Abstract
The clean and sustainable disposal of waste generated by natural disasters is crucial for effective disaster waste management. The initial stages of waste management involve determining the quantity of waste and identifying suitable temporary sites for its disposal. This study estimates that the Kahramanmaraş province produced approximately 15 million tons of construction and demolition waste and 41,000 tons of household waste following the recent Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes on February 6, 2023. Additionally, the study proposes eight temporary disaster waste sites considering various environmental and technical criteria. It should be noted that this is the first study to factor in emissions from waste transportation when selecting temporary disaster waste sites. An algorithm that considers the transportation network to calculate emissions for each map pixel is developed and integrated with geographic information system to identify the best temporary disaster sites. The results show that the most suitable location for temporary sites is southeast of the city center. The transportation time of the waste to the most suitable temporary site is found to be 98 days when 1000 trucks are in operation. The estimated emissions due to the transportation of the waste to the recycling facilities in this region are approximately 88,000 tons of carbon dioxide, 4.4 tons of sulphur oxide, 7.6 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 47.7 tons of particulate matter. The approach employed in this study can be utilized to identify suitable temporary sites for waste management after any natural disaster.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AFAD (1998) Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği
Alshami A, Jalloul H, Hart L (2023) Virtual assessment report: surfside building collapse, Florida, USA June 24, 2021. Florida
Alves MCM, Lima BSLP, Evsukoff AG, Vieira IN (2009) Developing a fuzzy decision support system to determine the location of a landfill site. Waste Manage Res 27:641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09103832
Askarizadeh L, Karbassi AR, Ghalibaf MB, Nouri J (2016) Management of post-earthquake construction debris in Tehran metropolitan. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:639–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-015-0893-z
Bandara HMSCH, Thushanth G, Somarathna HMCC et al (2023) Feasible techniques for valorisation of construction and demolition waste for concreting applications. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:521–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04015-z
Boonmee C, Arimura M, Asada T (2018) Location and allocation optimization for integrated decisions on post-disaster waste supply chain management: on-site and off-site separation for recyclable materials. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 31:902–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.003
Brown C, Milke M (2016) Recycling disaster waste: feasibility, method and effectiveness. Resour Conserv Recycl 106:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.021
Brown C, Milke M, Seville E (2011) Disaster waste management: a review article. Waste Manage 31:1085–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.027
Cheng C, Thompson RG (2016) Application of boolean logic and GIS for determining suitable locations for temporary disaster waste management sites. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 20:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.011
Crowley J, Flachsbart P (2018) Local debris management planning and FEMA policies on disaster recovery in the United States. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 27:373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.024
Demir A, Dinçer AE, Yılmaz K (2023) A novel method for the site selection of large-scale PV farms by using AHP and GIS: A case study in İzmir, Türkiye. Sol Energy 259:235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2023.05.031
Domingo N, Luo H (2017) Canterbury earthquake construction and demolition waste management: issues and improvement suggestions. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.003
Eskandari M, Homaee M, Mahmodi S (2012) An integrated multi criteria approach for landfill siting in a conflicting environmental, economical and socio-cultural area. Waste Manage 32:1528–1538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.014
FEMA (2007) Public assistance debris management guide
Fetter G, Rakes T (2012) Incorporating recycling into post-disaster debris disposal. Socioecon Plann Sci 46:14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2011.10.001
Galderisi A, Menoni S, Giulia S, Alisia T (2022) Disaster recovery reform and resilience. In: Eslamian S, Eslamian F (eds) Disaster risk reduction for resilience, 1st edn. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Gálvez-Martos JL, Styles D, Schoenberger H, Zeschmar-Lahl B (2018) Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour Conserv Recycl 136:166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.016
Gbanie SP, Tengbe PB, Momoh JS et al (2013) Modelling landfill location using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Case study Bo, Southern Sierra Leone. Appl Geogr 36:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.013
Gordon K, Dion M (2008) Protection of “critical infrastructure” and the role of investment policies relating to national security. Paris 75116
Grzeda S, Mazzuchi TA, Sarkani S (2014) Temporary disaster debris management site identification using binomial cluster analysis and GIS. Disasters 38:398–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12040
Hancilar U, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Erdik M (2010) ELER software—a new tool for urban earthquake loss assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2677–2696. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-2677-2010
Hayashi H, Katsumi T (1996) Generation and management of disaster waste. Soils Found 36:349–358. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_349
Hernández-Padilla F, Angles M (2021) Earthquake waste management, is it possible in developing countries? Case study: 2017 Mexico city seism. Sustainability 13:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052431
Hu ZH, Sheu JB (2013) Post-disaster debris reverse logistics management under psychological cost minimization. Transport Res Part B: Methodol 55:118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.05.010
Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making, 1st edn. Springer, New York
Kabirifar K, Mojtahedi M, Wang C, Tam VWY (2020) Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: a review. J Clean Prod 263:121265
Karunasena G, Amaratunga D (2016) Capacity building for post disaster construction and demolition waste management: a case of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prev Manag 25:137–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2014-0172
