Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Groundwater for Sustainable Development

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

Research paper

Applications of geospatial analysis and analytical hierarchy process to

identify the groundwater recharge potential zones and suitable recharge
structures in the Ajani-Jhiri watershed of north Maharashtra, India
Uday Sahu a, Vasant Wagh b, *, Shrikant Mukate c, Ajaykumar Kadam d, Sanjay Patil e
a
Department of Geology, Toshniwal College of Arts, Commerce and Science, Sengaon, Hingoli, Maharashtra, India
b
School of Earth Sciences, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, Maharashtra, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Karnataka, India
d
Department of Environmental Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, India
e
Department of Applied Geology, School of Environmental & Earth Sciences, KBC North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, 425 001, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Integration of hydrogeological, geo­

spatial and MCDA techniques.
• Preparation of pair-wise assessment
matrices by AHP.
• Identification of groundwater recharge
potential zones.
• Drainage controls the groundwater
movement and storage of the recharge
areas.
• Groundwater recharge potential zones
classified into high, moderate and low
categories.

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

Keywords: The present study undertakes the integration of hydrogeological, geospatial and multi-criteria decision analysis
Ajani-Jhiri watershed (MCDA) techniques to identify groundwater recharge potential zones and suitable recharge structures in parts of
GIS the Ajani-Jhiri watershed of the Tapi river basin, north Maharashtra, India. Hydrogeological thematic layers
Groundwater recharge potential zones
include drainage density, lineament density, geology, geomorphology, land use/landcover, soil and slope, which
AHP analysis
Recharge structures
are the demarcating factors in identification of potential recharge sites of the watershed. An analytical hierarchy
process model based on MCDA methodologies was adapted to determine the overall weightage distribution for
individual layers for weighted overlay to be executed in GIS environment. Groundwater recharges potential
zones are divided into high, moderate, and low classes. Results showed that only 272.72 km2 (38.02%) area has
high recharge potential, while 316.94 km2 (44.07%) has moderate groundwater recharge potential. The low
groundwater potential recharge zone (129.35 km2; 17.98%) is located in the southern part of the watershed,
which is mountainous terrain. Locations of new recharge structures, including six stream bunds, five check dams
and two percolation tanks are recommended to meet the regional domestic and agricultural needs. The water
bodies in the region are partially silted with loose materials, hence three desiltation tanks proposed.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ulsahu666@gmail.com (U. Sahu), wagh.vasant@gmail.com (V. Wagh), mukateshrikant@gmail.com (S. Mukate), kadamajaykumar1@gmail.
com (A. Kadam), drsnpatil9@gmail.com (S. Patil).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100733
Received 21 February 2021; Received in revised form 24 January 2022; Accepted 25 January 2022
Available online 29 January 2022
2352-801X/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
U. Sahu et al.
1. Introduction
Groundwater is an essential freshwater resource for humankind.
More than 50% of the global population relies on groundwater resources
for their water needs in arid and semi-arid regions, and groundwater is
extensively use for irrigation towards food security (Wada et al., 2010;
FAO, 2010; Boretti and Rosa, 2019). Generally, in semi-arid regions,
surface water is not sufficiently available throughout the year; hence,
there is increasing demand for groundwater to meet the domestic, in­
dustrial, and irrigation needs for various societies (Chowdhury et al.,
2009; Jhariya et al., 2016; Arubalaji et al., 2019; Lentswe et al., 2020;
Rajasekhar et al., 2020; Wagh et al., 2016, 2018). It is estimated that
approximately 70% of groundwater resources in the world is used for
agriculture (Wada et al., 2014). In India, groundwater is extensively
used for agriculture (89%), followed by domestic (9%) and industrial
(2%) uses (World Bank, 2010; Kadam et al., 2020). Seasonal variations
in water resources, drought-prone conditions, and scanty rainfall result
in groundwater exploitation and depletion (Kadam et al., 2019).
Many researchers have reported that appropriate groundwater
management plans within watersheds require detailed information
about various parameters (e.g., drainage, lineaments, geology, geo­
morphology, land use/land cover, and slope) to identify the ground­
water recharge potential zones and suitable recharge sites (Andualem
et al., 2019; Raju et al., 2019; Agarwal et al., 2016; Jha et al., 2010). The
most convenient and integrated technique towards the delineation of
potential groundwater recharge zones is the application of GIS tools
with multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Akinlalu et al., 2017; Nair
et al., 2017; Saidi et al., 2017; Al-Shabeeb et al., 2018; Sahoo et al.,
2017; Malczewski and Rinner, 2015; Zare et al., 2016; Malczewski,
Fig. 1. Location map showing satellite image of project site.
2
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
2010). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) coupled with GIS software can
be used in a structured and transparent way for analysis of spatial data
(Feizizadeh and Blaschke, 2013; Suarez-Vega et al., 2011). The strength
of this approach lies in its ability to derive weights associated with at­
tributes of individual layers and aggregate the priority for all levels of
hierarchy structure, including the level representing alternatives (Esto­
que, 2012). AHP and MCDA are effective tools frequently applied along
with GIS and remote sensing for qualitative and quantitative analysis in
water resources management (Saaty, 1980, 1986, 1999).
All the parameters listed above are considered to evaluate the
groundwater recharge potential in the Ajani-Jhiri (A-J) watershed of
north Maharashtra, India, by utilizing the cost-effective GIS-MCDA
technique. The watershed is located in a region of low and uncertain
rainfall, where crop cultivation is the predominant livelihood, followed
by livestock rearing. Most of the study area consists of basaltic rock that
lacks primary porosity. The infiltration of rainfall and surface water into
the subsurface is limited and dependent on the presence of weakly
fractured zones, thus reducing the rate of natural recharge. The estab­
lished canal system reduces the water stress only to a small extent for
local inhabitants. Therefore, the present study is initiated to identify the
groundwater recharge potential zones and propose the suitable types of
recharge structures to elevate the water table in the study area.
2. Study area
The A-J watershed (719.1 km2) is located between 75◦ 09′ 30′′ and
75◦ 30′ 0′′ East longitude and 20◦ 46′ 30′′ and 21◦ 07′ 30′′ North latitude
(Fig. 1). Administratively, the watershed is divided into five different
tehsils of Jalgaon district: Amalner (21.25 km2), Bhadgaon (27.01 km2),
U. Sahu et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733

