess, and analyze studies in a certain field of
study [15].
2.1. Systematic Review Protocol

The methodology for this paper followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020, see Supplementary Materials) to specify the
methods used to perform the analysis by categorizing the process into four phases [16,17].
The flowchart outlining the suggested technique is shown in Figure 1, where PRISMA
2020 is applied in four stages. The first stage involved identifying review characteristics,
which establishes the scope of the research. Thus, the SLR’s primary purpose was to detect
and assess published research that addresses the application of optimization techniques in
SWM. This could be accomplished by addressing three main questions:
1. What studies have been conducted on optimization techniques in SWM?
2. How is the performance of various optimization models in SWM?
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26
3. What are the advantages and drawbacks of applications of optimization techniques
in SWM?
Figure1.1.Systematic
Figure Systematicreview
reviewmethodology
methodologyby
byPRISMA.
PRISMA.
The screening
2.2. Search Strategyprocess constituted
and Eligibility the second stage of the PRISMA approach, involving
Criteria
the selection of databases
To address andquestions
the research the careful and choice of search
review terms
prior work onand keywordstechniques
optimization to identify
articles relevant to the topic. The analysis of eligibility was the third
in SWM, studies were sourced from international digital libraries including Scopus, stage, where we
IEEE,
started by conducting an abstract review, in which abstracts were reviewed
Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The search was initiated using keywords such as and assessed
to decideWaste
“Solid whether the publication
Management” AND fit “Optimization”
within the scopeAND of the“models”
literature OR
review. Based on
“techniques”
that, papers that did not fit the scope of the review were excluded. If the
within the “Article Title, Abstract, Keywords“ search field. A total of 22,676 articles abstract aligned
were
with
identified. Then, these articles were screened by considering articles in engineering and
the research scope, the full paper was then reviewed to highlight key points and
contributions and towritten
mathematics fields collectinadditional relevant
English during thepapers and references
last 13 years (2010–2023).using a snowball,
As such, a total
backward referencing
of 550 publications method
were fromand
retrieved thisthen
study’s bibliography.
visualized by VOSFinally, the fourth
Viewer_1.6.15 [18].stage
Figureof
PRISMA
2 shows 4wasmainthe synthesis
clusters, whereandthe
assessment
co-occurrenceof collected data. more
of keywords This was
thanaccomplished
5 times is shown.by
first classifying the articles gathered in accordance with the publication date
A total of 257 publications were found after article-screening using the search terms
and location,
which were regarded as the first stage in the data analysis procedure. Following that,
based on the relevancy of the title, keywords, and abstract via Covidence [19], which is an
the chosen papers were divided into four groups relative to the optimization procedure:
online tool for the better management of the systematic review. Upon detailed
exact models, approximate models, hybrid models, and IoT-based models. This approach
examination of these publications, 37 duplicate studies were identified and excluded due
was beneficial as it provided a general overview of optimization models employed in
to their similar content, despite having different titles. After carefully examining each
SWM, pinpointed critical features that future research should focus on when developing
publication, any articles found to be irrelevant to the research focus were excluded. Then,
the content of the 100 studies remaining were qualitatively evaluated, and the information
was extracted for synthesis. Regarding the geographical distribution of the publications
included in the synthesis, Table 1, created using VOS Viewer, displays the locations of the
studies, along with the number of citations each received.
these models, and outlined the limitations of the models currently in use. The next section
discusses the stages of PRISMA in detail.
2.2. Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteria

To address the research questions and review prior work on optimization techniques
in SWM, studies were sourced from international digital libraries including Scopus, IEEE,
Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The search was initiated using keywords such as “Solid
Waste Management” AND “Optimization” AND “models” OR “techniques” within the “Ar-
ticle Title, Abstract, Keywords” search field. A total of 22,676 articles were identified. Then,
these articles were screened by considering articles in engineering and mathematics fields
written in English during the last 13 years (2010–2023). As such, a total of 550 publications
were retrieved and then visualized by VOS Viewer_1.6.15 [18]. Figure 2 shows 4 main
clusters, where the co-occurrence of keywords more than 5 times is shown.
Figure2.
Figure Thekeyword
2.The keyword co-occurrence
co-occurrence network.
network.
A total of 257 publications were found after article-screening using the search terms
Table 1. Breakdown of studies by country.
based on the relevancy of the title, keywords, and abstract via Covidence [19], which is an
Country
online tool for the better managementNumber of Articles
of the systematic Citations
review. Upon detailed examination
of these publications,
China 37 duplicate studies were17 identified and excluded due284
to their similar
content, despite having
Australia different titles. After carefully
6 examining each publication,
279 any
articles found Iran
to be irrelevant to the research focus
8 were excluded. Then, the
210 content of
the 100 studies remaining were qualitatively evaluated, and the information was extracted
Spain 11 207
for synthesis. Regarding the geographical distribution of the publications included in the
United Kingdom 10 234
synthesis, Table 1, created using VOS Viewer, displays the locations of the studies, along
with the numberFrance
of citations each received. 6 110
USA 14
It can be observed that the lack of research on SWM within the Gulf region 252represents a
Brazil 5 99
significant research gap. Despite the rapid growth and urbanization of the countries in this
region, theSouth
attention
Korea given to effective waste management
5 systems has been
58 inadequate.
This oversightIndia
is particularly noteworthy due 7 to the importance of SWM 66 in ensuring
environmentalItalysustainability and public health.8 166
It can be observed that the lack of research on SWM within the Gulf region represents
a significant research gap. Despite the rapid growth and urbanization of the countries in
this region, the attention given to effective waste management systems has been
inadequate. This oversight is particularly noteworthy due to the importance of SWM in
ensuring environmental sustainability and public health.
Table 1. Breakdown of studies by country.
Country Number of Articles Citations

China 17 284
Australia 6 279
Iran 8 210
Spain 11 207
United Kingdom 10 234
France 6 110
USA 14 252
Brazil 5 99
South Korea 5 58
India 7 66
Italy 8 166
3. Results and Discussion

Based on the systematic review conducted, the definitions of SWM, optimization
models, and solution procedures considered in the literature are discussed in this section.
3.1. Solid Waste Management
Solid waste management is an integral component of urban planning, comprising
a variety of techniques for dealing with waste generated by human activities. Effective
waste management
solid waste managementprocedures strive
procedures to protect
strive public
to protect publichealth,
health,decrease
decreasepollution,
pollution, and
and
promote resource sustainability
promote resource sustainability [20].[20].
Several
Several countries,
countries, including
including the
the US,
US, China,
China, Canada,
Canada, Malaysia,
Malaysia, and
and the
the Philippines,
Philippines,
as well as Middle Eastern and many many European
European countries,
countries, have experienced increasing
waste generation, as shown in Figure 3 [2]. To better comprehend the issue and provide
appropriate disposaloptions
appropriate disposal options or this
or halt haltrise,
thisvarious
rise, governments
various governments
have startedhave started
conducting
conducting
simulations to predict waste amounts [21]. In different nations, there are differencesare
simulations to predict waste amounts [21]. In different nations, there in
differences
how waste isinmanaged
how waste andiswhere
managed and
it ends up.where
Thereitare
ends up. There
nations that arearemore
nations
awarethat
of are
the
more aware
value of theand
of recycling value of recycling
employ technical and employ
and technical
legislative means and
to legislative meansGermany,
boost recycling. to boost
recycling. Germany,and
Holland, Denmark, Holland, Denmark,
Belgium, and Belgium,
for instance, for instance,
are highlighted in theare highlighted
recycling in the
of building
recycling
waste [22].of building waste [22].
800 714
700 661
Millions of Tonnes per year
602
600 516
466 490 468
500 440
369 392
400 342 334
269 290 289 296
300 255 231
177 174
200 129
100
0
North Africa and Caribben and Latin South Asia Pacific and East Asia
Middle East America
2016 2030 2050
Figure 3. Solid
Figure 3. Solid waste
waste generation
generation through
through years
years [2].
[2].
Solid waste
wastemanagement
management encompasses
encompasses several
several stages,
stages, beginning
beginning with genera-
with waste waste
generation, followed by collection, storage, transportation, treatment, and, ultimately,
tion, followed by collection, storage, transportation, treatment, and, ultimately, disposal, as
disposal,
depicted inas Figure
depicted in Figure 4 [23].
4 [23].
Figure 3. Solid waste generation through years [2].
Solid waste management encompasses several stages, beginning with waste

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6585 generation, followed by collection, storage, transportation, treatment, and, ultimately,
6 of 25
disposal, as depicted in Figure 4 [23].
Figure 4. Solid waste management cycle [9].

Figure 4. Solid waste management cycle [9].
For waste
For waste generation,
generation, optimization
optimization isis essential
essential to
to prevent,
prevent, or
or minimize,
minimize, the
the quantities
quantities
of generated waste and hazards correlated to waste generation [24]. Moreover,
of generated waste and hazards correlated to waste generation [24]. Moreover, Damamy Damamy [25]
indicated that in the waste collection stage, methodologies of collection differ
[25] indicated that in the waste collection stage, methodologies of collection differ depending on
the facilities, and thus, improving the process depends on many factors
depending on the facilities, and thus, improving the process depends on many factorssuch as collection
method,
such as levels withinmethod,
collection facilities,levels
and so within
on. For waste storage,
facilities, andincompatible
so on. Forwastewasteshould not
storage,
be mixed or brought into touch with one another during waste storage.
incompatible waste should not be mixed or brought into touch with one another during This also enables
the examination of containers to check for leaks or spills. Examples include allowing
enough space among incompatibles or using barriers like walls or containment curbs to
physically separate different waste types [23]. In addition, in the transportation stage, waste
should be transported both on-site and off-site to enable processing and avoid or minimize
spills, discharges, and exposures to workers and the public. Any waste containers intended
for shipping away from the site must be secured and labeled with their contents and any
potential risks [26]. The treatment of waste comes next, which can be achieved by recycling
and reusing waste. Recycling programs may be put in place, in addition to waste avoidance
techniques, to greatly reduce the overall quantity of waste [27].
Optimization techniques can be used to help ensure compliance with the SWM reg-
ulations that have been put forth by governments. Utilizing optimization algorithms, a
decision support system can be created. Several sorts of stakeholders, including public
managers, business owners, regulatory agencies, and environmental managers, are in-
volved in solid waste management. Certain environmental issues must be resolved quickly,
as several stakeholders may need the processing of a sizable quantity of data, and the
offered solutions must be open and logical. Many procedures involved in solid waste
management might lead to issues with planning, control, logistics, and recycling. It in-
volves a multidisciplinary approach that integrates the three pillars of sustainability and
incorporates multi-criteria evaluations throughout every phase of its lifecycle. Research
is being conducted in several areas, including the forecasting of waste creation, container
transportation management, container collection system monitoring, and the construction
of new waste disposal facilities [28].
3.2. Optimization Techniques in SWM Based on the Model Type

