Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Groundwater for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsd

Research paper

Identification of groundwater potential zone using analytical hierarchical

process (AHP) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for Bhavani
river basin, Tamil Nadu, southern India
Rahul Ravichandran a, *, Raviraj Ayyavoo b, Lalitha Rajangam a, Nagarajan Madasamy a,
Basker Murugaiyan c, Sumathi Shanmugam d
a
Department of SWCE, AEC&RI, Kumulur, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India
b
AEC&RI, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of SSAC, ADAC&RI, Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India
d
Department of PSIT, AEC&RI, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• The study aims to identify the ground­

water recharge potential zone for the
Bhavani Basin.
• For that ten thematic layers were sta­
tistically analyzed using MCDA and AHP
methods.
• The identified groundwater potential
zone was categorized into five classes
(very high, high, moderate, low, and
very low).
• Further firka-wise GWPZ were classified
and validated to the PWD groundwater
data.
• From the result, 32 firkas are improved
and 14 firkas had deteriorated.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study aimed to identify groundwater potential zones was involving the collection of both spatial and
Analytical hierarchical process non-spatial datasets for water management practice. The Bhavani river basin groundwater is the major source for
Consistency index agriculture, domestic, industry, etc. The basin area is divided into lower and upper sub-basins of an area of 4207
Geographical information system
km2. To delineate the Groundwater Potential Zone (GWPZ) ten thematic layers (geology, geomorphology, land
Groundwater potential zone
use land cover, drainage and lineament density, slope, elevation, soil texture, rainfall, groundwater) were pre­
pared using Arc GIS 10.3 software. The Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) based Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA) was used to calculate the weightage value for each parameter. For parameter validation
consistency index and consistency ratio were used. The identified groundwater potential zone was categorized
into five classes based on the groundwater potential availability, as very high (1599 km2), high (1430 km2),
moderate (547 km2), low (421 km2), and very low (210 km2). In the middle portion of the basin, 38% of the area
falls under very good GWPZ and is followed by high (34%), moderate (13%), low (10%), and very low (5%)
identified the different location of the basin. Further, GWPZ were classified based on firka and compared to the
Public Work Department (PWD) 2011 and 2020 reports. From the report, 22 firkas are over-exploited from 2011

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rahulagriengg96@gmail.com (R. Ravichandran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100806
Received 14 December 2021; Received in revised form 27 June 2022; Accepted 7 July 2022
Available online 19 July 2022
2352-801X/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Ravichandran et al.
to 2020. In the present study GIS coupled with the AHP model gives accurate groundwater recharge zones. It’s
more helpful for drought risk assessment and planning recharge structures for agriculture engineers and gov­
ernment agencies.
1. Introduction
Groundwater is one of the most important drinking characteristics
for all living things, and water plays an important role in the growth of
numerous industrial sectors (Saranya & Saravanan, 2020). According to
FAO (2009), 26% of the world’s renewable freshwater resource remains
as groundwater. The National Commission for Integrated Water Re­
sources Development (NCIWRD) reported that the average annual per
capita water availability in 2001 was 1816 m3, and this availability is
expected to drop to 1367 m3 by 2031. The Central Groundwater Board
(CGWB) estimated in April 2015, that the annual water resource po­
tential was 1869 billion cubic meters (BCM). However, India’s useable
water resources are estimated to be at 1123 BCM/year. The shares of
surface water and groundwater, respectively, are 690 BCM/year and
433 BCM/year. Setting aside 35 BCM for natural discharge, the net
annual groundwater availability for the entire country is 398 BCM.
Central Groundwater Board (CGWB, 2017) assessed 6584 units in the
year 2013, across the country and found 4520 to be “safe,” 681 to be
“semi-critical”, 253 to be “critical” and 1034 to be “overexploited” and
96 blocks were “saline”. Earlier, the identification of GWPZ was carried
out by ground surveys, which is a time-consuming and laborious method
(Saravanan et al., 2020). Recent technology like Remote Sensing and
Geographical Information System (RS & GIS) is a more powerful tool
that provides accurate results compared with other methods (A et al.,
2017; Rehman et al., 2019; Aggarwal et al., 2019; Arulbalaji et al.,
2019). Through Arc GIS 10.3 software was used to develop different
thematic layers for the study area. The input parameters are land use
land cover, geology, geomorphology, lineaments & drainage density,
soil, rainfall, groundwater, elevation, and slope. These parameters serve
either as a direct or indirect influence on the range of groundwater
recharge (Saravanan et al., 2020; Saravanan & Saranya, 2020). These
parameters define the geological formation and hydrological properties
of soil underground. The suitable weight and rank assigned for each
Fig. 1. Location map of the Bhavani river basin.
2
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
parameter, are based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
methods and summed up to obtain a potential zone (Kolandhavel &
Ramamoorthy, 2019; Roy et al., 2020). Further, the basin groundwater
zones are compared with firka-wise assessment areas. Here, the firka or
revenue circles are the local revenue sub-divisions of the various dis­
tricts in the states of India.
Numerous methods were adopted to delineate the GWPZ including
geospatial techniques. The GWPZ identification was determined using
the methods, such as Multi Influencing Factors (MIF) (Bhattacharya
et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2020), Deep Neural Network (DNN) (Malik &
Bhagwat, 2021; Pal et al., 2020; Pradhan et al., 2021), Fuzzy Analytical
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) (Halder et al., 2020; Mallick et al., 2019; Shao
et al., 2020; Teshome et al., 2020), MODFLOW (Bhatu, 2020), Hybrid
Models (Pham et al., 2019; Ahmad et al., 2020; Jesiya & Gopinath,
2020), AHP (Bera et al., 2020; Dar et al., 2020; Saravanan & Saranya,
2020), MCDA (Aggarwal et al., 2019; Ahmed et al., 2021; Arabameri
et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021; Gnanachandrasamy et al.,
2018) are used. Among all the available methods for determining the
rank and weight, AHP was found to be the most effective tool for
decision-makers to make choices based on the influence of the different
parameters (Kaliraj et al., 2014; Razandi et al., 2015; Saha et al., 2019).
The Bhavani River basin is one such region where good agricultural
land, naturally covered hills, rapid urbanization, and industrialization.
Because of increasing groundwater in recent decades resulted in a
notable decline in the groundwater level. The outcome of the study is to
“delineate groundwater recharge potential zones for the Bhavani river
basin”, “to compare firka wise groundwater potential zone with the
PWD groundwater data” and derived maps are used as primary infor­
mation for sustainable groundwater resource management for long-term
scale.
R. Ravichandran et al.
Fig. 2. Methodology flowchart for identification of GWPZ.
2. Details of the study area
The Bhavani river basin geographical area is within the western part
of Tamil Nadu, India. The total length of the Bhavani stream is 217 km
perennial stream and its cover was southwest followed by supplemen­
tation to the northeast monsoon. The study area covers Erode, Coim­
batore, Nilgiris, Tiruppur districts, and forty-six Firka (a little division of
the revenue division for groundwater assessment). The watershed drains
a district of 840 km2 covering Tamil Nadu (87%), Kerala (9%), and
Karnataka (4%). The annual rainfall for the study area was 811.47 mm.
The basin was geographically extended between 11◦ 15′ and 11◦ 81′ N
latitude and 77◦ 0′ and 78◦ 87′ E longitude, as shown in Fig. 1. Bhavani’s
geographical area is the fourth largest sub-basin within the Cauvery
Basin (81,000 km2). Bhavani drainage basin 3246 km2 covers the agri­
cultural area and the depression starts from the foothills of Western
Ghats and stretches eastward to the confluence of the Bhavani stream
with the Cauvery stream.
2.1. Data collection
The Survey of India (SOI) 13 topo maps were identified inside the
study area (58A/(6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15), 58 E/(2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10)) and
the scale of topo map has used this study for 1:50,000. To prepare an
actual representation of the study area Arc GIS 10.3 software was used.
WGS-84 (World Geodetic System – 84) and UTM (Universal Transverse
Mercator) is used to locate the geographical coordinate in the collected
topo map for representation of the real-world location for the study area
observed locations with the use of GPS (Geographical Position System).
The LANDSAT 8 satellite datasets were collected from 30th March to
May 23, 2020. The drainage and lineament map derived from cartosat
digital elevation model (DEM) map derived 30 × 30 m resolution from
USGS earth explore (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). The soil data
were derived and classified from the National Bureau of Soil Survey
(NBSS). The rainfall (35 years) and groundwater level (42 years) data
3
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
were collected from State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data
Centre, Chennai.
3. Methodology
To discover the proper groundwater zones for the different study
areas researchers used above-mentioned techniques (Bera et al., 2020;
Saranya & Saravanan, 2020; Xu et al., 2021). Groundwater management
and planning benefited greatly from remote sensing and traditional data
sources (Alikhanov et al., 2021; Arabameri et al., 2019). Different
multi-criteria studies were performed and developed various thematic
layers using the RS&GIS system. The pairwise comparison matrix was
developed for calculating the weightage for each parameter (Arunbose
et al., 2021). The geometric mean and normalized weight of each
parameter were examined using the AHP method. As stated in the
article, this comprehensive strategy included a step-by-step method. The
methodology flowchart of the study area is given in Fig. 2.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Preparation of thematic layers using RS&GIS
There are two sub-basins available in the Bhavani river basin and it
was divided into 46 firkas to identify the groundwater recharge poten­
tial zone. The different thematic layers are shown below and the influ­
ence of groundwater potential was discussed one by one.
4.1.1. Geology
The groundwater flow and the aquifer water storage mainly depend
on the underlined rock (Mondal, 2020; Muniraj, 2019). Different type of
weathered and massive hard rock formations was found in the Bhavani
River basin, it’s mainly occupied by peninsular gneissic complex
(1969.10 km2) and charnockite (1709.03 km2) rocks as shown in Fig. 3a.
In the Bhavani River basin, 46.80% of the area is covered with a
R. Ravichandran et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806

