|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||
| Environmental and Engineering Geoscience |  |
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
1 Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Geological Engineering, Isparta, Turkey
2 Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Mines, Department of Geological Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT IntroductionMethodology for Laq EvaluationLaq in Use: Decision...ConclusionsREFERENCES CITED |
|---|
Key Words: Landfill • LAQ Method • Site Selection • Solid Waste • Isparta-Turkey
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionMethodology for Laq EvaluationLaq in Use: Decision...ConclusionsREFERENCES CITED |
|---|
In fact, construction of landfill facilities continues extensively worldwide, particularly in developing countries, because it is believed that they offer reliable and economical disposal (e.g., Kasseva and Mbuligwe, 2000; Allen, 2001). The first and most crucial stage in landfill use is the choice of the most suitable site for disposal facilities (Frantzis, 1993; Westlake, 1997; and Allen, 2001). In order to minimize negative environmental effects, it is necessary to specify relevant criteria for selecting a landfill site and then to report assessment results for alternative sites.
Various publications with various suggestions regarding studies on deciding the most suitable site for a landfill can be found in the literature. A number of these studies offer certain warnings and recommendations in general qualitative terms. In the first group of studies, which are qualitative, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2003) has pointed out that wetlands, karstic regions, regions with mass movement and strong seismic activity, and flood prone areas cannot be eligible for landfills. Heitfeld and Olzem (1982) and Walsh and O'Leary (2002) have drawn attention to the need for impermeable geological units at landfill sites, whereas Toussaint (1989) stressed the significance of artificial impermeability of the site rather than the natural impermeability of geological units under it. However, Allen (2001) recently criticized this "containment approach" as unsuitable and too expensive, especially for third world economies. He stressed that suitable sites with natural geological barriers can often be found with adequate geological-hydrogeological investigations.
In the second group of studies, several methodological approaches to compare potential sites are suggested. Frantzis (1993) has suggested a comparison of landfill sites with a hypothetical "ideal site" using environmental, engineering, and economical criteria. Montalvo et al. (1993) used "multivariate ordination" to combine partial impact values into overall impact, and Mummolo (1995) applied an analytic process based on modeling of potential landfill sites. Following Saaty (1983), Mummolos' model assigns a rank to each potential landfill site by combining so-called objective criteria values of the sites with subjective preference attributed to the environmental components by decision markers at each level. Manoliadis and Sachpazis (2001) suggested a two-stage evaluation procedure based on geological, geotechnical, environmental, economical, land-use, technical, and social enterprise criteria. Pastakia and Jensen (1998) proposed a Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix procedure in which physical, chemical, biological, economical, sociological, cultural, and operational criteria are considered. Gupta et al. (2003) investigated using fuzzy logic to determine weights of relevant criteria.
Recently, the Decision Support System, using multi-criteria decision analysis (e.g., Hill et al., 2005) and mathematical optimization techniques for solid waste management (e.g., Cheng et al., 2003; Najm and El-Fadel, 2004), appeared in the literature. However, these works do not specifically deal with the site selection problem per se, but consider it as a part of a larger waste management system.
None of the methods mentioned above, however, aims to present the result of the engineering studies to the decision maker in an easily comprehensible way. The Landfill Area Quality (LAQ) approach presents a three-dimensional (3-D) evaluation space with certain explicit dimensions, defined as a certain combination of relevant criteria. The LAQ reduces masses of data into relevant and easily understood categories, and places the available sites in a visual space for making decisions.
LAQ is a method that consists of two stages aimed at developing a numerical method for distinguishing the suitable sites for solid waste landfill from the unsuitable ones, and then choosing a suitable landfill location among alternative sites selected based on morphological conditions in the suitable sites. The aim of LAQ is neither to combine objective criteria values with subjective preferences nor to finalize the decision via a multi-criteria decision index. The LAQ approach aims only to present the decision maker with the suitability of each site according to the evaluation criteria in a more easily comprehensible graphical way, so that the task becomes easier for the decision maker. Presenting each potential site as a point in a visual evaluation space can demonstrate not only the advantages and disadvantages of each site, but also their relative positions against each other.
