Alexandria Engineering Journal (2022) 61, 9795–9810

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

Selection of the optimum locations for rainwater

harvesting in arid regions using WMS and remote
sensing. Case Study: Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea,
Egypt
Marwa M. Aly a,*, Sameh A. Sakr b, Mohamed S.M. Zayed a

a
Faculty of Engineering, Mataria, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
b
Groundwater Institute, National Water Research Center, MWRI, Cairo, Egypt

Received 25 August 2021; revised 3 January 2022; accepted 16 February 2022

Available online 04 March 2022

KEYWORDS Abstract Rainwater harvesting (RWH) strategy is one of the most effective solutions for water
Rainwater Harvesting scarcity problem in arid and semi-arid regions. This solution is vital in achieving residents stability
(RWH) - Arid and semi-arid and helping the decision makers toward the development of such regions. The lack of measured
regions; hydrological data represents the main challenge achieving this strategy. Integration between water-
Weighted Spatial probability shed modelling and remote sensing was used as a technique to overcome this challenge. Weighted
Model (WSPM); spatial probability model (WSPM) was used in classification of RWH potentiality of the sub-basins
Remote Sensing inside Wadi Hodien in the eastern desert. The results showed that WH is categorized as moderate
RWH potentiality. In addition, the analysis revealed that basin slope and volume of annual flood
parameters have the higher effect on the selection of the RWH sites in WH. The research also give
the ability to determine the most suitable locations for RWH through the presented integrated mod-
els without the need of hydrological measurements data.
Ó 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction Bedouins in arid and semi-arid basins increase the pressure

on water resources [24]. As water scarcity is a vital issue in
Arid and semi-arid regions present nearly one – third of land these basins, observations of flood flows in many ephemeral
surface of the earth [25]. Growing global population such as streams of the arid and semi-arid basins revealed that the flow
is completely absorbed by the dry channel in a short distance
* Corresponding author. downstream because of short duration and small areal extent
E-mail addresses: marwa_maly@m-eng.helwan.edu.eg, marwaa-
of the storm and transformation losses [Hadley R.F. (1968),
ly3@gmail.com (M.M. Aly), Sameh_nw@yahoo.com (S.A. Sakr), [8]]. As a result, runoff water is lost before reaching basins out-
Mohamed.said@m-eng.helwan.edu.eg (M.S.M. Zayed). let where human settling could be existed. Rainwater harvest-
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria ing (RWH) solution is considered the most suitable way for
University. providing drinking water for people in these basins. Rainwater
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.02.046
1110-0168 Ó 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
9796
harvesting is the technique of collecting and storing rain water
before it leaked into ground or into runoff streams network
[16,21]. The determination of the best RWH sites is a signifi-
cant step to increase the chance for water availability [18].
Many researchers used the integration between WMS, GIS
and RS techniques to find these sites such as [9,14]. They used
WMS to find watershed attributes which contribute determin-
ing the most efficient sites for RWH. The researchers stated
that selection for RWH site depends on 8 main parameters
[Basin slope, Basin length, Drainage density, Infiltration num-
ber, Basin Area, Max. Flow Distance, Overland Flow distance
and average of flood volume.
Wadi Hodein (WH) is considered one of the largest
ungagged arid sub basins in the southern part of the eastern
desert which drains into Red Sea. The importance of this wadi
is due to the existence of Shalatin city at the outlet of the wadi
in addition, Settling and herding activities of Bedouins inside
the wadi also due to existing of some other activities such as
mining, tourism, . . .. etc. Population and Bedouins in WH
depend mainly on springs and hand dug wells for satisfying
their water requirements. WH suffering from many problems
related to water scarcity such as aridity, overgrazing and deser-
tification. Also return periods of rain storm may reach to
8 years which causes starvation for resident peoples in this
region [9]. Few researchers highlighted water resources in
WH due to its limited available data. Yousef et al., [26]
revealed that the morphometric parameters of WH reduce
flooding ability and increases chance for groundwater
recharge. Al Dabaa and Khalifa [4] showed that soil of WH
is suitable for agriculture over 95% of the area under proper
management of flash flooding. Al Gamal [5] worked on surface
water management at Halayib and Shalatne sub region, where
the hydrological analysis indicated that WH has a peak flow of
71.52 m3/sec. Helmi and Zohny [14] studied flash flood risk
assessment of Nile, Sinai and Red Sea wadies using WMS
and hydrological model (HEC-HMS), the results showed that
runoff volume for 100-year return period is about
(265800x10^3 m3) also the research classified WH as a very
high-risk basin, the study recommended that high risk degree
could be turned into low risk for catchments where stormwater
harvesting techniques are available. Elewa et al. [9] used water-
Fig. 1 Geographic Location of The Study Area.
M.M. Aly et al.
shed modelling system (WMS), Remote sensing (RS) and GIS
techniques to determine the most suitable sites for rainwater
harvesting (RWH) globally in Halayeb and Shalatin area.
Based on the literature review mentioned above, the main
objective of the research is focusing on Wadi Hodien region
to help the decision makers to arrange development priorities
in this important political border region. In order to determine
the most suitable locations for RWH, integration between
watershed modelling and remote sensing was used as well as
Weighted spatial probability model (WSPM) in the classifica-
tion of RWH potentiality of the sub-basins inside WH. The
integrated technique used in the research can achieve this
objective without the need of hydrological measurements data
which is the main challenge in the study area.
1.1. Description of the study area
Wadi Hodein is located in the southern part of the eastern
desert of Egypt between latitude 220000000, 240 000 000N and
340 000 000, 360 000 000 E, it covers an area of about
11600 km2. Wadi Hodein is considered one of the sub catch-
ments of Red Sea mountains which drain its runoff water
toward the Red sea.
Wadi Hodein is divided into two main sub catchments;
Wadi Faqou and Wadi Naam which are collecting water flow
from south and north, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. Wadi
Hodein is considered semi-arid to arid region with max rainfall
of 10 mm between October to December and almost zero at
the rest of the year. The maximum temperature reaches to
37.5 C0 in July and August while the minimum value reaches
to 14 C0 in December and January. The Humidity reaches
its minimum value of 29% in July and August and the average
wind velocity in the study area reaches to about 12 km/hr.
1.2. Data and methodology
Due to the aridity conditions of Wadi Hodein and lack of
observation data, limited available data was obtained where,
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of resolution 90 m
90 m
was extracted from [7] to represent study area terrain. Ground
Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt 9797

