Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection for Belagavi City – A Case Study

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

 

Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection for Belagavi
City – A Case Study

Sapna Upadhyay

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

Angadi Institute of Technology and Management Belagavi, India – 590009

AbstractGlobal environmental crisis has been a challenge continuously for degradation and sustainable living on earth. Vast quantities of waste generation by the cities are one of the serious outcomes of the unplanned development. Selection of suitable sites for waste disposal has been normally carried by traditional approaches i.e. throwing it at all types of vacant land in or around the city. With increase in population and solid waste generation in future, finding alternate solid waste disposal sites for Belagavi city was necessary. Hence, the present case study is taken up for selection of solid waste disposal site for the Belagavi city. Therefore, the city of Belagavi has been divided into three zones namely north, central and south zone to decentralize the waste management such as waste collection, transfer & transport and ultimate disposal. Six disposal sites have been identified, namely: Hallbhavi, Bambarge, Turmuri, Khasbag, Kinaye and Desur. The appropriate disposal sites have been selected by considering attributes used for decision- making. Based on literature, data collection and field survey, weightages were assigned to each attribute following the pair wise comparison and sensitivity index method. The attributes were then grouped and analyzed to assign the total score and evaluate the best ranked sites based on sensitivity of the site. The best three ranked sites for the three zones have been selected and they are Hallbhavi in north zone, Turmuri in central zone and Kinaye in south zone.

KeywordsDegradation; decentralize; attributes; decision- making; sensitivity index.

  1. INTRODUCTION

    Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is one of the major problems faced by city planners worldwide. The problem is especially severe in developing countries where urbanization, poor planning and lack of adequate resources contribute to the poor state of Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices. Landfilling method is most common way for the disposal of solid waste generated by different communities. Despite of the intensive efforts that are made for recycling and recovery of solid wastes, landfill method remains and will remain an integral part of most SWM plans [1].

    Selection of landfill site is a complex task and needs evaluation of various needs. There are many different methods to evaluate a site like decision and policy making which is based on detailed information. Modeling is widely used for solving various environmental and ecological problems [2].

    Indian cities generate an estimated 0.115 million metric tonnes of waste per day and 42 million metric tonnes annually. The per capita waste generation ranges between

      1. and 0.6 kilograms/day in the Indian cities i.e. lower than that in developed countries. However, lifestyle changes due to economic growth and fast rates of urbanization have resulted in per capita waste generation increasing by about 1.3% per year. Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) has estimated that waste generation will exceed 260 million tonnes per year by the year 2047 [3].
  2. STUDY AREA

    Belagavi city (15° 51 58 N and 74° 31 27 E) is situated nearly 762 meters above the Mean Sea Level (MSL) and is the head quarters of Belagavi district which borders the state of Goa and Maharashtra. Belagavi (earlier known as Venugrama or the Bamboo Village) is one of the oldest, strong, prominent and well cultured historical place nestling near the Western Ghats. The population of Belagavi city as per 2014 census is 5,23,600 and the area of Belagavi city is 94.00 square kilometers. The total road length is 769 kms. Total quantity of Municipal solid waste generation is 262 tonnes per day and collection by the Belagavi City Corporation (BCC) is 190 tonnes per day. BCC consists of 58 wards, out of which sanitation work of 43 wards has been outsourced. Remaining 15 wards are managed by Corporation sanitary workers (Pourkarmikas). The 43 wards have been divided into 10 packages [4].

    Following are six locations which were selected as the study areas for solid waste disposal site selection that is Hallbhavi, Bambarge, Turmuri, Khasbag, Kinaye and Desur site.

  3. MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY
        1. Site Selection Methodology

          The study was conducted to define and understand the current problem of waste disposal in Belagavi city and to suggest best possible sites for waste disposal. In the present study, six suitable government lands are identified with the help of BCC and Tahsildar office. There are number of methods available to address problems like selection of solid waste disposal site. The method adopted in this study is Site Sensitivity Index (SSI) method as

          described by Rami Reddy [5]. The site selection for solid waste disposal facility involves comparison of different options based on community impact. Thus the problem requires human judgement at all the levels. Hence based on experience and likely impact on the surrounding environment weights were assigned to all the attributes (parameters). In order to achieve the objective, SSI method has been adopted in which weightages of different attributes were assigned on the basis of their importance. The methodology comprises of the following steps:

          • Selecting criteria for evaluation of sites.
          • Apportioning a total score of 760 among the assessment criteria based on the importance.
          • Developing Site Sensitivity Index.
          • Estimating the score for each attribute for various sites alternatives using SSI.
          • Adding the score for individual site alternatives to rank the alternate sites based on the total score.
          • Classification and selection of the site based on the total score.
        2. Site Sensitivity Indices Method

          The seven attributes were selected based on the literature [5], data obtained through investigations in and around the sites. The following are those attributes:

          • Accessibility related,
          • Receptor related,
          • Ecological related,
          • Sociological related,
          • Waste management practice related,
          • Climatologically related,
          • Geological related.

          A total of 22 top raking parameters were short- listed and weightage of attributes (Wi) was assigned such that the total weightage will be for 760 points. The measurement of each attribute is taken in terms of a Sensitivity index (Si) within a scale of 0 – 1 i.e. (0.0 0.25,

          0.25 0.5, 0.5 0.75, 0.75 1.0) to calculate cumulative scores called Risk Index (RI) that can be used for short

          listing of solid waste disposal sites. While 1 indicates highest potential hazard, 0 indicates no or very less potential hazard. SSI is a scale indicating less sensitive to highly sensitive attribute. [6] Table 1 indicates the attributes assigned.

        3. Site Evaluation-Estimation of Score for Attributes and Ranking of Sites [6]

    Based on the actual measurements, the corresponding site sensitivity index will be given for each attribute. The value of the sensitivity index will be multiplied by the corresponding weightages of the attributes. This will result for weightage score or RI for each of the attribute. The RI of the site is calculated by using the following Equation (1):

    RI = (Wi) (Si)

    (1)

    Where,

    RI = Risk Index varible ranging from 0 760

    Wi = Weightage of the variable ranging from 0 760 Si = Sensitivity index of the variable ranging from 0 1

    In this same way, score for each attributes and then for all the categories of an individual site will be added to calculate the total score for the site. The same procedure has to been repeated for all the alternative sites. The result will be interpreted on the basis of the total score (out of 760 points). The total score of all the alternative sites will be compared and will be ranked on the basis of less sensitivity. The site with the least score will be less sensitive, that is there will not be significant impact on the environmental quality due to the disposal site and hence will be the most acceptable. The site suitability accordingly will decrease with increase in the total score. Therefore, the site with least score will be selected for disposal. A broad score is developed to identify which site is acceptable. The generalized scores are given in Table 5.

    TABLE 1: ATTRIBUTES, ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTAGE AND SENSITIVITY INDICES [5]

    Sl. NoAttributeAttribute WeightageSensitivity Index
    0.0-0.250.25-0.50.5-0.750.75-1.0
    Accessibility related
    1Type of road25National highwayState highwayLocal roadNo road
    2Distance from collection area35< 10 km10-20 km20-25 km>25 km
    Receptor related
    3Population within 500 meters500 to 100 m100 to 250 m250 to 1000 m>1000 m
    4Distance from the nearest drinking water source55> 5000 m2500 to 5000 m1000 to 2500 m<1000 m
    5Use of site by nearby residents25Not usedOccasionalModerateRegular
    6Distance to nearest building15>3000 m1500 to 3000 m500 to 1500 m<500 m
    7Land use/ zoning35Completely remote (zoning not applicable)AgriculturalCommercial or IndustrialResidential
    8Public utility facility within 2 kms25Commercial and Industrial areaNational heritageHospitalAirport
    Ecological related
    9Critical environment45Not a critical environmentPristine natural areasWetlands, flood plains and preserved areasMajor habitat of endangered or threatened species
    10Distance to nearest surface water55>8000 m1500 to 8000 m500 to 1500 m<500 m
    11Depth of ground water65>30 m15 to 30 m5 to 15 m< 5 m
    12Water quality40Highly pollutedPollutedPotableConfirming to standard
    Sociological related
    13Health40No problemModerateHighSevere
    14Job opportunities20HighModerateLowVery low
    15Odour30No odourModerateHigh odourIntensive foul odour
    16Vision20Site not seenSite partly seen (25%)Site partly seen (75%)Site fully seen
    Waste management practice related
    17Waste quantity/day45<250 tonnes250 to 1000

    tonnes

    1000 to 2000 tonnes> 2000 tonnes
    18Life of site40> 20 years10 to 20 years2 to 10 years< 2 years
    Climatological related
    19Precipitation Effectiveness index25< 3131 to 6363 to 127> 127
    Geological related
    20Soil permeability35> 1 x 10-7 cm/sec1 x 10-5 to 1 x

    10-7 cm/sec

    1 x 10-3 to 1 x 10-5

    cm/sec

    < 1 x 10-3 cm/sec
    21Slope pattern15< 1%1-2%2-5%>10%
    22Seismicity20Zone IZone IIZone IIIZone IV & V

    TABLE 2: SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR HALLBHAVI AND BAMBARGE.

    32.5

    30

    100.5

    113.75

    58

    67.75

    Attributes and weightagesSite evaluation HallbhaviSite evaluation Bambarge
    Sl. NoAttributeAttribute WeightageAttribute MeasurementSensitivity IndexAttribute scoreAttribute MeasurementSensitivity IndexAttribute score
    Accessibility related
    1Type of road25National highway0.256.25Local road0.512.5
    2Distance from collection point3520-25 km0.7526.2510-20 km0.517.5
    Total60
    Receptor related
    3Population within 500 meters50250 to 1000 m0.5527.5>1000 m150
    4Distance from the nearest drinking water source55<1000 m1551000 to 2500 m0.5530.25
    5Use of site by nearby residents25Not used00Occasional0.37.5
    6Distance o nearest building15500 to 1500 m0.57.51500 to 3000 m0.456.75
    7Land use/ zoning35Agricultural0.310.5Industrial0.5519.25
    8Public utility facility within 2 kms25No public facility00No public facility00
    Total205
    Ecological related
    9Critical environment45Not a critical environment0.052.25Not a critical environment0.052.25
    10Distance to nearest surface water55>8000 m00>8000 m00
    11Depth to ground water655 to 15 m0.5535.755 to 15 m0.745.5
    12Water quality40Potable0.520Potable0.520
    Total205
    Sociological related
    13Health40No problem0.14No problem0.14
    14Job opportunities20Moderate0.36Moderate0.36

    28

    26

    17

    17

    13.75

    13.75

    39.75

    51

    289.5

    319.25

    15Odour30No odour0.13No odour0.13
    16Vision20Site fully seen0.7515Site partly seen (75%)0.6513
    Total110
    Waste Management practice related
    17Waste quantity/day45<250 tonnes0.29<250 tonnes0.29
    18Life of site4030 years0.2830 years0.28
    Total85
    Climatological related
    19Precipitation Effectiveness index2563 to 1270.5513.7563 to 1270.5513.75
    Total25
    Geological related
    20Soil permeability351 x 10-4 cm/sec0.6211 x 10-3 cm/sec0.621
    21Slope pattern151-2%0.253.75>10%115
    22Seismicity20Zone III0.7515Zone III0.7515
    Total70
    Grand Total760

    TABLE 3: SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TURMURI AND KHASBAG.

