HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

HydroResearch

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/hydroresearch/

GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for identification of potential

groundwater recharge zones - a case study from Ponnaniyaru watershed,
Tamil Nadu, India
Devanantham Abijith a, Subbarayan Saravanan a,⁎, Leelambar Singh a, Jesudasan Jacinth Jennifer a,
Thiyagarajan Saranya a, K.S.S. Parthasarathy b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
b
Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Groundwater is one of the most vital natural resources; spatially varying in quality and quantity. Increased urban-
Received 8 November 2019 isation and population creates tremendous pressure on the quality and quantity of the groundwater resources. In
Received in revised form 4 February 2020 this study, Ponnaniyaru watershed of Cauvery basin was considered for this research. Geographical information
Accepted 7 February 2020
system (GIS) and remote sensing (RS) plays a vital role in preparing various thematic layers for targeting the
Available online 21 February 2020
groundwater potential zones (GWPZ). This study adopts the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Multi influ-
Keywords:
ence factor (MIF), multi-criteria decision-making approaches to determine the weights for the influencing fac-
AHP tors. Weighted linear overlay analysis was carried out to determine the GWPZ. Further, the resultant GWPZ
MIF map has been reclassified into five different classes, namely Very good, Good, Moderate, Poor and Very poor.
GIS The results were validated with observed well-yield data, and the predictive precision for AHP and MIF was
Groundwater potential zone found to be 75%, and 71% respectively.
Ponnaniyaru © 2020 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction Therefore, identifying the potential zone of groundwater becomes an in-

Climate change has a significant effect on earth systems which is ev-
ident through severe water scarcity in recent decades. Due to the rapid
increase in population, industrialization and irrigation, the demand for
water increased, which severely influenced groundwater stress. There-
fore the issue is considered with primary importance to conserve and
maintain the available water resources (Chezgi et al., 2016;
Venkatesan et al., 2019). Water Security is expected to be the biggest
challenge in the 21st century (Snyder, 2019). The city of Cape Town
has implemented day zero's concept for focusing everyone's attention
on controlling water consumption as tightly as possible, and literally,
day zero is when most of the town's taps are turned off.
In Asia, rainwater is the prime source of groundwater, which reach
down through percolation to the aquifer (Ray and Shaw, 2019). In the
past decade, demand for water increased due to human development
activities and climate change (Shah, 2005; Taweesin et al., 2018).
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail address: ssaravanan@nitt.edu (S. Saravanan).
tegral part of water resource management and planning (Kulkarni et al.,
2018). India is one of the world's biggest groundwater consumer and
the consumption rate is estimated to be 230 cubic km per year
(Fienen and Arshad, 2016). Groundwater contributes 62% for irrigation,
85% for agricultural water supply and 45% for urban water supply
(CGWB, 2013). N60% of the irrigated cropland and 85% of the drinking
water supply depend on the groundwater sources. In India, over 90%
of the rural population and almost 30% of the metropolitan population
rely only on groundwater to meet their drinking and household de-
mands resulting in overexploitation in some parts of India
(Parthasarathy and Deka, 2019; Siddha and Sahu, 2018).
India experiences sufficiently good annual rainfall on an average of
1100 mm, however, the uneven spatial distribution of rainfall results
in deprivation of the normal rainfall in some regions even during mon-
soon which causes water scarcity (Garg and Hassan, 2007). The water
crisis in India is often linked to a lack of government's management
plan, unscientific utilization of water resources, industrial and human
intervention. Furthermore, water scarcity is anticipated to stagnate in
India as the general population is predicted to rise to 1.6 billion by
2050 (Snyder, 2019). Therefore, groundwater potential mapping is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydres.2020.02.002
2589-7578/© 2020 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14
crucial to understand the status of the subsurface water sources and
that could be beneficial for sustainable groundwater management.
Integrating RS and GIS has become a useful technique for various ap-
plications in water resource and groundwater mapping. The presence of
groundwater could be assessed by the interaction of hydrological, geo-
logical and atmospherical factors (Ghosh et al., 2016; Msaddek et al.,
2019; Saravanan, 2012). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), prob-
abilistic models (PM), bivariate statistics (BS), multivariate statistics
(MS), and data-mining/machine learning (DM/ML) were few methods
adopted for more accurate groundwater potential zone mapping in var-
ious regions worldwide. From the previous studies, it is evident that
MCDM is an effective tool for decision making for the problem involving
too many influencing factors (Chenini et al., 2010). In the recent past,
numerous studies were carried out in adopting a semi-quantitative ap-
proach such as AHP (Sandoval et al., 2018) and (Arulbalaji et al., 2019)
frequency ratio model (FR). BS model provides an easy and fast
geospatial assessment for calculating the probabilistic relationship be-
tween the dependent and independent variables (Guru et al., 2017;
Naghibi et al., 2015; Razandi et al., 2015). Logistic regression model
(LR) is opted to identify the suitable model to define the relationship be-
tween a dependent variable and conditioning factors to produce the co-
efficient for each variable (Umar et al., 2014). The ratio of each
conditioning factor can be estimated by using the coefficients derived
from LR. Evidential belief function model (EBF) according to Dempster,
generalizes the lower and upper probabilities in Bayesian (Dempster,
1967). Degrees of belief (Bel) and plausibility (Pls) are the lower and
upper probabilities. The feature of the EBF is the degree of uncertainty
(Unc) and the degree of doubt (Dis) which improve the precision of
forecasts of groundwater. (Carranza and Hale, 2002; Althuwaynee
et al., 2014; Pourghasemi, 2016). The EBF is a renowned spatial predic-
tion tool, a robust framework that helps formalize and address problem-
atic management problems (Al-Abadi, 2017). The weights-of-evidence
Fig. 1. Study area map of Ponnaniyaru watershed.
(WOE) method uses the Bayesian probability model's log-linear form
to assess through relative statistical importance of evidence (Nampak
et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2012 and Mogaji et al., 2016). Entropy weighted
linear aggregate (LWA) is a weighted average-based technique in
which the continuous criteria are normalized to a common numeric
scale and combined using a weighted average. The assigned weights ei-
ther subjectively or objectively are used along with standardized criteria
as input for the LWA (Drobne and Lisec, 2009).
In recent years, the data-mining/machine learning (DT/ML) tech-
nique has been widely adopted in groundwater studies (Lee et al.,
2019). These hybrid statistical methods includes artificial neural net-
work (ANN), boosted regression tree (BRT) (Schapire, 2003) Random
forest (RF) (Breiman, 2001), decision tree (DT) (Duan et al., 2016), hy-
brid genetic algorithm (HGA), self-adaptive hybrid genetic algorithm
(SAHGA), fisher's linear discriminant function (FLDA) (Espinoza et al.,
2005), least-square support vector machine (LSSVM) (Tang et al.,
2019), extreme learning machine (ELM) (Alizamir et al., 2018).
The approaches mentioned above-made identification of Ground-
water potential zone (GWPZ) simple, reliable, cost-effective with each
model having its own merits and demerits. AHP method significantly
reduces the mathematical complexity of decision-making, where a
score is assigned based on expert's opinion, it is a pairwise comparison
where score one represents equal influence and score nine represents
the extreme influence of parameters. Whereas MIF is also based on ex-
pert opinions, but the score is assigned based on the major and minor
influence between parameters influencing the GWPZ. These two ap-
proaches have managed to gain more popularity, as it is relatively sim-
ple and accurate. It also helps in identifying the most sensitive area of
GWPZ and assessing the error that leads to greater certainty.
(Anbarasu et al., 2019; Pradhan, 2009; Shimpi et al., 2019). In this
paper, attempts were made to delineate the groundwater potential
zone for Ponnaniyaru watershed using AHP and MIF methods. Several
 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14 3

