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

net/publication/322983888

Landfill site selection based on reliability concepts using the DRASTIC method
and AHP integrated with GIS – a case study of Bengaluru city, India

Article  in  Georisk Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards · February 2018
DOI: 10.1080/17499518.2018.1434548

CITATIONS READS

29 1,620

2 authors:

Santhosh L G G. L. Sivakumar Babu

M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology Indian Institute of Science
18 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS    290 PUBLICATIONS   4,121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Suppots View project

LAKES-PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Santhosh L G on 04 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for
Engineered Systems and Geohazards

ISSN: 1749-9518 (Print) 1749-9526 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ngrk20

Landfill site selection based on reliability concepts

using the DRASTIC method and AHP integrated
with GIS – a case study of Bengaluru city, India

L. G. Santhosh & G. L. Sivakumar Babu

To cite this article: L. G. Santhosh & G. L. Sivakumar Babu (2018): Landfill site selection based
on reliability concepts using the DRASTIC method and AHP integrated with GIS – a case study of
Bengaluru city, India, Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
Geohazards, DOI: 10.1080/17499518.2018.1434548

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2018.1434548

Published online: 06 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ngrk20
GEORISK, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2018.1434548

Landfill site selection based on reliability concepts using the DRASTIC method and
AHP integrated with GIS – a case study of Bengaluru city, India
L. G. Santhosha and G. L. Sivakumar Babub
a
Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Centre for
Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The selection of landfill sites for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal involves consideration of Received 12 February 2017
geological, hydrological and environmental parameters which exhibit large spatial variability. Accepted 25 January 2018
Therefore, it is necessary to define, to what extent the chosen sites are reliable such that the
KEYWORDS
probability of environmental pollution and health risks to population is minimal. In the Landfill site selection;
present study, groundwater vulnerability to contamination has been assessed using the groundwater vulnerability;
standard DRASTIC method. The results showed that the study region has 9.45% of very less, Geographical Information
32.94% of less, 25.47% of moderate, 22.79% of high and 9.35% of very high vulnerable zones. System (GIS); reliability
The study also revealed that none of the landfills are located in safe zones. This suggests analysis; Analytical Hierarchy
that it requires proper remedial measures to avoid environmental pollution. A landfill site Process (AHP)
selection process has been carried out using the Analytical Hierarchy Process integrated with
Geographical Information System tools. The obtained results showed that only 3.59 km2
(0.08%) of the total area is suitable for landfills. The reliability analysis of the site suitability
revealed that landfills are located at unreliable locations where the probability of risk to
environmental pollution is high. The presented approach assists decision-makers in selecting
reliable locations for the safe disposal of MSW.

1. Introduction contamination necessarily needs to be incorporated in

the site selection process.
The process of selection of ideal site locations for
The process of identification of suitable sites is a
municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal has become
multi-criteria analysis procedure which involves various
a challenging and complicated task due to population
factors such as environmental, ecological and hydrogeo-
growth and increase in waste generation rate, land
logical factors. Such problems can be effectively solved
cost and availability of land parcels, ecological and
using spatial techniques due to its ability in handling
environmental concerns, anthropogenic activities and
and processing spatial data over a large geographic
rapid industrialisation. The random selection of site
extent. Remote sensing and Geographical Information
locations could impact adversely on the environment
System (GIS) provide efficient tools and techniques to
and public health. Therefore, a scientific methodology
generate, visualise, analyse and retrieve the spatial data
for the site is desirable. The chosen site locations
on a local-to-regional-to-global scale. Therefore, these
must not only comply with the regulations given
techniques have been widely used for land use suitability
by the local government, but also expected to be
studies in many applications.
reliable locations with respect to environmental
concern.
Among the various adverse effects of landfills on the
1.1. Literature review
environment, groundwater contamination is one of the
critical issues to deal with. Leakage of leachate from land- 1.1.1. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to
fills percolates to the subsurface environment. Under contamination
such circumstances, the geological and hydrogeological The available methods for vulnerability assessment are
characteristics of the region play a prominent role. generally categorised as index and overlay methods, stat-
Therefore, selection of sites must consider the impact istical methods and process-based models. Index and
of landfills on the groundwater resources. Hence, an overlay methods are relative, non-measurable and
assessment of the vulnerability of groundwater to the involve assigning ratings and weightings for significant

