Meksika’ nın Yucatan Şehrinde Tehlikeli Atık Arıtma Tesisleri ve Düzenli Depolama Sahasında Bertaraf Konumlandırılması

7/31/2019 Meksika’ nın Yucatan Şehrinde Tehlikeli Atık Arıtma Tesisleri ve Düzenli Depolama Sahasında Bertaraf Konumlandırı…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/meksika-nin-yucatan-sehrinde-tehlikeli-atik-aritma-tesisleri-ve-duezenli 1/13

Springer

Environ Earth Sci (2011) 63:351-362 DOI

10.1007/S12665-010-0706-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE,

M. R. Sauri-Riancho • D. D. Cabanas-Vargas • M.

Echeverría-Victoria * M. Gamboa-Marrufo -R. Centeno-

Lara • R. I. Méndez-Novelo

Received: 23 November 2009/Accepted: 12 August 2010/Published online: 29 August 2010 ©

Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract In this work, geographic information systems (GIS) and

multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were used in order toidentify the appropriate location for hazardous waste (HW)

treatment facilities and final disposal sites in the State of Yucatan,

Mexico. For HW-treatment facilities, in addition to the distance to

generators and treatment facilities, geographic conditions of the

site, such as vegetation, soil type, accessibility, distance to urban

or rural communities, and all the boundary elements as

agricultural or livestock areas, were considered in GIS and

MCDA. Final disposal was taken into account only for those HW

that could not be avoided or treated. In order to find the most

suitable areas, the Mexican Official Norm NOM-055-

SEMARNAT-2003 criteria were observed too. It was found that

the most suitable zones for HW-treatment facilities were at thecentre of the State, whereas the most recommended areas for HW

final disposal sites were at the south.

Keywords Hazardous waste • Waste treatment • Waste disposal

■ Geographic information systems ■ Multi-criteria decision

analysis

Introduction

During the last 50 years, rapid technological and economic

growth has changed human way of life and made modern society

face complex decision-making problems. Among these, waste

generation increase and its composition changes can be identified,

so appropriate waste management represents a challenge to all

modern societies.

M. R. Sauri-Riancho (El) ■ D. D. Cabanas-Vargas ■

M. Echeverría-Victoria ■ M. Gamboa-Marrufo ■

R. Centeno-Lara ■ R. I. Méndez-Novelo

Faculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Yucatan,

Av. Industrias No-Contaminantes x Periférico Norte,

Tablaje Catastral 12685, CP. 97111 Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico

e-mail: [email protected]

One of the most important issues related to waste management

is the appropriate location of treatment facilities and disposalsites. These tasks require processing significant amounts of

spatial information, including environmental, social, economic

and engineering data. Collecting and analyzing these spatial data

is time consuming and tedious. Thus, a computerized geographic

information system (GIS) has being used in recent years in order

to facilitate sitting-related tasks (Wei-Yea and Jehng-Jung 2002).

The term GIS can be defined as a technology of handling

geographic information formed by electronic equipment

(hardware) suitably programmed (software) which allow to

handle a series of spatial data (geographic information) and to

make complex analysis with these data (Ortiz 2003).

The GIS possibilities are not limited to the management of related data bases and the study of the phenomena with spatial

incidence; in addition, it is a powerful work tool specially

designed to simulate future situations, therefore, facilitating

decision making (Rodriguez 2000). Environmental data bases

usually contain a great diversity of data, most of which are

explicitly or implicitly spatially located. Consequently, the

capture of environmental data, analysis, handling and

presentation, are eased by the application of a GIS. Moreover,

environmental problems solutions imply the integration of

different sets of data which are usually large. The size and

complexity of these data bases need the application of the GIS

technology (Longley et al. 1991).

GISs have been used in many studies in the initial screening

process in order to identify suitable potential sites for new waste

management facilities through a process of "sieve mapping".

