Available at www.sciencedirect.

com

INFORMATION PROCESSING IN AGRICULTURE 6 (2019) 91–108

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

GIS approach for assessment of land suitability for

different land use alternatives in semi arid
environment in Jordan: Case study
(Al Gadeer Alabyad-Mafraq)

Safa Mazahreh *, Majed Bsoul, Doaa Abu Hamoor

GIS Unit, National Centre for Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE), Baqa’, Jordan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The semi arid lands of Jordan are fragile and severely degraded due to low rainfall and mis-
Received 5 March 2018 management of natural resources. As human demands increase, sustaining the productiv-
Received in revised form ity of land becomes more and more important. Land suitability evaluation can contribute
8 July 2018 towards better land management; mitigation of land degradation; and designing land use
Accepted 13 August 2018 pattern that prevents environmental problems through segregation of competing land
Available online 16 August 2018 uses. Suitability analysis allows identifying the main limiting factors for the agricultural
production and enables decision makers to develop crop managements able to increase
Keywords: the land productivity.
Land utilization types The purpose of this study was to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) based
Soil survey approach for land use suitability assessment in order to assist land managers to identify
Land suitability criteria areas with physical limitations for different land use alternatives based on research criteria
Suitability mapping developed by FAO and modified by stakeholders.
GIS This study was conducted using various data and maps incorporated within (GIS) in order
Scenarios to derive potential suitability for different Land Utilization Types (LUTs). Land suitability
mapping was developed using an innovative approach that integrates soil and climatic data
for land suitability assessment.
Suitability maps for each land use were developed to show the suitability classes and dis-
play the spatial representation of soils suitable for agriculture. The output of suitability
analyses provided not only the type of land use for which the land was suitable, but also
information about the type of limitation (s) facing the utilization of the land. Optimum land
use alternatives (scenarios) were formulated to improve and optimize the agricultural pro-
duction in the study area.
Ó 2018 China Agricultural University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Safa@ncare.gov.jo (S. Mazahreh), Bsoul@ncare.gov.jo (M. Bsoul), doaa@ncare.gov.jo (D.A. Hamoor).
Peer review under responsibility of China Agricultural University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2018.08.004
2214-3173 Ó 2018 China Agricultural University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
92 Information Processing in Agriculture
1. Introduction
Continuous utilization of agriculture land in past decades,
regardless of land suitability has caused much more destruc-
tion than provide the resources [8–10]. Hence, proper evalua-
tion based on agriculture land use planning is essential to
solve this problem [27].
The utilization of arid areas needs updated management
policies in order to avoid further deterioration of land. Thus,
utilization of these areas requires adopting proper strategies.
Such strategies should be based on identifying the best ways
for land exploitation on the basis of water availability, soil
management practices and plant adaptability to dry condi-
tions [20].
Land evaluation is a process of predicting land perfor-
mance over time according to the specific types of use [18–
19,28,34]. Agriculture land suitability assessment is defined
as the process of assessment of land performance when used
for alternative kinds of agriculture [13,23,26]. Land evaluation,
the process of estimating the potential of land for alternative
kinds of use, contributes to the understanding of the
relationship between the conditions of a land and the uses
to which it is put [1,7]. The principle purpose of agriculture
Fig. 1 – Location of Alghadeer alabyad watershed in Al Mafraq, Jordan.
6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8
land suitability evaluation is to predict the potential and
limitations of the land for crop production [25].
This process typically requires large sets of data as inputs
[6–7]. Information on land resources and possibilities for their
sustained use is essential for the selection, planning and
implementation of land uses to meet the increasing demands
for basic human needs and welfare [20].
Land suitability evaluation can contribute towards better
land management; mitigation of land degradation; and
designing land use pattern that prevents environmental prob-
lems through segregation of competing land uses [11]. The
output of suitability analyses provided not only the type of
land use for which the land was suitable, but also information
about the type of limitation (s) facing the utilization of land
[31–32].
Geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing
data are commonly used in the process; as they offer the
speed, flexibility, and power to synthesize large quantities of
data [2,4,12,14]. One of the most useful applications of GIS
for planning and management is the landuse suitability map-
ping and analysis [3,15,21].
The most commonly used evaluation approach is the FAO
framework [9], which identifies land suitability for crops in
Table 1 – Land use requirements for four land utilization types using modified criteria according to stakeholders consultation.

Rainfed annual (field crops) Rainfed perennials Rangeland Drip irrigation vegetables
Land characteristic S1 (2) S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS

Rainfall >250 200–250 150–200 <150 >400 300–400 250–300 <250 >150 100–150 75–100 <75
Caco3 (3) 0–30 30–40 40–60 >60 0–30 30–40 40–60 >60 <40 > 40 0–30 30–40 40–60 >60
AWHC (4) >150 110–150 75–110 >75 >150 110–150 75–110 >75 >90 60–90 30–60 <30 >75 50–75 30–50 <30
Soil depth >90 60–90 30–60 <30 >150 100–150 50–100 <50 >50 35–50 10–35 <10 >60 40–60 25–40 <25
Erosion (5) See Table 3

Information Processing in Agriculture

slope <5 5–8 8–15 >15 <6 6–10 10–20 >20 <15 15–30 30–50 >50 <8 8–15 15–25 >25
Rockiness <5 5–10 10–20 >20 <10 10–20 20–35 >35 <20 20–50 50–100 <10 10–20 20–30 >30
stone at the surface <20 20–40 40–60 >60 <20 20–40 40–60 >60 <30 30–60 60–100 <10 10–20 20–30 >30
Ec (6) 0–2 2–4 4–8 >8 0–2 2–4 4–8 >8 0–2 2–8 8–30 >30 <1 1–4 4–8 >8
IR (7) >16 8–16 4–8 <4

Table 2 – Land use requirements for four land utilization types using modified criteria according to stakeholders consultation.

6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8
Drip irrigated trees Runoff WH (1) for Trees WH for Range

Land characteristic S1 S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS
Rainfall >200 150–200 100–150 <100 >200 150–200 100–150 <100
Caco3 (3) 0–30 30–40 40–60 >60 0–30 30–40 40–60 >60 0–30 30–40 40–60 >60
AWHC (4) >75 60–75 40–60 <40 >220 150–220 100–150 <100 >75 60–75 50–60 <50
Soil depth >100 75–100 60–75 <60 >65 65–120 >100 75–100 50–75 <50 >80 60–80 40–60 <40
Erosion (5) See Table 3
slope <10 10–15 15–20 >20 >5 3–5 1–3 <1 1–5 5–10 10–12 >12 <7 7–12 12–20 >20
Rockiness <2 2–5 5–10 >10 <10 10–20 20–35 >35 <10 10–20 20–35 >35
stone at the surface <8 8–12 12–20 >20 <20 20–40 40–60 >60 <20 20–40 40–60 >60
Ec (6) <4 4–8 8–12 >16 <4 4–8 8–12 >12 <4 4–8 8–16 >16
IR (7) >12 8–12 4–8 <4 <6 6–10 10–12 >12 <6 6–8 8–10 >10 <6 6–8 >8
(1) Water harvesting. (2) Suitability class: S1, highly suitable; S2, moderately suitable; S3, marginally suitable; NS, not suitable. (3) Total calcium carbonate %. (4) Available water-holding capacity (mm/
100 cm). (5) Erosion see Table 3. (6) Electrical conductivity (ds/m). (7) Infiltration rate (mm/h).

