**4. Developing environmentally sound selection method for heating appliances using ecolabeling and Analytic Hierarchy Process**

This case study presents an assessment of heating appliances prepared on the basis of the AHP multicriteria evaluation method. The main problem with appliances' selection is that the consumers do not know which parameters of the equipment are important and, on the other hand, the professionals do not know the individual preferences of the consumers. The authors propose to design the hierarchy of criteria utilizing the concept of sustainable development and the criteria originating from ecolabeling programs [40, 41]. Integrating ecolabeling criteria into the AHP process is a similar concept as developing integrated AHP or combining AHP with other tools of environmental assessment [42].

The case study presents application of all three stages of AHP method for the real heat pump selection. The first stage, design of the evaluation criteria hierarchy, is carried out following the concept of sustainable development, and the criteria of the European Union ecolabeling program. The second stage of analysis assigns the weights of different criteria; this part is done based on the authors' knowledge and experience. The last stage of the AHP method—the evaluation of the analyzed heat pumps combined with the sensitivity analysis of the assumed weights—is also presented and discussed.

#### **4.1. Ecolabeling as a basis for a criteria selection**

The idea of ecolabeling [40, 41] originates from the assumption that consumers are looking for environment-friendly products. On the other hand, producers knowing the consumers' preferences are ready to deliver such products if products' quality is objectively confirmed. To allow such objective quality check, the independent certifying organizations set up very specific criteria, unique for specific groups of products. The producers can voluntarily apply for an ecolabel presenting their products for certification. If the products meet the criteria, and the producer pays the fee, he is allowed to display the ecolabel sign on the product for a certain period of time. The certifying organization undertakes the responsibility to start a campaign supporting the product. Both ways, there is a hope for the favorable consumers' response.

The example of four European ecolabels is given in **Figure 11**.

**Figure 11.** Examples of European ecolabels.

The environmental impact, particularly when measured using Eco-indicator 99 H/A points is

74 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

It is obvious that drinking safe tap water and not bottled water is superior to the person's economy and to the environment. The conducted AHP analysis shows measurably the size of this superiority. It also shows how much progress can be achieved in the city if tap water drinking becomes more common. This is particularly important in town such as Cracow which plans to organize big social events such as the World Youth Day in 2016 or the Olympic Games in the future. Thanks to the AHP, the impact of water drinking pattern is precisely measured in all selected criteria. This allows individuals and decision makers to compare the results of very different municipal policies. For example, the energy savings obtained, thanks to municipal program of building insulation, can be compared with the results of the bottled water consumption reduction program. The results of the conducted analysis can be used by the decision makers to estimate results and to make appropriate proposals on policy actions

**4. Developing environmentally sound selection method for heating**

This case study presents an assessment of heating appliances prepared on the basis of the AHP multicriteria evaluation method. The main problem with appliances' selection is that the consumers do not know which parameters of the equipment are important and, on the other hand, the professionals do not know the individual preferences of the consumers. The authors propose to design the hierarchy of criteria utilizing the concept of sustainable development and the criteria originating from ecolabeling programs [40, 41]. Integrating ecolabeling criteria into the AHP process is a similar concept as developing integrated AHP or combining AHP

The case study presents application of all three stages of AHP method for the real heat pump selection. The first stage, design of the evaluation criteria hierarchy, is carried out following the concept of sustainable development, and the criteria of the European Union ecolabeling program. The second stage of analysis assigns the weights of different criteria; this part is done based on the authors' knowledge and experience. The last stage of the AHP method—the evaluation of the analyzed heat pumps combined with the sensitivity analysis of the assumed

The idea of ecolabeling [40, 41] originates from the assumption that consumers are looking for environment-friendly products. On the other hand, producers knowing the consumers' preferences are ready to deliver such products if products' quality is objectively confirmed. To allow such objective quality check, the independent certifying organizations set up very specific criteria, unique for specific groups of products. The producers can voluntarily apply

**appliances using ecolabeling and Analytic Hierarchy Process**

the most important criterion for Level I.

toward bottled water drinkers.

with other tools of environmental assessment [42].

weights—is also presented and discussed.

