International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05803-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Data‑driven landfill suitability mapping in Lagos State using

GIS‑based multi‑criteria decision making
A. Tella1,2 · M. R. U. Mustafa3 · G. Animashaun4 · N. Adebisi5 · C. J. Okolie6 · A.‑L. Balogun7 · Q. B. Pham8 · R. Alani9

Received: 10 June 2022 / Revised: 19 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Careful selection of landfill sites is essential because improper dumping of wastes can negatively impact health and degrade
the environment. Therefore, this research presents a Geographic Information System based—Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
Process multicriteria decision-making approach for landfill zonation in Lagos State, Nigeria. Due to the rapid urbanisation
leading to urban expansion and conversion of the landfills to built-up areas in Lagos State, the functioning landfills have been
reduced. After a comprehensive literature review, this study considers nine factors: slope, elevation, land use and land cover,
lithology, soil type, Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, the distances to roads, distance to settlements, and distance to
water bodies. From the decision matrix, the distance to water bodies, distance to roads, distance to settlements, and land use
and land (LULC) cover were ranked with percentage weights of 22%, 19%, 17% and 11%, respectively. Afterwards, poten-
tial landfill sites were mapped and classified into five classes: very low (626.48 ­km2, 16.66%), low (1277.56 ­km2, 33.97%),
moderate (1227.97 ­km2, 32.65%), high (500.52 ­km2, 13.31%), and very high (128.13 ­km2, 3.41%). The low and moderate
suitability classes have the highest areal coverage due to the state's increased population and urbanisation. A large percent-
age of the high to very high suitability classes are located in Epe, Ikorodu, and Ibeju-Lekki local government areas (LGAs)
which have lower urbanisation levels compared to most of the other LGAs. Therefore, governments and stakeholders should
explore these areas for siting of landfills.

Keywords Landfill · Africa · Urbanization · Fuzzy AHP · Environmental pollution

Introduction

Solid waste management, an integral part of the Sustainable

Development Goals, is a major concern for most African
nations. Burdened by numerous health, environmental and
Editorial responsibility: S.Mirkia.

5
* A. Tella Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, Boise,
abdulwaheed.tella@monash.edu ID, USA
6
1 Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Faculty of
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering,
Engineering, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon
7
Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia Professional Services Department (Resources), EsriAustralia,
2 613 King Street, West Melbourne, VIC 3003, Australia
Monash Climate‑Resilient Infrastructure Research Hub
8
(M‑CRInfra), School of Engineering, Monash University Faculty of Natural Sciences, Institute of Earth Sciences,
Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, University of Silesia in Katowice, Będzińska Street 60,
Selangor, Malaysia 41‑200 Sosnowiec, Poland
3 9
Division of Environment and Sustainability, The Chemistry Department, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos,
Hong KongUniversity of Science and Technology, Nigeria
Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong SAR, China
4
Town Planning Department, Lagos State Ministry
of PhysicalPlanning and Urban Development, Ikeja, Nigeria

Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

economic challenges, waste management (and disposal) in generation rate, which was estimated at 0.5–0.7% in 2013
Africa has not been effective (Bui et al. 2020). In 2012, the (Anestina et al. 2014). The collection and disposal capacity
World Bank estimated that the global yearly municipal solid is far from what is expected in a megacity, thus creating an
waste (MSW) would be approximately 2.6 million tonnes for environmental problem. In 2017, official records showed a
urban regions by the end of 2025 (Das et al. 2019). This pro- wide gap between the waste collection target and the amount
jected increase in environmental pollution can be detrimen- collected, a target of 4,892,301.48 metric tonnes was made
tal to human health and the environment (Tella et al. 2021b). while 1,349,010.17 metric tonnes were collected (Lawma
In Nigeria, over 80 million kg of waste is generated daily 2020). With all of the landfill sites nearing the end of their
(Babalola and Busu 2011), which is more than 50% of the usefulness and holding capacity in an already congested
total generated in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ike et al. 2018). The city, conservation as a technique for sustainable develop-
increasing population leading to urbanisation and industri- ment becomes highly significant. The geographical location
alisation, poorly planned settlements, and public perceptions of landfill sites is also a pertinent question, given the rapid
of social services have exacerbated the waste disposal prob- rate of urbanisation.
lem. One of the effects of this phenomenon is the collection There is a stark disparity in waste management practices
of waste below the amount generated and the inadequacy in Lagos, and other highly developed and industrialised soci-
and overutilisation of dumpsites and landfills. These acts eties. According to the United States Environmental Protec-
pose several risks for individuals and the society, such as tion Agency in 2012, 250 million tonnes of waste was gener-
environmental unsightliness, foul smells, environmental ated in the United States of America, of which 85 million
degradation, and groundwater pollution (Arogundade 2019; tonnes of this material were recycled (EPA 2014). Also, over
Das et al. 2019). 80% of the waste generated in Malaysia are landfilled, while
Though solid waste management is a local government only 5% is recycled (Aja and Al-Kayiem 2014). In 2016,
function in Nigeria, state governments have taken up the over 1.7 million tonnes of waste were dumped at landfills
task through various legislative enactments. Lagos State in Lagos State (Fig. 1), with organic waste (43%) taking the
handles waste management, including generation, treat- highest share of the material composition of the 0.44 kg per
ment, and final disposal, through the Lagos Waste Manage- capita generation (Lawma 2020). Due to the state govern-
ment Authority (LAWMA), which began as the Lagos State ment’s efforts, the amount of waste disposed at the dumpsite
Waste Disposal Board in the 1970s. LAWMA is saddled has reduced compared with previous figures, such as 3.8
with the task of managing the burden of over 9000 metric million tonnes in 2009, the highest so far (Lawma 2020).
tonnes of waste per day for disposal at three major land- A landfill is known as the most common and widely used
fills, which have exceeded their capacities. Moreover, public waste disposal method worldwide (Hussin et al. 2010).
apathy relating to payment for waste disposal services, and Landfills which are facilities for waste disposal on the earth’s
the problem of management efficiency became overwhelm- surface (Kamalan et al. 2011) are of two forms—sanitary
ing, making Lagos the dirtiest city in South–West Nigeria and natural attenuation landfills constructed to reduce the
in 2010 (Ike et al. 2018). negative effects of waste on the people and the environment
The challenge of managing solid waste in Lagos State is (Nomohanran 2015). Advantages of landfills include energy
enormous, as the capacity for management is less than the generation, employment generation and a time lag for waste

