Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Solid waste dumping site selection using GIS-based multi-criteria spatial modeling: a case study in Logia town, Afar region, Ethiopia

Solid waste dumping site selection using GIS-based multi-criteria spatial modeling: a case study... GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 2021, VOL. 5, NO. 3, 186–198 INWASCON https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1703311 RESEARCH ARTICLE Solid waste dumping site selection using GIS-based multi-criteria spatial modeling: a case study in Logia town, Afar region, Ethiopia Ahmed Mussa and K. V. Suryabhagavan School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 4 November 2019 Several, countries are struggling to establish proper waste management systems in the context of Accepted 5 December 2019 increasing population and urbanization. Urban solid waste management system needs solid waste management technique, where presence of a sanitary landfill is vital. One of the most KEYWORDS important issues of sanitary landfill is to identify suitable locations. The main objective of the Analytic hierarchy process; present study was to identify suitable solid waste disposal sites that are economically feasible, geographic information environmentally sound, and socially acceptable in Logia town, Ethiopia, applying Remote system; criteria weights; Sensing and Geographic Information System techniques. The present study was based on landfill; remote sensing thematic maps such as groundwater well points, slope, fault, built-up area, road network, river, land-use/land-cover, geology and soil map. Analytical Hierarchy Process pair-wise comparison model was used to accomplish weights of factor parameters. Suitability map was prepared by overlay analyses and assigned as highly suitable, suitable, moderately suitable, less suitable and unsuitable. Results show that 5.93% of the study area is highly suitable, 6.5% is suitable, 3.23% is moderately suitable, 1.02% is less suitable and 83.32% is unsuitable for solid waste dumping in Logia town. Field observations also confirmed suitability of the selected sites, and hence this method can be used in urban areas for waste dumping site selection procedure. Selected sites are considered to be suitable for landfill to minimize environmental risk and human health problems. Introduction Waste as a byproduct of various human activities creates serious problems in human habitats. Increasing Waste is any material discharged from human activ- population, rapid economic growth and rise in living ities, which makes adverse impacts on human health standards have accelerated the process of solid waste and environment. Solid wastes are non-liquid and generation throughout the world (Elmira et al., 2010; non-gaseous products such as those from households, Hering, 2012). Unscientific solid waste disposal can municipal, supermarket, construction and industries develop contamination of surface and groundwater (Ajay, 2019; Kapilan & Elangovan, 2018). Solid waste through leaching surface waste deposits and air pollution, has become a global environmental and health issue in and release of methane (Visvanathan & Glawe, 2006). the contemporary world both in developing and devel- Solid wastes indiscriminately thrown around human oped countries (UNEP, 2005; United Nations, 2017). environment also results in aesthetic problems and nui- Such environmental challenges combined with social, sance (Hammer, 2003). Before the mid-1970s, most solid economic and land availability issues raise concerns waste disposal sites in the Ethiopian townships were on over land management and evaluation techniques the borders of the urban areas around water bodies, crop (Coban, Ertis, & Cavdaroglu, 2018; Lein, 1990; fields, settlements and on road sides (EGSSAA, 2009). Philippe & Culot, 2009). In developing countries, the Therefore, locating proper sites for dumping solid waste increasing human population and associated anthro- far from environmental resources, residential areas, water pogenic activities have accelerated the process of waste bodies,roads,faultsandsettlementsisessentialforthe generation at an alarming level. In recent decades, the management of solid waste in a proper way. Solid wastes waste management process used many Africa, Asian, in urban areas mostly include wastes of plastics, glass, American and European countries have shifted from fabrics, metals, and kitchen waste which have complex landfilling to incineration (Lino & Ismail, 2017b; composition and late degradable characteristics, creating Rezaei, Ghobadian, Samadi, & Karimi, 2018). Hence, more harm to the environment. The present waste man- it is essential to find out suitable waste management agement techniques rely on reuse, recycling, reduction and disposal methods (Gizachew, Suryabhagavan, and recovery of energy concepts (Ajay, 2019;Kontos, Mekuria Argaw & Hameed, 2012; Ebistu & Minale, Komilis, & Halvadakis, 2005). 2013; Abedi-Varaki & Davtalab, 2016). CONTACT K. V. Suryabhagavan drsuryabhagavan@gmail.com School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the International Water, Air & Soil Conservation Society(INWASCON). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 187 In the recent years, Geographical Information System east of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. (GIS) has been playing a major role in the process of Physiography of the area is mainly controlled by vol- decision-making. The advantage of GIS-based approach cano-tectonic rather than erosional activities. This site selection saves time and cost. It also provides digital area has no much spatial variations of topographic data inventory for long-term monitoring of the site features. It ranges from moderately elevated moun- (Gizachew et al., 2012;Kontos etal., 2005). Remote sen- tains to flat plains with the general topographic direc- sing can provide information about various spatial cri- tion from south-west towards the east. Elevation of the teria such as land-use/land-cover (Emun, 2010), and GIS area is from 362 − 450 m. Total area of the township is can utilize, create and analyze spatial or attribute data for 8418.9 ha (Figure 1). At an average temperature of solid waste dumping sites selection processes. Enormous 32.3°C, June is the hottest month of the year, when it literatures on landfills are theoretically available for selec- reaches around 44°C. The lowest average temperature tion of solid waste landfill sites (Church, 2002;Hasan, occurs in January (24.2°C). Annual precipitation in Ramin, Amir, Kamyar, & Zabihalah, 2019;Joosten, the area is around 203 mm. Population of Logia Hekkert, & Worrell, 2000;Joseph, Rajendiran, town was 29,675 and as per CSA (2018). Sentthilnathan & Rakesh, 2012). A further significant impact from poor solid waste collected by the munici- Data and methods pality being dumped, untreated, near the Logia river, Awashriver closetothe Logiatown. Thecumulative Data sets solid waste quantity exceeds the capacity of Logia town Sentinel 2A data of 2018 having the resolution 10 m authority management options, resulting in a potentially were used to prepare primary input thematic maps adverse impact on the environment, human health, and like land-use/land-cover, geological structures, and the quality of urban life (Ajay, 2019; Othman, Kane, & lithology with the help of field investigations and sec- Hawrami, 2017). All researchers in the field of solid waste ondary maps. Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission incineration site selection show that decision-making (SRTM) digital elevation data of 30 m resolution criteria in different countries pursue common goals were used for this study. Soil map and agro-climatic such as environmental, economic, and social desirability zone map of the study area compiled by Food and (Panepinto & Zanetti, 2018). Agricultural Organization (FAO) were collected from Applications of GIS to identify potential waste disposal the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Government of sites have been analysed in different locations (Kao, 1996; Ethiopia. In the field, open dump sites and well points Muttiah, Engel, & Jones, 1996; Siddiqui, Everett, Vieux &. were collected using GPS. In addition, some sample 1996;Charnpratheep,Zhou, &Garner, 1997;Kao,Lin, & points from different land-use/land-cover types were Chen, 1997;Lin &Kao, 1999; Leao, Bishop, & Evans, also collected to verify the current land-use/land-cover 2001; Sadek, El-Fadel, & El-Hougeiri, 2001;Kontosetal., types of the area. Interviews with environmental pro- 2005; Sener, Sener & Nas, 2010; Chang, Parvathinathan, tection officers and people living around the existing & Breeden, 2008;Chen&Kao, 2008; Sumathi, Natesan, & landfills were made to get additional information. All Sarkar, 2008; Zamorano, Molero, Hurtado, Grindlay, & input datasets were georeferenced to Adindan UTM Ramos, 2008; Khan & Samadder, 2014). During the pre- Zone 37N coordinate system and reclassified giving vious couple of decades, researchers have extensively weights, and new maps were generated. Spatial geoda- used remote sensing and GIS-based multi-criteria deci- tabase was designed to include the input datasets, their sion analysis (MCDA) revealed that sanitary landfilling is derived datasets, weighted analysis maps, and the final the most appropriate waste disposal method (Simsek, result. Verification layers were also included in the Kıncal, & Gündüz, 2005;Mutlutürk&Karagüzel, 2007; geodatabase in tabular and shapefile formats. The Yesilnacar & Çetin, 2007; Nas, Cay, & Iscan, 2008;Ersoy shape files were exported to the corresponding feature &Bulut, 2009; Sener, Sener, Nas, & Karagüzel, 2009; data sets and the raster files were exported as indivi- Coban et al., 2018). These techniques provide important dual raster datasets in the geodatabase. The flowchart support to solve the problem of locating waste bins effec- of the methodology and using hierarchical model are tively (Ajay, 2019; Church, 2002). This study aimed to shown in Figure 2. determinethemost appropriatesuitablesolidwastedis- posalsitefor LogiatowninEthiopiaand to judgethe status of the current waste disposal site in the town Criteria determining factors selected by conventional methods. Relations of solid waste dumping site suitability selec- tion with the natural factors that determine its occur- rence were used as criteria, which imply the governing The study area factors of occurrence of suitability cite selection to Logia town is located in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, select best waste dumping sites in the study area. In bounded by 11° 43ʹ 55”−11° 45ʹ 24” N latitudes and this study, 10 criteria were selected for evaluating solid 41° 03ʹ 29”−41° 05ʹ 41” E longitudes, 578 km north- waste dump site selection. Factors such as land-use/ 188 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Figure 1. Location map of the study area. Figure 2. Methodology framework of the study. land-cover, geological structures, lithology, slope, dis- Weight Derivation model was employed to compare tance to river, built-up, road, soil, drainage, well points two criteria at a time based on expert judgment and a were considered in the analysis. pair-wise comparison matrix from which a set of The AHP method is composed of three main steps weights referred to as Eigenvectors together with con- (Saaty & Vargas, 2001). Each layer was internally sistency ratios for each of the criteria considered. After weighed based on buffer minimum and maximum assigning external weights to each layer, Weighted distances and requirements. The layers were standar- Linear Combination (WLC) technique was applied to dized and thematic map of each criterion was pro- produce an overall dump site suitability map that duced in the first phase. In the second phase, combined all the criteria. With the Weighted Linear preference of each criterion relative to rest of the Combination, factors were combined by applying a criteria on dump site selection was expressed by weight to each followed by a summation of the results assigning weights. Analytical Hierarchical Process to yield a suitability map as shown in equation 1. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 189 X X n n S ¼ WiXi (1) S ¼ WiCi (4) i¼1 i¼1 S is (WluClu * WsoCso * WgeCge * WslCsl* WroCro * where S is suitability, w is the weight of the factor i WfaCfa * WriCri * WwpCwp * WbuCbu). and x are the criterion score of factor i. WluWlu: weight and criteria for land-use, WoCso: This procedure can be modified by multiplying the weight and criteria for soil, WgeCge: weight and cri- suitability calculated from the factors by the product teria for geology (lithology), WslCsl: weight and cri- of the constraints for Boolean constraints to apply as teria for slope, WroCro: weight and criteria for road, shown in equation 2. WfaCfa: weight and criteria for fault, WriCri: weight S ¼ Cj (2) and criteria for river, WwpCwp: weight and criteria j¼1 for groundwater well points, WbuCbu: weight and where Cj is the criterion score of the constraint j. criteria for built-up. The weights were developed by providing a series of pair-wise comparisons of relative importance. Based on experience and likely impact on surrounding envir- Phase 2: multi-criteria model onment, different weights were assigned to all the In the phase, two step was to create decision tables at parameters. Analytic hierarchy process was used to each level of the hierarchical decomposition. The produce weights. The constraint served to limit the matrices capture a series of pair-wise comparisons alternatives under consideration, which were using relative data and Weight Linear Combination expressed in the form of a Boolean logical map in 0 (WLC) were combined, which resulted in a final site and 1 (Mohammad, Kidokoro, & Syed, 2009; Eastman, selection using the equation: 2012; Shahabi, Keihanfard, Bin Ahmad, Javad, & Amiri, 2013; Olusina & Shyllon, 2014). Equation 3 is X Y S ¼ WiCi  rj (5) used for Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE): i¼1 j¼1 X Y n m S ¼ WiCi  rj (3) i¼1 j¼1 S is ((r road * r fault * r river * r well point * r built-up) * (WluClu * WsoCso * WgeCge * WslCsl* WroCro * where S is the suitability for a waste disposal site, Wi is WfaCfa * WriCri * WwpCwp * WbuCbu)). the weight of factor i, CI is the criterion for suitability A number of possible selections were examined for of factor i, rj is the criterion for suitability of constraint setting a suitable site by taking into consideration j and Π is the product. multiple criteria and contradictory objectives in the GIS-based MCE technique, using WLC analysis (Al- Ansari, Hanbali, & Knutsson, 2012; Chang et al., Phase 1: suitability model 2008). The pair-wise comparisons of various criteria The phase one step was to decompose the decision- were organized into a square matrix (Table 1). The making problem into a hierarchical structure. A struc- matrix was known with values from 1 to 9 from whole tural hierarchy formed for the decision problem con- numbers from 1/9 to 1/2 for fractions. Weights calcu- sists of several levels. To establish the hierarchy of the lated from each column were summed and every fac- main goals of solid waste dump site selection, several tor in the matrix was divided by the sum of the criteria were created, including environmental factors, respective column and the first eigenfactor was com- economic factors, and constraints. A Suitability Model puted. The second eigenvector was used to compute was applied in achieving the task, which was Weight the percentage weight for each factor contributed to Linear Combination (WLC) together with AHP. the solid waste dumping site suitability analysis. Analytic hierarchy process was used to capture aspects For the phase three step, the rating of each alter- of the decision. It was used in computing the weights native was multiplied by the weights of the sub-criteria for different criteria used by creating a pair-wise com- and aggregated to determine the local ratings with parison matrix. Equation 4 is used for the model: respect to each criterion. The local ratings were then Table 1. Pair-wise comparison of factors in relation to solid waste dumping site selection in Logia town. Factors Land-cover Lithology Road Built-up Fault River Well depth Soil Slope Fault 1 Soil 1/2 1 Lithology 1/3 1/2 1 Land-cover 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Road 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Built-up 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 River 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Well depth 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Slope 1/9 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 190 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Table 2. Principal eigenvector of the pair-wise comparison largest part of the study area (80.3%) is highly suitable matrix. for solid waste disposal sites, whereas, 5.3% and 13.4% of Factors Weight theareaweresuitableandless suitable,respectively. The Fault 0.3058 remaining 1% of the study area was unsuitable for solid Soil 0.2193 waste disposal site. Lithology 0.1542 Land-cover 0.1088 Road 0.0764 Built-up 0.0534 Geology and fault suitability River 0.0370 Well depth 0.0261 The present study area contains five geological types such Slope 0.0190 as stratoid basalt, rhyolite, flow basalt, trap basalt and Consistency ratio (CR) is 0.07. mudflats. Stratoid basalt area has 0.80% extent as unsui- tabale, 1.24% as less suitable, 13.43% as moderately sui- multiplied by the weights of the criteria and aggre- table, 18.19% as suitable and 66.35% as highly suitable, gated to determine global ratings (Bhushan & Rai, respectively, for solid waste disposal sites (Table 3 and 2004). In this study, every criterion was assigned dif- Figure 3).Themoredistancefromfault,themoresuitable ferent ratings on a scale of 1 (least suitable) to 6 (most the area for waste disposal to minimize negative effects of suitable). Initially, the constrained areas for solid dump site. Based on fault proximity suitability, only 1.9% waste dump site selection were masked. of the extent of the study area is highly suitable and 10.6% Subsequently, the overall score of alternatives in the of the area is suitable, whereas 23.5% and 64% of the GIS environment. To produce the best fit set of study area are less suitable and unsuitable, respectively, weights, principal eigenvector of the pair-wise com- for solid waste disposal sites. As per suitability reclassifi- parison matrix was computed using weight (Table 2). cation, the highest rank was assigned to a buffer distance of >3000 m from f aultand the lowest rank 1000 m from Results fault was given to unsuitable areas. Groundwater well points and river suitability Soil suitability Solid wastes disposed near the river cause ecological, agricultural and health problems. Considering these pro- In Logiatownarea, thereare twotypes of soilssuchas blems, the suitability of solid waste dump site map was lithosols (clay) and orthic solonchak (saline). Based on produced (Table 3 and Figure 3). Accordingly, 5.2% of Table 3, about 24.1% of the total area is suitable and theareawasunsuitable,56.8% waslesssuitable, 17.8% 75.9% of the area is unsuitable for solid waste disposal was moderately suitable, 9.3% was suitable, and 10.9% sites (Figure 3). was highly suitable for solid waste disposal site in Logia. Based on the above standards, suitability map of ground- Road network and built-up area suitability water well point was prepared. Table 3 indicates that 37.34%, 18.38%, 25.94%, 12.45% and 5.9% of the total The road network suitability distance calculated is shown area are unsuitable, less suitable, moderately suitable, in Figure 3. In the study area, 0.6% and 7.6% of the area suitable and highly suitable, respectively, for solid waste are less suitable and moderately suitable, respectively, disposal site in Logia. while 44.3%, 31.4% and 16.1% of the area is unsuitable, suitable and highly suitable, respectively, for waste dis- posal sites. Road proximity in the remaining study area is Slope and land-use/land-cover suitability moderate to less suitable, for solid waste disposal sites. The topography of the study area is dominated by a slope Thedumpsiteshouldalsobe far from commercialbuild- of 0–10°, which accounts for 99.1% of the total study area. ings, urban green space, service area and industries. The second most dominant topography of the study area Accordingly, 26.5% of the total area is unsuitable, while is 10̶ 20° covering 0.87% of total area and the remaining 33.4% is less suitable for solid waste disposal. The other 0.03% of theareaiswithaslope>20°(Table 3). Based on 22.8%, 15.2%, and 2.1% of the area were moderately the slope suitability coverages of Logia, the extent of suitable, suitable and highly suitable, respectively for highly suitable, suitable, and unsuitable sites were demar- waste disposal in Logia town. cated and the suitability map was prepared (Figure 3). Land-use/land-cover map was produced for dumping Constraint criteria waste with an overall accuracy of 86%. The land-use map displays the land utilized by human and natural Constraints are limitations or restrictions, which prohibit cover in the Logia town. The land-use map indicates the certain elements to be taken into account. Constraint areas of vegetation, bareland, built-up area and water maps are used to distinguish between lands suitable and bodies. The majority of the region is occupied by bare- restricted for dump sites. A constraint map for each land. Based on the land-use/land-cover suitability, the theme contains 1‟s for suitable land and 0‟sfor GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 191 Table 3. Criteria for dump site selection suitability and their rank. Factors Parameter (m) Suitability class Rank Weight Area (ha) Area (%) Road 0 – 700 Unsuitable 1 0.0344 3704.8 44.3 701 – 2100 Less suitable 2 0.0613 2644.2 31.4 2101 – 3500 Moderately suitable 3 0.1088 1352 16.1 3501 – 4900 Suitable 4 0.2486 665.5 7.6 >4900 Highly suitable 5 0.5469 51.5 0.6 Built-up 0 – 700 Unsuitable 1 0.0428 2227.7 26.5 701 – 2100 Less suitable 2 0.0940 2812.9 33.4 2101 – 3500 Moderately suitable 3 0.1232 1916.9 22.8 3501 – 4900 Suitable 4 0.2242 1282.9 15.2 >4900 Highly suitable 5 0.6158 177.6 2.1 River 0 – 500 Unsuitable 1 0.0202 3144.1 37.34 501 – 1000 Less suitable 2 0.1124 1547 18.38 1001 – 1500 Moderately suitable 3 0.1423 2183.3 25.94 1501 – 2000 Suitable 4 0.2131 1046.4 12.45 >2000 Highly suitable 5 0.5120 497.2 5.9 Fault 0 – 1000 Unsuitable 1 0.0682 5398 64 1001 – 2000 Less suitable 2 0.1664 1984 23.5 200 – 3000 Suitable 4 0.2968 871 10.6 >3000 Highly suitable 5 0.4686 165 1.9 Well points 0 − 500 Unsuitable 1 0.0221 427.7 5.2 501 − 3000 Less suitable 2 0.0390 4753.9 56.8 3001 − 4000 Moderately Suitable 3 0.1136 1485 17.8 4001 − 5000 Suitable 4 0.2431 779.4 9.3 > 5000 High Suitable 5 0.5822 917 10.9 Geology Stratoid Basalt Unsuitable 1 0.0346 147 0.80 Rhyolitic Less Suitable 2 0.0663 7251 1.24 Flow Basalt Moderately suitable 3 0.1408 723 13.43 Trap or Flood Basalt Suitable 4 0.2950 257 18.19 Mud flats Highly Suitable 5 0.4634 40 66.35 Soil Orthic Solonchaks Unsuitable 1 0.4284 2024 75.9 Lithosols Suitable 4 0.5716 0.7 24.1 LU/LC Water body Unsuitable 1 0.0389 88 1 Built-up area Less suitable 2 0.1035 1131 13.4 Forest Suitable 4 0.3255 442 5.3 Bare-land Highly suitable 5 0.5320 6757 80.3 Slope >20° Unsuitable 1 0.1481 3 0.03 11̶20° Suitable 5 0.2703 68 0.87 0̶10° Highly suitable 4 0.5816 8347 99.1 unsuitable land. Thus, five constraint maps were gener- Fault and built-up area constraint buffer ated, for factors such as groundwater well points, river, distance suitability map road network, fault and built-up area. For the current study, less than 1000 m buffer dis- tance from faults were considered as 0 (unsuitable) forsolidwastedisposalsitedueto high permeability Groundwater well of soil near the fault. Areas >1000 m buffer distance Ten functional groundwater well points were recorded of fault was considered as 1 or suitable (Figure 3). during field survey. Using proximity tools, buffer zones The built-up area constraint map was created in were prepared around each well. Dump site should not be order to define dump site hazards, such as scavenging located within 500 m distance from groundwater wells animals and unfavorable odor and noise. The buffer points. Figure 3 shows the proximity distance from well zone of built-up area distance <700 m as assigned 0 pointtolocatethebest siteforawaste dumpsiteinLogia (unsuitable), while >700 m as assigned to be 1 (sui- Town. table) for locating a solid waste disposal location (Figure 3). River and road constraint buffer distance suitability map Constraint map The river constraint map was created based on buffer Five constraint maps were produced such as well points, distance < 500 m as unsuitable and >2000 m as suita- river, road, fault and built-up area using overlay function ble (Figure 3). Distance from existing roads is an (using direct multiplication of binary integer values) to important factor in locating waste conversion facil- create the final constraint map. Finally, from the total area ities. The road constraint map of buffer distance of the study unsuitable area cover of 7176.8 ha (85.2%) <700 m was unsuitable and one suitable on the road and suitable area cover of 1241.2 ha (14.8%) were recog- network proximity standard (Figure 3). nized (Table 4). 192 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Figure 3. Original and reclassified thematic maps. Waste dumpsite suitability fault–30.58%, soil–21.93%, lithology–15.42%, land- cover 10.88%, road 7.64%, built-up 5.34%, river The datasets derived have different degrees of influ- 3.7%, well depth 2.61% and slope 1.9%. The higher ence of solid waste dumping site selection. Hence, the weight, the more influence a particular factor will from the principal eigenvector calculation, the relative have in the solid waste dumping site selection model. importance of each parameter was determined. The The factors involved were examined according to their decreasing order of importance of dump sites was relative importance in solving the stated problem and GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 193 Table 4. Constraint criteria accepted for dump site selection. Criteria Parameter (m) Suitability Rank Weight Area (ha) Area (%) Well point 0 – 500 Unsuitable 0 0.3471 427.7 5.08 > 500 Suitable 1 0.6520 7990.3 94.92 River 0 – 500 Unsuitable 0 0.2471 427.7 5.08 >500 Suitable 1 0.7520 7990.3 94.92 Road Networks 0 – 700 Unsuitable 0 0.4531 3704.8 44.02 > 700 Suitable 1 0.5469 4713.2 55.98 Fault 0 – 1000 Unsuitable 0 0.4686 5398 64.12 >1000 Suitable 1 0.5314 3020 35.88 Built-up area 0 – 700 Unsuitable 0 0.3842 3704.8 44.02 >700 Suitable 1 0.6158 4713.2 55.98 weights were assigned. All the reclassified factor layers multiple buffer ring extents and the grading values for were used in weighted overlay analysis (Figure 4)by roads. At present Logia town has grown at an unexpected applying equation (5), and a final solid waste dumping growth and as a result, the distance of the facility to the site selection map of Logia town was produced (Figure nearest residential area is only few kilometers. 5): (Fault) × 0.3058 + (soil) × 0.2193 + (lithology) × Groundwater circulation and the downward flow of 0.1542 + (land-cover) × 0.1088 + (road) × 0.0764 + pollutants through rocks and soils depend on the hydro- (built-up) × 0.0534 + (river) × 0.0370 + (well depth) × geological condition of the materials; more specifically 0.0261 (slope) × 0.0190 = Solid waste dumping site hydraulic properties such as porosity, permeability, and transitivity (Tsegaye Mekuria, 2006). The proximity of a selection. Out of the total study area, about 5.93% (499.43 ha) fall solid waste dump site to a groundwater well point is an underhighlysuitableasthe area satisfies environmental, important environmental criterion in the dump site selec- tion so that well points may be protected from the runoff social and economic criteria such as fault, built-up area, and discharge. Therefore, solid waste disposal sites should surface water, geology, land-use/land-cover, soil, slope, and road network. Such areas were located in the north- be away from wells. Additionally, it can have irreversible human and environmental effects. Distance from ern part of the study area. Suitable area covers an extent of groundwater well was considered as an important to 6.5% (537.5 ha), moderately suitable areas 3.23% (272 ha), less suitable area 1.02% (86.10 ha) and the remaining prepare the water sources for activities and drinking water, and they are influenced by many factors including 83.32% (7154.61 ha) unsuitable for solid waste disposal agricultural and reactions occurred in landfill sites (Khan sites. The red points in the map indicate the existing open dump site surrounding Logia town (Figure 5). & Samadder, 2014). In Logiatownarea, there are10 functional wells (Eskandari, Homaee, & Mahmodi, 2012;Sumathi et al., 2008). Existing landfill site is clearly Discussion unsuitable with respect to public health, hygiene, noise, dust and odor. The overall dump site suitability selection The present study represents an important step in addres- showed five dump site suitability classes, viz.unsuitable sing a critical gap in the detection of waste disposal sites (restricted), less suitable, moderately suitable, suitable and to enhance cost-effectiveness and efficiency of waste and highly suitable. Bare-land, water body, built-up management efforts. Due to their ability to manage large areas and forest lands were used for dump site selection volumes of spatial information from various resources, processes due to their land-use/land-cover effect and GIS is ideal for site selection studies (Kao et al., 1997), and arebeingwidely appliedintherecent past forsiteselec- values. Bare land in the study area was identified as the tion studies (Curtis & Hardin, 2000; Haaren & Fthenakis, best option for solid waste dump sites. Areas with slope 2011; Nikolakaki, 2003;Thomas, 2002;Woodhouse, >20° were excluded as they were unsuitable and areas Lovett, & Dolman, 2000). The integration of both GIS with slope 0−10° were found to be the suitable for dump and multi-criteria techniques improves decision-making sites (Akbari, 2008). Areas within 700 m radius were because it establishes an environment for transformation excluded to minimize public health effects (Sam & and combination of geographical data and stakeholders Steven, 2017). preferences (Malczewski, 1997).Solid waste dumping site Area-wise calculation of suitability classes showed should be located at a suitable distance from roads to 7176.8 ha (85.2%) of the study area is unsuitable facilitate transportation and consequently to reduce rela- (restricted) for waste dump sites in Logia town. This tive costs. In Logia, waste dumping is mostly on the restricted area included well points, river/streams, fault, Djibouti roadside. According to Sam and Steven (2017), road,built-upareainthe first order, followed by perme- a minimum distance of 700 m buffer should be main- able locations, faults, geology, areas with a steep slope tained for road suitability dumpsite location. Kontos et al. (>20°), built-up and forest and areas close to roads. (2005), Al-Hanbali, Alsaaideh, and Kondoh (2011) and Ground/surface water-related criteria are more influen- Irfan Yesilnacar, Lütfi, Basak & Vedat (2012)used tial than rest of the criteria as they need protection against 194 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Figure 4. Integration of reclassified raster maps. leachate contamination from dump sites (Tyowuah & 537.5 ha. (6.4%) and 189.4 ha (2.2%) of the study area Hundu, 2017). According to Tyowuah and Hundu were identified as suitable and highly suitable, respec- (2017), contamination of ground/surface water tively, for waste dump sites. Waste dump site in these resources by leachate is a principal concern in relation areas is preferred because of the least effects that may to waste disposal sites. Deep groundwater areas are pre- cause on the environment and public. Most of the ferable as chances of groundwater pollution will be highly suitable landfill sites are situated in the northern minimized with increasing depth . Waste disposal part of the study area. The south-eastern part of Logia should also be away from faults (Rafee, Syed, Afshin & town having high elevation was excluded from the Nematolah, 2011). Lithology is one of the important selection of dump site as it comprises the recharge environmental factors that should be considered for area for low-lying regions of the town. Similarly, the solid waste disposal site selection processes (Bezawit south-west part of Logia is a potential source of Mitku, Engdawork Admassu, Tadege Arefayne & groundwater for the town and its surroundings and Bedaso Gichila, 2013). The degree of permeability hence excluded from the dump site. Therefore, a high (strength and weakness) decreases from rhyolite to suitable dump site should be identified most preferably basaltic fissure flow,lacustrine,silt,clayand sand and from the northern part of Logia town.The current open pyroxene (olive) basalt. Suitability increases from pyrox- dump site is located in an unsuitable site. It is placed ene (olive) basalt to Rhyolite (Sener, Su¨zen, & Doyuran, surrounding the built-up area, roadsides and nearby 2006).After eliminating the restricted land with the river. Considering the effect of solid waste on environ- combination of environmentally sensitive, socially ment, health, economy and other aspects of human life, important and economically significant areas, only the suggested selected site can be accessed by road. A GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 195 Figure 5. Overall solid waste dump site suitability map for Logia town. study conducted by Olusina & Shyllon (2014) in Lagos, town. The goal of this study was to pursue proper Nigeria indicated that landfill sites generated based on the selection process while avoiding environmental pro- criteria sets are to be accessible by road. It is evident that blems, and to suggest suitable site for landfill using multi-criteria decision making with GIS integrated meth- GIS and multi-criteria decision-making techniques to ods would be useful for environmental, human health facilitate shifting the present dumpsite to an alterna- and developmental issues and they should become statu- tive location. This site is easy to access for disposal of tory obligations for location of dump site selection in solid wastes. It is located in the west, northern and east human dwellings. of the study area. There are highly suitable and suita- ble classes, which might be suitable from environmen- tal, transportation and economic point of view. The Conclusion use of AHP with GIS and remote sensing for identifi- The generation of solid waste has expanded exten- cation of suitable solid waste dumping site will mini- sively amid the ongoing past because of the rising mize environmental risk and human health problems. worldwide population and rapid urbanization and its In addition, the described methodology is user- improper disposal and poor management in Logia friendly and can employed by authorities in 196 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN developing countries to lower both time and cost. Church,R.L. (2002). Geographical information systems and location science. Computers & Operations Research, 29(6), Hence, it is advisable that before resorting to the land- 541–562. fill option, town and city administrations should con- Coban, A., Ertis, I. F., & Cavdaroglu, N. A. (2018). sider waste minimization through recycling and reuse, Municipal solid waste management via multi-criteria and waste transformation alternatives. decision making methods: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 159–167. CSA. (2018). Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia Population and Housing Census Report. Addis Ababa. Acknowledgments Curtis, N. T., & Hardin, P. H. (2000). Remote sensing/GIS We are thankful to the School of Earth Sciences, College of integration to identify potential low-income housing Natural and Computational Sciences, Addis Ababa sites. Cities, 17,97–109. University for providing funds and facilities for this research. Eastman, J. R. (2012). IDRISI Selva manual version 17. We are also grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture and Production. Worcester: Clark University. Geological Survey of Ethiopia for providing valuable data Ebistu, T.A, & Minale, A.S. (2013). Solid waste dumping site for this research. The authors are thankful to the Logia suitability analysis using geographic information system Town Municipality office for providing the Census data, (gis) and remote sensing for bahir dar town, north wes- solid waste data and master plan of the town. The authors tern ethiopia. African Journal Of Environmental Science are grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers and Technology, 7(11), 976−989. whose useful comments to improve this manuscript. EGSSAA. (2009). Environmental guidelines for small-scale activities in Africa. Solid waste: Generation, handling, treatment and disposal, USA. Elmira,S., Behzad, N.,Mazlin,B.M., Ibrahim,K.,Halima, T.,& Disclosure statement Saadiah, H. (2010). Urban solid waste management based on geo-informatics technology, University Putra Malaysia, No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Malaysia. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 3,54̶ 60. Emun,G.(2010). Multi-criteria approach for suitable quarry site selection in Addis Ababa using remote sensing and GIS. References Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa. Abedi-Varaki, M., & Davtalab, M. (2016). Site selection for Ersoy, H, & Bulut, F. (2009). Spatial and multi-criteria installing plasma incinerator reactor using the GIS in decision analysis-based methodology for landfill site Rudsar county, Iran. Environmental Monitoring and selection in growing urban regions. Waste Management Assessment, 188(6), 353. & Research, 27, 489−500. doi:10.1177/0734242X08098430 Ajay, S. (2019). Remote sensing and GIS applications for Eskandari, M., Homaee, M., & Mahmodi, S. (2012). An municipal waste management. Journal of Environmental integrated multi criteria approach for landfill siting in a Management, 243,22−29. conflicting environmental, economic and socio-cultural Akbari, V. (2008). Landfill site selection by combining gis area. Waste Management, 32(8), 1528−1538. and fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis a case study Gizachew, K., Suryabhagavan, K. V., Mekuria, A., & Bandar Abbas. Journal of Department of Surveying and Hameed, S. (2012). GIS-based solid waste landfill site Geomatics Engineering. University of Tehran, Iran. selection in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International Al-Ansari, N. A., Hanbali, A., & Knutsson, S. (2012). Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 38,59−72. Locating solid waste landfills in Mafraq city, Jordan. Haaren,R.,&Fthenakis,V.(2011). GIS-basedwindfarmsite Journal of Advanced Science and Engineering Research, selection using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA): 2,40–51. Evaluating thecasefor NewYorkState. Renewable and Al-Hanbali, A., Alsaaideh, B., & Kondoh, A. (2011). Using Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 3332–3340. GIS-based weighted linear combination analysis and Hammer, G. (2003). Solid waste treatment and disposal: remote sensing techniques to select optimum solid Effect on public health and environmental safety. waste disposal sites within Mafraq city, Jordan. Journal Biotechnology Advances, 22,71̶ 79. of Geographic Information System, 3, 267−278. Hasan, P., Ramin, N. N., Amir, H. M., Kamyar, Y., & Bezawit, M., Engdawork, A., Tadege, A., & Gichila, B. Zabihalah, C. (2019). Landfill site selection using a hybrid (2013). Geological map of serdo map sheet (NC 37-4). system of AHP-Fuzzy in GIS environment: A case study Addis Ababa: Geological Survey of Ethiopia. in Shiraz city, Iran. MethodsX, 6, 1454−1466. Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making: Hering, J. G. (2012). An end to waste? Science, 337(6095), Applying the analytic hierarchy process (pp. 172). New 1623−1623. York: Springer-Verlag. Irfan, Y. M., Lütfi,S.M.,Basak, S.K.,& Vedat,D.(2012). Chang, N. B., Parvathinathan, G., & Breeden, J. B. (2008). Municipal solid waste landfill site selection for the city of Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making Sanliurfa-Turkey: An example using MCDA integrated with for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. Journal GIS. International Journal of Digital Earth, 5, 147−164. of Environmental Management, 87, 139−153. Joosten, L. A. J., Hekkert, M. P., & Worrell, E. (2000). Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, Q., & Garner, B. (1997). Assessment of the plastic flows in The Netherlands Preliminary landfill site screening using fuzzy geographi- using streams. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 30 cal information systems. Waste Management and (2), 135–161. Research, 15, 197−215. Joseph, K., Rajendiran, S., Senthilnathan, R., & Rakesh, M. Chen, W., & Kao, J. (2008). Air pollution directional risk (2012). Integrated approach to solid waste management assessment for siting a landfill. Journal of the Air & Waste in Chennai: An Indian metro city. Journal of Material 1539−1545. Management Association, 58, Cycles and Waste Management, 14,75–84. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 197 Kao, J. (1996). A raster-based C program for siting a landfill Management, 73, 332−341. doi:10.1016/j. with optimal compactness. Journal of Computers and wasman.2017.07.036 Geosciences, 22, 837−847. Philippe,F.,&Culot,M.(2009). Household solid waste gen- Kao, J., Lin, H., & Chen, W. (1997). Network geographic eration and characteristics in Cap-Haitien city: Republic of information system for landfill siting. Waste Management Haiti. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54,73–78. and Research, 15, 239−253. Rafiee, R., Syed, E., Afshin, D., & Nematolah, K. (2011). Kapilan, S., & Elangovan, K. J. (2018). Potential landfill site Siting transfer stations for Municipal solid waste using a selection for solid waste disposal using GIS and multi- spatial multi-criteria analysis. Environmental and criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Journal of Central Engineering Geo-Science, 17, 143–154. South University, 25, 570−585. Rezaei, M., Ghobadian, B., Samadi, S. H., & Karimi, S. Khan, D., & Samadder, S. (2014). Municipal solid waste (2018). Electric power generation from municipal solid management using geographical information system waste: A techno-economical assessment under different aided methods: A mini review. Waste Management and scenarios in Iran. Energy, 152,46–56. Research, 32, 1049–1062. Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (2001). Methods, concepts and appli- Kontos, T. D., Komilis, D. P., & Halvadakis, C. P. (2005). cations of the analytic hierarchy process. Boston: Kluwer Siting MSW landfills with spatial multiple criteria analysis Academic Publishers. methodology. Waste Management, 25, 818−832. Sadek, S., El-Fadel, M., & El-Hougeiri, N. (2001). Leao, S., Bishop, I., & Evans, D. (2001). Assessing the Optimizing landfill siting through GIS application. demand of solid waste disposal in urban region by Seventeenth International Conference on Solid Waste urban dynamics modeling in a GIS environment. Technology and Management, 2124 October 2001,The Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 33, 289−313. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, Lein,J.K.(1990). Exploring a knowledge-based procedure for Philadelphia, USA. developmental suitability analysis. Applied Geography, 10, Sam, Z., & Steven, J. (2017). Site suitability analysis for solid 171–186. waste landfill site location using geographic information Lin, H., & Kao, J. (1999). Enhanced spatial model for landfill systems and remote sensing: A case study of Banket town siting analysis. Journal of Environmental Engineering, board, Zimbabwe. Review of Social Sciences,2,19−31. 125, 845−851. Sener, B., Su¨zen, M. L., & Doyuran, V. (2006). Landfill site Lino, F. A. M., & Ismail, K. A. R. (2017b). Incineration and selection by using geographic information systems. recycling for MSW treatment: Case study of Campinas, Environmental Geology, 49, 376−388. Brazil. Sustainable Cities and Society, 35, 752–757. Sener, S., Sener, E., Nas, B., & Karagüzel, R. (2009). Malczewski, J. (1997). Propagation of errors in multicriteria Combining AHP with GIS for landfill site selection: A location analysis: A case study. In G. Fandel & T. Gal case study in the Lake Beysehir. Waste Management, 30, (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making (pp. 154–155). 2037–2046. Berlin: Springer. Sener, S, Sener, E, Nas, B, & Karagüzel, R. (2010). Mekuria, T. (2006). A multi-criteria analysis for solid waste Combining ahp with gis for landfill site selection: a case disposal site selection using Remote Sensing and GIS, study in the lake beysehir catchment area (konya, turkey). Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Unpublished Waste Management, 30, 2037−2046. doi:10.1016/j. Master’s Thesis, 11–25. wasman.2010.05.024 Mohammad,R.H.,Kidokoro, T.,&Syed,A.I.(2009). Landfill Shahabi, H., Keihanfard, S., Bin Ahmad, B., Javad, M., & demand and allocation for municipal solid waste disposal in Amiri, T. (2013). Evaluating Boolean, AHP and WLC Dhaka city an assessment in a GIS environment‖. Journal of methods for the selection of waste landfill sites using Civil Engineering (IEB), 37,133–149. GIS and satellite images. Environmental Earth Science, Mutlutürk, M., & Karagüzel, R. (2007). The landfill area 71, 4221̶ 4233. quality (LAQ) classification approach and its application Siddiqui, M., Everett, J., & Vieux, B. (1996). Landfill siting in Isparta, Turkey. Environmental and Engineering using geographic information systems: A demonstration. Geoscience, 13, 229−240. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 122, 515−523. Muttiah, R. S., Engel, B. A., & Jones, D. D. (1996). Waste Simsek, C., Kıncal, C., & Gündüz, O. (2005). A solid waste disposal site selection using GIS-based simulated anneal- disposal site selection procedure based on groundwater ing. Computers & Geosciences, 22, 1013−1017. vulnerability mapping. Environ Geol. doi:10.1007/s00254- Nas,B.,Cay,T.,&Iscan,F.(2008). Selection of MSW landfill 005-0111-2 site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evalua- Sumathi, V. R., Natesan, U., & Sarkar, C. (2008). GIS-based tion. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160, 491– approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste 500. landfill. Waste Management, 28, 2146−2160. Nikolakaki, P. (2003). A GIS site-selection process for habi- Thomas, R. M. (2002). A GIS-based decision support system tat creation: Estimating connectivity of habitat patches. for brownfield redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Landscape and Urban Planning, 68,77–94. Planning, 58,7–23. Olusina, Joseph O, & Shyllon, D.O. (2014). Suitability ana- Tyowuah, M., & Hundu, W. (2017). Site suitability analysis lysis in determining optimal landfill location using multi- for solid waste disposal using geospatial technology: A criteria evaluation (mce), gis & remote sensing. case study of Katsina-Ala township, Katsina-Ala, Benue International Journal Of Computational Engineering State. International Journal of Science and Research, 6, Research, 4(6), 7−20. 2319–7064. Othman,N.,Kane,T.,&Hawrami,K.(2017). Environmental UNEP. (2005). Selection, design and implementation of eco- health assessment in Sulaymaniyah City and Vicinity. Tech. nomic instruments in the solid waste management sector Rep. in Kenya. New York, USA. Panepinto, D, & Zanetti, M.C. (2018). Municipal solid waste United Nations. (2017, December 2). World population incineration plant: a multi-step approach to the evalua- prospects: 2017 revision population database. Retrieved tion of an energy-recovery configuration. Waste from http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm. 198 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Visvanathan, C., & Glawe, U. (2006). Domestic solid waste Yesilnacar, M. Đ., & Çetin, H. (2007). An environmental management in South Asian countries. A Comparative geomorphologic approach to site selection for hazardous Analysis. Synthesis report of the 3R South Asia Expert wastes. Environ Geol. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-1115 Work Shop, Kathmandu, Nepal. 1–14. Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Hurtado, A., Grindlay, A., & Woodhouse, S., Lovett, A., & Dolman, P. (2000). Using a Ramos, A. (2008). Evaluation of a municipal landfill site GIS to select priority areas for conservation. Computers, in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology. Journal Environment and Urban Systems, 24,79–93. of Hazardous Materials, 160, 473−481. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Geology Ecology and Landscapes Taylor & Francis

Solid waste dumping site selection using GIS-based multi-criteria spatial modeling: a case study in Logia town, Afar region, Ethiopia

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/solid-waste-dumping-site-selection-using-gis-based-multi-criteria-V8RPOq64Mx

References (67)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the International Water, Air & Soil Conservation Society(INWASCON).
ISSN
2474-9508
DOI
10.1080/24749508.2019.1703311
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 2021, VOL. 5, NO. 3, 186–198 INWASCON https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1703311 RESEARCH ARTICLE Solid waste dumping site selection using GIS-based multi-criteria spatial modeling: a case study in Logia town, Afar region, Ethiopia Ahmed Mussa and K. V. Suryabhagavan School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 4 November 2019 Several, countries are struggling to establish proper waste management systems in the context of Accepted 5 December 2019 increasing population and urbanization. Urban solid waste management system needs solid waste management technique, where presence of a sanitary landfill is vital. One of the most KEYWORDS important issues of sanitary landfill is to identify suitable locations. The main objective of the Analytic hierarchy process; present study was to identify suitable solid waste disposal sites that are economically feasible, geographic information environmentally sound, and socially acceptable in Logia town, Ethiopia, applying Remote system; criteria weights; Sensing and Geographic Information System techniques. The present study was based on landfill; remote sensing thematic maps such as groundwater well points, slope, fault, built-up area, road network, river, land-use/land-cover, geology and soil map. Analytical Hierarchy Process pair-wise comparison model was used to accomplish weights of factor parameters. Suitability map was prepared by overlay analyses and assigned as highly suitable, suitable, moderately suitable, less suitable and unsuitable. Results show that 5.93% of the study area is highly suitable, 6.5% is suitable, 3.23% is moderately suitable, 1.02% is less suitable and 83.32% is unsuitable for solid waste dumping in Logia town. Field observations also confirmed suitability of the selected sites, and hence this method can be used in urban areas for waste dumping site selection procedure. Selected sites are considered to be suitable for landfill to minimize environmental risk and human health problems. Introduction Waste as a byproduct of various human activities creates serious problems in human habitats. Increasing Waste is any material discharged from human activ- population, rapid economic growth and rise in living ities, which makes adverse impacts on human health standards have accelerated the process of solid waste and environment. Solid wastes are non-liquid and generation throughout the world (Elmira et al., 2010; non-gaseous products such as those from households, Hering, 2012). Unscientific solid waste disposal can municipal, supermarket, construction and industries develop contamination of surface and groundwater (Ajay, 2019; Kapilan & Elangovan, 2018). Solid waste through leaching surface waste deposits and air pollution, has become a global environmental and health issue in and release of methane (Visvanathan & Glawe, 2006). the contemporary world both in developing and devel- Solid wastes indiscriminately thrown around human oped countries (UNEP, 2005; United Nations, 2017). environment also results in aesthetic problems and nui- Such environmental challenges combined with social, sance (Hammer, 2003). Before the mid-1970s, most solid economic and land availability issues raise concerns waste disposal sites in the Ethiopian townships were on over land management and evaluation techniques the borders of the urban areas around water bodies, crop (Coban, Ertis, & Cavdaroglu, 2018; Lein, 1990; fields, settlements and on road sides (EGSSAA, 2009). Philippe & Culot, 2009). In developing countries, the Therefore, locating proper sites for dumping solid waste increasing human population and associated anthro- far from environmental resources, residential areas, water pogenic activities have accelerated the process of waste bodies,roads,faultsandsettlementsisessentialforthe generation at an alarming level. In recent decades, the management of solid waste in a proper way. Solid wastes waste management process used many Africa, Asian, in urban areas mostly include wastes of plastics, glass, American and European countries have shifted from fabrics, metals, and kitchen waste which have complex landfilling to incineration (Lino & Ismail, 2017b; composition and late degradable characteristics, creating Rezaei, Ghobadian, Samadi, & Karimi, 2018). Hence, more harm to the environment. The present waste man- it is essential to find out suitable waste management agement techniques rely on reuse, recycling, reduction and disposal methods (Gizachew, Suryabhagavan, and recovery of energy concepts (Ajay, 2019;Kontos, Mekuria Argaw & Hameed, 2012; Ebistu & Minale, Komilis, & Halvadakis, 2005). 2013; Abedi-Varaki & Davtalab, 2016). CONTACT K. V. Suryabhagavan drsuryabhagavan@gmail.com School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the International Water, Air & Soil Conservation Society(INWASCON). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 187 In the recent years, Geographical Information System east of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. (GIS) has been playing a major role in the process of Physiography of the area is mainly controlled by vol- decision-making. The advantage of GIS-based approach cano-tectonic rather than erosional activities. This site selection saves time and cost. It also provides digital area has no much spatial variations of topographic data inventory for long-term monitoring of the site features. It ranges from moderately elevated moun- (Gizachew et al., 2012;Kontos etal., 2005). Remote sen- tains to flat plains with the general topographic direc- sing can provide information about various spatial cri- tion from south-west towards the east. Elevation of the teria such as land-use/land-cover (Emun, 2010), and GIS area is from 362 − 450 m. Total area of the township is can utilize, create and analyze spatial or attribute data for 8418.9 ha (Figure 1). At an average temperature of solid waste dumping sites selection processes. Enormous 32.3°C, June is the hottest month of the year, when it literatures on landfills are theoretically available for selec- reaches around 44°C. The lowest average temperature tion of solid waste landfill sites (Church, 2002;Hasan, occurs in January (24.2°C). Annual precipitation in Ramin, Amir, Kamyar, & Zabihalah, 2019;Joosten, the area is around 203 mm. Population of Logia Hekkert, & Worrell, 2000;Joseph, Rajendiran, town was 29,675 and as per CSA (2018). Sentthilnathan & Rakesh, 2012). A further significant impact from poor solid waste collected by the munici- Data and methods pality being dumped, untreated, near the Logia river, Awashriver closetothe Logiatown. Thecumulative Data sets solid waste quantity exceeds the capacity of Logia town Sentinel 2A data of 2018 having the resolution 10 m authority management options, resulting in a potentially were used to prepare primary input thematic maps adverse impact on the environment, human health, and like land-use/land-cover, geological structures, and the quality of urban life (Ajay, 2019; Othman, Kane, & lithology with the help of field investigations and sec- Hawrami, 2017). All researchers in the field of solid waste ondary maps. Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission incineration site selection show that decision-making (SRTM) digital elevation data of 30 m resolution criteria in different countries pursue common goals were used for this study. Soil map and agro-climatic such as environmental, economic, and social desirability zone map of the study area compiled by Food and (Panepinto & Zanetti, 2018). Agricultural Organization (FAO) were collected from Applications of GIS to identify potential waste disposal the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Government of sites have been analysed in different locations (Kao, 1996; Ethiopia. In the field, open dump sites and well points Muttiah, Engel, & Jones, 1996; Siddiqui, Everett, Vieux &. were collected using GPS. In addition, some sample 1996;Charnpratheep,Zhou, &Garner, 1997;Kao,Lin, & points from different land-use/land-cover types were Chen, 1997;Lin &Kao, 1999; Leao, Bishop, & Evans, also collected to verify the current land-use/land-cover 2001; Sadek, El-Fadel, & El-Hougeiri, 2001;Kontosetal., types of the area. Interviews with environmental pro- 2005; Sener, Sener & Nas, 2010; Chang, Parvathinathan, tection officers and people living around the existing & Breeden, 2008;Chen&Kao, 2008; Sumathi, Natesan, & landfills were made to get additional information. All Sarkar, 2008; Zamorano, Molero, Hurtado, Grindlay, & input datasets were georeferenced to Adindan UTM Ramos, 2008; Khan & Samadder, 2014). During the pre- Zone 37N coordinate system and reclassified giving vious couple of decades, researchers have extensively weights, and new maps were generated. Spatial geoda- used remote sensing and GIS-based multi-criteria deci- tabase was designed to include the input datasets, their sion analysis (MCDA) revealed that sanitary landfilling is derived datasets, weighted analysis maps, and the final the most appropriate waste disposal method (Simsek, result. Verification layers were also included in the Kıncal, & Gündüz, 2005;Mutlutürk&Karagüzel, 2007; geodatabase in tabular and shapefile formats. The Yesilnacar & Çetin, 2007; Nas, Cay, & Iscan, 2008;Ersoy shape files were exported to the corresponding feature &Bulut, 2009; Sener, Sener, Nas, & Karagüzel, 2009; data sets and the raster files were exported as indivi- Coban et al., 2018). These techniques provide important dual raster datasets in the geodatabase. The flowchart support to solve the problem of locating waste bins effec- of the methodology and using hierarchical model are tively (Ajay, 2019; Church, 2002). This study aimed to shown in Figure 2. determinethemost appropriatesuitablesolidwastedis- posalsitefor LogiatowninEthiopiaand to judgethe status of the current waste disposal site in the town Criteria determining factors selected by conventional methods. Relations of solid waste dumping site suitability selec- tion with the natural factors that determine its occur- rence were used as criteria, which imply the governing The study area factors of occurrence of suitability cite selection to Logia town is located in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, select best waste dumping sites in the study area. In bounded by 11° 43ʹ 55”−11° 45ʹ 24” N latitudes and this study, 10 criteria were selected for evaluating solid 41° 03ʹ 29”−41° 05ʹ 41” E longitudes, 578 km north- waste dump site selection. Factors such as land-use/ 188 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Figure 1. Location map of the study area. Figure 2. Methodology framework of the study. land-cover, geological structures, lithology, slope, dis- Weight Derivation model was employed to compare tance to river, built-up, road, soil, drainage, well points two criteria at a time based on expert judgment and a were considered in the analysis. pair-wise comparison matrix from which a set of The AHP method is composed of three main steps weights referred to as Eigenvectors together with con- (Saaty & Vargas, 2001). Each layer was internally sistency ratios for each of the criteria considered. After weighed based on buffer minimum and maximum assigning external weights to each layer, Weighted distances and requirements. The layers were standar- Linear Combination (WLC) technique was applied to dized and thematic map of each criterion was pro- produce an overall dump site suitability map that duced in the first phase. In the second phase, combined all the criteria. With the Weighted Linear preference of each criterion relative to rest of the Combination, factors were combined by applying a criteria on dump site selection was expressed by weight to each followed by a summation of the results assigning weights. Analytical Hierarchical Process to yield a suitability map as shown in equation 1. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 189 X X n n S ¼ WiXi (1) S ¼ WiCi (4) i¼1 i¼1 S is (WluClu * WsoCso * WgeCge * WslCsl* WroCro * where S is suitability, w is the weight of the factor i WfaCfa * WriCri * WwpCwp * WbuCbu). and x are the criterion score of factor i. WluWlu: weight and criteria for land-use, WoCso: This procedure can be modified by multiplying the weight and criteria for soil, WgeCge: weight and cri- suitability calculated from the factors by the product teria for geology (lithology), WslCsl: weight and cri- of the constraints for Boolean constraints to apply as teria for slope, WroCro: weight and criteria for road, shown in equation 2. WfaCfa: weight and criteria for fault, WriCri: weight S ¼ Cj (2) and criteria for river, WwpCwp: weight and criteria j¼1 for groundwater well points, WbuCbu: weight and where Cj is the criterion score of the constraint j. criteria for built-up. The weights were developed by providing a series of pair-wise comparisons of relative importance. Based on experience and likely impact on surrounding envir- Phase 2: multi-criteria model onment, different weights were assigned to all the In the phase, two step was to create decision tables at parameters. Analytic hierarchy process was used to each level of the hierarchical decomposition. The produce weights. The constraint served to limit the matrices capture a series of pair-wise comparisons alternatives under consideration, which were using relative data and Weight Linear Combination expressed in the form of a Boolean logical map in 0 (WLC) were combined, which resulted in a final site and 1 (Mohammad, Kidokoro, & Syed, 2009; Eastman, selection using the equation: 2012; Shahabi, Keihanfard, Bin Ahmad, Javad, & Amiri, 2013; Olusina & Shyllon, 2014). Equation 3 is X Y S ¼ WiCi  rj (5) used for Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE): i¼1 j¼1 X Y n m S ¼ WiCi  rj (3) i¼1 j¼1 S is ((r road * r fault * r river * r well point * r built-up) * (WluClu * WsoCso * WgeCge * WslCsl* WroCro * where S is the suitability for a waste disposal site, Wi is WfaCfa * WriCri * WwpCwp * WbuCbu)). the weight of factor i, CI is the criterion for suitability A number of possible selections were examined for of factor i, rj is the criterion for suitability of constraint setting a suitable site by taking into consideration j and Π is the product. multiple criteria and contradictory objectives in the GIS-based MCE technique, using WLC analysis (Al- Ansari, Hanbali, & Knutsson, 2012; Chang et al., Phase 1: suitability model 2008). The pair-wise comparisons of various criteria The phase one step was to decompose the decision- were organized into a square matrix (Table 1). The making problem into a hierarchical structure. A struc- matrix was known with values from 1 to 9 from whole tural hierarchy formed for the decision problem con- numbers from 1/9 to 1/2 for fractions. Weights calcu- sists of several levels. To establish the hierarchy of the lated from each column were summed and every fac- main goals of solid waste dump site selection, several tor in the matrix was divided by the sum of the criteria were created, including environmental factors, respective column and the first eigenfactor was com- economic factors, and constraints. A Suitability Model puted. The second eigenvector was used to compute was applied in achieving the task, which was Weight the percentage weight for each factor contributed to Linear Combination (WLC) together with AHP. the solid waste dumping site suitability analysis. Analytic hierarchy process was used to capture aspects For the phase three step, the rating of each alter- of the decision. It was used in computing the weights native was multiplied by the weights of the sub-criteria for different criteria used by creating a pair-wise com- and aggregated to determine the local ratings with parison matrix. Equation 4 is used for the model: respect to each criterion. The local ratings were then Table 1. Pair-wise comparison of factors in relation to solid waste dumping site selection in Logia town. Factors Land-cover Lithology Road Built-up Fault River Well depth Soil Slope Fault 1 Soil 1/2 1 Lithology 1/3 1/2 1 Land-cover 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Road 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Built-up 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 River 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Well depth 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 Slope 1/9 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 190 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Table 2. Principal eigenvector of the pair-wise comparison largest part of the study area (80.3%) is highly suitable matrix. for solid waste disposal sites, whereas, 5.3% and 13.4% of Factors Weight theareaweresuitableandless suitable,respectively. The Fault 0.3058 remaining 1% of the study area was unsuitable for solid Soil 0.2193 waste disposal site. Lithology 0.1542 Land-cover 0.1088 Road 0.0764 Built-up 0.0534 Geology and fault suitability River 0.0370 Well depth 0.0261 The present study area contains five geological types such Slope 0.0190 as stratoid basalt, rhyolite, flow basalt, trap basalt and Consistency ratio (CR) is 0.07. mudflats. Stratoid basalt area has 0.80% extent as unsui- tabale, 1.24% as less suitable, 13.43% as moderately sui- multiplied by the weights of the criteria and aggre- table, 18.19% as suitable and 66.35% as highly suitable, gated to determine global ratings (Bhushan & Rai, respectively, for solid waste disposal sites (Table 3 and 2004). In this study, every criterion was assigned dif- Figure 3).Themoredistancefromfault,themoresuitable ferent ratings on a scale of 1 (least suitable) to 6 (most the area for waste disposal to minimize negative effects of suitable). Initially, the constrained areas for solid dump site. Based on fault proximity suitability, only 1.9% waste dump site selection were masked. of the extent of the study area is highly suitable and 10.6% Subsequently, the overall score of alternatives in the of the area is suitable, whereas 23.5% and 64% of the GIS environment. To produce the best fit set of study area are less suitable and unsuitable, respectively, weights, principal eigenvector of the pair-wise com- for solid waste disposal sites. As per suitability reclassifi- parison matrix was computed using weight (Table 2). cation, the highest rank was assigned to a buffer distance of >3000 m from f aultand the lowest rank 1000 m from Results fault was given to unsuitable areas. Groundwater well points and river suitability Soil suitability Solid wastes disposed near the river cause ecological, agricultural and health problems. Considering these pro- In Logiatownarea, thereare twotypes of soilssuchas blems, the suitability of solid waste dump site map was lithosols (clay) and orthic solonchak (saline). Based on produced (Table 3 and Figure 3). Accordingly, 5.2% of Table 3, about 24.1% of the total area is suitable and theareawasunsuitable,56.8% waslesssuitable, 17.8% 75.9% of the area is unsuitable for solid waste disposal was moderately suitable, 9.3% was suitable, and 10.9% sites (Figure 3). was highly suitable for solid waste disposal site in Logia. Based on the above standards, suitability map of ground- Road network and built-up area suitability water well point was prepared. Table 3 indicates that 37.34%, 18.38%, 25.94%, 12.45% and 5.9% of the total The road network suitability distance calculated is shown area are unsuitable, less suitable, moderately suitable, in Figure 3. In the study area, 0.6% and 7.6% of the area suitable and highly suitable, respectively, for solid waste are less suitable and moderately suitable, respectively, disposal site in Logia. while 44.3%, 31.4% and 16.1% of the area is unsuitable, suitable and highly suitable, respectively, for waste dis- posal sites. Road proximity in the remaining study area is Slope and land-use/land-cover suitability moderate to less suitable, for solid waste disposal sites. The topography of the study area is dominated by a slope Thedumpsiteshouldalsobe far from commercialbuild- of 0–10°, which accounts for 99.1% of the total study area. ings, urban green space, service area and industries. The second most dominant topography of the study area Accordingly, 26.5% of the total area is unsuitable, while is 10̶ 20° covering 0.87% of total area and the remaining 33.4% is less suitable for solid waste disposal. The other 0.03% of theareaiswithaslope>20°(Table 3). Based on 22.8%, 15.2%, and 2.1% of the area were moderately the slope suitability coverages of Logia, the extent of suitable, suitable and highly suitable, respectively for highly suitable, suitable, and unsuitable sites were demar- waste disposal in Logia town. cated and the suitability map was prepared (Figure 3). Land-use/land-cover map was produced for dumping Constraint criteria waste with an overall accuracy of 86%. The land-use map displays the land utilized by human and natural Constraints are limitations or restrictions, which prohibit cover in the Logia town. The land-use map indicates the certain elements to be taken into account. Constraint areas of vegetation, bareland, built-up area and water maps are used to distinguish between lands suitable and bodies. The majority of the region is occupied by bare- restricted for dump sites. A constraint map for each land. Based on the land-use/land-cover suitability, the theme contains 1‟s for suitable land and 0‟sfor GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 191 Table 3. Criteria for dump site selection suitability and their rank. Factors Parameter (m) Suitability class Rank Weight Area (ha) Area (%) Road 0 – 700 Unsuitable 1 0.0344 3704.8 44.3 701 – 2100 Less suitable 2 0.0613 2644.2 31.4 2101 – 3500 Moderately suitable 3 0.1088 1352 16.1 3501 – 4900 Suitable 4 0.2486 665.5 7.6 >4900 Highly suitable 5 0.5469 51.5 0.6 Built-up 0 – 700 Unsuitable 1 0.0428 2227.7 26.5 701 – 2100 Less suitable 2 0.0940 2812.9 33.4 2101 – 3500 Moderately suitable 3 0.1232 1916.9 22.8 3501 – 4900 Suitable 4 0.2242 1282.9 15.2 >4900 Highly suitable 5 0.6158 177.6 2.1 River 0 – 500 Unsuitable 1 0.0202 3144.1 37.34 501 – 1000 Less suitable 2 0.1124 1547 18.38 1001 – 1500 Moderately suitable 3 0.1423 2183.3 25.94 1501 – 2000 Suitable 4 0.2131 1046.4 12.45 >2000 Highly suitable 5 0.5120 497.2 5.9 Fault 0 – 1000 Unsuitable 1 0.0682 5398 64 1001 – 2000 Less suitable 2 0.1664 1984 23.5 200 – 3000 Suitable 4 0.2968 871 10.6 >3000 Highly suitable 5 0.4686 165 1.9 Well points 0 − 500 Unsuitable 1 0.0221 427.7 5.2 501 − 3000 Less suitable 2 0.0390 4753.9 56.8 3001 − 4000 Moderately Suitable 3 0.1136 1485 17.8 4001 − 5000 Suitable 4 0.2431 779.4 9.3 > 5000 High Suitable 5 0.5822 917 10.9 Geology Stratoid Basalt Unsuitable 1 0.0346 147 0.80 Rhyolitic Less Suitable 2 0.0663 7251 1.24 Flow Basalt Moderately suitable 3 0.1408 723 13.43 Trap or Flood Basalt Suitable 4 0.2950 257 18.19 Mud flats Highly Suitable 5 0.4634 40 66.35 Soil Orthic Solonchaks Unsuitable 1 0.4284 2024 75.9 Lithosols Suitable 4 0.5716 0.7 24.1 LU/LC Water body Unsuitable 1 0.0389 88 1 Built-up area Less suitable 2 0.1035 1131 13.4 Forest Suitable 4 0.3255 442 5.3 Bare-land Highly suitable 5 0.5320 6757 80.3 Slope >20° Unsuitable 1 0.1481 3 0.03 11̶20° Suitable 5 0.2703 68 0.87 0̶10° Highly suitable 4 0.5816 8347 99.1 unsuitable land. Thus, five constraint maps were gener- Fault and built-up area constraint buffer ated, for factors such as groundwater well points, river, distance suitability map road network, fault and built-up area. For the current study, less than 1000 m buffer dis- tance from faults were considered as 0 (unsuitable) forsolidwastedisposalsitedueto high permeability Groundwater well of soil near the fault. Areas >1000 m buffer distance Ten functional groundwater well points were recorded of fault was considered as 1 or suitable (Figure 3). during field survey. Using proximity tools, buffer zones The built-up area constraint map was created in were prepared around each well. Dump site should not be order to define dump site hazards, such as scavenging located within 500 m distance from groundwater wells animals and unfavorable odor and noise. The buffer points. Figure 3 shows the proximity distance from well zone of built-up area distance <700 m as assigned 0 pointtolocatethebest siteforawaste dumpsiteinLogia (unsuitable), while >700 m as assigned to be 1 (sui- Town. table) for locating a solid waste disposal location (Figure 3). River and road constraint buffer distance suitability map Constraint map The river constraint map was created based on buffer Five constraint maps were produced such as well points, distance < 500 m as unsuitable and >2000 m as suita- river, road, fault and built-up area using overlay function ble (Figure 3). Distance from existing roads is an (using direct multiplication of binary integer values) to important factor in locating waste conversion facil- create the final constraint map. Finally, from the total area ities. The road constraint map of buffer distance of the study unsuitable area cover of 7176.8 ha (85.2%) <700 m was unsuitable and one suitable on the road and suitable area cover of 1241.2 ha (14.8%) were recog- network proximity standard (Figure 3). nized (Table 4). 