Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Pérez C., Arroyo P., Richards C., Mourgues C. (2021)

Residential curbside waste collection programs design: A multicriteria and participatory approach using choosing by advantages

Revista : Waste Management
Volumen : 119
Número : 1
Páginas : 267-274
Tipo de publicación : ISI Ir a publicación


Policy making involves translating political visions into programs that seek to change a social behavior. To design these programs, decision makers must consider multiple aspects to achieve sustainable solutions. Furthermore, decision makers must manage interrelated information and preferences of different stakeholders to ensure the policy suits the community and accomplishes its goals. This research provides evidence of the applicability of the Choosing by Advantages (CBA) decision system to make environmental public policies, in particular to design a waste collection program for a city in Canada. The methodology is based on a case study where CBA was used to choose the recycling, organics, and PAYT (Pay as you throw) utility components of the program. To analyze the process, researchers measured decision makers’ perceptions of levels of satisfaction or frustration during the program-design process by conducting surveys with decision-makers at different stages in time. The research also measured decision-makers’ preference for applying CBA over traditional practices where no formal decision-making method is used, in terms of (1) reaching consensus and transparency, (2) making complex decisions, and (3) making faster decisions. The results show that CBA helped to include multiple aspects in designing for sustainability, and to consider the municipality and community preferences into the program. The study also evidenced that satisfaction levels increased as the process progressed. Finally, 75% of decision makers reported preference for CBA regarding reaching consensus and transparency, while this preference was milder (55%) regarding making complex decisions, and the opposite (27%) regarding making faster decisions.