A STUDY ON LAND SELECTION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTFOR CLOSED SYSTEM DISPOSAL FACILITIESRyoji Matsumoto（Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd.）, Toshinori Ichimaru（Fudo Tetra Corporation）, Takaya
Kato（Waste Management Consultant）, Masataka Hanashima（Chairman）, Toru Furuichi（Vice-Chairman）
Research Committee for Closed System Disposal Facilities of Japan,
401 Chatesu Takanawa,3-23-14 Takanawa,Minatoku,Tokyo,108-0074,Japan
Tel.+81-3-3280-5971； Fax.+81-3-3280-5973；

E-mail: csken@cd6.so-net.ne.jp

ABSTRACTClosed System Disposal Facilities(herein after called “CSDF”)is intercepted by covering facilities and seepage
control facilities from outside environment, and has the following features.
①Scattering of waste and diffusion of a bad smell can be prevented. ②Neither the quantity of seepage water nor
reclamation work is influenced by the weather. ③This image is better than a conventional opened-type landfill site(herein after called “OPLS”) because it hides waste from outside. ④It is easier to obtain the consent of residents
about the construction of a landfill site. ⑤It can use for the storage facilities for recycling.

On the basis of these, the authors studied methods of land selection of CSDF and the practical regional
developments which are based on the features of CSDF and OPLS in terms of cost reductions of whole landfill
systems.

Keywords：Land Selection，Regional Development，Closed System Disposal Facilities

mergers of cities and towns promoted under a

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, a number of regional development
projects have been under way in Japan for suchgovernment incentive.
Under these circumstances, it is becoming moreasimportant to select an optimal development pattern

incineration facilities and recycling facilities for thewhen a local government is to plan the construction of

measure against dioxin, economic and efficiency at theregional landfill. A development pattern refers to awaste disposal.

form of development of a landfill based onintermediate

processing

facilities

of

waste

However, there have been few intensive andconsiderations of regional conditions specific to eachextensive projects with landfills. In addition, an

local government. The selection of a development

increasing number of local governments are sharing andpattern is to determine the number of facilities to be

managing more than one landfill as a result of recent

built, the scale, and the basic structure of a landfill

Proceedings of APLAS Sapporo 2008
The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium
Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, October 22 – 24, 2008

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium(OPLS or CSDF).
Once a development pattern is selected, the site for

Evaluation items are determined by regional
characteristics of a local government or an extended

the landfill needs to be determined. Conventionally,

association

land selection is based on the development of an OPLS.

conditions, and social conditions. In this study,

Therefore it is required now to select a site for a CSDF

economy and efficiency are set as direct cost

as well, this type of facility, having a number of

reduction factors and for indirect cost reduction

advantages over the OPLS, is increasingly employed on

factors, living environment, natural environment,

various scales and under a variety of local conditions.

safety, consensus building, and others are fixed

Focusing on the cost reduction issue for landfill

of

local

governments,

locational(Table2).

systems as a whole, the authors had conducted research
Table 1

pattern under a regional development project and theNo.

land selection approach applicable to the CSDF, as well

1 OPLS

as the OPLS.

Classification of development patterns
Classification

2 CSDF
3 OP-CS combined disposal facilities

A STUDY OF THE METHOD TO SELECT AN

4 OPLSOPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND

5 CSDFITS CASE STUDY UNDER A REGIONAL
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
This study discusses a classification and evaluation

Decentralized(multiple facilities)

1.

Centralized(A single
facility)on the method of selection for optimal development

6 OP-CS combined disposal facilities
7 OPLS + CSDF
8 OPLS + OP-CS combined disposal facilities
9 CSDF + OP-CS combined disposal facilities

method of regional landfill development patterns. It

10 OPLS + CSDF + OP-CS combined facilities

was considered with regional and evaluative conditions
in a case study for some model areas.

Table 2

Evaluation items

Evaluation items(1) CLASSIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT
The regional landfill development patterns can beclassified as centralized and decentralized types. In a

Construction costs
Direct cost
reduction
factorPATTERNS

EconomyEfficiency

centralized pattern, a single landfill is developed, whileclassified further by basic structure (Table 1).
(2) EVALUATION ITEMS
When landfills are developed at extended regions,evaluation items are required to reflect specific regional

Indirect cost reduction factor

A total of 10 patterns are obtained when landfills are

Construction costs + maintenancemanagement cost
Efficiency in maintenance management

LivingMaintainability of the living
environmen environment

in a decentralized pattern, multiple landfills areconstructed.

Maintenance and management cost

NaturalMaintainability of the naturalenvironment environment
SafetyRisks of potential pollution anddisasters

Consensus
building

Ease of consensus building for landfill
Smoothness of development
Disaster debris

Othersconditions for selecting an optimal development pattern

Measure for returning benefits tocommunitywith consideration of economic, efficiency, andCombination with existing facilty

environmental preservation.

Direct cost reduction factor(3)Economy in maintenance management cost by basic
structure(OPLS/CSDF) and by centralized/desentralized
landfill(1)Economy in construction cost by basic
structure(OPLS/CSDF)(2)Economy in construction cost by
centralized/decentralized landfill

Efficiency inmaintenancemanagement
A
B
C

Area with little snowfall
Low-snowfall area
Heavy-snowfall area(8)Operational
efficiency affectedby snowfall--

Large area(1,000k㎡ or more)-

Small area(up to 400k㎡）-

C

1,900 or more(㎜/year)

Medium-sized(400～1,000k㎡）

BA

1,500～1,900(㎜/year)

Up to 1,500(㎜/year)

-

-

-

C

-

A

(7)Ease of direct transportation to the landfill(6)Size of the area
covered by waste
collection services

construction cost (5)Economy by+ maintenance amount ofmanagement cost railfall

Maintenancemanegement cost (4)Superiority of a Up to 50,000
centralized/decentral
50,000 to 100,000
ized landfill by
population (the scale 100,000 to 200,000
2000,000 or moreof the landfill)construction
cost

C

-

-

-

ExplanationsOPLS
The OPLS is given higher marks when the OPLS and CSDF are of equal scale.
/CSDF
CentralizedABC
The centralized landfill system is given higher marks because it has a greater advantage of scales.
/decentralized
The CSDF is given higher marks because it needs only a smaller water treatment facility, andOPLS
without the need for covering soil on the same day which enables periodical covering operation
/CSDF
B
A
A
B
C
for daily carrying.
Centralized The centralized landfill system is given higher marks because it does not require distributed/decentralized maintenance manegement activities while having an advantage of scales.
In case of a small population, the centralized landfill system is given higher marks because itCA
requires only a smaller scale of landfill, thus lower cost for maintenance management of facilities
Centralized
such as water treatment which dilutes the advantage of the decentralized landfill system. In case/decentralizedBB
of a large population, the decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because it canAC
reduce the scale and maintenance management cost of each landfill.
In case of a heavy rainfall area, the CSDF is given higher marks because it can accept larger
B
B
amount of rainfall without enlarging the size of water treatment facility, thus economy in
OPLS
construction cost and in maintenance management cost comparing with the OPLS which requires
B
A
/CSDF
larger size of facility to accept it. In case of a low rainfall area, the difference of the size of
required water treatment facility between the OPLS and CSDF is smaller, thus the OPLS is given
BAslightly higher marks as its construciton cost is lower than the CSDF.
The larger the area, the greater distance to an intermediate processing facility, thus aA
BC
decentralized landfill system having multiple intermediate processing facilities is given higher
Centralized
marks as it enables effective transportation. The smaller the area, the shorter distance to an
B
B
B/decentralizedintermediate processing facility, thus a centralized landfill system is given higher marks as thereCB
A
is little advantage of decentralization.
Centralized Irrelevant to the size of areas, decentalization of multiple facilities is given higher marks becauseC
BA/decentralized the distance of direct transportation becomes shorter.
A heavy-snowjall area is defined as a desighated area for the special mesures law for the area ofAAvery heavy snowfall while a low-snowfall areas means an areas with 100㎝/year or more of theOPLS
maximum depth of snowfall but not designated for the law. Other areas are defined as areas with
B
A
/CSDF
little snowfall. The CSDF is given higher marks because probapility of operational suspention in
BAcase of the OPLS.
※ Evaluation and standard value : A=1.0, B=0.7, C=0.3
B