Such studies have included models that incorporate

environmental, engineering, planning and economic criteria

which include various sitting constraints such as soil or geological

type, distance from roads or urban areas, noise/nuisance,

topography, hydrology and land use, etc. using GIS-based overlay

techniques. Higgs (2006) gives as examples, amongst others,

studies carried out since 1980s (Lane and McDonald 1983; Jensen

and Christensen 1986) up to date. Likewise, with the development

of "new ways of spatial data visualization", analytic tools, which

include models of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), have

arisen.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Environ Earth Sei (2011) 63:351-362

£l Springer

2

MCDA is a group of systematic processes that analyze and

solve problems which involve complex decisions. Its purpose is to

assist with decision-making processes and its main objective

consists on searching a number of alternative solutions under

multiple criteria and conflict objectives (Pozzobon and Gutiérrez

2003). This type of analysis is characterized by the integration o f

diverse variables which all together influence the solution of the

problem (Sener et al. 2006). MCDA consists of a series of

techniques that allow a range of criteria relating to a particular

issue to be scored, weighted and then ranked by a group of experts

(Higgs 2006).

Amongst the MCDA techniques, the Simple Additive

Weighting (SAW) method is probably the best known and most

widely used. The possibility of an index formulation of a system,

when the decision maker does not have a thorough understanding

of the functional relationships among its components, is presented

by this method. A score in the SAW method is obtained by adding

contributions from each attribute. Since two items with different

measurement units cannot be added, a common numerical scaling

system such as normalization is required to permit addition among

attribute values. The total score for each alternative then can becomputed by multiplying the comparable rating for each attribute

by the importance weight assigned to the attribute and then

summing these products over all the attributes (Yoon and Hwang

1995).

Hazardous wastes management in Mexico

Mexican legislation classifies wastes in urban solid wastes,

special wastes, and hazardous wastes (HW). HW are defined as

"those wastes which pose some corrosive, reactive, explosive,

toxic or inflammable characteristics, as well as those withinfectious agents which confer them dangerousness; bottles,

containers, packaging and soils which have been contaminated

when transferred to a different site, according with what it is

established in this Law" (LGPIR 2003). For practical purposes,

the NOM-052-SEMARNAT-2005 establishes the hazardous

wastes characteristics, their identification process, classification,

and gives different lists of HW. Hazardous wastes generation is

traditionally related to the industrial development of a country or

its geographical zone. The Mexican Norm NOM-055-

SEMARNAT-2003 establishes all the requirements which have to

be fulfilled by the HW-disposal sites (excepting radioactive

wastes).According to the Mexican Environmental and Natural

Resources Secretariat, SEMARNAT, in 2000, there were 27,280

industries which were officially registered in Mexico as HW

generators (SEMARNAT 2002); it was estimated that the whole

country generated a total of 3,705,846.21 tons per year of these

wastes. Likewise, the existing infrastructure for the HW

management has been developed in the country during the last 30

years. In 2006, there were 13 authorized companies for reusing

HW: 11 for solvents, 1 for hydrocarbons sludge and 1 for used oil

and lubricants. Also in that year, 75 companies had authorization

to recycle dirty drums, 73 to recycle dirty solvents, 14 for

photographic fixative liquids, 94 for used lubricants, 39 formetals, and 12 for other types of residues. On the other hand, in

2007, 105 companies had the authorization to gather HW and 19

companies to gather biological-infectious hazardous wastes

(BIHW). In that year, 24 companies had the authorization of

SEMARNAT for treating oils and materials contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 56 companies for "in situ"

treatment of industrial HW, and 75 for BIHW (52 "in situ" and 23

"ex situ"). For HW disposal, only five companies were authorized

(SEMARNAT 2006, 2008a).

The State-of-Yucatan local conditionsand HW management

The State of Yucatan is not an industrial zone of Mexico. Up to

December 31, 2007, there were 1,603 industries officially

registered as HW generators. During the year 2004, 940,908 L

and 4,278,020 kg of HW were generated. Nevertheless, the

National Register of Emissions and Contaminants Transference

(RETC) only reported 19 industries in Yucatan during 2005

(SEMARNAT 2008a); these industries only represent part of the

industrial sector of the State. In 2006, 3,039 companies were

identified as potential sources of HW, but it was not possible to

classify and quantify the HW produced (Cabanas-Vargas 2009).