elevation in the study area ranges between +2.5 m at the outlet

of WH and +1441.5 m above mean sea level as indicated in
Fig. 2.
Maps of Land use and Soil type of the study area were
obtained from [8] presented in Fig. 3 (a & b). Land morphol-
ogy of study area was mainly formed from mountains, wadi
deposits and foot slopes while the main soil types are meta-
morphic, igneous rocks, sand or loamy sand soil (Typic and
lithic Torripsamment) with very low to medium runoff and
rapid permeability and loam and clay with low to moderate
permeability.
Rainfall data was obtained from the nearest gauge station
(Raas Banans) which is located to the eastern north of Wadi
Hodein as shown in Fig. 4 (a). The available discontinuous
rainfall data was from year 1968 to year 2013 as shown in
Fig. 4b. The minimum observed record was 3 mm while the
maximum was 70 mm.
As WH is considered one of arid basins which it is rarely to
find any flow gauges and records, therefore hydro-
morphometric analysis and remote sensing techniques were
integrated in trying to overcome this problem to achieve study
objectives. Watershed modelling using WMS and hydrological
Fig. 2 Digital Elevation Model for the study are. analysis were used in order to obtain eight morphometric the-

Fig. 3 (a) Land Use Map, (b) Soil Type for Wadi Hodein (El Ramady, et al., 2019).

Fig. 4 (a) Location of rainfall station, (b) Rainfall records of Raas Banas station (WRRI, 2011).
9798
matic layers (volume of annual flood (VAF), average overland
flow (OLF), maximum flow distance (MFD), infiltration num-
ber (IF), drainage density (Dd), basin area (BA), basin slope
(BS) and basin length (BL) which affect mainly on RWH loca-
tions. These eight layers were integrated inside the weighted
spatial probability model to determine the RWH potentiality.
LandSat 8 – Operational Land Imager (OLI) Fig. 5 was
obtained from (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) in addition,
Topographic Maps were obtained as shown in Fig. 6. Both
maps were used for verifications purpose. The flow chart
Fig. 7 displays the methodology followed to achieve the objec-
tives of the study.
1.3. Watershed modelling and runoff calculations
Delineation for the study area was conducted using WMS 9.1
to determine streams and sub catchments boundaries inside the
study area. Outlet points for delineation was selected accord-
ing to the location of the grazing path which obtained from
unpublished report of National water research center as shown
in Fig. 8 (a& b). The Grazing path is the path where Bedouins
traveled through when searching food and water. Accordingly,
WH was divided into 28 sub catchments. The eight morpho-
metric parameters which affect in RWH sites were extracted,
(VAF), (OLF), (MFD), (IF), (Dd), (BA), (BS) and (BL).
Fig. 5 Satellite Image for Wadi Hodein and its surroundings.
M.M. Aly et al.
Runoff volume in such arid basin was calculated SCS
Curve Number Method [23]. The SCS-CN method is widely
used by many authors and is a more useful method for deter-
mining rainfall–runoff relationships in watersheds, with or
without rain gauges. SCS-CN method integrate the water bal-
ance equation with two hypothetical equations, the equations
of proportional equality, and the linear relationship between
the potential maximum retention and initial abstraction [23].
Water balance equation:
P = Ia + F + Q (1)
the equations of proportional equality:
Q F
¼ ð2Þ
P  Ia S
Ia ¼ 0:2S
where P is the total rainfall (mm); Ia is the initial abstrac-
tion; Q is the volume of direct runoff (direct surface runoff
depth in mm); F is the cumulative infiltration excluding Ia;
S is the maximum potential water abstraction by soil in
(mm). The maximum potential retention depends mainly on
CN value which vary from 0 to 100 according to land use
and soil types of the study area as shown in Fig. 9
25400
S¼  254 ð4Þ
CN
Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt 9799

Fig. 6 Topographic Maps for Wadi Hodein and its surroundings.

Fig. 7 Flow Chart for The Methodology.

9800 M.M. Aly et al.

Fig. 8 (a) Grazing Path with the Delineated Sub Catchments on DEM Map & (b) Labels of Sub catchments.

Then, the total runoff depth in mm could be calculated by: subbasins using these criteria by the normal statistics method.
2 Therefore, a weighted factor should be given for these param-
ðP  0:2SÞ
Q¼ ð5Þ eters to analyze these parameters dimensionless. This process is
ðP þ 0:8SÞ called standardization. The difference between the actual crite-
ria value and that of the
2. Standardization for morphometric parameter of sub lowest value is divided by the difference between the highest
catchments and the lowest value Eq.6 this led to standardization for
parameters show a direct proportional relationship with
RWH while for parameters show an inverse proportional rela-
The eight criteria which affect in RWH site selection have a
tionship with RWH Eq.7 will be applied. [6].
different unit, so it so hard to compare between the different
I ¼ ððYmax  Ymin ÞðXact  Xmin Þ=ðXmax  Xmin ÞÞ þ Ymin ð6Þ

I ¼ ððYmax  Ymin ÞðXact  Xmax Þ=ðXmin  Xmax ÞÞ þ Ymin ð7Þ

Where I is relative importance of parameter,
Ymax, Ymin is the upper and lower limit for standardization
scale (Ymax = 1, Ymin = 0),
Xmax. is the higher value of any parameter,
Xmin. is the lower value of any parameter,
Xact. is value of specified parameter,
RWH potentiality was classified into 3 categories, as shown
in Table 1
Based on equations 6&7, Standardization for sub catch-
ments of WH according to the eight morphometric parameters
were done. Eight thematic layers for RWH potentiality were
created using Surfer 11.6. Each standardized parameter with
its ranges were used as input to construct the weighted spatial
probability model (WSPM) [9] which will result in determining
the optimum sites for RWH in WH.

Table 1 Classifications for RWH Potentiality.