93
 94
Table 3 – Erosion suitability criteria (erosion type and severity class) for different land utilization types.
Land Quality/Land Unit S1 S2 S3 NS
Characteristics
(grouping) Erosion (E)

Rainfed annual Erosion Hazard Class (nil-no erosion) Rill-(slight) Gully-moderate 4(Severe)
2 = Rill or 3 = Gully
1 = sheet Class sheet-slight Sheet-moderate, gully-slight, Undiffer-moderate, All-severe

Information Processing in Agriculture

4 = wind undiffer-slight) Rill-moderate
5 = undifferentiated
Rainfed perennials 2 = Rill or 3 = Gully Class (nil-no erosion) Rill-(slight) Gully-moderate 4(Severe)
1 = sheet Class sheet-slight Sheet-moderate, gully-slight, Undiffer-moderate, All-severe
4 = wind undiffer-slight) Rill-moderate
5 = undifferentiated
Rangeland 2 = Rill or 3 = Gully Class (nil)-no erosion, rill-slight, sheet-mod, Gully-mod, undiffer-mod All-(severe)
gully-slight
1 = sheet Class Undiffer-slight, sheet-slight Rill-moderate
4 = wind
5 = undifferentiated
Drip irrigated vegetable 2 = Rill or 3 = Gully Class (nil-no erosion) Rill-(slight) Gully-moderate 4(Severe)
1 = sheet Class sheet-slight Sheet-moderate, gully-slight, Undiffer-moderate, All-severe
4 = wind undiffer-slight) Rill-moderate
5 = undifferentiated

6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8
Drip irrigated trees 2 = Rill or 3 = Gully Class (nil-no erosion) Rill-(slight) Gully-moderate 4(severe)
1 = sheet Class sheet-slight Sheet-moderate, gully-slight, Undiffer-moderate, All-severe
4 = wind undiffer-slight) Rill-moderate
5 = undifferentiated
WH (1) for trees 2 = Rill or 3 = Gully Class (nil-no erosion) Rill-(slight) Gully-moderate 4(severe)
1 = sheet Class sheet-slight Sheet-moderate, gully-slight, Undiffer-moderate, All-severe
4 = wind undiffer-slight) Rill-moderate
5 = undifferentiated
WH (1) for Range 2 = Rill or 3 = Gully Class (nil)-no erosion, rill-slight, sheet-mod, Gully-mod, undiffer-mod All-(severe)
gully-slight
1 = sheet Class undifferentiated-slight, sheet-slight Rill-moderate
4 = wind
5 = undifferentiated
 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 95

Fig. 2 – Location of surveyed sites in AL Gadeer Alabyad watershed.

Fig. 3 – Interpolated rasters for suitability criteria.

96 Information Processing in Agriculture
Fig. 4 – Theissen polygons map produced for non-numeric data (erosion status, erosion hazard).
terms of suitability ratings from highly suitable to not suit-
able, based on climatic, terrain data and soil properties [24].
One of the most important steps in this land suitability eval-
uation is the selection of the limiting values (criteria), usually
determined by scientists according to previous studies and
experience [11].
A qualitative approach to land Evaluation was adopted in
this study following principles and guidelines of [9]. The
FAO framework for land evaluation has been applied in previ-
ous projects in Jordan: particularly the National Soil Map and
Land Use Project (NSMP) and the Jordan Arid Zone Productiv-
ity project (JAZPP). The land suitability evaluation was under-
taken for many land utilization types using the FAO criteria of
both projects.
The objectives of this research are to develop a GIS based
approach for land use suitability assessment of Al Gadder
Alabyad watershed for different land uses, to identify the lim-
itations that restrict the suitability classes for each land use
and recommend an optimum land use alternatives (scenar-
ios) to improve agricultural production.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site
The study area named Algadeer alabyad is located in the
northeastern part of Jordan, Fig. 1. The area of the watershed
6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8
(within which the dam is located) is 21 km2. The topography
is dominated by an undulating to rolling terrain with low,
rounded hills in Tertiary calcareous rocks with slope ranging
from 0 to more than 6%. The annual rainfall varies from 200 to
250 mm. Rainfall as thunderstorms, characterized by irregu-
lar intensity and duration, forms the greatest part of total pre-
cipitation in the area. Rainfall occurs mostly during winter
months (October to April). Altitude ranges from 634 to 934
m above sea level.
2.2. Land suitability evaluation
Land evaluation is an interpretation of land properties in
terms of suitability of the land for different land use types
or crop types. A qualitative approach to land Evaluation was
adopted in this study following principles and guidelines of
FAO (1983). Land suitability mapping was developed using
an innovative approach that integrates soil and climatic data
for the specific objective of a land suitability assessment. The
method makes use of database of soil auger observations and
collecting soil samples, covering all parts of watershed.
Two sets of information are required for such an evalua-
tion: multidisciplinary data for land mapping units and the
requirements and limitations of possible kinds of land use.
These two sets of data are compared by the process of match-
ing where the requirements of each land utilization type are
compared with land attributes derived, resulting in the land
Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 97

Fig. 5 – slope map derived from DEM.

Fig. 6 – Rainfall isohyets.

98 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8

Fig. 7 – Map produced form overlay analysis-intersect.

Fig. 8 – Potential land suitability for eight land utilization types.

 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 99

Table 4 – The area percentage of the suitability classes for different land use types.
LUT’s Area (km2) Area %
S1 S2 S3 NS S1 S2 S3 NS

Rainfed field crops – 1.0 16.6 3.4 – 4.8 78.9 16.3

Rainfed perennials – – – 21.05 – – – 100
Rangeland 5.6 13.1 0.02 2.3 26.7 62.4 0.10 10.9
Drip irrigation vegetables – 9.9 8.7 2.4 – 46.9 41.5 11.5
Drip irrigated trees – 0.5 8.1 12.5 – 2.4 38.3 59.3
Runoff 7.8 6.8 5.4 1.0 37.1 32.5 25.5 4.9
WH for trees – 2.4 13.8 4.8 – 11.5 65.6 22.9
WH for range – 11.3 7.1 2.6 – 53.8 34.0 12.2

Fig. 9a – Potential land suitability and limitations for field crops (rainfed).

suitability classifications for each land use. Land utilization
types (LUT’s) identify the particular land uses against which
the potential or constraints of land is to be evaluated.
The approach applies the ’most limiting factor’ principle.
Its main simplification is all characteristics (soil and climate)
carry the same weight (one property is not more important
than the others). The approach of limiting condition (Leibig’s
law) or simple limitation method has been adopted to con-
duct the overall suitability in which the least favorable quality
is taken as limiting.
The evaluation of land suitability deals with the ranking,
or classification, of land into distinctly different categories,
each one corresponding with a different potential for a partic-
ular use.
Categories commonly used are: Highly suitable (S1); mod-
erately suitable (S2); marginally suitable (S3) and not suitable
(NS).
These suitability categories are defined by FAO as
follows:
Highly suitable (S1): Land that has no significant limita-
tions to a specified sustained use and is therefore expected
not to reduce productivity or benefits or will not raise
inputs above an acceptable level.
100 Information Processing in Agriculture
Fig. 9b – Potential land suitability and limitations for rainfed perennials.
Moderately suitable (S2): Land that has limitations which
in aggregate are moderately severe for a specified sus-
tained use. The limitations will reduce productivity or ben-
efits and increase required inputs to the extent that the
overall advantage of the use, although still attractive, will
be appreciably lower to that expected on class S1 land.
Marginally suitable (S3): Land that has limitations which
in aggregate are severe for sustained application of a given
use and will so reduce productivity or benefits, or increase
required inputs, that this expenditure will be only margin-
ally justified.
Unsuitable (NS): Land having limitations which appear so
severe as to preclude any possibilities of successful sus-
tained use of the land.
In this paper, land suitability evaluation was applied on
the following land utilization types: Rainfed annual field
crops, Rainfed perennials, Range, Irrigated vegetables,
Drip-irrigated trees, Runoff generation, Water harvesting
(using small runoff basins) for trees and Water harvesting
(using contour furrows for range shrubs or minor pits) for
improved range.
2.3. Criteria used
The general approach of a land suitability evaluation is to
match the characteristics or qualities of land to the
6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8
edaphic requirements of different land utilization types.
Basically this involves the identification of climatic, soil
and terrain requirements for the specified land utilization
type. The requirements are presented in the form of
requirements’ tables, which link ranges and threshold
values for relevant land characteristics to suitability ratings
for the specified use. The most effective way to develop
requirements tables is to use existing edaphic require-
ment tables, as available in the relevant literature
[11,16,20,22,30,33] and to adapt them to local conditions,
experience, and data availability. Obviously farmers can
play an important role in this adaptation process, as they
are often the most acquainted with the qualities and limi-
tations of their land for different uses.
The criteria tables are modified versions of an original
requirements table established as part of the Jordan Arid Zone
Productivity Project [17], a collaborative project under taken
jointly by the University of Jordan and Cranfield University,
U.K. and funded by the Government of Jordan and the Euro-
pean Union. Jordanian farmers (stakeholders) were involved
in developing the criteria and threshold values through a par-
ticipatory process to reflect their knowledge and experience.
The relationship between specific crop needs (qualities) and
directly measurable parameters (characteristics) is presented
in criteria Tables 1–3.
The criteria were applied to draw the suitability maps for
eight land use types.
 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 101

