Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds

  • 54 Accesses

Abstract

Prioritization of watersheds for conservation measures is essential for a variety of functions, such as flood control projects in which the determination of top priority areas is an important management decision. The purpose of this study is to examine watershed morphological characteristics and identify critical sub-watersheds, which are prone to be damaged, using Remote Sensing/Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and SAW/TOPSIS (Simple Additive Weighting/ Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution). Fourteen morphometric parameters were chosen to organize sub-watersheds using SAW/TOPSIS, which examines sub-watersheds (as susceptible zones) from the perspective of classification in four priority levels (namely, low, moderate, high and very high levels). The SAW/TOPSIS approach is a useful strategy to find out potential zones provided that the ultimate goal is to achieve successful management strategies, particularly in particular zones where information accessibility is limited and soil assorted variety is high. Without facing with high cost and exercises in futility, sub-watersheds could be organized through morphometric parameters in executing conservational measures to save soil and the earth at the same time. In short, our results showed that morphometric parameters are highly efficient in identifying erosion-prone areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Aher PD, Adinarayana J, Gorantivar SD (2013) Prioritization of watersheds using multi-criteria evaluation through fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Agricultural Engineering Int: CIGR Journal 15(1):11–18

  2. Altaf S, Meraj G, Ahmad Romshoo S (2014) Morphometry and land cover based multicriteria analysis for assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan watershed. Environ Monit Assess. 186:8391–8412

  3. Anisseh M, Rosnah Y, Shakarami A (2009) Aggregating group MCDM problems using a fuzzy Delphi model for personnel performance appraisal. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(5):381–391

  4. Asl-Rousta B, Mousavi SJ (2018) A TOPSIS-based multicriteria approach to the calibration of a basin-scale SWAT hydrological model. Water Resour Manag 33:439–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2111-5

  5. Borana FE, Gença S, Kurtb M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36:11363–11368

  6. Ezbakhe F, Perez-Foguet A (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis under uncertainty: two approaches to incorporating data uncertainty into water. Sanitation and Hygiene Planning Water Resources Management 32:5169–5182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2152-9

  7. Farhan Y, Anaba O (2016) A remote sensing and GIS approach for prioritization of Wadi Shueib mini-watersheds (Central Jordan) based on morphometric and soil Erosion susceptibility analysis. J Geogr Inf Syst 8:1–19. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2016.81001

  8. Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2013a) Effect of seasonal/monthly variation on runoff Curve Number for selected watersheds of Narmada Basin. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(6):2019–2030

  9. Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2013b) A procedure for determination of design runoff curve number for Bamhani Watershed. IEEE-International Conference on Advances in Technology and Engineering (ICATE), 1(9):23–25

  10. Gajbhiye S, Sharma SK (2017) Prioritization of watershed through morphometric parameters: a PCA based approach. Appl Water Sci 7:1505–1519

  11. Garde RJ, Kothari UC (1987) Sediment yield estimation. Journal of Irrigation Power (India) 44(3):97–123

  12. Gioti E, Riga C, Kalogeropoulos K, Chalkias C (2013) A GIS-based flash flood runoff model using high resolution DEM and meteorological data. EARSeL Proceedings 12:33–43

  13. Golfam P, Ashofteh PS, Rajaee T, Chu X (2019) Prioritization of water allocation for adaptation to climate change using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). Water Resour Manag 33:3401–3416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02307-7

  14. Güngör Z, Serhadlioglu G, Kesen SH (2009) A fuzzy AHP approach to personnel selection problem. Appl Soft Comput 9:641–646

  15. Huang M, Hou Z, Leung LYR, Ke Y, Liu Y, Fang Z, Sun Y (2013) Uncertainty analysis of runoff simulations and parameter Identifiability in the community land model - evidence from MOPEX basins. J Hydrometeorol 14:1754–1772

  16. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p. 225

  17. Jose CS, Das DC (1982) Geomorphic prediction models for sediment production rate and intensive priorities of watershed in Mayurakshi catchment. In: Proceeding of International Symposium on Hydrological Aspects of Mountainous Watershed, (Nov. 4–6, 1982, School of Hydrology, University of Roorkee), 1, 15–23

  18. Kilic HS, Cevikcan E (2011) Job selection based on fuzzy AHP: an investigation including the students of Istanbul Technical University management faculty. International Journal of Business and Management Studies 3(1):173–182

  19. Kilincci O, Onal SA (2011) Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9656–9664

  20. Klingseisen B, Graciela M, Gernot P (2007) Geomorphometric landscape analysis using a semi-automated GIS-approach. Environ Model Softw 23(1):1–13

  21. Lee KT (1998) Generating design hydrographs by DEM assisted geomorphic runoff simulation: a case study. Journal of American Water Resource Association 34(2):375–384

  22. Liu B, Zhang F, Wan W, Luo X (2019) Multi-objective decision-making for the ecological operation of built reservoirs based on the improved comprehensive fuzzy evaluation method. Water Resour Manag 33:3949–3964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02349-x

  23. Mahmood SA, Yameen M, Sheikh R, Rafique AHM, Almas AS (2012) DEM and GIS based hypsometric analysis to investigate Neotectonic influence on Hazara Kashmir Syntaxis. Pak J Sci 64(3):209–213

  24. Martz LW, Garbrecht J (1998) The treatment of flat area and depression in automated drainage analysis of raster digital elevation models. Hydrol Process 12:843–855

  25. Mekonnen M, Keesstra SD, Baartman JE, Ritsema CJ, Melesse AM (2015) Evaluating sediment storage dams: structural off-site sediment trapping measures in northwest Ethiopia. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica, 41:16. https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.2643

  26. Meshram SG, Sharma SK (2017) Prioritization of watershed through morphometric parameters: a PCA-based approach. Appl Water Sci 7:1505–1519

  27. Meshram SG, Alvandi E, Singh VP, Meshram C (2019) Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for prioritization of watersheds. Soft Comput 23(24):13615–13625

  28. Nikam SP, Purohit RC, Shinde MG, Singh PK, Jain HK, Gavit BK (2014) Geomorphic response models for prediction of annual runoff 487 and sediment yield from watersheds of Tapi Basin, India. Proceedings of 4th international conference on hydrology and watershed management (ICHWAM-2014). URL: http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/862528712.pdf

  29. Petkovic M, Rapaic MR, Jelicˇic ZD, Pisano A (2012) On-line adaptive clustering for process monitoring and fault detection. Expert Syst Appl 39:10226–10235

  30. Razavi Toosi SL, Samani JMV (2017) Prioritizing watersheds using a novel hybrid decision model based on fuzzy DEMATEL. Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy VIKOR Water Resour Manage 31:2853–2867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1667-9

  31. Sahu N, Obi Reddy GP, Kumar N, Nagaraju MSS (2015) High resolution remote sensing, GPS and GIS in soil resource mapping and characterization- a review. Agri Review 36(1):14–25

  32. Sargaonkar A, Rathi B, Baile A (2010) Identifying potential sites for artificial groundwater recharge in sub-watershed of River Kanhan. India. Environ. Earth Sci 6:1–10

  33. Sen O, Kahya E (2017) Determination of flood risk: a case study in the rainiest city of Turkey. Environ Model Softw 93:296–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.030

  34. Singh PK (2000) Watershed Management (Design and Practice) e-media publications, Udaipur. 31–35.

  35. Smith MB, Vidmar A (1994) Dataset derivation for GIS based urban hydrological modelling. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 60(1):67–76

  36. Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33(2):309–319

  37. Vivien YC, Hui PL, Chui HL, James JHL, Gwo HT, Lung SY (2011) Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. J Appl Soft Comput 11:265–275

  38. Wang M, Hjlmfelt AT (1998) DEM based overland flow routing. J Hydrol Eng 3(1):1–8

  39. Wang YM, Yanga JB, Xu DL (2005) A preference aggregation method through the estimation of utility intervals. Computers & Operations Research, 32:2027–2049

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meshram, S.G., Alvandi, E., Meshram, C. et al. Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds. Water Resour Manage 34, 715–732 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02470-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • SAW
  • TOPSIS
  • RS and GIS
  • Morphometric parameters
  • Prioritization