Waste Management & Research http://wmr.sagepub.

com/

Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical information systems in waste facility location to
enhance public participation
Gary Higgs
Waste Manag Res 2006 24: 105
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X06063817

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/24/2/105

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Solid Waste Association

Additional services and information for Waste Management & Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/24/2/105.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 3, 2006

What is This?

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014

Waste Manage Res 2006: 24: 105–117
Printed in UK – all right reserved
Integrating multi-criteria techniques with
geographical information systems in waste facility
location to enhance public participation
Despite recent UK Government commitments’ to encourage
public participation in environmental decision making, those
exercises conducted to date have been largely confined to
‘traditional’ modes of participation such as the dissemination
of information and in encouraging feedback on proposals
through, for example, questionnaires or surveys. It is the
premise of this paper that participative approaches that use
IT-based methods, based on combined geographical informa-
tion systems (GIS) and multi-criteria evaluation techniques
that could involve the public in the decision-making process,
have the potential to build consensus and reduce disputes and
conflicts such as those arising from the siting of different
types of waste facilities. The potential of these techniques are
documented through a review of the existing literature in
order to highlight the opportunities and challenges facing
decision makers in increasing the involvement of the public
at different stages of the waste facility management process. It
is concluded that there are important lessons to be learned by
researchers, consultants, managers and decision makers if
barriers hindering the wider use of such techniques are to be
overcome.
Introduction
In February 2005, the UK ratified the United Nations’ Aarhus
Convention which relates to the public’s involvement in
three areas of environmental democracy, namely:
• access to environmental information;
• participation in environmental decision making; and
• access to justice in environmental matters
One of the key planks of the Convention is the need to
increase the transparency by which decisions related to the
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
Copyright © ISWA 2006
Waste Management & Research
ISSN 0734–242X
Gary Higgs
GIS Research Centre, School of Computing, University of
Glamorgan, Pontypridd, Wales
Keywords: Public participation, waste facility management,
geographical information systems, multi-criteria evaluation;
environmental impact assessment, wmr 878–1
Corresponding author: Gary Higgs, GIS Research Centre,
School of Computing, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd,
Wales CF37 1DL.
Tel: +44 (0)1443 483619; fax: +44 (0)1443 482715;
e-mail: ghiggs@glam.ac.uk
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X06063817
Received 1 June 2005; accepted in revised form 31 December 2005
environment are made and to increase stakeholder involve-
ment in such processes. The UK governments’ commitment
to the aims of the Convention is expressed thus:
‘The government believes that improved access to infor-
mation and wider participation of the public in deci-
sion-making processes are essential for building trust
within communities, increasing public authority account-
ability and making better environmental policy. Backed
by access to justice, this will create greater transparency
Waste Management & Research 105
G. Higgs
and openness in environmental matters, and will con-
tribute towards society’s goals of more sustainable and
environmentally sound development.’ [Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) web
site, last accessed 28th February 2005]
Two European directives would seem pertinent here. Direc-
tive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information
draws attention to the potential to disseminate environmen-
tal information to the public through telecommunications
networks (European Commission 2003a). Directive 2003/35/
EC relating to the provision for public participation in
respect to plans and programmes related to the environment
draws attention to the need to enable the public to express
opinions and concerns related to decisions affecting their com-
munities (European Commission 2003b). Although there has
been recognition of the potential to involve the general pub-
lic in the decision-making process in the UK, there have
been relatively few studies that have used information
technology (IT) approaches in such applications. However,
recent research in Scotland has drawn attention to the
potential for such technologies in providing information to
those directly affected by environmental management deci-
sions in public participation arenas (Jenkins et al. 2002). In
addition the use of web-based consultation exercises have
been explored in England in relation to the maps prepared
relating to open country and common land under the Coun-
tryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Bush et al. 2005). The
latter, for example, enabled members of the public to gener-
ate and query maps dynamically for specific sites of interest
and provide comments on-line. The use of GIS-based tools
have also been explored in public participation exercises
relating to watershed management and compared with tradi-
tional approaches based on public meetings (Conroy & Gor-
don 2004).
Locating waste facilities such as landfill sites and incinera-
tors can lead to major public concerns especially in relation
to public health, environmental and economic considera-
tions and can therefore be an extremely contentious issue.
As highlighted in a recently commissioned study by the
Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), ‘considera-
tion of alternative sites and technologies is now recognized
as an important part of any proposal seeking planning per-
mission for waste facilities’ (ODPM 2004; p. 14). The study
report goes on to suggest that:
‘Where no such context is available to guide the choice
of the preferred option, the applicant may be expected
to demonstrate that they have undertaken a methodi-
cal appraisal of all the relevant alternatives. In terms of
alternative sites this can involve a constraints based
106 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
assessment. Geographic Information Systems and data
sets can be used as a tool to aid site selection.’ (ODPM
2004; p. 15).
Article 5 of the European Union Waste Framework Direc-
tive requires member states to be responsible for establishing
an integrated network of waste disposal facilities with the aim
that such facilities should be located as near to the place of
waste production as is feasible (European Commission 1975).
There have been a number of recently published government
reports that have drawn attention to the pressures facing the
UK in terms of managing waste in future years. For example,
a study commissioned by the OPDM has looked at planning
considerations for siting different waste management facili-
ties, including landfill (ODPM 2004). Landfill accounts for
approximately 80% of the waste disposed of in the UK and
despite the Governments recycling targets, which were high-
lighted in recent policy documents, it is likely that landfill
will continue to be required to deal with some waste which
cannot be recovered.
Our on-going research is specifically concerned with the
situation in Wales where waste management is a devolved func-
tion of the Welsh Assembly Government. The 10-year strategy
for waste in Wales, Wise about Waste (Welsh Assembly Gov-
ernment 2002), refers to guidance for planning authorities
within Wales to decide where to locate new waste manage-
ment facilities and re-iterates the types of geographical fac-
tors, such as the need to reduce transportation distances, likely
to be important in siting different types of facilities. A recent
Auditor General for Wales (2004; p. 1) report recognizes that
some waste will still need to be landfilled but has drawn atten-
tion to the ‘rapidly diminishing capacity at available landfill
sites’ and the acknowledgement from the Assembly that ‘more
than 500 new waste management facilities of varying sizes
and functions will be required by 2010 to reach the targets set
in the Wales Waste Strategy’ (p. 19). One of the principal
recommendations of their report was that the ‘Assembly issue
direction to ensure local authorities’ unitary development
plans are modified where authorities have failed to identify
potential sites for waste management activities’ (p. 5). By
2010, it is anticipated that Wales will run out of landfill capac-
ity if additional capacity is not identified [Audit Commission
in Wales (AciW) 2005]. Many of these problems of limited
residual capacity are mirrored in other European regions. In
addition, since 2004 no landfill site in Wales has been able to
accept hazardous waste. The AciW (2005) report, while not-
ing the need to speed up the process of identifying such a
waste infrastructure, suggests that ‘securing appropriate sites
for the development of waste infrastructure is likely to con-
tinue to be an emotive issue for local authorities’ (p. 16).
Importantly the report highlights that ‘there are risks here
 Waste facility location: using GIS and MCE techniques to encourage public participation
associated with delays caused by site selection and planning
consent and with the procurement of partnerships and con-
tracts’ (p. 16). There is an urgent need therefore to identify
potential sites for waste facilities.
The unpopular perception of many of these waste manage-
ment options means that the commitment of the public is
seen as paramount in waste facility planning. Petts & Edulgee
(1994; p. 88) for example comment, with respect to the siting
of waste facilities that ‘observed deficiencies also relate to a
failure to involve interested parties in the site selection proc-
ess’. To date however the role of GIS in such studies, certainly
in the UK context, would appear to be limited to, for exam-
ple, providing paper lists, maps or web-sites with locations of
the nearest facilities, despite calls for increased levels of pub-
lic participation through the use of such technologies. It is
the premise of this paper that participative approaches, which
adopt such GIS and multi-criteria techniques to include the
public in the decision-making process, have the potential to
help build consensus and reduce disputes and conflicts in the
final siting decision. The aim of this paper is not to compare
the strengths and limitations of existing public participation
and consultation methods per se. Abelson et al. (2001) provide
a useful review of their respective advantages and weaknesses
and Rowe & Frewer (2000) describe methods by which their
effectiveness can be evaluated. In addition, Petts (2001) has
evaluated the effectiveness of different methods (such as citi-
zens juries) in relation to waste management planning and
participation.
This paper focuses on the potential for GIS, particularly
when integrated with multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) tech-
niques, in involving the public at various stages of the deci-
