Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

A multi-criteria decision analysis approach towards efficient rainwater T

harvesting
Amirhossein Shadmehri Toosia, Erfan Ghasemi Tousib, Seyed Ali Ghassemia, Ali Cheshomic,
⁎
Sina Alaghmandd,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, Iran
b
Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering and Mechanics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering & Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, 23 College Walk, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by G. Syme, Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) is becoming one of the most promising alternative sources of fresh water which can
Editor-in-Chief be potentially captured and utilized, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions (ASARs). However, identification
Keywords: of potential sites for RWH on a large scale has always been a great challenge, and therefore, requires further
Rainwater harvesting studies. Most recent studies on this topic select RWH zones employing Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
Decision support system combined with multi-criteria analysis and hydrological models. Nevertheless, there are a few studies, mostly in
Geospatial techniques small catchments, that locate potential zones considering socio-economic factors. In this paper, a GIS-based
Water conservation Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is presented to identify potential RWH areas incorporating socio-eco-
nomic factors including distance from drainage networks, roads, urban areas, faults, farms and wells. The
proposed methodology was implemented at a large catchment scale in Mashhad Plain Basin with an area of 9762
(km2) located in the northeast of Iran. Results show that 48% of the study area is not suitable for RWH. The rest
of the study area is divided into three potential zones that are poor, moderate and good for RWH, covering 31%,
43%, and 26% of the potential areas, respectively. Ponds and pans, check dams and terracing were considered as
the best practices for the good RWH potential areas. Preliminary estimates suggest that up to 158, 135 and
110 M m3 of precipitation could be received respectively by each system.

1. Introduction aquifers, as well as drilling a well and trenching in rocky conditions.

The impact of freshwater scarcity in the next decades could dra-
matically increase due to accelerated climate change, population
growth, intensive farming, increasing industrialization and continuous
pollution of water resources (Cai and Rosegrant, 2002; Gleick, 2003;
Jha et al., 2014b; Ward et al., 2010). The majority of countries in North
Africa and the Near East, as well as countries such as Pakistan, Mexico,
South Africa, and large parts of India and China deal with water scarcity
and its implications (FAO, 2012; Magrath, 2007; Watkins, 2006). This
trend resulted in a reduced capacity to supply the agricultural sector
while meeting water needs for industrial and domestic demands.
Therefore, more resources and research should focus on water alloca-
tion strategies and the efficient use of possible sources of water (Pandey
et al., 2003; Terêncio et al., 2018; UN, 2007; WWAP, 2015). Many of
the available water resources management strategies may prove costly,
including placing long pipeline aqueducts, pumping water from deep
Moreover, those approaches have long-term environmental con-
sequences such as groundwater depletion and local ecosystem disrup-
tion. On the other hand, RWH, as well as water reuse approaches, can
be considered as more cost-effective and potentially environmental-
friendly solutions. RWH has become the conventional alternative water
supply due to little maintenance required, cost-effectiveness and com-
munities’ preference over reclaimed water sources (Akter and Ahmed,
2015; Inamdar et al., 2013; Jasrotia et al., 2009a; Musayev et al., 2018;
Petit-Boix et al., 2018).
The application of RWH systems traces back to the Neolithic Age (or
around 10,000 BCE to 4500 BCE) (Pandey et al., 2003; Varma and
Tiwari, 1995). Archeologists found waterproof receptacles (lime cis-
terns) from this period in the floor of houses in a small former village in
Southwest Asia. Other examples can be found in Jerusalem and Greece
dating back to roughly 2500 and 1700 BCE, respectively (Pandey et al.,
2003). Generally, RWH is defined as the methods for collecting and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sina.alaghmand@monash.edu (S. Alaghmand).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124501
Received 22 August 2019; Received in revised form 19 December 2019; Accepted 20 December 2019
Available online 23 December 2019
0022-1694/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
storing rainwater which can provide secure, accessible and affordable
water supply for various purposes such as agriculture, industry and
domestic use (Al-Adamat, 2012; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Hassani et al.,
2016; Nikvar Hassani et al., 2018; Petit-Boix et al., 2018; Samson and
Elangovan, 2015; Terêncio et al., 2018). In developing countries
(mostly in Asia and Africa), where household water consumption is low,
RWH can cover a large portion of water demand (de Winnaar et al.,
2007; Handia et al., 2003; Kahinda et al., 2008; Mati et al., 2006; Senay
and Verdin, 2004). Also, it plays a significant role in many Asian
countries where the government has supported RWH because of its low
implementation costs (Campisano et al., 2017; Musayev et al., 2018;
Petit-Boix et al., 2018). For instance, it is reported that to supply irri-
gation water and supplemental drinking water in China, > 5.5 million
water tanks have been constructed since 2001 (Gould et al., 2014).
The hybrid application of GIS and MCDA has been frequently used
for water resources management (Chowdhury et al., 2010; Jha et al.,
2014b; Krois and Schulte, 2014; Melville-Shreeve et al., 2016; Jozaghi
et al., 2018; Khorrami et al., 2019; Khorrami, 2019). GIS and remote
sensing (RS) as geospatial technologies play a central role in water
resources planning and management (ESRI, 2011). This is due to their
spatial analysis capability dealing with multiple datasets representing
biophysical and anthropogenic criteria, as well as suitability for appli-
cation in a wide range of geographic areas (Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Al-
shabeeb, 2016; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Jasrotia et al., 2009b).
Ammar et al. (2016) categorized, compared and identified three sets
of guidelines (i.e. (FAO, 2003; IMSD, 1995; Oweis et al., 1998)) to se-
lect suitable RWH locations and respective characteristics for the ap-
plication of a common RWH technique in ASARs. Jha et al. (2014b)
proposed a methodology for evaluating RWH potential and identifying
sites for different RWH structures using geospatial and MCDA techni-
ques demonstrated in a case study in Saudi Arabia. Mahmoud and
Alazba (2015) identified suitable areas for sustainable RWH and storage
in Egypt using RS and a Decision Support System.
In general, during the 1990s, studies focused primarily on biophy-
sical criteria, however, after 2000, socio-economic parameters, and
other criteria were integrated as well (de Winnaar et al., 2007; Gupta
et al., 1997; Padmavathy et al., 1993; Prinz, 1998; Senay and Verdin,
2004; Terêncio et al., 2018; Yusof et al., 2000). Most of the related
studies showed that the selection of appropriate criteria and the
adoption of practical approaches are critical factors in the successful
application of geospatial and MCDA techniques in mapping potential
sites for RWH structures (Jha et al., 2014b; Jha and Peiffer, 2006).
There are various key criteria which must be considered including
hydrology, topography, agronomy and soil parameters. Besides, es-
sential impacts of socio-economic factors should be considered to ob-
tain more reliable results and to ensure the success of RWH techniques
(FAO, 2003; Jha et al., 2014a). The socio-economic considerations such
as the availability of storage spaces, suitable distance from drainage
networks, roads, urban area, faults, farms and wells were previously
addressed by earlier studies conducted in ASARs (Al-Adamat, 2008; Al-
Adamat et al., 2010; Al-shabeeb, 2016; Ammar et al., 2016; de Winnaar
et al., 2007; Jha et al., 2014b; Lani et al., 2018; Madrucci et al., 2008;
Mbilinyi et al., 2007a; Yalcin, 2008). Besides, there are common RWH
systems in ASARs proposed by previous studies including, ponds and
pans, check dams, terracing, percolation tanks, Nala bunds and gully
plugs (Al-Adamat et al., 2012; Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Durbude and
Venkatesh, 2004; Isioye, 2012; Kadam et al., 2012; Krois and Schulte,
2014; Moges, 2009b; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009; Tumbo et al., 2013;
Weerasinghe et al., 2011).
Locating RWH potential areas and selection of appropriate RWH
systems is highly site-specific and proposed RWH system for one place
cannot necessarily be used for other areas (Jasrotia et al., 2009a). This
paper aims to propose a practical methodology to identify potential
zones to implement RWH and examine suitable RWH techniques in
ASARs using GIS and MCDA systems. Since there is no comprehensive
investigation about RWH in Iran at basin scale, the present study is a
2
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
contribution to the research field in terms of the scale of the case study,
the incorporation of both biophysical and socio-economic factors as
well as assessment of the implication of RWH systems on alleviation of
the current water shortages. Obtained results are deemed to be useful
for decision makers and local officials in the future planning and water
resources management by providing an initial overview of RWH po-
tential assessment of the study area, to guide further studies to obtain
actual harvestable amount of water and devising executable manage-
ment planning. Also, the utilized literatures can be considered a rea-
sonably broad set of available resources in arid and semi-arid areas for
future studies.
2. Material and methods
In the present study, biophysical factors of rainfall, land use, slope,
soil type, soil depth, and drainage density were selected to evaluate
potential RWH zones. In addition, six socio-economic factors were used
to delineate unsuitable sites, including the distances to farmlands,
roads, urban areas, wells, faults and drainage networks. Afterwards, the
most common RWH systems that were used and shown to be successful
in ASARs were considered. The selected socio-economic factors and
common RWH systems were conducted based on similar studies con-
ducted in ASARs (Al-Adamat et al., 2012; Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Al-
shabeeb, 2016; Ammar et al., 2016; Bakir and Xingnan, 2008; de
Winnaar et al., 2007; Durbude and Venkatesh, 2004; Isioye, 2012; Jha
et al., 2014b; Kadam et al., 2012; Krois and Schulte, 2014; Lani et al.,
2018; Mati et al., 2006; Mbilinyi et al., 2007a; Moges, 2009b;
Ramakrishnan et al., 2009; Tumbo et al., 2013; Weerasinghe et al.,
2011). Then, optimum sites for each type of RWH system were pro-
posed based on specific requirements of each system. The considered
systems are check dams, pond and pans, Nala bunds, gully plug, per-
colation tank, and terracing. The methodology used in this study is
shown in Fig. 1.
2.1. Study area
The present case study, the Mashad Plain Basin (MPB), is located in
the northeast of Iran between 35° 59′ N to 37° 03′ N latitude and 60° 06
to 58° 22′ E longitude with an area of 9762 (km2) (Fig. 2). The area is
surrounded to the south by Binaloud Mountain range, to the north by
Hezar Masjid heights, southeast by Jamroud river basin, and to the
northwest by Atrak river basin (Khashei-Siuki and Sarbazi, 2015). It has
a semi-arid to arid climate, with an average monthly temperature
varying from 11.6 °C to 26.7 °C (Shadmehri Toosi et al., 2019). The
average land slope is around 16.2% and the elevation ranges from 856
to 3247 with a mean of 1487 m. A review of 28 rain gauge stations over
24 years (1991–2015) shows annual average precipitation of 262 mm,
ranging from 178 to 381 mm (IRIMO, 2016). Generally, a V-shaped
mean monthly precipitation pattern is observed. January, February,
and March are the rainiest months while the precipitation trend de-
creases until July, which is the driest month of the year, and rises again
until December. The impacts of global change on temperature indicates
an increasing trend; whereas, no significant changes have been ob-
served in precipitation pattern (Rahimi et al., 2019). The average an-
nual evapotranspiration is reported to be 236 to 310 mm (KHRW,
2017).
Granitic, ultramafic and metamorphic rocks are the main geological
constituents of the case study. Moreover, hilly parts of MPB consists of
discontinuous loess deposits and northern parts of the case study are
sedimentary, mainly comprised of dolomite, limestone, gypsiferous
marls, and conglomerate (Karimi et al., 2017). According to Natural
Resource Conservation Service classification, a significant portion of
the study area is covered by silt loam or loam (Group B), which is
distributed in the central and western parts of the area, encompassing
an area of 4810 km2, approximately 50% of study area. The next major
soil groups are sandy clay loam (Group C) and clay loam (Group D),
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

Fig. 1. Conceptual methodology framework used to identify RWH potential zones and potential sites for different RWH technologies.

which respectively cover 2481 km2 and 2470 km2, a significant portion
of the central and outer edges of the case study. According to the US
Department of Soil Conservation, this classification shows that the re-
gion has a moderate, relatively high and high runoff potential, re-
spectively. Different classes of land use and the associated percentage
are presented in Table 1 and the land use map is shown in Fig. 4.
2.2. Data collection and pre-processing
This study was conducted through distinctive efforts of data
gathering and processing. Sources of the main factors used to identify
suitable locations for RWH are shown in Table 2. The raw data was
acquired from several governmental agencies, a field survey, and sa-
tellite images. All the available and generated data (GIS layers) were
geo-referenced to MPB Geographical Coordinate System
(WGS_1984_UTM_ Zone_40N).
Monthly rainfall data of 28 rain gauge stations for the 24-years
(1991 to 2015) were collected from the Iran Meteorological
Organization (IRIMO). The annual average precipitation for each sta-
tion was calculated and then interpolated using the kriging method in

Fig. 2. Map Showing Mashhad Plain catchment (Source: Google Earth image) located in Khorasan Razavi province, Northeast of Iran.

3
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
Fig. 3. Unsuitable sites for RWH structures.
Table 1
Land use/land cover statistics for the study area.
S. No. Land use/land cover class Area (km2)
1 Water bodies 34.70
2 High density pasture 323.80
3 Semi-dense forest 2.80
4 Scatter forest 114.59
5 Semi-dense pasture 2352.63
6 Low density pasture 2295.71
7 Irrigated cropland and pasture 1851.66
8 Woodland and Scrubland 50.30
9 Dry farming 2465.76
10 Urban and built-up land 269.57
ArcGIS. The slope map was generated using an ASTER DEM surface and
3D Analyst tool in ArcGIS environment. The sub-basin delineation and
specification of the watershed outlet were performed using the HEC-
GeoHMS v 5.0 Extension. Subsequently, the drainage density map was
obtained using the basin processing tool, wherein the total length of the
drainage networks at each sub-basin was divided by the corresponding
sub-basin area. According to the soil infiltration characteristic and
texture, the soil map of the study area was reclassified into three
groups. The original version of existing land use data was merely de-
scriptive and not suitable to be inserted in the model directly.
Therefore, satellite images, land survey data and traditional geological
field mapping were used to determine the final land use map for the
study area. Furthermore, other thematic layers such as residential areas,
roads, faults and stream buffer maps were also prepared using ArcGIS
software.
2.3. Multi-criteria decision analysis
In order to generate the potential RWH map, an Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP (based multi-criteria decision analysis was used. AHP is a
MCDA used for analyzing and organizing complex decisions based on
professional knowledge and practice as well as mathematics (Saaty,
1980). Having selected proper biophysical layers, these criteria were
subjected to a review by the local experts with a background in civil
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
engineering (Water Resources & Environmental Engineering), hydro-
geology and GIS. The selection of experts was based on their acquain-
%
tance with case study and their knowledge of water issues in general. In
order to compute the weights for each criteria a pairwise comparison
0.36 matrix was created (a m × m real matrix, where m is the number of
3.32 evaluation criteria considered). The relative importance of each cri-
0.03
terion was determined with an analytic questionnaire survey to explore
1.17
24.10 the opinions of the experts in the relative importance of the criteria
23.52 selected for water harvesting using a scale of 1 to 9 (Table S1). In
18.97 Table 3 the criteria of the RWHPI are graded in terms of their relative
0.52
significance and a pairwise comparison matrix is proposed.
25.26
2.76
To allow the relative importance of criteria to be compared across
columns, the normalized pairwise comparison matrix (Table 4) was
then derived by making equal to 1 the sum of the entries on each
column in Table 3, i.e. each entry aj̅ k of the normalized matrix com-
puted as:
ajk
a¯ jk = m
∑l = 1 a¯lk
Finally, the criteria weight vector w (that is an m-dimensional
column vector) is built by averaging the relative importance of each
parameter compared to all others, i.e. the entries on each row of nor-
malized matrix
m
∑l = 1 a¯ jl
wj =
m
The final result of normalized values and eventually corresponding
weight (wi) of each criterion is shown in Table 4. The normalized
weights (Table 4) show that rainfall and drainage density are the most
and least important criteria in RWH potential.
Consistency across parameters was examined by computing a con-
sistency ratio (CR) using the following formulas (Saaty, 1980):
CI
CR =
RI (1)
where CR is the consistency ratio, CI is the consistency index, RI is a
random consistency index (which is 1.24 for 6 criteria). Consistency
Index (CI) is obtained by first computing the scalar x as the average of
4
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

Fig. 4. Input layers and corresponding feature classes used for calculation of RWHI in ArcGIS environment. a) Average annual rainfall, b) Slope percentage map, c)
Soil type map, d) Soil depth map, e) Land use map, f) Drainage density map.

the elements of the vector whose jth element is the ratio of the jth 0.1 to obtain acceptable results and in case of consistency ratio > 0.1
element of the vector (pairwise comparison matrix) * w to the corre- the subjective judgment need to be revised by revisiting the pairwise
sponding element of the vector w. Then, comparisons weights. The resulted CR in this study was < 0.06; thus,
consistency is considered acceptable.
x−m
CI =
m−1 (2)

AHP theory recommends that the CR must be equal or smaller than

5
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

Table 2
Data used in this research and their sources.
Data name Scale Sources

Rainfall Data (Excel File) Iran Meteorological Organization (IRIMO)

Drainage 1:250,000 Mashhad Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI)
Roads map 1:250,000 Mashhad Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI)
Geology 1:250,000 National Soil and water research institute of Iran Ministry of Agriculture
Fault 1:250,000 Mashhad Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI)
Land use 1:250,000 Mashhad Geographic Center
Wells Well Data (Excel File) National Soil and water research institute of Iran Ministry of Agriculture
Slope based on ASTER DEM 30 m United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2011)

Table 3 remainder is routed through waterways as flow. Higher values of

Pairwise comparison matrix showing the relative importance of the criteria, rainfall indicate higher volume of water and higher potential runoff and
used in the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Each entry ajk of the matrix represents consequently higher potential of local runoff capturing using RWH
the importance of the criterion in the jth row relative to the criterion in the kth structures.
column.
Parameters Rainfall Slope Soil type Soil depth Land use Drainage 2.4.2. Slope
density
Runoff and infiltration will be heavily influenced by the topography
Rainfall 1 2 2 3 3 3 of the basin. Slope has a direct impact on runoff generation and
Slope 1/2 1 2 4 2 3 transformation from rainfall to runoff. As the slope grows the RWH
Soil type 1/2 1/2 1 2 3 3 opportunity time decreases due to increased flow rates (de Winnaar
Soil depth 1/3 1/4 1/2 1 2 2
et al., 2007; Jha et al., 2014b). Moreover, constructing RWH structures
Land use 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/2 1 3
Drainage 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/3 1 in areas with high slope percentage is barely considered economical
density owing to the large amount of earthwork required (Al-Adamat et al.,
Column Sum 3.00 4.58 6.17 11.00 11.33 15.00 2010; Critchley et al., 1991). Ideally, the slope of a catchment should be
as gentle as possible for a high RWH potential. Mostly areas with the
slopes higher than 5% are subjected to more erosion; therefore it is
2.4. Layer selection necessary to consider erosion control measures in the areas where the
catchment has a steeper slope (Hatibu et al., 2001).
The selection of criteria was based on an extensive literature review
and expert opinion. In the calculation of Rainwater Harvesting
2.4.3. Soil type
Potential Index (RWHPI), the highest possibility of runoff generation
One of the main criteria for RWH planning is the soil. Since the soil
along with the highest RWH possibility were considered. Most of the
texture governs infiltration characteristics of a soil. Naturally poorly
biophysical criteria selected in this study have been largely used in the
drained clayey soils generate a higher amount of runoff, while sandy
previous studies in ASARs. An extensive review by Ammar et al. (2016)
soils generate less runoff (Jha et al., 2014b).
showed that in 48 studies regarding the RWH potential assessment
using GIS, the criteria of the slope, land use/cover, soil type and rain-
fall, were used in 83%, 75%, 75% and 56%, of studies, respectively. In 2.4.4. Soil depth
this study, in addition to these criteria, two other criteria of soil depth The soil depth is considered as representative of water storage ca-
and drainage density were used (Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Ammar et al., pacity (i.e. deeper soils have more water storage capacity) (Moges,
2016; de Winnaar et al., 2007; Jha et al., 2014b; Kadam et al., 2012; 2004). According to (FAO, 1990), soil depth can be categorized as deep
Mbilinyi et al., 2007a; Mbilinyi et al., 2007b). The criteria are further (100–150 cm), moderately deep (50–100 cm), shallow (30–50 cm) and
described and justified below. very shallow (< 30 cm). Areas with shallow soils are potentially more
appropriate for RWH technologies than deep as they have lower in-
2.4.1. Rainfall filtration (higher runoff coefficient) and generate more water
The most influential factor towards high RWH potential is rainfall (Steenhuis et al., 1995).
(Ammar et al., 2016; Jha et al., 2014b). The average annual rainfall
data is one of the prerequisites for large scale RWH structures. More 2.4.5. Land use
precipitation on an area results in a higher potential for RWH (Al- Different land use and vegetation cover have a distinct impact on
Adamat, 2008). In ASARs, a minimum rainfall of 200 (mm/year) has the amount and velocity of runoff that flows downhill (Alaghmand
been recommended for the practical efficiency of RWH systems (Ammar et al., 2014; Jha et al., 2014b; Shadmehri Toosi et al., 2019). Dense
et al., 2016). When rainfall occurs over a catchment, a percentage of the vegetation, forests and covered areas increase the amount of water
rain that falls on a basin is captured by vegetation and soil, and the infiltration and abstractions, while urban and pasture covered areas

Table 4
Normalized Rainwater Harvesting Potential Index (RWHPI) parameters, i.e. following AHP, Table 3 is normalised so that each column sums to 1. The weights (last
column) are the average of the preceding columns.
Parameters Rainfall Slope Soil type Soil depth Land use Drainage density wi

Rainfall 0.333 0.436 0.324 0.273 0.265 0.200 0.31

Slope 0.167 0.218 0.324 0.364 0.176 0.200 0.24
Soil type 0.167 0.109 0.162 0.182 0.265 0.200 0.18
Soil depth 0.111 0.055 0.081 0.091 0.176 0.133 0.11
Land use 0.111 0.109 0.054 0.045 0.088 0.200 0.10
Drainage density 0.111 0.073 0.054 0.045 0.029 0.067 0.06

6
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

increase the amount of surface flow. A lower weight was assigned to

land use since the infiltration effect was already accounted for by soil
type. In this case study, there was no accurate evapotranspiration data
with a proper temporal and spatial distribution over the study area to
be utilized as another thematic layer. This layer and its effect were not
considered directly. Meanwhile, the effect of evapotranspiration was
implicitly captured by land use pattern, which influences the runoff and
evapotranspiration. Nevertheless, beside the land use and vegetation
cover, evapotranspiration is highly dependent on assessing other factors
including, temperature, and wind, which is not within the scope of the
present study.

2.4.6. Drainage density

Dense drainage networks can play a crucial role in the harvesting of
stormwater. Time of concentration is significantly related to drainage
density, such that areas with higher drainage density are more suitable
for RWH, as it provides a system through which the runoff can flow and
be harvested immediately. Meanwhile, the transformation and gen-
eration of runoff is captured by other layers (e.g. soil type and slope).
Therefore, drainage density is considered the least important factor in
the present study.

2.5. Rainwater harvesting potential map

In the present study, a combination of the MCDA and GIS techniques

was used, which is known as a robust method for RWH zone identifi-
cation (Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Ammar et al., 2016; Isioye, 2012;
Moges, 2009). According to the results of a comprehensive review by
Ammar et al. (2016), integrated use of MCDA and GIS techniques for
RWH identification in ASARs has been implemented for 37% of 48
reviewed studies, which was the highest percentage amongst the im-
plemented methods. The main advantage of this method is its accept-
ability and simplicity of application to provide an overall assessment of
RWH potential areas.
To delineate RWH suitable sites, all the biophysical layers, with Fig. 5. Rainwater harvesting potential zone map of the study area: a) RWH
their corresponding normalized weights, were integrated using ArcGIS potential map along with the existing dams b) RWH potential categorized map.
software. Therefore, RWHPI was defined by comprising six criteria:
Rainfall (R), Slope (S), Soil type (ST), Soil depth (SD), Land use (LU),
2007a; Mbilinyi et al., 2007b; Moges, 2009b; Ramakrishnan et al.,
and Drainage density (DD). Moreover, since each of the mentioned
2009).
criterion has different feature classes, based on the conducted literature
Using Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) in the ArcGIS environ-
review and experts’ opinion, the proper weight corresponding to each
ment and corresponding normalized weights of these feature classes,
feature class of layers was determined and then normalized as can be
the six criteria layers were overlaid. The process of implementing WLC
seen in Table 5 (Al-Adamat et al., 2012; Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Ammar
technique includes standardizing each criteria map, assigning weights
et al., 2016; de Winnaar et al., 2007; Durbude and Venkatesh, 2004;
of relative importance to them and generating a final map by combining
Isioye, 2012; Jha et al., 2014b; Kadam et al., 2012; Mbilinyi et al.,

Table 5
Weights of the selected criteria (CNW) and their feature classes based on literature review.
Criteria CNW* Feature class Feature weight Normalized weight Criteria CNW Feature class Feature weight Normalized weight

Land-use 0.10 Water bodies 1 0.01 Rainfall 0.31 < 200 1 0.05
High-density pasture 3 0.04 200–250 5 0.23
Semi-dense forest 4 0.06 250–300 7 0.32
Scatter forest 5 0.07 300–360 9 0.41
Semi-dense pasture 5 0.07 Soil type 0.18 Silt loam or loam 5 0.24
Low-density pasture 6 0.09 Sandy clay loam 7 0.33
Irrigated crops land and pasture 6 0.09 Clay loam or clay 9 0.43
Woodland and scrubland 7 0.10 Soil depth 0.11 Water bodies 9 0.28
Dry farming 8 0.12 Very Shallow 8 0.25
Urban and built-up land 9 0.13 Shallow 7 0.22
Slope 0.24 0–1 9 0.27 Relatively deep 5 0.16
Deep 3 0.09
1–3 8 0.24 Drainage density 0.06 < 0.01 1 0.03
3–5 7 0.21 0.01–0.05 5 0.17
5–10 5 0.15 0.05–0.1 7 0.23
10–15 3 0.09 0.1–0.5 8 0.27
15–30 1 0.03 > 0.5 9 0.30

* CNW: Criteria Normalized Weight, as listed in Table 4.

7
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
the standardized maps according to their associated weights.
Accordingly, RWH map was computed in ArcGIS environment as fol-
lows:
RWHPI = (R)c (R)f + (S )c (S )f + (ST )c (ST )f + (SD)c (SD)f + (LU )c (LU )f
(DD)c (DD)f
Where, “RWHPI” is Rainwater Harvesting Potential Index, the
subscript “C” represents the normalized weight of each criterion, and
the subscript “f” represents the normalized weight of a feature class of
each criterion. RWHPI is a dimensionless indicator that is useful to find
locations with a high potential of RWH within the study area. Finally,
the resultant map was classified into three potential zones using the
Jenks Natural Breaks method (Jenks, 1967) (Fig. 5) (i.e. poor, mod-
erate, good). It is a data clustering method that determines the optimum
arrangement of values into classes, by minimizing the average deviation
from the class mean while maximizing the deviation from the means of
the other groups for each class (Jenks, 1967).
2.6. Socio-economic criteria
Studies have showed that consideration of only biophysical criteria
as a primary factor does not guarantee success. Although there is less
consensus about the socio- economic factors as a secondary criterion,
studies revealed that insufficient insight into the socio-economic as-
pects was one of the major reasons that RWH sites failed to function
appropriately in ASARs. Moreover, based on the proposed guidelines of
the FAO (2003) as the most comprehensive instruction set for the ef-
ficient planning and implementation of RWH systems, consideration of
both biophysical and socio-economic criteria is necessary to ensure the
success of RWH techniques and to facilitate the adoption of new RWH
technology by local farmers.
Selecting the appropriate socio-economic parameters is critical to
achieving the desired results since it considers the indirect economic
effects to ensure the success of RWH area selection. Most of the selected
socio-economic criteria of the current study, including, distance to
settlement, road and rivers have been widely used in many earlier
studies. The RWH structures cannot be implemented within the drai-
nage networks for environmental, technical and financial reasons.
Drainage networks are considered natural habitat and construction on
adjacent lands is deemed both economically and environmentally
costly. Acceptable distance from the roads should be considered to
prevent any likelihood of future conflicts between road development
and constructed structures (Al-Adamat, 2008). For safety reasons (e.g.
flooding and conflicting with land uses), it is crucial to exclude urban
areas from being selected as RWH sites (Baban and Wan-Yusof, 2003;
Critchley et al., 1991). Also, agricultural lands (under cultivation) are
valuable resources for both economic and environmental aspects and
must be excluded simply because they cannot be disturbed by water
harvesting systems, although the vicinity to rainwater harvesting sys-
tems can be an advantage if proper safety measures maintained (Al-
Adamat et al., 2010; Baban and Wan-Yusof, 2003; Kelly et al., 2018).
Furthermore, eliminating fault areas from the potential RWH zones is
important since faults are considered as the major obstacles when de-
ciding to construct a structure particularly for the important structures,
similar to RWH systems that have a significant role in water supply
(Shatnawi, 2006). These considerations prevent possible damages and
lower the maintenance cost of the constructed structure as a result of
probable incidents (e.g. earthquakes and land slides). Building RWH
structures in higher security places by allowing sufficient buffer zones is
a reasonable strategy, especially for the current study area where da-
maging earthquakes are possible. Finally, a proper distance should be
considered from a well’s area of influence since they have significant
socio-economic importance for the local communities (Al-Adamat,
2008; Shatnawi, 2006). This is to ensure there is adequate removal of
pollutants before the infiltrating water reaches the water well since
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
Table 6
Socio-economic criteria, with values of 0 and 1 respectively indicating that
RWH structures are unsuitable and permitted.
Factors Condition Value
Distance to drainage (meter) > 50 1
(3)
≤50 0
Distance to roads (meter) > 250 1
≤250 0
Distance to urban area (meter) > 250 1
≤250 0
Distance to faults (meter) > 1000 1
≤1000 0
Distance to wells (meter) > 500 1
≤500 0
Distance to farms (meter) > 250 1
≤250 0
pollutant or contaminant may drain into the soil.
In this research, the Boolean method was used to eliminate un-
suitable sites. The Boolean technique has been widely used in several
similar studies to identify the optimum sites for RWH structures (Al-
Adamat, 2008; Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Al-shabeeb, 2016; Madrucci
et al., 2008; Yalcin, 2008). Afterwards, utilizing buffers of the criteria
listed in Table 6, the layers were overlaid in ArcGIS, having as a result,
0 and 1 values. Finally, the generated RWHPI map from biophysical
layers (Fig. 5) was integrated with the socio-economic criteria map,
which is illustrated in Fig. 3. These results were integrated into the
RWH potential map output (Fig. 5) to produce a final RWH suitability
map of the study area.
2.7. Identification of suitable sites for different RWH structures
Having identified RWH potential zones in the study area, and dis-
carding the sites that are not suitable for RWH, selection of the suitable
areas for building different RWH structures was considered. To achieve
this goal the most conventional techniques that have been used and
developed in ASARs were considered: ponds and pans, check dams,
terracing, percolation tanks, Nala bunds and gully plug (Ammar et al.,
2016). Based on the critical review of previous studies in this particular
field, as well as common local practices, a suitability map for each type
of structure was generated (Fig. 6). Table 7 lists the most common
parameters that have been applied in developing, planning, and im-
plementing such structures (Ammar et al., 2016).
2.7.1. Ponds and pans
Ponds and pans are water storage structures that are either naturally
occurring or excavated without a constructed wall. This type of RWH
system is usually situated in impermeable soil and lower points in a
basin to capture surface runoff driven by gravity. Harvested water by
these structures can be used for domestic water supply, livestock and
small scale irrigation (Australia, 2008; Martinson and Thomas, 2007).
High evaporation losses are one of the major drawbacks of these sys-
tems, especially when the contained water becomes shallower due to
sediment deposition. Overall ponds and pans are low cost and can be
implemented using local labour.
2.7.2. Check dams
Check dams are useful RWH systems for water supply where the
potential of groundwater and perennial surface water sources (e.g.
rivers) is low. Check dams are constructed over small streams having a
gentle slope with embankments or walls on the downhill side. The walls
can be constructed from different available local materials. The selected
site should have sufficient thickness of permeable bed to enable
groundwater recharge through the infiltration of stored water within a
short period of time. Stored water can also be used directly for irriga-
tion and domestic purposes. These structures require limited land area
8
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
Fig. 6. Suitable sites for different RWH techniques, based on Fig. 5, excluding unsuitable areas listed in Table 6 and focusing on RWH technique-specific criteria in
Table 7.
and due to reducing stream flow and sediment downstream, control soil
erosion (Guyassa et al., 2017; Reddy et al., 2017; Reddy and Syme,
2014; Vema et al., 2018). Similar to ponds and pans, sedimentation
control is necessary to maintain the system’s functionality (Mekdaschi
and Liniger, 2013; Sawicki, 1987).
2.7.3. Percolation tanks
Percolation tanks are typically built on second or third order
streams to collect and store ephemeral watercourses for irrigation
purposes and groundwater recharge enhancement. This system is an
artificially created surface water body, with its reservoir lying on highly
permeable land. Locating on highly fractured and weathered bed rocks
enables percolation of surface water into lower strata; thus, the size of
this system is governed by the percolation capacity of the layers un-
derneath the tank bed. Presence of impermeable and semipermeable
layers namely, clay lenses is one of the main limitations for im-
plementing this RWH system (Ammar et al., 2016).
2.7.4. Nala bunds
Nala bunds are embankments constructed across nalas (streams) to
impound running surface water from upstream sub-basins with the
purpose of controlling runoff velocity, raising water percolation, in-
creasing recharge rate and holding silt flow to mitigate storage capacity
reduction of downstream reservoirs. It can be inferred that Nala bund
and percolation tank are almost similar in terms of functionality, yet are
named differently at different locations (Bakir and Xingnan, 2008;
Moges, 2009b; Tumbo et al., 2013). Besides, larger structures are
mostly called percolation tank rather than Nala bund.
9
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
2.7.5. Terracing
Terracing systems are constructed on a sloped plane by excavating
soil from lower levels and depositing in upper elevations to form bunds
along contours. Bunds are usually used for crop growing and the ve-
getation promotes the system’s efficiency in soil and rainwater con-
servation within the bunds (El Atta et al., 2010). Most of the terrace
technologies are usually practiced on sloping areas with unstable soils
(Hudson, 1981). Bund surfaces allow for higher infiltration, alleviate
impacts of intense rainfall, decrease soil bulk density and reduce sedi-
mentation downhill (El Atta, 2006; El Atta et al., 2010; Hammad et al.,
2006). Overall, a terracing system is deemed costly in terms of con-
struction time and labour. Besides, regular maintenance of the em-
bankments is required, but if well maintained are highly effective in soil
erosion control (Mekdaschi and Liniger, 2013; Sawicki, 1987).
2.7.6. Gully plugs
Gully plugs are constructed across streams and gullies that drain
small sub-basins during rainy seasons. They hold the water, allow for
infiltration, prevent erosion, and plug gully formation during extreme
events. There are several methods to construct gully plugs depending on
amount of precipitation, topography, and available material.
Meanwhile, they are usually constructed using local building materials
(e.g. stones, clay and bushes). The main objective of this system is soil
conservation and recharge rate enhancement. However, as they can silt
up, the level of infiltration can be slow, therefore they will need
maintenance. (Geyik, 1986; Mekdaschi and Liniger, 2013).
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

3. Results and discussion

(de Winnaar et al., 2007; Krois and Schulte, 2014; Mbilinyi et al., 2007a)
(Al-Adamat et al., 2012; Al-Adamat et al., 2010; Durbude and Venkatesh,

(Al-Adamat et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 1997; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009;

(Al-Adamat et al., 2012; Mati et al., 2006; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009)

3.1. Rainwater harvesting potential map
2004; Isioye, 2012; Moges, 2009b; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009)

(Bakir and Xingnan, 2008; Moges, 2009b; Tumbo et al., 2013)

In this study, six biophysical layers (Fig. 4) were integrated using
corresponding weights of each layer and feature classes of each layer to
calculate RWHPI and generate the RWH potential map that is shown in
Fig. 5. According to the rainfall map shown in Fig. 4, the amount of
precipitation ranges from 186 to 357 mm/year. The spatial distribution
of rainfall map does not follow a particular pattern and the majority of
the study area has annual precipitation ranging from 250 to 300 mm.
The 24-year data records indicated that over 60% of rainfall in this
study area occurs during December, February, March, April, and May.
According to the slope map (Fig. 4) on average, about 36.9% of the
Weerasinghe et al., 2011)

study area has the slope ranges around 0–1% and 9.1% of the study area
has a slope between 1 and 3%. There are almost identical portions of
(Kadam et al., 2012)

the study area (around 16%) with the slopes ranges from 3 to 5%,
5–10%, and 10–15%. In the end, only 4.1% of the study area is located
Reference

on slopes > 15%. The study area is surrounded by mountain ranges at

the North and South of the basin, containing steep slopes, while the
central part has a more gentle slope making it suitable for RWH.
The soil map of the study area is shown in Fig. 4 (NSWRI, 2016).
Irrigated cropland and pasture, woodland and Scrubland, Dry farming, Rock Protrusions
high-density pasture, semi-dense pasture, low-density pasture, woodland and Scrubland,

high-density pasture, semi-dense pasture, low-density pasture, woodland and Scrubland,

high-density pasture, semi-dense pasture, low-density pasture, woodland and Scrubland,

Regarding soil type distribution, about 49.28% of the study area is

River, water bodies, high-density pasture, semi-dense pasture, low-density pasture,

high-density pasture, Semi-dense forest, Planting forests, semi-dense pasture, low-

composed of a silt loam or loam, which implies a moderate infiltration

high-density pasture, ‘Planting forests, semi-dense pasture, low-density pasture,

rate with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. 25.41% of the

soil in the area is composed of sandy clay loam, with low infiltration
density pasture, woodland and Scrubland, Dry farming, Rock Protrusions
Irrigated cropland and pasture, woodland and Scrubland, Dry farming

rates when thoroughly wetted and consist predominantly of soils with

fine structure and a layer that impedes the downward movement of
water. 25.31% of soils are clay loam or clay, representing the higher
runoff potential areas with low infiltration rates, and high swelling
potential. The soil depth map of the study area is shown in Fig. 4,
classified into three classes: 46% shallow, 27.58% relatively deep and
20.9% deep.
The land use map shown in Fig. 4 reveals that 25% of the area
consists of dry farming, 24% of semi-dense pasture, 23% of low-density
pasture and about 19% of irrigated agriculture and gardens. The drai-
nage density map is presented in Fig. 4. In this research, 1% of the study
Dry farming, Rock Protrusions

Dry farming, Rock Protrusions

Dry farming, Rock Protrusions

area has drainage density < 0.01, 20% between 0.01 and 0.05, 31%
The common techniques and criteria that have been used for RWH site selection in ASARs.

around 0.05–0.10, 33% ranges in 0.1–0.5, and about 15% has drainage
densities higher than 0.50 (km/km2). > 79% of the study area has
drainage densities higher than 0.05 implying that drainage density is
Land use/cover

fairly good in the study area.

The RWH potential map is presented in Fig. 5. The RWHPI ranges
around 0.11–0.33 and based on these results, the study area is cate-
gorized into three potential zones representing: (a) ‘poor’
(RWHPI = 0.111–0.209), (b) ‘moderate’ (RWHPI = 0.209–0.243) and
(c) ‘good’ (RWHPI = 0.243–0.330) RWH potential. The ‘good’ RWH
Sandy clay loam, Silty

Sandy clay, clay loam

Sandy clay loam, clay

Silt Loam, Clay Loam

potential sites are spread almost over the entire study area, specifically
Sandy clay loam

and sandy loam

in the northwestern, southeastern, and centre portions of the plain,

covering an area of 2,543 (km2) (26%). Moreover, ‘moderate’ RWH
Silt Loam
Soil type

potential zones are mainly spread near the centre of the study area,
covering an area of 4,456 (km2) (46%). Lastly, the RWH potential in a
loam

major portion of the eastern and western part of the study area, and also
in the small central districts is categorized as ‘poor’. The ‘poor’ RWH
15 – 20
Slope%

5 – 30
< 15

< 10

< 10

potential zone covers an area of almost 2,762 (km2) (28% of the study
<5

area).
Rainfall (mm)

3.2. Potential sites for RWH technologies

200–1000
< 1000

< 1000

< 1000

< 1000
> 200

The main objective of the present study is to define a general fra-

mework for identifying potential zones for RWH as well as screening for
Percolation tank
RWH technique

suitable locations for RWH structures, considering the effects of influ-

Pond & Pans

Check dams

ential socio-economic factors. The most common techniques including,

Gully plug
Nala bund

Terracing

ponds and pans, check dams, percolation tank, Nala bund, terracing,
Table 7

and gully plug that have been developed and used in ASARs as RWH
structures were considered.

10
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501

Table 8 It is worth mentioning that the main goal of the present study is to
The total area of different technologies located within the study area. present a transferable, practical framework for identifying potential
RWH Technique Poor Moderate Good Total areas for RWH based on the most relevant criteria. Combination of all
presented criteria layers must be used to identify potential sites for
2
Nala bund Area* (km ) 297 529 138 964 RWH technologies. However, in order to transfer this framework to
% 6 10 3 19
other case studies, a review of layer weights and distance thresholds
Received Precipitation Vol. 70 138 39 247
(M m3)
may need to be done by local experts. Also, if any of these parameters
Percolation tank Area *(km2) 297 566 294 1157 were to be deleted, the weight of remaining parameters would need to
% 6 11 6 23 be justified in light of the fact that the layer is excluded.
Received Precipitation Vol. 71 147 82 300 The Mashhad Plain Basin has faced many issues in terms of water
(M.m3)
shortage since decades ago. Currently, 22% of water demand in
Terracing Area* (km2) 40 430 365 835
% 1 8 7 16 Khorasan Razavi is supplied by surface water, and the rest by under-
Received Precipitation Vol. 9 118 110 237 ground resources. According to Khorasan Razavi local official reports,
(M m3) most dams of the region are operating at only 34% of their total ca-
Check dams Area* (km2) 80 472 499 1051
pacity, and the remainder is empty throughout the year. The total ca-
% 2 9 10 21
Received Precipitation Vol. 19 116 135 270
pacity of the large dams in the province is 1549 M.m3 of which
(M m3) 1211 M.m3 is the Iranian portion of water stored in the “Friendship
Pond and Pan Area* (km2) 117 517 583 1217 Dam”, shared by Iran and Turkmenistan. According to local official
% 2 10 11 23 reports, in 2017, > 40% of the water consumption in the city of
Received Precipitation Vol. 28 127 158 313
Mashhad (26.46 M m3) was supplied from the “Friendship Dam”
(M m3)
Gully plug Area* (km2) 31 98 49 178 (Khorasan Razavi Regional Water Authority (KHRW, 2017)).
% 1 2 1 4 The total annual utilized water from underground resources is about
Received Precipitation Vol. 8 32 17 57 6404 M m3, from which 5475 M m3 is extracted from wells; 579 M m3
(M m3) from aqueducts, and 350 M m3 from springs. However, groundwater
recharge potential is only 5300 M m3, which indicates that the total
*Suitable areas minus unsuitable sites areas.
groundwater shortage is approximately 1.1 B m3 on average per year
from a 33-year record. As a result of groundwater over-extraction, wells
The RWH unsuitable sites (Fig. 3) map were subtracted from RWH
have started to deplete, resulting in a water crisis in the province.
potential zone map in ArcGIS environment and the resulted output map
Mashhad is one of the cities faced water resources shortage, and has the
was classified based on the specific condition prerequisite for building
highest over-exploitation of renewable water in the province, with 70 M
each RWH structures (Table 8) to obtain the suitability maps for each
m3 of deficiency per year. It is relevant to mention that this city is
structure. Maps showing potential sites for different types of RWH
mainly surrounded by zones with good and moderate potential for
technologies within the study area are shown in Fig. 6. The sites shown
RWH. The result maps (Fig. 5) show that a significant portion of the
in the maps were identified by MCDA with their associated suitability
study area (72%) has ‘good’ to ‘moderate’ RWH potential. Considering
levels. The areas with “moderate” and “good” suitability levels were
24-year annual average rainfall, calculation results depict that the
considered suitable zones for constructing RWH structures. Based on
whole study area annually receives a total of 2578 M m3 of rain, of
that criteria, pond and pans comprise most of the RWH suitable loca-
which 695 M m3 fall on areas with poor RWH potential, while areas
tions with 1100 km2 (21.6% of the total study area with consideration
with moderate and good RWH potential receive a total of 1151 and
of social-economic factors) along with check dams with 970 km2
732 M m3 precipitation each year. This indicates the high RWH po-
(19.1%), followed by percolation tanks with 860 km2 (16.9%), terra-
tential of the study area in water supply and existing water crisis alle-
cing with 795 km2 (15.6%), Nala bunds with 667 km2 (13.1%), and
viation, though further studies would be needed to investigate the ex-
gully plugs with 147 km2 (2.9%).
tent to which that rainwater is already captured, the practical feasibility
All six techniques are suitable in the study area in terms of rainfalls
of local use of the harvested water, and implications for water alloca-
since it ranges from 200 to 1000 mm/y. Slopes lower than 15% are
tion within the catchment.
considered suitable for most techniques, while for slopes above 20%,
In order to examine the RWH potential results, the layer of existing
only terracing is considered suitable. Ponds and pans are only suitable
dams of the study area was obtained from the Regional water company
for flat areas with slopes lower than 5%, percolation tanks, and Nala
of Khorasan Razavi (KHRW, 2017). There are 6 main dams (Fig. 5) in
bunds are suitable on moderate slopes of 5–10% and check dams are
the study area and all of them except Kardeh and Chalidareh are located
suitable for slopes < 15%. Gully plugs are suitable for the middle range
in the moderate RWH potential zones. Kardeh Dam is located in the
of slopes (15 to 20%). Different soil textures were given for different
poor RWH zones (RWHPI = 0.20) and Chalidareh Dam is located in the
RWH structures. Among different soil types, some soils are considered
good RWH potential areas (RWHPI = 0.25). According to the obtained
suitable for different structures (e.g., silt loam for Pond and pans,
data, the average recorded operating level for the Kardeh Dam and
Percolation tank, and Nala bund), while some of them may be suitable
Chalidareh Dam over the years of 2017 and 2018 was 27.8% and 84.2%
for one or few structures (e.g., clay for gully plug). A wide range of land
of the designed capacity, respectively which implies the significance of
use is considered suitable for RWH structures. Meanwhile, including the
proper site selection in the future functionality of such structures that is
socio-economic buffering zone helped to preventing intervention with
firmly tied to the reliable estimation of the parameters of a surrounding
cultivation while also being close to the cultivated area.
environment.
Based on the results (Fig. 6) each RWH structure has its distribution
3.3. Discussion of proposed methodology over the study area and it is possible that in a single selected suitable
site, more than one structure is recommended to be constructed. MPB
In the present study, different aspects were considered to identify, has relatively more area suitable for percolation tank (23%) and ponds
rank, and validate the RWH potential areas, such that not only bio- and pan (23%) compared to other structures, with the exception of
physical factors were taken into account, but also the socio-economic gully plug, MPB nearly appears to offer the same degree of potential
factors and field knowledge were utilized. Moreover, RWH structures sites for different RWH structures. Suitable sites for pond and pans are
criteria were considered upon a practical guideline based on the lit- located in areas with a low slope (< 5%) and sandy clay soil which are
erature and practitioner’s experiences. aligned with previous studies like Al-Adamat (2008).

11
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
According to the earlier studies, one of the leading factors in se-
lecting suitable sites for check dams was the agriculture land cover,
since check dams can provide supplementary water for irrigation of
crops (Jha et al., 2014b). The results also determined that suitable areas
for check dams are located mostly in the central and northwestern
portions of the study area, with mild slopes, and sandy clay loam soil
texture that are typically suitable for agricultural purposes (Jha et al.,
2014b). However, suitable sites for percolation tanks are scattered
around the entire study area, except the central portion from southeast
to the northwest, consisting of moderately steep slope areas with soil
texture of both silt loam and clay loam. The majority of the suitable
areas for implementing terraces have mainly steep slopes (10%–15%)
with clay loam or clay soil.
Moreover, based on the results in Table 8, it can be inferred that
most of the good RWH potential areas can be considered for building
pond and pans, check dams and terracing since these systems have the
highest area located in the good RWH potential zones. In case of using
these structures in areas with good RWH potential, almost 158, 135 and
110 M m3 of precipitation is received respectively, providing an ap-
proximate upper bound on the potential for each system, to be ex-
amined in future work. To put this in context, according to the local
official reports, the total water demand of Mashhad as the biggest city
of the study area for 2021 is predicted to be 286.7 M m3. A combination
of technologies that yield higher amounts of harvested water, with
accurate localized configuration and design, proper operation and
maintenance, are key factors to minimize losses and to maximize the
actual quantity of water harvested.
Generally, it can be stated that there may be sufficient potential for
implementing RWH technologies to supply a reasonable amount of
water and ensure long-term water security in the face of looming cli-
mate change, though rainfall predictions under climate change would
need to be evaluated to confirm this. Devising effective water man-
agement strategies at a basin or sub-basin scale is the immediate need of
the MBP. Unless efforts are made to utilize potential rain water effi-
ciently and sustainably, water scarcity will continue to be a major
problem in the study area.
The RWH potential zone maps (Fig. 3) and the map showing sui-
table areas for RWH structures (Fig. 6) were derived based on a prac-
tical methodology that can be used for effective management, micro-
level planning and implementation of RWH projects in the study area.
Nevertheless, there are uncertainties associated with the results. Un-
certainties can be addressed either directly in the analysis (e.g., sensi-
tivity analysis) or through discussing the role of uncertainty and its
effect on how results from the method can be used (Guillaume et al.,
2017). The potential of RWH was evaluated based on historical rainfall
data and effect of climate change was not considered. Moreover, land
use changes in the future, regardless of lower weight in the analyses
compared to rainfall, can also be important. These variations might
alter the results in the future. Due to data limitations and scope of study
some analysis (e.g., evapotranspiration and infiltration quantification)
was not conducted. These analyses are necessary to obtained realistic
harvestable amount of water. On the other hand, selected criteria are
well documented and have a rich theoretical foundation and applica-
tion history. The corresponding weight factors range with literature.
Socio-economic criteria were considered along with biophysical factors
to incorporate a broader range of influential parameters. Thus, obtained
results are deemed to be useful for decision makers and local officials by
providing an initial overall assessment of RWH potentials and different
technologies which can be used. Further studies including detailed
evapotranspiration evaluation based on the selected RWH systems are
required for the next stage of studies to obtain actual harvestable
amount of water and devising executable management planning.
The harvested rainwater can be directed and used for many pur-
poses including irrigation, soil moisture improvement, domestic and
livestock uses, and enhancing groundwater resources (Agarwal et al.,
2001; Kelly et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2005; Lani et al., 2018; Lee et al.,
12
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
2010; Mekdaschi and Liniger, 2013). RWH specifically has a significant
impact on agricultural sector. Several factors considered important for
agriculture can be provided by RWH, including availability of accu-
mulated surface water especially in non-rainy seasons, and proximity of
water supply to crop cultivations to minimize pumping costs
(Kourgialas et al., 2015). Thus, RWH structures increase crop pro-
ductivity, expand crop areas, and prolong the cropping period, sup-
porting prosperity of the agricultural sector (Calder et al., 2008; Datta,
2015; Guyassa et al., 2017; Vema et al., 2018).
4. Conclusion
RWH is a practical and favorable technique to partially address
water scarcity by conserving freshwater supplies in ASARs. However,
the assessment of RWH potential and the identification of appropriate
areas for diverse RWH structures is challenging for water resources
managers and planners, particularly on large scales. In this study, po-
tentially suitable areas for RWH in MPB have been identified using GIS-
based MCDA. This study aimed to develop a generally applicable and
simple water harvesting framework model for identification of potential
zones for RWH structures, incorporating socio-economic and biophy-
sical criteria based on the developed methods over the last three dec-
ades. Indeed, incorporating the socio-economic suitability factors in-
creased the model’s reliability in terms of considering a broader range
of effective criteria and further generalizing the methodology.
From the output maps of the present study, it can be mentioned that
48% of MPB is not suitable for RWH and the remainder classified into
three RWH potential areas: (a) ‘good’ (covering 26% of the total area),
(b) ‘moderate’ (43%), and (c) ‘poor’ (31%). The spatial distribution of
the RWHPI of the study areas showed that the areas with good potential
for RWH were fairly evenly distributed around the entire study area.
The suitable zones for building ponds and pan and check dams en-
compass an area of 1100 km2 (21.6%) and 970 (km2) (19.1%), re-
spectively, followed by percolation tanks with 860 km2 (16.9%), ter-
racing with 795 (km2) (15.6%), Nala bunds with 667 (km2) (13.1%),
and gully plugs with 147 (km2) (2.9%). The comparison between the
results of potential RWH areas with field observations where most of
the dams were situated on moderate RWH potential zones lends support
to the utility of the integrated use of MCDA and GIS. Nevertheless,
indicators of social and economic conditions, along with local settings,
must be considered by decision-making agencies. Consideration of
socio-economic and biophysical factors in RWH analysis will guarantee
that water harvesting projects are considered as a part of the integrated
economic, social and cultural system.
The methodology and the analyses demonstrated in this study may
also be considered efficient and suitable for other parts of the world,
particularly for developing countries, independently of hydrological
and agro-climatic variations, as it has generic applicability. The re-
commended next stage studies include more detailed analysis of eva-
potranspiration in order to evaluate actual harvestable water at iden-
tified sites, and assessment of global change implications on RWH
potential and model refinement by coupling hydrological models with
MCDA and GIS. This could be beneficial towards identifying the best
method for RWH potential assessment at large scales.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Amirhossein Shadmehri Toosi: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Erfan Ghasemi
Tousi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Seyed Ali Ghassemi:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Software, Validation, Writing - original draft. Ali Cheshomi: Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software. Sina Alaghmand:
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support from the Mashhad
Geographic Centre and Municipality of Mashhad for their help in pro-
viding data. The authors extend their sincere gratitude to Mr. Giancarlo
Humberto Calbimonte who provided insight and expertise that greatly
assisted the research. We would also like to express my deep gratitude
to the Editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and sug-
gestions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124501.
References
Agarwal, A., Narain, S., Khurana, I., 2001. Making Water Everybody's Business: Practice
and Policy of Water Harvesting. Centre for Science and Environment.
Akter, A., Ahmed, S., 2015. Potentiality of rainwater harvesting for an urban community
in Bangladesh. J. Hydrol. 528, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.
017.
Al-Adamat, R., 2008. GIS as a decision support system for siting water harvesting ponds in
the Basalt Aquifer/NE Jordan. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manage. 10 (02), 189–206.
Al-Adamat, R., 2012. The use of GIS and Google earth for preliminary site selection of
groundwater recharge in the Azraq Oasis Area—Jordan. J. Water Resour. Prot. 4 (6),
395–399.
Al-Adamat, R., et al., 2012. The combination of indigenous knowledge and geo-infor-
matics for water harvesting siting in the Jordanian Badia. J. Geogr. Information Sys. 4
(4), 366–376.
Al-Adamat, R., Diabat, A., Shatnawi, G., 2010. Combining GIS with multicriteria decision
making for siting water harvesting ponds in Northern Jordan. J. Arid Environ. 74
(11), 1471–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.07.001.
Al-shabeeb, A.R., 2016. The use of AHP within GIS in selecting potential sites for water
harvesting sites in the Azraq Basin—Jordan. J. Geogr. Information Sys. 8 (01), 73.
Alaghmand, S., Beecham, S., Hassanli, A., 2014. Impacts of vegetation cover on surface-
groundwater flows and solute interactions in a semi-arid Saline floodplain: a case
study of the lower Murray river, Australia. Environ. Proc. 1 (1), 59–71.
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. Int. Soil
Water Conserv. Res. 4 (2), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2016.03.001.
Australia, M.P.a.M.S.A.o, 2008. Rainwater Tank Design and Installation Handbook.
Australian Government National Water Commission.
Baban, S.M., Wan-Yusof, K., 2003. Modelling optimum sites for locating reservoirs in
tropical environments. Water Resour. Manage. 17 (1), 1–17.
Bakir, M., Xingnan, Z., 2008. GIS and remote sensing applications for rainwater har-
vesting in the syrian desert (al-badia). In: Proceedings of Twelfth International Water
Technology Conference, IWTC12. Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 73–82.
Cai, X., Rosegrant, M.W., 2002. Global water demand and supply projections: part 1. A
modeling approach. Water Int. 27 (2), 159–169.
Calder, I. et al., 2008. Watershed development in India. 1. Biophysical and societal im-
pacts. 10 (4), 537–557.
Campisano, A. et al., 2017. Urban rainwater harvesting systems: research, implementa-
tion and future perspectives. 115, 195–209.
Chowdhury, A., Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V., 2010. Delineation of groundwater recharge
zones and identification of artificial recharge sites in West Medinipur district, West
Bengal, using RS, GIS and MCDM techniques. Environ. Earth Sci. 59 (6), 1209.
Critchley, W., Siegert, K., Chapman, C., Finkel, M., 1991. Water harvesting. A manual for
the design and construction of water harvesting schemes for plant production.
Datta, N.J.W.D., 2015. Evaluating impacts of watershed development program on agri-
cultural productivity, income, and livelihood in bhalki watershed of Bardhaman
District, West Bengal. 66, 443-456.
de Winnaar, G., Jewitt, G.P.W., Horan, M., 2007. A GIS-based approach for identifying
potential runoff harvesting sites in the Thukela River basin, South Africa. Phys.
Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 32 (15–18), 1058–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.
2007.07.009.
Durbude, D.G., Venkatesh, B., 2004. Site suitability analysis for soil and water con-
servation structures. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 32 (4), 399–405.
El Atta, H., 2006. Monitoring and rehabilitation of the Juniper ecosystem in the Sarawat
13
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
mountains of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
El Atta, H., Aref, 2010. Effect of terracing on rainwater harvesting and growth of
Juniperus procera Hochst. ex Endlicher. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 7 (1), 59–66.
ESRI, 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute,
Redlands, CA.
FAO, 1990. Guidelines for Soil Description, third ed. FAO, Rome, pp. 70.
FAO, 2003. Land and Water Digital Media Series, 26. Planning of Water Harvesting
Training Course on RWH (CDROM) Schemes, Unit 22. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
FAO, 2012. Coping with Water Scarcity. An Action Framework for Agriculture and Food
Security. FAO.
Geyik, M., 1986. FAO watershed management field manual: gully control.
Gleick, P.H., 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century.
Science 302 (5650), 1524–1528.
Gould, J., Qiang, Z., Yuanhong, L.J.W., 2014. Using every last drop: rainwater harvesting
and utilization in Gansu Province, China. 33 (2), 107–119.
Guillaume, J.H., Helgeson, C., Elsawah, S., Jakeman, A.J., Kummu, M., 2017. Toward
best practice framing of uncertainty in scientific publications: a review of Water
Resources Research abstracts. Water Resour. Res. 53 (8), 6744–6762.
Gupta, K., Deelstra, J., Sharma, K., 1997. Estimation of water harvesting potential for a
semiarid area using GIS and remote sensing. IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings
and Reports-Intern Assoc Hydrological Sciences, 242 (63), 63.
Guyassa, E., Frankl, A., Zenebe, A., Poesen, J., Nyssen, J., 2017. Effects of check dams on
runoff characteristics along gully reaches, the case of Northern Ethiopia. J. Hydrol.
545, 299–309.
Hammad, A.H.A., Børresen, T., Haugen, L.E., 2006. Effects of rain characteristics and
terracing on runoff and erosion under the Mediterranean. Soil Tillage Res. 87 (1),
39–47.
Handia, L., Tembo, J.M., Mwiindwa, C., 2003. Potential of rainwater harvesting in urban
Zambia. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 28 (20–27), 893–896.
Hassani, A.N., Katibeh, H., Farhadian, H., 2016. Numerical analysis of steady-state
groundwater inflow into Tabriz line 2 metro tunnel, northwestern Iran, with special
consideration of model dimensions. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 75 (4), 1617–1627.
Hatibu, N., et al., 2001. Rainwater harvesting for natural resources management: a
planning guide for Tanzania. Regional Land Management Unit.
Hudson, N., 1981. Soil Conservation. BT Bassford Limited, London, pp. 324.
IMSD, 1995. Integrated mission for sustainable development technical guidelines.
National Remote Sensing Agency, Department of Space Govt. of India.
Inamdar, P.M., et al., 2013. A GIS based screening tool for locating and ranking of suitable
stormwater harvesting sites in urban areas. J. Environ. Manage. 128, 363–370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.023.
IRIMO, 2016. Iran Metrological Organization. https://www.irimo.ir.
Isioye, O.A., 2012. A multi criteria decision support system (MDSS) for identifying
rainwater harvesting site (s) in Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria. Int. J. Adv. Scientific
Eng. Technol. Res. 1 (1).
Jasrotia, A., Majhi, A., Singh, S., 2009. Water balance approach for rainwater harvesting
using remote sensing and GIS techniques, Jammu Himalaya, India. Water Resour.
Manage. 23 (14), 3035–3055.
Jenks, G.F., 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int. Yearbook
Cartography 7, 186–190.
Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V., Kulkarni, Y., Mal, B., 2014. Rainwater harvesting planning
using geospatial techniques and multicriteria decision analysis. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 83, 96–111.
Jha, M.K., Peiffer, S., 2006. Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS Technologies in
Groundwater Hydrology: Past, Present and Future. BayCEER Bayreuth.
Jozaghi, A., Alizadeh, B., Hatami, M., Flood, I., Khorrami, M., Khodaei, N., 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. Geosciences 8, 494.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8120494.
Kadam, A.K., Kale, S.S., Pande, N.N., Pawar, N., Sankhua, R., 2012. Identifying potential
rainwater harvesting sites of a semi-arid, basaltic region of Western India, using SCS-
CN method. Water Resour. Manage. 26 (9), 2537–2554.
Kahinda, J.M., Lillie, E., Taigbenu, A., Taute, M., Boroto, R., 2008. Developing suitability
maps for rainwater harvesting in South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 33
(8), 788–799.
Karimi, A., Haghnia, G.H., Ayoubi, S., Safari, T., 2017. Impacts of geology and land use on
magnetic susceptibility and selected heavy metals in surface soils of Mashhad plain,
northeastern Iran. J. Appl. Geophys. 138, 127–134.
Kelly, E., et al., 2018. Seasonality, water use and community management of water sys-
tems in rural settings: qualitative evidence from Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia. Sci.
Total Environ. 628–629, 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.045.
Khashei-Siuki, A., Sarbazi, M., 2015. Evaluation of ANFIS, ANN, and geostatistical models
to spatial distribution of groundwater quality (case study: Mashhad plain in Iran).
Arabian J. Geosci. 8 (2), 903–912.
Khorrami, M., Alizadeh, B., Ghasemi Tousi, E., Shakerian, M., Maghsoudi, Y., Rahgozar,
P., 2019. How Groundwater Level Fluctuations and Geotechnical Properties Lead to
Asymmetric Subsidence: A PSInSAR Analysis of Land Deformation over a Transit
Corridor in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Remote Sens. 11 (377), 2. https://doi.
org/10.3390/rs11040377.
KHRW, 2017. Regional Water Company of Khorasan Razavi. http://www.khrw.ir.
Kourgialas, N., Karatzas, G., Morianou, G.J., 2015. Water management plan for olive
orchards in a semi-mountainous area of Crete, Greece. Glob. Nest J. 17 (1), 72–81.
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. Appl. Geogr. 51, 131–142.
Kumar, R., Singh, R., Sharma, K., 2005. Water resources of India. Curr. Sci. 794–811.
A. Shadmehri Toosi, et al.
Lani, N.H.M., Syafiuddin, A., Yusop, Z., Adam, U.D.B., Amin, M.Z.B.M., 2018.
Performance of small and large scales rainwater harvesting systems in commercial
buildings under different reliability and future water tariff scenarios. Sci. Total
Environ. 636, 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.418.
Lee, J.Y., Yang, J.-S., Han, M., Choi, J., 2010. Comparison of the microbiological and
chemical characterization of harvested rainwater and reservoir water as alternative
water resources. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (4), 896–905.
Madrucci, V., Taioli, F., de Araújo, C.C., 2008. Groundwater favorability map using GIS
multicriteria data analysis on crystalline terrain, São Paulo State, Brazil. J. Hydrol.
357 (3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.03.026.
Magrath, J., 2007. Water: A Shared Responsibility: The United Nations World Water
Development Report 2. JSTOR.
Mahmoud, S.H., Alazba, A., 2015. The potential of in situ rainwater harvesting in arid
regions: developing a methodology to identify suitable areas using GIS-based decision
support system. Arabian J. Geosci. 8 (7), 5167–5179.
Martinson, B., Thomas, T., 2007. Roofwater Harvesting: a Handbook for Practitioners.
Sanitation Centre.
Mati, B., et al., 2006. Mapping the potential of rainwater harvesting technologies in
Africa. A GIS overview on development domains for the continent and ten selected
countries. Tech. Manual 6, 126.
Mbilinyi, B., Tumbo, S., Mahoo, H., Mkiramwinyi, F., 2007a. GIS-based decision support
system for identifying potential sites for rainwater harvesting. Phys. Chem. Earth,
Parts A/B/C 32 (15), 1074–1081.
Mbilinyi, B.P., Tumbo, S.D., Mahoo, H.F., Mkiramwinyi, F.O., 2007b. GIS-based decision
support system for identifying potential sites for rainwater harvesting. Phys. Chem.
Earth, Parts A/B/C 32 (15–18), 1074–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2007.07.
014.
Mekdaschi, R., Liniger, H., 2013. Water Harvesting: Guidelines to Good Practice. Centre
for Development and Environment.
Melville-Shreeve, P., Ward, S., Butler, D., 2016. Rainwater harvesting typologies for UK
houses: a multi criteria analysis of system configurations. Water 8 (4), 129.
Moges, G., 2009a. Identification of potential rainwater harvesting areas in the central Rift
Valley of Ethiopia using a GIS based approach (Doctoral dissertation), Wageningen
University, The Netherlands, pp. 83.
Moges, G., 2009b. Identification of potential rainwater harvesting areas in the central Rift
Valley of Ethiopia using a GIS based approach. MSc Minor thesis.
Moges, Y., 2004. Water harvesting techniques: training and construction manual.
Consultancy sub-report number 2. Tropical Forestry.
Musayev, S., Burgess, E., Mellor, J., 2018. A global performance assessment of rainwater
harvesting under climate change. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132, 62–70. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.023.
Nikvar Hassani, A., Farhadian, H., Katibeh, H., 2018. A comparative study on evaluation
of steady-state groundwater inflow into a circular shallow tunnel. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 73, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.11.019.
NSWRI, 2016. National Soil and Water Research Institute of Iran Ministry of Agriculture.
http://www.swri.ir/.
Oweis, T., Oberle, A., Prinz, D., 1998. Determination of potential sites and methods for
water harvesting in central Syria. Adv. GeoEcol. 31, 83–88.
Padmavathy, A., Raj, K.G., Yogarajan, N., Thangavel, P., Chandrasekhar, M., 1993.
Checkdam site selection using GIS approach. Adv. Space Res. 13 (11), 123–127.
Pandey, D.N., Gupta, A.K., Anderson, D.M., 2003. Rainwater harvesting as an adaptation
to climate change. Curr. Sci. 85 (1), 46–59.
Petit-Boix, A., et al., 2018. Life cycle and hydrologic modeling of rainwater harvesting in
urban neighborhoods: implications of urban form and water demand patterns in the
US and Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 621, 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2017.11.206.
Prinz, D., 1998. Rainwater harvesting for dry land agriculture-Developing a methodology
based on remote sensing and GIS. In: Proceeding XIII. International Congress
14
Journal of Hydrology 582 (2020) 124501
Agricultural Engineering, 02.-06. 02. 1998. Rabat, Morocco.
Rahimi, J., Malekian, A., Khalili, A., 2019. Climate change impacts in Iran: assessing our
current knowledge. Theoretical Appl. Climatol. 135 (1–2), 545–564.
Ramakrishnan, D., Bandyopadhyay, A., Kusuma, K., 2009. SCS-CN and GIS-based ap-
proach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali Watershed, Mahi
River Basin,India. J. Earth Sys. Sci. 118 (4), 355–368.
Reddy, V.R., Saharawat, Y.S., George, B., 2017. Watershed management in South Asia: a
synoptic review. J. Hydrol. 551, 4–13.
Reddy, V.R., Syme, G.J., 2014. Integrated Assessment of Scale Impacts of Watershed
Intervention: Assessing Hydrogeological and Bio-Physical Influences on Livelihoods.
Elsevier.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning. Priority Setting. Resource
Allocation. International Book Company, MacGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 287.
Samson, S., Elangovan, K., 2015. Delineation of groundwater recharge potential zones in
Namakkal District, Tamilnadu, India using remote sensing and GIS. J. Indian Soc.
Remote Sens. 43 (4), 769–778.
Sawicki, J., 1987. 70. DOI:10.1007/BF01573575.
Senay, G., Verdin, J., 2004. Developing index maps of water-harvest potential in Africa.
Appl. Eng. Agric. 20 (6), 789.
Shadmehri Toosi, A., Calbimonte, G.H., Nouri, H., Alaghmand, S., 2019. River basin-scale
flood hazard assessment using a modified multi-criteria decision analysis approach: a
case study. J. Hydrol. 574, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.072.
Shatnawi, G., 2006. Determine the Best Sites for Water Harvesting Projects (Dams &
Hafirs) in Northeastern Badia Using GIS Applications. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, Al
Al-Bayt University, Jordan.
Steenhuis, T.S. et al., 1995. SCS runoff equation revisited for variable-source runoff areas.
121 (3), 234–238.
Terêncio, D.P.S., Sanches Fernandes, L.F., Cortes, R.M.V., Moura, J.P., Pacheco, F.A.L.,
2018. Rainwater harvesting in catchments for agro-forestry uses: a study focused on
the balance between sustainability values and storage capacity. Sci. Total Environ.
613–614, 1079–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.198.
Tumbo, S., Mbilinyi, B., Mahoo, H., Mkilamwinyi, F., 2013. Identification of suitable
indices for identification of potential sites for rainwater harvesting. Tanzania J. Agri.
Sci. 12 (2).
UN, 2007. Coping with water scarcity: challenge of the twenty-first century.
H. Varma K. Tiwari Current Status and Prospects of Rain Water Harvesting, Indian
National Committee on Hydrology (INCOH) National Institute of Hydrology,
Roorkee, India, (Scientific contribution No. 1995 INCOH/SAR-95/3).
Vema, V., Sudheer, K., Chaubey, I., 2018. Hydrologic design of water harvesting struc-
tures through simulation-optimization framework. J. Hydrol. 563, 460–469.
Ward, P.J., et al., 2010. Partial costs of global climate change adaptation for the supply of
raw industrial and municipal water: a methodology and application. Environ. Res.
Lett. 5 (4), 044011.
Watkins, K., 2006. Human Development Report 2006-Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty
and the Global Water Crisis.
Weerasinghe, H., Schneider, U., Loew, A., 2011. Water harvest-and storage-location as-
sessment model using GIS and remote sensing. Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci. Discuss. (2),
3353–3381.
WWAP, 2015. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a
Sustainable World.
Yalcin, A., 2008. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy
process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): comparisons of results and
confirmations. CATENA 72 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2007.01.
003.
Yusof, K.W., Serwan, M., Baban, J., 2000. Identifying optimum sites for locating re-
servoirs employing remotely sensed data and geographical information systems. In:
Proc. 21st Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, pp. 4–8.