Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

DOI 10.1007/s12665-011-1023-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Identification of hazardous waste landfill site: a case study

from Zanjan province, Iran
Mashalah Khamehchiyan • Mohammad Reza Nikoudel •

Mehdi Boroumandi

Received: 9 August 2009 / Accepted: 14 February 2011 / Published online: 6 April 2011
Ó Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract The study of landfill sites is one of the most issue throughout the world, and the problem of hazardous
important studies in landfill engineering, and the landfill waste has grown considerably in recent years. Hazardous
site selection involves combination of engineering, science, waste is the term used throughout the world to describe
and politics. This paper describes a comprehensive those wastes which are dangerous or difficult to keep, treat
hazardous waste landfill site selection methodology with or dispose of, because they may contain substances which
the combined utilization of geographic information system are corrosive, toxic, reactive, carcinogenic, infectious,
and multiple criteria analysis methods, as applied to the irritant or otherwise harmful to human health and toxic to
Zanjan province in Iran. The six main data categories that the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency
were used are geological/engineering geological, geomor- (EPA) decided that the characteristics of hazardous waste
phological, hydrological/hydrogeological, climatological, should be detectable by using a standardized test method or
pedological, and social/economical criteria, which included by applying general knowledge of the properties of waste.
31 input layers in total. A suitability map for hazardous Based on these criteria, EPA established four hazardous
waste landfilling was prepared for study area with five waste characteristics: ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity,
classes from most suitable to completely unsuitable. toxicity (EPA 2006).
Finally, out of the three sites, one site was selected which There is a range of treatment and disposal option for
was chosen by the local authorities. Our work offers a hazardous waste, which depends on the type of hazard
comprehensive methodology and provides essential sup- involved. They include landfill; off-shore and underground
port for decision-makers in the assessment of hazardous storage; recycling; thermal, biological, and physicochemi-
waste management problems in Zanjan province in I.R. cal treatment methods. Landfilling, the most common
Iran and other developing cities in other countries. method of hazardous waste disposal, is the one which is
used in all the countries, and a major portion of the wastes
Keywords Geographic information system  is disposed of through this method.
Multiple criteria analysis  Landfill site selection  Landfill site selection is one of the most important parts
Simple additive weighting  Suitability index in landfill engineering. Factors such as the proximity to
features in the community should be noted because the
study should also attempt to minimize health effects to the
Introduction people living in the vicinity of a landfill (Bagchi 1990;
McBean et al. 2000; Kontos et al. 2003). Consequently,
The increasing waste in countries affects the environment when dealing with the social aspect of landfill sites there is
and ecology where waste management becomes a major always potential for a fall out when deciding on where to
locate a new landfill site. The associated problem is the
long process to allocate or identify the landfill site. Other
M. Khamehchiyan (&)  M. R. Nikoudel  M. Boroumandi
difficulties associated with finding an appropriate landfill
Department of Engineering Geology,
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran site are the increasing population densities, public health
e-mail: [email protected] concerns, and limitations of land for landfill construction.

