Los Angeles, London, New Delhi

and Singapore
http://www.sagepub.com © The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
ISSN 0734–242X
Waste Management & Research
2009: 27: 489–500
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X08098430

Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based

methodology for landfill site selection in growing
urban regions
Hakan Ersoy, Fikri Bulut
Department of Geological Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

The construction of landfills is not an alternative option, since a landfill is always a necessary component of the specific waste
management system that will be developed. One of the serious and growing potential problems in large urban areas is the short-
age of land for waste disposal. In solid waste management programmes, use of geographic information systems (GIS) is a very
significant tool because the selection of a suitable site is a very time-consuming process. The analytic hierarchy process in GIS
provides objective mathematics to process the subjective preferences of individuals or groups and arrive at a decision. The
present paper describes a spatial methodology which comprised several methods, such as multi-criteria analysis, that originate
in different scientific fields. The final goal of the methodology was to evaluate the suitability of the studied area (Trabzon, NE
Turkey) in order to optimally select a landfill site. Different constraint maps were overlaid with spatial analysis modules to obtain
a final suitability map for Trabzon City and five suitable areas were identified. An analytic hierarchy process was applied to select
the most suitable solid waste disposal site for municipal waste in the city among these alternative candidate sites. The Düzyurt
area was found to be the most suitable solid waste disposal site. However, geotechnical investigations indicated that some reme-
dial measures would be needed before this landfill site could be used.

Keywords: Analytic hierarchy process, GIS, landfill site selection, Trabzon, wmr 1393–1

Introduction
Environmental pollution is inevitable with increasing com-
mercial and residential development related to population
growth. The quantities of solid waste produced by dense
population and industrialization in growing urban regions
are large and increasing alongside the growing affluence and
improved standard of living of the population. Even in coun-
tries that incinerate or recycle much of the waste, disposal of
solid waste to landfill is still inevitable because sanitary land-
filling is necessary for the storage of ashes from burning and
the remnants of recycling practices (Proske et al. 2005). One
of the most difficult duties faced by public agencies in solid
waste management is landfill site selection. Environmental
protection and public health considerations should be the
principal concern in site selection, such that the selection of
the appropriate site will minimize potential environmental
impacts and provide a sound basis for effective management.
The most suitable sites will be those that have natural condi-
tions to ensure reasonable safety in the disposal of solid
waste. This means that there is either no, or acceptable pol-
lution of ground or surface water, and that conditions are
safe because of climatic, hydrologic, geologic, or a human-
induced combination of these (Bergstrom 1968).
A number of different evaluation methods have been devel-
oped to select suitable solid waste disposal sites. Generally
these methods are the linear vector approach (Zieman 1971,
Odum et al. 1976, Whitlatch 1976), the matrix method
(Leopold et al. 1971), fuzzy set theory (after Zadeh & Tanaka
1975), checklist methods (Dee & Drobny 1972), parametric
ranking methods (McBean & Zukovs 1983) and multi-crite-
ria decision analysis (Linkov et al. 2004).
The site selection procedure should make maximum use
of the available data and ensure that the outcome of the

Corresponding author: Hakan Erso, Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Geological Engineering, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey.
e-mail: blavetirra@hotmail.com
Received 6 February 2008; accepted in revised form 11 August 2008