Karunasena G, Amaratunga D, Haigh R, Lill I (2009) Post disaster waste management strategies in developing countries: case of Sri Lanka. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 13:171–190. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.171-190
Karunasena G, Amaratunga D, Haigh R (2012) Post-disaster construction & demolition debris management: A Sri Lanka case study. J Civ Eng Manag 18:457–468. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.699913
Lee YH, Kim YC, Lee HK (2022) Framework for selection of temporary disaster waste management sites for post-flood recovery in Seoul, South Korea. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 71:102832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102832
Lin H-Y, Kao J-J (2005) Grid-based heuristic method for multifactor landfill siting. J Comput Civ Eng 19:369–376. https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE0887-3801200519:4369
Lorca Á, Çelik M, Ergun Ö, Keskinocak P (2017) An optimization-based decision-support tool for post-disaster debris operations. Prod Oper Manag 26:1076–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12643
Maçin EK, Demir İ (2018) Araştırma Makalesi Kentsel dönüşüm sürecinde İstanbul’da inşaat ve yikinti atiklari yönetimi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 9:188–201
Marin G, Modica M (2017) Socio-economic exposure to natural disasters. Environ Impact Assess Rev 64:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.002
Motlagh ZK, Sayadi MH (2015) Siting MSW landfills using MCE methodology in GIS environment (Case study: Birjand plain, Iran). Waste Manage 46:322–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.013
National Institute of Building Sciences (2012) HAZUS-MH 2.1. Washington, DC
Nickdoost N, Jalloul H, Choi J (2022) An integrated framework for temporary disaster debris management sites selection and debris collection logistics planning using geographic information systems and agent-based modeling. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 80:103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103215
Olson DL (2004) Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Math Comput Model 40:721–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2004.10.003
Onan K, Ülengin F, Sennaroʇlu B (2015) An evolutionary multi-objective optimization approach to disaster waste management: a case study of Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Syst Appl 42:8850–8857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.039
Özdamar L, Demir O (2012) A hierarchical clustering and routing procedure for large scale disaster relief logistics planning. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 48:591–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.11.003
Passos J, Alves O, Brito P (2020) Management of municipal and construction and demolition wastes in Portugal: future perspectives through gasification for energetic valorisation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 17:2907–2926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02656-6
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Co, New York
Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98
Sabzevari HSA, Mottaki Z, Hassani A, et al (2022) Temporary housing site selection in Soffeh Mountain, District 5 of Isfahan, Iran. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-12-2021-0162
Sadek S, El-Fadel M, Freiha F (2006) Compliance factors within a GIS-based framework for landfill siting. Int J Environ Stud 63:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207230600562213
Sahin H, Kara BY, Karasan OE (2016) Debris removal during disaster response: a case for Turkey. Socioecon Plann Sci 53:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2015.10.003
T.C. Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı (2023) Deprem bölgelerinde, 830 bin 783 binadaki 3 milyon 273 bin 605 bağimsiz birimde hasar tespit çalişmasi yapildi. https://www.csb.gov.tr/deprem-bolgelerinde-830-bin-783-binadaki-3-milyon-273-bin-605-bagimsiz-birimde-hasar-tespit-calismasi-yapildi-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-38439. Accessed 18 Mar 2023
Tabata T, Wakabayashi Y, Tsai P, Saeki T (2017) Environmental and economic evaluation of pre-disaster plans for disaster waste management: Case study of Minami-Ise, Japan. Waste Manage 61:386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.020
Tabata T, Onishi A, Saeki T, Tsai P (2019) Earthquake disaster waste management reviews: Prediction, treatment, recycling, and prevention. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 36
Trivedi A, Singh A, Chauhan A (2015) Analysis of key factors for waste management in humanitarian response: an interpretive structural modelling approach. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 14:527–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.10.006
TUİK (2023) TÜİK Kurumsal. In: Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları, 2022. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=49685. Accessed 8 June 2023
Villoria-Sáez P, Porras-Amores C, del Río Merino M (2020) Estimation of construction and demolition waste. In: Advances in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling: Management, Processing and Environmental Assessment. Elsevier, pp 13–30
Wang Z, Hu H, Guo M, Gong J (2019) Optimization of temporary debris management site selection and site service regions for enhancing postdisaster debris removal operations. Comput-Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 34:230–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12410
Yılmaz K, Dinçer AE, Ayhan EN (2023) Exploring flood and erosion risk indices for optimal solar PV site selection and assessing the influence of topographic resolution. Renew Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119056
Yılmaz K, Dinçer AE, Kalpakcı V, Öztürk Ş (2022) Debris low modelling and hazard assessment for a glacier area: a case study in Barsem, Tajikistan. Nat Hazards. 115(3):2577–2601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05654-8
Zhang F, Cao C, Li C et al (2019) A systematic review of recent developments in disaster waste management. J Clean Prod 235:822–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.229
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both Ali Ersin Dinçer and Abdullah Demir contributed to all aspects of the study.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Responsibility editor: Shahid Hussain.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Demir, A., Dinçer, A.E. Efficient disaster waste management: identifying suitable temporary sites using an emission-aware approach after the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20, 13143–13158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05123-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05123-0