Sustainable Chicken Waste Product Selection Using a Hybrid CRITIC–MARCOS-Based Decision Support System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55537/spk.v5i1.1576Keywords:
chicken waste, CRITIC-MARCOS, decision support system, sustainabilityAbstract
The growth of the poultry industry has led to an increase in chicken waste volume, which may cause environmental and health problems if not properly managed. However, chicken waste also has the potential to be processed into value-added products that support sustainable agriculture and a circular economy. This study aims to develop an objective and systematic decision support system to determine the most sustainable chicken waste product based on economic efficiency and environmental impact within the operational context of the Agricultural Modernization and Assembly Agency (BRMP) of North Sumatra. A hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach was applied by integrating the Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method and the Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) method. The CRITIC method determines criteria weights objectively based on data variability and inter-criteria correlation, while the MARCOS method ranks alternatives based on utility values relative to ideal and anti-ideal solutions. Fifteen chicken waste product alternatives were evaluated using seven economic, technical, and environmental criteria. The results show that chicken manure compost is the best alternative, with the highest utility value (Kᵢ > 1), indicating superior performance in terms of production cost, market feasibility, environmental impact, and raw material availability. Sensitivity analysis confirms that the ranking results remain stable despite changes in criteria weights. This study contributes to the development of hybrid MCDM methods for agricultural waste management and provides a transparent and reliable decision-making framework for policymakers.
Downloads
References
M. M. Rahman, A. Hassan, I. Hossain, M. M. R. Jahangir, E. H. Chowdhury, and R. Parvin, “Current state of poultry waste management practices in Bangladesh, environmental concerns, and future recommendations,” J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 490–500, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.5455/javar.2022.i618.
R. Khiewwijit, S. Chainetr, S. Thiangchanta, and K. Ngoenkhumkhong, “Development of sustainable poultry waste management using integrated microalgae cultivation: Towards performance, resource recovery and environmental impact,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 23, p. e40885, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40885.
V. Mozhiarasi and T. S. Natarajan, “Slaughterhouse and poultry wastes: management practices, feedstocks for renewable energy production, and recovery of value added products,” Biomass Convers. Biorefin., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1705–1728, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13399-022-02352-0.
K. Fakkaew, S. Kongkratoke, K. Tantrakarnapa, C. Polprasert, and S. Sudsandee, “Characteristics of Gases Emitted from Chicken Manure Wastewater and Potential Effects on Human Health,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 42, pp. 63227–63232, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-20357-0.
N. B. Preuss and F. You, “Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Poultry Manure Management Technologies,” Chem. Eng. Trans., 2023.
A. S. Ayantokun, T. Matambo, C. Rahama, I. Merwe, and J. Niekerk, “A critical review of food waste and poultry manure anaerobic co-digestion: an eco-friendly valorization for sustainable waste management and biogas production,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1695945.
S. Oyedeji, N. Patel, R. Krishnamurthy, and P. O. Fatoba, “Agricultural Wastes to Value-Added Products: Economic and Environmental Perspectives for Waste Conversion,” 2024, pp. 215–248. doi: 10.1007/10_2024_274.
R. Vicentin, C. E. Masín, M. R. Lescano, and C. S. Zalazar, “Poultry litter stabilization by two-stage composting-vermicomposting process: Environmental, energetic and economic performance,” Chemosphere, vol. 281, p. 130872, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130872.
G. Kim, W. Chung, J. Hur, H. S. Lee, and H. S. Shin, “Changes in organic matter composition during poultry manure composting: A new perspective on compost maturity using DAX resin fractionation and spectroscopic analysis,” Waste Management, vol. 205, p. 115015, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2025.115015.
J. Chen, J. Li, B. Ye, X. Zhang, R. D. Tyagi, and X. Gao, “Energy balance assessment on chicken manure for biogas production in Rabat-Salé-Zemmour-Zaïr of Morocco,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 299, p. 113656, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113656.