489
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
H. Ersoy, F. Bulut
process is acceptable. Therefore landfill sitting generally
requires the processing of a variety of spatial data (Thomas
et al. 1990). More recently, geographical information systems
(GIS) have been used to undertake a similar process. These
have the advantage of being able to manipulate large data sets
in an objective manner amenable to audit, and to present
screen displays that can be varied according to the particular
criteria and options selected in order to determine the opti-
mum solution (Proske et al. 2005). With growth in the availa-
bility of digitized and spatial data, some GIS methods of site
selection have become available. Cartographic methods (Van
Driel 1982, Lane & McDonald 1983, Hackett & McComas
1984, Barisone et al. 1994, Irigaray et al. 1994, Kao & Lin 1996,
Dorn & Tantiwanit 2001) compare and evaluate alternatives
using maps and are used at the site identification stages. The
two main cartographic evaluation methods (using GIS) are
constraint mapping and overlay mapping.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a type of multi-cri-
teria analysis, was developed by Thomas Saaty in 1980 to
standardize the multi-criteria decision-making process. AHP
is a widely accepted decision-making method, which is uti-
lized to determine the relative importance of the criteria in a
specified decision-making problem. Since its introduction in
the late 1970s, AHP has been applied to model complex
decision problems in a wide variety of practical situations.
This process has led many applications in such diverse areas
as health care, urban planning (Cook et al. 1984) and space
exploration. AHP can also be used in landfill siting. Siddiqui
(1996) and Kao & Lin (1996) used AHP to determine the most
suitable landfill location among many candidate sites. AHP
completely aggregates various facets of the decision problem
into a single objective function. The goal is to select the alter-
native that produces the greatest value of the objective func-
tion. AHP is a compensatory optimization approach; however,
it uses a quantitative comparison method that is based on pair-
wise comparisons of decision criteria, rather than utility and
weighting functions.
The paper presents a spatial and multi-criteria decision
analysis-based methodology for the selection of a solid waste
disposal site. The model was tested for Trabzon City, the
major city of the eastern Black Sea region in north-east Tur-
key.
Materials and methods
The GIS-based landfill site selection methodology combines
the spatial analysis tools provided by GIS to evaluate the
whole region, based on certain evaluation criteria. The land-
fill siting model can be divided into four main steps.
1. Development of a digital GIS database (spatial data) and
creating constraints mapping using exclusion areas.
2. Determination of the criteria/subcriteria weight percent
and evaluation of the hierarchical structure of the multi-
criteria problem using AHP.
3. Application of spatial analysis using weight percent of
these criteria in GIS.
490
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
4. Determination of the most suitable landfill site among alter-
native sites using AHP-based methodology.
The spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based proce-
dure for assembling and displaying the relevant site selection
information is illustrated in Figure 1.
Results and discussion
Study area
The study covered Trabzon City, as the major city in the eastern
Black Sea region (north-east Turkey) (Figure 2). The city is
representative of this region in terms of environmental man-
agement strategy, solid waste characteristics and practices. The
city is morphologically very mountainous with steep land, cov-
ered with heavy vegetation. The city is also exposed to highly
variable annual precipitation. The yearly precipitation in the
city is about 800 mm, and the average temperature measured
over 50 years was about 15 °C (Nippon Koei Co. Ltd, Recs
International Inc. 2000). Intense rainfall in the city contrib-
utes to the very dense vegetation and this heavy precipitation
also causes episodic environmental problems such as floods
and landslides.
Each day some 350–400 tonnes solid waste is dumped on
land and in the sea and rivers in the coastal cities of the east-
ern Black Sea, creating serious environmental problems
(ERM and TÇT 1997, Berkün et al. 2005). Although the col-
lection and transport stages of waste management have been
well organized by municipalities in the region, problems occur
with the recycling and disposal of municipal, industrial and
agricultural wastes that are under the control of the munici-
palities (Ersoy & Fırat Ersoy 2003). In Trabzon city some 200–
300 tonnes of solid waste (sometime more than 400 tonnes)
have been disposed of in the Black Sea (88%), local rivers
(1.5%) and the land (10.5%) despite the environmental and
the others laws. In the city, the municipalities directly dispose
of their waste along the coast after rough manual separation.
Solid waste materials which have high organic and inorganic
strength are major pollutants (Berkün 1991, Tuncer et al.
1998, Mee & Topping 1998). The leachate from the uncon-
trolled solid waste dumping areas is rich in heavy metals
and is a continual threat to sea life, human and environ-
mental health (Fırat Ersoy & Ersoy 2003). Environmental
pollution originating from improper and inadequate manage-
ment of municipal solid waste (MSW) are common and are the
most serious problems for all municipalities in Trabzon City.
Thus, environmental pollution originating from open dump-
ing is a major challenge for the future.
Landfill site selection
Solid waste disposal site selection in Trabzon is a difficult
process due to land resource limitations, the city’s moun-
tainous terrain, location of surface water and a very high
level of public disagreement. A GIS and AHP-based meth-
odology that was carried out with the aim of identifying and
ranking the candidate landfill sites for the entire city is pre-
sented here. The initial step of the methodology comprises
 Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based methodology for urban landfill site selection

Fig. 1: The stages for both spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based methodology.

