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

net/publication/216525400

GIS and the analytic hierarchy process for regional landfill site selection in
transitional countries: a case study from Serbia

Article  in  Environmental Management · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

34 813

4 authors, including:

Tamara Zelenovic Ratko Bajcetic

Urban planning institute of Vojvodina Public Water Management Company
2 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mirjana Miloradov
University of Novi Sad
72 PUBLICATIONS   769 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Project III 46009 - Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia View project

JOINTISZA-Strengthening cooperation between river basin management planning and flood risk prevention to enhance the status of waters of the Tisza River Basin
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ratko Bajcetic on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Management
DOI 10.1007/s00267-011-9792-3
GIS and the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Regional Landfill Site
Selection in Transitional Countries: A Case Study From Serbia
Tamara Zelenović Vasiljević • Zorica Srdjević •
Ratko Bajčetić • Mirjana Vojinović Miloradov
Received: 24 March 2011 / Accepted: 6 November 2011
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The Serbian National Waste Management
Strategy for the Period 2010–2019, harmonized with the
European Union Directives, mandates new and very strict
requirements for landfill sites. To enable analysis of a
number of required qualitative and quantitative factors for
landfill site selection, the traditional method of site selec-
tion must be replaced with a new approach. The combi-
nation of GIS and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
was selected to solve this complex problem. The Srem
region in northern Serbia, being one of the most environ-
mentally sensitive areas, was chosen as a case study.
Seventeen factors selected as criteria/sub-criteria were
recognized as most important, divided into geo-natural,
environmental, social and techno-economic factors, and
were evaluated by experts from different fields using an
AHP extension in Arc GIS. Weighted spatial layers were
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9792-3) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
T. Zelenović Vasiljević (&)
Public Enterprise Urban and Spatial Planning Institute
of Vojvodina, Železnička 6/III, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
e-mail: ducklingster@gmail.com
Z. Srdjević
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Water Management,
University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovića 8, 21000 Novi Sad,
Serbia
R. Bajčetić
Vode Vojvodine Public Water Management Company,
Bul. Mihajla Pupina 25, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
M. Vojinović Miloradov
Faculty of Technical Science, Department for Environmental
Engineering, University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovića 6,
21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
combined into a landfill suitability map which was then
overlapped with four restriction maps, resulting in a final
suitability map. According to the results, 82.65% of the
territory of Srem is unsuitable for regional landfill siting.
The most suitable areas cover 9.14%, suitable areas 5.24%,
while areas with low and very low suitability cover 2.21
and 0.76% of the territory, respectively. Based on these
findings, five sites close to two large urban agglomerations
were suggested as possible locations for a regional landfill
site in Srem. However, the final decision will require fur-
ther field investigation, a public acceptance survey, and
consideration of ownership status and price of the land.
Keywords Regional landfill siting
Analytic hierarchy
process
Geographic information system
Criterion

Restriction
Dual factors
Introduction
The process of waste management consists of collection,
transport, processing, recycling or disposing of waste, and
monitoring of waste material. One of the most delicate
steps in waste management is the selection of the most
suitable landfill site, as multiple factors have to be con-
sidered and there is no universal formula. The major
problem is that in addition to natural, environmental and
economic factors, complex political and social issues often
influence the selection process.
Proper waste management improves the resource effi-
ciency, and thus plays a key role in the sustainable eco-
nomic development. In the 27 EU countries (EU27), in
particular, public awareness of benefits in terms of climate
change that can be achieved by reuse and recycling of
waste is growing. Specifically, reuse and recycling are an
123

integral part of reducing carbon emissions and minimizing
the impact on climate change.
As a result of 30 years of ongoing processes in the trends
of waste management and awareness of the importance of
reducing the impact waste has on the environment and
public health, the Waste Framework Directive (WFD-2008/
98/EC) was developed in Europe to address impacts of waste
on the environment and public health. WFD includes targets
for the EU Member States to recycle 50% of their municipal
waste and 70% of construction waste by 2020. Also, as a
direct consequence of these actions and the fact that the
Council Directive 99/31 /EC of 26 April 1999 on the land-
fills of waste (EU Landfill Directive) requires Member
States to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste they
landfill, thousands of sanitary and non-sanitary landfills and
dumps across Europe were closed and the amount of
municipal waste placed in landfills in the EU was reduced by
more than 20% over the past 15 years. Nevertheless, while
the EU Member States landfill only a small proportion of
their waste to landfills and the rest is recycled or incinerated,
land filling is still the most common form of municipal solid
waste disposal in less economically developed European
countries. Waste management legislation in Europe differs
from country to country; however, basic principles and
restrictions are in accordance with the WFD, EU Landfill
Directive and other important EU legislation in the field of
waste management. In contrast to the European trends of
minimizing the amounts of waste disposed of in landfills,
land filling is still the most common way of waste disposal in
the USA (EPA 2006). This is because landfills are less
expensive and incineration tends to be favored over recy-
cling programs.
Due to the fact that over the last few years Serbia has been
on a clearly defined path towards integration into the
European Union as a direct result of a positive political
climate, the national legislation has gone through significant
changes. A series of strategies, laws and regulations, par-
ticularly in the field of spatial planning and environmental
protection have been harmonized with European Union
Directives. As a result, exact terms and deadlines for
addressing the serious environmental problem of waste
disposal have been defined for the first time in Serbia (the
Serbian National Waste Management Strategy for the Period
2010–2019, referred to as the Strategy in further text).
Most of the municipal and other solid and liquid waste
in Serbia is disposed of in municipal landfills or dumps
which often do not meet basic sanitary and hygienic criteria
and pose a considerable environmental and public health
risk. As a remediation measure, the Strategy proposed an
optimal regional landfill network consisting of twenty six
sites in Serbia.
Also, new, strict requirements for landfill siting must be
incorporated into site selection and evaluation processes.
123
Environmental Management
According to EU Landfill Directive and the National
Regulation on Waste Disposal in Landfills (Regulation on
Waste Disposal), factors that have a considerable influence
on landfill siting are geo-natural factors, especially the
litho-structural and the depth of the underground water
table. Environmental factors must be considered because
biophysical environment and the ecology of the surround-
ing area may be affected by the landfill (Siddiqui and
others 1996). Social factors include not only aspect and
distance from settlements but also public opposition. The
‘‘not in my back yard’’ and ‘‘not in anyone’s back yard’’
phenomena are widespread, creating a tremendous pressure
on the decision-makers involved in the selection of a
suitable landfill site. Finally, techno-economic factors play
a significant role when arriving at a final decision because
potential site infrastructural facilities, seismic characteris-
tics of the site and land ownership all are of crucial
importance.
Factors that are relevant in the process of landfill siting
can be qualitative and quantitative and the traditional way
of making a decision on landfill siting in Serbia cannot
readily incorporate both into analysis. Thus, a new
approach is necessary in order to reach a decision that will
be in accordance with the both the Strategy and EU
Directives. As Higgs (2006) points out, locating waste
facilities can lead to major public concerns especially in
relation to public health, environmental and economic
consideration, and this is equally true in Serbia.
According to Chang and others (2008) landfill site
selection is often a difficult and complex process that
requires many different criteria, as well as large volumes of
biophysical, environmental, and sociopolitical data (Basnet
and others 2001). ‘‘It is evident that many factors must be
incorporated into landfill siting decisions, and geographic
information systems (GIS) are ideal for preliminary studies
due to the capacity to manage large volumes of spatial data
from a variety of sources’’ (Sener and others 2006). GIS
can facilitate spatial decision-making and planning pro-
cesses as it allows entering, storing, manipulating, ana-
lyzing and displaying large volumes of spatial data
(Congalton and Green 1992). However, even with the aid
of GIS, it can be difficult to include both expert and public
opinions (Boroushaki and Malczewski 2010). Public par-
ticipation principle is particularly relevant since the ratifi-
cation of the United Nations’ Aarhus Convention calling
for an increased transparency of decisions related to the
environment.
When the complexity of factors influencing the landfill
siting process is combined with the need to involve dif-
ferent stakeholders in the decision making process, often
there is a need to integrate multi-criteria techniques with
GIS. GIS and multi-criteria decision analyses complement
one another and allow building consensus and ensuring the