Fig. 1  Aerial view of Olusosun

landfill and surrounding com-
munities (Source: Google Earth;
Imagery date: 10 March, 2024)
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

disposal, while its disadvantages include contamination of improved the AHP method for better and more accurate cri-
surface and groundwater, wind-borne odours, reduction teria weighting and alternatives by employing FTOPSIS (Ali
in land value (Nomohanran 2015), loss of vegetation and et al. 2021), fuzzy logic (Zarin et al. 2021), Analytic Net-
reduced soil quality (Yazdani et al. 2015). Given the afore- work Process (ANP) (Aliani and Goleiji 2018), and AHP—
mentioned, this landfill suitability study is very crucial for ANP (Lokhande et al. 2020). For instance, Ali et al. (2021)
environmental sustainability. integrated GIS with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and
According to Yazdani et al. (2015), the first step in FTOPSIS to select sanitary landfill sites in India’s Memari
improving municipal solid waste management is to evaluate Municipality. Through expert ranking and the inclusion of
the state and site suitability of current landfills. In siting a environmental and socioeconomic factors, the research was
landfill, several factors are considered, which have environ- able to produce three landfill sites.
mental and health implications (Muttiah et al. 1996). Among In the African continent, insufficient research exists in
the guidelines for site selection of landfills are the Minnesota this crucial area of waste management. Undoubtedly, one of
Pollution Control Agency (MCPA) guidelines, which iden- the major environmental problems is the improper manage-
tify six determinants, seven conditional factors, and regional ment and disposal of waste. This is especially true for Lagos
screening guidelines, which recognise three critical factors State, with a rapid population and an average waste genera-
(Yazdani et al. 2015). Determining the appropriate site for a tion capacity of 0.5 kg per capita per day (Chukwuone et al.,
landfill is thus an enormous task that can lead to land deg- 2022). Unfortunately, most of these wastes wind up in the
radation through improper land use if not properly handled. road, drainage channels, canals, waterways, lagoons, and the
Perhaps the difference between the developed and devel- ocean, given a coastal city with insufficient waste manage-
oping nations in waste management is linked to the extent ment infrastructure and poor garbage management. Hence,
of deliberateness in the connected processes (Ogwueleka to properly ensure waste disposal management, this study
2009), of which disposal site selection is essential. The con- assesses landfill suitability using GIS and MCDM. This is
nected processes refer to the processes of reduction, reuse, early research in Nigeria, especially in Lagos State, because
recycling, sorting, collection, transportation, treatment, and there is limited research on landfill suitability utilising the
final disposal, which are interconnected, and the deliberate integration of GIS and MCDM. Thus, this research aims to
concern for environmental sustainability. close this knowledge gap using Fuzzy AHP to determine
Considering the necessity to integrate different factors for the suitability of sites for landfills in Lagos State, to aid the
landfill suitability, the conventional methods seem difficult. policy framework for better solid waste management.
In contrast, Geographical Information System (GIS) has
been established globally (Mortazavi Chamchali and Ghazi-
fard 2019; Rahimi et al. 2020) as an effective technique for Study area
the determination of the degree of suitability of landfills.
In recent times, the integration of multicriteria decision- Lagos is one of the most urbanised and major commercial
making (MCDM) and GIS has aided the decision-making cities in Nigeria and the second-largest city in Africa. It is
process in providing practical solutions to environmental the second largest metropolitan city in Africa after Cairo.
problems (Tella and Balogun 2020). Notably, the Analytical Lagos has a population of over 15 million people as of 2022,
Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been frequently used for mul- and it is expected to rise to over 24 million by 2035 (World
tiple criteria decision-making. Several studies (Güler and Population Review, 2022). It is situated between latitude ­6°
Yomralıoğlu 2017; Sisay et al. 2021; Rahmat et al. 2017) 20′ 00″N to ­6° 40′ 00″N, and longitude 2­ ° 50′ 0″E to ­4° 20′
have shown the capability of AHP for landfill site selection. 00″E (Fig. 2) and is one of the fastest-growing cities glob-
What the AHP does is to quantify the importance of the ally, with 20 local government areas and 37 Local Council
criteria in ranks based on expert advice for decision making. Development Areas (LCDAs). Considering the rapid urbani-
However, despite the usefulness of AHP, it is attributed to zation with a waste generation rate of 0.5kg per person per
biases and inconsistencies, thereby leading to uncertainties day, waste management is a serious problem in Lagos State.
in decisions (Tella and Balogun 2020). In the southern part of Lagos, there is a coastline stretch of
To overcome this limitation, some studies used a about 175 km bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Ogun State in
hybrid system of AHP with fuzzy logic, otherwise known the northern and eastern parts, while the Republic of Benin
as Fuzzy AHP (Pasalari et al. 2019). Some other studies is at the western part of the Lagos boundary.
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Fig. 2  A map showing the study area

Geographically, Lagos consists of the Mainland and The average mean temperature in the city ranges from
the Island. The mainland is a non-island region and is con- 21.8 °C to 32.9 °C. The Lagos State drainage system
nected to other states through the land. The mainland com- comprises waterways and lagoons, which cover over 785
prises a large population of inhabitants, industries and com- sq. km of the total landmass of 3577 ­k m 2 of the city
mercial activities. On the contrary, the island is the water (Ikuemonisan et al. 2020). The main water bodies of the
region of the state. The land is surrounded by water, mainly state are the Ogun River, Yewa River, and Lagos and
from the Atlantic Ocean. The mainland and island are con- Lekki Lagoons (Nwambuonwo and Mughele 2012).
nected through a bridge. The city has flat topography in most Since the beginning of the current political era in 1999,
regions, with elevations ranging from 0 to 79 m above sea subsequent administrations in Lagos State have steadily
level. built essential infrastructure and made significant moves
Geologically, Lagos is composed of two major sedi- to improve the business environment. These progressive
ments: the Tertiary (comprised of sandstones, mudstones advancements ensure continuous attractiveness to inves-
and sandy-clay soil) and the Quaternary (comprised of tors, professionals, and people looking for better opportuni-
coastal alluvium, mangrove swamps, and deltaic sands) ties. The adverse effects of all of these include the burden
(Ikuemonisan et al. 2020). Notably, Lagos is mainly placed on public facilities and the increasing difficulty in
underlain by shales, sands and limestones. Lagos State handling municipal solid waste due to the state’s massive
exhibits a tropical savanna climate with high rainfall home, commercial, and industrial operations. Therefore,
season between April and October, and a dry season Lagos State, which has experienced rapid urbanisation,
between November and March. industrialisation, and infrastructural development, is a victim
of its success. The two main sources of waste in Lagos State
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Fig. 3  Decision process hierarchical scheme for landfill suitability mapping

are municipal waste and e-waste. Improper waste manage- disposed of in canals, waterways, lagoons, and the ocean
ment and disposal is a serious issue in Nigeria because only (Chukwuone et al., 2022). The majority of the solid waste
20 to 30% of 32 million tonnes of waste generated are col- generated by commercial land use categories is made up of
lected annually (Ogundele et al., 2018). Most of these over plastics (29%), organic garbage (22%), and paper and tex-
0.5kg per capita disposals generated in Lagos are eventually tiles (14% each). As a result of small-scale production and