Table 1
Layer-wise weight assignment based on the level of contribution to groundwater recharge.
Layers Weights Sub-class Rankings References

Geology (G) 9 Alluvium 7 Rajashekhar et al. (2020); Dar et al. (2020)

Deccan trap 4
Geomorphology (GM) 8 Alluvial Plain (AP) 7 Arulbalaji et al. (2019);
Gullied Land (GL) 6 Das et al. (2019);
Plateau Moderately 3 Sener et al. (2018)
Dissected (PLM)
Plateau Weathered (PLW) 5
Plateau Weathered 8
Canal Command (PLWC)
Drainage density (Dd) 6 0–0.85 5 Singh et al. (2013)
0.85–1.47 4
1.47–2.00 3
2.00–2.60 2
2.60–4.36 1
Lineament density (Ld) 5 0–0.15 1 Lentswe et al. (2020);
0.15–0.40 2 Kaliraj et al. (2014);
0.40–0.69 3 Mogaji et al. (2014)
0.69–1.33 4
1.33–2.35 5
Land use &land cover (LULC) 7 Barren rocky/stony waste 2 Doke et al. (2021);
Crop land 8 Owolabi et al. (2020);
Forest 7 Zghibi et al. (2020);
Gullied/ravenous land 5 Chakrabortty et al. (2018)
Land with scrub 6
Land without scrub 4
Villages 1
Water bodies 9
Slope % (Sl) 4 0–0.5 5 Allafta et al. (2021)
0.5–1.0 4
1.0–1.60 3
1.60–2.50 2
2.50–7.88 1
Soil texture (So) 3 Clay 1 Boufekane et al. (2020);
Clay loam 2 Agarwal et al. (2016)
Loam 3
Silt loam 4
Sandy clay loam 5
Sandy loam 6
Gravelly sandy loam 7
Irrigation (I) 2 Groundwater irrigated (GI) 5 Bourjila et al. (2020);
Canal irrigated (CI) 8 Fildes et al. (2020)

Dharangaon (269.9 km2), Erandol (259.60 km2), and Parola (141.34
km2). The A-J watershed lies within the basin of the Girna River, a
tributary of the Tapi River in the Ajanta hill ranges. The southwest
monsoon season extends from June to September with a mean daily
temperature below 29 ◦ C. The total annual rainfall is about 740 mm and
annual average rainfall from the southwest monsoon is about 700–800
mm (CGWB, 2013). The mean daily temperature during March–April is
about 26 ◦ C and the hot, dry summer winds blow during April and May,
when the maximum temperature is about 45 ◦ C. The mean minimum
temperature is 10.8 ◦ C and means maximum temperature is 42.2 ◦ C. The
terrain is characterized by undulating topography with elevation
ranging from 318 m above mean sea level (amsl) in the southwest to 129
m amsl in the northeast. The A-J watershed consists of dendritic to
parallel drainage patterns in general with 1708 segments and a total
drainage length around 1584 km. The watershed is underlain by alluvial
deposits in the downstream (northern) part, which comprise a signifi­
cant aquifer and the Deccan basalt which forms an unconfined aquifer
where it is weathered and fractured near land surface and a
semi-confined aquifer at greater depths. The Jamda Left Bank Canal and
Lower Girna Canal are significant water sources for agriculture. In the
southwest part of the study area, the water table was 5–10 m below
ground level during pre- and post-monsoon (2011) periods (CGWB,
2013).
3. Methodology
To identify the groundwater recharge potential zones and suitable
recharge structures, various types of data were gathered. Survey of India
(SOI) toposheets 46O/8, 46P/1, 46P/2 and 46P/5 (1:50000 scale) and
Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) P6 (LISS) IV satellite data were used for
georeferencing and mosaicking for interpretation of the thematic maps
(Hemanjali et al., 2015; Verma et al., 2017). Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) 30-m resolution
data were obtained from the USGS Earth Explorerto extract DEM and
slope maps (Fashae et al., 2014; Prasad et al., 2008; Shrinivas Rao and
Jugran, 2003). Geological quadrangle maps at 1:250000 scale (numbers
46O and 46P) (GSI, 1995) were transformed and superimposed on
1:50000 scales with a satellite image for the demarcation of the

3
U. Sahu et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733

Fig. 2. Methodology flow chart of proposed groundwater recharges structures.

Table 2
Pair-wise comparison among thematic layers.
Geomorphology Geology LULC DD LD Soil Slope Irrigation

Geomorphology 1.000 0.500 0.330 5.000 5.000 3.000 1.000 0.333

Geology 2.000 1.000 3.000 4.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 3.000
LULC 3.000 0.330 1.000 5.000 2.000 0.333 3.000 0.500
Drainage density 0.200 0.250 0.200 1.000 0.333 0.250 0.200 0.333
Lineament density 0.200 1.000 0.500 3.000 1.000 0.333 2.000 1.000
Soil 0.330 0.500 3.000 4.000 3.000 1.000 3.000 2.000
Slope 1.000 2.000 0.333 5.000 0.500 0.333 1.000 0.330
Irrigation 3.000 0.330 2.000 3.000 1.000 0.500 3.000 1.000
Total 10.730 5.910 10.363 30.000 13.833 6.249 13.700 8.496

Table 3
Normalized scores for thematic layers.
Parameters Geomorphology Geology LULC DD LD Soil Slope Irrigation weight %

Geomorphology 0.093 0.085 0.032 0.167 0.361 0.480 0.073 0.039 16.63
Geology 0.186 0.169 0.289 0.133 0.072 0.080 0.036 0.353 16.50
LULC 0.280 0.056 0.096 0.167 0.145 0.053 0.219 0.059 13.43
Drainage density 0.019 0.042 0.019 0.033 0.024 0.040 0.015 0.039 2.89
Lineament density 0.019 0.169 0.048 0.100 0.072 0.053 0.146 0.118 9.07
Soil 0.031 0.085 0.289 0.133 0.217 0.160 0.219 0.235 17.12
Slope 0.093 0.338 0.032 0.167 0.036 0.053 0.073 0.039 10.40
Irrigation 0.280 0.056 0.193 0.100 0.072 0.080 0.219 0.118 13.97