123
1764 Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

Some important environmental considerations are how a

landfill site could affect the surrounding area of the landfill
site and how it could affect the biophysical environment.
Moreover, the costs of finding, developing, and operating a
landfill site are also important considerations. The biggest
problem of establishing a new landfill site comes from
social and political opposition. The phenomenon ‘‘not in
my back yard (NIMBY)’’ also has problems, because no
one wants the landfill site to be situated near their resi-
dential area. The involvement of the public in land use
planning is correlated with the NIMBY effect and the fact
that these citizens will have to deal with the landfill sites on
a constant basis (Jankowski and Nyerges 2001).
It is evident that many factors must be incorporated to
identify a landfill site. Several techniques for landfill site
selection can be found in the literature (Bonham-Carter
1994; Langer 1995; Dorhofer and Siebert 1998; Lukasheh
Fig. 1 Location map of Zanjan province in Iran
et al. 2001; Kontos et al. 2005; Yesilnacar and Cetin 2005;
Javaheri et al. 2006; Sener et al. 2006; Guiqin et al. 2009).
All of the above studies use geographic information system
(GIS) technique, which is ideal for these kinds of studies Materials and methods
due to its ability to manage large volumes of spatial data
from a variety of sources. Therefore, since the 1980s there Input data
has been an increase in the use of geographical approach to
landfill site suitability. It plays an important role as a The data entry and production were the most time-
decision supporting tool with reference to optimum waste consuming and important steps of the study. In this study
site locations (Baban and Flannagan 1998). The integration 31 input data layers including topography, geology, vege-
of GIS and multiple criteria analysis (MCA) is a powerful tation cover, land capability, climatology, land use, soils,
tool to solve the landfill site selection problem, because residential areas, roads, railways, protected areas, dams,
GIS provides efficient manipulation and presentation of the infrastructures, drainage networks, and groundwater
data and MCA supplies consistent ranking of the potential resources were evaluated and used in GIS environment.
landfill areas based on a variety of criteria. The data layers are derived and prepared from related maps
The I.R. Iran is growing rapidly, attracting various by scanning, geocoding, and digitizing the relevant infor-
industrial activities, especially in construction, transporta- mation. These data layers were used as raw materials to
tion, and agricultural areas. Most of hazardous wastes produce proper maps for landfill site selection that are
produced by these activities are presently being disposed of mentioned in this article.
either in uncontrolled dump sites or municipal waste dump
sites, causing various environmental problems. The Methodology
Department of Environment (DOE) of Iran is responsible
for managing construction of engineered landfill for haz- A site selection process usually proceeds through a staged
ardous wastes in 30 provinces of Iran. The Department of approach. In the present study, a two-stage process for
Engineering Geology of Tarbiat Modares University per- landfill site selection was utilized. The first was land suit-
formed the job in four provinces. ability mapping for landfill sites and primary site selection.
The present article describes a comprehensive hazardous This stage also include exclusionary analysis in which the
waste landfill site selection methodology with the combined spatial analysis of various data layers was conducted based
utilization of GIS and MCA methods, which is applied to on exclusionary set of criteria associated with each data
the Zanjan province in Iran. Zanjan province, with an area type. Exclusion areas are areas unsuitable for landfill sites
of about 22,164 km2, is located in the northwest of the Iran because of the risk to the environment, the risk to human
(Fig. 1) and the average elevation of the province is more health, or excessive cost. The latter was field study and
than 1,500 m from sea level. Fourteen industrial towns are final site selection.
active in the province and they are the main sources of The methodology presented here utilizes GIS to create
hazardous wastes in the region. The average hazardous the digital geodatabase using the spatial analysis tools
waste production is approximately 2.3 million tons/year. provided by GIS. Commercial GIS software packages

123
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776 1765

include several analytical tools to perform the essential Geological/engineering geological criteria
spatial analysis processes. Several MCA methods have
been suggested for the evaluation of the final suitability It is essential to have an accurate understanding of the local
index, namely TOPSIS (Yoon and Hwang 1995) and geological setting of the site involved in order to evaluate
Compromise Programming (Zeleny 1982). However, in the suitability of the site and the capacity to provide protection
present article the simple additive weighting (SAW) from contamination. The geology of an area and engi-
method was selected as the appropriate method to solve the neering geological phenomena will directly control the soil
multiple criteria problem. The metholology evaluated the types created from the parent material, loading bearing
entire study region using a grading scale from 0 to 5, where capacity of the foundation soil of landfill, the migration of
0 grades a site as fully unsuitable (exclusion area) for leachate, and stability of the area. The structural features of
landfill site while 5 grades a site the most suitable for the bedrock will determine the nature of soils and the
landfill sites. The grading scale was the same for all input permeability nature of the region. To identify potential new
layer, except siesmicity and liquefaction (Table 1). sites for disposal facilities, the geologic materials must be
The GIS-aided landfill site selection methodology pre- carefully mapped and categorized according to physical
sented here combines the spatial analysis tools provided by properties affecting hydraulic conductivity.
GIS with MCA to evaluate the entire region and selected Geological/engineering geological criteria comprise five
areas, based on certain evaluation criteria. The methodol- subcriteria namely, lithology (surface outcrops), faults
ogy consists of the following steps: (major and minor), seismicity, and liquefaction (Table 1)
in this study. To evaluate the lithology and faults, a geo-
(a) Development of a digital GIS database that includes
logical map of Zanjan province was prepared by scanning
all spatial information.
and digitizing 1:250,000 geology maps of Zanjan (GSI
(b) Determination of evaluation criteria and their ranking
1969), Mianeh (GSI 1978), Kaboodarahang (GSI 1979),
and weighting.
Bandar-e-Anzali (GSI 2004). This map was used to prepare
(c) Implementation of the SAW method to estimate
suitability map of the study area for landfill sites consid-
suitability indexes, land suitability mapping for
ering the lithology and faults which are based on classifi-
landfill siting and primary site selection for hazardous
cation and ranking presented in Table 1. Seismicity and
waste disposal.
liquefaction were evaluated by scanning and digitizing
(d) Field study and implementation of the SAW method
seismic hazard (IIEES 1999) and liquefaction susceptibility
to estimate suitability indexes for selected areas.
(IIEES 2006) maps. The spatial results of evaluation are
(e) Introducing final suitable sites for hazardous waste
shown in Fig. 2.
disposal by landfill in the study area.
Geomorphological criteria