Nevertheless, according to the list of potential HW generators

(Cabanas-Vargas 2009) and previous studies (Mejia et al. 2002),

it was assumed that most common HW in Yucatan were BIHW,

used oils, solid wastes impregnated with hydrocarbons (cleaning

cloths, tows, burlaps, filters, etc.), some chemicals like

photographic-developing and



Environ Earth Sci (2011) 63:351-362

Springer

3

photographic-fixative liquids, empty containers which formerly

contained chemicals or paintings, and old car batteries.

Nowadays, BIHW and used oil are treated in appropriate facilities

and the old car batteries are taken to other parts of Mexico to be

recycled. It seems that other types of HW generated are being

disposed without any control.

The infrastructure for HW management in the State of Yucatan

is not enough; in 2007, 12 companies had the official

authorization for collecting and transporting HW, but 3 were not

operating. There was only one HW-treating facility which was for

treating BIHW (SEMARNAT 2008b). There was also a cement

factory which received used oil in order to use it as alternative

fuel. The companies which are officially registered as other HW

generators (different from BIHW and used oils) have to send their

HW to the north part of Mexico in order to be disposed , making

its disposal highly expensive.

Taking into account the list of potential HW generators

obtained in 2006, and although HW quantities and characteristics

are not fully known, treatment facilities could apply some of the

following technologies; thermal treatment (with heat recovery) for

solid wastes impregnated with hydrocarbons; activated carbonadsorption or ionic exchange for liquid HW, depending if the

residual liquids content is organic or inorganic; and/or

stabilization-solidification treatment for the residuals of previous

treatments. This way, only those HW that could not be treated

with these technologies would have to be sent to other parts of the

country. The entire infrastructure for treating and disposing HW

is located at the centre and north part of Mexico, and given that

the geographical location of Yucatan makes transportation costs

very high, this work is the first attempt to find areas within the

State of Yucatan in order to install HW-treatment facilities and

one HW confinement site.

Problems caused by an inadequate HW management areparticularly important in the State of Yucatan due to its geology .

The Yucatan peninsula is a large limestone platform and forms

the northern part of the Gulf Coastal Plain Province of Mexico

(Escolero et al. 2000). It is classified as a Karstic region

characterized by an almost flat platform, mainly made of

limestone which is very permeable. The high permeability of

karstic terrains results in many practical problems including,

according to Escolero et al. (2002): scarcity and poor

predictability of ground water supplies; instability of the ground

(due to the presence of sinkholes); ,and an unreliable waste

disposal environment.

In this work , results from the application of GIS an MCDA to

find appropriate areas for HW-treating facilities and disposal sites

in the State of Yucatan, Mexico are presented. Nevertheless, due

to the natural hydrogeologic conditions, strict engineering actions

are required in order to isolate HW in the final disposal site,

which is only considered for those HW that can not be avoided,

minimized, recycled or treated.

Methodology

The first part of this work was to identify the main technical,

socioeconomic and environmental criteria which can influence

the location and operation of the HW-treatment facilities and

HW-disposal sites. All related geographical information of the

State of Yucatan was compiled in order to be incorporated to the

GIS and to the MCDA: maps, locations of communities, roads,

vegetation and soil types, and availability of electricity, drinking

water, and others.

Fig. 1 Main communities in the

State of Yucatan, Mexico




Springer

4

Table 1 Minimum conditions that have to be met by a HW-disposal site

(Nom-055-Semarnat-2003)

Table 1 continued

Buffer zone from stabilized HW-

disposal cells (within the HW-

disposal site land)

Protected natural areas

Minimum distance from the HW-disposal site closest point to the

highways and principal roads rights of way

(including buffer zone)

Minimum distance from the HW-

disposal site closest point to the railway

right of way


disposal site closest point to the power

lines right of way, excepting those used in

the HW-disposal site


disposal site closest point to gas pipes,

pipelines and ductworks rights of way

Minimum distance from the HW-disposal site closest point to the

communication nets (telephone, telegraph,

etc.) rights of way excepting those used in

the HW-disposal site


disposal site closest point to aqueducts and

water channels rights of way

Minimum distance from the HW-disposal

site closest point to communities with

more than 1,000 inhabitants

Minimum distance measured from the

closest point of the perimeter of the HW-

disposal site, including its buffer zones, to:

airports, wharfs, ground transport stations,hospitals, prisons, social readaptation

centres, schools, temples, wells or water

supply areas, or historic and/or cultural

patrimony buildings

Minimum distance measured 2,000 m

from the closest point of the perimeter of

the HW-disposal site, including its buffer

zones, to the closest point of-the perimeter

of the facilities where highly risky

activities are performed

Climatic and hydrologic aspects

Floodable zones with a return

period of 100 years or greater Restricted

Swamps, marshs and wetlands Restricted

Minimum distance from 1,000 m

superficial water bodies with

continuous flow, measured from

the site perimeter closest pointincluding its buffer zone, to the

closest maximum extraordinary

water level point

Geologic aspects

Geologic fractures

If the area is close to a geologic

fracture, it has to be

demonstrated with quantitative

studies that the site is safe within

the geologic, hydrologic and the

slopes stability point of view

Zones with unstable slopes, like Restricted

those with decompressed hillsides

and slider soils due to static or dynamic movements

Zones where differential Restricted

settlements which could cause

geologic, soil and/or structural

fractures

Hydrologic aspects

Areas with fractured or A natural stratum or lithological

granulated soil unit with a 10 m-thickness and

permeability coefficient of . k = 1

x 10"9 m/s (or equivalent) is

required. In the case where the

permeability is not met in natural

conditions, engineering solutions to

achieve equivalent conditions could

be used Technologies applications and equivalent systems

Competent authority has to approve engineering actions or works

guaranteeing that its effects meet all the geologic and hydrologic

requirements

In order to address the best areas to locate the HW-treatment

facilities and HW-disposal sites, the GIS (by means of ArcView

3.3) and the MCDA (with the SAW method) were used. In this

case, in addition to the distances between the potential sources of

HW and treatment facilities criterion, the geographical conditions

of the area, vegetation, soil type, accessibility, distance to urban

and/or rural communities, and all the limiting criteria like

agriculture or livestock zones were taken into account when GIS

and MCDA were applied.

100 m

100 m

500 m

100 m

500 m

100 m measured from the

confined cells limit

Restricted for HW-disposal

sites location

100 m

5,000 m (established by the

General Law for Waste

Prevention and Integral

Management and its

corresponding code)

1,000 m




Ö Springer

5

Topographic charts from the National Institute of Statistics and

Geography (INEGI) were used in this work. These charts aie

maps showing different criteria for locating HW disposal and

treatment facilities in the state, such as the location of the main

communities, which is presented in Fig. 1. The geographic

information charts from INEGI were fed to the GIS at scales

1:50,000 or 1:25,000. To do this, the following criteria were

considered. Location of main roads, power lines, urban

communities, diverse constructions, water bodies, aqueducts and

channels, natural conservation areas, inundation zones, airports,

archaeological zones, wells, "cenotes" (groundwater wells) and

waterwheels (used for water supply), hydrocarbons conduction

lines (Mexican Petroleum National Company, PEMEX lines). In

addition, a map obtained from the Water National Commission

(CNA) showing the water table depth, was also fed to the GIS.

In order to determine the more appropriate areas for the HW-

disposal site locations, the Official Mexican Norm NOM-055-

SEMARNAT-2003, was used. All the suggestions given in this

norm were taken into account and areas where the norm prohibits

its disposal were identified as unsuitable areas. Those restrictions

are given in Table 1, and Fig. 2 illustrates the ones considered forthe State of Yucatan. As Mexican legislation does not include

recommendations for HW-treatment facilities location, the same

norm recommendations were employed with the exception of the

minimum distances to communities, airports and archaeological

zones.

An important geological aspect considered by this norm

requests a stratum or lithological unit with a 10 m-thickness and

permeability coefficient of k — 1 x 10~9 m/s and it also advices

that in the case where the permeability is not met in natural

conditions, engineering solutions to achieve equivalent conditions

could be used. Due to the soil karstic conditions in Yucatan, its

permeability is very high; therefore, an engineering solution has

to be applied to it in order to locate there a HW-disposal site.

