© 2022 The Authors Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1959 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2022.

094

A multi-criteria approach of assessing groundwater potential, recharge and flow

in the transboundary Tuli Karoo Basin

Primrose C. Tinonetsanaa,*, Webster Gumindoga a and Donald T. Rwasokab

a
Department of Construction and Civil Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, Box MP 167 Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
b
Upper Manyame Subcatchment Council, Box 1892, Harare, Zimbabwe
*Corresponding author. E-mail: primtino@gmail.com

WG, 0000-0001-8530-7383

ABSTRACT

Quantitative estimates of amount of groundwater resources are required in the transboundary Tuli Karoo Basin to better
manage and promote sustainable conjunctive use of the aquifer. Unfortunately, such important data and information are lack-
ing. The aim of this study was to map groundwater potential zones and model groundwater recharge as well as groundwater
flow in the Tuli Karoo Basin (12,164 km2) using geospatial techniques. To delineate groundwater potential zones, nine thematic
maps of groundwater conditioning factors were computed and weighted using Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). To
validate the groundwater potential map, a Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. Groundwater recharge and groundwater flow
direction were estimated in a coupled Geographic Information System (GIS) and modelling environment using the soil–
water–balance model (SWB) and British Geological Survey (BGS) groundwater tool, respectively. Results for groundwater poten-
tial mapping showed that the area is dominated by high ground water potential which covers about 57.8% (6,915.1 km2) of the
basin. The Kruskal–Wallis test showed that the median values of the borehole yields vary significantly between the different
groundwater potential zone classes (P-value ,0.0001). Estimated groundwater recharge using SWB model showed that the
maximum annual potential recharge for the Tuli Karoo Basin was 13.2 mm/year for the 10-year period from 2010 to 2020.
Results from the BGS tool for groundwater flow show that the dominant groundwater flow direction is southeast. The results
showed that there is no link between groundwater flow direction and surface water flow direction. This study is relevant in
water development policy, water-related development aid, community planning and technical decision making for hydrogeol-
ogists, catchment managers, water planners and non-specialists alike.

Key words: AHP, conditioning factors, geospatial techniques, hydrogeology, soil–water balance

HIGHLIGHTS

• GIS and remote sensing can be used to map groundwater potential zones.
• Tuli Karoo basin has high groundwater potential.
• Study is relevant for water development policy, water-related development aid, community planning and technical decision
making for hydrogeologists, catchment managers, water planners and non-specialists alike.
• More research is needed using field based data.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying,
adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1960

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION
The current increasing demand for water to satisfy cultural, societal and economic needs in the world can be ful-
filled by either groundwater or surface water sources. However, comparing the two, groundwater is the wider
distributed and relatively safer (Guppy et al. 2018). Groundwater, as a key component of the global water
cycle, is an important resource of fresh water supply for agricultural, industrial, and domestic development in
many parts of the world (Frappart & Ramillien 2018), particularly in arid and semi-arid areas (Arshad et al.
2020). Uses of groundwater in irrigation accounts for 43% of the total consumptive irrigation water use world-
wide (Frappart & Ramillien 2018; Masocha et al. 2020). Groundwater also provides 50% of the world’s
drinking water and 40% of the world’s industrial water (UNESCO 2015; Rajmohan et al. 2021). It is the primary
source of drinking water for more than 1.5 billion people around the world (Frappart & Ramillien 2018). More-
over, groundwater is also used in desalination for domestic and industrial purposes (Panagopoulos 2021, 2020).
In Africa, groundwater is the major source of drinking water and its use for irrigation is forecast to increase
substantially to combat food insecurity, particularly in northern and southern Africa (Calow et al. 2010). In
southern Africa about 62% of the population depend on groundwater some of which are transboundary catch-
ments. On the mainland of Africa, 72 transboundary aquifers (TBAs) have been identified, underlying 40% of
the continent off which 33% of the population lives on TBAs (Nijsten et al. 2018). Of the 72 TBAs in Africa,
14 are in the Southern African Development Community region (SADC) (Davies et al. 2012). An assessment
was done by Davies et al. (2012) to determine the degree to which these 14 transboundary aquifers could
pose a threat to international relationships and would benefit from shared management through international
cooperation. The Tuli Karoo Basin was one of the two aquifers that were identified to benefit from collaborative
inter-sate management.
The exploration of groundwater is very much necessary for better development of groundwater resources and
improvement of techniques for its investigation (Basavarajappa et al. 2015). Nagarajan & Singh (2009), states
that deprived knowledge about groundwater, because of its hidden nature and its occurrence in complex subsur-
face formations, has been and is still a big obstacle to the efficient management of this important resource. To
achieve sustainability on groundwater resources, there is need for a serious protection and monitoring. There
are various ways of determining groundwater potential which includes geological and geophysical methods,
However, these methods are considered to be time consuming and they require heavy and expensive equipment.
Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing as well as hydrogeological modelling has been used as
powerful tools for monitoring and predicting the behaviour of groundwater potential in many parts of the world.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1961

