The pivotal phase in ensuring investment success and sustainability in solid waste management (SWM) lies in the judicious selection of technologies involving multiple stakeholders. Nepal, especially urban municipalities with rapid urbanization and limited technical and managerial knowledge, struggles with SWM complexities. To address these issues, this study explored, identified, analysed and ranked different criteria for technology selection for SWM using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. The AHP considered 3 main criteria, 12 sub-criteria and 5 alternative technologies based on the opinions of 66 public and private sector stakeholders and experts. The survey results concluded that technical (private, 52.3%; public, 33.2%) and economic (private, 29.2%; public, 37.6%) criteria were key ranked criteria from different public and private sector perspectives. Revenue generation and technology availability and maturity were key sub-criteria. Anaerobic digestion, integrated approaches and composting were identified as prioritized technologies, whereas the currently practiced landfilling was the least preferred option for Nepal. The research outcomes will enable policymakers and technology providers to consider incentivizing initiatives and technological choices aligned with these findings and fostering sustainable waste management.
AbdullahMFSirajSHodgettRE (2021) An overview of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) application in managing water-related disaster events: Analyzing 20 years of literature for flood and drought events. Water13: 1358.
2.
Asian Development Bank (2013) Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and Policy Recommendations. Asian Development Bank.
3.
BadiIAbdulshahedAShetwanA, et al. (2019) Evaluation of solid waste treatment methods in Libya by using the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering2: 19–35.
4.
BotteroMCominoERiggioV (2011) Application of the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Modelling & Software26: 1211–1224.
5.
CBS (2020) Waste management baseline survey of Nepal 2020. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics.
6.
ChattopadhyayAPalSBandyopadhyayG, et al. (2023) A multi-attribute decision-making model for selecting centralized or decentralized municipal solid waste management facilities: A study from the indian perspective. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability7: 1–26.
7.
ChengSLohaniSPRajbhandariUS, et al. (2024) Sustainability of large-scale commercial biogas plants in Nepal. Journal of Cleaner Production434: 139777.
8.
DangiMBPretzCRUrynowiczMA, et al. (2011) Municipal solid waste generation in Kathmandu, Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management92: 240–249.
9.
DavidssonÅGruvbergerCChristensenTH, et al. (2007) Methane yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Management27: 406–414.
10.
FarooqAHaputtaPSilalertruksaT, et al. (2021) A framework for the selection of suitable waste to energy technologies for a sustainable municipal solid waste management system. Frontiers in Sustainability2: 27.
11.
FerronatoNTorrettaV (2019) Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health16: 1060.
12.
GbanieSPTengbePBMomohJS, et al. (2013) Modelling landfill location using geographic information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): Case study Bo, Southern Sierra Leone. Applied Geography36: 3–12.
13.
GhimireMPandeySChangSE, et al. (2024a). Assessing determinants and readiness for willingness-to-pay (WTP) for unit-based pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) waste tariff structures: A case study of Kathmandu, Nepal. Waste Management190: 227–235.
14.
GhimireMPandeySWooJ (2024b). Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception in public-private partnerships for waste-to-energy projects: A case study of Nepal. Energy for Sustainable Development79: 101414.
15.
GhimireMPandeySWooJ (2025) Accounting socio-economic benefits of household biogas towards net zero energy transition in developing countries: A case study of Nepal. Energy for Sustainable Development85: 101634.
16.
GhimireMWooJRPandeyS (2023) Anaerobic digestion (AD) based waste management in Nepal: Technologies and implementation modalities. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management49: 73–90.
17.
IlangkumaranMSasirekhaVAnojkumarL, et al. (2013) Optimization of wastewater treatment technology selection using hybrid MCDM. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal24: 619–641.
18.
KazaSYaoLBhada-TataP, et al. (2018) What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
19.
KhanSAnjumRRazaST, et al. (2022) Technologies for municipal solid waste management: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Chemosphere288: 132403.
20.
KumarASamadderSR (2017) A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Management69: 407–422.
21.
KwatraSKumarASharmaS, et al. (2021) Stakeholder participation in prioritizing sustainability issues at regional level using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique: A case study of Goa, India. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators11: 100116.
22.
LohaniSPKeitschMShakyaS, et al. (2021) Waste to energy in Kathmandu Nepal – A way toward achieving sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development29: 906–914.
NPC (2020) The Fifteenth Plan. Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission. Available at: https://npc.gov.np/en/category/periodic_plans (accessed 27 April 2025).
25.
ParkJJinTChangSE, et al. (2023) A needs-based approach to construct an industrial energy efficiency network: A case study of South Korea. Energy Efficiency16: 30.
26.
ParkJWooJ (2024) Social acceptability of climate-change adaptation policies in South Korea: A contingent valuation method. Energy & Environment35: 353–371.
27.
PengXJiangYChenZ, et al. (2023) Recycling municipal, agricultural and industrial waste into energy, fertilizers, food and construction materials, and economic feasibility: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters21: 765–801.
28.
PrajapatiPVarjaniSSinghaniaRR, et al. (2021) Critical review on technological advancements for effective waste management of municipal solid waste – Updates and way forward. Environmental Technology & Innovation23: 101749.
29.
QaziWAAbushammalaMF (2020) Multi-criteria decision analysis of waste-to-energy technologies. In: RenJ (ed.) Waste-to-Energy. Hong Kong: Elsevier, pp.265–316.
30.
QaziWAAbushammalaMFAzamM-H (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis of waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Sultanate of Oman. Waste Management & Research36: 594–605.
31.
SaatyTL (2004) Decision making – The analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of systems science and systems engineering13: 1–35.
32.
ShekdarAV (2009) Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Management29: 1438–1448.
33.
SonWLeeSWooJ (2023) Community acceptance of hydrogen power plant projects: the case of South Korea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews187: 113778.
34.
SongJSongDZhangX, et al. (2013) Risk identification for PPP waste-to-energy incineration projects in China. Energy Policy61: 953–962.
VlachokostasCMichailidouAAchillasC (2021) Multi-criteria decision analysis towards promoting waste-to-energy management strategies: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews138: 110563.
37.
VoudriasEA (2016) Technology selection for infectious medical waste treatment using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association66: 663–672.
38.
WangYZhangXLiaoW, et al. (2018) Investigating impact of waste reuse on the sustainability of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration industry using energy approach: A case study from Sichuan province, China. Waste Management77: 252–267.
39.
WooJMoonSChoiH (2022) Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea. Applied Energy324: 119671.
40.
WooJShinJYooSH, et al. (2023) Reducing environmental impact of coal-fired power plants by building an indoor coal storage: An economic analysis. Energies16: 511.
41.
World Bank (2020) Strategic Assessment of Solid Waste Management Services and Systems in Nepal: Policy Advisory Note. World Bank.
42.
YangMChenLWangJ, et al. (2023) Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and other environmental issues. Environmental Chemistry Letters21: 55–80.
43.
ZamriMHasmadySAkhiarA, et al. (2021) A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews137: 110637.
44.
ZhouWChaiJXuZ, et al. (2024) A review of existing methods for predicting leachate production from municipal solid waste landfills. Environmental Science and Pollution Research31: 16131–16149.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