Fig. 9c – Potential land suitability and limitations for rangeland.

Fig. 9d – Potential land suitability and limitations for vegetables under drip irrigation.
102 Information Processing in Agriculture
2.4. Data collection and processing
The georeferenced field observations layer, shown in Fig. 2,
was the basic one for running the suitability analysis. There-
fore, Data required for suitability analysis were collected
through field survey and samples were analyzed. Global Posi-
tioning system (GPS) was used to identify the coordinates and
elevation of the surveyed sites.
The main data collected for 70 sites were: soil depth,
stones and rock percentages on the surface of the soil, erosion
type and status. Therefore, the soil samples were taken
accordingly using Augers. The collected samples were ana-
lyzed at the soil lab at NCARE and data for all sites were ver-
ified and registered. The infiltration rate was measured in 20
sites in the watershed and data was registered.
The source of information used for suitability analysis was
based on field description, derived data (slope percentage)
and lab analysis (CaCO3, EC, texture). Available water holding
capacity (AWHC) was estimated for surveyed sites using
mathematical formula according to texture.
2.5. Suitability analysis
Suitability analysis allows identifying the main limiting fac-
tors for the agricultural production and enables decision mak-
ers to develop crop managements able to increase the land
productivity.
Fig. 10a – Potential land suitability and limitations for trees under drip irrigation.
6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8
GIS has been used to match the suitability for different
land utilization types based on the requirements of the LUT’S
and the quality and characteristics of land. Different land
quality parameters were evaluated and subsequently all of
them were integrated using a sequence of logical operations
to generate land suitability maps. In order to run the suitabil-
ity mapping, surfaces (rasters) from soil survey data (numeric
data) were created using interpolation process using kriging
method in ArcGIS. Kriging method is an interpolation tech-
nique in which the surrounding measured values are
weighted to derive a predicted value for an unmeasured loca-
tion. These surfaces represent: Infiltration rate, CaCO3 %, EC,
Soil depth, Rockiness %, Stone at surface %, AWHC mm/m.
The interpolated surfaces are shown in Fig. 3.
The land evaluation process was carried out by matching
the land characteristics
with crop requirements for each polygon. Therefore, The
interpolated surfaces were classified according to the criteria
for each landuse and then rated into suitability classes. The
surfaces resulted from reclassification with suitability ratings
were then converted into vector format. Theissen polygons
were created for some data as shown in Fig. 4 which have text
classes (non-numeric) for surveyed sites to interpolate ero-
sion status, erosion hazard. This map was classified into suit-
ability classes for each land use according to relevant criteria.
Slope map was derived from DEM (10 m interval) as shown
in Fig. 5. This map was classified according to the criteria for
 Information Processing in Agriculture
Fig. 10b – Potential land suitability and limitations for runoff.
each landuse and rated into suitability classes, then con-
verted into vector format.
Rainfall map was prepared from twenty years long term
rainfall data (1975–2010) and used as criteria to classify the
suitability ratings as shown in Fig. 6.
Overlay analysis (intersection function) using GIS has
been carried out between the interpolated (maps), theissen
layer, rainfall layer, and slope map) with suitability classes
(S1, S2, S3, NS) to identify the land mapping units which will
be the base map for further analysis. The result was a com-
plicated map with a lot of polygons as shown in Fig. 7. The
intersect map which represents all suitability criteria, was
scored finally to the worst suitability classes for each
polygon.
However, ‘‘Not suitable” class was selected to identify the
limitation factors that lower the suitability class. The result
‘‘Not suitable” class was entitled as ‘‘NSL” with lower case
of limitation factor (L) that indicates either: e: erosion, d: soil
depth, t: topography, c: climate, r: rockiness/stoniness, n:
salinity/alkalinity, f: infiltration rate, w: available water hold-
ing capacity, stsf: stone at surface, carb: carbonate.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Land suitability mapping
The suitability maps were produced and classified into highly,
moderately, marginally and not suitable for eight different
land use types as shown in Fig. 8.
6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 103
The suitability classes were analyzed for each LUT in
terms of Area percentage as shown in Table 4.
Fig. 8 and table 4 show that 89% of the watershed is poten-
tially suitable (S1 + S2) for rangeland and 54% for rangeland
under water harvesting. While 47% of the study area is poten-
tially suitable for vegetables under drip irrigation. The results
offer a good choice for farmers to practice drip irrigation and
water harvesting to improve their agricultural production.
About 70% of the total area is potentially suitable (S1 + S2)
for runoff generation The runoff-generating areas are dis-
tributed over the watershed and indicate a promising poten-
tial to implement water harvesting structures and to use
the harvested water to improve the productivity of some
crops as well as a source for domestic and livestock water
demands. This result emphasis the fact that a dam would col-
lect runoff water from the watershed which is already con-
structed at the outlet location.
For more detailed analysis, Figs. 9a–d, 10a–d and Table 5
show the limitations that result in classifying the suitability
classes into ‘‘not suitable” for each land use .
Low precipitation is a very severe climatic constraint that
limits the potential suitability of rainfed perennials. While
stone at surface and soil depth (shallowness) are the main
limitations that lower the suitability of trees under drip irriga-
tion by 39%, 33% of the total area, respectively. Some areas
(5%) is classified as not suitable for runoff generation due to
gentle flat slopes.
About 11% of the total area is not suitable for all land uti-
lization type due to erosion limitation.
104 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8

Fig. 10c – Potential land suitability and limitations for trees/WH.

Fig. 10d – Potential land suitability and limitations for rangeland/WH.

 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 105

Table 5 – Main limitations with area percentages that lower the suitability classes to (NS).
Area % of limitations
LUT’s NS e NS t NS c NS d NS stsf

Rainfed field crops 10.8% 6.9

Rainfed perennials 10.76 100
Rangeland 10.8
Drip irrigation vegetables 10.6
Drip irrigated trees 10.7 33 39
Runoff 5
WH for trees 11 14
WH for range 11
Index e: erosion, d: soil depth, t: topography, c: climate, r: rockiness, stsf: stone at surface

Fig. 11 – landuse scenarios formulated for optimum landuse.

3.2. Formulation of the optimum land use alternatives
It was found that best land use options could be implemented
in different land units. Fig. 11 shows scenarios where some
land units are potentially suitable for more than one land
use options while others are hardly suitable for one option.
In order to incorporate farmer’s knowledge and experience
in selecting particular land-use type, land use options with
high land suitability classes (S1 and S2) were formulated. This
is done to give farmers many options to exploit their lands.
Table 6 explains the legend linked with the figure.
To simplify and summarize data analysis, reliable suitabil-
ity maps were generated that support the implementation of
sustainable land use alternatives in the arid environment.
106 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8

Table 6 – Index table explains the legend linked with the
figure.
Legend Land use
1 Rainfed agriculture
3 Rainfed trees
4 Rangeland
5 Vegetables under drip irrigation
6 Trees under drip irrigation
7 Runoff
8 Trees/WH
9 Rangeland/WH
NS Not suitable
S3 runoff Marginally suitable for run off
Fig. 12 and Table 7 show areas suitable for general land use
alternatives. It is concluded that 89% (18710.5 dunum) of the
total area could be used for rangeland. Generally, The results
show that 55% (11566.0 dunum) of the total area has high
potential for irrigation which will support the agricultural
practices in some areas. About 54% (11307.8 dunum) of the
study area is potentially suitable to apply water harvesting
techniques for both trees and rangeland. It is obvious that
71% (14966.7 dunum) of the total area could be utilized for
runoff generation. The results show that the area is highly
dependable on extra source of water rather than rainfall to
improve agricultural production while a very limited area is
not suitable for any land use alternatives.

Fig. 12 – suitable areas for different landuse alternatives.

Table 7 – Areas suitable for general land use alternatives.

Legend (refer to table) Land use Area area%
dunum

1 Rainfed agriculture (field crops) 1000.5 4.8

5, 6 Irrigation 11566.0 55.0
3 Rainfed trees 0.0 0.0
4 Rangeland 18710.5 89.0
7 Runoff 14644.0 69.6
8, 9 WH 11307.8 53.8
NS Not suitable 31350.5 0.1
 Information Processing in Agriculture
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Suitability analysis allows identifying the main limiting fac-
tors for the agricultural production and enables decision mak-
ers to develop crop managements able to increase the land
productivity. Soil conservation practices are recommended
in some parts of the area to decrease the erosion hazard in
order to protect the soil and conserve it from further deterio-
ration. Rainwater harvesting is an important practice to
improve water and land productivity and to cope with climate
change in the drier marginal environments. Therefore, appli-
cation of water harvesting techniques in the area will pro-
mote agricultural production of trees and improved
rangeland. While areas with high potential for runoff genera-
tion could be used to feed water in the existing dam.
The study area has a promising potential to be exploited
into many land use alternatives taking into consideration
sustainable production and farmer existing practices. Areas
which are around the dam could be utilized for agricultural
production (vegetables and trees) using drip irrigation pro-
vided that the water in the dam is the main source for irriga-
tion. Trees production under rainfed condition is not
supported to be successful because of rainfall scarcity which
is considered as the main limitation.
5. Conflict of interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge Dr. Naem Mazahreh for his valu-
able assistance as coordinator of the project: ‘‘Reduce vulner-
ability in Jordan in the context of water scarcity and
increasing food/energy demand Al-Ghadeer Al Abyad water-
shed”, funded by FAO.
R E F E R E N C E S
[1] Beek KJ. From soil survey interpretation to land evaluation: I.
From the past to the present. Soil Surv Land Evaluat
1981;1:6–12.
[2] Bouma J, Wagenet RJ, Hoosbeek MR, Hutson JL. Using expert
systems and simulation modelling for land evaluation at
farm level: a case study from New York State. Soil Use Manag
1993;9:131–9.
[3] Brail RK, Klosterman RE. Planning support systems. Redlands
(CA): ESRI Press; 2001.
[4] Bydekerke L, Van Ranst E, Vanmechelen L, Groenemans R.
Land suitability assessment for cherimoya in southern
Ecuador using expert knowledge and GIS. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 1998;69:89–98.
[6] Davidson DA. The evaluation of land resources. London
(UK): Longman; 1992.
[7] Dent D, Young A. Soil survey and land evaluation. London
(UK): George Allen and Unwin; 1981.
6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8 107
