Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
search-article2013
Original Article
Waste Management & Research
2014, Vol 32(1) 2433
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X13507313
wmr.sagepub.com
Abstract
Proper implementation of landfill siting with the right regulations and constraints can prevent undesirable long-term effects. Different
countries have respective guidelines on criteria for new landfill sites. In this article, we perform a comparative study of municipal
solid waste landfill siting criteria stated in the policies and guidelines of eight different constitutional bodies from Malaysia, Australia,
India, USA, Europe, China and the Middle East, and the World Bank. Subsequently, a geographic information system (GIS) multicriteria evaluation model was applied to determine new suitable landfill sites using different criterion parameters using a constraint
mapping technique and weighted linear combination. Application of Macro Modeler provided in the GIS-IDRISI Andes software
helps in building and executing multi-step models. In addition, the analytic hierarchy process technique was included to determine the
criterion weight of the decision makers preferences as part of the weighted linear combination procedure. The differences in spatial
results of suitable sites obtained signifies that dissimilarity in guideline specifications and requirements will have an effect on the
decision-making process.
Keywords
Municipal solid waste (MSW), landfill siting, landfill guideline, geographical information system (GIS), multi-criteria evaluation
(MCE), constraint mapping technique (CMT), weighted linear combination (WLC), Malaysia
Introduction
The new solid waste management plan introduced in Malaysia has
enhanced the social, economic and environmental efficiency that
promotes sustainable development. It has also helped resolve the
dual crisis of non-renewable resources depletion and environmental degradation (Manaf etal., 2009). The government has being
trying to ensure the quality of life among citizens so as to achieve
the Vision 2020 of becoming fully developed country: By the
year 2020, Malaysia can be a nation that is united, with a confident society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in
a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable, progressive and prosperous, and in full
possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust
and resilient (Mahathir, 2008). This statement, given by the exPrime Minister of Malaysia, relates to waste management issues.
Waste management is realized as one of the factors that measures the achievement of a country toward the Vision 2020. Waste
management is not only about the techniques of waste collection,
transportation and disposing by the responsible party or agencies.
Good waste management practices actually start at the sources of
the waste. In Malaysia, the sources of solid waste within the community are residential, commercial, institutional, construction
and demolition, and municipal facilities. By infusing strong
moral and ethical values, as stated in the Vision 2020, proper
waste management is achievable and, together with the serious
concerns of the public, waste generation will reduce. Local
25
Ahmad et al.
landfill sites is more difficult owing to land scarcity, an increase of
land prices and high demand, especially in urban areas with the
increasing population (Manaf etal., 2009). Locational criteria are
important in the problem of where to site a landfill. Bagchi (1990)
and Tchobanoglous (1993) state that landfills should be located a
certain distance from the features such as lakes, ponds, rivers,
wetlands, flood plain, highway, critical habitat areas, water supply, well and airports. Currently, landfill siting is prohibited in
areas where potential contamination of groundwater or surface
water bodies exists. Generally, special approval from local authorities will be required when the proposed landfill site does not meet
the locational criteria. Nevertheless, there will be no issue when
the proper site selection process has taken into consideration all
constraints and statutory regulations. A proper revision of all
restrictions during the preliminary siting process is significant to
avoid wasting time and money in evaluating sites that will not
conform to the standard requirements.
At present, researchers are exploiting spatial information
technology, such as geographic information systems (GIS). GIS
tools and capability are applicable for site suitability assessment
and provide results in a good manner with high accuracy (Ersoy
and Bulut, 2009; Zamorano etal., 2008). GIS has a high capability of managing a large amount of data, as well as changes in the
data (Siddiqui etal., 1996; Vatalis and Manoliadis, 2002). The
GIS analytical tool is useful in checking spatial parameters (criterion attributes) imposed in site selection process.
Landfill site selection is the fundamental step in an ideal waste
disposal practice in protecting the environment, public health and
ensuring the quality of life for a sustainable future. A proper landfill site selection determines the successive steps in the preliminary landfill process. Proper implementation of landfill siting is
important to avoid the undesirable long-term effects. A suitable
landfill site should be selected carefully by considering criteria
(regulations and constraints) issued by environmental agencies or
local authorities (Ahmad etal., 2011). In general, the criteria for
landfill site selection consider the environmental, social, economic and physical aspects. With different countries having their
specific guidelines for landfill site selection, the problem of finding the appropriate landfill site therefore requires a very complete
and sustainable site selection model.