CONTACT L. G. Santhosh santhosh@cst.iisc.ernet.in, lgsanthu2006@gmail.com Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Ban-
galore, Karnataka 560012, India
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU
factors and derive vulnerability maps by using the addi-
tive weighted overlay method. A few well-established
methods are the DRASTIC method (Aller et al. 1987)
and SINTACS method (Civita 1994). Barber et al.
(1993) presented reviews on various empirical, determi-
nistic, probabilistic and stochastic approaches to assess
vulnerability to contamination. The statistical methods,
such as logistic regression (Teso et al. 1996; Antonakos
and Lambrakis 2007) model and Bayesian statistics
method (Worrall 2002), address uncertainty and uses
geostatistical tools such as krigging for statistical analy-
sis. The process-based method works on the principle
of contaminant transport mechanisms such as advection,
diffusion and sorption.
Among many index and overlay methods available in
the literature, the DRASTIC method developed by Aller
et al. (1987) is the widely used method for groundwater
vulnerability assessment. Kazakis and Voudouris (2015)
have modified the standard DRASTIC method by repla-
cing few original factors with land use, nitrogen losses,
aquifer thickness, hydraulic resistance of aquifers and
pollution risk of aquifers for nitrate factors. Al-Adamat,
Foster, and Baban (2003) used this approach and found
that the model is conservative and index values are sig-
nificantly sensitive for scores and weightings of factors.
Babiker et al. (2005) showed that net recharge, soil
media and topography are significant parameters
which have a large influence on the index values.
Denny, Allen, and Journeay (2007) incorporated fracture
media as a factor to map vulnerable areas for structurally
controlled aquifers in Canada and showed hard rock set-
tings contribute significantly to the groundwater
recharge. A similar study conducted by Saidi et al.
(2011) showed that hydraulic conductivity and topogra-
phy are important factors, whereas the impact of the
vadose zone parameter is the least significant.
In India, Rahman (2008) used the DRASTIC model to
identify and map vulnerable zones of the shallow aquifer
region in Aligarh, India. Singh et al. (2015) considered
the anthropogenic impact in terms of land use land
cover and the urbanisation index along with DRASTIC
factors, to assess the vulnerability of aquifers in an urba-
nised environment. Sinha et al. (2016) applied the
DRASTIC method to the Kharun basin in Chhattisgarh,
India, by replacing hydraulic conductivity with the land
use parameter and the sensitivity analysis showed that
the depth to water table, land use and topography par-
ameters are the most significant parameters.
1.1.2. Landfill site selection
Many researchers have been carrying out studies on the
landfill site selection process with the aid of GIS tools
and techniques. In the early 1980s, Lane and McDonald
(1983) conducted land suitability analysis for sanitary
landfill site selection. Later, Minor and Jacobs (1994)
presented the multi-objective optimisation model for
identifying suitable sites for MSW landfilling operations.
Later, Siddiqui, Everett, and Vieux (1996) conducted a
study to identify suitable sites in Cleveland County,
Oklahoma, taking regulatory restrictions, area attributes
and site assessment criteria into account using Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank potential sites. Kontos,
Komilis, and Halvadakis (2005) presented a study to
evaluate the suitability of sites using the AHP method
to assign weightings for selected factors. Sumathi, Nate-
san, and Sarkar (2008) also used the AHP method for
identifying sites for land filling in the city of Pondicherry,
India, considering 14 criteria pertaining to land use,
hydrogeologic and air quality factors, using GIS. Similar
approaches have been used to identify a suitable location
for landfills (Sener et al. 2010; Ghobadi, Babazadeh, and
Bagheri 2013; Yıldırım and Güler 2016).
The above presented comprehensive review of the lit-
erature shows that many studies have been carried out in
the past to assess the vulnerability of groundwater con-
tamination and the landfill site selection process. Those
methods adopted worldwide in the process of landfill
site selection are mostly based on the subjective scoring
system in which weight factors are multiplied by the rat-
ing factors to obtain scores. Such methods do not con-
sider variability associated with the parameters such as
geological, environmental and hydrogeological par-
ameters. The reliability-based approach considers such
variability in terms of uncertainty to identify reliable
sites for the safe disposal of MSW.
1.2. Objectives
The present study aims to provide an approach to identify
best suitable site locations for the disposal of MSW based
on the reliability concepts. As a part of the study, vulner-
ability to groundwater contamination is assessed using the
standard DRASTIC method and the existing landfill sites
in the study are examined to see whether these sites are
located in the safe regions or not. The identification of
suitable sites has been carried out by considering various
land use, geological, hydrogeological and environmental-
related factors. The reliability of site suitability is evaluated
based on the probability and reliability concepts by con-
sidering the aforementioned factors defined in terms of
random variables.
1.3. Description of the study area
The selected study area, Bengaluru city, is located in
South India between 12.64°N–13.45°N latitude and
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
Figure 1. Location map of Bengaluru city, Karnataka, India.
77.17°E–77.96°E longitude on the Deccan plateau at an
average altitude of about 930 m above msl and sur-
rounded by hills, rocky outcrops and has undulating
topography. Bengaluru covers an area of 4487.17 km2
and has a population of 96,21,551 according to the Cen-
sus of India, 2011. The city being one of the rapidly
growing cities in India, is facing an acute shortage of
land parcels due to industrialisation and anthropogenic
activities since the past two decades. The city generates
around 4500 tons of MSW per day with a waste gener-
ation rate of 700 g per capita per day. The location
map of the study area is as shown in Figure 1.
Due to rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, Ben-
galuru has lost many surface water bodies and is facing
acute shortage of water resources. Therefore, the
human population also depends on the groundwater
resources for domestic and agricultural purposes and
hence protection of groundwater resources in the region
has become a prime concern since more than a decade.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. DRASTIC method
This study utilises the DRASTIC method (Aller et al.
1987) to assess potential for groundwater contamination
by using seven hydrogeological related factors; D, depth
to water; R, net recharge; A, aquifer media; S, soil media;
T, topography; I, impact of the vadose zone and C,
hydraulic conductivity of aquifer. This method is simple,
3
straightforward, data required are mostly available, and
results can be interpreted and easily compared to other
methods. The disadvantage of the method is that it
underestimates vulnerability of fractured aquifers. The
method also assumes that the contaminant is introduced
at the ground surface; the contaminant is flushed into the
ground water by precipitation; the contaminant has the
mobility of water; and the area evaluated using the
method is 100 acres or larger (Aller et al. 1987). The
DRASTIC Index (DI) is computed by using an additive
model as given by the following equation:
DI = DR × DW + RR × RW + AR × AW + SR
× SW + TR × TW + IR × IW + CR × CW , (1)
where subscripts R and W refer to rating and weighting
for each factor. The weights were derived using the Del-
phi (consensus) approach and most significant factors
have a weight of 5 and the least significant factors will
be assigned a weight of 1 as given in Table 1. Rating
values for each factor are assigned based on the type of
Table 1. Weights for DRASTIC factors (Aller et al. 1987).
Factor Weight
Depth to water 5
Net recharge 4
Aquifer media 3
Soil media 2
Topography 1
Impact of vadose zone 5
Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer 3
4 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU
hydrogeological settings of the study area and values vary
from 1 for low to 10 for high contribution to contami-
nation. The higher values of DI indicate a higher poten-
tial or vulnerable to contamination on a relative scale.
2.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process
The AHP (Saaty 1987) is one of the widely used analyti-
cal approaches in solving complex problems involving
multiple criteria through a hierarchic structure, for mak-
ing strategic decisions. The approach adopts the pair-
wise comparison method, in which a pair of criteria is
subjectively compared at a time against each other on
fundamental 9-point scale values (Saaty 1987) to obtain
their priorities. A point of 1 indicates equal priority and 9
indicates the highest priority compared to another cri-
terion considered.
The AHP approach is purely based on the experience
and knowledge of decision-maker to judge the impor-
tance of one over another criterion or factor. The AHP
can also be conducted through a survey among any num-
ber of experts chosen based on the type of problem.
Many times, this process may introduce inconsistencies
in the judgment based on the capability of the
decision-maker. The Normalized Principal Eigenvector
from the comparison matrix shows relative weights
among the criteria. Also, the Principal Eigenvalue
(λmax) is computed for the comparison matrix of order
n, to verify the consistency of the judgment (Saaty
1987, 2008). This is defined using the Consistency
Index (CI) which is given by the following equations:
lmax − n
CI = , (2)
n−1
CI
CR = . (3)
RI
The consistency ratio (CR) is obtained by comparing
CI with an average Random Consistency Index (RI)
(Saaty 1987; Alonso and Lamata 2006) using Equation
(3). RI is the mean of CI values obtained for random
matrices of different sizes (Alonso and Lamata 2006).
The inconsistency can be accepted if CR is less than
10% or 0.1. If the obtained CR value is greater than the
threshold (10%), it is required to revise the subjective
judgment process.
2.3. Land Suitability Index (LSI)
In this study, the Land Suitability Index (LSI) defines the
site suitability of 30 m × 30 m grid on an entire map of
the study area. The LSI is computed using the additive
weighted overlay method which is expressed in the
form of the following equation, by considering derived
weights and rankings of criteria:


15
LSI = (Wi ) × (Ri ).
i=1
Equivalently,
LSI = (WST × RST ) + (WSL × RSL ) + (WSO. × RSO )
+ (WWB × RWB ) + (WR × RR ) + (WL × RL )
+ (WDI × RDI ) + (WAL × RAL ) + (WWL × RWL )
+ (WDGW × RDGW ) + (WH × RH )
+ (WGWQ × RGWQ ) + (WAQ × RAQ )
+ (WA × RA ) + (WF × RF ). (4)
where Wi is the weighting of each random variable
(criterion) derived from AHP; Ri indicates the rating
value of each criterion; ST is the settlement criterion;
SL is the slope criterion (topography); SO is the soil
criterion; WB is the surface water bodies; R is the riv-
ers criterion; L is the lineaments criterion; DI is the
groundwater vulnerability or the DRASTIC Index cri-
terion; AL is the Agricultural lands criterion; WL is
the wastelands criterion; DGW is the depth to ground-
water table criterion; H is the highways criterion;
GWQ is the groundwater quality criterion; AQ is the
air quality criterion; A is the airports criterion and F
is the forests criterion.
2.4. Reliability analysis for site suitability
The reliability method is solely based on the probabil-
istic approaches. It has been proven that probability-
based approaches yield better results and predictions
compared to deterministic approaches. In the context
of landfill site selection, the reliability of a site can
be defined as the probability that the site is suitable
accomplishing the given set of criteria. The probability
of obtaining a desired LSI (LSIdes) is defined in terms
of reliability index β. Therefore, the probability P
(LSIact ≥ LSIdes) defines the probability of suitability
of a location. Here, actual LSI (LSIact) is a function
of weight (W ) and rating of criteria (R) as given in
Equation (4). The Hasofer–Lind (1974) reliability
index β is computed for each grid of the map and
the matrix formulation of the reliability index β is
given by the following equation. USACE (1997) rec-
ommends a reliability index β value of 3 as safety mar-
gin in engineering

   
ji − mi T −1 ji − mi
b = min [R] . (5)
jeF si si
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 5

Subject to limit state function,

g(x) = LSIdes − LSIact = 0, (6)
where


15
LSIact = LSI = (Wi ) × (Ri ),
i=1

where ξ is the vector representing the set of random

variables ξi; μ is the vector of mean values μi; C is
the covariance matrix; R is the correlation matrix; σi
is the standard deviation of the ith variable and F is
the failure region. The correlation matrix R conveys
the correlation structure between the variables. In
fact, the correlation factor has an impact on the
reliability index values. As the number of variables is
more, it would be much more a challenging task to
derive correlation factors between the variables when
they are highly spatially variables in all the dimensions.
A proper framework or methodology is necessary to
derive correlation factors between them. Hence, all
the variables are assumed to be uncorrelated normally
distributed random variables in this study.

Figure 2. IRS P6 LISS-III image of Bengaluru city.

3. Preparation of maps
3.1. Primary datasets
The Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) Satellite, P6, Linear
Imaging and Self-Scanning Sensor (LISS-III) multi-spec-
tral sensor imageries of Resourcesat-1 satellite pertaining
to Bengaluru (Year of acquisition: Jan/Feb 2012) is
shown in Figure 2. CartoDEM images of 30 m spatial res-
olution are prepared from Cartosat-1 satellite imageries
for Bengaluru as shown in Figure 3.

3.2. Thematic maps of DRASTIC factors

3.2.1. Depth to water map
The depth to water represents how deep is the ground-
water table from the ground level expressed in terms of
metres below ground level (mbgl). Consideration of
this factor signifies that shallow aquifers are more
prone to risk of contamination. Observatory wells data
from the year 2005 to July 2015 are procured from the
Department of Mines and Geology (DMG), Bengaluru,
to generate the depth to water table map. Table 2 pre-
sents the ratings assigned for each range of values
based on the Aller et al. (1987) and expert knowledge.
The final map of the depth to water is shown in Figure 4.

3.2.2. Net recharge map

Recharge factor defines the infiltration rate of precipi- Figure 3. CartoDEM of Cartosat-1 (spatial resolution of 30 m) for
tation into the subsurface environment contributing to Bengaluru.
6 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU

Table 2. Ranges and ratings for DRASTIC factors. Table 3. List of criteria considered for landfill site selection.
Assigned Category Criteria
Parameter Unit Range rating Land use Settlements
Depth to water feet 0–5 10 Agricultural lands
5–15 9 Highways
15–30 7 Surface water bodies
30–50 5 Airports
>50 3 Rivers
Net recharge inch 2–3 2 Forests
3–4 3 Wastelands
>4 6 Geology and hydrogeology Lineaments
Aquifer media – Granite (igneous) 5 Topography (slope)
Gneiss (igneous) 5 Soil
Laterite 9 Depth to groundwater
Soil media – Lateritic gravel 10 Environment Groundwater quality
Lateritic gravely 8 Groundwater vulnerability
clay Ambient air quality
Gravely or lateritic 7
clay
Alluvial clay 6
Clayey loam 3 aquifer. The quantity of precipitation has a direct influence
Clay 2
Rock lands 1
on the recharge rate in the region under study. Estimation
Topography % 0–2 10 of recharge based on the water table fluctuation method
slope 2–6 9 given by the groundwater estimation committee is one of
6–12 5
12–18 3 the well-known approaches which require large datasets.
>18 1 Therefore, a rainfall–recharge relationship given by Rangar-
Impact of the vadose zone – Granite (igneous) 5
media Gneiss (igneous) 5 ajan and Athavale (2000), Equation (7), is used to compute
Lateritic clay 9 net (natural) recharge in the study area
Hydraulic conductivity of gpd/ 10–40 2
aquifer ft2 40–60 6 Recharge = 0.172 (Rainfall) − 44. (7)
60–110 8
The rain gauge station wise seasonal normal rainfall
data for the year of 2014 is obtained from the annual
rainfall report of 2014 (DES 2015) and is used to com-
pute recharge at each rain gauge station using Equation
(7). The rating for each range is presented in Table 3
and Figure 5 shows the map of recharge.