4
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 3. Geomorphological map of the study area.
geological and lineament maps (Reddy et al., 2000). Soil texture data at
1:250000 scales were procured from the National Bureau of Soil Survey
& Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP, 1996) for the preparation of the soil
map. For preparation of the irrigation map, the satellite image of the
study area was superimposed on the canal system map. The buffer area
of canal water seepage was observed in the field to differentiate the
boundaries of canal-command, groundwater-irrigated, and unirrigated
areas in the watershed.
The eight thematic layers, geology (G), soil textures (ST), geo­
morphology (GM), land use and land cover (LULC), drainage (D), line­
ament (L), irrigation (I) and slope (S), were digitized, checked with
limited fieldwork and updated with satellite image (P6 LISS IV) in
ArcGIS 10.1. The line features of vector maps were converted into
drainage density (Dd) and lineament density (Ld) during raster map
preparation in the density analysis tool. All the aforementioned themes
5
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
were aggregated with GIS, MCDA and AHP techniques to demarcate the
groundwater recharge potential zones and suitable recharge structures.
Every raster layer was assigned different weights and ranking for using
MCDA. The study area shapefiles (polygons and polylines) were con­
verted into raster layers to reclassify sub-categories and assigned new
ranking weights. Finally, the different spatial data processed by AHP 2.0
extension tool (macro extahp.dll) were entered into ArcMap (Marinoni,
2004, 2009).
AHP uses using a pair-wise comparison matrix and judgment experts
to derive priority weights and ranking (Table 1). In AHP modeling, the
raster layer for each sub-criterion (class) has its weight allocated on a
numerical scale ranging from 1 (equal importance or no difference) to 9
(absolute importance or highest preference), based on relative proba­
bility of recharge (Saaty, 1980; Hussain, 2004; Shaban et al., 2006; Shah
et al., 2019). The weighted linear combination method was adopted to
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 4. Geological map of the study area.
develop the groundwater recharge potential zone index (GWRPZI) of
each unit parcel in the study area by the following equation:
GWRPZI = (GMw × GMr) + (Gw × Gr) + (LULCw × LULCr) + (Ddw ×
Ddr) + (Ldw × Ldr) + (Sow × Sor) + (Slw × Slr) + (Iw × Ir)
GM is geomorphology; G is geology; LULC is land use and land cover;
Dd is drainage density; Ld is lineament density; So is soil; Sl is a slope;
and I is irrigation. The w and r subscripts stand for weight and ranking,
respectively, of a thematic layer and the sub-criteria of themes (Souissi
et al., 2018) (Fig. 1).
The groundwater recharge potential zones were classified using the
equal intervals technique into three categories: low, moderate and high.
In this study, Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission
(RGNDWM) guidelines (NRSC, 2000) used to identify suitable ground­
water recharge structures. The methods within the overall GIS-AHP
6
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
process are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Table 2 shows the normalized score for each thematic layer, which is
the ratio of the scale defined by the total of the thematic layer’s column,
based on pair-wise comparison.
The identification of the random index (RI) depends upon the
number of thematic layers considered; given the eight parameters
considered for the current study, the RI is 1.41. Consistency of resultant
weight was assessed for the reliability of the hypothesis by the consis­
tency ratio (CR), which is the consistency index divided by a random
index value. The CR value (0.076) was less than 0.10 and was therefore
considered acceptable. Based on AHP, the weights are highest for soil
(17.12%), geomorphology (16.63%), and geology (16.50%) and lowest
for drainage density (2.89%) (Table 3). These weights were used in a
weighted overlay analysis in the GIS environment to demarcate
groundwater recharge potential zones.
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 5. LULC map of the study area.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Geomorphology
Normally, the features like elevation, slope, erosion and thickness of
weathering, nature of alluvial deposits, and grouping of different land­
forms play a crucial role in defining the groundwater regime in hard
rock terrain (Reddy et al., 2000). Geomorphology is one of the most
significant parameters for identifying groundwater recharge zones,
based on the remote sensing visual interpretation techniques (Rao et al.,
2001; Jain et al., 2000; Saraf et al., 1998). In this study, the geomor­
phological layer has been divided into five classes (Fig. 3). The Plateau
Weathered Canal Command (PLWC) unit occupies the largest area,
extending over 320.80 km2 (44.06%) of the watershed. It is marked by
7
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
the Jamada Left Bank Canal and the Lower Girna Canal. Because of the
undulating topography, which results from differential weathering and
erosion of horizontal basalt flows, and the perennial flow in the canals,
recharge is promoted within this geomorphic unit, and hence the highest
ranking (8) is assigned. The Plateau Weathered (PLW) class occurred
mainly in the southwest and center of the watershed, with a small patch
in the northeast, and is marked by comparatively flat to somewhat un­
dulating topography. The PLW is the second-largest geomorphic unit
(256.29 km2; 35.64% of the study area) and has a ranking of 5. The
alluvial plain (AP) in the north-central part of the watershed occupies
79.03 km2 (11.02% of the entire watershed) and has a high groundwater
recharge potential (7). Gullied Landforms (GL) include bad lands and
dissected areas in unconsolidated materials, such as silt, sand, and gravel
(Guo et al., 2013). The GL class occurs along the downstream channels of
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 6. Drainage density map of the study area.
the Ajani and Jhiri Rivers and occupies 39.55 km2 (5.50%) of the study
area. The groundwater recharge potential is classified as moderate to