Environmental Management
sustainability of decision alternatives (Boroushaki and
Malczewski 2010). ‘‘At the most rudimentary level, a GIS-
based multi-criteria decision analysis is a procedure that
converts and combines geographical data and decision-
makers’ preferences in order to obtain useful information
for decision-making ‘‘(Eastman and others 1995; Malcz-
werski 1999; Boroushaki and Malczewski 2010). Due to
this complementary aspect, multi-criteria analyses inte-
grated into GIS can provide proper manipulation and data
presentation with consistent ranking based on a variety of
factors that could influence the analyses.
A number of multi-criteria evaluation techniques have
been used in the landfill siting processes in the past. For
example, Higgs (2006) investigated the integration of
multi-criteria techniques with GIS in waste facility location
to enhance public participation through the expertise in
existing literature. Sener and others (2006) integrated GIS
and multi-criteria decision analyses to solve the landfill site
selection issue and developed a detailed ranking of
potential landfill sites in accordance with the selected cri-
teria. Also, Ersoy and Bulut (2009) reported the potential
integration of multi-criteria decision analyses-based
methodology for landfill site selection in a growing urban
region based on the example of Trabzon City, Turkey. Nas
and others (2010) reported their case study of the selection
of MSW landfill site for Konza, Turkey using GIS and
multi-criteria evaluation. Banar and others (2007) devel-
oped a decision-making procedure based on the analytic
network process and legal restrictions that can be used by
public sector decision makers to locate obnoxious facilities.
In another example, a landfill siting process in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley (Texas, USA) was performed by
Chang and others (2008) by combining GIS and fuzzy
multi-criteria decision-making. The fuzzy multi-criteria
decision analyses were performed alongside a geospatial
analysis for the selection of landfill sites and sensitivity
analyses were carried out using a Monte Carlo simulation.
Despite the 20% variation in the decision weights, the final
decision remained the same. Furthermore, in China, Xi and
others (2010) applied fuzzy multi-criteria decision analyses
model for analyzing the optimal solutions among the
available alternatives for waste management in Beijing.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP, introduced by
Saaty (1980)) is an analytical tool that enables researchers
to explicitly rank tangible and intangible criteria against
each other for the purpose of selecting priorities (Chang
and others 2008). The AHP as a multi-objective, multi-
criteria decision-making approach uses a pair-wise criteria
comparison to arrive at a scale of preferences among sets of
alternatives (Saaty and Vargas 1991; Marinoni 2004), and
has been widely used in the landfill siting process. The
AHP has many advantages for the analysis of management
problems, such as the ability to be used in subjective
weighing of attributes, while reducing inconsistency of
judgment (Saaty 2000), as well as for developing impor-
tance structures between criteria and/or potential policy
(Mardle and others 2004). According to Sener and others
(2010b), the integration of GIS and the AHP can be a
powerful tool to solve the landfill site selection problem
(Basagaoglu and others 1997; Allen and others 2003; Sener
B. and others 2006). A review of literature reveals
numerous successful applications of GIS and AHP in the
landfill site selection process (Siddiqui and others 1996;
Sener and others 2006; Guiqin and others 2009; Sener and
others 2010a, b; Nas and others 2010).
As a case study, we have selected the Srem region sit-
uated in northern Serbia, environmentally one of the most
sensitive areas in the country. Srem has several designated
international and national protected areas, and is rich in
natural resources and including fragile water ecosystems,
regional aquifers that should be managed for future use,
large areas covered by forests, a wide variety of geological
formations, and so on.
Seventeen factors that play an important role in select-
ing a regional landfill site were identified, and according to
their nature and role in the decision making process, factors
were treated as criteria, restrictions and dual factors (cri-
terion and restriction). Since Saaty (1980) suggested that
the number of elements compared must be small, i.e. seven
plus or minus two, all identified factors were clustered into
four major factor groups: geo-natural, environmental,
social and techno-economic factor groups as follows:
• Geomorphology, litho-structural and depth of under-
ground water table (geo-natural factors group);
• Surface waters, land use and protected areas (environ-
mental factors group);
• Aspect, settlements and recreational sites, and cultural
heritage sites (social factors group); and
• Slope, traffic infrastructure, airports, nonferrous exploi-
tation fields (sub-criteria: thermo-mineral wells and
nonferrous materials), energy infrastructure (sub-crite-
ria: electric transmission lines and gas pipelines),
seismology and state border (techno-economic factor
group).
The AHP extension for Arc GIS ext_ahp.dll developed
by Marinoni (2009) was used to evaluate criteria, to
determine weights and to create a suitability map. The
suitability map obtained by GIS and AHP was then com-
bined with pre-defined restrictions to form five classes final
suitability map (most suitable areas for regional landfill
siting, suitable areas, areas with low suitability, very low
suitability areas, and unsuitable areas). Five potentially
suitable zones in Srem were identified for further research.
The primary objective of this study was to establish a
transferable, regional landfill siting framework that could
123

be applied more broadly to areas with similar geo-natural
conditions across the European Union. This transferable
framework would provide a relatively uniform GIS based
model for landfill site selection under conditions where
regional and local waste management plans indicate that
landfilling is the best available option for waste disposal.
Material and Methods
Study Area
The Strategy defined a planned network of 26 regional
waste management centers with regional landfills in the
Republic of Serbia. One of the regional landfill is to be
located in the Srem region, situated in the northern part of
Serbia, well known for arable land and therefore land
suitable for agricultural production (Fig. 1).
Srem covers an area of 3,541 km2 and is administra-
tively divided into eight municipalities: Ind̄ija, Sremska
Mitrovica, Irig, Ruma, Sremski Karlovci, Šid, Stara Pazova
and Pećinci, with one city and 106 settlements. The pop-
ulation in 2009 was ca. 350 thousand, according to the
information given in the 2002 census. As a result of pro-
cesses of depopulation, the population of this area is pro-
jected to decrease to 320 thousand by 2020.
Based on the Strategy estimates, the amount of waste in
2009 was nearly 105 thousand metric tons and is projected
to reach almost 150 thousand metric tons in 2020. The
Fig. 1 Map of the Republic of Serbia and the position of Srem region
123
Environmental Management
Fig. 2 Methodology flowchart (G1–4 geo-natural factors, E1–3 c
environmental factors, S1–2 social factors, T1–6 techno-economic
factors, G geo-natural factor group, E environmental factor group,
S social factor group, T techno-economic factor group, ep1–2
environmental-protected areas sub-criteria, tt1–2 techno-economic—
traffic infrastructure sub criteria (road and railway network, and
airports), tp1,2 techno-economic—energy infrastructure sub-criteria
(electrical transmission lines and gas pipelines)
solid waste capacity of the proposed regional landfill has
been estimated at 1,769,820 m3 which would require an
area of approximately 0,18 km2.
Siting Methodology
The methodology flowchart of selecting the most suitable
landfill site in the Srem region is presented in Fig. 2.
Landfill siting in this study was done using Arc GIS
9.3.1 with the AHP extension for Arc GIS ext_ahp.dll
(Marinoni 2009). The AHP approach included five general
steps described below.
Although several multi-criteria analyses could have
been used for the evaluation of the final suitability index, in
this study the AHP method was introduced to the key
stakeholders in the landfill site selection process as an
appropriate method for solving this complex multi-criteria
problem in the Srem region. Multi-criteria evaluation was
used for its capability to simultaneously evaluate a number
of possible choices in the siting process, while taking into
account various relevant criteria, as well as frequently
Environmental Management