Analysis and results The contribution of geomorphology is crucial in the pre-

vention of natural geohazards and in risk assessment and
Evaluation criteria management programs in developing countries. Topogra-
phy (slope gradient) and morphology were considered as
The evaluation criteria used in this study are classi- subcriteria of geomorphological criteria in this study.
fied into six main categories (Table 1), namely the The topography of an area is an important factor on the
geological/engineering geological, geomorphological, site selection, structural integrity, and the flow of fluids
hydrological/hydrogeological, climatological, pedological, surrounding a landfill site, because it has important impli-
and social/economical criteria. Table 1 presents the main cations for landfill capacity, drainage, ultimate land use,
criteria and subcriteria and their ranking used for land surface and groundwater pollution control, site access and
suitability mapping of the study area for hazardous waste related operations (Kreith and Tchobanoqlous 2002).
disposal in a scale of 1:250,000 in step (c) of the study. Deciding on the type of landfill design (area-, trench-, and
Some subcriteria were added to evaluate primary selected depression-type landfills) is directly related to the topogra-
areas for hazardous waste disposal in a scale of 1:25,000 in phy of a particular site. The slope gradients were evaluated
step (d) and (e) of the study (Table 2). by construction of digital elevation model (DEM) of the
The political decisions and involving local pressure study area using 1:250,000 topographical (NGO 2005) in
groups is another criterion in this study that cannot be step (c) and 1:25,000 topographical maps (NCC 2005) in
evaluated by ranking and categorization. This criterion steps (d) and (e). The morghology of the study area was
added a new site for hazardous waste disposal in the study evaluated using 1:250,000 evaluation map of resources and
area. land capabilities of Zanjan province (ISWR 1987). The

123
 Table 1 Grading and normalized relative importance weights of criteria used in analysis
1766

Criteria Subcriteria Grading (xij) Relative Normalized

importance relative

123
Most suitable Suitable (4) Moderately Unsuitable Completely Exclusion weight importance
(5) suitable (3) (2) unsuitable (1) area (0) weight (wj)

Geology/engineering Lithology Sh, Mn, Cl Sc, Tf, Ev, Ls Ig, Mm, SL Ss, Ls, Do, Cg, Af, Qt Qs 6 0.051
geology Main faults [15 km 10–15 km 5–10 km 3–5 km 1–3 km \1 km 5 0.042
Minor faults [4 km 3–4 km 2–3 km 1–2 km 0.5–1 km \0.5 km 3 0.026
Seismicity (%g) – %20 %25 %30 %35 – 4 0.034
Liquefaction None Low Moderate – High – 3 0.026
Geomorphology Slope (°) 0–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 [20 – 10 0.085
Morphology Hills Complex of hills and Flats and terraces hillsides Mountain-alluvial Flood plains 9 0.076
terraces fans
Hydrology/ Distance from rivers [8 6–8 4–6 2–4 1–2 \1 km 8 0.068
hydrogeology (km)
Drainage density Very high High Medium Low Very low \500 m distance 7 0.059
Wells, springs and Very high High Medium Low Very low \500 m distance 9 0.076
qantas density
Dams \1 km – –
Pedology Land use Barren Ranges Scattered dry Dry farming Irrigated farming, Lakes, urban 5 0.042
farming forests
Erodibility None Low Moderate High Very high – 4 0.034
permeability Impermeable \2 cm/h 2–6 cm/h 6–25 cm/h [25 cm/h – 6 0.051
Vegetation BL R3, R2 SH, R1, DF IF, F3, F2 F1 RB, L, URB 7 0.059
Climatology Precipitation (mm) \300 300–400 400–500 500–600 [600 – 2 0.017
Evaporation (mm) [2,400 2,200–2,400 2,000–2,200 1,800–2,000 \1,800 – 2 0.017
Social/economical Distance from city 5–10 10–20 20–30 30–50 [50 \5 7 0.059
(km)
Distance from village 3–5 [5 2–3 1–2 0.5–1 \0.5 5 0.042
(km)
Industrial town (km) 3–10 10–20 20–30 30–40 [40 \3 8 0.068
Major roads (km) 1–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 [20 \1 5 0.042
Minor roads (km) 0.5–2 2–4 4–6 6–8 [8 \0.5 3 0.026
Airport \8 km – –
Environmental All area and 1 km – –
protected area buffer
Sh Shale, Mn marl, Cl clay, Sc schist, Ev evaporation rocks, Ls loes, Ig igneos rock, Mm metamorphic rocks, Ss sand stone, Ls lime stone, Do dolomite, Cg conglomerate, Af alluvial fans,
Qt quaternary sediments, Qs landslides, BL bared lands, R3 rangelands with 5–25% canopy cover, R2 rangelands with 25–50% canopy cover, R1 rangelands with more than 50% canopy cover,
SH shrublands with more than 10% canopy cover, IF irrigation farming and orchards, DF dry farming, F3 forest with 5–25% canopy cover, F2 forest with 25–50% canopy cover, F1 forest
with more than 50% canopy cover, L water bodies, RB river beds, URB residential area
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776 1767

