Geospatial technology for selecting suitable sites for solid waste disposal: a case study of Shone town, central Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location map of the study area.

Figure 2. Elevation map of the study area.

Figure 3. Slope map of the study area.

Figure 4. Annual distribution of rainfall in the study area.

Figure 5. Trend analysis of the maximum, minimum, and mean annual temperatures of the study area (2002–2022).

Table 1. Sources and types of data.

Sr. No.	Data Type	Sources of data	Purpose
1	Sentinel-2A 2023, 10 m resolution	Copernicus Open Access Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/)	LULC classification
2	Soil map	Ministry of Agriculture (FAO)	To extract the soil map
3	Meteorological data	Ethiopian Meteorological Agency	To generate a climate and rainfall map
4	SRTM DEM (30 m)	https://www.usgs.gov/	To derive slope and elevation
5	Road network map	Municipal structural plan	For proximity analysis
6	Geological map	Brought from an Ethiopian survey of geology	For geological suitability analysis
7	Study area boundary shape file	Municipal structural plan	To produce a study area map
8	GPS data	Field survey	To collect points that identify community facilities

Figure 6. General workflow of the study.

Figure 7. Temporary existing open solid waste dumping site (field survey, 2023).

Figure 8. Waste sprayed around the road and residential areas (field survey, 2023).

Figure 9. Waste covered the drainage and residential areas (field survey, 2023).

Figure 10. Waste was irregularly thrown at water-logged areas near residences (field survey, 2023).

Figure 11. Slope suitability map.

Table 2. Slope suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
2–6%	Highly Suitable	4	6.12	68.85
6–10%	Suitable	3	12.96	25.70
10–13%	Less Suitable	2	90	3.70
>13%	Unsuitable	1	241.11	1.75
			350.19	100

Figure 12. Road suitability map.

Table 3. Road suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	percentage of the total area
0–200	Unsuitable	1	2.61	0.70
200–400	Less Suitable	2	33.57	9.02
400–600	Suitable	3	103.5	27.78
600–800	Highly Suitable	4	232.83	62.50
Total			372.51	100

Figure 13. Stream suitability map.

Table 4. Stream suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
0–1500	Unsuitable	1	91.08	24.45
1500–3000	Less Suitable	2	106.29	28.53
3000–4500	Suitable	3	112.5	30.20
>4500	Highly Suitable	4	62.64	16.82
			372.51	100%

Figure 14. Soil suitability map.

Table 5. Soil suitability class.

No	Soil Types	Suitability	Area cover (ha)	Area Share (%)	Rank
1	Dystric Nitisols	Unsuitable	0.103047	62.18	1
2	Pellic Vertisols	Suitable	0.04039	24.37	2
3	Eutric Nitisols	Highly Suitable	0.022297	13.45	3
Total				100

Figure 15. Protected area suitability map.

Table 6. Protected area suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
0–600	Unsuitable	1	50.13	13.46
600–1200	Less Suitable	2	95.31	25.59
1200–1800	Suitable	3	111.33	29.89
>1800	Highly Suitable	4	115.74	31.06
Total			372.51	100

Figure 16. Settlement suitability map.

Table 7. Settlement suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
550	Unsuitable	1	264.87	71.10
900	Less Suitable	2	75.51	20.27
1350	Suitable	3	25.02	6.72
>1350	Highly Suitable	4	7.11	1.91
Total			372.51	100

Figure 17. Borehole suitability map.

Table 8. Borehole suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
0–750	Unsuitable	1	105.48	10.51
750–1500	Less Suitable	2	133.74	25.27
1500–2250	Suitable	3	94.14	28.32
>2250	Highly Suitable	4	39.15	35.90
Total			372.51	100

Figure 18. Geological suitability map.

Table 9. Geological suitability class.