Table 1  Data sources and characteristics

No Datasets Data type Spatial Source Criteria map
resolu-
tion

1 Landsat 8 Raster 30 m United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Explorer (https://​earth​ Land use, NDVI
imagery— explo​rer.​usgs.​gov/)
Operational Land
Imager (OLI)
sensor
2 Shuttle Radar Raster 30 m USGS Earth Explorer (https://​earth​explo​rer.​usgs.​gov/) Elevation, slope,
Topography distance to water
Mission (SRTM) bodies
DEM
3 Settlement layer Vector – Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation (OSGOF) Distance to settle-
ments
4 Road network layer Vector – OpenStreetMap (OSM) (https://​www.​opens​treet​map.​org/) Distance to roads
5 Soil layer Vector – Federal Department of Agricultural Land Resources (FDALR) https://​ Soil type map
fmard.​gov.​ng
6 Geology layer Vector – Federal Department of Agricultural Land Resources (FDALR) https://​ Geology map
fmard.​gov.​ng
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

product unwrapping, there may have been a fall in domestic Selection and evaluation of conditioning factors
and business activity-based wastes, which could cause a rise
in plastics and a decline in organics (Ojowuro et al., 2019). Identifying the optimal location for siting a landfill requires
a rigorous assessment of multiple criteria. Still, several stud-
ies have been conducted in the past to understand what crite-
Materials and methods ria are significant in landfill selection. The existing literature
has identified multiple selection criteria such as elevation,
To create an appropriate landfill suitability map, geospatial slope, land use, geology, soil and topography, proximity
analysis tools in GIS were utilised to generate nine criteria to development, and transportation facilities (Kharat et al.
as thematic layers encompassing the study area. The follow- 2016; Alkaradaghi et al. 2019; Tercan et al. 2020). Ulti-
ing phases were considered for this study to determine the mately, selecting a combination of these criteria is done to
optimum landfill sites. These phases include: choose the optimal location for a landfill that is environmen-
tally sustainable, economically viable, and that minimises
i. Defining the objectives hazards to public health (Kharat et al. 2016).
ii. Selection of landfill decision criteria Moreover, there is a need to subject the conditioning
iii. Formulation of a questionnaire for expert advice (five factors to prioritisation according to the considerations of
experts) environmentalists and local indigenes of the study area.
iv. Pairwise comparison and utilisation of the MCDM This order of precedence is crucial for landfill suitability
approach analysis. Therefore, the criteria used for this study are based
v. Determination of criteria weights and generation of on the advice of experts, local indigenes, and environmen-
landfill map talists. The conditioning factors used for this study are the
vi. Identification of most suitable sites distance to roads, elevation, distance to water bodies, NDVI,
geology, distance to settlements, soil type, slope, and LULC.
In order to arrive at the final stage of this study, both envi- These factors are discussed in detail in the following section:
ronmental and economic factors were considered, as shown Distance to roads: this is an important factor to con-
in Fig. 3. After a comprehensive review, nine criteria were sider for landfill suitability. Notably, several researchers
adopted for this study. (Alkaradaghi et al. 2019; Güler and Yomralıoğlu 2017), have
opined that landfills should be close to the road to reduce
Data acquisition transportation costs. However, it is not always advisable for
landfill sites to be close to the roads. Considering that urban
Nine criteria were used for this study. The datasets used settlements are in close proximity to the roads in Lagos
for generating the criteria thematic maps were obtained State, this study carried out buffering of roads in the state.
from government sources, United States Geological Sur- According to Ali et al. (2021), areas closer to the road are
vey (USGS) Earth Explorer and OpenStreetMap. The ele- ranked low. Also, landfill sites should be located far enough
vation, slope, and water body maps were generated from from transportation facilities such that public visibility is
the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM with hardly possible. Thus, the longer the visible distance of a site
spatial resolution of 30 m. The Normalised Difference from a road, the better it is for a landfill. The road layer was
Vegetation Index (NDVI), and the land use and land cover downloaded from OpenStreetMap and a minimum buffer of
maps were produced using Landsat 8 imagery—Opera- 500m was implemented.
tional Land Imager (OLI) sensor with spatial resolution Elevation: another critical factor to consider in select-
of 30 m. Other criteria such as the road, settlement, soil ing landfill sites is the land elevation. The elevation is the
and geology maps were generated from the vector datasets basic surface from which first order topographic attributes
obtained from open access platforms such as OpenStreet- such as slope are derived. The elevation is one of determi-
Map (OSM), and government institutes. The sources of nants of slope and related terrain attributes. Areas with low-
the datasets used for this study are summarised in Table 1. lying land and flat terrain are ideal and technically suitable
for the construction of landfills (Kharat et al. 2016). Low-
lying regions are usually more stable and less vulnerable
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