The major setback of landfill waste disposal method is their
short lifecycle and shortage of suitable land for landfills especially in urban areas. In addition, the not in my back yard phenomenon has created a negative impression toward landfill by
the local community. Landfill operations are blamed for causing
external costs to nearby residents who perceive risks associated
with traffic, noise, dust, litter, unattractive neighborhoods,
groundwater contamination and hazardous waste pollution, etc.,
to be associated with landfill. There are also other non-market
costs not borne by waste disposal firms and producers of garbage. These external costs will result in an incompetent allocation of resources (too much garbage and exposure to it) (Roberts
etal., 1991). Hence, proper landfill site selection must be the
basis of the preliminary landfill process to avoid undesirable
long-term effects. The selection procedure must refer to authorized guidelines that consider social, environmental and technical
aspects in ensuring the sustainability of the livelihood process.
The guidelines and policy will help to restrict and reduce the
landfill effect on the external costs, but only if the decisionmakers strictly follow the stated site selection criteria.
Externalities, sometimes known as spillover effects or offsite impacts, impose costs or benefits on the community that are
not priced into market exchanges (BDA Group, 2009). Disposal
of waste to landfill can result in externalities, including the
effect of releasing methane and greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of organic wastes. There is also the potential for
effects from leaching of toxic metals and compounds into the
surrounding soil structure. Other externalities include the impact
of noise and odors on local amenities, and the effect of air emissions. Different materials and products disposed to landfill will
contribute differently to externality costs. For example, inert
materials are likely to have few external impacts, while biodegradable materials will present additional problems associated
with greenhouse gas emissions and odors, while other materials
may contain hazardous substances that pose potential risks to
human health through air and water emissions. Landfill is currently the cheapest waste disposal option. Most would agree that
all of the costs and externalities are known and internalized into
the landfill gate price. Companies will make a commercial decision to build resources recovery infrastructure where they can
make profit while competing against landfill disposal. It is recommended that landfill should be regulated and a set of minimum environmental standards should be agreed upon, the effect
of which will be to push up the costs of landfill operations. The
government, through their guidelines, must emphasize and control this because in a landfill siting the maximum environmental
standards are required to ensure sustainability in the future.
DEFRA (2003) states that it is widely accepted that externalities can be conceptually split into fixed (independent of the quantity of waste) or variable (depending on the quantity of waste)
costs and benefits. The term fixed externality refers to the externalities that arise from the mere existence of a landfill. Such fixed
costs should be calculated as per site and should relate to the
existing distribution of households around a site. In the context of
landfills, such costs should therefore be independent of the size
of the landfill (area or stock capacity), the amount of waste it
receives (flow volume) and, possibly, the type of waste it receives
(inert, biodegradable or hazardous). The term variable externality, however, refers to the externalities that depend on the type
and amount of waste going to a landfill. Emissions to air and
water are clear examples of variable externalities. Externalities
arise, in an unconstrained market, as they convey external costs
or benefits to others, and these effects are not captured in the
price mechanism. Externalities are a form of market failure, and,
where these are present, correction may lead to a more efficient
outcome in terms of resource allocation.
Site selection, when viewed as multi-criteria evaluation
(MCE) problem, implies the assignment of values to alternatives
26
Table 1. Benefits and costs of alternative waste management practices (BDA Group, 2009).
Waste management practice
Benefits
Costs
Recycling/reuse
Composting
Energy recovery
Potential to reduce use of virgin
materials, energy and generation of
pollution in industrial processes
Landfill
Land consumption
Environmental risks from gas
emissions and leachate
Long-term post-closure management
Incineration
Illegal disposal
27
Ahmad et al.