123

conflicting objectives. AHP was chosen for the present
because it allowed for collaborative decision-making
where each member of the group could add expert opinion
and experience to break down each step into a hierarchy.
The first step in the AHP methodology is to break down
the decision problem into a hierarchy, i.e., to define a goal
and identify criteria and sub-criteria relevant for landfill
site selection in the Srem region. Reclassified spatial layers
with defined ratings of alternatives (from very low suit-
ability to the most suitable) were assigned to each sub-
criterion and criterion.
In the second step, the key stakeholders in the landfill
site selection process were identified, such as local and
regional governments, technical experts and local com-
munities. A series of town hall meetings and public hear-
ings with stakeholders and experts were held to determine
the significance of criteria important for the planned waste
disposal site. Reaching the consensus was complex due to
the involvement of politicians and citizens, and a prevalent
‘‘not in my back yard’’ attitude towards an undesirable land
use such as a landfill site. During long discussions, tech-
nical experts in various relevant fields (geology, hydrology,
economy, traffic, civil and environmental engineering)
were briefly introduced to the basics of AHP and the nine
point Saaty’s scale (Table 1). AHP was introduced as the
most appropriate method because it allowed partitioning
the problem, and focusing on smaller decision sets one at
the time. Experts then evaluated pairs of the chosen sub-
criteria, then criteria and finally the factor groups regarding
the element in the upper level of the hierarchy.
The derived experts’ rankings were used to create com-
parison matrices at different hierarchical levels (Fig. 2). The
pair-wise comparisons of selected criteria were organized in a
square matrix, where the value of the diagonal elements of the
matrix is always 1. The principal eigenvalue and the corre-
sponding normalized right eigenvalue of the comparison
Table 1 Saaty’s scale
Verbal terms Explanation Num.
values
Equally Two elements have equal importance 1
important regarding the element in higher level
Moderately more Experience or judgment slightly 3 data base. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was used for the
important favors one element
Strongly more Experience or judgment strongly 5
important favors one element
Very strongly Dominance of one element proved 7
more important in practice
Extremely more The highest order dominance 9 factors divided into three types according to the nature and
important of one element over another
Intermediate Compromise is needed 2, 4,
values 6, 8
123
Environmental Management
matrix gave the relative importance of the criteria. The AHP
then computed the weight coefficients for each spatial sub-
criteria, criteria and spatial factor groups relative to the
alternative.
In the next step, the rating of each alternative was
multiplied by the weights of the sub-criteria and aggregated
to determine the local ratings with respect to each criterion.
The local ratings were then multiplied by the weights of the
criteria and aggregated to determine local ratings with
respect to each factor group. Global ratings of the alter-
natives that define their final suitability level were obtained
by multiplying the weights of the factor group and appro-
priate alternatives local ratings. The Consistency Ratio
(CR) values of all comparisons were calculated by meth-
odology proposed by Saaty (1980).
In the fourth step, the AHP ? GIS suitability map was
created using seventeen input maps as decision factor layers.
All vector maps associated with the selected criteria and sub-
criteria were converted to a raster map with 50 9 50 m
resolution. Each raster was then reclassified for all criteria
and sub-criteria and values vi; ix; iy (i = 1, 2,.., n for each
criterion at cell (ix; iy)) were assigned to each new class by a
user. The above process was performed by overlay analyses
in GIS environment. The integration of the GIS and AHP was
performed by using AHP extension in Arc GIS.
The fifth and the final step of the AHP process was to
obtain a combined reclassified AHP ? GIS suitability map
with the restriction maps in order to obtain a final landfill
suitability map for the Srem region.
As previously mentioned, seventeen vector maps were
used in this study. CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless
vector data were downloaded from http://www.eea.europa.
eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-
seamless-vector-database. Surface water data were obtained
from the spatial data base of the Vode Vojvodine Public
Water Management Company in Arc GIS. The lineaments
map obtained from Faculty of Mining and Geology was
prepared using satellite images, field trips and remote
sensing. Litho-structural, depth of ground water table, geo-
morphology, protected areas, cultural heritage, nonferrous
exploitation fields, road and railway network, airports,
electric transmission lines and gas pipelines were obtained
from the Urban and Spatial Institute of Vojvodina spatial
calculation of aspect and slope.
Factors Influencing Landfill Siting
In the process of landfill site selection in Srem, seventeen
role in the decision making process: criteria, restrictions
and dual factors were identified as crucial. All factors were
clustered according to their domain of influence into geo-
Environmental Management
natural, environmental, social and techno-economic factors
(Fig. 2). Appropriate factors were identified by consulting
technical experts in the field of waste management, project
design processes, and construction. Due to the fact that the
requirements given in EU Directives as well as national
regulations had to be followed, all key requirements
defined in the EU Landfill Directive, the Serbian Law on
Waste Management (Law on Waste 2010), the Regulation
on Waste Disposal, were taken into consideration in the
factor identification and rating process.
Given the fact that some requirements, such as distances
from the boundary of the site to residential areas, waterways,
water bodies and other agricultural and urban areas, are not
precisely defined in the EU Landfill Directive, the Law on
Waste and the Regulation on Waste Disposal, the rules and
rating were adopted from the literature (Akbari and others
2008; Lee 2003; Ersoy and Bulut 2009; Chalkias and Sto-
urnaras 1997; Kontos and others 2005; Siddiqui and others
1996; Sener and others 2006; Chang and others 2008; Mahini
and Gholamalifard 2006; Guiqin and others 2009; Sener and
others 2010b, b; Nas and others 2010).
Each of the 17 criteria/sub-criteria were assigned a
different rating on the scale: 1 (unsuitable for landfill sit-
ing) to 7 (the most suitable for landfill siting) according to
legislation restrictions, experts’ experience and interna-
tional references (Table 2).
Results
Evaluation of Spatial Criteria by AHP to Obtain
Suitability Map
Application of the methodology previously described was
enabled by the AHP extension ext_ahp.dll installed in Arc
GIS. The result of the installation is a module that enables
inserting the spatial layered maps as a decision element at
certain hierarchical level, forming the performance matrix
and calculation of local weights of the decision elements at
that level. The pair-wise comparison matrices and
weighting coefficients of decision factors are given in the
Appendix as follows: Landfill suitability (A), Factor Group
(B1-B4), Criteria (C1-C14) and Sub-criteria (D1-D6),
weights (W) and Consistency ratio (CR). The module
automatically multiplies the resulting weight with the value
of each cell on the reclassified raster and aggregates cell
values for each sub-criterion, criterion and factor group to
obtain the final value for each cell.
The weights of all factor groups, criteria and sub-criteria
obtained after evaluation are summarized in Table 3.
Techno-economic factors were less important for the
landfill site selection process than were geo-natural and
environmental factors, and the significance of geo-natural
factors was greater than environmental factors (Table 3),
which is in accordance with the EU Directives and the
national legislation on waste management.
The CR values of all comparisons were calculated by
methodology proposed by Saaty (1980), and were lower
than 0.1, which indicated that the use of weights was
suitable (Eastman 2003).
The suitability map for the environmental criteria group
was derived following the five steps described for the AHP
method (Fig. 3). The same procedure was repeated for geo-
natural, social and techno-economic groups, as well as for
the AHP?GIS suitability maps (Fig. 5).
Final Suitability Map
In the present study, two types of exclusionary factors were
identified. The first type were factors with the restriction
character, which means that in the areas where they were
identified, landfill siting was unsuitable (Fig. 4 a–g), such as
lineaments (with a 1,000 m buffer zone), regional resources
for water supply (with a 2,000 m buffer zone), cultural her-
itage areas (with a 500 m buffer zone) and state borders (with
a 2,000 km buffer zone). The second type of exclusionary
factors consisted of dual factors that were both criteria and
restrictions for landfill siting. The following three dual fac-
tors were identified at the criteria level: protected areas (with
a 500 m buffer zone), surface waters (with a 1,000 m buffer
zone) and settlements (with a 500 m buffer zone).
Although restriction zones are typically excluded at the
start of research, the exclusion step in this study was car-
ried out at the end, after the AHP factor evaluation and
obtaining a suitability map to avoid possible failures in the
analyses process.
The final suitability map shows that more than 80% of
the Srem area was unsuitable for landfill siting (Fig. 5).
Out of the remaining area, 0.76% had very low suitability
for landfill siting, 2.21% had low suitability, 5.24% was
suitable and 9.14% was the most suitable. Areas of dif-
ferent suitability were concentrated into 12 potential
landfill zones (Fig. 6).
Since the best landfill location should be located close to
the waste source; two very important urban agglomerations
in Srem were identified: Indija-Stara Pazova and Sremska
Mitrovica-Ruma, (shown with circles on Fig. 6). As a final
recommendation, the potential regional landfill in the Srem
region should be located somewhere in zones 4, 7, 9, 10 or
11, and further research should focus on those areas.
Discussion and Conclusion
Siting landfills is a challenging component of the overall
process of waste management. This environmental problem
123
 Environmental Management

Table 2 Landfill siting decision factors, ratings, references and input layers used in analyses
Decision factors Distance Rating References

