See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5428519

Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided

methodology

Article in Journal of Hazardous Materials · April 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

169 1,799

5 authors, including:

Montserrat Zamorano Emilio Molero

University of Granada University of Granada
150 PUBLICATIONS 5,034 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 614 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alejandro L. Grindlay
University of Granada
82 PUBLICATIONS 1,173 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Emilio Molero on 13 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhazmat

Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with

GIS-aided methodology
Montserrat Zamorano a,∗ , Emilio Molero b,1 , Álvaro Hurtado a,2 ,
Alejandro Grindlay b,3 , Ángel Ramos a,4
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
b
Urban and Spatial Planning Laboratory, University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Landfill siting should take into account a wide range of territorial and legal factors in order to reduce
Received 6 March 2007 negative impacts on the environment. This article describes a landfill siting method, which is based on
Received in revised form 20 October 2007
EVIAVE, a landfill diagnosis method developed at the University of Granada. Geographical Information
Accepted 7 March 2008
Systems (GIS) technology is also used to generate spatial data for site assessment. Landfill site suitability
Available online xxx
is assessed on a scale based on territorial indices that measure the risk of contamination for the following
five environmental components: surface water, groundwater, atmosphere, soil, and human health. The
Keywords:
method described in this article has been used to evaluate an area in Granada (Spain) where there is a
Landfill siting
Municipal waste landfill currently operating landfill. The results obtained show that suitable locations for the disposal of municipal
Geographical Information Systems waste were successfully identified. The low environmental index values reflect the suitability of this
Territorial siting criteria landfill site as well as its minimal negative impacts on the environment.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction EVIAVE is an environmental diagnosis method developed by

researchers at the University of Granada. It provides information
Landfill siting is a complex process involving social, envi- concerning potential environmental problems caused by currently
ronmental and technical parameters as well as government operating landfills. It is basically a tool for assessing the suitability of
regulations. As such, it evidently requires the processing of a landfill sites and for monitoring their operation. Its main objective
massive amount of spatial data. Various landfill siting techniques is to develop a decision support system for integrated municipal
have been developed for this purpose. Some of them use Geo- waste management, more specifically for decisions related to ren-
graphic Information Systems (GIS) to find suitable locations for ovating or closing landfill sites. EVIAVE has been validated with
such installations [1–3]. For example, Lin and Kado [4] developed data from more than fifty landfills in Spain [10], Venezuela [11] and
a mixed-integer spatial optimization model based on vector-based Chile [12].
data to help decision makers find a suitable site within a certain
geographic area. Other researchers propose the use of multiple cri- 2. Landfill siting using a GIS
teria analysis by itself [5,6], or with GIS [7]. The use of artificial
intelligence technology, such as expert systems, can also be very Over the last three decades, advances in computer science have
helpful in solid waste planning and management. Fuzzy inference led to the creation of GIS, initially based on McHarg’s [13] basic
systems have also been proposed [8,9]. map layering concept. GIS combines spatial data (maps, aerial pho-
tographs, and satellite images) with quantitative, qualitative, and
descriptive information databases, which can support a wide range
Abbreviations: GIS, Geographical Information Systems; CRI, Contamination Risk of spatial queries. All of these factors have made GIS an indispens-
Index; Pbc, Probability of Contamination Indicator; eV, Environmental Value; ERI, able tool for location studies [14], particularly for landfill siting.
Environmental Risk Index; LSI, Landfill Suitability Index. Processing such data with conventional drawing and calculation
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958 249458; fax: +34 958 246138.
tools is generally time-consuming. GIS, however, converts geo-
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Zamorano), [email protected]
(E. Molero), [email protected] (A. Grindlay), [email protected] (Á. Ramos).
referenced data into computerized maps, while GIS map analysis
1
Tel.: +34 958 249464; fax: +34 958 248990. tools also make it possible to efficiently manipulate maps with a
2
Tel.: +34 958 249458; fax: +34 958 246138. computer. The advantages of using GIS for waste disposal and land-
3
Tel.: +34 958 249464; fax: +34 958 248990. fill site selection have been demonstrated by various researchers.
4
Tel.: +34 958 240463; fax: +34 958 246138. Jensen and Christensen [15] demonstrate the use of GIS in the

0304-3894/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Map of situation and localization of existing landfill site.

