Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal Giovanni De Feo a,⇑, Sabino De Gisi b a

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, ENEA, Water Resource Management Lab., via Martiri di Monte Sole 4, 40129 Bologna, BO, Italy b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 January 2014 Accepted 26 May 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Hazardous waste Landfill Land use map Land shortage Siting Waste management

a b s t r a c t The main aim of this study was to develop a procedure that minimizes the wasting of space for the siting of hazardous waste landfills as part of a solid waste management system. We wanted to tackle the shortage of land for waste disposal that is a serious and growing problem in most large urban regions. The procedure combines a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach with a geographical information system (GIS). The GIS was utilised to obtain an initial screening in order to eliminate unsuitable areas, whereas the MCDA was developed to select the most suitable sites. The novelty of the proposed siting procedure is the introduction of a new screening phase before the macro-siting step aimed at producing a ‘‘land use map of potentially suitable areas’’ for the siting of solid waste facilities which simultaneously takes into consideration all plant types. The issue of obtaining sites evaluations of a specific facility was coupled with the issue of not wasting land appropriate to facilitate other types of waste management options. In the developed case study, the use of an innovative criteria weighting tool (the ‘‘Priority Scale’’) in combination with the Analytic Hierarchy Process was useful to easier define the priorities of the evaluation criteria in comparison with other classic methods such as the Paired Comparison Technique in combination with the Simple Additive Weighting method. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Selecting suitable sites for the construction of hazardous waste facilities is a complex process, because it needs a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates natural, physical-social sciences, politics, and ethics. Since hazardous waste facilities are commonly perceived as threats to public health, life quality and natural ecosystems (Kikuchi and Gerardo, 2009), they belong to the group of detested or undesired facilities. They suffer from two main problems (Lober, 1995): social opposition; the huge number of environmental and social data to consider when deciding on the best plant location with the least nuisances, highest efficiency and likelihood of social acceptance. Generally, a siting process can be divided into three phases. The first phase (macro-siting or feasibility analysis) is aimed at selecting ‘‘non-suitable areas’’ as well as ‘‘potentially suitable areas’’ on the basis of ‘‘excluding criteria’’ defined by literature and/or legislation. An excluding criterion means unacceptability of an area and implies the total exclusion of the facility in that area. The second ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 089 964113; fax: +39 089 968738. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.D. Feo).

phase (micro-siting or spatial multi-criteria analysis) is aimed at identifying a list of sites with the use of ‘‘preferential and penalizing criteria’’. The preferential criteria indicate the presence of elements of suitability as well as advisability for the siting of the plant. The penalizing criteria indicate the presence of contraindications suggesting the construction of the facility only taking into consideration special care in the design and construction phases. The penalizing criteria will be discriminating and not excluding for the siting of the plant. The third and last step includes the selection of the most suitable sites among those potentially suitable. The problem of undesirable facilities location has been extensively studied in literature in terms of both social and technical aspects. The current state-of-art is based on the combination of spatial techniques, such as geographical information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Sumathi et al., 2008; Tavares et al., 2011). The purpose of GIS was to perform an initial screening process to eliminate unsuitable areas, mainly working at the macro-siting level, followed by the utilization of MCDA to select the most suitable sites. Table 1 shows examples of studies presenting the different methodologies developed until now. In most of the above-referred siting works, the main aim was to choose the best site (or a list of suitable sites) for the location of a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028 0956-053X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

2

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Main aim, type of facility and methodology for the siting of solid waste facilities. Reference

Main aim

Facility under study

Methodology

Jensen and Christensen (1986)

Identify potential sites for solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities siting in the south-eastern United States

GIS

Charnpratheep et al. (1997) Lin and Kao (1998) Leão et al. (2004)

Evaluation of suitable areas for landfill siting in Thailand

Solid and hazardous waste disposal site Landfill

Select suitable sites for a landfill siting

Landfill

Combination of fuzzy set theory and the AHP into a raster-based GIS Vector based spatial model

Asses the demand for landfills and their allocation over time under a range of scenarios of decision-making regarding waste disposal systems, urban growth patterns and land evaluation criteria in the city of Porto Alegre (Brazil) Evaluation of suitable areas for landfill siting in the island of Lemnos in the North Aegean Sea (Greece) Select the best suitable site for landfill siting in the city of Harlingen in south Texas (USA) Evaluation of suitable areas for sanitary landfill siting in the basin of Lake Cuitzeo (Mexico)

Landfill

Combining spatial–temporal model and GIS

Landfill

Integration of MCDA, GIS, spatial analysis and spatial statistics Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making

Kontos et al. (2005) Chang et al. (2008) Delgado et al. (2008) Sumathi et al. (2008) Zamorano et al. (2008) Sharifi et al. (2009) Guiqin et al. (2009) De Feo and De Gisi (2010) Geneletti (2010) Moeinaddini et al. (2010) Sener et al. (2010) Tavares et al. (2011) Eskandari et al. (2012a,b) Gorsevski et al. (2012) Gbanie et al. (2013)

Evaluation of suitable areas for sanitary landfill siting in the district of Pondicherry (India) Evaluation of landfill site suitability in Southern Spain (area of Granada) Evaluation of suitable areas for hazardous landfill siting in Kurdistan Province (western Iran) Select the best candidate sites for landfill siting in Beijing (China) Select the best alternative site for composting plant siting in an area in the Province of Avellino, Campania region (Southern Italy) Design possible sites for an inert landfill, and then rank them according to their suitability in the Sarca’s Plain, located in southwestern Trentino (Italy) Identity the best alternative for landfill siting in the Karaj area, Province of Tehran (Iran) Select of a landfill site for the Lake Beysßehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey) Evaluate suitable area for incineration plant siting in the Santiago Island (Cape Verde) Define suitable sites for landfill siting in the Marvdasht area (Iran) Evaluation of suitable areas for landfill siting in the Polog Region (Macedonia) Identify municipal landfill sites in urban areas in Bo (Sierra Leone)

Landfill Landfill

Landfill Landfill Landfill (hazardous) Landfill Composting plant Landfill (inert)

Landfill

Combination of three spatial decision-support models (Boolean logic, binary evidence and overlapping index of multiple class maps) with GIS Combination of MCDA and GIS EVIAVE (a landfill diagnosis method developed at the University of Granada) and GIS Combination of MCDA and GIS Combination of MCDA and GIS Combination of MCDA and GIS Combination of stakeholder analysis and spatial multicriteria evaluation (SMCE)

Landfill

Weighted linear combination and AHP methodology in a GIS environment Combination of MCDA and GIS

Incinerator

Multi-criteria GIS-based techniques

Landfill Landfill

Combination of MCDA and GIS. Data acquisition also with questionnaires Integration of MCDA in a GIS environment

Landfill

Combination of MCDA and GIS

GIS: geographic information system; AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process; MCDA: multi-criteria decision analysis.

single type of solid waste facility in a country generally having a solid waste system based only on landfills. The interaction between the plant to localize at the present and the other facilities to localize in the future in the same area is generally not considered. In this condition, government institutions run the risk of ‘‘wasting land’’ and, as a consequence, locating a plant with lower environmental/health relative risk (e.g., a composting plant or a landfill for inert waste) in potentially suitable areas for the siting of a plant with higher relative risks such as a hazardous waste landfill. The land use optimization issue for the siting of solid waste facilities is particularly important above all in countries with an advanced environmental legislation, high degree of urbanization and low availability of potentially suitable areas. This is the situation of industrialized countries characterized by a comprehensive solid waste management system composed of the following facilities (De Feo and Malvano, 2009): hazardous waste landfills, non-hazardous waste landfills, inert waste landfills, waste-to-energy plants (based on incineration, pyrolysis or gasification), mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plants, composting and anaerobic digestion plants, materials recovery plants generally after separate collection. Of the most recent works reported in Table 1, only Leão et al. (2004) highlights how the shortage of land for waste disposal is a serious and growing potential problem in most urban regions.