**4.1. Ecolabeling as a basis for a criteria selection**

Ecolabeling criteria do not include the economical aspects of product's usage; however, since these features are critical for the consumers, the economical criteria have to be included into the decision process. Because economical criteria tend to dominate the whole analytical process, they are introduced into the decision process in a very careful way. Haas [43] proposes to analyze the products' benefits without the economic criteria and then include them into the analysis, separately.

#### **4.2. Heat pumps ecolabeling criteria**

The EU Commission decision issued on November 9, 2007, with the later amendments [44] specifies the ecological criteria for the European ecolabel program for heat pumps powered by gas, electricity and heat (max. power 100 kW). According to the European Community Regulation No 1980/2000, to obtain the ecolabel, a heat pump must meet all environmental criteria set out in the Annex to this decision.

The criteria's objective is to limit the environmental impact of the production, operation and subsequent decommissioning of heat pumps. The criteria include:


There are nine important elements identified in the ecolabeling document, which decide whether an ecolabel is granted to a heat pump. The list of those criteria with their brief descriptions is presented in the following section.

#### *4.2.1. Coefficient of performance (COP)*

The coefficient of performance (COP) is a ratio of generated heating power Qk, to input power L (electricity or gas) for a particular source and output temperature. The minimal efficiency of an electrically powered heat pump working in a heating mode in a brine/water system must not be lower than 4.3 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 30°C/35°C) or 3.50 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 40°C/45°C).

#### *4.2.2. Primary energy ratio (PER)*

Additionally, the primary energy ratio (PER) for a brine/water system has to exceed 1.72 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 30°C/35°C) or 1.40 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 40°C/45°C), while for a combi unit (with a cooling function), the minimal value of a PER ratio should be 1.2.

Due to the fact that both PER and COP are linearly related, only one (COP) was included into the AHP analysis.

#### *4.2.3. Global warming potential (GWP)*

The global warming potential (GWP) coefficient was introduced to describe the impact of refrigerant on a global climate. In case of heat pumps, GWP coefficient shows how much the used refrigerant increases the global warming, if compared to carbon dioxide. The GWP coefficient for carbon dioxide is assumed 1 and the lifespan of the analysis is 100 years. According to the EU commission (decision 2007/742/WE [42]), the refrigerants' GWP coeffi‐ cient cannot exceed 2000 in a 100 years lifespan.

#### *4.2.4. Noise*

Following the ecolabeling requirements for heat pumps, a noise level has to be measured according to the standard ENV-12 102, and the results, in dB(A), have to be presented in the product information document.

#### *4.2.5. Heavy metals and flame retardants*

Cadmium, lead, mercury, chromium (VI) or flame retardants polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) cannot be used in heat pump units or heat pump systems. The acceptable limits of these substances are precisely set in the commission docu‐ ment 2005/618/WE. The concentration levels of these substances have to be certified.

#### *4.2.6. Personnel training*

**•** efficiency of heating and/or cooling of buildings

descriptions is presented in the following section.

unit input/output temperatures = 40°C/45°C).

*4.2.1. Coefficient of performance (COP)*

*4.2.2. Primary energy ratio (PER)*

of a PER ratio should be 1.2.

*4.2.3. Global warming potential (GWP)*

product information document.

cient cannot exceed 2000 in a 100 years lifespan.

the AHP analysis.

*4.2.4. Noise*

hazardous substances

pump

**•** reduction of the environmental impact during heating and/or cooling of buildings

76 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

**•** reduction or prevention of the risks to the environment/human health due to the use of

**•** proper transfer of information to customers and fitters on efficient operation of the heat

There are nine important elements identified in the ecolabeling document, which decide whether an ecolabel is granted to a heat pump. The list of those criteria with their brief

The coefficient of performance (COP) is a ratio of generated heating power Qk, to input power L (electricity or gas) for a particular source and output temperature. The minimal efficiency of an electrically powered heat pump working in a heating mode in a brine/water system must not be lower than 4.3 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 30°C/35°C) or 3.50 (internal

Additionally, the primary energy ratio (PER) for a brine/water system has to exceed 1.72 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 30°C/35°C) or 1.40 (internal unit input/output temperatures = 40°C/45°C), while for a combi unit (with a cooling function), the minimal value

