Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33034852›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Sanitary landfill site selection by integrating AHP and FTOPSIS with GIS: a case study of Memari Municipality, India.

Sk Ajim Ali, Farhana Parvin, Nadhir Al-Ansari, Quoc Bao Pham, Ateeque Ahmad, Meena Sansar Raj, Duong Tran Anh, Le Huy Ba, Van Nam Thai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Combined landfill leachate treatment methods: an overview.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sk Ajim AliDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U. P., India.
Farhana ParvinDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U. P., India.
Nadhir Al-AnsariDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, 97187, Luleå, Sweden.
Quoc Bao PhamInstitute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Danang, 550000, Vietnam. phambaoquoc@duytan.edu.vn.
Ateeque AhmadDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U. P., India.
Meena Sansar RajFaculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Duong Tran AnhSustainable Management of Natural Resources and Environment Research Group, Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Le Huy BaHo Chi Minh City University of Food Industry (HUFI), 140 Le Trong Tan Street, Tay Thanh Ward, Tan Phu District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Van Nam ThaiHo Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH), 475A Dien Bien Phu Street, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sanitary landfill is still considered as one of the most significant and least expensive methods of waste disposal. It is essential to consider environmental impacts while selecting a suitable landfill site. Thus, the site selection for sanitary landfill is a complex and time-consuming task needing an assessment of multiple criteria. In the present study, a decision support system (DSS) was prepared for selecting a landfill site in a growing urban region. This study involved two steps of analysis. The first step of analysis involved the application of spatial data to prepare the thematic maps and derive their weight. The second step employed a fuzzy multicriteria decision-making (FMCDM) technique for prioritizing the identified landfill sites. Thus, initially, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used for weighting the selected criteria, while the fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (FTOPSIS) was applied for addressing the uncertainty associated with decision-making and prioritizing the most suitable site. A case study was conducted in the city of Memari Municipality. The main goal of this study was the initial evaluation and acquisition of landfill candidate sites by utilizing GIS and the following decision criteria: (1) environmental criteria consisting of surface water, groundwater, land elevation, land use land cover, distance from urban residence and buildup, and distance from sensitive places; and (2) socioeconomic criteria including distance from the road, population density, and land value. For preparing the final suitability map, the integration of GIS layers and AHP was used. On output, 7 suitable landfill sites were identified which were further ranked using FTOPSIS based on expert's views. Finally, candidate site-7 and site-2 were selected as the most suitable for proposing new landfill sites in Memari Municipality. The results from this study showed that the integration of GIS with the MCDM technique can be highly applied for site suitability. The present study will be helpful to local planners and municipal authorities for proposing a planning protocol and suitable sites for sanitary landfill in the near future.

Indexed as

Geographic Information SystemsRefuse DisposalCitiesDecision Support TechniquesIndiaWaste Disposal FacilitiesAnalytical hierarchy processFuzzy TOPSISGeographic information systemLandfill sitingWaste management

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.