Value of Parameter Category of RWH Potentiality
0.0–0.33 Low
0.34–0.66 Moderate
0.67 – 1 High
Fig. 9 Curve Number Values for Sub Basin.
Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt
3. Results and discussion
Standardization process was carried out on the eight morpho-
metric parameter and the results were displayed in Table 2.
The red highlighted cells represent sub-catchments with high
RWH potentiality, yellow highlighted cells represent sub-
catchments with moderate RWH potentiality while green high-
lighted cells indicate for low RWH potential sub catchments.
A short brief for standardization results was given as follow:
3.1. Basin area (BA)
BA is the total area in square kilometers inside catchment
boundary. [15].Basin area is considered the most significant
parameter of all the morphometric parameters which control
the accumulated runoff volume. The larger the area of the
basin, the higher accumulated runoff volume [20]. The the-
matic layer of BA was produced with three categories. Sub-
basins area from 653.4 to 934.7 km2 were classified as high
potential RWH subbasins which represent the northern part
of WH in addition, its outlet catchment. Subbasins area from
653.4 to 372.1 km2 were classified as moderate potential RWH
subbasins which represent the southern part of WH with sub
catchments located to east side (4B &6B) and others located
to eastern north (13B&26B) west sides of WH. The low poten-
tial RWH sub catchments were classified with area less than
372.1 km2 which represent the subbasin located at center of
WH.
4. Basin slope (BS)
BS is the average slope of the triangle comprising the basin
[15]. BS must be calculated carefully as the peak discharge
and hydrograph shape are very sensitive for this parameter
[17]. The higher subbasin slope, the less RWH potentiality as
the high slope causes high runoff velocity and low storage
capacity in the channel. The thematic layer was categorized
as sub basins with slope less than 0.0631 m/m has high
RWH potentiality which represent most southern part of
WH in addition sub basin 3B&1B, sub basins from 0.0631 to
0.106 m/m has moderate RWH potentiality which represent
the subbasins located at the eastern north of WH with few
basins located at center and south of WH while from 0.106
to 0.148 m/m were considered low RWH potentiality which
represent western north part of WH.
4.1. Overland flow distance (OFD)
Overland flow distance is the water that flow over the slopes of
basin then it concentrated into stream [11]. It is affected by soil
type and topography that govern the erosion rates caused by
overland flow [19]. The higher OFD for the sub basin, the
higher chance for RWH. The high potentiality of RWH repre-
sented in sub basins with OFD from 1.73 to 1.9 km which rep-
resented in sub basins located to southern part of WH. Sub
basins with OFD from 1.56 to1.73 km is considered moderate
RWH potentiality. These sub basins represent part of eastern
and western sub basins. ODF lower than 1.56 km for sub
basins were considered low RWH potentiality. These sub
basins were located to western north and at center of WH.
9801
4.2. Maximum flow distance (MFD)
MFD for the subbasins is the maximum flow path for water
inside the drainage basins in km. MFD includes both overland
and channel flow [15]. The higher MFD the higher potentiality
for RWH. MFD theme was classified into 3 classes; sub basin
with MFD from 64.25 to 78.4 km are classified have high
potentiality for RWH which located in the northern part of
WH in addition, sub basins 1B&28B, from 41 to 64.25 km
are classified as moderate RWH potential sub basins. these
sub basins represent almost of WH and less than 41 are classi-
fied as low RWH potential sub basins. These sub basins are
located in western part and few of them located in south and
east.
4.3. Basin length (BL)
BL is defined as the distance which divide the subbasin into
two similar parts [15]. Potentiality of RWH is directly propor-
tion to basin length. The longer basin length is considered in
range from 45.8 to 62 km. these sub basins are represented
in sub basin 3B and 1B while the shorter basin length repre-
sented in some southern and central sub basins as BL is less
than 29.3 km. The moderate RWH sub basins are represented
in most sub basins of WH where BL ranges from 29.28 km to
45.8 km.
4.4. Drainage density (DD)
DD represents the fluvial dissection degree of subbasin. It is
affected by many parameters, infiltration capacity, climate
condition and resistance to erosion [24]. The DD is obtained
by dividing total stream length to basin area. DD is classified
into three categories; less than 0.35, from0.35 to 0.38 and from
0.38 to 0.42 which represent RWH potentiality of Low, mod-
erate and high, respectively. The southern and northern edge
of WH considered have low RWH while the sub basin near
from outlet have high RWH potentiality and central sub
basins considered moderate RWH potentiality.
4.5. Infiltration number (IF)
IF is the product of DD and stream frequency [12]. The higher
infiltration number the lower infiltration for runoff water then
higher RWH chance. IF thematic map was classified into three
category low, moderate and high RWH potentiality based on
the following ranges: less than 0.025, from 0.025 to 0.03 and
from 0.03 to 0.035, respectively. The high potential RWH sub-
basins are represented at central part subbasins in addition
1B,13B and 18B while low RWH potentiality subbasins repre-
sent the rest area of WH except few subbasins located to west-
ern part and 25B,27B,2B and 16B.
4.6 vol. of annual flood (VAF)
VAF is the most significant factor for success of RWH plan
[10]. VAF is the quantity of available runoff water. VAF
was calculated using SCS method and the subbasins classified
into three categories; low RWH potentiality subbasin with
VAF less than 48665x1000 m3. This category is represented
 9802
Table 2 Results of Standardization for Subcatchments of RWH.
Basin BA BA BS(m/ BS OLF OLF MFD MFD BL BL DD DD IF IF VAF VAF
Name (km2) (Stand.) m) (Stand.) (km) (Stand.) (km) (Stand.) (km) (Stand.) (Km)-1 (Stand.) (Stand.) (x1000m3) (Stand.)
3B 895.15 0.95 0.045 0.81 1.65 0.51 70.02 0.75 47.901 0.71 0.316 0 0.023 0.20 6946.2 0.04
1B 666.9 0.68 0.0579 0.71 1.64 0.49 87.38 1.00 62.302 1.00 0.404 0.84 0.030 0.67 142974.7 1.00
4B 462.24 0.44 0.0568 0.72 1.65 0.51 45.99 0.40 32.764 0.40 0.356 0.38 0.029 0.59 2879.5 0.01
5B 231.79 0.17 0.0631 0.67 1.62 0.45 37.43 0.28 26.543 0.28 0.345 0.28 0.025 0.37 2700.3 0.01
6B 460.59 0.44 0.0202 1.00 1.64 0.49 53.55 0.51 38.813 0.53 0.329 0.12 0.024 0.24 3859.5 0.02
7B 347.61 0.30 0.0531 0.74 1.6 0.41 38.35 0.29 29.294 0.33 0.322 0.05 0.020 0.02 3750.3 0.02
8B 536.42 0.53 0.0572 0.71 1.77 0.75 56.54 0.56 42.772 0.61 0.334 0.17 0.021 0.04 2307.8 0.01
9B 329.22 0.28 0.058 0.71 1.87 0.94 35.93 0.26 26.532 0.28 0.379 0.60 0.029 0.60 2616.6 0.01
10B 414.13 0.38 0.0647 0.65 1.66 0.53 42.62 0.36 25.736 0.26 0.335 0.18 0.023 0.18 10926.7 0.07
11B 598.62 0.60 0.0359 0.88 1.78 0.76 43.6 0.37 28.762 0.32 0.341 0.23 0.030 0.66 7294.4 0.04
12B 768.64 0.80 0.0777 0.55 1.56 0.33 68.31 0.73 41.268 0.58 0.342 0.25 0.023 0.22 23154.1 0.15
13B 381.97 0.35 0.0703 0.61 1.5 0.22 59.05 0.59 42.687 0.60 0.388 0.68 0.035 1.00 7498.8 0.04
14B 934.72 1.00 0.1214 0.21 1.45 0.12 48.57 0.44 30.558 0.36 0.351 0.33 0.022 0.15 18350.4 0.12
15B 268.63 0.21 0.1489 0.00 1.41 0.04 39.81 0.31 24.923 0.25 0.350 0.32 0.023 0.24 24011.7 0.16
16B 372.04 0.33 0.0881 0.47 1.57 0.35 54.73 0.53 41.069 0.57 0.387 0.68 0.029 0.63 2696 0.01
17B 128.99 0.05 0.1209 0.22 1.61 0.43 31.42 0.19 22.6 0.20 0.345 0.27 0.024 0.28 1509 0.00
18B 190.44 0.12 0.0855 0.49 1.51 0.24 37.7 0.28 29.341 0.33 0.355 0.37 0.032 0.81 3056 0.01
19B 200.6 0.13 0.0731 0.59 1.52 0.25 31.36 0.19 20.793 0.16 0.335 0.18 0.030 0.69 4227.6 0.02
20B 144.01 0.06 0.034 0.89 1.62 0.45 23.23 0.08 16.853 0.08 0.319 0.03 0.027 0.46 17707.5 0.11
21B 90.79 0.00 0.0323 0.91 1.53 0.27 17.98 0.00 12.769 0.00 0.363 0.45 0.020 0.00 26162.1 0.17
22B 193.76 0.12 0.0832 0.51 1.43 0.08 23.48 0.08 15.871 0.06 0.366 0.48 0.032 0.84 34444.1 0.23
23B 487.49 0.47 0.0706 0.61 1.9 1.00 50.07 0.46 39.659 0.54 0.381 0.62 0.033 0.88 4524.3 0.02
24B 497 0.48 0.0233 0.98 1.74 0.69 47.89 0.43 38.097 0.51 0.368 0.50 0.031 0.77 6652.3 0.04
25B 306.08 0.26 0.14 0.07 1.39 0.00 51.17 0.48 25.258 0.25 0.366 0.48 0.026 0.43 45230.8 0.31
26B 633.79 0.64 0.0748 0.58 1.56 0.33 54.01 0.52 36.705 0.48 0.353 0.35 0.020 0.00 113176.2 0.79
27B 327.8 0.28 0.0654 0.65 1.54 0.29 40.94 0.33 30.872 0.37 0.346 0.29 0.029 0.59 16242.8 0.10
28B 479.46 0.46 0.0472 0.79 1.7 0.61 64.8 0.67 42.033 0.59 0.405 0.85 0.034 0.95 4616.7 0.02
2B 246.3 0.18 0.0773 0.56 1.55 0.31 54.26 0.52 41.939 0.59 0.421 1.00 0.027 0.50 5190.7 0.03

