1. By: Beependra Singh Manika Bindal

2. Introduction

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

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

5. 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

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

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

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

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

10. Slope Criterion Slope (in degrees)Suitability Criterion 1 - 10Most Suitable 10-20Moderate Suitable >20Least Suitable

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

12. 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

13. Pairwise Comparison Table ABCDEF A185795 B1/811/557 C 51681 D1/71/51/6161/7 E1/91/71/81/611/8 F1/551781 AWasteland area B Drainage network CRoad network DWater bodies EBuilt-up area FSlope

14. Normalized Comparison Matrix with Scores ABCDEFScores A0.560.410.670.270.230.670.47 B0.070.050.030.190.180.030.09 C0.110.260.130.230.210.130.18 D0.080.010.020.040.150.020.05 E0.060.010.020.010.030.02 F0.110.260.130.270.210.130.19

15. Suitable site VALUE Total No. Pixels Area in meter square 4768691200 52612823515200 662785650200 7158142200 82421600 91900

16.  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

17.  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