[8] FAO. A framework for land evaluation. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Soils Bulletin 32. Rome:
FAO; 1976.
[9] FAO. Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Soils
Bulletin 52. Italy: Rome; 1983.
[10] FAO. Land evaluation towards a revised framework. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Italy;
Rome; 2007.
[11] Ziadat Feras M, Al-Bakri Jawad T. Jordan J Agric Sci 2006;vol 2
(No. 4).
[12] Hansen JW, Beinroth FH, Systems-Based Jones JW. Land-use
evaluation at the South Coast of Puerto Rico. Appl Eng Agric
1998;14:191–200.
[13] He Y, Yao Y, Chen Y, Ongaro L. Regional land suitability
assessment for tree crops using remote sensing and
GIS. In: Computer distributed control and intelligent
environmental monitoring (CDCIEM). Changsha: IEEE; 2011.
p. 354–63.
[14] Hinton JC. GIS and remote sensing integration for
environmental applications. Int J Geo Inf Syst 1996;10:877–90.
[15] Hopkins L. Methods for generating land suitability
maps: a comparative evaluation. J Am Inst Plan 1977;34
(1):19–29.
[16] Hunting Technical Services in association with soil survey &
land research centre. The soils of Jordan. National soil map
and land use project. vol 2; 1994.
[17] JAZPP (Jordan Arid Zone Productivity Project). Improvement
of agriculture productivity in arid and semi-arid zone of
Jordan. Annual report. Amman (Jordan): University of Jordan;
1997.
[18] Lee TM, Yeh HC. Applying remote sensing techniques to
monitor shifting wetland vegetation: a case study of Danshui
River estuary mangrove communities. Ecol Eng
2009;35:487–96.
[19] Martin D, Saha SK. Land evaluation by integrating remote
sensing and GIS for cropping system analysis in a watershed.
Curr Sci 2009;96:1.
[20] Mazahreh S. Alternatives for land utilization in arid to semi-
arid region in Jordan MSc thesis. Amman (Jordan): University
of Jordan; 1998.
[21] McHarg IL. Design with nature. New York: Wiley; 1969.
[22] MoA (Ministry of Agriculture, Jordan). The soils of Jordan.
Report of the national soil map and land use project,
undertaken by Ministry of Agriculture, Huntings Technical
Services Ltd., and European Commission. Level one, level
two, level three and JOSCIS manual; 1995.
[23] Mu Y. Developing a suitability index for residential land use:
a case study in Dianchi drainage area. Canada: University of
Waterloo; 2006.
[24] Nisar Ahamed TR, Gopal Rao K, Murthy JSR. GIS-based fuzzy
membership model for crop-land suitability analysis. Agric
Syst 2000;63:75–95.
[25] Pan G, Pan J. Research in crop land suitability analysis based
on GIS. Comput Comput Technol Agric 2012;365:314–25.
[26] Prakash TN. Land suitability analysis for agricultural crops: a
fuzzy multicriteria decision making approach, science in
geoinformatics. Netherlands: ITC; 2003. p. 6–13.
[27] Elsheikh Ranya, Rashid Abdul, Shariff Mohamed, Amiri Fazel,
Noordin Ahmad, Balasundram Siva Kumar, Soom Mohd
Amin Mohd. Agriculture Land Suitability Evaluator (ALSE): a
decision and planning support tool for tropical and
subtropical crops. Comput Electron Agric 2013;93:98–110.
[28] Rossiter DG. A theoretical framework for land evaluation.
Geoderma 1996;72:165–90.
108 Information Processing in Agriculture 6 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 9 1 –1 0 8

[30] Sultan KA. Verification of land suitability evaluation result
using current land use and farmer’s knowledge: a case study
from Mafraq; 2005. page 15.
[31] Ziadat FM, Al- Bakri JT. Comparing existing and potential
land use for sustainable land utilization. Jordan J Agic Sci
2007;2(4):372–87.
[32] Ziadat FM, Kais A, Sultan JT. Combining current land use and
farmers knowledge to design land-use requirements and
improve land suitability evaluation. Renew Agric Food Syst
2011;26(4):287–96.
[33] Ziadat FM. Application of GIS and remote sensing for land
use planning in the arid areas of Jordan Unpublished PhD
dissertation. Silsoe (UK): Cranfield University; 2000.
[34] Zonneveld IS. The land unit – a fundamental concept in
landscape ecology and its applications. Landsc Ecol
1989;3:67–86.