4.6 Article

GIS-based assessment of combined AHP and SAW methods for selecting suitable sites for landfill in Al-Musayiab Qadhaa, Babylon, Iraq

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
Volume 76, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-017-6524-x

Keywords

Landfill; Al-Musayiab Qadhaa; AHP; SAW; Combine maps assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Selecting a landfill site is a difficult task because the process depends on many factors and restrictions. Landfill is an optimal solution for the disposal of solid waste in Al-Musayiab Qadhaa, which is located in the northern part of Babylon Governorate. At the moment, there is no landfill site in that area that follows the scientific selection site criteria. For this reason, in this research, fifteen variables were considered (groundwater depth, rivers, soil types; agriculture lands use, land use, elevation, slope, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, power lines, roads, railways, urban centers, villages and archeological sites) using geographic information system (GIS) to find out the best suitable landfill site. In addition, two methods of multicriteria decision- making were used to derive weights for criterion's maps on GIS to obtain potential landfill sites. The first method is analytical hierarchy process (AHP) which was used to identify the weight for each criterion from the matrix of pairwise comparisons. The second method was the simple additive weighting (SAW) which is a simple method to solve the problem of the selection landfill sites. After comparison of the results obtained based on combining two final maps resulted from methods of AHP and SAW using GIS environment to determine the pixels percentage of matching and non-matching for two maps, two suitable candidate landfill sites were identified that satisfy the requirements with an area of 7.965-5.952 km(2) . Area of these sites can accommodate the solid waste generated from the Qadhaa up to 2030.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available