Analysis of previous studies showed that there are many models used to optimize
different parameters of solid waste management through all phases of the process. This
section provides a comprehensive review of different models within the four main cate-
gories obtained from the analysis. Most of the previous studies indicated that mathematical
programs are useful tools for deciding on the optimal cost strategies for MSW manage-
ment problems. The following subsections discuss different models used for optimization
purposes in different stages of the SWM process.
3.2.1. Exact Models

Exact models or deterministic models are the most used mathematical models in
SWM [29]. Such models can determine an exact optimum solution for a mathematical
program. Linear programming (LP), pure and mixed integer programming, multi-objective
programming, and dynamic programming are some of the methods used for deterministic
models. More details on each type of these mathematical formulations are presented below.
A. Linear Programming in SWM
In convex optimization, the point of local optimality is the same as the point of
global optimality, encompassing linear optimization models as a particular instance [30].
Contrarily, general non-linear optimization concentrates on techniques for identifying local
optimum solutions. When solving generic non-linear models, there is always the possibility
that the solution reached may not be the global optimum. It follows that a tendency towards
LP models in SWM investigations is unavoidable [31]. Thus, several studies that considered
solid waste management proposed an LP model that deals with different processes or stages
in SWM [32]. In an LP formulation, the goal is to either minimize or maximize a linear
objective function, constrained by linear inequalities and equalities [33]. Many of the current
linear models used in SWM are designed as mixed integer-linear programming (MILP)
models with a single objective function. These models often include assumptions that
restrict their applicability to municipalities and countries [34–36]. Other researchers [37,38]
have developed multi-objective mathematical models. One study [39] suggested a MIL
model for the optimization of waste vehicles routing problems, where the weighted sum of
the fleet size was modeled as the objective function to find the minimum operational cost.
Another study [40] argued that the efficiency of waste collection depends on pins location;
thus, a MILP model for bin allocation was developed. Moreover, Yang et al. [41] proposed
a dual linear fractional (LF) model to support urban–rural SWM in Xiaman, China. The
developed model can maximize the system efficiency while minimizing the cost. Using this
model, the issue of congested landfill was resolved by determining the ideal waste flow for
each facility. Also, solutions were offered for waste allocation and the expansion of facility
capacity. Similarly, a MILP was developed to find the optimal location for Polyethylene
Terephthalate PET waste processing in Mexico, as it is considered to be the third largest
consumer of PET [42]. A multi-source, three-echelon location problem was recognized
involving the transfer of generated PET waste in five towns in Veracruz region, Mexico.
This waste is directed through a selected collection center to satisfy the requirements of
three demand points in the reuse market. This approach was implemented with the aim of
minimizing the network’s overall cost, which was established as the objective function.
Moreover, Munguía-López et al. [43] proposed a mathematical model aimed at opti-
mizing SWM by developing a circular value chain. This model was specifically tailored to
process various kinds of COVID-19 medical waste within a modernized industrial park
setting. The problem was formulated as a MILP to maximize revenues while reducing the
environmental effect by reducing untreated waste amount. New York City was the case
study to apply the proposed technique, where there has been a large rise in the output of
medical waste. The mathematical model consisted of 341 equations, 63 binary variables,
and 317 continuous variables. Varying tax rates were suggested based on the volume of
waste deposited in landfills to encourage recycling. The results were displayed on a Pareto
curve, illustrating the balance between profits and waste processing. The analysis showed
that taxation motivates recycling, including of materials that are not economically advanta-
geous to recycle, thus enhancing profits and reducing the environmental and health risks
related to medical waste.
Additionally, Shaban et al. [44] developed a MILP model for SWMS configuration
that combines waste producing sources, stations for collection/transfer, recycling facilities,
burners, and landfills. The suggested model was designed to estimate the number of the
various facilities and their optimal locations, as well as the best waste flow in the system, to
reduce the system’s daily cost. The objective function is subjected to 30 constraints to define
different decision variables and ensure the amount of generated waste equals the waste
collected and transferred along with other constraints. Fayoum Governorate, Egypt, was
selected as the case study to test and analyze the model. The primary contribution of this
study was the theoretical development of a MILP model intended for the optimal design
of SWMSs in developing nations, along with its operational implementation as demon-
strated in the SWMS of Fayoum Governorate, Egypt. A similar system was developed by
Xie et al. [45], where the research investigated the optimization of the SWM supply chain
(SWMSC), where it consists essentially of waste separation and waste transportation from
collection locations to transfer and treatment centers.
Šomplák et al. [46] established a MILP model to reduce the waste production amount,
ensure the highest recycled amount, and benefit from the residual waste for energy recovery.
Their approach incorporated both pricing and marketing principles into the MILP model,
considering the evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the minimization of
costs. Their goal was to create the optimum WM grid to symbolize a sustainable economy
with eco-friendly considerations. The suggested multi-objective model was used to facilitate
decision-making at the micro-regional stage in the Czech Republic as a case study in the
domain of waste treatment infrastructure design. The use of circular economy concepts,
considering the whole quantity of GHG produced, highlighted the existing promise in waste
prevention. Alternatively, there is a limited increase in recycling, landfills are not promoted,
and the recovery of energy is desired. However, the decision-maker is responsible for the
complex system’s planning. Another MILP model to find optimal the recycling process
for MSW was developed by Sadrnia et al. [47], where the objective function is to find
the minimum recycling process cost. On the other hand, Hao et al. [48] formed a multi-
objective model for site allocation to optimize the waste collection cost, environmental
impact, and GHG emissions. It was shown that including environmental impacts and GHG
emissions enabled an environmentally friendly model output. Ksia˛żek et al. [49] made
a significant contribution by formulating an optimization challenge aimed at equitably
distributing travel distances among the heterogeneous waste trucks within a fleet. The
problem is designed to meet the demands of Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM)
in Cracow, Poland, where the objective is to achieve a harmonized working time for
routes while minimizing the overall duration of the collection service. To address this, an
MIP was formulated to find optimum team schedules. The goal was to efficiently serve
the existing network of solid waste pickup points using a heterogeneous fleet, with the
added constraint that up to 30% of the fleet consisted of electric trucks. On the other
hand, Pouriani et al. [50] introduced an innovative MSWM network designed to minimize
diverse costs. A bi-level MILP model was obtained, with the lower level addressing the
costs of establishing collection centers and their location and the upper level focusing
on waste allocation across various centers. To address the inherent uncertainty in the
quantity of waste collected, a scenario-based optimization method was incorporated. The
efficacy of the suggested model was demonstrated through a case study conducted in
Babol, Iran. The findings reveal that the strategically selected collection centers are situated
in regions with minimal distance from their respective coverage areas, optimizing the flow
of waste/products.
Furthermore, Asefi et al. [51] focused on the exploration of an integrated framework
addressing the Mix Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) and fleet size with the overarching goal
of optimizing a cost-effective integrated SWMS. A pioneering bi-objective MILP model
was developed, aiming to simultaneously minimize transportation costs across the entire
network and the total difference from equitable capacity allocation to transfer centers.
The scope of their investigation encompassed an integrated solid waste management
(ISWM) system, including interdependent facilities and incorporating diverse technologies.
The problem was characterized by a heterogeneous fleet subject to waste compatibility
constraints and various technologies. This holistic approach contributes to the advancement
of optimal solutions for complex ISWM systems by considering various interdependencies
and constraints within the waste management landscape. The same authors [52] proposed
a MILP for optimizing a logistic network and transportation system for the ISWM system.
To tackle uncertainties in MSW ratios of generation, the study proposed a two-phase
stochastic optimization method. This approach efficiently supports a cost-effective ISWM
system for transportation by evaluating optimal fleet size, capacity allocation, and vehicle
routes. The same issue was considered by Wu et al. [53] in Tiwan, who proposed a MILP
model to enhance service provided for all residents. However, many constraints need to be
considered to improve accuracy of the problem formulation.
Moreover, Mohammadi et al. [54] proposed a MILP model for the efficient utilization
of MSW within a supply chain network. The approach focused on supply, production,
and distribution choices at the strategic and operational levels. Utilizing the best waste-
to-energy tools while taking capacity, environmental, and market demands into account,
it pursued the optimization of the yearly net profit. The suggested sustainable manage-
ment approach not only reduced the environmental impact but also efficiently delivered
solid waste throughout the system and turned it into power, therefore assisting in the
production of energy. This study was different from others as it focused on waste-to-energy
technologies to find the optimal sustainable MSW handling and processing method.
In summary, the fundamental distinction among the different linear and MILP models
for MSW optimization is the precise objectives that they aim to achieve. Some models
attempt to reduce costs, while others aim to reduce environmental consequences, increase
recycling rates, or fulfill specific waste diversion objectives. Also, the constraints can vary
significantly depending on the specific problem formulation, including waste collection
and transportation capacity, recycling facility capacities, landfill space limitations, and
environmental regulations. Linear and MILP models are very useful in MSW optimization
due to their ability to address various objective functions and constraints. However, their
complexity can be difficult, and the choice of specific model formulation must align with
the waste management organization’s goals and resources.
B. Integer Programming in SWM
The pure integer programming application in SWM is very limited as per the con-
ducted search and criteria followed in this paper. Integer programing (IP) is applied when
the decision variables are restricted to integers only [55]. A previous study [56] presented
a model to assist the MSW system’s decision-making process. The goal is to move from
a system based on a door-to-door approach to a waste bins system, which is anticipated
to lead to effective logistic expenses. This model tackles the issue of choosing the ideal
location of the waste bins for a specific city in Argentina. The objective is to find garbage
accumulation points (GAPs) while optimizing two distinct factors related to system costs.
The first requirement is to reduce overall investment costs, or the price of each individual
bin. Enhancing the GAPs’ “autonomy” is the second requirement. The autonomy of a
GAP is determined by how many days can pass between two collections (to empty the
bins) by the collection truck. This model was applied to actual scenarios that included
the collection of unsorted waste, which was the existing state in the city and could, thus,
be easily implemented. In addition, some scenarios included waste classified as dry and
humid, which could be introduced once the community was accustomed to using the
waste bins. The suggested attempt identified a set of possible results for all scenarios. Also,
Braier et al. [57] considered an IP to enhance the recycling garbage collection system in a
sizable town in Argentina. The produced solutions for the optimum route outperformed
the previous routes that were designed manually, with 100% of the municipality’s blocks
covered by the model solutions, as opposed to up to 16% with the manual routes.
A similar problem of selecting the sites for waste collections was introduced [58]. The
study proposed an IP model to help determine the placement of waste bins in a town
and the number of bins required at each location. The model aided in evaluating tactical
choices by imposing constraints, where each collection area is large enough to accommodate
the garbage that will be sent there, while also taking into consideration quality of service
restrictions from the perspective of the residents. Moreover, Gallo et al. [59] developed an IP
model to enhance the waste collection management system by finding the optimum location
of waste transfer stations. Another IP model was generated by Rambandara et al. [60] to
find the optimal route for the waste collection process. A similar study was conducted by
Zhang et al. [61], who proposed a robust model to address the complexities of the multi-trip
transportation and collection of MSW in an uncertain environment. Residents’ satisfaction
is quantified as a penalty charge relative to time window constraints. A case study was
conducted using real-world data from MWS transportation and collection in the District
of Beijing, China. The CPLEX program was used to validate the solution. Additionally, a
sensitivity analysis on the related parameters was conducted, exploring the effect of work
hour limits and time windows on the service levels and the total costs.
In general, the application of linear and integer programming techniques is a typical
trait of optimization models for SWM. Most models rely on a streamlined mass flow
modeling method that focuses solely on the waste stream fluxes, like residual waste, rather
than the waste materials themselves. Therefore, models are unable to consider temporal and
regional variations, as well as changes in the streams’ compositions following treatment,
which have a significant effect on the economic and environmental performance of the
SWM system. Therefore, non-linear programming models are necessary to account for the
waste streams’ diverse, variable, and varied nature. The following section discusses the
non-linear programming optimization models developed for SWM.
C. Non-linear Programming in SWM
Non-linear programming (NLP) techniques can be utilized to optimize waste disposal
costs and resource utilization in SWM problems, as SWM systems involve multiple non-
linear objectives, constraints, and decision variables [62]. Some examples of non-linear
relationships in SWM include the relationship between waste generation rates and economic
growth, the relationship between waste disposal costs and distance to landfills, and the
relationship between recycling rates and the availability of recycling facilities.
For example, Araya-Córdova et al. [63] identified the optimum combination of two choices
for allocating current resources to meet the challenge of optimal resource allocation for
recycling system adoption by municipalities in rural and urban regions of a developing
country. After comprehensive data collection, a non-linear optimization model was devel-
oped to propose a recycling policy based on the combination of two choices, increasing
and reallocating existing MSWM resources, which maximizes the average value of the
probability of municipalities adopting a recycling program.
Another non-linear model was introduced by Roberts et al. [64]: the model utilizes an
evaluation of both environmental and economic impacts associated with the treatment of
produced waste at existing facilities. These impacts are determined using a series of lifecycle
process models, which employ non-linear equations tailored to each type of waste material
and treatment method. It was concluded that the willingness of a waste producer to engage
in recycling, composting, and other waste treatment procedures has a substantial impact on
various waste collection and treatment processes. The degree of waste flow contamination
is affected by the producer’s behavior; this is likely to differ regionally, chronologically,
and demographically. Due to the heterogeneity of the waste flows and their dynamic and
different compositions, non-linear models are necessary for each procedure and material.
This creates non-linear restrictions, considerably increasing the model’s complexity.
Moreover, Zhao et al. [65] presented a mathematical programming model to address
MSWM. The model was designed as a mixed integer non-linear programming (MINLP)
model for scenarios involving variable capacities at treatment facilities and as a mixed
integer linear programming (MILP) model for situations with fixed treatment plant capac-
ities. The study considered different scenarios: the lowest cost with/without adjustable
capacities, the lowest carbon emissions with/without adjustable capacities, and the highest
carbon emissions with/without adjustable capacities. The findings summarized the cost
and carbon emission for the different scenarios. These findings aided decision-makers in
developing effective MSW management policies. The study presents an efficient strategy
for managing MSW in other developing nations.
Another utilization of non-linear representation was studied by Nevrlý et al. [62]. The
study examined the link between GHG emissions and the treatment cost of MW, as well as
the environmental effect of different handling strategies. To maximize future MW treatment
solutions across a vast geographic region, an MINLP model was formulated. The use of
a non-linear model was justified based on the non-linearity of waste treatment costs and
incentives related to reduced GHG emissions. The Czech Republic was selected as the case
study, and the obtained outcomes suggest a promising reduction in the emissions of GHGs
by approximately 150% and an increase in waste treatment costs of only approximately
2.5 EUR/ton.
Additionally, Rizwan et al. [66] created an MINLP model to find the optimum MSW
processing routes while considering two different MSW management scenarios. The MINLP
was converted into its corresponding MILP form for simplicity of its solution. The op-
timization problem solution offered the best method for creating usable products from
municipal solid waste, guided by the specified economic objective function. The created
methodology was employed in a case study in Abu Dhabi to determine the best route for
MSW’s conversion into value-added products and energy. The findings suggested that a
combined path that produces bioethanol from the remaining waste through gasification
and catalytic transformation, while recycling the MSW, has the potential to be economi-
cally advantageous. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how
important technical and economic parameters affect the optimization outcomes.
Also, Yadav et al. [67] discussed the problem of determining economically optimal
locations of an MSWM infrastructure unit such as waste transfer stations in India. The
heterogeneity data collection methods, measuring the distance on the road and strategically
allocating transfer stations, were considered when proposing the optimization model. Thus,
the study developed an MINLP as the model for searching for the best location option for
the waste transfer station. The constraints are the source of non-linearity in this model due
to the heterogeneity of the data collected. Furthermore, Rathore et al. [68] investigated the
viability of a circular economy approach in MSWM, considering economic, environmental,
and social aspects. The proposed concept involves converting collected organic MSW into
biogas, which is then utilized as a fuel in a thermal power plant, thus reducing dependence
on coal mining. An MINLP model was generated to minimize the total cost, comprising
functioning, transportation, hiring, environmental, social, and penalty costs. The model
was applied to different scenarios, revealing that the suggested system outperforms the
existing ones by effectively reducing the overall cost.
The strengths of these studies include advancements in optimization strategies and
dynamic system understanding. However, potential drawbacks may involve challenges
in practical implementation and the requirement for extensive data inputs, especially in
complex modeling scenarios.
D. Dynamic Models in SWM
Dynamic modeling is usually utilized to explain and forecast how different parts of
any system will interact over time [69]. In SWM, it has been shown that in comparison
to a static policy with defined collecting and hauling lengths, there are dynamic rout-
ing and scheduling strategies that have minimal operational costs. Thus, many waste
collection firms use routes and scheduled pick-up times and dynamic optimization of
waste collection [70]. Another application of dynamic models was utilized [71], where
a dynamic MIP model was generated to find the optimal planning of SWMSs, with the
waste being collected from different cities and transported to different processing sites.
The results showed that waste disposal and collection costs depend on time. Accordingly,
the cost resulting from the dynamic model was less than the cost calculated when using
non-dynamic models.
3.2.2. Approximate Models