good (6).The Plateau Moderately Dissected (PLM) class occupies 23.33
km2 (3.24%) of the A-J watershed and is classified as having a low
groundwater recharge potential (3).
4.2. Geology
The A-J watershed is mainly composed of Deccan Trap basalt of the
Ajantha hill ranges except for the north-central part, where Tapi allu­
vium deposits (Fig. 4) cover the basalt. The basalt and alluvium are
assigned weights of 7 and 4, respectively (Table 1). The basalt is Upper
Cretaceous to Lower Eocene age and covers 601 km2, with a surficial
weathered layer 20–25 m thick. The groundwater occurrence mainly
8
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
depends on the secondary porosity in the basalt (CGWB, 2013). The Tapi
alluvium occupies an area of 118 km2 and contains the Tahakali For­
mation (Recent), which consists of red to brown clays with intercalated
gravel (GSI, 1995).
4.3. Land use and land cover
The A-J watershed exhibits eight LULC units: cropland (ranking 8),
water bodies (9), gullied land (5), land with scrub (6), land without
scrub (4), forest (7), barren/rocky land (2) and settlements (1) (Table 1).
These units were interpreted from IRS LISS-IV satellite data and SOI
toposheets using the NRSC-LULC classifications. Cropland covers most
of the watershed (597.38 km2; 83.07%). Major crops include cotton,
sugarcane, oilseeds, and pulses. Land without scrub occupies 77.32 km2
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 7. Lineament and lineament density (Ld) map of the study area.
(10.75%) of the watershed in the southeast and southwest. Water bodies
(major and minor tanks, rivers, streams, local farm ponds, and canals)
occupy 1.33 km2 (0.18%) of the watershed. The flanks of the watershed
include limited forest area (13.49 km2; 1.88%). Land with scrub oc­
cupies17.24 km2 (2.40%), gullied land is 5.83 km2 (0.81%), and barren/
rocky land is 0.31 km2 (0.04%). Rural settlements cover around 6.2 km2
(0.86%) of the area (Fig. 5).
4.4. Drainage and drainage density
In the study area, the drainage network pattern is dendritic in basalt
and parallel in the alluvium (unconsolidated). As per the classification of
Strahler (1952, 1954), the A-J watershed is 6th order with 1584.05 km2
total length of the drainage system. The drainage density (Dd) values
range from 0.80 to 4.36 and are categorized into five sub-groups: very
low (0–0.85), 83.25 km2; low (0.85–1.47), 175.82 km2; medium
9
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
(1.47–2.00), 237.5 km2; high (2.00–2.60), 167.97 km2; and very high
(2.60–4.36), 54.47 km2 (Fig. 6). Low and medium Dd values occupy
57% of the basin area. Assigned rankings range from 5 for low Dd areas
to1for high Dd areas (Table 1).
4.5. Lineaments and lineament density
Watershed lineaments were extracted from satellite data and the
existing quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey of India (GSI, 1995).
The confirmed lineaments trend E-W in weathered basalt along the
southern part of the Tapi River (CGWB, 2001). The major lineaments in
the A-J watershed trend NE-SW. Lineament density calculate the fre­
quency of the lineament per unit area of each grid cell (Hassani and
Adhab, 2014). Lineament density was divided into five classes: very low
(0–0.15), 248.91 km2; low (0.15–0.40), 162.91 km2; medium
(0.40–0.69), 223.88 km2; high (0.69–1.33), 71.09 km2; and very high
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 8. Soil texture classification map of the study area.
(1.33–2.35), 12.22 km2 (Fig. 7). Assigned rankings range from 5 for high
Ld to 1 for low Ld (Table 1).
4.6. Soil
Six types of soil textures were identified within the study area, with
rankings assigned as follows: gravelly sandy loam (7), sandy loam (6),
sandy clay loam (5), silty loam (4), loam (3), clay loam (2), and clay (1).
Rankings generally decreased with decreasing particle size, which re­
flects a limited tendency for infiltration. Clay soils cover an area of
508.98 km2 (70.77%), sandy clay loam 61.00 km2 (8.48%), gravelly
sandy loam 48.11 km2 (6.69%), clay loam 47.05 km2 (6.62%), silty loam
35.22 km2 (4.89%), and loam 18.64 km2 (2.59%) (Fig. 8).
10
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
4.7. Slope
Slope of the A-J watershed was classified into five ranges: 0–0.5%
(ranking 5), 0.5–1.0% (4), 1.0–1.60% (3), 1.60–2.50% (2), and
2.50–7.88% (1). As per the RGNDWM manual (NRSC, 2000), these
ranges can be reclassified as nearly level (0–1%; 529.93 km2), very
gentle slope (1–1.20%, 47.78 km2), gentle slope (1.20–2.70%, 128.93
km2), and moderate slope (2.70–7.88%; 12.32 km2) (Fig. 9). The
maximum area was nearly level, which facilitates infiltration. The
moderate slope was most prevalent in the southeast and some central
parts of the A-J watershed.
4.8. Irrigation
In the study area, major irrigation sources include canals, tanks, and
various types of wells, with the most significant component of
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 9. Slope map of the study area.
groundwater resources being used for irrigation. The Jamda canal
project releases water from the Girna dam, which contributes irrigation
water to about 17200 ha of agricultural land. The total length of canal in
the A-J watershed is 238.27 km. The canal command area occupies the
majority of the watershed (57.78%, 415.50 km2) and is assigned a high
ranking (8) based on canal water seepage (Table 1; Fig. 10). The
remaining 42.20% (303.50 km2) of the watershed is groundwater-
irrigated via shallow dug wells and deep bore wells.
4.9. Delineation of groundwater recharge potential zones
The delineation of groundwater recharge potential zones is one of
the most fundamental criteria for systematic analysis and planning for
water resources management in the present study. The A-J watershed is
divided into high, moderate, and low potential recharge zones (Fig. 11).
The high potential recharge zones occupy 272.72 km2 (37.92%) and
11
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
tend to occur in the northern, low land part of the watershed, which is
geologically characterized by alluvium (gravel, sand and silt) and
weathered basalt strata of 20–25m thickness. The high potential
recharge zones include AP and GL geomorphic units, which are marked
by low drainage density with nearly level to no slope. The moderate
