Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies

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

Groundwater potential zone assessment using integrated

analytical hierarchy process-geospatial driven in a GIS
environment in Gobele watershed, Wabe Shebele river
basin, Ethiopia
Jerjera Ulu Guduru *, Nura Boru Jilo
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Haramaya Institute of Technology, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa 138, Ethiopia

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

Keywords: Study region: Gobele watershed, Wabe Shebelle River Basin, Ethiopia.
AHP Study focus: Recently, extremely increasing population numbers, and irrigation demand have
GIS imposed water problems in the study area. Hence, this study aimed to delineate groundwater
Groundwater potential
potential zones through an integrated approach of remote sensing, geographical information
Gobele watershed
system (GIS), and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the Gobele watershed. Numerous factors
like rainfall, geology, land use/land cover, slope, soil types, drainage density, lineament density,
and topographic wetness index were considered to demarcate groundwater recharge. The relative
weight of each factor was determined using AHP. Ultimately, all thematic layers were aggregated
by a weighted sum overly analysis in a GIS environment to map groundwater potential zones
using relative weights derived from the AHP. Finally, to verify the result, of the model was
validated with 30 observed springs and well yield.
New hydrological insights: The distribution of groundwater potential zones was spatially varied in
that a high groundwater recharge zone covers 2.4 % of the watershed, a moderate (93.7 %) and a
low (3.9 %). The validation analysis revealed a 90 % agreement between the groundwater in­
ventory data and the developed groundwater potential zone. Hence, the results are reliable and
enable water users and decision-makers to sustainably utilize the available groundwater in the
study area. Furthermore, this study is one of the rare groundwater investigations in the hydro­
geological setting of the study area.

1. Introduction

Groundwater is an important resource used for domestics, agriculture, and industries. It is a reliable water source, particularly
during prolonged dry periods (Assaf and Saadeh, 2008), and is preferred due to its lower susceptibility to contamination (Naghibi
et al., 2017). The demand for groundwater has recently increased dramatically due to rising populations, irrigation development, and
industrialization (Jha et al., 2010).
Several conventional methods, namely geophysical, hydrogeological, soil moisture modeling, and drilling, which are costly,
tedious, time-consuming, and infeasible for large watersheds, are used to identify groundwater recharge areas (Razandi et al., 2015;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jerjeraulu@gmail.com (J.U. Guduru).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101218
Received 2 March 2022; Received in revised form 28 August 2022; Accepted 21 September 2022
Available online 28 September 2022
2214-5818/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Bhattacharya et al., 2020; Dahiphale et al., 2020). Therefore, advanced technology is needed to save cost and time while identifying
groundwater potential areas (Sapkota et al., 2021). The aggregation of remote sensing (RS) and geographic information systems (GIS)
has proved to be a reliable and cost-efficient tool in assessing groundwater potential zones (Sapkota et al., 2021). The RS capability to
gather, manipulate, and manage huge amounts of data at a time enables researchers to effectively investigate, analyze, and manage
groundwater resources (Pathmanandakumar, 2021). As a result, the use of remote sensing and GIS-guided multi-criteria decision
analysis methods (MCDM) to demarcate groundwater potential zones has increased significantly over the last several decades (Achu
et al., 2020; Allafta et al., 2021), an effective tool for water resources and environmental management (Asadabadi et al., 2019;
Jothimani et al., 2021).
The existence and transmission of groundwater are influenced by multiple factors such as rainfall intensity, geology, soil property,
lineament density, slope gradient, drainage density, land use/land cover (LULC), Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), and their
interaction (AL-Zuhairy et al., 2017; Naghibi et al., 2017; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Singh et al., 2019; Saravanan et al., 2020;
Pathmanandakumar et al., 2021; Yıldırım, 2021). Furthermore, the assigned relative weights to the thematic layers will influence the
reliability of the obtained result. Thus, pairwise assignment of relative weight is extremely essential (Saaty and Vargas, 2012; Omar
and Fayek, 2016; Singh et al., 2019; Prayudi et al., 2020; Gebre et al., 2021; Mahato et al., 2021), and depends on expert judgment
(Ahmed et al., 2021).
Several Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques are used in this study, including Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
(Cook and Seiford, 2009; Mousavi-Avval et al., 2011; Gökşen et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2020); Multi Influencing Factor (MIF) (Etikala
et al., 2019); Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Achu et al., 2020; Allafta et al., 2021); Fuzzy Set Theory (FST) (Mallick et al., 2019);
ELECTRE (Alamanos et al., 2018); and TOPSIS (Omar and Fayek, 2016; Pramanik et al., 2016; Jozaghi et al., 2018; Al Zaabi and Bashir,
2020) are available to generate relative weights. The AHP is a well-organized tool that enables decision-makers in complex situations
(Razandi et al., 2015; Naghibi et al., 2017; Yıldırım, 2021). This method is more reliable in multi-criteria decision analysis (Asadabadi
et al., 2019; Prayudi et al., 2020; Gebre et al., 2021) and decreases biases on influencing parameters, which in turn increases the
accuracy of outcomes (Jha et al., 2010). It is also inexpensive and less time-consuming to investigate groundwater recharge areas
(Mundalik et al., 2018; Şener et al., 2018). It has been utilized by several researchers for computing the relative importance of thematic
parameters (AL-Zuhairy et al., 2017; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Allafta et al., 2021).
Previously several researcher (Tadesse et al., 2010; Keddi and Moges, 2016; Bezabih, 2017; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Berhanu
and Hatiye, 2020; Ewunetu et al., 2021; Jothimani et al., 2021; Mengistu et al., 2022; Melese and Belay, 2022) have assessed
groundwater potential in different parts of Ethiopian river basin. On the other hand, few study has conducted in Wabe Shebele river
basin. The Wabe Shebele river basin is commonly known with surface water scant area. Gobele watershed is one of Wabe Shebele river
basin which is limited with surface water. The dramatically increment of population number from time to time in Wabe Shebelle River
Basin creates competition over available surface water for irrigation activities and others purpose (Adank et al., 2008; Ayala et al.,
2018). Besides this, the land use land cover and climate change (Woldemariam and Harka, 2020; Abebe et al., 2021; Hirko et al., 2021)

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

2
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

brought challenge on available surface water. Thus, to alleviate this water demand problems, exploitation of Groundwater in the
Gobele watershed is vital for the region as well as the country. However, the exploitation of groundwater in the study area was
previously conducted using drill holes, which is costly and tedious. Hence, this study employed an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
guided GIS to qualitatively investigate and compare groundwater potential zones by aggregating the most influencing factors. In this
research, the AHP technique was used for the first time to identify the geospatial dispersal of groundwater recharge zones across the
study area. Furthermore, the relative importance of the multiple geospatial parameters was generated based on their contribution to
groundwater recharge in the watershed. Finally, observed spring and well yield data were used to verify the model performance. The
findings of the study will enable water users and decision-makers to visualize and evaluate the current groundwater balance and
predict its future status in the study area.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the study area

The study was carried out in the Gobele watershed located in the Wabe Shebelle basin, Ethiopia. The watershed extends from
8˚40’10" to 9˚20’ 34" North and 41˚41’ 10" to 42˚11’ 30" East, with a total area of 2804.7 Km2. It has diverse topographic features with an
elevation range from 957 to 3387 m above mean sea level (amsl) (Fig. 1). Two rainy seasons, major in the summer season
(June–September), and minor in February-May, are common in watersheds (Woldemariam et al., 2018; Harka et al., 2021; Gurara
et al., 2021a,b, 2022). The watershed has a tropical climate with a mean annual temperature varying from 15 to 25◦ and an average
annual precipitation from 1990 to 2019 of nearly 832 mm. The geology of the Gobele watershed is underlain by basalt and tuff,
Sandston/lime, and undifferentiated aquifer materials (Fig. 3e). The hydrology in the study area is characterized by factors such as
surface flow from the watershed, groundwater recharge rate that is dependent upon the quantity of excess rainfall, evapotranspiration,
soil characteristics (texture and structure), and bedrock permeability. All these affect groundwater yield to wells, springs, and river
channels that drain the watershed.
The geomorphology of the study area is characterized by colluvial with patches of alluvial deposits along the streams. In general,
lithologically, the watershed is dominated by gneiss and schist, along with granitic and pegmatitic intrusions.
In the lower parts of the watershed, irrigation water demand and domestic use in the middle parts are highly needed. In the middle
parts of the study area, there is high competition for crop water requirements.
In recent times, despite several springs and wells have been investigated and extracted with the local authority to balance domestic
water demand, there is water scarcity which needs immediate solution. The methodology used in this study is shown in (Fig. 2).

2.2. Data sets and sources

In this research, after we extensively reviewed important literature (Jha et al., 2010; Magesh et al., 2012; Fashae et al., 2014; I.P.
Senanayake et al., 2016; Sener et al., 2018; Maity and Mandal, 2019; Etikala et al., 2019; Abijitha et al., 2020; Achu et al., 2020;
Murmu et al., 2020; Lentswe et al., 2020; Mahato et al., 2021; Pathmanandakumar et al., 2021; Rajasekhar et al., 2021; Sapkota et al.,
2021; Ewunetu et al., 2021) regarding with groundwater potential assessment, the most important factors such as soil, LULC, rainfall,
geology, lineament density, slope gradient, drainage density, and topographic wetness index (TWI) were considered in this study.

Fig. 2. Overall study Framework.

3
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

These data were collected from different sources. For instance, the 20 years of rainfall data (2000–2019) of 12 meteorological stations
were collected from the National Meteorology Agency of Ethiopia. Soil data was obtained from the Ministry of Water and Energy of
Ethiopia. The LULC data available at a spatial resolution of 10 х 10 m was downloaded from ESRI LULC 2020. The geology was

Fig. 3. Thematic layer maps of groundwater recharge.

4
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

obtained from the Ethiopian Geological Survey. Drainage density, TWI, and slope maps were generated using a digital elevation model
with a 12.5 m spatial resolution that was downloaded from the Advanced Land Observation Satellite (ALOS). Moreover, the lineament
density was derived from Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS imagery and ALOS DEM at 12.5 m resolution. This Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS of January, 2022
was downloaded from (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov). Furthermore, the observed borehole data was collected from the local au­
thority office to validate the model. Following the assignment of relative weights using multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) techniques,
further processes were carried out in ArcGIS.

2.3. Thematic layers preparation

In this research, the assessment of groundwater potential zones was achieved through integrating rainfall, soil property, geology,
and lineament density, slope gradient, drainage density, LULC, and TWI in the GIS environment as described below. Each thematic
layer was prepared in raster format and finally projected with a 12.5 m spatial resolution in a GIS environment.

2.3.1. Rainfall
Rainfall is the major hydrological source for groundwater recharge (Ahmed et al., 2021; Allafta et al., 2021), which also determines
its fluctuation (Agarwal and Garg, 2016). The heavy rainfall intensity produces high groundwater recharge (Thomas et al., 2016;
Kotchoni et al., 2019; He et al., 2021). The rainfall map was prepared using the Inverse Distance Weight method tool in GIS. The mean
annual rainfall of Gobele watershed exists between 425.4 mm and 953.2 mm (Fig. 3h).

2.3.2. Soils
Soil influences the infiltration rate, which in turn has an impact on groundwater recharge can highly impact the infiltration rate and
deep percolation into an aquifer (Anbazhagan and Ramasamy, 2006; Etikala et al., 2019). Soil properties (grain size, shape, structural
arrangement, and the pore space) can significantly influence the movement of groundwater (Musa et al., 2017; Gomboš et al., 2019).
Coarse-grained soils have high infiltration potential and result in high groundwater recharge relative to fine soils (Nolan and Taber,
2007). There are seven types of soils within the study area namely; Eutric Luvisol, Eutric Leptosol, Calcaric Leptosol, Eutric Vertosol,
Hapalic luvisols, and Rhodic Nitisol (Fig. 3f) in that sequence, with the north west dominated by the coarser sandy soils while the finer
clay soils are common in the North east (FAO, 1985).

2.3.3. Land use/land cover

Land use/land cover is an important factor that affects the occurrence, availability, and recharge of groundwater (Li et al., 2018;
Dibaba et al., 2020; Yifru et al., 2021), and affects the quantity of water that merges into groundwater (Benavides et al., 2018; Mireille
et al., 2019; Yimer et al., 2008). In the study area, the common LULC area were forest, shrubland, grass land, crop land, bare land,
built-up area (settlement) and water body (Fig. 3g). The occurrence of groundwater is less in bare land compare to forest and agri­
cultural areas (Lamichhane and Shakya, 2020; Ouyang et al., 2019). Similarly, the land cover map was obtained from Esri LULC 2020.
Most of the watershed area is covered by cropland and grassland LULC types.

2.3.4. Geology/Lithology
Lithological properties determine porosity and the movement of groundwater (Ayazi et al., 2010). Higher porosity of lithology
produces higher groundwater storage. The study area consists of various types of geological features such as in the Gobele watershed,
basalts and tuff, Sandston/lime, Limestone, and a rocky undifferentiated aquifer (Fig. 3e).

2.3.5. Lineament density

The lineaments are natural linear fractures in the form of faults, joints, and fractures (Agarwal and Garg, 2016). It represents the
total length of lineaments in a unit area, as expressed in Eq. (1) (Yeh et al., 2016; Enoh et al., 2021), and also influences secondary
porosity and permeability. Lineament density is considered an important indicator for the identification of groundwater recharge
zones (Şener et al., 2018; Siddi Raju et al., 2019). Groundwater recharge is influenced by the arrangement of lineaments in relation to
the surface water bodies or where lineaments intersect (Babiker and Gudmundsson, 2004; Gupta et al., 2012; Rajaveni et al., 2014).
The high lineament density corresponds to high groundwater recharge (Naghibi et al., 2017; Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020; Sapkota
et al., 2021). Two methods are available to extract lineaments from satellite images. However, for accuracy and user friendliness,
automatic lineament extraction is more preferable (Weerasekera et al., 2014). Thus, this study adopted automatic extraction of the
linear structure of lineament from both Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS imagery and ALOS DEM using the LINE tool in PCI Geomatica software
version 12.0 (Geomatica, 2018). Then, these derived linear structures were saved as shapefile (.shp) in UTM coordinates and imported
into ArcGIS software to create a lineament density map using the line density tool of the Spatial Analyst Toolbox. The final lineament
density map was created by overlaying the lineament map with the ArcGIS overlay analysis tool. Multiple (Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020;
Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020; Sapkota et al., 2021) studies use this method to extract lineament density. Accordingly, the lineament
density of Gobele watershed ranged from 0 to 3.87Km/km2 (Fig. 3a).

2.3.6. Drainage density

Drainage density is defined as the closeness of the spacing of stream channels (Sar et al., 2015). It is the measurement of the total
length of the stream segment of all orders per unit area (Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020; Doke et al., 2021; Rahmati et al., 2015). The
drainage pattern and density provide valuable information about groundwater occurrences (Rajaveni et al., 2014). The DEM was used

5
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

to drive the drainage network, which further required preparing a drainage density map. The drainage density is inversely proportional
to the groundwater potential (Naidu et al., 2015). Thus, an area with a high drainage density has a lower recharge rate, whereas low
drainage density areas have a higher recharge rate (Rajaveni et al., 2014). Drainage density map of study area was generated by line
density tool of spatial analyst toolbox in ArcGIS 10.2. It varied from 0 to 1.74Km/km2 (Fig. 3b).