According to Cheng et al. [72], fuzzy mathematical programming (FMP), interval linear
programming (ILP), stochastic mathematical programming (SMP), and grey system theory
are methods used in approximate models of SWM. The approximate models included in
this systematic review are discussed in the following subsections.
A. Stochastic programming models in SWM
Due to the complexity of and interactions in SWMSs, certain system characteris-
tics should be treated as random variables for greater accuracy. Thus, these systems
must be modeled stochastically using data analysis and human judgment. Consequently,
many approximate optimization models have been created to address SWM issues under
uncertainty [73]. One model is the stochastic chance-constrained programming (SCCP)
model [74], which was developed to deal with bi-random variables. It was applied in SWM,
where a model for optimizing the SWM systems under uncertainties was developed [75].
Similarly, a stochastic MILP (SMILP) model with two stages was produced to determine
the optimum annual cost, material distribution, waste treatment technology, and capacity
of treatment facilities in a MWS supply chain system [76]. The model used an L-shaped
decomposition algorithm to find the solution as it is commonly used in two-stage stochastic
problems. Another application of the SCCP model was introduced by Zaeimi et al. [77],
who developed a model where the constraints considered parameters’ uncertainty. The
suggested model is a MILP for the minimization of the total cost and pollution for a waste
collection process. The findings showed that minimizing uncertainties led to significant
reductions in cost. Moreover, Gambella et al. [78] produced a stochastic model for optimal
SWMS processes. The effects on the solution due to stochastic waste production have
been studied, and the model demonstrated the advantages of the stochastic approach
over the deterministic approach, which can result in an inaccurate decision plan. Also,
Xiong et al. [79] suggested a multi-phase stochastic LP model to optimize the probability
of each waste-to -energy facility meeting its financial objective while considering the envi-
ronmental constraints in a city in Singapore. The model obtained the optimal balance of
different treatment procedures that is more practical than existing ones.
While these studies share the common goal of optimizing waste management under
uncertainty, differences arise in their geographical foci, specific waste types, and modeling
approaches. Strengths lie in their contributions to advanced optimization methodologies
tailored to diverse waste management scenarios. The drawbacks may include potential
challenges in practical implementation, data availability, and the complexity of stochastic
modeling, highlighting the need for the careful consideration of regional variations in waste
management practices.
B. Fuzzy programming Models in SWM
Another representation of uncertainties in SWM is fuzzy programming models, especially
in environment management systems. One application was presented by Wang et al. [80],
who developed a stochastic fuzzy programming model to manage a long-term SWM
system. This study concluded that the proposed model improved the solution as it dealt
with highly uncertain constraints. Also, Huang et al. [81] presented a stochastic–fuzzy
quadratic programming (SFQP) model to find the optimum MSWM policy. This model
was selected because of the complexities within the system under study, including system
components dynamic variation, uncertainties in SWM facilities, rates of waste generation
fuzziness, policy examination for allocating waste streams, economic and environmental
objectives, and demands for waste diversion. The solutions devised helped to generate
multiple environmental and economic policies. Also, Govindan et al. [82] produced a
bi-objective MILP model for handling medical waste generated during the COVID-19
pandemic. The suggested approach effectively reduces both the overall expenses and the
hazards associated with the public’s contact with pollution. The model was solved using a
fuzzy goal programming approach; then, the effectiveness of the model and its solution
strategy were assessed using data from 13 medical waste generation points in a region
west of Tehran, Iran. In a related context, a linear programming model was considered to
discover the most secure and fastest routes for the trucks during the pandemic [83]. The
model was tested by Istanbul’s health facilities and was applied to a specific area, where
recommendations for routes for medical waste vehicles have been based on the results.
This model has a very adaptable structure, allowing its adoption in a variety of locations
and sectors.
Moreover, Srivastava et al. [84] focused on choosing the optimal treatment and dis-
posal centers, capacity planning, and allocating trash while considering uncertainty in
long-term SWM planning. The proposed non-linear model was designed as a multi-period,
multi-objective system for integrated SWM planning. The model dynamically assigns waste
to facilities while considering the capacity of handling facilities and the quantity of waste.
Additionally, the model addresses uncertainties in both the volume of waste generated
and the operational capabilities of treatment facilities by incorporating fuzzification. It was
discovered in the study that variations in waste quantities impact the planning of waste
treatment and disposal facilities more significantly than uncertainties in their capacities. It
was concluded that the link between rising waste volume and rising waste management
costs and risks is non-linear. Therefore, even slight fluctuations in waste quantities can
significantly raise the overall costs or associated risks. The results of the research can
be used to comprehend how changes in the priorities and goals of planning decisions
affect the choice of facilities and waste diversion. Similarly, Guo et al. [85] incorporated
fuzzification into the constraints, creating an inexact stochastic–fuzzy quadratic program-
ming (IFSQP) model to efficiently allocate waste to available facilities within a non-linear
framework. Their objective was to achieve optimal waste flow throughout the course of
the whole planning scope to reduce the overall estimated system cost. The constraints
included all connections among decision variables, waste generation rates, waste diversion
goals, and the capacities of waste management facilities. The findings showed that in
many scenarios, reasonable solutions were achieved, and the proposed method stands out
when compared to other techniques that deal with uncertainties due to its unique special
characteristics. However, Srivastava et al. [84] emphasized the importance of considering a
broader spectrum of uncertainties.
Furthermore, Chang et al. [86] presented a fuzzy multi-objective LP model to identify an
optimal compromise strategy for MSWM. The objective was to find the minimum operating
costs and air pollutant emissions. In contrast to previous research that primarily focused on
either economic optimization or environmental impacts, this approach considered both as-
pects. The findings show that the best balance of a MSWM strategy not only generates a net
profit but also aids in decreasing emissions of air pollutants. Moreover, scenario analyses
of recyclable rates highlight the dual benefits of resource recycling, positively impacting
both economic optimization and the minimization of air pollutant emissions.
The studies and applications outlined offer a comprehensive overview of the diverse
and sophisticated use of fuzzy programming models in SWM. Fuzzy programming models
significantly enhance SWM by adeptly navigating uncertainties in environmental systems.
They optimize waste management strategies, balancing economic and environmental
goals, and facilitate adaptable solutions across various scenarios. These models prove
crucial for efficient, sustainable waste management and policy development amid complex,
uncertain conditions.
3.2.3. Hybrid Models in SWM