selection of solid and hazardous waste disposal sites. GIS was 3. Area of study
subsequently used by Fatta et al. [16] for the site selection of an
industrial waste facility. Siddiqui [1] presents a method that iden- The area studied measures 300 km2 , and is located to the south
tifies and ranks potential landfill areas for preliminary site assess- of the metropolitan area of Granada on the western edge of the
ment. This method combines GIS with a decision-making method Sierra Nevada mountain range (Fig. 1). After Seville and Malaga,
based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). GIS technology has Granada has the third largest population in Andalusia, and two
also been combined with AHP and fuzzy set theory [9]. Lin and thirds of its inhabitants live in the metropolitan area of the city.
Kado [4] developed a mixed-integer programming model to obtain 55% of the population of the province of Granada (817,000) is con-
a site with optimal compactness. The compactness model was fur- centrated in a surface area of 830 km2 , i.e. less than 7% of the total
ther extended to include multiple siting factors with weights that area. The population density in the metropolitan area is thus 530
were determined by the GIS map layer analysis function. inhabitants per km2 as compared to 32 inhabitants per km2 in the
According to Michaels [17] a GIS can be used to combine various rest of the province.
demographic, geological, land use and census tract maps to apply In this area there is a landfill of medium density and high density.
landfill criteria, and find suitable areas to place a landfill. Kao et al. This landfill is used to dispose and eliminate waste from a solid
[18] developed a prototype network GIS to increase the efficiency of waste treatment plant located in the town of Alhendı́n at Loma
complex solid waste landfill siting. Furthermore, this system makes de Manzanares. This plant handles the waste from 26 municipal
site-related information available to the general public; assists local districts, whose 677,505 inhabitants generate 300,000 t of waste
environmental protection agencies in maintaining a GIS; and helps per year.
the central environmental protection agency to manage, instruct,
and evaluate the local siting process. Kontos et al. [7] describe a 4. Methodology
spatial method that integrates multiple criteria analysis, GIS, spatial
analysis, and spatial statistics with a view to evaluating a region for 4.1. Definition
landfill siting.
This article describes an EVIAVE-based method developed at The presence of a landfill in this area evidently has an important
the University of Granada for the assessment of landfill sites in effect on the environment. Its impact is largely dependent on the
accordance with European Union legislation. This method is inno- affected elements at the site as well as on the spatial distribution
vative because it establishes general indices to quantify overall of the effects. The first step in the evaluation of the environmental
environmental impact as well as individual indices for specific impact of the landfill is the identification of any elements, which
environmental components (i.e. surface water, ground water, atmo- may be sensitive to this impact. In different Environmental Impact
sphere, soil, and human health). Quantification variables and Assessment (EIA) processes [21], these elements are known as envi-
impact indicators represent indices more precisely as well as make ronmental components. The components in our study are ground
the results more objective. water, surface water, soil, atmosphere, and human health [22–25]
Since this method requires processing large quantities of spatial because of their interactions with the dynamics of the release point.
data, we used GIS and its spatial analysis tools to create the digital This means that the landfill is regarded as an active installation that
geodatabase. Commercial GIS software packages include analyti- can produce emissions.
cal tools that perform spatial analysis processes. To automate the Our evaluation method is based on the use of environmental
processes of establishing composite evaluation criteria, performing indices to provide a quantitative assessment of the possible envi-
multiple criteria analysis, and carrying out spatial clustering, algo- ronmental interactions between a landfill and potentially affected
rithms were developed in a Microsoft Visual Basic programming environmental components because of the siting of the landfill.
environment compatible with ESRI ArcGIS, a GIS software. Although Similarly to EVIAVE, this method evaluates municipal solid waste
POPSIS [19] and Compromise Programming [20] are multiple crite- landfills classified as non-hazardous waste landfills by Directive
ria analysis methods that have been proposed for the evaluation 31/99 [26]. It is thus applicable in the European Union, and in any
of the final suitability index, we decided to use simple additive other country where similar legislation exists, or indeed, where
weighting (SAW) to solve the multiple criteria problem. there is no legislation or where the legislation is less prescriptive
The GIS-aided landfill siting method presented in this article than this Directive.
combines GIS spatial analysis tools with MCA to evaluate an entire Fig. 2 shows the hierarchical structure of the decision problem,
region. We describe how this method was applied to a region in which has four levels. The first level represents the criteria and
Granada (Spain) to assess the suitability of a currently operating subcriteria used. It takes into account spatial attributes for landfill
landfill site. The hydrogeological, environmental, social, and tech- siting, and the quantification of landfill variables and environmen-
nical/economic evaluation criteria are the same as those used in tal impact indicators used to calculate different environmental
EVIAVE. indices. The second level represents the Probability of Contami-

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 2. Hierarchical structure of the methodology.

nation Indicator for each environmental component (Pbci ) and the represent each environmental component at the landfill. They are
Environmental Value for each component (eVi ). The third level rep- related to the biochemical and physical processes that directly or
resents the Environmental Risk Index for each component (ERIi ) indirectly affect the environmental components. Such elements are
whereas the fourth and last level represents the ultimate goal of associated either with the siting outcome or an essential compo-
the decision hierarchy or Land Suitability for Landfill Siting Index nent of the siting process.
(LSI). The siting framework or variables were selected by taking into
account previous research and reviews of relevant research. Also
4.1.1. Level 1: landfill variables and impact indicators taken into account were European and Spanish legislation regard-
4.1.1.1. Definition of landfill variables. Any waste-facility siting ing the following:
framework must be capable of identifying important factors and
interactions that contribute to the siting outcome. A theoretical
framework is needed to structure these elements and cause–effect • distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recre-
relationships [27]. In order to better assess contamination prob- ation areas, waterways, water bodies, and other agricultural or
ability, the framework elements are known as variables, which urban sites;

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Waste-facility siting framework

Variables Environmental components affected References

Aquifer characteristics Ground water [28–30]