Table 1 Cauvery. This watershed is a major attraction and attention for several
Data sources used for mapping groundwater potential mapping. geologists for its structural configuration and presence of anorthosite
Parameters Data source Source location (Maheswaran et al., 2019; Muralitharan and Palanivel, 2015). This wa-
Geology Geological Survey of India https://www.gsi.gov.
tershed is bestowed with hard rock terrain and has an unconfined aqui-
in fer system and N110 villages are present in the watershed depending on
Geomorphology Landsat 8 OLI https://earthexplorer. the groundwater for domestic and agricultural activities. The watershed
06-MAR-19 usgs.gov gets the majority of its rainfall from the North-East monsoon and the av-
Landuse and Landsat 8 OLI https://earthexplorer.
erage rainfall is estimated to be 816 mm. The mean minimum and a
Landcover 06-MAR-19 usgs.gov
Soil National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land https://www. maximum temperature range from 23 °C to 38.56 °C. (CGWB, 2008)
Use Planning (NBSS and LUP) nbsslup.in The maximum elevation of the study area has been observed to be
Lineament Shuttle Radar Topography Mission https://earthexplorer. 1016 m in the North West part and the eastern part of the watershed
density (SRTM) usgs.gov is dominated by plain region. The slope ranges from 0° to 60° degree to-
(km/km2)
Drainage Shuttle Radar Topography Mission https://earthexplorer.
wards East-North-East. The predominant geology of the watershed is
density (SRTM) usgs.gov found to be gneiss and followed by granite, syenite, Conglomerate,
(km/km )2
Sandstone and Quartz Vein which are seen as patches. Geomorphologi-
Slope (°) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission https://earthexplorer. cal units like pediplain has covered most of the area followed by struc-
(SRTM) usgs.gov
tural hills, Denudational hills, and bazada. Majority of soil types are
Rainfall(mm) Regional Meteorological Centre India http://imdchennai.
Meteorological Department gov.in/ categorized under well-drained and moderately drained class. The lat-
est report of the Oxford Economics research suggested that
Tiruchirappalli district is one of the fastest-growing cities and the with
studies for investigating the subsurface geology were carried out in the tremendous increase in growth rate over the past two decades (Holt,
selected region but no attempts were made for mapping the groundwa- 2018). Landuse and Landcover of the study area are found to be com-
ter potential zone for this watershed. The robustness of these tech- prised of gullied land, barren rocks, forest, land with scrub, plantation,
niques has been validated using ROC and AUC from the observed well river, settlements and land without scrub and cropland. Major crops
yield data. grown in the watershed are Paddy, Millets, Pulses, Banana, and
Sugarcane.
2. Description of the study area
3. Methodology and Data used
Ponnaniyaru watershed (Fig. 1) of Tiruchirappalli district, Tamil
Nadu geographically located in 10°27′00” N to 10°50′0” N latitude and The primary and secondary data sources are described in Table 1. The
78°08′0″ E to 78°40′00″ E longitude having an area of 819.2 sq.km. thematic maps required for this study were availed from various
The Ponnaniyaru River is 60 km long and confluences at the River sources and were digitized and pre-processed using GIS tools. The

Fig. 2. Methodology flow chart of the study.

4 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14

Table 2
AHP weights factors for groundwater potential mapping.

Parameters a b c d e f g h Normalized AHP weights

Geomorphology(a) 1 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 0.24
Lineament density (b) 0.5 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 0.19
Landuse and Landcover (c) 0.5 0.5 1 3 4 4 3 3 0.18
Geology(d) 0.25 0.5 0.33 1 2 3 2 3 0.14
Slope (e) 0.33 0.3 0.25 0.5 1 3 4 2 0.1
Soil(f) 0.33 0.5 0.25 0.33 0.33 1 2 2 0.07
Drainage Density(g) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.25 0.5 1 3 0.07
Rainfall(h) 0.33 0.25 0.3 0.33 0.5 0.5 0.33 1 0.04

Table 3
visual and digital interpretation of satellite imagery Landsat-8 OLI
MIF weight for groundwater potential mapping. (Path 143 Row 53) and cross-verified with published district resources
map. From the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
Parameters Major Minor Relative weights
(NBSS and LUP), the soil data was obtained and digitized. Landsat-8
GEOLOGY 1+1+1+1 0.5 4.5 OLI (Path 143 Row 53) satellite data were used to generate Land-use
LULC 1+1 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 4
and Land-cover map and using Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
GM 1+1 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 3.5
DD 1+1 0.5 + 0.5 3 (SRTM) Version 3.0 Global 1 arc sec data slope map was prepared.
SLOPE 1. + 1 0.5 2.5 False colour composite in spatial analysis tool in ArcGIS 10.4 was used
LD 1+1 0.5 2.5 to extract the lineaments and their density have been calculated. Layers
RAIN 1 0.5 + 0.5 2 extracted through digitization process were transformed to raster data
SOIL 1 1
using the feature to raster tool in ArcGIS. Rainfall data were obtained
from the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and spatial distribu-
tion was generated by using Inverse Distance Weightage (IDW) tool in
methodology adopted is shown in Fig. 2. The eight thematic layers ArcGIS 10.4 All the layers including delineated watershed were
opted in this study includes geomorphology, lineament density, land- resampled using nearest neighbourhood technique and converted into
use/land cover, geology, slope, soil, drainage density, and rainfall that 30 m * 30 m cell size.
are found to be the influencing factors essential in assessing the ground- Using AHP and MIF, with respect to the scale based on the priority,
water potentiality. All the maps were in Universal Transverse Mercator the weights were assigned to each factor. Then the layers were inte-
(UTM) coordinate system and WGS84 spatial reference (WGS84-UTM- grated using GIS to find the GWPZ and classified as very high, high,
Zone44N). From the published Survey of India (SOI) toposheet (58 J, moderate, low and very low zones. The resultant GWPZ map was vali-
1:250,000) the watershed was delineated, and the drainage pattern dated with 56 observed well-yields of various present wells, observa-
was digitized using ArcGIS 10.4 software. The geology map was pre- tion wells, boreholes and tube wells obtained from Central
pared by digitizing the district resource map of the Geological Survey Groundwater Board (CGWB). Verification of the groundwater potential
of India (GSI) and geomorphology map has been prepared from the map using the groundwater yield data shows how reliable and efficient

Fig. 3. Multi influencing factors for groundwater potential mapping.

 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14 5

was the adopted technique compared to the groundwater potential Table 4

mapping using ROC and AUC. AHP and MIF rank and weight for calculating groundwater potential.

Parameters Rank MIF weight AHP weight

3.1. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Rain
786.93–810.69 10 8.5 0.04
Multi-criteria decision-making technique is a widely used technique 810.69–841.05 8
for groundwater management, and AHP is one of them which is pro- 841.05–878.01 6
878.01–917.61 4
posed by (Saaty, 1980); According to (Şener et al., 2011), it defined as
917.61–955.24 2
extensive technology that integrates practical and subjective opinions
of experts to complete decision-making by assessing several factors. In Landuse and Landcover
Plantation 9 17 0.18
this method, each factor assigned rank on a scale of one (equal signifi-
Settlements 3
cance) to nine (extreme significance) by assessing each element based Water Bodies 10
on the pairwise comparison. This analysis evaluates the importance of Land Without Scrub 5
the parameter that influences groundwater potential (Razandi et al., Barren Rocky 2
2015). The prepared layers are assigned weights derived by this tech- Land With Scrub 7
Forest 6
nique and were subjected to weighted overlay analysis. In pair-wise
Guilled Land 4
comparison matrix, row follows the reciprocal value of each parameter Crop Land 8
and its importance with the second parameter. The generic pair-wise
Geology
comparison matrix is made by normalizing pair comparison matrix.
Gneiss 3 19 0.14
After that weights are estimated by arithmetic mean. The consistency Granite 2
index (CI) is estimated by the corresponding expressions (Eqs. (1) and Syenite 2
(2)) (Saaty, 1980): Conglomerate, sandstone and shale 8
Shales with bands of limestone 7
CI Quartz vein 6
CR ¼ ð1Þ
RI Lineament density
0–346.119043 2 10.6 0.19
CI is consistency index, CR is consistency ratio, and RI is the random 346.11–610.79 4
610.79–868.69 6
index,
868.69–1160.51 8
1160.51 - 1730.59 10
λ max−n
CI ¼ ð2Þ Drainage density
n−1
0–1029.103581 2 12.7 0.07
1029.10–1976.96 4
where n is the number of conditioning factors, and λmax is the principle
1976.96–2897.73 6
eigenvalue of the matrix. RI value is directly taken from the (Saaty, 2897.73–3953.92 8
1980) research paper, which depends upon the number of components. 3953.92–6905.82 10
The weights determined using the matrix is valid only when CR ≯0.1.
Slope
Pairwise comparison matrix is shown in Table 2. 0.01–2.86 10 10.6 0.1
2.86–8.09 8
3.2. Multi-influencing factors (MIF) 8.09–16.41 6
16.41–25.20 4
25.20–60.63 2
The weights of the various influence parameters are determined
using MIF techniques. The MIF is shown to be feasible to understand Soil
the factors influencing the potentiality of groundwater. The MIF is a Well Drained 9 6.3 0.07
Somewhat Excessively Drained 8
quick and effective method wherein the weights for all the input vari-
Moderately well Drained 7
ables can be determined effectively with greater accuracy. The multi- Imperfectly Drained 5
influencing groundwater variables are described in Table 3. A weight
Geomorphology
of 1.0 and 0.5, is allocated to the effects of each major and minor variable
Pediplain 9 14.8 0.24
respectively. The combined weight of both major and minor is consid- Structural Hills 2
ered for calculating the comparative rates. Each connection is weighted Denudational Hills 3
by its effectiveness (Fig. 3) (Singh et al., 2019; Thapa et al., 2017). The Bazada 7
estimated weight for each influencing factor was equally distributed
and applied to each subclass as a rank for all seven factors (Eq. (3)).
 
ðE þ Em Þ between 1 and 10. The weights are calculated in such a way that impor-
P e  100 ð3Þ tance of influence between each parameter.
ðE e þ E m Þ

where 4.1. Geomorphology

Ee −Major Influencing factor; Em −Minor Influencing factor
4. Results and discussion
Table 4 denotes the weights and ranks of each parameter in AHP and
MIF. Those weights are multiplied to each sub-feature inside the param-
eter. For each parameter, the weights of AHP and MIF is feed according
to subclass influences the ranks are assigned, and the rank ranges
Geomorphology (Fig. 4) impacts the occurrence significantly, water
percolation and recharge into the earth's subsurface (Etikala et al.,
2019).Various landforms using image interpretation techniques which
helps in identifying the prospects of groundwater. The Study area has
structural hills, Denudational hills, pediplain, and bazada. Structural
hills in the northern part where it has more runoff and poor in ground-
water potential. Denudational hills have a gentle slope with medium
vegetation cover and infiltration can happen as it has some fissures.
Pediplains are widely found to occur in the research region, having
6 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14

Fig. 4. Geomorphology of the study area.

gentle steepness with wealthy vegetation and rich in groundwater po-
tential. Bazada zones are deposition along the stream channel which is
very rich in potential. Pediplain is assigned high rank followed by
bazada, Denudational hills and least rank is assigned to structural hills.
The derived AHP weight is 0.24 and MIF weight is 14.8 which has two
major and three minor influences.
4.2. Lineament
The fractured zones are called lineaments which formed due to de-
formations which have considerable permeability that is potential for
groundwater (Sander, 2007). Lineament map (Fig. 5) is prepared from
satellite data visual interpretation and then line density is calculated

Fig. 5. Lineament density of the study area.

 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14 7

Fig. 6. Landuse and Landcover of the study area.

(Eq. (4)). Density Scale of high to low directly implies the groundwater and least rank to 0–0.346 km/km2. The derived AHP weight is 0.19
potential and lineaments are aligned in E-SW, NNE-SSW, NW-SE and E- and MIF weight is 10.6 which has two major and one minor influence
W in the study area. Groundwater potential is high near intersection
areas of lineaments. Higher lineament concentrations are found in the
X
n
Li
study area's northeast and south-central section. Lineament density is Ld ¼ ð4Þ
classified into five classes, High rank is assigned to 1.16–1.73 km/km2 i¼1
A

Fig. 7. Ground truth field points for classifying LULC.

8 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14

where which regulates the infiltration of groundwater, therefore, ranks were

assigned accordingly. Conglomerate, Sandstone and shale are good
 
aquifer and aquitard
2 as it is highly weathered and fractured. The high
Ld−lineament density; Li −Total length of lineaments ðKmÞ; and A area of the grid km
ranks were given to Conglomerate, sandstone and shale and lower
rank for Granite and Syenite. The derived AHP weight is 0.14 and MIF
weight is 19 which has four major influencing factors and one minor
4.3. Landuse and Landcover influence.

Land-use and land cover influence groundwater potential by affect-
ing the evapotranspiration, soil erosion and runoff (Saravanan et al.,
2019; Wang et al., 2005). LULC (Fig. 6) was interpreted using Landsat-
8 Satellite data Supervised classification technique was adopted and
Level 1 classification of Anderson was used to classify. (Fig. 7) presents
field photos during the field visit to gather information about the
ground truth for the Landuse classification. The study area has Gullied
land, Barren Rocks, cropland, forest, land with scrub, plantation, river,
settlements and land without scrub. Settlements have a diminishing im-
pact on water percolation and Vegetation cover influences groundwater
recharge by water absorption. Barren rocks and settlement areas are
poor in groundwater potential were as cropland, plantations are very
good for groundwater potential. Waterbody was given high rank
followed by cropland, plantation, forest and least rank is assigned for
settlement. The derived AHP weight is 0.18 and MIF weight is 17
which has two major and four minor influencing factors.
4.4. Geology
Geology is the most significant element for groundwater potential
because the infiltration depends primarily on the permeability of spe-
cific types of rock (Aggarwal et al., 2019; Mogaji et al., 2016). The geol-
ogy map was prepared from a district resource map procured from the
Geological Survey of India (GSI).Gneiss, Granite, Syenite, Conglomerate,
Sandstone and Shale, Shales with bands of limestone and Quartz Vein
are the geological forms found in the area of study is shown in (Fig. 8)
4.5. Slope
Slope (Fig. 9) controls the runoff which in turn controls the infiltra-
tion of rainwater. In the flat and sloping area, infiltration capacity is ex-
pected to be higher (Subba Rao et al., 2006) due to more inundation
time. High quantities of runoff and less infiltration are linked to regions
with steep elevation angles (L. Singh and Katpatal, 2018). The hilly re-
gion of the research area shows high slope and the overall area has a
gentle slope and the prospects for groundwater is good. The slope is
graded into five classes and allocated according to the slope degree
and slope b 1° is considered a plain area with a lower slope due to the
low runoff that is usually a very good recharge zone. A high rank was
assigned to lower slope from 1° to 2° and the least rank is assigned to
25°-60°.The derived AHP weight is 0.1 and MIF weight is 10.6 which
has two major and one minor influencing.
4.6. Soil
Soils (Fig. 10) emerged from rocks fragments as a result of the
weathering process. Soil characteristics are important prospects in de-
lineating groundwater potential as it controls the water holding capac-
ity and ranks is allocated to kind of soil depending on the ability of
composition and water retention (Stephenson, 1979). Soil data pre-
pared by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research – NBSS & LUP is
exploited in this study. Soil is classified according to the drainage classes
which implies the duration of wetness and imperfectly drained,

Fig. 8. Geology of the study area.

 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14 9

Fig. 9. Slope of the study area.

moderately well-drained, well-drained, and somewhat excessively 4.7. Drainage density

drained are found in the study area. Mostly the area is covered by
well-drained soil and those are cropland regions. High rank is given to
Well Drained and least rank assigned to imperfectly drained soils. The
derived AHP weight is 0.07 and MIF weight is 6.3, which has one
major influences.
Drainage network helps in evaluation of recharge levels. The drain-
age density is calculated as the total stream length divided by the total
basin area (Eq. (5)). The high-density regions have high percolation
level which means low runoff (Nasir et al., 2018). In low elevated

Fig. 10. Soil of the study area.

10 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14

regions, the number of streams is more, and drainage density (Fig. 11)
can directly indicate the groundwater potential. Drainage density
reclassified into five classes, Higher rank is assigned to 3.95–6.90 km/
km2 and least given to 0–1.02 km/km2.The derived AHP weight is 0.07
and MIF weight is 12.7, which has two major, two minor influence.
n
∑i¼1 ðDi Þ
Dd ¼
A gorized into five classes using natural breaks (Jenks optimization
where, Dd - drainage density, Di -the sum of the length of all streams,
A is the area in km2.
4.8. Rainfall
5. Groundwater potential zone mapping
In this study, AHP and MIF are used, and thematic layers were
assigned weights for detection of GWPZ. All the layers were converted
into raster format with 30 m*30 m cell size and multiplied with derived
weights and rank using ArcGIS10.4. The final output produced from
weighted overlay analysis the groundwater potential is evaluated by in-
tegrating all layers in ArcGIS raster calculator and the results were cate-
ð5Þ
method), namely very low, low, moderate, high and very high to pro-
duce the final GWPZ map (Eq. (6)).
X
GPZ ¼ ½GLW GLR þ GMW GM R þ SLW SLR þ LU W LU R þ LDW LDR þ SOW SOR þ RF W RF
ð6Þ

Rainfall (Fig. 12) is the only primary source of groundwater recharge
and the major source of water in the hydrological cycle and the most
prevalent influencing factor in a region's groundwater. Rainfall is the
primary cause of groundwater recharge where water is infiltrated by
fractures and soil into the subsurface it is also essential to have other
rainfall features such as duration and intensity to calculate runoff (Yu
and Lin, 2015). Rainfall data were obtained from Regional Meteorologi-
cal Centre, Chennai and data are interpolated spatially using the inverse
distance weighting method as this approach is more appropriate for
data-sparing regions. IDW assigns weights to adjacent observed values
based on the distance to the interpolation location, and the interpolated
value is the weighted average of the observations, the average annual
rainfall of the study area is 956 mm. Rainfall is reclassified into five clas-
ses, the entire area is in fair condition, whereas there is sufficient rainfall
to the north-eastern regions. High rainfall is given a higher rank of
917.61–955.24 mm and least rank is assigned to 790- 810 mm.The de-
rived AHP weight is 0.04 and MIF weight is 8.5 which has one major,
two minor influence.
Where, W and R - represents weight and rank respectively of each
parameter.
The low potential region is found in the northern and western region
of the study area, which is covered by hilly terrain. High potential is
found near in the central parts of the study area which has croplands
were the infiltration is high. The most prominent groundwater pros-
pects identified are pediplain in geomorphology, expect gneiss in geol-
ogy, cropland in Landuse and Landcover, well-drained soil are found
across the study area. High groundwater potential is seen in the central
region of the watershed and the slope 2–8% is gentle and proportionally
it has high drainage density. The north-west part of the watershed com-
prises of structural hills and their Lineament density is low and those
areas are under the category low and very low. As rain is the only source
of this watershed rainfall plays a critical role, low rainfall is identified
across the watershed; therefore, south-east regions are moderate level
for groundwater potential. The possible areas of good and poor ground-
water are spread primarily over steep slopes and ridges. Thus finding
the groundwater potential helps in accurate zones for exploration for

Fig. 11. Drainage density of the study area.

 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14
agricultural, industrialization and urban uses. AHP and MIF estimated
results are in Table 5. The results state that the percentage of the region
under very low and very high is 9.9%, 10.54% and 20.10%, 17.68% for AHP
(Fig. 13) and MIF (Fig. 14) respectively. Very high GWPZ zones are iden-
tified in the central region of the study area along with the river courses.
Geographically it covers an area of 164.5 km2 identified using AHP
method and 144.6 km2 for MIF method. This variation may be attributed
to weight averaging in AHP and MIF methods. Also, geomorphology of
these region contains Pediplain with shallow weathered rocks, which
has more ability to infiltration. The very low potential zones are identi-
fied in the western part of the regions where steep slope and hard rocks
terrains are presented. Also, the presence of lineaments and drainage
formations are less, which controls the GWP and geographically it com-
prises 81 km2 for the AHP method and 86.2 km2 for the MIF methods.
6. Validation of results
The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) is a mathematical
technique developed to explain the efficiency of probabilistic determin-
istic detection and prediction systems (Bui et al., 2019; Chepchumba
et al., 2019; Manap et al., 2014; Rajaveni et al., 2017). In the validation,
56 observed wells are taken whose post-monsoon water level is
analysed with resultant groundwater potential maps obtained from
AHP and MIF. The water level fluctuation ranges from 10 to 20 m3/h.
The region below the ROC curve is between 0 and 1. A larger area
under the ROC curve refers to the higher efficiency of spatial modelling
models such as groundwater mapping potential. The findings of the ROC
Table 5
Estimated area of groundwater potential from AHP and MIF.
Class Very Low Low Moderate Good
(Km2)
AHP 81.04 106.24 224.06 242.08
MIF 86.22 94.38 257.39 257.39
11
Fig. 12. Rainfall of the study area.
plot analysis (Fig. 15) indicate that the Area under the curve (AUC) was
75% for AHP and 71% for MIF in the groundwater potential map. The ap-
proach adopted in this research can, therefore, assumed fairly accurate
and consistent in predicting groundwater potential.
7. Conclusion
The current study addresses the identification of groundwater po-
tential zonation in Ponnaniyaru watershed. The main objective of this
analysis is to explore the applicability of AHP, MIF, GIS and RS tech-
niques to map groundwater potential. The crucial parameters were con-
sidered including geomorphology, drainage density, soil, slope,
lineament density, geology, land use/land cover and rainfall. High linea-
ment, drainage density regions were also associated with good ground-
water potential. The hard-rock terrain in the northern part of the study
area was led to the generally low groundwater potential due to
hydrogeological conditions of the subsurface. Verification of the
groundwater potential map using field data indicates that this approach
of prediction is effective and reliable. The results indicate for AHP and
MIF 9.9%, 10.54% (very low), 12.9%, 11.53% (Low), 27.3%, 28.76% (mod-
erate), 29.5%, 31.46% (high) and 20.10%, 17.68% (very high). Finally, the
ROC curve was ready to test the precision of the AHP and MIF model.
Validation of results showed that the AHP has a relatively strong predic-
tive precision of 75% and MIF has 71%. Based on the assignment of
weights and ranks the output results can also vary. The MIF approach
has produced acceptable results but this approach has a significant im-
pact on the accuracy with 22% lower accuracy comparing AHP.
This research would encourage the effective production and protec-
tion of groundwater supplies in the field of research. This groundwater
potential map can be utilized for groundwater resources management
in Ponnaniyaru watershed and can help policymakers to formulate bet-
Very Good ter planning. The assessment of groundwater potential would support
decision-makers in groundwater management and the selection of ap-
propriate locations for drilling wells based on demand. Furthermore,
164.47 augmentation of available water resources can be done in order to
144.64
maintain the sustainability of the aquifer management.
12 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14

Fig. 13. Groundwater potential map using AHP.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Acknowledgement

Devanantham Abijith: Writing - original draft, Formal analysis.
Subbarayan Saravanan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision.
Leelambar Singh: Software, Data curation. Jesudasan Jacinth Jennifer:
Visualization, Investigation. Thiyagarajan Saranya: Software. K.S.S.
Parthasarathy: Writing - review & editing.
The author is thankful to NITT/MHRD for financially support ex-
tended to the Ph.D. scholars. This research was also possible with the
use of publicly available datasets, including SRTM DEM; Landsat 8 pro-
vided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), from their Web
site at https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Special thanks for Rainfall data

Fig. 14. Groundwater potential map using MIF.

 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14
Fig. 15. ROC of groundwater potential map using AHP and MIF of Ponnaniyaru watershed.
provided by Regional Meteorological Centre of India Meteorological De-
partment (IMD) from their Web site at http://imdchennai.gov.in/ and
Geology data provided by Geological Survey of India from their Web site
at https://www.gsi.gov.in.
References
Aggarwal, M., Subbarayan, S., Jacinth Jennifer, J., Abijith, D., 2019. Delineation of ground-
water potential zones for hard rock region in Karnataka using AHP and GIS. In
315–317.
Al-Abadi, A.M., 2017. The application of Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence for assessing
groundwater vulnerability at Galal Badra Basin, Wasit Governorate, East of Iraq. Appl
Water Sci 7 (4), 1725–1740.
Alizamir, M., Kisi, O., Zounemat-Kermani, M., 2018. Modelling long-term groundwater
fluctuations by extreme learning machine using hydro-climatic data. Hydrol. Sci. J.
63 (1), 63–73.
Althuwaynee, O.F., Pradhan, B., Park, H.J., Lee, J.H., 2014. A novel ensemble bivariate statis-
tical evidential belief function with knowledge-based analytical hierarchy process
and multivariate statistical logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping.
Catena 114, 21–36.
Anbarasu, S., Brindha, K., Elango, L., 2019. Multi-influencing factor method for delineation
of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing and GIS techniques in the
western part of Perambalur District, Southern India. Earth Sci. Inf. 1–16.
Arulbalaji, P., Padmalal, D., Sreelash, K., 2019. GIS and AHP techniques based delineation
of groundwater potential zones: a case study from southern Western Ghats, India.
Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–17.
Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45 (1), 5–32.
Bui, D.T., et al., 2019. A hybrid computational intelligence approach to groundwater
spring potential mapping. Water (Switzerland) 11 (10), 1–30.
Carranza, E.J.M., Hale, M., 2002. Mineral imaging with Landsat thermatic mapper data for
hydrothermal alteration mapping in heavily vegetated Terrane. Int. J. Remote Sens.
23 (22), 4827–4852.
Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) 2008. "District groundwater brochure,
Tiruchirappalli district, Tamil Nadu, Technical report series". http://cgwb.gov.in/Dis-
trict_Profile/TamilNadu/Trichy.pdf. (Accessed 01 November 2019).
CGWB 2013 "Ground water pollution by industrial clusters. Bhu-Jal news, 28 (1–4), Min-
istry of Water Resources, river development and ganga rejuvenation, government of
India". (Accessed 28 October 2019).
Chenini, I., Mammou, A.B., El May, M., 2010. Groundwater recharge zone mapping using
GIS-based multi-criteria analysis: a case study in Central Tunisia (Maknassy Basin).
Water Resour. Manag. 24 (5), 921–939.
Chepchumba, Mary Christine, James M. Raude, and Joseph K. Sang. 2019. “Geospatial De-
lineation and Mapping of Groundwater Potential in Embu County, Kenya.” Acque
Sotterranee - Italian Journal of Groundwater (Jica 2012): 39–51.
Chezgi, J., Pourghasemi, H.R., Naghibi, S.A., Moradi, H.R., Kheirkhah Zarkesh, M., 2016. As-
sessment of a spatial multi-criteria evaluation to site selection underground dams in
the Alborz Province, Iran. Geocarto International 31 (6), 628–646.
Dempster, A.P., 1967. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping.
Ann. Math. Stat. 38 (2), 325–339.
Drobne, S., Lisec, A., 2009. Multi-attribute decision analysis in GIS: weighted linear com-
bination and ordered weighted averaging. Informatica (Ljubljana) 33 (4), 459–474.
Duan, H., Deng, Z., Deng, F., Wang, D., 2016. Assessment of groundwater potential based
on multicriteria decision making model and decision tree algorithms. Math. Probl.
Eng. 1, 1–11.
Espinoza, F.P., Minsker, B.S., Goldberg, D.E., 2005. Adaptive hybrid genetic algorithm for
groundwater remediation design. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 131 (1), 14–24.
13
Etikala, B., Golla, V., Li, P., Renati, S., 2019. Deciphering groundwater potential zones using
MIF technique and GIS: a study from Tirupati Area, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh,
India. HydroResearch 1, 1–7.
Fienen, Michael N., Arshad, Muhammad, 2016. The International Scale of the Groundwa-
ter Issue. Concepts, Approaches and Challenges, Springer International Publishing, In
Integrated Groundwater Management, pp. 21–48.
Garg, N.K., Hassan, Q., 2007. Alarming scarcity of water in India. Curr. Sci. 93, 932–941.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24099258.
Ghosh, P.K., Bandyopadhyay, S., Jana, N.C., 2016. Mapping of groundwater potential zones
in hard rock terrain using geoinformatics: a case of Kumari watershed in Western
part of West Bengal. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 2 (1), 1–12.
Guru, B., Seshan, K., Bera, S., 2017. Frequency ratio model for groundwater potential map-
ping and its sustainable management in Cold Desert, India. Journal of King Saud Uni-
versity - Science 29 (3), 333–347.
Holt Richard. 2018. "Which Cities Will Be Leading the Global Economy in 2035? Over-
view: Cities to Lead National Growth Rates". https://workplaceinsight.net/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2018/12/Global-Cities-Dec-2018.pdf. (Accessed 02 November 2019).
Kulkarni, H., Aslekar, U., & Patil, S. 2018. "Groundwater management in India: status, chal-
lenges and a framework for responses". In Groundwater of South Asia (pp. 615-642).
Springer, Singapore.
Lee, S., Kim, Y.S., Hyun Joo, O., 2012. Application of a weights-of-evidence method and GIS
to regional groundwater productivity potential mapping. J. Environ. Manag. 96 (1),
91–105.
Lee, S., Hyun, Y., Lee, M.-J., 2019. Groundwater potential mapping using data mining
models of big data analysis in Goyang-Si, South Korea. Sustainability 11 (6), 1–21.
Maheswaran, S.U., et al., 2019. Lithology and structural mapping of Kadavur Basin, Tamil
Nadu, India, using IRS P6 LISS III satellite data. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote
Sensing 47 (8), 1275–1286.
Manap, M.A., et al., 2014. Application of probabilistic-based frequency ratio model in
groundwater potential mapping using remote sensing data and GIS. Arab. J. Geosci.
7 (2), 711–724.
Mogaji, K.A., Omosuyi, G.O., Adelusi, A.O., Lim, H.S., 2016. Application of GIS-based eviden-
tial belief function model to regional groundwater recharge potential zones mapping
in hardrock geologic terrain. Environmental Processes 3 (1), 93–123.
