A new method for environmental site assessment of urban solid waste landfills

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1221–1230DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-2034-6

A new method for environmental site assessmentof urban solid waste landfills

Fatemeh Ghanbari · Farham Amin Sharee ·Masoud Monavari · Narges Zaredar

Received: 7 June 2010 / Accepted: 16 March 2011 / Published online: 15 April 2011© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Regarding various types of pollutant,waste management requires high attention. En-vironmental site selection study, prior to landfilloperation, and subsequently, monitoring andmaintaining of the location, are of foremost pointsin landfill site selection process. By means of thesestudies, it is possible to control the undesirableimpacts caused by landfills. Study ahead aims atexamination of effectiveness of a new methodcalled Monavari 95–2 in landfill site assessment.For this purpose, two landfills Rasht and An-disheh, which are, respectively, located on humidand arid areas, were selected as case studies. Then,the results obtained from both sites were com-pared with each other to find out the weaknessesand strengths of each site. Compared with others

F. GhanbariEnvironmental Research Institute of Jahade Daneshgahi,Jahade Daneshgahi, Rasht, Guilan, Iran

F. Amin Sharee (B)Department of Science, Najafabad Branch,Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Isfahan, Irane-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

M. Monavari · N. ZaredarDepartment of Environment and Energy,Science and Research Branch,Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

similar methods, much more criteria (53 parame-ters) can be considered within this method, sothe results will be more calculable. According tothis method, Rasht landfill (site H) is classifiedas unacceptable landfill site i.e. there is an urgentneed for a new suitable site for landfill, whileAndishe Landfill (site D) is ranked as acceptablelandfill site but needs environmental managementprogram to handle the existing weaknesses.

Keywords Landfill site assessment · Arid area ·Humid area · Solid wastes · Deposition ·Waste management

Introduction

Lack of sufficient laws and regulation and enoughland for landfilling have caused several environ-mental pollutions and natural resources degrada-tion in developing countries. Landfill site selectionshould take into account a wide range of fac-tors including legal, physical, political, and healthfactors in order to reduce potential negative im-pacts on the environment (Zamorano et al. 2008;Choudhury and Savoikar 2009; Laner et al. 2009;Kurniawan and Chan 2006; Read et al. 1997). Thepollutants caused by landfill leachate is among themost challengeable environmental issues (Dengand Englehardt 2006; Eggen et al. 2010; Koshyet al. 2007; Ponthieu et al. 2007). Currently, the

1222 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1221–1230

easiest and the most prevalent way of waste dis-posal in humid area of the country is open dump-ing (Monavari and Shariat 2000). Landfill is oneof the most widely employed methods of disposalfor municipal solid waste (El-Fadel et al. 1997).Studies carried out on developing countries showsthat according to the existing constraints, landfilling is the most important method in solid wastemanagement and final deposit (Johannesson andBoyer 1999).

Wastes containing high volume of latex causeimportant issues in waste management in devel-oping countries. More humidity of area providesmore leaches regardless of precipitation. Studieson Kahrizak Landfill of Tehran showed that thehighest amount of produced latex in the landfillhas been occurred due to existence of water in thewastes and not the precipitation penetrated in tothe wastes (Safari and Baronian 2002). Previously,a natural water passage, valley, a part of water-shed, or a hole were considered as a landfill whichwas covered by soil and ignored after filling its ca-pacity (Wright and Nebel 2004). Also, traditionallandfills were always associated with operationaldifficulties such as noxious gas and vapor, dust andleachate production, as well as rodent infestation(Hamer 2003; Calabrò et al. 2010; Al-Yaqout et al.2002; Kulikowska and Klimiuk 2008). Sanitaryland-filling is the best way to mitigate environ-mental impacts followed by waste deposit, and inaddition to reducing mephitis, preventing light ob-jects scattering, insects and rodents thronging, andcontrolling the gas and leachate, it can decreasethe volume of waste up to 50% (Glynn 2004;Wang et al. 2009).