Distance from infrastructure Human health and society [7,31,32]
Distance from surface water mass Surface water [7,33–35]
Distance from population centers Human health and society [7,36,37]
Erosion Soil [1,38]
Fault Ground water [1,38]
Slope to surface water Surface water [1,38]
Pluviometry Ground water, surface water, atmosphere, soil, and human health and society [39–42]
Release-point localization in flood-water storage volume Ground water, surface water, and soil [1,38]
Release-point localization in surface runoff Ground water and surface water [1,38]
Visibility Human health and society [7,43]
Seismic risk Ground water, surface water, atmosphere, soil, and human health and society [38]
Wind Atmosphere and human health and society [7,22,38]

• existence of groundwater, coastal water or nature protection gets karstic aquifers. They are all rather similar, and only differ in
zones in the area; the number of variables. The choice of method depends on factors
• geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area, more such as [45]: (i) knowledge of the methodology; (ii) available infor-
specifically, the existence of a geological barrier consisting of a mation; (iii) scope of the evaluation; (iv) validation of results. Of
mineral layer which satisfies permeability and thickness require- course, some of these methods are more widely used than others,
ments established in Directive 31/99; and in many cases the choice of method depends on the country
• risk of flooding, subsidence, landslides or avalanches on the site; involved. For example, the USA and Canada prefer DRASTIC, while
• protection of the nature or cultural patrimony in the area; South America tends to use both GOD and DRASTIC. GOD is more
• climate conditions. prevalent in Spain and England, whereas the rest of Europe tends
to use SINTACS. EPIK is generally preferred in regions along the
Table 1 shows a summary of the variables for each environmen- Mediterranean coast, and is mostly used for the evaluation of karstic
tal component as well as various causal connections identified in aquifers [45]. Table 2 shows the classification of this variable, based
other research studies. on all of these methods.
Based on EVIAVE, the evaluation for each variable (j) can be
obtained by the Contamination Risk Index, as expressed in Eq. (1). In 4.1.1.2. Definition of impact indicators. The description of environ-
this expression, Cj is the Classification of the variable and provides mental characteristics allows us to quantify the environmental
information concerning the interaction of disposal processes and components necessary to specify environmental indices. Impact
environmental characteristics related to the variable, whereas Wj indicators were defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment
is the weighting of each variable [10,44]. The range of values of the process to measure the impact of the landfill on each component.
index may be 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. These are environmental characteristics that could be affected by
projects [21]. They depend on the project type as well as on the spe-
CRIj = Cj × Wj (1)
cific characteristics of the affected area. Examples of such indicators
EVIAVE defines the weighting of each variable, which can have are air quality, biological populations, communities and habitats,
values of 1 or 2, depending on the relationship between the vari- water quality, biota, etc. [21,48,49].
able and the concept of structural elements at the release point. The For our purposes, impact indicators were defined to quantify
structural elements considered were organic matter, humidity, and Environmental Value Indices for each environmental component.
waste density. These three concepts participate in the principal bio-
chemical and physical processes that take place at the release point.
Table 2
They cause gas and leachate emissions, which affect all variables, Classification of the variable Aquifer characteristics
and provide greater weighting of the different landfill variables
[10,44]. Wj reaches a value of 2 when the variable is directly related Classification (Cj ) Condition References

to the structural elements, or when it affects environmental com- Method Vulnerability

ponents. In this case the weighting of each variable turned out to Index (VI)
be the same. GOD Iv < 0.1
As an example, in the following sections we provide an DRASTIC Iv < 28
Very low 1
SINTACS Iv ≤ 80
explanation of the classification and weighting of the variable
EPIK Iv = 2 or 3
Aquifer characteristics. The same justification and quantification was GOD 0.1 ≤ Iv < 0.3
applied to all the other variables and environmental components. DRASTIC 29 ≤ Iv ≤ 85
Low 2
This variable identifies the characteristics of aquifers located near SINTACS 81 ≤ Iv ≤ 105
possible landfill sites and quantifies their vulnerability by taking EPIK Iv = 4 or 5
GOD 0.3 ≤ Iv < 0.5
into account leachate emissions from the waste mass. Since it is a
DRASTIC 86 ≤ Iv ≤ 142
variable that directly affects groundwater environmental compo- Average 3 [45–48]
SINTACS 106 ≤ Iv ≤ 140
nents, it has a weighting of 2. EPIK Iv = 6 or 7
The variables have been classified on the basis of the vulnera- GOD 0.5 ≤ Iv < 0.7
bility index of the aquifer to pollution. Since many countries have DRASTIC 143 ≤ Iv ≤ 196
High 4
SINTACS 141 ≤ Iv ≤ 186
experienced problems of ground water contamination, this has led EPIK Iv = 8 or 9
to the development of methods to discover exactly how pollu- GOD Iv ≥ 0.7
tants reach aquifers. Examples of aquifer vulnerability assessment DRASTIC Iv < 196
Very high 5
methods are DRASTIC, SINTACS, GOD and EPIK. The first three are SINTACS Iv ≥ 187
EPIK Iv = 10
for the evaluation of free detritic aquifers, whereas the fourth tar-

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 5

Table 3 4.1.2.2. Environmental Value. The concept Environmental Value

Impact indicators for environmental components
identifies and quantifies the environmental assessment of each
Environmental components Impact indicators References environmental component in the area of the landfill. It is regarded
A1 : Type of surface water mass
as a relative environmental value since it takes into account the
Surface relationship between the landfill’s environmental characteristics
A2 : Water use [50–54]
water
A3 : Water quality and/or social and political characteristics, the possible emissions at
Ground B1 : Water use the release point [10,44], as well as the environmental importance
[50,51,55,56]
water B2 : Water quality of each element in the immediate surroundings of the landfill.
Atmosphere C1 : Air quality [22,57]
Environmental Values for surface water, ground water, atmo-
sphere, and soil are expressed by Eqs. (3)–(6), respectively. As
D1 : Soil use
previously mentioned, human health always has a maximum value.
Soil D2 : Vegetation type [58,59]
D3 : Vegetal covering In these expressions Ai , Bi , Ci and Di are classifications of the impact
indicators shown in Table 3.