to landslides (Kharat et al. 2016). Also, higher elevation sites should be located at sites with a low vulnerability to
increases the cost of transportation and excavation. groundwater contamination (Alkaradaghi et al. 2019). There
Slope: The slope is an essential criterion for soil erosion, are two major soil classes in Lagos State, namely, sandy
subsurface flow, soil water content and drainage. Therefore, and clay soil. The data was also imported into the ArcGIS
a steep slope affects drainage and influences the rise of software environment as a shapefile.
downstream water pollution and landslide disasters (Rezaei- Proximity to water bodies: this is a major considera-
sabzevar et al. 2020). More so, flat terrain with a gentle slope tion in landfill selection. Landfill sites should not be close
has little risk of runoff (Chang et al. 2008). Contrarily, a to rivers, springs, wells or other bodies of water (Kharat
steep slope aids runoff and has a high risk of contamination. et al. 2016; Alkaradaghi et al. 2019) to prevent the con-
The slope was generated from the SRTM DEM in ArcGIS tamination of the water from solid waste leakages (Alam
10.8. et al. 2020), which is a common phenomenon in developing
Land Use and Land Cover (LULC): an important envi- countries like Nigeria. The stream layer was generated with
ronmental consideration in landfill selection is the land use ArcGIS Spatial Analyst tools using Strahler stream order,
and land cover (LULC) of the area. Critical habitats, sensi- and a buffer of a minimum of 1000m from the streams was
tive ecosystems and areas with biophysical elements like carried out.
wetlands and large upstream hydrological basins are not Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): in
suitable for landfill location (Chang et al. 2008; Ding et al. epidemiological research aimed at evaluating the health
2018). Cultivated lands and rocky terrain are moderately impact of green space in urban environments, the normal-
suitable, while non-cultivated land and pasture are optimal ised difference vegetation index (NDVI) is commonly used
(Kharat et al. 2016). Areas covered with vegetation are not as a measure of environmental green space (Gascon et al.
suitable for landfill sites because these are potential agricul- 2016). Landfills should not be situated in forested regions or
tural sites that may be dangerous to health and productivity agricultural land due to their negative impacts on the envi-
if contaminated. The LULC map was generated from the ronment (Qureshi et al. 2021). The NDVI for this study was
Landsat 8 OLI using supervised classification in ArcGIS generated from near-infrared (NIR) and red (R) bands of
10.8. landsat 8 OLI imagery. Equation 1 was used in ArcGIS10.8
The proximity of the land to an urban area: this is an via raster calculator to derive the NDVI map (Tella et al.
important social, environmental and health consideration. It 2021a).
is recommended to situate landfills significantly away from
NIR − RED
urban areas due to public concerns, decreased property NDVI = (1)
NIR + RED
value, and health issues (Chang et al. 2008; Alkaradaghi
et al. 2019). Generally, the closer the area to residential, The buffer distances used for some criteria were sourced
industrial, and tourist centres, the less suitable the landfill from the literature, as shown in Table 2.
location (Kontos et al. 2005; Ding et al. 2018). The buffer- The thematic maps for the landfill suitability zonation are
ing was carried out from the settlement with a minimum shown in Fig. 4.
distance of 2000 m from the city.
Geology: The optimal lithological units in landfill selec- Fuzzy set theory
tion are massive rocks with no cracks, which usually do
not contain groundwater (Simsek et al. 2006). There are In multicriteria decision making, fuzzy set theory is a tech-
six lithological types in Lagos State. The geological data nique for modelling sophisticated systems that are difficult
was imported to ArcGIS 10.8 as a shapefile for further to represent in crisp numbers (Zadeh et al. 1996). The fuzzy
processing. set theory is mostly used for simulating vague and imprecise
Soil classes: highly porous alluvial soils with sand and judgements based on the priorities of the decision-makers.
gravel are good aquifers, thus least preferable for landfill The fuzzy set theory allows the extraction of exact conclu-
locations because of the high potential of groundwater sions from ambiguities and uncertainties in a remarkably
contamination, while impervious soils are one of the ideal simple approach (Mallick 2021). The crisp number can be
materials (Simsek et al. 2006). As a rule of thumb, landfill between 0 and 1, representing the degree of membership

Table 2  Buffer distances used Causative factors Buffer distance References

in this study and the references
Distance to water bodies Minimum of 1 km from water (Feyzi et al. 2019)
Distance to roads Minimum of 0.5 km from main road (Ali et al. 2021; Spigolon et al. 2018)
Distance to settlements Minimum of 2 km from the city (Rahmat et al. 2017; Saatsaz et al. 2018)
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Fig. 4  The landfill thematic criteria maps a distance to road b distance to settlement c distance to water bodies d elevation e geology f LULC g
NDVI h slope i soil classes

function. A triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is characterised is the linear representation of its membership term in both
by M, which is expressed as (l,m,u), meaning lowest, middle, right and left sides (Mallick 2021).
and highest possible number, as shown in Fig. 5, and Eq. 2
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

proceeding to the fuzzy AHP model, the pairwise compari-

son matrix was validated using a consistency ratio to check
the consistency in the experts’ decisions. Equations 3, 4 and
Table 3 were used to derive the consistency ratio:
CI
CR = (3)
RI

𝜆max − n
CI = (4)
n−1
Fig. 5  A triangular fuzzy number
where: RI is the random index, λmax is the principal eigen-
value of matrix, CI is the consistency index, CR is the con-
sistency ratio, and n is the number of total components in
⎧ 0, x < l, ⎫ the matrix. A consistency ratio less than or equal to 10% is
� ⎪� (x − l)∕(m − l), l ≤ x≤m⎪ satisfactory, and this ascertains consistency in the decision
̃ =⎨
𝜇 x�M ⎬ (2)
⎪ (u − x)∕(u − m), m ≤ x ≤ u ⎪ matrix (Saaty 1988). Therefore, the consistency ratio was
⎩ 0, x>u ⎭ validated before proceeding with the triangular fuzzification
of the AHP pairwise comparison matrix.
We also considered the consensus and agreement between
the experts’ decisions which is represented by S* whose
Weight assessment of the conditioning factors
degree of consensus extends from 0% (no conformity) to
100% (high conformity) (Roccati et al. 2021). To fuzzify
To define the weights of the landfill conditioning factors,
the AHP pairwise comparison matrix, the Fuzzy AHP scales
the AHP method was used. AHP is known to be capable
shown in Table 4 were used for this study.
of handling qualitative and quantitative data. Moreover, the
consistency of the experts can be checked using the consist-
Calculation of geometric mean and fuzzy weights
ency ratio. Summarily, AHP gives a hierarchical representa-
tion of the factors. However, despite the usefulness of AHP,
Table 4 was used to formulate the Fuzzy AHP pairwise com-
it cannot express the human mindset since it does not take
parison matrix. Buckley’s geometric mean approach was used
into account fuzziness or subjectivity (Ekmekcioğlu et al.
2021). Also, it is affected by biases and uncertainty, mak-
ing the result less reliable. As a result, conventional AHP
is regularly faulted for its failure to accurately handle the
problem of uncertainties and vagueness during the pairwise Table 4  The Fuzzy AHP scale
comparison process (Tella and Balogun 2020). Fuzzy AHP
Linguistic terms AHP Scale Fuzzy Reciprocal fuzzy
was introduced to improve the original AHP’s weighting of numbers numbers (1u , m1 , 1l )
criteria and selection of alternatives (Ayhan 2013). Instead (l,m,u)
of utilising actual numbers to calculate, the Fuzzy AHP
Equal Importance 1 (1,1,1) (11 , 11 , 11)
technique uses fuzzy numbers (triangular) to determine the
Intermediate value 2 (1,2,3) (13 , 21 , 11)
criteria weights. The phases followed to get the conditioning
weights are: Weak importance 3 (2,3,4) (14 , 31 , 12)
Intermediate value 4 (3,4,5) (15 , 41 , 13)
Derivation of triangular fuzzy number from AHP decision Fair importance 5 (4,5,6) (16 , 51 , 14)
matrix Intermediate value 6 (5,6,7) (17 , 61 , 15)
Strong importance 7 (6,7,8) (18 , 71 , 16)
The triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is characterised by M,
Intermediate value 8 (7,8,9) (19 , 81 , 17)
which is expressed as (l,m,u), where l stands for lower, m
stands for middle, and u stands for upper numbers. Before Very strong importance 9 (9,9,9) (19 , 91 , 19)

Table 3  Random consistency n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

index
R 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.21 1.24 1.34 1.41 1.45 1.49
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Table 5  Fuzzy AHP pairwise comparison matrix of the conditioning factors

Criterion C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

C1 1,1,1 1,2,3 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 4,5,6 3,4,5 2,3,4 1,1,1

C2 0.33,0.5,1 1,1,1 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 4,5,6 2,3,4 1,2,3 1,1,1
C3 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5 1,1,1 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 1,2,3 1,23 0.25,0.33,0.5
C4 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5 1,1,1 3,4,5 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 0.17,0.2,0.25
C5 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.2,0.25,0.33 1,1,1 0.25,0.33,0.5 2,3,4 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.17,0.2,0.25
C6 0.17,0.2,0.25 0.17,0.2,0.25 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.33,0.5,1 2,3,4 1,1,1 1,2,3 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5
C7 0.2,0.25,0.33 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.33,0.5,1 0.33,0.5,1 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.33,0.5,1 1,1,1 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.25,0.33,0.5
C8 0.25,0.33,0.5 0.33,0.5,1 0.33,0.5,1 0.33,0.5,1 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 1,1,1 0.25,0.33,0.5
C9 1,1,1 1,1,1 2,3,4 4,5,6 4,5,6 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 1,1,1

Table 6  Geometric mean and Factors Geometric mean Fuzzy weight Mi Ni Weight (%) Ranking
fuzzy weight of the criteria
l m u l m u

C1 1.79 2.46 3.05 0.12 0.23 0.40 0.25 0.22 22 1

C2 1.40 1.95 2.55 0.09 0.18 0.33 0.2 0.17 17 3
C3 0.79 1.16 1.74 0.05 0.11 0.23 0.13 0.11 11 4
C4 0.58 0.85 1.27 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.08 8 6
C5 0.34 0.44 0.65 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.04 4 8
C6 0.41 0.55 0.90 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.06 6 7
C7 0.31 0.42 0.73 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.05 0.04 4 8
C8 0.64 0.89 1.47 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.1 0.09 9 5
C9 1.71 2.20 2.64 0.11 0.2 0.34 0.22 0.19 19 2
Total 7.99 10.91 15.00 1.16 1 100
Inverse 0.13 0.092 0.067
Increasing order 0.067 0.092 0.12

to define the fuzzy geometric mean and weighting for the cri- Landfill suitability map (LSM)
teria with respect to Eqs. 5 and 6.
( )−n Nine landfill site selection criteria were considered for this
r̃i = ã i1 ⊗ ã i2 ⊗ .... ⊗ ã in (5) study. Fuzzy AHP was used to calculate the weights of each
criterion. Each criterion’s raster layer was given a weight based
( )−1 on its significance in the landfill site selection process. The
w̃ i = r̃i ⊗ r̃i ⊗ .... ⊗ r̃n (6)
Landfill Suitability Map (LSM) was generated by integrating
where ̃ri is the geometric mean of the fuzzy comparison the criteria weights generated from the Fuzzy AHP model with
for criterion i, ̃ ain is the fuzzy comparison value for each the thematic maps in ArcGIS 10.8 using the weighted overlay
criterion i, w̃ i is the fuzzy weight of the ith criterion. The tool within the Spatial Analyst extension. Equation 7 explains
triangular fuzzy number of the weighting (w ̃ i) can be repre- the formula used for calculating the LSM:
sented as lwi, mwi, uwi. After getting the criteria weights, the
∑
a
∑
n
( )
landfill suitability was assessed within the GIS environment. S= Ni × Tm (7)
N=1 m=1

where Ni is the normalised weight, T m is the thematic

map(s) of the criteria, S is the site suitability for landfill, n
is the total number of suitability layers in a theme, and a is
the number of themes.
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Fig. 6  Fuzzified thematic maps; a distance to roads b distance to settlements c distance to water bodies d elevation e geology f LULC g NDVI h
slope i soil
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Fig. 7  Landfill suitability map of Lagos State

Table 7  Comparison of the areal coverage of the landfill suitability *C1—distance to water bodies; C2—distance to settle-
classes ments; C3—land use and land cover (LULC); C4—eleva-
Landfill suitability classes Area ­(km2) Area (%) tion; C5—slope; C6—geology; C7—NDVI; C8—soil type;
C9—distance to roads.
Very low 626.48 16.66 The experts’ decision has a consistency ratio of 4.5%,
Low 1277.56 33.97 which is less than 10%. Therefore, it can be said that there
Moderate 1227.97 32.65 is consistency in the experts’ decisions. Also, there is
High 500.52 13.31 97.3% consensus among the decision-makers, meaning
Very high 128.13 3.41 there is an agreement on criteria ranking by them.

Landfill suitability zonation

Results and discussion
Given the daily increase in waste and the decreasing land
Weighting of the criteria availability for waste disposal in Lagos State, it is crucial to
determine suitable zones for waste disposal to ensure proper
The Fuzzy AHP model was employed to get the weight of management of the excessive waste generation in the city.
each criterion. In assigning the relevancy of each crite- This study assesses the suitability of sites for landfills using
rion to landfill, steps such as literature review, consulting GIS-based Fuzzy AHP, an effective method for mapping
experts’ decisions, and familiarisation with the terrain of landfill zones. Therefore, the thematic maps are fuzzified,
the study area were carried out. The fuzzy pairwise com- ranging between 0 and 1, as shown in Fig. 6.
parison matrix, the geometric mean, and the fuzzy weight The fuzzified thematic maps were used to derive the final
of the criteria are shown in Tables 5 and 6. landfill map shown in Fig. 7, and the area covered by the
*C1—distance to water bodies; C2—distance to settle- suitability classes is shown in Table 7. The present and past
ments; C3—land use and land cover (LULC); C4—eleva- landfill sites and non-landfill sites are overlayed on the land-
tion; C5—slope; C6—geology; C7—NDVI; C8—soil type; fill map.
C9—distance to roads .
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

The distribution of the landfill suitability classes is as • Landfills release leachates, solid and liquid pollutants
follows: very low (626.48 ­km2, 16.66%), low (1277.56 ­km2, that pose a risk to water bodies, and plastic pollution is
33.97%), moderate (1227.97 ­ k m 2 , 32.65%), high a significant global threat (Worm et al. 2017; Rosevelt
(500.52 ­km , 13.31%), and very high (128.13 ­km2, 3.41%).
2
et al. 2013). To address this, governments and stakehold-
All the landfill inventory data fall across moderate to very ers should consider a reasonable distance between land-
high susceptibility. fill sites or extensions and water bodies.
• Distance to settlements, distance to roads, and LULC are
essential factors to consider when expanding or propos-
Discussion ing a new landfill site to avoid potential environmental
dangers and odour. Landfills should be far from settle-
Lagos State’s waste problem is exacerbated by rapid popula- ments but not too far from accessible roads to reduce
tion growth, urbanization, industrialization, poorly planned transportation costs. However, a considerable distance
settlements, and degraded infrastructure. As a result, waste from the road should be maintained to avoid unexpected
collection rates are lower than production rates, and dump- impacts on built-up areas. Economic factors should also
sites and landfills are inefficient and overused, leading to be considered, and a balance must be struck between dis-
environmental pollution, foul odours, and groundwater tance from important roads and the expense of building
contamination. Despite generating 13,000 metric tonnes of new access roads (Rezaeisabzevar et al. 2020).
waste per day, only 7,000 metric tonnes are disposed of by
LAWMA at its landfill sites, and only 10% of the city’s waste After combining enormous volumes of spatial and quan-
is collected (Imouokhome 2022). With the amount of waste titative data, GIS presents the final output in a comprehen-
generated exceeding the capacity of available landfill sites, sible and graphical format that is understandable to both
there is a pressing need to expand or locate new sites. This the general public and professionals. The landfill map for
research addresses this issue by identifying potential landfill the study area was classified into five classes: very low
sites using GIS, which is an effective tool for project plan- (626.48 ­km2, 16.66%), low (1277.56 ­km2, 33.97%), moder-
ning and site selection studies. ate (1227.97 ­km2, 32.65%), high (500.52 ­km2, 13.31%), and
Fuzzy AHP was used to weigh criteria due to AHP’s limi- very high (128.13 ­km2, 3.41%). There are limited suitable
tations, including uncertainties, restricted judgment scale, spaces for landfill sites, as shown in Fig. 7 and Table 7. This
fuzziness, and lack of transitivity. AHP was initially used is basically due to the increased population caused by urban-
to assign weights based on experts’ decisions, with a CR of isation. Lagos State attracts many inhabitants, which could
4.5% and an S* of 97.3%, indicating a strong agreement. The explain the low availability of spaces. For instance, there
fuzzified AHP approach, using linguistic variable weight, was a high decrease in cultivated land and the conversion
was employed for a more accurate assessment of landfill of rural areas into urbanised settlements between 2000 and
sites’ suitability. 2010 due to rapid urbanisation (Onilude and Vaz 2020). For
The study considered nine landfill conditioning factors example, Obiefuna et al. (2021) established that there were
based on a literature review of previous studies on landfill 55.1% vegetated areas in Lagos in 1984 which had reduced
susceptibility mapping. The four most important factors, to 27.7% in 2015.
which were distance to water bodies, distance to roads, dis- Moreover, the built-up areas rose from 8.1% to 54.2%
tance to settlements, and land use and land cover with per- between 1984 and 2015. Also, according to Akinluyi et al.
centage weights of 22%, 19%, 17% and 11%, respectively, (2018), between 1984 and 2016, there was an approximately
accounted for 69% of the total weight. These factors are 23% increase in built-up areas and 18% decrease in veg-
crucial when expanding an existing landfill or creating a etated areas. According to Kasim et al. (2021), the land use
new one. The study recommends that these factors be given in Lagos State is covered by built-up areas, which claimed
priority in landfill site management and zoning. These find- 50% of the state’s land use and land cover in 2019. Based on
ings align with previous studies in Iran (Pasalari et al. 2019) the foregoing, there is a probability of increased population
and Saudi Arabia (Mallick 2021), which also highlighted the and land encroachment in Lagos State.
importance of distance to roads, settlements, and land use There are suitable areas for landfill sites in Epe, Ikorodu,
and land cover. Therefore, the study recommends prioritiz- and Ibeju-Lekki local government areas of Lagos State, as
ing the four highest-ranking criteria in landfill site selection: indicated by this study. The government could explore these
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

areas or expand the capacity of existing landfills, such as products to facilitate the state’s economic growth and reduce
the one in Epe (Arogundade 2020). However, it is impor- environmental pollution.
tant to note that GIS and multi-criteria-based studies have
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
highlighted potential challenges with certain areas, and fur- tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 13762-0​ 24-0​ 5803-5.
ther field investigations are necessary to select final landfill
sites (Ali et al. 2021; Mallick 2021). Despite this limitation, Acknowledgement We appreciate Franklin Onyeagoro and Chibueze
the study provides valuable contributions: (i) the identifica- Janet Onyinye for their assistance with proofreading our accepted
manuscript before its final publication and release.
tion of landfill variables for locating municipal landfill sites
and creating awareness for the public; (ii) sensitisation of Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and
the public of the danger and threat of having water bodies its Member Institutions. No external funding.
and settlements close to landfill sites; (iii) this study pro-
Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are
poses some local governments such as Epe, Ibeju/Lekki and available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
Ikorodu that the stakeholders can explore for creating new
or expanding existing landfills. Declarations
Conflict of interest This manuscript has not been published or pre-
sented elsewhere in part or entirety and is not under consideration by
Conclusion another journal. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Lagos State has experienced rapid urbanisation and popu- Ethical Approval Not applicable.
lation growth in the last few decades, leading to increased
Consent to Participate Not applicable.
waste generation and land encroachment. Despite the
increased population leading to increased waste generation, Consent for Publication Not applicable.
there are only three landfills in the state. Previous landfills
have been converted to built-up areas due to urbanisation. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
Thus, there is a need to select new landfill sites because if bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
these wastes are not properly managed, they can affect the tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
people, climate, aquatic organisms, contaminate ground- provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
water and increase plastic pollution. A review of previous were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
studies revealed that no significant study of the optimal included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
location of the waste disposal sites in Lagos State had been otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
conducted. Therefore, this study carried out a landfill site permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
suitability analysis using GIS-based Fuzzy AHP. Nine (9) need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
landfill influencing factors were considered, and four (4) of copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
these factors were ranked high by the experts. These factors
are distance to water bodies, distance to settlements, distance
to roads, land use and land cover with percentage weights of
22%, 19%, 17% and 11%, respectively. Potential landfill sites References
were discovered and classified into five classes: very low
(626.48 ­km2, 16.66%), low (1277.56 ­km2, 33.97%), mod- Aja OC, Al-Kayiem HH (2014) Review of municipal solid waste
management options in Malaysia, with an emphasis on sustain-
erate (1227.97 ­km2, 32.65%), high (500.52 ­km2, 13.31%), able waste-to-energy options. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage
and very high (128.13 ­km2, 3.41%). The landfill suitability 16:693–710
map shows that there is limited available land suitable for Akinluyi FO, Adebola AO, Adeseko AA (2018) Assessment of shore-
landfills. Most of the highly suitable sites fall in three local line and associated landuse/land cover changes along part of lagos
coastline Nigeria. Contemp Trends Geosci 7:59–71
governments: Epe, Ikorodu and Ibeju-Lekki. The main rea- Alam P, Sharholy M, Ahmad K (2020) A study on the landfill lea-
son is the reduced effects of urban sprawl in these areas chate and its impact on groundwater quality of Ghazipur area,
compared to other regions in Lagos State. Besides the utili- New Delhi, India in. Recent Developments in Waste Management
sation of landfills, this study suggests the recycling of waste (Springer).
Ali SA, Parvin F, Al-Ansari N, Pham QB, Ahmad A, Raj MS, Thai
VN (2021) Sanitary landfill site selection by integrating AHP and
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

FTOPSIS with GIS: a case study of Memari Municipality. India Güler D, Yomralıoğlu T (2017) Alternative suitable landfill site selec-
28:7528–7550 tion using analytic hierarchy process and geographic information
Aliani H, Goleiji E (2018) 2 nd International Biennial Oil, Gas and systems: a case study in Istanbul. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–13
Petrochemical Conference Application of TOPSIS and Analytic Hussin W, Kabir S, Din MM, Jaafar WW (2010) Modeling landfill
Network Process (ANP) methods in landfill site selection of indus- suitability based on multi-criteria decision making method a.
trial wastes Interdiscip Themes J 2:20–30
Alkaradaghi K, Ali SS, Al-Ansari N, Laue J, Chabuk A (2019) Landfill Ike C, Ezeibe C, Anijiofor S, Daud N (2018) ‘Solid waste manage-
site selection using MCDM methods and GIS in the sulaimaniyah ment in Nigeria: problems, prospects, and policies.’ J Solid Waste
governorate. Iraq 11:4530 Technol Manag 44:163–172
Anestina AI, Adetola A, Odafe IB (2014) Performance assessment of Ikuemonisan FE, Ozebo VC (2020) Characterisation and mapping of
solid waste management following private partnership operations land subsidence based on geodetic observations in Lagos. Nigeria
in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Waste Manag 2014:e868072. https://d​ oi.​ 11:151–162
org/​10.​1155/​2014/​868072 Imouokhome P (2022) ‘How strategic waste recycling can promote
Arogundade S (2019) ‘A Glance at Biggest Dumpsites in Nigeria’, green Lagos’, Businessday NG. https://​busin​essday.​ng/​news/​artic​
Accessed 6 April 2020. https://​www.​bioen​ergyc​onsult.​com/​bigge​ le/​how-​strat​egic-​waste-​recyc​ling-​can-​promo​te-​green-​lagos/.
st-​dumps​ites-​in-​niger​ia/. Kamalan H, Sabour M, Shariatmadari N (2011) A review on available
Arogundade S (2020) ‘A Glance at Biggest Dumpsites in Nigeria’, landfill gas models. J Environ Sci Technol 4:79–92
BioEnergy Consult. https://​www.​bioen​ergyc​onsult.​com/​bigge​st-​ Kasim OF, Wahab B, Oweniwe MF (2021) ‘Urban expansion and
dumps​ites-​in-​niger​ia/. enhanced flood risk in Africa: the example of Lagos’. Environ-
Ayhan MB (2013) ‘A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection mental Hazards 1–22.
problem: A case study in a Gear motor company', arXiv preprint Kharat MG, Kamble SJ, Raut RD, Kamble SS (2016) ‘Identification
arXiv:​1311.​2886. and evaluation of landfill site selection criteria using a hybrid
Babalola A, Busu I (2011) Selection of landfill sites for solid waste fuzzy Delphi fuzzy AHP DEMATEL based approach.’ Model
treatment in Damaturu town-using GIS techniques. J Environ Prot Earth Syst Environ 2:98
2:1 Kontos TD, Komilis DP, Halvadakis CP (2005) Siting MSW landfills
Bui TD, Tsai FM, Tseng M-L, Ali MH (2020) ‘Identifying sustain- with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology. Waste Man-
able solid waste management barriers in practice using the fuzzy age 25:818–832
Delphi method.’ Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104625 Lawma (2020) ‘Lagos State Waste Management Agency’, Lagos State
Chang N-B, Parvathinathan G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS Waste Management Agency. https://​www.​lawma.​gov.​ng/.
with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a Lokhande TA, Kote, Mali S (2020) ‘Integration of GIS and AHP-ANP
fast-growing urban region. J Environ Manage 87:139–153 Modeling for Landfill Site Selection for Nagpur City, India.’ in,
Chukwuone NA, Amaechina EC, Ifelunini IA (2022) Determinants of Recent Developments in Waste Management (Springer).
household’s waste disposal practices and willingness to participate Mallick J (2021) ‘Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Site Selection Based
in reducing the flow of plastics into the ocean: Evidence from on Fuzzy-AHP and Geoinformation Techniques in Asir Region
coastal city of Lagos Nigeria. PLoS ONE 17(4):e0267739. https://​ Saudi Arabia’, Sustainability, 13.
doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02677​39 Mortazavi Chamchali M, Ghazifard A (2019) The use of fuzzy logic
Das S, Lee SH, Kumar P, Kim K-H, Lee SS, Bhattacharya SS (2019) spatial modeling via GIS for landfill site selection (case study:
Solid waste management: scope and the challenge of sustainabil- Rudbar-Iran). Environ Earth Sci 78:305
ity. J Clean Prod 228:658–678 Muttiah R, Engel B, Jones D (1996) Waste disposal site selection using
Ding Z, Zhu M, Wu Z, Fu Y, Liu X (2018) Combining AHP-entropy GIS-based simulated annealing. Comput Geosci 22:1013–1017
approach with GIS for construction waste landfill selection— Nomohanran O (2015) ‘Assessment of site suitability for landfill con-
a case study of Shenzhen. Intern J Environ Res Public Health struction in Gbekele Nigeria.’ J Geol Soc India 85:745–752
15:2254 Nwambuonwo OJ, Mughele ES (2012) Information Systems, and D.
Ekmekcioğlu Ö, Koc K, Özger M (2021) Stakeholder perceptions in Informatics. ‘Using geographic information system to select suit-
flood risk assessment: a hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach for able landfill sites for megacities (case study of Lagos, Nigeria)’,
Istanbul, Turkey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 60:102327 3: 48–56.
EPA U (2014) ‘Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and dis- Obiefuna JN, Okolie CJ, Atagbaza AO, Nwilo PC, Akindeju FO (2021)
posal in the United States: facts and figures for 2012’. US Environ. ‘Spatio-temporal land cover dynamics and emerging landscape
Prot. Agency: 1–13. patterns in western part of Lagos state Nigeria.’ Environ Socio-
Feyzi S, Khanmohammadi M, Abedinzadeh N, Aalipour M (2019) Econ Stud 9:53–69
Multi- criteria decision analysis FANP based on GIS for siting Ogundele OM, Rapheal OM, Abiodun, AM (2018) Effects of munici-
municipal solid waste incineration power plant in the north of pal waste disposal methods oncommunity health in Ibadan—
Iran. Sustain Cities Soc 47:101513 Nigeria. Polytechnica 1(1):61–72. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
Gascon M, Cirach M, Martínez D, Dadvand P, Valentín A, Plasència s41050-​018-​0008-y
A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2016) Normalised difference vegetation Ogwueleka T (2009) ‘Municipal solid waste characteristics and man-
index (NDVI) as a marker of surrounding greenness in epide- agement in Nigeria’.
miological studies: the case of Barcelona city. Urban For Urban Ojowuro OM, Olowe B, Aremu AS (2019) Characterization of munic-
Green 19:88–94 ipal solid wastes from LagosMetropolis, Nigeria. In: Ghosh, S
(eds) Waste management and resource efficiency. Springer, Sin-
gapore. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​10-​7290-1_​13
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Onilude O, Vaz E (2020) ‘Data analysis of land use change and urban Sisay G, Gebre SL, Getahun K (2021) ‘GIS-based potential landfill site
and rural impacts in Lagos state Nigeria.’ Data 5:72 selection using MCDM-AHP modeling of Gondar town Ethiopia.’
Pasalari H, Nodehi RN, Mahvi AH, Yaghmaeian K, Charrahi ZJM Afr Geogr Rev 40:105–124
(2019) ‘Landfill site selection using a hybrid system of AHP- Spigolon LMG, Giannotti M, Larocca AP, Russo MAT, Souza NDC
Fuzzy in GIS environment: a case study in Shiraz city Iran.’ Meth- (2018) Landfill siting based on optimisation, multiple decision
odsX 6:1454–1466 analysis, and geographic information system analyses. Waste
Qureshi S, Shorabeh SN, Samany NN, Minaei F, Homaee M, Nick- Manage Res 36:606–615
ravesh F, Firozjaei MK, Arsanjani JJ (2021) A new integrated Tella A, Balogun AL (2020) ‘Ensemble fuzzy MCDM for spatial
approach for municipal landfill siting based on urban physical assessment of flood susceptibility in Ibadan Nigeria.’ Nat Haz-
growth prediction: a case study mashhad metropolis in Iran. ards 104:2277–2306
Remote Sens 13:949 Tella A, Balogun A-L, Adebisi N, Abdullah S (2021a) Spatial assess-
Rahimi S, Hafezalkotob A, Monavari SM, Hafezalkotob A, Rahimi R ment of PM10 hotspots using random forest, K-nearest neighbour
(2020) Sustainable landfill site selection for municipal solid waste and Naïve bayes. Atmos Pollut Res 12:101202
based on a hybrid decision-making approach: fuzzy group BWM- Tella A, Balogun AL, Faye I (2021b) Spatio-temporal modelling of the
MULTIMOORA-GIS. J Clean Prod 248:119186 influence of climatic variables and seasonal variation on PM10 in
Rahmat ZG, Niri MV, Alavi N, Goudarzi G, Babaei AA, Baboli Z, Hos- Malaysia using multivariate regression (MVR) and GIS. Geomat
seinzadeh M (2017) ‘Landfill site selection using GIS and AHP: a Nat Hazards Risk 12:443–68
case study: Behbahan Iran.’ KSCE J Civil Eng 21:111–118 Tercan E, Dereli MA, Tapkın S (2020) A GIS-based multi-criteria eval-
Rezaeisabzevar Y, Bazargan A, Zohourian B (2020) Landfill site selec- uation for MSW landfill site selection in Antalya, Burdur, Isparta
tion using multi criteria decision making: Influential factors for planning zone in Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences 79:246
comparing locations. J Environ Sci 93:170–184 Worm B, Lotze HK, Jubinville I, Wilcox C, Jambeck J (2017) “Plastic
Roccati A, Paliaga G, Luino F, Faccini F, Turconi L (2021) GIS-based as a Persistent Marine Pollutant.” In Annual Review of Environ-
landslide susceptibility mapping for land use planning and risk ment and Resources, 1–26.
assessment. Land 10:162 Yazdani M, Monavari S, Omrani G, Shariat M, Hosseini S (2015)
Rosevelt C, Los Huertos M, Garza C, Nevins H (2013) ‘Marine debris Landfill site suitability assessment by means of geographic infor-
in central California: quantifying type and abundance of beach mation system analysis. Solid Earth 6:945–956
litter in Monterey bay CA.’ Marine Pollut Bull 71:299–306 Zadeh LA, GJ Klir, Yuan B (1996). Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy
Saatsaz M, Monsef I, Rahmani M, Ghods A (2018) Site suitability systems: selected papers (World Scientific).
evaluation of an old operating landfill using AHP and GIS tech- Zarin R, Azmat M, Naqvi SR, Saddique Q, Ullah S (2021) ‘Landfill
niques and integrated hydrogeological and geophysical surveys. site selection by integrating fuzzy logic AHP, and WLC method
Environ Monit Assess 190:144 based on multi-criteria decision analysis.’ Environ Sci Pollut Res
Saaty TL (1988) “What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process?” In Math- 28:19726–19741
ematical Models for Decision Support, edited by Gautam Mitra,
Harvey J. Greenberg, Freerk A. Lootsma, Marcel J. Rijkaert and
Hans J. Zimmermann, 109–21. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Ber-
lin Heidelberg.
Simsek C, Kincal C, Gunduz O (2006) A solid waste disposal site
selection procedure based on groundwater vulnerability mapping.
Environ Geol 49:620–33