Generally, this aspect is considered a posteriori during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) phase, although the risk of having a non-conformity of the EIA process and consequently the need to choose a new site with all the technical and social problems related to this step (Salhofer et al., 2007). Thus, the siting of a well-defined type of solid waste facility should necessarily consider all the other plants (already present and to be expected in the future) of the solid waste management system of the considered area with a systemic approach. An additional issue concerning the siting of solid waste facilities is the definition of new interface tools for the assignment of weights to the evaluation criteria used for selecting the best alternative among a list of potentially suitable sites (Demesouka et al., 2013; Korucu and Erdagi, 2012). Such interface tools should be able to intercept the request for stakeholders’ involvement directly in the siting procedure in order to reduce to a minimum all those conditions that may negatively affect the outcome of a localization process (Llurdes et al., 2003). In this context, the aim of our work is to define a new methodology for hazardous waste landfill siting based on the combination of MCDA and GIS in order (i) to minimize the shortage of land for waste disposal and (ii) to provides more reliable and convincing the hierarchization of suitable sites.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

For the first aim, our idea includes the introduction of a new phase inside the standard siting procedure in order to consider the trade-offs between the plant to localize at the present and the other facilities to localize in the future. This is directly done during the decision-making process of the facilities siting itself and consequently optimizing the land use of the area by avoiding the wasting of space. To the best of our knowledge, no practical studies have been reported in literature that incorporate the problem of consumption of landfill space over time and analyse its implications in the siting procedure. For the second aim, two different MCDA-based techniques for the selection of the best alternative were simultaneously used and compared: (1) the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) (ChingLai and Kwangsun, 1981) as multi-criteria technique to define alternatives priorities, coupled with the Paired Comparison Technique (PCT) (Mondy and Noe, 2008) as a means of evaluating criteria priorities (shortly ‘‘SAW–PCT’’); (2) the AHP as a MCDA technique coupled with the Priority Scale Weighting (PSW) tool (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010) in order to evaluate criteria priorities (shortly ‘‘AHP–PSW’’). Details on the cited MCDA techniques are given in the methodological section. The applicability of the proposed procedure was verified considering the case study of the Province of Avellino, in the Campania region of Southern Italy (Fig. 1), with a surface area of 2792 km2, a population of 439,137 inhabitants (National Institute of Statistics, 1st January 2011), and a density of 157 inhabitants/km2.

2. Methodology In the first phase of the procedure for the siting of hazardous waste landfills, we have to define the siting criteria for all the facilities of the solid waste management system. In order to have an idea, the following facilities were considered in our case study: hazardous waste landfills; non-hazardous waste landfills; inert waste landfills; waste-to-energy plants; MBT plants; composting and anaerobic digestion plants. The criteria sets (one for each single type of facility) can be defined on the base of existing national and regional legislation, regulations, experiences and expertise, and should cover natural, socio-economic, technical and environmental aspects. The second phase is the macro-siting that is aimed at selecting ‘‘non-suitable areas’’ as well as ‘‘potentially suitable areas’’ on the

3

basis of ‘‘excluding criteria’’, separately for all the types of solid waste facility considered (e.g., the six mentioned in the previous phase as an example of the application of the proposed procedure to our case study). In other words, a suitability map is derived for each type of waste facility considered. In this phase we have also adopted the penalizing criteria (for each type of facility) although they are considered only in the fourth step of the procedure. The elaboration of the ‘‘land use map of potentially suitable areas’’, that is a single map that takes into account all the maps produced at the previous point, is the third phase of the procedure. In other words, the overlaying of the single suitability maps is obtained in this step. Before describing in detail how to elaborate the land use map of potentially suitable areas, it should be emphasized how the novelty of the proposed siting procedure is precisely the introduction of a new screening phase before the micro-siting. The main aim of the screening phase is to minimize the wasting of space allowing for a proper land use. This is pursued simultaneously by considering all the types of solid waste facilities that are present in the solid waste management system. The geo-referenced overlapping of all the potentially suitable areas maps for each type of facility and the use of ArcViewÒ spatial analysis functions enables the processing of the global ‘‘land use map of the potentially suitable areas’’, identifying the following classes:  Areas with excluding factors non-suitable for the siting.  Areas potentially suitable for the siting of inert waste landfills.  Areas potentially suitable for the siting of non-hazardous waste landfills.  Areas potentially suitable for the siting of hazardous waste landfills.  Areas for the siting of solid waste technological plants (i.e., waste-to-energy plants, MBT plants, composting and anaerobic digestion plants, etc.). In particular, the steps for the elaboration of the ‘‘land use map of the potentially suitable areas’’ are the followings:  For each map of potentially suitable areas relating to each type of solid waste facility (5 in our case), we consider only areas classified as ‘‘potentially suitable’’ and ‘‘penalizing’’. These areas are then joined by means of the ArcViewÒ merge

Fig. 1. The investigated area: province of Avellino in Campania region (Southern Italy).

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

4

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

function generating a new area with a total surface indicated with Si (where i indicates the type of facility: i = 1 for technological plants; i = 2 for inert landfills; i = 3 for composting and anaerobic digestion plants; i = 4 for non-hazardous landfills; i = 5 for hazardous landfills).  A new map document (project) is created in ArcViewÒ that contains 5 layouts corresponding to the 5 areas of the previous step. In addition, a colour is assigned to each area: orange for S1 + S3 (technological plants); green water for S2 (inert landfills); light blue for S4 (non-hazardous landfills) and; blue for S5 (hazardous landfills). Moreover, major details are visible in Fig. A.7 of Appendix A (see Supplementary materials).  Starting from inert (considered as the solid waste facility with the lower environmental/health impact) to hazardous waste landfills (see the priority pyramid of Fig. 2a), the geo-referenced overlapping of all the obtained layouts based on the ArcViewÒ spatial analysis functions (in particular intersect and merge), enables the processing of the land use map of potentially suitable areas as subsequently shown in this map. An increase of the solid waste facility hazardous nature generates a decrease of the available surfaces for plants localization as visible in Fig. 2b.  Finally, with reference to the potentially suitable areas of the solid waste technological plants, they correspond with the industrial zones present in the territory under study. With the land use map of potentially suitable areas, if a landfill for inert waste or non-hazardous waste has to be localized, it will be searched for in only those areas suitable for the siting of those types of waste avoiding to choose (‘‘wasting’’) areas potentially suitable for the siting of hazardous waste landfills. Thus, the set of useful alternative sites for the siting of hazardous waste landfills on which to subsequently carry out the hierarchization have to be chosen from the land use map of potentially suitable areas. The fourth phase of the procedure is the micro-siting. It is aimed at identifying a set of sites inside the potentially suitable areas defined at the precedent step. Starting from the suitable macro areas for the hazardous waste landfills siting (the ‘‘blue areas’’ as defined earlier), the use of the ‘‘preferential criteria’’ and ‘‘penalizing criteria’’ related to the hazardous waste landfills (see the next Table 2), allows to identify the single sites. In this operation, preferential and penalizing criteria are very important. In fact, they allow to cordon off directly the site. In addition, the boundaries of the site are carried out giving priority to those areas characterized by preferential factors and/or a lower number of penalizing factors. Identified the single site, it is further verified considering the excluding criteria on a more detailed mapping scale.

