The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences 21 (2018) 391–399

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Research Paper

Emplacement of solid waste management infrastructure for the Frailesca

Region, Chiapas, México, using GIS tools
Juan Antonio Araiza Aguilar a,⇑, Hugo Alejandro Nájera Aguilar b, Rubén Fernando Gutiérrez Hernandez c,
María Neftalí Rojas Valencia d
a
National Autonomous University of Mexico, Institute of Geography, External Circuit, University City, Coyoacan Delegation, Mexico, D.F. 04510, Mexico
b
University of Science and Arts of Chiapas, School of Environmental Engineering, North Beltway 1150, Lajas Maciel, 29039 Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas, Mexico
c
Technological Institute of Tapachula, Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Km 2, Highway to Puerto Madero, 30700 Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico
d
National Autonomous University of Mexico, Institute of Engineering, External Circuit, University City, Coyoacan Delegation, Mexico, D.F. 04510, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The emplacement of landfills and other infrastructure for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste in
Received 27 June 2017 Mexico and the world is extremely difficult to execute, because the selection process depends on several
Revised 12 January 2018 factors such as the environment, society and regulations. This paper presents a methodology that gener-
Accepted 17 January 2018
ates feasible areas for the emplacement of Municipal Solid Waste management infrastructure, in compli-
Available online 2 February 2018
ance with technical, environmental and socioeconomic criteria. The case study was realized on the
municipalities of the Frailesca region, Chiapas. Derived from the execution and analysis of Multi-
Keywords:
Criteria Evaluation technique in Geographic Information System, it was found that 1,501.64 km2 of land
Geographic information system
Infrastructure emplacement
in the study area are highly suitable for the emplacement of Municipal Solid Waste management infras-
Multi-criteria evaluation tructure, however, the best zones are located very close to Municipal Head of Villaflores and Villa Corzo.
Municipal Solid Waste Ó 2018 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction In Mexico, there are few examples of regulations focused on

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in several countries, and particu-
larly in Mexico, has been changing for decades in volume and com-
position, mainly because of population growth, modifications in
consumer habits, migration or new customs, and has been charac-
terized by deficient handling (Buenrostro and Bocco, 2003; Ojeda
and Beraud, 2003; Narayana, 2009).
Several agencies of Mexico such as the Secretariat of Environ-
ment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) and the National Bank
of Public Works and Services (BANOBRAS), have allocated addi-
tional financial, material and human resources to develop a sus-
tainable waste management. Unfortunately, the lack of an
appropriate legal and technical framework has not allowed these
resources to be earmarked correctly, leading to an inappropriate
operation of the existing infrastructure. This has resulted, in turn,
in damage to the health of the population and deterioration of
the environment.
Peer review under responsibility of National Authority for Remote Sensing and
Space Sciences.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: juan.araiza@unicach.mx (J.A. Araiza Aguilar).
infrastructure emplacement. ‘‘NOM-083-SEMARNAT-2003”
(SEMARNAT, 2003) is one of them, which details the specifications
to locate Final Disposal Sites (FDS). This norm also establishes FDS
design features, additional works and operational aspects that will
enable an environmentally safe material confinement. Another
regulation is the ‘‘NTEA-010-SMA-RS-2008” (SMA, 2008) that
establishes the requirements and specifications for the installation,
operation and maintenance of MSW infrastructures such as collec-
tion centers, transfer stations, separation and treatment plants.
Although the previous examples accomplish their function from
a regulatory point of view, they have no practical application, since
they only consider environmental criteria, leaving aside the social
and economic criteria, which could make the infrastructure more
profitable or operational.
This paper proposes to determine and evaluate the best location
for a MSW treatment plant in a socioeconomic region of Chiapas,
Mexico, considering social, environmental and economic criteria.
Geographic Information System (GIS) will also be used to sup-
port map generation, as well as environmental and land use plan-
ning (Bosque, 1997; Malczewski, 2004). Additionally, this tool
allows to manipulate environmental variables and incorporate
procedures with non-spatial information, such as the opinion of
experts on the subject (Olivas et al., 2007).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2018.01.004
1110-9823/Ó 2018 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
392 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399

There are previous experiences in Mexico and elsewhere in the Table 1

world that will be adapted to the context of this paper, in which MSW generation in the Frailesca region.

spatial analysis has been used to determine the emplacement of No. Municipality Generation of MSW and SMW collected and
all kinds of MSW management infrastructure. Examples of studies MSW and SMW* disposed (Tons/day)
are reported by Buenrostro et al. (2008), Sumathi, et al. (2008), (Tons/day)

Rafiee et al. (2011), Sener et al. (2011), Tavares et al. (2011), 1 Ángel Albino 15.18 9.64
Demesouka et al. (2013), Araiza, (2014) and Roé et al. (2014), Corzo
2 El Parral 8.22 5.22
who used a GIS to locate FDS, transfer stations, incinerators and 3 La Concordia 19.84 12.60
others. 4 Montecristo de 3.69 2.05
Guerrero
5 Villa Corzo 50.06 31.79
6 Villaflores 89.74 56.99
2. Materials and methods Total 186.73 118.29

Source: adapted from SEMAHN (2013).

2.1. Study area and context *
SMW: Special Management Waste assimilated to MSW.

The study area of this paper is the Frailesca region of Chiapas

(Fig. 1), located on the Pacific Coastal Plain and the Central Depres-
sion of the state. This region is made up of six municipalities: Angel
Albino Corzo, La Concordia, El Parral, Montecristo de Guerrero,
Villa Corzo and Villaflores. It occupies an area of 8,001.42 km2,
10.7% of the state surface (CEIEG, 2010; SHCP, 2011).
Frailesca region is characterized by its important agricultural
activity, especially corn production. The roads are shared by three
municipal seats: ‘‘Villaflores, Villa Corzo and El Parral”. In 2010, the
regional population was 250,705 habitants, representing 2.72% of
the state population. The above mentioned municipal seats were
the most populous, concentrating 23.51% of the regional popula-
tion (INEGI, 2010).
Regarding solid waste management, the Frailesca region gener-
ated an estimated 186.73 tons/day in 2010, of which only 63% was
collected, indicating that slightly >68 tons/day were not deposited
correctly (Table 1) (SEMAHN, 2013). This situation occurs because
this region is formed mostly of rural localities (2928 rural localities
and 21 urban localities) which are very far from the municipal seat,
leading to a reduction of the basic services provided (CEIEG, 2010).
2.2. Spatial analysis
In this paper, the GIS was used together with the Multi-Criteria
Evaluation (MCE) techniques to perform the spatial analysis.
Specifically, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used.
According to Saaty (1980), the AHP consists of dividing a prob-
lem or difficult situation into its constituent parts or variables and
elaborate a hierarchical scheme. Subsequently, numerical values
are assigned to subjective judgments about the relative importance
of each part or variable, that are subsequently synthesized to
determine which have the highest priority. By dividing the situa-
tion or issue in parts or variables, the evaluator can focus on a
smaller set of decisions.

Fig. 1. Study area, Frailesca region of Chiapas.