There is lack of international standards in termsof damages caused by unsanitary landfill whichlead to environmental deteriorations and decreasethe society health level (Hagerty et al. 1997). Inmany developing countries in which standards andregulation of landfills are not perfectly attended,assessment of landfills can clear existing limita-tions and problems in these areas. Thus, solvingexistence weaknesses lead to decrease of negativeenvironmental impacts.

Basically, municipal solid waste landfills areevaluated by methods such Oleckno Method(Monavari and Arbab 2005; Abdoli et al. 2006;Monavari et al. 2007), Monavari 95–2 Method

(Monavari and Shariat 2000), Drastic Method(Gebhardt and Jankowski 1986; Silva Garciaet al. 2004; Wang 2007), and USEPA Method(Christensen et al. 1992). In this research, Mon-avari Method was used for the mentioned landfillsassessing, whereas this method has regarded moreparameters rather than the other methods; more-over, it has taken into consideration environmen-tal, health, and physical aspects. This method wasapplies for the first time in 48 cities of Northernprovinces of Iran as well as Golestan Province(Monavari 1999; Farzaneh 2003). In 2007, thismethod was used for evaluating tourist town ofNamakabroud in Mazandaran Province (Isapour2007).

In this research, in order to examine theeffectiveness of a new method called Movavari-95–2 in environmental site assessment of landfills,two landfills Rasht and Andishe were chosen asindicators of humid and arid regions, respectively.

Landfill of Rasht (site H) in Gilan Provinceis located on Saravan altitudes, 15 Km far fromthe city (Shomal Consulting Engineers 1997).Monthly and annually average precipitations inthis city are equal to 103 and 1,359 mm severally.No environmental and engineering standard hasbeen applied at Rasht Landfill, and wastes aredumped in an open area in forest vales alongSiahroud River.

Landfill of Andisheh, in Tehran Province, islocated on west side of Tehran. As regards, thislandfill is a vast area with slight slope; therefore,there is enough soil to cover the wastes. How-ever, appropriate soil use for this purpose has notbeen observed. Annual precipitation in this city is182 mm (Yekom Consulting Engineers 2001).

Materials and methods

Study areas

Rasht Landf ill

The location is situated between latitudes37◦04′8′′–37◦05′37′′ N and longitudes 49◦36′39′′–49◦38′42′′ E. Its minimum height is equal to 38 mabove the sea level while the maximum reaches150 m. Topographically, the region includes low

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1221–1230 1223

height hills, seasonal streams, and several springs(Fig. 1).

The average annual precipitation is equal to1,359 mm, and monthly mean relative humidity inthis region is 81%.

Andisheh Landf ill

This site has shallow soil and medium loam graveltexture, with low to moderate salt constraint ongypsum and calcareous material. Its average

Fig. 1 Location of RashtLandfill as a humid areain Iran


height is equal to 1,613 m. There is no perma-nent river within the landfill, but a seasonal riverpasses from a distance of 400–300 m of the region(Fig. 2).

Prevailing winds within the most months ofthis place is derived from the southeast, and themean annual rainfall is varied between 127 and150 mm.

Methodology

In this research, the following steps were applied:

– Identifying of geographic and environmen-tal conditions in Rasht and Andisheh landfillsites as indicators of humid and arid landfills,respectively.

Fig. 2 Landfill of Andisheh as an arid area (Site A)


Table 1 Ranking ofindex criteria in MonavariMethod 95–2

Monavari (1999)

Criterion score Indicators Total criteria score Landfill classification

4 Excellent 158 to 212 Acceptable3 Good 106 to1572 Medium 53 to1571 Insignificant 0 to 52−1 Weak 0 to −52 Unacceptable−2 Approximately unsuitable −53 to −105−3 Unsuitable −106 to −157−4 Very unsuitable −158 to −212

– Applying “Monavari 95–2” Method to evalu-ate the condition of the mentioned landfills.

This method consists of 53 parameters, 20 ofwhich are classified as physical, eight of which aregrouped as qualifications and constraints and 25parameters are categorized as health and environ-mental criteria (Table 3). There are some pre-defined indices for each parameter separately toevaluate that special parameter. Indicator criteriain Monavari Method are given in Table 1.

– Comparison of factors influenced on environ-ment using identification of the studied loca-tions disadvantages

As can be observed in Table 1, the first col-umn called criterion score refers to the score ofeach criterion regarding sanitary landfill point ofview. It has a rage between −4 and 4. The sec-ond column is a descriptive grading of consid-ered criteria. For example, for industrial wastedeposited at the landfill site in case of respectingall sanitary landfilling regulations, it is graded4 and vice versa. It should be mentioned thatlandfill classification is determined using the totalcriteria score obtained from adding scores of allcriteria.

Results and discussion

Waste quality and quantity

Landf ill of site H (Rasht as an exampleof humid landf ill)

Total input solid wastes transported in to thelandfill H were calculated regarding the weightof vehicles transporting solid waste. In general,three municipals, 12 rural districts, 11 governmen-tal companies and offices, nine industrial towns,hospitals, and Livestock companies in Rasht de-posit their waste into the landfill. Total amountof deposited waste is 593/4 t/day. Quantity ofdifferent types of waste deposited into landfill (H)is shown in Table 2.

Landf ill of site A (Andishe as an exampleof arid landf ill)

The quantity of waste deposited in to the landfillwas estimated according to different types ofwaste carrying by vehicles. It should be noted thatnine municipals deposit their waste in to this placewhich totally are equal to 750 t waste per day.Results are given in Table 3.

By evaluating and assessing various parametersaffected in landfill H, total scores of the landfill

Table 2 Amount of importing waste into Rasht landfill

Type of waste Urban Rural Governmental Manufacturing Livestock Industrial Hospital Totalwaste waste Co. waste Co. waste Co. waste town waste waste

Amount t/d 546.53 13.12 10.09 7.21 9.46 1 6 593.41


Table 3 Quantity of deposited waste in landfill A

City Shahryar Malard Shahr -e- Qods Andishe Safa Baghestan Ferdusiyeh Saba Shahed Totaldasht shahr Shahr

Quantity (t/d) 230 150 180 30 60 40 40 30 20 750

for physical capabilities and constraints as well ashealth environmental criteria were obtained equalto 28, −3, and −33, respectively. Moreover, totalsum of three mentioned criteria was tantamountto −8 (Tables 4, 5, 6).

And also, results obtained from landfill A indi-cated that sum of affective parameters includingphysical capabilities and constraints and healthenvironmental criteria are separately equal to 49,3, and 47 while the total sum of these criteria isequal to 99 (Tables 4, 5, 6).

Health and environmental parameters are soimportant for assessing the sanitary situation oflandfills. Degradation of wildlife and residentialareas, land cover, soil cover are among the mostimportant cases should be paid highly attentionthrough landfilling (Table 4).

Physical parameters of landfills such as distancefrom residential area, transportation time as well

as wind direction and distance from sensitive eco-logical areas are among determining criteria tofinding a suitable place for landfilling (Table 5).

Other important criteria widely affected thelandfills operation are capabilities and constraintsavailable in the landfill. Residents’ complaints, thecost of system management, and possibilities fordevelopment are some of these capabilities andconstraints faced by landfill managers (Table 6).