Due to the fact that both PER and COP are linearly related, only one (COP) was included into

The global warming potential (GWP) coefficient was introduced to describe the impact of refrigerant on a global climate. In case of heat pumps, GWP coefficient shows how much the used refrigerant increases the global warming, if compared to carbon dioxide. The GWP coefficient for carbon dioxide is assumed 1 and the lifespan of the analysis is 100 years. According to the EU commission (decision 2007/742/WE [42]), the refrigerants' GWP coeffi‐

Following the ecolabeling requirements for heat pumps, a noise level has to be measured according to the standard ENV-12 102, and the results, in dB(A), have to be presented in the Heat pump manufacturers are responsible for personnel training in the European Union countries, where the pumps are sold. The training should focus on proper pump sizing and installation as well as to provide assistance during filling up the documents. The heat pump manufacturer's declaration about the training and its place is required.

#### *4.2.7. Documents*

Heat pump manufacturers have to deliver a complete user's manual with the equipment. The manual has to provide information on installation, maintenance and operation of the heat pump. All these documents have to comply with the standard EN 378:2000 and all later amendments.

#### *4.2.8. Spare parts*

The heat pump manufacturer guarantees that the spare parts will be available for 10 years, starting from the date of purchase. The manufacturer should also specify how this requirement is going to be met.

#### *4.2.9. Information sheet*

The heat pump manufacturer guarantees that a blank information sheet is available at the location, where the heat pump is sold. This is to guarantee the minimal level of consumer's assistance. Fitters should have an access to a filled up "information sheet" for fitters. Addi‐ tionally, manufacturers should provide fitters with special tools, computer software and assistance, to allow them to calculate the following working parameters of the heat pump installation: seasonal energy efficiency ratio (EER), seasonal coefficient of performance (COP) or yearly carbon dioxide emission.

#### **4.3. Construction of the objective hierarchy**

Ecolabeling criteria were only used as a basis for selection of the final objective hierarchy. To help determine the weights of the final subcriteria, they were grouped into three categories/ objectives. These categories were selected according to the sustainable development require‐ ments. The final goal of the selection was divided into three categories: "impact on natural environment," user friendliness called "technical assistance" and "economical" criterion. Introduction of the economical criterion, next to others, follows the concept of sustainable development, but can lead to serious distortion in weights assignment, and further on, to false results. Because the analysis is usually carried out by professionals or by the heat pump users, the authors assumed that the risk of such problem is minimal.

If one does not want to include the economic criteria into the AHP analysis directly, there is an option to make the AHP analysis without the economic criterion and to include it separately later in form of the cost-benefit analysis. This option is also presented at the end of this case study.

**Figure 12.** Objective hierarchy for heat pumps analysis and exemplary calculation of weights.

**Figure 12** presents the objective hierarchy and examples of weights calculation created by the authors. The hierarchy and weights were developed by the authors and the group of students who participated in the research pretending to be a potential heat pump user. The final weights used in the analysis were the result of the whole group discussion.

#### **4.4. Evaluation of heat pumps with the selected criteria**

The analysis comprised the heat pumps used for heating of a single family house, with a water storage tank and the power of approx. 10 kW; with no cooling capacity. Four actually manu‐ factured heat pumps were selected and marked A, B, C and D. The information about the heat pumps performance was delivered by the manufacturers' representatives.


The performance of the heat pumps and the acceptable range for each category are presented in **Table 10**.

**Table 10.** Heat pump parameters and the acceptable range of values.

#### **4.5. Analysis of the AHP-HIPRE results**

results. Because the analysis is usually carried out by professionals or by the heat pump users,

If one does not want to include the economic criteria into the AHP analysis directly, there is an option to make the AHP analysis without the economic criterion and to include it separately later in form of the cost-benefit analysis. This option is also presented at the end of this case

the authors assumed that the risk of such problem is minimal.

78 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

**Figure 12.** Objective hierarchy for heat pumps analysis and exemplary calculation of weights.

pumps performance was delivered by the manufacturers' representatives.

used in the analysis were the result of the whole group discussion.

