ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION USING GIS AND REMOTE SENSING:
FOR MOJO TOWN, ETHIOPIA

BY

MINALU AMBANEH

June, 2016

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION USING GIS AND REMOTE SENSING: FOR
MOJO TOWN, ETIOPIA

MA THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRPHY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES SPECIALIZATION GIS AND REOMTE SENSING

By: Minalu Ambaneh

Advisor: Woldeamlak B. (Prof)

June/ 2016

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

 Addis Ababa University Collage of Social Sciences

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies

Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection Using Gis and Remote Sensing: For Mojo Town, Ethiopia

By:

Minalu Ambaneh

Approved By Examining Board

Prof. __________________________________ Signature ______________ Date____________

Advisor

Dr. __________________________________ Signature ______________ Date____________

Internal Examiner

Dr. __________________________________ Signature ______________ Date____________

External Examiner

Dr. __________________________________ Signature ______________ Date____________

Chairman
Table of Contents

Acknowledgment …………………………………………………………………………………i
List of Tables …………………………………………………………..……….……………….. ii
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………iii
Lists of Abbreviations and Acronyms……………………….…………………………………...iv
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………..…v
Chapter one ……………………………………..……...……………………………………..…1

1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………………….….1
1.2 Statement of the Study…………………………………………………………………….…2
1.3 Objective of the Study……………………………………………………………………….4
1.3.1 General Objective……………………...………………………………………………..4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives………………………….………………………………………..…4
1.4 Project Questions………………………………….………………………………….……....4
1.5 Significance of the Study……………………..……………………………………….……..4
1.6 Scope of the Study……………………………………………………………………..……..5
1.7 Limitations of the Study …………………………………………………………………….5
1.8 Organization of the Study………………………………………………………………….....5

Chapter Two…………………………………………………………………………………..….6
2. Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………………....6
2.1 Solid Waste……………………………………………………………………………….....6
2.2 Solid Waste Management System…………………………………………………….…….6
2.2.1 Reduce, Reuse and Recycle………………………………………………….……...7
2.2.1 Treatment and Disposal. .………………………………………………….…..….......7
2.2.3 Integrated Solid Waste Management…………………………………………….......10
2.3 Solid Waste Management System In Low-income Countries………………………..…....10
2.4 Landfill…………………………………………………………………………….…….....12
2.4.1 Lang Fill Sitting…………………………………………………………………....13
2.5 Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS for Landfill Site Selection………………..…....14
2.5.1Applications of Remote Sensing for Landfill Site Selection……………………........14
2.5.2 Applications of GIS for Landfill Site Selection………………………………….......15
 2.6 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)……………………………………………......16
2.7 The Site Selection Process…………………………………………………………..……..17
2.7.1 Landfill Site Selection Process……………………………………….…………….17
2.8 Steps in Landfill Sitting……………………………………………….…………….…..…18
2.9 Criteria used for Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection……….……………………….……20

Chapter Three………….……………………………………………………….……………...21

3. Description of the Study Area and Research Methods ………………………………...…….21

3.1 Description of the Study Area………………………………………………………...…...21

3.1.1 Geographic Location………………………………………………………….....….21
3.1.2 Climate…………………………………………………………………………......21
3.1.3 Topography and Water Resources……………………………………………….....22
3.1.4 Socio-Economic Characteristics……………………………………………..…......24
3.2 Sources of Data……………………………………………………………………….......25
3.2.1 Primary Data………………………………………………………………….........26
3.2.2 Secondary Data……………………………………………………………….........26
3.3 Research Method……...………………………………………………………………….26
3.4 Conceptual Framework of the Analysis ………………………………………………….27

Chapter Four…………………………………………………………………………………..29
4. Data Analysis, Result and Discussion……………………………………………..….……...29
4.1 Solid Waste Management System in Mojo Town………………………….…………...29
4.2 Land Fill Site Selection Criteria………………………………………….…………......31
4.3 Topographical Factor……………………………………………………………….......32
4.4 Accessibility………………………………………………………………………….....33
4.5 Surface Water……………………………………………………………………….......34
4.6 Soil Type of the Study Area………………………………………………………….....35
4.7 Protected Areas …………………………………………………………...…………...36
4.8 Settlement………………………………………………………………………….........37
4.9 Hydro- geological Characteristics …………………………………….……………....38
 4.9.1 Ground Water…………………………………………………………………....38
4.9.2 Geologic Characteristics ………………………………………………………....39
4.10 Urban Land Use ……………………………………………………………………...…39
4.11 Calculating Factor Weights and Overlaying Identified Suitable Sites………………....41

Chapter Five…………………………………………………………………………….......46

Conclusions and Recommendation…………………………….………………………………..46

5.1 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………..46

5.2 Recommendation……………………………………………...……………….……….46
Acknowledgment

First and foremost I would like to thank God, who gives me strength in all my work.

My special thanks to my advisor, Prof. Woldeamlak Bewuket for his constructive and fruit full
guidance throughout this work.

I would like to thank Mojo town Environmental Protection Department officers support by
providing available information for the successful accomplishment of this study.

My great thanks to Geological Survey of Ethiopian, Meteorological Authority, Central Statistical

Agency (CSA), Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy for
providing me valuable data used for this study.

i
List of Tables

Table3.1. Source and type of secondary data ……………………………………….…………..26

Table 4.1 Landfill Site Selection Criteria…………………………………………….………….31
Table 4.2 Slops Suitability Class……………………………………………………….……......32
Table 4.3 Road Suitability class…………………………………………………………….......33
Table 4.4 Stream suitability class……………………………………………………………..…35
Table 4.5 Protected Areas Suitability Class………………………………………………...……36
Table 4.6 Settlement Suitability Class …………………………….………………………….…37
Table 4.7 Land Use Suitability Classes …………..…………………..……………...………….40
Table4.8 Pair wise comparison,9-point weighting scales ……………………………………….41
Table4.9 Pair wise comparison in seven Point continuous scales………….…………....………42
Table 4.10 Weight of Suitable Solid Waste Dumping Site Selection Factors ………...….……..43
Table 4.11 Suitability area level of suitability and the percent of total area coverage ………….44

ii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Open field solid waste disposal Sites of the Study Area…………….……………….3
Figure 2.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management…………………………….…………………...11
Figure 2.2 Steps in Landfill Sitting………………………………………………………………18
Figure 3.1 Location map of the study area…………………….……………………………..….21
Figure 3.2: Average monthly maximum and minimum temperature of Mojo town…………....22
Figure 3.3 Average monthly maximum and minimum rainfall distribution of Mojo town……..22
Figure 3.4 Elevation Map……………………………………………………………………..…23
Figure 3.5 Map of Slope……………………………………………………………………...….23
Figure 3.6 Stream Map of the Study Area…………………………………………………….…24
Figure 3.7 Population distributions Graph……………………………………………………….24
Figure 3.8 Road Network Map………………………………………….……………………….26
Figure 3.9 General work flow of the study ……………………………...………………………28
Figure 4.1: Open field solid waste disposal sites……………………………………...…………30
Figure 4.2 Illegal Solid Waste Disposals……………………………………………………...…31
Figure 4.3 Slope Suitability Map ………………………………………….…………………….33
Figure 4.4 Road Suitability Map………………………………………………………………...34
Figure 4.5 Steam Suitability Map…………………………………………………………....…..35
Figure 4.6 Protected Areas Suitability Map ………………………………….…………..……..36
Figure 4.7 Settlement Suitability Map………………………………….……………………….37
Figure 4.8 Ground water Suitability Map ………………………………………..……………..38
Figure 4.9 Geology Suitability Map ……………………………………………………………39
Figure 4.10 Major Urban Land Use Categories Map…………………………………………...40
Figure 4.11 Urban Land Use Suitability Map ……………………………………………...…..41

Figure 4.12 Landfill Suitability Map……………………………………………………….…..44

Figure 4.13 Overall Landfill Suitability Map …………………………………………..……….45

iii
Lists of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process

a.m.s.l: above mean sea level
CAD: Computer Assisted Drafting
CSA: Central Statics Authority
DEM: Digital Elevation Model
EGSSAA ; Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa
EMA: Ethiopian Mapping Agency
ERDAS: Earth Resource Data Analysis System
ETM+: Enhanced Thematic Mapper+
GIS: Geographic Information System
GLCF: Global Land Cover Facilities
GPS: Global Positioning System
GSE: Geological Survey of Ethiopia
ha: hectar
ISWM: Integrated Solid Waste Management
m: meter
LU : Land Use
MCDA: Multi Criteria Decision Analysis
MCE: Multi Criteria Evaluation
MOA: Ministry of Agriculture
MUDC: Ministry of Urban Development and Construction
UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
3D: Three Dimensional

iv
 Abstract

Identifying and managing solid waste dumping sites in an environmentally acceptable manner is
one of the major issues facing municipal planners. Land filling is now becoming a common
method of waste disposal in Ethiopia even though solid waste dumping is a serious problem in
the urban areas because most solid wastes are not dumped in the suitable areas. Mojo Town has
the problem of solid waste dumping site identification. The existing solid waste dumpping site
for Mojo town is damaging the environment, especially the river called ‘Mojo River’ due to its
location. This study was conducted to assess the existing solid waste management system of
Mojo town and to select potential areas for suitable solid waste dumping sites using GIS and
Remote Sensing, which are environmentally suitable. The main data used for this study were
digital elevation model (DEM), ground control point (GCP) collected by ground point survey
(GPS), Landsat image as well as interviews and some observations. The maps were prepared and
overlayed as well as suitability analysis were done geographic information system (GIS) and
multi criteria analysis methods. The final suitability map was prepared by overlay analyses on
Arc map and leveled as highly suitable, moderately suitable, less suitable, and unsuitable areas of
the study area were determined. The results indicate that 45.4% of the study area is unsuitable for
solid waste dumping; 26.6% less suitable; 22% suitable; and 6% highly suitable. The suggested
highly suitable areas for solid waste dumping sites fall on south west and west part of the town
where there are least environmental and health risks. The GIS and remote sensing techniques are
important tools for solid waste site selection. Hence, the capacity to use GIS and remote sensing
technology for the effective identification of suitable solid waste dumping site will minimize the
environmental risk and human health problems.

v
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Waste is a material discharged from each daily human life activities, which leads to adverse impacts
on human health and the environment. Solid wastes can be defined as non-liquid and non-gaseous
useless products of human activities, like from households, municipal, construction and industries.
The generation of solid waste has become a global environmental and health problem in the
contemporary world both in developing and developed countries. Increasing population, rapid
economic growth, the rise in living standards, expansion of urban and industrial activities accelerates
solid waste generation (Tirusew and Amare, 2013).
Urban solid waste management is considered as one of the most immediate and serious
environmental problems confronting municipal authorities in developing countries. The most
common problems associated with lack of proper management of solid waste include diseases
transmission, fire hazards, odor nuisance, atmospheric and water pollution, aesthetic nuisance and
economic losses (Mujior, 2008).
As high population growth and high urbanization rates combined with ineffective and under-funded
governments to prevent efficient management of wastes municipal solid waste disposal has been an
enormous concern in developing countries. Waste management issues should be confronted in a more
generalized manner, which means that new strategies need to be designed considering diverse and
variable urban models. This demonstrates the necessity of developing integrated, computerized
systems for obtaining more generalized and optimal solutions for the management of urban solid
waste (Mohammedshum, 2014).