 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399
The hierarchical scheme usually consists of three basic levels:
goal, decision criteria (usually accompanied by sub-criteria), and
alternative solutions (Eastman et al., 1993; Malczewski, 1999;
Malczewski and Rinner, 2015).
It is important to mention that today the MCE techniques,
specifically the AHP, can be used as a function of sustainability,
integrating social, economic and environmental criteria. This can
be appreciated in papers such as Banai, (1989). The general func-
tion is shown in Eq. (1).
X
n
VðAi Þ ¼ wl wkðlÞ v ðaik Þ
k¼1
where v (aik) is the value function, wl is the weight associated with
the l-th objective (l = 1, 2. . ., p), and wk(l) is the weight assigned to
the k-th attribute associated with the l-th objective.
2.3. Location criteria: Factors and limiting
According to Gómez and Barredo (2005), prior to applying any
MCE technique in a GIS environment, it is important to establish
the criteria that determine the reception capacity on the territory.
The location criteria (general criteria) used in this paper were
divided into environmental, socioeconomic and technical aspects;
the general criteria were divided into sub-criteria (specific criteria)
and accommodated in two ways: ‘‘factors and limiting criteria”;
the ‘‘factors” are variables that must have more than two levels
or classes, while the ‘‘limiting criteria” can only have a maximum
of two (Fig. 2).
It is important to mention that some sub-criteria mentioned in
the Mexican regulation, such as distance to airports, were not con-
sidered in this paper since this infrastructure is not available in the
study area.
2.4. Weighting of criteria and sub-criteria
The pairwise comparison by Saaty (1980), which is shown in
Tables 2–5 was used to weight the criteria and sub-criteria. The
Consistency Ratio (CR) was used to indicate the likelihood that
the matrix judgments were generated randomly, therefore if CR
< 0.10 then the matrix of comparison by pairs has an acceptable
consistency and the weight values can be used. Otherwise, if the
CR  0.10 then the pairwise comparisons are lacking consistency,
Fig. 2. Hierarchy structure for the emplacement of MSW management infrastructure.
393
the matrix needs to be adjusted and the element values should
be modified. The values of k max, CI and RI, are used to obtain CR.
2.5. Standardization criteria
To normalize the levels or classes of the sub-criteria, a simple
assessment was used, with values ranging from 1 to 3 for the fac-
tors and 0–3 for the limiting criteria. The smaller values corre-
spond to the most unfavorable or restrictive condition, while the
highest values correspond to the most favorable condition.
ð1Þ The detail information about the values adopted in normalizing
levels is shown in Table 6.
Finally, the AHP technique is executed in a GIS software envi-
ronment. ArcGIS 10.2 was used, specifically, Spatial Analyst tools
such as Raster Calculator and Weighted Overlay.
2.6. Validation of the model
Currently, there is no general consensus in the scientific com-
munity about how the validation process should be carried out
(Calabria et al., 2012). There are papers that perform this process
through techniques that introduce a distortion in the initial vari-
ables, in order to obtain a new derived spatial model. The derived
model is then compared with the original spatial model, and the
transmitted errors are analyzed. Examples of these techniques
are the Monte Carlo analysis and the Sobol method described
extensively in Barredo (1996) and Gómez and Barredo (2005).
Other papers apply techniques widely used in the classification
of images, for example, selection and classification of sampling
areas, elaboration of confusion matrices and calculations of relia-
bility indices.
In this paper the spatial model was validated following the sec-
ond alternative, that is, a simple random sampling was carried out,
considering 50 sampling points for each class present in the model
to be evaluated (high, medium and low suitability or aptitude).
Subsequently, the sampling sites were verified through aerial
images, assigning a class to each sampling point (high, medium
and low suitability). Finally, a confusion matrix was elaborated,
comparing the sampling points with the spatial model to be
evaluated.
The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the strength of con-
cordance between the sampled data and the modeled data. Accord-
ing to Landis and Koch (1977), the values of the coefficient oscillate
394 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399

Table 2
Pairwise comparison for the general criteria.

General criteria Weight calculation Sum Weight

Socioeconomic Environmental Technical
Socioeconomic 1.00 3.00 7.00 11.00 0.6544
Environmental 0.33 1.00 3.00 4.33 0.2578
Technical 0.14 0.33 1.00 1.48 0.0878
Total 1.48 4.33 11.00 16.8 1.0000

k max = 3.05, CI = 0.025, RI = 0.520 and CR = 0.047 < 0.1.

Table 3
Pairwise comparison for the environmental criteria.

Specific criteria/sub-criteria i.1 i.2 i.3 i.4 Sum Weight

i.1 Distance from water bodies and streams 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.33 7.33 0.26
i.2 Distance from water extraction wells 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.33 5.33 0.19
i.3 Soil permeability 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 1.68 0.06
i.4 Distance from protected natural areas 3.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 14.00 0.49
Total 5.20 5.33 16.00 1.81 28.34 1.00

k max = 4.19, CI = 0.063, RI = 0.890 and CR = 0.071 < 0.1.

Table 4
Pairwise comparison for the socioeconomic criteria.

Specific criteria/sub-criteria j.1 j.2 j.3 j.4 j.5 Sum Weight

j.1 Distance from populated areas 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 3.00 5.40 0.11
j.2 Land use/cultivation areas 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 5.00 7.67 0.16
j.3 Community acceptance 5.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 17.00 0.35
j.4 Feasibility of buying land 5.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 17.00 0.35
j.5 Distances to commerce and industries 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.14 1.00 1.82 0.04
Total 12.33 8.20 2.68 2.68 23.00 48.89 1.00

k max = 5.37, CI = 0.091, RI = 1.110 and CR = 0.082 < 0.1.

Table 5
Pairwise comparison for the technical criteria.