Table 2 Grading of criteria used in analysis in steps (c) and (d)

Criteria Subcriteria 5 4 3 2 1

Groundwater Depth (m) [60 45–60 30–45 15–30 \15

Quality – Saline water Brine water Brackish water Fresh water
Distance to settlement area in [5 3–5 1–3 0.5–1 \0.5
groundwater direction (km)
Wind Speed (m/s) \2 2–4 4–6 6–8 [8
Distance (km) [5 2.5–5 1–2.5 0.5–1 \0.5
Power lines Distance (km) 2–2.5 1.5–2 1–1.5 0.5–1 \0.5, [2.5

Fig. 2 Spatial presentation of geological/engineering geological criteria. a Lithology, b main faults, c minor faults, d seismicity, e liquefaction
(0–5 are grading scale based on Table 1)

results of geomorphological criteria evaluation are shown in surface water media such as sea, lakes, and rivers is not
Fig. 3 based on classification and ranking presented in permitted. There are many rivers, drainage networks,
Table 1. small and large dams with their lakes in the Zanjan
province, which need to be taken into consideration as
Hydrological/hydrogeological criteria these are hydrological factors. There are 492 small and
large dams in the study area that are in operation or under
According to the global standards (e.g. EPA 2006) and the the construction or study. The distance to rivers and dams
Iran laws and DOE directives, disposal of wastes to any were considered for suitability classification for landfill

123
1768 Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

Fig. 3 Spatial presentation of

geomorphological criteria.
a Slope, b morphology (0–5 are
grading scale based on Table 1)

sites, and drainage density for drainage networks. The Pedological criteria
spatial results of hydrological criteria are shown in
Fig. 4a–c, and the ranking scheme of subcriteria is pre- The pedological criteria considered in the present meth-
sented in Table 1. odology were land use, land cover, erosion, and ground
Nearly most of the populations in the study area extract permeability.
their drinking water from aquifers and other groundwater The 1:250,000 scale land cover and land use maps were
bodies. In addition, groundwater is also used extensively used to prepare their thematic layer. In the study area, there
for agricultural, industrial, and recreational purposes. are 12 different vegetation cover types. The evaluation on
Landfills can contribute to the contamination of this valu- the importance of vegetation type was based on the eco-
able resource in the area if their sites are not located logical uniqueness of the deforested vegetation and the
properly and designed to prevent leachate release into spatial spread of these natural vegetations. The effectiveness
groundwater. The hydrogeological aspects were studied in of vegetation on landfill site selection depends on the height
the landfill site selection based on the density of ground- and continuity of canopy and density of vegetation cover.
water sources, depth of groundwater, groundwater quality, However, all the above aspects depend on the kind of land
and direction of groundwater flow. use. Hence, these criteria are not based on legal restrictions
International practice states that a minimum distance of and may vary depending on the type of study area. The
500 m is required for any landfill site from any water wetland and urban areas were considered as exclusion area
source (Kontos et al. 2005), and in Iran according to DOE and therefore the grading value for these areas was 0, while
directive it should be 1,500 m. There are totally 21,276 no cultivated and barren lands were considered optimal for
different groundwater sources in the study area, which landfill sites having grading value of 5 (Fig. 5a, b).
include 11,961 water wells, 8,657 springs, and 658 qanats The erosion susceptibility varies along an area due to the
(Kariz, underground drainage channel). The data of these differences in topographical and geological conditions,
groundwater sources were gathered and analyzed to pre- hydrological processes, land use, land cover, and land
pare a thematic layer for this study as mentioned earlier. management practices. Consequently, different parts of the
However, as the numbers of sources are too large, the area experience different intensities of erosion. The erosion
density of groundwater sources per km2 was utilized amount of the study area was evaluated by using geology,
instead of the distance to the groundwater sources in this morphology, and land use maps (Fig. 5c; Table 1).
study. The spatial result of this subcriterion is presented The landfill site selection must consider the existence of
in Fig. 4d, based on the grades included in Table 1. Only aquifers and prevent the groundwater contamination. The
this subcriterion was used in step (c) and the other discrimination of rocks by permeability means is arbitrary
hydrogeological subcriteria (Table 2) were used in steps and it is subjective mainly due to broad range of Darcy’s
(d) and (e). K values for the rocks and soil in an area. Considering the

