GIS and the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Regional Landfill SiteSelection in Transitional Countries: A Case Study From Serbia

Tamara Zelenovic Vasiljevic • Zorica Srdjevic •

Ratko Bajcetic • Mirjana Vojinovic Miloradov

Received: 24 March 2011 / Accepted: 6 November 2011 / Published online: 2 December 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The Serbian National Waste Management

Strategy for the Period 2010–2019, harmonized with the

European Union Directives, mandates new and very strict

requirements for landfill sites. To enable analysis of a

number of required qualitative and quantitative factors for

landfill site selection, the traditional method of site selec-

tion must be replaced with a new approach. The combi-

nation of GIS and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

was selected to solve this complex problem. The Srem

region in northern Serbia, being one of the most environ-

mentally sensitive areas, was chosen as a case study.

Seventeen factors selected as criteria/sub-criteria were

recognized as most important, divided into geo-natural,

environmental, social and techno-economic factors, and

were evaluated by experts from different fields using an

AHP extension in Arc GIS. Weighted spatial layers were

combined into a landfill suitability map which was then

overlapped with four restriction maps, resulting in a final

suitability map. According to the results, 82.65% of the

territory of Srem is unsuitable for regional landfill siting.

The most suitable areas cover 9.14%, suitable areas 5.24%,

while areas with low and very low suitability cover 2.21

and 0.76% of the territory, respectively. Based on these

findings, five sites close to two large urban agglomerations

were suggested as possible locations for a regional landfill

site in Srem. However, the final decision will require fur-

ther field investigation, a public acceptance survey, and

consideration of ownership status and price of the land.

Keywords Regional landfill siting � Analytic hierarchy

process � Geographic information system � Criterion �Restriction � Dual factors

Introduction

The process of waste management consists of collection,

transport, processing, recycling or disposing of waste, and

monitoring of waste material. One of the most delicate

steps in waste management is the selection of the most

suitable landfill site, as multiple factors have to be con-

sidered and there is no universal formula. The major

problem is that in addition to natural, environmental and

economic factors, complex political and social issues often

influence the selection process.

Proper waste management improves the resource effi-

ciency, and thus plays a key role in the sustainable eco-

nomic development. In the 27 EU countries (EU27), in

particular, public awareness of benefits in terms of climate

change that can be achieved by reuse and recycling of

waste is growing. Specifically, reuse and recycling are an

Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9792-3) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

T. Zelenovic Vasiljevic (&)

Public Enterprise Urban and Spatial Planning Institute

of Vojvodina, Zeleznicka 6/III, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

e-mail: ducklingster@gmail.com

Z. Srdjevic

Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Water Management,

University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad,

Serbia

R. Bajcetic

Vode Vojvodine Public Water Management Company,

Bul. Mihajla Pupina 25, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

M. Vojinovic Miloradov

Faculty of Technical Science, Department for Environmental

Engineering, University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovica 6,

21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

123

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

DOI 10.1007/s00267-011-9792-3

integral part of reducing carbon emissions and minimizing

the impact on climate change.

As a result of 30 years of ongoing processes in the trends

of waste management and awareness of the importance of

reducing the impact waste has on the environment and

public health, the Waste Framework Directive (WFD-2008/

98/EC) was developed in Europe to address impacts of waste

on the environment and public health. WFD includes targets

for the EU Member States to recycle 50% of their municipal

waste and 70% of construction waste by 2020. Also, as a

direct consequence of these actions and the fact that the

Council Directive 99/31 /EC of 26 April 1999 on the land-

fills of waste (EU Landfill Directive) requires Member

States to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste they

landfill, thousands of sanitary and non-sanitary landfills and

dumps across Europe were closed and the amount of

municipal waste placed in landfills in the EU was reduced by

more than 20% over the past 15 years. Nevertheless, while

the EU Member States landfill only a small proportion of

their waste to landfills and the rest is recycled or incinerated,

land filling is still the most common form of municipal solid

waste disposal in less economically developed European

countries. Waste management legislation in Europe differs

from country to country; however, basic principles and

restrictions are in accordance with the WFD, EU Landfill

Directive and other important EU legislation in the field of

waste management. In contrast to the European trends of

minimizing the amounts of waste disposed of in landfills,

land filling is still the most common way of waste disposal in

the USA (EPA 2006). This is because landfills are less

expensive and incineration tends to be favored over recy-

cling programs.

Due to the fact that over the last few years Serbia has been

on a clearly defined path towards integration into the

European Union as a direct result of a positive political

climate, the national legislation has gone through significant

changes. A series of strategies, laws and regulations, par-

ticularly in the field of spatial planning and environmental

protection have been harmonized with European Union

Directives. As a result, exact terms and deadlines for

addressing the serious environmental problem of waste

disposal have been defined for the first time in Serbia (the

Serbian National Waste Management Strategy for the Period

2010–2019, referred to as the Strategy in further text).

Most of the municipal and other solid and liquid waste

in Serbia is disposed of in municipal landfills or dumps

which often do not meet basic sanitary and hygienic criteria

and pose a considerable environmental and public health

risk. As a remediation measure, the Strategy proposed an

optimal regional landfill network consisting of twenty six

sites in Serbia.

Also, new, strict requirements for landfill siting must be

incorporated into site selection and evaluation processes.

According to EU Landfill Directive and the National

Regulation on Waste Disposal in Landfills (Regulation on

Waste Disposal), factors that have a considerable influence

on landfill siting are geo-natural factors, especially the

litho-structural and the depth of the underground water

table. Environmental factors must be considered because

biophysical environment and the ecology of the surround-

ing area may be affected by the landfill (Siddiqui and

others 1996). Social factors include not only aspect and

distance from settlements but also public opposition. The

‘‘not in my back yard’’ and ‘‘not in anyone’s back yard’’

phenomena are widespread, creating a tremendous pressure

on the decision-makers involved in the selection of a

suitable landfill site. Finally, techno-economic factors play

a significant role when arriving at a final decision because

potential site infrastructural facilities, seismic characteris-

tics of the site and land ownership all are of crucial

importance.

Factors that are relevant in the process of landfill siting

can be qualitative and quantitative and the traditional way

of making a decision on landfill siting in Serbia cannot

readily incorporate both into analysis. Thus, a new

approach is necessary in order to reach a decision that will

be in accordance with the both the Strategy and EU

Directives. As Higgs (2006) points out, locating waste

facilities can lead to major public concerns especially in

relation to public health, environmental and economic

consideration, and this is equally true in Serbia.

According to Chang and others (2008) landfill site

selection is often a difficult and complex process that

requires many different criteria, as well as large volumes of

biophysical, environmental, and sociopolitical data (Basnet

and others 2001). ‘‘It is evident that many factors must be

incorporated into landfill siting decisions, and geographic

information systems (GIS) are ideal for preliminary studies

due to the capacity to manage large volumes of spatial data

from a variety of sources’’ (Sener and others 2006). GIS

can facilitate spatial decision-making and planning pro-

cesses as it allows entering, storing, manipulating, ana-

lyzing and displaying large volumes of spatial data

(Congalton and Green 1992). However, even with the aid

of GIS, it can be difficult to include both expert and public

opinions (Boroushaki and Malczewski 2010). Public par-

ticipation principle is particularly relevant since the ratifi-

cation of the United Nations’ Aarhus Convention calling

for an increased transparency of decisions related to the

environment.

When the complexity of factors influencing the landfill

siting process is combined with the need to involve dif-

ferent stakeholders in the decision making process, often

there is a need to integrate multi-criteria techniques with

GIS. GIS and multi-criteria decision analyses complement

one another and allow building consensus and ensuring the

446 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123

sustainability of decision alternatives (Boroushaki and

Malczewski 2010). ‘‘At the most rudimentary level, a GIS-

based multi-criteria decision analysis is a procedure that

converts and combines geographical data and decision-

makers’ preferences in order to obtain useful information

for decision-making ‘‘(Eastman and others 1995; Malcz-

werski 1999; Boroushaki and Malczewski 2010). Due to

this complementary aspect, multi-criteria analyses inte-

grated into GIS can provide proper manipulation and data

presentation with consistent ranking based on a variety of

factors that could influence the analyses.

A number of multi-criteria evaluation techniques have

been used in the landfill siting processes in the past. For

example, Higgs (2006) investigated the integration of

multi-criteria techniques with GIS in waste facility location

to enhance public participation through the expertise in

existing literature. Sener and others (2006) integrated GIS

and multi-criteria decision analyses to solve the landfill site

selection issue and developed a detailed ranking of

potential landfill sites in accordance with the selected cri-

teria. Also, Ersoy and Bulut (2009) reported the potential

integration of multi-criteria decision analyses-based

methodology for landfill site selection in a growing urban

region based on the example of Trabzon City, Turkey. Nas

and others (2010) reported their case study of the selection

of MSW landfill site for Konza, Turkey using GIS and

multi-criteria evaluation. Banar and others (2007) devel-

oped a decision-making procedure based on the analytic

network process and legal restrictions that can be used by

public sector decision makers to locate obnoxious facilities.

In another example, a landfill siting process in the

Lower Rio Grande Valley (Texas, USA) was performed by

Chang and others (2008) by combining GIS and fuzzy

multi-criteria decision-making. The fuzzy multi-criteria

decision analyses were performed alongside a geospatial

analysis for the selection of landfill sites and sensitivity

analyses were carried out using a Monte Carlo simulation.

