4.7 Article

Suitability analysis for siting MSW landfills and its multicriteria spatial decision support system: Method, implementation and case study

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 1190-1206

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.030

关键词

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Geographical information systems (GIS); Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills; Site selection; Compromise programming methods; MC-SDSS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multicriteria spatial decision support systems (MC-SDSS) have emerged as an integration of geographical information systems (GIS) and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods for incorporating conflicting objectives and decision makers' (DMs') preferences into spatial decision models. This article presents a raster-based MC-SDSS that combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and compromise programming methods, such as TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution) and Ideal Point Methods. To the best of our knowledge it is the first time that a synergy of AHP and compromise programming methods is implemented in raster-driven GIS-based landfill suitability analysis. This procedure is supported by a spatial decision support system (SDSS) that was developed within a widely used commercial GIS software package. A real case study in the Thrace region in northeast Greece serves as a guide on how to conduct a suitability analysis for a MSW landfill site with the proposed MC-SDSS. Moreover, the procedure for identifying MSW disposal sites is accomplished by performing four computational models for synthesizing the DMs per criterion preferential system. Based on the case study results, a comparison analysis is performed according to suitability index estimations. According to them Euclidean distance metric and TOPSIS present strong similarities. When compared with Euclidean distance metric, TOPSIS seems to generate results closer to that derived by Manhattan distance metric. The comparison of Chebychev distance metric with all the other approaches revealed the greatest deviations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据