2.3.7. Slope
The slope gradient directly influences groundwater recharge (Harry et al., 2020), and it is widely used for the delineation of GWPZs
(Magesh et al., 2012). It is a very essential terrain parameter that shows the steepness of the ground surface. The flat slope has the
highest infiltration capacity (Hagos and Andualem, 2021; Melese and Belay, 2022; Thapa et al., 2017), and the steeper the slope, the
higher runoff and lower groundwater recharge (Naghibi et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2019). The rank was assigned to each slope class
depending on their groundwater potential. The slope of Gobele watershed extend from 0 to 78◦ (Fig. 3d).

2.3.8. Topographic wetness index (TWI)

R. Sorensen et al. (2006) show that TWI is highly correlated with soil moisture and groundwater level. The higher the value of TWI,
the higher the groundwater potential (Naghibi et al., 2017). Studies have shown that high TWI areas have high groundwater potential,
while low TWI areas have low groundwater potential (Mallick et al., 2019). The TWI was computed using the following Eq. (1)
developed by Moore and Nieber (1989).
AS
T W I = ln⌈ ⌉ (1)
tan(β)
The TWI of Gobele watershed varied from 0 to 26.15(Fig. 3c).

2.4. Assigning relative weight

All indicators have different contributions to the occurrence and groundwater recharge (Hachem et al., 2015; Yeh et al., 2016;
Arulbalaji et al., 2019). Their relative weight is determined by adopting the AHP method based on their influence and significance to
recharge (Saaty, 2008a). AHP is used as a decision-making tool in problems involving complex parameters and areas with scarce data
in quantity and quality (Saaty and Vargas, 2012; Jozaghi et al., 2018; Asadabadi et al., 2019). Expert judgment and eigenvector are
needed to assign weight and order, while principal eigenvalue is used to rank the factors (Carver, 1991; Hajkowicz and Higgins, 2008;
Malczewski, 2006). The hydrogeologist expert was invited from the local authority office to determine the relative importance of
indicators based on Saaty’s scale values (Table 1). The eigenvector indicates the relative weights of each of the indicators (Brunelli,
2015) and is computed by dividing column values by column sum as shown in Table 1 (Saaty, 2008a). The sum of eigenvalues
(principal eigenvalue (λ max)) measures the consistency of the matrix (Brunelli, 2015). A pairwise comparison matrix (n * n) was
generated based on the input factors. Each entry indicates the influence of the row-relative on the column-factor. The reliability of the
pairwise comparison matrix is checked by comparing the λ max values with several thematic layers incorporated into it. The total
parameters should be less than λ max values. A certain level of inconsistency may occur during the pairwise decision of indicators.
Thus, it is very essential to check the accuracy of the assigned weight during pairwise comparison. The AHP method incorporates a
consistency index to measure deviation because the matrix deviation increases with an increasing comparison number (Saaty and
Vargas, 2012). In weight determination, a consistency ratio of less than 0.1 (10 %) is acceptable (Mundalik et al., 2018; Rajasekhar
et al., 2021); otherwise, relative weights of each indicator should be re-assigned to reduce inconsistency (Saaty and Vargas, 2012;
Saaty, 2008b, 1986). The Consistency Index (CI) is the ratio of the difference between λ max and the number of indicators involved, as
shown in Eq. (2): Tables 2 and 3.
λmax− n
CI = (2)
n− 1

CI
CR = (3)
RI

Where: CI is consistency index, CR is consistency ratio, RI is a random index (Table 4), n = number of parameters involved, λmax is
Principal Eigenvalue.
Fig. 4 indicates the weight of each thematic layer incorporated in the analysis and shows that lithology was the most influential
indicator (32%) in determining the groundwater potential zone. The lineament density (23%) and the slope (16%) were observed to be
the second and third most influential parameters, respectively. On the other hand, the LULC (2.2%) and rainfall (3.3%) is considered
the least influential factors in delineating groundwater recharge areas.
According to Table 5, the (λ max) value of this study was 8.40, which is greater than the number of indicators, and its consistency

Table 1
Analytical Hierarchy Process scale (Saaty, 2008).
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

importance equal weak Moderate Moderate plus strong Strong plus Very strong much strong extreme

6
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Table 2
Random index (RI) developed by Saaty and Vargas (2012).
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Table 3
Expert judgment on assigning relative weight to factors.
Factors LI LD Slope TWI Soil DD Rainfall LULC

LI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LD 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Slope 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6
TWI 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4 5
Soil 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4
DD 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3
Rainfall 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2
LULC 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1
Sum 2.71 4.59 7.45 11.28 16.08 21.83 28.50 36.00

LD= lineament density, DD= drainage density, TWI=topographic wetness index.

Table 4
Normalized weight of the matrix.
Factors LI LD Slope TWI Soil DD Rainfall LULC Eigen vector Weight %

LI 0.37 0.44 0.40 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.33 32.00
LD 0.18 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.23 23.00
Slope 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 16.00
TWI 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.11 10.53
Soil 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.073 7.03
DD 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.052 5.24
Rainfall 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.033 3.33
LULC 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.023 2.23
Sum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 100

Fig. 4. The relative weight of ground water potential indicators.

ratio of 0.041 was also within the tolerance limit (0.1), indicating that the consistency in the pair-wise comparison and assigned weight
are both acceptable. Among the considered parameters, lithology and lineament density are the first and second most influential
groundwater occurrence indicators, respectively (Table 4).

2.5. Thematic layers integration through weighted overlay

Each indicator was reclassified to a common ratio scale and integrated to produce a map of the groundwater potential index within
the Gobele watershed. All reclassified raster maps of preferred parameters were overlaid in the Weighted Overlay Analysis tool.
Finally, the weighted values of each raster layer are multiplied by the cell score of each input raster (Eq. (4)). Further, groundwater

7
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Table 5
Computation of the principal Eigenvalue to evaluate pairwise matrix consistency.
Factors Column Sum (1) Eigenvector (2) Rank (1 *2)

LI 2.71 0.32 0.87

LD 4.59 0.23 1.06
Slope 7.45 0.16 1.19
TWI 11.28 0.11 1.24
Soil 16.08 0.073 1.17
DD 21.83 0.052 1.14
Rainfall 28.50 0.033 0.94
LULC 36.00 0.022 0.79
λmax 8.40

potential zones are classified based on GWPI value (Jha et al., 2010; Etikala et al., 2019; Murmu et al., 2020; Sapkota et al., 2021).
GWPI is a dimensionless quantity computed from both the weights of each thematic layer and its features. Mathematically, GWPI was
calculated using Eq. (4) (Jha et al., 2010; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Sapkota et al., 2021):
∑
n
GWPI = wixi (4)
i=1

Where: GWPI is the Potential Groundwater Index; n is the number of indicators; Wi is normalized weight (in percentage) of indicator xi
is relative score for the ith indicator at the tth pixel.

2.6. Validation of groundwater map

From a scientific significance viewpoint, validating a model is essential to evaluate the reliability of the result (Chung and Fabbri,
2003). In this work, the delineated groundwater potential area was verified using the spring and well yield data. In the same way,
multiple researchers (Jha et al., 2010; Magesh et al., 2012; Şener et al., 2018; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020;
Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020; Murmu et al., 2020; Saravanan et al., 2020; Doke et al., 2021; Sapkota et al., 2021; Sarwar et al., 2021)
also used groundwater inventory data (boreholes data: spring, well, and hand dug yield) to cross validate the developed groundwater
potential zone. The observed groundwater data was mapped and overlaid on the delineated groundwater potential zone map in the GIS
environment. In this case, the high overlap indicates that the generated map was deemed more reliable because springs and well yield
data are true indicators of groundwater recharge zone availability.

