Site Suitability For Waste Disposal In

& Out of OotyBy:

Beependra Singh

Manika Bindal

Introduction

Study Area & Objective• To provide an unbiased suitable sites for waste disposal in and out

Ooty

Datasets• LISS III IRS P6 LU/LC 2012

• Road network (DIVAGIS)

• DEM (Cartosat)

SlopeSlope

LU/LCLU/LC

Drainage Network

Drainage Network

RoadsRoads

DEMDEM

Buffered roadBuffered road

Secondary Sources

Secondary Sources

ReclassificationReclassification

Site suitability Map

Site suitability Map

Built-up areaBuilt-up area

Water BodiesWater Bodies

Wasteland area1.Barren Land2. Scrubs3. Degraded Forest

Wasteland area1.Barren Land2. Scrubs3. Degraded Forest

Vec

tori

zati

on &

Ext

ract

ion

Built-up area Buffered

Built-up area Buffered

Water Bodies Buffered

Water Bodies Buffered

Rasterized road Buffered

Rasterized road Buffered

Streams Buffered

Streams Buffered

Rasterized Streams Buffered

Rasterized Streams Buffered

Ordered Weighted Averaging

Ordered Weighted Averaging

Methodology

Rasterized Built_up area

Buffered

Rasterized Built_up area

Buffered

Rasterized Water Bodies Buffered

Rasterized Water Bodies Buffered

AHP ScoresAHP Scores

Buffering Criterion for Water bodies

Distance from Waterbodies (in

m)

Suitability Criterion

3000 Most Suitable

2000 Moderate Suitable

1000 Least Suitable

Results

Distance from Built-up area (in

metres)

Suitability Criterion

5000 Most Suitable

4000 Moderate Suitable

3000 Least Suitable

Buffering Criterion for Built-up area

Distance from Road (in metres)

Suitability Criterion

3000 Most Suitable

2000 Moderate Suitable

1000 Least Suitable

Buffering Road Criterion

Buffering Streams Criterion

Distance from streams (in

metres)

Suitability Criterion

900 Most Suitable

600 Moderate Suitable

300 Least Suitable

Slope CriterionSlope (in degrees)

Suitability Criterion

1 - 10 Most Suitable

10-20 Moderate Suitable

>20 Least Suitable

Wasteland CriterionLanduse Classes Suitability

Criterion

Barren Land Most Suitable

Scrubs Moderate Suitable

Degraded Forest Least Suitable

Analytic Hierarchy Process

Value Preference

1 Equally Preferred

2 Equally to Moderately Preferred

3 Moderately Preferred

4 Moderately to Strongly Preferred

5 Strongly Preferred

6 Strongly to Very Strongly Preferred

7 Very Strongly Preferred

8 Very Strongly to Extremely Preferred

9 Extremely Preferred

Pairwise Comparison Table

A B C D E F

A 1 8 5 7 9 5

B 1/8 1 1/5 5 7 1/5

C 1/5 5 1 6 8 1

D 1/7 1/5 1/6 1 6 1/7

E 1/9 1/7 1/8 1/6 1 1/8

F 1/5 5 1 7 8 1

AWasteland

area

BDrainage network

CRoad

network

DWater bodies

E Built-up area

F Slope

Normalized Comparison Matrix with Scores

A B C D E FScore

s

A 0.56 0.41 0.67 0.27 0.23 0.67 0.47

B 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.19 0.18 0.03 0.09

C 0.11 0.26 0.13 0.23 0.21 0.13 0.18

D 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.05

E 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02

F 0.11 0.26 0.13 0.27 0.21 0.13 0.19

Suitable site

VALUE Total No. Pixels

Area in meter square

4 768 691200

5 26128 23515200

6 6278 5650200

7 158 142200

8 24 21600

9 1 900

Problem of urban waste disposal in tourist may be seasonal

Selecting Site suitability and waste disposal is a world wide problem

With minimum parameters at hand, site selection is complex

The number of parameters can be included further like geomorphology, lithology ,

geology ,population density and soil types, etc.

Human decisions are biased in nature so using unbiased techniques are useful in decision

making

AHP provides a suitable platform to perform analysis with out being biased, still expert

opinion can be considered

Discussion

With only six parameters at hand, results are quite considerable

Spatial data sets including non spatial information are important for site selection

AHP turn to be a useful technique for site selecting for waste disposal

Conclusion

Thank You !!!