sion-making process with a particular emphasis on the siting
stages. The paper demonstrates this potential with a review
of such approaches in waste facility management from the
published literature prior to listing those research challenges
that remain before such techniques can be incorporated into
current consultation exercises. The rest of the paper is struc-
tured as follows. In the next section, I draw attention to the
policy requirements for public participation in the siting
process and briefly review more ‘traditional’ modes of participa-
tion, primarily in the UK context. The section entitled ‘GIS
and multi-criteria techniques for waste facility location’ pro-
vides a summary of existing studies of the use of multi-crite-
ria techniques in siting waste facilities drawing particular
attention to their strengths and current limitations and dis-
cusses their potential role in areas such as environmental
impact assessment. Material presented in the following section,
‘Future research challenges’ draws on this review, to highlight
the types of operational and political challenges facing research-
ers if these techniques are to be more widely used in waste
facility siting studies. The final section of the paper provides
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
some preliminary conclusions based on this review of the
published literature.
Public participation and waste management
The siting for waste management facilities has often led to
controversy stemming largely from the concerns of local resi-
dents in the light of well-publicized studies on potential health
consequences (e.g. Elliott et al. 2001, Pheby et al. 2002).
Within Wales, for example, concerns regarding the potential
links between landfill sites and a variety of health effects led
to the closing down of a landfill site following a detailed
investigation (ATSDR 2002). Recent concerns regarding the
lack of sites capable of taking hazardous waste within Wales,
and the diminishing capacity of existing landfill sites, have
drawn attention to the need for policy makers to consider
methods and sites of waste disposal in the medium- to long-
term. At the same time, concerns over perceived health
impacts, and potential nuisances such as noise impacts and
air/water pollution and perceived impacts on community
image, and hence property values (DEFRA 2003), have high-
lighted the politically sensitive nature of the siting process. In
the UK, a recent report commissioned by the Environment
Agency has drawn attention to the potential of involving lay
audiences in the decision-making process regarding decisions
on risk through the direct participation of local communities
(Petts & Leach 2000, Petts et al. 2003). Findings from the
study suggest that, to date at least, there remain few attempts
to incorporate public opinion in decisions that involve for-
mal assessment of risks beyond consultation and information
provision (e.g. at events, road-shows, seminars, public enquir-
ies) towards influencing the outcome of the assessment proc-
ess. The report also drew attention to the use of participation-
based analysis in order to involve the public in waste manage-
ment processes, citing the example of public participation in
landfill site-selection exercises in Germany (Schneider et al.
1998) and Switzerland (Webler et al. 1995). These examples
include the use of citizen panels and other group-participa-
tion techniques that can provide the means by which value
positions and preferences are included and hence enhance
the potential likelihood of acceptability of the final decisions
by the affected communities. These models in turn could
incorporate, for example, local knowledge or subjective
impressions of the visual qualities of potential sites to inform
the process. The respective advantages and disadvantages of
participative approaches at different stages of the waste man-
agement process have been researched in the UK context by
Petts (1995, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004). Rowe & Frewer
(2000; p. 14) draw attention to the stage at which the public
can be involved in the process suggesting ‘an instance in
which involvement might be seen as too late is when partici-
Waste Management & Research 107
G. Higgs
pation is used to choose among possible sites for a hazardous
facility, with the public having been denied the opportunity
to consider whether the facility is needed in the first place’.
There have been a number of studies that have compared tra-
ditional ‘reactive’ participation mechanisms in waste man-
agement planning with those that include the public through
their ‘pro-active’ involvement in waste management strategies
(Weidemann & Femers 1993). Research conducted by Petts
(1995, 1997), for example, examined the effectiveness of,
and barriers to, more extensive public participation at earlier
stages in the process through novel community consensus
building approaches (including the formation of Community
Advisory Fora) using the example of a local waste strategy for
a case study authority in the UK (Hampshire). The analysis
of such deliberative processes was widened to include three
more authorities (Essex, Hertfordshire and Lancashire) in a
subsequent paper (Petts 2001). Charnley & Engelbert (2005)
have evaluated methods by which the public participate in
the decisions affecting the clean-up of waste at Superfund
sites in the United States. The principal focus of the present
paper is to review the types of decision-support tools that
could be used in promoting public participation primarily in
the early stages of the waste management process; in particu-
lar focusing on the integration of GIS and MCE techniques
in the site-selection process.
Traditionally waste management models have taken little
account of social aspects such as the acceptability of a waste
scheme to the wider population. Morrisey & Browne (2004),
in a review of three categories of decision-support models
used in municipal waste management, based on cost–benefit
analysis, life-cycle analysis and multi-criteria decision mak-
ing, respectively, advocate the development of models that
involve relevant stakeholders (for example, local and central
government, technical experts and local communities) in the
decision-making process. Renn et al. (1993; p. 190) provide a
three-step procedure to ‘integrate expertise, values and con-
cerns of stakeholder groups, and preferences of citizens into a
procedural framework that enables the generation of consen-
sual policy suggestions’. The model was applied to two types
of applications (national energy planning in Germany and a
more localized application of sewage sludge management in
the US) and adopted a multi-criteria approach whereby iden-
tified stakeholder values and criteria are compared for differ-
ent options, expert assessment is used to examine the per-
formance of each option and option profiles evaluated by
citizen panels leading to final recommendations. Schneider et
al. (1998) drew on an adaptation of this model in a regional
study of waste management in Germany to show how citizen
panels could be used to find the most suitable sites for two dif-
ferent types of waste facilities by developing the selection cri-
teria and ranking these lists of sites based on potential impacts
108 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
and equity issues. Zeiss (1991) has shown how communities
can be empowered to have an influence on final siting deci-
sions for landfill and waste incineration and this can reduce
delays in the implementation of such schemes. Sasao (2004)
used postal questionnaires to explore the ‘social costs’ associ-
ated with landfill siting in particular in relation to residents
preferences regarding the nature and location (distance) of
hypothetical sites from their homes and the origins of the
waste being handled (i.e. whether the waste originated out-
side their community). These studies have drawn attention
to the increased transparency in the siting process when user-
friendly tools are made available to local communities. In
contrast, Petts (2003) has drawn attention to the types of bar-
riers limiting increased participation in the environmental
assessment process in waste management in the UK context.
In a later paper, she draws attention to the lack of regulatory
support in waste management,
‘No British regulation requires public participation
beyond consultation, therefore, no resources are auto-
matically available within an authority to do more
than the minimum.’ (Petts 2004; p. 126).
This, in turn, leads her to call for new modes of participa-
tion which include decision-support tools for multi-criteria
decision making that enable full public participation (Petts
2004). Hartley & Wood (2004) describe the use and effec-
tiveness of a range of public participation methods in four UK
waste-disposal environmental impact assessment studies in
the north-west of England, including two that involve land-
fill developments. Their study specifically analysed such pro-
cedures in relation to the requirements of Article 3(4) of the
Directive 2003/35/EC which requires that ‘the public con-
cerned shall be given early and effective opportunities to par-
ticipate in the environmental decision-making procedures’.
However, none of the methods analysed as part of the case
studies involved participatory IT approaches and, to date, at
least in the UK context, there have been few attempts to
involve the public in ‘bottom-up approaches’ using analytical
decision-support methods in waste management. Similar sit-
uations exist in other parts of Europe. Morrissey & Browne
(2004; p.305) in their review of the use of models in Ireland
suggest that ‘the non involvement of the people who gener-
ate the waste, (i.e. the general public) in a meaningful way
in the decision-making process is a major shortcoming of
these models and as a result, it is contended that none of
the models can be considered to be fully sustainable’. The
present paper posits that this situation could potentially be
redressed by using integrated GIS/MCE approaches. In the
next section a rationale for the use of such techniques is pre-
sented.
 Waste facility location: using GIS and MCE techniques to encourage public participation
GIS and multi-criteria techniques for waste
facility location
Rationale for integrated GIS/MCE approaches
The Audit Commission in Wales (2005) report suggested
‘GIS has the potential to become a useful tool to help iden-
tify regional waste facilities across Wales’ (p. 18). In an early
study, Carver & Openshaw (1992) showed how a combina-
tion of GIS and multi-criteria approaches could be used in
the identification and evaluation of potential nuclear waste
sites in the UK particularly in terms of ‘what-if’ modelling
which could increase the transparency of the decision-mak-
ing process. GIS has been used in a number of studies in the
initial screening process in order to identify suitable poten-
tial sites for new waste management facilities through a proc-
ess of ‘sieve mapping’. Such studies have included models that
incorporate environmental, engineering, planning and eco-
nomic criteria which include various siting constraints such
as soil or geological type, distance from roads or urban areas,
noise/nuisance, topography, hydrology and land use, etc. using
GIS-based overlay techniques (for example, Lane & McDon-
ald 1983, Jensen & Christensen 1986, Atkinson et al. 1995,
Lober 1995, Basagaoglu et al. 1997, Kao et al. 1997, Baban &
