Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrh

Groundwater potential assessment using GIS and remote sensing: A

T
case study of Guna tana landscape, upper blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia
⁎
Tesfa Gebrie Andualema, , Girum Getachew Demekeb
a
Debre Tabor University, Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
b
Debre Tabor University, Department of Natural Resources Management, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Study region: Guna Tana Landscape, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
Groundwater potential Study focus: This paper aimed to delineate the groundwater potential zones using GIS and remote
ArcGIS sensing. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) technique is used to develop the groundwater
Thematic layer potential prospect zones by integrating different groundwater contributing thematic layers. The
MCDA
thematic layers of land cover, drainage density, lineament density, soil, geology, slope, and
geomorphology were prepared and used for groundwater potential map development by as-
signing weights to each thematic layer and features. The weights of each thematic layer were
assigned and normalized based on their characteristic and relationship with groundwater re-
charge. Finally, the thematic maps were integrated by a weighted sum overlay analysis tool to
develop groundwater prospect zones.
New hydrological insights for the region: It was found that the downstream parts of the Landscape
showed excellent groundwater potential covering about 833.49 km2 area with a flat and lacus-
trine sediment characteristic. About 469.12 km2 of the landscape showed very good groundwater
potential zone. Northern, northeastern and southeastern parts of the area presented very poor
groundwater prospect covering about 553.68 km2 area. The groundwater potential map was
validated using the existing pumping wells and it indicated a good prediction accuracy of 70.5%.
Thus, the potential zones identified in the study area by the MCDA technique are reliable.

1. Introduction

Groundwater resources are an important natural resource for its use in domestic, agriculture and industries purposes. There has
been a tremendous increase in the demand for groundwater due to increase in population, advanced irrigation practices, and in-
dustrial usages (Jha et al., 2010, 2007).
The occurrence and movement of groundwater in an area is governed by several factors such as lithology, geological structures,
soil, lineament features, slope, drainage pattern, geomorphology, land use/land cover and interrelationship between these factors
(Jha et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Greenbaum, 1985; Jaiswal et al., 2003). Several researchers (Saraf and Choudhury, 1998;
Jha and Peiffer, 2006; Jaiswal et al., 2003; Solomon and Quiel, 2006; Jha et al., 2007; Ganapuram et al., 2009; Saha et al., 2010;
Saraf and Choudhury, 1998; Al-Adamat et al., 2003) have utilized the GIS for demarcation of groundwater potential zones in their
areas of interest.
The integrated approach of remote sensing (RS), geographical information system (GIS) and multi-criteria decision analysis

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tesfgeb@dtu.edu.et (T.G. Andualem).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100610
Received 13 August 2018; Received in revised form 25 April 2019; Accepted 28 May 2019
Available online 06 June 2019
2214-5818/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

(MCDA) techniques have been used for identifying the groundwater potential zones and favorable artificial recharge sites (Jha and
Chowdary, 2007; Jenifer and Jha, 2017; Jha and Chowdary, 2006). Many researchers have found MCDA an effective tool for water
resources and environmental management (Joubert et al., 2003; Machiwal et al., 2011; Pourghasemi et al., 2012; Chandio et al.,
2013; Althuwaynee et al., 2014). Some researchers have also reported that GIS-based multi-criteria analysis is also useful in mapping
groundwater recharge zones (Singh et al., 2017; Jha et al., 2014; Chowdhury et al., 2010).
Analytical hierarchy process has been utilized by several researchers for computing the relative importance of thematic para-
meters (Hajkowicz and Higgins, 2008; Murthy and Mamo, 2009; Chowdhury et al., 2010. Hajkowicz and Collins, 2007).
Groundwater potential mapping in Guna Tana landscape will have a significant effect in the region as well as the country. Since
the landscape is the major part to contribute to Lake Tana and Upper Blue Nile River; mapping the underground water will enhance
sustainable management of groundwater resources in the country. In the present study, the MCDA method employed to develop
groundwater potential zones which could be useful for decision makers, policy makers and water resources planners for effective and
sustainable use of groundwater resource.
The main objectives of this study are: a). to develop thematic layers for groundwater potential zone development, b). to identify
and delineate suitable groundwater potential zones through the integration of different thematic layers, c). to prepare spatial
variability of groundwater zones, and d). to demonstrate the capabilities of remote sensing and GIS in groundwater mapping.

2. Methodology

Soil (30×30 m resolution) and digital elevation model (30×30 m resolution) were collected from the ministry of water, irri-
gation, and electricity of Ethiopia, land cover image (30 х 30 m resolution) downloaded from USGS Earth Explorer website for Januar
2018. The land cover map was prepared by classifying the satellite image and verifying with ground truth points. The geology and
lineament map (at a scale of 1: 250,000) were collected from the geological survey of Ethiopia. Slope, drainage and elevation maps
were derived from the digital elevation model; while drainage density and lineament density maps were derived from drainage and
lineament maps respectively. All the required thematic maps were developed from the collected datasets using ArcGIS 10.3.1 soft-
ware.

2.1. Description of the study area

Guna Tana Landscape is situated in the north-west part of Ethiopia between 11°35′ to 12°19′N latitude and 37°27′ to 38°14′E
longitudes (Fig. 1). This landscape comprised of two watersheds namely Gumara and Ribb. The landscape at the outlet to Lake Tana
covers an area of 3545 km2 which has been delineated from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM). This area covers about 30.5% of Lake
Tana basin contributing a large amount of inflow into Lake Tana.
The topography of the study area ranges from 1752 m a.m.s.l at Lake Tana to 4090 m a.m.s.l at mount Guna. Gumara and Rib
rivers are originated from small springs located near Guna Moutain at an elevation of 4090 m a.m.s.l and drains to the Eastern part of
Lake Tana. The higher elevation ranges are located at the eastern corner (Guna mount area) while the remaining area is relatively
uniform.
In Guna Tana Landscape groundwater is used mainly for domestic purposes; sometimes it is used to supplement the deficit
irrigation in downstream parts of the landscape. The need for supplementary irrigation (in lower parts of the landscape) and domestic
use (in upper parts of the landscape) is very high. In lower parts of the landscape especially in Fogera flood plain; there is a conflict of
interest for supplementing the required amount of water needed for their croplands. Upper parts of the study area also had a problem
of water for the domestic purpose (Debre Tabor town water users gets water once only in a week). Even though, there are a lot of
wells which were extracted to supplement the domestic water requirement still the scarcity water is very severing; which needs great
attention.

2.2. Thematic map preparation

2.2.1. Geology
The geological or lithological features of the study area are shown in Fig. 2a. The study area consists of ten different types of
lithological features viz., Debre Tabor basalts and trachyte, quaternary lacustrine sediment, middle basalt flows, upper basalts and
trachyte, and Guna tuff (Table 1).

2.2.2. Slope
Guna Tana landscape is characterized by undulating terrain varying from plains to steep slope hills. The slope theme of the study
area was developed from the digital elevation model (30 х 30 m resolution). The slope percentage of Guna Tana landscape varies from
0 to 67.7%. Based on the slope percentage, the study area has been reclassified into five slope classes. The major parts of the
landscape were found in slope class 1 (0–5 %) which covers 43.12% of the study area. Suitable weights were assigned to each slope
class depending on their groundwater potential (Fig. 2b and Table 2).

2.2.3. Soils
Chromic Luvisols, Eutric Leptosols, Haplic luvisols, and Eutric Fluvisol are the major soils found in the study area (Fig. 3a and
Table 3); with loam, sandy loam and clay texture. These soils are characterized by poor to moderate infiltration property.

2
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 1. Study Area.

2.2.4. Land use/land cover

The land cover map was prepared from the satellite image of January 2018; downloaded from USGS Earth Explorer and classified
using ERDAS Imagine remote sensing tool. The study area consists of six types of land cover viz., cultivated, grassland, shrubland,
forest, bare land and water. The major parts of the landscape were dominated by cultivated/agriculture followed by grassland
covering about 64.67 and 14.17% of the study area respectively (Fig. 3b and Table 4).

2.2.5. Lineament density

The lineament density of Guna Tana landscape was prepared from the lineament feature collected from Geological survey of
Ethiopia with a resolution scale of 1:250,000. This study used lineament density (Ld) for groundwater targeting in the study area.
Lineaments represent the total length of lineaments in a unit area, as expressed in Eq. 1 (Yeh et al., 2016);
i=n
∑i = 1 Li
Ld =
A (1)

3
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 2. a) Lithologic groups b) Slope percentage distribution in the landscape.

Table 1
Lithologic groups of the study area.
No. Lithology type Area (km2) Percentage

1 The plateau basalts and pyroclasts 16.66 0.47

2 Quaternary lacustrine sediment 859.56 24.31
3 Lake 0.90 0.03
4 Upper basalts and trachytes 526.76 14.90
5 trachyte plug 7.23 0.20
6 Upper basalts and pyroclasts 17.63 0.49
7 Guna trachyte 29.05 0.82
8 Guna tuff 224.75 6.36
9 Quaternary volcanic 132.44 3.75
10 Middle basalt flows 570.09 16.12
11 Debre Tabor basalts and trachyte 1151.26 32.55

Table 2
Slope classes of the study area.
No. Slope (%) Area (km2) Percentage

1 0–5 1530 43.12

2 5–10 946 26.66
3 10–16 595 16.77
4 16–26 372 10.49
5 26–67.7 105 2.96

i=n
Where; ∑i = 1 Li represents the total length of lineaments (L) and A represents a unit area (L2).
In this study, the lineament density was categorized into three classes (Fig. 4b). Lineament with densities ranging from 0 - 0.1 km/
km2 were dominating the study area with their areal extent of 3138 km2 (88.44%) (Table 5) of the landscape. Lineament density is
directly proportional to groundwater potential. Areas having a lineament density between 0.2 and 0.25 km/km2 were considered as
excellent groundwater prospect zone covering about 3.49% of the landscape.

4
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 3. a) Major soils b) land cover map of Guna Tana landscape.

Table 3
Soil classes in Guna Tana Landscape (source: MoWIE, 1998).
Soil type Texture Area (km2) Percentage Permeability

Chromic Luvisols Loam 1012.466 24.64 Moderate

Eutric Fluvisols Loam 787.027 19.15 Moderate
Eutric Leptosols Sandy Loam 1004.017 24.44 Good
Eutric Vertisols Clay 358.302 8.72 Poor
Haplic Luvisols Loam 915.789 22.29 Moderate
Haplic Nitisols Loam 31.042 0.76 Moderate

Table 4
land cover types and their coverage in the landscape.
No. Land Use Type Area (km2) Percentage

1 Cultivated 2290.46 64.67

2 Grassland 501.87 14.17
3 Shrub 258.55 7.30
4 Forest 316.28 8.93
5 Bare land 123.25 3.48
6 Water 51.36 1.45

2.2.6. Drainage density

The drainage density (km/km2) expresses the closeness of spacing of stream channels, thus providing a quantitative measurement
of the average length of stream channels of the whole basin (Strahler, 1964; Singh et al., 2014). The drainage density has an inverse
relation with the permeability of aquifers and plays a vital role in the runoff distribution and level of infiltration. The drainage density
of Guna Tana landscape was prepared from the digital elevation model (30 m х 30 m resolution) in ArcGIS 10.3.1 platform. About
46.6% and 32.2% of the area were found in very low (0–0.25 km/km2) and low (0.25–0.5 km/km2) drainage density classes re-
spectively (Fig. 4a).

5
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 4. (a) Drainage density map (b) lineament density map.

Table 5
Lineament density of Guna Tana Landscape.
No. Lineament (km/km2) Area (km2) Percentage

1 0–0.1 3138 88.44

2 0.1–0.2 286 8.06
3 0.2–0.25 124 3.49

2.2.7. Geomorphology
Geomorphology of an area is an important factor used for assessing the groundwater potential and prospect because it controls the
subsurface movement of groundwater. In Guna Tana landscape there are about 11 types of landforms (Fig. 5).
The major parts of the landscape are covered with plain and high gradient hill which are manifested by hills, uplands, and
undulating surfaces.

2.3. Weight assignment

Multi-criteria decision analysis was employed to determine the respective weights of the determinant thematic maps (Table 6).
The groundwater conditioning factors were weighted based on expert knowledge and literature review of several researchers ((Yeh
et al., 2016; Nampak et al., 2014; Naghibi et al., 2017; Rajaveni et al., 2017; Ibrahim-Bathis and Ahmed, 2016; Rahmati et al., 2015).
“Weighted Sum Overlay’’ tool was utilized to overlay the thematic maps.
The pairwise comparison between each thematic layer obtained based on the methods employed by several researchers
(Machiwal et al., 2011; Sahoo et al., 2015; Chowdhury et al., 2010, 2009) and presented in Table 7.
The normalized weights of the individual themes and their different layers were calculated using the AHP method. The pairs of
criteria Ci (in the row) and Cj (in the column) were considered based on; 1) which criterion was important, Ci or Cj and 2) how much
the said criterion is more important relative to the lesser important criterion. The normalized weights were determined by dividing
each Ci (row values) by the column total (Table 7). In this study, the consistency ratio (CR) is found 0.029; this ratio reflects a
reasonable level of consistency in the pair-wise comparison phase. Therefore, it can be seen that AHP models applied in this study
showed reasonably good accuracy in spatial predicting of groundwater probability.
Eutric vertisols/clay textured soils were considered excellent groundwater prospect; since the drainage characteristic is poor, soils
with poor drainage property had high soil water holding capacity, on the other hand, soils with well drainage characteristic are poor
in groundwater storage. Therefore, high relative influence values were given to eutric vertisols (Table 8 and Table 10).
The characteristics of each of the lithologic group were taken from Workineh et al (2010). Lacustrine sediment type of lithology

6
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 5. Geomorphology map.

Table 6
Weight assignment criteria of thematic maps.
No. Theme Basis of categorization Assigned weight

1 Lithology Rock type, weathering character, joints, fractures, etc 7

2 Slope Slope percentage 5
3 Geomorphology Landform type 4.5
4 Lineament density Lineament value 4
5 Drainage density Drainage density value 3.5
6 Land cover Land cover type, Status, and condition 3
7 Soil type Permeability, porosity, and texture 2.5

was given high influence value with regard to groundwater potential due its loose and friable nature which leads high infiltration
ability of the precipitation that reaches to this lithologic group, while other lithologic groups with columnar, massive and compact
nature considered as poor groundwater prospect which has been given very low influencing value (Table 9 and Table 10).
According to the characteristics of the theme feature and its relation to groundwater contribution, weights have been assigned.
The geometric mean and normalized weights (Table 10) were developed based on the assigned weight to each feature and pairwise
comparison between the feature classes. Areas having high lineament density was characterized as high groundwater recharge areas
(Yeh et al., 2016; Nampak et al., 2014; Naghibi et al., 2017; Rajaveni et al.; 2017; Mukherjee et al., 2012). Areas with high drainage
density were assigned very low weight (Ibrahim-Bathis and Ahmed, 2016; Rahmati et al., 2015; Yildiz, 2004; Rajaveni et al., 2017).
Low slope to flat areas was given the highest priority for groundwater recharge and storage since it had more concentration time to
remain on the ground surface and percolate into the subsurface. While steep slopes favor the rainfall to flow as a runoff rather than

7
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Table 7
Pairwise comparison between thematic layers.
GG Slope GM LD DD Soil LC Geometric mean Normalized weight

GG* 7⁄7 7⁄5 7⁄4.5 7⁄4 7⁄3.5 7⁄3 7⁄2.5 1.83 0.24
Slope 5⁄7 5⁄5 5⁄4.5 5⁄4 5⁄3.5 5⁄3 5⁄2.5 1.31 0.17
GM* 4.5⁄7 4.5⁄5 4.5⁄4.5 4.5⁄4 4.5⁄3.5 4.5⁄3 4.5⁄2.5 1.18 0.15
LD* 4⁄7 4⁄5 4⁄4.5 4⁄4 4⁄3.5 4⁄3 4⁄2.5 1.05 0.14
DD* 3.5⁄7 3.5⁄5 3.5⁄4.5 3.5⁄4 3.5⁄3.5 3.5⁄3 3.5⁄2.5 0.92 0.12
Soil 3⁄7 3⁄5 3/4.5 3⁄4 3⁄3.5 3⁄3 3⁄2.5 0.79 0.10
LC* 2.5⁄7 2.5⁄5 2.5/4.5 2.5⁄4 2.5⁄3.5 2.5⁄3 2.5⁄2.5 0.66 0.08
Column total 7.73

*
GG = Geology, GM = Geomorphology, LD = Lineament Density, DD = Drainage Density, and LC = Land Cover.

Table 8
Major soil group characteristics in relation to groundwater prospect.
Soil Group Depth Color Texture Drainage

Eutric Fluvisols Deep to very deep Variable Loam Well

Eutric Leptosols Shallow to very shallow Brown to yellowish brown Sandy Loam Well
Chromic Luvisols Deep to very deep Brown/Reddish brown Loam Well
Haplic Luvisols Deep to very deep Brown/Reddish brown Loam Well
Halic Nitisols Deep to very deep Reddish brown Loam/Clay Loam Well
Eutric Vertisols Deep to very deep Dark grey/black Clay Poor

Table 9
Characteristic features of lithologic groups in the area.
No. Lithology type Characteristics

1 The plateau basalts and pyroclasts
2 Quaternary lacustrine sediment
3 Upper basalts and trachytes
4 Trachyte plug
5 Upper basalts and pyroclasts
6 Guna trachyte
7 Guna tuff
8 Quaternary volcanic
9 Middle basalt flows
10 Debre Tabor basalts and trachyte
Aphanitic and normal fine-grained basalts, massive to featured basalts which are hard, dense, and relatively slightly
weathered.
Thick brownish clayey soil, gravelly to cobbly mud rocks, which are loose and friable.
aphanitic, dark grey, fine-grained and very slightly weathered. mainly massive, dense and compact flows
Massive devoid of soil and are often columnar
Dark gray, black, columnar, mostly coarse-grained, fine to Medium-grained rock, at some place it is massive, hard,
dense, and slightly weathered.
Weakly columnar rock, porphyritic sanidine trachyte
loosely compacted, softer and light colored, basalt fragments, rock fragments
Scoriaceous basalt, normal fine-grained basalt young fresh basalt, slightly weathered basalt
Mud rocks, sandy siltstone, and carbonaceous shale
dark gray, black, columnar, mostly coarse-grained, fine to medium grained rock, at some place it is massive, hard,
dense, and slightly weathered.

percolating to the subsurface; hence categorized as very poor groundwater potential area (Rajaveni et al., 2017).
The overall methodology employed in this study is presented in Fig. 6.

2.4. Groundwater potential map development

The groundwater potential map was developed by overlaying the determinant groundwater contributing thematic layers. The
groundwater prospect zones were evaluated based on the Groundwater Potential Index (GWPI) computed from the integration of all
groundwater influencing thematic layers. The ‘weighted overlay analysis’ tool was used to compute groundwater potential index
values using the equation proposed by Malczewski, 1999:
m n
GWPI = ∑ ∑ (Wj*Xi )
w=1 j=1 (2)
Where Wj is the normalized weight of the jth thematic layer, Xi is the normalized weight of the ith feature of the thematic layer, m is
the total number of thematic layers, and n is the total number of features of a given theme.
The GWPI values were used to classify whether an area is excellent, very good, moderate, poor or very poor with respect to
groundwater potential (Jha et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Sahoo et al., 2015).

2.5. Validation of groundwater maps

The results of groundwater potential maps were validated using the existing hand dug and bore wells pumping test data. The

8
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Table 10
Theme feature weight based on the level of groundwater contribution.
Theme Feature/class Assigned Weight Geometric mean Normalized Weight

Land cover Forest 7 2.42 0.30

Shrubland 5.5 1.90 0.24
Cultivated 4 1.38 0.17
Grassland 3 1.04 0.13
Water 2 0.69 0.09
Bare land 1.5 0.52 0.07
Drainage Density (km/km2) 0–0.25 7 2.93 0.37
0.25–0.5 5 2.09 0.26
0.5 - 0.75 4 1.67 0.21
0.75–1.00 2 0.84 0.11
1.0–1.92 1 0.42 0.05
Soil Texture Sandy loam 4 0.75 0.24
Loam 6 1.12 0.35
Clay 7 1.31 0.41
Slope (%) 0–5 7 2.93 0.37
05-Oct 5 2.09 0.26
Oct-16 4 1.67 0.21
16–26 2 0.84 0.11
26–67.7 1 0.42 0.05
Geomorphology Depression 7 4.66 0.26
Dissected plain 5.5 3.66 0.21
High gradient escarpment 1 0.67 0.04
High gradient hill 1.5 1.00 0.06
High gradient mountain 1 0.67 0.04
High gradient valley 3 2.00 0.11
Medium gradient escarpment 1 0.67 0.04
Medium gradient hill 1 0.67 0.04
Medium gradient mountain 1 0.67 0.04
Pain 3 2.00 0.11
Plateau 1.5 1.00 0.06
Geology Quaternary lacustrine sediment 7 5.06 0.32
Guna tuff 4 2.89 0.18
Middle basalt flows 3 2.17 0.14
Guna trachyte 2 1.45 0.09
Debre Tabor basalts and trachyte 1 0.72 0.05
Upper basalts and trachytes 1 0.72 0.05
Upper basalts and pyroclasts 1 0.72 0.05
Quaternary volcanics 1 0.72 0.05
The plateau basalts and pyroclasts 1 0.72 0.05
Trachyte plug 1 0.72 0.05
Lineament Density (km/km2) 0–0.1 5 0.85 0.28
0.1–0.2 6 1.02 0.33
0.2–0.25 7 1.19 0.39

existing pumping wells map in the study area were prepared and overlaid with the groundwater prospect map developed in Arc GIS
environment. The Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used as a performance in-
dicator for the validation of groundwater potential map developed using thematic maps (Naghibi et al., 2016). The pumping well
discharge and depth to the groundwater below the ground surface maps of the existing pumping wells were also overlaid with the
developed groundwater prospect maps.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Groundwater prospect zones

