Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 12423–12434 | Cite as

Landfill site selection for municipal solid wastes in mountainous areas with landslide susceptibility

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Several cities across the world are located in mountainous and landslide prone areas. Any landfill siting without considering landslide susceptibility in such regions may impose additional environmental adversity. This study was aimed to propose a practical method for selecting waste disposal site that accounts for landslide exposure. The proposed method was applied to a city which is highly proneness to landslide due to its geology, morphology, and climatic conditions. First, information on the previously occurred landslides of the region was collected. Based on this information, proper landslide causative factors were selected and their thematic maps were prepared. Factors’ classes were then standardized in 0–1 domain, and thematic layers were weighted by using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The landslide susceptibility map was prepared afterwards. Unsuitable areas for landfill location were masked in GIS environment by Boolean method, retaining sufficient areas for further evaluation. Nine remaining alternatives were selected through comprehensive field visits and were ranked by using AHP. Consequently, 17 factors in three environmental, economical, and social perspectives were employed. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of the alternatives ranking with respect to variations in criterion weights. Based on the obtained landslide susceptible map, nearly 36 % of the entire region is proneness to landslide. The prepared Boolean map indicates that potential areas for landfill construction cover 11 % of the whole region. The results further indicated that if landslide susceptible areas are not considered in landfill site selection, the potential landfill sites would become more than twice. It can be concluded that if any of these landslide prone sites are selected for landfilling, further environmental disaster would be terminated in the future. It can be further concluded that the proposed method could reasonably well be adjusted to consider landslide exposure when siting a solid waste landfill.