Fig. 3. (a). Geology map. (b). Geomorphology map. (c). Land use land cover map. (d). Drainage density map(e). Lineament density map. (f). Slope map. (g).
Elevation map. (h). Soil texture map. (i). Rainfall map. (j). Groundwater level map. (k). Bhavani basin firka map. (l). Bhavani sub basin map.

peninsular gneissic complex, and this rock type is located in the plain
topographic southern part of the basin. The second most rock type is
charnockite it covers 40.62% of the basin and is located in the western
part of the basin area like Coonoor, Kundah, and Bannar hill regions. The
remaining basin area covered 12.57% of rocks and those rock types have
lower infiltration capacity and lack weathering.
4.1.2. Geomorphology
The geomorphology controls the groundwater movement to the
impervious layer of the confined and unconfined aquifer system
(Banerjee et al., 2021). Bhavani River basin covers two major landform
features those are 47.99 percent pediment pediplain complex and it is
located in the southern part of the study area (2019.19 km2). Te another
highly dissected hills and valleys type covered 41.52 percent in the
northern part of the area (1747.13 km2) shown in Fig. 3b. The gentle
slope has a high infiltration rate and it was influenced by the adjacent
side of the river channel, also it is more helpful to the groundwater
storage.

4
R. Ravichandran et al.
Fig. 3. (continued).
4.1.3. Land use land cover
The land use/land cover (LULC) map provides information about the
soil moisture availability, infiltration capacity, suitable area for
groundwater recharge, and indication of surface water storage (Aggar­
wal et al., 2019; Goitsemang et al., 2020; Saravanan & Saranya, 2020).
The primary distribution of cropland 1239.22 km2 (29.46%) covers the
eastern portion and some middle portions of the Bhavanisagar reservoir
are shown in Fig. 3c. The cropland has a gentle slope and more
5
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
infiltration capacity and it is more suitable for recharging groundwater.
The western side of the upper Bhavani River basin has 21.29% of the
plantation covered (895.61 km2), the Kundath, Coonoor, and Kothagiri
areas had higher elevation crops like tea, coffee, carrot, etc. The lower
Bhavani northern side spread deciduous broadleaf forest (13.95%).
Some middle portion of the basin covers built-up land (1.97%), and the
built-up land covers hard platform areas because it’s having a lower
infiltration capacity. The LULC map was validated from the actual
R. Ravichandran et al.
ground truth analysis, randomly 48 sites were selected and validated to
the supervised classification image. The developed thematic layers
result was more relevant to the observed Bhavani basin locations.
4.1.4. Drainage density
Groundwater recharging to the sub-surface zone drainage density
plays a major role (Aykut, 2021; Bhattacharya et al., 2021). Drainage
density described as the total length of the stream network is divided by
the total area of the basin.
Ls
Dd = (6)
A
where, Dd = Drainage density (m/m2), Ls = Total length of stream (m),
and A = Area (m2). This was calculated using Horton’s method intro­
duced in 1932. The map value ranges from 0 to 16 km/km2 which were
shown in Fig. 3d. The north and southern parts of the basin found 0–53
km/km2 drainage networks, that lower drainage density area has more
suitable for groundwater recharge and the areas have infiltration was
high in these regions and those areas have more groundwater recharge.
The middle portion of the basin has a high drainage density network
where found the value ranges from 73 to 124 km/km2. The higher
drainage density areas have low to very low groundwater recharge
potential.
4.1.5. Lineament density
The lineament was derived from the linear arrangement of the
groundwater movement mainly depending on the porosity and perme­
ability of the rock material (Kumar et al., 2021). It’s defined as the total
length of lineament in a unit area of the basin.
Ll
Ld = (7)
A palayam, Sathaymangalam, and Nambiyur areas have higher rainfall
where, Ld = lineament density (m/m2), Ll = Total length of lineament
(m), and A = Area (m2). The lineament is more related to geological
formations like folds, fractures, joints, and shears are directly related to
groundwater recharge potential zones. The western part of the study
area found more lineament fractures. The lineament density was cate­
gorized into five classes based on the fracture per unit area. The cate­
gorized values are very high (77–96 km/km2), high (58–76 km/km2),
moderate (38–57 km/km2), low (19–37 km/km2), and very low (0–19
km/km2) were shown in Fig. 3e. The very low and low category linea­
ment has very minimum groundwater recharge potential. Further, the
lineament density was above 57 km/km2 having a good porosity, and
permeability rate, and it was directly connected to the groundwater
recharge zone areas.
4.1.6. Slope
The higher degree of slope having a short period of runoff will be
more and low and leveled topographical land having a minimum slope
(Dar et al., 2020; Saha et al., 2019). The slope ranges in the basin were
0–79◦ as shown in Fig. 3f, zero indicating leveled land and 79 indicating
steep slope areas. The western part and some north side of the basin
(1212 km2) have the Nilgiris Mountain available because of the higher
slope value of 79◦ in that area. The middle and southern part Bhavai
basin falls under nearly smooth lands (2022 km2), this land has a gentle
slope and is more suitable for infiltrating surface water. In this portion of
the basin area, good groundwater potential was available. The slope
map was categorized into five classes based on the degree of slope, that
was very low (2022 km2), low (638 km2), moderate (179 km2), and high
(157 km2), and very high slope (1212 km2).
4.1.7. Elevation
The Bhavani basin has hilly and flat topographical areas like agri­
cultural lands and domestic areas. The elevation was varied from 161 to
2132 m, with the southern part, and the middle part of the basin having
6
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
flatlands, and some of the north, and western sides of the basin having
found very steep hills. The elevation was directly related to the
groundwater recharge potential zone, higher elevation areas had a steep
slope and the recharge potential was very low (Kou et al., 2016). In the
Niligiri district, most of the area has higher to lower elevation hills. The
higher elevation was recorded in the Kundath region in the Nilgiri dis­
trict and the lower elevation was absorbed on the southern side of the
basin. The elevation was categorized into five classes, which was shown
in Fig. 3g.
4.1.8. Soil texture
Based on the soil type the groundwater potential was varying place
to place (Aykut, 2021). Soil is a media wherein under standard condi­
tions macro and micropores are filled up and further addition of water
will add up to the groundwater aquifer. In the north and western parts of
the basin, 32 percent clay covered 1552 km2 is shown in Fig. 3h. The 21
percent of clay loam soil was spread in the middle portion of the basin
(782 km2). The fine texture soil has low permeability and low infiltra­
tion capacity compared to the coarse texture soil based on the ground­
water recharge also decreasing. Sandy loam (119 km2) and sandy clay
loam (728 km2) soil were located in the eastern part of the basin. The
mixture of sand soil particles has high groundwater potential because
the infiltration was rate comparatively high. Followed by the middle of
the basin sand soil (106 km2) was located near the Bhavanisagar dam
and some of the streams. The agriculture areas have loam (313 km2) and
fine loam (457 km2) soil covered in the southern part of the Bhavani
basin.
4.1.9. Rainfall
There is 24 rain gauge station that absorbed a particular year’s
rainfall distribution were shown in Fig. 3i. The Upper Bhavai, Mettu­
ranges from 1600 to 2700 mm, and those areas are less concentrated in
the groundwater recharge potential. Those areas have very steep slope
lands because the infiltration was less runoff will be more. The Eastern
part and middle of the Bhavanisagar rain gauge station observed lower
rainfall. The lower rainfall region has groundwater potential and also
lowers those areas that need artificial recharge structures for increasing
the groundwater table (Kouser et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2021).
4.1.10. Groundwater level
The groundwater was more related to delineating the groundwater
potential zone for the Bhavani river basin. The seasonal rainfall changes
directly affect groundwater potential for different parts of the basin
(Chaitanya et al., 2021; Pande et al., 2021). The 96 observation well
groundwater was collected from the year 1991–2019. The annual
groundwater changes in the study area vary from 2 to 35 m, duplicated
in Fig. 3j. A higher depth of groundwater level (19–35 m) was observed
in the southern part of the basin and it’s less favorable to GWPZ. The
higher depth of groundwater indicates very low recharge potential
availability and the lower depth (bgl) of groundwater indicates higher
recharge potential availability. Further, the lower level of groundwater
was observed middle part of the basin as a more suitable site for
extracting groundwater for agriculture and other purposes.
4.2. Analytical hierarchical process (AHP)
Saaty (1994) introduced an AHP to identify the groundwater po­
tential zone based on the mathematical system and different thematic
layers were prepared to involve the Multi-Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM). The AHP-based pairwise comparison matrix was used to give
weightage value for each parameter, and priority-based individual
weightage was given to the sub-parameters (Bera et al., 2020; Dar et al.,
2020; Saha et al., 2019). All the thematic maps were in direct contact
with the calculating groundwater potential zones for the study area.
Each parameter was allotted a scale value of 1–9, the value 1 indicated
R. Ravichandran et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806

Table 1 Eq. (3) and (4).