A substantial increase in interest in hybrid models has been witnessed in recent years.
These models combine the advantages of several distinct approaches to produce effective
solutions to optimization problems [87]. The combination of genetic algorithms with deter-
ministic models represents one of the well-known hybrid genetic algorithm models that
is currently used by researchers to optimize SWM. Genetic algorithms (GAs) are defined
as optimization approaches that mimic the process of natural development [88]. They are
stochastic algorithms designed to simulate specific natural processes and are considered
one of the exhaustive search approaches in artificial intelligence [89]. One use of hybrid
models was proposed by Moazzeni et al. [90], where a dynamic model for electric waste
collection vehicles was developed to find the optimal collection vehicle route plan and
choose the best sites for waste collection facilities and charging stations. The study also
used GA to generate a solution to the problem. Another study [87] generated a stochastic
chance-constrained programming (SCCP) model to investigate two sub-models. The first
sub-model routes the fleet among waste-generating and -separating facilities using the VRP,
and the second sub-model considered resources’ distribution from separation centers to
collection or landfill centers. The goal is to enhance operational efficiency by accounting
for the unpredictable factors in the output of separation facilities and the recovery value of
each bin. The proposed model aims to maximize recycled income while reducing overall
transportation costs. Another interesting study developed a MILP model to optimize the
operational cost and CO2 emissions for the waste collection process from generation source
to separation centers. The optimal solution was generated using metaheuristic algorithms
and various new heuristics [91]. The performances of the suggested algorithms were as-
sessed to rank them according to the relative percentage deviation and the relative deviation
index. The analysis discussed the Social Engineering Optimizer (SEO), which is a newly
established metaheuristic algorithm, and the simulated annealing (SA) algorithm, which is
usually used with VRP to resolve complex optimization problems based on the similarity
between the physical behavior of metal annealing and an optimization problem [92]. An-
other study [93] developed a MILP model to optimize the waste collection process. To find
the optimum cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution, the research used one
metaheuristic algorithm that consists of an adaptive variable neighborhood search method
(AVNS) and construction heuristic. The results showed that ANVS is a highly effective
algorithm for electric waste collection problems. Moreover, Tirkolaee et al. [94] presented a
novel MILP model to optimize the fixed/variable costs and GHG emissions for the MSW
collection, transportation, and disposal system. To effectively identify the solution, the
study utilized a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm that integrated a multi-objective invasive
weed optimization algorithm (MOIWOA) and a multi-objective simulated annealing al-
gorithm (MOSA). In the mechanism of MOIWOA, the initial population is a set of weeds,
which first locate ideal farmlands to settle on, and only then do they start new colonies.
Utilizing this behavior allows the process to tackle optimization problems. The hybrid
MOSA-MOIWOA algorithm outperformed classical metaheuristic algorithms.
Moreover, the farthest-candidate heuristic (FCH) method was applied to determine
the optimal solution for the non-linear MIP model proposed for the multi-objective SW
collection problem [86]. The solution process used CPLEX to evaluate the heuristic results
and the comparison confirmed the efficiency of the heuristic method. The FCH is based on
the sampling theory and best-candidate sampling technique, where all boundary points are
first identified and then the candidate solution closest to the newly chosen point is chosen
for each new candidate solution [95]. Also, Rossit et al. [96] generated a MILP model to
optimize waste bin locations. The solution algorithm utilized PageRank algorithm-based
heuristics to find the near-optimal solution, where the problem is defined over a weighted
network using the PageRank algorithm. In such networks, the peaks represent potential
sites, and the connections indicate the importance or weight of each linked vertex. The
vertices are then represented by a vector using a function that sorts them according to the
importance of each vertex in the entire system. The entire system is then configured by
iterating through the vector of sorted vertex data using a constructive heuristic method.
It showed an exceptional performance compared to other heuristics. Mirdar et al. [97]
presented a sophisticated multi-phase MILP model crafted to enhance the efficiency of
a Sustainable and Integrated Recycling and Disposal Network (SIRDN) for MSW. The
model uniquely integrates environmental, economic, and social considerations, thereby
comprehensively addressing the spectrum of sustainability. The primary objective of
optimization lies in maximizing profit. Another study [98] investigated an innovative
heuristic procedure, incorporating both an IP model and ant colony optimization (ACO) to
formulate an optimal two-shift collection plan that incorporates Resilience, Accessibility,
and Connectivity (RAC) factors. The model was designed to identify strategically located
collection points during each shift, emphasizing proximity considerations. Subsequently,
the ACO algorithm was employed to delineate the most efficient plan of routing for each
shift, considering the dynamic interplay of RAC factors. Through the consideration of
a case study focused on a Taiwanese city, the results established the proposed collection
plans in comparison to existing ones, as evaluated based on both proximity metrics and
collection distance.
From the discussed research on hybrid models, it can be concluded that hybrid models
have revolutionized SWM by blending genetic algorithms with deterministic and other
optimization techniques, leading to more efficient, adaptable solutions for complex SWM
challenges. These models excel in routing optimization, cost reduction, and enhancing
recycling processes, demonstrating superior performance over traditional methods. By
employing metaheuristic algorithms and innovative heuristics, such as the Social Engineer-
ing Optimizer and adaptive variable neighborhood search, hybrid models offer practical,
environmentally sustainable solutions, underscoring their significance in advancing SWM
towards sustainability.
3.2.4. IoT in Solid Waste Management