Table 6
Groundwater potential index value of each feature within Gobele watershed.
Indicators Feature Score GWPZ Feature Weights (%) CR GWPZI %

LI Undifferentiated rock 1 Low 7.2 0.037 7.2

Sandstone and lime 2 Medium 27.89 55.78
Basalt and tuff 3 High 64.91 194.73
LD ≤ 0.5 1 Low 11.2 0.004 11.5
0.5–1.20 2 Medium 25.3 50.6
≥ 1.20 3 High 63.5 192.4
Slope (SL) ≥ 30 1 Low 10.95 0.007 10.95
8.0–30.0 2 Medium 30.9 61.8
≤ 8.0 3 High 58.15 174.45
TWI ≤ 10 1 Low 9.25 0.062 9.25
10–16 2 Medium 29.23 58.46
≥ 16 3 High 61.52 184.56
Soil (SO) clay 1 Low 8.7 0.054 8.7
silt 2 Medium 24.3 48.6
sandy 3 High 67 201
DD ≥ 1.50 1 Low 13.97 0.006 13.97
1.0–1.50 2 Medium 33.25 66.5
≤ 1.0 3 High 52.78 158.34
Rainfall (RR) ≤ 600 mm 1 Low 7.51 0.03 7.51
600–800 mm 2 Medium 33.32 66.64
≥ 800 mm 3 High 59.17 177.51
LULC Bare land/ built area 1 Low 16.4 0.042 16.4
Cropland /grassland 2 Medium 29.7 59.4
Forestland / waterbody 3 High 53.9 161.7

8
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

3. Results and discussions

3.1. The criterion for groundwater potential mapping

Eight parameters (geology, lineament density, slope, TWI, soil, drainage density, rainfall, and LULC) that mostly influence the
groundwater occurrence in the study area have been carefully considered to assess the groundwater potential zone in the Gobele
watershed. After successfully assigning the weight to each factor using AHP, GWPI for each feature of the thematic layer was computed
using Eq. (1), mentioned under Section 2.5 (Table 6). Further, these GWPI values were used to indicate the overall groundwater
potential recharge area.
Table 6 shows the groundwater potential index value of each thematic layer incorporated in the groundwater recharge area
assessment. These values were computed by multiplying the feature rank with its corresponding feature weight.

3.1.1. Geology/Lithology
Geology or lithology is the most controlling parameter for the distribution and occurrence of groundwater (Andualem and Demeke,
2019; Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020; Doke et al., 2021; Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020; Murmu et al., 2020; Sapkota et al., 2021). Li­
thology directly affects both the porosity and permeability of the aquifer material (Ayazi et al., 2010; Jha et al., 2010). In this study
area, the common geological formations are basalt and tuff; undifferentiated aquifer material; and sandstone/lime (Fig. 5). The basalt
and tuff rocky types are characterized by high porosity and permeability, which enhance groundwater recharge.

3.1.2. Lineament density (LD)

Lineament is the second most important indicator that helps to assess the potential groundwater zone (Murmu et al., 2020; Sapkota
et al., 2021). The linear structures (faults, cracks, and joints) detect the groundwater recharge areas (Doke et al., 2021). Lineament
density has a direct impact (i.e., the more lineament density the watershed has, the higher the probability of groundwater recharge)
(Jha et al., 2010; Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020; Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020; Ahmed et al., 2021; Tolche, 2021). In general, the
lineament density of the Gobele watershed varied from (0–3.87 km/km2). In this study, a high groundwater potential zone occurred at
a denser lineament (LD >1.56 km/km2) (Fig. 6). On the other hand, a moderate/medium recharge zone occurred in the watershed
where lineament density ranged from 0.56 to 1.56 km/km2 (Table 6).

3.1.3. Slope
Slope is a vital parameter that determines groundwater recharge area through significantly influencing the rate of infiltration and
percolation of certain watersheds (Das and Pal, 2020). Thus, the watershed having a steeper slope generates lower groundwater
recharge (Naghibi et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2019). The slope of the Gobele watershed is available between 0 and 78◦. The areas at
gentle slopes (0–8◦) are categorized as low potential groundwater recharge areas, medium slopes (8–30◦) as moderate recharge zones
and at steep slopes (>30◦) as high recharge areas (Fig. 7).

3.1.4. Topographic wetness index (TWI)

The topographic wetness index is also an important indicator of groundwater potential. TWI is widely used to measure the effect of
topography on hydrological processes and groundwater (Arulbalaji et al., 2019). Higher TWI values revealed areas with a higher
probability of groundwater occurrence (Mallick et al., 2019). The topographic wetness index value of the study area varied from 1.0 to

Fig. 5. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to Geology.

9
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Fig. 6. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to Lineament density.

Fig. 7. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to slope.

26.4. Based on these values, the watershed has been classified into three classes: high (TWI> 16), corresponding to a high groundwater
potential area, moderate/medium (10 <TWI<16) that generates moderate groundwater recharge; In contrast, a watershed with
(TWI<10) was categorized under the low groundwater potential zone.

3.1.5. Soil
The texture of the soil, in particular, is an important factor in determining the groundwater recharge area. The infiltration and
water holding capacity of the watershed depend on soil property (i.e., types, structures, and textures) (Kumar et al., 2016; Mehra et al.,
2016; Rukundo and Doğan, 2019). The porosity and permeability rate depend on soil textures (course, silty, and clay) in which more
infiltration takes place in sandy soils relative to clay soils. Therefore, the higher groundwater recharge zone can occur in areas with
sandy soil (Das and Pal, 2020). Texturally, the dominant soil types in the Gobele watershed are sandy, which is favorable for high
recharge; silt for medium recharge; and clay for high runoff and low groundwater potential zone as indicated by Fig. 9.

3.1.6. Drainage density

Drainage density (DD) is another influencing parameter for assessing groundwater recharge areas (Jenifer and Jha, 2017). It is
evident that areas with high drainage densities exhibit high runoff, which in turn reveals low infiltration rate and groundwater
recharge (Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Murmu et al., 2019; Thomas and Duraisamy, 2018). In this study area, drainage density is
varied from 0 to 4.8 km/km2 and classified into three that contribute to high groundwater (DD<1.0 km/km2), medium
(DD = 1.0–1.50 km/km2) and low (DD >1.5 km/km2) as shown in (Fig. 10).

10
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Fig. 8. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to TWI.

Fig. 9. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to Soil textures.

3.1.7. Rainfall
Rainfall plays an important role in controlling groundwater potential. Detailed information regarding the intensity and duration of
rainfall will help to estimate runoff and groundwater recharge (Ramu, 2014; Maity and Mandal, 2019). The mean annual rainfall of the
watershed ranges from 480 to 1200 mm and is classified into three lows (R<600) correspond to low groundwater contribution area,
medium for mean rainfall between 600 and 800, and high above 800 mm (Fig. 11).

3.1.8. Land use/cover

Land use/land cover can influence groundwater recharge. For instance, built-up and bare land watersheds have high runoff and low
groundwater recharge, whereas areas covered by forest and waterbodies have a high chance of groundwater recharge (Li et al., 2018;
Owuor et al., 2016). Cropland contributes more recharge through allowing infiltration rate than barren, rocky, and built-up areas for
groundwater recharge. The dominant LULC of the Gobele watershed are forest, agricultural, bare land, including residential areas, and
waterbodies. Based on their related properties on recharge, these LULC have been classified as shown in Fig. 12.

3.2. Overall potential groundwater zones assessment

After the weighted overlay process has been completed, based on GWPZI value, the groundwater potential zone map is classified
into three classes: low (GWPI<85.5), moderate (85.2 <GWPI< 467.78) and high (GWPI >1444.78) (Table 7). These classifications
were decided upon similar previous studies (Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020; Doke et al., 2021; Lentswe and
Molwalefhe, 2020; Sapkota et al., 2021) and consultation with experts familiar with the hydrogeology and geo-physical settings of the
Gobele watershed. It is noted that the GWPI value is focused on indicating qualitative groundwater potential areas. The high

11
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Fig. 10. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to drainage density.

Fig. 11. Groundwater recharge zone map of the Gobele watershed corresponding to rainfall.

Fig. 12. Groundwater potential zone corresponding to LULC map of the study area.

12
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

groundwater potential areas are located where there are high (>1.2 km/km2) lineament density with gentle slope (0 <8˚), sandy
textured soil, basalt and tuff geological area, highly covered with forest and water body, high TWI (>16) and low drainage density
(<1.0).
Fig. 13 indicates the spatial distribution of groundwater potential area over the Gobele watershed in that high recharge potential is
more concentrated on the west side of the study area. Most permeable lithology, high lineament density and TWI value, gentle slope,
low drainage density, coarse grained soil texture, and forest covered areas with high corresponding to high recharge potentials
(Figs. 5–11) characterize these high recharge areas.
The high groundwater potential zone covers an area of nearly 67.8 km2 (2.4 %) of the study watershed. On the other hand, the low
groundwater potential zone is mostly found in the middle part of the Gobele watershed in an area covered by high drainage density
(>1.5) with bare land, low lineament density, steep slope (>30 %), and undifferentiated aquifer material. The low groundwater
potential zone covers 111.6 km2 (3.9 %) of the study area. The moderate groundwater potential zone covers 2625.7 km2 (93.7 %) of
the total area of the Gobele watershed (Table 8). In general, the strong influence of the geology/lithology, lineament density, slope, and
topographic witness index is significantly observed in the delineated groundwater potential in this study. In line with this, several
studies (Ahmed et al., 2021; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020; Doke et al., 2021; Lentswe and Molwalefhe,
2020; Mallick et al., 2019; Murmu et al., 2020; Sapkota et al., 2021) showed that these parameters, namely: geology, lineament
density, and slope, significantly influence groundwater occurrence and recharge.

3.3. Groundwater map validation

The groundwater inventory data (spring and well yield data) is very important to validate the qualitative groundwater potential
map. 30 existing groundwater inventory data (springs and well yield) were collected for this purpose. Different researchers (Berhanu
and Hatiye, 2020; Murmu et al., 2020; Sapkota et al., 2021; Tuinhof et al., 2011) used different ranges to classify this data as low,
medium, and high. The details of their classification are shown in (Table 9). Finally, it was overlaid on a groundwater recharge po­
tential map (Fig. 14). In line with this, several researchers (Bezabih Bashe, 2017; Andualem and Demeke, 2019; Mallick et al., 2019;
Berhanu and Hatiye, 2020; Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020; Murmu et al., 2020; Dar et al., 2021; Doke et al., 2021; Sapkota et al., 2021;
Tolche, 2021) also used groundwater inventory data for validation purposes. It has been observed that the high recharge zones
correspond to high well yield fields as in Fig. 14. In the west of the watershed, high recharge zones coincide with two of the three
recharge zones previously identified using fieldwork. The validation results revealed that AHP has a fairly good prediction of 0.705.
Therefore, the results of groundwater potential maps obtained using the AHP method have been considered a good prediction.
In this study, since there is no standard classification rather than site-specific conditions, we adopted the above-mentioned
groundwater yield classification by researchers with some modification. Hence, based on the collected spring and well yield data,
as low (0.1–1.5 l/s), medium yield (1.5–6 l/s), and high (>6 l/s) (Table 10).
Based on this classification, out of the 9 boreholes classified as high yield (>6 l/s), 7 (77.8 %) of them is accurately matched with
the high groundwater potential zone (GWPZ). Furthermore, 88.23 % of the 17 borehole yield data classified as medium are falling on
the medium GWPZ, while five boreholes (83.3 %) are falling on the low GWPZ (Fig. 14). On average, the qualitative groundwater
potential assessment fit with 90 % of the groundwater inventory (spring and well yield) data (Table 10). This revealed that the
groundwater inventory data is well agreed with the delineated groundwater potential zones using an analytical hierarchy process-
geospatial driven in a GIS environment.

4. Conclusion

The advancement of remotely sensed data and GIS application simplifies the study of the natural environment (groundwater
investigation) without direct contact. This study aimed at groundwater assessment using aggregated AHP-geospatial techniques in a
GIS environment in the Gobele watershed. In this study, lithology, lineament density, slope, soil property, drainage density, TWI,
LULC, and rainfall was used to assess the spatial distribution of groundwater potential in the study area. The AHP (pairwise comparison
matrix) method was used to assign relative weight to each indicator based on their contribution to groundwater recharge. Thus, li­
thology and lineament density are the most influential factors, with 32 % and 23 % of the weight, respectively. Similarly, respective
moderate weightages of 16 %, 11 %, 7 %, 5 %, and 2.23 % for slope, TWI, soil composition, drainage density, and land use/land cover
respectively. Then, all the thematic layers were integrated to generate a groundwater potential map. Accordingly, about 2.4 %
(67.8 Km2) of the watershed area corresponds to a high groundwater potential area, while an extensive area of 93.7 % (2625.6 Km2) is
classified as a medium groundwater recharge area. The spring and well yield data were used to test the performance of the model. The
first step was based on cross-validation using the existing spring’s data (location and discharge). The validation result revealed a 90 %

Table 7
Overall groundwater potential index value within Gobele watershed.
GWPZI for each indicator Sum (GWPZI)

Status LI LD SL TWI SO DD RR LULC

Low 7.2 11.5 10.95 9.25 8.7 13.97 7.51 16.4 85.2
Medium 55.78 50.6 61.8 58.46 48.6 66.5 66.64 59.4 467.78
high 194.73 192.4 174.45 184.56 201 158.34 177.51 161.7 1444.78

13
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Fig. 13. Overall groundwater potential zone map of Gobele watershed.

Table 8
Areal coverage of groundwater recharge area in the Gobele watershed.
Status GWPI value Area (Km2) Area %

Low < 85.2 111.6 3.9

Medium 85.2–467.8 2625.7 93.7
High 467.8–1444.78 67.4 2.4

Table 9
Groundwater (spring and well) yield classification by various researchers.
Researchers Spring and well yield in (l/s)

Low Medium High

Tuinhof et al. (2011) 0.1–0.5 2–5 5–20

Berhanu and Hatiye (2020) 0–1 1–5 >5
Murmu et al. (2020) < 0.28 0.28–5.8 13.3–22.5
Sapkota et al. (2021) < 0.017 0.017–0.17 > 0.17

Fig. 14. Groundwater potential zone map and inventory data (spring and well yield).

14
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Table 10
Classification of groundwater inventory data of Gobele watershed.
GWPZ Spring and well yield (l/s) No of spring and wells available No of wells and springs overlap with GWPZ Validity %

Low 0.1–1.5 6 5 83.3

Medium 1.5–6 17 15 88.23
High >6 9 7 77.8
total 30 27 90

agreement between the groundwater inventory data and the GWPZ. Furthermore, qualitative validation with spring and well yield
data has been found to be satisfactory for evaluating models. The use of geospatial data can serve as a credible source of information for
the delineation of groundwater recharge zones and help in developing and managing groundwater for the Gobele watershed. Further,
the findings of this study could greatly help with proper management and utilization of groundwater resources, especially to balance
domestic and irrigation water demand.

Author statement

This is the first revision of the manuscript. Responses to the editor’s and reviewer’s comments are provided. The manuscript was
revised as per the comments from the editor and reviewers. All comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers are accepted
and modified. Other minor revisions have been made in the manuscript.

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.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Meteorological Agency of Ethiopia (NMA), Ministry of Water and Energy of Ethiopia
and local government office for allowing us to access their data without any restriction. We thank all constructive comments and
suggestions provided by the two anonymous reviewers and the editor that have helped improve the quality of the manuscript.

Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101218. These data
include Google maps of the most important areas described in this article.