Solid waste disposing is an important part of waste management system, which requires much
attention to avoid environmental pollution and health problems. The current global trends of waste
management problems are the results of unsustainable methods of waste disposal, which is ultimately
a result of inadequate planning and implementation (Abbas, et al., 2011).

In Ethiopia people are using unsafe solid waste disposal practices, such as open damping, burning
and burying. As a result, many households practice uncontrolled open dumping and others employ
various households solid waste disposal practices such as burning. However, all self-managed waste
disposal practices do not guarantee cleanness and safety. For example, burning one's trash can give

1
rise to significant albeit localized, negative externalities, like air pollution depending on how it is
burned, local hydrology, and so on.

In city and towns, most solid waste disposal sites in Ethiopia are found on the outskirts of the urban
areas where there are water bodies, crop fields, settlements, around roads, and so on. Such inappro-
priate disposal of solid waste leads to serious environmental pollution and health-related problems,
contamination of surface and ground water, soil contamination through direct waste contact, create
greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, damage ecosystems, injure people and property,
discourages tourism and other business (EGSSAA, 2009). Therefore, locating proper sites for solid
waste disposal far from residential areas, environmental resources and settlement is the main issue for
the management of solid waste.

Geographic Information System and Remote Sensing are computerized systems that can be
integrated to get optimal solutions for efficient and effective solid waste management planning. On
the one hand, GIS is a system that helps to capture, store, analyze, manage, and present data that are
linked to location(s). It is the merging of computer aided design/drafting (CAD) systems, statistical
analysis tools, and database technology that help informed decision making. It is a tool that allows
users to analyze spatial information, edit data, maps, and present the results of any spatial and non-
spatial based analysis (Mohammedshum, 2014).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Waste management is a major issue of the global environmental agenda, as population and consump-
tion growth result in increasing quantities of waste. In developing countries, the population of towns
is increasing due to both natural increase and migration from rural areas. This high population growth
and the activities of development result in the generation of large amount of solid waste which faces
problem of their disposal and have potential effect to pollute the environment like water, soil and air.
The pollution of these and other resources of the environment affects public health. In Ethiopia, most
of the diseases are related to poor environmental sanitation and water contamination (Kumel, 2014).

The solid waste disposal system should be environmentally and socially acceptable to protect the
environment and the safety of public health. But selecting appropriate site and managing solid waste
dumping in countries like Ethiopia with limited finance and rapid population growth rate is more
severe. Degnet (2008) stated that, like in many other developing countries, the majority of inhabitants
in most towns of Ethiopia often use unsafe solid waste disposal practices, such as open dumping and
burning. Similarly in Mojo town, the study area, there is a problem of solid waste disposal. The

2
problem in the study area is even more severe since the solid waste is disposed in the nearby water
body, called Mojo River. This landfill is also very close to agricultural fields as well as it distances
less than 100 meter from the main road, which is the Mojo-Shashemene highway.

(a) ( b)
Figure 1.1: Open field solid waste disposal along a) Mojo River b) agricultural field (Field survey,
2015).

The above figures (Fig1 a and b) shows that the municipality of Mojo town is not providing proper
solid waste management. As Figure 1a shows there is solid waste disposal in the nearby river and
Figure 1b shows the landfill is very close to the agricultural field, which is not safe environmentally
and economically.

In Ethiopia, for some towns, researchers have conducted studies on land fill sites selection using GIS
and remote sensing. For example, Tirusew Ayisheshim and Amare Sewnet by 2013, Kumel Beshir
by 2014 and Tsegaye Mekuria by 2006 have conducted studies on land fill sites selection using GIS
and remote sensing for Bahir Dar, Wolkite and Addis Ababa respectively. In the study area, there
were some studies about how industrial wastes are polluting water resources. But no GIS based study
has been conducted on land fill sites selection for the study area. The municipality of Mojo town has
selected an open dump site, which is very close to Mojo river, as shown by the above Figure. That is
why this project is planned to use the integrated GIS and remote sensing techniques to select solid
waste disposal sites. Recently the number of industries and commercial centers in Mojo town are
increasing, in which these are the major sources of solid waste in addition to hotels, as well as house-
holds in the town. Due to the inappropriate location of the landfill site the river has become almost
useless and people working in the nearby agricultural fields and those using the road are suffering
from the air pollution. In order to alleviate these problems, integrating GIS and remote sensing tech-

3
niques, to select the best solid wastes dumping site that is environmentally and socially acceptable, is
important. The selection of solid waste disposal sites using GIS and remote sensing requires many
factors that should be integrated into one system for proper analysis. This is because remote sensing
can provide information about the various spatial criteria such as land use/land cover, drainage densi-
ty, slope, etc, where as GIS aids utilizing and creating the digital geo-database as a spatial clustering
process and easily understood ways for solid waste dumping site selection process. The selection cri-
teria will consider and combine surface water, soil type, slope, settlement, protected areas, land
use/cover and road networks.
1.3 Objective of the Study

The main objective of this project was to identify suitable solid waste disposal sites considering
environmental, economical and social factors in Mojo town by applying Geographic Information
System and Remote Sensing technology. The specific objectives were,

1. To asses existing solid waste disposal system in the study area.

2. To asses factors necessary for selecting suitable landfill sites.
3. To produce map showing suitable solid waste disposal sites.
4. To evaluate the final selected landfill sites.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What does the present solid waste disposal system of the study area looks like?
2. What are the necessary factors shall be considered to select suitable solid waste disposal site?
3. How can the suitable waste disposal sites be identified and mapped?
4. How would the final selected landfill site be evaluated?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is expected to select and map suitable solid waste disposal sites to protect the
environmental safety of Mojo town. Since unsuitable solid waste disposal sites affect the social and
economic activities of communities as well as the health of resources of the study area, like water, the
final result of this project will help the town to solve the problems. In addition, the study is also
expected to give an insight about the application of GIS and Remote Sensing technologies for the
selection of suitable solid waste disposal sites.

4
 1.6 Scope of the Study

The study will be limited in technical aspects for selecting suitable solid waste disposal site in Mojo
town. It focuses only in the study of solid waste. The time for the study will be until May 2016.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

In the study area there a plan to construct airport, but the location of this anticipated airport is not
identified. Due to this, the paper does not incorporate it as a factor for landfill site selection.

1.8 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is divided into five chapters. The first chapter provides the introduction to the study
including background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, project
questions, scope, significance and limitation of the study. The second chapter presents review of
related literatures, mainly including, the concept and types of solid waste management systems, the
concept and process of landfill sitting, applications of GIS and RS in landfill sitting and different
criteria for landfill sitting. The third chapter deals with the description of the study area as well as the
materials and methods employed in the study. The fourth chapter presents the analysis and the final
suitable site selected for the study area. Chapter five presents conclusions and recommendations.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1 Solid Waste

Waste is generated universally and it is a direct consequence of all human activities. Wastes are gen-
erally classified into solid, liquid and gaseous. Solid wastes, the subject of this study, are mainly dis-
posed of to landfill, because landfill is the simplest, cheapest and most cost-effective method of dis-
posing of waste. These wastes can be generated by the full extent of human activities that range from
relatively innocuous substances such as food and paper waste to toxic substances such as paint, bat-
teries, asbestos, healthcare waste, sewage sludge derived from wastewater treatment and as an ex-
treme example, high-level (radioactive) waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel rods. Numerous clas-
sifications of solid wastes have been proposed and the following represents a simple classification of
waste into broad categories according to its origin and risk to human and environmental healt h
(Taylor et al., no date). These includes: household waste, municipal waste, commercial and non-
hazardous industrial wastes, hazardous (toxic) industrial wastes, construction and demolition waste,
health care wastes – generated in health care facilities e.g. hospitals, medical research facilities);,
human and animal wastes and Incinerator wastes.

Household waste represents waste generated at home and collected by municipal waste collection
services. Municipal solid waste includes this plus shop and office waste, food waste from restaurants,
etc., also collected by municipal waste collection systems, plus waste derived from street cleaning,
and green (organic) waste generated in parks and gardens.

2.2 Solid Waste Management System

Solid waste management is the discipline associated with the control of generation, storage, collec-
tion, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is in accord with
the best principles of public health, economics, engineering, conservation, aesthetics, and other
environmental considerations, and that is also responsive to public attitudes.

Management of solid waste reduces adverse impacts on the environment and human health and
supports economic development and improved quality of life. Descriptions of the main types of solid
waste management systems are given in the table below. Poor waste management systems coupled
with hot climatic conditions results in increasing environmental problems with significant local as
well as global dimension. In spite of the increasing stress towards the waste reduction at the source,

6
as well as recovery and recycling of the solid waste, disposal of solid waste by land filling remains
the most commonly employed methods (Debishiree, 2014).

2.2.1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Methods of waste reduction, waste reuse and recycling are the preferred options when managing sol-
id waste. There are many environmental benefits that can be derived from the use of these meth-
ods. They reduce or prevent green house gas emissions, reduce the release of pollutants, conserve
resources, save energy and reduce the demand for waste treatment technology and landfill space.
Therefore, it is advisable that these methods be adopted and incorporated as part of the solid waste
management plan.

Waste reduction and reuse of products are both methods of waste prevention. They eliminate the
production of waste at the source of usual generation and reduce the demands for large scale treat-
ment and disposal facilities. Methods of waste reduction include manufacturing products with less
packaging, encouraging the public to choose reusable products such as cloth napkins and reusable
plastic and glass containers, backyard composting and sharing and donating any unwanted items ra-
ther than discarding them (Lars,1999).

Recycling refers to the removal of items from the waste stream to be used as raw materials in the
manufacture of new products. Thus, from this definition recycling occurs in three phases: first the
waste is sorted and recyclables collected, the recyclables are used to create raw materials (Lars,
1999).

2.2.2 Treatment and Disposal

Waste treatment techniques seek to transform the waste into a form that is more manageable, reduce
the volume or reduce the toxicity of the waste thus making the waste easier to dispose off. Treatment
methods are selected based on the composition, quantity, and form of the waste material. Some waste
treatment methods being used today include subjecting the waste to extremely high temperatures,
dumping on land or land filling and use of biological processes to treat the waste. It should be noted
that treatment and disposal options are chosen as a last resort to the previously mentioned manage-
ment strategies of reducing, reusing and recycling of waste because these are best method economi-
cally as well as in terms of preserving the environment. Lars,(1999), recommended the following sol-
id waste treatment and disposal methods.

7
 Open burning: is the burning of unwanted materials in a manner that causes smoke and other
emissions to be released directly into the air without passing through a chimney or stack. Open burn-
ing has been practiced by a number of urban centers because it reduces the volume of refuse received
at the dump and therefore extends the life of their dumpsite. Garbage may be burnt because of the
ease and convenience of the method or because of the cheapness of the method. In countries where
house holders are required to pay for garbage disposal, burning of waste in the backyard allows the
householder to avoid paying the costs associated with collecting, hauling and dumping the waste
Lars,(1999).

Open burning has many negative effects on both human health and the environment. This
uncontrolled burning of garbage releases many pollutants into the atmosphere. The particulate matter
can be harmful to persons with respiratory problems such as asthma or bronchitis and carbon monox-
ide can cause neurological symptoms.

The harmful effects of open burning are also felt by the environment. This process releases acidic
gases as well as the oxides of nitrogen and carbon. Nitrogen oxides contribute to acid rain, ozone
depletion, smog and global warming. In addition to being a green house gas carbon monoxide reacts
with sunlight to produce ozone which can be harmful. The particulate matter creates smoke and haze
which contribute to air pollution Lars,(1999).

Open Dump: The open dump approach is the primitive stage of landfill development and remains
the predominant waste disposal option in most of the African countries. A default strategy for munic-
ipal solid waste management, open dumps involve indiscriminate disposal of waste and limited
measures to control operations, including those related to the environmental effects of landfills
Lars,(1999).

Controlled dumps: Controlled dumps are disposal sites which comply with most of the requirements
for a sanitary landfill but usually have one deficiency. They may have a planned capacity but no cell
planning, there may be partial leachate management, partial or no gas management, regular cover,
compaction in some cases, basic record keeping and they are fenced or enclosed. These dumps have a
reduced risk of environmental contamination, the initial costs are low and the operational costs are
moderate Lars,(1999).

Operated or Semi-controlled Landfill

Operated dumps implement only limited measures to mitigate other environmental impacts. Operated
dumps still practice unmanaged contaminant release and do not take into account environmental cau-

8
tionary measures such as leachate and landfill gas management. This is especially relevant where
leachate is produced and is unconstrained by permeable underlying rock or fissured geology. This
issue may be less critical in semi-arid and arid climates, where dumps do not generate leachate in
measurable quantities Lars,(1999).

Sanitary landfills: Sanitary landfills are designed to greatly reduce or eliminate the risks that waste
disposal may pose to the public health and environmental quality. They are usually placed in areas
where land features act as natural buffers between the landfill and the environment Lars,(1999).

In addition to the strategic placement of the landfill other protective measures are incorporated into
its design. The bottom and sides of landfills are lined with layers of clay or plastic to keep the liquid
waste, known as leachate, from escaping into the soil. The leachate is collected and pumped to the
surface for treatment. Boreholes or monitoring wells are dug in the vicinity of the landfill to monitor
groundwater quality Lars,(1999).

Bioreactor Landfills: Recent technological advances have lead to the introduction of the Bioreactor
Landfill. The Bioreactor landfills use enhanced microbiological processes to accelerate the decompo-
sition of waste. The main controlling factor is the constant addition of liquid to maintain optimum
moisture for microbial digestion. This liquid is usually added by re- circulating the landfill leachate.
In cases where leachate in not enough, water or other liquid waste such as sewage sludge can be
used. These enhanced microbial processes having the advantage of rapidly reducing the volume of
the waste creating more space for additional waste, they also maximize the production and capture of
methane for energy recovery systems and they reduce the costs associated with leachate manage-
ment. For Bioreactor landfills to be successful the waste should be comprised predominantly of or-
ganic matter and should be produced in large volumes Lars,(1999).

Biological waste treatment

Composting: This is the controlled aerobic decomposition of organic matter by the action of micro
organisms and small invertebrates. The process is controlled by making the environmental conditions
optimum for the waste decomposers to thrive. The rate of compost formation is controlled by the
composition and constituents of the materials i.e. their Carbon/Nitrogen ratio, the temperature, the
moisture content and the amount of air Lars,(1999).

Anaerobic Digestion: Anaerobic digestion like composting uses biological processes to decompose
organic waste. However, where composting can use a variety of microbes and must have air, anaero-
bic digestion uses bacteria and an oxygen free environment to decompose the waste. Aerobic respira-

9
tion, typical of composting, results in the formation of Carbon dioxide and water. While the anaero-
bic respiration results in the formation of Carbon Dioxide and methane. In addition to generating the
humus which is used as a soil enhancer, Anaerobic Digestion is also used as a method of producing
biogas which can be used to generate electricity Lars,(1999).

2.2.3 Integrated Solid Waste Management

Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) takes an overall approach to creating sustainable
systems that are economically affordable, socially acceptable and environmental friendly. An inte-
grated solid waste management system involves the use of a range of different treatment methods,
and key to the functioning of such a system is the collection and sorting of the waste. It is important
to note that no one single treatment method can manage all the waste materials in an environmentally
effective way. Thus all of the available treatment and disposal options must be evaluated equally and
the best combination of the available options suited to the particular community chosen. Effective
management schemes therefore need to operate in ways which best meet current social, economic,
and environmental conditions of the municipality Lars,(1999).

Figure 2.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management

2.3 Solid Waste Management System in Low Income Countries

The open dump approach is the primitive stage of landfill development and remains the predominant
waste disposal option in most of Africa countries including Ethiopia. It is a strategy for municipal
solid waste management which involve indiscriminate disposal of waste and limited measures to
control operations, including those related to the environmental effects of landfills. An operated or
semi-controlled dump is often the first stage in a country’s efforts to upgrade landfills. Controlled
dumps operate with some form of inspection and recording of incoming wastes, practice extensive
10
compaction of waste, and control the tipping front and the application of soil cover. Operated dumps,
however, implement only limited measures to mitigate other environmental impacts. Operated dumps
still practice unmanaged contaminant release and do not take into account environmental cautionary
measures such as leachate and landfill gas management (Lars et al., 1999). But as cities grow and
produce more waste and their solid waste collection systems become more efficient, the
environmental impact from open dumps becomes increasingly intolerable. The conversion of open or
operated dumps to engineered landfills and sanitary landfills is an essential step to avoid future costs
from present mismanagement. The first step and challenge in upgrading open dumps to sanitary
landfills involves reducing nuisances such as bad smells, dust, vermin, and birds. The term sanitary
landfill is generally used for landfills that engage in waste compaction and apply daily soil cover to
reduce nuisances.

Generally, in most countries of Africa, the environmental impacts and economic damages of poor
solid waste management practices on groundwater and receiving surface waters are becoming a
serious issue. This study is also because of the environmental impacts of poor solid waste
management practices on surface waters and other resources like crops of the study area.

In low income countries, municipal solid waste management system is either not efficient or as such
solid waste generated has become a threat to the environment. The growth in population,
urbanization, industrialization and waste generation in the developing countries calls for proper solid
waste management as it has become a necessity for environmental conservation and sustainability.
For a sustainable solid waste management system policies and techniques such as waste recycling,
reuse, waste reduction, thermal treatment, land filling and biological treatment must be in place. The
landfill method has been widely recognized as the most used of all waste management techniques
(Ayo et al., 2011).
Sitting and designing engineered landfills in low-income countries is a difficult task. Often,
affordability of environmental control measures is a key issue. Ideally, objectives for land filling in
low-income countries should match corresponding objectives in high-income countries and
objectives for landfills serving large towns and cities should be the same as those for landfills serving
small villages (Laura, 2003 in Tsegaye, 2006). However, the communities of small towns and
villages in low-income countries usually cannot afford landfill design, construction and operation
standards equal to those applied in large cities, and in many cases, large cities cannot afford to apply
standards equal to those of high-income countries. Perhaps the first question to be addressed when
sitting a landfill is: What constitutes an appropriate level of environmental protection for the
community? This will differ from community to community and will depend on the climate in the

11
area as well as the available resources for construction and operation of the landfill. Often,
construction and operation resources are limited and this must be reflected in the sitting process.

2.4 Landfill

A landfill site, also known as a tip, dump, rubbish dump, garbage dump or dumping ground and
historically as a midden, is a site for the disposal of waste materials by burial and is the oldest form
of waste treatment. Historically, landfills have been the most common method of organized waste
disposal and remain so in many places around the world.

Landfill is an environmentally acceptable disposal of waste on the ground. As Kumel, (2014) notes,
many developing countries do not have criteria for landfill site selections and some have regulations
of developed countries without modifying to their local conditions. But taking regulations of
developed countries without considering local conditions is a problem because the development of
engineered landfills involves complex engineering design and construction techniques. These
sophisticated engineered landfills can occur where the local economy can afford the high level of
expenditure required for construction and operation of the landfill and where the technical resources
to achieve high standards of construction and operation are made available. It is therefore important
to ensure that when new landfills are sited, the construction and operational capabilities of the local
communities are considered in developing sitting criteria so that environmental protection objectives
can be met. As Laura, (2003) noted, in addition to available financial and human resources, the com-
position of the waste differs, and the climate of the area should be considered.

Landfill has been recognized as the cheapest form for the final disposal of municipal solid waste and
as such has been the most used method in the world. However, sitting landfill is an extremely
complex task mainly due to the fact that the identification and selection process involves many
factors and strict regulations. For proper identification and selection of appropriate sites for landfills
careful and systematic procedures need to be adopted and followed. Wrong sitting of landfill many
result in environmental degradation and often time public opposition.

The sitting of a solid waste landfill must also involve processing of a significant amount of spatial
data, regulations and acceptance criteria, as well as an efficient correlation between them (Sumathi,
2007). GIS has been found to play a significant role in the domain of sitting of waste disposal sites.
Many factors must be incorporated into landfill sitting decisions and GIS is ideal for this kind of

12
studies due to its ability to manage large volumes of spatial data from a variety of sources
(Debishree., 2014).

Land filling is a common solution for the final disposal of wastes in lower-income countries and a
large majority of community’s practice subsistence land filling or open dumping as their main meth-
od of waste disposal. Recently, due to the growing urgency of urban environmental problems, solid
waste management in lower income countries has attracted much attention and there is now a move-
ment toward landfills designed to increase environmental protection (Tsegaye, 2006).

Some landfills are used to recover energy. The natural anaerobic decomposition of the waste in the
landfill produces landfill gases which include Carbon Dioxide, methane and traces of other gases.
Methane can be used as an energy source to produce heat or electricity. These landfills present the
least environmental and health risk and the records kept can be a good source of information for
future use in waste management, however, the cost of establishing these sanitary landfills are high
when compared to the other land disposal methods.

2.4.1 Landfill Sitting

Landfill sitting is difficult task to accomplish because the site selection process depends on different
factors and regulations and also because it requires data from diverse social and environmental fields
such as water supply sources, land use, sensitive sites and road network. These data often involve
processing of a significant amount of spatial information which can be used by GIS as an important
tool for land use suitability analysis (Zeinhom El et al., 2010).

Landfill sitting is becoming increasingly difficult due to growing environmental awareness,

decreased amount of governmental and municipal funding with extreme political and social
opposition. The increasing of population, public health concerns, and less land available for landfill
construction adds more difficulties to the problem to overcome. Environmental factors are very
important to be considered in such work due to the fact that landfill might affect the biophysical
environment and the ecology of the surrounding area. Several techniques can be found for site
selection of solid waste disposal. Such sitting techniques combine multiple criteria decision analysis
(MCDA) and GIS. The result of these techniques is the evaluation of the suitability for the entire
study region based on suitability index, which is useful in order to make an initial ranking of the most
suitable areas (Mohammad et al., 2014).

13
Landfill site selection in an urban area is a critical issue because of its enormous impact on the
economy and the environmental health of the region and many sitting factors and criteria should be
carefully organized and analyzed.

One of the complicated steps is locating of waste landfill sites have precise steps including site
selecting and preparation of waste landfill site. If these landfill sites are near the individual's
work place or living places, it is considered as a negative outcome and it may cause irreparable
consequences to human life (Seiied, 2015).

Sitting a sanitary landfill requires an extensive evaluation process in order to identify the optimum
available disposal location. Therefore, the sitting of a solid waste landfill must also involve pro-
cessing of a significant amount of spatial data, regulations and acceptance criteria, as well as an effi-
cient correlation between them. GIS has been found to play a significant role in the domain of sit-
ting of solid waste disposal sites. Many factors must be incorporated into landfill sitting decisions
and GIS is ideal for this kind of preliminary studies due to its ability to manage large volumes of
spatial data from a variety of sources. The integration of GIS and Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) is a powerful tool to solve the landfill site selection problem, because GIS provides efficient
manipulation and presentation of the data and AHP supplies consistent ranking of the potential
landfill areas based on a variety of criteria (Debishree et al., 2014).

2.5 Application of Remote Sensing and GIS for Landfill Site Selection

2.5.1 Application of Remote Sensing for Landfill Site Selection

Remote sensing is the science and art of obtaining information about an object or area without phys-
ical contact. Remote sensing is one of the incomparable tools for sensing the earth surface to make
the interface of object property and measurement analysis as well as inventory of environment and its
resources, and has a unique ability of providing the synoptic view of a large area with the capacity
of repetitive coverage (Shweta . 2013). Using remote sensing images like satellite images or aerial
photographs we can have information about the resources of the environment. From the applica-
tion of remote sensing, landfill sitting is the one that satellite images are used for extracting the crite-
ria used for landfill sitting such as land use land cover identification.

Its multispectral capability provides appropriate contrast between various natural features where as
its repetitive coverage provides information on the dynamic changes taking place over the earth
surface and the natural environment. When remotely sensed data are combined with other landscape

14
variables organized with in a GIS environment provides an excellent frame work for data capture,
storage, synthesis, measurement and analysis. For assessing a site as a possible location for solid
waste disposal, several environmental and political factors and legislations should be considered
(Subhrajyoti et al., 2012).

One of the most applications of remote sensing in solid waste landfill sitting is where remote sensing
data like satellite images are used for extracting landfill sitting criteria (example; land use land cover,
geology and surface water with saving time and cost.

2.5.2 Application of GIS for Landfill Site Selection

GIS is a digital database management system designed to manage large volumes of spatially
distributed data from a variety of sources. It is ideal for preliminary site- selection studies because it
efficiently stores, retrieves, analyzes and displays information according to user-defined spec-
ifications. Once a GIS database is developed it can provide an efficient and cost effective means of
analyzing potential landfill site attributes (Mohhamed . et al., 2015).

GIS is a powerful tool that can integrate different types of spatial data and perform a variety of
spatial analysis. This evolution has been driven by significant advances in computer technology and
the availability and quantity of data. GIS and environmental models functioning with a board
spectrum of geospatial data are usually used for divers applications and spatial analyses at different
scales (Mohammad et al., 2014).

GIS plays a significant role in the domain of sitting of waste disposal sites. Many factors must be
incorporated into landfill sitting decisions and GIS is ideal for this kind of studies due to its ability to
manage large volumes of spatial data from a variety of sources. GIS is a powerful tool to solve the
landfill site selection problem, because GIS provides efficient tools for the manipulation and
presentation of the data (Debishree, 2014). People can evaluate the locations of different things in
order to ascertain there relation in terms of spatial attributes and its planning and operations are de-
pendent on spatial data. GIS is useful to reduce the time and cost of the site selection and also pro-
vide spatial data related to positions from different things so people can more easily find out the crite-
ria for site suitability (Shewta ,. 2013). Even though landfill sitting is time taking process, GIS reduc-
es time and cost as well as provides digital data for future monitoring program, using the effective
capturing, storage, management, retrieval, analysis and display capabilities.

The Geographic Information Systems in solid waste management enables people to evaluate the
locations of different things in order to ascertain there relation in terms of spatial attribute and its

15
planning and operations are dependent on spatial data. GIS techniques provide spatial data related to
positions from different things so people can more easily find out the criteria for site suitability
(Shweta ,. 2013).

Application of GIS technique in the field of waste management using a multi-criteria decision
making technique provides the organized approach for assessing and integrating the impact of
various factors as indicators of suitability (Shweta . 2013).

Generally, GIS in solid waste management not only save time and cost of design and spatial analysis
of site selection, but also provides a digital data bank for future monitoring of the sanitary landfill
site. (Zeinhom et al.,2010).

2.6 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

Multi criteria analysis is a set of mathematical tools and methods, like weighing, to compare different
alternatives according to the criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) helps to rank potential
landfill sites using different criteria -such as soil suitability, habitat effect, flood resistance, property
costs, distance from population center, and others by measuring the relative importance weight for
individual evaluation criteria (Zeinhom El et al,.2010). The MCDA methods were developed in the
1960s to address problems and assist decision makers in decision-making with various options. Mul-
ti-criteria approaches have the potential to reduce the cost and time involved in sitting landfills by
narrowing down the potential choice based on defined criteria and weights.

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the methods of MCDA, is a conventional land suitability
analysis method that provides right decision-making approach for site selection. AHP has been
integrated with GIS for land suitability modeling when selecting the best alternatives from a pool of
various possibilities in the presence of multiple criteria. This technique provides a means of
decomposing the problem into a hierarchy of sub-problems that can be more easily comprehended
and subjectively evaluated. The subjective evaluations are converted into numerical values that are
ranked on a numerical scale (Debishree et al., 2014).

Combination of GIS and multi criteria evaluation (MCE) has been routinely adopted as an approach
to assess the suitability of an area to host a landfill. Taking into account both technical elements and
people’s values and perceptions is essential to build consensus around a decision, to reduce conflicts,
and consequently to pave the way to successful landfill sitting interventions. Spatial MCE is com-
monly applied to land suitability analysis and specifically to landfill site selection (Tayyebia et al.,
2010).

16
 2.7 The Site Selection Process

According to Taylor et al.,(2003), site selection using GIS technology process requires a two stages.
The first is the GIS stage, which involves two primary screening steps leading to the identification of
target areas for the location of landfills, and a secondary screening step in order to identify suitable
individual sites, utilizing output from the previous steps, and involving more detailed local
information and site-specific analysis. Secondly, geotechnical evaluation stage, involving a rigorous
geological/ hydro-geological assessment of individual sites identified within the target areas,
employing a combination of site investigation and laboratory techniques.

2.7.1 Landfill Site Selection Process

Landfill site selection is an important step in implementing a waste management program. Proper
sitting can contribute to a reduction in design, construction, and operating costs, as well as help to
minimize environmental impacts. Lawrence (1996) in Tsegaye, (2006) identified three major sitting
approaches: the environmental suitability approach, the social equity approach and the community
control approach. Each of these approaches can be applied in a variety of ways since they influence
the success of landfill sitting. These three approaches are described as follows:

Environmental Suitability Approach: The goal of this approach is to minimize the negative and
maximize the positive environmental effects of projects like landfill sitting. There are typically three
major stages in this approach namely: area screening and identification; site screening and
identification and finally site comparison. There are many different qualitative and/or quantitative
evaluation methods that can be used for screening and comparing site alternatives. (Tsegaye, 2006).

Social Equity Approach: This approach focuses on fairness in the planning process, and a fair
distribution of facilities, costs and benefits among stakeholders. Direct involvement of all interested
and affected parties is considered essential. Equity concerns have only recently been incorporated
into landfill sitting processes (Tsegaye, 2006).

Community Control Approach: Proponents of the landfill and community groups work together to
make decisions. There are various ways in which the community can have control over the process:
procedural control on the structure and implementation of the sitting process; location control, or the
freedom to choose whether or not to accept a site; and facility control, the control over the need for,
size and operation of a facility (Tsegaye, 2006).

17
 2.8 Steps in Landfill Sitting

The following flow chart provides an overview of the steps in the landfill sitting process.