MODEL BUILDING
- IDRISI macro-modeler
module
LITERATURE REVIEW
Comparative study
- Landill guideline review
- Landill siting criteria
- Waste policy and guideline
of each country (World
Bank standard
speciication and seven
areas, i.e. Malaysia, India,
Australia, USA, Europe,
China and Middle East)
GIS MAPPING
- Constraint and factor map
layers
- IDRISI macromodeler for
model building
MCE ANALYSIS
- Constraint mapping
technique CMT)
- Weighted linear
combination
RESULT
AND DISCUSSION
SUMMARY OF
FINDINGS
WEIGHT
DETERMINATION
- AHP pair-wise weight
derivation
Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the model that links the comparative study of various landfill policies with GISMCE constraint
mapping technique (CMT) and WLC. Comparisons are based on
the parameters of criterion as specified in each of the guidelines.
The guideline parameters are important in performing the site
selection process as it provides the basis of spatial presentation
through GIS map layers (spatial criteria). Application of Macro
Modeler provided in IDRISI Andes helps in building the model for
site selection process. In addition, AHP weight derivation was
Different countries have to comply with their respective guidelines for landfill site selection. Malaysia, for instance, has had
landfill site selection guidelinesthe National Strategic Plan for
Solid Waste Management (MHLG, 2005)set up by the Local
Government Department Ministry of Housing and Local
Government Malaysia since 2005. Table 2 describes the general
summary of landfill guidelines compiled from seven geographic
areas and the World Bank. The USA, through their Environmental
28
Protection Agency (US EPA, 1993), was first to introduce guidelines for landfill site selection in 1993, followed by Europe
(Germany) in 1994 (Oeltzschner and Mutz, 1994) and Australia
(DUAP, 1996; NSW EPA, 1996). The World Bank Group first
published landfill siting policies in 1996 and then updated them in
2004. Consequently, the Government of India introduced its own
guideline (MEF, 2000) in 2000. A thorough review of Iranian and
Chinese policies on solid waste management law can be found in
Akbari etal. (2008) and Wang etal. (2009), respectively.
29
Ahmad et al.
Table 2. Summary of landfill guidelines of various countries and the World Bank.
Country
Department
Year issued
Guideline title
Malaysia
Updated 2005
Europe (Germany)
1994
China
Ministry of Environmental
Protection (Republic of China)
Iranian Management and
Planning Organization
The World Bank Group
India
Australia
USA
2000
1996
1993
Table 3. Characteristics of landfill siting criteria (Akbari etal., 2008; Cointreau, 2004; DUAP, 1996; JICA, 2004; MEF, 2000; NSEL,
2004; NSW EPA, 1996; Oeltzschner and Mutz, 1994; US EPA, 1993; Vatalis and Manoliadis, 2002; Wang etal., 2009).
Criteria
Detailed characteristics
Nearest
residential area
Residential factor is the criteria that opposes landfill siting near residential areas. This criterion
is regarded as an important factor as it answers the not in my backyard or not in anyones
backyard issues. This syndrome expresses public objections towards siting of an urban waste
management facility (such as a landfill or composting facility) in, or near, their community
This criteria stops landfills being situated close to water bodies, including river networks,
lakes and ponds, to protecting water body ecosystems and avoid flood plains. Consideration of
preventing leachate or other pollutants from contaminating the area is made. Discharge to surface
water is only acceptable when effluent is treated and diluted to a level where there is no significant
adverse affect on the water quality requirements of the receiving water
Groundwater takes into account the aquifer potential around the landfill site to prevent
groundwater pollution. A landfill site must not be adjacent to any groundwater source, such as
springs or groundwater wells. Any landfill directive requires prevention of groundwater pollution,
but the engineering measures taken prior to set up cannot always guarantee this
Transfer stations are facilities where municipal solid waste is unloaded from collection vehicles
and briefly held while it reloaded onto larger, long-distance transport vehicles for shipment to
landfills or other treatment or disposal facilities
The law prohibits new landfill sites on forestland. In land use planning and decision-making
processes, this land category is usually assigned as less suitable or not suitable for any development
Airport safety factor is to restrict MSW landfill units in areas where sensitive natural environments,
as well as the public, may be adversely affected. The landfill site is not to be located near to airport
area to prevent disturbance of birds and rising dust from landfill
Road or transportation route is an aesthetic consideration of the transportation issue and management
of landfill to optimize travelling time and cost. The area must be easily accessible by the waste
collection vehicles and all landfill machinery, at all times. It is also important to consider accessibility
for emergency response services in the case of accidents or fire at the site. In reality, additional costs
for road construction in areas far away from existing roads make them less favorable. However, the
guideline states that the road must be as far away as it can be. Therefore, in the practice of siting
process, the decision-makers must first create a buffer of a certain number of meters specified as the
restriction distance and then reduce the range to an agreed distance for the costbenefit issue
Slope criteria deal with the appropriate terrain conditions suitable for the construction of a landfill
site. Construction of landfill on hilly areas is economically not suitable and it may encounter the
risk of soil erosion. The operation and maintenance cost of the landfill may increase periodically
Soil permeability is important to prevent groundwater pollution from landfill leachate. Soil with
good drainage (high permeability soil) is considered as undesirable for a landfill. The water
infiltration through this soil is higher and the possibility of groundwater pollution may increase.