Despite the 20% variation in the decision weights, the final

decision remained the same. Furthermore, in China, Xi and

others (2010) applied fuzzy multi-criteria decision analyses

model for analyzing the optimal solutions among the

available alternatives for waste management in Beijing.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP, introduced by

Saaty (1980)) is an analytical tool that enables researchers

to explicitly rank tangible and intangible criteria against

each other for the purpose of selecting priorities (Chang

and others 2008). The AHP as a multi-objective, multi-

criteria decision-making approach uses a pair-wise criteria

comparison to arrive at a scale of preferences among sets of

alternatives (Saaty and Vargas 1991; Marinoni 2004), and

has been widely used in the landfill siting process. The

AHP has many advantages for the analysis of management

problems, such as the ability to be used in subjective

weighing of attributes, while reducing inconsistency of

judgment (Saaty 2000), as well as for developing impor-

tance structures between criteria and/or potential policy

(Mardle and others 2004). According to Sener and others

(2010b), the integration of GIS and the AHP can be a

powerful tool to solve the landfill site selection problem

(Basagaoglu and others 1997; Allen and others 2003; Sener

B. and others 2006). A review of literature reveals

numerous successful applications of GIS and AHP in the

landfill site selection process (Siddiqui and others 1996;

Sener and others 2006; Guiqin and others 2009; Sener and

others 2010a, b; Nas and others 2010).

As a case study, we have selected the Srem region sit-

uated in northern Serbia, environmentally one of the most

sensitive areas in the country. Srem has several designated

international and national protected areas, and is rich in

natural resources and including fragile water ecosystems,

regional aquifers that should be managed for future use,

large areas covered by forests, a wide variety of geological

formations, and so on.

Seventeen factors that play an important role in select-

ing a regional landfill site were identified, and according to

their nature and role in the decision making process, factors

were treated as criteria, restrictions and dual factors (cri-

terion and restriction). Since Saaty (1980) suggested that

the number of elements compared must be small, i.e. seven

plus or minus two, all identified factors were clustered into

four major factor groups: geo-natural, environmental,

social and techno-economic factor groups as follows:

• Geomorphology, litho-structural and depth of under-

ground water table (geo-natural factors group);

• Surface waters, land use and protected areas (environ-

mental factors group);

• Aspect, settlements and recreational sites, and cultural

heritage sites (social factors group); and

• Slope, traffic infrastructure, airports, nonferrous exploi-

tation fields (sub-criteria: thermo-mineral wells and

nonferrous materials), energy infrastructure (sub-crite-

ria: electric transmission lines and gas pipelines),

seismology and state border (techno-economic factor

group).

The AHP extension for Arc GIS ext_ahp.dll developed

by Marinoni (2009) was used to evaluate criteria, to

determine weights and to create a suitability map. The

suitability map obtained by GIS and AHP was then com-

bined with pre-defined restrictions to form five classes final

suitability map (most suitable areas for regional landfill

siting, suitable areas, areas with low suitability, very low

suitability areas, and unsuitable areas). Five potentially

suitable zones in Srem were identified for further research.

The primary objective of this study was to establish a

transferable, regional landfill siting framework that could

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458 447

123

be applied more broadly to areas with similar geo-natural

conditions across the European Union. This transferable

framework would provide a relatively uniform GIS based

model for landfill site selection under conditions where

regional and local waste management plans indicate that

landfilling is the best available option for waste disposal.

Material and Methods

Study Area

The Strategy defined a planned network of 26 regional

waste management centers with regional landfills in the

Republic of Serbia. One of the regional landfill is to be

located in the Srem region, situated in the northern part of

Serbia, well known for arable land and therefore land

suitable for agricultural production (Fig. 1).

Srem covers an area of 3,541 km2 and is administra-

tively divided into eight municipalities: Indija, Sremska

Mitrovica, Irig, Ruma, Sremski Karlovci, Sid, Stara Pazova

and Pecinci, with one city and 106 settlements. The pop-

ulation in 2009 was ca. 350 thousand, according to the

information given in the 2002 census. As a result of pro-

cesses of depopulation, the population of this area is pro-

jected to decrease to 320 thousand by 2020.

Based on the Strategy estimates, the amount of waste in

2009 was nearly 105 thousand metric tons and is projected

to reach almost 150 thousand metric tons in 2020. The

solid waste capacity of the proposed regional landfill has

been estimated at 1,769,820 m3 which would require an

area of approximately 0,18 km2.

Siting Methodology

The methodology flowchart of selecting the most suitable

landfill site in the Srem region is presented in Fig. 2.

Landfill siting in this study was done using Arc GIS

9.3.1 with the AHP extension for Arc GIS ext_ahp.dll

(Marinoni 2009). The AHP approach included five general

steps described below.

Although several multi-criteria analyses could have

been used for the evaluation of the final suitability index, in

this study the AHP method was introduced to the key

stakeholders in the landfill site selection process as an

appropriate method for solving this complex multi-criteria

problem in the Srem region. Multi-criteria evaluation was

used for its capability to simultaneously evaluate a number

of possible choices in the siting process, while taking into

account various relevant criteria, as well as frequently

Fig. 1 Map of the Republic of Serbia and the position of Srem region

Fig. 2 Methodology flowchart (G1–4 geo-natural factors, E1–3

environmental factors, S1–2 social factors, T1–6 techno-economic

factors, G geo-natural factor group, E environmental factor group,

S social factor group, T techno-economic factor group, ep1–2

environmental-protected areas sub-criteria, tt1–2 techno-economic—

traffic infrastructure sub criteria (road and railway network, and

airports), tp1,2 techno-economic—energy infrastructure sub-criteria

(electrical transmission lines and gas pipelines)

c

448 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458 449

123

conflicting objectives. AHP was chosen for the present

because it allowed for collaborative decision-making

where each member of the group could add expert opinion

and experience to break down each step into a hierarchy.