According to Marques et al. [99], a stunning modern technology identified as the
internet of things (IoT) offers potent ways to update outdated systems. IoT technologies
can play a significant role in SWM by improving the efficiency of waste collection, reducing
waste overflow, and promoting sustainable waste disposal practices. IoT-enabled smart bins
detect when they are full and alert the waste management team to collect the garbage. These
smart bins can also provide real-time data on the level of waste inside them, which can help
the waste management team plan collection schedules more efficiently. One study [100]
developed a model for routing and allocation using IoT-based smart bins. The model used
a combination of an ant colony optimization method (VNS- ACO) and intelligent variable
neighborhood search, along with a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm, to find the problem
solution. The performance of the proposed hybrid approach surpassed classical algorithms.
Another IoT application in SWM was introduced by Pal et al. [101]. The application utilized
the citywide placement of the IoT-enabled bins to provide input data and monitor the
volume of garbage in each bin. To minimize SWM’s total cost, the suggested system
offers an efficient route for the collection trucks and recommends the capacity of the
collection vehicles according to the geographical location. Additionally, the proposed
approach enhances smart SWM’s performance by extending the lifespans of IoT devices.
Also, Mishra et al. [102] utilized IoT-based bins to optimize the resources needed for the
waste collection process. The novel cost-function-based route optimization technique was
concluded to be quite efficient in vehicle route problems.
IoT technology integration in SWM has been transformative, significantly enhancing the
sustainability and efficiency of waste collection and disposal practices. IoT-enabled smart bins,
capable of signaling their fill level, enable precise and timely waste collection, thereby reducing
overflow incidents and optimizing collection routes. Studies employing IoT-based models
for smart bin allocation and routing have shown that hybrid metaheuristic algorithms, like
the combination of variable neighborhood search with ant colony optimization, outperform
traditional algorithms. This innovative approach enhances the waste collection process while
also promoting the cost-efficiency and environmental sustainability of SWM.
3.3. Optimization Techniques Based on SWM Processes

This section discusses the optimization techniques based on SWM processes: waste
collection and transportation, waste processing and recycling, and those used in integrated
SWM supply chain processes. Tables 2–6 summarize some of the optimization models in
the different stages.
The main findings from the reviews of various SWM models in the collection stage
include strategies to minimize waste collection costs, optimize bin allocation, and select the
best locations for collection centers (Table 2). The review spans exact models (MIP, IP, NLP),
approximate models (SCCP), and hybrid models combining genetic algorithms (GA) with
other approaches, highlighting innovations like the use of IoT for smart bin allocation and
the PageRank algorithm for fast solution generation. Key limitations and future research
opportunities identified include the need to consider more complex scenarios, uncertainties
in demand, and the effects of different types of collection vehicles and waste. Moreover,
the potential for using fuzzy programming, robust optimization, and dynamic modeling
to enhance these models is noted, alongside the importance of considering social and
environmental impacts, such as GHG emissions.
Table 2. Optimization models in SWM—the collection stage.
Limitations and
Model
Model Main Contribution Future Research Ref.
Category
Opportunities
A model that effectively
minimizes the cost of [39]
waste collection
A model for optimum More complex cases need to [34,36,40]
bin allocation be considered
A model to find an optimum
MILP collection time for a [35]
heterogeneous fleet
A model to select optimum Random demand must
[42]
location for collection center be considered
Exact Models
To find the optimal crew Add more types of collection
schedule using a vehicles to investigate their [49]
heterogeneous fleet effects on the model
A model to optimize the waste More complex cases need to
[50,56,57,59,61]
collection cost be considered
IP
Consider changing filling rate
[58]
of the waste bins
A model to select optimum
location for collection center Select an appropriate
NLP algorithm to solve and [67]
consider uncertainties
A bi-objective model Fuzzy programming and
Approximate Models SCCP that considered robust optimization need to [77]
parameters’ uncertainties be investigated
A model to find optimal routes Environmental and social
GA + SCCP from generation to facets of GHG emission need [103]
separation facilities to be considered in the model
A model to locate the charging Results can be duplicated for
GA + Dynamic model stations with and other countries and different [90]
routing vehicles MSW systems
A model where different
Heuristics/Metaheuristic Introduce dynamic modeling
heuristic and metaheuristic [91]
+ MILP to the problem
algorithms are used
A model generated by Using
Results can be duplicated for
an electrical fleet to reduce
AVNS + MILP other countries and different [93]
Hybrid Models transportation costs and
MSW systems
CO2 emissions
Many assumptions were made
A model that concludes that
to simplify the model,
ACO + IP the ACO is efficient in routing [98]
allowing more complex cases
problems
to be considered
A model based on smart bin
allocation by IoT and vehicle To consider different type
IoT + (VNS-ACO) [100]
routing, using an intelligent of wastes
hybrid VNS-ACO algorithm
PageRank A model solved fast due to the Investigate more
[96]
algorithm + MILP use of the PageRank algorithm heuristic algorithms
Table 3. Optimization Models in SWM—the transportation stage.
Limitations and Future

Model Category Model Main Contribution Ref.
Research Opportunities
A model to find the best location for a Many assumptions were made to
MILP transfer center with optimum cost and simplify the model; stochastic [1]
GHS emissions MSW rates can be used
A model to find the best location in Many assumptions were made to
terms of economics correlates with the simplify the model to allow more [59]
Exact Models
IP place with the lowest CO2 emissions complex cases to be considered
A model to optimize routes to reduces Use an efficient algorithm to solve
[60]
the collection and transport costs larger-scale collection problems
A model to find optimum fleet size and
MILP Many assumptions were made to [52]
vehicle routes
simplify the model to allow more
Approximate A model to find optimum route for complex cases to be considered
FLP [83]
Models medical waste vehicles
MILP + modified A model to find the optimum route Heuristic algorithms can be used
[102]
Dijkstra’s algorithm and optimum cost to find a better solution
Hybrid
Models Environmental and social
A model to find optimal resources
GA+SCCP attributes of GHG emissions need [103]
from separation to processing facilities
to be considered in the model
Table 4. Optimization Models in SWM—the processing stage.

Many assumptions were made to
A model to optimize the processing
LP simplify the model to allow more [4]
protocol used and processing cost
complex cases to be considered
Many factors such as
A model to find the optimal number of environmental and real-time waste
IP and MILP [32]
processing facilities generation rates could
be considered
A model to find the optimal waste flow Many assumptions were made to
LF [41]
rate in processing facilities simplify the model to allow more
A model to link the GHG emissions to complex cases to be considered
Exact Models MINLP [62]
the waste treatment cost
A model to find the optimum economic Many assumptions were made for
NLP and environmental performance based the financial part that need to [64]
on life cycle analysis be improved
A model considering four scenarios
Social impacts of different waste
between minimum cost and carbon
MILP + MINLP treatment technologies could [65]
emissions along with constant and
be considered
variable capacity
A model to find optimum waste
MINLP Must add the whole supply chain [66]
processing pathways
A model to locate the waste collection Uncertainties in waste amount
FLP [84]
Approximate and processing facilities must be considered
Models A model to optimally allocate waste Environmental impact to be added
IFSQP [85]
for processing facilities as a constraint
The key findings in transportation within SWM processes focus on optimizing routes
and locations to minimize both economic costs and CO2 emissions (Table 3). Exact models,
like IP, have highlighted a correlation between the economically optimal locations and
the lowest CO2 emissions, yet many assumptions simplify these models. Approaches to
finding the optimal paths for reducing collection and transport costs call for more efficient
algorithms to tackle larger-scale problems. Approximate models, such as FLP, have been ap-
plied to medical waste vehicles, identifying optimal routing under simplified assumptions.
Hybrid models, like GA + SCCP, aim to optimize resource allocation from separation to
processing facilities, underscoring the need to integrate social and environmental considera-
tions, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, into the modeling process. These studies point
to significant opportunities for advancing SWM transportation models by incorporating
more complex cases and considering broader environmental impacts.
The key findings from research on processing in SWM processes highlight the devel-
opment of models to balance economic costs with environmental impacts, particularly
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Table 4). Models such as MINLP and NLP focus on
linking GHG emissions to waste treatment costs and optimizing performance based on
life cycle analysis, respectively, yet both acknowledge simplifications due to assumptions.
MILP + MINLP models explore scenarios to balance costs and emissions, suggesting further
investigation into the social impacts of waste treatment technologies. Additionally, models
are proposed to optimize waste processing pathways and facility locations, with future
research opportunities including the need to consider uncertainties in waste amounts, the
entire supply chain, and the environmental impacts more comprehensively. These findings
point towards an integrated approach that weighs economic, environmental, and social
factors in SWM processing strategies.
The key findings in the recycling segment of SWM processes underscore the advance-
ment of models designed to optimize the allocation of resources, materials, and logistics
within recycling operations (Table 5). These models, ranging from dynamic models to
various forms of mathematical programming such as MILP, NLP, and MINLP, facilitate the
analysis of different materials, the usage of collection trucks, and the management of bin
counts. They contribute significantly towards exploring the viability of a circular economy
by considering economic, environmental, and social perspectives. Despite these advance-
ments, a common limitation across these models is the reliance on simplifying assumptions
to manage complexity, indicating a clear avenue for future research to incorporate more
detailed and complex cases. This highlights an ongoing need to refine these models to
better handle the intricate realities of recycling processes.
Table 5. Optimization Models in SWM—the recycling stage.

More scenarios need to be
A model that optimizes end-of-life
MILP investigated to help with [22]
costs and material recovery
generalizing the results
A model that enables the consideration
More complex cases need
Dynamic model of various materials, collection trucks, [70]
be considered
and bin counts
A multi-level, multi-product
MILP simplify the model to allow more [30,46,47]
(MILP) model
complex cases to be considered
A model to find optimum
Exact Models [63]
resource allocation
NLP
A model to find maximum profit for To simplify the model, many [104]
recyclable waste assumptions were made to
A model to explore the viability of the allow more complex cases to
circular economy in managing MSW be considered
MINLP [68]
from economic, environmental, and
social perspectives
To simplify the model, many
assumptions were made, to
LFP A flexible and naturally generic model [40]
allow more complex cases to
be considered
Table 6. Optimization models in SWM—all processes.