Obviously, the first question is how to select the site suitability criteria and scoring rules. Development of site selection criteria for hazardous waste has had more attention and has been subjected to special studies (e.g., Parker, 1991). However, selection of the criteria and scores for solid waste landfill sites so far has been done in an ad hoc manner, based upon professional judgment, experience, and available scientific information. However, it should be noted that various authors (Al-Bakri et al., 1988; Frantzis, 1993; Mummolo, 1995; and Pastakia and Jensen, 1998) have also presented criteria and scores similar to that of the LAQ method, which is discussed here.
Public acceptance of the LAQ method is motivated by the necessity of public acceptance of the selected sites. However, it offers only limited and very basic evaluation of this issue. Because public acceptance is a vital element of the final decision, more detailed and specific studies of this subject can be performed as needed. In fact, there are studies dealing with this aspect of the site selection via social sciences methods as evidenced by studies on measuring public preference by special surveys (e.g., Wichelns et al., 1993), obtaining public consent via consensus-oriented public relations (e.g., Burkart, 1994), and resolving public conflict by risk communication (e.g., Ishizaka and Tanaka, 2003).
|
Methodology for Laq Evaluation |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionMethodology for Laq EvaluationLaq in Use: Decision...ConclusionsREFERENCES CITED |
|---|
The First Stage
The aim of the first stage is to eliminate most of the area within the potential search area, which often covers several hundred square kilometers, by using a 1:100,000 scale map. First, all legally impermissible areas are cast out. Then, all non-promising areas, determined via basic information from regional geological-hydrogeological and topographical maps, and land use maps, are eliminated.
This elimination process is carried out by preparing various overlays and combining them to delineate the area of promising landfill sites. Combining overlays can be done using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), if such facility, including the required databases, is available. For instance, Lin and Kao (1998) used GIS for delineating suitable sites, and Malczewski (2004) provides a critical review of GIS-based suitability analysis.
The elimination process is as follows:
(a) Casting out the legally impermissible areas: Establishing any landfill is legally forbidden in these areas. Information regarding these locations can be obtained from governmental and/or local authorities. In Turkey, landfill sites cannot be located in legally protected areas. These areas, defined by regulations, are as follows:
(b) Eliminating non-promising areas based on available information: Rock formations in the remaining area are classified according to the impermeability of lithological units, taking geological, hydrogeological, and structural properties of the rock units into consideration, as well as the locations of known or potential aquifers. Areas that are covered by layers of high natural permeability are always excluded.
(c) As a result of the criteria presented in Stages a and b, alternative landfill sites with appropriate slope (<30 percent) and adequate size are selected by considering the morphological properties for the establishment of facility units at suitable sites.
Using graphical overlays in the first stage, the exclusion of potentially unsuitable areas can be easily implemented. Based on these results, a synthesis map that displays suitable and unsuitable sites is generated. Finally, several promising sites are selected from the remaining suitable areas for further studies using expert judgment. The suitability of these sites is determined with the selected criteria, and the results are presented in the evaluation space.
The Second Stage
In this stage, certain suitability criteria (e.g., Tables 1–
3) are used to determine the position of each site along the evaluative axes of the LAQ system, and then they are placed in 3-D evaluation spaces. The three dimensions of the evaluative space are site suitability, location factors, and public acceptability of landfill site. To define these dimensions, the factors related to site selection, namely, the criteria used for evaluation, are combined into specific categories (i.e., hydrogeology, geography, and social), each of which consists of several subcategories. The point value attributed to each subcategory indicates the relative importance of that subcategory within a category and is not related to other categories. The absolute values of these points have no meaning; they just reflect the order of importance. One may use other values to show the order, but re-calculation of the class ranges in Table 4 is required.
|
|
|
|
3. These factors are organized into 21 subcategories, such as lithology, geological structure, and groundwater level, and these subcategories are divided into eight different categories, such as geology and hydrogeology. Then, these eight categories are grouped in three dimensions with similar features, namely, site suitability (SS), location factor (LF), and public acceptance (PA). After establishing the system as described above, the percentage impact of each factor in this system was computed. The determination of percentage impacts and the scoring system being used were established with the help of data obtained from our studies performed on different dates and experience gained from the applications (e.g., Karagüzel et al., 1995; Karagüzel et al., 2003). The factors in the subcategories were ranked as best, good, medium, bad, or worst, and the ranking was performed adhering to the thresholds in the application. In order to make the scoring system easy to use and understand, a scoring system consisting of integers that would prevent "0" from being obtained as the worst condition was established by considering percentage impacts; the "most suitable total score would be 300" conclusion was obtained. Considering that all distributions were based on weight percentages, scoring is crucial for ranking in comparing different sites and classifying various sites between best and worst.