The identification of the most suitable areas for locating both,

HW-treating facilities and HW-disposal sites, was performed

using the distances to all the criteria previously mentioned and an

MCDA, using the SAW method. The latter is one of the most

used methods for decision making when various criteria are

involved; some examples can be found in Sener et al. (2006) and

Yang et al. (2008). All the analysis and geographical data

manipulation was performed using the ArcView GIS 3.3 software.

Maps were elaborated with the distances to each of the

criterion; in these maps a longer distance represents a better

location for a HW-treatment facility or a HW-disposal site. Figure

3 shows the map obtained with distances to communities. In this

map, the darker areas are further from the communities,

representing a better location for HW-treatment facilities or HW-

disposal sites; but only regarding this criterion.

In order to obtain appropriate areas that include all criteria,maps for each one had to be elaborated. Maximum distances to

each criterion will vary from map to map depending on the one

considered; this means that, in some maps there will be lots of

dark areas while in others they will be scarce. Distances have to

be normalized in order to



^ Springer

communities distances to communities

meters

transform them into units which

could be compared the less suitable area and 1 represents the longest distancebetween maps regarding different

criteria. In this study, all and hence, a more suitable area. Figure 4 shows the map

the distances were reduced to a

range between 0 and 1, with the normalized distance to communities; this figure

where 0 represents the smaller

distance and consequently corresponds to information in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4 Normalized distances to commumites N



Environ Earth Sei (2011) 63:351-362

^ Springer

7

There are two exceptions when considering the normalized

units i.e., roads and power lines. In these cases, it is better to

locate the HW-treatment facility or the HW-disposal site closer to

these elements, due to economic reasons. Therefore, in those

cases a score of 0 represents a longer distance and hence, a less

suitable area, and 1 represents a smaller distance and, therefore, a

more suitable area. Figure 5 shows the normalized distances to

roads. Strong dark areas (corresponding to 1) represent placeswhere roads are closer, being these the more suitable zones.

All elements were grouped into three categories: envi-

ronmental, economics and social; each of these categories was

assigned a weighting factor (these 3 weighting factors added 1).

According to the SAW methodology, in addition to the maps

showing the distances to each criterion, a weighting factor was

assigned to each criterion representing its relative importance

when compared to the others within the category (factors in each

category added 1). This procedure allows the establishment of

different scenarios depending on the weighting factor (how

important) given to a criterion and its category regarding another

one; for instance, the case when the economic criteria are consid-ered more relevant than environmental or social ones. Table 2

shows the weighting factors given to each criterion and category

used for locating both HW-treatment facilities and HW-disposal

sites.

Maps were made taking into account the weighting factors of

each criterion multiplying the normalized distances by the

Table 2 Weighting factors used

for criteria and environmental,

social and economic categories

Aspect/element Weight

HW-treatment HW-disposal

facilities sites

Environmental 0.3 0.2

Water bodies 0.1 0,1Channels and aqueducts 0.1 0.1

Natural conservation areas 0 0.05

Inundation zones 0.2 0.2

Wells, waterwheels and cenotes 0.4 0.3

Hydrocarbons conduction lines 0 0.05

Groundwater depth 0.2 0.2Social 0.3 0.3

Topluluklar 0.6 0.7

Çeşitli yapılar 0.2 0.15Havaalanları 0 0.05

Arkeolojiz zones 0.2 0.1

Economical 0.4 0.5Roads 0.5 0.7

Power lines 0.5 0.3

corresponding criterion-weighting factor given in Table 2. These

maps were grouped by category. The procedure to come up with a

category-map consisted in overlapping the individual criterion-

weighted maps corresponding to a

Fig. 5 Normalized distances to the

closest road




category by adding the values corresponding to each area of the

map. As it was done with criterion maps, category maps were

produced taking into account the category-weighting factops

following the same procedure. Finally, the three category-

weighted maps were also overlapped to obtain the map with the

final scores for locating areas for HW-treatment facilities and

HW-disposal sites.

