E-mail alert
Rss
Holistic approach of GIS based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and WetSpass models to evaluate groundwater potential in Gelana watershed of Ethiopia
-
Abstract: Appropriate quantification and identification of the groundwater distribution in a hydrological basin may provide necessary information for effective management, planning and development of groundwater resources. Groundwater potential assessment and delineation in a highly heterogeneous environment with limited Spatiotemporal data derived from Gelana watershed of Abaya Chamo lake basin is performed, using integrated multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), water and energy transfer between soil and plant and atmosphere under quasi-steady state (WetSpass) models. The outputs of the WetSpass model reveal a favorable structure of water balance in the basin studied, mainly using surface runoff. The simulated total flow and groundwater recharge are validated using river measurements and estimated baseflow at two gauging stations located in the study area, which yields a good agreement. The WetSpass model effectively integrates a water balance assessment in a geographical information system (GIS) environment. The WetSpass model is shown to be computationally reputable for such a remote complex setting as the African rift, with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.99 for total flow and baseflow at a significant level of p-value<0.05, respectively. The simulated annual water budget reveals that 77.22% of annual precipitation loses through evapotranspiration, of which 16.54% is lost via surface runoff while 6.24% is recharged to the groundwater. The calibrated groundwater recharge from the WetSpass model is then considered when determining the controlling factors of groundwater occurrence and formation, together with other multi-thematic layers such as lithology, geomorphology, lineament density and drainage density. The selected five thematic layers through MCDA are incorporated by employing the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method to identify the relative dominance in groundwater potential zoning. The weighted factors in the AHP are procedurally aggregated, based on weighted linear combinations to provide the groundwater potential index. Based on the potential indexes, the area then is demarcated into low, moderate, and high groundwater potential zones (GWPZ). The identified GWPZs are finally examined using the existing groundwater inventory data (static water level and springs) in the region. About 70.7% of groundwater inventory points are coinciding with the delineated GWPZs. The weighting comparison shows that lithology, geomorphology, and groundwater recharge appear to be the dominant factors influence on the resources potential. The assessment of groundwater potential index values identify 45.88% as high, 39.38% moderate, and 14.73% as low groundwater potential zones. WetSpass model analysis is more preferable in the area like Gelana watershed when the topography is rugged, inaccessible and having limited gauging stations.
-
Figure 4. Geospatial grid maps of (a) Slope (b) Land use (c) Soil (d) Groundwater Level
Figure 5. Meteorological data (Notes: DJF = December, January, February; MAM = March, April, May; JJA = June, July, August; SON = September, October, November)
Figure 6. Thematic maps (a) lithology (b) lineament density (c) geomorphology (d) drainage density
Notes: Pqbs = Quartzo feldspathic schist, feldspathic & gneiss; Qdi = Ignimbrites, tuffs, pyroclastic, occasional lacustrine beds; Qs = Alluvium, silts, sands, gravel; Qwpu = Pumice and unwelded tuffs; TV1 = Transitional mildly alkaline and sub alkaline basalts and rhyolites undifferentiated; dra = Drainage; Mdslopedra = Mid slope drainage; upland dra = Upland drainage; mdslope ridge = Mid slope ridge.
Figure 9. Comparison of observed total annual average flow with simulated value (surface runoff + recharge) at 2 gauging stations
Figure 10. Comparison of estimated baseflow with a simulated recharge at 2 gauging stations
Table 1. Total weights of the thematic layers and normalized weights
CR=0.0615 CI=0.068 Thematic layers Lith GM Rech LD DD Normalized Weights Lithology (Lith) 1 1 3 4 7 0.36 Geomorphology (GM) 1 1 2 3 7 0.31 Recharge (Rech) 1/3 1/2 1 3 6 0.19 Lineament density (LD) 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 5 0.11 Drainage Density (DD) 1/7 1/7 1/6 1/5 1 0.04 Total weight (TW) 2.73 2.98 6.50 11.20 26.00 1.00 
下载: 导出CSV
Table 2. Normalized weights (NW) of thematic layers and classes
Thematic layer Classes NW Thematic layer Classes NW Lithology (0.36) CI=0.041 CR=0.037 Recharge (0.19) CI=0.027 CR=0.03 Qs 0.32 >300 0.50 Tv1 0.32 150–300 0.30 Qdi 0.21 40–150 0.13 Pqbs 0.12 0–40 0.07 Qwpu 0.03 Geomorphology (0.31) CI=0.088 CR=0.059 Lineament Density (0.11) CI=0.048 CR=0.054 plains 0.29 0.62–1.064 0.51 valleys 0.21 0.34–0.62 0.33 open slopes 0.15 0.12–0.34 0.11 upper slopes 0.11 0–0.12 0.05 mid-slope drainage 0.08 Drainage Density (0.04) CI=0.036 CR=0.040 stream 0.06 0–1.5 0.46 upland drainage 0.04 1.5–2.5 0.27 local ridge 0.03 2.5–3.5 0.18 mid-slope ridge 0.02 >3.5 0.09 high ridge 0.01
下载: 导出CSV
Table 3. Annual water balance of Gelana watershed (mm/a)
Water balance component Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Precipitation 857.15 1418.46 1066.35 173.83 Evapotranspiration 395.89 1625..4 823.48 123.20 Interception Fraction 0.00 61.62 33.08 15.09 Surface runoff 0.00 549.70 176.31 52.40 Groundwater Recharge 0.00 366.55 66.56 61.29 P-(ET+S+R) = 0
下载: 导出CSV
Table 4. The qualitative agreement between the groundwater inventory points and the identified GWPZ
Class of GWPZ Yield (L/s) Total no of groundwater points Groundwater points coinciding GWPZ Agreement weightage (%) High > 5 18 14 77.78 Medium (1–5) 45 28 62.22 Low <1 87 64 73.56 sum 150 106 70.67
下载: 导出CSV
-
Al-Kuisi M, El-Naqa A. 2013. GIS based spatial Groundwater recharge estimation in the Jafr basin, Jordan-Application of WetSpass models for Arid regions. Revista Mexicana de ciencias Geologicas, 30(1): 96-109. Andualem TG, Demeke GG. 2019. Groundwater potential assessment using GIS & RS: A case study of Guna Tana landscape, upper blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Journal of hydrology, 24: 100610. Arnous MO, El-Rayes AE, Geriesh MH, et al. 2020. Groundwater potentiality mapping of tertiary volcanic aquifer in IBB basin, Yemen by using remote sensing & GIS tools. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 24. Asrat A. 2016. Geological mapping (scale 1: 250 000) and geological investigation for shallow groundwater mapping in Southern Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA). Batelaan O, De Smedt F. 2007. GIS-based recharge estimation by coupling surface-subsurface water balances. Journal of Hydrology, 337 (3–4): 337–355. Batelaan O, DeSmedt F. 2001. Flexible GIS-based distributed recharge methodology for regional groundwater modeling. Impact of Human Activity on Groundwater Dynamics, 11-17: 269. Berahanu KG, Hatiye SD. 2020. Identification of groundwater zones using proxy data: A case study of Megech watershed, Ethiopia. Journal of Hydrology, 28: 100676. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100676 Cao XY, Zhai YZ, Li MZ, et al. 2022. The suitability assessment of groundwater recharge by leakage of the Yongding River. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 49(1): 20-29. (in Chinese) EWWDSE. 2007. Design of Gelana irrigation project, hydrogeological study, Final feasibility report V. Addis Abeba: Ethiopia. Fanta AA, Kifle A, Gebreyohannis T, et al. 2014. Spatial analysis of groundwater potential using remote sensing & GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation in Raya valley, Northern Ethiopia. Hydrogeology, 23: 195-206. Gebreyohannes T, De smedt, F, Walraevens K, et al. 2013. Application of a spatially distributed water balance model for assessing surface water & groundwater resources in Geba basin, Tigray, Ethioipia. Journal of Hydrology, 499: 110-123. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.06.026 Gintamo TT. 2015. Ground water potential evaluation based on integrated GIS and remote sensing techniques, in bilate River Catchment: South Rift Valley of Ethiopia. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering Technology & Science, 10(1): 85-120. GSE. 2014. Hydrogeological and Hydrochemical maps of Dila NB 37-6. Chech Republic: Aquatest a. s., Geologicka 4, 15200 Prague 5, First edition. Hu LT, Guo JL, Zhang SQ, et al. 2020. Response of groundwater regime to ecological water replenishment of the Yongding River. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 47(5): 5-11. (in Chinese) IAEA. 2013. Assessing & managing groundwater in Ethiopia. IAEA. Kahsay GH, Gebreyohannes T, Gebremedhin MA, et al. 2018. Spatial groundwater recharge estimation in Raya basin, Northern Ethiopia on approach GIS based WBM. Sustainable Water Resources Management. Kidanewold BB. 2014. Surface water & groundwater resources of Ethiopia: Potentials & challenges of water resources development. Chapter 6. Li HX, Han SB, Wu X, et al. 2021. Distribution, characteristics and influencing factors of fresh groundwater resources in the Loess Plateau, China. China Geology, 4: 509-526. doi: 10.31035/cg2021057 Liu Q, Li RM, Wang Y, et al. 2020. Theory and methodology for evaluation of carrying capacity of regional groundwater resources in China. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 47(6): 173-183. (in Chinese) Lyne VD, Hollick M. 1979. Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modeling. Institue of Engineerings Australia National Conference: 89-93. Machiwal D, Jha MK, Mal BC. 2011. Assessment of groundwater potential in a semi arid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. Water Resources Management, 25: 1359-1386. doi: 10.1007/s11269-010-9749-y Molla DD, Tegaye TA, Fletcher CG. 2019. Simulated surface & shallow groundwater resources in Abaya-Chamo lake basin, Ethiopia using a spatially distributed water balance model. Journal of Hydrology, Regional Studies 24: 100615. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100615 Nair CH, Padmalal D, Joseph A, et al. 2017. Delineation of groundwater potential zones in river basins using geospatial tools-An example from Southern Western Ghats, Kerala, India. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 1(1-2): 5. doi: 10.1007/s41651-017-0003-5 Nathan RJ, McMahon TA. 1990. Evaluation of automated techniques for baseflow and recession analysis. Water Resource Research, 26 (7): 1465–1473. Saaty RW. 1987. The analytic hierarchy process-What it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5): 161-176. doi: 10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8 Saaty T. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority. Resource Allocation. RWS publication. Saaty TL. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1): 83-98. doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590 Smakhtin V. 2004. Estimating continuous monthly baseflow time series and their possible applications in the context of the ecological reserve. Water SA, 27(2): 213-217. Wang Z, Assefa KA, Woodbury AD, et al. 2015. Groundwater estimation using physical-based modeling. In B. p. Goyal, Modeling methods & practices in soil & water engineering (Chapter 1). USA: Apple Academic press Inc. Yang S, Ge WY, Chen HH, et al. 2019. Investigation of soil and groundwater environment in urban area during post-industrial era: A case study of brownfield in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, China. China Geology, 2: 501-511. doi: 10.31035/cg2018128 Yifru BA, Mitiku DB, Tolera MB, et al. 2020. Groundwater potential mapping usng SWAT & GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(8): 2546-2559. doi: 10.1007/s12205-020-0168-1 Zegu HG, Gebreyohannes T, Girmay EH. 2020. Identification of GWPZ using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) & GIS-remote sensing integration, the case of Golina River Basin, Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Advanced Remote Sensing & GIS, 9(1): 3289-3311. -
点击查看大图
图(16) / 表ll (4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 884
- HTML全文浏览量: 370
- PDF下载量: 93
- 被引次数: 0