    23.75

    6.25

    81.75

    103

    td>Polluted

    81

    137.5

    48.5

    49.5

    17

    17

    20

    13.75

    44.25

    39.75

    316.25

    366.75

    Attributes and weightagesSite evaluation TurmuriSite evaluation Khasbag
    Sl. NoAttributeAttribute WeightageAttribute MeasurementSensitivity IndexAttribute scoreAttribute MeasurementSensitivity IndexAttribute score
    Accessibility related
    1Type of road25National highway0.256.25National highway0.256.25
    2Distance from collection point3510-20 km0.517.5<10 km00
    Total60
    Receptor related
    3Population within 500 meters50250 to 1000 m0.5527.50 to 100 m00
    4Distance from the nearest drinking water source552500 to 5000 m0.2513.75<1000 m155
    5Use of site by nearby residents25Not used00Not used00
    6Distance to nearest building15500 to 1500 m0.57.5<500 m115
    7Land use/ zoning35Industrial0.5519.25Industrial0.5519.25
    8Public utility facility within 2 kms25Hospital0.5513.75Hospital0.5513.75
    Total205
    Ecological related
    9Critical environment45Moderate environment0.14.5Critical environment0.7533.75
    10Distance to nearest surface water551500 to 8000 m0.4524.75500 to 1500 m0.6535.75
    11Depth to ground water655 to 15 m0.5535.75<5 m0.852
    12Water quality40Polluted0.4160.416
    Total205
    Sociological related
    13Health40High0.520Moderate0.312
    14Job opportunities20Moderate0.36Low0.7515
    15Odour30Moderate odour0.257.5Moderate odour0.257.5
    16Vision20Site fully seen0.7515Site fully seen0.7515
    Total110
    Waste Management practice related
    17Waste quantity/day45<250 tonnes0.29<250 tonnes0.29
    18Life of site4030 years0.2830 years0.28
    Total85
    Climatological related
    19Precipitation Effectiveness index25> 1270.82063 to 1270.5513.75
    Total25
    Geological related
    20Soil permeability351 x 10-4 cm/sec0.6211 x 10-4 cm/sec0.621
    21Slope pattern152-5%0.558.251-2%0.253.75
    22Seismicity20Zone III0.7515Zone III0.7515
    Total70
    Grand Total760

    TABLE 4: SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR KINAYE AND DESUR.

    25

    23.75

    98.25

    138

    74.25

    74.25

    18

    28

    p>17

    17

    13.75

    13.75

    44.25

    44.25

    290.5

    339

    Attributes and weightagesSite evaluation KinayeSite evaluation Desur
    Sl. NoAttributeAttribute WeightageAttribute MeasurementSensitivity IndexAttribute scoreAttribute MeasurementSensitivity IndexAttribute score
    Accessibility related
    1Type of road25State highway0.37.5National highway0.256.25
    2Distance from collection point3510-20 km0.517.510-20 km0.517.5
    Total60
    Receptor related
    3Population within 500 meters50>1000 m150>1000 m150
    4Distance from the nearest drinking water source551000 to 2500 m0.5530.25<1000 m155
    5Use of site by nearby residents25Not used00Occasional0.37.5
    6Distance to nearest building15500 to 1500 m0.57.5<500 m115
    7Land use/ zoning35Agricultural0.310.5Agricultural0.310.5
    8Public utility facility within 2 kms25No public facility00No public facility00
    Total205
    Ecological related
    9Critical environment45Not a critical environment0.052.25Not a critical environment0.052.25
    10Distance to nearest surface water55>8000 m00>8000 m00
    11Depth to ground water65< 5 m0.852< 5 m0.852
    12Water quality40Potable0.520Potable0.520
    Total205
    Sociological related
    13Health40No problem0.14No problem0.14
    14Job opportunities20Moderate0.36Moderate0.36
    15Odour30No odour0.13No odour0.13
    16Vision20Site partly seen (25%)0.255Site fully seen0.7515
    Total110
    Waste Management practice related
    17Waste quantity/day45<250 tonnes0.29<250 tonnes0.29
    18Life of site4030 years0.2830 years0.28
    Total85
    Climatological related
    19Precipitation Effectiveness index2563 to 1270.5513.7563 to 1270.5513.75
    Total25
    Geological related
    20Soil permeability351 x 10-4 cm/sec0.6211 x 10-3 cm/sec0.621
    21Slope pattern152-5%0.558.252-5%0.558.25
    22Seismicity20Zone III0.7515Zone III0.7515
    Total70
    Grand Total760