3.2.3. Aquifer media map

The flow through an aquifer system depends upon the
type of medium. Aquifer medium also influences the
effective surface area of soil particles with which the pol-
lutant may come in contact with the aquifer. The data
pertaining to the aquifer systems of Bengaluru are
obtained from the report published by CGWB (2012).
The principal aquifer systems in Bengaluru are Granite,
Gneiss (Banded Gneissic Complex) and Laterite. The
Lateritic aquifers are unconfined, whereas Granite and
Gneiss aquifers vary from semi confined to confined sys-
tems. The assigned rating for each type of aquifer system
is given in Table 3 and Figure 6 shows the derived map of
aquifer media.

3.2.4. Soil media map

The upper most weathered zone of the earth could lead
to vertical movement of the liquid into the vadose
zone. Granular soils like sand and gravels are more per-
meable compared to loam, silt and clayey soils. Those
Figure 4. Map of depth to water. regions with soils having high permeability are more
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 7

Figure 5. Map of net recharge. Figure 7. Map of soil media.

prone to carry pollutants from the surface and lead to

soil as well as groundwater contamination. The soil
map is prepared using the data obtained from the
National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
(NBSSLUP), Bengaluru. The ratings assigned for each
type of soil are presented in Table 3 and the map of
soil media is shown in Figure 7.

3.2.5. Topography map

Topography refers to the slope and its variations of the
earth surface in the region. The slope factor controls the
surface runoff which influences infiltration of pollutants
into the vadose zone. Flat surfaces increase the possibility
of infiltration, whereas steep slopes increase surface runoff
and thereby reduce infiltration of pollutants. CartoDEM of
30 m spatial resolution is used to generate the slope map
expressed in terms of per cent slope. Table 3 presents the
assigned ratings for each range of slope and Figure 8
shows the classified map of topography.

3.2.6. Impact of the vadose zone media map

Figure 6. Map of aquifer media.
The vadose zone is the zone above the water table and
below the earth surface which is either unsaturated or
partially saturated. Biodegradation, neutralisation,
mechanical filtration, chemical reaction, volatilisation
and dispersion are all processes which may occur within
the vadose zone (Aller et al. 1987). Due to the inadequate
8 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU

Figure 8. Map of topography. Figure 9. Map of impact of the vadose zone media.

availability of the data to define the impact of the vadose

zone, the ratings are assigned based on the aquifer media
as given in Table 3. Figure 9 shows the final map of the
impact of the vadose zone.

3.2.7. Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer map

Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer controls the travel
time, flux and concentration of pollutants within the
aquifer under a given hydraulic gradient (Aller et al.
1987). The data pertaining to the characteristics of aqui-
fer systems provided in the report by CGWB (2012) have
been used to generate the hydraulic conductivity map.
The thickness of the aquifer (b) and transmissivity (T )
values for Laterite, Granite and Gneisses complex type
of aquifer system for the region are obtained to compute
hydraulic conductivity by using Equation (8). The rela-
tive ratings are assigned as given in Table 3. Figure 10
shows the map of hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
k
T= . (8)
b

3.3. Maps for landfill site selection

A set of criteria given by CPHEEO (2014), Ministry of
Urban Development, Govt. of India, is generally con-
sidered for the identification of suitable sites for a land Figure 10. Map of hydraulic conductivity of aquifer.
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 9

filling facility in India. In the present study, the con- agricultural plantation, crop land and fallow lands.
sidered criteria are grouped into three categories: Figure 12 shows the suitability map of agricultural lands.
(1) land use, (2) geology and hydrogeology and (3) Highways: CPHEEO (2014) specifies a buffer distance
environment. The groups and criteria considered for of 300 m from the centre line of the road, to consider in
landfill site selection are presented in Table 3. Each cri- the landfill site selection process. In the present study,
terion has been classified from very less suitability zone the map of major road networks includes state and
to very high suitability zone and assigned a rating from national highways, expressways and other major district
1 to 5 respectively. roads are created from the IRS P6 LISS-III imagery.
Figure 13 shows the suitability map of highways.
3.3.1. Land use criteria maps Surface water bodies: Leakage of leachate from land-
Settlements: Settlements refer to human habitation areas. fills contaminates surface water bodies around the land-
CPHEEO (2014) specifies no landfill facility should be fills through surface and subsurface flow. Therefore,
set up within a distance of 500 m from the habitation CPHEEO (2014) specifies, selection of sites within a dis-
(settlements) cluster. The distances for buffer zones tance of 200 m from water bodies such as lakes, tanks
and suitability ratings for each zone used in the study and ponds is not desirable. There are 141 water bodies
are shown in Table 4. Figure 11 shows the suitability which include two major reservoirs, namely, Thippagon-
map of settlements. danahalli Reservoir and Hesaraghatta Reservoir which
Agricultural lands: The release of contaminants from are the major sources of water for Bengaluru urban
landfills percolates through the subsoil surface which area. The study considers a buffer distance of 500 m
leads to contamination of surface water bodies, soil from the boundary of the water bodies. Figure 14
and groundwater resources. Therefore, the selection of shows the suitability map of surface water bodies.
agricultural land for waste disposal is not desirable. Airports: Existence of landfill near the airport causes
The prepared map of agricultural lands is classified as obstruction to the flying vehicle during the landing and
takeoff operations. Therefore, CPHEEO (2014) specifies
20,000 m of restriction zones for landfills. The city has
Table 4. Range, suitability and ratings for land use factors. Jalahalli East Air Force Station, Yelhanka Air Force
Criteria Unit Range Rating
Settlements Buffer distance in 0–200 1
metres 200–300 2
300–400 3
400–500 4
>500 5
Agricultural lands Type Agricultural 2
plantation
Crop lands 2
Fallow lands 5
Highways Buffer distance in 0–50 1
metres 50–100 2
100–150 3
150–200 4
>200 5
Surface water Buffer distance in 0–200 1
bodies metres 200–300 2
300–400 3
400–500 4
>500 5
Airports Buffer distance in 0–5 1
metres 5–10 2
10–15 3
15–20 4
>20 5
Rivers Buffer distance in 0–40 1
metres 40–60 2
60–80 3
80–100 4
>100 5
Forests Type Forest area 1
Non-forest area 5
Wastelands Type Others 1
Cultivable 2
wastelands
Land with scrub 3
Barren rocky area 4
Lands without scrub 5
Figure 11. Suitability map of settlements.
10 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU
Figure 12. Suitability map of agricultural lands.
Figure 13. Suitability map of highways.
Figure 14. Suitability map of surface water bodies.
Base, Kempegowda International Airport, Jakkur Aero-
drome and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Figure 15
shows the suitability map of airports.
Rivers: Landfill leachate contaminates flowing rivers
by surface and subsurface runoff during the heavy rain-
fall events. The river carries pollutants to subsequent
water bodies and also causes groundwater contami-
nation. CPHEEO (2014) specifies a minimum siting dis-
tance of 200 m from rivers or streams. The stream
network has been derived from CartoDEM of 30 m
spatial resolution. Figure 16 shows the suitability map
of rivers.
Forests: Emissions from landfills affect ecosystem and
biodiversity of the forest. Therefore, this factor is con-
sidered as one of the important criteria in this study.
The forest areas are delineated from the satellite ima-
geries and assigned a rating of 1 and considered as a
restricted zone for landfill site selection. Figure 17
shows the suitability map of forests.
Wastelands: Wastelands are considered to be very
highly suitable locations for landfills. The wastelands
maps are prepared and classified as cultivable waste-
lands, land with scrub, barren rocky area and lands with-
out scrub. Figure 18 shows the suitability map of
wastelands.
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 11