Studies have been done to delineate groundwater potential zones by a number of researchers in different parts of
the world (Magesh et al. 2012; Duan et al. 2016; Pinto et al. 2017; Shamuyarira 2017; Andualem & Demeke
2019; Ajay Kumar et al. 2020; Arshad et al. 2020). In Zimbabwe, a research study was done by Chikodzi &
Mutowo (2014) to model the groundwater potential using Geographical Information System. However, the
study was done on a larger scale and hence it provides results with a course resolution. Moreover, the study
was done at a national level hence not covering the other parts of the transboundary Tuli Karoo Basin.
Groundwater recharge is an important component in the completion of the water balance but it is very difficult
to quantify (Day & Simpkins 2018; Lekula & Lubczynski 2019). Understanding the spatial and temporal vari-
ation of groundwater recharge helps water managers achieve a better understanding of water availability and
aquifer stress (Mushtaha et al. 2019). When abstraction levels exceed the rate of groundwater recharge, ground-
water mining results (Custodio et al. 2016). This happened in southeastern peninsular Spain where groundwater
was said to have been depleted to such an extent that the aquifer reserves needed more than 50 years to recover
(Custodio et al. 2016). Groundwater recharge and groundwater flow models have become increasingly popular
nowadays in the management, monitoring, assessing and forecasting of groundwater resources worldwide
(Lekula et al. 2018; Smith & Berg 2020). There are some models that can be used to model groundwater
recharge, for instance, MODFLOW, MIKESHE, pyEARTH and soil–water–balance (SWB) model (Smith &
Berg 2020). SWB model estimates recharge based on the modified Thornthwaite–Mather soil–water accounting
method (Thornthwaite & Mather 1957). However, some of these models cannot be used in areas that have chal-
lenges of inaccessibility of historical data like the Tuli Karoo Basin. This study therefore aimed at using
hydrogeological modelling as well as GIS and remote sensing in assessing the groundwater resource in the trans-
boundary Tuli Karoo Basin making use of readily available data.
The Tuli Karoo Basin lies in a semi-arid region with high water stress and is characterised by low surface runoff
and high moisture deficits (Davies et al. 2012). There is little or no reliable and current quantitative information
on groundwater resources on the Zimbabwean side of the Tuli Karoo Basin. One of the major constraints in
attempting to understand the Tuli Karoo Basin is that there are often limitations on availability of groundwater
data. Quantitative, spatially explicit information on groundwater in the Tuli Karoo Basin is required to character-
ize this resource in ways that can usefully inform strategies to adapt to growing water demand associated not only
with population growth but also climate variability and change. The few past studies which have been done in the
system do not provide information on the occurrence, the quantity of groundwater recharge as well as ground-
water flow direction (Chikodzi 2013; Gomo & Vermeulen 2017; Ebrahim et al. 2019). In this regard, key
quantitative information outlining the dimensions of the groundwater resources to date remains unresolved.
This project seeks to address this significant knowledge gap by developing quantitative maps of groundwater
potential zones as well as modelling groundwater recharge and groundwater flow direction in the Tuli Karoo
Basin.
The objectives of the study were to (i) to delineate groundwater potential zones in the Tuli Karoo Basin using
GIS and remote sensing, (ii) to determine the distribution of groundwater recharge in the Tuli Karoo Basin as
well as to determine the direction of groundwater flow in the Tuli Karoo Basin. This study is relevant to water
development policy, water-related development aid, community planning and technical decision making for
hydrogeologists, catchment managers, water planners and non-specialists alike. Produced maps for groundwater
potential zones can be used by institutes like Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), Environmental
Management Agency (EMA) and SADC Groundwater Management Institute (SADC GMI) for development,
management as well as decision making. Moreover, this research is also important as climate change is reducing
availability of surface water due to increased evaporative demand and as such groundwater will become more
significant in dry areas.

2. STUDY AREA LOCATION

Tuli Karoo Basin (Figure 1) is situated in the Limpopo River Basin and is a transboundary basin that straddles
Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The basin has an area of about 12,166 km2, with 56.3% of the area
(6,854 km2) being in Zimbabwe, 34.1% in Botswana (4,147 km2) and 9.6% in South Africa (1,165 km2). It is
located between latitude 28°00 0″E and 31°00 0″E and longitude 21°00 0″S and 23°00 0″S. Six catchments cross
the Tuli Karoo Basin, the largest being Shashe and Mzingwane catchments. There are three administrative dis-
tricts in the Tuli Karoo Basin (alternatively called sub-districts in Botswana, municipalities in South Africa

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1962

Figure 1 | Tuli Karoo Basin and its surrounding areas.

and districts in Zimbabwe) (Ebrahim et al. 2019). These are, Bobirwa (Botswana), Beitbridge (Zimbabwe) and
Musina South Africa). In Zimbabwe, insignificant parts of the aquifer are also located within the Gwanda and
Mwenezi administrative areas. In Botswana, the aquifer covers almost half of the Bobirwa sub-district. In
South Africa, the aquifer area falls entirely within the Musina Local Municipality.
More than 120,000 people stay in the Tuli Karoo Basin and almost half of the population falls within Zim-
babwe. According to Ebrahim et al. (2019), Botswana is the wealthiest on a per capita basis of the three
countries, nationally. Both Botswana and South Africa are middle-income countries with GDP per capita
above US$6,000 per year. The Tuli Karoo Basin covers a number of economic activities in the fields of
mining, agriculture and ecotourism (Masundire et al. 2016). The area contains significant deposits of coal and
other minerals. Commercial irrigation exists in Botswana and South Africa. Communities are also involved in
small-scale agriculture, both rain fed and irrigation, especially in Zimbabwe. Related, livestock is important,
especially in parts of Botswana and Zimbabwe in the Tuli Karoo Basin (Sinthumule 2020).
More than 40% of water in the Tuli Karoo Basin is stored in large dams which are increasing significantly. The
majority of this water is extracted and used (Ebrahim et al. 2019). In the Tuli Karoo Basin, irrigation is the main
water user (.80%), followed by mining (6.5%), environmental flows (5.3%), water supply service comprising
domestic use (2.5%), cattle (0.9%), and industrial use (0.9%), The Tuli Karoo Basin is part of the larger Karoo
Super group and is made up of four types of aquifers. It consists of the sandstone aquifer, overlain by Karoo
basalts and underlain by low permeability mudstones and fine-grained formations (Gomo & Vermeulen 2017).
The aquifer may be confined and semi-confined in some parts of the basin.

3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA ACQUISITIONS

3.1. Preparation of thematic layers
To map the groundwater potential zones in the Tuli Karoo Basin, GIS and remote sensing techniques were used
as recommended by various researchers (Arshad et al. 2020; Dar et al. 2020). The study involves the integration
of nine thematic layers of rainfall, geology, lineament density, drainage density, slope, topographic wetness index,
soil texture, soil type and landuse/landcover were prepared mainly in a GIS environment (Figure 3). The sources
of data used for this study are shown in Table 1. Selection of the thematic layers was based on literature (Andua-
lem & Demeke 2019; Dar et al. 2020). Some of these studies were also found in arid areas just like the Tuli Karoo
Basin (Owolabi et al. 2020).
Soils are an important factor in determining groundwater potential or occurrence due to their major role in
determining infiltration. Soil texture is a key aspect in assessing physical properties of soil and it has a direct
link to the structure, porosity and adhesion (Dar et al. 2020). Soil data (1 km  1 km resolution) were down-
loaded from International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC) world soil information. This was
processed in the GIS environment to prepare a soil texture map. The average weight for soil texture thematic