As regards the assessment of the physical pa-rameters, both landfills show the roughly sim-ilar condition (Table 5). The most differencesare related to indicators including “distance tothe river,” “distance to the forest,” “features ofcover soil,” and “distance from the fault.” It isnoteworthy that in Rasht Landfill, the mentionedparameters are in the worst condition, while inother parameters, no much difference is viewed.In terms of capabilities and constraints of the area,

Table 4 Evaluation of A and H landfills condition (Health and Environmental parameters)

No. Health and Environmental Rasht Andisheh No. Health and Environmental Rasht Andishehparameters parameters

1 Industrial waste deposited −4 4 14 Wildlife and habitant degradation −1 4at site Degradation of recreational areas 2 4

2 Hospital waste deposited −4 −4 15 Land cover degradation −3 4at site Animal mortality 1 4

3 Slaughter waste deposited −4 4 16 Indirect degradation and pollution −4 3at site transfer

4 Constructional waste −4 4 17 Light object scattering 1 1deposit Optical obstacle 3 −4

5 Waste water and sludge −4 4 18 Fencing area −4 −4deposit Wild and domestic animal −4 2

6 Surface water pollution −4 2 19 Soil cover −1 37 Ground water pollution −1 4 20 Land and properties value 4 48 Sea pollution 4 4 21 decrease9 Soil pollution −3 1 22 Manmade green space −4 −410 Landscape pollution 4 4 23 Sum −32 4711 Air pollution 2 2 2412 mephitis −2 −2 2513 Pollution records and −3 3 26

disadvantages rate


Table 5 Evaluation of A and H landfills condition (physical parameters)

No. Physical criteria Rasht Andisheh No. Physical criteria Rasht Andisheh

1 Distance from urban area 4 4 11 Distance from main road 1 22 Distance from rural area 1 4 12 Main road condition 1 13 Distance from residential area 4 4 13 Sub road condition 2 34 Distance from offices and 4 3 14 Type of soil at site 3 2

governmental Co. Good soil specification for −4 25 Distance from river and surface −2 −1 15 vegetating

water Wind direction −1 −26 Distance from sea 4 4 16 Water level 4 27 Distance from farms 1 4 17 Transportation time 2 28 Distance from forest −4 4 18 Fault, earthquake −2 −19 Distance from recreational area 4 4 19 Flood band 3 410 Distance from sensitive 3 4 20

ecological area

the apparent difference is related to the parame-ters including “potential future users,” “properplace for landfill in the future,” and “complaintsand protests of residents” (Table 6).

In Rasht Landfill, due to forest cover, thereis no suitable place for the future landfill. Also,there have been complaints of the villagers in caseof direct surface water contamination by wasteleachate. The most important difference betweenthe mentioned landfills refers to the environmen-tal health parameters (Table 4). Rasht Landfillas regards the reasons like geographic situation,underground water pollution, soil pollution, de-struction of wildlife habitat, destruction of landcover, the presence of livestock, discharge of in-dustrial residue, slaughterhouse residue, construc-tion trash, and sludge have much more worse situ-ation rather than the Andishe, while the existence

Table 6 Evaluation of A and H landfills condition (capa-bilities and constraints)

No. Ability and limits Rasht Andisheh

1 Potential future use 3 −42 Development possibilities 4 33 reconstruction, repair and −3 −3

renovation4 Sufficient space for future 4 45 Adequate landfill in the area −4 46 Residents complains −4 47 Management system cost −2 −48 Installations, facilities, at site −1 −1

of vision barriers is the only advantage of RashtLandfill.

Conclusion

As it has already been mentioned, basically, mu-nicipal solid waste landfills are evaluated by meth-ods such Oleckno method (Monavari and Arbab2005; Abdoli et al. 2006; Monavari et al. 2007),Monavari 95–2 method (Monavari and Shariat2000), Drastic Method (Gebhardt and Jankowski1986; Silva Garcia et al. 2004; Wang 2007), andUSEPA method (Christensen et al. 1992). InOleckno method, indexes such as rainfall, soilcharacteristics, and ground water table are con-sidered just in order to the dangers of latex andunderground water pollution. Drastic method pre-sented by EPA to evaluate potential contami-nation of groundwater is only considered sevenparameters involved in the contamination of un-derground water.

“Monavari 95–2” Method has 53 parame-ters investigated landfills considering physical,health environmental capabilities, and constraints.Method used in this research is “Monavari 95–2”which contains more parameters for assessinglandfills.

Identifying incompatible impacts of differentparameters in landfills of Rasht and Andishehand consideration of standards in each locationwill help controlling different types of existing


landfill problems. Followings are outcome of eachparameter and their sum in both sites accordingly.

Conclusions obtained by applying Monavarimethod 95–2 in Rasht landfill explains that thelowest score belongs to the health environmentalcriteria and the highest one refers to physical,which is equal to 28. According to Table 2 thecondition of this landfill is tolerable. The capabili-ties and constraints as well as health environmentcriteria with scores of −3 and −33 reflect the poorcondition of the landfill site. The total sum ofthese parameters is equal to −8 which classify thearea in unacceptable category. Results of landfillA show that the lowest achieved score belongs tothe capabilities and constraints while the highestone refers to the physical parameters with scoreof 40. This score according to the grading table ofthe indicator criteria (Table 1) has a connivancecondition. Grades achieved for capabilities andconstraints, health and environment are 3 and 47,respectively, and both have ignoring condition ac-cording to the grading table of indicator criterion.The total sum of these three parameters is 99which means a medium grade. Thereof, landfill Ais classified as acceptable group.

It is worth noting that although this site hasbeen classified as acceptable group, not all thestudied parameter enjoys a suitable condition.Comparison between sums of different criteriaparameters is given in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Comparison of parameters at H and A landfill sites

Humid areas are more vulnerable and sensitivetowards environmental impacts of landfills thandry areas, due to their special physical and bi-ological conditions. These special conditions in-clude high precipitation, several water currents,high water level, productivity of farms, existenceof forest and wetland, agriculture, drinking andindustrial water consumptions, etc (Monavari andShariat 2000). The fundamental difference be-tween the obtained results is because of differentenvironmental conditions in these two locations.

According to the mentioned results conditionof landfill H parameters is as follow: 20.75% areexcellent, 9.43% are good, 7.55% are medium,11.32% are insignificant, 9.43% are weak, 7.55%are approximately unsuitable, 7.55% are undesir-able, and finally, 26.42% of these parameters arein a very unsuitable condition.

While based on the aforementioned results,condition of landfill H parameters are classifiedas follow: 45.3% are excellent, 11.3% are good,5.6% are medium, 5.6% are insignificant, 5.6%are weak, 1.8% is approximately unsuitable, 4%are undesirable, and finally, 11.3% of these para-meters are in a very unsuitable condition.

Figure 4 shows the comparison of studied para-meters in both sites in percent. The difference be-tween indicators at both landfill derived from thedifference grades of each individual parameter.

As mentioned before, the lowest grade belongsto health environment criteria in landfill H, thishas been occurred due to reasons like surfacewater existing around the landfill site, high level

05

101520253035404550

excellent

goodmedium

insignificant

weakapproximately unsuitable

undesirable

very undesirable

Indicators

valu

e

RashtAndisheh

Fig. 4 Comparison of indicators in landfills H and A (inpercent)


Table 7 Evaluation of Rasht and Andisheh landfill condition (Ability and Limits)

No. Capability and constraints Site H Site A No. Capability and constraints Site H Site A

1 Potential future use 3 −4 6 Residents complaints −4 42 Development possibilities 4 3 7 Management system cost −2 −43 reconstruction, repair and renovation −3 −3 8 Installations, facilities at site −1 −14 Sufficient space for future 4 4 9 Sum −3 35 Adequate landfill in the area −4 4

of ground water, dense vegetation cover (wood-lands), wildlife habitat, domestic animal living atsite (because of proximity to rural area), andexistence of a SiyahRoud River in downstreamwhich transfer the pollution caused by leaches intoAnzali wetland, while none of the above condi-tions exist at Andishe landfill because of its dryclimate and physical environment.

With respect to achieved results, weak andpower points of both landfills are summarized inTable 7.

This comparison shows that there are notenough places in Rasht Landfill which are suitablefor this purpose because of the woodlands ecosys-tem. Moreover, surface water polluted by leachesdamaged adjacent farmlands have been led tofrequent claims by rural residence. Meanwhile,application of this landfill site can be changed in topark, public recreational place, after terminationof it usage as a landfill site. But the same changeis not applicable for landfill A due to regionalsurface water which is not easily accessible as wellas of natural landscape. However, there will beenough land to make the future landfill possible.It should be point out that the physical constraintsof landfill H include existence of farmlands, forest,and gardens near the landfill site and also theregional woodland ecosystem. Although landfillA is categorized as acceptable site regarding itsdry climate, there are some disadvantages in thislandfill site: lack of Bulldozer and needed equip-ment at the site, lack of fencing around the landfillsite, lack of guard and office stand, lack of scalingmachinery to weigh the imported wastes, medical,and hospital waste deposited to the site, lack of gasand leach control. All these show that the mainproblem in landfill A has been caused by non-compliance with landfill standards, engineeringframeworks, and design as well as lack of appro-priate waste management and sanitary landfill.

This study shows how precision can be assessedthe landfill site using Monavari Method. This siteassessment method can handle easily a broadrange of affective criteria to determine the statusof landfills. In this way, by identifying the worstand best parameters that influenced the landfill,a better management approach can be planned.Paying more attention to waste management’s is-sues will change the weak points to power points.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank IslamicAzad University, Science and Research Branch, and allpeople who have contributed in this project.

References

Abdoli, M. A., Takdastan, A., & Raeisi, T. (2006). Thestudy of selection of solid waste landfill for improv-ing non sanitary landfill in Iran. In 1st Conference onenvironmental engineering, Tehran, Iran.

Al-Yaqout, A. F., Koushki, P. A., & Hamoda, M. F.(2002). Public opinion and siting solid waste landfills inKuwait. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 35(4),215–227.

Calabrò, P. S., Sbaffoni, S., Orsi, S., Gentili, E., &Meoni, C. (2010). The landfill reinjection of concen-trated leachate: Findings from a monitoring study atan Italian site. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 181(1–3), 962–968.

Christensen, T. H., Cossu, R., & Stegmann, R. (1992).Landf illing of waste: Leachate (1st Edn.). London:Taylor & Francis.

Choudhury, D., & Savoikar, P. (2009). Equivalent-linearseismic analyses of MSW landfills using DEEPSOIL.Engineering Geology, 107(3–4), 98–108.

Deng, Y., & Englehardt, J. D. (2006). Treatment oflandfill leachate by the Fenton process. Water Re-search, 40(20), 3683–3694.

Eggen T., Moeder, M., & Arukwe A. (2010). Municipallandfill leachates: A significant source for new andemerging pollutants. Science of the Total Environment,408(21), 5147–5157.

El-Fadel, M., Findikakis, A. N. , & Leckie, J. O. (1997).Environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling.


Journal of Environmental Management, 50(1), 1–25.

Farzaneh, G. (2003). The study of environmental impactassessment of solid waste landfill in west of GolestanProvince. The Environment, 42, 59–65.

Gebhardt, K., & Jankowski, J. (1986). Preliminary landfillsiting related analysis using simple modeling tech-niques. Engineering Geology, 23, 291–306.

Glynn, H. J. (2004). Environmental science and engineer-ing. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

Hagerty, D. J., Pavoni, J. L., & Heer, J. E. Jr. (1997). Solidwaste management. New York: Litton.

Hamer, G. (2003). Solid waste treatment and disposal:Effects on public health and environmental safety.Biotechnology Advances, 22, 71–79.

Isapour, A. (2007). Solid waste management of tourismtown of Namakabroud, (1997–2007). M.Sc. Thesis: En-vironmental Management, Islamic Azad UniversityBranch Science and Research, Tehran, Iran.

Johannesson, L. M., & Boyer, G. (1999). Observation ofsolid waste landf ils in developing countries: Africa,Asia and Latin America. The World Bank: UrbanDevelopment Division.

Koshy, L., Paris, E., Ling, S., Jones, T., & BéruBé, K.(2007). Bioreactivity of leachate from municipal solidwaste landfills—Assessment of toxicity. Science of theTotal Environment, 384(1–3), 171–181.

Kulikowska, D., & Klimiuk, E. (2008). The effect of landfillage on municipal leachate composition. BioresourceTechnology, 99(13), 5981–5985.

Kurniawan, T. A., Lo, W., & Chan, G. Y. S. (2006).Physico-chemical treatments for removal of recalci-trant contaminants from landfill leachate. Journal ofHazardous Materials, 129(1–3), 80–100.

Laner, D., Fellner, J., & Brunner P. H. (2009). Floodingof municipal solid waste landfills—An environmentalhazard? Science of the Total Environment, 407(12),3674–3680.

Monavari, M. (1999). Evaluation of the regulation involvedin solid waste landfill site selection in humid area ofthe country. Ph.D. thesis, Azad University of scienceand research, Tehran, Iran.

Monavari, M., & Arbab, P. (2005). The environmentalevaluation of municipal solid waste landfills of theTehran province. Environmental Sciences, 2(8), 1–8.

Monavari, M., & Shariat, M. (2000). Evaluation of landfillsite selection standards in Rasht. Science and Technol-ogy, 1(2), 27–34.

Monavari, M., Khorasani, N., Omrani, Gh., & Arbab, P.(2007). The study of municipal solid waste landfills inTehran using Oleckno method. Journal of Environ-mental Science and Technology, 1(32), 37–46.

Ponthieu, M., Pinel-Raffaitin, P., Le Hecho, I., Mazeas, L.,Amourou, D. X, Donard, O. F. X., et al. (2007). Spe-ciation analysis of arsenic in landfill leachate. WaterResearch, 41(14), 3177–3185.

Read, A. D, Phillips, P. S., & Murphy, A. (1997). Environ-mental bodies and landfill tax funds: An assessment oflandfill operators in two English counties. Resources,Conservation and Recycling, 20(3), 153–182.

Safari, E., & Baronian, C. (2002). Modeling temporalvariations in leachate quantity generated at KahrizakLandfill. In Proceedings of International Environ-mental Modeling Software Society, (IEMSS’02) (pp.482–487). Faculty of Environmental Engineering,University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Shomal Consulting Engineers (1997). Saravan ForestPark comprehensive plan. Tehran: Shomal ConsultingEngineers.

Silva Garcia, J. T., Ramos Leal, J. A., Ochoa Estrada, S., &Estrada Godoy, F. (2004). Morphometric and vulner-ability methods in the selection of landfill sites in ac-tive tectonic area: Tangancicuaro Valley, Michoacan,Mexico. Geof isica Internacional, 43(4), 629–640.

Wang, L., (2007). Assessment of groundwater vulnerabil-ity to landfill leachate induced arsenic contaminationin Maine, US. Intro GIS Term Project Final Report,Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering.

Wang, G., Qin, L., Li, G., & Chen, L. (2009). Landfillsite selection using spatial information technologiesand AHP: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 90(8), 2414–2421.

Wright, R. T., & Nebel, B. J. (2004). Environmental science(8th Edn.). Prentice Hall. India Ltd. Paper-2

Yekom Consulting Engineers (2001). Environmentalimpacts assessment of Balakhanloo dam. Tehran, Iran.

Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Hurtado, Á., Grindlay, A., &Ramos, Á. (2008). Evaluation of a municipal landfillsite in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology.Journal of Hazardous Materials, 160(2–3), 473–481.

Documents

A new method for environmental site assessment of urban solid waste landfills