Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water-Energy Nexus
CHINESE ROOTS
GLOBAL IMPACT
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/water-energy-nexus/

Prioritization of potential soil erosion susceptibility region using fuzzy

logic and analytical hierarchy process, upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia
Berhanu G. Sinshaw a,c,⇑, Abreham M. Belete a, Agumase K. Tefera a,c, Abebe Birara Dessie b,
Belay B. Bizuneh e, Habtamu T. Alem a, Simir B. Atanaw a, Daniel G. Eshete a, Tsegaye G. Wubetu a,
Haimanot B. Atinkut b,f, Mamaru A. Moges c,d
a
School of Civil and Water Resource Engineering, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
b
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
c
Faculty of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, Bahir Dar Institute of Technology (BiT), Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar 26, Ethiopia
d
Water, Irrigation, and Energy Bureau, Amhara Regional State, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
e
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos 269, Ethiopia
f
College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Hubei Wuhan 430070, PR China

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

Article history: Soil erosion poses a global threat to soil loss, agricultural land deterioration, and crop yield decreases.
Received 24 September 2020 This paper accounts for the establishment of sustainable land planning, and methods for evaluating soil
Revised 14 November 2020 erosion rates. The study was conducted based on the system complex analysis to prioritize soil erosion in
Accepted 25 January 2021
Ribb watershed to improve soil and water conservation planning. Several geographical-environmental
Available online 10 February 2021
factors affecting soil erosion (land use, soil, slope, SPI, TWI, river Proximity, curvature, aspect) were con-
sidered to assess potential soil erosion risk. The information levels were focused on expert experience,
Keywords:
and the dynamic decision-making process built in a network framework. The weights for each layer were
AHP, Blue Nile Basin
Ethiopia
computed by R Studio fuzzy AHP package. The map of soil erosion susceptibility was developed by com-
Fuzzy bining layers in a platform based on their weights and means of erosion-related incidents in regional sur-
MCDE veys. Hence, the soil erosion map’s overall results showed very high, high, moderate, low, and very low
Prioritization vulnerability to erosion with areal coverage of 13.4 %, 27.93 %, 32.74 %, 17.42 %, and 8.5 %, respectively.
Soil erosion The susceptibility map demonstrates that high soil erosion sensitive areas with Fuzzy and AHP respec-
tively cover 11.05 % and 15.75 %. The study indicates that priority should be given to high and very high
erosion-prone areas in Rib watershed to adapt to climate change and control sedimentation problems in
the Rib reservoir and Lake Tana.
Ó 2021 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 stressed sub-watershed recognition method for priority soil con-

Soil erosion is a global problem leading to soil loss, agricultural
land loss, and a decline in crop yield (Assefa and Hans-Rudolf,
2016; Kebede et al., 2020 Scherr and Yadav, 1996; Tilahun et al.,
2014). Watershed prioritization can be defined as an ecologically
Abbreviations: AHP, Analytical Hierarchy Process; CI, Consistency Index; DEM,
Digital Elevation Model; GIS, Geographical Information Systems; LS factor, Slope
Length and Steepness factor; SPI, Stream Power Index; MCDE, Multi criteria
Decision Evaluation; TWI, Topographic Wetness Index.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Hydraulic and water Resource
Engineering, University of Gondar, P.O. Box 196 Gondar, Ethiopia.
E-mail addresses: berhanugeremew0@gmail.com (B.G. Sinshaw), aguma-
sekt2006@gmail.com (A.K. Tefera), atinkuth20@gmail.com (H.B. Atinkut).
servation steps. Different scientific criteria have been individually
applied in the past to classify ecologically stressed sub-water
sheds/areas based on soil loss, sediment yield, topography, or mor-
phological factors. To create the geomorphic and geological reac-
tions of a drainage basin for soil and water conservation, and
river basin evolution, morphometric analysis is critical
(Arabameri et al., 2018). Land use is another natural environment
factor, including rocks, biodiversity, soils, and structures built by
people such as infrastructure (Gaikwad and Bhagat, 2017). The
shift in land use land cover (LULC) is a significant problem in soil
erosion (Desalegn et al., 2014). Soil erosion and soil loss depend
on several geo-environmental factors; thus, it’s possible to detect
erosion-prone areas using a set of geo-environmental parameters,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2021.01.001
2588-9125/Ó 2021 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/).
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the proposed approach of soil erosion susceptibility assessment.

11
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Table 1 et al. (2019), bivariate statistical models (Rahmati et al., 2016),

Scale of preference between two parameters in AHP (Saaty and Vargas, 2001). and support vector machine algorithm (SVM) (Pourghasemi et al.,
Scales Degree of Explanation 2020). This study evaluates soil erosion efficiency produced by
performance Fuzzy logic and AHP knowledge-based models for a Rib watershed
1 Equally Two activities contribute equally to the agricultural catchment in the lake’s Tana Basin.
objective Drawing the concept of fuzzy logic in environmental science
3 Moderately Experience and judgment slightly to has become an important and advanced statistical method
moderately favor one activity over another
5 Strongly Experience and judgment firmly or essentially
(Demicco and Klir, 2003). In this research, new ways discuss crucial
favor one activity over anther disadvantages to existing risk assessment and vulnerability. This
7 Very Activity is strongly favoring one action over study aimed to evaluate soil erosion hot spot area Fuzzy AHP
strongly another, and its dominance is shown in practice approach combined with knowledge of spatial representation in
9 Extremely The evidence of favoring one activity over
the application of R and GIS software. The creation of weight crite-
another is of the highest degree possible of an
affirmation ria undertaken with foreign experts and stakeholders with various
2,4,6,8 Intimidate Used to represent compromises between the stakeholders is the method’s innovation—points of view on soil
Values preferences in weights 1,3,5,7, and 9 vulnerability preparation. Thus, in our study, two possibilities were
Reciprocals Opposites Used for inverse comparison analyzed. The first was about the choice of five criteria, excluding
drainage density for arid and semi-arid climate zone. Hence, the
five criteria are rainfall, land cover, slope, soil classification, and
Table 2 land use, all relevant to our study site. The second scenario
Linguistic variable AHP scale Fuzzy number Fuzzy triangular scale.
included drainage density for tropical and temperate climate
Linguistic variable AHP scale Fuzzy triangular scale zones, where generally, the extent of the fluvial network is typi-
Equal Important 1 1,1,1 cally large.
Moderate important 3 2.3.4 The paper investigates the usefulness of fuzzy and AHP applica-
Strongly important 5 4,5,6 tions for the prediction of soil erosion susceptibility prioritization.
Very strong important 7 6,7,8
Therefore, fuzzy logic and a GIS-based approach for soil erosion are
Extreme important 9 8,9,9
needed to support short-term land resource management deci-
sions and long-term strategic land-use planning. The fuzzy theory
describes how similarity between a local soil and the typical case
study in the world will not change the attribution of weight results.
in conjunction with a multidisciplinary decision on the Multi- Hence, these criteria weights could be used in world-wide soil ero-
Criteria Decision Evaluation (MCDE) (Chen et al., 2017; Jaiswal sion case studies and to identify regional sub-watersheds vulnera-
et al., 2015; Elewa et al., 2013). ble to soil erosion.
Recent studies reported that accelerated sediment transport
from deforested and hilly basins, primarily agriculture, has a detri-
2. Methods and materials
mental effect on water supplies’ water body and structure (Loucks
and Van Beek, 2017). The uncontrolled application of pesticides
2.1. Study area
and fertilizers contributes to the significant lake and reservoir
eutrophication. There are sedimentation issues in the dams, reser-
The study was conducted in the North-West part of Ethiopia
voirs, and irrigation canals. As a result, existing hydropower will
highland, stretching from Mountain Guna to the East portion of
decrease efficiency, pressure on the planned systems, water levels
the Blue Nile River portion of Rib watershed in the Lake Tana Basin
will decrease for irrigation, and the surrounding flood frequency
(Fig. 1). It covers a total area of 1668 Km2 in Southern Gondar Dis-
increase (Young et al., 2004; Minale and Belete, 2017; Goshu and
trict, Amhara Regional State and is situated between 11 ° 400 N–12 °
Aynalem, 2017). Ribb watershed is one of the Lake Tana sub water-
200 N latitude and 37 ° 300 E – 38 ° 200 E longitude. The elevation is
shed, most affected in recent decades by excessive soil erosions,
between 1758 m (around Lake Tana, outlet) and 4104 m (top, Guna
transport of sediments, and land degradation (Setegn et al., 2008).
Mountain). Lake Tana sub-watersheds were the most massive
In the context of GIS-based decision making, Multi-Criteria
water supply that contributes more than 90% of the water flow
Decision Evaluation (MCDE) earned better attention (Nyerges,
and Gumara, Megech, and Gilgel Abay (Setegn et al., 2010).
2004; Moratalla et al., 2011). scholars have used the MCDE
approach for natural resource management (Halefom and
Teshome, 2019). A variety of parameters have been used to define 2.2. Spatial modeling of soil erosion susceptibility
the hotspot regions in the Rib watershed. The ground, soil, pit, SPI,
TWI, bend, precipitation, and aspect are all involved near the river. Nine prominent factors evaluate susceptibility to soil erosion in
A particular map is used for each criterion by the Geographic Infor- Ribb watershed according to the procedure (Fig. 2) used by previ-
mation System (GIS). The effluent rate depends on topography and ous works (Garosi et al., 2018; Zabihi et al., 2018; Azareh et al.,
pathway, one of the parameters for the erosive potential calcula- 2019), knowledge of the field of study, and evaluation of available
tion. Satellite images were used to identify areas with inadequate data in this area. The variables concerned were land use, field,
and robust area coverage for GIS Land Use Classification. Soil erodi- slope, SPI, TWI, proximity to the sea, curvature, precipitation, and
bility is also a factor in MCE, which influences soil erosion. Differ- appearance.
ent researchers have categorized maps of land use, soil, soil,
elevation, TWI, SPI, and slope (Aher et al., 2013, Pradeep et al., 2.2.1. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
2015) for evaluation criteria; weight is assigned based on relative The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) persists among the
importance to the other standards. most common analytical methods for complex decision-making
The large growing body of literature has investigated the quan- issues commonly used because of its simplicity and ease of use.
titative links between soil erosion and spatial distribution mea- It is capable of making Multiple levels to describe a decision state.
sured in GIS using fuzzy logic (Saha et al., 2019). For example, a The selected factors governing the suitability of the site are
very recent study on artificial neural networks by Samantaray weighted using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is
12
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Fig. 3. Sensitivity value of parameters to soil erosion.

Table 3
Table sensitivity rank of soil erosion risk parameters.

Parameters Land use Soil slope SPI TWI River Proximity Rainfall Curvature Aspect Result value Sensitivity Rank
Land use 1.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 3.31 1.00
Soil 0.33 1.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 2.56 4.00
Slope 0.25 0.33 3.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 1.57 7.00
SPI 8.00 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 3.10 3.00
TWI 9.00 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.21 2.00
River Proximity 7.00 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.46 5.00
Rainfall 5.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.50 1.00 3.00 1.76 6.00
Curvature 4.00 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.38 8.00
Aspect 3.00 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.33 1.04 9.00

Table 4
pairwise matrix evaluation of the nine erosion parameters using the AHP priority.

Class Name Land use Soil Slope SPI TWI River Proximity Rainfall Curvature Aspect
Land use 1 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9
Soil 1/3 1 3 5 6 7 7 8 9
slope 1/4 1/3 1 3 5 5 7 5 8
SPI 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 2 3 5 7 9
TWI 1/5 1/6 1/5 1/2 1 2 3 5 7
River Proximity 1/6 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 5
Rainfall 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 3 4
Curvature 1/8 1/8 1/5 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 3
Aspect 1/9 1/9 1/8 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/4 1/3 1

Consistency ratio(CR) = 0.08, For calculations the pair matrix of comparison shall be consistent

aided by a pairwise comparison matrix that uses a scale of relative
importance (Al Raisi et al., 2014; Kindie, 2018)
The AHP method is a semi-target method, multi-target, and
multicriteria first proposed (Wind and Saaty, 1980). This method
is a multicriteria approach to decision making that selects prefer-
ences from various alternatives at unique scales (Wind and Saaty,
1980). This is a popular model for the study, decision-making,
and regional planning of susceptibility (Kayastha et al., 2013).
The AHP model requires several steps: define un-structured issues,
and research goals Identify the variables that affect the problem
and rearrange them into a hierarchical sequence; rank values
according to their subjective significance, to assess the relative
importance of each factor (Saaty and Vargas, 2001).
The horizontal axis variables are less important than the
vertical axis variables valued between 1 and 9. The relevance of
any aspect to soil erosion sensitivity is mutually relevant and

13
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Table 5
Weight consequence of the erosion of gulls by the AHP model.

Class Name Land use Soil Slope SPI TWI River Proximity Rainfall Curvature Aspect
weight (%) 31.5 24.8 15.7 9.8 6.6 4.5 3.2 2.16 1.34

Table 6
Comparison matrix of Fuzzy matrix.

Class Name Land use Soil Slope SPI TWI River Proximity Curvature altitude Aspect
Land use (1;1;1) (2;3;4) (3;4;5) (4;5;6) (4;5;6) (5;6;7) (6;7;8) (7;8;9) (8;9;9)
Soil (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1;1;1) (2;3;4) (4;5;6) (5;6;7) (6;7;8) (6;7;8) (7;8;9) (8;9;9)
slope (1/5;1/4;1/3) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1;1;1) (2;3;4) (4;5;6) (4;5;6) (6;7;8) (6;7;8) (7;8;9)
SPI (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1;1;1) (1;2;3) (2;3;4) (4;5;6) (6;7;8) (8;9;9)
TWI (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/7;1/6;1/5) (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/3;1/2;1) (1;1;1) (1;2;3) (2;3;4) (4;5;6) (6;7;8)
River Proximity (1/7;1/6;1/5) (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1/3;1/2;1) (1;1;1) (1;2;3) (2;3;4) (4;5;6)
Curvature (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1/3;1/2;1) (1;1;1) (2;3;4) (3;4;5)
Atitude (1/9;1/8;1/7) (1/9;1/8;1/7) (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1;1;1) (2;3;4)
Aspect (1/9;1/9;1/8) (1/9;1/9;1/8) (1/9;1/8;1/7) (1/9;1/9;1/8) (1/8;1/7;1/6) (1/6;1/5;1/4) (1/5;1/4;1/3) (1/4;1/3;1/2) (1;1;1)

Fig. 4. Soil type in Ribb watershed.

observable through double growth, expressed in pairs’ compara-
tive relevance. The statistics differ based on policymakers’ deci-
sions, depending on the value of each site’s variables. Further, for
testing the potential for random matrix choices, the consistency
ratio is used (Budescu et al., 1986) (see Table 1).
2.3. Fuzzy logic
Decision – making is undeniably one of the (Table 2) human
activities most significant. One of the most common MCDM
methods is the fuzzy method. In the field of decision-making,

14
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al.
Fig. 5. Slope class of Ribb watershed.
implementations of fuzzy sets consist primarily of the fluttering of
classical theories. The Fuzzy Logic tool was introduced in 1965 by a
mathematical tool dealing with uncertainty (Zadeh, 1965). Fuzzy
logic is often referred to as a fuzzy expert network. Since then,
the approach has applied to various fields, including meteorology,
engineering, medicine, management, computer science, expert sys-
tems, and systems science. Due to vagueness and uncertainty on
decision-makers’ judgments, crisp pairwise comparison in the con-
ventional AHP seems insufficient and too imprecise to correctly
capture the decision-makers judgments (Taha and Rostam, 2012).
This is why the Fuzzy AHP was chosen as it is one of the most out-
standing and popular MCDM approaches. This method is a robust
and flexible decision-making tool used to find solutions for com-
plex multicriteria problems such as soil erosion risk assessment
(Jaiswal et al., 2014). Applying the Fuzzy AHP model consists of
several steps. It starts with setting the goal followed by selecting
alternatives, then collecting experts’ judgments to build a matrix
and integrating it into R software to run the program. It uses
min–max and if-then rules to improve classification and account-
ability. This system is usually comprised of four stages; fuzzifica-
tion, rule evaluation, inference of fuzzy products, and
defuzzification (Bui et al., 2012). This fuzzy logic method was
accomplished by ArcGIS (v.10.4) with the unclear inference func-
tion. The Fuzzy Membership system and the Fuzzy Overlay system
were used for two realistic devices. All data in all locations are con-
verted into fluffy sets, and the expert tests them in five categories.
2.3.1. Fuzzy AHP set theory
To apply Fuzzy AHP, in the case of decisions made by more than
one person, four steps shall be followed, consecutively. The first
step contains the erosion risk goal, whereas the second step con-
15
Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24
sists of the pairwise comparisons of all criteria influencing the
decision. It is a tool to estimate the associated absolute numbers
from 1 to 9 on a relative scale of importance and rank a set of
decision-making criteria (Table 1). The third and fourth steps con-
sist of calculating the consistency of experts’ opinions.
Finally, the eigenvector of the matrix is obtained to extract the
weights of the corresponding criteria. The criteria used are intro-
duced below—step 1: Development of Fuzzy pairwise matrix. A
group of experts determines the data of the hierarchical decision
model. The judgments are evaluated to find suitable alternatives
based on the decision-maker’s values and preferences to estimate
the associated absolute numbers from 1 to 9, the fundamental
scales of the AHP. Step 2: Defuzzification of the fuzzy pairwise
comparison matrix. Defuzzification generates a quantifiable result,
given fuzzy sets and corresponding membership degrees, in Crisp
logic. It is the mechanism that assigns a fuzzy set to a crisp back-
ground. Usually, it is necessary for fuzzy control systems.
Step 3: Calculating the Consistency Ratio (CR)
The Consistency Ratio (CR) is used to determine the likelihood
of random matrix decisions. (Saaty and Vargas, 2001).
CR = CI/RI (1)
where RI refers to the mean of an Index of Consistency, the matrix
order and CI refers to the Index of Consistency as expressed (Saaty
and Vargas, 2001).
CI = (kmax —n)(n  1) (2)
If k max is the most massive value of the matrix of its own, the
matrix can be determined easily; ’n’ is the matrix sequences. The
CR is a ratio of the random index to the matrix consistency index,
the value of which is from 0 to 1. a CR of 0.1 or less is considered a
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al.
Fig. 6. TWI map of Ribb watershed.
respectable level, and over 0.1 implies a revision required because
the individual factor ratings not being handled uniformly
((Malczewski, 1999)
Step 4: Verifying the conformity of CR < 0.1 As a rule of thumb,
if CR is equal to or < 0.10, the pairwise comparison results are
acceptable; otherwise, they should be rejected and revised—Step
5: Calculating corresponding criteria weights. The weight (W)
obtained from the eigenvector of the matrix using the R software.
2.3.1.1. Stream Power index (SPI) factor map. Soil erosion by water is
directly linked to slope morphology in the areas (Danielson, 2013).
SPI determines the erosive water flowing capacity, assuming the
flow is proportional to the catchment area and the pitch. The
potential energy for sediment is also an indicator (Kakembo
et al., 2009). The highest focus on soil erosion has been the higher
range of SPIs based on researchers’ and experts’ expertise. The
empirical equations of SPI can be defined as:
SPI = (AS * tan b) (3)
where AS = specific catchment area (m2/m), b = slope gradient in
deg.
2.3.1.2. Topographic wetness index (TWI). Apart from the three lead-
ing wetland indicators, the topographic location is used as an addi-
tional wetland forecast (hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soil). The primary topography and the secondary topographic met-
rics (pitch, aspect, and curvature), computable from 2 or more pri-
mary metrics, are widely used for digitally elevated models
16
Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24
(DEMs). The topographic wetness index (TWI) quantifies the grid
cell trend to accept and collect water, one of the most commonly
used secondary metrics. (Chambers et al., 2014). The TWI can be
defined as follows:
 
A
TWI ¼ ln ð4Þ
tanðbÞ
where A is the upslope contributing area, and b is the local slope
angle. The higher TWI of a cell tends to accumulate water, thus
the higher likelihood of wetland presence. Traditionally, coarse-
resolution DEMs have been used to derive TWI.
2.3.1.3. Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). The index of
vegetation is the most widely used. NDVI map can be made using
this formula:
NDVI = (NIR - R) / (NIR + R) (5)
Where the values of NIR and R are reflective. This vegetation index
compares the spectral response to the coverage of vegetation. This
approach indicates that healthy vegetation exhibits low reflectance
in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) (due to
the presence of chlorophyll and other pigments). In contrast, it
shows high reflectance by the middle part of the leaf (spongy mes-
ophyll tissue). The values differ between 1 and + 1, whereas the
NDVI values of vegetation vary from 0.1 to 1. Higher NDVI values
have good foliage (Sinshaw et al., 2019).
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al.
Fig. 7. SPI class of Ribb watershed.
2.3.1.4. Slope. The slope is the variation of the lifting of a specific
area that affects soil / green water storage. It is a factor that influ-
ences the flow rate of the soil. The 30 m SRTM DEM for the mea-
surement of the water bath tide is used in this analysis. The
percentage map provided by STRM DEM with a resolution of
30 m varies from 0 to 68 % based on natural ruptures. The highest
gradient in the upper part of the study area is located while the
lowest gradient in the lower part of the study area.
2.3.1.5. Soil. Soil is an important element in the conservation of soil
watershed moisture. The soil characteristics also control surface
water penetration in an aquifer system and are directly linked to
absorption, percolation, and permeability levels. In watershed Ribb
watersheds of Haplic Nitisols, Haplic Luvisols, Eutry Vertisols,
Eutric Leptosoles, and Chronic Luvisols, soil classification defined
according to the Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Electricity
(MoWIE). The Eutric Leptosols group located on the top of the
catchment, covered most of the area.
2.3.1.6. Curvature factor map. The 30 m by 30 m digital elevation
model (DEM) was used in ArcGIS to identify the slope’s gradient,
aspect, and curvature. The curvature of the profile was the most
of the gully erosion forecast has significant variables. Morphology
of catching and drainage the curvature of hillslope processes is
positively affected.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. AHP and Fuzzy parametrization
R studio V4.2 was used to analyze each factor’s weight for AHP
and fuzzy logic GIS mapping. The probabilities of each unit area of
17
Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24
the study region and the respective groups. Further, to decide
whether and how soil erosion precision was enhanced, the selected
soil erosion variables were qualitatively compared and evaluated.
Sub-watershed priority was performed utilizing AHP and Fuzzy
in six steps: rate determination, pair comparison matrix, standard
pair set-up, weight/effect measurements, standardization in effect,
and prioritization of watersheds.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
Land use exerts a considerable influence on the drainage net-
work patterns and significantly affects the erosion susceptibility
of the sub-watersheds indicated in (Fig. 3). Also, TWI, SPI, and soil
strongly involve soil erosion risk of the watershed. Aspect and cur-
vature of the land are not severely aggravating soil erosion risk
(Table 3).
3.2.1. Land use
land-use change was considered as a significant factor in soil
erosion in the study region. Land use cover change factor was
one of the critical factors influencing surface flux, and decay is a
land use in a study area. It enables the surface defense to decide
the resistance of the soil unit to erosion. High decline and quick
response to rainfall result from insufficient surface cover. The
demand for land to be cultivated was increased due to the high
growth in population density. In this regard, eleven types of land
use/land cover were recognized in the study area. Land use/land
cover classes were investigated and computed as presented in
Table 6
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al.
Fig. 8. Curvature map of Ribb watershed.
3.2.2. Soil
Form of soil is one of the key factors influencing the physical
erosion process and the properties of chemicals. It regulates the
detachment of soil, transportation of soil particles, and water to
the soil. The soil texture is an important factor in the degradation
of the ground. Eutric Leptosols dominate the study watershed with
an area of 620 km2 (37%), followed by Chromic Luvisols 558 km2
(33.5 %), which are generally influenced by some form of water
control and mainly by their topographic/physiographic location
(see Table 5).
3.2.3. Slope
It is one of the most vital parameters factors that erosion. The
re-classified Slope map shows that 213 km2 (12.81%) of the land
use is Very high susceptible; 154.79 km2 (9.28%) Highly suscepti-
ble; 256.38 km2 (15%) Medium susceptible; 439 km2 (26.34 %)
Low susceptible and 604 km2 (36%) very low susceptible to soil
erosion.
3.2.4. Topographic wetness index (TWI)
The topographic wetness index (TWI) is a constant state wet-
ness index called a Compound Topographic Index (CTI). It includes
the upslope, the slope raster, and a few geometric functions. The
re-classified TWI map (Fig. 5) indicated that 2.8 km2 (0.16%) of
the land use is very high susceptible; 5.9.5 km2 (3.5 %) , Highly sus-
ceptible; 18.95 km2 (1.13 %) medium susceptible; 1198 km2 (71 %)
18
Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24
low susceptible and 388 km2 (23.29 %) very low susceptible to soil
erosion.
3.2.5. Impact of stream Power index (SPI)
The quality of natural flowing water is calculated. The flow of
water absorbed on the bed, and banks of the channel is the energy
volume. Due to the area discharge relation, and it, calculated from
DEM data. The reclassified SPI map (Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) below
and (Table 3-9) indicated that 0.01 km2 (0.01%) of the land use is
Very high susceptible; 0.06 km2 (0.04%) Highly susceptible;
0.18 km2 (0.011%) medium susceptible; 0.45 km2 (0.027%) low sus-
ceptible 1667.29 km2 (99.95%) Very low susceptible to soil erosion
(Figs. 10-11).
3.2.6. Curvature impact on erosion
Curvature is a complex derived field to measure that depends
on the equation (Table 10) used Input data resolution. The tool Cur-
vature calculates the cell-by-cell second derivative value of the
input surface. The output of each cell should be used to explain
the physical characteristics of the drainage basin from the applied
point of view to understand erosion and the ruining processes. The
results can be used for every cell. The pitch influences the overall
pitch rate. In contrast to the aspect, the direction of flow is defined.
The curvature of the profile affects the acceleration and decelera-
tion of flow and, thus, erosion and deposition. The plan is curved
Displaying contours over a raster may help with understanding
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Fig. 9. River proximity class in Ribb watershed.

Table 7 (Sajedi-Hosseini et al., 2018). These considerations are not taken

Fuzz Logic Weighting vector. into account by experimental approaches like USLE and RUSLE.
Class Name Lower Weight Middle Weight Upper weight The proximity of rivers and rivers, especially riverbank erosion,
Land use 0.2555 0.3143 0.3699
has been used as a factor for this study. We classified the water-
Soil 0.1985 0.2475 0.3023 shed into areas 0–50 m and 50–4,500 m from rivers and streams.
slope 0.1268 0.1629 0.2093 Erosion is more affected, and flooding is the product of surfaces
SPI 0.0717 0.098 0.1297 between 0–50 m.
TWI 0.0471 0.0658 0.0924
River Proximity 0.032 0.0452 0.0652
Curvature 0.0242 0.0323 0.0456 3.2.8. Aspect
Altitude 0.016 0.0207 0.028 Aspect can be regarded as the direction of the slope. The raster
Aspect 0.0112 0.0133 0.0174 output values are the direction of the appearance of the compass.
The Input Raster is the input for this function. The Role Aspect is
also used in a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The reclassified cur-
and interpreting the data resulting from the execution of the Cur- vature map (Fig. 12) indicated that 343 km2 (20.5 %) of the land use
vature tool. Table 11 and Fig. 7 below presented the value of the of the study area is very high susceptible and 331 km2 (18.6 %) low
curvature profile. The reclassified curvature map indicated that sensitive, and 564 km2 (33.8 %) very low susceptible to soil erosion.
439 km2 (26 %) of the land use of study area is Very high suscepti-
ble; 278 km2 (16 %) Highly susceptible; 158 km2 (9.5 %) medium 3.3. Soil erosion estimation
susceptible and 227 km2 (13.6 %) low susceptible and 564 km2
(33.8 %) very low susceptible to soil erosion (Tables 12-16). The goals were subsequently divided into the five classes of ero-
sion, as per Singh et al. (1992) guideline, based on integrated GIS
3.2.7. Proximity to streams and rivers and Remote Sensing research with Fuzzy and AHP. These findings
The areas near the river or the stream would be more vulnera- show that 8.5 % of the watershed area was of low erosion rates
ble to erosion, as particles are isolated from the normal water flow. with a very high risk of erosion of around 13.4 %. This region, with

Table 8
Land use Class of Ribb watershed.

No slope interval Susceptibility to erosion Area(Km2) Area Percentage (%)

1 Pasture,Plantations,hrubland very low 209.72 12.57
2 Afro-alpine Low 23.45 1.41
3 Dominantly cultivated, Moderately cultivated Urban Very High 1434.83 86.02
Total 1668 100

19
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Table 9
Soil susceptibility of Ribb watershed.

No Soil Interval Susceptibility to erosion Area (Km2) AreaPercentage (%)

1 Urban very low 1.24 0.07
2 Haplic Nitisols Low 5.21 0.31
3 Eutric Leptosols Moderate 620.94 37.23
4 Chromic Luvisols High 558.81 33.50
5 Haplic Luvisols Very High 467.04 28.00
6 Eutric Vertisols Very High 14.75 0.88

Fig. 10. River proximity class in Ribb watershed.

a high to very modest erosion risk, needs to be protected immedi-
ately. The site was extremely vulnerable to soil erosion, according
to high susceptibility rates. According to the overall suitability
score listed, the following areas are very high, high, medium and
low, and very low prone to soil erosion: 13.4 %, 27.9%, 32.7
%,17.4 %, and 8.5 %, respectively.
4. Conclusion and implications
The severe issue of the Lake Tana basin is soil erosion, including
the Ribb watershed. This study shows the hotspot areas for soil
erosion with Fuzzy and AHP approaches. The decline in agricultural
production in Ethiopia’s highlands is due to the depletion of farm-
ing regions’ soil. The identification of erosion hotspot areas is
essential to the efficient conservation of soil and water. In the man-
agement of natural resources, the MCDE method has been widely
used. To weigh all soil erosion factors (land use, slope, SPI, TWI,
the proximity of the river, curvature, plumage, aspect), analytical
hierarchies (AHP), and Fuzzy logic. Around 27% and 13% of the
region were classified as very high and high-sensitive it soils ero-
sion areas, respectively.
This finding has shown that the northern, southeastern, and
ultra-high erosion regions are mainly due to steep slopes on soil
erosion spatial distribution map. This study’s results enable plan-
ners and policymakers to implement practical steps to reduce the
risk of soil loss and degradation in the catchment area, in soil con-
servation and water management. Based on the weighted AHP and
Fuzzy soil erosion risk evaluation approaches, the map showed
high, moderate, low, and very low vulnerability to erosion with

20
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Fig. 11. Soil erosion susceptibility map using Fuzzy and AHP.

21
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al. Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24

Table 10
FAO slope categories and related susceptibility to soil erosion.

No slope interval Susceptibility to erosion Area (Km2) Area Percentage (%)

1 0–5 very low 603.75 36.20
2 5–10 Low 439.40 26.34
3 10–15 Moderate 256.38 15.37
4 15–20 High 154.79 9.28
5 >20 Very High 213.68 12.81
Total 1668.00 100.00

Table 11
Topographic wetness index susceptibility class.

No TWI interval Susceptibility to erosion Area (Km2) Area Percentage (%)

1 2.67–5.87 very low 388.56 23.295
2 2.86–10.4 Low 1198.13 71.830
3 10.5–10.8 Moderate 18.95 1.136
4 10.9–14.3 High 59.56 3.571
5 14.4–18.6 Very High 2.80 0.168

Table 12
SPI range in Ribb catchment.

No SPI interval Susceptibility to erosion Area (Km2) Area Percentage (%)

1 0–1843120 very low 1667.29 99.95
2 1843120–3686240 Low 0.45 0.027
3 3686240–5529360 Moderate 0.18 0.011
4 5529360–7372480 High 0.06 0.004
5 7372480–9215600 Very High 0.01 0.001

Table 13
Curvature of Ribb watershed.

No Curvature interval Susceptibility to erosion Area(Km2) Area Percentage (%)

1 48–1.4 very low 564.21 33.825
2 1.3–0.39 Low 226.90 13.603
3 0.38–0.11 Moderate 158.95 9.529
4 0.12–0.78 High 278.29 16.684
5 0.78–49 Very High 439.66 26.358

Table 14
River proximity in Ribb watershed.

No River proximity (m) Susceptibility to erosion Area (Km2) Area Percentage (%)
1 0–50 Very High 18.22 1.093
2 50–45000 High 22.61 1.355
3 >4500 Moderate 0.37 0.022

Table 15
Aspect in Ribb watershed.

No Aspect interval Susceptibility to erosion Area (Km2) Area Percentage (%)

1 (-1–71) very low 311.48 18.674
2 72–140 Low 280.59 16.822
3 141–220 Moderate 351.48 21.072
4 221–290 High 381.28 22.859
5 291–360 Very High 343.16 20.573

Table 16
AHP and Fuzzy Susceptibility to erosion.

No Erosivity level Area (Km2) Area Percentage (%)

AHP Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy Mean
1 very low 100.28 183.29 6.01 10.99 8.5
2 Low 142.17 439.19 8.52 26.33 17.42
3 Moderate 606.04 486.29 36.33 29.15 32.74
4 High 556.84 374.89 33.38 22.48 27.93
5 Very High 262.67 184.34 15.75 11.05 13.4

22
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al.
Fig. 12. Area coverage of relative soil erosion vulnerability in watershed Ribb.
areal coverage of 13.4 %, 27.93 %, 32.74 %, 17.42 %, and 8.5 %,
respectively.
Overall, we suggest that moderate and high erosion areas
should be considered goals for initiatives to mitigate sustainable
land and water management in this region for soil and water
conservation.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Berhanu G. Sinshaw: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation,
Software, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization,
Writing - review & editing, Validation. Abrham M. Belete: Writing
- original draft, Project administration. Agumase K. Tefera: Soft-
ware, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Abebe
Dessie Birara: Project administration, Funding acquisition, Soft-
ware, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review
& editing, Visualization. Belay B. Bizuneh: . Habtamu T. Alem:
Writing - review & editing, Validation. Simir B. Atanaw: Project
administration, Software, Resources, Data curation, Writing -
review & editing, Visualization. Daniel G. Eshete: . Tegaye G.
Wubetu: Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing -
review & editing, Visualization. Haimanot B. Atinkut: Software,
Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & edit-
ing, Visualization. Mamaru A. Moges: Resources, Data curation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization,
Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The University of Gondar funded this work under the Institute
of Technology Research and community service directorate (Grant
Year: UoG_2019). We authors are grateful to the Ethiopian Min-
istry of Water, Irrigation, and Energy and National Meteorology
Agency for providing soil and climate data. We are very thankful
to the USGS for enabling free satellite imagery of the study area
and DEM. The authors are also grateful to Prof. Hyunook Kim and
two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and insightful com-
ments, and suggestions help us significantly improved the
manuscript.
23
Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24
References
Aher, P., Adinarayana, J., Gorantiwar, S., 2013. Prioritization Of Watersheds Using
Multicriteria Evaluation Through Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. Agricult.
Eng. Int.: Cigr J. 15, 11–18.
Al Raisi S.A.H, Sulaiman H, Abdallah O, Suliman FE 2014. Landfill Suitability Analysis
Using Ahp Method And State Of Heavy Metals Pollution In Selected Landfills in
Oman. European Scientific, 10, 17.
Arabameri, A., Pradhan, B., Pourghasemi, H.R., Rezaei, K., 2018. Identification Of
Erosion-Prone Areas Using Different Multicriteria Decision-Making Techniques
And Gis. Geomatics. Nat. Hazards. 9, 1129–1155.
Assefa E, and Hans-Rudolf B. (2016).Farmers’ Perception of Land Degradation and
Traditional Knowledge in Southern Ethiopia—Resilience and Stability. Land
Degradation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2364.
Azareh, A., Rahmati, O., Rafiei-Sardooi, E., Sankey, J.B., Lee, S., Shahabi, H., Ahmad, B.
B., 2019. Modelling Gully-Erosion Susceptibility In A Semi-Arid Region, Iran:
Investigation Of Applicability Of Certainty Factor And Maximum Entropy
Models. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 684–696.
Budescu, D.V., Zwick, R., Rapoport, A., 1986. A Comparison Of The Eigenvalue
Method And The Geometric Mean Procedure For Ratio Scaling. Appl. Psychol.
Meas. 10, 69–78.
Bui, D.T., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O., Revhaug, I., Dick, O.B., 2012. Spatial Prediction Of
Landslide Hazards In Hoa Binh Province (Vietnam): A Comparative Assessment
Of The Efficacy Of Evidential Belief Functions And Fuzzy Logic Models. Catena
96, 28–40.
Chambers, J., Wilkinson, P., Uhlemann, S., Sorensen, J., Roberts, C., Newell, A., Ward,
W., Binley, A., Williams, P., Gooddy, D., 2014. Derivation Of Lowland Riparian
Wetland Deposit Architecture Using Geophysical Image Analysis And Interface
Detection. Water Resour. Res. 50, 5886–5905.
Chen, W., Pourghasemi, H.R., Panahi, M., Kornejady, A., Wang, J., Xie, X., Cao, S.,
2017. Spatial Prediction Of Landslide Susceptibility Using An Adaptive Neuro-
Fuzzy Inference System Combined With Frequency Ratio, Generalized Additive
Model, And Support Vector Machine Techniques. Geomorphology 297, 69–85.
Danielson, T. 2013. Utilizing A High Resolution Digital Elevation Model (Dem) To
Develop A Stream Power Index (Spi) For The Gilmore Creek Watershed In
Winona County, Minnesota. Papers In Resource Analysis, 15.
Demicco, RV., Kllir, GJ., 2003. Fozzy Logic in Geology. Center for Intelligent Systems.
Binghamton University (Suny), New work, USA. Fozzy Logic in Geology.
Desalegn, T., Cruz, F., Kindu, M., Turrión, M., Gonzalo, J., 2014. Land-Use/Land-Cover
(Lulc) Change And Socioeconomic Conditions Of Local Community In The
Central Highlands Of Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecology 21, 406–413.
Elewa, H.H., Shohaib, R.E., Qaddah, A.A., Nousir, A.M., 2013. Determining
Groundwater Protection Zones For The Quaternary Aquifer Of Northeastern
Nile Delta Using Gis-Based Vulnerability Mapping. Environ. Earth Sci. 68, 313–
331.
Gaikwad, R., Bhagat, V., 2017. Multi-Criteria Watershed Prioritization Of Kas Basin
In Maharashtra India: Ahp And Influence Approaches. Hydrospatial Anal. 1, 41–
61.
Garosi, Y., Sheklabadi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Besalatpour, A.A., Conoscenti, C., Van
Oost, K., 2018. Comparison Of Differences In Resolution And Sources Of
Controlling Factors For Gully Erosion Susceptibility Mapping. Geoderma 330,
65–78.
Goshu, G. & Aynalem, S. 2017. Problem Overview Of The Lake Tana Basin. Social And
Ecological System Dynamics. Springer.
Halefom, A., Teshome, A., 2019. Modelling And Mapping Of Erosion Potentiality
Watersheds Using Ahp And Gis Technique: A Case Study Of Alamata Watershed,
South Tigray, Ethiopia. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 5, 819–831.
Jauniswal, R., Ghosh, N., Galkate, R. & Thomas, T. 2015. Multi Criteria Decision
Analysis (Mcda) For Watershed Prioritization.
B.G. Sinshaw, A.M. Belete, A.K. Tefera et al.
Jaiswal, R., Thomas, T., Galkate, R., Ghosh, N., Singh, S., 2014. Watershed
Prioritization Using Saaty’s Ahp Based Decision Support For Soil Conservation
Measures. Water Resour. Manage. 28, 475–494.
Kakembo, V., Xanga, W., Rowntree, K., 2009. Topographic Thresholds In Gully
Development On The Hillslopes Of Communal Areas In Ngqushwa Local
Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Geomorphology 110, 188–194.
Kayastha, P., Dhital, M.R., De Smedt, F., 2013. Application Of The
Analytical Hierarchy Process (Ahp) For Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: A
Case Study From The Tinau Watershed, West Nepal. Comput. Geosci. 52, 398–
408.
A. Kindie Kindie, A. 2018. Spatial Analysis Of Groundwater Potential Using Gis Based
Multicriteria Evaluation Method, In Lake-Tana Basin, Ethiopia.
Loucks, D. P. & Van Beek, E. 2017. Water Resource Systems Planning And
Management: An Introduction To Methods, Models, And Applications, Springer.
Kebede Y.S., Sinshaw, BG, Endalamaw NT., Atinkut, HB .2020. Modeling soil erosion
using RUSLE and GIS at watershed level in the upper beles, Ethiopia.
Environmental Challenges, 2, 100009.
Malczewski, J., 1999. Gis And Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Minale, A.S., Belete, W., 2017. Land Use Distribution And Change In Lake Tana Sub
Basin and Social And Ecological System Dynamics. Springer.
Moratalla, Á., Gómez-Alday, J.J., Sanz, D., Castaño, S., De Las Heras, J., 2011.
Evaluation Of A Gis-Based Integrated Vulnerability Risk Assessment For The
Mancha Oriental System (Se Spain). Water Resour. Manage. 25, 3677.
T. Nyerges Nyerges, T. 2004. Chapter Eleven Progress In Spatial Decision Making
Using Geographic Information Systems. Geographic Information Research:
Transatlantic Perspectives, 121.
Pourghasemi, H.R., Gayen, A., Haque, S.M., Bai, S., 2020. Gully Erosion Susceptibility
Assessment Through The Svm Machine Learning Algorithm (Svm-Mla). Gully
Erosion Studies From India And Surrounding Regions. Springer.
Pradeep, G., Krishnan, M.N., Vijith, H., 2015. Identification Of Critical Soil Erosion
Prone Areas And Annual Average Soil Loss In An Upland Agricultural Watershed
Of Western Ghats, Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (Ahp) And Rusle
Techniques. Arabian J. Geosci. 8, 3697–3711.
Rahmati, O., Haghizadeh, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Noormohamadi, F., 2016. Gully
Erosion Susceptibility Mapping: The Role Of Gis-Based Bivariate Statistical
Models And Their Comparison. Nat. Hazards 82, 1231–1258.
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2001. How To Make A Decision. Models, Methods, Concepts &
Applications Of The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer.
Saha, S., Gayen, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Tiefenbacher, J.P., 2019. Identification Of Soil
Erosion-Susceptible Areas Using Fuzzy Logic And Analytical Hierarchy Process
Modeling In An Agricultural Watershed Of Burdwan District, India. Environ.
Earth Sci. 78, 649.
24
Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021) 10–24
Sajedi-Hosseini, F., Choubin, B., Solaimani, K., Cerdà, A., Kavian, A., 2018. Spatial
Prediction Of Soil Erosion Susceptibility Using A Fuzzy Analytical Network
Process: Application Of The Fuzzy Decision Making Trial And Evaluation
Laboratory Approach. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 3092–3103.
Setegn, SG, Dargahi B., Srinivasan, R., Melesse, AM, 2010. Modeling of Sediment
Yield from Anjeni-Gauged Watershed, Ethiopia Using SWAT Model.. Journal of
the American Water Resource Association.
Scherr, SJ. and Yadav, SN. 1996. Land degradation in the developing world:
Implications for food, agriculture, and the environment to 2020. Working or
Discussion Paper. Setegn , SG., Dargahi B., Srinivasan, R., Melesse, AM. 2010.
Modeling of Sediment Yield from Anjeni-Gauged Watershed, Ethiopia Using SWAT
Model. Journal of the American Water Resource Association.
Scherr, SJ.Yadav, SN., 1996. Land degradation in the developing world: Implications
for food, agriculture, and the environment. International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Setegn, SGDargahi B., Srinivasan, R., Melesse, AM, 2010. Modeling of Sediment Yield
from Anjeni-Gauged Watershed, Ethiopia Using SWAT Model. Journal of the
American Water Resource Association.
Sinshaw, B.G., Moges, M.A., Tilahun, S.A., Dokou, Z., Moges, S., Anagnostou, E.,
Eshete, D.G., Kindie, A.T., Bekele, E., Asese, M., Getie, W.A., 2019. In: August.
Integration of SWAT and Remote Sensing Techniques to Simulate Soil Moisture
in Data Scarce Micro-watersheds: A Case of Awramba Micro-watershed in the
Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia In International Conference on Advances of
Science and Technology. Springer, Cham, pp. 294–314.
Taha, Z., Rostam, S., 2012. A Hybrid Fuzzy Ahp-Promethee Decision Support System
For Machine Tool Selection In Flexible Manufacturing Cell. J. Intell. Manuf. 23,
2137–2149.
Tilahun SA., Guzman CD., Zegeye AD., Ayana ES., Collick AS., Yitaferu B., Steenhuis
TM. 2014. Spatial and temporal patterns of soil erosion in the semi-humid
Ethiopian highlands: A case study of Debre Mawi watershed. In: Melesse A.,
Abtew W., Setegn S. (eds) Nile River Basin. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-02720-3_9Demicco RV. and Klir, GJ. 2003. Fozzy Logic in
Geology. Center for Intelligent Systems. Binghamton University (Suny), New
work, USA.
Wind, Y., Saaty, T.L., 1980. Marketing Applications Of The Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Manage. Sci. 26, 641–658.
Young, R., Smart, G., Harding, J., 2004. Impacts Of Hydro-Dams, Irrigation Schemes
And River Control Works. Freshwat. New Zealand 37 (31-37), 15.
Zabihi, M., Mirchooli, F., Motevalli, A., Darvishan, A. K., Pourghasemi, H. R., Zakeri, M.
A. & Sadighi, F. 2018. Spatial Modelling Of Gully Erosion In Mazandaran
Province, Northern Iran. Catena, 161, 1-13.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Informat. Control, 8, 338-353.