M.M. Aly et al.

Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt 9803

Two weighted spatial probability model were constructed

Table 3. RWH potentiality based on the first scenario.
using criteria of: (1) Equal weights for each parameter, (2)
Basin RWH potentiality Basin RWH potentiality Weights justified based on sensitivity analysis. Each model
Name degree Name degree integrated the eight morphometric parameters to construct
3B 49.66 16B 44.69 output map for each scenario displaying distribution of
1B 79.80 17B 20.51 RWH potentiality in WH.
4B 43.18 18B 33.15
5B 31.17 19B 27.75 4.8. WSPM for RWH in Wadi Hodein: Scenario (1) (Equal
6B 41.84 20B 27.06
Weights)
7B 27.23 21B 22.58
8B 41.93 22B 30.04
9B 45.99 23B 57.58 In the first model, each parameter was given an equal weight of
10B 32.69 24B 54.82 12.5% as the total summation of parameter weights equaled to
11B 48.42 25B 28.41 100%. Effectiveness degree for each parameter was calculated
12B 45.13 26B 46.23 by multiplying the weight by standardized factor. Summation
13B 51.15 27B 36.24 for effectiveness degree of each parameter was obtained corre-
14B 34.15 28B 61.76 sponding to each sub catchment. RWH potentiality were
15B 19.10 2B 46.21
determined based on the following classes: from (0–33%)
low, (33.1%  66%) moderate and (66.1% to 100%) high as
shown in Table 3. Output map for RWH potentiality was
shown in Fig. 10., where it can be concluded that most of
WH under the first scenario is classified as moderate RWH
potentiality except sub-basin 1B was classified as high poten-
tiality for RWH which located at the outlet of WH while some
sub basins were categorized as low RWH potentiality with
area about 16.50% of WH total area.

5. WSPM for RWH in Wadi Hodein: Scenario (2) (Justified

Weights)

A sensitivity analysis (Griensven, et al., 2006) was performed

Fig. 10 RWH potentiality based on equal weight for WH.
in all of WH sub basins except two sub basins at the outlet of
WH, moderate RWH potentiality with VAF from (48665 to
95820) x1000 m3 and high RWH potentiality for subbasins
have VAF from (95820 to 142975) x1000 m3. These subbasins
represented in two sub basins located at the outlet of WH
12B&14B.
on the eight morphometric parameters of WH to justify the
weight of each parameter contribute in determining RWH
potentiality classes. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the
importance of each parameter and the effect of its perturbation
on WSPM results and the best choice for RWH sites. In the
second scenario, one of parameters was given a weight of
30% while the other 7 parameters were given a constant weight
of 10%.
ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance), is considered one of the
most suitable methods for justifications of parameters weights
inside WSPM [1]. The goal of ANOVA is estimate quantitively
the weights which have the most influence on model output,
Correspondingly, RWH potential map were computed based
on these estimated weights. In this method, the importance
of a given input factor (Xi) can be measured by the sensitivity
index, which is defined as the fractional contribution to the
model output variance due to the uncertainty in (Xi). For (k)
independent input factors, the sensitivity indices can be esti-
mated using the following formula for the total output vari-
ance (V(y)) of the output (y) [22,9] Equations (7–9)
X XX
VðyÞ ¼ Vi þ Vij þ V12;k ð7Þ
i
i j>i

4.7. Weighted spatial probability model (WSPM) for RWH in
Wadi Hodein
The eight morphometric parameters were used as input in
WSPM and they were ranked based on their contribution per-
centage, then they were categorized from low RWH potential-
ity to high RWH potentiality, then potentiality maps were
visualized.
Vi ¼ Vxi fExi ðY=Xi Þg
Vij ¼ Vxixj fExij ðY=Xi ; Xj Þg  Vxi fExi ðY=Xi Þg
 Vxij fExj ðY=Xj Þg ð9Þ
A partial variance (Vi) represents the repeated variation of
a single parameter (i) which affect the other model parameters.
Accordingly, RWH potentiality corresponding to each sub
9804 M.M. Aly et al.

Table 4 RWH potentiality based on the second scenario.

Basin RWH RWH RWH RWH RWH RWH RWH RWH
Name potentiality potentiality potentiality potentiality potentiality potentiality potentiality potentiality
degree degree degree degree degree degree degree degree
(BA = 30%) (BS = 30%) (OLF = 30%) (MFD = 30%) (BL = 30%) (DD = 30%) (IF = 30%) (VAF = 30%)
3B 58.788 55.87 49.92 54.72 53.91 39.73 43.82 40.49
1B 77.493 77.98 73.64 83.84 83.84 80.60 77.16 83.84
4B 43.348 48.86 44.74 42.62 42.62 42.23 46.30 34.74
5B 28.274 38.27 33.95 30.54 30.49 30.46 32.25 25.10
6B 42.232 53.47 43.27 43.72 43.98 35.85 38.35 33.80
7B 27.869 36.67 30.02 27.65 28.45 22.81 22.25 22.10
8B 44.104 47.79 48.45 44.66 45.66 36.87 34.25 33.66
9B 42.441 50.92 55.61 41.96 42.35 48.79 48.88 36.95
10B 33.812 39.23 36.74 33.25 31.38 29.78 29.81 27.48
11B 50.771 56.30 54.03 46.12 45.19 43.42 51.97 39.55
12B 52.170 47.17 42.77 50.61 47.61 41.12 40.43 39.17
13B 47.823 53.14 45.24 52.76 53.00 54.58 60.92 41.77
14B 47.321 31.59 29.67 36.14 34.50 33.99 30.28 29.70
15B 19.492 15.28 16.06 21.57 20.19 21.72 20.01 18.46
16B 42.416 45.20 42.81 46.34 47.18 49.31 48.33 35.92
17B 17.314 20.76 25.04 20.28 20.38 21.90 22.01 16.41
18B 28.879 36.37 31.22 32.20 33.21 33.93 42.63 26.74
19B 24.804 33.98 27.30 26.06 25.44 25.78 36.07 22.59
20B 22.907 39.50 30.67 23.16 23.29 22.24 30.76 23.94
21B 18.068 36.19 23.56 18.07 18.07 27.11 18.07 21.55
22B 26.476 34.25 25.60 25.62 25.29 33.64 40.79 28.69
23B 55.465 58.23 66.06 55.31 56.92 58.43 63.73 46.49
24B 53.485 63.38 57.58 52.48 54.09 53.81 59.18 44.59
25B 27.831 24.11 22.73 32.29 27.77 32.24 31.41 28.91
26B 49.852 48.50 43.65 47.37 46.65 44.02 37.03 52.77
27B 34.606 41.97 34.87 35.61 36.30 34.74 40.74 31.07
28B 58.622 65.22 61.57 62.90 61.23 66.34 68.38 49.85
2B 40.650 48.09 43.24 47.42 48.74 56.96 47.05 37.49

Table 5 Percentage of Moderate & High RWH potential Area.

Parameter BA BS OLF MFD BL DD IF VAF
Area of High & Moderate RWH potential Area 9492.48 9956.76 8789.55 9078.35 9078.35 9462.55 8728.43 7815.83
Percentages % 81.87 85.87 75.80 78.29 78.29 81.61 75.28 67.41

basin was obtained as shown Table 4. The effect of changed
weight of parameters on each model output was calculated
by comparing the summation area of subbasins categorized
high to moderated RWH potentiality with the similar area of
the first scenario. Percentage of high and moderate RWH
potential areas with respect to each parameter change was cal-
culated for each WSPM Table 5.
*Red highlighted cells refer to High RWH potentiality Yel-
low highlighted cells refer to moderate RWH potentiality while
Green highlighted cells refer to low RWH potentiality.
Percentage of variance in total area of high and moderate
RWH potentiality obtained from scenario 2 with respect to
scenario 1 is displayed in Fig. 11. From Fig. 11, it can be con-
cluded that basin slope and volume of annual flood have
higher effect on classifications of RWH potentiality sites fol-
lowed by infiltration number and maximum flow distance
while the other parameters have minimum effect as its percent-
age less than 5%.
The justified weights of each parameter were estimated by
dividing variance ratio of each parameter by the summation
of variance ratio of all parameters [9]. As a result, the justified
weight was computed as shown in Table 6
The RWH potential output map with the justified weights
of the parameters was obtained in Fig. 12 by multiplying stan-
dardization factor by the justified weight Table 6 as shown in
Table 7
From Fig. 12, it can be concluded that WH could be clas-
sified as moderate RWH potentiality except sub basins 1B at
the outlet which was classified as high RWH potentiality while
other five sub basins 7B,14B,17B,15B and 25B were classified
as low RWH potentiality. This conclusion is approximately
matched with research results [9] who worked on classifying
Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt 9805

Fig. 11 Variance percentage of High & Moderate RWH potentiality Area of Scenario 2 with respect to Scenario 1.

Table 6 Justified weights for the morphometric parameters.

Parameter BA BS OLF MFD BL DD IF VAF
Justified Weight % 6.75 29.57 10.54 9.90 3.11 6.27 13.32 20.59

RWH potentiality of Halaib – Shaltin sub basins. Elewa et al.
[9] studied RWH potentiality of Halaieb and Shalatin sub-
basins which included WH sub basin. They classified WH as
a very high to high RWH potentiality. The difference of clas-
sifications between this paper and [9] may refer to many
factors:
 Elewa et al. [9] dealt with WH as one catchment which
could increase the volume of runoff (VAF).
 They calculated VAF using Finkel method [13] which only
correlated VAF with area of catchment.
 Finkel method did not consider precipitation losses which
has a high effect on the VAF.
5.1. Determining the optimum locations for RWH in WH
As recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO) and most of researches after
2000 that socio – economic parameters must be integrated as
a main factor for RWH locations selection [3]. Socio-
economic parameters include distance to settlement, distance

Table 7 RWH potentiality based on the second scenario.

Basin RWH Potentiality Basin RWH Potentiality
Name Degree Name Degree
3B 48.83 16B 39.76
1B 78.41 17B 19.27
4B 45.19 18B 34.98
5B 36.01 19B 34.15
6B 48.75 20B 41.20
7B 33.31 21B 36.11
8B 41.50 22B 36.69
9B 48.11 23B 54.05
10B 36.79 24B 59.27
11B 53.87 25B 24.41
12B 41.87 26B 50.01
13B 48.87 27B 40.36
14B 26.31 28B 59.79
15B 14.16 2B 41.53
Fig. 12 RWH potentiality based on the justified weight for WH.
9806
Fig. 13 a) Catchments drain towards the grazing path, b) Streams Order from WMS.
to road and distance to streams. Accordingly, RWH sites in
WH will be selected based on many the following criteria:
 RWH structures must be near from the Grazing path of the
Bedouins to provide drinking water.
 RWH structures will be selected to be on the active streams
with high order to guarantee harvesting a suitable volume
of runoff water.
The grazing path is defined as the path which suitable for
grazing by livestock. The grazing path in WH was obtained
from (Unpublished Report) by National Water Research Cen-
ter which represents the green line in Fig. 13. The catchments
with moderate RWH potentiality were filtered according to its
outlet points toward the gazing path. Therefore, seventeen sub
catchments were selected as shown in Fig. 13a. streams order
was estimated from WMS as shown in Fig. 13b.
The active streams could be defined as the streams have the
highet possibility for runoff flow. LandSat 8 (OLI) of false
color band combination (7,6,4) was used to identify the active
ephemral streams by its brightness signatures compared to the
sourroundings [2] as shown in Table 8
Accordingly, RWH strategy comprises of one Dam and
four cisterns as shown in Fig. 14. Dam site was selected on
Wadi Faiqo as this wadi has narrow section with rocky
ambankments which reduce from the construction cost of
dam and increase its stability. Cisterns were proposed for wide
wadies where dams are not suitable.
M.M. Aly et al.
6. Conclusion
Wadi Hodein (WH) is considered one of the most largest and
important wadies in the southern part of the eastern desert
which drains into Red Sea. Water scarcity represents a main
obstacle that prevents the stability of residents and beduoins.
Integration between weighted spatial probability model, water-
shed modelling and remote sensing were introduced as an
effective tool to select the optimum locations of RWH in the
study area, that suffering from unavailability of hydrological
measurement data. The main results obtained from the
research can be summerized as follow:
 Integration among watershed modelling, remote sensing
and WSPM represents an efficient tool for selecting the
optimum locations for RWH in arid regions.
 WH could be classified as a moderate RWH potentiality
subbasin except the sub basin at the outlet which was clas-
sified as high RWH potentiality.
 Basin slope (BS) and volume of annual flood (VAF) are the
vital factors affecting the selection of RWH locations in
WH.
 Outlet sub-basin of WH is considered the most suitable
location for RWH due to its flat slope and higher amount
of the accumulated runoff water.
 Five optimum sites for RWH were selected. One of these
sites located on wadi Faiqo, another one located on wadi
Naam while the others located on wadi Hodein.
Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt 9807

Table 8 Detecting the active streams from Landsat OLI, False color band combination (7,6,4).