potential recharge zones, which cover 316.94 km2 (44.08%), tend to
occur in weathered basalt strata in the central and southern parts of the
watershed. These zones include the PLW and PLWC landforms, with 3rd
to 4th order drainage networks, medium to high drainage density, and
high lineament density. Generally, soils in the moderate potential
recharge zones consist of clay, clay loam, sandy clay loam, and loam.
The low potential recharge zones occupy 129.44 km2 (18%), particu­
larly in upland areas in the southwest and southeast parts of the
watershed. These zones are marked by relatively unweathered to
weathered basalt with gentle to moderate slopes, headwater (1st and
2nd order) streams, and high drainage density. The low potential
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 10. Irrigation area map of the study area.
recharge zones include the PLM landform, which occurs with stony
outcrops and land without scrub or with a thin veneer of loam, silt loam,
and gravelly loam soil.
4.10. Proposed groundwater recharge structures
This study proposes potential groundwater recharge structures based
on hydro-geomorphological unit and groundwater recharge potential
zones (Fig. 12). The proposed structures are check dams, stream bunds,
desilting tanks and percolation tanks. In the PLW unit in the central and
southern parts of the watershed, five check dams are suggested on 2nd-
and 3rd- order drainages with 3–8% slopes and six stream bunds are
suggested on 3rd- and 4th- order drainages. Surface water bodies on the
map were updated with satellite images for authentication. Partially
silted water bodies have reduced the water storage capacity and water
12
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
availability. Hence, three desilting tanks are suggested for the PLW unit
in the central part of the watershed. In areas where recharge occurs from
unlined irrigation canals, streams, rivers, and other water bodies, the
water table has risen and no recharge structures are needed. Two
percolation tanks in the AP and GL units in the northern part of the
watershed are suggested but are considered low priority.
5. Conclusion
The present study integrates hydrogeological, geospatial and AHP
techniques to identify the potential groundwater recharge zones and
suggests suitable recharge structures in the A-J watershed within the
semi-arid Tapi River basin of north Maharashtra. Agriculture is the main
occupation with conventional (flood) irrigation practices that need lots
of water. The slope of the basin varies from 0 to 7.88% with 189 m of
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 11. Groundwater recharge potential zones map of the study area.
relief. The primary geologic unit in the watershed is the Deccan Basalt
group, with alluvium occurring along valleys in the lower parts of the
watershed. Eight LULC units in the watershed have been extracted; more
than 80% of the watershed is covered by cropland. Clay soils cover more
than 70% of the watershed, followed by various types of loam. AHP-
based MCDA techniques enable determination of the potential ground­
water recharge zones, which are divided into high, moderate and low
categories. The low potential zones mainly occur near the divide in the
southwest and southeast parts of the watershed, where plateau
geomorphic units (PLWC and PLM) are developed on massive and
weathered basalt with moderate slope and high drainage density.
Moderate potential groundwater recharge zones occupy almost half the
watershed, mainly in the PLW, PLWC, and AP geomorphic units, which
are developed on weathered basalt with medium drainage density and
parallel lineaments. High potential groundwater recharge zones occur in
areas where the slope is less than 1.2% and drainage density is low,
13
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
which coincides with AP and GL geomorphic units. The suggested four
kinds of recharging structures (check dams, stream bunds, desilting
tanks and percolation tanks) are low-cost and easy to build with the
community participation approach. The study outcomes will be helpful
to assist policymakers and water professionals in the development of
suitable recharge structures for sustainable water resource management
in the watershed.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they do not have any competing financial
interests or personal relationships that influence the work reported in
this manuscript.
U. Sahu et al.
Fig. 12. Proposed groundwater recharge structures.
Acknowledgement
The first author is thankful to Mulji Jetha College of Jalgaon for
providing the necessary facilities for the fieldwork and laboratory work.
Furthermore, the authors sincerely acknowledge A.G. Rao, Ex-Principal,
and Nandkumar Bendale, President of Khandesh Education Society, for
providing continuous support and encouragement during the work. The
authors are very grateful to the editors and reviewers for their
constructive comments and suggestions which helped to strengthen the
manuscript. The authors are also thankful to Mr. Himanshu Gaikwad for
the English proofreading of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100733.
References
Agarwal, R., Garg, P.K., 2016. Remote sensing and GIS based groundwater potential &
recharge zones mapping using multi-criteria decision making technique. Water
Resour. Manag. 30, 243–260.
Akinlalu, A.A., Adegbuyiro, A., Adiat, K.A.N., Akeredolu, B.E., Lateef, W.Y., 2017.
Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in prediction of groundwater resources
14
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
potential: a case of Oke-Ana, Ilesa Area Southwestern, Nigeria. NRIAG J. Astron.
Geophys. 6, 184–200.
Al-Shabeeb, A.A., Al-Adamat, R., Al-Amoush, H., AlAyyash, S., 2018. Delineating
groundwater potential zones within the Azraq Basin of Central Jordan using multi-
criteria GIS analysis. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 7, 82–90.
Allafta, H., Opp, C., Patra, S., 2021. Identification of groundwater potential zones using
remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study of the Shatt Al-Arab Basin. Rem.
Sens. Basel 13 (1), 112.
Andualem, T.G., Demeke, G.G., 2019. Groundwater potential assessment using GIS and
remote sensing: a case study of GunaTana landscape, upper Blue Nile Basin,
Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 24, 100610.
Arulbalaji, P., Padmalal, D., Sreelash, K., 2019. GIS and AHP techniques based
delineation of groundwater potential zones: a case study from southern Western
Ghats, India. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–17.
Boufekane, A., Meddi, H., Meddi, M., 2020. Delineation of groundwater recharge zones
in the Mitidja plain, north Algeria, using multi-criteria analysis. J. Hydroinf. 22,
1468–1484.
Boretti, A., Rosa, L., 2019. Reassessing the projections of the world water development
report. npj Clean Water 2, 1–6.
Bourjila, A., Dimane, F., Nouayti, N., Taher, M., El Ouarghi, H., 2020. Use of GIS, remote
sensing and AHP techniques to delineate groundwater potential zones in the Nekor
Basin, Central Rif of Morocco. In: GEOIT4W-2020: Proceedings of the 4th Edition of
International Conference on Geo-IT and Water Resources 2020. Geo-IT and Water
Resources, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3399205.3399219. Article 13 2020.
CGWB, 2001. Ground Water Information, Jalgaon District. Central Ground Water Board,
New Delhi.
CGWB, 2013. Ground Water Information Jalgaon District, Maharashtra. Central Ground
Water Board, New Delhi.
Chakrabortty, R., Pal, S.C., Malik, S., Das, B., 2018. Modeling and mapping of
groundwater potentiality zones using AHP and GIS technique: a case study of
U. Sahu et al.
Raniganj Block, PaschimBardhaman, West Bengal. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 4,
1085–1110.
Chowdhury, A., Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., Mal, B.C., 2009. Integrated remote sensing
and GIS-based approach for assessing groundwater potential in West Medinipur
district, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 30, 231–250.
Dar, T., Rai, N., Bhat, A., 2020. Delineation of potential groundwater recharge zones
using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Geol. Ecol. Landscapes 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1080/24749508.2020.1726562.
Das, B., Pal, S.C., 2019. Combination of GIS and fuzzy-AHP for delineating groundwater
recharge potential zones in the critical Goghat-II block of West Bengal, India. Hydro
Res. 2, 21–30.
Doke, A.B., Zolekar, R.B., Patel, H., Das, S., 2021. Geospatial mapping of groundwater
potential zones using multi-criteria decision-making AHP approach in a hardrock
basaltic terrain in India. Ecol. Indicat. 127, 107685.
Estoque, R.C., 2012. Analytic hierarchy process in geospatial analysis. In: Progress in
Geospatial Analysis. Springer, Tokyo, pp. 157–181.
FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Fashae, O.A., Tijani, M.N., Talabi, A.O., Adedeji, O.I., 2014. Delineation of groundwater
potential zones in the crystalline basement terrain of SW-Nigeria: an integrated GIS
and remote sensing approach. Appl. Water Sci. 4, 19–38.
Feizizadeh, B., Blaschke, T., 2013. GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide
susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran. Nat.
Hazards 65, 2105–2128.
Fildes, S.G., Clark, I.F., Somaratne, N.M., Ashman, G., 2020. Mapping groundwater
potential zones using remote sensing and geographical information systems in a
fractured rock setting, Southern Flinders Ranges, South Australia. J. Earth Syst. Sci.
129, 1–25.
GSI, 1995. Geological Quadrangle Maps 46O and 46P, 1:250000 Scale. Geological Survey
of India, Kolkata.
Guo, J., Niu, T., Rahimy, P., Wang, F., Zhao, H., Zhang, J., 2013. Assessment of soil
erosion susceptibility using empirical modeling. Acta Meteorol. Sin. 27, 98–109.
Hassani, M., Adhab, S.S., 2014. Lineament automatic extraction analysis for GalalBadra
river basin using Landsat 8 satellite image. Iraq. J. Phys. 12, 44–55.
Hemanjali, A.M., Pramod Kumar, G.R., Somashekar, R.K., Nagaraja, B.C., 2015.
Assessment of forest encroachment in Shimoga district of Western Ghats, India, using
remote sensing and GIS. Int. J. Adv. Tech. Eng. Res. 5, 25–30.
Hussain, M.H., 2004. Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability in an Alluvial Interfluve
Using GIS. Ph.D. thesis. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee.
Jain, S.K., Singh, R.D., Seth, S.M., 2000. Design flood estimation using GIS supported
GIUHApproach. Water Resour. Manag. 14, 369–376.
Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., Chowdhury, A., 2010. Groundwater assessment in Salboni
Block, West Bengal (India) using remote sensing, geographical information system
and multi-criteria decision analysis techniques. Hydrogeol. J. 18, 1713–1728.
Jhariya, D.C., Kumar, T., Gobinath, M., Diwan, P., Kishore, N., 2016. Assessment of
groundwater potential zone using remote sensing, GIS and multi criteria decision
analysis techniques. J. Geol. Soc. India 88, 481–492.
Kadam, A.K., Umrikar, B.N., Sankhua, R.N., 2020. Assessment of recharge potential
zones for groundwater development and management using geospatial and MCDA
technologies in semi-arid region of Western India. SN Appl. Sci. 2, 312.
Kadam, A., Karnewar, A.S., Umrikar, B., Sankhua, R.N., 2019. Hydrological response-
based watershed prioritization in semi-arid, basaltic region of western India using
frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and AHP method. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 21, 1809–1833.
Kaliraj, S., Chandrasekar, N., Magesh, N.S., 2014. Identification of potential groundwater
recharge zones in Vaigai upper basin, Tamil Nadu, using GIS-based analytical
hierarchical process (AHP) technique. Arabian J. Geosci. 7, 1385–1401.
Lentswe, G.B., Molwalefhe, L., 2020. Delineation of potential groundwater recharge
zones using analytic hierarchy process-guided GIS in the semi-arid Motloutse
watershed, eastern Botswana. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 28, 100674.
Malczewski, J., 2010. Multiple criteria decision analysis and geographic information
systems. In: Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer, Boston, MA,
pp. 369–395.
Malczewski, J., Rinner, C., 2015. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic
Information Science. Springer, New York.
Marinoni, O., 2004. Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in
ArcGIS. Comput. Geosci. 30, 637646.
Marinoni, O., 2009. AHP 1.1—Decision Support Tool for ArcGIS. Assessed online March
1, 2021.
Mogaji, K.A., Lim, H.S., Abdullah, K., 2014. Modeling groundwater vulnerability