These indicators were selected because of their relevance for impact A1 + A2 + A3

eVsurfacewater = (3)
assessment in the eyes of professionals, stakeholders, and the 3
general public. Table 3 shows impact indicators for each environ- B1 + B2
mental component in the case of municipal landfills, environmental eVgroundwater = (4)
2
calculation, and certain causal connections identified in relevant
eVatmosphere = C1 (5)
research. One or more impact indicators were defined for each envi-
ronmental component except in the case of human health, which D1 + D2 + D3
has a maximum environmental value index. eVsoil = (6)
3
Each impact indicator may obtain values of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. For
example, Table 4 shows the justification and quantification in the Values range from 1 to 5 for each environmental element as
case of the impact indicator use of water for the surface water envi- shown in Table 5. If an environmental element obtains high or
ronmental component. The same justification and quantification very high values, this means that the landfill is located in an area
was applied to the other characteristics and environmental ele- of greater environmental sensitivity for the element in question
ments. [10,44].

4.1.2. Level 2: Probability of Contamination Indicator and 4.1.3. Level 3: Environmental Risk Index
Environmental Values The Environmental Risk Index definition is similar to the EVIAVE
4.1.2.1. Definition of Probability of Contamination Indicator. Accord- index of the same name. It determines the environmental impact
ing to EVIAVE, the definition of the Probability of Contamination for potential for each environmental component, and reflects whether
each environmental component must consider the scale of oper- or not any interaction exists between the release point or landfill
ation, waste characteristics and the spread of waste disposals in and the characteristics of the environment [10,44]. For each landfill,
the landfill environment [10,44] because suitable siting, design the ERI indicates which environmental element or elements would
and operation of the landfill are essential to eliminate or mini- be or are most affected by the presence of wastes. This makes it
mize potentially adverse environmental impacts [21,25]. It was thus possible to determine the extent of possible deterioration at each
possible to analyze two indices: Probability of Contamination due to landfill site. This index is expressed by Eq. (7), where Pbii is the
landfill operation, and Probability of Contamination because of landfill Probability Indicator, and where eVi is the Environmental Value for
siting. each environmental component (i). The index has values between
In this case we have only considered the Probability of Con- 0 and 5. Table 7 shows values for the index and its classification,
tamination Indicators for each environmental component. These based on the Pbci and eVi values.
indicators are the same as those defined by EVIAVE, but only the
variables related to landfill siting were taken into account. Prob- ERIi = Pbci × eVi (7)
ability of contamination is expressed by Eq. (2) where n is the
number of variables affecting each environmental element; CRIj 4.1.4. Level 4: Landfill Suitability Index
is the Contamination Risk Index for each variable (j); CRIjminimum The global suitability of landfill sites is quantified by a gen-
is the minimum value obtained by the CRI for each variable; and eral index called the Landfill Suitability Index (LSI). In EVIAVE the
CRIjmaximum is the maximum value obtained by the CRI for each Environmental Landfill Impact Index (ELI) characterizes the over-
variable. It may have values between 0 and 1 (see Table 5). all environmental stage of operating landfills [10,44]. In this case
j=n j=n the index characterizes the overall environmental suitability of the
j=1
CRIj − j=1
CRIjminimum possible landfill sites. The grading scale used for the Landfill Site
Pbci = j=n j=n (2)
Suitability Index is 0–25, ranging from the least suitable to the most
j=1
CRIjmaximum − j=1
CRIjminimum
suitable area. This index is represented by Eq. (8) where ERIi is the
Environmental Risk Index for each environmental component (i).
Table 8 shows the classification of the index.
Table 4
Justification and quantification of the impact indicator Water use for the environ- 
i=5
mental component ground water LSI = ERIi (8)
5 Human drinking water, aquaculture and i=1
recreational uses, including beaches suitable
A2 for bathing
Unlike other methodologies [1–3], these indices do not ini-
Water use
4 Agriculture tially exclude areas from further examination. Therefore, the legally
3 Industrial unsuitable areas will have a low initial suitability index, which in all
2 Other human uses not previously considered likelihood will ultimately exclude them from further examination
1 Not for human use
during the final steps of the siting process.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Classification of environmental indicators

Indicators Classification

Improbable Not very probable Seldom probable Probable Very probable

Pbci
0 ≤ Pbci < 0.2 0.2 ≤ Pbci < 0.4 0.4 ≤ Pbci < 0.6 0.6 ≤ Pbci < 0.8 0.8 ≤ Pbci ≤ 1

