Você está na página 1de 10

507313

search-article2013

WMR32110.1177/0734242X13507313Waste Management & ResearchAhmad etal

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

Spatial effect of new municipal


solid waste landfill siting using
different guidelines
Siti Zubaidah Ahmad, Mohd Sanusi S Ahamad and Mohd Suffian Yusoff

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

government in Malaysia has implemented numerous awareness


campaigns and programs with the intention that the public will
adhere to the efforts of reducing waste in the community. They
introduced the 3R (recycle, reuse, reduce) concept for waste
minimization purposes. The public should be aware that the environmental pollution (air pollution, water pollution and ground
pollution) are happening as a result of the waste dumping process. The community itself is self-exposed to hazards and threats
without proper management. Therefore, public concern is very
important in ensuring the public health and prosperity in order to
achieve the Vision 2020.
Most countries in the world, including Malaysia, are having
problems dealing with their municipal solid waste (MSW).
Landfilling is the cheapest method used for the disposal of MSW
in Malaysia, and most of the landfill sites are open dumping areas.
However, disposal of wastes through landfilling has become complicated, with the landfill sites filling up at a very fast rate (they
will be full in 510 years). At the same time, construction of new
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang,
Malaysia
Corresponding author:
Siti Zubaidah Ahmad, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.
Email: sitizubaidah86@gmail.com

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

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

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

26

Waste Management & Research 32(1)

Table 1. Benefits and costs of alternative waste management practices (BDA Group, 2009).
Waste management practice

Benefits

Costs

Recycling/reuse

Potential to reduce use of virgin


materials, energy and generation of
pollution in industrial processes

Recyclate collection, sorting and


processing costs, and associated
environmental impacts

Composting

Potential to reduce use of virgin


materials

Organic waste collection and


processing costs and associated
environmental impacts

Advanced waste technologies

Energy recovery
Potential to reduce use of virgin
materials, energy and generation of
pollution in industrial processes

Processing costs and associated


environmental impacts
Environmental impacts with
landfilling of residuals

Landfill

No further processing required


Gas can be captured for conversion
to electricity

Land consumption
Environmental risks from gas
emissions and leachate
Long-term post-closure management

Incineration

No further processing required

Environmental risks from air pollution

Illegal disposal

Heightened environmental risks


Amenity impacts

that been evaluated along with multiple dimension or criteria. In


general, the MCE process applies decision rules to meet specific
objectives, frequently in the cases of evaluating several criteria
together. The main task in MCE is concerned with the process of
combining information from several criteria to form a single
index of evaluation. The landfill siting process is possible by
integrating the GIS spatial analytical tool with MCE, which then
becomes a decision-making tool for solving complex multiple
criteria problems either in qualitative and/or quantitative aspects
of the problem (Mendoza etal., 1999). There are various algorithms embedded in GISMCE for site selection modeling.
Among them are analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ranking
and rating, fuzzy, weighted linear combination (WLC), and
ordered weighted averaging. MCE has many advantages, but it
also has disadvantages. MCE can incorporate a diverse range of
information, can be subcontracted and is easily communicated. It
provides an audit trail, which is especially useful in situations
where decision-making is required to follow rules and to be justified in explicit terms. The most extraordinary strength of MCE is
the flexibility of this analysis in handling large amounts of complex information and various dimensions, i.e. choice of options,
criteria and weighting in a consistent way. Unfortunately, MCE
becomes poor because of the difficulty in deriving the weight, it
lacks methodological strictness and is less inclusive.
Costbenefit analysis (CBA) is a conceptual framework for
the evaluation of projects in the government sector that tries to
consider all gains and losses from the project. This framework
analysis takes a long and wide view that includes all relevant
future dates and the effects on all relevant parties. CBA usually
express costs and benefits in the common metric of todays
money. CBA can recognize that each choice has a cost and force
more detailed consideration of what is meant by the adjectives
placed in front of the word value. It also makes explicit hidden
costs and benefits. However, some costs and benefits cannot be

monetized (qualitative costs and benefits), i.e. quality of life,


equity, ensuring public health and safety, reducing crime, protecting human rights, employment, education, etc. The best way to
handle the qualitative costs and benefits are to exclude the nonmeasurable costs and benefits from strict CBA. The decisionmakers can include it in final decision-making through other
analyses, i.e. social impact analysis, and specify qualitative pros
and cons or MCE. CBA is not competent enough because the
valuation techniques are imperfect and loaded with assumptions.
It is difficult to balance qualitative costs and benefits against
quantitative costs and benefits in CBA framework terms.
The private costs of landfilling vary depending on the size of
the landfill, type of waste handled and management measures in
place (BDA Group, 2009). The private costs of landfill include
land purchase, the approvals process, the capital cost of equipment and buildings, and the cost of lining landfill bases to prevent leaching. Costs of on-site gas recovery and flaring, fencing
and other measures to prevent waste from being blown into
adjoining properties and operational costs, including labor, are
also taken into account. Moreover, fuel and materials, the cost of
capping landfills and landscaping, and the cost of rehabilitation
and aftercare also need to be taken care of. A number of different
waste management practices are available, and their associated
costs and environmental impacts vary widely. Table 1 highlights
the key benefits and costs of the major alternatives.
In general, MCE been seen as subsuming a CBA, while CBA
is one criterion for assessing options. MCE can define a narrow
set of options then subjected to CBA. MCE can work together
with CBA, where one handles the quantitative costs and benefits,
and the other handles the qualitative costs and benefits. Landfill
siting is a complex process involving social, environmental and
technical parameters, including government regulations.
Increased perception of health and other risks associated with
solid waste disposal facilities has made the siting of new

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

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. Research study flowchart. MCE: multi-criteria evaluation.

municipal landfills technically difficult and, in some cases,


socially and politically unacceptable (Roberts etal., 1991). This
will indirectly increase the social costs of the siting process. The
habitant acceptance, population distribution, habitant lifestyle,
sensitive areas, region planning, public safety and road safety are
the examples of non-measurable costs and benefits that measure
the overall social costs in landfill siting. In reality, when a project
is proposed for any selected areas, the population will act and
favor projects or not. Therefore, the government of any country
plays a role in reducing the social complains by enforcing a policy and guidelines. If the requirements and guiding principals are
followed, any project will benefit society.
This article focuses on the comparative study of guideline
policies and criteria pertaining to the siting of a MSW landfill
issued by eight different geographic regions (Malaysia, Australia,
India, USA), Europe, China, the Middle East) and the World
Bank Group. Subsequently, spatial comparisons between various landfill site selections criteria from the above-mentioned
entities was carried out using a GISMCE-based constraint and
weighted linear mapping to study the differences among the
suitable sites selected.

performed to determine the weight of each criterion to complete


the analytical procedure.
The study area is located in Seberang Perai District, Pulau
Pinang, Malaysia. It has three sub-districtsNorth, Central and
South Seberang Peraiwith an estimated area of 73,737 ha
(737.37 km2). The rapid development in this region has led to
higher solid waste generation. This area is best depicted through
the various kinds of human activities and land utilization. It is very
rich in culture and is very popular with tourists. Figure 2 shows the
study area. In general, the waste generation rate per capita is about
1 kg/day, varying from 0.45 to 1.44 kg/day (CAP, 2001). The 2010
census showed that about 856,800 people live in Seberang Perai
with a density of 1086 people per km2. The local authority,
Seberang Perai Municipality, reports an estimated amount of waste
disposal of 2000 tonnes per day and 0.7 million tonnes per year at
the only existing waste disposal site availablePulau Burung
Landfill, which is located in Nibong Tebal, Southern Seberang
Perai District (MPSP, 2011). It states that an integrated solid waste
system in Penang is a major challenge for local authorities, and the
proper implementation of domestic waste collection, transferring,
recycling and disposal in the landfill remains a complex issue.

Materials and methods

Result and discussion


Landfill siting guidelines

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

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

28

Waste Management & Research 32(1)

Figure 2. The study area.

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.

Landfill siting criteria


The management of solid waste requires accurate guidelines pertaining to right selection of landfill sites. The guidelines are rules
or criteria to follow in the process of allocating suitable landfill
sites. In general, they include criteria such as the proximity to
residential areas; water bodies, groundwater or aquifer potential;
location of solid waste transfer stations; prohibited forest reserve
area; airports, road or transportation routes; and physical factors,
namely slope, soil and geological fault (Cointreau, 2004; Daly,
1995; JICA, 2004; Nakakawa, 2006; US EPA, 2010). Detail

characteristics of these criteria are described in Table 3, while the


distinguishing perspective of different countries in quantifying
common criteria is shown in Table 4.
This study does not concentrate on determining the most
appropriate guidelines, but is more concerned with the outcomes
of the location when applying different criteria parameters to the
site selection process. In addition, landfill-siting parameters pertaining to policies and guidelines must comply with their respective federal and state regulations. Furthermore, restriction on
location criterion varies and is dependent on the environmental
and climatic conditions of a region. Hasan etal. (2009) stress that
most municipalities laid down their own location restriction
parameters to meet the local environment conditions. In other
words, their local respective interests is in place to protect the
environment and public health, and to ensure the quality of life
for a sustainable future.

Landfill siting model


The landfill siting model was developed based on the information obtained from the review of different criteria from eight

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

29

Ahmad et al.
Table 2. Summary of landfill guidelines of various countries and the World Bank.
Country

Department

Year issued

Guideline title

Malaysia

Ministry of Housing and Local


Government
Ministry of Environment and
Forest
Department Of Urban Affairs
and Planning
United States Environmental
Protection Agency

Updated 2005

Europe (Germany)

Federal Republic of Germany

1994

China

Ministry of Environmental
Protection (Republic of China)
Iranian Management and
Planning Organization
The World Bank Group

After Wang etal.


(2009)
After Akbari etal.
(2008)
Published 1996
(updated 2004)

National Strategic Plan for Solid Waste


Management
Specification for Landfill Sites [Rules 6(1) and (3),
7(2)]
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) Practice
Guideline: Land Filling, Site Selection Procedures
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria: Technical
Manual (Sub-B: Location Criteria Chapter 2
EPA/530-R-93-017.)
Guidelines for an Appropriate Management of
Domestic Sanitary Landfill Sites
China Solid Waste Management Law

India
Australia
USA

Middle East (Iran)


World Bank

2000
1996
1993

Criteria and Standard Used for Defining


Unacceptable Areas
An Asian Urban Structure Note

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

Nearest fault line

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

30

Waste Management & Research 32(1)

Table 4. Landfill siting guidelines of World Bank and seven selected geographic areas.
Parameter

Country

Malaysia World Bank (an


India
Asian urban
infrastructure note)

Australia USA

Nearest residential area (m)


Nearest water bodies (m)
Nearest groundwater line (m)
Nearest distance from sources (km)
Nearest protected forest (m)
Nearest airport location (km)
Nearest road line (m)
Maximum slope (%) or height (m)
Soil permeability (cm/s)
Nearest fault line (m)

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

Europe China Middle


East

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

Figure 3. Example of macro-modeler for landfill site selection.

different constitutional bodies (Malaysia, Australia, India, USA,


Europe, China, the Middle East and the World Bank). The analytical comparative study applies MCE using the CMT and WLC.
Both techniques were applied to investigate the differences
among the suitable landfill sites selected. The model was tested
using digital maps of Seberang Perai, Penang, Malaysia, with the
criteria of the eight selected countries. Maps pertaining to the
landfill site selection criteria were prepared for the GIS analytical
procedure, such as buffer zoning of roads and residential settlement, classification of soil and geological properties, and constraint mapping to slope, protected forest, fault lines, etc.
The GIS IDRISI macro-modeler is a graphical environment for
building and executing multi-step models for batch processing and
dynamic modeling (Eastman, 2006a, 2006b). Models were built
from three basic types of element: (1) data elements, (2) command
elements and (3) links. Data elements include raster and vector layers, attribute values files and groups. Command elements include

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

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

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.

considered suitable in all criteria (Eastman, 2006a, 2006b). The


result shows that common criteria (from seven geographic areas)
with different parameters produce different suitable sites, as
shown in Figure 4. The total area of new landfill sites obtained is
further listed in Table 6.

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%).

Table 5. Geometric mean of criterion weight.


Criteria

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.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

32

Waste Management & Research 32(1)

Table 6. Total area of new landfill sites.


Country

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

Figure 6. Histogram chart of spatial similarity (%) of new


landfill sites of different countries.

The variations of criterion parameters in guidelines and policies


will have an effect on spatial site selection. This signifies that
dissimilarity in specification and requirement will have an effect
on the location of new landfill sites. The World Bank guidelines
were found to be strict and firm with respect to setting out policies for new landfill siting requirements. It produced a suitable
area of only 438 ha. More surprisingly, Malaysian guidelines produced the second smallest size of suitable area (1241 ha) compared with other countries. This gives an indication that Malaysia
is very firm with respect to setting out policies for new landfill

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

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.

Declaration of conflicting interests


The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to declare.

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:

Technical guideline for sanitary landfill, design and operation, revised


draft, volume 5. Tokyo, Japan: JICA.
Liberatore MJ and Nydick RL (2003) Decision Technology: Modeling,
Software, and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mahathir M (2008) Malaysia as a full developed country one definition.
Report. Available at: http://www.wawasan2020.com/vision/p2.html
(accessed 2 February 2012).
Manaf LA, Samah MAA and Zukki NIM (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: practices and challenges. Waste Management 29:
29022906.
MEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification) (2000) Schedule
3; Rule 6(1) and (3), 7(2): Specification for Landfill Sites. New Dehli:
MEF.
Mendoza GA, Macoun P, Prabhu R, Sukadri D, Purnomo H and Hartanto H
(1999) Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment
of Criteria and Indicators. Jakarta: Center for International Forestry
Research.
MHLG (Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia) (2005)
Criteria for Siting Sanitary Landfills: National Strategic Plan for Solid
Waste Management, Appendix 6B, Vol. 3. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
MHLG.
MPSP (Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai) (2011) Laporan Tahunan Majlis.
Pulau Pinang: MPSP.
Nakakawa A (2006) A spatial decision support tool for landfill site selection
for municipal solid waste management. Masters Dissertation, Uganda
Scholarly Digital Library, Uganda.
NSEL (Nova Scotia Environment and Labour) (2004) Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill Guidelines, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance:
Guideline under the Environment Act. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Department
of the Environment.
NSW EPA (New South Wales Environment Protection Authority) (1996)
Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills, Locational Criteria,
EPA 95/85 Chatswood, New South Wales: NSW EPA.
Oeltzschner H and Mutz D (1994) Guidelines for an Appropriate
Management of Domestic Sanitary Landfill Sites. Eschborn, Germany:
Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
Publication.
Roberts RK, Douglas PG and Park WM (1991) Estimating external
costs of municipal landfill siting through contingent valuation analysis: A case study. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 23:
155166.
Siddiqui MZ, Everett JW and Vieux BE (1996) Landfill siting using geographic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 122: 515522.
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil SA (1993) Integrated Solid Waste
Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGrawHill International Editions: Civil Engineering Series. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1993) Subpart B: Location
Criteria Chapter, Chapter 2, EPA/530-R-93-017. In Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Criteria: Technical Manual. Washington, DC: US EPA.
US EPA (2010) Wastes: non-harzardous waste: municipal solid waste: transfer stations. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/
transfer.htm (accessed 24 December 2011).
Vatalis K and Manoliadis O (2002) A two-level multicriteria DSS for
landfill site selection using GIS: case study in Western Macedonia,
Greece. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6:
4956.
Wang G, Li Q, Guoxue L and Lijun C (2009) Landfill site selection using
spatial information technologies and AHP: a case study in Beijing, China.
Journal of Environmental Management 90: 24142421.
Zamorano M, Molero E, Hurtado A, Grindlay A and Ramos A (2008)
Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in southern Spain with GIS-aided
technology. Journal of Hazardous Material 160: 473481.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on April 16, 2015

Você também pode gostar