4.7 Article

Groundwater potential assessment using GIS and remote sensing: A case study of Guna tana landscape, upper blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY-REGIONAL STUDIES
Volume 24, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100610

Keywords

Groundwater potential; ArcGIS; Thematic layer; MCDA

Funding

  1. Debre Tabor University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study region: Guna Tana Landscape, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Study focus: This paper aimed to delineate the groundwater potential zones using GIS and remote sensing. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) technique is used to develop the groundwater potential prospect zones by integrating different groundwater contributing thematic layers. The thematic layers of land cover, drainage density, lineament density, soil, geology, slope, and geomorphology were prepared and used for groundwater potential map development by assigning weights to each thematic layer and features. The weights of each thematic layer were assigned and normalized based on their characteristic and relationship with groundwater recharge. Finally, the thematic maps were integrated by a weighted sum overlay analysis tool to develop groundwater prospect zones. New hydrological insights for the region: It was found that the downstream parts of the Landscape showed excellent groundwater potential covering about 833.49 km(2) area with a flat and lacus-trine sediment characteristic. About 469.12 km(2) of the landscape showed very good groundwater potential zone. Northern, northeastern and southeastern parts of the area presented very poor groundwater prospect covering about 553.68 km(2) area. The groundwater potential map was validated using the existing pumping wells and it indicated a good prediction accuracy of 70.5%. Thus, the potential zones identified in the study area by the MCDA technique are reliable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available