Very low Low Average High Very high

eVi
1 ≤ eVi < 1.8 1.8 ≤ eVi < 2.6 2.6 ≤ eVi < 3.4 3.4 ≤ eVi < 4.2 4.2 ≤ eVi ≤ 5

Very low Low Average High Very high

ERi
0 ≤ ERi < 1 1 ≤ ERi < 2 2 ≤ ERi < 3 3 ≤ ERi < 4 4 ≤ ERi ≤ 5

Unsuitabililty Low suitability Average suitability High suitability Very high suitability
LSI
20 ≤ LSI ≤ 25 15 ≤ LSI < 20 10 ≤ LSI < 15 5 ≤ LSI < 10 0 ≤ LSI < 5

4.2. Modeling the landfill variables Environmental Values determines and cartographs the Environ-
mental Risk Index (ERIi ) for each environmental component.
There are two basic approaches to the question of how to model 6. Cartographs of the Landfill Suitability Index (LSI). Finally, the
space in GIS. Depending on whether the focus is on properties cartograph of the LSI is obtained by means of multi-criteria anal-
or localization, two different data models may be generated: the ysis (MCA). The factors used are the different Environmental
vector model or the raster model. Risk Indices for each environmental component (surface water,
The choice of one model or the other depends on what the ground water, atmosphere, soil and human health). The value
GIS is going to be used for [59,60]. We chose the raster model for associated with each pixel of the map gives a final indication of
our research because of its speed and efficiency at superposition- the suitability of the site.
ing maps. The vector model was used only to generate the basic
cartography, and initially model variables. 4.4. Analysis of model sensitivity
An optimal resolution of 10 m was adopted for base cartography
at a scale of 1: 10,000. The following techniques and operations Sensitivity analyses are directly related to modeling in any sci-
were applied: local analysis (reclassification and map superposi- entific field. A model is always a simplified version of reality which
tion), immediate vicinity analysis (filtrates and slope calculation), enables us to describe a specific problem, and thus reach a better
and extended vicinity analysis (Euclidean distances and proximity understanding of it through the representation of essential ele-
or ‘buffer’ analysis). ments and mechanisms of real world systems, whether physical,
social, economic or environmental. In order to demonstrate that a
4.3. Model implementation model is a reliable representation of such a real system, it is nec-
essary to carry out certain validation processes to lend sufficient
Cartographic modeling is a more general term than the set of credibility to the model. In this research, we verify the method
steps described above. The method involves the arrangement of used, and also carry out a results validation test as well as a model
a series of data layers in logical sequence, including topological stability analysis.
and thematic operations, information external to GIS, and value
judgments in order to find solutions to specific spatial problems 5. Application of the methodology: results and discussion
[61]. Tomlin [62] describes cartographic modeling as a general
methodology for the analysis and synthesis of geographical data, At the first level Impact Indicators and Contamination Risk
and defines it as the use of the basic GIS operations in a logical Indices for variables were identified, classified and quantified. Each
sequence to resolve complex spatial problems. The phases of our variable and Impact Indicator were modeled, and a cartograph for
model correspond to the levels defined in the hierarchical structure each one was generated. Fig. 3 shows an example of Impact Indica-
of the decision problem: tors D1 (Soil use) and D2 (Vegetation type) for the environmental
component soil in the area studied. Both have values between 1 and
1. Cartographs of the Contamination Risk Index (CRIj ). Each localiza- 5, and at the landfill site, their respective values are low.
tion variable is modeled and reclassified, and subsequently, each Fig. 3 shows too an example of the cartograph of the Contami-
Wj is measured using map calculator algorithms [62] and the nation Risk Index in the case of the variables erosion and distance
product operator. Each landfill localization variable generates a to population points in the area. Both have values between 2 and
cartograph for each impact on the environmental components. 10, and at the landfill site their respective values are low. A similar
The value for the Contamination Risk Index is indicated on each cartograph was generated for the rest of the Impact Indicators and
pixel. variables.
2. Cartographs of the Impact Indicators (Ai , Bi , Ci , Di ). Each Impact At the second level Environmental Values and Probability of
Indicator is modeled to generate a cartograph for each one. Contamination Indicators for each environmental component were
3. Cartographs of the Probability of Contamination Indicators (Pbci ). calculated, taking into account results from level 1. Some maps
Results are grouped by using arithmetic superposition to obtain were obtained for the other environmental components. In this case
cartographs of the Probability of Contamination Indicators, with Environmental Values in the area studied obtained values between
one image for each environmental component. 1–3, 1–4, 4–5 and 1–4 for surface water, ground water, atmosphere
4. Cartographs of Environmental Values (eVi ). The values obtained to and soil, respectively. Human health always has a maximum Envi-
quantify the Impact Indicators are used to calculate the Environ- ronmental Value. The landfill site shows very low values for surface
mental Value (eV) for each environmental component by means water, groundwater and soil (eV = 1), whereas it has very high val-
of arithmetic superposition of the Impact Indicators. A carto- ues for atmosphere and human health (eV = 5). Atmosphere has a
graph for each environmental element is then generated. maximum value because the landfill is located far away from cities
5. Cartographs of the Environmental Risk Index (ERIi ). The product of and industrial areas. As a result, the air quality at the site before
the values of the Probability of Contamination Indicators and the the existence of a landfill was very high. Low values for this index

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 3. Cartograph of impact indicators D1 (Soil use) and D2 (Vegetation type) and Contamination Risk Index for variables erosion and distance to population centers in the
studied area. Circles indicates landfill site.

