Potential landfill site selection for solid waste disposal using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in Yirgalem Town, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location map study area (Yirgalem, Town Ethiopia).

Table 1. Thematic layers used for potentially suitable landfill site selection, their sources, and details.

Parameters	Data types	Data details	Data sources
Land use	Landsat8OLI/TIRS	USGS, 30 × 30-m	https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov
Road network	Road network shapefile	Open Street Map Data	https://www.openstreetmap.org/
Resident areas	Boundary of resident areas	Google maps	https://www.google.com/maps/
Slope	ASTER GDEM	Version 3, 30 × 30 m	https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov
View shade	ASTER GDEM	Version 3, 30 × 30 m	https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov
Dumping site	Point location of dumping site	Google maps	https://www.google.com/maps/
River	ESRI shapefile	Space Science and Geospatial Institute: (SSGI) data	http://www.ssgi.gov.et/
Elevation	ASTER GDEM	Version 3, 30 × 30 m	https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov
Soil type	ESRI shapefile	Digital Soil Map of the World, FAO	http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/
Soil depth	ESRI shapefile	Digital Soil Map of the World, FAO	http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/

Source. Compiled by Authors.

Figure 2. General procedures followed in selecting a solid waste dumping suitable site.

Table 2. Suitability criteria (standard).

No	Variables	S3	S2	S1	N2	N1
1	Road (m)	901–1392	751–900	626–750	625–4001	<400
2	Settlement (m)	>700	401–500	301–400	201–300	<200
3	Land cover/use/	Open area	Vegetation	Agroforestry	Agriculture	Built-up
4	Slope (%)	0–10	11–40	41–60	61–70	>70
5	View shade	Not visible			Suitable
6	Dumping site (m)	1501–2161	1201–1500	751–1200	501–750	0–500
7	River (m)	651–850	651–850	351–650	201–350	0–200
8	Elevation	>1854	1729–1853	1696–1728	851–1695	0–850
9	Soil type	Clay	Silt	Loam	Sandy loam	Sandy
10	Soil depth (cm)	80–280	56–80	50–65	35–50	19–33

Highly suitable-S1, Moderately suitable-S2, Marginally suitable-S3, Not suitable-N2 and Permanently not suitable-N1.

Sources. Korucu et al. (2013), Majid and Mir (2021), and Mekuria et al. (2019).

Table 3. Scale of relative importance for the pairwise comparison.

Importance	Definition	Explanation
1	Equal importance	Two variables are required equally to the intended objective
3	Moderate importance	One variable is slightly more important than the other variable being compared
5	Strong importance	One variable is strongly important over the other variable being compared
7	Very strong importance	Activity is strongly favored and its dominance is demonstrated in practice.
9	Extreme importance	The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation
2, 4, 6, 8	Intermediate values	Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments when compromise is needed.
1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8, 1/9		Reciprocal values of the previous appreciation

Source. Adapted from Alkaradaghi et al. (2019) and Saaty (1980).

Table 4. The mean random index value (RI) (adapted from Saaty, 1980).

n	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
RI	0	0	0.58	0.9	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49	1.51	1.48	1.56

Table 5. Pair-wise comparison matrix, factor weights, and consistency ratio of factors.

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J
A	1	0.2	0.3	0.02	0.2	0.1	2	2	3	3
B	2	1	3	0.5	0.2	5	6	6	7	7
C	3	0.333333	1	3	3	0.3	5	6	7	7
D	5	2	0.333333	1	4	4	0.3	5	6	6
E	5	5	0.333333	0.25	1	3	0.5	5	5	6
F	10	0.2	3.333333	0.25	0.333333	1	4	4	5	5
G	0.5	0.166667	0.2	3.333333	2	0.25	1	3	4	4
H	0.5	0.166667	0.166667	0.2	0.2	0.25	0.333333	1	4	4
I	0.333333	0.142857	0.142857	0.166667	0.2	0.2	0.25	0.25	1	2
J	0.333333	0.142857	0.142857	0.166667	0.166667	0.2	0.25	0.25	0.5	1
CI = 0.073613, RI = 1.49, CR = 0.049405

Figure 3. Suitability criteria based on reclassified distance from the road network.

Figure 4. Suitability criteria based on reclassified distance from stream network.

Figure 5. Suitability criteria based on reclassified distance from the built up of the residential area.

Table 6. Land use land cover area.

Land use class	Percentage	Area (m^2)	Area (ha)
Built-up	16	6,365,700	636.57
Agriculture	43	16,639,200	1663.92
Vegetation	12	4,654,800	465.48
Open area	22	8,791,200	879.12
Agroforestry	7	2,745,000	274.5
Total	100	39,195,900	3919.59

Figure 6. Suitability criteria based on reclassified distance from the built-up of the residential area and land cover land use maps.

Table 7. Accuracy assessment (error matrix) reports of the classification maps for the study years.

	References
	Classes	Built-up	Agriculture	Open Area	Vegetation	Agroforestry	Total	UA%
Classification	Built-up	43	0	0	0	0	43	100
	Agriculture	1	39	1	0	1	42	92.86
	Open Area	1	1	13	0	0	15	86.67
	Vegetation	1	1	0	7	1	10	70
	Agroforestry	1	3	0	1	26	31	83.87
	Total	47	44	14	8	28	141
	PA%	91.49	88.64	92.86	87.5	92.86
	OAA%	93.47
	Kappa	0.92

Figure 7. Suitability criteria based on reclassified slope and elevation.

Figure 8. Suitability criteria based on reclassified soil texture and Soil depth maps.

Figure 9. Suitability criteria based on reclassified distance in meters from the existing dumping site and view shade from built-up residential area maps.

Figure 10. Solid waste disposal site suitability Map of Yirgalem Town. NB: S3-highly suitable, S2-moderately suitable, S1-marginally suitable, N2-not suitable, and N1-permanently not suitable.

Table 8. Statistical analysis of the solid waste disposal site suitability.

No	Suitability	Area (km^2)	Area (ha)	Area (%)
1	Highly suitable	3,992,100	299.21	7.63
2	Moderately suitable	10,912,850	1091.285	27.84
3	Marginally suitable	13,902,300	1390.23	35.47
4	Not suitable	5,897,800	589.78	15.05
5	Permanently not suitable	4,490,850	549.085	14.01
	Total	39,195,900	3919.59	100

Figure 11. Validation of model using the area under curve (AUC).

Figure 12. Validation of landfill suitable site with Google Earth.

Korucu, M. K., Arslan, O., & Karademir, A. (2013). Siting a municipal solid waste disposal facility, part one: An evaluation of different scenarios for a site selection procedure. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 63(8), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2013.788459

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Majid, M., & Mir, B. A. (2021). Landfill site selection using GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation technique. A case study of Srinagar city, India. Environmental Challenges, 3, 100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100031

 Google Scholar

Mekuria, T., Muralitharan, J., & Yahya, A. (2019). GIS and remote sensing based suitable site selection for solid waste disposal: A case study of Gondar Town, North West Ethiopia. Journal of Academia and Industrial Research, 8(2), 38–44.

 Google Scholar

Alkaradaghi, K., Ali, S. S., Al-Ansari, N., Laue, J., & Chabuk, A. (2019). Landfill site selection using MCDM methods and GIS in the Sulaimaniyah Governorate, Iraq. Sustainability, 11(17), 4530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174530

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation (p. 437). McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.