SS includes the geological, hydrogeological, hydraulic, and meteorological properties of a site. These are natural properties and cannot be changed by human intervention. This dimension also shows how wastes that will be stored at the same time can self-affect the environment under any extraordinary circumstance (such as disruption of the permeability of the artificial impermeable base constructed in the landfill area due to a cause like earthquake).
The SS categories (Table 1) are mainly based on the impact on the groundwater system beneath the landfill site. A less permeable and un-fractured cover, a deeper water table, and the absence of surface water are favorable conditions for site suitability.
Geological properties constitute the basic criteria for site selection. On the other hand, lithological properties, which are one of the sub-criteria, are more important than structural properties, because the impact of the discontinuity plane on the permeability of the rock is dependant on lithology. For example, the effect on the permeability of a rock mass of the discontinuity plane in a claystone is quite different than the discontinuity plane within a conglomerate. Therefore, the impact of lithologic properties (36/60, 60 percent) on site selection in geological properties is more than the impact of structural properties (24/60, 40 percent).
The permeability of the geological environment in terms of groundwater pollution and groundwater depth and the pollution risk based on these is also important. Thus, the weights of these three parameters were assumed as equal (each 20/60) to the hydrogeology category of the suggested methodology. Because these properties are determined based on the geological properties of the environment, any discrimination between underground and surface water during site selection in terms of the weights of hydrogeological (60/180) and geological criteria (60/180), and even pollution, would not be possible. So, the weights of hydrological-meteorological criteria (each 60/180) were also assumed equal.
The location categories (Table 2) are established by considering the strength, land use, and natural hazard potential of the site, the capacity of the landfill, and the efforts for the construction phase. Location factors include geography, construction material, geotechnical, and waste landfill capacity properties. Based on the economic resources of the negative implementer of these properties, it can be turned into a positive by taking the necessary precautions. The dimension, which is entirely related to the economy, has a weight percentage of 30 percent overall and half of SS.
The geographical properties of the site selected by considering location factors must be researched by field data collection. The current use of the site and the distance to waste-collection centers have equal (9/24) impact, whereas the road condition would have a lesser (6/24) impact ratio. Overall, the impact ratios of the transport distance of required materials for the construction of facilities (24/90) and the geographic properties of the area (24/90) are equal.
Whereas impacts of the geotechnical properties of rock/soil properties have the highest impact ratio (8/24), the impact of mass movements and flood risk are equal (6/24) and have a lesser impact ratio with respect to the basement rock type, because, in the first stage of this methodology, suitable sites are determined by considering these two criteria. The events that could take place during the construction and management of the facilities are considered here. Excavation and filling operations that concern only the economic dimension of the landfill facility in the geotechnical category have the least impact ratio (4/24).
On the other hand, waste landfill capacity possesses a lesser impact ratio (18/90) as compared to other categories and a 75 percent weight percentage of them, since it was foreseen that planning of at least 20 years would be adequate.
PA (Table 3) is expressed by the factors related to landfill-human interaction. PA is a social dimension, and it determines whether the public would accept the designed landfill area. The public accepts sites that are far from sight and where garbage trucks do not pass by their home. Because alternative areas were selected at the first stage based on several restrictions regarding this feature, PA has a weight percentage of 10 percent (30/300) overall in this stage. The most important subcategory in this single category dimension is distance to residence locations. Even though this distance is designated by laws, people feel more comfortable when the landfill distance is as far as possible from the their houses. Therefore, the distance to the nearest settlement has double significance (12/30), whereas all of the other sub-categories have equal weight percentage (6/30).
The maximum point obtainable from each category (and similarly from each subcategory) represents its potential significance in selecting a landfill site. An "ideal site" will have axial values of 180, 90, and 30 points for each set of criteria of the LAQ method (Table 1–3), and the imaginary "worst site" will have 11, 1, and 4 points for each axis, respectively.