The groundwater prospect map of the study area showed that the downstream parts had high potential (excellent prospect zone)
due to the flat slope, which leads to a higher rate of infiltration. The groundwater potential index map of Guna Tana Landscape has
been prepared using multi-criteria decision (Fig. 7a). Based on GWPI values groundwater prospect zones classified into five groups
(Table 11) using the Jenks natural break classification method of ArcGIS environment.
The groundwater prospect map indicated that downstream areas of the landscape have higher groundwater potential than up-
stream areas. This was due to flat terrain with a very high tendency to infiltrate more water and lacustrine sediment nature of
lithology. The northern parts of the landscape showed with very poor groundwater exposure. The results of this study showed that
about 23.8% and 13.4% of the area had an excellent and very good groundwater potential respectively (Table 11 and Fig. 7a).
The results obtained using overlay analysis were compared with the static water table (depth to the groundwater below the

9
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 6. Conceptual framework of the general methodology used.

ground surface) and pumping well discharge maps developed from the existing pumping wells. According to Bevan et al. (2005), the
water table level is defined as the surface at which pore pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure. Water table level indicates
hydraulic gradients of any point; hence it can be useful to identify the area with high groundwater potential. The depth to the
groundwater below the ground surface (Fig. 7c) and pumping well discharge maps (Fig. 7b) prepared from pumping wells by using
kriging method of interpolation revealed that downstream and southern parts of the landscape lie under very good and excellent
groundwater condition. This indicated that groundwater could be one of the sustainable water management tools in the area which
can be used for different water resources development activities.

3.2. Groundwater map validation

For quantitative validation, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used by comparing the existing
groundwater well locations (Fig. 7b) in the validation of datasets with the groundwater potential map developed by MCDA
(Moghaddam et al., 2015; Regmi et al., 2013; Pourtaghi and Pourghasemi, 2014). For validating the predicted groundwater prospect
map 300 existing wells were collected and used for ROC curve preparation. Fig. 8 has shown the ROC curve of the groundwater
potential map obtained using MCDA technique.
In ROC curve the true positive rate (sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate for different cut-off points of a
parameter. Each point on the ROC curve represents a sensitivity pair corresponding to a particular decision threshold. The area under
the ROC curve (AUC) is a measure of how well a parameter can distinguish between two diagnostic groups. The relationship between
AUC and prediction accuracy can be summarized as (Yesilnacar and Topal, 2005; Naghibi et al., 2015): Poor (0.5–0.6); average
(0.6–0.7); good (0.7–0.8); very good (0.8–0.9); and excellent (0.9–1). The validation of results revealed that AHP has a fairly good
prediction of 0.705. Therefore, the results of groundwater potential maps obtained using the AHP method has been considered as a
good prediction.

4. Conclusions

Groundwater is a vital resource for sustainable growth of the country with sustainable management of water resources. Remote
sensing and GIS have integrated for evaluating groundwater potential zones of the study area using the different thematic maps
prepared like geology, soil, land use, lineament density, and drainage density. The weight of thematic layers was assigned based on
their characteristic for groundwater contribution and; were overlaid and integrated for groundwater potential zone development.
This study is very important for sustainable use of groundwater resources for developmental activities and thereby used for increasing
groundwater recharge by adopting proper management. The groundwater prospect map indicated that downstream areas of the

10
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 7. a) Groundwater prospect zones b) Pumping wells discharge map c) Depth to Groundwater below the Ground Surface d) location of pumping
well.

Table 11
Groundwater Prospect of Guna Tana Landscape.
No. GWPI Groundwater prospect Area (km2) Percentage

1 0.11–0.16 Very poor 553.68 15.8

2 0.16–0.19 Poor 881.39 25.2
3 0.19–0.22 Moderate 764.22 21.8
4 0.22–0.25 Very Good 469.12 13.4
5 0.25–0.31 Excellent 833.49 23.8

11
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Fig. 8. ROC curve for validation of predicted map.

landscape have higher groundwater potential than upstream areas which was due to flat terrain which is suitable for infiltration of
more water in addition to its lacustrine sediment nature of lithology. The landscape has been evaluated as having an area of
833.49 km2 and 469.12 km2 with an excellent and very good groundwater potential respectively.
The results indicated that excellent groundwater potential zones are located in downstream parts of the study area (mainly in
Fogera flood plain). In these areas the slope is very flat (very small slope percentage), very porous lithology which is lacustrine
sediment which leads to high infiltration rate and also the soil is clay that can hold a high amount of water. The groundwater prospect
maps were validated with the existing wells and the AUC were found 0.705 which indicates good prediction capability of the AHP
method. Therefore, groundwater development activities can be performed in such high groundwater prospect zones of the landscape
for increasing the productivity of supplementary irrigation and domestic use. This study is much useful for water resources planners
by indicating the potential areas for development, and this methodology can be applied in other parts of the country. Further studies
can be done on the groundwater hydro-chemistry and its suitability for domestic and irrigation, and also on the groundwater recharge
amount and its relation to precipitation amount.

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest between authors.

Acknowledgments

First of all, my thanks are to Almighty GOD, His Mother Saint Marry, All His Angels, and Saints for his priceless and miracle gifts
to me. I would like to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to Debre Tabor University for financing this study, and Ethiopian
Geological Survey, Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity, Amhara Water Drilling Works Enterprise, South Gondar
Zone Water, Irrigation and Energy Development Department, and Amhara Meteorology Agency for their willingness of giving the
required data free of charge. My deepest thank also goes to Dr. Imran Ahmed for his appreciations and support, Professor Hughes
(editor in chief of Journal of hydrology regional studies) and the reviewers and editors of the journal for their constructive comments
for this paper improvement.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.
100610.

References

Al-Adamat, R.A., Foster, I.D., Baban, S.M., 2003. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, remote
sensing and DRASTIC. Applied Geography 23 (4), 303–324.
Althuwaynee, O.F., Pradhan, B., Park, H.J., Lee, J.H., 2014. A novel ensemble bivariate statistical evidential belief function with knowledge-based analytical hierarchy
process and multivariate statistical logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena 114, 21–36.
Bevan, M.J., Endres, A.L., Rudolph, D.L., Parkin, G., 2005. A field-scale study of pumping-induced drainage and recovery in an unconfined aquifer. J. Hydrol. (Amst)
315 (1–4), 52–70.
Chandio, I.A., Matori, A.N.B., WanYusof, K.B., Talpur, M.A.H., Balogun, A.L., Lawal, D.U., 2013. GIS-based analytic hierarchy process as a multicriteria decision
analysis instrument: a review. Arab. J. Geosci. 6 (8), 3059–3066.
Chowdhury, A., Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., Mal, B.C., 2009. Integrated remote sensing and GIS‐based approach for assessing groundwater potential in West Medinipur
district. West Bengal, India. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30 (1), 231–250.
Chowdhury, A., Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., 2010. Delineation of groundwater recharge zones and identification of artificial recharge sites in West Medinipur District,
West Bengal using RS, GIS, and MCDM techniques. Environ. Earth Sci. 59 (6), 1209–1222 2009.

12
T.G. Andualem and G.G. Demeke Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 24 (2019) 100610

Ganapuram, S., Vijaya Kumar, G.T., Murali Krishna, I.V., Kahya, E., Demirel, M.C., 2009. Mapping of groundwater potential zones in the Musi basin using remote
sensing data and GIS. Adv. Eng. Softw. 40, 506–518.
Greenbaum, D., 1985. Review of Remote Sensing Applications to Groundwater Exploration in Basement and Regolith. British Geological Survey, Nicker Hill.
Hajkowicz, S., Collins, K., 2007. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour. Manag. 21 (9), 1553.
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., 2008. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184 (1), 255–265.
Ibrahim-Bathis, K., Ahmed, S.A., 2016. Geospatial technology for delineating groundwater potential zones in Doddahalla watershed of Chitradurga district. India. The
Egyptian J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 19 (2), 223–234.
Jaiswal, R.K., Mukherjee, S., Krishnamurthy, J., Saxena, R., 2003. Role of remote sensing and GIS techniques for generation of groundwater prospect zones towards
rural development–an approach. Int. J. Remote Sens. 24 (5), 993–1008.
Jenifer, M.A., Jha, M.K., 2017. Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy process, Catastrophe and Entropy techniques for evaluating groundwater prospect of hard-rock
aquifer systems. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 548, 605–624.
Jha, M.K., Peiffer, S., 2006. Applications of remote sensing and GIS technologies in groundwater hydrology: past, present, and future. Bayreuther Forum Okologie 122
2006.
Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., 2007. Challenges of using remote sensing and GIS in developing nations. Hydrogeol. J. 15 (1), 197–200.
Jha, M.K., Chowdhury, A., Chowdary, V.M., Peiffer, S., 2007. Groundwater management and development by integrated remote sensing and geographic information
systems: prospects and constraints. Water Resour. Manag. 21 (2), 427–467.
Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., Chowdhury, A., 2010. Groundwater assessment in Salboni Block, West Bengal (India) using remote sensing, geographical information
system, and multi-criteria decision analysis techniques. Hydrogeol. J. 18 (7), 1713–1728.
Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., Kulkarni, Y., Mal, B.C., 2014. Rainwater harvesting planning using geospatial techniques and multicriteria decision analysis. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 83, 96–111.
Joubert, A., Stewart, T.J., Eberhard, R., 2003. Evaluation of water supply augmentation and water demand management options for the City of Cape Town. J. Multi-
criteria Decis. Anal. 12 (1), 17–25.
Machiwal, D., Jha, M.K., Mal, B.C., 2011. Assessment of groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. Water
Resour. Manag. 25 (5), 1359–1386.
Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS And Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.
Moghaddam, D.D., Rezaei, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Pourtaghie, Z.S., Pradhan, B., 2015. Groundwater spring potential mapping using bivariate statistical model and GIS
in the Taleghan watershed. Iran. Arabian J. Geosci. 8 (2), 913–929.
Mukherjee, P., Singh, C.K., Mukherjee, S., 2012. Delineation of groundwater potential zones in arid region of India—a remote sensing and GIS approach. Water Resour.
Manag. 26 (9), 2643–2672.
Murthy, K.S.R., Mamo, A.G., 2009. Multi‐criteria decision evaluation in groundwater zones identification in Moyale‐Teltele subbasin, South Ethiopia. Int. J. Remote
Sens. 30 (11), 2729–2740.
Naghibi, S.A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Pourtaghi, Z.S., Rezaei, A., 2015. Groundwater qanat potential mapping using frequency ratio and Shannon’s entropy models in the
Moghan watershed. Iran. Earth Sci. Inform. 1 (8), 171–186.
Naghibi, S.A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Dixon, B., 2016. GIS-based groundwater potential mapping using boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and
random forest machine learning models in Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188 (1), 44.
Naghibi, S.A., Moghaddam, D.D., Kalantar, B., Pradhan, B., Kisi, O., 2017. A comparative assessment of GIS-based data mining models and a novel ensemble model in
groundwater well potential mapping. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 548, 471–483.
Nampak, H., Pradhan, B., Manap, M.A., 2014. Application of GIS-based data-driven evidential belief function model to predict groundwater potential zonation. J.
Hydrol. (Amst) 513, 283–300.
Pourghasemi, H.R., Mohammady, M., Pradhan, B., 2012. Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: safarood
Basin. Iran. Catena 97, 71–84.
Pourtaghi, Z.S., Pourghasemi, H.R., 2014. GIS-based groundwater spring potential assessment and mapping in the Birjand Township, southern Khorasan Province Iran.
Hydrogeol. J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-1089-6.
Rahmati, O., Samani, A.N., Mahdavi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Zeinivand, H., 2015. Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy
process and GIS. Arab. J. Geosci. 8 (9), 7059–7071.
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.
Regmi, A.D., Devkota, K.C., Yoshida, K., Pradhan, B., Pourghasemi, H.R., Kumamoto, T., Akgun, A., 2013. Application of frequency ratio, statistical index, and weights-
of-evidence models and their comparison in landslide susceptibility mapping in central Nepal himalaya. Arab. J. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-
0807-z.
Saha, D., Dhar, Y.R., Vittala, S.S., 2010. Delineation of groundwater development potential zones in parts of marginal Ganga Alluvial Plain in South Bihar, Eastern
India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 165, 179–191.
Sahoo, S., Jha, M.K., Kumar, N., Chowdary, V.M., 2015. Evaluation of GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis and probabilistic modeling for exploring groundwater
prospects. Environ. Earth Sci. 74 (3), 2223–2246.
Saraf, A.K., Choudhury, P.R., 1998. Integrated remote sensing and GIS for groundwater exploration and identification of artificial recharge sites. Int. J. Remote Sens.
19 (10), 1825–1841.
Singh, P., Gupta, A., Singh, M., 2014. Hydrological inferences from watershed analysis for water resource management using remote sensing and GIS techniques.
Egypt. J. Remote. Sens. Space Sci. 17 (2), 111–121.
Singh, L.K., Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., 2017. Multi-criteria analysis and GIS modeling for identifying prospective water harvesting and artificial recharge sites for
sustainable water supply. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 1436–1456.
Solomon, S., Quiel, F., 2006. Groundwater study using remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) in central highlands of Eritrea. Hydrogeol. J. 14 (5),
729–741.
Strahler, A.N., 1964. Part II. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp.
4–39.
Workineh, H., Dejene, H., Iyasu, G., Thomas, K., Shimelis, A., Getachew, B., Mohamed, E., 2010. Geology, Geochemistry and Gravity Survey of the Debre Tabor Area.
Geological Survey of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Yeh, H.F., Cheng, Y.S., Lin, H.I., Lee, C.H., 2016. Mapping groundwater recharge potential zone using a GIS approach in Hualian River. Taiwan. Sust. Environ. Res. 26
(1), 33–43.
Yesilnacar, E., Topal, T., 2005. Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek
region (Turkey). Eng. Geol. 79 (3-4), 251–266.
Yildiz, O., 2004. An investigation of the effect of drainage density on hydrologic response. Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 28 (2), 85–94.

13