Comprehensive solid waste dumpsite selection in arid cities of Northeastern Ethiopia: A spatial-MCDA approach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location map of the study area

Table 1. MCDA parameters of solid waste disposal site selection

Criteria	Contextually stated suitability ranks						Literature
	Weight (%)	Highly Suitable	Suitable	Moderately Suitable	Less Suitable	Not Suitable
Socioeconomic criterions
Distance from settlement ^a	9.88	>3000	2000–3000	1000–2000	500–1000	<500	(Ali 2016; Ambaneh 2016; Hailu, Hanchiso, and Bereta 2019; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012; Sharifi and Retsios 2004)
Access to road (intermediate) ^a	6.75	1000–1500	1500–2000	2000–3000	>3000	0–1000	(Mohammedshum et al. 2014; Ambaneh 2016; Hailu, Hanchiso, and Bereta 2019; Asefa and Mindahun 2019; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012; Şener, Sener, and Karagüzel 2011)
Distance from protected areas ^a	6.75	>2500	2000–2500	1500–2000	1000–1500	<1000	(Ambaneh 2016; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012)
Distance from cultivated land ^b	5.97	>2500	2000–2500	1500–2000	1000–1500	<1000	(Josimović and Marić 2012)
Distance from electric towers ^a	4.94	>1000	800–1000	600–800	400–600	<400	(Josimović and Marić 2012)
LU/LC ^a	4.69	Bareland	Grassland	Shrubland	Woodland	CL, WL, WB & S	(Ambaneh 2016; Asefa and Mindahun 2019; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012; Şener, Sener, and Karagüzel 2011; Sharifi and Retsios 2004)
Distance from rural residence ^a	`	>1500	1000–1500	500–1000	250–500	<250	(Josimović and Marić 2012)
Environmental criterions
Distance from surface water (pond, river, reservoir) ^a	11.32	>1600	1200–1600	800–1200	200–800	<200	(Mohammedshum et al. 2014; Ambaneh 2016; Hailu, Hanchiso, and Bereta 2019; Asefa and Mindahun 2019; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012)
Distance from boreholes ^b	8.87	>1600	1200–1600	800–1200	200–800	<200	(Mohammedshum et al. 2014; MUDC 2012; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012)
Aquifer productivity (considering borehole sites) ^b	8.51	Aquitard – minor aquifer	Extensive & moderately fissured	Extensive & highly productive fissured	Extensive & highly productive porous	Extensive & moder. product. porous	(Hailu, Hanchiso, and Bereta 2019)
Soil type ^d	5.31	-	Solonchaks	Leptosols	Regosols	Fluvosols	(Ambaneh 2016; Asefa and Mindahun 2019)
Lithology ^b	5.30	Basaltic volcanic	Conglomerate	Rhyolite	Alluvial deposit	Swamp	(Mohammedshum et al. 2014; Ambaneh 2016; Mekuria, Muralitharan, and Ali 2019; Danesh et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012; Şener, Sener, and Karagüzel 2011; Simsek, Kincal, and Gunduz 2006)
Slope aspect (facing to wind direction) ^c	4.49	SE, S, SW, W, NW	-	-	-	N, NE	(Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Josimović and Marić 2012; Şener, Sener, and Karagüzel 2011)
Soil depth ^d	4.36	40–60 m	25–40	15–25	60–100 m	<15	(Danesh et al. 2019)
Elevation (m) ^c	3.52	331–408	408–479	479–572	572–676	>676	(Danesh et al. 2019)
Slope gradient (degree)^c	2.61	0–10	10–20	20–30	40–55	-	(Mohammedshum et al. 2014; Hailu, Hanchiso, and Bereta 2019; Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019; Şener, Sener, and Karagüzel 2011; Simsek, Kincal, and Gunduz 2006; Sharifi and Retsios 2004)
Distance from faults ^a	2.37	0–500	501–1000	1001–1500	1501–2000	>2000	(Danesh et al. 2019; Pasalari et al. 2019)
	100

Notes: Superscript letters on the criteria variable indicates the sources of raw data. ^a Google earth & field visit (digitizing) – shape file; ^b Ethiopia Geological survey – scanned map at scale of 1:250,000 (Yoseph, Bekele, and Mariam 2018b); ^c USGS – 30 m resolution (earthexplorer.usgs.gov); ^d Shape file from Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation & Energy & (FAO 2006)

Figure 2. Solid waste dumpsite selection modeling workflow

Figure 3. Variables suitability map

Figure 4. Solid waste dumpsite suitability map

Table 2. Summary of validation responses

Suitability Level	Sample points	Agree		Disagree		Total
		Count	% of total	Count	% of total
Highly Suitable	11	92	8	73	22	165
Suitable	11	145	13	20	6	165
Moderately Suitable	13	122	11	73	22	195
Less Suitable	19	179	16	106	32	285
Not Suitable	42	569	51	61	18	630
Total	96	1107	77	333	23	1440

Notes. Number of respondents: 15

Appendix A. Association of variables with dumpsite suitability on the ordinal regression model

Parameters		Estimate	Wald	df	Sig.
Threshold	Dumpsite_suitability = 1	−115.704	4239.623	1	.000
	Dumpsite_suitability = 2	−94.894	4156.890	1	.000
	Dumpsite_suitability = 3	−78.589	4050.981	1	.000
	Dumpsite_suitability = 4	−63.096	3818.561	1	.000
Location	aquifer_productivity = 1	−16.647	183.460	1	.000
	aquifer_productivity =2	−1.260	.617	1	.432
	aquifer_productivity =3	−.207	.032	1	.858
	aquifer_productivity =4	9.306	63.255	1	.000
	aquifer_productivity =5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_boreholes = 1	−1310.559	.	1	.
	D.from_boreholes =2	−6.162	5.856	1	.016
	D.from_boreholes =3	−18.941	259.771	1	.000
	D.from_boreholes =4	−10.132	118.578	1	.000
	D.from_boreholes =5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_cultland = 1	−45.435	32.836	1	.000
	D.from_cultland =2	−22.769	327.368	1	.000
	D.from_cultland =3	−12.950	1247.783	1	.000
	D.from_cultland =4	−6.694	146.157	1	.000
	D.from_cultland =5	0^a	.	0	.
	elevation = 1	−15.134	3010.325	1	.000
	elevation = 2	−10.152	2006.281	1	.000
	elevation = 3	−7.134	1492.279	1	.000
	elevation = 4	−3.413	1062.052	1	.000
	elevation = 5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_ectower = 1	−20.724	3644.786	1	.000
	D.from_ectower =2	−15.571	1964.613	1	.000
	D.from_ectower =3	−10.148	1119.019	1	.000
	D.from_ectower =4	−5.126	317.247	1	.000
	D.from_ectower =5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_fault = 1	−9.560	2831.255	1	.000
	D.from_fault =2	−6.995	2188.541	1	.000
	D.from_fault =3	−4.808	1181.807	1	.000
	D.from_fault =4	−2.112	256.697	1	.000
	D.from_fault =5	0^a	.	0	.
	lithology = 1	−48.274	499.656	1	.000
	lithology = 2	−35.921	752.802	1	.000
	lithology = 3	−36.144	454.921	1	.000
	lithology = 4	−23.420	376.073	1	.000
	lithology = 5	0^a	.	0	.
	lulc2019 = 1	−20.451	1052.554	1	.000
	lulc2019 = 2	−16.151	131.712	1	.000
	lulc2019 = 3	−10.757	3597.175	1	.000
	lulc2019 = 4	−5.237	2697.689	1	.000
	lulc2019 = 5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_protareas = 1	−30.510	282.587	1	.000
	D.from_protareas =2	−23.177	478.266	1	.000
	D.from_protareas =3	−14.749	571.260	1	.000
	D.from_protareas =4	−7.974	268.579	1	.000
	D.from_protareas =5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_road = 1	−28.297	3821.709	1	.000
	D.from_road =2	−21.184	3362.606	1	.000
	D.from_road =3	−13.918	2511.633	1	.000
	D.from_road =4	−6.617	946.837	1	.000
	D.from_road =5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_ruresident = 1	−18.378	323.877	1	.000
	D.from_ruresident =2	−14.941	437.070	1	.000
	D.from_ruresident =3	−9.066	572.088	1	.000
	D.from_ruresident =4	−4.419	275.495	1	.000
	D.from_ruresident =5	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_settlement = 1	−39.799	957.556	1	.000
	D.from_settlement =2	−31.277	1349.795	1	.000
	D.from_settlement =3	−20.625	1889.433	1	.000
	D.from_settlement =4	−10.440	1858.584	1	.000
	D.from_settlement =5	0^a	.	0	.
	slope_aspect = 1	−18.213	4381.864	1	.000
	slope_aspect =5	0^a	.	0	.
	slope_gradient =2	−10.105	6.073	1	.014
	slope_gradient =3	−5.473	936.023	1	.000
	slope_gradient =4	−2.413	605.917	1	.000
	slope_gradient =5	0^a	.	0	.
	soil_depth = 1	−13.891	896.429	1	.000
	soil_depth = 2	−9.391	2158.409	1	.000
	soil_depth = 3	−5.046	647.245	1	.000
	soil_depth = 4	0^a	.	0	.
	soil_type = 1	−15.358	1253.660	1	.000
	soil_type = 2	−10.894	1745.370	1	.000
	soil_type = 3	−5.328	477.025	1	.000
	soil_type = 4	0^a	.	0	.
	D.from_Surf.water = 1	−47.223	4181.615	1	.000
	D.from_Surf.water =2	−35.187	4093.695	1	.000
	D.from_Surf.water =3	−24.135	3950.219	1	.000
	D.from_Surf.water =4	−11.805	3182.375	1	.000
	D.from_Surf.water =5	0^a	.	0	.

Notes. Link function: Cauchit

^aThis parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Appendix B. Model parameters information and fitness tests

Model fitting information	2 Log Likelihood = 19,894.299; X^2= 150,797.354; Df = 62 and sig. = 0.000
Goodness of fit	Pearson X^2= 118,428.037; Df = 38,282 and Sig. = 0.000
Pseudo R^2	Cox and Snell = 0.900; Nagelkerke = 0.948 and McFadden = 0.770
Test of parallel line	−2 Log Likelihood = 19,894.299 (null hypothesis); X^2= 1043.552; Df =186 and Sig = 0.000

Ali, A. M. 2016. GIS and remote sensing based suitable site selection for solid waste disposal: A case study of Asaita Town, Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.

 Google Scholar

Ambaneh, M. 2016. Solid waste disposal site selection using gis and remote sensing: From Mojo Town, Ethiopia. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.

 Google Scholar

Hailu, Y., T. Hanchiso, and A. Bereta. 2019. Municipal solid waste suitable disposal site selection, case study, Wolkite Town, Ethiopia. Int. J. Env. Sci. Nat. Res. 20 (4):126–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.19080/IJESNR.2019.20.556044.

 Google Scholar

Danesh, G., S. M. Monavari, G. A. Omrani, A. Karbasi, and F. Farsad. 2019. Compilation of a model for hazardous waste disposal site selection using GIS-based multi-purpose decision-making models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191 (2):122. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment: 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7243-4.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pasalari, H., R. N. Nodehi, A. H. Mahvi, K. Yaghmaeian, and Z. Charrahi. 2019. Landfill site selection using a hybrid system of AHP-fuzzy in GIS environment: A case study in Shiraz City, Iran. Methods X 6:1454–66. Elsevier B.V. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.06.009.

 Google Scholar

Josimović, B., and I. Marić. 2012. Methodology for the regional landfill site selection. In Sustainable development-authoritative and leading edge content for environmental management, edited by Sime Curkovic, 513–38. London, UK: IntechOpen. doi:https://doi.org/10.5772/57353.

 Google Scholar

Sharifi, M. A., and V. Retsios. 2004. Site selection for waste disposal through spatial multiple criteria decision analysis. J. Telecommun. Inf. Technol. 3:1–11.

 Google Scholar

Mohammedshum, A. A., M. A. Gebresilassie, C. M. Rulinda, G. H. Kahsay, and M. S. Tesfay. 2014. Application of geographic information system and remote sensing in effective solid waste disposal sites selection in Wukro Town, Tigray, Ethiopia. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XL–2:115–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-2-115-2014.

 Google Scholar

Asefa, B., and W. Mindahun. 2019. Suitable solid waste disposal site selection using geographical information system (GIS): A case of Debre Berhan Town, Ethiopia. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 7 (1):1–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.12691/env-7-1-4.

 Google Scholar

Şener, Ş., E. Sener, and R. Karagüzel. 2011. Solid waste disposal site selection with GIS and AHP methodology: A case study in Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 173 (1–4):533–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1403-x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MUDC. 2012. Solid waste management manual: With respect to urban plans, sanitary landfill sites and solid waste management planning. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MUDC (Ministry of Urban Development and Construction).

 Google Scholar

Mekuria, T., J. Muralitharan, and Y. Ali. 2019. GIS and remote sensing based suitable site selection for solid waste disposal: A case study of Gondar Town, North West Ethiopia. J. Acad. Ind. Res. 8 (2):38–44.

 Google Scholar

Simsek, C., C. Kincal, and O. Gunduz. 2006. A solid waste disposal site selection procedure based on groundwater vulnerability mapping. Environ. Geol. 49 (4):620–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-005-0111-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yoseph, Z., N. Bekele, and M. K. Mariam. 2018b. Hydrogeological Map of Serdo NC 37-4 and Djibouti NC 38-1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Geological Survey of Ethiopia.

 Google Scholar

FAO. 2006. World Reference Base for Soil Resources - World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. Rome, Italy: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

 Google Scholar