123
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776 1769

Fig. 4 Spatial presentation of

hydrological/hydrogeological
criteria. a Rivers, b drainage
density, c dams, d hydrogeology
(0–5 are grading scale based on
Table 1)

characteristics of geological texture of the region and the data from 35 climatological stations in the study area
evaluation map of resources and land capabilities of Zanjan and some stations around the province.
province (ISWR 1987), this subcriterion categorizes the These criteria are not based on any legal restrictions but
whole area into four distinct classes (Table 1; Fig. 5d). on the fact that a landfill site should have lower precipi-
tation, more evaporation, and not exposed to high-speed
Climatological criteria wind. Therefore, the categorization of climatic criteria was
done based on the minimum and maximum value of each
The climatologically considered criteria in this study were subcriterion in the study area (Tables 1, 2; Fig. 6).
the average annual precipitation, average annual evapora-
tion, velocity of prevailing wind, and the distance of set- Social/economical criteria
tlement areas from the selected sites along the direction of
prevailing wind. The precipitation and evaporation sub- These criteria comprise seven subcriteria, namely distance
criteria were used to access land suitability for landfill sits from roads (major and minor), distance from settlement
in step (c) (Table 1) and all climatological subcriteria were areas (city, village, and industrial town), distance from
used to evaluate the selected sites in steps (d) and (e) of the power line [only used in steps (d) and (e)], and environ-
study (Table 2). Climatological analysis was done by using mentally protected areas.

123
1770 Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

Fig. 5 Spatial presentation of

pedological criteria. a Land
cover, b land use, c erosion,
d ground permeability (0–5 are
grading scale based on Table 1)

According to Iranian law and DOE pronouncements, the distance from the road the direct relationship between
disposal sites of wastes should have a distance of distance from roads and land suitability is initiated from
10–15 km from the cities and the distance from the villages these buffer value (Fig. 7d, e).
is based on their populations. In the case of industrial town, The DOE of Iran has determined some parts of the country
and also cities if they considered as a source of hazardous as ‘‘environmentally protected area’’ (DOE 2007). Accord-
wastes, the selected sites should not be very far from them ing to DOE legislation any kind of construction in these areas
due to economical considerations. The direct distance of is not permitted. There are three protected areas in the study
sites from settlement areas and international practices by area (Fig. 7f). Hence, these areas with a buffer of 1 km were
others were taken into account to determine the grades of considered as exclusion area for landfill site selection
these subcriteria (Table 1; Fig. 7a–c). (exclusion areas) and were given grading value of 0.
The landfill location must be close to the road network
in order to facilitate the transportation and consequently to Evaluation of land suitability
reduce the nuisance of traffic generation and their relative
costs. However, logically a buffer of 1 km for major roads The next step of the present study is to combine the eval-
and 500 m for minor roads has been considered in this uation criteria, in order to evaluate the land suitability for
study based on DOE derivatives. In other words, to grade hazardous landfill sites. The SAW method was selected

123
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776 1771

Fig. 6 Spatial presentation of

climatological criteria.
a Precipitation, b evaporation
(0–5 are grading scale based on
Table 1)

Fig. 7 Spatial presentation of social/economical criteria. a City, b village, c industrial town, d major roads, e minor roads, f protected areas (0–5
are grading scale based on Table 1)