Keywords

AHP GIS Landfill Landslide risk SMCDA 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akgun A (2012) A comparison of landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at Izmir, Turkey. Landslides 9:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akgun A, Turk N (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik (Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multi criteria decision analysis. Environ Earth Sci 61:595–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ananda J (2007) Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning. Environ Manag 39:534–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson MG, Holcombe E, Esquivel M, Toro J, Ghesquiere F (2010) The efficacy of a programme of landslide risk reduction in areas of unplanned housing in the Eastern Caribbean. Environ Manag 45:807–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asadi Kapourchal S, Asadi Kapourchal S, Pazira E, Homaee M (2009) Assessing radish potential for phytoremediation of lead-polluted soils resulting from air pollution. Plant Soil Environ 55(5):202–206Google Scholar
  6. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Marui H, Kanno T (2005) Landslides in Sado Island of Japan: Part II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparisons of results from two methods and verifications. Eng Geol 81:432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Babaeian E, Homaee M, Rahnemaei R (2016) Chelate-enhanced phytoextraction and phytostabilization of lead contaminated soils by carrot, Daucus Carrota. Arch Agron Soil Sci 62(3):339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barredo JI, Benavides A, Hervas J, Van Westen CJ (2000) Comparing heuristic landslide hazard assessment techniques using GIS in the Tirajana basin, Gran Canaria Island, Spain. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2(1):9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Buenrostro Delgado O, Mendoza M, Granados EL, Geneletti D (2008) Analysis of land suitability for the siting of inter-municipal landfills in the Cuitzeo Lake Basin, Mexico. Waste Manag 28:1137–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang NB, Parvathinathan G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. J Environ Manag 87(1):139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Che Y, Yang K, Jin Y, Zhang W, Shang Z, Tai J (2013) Residents’ concerns and attitudes toward a municipal solid waste landfill: integrating a questionnaire survey and GIS techniques. Environ Monit Assess 185:10001–10013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davari M, Homaee M, Rahnemaei R (2015a) An analytical deterministic model for simultaneous phytoremediation of Ni and Cd from contaminated soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:4609–4620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davari M, Rahnemaei R, Homaee M (2015b) Competitive adsorption-desorption reactions of two hazardous heavy metals in contaminated soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:13024–13032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demesouka OE, Vavatsikos AP, Anagnostopoulos KP (2013) Suitability analysis for siting MSW landfills and its multicriteria spatial decision support system: Method, implementation and case study. Waste Manag 33:1190–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demesouka OE, Vavatsikos AP, Anagnostopoulos KP (2014) GIS-based multicriteria municipal solid waste landfill suitability analysis: a review of the methodologies performed and criteria implemented. Waste Manag Res 32(4):270–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eastman JR (2003) IDRISI for windows users guide version kilimanjaro. Clark Labs for Cartographic Technology and Geographic Analysis, Clark UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekmekcioglu M, Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Fuzzy multicriteria disposal method and site selection for municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 30:1729–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 Manag 32:1528–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eskandari M, Homaee M, Mahmoodi S, Pazira E (2013) Integrating GIS and AHP for municipal solid waste landfill site selection. J Basic Appl Sci Res 3(4):588–595Google Scholar
  21. Eskandari M, Homaee M, Mahmoodi S, Pazira E, van Genuchten MT (2015) Optimizing landfill site selection by using land classification maps. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:7754–7765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Expert Choice (1997) Expert choice Inc. Pittsburgh. http://expertchoice.com/
  23. Falamaki A, Shariatmadari N, Noorzad A (2008) Strength properties of Hexametaphosphate treated soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(8):1215–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrokhian Firouzi A, Homaee M, Klumpp E, Kasteel R, Tappe W (2015) Bacteria transport and retention in intact calcareous soil columns under saturated flow conditions. J Hydrol Hydromech 62(2):102–109Google Scholar
  25. Geneletti D (2010) Combining stakeholder analysis and spatial multicriteria evaluation to select and rank inert landfill sites. Waste Manag 30:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gorsevski PV, Donevska KR, Mitrovski CD, Frizado JP (2012) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation techniques with geographic information systems for landfill site selection: a case study using ordered weighted average. Waste Manag 32:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gorsevski PV, Jankowski P, Gessler PE (2006) An heuristic approach for mapping landslide hazard by integrating fuzzy logic with analytic hierarchy process. Control Cybern 35(1):121–146Google Scholar
  28. Guillard C, Zezere J (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment and validation in the Framework of municipal planning in Portugal: the case of Loures municipality. Environ Manag 50(4):721–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81:166–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hasekiogullari D, Ercanoglu M (2012) A new approach to use AHP in landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study at Yenice (Karabuk, NW Turkey). Nat Hazards 63(2):1157–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hervas J, Bobrowsky P (2009) Mapping: inventories, susceptibility, hazard and risk. In: Sassa K, Canuti P (eds) Landslides—disaster risk reduction. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iran’s Environmental Protection Organization (IEPO), Office for Soil and Water Pollution Studies (2009) Guidelines for siting MSW sanitary landfill (in Persian). Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  33. Iranian Statistics Center (2009) General census of population and housing of Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad province. Statistical Centre of IranGoogle Scholar
  34. ITC-ILWIS (2005) Ilwis 3.3 Academic User’s Guide. International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  35. Jafarnejadi AR, Homaee M, Sayyad G (2011) Large scale spatial variability of accumulated cadmium in the wheat farm grains. Soil Sediment Contam 20(1):93–99Google Scholar
  36. Kayastha P, Dhital MR, De Smedt F (2013) Application of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for landslide susceptibility mapping: A case study from the Tinau watershed, west Nepal. Comp Geosci 52:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim KR, Owens G (2010) Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of landfills using biosolids: a review. J Environ Manag 91(4):791–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad provincial government (2008) land use planning design of Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad provinceGoogle Scholar
  39. Kontos T, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW landfills with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste Manag 25:818–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malczewski J (2000) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrissey AJ, Browne J (2004) Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Manag 24:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nas B, Cay T, Iscan F, Berktay A (2010) Selection of MSW landfill site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evaluation. Environ Monit Assess 160:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nouri M, Homaee M, Bybordi M (2014) Quantitative assessment of LNAPLs retention in soil porous media. Soil Sediment Contam 23:801–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ohman KVH, Hettiaratchi JPA, Ruwanpura J, Balakrishnan J, Achari G (2007) Development of a landfill model to prioritize design and operating objectives. Environ Monit Assess 135:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ojha CSP, Goyal MK, Kumar S (2007) Applying Fuzzy logic and the point count system to select landfill sites. Environ Monit Assess 135:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rozos D, Bathrellos GD, Skillodimou HD (2011) Comparison of the implementation of rock engineering system and analytic hierarchy process methods, upon landslide susceptibility mapping, using GIS: a case study from the Eastern Achaia County of Peloponnesus, Greece. Environ Earth Sci 63:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Saaty T, Vargas L (2001) Methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  50. Sener B, Suzen L, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by using geographic information systems. Environ Geol 49:376–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sener S, Sener E, Karaguzel R (2011) Solid waste disposal site selection with GIS and AHP methodology: a case study in Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 173:533–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sener S, Sener E, Nas B, Karaguzel R (2010) Combining AHP with GIS for landfill site selection: a case study in the Lake Beys_ehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey). Waste Manag 30:2037–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sumathi VR, Natesan U, Sarkar C (2008) GIS-based approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manag 28:2146–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tavares G, Zsigraiová Z, Semiao V (2011) Multi-criteria GIS-based siting of an incineration plant for municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 31:1960–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. US EPA (2006) EPA Landfill Manuals, Manual on site selection. US Environmental Protection Agency, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. Uyan M (2013) MSW landfill site selection by combining AHP with GIS for Konya, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 71:1629–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng Geol 102(3):112–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang G, Qin L, Li G, Chen L (2009) Landfill site selection using spatial information technologies and AHP: a case study in Beijing, China. J Environ Manag 90:2414–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wu CH, Chen SC (2009) Determining landslide susceptibility in Central Taiwan from rainfall and six site factors using the analytical hierarchy process method. Geomorphology 112:190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 72:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yalcin A, Reis S, Aydinoglu AC, Yomralioglu T (2011) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, analytical hierarchy process, bivariate statistics and logistics regression methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Trabzon, NE Turkey. Catena 85:274–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zezere JL, Reis E, Garcia R, Oliveira S, Rodrigues ML, Vieira G, Ferreira AB (2004) Integration of spatial and temporal data for the definition of different landslide hazard scenarios in the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Soil and Water Research InstituteAgricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO)KarajIran
  2. 2.Department of Soil ScienceTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of EngineeringPayame Noor UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations