Suitability of the vegetation types in Mexico's Tamaulipas state for the siting of hazardous waste treatment plants

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 13-24

  Cram, Silke ^a   Sommer, Irene ^a   Morales, Luis Miguel ^a   Oropeza, Oralia ^a   Carmona, Estela ^a   González Medrano, Francisco ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Land suitability; Multiple criteria techniques; Ranking of vegetation types

Indexed keywords

VEGETATION; WASTE TREATMENT;

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT; LAND SUITABILITY; ME-XICO; MULTIPLE CRITERIA; MULTIPLE-CRITERIA TECHNIQUE; RANKING OF VEGETATION TYPE; SPECIES RICHNESS; VEGETATION TYPE; WASTE TREATMENT PLANT;

HAZARDS;

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; HAZARDOUS WASTE; VEGETATION TYPE; WASTE FACILITY; WASTE TREATMENT;

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; HAZARDOUS WASTE; MEXICO; NONHUMAN; SITING; SPECIES ENDEMICITY; SPECIES RICHNESS; VEGETATION; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA]; NORTH AMERICA; TAMAULIPAS;

EID: 33747600440     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Aras H., Erdogmus S., and Koc E. Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renewable Enery: An International Journal 29 8 (2004) 1383-1393
2. Banai-Kashani R. A new method for site suitability analysis: the analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management 13 6 (1989) 685-693
3. Basnet B.B., Apan A.A., and Raine S.R. Selecting suitable sites for animal waste application using a raster GIS. Environmental Management 28 4 (2001) 519-531
4. Bojórquez-Tapia L.A., Juárez L., and Cruz-Bello G. Integrating fuzzy logic, optimization, and GIS for ecological impact assessments. Environmental Management 30 3 (2002) 418-433
5. Bowen M.M., Kontuly T., and Hepner F. Estimating maquiladora hazardous waste generation on the US/Mexico border. Environmental Management 19 2 (1995) 281-296
6. Brooks R.P., O'Connell T.J., Wardrop D.H., and Jackson E. Toward a regional index of biological integrity: the example of forested riparian ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51 (1998) 131-143
7. Chien-Chung H., and Hwong-Wen M. A multidimensional environmental evaluation of packaging materials. Science of the Total Environment 324 1-3 (2004) 161-173
8. Collins M.G., Steiner F.R., and Rushman M.J. Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: historical development and promising technological achievements. Environmental Management 28 6 (2001) 11-621
9. Dey P.K. An integrated assessment model for cross-country pipelines. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 6 (2002) 703-721
10. Duke J.M., and Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42 1/2 (2002) 131-146
11. Flores, O., Gerez, P., 1994. Biodiversidad y conservación en México: vertebrados, vegetación y uso del suelo. Ed. INIREB, México, 302 pp.
12. Gamini H. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management 70 3 (2004) 263-274
13. García E. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen, Instituto de Geografía (1988), UNAM, México
14. González-Medrano, F., 1993. Áreas protegidas de México. Reserva de la biósfera El Cielo, Tamaulipas. Report for the World Bank (Internal report).
15. Hernández S.L., González R.C., and González Y.F.M. Plantas útiles de Tamaulipas, México. Anales del Instituto de Biología. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Serie Botánica 62 1 (1991) 1-38
16. Hokey M. Location planning of airport facilities using an analytic hierarchy process. Logistics and Transportation Review 30 1 (1994) 79-95
17. INEGI, 1983. Síntesis geográfica del estado de Tamaulipas. SPP, México D.F., (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática) 158 pp.
18. Jahrsdoerfer S.E., and Leslie D.M. Tamaulipan shrubland of the lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: description, human impacts, and management options. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 36 (1988) 63
19. Johnston M.C. Past and present grasslands of southern Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecology 44 3 (1963) 456-466
20. Kazakidis V.N., Mayer Z., and Scoble J. Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process in mining engineering. Mining Technology: Transactions of the Institute of Mining & Metallurgy Section A 113 1 (2004) 30-43
21. Kovacs J.M., Malczewski J., and Flores-Verdugo F. Examining local ecological knowledge of hurricane impacts in a mangrove forest using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Coastal Research 20 3 (2004) 792-8001
22. Lahdelma R., Salminen P., and Hokkanen J. Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 26 6 (2000) 595-605
23. Li C.P., and Hui I.K. Environmental impact evaluation model for industrial processes. Environmental Management 27 5 (2001) 729-737
24. Malczewski J., and Moreno-Sanchez R. Multicriteria group decision-making model for environmental conflict analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 40 3 (1997) 349-375
25. Mardle S., Pascoe S., and Herrero I. Management objective importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Management 33 1 (2004) 1-11
26. Mendoza G.A., and Prabhu R. Development of a methodology for selecting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management: a case study on participatory assessment. Environmental Management 26 6 (2000) 659-673
27. Morrissey A.J., and Browne J. Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management 24 3 (2004) 297-309
