See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359256226

Geospatial and AHP Approach Rainwater Harvesting Site Identification in

Drought-Prone Areas, South Gonder Zone, Northwest Ethiopia

Article  in  Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing · March 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s12524-022-01528-5(

CITATIONS READS

0 144

5 authors, including:

Endalkachew Sisay Mulualem Asfaw

Debre Tabor University Debre Tabor University
9 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Asirat Teshome Afera Halefom

Debre Tabor University Debre Tabor University
39 PUBLICATIONS   166 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban water managment View project

Analysis of long term scour effects due to changes in river cross-section & morphology at selected bridges [Gayint-Wereta highway road, Ethiopia] View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tesfa Gebrie Andualem on 01 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-022-01528-5(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Geospatial and AHP Approach Rainwater Harvesting Site Identification

in Drought-Prone Areas, South Gonder Zone, Northwest Ethiopia
Endalkachew Sisay Yegizaw1 • Mulualem Asfaw Ejegu1 • Asirat Teshome Tolossa2 • Afera Halefom Teka2 •

Tesfa Gebrie Andualem2 • Melak Abebe Tegegne1 • Workie Mesfin Walle1 • Solomon Enyew Shibeshie1 •
Tiku Melak Dirar3

Received: 20 November 2020 / Accepted: 19 February 2022

Ó Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2022

Abstract
Drought is one of the most pervasive natural disasters because it depletes natural resource, environment disaster and an
ecosystem devastation that support all forms of life. Remote sensing and geospatial modeling can be used in investigation
of water harvesting through a scientific approach, hence making decision easier and precise. So, this research uses remotely
sensed data and geospatial modeling with analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to identify locations for rainwater har-
vesting structure in the drought-prone area of south Gondar zone. Different thematic layers have been incorporated into the
analysis including soil texture, soil depth, slope, rainfall, land use, distance from road and settlement, and lineament
density. The aforementioned thematic layers were assigned respective weights of their importance by AHP and combined
in a GIS environment to identify the potential site. This study is important to improve agriculture productivity, animal
husbandry, water management and sustainable environment. The results of this study are to prepare map of potential
rainwater harvesting sites. This will allow to build dams to store water, which will be especially beneficial in drought-prone
areas. The suitability map is classified into four potential classes, from highly suitable to not suitable. The results of the
suitability analysis show that 20.25% of the study area is highly suitable, 66.66% is moderately suitable, 4.70% is
marginally suitable, and 8.39% is not suitable. The result of a suitable map is very convenient for decision-makers and
planners to quickly select the sites for rainwater harvesting structure.

Keywords Drought-prone area  Rain water harvesting  Site suitability

Background
Water is one of the valuable resources required for life,
economic and social development (Bakir & Xingnan, 2008;
Haile & Suryabhagavan, 2019; Mahmood et al., 2020;
Singh et al., 2009). Adequate water supply is essential for
the development of all activities such as for drinking water
supply, agricultural and industrial activities (Ali, 2018;
& Endalkachew Sisay Yegizaw
endalkea@gmail.com
1
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Debre
Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
2
Department of Hydraulics and Water Resource Engineering,
Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
3
Urban Land Administration Department, Kotebe
Metropolitan University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Isioye, 2012; Maina & Raude, 2016). The global require-
ment for water is intensifying over time due to the rapid
increase in population, with an increase in agricultural and
domestic demands (Buraihi & Sharif, 2015; Saha et al.,
2018; Wu et al., 2018). As a result, it is critical to properly
manage freshwater resources (Mahmood et al., 2020;
Maina & Raude, 2016). One of these management solu-
tions is the collection of rainwater (Shashikumar et al,
2018). Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is a method of col-
lecting, storing and conserving rainwater to increase the
availability of water for direct use or to replenish ground-
water resources (Adham et al., 2018; Boers & Ben-Asher,
1982; Tiwari et al., 2018). For almost 4000 years (Feyen &
Shannon, 2009), it has been done in some way or another.
Rainwater harvesting systems are advantageous as they
provide water at or near points in an area where water is

123

needed to overcome water scarcity (Mugo & Odera, 2019;
Yosef & Asmamaw, 2015).
Ethiopia has suffered from great climatic variability
spatially and temporally (Regassa et al., 2010), in turn,
causing rain failures that contribute to crop failure, hunger
and even famine. Even relatively small rainfall variability
events during the growing season can cause jeopardizing
the success of rainfed agriculture (Rockstrom, 2000). In
most of Ethiopia, the cultivated land is rainfed, making
agricultural production insufficient to survive the life of the
household (Tukura & Feyissa, 2020). According to Tilahun
et al., 2011), about 55% of rural households in Ethiopia
reported that their annual crop production would only last
up to 6 months. If climate variability has occurred, food
shortages will be severe (Regassa et al., 2010). When direct
rainfall is insufficient for crop growth, increasing accessi-
ble water through water collecting techniques is the most
effective way to ensure long-term production and mitigate
drought effects (Abdi, 1986; Gupta, 2011; Javaid et al.,
2016; Khudhair et al., 2020).
The identification of acceptable rainwater harvesting
sites is a difficult task (Adham et al., 2018; Sayl et al.,
2020; Singh et al., 2009). As a result, a variety of
approaches have been utilized to choose suitable sites. The
most popular way for locating possible RWH locations is
AHP (Krois & Schulte, 2014; Shashikumar et al., 2018;
Wu et al., 2018). In AHP technique, the complex decisions
are organized and analyzed in a structured way based on
expert’s knowledge.
Remote sensing and GIS modeling for rainwater har-
vesting suitability land analysis and management is a cru-
cial step toward maximizing water availability and land
productivity (Mugo & Odera, 2019). Several researchers
(Gavade et al., 2011; Khudhair et al., 2020; Rashash & El-
Nahry, 2015) use Landsat Satellite image to identify suit-
able site for rainwater harvesting structure while Ejegu and
Yegizaw (2020); Yegizaw and Ejegu (2021) use Sentinel-
2A satellite images since sentinel image have a better
spatial resolution; therefore, this study used Sentinel 2A
satellite image. The choice of suitable sites is critical to the
effectiveness of rainwater harvesting systems (Adham
et al., 2018). Selecting suitable sites for rainwater har-
vesting is challenging and required a large amount of
spatial data from different sources (Ali, 2018; Al-shabeeb,
2016; Gavit et al., 2018; Javaid et al., 2016; Khudhair et al.,
2020; Mbilinyi, 2007; Maina & Raude, 2016; Mugo &
Odera, 2019; Saha et al., 2018; Tiwari et al., 2018; Wu
et al., 2018). In Ethiopia, investigations on rainwater har-
vesting have been done. Among these, Haile and Suryab-
hagavan (2019), Demeke et al. (2021), Girma et al. (2017)
and Dile et al. (2016) all take different methodologies and
use distinct spatiotemporal settings and none of them take
into account all of the well-known factor. In this study, the
123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
majority of the factors have been considered while deter-
mining suitable site for rain water harvesting structure.
Rainwater harvesting is crucial to improve and sustain the
agricultural productivity especially in the area that have
erratic and uneven distribution of rainfall (Rashash & El-
Nahry, 2015) therefore, the objective of this study was to
identify criteria that influences the selection of RWH sites
and modeling rainwater harvesting suitable sites for sus-
tainable agriculture in drought-prone areas of the south
Gonder zone using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis
(MCDA).
The Study Area
This study is conducted in Lay Gayint, Tach Gayint,
Simada and Ebinat districts, which are drought-prone areas
in south Gondar zone, Northwest Ethiopia. The total geo-
graphic coverage of the study area is approximately
7073.79 km2. Geographically, the study area (Fig. 1) is
situated between 11° 020 and 12° 550 N latitude and 37° 940
and 38° 460 E longitude. The elevation of the area varies
from 1190 to 4113 m above sea level. The research area’s
average annual precipitation and temperature are 620 mm
and 27 °C, respectively.
Materials and Methods
Datasets and Site Selection Criteria Modeling
Site selection for the RWH structure requires considering
different factor and balancing several objectives to deter-
mine suitable site (Adham et al., 2018). The selection of
RWH-suitable locations integrates social, economic and
physical criteria (Ammar et al., 2016) (Fig. 2). Based on
the literature, the following parameters (Table 1) were
considered (Adham, et al., 2016; Ibrahim et al., 2019;
Mugo & Odera, 2019; Yemenu et al., 2014): slope, land
use–land cover, lineament, soil depth, soil texture and
rainfall. Aside from the factors, distance from settlement
and road were considered as a constraint. The basic dataset
used for this study was Sentinel-2A satellite image to
prepare the LULC of the study area. During the prepro-
cessing of the satellite image the red, green, blue and NIR
bands of the Sentinel images were stacked and subset by
the study area. The supervised classification of the maxi-
mum likelihood algorithm was used to obtain the land-use–
land-cover map.
ASTER DEM was used for slope analysis. The soil data
were used to derive the soil texture and the soil depth map.
Precipitation data for the last 30 years (1990–2019) were
obtained and interpolated from four meteorological stations
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
Fig. 1 Location map of the
study area
(Lay Gayint, Tach Gayint, Simada and Ebinat). Lineament
density of the study area was extracted from the Sentinel-
2A 2020 image using Geomatica software. The Ministry of
Agriculture provided the research area’s soil map, which
was used as input for the analysis of the soil maps. Finally,
each factor was classified into highly suitable, moderately
suitable, marginally suitable and not suitable for the RWH
structure.
Result
Slope
The amount of sedimentation and the speed of water flow
are both influenced by slope of the area (Adham et al.,
2018; Shashikumar et al., 2012). Moreover, it is one of the
most critical criteria in determining acceptable locations
for water harvesting structures (Mugo & Odera, 2019). A
slope map was created using an ASTER DEM. The
generated slope map was, then, reclassified into four clas-
ses from highly suitable to not suitable (Table 2 (a)).
According to Fig. 3a, the slope suitability class accounts
54.12% of the area coverage, and the remaining 45.88% of
the area coverage was found in the range between mod-
erately suitable to not suitable for rainwater harvesting.
Land Use–Land Cover
Runoff, infiltration and evapotranspiration are all influ-
enced by land use–land cover (LULC) (Gavit et al., 2018;
Jasrotia et al., 2009; Kadam et al., 2012). Seven LULC
classes were identified (agricultural land, built-up, shrub-
land, grassland, water, forest and barren land). The LULC
map was then divided into four classes from highly suit-
able to not suitable (Fig. 3b. Table 2 (b) shows that 0.03%
of the study area was highly suitable for rain water har-
vesting, 63.05% was moderately suitable, 26.56% was
marginally suitable, and 10.36% was not suitable.
123
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Fig. 2 Diagrammatic
representation of the
methodology

Table 1 Criteria for site selection

Criteria Highly suitable Moderately Marginally Not suitable Source
suitable suitable

Slope 0–2% 2–8% 8–30% [ 30% Maina and Raude (2016)

(percent)
LULC Bare Land Agriculture Shrub and Built-up and Water Bodies Gavit et al. (2018)
Grass land Forest land
Lineament 0.25 0.25–0.6 0.6–1.25 [ 1.25 Mugo and Odera (2019)
density
Soil texture Sand, loamy sand and Loam, Silt and Sandy clay Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy Prasad et al. (2014), Maina
sandy loam Silt loam loam clay, silty clay and clay and Raude (2016)
Soil depth [ 100 50–100 25–50 \ 25 Fitsum (2017)
(cm)
Rainfall [ 1070 1070–1022 1022–960 \ 960 Mugo and Odera (2019)
(mm)

Lineaments storage (Prasad et al., 2014). Low lineament density is

Lineament density gives more information on the potential
sites of the rainwater harvesting structures (Prasad et al.,
2014). Lineament affects surface storage, ground water
recharge and base flow (Maina & Raude, 2016). The high
density of lineaments in the area reflects the fact that the
area contains many faults that are not suitable for water
good for storage due to the rock strata structure formation
which are free of cracks, allowing for longer water storage
period (Mugo & Odera, 2019). Therefore, areas with low
lineament density were classified as highly suitable, while
areas with high lineament density were classified as
unsuitable. The lineament proximity layer was reclassified
into four categories according to the density of lineaments

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Table 2 Suitability classes and area coverage of (a) slope, (b) land use–land cover
Level of suitability Suitability rank (a) (b)
2
Slope class (%) Area (km ) Area % LULC type Area (km2) Area %

Highly suitable 4 \2 3828.44 54.12 Bare Land 1.89 0.03

Moderately suitable 3 2–8 2697.14 38.13 Agriculture Grass land 4460.17 63.05
Marginally suitable 2 8–30 486.2 6.87 Shrub and Forest land 1878.75 26.56
Not suitable 1 [ 30 62.01 0.88 Built-up and Water Bodies 732.98 10.36
Total 7073.8 100 7073.8 100

Fig. 3 Suitability analysis result

of a Slope, b LULC and
c Lineament

presented in a given area (Fig. 3c. Based on lineament harvesting. The central part of the study area contains
density (Table 3 (a) and Fig. 3c, 9.49% of the study area many faults, so this part was not suitable for water storage,
was highly suitable, 46.25% moderately suitable, 43.97% is while the border, north and south of the study area have a
marginally suitable and 0.29% is not suitable for rainwater low density of lineaments conducive to water storage.

Table 3 Suitability classes and area coverage of (a), lineament and (b) Soil Texture
Level of suitability Suitability (a) (b)
rank
Lineament Area Area % Soil texture class Area Area %
density (km2) (km2)

Highly suitable 4 \ 0.25 670.98 9.49 Water body and rock 12.98 0.18
Moderately 3 0.25–0.60 3272.32 46.25 Silt and Silt Loam 988.83 13.98
suitable
Marginally suitable 2 0.6–1.25 3110.24 43.97 Clay loam 256.06 3.62
Not suitable 1 [ 1.25 20.25 0.29 Clay to clay loam, Silt clay and Clay 5815.92 82.22
Total 7073.79 100 7073.79 100

123

Soil Texture
Water infiltration, surface runoff and the soil’s water-
holding capacity are all determined by soil texture (Glen-
denning et al., 2012) (Table 4). The percentages of sand,
silt and clay determine the soil texture class (Adham et al.,
2018). Soils with high infiltration rates are not favorable for
rainwater harvesting structures (Fitsum, 2017). Fine and
medium grained soils, on the other hand, are better for
rainwater collection structures since they can hold more
water (Ball, 2001). The study area has different types of
soil texture such as silt, silt loam, clay loam, clay, clay
loam to clay and rock outcrops (Fig. 4a). According to Soil
Conservation Services (SCS), all soils were divided into
four groups of hydrologic soil groups based on their per-
meability, infiltration and soil composition (Table 3 (b).
The soil texture in the study area was classified as highly
suitable, moderately suitable, marginally suitable and not
suitable. Accordingly, 82.22% of the study area was highly
suitable, and 3.62% was moderately suitable for construc-
tion of rainwater harvesting structure (Table 3 (b) and
Fig. 4a).
Soil Depth
Soil depth ensures proper root development and storage of
harvested water (Nketiaa et al., 2013; Shadeed et al., 2020;
Fig. 4 Suitability analysis result of a Soil Texture, b Soil depth, c Rainfall and d Overall constraints
123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
Wu et al., 2018). Critchley et al. (1992) suggest that deeper
soil is suitable for collecting rainwater. Soil depth in the
study area varies from 10 to 120 cm. Based on soil depth
suitability, 60.08% were highly suitable, 21.94% moder-
ately suitability, 14.38% marginally suitability and 3.6%
were classified as not suitable for rainwater harvesting
(Fig. 4b and Table 5 (a).
Rainfall
Rainfall is the highest weighted factor for selection of a
suitable site for rainwater harvesting (Mugo & Odera,
2019). The precipitation data were analyzed over 30 years
(1990–2019) from four metrological stations. Inverse dis-
tance weight spatial interpolation technique was used to
estimate the precipitation for areas that do not have pre-
cipitation measurements, and the interpolated result
showed that the study area receives precipitation from 892
to 1171.78 mm (Fig. 4c. For rainwater harvesting, the
distribution of precipitation in the study area was divided
into four classes. As shown in (Table 5 (b), 36.62% of the
area was highly suitable, 26.42% of the area was classified
as moderately suitable, and the remaining 23.39% and
13.57% of the area were marginally suitable and moder-
ately suitable, respectively.
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Table 4 Hydrologic soil group Source (Maina & Raude, 2016; Prasad, et al., 2014)
Soil group Runoff description Soil texture

A Low runoff potential, high infiltration rates Sand, loamy sand and sandy loam
B Moderately infiltration rates leading to moderately runoff potential Loam, Silt and Silt loam
C High/moderate runoff potential because of slow infiltration rates Sandy clay loam
D High runoff potential, very low infiltration rates Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay and clay

Table 5 Suitability classes and area coverage of (a) soil depth and (b) rainfall
Level of suitability Suitability rank (a) (b)
2
Soil depth (cm) Area (km ) Area % Rainfall (mm) Area (km2) Area %

Highly suitable 4 [ 100 4250.36 60.08 [ 1070 2590.42 36.62

Moderately suitable 3 50–100 1552.01 21.94 1070–1022 1868.9 26.42
Marginally suitable 2 25–50 1017.33 14.38 1022–960 1654.56 23.39
Not suitable 1 \ 25 254.09 3.6 \ 960 959.91 13.57
Total 7073.79 100 7073.79 100

Distance from Settlement and Road Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Rainwater harvesting sites should be far enough away and
located from roads and settlements (Al-shabeeb, 2016;
Weerasinghe et al., 2011). When the RWH structure is
constructed near to road and settlement, in some cases the
rainwater harvesting reservoirs may generate flood to
nearby areas as well as the farmer may prone to waterborne
disease (Gavit et al., 2018). Therefore, rainwater harvesting
structures should be constructed away from the road and
settlement. For this study, a buffer of 250 m was used for
roads and settlements.
As shown in (Fig. 4d, areas having a distance less than
250 m from roads and settlement were considered as
unsuitable and areas greater than 250 m were considered as
suitable for rainwater harvesting development. Based on
(Table 6), from the total area 594.55 km2 (8.4%) area was
unsuitable to construct rainwater harvesting reservoirs
while 6479.24 km2 (91.6%) is suitable.
Table 6 Settlement and road class value for rainwater harvesting
Class Value Assigned value Area (km2)
Settlement and road
Suitable [ 205 1 6479.24
Not suitable \ 250 0 594.55
Total 7073.79
The MCDA involves choosing of criteria and decision
options (Ayalew & Yamagishi, 2005; Wu et al., 2018). Not
all factors are equally important in determining potential
areas for rainwater harvesting (Mugo & Odera, 2019).
Therefore, different factors were assigned different
weights. Pairwise comparison, also known as the analytical
hierarchy process (AHP), can be used to accomplish this.
The pairwise comparison method involves comparing each
factor with other factor. The weights for each criterion are
determined using the AHP method of pairwise comparison
matrix.
Identifying Suitable Site
In this study, AHP approaches were used to build a GIS-
based multi-criteria decision-making procedure, which
allowed for the calculation of weights for each factor and
the identification of appropriate rainwater collecting
structure placements. Adham, Maina & Raude, Mugo &
Odera, and Ejegu & Yegizaw also used GIS-based multi-
criteria decision-making approach to identify suitable site.
The appropriate site for rainwater harvesting was selected
Area %
considering six criteria and two restrictions based on the
literature (Ibrahim et al., 2019; Mugo & Odera, 2019;
91.60 Sharma & Kujur, 2012; Yemenu et al., 2014): Rainfall,
8.40 land use, land cover, slope, soil texture, soil depth and
100 lineament were considered as criteria, while distance from
road and settlement was considered as a constraint. ArcGIS

123
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Table 7 Suitability classes and

Suitability level Rainwater harvesting site Area (km2) Area %
area coverage for RWH
Highly suitable 4 1432.40 20.25
Moderately suitable 3 4715.27 66.66
Less suitable 2 332.44 4.70
Not suitable 1 593.68 8.39
Total 7073.79 100

Fig. 5 Suitability site of

rainwater harvesting

was used to create each criterion map. The weighting cri-
terion was derived by AHP and the weight of rainfall, land
use–land cover, slope, soil texture, soil depth and lineament
were applied in the weighted overlap are 32%, 26%, 17%,
14%, 6% and 5%, respectively. Rainfall and land use–land
cover were the main criteria for identifying areas for RWH
structure. These results agree with those of Rashash & El-
Nahry (2015), Maina and Raude (2016), Ejegu and Yegi-
zaw (2020).
The rainwater harvesting suitability class has been
classified into four categories: highly suitable, moderately
suitable, marginally suitable and not suitable. Highly suit-
able areas cover a total of 1,432.40 km2. These areas were
found in the western part of Ebinat, east of Lay Gayint and
southeast of Tach Gayint district. Most of the districts of

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
Ebinat and Simada had moderately suitable for the rain-
water harvesting structure, which covers an area of
4715.27 km2. On the other hand, approximately 332.44 and
593.68 km2 of the study area were located in the margin-
ally suitable and not suitable classes for the rainwater
harvesting structure (Table 7). The rainwater collection site
selection map showed that Lay Gayint and Tach Gayint
district had the highest potential for RWH (Fig. 5). This
study is consistent with those of (Ali, 2018; Gavit et al.,
2018; Mbilinyi, 2007; Prasad et al., 2014) which indicated
that areas soils with high water retention capacity and area
having gentle to moderate slopes were suitable for the
construction of rainwater harvesting. These results are also
agreed with those of Mbilinyi (2007), Ejegu and yegizaw
(2020), who indicated that areas having gentle to moderate
slopes which have a high water-holding capacity were
suitable for constructing RWH structures.
Conclusion
Water is the most remarkable natural resource, essential to
maintain an environment and an ecosystem conducive to
all forms of life. Global water shortages are becoming
more severe, forcing the exploration of the best sites for
rainwater harvesting using sound methodology to alleviate
drought. This research attempted to identify locations for
rainwater harvesting structure for effective and efficient
management of rainwater harvesting in drought-prone
areas of south Gondar zone. The suitability model com-
bined social, economic and physical factors: slope, land
use–land cover, rainfall, soil texture, soil depth, lineament
density and distance from road and settlement. The layers
of these sets of criteria were combined using an overlay
analysis. The weights assigned to each factor were gener-
ated through the analytical hierarchical process. The study
area was classified into four classes for rainwater harvest-
ing such as highly suitable, moderately suitable, marginally
suitable and not suitable. About 20.25 and 66.66% of the
area were found in highly suitable and moderately suit-
able areas to implement rainwater harvesting practices,
respectively. The result is very useful for decision-makers
and planners to quickly select sites for rainwater harvesting
structure. This study revealed that GIS tool is a very
valuable for multilayer integration of relevant parameters
and the study area had high potential to meet the increasing
demand for water, if rainwater is properly collected and
stored. The cultivated area in Ethiopia is rainfed (Tukura &
Feyissa, 2020), which has been subjected to extreme cli-
mate fluctuation, making agriculture productivity insuffi-
cient. As a result, this research is critical in order to boost
productivity by increasing the amount of water in the study
area. Based on Al-shabeeb (2016), it is required validate
the selected suitable site during construction if these sites
are not occupied by other land uses that have high
socioeconomic values. The study can further be improved
by incorporating ground water table data that can be used
to identify the most suitable site and validate the result.
Acknowledgements The researchers are thankful to Debre Tabor
University for providing an opportunity to do this research.
Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study design,
acquisition of geospatial data, entry, manipulation and statistical
analysis, data interpretation, manuscript preparation, literature search
conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and
analysis were performed by ESY, MAE, ATT, AHT, TGA, BZB,
MAT, WMW, SES and TMD. The first draft of the manuscript was
written by ESY and MAE, and all authors commented on previous
versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Funding The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
they received from Debre Tabor University.
Data Availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the cur-
rent study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Abdi, A. M. (1986). Water harvesting systems in the Northwestern
region of Somalia. In World bank workshop on water harvesting
in Sub-Saharan, pp. 13–17.
Adham, A., Riksen, M., Ouessar, M., & Ritsema, C. J. (2016). A
methodology to assess and evaluate rainwater harvesting tech-
niques in (semi-) arid regions. Water, 8(5), 198.
Adham, A., Sayl, K. N., Abed, R., Abdeladhim, M. A., Wesseling, J.
G., Riksen, M., & Ritsema, C. J. (2018). A GIS-based approach
for identifying potential sites for harvesting rainwater in the
Western desert of Iraq. International Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Research, 6(4), 297–304.
Ali, K. A. (2018). Geospatial hydrological analysis in GIS environ-
ment for selecting potential water harvest sites: The case of
Badrah-Wasit. Journal of University of Babylon for Engineering
Sciences, 26(2), 328–337.
Al-shabeeb, A. R. (2016). The use of AHP within GIS in selecting
potential sites for water harvesting sites in the Azraq Basin:
Jordan. Journal of Geographic Information System, 8(1), 73–88.
Ammar, A., Riksen, M., Ouessar, M., & 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.
Ayalew, L., & Yamagishi, H. (2005). The application of GIS-based
logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the
Kakuda-Yahiko mountains central Japan. Geomorphology,
65(1–2), 15–31.
Bakir, M., & Xingnan, Z. (2008). GIS and remote Sensing applica-
tions for rain water harvesting in the Syrian desert (Al-Badia). In
123

Proceedings of the 12th International Water Technology Con-
ference (IWTC’12).
Ball, J. (2001) Soil and Water Relationships. The Samuel Roberts
Noble Foundation. Ag News and Views. http://www.noble.org/
ag/soils/soilwaterrelationships.
Boers, T. M., & Ben-Asher, J. (1982). A review of rainwater
harvesting. Agricultural Water Management, 5(2), 145–158.
Buraihi, F. H., & Shariff, A. R. M. (2015). Selection of rainwater
harvesting sites by using remote sensing and GIS techniques: A
case study of Kirkuk Iraq. Jurnal Teknologi. https://doi.org/10.
11113/jt.v76.5955
Critchley, W., Reij, C., & Seznec, A. (1992). Water harvesting for
plant production-volume II: Case studies and conclusions for
sub-Saharan Africa (p. 1). The World Bank.
Demeke, G. G., Andualem, T. G., & Kassa, M. (2021). Evaluation of
the sustainability of existing rainwater harvesting ponds: A case
study of lay Gayint District, South Gondar zone Ethiopia.
Heliyon, 7(7), e07647.
Dile, Y. T., Rockström, J., & Karlberg, L. (2016). Suitability of water
harvesting in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia: A first step
towards a mesoscale hydrological modeling framework.
Advances in Meteorology.
Eastman, J. R. (2006). IDRISI Andes guide to GIS and image
processing. Clark University, Worcester, 328.
Ejegu, M. A., & Yegizaw, E. S. (2020). Potential rainwater harvesting
suitable land selection and management by using GIS with
MCDA in Ebenat district, Northwestern Ethiopia. Journal of
Degraded and Mining Lands Management, 8(1), 2537.
Fitsum M. (2017). Assessment of Surface Water and Land Resource
Potential for Surface Irrigation: Case Study of Gumara Water-
shed Tana Sub Basin North Gondar. Arba Minch University,
Ethiopia. (Unpublished Master‘s Thesis), Arba Minch Univer-
sity, Ethiopia.
Feyen, J., Shannon, K., & Neville, M. (2009). Water and urban
development paradigms. In Towards an integration of engineer-
ing, design and management approaches.
Gavade, V. V., Patil, R. R., Palkar, J. M., & Kachare, K. Y. (2011).
Site suitability analysis for surface rainwater harvesting of
Madha Tahsil, Solapur, Maharashtra: A geoinformatic approach.
In ESRI India user conference Vol. 5.
Gavit, B. K., Purohit, R. C., Singh, P. K., Kothari, M., & Jain, H. K.
(2018). Rainwater harvesting structure site suitability using
remote sensing and GIS. In Hydrologic modeling (pp. 331–341).
Springer.
Girma, T. Y., & Aynalem, M. (2017). Rainwater harvesting and
management in semi-arid areas of Tigray region, Ethiopia.
Glendenning, C. J., Van Ogtrop, F. F., Mishra, A. K., & Vervoort, R.
W. (2012). Balancing watershed and local scale impacts of rain
water harvesting in India: A review. Agricultural Water Man-
agement, 107, 1–13.
Gupta, E., (2011). Use of remote sensing and GIS to assess the
rainwater harvesting potential in Behror Tehsil, Rajasthan. A
project report submitted to Dr. Parul Srivastava, Professor at
NIIT University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
degree of M.Tech in GIS.
Haile, G., & Suryabhagavan, K. V. (2019). GIS-based approach for
identification of potential rainwater harvesting sites in Arsi zone,
central Ethiopia. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment,
5(1), 353–367.
Ibrahim, G. R. F., Rasul, A., Ali Hamid, A., Ali, Z. F., & Dewana, A.
A. (2019). Suitable site selection for rainwater harvesting and
storage case study using Dohuk Governorate. Water, 11(4), 864.
Isioye, O. A. (2012). A multi criteria decision support system (MDSS)
for identifing rainwater harvesting site (S) in Zaria, Kaduna state,
Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Scientific Engineer-
ing and Technological Research, 1(1), 53–71.
123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
Jasrotia, A. S., Majhi, A., & Singh, S. (2009). Water balance approach
for rainwater harvesting using remote sensing and GIS tech-
niques, Jammu Himalaya India. Water Resources Management,
23(14), 3035–3055.
Javaid, A., Muneer, B., Ghauri, K., & Nasar-u-minallah, M. (2016).
Criteria maps for rainwater harvesting in Potohar region. Science
International, 28(3), 2617–2620.
Kadam, A. K., Kale, S. S., Pande, N. N., Pawar, N. J., & Sankhua, R.
N. (2012). Identifying potential rainwater harvesting sites of a
semi-arid, basaltic region of Western India, using SCS-CN
method. Water Resources Management, 26(9), 2537–2554.
Khudhair, M. A., Sayl, K. N., & Darama, Y. (2020). Locating site
selection for rainwater harvesting structure using remote sensing
and GIS. In IOP Conference series: Materials science and
engineering (Vol. 881, No. 1, p. 012170). IOP Publishing.
Krois, J., & Schulte, A. (2014). GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation to
identify potential sites for soil and water conservation techniques
in the Ronquillo watershed, northern Peru. Applied Geography,
51, 131–142.
Mahmood, K., Qaiser, A., Farooq, S., & un Nisa, M. (2020). RS-and
GIS-based modeling for optimum site selection in rain water
harvesting system: an SCS-CN approach. Acta Geophysica,
68(4), 1175–1185.
Maina, C. W., & Raude, J. M. (2016). Assessing land suitability for
rainwater harvesting using geospatial techniques: A case study of
Njoro catchment, Kenya. Applied and Environmental Soil
Science.
Mbilinyi, B. P., Tumbo, S. D., Mahoo, H., & Mkiramwinyi, F. O.
(2007). GIS-based decision support system for identifying
potential sites for rainwater harvesting. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth, Parts a/b/c, 32(15–18), 1074–1081.
Mugo, G. M., & Odera, P. A. (2019). Site selection for rainwater
harvesting structures in Kiambu County-Kenya. The Egyptian
Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 22(2), 155–164.
Nketiaa, A. K., Forkuob, E. K., Asamoaha, E., & Senayaa, J. K.
(2013). Using a GIS-based model as a decision support
framework for identifying suitable rain water harvesting sites.
Water Resources, 21, 26.
Prasad, H. C., Bhalla, P., & Palria, S. (2014). Site suitability analysis
of water harvesting structures using remote sensing and gis-a
case study of pisangan watershed, ajmer district, rajasthan. The
International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and
Spatial Information Sciences, 40(8), 1471.
Rashash, A., & El-Nahry, A. (2015). Rain water harvesting using GIS
and RS for agriculture development in northern western coast
Egypt. Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters, 5(2), 1–7.
Regassa, S., Givey, C., & Castillo, G. (2010). The Rain Doesn’t Come
on time anymore: Poverty, vulnerability, and climate variability
in Ethiopia. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and
Resilience, 6(1), 90–134.
Rockstrom, J. (2000). Water resources management in smallholder
farms in Eastern and Southern Africa: An overview. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Part b: Hydrology, Oceans and
Atmosphere, 25(3), 275–283.
Saha, A., Patil, M., Karwariya, S., Pingale, S. M., Azmi, S., Goyal, V.
C., & Rathore, D. S. (2018). Identification of potential sites for
water harvesting structures using geospatial techniques and multi
criteria decision analysis.
Sayl, K. N., Mohammed, A. S., & Ahmed, A. D. (2020, February).
GIS-based approach for rainwater harvesting site selection. In
IOP Conference series: Materials science and engineering (Vol.
737, No. 1, p. 012246). IOP Publishing.
Shadeed, S., Judeh, T., & Riksen, M. (2020). Rainwater harvesting for
sustainable agriculture in high water-poor areas in the West bank
Palestine. Water, 12(2), 380.
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing
Shashikumar, B. N., Garg, V., & Nikam, B. R. (2018). Analytical
hierarchy process for identification of suitable water harvesting
site in geospatial environment. ISPRS Annals of the Photogram-
metry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 4,
189–196.
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 the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37(1), 21–35.
Tilahun, H., Teklu, E., Michael, M., Fitsum, H., & Awulachew, S. B.
(2011). Comparative performance of irrigated and rainfed
agriculture in Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 14(2),
235–244.
Tiwari, K., Goyal, R., & Sarkar, A. (2018). GIS-based methodology
for identification of suitable locations for rainwater harvesting
structures. Water Resources Management, 32(5), 1811–1825.
Tukura, N. G., & Feyissa, T. A. (2020). GIS-based irrigation potential
assessment on Shaya river sub-basin in Bale Zone, Oromia
region, Ethiopia. Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands
Management, 7(2), 2075.
Weerasinghe, H., Schneider, U. A., & Loew, A. (2011). Water
harvest-and storage-location assessment model using GIS and
View publication stats
remote sensing. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences Discus-
sions, 8(2), 3353–3381.
Wu, R. S., Molina, G. L. L., & Hussain, F. (2018). Optimal sites
identification for rainwater harvesting in northeastern Guatemala
by analytical hierarchy process. Water Resources Management,
32(12), 4139–4153.
Yegizaw, E. S., & Ejegu, M. A. (2021). Geospatial technology with
the integration of MCDA to identify potential irrigation site for
agricultural land management in Wanka watershed, Northwest-
ern Ethiopia. Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Manage-
ment, 9(1), 3027–3034.
Yemenu, F., Hordofa, T., & Abera, Y. (2014). Review of water
harvesting technologies for food security in Ethiopia: Challenges
and opportunities for the research system. Journal of Natural
Sciences Research, 4(18), 40–49.
Yosef, B. A., & Asmamaw, D. K. (2015). Rainwater harvesting: An
option for dry land agriculture in arid and semi-arid Ethiopia.
International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering, 7(2), 17–28.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123