References

Abebe, G., Getachew, D., Ewunetu, A., 2021. Analysing land use/land cover changes and its dynamics using remote sensing and GIS in Gubalafito district,
Northeastern Ethiopia. SN Appl. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04915-8.
Abijitha, D., Saravanan, S., Singha, L., Jennifer, J.J., Saranya, T., Parthasarathy, K.S.S., 2020. GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for identification of potential
groundwater recharge zones – a case study from Ponnaniyaru watershed, Tamil Nadu, India. HydroResearch 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hydres.2020.02.002.
Achu, A.L., Reghunath, R., Thomas, J., 2020. Mapping of groundwater recharge potential zones and identification of suitable site-specific recharge mechanisms in a
tropical river basin. Earth Syst. Environ. 4, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-019-00138-5.
Adank, M., Water, I., Centre, S., Lema, Z., 2008. Research-inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile region The costs and benefits of multiple uses
of water: The case of Gorogutu woreda of East Hararghe zone, Oromiya Regional States, eastern Ethiopia.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1159-8.
Ahmed, A., Alrajhi, A., Alquwaizany, A.S., 2021. Identification of groundwater potential recharge zones in flinders ranges, South Australia using remote sensing, GIS,
and MIF techniques. Water 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13182571.
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.
Remote Sens. 13, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13010112.
Al-Zaabi, H., Bashir, H., 2020. Modeling and analyzing project interdependencies in project portfolios using an integrated social network analysis-fuzzy TOPSIS
MICMAC approach. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 11, 1083–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-020-00962-3.
AL-Zuhairy, P.D.M.S.H., Hasan, A.P.D.A.A., Shnewer, F.M., 2017. GIS-Based Frequency Ratio Model for Mapping the Potential Zoning of Groundwater in the Western
Desert of Iraq. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 8, 52–65.
Anbazhagan, S., Ramasamy, S.M., 2006. Evaluation of areas for artificial groundwater recharge in Ayyar Basin, Tamil Nadu, India through statistical terrain analysis.
J. Geol. Soc. India 67, 59–68.

15
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Andualem, T.G., Demeke, G.G., 2019. Groundwater potential assessment using GIS and remote sensing: a case study of Guna tana landscape, upper blue Nile Basin,
Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 24, 100610 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100610.
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 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38567-x.
Asadabadi, M.R., Chang, E., Saberi, M., 2019. Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP).
Cogent Eng. 6 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153.
Assaf, H., Saadeh, M., 2008. Assessing water quality management options in the Upper Litani Basin, Lebanon, using an integrated GIS-based decision support system.
Environ. Model. Softw. 23, 1327–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.006.
Ayala, G., Muleta, B., Geremu, T., 2018. Assessment of status of irrigation practice and utilization in western assessment of status of irrigation practice and utilization
in western Hararghe Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Civ. Environ. Res. 10, 1–13.
Ayazi, M.H., Pirasteh, S., Pili, A.K.A., Biswajeet, P., Nikouravan, B., Mansor, S., 2010. Disasters and risk reduction in groundwater: Zagros mountain southwest Iran
using geoinformatics techniq. Disaster Adv. 3, 51–57.
Babiker, M., Gudmundsson, A., 2004. The effects of dykes and faults on groundwater flow in an arid land: the Red Sea Hills, Sudan. J. Hydrol. 297, 256–273. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.04.018.
Benavides, I.F., Solarte, M.E., Pabón, V., Ordoñez, A., Beltrán, E., Rosero, S., Torres, C., 2018. The variation of infiltration rates and physical-chemical soil properties
across a land cover and land use gradient in a Paramo of southwestern Colombia. J. Soil Water Conserv 73, 400–410. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.4.400.
Berhanu, K.G., Hatiye, S.D., 2020. Identification of groundwater potential zones using proxy data: case study of Megech Watershed, Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 28,
100676 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100676.
Bezabih Bashe, B., 2017. Groundwater potential mapping using remote sensing and GIS in rift valley lakes basin, Weito Sub Basin, Ethiopia. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 8, 43.
Bhattacharya, P., Adhikari, S., Samal, A.C., Das, R., Dey, D., Deb, A., Ahmed, S., Hussein, J., De, A., Das, A., Joardar, M., Panigrahi, A.K., Roychowdhury, T., Santra, S.
C., 2020. Health risk assessment of co-occurrence of toxic fluoride and arsenic in groundwater of Dharmanagar region, North Tripura (India). Groundw. Sustain.
Dev. 11, 100430 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100430.
Brunelli, M., 2015. Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer, Amsterdam.
Carver, S.J., 1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 5, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02693799108927858.
Chung, C.J.F., Fabbri, A.G., 2003. Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat. Hazards 30, 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
NHAZ.0000007172.62651.2b.
Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., 2009. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 192, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.032.
Dahiphale, P., Kasal, Y., Madane, D., 2020. Groundwater Potential Zones Identification Using Geographical Information System. European Journal of Molecular &
Clinical Medicine, 7 (7), 2741–2748.
Dar, T., Rai, N., Bhat, A., 2021. Delineation of potential groundwater recharge zones using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 5, 292–307.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2020.1726562.
Das, B., Pal, S.C., 2020. Assessment of groundwater recharge and its potential zone identification in groundwater-stressed Goghat-I block of Hugli District, West
Bengal, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 5905–5923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00457-7.
Dibaba, W.T., Demissie, T.A., Miegel, K., 2020. Watershed hydrological response to combined land use/land cover and climate change in highland ethiopia: Finchaa
catchment. Water 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061801.
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. Indic. 127, 107685 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107685.
Enoh, M.A., Okeke, F.I., Okeke, U.C., 2021. Automatic lineaments mapping and extraction in relationship to natural hydrocarbon seepage in Ugwueme, South-Eastern
Nigeria. Geod. Cartogr. 47, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.3846/gac.2021.12099.
Etikala, B., Golla, V., Li, P., Renati, S., 2019. Deciphering groundwater potential zones using MIF technique and GIS: a study from Tirupati area, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh, India. HydroResearch 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydres.2019.04.001.
Ewunetu, A., Simane, B., Teferi, E., Zaitchik, B.F., 2021. Mapping and quantifying comprehensive land degradation status using spatial multicriteria evaluation
technique in the headwaters area of upper blue nile river. Sustainability 13, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042244.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-013-0127-9.
Gebre, S.L., Cattrysse, D., Van Orshoven, J., 2021. Multi-criteria decision-making methods to address water allocation problems: A systematic review. Water
(Switzerland) 13, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020125.
Geomatica, 2018. PCI Geomatica user’s guide version 12.0. PCI Geomatica - Ontario. Canada.
Gökşen, Y., Doğan, O., Özkarabacak, B., 2015. A Data Envelopment Analysis Application for Measuring Efficiency of University Departments. Procedia Econ. Financ
19, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00024-6.
Gomboš, M., Pavelková, D., Kandra, B., Tall, A., 2019. Impact of soil texture and position of groundwater level on evaporation from the soil root zone. Handb.
Environ. Chem. 69, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2017_181.
Gupta, G., Erram, V.C., Kumar, S., 2012. Temporal geoelectric behaviour of dyke aquifers in northern Deccan Volcanic Province, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 121,
723–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-0180-z.
Gurara, M.A., Jilo, N.B., Tolche, A.D., 2021a. Impact of climate change on potential evapotranspiration and crop water requirement in Upper Wabe Bridge watershed,
Wabe Shebele River Basin, Ethiopia. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 180, 104223 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2021.104223.
Gurara, M.A., Jilo, N.B., Tolche, A.D., 2021b. Modelling climate change impact on the streamflow in the Upper Wabe Bridge watershed in Wabe Shebele River Basin,
Ethiopia. Int. J. River Basin Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2021.1935978.
Gurara, M.A., Tolche, A.D., Jilo, N.B., Kassa, A.K., 2022. Annual and seasonal rainfall trend analysis using gridded dataset in the Wabe Shebele River Basin, Ethiopia.
Theor. Appl. Clim. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-04164-8.
Hachem, A.M., Ali, E., Abdelhadi, O., Abdellah, H., Said, K., 2015. Using remote sensing and GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for groundwater potential mapping in
the middle atlas plateaus, Morocco. Res. J. Recent Sci. 4, 33–41.
Hagos, Y.G., Andualem, T.G., 2021. Geospatial and multi-criteria decision approach of groundwater potential zone identification in Cuma sub-basin, Southern
Ethiopia. Heliyon 7, e07963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07963.
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., 2008. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184, 255–265. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.045.
Harka, A.E., Jilo, N.B., Behulu, F., 2021. Spatial-temporal rainfall trend and variability assessment in the Upper Wabe Shebelle River Basin, Ethiopia: Application of
innovative trend analysis method. J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100915.
Harry, T., Asuaiko, E., Akata, N., Akpan, N., 2020. Mapping Ground Water Potential Recharge Zones in Parts of Akwa Ibom State Using Geographic Information
System ( G. I. S) 12, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.7176/CER/12–2-0.
He, Y., Sun, R., Xu, Z., Tang, W., 2021. The dynamic change and effect of rainfall induced groundwater flow. Water 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13192625.
Hirko, A., Mergia, G., Nigussie, A., Dandesa, T., 2021. Seasonal and annual meteorological drought frequency: case study east hararge province (zone). Int. J. Res.
Environ. Sci. 7, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9444.0701002.
I.P.Senanayake, D.M.D.O.K.Dissanayake, B.B.Mayadunna, W.L.Weerasekera, 2016. An approach to delineate groundwater recharge potential sites in Ambalantota, Sri
Lanka using GIS techniques. Geosci. Front. 7, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2015.03.002.
Jenifer, M.A., Jha, M.K., 2017. Comparison of analytic hierarchy process, catastrophe and entropy techniques for evaluating groundwater prospect of hard-rock
aquifer systems. J. Hydrol. 548, 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.023.