A model to optimize socioeconomic and
[29]
environmental considerations
LP A model to minimize the total cost of SWM Many assumptions were used to simplify [105]
the model, so uncertainties in each stage
A model to minimize the environmental
must be considered [106]
impact of SWM
A multi-objective model to optimize the cost
[37]
and risk objectives
A model to find maximum profits and
A stochastic model can be beneficial for
minimize environmental effects of COVID-19 [43]
the analysis
related waste
A model to find optimal locations for the Capacity variation in the different
[44]
different facilities facilities needs to be considered
Uncertainty challenge of seasonal
[45]
MSW supply
A model that considers the most
Environmental and social aspects of
cost-effective approach involves strategically
Exact Models GHG emissions need to be considered in [51]
placing sites for collection and transfer
the model
MILP centers at optimal locations
The model considers different types of
[53]
SW and collection vehicles
A model that incorporates sustainability into
Extend the model to accommodate
the objective function to enhance recycling [97]
uncertainties by introducing stochastic
profits is considered
A multi-objective model to the find
maximum net profit while minimizing Different scenarios need to be considered [54]
environmental effects
A multi-objective model to optimize the
Consider long-term decisions
balance between the cost and environmental [48]
and multi-periods
impacts of GHG emissions
A model to find the minimum costs of waste
MINLP simplify the model to allow uncertainties [31]
collection, recycling, and disposal facilities
of all stages to be considered
A dynamic model that considers SWMSs’ Uncertainties of waste generation need to
Dynamic MILP [71]
cost dependance in terms of time be considered
A model to find the optimum GHG emissions
SP simplify the model to allow all types of [3]
and social cost of a carbon footprint
waste to be considered
A unique multi-objective model to optimize Many assumptions were made to
FLP the economic–environment–energy in simplify the model to allow more [38,82,86]
SWMSs complex cases to be considered
A stochastic model that considers bi-random
SECCP Need to tackle more complex scenarios [75]
variables that enriched the solution
Promising as it can provide higher
A model dealing with the interactions
FSLP convenience to decision-makers than the [80]
Approximate between dual levels and high uncertainty
existing models
Models
A model to find the optimum annual cost,
optimum material distribution, optimal
SMILP Considers multi-period MILP models [76]
waste treatment technology, and optimal
capacity of treatment facilities
A model allowed dual uncertainty to be The generated method can be used for
SFQP [81]
represented as probability other types of resource management
Consider multistage
Stochastic and deterministic models
SP stochastic formulation with [78,79]
were compared
parameters uncertainties
MILP+ MOSA- A model confirmed that the performance of
Hybrid Models MOIWOA the MOSA-MOIWOA algorithm Need to tackle more complex scenarios [94]
algorithm outperformed classical metaheuristics
Across the spectrum of SWM processes, a significant focus has been placed on devel-
oping models to enhance efficiency, sustainability, and profitability (Table 6). The MILP
models stand out for their contributions towards maximizing profits and minimizing envi-
ronmental impacts, including those related to COVID-19 waste. Challenges include the
need for stochastic models to better address uncertainties in waste volume and facility
capacity. Furthermore, multi-objective models aim to balance cost, greenhouse gas emis-
sions, and environmental impact, suggesting a move towards more dynamic and adaptive
strategies. Approximate and hybrid models, employing novel approaches and algorithms
like MOSA-MOIWOA, show promise in refining SWM by considering economic, environ-
mental, and energy factors. The research collectively indicates a pressing need to embrace
complex scenarios, long-term planning, and the integration of uncertainties into SWM
modeling to drive future innovations.
4. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Research Directions