Specific criteria/sub-criteria k.1 k.2 k.3 k.4 k.5 Sum Weight

k.1 Distance from main roads 1.00 0.33 3.00 0.20 0.20 4.73 0.10
k.2 Distance from source of MSW 3.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.33 10.33 0.22
k.3 Steep slopes 0.33 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.14 1.88 0.04
k.4 Faults and fractures 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 0.28
k.5 Landslide areas 5.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 17.00 0.36
Total 14.3 5.5 21.0 3.4 2.7 46.94 1.00

k max = 5.41, CI = 0.103, RI = 1.110 and CR = 0.093 < 0.1.

between 0 and 1; values close to 1 (one) indicate an almost perfect Environmental criteria (Fig. 3) arose from the application of
concordance while values close to 0 (zero) indicate poor concor- Mexican standard ‘‘NOM-083-SEMARNAT-2003” (SEMARNAT,
dance. The coefficient used is shown in Eq. (2). 2003), specifically its Section 6.1. The sub-criteria used were the
distances to water bodies, streams, and extraction wells. Since they
X
r X
r
are sources of water supply for the population, it is essential to
N xii  ðxiþ  xþi Þ
i¼1 i¼1
keep FDS away from them to prevent their eventual pollution by
k¼ ð2Þ
2
X
r leachates.
N  ðxiþ  xþi Þ Soil permeability and protected natural areas were other sub-
i¼1 criteria used. Since soil permeability determines the degree of con-
tamination by leachates from FDS, it is preferable to select sites or
where r is the number of rows in the matrix; xii is the number of
areas with sandy-clay sedimentary soils. As regards the second sub
observations in the element in row i and column I; xi+ is the total
criteria, in Mexico it is not allowed to build a FDS within or adja-
number of observations in row i (it is the marginal total to the right
cent to protected natural areas, to avoid damage to vegetation
of the matrix); x+i is the total number of observations in column i (it
and soil caused by emissions from collection vehicles and FDS
is the marginal total at the bottom of the matrix); and N is the total
itself.
number of observations included in the matrix.
In order to construct the layers of the environmental criteria
within GIS, influence areas (buffers) were made, based on the
3. Results and discussion guidelines of the Mexican regulations and other references men-
tioned in Table 6. The soil permeability layer was generated based
Figs. 3–5 show several layers, which were the basis for develop- on soil type classification, considering its physical characteristics.
ing MCE technique in the GIS environment. The classification guidelines can be seen in Hernández (2014).
 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399 395

Table 6
Description of criteria and normalization of levels.

Sub-criteria Levels/classes Nl References and notes

Environmental criteria Distance from water bodies and streams >1000 m 3 References used to build levels:
500–1000 m 2  Röben (2002)
<500 m 1  SEMARNAT (2003)
Distance from water extraction wells >1000 m 3  Kontoset al. (2005)
500–1000 m 2  Eskandari et al. (2012)
<500 m 1  SEMARNAT (2010)
Soil permeability Slow permeability 3  Alavi et al. (2013)
Moderate permeability 2  Demesouka et al. (2014)
Rapid permeability 1  Alexakis and Sarris (2014)
Distance from protected natural areas Outside areas 3  Fernandez et al. (2017)
Within areas 0 Mapping source:
Socioeconomic criteria Distance from populated areas >1000 m 3  INEGI (2016)
500–1000 m 2  RAN (2016)
<500 m 1  CENAPRED (2016)
Land use/cultivation areas Outside areas 3 Building of levels:Multiples buffers were used in the
Any other use zone 2 case of distances.
Within areas 1 In the case of criteria such as Soil permeability, Commu-
Community acceptance High acceptance 3 nity acceptance and others, classification of layers were
Moderate acceptance 2 used, considering specific information of the study area.
Low acceptance 1
Feasibility of buying land Viable acquisition area 3
Moderate acquisition area 2
Difficult acquisition area 1
Distances to commerce and industries <10 km 3
10–25 km 2
>25 km 1
Technical criteria Distance from main roads <1 km 3
1–2 km 2
>2 km 1
Distance from source of MSW 3–15 km 3
15–30 km 2
>30 km 1
Steep slopes 1–5% 3
5–15% 2
>15% 1
Faults and fractures Outside fault/fracture 3
On or near fault/fracture 0
Landslide areas Outside areas 3
Within areas 0

Nl = Normalized level.

Fig. 3. Thematic maps used in the assessment of environmental criteria.

Technical criteria (Fig. 4) are directly related to functioning and important because it is always better to build a FDS at the shortest
infrastructure operation. The sub-criteria used were the distances possible distance from the place where waste is generated; other-
to the main roads and the source of MSW. These sub-criteria are wise, transportation costs would increase. Moreover, other
396 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399

Fig. 4. Thematic maps used in the assessment of technical criteria.

Fig. 5. Thematic maps used in the assessment of socioeconomic criteria.

complementary structures, such as transfer stations, may have to
be built.
Sub-criteria such as steep slope, faults and fractures, and land-
slide areas, are related to the topography of the study area. They
are relevant because they influence the vertical extension of the
waste body and its stability and determine the extent of excavation
and leveling of the land to be done.
The layers of faults and fractures, and landslides were acquired
from CENAPRED (2016), while the layer of steep slopes was
obtained from a map derived from a digital elevation model. The
other layers were constructed using areas of influence, based on
the references in Table 6.
Socioeconomic criteria (Fig. 5) are related to the damage to the
population and the costs caused by the construction of the infras-
tructure. Sub-criteria of populated areas and cultivation areas are
focused on protecting humans or their activities, for example,
farming practices.
Sub-criteria such as the feasibility of buying land and commu-
nity acceptance refer to the ease of acquisition of land for the loca-
tion of MSW management infrastructure, from a social and
economic perspective. These aspects are important because, in
many cases, the legal ownership and the rejection of the people
greatly influence the construction time and investment scope.
The mentioned layers were constructed from the classification
of others. The feasibility of buying land layer was classified under
the hypothesis that it is easier to acquire privately owned than
communal land. Layers such as community acceptance and dis-
tance to commerce and industries, used data mentioned in several
of the papers cited in Table 6.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the final result of the MCE technique in GIS
environment. It is presented the study area classified into three
categories, based on the aptitude grade to emplacement of MSW
management infrastructure.
A large land surface (1,303.65 km2) corresponds to middle apti-
tude or suitability areas, mainly in the northeast and southeast of
the study area. In contrast, 35.11 km2 correspond to low suitability
lands due to their nearness to surface waters and cultivation areas.
Finally, 1,501.64 km2 of the study area, mainly concentrated very
close to the municipalities of Villaflores and Villa Corzo, are highly
suitable.
The non-shaded region of Fig. 7 was immediately discarded
because it corresponds because it corresponds to lands within
 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399 397

Fig. 6. Distribution of surfaces in the study area.

Fig. 7. Final map obtained in MCE.

Table 7
Confusion matrix.

Class Land reality

Low suitability Medium suitability High suitability Total
Classified model Low suitability 46 4 0 50.00
Medium suitability 12 33 5 50.00
High suitability 3 1 46 50.00
Total 61.00 38.00 51.00 150.00
398 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399
protected natural areas that are likely to be affected by runoff and
landslides caused by heavy rainfalls during the rainy season.
The validation of the spatial model presented a Kappa value of
0.75, which indicates that the classification of the study area (high,
medium and low suitability) closely corresponds to the reality,
since its value approaches 1. Table 7 shows the number of points
that were used to compare the generated spatial model versus
the land reality.
Despite the high kappa value of the confusion matrix, this tech-
nique has disadvantages due to the bias introduced by the person
who classifies the sampling points or places (land reality). How-
ever, for practical purposes, it is acceptable since there is no preex-
isting map or cartography to make comparisons with the spatial
model obtained.
4. Conclusions
This document presented a methodology to generate a zoning
of possible areas for the location of MSW management infrastruc-
ture, using spatial analysis tools contained in the GIS software; In
addition, technical, environmental and socioeconomic criteria
were used.
The area of the Frailesca region of Chiapas was the case study.
The results of the MCE analysis in the GIS environment show that
the Frailesca region has 1,501.64 km2 of highly suitable land but
most of it is located far from the provenance zones of MSW, and
thus more detailed studies would be needed to determine the most
viable places.
Other highly suitable areas were detected very close to the
municipal seats of Villaflores and Villa Corzo. These areas should
be considered for the location of the MSW management infrastruc-
ture because they meet the environmental, technical and econom-
ical criteria.
As regards the validation of the special model generated, the
Kappa coefficient presented a value of 0.75, which indicates that
the classification of the study area closely corresponds to land real-
ity, that is, the model can be used for land planning.
On the other hand, the use of the MCE methodology in the GIS
environment is a good exercise that should always be considered
in land management programs, because it permits to weigh and
relate a number of environmental variables. Additionally, this tool
reduces time, costs, and helps make decisions.
Finally, it is important to mention that for similar studies in
other regions of the state of Chiapas, some variables, specifically,
social criteria, should be adjusted because they are the ones having
the greatest effect on the acceptance or rejection of a particular
project.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
Alavi, N., Goudarzi, G., Babaei, A., Jaafarzadeh, N., Hosseinzadeh, M., 2013. Municipal
solid waste landfill site selection with geographic information systems and
analytical hierarchy process: a case study in Mahshahr County, Iran. Waste
Manage. Res. 31, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12456092.
Alexakis, D., Sarris, A., 2014. Integrated GIS and remote sensing analysis for landfill
sitting in Western Crete, Greece. Environ. Earth Sci. 72, 467–482. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12665-013-2966-y.
Araiza, J., 2014. Location of urban solid waste transfer station using GIS tools: a case
study. AIDIS J. Eng. Environ. Sci. Res. Dev. Pract. 7, 78–86.
Banai, R., 1989. A new method for site suitability analysis: the analytic hierarchy
process. Environ. Manage. 13, 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01868308.
Barredo, J., 1996. Geographic Information Systems and Multicriteria Evaluation in
Territorial Planning. Ra-Ma Editorial, Madrid.
Bosque, J., 1997. Geographic Information Systems. Rialp, Madrid.
Buenrostro, O., Bocco, G., 2003. Solid waste management in municipalities in
Mexico: goals and perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 39, 251–263. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00031-4.
Buenrostro, O., Mendoza, M., López, E., Geneletti, D., 2008. Analysis of land
suitability for the siting of inter-municipal landfills in the Cuitzeo Lake Basin,
Mexico. Waste Manage. 28, 1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2007.07.002.
Calabria, A., Gómez, M., Benavidez, G., 2012. Validation of a model based on
Multicriteria Evaluation Techniques and GIS based on uncertainty analysis. A
proposal to improve the introduction of distortion in the starting variables, XV
National Congress of Geographic Information Technologies, Madrid, AGE-CSIC,
September 19-21. Digital version.
CEIEG, State Committee of Statistics and Geographical Information, 2010.
Socioeconomic regions. Compendium of Statistics and Geographic Information
of Chiapas. Available in: <http://www.ceieg.chiapas.gob.mx/home/wp-content/
uploads/downloads/productosdgei/CIGECH/CIGECH_REGIONES.pdf> (accessed
23.01.16).
CENAPRED, National Center for Disaster Prevention, 2016. Catalog Data
‘‘CENAPRED”. Available in: <http://catalogo.datos.gob.mx/
organization/cenapred> (accessed 10.06.16).
Demesouka, O., Vavatsikos, A., Anagnostopoulos, K., 2013. Suitability analysis for
siting MSW landfills and its multicriteria spatial decision support system:
method, implementation and case study. Waste Manage. 33, 1190–1206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.030.
Demesouka, O., Vavatsikos, A., Anagnostopoulos, K., 2014. GIS-based multicriteria
municipal solid waste landfill suitability analysis: a review of the
methodologies performed and criteria implemented. Waste Manage. Res. 32,
270–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14526632.
Eastman, J., Kyem, P., Toledano, J., Jin, W., 1993. GIS and Decision Making United
Nation Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), Ginebra.
Eskandari, M., Homaee, M., Mahmodi, S., 2012. An integrated multi criteria
approach for landfill siting in a conflicting environmental, economical and
socio-cultural area. Waste Manage. 32, 1528–1538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2012.03.014.
Fernandez, V., Chimini, A., Andrade, P., Balbaud, J., Yesiller, N., 2017. Modeling
environmental susceptibility of municipal solid waste disposal sites: a case
study in São Paulo State, Brazil. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 9, 8–33. https://doi.org/
10.4236/jgis.2017.91002.
Gómez, M., Barredo, J., 2005. Geographic Information Systems and Multicriteria
Evaluation in Territorial Planning. Ra-Ma Editorial, Madrid.
Hernández, F., 2014. Obtaining the Curve Number (NC) for the Mexican Republic
through the use of Geographic Information Systems, Applying the TR-55
Methodology, (thesis of degree). Faculty of Engineering – National Autonomous
University of Mexico, p. pp.
INEGI, National Institute of Statistic and Geography, 2010. Population and Housing
Census 2010: Interactive data query. Available in: <http://www.inegi.org.mx/
est/lista_cubos/consulta.aspx?p=pob&c=1> (accessed 10.06.16).
INEGI, National Institute of Statistic and Geography, 2016. National Statistical
Directory of Economic Units (DENUE). Available in: <http://www3.inegi.org.
mx/sistemas/descarga/?c=200> (accessed 20.08.16).
Kontos, T., Komilis, D., Halvadakis, C., 2005. Siting MSW landfills with a spatial
multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste Manage. 25, 818–832. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.04.002.
Landis, J., Koch, G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.
Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Jonh Wiley & Sons Inc,
New York.
Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Prog. Plann. 62, 3–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2003.09.002.
Malczewski, J., Rinner, C., 2015. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic
Information Science. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
Narayana, T., 2009. Municipal solid waste management in India: from waste
disposal to recovery of resources. Waste Manage. 29, 1163–1166. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.038.
Ojeda, S., Beraud, J., 2003. The municipal solid waste cycle in Mexico: final disposal.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 39, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)
00030-2.
Olivas, U., Valdez, J., Aldrete, A., González, M., Vera, G., 2007. Suitable areas for
establishing Maguey Cenizo plantations: definition through multicriteria
analysis and GIS. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 30, 411–419.
RAN, National Agrarian Registry, 2016. Geospatial Information System. Available in:
<http://catalogo.datos.gob.mx/organization/ran> (accessed 23.01.16).
Rafiee, R., Khorasani, N., Mahiny, A., Darvishsefat, A., Danekar, A., Hasan, S., 2011.
Siting transfer stations for municipal solid waste using a spatial multi-criteria
analysis. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 17, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.2113/
gseegeosci.17.2.143.
Röben, E., 2002. Design, Construction, Operation and Closure of Municipal Landfills.
DED/Illustrious Municipality of Loja, Loja, Ecuador.
Roé, A., Rojas, M., Torres, C., 2014. Location of a site appropriate for building a waste
management center urban solid by three methods. AIDIS J. Eng. Environ. Sci.
Res. Dev. Pract. 7, 141–153.
 J.A. Araiza Aguilar et al. / Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 21 (2018) 391–399
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
SEMAHN, Secretariat of Environment and Natural History, 2013. State Diagnosis of
municipal solid waste in the municipalities of Chiapas. Available in: <http://
www.semahn.chiapas.gob.mx/portal/residuos/diagnostico> (accessed 10.06.16).
SEMARNAT, Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, 2010. Criteria for
the location, operation and closure of environmental infrastructure for the
collection, transfer, separation and treatment of urban solid waste and special
management. December 2010. Contract DGRMIS-DAC-DGFAUT-NO. 012/2010.
SEMARNAT, Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, 2003. Mexican
Official Standard NOM-083-SEMARNAT-2003. Specifications for environmental
protection related to the site selection, design, construction, monitoring, closure
and complementary works of a final disposal site for urban solid waste and of
special management.
Sener, S., Sener, E., Nas, B., 2011. Selection of landfill site using GIS and multicriteria
decision analysis for Beysehir Lake Catchment Area Konya, Turkey. J. Eng. Sci.
Des. 1, 134–144.
399
SHCP, Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit, 2011. Regional Development
Program. Region VI Frailesca. Available in: <http://www.haciendachiapas.gob.
mx/planeacion/Informacion/Desarrollo-Regional/prog-regionales/FRAYLESCA.
pdf> (accessed 20.08.16).
SMA, Secretariat of Environment of the State of Mexico, 2008. State Environmental
Technical Standard. NTEA-010-SMA-RS-2008. Establishes the requirements and
specifications for the installation, operation and maintenance of infrastructure
for the collection, transfer, separation and treatment of urban solid waste and
special management for the State of Mexico.
Sumathi, V., Natesan, U., Sarkar, C., 2008. GIS-based approach for optimized siting of
municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manage. 28, 2146–2160. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.032.
Tavares, G., Zsigraiová, Z., Semiao, V., 2011. Multi-criteria GIS-based siting of an
incineration plant for municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 31, 1960–1972.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.013.