IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i3d10.1007_s10668-020-00725-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of GIS-based surrogate weighting methods for multi-directional landfill site selection in West Mediterranean Planning Region in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Mehmet Ali Dereli

    (Giresun University)

  • Emre Tercan

    (General Directorate of Highways)

Abstract

On account of sustainable municipal solid waste (MSW) management, the determination of appropriate positions for MSW multi-directional landfill sites includes thought of geomorphological, topographical, hydrological, monetary and environmental parameters. Deciding these regions in a manner that limits ecological contamination and well-being dangers is a significant multi-criteria decision-making issue in the controls of land executives. A landfill site choice procedure has been completed utilizing three pure weighting techniques (rank sum, rank reciprocal and rank-order centroid) coordinated with geographical information system instruments. The outcomes demonstrate that 32,045 km2 (87.4%) of the total area is inadmissible for landfill sites. This study compares the results of three subjective weighting methods at a large-scale regional planning scenario. The exhibited methodology helps chiefs in deciding safe areas for MSW landfill sites. The results show that in the early period of the spatial planning, simplified pure methods can be adequate. In this case, using more complicated methods will not definitely deduce different findings. However, when regional planning requires identifying the spatial scope of the favored specific sites, considering the intersection area proposed by three methods will be ideal.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehmet Ali Dereli & Emre Tercan, 2021. "Comparison of GIS-based surrogate weighting methods for multi-directional landfill site selection in West Mediterranean Planning Region in Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 3438-3457, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00725-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00725-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-020-00725-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-020-00725-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig W. Kirkwood & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1985. "Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 38-48, February.
    2. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    3. Brad Carter & Claus Rinner, 2014. "Locally weighted linear combination in a vector geographic information system," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 343-361, July.
    4. Olaide Monsor Aderoju & Guerner Antonio Dias & Alberto Jose Gonçalves, 2020. "A GIS-based analysis for sanitary landfill sites in Abuja, Nigeria," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 551-574, January.
    5. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg & Ying He, 2014. "Augmenting Ordinal Methods of Attribute Weight Approximation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 21-26, March.
    6. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    7. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2011. "Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 552-559, August.
    8. Sánchez-Lozano, Juan M. & Henggeler Antunes, Carlos & García-Cascales, M. Socorro & Dias, Luis C., 2014. "GIS-based photovoltaic solar farms site selection using ELECTRE-TRI: Evaluating the case for Torre Pacheco, Murcia, Southeast of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 478-494.
    9. Doljak, Dejan & Stanojević, Gorica, 2017. "Evaluation of natural conditions for site selection of ground-mounted photovoltaic power plants in Serbia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 291-300.
    10. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    11. Demesouka, Olympia E. & Anagnostopoulos, Konstantinos P. & Siskos, Eleftherios, 2019. "Spatial multicriteria decision support for robust land-use suitability: The case of landfill site selection in Northeastern Greece," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 574-586.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    2. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    3. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2019. "A note on using centroid weights in additive multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 391-393.
    4. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    5. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Danielle Costa Morais & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2022. "Negotiation Support Through Interactive Dominance Relationship Specification," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 591-620, June.
    6. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa, 2019. "Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 909-931, December.
    7. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2024. "Ranking voting systems and surrogate weights: Explicit formulas for centroid weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(3), pages 967-976.
    8. Tobias Fasth & Samuel Bohman & Aron Larsson & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson, 2020. "Portfolio Decision Analysis for Evaluating Stakeholder Conflicts in Land Use Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 321-343, April.
    9. Sward, Jeffrey A. & Nilson, Roberta S. & Katkar, Venktesh V. & Stedman, Richard C. & Kay, David L. & Ifft, Jennifer E. & Zhang, K. Max, 2021. "Integrating social considerations in multicriteria decision analysis for utility-scale solar photovoltaic siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    10. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    11. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    12. Luis V. Montiel & J. Eric Bickel, 2014. "A Generalized Sampling Approach for Multilinear Utility Functions Given Partial Preference Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 147-170, September.
    13. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Jay Simon, 2020. "Weight Approximation for Spatial Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Manel Baucells & Juan A. Carrasco & Robin M. Hogarth, 2008. "Cumulative Dominance and Heuristic Performance in Binary Multiattribute Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1289-1304, October.
    16. Doorga, Jay R.S. & Rughooputh, Soonil D.D.V. & Boojhawon, Ravindra, 2019. "Multi-criteria GIS-based modelling technique for identifying potential solar farm sites: A case study in Mauritius," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1201-1219.
    17. Ali Abbas, 2004. "Maximum Entropy Utility," Game Theory and Information 0403002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Jalil Heidary Dahooie & Ali Husseinzadeh Kashan & Zahra Shoaei Naeini & Amir Salar Vanaki & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "A Hybrid Multi-Criteria-Decision-Making Aggregation Method and Geographic Information System for Selecting Optimal Solar Power Plants in Iran," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Dias, Luis C. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dantas, Guilherme & de Castro, Nivalde & Zamboni, Lucca, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on Delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in Brazil," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 100-111.
    20. Imad Hassan & Ibrahim Alhamrouni & Nurul Hanis Azhan, 2023. "A CRITIC–TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Optimum Site Selection for Solar PV Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, May.

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00725-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.