Step 1: Identifying Site Requirements, Objectives, Criteria and Constraints

Criteria and Constraints

Step 2: Area Screening and Identification using Constraint Mapping

Step 3: Site Screening and Identification

Step 4: Site Investigation and Conceptual Design

Step 5: Site Comparisons and Selection

Figure2.2; Steps in Landfill Sitting (Tsegaye, 2006)

Step 1: Identify Site Requirements, Objectives, Criteria and Constraints

The first step in the process is to identify landfill site and size, which are requirements and determine
the objectives, constraints and criteria to be used in the process. Objectives like to minimize the risk
of groundwater contamination, to maximize the depth to the water table with a constraint that the
water table must be, for example, 1.5 m below the base of the landfill. Once the criteria and
constraints are established, the data requirements can be determined. These are for giving insight, but
there are also additional necessary criteria for this study.

Step 2: Area Screening and Identification Using Constraint Mapping

Constraint mapping is a commonly used technique that involves creating a series of maps to show the
areas identified as unsuitable for land filling based on each of the constraints. When the maps are
overlaid, the potential candidate sites can be easily identified. An important element of a successful
landfill sitting process is evaluating the basic suitability of all available land for land filling to aid in
the selection of a limited number of potential sites for more detailed evaluations. The resources and
constraints of the government agencies involved in the process should be taken into consideration.
The following are some of examples of typical constraints relating to water resource protection, as
the current open field solid waste disposal site is affecting water resource the study area.

18
• Water bodies (lakes, streams) are not suitable for landfill development.

•Areas with complex geology are not suitable as it will be difficult to monitor and remediate in the

event of groundwater contamination.

• Landfills should not be sited in protected areas such as forests and endangered species habitats.

. Landfills should not be close to urban landscapes.

• Landfill should not be constructed in the floodplain of a river or other areas susceptible to frequent

flooding.

Step 3: Site Screening and Identification

In this step, the areas identified from the constraint analysis are evaluated and compared in order to
identify potential sites suitable for land filling. The objective is to reduce the number of sites to an
appropriate number for detailed comparison in the next step. Reducing the number of an appropriate
sites important for the next step, in which each site will require detailed data collection, which is time
consuming and expensive. The data used to compare and evaluate the sites in this step is usually
based on published data from concerned offices and walk over or field surveys are required. Walko-
ver surveys may not be required if published sources provide enough data for site comparison.

Step 4: Site Investigation and Conceptual Design

In this step, detailed data are collected for each candidate site and basic designs are completed. Site
investigations should be designed to confirm published data, and collect data required measuring how
well each site meets the criteria. To fully understand how each site may affect water resources,
subsurface exploration and topographic surveys are carried out at the candidate sites. Designs are
then completed to the point where approximate cost estimates can be made for comparative purposes.

Step 5: Site Comparisons and Selection

This step involves a detailed evaluation and comparison of the candidate sites. This requires
comparing data collected from site investigations and published sources, and conceptual designs to
determine which site best meets the criteria. Often, this is achieved by weighting and rating criteria.
The weight of each criterion is determined according to its relative importance and each site is rated
for each criterion. The method used for rating does not necessarily need to be the same for all criteria.
Numerical ranking such as a scale of 1 to 9, or a qualitative ranking such as high, medium or low can
be used.

19
2.9 Criteria used for waste disposal site selection

Selection of site is a very important process for a successful operation of waste disposal using landfill
method. Landfill involves an extensive evaluation process in order to identify the optimal available
disposal location. This location must satisfy basic government regulations, and also take into
recognizance how to minimize factors on health, economic, environmental and social cost. In fact,
different researchers have used varying criteria for site selection purposes due mainly to the fact that
different criteria applies to different region and all facilities (Ayo et al., 2011).
The following criteria are often used for solid waste disposal site selection

i. Distance from Settlement: The landfill site should not be placed near a residential or an urban ar-
ea, to avoid adversely affecting land value and future development and to protect the general public
from possible environmental hazards released from landfill sites. In the same time, it should not be
located too far to avoid extra transportation costs and environmental pollution. The safe distance
from settlements is determined as 1500 m (MUDC, 2012).

ii. Land slope: landfill site should have a gentle incline to avoid soil erosion and limit expenditure
on cleaning and maintaining drainage system components. The land with a slope less than 10% is
highly suitable for solid waste dumping (MUDC, 2012 and Tirusew et al., 2013).

iii. Proximity to Water bodies: to maintain the environmental health of water sources at least 500
m buffered distance should be ringed through straight line calculation (MUDC, 2012).

iv. Distance from roads network: landfills shall not be located within 400 m of any major highways
and city streets and also should not be placed too far from existing road networks, to avoid the expen-
sive cost of constructing connecting roads (Issa, 2012 and MUDC, 2012).

v. Protected areas: the landfill should not be located within 1000m distance of sensitive areas like
churches, mosques, parks, schools and memorial sites (MUDC, 2012).

vi. Land use and land cover type: The land cover and use is the natural and human landscape that
exposed by the threats imposed because of landfill adjacency and it is advisable to select land, which
is occupied by bare and grass lands for solid waste disposal(MUDC,2012 and Tirusew et al., 2013).

vii. Soil Type: It is recommendable that the soil of the selected site has good natural impermeability
in order to reduce the possibility of aquifer contamination. The soil of the selected site should be
clayey (MUDC, 2012).

20
 CHAPTER THREE

3. Description of the Study Area and the Research Methods

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Geographic Location

Mojo town is an administration center of Lome Woreda and industry town of East-Shewa zone,
which is part of Oromia region. It is found to south east of Addis Ababa at a distance of 70km. The
total area of the town is 4532 hectar. Geographically the study area lies within the coordinates be-
tween 08o39'00"- 08o65'00"North and 39o5'00"- 39o83'00" East with a range of altitude from 1751 to
1805 meter amsl. Mojo town is located to the south east of Bishoftu town, North West of Adama
town, north east of Liben woreda and south of Ejere town. It is located along Addis Ababa-Adama
and Addis Ababa Shashemene highway.

Figure 3.1: Location map of the study area, 2016

3.1.2 Climate

The study area is mainly arid and semi-arid with hot temperature for most of the year. The climate of
Mojo town is characterized by four distinct seasons. The main wet season extends from June to
August, short rainy season locally known as tsedey extends from September to November, Dry sea-

21
son locally known as bega extends from December to February and a little rainy season locally
known as belg extends from March to May. Generally, according to the traditional climate zone
classification Mojo town is grouped under Woina dega climatic zone. According to the meteorologi-
cal data, the mean monthly temperature of the town for the last three years ( i.e 2013- 2015) was 20.2
o
c. The minimum and maximum temprature was 6.8 o c and 31.8 o c respectivelly.

40

30

20 Max
Min
10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 3.2: Average monthly maximum and minimum temperature of Mojo town (Ethiopian
Meteorological Authority, 2016)

According to the meteorological data, the mean monthly rain fall of the town for the last three years
was 79 mm, the highest record of precipitation was 420 mm and the lowest was 5.9 mm. As the data
shows December and January are driest months while July, August and September are the wettest
months.

500
400
300
Max
200 Min
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 3.3 Average monthly maximum and minimum rainfall distribution of Mojo town (Ethiopian
Meteorological Authority, 2016).

3.1.3 Topography and Water Resources

Topography shows the patterns of land features of the area. The topography of Mojo town is
characterized by plain surface with an elevation ranging from 1750m to 1803m amsl. Mojo town has
an elongated shape that extends from north to south. Elevation is the criteria that show topography of

22
the area. The elevation of Mojo town in this study was generated from DEM of the town, using Spa-
tial Analyst tool of Surface extension.

Figure 3.4 Elevation Map

Slope: Slope refers to the slants of downward or upward of ground. It is an important criterion to
select suitable landfill sites. The more the steep slope the most unsuitable and gentler slope the more
suitable. An area with steeper slope contributes to erosion and increases construction costs.

Figure 3.5 Map of Slope

23
Figure 3.6 Stream Map of the Study Area

Surface water in the study area are streams, and there is one major and permanent river called Mojo
River, originated from the northern highlands of North Shewa zone, like Gango, Ruketi and Titti.
This river flows from North to south west and there are also some tributary streams flows from east
to west.

3.1.4 Socio-economic Characteristics

Population: According to CSA, 2007, total population of the town was 28,064; of which 15,119
(53.8%) were male and 12, 945 (46.2%) were females. The current population size (2015) of the
town is expected to be 41,360, of which 22,291 male and 19,069 female.

25,000
20,000
15,000 Male
10,000 Female
5,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 3.7 Population distributions Graph

24
Economic Characteristics: Economically most of the residents in Mojo town are engaged in trade
activities and as employees of industries. Agriculture and handcrafting are also economic sources for
some residents.

Mojo town is accessible with different infrastructures like road, water and electricity supply, ed-
ucation, bank, health services and telephone services. Transportation service in the town is highly
accessible for neighbouring towns. The major highway networks connect the town with Addis Ababa
city, Adama town and Shashemene town. The town was also accessible with the first Addis Ababa-
Djibouti rail road, in which these days it is not functioning.

Figure 3.8 Road Network Map

3.2 Sources of Data

This study used both primary and secondary data types. Accordingly, necessary data were col-
lected from primary and secondary data sources.

3.2.1 Primary Data

Ground control points are from the primary data types that were used in this study. During field
survey points to identify public facilities like schools and health centers as well as protected areas

25
like churches and mosques were collected using GPS. In addition some sample points from different
land use/ cover types were also collected to update the current land use/ cover type of the study area.
Photographs and field observations were also used to show the existing land fill site. Satellite images
were also some of the primary data types used to show the character of LU in this study. Interviews
with experts of environmental protection officers and residents who are near to the existing landfill
were made to get more information. The results from interviews were used to identify the problem of
existing landfill in the study area.

3.2.2 Secondary Data

Different factor maps that help to select suitable landfill site were used. These includes: road network
map of Mojo town, soil map of the study area, land use land cover type of the study area, DEM of
Mojo also helped to derive the slope, counters and drainage and topographic maps of the study area,
which are very important for further analysis to select suitable landfill.

Table3.1. Source and type of Secondary data

No_ Type of Data Source of Data Soft ware Used

1 Road network map Landsat ETM+ 1999 ArcGIS 10.1
2 Soil map Ministry of Agriculture ArcGIS 10.1
3 Land use /land cover type Landsat ETM+ 1999 ERDAS Imagine 2013
4 Slope and Elevation SRTM ArcGIS 10.1
5 Topographic map Ethiopian Mapping Agency ArcGIS 10.1
6 Stream network DEM ArcGIS 10.1
7 Meteorological Data Ethiopian Meteorological Agen- Microsoft Excel
cy

3.3 Methods

There are different methods of GIS operation for suitability analysis. Methods like buffering, overlay,
digitizing, spatial analysis and AHP were the major ones used in this study to select suitable landfill
sites.

3.3.1 Buffering

Buffer operation refers the creation of a zone of a specified width around a point, a line or a polygon
area. It is also referred to as a zone of specified distance around coverage features. Buffering is one

26
method of spatial analysis called proximity analysis. It is used to produce areas of a given distance
around specific criteria that used to select suitable solid waste disposal site. The features that were
buffered in this project include: road, dry port, settlement, surface waters, schools, health centers,
churches and mosques.

3.3.2 Overlay

Overlay analysis often requires the analysis of many different factors that are necessary for landfill
sitting. In overlay analysis, it is desirable to establish the relationship of all the input factors together
to identify the desirable locations for landfill. For this study, all the weighted factor maps were
overlaid using weighted overlay extension of spatial analyst tool. In this combination approach, it is
assumed that the more favourable the factors, the more desirable the location will be. Thus, the high-
er the value on the resulting output raster, the more desirable the location will be.

3.3.3 Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

Multi criteria analysis is a process that transforms geographical data into decision. MCDM is a set of
mathematical tools and methods, like weighing, to compare different alternatives according to the
criteria. The main components for MCDM are human value judgment and assessment of criteria, to
rank potential landfill sites using different criteria (Zeinhom et al,. 2010).

3.3.4 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making approach and was
introduced by Saaty (1977). AHP is a decision support tool which can be used to solve complex
decision problems. It uses a multi-level hierarchical structure of objectives, criteria, sub-criteria, and
alternatives among which the best decision is to be made. AHP generates a weight for each
evaluation criterion according to the decision maker’s pair wise comparisons of the criteria. The
comparison is about whether the row criterion is equal, greater or lower importance that the column
criterion and the higher the weight, the more important the corresponding criterion. The reciprocal
values (1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9) have been used when the row criterion is less important than the column
criterion. AHP also provides measure to determine inconsistency of judgments, in which the CR
should be less than one.

3.4 Conceptual Framework of the Analysis

The general workflow of this study includes four major steps. The first was identifying factors to be
used to identify best location for solid waste landfill and producing maps for each. Secondly,

27
assigning weight for the selected factors. The third was overlaying and generating landfill suitability
map and finally, determining suitable areas for landfill. The detail of conceptual framework is shown
in figure 3.9.

Data Sources

DEM Image 2014 Road map Soil Map GPS Data

Streams LU/LC
Road Soil type Protected Ar-
Slope eas
Settlements

Elevation

Geo_data base

Buffer analysis to
Reclassify
Road
Protected
Streams Areas Weighted Overlay of Factors

Settlements

Land Fill Suitability Map

Figure 3.9 General work flow of the study

28
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. Data Analysis, Result and Discussion

This part discusses the analysis and presentation of different data sets that were used to select suitable
solid waste disposal sites. In this study, suitable sites were determined for Mojo town's solid waste
landfill by using the GIS capability and weighting product of AHP method.Landfill must be situated
and designed so as to meet the necessary conditions for preventing pollution of the groundwater or
surface water and other resources. Similarly, a landfill site should be kept as far away as possible
from population density, for reducing impact on public health. On the other hand, the landfill site
should be placed not much far from existing roads for saving road development, transportation, and
collection costs. Furthermore, difficult or steep terrains are not appropriate for hosting landfills.

For this study nine suitability criteria (distance from settlement, protected areas, roads network, sur-
face water, ground water, soil type, geology, urban land use type and land slope) were used based on
the relevant Ethiopian Environmental Protection Regulations, in addition to international practices
that account for environmental, economic and social factors. Maps were created for each suitability
criterion and the final composite map was finally produced by simple overlaying of the individual
maps. The layers, buffer zones used, rankings and layer’s weights were summarized using tables. The
weights were assessed by taking into account the possibility of modifying the natural conditions of
the sites so as to increase their suitability.

4.1 Solid Waste Management System in Mojo Town

The first objective of the research was to assess the present waste management strategies in Mojo
town. This objective was achieved through field observation and interview with experts of
Environmental Protection department of Mojo town. The result showed that the municipal of the
town together with the land administration office selected and prepared the existing open dumping
site based on the criteria only distance from center of the town. According to the observation and
interview, the existing solid waste disposal system is not satisfactory, because the existing site does
not consider major environmental and health factors, like distance from water bodies, agricultural
fields and settlement. The residents near to the existing open dump site are suffering from air
pollution and due to pollution of the river they cannot use for animal feeding and irrigation too.

For collecting and transporting the solid wastes the environmental protection department gave
contract to one association. The collectors gather the waste from houses and other institutions twice
per week and transport it to dumping site using trucks. In many towns of Ethiopia, there are

29
temporary garbage’s (Gedna’s) at different distances, serving to put solid wastes after collecting from
different sources. Since many of these are near to the settlement, this is a serious problem on human
health. But in the study area, Mojo town, solid wastes are dumped in the existing site immediately
after collected from sources.

As the town is becoming an industry zone, the municipality did not give medal attention to sustaina-
ble solid waste disposal and management system. Solid waste management is currently receiving
wide attention in many towns of Ethiopia, especially in the study area where solid wastes are from
abattoir, from industries like leather, textile; this is mainly because solid wastes that are generated in
most towns of Ethiopia are not appropriately handled and managed. However, it is possible to mini-
mize and solve these problems through planning and implementing different municipal solid waste
management components. Unsuitable and not manageable site of landfill lead to serious
contamination to the environment, for instance surface water and air pollution, which have negative
effect and considered as threat to residents. In the study area, surface water and air pollution are the
main problems. However, the negative impacts from landfill can be minimized through selecting an
appropriate site, which minimize potential environmental impact and GIS and RS techniques are
effective for the purpose.

Open solid waste disposal at the study area

In the town 90% of solid waste collected from residences, institutions and asphalt roads, abattoir as
well as industries is disposed in open field which is very close to the main river, crop field major
road. Solid waste that disposed in the open field close to the river contaminates the river highly
because runoff and wind since the slope towards the river is steep.

Figure 4.1: Open field solid waste disposal along a) Mojo river b) agricultural field (Field survey,
2015).

30
Illegal solid waste disposal in the study area

About 10% of generated solid wastes in the town are disposed illegally in any open spaces.

Figure 4.2 Illegal Solid Waste Disposals

The above figure revealed that the inefficient solid waste management at Mojo town. Even though
the municipality of Mojo town attempted more in planning and implementing, there is failure in lack
of commitment from contractors. Sometimes they may not collect solid wastes from all sources due
to this most of the dwellers drop the waste anywhere illegally.

4.2 Land Fill Site Selection Criteria

As stated in chapter two, the first step landfill sitting process is identifying site requirements or
criteria. Since the main objective of this study is selecting suitable landfill site, criteria used should
minimize surrounding environmental, economic and social impacts. The following criteria were used
to meet the above objectives.

Table 4.1 Landfill Site Selection Criteria

N_o Spatial Data Layer Name Criteria

1 Surface water Stream 1000 meter away
2 Road Network Road between 1000- 2000 meter
3 Slope Slope less than 10 %
4 LULC Type LULC barren land and area covered by grass lands
5 Settlement Settlement 1000 meter away
6 Soil type Soil Clayey soil
7 Protected areas Protected Areas 1000 meter away

Source: Ministry of Urban Development and Construction, (2012)

31
4.3 Topographical Factor

Topography shows the patterns of land features of the area. Slope is topographical factors in deter-
mining the suitability of landfill sites.

Slope: slope is an important factor in suitable site selection process, because slope determines the
amount of runoff in the site. In this study, slope of the study area was generated from DEM using
Arc-GIS spatial analyst extension of surface tool. Then the slope raster was reclassified into four
classes of slope percent. The reclassified slope was ranked from 1 to 4, as 4 is highly suitable and 1 is
for the least suitable for site selection.

Table 4.2 Slops Suitability Class

Suitability Class Level of Suitability Rank Area (ha) Percentage

of total area
<10% Highly suitable 4 4047.08 89.3
10-13% Moderately suitable 3 217.54 4.8
13- 16% Less Suitable 2 145.01 3.2
>16% Unsuitable 1 122.37 2.7
Total 4532 100

This study considered the lower slope more highly suitable than the land with higher slope. Different
research shows that areas with high slopes will have high risk of pollution and potentially not a good
site for dumping.

As the slope becomes steeper the area should be considered as least suitable. According to Tirusew et
al., (2013); the type of slope for landfill site should be gently, less than 10%. The majority of the
study area falls under the slope class of 0‐10%, covering 89.3% of the total study area, which is high-
ly suitable for solid waste dumping. Depending on this, most of the land is suitable for solid waste
disposal site. Whereas 4.8%, 3.2% and 2.7% of the study area was covered by slope classes 10-13,
13-16 and >16% respectively. This shows that slope is not a significant problem for solid waste
dumping site selection in Mojo town. This means that the town is more or less flat in its topography.

32
Figure 4.3 Slope Suitability Map

4.4 Accessibility

Road is one of the criteria that should be considered in suitability analysis. Landfill sites should not
be very close to roads, this is because as landfills close to roads may result public health problem. As
the general concept, the landfills shall not be located within 400 meter of any major highways, city
streets or other transportation routes. Solid waste dumping site must be located at suitable distance
from roads network in order to facilitate transportation and it is preferred to locate landfills away 400
meter distance from roads (MUDC, 2012).

Table 4.3 Road Suitability class

Suitability Class Level of Suitability Rank Area (ha) % of total area

0- 400 meter Unsuitable 1 679.80 15
400- 1000 meter Less suitable 2 906.41 20
1000- 1600 meter Suitable 3 1042.35 23
>1600 meter Highly Suitable 4 1903.44 42
Total 4532 100

33
In this study existing roads were digitized from topographic map of the town, which was accessed
from EMA. To locate landfills as suitable to the existing roads, buffer zones were categorized into
four levels and standardized as very close. Very far places from roads are not suitable for landfills,
because additional transport and construction cost may be needed. Even though this is the criteria
Mojo town is networked with roads and no places are within the town away 1900meter from main
roads. Accordingly, 0-400 meter buffer was assigned as unsuitable.

