Groundwater
imad ali; Maryam Bayati khatibi; Sadra karimzadeh
Abstract
This study aimed to delineate groundwater recharge zones using a combination of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy-AHP, and frequency ratio (FR) models. Additionally, it aimed to compare the effectiveness of these models in groundwater recharge potential zone mapping. To achieve these objectives, ...
Read More
This study aimed to delineate groundwater recharge zones using a combination of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy-AHP, and frequency ratio (FR) models. Additionally, it aimed to compare the effectiveness of these models in groundwater recharge potential zone mapping. To achieve these objectives, nine groundwater influencing factors were considered, including geology, soil types, lineament density, elevation, slope, topographic wetness index, drainage density, land use land cover, and rainfall. Thematic maps for all these factors were generated using satellite and conventional data in the ArcGIS environment. Weight was assigned to each thematic layer based on its significance to recharge. All thematic layers were combined using AHP model-l (WLC), AHP model-ll (Weighted sum), fuzzy-AHP overlay, and FR-based model using ArcGIS. The findings revealed that 15% and 39% of the study area have high recharge potentials according to AHP-based model-l and model-ll, respectively. The FAHP model demarcated 43% of the area as high recharge zones while the FR model demarcated 42% of the area as high recharge zones. The majority of high groundwater recharge areas were found in the central part of the study area, while the southern part was demarcated as a moderate recharge zone. The eastern and western parts were demarcated as low recharge potentials zones. To validate the accuracy of these models, the study used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) validation curves. The ROC curves revealed that AHP model-ll had the highest accuracy (AUC=89%) followed by the FAHP model (AUC=88%), AHP model-l (AUC=84%), and FR (AUC=81%)