Identifications of suitable sites is particularly difficult in areas of historic unpopularity for waste management as that of the performed case study. In fact, in the last few years, a waste emergency affected the Campania region of Southern Italy (assuming inter alia an international aspect as reported in De Feo et al., 2013a). Governments located a non-hazardous waste landfill in correspondence to one of the areas particularly suitable to host a hazardous waste landfill with a clear shortage of land for hazardous waste disposal. In particular, the percentage of potentially suitable areas for hazardous landfills is decreased from the value of 1.14% to the value of 1.01% with a shortage of about 25.5 km2 of land. Due to the low percentage of potentially suitable areas (1.14%), this situation is fairly penalizing for the Campania region since by law (Campania LR 4, 2007) each Province should be self-sufficient in terms of waste management (in other words, each province is as a closed system). Experience of failure of solid waste facilities siting in the world and most recently in the Campania Region shows how the issue of the proper management of soil is important in order to increase the transparency of the decision-making process (Llurdes et al., 2003). Therefore, the siting of hazardous waste landfill sites should be carried out only in those areas suitable for hosting this type of facility and this condition should be ensured for each type of solid waste facility to localize. The fifth phase of the proposed methodology consists of defining a preliminary set of evaluation criteria and sub-criteria useful for the evaluation of the siting alternatives. For instance, we considered the following seven macro-categories:       

Population presence (C1). Groundwater risk (C2). Agricultural value (C3). Additional traffic on local roads (C4). Economy (C5). Protected areas (C6). Climate (C7).

As shown in Fig. 3a, the chosen criteria can be further detailed in some sub-criteria if convenient. The evaluation criteria and subcriteria of the preliminary set are not necessarily present in the alternatives matrix. This case occurs when for one or more criteria and/or sub-criteria, with the values assumed by all the considered alternative sites being equal to zero. Defining the alternatives matrix is the sixth phase of the procedure that means giving a value to the criteria for all the considered alternative sites. The alternatives matrix has as many rows as the number of selected useful sites, and as many columns as the number of effective criteria and sub-criteria. Regarding the data

Technological plants

Hazardous waste landfills Non hazardous waste landfills Composting and anaerobic digestion plants

Inert landfills

Si = potentially suitable areas surface i = facility S1

Composting and anaerobic digestion plants

S2

Non hazardous waste landfills

S3

Inert landfills

S4 Technological plants

(a)

Hazardous waste landfills

S5

(b)

Fig. 2. Details of the ‘‘potentially suitable areas land use map’’ elaboration: (a) hazardous nature ranking and (b) surface dimensions of potentially suitable areas for each type of solid waste facilities considered in this study.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

5

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 2 Siting criteria required by Italian and Regional legislations (Campania Region, Southern Italy) used for the elaboration of the maps of potentially suitable areas (macro-siting) for all the types of solid waste facility considered. Solid waste facilitiesa

No.

Criteria

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Altimetry First category seismicity_1 First category seismicity_2 Second category seismicity ‘‘High’’b and ‘‘Very high’’b landslide riskc ‘‘Moderate’’b and ‘‘Low’’b landslide riskc ‘‘High’’b and ‘‘Very high’’b hydraulic riskc ‘‘Moderate’’b and ‘‘Low’’b hydraulicriskc Fluvial dynamics Surface karsification Wooded areas_1 Wooded areas_2 Permanent pastures Distance from urban areas Distance from water sources Groundwater vulnerability Wastewater treatment plants efficiency Distance from water bodies Landscape Protected natural areas Natura 2000 network areas Faunal repopulation areas Industrial areas Distance from infrastructure Disused industrial areas Mining activity areas (quarries) Contiguous industrial areas Agricultural areas_1 Agricultural areas_2 Archaeological areas

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄ ⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

TOTEX TOTPE TOTPR TOT

Excluding criteria Penalizing criteria Preferential criteria Total number

⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄ ⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄







⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄







⁄⁄⁄



⁄⁄⁄



⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄









⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄









⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄ ⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

⁄⁄⁄

18 4 1 23

18 3 1 22

17 3 2 22

15 7 4 26

14 8 4 26

14 8 4 26

a Solid waste management facilities: F1 = hazardous waste landfill; F2 = non-hazardous waste landfill; F3 = inert materials landfill; F4 = waste-to-energy plant; F5 = mechanical biological treatment plant (MBT); F6 = composting and anaerobic digestion plant. b The values assumed by the risk zoning descriptors (both for landslide risk and hydraulic risk) are directly furnished by the Catchment Plans of the following Local Authorities: National Authority of ‘‘Liri-Garigliano and Volturno’’ (http://www2.autoritadibacino.it/), Regional Authority of ‘‘Sarno’’ (http://www.autoritabacinosarno.it/), Regional Authority of ‘‘Nord-Occidentale della Campania’’ (http://www.autoritabacinonordoccidentale.campania.it/), Regional Authority of ‘‘Destra Sele’’ (http:// www.autoritabacinodestrasele.it/), Regional Authority of ‘‘Puglia’’ (http://www.adb.puglia.it/public/news.php). c Risk is defined as a measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to health, property or the environment (Fell et al., 2008). d All other sources: Italian (Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152, ‘‘Norme in materia ambientale’’, Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 88 del 14 aprile 2006 – Supplemento Ordinario n. 96, in Italian) and European Union Legislation (Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999, 1–9). e Type of criteria: *** = excluding criteria; ** = penalizing criteria; * = preferential criteria.

acquired, in our study we have only used raster data although the developed GIS environment could implement them. Defining the criteria priorities with the Priority Scale Weighting (PSW) tool (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010) and applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to the alternatives matrix weighted with the PSW tool is the aim of the seventh phase of the procedure. A first alternatives ranking (AHP–PSW) will be obtained in terms of normalized alternatives priorities, with the best site having a value equal to one. The criteria priorities have to be defined both at the sub-criteria levels (local priorities) as well as the criteria level (global priorities). The criteria priorities to use with AHP have to be defined by means of the PSW tool. After the compilation of the priorities scales, they have to be transformed into the corresponding criteria weights vector according to the rules in the pair-wise comparison reported in De Feo and De Gisi (2010). The PSW graphically collects the criteria priorities avoiding to make mistakes, and it allows having a full view of all criteria priorities. The PSW only uses the values 1 (equal), 3 (moderate), 5 (strong), 7 (very strong) and 9 (extreme) of the Saaty scale (Saaty, 1996). Each priority scale has to be subsequently transformed into a weights vector. This operation could be done by means of the Expert ChoiceÒ software

(Expertchoice, 2004). The non-effective criteria do not have to be considered in the AHP hierarchy (they are criteria with no effective values, i.e. the values assigned to them were equal to zero). Defining the criteria priorities (local and global) with the Paired Comparison Technique (PCT) and applying the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) technique to the alternatives matrix weighted with the PCT method is the aim of the eight phase of the procedure. A second alternatives ranking (SAW–PCT) will be obtained in terms of normalized alternatives priorities. The priority scales defined at the previous point can be used to perform the pair-wise comparisons with the PCT method as defined by Mondy and Noe (2008). With the PCT technique, the paired-comparison between criteria Ci and Cj are coded as follows: Ci has priority 1 if it is preferred over Cj; Ci has priority 0 if Cj is preferred over Ci; both Ci and Cj have priority 0.5 if they have the same importance. Moreover, in order to avoid assigning a 0 priority, each criterion is considered to be preferable over a dummy criterion. The priority of every criterion is calculated dividing the sum of its preferences by the sum of the preferences of all the criteria (De Feo et al., 2013b). The ninth and last phase is the comparison of the two alternatives rankings and selection of the best site. If the two rankings

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

6

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Goal

Goal

C1

C1 C1,1

C1,1 C1,1,1 (1)

C1,1,1 (1)

C1,1,2 (2)

C1,1,2 (2)

C1,1,3 (3)

C1,1,3 (3)

C1,2

C1,2 C1,2,1 (4) C1,2,2 (5) C1,2,3 (6)

C2

C1,2,3 (4)

C2

C2,1 (7)

C2,1 (5)

C2,2

C2,2 C2,2,1 (8) C2,2,2 (9) C2,2,3 (10) C2,2,4 (11)

C3

C 2,2,4 (6)

C3

C3,1 (12)

C 3,1 (7)

C3,2 (13) C 3,3 (8)

C3,3 (14) C4

C4

(15)

C5

C6

(9)

C5 C5,1 (16)

C 5,1 (10)

C5,2 (17)

C 5,2 (11) C6

(18)

C7

(12)

C7 C 7,1 (19)

C 7,1 (13)

C 7,2 (20)

C 7,2 (14)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Flow-chart of criteria and sub-criteria: (a) preliminary set (n = 20); and (b) actual set for the developed case study (n = 14).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 4. Example of use of penalizing factors for identifying areas where locate hazardous waste landfill: (a) area potentially suitable as identified in the land use map of potentially suitable areas; (b) penalizing factor 1: areas with ‘‘Moderate’’ and ‘‘low’’ landslide risk (see Table A1 of Appendix A, Supplementary data); (c) penalizing factor 2: faunal repopulation areas (see Table A1 of Appendix A, Supplementary data); (d) penalizing factor 3: geological condition (see Table A1 of Appendix A, Supplementary data); and (e) identification of site perimeter.

give the same site as the best alternative, the latter will be chosen as the best site. On the contrary, the best site will be that with the highest average value obtained considering both the AHP–PSW normalized ranking and SAW–PCT normalized ranking. Simulta-

neously using two different MCDA-based techniques for the selection of the best alternative gives more affordability to the siting procedure. Obviously, the final verification of proposed method has to be checked by field investigation.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 5. Potentially suitable areas in the phase of macro-siting: (a) hazardous waste landfills; (b) non-hazardous waste landfills; (c) inert waste landfills; (d) waste-to-energy plants; and (e) composting, anaerobic digestion and MBT plants (see Supplementary data in Appendix A).

Thus, the proposed methodology for the siting of hazardous waste landfills is a summation of the proposed methodological framework discussed in the current section, and consists of the following nine phases:

1. Definition of the siting criteria according to national and regional legislation for all the facilities of the solid waste management system. 2. Elaboration of the maps of potentially suitable areas (macro-siting) for each specific type of solid waste facility considered.

3. Elaboration of the ‘‘land use map of potentially suitable areas’’ for the siting of all solid waste facilities (spatial intersection of the data estimated in the previous step). 4. Detailed identification of the siting alternatives (sites where to construct a hazardous waste landfill) with a punctual verification of the excluding criteria. 5. Definition of the criteria useful for the evaluation of the siting alternatives (evaluation criteria). 6. Definition of the alternatives matrix. 7. Definition of the criteria priorities with the PSW tool and application of the AHP to the alternatives matrix weighted with the PSW tool, obtaining a first alternatives ranking.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

8

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Land use map of potentially suitable areas (a) for the siting of solid waste facilities; identification of the siting alternatives (b) and (c) (see Supplementary data in Appendix A).

8. Definition of the criteria priorities with the PCT and application of the SAW method to the alternatives matrix weighted with the PCT method, obtaining a second alternatives ranking. 9. Comparison of the two alternatives rankings and selection of the best site.

2.1. The role of penalizing criteria In our study, the use of penalizing criteria changes with the phase taken into consideration. With reference to the macrositing phase, penalizing criteria are useful to elaborate the potentially suitable map for each type of facility. Generally, these

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

9

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 3 Potentially suitable areas for landfills siting and number of constraints for the recent case studies reported in literature.

a b

Surface (km2)

Number of constraintsa

Reference

Study area

Total

Potentially suitable

Percentage (%)

Gorsevski et al. (2012) Eskandari et al. (2012a,b) Sener et al. (2010) Guiqin et al. (2009) Delgado et al. (2008) Kontos et al. (2005)

Polog Region (Macedonia) Marvdasht area (Iran) Lake Beysßehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey) Beijing (China) Basin of Lake Cuitzeo (Mexico) Island of Lemnos in the North Aegean Sea (Greece)

2417 4040 4167 16,807.8 4000 480

33.84 318.55 135.01 461.69 372.00 44.64

1.400 0.303 3.240 2.747 9.300 9.300

8b 16 9 9 12 11

Our work

Province of Avellino in the Campania Region (Italy) Non-hazardous waste landfills Hazardous waste landfills

2792 2792

120.64 31.94

4.32 1.14

22 23

Only excluding and penalizing criteria were considered. Only ‘‘Environmental factors’’ as defined by the authors.

criteria are set by law. With reference to hazardous waste landfills as well as Campania Region legislation, we considered the following criteria (see also Table A1 of Appendix A, Supplementary data):  Areas with a second category seismicity according to the Italian Law (DGR n. 5447/2000).  Areas with ‘‘Moderate’’ and ‘‘low’’ landslide risk.  Areas with ‘‘Moderate’’ and ‘‘low’’ hydraulic risk.  Faunal repopulation areas.  Areas with clayey-marly-sandstone complex. Considering the screening phase, penalizing criteria contribute to the definition of the priority order of the six typologies of MSW facilities considered, as shown in Fig. 2a. For example, facilities F1 (hazardous waste landfill, see Table 2) and F2 (non-hazardous waste landfill, see Table 2) only differed by one criterion: the second category seismicity. This was due how the Campania waste management regional plan (Regional Law n. 4, 2007) took into consideration seismic events. Moreover, areas affected by penalizing criteria in the screening phase were considered in the same way as those potentially suitable. With reference to the micrositing phase, penalizing criteria as well as preferential ones were useful in order to define the perimeter of the site where localize the MSW facility. In particular, this choice was performed in accordance to the following simple rules:  Areas with no penalizing criteria and with preferential ones have to be privileged.  Areas with no penalizing criteria have to be privileged.  Areas with the lowest number of penalizing criteria have to be privileged. Following these rules, Fig. 4 shows an example of delimitation of the site perimeter. In details, we can see how the study area (that is potentially suitable for the hazardous waste landfill siting as reported in the land use map of potentially suitable areas) contains the following penalizing criteria:  Areas with ‘‘Moderate’’ and ‘‘low’’ landslide risk.  Areas for faunal repopulation activity.  Areas with clayey-marly-sandstone complex. Without preferential criteria, it is possible to observe how the site shown in Fig. 4e represents a possible solution of the micrositing issue. Furthermore, other perimeters can be identified as long as they (i) fall within the potentially suitable areas and (ii) the available area is sufficient to contain the facility to be located.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Phase 1. Definition of the siting criteria according to national and regional legislation for all the facilities of the solid waste management system Table 2 shows the siting criteria adopted in our case study for each type of solid waste facility considered. They were mainly chosen on the base of national (Italian DL 152, 2006) and regional legislation (Campania LR 4, 2007). The total number of siting criteria was 23 for hazardous waste landfills, and 22 for both non-hazardous and inert waste landfills. The difference between hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfills (see subscript of Table 2) was in the criteria called ‘‘second seismicity category’’ penalizing only for the first type of plant. Going from hazardous to inert waste landfills, the number of excluding criteria decreases in line with the lower environmental/health risks related to inert waste landfills. At the same time, the number of preferential criteria increases. For the technological plants (indicated with F4, F5 and F6, see subscript of Table 2), the total number of criteria was greater than that for landfills mainly due to the presence of diverse preferential factors. On the contrary, the number of excluding criteria was lower as shown in Table 2. A detailed description of each single criterion for each specific solid waste facility is available in Appendix A (Table A.1 for hazardous waste landfills, Table A.2 for non-hazardous waste landfills, Table A.3 for inert waste landfills, Table A.4 for waste-to-energy plants, Table A.5 for MBT plants and Table A.6 for composting and anaerobic digestion plants). 3.2. Phase 2. Elaboration of the maps of potentially suitable areas (macro-siting) for each specific type of solid waste facility considered Fig. 5 shows the maps of the potentially suitable areas for the siting of each type of solid waste facility prepared on the basis of the specific siting criteria (set by national and regional legislation) reported in Tables A.1–A.6 of Appendix A. The same high resolution maps can be seen in Figs. A.1–A.6 of Appendix A for hazardous waste landfills, non-hazardous waste landfills, inert waste landfills, waste-to-energy plants, MBT plants, composting and anaerobic digestion plants, respectively. The maps of the potentially suitable areas were obtained by means of a geographically referred (georeferred) overlapping of the siting criteria through the use of ArcViewÒ software for each type of solid waste facility considered. 3.3. Phase 3. Elaboration of the ‘‘land use map of potentially suitable areas’’ for the siting of all solid waste facilities The geo-referenced overlapping of all the maps of potentially suitable areas for each single type of facility (see Fig. 5) and the

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

10

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 4 Criteria for the evaluation of hazardous waste landfills sites (evaluation criteria). N.

Evaluation criteria

C1 C1,1,1

Population risk Resident population (0–500 m)

C1,1,2 C1,1,3 C1,2,1

Resident population (500–1000 m) Resident population (1000–1500 m) Floating population (0–500 m)

C1,2,2 C1,2,3

Floating population (500–1000 m) Floating population (1000–1500 m)

C2 C2,1

Groundwater risk Groundwater vulnerability

C2,2,1

Thermo-mineral wells

C2,2,2 C2,2,3 C2,2,4

Drinking water wells Irrigation and industrial wells Springs

C3 C3,1

Quality agriculture and land use Organic farms in 1000 m radius

C3,2 C3,3

Farmhouses in 1000 m radius Land use

C4 C4

Traffic Interference of the additional traffic with local roads

C5 C5,1

Economy Distance from motorway

C5,2

Accessibility

C6 C6

Naturalistic value Protected areas

C7 C7,1

Climate Rainfall

C7,2

Wind velocity

Description The value to be attributed to the criterion is equal to the number of resident population in the range 0–500 m from the site. Resident population was estimated by identifying the number of houses available and assigning each house a number equal to 4 residents The criterion is to MINIMIZE As for the C1,1,1 criterion but considering the range 500–1000 m As for the C1,1,1 criterion but considering the range 1000–1500 m The value to be attributed to the criterion is equal to the number of floating population in the range 0–500 m from the site. Floating population was estimated by identifying the productive activities (companies), schools, care centres for the elderly, hospitals, and then to evaluate the number of users who frequent such facilities The criterion is to MINIMIZE As for the C1,2,1 criterion but considering the range 500–1000 m As for the C1,2,1 criterion but considering the range 1000–1500 m Groundwater vulnerability was evaluated using the GOD method (Foster et al., 2002) and the groundwater vulnerability map available from the Province of Avellino. The GOD index can assume a value between 0 and 1: Very low (0.125); Low (0.375); Moderate (0.625); High (0.875) The criterion is to MINIMIZE The value to be attributed to the criterion is equal to the number of thermo-mineral wells in the range 0–1000 m from the site and located in permeable soils The criterion is to MINIMIZE As for C2,2,1 criterion but considering drinking water wells As for C2,2,1 criterion but considering irrigation and industrial wells As for C2,2,1 criterion but considering springs The value to be attributed to the criterion is equal to the number of organic farms in the range 0–1000 m from the site The criterion is to MINIMIZE As for C3,1 criterion but considering farmhouses Land use was assessed with the land use map of the province of Avellino. Six classes have been defined: Permanent crops (0.916); heterogeneous agricultural areas (0.750); Arable (0.583); Pasture (0.416); Shrubbery (0.250); Uncultivated (0.083) The criterion is to MINIMIZE The value to be attributed to the criterion was made according to the following classes. Very Low (0.1) = when the site position from motorway produces a very low interference with the local traffic. Low (0.3): when the route to get to nearest motorway does not cross urban areas and the distance is less than 4 km. Low-medium (0.5): when the route to get to nearest motorway does not cross urban areas and the distance is more than 4 km or when the route requires marginal crossing of urban areas and the distance from the nearest motorway is less than 4 km. Medium (0.7): when the route requires marginal crossing of urban areas and the distance from the nearest motorway is more than 4 km or the distance is less than 4 km but there is a valuable risk of interference with roads of great traffic. High (0.9): when the route interferes with the local road network The criterion is to MINIMIZE The value to be attributed to the criterion was calculated as the length of the distance between the site barycentre and the road of the nearest motorway The criterion is to MINIMIZE Is the site directly accessible? A site is considered accessible when there is no need to realize a new specific road. Two classes are defined: YES (0.750); NO (0.250) The criterion is to MAXMIZE Aren’t there Natura 2000 network areas in the range 0–2000 m from the site? YES (0.750); NO (0.250). The criterion is to MAXMIZE The value to be attributed to the criterion is equal to the intensity of rain at the area where the site is located. The value is measured in millimetres of rain per year The criterion is to MINIMIZE The value to be attributed to the criterion is equal to the average value of wind velocity at the area where the site is located. The value is measured in m/s The criterion is to MINIMIZE

use of ArcViewÒ spatial analysis functions enables the processing of the global ‘‘land use map of potentially suitable areas’’, as reported in Fig. 6a. Even in this case, the high-resolution map is shown in Fig. A.7 of Appendix A. Results from Fig. 6a highlight the presence of 4 main areas that can be potentially suitable for the hazardous waste landfills siting. These areas are visible in Fig. 6b–e, respectively. The sum of the surfaces of all these areas corresponds to 1.14% of the whole study

area. Whereas, the percentage of potentially suitable areas for nonhazardous waste landfills is 4.32%. This latter result is in line with what is present in literature (see Table 3) although the number of excluding factors adopted in our study is higher (Kontos et al., 2005; Delgado et al., 2008; Guiqin et al., 2009; Sener et al., 2010; Eskandari et al., 2012a,b; Gorsevski et al., 2012). In general, the higher the number of constraints, the lower the percentage value of suitable areas. However, this statement is not always valid. In

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

11

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 5 Alternatives matrix. Alternatives

S1 S2 S3 S4

Effective evaluation criteria and sub-criteria C1,1,1 (m)

C1,1,2 (m)

C1,1,3 (m)

C1,2,3 (m)

C2,1

C2,2,4

C3,1

C3,3

C4

C5,1 (km)

C5,2

C6 (km)

C7,1 (mm/year)

C7,2 (m/s)

0 3 3 3

6 33 54 12

9 48 60 42

10 0 15 120

0.375 0.375 0.625 0.625

0 4 5 0

0 0 0 1

0.583 0.75 0.916 0.583

0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3

26.3 8 27 54.4

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75

8.37 4.94 3.13 0.78

584.2 1542.2 879.8 1479.6

4.227 4.252 1.727 2.785

Criteria: population presence (C1); Groundwater risk (C2); Agricultural value (C3); Traffic (C4); Economy (C5); Protected areas (C6); Climate (C7). Sub-criteria: d Resident population (C1,1); Floating population (C1,2); people in 0–500 m (C1,1,1); people in 500–1000 m (C1,1,2); people in 1000–1500 m (C1,1,3, C1,2,3). d Vulnerability (C2,1; Very Low = 0.125; Low = 0.375; Moderate = 0,625; High = 0.875); Wells and Springs in 1000 m radius (C2,2); Springs (C2,2,4). d Organic farms in 1000 m radius (C3,1); Land use (C3,3; Uncultivated = 0.083: Shrubbery = 0.25; Pasture = 0.416; Arable = 0.583; Heterogeneous agricultural areas = 0.75; Permanent crops = 0.916). d Distance from the motorway (C5,1, km); Accessibility (C5,2; a site was considered ‘‘accessible’’ when there was no need to widen the access road or to realize a new specific road; accessible = 0.75, not accessible = 0.25). d Rainfall (C7,1, mm/year) and Average wind velocity (C7,2, m/s).

C1,1

C1

C1,1,1

C2 C1,2 CRITERIA C1,1 – Resident population C1,2 – Floating population

C3 C4 C6 CRITERIA C1 –Population presence C2 –Groundwater risk C5 C7 C3 –Agricultural value C4 –Traffic C5 –Economy C6 –Protected areas C7 –Climate

C1,1,2 CRITERIA C1,1,1 – 0-500 m C1,1,2 – 500-1000 m C1,1,3 – 1000-1500 m C1,1,3 C1,1 – Resident population

C1 – Population presence

C1,2,1

C

C2,1 C2,2

2,2,2

C2,2,3 C2,2,4 C1,2,2 CRITERIA C1,2,1 – 0-500 m C1,2,2 – 500-1000 m C1,2,3 – 1000-1500 m

CRITERIA C2,1 – Vulnerability C2,2 – Wells and Springs C1,2,3

C1,2 – Floating population

C2 – Groundwater risk C5,1

C3,3

C2,2,1 CRITERIA C2,2,1 – Wells Thermo-mineral C2,2,2 – Wells Drinking water use C2,2,3 – Wells Irrigation and Industrial use C2,2 – Wells and Springs C2,2,4 – Springs C7,1

C5,2

C3,1 C3,2 CRITERIA C3,1 – Organic farms C3,2 – Farmhouses C3,3 – Land use

CRITERIA C5,1 – Distance C5,2 – Accessibility

C3 – Agricultural value

C7,2 CRITERIA C7,1 – Rainfall C7,2 – Average wind velocity

C5 – Economy

C7 – Climate

Fig. 7. Priority scales for the definition of the criteria priorities to be subsequently used with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Paired Comparison Technique (PCT).

fact, results of Table 3 shows how the value of the percentage depends first of all by the number of constraints and then by the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the study area. Table 3 also shows how the number of constraints is linked to the advancement level of the country environmental legislation. In this regard and differently from Italy, the studies reported in literature mainly refer to developing countries. The land use map of Fig. 6a allows to address the subsequent phase of micro-siting, thus avoiding the shortage of land for waste disposal (Leão et al., 2004). It represents a useful tool

for spatial planning in the field of solid waste facilities siting. 3.4. Phase 4. Identification of the siting alternatives (sites where to construct a hazardous waste landfill) with a punctual verification of the excluding criteria Fig. 6f–i shows how the four siting alternatives (S1, S2, S3 and S4) were identified starting from the macro-areas identified in the previous step. The identification was performed using the penalizing

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

12

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 6 Local and global priorities of the evaluation criteria with the PSW and PCT methods. Criteria’s level 1st

2nd

3rd

C1 C1,1 C1,1,1 C1,1,2 C1,1,3 C1,2 C1,2,3 C2 C2,1 C2,2 C2,2,4 C3 C3,1 C3,3 C4 C5 C5,1 C5,2 C6 C7 C7,1 C7,2

Local priorities

Global priorities

PSW

PCT

PSW

PCT

0.422 0.833 0.735 0.207 0.058 0.167 1.000 0.221 0.500 0.500 1.000 0.093 0.250 0.750 0.093 0.038 0.750 0.250 0.093 0.038 0.833 0.167

0.250 0.667 0.500 0.333 0.167 0.333 1.000 0.214 0.500 0.500 1.000 0.143 0.333 0.667 0.143 0.054 0.667 0.333 0.143 0.054 0.667 0.333

0.422 0.352 0.259 0.073 0.020 0.070 0.070 0.221 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.093 0.023 0.070 0.093 0.038 0.029 0.010 0.093 0.038 0.032 0.006

0.250 0.167 0.083 0.056 0.028 0.083 0.083 0.214 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.143 0.048 0.095 0.143 0.054 0.036 0.018 0.143 0.054 0.036 0.018

and preferential criteria reported in Table 2 (see Facility F1) and a punctual verification of the excluding criteria with data of major details compared with those of the macro-siting phase was also provided. Finally, a field inspection was performed.

3.5. Phase 5. Definition of the criteria useful for the evaluation of the siting alternatives (evaluation criteria) Table 4 shows the full criteria set for the evaluation of hazardous waste landfill sites. The following sub-criteria of the preliminary set of evaluation criteria were not effective because they had no effective values (the values assigned to them were equal to zero) for all the selected alternatives (see Fig. 3b): C1,2,1, C1,2,2, C2,2,1, C2,2,2, C2,2,3, C3,2. Thus, 20 and 14 were the size of the preliminary and actual set of evaluation criteria, respectively, registering a 30% diminution in the number of evaluation criteria.

3.6. Phase 6. Definition of the alternatives matrix From Section 3.4 we know that four siting alternatives (S1, S2, S3 and S4) were identified, whereas from Section 3.5 we know that only fourteen evaluation criteria (and sub-criteria) were effective.

Therefore, the alternatives matrix has four rows and fourteen columns as shown in Table 5. 3.7. Phase 7. Definition of the criteria priorities with the PSW tool and application of the AHP to the alternatives matrix weighted with the PSW tool, obtaining a first alternatives ranking The criteria priorities to use with AHP (as well as SAW) were defined using the Priority Scale Weighting tool, as shown in Fig. 7. In particular, Fig. 7 contains 9 priority scales. The first in the upper left defines the global priorities among the seven criteria. The second in the upper centre defines the local priorities between the two sub-criteria of C1. The third in the upper right defines the local priorities among the three sub-criteria of C1,1. The fourth in the middle left defines the local priorities among the three sub-criteria of C1,2. The fifth in the middle centre defines the local priorities between the two sub-criteria of C2. The sixth in the middle right defines the local priorities among the four sub-criteria of C2,2. The seventh in the lower left defines the local priorities among the three sub-criteria of C3. The eight in the lower centre defines the local priorities between the two sub-criteria of C5. Finally, the ninth in the lower right defines the local priorities between the two sub-criteria of C7. All the priorities were directly defined by the authors. However, they can be assigned in any other way, for instance using a stakeholders’ involvement approach as adopted in De Feo and De Gisi (2010). Applying the AHP–PSW approach to the alternatives matrix weighted with the calculated global priorities vector (see the second to last column of Table 6) gave the normalized alternatives ranking reported in Fig. 8a. The ranking list was: S1, S2, S3 and S4. The difference between the priority of the first and second best alternatives was 55.4%. Thus, it was clear that S1 was the best site where to localize a hazardous waste landfill using the AHP–PSW approach. 3.8. Phase 8. Definition of the criteria priorities with the PCT and application of the SAW method to the alternatives matrix weighted with the PCT method, obtaining a second alternatives ranking The nine priority scales of Fig. 7 were used to perform the pairwise comparison of the PCT method following the rules described in the methodological section. Applying the SAW–PCT approach to the alternatives matrix weighted with the calculated global priorities vector (see the last column of Table 6) gave the normalized alternatives ranking reported in Fig. 8b. The ranking list was the same obtained with the AHP–PSW approach: S1, S2, S3 and S4. However, the difference between the priority of the first and second

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1 0.0

0.0 S1

S2

S3

(a)

S4

S1

S2

S3

S4

(b)

Fig. 8. Comparison of the two global normalized alternatives rankings: (a) AHP–PSW; and (b) SAW–PCT.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

13

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

C1,1,1 C7,2

0.30

C1,1,1

C1,1,2

C7,2

0.20

C1,1,3

0.20

C7,1

0.10

0.10

C1,2,3

0.05

C6

C1,2,3

0.05 0.00

0.00

C5,2

C2,1

C5,1

C2,2,4 C4

S1 (1.000)

C1,1,3

0.15

0.15

C6

C1,1,2

0.25

0.25

C7,1

0.30

C5,2

C2,1

C5,1 C4

C3,1

C3,3 S2 (0.546) S3 (0.298)

C2,2,4

S4 (0.296)

S1 (1.000)

C3,1

C3,3 S2 (0.748) S3 (0.475)

(a)

S4 (0.334)

(b)

Fig. 9. Contribution of each evaluation criteria to the global alternatives ranking (the normalized values are reported in brackets) and normalized values obtained for each criterion: (a) AHP–PSW; and (b) SAW–PCT.

best alternatives was 25.2% in this case. Analogously to the previous section, it was clear that S1 was the best site where to localize a hazardous waste landfill using the SAW–PCT approach, but with a slighter difference between the first and second choices in comparison with the AHP–PSW approach. 3.9. Phase 9. Comparison of the two alternatives rankings and selection of the best site Having the ability to clearly identify the best alternative is fundamental in the case of hazardous waste landfills due to the great social sensitivity of this issue. Applying the AHP–PSW and SAW– PCT approaches to the alternatives matrix gave the same ranking lists, as discussed in the previous section: S1, S2, S3 and S4. The application of the AHP gave major differences between the best alternative and second one as a consequence of the major sensitivity of the priority scale to define the priorities between the evaluation criteria compared with the classic PCT (which only use the values 0, 0.5 and 1 to define the priorities among criteria). This is in line with the findings of Demesouka et al. (2013). In particular, Fig. 9 shows the contribution of each evaluation criteria to the global alternatives ranking. C1,1,1 (resident population in 0– 500 m) was the most influencing sub-criteria with the AHP–PSW approach; while, C4 was the most influencing criteria with the SAW–PCT approach.

necessarily consider all the solid waste facilities both already present and future in a sort of systematic approach to localization.  The issue of obtaining sites evaluations of a specific facility has to be coupled with the issue of not wasting land appropriate to facilitate other types of waste management options.  Mondy and Noe (2008) pairwise comparison technique can be implemented as a criterion weights elicitation approach in GIS based suitability analyses.  In the performed case study, the use of the Priority Scale (PSW) as a weighting tool was useful to easier define the priorities of the evaluation criteria and this came out in the final ranking list obtained using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The presented procedure is particularly suitable for public institutions and companies operating in the solid waste sector and can be integrated with the other methods available in literature. Acknowledgment The authors wish to thank Dr. Sacha A. Berardo for his English revision.

4. Conclusion

Appendix A. Supplementary material

The following outcomes based on the obtained results can be pointed out:

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05. 028.

 In order to minimize the shortage of land for waste disposal, a new screening phase before the macro-siting step (i.e. feasibility analysis) should be directly inserted in the standard siting procedure.  The new phase is aimed at producing the land use map of potentially suitable areas (by means of a spatial intersection of the data estimated in the feasibility analysis) for the solid waste facilities and consequently to address the next phase of micro-siting (i.e. spatial multi-criteria analysis) identifying the alternative sites in a proper mode.  Differently from literature, the siting of a specific type of plant (in this case, the hazardous waste landfill) must

References Chang, N.B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J.B., 2008. Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. J. Environ. Manage. 87 (1), 139–153. Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, Q., Garner, B., 1997. Preliminary landfill site screening using fuzzy geographical information systems. Waste Manage Res. 15 (2), 197– 215. Ching-Lai, H., Kwangsun, Y., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer Verlang, Berlin-Heidelberg, New York. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999, 1–9. Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152. Norme in materia ambientale. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 88 del 14 aprile 2006, Supplemento Ordinario n. 96 (in Italian).

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

14

G.D. Feo, S.D. Gisi / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Delgado, O.B., Mendoza, M., Granados, E.L., Geneletti, D., 2008. Analysis of land suitability for the siting of inter-municipal landfills in the Cuitzeo Lake Basin, Mexico. Waste Manage. 28 (7), 1137–1146. De Feo, G., Malvano, C., 2009. The use of LCA in selecting the best MSW management system. Waste Manage. 29 (6), 1901–1915. De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010. Using an innovative criteria weighting tool for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites with the AHP. Waste Manage. 30, 2370–2382. De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., Williams, I.D., 2013a. Public perception of odour and environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: a case study. Waste Manage. 33 (4), 974–987. De Feo, G., Galasso, M., Landi, R., Donnarumma, A., De Gisi, S., 2013b. A comparison of the efficacy of organic and mixed-organic polymers with polyaluminium chloride in chemically assisted primary sedimentation (CAPS). Environ. Technol. 34 (10), 1297–1305. Demesouka, O.E., Vavatsikos, A.P., Anagnostopoulos, K.P., 2013. Suitability analysis for siting MSW landfills and its multicriteria spatial decision support system: method, implementation and case study. Waste Manage. 33, 1190– 1206. Eskandari, M., Homaee, M., Mahmodi, S., 2012a. A criticism of applications with multi-criteria decision analysis that are used for the site selection for the disposal of municipal solid wastes. Waste Manage. 32 (12), 2315–2323. Eskandari, M., Homaee, M., Mahmodi, S., 2012b. An integrated multi criteria approach for landfill siting in a conflicting environmental, economical and socio-cultural area. Waste Manage. 32 (8), 1528–1538. Expertchoice, 2004. Quick Start Guide and Tutorials, Expert Choice Inc., Arlington, VA, USA. Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., Savage, W.Z., 2008. Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng. Geol. 102 (3–4), 85–98. Foster, S., Hirata, R., Gomes, D., D’Elia, M., Paris, M., 2002. Groundwater Quality Protection: A Guide for Water Utilities, Municipal Authorities, and Environment Agencies. World Bank Publication. Gbanie, S.P., Tengbe, P.B., Momoh, J.S., Medo, J., Kabba, V.T.S., 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. Geneletti, D., 2010. Combining stakeholder analysis and spatial multicriteria evaluation to select and rank inert landfill sites. Waste Manage. 30 (2), 328– 337. Gorsevski, P.P., Donevska, K., Mitrovski, C.D., Frizado, J., 2012. Integrating multicriteria evaluation techniques with geographic information systems for landfill site selection: a case study using ordered weighted average. Waste Manage. 32, 287–296. Guiqin, W., Li, Q., Guoxue, L., Lijun, C., 2009. Landfill site selection using spatial information technologies and AHP: a case study of Beijing, China. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2414–2421.

Jensen, J.R., Christensen, E.J., 1986. Solid and hazardous waste disposal site selection using digital geographic information system techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 56, 265–276. Kikuchi, R., Gerardo, R., 2009. More than a decade of conflict between hazardous waste management and public resistance: a case study of NIMBY syndrome in Souselas (Portugal). J. Hazard. Mater. 172, 1681–1685. Kontos, T.D., Komilis, D.P., Halvadakis, C.P., 2005. Siting MSW landfills with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste Manage. 25 (8), 818–832. Korucu, M.K., Erdagi, B., 2012. A criticism of applications with multi-criteria decision analysis that are used for the site selection for the disposal of municipal solid wastes. Waste Manage. 32, 2315–2323. Leão, 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 (4), 353–385. Legge Regionale n. 4 del 28 marzo 2007. Norme in materia di gestione, trasformazione, riutilizzo dei rifiuti e bonifica dei siti contaminati. Bollettino ufficiale della Regione Campania n. 19 del 3 aprile 2007 (in Italian). Lin, H.Y., Kao, J.J., 1998. A vector-based spatial model for landfill siting. J. Hazard. Mater. 58 (1–3), 3–14. Llurdes, J.C., Sauri, D., Cerdan, R., 2003. Ten years wasted: the failure of siting waste facilities in central Catalonia, Spain. Land Use Policy 20, 335–342. Lober, D.J., 1995. Why not here: the importance of context, process and outcome on public attitudes towards the siting of waste facilities. Soc. Nature Resour. 9, 375–394. Moeinaddini, M., Khorasani, N., Danehkar, A., Darvishsefat, A.A., Zienalyan, M., 2010. Siting MSW landfill using weighted linear combination and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology in GIS environment (case study: Karaj). Waste Manage. 30, 912–920. Mondy, W., Noe, R., 2008. Human Resource Management. Prentice-Hall, USA. Saaty, T.L., 1996. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York, USA. Salhofer, S., Wassermann, G., Binner, E., 2007. Strategic environmental assessment as an approach to assess waste management systems. Experiences from an Austrian case study. Environ. Modell. Softw. 22 (5), 610–618. Sener, S., Sener, E., Nas, B., Karaguzel, R., 2010. Combining AHP with GIS for landfill site selection: a case study in the Lake Beysehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey). Waste Manage. 30, 2037–2046. Sharifi, M., Hadidi, M., Vessali, E., Mosstafakhani, P., Taheri, K., Shahoie, S., Khodamoradpour, M., 2009. Integrating multi-criteria decision analysis for a GIS-based hazardous waste landfill sitting in Kurdistan Province, western Iran. Waste Manage. 29, 2740–2758. Sumathi, V.R., Natesan, U., Sarkar, C., 2008. GIS-based approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manage. 28, 2146–2160. Tavares, G., Zsigraiova, Z., Semiao, V., 2011. Multi-criteria GIS-based siting of an incineration plant for municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 31, 1960–1972. Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Hurtado, A., Grindlay, A., Ramos, A., 2008. Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology. J. Hazard. Mater. 160, 473–481.

Please cite this article in press as: Feo, G.D., Gisi, S.D. Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.028

Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal.

The main aim of this study was to develop a procedure that minimizes the wasting of space for the siting of hazardous waste landfills as part of a sol...
4MB Sizes 3 Downloads 8 Views