After determining the score of each site for each fundamental criterion, the influence of each subcategory is found by summation. Then, the total score of each axis is obtained similarly. Finally, each site is placed into evaluation space according to the total score of its respective axis.
In Table 4, the summary scores are related to the classification of the candidate sites. The decision maker should consider both the current situation and possible improvements or objections for those sites.
The SS dimension represents the natural conditions that cannot be easily modified, whereas LF could be either improved by engineering applications or may be accepted by taking the financial load into account. The score for PA expresses the likely response of the public; however, there may be other unexpected objections that should be considered by decision makers. Thus the scores (Table 4) reflect the existing conditions for each site in terms of three dimensions, not the overall decision, and the evaluation space (Figure 1) indicates the relative position of each site against the others. These two outcomes will facilitate the decision-making process.
|
In addition to comparing three dimensions of the LAQ alternative areas among each other, a ranking opportunity based on their quality grades with calculated total weight vectors and geometric means of site properties presented in three dimensions exists.
|
Laq in Use: Decision for A Landfill Site in Isparta, Turkey |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionMethodology for Laq EvaluationLaq in Use: Decision...ConclusionsREFERENCES CITED |
|---|
3. After necessary studies, four potential sites that are under consideration for Isparta were placed as points into the evaluation space (Figure 1).
The First Stage
Geology-hydrogeology
In Isparta and in its vicinity (Figure 2a), the dominant lithology is ophiolitic rocks overlain by Jurassic-Cretaceous carbonate rocks. Eocene flysch consisting of a sequence of sandstone, mudstone, claystone, and discontinuous limestone is exposed to the west of the Isparta Plain. Miocene flysch consisting of a sequence of conglomerate, sandstone, claystone, and mudstone is exposed to the north and south of Isparta. Plio-Quaternary andesite, tuff, pumice, and agglomerate are located in the south of the Isparta Plain. Flat and pitted areas are covered with a Quaternary alluvium.
|
Less-permeable flysch units can be regarded as suitable sites for a landfill; however, conglomerate, sandstone, and claystone within the flysch must be taken into account during detailed examinations for site selection (Figure 2b).
Legally Impermissible Areas
There is no legally preserved area in the flysch units within the study area. Approximately 1 km of buffer was allocated around settlements and main highways (Figure 2c). There is no specific area under the threat of a natural disaster.
Morphology
A synthesis map was prepared for the study area considering the information on geology and preserved areas (Figure 3a). In the study area on the synthesis map, the Kayi, Yayla, Senirce, and Gerges sites, which are also morphologically eligible for landfill facilities, were selected (Figure 3b–e).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yayla Area
One of the few disadvantages of this site is the possibility of waste odor dissipation from western-southwestern winds. This site received an SS rating of 144. Although the Yayla site received an LF rating of 46, the site still possesses some disadvantages, including the necessity for rehabilitating a high-grade 3-km dirt road and the presence of orchards in the area. As for PA, this site does not have any drawback other than the route of the waste vehicles, which will travel through one or two settlements. The site received a PA rating of 18. In short, its sub-space designation is as follows:
|
|
Senirce Area
The Senirce site received an SS rating of 156. A karstic aquifer with pollution risk was detected 1.5 km east of the site. Although the risk of pollution is reduced by the presence of flysch units underlying Plio-Quaternary units up to 7–8-m thick beneath the landfill site, there is still the risk of pollution by runoff. Even though this site is far from the waste collection center (23 km), it has attained an LF rating of 54. Also, a dry creek bed located immediately southeast of the site has a potential flood risk during the rainy season. As for PA, the only disadvantage of this site is the travel of waste-carrying vehicles to the landfill site along the main highway in lieu of through settlements. Thus the Senirce site received a PA rating of 20. In short, its sub-space designation is as follows:
|
|
Gerges Area
This site received an SS rating of 106 because of the creek to the east, and the alluvial aquifer to the south that is at risk of pollution, although the flysch units underlie Plio-Quaternary clay beneath the site. Moreover, northerly winds are likely to carry the waste odor to the plain in the south. As for the location factors, disadvantages can be listed as the necessity for cut and fill, flood risk, and the considerable distance from the waste collection center. In addition, disadvantages like the necessity to supply fill material and the unsuitability of the landfill site bottom lead to an LF rating of 51. Because of the openness of the site in three directions and the travel of waste-carrying vehicles to the landfill site through three to four settlements, the Gerges site received a PA rating of 17. In short, its sub-space designation is as follows:
|
|
Even by comparing the sub-space designations (Table 6), it can be easily seen that the Senirce site dominates (i.e., is superior to the other sites in all dimensions), and hence should be the first choice. Nevertheless, the Senirce site has certain disadvantages: (1) the need for rehabilitation of the dry creek to the east, which suffers flash floods during rainy periods, to prevent pollution of the karstic aquifer 1.5 km to the east, and (2) the need to transport solid waste along a busy highway. However, being far from main settlements and having suitable geological and morphological conditions makes this site advantageous for a landfill. Upon final selection of this site, a detailed geotechnical investigation was carried out, and execution of the project was initiated by preparing a geotechnical report (Karagüzel et al., 1998).