123
1772 Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

among the decision rules for calculation of suitability every pixel with a suitability of 0 applied to Eq. 1 will
indexes. This is a widely utilized method for the calcula- belong to exclusion areas (Fig. 8). The resultant land
tion of final grading values in the multiple criteria prob- suitability map for hazardous waste landfilling in Zanjan
lems; the mathematical formula of the method is described province (Fig. 9) was prepared based on the classification
by Eq. 1 (Malczewski 1997; Janssen 1992): of suitability indexes to five groups with 0.47 equal inter-
X n vals. The minimum and maximum suitability indexes are
Ai ¼ xij wj ð1Þ 1.98 and 4.34, respectively.
i¼1

where Ai is the suitability index for area i, wj is the nor- Site selection
malized relative importance weight of criterion j, xij is the
grading value of area i under criterion j, and n is the total The next step of the study is to identify the most suitable
number of criteria. sites for hazardous waste landfills in the study area. To
According to Eq. 1, in order to calculate the suitability obtain this objective, 31 areas, with totally 439 km2, were
indexes (Ai), the grading values (xij) of every subcriterion selected from the most suitable and suitable zones of
and the normalized relative importance weight (wj) of suitability map for landfill sites (Fig. 10).
every criterion are required. The grading value was selec- In order to validate the selected areas derived from the
ted by the same scale for the entire subcriteria from 0 to 5. analysis, the 1:25,000 scale topographical maps of these
The relative importance weight of criterion is defined from areas (NCC 2005) were collected and a detailed field study
0 to 10 (Table 1) in this study based on expert decision to were carried out. The SAW method was utilized again to
accommodate all classes of suitability index in the study calculate suitability indexes of the selected areas using
area. The criterion relative importance weights were nor- evaluation criteria and their normalized weights (Table 3).
malized by dividing each weight to the sum of the weights The field studies were done with the help of agents from
(Table 1). In order to calculate the suitability indexes, the local authorities to realize their opinion about the hazard-
evaluation criteria were used with their corresponding ous landfilling in the area. It must be noted that some of the
normalized relative importance weights (Table 1). criteria in Table 2 were added to the criteria based on local
The areas restricted by rules and physical constraints authorities’ view, e.g. the distance of settlement areas from
(exclusion areas) were determined in the study area. They the sites in direction of the groundwater flow and prevail-
are assigned 0 during the evaluation of criteria. Hence, ing wind. The results of the field study predicted 11 areas

Fig. 9 Suitability map for hazardous wastes landfill in Zanjan

Fig. 8 Exclusion area map province

123
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776 1773

precipitation and high evaporation value (both with grading

value of 4). Therefore, based on geological, geomorpho-
logical, and hydro/geohydrological criteria and field stud-
ies, candidate site 14 is shown to be the most suitable
among all candidate sites selected in this study.
Candidate area 29 in the southern parts of study area
comprises of clay and loess of quaternary alluvium with
permeability of 2–6 cm/h that are suitable for waste land-
filling. Seismically, it is a low-hazard zone. The disad-
vantages of this area are dry farming and the long distance
from existing hazardous waste sources.
The political acceptance of a new landfill location can
differ in each region and sometimes the potential sites are
located in different regions. The level of political accep-
tance influences the willingness of the local municipalities
to prepare their regional physical plans and to give per-
mission for the construction of a landfill. The unwillingness
will cause a delay on the decision on the landfill location.
Although these three areas are logically acceptable for
hazardous waste landfilling, the local authorities did not
Fig. 10 Proposed areas for hazardous waste landfill in Zanjan accept them. They rejected area 29 for dry farming and for
province being distant from the waste generation centers, area 7 for
existence of some small villages, and area 19 for neigh-
as unsuitable, mainly due to lack of access roads (Table 4). boring a protected area in development plans of the prov-
The areas were sorted in the final suitability index with a ince. The local authorities persisted on an area near their
decreasing order (Table 4). A detailed field investigation development plan for a new industrial town. Therefore, a
was carried out again, and finally, two candidate sites in the detailed study was done in this area considering prepared
northern parts of study area (areas 7 and 14) and one in suitability map (Fig. 9) and field study. As the result, area
southern parts (area 29) were introduced to DOE and local 32 was selected. The suitability index of this site is 3.615.
authorities for hazardous waste disposal. It can be seen that the rating of this site is 10 among the
Candidate area 7 is in north of Zanjan province and to selected sites (Table 3) and belongs to the moderately
the west of Zanjan-Tabriz highway. Geomorphologically, suitable areas.
it is characterized by gently rolling hills, flat plains, and it Candidate area 32 (marked with a circle in Fig. 10;
comprises Eocene aged Qom formations. The Qom for- Table 4) is located in the northern part of study area, which
mation is mainly composed of marls in this area. The area has an area of 1.5 km2. The area comprises of gently
was found to be the most suitable landfill site based on rolling clayey hills of Quaternary age and flat plains. Hy-
lithology, and slope characteristics. However, its northern drogeologically, there is no aquifer in the area and the
boundary has a distance of 2 km from Qazelozan main permeability of the surface soil is less than 2 cm/h; tec-
river that must be considered while selecting the center of tonically, there is no active fault-related problems. Cli-
the landfill sites, which means it must be selected south- matologically, the study area also has a low precipitation
ward, where considerable area of about 45 km2 is avail- and high evaporation value (both with rank value of 4).
able. Tectonically, the nearest main fault is at a distance of Therefore, based on geological, geomorphological, and
32 km from the area. The thickness of permeable surface hydro/geohydrological criteria, field studies and local
soils must be checked by further geotechnical investiga- authorities’ view, candidate site 32 seems to be suitable for
tion. In addition, there are some unmapped villages hazardous waste landfilling.
drainage networks inside the area that must be considered
while selecting the exact site with appropriate area for
landfill. Conclusions
Candidate area 14 comprises of marly and clayey hills
of Eocene age and flat plains. These marl and clay can be In Iran and consequently in the study area with 14 active
used as landfill cap and daily covers. Geohydrologically, industrial towns, the amount of hazardous waste is
there is no aquifer in the area and permeability of surface increasing rapidly due to the expansion and upgrading of
soil is less than 2 cm/h. Climatologically, it has a low its industrial base. Department of Environment of Iran and