indicate environmental characteristics of lesser importance at the water and ground water in the area. A similar cartograph was
location that should be protected from the negative impact of land- obtained for the rest of the components. In this case the Prob-
fill emissions. ability of Contamination Indicator in the area obtained values
The Probability of Contamination Indicator for the environ- between 0.13–0.68, 0.16–0.41, 0.6, 0.2–0.6 and 0.35–0.85 for surface
mental components reflects the greater or lesser possibility of water, ground water, atmosphere, soil, and human health, respec-
environmental impact, and takes into account a wide range of fac- tively. The landfill site has an index of Improbable for ground water
tors, not only those that contribute to interactions between the (Pbc = 0.19) and Seldom probable for surface water (Pbc = 0.32),
landfill and environmental components. Fig. 4 shows the Proba- soil (Pbc = 0.2) and human health (Pbc = 0.35). The environmental
bility of Contamination for the environmental components surface component atmosphere shows a rather higher value, and is thus

Fig. 4. Cartograph of Probability of Contamination Indicator for surface water and ground water and Environmental Risk Index for ground water and soil in the studied area.
Circles indicates landfill site.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Based on the results obtained in our study as well as the sen-

sitivity analysis carried out, we can conclude that Geographical
Information Systems are a useful tool for the optimal siting of land-
fills. Our study shows that this instrument has the potential to assist
planners, decision-makers and other agents involved in the process
of selecting suitable sites for municipal landfills since it increases
their knowledge of the physical terrain, thus facilitating the analysis
and implementation of action plans.
Although atmosphere was the environmental component that
was most affected, the results obtained show that the landfill eval-
uated in our study is operating at a site with low index values, and
thus is a generally suitable location for this purpose.

Acknowledgement

This research is a part of an R + D Project funded by the Spanish

Ministry of Science and Technology titled Design and implementa-
Fig. 5. Cartograph of Landfill Suitability Index in the area. Circle indicates landfill
tion of methodologies for the environmental diagnosis of urban waste
site.
landfills and waste dumps.

classified as Probable (Pbc = 0.6). These results indicate that the

landfill site does not have characteristics which might contribute References
to the contamination of the different environmental components,
[1] M.Z. Siddiqui, Landfill siting using Geographic Information Systmes: a demon-
except in reference to atmosphere. In this case, the landfill could stration, Journal of Environmental Engineering 122 (6) (1996) 515–523.
have an impact, influenced by high rainfall, seismic risk in the area, [2] S. Leao, I. Bishop, D. Evans, Spatial–temporal model for demand and allocation
and wind characteristics. of waste landfills in growing urban regions, Computers, Environmental and
Urban Systems 28 (2004) 353–385.
The third level generates the Environmental Risk Index for each [3] Th. D. Kontos, D.P. Komilis, C.P. Halvadakis, Siting MSW landfills in Lesvos Island
environmental component with a view to discovering which was with a GIS-based methodology, Waste Management and Research 21 (3) (2003)
most affected by the presence of the landfill. Fig. 4 shows too a 262–327.
[4] H.-Y. Lin, J.-J. Kado, A vector-based spatial model for landfill siting, Journal of
cartograph of the index for the environmental components, ground Hazardous Materials 58 (1998) 3–14.
water and soil. Similar maps were obtained for the rest of the envi- [5] K. Vaillancourt, P.-P. Waaub, Environmental site evaluation of waste man-
ronmental components. The index values for the area are 0.13–2.04, agement facilities embedded into EUGÈNE model: a multicriteria approach,
European Journal of Operation Research 139 (2002) 436–448.
0.16–1.64, 2.40–3, 0.2–2 and 1.75–4.25 for surface water, ground [6] J.-J. Kao, Multifactor spatial analysis for landfill siting, Journal of Environmental
water, atmosphere, soil, and human health, respectively. The land- Engineering 122 (10) (1996) 902–908.
fill at the site obtained values, which are very low for surface water [7] T.D. Kontos, D.P. Komilis, C.P. Halvadakis, Siting MSW landfills with a spa-
tial multiple criteria analysis methodology, Waste Management 25 (2005)
