Application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in identifying suitable points for rainwater harvesting

Authors

10.22052/deej.2018.7.21.35

Abstract

Introduction: Deficit of rainfall and consequently, water scarcity is one of the most important problems in arid and semi-arid areas. Water collecting structures have a positive effect on light textured lands due to deposition of clay and organic matter, as well as controlling the floods will enhance the vegetation (Abdollahi et al., 2015). Water Collection in order to store surface water runoff, especially during periods where water availability is limited, is an appropriate option in dry areas (Nazarian and Najafinejad, 2015). Due to the numerous criteria and indicators (such as geomorphology, climate, soil, vegetation etc.) in choosing the type of efficient operation and the most suitable areas for their design and implementation, it is practically difficult to select the correct operation with the expected accuracy (Mia and Skumann 2007); Therefore, one of the most important and essential steps in the application of rainwater collection systems is to identify suitable sites for the implementation of these projects.
A general overview of resources shows that collecting and storing rain water in arid areas is one of the best techniques for managing and using rainwater and it is a suitable method to provide the required water in arid and semi-arid areas. Rain water collection requires a spatial assessment and hydrological studies of surface and ground water (Nazarian et al. 2015). The main purpose of this research is to determine the most important criteria for locating suitable areas for rainwater harvesting as well as mapping these locations.
 
Materials and methods: In this research, based on the results of completed questionnaires from experts, as well as by referring to the research background in this field, to select appropriate areas for collecting water, slope criteria, rainfall, vegetation, salinity, soil texture and Geomorphology were considered as main criterias. Layers were classified in the ArcGIS software. For weighting the criteria, using the AHP technique, matrixes of paired comparisons were created and using the expert opinion, the value of each criterion was determined and the results were entered into the Super Decision software. Land suitability map was made by combining layers. and the map was compared with the Boolean map. In order to verify the accuracy of the results, Land suitability map was compared with a map of successful and unsuccessful executives' work in the.
Results: The final suitability map was obtained as follows. The map is divided into four classes, perfectly suitable, appropriate, slightly suitable and very inappropriate. the area of each of these categories listed in Table 1.

Figure (1): Final suitability map < /strong>
 
Tabel (1): Area of each category of suitability





Area (ha)
Present area


inappropriate
53154
31


very inappropriate
18288
10.7


slightly suitable
47474
27.7


appropriate
38144
22.3


perfectly suitable
14324
8.3



 
Comparison of implemented projects in the region with modeling shows that 67.5% of the successful structures are in perfectly suitable range, while unsuccessful structures do not have any overlaps with a perfectly suitable range.
 
Discussion and conclusion: In this research, using AHP, areas were zoned for the implementation of rainwater harvesting projects. The results showed that among the used criteria, the highest score was attributed to rainfall. While this criterion had the lowest value in the study conducted by Yousefi et al. (2015). The reason for this difference can be due to experts' experience of unsuccessful structures in the region. Nevertheless, the results of Ali Kasi (2010) and Al-Adamat (2010) regarding the rainfall criterion are consistent with the present research. After rainfall, the criteria for gradient and salinity were the highest scores respectively. The results showed that slopes of 3 to 8 percent achieved the highest score. The results of this study are consistent with the results of Bulcock et al. (2013) and Akbarpour et al. (2015).
Vegetation, soil texture and geomorphology criteria were ranked in subsequent grades, respectively. Places with less vegetation require more attention in terms of providing moisture and increasing coverage. This is in line with the results of Zarrin Abadi and Vaezi (2016). Medium to semi-heavy soil texture has a better suitability for rain water collection. Results showed that, sandy clay loam texture had had the highest score among the sub-criteria. This texture appears mainly in the northern parts of the region, and the results of Akbarpour et al. (2015) confirmed this result.
Between geomorphology criteria Epandage pediments had the highest score due to suitable slope and grading.
The important point is that overlapping information in the GIS without analyzing and performing multi-criteria evaluation operations cannot provide the right planning and decision. Also, when different factors interfere in decision making, their priorities and weights should be determined. Results of modeling in this research is consistent with the results of Ali Khasi (2010), Yousefi et al. (2015), Gohari (2015), Ketsela (2009) and Singh et al. (2017).