The first step in the AHP methodology is to break down

the decision problem into a hierarchy, i.e., to define a goal

and identify criteria and sub-criteria relevant for landfill

site selection in the Srem region. Reclassified spatial layers

with defined ratings of alternatives (from very low suit-

ability to the most suitable) were assigned to each sub-

criterion and criterion.

In the second step, the key stakeholders in the landfill

site selection process were identified, such as local and

regional governments, technical experts and local com-

munities. A series of town hall meetings and public hear-

ings with stakeholders and experts were held to determine

the significance of criteria important for the planned waste

disposal site. Reaching the consensus was complex due to

the involvement of politicians and citizens, and a prevalent

‘‘not in my back yard’’ attitude towards an undesirable land

use such as a landfill site. During long discussions, tech-

nical experts in various relevant fields (geology, hydrology,

economy, traffic, civil and environmental engineering)

were briefly introduced to the basics of AHP and the nine

point Saaty’s scale (Table 1). AHP was introduced as the

most appropriate method because it allowed partitioning

the problem, and focusing on smaller decision sets one at

the time. Experts then evaluated pairs of the chosen sub-

criteria, then criteria and finally the factor groups regarding

the element in the upper level of the hierarchy.

The derived experts’ rankings were used to create com-

parison matrices at different hierarchical levels (Fig. 2). The

pair-wise comparisons of selected criteria were organized in a

square matrix, where the value of the diagonal elements of the

matrix is always 1. The principal eigenvalue and the corre-

sponding normalized right eigenvalue of the comparison

matrix gave the relative importance of the criteria. The AHP

then computed the weight coefficients for each spatial sub-

criteria, criteria and spatial factor groups relative to the

alternative.

In the next step, the rating of each alternative was

multiplied by the weights of the sub-criteria and aggregated

to determine the local ratings with respect to each criterion.

The local ratings were then multiplied by the weights of the

criteria and aggregated to determine local ratings with

respect to each factor group. Global ratings of the alter-

natives that define their final suitability level were obtained

by multiplying the weights of the factor group and appro-

priate alternatives local ratings. The Consistency Ratio

(CR) values of all comparisons were calculated by meth-

odology proposed by Saaty (1980).

In the fourth step, the AHP ? GIS suitability map was

created using seventeen input maps as decision factor layers.

All vector maps associated with the selected criteria and sub-

criteria were converted to a raster map with 50 9 50 m

resolution. Each raster was then reclassified for all criteria

and sub-criteria and values vi; ix; iy (i = 1, 2,.., n for each

criterion at cell (ix; iy)) were assigned to each new class by a

user. The above process was performed by overlay analyses

in GIS environment. The integration of the GIS and AHP was

performed by using AHP extension in Arc GIS.

The fifth and the final step of the AHP process was to

obtain a combined reclassified AHP ? GIS suitability map

with the restriction maps in order to obtain a final landfill

suitability map for the Srem region.

As previously mentioned, seventeen vector maps were

used in this study. CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless

vector data were downloaded from http://www.eea.europa.

eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-

seamless-vector-database. Surface water data were obtained

from the spatial data base of the Vode Vojvodine Public

Water Management Company in Arc GIS. The lineaments

map obtained from Faculty of Mining and Geology was

prepared using satellite images, field trips and remote

sensing. Litho-structural, depth of ground water table, geo-

morphology, protected areas, cultural heritage, nonferrous

exploitation fields, road and railway network, airports,

electric transmission lines and gas pipelines were obtained

from the Urban and Spatial Institute of Vojvodina spatial

data base. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was used for the

calculation of aspect and slope.

Factors Influencing Landfill Siting

In the process of landfill site selection in Srem, seventeen

factors divided into three types according to the nature and

role in the decision making process: criteria, restrictions

and dual factors were identified as crucial. All factors were

clustered according to their domain of influence into geo-

Table 1 Saaty’s scale

Verbal terms Explanation Num.

values

Equally

important

Two elements have equal importance

regarding the element in higher level

1

Moderately more

important

Experience or judgment slightly

favors one element

3

Strongly more

important

Experience or judgment strongly

favors one element

5

Very strongly

more important

Dominance of one element proved

in practice

7

Extremely more

important

The highest order dominance

of one element over another

9

Intermediate

values

Compromise is needed 2, 4,

6, 8

450 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123

natural, environmental, social and techno-economic factors

(Fig. 2). Appropriate factors were identified by consulting

technical experts in the field of waste management, project

design processes, and construction. Due to the fact that the

requirements given in EU Directives as well as national

regulations had to be followed, all key requirements

defined in the EU Landfill Directive, the Serbian Law on

Waste Management (Law on Waste 2010), the Regulation

on Waste Disposal, were taken into consideration in the

factor identification and rating process.