a hierarchy. The evaluation criteria used in the present
paper are classified into two main categories, as shown in
Figure 3, namely the natural and social criteria. According
to Figure 3, the hierarchical structure of the decision prob-
lem consists of three levels. The first level represents the
ultimate goal of the decision hierarchy (land suitability for
landfill location), the second level represents the criteria
and the third level represents the sub-criteria utilized in
this work
Location restrictions and spatial analysis
The selection of a sanitary landfill needs an extensive evalua-
tion process to identify the most suitable location. This loca-
tion must comply with the requirements of governmental
regulations and minimize economic, environmental and
social costs (Siddiqui et al. 1996). Exclusions or restricted
sites are areas where landfills cannot be located due to the
risk to the environment, human health or excessive cost. The
exclusion procedure essentially masks these areas from any
further consideration within the model.
There are ten location restrictions that apply to municipal
landfills (Table 1). Restricted areas include steep slopes, set-
tlements, surface water, groundwater and natural springs,
faults, unstable areas, land use, airports, haul distance and
finally geology.
Landforms in disposal areas will affect drainage, groundwa-
ter and surface water problems, soil erosion risk, transporta-
tion and stability of landfill. Other than the site of a disused
quarry, major landfills must not be sited in hilly areas, with
ground slopes nominally greater than 20%. The impact of
landfill operations on settlement areas, commercial or public
developments should be minimized by including a buffer
zone around the landfill. According to the Solid Waste Con-
trol Regulation (1991) in Turkey, the distance between dis-
posal sites and settlement areas must be more than 1000 m
and the haul distance between the landfill site and the main
city centre should not exceed 30 km. The distance between
the areas dedicated to waste disposal and the nearest surface
water (whether permanent or intermittent) or the 100-year
flood plain must be a minimum of 100 m and the distance

491
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
H. Ersoy, F. Bulut

Fig. 2: Location map of studied area.

Fig. 3: Hierarchical structure of the decision for landfill site selection problem.

492
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
 Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based methodology for urban landfill site selection

Table 1: Constraint factors, grading values and input layers used analysis.

Landfill siting criteria Limiting conditions Buffer zones Scores References

0–5 10
EPA (1998)
5–10 8
1. Steep slopes (%) > 20% Leao et al. (2001)
10–15 6
Leao et al. (2004)
15–20 3
10 000–20 000 10
> 1000 m Leao et al. (2001)
2. Distance from 5000–10 000 8
(No topographical Solid Waste Control Regulation,
settlements (m) 2000–5000 6
obstacles) (1991)
1000–2000 4
Bagchi (1990)
3. Distance between > 1000 10
EPA (1993, 1998, 1999)
the areas dedicated for > 100 m (or in 1000–500 7
Jesus & Costa (1997)
waste disposal and nearest 100-year flood plain) 500–200 4
Krause (1997)
surface water (m) 200–100 2
Tecninvest (1994)
> 500 10
4. Distance from natural
> 300 m 500–400 5 Zuquette & Gandolfi (1994)
springs
400–300 2
Allen et al. (2000)
1000–500 10 EPA (1993)
5. Distance from fault
> 60 m 500–300 5 Jesus & Costa (1997)
area (m)
300–60 2 Krause, (1997)
Lolos et al. (1997)
6. Distance from unstable
> 100 m None EPA (1998)
area (m)
7. Distance from city Maximum transport Allen et al. (2000)
None
centre distance < 30 km Gupta et al. (2003)
Rock 10
Agricultural area 7
Forest, grassland and
8. Land use Agricultural area (three) 5 ERM & TÇK (1997)
overflowing area
Heathland 4
Urban area 2
Chalkias & Stournaras (1997)
Distance between airport EPA (1993, 1998)
9. Location of airports None
and landfill > 3 km Jesus & Costa (1997)
Siddiqui et al. (1996)
> 3000 10
10. Distance from cultural Langer (1995)
None 3000–1000 5
areas Gupta et al. (2003)
< 1000 1
100–500 10
11. Distance from roads None 500–1000 5 Sener et al. (2006)
> 1000 1
Langer, (1995)
12. Geology Unconsolitated lithology None
ERM and TÇK (1997)

between natural water springs and the landfill area should
not be less than 300 m. As landfills are not to be located
within 100 m of an unstable area, buffer zones were created
100 m around the unstable area using GIS. Other constraints
that are specified are that landfills to be constructed are not
be located within 60 m of a fault zone, and the distance
between an airport utilized by commercial aircraft and a
landfill that attracts birds (due to deposition of food waste) is
to be a minimum of 3.0 km.
Spatial maps created by using GIS-based methodology are
illustrated in Figures 4 and 5.
Evaluation of landfill siting criteria using the analytic
hierarchy process
The AHP developed in 1980 by Thomas Saaty, is a powerful
and flexible decision-making process to help people set pri-
orities and make the best decision when both qualitative and
quantitative aspects of a decision need to be considered. AHP
provides a hierarchical structure by reducing multiple variable
decisions into a series of pair comparisons and develops sub-
jective priorities based upon user judgment (Weerakoon
2002). When evaluating AHP, constraints are compared with
each other to designate the relative importance of each vari-
able in accomplishing the overall goal. Numerical values are

493
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
H. Ersoy, F. Bulut

Fig. 4: Buffer zones created using GIS and AHP-based methodology: (a) slope degree; (b) buffer zones around settlement area; (c) buffer zones
around surface waters; (d) buffer zones around faults.

Fig. 5: Buffer zones created using GIS and AHP-based methodology: (a) buffer zone around landslides; (b) buffer zones around roads; (c) buffer
zones around cultural areas; (d) land use map.

494
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
 Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based methodology for urban landfill site selection

assigned to each pair of constraints using established guide-
lines and a constraints matrix is built. Then, the sum of each
column within the matrix is normalized and weightings are
calculated.
In this method, the mathematical formulation (simple
additive weighting) is defined by the following equation for
calculation of final grading values in multi-criteria problems
(Saaty 1980):
q
v( y ) = ∑ wj yij
j=1
where v(y) is suitability index for the area, w is the weight or
the importance factor of a criterion, y is the grade or the
compliance level of a criterion, i is the criterion number and
q is the number of criteria.
The pairwise comparisons are used to determine the rela-
tive importance of each criterion and AHP is based on this
approach. By comparing pairs of criteria at a time and using
a verbal scale, decision-makers can quantify their opinions
about the magnitude of each criteria. The pairwise compari-
son matrix (PCM) formed by the decision-makers in the pre-
vious step must obey the following attributes;
–1
w ij = w ji
The next step is the calculation of the criteria’s relative
importance weightings implied by the previous comparisons.
Saaty (1980) proposes the estimation of the right principal
eigenvector of the PCM which can be approximated using the
geometric mean of each row of the PCM (by multiplying the
elements of each row and then taking the nth root, where n is
the number of criteria). This mode is known as multiplicative
AHP (Saaty & Millet 2000) and was used in the present study.
The calculated geometric means are then normalized and the
relative importance weightings are extracted.
Integration of the site selection criteria is based on multi-
criteria assessment methods (Eastman et al. 1993):
 
S k =  ∑ f i * w i ∏ r j (3)
 
 i j k
S = ∑  Sk * wk (4)
(1) where Sk is the suitability of the land for landfill for objective
k (priority groups); (fi)k is factor i (discriminating features)
for objective k; (wi)k is weight of factor i (score given experi-
mental studies) for objective k; (rj)k is constraint j for objec-
tive k (takes value 0 or 1); S is the multi-objective suitability;
wk is weight of the objective k.
Table 2 lists the priority vectors of all criteria and the rela-
tive importance weightings are included in the final column
of this table. The AHP parameters are also shown in the
table, indicating that the judgments (and therefore the final
relative importance weightings) seem to be reasonable.
Application of analytical hierarchy process
GIS is an information management system that provides spa-
(2) tial analysis tools for storage, management, display, and mod-
elling of spatial data through the manipulation of georefer-
enced, computerized maps. Given its extreme efficiency at
calculations involving combinations and statistical exploration
of spatial variables, GIS has been used in many applications
that involve spatial data analysis, among which the identifica-
tion, screening, evaluation, and optimization of landfill siting
processes (Michales 1988, Siddiqui et al. 1996, Kao & Lin
1996, Yagoub 1998).
The first step of the landfill siting model requires data
capture, data input and data evaluation by the GIS user. The
data capture operation goal is to obtain as many digital data

Table 2: PCM and relative importance weight for the landfill site selection.

Weight
A B C D E F G H I J K L M Eigenvector
percent
A 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 4.744 0.207
B 1/2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 3.697 0.162
C 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 2.997 0.131
D 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 2.389 0.104
E 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 1.984 0.087
F 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 1.774 0.078
G 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 3 4 4 4 4 5 1.471 0.064
H 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 3 4 4 4 5 1.228 0.054
I 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3 1 3 3 3 5 0.919 0.040
J 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3 1 3 3 4 0.766 0.033
K 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 3 0.531 0.023
L 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/4 1/4 1/3 1 0.378 0.017
A, surface water; B, landslide; C, fault; D, natural spring; E, slope degree; F, geology; G, settlement; H, transportation; I, distance from city
centre, J, land use; K, distance from airport; L, heritage feature.

495
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
H. Ersoy, F. Bulut

Fig. 6: Final suitability map for landfill location.

sets as possible. However, if digital data sets are not availa-
ble, digitizing may be required. The data are in vector format
and geo-processing techniques such as buffers and overlays
are used to create the exclusion areas in this step.
To conserve computing effort, both GIS vector and grid-
based modelling functions were used to screen the data prior
to applying the AHP. Table 1 lists the constraints, thresholds,
and GIS spatial data sources used to narrow the focus of this
study in order to arrive at the best solution. The methodol-
ogy in this step does not initially exclude areas from further
examination. This stage comprises a GIS-based spatial analy-
sis that uses 12 criteria (Table 2) by excluding all areas unsuita-
ble for any waste disposal activity. The grading scale used in
the present study for the suitability index was 1–10, which is,
respectively, from the least to the most suitable area. The GIS-
based landfill site selection methodology combines the spatial
analysis tools provided by GIS to evaluate the whole region,
based on certain evaluation criteria. Figure 6 shows the dis-
tribution of the suitability classes in the final landfill suitabil-
ity map.
Selection of the most suitable landfill site
Factors of volumetric capacity, haul distance, cost, permeabil-
ity, and population impact play very important roles in landfill
site selection. Thus, after creating a final suitability map using
GIS, for the purpose of choosing the most suitable disposal
site among candidate sites, the AHP process was applied
again. The weight assignment was of two types. Firstly, weight
percentages of other landfill site selection criteria (volumetric
capacity, haul distance, cost, permeability, population impact)
were determined (Table 3) and, finally alternative landfill
sites for each of the criteria were compared (Table 4). Table 5
shows the mathematical matrix to calculate the score of the
alternative sites.

Table 3: Weight percent of other landfill site selection criteria.

Volumetric Population Weight

Haul distance Cost Permeability Eigenvector
capacity impact percent
Volumetric capacity 1 2 3 4 4 2.49 0.41
Haul distance 1/2 1 2 3 3 1.55 0.25
Cost 1/3 1/2 1 3 3 1.08 0.18
Permeability 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 1 0.49 0.08
Population impact 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 1 0.49 0.08

496
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
 Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based methodology for urban landfill site selection

Table 4: Comparison of alternative landfill sites with each criteria.

Volumetric capacity Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Eigenvector Weight

Site 1 1 1/3 3 3 2 1.43 0.22
Site 2 3 1 5 5 3 2.95 0.46
Site 3 1/3 1/5 1 2 1/3 0.54 0.08
Site 4 1/3 1/5 1/2 1 1/2 0.44 0.07
Site 5 1/2 1/3 3 2 1 1 0.16
Haul distance
Site 1 1 5 3 4 2 2.61 0.42
Site 2 1/5 1 1/3 1/2 1/4 0.38 0.06
Site 3 1/3 3 1 2 1/2 1 0.16
Site 4 1/4 2 1/2 1 1/3 0.61 0.10
Site 5 1/2 4 2 3 1 1.64 0.26
Cost
Site 1 1 3 5 5 3 2.95 0.44
Site 2 1/3 1 3 3 2 1.43 0.22
Site 3 1/5 1/3 1 2 1/3 0.83 0.12
Site 4 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 1/2 0.44 0.07
Site 5 1/3 1/2 3 2 1 1 0.15
Permeability
Site 1 1 3 2 2 7 2.43 0.39
Site 2 1/3 1 1/2 1/2 4 0.80 0.13
Site 3 1/2 2 1 2 5 1.58 0.25
Site 4 1/2 2 1/2 1 5 1.20 0.19
Site 5 1/7 1/4 1/5 1/5 1 0.27 0.04
Population impact
Site 1 1 1/2 1/3 1/4 2 0.61 0.10
Site 2 2 1 1/2 1/3 3 1 0.16
Site 3 3 2 1 1/2 3 1.55 0.25
Site 4 4 3 2 1 5 2.61 0.42
Site 5 1/2 1/3 1/3 1/5 1 0.41 0.07

Table 5: Mathematical matrix to calculate score of the alternative sites.

Volumetric Population
Haul distance Cost Permeability
capacity impact Scores of the
Weight percent of alternative sites
0.41 0.25 0.18 0.08 0.08
the criteria
Site 1 0.22 × 0.41 0.42 × 0.25 0.44 × 0.18 0.39 × 0.08 0.10 × 0.08 0.31
Site 2 0.46 × 0.41 0.06 × 0.25 0.22 × 0.18 0.13 × 0.08 0.16 × 0.08 0.27
Site 3 0.08 × 0.41 0.16 × 0.25 0.12 × 0.18 0.25 × 0.08 0.25 × 0.08 0.13
Site 4 0.07 × 0.41 0.10 × 0.25 0.07 × 0.18 0.19 × 0.08 0.42 × 0.08 0.12
Site 5 0.16 × 0.41 0.26 × 0.25 0.15 × 0.18 0.04 × 0.08 0.07 × 0.08 0.17

Based on the geological, morphological and hydrological Test of the study

characteristics, the candidate site 1 was found to be the most
suitable among all candidate sites selected in this study. The
only disadvantage of this site was distance from surface
water.
The final stage (test of model) in this study included the
determination of engineering geological properties of the
rocks exposed at the proposed landfill site. Field studies
included surface and subsurface exploration. Surface studies
involved geological observations, scan-line surveys and seis-

497
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
H. Ersoy, F. Bulut

Fig. 7: (a) Panoramic view of candidate site and (b) schematic block diagram of proposed landfill site.

mic reflection methods. In the subsurface explorations, five
boreholes were drilled and related in-situ lugeon tests in
boreholes were performed. In the field, scan-line surveys on
natural rock exposures were performed and quantitative
description of discontinuities including direction, persistence,
spacing, opening, roughness, infilling material and rock qual-
ity designation (RQD) were determined following the sug-
gested methods of ISRM (1981). Kinematic analyses were
carried out after identifying the dominant discontinuity sets.
A total of 200 discontinuities were measured and directional
data collected from scan-line surveys were evaluated using
kinematic analysis. The proposed landfill site and morpho-
logical properties of the site are illustrated in Figure 7. The
engineering properties of the barrier rock in the proposed
landfill site are summarized Table 6.
Conclusions
Waste management involves many aspects in planning and
operation. Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based
methodology is a tool that reduces the time and cost of the

498
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
 Spatial and multi-criteria decision analysis-based methodology for urban landfill site selection

Table 6: Engineering properties of barrier rock in proposed landfill site.

Geotechnical properties of barrier rocks

Geological age Upper Cretaceous

Rock description Medium to thin bedded marls, claystones, mudstones, limestone, clast-supported
calcuridite and pebbly calcaranite.
Surface drainage Surface runoff generally moderate
RQD (%) 68–97
Condition of discontinuities Spacing (cm) 0.087–0.366
Persistence (m) 9.69–26.46
Aperture (mm) 0.85–1.06
Roughness 16
Infilling < 5 mm (hard)
Groundwater condition Absence
Primer wave velocity (m s–1) 1294–2405
Excavation properties Moderate-hard excavated
Susceptibility to erosion Resistance of erosion due to presence of clay
Slope stability Vertical slope is stable because of absence of groundwater and dip of layer towards
into slope
Internal drainage and permeability (m (sn)–1) Highly impermeable. Internal drainage is very low. Permeability coefficient is
1.75–2.12 × 10–8

landfill site selection. Thus, this paper presents AHP and GIS
techniques for solid waste disposal site selection. In this study,
different constraint maps were overlaid with spatial analysis
modules using ArcView 3.2 software to obtain the final map,
and the final suitability map was created with constraint of
site selection criteria. Five suitable areas were determined in
Trabzon City and AHP was applied to select the most suita-
ble solid waste disposal site for municipal waste in Trabzon
(north-east Turkey) between these alternative candidate sites.
Finally, the Düzyurt area was chosen to be most suitable solid
waste disposal site. As a result of this study, the geotechnical,
hydrogeological and topographical properties of the rock
masses in the study area were examined and indicated that
the proposed landfill site offers suitable conditions if some
remedial measures are taken. Slope stability can be control-
led by structure and rock mass strength. Slope heights and
rock strengths are the factors controlling failure through the
rock mass. Probable failures estimated using kinematic anal-
ysis can be controlled with field observation. For that reason,
some rock masses on the vertical slopes should be excavated
from the site before landfilling to remove the unstable slope
from the site.