123
1774 Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

Table 3 Relative importance

Criteria Subcriteria Relative Normalized relative
weights of the evaluation
importance weight importance weight
criteria
Geology/engineering geology Lithology 6 0.041
Main faults 5 0.034
Minor faults 3 0.020
Seismicity 4 0.027
Liquefaction 3 0.020
Geomorphology Slope 10 0.068
Morphology 9 0.061
Hydrology/hydrogeology Rivers 8 0.054
Drainage density 7 0.047
Wells, springs and qantas density 9 0.061
Depth of water table 7 0.047
Quality of groundwater 6 0.041
Distance to settlement in 5 0.034
groundwater direction
Pedology Land use 5 0.034
Erosion 4 0.027
Permeability 6 0.041
Vegetation 7 0.047
Climatology Precipitation 2 0.013
Evaporation 2 0.013
Speed of prevailing winds 5 0.034
Distance of settlements 4 0.027
in wind direction
Social/economical City 7 0.047
Village 5 0.034
Industrial town 8 0.054
Major roads 5 0.034
Minor roads 3 0.020
Power lines 3 0.020

its provincial branches are responsible for the hazardous retaining sufficient areas for further evaluation at the same
waste management in Iran. This study was done with the time. The study began with the use of regional screening
permission of DOE for Zanjan province, an area of about techniques to reduce the examined area to a manageable
22,164 km2 located in northwest of Iran. number of discrete areas, and screening in this stage was
A comprehensive lanfill site selection consists of three based on exclusion criteria. Subsequently, a suitability map
stages: (1) site selection procedure, (2) regional policy and for hazardous waste landfill was prepared for residual areas
harmonization procedure, and (3) approval procedure. with five classes. These classes are most suitable, suitable,
These stages were determined with the combined utiliza- moderately suitable, unsuitable, and completely unsuitable
tion of GIS, MCA, and SAW methods to estimate suit- and 31 areas were selected from most suitable and suitable
ability indexes and land suitability mapping for landfill site classes. In order to evaluate the suitability of these sites for
selection for hazardous waste disposal in the study area. hazardous waste landfilling, a detailed field study was
The evaluation criteria used in the present article are done. The results from the field study indicate that 11 sites
classified into six main categories (totally 31 input data are rejected. A suitability index was calculated for the
layer), namely the geological/engineering geological, remaining 20 sites using previous criteria and some addi-
geomorphological, hydrological/hydrogeological, climato- tional criteria. This suitability index was applied to rank the
logical, pedological, and social/economical criteria. The proposed sites and summarize the final selection. Finally,
analysis was successful in preliminary landfill site screen- three sites were selected and presented to the central gov-
ing leading to the exclusion of the sensitive areas while ernment and local authorities of Zanjan province.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776 1775