|
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionMethodology for Laq EvaluationLaq in Use: Decision...ConclusionsREFERENCES CITED |
|---|
Clearly the fundamental issue of landfill site selection is to define an appropriate framework for evaluating the quality of prospective sites with respect to these environmental and engineering principles. There are many proposed specific solutions to this problem with varying degrees of sophistication. Nevertheless, an effective procedure, which can be easily applied by any means available to the developing world and can be communicated to non-technical decision makers, is still needed. LAQ aims to fill such a gap. It is an effective and easy-to-apply procedure, as shown by its use in selection of a landfill site for the city of Isparta.
The 3-D evaluation of landfill sites seems adequate to describe their suitability with respect to main environmental and engineering principles. The scoring rules given in Tables 1–3 and the combination of criteria to define each dimension given in Table 4 can be easily modified, if and when such a modification is needed.
Weighted vector and geometric mean values for the alternative landfill sites were computed. According to the results of all accomplished evaluation results, alternative sites are ranked from most to least suitable: Senirce, Yayla, Kayi, and Gerges.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTIntroductionMethodology for Laq EvaluationLaq in Use: Decision...ConclusionsREFERENCES CITED |
|---|
Al-Bakri, D., Shublaq, W., Kittaneh, W., and Al-Sheikh, Z., 1988, Site selection of a waste disposal facility in Kuwait, Arabian Gulf: Waste Management Research, 6, 4. 363-377.
Allen, A., 2001, Containment landfills: The myth of sustainability: Engineering Geology, 60, 1–4. 3-19.[CrossRef][Web of Science][GeoRef]
Burkart, R., 1994, Consensus oriented public relations as a solution to the landfill conflict: Waste Management Research, 12, 3. 223-232.
Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., and Huang, G.H., 2003, An integrated multi-criteria decision analysis and inexact mixed integer linear programming approach for solid waste management: Engineering Applications Artificial Intelligence, 16, 5–6. 543-554.[CrossRef]
Frantzis, I., 1993, Methodology for municipal landfill sites selection: Waste Management Research, 11, 5. 441-451.
Gupta, R., Kewalramani, M.A., and Ralegaonkar, R.V., 2003, Environmental impact analysis using fuzzy relation for landfill sitting: Journal Urban Planning Development-ASCE, 129, 3. 121-129.[CrossRef]
Harfst, W., 1982, Ökologische orientierung der abfallwirtschaft-in: Der Fischer Öko Almanach, Frankfurt, 82/83. 253-254.
Heitfeld, K.H., and Olzem, R., 1982, Kriterien und untersuchungun zur auswahl von standorten f
r sonderabfalldeponien: Mitt.Ing.-U. Hydrogeol., Aachen, . 153-172 Heft 13,.
Hill, M.J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S.M., Lees, B.G., and Sharma, S., 2005, Multi-criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis: Environmental Modelling Software, 20, 7. 955-976.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ishizaka, K., and Tanaka, M., 2003, Resolving public conflict in site selection process a risk communication approach: Waste Management, 23, 5. 385-396.[Medline]
Karagüzel, R., Akyol, E., and Mutlutürk, M., 1995, Preliminary Investigation Report on Site Selection for Solid Waste of Isparta Municipality: Unpublished report, Süleyman Demirel University Isparta-Turkey. 18.