Flannagan 1998, Dorhofer & Siebert 1998, Lin & Kao 1998,
Lukasheh et al. 2001, Dunsford & MacFarlane 2004). These
studies have variously drawn attention to the limitations of
existing sources of data needed in siting exercises, the lack of
appropriate meta-data or the lack of suitable functionality in
existing proprietary GIS packages. However, few have gone
beyond academic prototypes to make these models more
widely accessible and fewer still have involved consultation
with local communities during the course of the siting exercise.
In addition, the study by Lober (1995) was one of the few
that has attempted to incorporate social criteria, in the form
of a layer of public opposition to a recycling facility, into the
overlay analysis. While the use of maps has been to the fore
in such exercises Jankowski (2000; p. 197) using the example
of habitat restoration advocates that ‘the development of
new ways to visualize spatial information and novel integra-
tions of maps with analytical tools including multiple criteria
decision models may help develop more effective collabora-
tive spatial decision-support systems’.
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) consists of a series
of techniques (such as weighted summation or concordance
analysis) that permit a range of criteria relating to a particular
issue to be scored, weighted and then ranked by, for example,
experts, interest groups and/or stakeholders according to their
degree of suitability or importance for locating/siting a partic-
ular facility/service (Dodgson et al. 2000, Malczewski 2004).
The derivation of weights for each criterion through such a
participative framework opens up the decision-making proc-
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
ess and can lead to a degree of consensus in the final part of
the process permitting the incorporation of multiple views
from such groups. There is a relatively large literature that has
focused on the use of MCDA techniques in a range of envi-
ronmental applications for integrating evaluation criteria
according to their importance, based on different stakeholder
interests (see for example Monnikhof & Bots 2000 for exam-
ples from Holland; Herath (2004) for an Australian study
incorporating multi-criteria techniques in wetland manage-
ment). One area where such techniques are increasingly being
used is in site selection using GIS-based decision making
within a decision-support system (DSS) framework. There is
a growing recognition that multi-criteria-based techniques
can be used to incorporate stakeholder interest in environ-
mental issues and thus have potential as public participation
tools (Malczewski 2004). Multi-criteria approaches have the
potential to reduce the costs and time involved in siting facil-
ities by narrowing down the potential choices based on pre-
defined criteria and weights while also permitting sensitivity
analysis of the results from these procedures. Carver & Open-
shaw (1992; p. 124) suggest that there are four key advan-
tages of using integrated MCE techniques in GIS siting exer-
cises.
1. It allows complex trade-offs to be performed on multiple
and varied siting factors by single or multiple sets of deci-
sion makers.
2. It allows value judgements to be incorporated into the
analysis by weighting factors according to their perceived
importance.
3. It provides a systematic and semi-objective framework of
analysis.
4. It has all the advantages associated with the use of a GIS
toolbox data-base construction.
Multi-criteria techniques could be particularly useful in
situations where there are a large number of alternative sites
for a development, where there a large number of potential
criteria to be taken into consideration or where subjective
judgements by different stakeholders of the different alterna-
tives is needed to try to reach an objective consensus in the
final decision-making process or to make these processes more
open and accountable. Petts et al. (2003; p. 57), for example,
drew attention to the potential of such techniques in engag-
ing the public in ‘the actual choice of assessment assump-
tions, scenarios to be considered, criteria of acceptability
rather than merely being provided with an opportunity to
question choices already made by experts’. In their conclud-
ing section they suggest that the ‘use of methods which opti-
mise opportunities for deliberation and multi-criteria assess-
ment must be included’ (Petts et al. 2003; p. 79). Examples of
Waste Management & Research 109
G. Higgs
the use of such techniques in supporting informed and effective
decision making in the siting of waste facilities are described
in the next section.
Examples of integrated GIS/MCE approaches
There is a growing body of literature that is advancing the use
of GIS as a part of a multi-participant, multi-criteria frame-
work that takes into account multiple views and consensus
(Jankowski et al. 1997, Jones et al. 1997, Malczewski 1999,
Jankowski & Nyerges 2001, Joerin et al. 2001). MCDA has
been used in a number of such siting studies to open up the
decision-making process to more scrutiny, typically by incor-
porating multiple perspectives through negotiated factors and
constraints (e.g. in relation to nature and forestry conserva-
tion priorities – Geneletti 2004, Phua & Minowa 2005, respec-
tively). However, although there have been a number of stud-
ies concerned with incorporating multi-criteria evaluation
techniques in a GIS framework to find suitable disposal sites
for waste, few have involved public input. The development
of Internet-based GIS techniques could address this and has
led commentators such as Malczewski (2004) to suggest that
‘as the software visualization tools become more widely avail-
able on the web, the potential exists to undertake networked
GIS-based land-use suitability analysis, which may be partic-
ularly applicable to widening public participation approaches
to land use planning’. In particular, the need to combine qual-
itative and quantitative data within such exercises has posed
problems for researchers in this field. Cheng et al. (2002; p. 975)
suggest that the ‘design of solid-waste management systems
requires consideration of multiple alternative solutions and
evaluation criteria because the systems can have complex and
conflicting impacts on different stakeholders’. They go on to
demonstrate the potential of five different multi-criteria meth-
ods as part of a decision-support system in comparing sites for
landfill facilities in Saskatchewan, Canada. The advantages
of their approach is that it not only involved input from experts
in areas such as those concerned with the potential impacts
on wildlife, but also incorporated the opinions of local resi-
dents on their preferred location in the form of criteria weights
expressed in qualitative terms. The eventual ranking of the
potential sites by both groups can then be compared to find
the degree of correspondence on their preferences. Such
techniques therefore have the advantage of screening prelim-
inary locations of possible sites prior to more detailed on-site
investigations.
Varying levels of expertise of the participants can, if needed,
be incorporated into the analysis by varying the influence of
each of the contributors to the final decision on siting, thus
making the DM process more transparent (Feick & Hall 2003).
In the UK context, Carver (1991) used three multi-criteria
techniques integrated with Arc/Info through a loose coupling
110 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
approach (i.e. programmed externally) in order to evaluate
potential sites for radioactive waste disposal from thousands
of potential sites for disposal. Carvers’ analysis also demon-
strated the importance of conducting sensitivity analysis
involving different MCE techniques and differing weighting
schemes (for example in relation to variations in the per-
ceived importance of location criteria by different groups).
More recent research at Leeds University (Evans et al. 2004)
has explored the potential of web-based interfaces in select-
ing potential sites for waste disposal using Boolean (suitable/
unsuitable) and weighted map overlays in the site search
problem. This framework enables potential input from stake-
holders, as well as waste management experts, in a MCE of
potentially suitable areas using their choice of criteria (data
layers) and user-defined weights in siting facilities that may
be subject to public opposition (Carver 1999). This not only
has the potential to reach a consensus on final sites for such
facilities but also permits ‘what-if’ analyses to be conducted
to assess the consequences of varying the values for the crite-
ria (or their weightings) on the ranking of alternatives. Banai
(1993) used a multi-criteria technique available within the
IDRISI GIS package, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP),
which involves a pair-wise comparison of alternatives that
can be used to obtain priority weights based on preferences of
decision groups on multiple criteria, in order to find opti-
mally suitable sites for landfill. The potential for AHP in par-
ticipatory planning has been demonstrated in multi-criteria
problems in other environmental contexts that combine both
quantitative or objective information and qualitative criteria
(using for example fuzzy set theory) or subjective preferences
of local populations or decision makers/experts to evaluate
trade-offs among multiple and conflicting decision criteria in
order to find a consensus between participants (for example
in the selection of forest wilderness sites (Mau-Cummins et al.
2005) or the use of AHP in regional forest planning (Ananda
& Herath 2003)).
In relation to waste facility siting, Erkut & Moran (1991;
p. 92) used an AHP that permits the consideration of con-
flicting objectives in the analysis of a landfill site-selection
process in Alberta, Canada, which ‘incorporate the inputs of
multiple decision makers who may have different values for
the various objectives’. The suggested site selected from an
AHP process was compared with that chosen by a local city
council and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to see the
impact of variations in the weighting schemes for particular
factors which could, for example, be illustrated/defended at a
public enquiry or planning meeting. Vasiloglou (2004) has used
multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to locate new landfill sites for
a pilot study area in Greece but the exact mechanisms by
which the general public could input into the decision-mak-
ing process was not specified. Charnpratheep et al. (1997)
 Waste facility location: using GIS and MCE techniques to encourage public participation
have used AHP and fuzzy set models within a raster GIS
(GRID module of Arc/Info) in order to provide a preliminary
screening of potential landfill sites in Thailand and in order
to compare these sites with those selected using detailed field
investigations. Such techniques have been shown to increase
the availability of suitable sites that may have been discarded
in a binary Boolean intersection and hence provide decision
makers with a wider range of alternative sites if local political
or planning constraints prevent locating facilities on the
optimum site. Calijuri et al. (2004) have similarly explored the
use of fuzzy logic and MCDA (weighted linear combination
and ordered weighted average) within IDRISI32 in the siting
of waste-disposal facilities in Brazil.
Other studies have advocated the loose coupling of multi-
criteria techniques with GIS (e.g. Gilliams et al. 2005) or
incorporated MCDA and data stored in a GIS in an expert
decision-support system framework [e.g. the study by Wey
(2005) siting a waste incinerator in Taiwan]. Haastrup et al.
(1998) for example developed a DSS that incorporates multi-
criteria decision analysis to identify sites suitable for locating
disposal and treatment facilities. Hill et al. (2005) describe
how AHP MCDA processes, written in Arc Macro Language
(AML) can run within the ArcInfo GRID module to find
suitable sites for low-level radioactive waste using grid-based
approaches. Others have drawn attention to the importance
of the choice of the appropriate multi-criteria model (Laaribi
et al. 1996). An important purpose of these site-suitability stud-
ies is to help to gain acceptability from stakeholders in the
choice of potential sites. There have been a number of studies
that have included multi-criteria and multi-objective tech-
niques in order to consider different, and possibly conflicting,
objectives in waste management (see for example, Siddiqui
et al, 1996; Hokkanen & Salminen 1997a, b;). Recognizing
that this just provides a spatial snapshot of suitability Leao
et al. (2004) have also introduced a dynamic element into the
process which also looks at the supply of sites in relation to
changes in levels of waste production. Vatalis & Manoliadis
(2002) integrated MCE models based on compromise pro-
gramming with GIS to evaluate alternative sites for waste
management in a region of Greece and to try to ensure com-
munity concerns were minimized. Others have called for the
use of more than one multi-criteria method or the use of
hybrid approaches in environmental management applica-
tions (e.g. Kangas & Kangas 2005).
The advantages of such approaches are that weights can be
differentially varied to evaluate sites under different criteria.
Most MCE-related studies to date have used additive tech-
niques such as the weighted linear combination (WLC)
approach (Eastman et al. 1995). Kontos et al. (2003, 2005)
used AHP in conjunction with GIS in order to find suitable
sites for landfill for an island in Greece using 10 suitability
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
criteria taking into account both environmental and social
variables and individual site constraints. Again the relative
importance of the criteria was assessed by experts – in this
instance, the scientific advisors responsible for the siting
study. Although the study showed the benefits of MCDA–
GIS approaches, the final site was selected on the basis of
‘local’ non-quantifiable factors such as public opposition
highlighting the potential to incorporate public opinion from
the outset. As Petts argues (2003; p. 281), ‘if the public could
be involved more directly in the identification of relevant
criteria, in understanding the site-selection process and in
applying multi-criteria assessment methods to site identifica-
tion they would be able to contribute to consideration of the
trade-offs that have to be made’. Depending on the scale of
the landfill site an environmental impact assessment may be
required (e.g. when it holds waste on a site of 10 hectares or
more). However, to date, she concludes, there has been a
poor understanding of the potential use of such techniques as
MCDA, in participatory approaches in environmental assess-
ment analysis related to waste management. More research is
needed to demonstrate how a combination of GIS and MCE
techniques in participatory frameworks could empower such
communities and in the next section I draw attention to the
types of challenges that remain for researchers in this area.
Future research challenges
Previous studies have drawn attention to the challenges faced
by those charged with increasing levels of participation to try
to ensure views from a wide variety of stakeholders, including
those of marginalized groups, are incorporated in the deci-
sion-making process. Traditional means of gauging or com-
municating public opinion such as workshops, exhibitions, tel-
ephone surveys, opinion polls and public presentations have
been criticized as information provision and gathering exer-
cises as opposed to improving public decision-making proc-
esses. In the public participation ladder highlighted by King-
ston et al. (2002), itself adapted from Arnstein’s (1969) ladder
of citizen participation, this would represent lower levels of
participation in the siting process. To date, much of the GIS
research conducted to find candidate sites for waste facilities
has involved experts developing and designing systems with-
out apparent input of public preferences [see Schlossberg &
Shuford (2005) for a useful typology of participation tech-
niques and the groups targeted for a particular decision-mak-
ing problem]. If the public are involved at all, then that will
be at the output stage through the provision of maps for com-
ment and consultation. Such information is provided in a
unilateral way without the incorporation of opinions or pref-
erences at the GIS analysis stage. To achieve higher-level forms
of interaction then the public and interested stakeholders
Waste Management & Research 111
G. Higgs
would need to be empowered from the outset within a par-
ticipatory framework. However, as Rauschmayer & Wittmer
(2006) highlight, there are different methods of participatory
(and non-participatory) multi-criteria approaches available
to address environmental conflict resolution and great care is
needed to choose the set of techniques that are appropriate on
a case-by-case basis. Decision makers also need to gauge the
effectiveness of such approaches which may have involved
significant commitment of resources.
Although MCDA has been used in a number of academic
studies to open up the decision-making process to more scru-
tiny by incorporating multiple perspectives through negoti-
ated factors and constraints, many of the studies conducted to
date report on prototype systems and relatively few have been
implemented in actual siting exercises with input from real
stakeholder communities. Previous studies, although acknowl-
edging the advantages of such techniques have also highlighted
drawbacks such as the time needed to implement such tools
as AHP and the complexity of the processes of pairwise com-
parison of decision criteria or potential sites (Mau-Cummins
et al. 2005). As Norese (2006) found in her study of the use of
MCA in stting a waste incinerator and a waste disposal plant
in Northern Italy prior to implementing an environmental
impact analysis for the chosen sites, the time taken to identify
the criteria (16 months in that instance) may hinder the adop-
tion of these techniques as support tools, despite the undoubted
advantages of such a participative approach. Clearly then
there is a real need for more studies of this nature that provide
an objective assessment of the appropriateness of such tech-
niques in a real world application in which the decision-mak-
ing process is highly contentious or in which multi-stake-
holder input is to be encouraged. The siting of waste facilities
such as landfill may well fall into such a category of application
area. Examples of the types of issues that need to be addressed if
the potential of such techniques are to be realized in waste
management facility planning are listed in Table 1. In addi-
tion, Delgado & Sendra (2004), drawing on a review of pre-
viously published research studies, draw attention to the lack
of sensitivity analysis employed in many MCE-based examples
and suggest (p. 1175) that ‘this kind of analysis and the infor-
mation derived would be of greater relevance in planning
processes where the location of noxious facilities must face
vigorous public opposition’. Despite this they suggest that
‘there are few examples where an evaluation of the results
and the model used have been accomplished’ (Delgado &
Sendra 2004; p. 1175). Feick & Hall (2004) draw attention
to the variety of sensitivity-based approaches to investigating
the implications of criteria weight uncertainty and use a case
study to examine the resultant sensitivity in evaluation results.
This clearly is also an avenue for further research in waste
management applications.
112 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
The growth in the Internet has led to the development of
web-based tools, some of which include on-line GIS/multi-
criteria decision-support software, in order to select and eval-
uate suitable sites (Kingston 2002, Evans et al. 2004). These
could provide those members of the public who can access
the Internet with the opportunity to select the criteria which
they feel are important in allocating sites for waste disposal
and to differentially rank or weight these factors and apply these
weights through a multi-criteria decision analysis. This should,
as Kingston et al. (2000) suggest, lead to a more participatory
role for the public in the decision-making process. Further
their research demonstrated how a log of the computer trans-
actions of users can be used to compare the output maps of
potential sites identified by different users to see if there is a
consensus on the siting of such facilities. However, as Carver
(1999; p. 65) has argued ‘advanced web-based systems designed
for real-life participatory and collaborative decision-making
applications still need to be developed and tested’. There is
evidence from other areas of natural resource management
that making such tools available in readily accessible form via
such means as the web will not in itself encourage public par-
ticipation and that these tools should be used to complement
existing means of direct participation (e.g. Marcella et al. 2002,
Kangas & Store 2003). As Malczewski (1996; p. 956) suggests
‘in order to enhance the utility of the GIS-based, MCE meth-
ods, efforts should be made to integrate them with group deci-
sion-making techniques’.
Despite the importance of landscape issues in planning the
locations of such sites, there has been less research that has
explored the nature of the visual intrusion on landscape char-
acter and visual amenity through GIS-based visualization sce-
narios within multi-criteria models in public participation
frameworks. A notable exception in a forestry management
application is the work of Sheppard & Meitner (2005) but
their comments (p. 174) in the context of sustainable forestry
that ‘very few studies, which apply landscape visualization, also
integrate documented public interaction, (and) multi-criteria
analysis’ is equally applicable to the waste management sec-
tor. They proceed by describing a public MCA approach that
integrates forecasting models and then modelled the land-
scape visualization scenarios for forest management scenarios
in British Columbia, Canada. Such scenarios were presented
to stakeholder groups using hard copy maps and in the form of
PowerpointTM images and presentations (i.e. as static visuali-
zations) but future work could feasibly explore methods
through which we can increase stakeholder interactivity with
three-dimensional GIS data by, for example, choosing view-
points or by simulating the development of waste facilities in
the landscape. Their conclusions that ‘model-driven visuali-
zations appears to be quite popular with stakeholders’ but that
‘there are many questions about their influence on the overall
 Waste facility location: using GIS and MCE techniques to encourage public participation

Table 1: Issues to be considered if the potential of multi-criteria evaluation-based techniques in locating waste facilities are to be realized.

Stage 1.

· Definition of the problem/objective.

· Choice of geographical area and locating facility and stage in development process.
· Choice of timescales.
· Review of hardware/software requirements.
· Choice of stakeholders / public groups/ those affected/interested by the site-selection decision.
· Contact with relevant agencies, stakeholders and developers.
· Selection of communities – comparison of approaches and area of study.
· Selection of community members to represent as wide as range of views/perspectives as possible and to reduce bias.
· Review of previous participative mechanisms (if any) and of the different methods of multi-criteria decision analysis techniques which may be
relevant for waste facility location.

Stage 2.

· Clarifying the choice of criteria for the relevant application.

· Data availability and acquisition in relation to site-selection criteria.
· Choice of public/stakeholder/focus groups to reflect diverse range of opinions from those directly or indirectly involved and obtaining
representative views (possibly from previous public participation exercise).
· Choice of consultation mode to elucidate views, formulate alternatives and obtain a consensus on values (e.g. through approaches such as
questionnaires, workshops, e-mail, etc.).
· Issues of concern to such groups; traffic/air pollution, visual impacts, health concerns.
· Possibility of training in information and computer technology to enable familiarization with the technology.
· Design of the system and user involvement – choice of factors or criteria to be included to enable communication and data exploration.

Stage 3.