Keywords


1. Abdollahi, V., Zolfaghari, F., Jabbari, M., Dehghan. M., Rafie, M., 2015. Investigating the Effect of Crescent Construction on Some Parameters of Vegetation and Soil in Saravan Rangelands (Sistan and Baluchestan Province). Iranian Range and Desert Research. 22(4), 675-667. 2. Adham, A.,Riksen, M.,Ouessar, M. and Ritsema, C. 2016. Identification of suitable sites for rainwater harvesting structures in arid and semi-arid regions: A review. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 4(2), 108-120. 3. Akbarpur, A., Khashei Sivaki, A., Forughifar, H., 2015. Determination of suitable sites for rainwater harvesting for use in agricultural using the AHP model (Case study: Birjand Basin). Watershed management, 6, 65-74. 4. Al-Adamat, R.،Diabat, A. and Shatnawi, G. 2010. Combining GIS with multicriteria decision making for siting water harvesting ponds in Northern Jordan. Journal of Arid Environments، 74(11)، 1471-1477. 5. Ali Khassi, A., 2010. Locating susceptible areas for collecting rainwater in Tehran province using GIS. M.Sc. thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University 6. Asgharpur, M., 2011. Multi-criteria decisions. Tehran University Press. Tehran, Iran. 7. Bulcock, L. and Jewitt, G. 2013. "Key physical characteristics used to assess water harvesting suitability". Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C، 66، 89-100. 8. Gowhari, M., 2015. Location artificial feeding of aquifer using multivariate decision making techniques in GIS. M.Sc. thesis, Isfahan Industrial University 9. Jaafari, M., Azarnivand, H., Sarvari, M., Mahdavi, S., KH., 2014. Location of Peating and Farwin Project with the help of the Decision-Making System (Case Study: Kermanshah Province).. Iranian Range and Desert Research, 21 10. Ketsela, G.M. 2009. Identification of potential rainwater harvesting areas in the central rift valley of Ethiopia using GIS-based approach. Master of Science Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 11. Kumar, M.G., Agarwal, A. and Bali, R. 2008. Delineation of potential sites for water harvesting structures using remote sensing and GIS. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 36(4), 323-334. 12. Maia, R .and Schumann, A.H. 2007. DSS application to the development of water management strategies in Ribeiras do Algarve River Basin. Water resources management, 21(5), 897-907. 13. Makhdoum, M. F., Darvishsefat, A., Jaafarzadeh, M., Makhdoum, A., 2008. Environmental evaluation and planning by geographic information system. University of Tehran press. 14. Malczewski, J., 2010. Multiple criteria decision analysis and geographic information systems, Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, pp. 369-395. 15. Mokhtari, K., Khajaddin, S., Khademi, H., 2003. The relationship between the growth of the Haloxylon persicum and the soil characteristics in the Abu Zaidabad area of Kashan. Proceedings of the first National Conference on Haloxylon and Potassium in Iran, First Edition, Forestry and Plant Organization, pp. 153. 16. Nazarian, S., Najafinejad, A., Naderi, N., 2015. Spatial Assessment of Surface Water Capture Capacity in Aghamam Watershed Golestan Province. Water and Soil (Science and Technology of Agriculture) 29, 1-11. 17. Rockström, J.,Karlberg, L.,Wani, S.P.,Barron, J.,Hatibu, N.,Oweis, T.,Bruggeman, A.,Farahani, J. and Qiang, Z. 2010. Managing water in rainfed agriculture: The need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management. 97 (4), 543-550 18. Sadeghi, Sh., Akbarpur, A., Forughifar, H., Shahidi, A., 2011. Determination of areas susceptible to rainwater harvesting based on runoff production capacity in the basin and using the GIS-based DSS Decision Support System (Case Study: Birjand Plain). Eleventh General Irrigation Seminar and Reduction of Evapotranspiration. 19. Sarvari, V., 2016. Locating areas susceptible to rainwater harvesting for wildlife using GIS (Case Study of Bemo National Park). M.Sc. Thesis, University of Gilan. 20. Singh, L.K., Jha, M.K. and Chowdary, V. 2017. Multi-criteria analysis and GIS modeling for identifying prospective water harvesting and artificial recharge sites for sustainable water supply. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1436-1456. 21. Tabatabaeei Yazdi, J., Davoudi, K., Raouf, Y, 2007. Economic Analysis of Rainfall Extraction Methods for Agricultural Use (Case Study: North Khorasan Natural Resources Research Station). Sixth Iranian Agriculture Economics Conference 22. Yusofi, M., Nurmohammadi, S., Meamarian, H., 2015. Assessing the potential of water harvesting in arid and semi arid areas of the waters using a multi-criteria hierarchical decision making method (case study: Sarab watershed, Khoshab , Khorasan Razavi province). Systems of rainwater inclination. 3(3), 59-72. 23. Zarrin Abadi, A., Vaezi, A., R., 2016. Runoff and soil loss in poorly covered rangelands affected by land use change and plowing direction. Iran Water and Soil Research, 47 (1). 87-98