Figure 4.4 Road Suitability Map

4.5 Surface Water

Most of the surface waters in the study area are streams. The landfill site must not be close to surface
water bodies like streams, rivers and lakes. This is because as the distance between the landfill and
water bodies narrows, the probability of polluting the water becomes high. The pollution in water
resources causes saviour problems in environment, public health as well as economy.

In this study the streams/ rivers were generated from DEM of the Mojo, using spatial analyst
hydrology extension. Then it was buffered using the standards of MUDC, 2012, to locate suitable
sites for landfills. Accordingly, four different zones were specified: in which far buffers from streams
are more suitable while buffers near to streams are less suitable for landfill sitting.

34
Table 4.4 Stream suitability class

Suitability Class Level of Suitability Rank Area (ha) % of Total Area

<500 m Unsuitable 1 1133.01 25
500m- 1000 m Less suitable 2 815.75 18
1000m- 1500 m Suitable 3 997.03 22
>1500 m Highly Suitable 4 1586.21 35
Total 4532 100

Figure 4.5 Steam Suitability Map

4.6 Soil Type of the Study Area

Soil is a product of the influence of climate, relief, organisms, and parent materials interacting over
time. According to soil classification of MOA, the type of soil that exists in Mojo town is only Pellic
vertisols. These are important to agriculture with very high dark-colored clay minerals having high
water storage capacity. The most important characteristics of vertisols are their water holding
capacity. This clayey soil is one of the best sites for landfill sitting because clay can prevent leachate
problems. This is because leachate migration from the landfill could be a potential source of surface
and groundwater contaminations. Leachate refers liquid that has percolated through solid waste or
another medium. Leachate from landfills usually contains extracted, dissolved and suspended
materials, most of which may be harmful.

35
4.7 Protected Areas

The protected area in this study includes the Mojo dry-port, churches, mosques, schools and health
centers. The landfill should not be located in close proximity to sensitive areas listed above to a min-
imum limit of 1,000 meter buffer surrounding. When the distance increases from these areas suitabil-
ity also increases. In this study the X,Y coordinates for the above listed protected areas were gathered
using GPS during the field survey and buffered using the standards of MUDC, 2012, to locate suita-
ble sites for landfills. Accordingly, four different zones were specified: in which far buffers from pro-
tected areas are more suitable while near buffers are less suitable for landfill sitting. The study con-
sidered the reclassified distance as unsuitable from 0 to 1000meter, less suitable from 1000m to
1500m, suitable from 1500m to 2000m and highly suitable above 2000meter.

Table 4.5 Protected Areas Suitability Class

Suitability Class Level of Suitability Class Area (ha) % of total area

<1000 m Unsuitable 1 978.91 21.6
1000m- 1500 m Less suitable 2 815.75 18
1500m- 2000 m Moderately Suitable 3 897.34 19.8
>2000 m Highly Suitable 4 1840 40.6
Total 4532 100

Figure 4.6 Protected Areas Suitability Map

36
4.8 Settlement

The waste disposal sites should not be sited or located near to populated areas. The extent of the res-
idential areas were derived from reclassification, and distance of 1500 m and above are considered as
suitable while 1000m and below were considered unsuitable. Hence the land suitability for landfill
increases with the increase in distance from the residential areas.

Table 4.6 Table 4.4 Settlement Suitability Class

Suitability Class Level of Suitability Class Area (ha) % of total area

<1000 m Unsuitable 1 1314.29 29
1000m- 1500 m Less suitable 2 1133 25
1500m- 2000 m Suitable 3 725.12 16
>2000 m Highly Suitable 4 1359.58 30
Total 4532 100

Figure 4.7 Settlement Suitability Map

37
4.9 Hydro-geologic Characteristics

4.9.1 Ground water

The ground water circulation and downward flow of pollutants through rocks and soils is depending
on the hydro geological condition of materials more specifically hydraulic properties such as porosity
and permeability.

The ground water map of the study area was collected from Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy.
Accordingly, there are a group of boreholes in the study area, and there are four levels of permeabil-
ity: which are high, moderate, low and very low.

As it is stated above, under the soil suitability, the material which is less permeable is suitable for
landfill. This is because; the leachate from solid waste cannot spread out easily. Therefore, the area
indicated by red colour, Figure 4.8, is highly suitable. In addition with its less permeability, the bore-
holes are out of this area. Areas shown by yellow, light green and light blue represents moderately
suitable, less suitable and unsuitable respectively.

Figure 4.8 Ground water Map

38
 4.9.2 Geological Characteristics

In the study area, the lacustrine sediment is the dominant geology around central and south of the
town. Bofa basalt also exists covering the northern part and some of the east of Mojo town. Alkalin
and Nazret rocks are found in the study are to the west and east direction respectively (GSE). Ac-
cording to Tsegaye, (2006), the Nazret group rock and lacustrin sediments are highly suitable for
landfill site.

Figure 4.9 Geological Map

4.10 Urban Land Use

The land cover of the town was analyzed from Landsat ETM+ acquired in 2014. The image was
georeferenced to a projection of Universal Transverse Mercator, Grid of UTM Z 37N and datum with
Adindan. The image was undertaken under supervised classification with the help of 59ground
control points that were collected during the field survey, to update the information. Classified pixels
were clustered into six general categories as: residential area, urban agriculture, stream, commercial
centers, industries and green space (figure 4.8).

Accordingly, the land use types were ranked based on their importance to evaluate suitable site to
locate landfills. These are; Green spaces are ranked as highly suitable, urban agriculture as

39
moderately suitable, residential area, commercial centers and industries as less suitable and areas near
to streams and urban infrastructures as unsuitable.

Figure4. 10 Major Urban Land Use Categories Map

Table 4.7 Land Use Suitability Classes

Land Use/Cover type Level of Suitability Rank Area (ha) % of total area
Stream, Infrastructures Unsuitable 1 63.84 12
residential area, commercial centers Less Suitable 2 2719.2 60
and industries
urban agriculture Moderately Suitable 3 453.2 10
Green spaces Highly Suitable 4 815.76 18
Total 4532 100

40
 Figure 4.11 Urban Land Use Suitability Map

4.11 Calculating Factor Weights and Overlaying Identified Suitable Sites

The site selection for solid waste disposal dumping site involves comparison of different options
based on environmental, social and economical impacts. Hence, based on experience and likely
impact on surrounding environment, different weights were assigned to all the parameters. The larger
the weight, the more important is the criterion in the overall utility. The weights were developed
providing a series of pair wise comparisons of the relative importance of factors to the suitability of
pixels for the activity being evaluated. The procedure by which the weights were produced follows
the logic developed by Saaty (1980) under the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Weight rates
were given based on pair wise comparison 7 point continuous scale (Table 4.8). These pair wise
comparison were then analyzed to produce of weights that sum to 1. The factors and their resulting
weights were used as input for the multi criteria evaluation (MCE) module for weighted linear
combination of overlay analysis.

Table4.8 Pair wise comparison, 9-point weighting scales

1/9 1/7 1/5 1/3 0 3 5 7 9

Absolutely Strongly More Slightly Equally Important Slightly More Strongly Absolutely
Source: Saaty, 1980

41
 According to Lawal et al. (2011) if the consistency ratio is less than or equal to 0.1, it signifies
acceptable reciprocal matrix. The consistency ratio of this study indicated that 0.01 was acceptable In
order to combine all the layers to process overlay analysis, standardization of each data set to a com-
mon scale of 1, 2, 3, 4 (value 1 = unsuitable, value 2 = less suitable, value 3 = moderately suitable,
value 4 = highly suitable) was performed.

Table4.9 Pair wise comparison in seven Point continuous Scale

Road Urban Stream Protected Slope Settlement Ground Geology Soil Eigenvector Percentage
LU Areas Water weight %
Road 1 0.176 17.6
Urban LU ½ 1 0.158 15.8
Stream ½ 1/3 1 0.138 13.8
Protected 2 1/3 1/2 1 0.131 13.1
Area
Slope 1/3 1/2 2 1/3 1 0.105 10.5
Settlement 1/3 1/2 1/2 1/3 ½ 1 0.084 8.4
Ground 1/3 1/2 3 ½ ½ ½ 1 0.079 7.9
Water
Geology 1/3 1/3 1/3 2 ½ ½ 3 1 0.076 7.6
Soil 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/21/2 ½ 1/3 2 1 0.053 5.3
Total 1 100
Consistency Ratio= 0.01

Table 4.10 Weight of Suitable Solid Waste Dumping Site Selection Factors

Factor Class Value Level of Suitability Influence (%)

Distance from Roads < 400 m 1 Unsuitable

400m- 1000 2 Less Suitable 17.6%
1000m-1600 m 3 Suitable
1600m-2000 m 4 Highly Suitable

Urban Land use Water body 1 Unsuitable

Built-up and/
Agricultural lands 2 Less Suitable 15.8%

Vegetation lands 3 Suitable

Barren and grass land 4 Highly Suitable

42
Factor Class Value Level of Suitability Influence

Distance from Streams <300 m 1 Unsuitable

300m- 500 m 2 less suitable 13.8%
500m- 1000 m 3 Suitable
>1000 m 4 Highly Suitable

Distance from <1000m 1 Unsuitable

Protected Areas 1000m- 1500m 2 less suitable 13.1%
1500m-2000m 3 Suitable
>2000m 4 Highly Suitable

Slope <10% 4 Highly Suitable

10%-13% 3 Moderately Suitable 10.5%
13%-16% 2 Less Suitable
>16% 1 Unsuitable

Distance from <100m 1 Unsuitable

Settlement 1000m-1500m 2 less suitable 8.4%
1500m-2000m 3 Suitable
>2000m 4 Highly Suitable

Ground Water 7.9%

Geology 7.6%
Soil 4.3%

The final map (Figure 4.12) has four classes. Out of the total area of the town, about 6% (271.92 ha)
fall under highly suitable area for landfill site. The moderately suitable area (3) covers an area of
22% (997.04 ha). The area which covers 26.6% (1205.51ha) is under less suitable class and the re-
maining 45.4% (2057.52 ha) under unsuitability class and the value is 1 (Table 4.11). By using the
stated criteria, suggested areas as suitable for solid waste dumping site fall on the south and south
west direction from the town (Figure 4.12).