· Data preparation, assembly, conversion and analysis in GIS environment (vector and raster).
· Development of software interface and functionality.
· Choice of the multi-criteria decision analysis technique to be used in the case studies.
· Design of visualization-based multi-criteria model.
· Incorporation of local knowledge to technical stages of the project.
· Evaluation of different software options including the purchase of proprietary software (e.g. GeoChoice) which links multi-criteria evaluation
with GIS (e.g. ArcView) or development of new software.
· Explore different multi-criteria evaluation options in the site selection process – weighted linear combination (WLC), ordered weighted
average (OWA), etc.
· Calculation of resultant suitability map and where available, comparison with previous non-multi-criteria evaluation-based exercises.
· Mechanisms/dissemination of information/data to public groups – choice of forum of presentation (e.g. workshops, web-based
dissemination).
· Final presentation of potential sites prior to decision-making process.
· Seeking feedback on the effectiveness of methodologies from relevant agencies, developers and the general public.
· Evaluation of the methodologies employed.

process of scenario evaluation, and on the role that various
planned and unplanned features of the overall visualization
presentation may have played in influencing direct stakeholder
preferences’ (Sheppard & Meitner 2005; p. 184) would sug-
gest that more work is needed to explore the use of such tech-
niques in other sectors. Mau-Cummins et al. (2005) suggest
that scenic views of potential sites could be used in an AHP
process but this was not included as one of their nineteen cri-
teria in a study selecting potential wilderness area sites in
Arizona. Furthermore, such issues as visual impact, where
there is an element of subjective judgement in evaluating
aspects of scenic beauty of the landscape in a group decision-
making context, are seldom incorporated into traditional
GIS models despite their potential in environmental impact
assessment (which may be required for new sites). For exam-
ple, ‘the effects on the landscape’ were one set of criteria used
in multi-criteria study to locate a waste treatment facility in
Finland by Hokkanen & Salminen (1997b), this being meas-
ured by the visual range, the scenic value (subjectively rated
by a landscape architect) and the number of people who
could see the proposed plant. However, more research is
needed into methods by which subjective interpretations