Figure 15. Suitability map of airports. Figure 17. Suitability map of forests.

3.3.2. Geology and hydrogeology criteria maps

Lineaments: Lineaments are linear features below a geo-
logical structure which are faults, folds or boundaries of
stratigraphic formations. Consideration of lineaments as
a criterion is necessary as these features are more suscep-
tible to shear failure during the earthquake events which
lead to the collapse of the waste heap or landfill side slope
instability and failures. CPHEEO (2014) specifies 500 m
as the minimum siting distance from fault line fractures.
In this study, lineaments are extracted from CartoDEM
as per standard techniques and assigned rating values
as mentioned in Table 5. Figure 19 shows the suitability
map of lineaments.
Topography: Bengaluru is characterised by a very
undulating topographical surface having steep slopes
ranging from 0% to 117.51% rise and elevation in the
region varies from 554 to 1194 m above msl. Selection
of sites having steeper slopes increases excavation costs
and operational difficulties. Therefore, such an area is
not suitable for landfills. Figure 20 shows the suitability
map of topography (slope).
Soils: Soil map of the city has been prepared using the
data obtained from NBSSLUP, Bengaluru. Soil types hav-
ing higher rates of infiltration or permeability are not
suitable for landfills. Figure 21 shows the suitability
Figure 16. Suitability map of rivers.
map of soils.
12 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU

Figure 18. Suitability map of wastelands. Figure 19. Suitability map of lineaments.

Depth to groundwater table: The groundwater level

and observation well data have been procured from
DMG, Bengaluru. CPHEEO (2014) specifies no locations
must be considered for landfill siting where shallow aqui-
fer (depth < 2 mbgl) exists. Figure 22 shows the suit-
ability map of depth to groundwater table.

Table 5. Range, suitability and ratings for geology and

hydrogeological factors.
Criteria Unit Range Rating
Lineaments Buffer distance 0–200 1
in metres 200–300 2
300–400 3
400–500 4
>500 5
Topography % slope >35 1
20–35 2
10–20 3
3–10 4
0–3 5
Soils Type Lateritic gravelly clay, 2
Lateritic clay soils
Gravely clay soils 3
Alluvial clay, and Clayey 4
loam soils
Clay soil and rock lands 5
Depth to mbgl 0–5 1
groundwater table 5–15 2
15–25 3
25–40 4
45–58 5
Figure 20. Suitability map of topography.
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 13

Figure 21. Suitability map of soils. Figure 22. Suitability map of depth to groundwater table.

3.3.3. Environment criteria maps and M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Limited, Hyderabad
Groundwater quality: The time series data from years (2014) are used in this study to map air quality in the
2013 and 2014 pertaining to groundwater quality study area. The measured parameters include common
measured at each observation well location are procured air pollutants namely SO2, NO2 and suspended particu-
from the DMG, Bengaluru, to map the extent of con- late matter. The study uses the Indian National Air Qual-
tamination in the study area. For the purpose of analysis, ity Index (IND-AQI) system developed by CPCB (2014)
the concentration of chloride in the groundwater is con-
sidered. The concentration varies from 34 to 899 mg/l in
the study region. The map of groundwater quality is
Table 6. Range, suitability and ratings for environmental factors.
classified into five ranges and assigned a rating value Criteria Unit Range Rating
for each range as given in Table 6. Figure 23 shows the Lineaments Buffer distance 0–200 1
suitability map of groundwater quality. in metres
Groundwater vulnerability: Vulnerability of ground- 200–300 2
300–400 3
water determines the potential of the aquifer to con- 400–500 4
tamination. The regions of high potential for >500 5
Topography % slope >35 1
contamination are not suitable sites for landfills. The 20–35 2
result of an assessment of groundwater vulnerability 10–20 3
3–10 4
study carried out using the DRASTIC method is 0–3 5
used as a criterion for landfill site selection. Higher Soils Type Lateritic gravelly clay, 2
Lateritic clay soils
the DI value, the higher is the vulnerability of aquifer Gravely clay soils 3
to contamination. The range of values is classified into Alluvial clay, and Clayey 4
five ranges and assigned a rating value accordingly. loam soils
Clay soil and rock lands 5
Figure 24 shows the suitability map of groundwater Depth to mbgl 0–5 1
quality. groundwater table
5–15 2
Air quality: The data on Ambient Air Quality Moni- 15–25 3
toring presented in the annual report of KSPCB (2014) 25–40 4
45–58 5
reports on EIA studies conducted by Madhukar (2013)
14 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU
Figure 23. Suitability map of groundwater quality.
Figure 24. Suitability map of groundwater vulnerability.
Figure 25. Suitability map of air quality.
to compute AQI. The obtained AQI values are found to
be in the range of 37.15–290.65 and are reclassified into
four ranges. Figure 25 shows the suitability map of air
quality.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Assessment of vulnerability to groundwater
contamination
The study uses the weighted overlay analysis method to
obtain final vulnerability or the DI map. For this pur-
pose, the derived maps of seven DRASTIC factors are
assigned weightings as suggested by Aller et al. (1987)
and are overlaid to compute DI values. The result of
the assessment is presented in Figure 26. The obtained
DI values are found to be in the range of 92–162.
These range of values are classified as five vulnerability
zones; DI values from 92 to 110 for very less vulnerability,
110–120 for less vulnerability, 120–130 for moderate vul-
nerability, 130–140 for high vulnerability and 140–162
for very high vulnerability zone. These five zones are
ranked from one being very less vulnerability to five
being very high vulnerability as presented in Table 7.
Very less vulnerable zones are very highly suitable for
landfills, whereas very high vulnerable zones are very
less suitable due to high risk of groundwater
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 15

in the less vulnerable zone, whereas none of the landfills

are found to be located in very less and very high vulner-
able zones. This shows that most of the existing landfills
in Bengaluru are located in the vulnerability zones.

4.2. Computation of LSI and landfill site selection

4.2.1. Analytical Hierarchy Process
In this study, the AHP method is used to derive relative
weightings for each of the 15 criteria through the pair-
wise comparison matrix as shown in Table 8. In the
method, a pair of criteria is considered at a time and
their priorities are evaluated on a scale of one to nine
(Saaty 2008). The Principal Eigenvalue (λmax) is com-
puted for the matrix of order n = 15. The obtained
λmax = 16.512 is used to compute CI using Equation
(2). An RI value of 1.58 (Alonso and Lamata 2006) for
n = 15 is considered to compute CR using Equation
(3). Accordingly, the obtained values of CI and CR
were found to be 0.108 and 0.068, respectively, which
are less than the acceptable threshold of CR = 10% or
0.1. This ensures consistency of the comparison matrix.
The obtained weights indicate that the settlements,
Figure 26. Vulnerability (DI) map showing locations of existing soils and slope factors are of prime concern in the con-
major landfills. sidered study area. The pair-wise comparison matrix
belongs to 15 criteria and the relative weight obtained
from AHP for each criterion is presented in Table 8.
contamination. The results of the vulnerability assess-
ment showed that 41,942.03 ha (9.45%) of the total
area is very less vulnerable, 102,186.40 ha (32.94%) is 4.2.2. Computation and analysis of LSI
less vulnerable, 114,209.60 ha (25.47%) is moderately vul- The LSI is computed using the additive weighted overlay
nerable, 147,749.10 ha (22.79%) is highly vulnerable and method which is expressed in the form of Equation (4),
42,386.41 ha (9.35%) is very highly vulnerable to using derived weights and rankings assigned for criteria
contamination. maps. The analysis is performed using the weighted
To evaluate the suitability of the existing landfill sites overlay tool provided in the spatial analyst toolbox of
in Bengaluru, the locations of 10 major landfill sites are ArcGIS software package. The obtained LSI values are
overlaid on the computed DI map as shown in Figure 26. 0, 3, 4 and 5. The index value of 5 represents highly suit-
The results showed that four landfill sites (Lingaderena- able zone (Rank #1), index value of 4 represents moder-
halli, Mandur, Seegehalli and Chikkanagamangala land- ately suitable zone (Rank #2), index value of 3 represents
fills) are located in the highly vulnerable zone, four less suitable zone (Rank #3) and 0 (zero) represents
landfill sites (Cheemasandra, Kannahalli, Subrayanpalya unsuitable zone. The LSI map presented in Figure 27
and Doddabidarakallu sites) are located in the moder- shows that 4445.27 km2 (99.06%) of the total area is
ately vulnerable zone and two landfill sites (Terra unsuitable, 1.46 km2 (0.032%) of the total area is less suit-
Firma and Mavallipura landfills) are found to be located able, 34.40 km2 (0.76%) of the total area is moderately
suitable, whereas only 3.59 km2 (0.08%) of the total
area is highly suitable for landfills. The overlay of the
Table 7. Results of the assessment of groundwater vulnerability existing landfill locations over the LSI map showed
in the study area. that none of the existing landfill site is located in the suit-
DI range Rank Vulnerability zone Area (ha) Area (%) No. of landfills able zone. The study presented here is the preliminary
90–110 1 Very less 41,942.03 9.45 – assessment of site suitability. As a final screening process,
110–120 2 Less 102,186.40 32.94 2
120–130 3 Moderate 114,209.60 25.47 4 an evaluation of local characteristics and field investi-
130–140 4 High 147,749.10 22.79 4 gations of the proposed sites is required to make
140–162 5 Very high 42,386.41 9.35 –
decisions.
16 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU

Table 8. Pair-wise comparison matrix and relative weight from AHP.

Criteria ST SO SL WB R DI AL DGW L GWQ AQ WL H A F Relative weight (%)
ST 1 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 17
SO 0.3 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 14
SL 0.3 1 1 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 14
WB 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 8
R 0.5 0.3 0.3 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 7
DI 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 5
AL 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 5
DGW 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 4
L 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 5
GWQ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 2 2 1 3
AQ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3
WL 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 0.5 0.3 1 1 0.3 1 1 1 3 2 2 4
H 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 1 3 3 4
A 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.3 0.5 1 0.5 0.3 1 3 3
F 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 1 1 0.5 0.3 0.3 1 3
CI = 0.108; CR = 0.068 < 0.1 or 10% 100
Note: ST is Settlement; SL is Slope (topography); SO is Soils; WB is surface Water Bodies; R is Rivers; L is Lineaments; DI is groundwater vulnerability or DRASTIC
Index; AL is Agricultural Lands; WL is the Waste Lands; DGW is Depth to Groundwater table; H is highways; GWQ is Groundwater Quality; AQ is Air Quality; A is
Airports; and F is Forest.

4.3. Reliability analysis for landfill site selection
The reliability analysis is performed to evaluate the prob-
ability of site suitability considering 15 criteria expressed
in terms of random variables. The generated criteria
maps are imported and preprocessed in the Matlab plat-
form for the analysis. Each criterion map having rating
values is basically a multidimensional matrix or array.
The rating value of each grid of the multidimensional
matrix was considered as mean (μ). Whereas the stan-
dard deviation (σ) of the multidimensional matrix
belonging to a random variable was estimated by consid-
ering all the grid values of that variable (criterion) map
imported into the Matlab. The probability of achieving
a desired LSI value, i.e. P(LSIact ≥ LSIdes), is considered
as a limit state function g(x), and is expressed in terms
of the reliability index β. The analysis has been per-
formed for varied LSIdes values for three cases: LSIdes =
3; LSIdes ≤ 4 and LSIdes ≤ 5 as given in the following
equations. The β values are computed for each grid of
the matrix
g(x)3 = 3 − LSIact = 0, (9)

g(x)4 = 4 − LSIact = 0, (10)

g(x)5 = 5 − LSIact = 0, (11)

where


15
LSIact = LSI = (Wi ) × (Ri )
i=1

= (0.17 × RST ) + (0.14 × RSL ) + (0.14 × RSO )

+ (0.08 × RWB ) + (0.07 × RR )
+ (0.05 × RL ) + (0.05 × RDI ) + (0.05 × RAL )
+ (0.04 × RWL ) + (0.04 × RDGW )
+ (0.04 × RH ) + (0.03 × RGWQ )
+ (0.03 × RAQ ) + (0.03 × RA ) + (0.03.RF ).

The reliability index map evaluated for LSIdes ≤ 3 is

Figure 27. LSI map showing locations of existing landfills.
presented in Figure 28. The result of the analysis showed
that only 8.25% (370.31 km2) of the total area has
β values in the range of 0–3. β = 0 indicates that prob-
ability P(LSIdes = 3) = 0 and such grids are not suitable
as landfill sites. On the other side, only 1.78 km2 area
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 17

Figure 28. Reliability index map for the function LSIdes ≤ 3.

Figure 29. Reliability index map for the function LSIdes ≤ 4.

has β values in the range of 2–4, for which probability P

(LSIdes = 3) varies from 97.7% to ∼100%, respectively.
This is considered as the low suitability zone.
The result of the analysis performed to map the
zones of β values for the constraint LSIdes ≤ 4 is
shown in Figure 29. The obtained results showed
that 2292.06 km2 (51.08%) of the total area consists
of β values in the range of 0–5. Accordingly,
1694.10 km2 (73.91%) is composed of β values in the
range of 1–2. This extent of region is having prob-
ability P(LSIdes ≤ 4) from 84.13% to 97.72% and
hence these zones are not acceptable as suitable sites
for landfills. The remaining area of 597.96 km2
(26.08%) is comprised of β values from 2 to 5, having
P(LSIdes ≤ 4) greater than 97.72%.
The results of the reliability analysis for LSIdes ≤ 5
are presented in Figure 30. The reliability index varies
from 1 to 8 for an area of 4486.29 km2 (99.98%) of
the total area. Out of which an area of 2433.57 km2
(54.24%) has β values varying from 1 to 3 and P
(LSIdes ≤ 5) is less than 97.72%. The remaining area
of 2052.72 km2 (45.75%) comprises β values varying
from 3 to 8 and its probability P(LSIdes ≤ 5) is greater
than 97.72%. Mavallipura and Mandur landfill sites
are the largest dump yards in Bengaluru city among Figure 30. Reliability index map for the function LSIdes ≤ 5.
18 L. G. SANTHOSH AND G. L. SIVAKUMAR BABU
many other sites. Studies carried out by Chanakya,
Shwetmala, and Ramachandra (2011), Reddy and Nan-
dini (2011) and Sivapullaiah, Naveen, and Sitharam
(2016) showed the adverse effects of these landfills
on the environment in the vicinity. In accordance
with Figures 28–30, both the landfills are located in
the region where the β values are less than 3 (β < 3).
From this, it is evident that the existing landfill sites
are unreliable locations and thus the probability of
risk to the environment is high.
5. Conclusions
The present study used the standard DRASTIC method
to assess vulnerability to groundwater contamination.
The results of the assessment showed that the study
region has 9.45% of very less, 32.94% of less, 25.47% of
moderate, 22.79% of high and 9.35% of very high vulner-
able zones. The superimposition of existing landfill
locations on the DI map showed that the landfills are
located in the vulnerable zones of the region. This
suggests that there is a high risk of groundwater con-
tamination and hence requires proper site remediation
and preventive measures to avoid contamination of the
subsurface environment. The results of the study also
showed that only 3.59 km2 (0.08%) of the total area is
highly suitable for landfills. The overlay of existing land-
fill locations over the LSI map showed that none of the
existing landfill sites is located in the suitable zones.
This indicates that land availability is very much limited
for the safe disposal of MSW in the region. Therefore, it
requires adopting efficient integrated waste management
plans and practices. The paper also presented reliability
maps for the study area which shows the probability of
low, moderate and high suitability zones. Accordingly,
existing landfills are not located in the safe regions.
The proposed approach helps the decision-makers and
planners to choose the extent of a region having a prob-
ability of obtaining required LSI greater than the desired
confidence interval using the developed reliability index
maps.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for
their critical review, insightful comments and suggestions
which helped to enhance the quality of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Al-Adamat, R. A., I. D. Foster, and S. M. Baban. 2003.
“Groundwater Vulnerability and Risk Mapping for the
Basaltic Aquifer of the Azraq Basin of Jordan Using GIS,
Remote Sensing and DRASTIC.” Applied Geography 23
(4): 303–324.
Aller, L., J. H. Lehr, R. Petty, and T. Bennett. 1987. Drastic: A
Standardized System to Evaluate Ground Water Pollution
Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings. EPA/600/2-87/035.
Ada, OK: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert
S Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory.
Alonso, J. A., and M. T. Lamata. 2006. “Consistency in the
Analytic Hierarchy Process: A New Approach.”
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Knowledge-Based Systems 14 (4): 445–459.
Antonakos, A. K., and N. J. Lambrakis. 2007. “Development
and Testing of Three Hybrid Methods for the Assessment
of Aquifer Vulnerability to Nitrates, Based on the Drastic
Model, an Example from NE Korinthia, Greece.” Journal
of Hydrology 333 (2): 288–304.
Babiker, I. S., M. A. Mohamed, T. Hiyama, and K. Kato. 2005.
“A GIS-based DRASTIC Model for Assessing Aquifer
Vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture,
Central Japan.” Science of the Total Environment 345 (1):
127–140.
Barber, C., L. Bates, R. Barron, and H. Allison. 1993. “Assessment
of the Relative Vulnerability of Groundwater to Pollution: A
Review and Background Paper for the Conference
Workshop on Vulnerability Assessment.” AGSO Journal of
Australian Geology and Geophysics 14 (2): 147–154.
CGWB (Central Ground Water Board). 2012. Aquifers Systems
of Karnataka. Bangalore: Central Groundwater Board,
Ministry of Water Resources, South Western Region.
Chanakya, H. N., Shwetmala, and T. V. Ramachandra. 2011.
“Estimating Unauthorized Dumping of USW Around
Cities – A Case Study of Bangalore.” In Proceedings of 2nd
International Conference on Solid Waste Management,
Jadavapur University, Kolkata, November 9–11.
Civita, M. 1994. Le Carte délia Vulnerabilitâdegli Acquiferiall’
Inqulnamento. Teoria Pratica [Aquifer vulnerability maps
to pollution]. Bologna: Pitagora Editrice.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2014. National Air
Quality Index. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution
Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change, Government of India.
CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental
Engineering Organization). 2014. Municipal Solid Waste
Management Manual. New Delhi, India: Central Public
Health and Environmental Engineering Organization,
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
Denny, S. C., D. M. Allen, and J. M. Journeay. 2007.
“DRASTIC-Fm: A Modified Vulnerability Mapping
Method for Structurally Controlled Aquifers in the
Southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada.”
Hydrogeology Journal 15 (3): 483–493.
DES (Directorate of Economics and Statistics). 2015. Annual
Rainfall Report of 2014, No. DES/23/2015, Bengaluru:
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of
Karnataka.
Ghobadi, M. H., R. Babazadeh, and V. Bagheri. 2013. “Siting
MSW Landfills by Combining AHP with GIS in Hamedan
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
Province, Western Iran.” Environmental Earth Sciences 70
(4): 1823–1840.
Hasofer, A. M., and N. C. Lind. 1974. “Exact and Invariant
First-Order Reliability Code Format.” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division 100 (1): 111–121.
Kazakis, N., and K. S. Voudouris. 2015. “Groundwater
Vulnerability and Pollution Risk Assessment of Porous
Aquifers to Nitrate: Modifying the DRASTIC Method
Using Quantitative Parameters.” Journal of Hydrology 525:
13–25.
Kontos, T. D., D. P. Komilis, and C. P. Halvadakis. 2005.
“Siting MSW Landfills with a Spatial Multiple Criteria
Analysis Methodology.” Waste Management 25 (8): 818–
832.
KSPCB (Karnataka State Pollution Control Board). 2014.
Annual Report 2013–14, Bangalore: KSPCB.
Lane, W. N., and R. R. McDonald. 1983. “Land Suitability
Analysis: Landfill Siting.” Journal of Urban Planning and
Development 109 (1): 50–61.
Madhukar, R. 2013. “Environmental Impact Assessment
Studies of Major Industries in Bidadi and Doddaballapur
Area Karnataka.” PhD diss., University of Mysore, Mysore.
Minor, S. D., and T. L. Jacobs. 1994. “Optimal Land Allocation
for Solid-and Hazardous-Waste Landfill Siting.” Journal of
Environmental Engineering 120 (5): 1095–1108.
Rahman, A. 2008. “A GIS Based DRASTIC Model for
Assessing Groundwater Vulnerability in Shallow Aquifer
in Aligarh, India.” Applied Geography 28 (1): 32–53.
Ramky Enviro Engineers Limited. 2014. Environmental Impact
Assessment Report. Bangalore: M/s. Bangalore Eco Park
Private Limited.
Rangarajan, R., and R. N. Athavale. 2000. “Annual
Replenishable Ground Water Potential of India – An
Estimate Based on Injected Tritium Studies.” Journal of
Hydrology 234 (1): 38–53.
Reddy, P. S., and N. Nandini. 2011. “Leachate Characterization
and Assessment of Groundwater Pollution Near Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Site.” Nature, Environment and
Pollution Technology 10 (3): 415–418.
Saaty, R. W. 1987. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process – What It
Is and How It Is Used.” Mathematical Modelling 9 (3-5):
161–176.
Saaty, L. T. 2008. “Decision Making with the Analytic
Hierarchy Process.” International Journal of Services
Sciences 1 (1): 83–98.
View publication stats
19
Saidi, S., S. Bouria, H. Dhiaa, H. Ben, and B. Anselmeb. 2011.
“Assessment of Groundwater Risk Using Intrinsic
Vulnerability and Hazard Mapping: Application to
Souassi Aquifer, Tunisian Sahel.” Agricultural Water
Management 98 (10): 1671–1682.
Sener, S., E. Sener, B. Nas, and R. Karagüzel. 2010.
“Combining AHP with GIS for Landfill Site Selection:
A Case Study in the Lake Beysehir.” Waste
Management 30 (11): 2037–2046.
Siddiqui, M., J. Everett, and B. Vieux. 1996. “Landfill Siting
Using Geographic Information Systems: A
Demonstration.” Journal of Environmental Engineering
122 (6): 515–523.
Singh, A., S. Srivastav, S. Kumar, and G. J. Chakrapani. 2015.
“A Modified-DRASTIC Model (DRASTICA) for
Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability to Pollution in
an Urbanized Environment in Lucknow, India.”
Environmental Earth Sciences 74 (7): 5475–5490.
Sinha, M., M. K. Verma, I. Ahmad, K. Baier, R. Jha, and R.
Azzam. 2016. “Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability
Using Modified DRASTIC Model in Kharun Basin,
Chhattisgarh, India.” Arabian Journal of Geosciences 9 (2):
1–22.
Sivapullaiah, P. V., B. P. Naveen, and T. G. Sitharam. 2016.
“Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Construction and
Management-A Few Concerns.” International Journal of
Waste Resources 6 (2): 1–8.
Sumathi, V. R., U. Natesan, and C. Sarkar. 2008. “GIS-based
Approach for Optimized Siting of Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill.” Waste Management 28 (11): 2146–2160.
Teso, R. R., M. P. Poe, T. Younglove, and P. M. McCool. 1996.
“Use of Logistic Regression and GIS Modeling to Predict
Groundwater Vulnerability to Pesticides.” Journal of
Environmental Quality 25 (3): 425–432.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 1997. Risk-
based Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering for Support of
Planning Studies, Engineering and Design. Washington,
DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Worrall, F. 2002. “Direct Assessment of Groundwater
Vulnerability from Borehole Observations.” Geological
Society, London, Special Publications 193 (1): 245–254.
Yıldırım, Ü, and C. Güler. 2016. “Identification of Suitable
Future Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Sites for the
Metropolitan Mersin (SE Turkey) Using AHP and GIS
Techniques.” Environmental Earth Sciences 75 (2): 1–16.