Fundamental scale for pairwise comparison (Saaty et al., 1980).
λmax − n
Scale Definition Scale Definition CI = (3)
n− 1
importance importance

1 Equal importance 7 Demonstrated importance CI

3 Weak importance 9 Absolute importance
of one over another
5 Essential or strong 2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
importance between the two adjacent
judgments
equal importance for all parameters and the value 9 indicated absolute
importance for the parameters given in Table 1. For applying scale
weight for each parameter value is given in Table 2.
The AHP method was used to calculate the geometric mean value for
each parameter, the value ranges from 0 to 1. The scale weight was
calculated using a sum of total vale for the individual parameters. For
calculating the geometric mean value pairwise comparison matrix was
used and the total scale weight was divided into the number of a
parameter used for the identification of the potential zone (Kou et al.,
2016). The pairwise comparison was duplicated in Table 3 and the
geometric equation was shown in Eq. (1). Moakher (2005) adopted the
normalized weight method to calculate normalized weight using Eq. (2)
and the equation was derived from assigned weightage for individual
parameters divided by the geometric mean of the parameters.
Geometric mean =
Total scale weight
Total number of parameters
Assigned weight of individual parameter
Normalized Weight =
Geometric mean
After calculating normalized weight for each thematic layer the
weightage was given to the ten parameters through the attribute table
using GIS software are shown in Table 4. Further, to validate the
normalized weight value consistency index and consistency ratio were
calculated. The consistency ratio value <0.1 indicates the applied scale
value used for groundwater potential recharge zone analysis. The con­
sistency index and consistency ratio calculating equation were given in
CR = (4)
CR
where, λmax is the sum of individual parameter weightage divided by the
geometric mean of the individual parameter, n is the number of pa­
rameters, and the CR value was given in Table 5. The computation of the
consistency ratio was 0.0059 < 0.1 and it is shown in Table 6. The
calculated values are more relevant to the weighting assigned for each
parameter.
The thematic layers were multiplied by the normalized weight value
of the individual thematic layer and the geometric mean value of the
overall parameter using the raster calculator in the GIS system and the
equation was given in Eq. (5). Finally multiplied raster layers were
combined using the union tool in the Arc GIS software. Then the final
output map was categorized based on the potential zone availability of
the study area.
GWPZ = G1 G2 + GM1 GM2 + Lulc1 Lulc2 + DD1 DD2 + LD1 LD2 + Sl1 Sl2
+ S1 S2 + E1 E2 + R1 R2 + Gw1 Gw2
(5)
where, GWPZ indicates groundwater potential zone, G - Geology, GM-
(1) Geomorphology, Lulc- Land use land cover, DD- Drainage Density, LD-
Lineament Density, Sl- Slope, S-Soil, E− Elevation, R- Rainfall, and Gw-
Grondwwater level. Further, 1 and 2 indicate the rank and weight of
(2) each thematic layer. Further, the groundwater potential zone was
categorized based on the map value. There are 46 firka available in the
both upper and lower Bhavani basin. Based on the availability of
groundwater data was compared to PWD data and the firka were cate­
gorized into safe, semi-critical, critical, and overexploited.
4.3. 3. Identification of groundwater potential zones (GWPZ)
There are ten thematic maps were prepared to identify the recharge

Table 2
Applying scale weight for different thematic layers.
Parameters Geomorphology DD LD Slope Geology LULC Soil Rainfall Elevation Groundwater Weight

Geomorphology 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 2 2 3 42
DD 1/2 1 2 3 4 8 7 7 5 7 40
LD 1/3 1/2 1 3 7 7 5 5 9 2 40
Slope 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 5 5 7 9 1 3 32
Geology 1/7 1/4 1/7 1/5 1 7 4 5 3 5 26
LULC 1/8 1/8 1/7 1/5 1/7 1 5 7 5 7 26
Soil 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/4 1/5 1 5 2 3 12
Rainfall 1/2 1/7 1/5 1/9 1/5 1/7 1/5 1 6 9 17
Elevation 1/2 1/5 1/9 1 1/3 1/5 1/2 1/6 1 3 7
Groundwater 1/3 1/7 1/2 1/3 1/5 1/7 1/3 1/9 1/3 1 3

Table 3
Geometric mean and normalized weight calculation using AHP pairwise comparison matrix.
Parameters GM DD LD Slope Geology LULC Soil Rainfall Elevation GW Weight Total Geometric Mean Normalized
value (Wi) weight

Geomorphology 0.27 0.40 0.39 0.36 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.05 0.06 0.07 2.35 0.27 0.2352 0.0235
DD 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.16 1.72 0.13 0.1720 0.0172
LD 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.21 0.28 0.22 0.13 0.12 0.26 0.05 1.59 0.09 0.1591 0.0159
Slope 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.03 0.07 1.09 0.05 0.1088 0.0109
Geology 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.22 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.81 0.04 0.0809 0.0081
LULC 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.78 0.03 0.0776 0.0078
Soil 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.39 0.03 0.0385 0.0039
Rainfall 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.21 0.62 0.13 0.0622 0.0062
Elevation 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.13 0.0395 0.0039
Groundwater 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.09 0.0263 0.0026

7
R. Ravichandran et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806

Table 4
Weightage calculation for each thematic layer parameter and sub parameter.
S. No Parameter Factors Category Geometric mean Rank Overall

1. Geomorphology Bajada High 23.52 8 188.16

Dam and Reservoir High 9 211.68
Flood Plain Very High 10 235.2
Highly Dissected Hills and Valleys Poor 1 23.52
Low Dissected Hills and Valleys Poor 1 23.52
Moderately Dissected Hills and Valleys Poor 1 23.52
Moderately Dissected Plateau Poor 3 70.56
Pediment Pediplain Complex High 7 164.64
Quarry and Mine Dump Poor 1 23.52
Waterbodies-Other High 9 211.68
Waterbody - River High 9 211.68
2. Geology Charnockite High 8.09 9 72.81
Coasta & Glacial Sediments Moderate 7 56.63
Granite/Granodiorite Poor 1 8.09
Laterite Moderate 4 32.36
Migmatite Moderate 4 32.36
Peninsular Gneissic Complex High 8 64.72
Satyamangalam Moderate 5 40.45
Sittampundi-Mettupalaiyam Complex Poor 2 16.18
3. LULC Deciduous Broadleaf Forest Poor 7.76 2 15.52
Crop land High 8 62.08
Built-up Land Poor 1 7.76
Mixed Forests Moderate 6 46.56
Shrubland High 7 54.32
Barren land Moderate 6 46.56
Fallow land Moderate 5 38.8
Wasteland Moderate 4 31.04
Water bodies High 9 69.84
Plantations High 8 62.08
Grassland High 7 54.32
Evergreen Broad leaf Forest Moderate 6 46.56
4. Soil Clay Poor 3.85 2 7.7
Clay Loam Poor 2 7.7
Fine Clay Poor 3 11.55
Fine Loamy Moderate 6 23.1
Loam High 8 30.8
Sandy clay Loam Moderate 6 23.1
Sandy Loam High 9 34.65
Water Body Very High 10 38.5
5. Drainage density (km/km2) 0–16.14 High 17.2 9 154.8
16.15–34.72 High 8 137.6
34.73–53.31 Moderate 6 103.2
53.32–73.36 Poor 3 51.6
73.37–124.71 Poor 1 17.2
6. Lineanment density (km/km2) 0–6.13 Poor 15.91 2 31.82
6.14–16.87 Poor 3 47.73
16.88–27.60 Moderate 5 79.55
27.61–40.38 High 7 111.37
40.39–65.17 High 9 143.19
7. Slope (degree) 0–1 Very High 10.88 10 108.8
1–2 High 8 87.04
2–3 Moderate 5 54.4
3–4 Poor 3 32.64
>5 Poor 1 10.88
8. Rainfall (mm) 100–800 Moderate 6.22 4 24.88
800–1200 Moderate 6 37.32
1200–1500 High 7 43.54
1500–1900 High 9 55.98
1900–2700 Very High 10 62.2
9. Elevation (m) 161–653.8 High 3.95 9 35.55
653.8–1146.6 High 7 27.65
1146.6–1639.4 Moderate 5 19.75
1639.4–2132.2 Moderate 4 15.8
2132.2–2625 Poor 1 3.95
10. Groundwater level (m) 1.56–6.17 Very High 2.63 10 26.3
6.18–10.41 High 9 23.67
10.42–14.04 High 7 18.41
14.05–19.37 Moderate 4 10.52
19.38–32.46 Poor 2 5.26

potential for the study area. The more depth of soil layer with high observed in the middle part of the study area 1599 km2 and it covered
permeability, and agricultural land with moderate slope areas having 38% of the study area. The high potential zones were absorbed south­
suitable for groundwater recharge (Dhayachandhran & Jothilakshmi, west, northwest, and west side of the basin covering an area of 1430 km2
2020; Kadam et al., 2021; Rawat et al., 2018). A very high potential was (34%). Further, the moderate zone was identified as northeast,

8
R. Ravichandran et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806

Table 5
Consistency indices of randomly generated reciprocal matrices.
Order of the matrix

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
CR value 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48

Table 6
Consistency ratio calculation.
Parameters GM DD LD Slope Geology LULC Soil Rainfall Elevation GW Sum total Sum/wi

Geomorphology 0.0628 0.0682 0.0626 0.0389 0.0225 0.0196 0.0089 0.0030 0.0023 0.0018 0.2906 1.2353
DD 0.0314 0.0341 0.0417 0.0233 0.0129 0.0073 0.0069 0.0105 0.0057 0.0043 0.1782 1.0365
LD 0.0209 0.0170 0.0209 0.0233 0.0225 0.0171 0.0049 0.0075 0.0103 0.0012 0.1459 0.9168
Slope 0.0126 0.0114 0.0070 0.0078 0.0161 0.0122 0.0069 0.0136 0.0011 0.0018 0.0904 0.8315
Geology 0.0090 0.0085 0.0030 0.0016 0.0032 0.0171 0.0039 0.0075 0.0034 0.0031 0.0604 0.7466
LULC 0.0078 0.0114 0.0030 0.0016 0.0005 0.0024 0.0049 0.0105 0.0057 0.0043 0.0522 0.6724
Soil 0.0070 0.0049 0.0042 0.0011 0.0008 0.0005 0.0010 0.0075 0.0023 0.0018 0.0311 0.8063
Rainfall 0.0314 0.0049 0.0042 0.0009 0.0006 0.0003 0.0002 0.0015 0.0069 0.0055 0.0564 0.9071
Elevation 0.0314 0.0068 0.0023 0.0078 0.0011 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0011 0.0018 0.0536 1.3587
Groundwater 0.0209 0.0049 0.0104 0.0026 0.0006 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0413 1.5685
Lamda max 10.0795
Consistency index (CI) 0.0088
Consistency ratio (CR) 0.0059

Fig. 4. Groundwater potential zone for Bhavani river basin.

northwest, and some portion of the southwest side some patches were
Table 7
identified and the covering basin area of 547 km2 (13%). A low potential
Groundwater potential zone classification.
zone was observed western part of the hillside and some portion of the
northwest side coverage area of 421 km2 (10%). Finally, a very low S. Groundwater potential Total area (km2) Percent area (%)
No classification
groundwater potential was observed western part of the hillside and
some small patches were found northern hilly side of the basin a 1. Very high groundwater potential 1599 38
2. High groundwater potential 1430 34
coverage area of 210 km2 (5%) are shown in Fig. 4. Nearly, 71% of the
3. Moderate groundwater potential 547 13
basin area falls under high and very high groundwater recharge po­ 4. Low groundwater potential 421 10
tential zone as shown in Table 7. The remaining 29% of the areas have 5. Very Low groundwater potential 210 5
low groundwater recharge potential zones. The groundwater draft was

9
R. Ravichandran et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806

Table 8
Firka wise categorization of groundwater for Bhavani river basin.
Basin Sub basin Firka wise categorization
Firka name PWD (2011PWD (2011)) PWD (2020) Remark
Bhavani river basin Upper Bhavani river basin Annur (S) Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Alandurai Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Bhavanisar Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir No change
Coonoor Safe Safe No change
Ithalar Safe Semi critical Deteriorated
Karamadai Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Ketti Safe Safe No change
Kilkothagiri Safe Safe No change
Kothagiri Safe Safe No change
Kundah Safe Semi critical Deteriorated
Melur Safe Safe No change
Mettupalayam Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Nedugula Safe Safe No change
Periyanakanpalayam Over exploited Over exploited No change
RF (Bhavanisagar) RF RF No change
Sarkar Samakulam Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Thudalur Over exploited Semi critical Improved
Thuneri Safe Safe No change
Udhagamandalam Safe Safe No change
Lower Bhavani river basin Anthiyar Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Arasur (E) Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Athani (E) Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Avinasi (E) Over exploited Over exploited No change
Bhavani Semi critical Semi critical No change
Bhavanisagar Over exploited Over exploited No change
Burgur Safe Safe No change
Cheyar Over exploited Over exploited No change
Elathur (E) Over exploited Over exploited No change
Erode (N) Over exploited Over exploited No change
Gopichettipalayam Safe Safe No change
Kanjikoli Semi critical Semi critical No change
Kasipalayam Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Kavundhampadi Semi critical Semi critical No change
Kugalur Safe Safe No change
Kunnathar Over exploited Over exploited No change
Kurichi (E) Semi critical Semi critical No change
Kuthiyalathur Semi critical Semi critical No change
Nambiyur Over exploited Over exploited No change
Perumanallur Over exploited Over exploited No change
Perundurai Over exploited Over exploited No change
Punjiaipalliampatti Over exploited Over exploited No change
RF (Anthiyur) RF RF No change
Sathyamangalam Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Siruvalur Semi critical Semi critical No change
Thingalur Semi critical Over exploited Deteriorated
Vaniputhur Safe Semi critical Deteriorated

reduced and feature extraction of groundwater using open/tube well for
agriculture purposes.
4.4. Comparison of firka wise groundwater categorization for Bhavani
river basin
groundwater also raises continuously. With the regular pumping of
groundwater, the firkas were going safe to over-exploited zones. The
high and very high potential zone areas fell under critical and over-
exploited zones. The overall finding was firka wise groundwater
resource assessment of the Bhavani river basin gives a more relevant
result to the identified groundwater potential zone.

The Bhavani basin was categorized into 46 firkas under this 19 firkas
were upper basin and 27 firkas fell under the lower basin as shown in
Fig. 3k. The Bhavani river basin is divided into two sub-basin Upper
Bhavani basin and Lower Bhavani basin as duplicated in Fig. 3l. Based
on the 2011 & 2020 PWD (Public Work Department) the groundwater
was categorized into five classes that were safe, semicritical, critical,
overexploited, and saline. Under the 2020 classification Bhavani basin,
11 firkas fell under the safe zone and followed by 10 firkas that were
semi-critical, and 22 firkas were overexploited. The remaining 3 firkas
were reserved forest (2 firka) and Bhavanisagar reservoir (1 firka) as
shown in Table 8 and graphically represented in Fig. 5. Further, PWD
has assessed in the 2011 assessment that 14 firkas fell the safe zone and
only 12 firkas fell overexploited zones. The groundwater potential was
decreased compared to the previous report published by the . In the
potential recharge map compared to the firka-wise categorization map,
the overexploited areas have good recharge potential because the
4.5. Validation of groundwater level
There are 97 observation wells and 42 years of data collected for the
pre-monsoon and post-monsoon periods. The coefficient of determina­
tion (R2) value was determined for the random well groundwater level
was duplicated in Fig. 6. The observed data indicates that pre-monsoon
has a lower groundwater level compared to the post-monsoon ground­
water level. The identified groundwater potential zone compare to the
observed groundwater level, the result was more relevant to the GIS-
based identified potential zone. The post-monsoon has more northeast
monsoon rainfall in the study area and the groundwater level also in­
creases dueto recharge. The calculated R2 value for pre and post-
monsoon was 0.90 and 0.83. Overall, the GWPZ was more useful for
planning water management practices in the feature development.

10
R. Ravichandran et al.
Fig. 5. Firka wise groundwater categorization.
Fig. 6. Pre-monsoon (left) and post-monsoon (right) groundwater level R2 value for random observation well.
5. Conclusions
Previously the Bhavani river basin had safe conditions in most of the
areas, and the depletion of groundwater mostly affects agriculture, do­
mestic, industries, etc. With the recent decads increasing seasonal
rainfall the recharge of groundwater level also increasing at the same
time extraction of groundwater increasing. From the GWPZ map, the
East and middle portions of the Bhavani basin had very good GWPZ
(38%) and more extraction of groundwater the areas were over-
exploited. The western part of the basin has a more hilly region
because of that the groundwater potential is very low (5%). Further, the
basin was divided into a small unit of 46 firkas. The groundwater po­
tential zone was compared with the PWD groundwater categorization
data for 2011 and 2020. From the firka wise assessment, one firkas are
improved, 14 firkas have deteriorated, and 28 firkas are in the same
condition. For validating the groundwater level pre and post-monsoon
groundwater data was collected and validated. The validated result
11
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
also gives acceptable results. This research output gives the Bhavani
basin potential recharge zone were more helpful to the increasing
groundwater table. The groundwater is used by farmers to cultivate the
land, the domestic purpose for drinking, for groundwater extraction
industries, geoscience researchers, agricultural engineers to construct
recharge structures, and decision-makers for efficient water resources
planning and management.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to USGS-Earth Explorer, PWD, and SOI for
R. Ravichandran et al.
providing the necessary data sources.
References
Aggarwal, M., Saravanan, S., Jennifer, J.J., Abijith, D., 2019. Delineation of groundwater
potential zones for hard rock region in Karnataka using AHP and GIS : IEREK
interdisciplinary series for sustainable delineation of groundwater potential zones
for hard rock region in Karnataka using AHP and GIS. March, 29–30. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-01440-7.
Ahmad, I., Dar, M.A., Teka, A.H., Teshome, M., Andualem, T.G., Teshome, A., Shafi, T.,
2020. GIS and fuzzy logic techniques-based demarcation of groundwater potential
zones: a case study from Jemma River basin, Ethiopia. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 169
(September 2019), 103860 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.103860.
Ahmed, A., Ranasinghe-Arachchilage, C., Alrajhi, A., Hewa, G., 2021. Comparison of
multicriteria decision-making techniques for groundwater recharge potential
zonation: case study of the willochra basin, south Australia. Water (Switzerland) 13
(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/w13040525.
Alikhanov, B., Juliev, M., Alikhanova, S., Mondal, I., 2021. Assessment of influencing
factor method for delineation of groundwater potential zones with geospatial
techniques. Case study of Bostanlik district, Uzbekistan. Groundwater Sustain. Dev.
12 (December 2020), 100548 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2021.100548.
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerda, A., Lombardo, L., Rodrigo-Comino, J., 2019. GIS-based
groundwater potential mapping in Shahroud plain, Iran. A comparison among
statistical (bivariate and multivariate), data mining and MCDM approaches. Sci.
Total Environ. 658, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.115.
Arulbalaji, P., Padmalal, D., Sreelash, K., 2019. GIS and AHP techniques based
delineation of groundwater potential zones: a case study from southern western
Ghats, India. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38567-x.
Arunbose, S., Srinivas, Y., Rajkumar, S., Nair, N.C., Kaliraj, S., 2021. Remote sensing, GIS
and AHP techniques based investigation of groundwater potential zones in the
Karumeniyar river basin, Tamil Nadu, southern India. Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 14
(April 2020), 100586 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2021.100586.
Aykut, T., 2021. Determination of groundwater potential zones using geographical
information systems (GIS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) between Edirne-
Kalkansogut (northwestern Turkey). Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 12 (November
2020), 100545 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2021.100545.
Banerjee, K., Kumar, M.B.S., Tilak, L.N., 2021. Materials today : proceedings delineation
of potential groundwater zones using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for
Gautham Buddh Nagar district , Uttar Pradesh , India. Mater. Today Proc. 44,
4976–4983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.917.
Bera, A., Mukhopadhyay, B.P., Barua, S., 2020. Delineation of groundwater potential
zones in Karha river basin, Maharashtra, India, using AHP and geospatial techniques.
Arabian J. Geosci. 13 (15) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05702-2.
Bhattacharya, S., Das, S., Das, S., Kalashetty, M., Warghat, S.R., 2021. An integrated
approach for mapping groundwater potential applying geospatial and MIF
techniques in the semiarid region. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23 (1), 495–510. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00593-5.
Bhatu, H., 2020. Study on groundwater potential using MODFLOW for Kalipat village.
Indian J. Pure Appl Biosci. 8 (3), 539–544. https://doi.org/10.18782/2582-
2845.8110.
Chaitanya, J.R., Sunil, B.P., Sunil, A.K., Mukund, D.G., 2021. Exploration of groundwater
potential zones using analytical hierarchical process (AHP) approach in the Godavari
river basin of Maharashtra in India. Appl. Water Sci. 11 (12), 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13201-021-01518-x.
Dar, T., Rai, N., Bhat, A., 2020. Delineation of potential groundwater recharge zones
using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Geol. Ecol. Landscapes 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1080/24749508.2020.1726562, 00(00).
Dhayachandhran, K.S., Jothilakshmi, M., 2020. Quality assessment of ground water
along the banks of Adyar river using GIS. Mater. Today Proc. 45 (xxxx), 6234–6241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.587.
CGWB, 2017. http://cgwb.gov.in/GW-Assessment/GWRA-2017-National-Compilation.
pdf.
FAO, 2009. https://www.fao.org/3/i0680e/i0680e.pdf.
Gnanachandrasamy, G., Zhou, Y., Bagyaraj, M., Venkatramanan, S., Ramkumar, T.,
Wang, S., 2018. Remote sensing and GIS based groundwater potential zone mapping
in Ariyalur district, Tamil Nadu. J. Geol. Soc. India 92 (4), 484–490. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12594-018-1046-z.
Goitsemang, T., Das, D.M., Raul, S.K., Subudhi, C.R., Panigrahi, B., 2020. Correction to :
assessment of groundwater potential in the Kalahandi district of Odisha (India) using
remote sensing , geographic information system and analytical hierarchy process.
J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 48 (12), 1755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-020-
01247-9.
Halder, S., Roy, M.B., Roy, P.K., 2020. Fuzzy logic algorithm based analytic hierarchy
process for delineation of groundwater potential zones in complex topography.
Arabian J. Geosci. 13 (13), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05525-1.
Jesiya, N.P., Gopinath, G., 2020. A fuzzy based MCDM–GIS framework to evaluate
groundwater potential index for sustainable groundwater management - a case study
in an urban-periurban ensemble, southern India. Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 11
(August), 100466 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100466.
Kadam, A., Wagh, V., Patil, S., Umrikar, B., Sankhua, R., Jacobs, J., 2021. Seasonal
variation in groundwater quality and beneficial use for drinking, irrigation, and
industrial purposes from Deccan Basaltic Region, Western India. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Control Ser. 28 (20), 26082–26104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12115-x.