Suitability Class	Level of Suitability	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
Hydrogenous sediment	Unsuitable	1	347.49	93.28
Lacustrine sediment	Suitable	2	16.8	4.40
Igneous	Highly Suitable	3	5.94	1.59
Pegmatite	Less Suitable	4	2.7	0.72
Total			372.51	100

Figure 19. Urban land use suitability map.

Table 10. Urban land use suitability class.

Suitability Class	Suitability Level	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
Water body and settlement area	Unsuitable	1	1,476.28	41.68
Vegetation area	Less Suitable	2	591.04	16.69
Forest and agriculture area	Suitable	3	1,208.27	34.12
Bare land	Highly Suitable	4	266.16	7.51
Total			3,541.75	100%

Table 11. Error matrix showing classification accuracy of the true land cover.

Sr. No.	Bare land	Settlement	Forest	Agriculture	Vegetation	Waterbody	Total User
Bare land	25	0	0	2	0	3	30
Settlement	0	25	0	3	0	0	28
Forest	0	2	18	3	0	0	23
Agriculture	1	2	1	26	0	1	31
Vegetation	1	1	1	1	30	0	34
Waterbody	2	1	0	2	0	30	34
Total Producer	29	31	20	37	30	34	180

Table 12. Confusion matrix accuracy technique between the land cover dataset and ground truth data.

Classified data	User Accuracy	Producer accuracy (%)
Bare land	86	83
Settlement	89	80
Forest	78	90
Agriculture	83	70
Vegetation	88	100
Waterbody	88	88
Overall accuracy	85	85
Kappa Coefficient	0.85	0.85

Table 13. Provides a random index for the number of elements and criteria.

3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
0.58	0.9	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49	1.51

Saaty (1980), as a source.

Table 14. Pair-wise comparison on seven-point continuous scales.

Factor	Slope	Urban land use	Road	Stream	Protected Area	Settlement	Ground Water	Geology	Soil	Eigenvector Weight	%
Urban land use	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	5	4	0.20	20
Settlement	1/2	1	2	2	2	2	3	3	3	0.17	17
Road	1/2	1/2	1	2	2	2	3	5	4	0.15	15
Stream	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	2	3	4	6	0.14	14
Protected Area	1/2	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	3	5	5	0.12	12
slope	1/2	1/2	1/2	1/2	1/2	1	2	3	4	0.09	9
Ground Water	1/2	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/2	1	2	3	0.06	6
Geology	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/4	1/5	1/3	1/2	1	2	0.04	4
Soil	1/4	1/3	1/4	1/6	1/5	1/4	1/3	1/2	1	0.03	3
Sum										1.00	100

Consistency ratio: 0.05; consistency ratio is acceptable.

Table 15. Weight of consideration for choosing a suitable solid waste disposal site.

Factor	Class	Value	Level of Suitability Influence%
Slope	2–6 6–10 10–13 >13	4 3 2 1	9
Urban land use	Water Body and Settlement Vegetation Agriculture and forest Bare land	1 2 3 4	20
Distance from the Road	<400 400–800 800–1200 >1200	1 2 3 4	15
Distance from the Stream	<500 500–750 750–1000 >1000	1 2 3 4	14
Distance from the Protected Area	<1000 1000–1300 1300–1600 >1600	1 2 3 4	12
Distance from the Settlement	<1000 1000–1300 1300–1600 >1600	1 2 3 4	17
Borehole		4 3 2 1	6
Geology		3	4
		2
		1
Soil		3	3
		2
		1

Figure 20. Landfill suitability map.

Table 16. Landfill suitability.

Sr.No.	Level of Suitability	Landfill site	Rank	Area(ha)	Percentage of the total area
1	Unsuitable	1	1	324.18	92.57
2	Less Suitable	2	2	2.88	0.82
3	Moderately Suitable	3	3	18.81	5.37
4	Highly Suitable	4	4	4.32	1.23
Total					100%

Figure 21. Overall landfill suitability map.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data supporting the results of this study are available at reasonable request from the corresponding author.