Waste Management & Research 113

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
G. Higgs
from a wider range of stakeholders could be incorporated in a
multi-criteria framework.
Janssen (2001) provides examples of how MCA has been
used in environmental impact assessment in a variety of
application areas at different spatial scales in The Nether-
lands where public participation in environmental decision
making is institutionalized. In these applications ‘MCA is
used to bring forward the differences among alternatives’
(Janssen 2001; p. 103) and GIS is playing an increasing role
in environmental impact assessment applications where geo-
referenced data are used as inputs to the MCA. MCA tech-
niques have also been used in a number of studies concerned
with environmental impact assessment – an example was that
of Moreno & Siegel (1988) who used MCA for siting a high-
way corridor in Colorado in order to minimize impacts. As
Petts (2003; p. 275) argues ‘the conduct of the assessments
as well as the evaluation of the output should then be open
to direct public interrogation and review allowing for fur-
ther iteration where issues are identified that have not been
scoped into the assessment’. One of the main advantages of
adopting MCDA approaches in a GIS-based suitability anal-
ysis is the ability to include differential weighting schemes
that can help minimize conflicts among different stakehold-
ers in the environmental impact assessment process for exam-
ple. A range of participatory approaches should be investi-
gated in order to identify the types of criteria that can be
used in the MCDA technique used in the site selection
process.
Finally it would be naïve to suggest that ‘political’ issues
relating the application of such techniques that have the
potential to lead to more open and accountable processes,
related to waste facility management, can be ignored despite
their promise in leading to more socially acceptable decisions
for the location of such facilities (see for example chapters in
Munton 1996). Researchers in the field have identified factors
such as the loss of autonomy and there are also important issues
related to, for example, cyber-democracy (Carver et al. 2001).
Although the technology is now available to test the applica-
bility of such tools in real world situations, these approaches
also need the support of agencies involved in planning the
location of such sites as well as a general public committed
to the use of such systems when introduced. Furthermore,
public commitment to such exercises will be tested if their
involvement is not seen to have an influence on the final
decisions being made by authorities. Clearly such techniques
will not replace existing public participation exercises; the
approach outlined here can however complement such par-
ticipation tools. We contend that, if the current commitment
of the UK government to public participation as measured by
their support for the Aarhus Convention, for example, is to
prove to be more than just rhetoric there is an urgent need to
114 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
test the applicability of these methods in waste facility man-
agement.
Conclusions
Previous studies have shown that GIS has the potential to
speed up the process of finding suitable sites for waste facili-
ties and to permit sensitivity analysis that will examine the
impact of varying some of the criteria in a sieve-mapping
exercise (Delgado & Sendra 2004). However, studies of the
type reviewed here suggest that the potential integration with
MCE as a public participation tool could improve the speed of
the site selection process by incorporating public opinions at
the outset of the decision-making process. This paper has also
drawn attention to the nature of barriers to the implementa-
tion of such systems; many of which are common to other
types of public participation GIS projects (Bandt 1998, Carver
et al. 2000a, b, Craig et al. 2002). While recognizing the poten-
tial of public participation tools based around new technolo-
gies including the use of GIS in impact assessment, Webler et al.
(1995; p. 461) caution against ‘jumping on the electronic band-
wagon’. Their suggestion that ‘proponents of new participa-
tion techniques and technologies should assume the respon-
sibility to demonstrate that these innovations will enhance
the ability of public participation to achieve its aims’ is still a
legitimate one. Although significant advances have been
made in the subsequent years, further research is needed to
demonstrate the benefits of integrated GIS/MCE techniques
in real-world applications that build on the valuable lessons
gleamed from some of the studies summarized in this paper.
Previous studies of resident involvement in environmental
policy issues have drawn attention to the perception of some
respondents regarding the value of their role in influencing
the decision-making process and thus the difficulties involved
in increasing their participation in areas such as waste man-
agement [e.g. Fahy’s (2005) study in Ireland]. There is there-
fore a real need to demonstrate that the techniques high-
lighted in this paper can have a role to play in overcoming the
scepticism some groups have regarding their potential input
at different stages of the waste management process. Addi-
tionally, as the use of innovative multi-criteria techniques in
public participation arena becomes more widespread, there
will be the increasing need to evaluate the effectiveness of
these approaches in relation to more ‘traditional’ methods of
engaging the public. The central aim of this paper is to suggest
that integrated MCE–GIS approaches can complement exist-
ing modes of participation and not necessarily replace them;
existing prototype studies reviewed in this paper show real
promise in this regard but this needs to be tempered with a
realization of the problems facing researchers in this area. The
application of such techniques in waste facility siting studies
 Waste facility location: using GIS and MCE techniques to encourage public participation
would appear to be of crucial importance given the wider
commitments to waste management and the involvement of
References
Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. & Gauvin, F-P.
(2001) Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in the Design and Evalua-
tion of Public Consultation Processes. McMaster University Centre for
Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01–04,
June 2001. Available online: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/
compareparticipation.pdf
ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2002) Public
Health Investigations at the Nant-y-Gwyddon Landfill Site, Rhondda
Cynon Taff, Wales: An Evaluation of the environmental Health Assess-
ment Process. ATSDR, United States Department of Health and Human
Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta.
Ananda, J. & Herath, G. (2003) The use of analytic hierarchy process to
incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. For-
est Policy and Economics, 5, 13–26.
Atkinson, S.F., Schoolmaster, F.A., Lyons, D.L. & Coffey, J.M. (1995) A
geographic information systems approach to sanitary landfill siting
procedures: a case study. The Environmental Professional, 17, 20–26.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Ameri-
can Institute of Planners, 35, 216–244.
Audit Commission in Wales, ACiW (2005) Waste Management: A challenging
agenda for the Welsh public sector, Audit Commission in Wales, Cardiff.
Auditor General for Wales (2004) Environment Agency Wales: Regulation of
Waste Management. Report prepared for the Auditor General for Wales
by the National Audit Office Wales, Cardiff.
Baban, S.M.J. & Flannagan, J. (1998) Developing and implementing GIS-
assisted constraints criteria for planning landfill sites in the UK. Plan-
ning Practice and Research, 13, 139–151.
Banai, R. (1993) Fuzziness in Geographical Information Systems: contribu-
tions from an analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Geo-
graphical Information Systems, 7, 315–329.
Bandt, M. (1998) Public Participation GIS – barriers to implementation.
Cartography and Geographic information Systems, 25, 105–112.
Basagaoglu, H., Celenk, E, Marino, M.A. & Usul, N. (1997) Selection of
waste disposal sites using GIS. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 33, 455–464.
Bush, I.G., Gilson, A., Hamilton, M. & Perrin, M. (2005) Public participa-
tion – drawing the boundaries. Water and Environment Journal, 19,
181–188.
Calijuri, M.L., Marques, E.T., Lorentz, J.F., Azevedo, R.F. & Carvalho,
C.A.B. (2004) Multi-criteria analysis for the identification of waste
disposal areas. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 22, 299–312.
Carver, S. (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical
information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information
Science, 5, 321–339.
Carver, S. (1999) Developing web-based GIS/MCE: Improving access to
data and spatial decision support tools. In Thill, J.C. (ed.): Spatial Mul-
ticriteria Decision Making and Analysis: A Geographic Information Sys-
tems Approach, pp. 49–75. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Carver, S. & Openshaw, S. (1992) A Geographic Information Systems
approach to locating nuclear waste disposal sites. In: Clark, M., Smith,
D. & Blowers, A. (eds): Waste Location: Spatial Aspects of Waste Man-
agement, Hazards and Disposal, pp. 105–127. Routledge, London.
Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R. & Turton, I. (2000a) Accessing geo-
graphical information systems over the World Wide Web: Improving
public participation in environmental decision-making. Information,
Infrastructure and Policy, 6, 157–170.
Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R. & Turton, I. (2000b) Web-based public
participation geographical information systems: an aid to local envi-
ronmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Sys-
tems, 24, 109–125.
Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R. & Turton, I. (2001) Public Participation,
GIS and cyber-democracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support
systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 907–921.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
the public in environmental decision-making processes high-
lighted in recent UK government and EU pronouncements.
Charnley, S. & Engelbert, B. (2005) Evaluating public participation in envi-
ronmental decision-making: EPA’s superfund community involvement
program. Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 165–182.
Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, Q. & Garner, B. (1997) Preliminary landfill site
screening using fuzzy geographic information systems. Waste Manage-
ment and Research, 15, 197–215.
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W. & Huang, G.H. (2002) Using multiple criteria deci-
sion analysis for supporting decisions of solid waste management. Jour-
nal of Environmental Science and Health, 37, 975–990.
Conroy, M.M. & Gordon, S.I. (2004) Utility of interactive computer-based
materials for enhancing public participation. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 47, 19–33.
Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. & Weiner, D. (eds) (2002) Community Participation
and Geographic Information Systems. Taylor and Francis, London.
DEFRA (2003) The Disamenity Costs of Landfill. Department of the Environ-
ment and Rural Affairs, London.
Delgado, M.G. & Sendra, J.B. (2004) Sensitivity analysis in multicriteria
spatial decision-making: A review. Human and Ecological Risk Assess-
ment, 10, 1173–1187.
Dodgson, J., Spackman, M., Pearman, A.D. & Phillips, L.D. (2000) Multi-
Criteria Analysis: a Manual. Department of the Environment, Trans-
port and the Regions, London.
Dorhofer, G. & Siebert, H. (1998) The search for landfill sites – require-
ments and implementation in Lower Saxony, Germany. Environmental
Geology, 35, 55–65.
Dunsford, H. & MacFarlane, R. (2004) The Development of a National Geo-
graphical Information System for Facilitating Renewable Energy in Wales:
Meeting the Target. Arup and Northumbria University Centre for Envi-
ronmental and Spatial Analysis.
Eastman, J.R., Jin, W., Kyem, P.A.K. & Toledano, J. (1995) Raster proce-
dures for multi-criteria/multi-objective decisions. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 61, 539–547.
Elliott, P., Briggs, D., Morris, S., de Hoogh, C., Hurt, C., Jensen, T.K., Mait-
land, I., Richardson, S., Wakefield, J. & Jarup, L (2001) Risk of
adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill sites. British
Medical Journal, 323, 363–368.
Erkut, E. & Moran, S.R. (1991) Locating obnoxious facilities in the public
sector: an application of the analytic hierarchy process to municipal
landfill siting decisions. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 25, 89–102.
European Commission (1975) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
1975 on waste (as amended) Official Journal L 194, 25/07/1975. Euro-
pean Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2003a) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to envi-
ronmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC.
Official Journal of the European Union, L 41/26, 14.2.2003.
European Commission (2003b) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Par-
liament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public par-