Results and discussion £

Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 show the resulting maps for the

three categories weighted maps: environmental, economical and

social, for locating HW-treatment facilities (Figs. 6, 8, 10) and

HW-disposal sites (Figs. 7, 9, 11). For the environmental-

weighted maps category,




Fig. 6 Environmental category-

weighted map for HW-treatment

facilities location




£l Springer

10

Fig. 6 and 7 differ significantly; Fig. 7 shows that there are more

sites which are restricted (represented by white areas) for locating

HW-disposal sites, according to the NOM-055-SEMARNAT-

2003,, than those taken into account for the HW-treatment

facilities location (Fig. 6). Within this category,; water, depth

was one of the most important elements and, .therefore, the best

suitable areas (shown in dark colours) for both HW-treatment

facilities and HW-disposal sites are those located at the south part

of the state, where the water table is deeper.

More differences can be observed between Figs. 8 and 9, for

the economic-weighted maps category; there are also fewer

suitable sites for HW-disposal sites than those for

Fig. 8 Economical category-

weighted map for HW-treatment

facilities location

Fig. 9 Economical category-

weighted map for HW-disposal

sites location

Restricted

0.111 - 0.221

0.221 - 0.332

mm0.332 - 0.442

0.442 - 0.553




Springer

11

HW-treatment facilities. This is due to the fact that, as it was

mentioned before, closer areas to communities, roads and power

lines were considered better for HW-treatment facilities location

whereas for HW-disposal sites, there are restrictions regarding

these elements. According to the economic-weighted maps

category, the best areas are not at the south part of the State due

to the distance from the HW generation centres.

Figures 10 and 11 show the resulting weighted maps for the

social category. Although there are also more restricted zones for

HW-disposal sites, two distinguishable larger suitable zones

(shown in dark colours) can be observed in both figures: one at

the north east of the State, and the other at the south.

Figure 12 illustrates the final map resulting from overlapping

the three weighted category maps showing the suitable areas for

locating HW-treatment facilities. It can be observed that there are

many appropriate areas for

FlW-treatment facilities, considering as the most suitable ones

those located at the central part of the State, due to their

proximity to the generation centres.

Figure 13 shows the final resulting map for HW-disposal sites

location. The most suitable areas for HW-disposal sites are those

located at the south part of the State, far from the

Fig; 10 Social category-weighted

map for HW-treatment facilities

location




£l Springer

12

I 1 Restricted □□0.08-0.1

B1 SI C. I 81 - 0.241

0.241 - 0.321 0.321 - 0.402

■I 0.402 - 0.482 ^■0.482-

0.562 ■■0.562- 0.642 H

0.642- 0.723

main communities, in order to avoid the potential risks to the

population.

It has to be emphasized that the results obtained in this work

are only the first attempt to find the best locations for HW-

treatment facilities and disposal, sites in Yucatan. A detailed study

has to be performed in order to choose the specific locations

within the available land in the selected zones. Also, due to theaquifer high vulnerability, the engineered solutions for HW-

disposal sites must be strict and carefully evaluated in order to

protect this valuable resource. HW-disposal sites must be used

only for stabilized HW which cannot be avoided. Finally, the

installation of new industries that could generate unavoidable HW

must be carefully evaluated and regulated according to the HW

disposal and treatment locations chosen in the state.

Acknowledgments This study was part of the research project: "Diagnosis

of hazardous waste in the entity" which was sponsored by FOMIX-

a

Fig. 12 Final map for HW-

treatment facilities location

Fig. 13 Final map for HW-

disposal sites location




4̂ Springer

13

Government of the State of Yucatan — CONACYT, with reference code

YUC-2005-04-21281.

References

Cabanas-Vargas DD (2009) Technical Report: Diagnóstico de los residuos

peligrosos en la entidad. Sponsored by Fondos Mixtos CONACYT-

Gobierno dei Estado de Yucatán, Project Code: YUC-2005-04-21281

Chen W-Y, Kao J-J (2002) A fuzzy Markov approach for assessinggroundwater pollution potential for landfill sitting. Waste Manage

Res 20:187-197

Escolero OA, Marin LE, Steinich B, Pacheco AJ (2000) Delimitation of a

hydrogeological reserve for a city within a karstic aquifer: the

Merida, Yucatan example. Landsc Urban Plan 51:53-62

Escolero OA, Marin LE, Steinich B, Pacheco AJ, Cabrera SA, Alcocer J

(2002) Development of a protection strategy of karst limestone

aquifers: the Merida Yucatan, Mexico case study. Water Resour

Manage 16:351-367

Higgs G (2006) Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical

information systems in waste facility location to enhance public

participation. Waste Manag Res 24:105-117

Jensen JR, Christensen EJ (1986) Solid and hazardous waste disposal site

selection using digital geographic information system technologies.