16
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-010-0631-z.
Jothimani, M., Abebe, A., Duraisamy, R., 2021. Groundwater potential zones identification in Arba Minch town, Rift Valley, Ethiopia, using geospatial and AHP tools.
IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 822 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/822/1/012048.
Jozaghi, A., Alizadeh, B., Hatami, M., Flood, I., Khorrami, M., Khodaei, N., Tousi, E.G., 2018. A comparative study of the AHP and TOPSIS techniques for dam site
selection using GIS: a case study of Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran. Geosci 8, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8120494.
Keddi, L.B., Moges, A., 2016. Identification of soil erosion hotspots in Jimma Zone (Ethiopia) using GIS based approach. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manag. 8, 926.
https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v8i2.7s.
Kotchoni, D.O.V., Vouillamoz, J.M., Lawson, F.M., Adjomayi, P., Boukari, M., Taylor, R.G., 2019. Relationships between rainfall and groundwater recharge in
seasonally humid Benin: a comparative analysis of long-term hydrographs in sedimentary and crystalline aquifers. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 447–457. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10040-018-1806-2.
Kumar, P., Herath, S., Avtar, R., Takeuchi, K., 2016. Mapping of groundwater potential zones in Killinochi area, Sri Lanka, using GIS and remote sensing techniques.
Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2, 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-016-0072-5.
Lamichhane, S., Shakya, N.M., 2020. Shallow aquifer groundwater dynamics due to land use/cover change in highly urbanized basin: the case of Kathmandu Valley.
J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 30, 100707 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100707.
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100674.
Li, S., Yang, H., Lacayo, M., Liu, J., Lei, G., 2018. Impacts of land-use and land-cover changes on water yield: a case study in Jing-Jin-Ji, China. Sustainability 10, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040960.
Magesh, N.S., Chandrasekar, N., Soundranayagam, J.P., 2012. Delineation of groundwater potential zones in Theni district, Tamil Nadu, using remote sensing, GIS
and MIF techniques. Geosci. Front. 3, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2011.10.007.
Mahato, Ranji, Bushi, D., Nimasow, G., Dai Nimasow, O., Chandra Joshi, R., Mahato, Ranjit, 2021. AHP and GIS-based Delineation of Groundwater Potential of
Papumpare District of Arunachal Pradesh (India).
Maity, D.K., Mandal, S., 2019. Identification of groundwater potential zones of the Kumari river basin, India: an RS & GIS based semi-quantitative approach’. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 21 (2), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0072-0.
Malczewski, J., 2006. GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 20, 703–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13658810600661508.
Mallick, J., Khan, R.A., Ahmed, M., Alqadhi, S.D., Alsubih, M., Falqi, I., Hasan, M.A., 2019. Modeling groundwater potential zone in a semi-arid region of aseer using
Fuzzy-AHP and geoinformation techniques. Water 11, 2656. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122656.
Mehra, M., Oinam, B., Singh, C.K., 2016. Integrated assessment of groundwater for agricultural use in Mewat District of Haryana, India using geographical
information system (GIS). J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 44, 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-015-0541-6.
Melese, T., Belay, T., 2022. Groundwater potential zone mapping using analytical hierarchy process and GIS in Muga Watershed, Abay Basin, Ethiopia. Glob. Chall. 6,
2100068 https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202100068.
Mengistu, T.D., Chang, S.W., Kim, I., Kim, M., Chung, I., 2022. Determination of potential aquifer recharge zones using geospatial techniques for proxy data of gilgel
gibe. Water 14, 1–19.
Mireille, N.M., Mwangi, H.M., Mwangi, J.K., Gathenya, J.M., 2019. Analysis of land use change and its impact on the hydrology of kakia and esamburmbur sub-
watersheds of narok county, kenya. Hydrology 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/HYDROLOGY6040086.
Moore, I.D., Nieber, J.L., 1989. Landscape assessment of soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution. J. Minn. Acad. Sci. 55, 18–25.
Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Mohammadi, A., 2011. Optimization of energy consumption for soybean production using Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) approach. Appl. Energy 88, 3765–3772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.021.
Mundalik, V., Fernandes, C., Kadam, A., Umrikar, B., 2018. Integrated geomorphological, geospatial and AHP technique for groundwater prospects mapping in
basaltic terrain. Hydrospat. Anal. 2, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.21523/gcj3.18020102.
Murmu, P., Kumar, M., Lal, D., Sonker, I., Singh, S.K., 2019. Delineation of groundwater potential zones using geospatial techniques and analytical hierarchy process
in Dumka district, Jharkhand, India. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 9, 100239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100239.
Murmu, P., Kumar, M., Lal, D., Sonker, I., Kumar, S., 2020. Delineation of groundwater potential zones using geospatial techniques and analytical hierarchy process in
Dumka district, Jharkhand, India Groundwater for sustainable development delineation of groundwater potential zones using geospatial techniques an. Groundw.
Sustain. Dev. 9, 100239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100239.
Musa, J.J., Anijofor, S.C., Obasa, P., Avwevuruvwe, J.J., 2017. Effects of soil physical properties on erodibility and infiltration parameters of selected areas in Gidan
Kwano. Niger. J. Technol. Res. 12, 46. https://doi.org/10.4314/njtr.v12i1.8.
Naghibi, S.A., Moghaddam, D.D., Kalantar, B., Pradhan, B., Kisi, O., 2017. A comparative assessment of GIS-based data mining models and a novel ensemble model in
groundwater well potential mapping. J. Hydrol. 548, 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.020.
Naidu, Ch.K., Reddy, B.V., Mouli, Ch.Ch., 2015. Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques: A Case Study of Sarada Gedda
Sub Watershed. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT). 4 (11).
Nolan, B.T., Taber, P.E., 2007. DigitalCommons @ University of Nebraska - Lincoln Factors influencing ground-water recharge in the eastern United States.
Omar, M.N., Fayek, A.R., 2016. A Topsis-Based Approach for Prioritized Aggregation in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 23,
197–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1561.
Ouyang, Y., Jin, W., Grace, J.M., Obalum, S.E., Zipperer, W.C., Huang, X., 2019. Estimating impact of forest land on groundwater recharge in a humid subtropical
watershed of the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 26, 100631 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100631.
Owuor, S.O., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Guzha, A.C., Rufino, M.C., Pelster, D.E., Díaz-Pinés, E., Breuer, L., 2016. Groundwater recharge rates and surface runoff response to
land use and land cover changes in semi-arid environments. Ecol. Process. 5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-016-0060-6.
Pathmanandakumar, V., Nadarajapillai, T., Manjula, R., 2021. An Approach to Delineate Potential Groundwater Zones in Kilinochchi District. Using GIS Techniques,,
Sri Lanka.
Prayudi, S.D., Trisnawati, D., Putranto,, T.T., Najib, 2020. Application of remote sensing and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for developing landslide vulnerability
zone in Boja District, Kendal Regency, Central Java Province. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 500 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/500/1/012012.
R. Sørensen, U. Zinko, J. Seibert, 2006. On the calculation of the topographic wetness index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations. Hydrology
and Earth System Sciences 10, 101–112, 1607-7938/hess/2006-10-101.
Rahmati, O., Nazari Samani, A., Mahdavi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Zeinivand, H., 2015. Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic
hierarchy process and GIS. Arab. J. Geosci. 8, 7059–7071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1668-4.
Rajasekhar, M., Ajaykumar, K., Raju G, S., Bhagat, V., 2021. Identification of artificial groundwater recharge zones in semi-arid region of southern India using
geospatial and integrated decision-making approaches. Environ. Chall. 5, 100278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100278.
Rajaveni, S.P., Brindha, K., Rajesh, R., Elango, L., 2014. Spatial and Temporal variation of groundwater level and its relation to drainage and intrusive rocks in a part
of Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 42, 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-013-0328-6.
Ramu, B., 2014. Identification of ground water potential zones using GIS and remote sensing techniques: a case study of Mysore taluk -Karnataka. Int. J. Geomat.
Geosci. 5, 393–403.
Razandi, Y., Pourghasemi, H.R., Neisani, N.S., Rahmati, O., 2015. Application of analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and certainty factor models for
groundwater potential mapping using GIS. Earth Sci. Informatics 8, 867–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-015-0220-8.
Rukundo, E., Doğan, A., 2019. Dominant influencing factors of groundwater recharge spatial patterns in Ergene river catchment, Turkey. Water 11. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w11040653.