ticipation in respect of the drawing up certain plans and programmes
relating to the environment and amending with regard to public par-
ticipation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and
96/61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 156/17, 25.6.2003.
Evans, A.J., Kingston, R. & Carver, S. (2004) Democratic input into the
nuclear waste disposal problem: the influence of geographical data on
decision making examined through a Web-based GIS. Journal of Geo-
graphical Systems, 6, 117–132.
Fahy, F. (2005) The right to refuse: Public attitudes and behaviour towards
waste in the West of Ireland. Local Environment, 10, 551–569.
Feick, R.D. & Hall, G.B. (2003) Balancing consensus and conflict with a
GIS-based multi-participant, multi-criteria decision support tool. In:
Boots, B., Okabe, A. & Thomas, R. (eds.) Modelling Geographical
Systems: Statistical and Computational Applications, pp. 203–233. Klu-
wer, Dordrecht.
Waste Management & Research 115
G. Higgs
Feick, R.D. & Hall, G.B. (2004) A method for examining the spatial dimen-
sion of multi-criteria weight sensitivity. International Journal of Geo-
graphical Information Science, 18, 815–840.
Geneletti, D. (2004) A GIS-based decision support system to identify
nature conservation priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy, 21,
149–160.
Gilliams S., Raymaekers D., Muys B. & Orshoven J. (2005) Comparing
multiple criteria decision methods to extend a geographical informa-
tion system on afforestation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
49, 142–158.
Haastrup, P., Maniezzo, V., Mattarelli, M., Rinaldi, F.M., Medes, I., and
Paruccini, M. (1998) A decision support system for urban waste man-
agement. European Journal of Operational Research, 109, 330–341.
Hartley, N. & Wood, C. (2004) Public participation in environmental
impact assessment – implementing the Aarhus Convention, Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 319–340.
Herath, G. (2004) Incorporating community objectives in improved wet-
land management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of
Environmental Management, 70, 263–273.
Hill, M.J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S.M., Lees, B.G. & Sharma, S. (2005) Multi-
criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS ana-
lytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and spa-
tially explicit analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20, 955–976.
Hokkanen, J. & Salminen, P. (1997a) Choosing a solid waste management
system using multi-criteria decision analysis. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, 98, 19–36.
Hokkanen, J. & Salminen, P. (1997b) Locating a waste treatment facility by
multicriteria analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6,
175–184.
Jankowski P. (2000) Collaborative spatial decision making in environmen-
tal restoration management: an experimental approach. Journal of
HydroInformatics, 2 197–206.
Jankowski, P. & Nyerges, T. (2001) Geographic Information Systems for Group
Decision Making: Towards a Participatory, Geographic Information Sci-
ence, Taylor and Francis, London.
Jankowski, P., Nyerges, T., Smith, A., Moore, T.J. & Horvath, E. (1997)
Spatial group choice: a SDSS tool for collaborative spatial decision-
making. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 11,
577–602.
Janssen, R. (2001) On the use of Multi-criteria analysis in environmental
impact assessment in The Netherlands. Journal of Multi-criteria Deci-
sion Analysis, 10, 101–109.
Jenkins, P., Kirk, K. & Smith, H. (2002) Getting Involved in Planning: Percep-
tions of the Wider Public. Development Department Research Pro-
gramme Research Findings No. 155/2002. Scottish Executive, Edin-
burgh.
Jensen, J.R. & Christensen, E.J. (1986) Solid and hazardous waste disposal
site selection using digital geographic information system technolo-
gies. The Science of the Total Environment, 56, 265–276.
Joerin, F., Theriault, M. & Musy, A. (2001) Using GIS and outranking mul-
ticriteria analysis for land suitability assessment. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 15, 153–174.
Jones, R.M., Copas, C.V. & Edmonds, E.A. (1997) GIS support for distrib-
uted group work in regional planning. International Journal of Geo-
graphical Information Systems, 11, 53–71.
Kangas, J. & Kangas, A. (2005) Multiple criteria decision support in forest
management – the approach, methods applied, and experiences
gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 133–143.
Kangas, J. and Store, R. (2003) Internet and teledemocracy in participatory
planning of natural resource management. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, 62, 89–101.
Kao, J-J., Lin, H-Y. & Chen, W-Y. (1997) Network geographic information
system for landfill siting. Waste Management & Research, 15, 239–253.
Kingston, R. (2002) Web-based PPGIS in the United Kingdom. In: Craig,
W.J., Harris, T.M. & Weiner, D. (2002) (eds): Community Participation
and Geographic Information Systems, chapter 8, pp. 101–112. Taylor and
Francis, London.
Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A. & Turton, I. (2000) Web-based public
participation geographical information systems: an aid to local envi-
ronmental decision making. Computers, Environment and Urban Sys-
tems, 24, 109–125.
116 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
Kontos, T.D., Komilis, D.P. & Halvadakis, C.P. (2003) Siting MSW landfills
on Lesvos Island with a GIS-based methodology. Waste Management &
Research, 21, 262–277.
Kontos, T.D., Komilis, D.P. & Halvadakis, C.P. (2005) Siting MSW landfills
with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste Manage-
ment, 25, 818–832.
Laaribi, A., Chevallier, J.J. & Martel, J.M. (1996) A spatial decision aid: a
multicriterion evaluation approach. Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems, 20, 351–366.
Lane, W.N. & McDonald, R.R. (1983) Land suitability analysis: landfill sit-
ing. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 109, 50–61.
Leao, S., Bishop, I. & Evans, D. (2004) Spatial-temporal model for demand
and allocation of waste landfills in growing urban regions. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 28, 353–385.
Lin, H-Y & Kao, J-J. (1998) A vector-based spatial model for landfill siting.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 58, 3–14.
Lober, D.J. (1995) Resolving the siting impasse; modelling social and envi-
ronmental locational criteria with a geographic information system.
Journal of American Planning Association, 61, 482–495.
Lukasheh, A.F., Droste, R.L. & Warith, M.A. (2001) Review of Expert Sys-
tems (ES), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Decision Support
System (DSS), and their applications in landfill design and manage-
ment. Waste Management & Research, 19, 177–185.
Malczewski, J. (1996) A GIS-based approach to multiple criteria group deci-
sion-making. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems,
10, 955–971.
Malczewski, J. (1999) GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, John Wiley,
Toronto.
Malczewski, J. (2004) GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical over-
view. Progress in Planning, 62, 3–65.
Marcella, R., Baxter, G. & Moore, N. (2002) An exploration of the effec-
tiveness for the citizen of Web-based systems of communicating UK
parliamentary and devolved assembly information. Journal of Govern-
ment Information, 29, 371–391.
Mau-Cummins, T., de Steiguer, J.E. & Dennis, D. (2005) AHP as a means
for improving public participation: a pre-post experiment with univer-
sity students. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 501–514.
Monnikhof, R.A.H. & Bots, P.W.G. (2000) On the Application of MCDA in
interactive spatial planning processes: lessons learnt from two stories
from the swamp. Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, 9, 28–44.
Moreno, D. & Seigel, M. (1988) A GIS approach for corridor siting and
environmental impact analysis, GIS/LIS’88. In: Proceedings from the
Third Annual International Conference, San Antonio, Texas, vol. 2,
pp. 507–514. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing, Falls Church, VA.
Morrissey, A.J. & Browne, J. (2004) Waste management models and their
application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management, 24,
297–308.
Munton, D. (1996) Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice. Georget-
own University Press, Washington.
Norese, M.F. (2006) ELECTRE III as a support for participatory decision-
making on the localisation of waste treatment plants. Land Use Policy,
23, 76–85.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), (2004) Planning for Waste
Management Facilities: A Research Study, ODPM, London.
Petts, J. (1995) Waste management strategy development: A case study of
community involvement and consensus building in Hampshire. Jour-
nal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38, 519–536.
Petts, J. (1997) The public-expert interface in local waste management
decisions: expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding of
Science, 6, 359–381.
Petts, J. (2000) Municipal waste management: inequities and the role of
deliberation. Risk Analysis, 20, 821–832.
Petts, J. (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes; waste
management case studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Man-
agement, 44, 207–226.
Pett, J. (2003) Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: learning from
waste policies, plans and projects. Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, 5, 269–293.
Petts, J. (2004) Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions:
evidence from waste management. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 115–133.
 Waste facility location: using GIS and MCE techniques to encourage public participation
Petts, J. & Eduljee, G. (1994) Environmental Impact Assessment for Waste
Treatment and Disposal Facilities. Wiley, Chichester.
Petts, J., Homan, J. & Pollard, S. (2003) Participatory Risk Assessment:
Involving Lay Audiences in Environmental Decisions on Risk, R&D Tech-
nical Report E2-043/TR/01. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Petts, J. & Leach, B. (2000) Evaluating Methods for Public Participation: Literature
Review. R&D Technical Report: E2-030, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Pheby, D., Grey, M., Giusti, L. & Saffron, L. (2002) Waste Management and
Public Health: the State of the Evidence – a Review of the Epidemiological
Research on the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Health. South
West Public Health Observatory, Bristol.
Phua, M-H. & Minowa, M. (2005) A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-
making approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale:
a case study in the Kinabalu area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 71, 207–222.
Rauschmayer, F. & Wittmer, H. (2006) Evaluating deliberative and analyti-
cal methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use
Policy, 23, 108–122.
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. & Johnson, B. (1993) Public par-
ticipation in decision-making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sciences,
26, 189–214.
Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. (2000) Public participation methods: a framework
for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3–29.
Sasao, T. (2004) An estimation of the social costs of landfill siting using a
choice experiment. Waste Management, 24, 753–762.
Schneider, E., Oppermann, B. & Renn, O. (1998) Implementing structured
participation for regional level waste management planning. Risk,
Health, Safety and Environment, 9, 379–395.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON on July 16, 2014
Schlossberg, M. & Shuford, E. (2005) Delineating “Public” and “Participa-
tion” in PPGIS. URISA Journal, 16, 15–26.
Sheppard, S.R.J & Meitner, M. (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and vis-
ualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stake-
holder groups. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 171–187.
Siddiqui, M.Z., Everett, J.W. & Vieux, B.E. (1996) Landfill siting using geo-
graphic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of Urban Plan-
ning and Development, 122(6), 515–523.
Vasiloglou, V. (2004) New tool for landfill location. Waste Management &
Research, 22, 427–439.
Vitalis, K. & Manoloadis, O. (2002) A two-level multicriteria DSS for land-
fill site selction using GIS: Case study in Western Macedonia, Greece.
Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 6, 49–56.
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. & Renn, O. (1995) Public participation in
impact assessment: A social learning perspective, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 15, 443–463.
Weidemann, I. & Femers, S. (1993) Public participation in waste manage-
ment decision-making: analysis and management of conflicts, Journal
of Hazardous Materials, 33, 355–368.
Welsh Assembly Government (2002) Wise about Waste: The National
Waste Strategy for Wales. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff, June
2002.
Wey, W-M. (2005) An integrated expert system/operations research approach
for the optimisation of waste incinerator siting problems. Knowledge-
based Systems, 18, 267–278.
Zeiss, C. (1991) Community decision-making and impact management pri-
orities for siting waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 11, 231–255.
Waste Management & Research 117