Siting of Obnoxious Facilities in the City of Austin

1
Siting of Obnoxious Facilities in the City of
Austin

• Jayanthi Rajamani
• Fall 2002
• University of Texas at Austin

2
Project Objectives

• Identify a decision problem where a GIS-based
  decision support system may be useful
• Use GIS operations to transform raw data into
  meaningful information
• Design and implement a multi-criterion decision
  analysis scheme

3
Objectives (contd.)
4
Decision Problem

• Locating/siting an incinerator facility
• A municipal waste incinerator must be built in
  the city of Austin, composed of several areas.
• Objectives and Constraints
• Dimensions
• Location subject to minimum operating cost
• Minimum nuisance due to transportation and air
  pollution

5
Why GIS?

• Locate several possible sites
• Study the population distribution pattern
• Analyze noise nuisance by informing us of
  proximity of roads with residential areas

6
Background

• Municipal Solid waste is non-toxic waste
  generated by households, commercial
  establishments, etc.
• - food and yard wastes
• - durable and nondurable
• - packaging material

Waste
Medical
Municipal
Hazardous
7
Maps! Maps! Maps!


Austin Zipcodes
Land Use
Public Parcels



Industrial
Parks and Facilities
Housing
8
Street Network
9
ArcGIS Steps
10
Buffer Analysis
11
Buffer Analysis (contd.)
12
The Optimization Problem
Cij unit transportation cost from zip code i to
incinerator site j xij tonnage of waste
transported from zip code i to site j Fj
investment cost for site j yj 0 if site j is
not selected 1 if site j is
selected vi waste generated by zip code i ?j
plant capacity at site j ej population exposed
to transportation nuisance at site j E global
nuisance indicator
13
Simplifying the Problem
14
The Transportation Matrix
The Cost matrix The Cost matrix The Cost matrix The Cost matrix The Cost matrix
ZIPCODE F7349 F9692 F28500 F35764
78610 54.59 81.53 30.07 15.18
78613 2.59 28.75 18.71 29.20
78617 61.63 76.88 25.42 23.66
78652 24.37 42.42 20.72 30.21
78701 36.69 53.04 6.28 19.65
78702 39.87 55.25 4.61 16.65
78703 33.63 49.75 8.72 23.84
78704 35.89 57.08 11.45 17.31
78705 37.73 50.41 5.16 21.95
78717 18.00 32.02 20.77 30.60
78719 51.22 72.51 21.05 6.19
78721 43.67 55.56 3.95 17.51
78722 40.59 51.51 2.34 19.73
78723 43.80 50.88 3.11 21.63
78724 30.13 57.51 6.30 27.03
78725 57.42 68.60 21.18 19.94
78726 31.78 41.95 19.44 32.67
78727 39.41 36.39 21.79 39.39
78728 23.26 41.20 13.55 26.03
78729 35.55 32.54 27.14 44.74
78730 17.05 21.22 22.28 39.89
78731 32.63 42.02 12.31 29.92
78732 16.27 32.06 32.88 50.49
78733 20.50 28.91 13.68 36.20
78734 4.75 39.03 39.85 51.14
78735 23.08 30.80 13.87 28.80
78736 24.02 32.74 24.89 54.84
78737 29.63 34.90 37.59 40.71
78738 15.76 27.13 20.89 48.21
78739 32.07 37.12 29.86 31.06
78741 42.21 59.99 9.38 12.75
78742 47.77 62.07 10.61 14.38
78744 47.61 70.24 18.78 6.57
78745 33.75 62.51 17.96 17.73
78746 28.61 52.11 15.16 27.59
78747 47.59 75.22 26.44 12.16
78748 38.71 45.69 13.71 21.17
78749 28.61 12.72 23.09 24.43
78750 18.51 30.52 16.96 27.22
78751 39.98 48.99 4.94 22.55
78752 24.92 45.99 7.33 24.95
78753 43.59 43.88 14.29 31.92
78754 48.48 49.97 11.71 28.59
78756 36.80 45.96 7.69 25.30
78757 36.40 42.24 10.91 28.52
78758 39.29 39.82 15.67 33.27
78759 20.69 34.96 19.83 37.44
15
Optimizing in Solver
16
Results
Nuisance and Cost are conflicting criteria We
have computed trade-offs between the two criteria
to find efficient compromise solutions
17
Results (contd.)

• As the Nuisance Index reduces, the cost of
  installation and transportation of waste rises
• As the Nuisance Index is decreased, the number of
  plants to be installed increases to better
  distribute the traffic in sensitive areas

18
Limitations

• Neglected criteria
• Proximity to airports, floodplains, active
  geologic faults
• Depth to groundwater
• Possible impacts on wildlife
• Political and Social Acceptance

19
Future Work
Investment
Economy
Transportation
Site Selection
NOX Exposure
Environment
Transportation Nuisance
Social Acceptance
Neighborhood