**4.4. Evaluation of heat pumps with the selected criteria**

**Figure 12** presents the objective hierarchy and examples of weights calculation created by the authors. The hierarchy and weights were developed by the authors and the group of students who participated in the research pretending to be a potential heat pump user. The final weights

The analysis comprised the heat pumps used for heating of a single family house, with a water storage tank and the power of approx. 10 kW; with no cooling capacity. Four actually manu‐ factured heat pumps were selected and marked A, B, C and D. The information about the heat

study.

The results of the AHP-HIPRE analysis are presented in **Tables 11** and **12**. The final result for each heat pump consists of sum of partial results, presented in **Table 12**, multiplied by relative weights at levels I and II. The final results have also been presented in a graphical form by HIPRE software in **Figures 13** and **14**.


**Table 11.** Weights, partial results from the first level of analysis and the final results.

The analysis indicates that the heat pump A is the best choice (**Figure 13**). Remaining heat pumps received similar scores; if compared with the heat pump A, they were lower by onethird. The second was the heat pump C, and then heat pumps B and D.


**Table 12.** Weights and results at the second level of analysis.

**Figure 13.** Comparison of the heat pumps performance at level I of evaluation.

The high score of the heat pump A is a result of a superior economic performance, mainly a low "investment cost." The final score of the heat pump A is also improved by a high score in the category "technical assistance," mainly "personnel training" and "spare parts." The heat pump C was equally well evaluated in the category "technical assistance" and had an extremely long "warranty period" (**Figure 14**). Mainly due to this long "warranty period," the heat pump C is the second in the ratings. A low evaluation score of the heat pump D results from a high "investment cost."

**Figure 14.** Comparison of the heat pumps performance at level II of evaluation.

#### **4.6. Cost-Benefit Analysis**

**Criteria at level II° Weights at level II° Results at level II°**

80 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

**Table 12.** Weights and results at the second level of analysis.

**Figure 13.** Comparison of the heat pumps performance at level I of evaluation.

The high score of the heat pump A is a result of a superior economic performance, mainly a low "investment cost." The final score of the heat pump A is also improved by a high score in the category "technical assistance," mainly "personnel training" and "spare parts." The heat pump C was equally well evaluated in the category "technical assistance" and had an extremely long "warranty period" (**Figure 14**). Mainly due to this long "warranty period," the

Coefficient of performance 0.593 0.825 0.847 0.847 0.825 Global Warming Potential 0.087 0.054 0.192 0.192 0.192 Noise 0.256 0.109 0.101 0.070 0.101 Heavy metals and flame retardants 0.065 0 0 0 1 Personnel training 0.240 1 0 1 0 Documents 0.225 1 1 1 1 Information sheet 0.047 1 1 1 1 Spare parts 0.246 1 0.5 0.5 1 Warranty period 0.241 0 0 1 0 Investment cost 0.750 0.601 0.541 0.484 0.185 Running cost 0.250 0.697 0.056 0.056 0.697

**A B C D**

Another way to compare the costs and performance of the analyzed heat pumps is to use the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) [45]. This can be done by separate calculations of the benefits of each heat pump, and then by graphical comparison with the calculated costs.

The cost of each heat pump was calculated as an Net Present Value (NPV) indicator. The costs include the investment cost (**Table 10**) and running costs for the entire 15-year long period. The NPV was calculated using the nominal prices, with the assumption that the energy cost increases 6% per year and the discount rate is 8%.

The benefits for each heat pump were calculated using the AHP method. This time the economic criteria were removed from the criteria hierarchy. All other criteria and performance parameters remained the same as in a previous analysis. The CBA results are presented in **Figure 15**.

The graph clearly indicates that the heat pump A as the best solution. The pump shows the highest benefit-to-costs ratio graphically displayed as the slope of the ray from the origin to the point representing each heat pump. The slope is the highest for the heat pump A, which means the highest value (unit benefit). The heat pump C offers slightly higher benefits, but at significantly higher costs. The cost of heat pumps C, D and B is almost the same, but substan‐ tially differ in delivered benefits.

The results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) are the same as calculated using the multicriteria AHP analysis. The CBA results are self-explanatory and almost intuitive, but because in the CBA method all the benefits are aggregated into one parameter called "benefit," the detailed analysis of the results is more difficult.

Combining the professional knowledge of the people who set the ecolabeling standards with the potential of AHP method allows the lay person understand the detailed and professional analysis of different appliances.

**Figure 15.** CBA for the analyzed heat pumps.

#### **5. Conclusions**

The AHP method is very useful in solving the whole spectrum of real environmental problems and can help choosing more sustainable solutions. The reliability of the obtained results can be increased if during the construction of goal hierarchy or collection of data, special engi‐ neering tools are also applied. Such approach can help ease most of the criticisms that there is no theoretical basis for constructing the AHP criteria hierarchy or, that there is no objective criteria which can help in the process of weights assignment. Three presented case studies show how this integration can be carried out.

In the first case study, the two-stage data collection and aggregation is carried out. First, the IWM-1 model was used to calculate the emissions to air, water and soil from each analyzed system. Second, these emissions were aggregated into LCA categories which were finally used as an input data for the AHP analysis. As a result, one obtains a clear and simultaneously detailed evaluation of the compared waste disposal systems. This is a quality very much sought by the decision makers.

In the second case study, Eco-indicator 99 H/A points were used to assess among others the environmental impact of water drinking pattern. The conducted AHP analysis shows meas‐ urably the environmental superiority of tap water drinking. It also shows how much progress can be achieved in the city if tap water drinking becomes more common. Such information can be an important guideline for a city management. Using AHP integrated with other environ‐ mental engineering tools allows comparison and evaluation of very different city policies.

The third case study presents the methodology of heat pump selection using the AHP method in connection with the ecolabeling program criteria. Through this combination, the selection can be carried out by non-professionals, and the selection is adjusted to the individual needs of the final consumer.

All three case studies show the flexibility and versatility of the AHP method which can be used and serve different customers: professionals, non-professionals and managers.

#### **Acronyms.**

The results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) are the same as calculated using the multicriteria AHP analysis. The CBA results are self-explanatory and almost intuitive, but because in the CBA method all the benefits are aggregated into one parameter called "benefit," the detailed

82 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

Combining the professional knowledge of the people who set the ecolabeling standards with the potential of AHP method allows the lay person understand the detailed and professional

The AHP method is very useful in solving the whole spectrum of real environmental problems and can help choosing more sustainable solutions. The reliability of the obtained results can be increased if during the construction of goal hierarchy or collection of data, special engi‐ neering tools are also applied. Such approach can help ease most of the criticisms that there is no theoretical basis for constructing the AHP criteria hierarchy or, that there is no objective criteria which can help in the process of weights assignment. Three presented case studies

In the first case study, the two-stage data collection and aggregation is carried out. First, the IWM-1 model was used to calculate the emissions to air, water and soil from each analyzed system. Second, these emissions were aggregated into LCA categories which were finally used as an input data for the AHP analysis. As a result, one obtains a clear and simultaneously detailed evaluation of the compared waste disposal systems. This is a quality very much sought

analysis of the results is more difficult.

analysis of different appliances.

**Figure 15.** CBA for the analyzed heat pumps.

show how this integration can be carried out.

**5. Conclusions**

by the decision makers.


### **Author details**

Tomasz Stypka\* , Agnieszka Flaga-Maryańczyk and Jacek Schnotale

\*Address all correspondence to: agnieszkaflaga@poczta.onet.pl

Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland

### **References**


[11] MacDonald ML. Solid waste management models: A state of the art review. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 1996; 23(2): 73–83.

**Author details**

Tomasz Stypka\*

**References**

3594.

9(2): 121–130.

14: 463–481.

233–246.

Technology; 1998.

Studies. 2015; 24(3): 1327–1338.

, Agnieszka Flaga-Maryańczyk and Jacek Schnotale

[1] Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment. 2011; 409: 3578–

[2] Ho W. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review.

[3] Stypka T, Flaga-Maryańczyk A. Comparative analysis of municipal solid waste systems: Cracow case study. Environment Protection Engineering. 2013; 39(4): 135–153.

[4] Stypka T, Berbeka K. Drinking water consumption in Cracow – An assessment from a sustainable development perspective. Problems of Sustainable Development. 2014;

[5] Stypka T, Flaga-Maryańczyk A, Schnotale J. Developing an environmentally sound selection method for heating appliances using ecolabeling, analytic hierarchy process and cost-benefit analysis: A heat pump case study. Polish Journal of Environmental

[6] Clapham WB Jr. RECYCLE: A computerized planning tool to improve municipal solid

[7] Jenkins L. Parametric mixed integer programming: An application to solid waste

[8] Chang NB, Shoemaker CA, Schuler RE. Solid waste management system analysis with air pollution and Leachate impact limitations. Waste Management and Research. 1996;

[9] Wang FS, Richardson AJ, Roddick FA. SWIM – A computer model for solid waste integrated management. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 1988; 20(4/5):

[10] Bjorklund A. Environmental systems analysis waste management with emphasis on substance flow and environmental impact [Licentiate thesis]. Stockholm University of

waste management. Ohio Journal of Science. 1986; 86(4): 189–199.

management. Management Science. 1982; 28(11): 1270–1284.

European Journal of Operational Research. 2008; 186: 211–228.

\*Address all correspondence to: agnieszkaflaga@poczta.onet.pl

84 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland


[39] ReVelle C, McGarity AE. Design and Operation of Civil and Environmental Engineer‐ ing Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.

[23] Guinée JB. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment – Operational Guide to the ISO

[25] Russel D. A Curmudgeon's thoughts on sustainability. Problems of Sustainable

[26] Polish Statistical Office Year Book. Warszawa; 2012. Available from: http://stat.gov.pl/ cps/rde/xbcr/gus/RS\_rocznik\_statystyczny\_rp\_2012.pdf [Accessed: 2013:04:15]

[28] Berbeka K. Assessment of Drinking Water Supply Options at Cracow University of Technology [thesis]. Cracow University of Technology; Krakow; 2012. (In Polish)

[29] Gleick PH, Cooley H. Bottled Water and Energy [Internet]. 2011. Accessed May 21, 2013,

[30] Rokicki G. Final Report: Utilization of PET Bottle Waste in the Process of Paint Pro‐ duction. Wydział Chemiczny Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa; 2005. (In Polish)

[31] Onet. PET Bottles under Supervision [Internet]. 2012. Accessed November 20, 2012, http://biznes.onet.pl/butelki-pet-pod-nadzorem,18490,4957616,prasa-detal (In Polish)

[32] BIP Miasto Krakow. Report "Cracow Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Plan for 2008-2011 and Perspective 2012-15" for period from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010. Available from: http://www.bip.krakow.pl/?dok\_id=21494&lid=90136386&vReg=2&metka=1

[33] Kreith K. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. New York: McGraw Hill; 1994.

[34] Sauer B, Schivley G, Molen A, Dettore C, Keoleian G. Life Cycle Assessment of Drinking Water Systems: Bottle Water, Tap Water, and Home/Office Delivery Water. Franklin Associates; A Division of ERG; 2009. Available from: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ pubs/docs/sw/LifeCycleAssessmentDrinkingWaterFullReport.pdf [Accessed:

[35] Jungbluth N. Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Drinking Water vs. Bottled

[36] Olko M. Analysis of drinking water quality changes in Cracow water distribution

[37] Munasinghe M. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. Washing‐

[38] Pearce D. Blueprint 3, Measuring Sustainable Development. London: CSERGE Earth‐

network [PhD dissertation]. AGH, Krakow; 2008. (In Polish)

Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht; 2002.

86 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

Development. 2010; 5(1): 15–22. (In Polish)

[Accessed: 2013:04:15] (In Polish)

Mineral Water. Uster: ESU Services; 2006.

ton, DC: World Bank; 1993.

2013:06:15]

scan; 1994.

[24] Web-HIPRE. Accessed http://hipre.aalto.fi/ [Accessed: 2015:11:10]

[27] Piński J, Piński A. Water from water. Wprost. 2006; 31: 40–45. (In Polish)

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-59726-228-6\_8#