Given the fact that some requirements, such as distances

from the boundary of the site to residential areas, waterways,

water bodies and other agricultural and urban areas, are not

precisely defined in the EU Landfill Directive, the Law on

Waste and the Regulation on Waste Disposal, the rules and

rating were adopted from the literature (Akbari and others

2008; Lee 2003; Ersoy and Bulut 2009; Chalkias and Sto-

urnaras 1997; Kontos and others 2005; Siddiqui and others

1996; Sener and others 2006; Chang and others 2008; Mahini

and Gholamalifard 2006; Guiqin and others 2009; Sener and

others 2010b, b; Nas and others 2010).

Each of the 17 criteria/sub-criteria were assigned a

different rating on the scale: 1 (unsuitable for landfill sit-

ing) to 7 (the most suitable for landfill siting) according to

legislation restrictions, experts’ experience and interna-

tional references (Table 2).

Results

Evaluation of Spatial Criteria by AHP to Obtain

Suitability Map

Application of the methodology previously described was

enabled by the AHP extension ext_ahp.dll installed in Arc

GIS. The result of the installation is a module that enables

inserting the spatial layered maps as a decision element at

certain hierarchical level, forming the performance matrix

and calculation of local weights of the decision elements at

that level. The pair-wise comparison matrices and

weighting coefficients of decision factors are given in the

Appendix as follows: Landfill suitability (A), Factor Group

(B1-B4), Criteria (C1-C14) and Sub-criteria (D1-D6),

weights (W) and Consistency ratio (CR). The module

automatically multiplies the resulting weight with the value

of each cell on the reclassified raster and aggregates cell

values for each sub-criterion, criterion and factor group to

obtain the final value for each cell.

The weights of all factor groups, criteria and sub-criteria

obtained after evaluation are summarized in Table 3.

Techno-economic factors were less important for the

landfill site selection process than were geo-natural and

environmental factors, and the significance of geo-natural

factors was greater than environmental factors (Table 3),

which is in accordance with the EU Directives and the

national legislation on waste management.

The CR values of all comparisons were calculated by

methodology proposed by Saaty (1980), and were lower

than 0.1, which indicated that the use of weights was

suitable (Eastman 2003).

The suitability map for the environmental criteria group

was derived following the five steps described for the AHP

method (Fig. 3). The same procedure was repeated for geo-

natural, social and techno-economic groups, as well as for

the AHP?GIS suitability maps (Fig. 5).

Final Suitability Map

In the present study, two types of exclusionary factors were

identified. The first type were factors with the restriction

character, which means that in the areas where they were

identified, landfill siting was unsuitable (Fig. 4 a–g), such as

lineaments (with a 1,000 m buffer zone), regional resources

for water supply (with a 2,000 m buffer zone), cultural her-

itage areas (with a 500 m buffer zone) and state borders (with

a 2,000 km buffer zone). The second type of exclusionary

factors consisted of dual factors that were both criteria and

restrictions for landfill siting. The following three dual fac-

tors were identified at the criteria level: protected areas (with

a 500 m buffer zone), surface waters (with a 1,000 m buffer

zone) and settlements (with a 500 m buffer zone).

Although restriction zones are typically excluded at the

start of research, the exclusion step in this study was car-

ried out at the end, after the AHP factor evaluation and

obtaining a suitability map to avoid possible failures in the

analyses process.

The final suitability map shows that more than 80% of

the Srem area was unsuitable for landfill siting (Fig. 5).

Out of the remaining area, 0.76% had very low suitability

for landfill siting, 2.21% had low suitability, 5.24% was

suitable and 9.14% was the most suitable. Areas of dif-

ferent suitability were concentrated into 12 potential

landfill zones (Fig. 6).

Since the best landfill location should be located close to

the waste source; two very important urban agglomerations

in Srem were identified: Indija-Stara Pazova and Sremska

Mitrovica-Ruma, (shown with circles on Fig. 6). As a final

recommendation, the potential regional landfill in the Srem

region should be located somewhere in zones 4, 7, 9, 10 or

11, and further research should focus on those areas.

Discussion and Conclusion

Siting landfills is a challenging component of the overall

process of waste management. This environmental problem

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458 451

123

Table 2 Landfill siting decision factors, ratings, references and input layers used in analyses

Decision factors Distance Rating References

Geo-natural factor group

Geomorphology criterion Eluvial, deluvio-proluvial,

colluvial, fluvial and krast

relief types

1 Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010)

Bottom of the fluvio-marshy

environment of the

Pannonian plain

4

Eolian relief type 7

Litho-structural criterion

(permeability of litho

logical types)

Gravels and sands 1

Loess, marl and fleece 4

Schistes without gneisses,

gneisses and serpentinite

7

Depth of the underground

water table criterion

Distance from underground

water table

\2 m 1 Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010),

Mahini and Gholamalifard (2006)2–5 m 4

[5 m 7

Lineaments restriction factor

(Fig. 4a)

\1000 m* 1 Lee (2003), Study of Geological Conditions

of Fruska Gora Mountain (2006)

Regional resource for water

supply restriction factor

(Fig. 4b)

\2000 m* 1 Kontos and others (2005), Water Resources

Development Master Plan of the Republic

of Serbia (2002), EPA (2006)

Environmental factor group

Protected areas dual

factor (Fig. 4c)

\500 m* 1 Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010)

500–1000 m 4

1000–2000 m 5

[2000 m 7

Land use criterion (CORINE

Land cover)

Non degraded artificial

surfaces, Forest and semi

natural areas, Wetlands

1 EPA (2006), CORINE Land

cover 2000 (2010)

Semi natural areas 4

Agricultural areas, Degraded

artificial surfaces

7

Surface waters dual factor

(Fig. 4d)

\500 m* 1 Law on Water (2010), Regulation on Waste

Disposal (2010), EU Landfill Directive

(1999), Kontos and others (2005), Nas and

others (2010), Dorhofer and Siebert (1998),

Sener and others (2010a), Mahini and

Gholamalifard (2006)

500–2000 m 4

[2000 m 7

Social factor group

Aspect criterion

(wind direction)

W 1 Kontos and others (2005), Meteorological

Yearbook-Climatologically data (2010)E, SE 3

SW, NE 4

S, N 7

Settlements dual factor

(Fig. 4e)

\500 m 1 EU Landfill Directive (1999), Regulation

on Waste Disposal (2010), Strategy (2010),

EPA (2006)500–1000 m 3

1000–2000 m 4

2000–25000 m 7

[25000 m 1

Cultural heritage restriction

factor (Fig. 4f)

\500 m 1 EPA (2006), Regulation on Waste

Disposal (2010)

452 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123

Table 2 continued

Decision factors Distance Rating References

Techno-economic factor group

Land slope criterion [20 1 Akbari and others (2008), Regulation

on Waste Disposal (2010)0–2, 10–20 4

2–10 7

Traffic infrastructure criterion

(proximity principal)

\500 m 1 Sener and others (2006), Nas and others

(2010), Strategy (2010)500–1000 m 4

1000-2000 m 7

[5000 m 1

Airports criterion \500 m 1 Siddiqui and others (1996), Chalkias and

Stournaras (1997), Ersoy and Bulut (2009),

Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010)500–1000 m 3

1000-3000 m 4

[3000 m 7

Nonferrous exploitation fields

criterion

\500 m 1

500–1500 m 4

[1500 m 7

\500 m 1

Energy infrastructure criterion

(electric transmission lines

and gas pipelines)

500–1500 m 4 Strategy (2010)

[1000–1500 m 7

[1500 m 1

[8� MSC 1

Seismic criterion 7–8� MSC 3

6–7� MSC 4

\6� MSC 7

State border restriction

factor (Fig. 4g)

\2000 m* 1

a Restrictions

Table 3 Weights of all decision factors

Factor group Weight Criteria Weight Sub criteria Weight

Landfill suitability (A)

Geo Natural (B1) 0.5523 Geomorphology (C1) 0.0719

Litho-structural (C2) 0.6491

Depth of underground water table (C3) 0.279

Environmental (B2) 0.2858 Protected areas (C4) 0.6158 National park, Special nature reserves (D1) 0.8333

Nature monuments (D2) 0.1667

Land use (C5) 0.066

Surface waters (C6) 0.3187

Social (B3) 0.0905 Aspect (C7) 0.1667

Settlement and visibility (C8) 0.8333

Techno-economic (B4) 0.0634 Land slope (C9) 0.2466

Traffic infrastructure (C10) 0.4478

Airports (C11) 0.0459

Nonferrous exploitation fields (C12) 0.0875 Nonferrous materials (D3) 0.8

Thermo mineral wells (D4) 0.2

Energy infrastructure (C13) 0.1434 Gas pipeline (D5) 0.25

Electric transmission line (D6) 0.75

Seismic (C14) 0.0288

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458 453

123

has attracted scientists with spatial tools and objective

decision making techniques, worldwide. Landfill siting is a

topic of high visibility to the general public. As a process

of controlling and supervising the interactions between

human societies and their impact on the environment, the

role of environmental management in the waste manage-

ment processes is evident and significant.

Due to the fact that Serbia has been a country in transition

for almost a decade, waste disposal has remained an unre-

solved problem. More than 70% of all solid and liquid wastes

in the Republic of Serbia are disposed of in open dumps. The

new Strategy defined exact terms and deadlines for solving

this serious environmental problem and a range of activities

are being carried out at an accelerated pace.

Fig. 3 Application of GIS and AHP to evaluation of environmental criteria

454 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123

The primary objective of this study was to establish a

transferable, regional landfill siting framework that could be

applied more broadly to areas with similar geo-natural con-

ditions across the European Union and, in particular, in

neighboring countries. The created landfill siting framework

would allow the use of a relatively uniform GIS based model

for landfill site selection under conditions where the regional

and local waste management plans show that land filling is the

best available option for waste disposal. Locally, the aim of

this research was to contribute to and to facilitate the decision-

making processes of finding the most suitable location for a

landfill in Serbia and to set new policy recommendations.