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1963

Table 1 | Data sources for this study

Data set Description Source

Soil texture 250  250 m resolution ISRIC world soil information. https://www.
isric.org/
Soil type 1 km  1 km resolution http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.
home?uuid ¼ 446ed430-8383-11db-b9b2-
000d939bc5d8
SRTM Digital Shuttle Radar Topography (30  30 m resolution) to SRTM. https://www.usgs.gov/
elevation model determine slope, topographic wetness index and
drainage density.
Processed Prototype landuse/landcover (20 m  20 m resolution) European Space Agency. https://www.esa-
landcover image landcover-cci.org/?q ¼ node/164
Precipitation 1981 to 2020 (5 km  5 km resolution) Climate Hazards Group InfraRed
Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS)
Landsat 8 Landsat 8 image (30  30 m resolution) was USGS Earth explorer
downloaded (four tiles)
Geology https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/apps/
world-maps/
Borehole locations Onsite
Shape files Boundaries, rivers, roads Surveyor general
Modelling extend A raster file (1 km  1 km resolution) showing the Literature (Ebrahim et al. 2019)
aquifer extend. A shape file of the aquifer was
georeferenced and digitized and later on converted
to raster.
Transmissivity A GIS raster layer. Single values for different place in Literature (Ebrahim et al. 2019)
the study area were obtained and then converted to
raster
Groundwater A GIS raster layer (1 km  1 km resolution) of Output GIS raster layer from the SWB model.
recharge spatially distributed recharge values for the study
area from 2010 to 2020

layer was 3.27%. The highest rank was given to soils that have a higher probability of groundwater potential,
that is lithosols, because they are defined as shallow soils which lack a defined horizon and consists of imper-
fectly weathered rock fragments. This then implies that they have high permeability and high infiltration
capacity. The least rank was given to cambic arenosols because they have a lower infiltration rate than litho-
sols. The average weightage given to soil lithology layer was 3.42%.
Drainage density is the total length of all streams or rivers in a drainage basin divided by the total area of the
basin. It expresses the closeness of spacing of stream channels (Arshad et al. 2020). Drainage density plays an
essential role in runoff distribution and infiltration because of its inverse relationship with permeability
(Andualem & Demeke 2019). The less the permeability of a rock, the lesser the percolation of rainfall. This there-
fore shows that drainage density is crucial for the occurrence of groundwater potential since its computations
show important hydrogeologic factors such as infiltration and permeability (Owolabi et al. 2020). To obtain a
drainage density map of the Tuli Karoo Basin, a STRM digital elevation model (30  30 resolution) was used.
DEM hydro-processing was done to extract streams for the study area which were then used for the creation
of the drainage density map.
The topographic wetness index (TWI) also known as the Compound Topographic index presents the spatial
distribution of wetness conditions or area with a tendency of water accumulation in the catchment. It was devel-
oped by Beven & Kirkby (1979). It is commonly used to control hydrological processes and predicts local
variations in water table, and hence important for mapping groundwater potential (Forkuor et al. 2013). The com-
putation of TWI gives the total influence of topographic roughness, foothill on lateral groundwater flow and
hillslope (Owolabi et al. 2020). Areas that have a higher TWI allows us to identify areas that have soil accumu-
lation as well as infiltration potential peculiar to foothills The higher the TWI, the higher the groundwater
potential (Andualem & Demeke 2019). For this study a TWI map was created using a 30  30 m STRM Digital

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1964

Elevation Model. At first, flow direction and flow accumulation were determined using spatial analyst tools. Slope
radians were then calculated using raster calculator Equation (1) (Machiwal et al. 2011):


1:470796
Tan slope  (1)
90

The occurrence and development of groundwater is also determined by landuse/landcover (LULC) (Day &
Simpkins 2018). It controls the rate of infiltration and surface runoff, hence playing a significant role in the devel-
opment of groundwater potential zone map. To add more, the classification of LULC provides crucial
environmental insight into areas of groundwater accumulation based on human and interaction with natural set-
tings (Misi et al. 2018). Dense forest area and agriculture have an excellent capability of recharge and
groundwater storage, while exposed surfaces as well as bare and built-up areas are the least suitable for infiltration
(Arshad et al. 2020). For this study, a prototype LULC was downloaded from the European Space Agency (ESA)
and was processed in a GIS environment. The pre-processed prototype LULC map downloaded from ESA has
nine classes which are shown on the LULC map in Figure 3.
Rainfall distribution is one of the most considered groundwater condition factors (Arshad et al. 2020). It is con-
sidered the major source of recharge hence showing its importance in groundwater potential zone mapping
(Rahmati & Samani 2015). Satellite-based annual rainfall data for 1981 to 2020 were downloaded from the
CHIRPS database. It incorporated 0.05° resolution. Because of the limitation of rain gauge stations, the study
only used two rain gauge stations with rainfall data at daily time step which were cumulated to annual rainfall
to validate the satellite-based rainfall estimates. The two stations used were Mzingwane and Bubi. Geology has
a significant influence on both groundwater and subsurface fluxes and they should be taken into consideration
when mapping groundwater potential zones (Rahmati & Samani 2015). Areas with high permeable subsoil are
favourable for infiltration, hence promoting recharge, while areas with impermeable rocks hinder precipitation.
Because of this, therefore, geology has become one of the factors to be considered for groundwater potential. In
this study, a geology map was downloaded from the Geology of Africa website (https://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/
data/apps/world-maps/, access date:13/12/2020) and it was clipped to the study area in a GIS environment.
Lineaments are geomorphic features that express the zones of weakness or structural displacement of the sur-
face of the Earth (Shebl & Csámer 2021). Lineaments can be identified from satellite imagery by their linear
alignments (Arshad et al. 2020). It is a very important hydrogeological factor in determining groundwater poten-
tial since they provide pathways for the movement of groundwater potential. Their representation of faulting and
fracturing zones increases the rate of secondary porosity and permeability (Dar et al. 2020). This therefore shows
that lineament density influences the potential of groundwater and areas with high lineament density are good for
groundwater potential. A Landsat image (30  30 m) resolution was used to automatically extract lineaments
using an algorithm for multi-stage line detection of Canny edge and contour detection. Contour detection enables
filtering of edge and curves (Owolabi et al. 2020). Line detection enables a four-stage transformation which
includes speculation of maximum error, minimum of length of curves, maximum angle between polylines seg-
ments and the minimum distance between two polylines (Owolabi et al. 2020). A lineament density map was
then created in a GIS environment.
Slope is also one of the principal groundwater potential controlling factor. This is because it controls the down-
ward movement of water into the subsurface (Andualem & Demeke 2019). Slope is directly proportional to
runoff amount and inversely proportional to the infiltration of surface water to groundwater storage. Steep
slopes result in a quick runoff, and greater soil erosion rates with reduced infiltration (Arshad et al. 2020). For
this study, an SRTM digital elevation model (30  30 m resolution) was downloaded from USGS Earth Explorer
(http://glovis.usgs.gov/) and was processed to produce an elevation map of the Tuli Karoo Basin. According to
Andualem & Demeke (2019), gently sloping areas favour the infiltration and recharge of groundwater, while
the steep slopes facilitate surface runoff and therefore relatively less infiltrations. This class was given a weightage
of 6.7%.