Msaddek, M.H., et al., 2019. Groundwater potentiality assessment in an arid zone using a
statistical approach and multi-criteria evaluation, southwestern Tunisia. Geological
Quarterly 63 (1), 3–15.
Muralitharan, J., Palanivel, K., 2015. Groundwater targeting using remote sensing, geo-
graphical information system and analytical hierarchy process method in hard rock
aquifer system, Karur District, Tamil Nadu, India. Earth Sci. Inf. 8 (4), 827–842.
Naghibi, S.A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Pourtaghi, Z.S., Rezaei, A., 2015. Groundwater Qanat po-
tential mapping using frequency ratio and Shannon’s entropy models in the Moghan
watershed, Iran. Earth Sci. Inf. 8 (1), 171–186.
Nampak, H., Pradhan, B., Manap, M.A., 2014. Application of GIS based data driven eviden-
tial belief function model to predict groundwater potential zonation. J. Hydrol. 513,
283–300.
Nasir, M.J., Khan, S., Zahid, H., Khan, A., 2018. Delineation of groundwater potential zones
using GIS and multi influence factor (MIF) techniques: a study of district swat,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Environ. Earth Sci. 77 (10), 1–11.
Parthasarathy, K.S.S., Deka, P.C., 2019. Remote sensing and GIS application in assessment
of coastal vulnerability and shoreline changes: a review. ISH Journal of Hydraulic En-
gineering 0 (0), 1–13.
Pourghasemi, H.R., 2016. GIS-based forest fire susceptibility mapping in Iran: a compari-
son between evidential belief function and binary logistic regression models. Scand.
J. For. Res. 31 (1), 80–98.
Pradhan, B., 2009. Groundwater potential zonation for basaltic watersheds using satellite
remote sensing data and GIS techniques. Central European Journal of Geosciences 1
(1), 120–129.
Rajaveni, S.P., Brindha, K., Elango, L., 2017. Geological and geomorphological controls on
groundwater occurrence in a hard rock region. Appl Water Sci 7 (3), 1377–1389.
Ray, B., Shaw, R., 2019. Water insecurity in Asian cities. Urban Drought. Springer,
Singapore, pp. 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8947-3_2.
Razandi, Y., Pourghasemi, H.R., Neisani, N.S., Rahmati, O., 2015. Application of analytical
hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and certainty factor models for groundwater po-
tential mapping using GIS. Earth Sci. Inf. 8 (4), 867–883.
Saaty, Thomas L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process : Planning, Priority Setting, Re-
source Allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Co.
Sander, P., 2007. Lineaments in groundwater exploration: a review of applications and
limitations. Hydrogeol. J. 15 (1), 71–74.
Sandoval, E., et al., 2018. Groundwater recharge assessment in a rural, arid, mid-mountain
basin in north-central Chile. Hydrol. Sci. J. 63 (13–14), 1873–1889.
Saravanan, S., 2012. Identification of artificial recharge sites in a hard rock terrain using
remote sensing and GIS. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering 5
(6), 1590–1598.
Saravanan, S., Jacinth, J.J., Singh, L., Saranya, T., Sivaranjani, S., 2019. “Impact of land-use
change on soil erosion in the coonoor watershed, Nilgiris Mountain range, Tamil
Nadu, India”. In Advances in Remote Sensing and Geo Informatics Applications (pp.
109-111). Springer. Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01440-7_26.
Schapire, Robert E. 2003. “The Boosting Approach to Machine Learning: An Overview.”:
149–71.
Şener, Ş., Sener, E., Karagüzel, R., 2011. Solid waste disposal site selection with GIS and
AHP methodology: a case study in Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Envi-
ron. Monit. Assess. 173 (1–4), 533–554.
Shah, T., 2005. Groundwater and human development: challenges and opportunities in
livelihoods and environment. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (8), 27–37.
14 D. Abijith et al. / HydroResearch 3 (2020) 1–14
Shimpi, S., Rokade, V.M., Upasani, K., 2019. Application of remote sensing and GIS for
groundwater potential zonation: a case study of Bori-Chikli watershed, Maharashtra,
India. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences 38 (1), 114–127.
Siddha, S., Sahu, P., 2018. Assessment of groundwater potential of Gandhinagar region,
Gujarat. J. Geol. Soc. India 91 (1), 91–98.
Singh, L., Katpatal, Y.B., 2018. Wetland change analysis and their impact on dense vegeta-
tion by spatial approach. Journal of Urban & Environmental Engineering 12 (1),
70–76.
Singh, S.K., Zeddies, M., Shankar, U., Griffiths, G.A., 2019. Potential groundwater recharge
zones within New Zealand. Geosci. Front. 10 (3), 1065–1072.
Snyder, Shannyn. 2019. “Water In Crisis - Spotlight India.” https://thewaterproject.org/
water-crisis/water-in-crisis-india (Accessed 11September, 2019).
Stephenson, David A., 1979. Rockfill in Hydraulic Engineering. New York.
Subba Rao, N., Devadas, D.J., Srinivasa Rao, K.V., 2006. Interpretation of groundwater qual-
ity using principal component analysis from Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh,
India. Environ. Geosci. 13 (4), 239–259.
Tang, Y., Zang, C., Wei, Y., Jiang, M., 2019. Data-driven modeling of groundwater level with
Least-Square support vector machine and spatial–temporal analysis. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 37 (3), 1661–1670.
Taweesin, K., Seeboonruang, U., Saraphirom, P., 2018. The influence of climate variability
effects on groundwater time series in the lower Central Plains of Thailand. Water
(Switzerland) 10 (3).
Thapa, R., Gupta, S., Guin, S., Kaur, H., 2017. Assessment of groundwater potential zones
using Multi-Influencing Factor (MIF) and GIS: a case study from Birbhum District,
West Bengal. Appl Water Sci 7 (7), 4117–4131.
Umar, Z., et al., 2014. Earthquake induced landslide susceptibility mapping using an inte-
grated ensemble frequency ratio and logistic regression models in west Sumatera
Province, Indonesia. Catena 118 (September 2009), 124–135. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.catena.2014.02.005.
Venkatesan, G., Pitchaikani, S., Saravanan, S., 2019. Assessment of groundwater vulnera-
bility using GIS and DRASTIC for upper Palar River basin, Tamil Nadu. J. Geol. Soc.
India 94 (4), 387–394.
Wang, G., Yang, L., Chen, L., Kubota, J., 2005. Impacts of land use changes on groundwater
resources in the Heihe River basin. Dili Xuebao/Acta Geographica Sinica 60 (3),
456–466.
Yu, H.L., Lin, Y.C., 2015. Analysis of space-time non-stationary patterns of rainfall-
groundwater interactions by integrating empirical orthogonal function and cross
wavelet transform methods. J. Hydrol. 525, 585–597.