To protect the groundwater, it is preferable that the soil content is silt or clay that has very low
permeability. This does not include marshland and swamp
The presence of a geological fault area may cause restriction to conditions, will have unpleasant
effect on landfill performance, and could lead to leachate discharge to the environment or
disruption of natural function
Nearest water
bodies
Nearest
groundwater line
Nearest distance
from sources
Nearest
protected forest
Nearest airport
location
Nearest road line
Maximum Slope
Soil Permeability
30
Table 4. Landfill siting guidelines of World Bank and seven selected geographic areas.
Parameter
Country
Australia USA
1000
100
1000
25
100
3
500
10
< 10-6
100
250
100
100
1520
500
8
100
20
< 10-6
100
1000
500
1500
25
500
3
3000
20
< 10-6
500
500
100
1000
2025
100
20
200
15
< 10-7
500
5002000 500
300500
500
1000
1000
2540
25
50100
100
4
3
50100
500
1520
1020
< 10-6
< 10-7
100
100
500
300
500
200
1500
50
25
30
100 1600
3
3
100
300
10
20
< 10-7 < 10-6
100
100
modules such as overlay and buffer, and sub-models are usercreated models. Links establish the sequence of processing
between data and command elements. Figure 3 describes the
example of the macro-model used in the landfill siting process.
Weight determination
Weight, well known as degree of importance, is a value assigned
to a criterion that indicates its importance relative to the other
criteria under consideration. The derivation of weights is a central step in attaining decision-makers preference. Pair-wise comparison was done via a questionnaire survey where each candidate
or alternative was compared (one-on-one) with each other using
the AHP preference scale made available by the GIS IDRISI software (Ahamad etal., 2003). The weights were developed based
on the relative importance of factors to the suitability of pixels
for the activity evaluated. The weight derived from group
31
Ahmad et al.
decision-making where the geometric mean of the combined
judgment was determined (Liberatore and Nydick, 2003) and
used as the input parameter for the MCE. Table 5 describes the
geometric mean of nine-criterion weight judged by 20
decision-makers.
CMT
WLC
In CMT, all criteria are assumed to be constraints and the mathematical overlay (Boolean multiplication) is applied. This justified
the combination procedure, which brings the lowest possible risk
as the only areas considered suitable in the result are those
WLC combines both weighted factors and constraints. The factors are multiplied with weight and combined by means of linear summation of results to yield a suitability map. Factor
weights are important in this model as they determine how individual factors will exchange relative to each other. The higher
the factor weight the more influence that factor has on the final
suitability map (Eastman, 2006a, 2006b). Figure 5 describes the
result of the analysis. The suitability area has five classes: (1)
most suitable site, (2) suitable site, (3) less suitable, (4) not suitable and (5) other sites. The classes are decided according to the
required vastness of 300 ha of land area that equals to 4800
cells (625 m2 for each cell). The percentage similarity of the
new landfill sites when compared with guidelines from Malaysia
is shown in Table 7 and Figure 6. The Malaysian landfill guidelines has the highest spatial location similarity to the European
guidelines (26.96%) and differs substantially from the World
Bank guidelines (1.61%).
