Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 9:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun A, Turk N (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik (Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multi criteria decision analysis. Environ Earth Sci 61:595–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananda J (2007) Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning. Environ Manag 39:534–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 45:807–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):202–206

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 81:432–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):339–358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):9–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:1137–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 185:10001–10013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:4609–4620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davari M, Rahnemaei R, Homaee M (2015b) Competitive adsorption-desorption reactions of two hazardous heavy metals in contaminated soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:13024–13032

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 33:1190–1206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):270–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman JR (2003) IDRISI for windows users guide version kilimanjaro. Clark Labs for Cartographic Technology and Geographic Analysis, Clark University

  • Ekmekcioglu M, Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Fuzzy multicriteria disposal method and site selection for municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 30:1729–1736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:1528–1538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):588–595

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:7754–7765

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Expert Choice (1997) Expert choice Inc. Pittsburgh. http://expertchoice.com/

  • Falamaki A, Shariatmadari N, Noorzad A (2008) Strength properties of Hexametaphosphate treated soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(8):1215–1218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):102–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D (2010) Combining stakeholder analysis and spatial multicriteria evaluation to select and rank inert landfill sites. Waste Manag 30:328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:287–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):121–146

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):721–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81:166–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1157–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hervas J, Bobrowsky P (2009) Mapping: inventories, susceptibility, hazard and risk. In: Sassa K, Canuti P (eds) Landslides—disaster risk reduction. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–349

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Iran’s Environmental Protection Organization (IEPO), Office for Soil and Water Pollution Studies (2009) Guidelines for siting MSW sanitary landfill (in Persian). Tehran, Iran

    Google Scholar 

  • Iranian Statistics Center (2009) General census of population and housing of Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad province. Statistical Centre of Iran

  • ITC-ILWIS (2005) Ilwis 3.3 Academic User’s Guide. International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede

  • Jafarnejadi AR, Homaee M, Sayyad G (2011) Large scale spatial variability of accumulated cadmium in the wheat farm grains. Soil Sediment Contam 20(1):93–99

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 52:398–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim KR, Owens G (2010) Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of landfills using biosolids: a review. J Environ Manag 91(4):791–797

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad provincial government (2008) land use planning design of Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad province

  • Kontos T, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW landfills with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste Manag 25:818–832

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (2000) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4(1):5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrissey AJ, Browne J (2004) Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Manag 24:297–308

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 160:491–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouri M, Homaee M, Bybordi M (2014) Quantitative assessment of LNAPLs retention in soil porous media. Soil Sediment Contam 23:801–819

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 135:85–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ojha CSP, Goyal MK, Kumar S (2007) Applying Fuzzy logic and the point count system to select landfill sites. Environ Monit Assess 135:99–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 63:49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T, Vargas L (2001) Methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, Pittsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Sener B, Suzen L, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by using geographic information systems. Environ Geol 49:376–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 173:533–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:2037–2046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumathi VR, Natesan U, Sarkar C (2008) GIS-based approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manag 28:2146–2160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tavares G, Zsigraiová Z, Semiao V (2011) Multi-criteria GIS-based siting of an incineration plant for municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 31:1960–1972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (2006) EPA Landfill Manuals, Manual on site selection. US Environmental Protection Agency, USA

  • Uyan M (2013) MSW landfill site selection by combining AHP with GIS for Konya, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 71:1629–1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng Geol 102(3):112–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 90:2414–2421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu CH, Chen SC (2009) Determining landslide susceptibility in Central Taiwan from rainfall and six site factors using the analytical hierarchy process method. Geomorphology 112:190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcin A (2008) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and confirmations. Catena 72:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 85:274–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 4:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

    Mahnaz Eskandari

  2. Department of Soil Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Mehdi Homaee

  3. Department of Engineering, Payame Noor University, PO Box 19395-3697, Tehran, Iran

    Amin Falamaki

Authors
  1. Mahnaz Eskandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehdi Homaee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amin Falamaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehdi Homaee.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eskandari, M., Homaee, M. & Falamaki, A. Landfill site selection for municipal solid wastes in mountainous areas with landslide susceptibility. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23, 12423–12434 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6459-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6459-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation