Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-021-00605-y

RESEARCH PAPER

Sanitary Landfill Site Selection Using Spatial‑AHP for Pshdar Area,

Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan Region/Iraq
Shwana Braim Hassan Manguri1   · Araz Ahmed Hamza1 

Received: 20 August 2020 / Accepted: 7 February 2021

© Shiraz University 2021

Abstract
Municipal solid waste management is a crucial issue in most countries, especially the site selection process for disposing
of solid wastes. Landfill site selection is a complex and difficult process because it requires multiple evaluation criteria and
alternative approaches to be considered. In this study, thirteen criteria including (rivers, lake, geology, elevation, slope,
agriculture, groundwater depth, power line, roads, archaeological sites, infrastructures, urban centers, and villages) were
considered in Pshdar area which are divided into two categories, namely natural environmental factors and artificial factors.
To identify the most suitable landfill site, an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was integrated with a geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) to evaluate, manipulate, and present spatial criteria. All maps are ranked from 1 lowest suitability to 10
highest suitability using spatial AHP. The candidate sites were determined by aggregation based on the criteria weights and
categorized to “Unsuitable,” “Moderately Suitable,” “Suitable,” and “Most Suitable” sites. The most suitable sites graded
into candidate site 1, candidate site 2, candidate site 3, and candidate site 4, based on their available areas which are required
to predict solid waste volume for at least the next 15 years. The areas of candidate sites are 15,040,400 ­m2, 3,902,410 ­m2,
2,586,130 ­m2, and 730,462 ­m2, respectively. The better landfill areas can be considered as backup landfill candidate sites.

* Shwana Braim Hassan Manguri

shwana.manguri@uor.edu.krd
Araz Ahmed Hamza
Araz.hamza@uor.edu.krd
1
Civil Engineering Department, University
of Raparin, General Street, Ranya, Sulaymaniyah,
Kurdistan Region 46012, Iraq

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Graphical abstract
Candidate sites in the study area.
Keywords  Geographic information system · Analytical hierarchy process · Landfill site selection · Suitability index ·
Municipal solid waste management
1 Introduction
In recent years, solid waste generation and its siting has
become an important subject due to the vast growth of
population and industrialization in the developed and unde-
veloped countries. The developed countries are searching
for new sites because the current ones are filled. Currently,
undeveloped countries are looking forward to better manag-
ing solid waste.
The different communities have used landfill for sit-
ting solid waste as a common method (Komilis et al. 1999;
Mutluturk and Karaguzel 2007; Wang et al. 2009). Reuse,
recycle, thermal treatment, and biological treatment are con-
sidered as the first process, and the whole remained waste
materials are disposed at landfill sites (Kontos et al. 2005;
Moeinaddini et al. 2010; Ngoc and Schnitzer 2009; Şener
et al. 2010). Special attention must be considered for dis-
posal sites of municipal and industrial solid wastes because
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
they are a serious source of air, soil, and water contamina-
tion (Şener et al. 2010). Despite having rules and techniques
for proper landfill management and restrictions of environ-
mental agencies, many uncontrolled waste disposal sites are
still existing (Mondelli et al. 2007).
Sanitary landfill is a common way to treat municipal solid
waste (MSW) in many countries besides using other tech-
niques of waste management; for example, recycling and
burning. The dumping process is considered a comparably
low-cost easy way to be executed (Chabuk et al. 2019; Kim
and Owens 2010; Yesilnacar and Cetin 2008).
Many factors have to be taken into consideration for land-
fill siting; for instance, expanding settlement areas, reduce
available areas for landfills, rising political and social oppo-
sitions, paying attention to environmental policy, govern-
mental economic situation and municipality findings, and
urbanization. These factors are made the process to be a
complex task for local authorities and city planners (Chabuk
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
et al. 2019; Javaheri et al. 2006; Lin and Kao 1999; Siddiqui
et al. 1996).
Pshdar Area, Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan Region, Iraq, in
2019 produced 94 tons of MSW (Hamza and Ahmed 2020).
Currently, there are several open dump landfills randomly
distributed over the study area. The selection of these open
dumpsites has not taken environmental, social, and eco-
nomic considerations into account. Also, they have not
got approval from the official authorities. These sites are
a severe source for leachate which leads to surface water
pollution and groundwater contamination, emission of
greenhouse gases, fires, and an increasing number of insects
around the area.
Pointing to the literature, there are several methods and
techniques of landfill site selection as cited in (Balis et al.
1998; Bonham-Carter 1994; Dörhöfer and Siebert 1998;
Ehler et al. 1995; Halvadakis 1993; Herzog 1999; Lukasheh
et al. 2001; Yagoub and Buyong 1998). The powerful tool
for siting landfill is integration of geographic information
system (GIS) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Allen
et al. 2003; Chabuk et al. 2019; Şener et al. 2006, 2010; Sid-
diqui et al. 1996; Wang et al. 2009).
GIS is the software designed to manage and manipulate
the large volume of spatial data from different sources. They
are performed to overlay and advanced site selection explo-
ration because they significantly store, process, analyze,
and display information according to the user’s require-
ments (Chabuk et al. 2019; Delgado et al. 2008; El Alfy
et al. 2010; Kontos et al. 2003; Şener et al. 2010; Siddiqui
et al. 1996; Wang et al. 2009). GIS is a low-cost tool and
extensively facilitates landfill site selection, and it is enabled
to combine siting techniques of multiple criteria analysis
(Kao et al. 1997; Kontos and Halvadakis 2002; Minor and
Jacobs 1994). These techniques are used to evaluate the sit-
ing suitability for the entire study area based on the suit-
ability index.
The AHP was introduced by Saaty (1980). The AHP is a
decision-making technique that analyses and supports deci-
sions having multiple and even competing objectives. The
AHP is used to rank potential landfill areas based on a wide
variety of criteria. This technique provides a means of ana-
lyzing the problem into a hierarchy of sub-problems that can
be more easily comprehended and subjectively evaluated
then are converted into numerical values (Bhushan and Rai
2004; Khan and Samadder 2014; Siddiqui et al. 1996). It is
implemented by dividing a complex problem into several
simpler problems in the form of a decision hierarchy (Erkut
and Moran 1991). After that, a pair-wise comparison matrix
of each element is constructed. A pair-wise comparison
matrix of each element within each level is done and later
that can be weighed against each other within each level. The
AHP is often used to compare the relative suitability of a
small number of alternatives concerning the overall process.
Different methods have been used by several researchers
for the process of site selection. For instance, (Siddiqui et al.
1996) in the Oklahoma United States, (Wang et al. 2009)
in China, (Şener et al. 2010) in Turkey, and (Chabuk et al.
2019) in Iraq are Integrated GIS and AHP for the suitable
landfill site selection. (Bilintoh and Stemn 2015; Donevska
et al. 2012; Jiang and Eastman 2000; Pasalari et al. 2019)
combine GIS and fuzzy logics/AHP for the suitable landfill
site selection. (Akbari et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2008; Effat
and Hegazy 2012; Gómez‐Delgado and Tarantola 2006;
Greene et al. 2011; Kontos et al. 2005; Nas et al. 2010;
Şener et al. 2006; Shukla et al. 2012) evaluated the suitabil-
ity of the study area to select an optimal landfill site using a
spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Vatalis and
Manoliadis (2002) have used GIS to overlay digital maps to
find suitable landfill sites in Western Macedonia, Greece.
(Al-Jarrah and Abu-Qdais 2006) addressed the problem of
siting a new landfill using an intelligent system based on
fuzzy inference. According to Mutluturk and Karaguzel
(2007), the site selection method should be applied in two
stages. In the first stage, potential landfill sites are identified
based on evaluations of geology, hydrogeology and mor-
phological properties using GIS techniques. In the second
stage, several potential landfill sites are assessed considering
various criteria. (Gorsevski et al. 2012) presented a GIS-
based multi-criteria decision analysis approach for evalu-
ating the suitability for landfill site selection in the Polog
Region, Macedonia which is called the ordered weighted
average (OWA) techniques. (Mahini and Gholamalifard
2006) described a multi-criteria evaluation method, called
weighted linear combination (WLC), in a GIS environment
to evaluate the suitability of the outskirts of Gorgan city
(Iran) as a landfill site. Overall, different methodologies
are executed by different researchers considering the study
region attributes.
The main objective of this study is to deal with the bad
effects of Pshdar waste disposal site on the district environ-
ment, and to identify and assessment the most suitable area
for sanitary landfill by using AHP and GIS to analyze the
studying area depending on the considered criteria. The cur-
rent paper aimed to find out the most appropriate landfill site
for Pshdar area with the aid of spatial AHP.
2 Background Information
Pshdar district is considered as the studying area to the cur-
rent research. It is one of the districts of the province of
Sulaymaniyah in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq; it is located
about 153 km East of the Sulaimanyah City directly on the
Iraq–Iran border (Fig. 1) (Radner et al. 2017). The most
populated urban center in Pshdar district is Qaladize Town,
with five Sub-districts such as Sangasar, Zharawa, Halsho,
13

Fig. 1  Location of Pshdar District on the Iraqi map
Hero, and Isewa. Moreover, it covers 215 villages (Minis-
try of Agriculture and water resources 2019). The whole
population of the District is about 123,179 people (Map of
estimated population of Sulaimanyah governorate 2015).
This rate is about 6.36% of the total population of the Sulay-
maniyah governorate. The population of Pshdar district is
140,670 in 2020, and it is projected to reach 158,162 in 2025
and 193,144 in 2035 according to Iraq population growth
rate which is 2.84% in 2017 (Data 2020). Pshdar district
Fig. 2  Open dumping area in
Pshdar district
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
area is about 1,495,000,000 m ­ 2, and it is geographically
located between latitude 36° 00′ 46" N and 36° 40′ 47",
and longitude 45° 38′ 31" E and 45° 99′ 03" E within the
range of 600–3000 m from sea level (Municipality 2015).
The amount of municipal solid waste and land required
for sanitary landfill sites in the district has been calculated
as 208,458 kg/day and 75,000 ­m2, respectively. However,
there is no appropriate method for district waste disposal
as displayed in Fig. 2, currently open dumping method uses
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
to discard the municipal solid waste of the city. The avail-
able dumping area is not appropriate and scientifically is
not acceptable according to standardized criteria for landfill
site selection. It is clear that this dump site has many bad
effects on surrounding area and the district environment, the
most substantial effects are the derived leachate from the
site (Fig. 2.) is mixed with Little Zab River which provides
drinking water to the district, because of its topography and
proximity to seasonal water stream which goes toward the
River. The leachate derived from the dumping site may pro-
duce a harmful effect on the environment and human health
(Butt and Oduyemi 2003). It produces different environmen-
tal issues such as air pollution, bad odor, soil contamination,
and smoke due to its proximity to the residential area at the
district boundary which is less than 1000 m.
3 Methodology
It is a challenge to get reliable spatial data in Iraq, especially
in the Kurdistan Regional Government due to the lack of
reliable sources and lack of uses of spatial data. However,
for the present study, thirteen map layers were created from
different spatial data sources. The required layers are (rivers,
lake, geology, elevation, slope, agricultural lands, ground-
water depth, power line, roads, archaeological sites, infra-
structures, urban centers, and villages) which are divided
into two main groups: natural environmental factors and
artificial factors.
They affect the solid waste site selection in the study
area referred to in Fig. 3. The data have come from different
sources, and all the data were saved in the shape of a digital
map (shapefiles).
Fig. 3  Hierarchy model used for
landfill site selection Goal A
landfill
suitability
(A)
The digital elevation model DEM file of grid (30 × 30) m
was downloaded from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration NASA website for earth data (https​://searc​
h.earth​data.nasa.gov/searc​h). The data used to derive slope,
elevation, and river streams obtained from the ArcGIS soft-
ware. The geological map derived from the exploratory geol-
ogy of Iraq with scale 1:1,000,000 from the Iraqi geological
survey website (http://en.geosu​rvira​q.iq/). The shapefile of
“agriculture” was obtained from the satellite image of the
study area. The shapefile of archeological sites was created
by consulting with the archeologists and experts in the field.
By visiting the sites and surveying in the study area around
26 water wells and their depths gained. They imported to
the ArcGIS software as a point feature then converted to a
shapefile. Finally, the kriging interpolation tool was used to
generate the groundwater depth raster data set for the study
area.
Based on the nature of the available map layers, each
criterion is classified into sub-criteria. Each sub-criterion
rated. The existing literature is reviewed in the field which is
used to rate each sub-criterion. ArcGIS version 10.8 spatial
analysis tools such as (clip, buffer, overlay, extract, proxim-
ity, reclassify, conversion, and map algebra, etc.) were used
to prepare each criterion and sub-criteria with numbers of
steps.
3.1 Evaluating Criteria Weights by AHP
AHP was used to establish the hierarchy of landfill siting
and the decision hierarchy model of landfill sitting shown
in Fig.  3 in this case. The current study used thirteen
criteria factors in the computation process. The criteria
were divided into two main groups which are natural
Hierarchy B Hierarchy C
Rivers (C1)
lake (C2)
natural Geology (C3)
environmen
tal factors Elevaon (C4)
(B1) Slope (C5)
Agriculture(C6)
Ground Water Depth (C7)
Power line (C8)
Arficial Roads (C9)
factors (B2) Archaelogical Sites (C10)
Infrastructures (C11)
Cies (C12)
Villages (C13)
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

environmental factors and artificial factors that equally

weighted (0.5) in the study. International literature used

Normal-

Weights

0.136
0.137
0.059
0.061
0.039
0.031
0.204
0.017

0.029
0.027
0.136
0.084
to select the criteria.

0.04
ized
The pair-wise comparison matrix was established to
determine the relative importance of different attributes

Villages
concerning the decision-makers in terms of contribution

0.33
0.25

0.33

0.33
0.5
0.5

0.2
to the goal. Buffer zones around sub-criteria were masked

2
2

2
1
by giving them a value of zero which they restricted areas.

Urban center
Finally, the values of the pair-wise matrix were pairwise
compared concerning 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 representing equal

0.33
0.33
0.25

0.17
0.25

0.25
importance, weak importance of one over another, essen-

0.2

0.2

0.5
1
1

1
tial or strong importance, demonstrated importance, and

Infrastructures
absolute importance, respectively, and assigned 2, 4,
6, and 8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent
judgments. In addition, if activity i has one of the above

0.5

0.5
nonzero numbers assigned to it when compared with activ-

5
6
3
4
3
1
7

1
4
3
ity j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with

Archaeo-
i that they developed by (Saaty 1980). The weight (W)

logical
was calculated for each criterion, and they were normal-

sites

0.5
5
5
3
3
2
1
6

2
1
2
5
1
ized to calculate the criteria weight (Wi) of each factor,
see Table 1.

Roads

0.33
0.5

0.5
0.5
Checking has been done for consistency between the

4
4
2
2
1

4
3
weightings of criteria resulting from the pair-wise com- Power line
parison matrix. Consistency Ratio (CR) was calculated by
Table 1  Pair-wise comparisons’ matrix for calculating the significance weights of criteria for landfill siting

dividing the Consistency Index (CI) by the Random Index

(RI). In this study Consistency Index (CI 0.05108) and 6
6
4
4
3
2
7
1
3
2
2
6
5
Random Index (RI 1.56) used for thirteen criteria (Saaty
Ground-

1980). Calculated Consistency Ration (CR 0.0327 < 0.1)

depth
water

0.25
0.25

0.14

0.17
0.14

0.33
which is acceptable.
0.5
0.5

0.2
0.2

0.2

0.5
1
After preparing the weightings of the thirteen criteria
Agriculture

from the pair-wise comparisons matrix, the Suitability

Index of Landfill Siting (SILS) for the final output map
was calculated through the multiplying the weight of each 0.5
4
4
2
2
1
1
5

2
1
1
5
4
criterion by the weight of each sub-criteria of each cri-
Slope

terion. The spatial analysis tool “Map Algebra” in GIS

0.33

0.33
0.5
software was used for this purpose. The (SILS) calculation
4
4
2
2
1
1
5

4
3
process was as follows:
Elevation

0.25

0.33
0.25

SILS = (C1wi × C1swii) + (C2wi × C2swi) + (C3wi × C3swi)

0.5
0.5

0.5
3
3
1
1

3
2

+ (C4wi × C4swi) + (C5wi × C5swi) + (C6wi × C6swi)

Geology

+ (C7wi × C7swi) + (C8wi × C8swi) + (C9wi × C9swi)

0.25

0.33
0.33
0.5
0.5

0.5

+ (C10wi × C10swi) + (C11wi × C11swi)

3
3
1
1

3
2

+ (C12wi × C12swi) + (C13wi × C13swi),

Lake

0.33
0.33
0.25
0.25

0.17
0.25

0.17
0.2

0.5

where SILS: suitability index of landfill siting.

1
1

The terms “C1wi, C2wi, C3wi, C4wi, C5wi, C6wi,

River

0.33
0.33
0.25
0.25

0.17
0.25

C7wi, C8wi, C9wi, C10wi, C11wi, C12wi, and C13wi”

0.2
0.2

0.5
1
1

represent the criteria weightings. The terms “C1swi,

Archaeological sites

C2swi, C3swi, C4swi, C5swi, C6swi, C7swi, C8swi,

Groundwater depth

C9swi, C10swi, C11swi, C12swi, and C13swi” are expres-

Infrastructures
Urban center

sions for their weightings of sub-criteria for each of the

Agriculture

Power line
Elevation
Geology

criterion.
Villages
Criteria

Roads
Slope
River
Lake

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
3.2 Criteria Details and Application
In this research, thirteen criteria have been considered as
a filter to nominate the acceptable location for landfill and
input as a map which can be explained as follows:
3.2.1 Residential Areas
Landfills should not be located too close to settlement
areas, since it is the main source of health problems, noise
complaints, and aesthetic, bad odors. Furthermore, future
construction growth must also be considered in assigning
the place of landfills. In this study, the residential area was
subdivided into two different layers. In the first layer, dis-
trict center and sub-districts were considered and the second
layer consists of villages. The reason behind this separation
is the requirement of applying different buffer zone distances
to the urban center or villages. According to the literature
review, the minimum distance from urban centers must be
at least 5 km and 500 m from isolated houses to locate a
landfill site (Al-Anbari and Abdulredha 2014; Chabuk et al.
2016). Buffer zones less than 5 km to the urban center were
scored 1; buffer zone distances from 5 to 12 km were given
the highest grade which was 10. While for 12 to 16 km and
above 16 km were scored as 7 and 4, respectively. For vil-
lage areas, buffer zones less than 1,000 m were scored as 0,
whereas those with buffer zones more than 1,000 m were
scored 10 (Fig. 4 a & b).
3.2.2 Distance to Surface Water
Proximity to surface waters, such as rivers, streams, lakes,
ponds, water intake points, etc., must be considered in the
sanitary landfill site selection process to prevent them from
leachate or other pollutants from contaminating the area
(Yachiyo Engineering CO 2004). In this study, the surface
water bodies categorized to two categories which are rivers
and lakes:
• Distance from Rivers According to international litera-
ture (Gorsevski et al. 2012; Şener et al. 2010; Wang et al.
2009) 500 m buffer zones were drawn around all rivers
as a minimum safe distance to the landfill site. About
500 m buffer zone was scored as 0, 1000 m, 2000 m, and
buffer zones greater than 2000 m scored as 4, 7, and 10,
respectively, Fig. 4c.
• Distance from Lake 500 m buffer zones were consid-
ered around all lakes as a minimum safe distance to the
landfill site which scored 0. For other distances, buffer
zones were scored as 1000 m, 2000 m, and buffer zones
greater than 2000 m scored as 4, 7, and 10, respectively,
Fig. 4d (Gorsevski et al. 2012; Şener et al. 2010; Wang
et al. 2009).
3.2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater pollution from landfill leaching and transport
of contaminants is one of the main environmental concerns
about long-term safety from landfill siting; therefore, landfill
sites should not be located in areas with shallow groundwa-
ter depth to protect the groundwater from contamination. For
the layer of groundwater depths in Pshdar district, the Krig-
ing interpolation tool in GIS was utilized to shape an inter-
polation among the available data of groundwater depths
in 26 wells. According to international literature, different
depths have been recommended as sufficient depth between
landfill bases to the groundwater table for instance (Effat
and Hegazy 2012) suggested that depth of 110 m from the
site’s surface to the groundwater table is sufficient depth.
(Ouma et al. 2011; Sadek et al. 2006) suggested 30 m, and
15 m, respectively. In this research, depth between 0–20 m,
20–50 m, 50–70 m, and more than 70 m were scored as 0, 4,
7, and 10, respectively, Fig. 4e.
3.2.4 Power Lines
Proximity to power lines must be taken into consideration
while selecting landfill site, a sufficient distance must be
provided to avoid the high level of voltage power that results
from these lines. On the other hand, as sustainable develop-
ment, the proposed landfill sites have to have a power sup-
ply source for the recycling industry. A distance map was
shaped around power supply lines, where the buffer zones
less than 50 m were scored as 0, buffer zones 50–150 m,
150–500 m, and more than 500 m were scored as, 4, 7, and
10, respectively, Fig. 4f.
3.2.5 Archaeological Sites
Archaeological sites were considered as one of the most
important criteria for landfill site selection. Since several
sites are available in the studying area which are officially
preserved. Therefore, a buffer zone of less than 1 km around
these areas was masked and, thus, scored 0. Buffer zones of
1–3 km around these areas and more than 3 km were scored
as 5 and 10, respectively, Fig. 4g
3.2.6 Agriculture
Various types of agricultural lands are present in the study-
ing area, which were excluded from further consideration by
using the GIS database. These agricultural lands have been
categorized into two main classes, class I farmlands and
cropland and class II unused lands. The class I has great eco-
nomic value for the district since they are the main sources
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Fig. 4  Maps showing suitability of evaluation (standardized) criteria for landfill site of: a Villages; b distance to urban center; c Rivers; d Dukan
Lake; e Ground water depth; f Power Line; f Power Line; g Archeological Sites; h Farm Land; i Geology

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
of agricultural and crop production. Therefore, they are not a
suitable place for a sitting landfill. Class I scored as 0, while
Class II scored as 10 Fig. 4h.
3.2.7 Proximity to Roads
In this study, the available roads in the studying area have
been categorized into two categories such as major district
roads and minor district roads. Both types were incorporated
into the layer of “roads.” Buffer zones of 1500–2500 m far
away from the major district roads and 400- 1500 m far away
from the minor district roads were assigned as the highest
score of 10. While buffer zones of less than 400 m and more
than 1500 m from minor district roads were scored as 1 and
4, respectively. Buffer zones of less than 1000 m and more
Fig. 5  Maps showing suitability of evaluation (standardized) criteria for landfill site of: a Major Roads; b Minor Roads; c Elevation; d Slope; e
Infrastructures
than 3000 m far away from major district roads were graded
as 1. Although buffer zones 1000–1500 m and 2500–3000 m
far away from major district roads were scored as 4 (Fig. 5a,
b).
3.2.8 Geological Properties of the Land
The geological data of the studied area determined were
based on the series of geological maps of the Iraq scale
1:250,000. The geological map was digitized using ArcGIS
software and converted into a grid map with a 30 × 30 m
resolution. There was some different geological formation
in the area; the main formations have been grouped into
seven formation groups; Alluvial fan deposit, well-bedded
limestone, rock fragments, marly limestone, metamorphic,
13

lake and volcanic groups. The alluvial and limestone forma-
tions have a high potential for water adsorption and are not
suitable for landfill sites interim of water adsorption while
it is helpful for landfill construction operation. Hence, these
sites were scored as 5. The other formation based on their
capability to water absorption and permeability character-
istics were evaluated and scored as 7, 5, 0, 1, and 10 for
rock fragments, marly limestone, lake, volcanic group, and
metamorphic, respectively, Fig. 4i.
3.2.9 Slope
The slope of the Land is a crucial parameter for the con-
struction and operation of a sanitary landfill site, it affects
the landscape processes such as soil water content, erosion
potential, runoff rates, and subsurface flow. The locations
have a steep slope that is not technically appropriate for
landfill construction. However, less sloped lands are consid-
ered as the best for a landfill siting to prevent the transition
of contaminants to surrounding areas. Since the studying
area has irregular topography with a different slope angle.
The sites that have slope less than 10% is the most suitable
(full membership) and those that have more than 35% are not
suitable (full-non-membership). The areas that have slope
less than 5%, slope between 5%-10%, 10%-20%, 20%-35%,
and more than 35% were scored as 5, 10, 6, 3, 0 Fig. 5d.
3.2.10 Elevation
The land altitude is similar to the slope which they are the
basic parameters for construction and operation sanitary
landfill sites. Areas with high altitudes are not suitable for
landfill sites; the best locations for landfill sites are places
with moderate height bounded by hills. The digital elevation
model with a 30 × 30 m resolution was downloaded from
the NASA website for this purpose. An area with altitude
483–600 m above sea level was graded as 10 (most suit-
able according to region topography), and an area at 600-
700 m above sea level was scored as 7 (suitable). Areas at
700–900 m above sea level was scored as 5 (less suitable),
and areas with elevation more than 700 m above sea level
graded as 1 (least suitable) Fig. 5c.
3.2.11 Infrastructures
There are some infrastructures in the study area such as a
water treatment plant, main storage water tank, electricity
power station, and university campus. Due to safety and spe-
cial needs, a 500 m buffer zone was used and scored as 0.
And buffer zone of 500–1500 m was scored as 3 (less suit-
able), while the places with a distance of more than 1500 m
was scored as 10 (most suitable). Table 2 is the summary
of the criteria and sub-criteria with AHP weights Fig. 5e.
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
4 Result and Discussion
To detect the most suitable location for landfill sitting,
all criteria mentioned in this study are considered, and
the weights of each criterion are determined by using
AHP and GIS methods. All the layers overlaid with their
weights in the ArcGIS weight overlay tool, final map of
suitability based on AHP is generated Fig. 6a. Based on
suitability, the final output map of the land suitability
index (LSI) for landfill sitting was drawn for the study
area which is categorized into four classes as explained
in landfill suitability map Fig. 6b.; 1. Unsuitable sites, 2.
Moderately suitable sites, 3. Suitable sites, and 4. Most
suitable sites.
Eventually, the map of LSI multiplied by the map of the
restricted area to avoid sitting in the landfill on the restricted
areas. It is caused to kick out those areas which they recog-
nized as restricted areas Fig. 7a. The solid waste quantity of
the Pshdar district was calculated as 93.77 Tons/day, and the
solid waste generation rate was (0.761 kg/ cap-day) accord-
ing to (Hamza and Ahmed 2020). The solid waste quantity
expected in 2035 is 53647.7 tons. The cumulative quantity
of solid waste expected from 2020 to 2035 is (741,734.75
tons) based on a projected population in 2035 in the district
of 193,144 inhabitants (Data 2020).
The average density of the district solid waste is
(167.60 kg/m3) for non-compacted waste; and the density
for compacted waste at the landfill site is 663.62 kg/m 3
(Hamza and Ahmed 2020). Then, from the expected waste
quantity dividing by density, the predicted volume of waste
and expectable volume waste of cumulating waste in 2035
are 80,841 ­m3 and 1,117,710 ­m3, respectively. In the study
area, 3 m depth assumed for landfill construction; therefore,
the required area of a candidate landfill site to include the
cumulative quantity of solid waste in 2035 is 537488.95 ­m2.
This case study reveals the process of identifying one or
a few optimal sites. All candidate sites based on the natural
environmental and artificial factors were overlaid based on
their weights and screened by predicted landfill area for the
next 15 years. Because this process of site selection allows
site suitability to be accepted with the maximum possible
operational period of a candidate site, it is very beneficial for
future planning. Finally, the best landfill areas were selected,
and they can be considered as the optimal landfill candidate
sites. The better landfill areas can be considered as backup
landfill candidate sites. Based on the predicted area for 2035,
all areas were removed smaller than 537,488.95 ­m2 to reach
the final candidate areas. The candidate areas were taken
into account with the maximum suitability rank as candidate
site 1 (15,040,400 m­ 2), candidate site 2 (3,902,410 m ­ 2), can-
2
didate site 3 (2,586,130 ­m ), and candidate site 4 (730,462
­m2) as shown in Fig. 7b.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Table 2  Summary of the No. Criteria Sub-criteria value Sub-criteria Criteria

criteria used in the analysis scoring weights
(AHP)

1 Urban centers (m) 0–5000 1 0.136

5000–12,000 10
12,000–16,000 7
 > 16,000 4
2 Villages (m) 0–1000 0 0.084
 > 1000 10
3 Rivers (m) 0–500 0 0.136
500–1000 4
1000–2000 7
 > 2000 10
4 Dukan lake (m) 0–500 0 0.137
500–1000 4
1000–2000 7
 > 2000 10
5 Ground water depth (m) 0–20 0 0.204
20–50 4
50–70 7
 > 70 10
6 Power lines (m) 0–50 0 0.017
50–150 4
150–500 7
 > 500 10
7 Archaeological sites (m) 0–1000 0 0.029
1000–3000 5
 > 30,000 10
8 Agriculture Class I 0 0.031
Class II 10
9 Major district roads (m) 0–1000 1 0.04
1000–1500 4
1500–2500 10
2500–3000 4
Minor district roads (m) 0–400 0
400–1500 10
 > 1500 4
10 Geological properties of the land Alluvial & limestone 5 0.059
Rock Fragments 7
Merly limestone 5
Lake 0
Volcanic group 1
Metamorphic 10
11 Slope ( ◦) 0–10 10 0.039
10–20 5
20–30 3
 > 30 0
12 Elevation (m.s.l) 483–600 10
600–700 7
700–900 5
 > 900 1 0.061
13 Infrastructures (m) 0–500 0 0.027

13

Table 2  (continued) No. Criteria
Fig. 6  a, b Landfill Suitability
map and recommended are for
sitting
Fig. 7  a Restricted areas and
LSI, b Candidate sites
5 Conclusions
Pshdar district is considered as the study area in the cur-
rent research. It is one of the districts of the province of
Sulaymaniyah in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The research
focused on the selection of suitable sites for a sanitary land-
fill in the district using thirteen scientific and environmental
criteria with sufficient methodology to evaluate the whole
district area to find the best suitable sites for landfills. AHP
and GIS were used in the analysis process. Environmental
and artificial factors were considered in the analysis process
including rivers, lake, geology, elevation, slope, agriculture,
groundwater depth, power line, roads, archaeological sites,
infrastructures, urban centers, and villages.
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
Sub-criteria value Sub-criteria Criteria
scoring weights
(AHP)
500–1500 3
 > 1500 10
At the end of the analysis process, based on the suitabil-
ity map derived from GIS and filtered with all criteria, four
candidate sites have been identified as the most suitable sites
in the district, and these sites were checked on the satellite
images (2019) of Pshdar district to be confirmed that the
sites are appropriate for landfill siting. The available area
of each candidate site has been evaluated, the area of can-
didate site 1, candidate site 2, candidate site 3, and candi-
date site 4 are 15,050,000 ­m2, 3,900,000 ­m2, 2,580,000 ­m2,
and 730,000  ­m2, respectively. These candidate sites have
capacity more than required for dumping solid waste which
expected to be generated up to year 2035 in the district (the
required area of the landfill site to include the cumulative
quantity of solid waste in year 2035 is 537488.95 ­m2 and the
available area of the smallest candidate site is 730462 ­m2).
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

References Erkut E, Moran SR (1991) Locating obnoxious facilities in the

public sector: an application of the analytic hierarchy process
to municipal landfill siting decisions. Socio-econ Plan Sci
Akbari V, Rajabi M, Chavoshi S, Shams R (2008) Landfill site selec-
25:89–102
tion by combining GIS and fuzzy multi criteria decision analy-
Gómez-Delgado M, Tarantola S (2006) GLOBAL sensitivity analy-
sis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran . World Appl Sci J 3:39–47
sis, GIS and multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable planning
Al-Anbari R, Abdulredha MA (2014) Landfill site selection for Ker-
of a hazardous waste disposal site in Spain. Int J Geogr Inf Sci
bala municipal solid wastes by using geographical information
20:449–466
system techniques. Eng Technol J 32:3130–3144
Gorsevski PV, Donevska KR, Mitrovski CD, Frizado JP (2012) Inte-
Al-Jarrah O, Abu-Qdais H (2006) Municipal solid waste landfill sit-
grating multi-criteria evaluation techniques with geographic
ing using intelligent system. Waste Manag 26:299–306
information systems for landfill site selection: a case study using
Allen B, Caetano P, Costa C, Cummins V, Donnelly J, Koukoulas S,
ordered weighted average. Waste Manag 32:287–296
O’donnell V, Robalo C, Vendas D (2003) A landfill site selec-
Greene R, Devillers R, Luther JE, Eddy BG (2011) GIS-based multi-
tion process incorporating GIS modelling. In: Proceedings of
ple-criteria decision analysis . Geogr Compass 5:412–432
Sardinia
Halvadakis C (1993) Municipal solid waste landfill siting in Greece—
Balis M, Mandylas C, Kontos T, Akriotis D, Halvadakis C (1998)
The case of the Greater Hania region, Crete. Ekistics 1:45–52
Investigation of suitable areas for the construction of sanitary
Hamza A, Ahmed O (2020) Seasonal variation of solid waste compo-
landfill in Lemnos. Technical Report, Part I, University of the
nents in Ranya District, Iraq. J Unive Raparin 7:416–434
Aegean, Department of….
Herzog M (1999) Suitability analysis decision support system for
Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Applying the analytical hierarchy process.
landfill siting (and other purposes). In: Proceedings of the ESRI
Strategic decision making.Springer, Londres
international user conference, pp 38–45
Bilintoh T, Stemn E (2015) Municipal solid waste landfill site selec-
Javaheri H, Nasrabadi T, Jafarian M, Rowshan G, Khoshnam H (2006)
tion in the Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis of Ghana using fuzzy
Site selection of municipal solid waste landfills using analytical
logic in a GIS environment
hierarchy process method in a geographical information technol-
Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geo-
ogy environment in Giroft
scientists-modeling with GIS. Comput Methods Geosci 13:398
Jiang H, Eastman JR (2000) Application of fuzzy measures in multi-
Butt TE, Oduyemi KO (2003) A holistic approach to concentration
criteria evaluation in GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:173–184
assessment of hazards in the risk assessment of landfill leachate.
Kao J-J, Lin H-Y, Chen W-Y (1997) Network geographic information
Environ Int 28:597–608
system for landfill siting. Waste Manag Res 15:239–253
Chabuk A, Al-Ansari N, Hussain HM, Knutsson S, Pusch R (2016)
Khan D, Samadder SR (2014) Municipal solid waste management
Landfill site selection using geographic information system and
using Geographical Information System aided methods: A mini
analytical hierarchy process: a case study Al-Hillah Qadhaa,
review. Waste Manag Res 32:1049–1062
Babylon, Iraq. Waste Manag Res 34:427–437
Kim K-R, Owens G (2010) Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of
Chabuk A, Al-Ansari N, Hussain HM, Laue J, Hazim A, Knutsson S,
landfills using biosolids–a review. J Environ Manag 91:791–797
Pusch R (2019) Landfill sites selection using MCDM and com-
Komilis D, Ham R, Stegmann R (1999) The effect of municipal solid
paring method of change detection for Babylon Governorate,
waste pretreatment on landfill behavior: a literature review. Waste
Iraq. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:35325–35339
Manag Res 17:10–19
Chang N-B, Parvathinathan G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS
Kontos TD, Halvadakis C (2002) Development of a Geographic Infor-
with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a
mation System (GIS) for land evaluation for landfill siting: The
fast-growing urban region. J Environ Manag 87:139–153
Case of Lemnos Island, 7th National Conference of Hellenic Car-
Data WB (2020) Population growth rate. World Bank. https​: //
tographic Society. Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece
www.googl​e.iq/publi​cdata​/explo​re?ds=d5bnc​ppjof​8f9_&met_
Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2003) Siting MSW landfills
y=sp_pop_grow&idim=count​r y:IRQ:IRN:ISR&hl=en&dl=e
on Lesvos island with a GIS-based methodology. Waste Manag
n#!ctype​=l&strai​l=false​&bcs=d&nselm​=h&met_y=sp_pop_
Res 21:262–277
grow&scale​_ y=lin&ind_y=false​& rdim=world​& idim=count​
Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW land-
ry:IRQ&ifdim​=world​&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false​
fills with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste
Delgado OB, Mendoza M, Granados EL, Geneletti D (2008) Analy-
Manag 25:818–832
sis of land suitability for the siting of inter-municipal landfills
Lin H-Y, Kao J-J (1999) Enhanced spatial model for landfill siting
in the Cuitzeo Lake Basin, Mexico. Waste Manag 28:1137–1146
analysis. J Environ Eng 125:845–851
Donevska KR, Gorsevski PV, Jovanovski M, Peševski I (2012)
Lukasheh AF, Droste RL, Warith MA (2001) Review of expert system
Regional non-hazardous landfill site selection by integrating
(ES), geographic information system (GIS), decision support sys-
fuzzy logic, AHP and geographic information systems. Environ
tem (DSS), and their applications in landfill design and manage-
Earth Sci 67:121–131
ment. Waste Manag Res 19:177–185
Dörhöfer G, Siebert H (1998) The search for landfill sites–require-
Mahini AS, Gholamalifard M (2006) Siting MSW landfills with a
ments and implementation in Lower Saxony, Germany. Environ
weighted linear combination methodology in a GIS environment.
Geol 35:55–65
Int J Environ Sci Technol 3:435–445
Effat HA, Hegazy MN (2012) Mapping potential landfill sites for
Minor SD, Jacobs TL (1994) Optimal land allocation for solid-and
North Sinai cities using spatial multicriteria evaluation. Egypt
hazardous-waste landfill siting. J Environ Eng 120:1095–1108
J Rem Sens Space Sci 15:125–133
Moeinaddini M, Khorasani N, Danehkar A, Darvishsefat AA (2010)
Ehler G, Cowen D, Mackey H (1995) Design and implementation
Siting MSW landfill using weighted linear combination and ana-
of a spatial decision support system for site selection. In: Pro-
lytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology in GIS environment
ceedings of ESRI international user conference. Palm Springs
(case study: Karaj). Waste Manag 30:912–920
CA, USA, p 100
Mondelli G, Giacheti HL, Boscov MEG, Elis VR, Hamada J (2007)
El Alfy Z, Elhadary R, Elashry A (2010) Integrating GIS and MCDM
Geoenvironmental site investigation using different techniques
to deal with landfill site selection. Int J Eng Technol 10:32–42
in a municipal solid waste disposal site in Brazil. Environ Geol
52:871–887

13

Municipality Q (2015) Official Qaladize 2035 Master Plan Report. In:
Municipality, M.o. (Ed.).
Mutluturk M, Karaguzel R (2007) The landfill area quality (LAQ) clas-
sification approach and its application in Isparta, Turkey. Environ
Eng Geosci 13:229–240
Nas B, Cay T, Iscan F, Berktay A (2010) Selection of MSW landfill
site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evaluation.
Environ Monit Assess 160:491
Ngoc UN, Schnitzer H (2009) Sustainable solutions for solid waste
management in Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manage
29:1982–1995
Office KRS (2015) The map of the estimated population of Sulaymani-
yah governorate in districts level—2015. In: Ministry of planning
KRG (ed)
Ouma YO, Kipkorir EC, Tateishi R (2011) MCDA-GIS integrated
approach for optimized landfill site selection for growing urban
regions: an application of neighborhood-proximity analysis. Ann
GIS 17:43–62
Pasalari H, Nodehi RN, Mahvi AH, Yaghmaeian K, Charrahi Z (2019)
Landfill site selection using a hybrid system of AHP-Fuzzy in
GIS environment: a case study in Shiraz city. Iran MethodsX
6:1454–1466
Radner K, Kreppner FJ, Squitieri A (2017) Unearthing the Dinka Set-
tlement Complex: The 2016 Season at Gird-i Bazar and Qalat-i
Dinka. PeWe-Verlag
Resources PBoSDoAW (2019) Cadastral map of Pshdar District 1957.
In: Resources MoAaW (ed)
Saaty T (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, vol 70. Mcgraw Hill,
New York
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
Sadek S, El-Fadel M, Freiha F (2006) Compliance factors within a GIS-
based framework for landfill siting. Int J Environ Stud 63:71–86
Şener B, Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by using
geographic information systems. Environ Geol 49:376–388
Şener Ş, Şener E, Nas B, Karagüzel R (2010) Combining AHP with
GIS for landfill site selection: a case study in the Lake Beyşehir
catchment area (Konya, Turkey). Waste Manag 30:2037–2046
Shukla G, Shashi M, Jain K (2012) Decision support system for select-
ing suitable site for disposing solid waste of township. Int J Rem
Sens GIS 1:2–11
Siddiqui MZ, Everett JW, Vieux BE (1996) Landfill siting using geo-
graphic information systems: a demonstration. J Environ Eng
122:515–523
Vatalis K, Manoliadis O (2002) A two-level multicriteria DSS for land-
fill site selection using GIS: case study in Western Macedonia,
Greece. J Geogr Inf Decis Anal 6:49–56
Wang G, Qin L, Li G, Chen L (2009) Landfill site selection using spa-
tial information technologies and AHP: a case study in Beijing,
China. J Environ Manag 90:2414–2421
Yachiyo Engineering CO., L. (2004) The study on the safe closure
and rehabilitation of landfill sites in Malaysia. Japan International
Cooperation Agency
Yagoub M, Buyong T (1998) GIS applications for dumping site selec-
tion. In: Proceedings of the ESRI international user conference
Yesilnacar MI, Cetin H (2008) An environmental geomorphologic
approach to site selection for hazardous wastes. Environ Geol
55:1659–1671