By: Beependra Singh Manika Bindal

Introduction

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

Datasets LISS III IRS P6 LU/LC 2012 Road network (DIVAGIS) DEM (Cartosat)

Slope LU/LC Drainage Network Roads DEM Buffered road Secondary Sources Reclassification Site suitability Map Built-up area Water Bodies Wasteland area 1.Barren Land 2. Scrubs 3. Degraded Forest Wasteland area 1.Barren Land 2. Scrubs 3. Degraded Forest Vectorization & Extraction Built-up area Buffered Built-up area Buffered Water Bodies Buffered Rasterized road Buffered Streams Buffered Streams Buffered Rasterized Streams Buffered Ordered Weighted Averaging Methodology Rasterized Built_up area Buffered Rasterized Water Bodies Buffered AHP Scores

Buffering Criterion for Water bodies Distance from Waterbodies (in m) Suitability Criterion 3000Most Suitable 2000Moderate Suitable 1000Least Suitable Results

Distance from Built-up area (in metres) Suitability Criterion 5000Most Suitable 4000Moderate Suitable 3000Least Suitable Buffering Criterion for Built-up area

Distance from Road (in metres) Suitability Criterion 3000Most Suitable 2000Moderate Suitable 1000Least Suitable Buffering Road Criterion

Buffering Streams Criterion Distance from streams (in metres) Suitability Criterion 900Most Suitable 600Moderate Suitable 300Least Suitable

Slope Criterion Slope (in degrees)Suitability Criterion Most Suitable 10-20Moderate Suitable >20Least Suitable

Wasteland Criterion Landuse ClassesSuitability Criterion Barren LandMost Suitable ScrubsModerate Suitable Degraded ForestLeast Suitable

Analytic Hierarchy Process Value Preference 1 Equally Preferred 2Equally to Moderately Preferred 3Moderately Preferred 4Moderately to Strongly Preferred 5Strongly Preferred 6Strongly to Very Strongly Preferred 7Very Strongly Preferred 8Very Strongly to Extremely Preferred 9Extremely Preferred

Pairwise Comparison Table ABCDEF A B1/811/557 C D1/71/51/6161/7 E1/91/71/81/611/8 F1/ AWasteland area B Drainage network CRoad network DWater bodies EBuilt-up area FSlope

Normalized Comparison Matrix with Scores ABCDEFScores A B C D E F

Suitable site VALUE Total No. Pixels Area in meter square

 Problem of urban waste disposal in tourist may be seasonal  Selecting Site suitability and waste disposal is a world wide problem  With minimum parameters at hand, site selection is complex  The number of parameters can be included further like geomorphology, lithology, geology,population density and soil types, etc.  Human decisions are biased in nature so using unbiased techniques are useful in decision making  AHP provides a suitable platform to perform analysis with out being biased, still expert opinion can be considered Discussion

 With only six parameters at hand, results are quite considerable  Spatial data sets including non spatial information are important for site selection  AHP turn to be a useful technique for site selecting for waste disposal Conclusion