3.1.1. Integration of layer by weighted overlay

All the thematic layers were integrated using weighted overlay in order to come up with groundwater potential
zones. An Analytical Hierarchal Process (AHP) (Saaty 2008) was used to calculate weights for each thematic
layer. AHP is a method that is used for decision making in complex systems such as groundwater to identify

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1965

the most influential factors based on expert knowledge. In AHP, a pairwise comparison of different layers is done
(Legesse Kura et al. 2021). This means that the layers were compared in pairs for example lineament density and
geology. A pairwise comparison uses a consistence ratio to check and identify judgement errors. It is important to
determine the consistence ratio for measuring accuracy (Saaty 2008). The recommended consistency ration is
0.10, values greater than that should be re-evaluated (Saaty 2008) the consistency ration was calculated using
the Equation (2) (Owolabi et al. 2020):

CI
CR ¼ (2)
RI

where CI is the consistency index which is the derivation of degree of consistence calculated using Equation (3):

lmax –n
CI ¼ (3)
n1

where:
λmax ¼ is the largest eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison matrix
n ¼ groundwater potential zone factors:

Xn

Pi
lmax ¼ Wi  n (4)
i¼1
Si¼1

where:
Wi ¼ weight for each thematic layer
Pi ¼ priority of the alternative i
RI is Saaty’s ration index or the random consistency index obtained from Saart’s 1 to 9 scale.
The stronger the influence of one factor the greater the relative importance, which results in larger weight (Dar
et al. 2020). A Saaty scale 1 to 9 (Table 2) was used to resolve the relative significance of each thematic layer,
where 1 represents equal importance and 9 represents extreme importance.

Table 2 | Saaty scale

Intensity of
importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate
importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong
importance
9 Extreme importance
Experience and judgement slightly favour one element over another
Experience and judgement strongly favour one element over another
One element is favoured very strongly over another, it dominance is
demonstrated in practice
The evidence favouring one element over another is of the highest possible order
of affirmation

AHP has been used in similar studies of mapping groundwater potential zones (Chikodzi & Mutowo 2014;
Pinto et al. 2017; Arshad et al. 2020; Dar et al. 2020). Expert knowledge from the published literature was
used to prepare the inputs of the groundwater potential map and also to provide a pairwise comparison of the
selected groundwater conditioning factors. This was done based on hydrogeological and climatological charac-
teristics of the study area. In this study, drainage density was given the highest rank of 24.1% followed by
lineament density and rainfall which had 20.7% and 16.8% respectively. The least weightage was given to landuse
and landcover (2.14%). Weights assigned to different groundwater conditioning factors are shown in Figure 2.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1966

Figure 2 | Comparison matrix for groundwater potential zone conditioning factors.

3.1.2. Validation of groundwater potential zone map

For validation of the groundwater potential zone maps, historical borehole yield data were used. The data were
collected from the SADC Groundwater Management Institute (SADC GMI) Groundwater Information Portal
(SADC-GIP) (https://sadc-gip.org/). The data were downloaded, and overlaid with the groundwater potential
map. Values for the groundwater potential map were extracted using borehole yield data in order toto perform
a statistical analysis using Kruskal–Wallis test. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used because the borehole yield
data were not equally distributed among groundwater potential classes, therefore a non-parametric test which
tests the hypothesis of rankings that are the same in different groups was needed. Moreover, for each groundwater
potential zone class, a percentage of boreholes falling under different borehole yield ranges was determined. Gen-
erally, it is expected that most of the boreholes with low borehole yield will fall under areas classified as low
potential zones, while areas with high borehole yields will be found in areas classified as high potential zones
(Forkuor et al. 2013).

3.2. Estimating groundwater recharge using the soil–water–balance model

To estimate groundwater recharge in the Tuli Karoo Basin, two methods were used: rainfall analysis and the SWB
model. The SWB model was used because it is a simple and reliable method for estimating groundwater recharge
which uses readily available data on soil, topography, and land cover, based on simple mass balance calculated at
a daily time step (Westenbroek et al. 2010). This model is based on a code which uses the modified Thornthwaite
and Mather soil–water accounting method (Thornthwaite & Mather 1957) to calculate natural groundwater
recharge as the residual of the water balance using the mass balance Equation (5):

R ¼ P  I þ SNmelt þ DRin þ DRout  ETsm  DS (5)

where: R ¼ recharge, P ¼ gross precipitation, I ¼ interception, SNmelt ¼ snowmelt, DRin ¼ direct runoff into
the grid cell from upslope grid cells, DRout ¼ direct runoff out of the grid cell, ETsm ¼ soil moisture ET, ΔS ¼
changes in soil moisture.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1967

According to Day & Simpkins (2018) the term for soil moisture ET, ETsm, is used to account for evaporative
losses of soil moisture and plant transpiration. Therefore, total ET, ETtot, was computed as shown in Equation (6):

ETtot ¼ I þ ETsm (6)

The model is physically based, deterministic and quasi three dimensional (Smith & Berg 2020). Recharge is
calculated separately for each grid cell in the model domain (Westenbroek et al. 2010). For model inputs, climate
data and landscape characteristics were used to determine sources and sinks of water within each grid cell.
Recharge is calculated as the difference between the change in soil moisture and these sources and sinks.

3.2.1. Model inputs

The SWB model is a simple and reliable method for estimating groundwater recharge. It uses readily available
data on soil, topography, and land cover, based on simple mass balance calculated at a daily time step. GIS
was used in this project to assemble and generate the requisite input grids of the model. The model requires
the user to provide tabular climatological and gridded land surface data in order to calculate a water budget
and a recharge estimate for each grid cell (Table 3).