    TABLE 5: SITE SCORES

    Total scoreSite description
    Score below 228Very low sensitivity
    Score between 228 342Low sensitivity
    Score between 342 456Moderate sensitivity
    Score between 456 570High sensitivity
    Score above 570Very high sensitivity
  4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

    In the present study, analysis has been done to find out the most suitable solid waste disposal site for Municipal solid waste generated by the Belagavi city. The analysis has been carried out using the SSI method. Based on the methodology and sensitivity index assigned to the attributes, evaluation is done for Hallbhavi, Bambarge, Turmuri, Khasbag, Kinaye and Desur solid waste disposal sites for Belagavi city. The details of the attribute index for each of the six sites are furnished in Table 2, 3 and 4. The results of the analysis are discussed below.

    A. Ranking of Sites

    The total score for all six sites were calculated on the basis of the ranking methodology of RI. The site with least score indicates that the site is less sensitive to impact. Hence these sites were ranked first as shown in Table 6.

    TABLE 6: RESULTS OF TOTAL RI SCORE FOR THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES.

    RanksSitesRI scoreSensitivity
    IHallbhavi289.5Low sensitivity
    IIKinaye290.5Low sensitivity
    IIITurmuri316.25Low sensitivity
    IVBambarge319.25Low sensitivity
    VDesur339Low sensitivity
    VIKhasbag366.75Moderate sensitivity

    According to the results, the three best ranked sites identified and selected are Hallbhavi with 289.5 points for the north zone, Kinaye with 290.5 points for the south zone and Turmuri with 316.25 points for the central zone.

  5. CONCLUSIONS

Belagavi city has been divided into three zones viz north, central and south zone having 18, 20 and 20 wards

respectively. This is done to decentralize the waste collection, transfer and transport and ultimate disposal activity to achieve economy and time saving. Six potential disposal sites have been identified and studied for solid waste disposal namely Hallbhavi, Bambarge, Turmuri, Khasbag, Kinaye and Desur based on SSI method. A set of 22 parameters required for site selection were studied and evaluated based on literature, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) manual for MSWM, field survey and data collected in and around the sites for the best site selection. Three best ranked sites i.e. Hallbhavi with 289.5 points, Kinaye with 290.5 points and Turmuri with 316.25 points were selected for the three zones of Belagavi city (north, central and south) based on sensitivity as less score and a better rank. With this decentralized way of disposing waste of the city, it will result in reduction of traffic inconvenience, reduction in haul distance and haul time from waste source to the disposal site. Also the segregation and treatment of the waste can be done at the site.

REFERENCES

  1. Omar Al-Jarrah and Hani Abu-Qdais, Municipal solid waste landfill siting using intelligent system, Waste management 26, 2006, pp 299-306.
  2. Mazaher Moeinaddini, Nematollah Khorasani, Afshin Danehkar, Ali Asghar Darvishsefat and Mehdi zienalyan, Siting MSW landfill using weighted linear combination and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology in GIS environment (case study: Karaj), Waste management 30, 2010, pp 912-920.
  3. Hina Zia and V.Devadas, Urban solid waste management in Kanpur: Opportunities and perspectives, Habitat International Journal 32, 2008, pp 58-73.
  4. Solid Waste Management Information, City Corporation Belagavi, Karnataka, India. Reading: http://Belgaumcity.gov.in/sites/Belgaumcity.gov.in/files/pdfs/SW M%20information300312.pdf
  5. Alla Ayodhya Rami Reddy, Handbook on Municipal solid waste management in India, Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd, Hyderabad, 2010.
  6. P. Pandiyan, A. Murugesan, T. Vidhyadevi, S. Dineshkirupha, M. Pulikesi and S. Sivanesan, A Decision making tool for Hazardous waste landfill site selection, American Journal of Environmental Science, Volume 7, 2011, pp 119-124.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *