2. Environ Monit Assess
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 one
of the most widely employed methods of disposal
for municipal solid waste (El-Fadel et al. 1997).
Studies carried out on developing countries shows
that according to the existing constraints, land
filling is the most important method in solid waste
management and final deposit (Johannesson and
Boyer 1999).
Wastes containing high volume of latex cause
important issues in waste management in devel-
oping countries. More humidity of area provides
more leaches regardless of precipitation. Studies
on Kahrizak Landfill of Tehran showed that the
highest amount of produced latex in the landfill
has been occurred due to existence of water in the
wastes and not the precipitation penetrated in to
the wastes (Safari and Baronian 2002). Previously,
a natural water passage, valley, a part of water-
shed, or a hole were considered as a landfill which
was covered by soil and ignored after filling its ca-
pacity (Wright and Nebel 2004). Also, traditional
landfills were always associated with operational
difficulties such as noxious gas and vapor, dust and
leachate production, as well as rodent infestation
(Hamer 2003; Calabrò et al. 2010; Al-Yaqout et al.
2002; Kulikowska and Klimiuk 2008). Sanitary
land-filling is the best way to mitigate environ-
mental impacts followed by waste deposit, and in
addition to reducing mephitis, preventing light ob-
jects scattering, insects and rodents thronging, and
controlling the gas and leachate, it can decrease
the volume of waste up to 50% (Glynn 2004;
Wang et al. 2009).
There is lack of international standards in terms
of damages caused by unsanitary landfill which
lead to environmental deteriorations and decrease
the society health level (Hagerty et al. 1997). In
many developing countries in which standards and
regulation of landfills are not perfectly attended,
assessment of landfills can clear existing limita-
tions and problems in these areas. Thus, solving
existence weaknesses lead to decrease of negative
environmental impacts.
Basically, municipal solid waste landfills are
evaluated 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 Garcia
et al. 2004; Wang 2007), and USEPA Method
(Christensen et al. 1992). In this research, Mon-
avari Method was used for the mentioned landfills
assessing, whereas this method has regarded more
parameters rather than the other methods; more-
over, it has taken into consideration environmen-
tal, health, and physical aspects. This method was
applies for the first time in 48 cities of Northern
provinces of Iran as well as Golestan Province
(Monavari 1999; Farzaneh 2003). In 2007, this
method was used for evaluating tourist town of
Namakabroud in Mazandaran Province (Isapour
2007).
In this research, in order to examine the
effectiveness of a new method called Movavari-
95–2 in environmental site assessment of landfills,
two landfills Rasht and Andishe were chosen as
indicators of humid and arid regions, respectively.
Landfill of Rasht (site H) in Gilan Province
is located on Saravan altitudes, 15 Km far from
the city (Shomal Consulting Engineers 1997).
Monthly and annually average precipitations in
this city are equal to 103 and 1,359 mm severally.
No environmental and engineering standard has
been applied at Rasht Landfill, and wastes are
dumped in an open area in forest vales along
Siahroud River.
Landfill of Andisheh, in Tehran Province, is
located on west side of Tehran. As regards, this
landfill 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 not
been observed. Annual precipitation in this city is
182 mm (Yekom Consulting Engineers 2001).
Materials and methods
Study areas
Rasht Landfill
The location is situated between latitudes
37◦
04 8 –37◦
05 37 N and longitudes 49◦
36 39 –
49◦
38 42 E. Its minimum height is equal to 38 m
above the sea level while the maximum reaches
150 m. Topographically, the region includes low
3. Environ Monit Assess
height hills, seasonal streams, and several springs
(Fig. 1).
The average annual precipitation is equal to
1,359 mm, and monthly mean relative humidity in
this region is 81%.
Andisheh Landfill
This site has shallow soil and medium loam gravel
texture, with low to moderate salt constraint on
gypsum and calcareous material. Its average
Fig. 1 Location of Rasht
Landfill as a humid area
in Iran
4. Environ Monit Assess
height is equal to 1,613 m. There is no perma-
nent river within the landfill, but a seasonal river
passes from a distance of 400–300 m of the region
(Fig. 2).
Prevailing winds within the most months of
this place is derived from the southeast, and the
mean annual rainfall is varied between 127 and
150 mm.
Methodology
In this research, the following steps were applied:
– Identifying of geographic and environmen-
tal conditions in Rasht and Andisheh landfill
sites as indicators of humid and arid landfills,
respectively.
Fig. 2 Landfill of Andisheh as an arid area (Site A)
5. Environ Monit Assess
Table 1 Ranking of
index criteria in Monavari
Method 95–2
Monavari (1999)
Criterion score Indicators Total criteria score Landfill classification
4 Excellent 158 to 212 Acceptable
3 Good 106 to157
2 Medium 53 to157
1 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 of
which are classified as physical, eight of which are
grouped as qualifications and constraints and 25
parameters are categorized as health and environ-
mental criteria (Table 3). There are some pre-
defined indices for each parameter separately to
evaluate that special parameter. Indicator criteria
in 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 of
each criterion regarding sanitary landfill point of
view. It has a rage between −4 and 4. The sec-
ond column is a descriptive grading of consid-
ered criteria. For example, for industrial waste
deposited at the landfill site in case of respecting
all sanitary landfilling regulations, it is graded
4 and vice versa. It should be mentioned that
landfill classification is determined using the total
criteria score obtained from adding scores of all
criteria.
Results and discussion
Waste quality and quantity
Landfill of site H (Rasht as an example
of humid landfill)
Total input solid wastes transported in to the
landfill H were calculated regarding the weight
of 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 amount
of deposited waste is 593/4 t/day. Quantity of
different types of waste deposited into landfill (H)
is shown in Table 2.
Landfill of site A (Andishe as an example
of arid landfill)
The quantity of waste deposited in to the landfill
was estimated according to different types of
waste carrying by vehicles. It should be noted that
nine municipals deposit their waste in to this place
which totally are equal to 750 t waste per day.
Results are given in Table 3.
By evaluating and assessing various parameters
affected 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 Total
waste 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
6. Environ Monit Assess
Table 3 Quantity of deposited waste in landfill A
City Shahryar Malard Shahr -e- Qods Andishe Safa Baghestan Ferdusiyeh Saba Shahed Total
dasht shahr Shahr
Quantity (t/d) 230 150 180 30 60 40 40 30 20 750
for physical capabilities and constraints as well as
health environmental criteria were obtained equal
to 28, −3, and −33, respectively. Moreover, total
sum of three mentioned criteria was tantamount
to −8 (Tables 4, 5, 6).
And also, results obtained from landfill A indi-
cated that sum of affective parameters including
physical capabilities and constraints and health
environmental criteria are separately equal to 49,
3, and 47 while the total sum of these criteria is
equal to 99 (Tables 4, 5, 6).
Health and environmental parameters are so
important for assessing the sanitary situation of
landfills. Degradation of wildlife and residential
areas, land cover, soil cover are among the most
important cases should be paid highly attention
through landfilling (Table 4).
Physical parameters of landfills such as distance
from residential area, transportation time as well
as wind direction and distance from sensitive eco-
logical areas are among determining criteria to
finding a suitable place for landfilling (Table 5).
Other important criteria widely affected the
landfills operation are capabilities and constraints
available in the landfill. Residents’ complaints, the
cost of system management, and possibilities for
development are some of these capabilities and
constraints 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 differences
are related to indicators including “distance to
the river,” “distance to the forest,” “features of
cover soil,” and “distance from the fault.” It is
noteworthy that in Rasht Landfill, the mentioned
parameters are in the worst condition, while in
other 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 Andisheh
parameters parameters
1 Industrial waste deposited −4 4 14 Wildlife and habitant degradation −1 4
at site Degradation of recreational areas 2 4
2 Hospital waste deposited −4 −4 15 Land cover degradation −3 4
at site Animal mortality 1 4
3 Slaughter waste deposited −4 4 16 Indirect degradation and pollution −4 3
at site transfer
4 Constructional waste −4 4 17 Light object scattering 1 1
deposit Optical obstacle 3 −4
5 Waste water and sludge −4 4 18 Fencing area −4 −4
deposit Wild and domestic animal −4 2
6 Surface water pollution −4 2 19 Soil cover −1 3
7 Ground water pollution −1 4 20 Land and properties value 4 4
8 Sea pollution 4 4 21 decrease
9 Soil pollution −3 1 22 Manmade green space −4 −4
10 Landscape pollution 4 4 23 Sum −32 47
11 Air pollution 2 2 24
12 mephitis −2 −2 25
13 Pollution records and −3 3 26
disadvantages rate
7. Environ Monit Assess
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 2
2 Distance from rural area 1 4 12 Main road condition 1 1
3 Distance from residential area 4 4 13 Sub road condition 2 3
4 Distance from offices and 4 3 14 Type of soil at site 3 2
governmental Co. Good soil specification for −4 2
5 Distance from river and surface −2 −1 15 vegetating
water Wind direction −1 −2
6 Distance from sea 4 4 16 Water level 4 2
7 Distance from farms 1 4 17 Transportation time 2 2
8 Distance from forest −4 4 18 Fault, earthquake −2 −1
9 Distance from recreational area 4 4 19 Flood band 3 4
10 Distance from sensitive 3 4 20
ecological area
the apparent difference is related to the parame-
ters including “potential future users,” “proper
place for landfill in the future,” and “complaints
and protests of residents” (Table 6).
In Rasht Landfill, due to forest cover, there
is no suitable place for the future landfill. Also,
there have been complaints of the villagers in case
of direct surface water contamination by waste
leachate. The most important difference between
the mentioned landfills refers to the environmen-
tal health parameters (Table 4). Rasht Landfill
as regards the reasons like geographic situation,
underground water pollution, soil pollution, de-
struction of wildlife habitat, destruction of land
cover, 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 −4
2 Development possibilities 4 3
3 reconstruction, repair and −3 −3
renovation
4 Sufficient space for future 4 4
5 Adequate landfill in the area −4 4
6 Residents complains −4 4
7 Management system cost −2 −4
8 Installations, facilities, at site −1 −1
of vision barriers is the only advantage of Rasht
Landfill.
Conclusion
As it has already been mentioned, basically, mu-
nicipal solid waste landfills are evaluated by meth-
ods 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 Garcia et al. 2004; Wang 2007), and
USEPA method (Christensen et al. 1992). In
Oleckno method, indexes such as rainfall, soil
characteristics, and ground water table are con-
sidered just in order to the dangers of latex and
underground water pollution. Drastic method pre-
sented by EPA to evaluate potential contami-
nation of groundwater is only considered seven
parameters 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 assessing
landfills.
Identifying incompatible impacts of different
parameters in landfills of Rasht and Andisheh
and consideration of standards in each location
will help controlling different types of existing
8. Environ Monit Assess
landfill problems. Followings are outcome of each
parameter and their sum in both sites accordingly.
Conclusions obtained by applying Monavari
method 95–2 in Rasht landfill explains that the
lowest score belongs to the health environmental
criteria and the highest one refers to physical,
which is equal to 28. According to Table 2 the
condition of this landfill is tolerable. The capabili-
ties and constraints as well as health environment
criteria with scores of −3 and −33 reflect the poor
condition of the landfill site. The total sum of
these parameters is equal to −8 which classify the
area in unacceptable category. Results of landfill
A show that the lowest achieved score belongs to
the capabilities and constraints while the highest
one refers to the physical parameters with score
of 40. This score according to the grading table of
the indicator criteria (Table 1) has a connivance
condition. Grades achieved for capabilities and
constraints, 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 99
which means a medium grade. Thereof, landfill A
is classified as acceptable group.
It is worth noting that although this site has
been classified as acceptable group, not all the
studied parameter enjoys a suitable condition.
Comparison between sums of different criteria
parameters is given in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 Comparison of parameters at H and A landfill sites
Humid areas are more vulnerable and sensitive
towards environmental impacts of landfills than
dry 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, existence
of forest and wetland, agriculture, drinking and
industrial water consumptions, etc (Monavari and
Shariat 2000). The fundamental difference be-
tween the obtained results is because of different
environmental conditions in these two locations.
According to the mentioned results condition
of landfill H parameters is as follow: 20.75% are
excellent, 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 are
in a very unsuitable condition.
While based on the aforementioned results,
condition of landfill H parameters are classified
as 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 the
difference grades of each individual parameter.
As mentioned before, the lowest grade belongs
to health environment criteria in landfill H, this
has been occurred due to reasons like surface
water existing around the landfill site, high level
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
excellent
good
medium
insignificant
weak
approximately unsuitable
undesirable
very undesirable
Indicators
value
Rasht
Andisheh
Fig. 4 Comparison of indicators in landfills H and A (in
percent)
9. Environ Monit Assess
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 4
2 Development possibilities 4 3 7 Management system cost −2 −4
3 reconstruction, repair and renovation −3 −3 8 Installations, facilities at site −1 −1
4 Sufficient space for future 4 4 9 Sum −3 3
5 Adequate landfill in the area −4 4
of ground water, dense vegetation cover (wood-
lands), wildlife habitat, domestic animal living at
site (because of proximity to rural area), and
existence of a SiyahRoud River in downstream
which transfer the pollution caused by leaches into
Anzali wetland, while none of the above condi-
tions exist at Andishe landfill because of its dry
climate and physical environment.
With respect to achieved results, weak and
power points of both landfills are summarized in
Table 7.
This comparison shows that there are not
enough places in Rasht Landfill which are suitable
for this purpose because of the woodlands ecosys-
tem. Moreover, surface water polluted by leaches
damaged adjacent farmlands have been led to
frequent claims by rural residence. Meanwhile,
application of this landfill site can be changed in to
park, public recreational place, after termination
of it usage as a landfill site. But the same change
is not applicable for landfill A due to regional
surface water which is not easily accessible as well
as of natural landscape. However, there will be
enough land to make the future landfill possible.
It should be point out that the physical constraints
of landfill H include existence of farmlands, forest,
and gardens near the landfill site and also the
regional woodland ecosystem. Although landfill
A is categorized as acceptable site regarding its
dry climate, there are some disadvantages in this
landfill site: lack of Bulldozer and needed equip-
ment at the site, lack of fencing around the landfill
site, lack of guard and office stand, lack of scaling
machinery to weigh the imported wastes, medical,
and hospital waste deposited to the site, lack of gas
and leach control. All these show that the main
problem in landfill A has been caused by non-
compliance with landfill standards, engineering
frameworks, and design as well as lack of appro-
priate waste management and sanitary landfill.
This study shows how precision can be assessed
the landfill site using Monavari Method. This site
assessment method can handle easily a broad
range of affective criteria to determine the status
of landfills. In this way, by identifying the worst
and 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 Islamic
Azad University, Science and Research Branch, and all
people who have contributed in this project.
References
Abdoli, M. A., Takdastan, A., & Raeisi, T. (2006). The
study of selection of solid waste landfill for improv-
ing non sanitary landfill in Iran. In 1st Conference on
environmental engineering, Tehran, Iran.
Al-Yaqout, A. F., Koushki, P. A., & Hamoda, M. F.
(2002). Public opinion and siting solid waste landfills in
Kuwait. 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 at
an Italian site. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 181
(1–3), 962–968.
Christensen, T. H., Cossu, R., & Stegmann, R. (1992).
Landfilling of waste: Leachate (1st Edn.). London:
Taylor & Francis.
Choudhury, D., & Savoikar, P. (2009). Equivalent-linear
seismic analyses of MSW landfills using DEEPSOIL.
Engineering Geology, 107(3–4), 98–108.
Deng, Y., & Englehardt, J. D. (2006). Treatment of
landfill leachate by the Fenton process. Water Re-
search, 40(20), 3683–3694.
Eggen T., Moeder, M., & Arukwe A. (2010). Municipal
landfill leachates: A significant source for new and
emerging 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.
10. Environ Monit Assess
Journal of Environmental Management, 50(1), 1–
25.
Farzaneh, G. (2003). The study of environmental impact
assessment of solid waste landfill in west of Golestan
Province. The Environment, 42, 59–65.
Gebhardt, K., & Jankowski, J. (1986). Preliminary landfill
siting 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). Solid
waste 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 tourism
town of Namakabroud, (1997–2007). M.Sc. Thesis: En-
vironmental Management, Islamic Azad University
Branch Science and Research, Tehran, Iran.
Johannesson, L. M., & Boyer, G. (1999). Observation of
solid waste landfils in developing countries: Africa,
Asia and Latin America. The World Bank: Urban
Development Division.
Koshy, L., Paris, E., Ling, S., Jones, T., & BéruBé, K.
(2007). Bioreactivity of leachate from municipal solid
waste landfills—Assessment of toxicity. Science of the
Total Environment, 384(1–3), 171–181.
Kulikowska, D., & Klimiuk, E. (2008). The effect of landfill
age on municipal leachate composition. Bioresource
Technology, 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 of
Hazardous Materials, 129(1–3), 80–100.
Laner, D., Fellner, J., & Brunner P. H. (2009). Flooding
of municipal solid waste landfills—An environmental
hazard? Science of the Total Environment, 407(12),
3674–3680.
Monavari, M. (1999). Evaluation of the regulation involved
in solid waste landfill site selection in humid area of
the country. Ph.D. thesis, Azad University of science
and research, Tehran, Iran.
Monavari, M., & Arbab, P. (2005). The environmental
evaluation of municipal solid waste landfills of the
Tehran province. Environmental Sciences, 2(8), 1–8.
Monavari, M., & Shariat, M. (2000). Evaluation of landfill
site 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 in
Tehran 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. Water
Research, 41(14), 3177–3185.
Read, A. D, Phillips, P. S., & Murphy, A. (1997). Environ-
mental bodies and landfill tax funds: An assessment of
landfill operators in two English counties. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 20(3), 153–182.
Safari, E., & Baronian, C. (2002). Modeling temporal
variations in leachate quantity generated at Kahrizak
Landfill. 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 Forest
Park comprehensive plan. Tehran: Shomal Consulting
Engineers.
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. Geofisica Internacional, 43(4), 629–640.
Wang, L., (2007). Assessment of groundwater vulnerabil-
ity to landfill leachate induced arsenic contamination
in Maine, US. Intro GIS Term Project Final Report,
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering.
Wang, G., Qin, L., Li, G., & Chen, L. (2009). Landfill
site selection using spatial information technologies
and AHP: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of
Environmental 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). Environmental
impacts assessment of Balakhanloo dam. Tehran, Iran.
Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Hurtado, Á., Grindlay, A., &
Ramos, Á. (2008). Evaluation of a municipal landfill
site in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 160(2–3), 473–481.