Geo-natural factor group

Geomorphology criterion Eluvial, deluvio-proluvial, 1 Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010)
colluvial, fluvial and krast
relief types
Bottom of the fluvio-marshy 4
environment of the
Pannonian plain
Eolian relief type 7
Litho-structural criterion Gravels and sands 1
(permeability of litho Loess, marl and fleece 4
logical types)
Schistes without gneisses, 7
gneisses and serpentinite
Depth of the underground Distance from underground \2 m 1 Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010),
water table criterion water table 2–5 m 4 Mahini and Gholamalifard (2006)
[5 m 7
Lineaments restriction factor \1000 m* 1 Lee (2003), Study of Geological Conditions
(Fig. 4a) of Fruška Gora Mountain (2006)
Regional resource for water \2000 m* 1 Kontos and others (2005), Water Resources
supply restriction factor Development Master Plan of the Republic
(Fig. 4b) of Serbia (2002), EPA (2006)
Environmental factor group
Protected areas dual \500 m* 1 Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010)
factor (Fig. 4c) 500–1000 m 4
1000–2000 m 5
[2000 m 7
Land use criterion (CORINE Non degraded artificial 1 EPA (2006), CORINE Land
Land cover) surfaces, Forest and semi cover 2000 (2010)
natural areas, Wetlands
Semi natural areas 4
Agricultural areas, Degraded 7
artificial surfaces
Surface waters dual factor \500 m* 1 Law on Water (2010), Regulation on Waste
(Fig. 4d) 500–2000 m 4 Disposal (2010), EU Landfill Directive
(1999), Kontos and others (2005), Nas and
[2000 m 7
others (2010), Dorhofer and Siebert (1998),
Sener and others (2010a), Mahini and
Gholamalifard (2006)
Social factor group
Aspect criterion W 1 Kontos and others (2005), Meteorological
(wind direction) E, SE 3 Yearbook-Climatologically data (2010)
SW, NE 4
S, N 7
Settlements dual factor \500 m 1 EU Landfill Directive (1999), Regulation
(Fig. 4e) 500–1000 m 3 on Waste Disposal (2010), Strategy (2010),
EPA (2006)
1000–2000 m 4
2000–25000 m 7
[25000 m 1
Cultural heritage restriction \500 m 1 EPA (2006), Regulation on Waste
factor (Fig. 4f) Disposal (2010)

123
Environmental Management

Table 2 continued
Decision factors Distance Rating References

Techno-economic factor group

Land slope criterion [20 1 Akbari and others (2008), Regulation
0–2, 10–20 4 on Waste Disposal (2010)
2–10 7
Traffic infrastructure criterion \500 m 1 Sener and others (2006), Nas and others
(proximity principal) 500–1000 m 4 (2010), Strategy (2010)
1000-2000 m 7
[5000 m 1
Airports criterion \500 m 1 Siddiqui and others (1996), Chalkias and
500–1000 m 3 Stournaras (1997), Ersoy and Bulut (2009),
Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010)
1000-3000 m 4
[3000 m 7
Nonferrous exploitation fields \500 m 1
criterion 500–1500 m 4
[1500 m 7
\500 m 1
Energy infrastructure criterion 500–1500 m 4 Strategy (2010)
(electric transmission lines [1000–1500 m 7
and gas pipelines)
[1500 m 1
[8 MSC 1
Seismic criterion 7–8 MSC 3
6–7 MSC 4
\6 MSC 7
State border restriction \2000 m* 1
factor (Fig. 4g)
a
Restrictions

Table 3 Weights of all decision factors

Factor group Weight Criteria Weight Sub criteria Weight

Landfill suitability (A)

Geo Natural (B1) 0.5523 Geomorphology (C1) 0.0719
Litho-structural (C2) 0.6491
Depth of underground water table (C3) 0.279
Environmental (B2) 0.2858 Protected areas (C4) 0.6158 National park, Special nature reserves (D1) 0.8333
Nature monuments (D2) 0.1667
Land use (C5) 0.066
Surface waters (C6) 0.3187
Social (B3) 0.0905 Aspect (C7) 0.1667
Settlement and visibility (C8) 0.8333
Techno-economic (B4) 0.0634 Land slope (C9) 0.2466
Traffic infrastructure (C10) 0.4478
Airports (C11) 0.0459
Nonferrous exploitation fields (C12) 0.0875 Nonferrous materials (D3) 0.8
Thermo mineral wells (D4) 0.2
Energy infrastructure (C13) 0.1434 Gas pipeline (D5) 0.25
Electric transmission line (D6) 0.75
Seismic (C14) 0.0288

123

Fig. 3 Application of GIS and AHP to evaluation of environmental criteria
has attracted scientists with spatial tools and objective
decision making techniques, worldwide. Landfill siting is a
topic of high visibility to the general public. As a process
of controlling and supervising the interactions between
human societies and their impact on the environment, the
role of environmental management in the waste manage-
ment processes is evident and significant.
123
Environmental Management
Due to the fact that Serbia has been a country in transition
for almost a decade, waste disposal has remained an unre-
solved problem. More than 70% of all solid and liquid wastes
in the Republic of Serbia are disposed of in open dumps. The
new Strategy defined exact terms and deadlines for solving
this serious environmental problem and a range of activities
are being carried out at an accelerated pace.
Environmental Management
Fig. 4 Restriction factors map (a lineaments, b regional resource for water supply, c protected area, d surface area, e settlement, f cultural
heritage, g state border)
The primary objective of this study was to establish a
transferable, regional landfill siting framework that could be
applied more broadly to areas with similar geo-natural con-
ditions across the European Union and, in particular, in
neighboring countries. The created landfill siting framework
would allow the use of a relatively uniform GIS based model
for landfill site selection under conditions where the regional
and local waste management plans show that land filling is the
best available option for waste disposal. Locally, the aim of
this research was to contribute to and to facilitate the decision-
making processes of finding the most suitable location for a
landfill in Serbia and to set new policy recommendations.
The previous legislative framework for landfill siting in
Serbia adopted in 1999 used to have stricter rules regarding
the distances from settlements, bodies of water, roads,
airports and other important infrastructure facilities.
However, the adoption of the new Regulation on Waste
Disposal, in accordance with the EU Landfill Directive,
brought new landfill siting rules that were more generalized
and provided project designers with more flexibility.
Additionally, relevant non-expert stakeholders were
involved in the decision-making process so as to incorpo-
rate basic environmental requirements into the process of
landfill siting.
The integration of the AHP into GIS combines decision
support methodology with powerful visualization and
mapping capabilities which in turn should considerably
facilitate the creation of land use suitability maps (Mari-
noni 2004). Therefore, the GIS ? AHP approach presented
in this study and applied for the first time in the landfill
siting process in Serbia, contributes to the sustainability of
the selection process.
The results of the research present the most suitable
areas for landfill siting in the Srem region, Serbia. Con-
sidering their significance to the landfill decision process,
all factors were weighted by implementation of AHP
extension ext_ahp.dll in GIS. According to the analyses,
techno-economic factors were less important for the land-
fill site selection process than geo-natural and environ-
mental factors, and geo-natural factors were more
important than environmental criteria, which was in
accordance with the EU Landfill Directive, the Strategy
and the Law on Waste and the Regulation of Waste
Disposal.
The approach implemented in this work is advancement
over other landfill selection approaches due to the fact that
the exclusions of restricted zones were made after the final
map of GIS ? AHP analyses was made, a step commonly
123
 Environmental Management

Fig. 5 Final suitability map

Fig. 6 Potential location for

landfill siting in the Srem region
(1–12); Circles: urban
agglomerations

done at the beginning of the evaluation process. This
approach could be especially important in other sensitive
areas in the world similar to Srem which have protected
areas, rivers, lake catchment areas, cultural heritage etc.
The authors believe that if the exclusionary zones are
omitted at the beginning of evaluation process, it is more
likely that failures in observation could occur. Further-
more, the decision factors were divided into decision factor
groups according to their role and nature in the decision
process, and comparison matrixes were made separately for
each factor group in order to avoid incomparable factors
(i.e., depth of underground water table and energy