The systematic review conducted on optimization models and techniques in SWM has
provided valuable perceptions into the state of the field and its potential for improving the
efficiency and sustainability of waste management systems. The review identified a wide
range of optimization approaches employed in different phases of waste management,
including waste collection and transportation, waste treatment and disposal, and resource
recovery. Also, there is a lack of research on SWM within the Gulf region despite the rapid
growth and urbanization experienced by countries in this region. Serious efforts must
be made to focus on the topic due to the importance of SWM in ensuring environmental
sustainability and public health.
Overall, the findings suggest that optimization techniques have the potential to signif-
icantly enhance SWM practices by optimizing routes, schedules, and resource allocation,
thereby reducing costs, minimizing environmental impacts, and improving overall system
performance. The review revealed that mathematical modeling, operations research, and
artificial intelligence are among the most utilized tools in SWM optimization.
The practical implications of this work can be understood in several key areas. This
study highlights significant advances in optimizing waste collection routes and schedules,
leading to reduced fuel consumption, lower emissions, and cost savings for municipalities.
Optimizing the placement of waste bins minimizes the distance and time required for
collection, enhancing overall efficiency and service quality. In terms of waste treatment and
disposal, optimization techniques help to select appropriate landfill sites while considering
environmental impact, transportation costs, and local regulations, as well as optimizing
waste-to-energy conversion methods, providing sustainable energy sources, and reducing
reliance on fossil fuels. This study focuses on improving sorting and recycling operations,
boosting valuable material recovery rates, minimizing landfill trash, and promoting circular
economy concepts, all of which increase sustainability.
Moreover, implementing optimization techniques may result in considerable cost
savings across all parts of MSWM system, while also assisting with improved financial
planning and budgeting. Environmentally, optimizing waste management operations
minimizes the total environmental impact, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and
pollution, while also increasing public health and safety by minimizing hazardous waste
exposure and promoting cleanliness. This study offers useful insights for politicians and
waste management experts, enabling data-driven decisions and personalized responses to
unique geographical needs.
Despite the promising outcomes observed, this review also detected several chal-
lenges and constraints involved in the application of optimization techniques in solid waste
management. These include data availability and quality, stakeholder involvement, techno-
logical constraints, and the need for context-specific solutions. Focusing on these challenges
will be crucial for the effective implementation of optimization techniques in real-world
waste management scenarios. Therefore, use of IoT for data collection and categorization is
recommended to improve the quality of collected data and the formulation of the problem
as it can consider the heterogeneity of all solid waste flows. Also, greater use of dynamic
models must be considered in future research as it helps with assessing different scenarios
and strategies while considering the time dependency of variables, which guarantees more
realistic formulation of the problem. Moreover, one of the interesting realizations of this
systematic review is that there is limited focus on the waste generation stage, even though
it is the most significant stage in the whole process, and studying optimization techniques
that can be utilized to find optimum solutions to minimize waste generation such as greater
introduction of IoT that can classify the waste to different types can help researchers to find
patterns that can be helpful in the optimization process.
In conclusion, the systematic review highlights the significant potential of optimiza-
tion models and techniques in improving solid waste management systems. The findings
enhance the current knowledge base by offering an overview of the recent developments
in the field, identifying research gaps, and suggesting future directions. The review under-
scores the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations, evidence-based decision-making,
and the adoption of tailored approaches to address the complex challenges associated
with waste management. Policymakers, waste management practitioners, and researchers
can benefit from the insights provided in this systematic review to inform the design and
execution of sustainable strategies for waste management. Further research and innovation
in optimization techniques, coupled with effective stakeholder engagement, will be crucial
for advancing the field and achieving more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally
friendly waste management systems in the future.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16156585/s1, PRISMA 2020 Checklist.
Author Contributions: The manuscript was written through the contributions of all authors. R.A.
and A.A. were responsible for the conceptualization of the topic; article gathering and sorting were
carried out by R.A.; manuscript writing, and original drafting and formal analysis were carried out
by R.A.; manuscript reviewing and editing were carried out by R.A. and A.A. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the American University of Sharjah, which provided a
Graduate Teaching Assistantship (GTA) to the first author. This support was facilitated by the Office
of Research and Graduate Studies as part of the PhD Program in Engineering Systems Management.
The work in this paper was supported, in part, by the Open Access Program from the American
University of Sharjah. This paper represents the opinions of the authors and does not mean to
represent the position or opinions of the American University of Sharjah.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Mohsenizadeh, M.; Tural, M.K.; Kentel, E. Municipal solid waste management with cost minimization and emission control
objectives: A case study of Ankara. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101807. [CrossRef]
2. The World Bank. Available online: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/index.html (accessed on 5 April 2023).
3. Edalatpour, M.A.; Al-e-hashem, S.M.J.M.; Karimi, B.; Bahli, B. Investigation on a novel sustainable model for waste management
in megacities: A case study in tehran municipality. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 36, 286–301. [CrossRef]
4. Everett, J.W.; Modak, A.R. Optimal regional scheduling of solid waste systems. I: Model development. J. Environ. Eng. 1996,
122, 785–792. [CrossRef]
5. Brunner, P.H.; Rechberger, H. Waste to energy—Key element for sustainable waste management. Waste Manag. 2015, 37, 3–12.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Amasuomo, E.; Baird, J. The Concept of Waste and Waste Management. J. Manag. Sustain. 2016, 6, 88. [CrossRef]
7. Agarwal, R. Solid Waste and Their Management. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353659752
(accessed on 5 April 2023).
8. Vergara, S.E.; Tchobanoglous, G. Municipal Solid Waste and the Environment: A Global Perspective. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 2012,
37, 277–309. [CrossRef]
9. Demirbas, A. Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011,
52, 1280–1287. [CrossRef]
10. Shafigh, P.; Mahmud, H.B.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Zargar, M. Agricultural wastes as aggregate in concrete mixtures—A review. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2014, 53, 110–117. [CrossRef]
11. Kumaravel, G.; Ilankumaran, V. Effective Solid Waste Management: A Review of Optimization Techniques Evaluation of Wind
Dynamics on the Output Power of Variable Speed Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine View Project Automated Date Fruits Sorting
Machine View Project Effective Solid Waste Management: A Review of Optimization Techniques. 2021. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351525021 (accessed on 15 April 2023).
12. Malakahmad, A.; Khalil, N.D. Solid waste collection system in Ipoh city. In Proceedings of the ICBEIA 2011 International
Conference on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–7 June 2011; pp. 174–179.
[CrossRef]
13. Fan, X.; Zhu, M.; Zhang, X.; He, Q.; Rovetta, A. Solid waste collection optimization considering energy utilization for large
city area. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Logistics Systems and Intelligent Management, ICLSIM 2010,
Harbin, China, 9–10 January 2010; pp. 1905–1909. [CrossRef]
14. de Souza Melaré, A.V.; González, S.M.; Faceli, K.; Casadei, V. Technologies and Decision Support Systems to Aid Solid-Waste
Management: A Systematic Review; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [CrossRef]
15. Lame, G. Systematic literature reviews: An introduction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design,
ICED, Delft, The Netherlands, 5–8 August 2019; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 1633–1642. [CrossRef]
16. Staples, M.; Niazi, M. Systematic review of organizational motivations for adopting CMM-based SPI. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2008,
50, 605–620. [CrossRef]
17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated
guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [CrossRef]
18. Jan van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer: A Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Erasmus Res. Inst. Manag. (ERIM)
2009, 84, 523–538.
19. Covidence Systematic Review Software; Veritas Health Innovation: Melbourne, Australia, 2024.
20. Maity, S.K. Importance of Municipal Solid Waste Management. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 2018, 5, 361–363. [CrossRef]
21. Hannan, M.A.; Arebey, M.; Begum, R.A.; Basri, H. An automated solid waste bin level detection system using a gray level aura
matrix. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 2229–2238. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Banias, G.; Achillas, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Papaioannou, I. A web-based Decision Support System for the
optimal management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2497–2502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Mubaslat, A. Introduction to Waste Management. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356345257
(accessed on 10 April 2023).
24. Alves, J.W.S.; Gao, Q.; Guendehou, G.S.; Koch, M. Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data; IPCC: Brasilia, Brazil, 2006.
25. Damamy, H. Waste Collection Hazardous Waste Management View Project. 2014. Available online: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/269633089 (accessed on 10 April 2023).
26. Eisted, R.; Larsen, A.W.; Christensen, T.H. Collection, transfer and transport of waste: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global
warming contribution. Waste Manag. Res. 2009, 27, 738–745. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Farooqi, Z.U.R.; Kareem, A.; Rafi, F.; Ali, S. Solid waste, treatment technologies, and environmental sustainability: Solid wastes
and their sustainable management practices. In Handbook of Research on Waste Diversion and Minimization Technologies for the
Industrial Sector; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 35–57. [CrossRef]
28. Plata-Rocha, W.; Gómez-Delgado, M.; Bosque-Sendra, J. Simulating Urban Growth Scenarios Using GIS and Multicriteria Analysis
Techniques: A Case Study of the Madrid Region, Spain. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 1012–1031. [CrossRef]
29. Najm, M.A.; El-Fadel, M.; Ayoub, G.; El-Taha, M.; Al-Awar, F. An optimisation model for regional integrated solid waste
management I. Model formulation. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2002, 20, 37–45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Batur, M.E.; Cihan, A.; Korucu, M.K.; Bektaş, N.; Keskinler, B. A mixed integer linear programming model for long-term planning
of municipal solid waste management systems: Against restricted mass balances. Waste Manag. 2020, 105, 211–222. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
31. Chang, N.-B.; Chang, Y.-H.; Chen, Y.L. Cost-Effective and Equitable Workload Operation in Solid-Waste Management Systems.
J. Environ. Eng. 1997, 123, 178–190. [CrossRef]
32. Lee, C.K.M.; Yeung, C.L.; Xiong, Z.R.; Chung, S.H. A mathematical model for municipal solid waste management—A case study
in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2016, 58, 430–441. [CrossRef]
33. Dantzig, G.B.; Thapa, M.N. Linear Programming, 1: Introduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997.
34. Lv, J.; Dong, H.; Geng, Y.; Li, H. Optimization of recyclable MSW recycling network: A Chinese case of Shanghai. Waste Manag.
2020, 102, 763–772. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Korcyl, A.; Ksia˛żek, R.; Gdowska, K. Antoni korcyl. a milp model for route optimization problem in a municipal multi-landfill
waste collection system. In Proceedings of the Conference: International Conference on Industrial Logistics ICIL 2016, Zakopane,
Poland, 28 September–1 October 2016.
36. Cavallin, A.; Rossit, D.G.; Symonds, V.H.; Rossit, D.A.; Frutos, M. Application of a methodology to design a municipal waste
pre-collection network in real scenarios. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 117–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Yousefloo, A.; Babazadeh, R. Designing an integrated municipal solid waste management network: A case study. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 244, 118824. [CrossRef]
38. Liang, X.; Ji, L.; Xie, Y.; Huang, G. Economic-Environment-Energy (3E) objective-driven integrated municipal waste management
under deep complexities—A novel multi-objective approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 87. [CrossRef]
39. Aringhieri, R.; Bruglieri, M.; Malucelli, F.; Nonato, M. A special vehicle routing problem arising in the optimization of waste
disposal: A real case. Transp. Sci. 2018, 52, 277–279. [CrossRef]
40. Hemmelmayr, V.C.; Doerner, K.F.; Hartl, R.F.; Vigo, D. Models and Algorithms for the Integrated Planning of Bin Allocation and
Vehicle Routing in Solid Waste Management. Transp. Sci. 2014, 48, 103–120. [CrossRef]
41. Yang, A.; Chen, X.; Huang, G.; Zhao, S.; Lin, X.; McBean, E. Coordinative Urban-Rural Solid Waste Management: A Fractional
Dual-Objective Programming Model for the Regional Munifcipality of Xiamen. Math. Probl. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1–13. [CrossRef]
42. Pérez-Salazar, M.D.R.; Mateo-Díaz, N.F.; García-Rodríguez, R.; Mar-Orozco, C.E.; Cruz-Rivero, L. A genetic algorithm to solve a
three-echelon capacitated location problem for a distribution center within a solid waste management system in the northern
region of Veracruz, Mexico. DYNA 2015, 82, 51–57. [CrossRef]
43. del Carmen Munguía-López, A.; Ochoa-Barragán, R.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M. Optimal waste management during the COVID-19
pandemic. Chem. Eng. Process—Process Intensif. 2022, 176, 108942. [CrossRef]
44. Shaban, A.; Zaki, F.E.; Afefy, I.H.; Di Gravio, G.; Falegnami, A.; Patriarca, R. An Optimization Model for the Design of a
Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6345. [CrossRef]
45. Xie, C.; Deng, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Ding, X.; Li, X.; Wu, L. Multi-period Design and Optimization of Classified