Table 3 | Model inputs used for the SWB model

Gridded (ARC ASCII) Tabular

Landuse/landcover Soil and landuse properties Look-Up table

Flow direction D8 Climate at a single station
Hydrologic soil group Matrix of soil–water retention for given accumulated potential water loss
Available water capacity

3.3. Determining groundwater flow direction using the BGS tool

Groundwater flow in this study was determined using the British Geological Survey tool for groundwater (BGS).
BGS GIS groundwater consists of a finite-difference groundwater flow model. It simulates groundwater flow
through porous media to generate spatially distributed groundwater heads (Wang et al. 2016). It is solved
using a governing two-dimensional groundwater flow Equation (7):



@ @h @ @h
Tx þ Ty ¼ QA þ QR  R (7)
@x @x @y @y

where: h ¼ the groundwater head, Tx ¼ aquifer transmissivity, Ty ¼ aquifer direction, QA ¼ groundwater

abstraction rate, QR ¼ leakage to/from rivers, R ¼ the amount of groundwater recharge.
The input parameters needed to run this model are modelling extent, transmissivity, rivers shape file as well as
a digital elevation model. The data sources for the groundwater flow map are shown in Table 1.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Groundwater potential map inputs
Figure 3 shows the inputs that were used for the groundwater potential map. The results showed that Tuli Karoo
Basin is dominated by clay loam followed by sandy clay loam soil textures which cover 33.4% and 30.2% of the
study area respectively. About 5.7% of the area is covered by sandy clay soil texture. Sandy loam soils, which
covers about 14.7% of the study area, were given a higher weightage and rank because they have high infiltra-
tion and permeability rate. It was then followed by sandy clay loom which covers 33.4% of the area. Results for
soil lithology showed that the Tuli Karoo Basin is dominated by lithosols, which covers about 49.9%
(6,068.92 km2) of the basin. These are followed by Calcic Luvisols, which cover about 28% (3,410.01 km2)
of the basin.
The results also showed that there is high drainage density 0.7 to 1.6 km/km2. Tuli Karoo Basin is dominated
by shrub cover areas which cover about 66.5% of the total area. This is followed by grassland which covers
25.5%. The results for landuse/landcover were similar to a study which was done by Makonyo & Msabi

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1968

Figure 3 | Inputs for groundwater potential map.

(2021) in a semi-arid midlands Manyara fractured aquifer which was also dominated by shrub cover areas. The
minimum rainfall for the study area was found to be 202 mm with some parts of the basin having 477 mm.
Areas like Toporo have low rainfall while some areas have high rainfall (314 to 357 mm). The rainfall results
coincided with a observation that semi-arid regions in Africa fall within the 200 to 600 annual rainfall belt
(Martiny et al. 2006). The Tuli Karoo Basin is also dominated by mesozoic extrusive and intrusive rocks.
The results also showed that, generally, the Tuli Karoo Basin is dominated by low lying areas, covering
about 27.2% and 38.5% of the basin.

4.2. Mapping groundwater potential

The results showed that about 57.8% (6,915.1 km2) of the basin is covered by areas of high ground water poten-
tial, followed by areas of low groundwater potential covering 4,542.4 km2 (37.9%) with areas of very high
groundwater potential covering about 4.2% of the study area (Figure 4). Very low groundwater potential
covers 0.1% of the study area (9.9 km2). High groundwater potential is found in areas like Tongwe and Mazunga.
Some places like Thuli and some parts of Shashe have very high groundwater potential. This is explained by
higher lineament density as well as in those areas that influence groundwater accumulation as well as absorption.
Moreover, these places are covered by sandy clay loam soil texture which is favourable for infiltration.
Generally Tuli Karoo Basin is an area of high and moderate groundwater potential. This can be justified by the
fact that the area is underlain by sandstones and Karoo basalt rocks which primarily have high permeability as
well as high groundwater storage capacity due to the parent rock which is deeply weathered. To add more, this
ensures that most of the rainfall is soaked into the ground and stored in underground aquifers. The higher per-
centage of groundwater potential in the Tuli Karoo Basin is also explained by the fact that the area has low
altitude which promotes the occurrence of groundwater potential (Owen 1989). This notion is supported by
Brown et al. (2003), who stated that the Limpopo Basin is largely underlain by older basement that is deeply
weathered in many areas and that areas of of greenstones, sandstone, Karoo sequence and high grade sediments
can provide moderate to high borehole yields that can be as high as 2.5 l/sec. In these areas, groundwater is
readily available and reliable, in most cases, and is suitable for development of primary water at any point by
means of boreholes or dug wells.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1969

Figure 4 | Groundwater potential zones for the Tuli Karoo Basin.

The results for this study on the Zimbabwean part, are similar to findings by Chikodzi & Mutowo (2014). The
study was carried out in order to model the spatial variability of groundwater potential in Zimbabwe using GIS
and remote sensing. Their results showed that there is high and moderate groundwater potential in the western
and some parts of the southwestern parts where the Tuli Karoo Basin is located. However in a study done by
Nijsten et al. (2018), the Tuli Karoo Basin was classified in areas of moderate and low groundwater potential
with yields ranging from 0.5 to 5 l/s. This coincides with the results obtained from validation which were
done using borehole yield data from SADC-GIP. Boreholes with yield that ranges from 0.1 were found in the
low potential class. At the same time there are some areas classified as high which have borehole yield ranging
from 40 to 250 l/s. The difference between the results from Nijsten et al. (2018) and the ones for this study might
be attributed to the difference in spatial resolution. The latter used 30 m  30 m resolution while the former used
5 km  5 km resolution. Classification of groundwater potential zones is important for developers as it helps in
identifying areas to prioritise for groundwater development, for example selecting areas of high water insecurity
during droughts.

4.3. Validation of groundwater potential zone map

About 74 boreholes were found in areas classified as low potential, most of them having yields that range from 0.1
to 1 l/s. Some boreholes with higher groundwater yield but found on a low groundwater potential class were dis-
covered to have high groundwater depth value. Figure 5 shows that the percentage for low groundwater potential

Figure 5 | Percentage of boreholes falling into different yield ranges.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1970

class decreases as the borehole yield increases, that is 26.9% for borehole yield less than 2 l/s, 7.1% for 2 to 10 l/s
and 1.1% for borehole yield that ranges from 100 to 250 l/s.
The results for the Kruskal–Wallis test showed that the median values of the borehole yields vary significantly
between the different groundwater potential zone classes (P-value ,0.0001 Kruskal–Wallis statistic 124.7). This
means that the statistical test was highly significant. Although the groundwater conditioning factors used in this
study might not be thorough, and the addition of other factors may improve the validation results, the ground-
water potential zone map looks to be a reasonable reflection of the situation in Tuli Karoo Basin.

4.4. Estimation of groundwater recharge

4.4.1. Estimated recharge as a function of rainfall
The Water Law of Zimbabwe, Statutory instrument 206 of 2001, proposed 2% of the mean annual rainfall of
recharge. In this study groundwater recharge was developed as a function of precipitation that is 2% of precipi-
tation in the study area is groundwater recharge. Mean annual rainfall map from 1981 to 2020 was used to
develop the groundwater recharge map (Figure 6). The results showed that annual groundwater recharge in
the Tuli Karoo Basin ranges from 4 mm to 9.5 mm with areas like the northeastern parts having high groundwater
potential and areas like Toporo having low groundwater recharge.