Kaliraj, S., Chandrasekar, N., Magesh, N.S., 2014. Identification of potential groundwater
recharge zones in Vaigai upper basin, Tamil Nadu, using GIS-based analytical
12
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
hierarchical process (AHP) technique. Arabian J. Geosci. 7 (4), 1385–1401. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-0849-x.
Khan, A., Govil, H., Taloor, A.K., Kumar, G., 2020. Identification of artificial
groundwater recharge sites in parts of Yamuna river basin India based on remote
sensing and geographical information system. Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 11 (May),
100415 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100415.
Kolandhavel, P., Ramamoorthy, S., 2019. Investigation of Groundwater Potential Zones
in NandiAru Sub Basin , Tamilnadu , India — an Integrated Geophysical and
Geoinformatics Approach.
Kou, G., Ergu, D., Lin, C., Chen, Y., 2016. Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria
decision making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 22 (5), 738–765. https://doi.org/
10.3846/20294913.2016.1210694.
Kouser, B., Bala, A., Verma, O., Prashanth, M., Khosla, A., Ahmad, R., 2022.
Hydrochemistry for the Assessment of Groundwater Quality in the Kathua Region ,
Jammu and Kashmir , India. Applied Water Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13201-022-01673-9.
Kumar, M., Singh, P., Singh, P., Region, C., 2021. Fuzzy AHP based GIS and remote
sensing techniques for the groundwater potential zonation for Bundelkhand Craton
Region , India Fuzzy AHP based GIS and remote sensing techniques for. Geocarto Int.
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2021.1946170, 0(0).
Malik, A., Bhagwat, A., 2021. Modelling groundwater level fluctuations in urban areas
using artificial neural network. Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 12 (July), 100484
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100484.
Mallick, J., Khan, R.A., Ahmed, M., Alqadhi, S.D., Alsubih, M., Falqi, I., Hasan, M.A.,
2019. Modeling groundwater potential zone in a semi-arid region of Aseer using
fuzzy-AHP and geoinformation techniques. Water 11 (12), 2656. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w11122656.
Moakher, M., 2005. A differential geometric approach to the geometric mean of
symmetric positive-definite matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 26 (3), 735–747.
https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479803436937.
Mondal, V.A.K.N.C., 2020. Identification of groundwater potential zones using RS , GIS
and AHP techniques : a case study in a part of Deccan volcanic province (DVP),
Maharashtra , India. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-
019-01086-3.
Muniraj, K., 2019. Delineating the groundwater potential zone in tirunelveli taluk , south
Tamil Nadu , India , using remote sensing , geographical information system (GIS)
and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) techniques. In: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, India Section A: Physical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40010-019-00608-5.
Pal, S., Kundu, S., Mahato, S., 2020. Groundwater potential zones for sustainable
management plans in a river basin of India and Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 257,
120311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120311.
Pande, C.B., Moharir, K.N., Panneerselvam, B., Kumar, S., 2021. Delineation of
groundwater potential zones for sustainable development and planning using
analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and MIF techniques. Appl. Water Sci. 11 (12),
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01522-1.
Pham, B.T., Jaafari, A., Prakash, I., Singh, S.K., Quoc, N.K., Bui, D.T., 2019. Hybrid
computational intelligence models for groundwater potential mapping. Catena 182
(May), 104101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104101.
Pradhan, A.M.S., Kim, Y.T., Shrestha, S., Huynh, T.C., Nguyen, B.P., 2021. Application of
deep neural network to capture groundwater potential zone in mountainous terrain,
Nepal Himalaya. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (15), 18501–18517. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10646-x.
PWD, 2011. https://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/go/pwd_e_177_2011.pdf.
(Accessed 1 November 2011).
PWD, 2020. http://portal.mhrdnats.gov.in/sites/default/files/file_upload/PWD_2020-
21_Notification.pdf. (Accessed 21 June 2020).
Rawat, K.S., Tripathi, V.K., Singh, S.K., 2018. Groundwater quality evaluation using
numerical indices: a case study (Delhi, India). Sustain. Water Res. Manag. 4 (4),
875–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0181-9.
Razandi, Y., Pourghasemi, H.R., Neisani, N.S., Rahmati, O., 2015. Application of
analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and certainty factor models for
groundwater potential mapping using GIS. Eaeth Sci. Inf. 8 (4), 867–883. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12145-015-0220-8.
Rehman, H.U., Ahmad, Z., Ashraf, A., Ali, S.S., 2019. Predicting groundwater potential
zones in Upper Thal Doab, Indus Basin through integrated use of RS and GIS
techniques and groundwater flow modeling. Arabian J. Geosci. 12 (20), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4783-4.
Roy, S., Hazra, S., Chanda, A., Das, S., 2020. Assessment of groundwater potential zones
using multi-criteria decision-making technique: a micro-level case study from red
and lateritic zone (RLZ) of West Bengal, India. Sustain. Water Res. Manag. 6 (1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-020-00373-z.
Saaty, T., et al., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. In
Kobe, Japan 1–69.
Saaty, T.L, 1994. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 6,
19–43. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19.
Saha, A., Patil, M., Karwariya, S., Evaluation, W., 2019. IDENTIFICATION OF
POTENTIAL SITES FOR WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES USING GEOSPATIAL
TECHNIQUES AND MULTI-CRITERIA IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES USING GEOSPATIAL TECHNIQUES AND
MULTI-CRITERIA. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-5-329-2018. March.
Saranya, T., Saravanan, S., 2020. Groundwater potential zone mapping using analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) and GIS for Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu, India.
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 6 (2), 1105–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-
00744-7.
R. Ravichandran et al.
Saravanan, S., Saranya, T., 2020. Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zone Using
Analytical Hierarchy Process and GIS for Gundihalla Watershed. Karnataka, India.
Saravanan, S., Saranya, T., Jennifer, J.J., Singh, L., Selvaraj, A., Abijith, D., 2020.
Delineation of groundwater potential zone using analytical hierarchy process and
GIS for Gundihalla watershed, Karnataka, India. Arabian J. Geosci. 13 (15) https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05712-0, 0–17.
Shao, Z., Huq, M.E., Cai, B., Altan, O., Li, Y., 2020. Integrated remote sensing and GIS
approach using Fuzzy-AHP to delineate and identify groundwater potential zones in
13
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18 (2022) 100806
semi-arid Shanxi Province, China. Environ. Model. Software 134, 104868. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104868.
Teshome, A., Halefom, A., Ahmad, I., Teshome, M., 2020. Fuzzy Logic Techniques and
GIS-Based Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones: a Case Study of Anger River
Basin, Ethiopia. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 0123456789. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-01035-x.
Xu, G., Su, X., Zhang, Y., You, B., 2021. Identifying potential sites for artificial recharge
in the plain area of the Daqing river catchment using GIS-based multi-criteria
analysis. Sustainability 13 (7), 3978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073978.