Combined
type

Evaluation details

Evaluation criteria
Landfill system(Centralized/Decentralized)

CSDF

Basic structure(OPLS/CSDF)
OPLS

Evaluation criteria

A single
facility
Dualfacilities
3 or more
facilities

Evaluation items

EconomyEfficiency

Table 3-1

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill SymposiumIndirect cost reduction factorB

Few urbanized areas(up to 100people/k㎡)(17) Ease ofModerate number of urbanized
consensus building
areas (100～1000people/k㎡)
by basic structure
Many urbanized areas(1000k㎡ or
more)
Few urbanized areas(18) Ease of consensus building and (up to 100people/k㎡)
Moderate number of urbanized
land acquisition by
areas (100～1000people/k㎡)
Centralized/decentra Many urbanized areas(1000k㎡ or
lized landfill system more)

East ofconsensus
building fordevelopment

-

-

-

-

-

A

A

A

A

C

B

A

-

-

-

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

-

-

-

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

B

-

-

-

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Explanations

Ease of consensus building, the OPLS is given lower marks where there are many urbanizedareas or in a community where there is strong resistance to a regional landfill.

The cen tralized landfill system is given higher marks because the more urbanized areas, the more
Centralized
difficult to manage building lots in these areas, however, both centralized and decentralized/decentralized
landfill systems are given lower marks in areas with more than 1,000 people/k㎡

OPLS
/CSDF

OPLS
The CSDF is given higher marks because it can preserve landscape with its covering facilities/CSDF
and is free from crow damage.
Centralized The centralized landfill system is given lower marks because it causes a substantial landscape/decentralized change due to its size.
OPLS
The OPLS is given lower marks because it is subject to damage from crows, harmful.insects,/CSDF
animals and also from waste dispersion.
Centralized The decentralized landfill system is given moderately higher marks because each landfill is small/decentralized and also because the system can better preserve the environment.
OPLS※No evaluation has been made because in case of the OPLS, maintainability of the living/CSDF
environment along roadways is dependent on the number of vehicles to carry covering soil, thus
Centralized The centralized landfill system is given lower marks because waste-carrying traffic concentrates/decentralized on a specific road.
OPLS
The OPLS is given lower marks because uncovered waste and larger amount of treated water
cause a substantial landscape change, thus it brings a poorer image of landfill compared with the/CSDF
Centralized The centralized landfill system is given lower marks because the larger each landfill is, the more/decentralized substantial impact it has on the utilization of neighboring land.
OPLS
The CSDF is given higher marks because it is free from damage from crows, harmful insects and/CSDF
animals, thus more capable of preserving the natural environment.
Centralized The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because the smaller each landfill is, the/decentralized less damage it suffers from crows, harmful insects and animals.
OPLS
The CSDF is given higher marks because it can control the generation of leachate.
/CSDF
Centralized The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because a single landfill generates a/decentralized smaller amount of leachate, thus affecting its downstream waters.
In case of a torrential rainfall, the CSDF is given higher marks because it can control overflowsof retained water. In case of a gale-force wind, the OPLS is given slightly lower marks due to theseriousness of damage it suffers such as waste dispersion and breakage of seepage control work
OPLS
while the CSDF is still not free from damage such as breakage of the roof. In case of an/CSDF
earthquake, both the OPLS and CSDF are given low marks due to the damage they suffer on
seepage control work and on their foundation base while additional damage is expected on theroof in case of the CSDF. Overall, the CSDF is given higher marks in this evaluation item.
Centralized The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because the degree of a disaster or risk is/decentralized diluted.
OPLS
The CSDF is given higher marks because it can reduce pollution in underground water by/CSDF
controlling the amount of sprinkled water.
Centralized The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because the degree and the risk of/decentralized pollution in underground water are diluted.