Table 4 Rating of proposed sites based on their suitability indexes References

Rating Site Suitability Remarks
Baban S, Flannagan J (1998) Developing and implementing GIS-
numbers indexes
assisted constraints criteria for planning landfill sites in the UK.
1 7 4.000 Plan Pract Res 13–2:139–151
Bagchi A (1990) Design, construction and monitoring of sanitary
2 14 3.980 landfill. Wiley, New York
3 9 3.865 Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for
4 29 3.818 geosientists. Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., Woods Hole
Dorhofer G, Siebert H (1998) The search for landfill sites—
5 16 3.777
requirements and implementation in Lower Saxony. Ger J
6 18 3.696 Environ Geol 35:55–65
7 12 3.676 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) EPA landfill manual,
8 11 3.662 manual on site selection. Available at: http://www.epa.ie
Geological Survey of Iran (GSI) (1969) 1:250000 Geological map
9 20 3.649 series. Zanjan sheet
10 32a 3.615 Geological Survey of Iran (GSI) (1978) 1:250000 Geological map
11 13 3.601 series. Mianeh sheet
Geological Survey of Iran (GSI) (1979) 1:250000 Geological
12 17 3.595
map series. Kabootar Ahang sheet
13 25 3.574 Geological Survey of Iran (GSI) (2004) 1:250000 Geological map
14 15 3.520 series. Bandar Anzali sheet
15 3 3.480 Guiqin W, Li Q, Guaxue L, Ligun C (2009) Landfill site selction
using sspatial information technologies and AHP: a case study in
16 2 3.466
Bejing, China. J Environ Manag. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.
17 4 3.446 12.008
18 5 3.324 International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
19 30 3.270 (IIEES) (1999) Seismic hazard map of Iran
International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
20 27 3.162 (IIEES) (2006) Liquifaction susceptibility map of Iran
21 1 3.061 Institute of Soil and Water Research (ISWR) (1987) Evaluation map
6 – Existence of wells of resources and land capabilities of Zanjan provinces, Agricul-
tural Ministry of Iran
8 – No access road
Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) GIS-supported collaborative decision
10 – No access road making: results of an experiment. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91–1:
19 – No access road 48–70
21 – No access road Janssen R (1992) Multiobjective decision support for environmental
management. Kluwer, Dordrecht
22 – Existence of wells and Javaheri H, Nasrabadi T, Jafarian MH, Rowshan GR, Khoshnam H
springs (2006) Site selection on municipal solid waste landfills using
23 – No access road analytical hierarchy process method in a geographical informa-
24 – No access road tion technoilohy environment in Giroft. Iran J Health Sci Eng
3:177–184
26 – No access road
Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2003) Siting MSW landfills
28 – No access road on Lesvos island with a GIS-based methodology. Waste Manag
31 – No access road Res 21:262–278
a
Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW landfills
Finally selected site based on local authorities’ demands with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste
Manag 25:818–832
In the case of present study, all the presented sites for Kreith F, Tchobanoqlous G (2002) Handbook of solid waste
hazardous waste landfilling were rejected by local author- management. McGraw-Hill, New York
Langer M (1995) Engineering geology and waste disposal: scientific
ities. In this situation, the suitability map was very good report and recommendation of IAEG commission no. 14. Bull
tool for introducing new sites in a short time. As a result, a IAEG 51:5–29
new candidate site was selected considering local authori- Lukasheh AF, Droste RL, Warith MA (2001) Review of expert
ties’ commands. Therefore, it is recommended that this system (ES), geographical information system (GIS), decision
support system (DSS) and their application in landfill design and
kind of study must be done with the cooperation of the management. Waste Manag Res 15:4
local authorities. Malczewski J (1997) Propagation of errors in multicriteria location
analysis: a case study. In: Fandel G, Gal T (eds) Multiple criteria
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the finan- decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 154–155
cial support from Soil and Water Pollution Bureau of DOE, especially McBean E, Rovvers F, Farquhar G (2000) Solid waste landfill
Dr. Soroush Modabberi. Gratitude is also extended to the reviewers engineering and design. Printice-Hall PTR, Englewood cliffs,
and the editor of the journal. New Jersey

123
1776 Environ Earth Sci (2011) 64:1763–1776

National Cartographic Center (NCC) (2005) 1:25000 Topographical Yesilnacar MI, Cetin H (2008) An environmental geomorphologic
maps of Zanjan province approach to site selection for hazardous wastes. J Environ Geol
National Geographical Organization (NGO) (2005) 1:250000 Topo- 55:1659–1671
graphical map series, Zanjan sheet Yoon K, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an
Sener B, Lutfi Suzen M, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by introduction. Sage Publication Inc., London
using geographic information systems. J Environ Geol 49:376– Zeleny M (1982) Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill,
388 New York
Yesilnacar MI, Cetin H (2005) Site selection for hazardous wastes: a
case study from the GAP area. Turk J Eng Geol 81:371–388

123