Figure 6 | Estimated recharge using rainfall analysis method.

4.4.2. Model inputs for the SWB model

The modelled area showed that 76.5% is covered by hydrological soil group B which has moderately low runoff
potential (50–90% sand and 10–20% clay) as shown in Figure 7(c). This class is followed by hydrological soil
group D which covers 18.9% of the modelled area. The Tuli Karoo Basin is dominated by hydrological soil
group D. Hydrological soil group D has high runoff potential (,50% sand and .40% clay). The least classes
are hydrological soil groups B/D and D/D which cover 0.03% and 0.43% of the modelled area respectively.
Group B/D has high runoff potential unless drained (50–90% sand and 10–20% clay) while group D/D has
high runoff potential unless drained (,50% sand and .40% clay).
Land use land cover is very important when calculating recharge for the SWB model as it is the basis for the
rainfall–runoff relationship (Day & Simpkins 2018). The modelled area contained nine types of land uses and
landcover. The dominant class in the modelled area is shrub cover areas which covers 60.7% of the study area
followed by grassland which covers 16.8%. Tree cover areas and cropland cover 12.2% and 9.5% of the area
respectively. The least class in the modelled area is vegetation aquatic or regularly flooded which covers
0.005% of the modelled area. Tree cover and shrub cover areas have a better potential of groundwater recharge
(Westenbroek et al. 2010). The flow direction map showed that 18% of the modelled area flows to the south,
17.1% flows to the north while 15.7% and 15.1% flows to the west and to east. 8.9%, 8.7% and 7.97% flows to
the southeast, northeast and northwest respectively (Figure 7(d)).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1971

Figure 7 | Inputs for the SWB model.

4.4.3. Estimated recharge using SWB

The SWB model estimated mean annual potential recharge for the study area for a 10-year period. The maximum
annual potential recharge for the whole study area was 13.21 mm from 2010 to 2020 (Figure 8). The mean annual
recharge for the 10-year period was 2.79 mm. The results for the SWB model are different from those of recharge
calculated as a percentage of rainfall. This is because the method does not take into consideration other recharge
factors like land use land cover, flow direction, runoff curve numbers and available water capacity. In a study
done by Mosase et al. (2019), groundwater recharge for Limpopo Basin was estimated using SWAT-MODFLOW.

Figure 8 | Mean annual recharge from 2010 to 2020.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1972

The simulated results for the study suggested an annual average of almost 0–530 mm over the Limpopo Basin.
The difference between the model used by Mosase et al. (2019) and the model used in this study is that the
former is an integrated hydrological model that couples SWAT land surface processes with spatially explicit
groundwater flow processes, while the latter uses readily available data on soil, topography, and land cover,
based on simple mass balance calculated at a daily time step.

4.4.4. Relationship to climate

Initial estimates of groundwater recharge usually include the rainfall analysis technique, where recharge is esti-
mated as a percentage of precipitation. Because of this, precipitation data were compared to recharge. The total
precipitation for the 10-year period from 2010 to 2020 was 3,702 mm and the total recharge for the same period
was 30.3 mm giving a percent of 0.8 of recharge from precipitation. On an annual basis, recharge as a percent of
precipitation ranged from 4.5 in 2011 to 0 in 2017. A linear regression performed to determine the relationship
between recharge and gross precipitation showed that there is no strong relationship between gross precipitation
and recharge in the Tuli Karoo Basin with R2 ¼ 0.0028, P ¼ 0.8752). These results are different from the results
obtained in a study in North Central Lowa by Day & Simpkins (2018) where precipitation had a strong corre-
lation with recharge. The difference between these results might be explained by the difference in climate
between the two study areas. North Central Lowa is located in humid areas while Tuli Karoo Basin is located
in semi-arid regions.

4.4.5. Relationship to LULC

Groundwater recharge is also determined by LULC. Tuli Karoo Basin is dominated by shrub cover areas which
covers 66.5% of the study area. This is followed by grassland which covers 25.5% of the study area. The LULC
with largest mean recharge was tree cover areas. Although it covers only 2.7% of the study area it had a mean
recharge of 5.9 mm for the 10-year period (Table 4). The mean recharge for shrub cover areas and grasslands
was 2.5 mm and 2.2 mm respectively for the 10-year period (Table 4). The lowest mean recharge was found in
cells classified as bare, built up and open water, which had an average of 0 mm for the 10-year period.

Table 4 | Relationship between LULC and groundwater recharge

Landuse/landcover Area covered % Mean recharge (10 years)

Tree cover areas 2.68 5.78

Shrub cover areas 66.54 2.45
Grassland 25.47 2.19
Cropland 4.33 2.09
Vegetation aquatic or regularly flooded 0.02 0
Sparse vegetation 0.20 0
Bare areas 0.38 0
Built-up areas 0.12 0
Open water 0.26 0

4.5. Determination of groundwater flow

Groundwater flow direction is the direction to which water moves underground downward and sideways. The
results show that groundwater flows from regions of higher hydraulic head to regions of lower hydraulic head.
In some parts of the basin groundwater flows to the northeast and some parts of the basin the flow runs east.
In some parts of the basin, groundwater flows from northwest towards southeast where there is Limpopo
River (Figure 9). These results coincide with the results found by Ebrahim et al. (2019).

4.5.1. Relationship with surface water flow direction

Table 5 and Figure 9 show the relationship between surface water flow and groundwater flow per pixel (10 km 
10 km resolution). A performed correlation test between the two showed that there is no relationship between
surface water flow direction and groundwater flow direction in the Tuli Karoo Basin (R2 ¼ 0.001857). In a
study done by Barackman & Brusseau (2002), usually groundwater flow patterns on a regional scale follow

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1973

Figure 9 | Groundwater flow direction and groundwater heads for Tuli Karoo Basin.