192 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Figure 3. Original and reclassified thematic maps. Waste dumpsite suitability fault–30.58%, soil–21.93%, lithology–15.42%, land- cover 10.88%, road 7.64%, built-up 5.34%, river The datasets derived have different degrees of influ- 3.7%, well depth 2.61% and slope 1.9%. The higher ence of solid waste dumping site selection. Hence, the weight, the more influence a particular factor will from the principal eigenvector calculation, the relative have in the solid waste dumping site selection model. importance of each parameter was determined. The The factors involved were examined according to their decreasing order of importance of dump sites was relative importance in solving the stated problem and GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 193 Table 4. Constraint criteria accepted for dump site selection. Criteria Parameter (m) Suitability Rank Weight Area (ha) Area (%) Well point 0 – 500 Unsuitable 0 0.3471 427.7 5.08 > 500 Suitable 1 0.6520 7990.3 94.92 River 0 – 500 Unsuitable 0 0.2471 427.7 5.08 >500 Suitable 1 0.7520 7990.3 94.92 Road Networks 0 – 700 Unsuitable 0 0.4531 3704.8 44.02 > 700 Suitable 1 0.5469 4713.2 55.98 Fault 0 – 1000 Unsuitable 0 0.4686 5398 64.12 >1000 Suitable 1 0.5314 3020 35.88 Built-up area 0 – 700 Unsuitable 0 0.3842 3704.8 44.02 >700 Suitable 1 0.6158 4713.2 55.98 weights were assigned. All the reclassified factor layers multiple buffer ring extents and the grading values for were used in weighted overlay analysis (Figure 4)by roads. At present Logia town has grown at an unexpected applying equation (5), and a final solid waste dumping growth and as a result, the distance of the facility to the site selection map of Logia town was produced (Figure nearest residential area is only few kilometers. 5): (Fault) × 0.3058 + (soil) × 0.2193 + (lithology) × Groundwater circulation and the downward flow of 0.1542 + (land-cover) × 0.1088 + (road) × 0.0764 + pollutants through rocks and soils depend on the hydro- (built-up) × 0.0534 + (river) × 0.0370 + (well depth) × geological condition of the materials; more specifically 0.0261 (slope) × 0.0190 = Solid waste dumping site hydraulic properties such as porosity, permeability, and transitivity (Tsegaye Mekuria, 2006). The proximity of a selection. Out of the total study area, about 5.93% (499.43 ha) fall solid waste dump site to a groundwater well point is an underhighlysuitableasthe area satisfies environmental, important environmental criterion in the dump site selec- tion so that well points may be protected from the runoff social and economic criteria such as fault, built-up area, and discharge. Therefore, solid waste disposal sites should surface water, geology, land-use/land-cover, soil, slope, and road network. Such areas were located in the north- be away from wells. Additionally, it can have irreversible human and environmental effects. Distance from ern part of the study area. Suitable area covers an extent of groundwater well was considered as an important to 6.5% (537.5 ha), moderately suitable areas 3.23% (272 ha), less suitable area 1.02% (86.10 ha) and the remaining prepare the water sources for activities and drinking water, and they are influenced by many factors including 83.32% (7154.61 ha) unsuitable for solid waste disposal agricultural and reactions occurred in landfill sites (Khan sites. The red points in the map indicate the existing open dump site surrounding Logia town (Figure 5). & Samadder, 2014). In Logiatownarea, there are10 functional wells (Eskandari, Homaee, & Mahmodi, 2012;Sumathi et al., 2008). Existing landfill site is clearly Discussion unsuitable with respect to public health, hygiene, noise, dust and odor. The overall dump site suitability selection The present study represents an important step in addres- showed five dump site suitability classes, viz.unsuitable sing a critical gap in the detection of waste disposal sites (restricted), less suitable, moderately suitable, suitable and to enhance cost-effectiveness and efficiency of waste and highly suitable. Bare-land, water body, built-up management efforts. Due to their ability to manage large areas and forest lands were used for dump site selection volumes of spatial information from various resources, processes due to their land-use/land-cover effect and GIS is ideal for site selection studies (Kao et al., 1997), and arebeingwidely appliedintherecent past forsiteselec- values. Bare land in the study area was identified as the tion studies (Curtis & Hardin, 2000; Haaren & Fthenakis, best option for solid waste dump sites. Areas with slope 2011; Nikolakaki, 2003;Thomas, 2002;Woodhouse, >20° were excluded as they were unsuitable and areas Lovett, & Dolman, 2000). The integration of both GIS with slope 0−10° were found to be the suitable for dump and multi-criteria techniques improves decision-making sites (Akbari, 2008). Areas within 700 m radius were because it establishes an environment for transformation excluded to minimize public health effects (Sam & and combination of geographical data and stakeholders Steven, 2017). preferences (Malczewski, 1997).Solid waste dumping site Area-wise calculation of suitability classes showed should be located at a suitable distance from roads to 7176.8 ha (85.2%) of the study area is unsuitable facilitate transportation and consequently to reduce rela- (restricted) for waste dump sites in Logia town. This tive costs. In Logia, waste dumping is mostly on the restricted area included well points, river/streams, fault, Djibouti roadside. According to Sam and Steven (2017), road,built-upareainthe first order, followed by perme- a minimum distance of 700 m buffer should be main- able locations, faults, geology, areas with a steep slope tained for road suitability dumpsite location. Kontos et al. (>20°), built-up and forest and areas close to roads. (2005), Al-Hanbali, Alsaaideh, and Kondoh (2011) and Ground/surface water-related criteria are more influen- Irfan Yesilnacar, Lütfi, Basak & Vedat (2012)used tial than rest of the criteria as they need protection against 194 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Figure 4. Integration of reclassified raster maps. leachate contamination from dump sites (Tyowuah & 537.5 ha. (6.4%) and 189.4 ha (2.2%) of the study area Hundu, 2017). According to Tyowuah and Hundu were identified as suitable and highly suitable, respec- (2017), contamination of ground/surface water tively, for waste dump sites. Waste dump site in these resources by leachate is a principal concern in relation areas is preferred because of the least effects that may to waste disposal sites. Deep groundwater areas are pre- cause on the environment and public. Most of the ferable as chances of groundwater pollution will be highly suitable landfill sites are situated in the northern minimized with increasing depth . Waste disposal part of the study area. The south-eastern part of Logia should also be away from faults (Rafee, Syed, Afshin & town having high elevation was excluded from the Nematolah, 2011). Lithology is one of the important selection of dump site as it comprises the recharge environmental factors that should be considered for area for low-lying regions of the town. Similarly, the solid waste disposal site selection processes (Bezawit south-west part of Logia is a potential source of Mitku, Engdawork Admassu, Tadege Arefayne & groundwater for the town and its surroundings and Bedaso Gichila, 2013). The degree of permeability hence excluded from the dump site. Therefore, a high (strength and weakness) decreases from rhyolite to suitable dump site should be identified most preferably basaltic fissure flow,lacustrine,silt,clayand sand and from the northern part of Logia town.The current open pyroxene (olive) basalt. Suitability increases from pyrox- dump site is located in an unsuitable site. It is placed ene (olive) basalt to Rhyolite (Sener, Su¨zen, & Doyuran, surrounding the built-up area, roadsides and nearby 2006).After eliminating the restricted land with the river. Considering the effect of solid waste on environ- combination of environmentally sensitive, socially ment, health, economy and other aspects of human life, important and economically significant areas, only the suggested selected site can be accessed by road. A GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 195 Figure 5. Overall solid waste dump site suitability map for Logia town. study conducted by Olusina & Shyllon (2014) in Lagos, town. The goal of this study was to pursue proper Nigeria indicated that landfill sites generated based on the selection process while avoiding environmental pro- criteria sets are to be accessible by road. It is evident that blems, and to suggest suitable site for landfill using multi-criteria decision making with GIS integrated meth- GIS and multi-criteria decision-making techniques to ods would be useful for environmental, human health facilitate shifting the present dumpsite to an alterna- and developmental issues and they should become statu- tive location. This site is easy to access for disposal of tory obligations for location of dump site selection in solid wastes. It is located in the west, northern and east human dwellings. of the study area. There are highly suitable and suita- ble classes, which might be suitable from environmen- tal, transportation and economic point of view. The Conclusion use of AHP with GIS and remote sensing for identifi- The generation of solid waste has expanded exten- cation of suitable solid waste dumping site will mini- sively amid the ongoing past because of the rising mize environmental risk and human health problems. worldwide population and rapid urbanization and its In addition, the described methodology is user- improper disposal and poor management in Logia friendly and can employed by authorities in 196 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN developing countries to lower both time and cost. Church,R.L. (2002). Geographical information systems and location science. Computers & Operations Research, 29(6), Hence, it is advisable that before resorting to the land- 541–562. fill option, town and city administrations should con- Coban, A., Ertis, I. F., & Cavdaroglu, N. A. (2018). sider waste minimization through recycling and reuse, Municipal solid waste management via multi-criteria and waste transformation alternatives. decision making methods: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 159–167. CSA. (2018). Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia Population and Housing Census Report. Addis Ababa. Acknowledgments Curtis, N. T., & Hardin, P. H. (2000). Remote sensing/GIS We are thankful to the School of Earth Sciences, College of integration to identify potential low-income housing Natural and Computational Sciences, Addis Ababa sites. Cities, 17,97–109. University for providing funds and facilities for this research. Eastman, J. R. (2012). IDRISI Selva manual version 17. We are also grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture and Production. Worcester: Clark University. Geological Survey of Ethiopia for providing valuable data Ebistu, T.A, & Minale, A.S. (2013). Solid waste dumping site for this research. The authors are thankful to the Logia suitability analysis using geographic information system Town Municipality office for providing the Census data, (gis) and remote sensing for bahir dar town, north wes- solid waste data and master plan of the town. The authors tern ethiopia. African Journal Of Environmental Science are grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers and Technology, 7(11), 976−989. whose useful comments to improve this manuscript. EGSSAA. (2009). Environmental guidelines for small-scale activities in Africa. Solid waste: Generation, handling, treatment and disposal, USA. Elmira,S., Behzad, N.,Mazlin,B.M., Ibrahim,K.,Halima, T.,& Disclosure statement Saadiah, H. (2010). Urban solid waste management based on geo-informatics technology, University Putra Malaysia, No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Malaysia. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 3,54̶ 60. Emun,G.(2010). Multi-criteria approach for suitable quarry site selection in Addis Ababa using remote sensing and GIS. References Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa. Abedi-Varaki, M., & Davtalab, M. (2016). Site selection for Ersoy, H, & Bulut, F. (2009). Spatial and multi-criteria installing plasma incinerator reactor using the GIS in decision analysis-based methodology for landfill site Rudsar county, Iran. Environmental Monitoring and selection in growing urban regions. Waste Management Assessment, 188(6), 353. & Research, 27, 489−500. doi:10.1177/0734242X08098430 Ajay, S. (2019). Remote sensing and GIS applications for Eskandari, M., Homaee, M., & Mahmodi, S. (2012). An municipal waste management. Journal of Environmental integrated multi criteria approach for landfill siting in a Management, 243,22−29. conflicting environmental, economic and socio-cultural Akbari, V. (2008). Landfill site selection by combining gis area. Waste Management, 32(8), 1528−1538. and fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis a case study Gizachew, K., Suryabhagavan, K. V., Mekuria, A., & Bandar Abbas. Journal of Department of Surveying and Hameed, S. (2012). GIS-based solid waste landfill site Geomatics Engineering. University of Tehran, Iran. selection in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International Al-Ansari, N. A., Hanbali, A., & Knutsson, S. (2012). Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 38,59−72. Locating solid waste landfills in Mafraq city, Jordan. Haaren,R.,&Fthenakis,V.(2011). GIS-basedwindfarmsite Journal of Advanced Science and Engineering Research, selection using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA): 2,40–51. Evaluating thecasefor NewYorkState. Renewable and Al-Hanbali, A., Alsaaideh, B., & Kondoh, A. (2011). Using Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 3332–3340. GIS-based weighted linear combination analysis and Hammer, G. (2003). Solid waste treatment and disposal: remote sensing techniques to select optimum solid Effect on public health and environmental safety. waste disposal sites within Mafraq city, Jordan. Journal Biotechnology Advances, 22,71̶ 79. of Geographic Information System, 3, 267−278. Hasan, P., Ramin, N. N., Amir, H. M., Kamyar, Y., & Bezawit, M., Engdawork, A., Tadege, A., & Gichila, B. Zabihalah, C. (2019). Landfill site selection using a hybrid (2013). Geological map of serdo map sheet (NC 37-4). system of AHP-Fuzzy in GIS environment: A case study Addis Ababa: Geological Survey of Ethiopia. in Shiraz city, Iran. MethodsX, 6, 1454−1466. Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making: Hering, J. G. (2012). An end to waste? Science, 337(6095), Applying the analytic hierarchy process (pp. 172). New 1623−1623. York: Springer-Verlag. Irfan, Y. M., Lütfi,S.M.,Basak, S.K.,& Vedat,D.(2012). Chang, N. B., Parvathinathan, G., & Breeden, J. B. (2008). Municipal solid waste landfill site selection for the city of Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making Sanliurfa-Turkey: An example using MCDA integrated with for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. Journal GIS. International Journal of Digital Earth, 5, 147−164. of Environmental Management, 87, 139−153. Joosten, L. A. J., Hekkert, M. P., & Worrell, E. (2000). Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, Q., & Garner, B. (1997). Assessment of the plastic flows in The Netherlands Preliminary landfill site screening using fuzzy geographi- using streams. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 30 cal information systems. Waste Management and (2), 135–161. Research, 15, 197−215. Joseph, K., Rajendiran, S., Senthilnathan, R., & Rakesh, M. Chen, W., & Kao, J. (2008). Air pollution directional risk (2012). Integrated approach to solid waste management assessment for siting a landfill. Journal of the Air & Waste in Chennai: An Indian metro city. Journal of Material 1539−1545. Management Association, 58, Cycles and Waste Management, 14,75–84. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 197 Kao, J. (1996). A raster-based C program for siting a landfill Management, 73, 332−341. doi:10.1016/j. with optimal compactness. Journal of Computers and wasman.2017.07.036 Geosciences, 22, 837−847. Philippe,F.,&Culot,M.(2009). Household solid waste gen- Kao, J., Lin, H., & Chen, W. (1997). Network geographic eration and characteristics in Cap-Haitien city: Republic of information system for landfill siting. Waste Management Haiti. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54,73–78. and Research, 15, 239−253. Rafiee, R., Syed, E., Afshin, D., & Nematolah, K. (2011). Kapilan, S., & Elangovan, K. J. (2018). Potential landfill site Siting transfer stations for Municipal solid waste using a selection for solid waste disposal using GIS and multi- spatial multi-criteria analysis. Environmental and criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Journal of Central Engineering Geo-Science, 17, 143–154. South University, 25, 570−585. Rezaei, M., Ghobadian, B., Samadi, S. H., & Karimi, S. Khan, D., & Samadder, S. (2014). Municipal solid waste (2018). Electric power generation from municipal solid management using geographical information system waste: A techno-economical assessment under different aided methods: A mini review. Waste Management and scenarios in Iran. Energy, 152,46–56. Research, 32, 1049–1062. Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (2001). Methods, concepts and appli- Kontos, T. D., Komilis, D. P., & Halvadakis, C. P. (2005). cations of the analytic hierarchy process. Boston: Kluwer Siting MSW landfills with spatial multiple criteria analysis Academic Publishers. methodology. Waste Management, 25, 818−832. Sadek, S., El-Fadel, M., & El-Hougeiri, N. (2001). Leao, S., Bishop, I., & Evans, D. (2001). Assessing the Optimizing landfill siting through GIS application. demand of solid waste disposal in urban region by Seventeenth International Conference on Solid Waste urban dynamics modeling in a GIS environment. Technology and Management, 2124 October 2001,The Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 33, 289−313. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, Lein,J.K.(1990). Exploring a knowledge-based procedure for Philadelphia, USA. developmental suitability analysis. Applied Geography, 10, Sam, Z., & Steven, J. (2017). Site suitability analysis for solid 171–186. waste landfill site location using geographic information Lin, H., & Kao, J. (1999). Enhanced spatial model for landfill systems and remote sensing: A case study of Banket town siting analysis. Journal of Environmental Engineering, board, Zimbabwe. Review of Social Sciences,2,19−31. 125, 845−851. Sener, B., Su¨zen, M. L., & Doyuran, V. (2006). Landfill site Lino, F. A. M., & Ismail, K. A. R. (2017b). Incineration and selection by using geographic information systems. recycling for MSW treatment: Case study of Campinas, Environmental Geology, 49, 376−388. Brazil. Sustainable Cities and Society, 35, 752–757. Sener, S., Sener, E., Nas, B., & Karagüzel, R. (2009). Malczewski, J. (1997). Propagation of errors in multicriteria Combining AHP with GIS for landfill site selection: A location analysis: A case study. In G. Fandel & T. Gal case study in the Lake Beysehir. Waste Management, 30, (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making (pp. 154–155). 2037–2046. Berlin: Springer. Sener, S, Sener, E, Nas, B, & Karagüzel, R. (2010). Mekuria, T. (2006). A multi-criteria analysis for solid waste Combining ahp with gis for landfill site selection: a case disposal site selection using Remote Sensing and GIS, study in the lake beysehir catchment area (konya, turkey). Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Unpublished Waste Management, 30, 2037−2046. doi:10.1016/j. Master’s Thesis, 11–25. wasman.2010.05.024 Mohammad,R.H.,Kidokoro, T.,&Syed,A.I.(2009). Landfill Shahabi, H., Keihanfard, S., Bin Ahmad, B., Javad, M., & demand and allocation for municipal solid waste disposal in Amiri, T. (2013). Evaluating Boolean, AHP and WLC Dhaka city an assessment in a GIS environment‖. Journal of methods for the selection of waste landfill sites using Civil Engineering (IEB), 37,133–149. GIS and satellite images. Environmental Earth Science, Mutlutürk, M., & Karagüzel, R. (2007). The landfill area 71, 4221̶ 4233. quality (LAQ) classification approach and its application Siddiqui, M., Everett, J., & Vieux, B. (1996). Landfill siting in Isparta, Turkey. Environmental and Engineering using geographic information systems: A demonstration. Geoscience, 13, 229−240. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 122, 515−523. Muttiah, R. S., Engel, B. A., & Jones, D. D. (1996). Waste Simsek, C., Kıncal, C., & Gündüz, O. (2005). A solid waste disposal site selection using GIS-based simulated anneal- disposal site selection procedure based on groundwater ing. Computers & Geosciences, 22, 1013−1017. vulnerability mapping. Environ Geol. doi:10.1007/s00254- Nas,B.,Cay,T.,&Iscan,F.(2008). Selection of MSW landfill 005-0111-2 site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria evalua- Sumathi, V. R., Natesan, U., & Sarkar, C. (2008). GIS-based tion. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160, 491– approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste 500. landfill. Waste Management, 28, 2146−2160. Nikolakaki, P. (2003). A GIS site-selection process for habi- Thomas, R. M. (2002). A GIS-based decision support system tat creation: Estimating connectivity of habitat patches. for brownfield redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Landscape and Urban Planning, 68,77–94. Planning, 58,7–23. Olusina, Joseph O, & Shyllon, D.O. (2014). Suitability ana- Tyowuah, M., & Hundu, W. (2017). Site suitability analysis lysis in determining optimal landfill location using multi- for solid waste disposal using geospatial technology: A criteria evaluation (mce), gis & remote sensing. case study of Katsina-Ala township, Katsina-Ala, Benue International Journal Of Computational Engineering State. International Journal of Science and Research, 6, Research, 4(6), 7−20. 2319–7064. Othman,N.,Kane,T.,&Hawrami,K.(2017). Environmental UNEP. (2005). Selection, design and implementation of eco- health assessment in Sulaymaniyah City and Vicinity. Tech. nomic instruments in the solid waste management sector Rep. in Kenya. New York, USA. Panepinto, D, & Zanetti, M.C. (2018). Municipal solid waste United Nations. (2017, December 2). World population incineration plant: a multi-step approach to the evalua- prospects: 2017 revision population database. Retrieved tion of an energy-recovery configuration. Waste from http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm. 198 A. MUSSA AND K. V. SURYABHAGAVAN Visvanathan, C., & Glawe, U. (2006). Domestic solid waste Yesilnacar, M. Đ., & Çetin, H. (2007). An environmental management in South Asian countries. A Comparative geomorphologic approach to site selection for hazardous Analysis. Synthesis report of the 3R South Asia Expert wastes. Environ Geol. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-1115 Work Shop, Kathmandu, Nepal. 1–14. Zamorano, M., Molero, E., Hurtado, A., Grindlay, A., & Woodhouse, S., Lovett, A., & Dolman, P. (2000). Using a Ramos, A. (2008). Evaluation of a municipal landfill site GIS to select priority areas for conservation. Computers, in Southern Spain with GIS-aided methodology. Journal Environment and Urban Systems, 24,79–93. of Hazardous Materials, 160, 473−481.

Journal

Geology Ecology and Landscapes – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 3, 2021

Keywords: Analytic hierarchy process; geographic information system; criteria weights; landfill; remote sensing

There are no references for this article.