IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12602-d679435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insights for Landfill Site Selection Using GIS: A Case Study in the Tanjero River Basin, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

Author

Listed:
  • Arsalan Ahmed Othman

    (Iraq Geological Survey, Al-Andalus Square, Baghdad 10068, Iraq
    College of Engineering, Department of Petroleum, Komar University of Science and Technology, Sulaimaniyah 460013, Iraq)

  • Ahmed K. Obaid

    (Department of Geology, University of Baghdad, Baghdad 10068, Iraq
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK)

  • Diary Ali Mohammed Al-Manmi

    (College of Science, Department of Geology, University of Sulaimani, Sulaymaniyah 46001, Iraq)

  • Mohammad Pirouei

    (Department of Petroleum Geosciences, Faculty of Science, Soran University, Erbil 44008, Iraq)

  • Sarkawt Ghazi Salar

    (Department of Geography, College of Education, University of Garmian, Sulaymaniyah 46021, Iraq)

  • Veraldo Liesenberg

    (Department of Forest Engineering, Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Lages 88520-000, SC, Brazil)

  • Ahmed F. Al-Maamar

    (Iraq Geological Survey, Al-Andalus Square, Baghdad 10068, Iraq)

  • Ahmed T. Shihab

    (Iraq Geological Survey, Al-Andalus Square, Baghdad 10068, Iraq)

  • Younus I. Al-Saady

    (Iraq Geological Survey, Al-Andalus Square, Baghdad 10068, Iraq)

  • Zaid T. Al-Attar

    (Department of Geology, University of Baghdad, Baghdad 10068, Iraq)

Abstract

The increasing world population and the growing quantity of solid waste have become a challenging problem facing governments and policy makers because of the scarcity of suitable sites for new landfills and the negative perception of these sites by the people. This study aims to evaluate the performance of different Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis (MCDA) approaches using remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) data for identifying suitable landfill sites (LFSs). We evaluated the methodologies used by various investigators and selected appropriate ones as suitable sites for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill in the Tanjero River Basin (TRB) in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. We applied Boolean Overlay (BO), Weighted Sum Method (WSM), Weighted Product Method (WPM), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to allow combined use of 15 thematic layers as predictive factors (PFs). In this study, we applied the Topographic Position Index (TPI) for the first time to select MSW LFSs. Almost all methods showed reliable results and we identified eight suitable sites situated in the western part of the TRB having total area of ~18.35 km 2 . The best accuracy was achieved using the AHP approach. This paper emphasizes that the approach of the used method is useful for selecting LFSs in other areas, which are located in similar environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Arsalan Ahmed Othman & Ahmed K. Obaid & Diary Ali Mohammed Al-Manmi & Mohammad Pirouei & Sarkawt Ghazi Salar & Veraldo Liesenberg & Ahmed F. Al-Maamar & Ahmed T. Shihab & Younus I. Al-Saady & Zaid T. , 2021. "Insights for Landfill Site Selection Using GIS: A Case Study in the Tanjero River Basin, Kurdistan Region, Iraq," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-29, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12602-:d:679435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12602/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12602/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karwan Alkaradaghi & Salahalddin S. Ali & Nadhir Al-Ansari & Jan Laue & Ali Chabuk, 2019. "Landfill Site Selection Using MCDM Methods and GIS in the Sulaimaniyah Governorate, Iraq," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Additive utilities with finite sets: Applications in the management sciences," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13.
    3. World Bank, 2015. "Kurdistan Region of Iraq : Economic and Social Impact Assessment of the Syrian Conflict and the ISIS Crisis," World Bank Publications - Reports 21597, The World Bank Group.
    4. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 537-542, June.
    5. Akbaş, Halil & Bilgen, Bilge, 2017. "An integrated fuzzy QFD and TOPSIS methodology for choosing the ideal gas fuel at WWTPs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 484-497.
    6. Afsaneh Afzali & Soheil Sabri & M. Rashid & Jamal Mohammad Vali Samani & Ahmad Ludin, 2014. "Inter-Municipal Landfill Site Selection Using Analytic Network Process," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(8), pages 2179-2194, June.
    7. Mohammad A. Al-Anbari & Mohanad Y. Thameer & Nadhir Al-Ansari, 2018. "Landfill Site Selection by Weighted Overlay Technique: Case Study of Al-Kufa, Iraq," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, March.
    8. Hossein Yousefi & Zahra Javadzadeh & Younes Noorollahi & Amin Yousefi-Sahzabi, 2018. "Landfill Site Selection Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: A Case Study of the Salafcheghan Special Economic Zone, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    9. World Bank, 2015. "The Kurdistan Region of Iraq," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 21637.
    10. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    11. Wenqun Xiu & Shuying Wang & Wenguang Qi & Xue Li & Chisheng Wang, 2021. "Disaster Chain Analysis of Landfill Landslide: Scenario Simulation and Chain-Cutting Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    12. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grzegorz Ostasz & Dominika Siwiec & Andrzej Pacana, 2022. "Universal Model to Predict Expected Direction of Products Quality Improvement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Mariano Gallo, 2019. "An Optimisation Model to Consider the NIMBY Syndrome within the Landfill Siting Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Antonio Nesticò & Piera Somma, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Pingtao Yi & Weiwei Li & Lingyu Li, 2018. "Evaluation and Prediction of City Sustainability Using MCDM and Stochastic Simulation Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    6. Petr Tučník & Vladimír Bureš, 2016. "Experimental Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Large-Scale Agent-Based Simulations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Pinto, F.S. & Costa, A.S. & Figueira, J.R. & Marques, R.C., 2017. "The quality of service: An overall performance assessment for water utilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 115-125.
    8. Lucia Della Spina, 2020. "Adaptive Sustainable Reuse for Cultural Heritage: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach Supporting Urban Development Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. Pašakarnis, Giedrius & Maliene, Vida & Dixon-Gough, Robert & Malys, Naglis, 2021. "Decision support framework to rank and prioritise the potential land areas for comprehensive land consolidation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    11. Nimcan Abdi Mohamed & Yemane G. Asfaha & Akiber Chufo Wachemo, 2023. "Integration of Multicriteria Decision Analysis and GIS for Evaluating the Site Suitability for the Landfill in Hargeisa City and Its Environs, Somaliland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2004. "A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 530-532, July.
    13. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    14. Syed Imran Zaman & Sharfuddin Ahmed Khan & Sahar Qabool & Himanshu Gupta, 2023. "How digitalization in banking improve service supply chain resilience of e-commerce sector? a technological adoption model approach," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 904-930, June.
    15. María Carmen Carnero, 2020. "Waste Segregation FMEA Model Integrating Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set and the PAPRIKA Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-29, August.
    16. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    17. Sun, Hongjun & Yang, Zhen & Li, Jinxia & Ding, Hongbing & Lv, Pengfei, 2024. "Performance evaluation and optimal design for passive turbulence control-based hydrokinetic energy harvester using EWM-based TOPSIS," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    18. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    19. Michele Grimaldi & Monica Sebillo & Giuliana Vitiello & Vincenzo Pellecchia, 2020. "Planning and Managing the Integrated Water System: A Spatial Decision Support System to Analyze the Infrastructure Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-24, August.
    20. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    GIS; landfill; MSW; WSM; WPM; AHP; TOPSIS; MCDA;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12602-:d:679435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.