(ERI = 0.32), groundwater (ERI = 0.19) and soil (ERI = 0.2). The index
818–832.
is also low for human health (ERI = 1.5), whereas it is very high for [8] O. Al-Jarrah, H. Abu-Qdais, Municipal solid waste landfill siting using intelligent
atmosphere (ERI = 3). The Environmental Risk Index for the landfill system, Waste Management 26 (3) (2006) 299–306.
[9] K. Charnpratheep, Q. Zhou, B. Garner, Preliminary landfill site screening using
site indicates that the environmental risk for all the components,
fuzzy geographical information systems, Waste Management and Research 15
except atmosphere, is not important. This signifies that the landfill (2) (1997) 197–215.
site is suitable except for this environmental component. In this [10] F. Calvo, B. Moreno, M. Zamorano, M. Szanto, Environmental diagnosis method-
case the high quality of the air and the high Probability of Con- ology for municipal waste landfills, Waste Management 25 (2005) 768–779.
[11] A. Paolini, A. Ramos, M. Zamorano, Environmental diagnosis and planning
tamination Indicators because of rainfall, wind and seismic risk actions for municipal waste landfills in Estado Lara (Venezuela), Renewable
contribute to a higher risk of contamination for this specific com- and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12 (3) (2008) 752–771.
ponent. [12] F. Calvo, B. Moreno, A. Ramos, M. Zamorano, Implementation of a new environ-
mental impact assessment for municipal waste landfills as tool for planning
Finally, the application of this methodology resulted in a Landfill and decision-making process, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11
Suitability Index, which reflects the overall environmental impact (1) (2007) 98–115.
of a landfill. Fig. 5 shows the index values obtained for the area [13] I.L. McHarg, Design with Nature, The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY,
1969.
studied. For example, locations that were far away from surface [14] R. Church, Geographical information systems and location science, Computers
and ground water, infrastructures or population centers obtained & Operations Research 29 (6) (2002) 541–562.
a lower index. Consequently, they are regarded as suitable loca- [15] J.R. Jensen, E.J. Christensen, Solid and hazardous waste disposal site selection
using digital geographic information system techniques, The Science of the
tions for municipal waste landfills. The values of this index in the
Total Environment 56 (1986) 265–276.
area were between 11.2 and 5.2. The landfill at the site is in a place [16] D. Fatta, P. Saravanos, M. Loizidou, Industrial waste facility site selection using
with an Index of 5.21, which is considered high to very high on the geographical information system techniques, International Journal of Environ-
mental Studies 56 (1) (1998) 1–14.
previously described scale.
[17] M. Michaels, GIS expected to make landfill siting easier, Geographical Informa-
tion Systems (February) (1991) 30–35.
6. Conclusions [18] J.J. Kao, W.Y. Chen, H.Y. Lin, S.-J. Guo, Network expert geographic information
system for landfill siting, Journal of Computer in Civil Engineering 10 (4) (1996)
307–317.
The method described in this article has been shown to be valid [19] K. Yoon, C.L. Hwang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: an Introduction, Sage
for the analysis of landfill sites. It generates indices that give infor- Publications Inc., London, UK, 1995.
[20] M. Zeleny, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA,
mation regarding site suitability, and which take into account only
1982.
the environmental characteristics of the location. The final suitabil- [21] P. Antunes, R. Santos, L. Jordao, The application of Geographical Informa-
ity index not only provides information about the optimality of the tion Systems to determine environmental impact significance, Environmental
location, but also about potential problems that can affect one or Impact Assessment Review 21 (2001) 511–535.
[22] U. Sarkar, S.E. Hobbs, P. Longhurst, Dispersion of odour. a case study with a
more environmental components. This data is fundamental for any municipal solid waste landfill site in North London, United Kingdom, Journal
decision about whether or not to locate a landfill at a particular site. of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 153–160.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
G Model
HAZMAT-8016; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Zamorano et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 9