Weight
Road
Water body
Groundwater (aquifer)
Residential
Soil permeability
Land use
Geological fault
Slope
Airport
0.2576
0.1678
0.1549
0.0843
0.0838
0.0786
0.0633
0.0584
0.0334
Figure 4. Multi-criteria evaluation (constraint mapping technique) site suitability based on guidelines from (a) Malaysia; (b)
Australia; (c) China; (d) Europe; (e) India; (f) Iran; (g) USA; and (h) the World Bank.
32
Area (ha)
Malaysia
Australia
China
Europe
India
Middle East
USA
The World Bank
1241
5156
2690
2407
3628
2767
2526
438
Figure 5. Multi-criteria evaluation (weighted linear combination) site suitability based on guidelines from (a) Malaysia; (b)
Australia; (c) China; (d) Europe; (e) India; (f) Iran; (g) USA; and (h) the World Bank.
Table 7. Percentage spatial similarity of the new landfill sites compared to Malaysian guideline.
First map
Second image
Malaysia
Australia
China
Europe
India
US
World Bank
Middle East
14.58%
12.08%
26.96%
13.14%
12.71%
1.61%
18.92%
30.00
20.00
15.00
Conclusion
26.96
25.00
18.92
14.58
13.14
12.08
12.71
10.00
5.00
1.61
0.00
Australia China
Europe
India
US
World Middle
Bank
East
33
Ahmad et al.
sites so as to protect the environment and public health, and to
ensure a good quality of life. From the research, we conclude that
a comparative site selection process can be performed straightforwardly using GIS analytical procedures. It helps local authorities in detecting specific work on landfill site selection and to
ensure that policies and guidelines of site selection criteria are
strictly followed.
Funding
The authors wish to thank the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) for
the provision of the Research University Funding (RU Grant No.
814102) for the completion of this research.
References
Ahamad MSS, Wan Hussin WMA and Ahmad S (2003) Comparison of normal AHP and multiplicative AHP for criterion weighting in GIS based
land suitability analysis. In: International symposium and exhibition on
geoinformation (ISG03), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 1315 October 2003.
Ahmad SZ, Ahamad MSS and Wan Hussin WMA (2011) Comparative site
selection process based on different policies and guidelines for municipal
solid waste landfill site. In: 10th International symposium & exhibition on
geoinformation 2011 (ISG 2011), Selangor, Malaysia, 2729 September
2011.
Akbari V, Rajabi MA, Chavoshi SH and Shams R (2008) Landfill site selection
by combining GIS and fuzzy multi criteria decision analysis, case study:
Bandar Abbas, Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal 3 (Suppl. 1): 3947.
Bagchi A (1990) Design, Construction, and Monitoring of Sanitary Landfill.
New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
BDA Group (2009) The full cost of landfill disposal in Australia. A report
prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts, Melbourne, Australia.
CAP (2001) Malaysia Country Report. Report, Consumers Association of
Penang. Available at: http://www.jaringmetal.com/resource/wastemalaysia.pdf (accessed 25 July 2012).
Cointreau S (2004) Sanitary Landfill Design and Siting Criteria. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Daly D (1995) The location of landfills on regionally important (major) aquifers. The GSI Groundwater Newsletter 28: 25.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2003) A
study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain. Final
report, DEFRA, UK.
DUAP (Department of Urban Affairs and planning) (1996) EIS Practice
Guideline: Landfilling, Site Selection Procedures. New South Wales:
Crown Publication.
Eastman JR (2006a) IDRISI Andes Guide to GIS and Image Processing
Manual Version 15.00. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University.
Eastman JR (2006b) IDRISI Andes Tutorial Manual Version 15.00.
Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University.
Ersoy H and Bulut F (2009) Spatial and Multi-criteria Decision Analysisbased methodology for landfill site selection in growing urban regions.
Journal of Waste Management and Research 27: 489500.
Hasan MR, Tetsuo K and Islam SA (2009) Landfill demand and allocation
for municipal solid waste disposal in Dhaka City an assessment in a GIS
environment. Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB) 37: 133149.
JICA (Japan International Coorperation Agency) (2004) The study on the
safe closure and rehabilitation of landfill sites in Malaysia, final report: