Modeling landfill site selection by multi-criteria decision making and fuzzy functions in GIS, case study: Shabestar, Iran

Modeling the environmental susceptibility of landfill sites in California

“…Step 1: selection of environmental decision criteria 100 In this study, the environmental factors and indicators selected were based on the literature that takes into account the environmental impact susceptibility associated with landfill sites (Leão, Bishop, and Evans 2004;Butt, Lockley, and Oduyemi 2008;Eskandari, Homaee, and Mahmodi 2012;Gbanie et al 2013;Butt et al 2014;Khan and Samadder 2015;Maanifar and Fataei 2015;Motlagh and Sayadi 2015;Eskandari et al 2015; 105 Bahrani et al 2016;Chabuk et al 2016;Chonattu, Prabhakar, and Harikumar 2016b;Demesouka, Vavatsikos, and Anagnostopoulos 2016;Chonattu, Prabhakar, and Harikumar 2016b AQ6 ; Kharat et al 2016;Eskandari, Homaee, and Falamaki 2016;Yıldırım and Güler 2016;Zhang et al 2016). In addition, existing guidelines, relevant legislation and regulations, experts' opinions obtained in informal meetings, and available relevant 110 data were considered in the development of the EISM.…”

“…For this reason, when SW is disposed of above susceptible geological formations, instability of the containment systems and the waste mass may occur resulting in potential contamination of the surrounding surface and sub surface soils and water. Geological criteria were considered in previous studies that investigated environmental impacts caused by SW in 125 landfills (Aydi et al 2016;Bahrani et al 2016;Chonattu, Prabhakar, and Harikumar 2016b;Yıldırım and Güler 2016;Zhang et al 2016). However, these studies did not consider simultaneously the three geological environmental indicators used in the current study, which were (i) distance to faults; (ii) seismic hazard zones; and (iii) distance to karstic areas.…”

“…It is not appropriate to have landfills close to surface water sources or in areas where the water table level is shallow due to the higher 155 contamination risk (Qian, Koerner, and Gray 2002;Sharma and Reddy 2004). Several studies have taken into consideration these aspects (Gbanie et al 2013;Eskandari et al 2015;Khan and Samadder 2015;Maanifar and Fataei 2015;Motlagh and Sayadi 2015;Bahrani et al 2016;Chabuk et al 2016;Chonattu, Prabhakar, and Harikumar 2016b;Yıldırım and Güler 2016). In this study, we used the surface water resources environ-160 mental indicators of (i) distance to rivers and lakes and (ii) flood frequency, while, for underground water resources we used the environmental indicators of (i) distance to wells and (ii) depth to water table.…”

Modeling Environmental Susceptibility of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Sites: A Case Study in São Paulo State, Brazil

“…including [43] [53] [54] [83] [85]. However, these studies did not consider simultaneously the four geological sub-factors used in this model, which are 1) distance to faults, 2) porosity of rocks, 3) distance to seismic areas, and 4) distance to caves.…”

UI proposal using modified diamond pairwise comparison diagram for fuzzy integral-based GIS–MCDM

“…In a research conducted in 2016, Bahrani et al [7] saw the site selection for reclamation in Shabestar, Iran as the problem of MCDM and solved it through the introduction of fuzzy function as qualitative assessment method in information fusion for GIS data. In that research, the suitability of candidate site selection was obtained based on AHP as MCDM method and weighted linear combination (WLO), and then the optimal site was proposed after going through the sensitivity analysis.…”