European Water 60: 139-146, 2017.

© 2017 E.W. Publications

GIS based analytic hierarchy process in determination of suitable site for

water storage

I. Ahmad1* and M.K. Verma2

1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492010, India
2
Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh - 490001, India
*
e-mail: iahmad.ce@nitrr.ac.in

Abstract: The need of the hour is to tap maximum possible water available in the river basin that can be utilized especially
during the period of agricultural drought. This can be materialized by creating water storage structures, for this
purpose the first task could to be the identification of suitable location for water storage sites. With the advent of
remote sensing and GIS techniques, it becomes easier for water resources planner to identify the suitable location of
water storage structure within the basin. In the present study an attempt has been made to identify the suitable
locations in the upper basin of Sheonath River in Chhattisgarh State, India. Based on the various physical
characteristics of the basin, GIS based Multi-Criteria Evaluation technique is being applied to determine the most
suitable water storage sites. For this purpose runoff, hydrologic soil group, land use, lineament, slope, stream order
and settlement data are used. Raster layers were formed based on the mentioned data; each layer has been given
percentage importance. For determining the percentage importance, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used. After
determining the percentage importance all the layers are overlaid in GIS to produce suitable location for water
storage. This mapping helps in selecting potential site for water storage structures.

Key words: GIS, remote sensing, water storage, runoff, hydrologic soil group, land use, stream order, multi-criteria evaluation,
analytic hierarchy process

1. INTRODUCTION
Water availability for different purposes particularly for irrigation and domestic is of great
concern in the near future. Hence, it becomes necessary to tap the maximum possible water within
the river basin. Water harvesting technique is one of the techniques to tap the water by constructing
storage structures like check dams, storage tanks, stop dams etc. Water storage serves like an
insurance mechanism acting as a barrier to the variability of rainfall (Payen et al., 2012). Water
storage structures are one of the important components of watershed development which not only
collects and stores water but can also be utilized to recharge the ground water (Ahmad and Verma,
2016). Storage structures require considerable investment and hence it is important to identify the
suitable location of these structures before execution. Decision making and planning about the
required number and type of water storage structures to be constructed using remote sensing and
GIS techniques is extremely important to avoid huge investment (Singh et al., 2009). These
techniques enable us to perform watershed analysis in shorter time and in a cost effective manner. A
number of studies have been reported for site suitability using multi-criteria evaluation system and
analytic hierarchy process (Ahmad and Verma, 2016; Ahmad and Masood, 2013; Bamne et al.,
2014; Banai-Kashani and Reza, 1989; Bodin and Gass, 2004; Gavade et al., 2011; Hass and
Meixner, 2005; Satty, 1980; Salih and Tarif, 2012; Teknomo, 2006; Triantaphyllou and Mann,
1995). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used as a decision-making tool to determine the
percentage importance of various parameters used in the determination of suitable sites. The
objective of the present paper is to identify suitable location for water storage site using Multi-
criteria Evaluation technique under the guidelines of Integrated Mission for Sustainable
Development (IMSD) (IMSD, 1995).
140 I. Ahmad & M.K. Verma

2. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

A portion of Upper Sheonath sub-basin was considered for this study. The study area extends
between latitudes 20º 25' 00'' N and 21º 00' 00'' N, and longitudes 80º 26' 00'' E and 80º 55' 00'' E.
The study area comprises of Durg (area = 93.52 sq.km.), Rajnandgaon (area= 991.83 sq.km.)
Districts of Chhattisgarh state and Gondia (area = 13.15 sq.km.), Garchirolli (area= 297.39 sq.km.)
districts of Maharashtra State. Total geographic area of the upper Sheonath basin considered is
1395.89 sq.km. Study area was influenced by four rain gauge stations namely Amabagarh Chowki,
Dongargaon, Doundi Lohara and Mohala. The study area map is shown in Figure 1. For achieving
the objective several spatial and non-spatial dataset were used namely, Land use from NRSC
Hyderabad, ASTER GDEM, Soil from NBSS&LUP, hydrological data from Chhattisgarh Water
Resources Department and Central Water Commission, Bhubaneswar, India.

Figure 1. Location map of Upper Sheonath Basin

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

To achieve the objectives of the study both spatial and non-spatial data are required which
includes LULC from National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad; Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) from ASTER GDEM; Topographic Sheets from Survey of India (SOI); Soil Data from
NBSS & LUP, Nagpur and Rainfall Data from Chhattisgarh WRD Raipur and CWC Bhubaneswar.
The data obtained were digitized and converted into digital format using in GIS for creating
various criteria based layers. GIS based Multi-Criteria Evaluation is used to identify the most
suitable sites for water storage. The input parametric criteria are runoff, hydrologic soil group, land
use, lineament, slope, stream order and settlement data are used. AHP is applied to these parameters
to determine the percentage importance. The methodology adopted to achieve the objective is
shown with the help of flowchart in Figure 2.
As per the Integrated Mission for Sustainable Development (IMSD) guidelines following criteria
have been followed for selecting the suitable sites for water storage structures (IMSD, 1995;
Padmavaty et al., 1993; Singh et al., 2009):
1. The slope should be less than 15%.
European Water 60 (2017) 141

2. The land use may be barren, shrub land and river bed.
3. The infiltration rate of the soil should be less.
4. The type of soil should be sandy clay loam.

The suitability of water storage structure is described with the help of Suitability Level Index.
Gosschalk (2002) has described the suitability levels for regional dams scaled from 1 to 9. In this
study suitability levels were in the range from 1 to 3. ‘1’ for least suitable, ‘2’ for moderate suitable
and ‘3’ for highly suitable. The Suitability Level Index adopted in the study is shown in Table 1.
Suitability level factors includes Runoff, LULC, Slope, Soil type, Stream order, lineament.
The spatial data were used to prepare various thematic map’s viz. drainage map, stream order
map, land use map, slope map, settlement map, soil map and lineament map.

Topographic Sheets Satellite Data Rainfall Data

Digitization DEM Lineament

Drainage Map Slope Land Use Soil

Stream Order Settlement SCS-CN Map HSG

Runoff Map

Decision Rules for Wate Storage Stuctures

Analytic Hierarachy Process

Weighted Overlay Analysis

Site Suitability Map for Water Storage Structure

Figure 2. Flowchart showing the adopted methodology

Table 1. Suitability Level Index for different parameter for identifying potential water storage structures
Suitability Level
Parameter
1 2 3
Runoff Potential Low Moderate High
LULC Build Up, Plantation Forest, Wasteland Agriculture, Water bodies
Gentle Slope, Level to Gentle
Slope High Slope, Moderate to High Slope Moderate Slope
Slope
Soil HSG Group A and B HSG Group C HSG Group D
Stream Order 1st and 2nd Order 3rd and 4th Order 5th, 6th and 7th Order
Lineament Fracture, Fault and Fold (100 m Buffer) --- ---
500 m Buffer around the village and 1000 m
Settlement --- ---
Buffer around the towns

3.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of Multi Criteria decision-making method that was
originally developed by Prof. Thomas L. Saaty (1987). This method is used to determine the
percentage importance of the parameters used in the identification of suitable sites for water storage
in accordance with the guidelines laid by IMSD. The AHP procedure involves performing
comparison of pairs of parameters within a set of reciprocal matrices. In comparing pairs of factors,
the AHP scale of relative importance is used in the scale 1 to 9. The AHP scale of paired
142 I. Ahmad & M.K. Verma

comparison with its description is listed in Table 2 (Satty, 1987; Banai-Kashani, 1989).

Table 2. AHP Scale for pair wise comparison

Intensity of Importance Description
1 Equal importance – two parameter contributes equally to the objective
3 Moderate importance – slightly favour one parameter over another
5 Strong importance – strongly favour one parameter over another
7 Very strong importance – very strongly favour one parameter over
another
9 Extremely strong importance – highest possible order of importance of
one parameter over another
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between the intensity of importance
Reciprocal of above numbers If an activity has one of the above numbers assigned to it when
compared with a second activity, then the second activity has the
reciprocal value when compared to the first.

The number of comparison can be determined using

𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑛 = 𝑛(𝑛 − 1)/2 (1)

where, n = number of parameter

After formation of pairwise comparison matrix, priority vector is computed (the normalized
Eigen vector of the matrix). The pair-wise comparison matrix is normalized by dividing the values
by the sum of each column. A new matrix is formed and the normalized principal Eigen vector (or
the priority vector) can be obtained by averaging across the rows.
The relative importance given to the parameters one over another is acceptable if the consistency
ratio (CR) is less than 10%. If it increases 10%, a new value is assigned in the pair-wise comparison
matrix. CR is computed as:

𝐶𝑅 = 𝐶𝐼/𝑅𝐼 (2)

where, CR = Consistency ratio

CI = Consistency index
= (𝜆!"# − 𝑛)/(𝑛 − 1)
𝜆!"# = Principal Eigen value
= value obtained from the summation of products between each element of Eigen
vector and sum of columns of reciprocal matrix.
RI = Randomness Index
RI which is derived from a sample of size 500 of a randomly generated reciprocal matrix using
the scale 1/9, 1/8 . . . . . 1 . . . . . 8, 9, is given by the size of the matrix (or the number of parameters,
n, in the comparison matrix) (Saaty, 1987; Banai-Kashani, 1989). When n is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10 corresponding RI will be 0, 0, 0.58, 0.9, 1.12, 1.24, 1.24, 1.32, 1.41, 1.45, 1.49 respectively.

4. RESULTS
Spatial information on runoff, LULC, slope, soil, stream order, lineament and settlement plays a
critical role in site selection for water storage structure. Information on these primary and secondary
layers is given below.

4.1 Runoff potential

Curve number (CN) map is prepared to determine the potential runoff in the study area. CN is
basically a coefficient that reduces the rainfall to runoff. It depends upon two parameter land use
and hydrologic soil group (HSG) (Ahmad et al., 2015). The CN ranges from 0 to 100, 0 implies no
European Water 60 (2017) 143

runoff condition and 100 imply rainfall is equal to runoff. Land use map was procured from
National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSC) Hyderabad in the scale of 1:250,000. As per NRSC
(ISRO) the study area has been classified in buildup, plantation, forest, wasteland, agriculture (rabi,
kharif, zaid, double/triple, current fallow) and water bodies. The same is shown in Figure 3 (f). Soil
data has been procured from National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur. The
same is converted to digital format using ArcGIS. For the study purpose it is required to group the
various soil. As per USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) (NRCS, 2001;
Subramanya, 2013), depending upon the infiltration and runoff potential, soil is categorized into
four groups A, B, C and D known as Hydrologic Soil Group [HSG]. Group A soil very low runoff
potential, Group B low runoff potential, Group C soil moderate runoff potential and Group D soil is
having high runoff potential. The spatial extent of these soil groups is shown with the help of Figure
3 (d). The extent of Group A soil (Entisol) is 6.27 sq. km., Group B (Inceptisol) soil 707.77 sq. km.,
Group C (Alfisol) soil 462.70 sq. km. and Group D (Vertisol) soil 217.98 sq. km. These two
parametric layers are merged together to get the CN grid map. The runoff potential is based on the
CN grid map, if CN ranges from 26-50 then low runoff, 50-75 moderate runoff and 75-100 high
runoff.

4.2 Stream Order

Stream order map was prepared with the help of DEM analysis in ArcGIS. Spatial analyst tool is
being applied for extracting the stream lines and stream order tool is utilized to derive the order of
the stream lines. As per the GIS analysis, stream order ranges from 1st order to 6th order. The stream
order map is shown in Figure 3 (d).

4.3 Lineament

Lineament involves fractures, faults and folds are identified in the study area. Lineament data is
collected form Chhattisgarh Council of Science & Technology and the analyzed in GIS, creating a
buffer of 100 m around the lineaments. The lineaments are shown in Figure 3 (c).

4.4 Settlement

As per the 2001 census, there are 269 villages and 2 towns in the study area. The locations of these
settlements were identified in terms of latitude and longitude. A buffer zone of 500 m around the
village location and 1000 m around the towns were created. The settlement is shown in Figure 3 (c).

4.5 Slope

Slope is one of the important factor for deciding the location of storage structure. For deriving
the slope layer ASTER GDEM (Property of METI and NASA) with 30 m resolution DEM is used
to determine the slope. The slope of the study area ranges from 0-80.69 %. The same is subdivided
into 5 sub-groups; high slope (> 64 %), moderate to high slope (48-64 %), moderate slope (32-48
%), gentle slope (16-32 %) and level to gentle slope (0-16 %). The slope map of the study area has
been shown in Figure 3 (e).

4.6 AHP application

AHP is applied to determine the priority of each parameter over one another (i.e. relative
importance) and is expressed in terms of relative weights (percentile). For all the seven parameters
the relative importance is derived (Table 4). Thus, a common scale (0 % to 100 %) is obtained from
AHP procedure. The runoff parameter emerges as the most important (relative weight 55%)
followed by slope (11%), stream order (10%), HSG (10%), Land use (6%), settlement (4%) and
lineament (4%). This judgement is checked for its consistency.
144 I. Ahmad & M.K. Verma

Principal Eigen vector = 7.75

Consistency Index (CI) = (𝜆!"# − 𝑛)/(𝑛 − 1)
= 0.13
For n = 7, RI = 1.32
Consistency Ratio (CI/RI) = 9.8 % (which is less than 10 %), hence the judgement is acceptable.
This implies that the comparisons were performed in Step of Table 4 with good percentage
importance (or weightage) judged for each parameter is suitable to overlay.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 3. (a) Curve number (b) runoff potential (c) settlement and lineament (d) HSG and stream order (e) slope (f)
LULC map of the study area
European Water 60 (2017) 145

3.7 Weighted Overlay Analysis

To implement the rules laid down in Table 1 and the information layers prepared with their
weightage are overlaid in GIS to identify the suitable water storage structure sites. The generated
layers are in vector format, for Weighted Overlay Analysis the “Rasterization” of each layer is
performed. The first step of data conversion is “Rasterization” for converting different lines and
polygon coverage into raster data format. After this, reclassification of all the raster files is
processed along with providing the scale value of each unit. A scale value in the range 1 to 3 is used
in which ‘1’ is for least suitable, ‘2’ is for moderate suitable and ‘3’ is for highly suitable. Based on
this weighted overlay analysis a site suitability map is prepared and presented in Figure 4. It was
found that there are 10 number of site under least suitable, 7 number moderate suitable and 3
number highly suitable.

Table 4. Determining the relative weight of parameters

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Parameter Priority % of
R LU Sl HSG SO L S R LU Sl HSG SO L S
Vector Priority
Runoff
1 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.58 0.44 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.36 0.43 0.55 55
Potential (R)
LULC (LU) 1/9 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 3 1 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.05 5
Slope (Sl) 1/9 3 1 1 1 5 3 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.14 0.11 11
Soil (HSG) 1/9 3 1 1 1 3 3 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.10 10
Stream
1/9 3 1 1 1 3 3 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.10 10
Order (SO)
Lineament
1/9 1/3 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 4
(L)
Settlement
1/9 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 4
(S)
Total 1.67 20.33 12.87 13.00 13.00 25.00 21.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 %

Figure 4. Site Suitability Map for Upper Sheonath River Sub-Basin

4. CONCLUSION
Water harvesting structures are extremely important to conserve precious natural resources like
soil and water. The potential sites for Upper Sheonath basin were identified through GIS and AHP
process. AHP process helps us in deciding the percentage importance of the parameters applied in
determining the suitable location for water storage. With reference to the suitability level index
presented in Table 1, the suitable locations identified are over the drainage lines only. Thus, it can
be stated that either check dams or regional reservoirs along the drainage lines can be built for
146 I. Ahmad & M.K. Verma

possible water storage. There may be other techniques which can be used for water harvesting in the
watershed. This can be achieved by increasing the number of parameters. Increasing the parameters
involves more complexity and hence complexity in decision-making. AHP can be best utilized for
decision-making in terms priority of parameter one over another. In the present study application of
AHP has been demonstrated. AHP easily update suitability levels and weighted score of decision
criteria on which the potential sites of water storage are based. The present study also demonstrates
the capability of GIS in handling large data set and performing spatial as well as vector analysis.
To appraise the suitability of the selected site, the suitability map was superimposed over the
LULC map of the study area and it was found that one of site under the category highly suitable is
exactly located over the existing storage structure and in local language it is known as “Mahamara
Anicut” in the Rajnadgaon District of Chhattisgarh State, India. This study demonstrated the
integrated approach of remote sensing, GIS and AHP.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors acknowledge the support provided by Chhattisgarh Council of Science &
Technology Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India & State Data Centre, Water Resources Department
Chhattisgarh Raipur, India, National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) Hyderabad, National Bureau
of Soil Survey & Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP) Nagpur.

REFERENCES
Ahmad I., Verma M. K., 2015. Application of RS & GIS in Estimation of Sub-Basin Runoff Potential using HEC-HMS.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 10(20): 41243-41248
Ahmad I., Verma V., Verma M. K., 2015. Application of Curve Number Method for Estimation of Runoff Potential in GIS
Environment. International Proceedings of Chemical, Biological & Environmental Engineering, 80: 16-20
Ahmad I., Verma M. K., 2016. Site Suitability Mapping for Water Storage Structures using Remote Sensing & GIS for Sheonath
Basin in Chhattisgarh State. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11(6): 4155-4160
Ahmad S. R., Ahmad U., Masood A., 2013. Geo-Spatial Techniques in Selection of Potential Damsite. Pakistan Journal of
Science, 65(1): 158-166
ASTER GDEM (NASA and METI) - jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/E/4.html
Bamne Y., Patil K. A., Vikhe S. D., 2014. Selection of Appropriate Sites for Structures of Water Harvesting In a Watershed Using
Remote Sensing and GIS. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advance Engineering, 4(11): 270-275
Banai-Kashani R., 1989. A New Method for Site Suitability Analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Environmental
Management, 13(6): 685-693
Bodin L., Gass S. I., 2004. Exercises for teaching the analytic hierarchy process. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 4(2): 1-13
Gavade V. V., Patil D. R., Palkar J. M., Kachare K. Y., 2011. Site Suitability Analysis for Surface Rainwater Harvesting of Madha
Tahsil, Solapur, Maharashtra: A Geoinformatic Approach. 12th ESRI India User Conference, India
Gosschalk E. M., 2002. Reservoir Engineering: Guidelines for Practice. Thomas Telford, London
Haas R., Meixner O., 2005. An illustrated guide to the analytic hierarchy process. University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences, Vienna
IMSD, 1995. Integrated Mission for Sustainable Development: Technical Guidelines. NRSA, Hyderabad, India, 1-27.
LULC, Bhuvan (ISRO) - bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in/gis/thematic/index.php
Padmavathy A. S., Ganesha R. K., Yogarajan N., Thangavel P., 1993. Check Dam Site Selection Using GIS Approach. Advance
Space Research, 13(11): 123-127
Payen J., Faures J. M., Vallee D., 2012. Small reservoirs and water storage for smallholder farming: The case for a new approach.
Agriculture Water Management Business Proposal Document
Saaty T. L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). McGraw-Hill, New York
Saaty R. W., 1987. The Analytic Hierarchy Process - What it is and How it is Used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3): 161-176
Salih S. A., Al-Tarif A. S. M., 2012. Using of GIS Spatial Analyses to Study the Selected Location for Dam Reservoir on Wadi Al-
Jirnaf, West of Shirqat Area, Iraq. Journal of Geographic Information System, 4: 117-127
Singh J. P., Singh D., Litoria P. K., 2009. Selection of Suitable Sites for Water Harvesting Structures in Soankhad Watershed, Punjab
using Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System (RS & GIS) Approach – A case study. Journal of Indian Soc.
Remote Sens., 37: 21-35
Subramanya K., 2013. Engineering Hydrology. Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill Education (India) Private Limited, New Delhi
Teknomo K., 2006. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tutorial
Triantaphyllou E., Mann S. H., 1995. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some
Challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2(1): 35-44
USDA NRCS, 2001. National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Hydrology