123
Environmental Management
infrastructure criterion), contrary to the approach in which
all factors are combined into a single matrix.
Five suitability zones were identified, and before mak-
ing a final site selection field studies, determination of site
ownership status, public acceptance survey, the price of
land and analysis of the availability of cover material
should be performed.
This research focused on identifying suitable zones for
regional landfill sitting in the Srem region, and the final
map and evaluation criteria were not checked with other
progressive methods such as sensitivity analyses (SA).
Chen and others (2010) stated that the fusion of SA with
AHP within Arc GIS environment could enhance the
conventional AHP module, improve the reliability of
MCDM output, and extend the existing GIS functionalities.
Although Chang and others (2008) emphasized that in the
process of landfill site selection, it was necessary to assess
the reliability of the method involved in identification of
the best candidate site, changing the weights of the deci-
sion factor within the range of 20% did not affect the
dominance of the best candidate site. Given the fact that the
main focus of this research was to develop a model for
regional landfill siting in the Srem region, to set policy
recommendations, and to identify suitable zones for landfill
siting, SA could certainly be recommended and applied in
further research in addition to field investigations and other
analyses mentioned.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank PE Urban and
the Spatial Planning Institute of Vojvodina, which provided a grant
for Tamara Zelenović Vasiljević’s doctoral studies tuition. Also, the
authors would like to thank PE Urban and Spatial Planning Institute
of Vojvodina, The Provincial Secretary of Architecture, Urbanism
and Environmental Protection and Vode Vojvodine Public Water
Management Company for support provided through the assigned
maps from spatial data bases. The research results constitute the first
phase of Tamara Zelenović Vasiljević’s doctoral thesis. Gratitude is
also extended to the reviewers and the editor of this paper.
References
Akbari V, Rajabi MA, Chavoshi R, Shams R (2008) Landfill site
selection by combining gis and fuzzy multi criteria decision
analysis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran. World Applied
Sciences Journal 3(1):39–47
Allen BG, Caetano P, Costa C, Cummins V, Donnelly J, Koukoulas S,
O’Donnell V, Robalo C. Vendas D (2003) A landfill site
selection process incorporating GIS modeling. In: Proceedings of
Sardinia 2003, ninth international waste management and landfill
symposium, Sardinia
Banar M, Kose BM, Ozkan, Acar IP (2007) Choosing a municipal
landfill site by analytic network process. Environmental Geology
52:747–751
Basagaoglu H, Celenk E, Mariulo MS, Usul N (1997) Selection of
waste disposal sites using GIS. Journal of American Water
Resources Association 33:455–464
Basnet BB, Apan AA, Steven RR (2001) Selecting suitable sites for
animal waste application using a raster GIS. Environmental
Management 28(4):519–531
Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Measuring consensus for
collaborative decision-making: GIS-based approach. Computers
Environment and Urban Systems 34:322–332
Chalkias CN, Stournaras G (1997) GIS application for the selection of
sanitary waste disposal landfills and quarry sites in major Sparti
area, Greece. In : Marinos K, Tsiambaos S (eds) Engineering
geology and the environment. Balkema, Rotterdam
Chang N, Parvathinathanb G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS
with fuzzy multi criteria decision making for landfill siting in a
fast-growing urban region. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 87:139–153. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.011
Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-
criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Envi-
ronmental Modelling and Software 25:1582–1591
Congalton RG, Green K (1992) The ABCs of GIS. Journal of Forestry
1992:13–20
CORINE Land Cover (CLC2000) (2010) Federal Environment
Agency, DLR-DFD 2004
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,
Document L182 (1999), pp 1–19
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council
of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives
(Text with EEA relevance). Document L 312 (2008), pp 3–30
Dorhofer G, Siebert H (1998) The search for landfill sites—
requirements and implementation in Lower Saxony, Germany.
Environmental Geology 35(1):55–65. doi:10.1007/s00254005
0292
Eastman JR (2003) IDRISI Kilimanjaro: Guide to GIS and image
processing, Clark Laboratories. Clark University, Worcester,
p 328
Eastman JR, Jin W, Kyem PAK, Toledano J (1995) Raster procedures
for multi criteria/multi objective decision. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 61:539–547
EPA (2006) United States environmental protection agency, EPA
landfill manuals, manual for site selection, draft for consultation,
Washington
Ersoy H, Bulut F (2009) Spatial and multi-criteria decision analyses-
based methodology for landfill site selection in growing urban
regions. Waste Management and Research 27(5):489–500
Geological Conditions of Rational Use and Protection of Fruška Gora
Mountatin (2006) University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geology
and Mining
Guiqin W, Li Q, Guoxue L, Lijun C (2009) Landfill site selection using
spatial information technologies and AHP: a case study in Beijing,
China. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2414–2421
Higgs G (2006) Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical
information systems in waste facility location to enhance public
participation. Waste Management and Research 24:105–117
Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW landfills
with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste
Management 25:818–832
Law on waste (2010) Law on waste management, Serbian Govern-
ment, Official Gazette No 88, Belgrade, Serbia
Law on water (2010) Law on water, Serbian Government, Official
Gazette No 30, Belgrade, Serbia
Lee S (2003) Evaluation of waste disposal site using the DRASTIC
system in Southern Korea. Environmental Geology 44:654–664
Mahini AS, Gholamalifard M (2006) Siting MSW landfills with a
weighted linear combination methodology in a GIS environment.
International Journal of Environmental Science Technology
3(4):435–445
Malczwerski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria group decision analyses.
Wiley, New York 392 pp
123

Mardle S, Pascoe S, Herrero I (2004) Management objective
importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Management 33(1):
1–11
Marinoni O (2004) Implementation of the analytical hierarchy
process with VBA in ArcGIS. Computers and Geosciences 30:
637–646
Marinoni O (2009) Macro ext_ahp.dll: http://arcscripts.esri.com/
details.asp?dbid=13764. Accessed 28 November 2010
Nas B, Cay T, Iscan F, Berktay A (2010) Selection of MSW landfill
site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evaluation.
Environmental Monitoring Assessment 160:491–500
Regulation on Waste Disposal (2010) National regulation on waste
disposal on landfills, Serbian Government, Official Gazette No
92, Belgrade, Serbia
Republic Hydro Meteorological Service of Serbia (2010) Meteoro-
logical yearbook. Climatologically Data, Belgrade
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New
York
Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory
with the AHP. RWS, Pittsburg
123
View publication stats
Environmental Management
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1991) Prediction, projection and forecasting.
Kluwer Academic Publichers, Dordrecht
Sener B, Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by
using geographic information systems. Environmental Geology
49:376–388
Sener S, Sener E, Nas B, Karagüzel R (2010a) Combining AHP with GIS
for landfill site selection: a case study in the Lake Beysehir catchment
area (Konya, Turkey). Waste Management 30:2037–2046
Sener S, Sener E, Karagüzel R (2010a) Solid waste disposal site
selection with GIS and AHP methodology: a case study in
Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environ Monit
Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1403-x
Siddiqui M, Everett J, Vieux B (1996) Landfill siting using
geographic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 122(6):515–523
Strategy (2010) Serbian National Waste Management Strategy for the
Period 2010–2019, Serbian Government, Official Gazette No 29,
Belgrade, Serbia
Water Resources Development Master Plan of Republic of Serbia
(2002) Serbian Government, Official Gazette No 11, Belgrade,
Serbia