Table 5 | Relationship between groundwater flow and surface water flow direction

GW flow direction

Surface flow direction South Southeast East Northeast North Northwest West Southwest Grand total

South 3 4 7 6 4 2 3 3 32
Southeast 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 5
East 5 0 0 3 1 2 3 2 16
Northeast 1 0 5 1 3 0 1 0 11
North 1 0 1 4 2 5 3 1 17
Northwest 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 2 10
West 3 1 1 1 0 2 3 2 13
Southwest 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 4 12
Grand total 17 7 16 20 11 14 17 14 116

surface flow patterns. However, some studies have shown that groundwater flow directions may be controlled by
pumping wells in basins that have extensive pumping of groundwater (Barackman & Brusseau 2002). Barackman
& Brusseau (2002) also stated that groundwater flow directions may also fluctuate in lowland areas near surface
water as they respond to changes in surface water levels. The latter might be the reason why the groundwater flow
direction in the Tuli Karoo Basin differs from that of surface water. However, it should be noted that, due to the
inaccessibility of field-based data, this map was not validated.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions were drawn from the obtained results:
1. Tuli Karoo Basin has high groundwater potential indicated by the dominance of high groundwater potential
areas which covers 57.8% of the study area with very low groundwater potential covering 0.1%. The validation
of the groundwater potential map using borehole data and borehole depth showed that the map produced
looks to be a reasonable reflection of the situation in the Tuli Karoo Basin.
2. Tuli Karoo Basin has low groundwater recharge with a maximum of 13.2 mm per 10-year average. The results
from the SWB model showed that there is no strong relationship between gross precipitation and recharge in
the Tuli Karoo Basin with R2 ¼ 0.0028, P ¼ 0.8752. This implies that groundwater recharge in the Tuli Karoo
Basin is not precipitation driven.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1974

3. The study showed that groundwater in the Tuli Karoo Basin flows towards northeast and in some parts of the
basin, groundwater flows from northwest towards southeast where there is the Limpopo River.
It is therefore recommended that:
1. Reliable hydrogeological data such as borehole drilling logs, stratigraphic data, streamflow data and historical
borehole water levels should be provided to promote a better understanding as well as sustainable manage-
ment and monitoring of groundwater as a resource.
2. Further studies should be done on estimation of groundwater recharge in the Tuli Karoo Basin using other
groundwater recharge techniques such as base flow separation that uses field-based data.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

Ajay Kumar, V., Mondal, N. C. & Ahmed, S. 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. 48,
497–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-019-01086-3.
Andualem, T. G. & Demeke, G. G. 2019 Groundwater potential assessment using GIS and remote sensing: a case study of Guna
tana landscape, upper blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100610.
Arshad, A., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W. & Dilawar, A. 2020 Mapping favorable groundwater potential recharge zones using a GIS-
based analytical hierarchical process and probability frequency ratio model: a case study from an agro-urban region of
Pakistan. Geosci. Front. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.12.013.
Barackman, M. & Brusseau, M. L. 2002 Groundwater sampling. In: Artiola, J. F., Pepper, I. L. & Mark L. Brusseau, M. K. (eds)
Environmental Monitoring and Characterization. Elsevier Inc., pp. 121–139.
Basavarajappa, H. T., Pushpavathi, K. N. & Manjunatha, M. C. 2015 Climate change and its impact on groundwater table
fluctuation in Precambrian rocks of Chamarajanagara district, Karnataka, India using geomatics technique. International
Journal Of Geomatics And Geosciences 5, 510–524.
Beven, K. J. & Kirkby, M. J. 1979 [A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology] Un modèle à base
physique de zone d’appel variable de l’hydrologie du bassin versant. Hydrol. Sci. J. 24, 43–69.
Brown, C., Waters, S., Hartnady, C., Africa, U., Le, D., Csir, M., Riemann, K. & Africa, U. 2003 Ecological and Environmental
Impacts of Large-Scale Groundwater Development in the Table Mountain Group (TMG) Aquifer System Discussion
Document for 1–40.
Calow, R. C., Macdonald, A. M., Nicol, A. L. & Robins, N. S. 2010 Ground water security and drought in Africa : linking
availability. Access, and Demand 48, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00558.x.
Chikodzi, D. 2013 Groundwater Resources of Zimbabwe: An Assessment of Fluctuations Potential of CSP in Zimbabwe View
Project Biomonitoring of Mucheke and Shagashe Rivers in Masvingo, Zimbabwe Using Macro-Invertebrates as Indicators
of Water Quality View Project Open Access. https://doi.org/10.4172/scientificreports.629.
Chikodzi, D. & Mutowo, G. 2014 Spatial modelling of groundwater potential in Zimbabwe using geographical information
systems techniques. Int. J. Water 8, 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJW.2014.065796.
Custodio, E., Andreu-rodes, J. M., Aragón, R., Estrela, T., Ferrer, J., García-aróstegui, J. L., Manzano, M., Rodríguez-hernández,
L. & Sahuquillo, A. 2016 Science of the total environment groundwater intensive use and mining in south-eastern
peninsular Spain: hydrogeological, economic and social aspects. Sci. Total Environ. 559, 302–316. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.107.
Dar, T., Rai, N., Bhat, A. & Dar, T. 2020 Delineation of potential groundwater recharge zones using analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) hierarchy process (AHP). Geol. Ecol. Landscapes 00, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2020.1726562.
Davies, J., Robins, N. S., Farr, J., Sorensen, J., Beetlestone, P. & Cobbing, J. E. 2012 Identifying transboundary aquifers in need of
international resource management in the SADC Region of southern Africa. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 6(11), 951–952. 1–28.
Day, E. & Simpkins, W. W. 2018 Application of the USGS soil–water–balance model model to estimate groundwater recharge
in Central Iowa. https://doi.org/10.1130/abs/2018nc-313243.
Duan, H., Deng, Z., Deng, F. & Wang, D. 2016 Assessment of groundwater potential based on multicriteria decision making
model and decision tree algorithms. Math. Probl. Eng. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2064575.
Ebrahim, G., Father, F., Hlyatwayo, C., Keetile, K., Kenabatho, P. J., Lautze Manuel, M. K. M., Matlhakoane, B., Modo, L.,
Mowaneng, P., Mugwangwavari, P., Mukuyu, P., Mutepfa, P., Robert, E., Netshitanini, B., Nyalungu, R., Farai, S. & Karen, V.
2019 DRAFT transboundary diagnostic analysis (Baseline report) for the Tuli Karoo System. TAPPI Journal. https://doi.org/
10.32964/tj18.11.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1975