※ Evaluation and standard value : A=1.0, B=0.7, C=0.3

C

B

B

B

C

C

C

(16) Degree of risks and underground water pollution
caused by water leakage

AC(15) Degree of disasters and risks caused by torrential
B

A

B

C

Risk of potential rainfalls, earthquakes, and other events
pollution anddisasters

A

B

A

-

A

A

C

B

-

-

C

B

B

C

C

(13) Degree of impact of changes in the natural
Maintainability environmentof
naturalenvironment (14) Effects on downstream areas of change in treatedwater discharge(12) Effects on the utilization of neighboring land(10) Maintainability of the living environment affected
Maintainability by crow damege and waste dispersionoflivingenvironment (11) Maintainability of the living environment along
roadways used by waste-carrying vehicles(9) Degree of impact of landscape changes

Combined
type

Evaluation details

Evaluation criteria
Landfill system(Centralized/Decentralized)

CSDF

Basic structure(OPLS/CSDF)
OPLS

Evaluation criteria

A single
facility
Dualfacilities
3 or more
facilities

Evaluation items

Living environment

Natural envionment

SafetyConsensus building

Table 3-2

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill SymposiumOthers

Combination
with existing
facility

combinat Share of basic facilities is possible
ion byOnly the share of supplementary
facility
facilities is possible
sharing
No sharing of facilities

Existing landfill with substantial
Combina remaining waste diposable capacitytion by Existing landfill with 5 to 10 years
division of remaining service periodof waste Existing landfill with up to 5 yearsof remaining service period

combinat Share of basic facilities is possible
ion by Only the share of supplementary
facility facilities is possible
sharing No sharing of facilities

Existing landfill with substantial
Combina remaining waste diposable capacitytion bydivision Existing landfill with 5 to 10 yearsof waste of remaining service period
Existing landfill with up to 5 yearsof remaining service period

B
B

A
A

B

B

B

C

B

A

A

A

A

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

C

A

C

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

B

C

A

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

A

OPLS
/CSDF

The OPLS is given higher marks because division of waste enables efficient and long-lasting useof landfill and it also dilutes the risk of landfill. The CSDF is given intermediate marks because
there is little advantage of efficient or long-lasting use of landfill while division of waste still
enables safe and controlled management of the landfill by changing its management methods.

The CSDF is given higher marks because it requires a smaller scale of additional facilities to be
combined with existing landfill compared with the case of the OPLS.
The OPLS is given higher marks because it does not require operational changes in disposal
system while the CSDF is given slightly lower marks due to some operational changes it needs.
Both the OPLS and the CSDF are given low marks because there is no advantage of combination
with existing landfill.

The OPLS is given intermediate marks because division of waste is a stage for proper use oflandfill in the next generation. The CSDF is given higher marks because division of waste
enables efficient and long-lasting use of landfill and it also dilutes the risk of landfill.

In case of an existing landfill is developed alternately or in rotation with new landfills, thedecentralized landfill system is given higher marks because it is advantageous in effect ofCentralized investment and in timing of development. The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks/decentralized in a community that is more in favor of a decentralized one for its historical background such as
integration of administrative regions or corporate disposal of waste among regions. The
centralized landfill system is given higher marks in a community that is more in favor of a
In case disaster debris needs to be kept temporarily, the CSDF is given higher marks because its
OPLS
covering facilities keep it from being exposed to the natural environment, thus enables other/CSDF
activities in the same landfill even on a rainy day.
Although the centralized landfill system is more advantageous both in carrying and disposing
OPLS
disaster debris, the decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because it can reduce the/CSDF
amount of debris for each landfill and facilitate its acceptance.
If an effective development policy for returning benefits by utilizing the vestige site is suggested
in advance, the type of basic structure which is specified in the policy is given higher marks in
OPLS
any cases. If no specific policy is suggested in advance, the OP-CS combined development/CSDF
pattern is given higher marks because it allows a broader choice in the utilization of the vestigesite as the facility can be used both for indoor and outdoor.
The CSDF is given higher marks because division of waste enables efficient and long-lasting useof landfill and it also dilutes the risk of landfill while there is little advantage in division of waste
in the case of the OPLS.

Explanations

C

B

B

-

-

-

The OPLS is given lower marks because it requires a larger scale of additional facilities to be
combined with existing ladfill, thus impractical. In case of the CSDF, the scale of additional
facilities it requires is smaller, thus rather practical and given relatively higher marks.
The CSDF is given higher marks because it does not require operational changes in disposal
B
B
Asystem while the OPLS is given slightly lower marks due to some operational changes it needs.
Both the OPLS and the CSDF are given low marks because there is no advantage of combination
CC
C
with existing landfill.
※ Evaluation and standard value : A=1.0, B=0.7, C=0.3

B

C

C
A

B

A

B

B
B

B

B

B

B

C

B

C

(21) Effectiveness of measures for returning benefits tothe community by basic structures
A

A

B

C

Disaster debris (20) Ease of acceptance and disposal of disaster debris

Measure for
returning
benefits tocommunity

-

-

-

-

-

-

Evaluation details
OPLS

Evaluation criteria

Evaluation criteria
Landfill system(Centralized/Decentralized)

Combined
type

Basic structure(OPLS/CSDF)
CSDF

In case development of landfil is(19) Smoothness ofconducted continuously
Smoothness of development by
development centralized/decentral
In case deveopment of landfill isized landfill systemstagnant(22) Combination with existing landfill

A single
facility
Dualfacilities
3 or more
facilities

Evaluation items

In case the existing landfill is OPLS

In case the existing landfill is CSDF

Indirect cost reduction factor

Table 3-3

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposiumconstruction (1)Economy in construction cost by basic structure(OPLS/CSDF)
cost(2)Economy in construction cost by centralized/decentralized landfill
Economy Maintenance (3)Economy in maintenance management cost by basic
manegement (4)Superiority of a centralized/decentralized landfill by population (thecostscale of the landfill)construction cost
+ maintenance (5)Economy by amount of railfall
Efficienc management
Efficiency in (6)Size of the area covered by waste collection servicesymaintenance (7)Ease of direct transportation to the landfill
management (8)Operational efficiency affected by snowfall
Sub Total 1(9) Degree of impact of landscape changes(10)
Maintainabilityofthe living environment affected by crow damege
Living Maintainability
and waste dispersion
environmof living(11) Maintainability of living environment along roadways used byent
environment
waste-carrying vehicles(12) Effects on the utilization of neighboring land
Natural Maintainability (13) Degree of impact of changes in the natural environment
envionmeof natural(14) Effects of downstream areas of change in treated water discharge
Risk of potential (15) Degree of disasters and risks caused by torrential rainfalls,
Safetypollution and earthquakes, and other events(16) Degree of risks and underground water pollution caused by water
disasters
leakage
East of consen- (17) Ease of consensus building by basic structure
Consensu
sus building for (18) Ease of consensus building and land acquisition bys building
development centralized/decentralized landfill system
Smoothness of (19) Smoothness of development by centralized/decentralized landfill
development system
Disaster debris (20) Ease of acceptance and disposal of disaster debris
Measure for
Others(21) Effectiveness of measures for returning benefits to the community
returningby basic structures
benefits to
Combination(22) Combination with existing landfill
with existing
Sub Total 2
Total
○

○

○

○
○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○
○
○

○
○
○

○

○

○
○

3

3

3

2

3

4

6
5

6

4
3
4

3

2

51
100

11

9

12

7

12

49

7
2
6

6

6

○

21

4
10
28 8

○
○

○

○

○

○

○

Assessment
Quality

Assessment

Assessment
Quality

Quality

Assessment

Quality

Assessment

Quality

Assessment

Assessment
Quality

Quality

Evaluation details

Quality

Centralized landfill system
Decentralized landfill system(multiple facility)(single facility)
Pattern① Pattern② Pattern③ Pattern④ Pattern⑤ Pattern⑥ Pattern⑦ Pattern⑧ Pattern⑨ Pattern⑩
OPLS
OPLS + CSDF + OPLS+CS
Combined
Combined
CSDF
+
OPLS
CSDF
OPLS
Combined Combined DF+Comb
type
type
CSDF
type
type
ined type
Assessment

Evaluation items

Name of the
Population density
Annual rainfall
2)(㎜/year)(People/km
Amount of snowfall(1:Area with little snowfall, 2:Lowdepth of snow (㎝/year)
snowfall area, 7:Heavy-snowfall area )Basic structure of the existing
Range of facilities to be
Remaining service
landfill(1:OPLS, 2:CSDF,
shared(1:Basic facilities,
Existing landfill
period(year)
3:No existing landfill)
2:Supplementary facilities,
2

Area(km )Quality

Subject ofevalution
Basic structure(OPLS/CSDF)
Landfill system(Centralized/Decentral

Population

Quality1)Ten development patterns can be evaluated and compared quantitatively by totaling point with given weights.
2)Inserting required data into "Basic data of the target area" (gray cell)3)Each quality will be calculated based on their conditions evaluated on standard values A(1.0), B(0.7), C(0.3) as shown inseparate table.
4)Each assessment will be calculated by Σ(assessment)=Σ(points)×(quality)

Direct cost reductionfactor

Indirect cost reduction factor

Points(weight)

Basic data of the target area
Name of theComparative evaluation of development patterns

Assessment

Table 4

Assessment

An explanation for Table4

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium(3) AN EVALUATION METHOD OF① A single facility is given higher marks for smallerareas and multiple facilities higher marks for larger

DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
To evaluate the development patterns, the evaluation
items were categorized into 7 evaluation criteria as

areas.

shown in Table 3. In addition, giving priority to these② Higher marks in the case are given for a single
facility with consideration of the economy andcriteria in consideration of regional characteristics

efficiency and multiple facilities with consideration

enhances reliability of the selection of an optimalofdevelopment pattern.

maintainability of environment is considered, themaintainabilityofenvironment.

(When

Each development pattern is marked by criteria andnumber of facilities is large . When economy andevaluation

efficiency are considered, the number of facilities is

items.

Development patterns

can beevaluated and compared quantitatively by totaling point

small.)

with given weights. (Table 4).

③ OPLS is given higher marks when construction
cost’s point is high.

(4) CASE STUDY OF AN OPTIMAL④ Evaluation of CSDF is given higher marks than half
the number of evaluation items. Therefore,

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SELECTION
FOR MODEL AREAS

development patterns which include CSDF have

Seventeen model areas have been selected andhigher marks.

surveyed on a comparative evaluation for a case studyof optimal development pattern selection. The modelThis case study is one of the examples and also it is aareas have been selected by referring to population,

method of evaluation for qualitative development

area size, as well as these areas’ multiple priorities

images. The evaluation items, criteria and points are(Table 5).

reflected by the opinions of participants and residents.

The comparative evaluation of development patternsItispossibletoselectdevelopment

patterns

as shown in Table 4 has been discussed in three cases

economically and for their maintainability at the areas.

where the ratio of the point of the direct cost reduction

It suggests extremely objective development patterns

factor (economy and efficiency) is approximately equalby practicing of the selection method. It is easy toto the indirect cost reduction factor (maintainability ofadvance an agreement form of construction promotion

environment, etc), and each ratio of these.

by evaluation items reflecting the opinions of residents
and practicing criteria.

Table 5

Selected model areas
2. THE LAND SELECTION METHOD FOR CSDF

are size(km2)area population(people)

up to
400
400
～
1,000
1,000
or moreIn

100,000～
200,000

200,000
or moreQ assoc.

Ｎ assoc.
Ｏ cityＰ assoc.

Ｍ cityＪ cityＫ cityＬ cityI assoc.

Ｈ assoc.

Ｆ assoc.
Ｇ assoc.

Ｅ cityＤ assoc.

Ｂ assoc.
Ｃ assoc.

A assoc.

summary,

up to
5,000

50,000～100,000──

theseproperties

forthe hypothesis of OPLS development. However, thefeatures of OPLS and CSDF are different, so in the caseof CSDF development, it has been considered that
evaluation items and point by the features are important.
Also five proposed sites have been selected in themodel areas. Five proposed sites have been practiced
for optimal evaluation by different type of landfills by

optimaldevelopment patterns in this case study are shown
below.

Conventional land selection has practiced by basis on

the evaluation items and point. It has considered theland futures by each type of landfill.

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium(1) The Landfill’s Land Selection Flow
A general land selection flow is shown in Figure 1.

Table 6

Conditions arrangement

Types

Examples of site leading conditions for
CSDF and OPLS

●arrangement of area conditions●determination of constrution policy●selection of landfill tipe(OPLS or CSDF)●arrangement of land selection conditions

Leading a site conditions① Transportation efficiency is highly areas from

OPLS

intermediate processing facilities and the source ofincidence.
① Transportation efficiency is highly areas fromintermediate processing facilities and the source ofMaking a negative map(restrictions sites map)
●make up based land
use regulations

Making a positive map(induction sites map)

incidence.
② Proximity to road areas with highly environmental●Optimal area by efficiency oftransportation, proximity to road andreturning benefits to the community.

preservation and good images of scenery.
③ Leading
CSDF

a

site

area

by

usefulcovering

equipment(landfill sites or precedence sites)
・ Proximity to urban district areas (indoor sports

Making an optimal area map

facilities, recycling facilities, emergency refuge●Integration of a negative map and a positive map

places, public lending warehouses)
・Farmland areas (warehouses of agriculture)

Selection of proposed sites

・Industry areas and near urban district areas ( material●Select serveral proposed sites as possible
to construct

Investigation proposed sites and comparative evalution●IntroductionＳＥＡ method●Objective evaluation by ＡＨＰ method●Evaluation items with local features

warehouses)

Table 7

Examples of evaluation items and points
for OPLS and CSDF
Evaluation items

Land selection

Figure 1

The Landfill’s Land Selection Flow

The leading site conditions for making positive map,
there are items shown in Table 6 on each type of

Efficiency

Economylandfill. The area of leading site for CSDF is larger thanand the points considered in OPLS and CSDF. Some of
the criteria and points are common between OPLS and
CSDF, some are different in importance and some show
some opposite results in their evaluation. Also, it

Naturalconditions

Table 7 shows the evaluation items of proposed sites

Socialconditions(2) Evaluation items and priorities

Sites
features
Environment conditions

OPLS.

should be noted that the evaluation shown is an

Ease of acquisition cover soil
Distance of access road
Construction costs
Infrastructure construction costs
Maintenance management costs
Efficiency of waste collection
services

Efficiency of landfill
Efficiency of ultimate land
Irrigation situation
Ground strength
Groundwater level
Seclusion from active fault
Ground stability
Land use situation
Deposit cultural assets
Residence distribution
Facilities distribution
Induction sites
Total

Basic structure(priorities)
OPLS
CSDF
3
2
5
4
2
2
15
15
10
10
35
5 35
5
5

5

3
3
8
2
2
14
5
5
4
2
2
32
19
5
100

2
3
8
4
4
18
5
5
2
2
1
30
20
5
100

14

13

example. A real case needs to be reviewed. CSDF
and OPLS are evaluated individually by theseevaluation tables.

(3) A case study of land selection at model areas
A case study was surveyed at model areas as shownin Figure 2.

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium①Population：70,000 people②Area：500km2③Population density：200 people/km2④Rainfall：1,500mm/year⑤Intermediate treatment plant: 1 facility⑥No existing landfill⑦Development pattern and
Evaluation points
CSDF 1 facility（76.00points）1st/10
OPLS 1 facility（59.00points）9th/10■: Intermediate processing plant●: School△: Library○: Hospital★: Sewage treatment plant□: Crematorium

Figure 2⑧Facility scale
Landfill capacity:50,000ｍ3
Landfill area
:10,000ｍ2

Model areas and conditions①②③④：Negative area
：Not Negative area

Figure 3

Negative area map⑤：Unsuitable area
：Suitable area

Figure5

Suitable areas map and five proposed site

Firstly, the land selection flow was followed as shownin Figure 1. A hypothesis of a negative map (Figure 3)
and a positive map (Figure 4) were compiled, then fiveproposed sites were selected (Figure 5).
(4) Results of proposed sites evaluation in model
areas
Table 8 shows results of evaluation for each
proposed site by comparative evaluation with various: Intermediate processing plant: Efficiency of transport (+A)
: Efficiency of transport (+B)
: Efficiency of transport (+C)
: Possible area of induction site

Figure 4

Positive area map

conditions of each proposed and selected site.
According to the results of the evaluation, proposedsite № ① ( proximity to intermediate processing
facilities)is the highest point in CSDF and № ⑤

APLAS Sapporo 2008, The 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill Symposium( although it is remote from urban districts,

it is

supposed to be leading a site by residents) is the highest
point in OPLS.

setting condition based on feature of CSDF enables toconstruct reliable CSDF at low cost.
In future, it will be needed to repeat further analysis
and case study for using these methods effectively.

Table 8
Ranking

Evaluation result of proposed sites
OPLS
Proposed
Pointssites №

1
2
3
4
5

⑤
④
③
②
①

82.6
81.1
81.0
79.2
79.1

CSDF
Proposed
Pointssites №
①
⑤
④
③
②

87.5
87.3
84.7
83.3
78.2

【ACKNOWLEDGMENTS】
This study is a part of the findings of a study by
Closed System Disposal Facilities in 2007. In this study
we have benefited immensely from the cooperation andsuggestions of the several people. We are grateful for
their help and include their names below.
▣ Kiyohisa Matsuoka(Chugai Technos Co.,Ltd.)▣ Kouichi Okazaki (Okumura Corporation)(5) Consideration of the result analysis
The features of evaluation of proposed sites for▣ Fusao Tanizawa (Taisei Corporation)

OPLS and CSDF in this case study are shown below.

▣ Takumi• A proposed site № ① (proximity to▣ Shuji Nakano (Pacific Consultants Co.,Ltd)intermediate

Tuji (Goyo Corporation)

processing facilities) for each OPLS and CSDF arecompletely made on opposite evaluations.
• The distance of transportation and road maintenance( infrastructure maintenance) have a great influence
on OPLS and CSDF.
• It is advantageous if there is a strong demand for alandfill from community residents.

REFERENCES
The Landfill Systems and Technologies Research
Association of Japan, NPO (1999) ： Landfill
Technologies Systems Handbook , pp67.
Japan Waste Management Association (2001)： A plan
and The design point of The Landfill , pp 46-48.

The three things above can be considered shown
below.
► For development of CSDF, it is expedient ofpracticing the land selection with consideration of
the development of CSDF.
► Whether the land fill type is OPLS or CSDF,
evaluation items and points should be considered with

Kokubo, H., Kotani, K., Katoh, T., et al. (2004)"A
Study on Cost Reduction of Closed System Disposal
Facilities",

ModernLandfill

Technology

andManagement, Proceedings of the 3rd Asian-PacificLandfill

Symposiumin

Kitakyushu

2004,

pp.361-368.

their features and properties of communities. These
considerations lead to the land selection.
► Adopting these methods, hereafter, it is possible toselect proposed sites which are able to develop at
low costs for safer and higher reliance in CSDF. Also

The Landfill Systems and Technologies Research
Association of Japan, NPO (2004)：Landfills in Japan(Revised

Edition),The

Journalof

WasteManagement.

it leads to cost reduction from a synthetic
perspective.

Kokubo, H., Kotani, K., Katoh, T., et al. (2005)"A
Study on Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Closed

CONCLUSIONS
We suggested a method to choose the best patternfrom ten development patterns at wide area. In themethod of land selection of CSDF, we considered that

System Disposal Facilities", Proceedings the 10th
International

Waste

Management

Symposium in Sardinia 2005.

andLandfill