[23] S.A. Geschwind, J.A. Stolwijk, M. Bracken, E. Fitzgerald, A. Stark, C. Olsen, [44] M. Zamorano, E. Garrido, B. Moreno, A. Paolini, A. Ramos, Environmental
J. Melius, Risk of congenital malformations associated with proximity to diagnosis methodology for municipal waste landfill as tool for planning and
hazardous waste sites, American Journal of Epidemiology 135 (11) (1992) decision-making process, Sustainable Development and Planning 1 (2005)
1197–1207. 545–554.
[24] I.A. Leone, F.B. Flower, J.J. Arthur, E.F. Gilman, Damage to woody species by [45] S. Foster, Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution, risk and
anaerobic landfill gases, Journal of Arboriculture 3 (1979) 221–225. protection strategy, TNO Commun. Hydrog. Res. Proceed. Inform. 38 (1987)
[25] M. El-Fadel, A.N. Findikakis, J.O. Leckie, Environmental impacts of solid waste 69–86.
landfilling, Journal of Environmental Management 50 (1997) 1–25. [46] L. Aller, T. Bennet, J. Lehr, R. Petty, G. Hackett, DRASTIC: a standardized system
[26] Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, Official for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings,
Journal of the European Communities L 182, 16 July 1999, 0001–0019. Oklahoma, U.S. EPA/600/2-87-036, 1987, pp. 1–455.
[27] C. Zeiss, Analytical framework for waste-facility siting, Journal of Urban Plan- [47] N. Doerfliger, F. Zwahlen, EPIK: a new method for outlining of protection areas
ning and Development 121 (4) (1995) 115–145. in karstic environment, in: Gunay, Jonshon (Eds.), Int. Symp. on Karst Waters
[28] G.F. Lee, R.A. Jones, Landfills and ground-water quality, Ground Water 29 (4) and Environ. Impacts Natalia, Turkey, Balkema, Rótterdam, 1997, pp. 117–
(1991) 482–486. 123.
[29] Y. Abu-Rukah, O. Al-Kofahi, The assessment of the effect of landfill leachate on [48] M. Auge, Vulnerabilidad de acuı́feros, Revista Latino-americana de Hidroge-
ground-water quality-a case study. El-Akader landfill site-north Jordan, Journal ologı́a 4 (2004) 85–103.
of Arid Environments 49 (2001) 615–630. [49] A. Donnelly, M. Jones, T. O’Mahony, G. Byrne, Selecting environmental indi-
[30] M. Nevenka, C. Bozena, A. Marijan, A. Svjetlana, T. Zdenkan, Assessment of cator for use in strategic environmental assessment, Environmental Impact
groundwater contamination in the vicinity of a municipal solid waste landfill Assessment Review 27 (2007) 161–175.
(Zagreb, Croatia), Water Science and Technology 37 (8) (1998) 37–44. [50] V.A. Cloquell-Ballester, R. Monterde-Diaz, M.C. Santamarina-Siurana, Indicators
[31] M. Davies, D. Cornwell, Introduction to Environmental Engineering, McGraw validation for the improvement of environmental and social impact quanti-
Hill Higher Education, 1998. tative assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 79–
[32] BOE (Official Bulletin of Spain) n◦ 292, 7 December 1961. Decreto 2414/1961, de 105.
30 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de actividades molestas, [51] Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
insalubres, nocivas y peligrosas. [Decree 2414/1961, 30th November: approval Community action in the field of water policy, Official Journal of the European
of Regulation governing hazardous, unsanitary, harmful and dangerous activi- Communities, L 327, 22 December 2000, 0001–0073.
ties]. [52] BOE (Official Bulletin of Spain) n◦ 209, 31 August 1988. Real Decreto 927/88, de
[33] G. Kallergis, Applied Hydrogeology, Second ed., vol. 2, Technical Chamer of 29 de Julio, por el que se aprueba el reglamento de la Administración Pública
Greece, Athens, Greece, 2001. del Agua y de la Planificación Hidrológica.[Decree 927/88, 29th June: approval
[34] M. Barcelona, J. Keely, W. Pettyjohn, Contamination of Ground Water, Noyes of the national Water Administration and Supply Law].
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, USA, 1990. [53] R.F. Noss, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach, Con-
[35] R. Stegmann, Landfill emissions and environmental impact: an introduction, servation Biology 4 (1990) 355–364.
Curso superior sobre gestión y diseño de vertederos, Club Español de Residuos, [54] J.M. Gil-Sánchez, J. Alba-Tercedor, Ecology of the native and introduced cray-
Madrid, Spain (2000) 4–13. fishes Austropotamobius pallipes and Procambarus clarkii in southern Spain and
[36] A. Christine, K. Brent, J. Steven, Environmental justice and toxic exposure: implications for conservation of the native species, Biological Conservation 105
Toward a spatial model of physical health and psychological well-being, Social (1) (2002) 75–80.
Science Research 36 (1) (2007) 48–67. [55] J. Alba-Tercedor, O. Sánchez, Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad
[37] Y. Hong, S. Pan, Q. Shoa, F. Liu, Y. Duo, A study to define a standard health protec- biológica de las aguas corrientes basada en el de Hellawell, Limnética 4 (1988)
tion zone for sanitary landfill in Fu Shan city, Waste Management & Research 51–56.
14 (1996) 505–510. [56] S.-C. Park, S.-T. Yun, G.-T. Chae, I.-S. Yoo, K.-S. Shin, C.-H. Heo, S.-K. Lee, Regional
[38] EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Title 40 Subchapter I-Solid waste, 258 hydrochemical study on salinization of coastal aquifers, western coastal area
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, USA, 2000. of South Korea, Journal of Hydrology 313 (3–4) (2005) 182–194.
[39] J. Tränkler, C. Visvanathan, P. Kuruparan, O. Tubtimthai, Influence of tropical [57] A.G. Triantafyllou, V. Evagelopoulos, S. Zoras, Design of a web-based infor-
seasonal variations on landfill leachate characteristics. Results from lysimeter mation system for ambient environmental data, Journal of Environmental
studies, Waste Management 25 (2005) 1013–1020. Management 80 (3) (2006) 230–236.
[40] A.F. Al-Yaqout, M.F. Hamoda, Evaluation of landfill leachate in arid climate. A [58] http://www.nrm.gov.au/monitoring/frameworks.html.
case study, Environment International 29 (2003) 593–600. [59] R. Margalef, Ecologı́a, Omega, Barcelona, 1974.
[41] H.J. Ehrig, Quality and quantity of sanitary landfill leachate, Waste Management [60] J. Bosque, Sistemas de información geográfica. [Geographical Information Sys-
and Research 1 (1) (1983) 53–68. tems.], Rialp, Madrid, 1997.
[42] S. Karnchanawong, T. Ickeguchi, S. Koottatep, Characteristics of leachate pro- [61] J.I. Barredo, M. Gómez, Sistemas de Información Geográfica y Evaluación Mul-
duced from simulated landfill in tropical countries, Water Science Technology ticriterio en la Ordenación del Territorio. [Geographical Information systems
31 (9) (1994) 119–127. and multicriteria evaluation in the organization of territory] Ed. Ra-Ma. Madrid,
[43] F.A. Al-Yaqout, P.A. Koushki, M.F. Hamoda, Public opinion and siting solid 2005.
waste landfills in Kuwait, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 35 (4) (2002) [62] D. Tomlin, Cartographic modelling, in: D. Maguire, M. Goodchild, D. Rhind
215–227. (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems, vol. 1, Longman, New York, 1991.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Zamorano, et al., Evaluation of a municipal landfill site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology, J.
Hazard. Mater. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.023
View publication stats