A. Kalogiannis, I. A. Vasiliadou, A. Spyridonidis, V. Diamantis, and K. Stamatelatou, “Biogas production from chicken manure wastes using an LBR‐CSTR two‐stage system: process efficiency, economic feasibility, and carbon dioxide footprint,” Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, vol. 97, no. 10, pp. 2952–2961, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1002/jctb.7170.
M. Ginebra, C. Muñoz, R. Calvelo-Pereira, M. Doussoulin, and E. Zagal, “Biochar impacts on soil chemical properties, greenhouse gas emissions and forage productivity: A field experiment,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 806, p. 150465, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150465.
L. Liu, J. Li, G. Wu, H. Shen, G. Fu, and Y. Wang, “Combined effects of biochar and chicken manure on maize ( Zea mays L.) growth, lead uptake and soil enzyme activities under lead stress,” PeerJ, vol. 9, p. e11754, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.7717/peerj.11754.
E. C. Umejuru et al., “Application of zeolite based nanocomposites for wastewater remediation: Evaluating newer and environmentally benign approaches,” Environ. Res., vol. 231, p. 116073, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116073.
M. Costantini, V. Ferrante, M. Guarino, and J. Bacenetti, “Environmental sustainability assessment of poultry productions through life cycle approaches: A critical review,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 110, pp. 201–212, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.01.086.
R. Khiewwijit, S. Chainetr, S. Thiangchanta, and K. Ngoenkhumkhong, “Development of sustainable poultry waste management using integrated microalgae cultivation: Towards performance, resource recovery and environmental impact,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 23, p. e40885, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40885.
A. E. Torkayesh, B. Malmir, and M. Rajabi Asadabadi, “Sustainable waste disposal technology selection: The stratified best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method,” Waste Management, vol. 122, pp. 100–112, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.12.040.
A. R. Mishra, P. Rani, D. Pamucar, I. M. Hezam, and A. Saha, “Entropy and discrimination measures based q-rung orthopair fuzzy MULTIMOORA framework for selecting solid waste disposal method,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 12988–13011, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22734-1.
R.Narmada Devi, S.Sowmiya, and A.Anuja, “Selecting the Suitable Waste to Energy Technology for India Using MULTIMOORA Method under Pythagorean Neutrosophic Fuzzy Logic,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 56, pp. 276–290, Jul. 2023.
M. P. Hemavarshini et al., “Sustainable Management of Chicken Waste: Exploring Conversion Technologies for Environmental Benefits,” Frontiers in Bioscience-Elite, vol. 17, no. 2, May 2025, doi: 10.31083/FBE25930.
K. Ma et al., “Poultry litter utilization for waste-to-wealth: Valorization process simulation and comparative analysis based on thermodynamic and techno-economic assessment,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 269, p. 116135, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116135.
D. Rathnayake et al., “Biochar from animal manure: A critical assessment on technical feasibility, economic viability, and ecological impact,” GCB Bioenergy, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1078–1104, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13082.
Y. Wang, W. Wang, Z. Wang, M. Deveci, S. K. Roy, and S. Kadry, “Selection of sustainable food suppliers using the Pythagorean fuzzy CRITIC-MARCOS method,” Inf. Sci. (N Y)., vol. 664, p. 120326, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2024.120326.
Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee, “Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS),” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 140, p. 106231, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231.
A. El-Araby, I. Sabry, and A. El-Assal, “Ranking Performance of MARCOS Method for Location Selection Problem in the Presence of Conflicting Criteria,” Decision Making Advances, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 148–162, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.31181/dma21202435.
N. Sharkasi and S. Rezakhah, “A modified CRITIC with a reference point based on fuzzy logic and hamming distance,” Knowl. Based. Syst., vol. 255, p. 109768, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109768.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurmaliana Pohan, Aditya Widodo, Arlan Tri Handika, Cindy Afriana Jambak, Hari Prayudha, Rayhan Atricha Rambe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