17
J.U. Guduru and N.B. Jilo Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 44 (2022) 101218

Saaty, T., Vargas, L., 2012. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. … -Driven Demand Oper. Manag. Model 1–20. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6.
Saaty, T.L., 1986. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag. Sci. 32, 841–855.
Saaty, T.L., 2008a. Decision making with the analytical hierarchy process. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 1, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2014-0020.
Saaty, T.L., 2008b. Detection and predictive modeling of land use changes by CA-Markov in the northern part of the Southern rivers: from Lower Casamance to Gêba
river ( Guinea Bissau). Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2021.0921.
Sapkota, S., Pandey, V.P., Bhattarai, U., Panday, S., Shrestha, S.R., Maharjan, S.B., 2021. Groundwater potential assessment using an integrated AHP-driven geospatial
and field exploration approach applied to a hard-rock aquifer Himalayan watershed. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 37, 100914 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejrh.2021.100914.
Sar, N., Khan, A., Chatterjee, S., Das, A., 2015. Hydrologic delineation of ground water potential zones using geospatial technique for Keleghai river basin, India.
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0024-3.
Saravanan, S., Saranya, T., Jennifer, J.J., Singh, L., Selvaraj, A., Abijith, D., 2020. Delineation of groundwater potential zone using analytical hierarchy process and
GIS for Gundihalla watershed, Karnataka, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 13, 0–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05712-0.
Sarwar, A., Ahmad, S.R., Ishaq, M., Rehmani, A., Javid, M.A., Gulzar, S., Shehzad, M.A., Dar, J.S., Baazeem, A., Iqbal, M.A., Habib, M., Rahman, U., Skalicky, M.,
Brestic, M., 2021. Mapping Groundwater Potential for Irrigation, by Geographical Information System and Remote Sensing Techniques: A Case Study of District
Lower Dir, Pakistan.
Şener, E., Şener, Ş., Davraz, A., 2018. Groundwater potential mapping by combining fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process and GIS in Bey ş ehir Lake Basin. Turkey 11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3510-x.
Siddi Raju, R., Sudarsana Raju, G., Rajasekhar, M., 2019. Identification of groundwater potential zones in Mandavi River basin, Andhra Pradesh, India using remote
sensing, GIS and MIF techniques. HydroResearch 2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydres.2019.09.001.
Singh, S.K., Zeddies, M., Shankar, U., Griffiths, G.A., 2019. Potential groundwater recharge zones within New Zealand. Geosci. Front. 10, 1065–1072. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gsf.2018.05.018.
Tadesse, N., Bheemalingeswara, K., Abdulaziz, M., 2010. Hydrogeological Investigation and Groundwater Potential Assessment in 2, 26–48.
Thapa, R., Gupta, S., Guin, S., Kaur, H., 2017. Assessment of groundwater potential zones using multi-influencing factor (MIF) and GIS: a case study from Birbhum
district, West Bengal. Appl. Water Sci. 7, 4117–4131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-017-0571-z.
Thomas, B.F., Behrangi, A., Famiglietti, J.S., 2016. Precipitation intensity effects on groundwater recharge in the southwestern United States. Water 8. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w8030090.
Thomas, R., Duraisamy, V., 2018. Hydrogeological delineation of groundwater vulnerability to droughts in semi-arid areas of western Ahmednagar district. Egypt. J.
Remote Sens. Sp. Sci. 21, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2016.11.008.
Tolche, A.D., 2021. Groundwater potential mapping using geospatial techniques: a case study of Dhungeta-Ramis sub-basin, Ethiopia. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 5, 65–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2020.1728882.
Tuinhof, a., Foster, S., van Steenbergen, F., Talbi, a., Wishart, M., 2011. Sustainable Groundwater Management Contributions to Policy Promotion Appropriate
Groundwater Management Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa 40.
Woldemariam, G.W., Harka, A.E., 2020. Effect of land use and land cover change on soil erosion in erer sub-basin, Northeast Wabi Shebelle Basin, Ethiopia. Land 9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040111.
Woldemariam, G.W., Iguala, A.D., Tekalign, S., Reddy, R.U., 2018. Spatial modeling of soil erosion risk and its implication for conservation planning: the case of the
gobele watershed, east hararghe zone, ethiopia. Land 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND7010025.
Xu, T., You, J., Li,, H., Shao,, L., 2020. Energy efficiency evaluation based on data envelopment analysis: A literature review. Energies 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13143548.
Yeh, H.F., Cheng, Y.S., Lin, H.I., Lee, C.H., 2016. Mapping groundwater recharge potential zone using a GIS approach in Hualian River, Taiwan. Sustain. Environ. Res.
26, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2015.09.005.
Yifru, B.A., Chung, I.M., Kim, M.G., Chang, S.W., 2021. Assessing the effect of land/use land cover and climate change on water yield and groundwater recharge in
East African Rift Valley using Integrated Model. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 37, 100926 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100926.
Yildirim, U., 2021. Identification of groundwater potential zones using gis and multi-criteria decision-making techniques: A case study upper coruh river basin (ne
Turkey). ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10060396.
Yimer, F., Messing, I., Ledin, S., Abdelkadir, A., 2008. Effects of different land use types on infiltration capacity in a catchment in the highlands of Ethiopia. Soil Use
Manag. 24, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00182.x.

18