28. Patil G.P., Brooks R.P., Myers W.L., Rapport D.J., and Taillie C.H. Ecosystem health and its measurement at landscape scale: towards the next generation of quantitative assessments. Ecosystem Health 7 4 (2001) 307-316
29. Pavlikakis G.E., and Tsihrintzis A. A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. Journal of Environmental Management 68 2 (2003) 193-207
30. Pineda_Henson R., Culaba A.B., and Mendoza A. Evaluating environmental performance of pulp and paper manufacturing using the analytic hierarchy process and life-cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6 1 (2002) 15-29
31. Purnendu B., and Ritwik C.H. Application of optimized multi-criteria decision-making in an environmental impact assessment study. Civil Engineering & Environmental Systems 20 1 (2003) 31-49
32. Randall P., Brown L., Deschaine L., Dimarzio J., Kaiser G., and Vierow J. Application of the analytic hierarchy process to compare alternatives for the long-term management of surplus mercury. Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2004) 35-43
33. Ramanathan R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63 (2001) 27-35
34. Rapport D.J., Gaudet C., Karr J.R., Baron J.S., Bohlen C., Jackson W., Jones B., Naiman R.J., Norton B., and Pollock M.M. Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical process. Journal of Environmental Management 53 (1998) 1-15
35. Rzedowski J. Vegetación de México (1978), Limusa, México 432 pp
36. Saaty R.W. The analytic hierarchy process - what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling 9 3-5 (1987) 161-176
37. Saaty T.L. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (1980), McGraw-Hill, New York 287 pp
38. Sadiq R., Husain T., Veitch B., and Bose N. Evaluation of generic types of drilling fluid using a risk-based analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management 32 6 (2003) 778-787
39. SARH-COTECOCA, 1972. Tipos de vegetación en el Estado de Tamaulipas con diferenciación de sitios de productividad forrajera. 1:1,000,000 scale. México. (Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos-Comisión Técnico Consultiva para la determinación de los Coeficientes de Agostadero).
40. SARH-COTECOCA, 1977. Situación actual de los recursos naturales renovables en el Estado de Tamaulipas. 1:500,000 scale. México. (Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos-Comisión Técnico Consultiva para la determinación de los Coeficientes de Agostadero).
41. SARH-Instituto de Geografía, 1995. Inventario nacional forestal. 1:250,000 scale. México. (Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos).
42. SEDESOL, 1994a. Gobierno del Estado de Tamaulipas. Diagnóstico ambiental y plan de acción del Estado de Tamaulipas 1995. Programa ambiental de la frontera norte fortalecimiento a la gestión ambiental. Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas. México. (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) 65 pp.
43. SEDESOL, 1994b. Gobierno del Estado de Tamaulipas, Reserva de la biósfera "El Cielo". Plan de manejo integral. México. (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) 120 pp.
44. SEDESOL, 1995. Gobierno del Estado de Tamaulipas, Propuesta para un sistema estatal de áreas naturales protegidas de Tamaulipas. Internal report. Depto. de Ecología, SEDESOL, Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico, s/p (without page numbering). (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social).
45. SEDESOL-INE, 1994. Bases para una política nacional de residuos peligrosos. México. (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social-Instituto Nacional de Ecología) 38 pp.
46. SEDUE, 1989. Información básica sobre las áreas naturales protegidas de México. Mexico. (Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología) 67 pp.
47. Siddiqui M.Z., Everett J.W., and Vieux E. Landfill siting using geographic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering 122 6 (1996) 515-524
48. Smith-Korfmacher K. The politics of participation in watershed modeling. Environmental Mangement 27 2 (2001) 161-176
49. Sólones J. Environmental quality indexing of large development alternatives using AHP. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 3 (2003) 283-303
50. Spires E.E. Using the analytic hierarchy process to analyze multiattribute decisions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 26 2 (1991) 345-362
51. Tran L.T., Knight C.G., O'Neill R.V., Smith E.R., Ritters K.H., and Wickham J. Fuzzy decision analysis for integrated environmental vulnerability assessment of the Mid-Atlantic region. Environmental Management 29 6 (2002) 845-859
52. Tseng C.H., Chen S.H., Huang C.H., and Liu C.H. GIS-assisted site selection for artificial reefs. Fisheries Science 67 6 (2001) 1015-1023
53. USEPA, 2002. www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/pdf/tdEco5-1.pdf.
54. Wang K., Wang C.K., and Chun H.U. Analytic hierarchy process with fuzzy scoring in evaluating multidisciplinary R&D projects in China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52 1 (2005) 119-130
55. World Bank, 1977. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org.
56. Worldwildlife, 2005. http://worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/lac./regionalanalysis/regional .htmlhttp://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/global2000/ pages/method.html.
57. Yedla S., and Shrestha R.M. Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transportation Research: Part A 37 8 (2003) 717-730
58. Zhu X., and Dale A.P. Identifying opportunities for decision support systems in support of regional resource use planning: an approach through soft systems methodology. Environmental Management 26 4 (2000) 371-384