Forkuor, G., Pavelic, P., Asare, E. & Obuobie, E. 2013 Modélisation des zones potentielles déexploitation des eaux souterraines
pour léagriculture au Ghana septentrional en utilisant le SIG/RS. Hydrol. Sci. J. 58, 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02626667.2012.754101.
Frappart, F. & Ramillien, G. 2018 Monitoring groundwater storage changes using the gravity recovery and climate experiment
(GRACE) satellite mission: a review. Remote Sens. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10060829.
Gomo, M. & Vermeulen, D. 2017 A transboundary aquifer of potential concern in Southern Africa. Water Policy 19,
1160–1171. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2017.049.
Guppy, L., Uyttendaele, P. & Villholth, K. G. 2018 Groundwater and Sustainable Development Goals : Analysis of
Interlinkages.
Legesse Kura, A., Abrar, H., Esayas Dube, E. & Likisa Beyene, D. 2021 AHP based analysis of groundwater potential in the
western escarpment of the Ethiopian rift valley. Geol. Ecol. Landscapes 00, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2021.
1952761.
Lekula, M. & Lubczynski, M. W. 2019 Use of remote sensing and long-term in-situ time-series data in an integrated hydrological
model of the Central Kalahari Basin, Southern Africa. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 1541–1562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-
01954-9.
Lekula, M., Lubczynski, M. W. & Shemang, E. M. 2018 Hydrogeological conceptual model of large and complex sedimentary
aquifer systems – Central Kalahari Basin. Phys. Chem. Earth 106, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.05.006.
Machiwal, D., Jha, M. K. & Mal, B. C. 2011 Assessment of groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of India using remote
sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. 1359–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9749-y.
Magesh, N. S., Chandrasekar, N. & Soundranayagam, J. P. 2012 Delineation of groundwater potential zones in Theni district,
Tamil Nadu, using remote sensing, GIS and MIF techniques. Geosci. Front. 3, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2011.
10.007.
Makonyo, M. & Msabi, M. M. 2021 Identification of groundwater potential recharge zones using GIS-based multi-criteria
decision analysis: a case study of semi-arid midlands Manyara fractured aquifer, North-Eastern Tanzania. Remote Sens.
Appl. Soc. Environ. 23, 100544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100544.
Martiny, N., Camberlin, P., Richard, Y. & Philippon, N. 2006 Compared regimes of NDVI and rainfall in semi-arid regions of
Africa. Int. J. Remote Sens. 27, 5201–5223. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160600567787.
Masocha, M., Dube, T. & Owen, R. 2020 Using an expert-based model to develop a groundwater pollution vulnerability
assessment framework for Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 115, 102826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2019.102826.
Masundire, H., Morchain, D., Raditloaneng, N., Hegga, S., Ziervogel, G., Molefe, C., Angula, M. & Omari, K. 2016 Vulnerability
and Risk Assessment in Botswana’s Bobirwa Sub-District: Fostering People-Centered Adaptation to Climate Change.
Misi, A., Gumindoga, W. & Hoko, Z. 2018 An assessment of groundwater potential and vulnerability in the upper Manyame
Sub-Catchment of Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 105, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.03.003.
Mosase, E., Ahiablame, L., Park, S. & Bailey, R. 2019 Modelling potential groundwater recharge in the Limpopo River Basin
with SWAT-MODFLOW. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 9, 100260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100260.
Mushtaha, A. M., Van Camp, M. & Walraevens, K. 2019 Quantification of recharge and runoff from rainfall using new GIS tool:
example of the Gaza Strip aquifer. Water (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010084.
Nagarajan, M. & Singh, S. 2009 Assessment of groundwater potential zones using GIS technique. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens.
37, 69–77.
Nijsten, G. J., Christelis, G., Villholth, K. G., Braune, E. & Gaye, C. B. 2018 Transboundary aquifers of Africa: review of the
current state of knowledge and progress towards sustainable development and management. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 20,
21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.03.004.
Owen, R. J. S. 1989 The Use of shallow alluvial aquifers for small scale irrigation with reference to Zimbabwe. ODA Proj R4239,
4239.
Owolabi, S. T., Madi, K., Kalumba, A. M. & Orimoloye, I. R. 2020 A groundwater potential zone mapping approach for semi-
arid environments using remote sensing (RS), geographic information system (GIS), and analytical hierarchical process
(AHP) techniques: a case study of buffalo catchment, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Arab. J. Geosci. 13. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12517-020-06166-0.
Panagopoulos, A. 2020 A comparative study on minimum and actual energy consumption for the treatment of desalination
brine. Energy 212, 118733.
Panagopoulos, A. 2021 Energetic, economic and environmental assessment of zero liquid discharge (ZLD) brackish water and
seawater desalination systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 235, 113957.
Pinto, D., Shrestha, S., Babel, M. S. & Ninsawat, S. 2017 Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the Comoro watershed,
Timor Leste using GIS, remote sensing and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique. Appl. Water Sci. 7, 503–519.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0270-6.
Rahmati, O. & Samani, A. N. 2015 Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy process
and GIS 7059–7071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1668-4.
Rajmohan, N., Masoud, M. H. Z. & Niyazi, B. A. M. 2021 Assessment of groundwater quality and associated health risk in the
arid environment, Western Saudi Arabia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 9628–9646.
Saaty, T. L. 2008 Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1, 83–98.
Shamuyarira, K. 2017 Determination of recharge and groundwater potential zones in Mhinga area, South Africa 94.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 17 No 9, 1976

Shebl, A. & Csámer, Á. 2021 Reappraisal of DEMs, Radar and optical datasets in lineaments extraction with emphasis on the
spatial context. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 24, 100617.
Sinthumule, N. I. 2020 Borders and border people in the greater mapungubwe transfrontier. Landsc. Res. 45, 280–291.
Smith, E. A. & Berg, A. M. 2020 Potential groundwater recharge rates for two subsurface-drained agricultural fields,
Southeastern Minnesota, 2016–18. U.S. Geol. Surv. Sci. Investig. Rep. 57 No. 2020-5006.
Thornthwaite, C. W. & Mather, J. R. 1957 Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water
Balance. Centerton.
UNESCO 2015 WATER & CULTURE 2005–2007.
Wang, L., Jackson, C. R., Pachocka, M. & Kingdon, A. 2016 A seamlessly coupled GIS and distributed groundwater flow model.
Environ. Model. Softw. 82, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.04.007.
Westenbroek, M. S., Kelson, V. a., Dripps, W. R., Hunt, R. J. & Bradbury, K. R. 2010 SWB – A Modified Thornthwaite-Mather
Soil-Water-Balance Code for estimating groundwater recharge (p. 60). Reston, VA, USA: US Department of the Interior, US
Geological Survey, Ground Resources Program.

First received 16 December 2021; accepted in revised form 2 August 2022. Available online 11 August 2022

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/17/9/1959/1115689/wpt0171959.pdf

by guest