Integrating GIS and MCDM to Deal with Landfill Site Selection IJET-IJENS.pdfInternational Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:10 No:06 33 103106-7474 IJET-IJENS © December

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:10 No:06 33

103106-7474 IJET-IJENS © December 2010 IJENS I J E N S

Integrating GIS and MCDM to Deal with Landfill Site

Selection

Zeinhom El Alfy1, Rasha Elhadary2, Ahmed Elashry2 1 MICA STAR for mining General Manager

2 Department of Information Systems,

Faculty of Computer and Information Sciences,

Mansoura University, Egypt

Corresponding Email: [email protected]

Abstract-- The evaluation of a hazardous waste disposal site is a

complicated process because it requires data from diverse social

and environmental fields. These data often involve processing of a

significant amount of spatial information which can be used by

GIS as an important tool for land use suitability analysis. In this

study, the most suitable candidate sites for locating landfill in

Mansoura city, Egypt. As a case study area are determined by

using an integration of the Geographical Information System

(GIS) and Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. For

this purpose, eight input map layers are prepared and two

different MCDM methods which are Weighted Linear

Combination (WLC) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are

implemented to GIS. The first stage of procedure is initial

screening process to eliminate unsuitable land where only 2.93%

of the total study area is suitable for landfill sitting. These suitable

areas are further examined by deploying the AHP method in

order to obtain relative importance weights followed by the

application of WLC method for a calculation of suitability index.

The resulting land suitability is reported on a grading scale of 1–5,

which is the least to the most suitable areas respectively. Research

findings show that only five areas are identified as the most

suitable location for landfill with the grading values greater than

2.67.

Index Term-- Decision-Making, Site Selection, analysis, landfill

site selection, multi-criteria evaluation, GIS, MCDM, AHP.

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the serious challenges faced by human beings in urban

areas nowadays is the solid waste management (SWM).

Obviously, the way to limit the impact on our planet’s

ecosystem is by reducing the amount of solid waste generation.

Waste management (WM) must be achieved by intensive

recycling program and composting. If these programs are not

sufficient, solid waste must be incinerated and only as a last

resort, should landfills be utilized with energy recovery mainly

methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) gases in order to

prevent atmosphere contamination (Messineo and Panno,

(2008))[1].

Extensive studies have been reported in this area and are still

underway. In 2005, Alhumoud[2] presented recycling of solid

waste should be integrated with other SWM options to abate

degradation in urban environment; this can be accomplished

through promotion of economical and environmental friendly

WM practices. Troschinetz and Mihelcic (2008) [3] analyzed

the recycling of municipal solid waste (MSW) in developing

countries. Twenty-three case studies provided MSW generation

and recovery rates and composition for compilation and

assessment. According to EPA (2003) [11] about 56% of MSW

goes to Landfill sites, 30% is recovered, recycled or composted

and 15% is incinerated and in European Union EU around 45%

is disposed by co-disposal methods (Haines, 1988). Saeed et

al., (2008) [4] reported the generation of solid waste is directly

proportional to population, industrialization, urbanization and

the changing lifestyle, food, habits and living standard of the

people. The rapid and constant growth in urban population

leads to a dramatic increase in urban solid waste generation,

with a severe socio-economic and environmental impact. The

site selection of sanitary landfill is perhaps the most difficult

and controversial issue of the planning process (Syed and

Walter, (1994) [5].

For many years, rubbish has simply been dumped on ground

open areas. Failing in a proper way of siting landfill in

developing countries, leads to some negative effects such as

fires due to landfill gases, rodents, insects, and birds due to

organic food, bad odours and leachate that causes groundwater

pollution. In this case, the landfill is indentified as unsanitary

which poses the issue of public health hazard.

Benítez et al., (2008) [6] established mathematical models that

correlate the generation of per capita residential solid waste

(RSW) to the following variables: education, income per

household, and number of residents. This work was based on

data from a study on generation, quantification and

composition of residential waste in a Mexican city. A study

from Greece by Karadimas and Loumos (2008) [7] examined

an innovative model for estimation of MSWgeneration and

collection. In their model spatial geodatabase that is part of

integrated GIS was applied for SWM. A landfill diagnosis

method ‘EVIAVE’ integrated with GIS spatial data for landfill

site in Spain has been assessed by Montserrat et al., (2008)

[17]. They concluded that landfill siting should take into

account a wide range of territorial and legal factors in order to

reduce negative impacts on the environment. Yagoub and

Buyong (1999) [8] reported that the use of GIS in SWM not

only save time and cost of design and spatial analysis of site

selection, but also provides a digital data bank for future

monitoring of the sanitary landfill site.

[email protected]



Sitting of a new landfill using a multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA) and overlay analysis using GIS proposes a system

that considered several factors in the sitting process, such as

geology, water supply resources, land use, sensitive sites, air

quality and groundwater quality. This system could help

government bodies set guidelines and regulations, and evaluate

prevailing strategies for handling and disposal of waste.

Saaty (1980) [9] proposed for first time, the AHP that used a

four step down approach to solve a multi criteria decision

making problem. The decision problem was broken down into

a hierarchy (Tree) of interrelated decision elements. Input data

was then collected by pair wise comparisons of decision

elements. The “eigenvalue” method was used to estimate the

relative weights of decision elements. Then it was aggregated

to arrive at a set of ratings for the decision alternatives. Chang

et al., (2008) [10] reported that siting landfill is a difficult,

complex, tedious and protracted process that requires analysis

of multi criteria through programming model.

In this paper, the GIS multiple criteria evaluation (MCE) for

new landfill site in Mansoura city has being described. The

spatial decision in accordance with MCE for new sanitary

landfill problem was solved through the assessments of AHP.

The pair-wise comparison model was utilized to determine the

relative weights of the decision criteria which is then integrated

with the GIS Boolean and FUZZY logic model to produce

feasible sites for landfill siting in the study area.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Dakahlia province is located to the north east of the Delta in

Egypt. Its capital is the city of Mansoura, with a population of

the province about 5 million people, making it one of the

largest populated governorates of Egypt. Bounded to the East

the Eastern province and the West Western Province, and north

of the Mediterranean and north-eastern Damietta province, and

north-western Kafr el-Sheikh province to the south Qaliubiya

between latitudes 30.5 °, 31.5 °, N, and longitudes 30 °, 32 °

east longitude. The total area of the Dakahlia province is 3459

km2. The total population in the Dakahlia province in 1/1/2008

is (4,985,178 people) by 7% of the total population of the

Republic (VI) and the rate of population growth by 1.9%.

Fig. 1.(a) Delta Wady El Nile



Fig. 1.(b) The study area

III. THE METHODOLOGY

The presented method starts with the identification of

evaluation criteria or parameters needed for landfill siting. All

these parameters have been identified based on the local

guidelines such as Town and Country Planning Department

(TCPD) guideline for waste disposal siting and also guideline

from the Department of Environment (DOE). Besides, the

related information about landfill siting has also been

reviewed from the international practices like Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) [11] from the United States plus

review from related literatures. All the data pertaining to these

parameters were taken from the relevant agencies, however

not all parameters are included in this study due to the lack of

data availability.

In this study seven (7) parameters have been identified for

landfill site selection namely surface water, residential area,

railway, archeology or historical site, sensitive area, road

accessibility and urban area.

There are two stages of analysis as shown in above diagram 1

where, firstly it starts with an elimination process of unsuitable

parcels of land for siting a landfill. Suitable parcels of land

resulted from the first stage undergo a second stage of analysis

where there are two types of Multi Criteria Decision Making

(MCDM) methods have been employed a namely analytical

hierarchy process (AHP) and weighted linear combination

(WLC). Table I above explains list of the constraint criteria. At

the first stage, these criteria are used to identify unsuitable

parcel of land for landfill according to the local regulation. By

considering these criteria, it was found that only 2.93% of the

total area than can be considered as suitable land. These few

areas can be suggested as a suitable list of land to the Local

Authority

but, this is not a final result as further step needs to be applied

in order to narrow down these suitable areas.



Diagram1. Model Design Flowchart

TABLE I

LIST OF CONSTRAINT CRITERIA

No. Criteria Buffer Zone

1 Surface water 300m

2 Historical places 3000m

3 Urban areas 1000m

4 Railway 1500m

5 Roads network 1000m

6 Military areas 2000m

7 Airport 3030m

The analysis of digital elevation model (DEM), soil type and

slope are neglected. The study area has a flat topography

(horizontal slope) and the contour surfaces are very less. Also

has a clay soil which is one of the best sites for landfill siting

because clay can prevent leachate problems. Leachate

migration from the landfill could be a potential source of

surface and groundwater contaminations. This stage is applied

to rank the potential areas based on attributes recorded on GIS data maps. These criteria are not easily quantifiable or

measurable using related units and thus, a suitable approach is

needed to make these criteria commensurable. Therefore, a

grading scale value of 1 to 4 is applied to these criteria to

indicate its suitability for landfill siting which is ranging from

least to the most suitable, respectively.

First stage Second stage

POTENTIAL AREAS

CONSTRAINT

MAPS Boolean Logic [0,1]

FACTOR MAPS GIS analysis

Distance mapping

Surface derivation

Distance/Proximity

PAIRWISE

COMPARISAN AHP Weighting

CRITERION MAPS GIS spatial data

CRITERION

WEIGHTS W1, W2 …….. WN

SITE EVALUATION Weighted linear combination

"GIS-MCE"

SUITABILITY MAP Attribute scores

Best landfill sites



Fig. 2. (a) Roads Network without Buffer

Fig. 2. (b) Roads Network with Buffer

Fig. 2. (c) Railway Network without Buffer

Fig. 2. (d) Railway Network with Buffer

Figure 2.( a & c ), Shows the region has a good roads and

railway network system and access to the landfill anywhere

in this area is possible. Figure 2.(b&d), Shows the buffered

distance for roads and railway where no landfill site is

suitable to be constructed in. According to international

guidelines for landfill siting the criterion map has indicated

that the suitable distance from road network is within 1000

m buffer [12-16]. This is very important for the

environmental requirement and property protection.

Besides, it helps to reduce the pollution already caused by

traffic on the road.

Fig. 3. (a) Shawa Airport

Fig. 3. (b) Shawa Airport with Buffer

Figure 3.(a), Shows shawa airport that Landfill must be

within 3030 m (10,000 ft) away from any airport-railway,

thus birds are attracted to landfill sites where different types

of food are available [18-19]. Figure 3.(b), Shows shawa

airport with buffer 3030 m that indicate the restricted area

around the air port.



Fig. 4. (a) Surface Water without Buffer Zone

Fig. 4. (b) Surface Water with Buffer Zone

Surface water (rivers) is very important because of its

ecological balance to all the human being activities and as a

nature resource. Rivers can be endangered by the landfill

because of leacheate issue which is dangerous it can bring a

great pollution to the river. Figure 4.(a), shows the river

network. Based on World Bank guidelines to encounter the

leachate problem, a buffer distance of 300 m from the river

is considered for landfill location as shown in

Figure 6.(b). According to Samuel Weiss 1974 leachate may

leave the landfill down at the ground surface as a spring or

percolated through the soil and rock that surround the waste.

Fig. 5. (a) Urban Area without Buffer Zone

Fig. 5. (b) Urban Area with Buffer Zone

Figure 5.(a), Shows urban areas in the study area where

landfills should not be placed too close to high-density

urban areas in order to mitigate conflicts relating to the Not

in My Back Yard syndrome (NIMBY). This guard against

health problems, noise complaints, odour complaints,

decreased property values and mischief due to scavenging

animals. Development of landfills shall be prohibited within

3000 meters from village or rural settlements. According to

EPA (2003) [11], a landfill site should be located in an area

which is at least 500 meters from an urban residential or

commercial area. Figure 5.(b), Shows urban areas with

buffer zone 1000m that represent restricted area in green

color. The geology properties of the study area are not

considered as factor or constraints. There are limitations of

geological data for this area, therefore the depth to the

bedrock and groundwater is not taken into consideration

that requires more expert interpretation and fieldwork to

collect the data, which is beyond the scope of this study.

Fig. 6. (a) Study area Vector map

Fig. 6. (b) Study area Vector map with Buffers



Fig. 6. (c) Results of Overlaying Processing

"Potential areas"

The next step is the integration of the analytical hierarchy

process (AHP) and weighted linear combination (WLC) on this

part. The AHP method which is developed by Saaty, T. L.

(1980) [9] is based on the calculation of using the eigenvector

methods. This method of a pairwise comparison matrix is

graded by a decision maker and stored in pair wise comparison

modules.

Table II

Saaty’s Preferences Table

Importance Intensity Definition

1 Equal important

3 Moderate important

5 Strong important

7 Very strong important

9 Extremely important

A matrix is constructed where each criterion is compared with

the other criteria relative to its importance, based on a scale of

1 to 9 which means its level of importance varies from equal

importance to the extreme importance, respectively. Then, a

weight estimate is calculated and used to derive a consistency

ratio (CR) of the pairwise comparisons, If CR > 0.10, then

some pairwise values need to be reconsidered and the process

is repeated until the desired value of CR < 0.10 is reached. A

detailed explanation about the AHP method can be found in

Saaty, T. L. (1980) [9]. Finally, WLC method is applied to

compute the suitability index value of the potential areas based

on the equation as follows (equation 1):

n

Si =∑ wj * xij

(1)

j=1

Where Si is the suitability index for area i, wj is the relative

importance weight of criterion j, xij is the grading value of area

i under criterion j and n is the total number of criteria. The

suitability index is calculated using the grading value of factor

criteria with their corresponding relative importance weight

taken directly from the last column in the Table II.

TableIII Eigenvector Values Derived from AHP

Weights Criterion

0.0565 Proximity to town

0.3813 Land Area

0.0835 Railway

0.1479 Roads

0.3308 Surface water

1.000 Total

0.10 Consistency Ratio (CR)

Acceptable Consistency result 0.10 is

The level of suitability for each cell on these potential areas is

finally calculated by applying the above formula. Suitability

index value is the final value obtained where it varies from

lowest to the most suitable site according to the grading scale

of 1 to 5. Figure 7 below displays the final grading value obtain

which is called suitability index. An increasing of the

suitability index indicates the more suitable that site to be a

landfill. Sites with suitability index from 39.012 to 43.215 are

less suitable to become a landfill site. Sites with index from

75.797 to 93.949 are considered the most suitable ones

however it covers only on the small part. Therefore, the second

ranking of suitability index which is from 63.219 to 75.797 can

be considered as the most suitable sites available at the study

area.



Fig. 7. The Most Suitable Area

IV. CONCLUSION The presented approach is easy to understand, it can illustrate

which areas are better or less suitable for landfill site selection,

and it can be used to select landfill sites in the shortest possible

time and least costs. The criteria used in this study are not fixed

factors since they can vary from area to area and these criteria

can be changed accordingly in the analysis process. The level

of uncertainty of the results depends on the accuracy of the

data, the weights a user assigns to parameters, and the functions

or process used in the spatial model. Apart from that, the

presented methodology can explain clearly and directly the

analysis and results in an easily understandable format. As a

result, when the approach and results of the suitability map

could be clearly understood, it can assist in getting full support

especially from the public.

REFERENCES [1] Messineo A., D. Panno, (2008), Municipal Waste Management in

Sicily: Practices and Challenges, Waste Management 28 1201–

1208.

[2] Alhumoud, J. M., 2005, Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in the

Gulf Co-operation Council States. In: Resources, Conservation

and Recycling 45 (2005) 142–158, (Elsevier)

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.01.010

[3] Troschinetz, A. M., Mihelcic, J.R., (2008), Sustainable Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries, Waste

Management (in press) doi: doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.

wasman.2008.06.004

[4] Saeed, Mohamed Osman, Nasir M. H., and Mujeebu M. A.,

(2008), Development of Municipal Solid Waste Generation and

Recyclable Components Rate of Kuala Lumpur: Perspective Study.

Paper presented in International Conference on Environment

(ICENV 2008) Penang, Malaysia. [5] Syed R. Qasim and Walter Chiang, (1994), Sanitary Landfill

Planning Design and Operation, published by Technomic

publishing Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA.

[6] Benítez, S. O., Lozano-Olvera, G., Morelos, R.A., Armijo de

Vega, C. (2008), Mathematical Modeling to Predict Residential

Solid Waste Generation, Waste Management Journal 28 S7–S13.

[7] Karadimas V. N., Vassili G. Loumos (2008), GIS-based Modeling for the Estimation of Municipal Solid Waste Generation and

Collection, Waste Management and Research Journal DOI:

10.1177/0734242X07081484.

[8] Yagoub, M. M. and Taher, B. (1998). GIS Applications for

Dumping Site Selection, Presented at: The 18th Annual ESRI User

Conference, 27-31 July 1998, San Diego, California, USA

[9] Saaty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill,

New York.

[10] Chang, Ni-Bin, G. Parvathinathanb, Jeff B. Breeden (2008),

Combining GIS with FUZZY Multi-Criteria Decision Making for

Landfill Siting in A Fast-Growing Urban Region, Texas, USA, .

Journal of Environmental Management Volume 87, Issue 1,

April 2008, Pages 139-153

[11] Environment Protection Agency (EPA), (2003), Location Criteria Chapter 2 Sub-part B: In Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria:

Technical Manual, (USAEPA 530-R-93).

[12] Malczewski J., (2004), GIS-based Land-Use Suitability Analysis: a

Critical Overview. In: Progress in Planning 62 (2004) 3–65,

Elsevier. [13] Sumathi, V. R., Usha Natesan and Chinmoy Sarkar (2007), GIS-

based Approach for Optimized Siting of Municipal Solid Waste

Landfill, doi: 10.1016/j. wasman.2007. 09.032.

[14] Mahini, A. S. and Gholamalifard, M., 2006. Siting MSW landfills with a weighted linear combination methodology in a GIS

environment. International Journal Environmental Science

Technology, 3(4), 435-445. [15] Sener, B., Suzen, M. L. and Doyuran, V., 2006. Landfill site

selection by using geographic information systems. Environmental

Geology, 49, 376-388.

[16] Christian, L., Stefanie, H., Samuel, S., 2003, Municipal Solid

Waste Management Strategies and Technologies for Sustainable

Solutions, published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,

German.

[17] Montserrat, Z., Emilio Molero, Álvaro Hurtado, Alejandro

Grindlayand Ángel Ramos (2008), Evaluation of a Municipal Landfill Site in Southern Spain with GIS-Aided Methodology,

doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023

[18] Daneshvar, R., Fernandes, L., Warith, M., and Daneshfar, B.,

2005. Customizing arcmap interface to generate a user- friendly

landfill site selection GIS tool. Journal of Solid Waste Technology

and Management, 31(1), 1-12. [19] Alam Flora. 2004. Corporate environmental report 2004/2005.

Shah Alam, Selangor: Published by the Alam Flora Sdn Bhd.

Documents

Integrating GIS and MCDM to Deal with Landfill Site Selection IJET-IJENS.pdfInternational Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol:10 No:06 33 103106-7474 IJET-IJENS © December