References
Allen, A.R., Dillon, A. & O’Brien, M. (1997) Approaches to landfill site
selection in Ireland. In: Marinos, P.G., Koukis, G.C., Tsiambaos,
G.C. & Stournaras, G.C. (eds): Engineering Geology and the Envi-
ronment, pp. 1569–1574. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bagchi, A. (1990) Design, construction and monitoring of sanitary cand-
fills, pp. 696. John Wiley, New York, USA.
Barisone, G., Bottino, G. & Crivellari, R. (1994) Selection Criteria for
Waste Disposal Location in Piedmont Region (Italy), Dipartimento
Georisorse e Territorio, Politecnico di Torino, Italy, unpublished
report.
Bergstrom, R.E. (1968) Disposal of Waste: Scientific and Administrative
Considerations. Environmental Geology Notes, No: 20. Illinois State
Geological Survey, USA.
Berkün, M. (1991) Solid waste characteristic and removal planning in
the Eastern Black Sea Region, Research project no.91112001,
Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, 173 pp. (in Turk-
ish).
Berkün, M., Aras, A. & Nemlioglu, S. (2005) Disposal of solid waste in
Istanbul and along the Black Sea coast in Turkey, Journal of Waste
Management, 25, 847–855.
Chalkias, C.N. & Stournaras, G. (1997) GIS application for the selection
of sanitary waste disposal landfills and quarries sites in major Sparti
area, Greece. In: Marinos, P.G., Koukis, G.C., Tsiambaos, G.C. &
Stournaras, G.C. (eds): Engineering Geology and the Environment,
pp. 115–124, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cook, T., Falchi, P. & Mariano, R. (1984) An urban allocation model
combining time series and analytic hierarchical methods. Manage-
ment Science, 30, 198–208.
Dee, N. & Drobny, N. (1972) Environmental Assessment for Effective
Water Quality Management Planning. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Columbus, OH, Project completion report, p. 24.
Dorn, M. & Tantiwanit, W. (2001) New Methods for searching for waste
disposal sites in the Chiang Mai-Lamphun Basin, Northern Thai-
land. Journal of Environmental Geology, 40, 507–517.
Eastman, J.R., Kyem, P.A.K. & Toledano, J. (1993) A procedure for
multi-objective decision making in GIS under conditions of com-
peting objectives, Proceedings, EGIS’93, Italy, 438–447.
EPA (1993) Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: A Guide for Own-
ers/operators. 20 pp, Washington, DC, USA.
EPA (1998) Guidelines for Major Solid Waste Landfill Depots. 19 pp,
Washington, DC, USA.
EPA (1999) Guide for Industrial Waste Management. Part I. Chapter 4:
Considering the site. EPA. 27 pp, Washington, DC, USA.
ERM (Environmental Resources Management) and (TÇT) Tugal Çevre
Teknolojisi (1997) Katı atık yönetimi uygulama çalısması: Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti, Nihai Rapor (in Turkish), 487 pp.
Ersoy, H. & Fırat Ersoy, A. (2003) Environmental pollution from solid
waste, Trabzon (Turkey), Berichte Der Deutschen Mineralogischen
Gesellschaft, 81. Jahrestagung Der Deutschen Mineralogischen
Gesellschaft, Vom 22, Bis 25, European Journal of Mineralogy, 15, 47.

499
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
H. Ersoy, F. Bulut
ESRI, Arcview (1996) Esri Press, Redlands, CA, USA.
Fırat Ersoy, A. & Ersoy, H. (2003) Environmental pollution from solid
waste, Trabzon (Turkey), Berichte Der Deutschen Mineralogischen
Gesellschaft, H., Maresch, W., Heinrich, W., Beihefte zum Euro-
pean Journal of Mineralogy, 81. Jahrestagung Der Deutschen Min-
eralogischen Gesellschaft, Vom 22, Bis 25, European Journal of
Mineralogy, 15, 53.
Gupta, R., Kewalramani, M.A. & Ralegaonkar, R.V. (2003), Environ-
mental impact analysis using fuzzy relation for landfill siting. Jour-
nal of Urban Planning and Development, 129, 121–139.
Hackett, J.E. & McComas, M.R. (1984) Geology for Planning in McHenry
County, Circular 531. Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois.
Irigaray, C., Fernandez, T., Chacon, J., El Amrani, N. & Boussouf, S.
(1994) GIS geotechnical and environmental assessment of site
selection for urban waste disposal in the Granada District (Spain).
In: Proc. of the 7th congress of the International Association of
Engineering Geology, Lisbon, Vol. 6, pp. 4679–4866. AA Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ISRM (Internation Society for Rock Mechanics) (1981) Rock character-
isation, testing and monitoring, ISRM suggested method, E.T.
Brown (ed.), pp. 211, Permagon Press, Oxford, UK.
Jesus, C. & Costa, C. (1997) Studies for waste disposal landfills installa-
tion and rehabilitation in hazardous geological environment (in
Portuguese). In: Proc. VI. Congresso Nacional de Geotecnia (no
prelo), Italy, 13 pp.
Solid Waste Control Regulation (Katı Atıkların Kontrolü Yönetmeligi)
14.03.1991 Tarihli ve 20814 Sayılı Resmi Gazete (in Turkish).
Kao, J.J. & Lin, H.Y. (1996) Multifactor spatial analysis for landfill sit-
ing. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 122, 902–908.
Krause, A.J. (1997) Uses of mines as landfills and repositories, In: Mar-
cus, J. J. (ed.): Mining Environmental Handbook, Effects of Mining
on the Environment and American Environment Controls of Mining,
pp. 618–629. Imperial College Press, London, UK.
Lane, W.N. & McDonald, R.R. (1983) Land suitability analysis: Landfill
siting. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 109, 50–61.
Langer, M. (1995) Criteria for Site Selection, Characterization, Evaluation;
Principle of Safety Assessment and Special Purpose Mapping. Scien-
tific Report and Recommendations of the IAEG Commission, No.
14, Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geol-
ogy, Volume 51, 29 pp.
Leao, S., Bishop, I. & Evans, D. (2001) Assessing the demand of solid
waste disposal in urban region by urban dynamics modelling in a
GIS environment. Journal of Resources Conservation and Recycling,
33, 289–313.
Leao, S., Bishop, I. & Evans, D. (2004) Spatial-temporal model for
demand and allocation of waste landfills in growing urban region.
Journal of Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28, 353–385.
Leopold, L.B, Clarke, F.E., Hanshaw, B.B. & Balsley, J.R. (1971) A Pro-
cedure for Evaluating Environment Impact, Circular 645, p. 13. US
Geological Survey, USA.
Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., Seager, T.P., Kiker, G. & Bridges, T.
(2004) Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring
remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Linkov, I. and Ram-
adan, A. (eds): Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental
Decision Making, pp. 15–54. Kluwer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lolos, G., Lolos, T.H., Tsombanidis, C., Paschali, K., Stappas, N. & Loiz-
ides, M. (1997) A multicriteria decision support system for landfill
site selection. In: Marinos, P.G., Koukis, G.C., Tsiambaos, G.C. &
Stournaras, G.C. (eds): Engineering Geology and the Environment,
pp. 1975–981. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
500
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
Mc Bean, E. & Zukovs, G. (1983) A decision making analysis methodol-
ogy for pollution control strategy formulation. Canadian Water
Resources Journal, 8, 64–67.
Mee, D.L. & Topping, G. (1998) Black Sea pollution assessment, In:
GEF Black Sea Environmental Programme, Black Sea Environmen-
tal Series, Vol. 10. UN Publications, New York, USA.
Michales, M. (1988) GIS expected to make landfill siting easier. World
Wastes, 31, 32–36.
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Recs International Inc., 2000, Dogu Karadeniz
Bölgesi Bölgesel Gelisme Planı (DOKAP), Nihai rapor (in Turk-
ish), 1500 pp.
Odum, E.P., Bramlett, G.A., Ike, A., Champlin, J.R., Zieman, J.C. &
Shugart, H.H. (1976) Totality indices for evaluating environmental
impact of highway alternatives. Transportation Research Record,
561, 56–57.
Proske, H., Vicko, J., Rosenbaum, M.S., Dorn, M., Culshaw, M. &
Marker, B. (2005) Special purpose mapping for waste disposal
sites, Report of IAEG Commission I: Engineering geological maps.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 64, 1–54.
Saaty, T. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Saaty, T. & Millet, I., (2000) On the relativity of relative measures accom-
modating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP.
European Journal of Operational Research, 121, 205–212.
Siddiqui, M.Z., Everett, J.W. & Vieux, B.E. (1996) Landfill siting using
geographic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Engineering, 122, 515–523.
Şener, B., Süzen, M.L. & Doyuran, V. (2006) Landfill site selection by
using geographic information systems. Environmental Geology, 49,
376–388.
Tecninvest, A. (1994) Treatment of Industrial Wastes, Study to Characterize
Locations for Controlled Landfills (in Portuguese), pp. 1–26. D.G.A.
Lisbon.
Thomas, B., Tamblyn, D. & Baetz, B. (1990) Expert systems in municipal
solid waste management planning. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 116, 150–155.
Tuncer, G., Karakas, T., Balkas, T., Gökçay, F.C., Aydın, S. & Yurteri, C.
(1998) Land-based sources of pollution along the Black Sea Coast
of Turkey, Concentrations and annual loads to the Black Sea.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 36, 409–423.
Van Driel, J.N. (1982) Map showing Physical Characteristics Related to
Sanitary Lanfilling Siting in Fairfax Country, Virginia, Miscellaneous
Investigation Series. US Geological Survey, USA.
Weerakoon, K. (2002) Integration of GIS based suitability analysis and
multicriteria evaluation for urban land use planning; Contribution
from the analytic hierarchy process. In: Proc. of the 2002 Asian
Conference on Remote Sensing, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp. 63–73.
Whitlatch, E.E. (1976) Systematic approaches to environmental impact
assessment: an evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin, 12, 123–137.
Yagoub, M.M. & Buyong, T. (1998) GIS application for dumping site
selection. Paper presented at the 8th annual ESRI user conference,
27–31 July 1998, San Diego, CA, USA.
Zadeh, L. & Tanaka, K. (1975) Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cogni-
tive and Decision Processes. Academic Press, NewYork, USA.
Zieman, J.C. (1971) Optimum Pathway Matrix Analysis Approach to Envi-
ronment Decision Making Process. Institute of Ecology, University
of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Zuquette, L.V. & Gandolfi, N. (1991) Problems and rules to select the
landfill waste disposal sites in Brazil. In: Proc. International Sympo-
sium on Urban Geology, Sfax (Tunisia), 1991, pp. 300–309. Theme
IV. Les Déchets Urbans, pp. 74–183.