Sci Total Environ 56:265-276

Lane WN, McDonald RR (1983) Land suitability analysis: landfill siting. J

Urban Plan Dev 109:50-61

Ley General para la Prevención y Gestión Integral de Residuos (LGPGIR)

(2003) Diario Oficial de la Federación, 8 October 2003

Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (1991) Geographic

information systems and science. Wiley, EE. UU.

http://www.wiley.com/Iegacy/wileychi/gis/volumes.html. Accessed

June 2007

Mejía SGM, Sauri RMR, Arias ED (2002) Manejo de los residuos

peligrosos en Yucatán. Memorias del XIII Congreso Nacional 2002

de la FEMISCA, Guanajuato, Gto., México, during 17-20 April 2002

Ortiz G (2003) Qué son los Sistemas de Información Geográfica. Tipos de

SIG y modelos de datos. Un artículo introductorio para entender las bases

de los SIG. http://recursos.gabrieiortiz.com/.Accessed Nov 2005 Pozzobon

E, Gutiérrez J (2003) Utilización de un. sistema de información Geográfica

para la selección y priorización de áreas a reforestar en .los alrededores de

la ciudad de Mérida, Venezuela. Rev For Venez 47(2):61-72 Rodríguez

Jaume MJ (2000) Modelos sociodemográficos: Atlas Social de la Ciudad

de Alicante. Tesis de Doctorado, Universidad de Alicante, Spain Secretaría

del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) (2002)

Empresas que manifiestan la generación de residuos peligrosos y volumen

de residuos generados 1999-2000. Subsecretaría de Gestión para laProtección Ambiental, Dirección General de Contaminantes, México 2002.

http://appl.semarnat.gob.

mx/dgeia/estadisticas_2000/estadisticas_ambientales_2000/03_

Dimension,. Ambiental/03_06_Residuos/III.6.2/CuadroIII.6.2.1. pdf.

Accessed 5 Oct 2009 Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

(SEMARNAT) (2006) Sistema Nacional de Información Ambiental y de

Recursos Naturales. Compendio de Estadísticas Nacionales 2006.

http://www.semamat.gob.mx.Accessed Feb 2007 Secretaría del Medio

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) (2008a)

http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/gestionambiental/

calidaddelaire/Pages/retc.aspx;http://appl.semarnat.gob.mx/retc/

retc/consulta.php?enfe=31&anio=:2005&tipb=0. Accessed 18 Jan 2009

Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT)

(2008b) Dirección General de Gestión Integral de Materiales y

Actividades Riesgosas, Delegación Federal en el Estado de Yucatán.Data obtained through the IFAI (Instituto Federal de Acceso a la

Información). Accessed 9 June 2008

Sener B, Süzen ML, Doyuran V (2006) Landfill site selection by using

geographic information systems. Environ Geol 49: 376-388

Yang K, Zhou X-N, Yan W-A, Hang D-R, Steinmann P (2008) Landfills in

Jiangsu province, China, and potential threats for public health:

leachate appraisal and spatial analysis using geographic information

system and remote sensing. Waste Manage 28:2750-2757

Yoon KP, Hwang C-L (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an

introduction. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative

Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-104. Sage, Thousand Oaks

http://www.wiley.com/Iegacy/wileychi/gis/volumes.html

http://recursos.gabrieiortiz.com/

http://appl.semarnat.gob/

http://www.semamat.gob.mx/


http://appl.semarnat.gob.mx/retc/

http://appl.semarnat.gob.mx/retc/


http://www.semamat.gob.mx/

http://appl.semarnat.gob/

http://recursos.gabrieiortiz.com/

http://www.wiley.com/Iegacy/wileychi/gis/volumes.html

Documents

Meksika’ nın Yucatan Şehrinde Tehlikeli Atık Arıtma Tesisleri ve Düzenli Depolama Sahasında Bertaraf Konumlandırılması