Abstract
Landfilling is a convenient method to tackle waste problems, in developing as well as developed countries. Determining a minimally environmentally deleterious garbage dump site is a challenge considering that a bevy of socio-economic, environmental and legal parameters often exists in developing countries. Guwahati is a city in India that faces the hindrance of not having a suitable landfill site. The existing landfill site, Boragaon, does not fulfil the prescribed parameters listed by the Central Public Health Environment and Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The main objective of this study was to provide alternative sites in the Guwahati Metropolitan Area (GMA) using geographic information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)–based analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods. Seven criteria were considered in site selection. These were land use, slope, elevation and proximity to wetlands, rivers, roads and the airport. Results indicate that 7.5% of the area was most suitable, 22.8% highly suitable, 43.8%, 22.2% and 3.6% areas were of moderate, low and least suitability respectively. On the basis of the area covered by each location, 5 landfill sites were identified to potentially relocate the existing site. The study highlights the problem of waste management in low- and middle-income cities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The world’s cities currently generate 1.3 billion tonnes of solid waste per year, amounting to 1.2 kg/capita/day (World Bank 2012). Rapid growth and urbanization have led to a sharp increase in the generation of waste (Boroushaki and Malczewski 2010; Demesouka et al. 2013; Halahla et al. 2019; Salemi and Hejazi 2017). People discard products that outlive their primary purpose and coupled with consumerism and growing affluence; the waste generation has become an issue of massive proportions. Improper waste disposal adds to environmental pollution as well as aggravating public health risks (Palomar et al. 2019; Omoloso et al. 2020). Thus, sustainable solutions to tackle such waste are a pressing requirement. An efficient management system has to be designed wherein complexity, uncertainty, multi-objectivity and subjectivity (Sumathi et al. 2008; Khan and Samadder 2014) associated with waste matter disposal can be arrived at with minimal adverse environmental effects. Urban solid waste management (SWM) is considered as one of the most serious environmental problems confronting municipal authorities in developing countries, but oftentimes, scant attention is accorded to waste minimization strategies and eventually, all waste is sent to dumpsites for final disposal (Richter et al. 2019; Leao et al. 2004; Mahini and Gholamalifard 2006; Oteng-Ababio 2011; Yazdani et al. 2017).
In a waste management hierarchy scenario (waste reduction, reuse, recycling, composting and landfilling), it is landfilling that lies at the bottom of the list in terms of attention accorded (Mahini and Gholamalifard 2006; Rahman et al. 2008; Gbanie et al. 2013). Landfilling is a waste disposal method in which waste is spread into thin cells initially, compressed it into small volumes and then finally covered by a soil layer (Sumathi et al. 2008). Although there are numerous waste reduction procedures such as reuse and recycle at source, it is landfilling that is considered as the most accepted method (Richter et al. 2019; Sumathi et al. 2008; Afzali et al. 2011; Spigolon et al. 2018) especially in developing countries like India. Nonetheless, there have been hindrances in finding suitable sites for final waste drop off given the scarcity of land, social and political acceptance (Lin and Kao 1999; Kontos et al. 2003; Chang et al. 2007), economic aspects (Chabuk et al. 2017) and mounting population pressures particularly in developing countries (Aderoju et al. 2020).
Geographic information system (GIS) serves as a digital database management system that helps storing, retrieving and analyzing data from various sources and displaying results with ease (Siddiqui et al. 1996; Sumiani et al. 2009; Gbanie et al. 2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has the advantage to evaluate varied criteria including blending expert opinion with factual information (Al-hanbali et al. 2011). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the most widely accepted MCDA approaches and has been widely used in identifying potential landfill sites (Babu and Sivasankar 2015; Chabuk et al. 2017; Kaoje et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2018; Rinsitha et al. 2014; Rana et al. 2017; Sharma et al. 2018).
GIS along with MCDA provides tools enabling analysts to overlay different qualitative and quantitative criteria systematically in a single platform and these have been particularly favoured in waste management analyses (Achillas et al. 2013; Antonopoulos et al. 2014; Aderoju et al. 2020; Chamchali et al. 2019; Eghtesadifard et al. 2020 Soltani et al. 2015; Sotamenou 2019). MCDA methods offer a set of preferable solutions (albeit not necessarily the best) that enable an optimal decision to be taken. Ultimately, the decision taken would depend on circumstances as well as experience and personal judgement (Morrisseya and Browne 2004; Brent et al. 2007) of decision-makers.
In India, attempts have been made to improve waste management practices in response to SWM rules, 2016, including, in recent years, the Central Public Health Environment and Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines in constructing sanitary landfills. Waste management practices in secondary cities like Guwahati are hardly scientific.
This study seeks to identify potential suitable landfill sites for the disposal of municipal solid waste in Guwahati Metropolitan Area (GMA) under Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA), the largest city in north east India.
The study is organized as follows: the study area is briefly described along with the status of disposal of municipal solid waste. The database and methodology pertaining to multi-criteria decision analysis are detailed in the subsequent section and contextualized vis-à-vis existing methods employed in similar studies elsewhere. The criteria selected as inputs to the AHP exercise, grouped into constraints and decision criteria, along with the rationale behind their selection are also addressed in this section. The next section deals with the results and discussion, followed by the conclusion.
Study area
Occupying Kamrup (Metropolitan) district, the GMA extends from 91° 34′ E to 91° 52′ E longitude and 26° 4′ N to 26° 13′ N latitude covering an area of 263 sq. km. It borders the Khasi and Jaintia hills of Meghalaya to the south, the Boga Gosai Parbat, an extension of Khasi hills to the east. On the west, the GMA is flanked by Jalukbari-Azara plain where the Deepor Beel and adjoining low-lying areas lie and to the north by a flat plain interrupted by small hillocks. The city is situated on undulating terrain with altitude varying between 49.5 and 55.5 m.a.s.l.. Sarania hill, Nabagraha hill, Nilachal hill and Chunsali hill are hillocks that cover the central part of the city. The GMA includes the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (GMC) area, the North Guwahati town committee area and some revenue villages namely, Silasundari Ghopa Mouza, Pub Barsar Mouza, Dakhin Rani Mouza, Ramcharani Mouza and Beltola Mouza.
Geomorphologically, a peneplain area (Devi 2008), the GMA is divided into major geographic units—flood plain, alluvial plain, denudational hill and inselbergs. The Deepor Beel wetland is located in the flood plain region towards the south western part of the city. The wetland (locally known as a beel) is estimated to cover 9.2 km2 though the actual waterbody is only 4.1 km2. During monsoon season, it spreads over an area of 40.14 km2, while the depth ranges from about 1.5 to 6 m depending on the season (Planning Commission 2008). The wetland serves as an essential water storage basin for the city of Guwahati and helps in reducing the impact of flash floods.
Waste management in Guwahati is managed by the GMC. The land availability under GMC has been exhausted in terms of remaining space suitable for landfilling and therefore, the GMA has been considered in this study. Moreover, in the present Pachim Boragaon landfill site, the waste holding capacity is inadequate for the total waste generated by the city in terms of volume and this underlines the need to siting a new sanitary landfill (Audit Report 2011). Additionally, the site does not meet the site requirements stipulated by CPHEEO and CPCB.
In Guwahati, the current daily quantity of solid waste generation from all sources is about 600 MT or an average of 0.62 kg/day per capita. The Census of India (2011) enumerated the population of Guwahati at 963,429 persons; the latter’s population is currently well over a million (United Nations 2018). Around 40% of household in GMC use municipal bins for waste disposal, 35% dispose it in their own residences, 11% dump it on the roadside, only 6% hand over waste to private parties on a payment basis and around 2% burn their waste (Gogoi 2013). Solid waste of the city comprises of biodegradable waste such as food, vegetables, fruit, garden and wood scraps (45–50%), recyclable waste including paper, plastic, textiles, glass, leather, rubber and metals (about 45%) and the rest is non-biodegradable waste and consists of inert materials (PCB Assam 2013). The waste collected by GMC is finally disposed of at the Paschim Boragaon landfill site without segregation. It shares a common boundary with an important and ecologically sensitive wetland, Deepor Beel, the sole Ramsar wetland in Assam. In fact, pollution through seepage has endangered the various species that depend on it. The future of the SWM project is at risk as the site is in close vicinity of Deepor Beel and is against the violation of Wetland Rules, 2010 (Audit Report 2011; Final Draft Report 2015).
Waste management practices in Guwahati seem inadequate and need urgent attention; the actual regulatory and legal framework does not correspond to current needs, and monitoring and enforcement capacity in various agencies are rather weak. Distribution and allocation of waste bins at the improper location, no separate bins for recyclable waste, pollution of natural water streams due to waste collection centres proximity and open nature continue to be problematic issues (Nair 2010). The city is located in the highest seismic hazard risk zone in India with high-magnitude earthquakes having occurred in the region in 1987 and 1950 (Saikia 2005). Additionally, the city is prone to urban flooding during the monsoon months and landslides in the hills abutting the city, not infrequently, cause losses to lives and property.
Methodology
Data
For the generation of thematic layers, satellite imageries, topographical maps and ancillary data from sources like GMC and GMDA officials were used. Other sources include Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area—2025 (parts 1 and 2), Delineation of New Guwahati Metropolitan Region and Review and Revision of Master Plan, Volume I: Existing Situation and Analysis, Final Draft Report 2015, Guidelines and Check-list for evaluation of MSW Landfills proposals with Information on existing landfills, CPCB, 2008 and Swachh Bharat Mission Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual, CPHEEO, Ministry of Urban Development, 2016 (parts 1, 2 and 3).
Multi-criteria decision analysis
Multi-criteria decision analysis embodies a set of sequential procedures for analyzing complex decision problems; they are divided into smaller more understandable parts, analyzing each part and integrating the parts in a logical manner to produce a meaningful and relevant solution (Malczewski 1997).
AHP is one of the most widely used MCDA methods that was developed by Saaty (1980). It is a technique used to analyse and support decisions in which multiple and competing objectives are involved and where multiple alternatives are possible. It is a process wherein, a complex decision problem is decomposed into simpler decision problems to form a decision hierarchy (Erkut and Moran 1991). The ultimate goal of decision-making is to reach the highest level of the hierarchy; accordingly, the hierarchy decreases from general to more specific until a level of attributes arrived. AHP integrates subjective judgements of the decision-maker as well as empirical data to achieve and facilitate optimal decisions (Chabuk et al. 2017).
Evaluation criteria
A set of evaluation criteria, which includes attributes and objectives, should be designated (Keeney and Raiffa 1976) for optimal site selection. It should comply with the existing governmental regulations and at the same time must minimize economic, environmental, health and social costs (Siddiqui et al. 1996).
Considering the environmental attributes of Guwahati, 7 criteria were selected as inputs to the AHP exercise (Figs. 1 and 2).
The 7 criteria were adopted based on a perusal of recent studies (Asefi et al. 2020; Rezaeisabzevar et al. 2020; Özkan et al. 2019; Moeinaddini et al. 2010; Sisay et al. 2020) as well as considering the requirements laid down in the CPCB, 2008 and CPHEEO 2016a, b, c guidelines and parameters. These criteria were grouped into constraints and decision criteria. While the constraint criteria include land use, elevation and slope; the decision criteria include proximity to roads, the river, wetlands and the Guwahati airport. The AHP toolbox in the ArcGIS software (www.esri.com) was used in the study.
AHP itself acts as a useful mechanism to ascertain the consistency of the evaluation criteria and minimize bias in decision-making (Samah et al., 2011; Sisay et al., 2020) Therefore, this study employed the consistency ratio of AHP to cross-check the consistency of the results.
Ranking method
Standardization of each criterion was made considering the suitability of the criterion and ranking in the order of decision-maker’s preferences, along with the opinions of experts and a perusal of previous studies. The weights were determined and the score of alternatives was evaluated to derive the rank of the alternatives. Each layer was classified into 4 classes ranging from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating the least and 4 the highest preference respectively (Tables 1 and 2).
Pairwise comparison method
Pairwise comparisons were used to assign scores and weights for the criteria and to generate a ratio matrix. The AHP accepts pairwise comparisons as input and produces relative weights as the output. The method uses a scale with values ranging from 1 to 9 with 1 indicative of or lowest and 9 of highest suitability respectively (Table 3) (Saaty 1980)
For the computation of weights, firstly, the summation of the values in each column of the matrix is required. Thereafter, each element in the matrix is divided by its column total and then computation of the average of the elements in each row of the normalized matrix is made by dividing the sum of normalized scores for each row by the number of criteria. This provides an estimation of the relative weights of the criteria being compared.
Consistency ratio (CR) is used to determine if the comparisons are consistent or not. It involves the following steps:
-
a.
A weighted sum vector is calculated by multiplying the weight for the first criterion times the first column of the original pairwise comparison matrix, then multiplying the second weight times the second column, the third criterion times the third column of the original matrix, finally summing these values over the rows,
-
b.
Consistency vector is derived by dividing the weighted sum vector by the criterion weights determined previously,
-
c.
Compute lambda (λ) which is the average value of the consistency vector and consistency index (CI), and it provides a measure of departure from consistency:
CI = (λ − n)/(n-1)
-
d.
Calculation of the CR:
CR = CI/RI
-
e.
Random index (RI) is the number of elements being compared (Tables 4 and 5). If CR is < 0.10, the ratio indicates a rational level of consistency in the pairwise comparison; however, if CR ≥ 0.10, the values of the ratio indicate inconsistent judgements.
Results and discussion
The study used various parameters such as land use, hydrological (surface water and wetland proximity), topographical (slope and elevation) and economic (road and airport proximity) to assess the suitability of the existing current dumpsite in Guwahati and explored the feasibility of potential landfill sites in the GMA. To generate map layers, various spatial analysis tools (buffer, clip, extract, overlay, reclassify, proximity, etc.) were employed in a GIS. Suitability scores and relative weights were assigned based on (i) norms followed in recent studies and their relative importance in the process of decision-making (Sisay et al. 2020; Richter et al. 2019; Alavi et al. 2012; Mipun et al. 2015) and (ii) local conditionalities. For instance, land use criteria have been ranked the highest considering that the million city of Guwahati faces acute land scarcity emanating from unplanned urban growth and a dearth of open spaces within municipal limits. Hence, it was felt prudent to extend the study area to the GMA.
Land use
The land use pattern of a region is an outcome of both natural and socio-economic factors and their utilization by humans over time and space (Karthiheyan and Yeshodha 2016). Arid and less suitable agricultural tracts are oftentimes preferred landfill sites (Abediniangerabi and Kamalirad 2016). Dumping site should not be selected close to built-up and vegetated areas, as they adversely affect land value and future development and also to minimize current and future environmental hazards (Clark and Gillean 1974) and their effects. In this study, 8 land use classes were identified: water bodies, built up, institutional, airport, vegetation, sparse population, agriculture and vacant space. Water bodies, built up, institutional, airport class and sparse population were grouped into a single class with the lowest suitability score. Vacant space is used as the most suitable class for siting landfills and therefore, the highest score suitability score was assigned to such areas.
Wetland proximity
Dumpsites release noxious gases and chemicals into surrounding water sources, reservoirs, and increase potential threats to all organisms in the vicinity. Wetlands tend to facilitate the transmission of waste and latex, so it is better to locate landfills in places bereft of flood incidence for at least a century (CPHEEO 2016a, b, c). A sufficient distance should be maintained to avoid contamination and hazards through leachate (Gbanie et al. 2013; Mahmood et al. 2017). The polluted runoff coming from landfills has a high capability to contaminate surface water. Locations that are situated at least 200 m away from wetlands are best for disposal (CPHEEO 2016a, b, c). In this study, the zone at the farthest distance from a wetland was accorded the highest suitability score.
River proximity
In India, dumping of solid waste on or in close proximity to any water surface is prohibited, be it a river or lake (CPCB 2008). To reduce vulnerability to pollution of surface water from contamination, landfills near streams and rivers are generally avoided. Likewise, landfills must be located 100 m away from rivers (CPHEEO 2016a, b, c). Proximity to rivers has a direct relationship with land suitability in terms of landfill site suitability. Thus, buffer zones at greater distances from river(s) were assigned higher suitability scores in the present study.
Road proximity
Distance from roads is always viewed as an important economic factor in site selection (Gbanie et al. 2013; Gunko and Medvedev 2016; Abediniangerabi and Kamalirad 2016). Landfill sites should be close to highways and main roads to minimize construction costs (Abdoli 1993; Lin and Kao 1999). To minimize the interference of solid waste laden vehicles with the main traffic, the lowest distance allocated was the 100-m distance from roads. A distance greater than 1 km from main roads and highways were avoided (Allen et al. 2001) and access to landfill sites by alternative all-weather roads were also factored into the present analysis. A proximity zone between 200 and 800 m was given the highest suitability score, keeping in view the rider that landfills shall not be located within 200 m of major highways, city streets or other transportation routes (CHEEPO 2016b).
Elevation
The elevation is considered to be an essential factor in locating landfill sites. Due to the transmission of soft trash bags by the wind at high elevations, it causes environmental pollution and therefore is not appropriate for landfill siting (Abediniangerabi and Kamalirad 2016). Hilly landscapes not only increase construction costs but also become a burden to vehicles transporting waste to landfill locations. High-elevation areas were thus assigned the least suitability and vice versa.
Slope
The degree of slope is a crucial factor in landfill siting. Higher excavation costs are entailed in steeper slopes and soil erosion can be problematic in such areas (Koulouri and Giourga 2007; Memarbashi et al. 2017) along with the risk of drainage of pollutants to surrounding areas (Kao 1996). Thus, the steeper the slope, the lower is the suitability and lesser is the preference for a landfill site and vice versa (Akbari et al. 2008). Slopes less than 10% are most suitable for solid waste dumping (Leao et al. 2004; Sener et al. 2011). Accordingly, areas with a minimal slope were preferred for the GMA and tracts with less than 7% were given the highest suitability scores.
Airport proximity
Landfills attract birds and dust flows that are a hindrance and risk to air traffic and hence, distance is a factor in their siting (Daneshvar 2004; Monavvari et al. 2012). Ideally, a landfill should not be set up within a 20 km from an airport, though such a distance can be difficult to adhere to in certain cases. In this analysis, the distance from the Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport was factored in.
Computation of AHP
AHP was calculated as follows (Tables 6, 7 and 8):
The CR of the present study is 0.03 and it is < 0.10; therefore, it indicates that the weights assigned were satisfactory.
Computation of suitability index
All seven criteria maps were converted into rasters, so that pixel-wise scores could be determined (Jain and Subbaiah 2007). All the criteria maps were integrated and overlaid, and final site suitability map (Fig. 3) was prepared:
The final suitability map was reclassified into 5 classes with different suitability intensities. A 7.5% of the total area had the highest suitability with 19.7 sq. km. of area, 22.8% had high suitability and 43.8%, 22.2% and 3.5% had moderate, low and very low suitability respectively (Figs. 3, 4 and 5).
On the basis of the area covered by each patch, 5 sites were proposed of which the most suitable site, Gauripur, located in north Guwahati, is also the largest in terms of area (Tables 9 and 10).
Our results are in consonance with previous studies wherein one or a few suitable landfill sites were identified (Shah et al. 2019; Nigusse et al. 2020; Aderoju et al. 2020). Similarly, the identified suitability site extent in this analysis of 7.5% resembled those determined by recent analyses which varied from 7.6 (Nigusse et al. 2020) to 14.5% (Agrawal et al. 2020).
Conclusion
Landfill sites for municipal solid waste disposal were sought for the city of Guwahati using GIS-based MCDA-AHP methods. GIS enables the identification of suitable sites although it is hardly a substitute for ground truthing and field verification. Seven criteria namely land use, wetlands, rivers, roads, elevation, slope and proximity to the airport were used in this analysis. A total of 7.5% (19.7 sq. km) was identified as being of the highest suitability to locate such a landfill site. The study provides alternative potential sites that could aid in relocating the existing site. These sites were selected on the basis of the area covered by each site within the highest suitability zone.
In Guwahati, due to the lack of an efficient solid waste collection and disposal system, people tend to variously dump garbage on open spaces, streets, into open drains, etc., that lead to environmental problems like waterlogging (natural and artificial) and clogging of drains besides creating a generally foul environment. There has been a consistent rise in municipal solid waste due to rapid population growth, mass migration from rural to urban areas, floating population, etc.
The present Pachim Boragaon landfill located on the outskirts of the city shares boundaries with Deepor Beel and poses threats to fish and migratory birds in the wetland. It is used as a mere dumpsite for disposal and no waste segregation and processing is undertaken, giving rise to environmental pollution and posing potential health risks to local residents.
With rapid industrialization and urbanization, waste management has assumed immense significance. Unfortunately, it is conveniently lost sight of developing countries where oftentimes more pressing matters tend to relegate it to relative obscurity.
The tremendous increase in population and persistent drive for economic progress and development has resulted in a remarkable increase in the quantity of solid waste. While recycling, reusing and reducing are effective in reducing solid waste problems; without additional management measures, including proper landfill siting, these remain insufficient. Not infrequently, MSW in developing countries is dumped on land in an uncontrolled manner. Selecting landfill sites is a complicated task where environmental, social, technical and economic issues must be taken into consideration and where public opposition to site selection can be a contentious matter. The methodology and approach adopted in this study can be employed in urban areas elsewhere in general and in cities of Northeast India in particular. In the latter, unfortunately, no site suitability analyses are undertaken prior to locating minimally obtrusive landfill sites.
Guwahati is a hub for political, administrative, industrial, educational, commercial and many other activities, is the largest city in Northeast India and is poised to grow further considering the Indian government’s Act East Policy. The GMA in many ways epitomizes the problem of waste management in low- and middle-income countries which possess ample room for improvement. For a start, the city’s landfill site needs to be shifted to a more suitable location if the GMA is to reap the benefits of an urbanism without these being negated and nullified by inappropriate waste management strategies.
References
Abdoli MA (1993) Municipal Solid waste management system and its control methods. Metropolitan recyclying organization publication 142-154.
Abediniangerabi B, Kamalirad S (2016) Landfill sitting using MCDA in Tehran Metropolitan. J Urban Environ Eng 10:11–24. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2016.v10n1.11-24
Achillas C, Moussiopoulos N, Karagiannidis A, Banias G, Perkoulidis G (2013) The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: a literature review. Waste Manag Res 31:115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x12470203
Aderoju OM, Dias GA, Gonçalves AJ (2020) A GIS-based analysis for sanitary landfill sites in Abuja, Nigeria. Environ Dev Sustain 22:551–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0206-z
Afzali A, Samani JMV, Rashid M (2011) Municipal landfill site selection for Isfahan city by use of Fuzzy Logic and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Iran Jl Environ Health Sci Eng 8:273–284 https://ijehse.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jehse/article/view/ 310
Agrawal R, Srivastava AK, Nigam AK (2020) Landfill site selection in India using analytic hierarchy and geographic information Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management 173: 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.18.00026
Akbari V, Rajabi MA, Chavoshi SH, Shams R (2008) Landfill site selection by combining GIS and fuzzy multi criteria decision analysis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran. World Appl Sci 3:39–47 https://scinapse.io/papers/2188032869
Alavi N, Goudarzi G, Babaei AAB, Jaafarzadeh N, Hosseinzadeh M (2012) Municipal solid waste landfill site selection with geographic information systems and analytical hierarchy process: a case study in Mahshahr County, Iran. Waste Manag Res 31:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12456092
Al-hanbali A, Alsaaideh B, Kiondoh A (2011) Using GIS-based weighted linear combination analysis and remote sensing techniques to select optimum solid waste disposal sites within Mafraq City, Jordan. J Geogr Inf Syst 3:267–278. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2011.34023
Allen A, Brito G, Caetano P, Costa C, Cummins V, Donnelly J, Fernandes C, Koukoulas S, O’Donnell V, Robalo C, Vendas D (2001) The development of a GIS model for the location of landfill sites in Ireland and Portugal. Final Report Interreg 2C Atlantic Region, EA-B1IRE-No.2.15, 193, Cork.
Antonopoulos IS, Perkoulidis G, Logothetis D, Karkanias C (2014) Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool. Resour Conserv Recycl 86:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.002
Asefi H, Zhang Y, Lim S, Maghrebi M (2020) An integrated approach to suitability assessment of municipal solid waste landfills in New South Wales, Australia. Australas J Environ Manag 27:63–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2020.1719438
Audit Report (Civil) (2011) Performance audit of public private partnership (PPP) in solid waste management (SWM) in Guwahati. Guwahati Development Department, Guwahati.http://iced.cag.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/7.-P A-of-PPP-in-SWM-in-GuwahatiAssam.pdf
Babu SS, Sivasankar S (2015) Identification of suitable landfill site for Thirumangalam Municipality, India- a GIS and remote sensing based approach. Afr J Sci Res 4:01–04
Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Measuring consensus for collaborative decision-making: GIS-based approach. Comput. Environ. Urban Systems 34:322–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.02.006
Brent AC, Rogers DEC, Ramabitsa-Siimane TSM, Rohwer MB (2007) Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries. Eur J Oper Res 181:403–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.015
Chabuk AJ, Al-Ansari N, Hussain HM, Knutsson S Pusch R (2017) GIS-based assessment of combined AHP and SAW methods for selecting suitable sites for landfill in Al-Musayiab Qadhaa, Babylon, Iraq. Environ Earth Sci 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6524-x
Chamchali MM, Tafreshi AM, Tafreshi GM (2019) Utilizing GIS linked to AHP for landfill site selection in Rudbar County of Iran. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10064-8
Chang C, Wu C, Lin C, Lin H (2007) Evaluating digital video recorder systems using analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes. Inf Sci 177:3383–3396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.02.010
Clark RM, Gillean J (1974) Systems analysis and solid waste planning. J Environ Eng Div 7 https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0021638
CPCB (2008) Guidelines and Check-list for evaluation of MSW Landfills proposals with Information on existing landfills, Ministry of Environment Forests. National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, New Delhi
CPHEEO (2016a) Municipal solid waste management manual, part I: an overview, Swachh Bharat Mission, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi.http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/MSW-REPORTpdf
CPHEEO (2016b) Municipal solid waste management manual, part II: manual, Swachh Bharat Mission, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. http://cpheeo.gov.in/cms/manual-on-municipal-solid-waste-management-2016.php
CPHEEO (2016c) Municipal solid waste management manual, part I: the compendium, Swachh Bharat Mission, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. http://cpheeo.gov.in/cms/manual-on-municipal-solid-waste-management-2016.php
Daneshvar R (2004) Customizing ArcMap interface to generate a user- friendly landfill site selection GIS tool. J Solid Waste Technol Manag 31:1–12. https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-18393
Demesouka OE, Vavatsiko AP, Anagnostopoulos KP (2013) Suitability analysis for siting MSW landfills and its multicriteria spatial decision support system: method, implementation and case study. Waste Manag 33:1190–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.030
Devi N (2008) Landform dynamics in greater Guwahati area (Assam): a study in environmental geomorphology, PhD diss (unpubl.), Gauhati University, Guwahati.http://hdl.handle.net/10603/32541
Eghtesadifard M, Afkhami P, Bazyar A (2020) An integrated approach to the selection of municipal solid waste landfills through GIS, K-Means and multi-criteria decision analysis. Environ Res 185:109348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109348
Erkut E, Moran SR (1991) Locating obnoxious facilities in the public sector: an application of the hierarchy process to municipal landfill siting decisions. Socio Econ Plan Sci 25:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(91)90007-e
Final Draft Report (2015) Delineation of new Guwahati Metropolitan region and review and revision of master plan, volume I: existing situation and analysis. Guwahati Municipal Development Authority (GMDA), Guwahati
Gbanie SP, Tengbe PB, Momohb JS, Medo J, Kabba VTS (2013) Modelling landfill location using geographic information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): case study Bo, Southern Sierra Leone. Appl Geogr 36:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.013
Gogoi L (2013) Municipal solid waste disposal: a case study in Guwahati city to mitigate the man-made disaster. IOSR J Human Soc Sci 9:55–60. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-0935560
Gunko M, Medvedev A (2016) Seasonal suburbanization in Moscow oblast: challenges of household waste management. Geogr Pol 89:473–484. https://doi.org/10.7163/gpol.0069
Halahla AM, Akhtar M, Almasri AH (2019) Utilization of demolished waste as coarse aggregate in concrete. Civ Eng J 5:540–551. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091266
Jain K, Subbaiah YV (2007) Site suitability analysis for urban development using GIS. J Appl Sci 7:2576–2583. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2007.2576.2583
Kao JJ (1996) A raster-based C program for siting a landfill with optimal compactness. Comput Geosci 22:837–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0098-3004(96)00022-2
Kaoje IU, Dankani IM, Ibrahim I (2016) Site suitability analysis for municipal solid waste disposal in Birnim Kebbi, Nigeria. J Humanit Soc Sci 21:01–10. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-02107030110
Karthiheyan PN, Yeshodha L (2016) Site selection for urban solid waste disposal using remote sensing and open source GIS In Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu. Int J Innov Res Sci Technol 2:233–239 http://www.ijirst.org/articles/IJIRSTV2I10079.pdf
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174084
Khan D, Samadder SR (2014) Municipal solid waste management using Geographical Information System aided methods: a mini review. Waste Manag Res 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x14554644
Khan M, Vaezi M, Kumar A (2018) Optimal siting of solid waste-to-value-added facilities through a GIS-based assessment. Sci Total Environ 610–611:1065–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.169
Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2003) Siting MSW landfills in Lesvos Island with a GIS-based methodology. Waste Manag Res 21(3):262–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x0302100310
Koulouri M, Giourga C (2007) Land abandonment and slope gradient as key factors of soil erosion in Mediterranean terraced lands. Catena 69:274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2006.07.001
Leao S, Bishop I, Evans D (2004) Spatial-temporal model for demand and allocation of waste landfills in growing urban regions. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28:353–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0198-9715(03)00043-7
Lin HY, Kao JJ (1999) Enhanced spatial model for landfill siting analysis. J Environ Eng 125:845–851. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(1999)125:9(845)
Mahini AS, Gholamalifard M (2006) Siting MSW landfills with a weighted linear combination methodology in a GIS environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 3:435–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03325953
Mahmood K, Batool SA, Chaudhary MN, Ul-Haq Z (2017) Ranking criteria for assessment of municipal solid waste dumping sites. Arch Environ Prot 43:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/aep-2017-0009
Malczewski J (1997) Propagation of errors in multicriteria location analysis: a case study. In: Fandel G, Gal T (Eds.) Multiple criteria decision making, Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems Springer:Berlin/Heidelberg. 154-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59132-7_17
Memarbashi E, Azadi H, Barati AK, Mohajeri F, Passel SV, Witlox F (2017) Land-use suitability in Northeast Iran: application of AHP-GIS hybrid model. ISPRS Int Jl Geo-Informatics 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6120396
Mipun BS, Hazarika R, Mondal M, Mukhopadhyay S (2015) Solid waste management in Greater Shillong Planning Area (GSPA) using spatial multi-criteria decision analysis for site suitability assessment. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XL-7/W3, 657–662. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-7-W3-657-2015
Moeinaddini M, Khorasani N, Danehkar A, Darvishsefat AA, Zienalyan M (2010) Siting MSW landfill using weighted linear combination and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology in GIS environment (case study: Karaj). Waste Manag 30:912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.015
Monavvari SM, Hoasami P, Tajziehchi S, Khorramichokami N (2012) Study of solid waste landfill suitability using regional screening method and AHP in Rasht City. Int Jl Engine Phys Sci 6:2–27. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1071740
Morrisseya AJ, Browne J (2004) Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Manag 24:297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.005
Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules revised (2016) Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India, New Delhi
Nair MM, Kumari P, Garg V (2010) Solid waste disposal management system using GIS Geospatial World, https://www.geospatialworld.net/article/solid-waste-disposal-management-system-using-gis/ Accessed 23 August 2018.
Nigusse AGM, Adhaneom UG, Kahsay GH, Abrha AM, Gebre DN, Weldearegay AG (2020) GIS application for urban domestic wastewater treatment site selection in the Northern Ethiopia, Tigray Regional State: a case study in Mekelle City. Arab J Geosci 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-5257-4
Omoloso O, Wise WR, Mortimer K, Jraisat L (2020) Corporate sustainability disclosure: a leather industry perspective. Emerg Sci J 4:44–51. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2020-01209
Oteng-Ababio M (2011) Missing links in solid waste management in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana. Geo Journal 76:551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9363-9
Özkan B, Özceylan E, Sarıçiçek İ (2019) GIS-based MCDM modeling for landfill site suitability analysis: a comprehensive review of the literature. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:30711–30730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06298-1
Palomar AAU, Sundo MB, Velasco PP, Camus DRD (2019) End-of-pipe waste analysis and integrated solid waste management plan. Civ Eng J 5:1970–1982. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091386
PCB, Assam (2013) Conservation of River Bharalu. Guwahati detailed project report, Government of Assam, Guwahati
Planning Commission (2008) Report on visit to Deepor Beel in Assam – a wetland included under National Wetland Conservation and Management Programme of the Ministry of Environment Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India, New Delhi. https://pcbassam.org/rlcc/Bharalu%20DPR_DRAFT_30DEC2013.pdf
Rahman MM, Sultana KR, Hoque MA (2008) Suitable sites for urban solid waste disposal using GIS approach in Khulna city, Bangladesh. Proc Pakistan Acad Sci 45:11–22 https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PK200900 1080
Rana R, Ganguly R, Gupta AK (2017) Evaluation of solid waste management in satellite towns of Mohali and Panchkula. J Solid Waste Technol Manag 43:280–294. https://doi.org/10.5276/JSWTM2017.280
Rezaeisabzevar Y, Bazargan A, Zohourian B (2020) Landfill site selection using multi criteria decision making: focus on influential factors for comparing locations. J Environ Sci 93:170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2020.02.030
Richter A, Ng KTW, Karimi N (2019) A data driven technique applying GIS, and remote sensing to rank locations for waste disposal site expansion. Resour Conserv Recycl 149:352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.013
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Saikia A (2005) Disaster unpreparedness in Assam. Econ Polit Wkly 40:2389–2391. https://doi.org/10.2307/4416739
Salemi M, Hejazi R (2017) A GIS- based suitability analysis for siting a solid waste in an urban area. Int J Hum Capital Urban Manage 2:57–68. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijhcum.2017.02.01.006
Samah MAA, Manaf LA, Aris AZ, Sumaiman WNA (2011) Solid waste management: analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application of selecting treatment technology in Sepang Municipal Council, Malaysia. Current World. Environment 6:1–16. https://doi.org/10.12944/cwe.6.1.01
Sener S, Sener E, Nas B (2011) Selection of landfill site using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis for Beysehir Lake Catchment Area Konya. Turkey Jl Eng Sci 1:134–144 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0050/f06ad2a2b0b2645d3190b8f2dd4acb0e4d5e.pdf
Shah SA, Musvi SHA, Tameez A, Alam M, Nawaz A (2019) Analyzing site suitability for solid waste disposal through GIS multi-criteria decision making hierarchy process. 3C. Technologia 28:66–80. https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.specialissue.07
Sharma A, Ganguly R, Gupta AK (2018) Matrix method for evaluation of existing solid waste management system in Himachal Pradesh, India. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:1813–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0703-z
Siddiqui MZ, Everett JW, Vieux BE (1996) Landfill siting using geographic information systems: a demonstration. J Environ Eng 122:515–523. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(1996)122:6(515)
Sisay G, Gebre SL, Getahun K (2020) GIS-based potential landfill site selection using MCDM-AHP modeling of Gondar Town, Ethiopia. Afr Geogr Rev:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2020.1770105
Soltani A, Hewage K, Reza B, Sadiq R (2015) Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: a review. Waste Manag 35:318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.010
Sotamenou J (2019) Selection of the best solid waste management Yaounde using an analytical hierarchy process. Adv Environ Waste Manag Recycling 2:1–9. https://doi.org/10.33140/aewmr.02.01.02
Spigolon LMG, Giannotti M, Larocca AP, Russo MAT, da C Souza N (2018) Landfill siting based on optimisation, multiple decision analysis, and geographic information system analysis. Waste Manag Res 36:606–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18773538.
Sumathi V, Natesan U, Sarkar C (2008) GIS-based approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manag 28:2146–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.032
Sumiani Y, Onn CC, Din M, Wanjaafar WZ (2009) Environmental planning strategies for optimum solid waste landfill siting. Sains Malaysiana 38(4):457–462
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). The World’s Cities in 2018—Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/417).
World Bank (2012) What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban Development Local Government Unit, Washington DC https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388
Yazdani M, Monavari SM, Omrani GA, Shariat M, Hosseini SM (2017) A comparative evaluation of municipal solid waste landfill sites in Northern Iran. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15:91–110. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1504_091110
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Amjad Kallel
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hazarika, R., Saikia, A. Landfill site suitability analysis using AHP for solid waste management in the Guwahati Metropolitan Area, India. Arab J Geosci 13, 1148 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06156-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06156-2