The previous legislative framework for landfill siting in

Serbia adopted in 1999 used to have stricter rules regarding

the distances from settlements, bodies of water, roads,

airports and other important infrastructure facilities.

However, the adoption of the new Regulation on Waste

Disposal, in accordance with the EU Landfill Directive,

brought new landfill siting rules that were more generalized

and provided project designers with more flexibility.

Additionally, relevant non-expert stakeholders were

involved in the decision-making process so as to incorpo-

rate basic environmental requirements into the process of

landfill siting.

The integration of the AHP into GIS combines decision

support methodology with powerful visualization and

mapping capabilities which in turn should considerably

facilitate the creation of land use suitability maps (Mari-

noni 2004). Therefore, the GIS ? AHP approach presented

in this study and applied for the first time in the landfill

siting process in Serbia, contributes to the sustainability of

the selection process.

The results of the research present the most suitable

areas for landfill siting in the Srem region, Serbia. Con-

sidering their significance to the landfill decision process,

all factors were weighted by implementation of AHP

extension ext_ahp.dll in GIS. According to the analyses,

techno-economic factors were less important for the land-

fill site selection process than geo-natural and environ-

mental factors, and geo-natural factors were more

important than environmental criteria, which was in

accordance with the EU Landfill Directive, the Strategy

and the Law on Waste and the Regulation of Waste

Disposal.

The approach implemented in this work is advancement

over other landfill selection approaches due to the fact that

the exclusions of restricted zones were made after the final

map of GIS ? AHP analyses was made, a step commonly

Fig. 4 Restriction factors map (a lineaments, b regional resource for water supply, c protected area, d surface area, e settlement, f cultural

heritage, g state border)

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458 455

123

done at the beginning of the evaluation process. This

approach could be especially important in other sensitive

areas in the world similar to Srem which have protected

areas, rivers, lake catchment areas, cultural heritage etc.

The authors believe that if the exclusionary zones are

omitted at the beginning of evaluation process, it is more

likely that failures in observation could occur. Further-

more, the decision factors were divided into decision factor

groups according to their role and nature in the decision

process, and comparison matrixes were made separately for

each factor group in order to avoid incomparable factors

(i.e., depth of underground water table and energy

Fig. 5 Final suitability map

Fig. 6 Potential location for

landfill siting in the Srem region

(1–12); Circles: urban

agglomerations

456 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123

infrastructure criterion), contrary to the approach in which

all factors are combined into a single matrix.

Five suitability zones were identified, and before mak-

ing a final site selection field studies, determination of site

ownership status, public acceptance survey, the price of

land and analysis of the availability of cover material

should be performed.

This research focused on identifying suitable zones for

regional landfill sitting in the Srem region, and the final

map and evaluation criteria were not checked with other

progressive methods such as sensitivity analyses (SA).

Chen and others (2010) stated that the fusion of SA with

AHP within Arc GIS environment could enhance the

conventional AHP module, improve the reliability of

MCDM output, and extend the existing GIS functionalities.

Although Chang and others (2008) emphasized that in the

process of landfill site selection, it was necessary to assess

the reliability of the method involved in identification of

the best candidate site, changing the weights of the deci-

sion factor within the range of 20% did not affect the

dominance of the best candidate site. Given the fact that the

main focus of this research was to develop a model for

regional landfill siting in the Srem region, to set policy

recommendations, and to identify suitable zones for landfill

siting, SA could certainly be recommended and applied in

further research in addition to field investigations and other

analyses mentioned.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank PE Urban and

the Spatial Planning Institute of Vojvodina, which provided a grant

for Tamara Zelenovic Vasiljevic’s doctoral studies tuition. Also, the

authors would like to thank PE Urban and Spatial Planning Institute

of Vojvodina, The Provincial Secretary of Architecture, Urbanism

and Environmental Protection and Vode Vojvodine Public Water

Management Company for support provided through the assigned

maps from spatial data bases. The research results constitute the first

phase of Tamara Zelenovic Vasiljevic’s doctoral thesis. Gratitude is

also extended to the reviewers and the editor of this paper.