Karagüzel, R., and Irlayici, A., 1998, Groundwater pollution in Isparta plain-Turkey: Environmental Geology, 34, 4. 303-308.[CrossRef][GeoRef]
Karagüzel, R., Mutlutürk, M., YalÇin, A., and TotiÇ, E., 1998, Geotechnical Investigation Report of Senirce-II Landfill Site: Unpublished report, Süleyman Demirel University Isparta-Turkey. 29.
Karagüzel, R., ÖzÇelik, H., Mutlutürk, M., Güldal, V., Tokgözlü, A., Beyhan, M., and Türk, G., 2003, Investigation Report on Site Selection and Environmental Impact for Solid Waste of Manavgat-Antalya Municipality: Unpublished report, Süleyman Demirel University Isparta-Turkey. 134.
Kasseva, M.E., and Mbuligwe, S.E., 2000, Ramifications of solid waste disposal site relocation in urban areas of developing countries: a case study in Tanzania: Resources, Conservation Recycling, 28, 1–2. 147-161.[CrossRef]
Lin, H.Y., and Kao, J.J., 1998, A vector-based spatial model for landfill siting: Journal Hazardous Materials, 58, 1–3. 3-14.[CrossRef]
Malczewski, M., 2004, GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical overview: Progress Planning, 62, 1. 3-65.[CrossRef]
Manoliadis, O.G., and Sachpazis, K.I., 2001, Geotechnical Aspects of a Landfill Site Selection Study in north Evia-Greece, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 6, available at http://www.ejge.com/.
Montalvo, J., Sanz, L.R., Pablo, C.L., and Pineda, F.D., 1993, Impact minimization through environmentally-based site select: a multivariate approach: Journal Environmental Management, 38, 1. 13-25.[CrossRef]
MTA, 1997, Geological Map of The Isparta-J11 Quadrangle, Compiled By Mustafa 
enel, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration Ankara-Turkey.
Mummolo, G., 1995–96, An analytic hierarchy process model for landfill site selection: Journal Environmental Systems, 24, 4. 445-465.
Najm, M.A., and El-Fadel, M., 2004, Computer-based interface for an integrated solid waste management optimization model: Environmental Modelling Software, 19, 12. 1151-1164.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Parker, A., 1991, Book review: Proposed site selection criteria for development of a hazardous waste management system: Waste Management Research, 9, 1. 70-71.
Pastakia, C.M.R., and Jensen, A., 1998, The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) for EIA: Environmental Impact Asses Rev, 18, 5. 461-482.[CrossRef]
Saaty, T.L., 1983, Priority setting in complex problems: IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag, 30, 3. 140-155.
Toussaint, B., 1989, Grundwasserschutz bei Deponienanlagen aus hydrogeologischer und geotechnischer Sicht: Wissenschaft und Umwelt, 1/1989. 41-50.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2003, Managing Solid Waste, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D, EPA530-R-02-016.
Voigt, H.P., 1982, . 343-380 Grundwasser Veränderung durch Abfalldeponien, mehrjährige Beobachtungen: Veröff. Ins. Stadtbauwesen TU Braunschweig, 34, "Antropogene Einflüsse auf die Grundwasser Beschaffenheit in Niedersachsen, Fallstudien 1982" Braunschweig,.
Walsh, P., and O'Leary, P., 2002, Evaluating a potential sanitary landfill site: Waste Age, . 74-83 May-2002,.
Westlake, K., 1997, Sustainable landfill—Possibility or pipe dream?: Waste Management Research, 15, 5. 453-461.
Wichelns, D., Opaluch, J.J., Swallow, S.K., Weaver, T.F., and Wessels, C.W., 1993, A landfill site evaluation model that includes public preferences regarding natural resources and nearby communities: Waste Management Research, 11, 3. 185-201.
Wingerter, E.I., 1989, Are landfills and incinerators part of the answers? Three viewpoints: EPA Journal, 15, 2. 22-23.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