Municipal Solid Waste Supply Chain Integrating Seasonal Fluctuations in Waste Generation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 93, 104522.
[CrossRef]
46. Šomplák, R.; Kůdela, J.; Smejkalová, V.; Nevrlý, V.; Pavlas, M.; Hrabec, D. Pricing and advertising strategies in conceptual waste
management planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118068. [CrossRef]
47. Sadrnia, A.; Langarudi, N.R.; Sani, A.P. Logistics network design to reuse second-hand household appliances for charities. J. Clean.
Prod. 2020, 244, 118717. [CrossRef]
48. Yu, H.; Solvang, W.D. A multi-objective location-allocation optimization for sustainable management of municipal solid waste.
Env. Syst. Decis. 2017, 37, 289–308. [CrossRef]
49. Ksia˛żek, R.; Gdowska, K.; Korcyl, A. Recyclables collection route balancing problem with heterogeneous fleet. Energies 2021,
14, 7406. [CrossRef]
50. Pouriani, S.; Asadi-Gangraj, E.; Paydar, M.M. A robust bi-level optimization modelling approach for municipal solid waste
management; a real case study of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118125. [CrossRef]
51. Asefi, H.; Shahparvari, S.; Chettri, L.S. Variable fleet size and mix VRP with fleet heterogeneity in Integrated Solid Waste
Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 1376–1395. [CrossRef]
52. Asefi, H.; Shahparvari, S.; Chhetri, P. Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management under uncertainty: A tri-echelon city
logistics and transportation context. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101606. [CrossRef]
53. Wu, E.M.Y.; De Shie, L. 0-1 Mixed integer programming for a newly merged metropolis to develop MSW management systems.
In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Biotechnology, iCBEB 2012, Macau, China,
28–30 May 2012; pp. 1140–1143. [CrossRef]
54. Mohammadi, M.; Jämsä-Jounela, S.L.; Harjunkoski, I. A multi-echelon supply chain model for sustainable electricity generation
from municipal solid waste. In IFAC-PapersOnLine; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 610–615. [CrossRef]
55. Pan, P.-Q. Integer Linear Programming (ILP). In Linear Programming Computation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014;
pp. 275–294. [CrossRef]
56. Rossit, D.G.; Nesmachnow, S.; Toutouh, J.; Rossit, D.G.; Nesmachnow, S. A bi-Objective Integer Programming Model for Locating
Garbage Accumulation Points: A Case Study Un Modelo bi-Objetivo de Programación Entera para Localizar Puntos de Acumulación de
Residuos: Un Estudio de Caso; Facultad de Ingeniería: Puebla, Mexico, 2024; pp. 70–81. [CrossRef]
57. Braier, G.; Durán, G.; Marenco, J.; Wesner, F. An integer programming approach to a real-world recyclable waste collection
problem in Argentina. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2017, 35, 525–533. [CrossRef]
58. Ghiani, G.; Laganà, D.; Manni, E.; Triki, C. Capacitated location of collection sites in an urban waste management system. Waste
Manag. 2012, 32, 1291–1296. [CrossRef]
59. Gallo, M.; Marinelli, M.; Pedicini, R. Optimal Location of Transfer Stations for Waste Management: A Real Case Study. In
Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2021 5th IEEE Industrial
and Commercial Power System Europe, EEEIC/I and CPS Europe 2021—Proceedings, Bari, Italy, 7–10 September 2021. [CrossRef]
60. Rambandara, R.D.S.S.; Prabodanie, R.A.R.; Karunarathne, E.A.C.P.; Rajapaksha, R.D.D. Improving the Efficiency of Urban Waste
Collection Using Optimization: A Case Study. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2022, 6, 809–818. [CrossRef]
61. Zhang, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Z.; Xin, C. Robust Optimization of Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Transportation with Uncertain
Waste Output: A Case Study. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2022, 31, 204–225. [CrossRef]
62. Nevrlý, V.; Šomplák, R.; Putna, O.; Pavlas, M. Location of mixed municipal waste treatment facilities: Cost of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 127305. [CrossRef]
63. Araya-Córdova, P.J.; Dávila, S.; Valenzuela-Levi, N.; Vásquez, Ó.C. Income inequality and efficient resources allocation policy for
the adoption of a recycling program by municipalities in developing countries: The case of Chile. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 309, 127305.
[CrossRef]
64. Roberts, K.P.; Turner, D.A.; Coello, J.; Stringfellow, A.M.; Bello, I.A.; Powrie, W.; Watson, G.V. SWIMS: A dynamic life cycle-based
optimisation and decision support tool for solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 547–563. [CrossRef]
65. Zhao, S.; Ren, T.; Ma, L.; Li, Z. Multi-period Planning of Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Case Study in Qingdao. Process
Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2022, 7, 107–126. [CrossRef]
66. Rizwan, M.; Saif, Y.; Almansoori, A.; Elkamel, A. Optimal processing route for the utilization and conversion of municipal solid
waste into energy and valuable products. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 857–867. [CrossRef]
67. Yadav, V.; Karmakar, S.; Dikshit, A.K.; Vanjari, S. A feasibility study for the locations of waste transfer stations in urban centers:
A case study on the city of Nashik, India. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 191–205. [CrossRef]
68. Rathore, P.; Sarmah, S.P. Economic, environmental and social optimization of solid waste management in the context of circular
economy. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 145, 106510. [CrossRef]
69. Irwin, M.; Wang, Z. Dynamic Systems Modeling. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods; Wiley:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
70. Anghinolfi, D.; Paolucci, M.; Robba, M.; Taramasso, A.C. A dynamic model for recycling: Optimization of solid waste separate
collection. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2011, 44, 12940–12945. [CrossRef]
71. Santibañez-Aguilar, J.E.; Flores-Tlacuahuac, A.; Rivera-Toledo, M.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M. Dynamic optimization for the planning of
a waste management system involving multiple cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 190–203. [CrossRef]
72. Cheng, H.W. A satisficing method for fuzzy goal programming problems with different importance and priorities. Qual. Quant.
2013, 47, 485–498. [CrossRef]
73. Stochastic Programming and Game Theory for Solid Waste Management Decision-Making. In Sustainable Solid Waste Management;
Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 667–701. [CrossRef]
74. Li, Y.P.; Huang, G.H.; Nie, S.L.; Qin, X.S. ITCLP: An inexact two-stage chance-constrained program for planning waste manage-
ment systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 49, 284–307. [CrossRef]
75. Zhou, M.; Lu, S.; Tan, S.; Yan, D.; Ou, G.; Liu, D.; Luo, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z. A stochastic equilibrium chance-constrained
programming model for municipal solid waste management of the City of Dalian, China. Qual. Quant. 2017, 51, 199–218.
[CrossRef]
76. Saif, Y.; Rizwan, M.; Almansoori, A.; Elkamel, A. A decomposition algorithm for organic solid waste supply chain optimization
under uncertainty. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 3284–3289. [CrossRef]
77. Zaeimi, M.B.; Rassafi, A.A. Optimization Model for Integrated Municipal Solid Waste System Using Stochastic Chance-Constraint
Programming under Uncertainty: A Case Study in Qazvin, Iran. J. Adv. Transp. 2021, 2021, 1–16. [CrossRef]
78. Gambella, C.; Maggioni, F.; Vigo, D. A stochastic programming model for a tactical solid waste management problem. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2019, 273, 684–694. [CrossRef]
79. Xiong, J.; Ng, T.S.A.; Wang, S. An optimization model for economic feasibility analysis and design of decentralized waste-to-energy
systems. Energy 2016, 101, 239–251. [CrossRef]
80. Wang, L.; Jin, L. Inexact rough-interval type-2 fuzzy stochastic optimization model supporting municipal solid waste management
under uncertainty. Eng. Optim. 2019, 51, 1567–1580. [CrossRef]
81. Li, Y.P.; Huang, G.H.; Nie, S.L. A mathematical model for identifying an optimal waste management policy under uncertainty.
Appl. Math. Model. 2012, 36, 2658–2673. [CrossRef]
82. Govindan, K.; Nasr, A.K.; Mostafazadeh, M.H. Medical waste management during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak:
A mathematical programming model. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 162, 107668. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Eren, E.; Tuzkaya, U.R. Safe distance-based vehicle routing problem: Medical waste collection case study in COVID-19 pandemic.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 157, 107328. [CrossRef]
84. Srivastava, A.K.; Nema, A.K. Fuzzy parametric programming model for multi-objective integrated solid waste management
under uncertainty. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 4657–4678. [CrossRef]
85. Guo, P.; Huang, G.H. Inexact fuzzy-stochastic quadratic programming approach for waste management under multiple uncer-
tainties. Eng. Optim. 2011, 43, 525–539. [CrossRef]
86. Chang, Y.-J.; Lin, M.-D. Compromising economic cost and air pollutant emissions of municipal solid waste management strategies
by fuzzy multiobjective optimization model. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2013, 63, 712–723. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Tavakolan, M.; Nikoukar, S. Developing an optimization financing cost-scheduling trade-off model in construction project. Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 2022, 22, 262–277. [CrossRef]
88. Tsai, C.-W.; Chiang, M.-C. Hybrid metaheuristic and hyperheuristic algorithms. In Handbook of Metaheuristic Algorithms; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 321–350. [CrossRef]
89. Torres-Soto, J.E.; Üster, H. Dynamic-demand capacitated facility location problems with and without relocation. Int. J. Prod. Res.
2011, 49, 3979–4005. [CrossRef]
90. Moazzeni, S.; Tavana, M.; Darmian, S.M. A dynamic location-arc routing optimization model for electric waste collection vehicles.
J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 364, 132571. [CrossRef]
91. Rahmanifar, G.; Mohammadi, M.; Sherafat, A.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.; Fusco, G.; Colombaroni, C. Heuristic approaches to
address vehicle routing problem in the Iot-based waste management system. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2023, 220, 119708. [CrossRef]
92. Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C.D.; Vecchi, M.P. Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science 1983, 220, 671–680. [CrossRef]
93. Erdem, M. Optimisation of sustainable urban recycling waste collection and routing with heterogeneous electric vehicles. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2022, 80, 103785. [CrossRef]
94. Tirkolaee, E.B.; Goli, A.; Gütmen, S.; Weber, G.W.; Szwedzka, K. A novel model for sustainable waste collection arc routing
problem: Pareto-based algorithms. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022, 324, 189–214. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Zhang, J.-X.; Chu, X.-K.; Yang, F.; Qu, J.-F.; Wang, S.-W. Multimodal and multi-objective optimization algorithm based on
two-stage search framework. Appl. Intell. 2022, 52, 12470–12496. [CrossRef]
96. Rossit, D.G.; Toutouh, J.; Nesmachnow, S. Exact and heuristic approaches for multi-objective garbage accumulation points
location in real scenarios. Waste Manag. 2020, 105, 467–481. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Harijani, A.M.; Mansour, S.; Karimi, B.; Lee, C.G. Multi-period sustainable and integrated recycling network for municipal solid
waste—A case study in Tehran. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 96–108. [CrossRef]
98. Lin, H.-Y.; Tsai, Z.-P.; Chen, G.-H.; Kao, J.-J. A Model for the Implementation of a Two-Shift Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable
Material Collection Plan that Offers Greater Convenience to Residents. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2011, 61, 55–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Marques, P.; Manfroi, D.; Deitos, E.; Cegoni, J.; Castilhos, R.; Rochol, J.; Pignaton, E.; Kunst, R. An IoT-based smart cities
infrastructure architecture applied to a waste management scenario. Ad Hoc Netw. 2019, 87, 200–208. [CrossRef]
100. Roy, A.; Manna, A.; Kim, J.; Moon, I. IoT-based smart bin allocation and vehicle routing in solid waste management: A case study
in South Korea. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 171, 108457. [CrossRef]
101. Pal, M.S.; Bhatia, M. Lifetime Maximization of Bin Level IoT Sensor and Route Optimization for Smart Waste Management in
Hilly City Shimla, India: A Comparative Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2022 2nd International Conference on Advances in
Electrical, Computing, Communication and Sustainable Technologies, ICAECT 2022, Bhilai, India, 21–22 April 2022. [CrossRef]
102. Mishra, A.; Ray, A.K. IoT cloud-based cyber-physical system for efficient solid waste management in smart cities: A novel
cost function based route optimisation technique for waste collection vehicles using dustbin sensors and real-time road traffic
informatics. IET Cyber-Phys. Syst. Theory Appl. 2020, 5, 330–341. [CrossRef]
103. Akbarpour, N.; Salehi-Amiri, A.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.; Oliva, D. An innovative waste management system in a smart city
under stochastic optimization using vehicle routing problem. Soft Comput. 2021, 25, 6707–6727. [CrossRef]
104. Allevi, E.; Gnudi, A.; Konnov, I.V.; Oggioni, G. Municipal solid waste management in circular economy: A sequential optimization
model. Energy Econ. 2021, 100, 105383. [CrossRef]
105. Paul, K.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Dutta, A.; Krishna, A.P.; Ray, S. A comprehensive optimization model for integrated solid waste
management system: A case study. Environ. Eng. Res. 2018, 24, 220–237. [CrossRef]
106. Tascione, V.; Mosca, R.; Raggi, A. Optimizing the environmental performance of integrated waste management scenarios by
means of linear programming: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3086–3096. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sustainability 16 06585

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 16 06585

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 16 06585

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Engineering Systems Management PhD Program, American University of Sharjah,

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156585 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Systematic Review Protocol

2.2. Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteria

Table 1. Breakdown of studies by country.

Country Number of Articles Citations

3. Results and Discussion

2016 2030 2050

Solid waste management encompasses several stages, beginning with waste

Figure 4. Solid waste management cycle [9].

3.2. Optimization Techniques in SWM Based on the Model Type

3.2.1. Exact Models

3.2.2. Approximate Models

3.2.3. Hybrid Models in SWM

3.2.4. IoT in Solid Waste Management

3.3. Optimization Techniques Based on SWM Processes

Table 2. Optimization models in SWM—the collection stage.

Table 3. Optimization Models in SWM—the transportation stage.

Limitations and Future

Table 4. Optimization Models in SWM—the processing stage.

Limitations and Future

Table 5. Optimization Models in SWM—the recycling stage.

Limitations and Future

Table 6. Optimization models in SWM—all processes.

Limitations and Future

4. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Research Directions

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

You might also like