References

Akbari V, Rajabi MA, Chavoshi R, Shams R (2008) Landfill site

selection by combining gis and fuzzy multi criteria decision

analysis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran. World Applied

Sciences Journal 3(1):39–47

Allen BG, Caetano P, Costa C, Cummins V, Donnelly J, Koukoulas S,

O’Donnell V, Robalo C. Vendas D (2003) A landfill site

selection process incorporating GIS modeling. In: Proceedings of

Sardinia 2003, ninth international waste management and landfill

symposium, Sardinia

Banar M, Kose BM, Ozkan, Acar IP (2007) Choosing a municipal

landfill site by analytic network process. Environmental Geology

52:747–751

Basagaoglu H, Celenk E, Mariulo MS, Usul N (1997) Selection of

waste disposal sites using GIS. Journal of American Water

Resources Association 33:455–464

Basnet BB, Apan AA, Steven RR (2001) Selecting suitable sites for

animal waste application using a raster GIS. Environmental

Management 28(4):519–531

Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Measuring consensus for

collaborative decision-making: GIS-based approach. Computers

Environment and Urban Systems 34:322–332

Chalkias CN, Stournaras G (1997) GIS application for the selection of

sanitary waste disposal landfills and quarry sites in major Sparti

area, Greece. In : Marinos K, Tsiambaos S (eds) Engineering

geology and the environment. Balkema, Rotterdam

Chang N, Parvathinathanb G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS

with fuzzy multi criteria decision making for landfill siting in a

fast-growing urban region. Journal of Environmental Manage-

ment 87:139–153. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.011

Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-

criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Envi-

ronmental Modelling and Software 25:1582–1591

Congalton RG, Green K (1992) The ABCs of GIS. Journal of Forestry

1992:13–20

CORINE Land Cover (CLC2000) (2010) Federal Environment

Agency, DLR-DFD 2004

Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,

Document L182 (1999), pp 1–19

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council

of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives

(Text with EEA relevance). Document L 312 (2008), pp 3–30

Dorhofer G, Siebert H (1998) The search for landfill sites—

requirements and implementation in Lower Saxony, Germany.

Environmental Geology 35(1):55–65. doi:10.1007/s00254005

0292

Eastman JR (2003) IDRISI Kilimanjaro: Guide to GIS and image

processing, Clark Laboratories. Clark University, Worcester,

p 328

Eastman JR, Jin W, Kyem PAK, Toledano J (1995) Raster procedures

for multi criteria/multi objective decision. Photogrammetric

Engineering and Remote Sensing 61:539–547

EPA (2006) United States environmental protection agency, EPA

landfill manuals, manual for site selection, draft for consultation,

Washington

Ersoy H, Bulut F (2009) Spatial and multi-criteria decision analyses-

based methodology for landfill site selection in growing urban

regions. Waste Management and Research 27(5):489–500

Geological Conditions of Rational Use and Protection of Fruska Gora

Mountatin (2006) University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geology

and Mining

Guiqin W, Li Q, Guoxue L, Lijun C (2009) Landfill site selection using

spatial information technologies and AHP: a case study in Beijing,

China. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2414–2421

Higgs G (2006) Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical

information systems in waste facility location to enhance public

participation. Waste Management and Research 24:105–117

Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW landfills

with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste

Management 25:818–832

Law on waste (2010) Law on waste management, Serbian Govern-

ment, Official Gazette No 88, Belgrade, Serbia

Law on water (2010) Law on water, Serbian Government, Official

Gazette No 30, Belgrade, Serbia

Lee S (2003) Evaluation of waste disposal site using the DRASTIC

system in Southern Korea. Environmental Geology 44:654–664

Mahini AS, Gholamalifard M (2006) Siting MSW landfills with a

weighted linear combination methodology in a GIS environment.

International Journal of Environmental Science Technology

3(4):435–445

Malczwerski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria group decision analyses.

Wiley, New York 392 pp

Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458 457

123

Mardle S, Pascoe S, Herrero I (2004) Management objective

importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the analytic

hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Management 33(1):

1–11

Marinoni O (2004) Implementation of the analytical hierarchy

process with VBA in ArcGIS. Computers and Geosciences 30:

637–646

Marinoni O (2009) Macro ext_ahp.dll: http://arcscripts.esri.com/

details.asp?dbid=13764. Accessed 28 November 2010

Nas B, Cay T, Iscan F, Berktay A (2010) Selection of MSW landfill

site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evaluation.

Environmental Monitoring Assessment 160:491–500

Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010) National regulation on waste

disposal on landfills, Serbian Government, Official Gazette No

92, Belgrade, Serbia

Republic Hydro Meteorological Service of Serbia (2010) Meteoro-

logical yearbook. Climatologically Data, Belgrade

Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New

York

Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory

with the AHP. RWS, Pittsburg

Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1991) Prediction, projection and forecasting.

Kluwer Academic Publichers, Dordrecht

Sener B, Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by

using geographic information systems. Environmental Geology

49:376–388

Sener S, Sener E, Nas B, Karaguzel R (2010a) Combining AHP with GIS

for landfill site selection: a case study in theLakeBeysehir catchment

area (Konya, Turkey). Waste Management 30:2037–2046

Sener S, Sener E, Karaguzel R (2010a) Solid waste disposal site

selection with GIS and AHP methodology: a case study in

Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environ Monit

Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1403-x

Siddiqui M, Everett J, Vieux B (1996) Landfill siting using

geographic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of

Environmental Engineering 122(6):515–523

Strategy (2010) Serbian National Waste Management Strategy for the

Period 2010–2019, Serbian Government, Official Gazette No 29,

Belgrade, Serbia

Water Resources Development Master Plan of Republic of Serbia

(2002) Serbian Government, Official Gazette No 11, Belgrade,

Serbia

458 Environmental Management (2012) 49:445–458

123