prediction using geographic information system (GIS)-based ordered weighted
average (OWA) method and DRASTIC model theory hybrid approach. Arabian J.
Geosci. 7, 5409–5429.
Nair, H.C., Padmalal, D., Joseph, A., Vinod, P.G., 2017. Delineation of groundwater
potential zones in river basins using geospatial tools—an example from southern
western Ghats, Kerala, India. J. Geovis. Spat. Anal. 1, 5.
National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, 1996. Soils of Maharashtra. NBSS
Publ. 59. ICAR, Nagpur, India.
NRSC, 2000. Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission Manual. National Remote
Sensing Centre, Hyderabad, India.
15
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 17 (2022) 100733
Owolabi, A., 2020. Assessment of terrain and land use/land cover changes of mine sites
using geospatial techniques in Plateau State, Nigeria. J. Min. Environ. 11, 935–948.
Prasad, R.K., Mondal, N.C., Banerjee, P., Nandakumar, M.V., Singh, V.S., 2008.
Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS.
Environ. Geol. 55, 467–475.
Rajasekhar, M., Gadhiraju, S.R., Kadam, A., Bhagat, V., 2020. Identification of
groundwater recharge-based potential rainwater harvesting sites for sustainable
development of a semi-arid region of southern India using geospatial, AHP, and SCS-
CN approach. Arabian J. Geosci. 13, 24.
Raju, R.S., Raju, G.S., Rajasekhar, M., 2019. Identification of groundwater potential
zones in Mandavi River basin, Andhra Pradesh, India using remote sensing, GIS and
MIF techniques. Hydro Res. 2, 1–11.
Rao, N.S., Chakradhar, G.K.J., Srinivas, V., 2001. Identification of groundwater potential
zones using remote sensing techniques in and around Guntur town, Andhra Pradesh,
India. J. Indian Soc. Rem. Sens. 29, 69.
Reddy, G.O., Mouli, K.C., Srivastav, S.K., Srinivas, C.V., Maji, A.K., 2000. Evaluation of
ground water potential zones using remote sensing data—a case study of Gaimukh
watershed, Bhandara District, Maharashtra. J. Indian Soc. Rem. Sens. 28, 19.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L., 1986. Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable
cities in the United States. Socio. Econ. Plan. Sci. 20, 327–331.
Saaty, T.L., 1999. Fundamentals of the analytic network process. In: Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, pp. 12–14.
Sahoo, S., Dhar, A., Kar, A., Chakraborty, D., 2017. Index-based groundwater
vulnerability mapping using quantitative parameters. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 522.
Saidi, S., Hosni, S., Mannai, H., Jelassi, F., Bouri, S., Anselme, B., 2017. GIS-based multi-
criteria analysis and vulnerability method for the potential groundwater recharge
delineation, case study of Manouba phreatic aquifer, NE Tunisia. Environ. Earth Sci.
76, 511.
Shaban, A., Khawlie, M., Abdallah, C., 2006. Use of remote sensing and GIS to determine
recharge potential zones: the case of Occidental Lebanon. Hydrogeol. J. 14,
433–443.
Shah, S.A.A., Solangi, Y.A., Ikram, M., 2019. Analysis of barriers to the adoption of
cleaner energy technologies in Pakistan using modified delphi and fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process. J. Clean. Prod. 235, 1037–1050.
Saraf, A.K., Choudhury, P.R., 1998. Integrated remote sensing and GIS for groundwater
exploration and identification of artificial recharge sites. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 19,
1825–1841.
Sener, O., Koltun, V., 2018. Multi-task Learning as Multi-Objective Optimization arXiv
preprint arXiv:1810.04650.
Singh, P., Thakur, J.K., Singh, U.C., 2013. Morphometric analysis of Morar River Basin,
Madhya Pradesh, India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environ. Earth Sci.
68, 1967–1977.
Souissi, D., Msaddek, M.H., Zouhri, L., Chenini, I., El May, M., Dlala, M., 2018. Mapping
groundwater recharge potential zones in arid region using GIS and Landsat
approaches, southeast Tunisia. Hydrol. Sci. J. 63, 251–268.
Srinivasa Rao, Y., Jugran, D.K., 2003. Delineation of groundwater potential zones and
zones of groundwater quality suitable for domestic purposes using remote sensing
and GIS. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48, 821–833.
Strahler, A.N., 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 63, 1117–1142.
Strahler, A.N., 1954. Quantitative slope analysis in geomorphic research. J. Geol. 62,
1–25.
Suárez-Vega, R., Santos-Peñate, D.R., Dorta-González, P., Rodríguez-Díaz, M., 2011.
A multi-criteria GIS based procedure to solve a network competitive location
problem. Appl. Geogr. 31, 282–291.
Verma, D.K., Bhunia, G.S., Shit, P.K., Kumar, S., Mandal, J., Padbhushan, R., 2017.
Spatial variability of groundwater quality of Sabour block, Bhagalpur district (Bihar,
India). Appl. Water Sci. 7, 1997–2008.
Wada, Y., van Beek, L.P., Van Kempen, C.M., Reckman, J.W.T.M., Vasak, S., Bierkens, M.
F., 2010. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 (20),
L20402. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044571.
Wada, Y., Wisser, D., Bierkens, M.F., 2014. Global modeling of withdrawal, allocation
and consumptive use of surface water and groundwater resources. Earth Syst.
Dynam. 5, 15–40.
Wagh, V.M., Panaskar, D.B., Varade, A.M., Mukate, S.V., Gaikwad, S.K., Pawar, R.S.,
et al., 2016. Major ion chemistry and quality assessment of the groundwater
resources of Nanded tehsil, a part of southeast Deccan Volcanic Province,
Maharashtra, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1418.
Wagh, V., Panaskar, D., Muley, A., Mukate, S., Gaikwad, S., 2018. Neural network
modelling for nitrate concentration in groundwater of Kadava River basin, Nashik,
Maharashtra, India. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 7, 436–445.
World Bank, 2010. Annual Report 2010. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Zare, M., Pahl, C., Rahnama, H., Nilashi, M., Mardani, A., Ibrahim, O., Ahmadi, H., 2016.
Multi-criteria decision making approach in E-learning: a systematic review and
classification. Appl. Soft Comput. 45, 108–128.
Zghibi, A., Mirchi, A., Msaddek, M.H., Merzougui, A., Zouhri, L., Taupin, J.D.,
Tarhouni, J., 2020. Using analytical hierarchy process and multi-influencing factors
to map groundwater recharge zones in a semi-arid Mediterranean coastal aquifer.
Water 12, 2525.