Catchment-3B Catchment 3B-S01

Catchment 3B-S02

(continued on next page)

9808 M.M. Aly et al.

Table 8 (continued)
Catchment-1B Catchment-1B-S0

Catchment-26B Catchment-26B-S01

Catchment-18B Catchment-27B
Wadi Hodein Basin, Red Sea, Egypt
Fig. 14 RWH structures sites on True color band combination 4,3,2 of Landsat image.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] A. Saltelli, K. Chan, E.M. Scott, Sensitivity Analysis, Wiley,
New york, 2009.
[2] M. Abdelkareem, F. El-Baz, Analyses of optical images and
radar data reveal structural features and predict groundwater
accumulations in the central Eastern Desert of Egypt, Arabian
Journal of Geoscience. 8 (5) (2015) 2653–2666.
[3] A. Ammar, M. Riksen, M. Ouessar, C. Ritsema, Identification
of suitable sites for rainwater harvesting structures in arid and
semi-arid regions: A review, International Soil and Water
Conservation Research 4 (2) (2016) 108–120.
[4] A.A.A. Al Dabaa, M.E.A. Khalifa, Evaluation of Wadi Hudein
Delta Soil, Al Shalatein, South eastern Egypt, Alexandria
Journal of Agricultureal Sceince (2016) 383–398.
[5] S.A.A. Gamal, S.A.E. Sayed, E.R. Atta, A.A. Nada, An
assessment of water resources at Halayib and Shelatine sub
regions, southeastern desert, Egypt using conventional and
isotopic approaches, International Journal of Hydrology
9809
Science and Technology 9 (2) (2019) 201, https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJHST.2019.098166.
[6] M.M. Aly, A.M. AbdelHamid, M.I. Gad, Hazard Degrees
Assessment of Flash Floods, Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis,
Gulf of Aqaba Basins, Sinai, Egypt, Engineering Research
Journal 40 (2017) 219–236.
[7] Anon., 2018. SRTM 90m DEM Digital Elevation Database.
[Online] Available at: https://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/.
[8] H. El Ramady et al, The Soil of Egypt, Springer Nature
Switzerland, s.l., 2019.
[9] H.H. Elewa, A.A. Qaddah, Groundwater potentiality mapping
in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, using remote sensing and GIS-
watershed-based modeling, Hydrogeology Journal 19 (2011)
613–628.
[10] H. Elewa, M. Zelenakova, A. Nosair, Integration of the
Analytical Hierarchy Process and GIS Spatial Distribution
Model to Determine the Possibility of Runoff Water Harvesting
in Dry Regions: Wadi Watir in Sinai as a Case Study, Water. 13
(6) (2021) 804, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060804.
[11] A. Faniran, The index of drainage intensity—A provisional,
Australian Journal of Science 31 (1968) 328–330.
[12] Finkel, H. H., 1979. Water resources in arid zone settlement. In
A Case Study in Arid Zone Settlement, the Israeli Experience.
Pergamon Press, p. 567.
[13] A. van Griensven, T. Meixner, S. Grunwald, T. Bishop, M.
Diluzio, R. Srinivasan, A global sensitivity analysis tool for the
9810
parameters of multi - variable catchment models, Journal of
Hydrology 324 (1-4) (2006) 10–23.
[14] R.E. Horton, Erosional development of stream and theri
drainage basins;hydrophysical approach to quantitative
morphology, Geological Society of America Bulletin 56 (1945)
275–370.
[15] G.R.F. Ibrahim, A. Rasul, A. Ali Hamid, Z.F. Ali, A.A.
Dewana, Suitable Site Selection for Rainwater Harvesting and
Storage Case Study Using Dohuk Governorate, Water 11 (4)
(2019) 864, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040864.
[16] Jones, A. A., 1999. Global hydrology: Processes. s.l.:Resources
and Environmental Management.
[17] B.P. Mbilinyi, S.D. Tumbo, H.F. Mahoo, F.O. Mkiramwinyi,
GIS-based decision support system for identifying potential sites
for rainwater harvesting, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
Parts A/B/C 32 (15-18) (2007) 1074–1081.
[18] D.R. Montgomery, W.E. Dietrich, Source areas, drainage
density, and channel initiation, Water Resoures Research 25
(8) (1989) 1907–1918.
[19] Morisawa, M. E., 1959. Relation of morphometric properties to
runoff in the Little Mill Creek, Ohio Drainage Basin, s.l.: office of
Naval Research.
[20] T.U. Naseef, R. Thomas, W.R. Burch Jr, Rainwater harvesting
agriculture: an integrated system for water management on
M.M. Aly et al.
rainfed land in China’s semiarid areas. A Journal of the Human,
Environment. (2000).
[21] M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, Uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of
composite indicators, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society
168 (2) (2005) 307–323.
[22] TR-55, n.d. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Department of Agriculture. Technical Release 55: Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds. June 1986. In: United States
Department of Agriculture. United States of America: s.n., p.
164.
[23] H. Verstappen, The applied geomorphology, International
Institute for Aerial Survey and Earth, Enschede, Netherlands,
Amsterdam, 1983.
[24] W. Kinzelbach, P. B. A. v. B. L. K. C. M., 2010. Sustainable
water management in arid and semi-arid regions. In:
Groundwater Modelling in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119-130.
[25] Whiteford, W., 2002. Ecology of Desert System, San Diego,CA:
s.n.
[26] A.F. Yousef, A.A. Salem, A.M. Baraka, O.S. Aglan, The
Impact of Geological Setting on the Groundwater Occurences in
Some Wadis in Shalatein - Abu Ramada Area, South Eastern
Desert, Egypt, European Water (2009) 53–68.