Table 4.11 Suitability area level of suitability and the percent of total area coverage

Level of Suitability Rank Area (ha) Percent of total area

Unsuitable 1(Brown) 2057.52 45.4
Less Suitable 2 (Violet) 1205.51 26.6
Suitable 3 (Yellow) 997.04 22
Highly Suitable 4 ( Green) 271.92 6%
Total 4532 100

43
Figure 4.12 Landfill Suitability Map

Figure 4.13 shows the two class of landfill suitability in relation with settlement, rivers and road net-
works. As this figure shows, sites which are highly suitable for landfills are located in the southern
and south-western peripheries of the town. These areas are mainly green spaces. These areas are at
the suitable distance from roads and far from settlement and water body.

Figure 4.13 Overall Landfill Suitability Map

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

Landfills are an environmentally acceptable disposal of solid waste on the ground. The main purpose
of establishing landfills is to protect the safety of the environment by minimizing effects on resources
and community health. Similarly the main purpose of this study was finding suitable sites for
landfills using GIS and remote sensing technologies.

As the study shows GIS requires collecting different data from different sources with different
formats and the data must be updated to show the current information of the study area. Remote
sensing also helps in having information about the study area through satellite images.

The findings have shown the ability of GIS and remote sensing as a veritable tool for analyzing the
criteria for decision support. The analysis has taken important factors to minimize the negative
impacts of landfills. These are land use type, slope, water sources, protected areas, settlement, type of
soil, road, ground water and geology as determining factor in order to find appropriate site for solid
waste dumping site. But as it is stated the anticipated airport site is not included as a factor, this is
because the exact location is not identified. The results have shown that two sites were suggested as
highly suitable for solid waste landfills. The sites are easy to access and manage for disposal of solid
wastes. These places are far way from any water sources and other variables put into analysis. They
are located in western and south west peripheries of the town and are in areas of green spaces with
less than 10% slope.

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations are given for more understandings

 The selected landfill sites by this study are only for non-hazardous solid wastes. Since the crite-
ria for hazardous wastes area different from non-hazardous wastes, separate landfill should be
selected.
 These suggestive landfill sites do not include the anticipated air port. But during the time for
constructing the airport, it should consider these suggestive landfill sites.
 Detailed hydrological and geological studies for the selected landfill should be investigated.
 Further studies are necessary about the design and costs of construction of landfills.

45
 References
A.A., Mohammedshum, M.A., Gebresilassiea, C.M., Rulindaa, G.H., Kahsaya, M.S., Tesfayb,
(2014), Application of geographic information system and remote sensing in effective solid
waste disposal sites selection in Wukro town, Tigray, Ethiopia, Toronto, Canada.
Abbas, I.I, Nai’ya, R and Arigbede, Y.A, (2011). Use of remote sensing and GIS in effective and
efficient solid management planning (a case study of Samara, Zaria, Nigeria), Nigeria,
Research Journal of Earth and Planetary Studies.
A.H. Tayyebia, M. R. Delavara, A. Tayyebia, M. Golobi, (2010). Combining Multi Criteria Decision

Making And Dempster Shafer Theory For Landfill Site Selection, Volume Xxxviii, Iran, Pp-1073.

Ayo Babalola and Ibrahim Busu, (2011). Selection of Landfill Sites for Solid Waste Treatment in
Damaturu Town-Using GIS Techniques, Journal of Environmental Protection, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor state, Malaysia, pp1-10.
Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), (2013).
Debishree Khan and S.R. Samadder,(2014). Application of GIS in Landfill Siting for Municipal
Solid Waste, Dhanbad, India.
Degnet, A. (2008). Determinants of solid waste disposal practices in urban areas of Ethiopia: a
Household-level analysis. East Afr.Soc.
EMA. (2016), Topographic Map of Mojo town and Surrounding Kebeles.
Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA), 2009, Solid waste:
Generation, handling, treatment and disposal, USA.
Kumel Beshir,(2014), Suitable Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection Using GIS and Remote Sensing
Approach: A Case of Welkite Town, Ethiopia, Unpublished master thesis at Addis Ababa
University, Ethiopia.
Lars Mikkel Johannessen with Gabriela Boyer, (1999). Observations of Solid Waste Landfills in
Developing Countries: Africa, Asia, and Latin America, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Laura Mcnally, (2003). Protection Of Water Resources In Landfill Sitting In Vietnam, University of
Toronto, Canada, pp1-3.
Lawal DU, Matori A-N, Balogun A-L (2011). A Geographic Information System and multi-criteria
decision analysis in proposing new recreational park sites, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Mod. Appl. Sci. 5(3):79-86.
Md. Mujibor Rahman, Ruksana Sultana and Md. Ahasanul Hoque, (2008), Suitable Sites For Urban
Solid Waste Disposal Using GIS Approach In Khulna City, Khulna University, Bangladesh.

46
Ministry of Agriculture, Soil map of Ethiopia,1996.
Geological Survey of Ethiopia, Geological Map of Ethiopia,1950
Ministry of Urban Development and Construction (MUDC), (2012). Solid Waste Management
Manual With Respect to Urban Plans, Sanitary Landfill Sites and Solid Waste Management
Planning, Urban Planning, Sanitation and Beautification Bureau, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, Ground Water Map of Ethiopia,1950.
Mohammad Ali Alanbari, Nadhir Al-Ansari, Hadeel Kareem Jasim, Sven Knutsson, (2014).
Modeling Landfill Suitability Based on GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Case Study in
Al-Mahaweelqadaa, Scientific Research, Iraq, pp829.
Mohhamed Z. Siddiqui, Jess W. Everett and Baxter E Vieux , (2015). Land Fill Sitting Using
Geographic Information Systems: A Demonstration, Journal of Environmental Engineering,
USA. Pp515-517.
R. Taylor and A. Allen,(2013). Waste disposal and landfill, pp1-16.
Seiied Taghi Seiied Safavian, Ebrahim Fataei, Taghi Ebadi, and Ali Mohamadian, (2015). Site
Selection of Sarein's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Using the GIS Technique and SAW
Method, International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 6, Iran, pp-934.
Shweta Karsauliya, (2013). Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in Solid Waste Management: A
Case Study of Surroundings of River Yamuna, India, International Journal of Environmental
Engineering and Management, Banasthali University, Rajasthan. India. pp594.
S. M. Issa and B. AL Shehhi,(2012), A GIS-based Multi-criteria Evaluation System for Selection of
Landfill Sites: A Case Study from Abu dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Melbourne, Australia.
Subhrajyoti Choudhury, Sujit Das, (2012). GIS and Remote Sensing For Landfill Site Selection- A
Case Study on Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayet, Journal of Environmental Science, India. p36.
Tirusew Ayisheshim and Amare Sewnet, (2013). Solid waste dumping site suitability analysi using
Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing for Bahir Dar Town, Ethiopia,
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.
Thomas L. Saaty,(2008), Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, University of
Pittsburgh,, USA.
Tsegaye Mekuria, (2006). A multi-criteria analysis for solid waste disposal site selection using
Remote Sensing and GIS, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Unpublished Master's Thesis,
pp11-25.
V.R. Sumathi, Usha Natesan and Chinmoy Sarkar, (2007). GIS-based approach for optimized sitting
of municipal solid waste landfill, India, pp 2148.

47
Zeinhom El Alfy, Rasha Elhadary and Ahmed Elashry, (2010). Integrating GIS and MCDM to Deal
with Landfill Site Selection, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, Mansoura
University, Egypt, pp33-34.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil

48
Appendices 1: GPS Points for Protected Areas

No_ Shape X Y LU/LC

1 Point 512898 951943 Mosque
2 Point 512981 951943 Clinic
3 Point 513767 950701 School
4 Point 513591 950680 School
5 Point 513560 950629 Mosque
6 Point 513343 950484 Health Center
7 Point 513394 950453 Church
8 Point 513663 950173 Church
9 Point 513167 950132 School
10 Point 513063 950070 Church
12 Point 513322 949956 Church
13 Point 513819 949873 Health Center
14 Point 513694 949573 School
15 Point 513908 949470 Health Center
16 Point 513881 949325 School
17 Point 513932 949283 Church
18 Point 513829 949139 Health Center
19 Point 513767 948663 Church
Source: Field Survey, 2016

Appendix 2: GPS Points for Different LU Types

No_ Shape X Y LU/LC Type

1 Point 513131 953110 Residence
2 Point 513305 952730 Commercial area
3 Point 512828 952988 Residence
4 Point 512691 952200 Residence
5 Point 512896 950834 Residence
6 Point 513408 950963 Residence
7 Point 513867 950895 Infrastructures
8 Point 513169 952897 Infrastructures
9 Point 513700 948923 Infrastructures
10 Point 513779 949295 Infrastructures

49
11 Point 513131 953110 Green Space
12 Point 513305 952730 Green Space
13 Point 512828 952988 Green Space
14 Point 512691 952200 Green Space
15 Point 512896 950834 Green Space
16 Point 513408 950963 Green Space
17 Point 513867 950895 Green Space
18 Point 513169 952897 Commercial area
19 Point 512987 952526 Residence
20 Point 512759 951540 Residence
21 Point 512987 951343 Residence
22 Point 513283 931054 Residence
23 Point 513533 950834 Residence
24 Point 513927 950789 Residence
25 Point 513427 950808 Commercial area
26 Point 512365 950364 Commercial area
27 Point 513336 949993 Commercial area
28 Point 514047 949970 Commercial area
29 Point 514193 949720 Residence
30 Point 514200 948969 Residence
31 Point 514610 949366 Residence
32 Point 514579 950190 Commercial area
33 Point 513284 952692 Commercial area
34 Point 513768 951024 Commercial area
35 Point 513063 950433 Industrial area
36 Point 514033 950425 Industrial area
37 Point 512630 950106 Industrial area
38 Point 512987 959492 Residence
39 Point 513584 952488 Green Space
40 Point 512873 951555 Green Space
41 Point 512661 951525 Green Space
42 Point 513048 950834 Green Space
43 Point 512471 950531 Green Space
44 Point 512979 950402 Green Space
45 Point 512706 949742 Green Space

50
46 Point 513108 949458 Green Space
47 Point 514602 949576 Green Space
48 Point 534423 949257 Green Space
49 Point 513995 950342 Green Space
50 Point 514807 950326 Green Space
51 Point 513487 952844 Urban Agriculture
52 Point 513465 952451 Urban Agriculture
53 Point 513040 952086 Urban Agriculture
54 Point 512873 951745 Urban Agriculture
55 Point 513230 951502 Urban Agriculture
56 Point 513148 950819 Urban Agriculture
57 Point 51512714 950594 Urban Agriculture
58 Point 513798 949487 Urban Agriculture
59 Point 514279 949257 Urban Agriculture
Source: Field Survey, 2016

51