Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2018) 11:187

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3510-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Groundwater potential mapping by combining fuzzy-analytic hierarchy

process and GIS in Beyşehir Lake Basin, Turkey
Erhan Şener 1 & Şehnaz Şener 2 & Ayşen Davraz 2

Received: 20 September 2017 / Accepted: 27 March 2018

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Abstract
Delineation of the groundwater potential zones is one of the most essential process for the sustainable management of the
groundwater sources. However, groundwater studies are quite hard and complex for many regions besides consuming time
and cost. This study focused on the groundwater potential mapping in Beyşehir Lake Basin. Mainly, fuzzy-analytic hierarchy
process (fuzzy-AHP) integrated with GIS was used to determine potential zones for groundwater. Seven parameters, namely
lithology, lineament, drainage density, land use, slope, soil type, and rainfall were evaluated and Groundwater Potential Index
(GWPI) was calculated using weight and rating coefficients of each parameter. According to obtained results, GWPI varies from
0.07665 to 0.28243 in the basin. The low, moderate, and high groundwater potential classes were determined with quantile
classification method. The groundwater potential map demonstrates that the high groundwater potential area is located around the
lake shore, in the alluvium and limestone fields because high permeability rates depend on soil type, low slope, karstic structure,
and agricultural activities in these regions. In addition, the distribution of the springs confirms with groundwater potential area
determined with this study.

Keywords Analytic hierarchy process . Beyşehir Lake . Fuzzy . Groundwater Potential Index

Introduction is limited and determining the potential groundwater zones is

The most important natural water resource is groundwater and
sustainable groundwater management depends on the avail-
able quantity and quality. The lithological properties of the
geological formation and its porosity have great importance
for the presence and amount of groundwater (Ganapuram
et al. 2009; Ghorbani Nejad et al. 2017). The groundwater
flows towards the discharge points such as spring, stream,
lake, and sea (Manap et al. 2013). Therefore, its availability
* Şehnaz Şener
sehnazsener@sdu.edu.tr
Erhan Şener
erhansener@sdu.edu.tr
Ayşen Davraz
aysendavraz@sdu.edu.tr
1
Süleyman Demirel University, Remote Sensing Center, Çünür,
TR-32260 Isparta, Turkey
2
Department of Geological Engineering, Süleyman Demirel
University, Çünür, TR-32260 Isparta, Turkey
a very significant issue in many parts of the world. Factors
such as geomorphological structure, geological formations,
weathering, lineament density, porosity, drainage, land use/
land cover, rainfall, temperature, and evaporation have an im-
portant role in groundwater storage (Singh et al. 2011).
Groundwater pumping test/drilling test and stratigraphy re-
searches are well-known and reliable methods to define aqui-
fer and its properties, but these conventional methods are time
and cost consuming (Mukherjee et al. 2012; Mallick et al.
2015; Kumar et al. 2016).
In recent years, computer technology has been used exten-
sively in the hydrogeology studies. Remote sensing and GIS
applications are often used in the research of groundwater.
Remote sensing allows to observe earth surface on a large
scale, hence it is widely used to examine the groundwater
zones (Tweed et al. 2007; Magesh et al. 2012). In addition,
geographical information system (GIS) is capable of success-
fully managing data in different thematic layers such as geol-
ogy, lineament density, rainfall, drainage density, topography
elevation, slope, and land use which are taken into consider-
ation for assessing groundwater potential and integrating them
with sufficient accuracy (Ghayoumian et al. 2007). Many
187 Page 2 of 21
researchers have used different methods such as frequency
ratio (FR), and certainty factor (CF) models, multi influenc-
ing factor, watershed modeling system, and weighted spa-
tial probability modeling besides remote sensing and GIS
techniques for groundwater investigations in various parts
of the world (Chi and Lee 1994; Krishnamurthy and
Srinivas 1995; Krishnamurthy et al. 1996; Edet et al.
1998; Murthy 2000; Shahid et al. 2002; Saraf et al. 2004;
Jha et al. 2007; Nobre et al. 2007; Prasad et al. 2008;
Chowdhury et al. 2009; Saha et al. 2010; Machiwal et al.
2011; Manap et al. 2013; Mukherjee et al. 2012; Teixeira
et al. 2013, 2014; Mallick et al. 2015; Kumar et al. 2016;
Ghorbani Nejad et al. 2017). Razandi et al. (2015) used
analytic hierarchy process (AHP), FR, and CF models for
groundwater potential mapping using GIS at Varamin
Plain, Tehran province, Iran. Magesh et al. (2012) deter-
mined groundwater potential zones in Theni district,
Tamil Nadu, using the advanced technology of remote sens-
ing, multi influencing factor, and GIS for the planning,
utilization, administration, and management of
groundwater resources. Mandal et al. (2016) generated
groundwater potential zone index map for a coastal ground-
water basin of eastern India by using AHP from different
influencing features, e.g., land use/land cover, soil, geo-
morphology, hydrogeology, surface geology, recharge rate,
drainage density, rainfall, slope, surface water bodies, line-
ament density, and Normalized Difference Vegetative
Index. Elewa and Qaddah (2011) used Enhanced
Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) images, GIS, watershed
modeling system, and weighted spatial probability
modeling to identify the groundwater potential areas in
the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. Ganapuram et al. (2009) uti-
lized remote sensing data and GIS to locate potential zones
for groundwater in the Musi basin and various maps such as
hydrogeomorphological, geological, structural, drainage,
slope, land use/land cover, and groundwater prospect zones
were prepared using the remote sensing data in this study.
The integration of GIS and AHP is a powerful tool to eval-
uate multiple criteria together. The AHP, originally developed
by Saaty (1980), is a subjective method and allows users to
determine the weights of the criteria in a solution to a problem
that depends on more than one criterion. In the AHP method, a
hierarchical model consisting of goals, criteria, sub-criteria,
and alternatives is used for each problem Saaty 2008. The
resolution of a problem with AHP is accomplished by using
the weights or priorities of the pairwise comparisons (Bhushan
and Rai, 2004; Ho 2008). In the AHP method, inconsistencies
may occur at a certain level while making pairwise compari-
sons of the criteria. For this, the logical consistency of
pairwise comparisons should be checked (Cheng 1997;
Kahraman et al. 2003; Chang et al. 2008). For overcoming
these problems, the fuzzy-AHP method was firstly proposed
by Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) to have the more
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187
confident decision. The fuzzy-AHP is a fuzzy extension of
AHP and is applied to solve the hierarchical fuzzy multi-
criteria decision making problems (Lee et al. 2013). This
method uses the concept of fuzzy set theory and hierarchical
structure analysis and it includes selection of an alternative
and systematic approaches weighting. The subjective judg-
ments that belong to experts are used to determine weight
ratios (Tan et al. 2014). In the fuzzy-AHP method, fuzzy num-
bers are used instead of the weight values to achieve realistic
and the most accurate results (Kahraman et al. 2003; Aryafar
et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2013).
The Beyşehir Lake is the largest freshwater and drinking
water reservoir in the southwest of Turkey. In recent years, the
lake is under threat with regard to water quality and amount
(Nas et al. 2008). Higher concentrations of heavy metals (Cu,
Zn, Fe, and Mn) were found in water samples from Beyşehir
Lake (Tekin-Özan 2008). In addition, concentrations of Pb
and Cd in the muscle tissue of all the fish species from
Beyşehir Lake exceeded the tolerance levels of national and
international guidelines (Özparlak et al. 2012). Therefore, it is
predicted that much more groundwater will be needed in the
future. It is aimed to define the potential groundwater zones in
the Beyşehir Lake basin using the Groundwater Potential
Index (GWPI) and GIS capabilities. Also, the result of
groundwater potential map was validated by comparing
existing spring discharge points. Seven parameters such as
lithology, lineament, drainage density, land use, slope, soil
type, and rainfall were evaluated in the study. Remote sensing
techniques were used to prepare land use and lineament maps.
Also, fuzzy-AHP method was used for determining the im-
portance ratings of used parameters.
Materials and methods
Description of study area
The Beyşehir Lake Basin is located in the southwest of Turkey
and covers an area of 4167 km2 (Fig. 1). It is located between
31° 17′ and 31° 44′ E longitudes and 37° 34′ and 37° 59′ N
latitudes. The lake is a tectonic lake between the Sultan
Mountains and the Anamas Mountains in Central Anatolia,
Turkey (Lahn 1945). The Beyşehir Lake is the largest fresh-
water lake in Turkey and it is the most important drinking
water resources for several settlements (Babaoğlu 2007).
The Beyşehir Lake is a shallow lake with an average depth
of 8.5 m and it has been a first-degree specially protected area
since 1991 (Karabörk 2009). Anthropogenic pollutants such
as agricultural applications and uncontrolled discharge of sew-
age have caused surface and groundwater contamination in
the basin. Also, unplanned usage and global climate change
affected the sustainable usage of the lake negatively
(Babaoğlu 2007).
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187
Fig. 1 Location map of the study area (The sources of elevation data is ASTER GDEM.)
The Beyşehir Lake Basin is a morphologically closed basin
but there is a water flow to the Suğla plain from the southeast
of the basin (Fig. 1). Five district centers such as Beyşehir,
Derbent, Hüyük, Şarkikaraağaç, and Yenişarbademli are with-
in the basin. The Beyşehir Lake Basin has continental climate
condition with hot, dry summers and cold, snowy winters, and
steppe vegetation which is generally distinguishing character-
istics of the region (Peel et al. 2007). The average temperature
of the basin varies between − 0.4 and 23 °C according to
meteorological measurements. Rainfall data have been mea-
sured in Beyşehir meteorological station; annual average rain-
fall is approximately 750 mm based on annual measurements
(Gürler 2017). The main surface waters are Büyük, Sarıöz,
Bağ, and Eğri streams (Fig. 1). Generally, surface and
Page 3 of 21 187
groundwater discharge is towards to the Beyşehir Lake.
Also, surface and groundwater discharge to Konya-Çumra-
Apa sub-basin is via Beyşehir-Suğla-Apa channel.
The main aquifer units are limestone and alluvium in the
basin. Limestones and dolomitic limestones are located in
large area in the west and south of the Beyşehir Lake. Every
karstic structure, melting and collapse cavities, doline, sink-
hole, and caverns are observed in these limestones especially
in high topographical elevations. A large number of springs
with different yields discharge from limestones as continuous
and seasonal. The Pınargözü spring discharged with approxi-
mately 220 l/s yield from limestone in the west of the Beyşehir
Lake. Paleozoic-aged metamorphic schists are the base imper-
meable rock for the limestone aquifer. The alluviums are
187 Page 4 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

generally located around the lakes and streams. The alluviums
in the stream valleys have low thickness (15–25 m) but it has
an aquifer property because of its sand and gravel mate-
rials. The largest spread of alluvium is observed in the
north of the Beyşehir Lake. Alluvium has pressure aquifer
properties due to impermeable clayey levels in some
places. The main materials of the alluvium are limestone,
andesite, and schist depending on the position in which it is
located. According to groundwater head measurements in
piezometers, the groundwater depth and groundwater head
range from 0.60 to 6.95 m and from 1108 to 1254 m, re-
spectively. The groundwater level rises towards the
Beyşehir Lake. According to general water budget of the
aquifer, the amount of recharge is 1,354,309.81 m 3/day
and discharge is 1,354,269.61 m 3/day. In addition, the
amount of aquifer recharge from rainfall has been calculat-
ed as 21,253 × 106 m3/year (Doğan et al. 2013).
Methodology
In this study, lithology, lineament, drainage density, land use,
slope, soil type, and rainfall parameters which are important
parameters to define groundwater potential were used. The
groundwater potential mapping was performed using GIS,
fuzzy-AHP, and remote sensing methods (Fig. 2). The details
of all using data and the output layers are summarized in
Table 1. Firstly, 1/25,000 scale topographical maps were dig-
itized and all the thematic maps were prepared using the GIS
techniques such as line density, interpolation, map algebra,
and overlay analysis. Lithological units were investigated with

Low

pe
Slo

Moderate

e
GOAL

us
nd
La

Fig. 2 The flowchart of the methodology

Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 5 of 21 187

Table 1 The details of using data and the output layers

Data Type Detail of Data Sources Existing Format Extracted Layer Output Layer GIS Data
Type

Geological Map 1/100 000 scale General Directorate Mineral Research & Hardcopy Lithology Lithology Raster
Exploration (http://www.mta.gov.tr)
Satellite imagery ASTER imagery Global Land Cover Facility (http://www. Erdas Imagine Lineaments Lineaments Density Raster
landcover.org) Corine Landuse Landuse Map Raster
Soil Map 1/100 000 scale Ministry of agriculture and rural affairs, Hardcopy Soil Type Soil Map Raster
Turkey (https://www.tarim.gov.tr)
Topographical 1/25 000 scale General Command of Mapping Hardcopy Contour Slope Raster
Map (https://www.hgk.msb.gov.tr) Drainage Drainage Density Raster
Spring Vector
Rainfall Annual mean rainfall Turkish State Meteorological Service MS Excel Rainfall Rainfall Map Raster
data (mm) (https://mgm.gov.tr)

field studies and geological observations were checked with
literature data. ArcGIS software was used to prepare geology
map and soil map of the study area. The hardcopies of the
geology and soil maps were digitized and converted into a
grid map with a 10 × 10 m cell size. To obtain the slope
map, the digitized 1/25,000 scale topographic map (contour
interval of 10 m) was used to generate the digital elevation
model (DEM) of the study area. Also, drainage map was pre-
pared using digitized topographical maps. The rainfall map of
the basin was prepared using inverse distance weight (IDW)
interpolation method of ArcGIS Spatial Analyst with the mea-
sured annual rainfall data recorded from the Turkish State
Meteorological Service. Lineament and land use maps were
prepared from satellite images with the help of remote sensing
methods. Lineament analysis of the basin was carried out
using ASTER satellite imagery and the digital elevation model
of the study area. The lineaments were defined with the help
of directional filters and visual interpretation of the satellite
imagery.
In addition, land use map was prepared with Maximum
Likelihood Classification method using ASTER satellite
imagery in accordance with CORINE methodology. The
accuracy of classification was evaluated using error matrix
and kappa analysis. The Cohen’s kappa analysis is com-
monly used for evaluating classification accuracy of remote
sensing imagery. The kappa value varies between 0 and 1
and a larger value shows the better model performance
(Cohen 1960). Model performance is classified into three
categories as follows (Araújo et al. 2005; Landis and Koch
1977);
Kappa > 0.75
0.75 > kappa > 0.4
Kappa < 0.4
The fuzzy-AHP method was used to evaluate the used pa-
rameters and determine rating coefficients of them. In addi-
tion, the Groundwater Potential Index (GWPI) was calculated
using rating and weight values of the parameters and ground-
water potential mapping was performed.
Fuzzy-AHP method
Decision analysis is one of the most suitable areas for the
use of the fuzzy set theory. Multi-criteria decision problems
are well suited for modeling using fuzzy set theory. The
fuzzy-AHP method is developed from the traditional AHP
and is used to solve the multi-criteria decision making prob-
lems (Lee et al. 2013). In the literature, many researchers
tried to determine the best option in multi-criteria decision
making using fuzzy cluster theory and hierarchical struc-
ture analysis for the alternative selection (Kahraman et al.
2004). The first study on the fuzzy-AHP was made in 1983
by Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz. In this study, the fuzzy
rates expressed by triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) were
compared and applied to the fuzzy version of the logarith-
mic least squares method (Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz
1983; Tan et al. 2014). Then, the method was frequently
used for decision making problems and modified by many
researchers (Chang 1996; Cheng 1997; Buckley 1985;
Boender et al. 1989; Wang et al. 2006; Wang and Yang
2009; Tseng et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2011).
As seen in the hierarchical model in Fig. 2, the litholo-
gy, lineament, drainage density, land use, slope, soil type,
and rainfall parameters are used to determine groundwater
potential zones in the study area. In the present study,
Excellent extent analysis method in fuzzy-AHP which is developed
Good by Chang (1996) was applied. The pairwise comparisons
Poor scale used in fuzzy-AHP method is given in Table 2 (Tseng
et al. 2008). The used fuzzy scaling ratios are 2/3, 1, 3/2, 2,
5/2, 3, 7/2, 4, and 9/2 interval values expressing the
187 Page 6 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

Table 2 Fuzzy scale

Linguistic scale for importance Triangular fuzzy scale Triangular fuzzy reciprocal scale

Just equal (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)

Equally important (EI) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)
Weakly more important (WMI) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1)
Strongly more important (SMI) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
Very strongly more important (VSMI) (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2)
Absolutely more important (AMI) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)

 
strength of preference for one element over another (Lee ∑mj¼1 M gij ¼ ∑mj¼1 l j ; ∑mj¼1 m j ; ∑mj¼1 u j ð2Þ
et al. 2013).
According to the Chang’s (1992), X = (x1, x2, x3, ………., xn)
is an object set, and U = (u1, u2, u3, ………., um) is a goal set. h i−1
Each object is taken and extent analysis is applied for each goal, and to achieve ∑ni¼1 ∑mj¼1 M gij , the fuzzy addition opera-
gi. Thus, m extent analysis values are obtained for each object tion of M gij ð j ¼ 1; 2; ……; mÞ values was performed like
and these values are shown as: this,

M 1gi ; M 2gi ; ……; M 1m

gi ;  
∑ni¼1 ∑mj¼1 M gij ¼ ∑ni¼1 l i ; ∑ni¼1 mi ; ∑ni¼1 ui ð3Þ

where all the M gij

ð j ¼ 1; 2; ……; mÞ are triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs). the reverse of the vector in formula (4) was obtained with the
The steps of Chang’s extent analysis were summarized by following formula:
Kahraman et al. (2004) as follows:

h i−1  
First stage: Accordingly the ith object, the fuzzy synthetic 1 1 1
∑ni¼1 ∑mj¼1 M gij ¼ ; ; ð4Þ
extent value is defined as: ∑ni¼1 u1 ∑ni¼1 m1 ∑ni¼1 l 1

h i−1
S i ¼ ∑mj¼1 M gij x ∑ni¼1 ∑mj¼1 M gij ð1Þ Second stage: The possibility degree of M2 = (l2, m2,
u2) ≥ M1 = (l1, m1, u1) is defined as:
To achieve ∑mj¼1 M gij , the fuzzy addition operation of m
extent analysis values for a particular matrix was performed h  i
like this, V ðM 2 ≥ M 1 Þ ¼ supy ≥ x min μM 1 ðxÞ; μM 2 ðyÞ ð5Þ

Fig. 3 The intersection between

M1 and M2 (Kahraman et al.
2004)
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 7 of 21 187

Table 3 Comparison matrix and significance weighting values of using parameters

Drainage density Lineament density Land use Rainfall Soil Slope Lithology W

Drainage density (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) 0.044509
Lineament density (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) (5/2, 3, 7/2) 0.001254
Land use (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/3, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.09216
Rainfall (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.065085
Soil (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.14931
Slope (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/3, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.270528
Lithology (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 2/5, 1/2, 2/3 (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.377153

Equally, it can be expressed as follows: where Ai (i = 1, 2, ……, n) are n elements.

V ðM 2 ≥M 1 Þ ¼ hgt ðM 1 ∩M 2 Þ ¼ μM 2 ðd Þ
8 Final stage: the normalized weight vectors are like as
> 1; if m2 ≥ m1 ;
<
0; if m2 ≥ m1 ;
¼ l 1 −u2 ð6Þ
>
: ; otherwise; W ¼ ðd ðA1 Þ; d ðA2 Þ; ……; d ðAn ÞÞT ð10Þ
ðm2 −u2 Þ−ðm1 −ul2 Þ
V ðM 1 ≥M 2 Þ and V ðM 2 ≥ M 1 Þ where W is a non-fuzzy number.
The pairwise comparison matrices are prepared for using
where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D parameter (Table 3) and for each parameter (Tables 4, 5, 6, 7,
between μM1 and μM2 (Fig. 3). 8, 9, and 10). Then, the composite weights are derived via a
sequence of multiplications as seen in Table 11.
Third stage: The possibility degree for a convex fuzzy
number to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers Groundwater Potential Index
Mi (i = 1, 2, ……, k) is defined as follows:
In general, the Groundwater Potential Index (GWPI) is a
dimensionless quantification index method which is de-
V ðM ≥M 1 ; M 2 ; ………; M k Þ ¼ V ½ðM ≥ M 1 Þ and ðM ≥ M 2 Þ and ðM ≥ M k Þ
¼ minV ðM ≥ M i Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; ……; k signed to produce groundwater potential scores for differ-
ð7Þ ent locations by combining thematic layers (Shekhar and
Pandey 2015; Rahmati et al. 2015). The ratings and
assume that: weights values determined with fuzzy-AHP method for
each of the parameters were used to calculate GWPI as
d 1 ðA1 Þ ¼ minV ðS 1 ≥ S k Þ ð8Þ follows:

For k = 1, 2, ……, n; k ≠ i, the weight vector can given by

GWPI ¼ LrLw þ LNrLNw þ DrDw þ LUrLUw
 T
0 0 0
W ¼ d ðA1 Þ; d ðA2 Þ; ……; d ðAn Þ
0
ð9Þ þ SrSw þ RrRw þ SLrSLw ð11Þ

Table 4 Comparison matrix and significance weighting values of lithology

A B C D E F W

A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) (5/2, 3, 7/2) 0.038574
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.091593
C (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.146254
D (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.199178
E (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2,2 /3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.245525
F (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.278877

A indicates ophiolites, B indicates metamorphics, C indicates flysch, D indicates volcanics, E indicates limestone, and F indicates alluvium
W weight
187 Page 8 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

Table 5 Comparison matrix and

significance weighting values of A B C D E W
slope
A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.1368
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.168774
C (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.177843
D (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 1/2, 2/3, 1 2/3, 1, 2 (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.218693
E (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 2/5, 1/2, 2/3 1/2, 2/3, 1 2/3, 1, 2 (1, 1, 1) 0.297889

A indicates > 20.1°, B indicates 12.1–20.0°, C indicates 6.1–12.0°, D indicates 2.1–6.0°, and E indicates 0–2.0°
W weight

where GWPI is the Groundwater Potential Index, L is the
lithology, LN is the lineament, D is the drainage density,
LU is the land use, S is the slope, R is the rainfall, and
SL is the soil. In addition, the subscripts Br^ and Bw^
refer to the rating and weight of the each parameter,
respectively.
The GWPI map of the basin was generated using the
thematic layers of the seven parameters: lithology, linea-
ment, drainage density, land use, slope, soil type, and
rainfall. Each thematic layer is converted to raster data
sets using ArcGIS. GWPI was computed and overlay
analysis was used to create the final potential map.
Weighting factors of the parameters were determined de-
pending on the location properties which are presented in
Table 11. The groundwater potential zone of the study
area is divided into three class schemes, i.e., low, moder-
ate, and high using the equal interval ArcGIS raster data
classification method. This method divides the range of
attribute values into equal-sized sub-ranges to understand
the legend easily and works best with the continuously
distributed data.
Results and discussion
Description of parameters
The seven parameters, namely lithology, lineament,
drainage density, land use, slope, soil type, and rainfall
are taken into consideration in determining the ground-
water potential zones in the study area. The detailed ex-
planations of the each parameter with importance and
their spatial distribution are presented in the following
section.

Table 6 Comparison matrix and

significance weighting values of A B C D E W
soil type
A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.128537
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.17412
C (1/3, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.203456
D (1/3, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1,2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.236184
E (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2,2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.257702

A indicates none/rock, B indicates clay, C indicates sandy clay, D indicates sand-gravel, and E indicates gravel
W weight

Table 7 Comparison matrix and

significance weighting values of A B C D E W
landuse
A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) 0.117654
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.180274
C (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.213604
D (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.230806
E (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.257663

A indicates bare rock, B indicates pasture, C indicates forest, D indicates none irrigated area, and E indicates
irrigated area
W weight
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 9 of 21 187

Table 8 Comparison matrix and

significance weighting values of A B C D E W
rainfall
A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) (5/2, 3, 7/2) 0.331921
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.284218
C (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.24608
D (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.104124
E (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.033656

A indicates 821–914 mm, B indicates 727–820 mm, C indicates 632–726 mm, D indicates 538–631 mm, and E
indicates 443–537 mm
W weight

Lithology to prepare geological map of the basin (Elitok 2000; Demirkol

Lithology provides important clues in evaluating the
hydrogeological aspects of rocks. The main lithological units
are alluvium, limestone, volcanics, flysch, ophiolite, and meta-
morphics in the study area. Metamorphic rock groups are com-
posed of Paleozoic marbles and metamorphic schists, and
magmatic rock groups are Neogene-aged volcanic basalt and
tuffs. Sedimentary rock groups are Cretaceous-aged limestones
located in the west of the basin, and Neogene flysch in the
northeast of the basin. Paleogene-aged ophiolite is observed
in narrow areas. Quaternary alluvium is composed of materials
such as clay, silt, sand, and gravel, unconformably covering all
of the other lithological units. Field studies were performed
and previous geological investigations were taken into account
et al. 1977; Özturk et al. 1987; Fig. 4). Quaternary alluvium
and limestones are the most important aquifers in the basin.
Therefore, these areas were assigned to a high score. The
allochthonous units consist of Kizildag ophiolites in the
basin. Metamorphic rocks in the basin are composed of
meta-sandstone, meta-siltstone, quartzite, and schist.
Ophiolite and metamorphic units are impermeable and as-
sumed as poor groundwater potential. Therefore, these
areas were assigned to a low score. Volcanic and flysch
units are semi-permeable and have limited groundwater po-
tential. Each lithological group was assigned with a rating
from 0.27887 (for alluvium) to 0.03857 (for ophiolite,
Table 11) based on hydrogeologic properties of the litho-
logical units.

Table 9 Comparison matrix and

significance weighting values of A B C D E W
drainage density
A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) (5/2, 3, 7/2) 0.3319215
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.28421826
C (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.2460803
D (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.10412351
E (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.03365644

A indicates 3.88–8.65 km/km2 , B indicates 2.55–3.87 km/km2 , C indicates 1.54–2.54 km/km2 , D indicates
0.55–1.53 km/km2 , and E indicates 0–0.54 km/km2
W weight

Table 10 Comparison matrix and

significance weighting values of A B C D E W
lineament density
A (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.1368
B (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.168774
C (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.177843
D (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 1/2, 2/3, 1 2/3, 1, 2 (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.218693
E (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 2/5, 1/2, 2/3 1/2, 2/3, 1 2/3, 1, 2 (1, 1, 1) 0.297889

A indicates 0–0.27 km/km2 , B indicates 0.28–0.75 km/km2 , C indicates 0.76–1.14 km/km2 , D indicates 1.15–
1.50 km/km2 , and E indicates 1.51–2.61 km/km2
W weight
187 Page 10 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

Table 11 Rating and weighting

values of different parameters Parameters Sub-parameters Area Fuzzy AHP
influencing the groundwater
potential km2 % Weight Rating Total weight

Lithology Ophiolites 80.844 2.30 0.37715 0.03857 0.01455

Metamorphics 267.307 7.60 0.09159 0.03454
Flysch 1012.402 28.78 0.14625 0.05516
Volcanics 273.027 7.76 0.19918 0.07512
Limestone 1289.728 36.67 0.24552 0.09260
Alluvium 594.131 16.89 0.27888 0.07544
Slope > 20.1° 596.479 16.96 0.27053 0.13680 0.03701
12.1–20.0° 723.523 20.57 0.16877 0.04566
6.1–12.0° 743.057 21.12 0.17784 0.04811
2.1–6.0° 784.125 22.29 0.21869 0.05916
0–2.0° 670.258 19.06 0.29789 0.08059
Soil type None/pock 367.204 10.44 0.14931 0.12854 0.01919
Clay 257.951 7.33 0.17412 0.02600
Sandy clay 591.961 16.83 0.20346 0.03038
Sand-gravel 512.098 14.56 0.23618 0.03526
Gravel 1788.228 50.84 0.25770 0.03848
Land use Bare rock 54.669 1.55 0.09216 0.11765 0.01084
Pasture 191.220 5.44 0.18027 0.01661
Forest 1994.429 56.70 0.21360 0.01969
None irrigated area 711.196 20.22 0.23081 0.02127
Irrigated area 565.927 16.09 0.25766 0.02375
Rainfall (mm) 821–914 1528.381 43.45 0.06508 0.33192 0.02160
727–820 989.923 28.14 0.28422 0.01850
632–726 201.761 5.74 0.24608 0.01602
538–631 615.806 17.51 0.10412 0.00678
443–537 181.570 5.16 0.03366 0.00219
Drainage density (km−1) 3.88–8.65 147.118 4.18 0.04451 0.33192 0.01477
2.55–3.87 459.383 13.06 0.28422 0.01265
1.54–2.54 779.906 22.17 0.24608 0.01095
0.55–1.53 971.463 27.62 0.10412 0.00463
0–0.54 1159.571 32.97 0.03366 0.00150
Lineament density (km−1) 0–0.27 2707.647 76.98 0.00125 0.13680 0.00017
0.28–0.75 339.240 9.64 0.16877 0.00021
0.76–1.14 423.308 12.03 0.17784 0.00022
1.15–1.50 30.240 0.86 0.21869 0.00027
1.51–2.61 17.007 0.48 0.29789 0.00037

Slope classes according to slope properties. The Bvery good^ class

The infiltration of surface water does not occur at the same
level in each region. Slope is one of the factors controlling the
infiltration of water into subsurface. The surface runoff is slow
and infiltration rate is high in the gentle slope area. However,
high runoff is observed in the high slope area hence compar-
atively less infiltration (Prasad et al. 2008; Magesh et al.
2012). The Beyşehir Lake Basin was divided into five slope
indicates the areas having 0–6° slope due to high infiltration
rate which depend on nearly flat terrain. The Bgood^ class
refers to the areas with 6–12° slope for groundwater storage.
The infiltration decreases in the higher sloping areas such as
12–20° and also > 20°. Hence, the areas having a slope of 12–
20° and > 20° are considered as Bpoor^ and Bvery poor,^
respectively. The slope map can be seen in Fig. 5 and the
assigned rating values are given in Table 11.
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 11 of 21 187

0 10 20 km

Hüyük

BEYSEHIR
LAKE
LITHOLOGY
Quaternary Alluvium

Eocene Miocene Miocene

Upper
Neogene
Volcanics
Cenozoic

Tertiary

Flysh

Ophiolites
Paleozoic Mesozoic

Cretaceous
Limestone

Ordovician Metamorphics

Fig. 4 Lithology map of the study area

Soil between 0.12853 (for none/rock) and 0.2577 (for gravel,

The amount of the groundwater recharge is closely related
with soil type. The porosity of the soil determines the infiltra-
tion rate (Chitsazan and Akhtari 2009). The soil types, namely
none/rock, clay, sandy clay, sand-gravel, and gravel are de-
fined in the study area (Fig. 6). The dominant soil type is
gravel which is about 50.84% in the basin. The rating has been
assigned related to the infiltration capability of the media.
Accordingly, each soil class was assigned with a rating
Table 11).
Land use
The different land use/land cover types such as bare rock,
forest, pasture, irrigated, and non-irrigated arable lands are
observed in the Beyşehir Lake Basin (Fig. 7). Forest areas
are the dominant land use type and occupy about 56.7% of
the study area. It was followed by non-irrigated arable lands
approximately 20.22% of the basin. Non-irrigated land is
187 Page 12 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

0 10 20 km

Hüyük

BEYSEHIR
LAKE

Slope ( o )
20.1 <

12.1 - 20.0

6.1 - 12.0

2.1 - 6.0

0 - 2.0

Fig. 5 Slope map of the study area

predominantly distributed along the southern terrain. Land use
types control the infiltration and runoff. Land use change
meant that many tropical soils have undergone important
changes in their properties, including loss of organic matter
and increases in bulk density, decreases in aggregate stability,
and as a consequences, decreases in infiltration rate
(Mwendera and Mohamed Saleem, 1997). Changes in infil-
tration capacity will have a direct influence on surface runoff
and on the hydrological regime of rivers, thereby affecting
lower catchment areas (Yimer et al. 2008). In addition, land
use type affects the evapotranspiration and groundwater re-
charge (Dinesh Kumar et al. 2007). In general, croplands
(irrigated and non-irrigated areas, and other crops) are the
most suitable sites for groundwater resources. The assigned
rating and weight values of the land use parameters can be
seen in Table 11.
Rainfall
Rainfall is the principal recharge source for aquifer units.
Hence, rainfall distribution increases the possibility of ground-
water potential zones. To prepare rainfall map of the basin,
inverse distance-weighted (IDW) interpolation methods of
ArcGIS Spatial Analyst were applied using the annual rainfall
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 13 of 21 187

0 10 20 km

BEYSEHIR
LAKE

Soil
Clay

Sandy Clay

Gravel

Sand - Gravel

None / Rock

Fig. 6 Soil type map of the study area

data recorded from Turkish State Meteorological Service (Fig.
8). The average annual rainfall is 490 mm in the study area.
The maximum average rainfall ranges from 727 to 914 mm in
the southern hills covering with dense forest. The lower
amount of average rainfall is observed in the northern and
northeastern plains (443–537 mm) in the Şarkikaraağaç dis-
trict. According to the fuzzy-AHP calculations, zones with
low precipitation were assigned with a low rating value while
the highest rating value was appointed to zones receiving the
highest precipitation. The ratings for rainfall are presented in
Table 11.
Drainage density
Drainage is one of the most important indicators of
hydrogeological features. Groundwater recharge is closely re-
lated with drainage density and low level of groundwater re-
charge occurs in the media having high drainage density
(Prasad et al. 2008; Yeh et al. 2009; Magesh et al. 2012).
Drainage density is an inverse function of permeability. The
less permeable a rock is, the less the infiltration of rainfall,
which conversely tends to be concentrated in surface runoff
(Magesh et al. 2012; Manap et al. 2013). Drainage density is
187 Page 14 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

0 10 20 km

BEYSEHIR
LAKE

Landuse \ Corine
Irrigated Area

Bare Rock

Forest

None Irrigated Area

Pasture

Fig. 7 Land use map of the study area

defined as the ratio of the stream segment per unit area. Line
density option in spatial analyst tool in ArcGIS software was
used to calculate the drainage density of the study area. Firstly,
the entire drainage pattern was digitized and then the drainage
density has been calculated as shown in Fig. 9. It varies from
0.00 to 8.65 km/km2 and high drainage density is recorded in
the northern and eastern parts of the Beyşehir Lake Basin (Fig.
9). Metamorphic, flysch, and volcanic units are located in
these regions, and these regions have high topography. The
rating and weight values of this parameter are shown in
Table 11.
Lineament
Lineaments are an evidence of underground geological struc-
ture and they can be determined using remote sensing analysis
of fractures or structures (Pradhan et al. 2006; Pradhan and
Youssef 2010). Intersection of lineaments and lineaments par-
allel to the drainage network areas can give better groundwater
yields than the other areas. Hence, lineaments give a clue to
movement and storage of groundwater and help in determin-
ing groundwater zones in the hydrogeological researches
(Subba Rao et al. 2001). Lineament density means cumulative
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 15 of 21 187

0 10 20 km

BEYSEHIR
LAKE

Rainfall (mm)
443 - 537
538 - 631
632 - 726
727 - 820
821 - 914
Fig. 8 Rainfall map of the study area

length of lineaments per unit area (Edet et al. 1998). The
lineament density map was prepared using line density option
in spatial analyst tool in ArcGIS software (Fig. 10). The prom-
inent directions of the lineaments are NW and NE. In this
study, lineament density was classified into five classes of
equal intervals. The highest lineament density (1.51–
2.61 km/km2) is found in the western side of the basin on
the limestone and dolomitic limestone rock units. The lowest
lineament density (0–0.27 km/km2) is recorded in the eastern
side of the basin on the flysch and volcanic units. The rating
and weight values of this parameter are shown in Table 11.
Identification of groundwater potential zones and its
validation
The groundwater potential map of the study area was pre-
pared using GIS-based fuzzy-AHP and the overlay analyses
of the selected parameters mentioned above. Firstly, the
weight values of the used parameters and also rating values
of the each sub-parameters were determined with fuzzy-
AHP method. The most effective parameter is the lithology
with 0.37715 weight value (Table 11). It is followed by
slope parameter with 0.27053 weight value. Soil type
187 Page 16 of 21 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187

0 10 20 km

BEYSEHIR
LAKE
Drainage Density
2
( km \ km )
0 - 0.54

0.55 - 1.53

1.54 - 2.54

2.55 - 3.87

3.88 - 8.65

stream

Fig. 9 Drainage density map of the study area

(0.14931 weight value) and land use (0.09216 weight val-
ue) parameters are moderately effective for groundwater
potential in the basin. Lineament density, drainage density,
and rainfall parameters have low importance, and so these
are weighted with low values such as 0.00125, 0.04451,
and 0.06508, respectively. Expert opinion, detail field in-
vestigations, and specific properties of the region were tak-
en into account in weighting each parameter. Then, the
Groundwater Potential Index (GWPI) was computed using
ratings and weights determined by fuzzy-AHP method (Eq.
11). The calculated GWPI is between 0.07665 and 0.28243.
The quantile classification method was used to determine
groundwater potential classes such as low, moderate, and
high in the study area.
About 17.58% of the study area falls under the Blow
groundwater potential^ zone with 617.9 km2, 50.52% falls
under Bmoderate groundwater potential^ zone and covers
1776.2 km2 of the total area, and 31.91% falls under Bhigh
groundwater potential^ zone with 1121.9 km2. According to
the results of the groundwater potential assessment, the high
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 17 of 21 187

0 10 20 km

BEYSEHIR
LAKE
Lineament Density
2
( km \ km )
0 - 0.27

0.28 - 0.75

0.76 - 1.14

1.15 - 1.5

1.51 - 2.61

Lineaments

Fig. 10 Lineament density map of the study area

groundwater potential zones are located around the Beyşehir
Lake and in the alluvium areas. In addition, limestone areas
have high groundwater potential due to their karstic structures.
However, the areas having high slope and impermeable lithol-
ogy were identified as having low groundwater potential in
the northern part of the basin (Fig. 11).
The validation of the study and the control of the prepared
groundwater potential map were performed with the existing
spring discharge points. The spring points were digitized
using ArcGIS software and 1/25,000 scale topographic map
of the basin. A total of 931 spring points having different
yields were identified and shown on groundwater potential
map (Fig. 12). According to calculations, 167 springs exist
on the area having low groundwater potential and constitute
17.94% of the total springs. Three hundred thirty-nine springs
(36.41%) discharge from the moderate groundwater potential
zones in the basin. The high groundwater potential zone has
425 springs; it is 45.65% of the total springs (Fig. 12). Several
contact springs were observed in the low groundwater poten-
tial zones during field studies. Also, many springs discharge
from the cracks in the metamorphic and sedimentary rock
units. In general, the yields of the springs are low
187 Page 18 of 21
BEYSEHIR
LAKE
Fig. 11 Groundwater potential map of the study area
(approximately 0.5–4 l/s) in the low groundwater potential
zones. However, the springs discharging from limestone have
much higher yield (100–10,000 l/s) and are mostly continuous
springs.
Conclusions
In this study, groundwater potential mapping was performed
using fuzzy-AHP method based on GIS in the Beyşehir Lake
Basin. Several parameters such as lithology, lineament,
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187
0 5 10 km
Groundwater Potential
Low
Moderate
High
drainage density, land use, slope, soil type, and rainfall were
taken into consideration and evaluated to determine potential
zones. Land use and lineament maps of the study area were
also created with the help of the remote sensing techniques.
The fuzzy-AHP method was used to determine the weight and
rating values of each parameter. Alluvium and limestone are
the main aquifer units in the study area and groundwater depth
is between 0.60 and 6.95 m in alluvium aquifer. The dominant
soil type is gravel in the study area and the forest area occupies
around 1994.5 km2, i.e., 56.7% of the basin. Drainage density
varies from 0.00 to 8.65 km/km2 and northern and eastern
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187 Page 19 of 21 187

BEYSEHIR
LAKE
0 5 10 km

Groundwater Potential
Low

Moderate

High

Spring

Fig. 12 Distribution and percentage of the springs in the groundwater potential zones

parts of the study area have high drainage density. In addition,
limestone and dolomitic limestone rock units have highest
lineament density in the western part of the basin. GWPI
was calculated using the weight and rating values of each
parameter and it is between 0.07665 and 0.28243. The study
area was divided into three classes such as low, moderate, and
high groundwater potential zones. In general, the study area
has moderate groundwater potential. The best groundwater
potential zone is concentrated in the alluvium and limestone
areas with lake shores. In addition, there are several spring
discharges in these areas. The results of this study have great
importance for sustainable management of the lake and
groundwater utilization by local authorities. The results will
be beneficial especially in water budgeting works for water-
shed planning managers and proper management of
watersheds.
187 Page 20 of 21
References
Araújo MB, Pearson RG, Thuiller W, Erhard M (2005) Validation of
species–climate impact models under climate change. Glob Chang
Biol 11:1504–1513
Aryafar A, Yousefi S, Ardejani FD (2013) The weight of interaction of
mining activities: groundwater in environmental impact assessment
using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP). Environ Earth Sci
68(8):2313–2324
Babaoğlu M (2007) The Problems of Beyşehir Lake and Necessary
Measures, Beyşehir Lake Research Commission, Konya
Provincial Assembly, pp 34.
Bhushan N, Rai K (2004) Strategic decision making: applying the ana-
lytic hierarchy process. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 172
Boender CGE, De Graan JG, Lootsma FA (1989) Multicriteria decision
analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets Syst 29:133–
143
Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–
247
Chang DY (1992) Extent analysis and synthetic decision. Optim Tech
Appl 1:352
Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy
AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655
Chang NB, Parvathinathan G, Breeden JB (2008) Combining GIS with
fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-
growing urban region. J Environ Manag 87(1):139–153
Cheng CH (1997) Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy
AHP based on the grade value of membership function. Eur J
Oper Res 96(2):343–350
Chi K, Lee BJ (1994) Extracting potential groundwater area using re-
motely sensed data and GIS techniques. Proceedings of the
Regional Seminar on Integrated Applications of Remote Sensing
and GIS for Land and Water Resources Management. Bangkok:
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, pp.
64-69.
Chitsazan M, Akhtari Y (2009) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for
assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kherran Plain, Khuzestan, Iran.
Water Resour Manag 23:1137–1155
Chowdhury A, Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Mal BC (2009) Integrated re-
mote sensing and GIS-based approach for assessing groundwater
potential in West Medinipur district, West Bengal, India. Int J
Remote Sens 30:231–250
Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ
Psychol Meas 20:37–46
Demirkol C, Sipahi H, Cicek S (1977) Stratigraphy and geological evo-
lution of Sultandagı. General Directorate of Mineral Research and
Exploration 6305. Ankara.
Dinesh Kumar PK, Gopinath G, Seralathan P (2007) Application of re-
mote sensing and GIS for the demarcation of groundwater potential
zones of a river basin in Kerala, southwest cost of India. Int J
Remote Sens 28(24):5583–5601
Doğan A, Başayiğit L, Soyaslan İ, Nas B (2013) Determining lake-
groundwater- climate relations with the help of Groundwater Flow
Model and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and creating
optimum dynamic business model of the lake: a case study of
Beyşehir Lake, The Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Turkey (TUBITAK) Project Final Report, Project No: 109Y271,
İstanbul.
Edet AE, Okereke CS, Teme SC, Esu EO (1998) Application of remote
sensing data groundwater exploration: a case study of the Cross
River State, Southeastern Nigeria. Hydrogeol J 6:394–404
Elewa HH, Qaddah A (2011) Groundwater potentiality mapping in the
Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, using remote sensing and GIS-watershed-
based modeling. Hydrogeol J 19(3):613–628
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187
Elitok O (2000) Geology, mineralogy and petrography of Sarkikaraagac
(Isparta) and vicinity. Suleyman Demirel University, Science
Institute, Doctorate Thesis, 220 s. Isparta
Ganapuram S, Kumar GV, Krishna IM, Kahya E, Demirel MC (2009)
Mapping of groundwater potential zones in the Musi basin using
remote sensing data and GIS. Adv Eng Softw 40(7):506–518
Ghayoumian J, Saravi MM, Feiznia S, Nouri B, Malekian A (2007)
Application of GIS techniques to determine areas most suitable for
artificial groundwater recharge in a coastal aquifer in southern Iran. J
Asian Earth Sci 30(2):364–374
Ghorbani Nejad S, Falah F, Daneshfar M, Haghizadeh A, Rahmati O
(2017) Delineation of groundwater potential zones using remote
sensing and GIS-based data-driven models. Geocarto Int 32(2):
167–187
Gürler Ç (2017) Hydrological drought assessment with standardized in-
dex approach in the Beyşehir and Konya-Çumra-Karapınar subba-
sins. Ministry of Forestry and Water, General Directorate of Water
Management, Master thesis, 155 p. Ankara.
Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—
a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186:211–228
Jha MK, Chowdhury A, Chowdary VM, Peiffer S (2007) Groundwater
management and development by integrated remote sensing and
geographic information systems: prospects and constraints. Water
Resour Manag 21:427–467
Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection
using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manag 16(6):382–394
Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ruan D (2004) Multi-attribute comparison of
catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey. Int
J Prod Econ 87:171–184
Karabörk H (2009) Selection of appropriate sampling stations in a lake
through mapping. Environ Monit Assess 163(1–4):27–40
Krishnamurthy J, Srinivas G (1995) Role of geological and geomorpho-
logical factors in groundwater exploration: a study using IRS LISS
data. Int J Remote Sens 16(4):2595–2618
Krishnamurthy J, Venkatesa Kumar N, Jayaraman V, Manuvel M (1996)
An approach to demarcate groundwater potential zones through re-
mote sensing and a geographical information system. Int J Remote
Sens 17(10):1867–1884
Kumar P, Herath S, Avtar R, Takeuchi K (2016) Mapping of groundwater
potential zones in Killinochi area, Sri Lanka, using GIS and remote
sensing techniques. Sustain Water Resour Manag 2(4):419–430
Lahn E (1945) Geomorphology of the Western Taurus Lakes. J Miner Res
Explor Inst 2(3):387–393
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Lee SK, Mogi G, Hui KS (2013) A fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process(AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for
efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: in the case of energy
technologies against high oil prices. Renew Sust Energ Rev 21:347–
355
Machiwal D, Jha MK, Mal BC (2011) Assessment of groundwater po-
tential in a semi-arid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and
MCDM techniques. Water Resour Manag 25:1359–1386
Magesh NS, Chandrasekar N, Soundranayagam JP (2012) Delineation of
groundwater potential zones in Theni district, Tamil Nadu, using
remote sensing, GIS and MIF techniques. Geosci Front 3(2):189–
196
Mallick J, Singh CK, Al-Wadi H, Ahmed M, Rahman A, Shashtri S,
Mukherjee S (2015) Geospatial and geostatistical approach for
groundwater potential zone delineation. Hydrol Process 29(3):
395–418
Manap MA, Nampak H, Pradhan B, Lee S, Sulaiman WNA, Ramli MF
(2013) Application of probabilistic-based frequency ratio model in
groundwater potential mapping using remote sensing data and GIS.
Arab J Geosci 6:1621–1637
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:187
Mandal U, Sahoo S, Munusamy SB, Dhar A, Panda SN, Kar A, Mishra
PK (2016) Delineation of groundwater potential zones of coastal
groundwater basin using multi-criteria decision making technique.
Water Resour Manag 30(12):4293–4310
Mukherjee P, Singh CK, Mukherjee S (2012) Delineation of groundwater
potential zones in arid region of India—a remote sensing and GIS
approach. Water Resour Manag 26(9):2643–2672
Murthy KSR (2000) Groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of
Andhra Pradesh: a geographical information system approach. Int
J Remote Sens 21(9):1867–1884
Mwendera EJ, Mohamed Saleem MA (1997) Infiltration rates, surface
runoff and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the
Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manag 13:29–35
Nas B, Karabork H, Ekercin S, Berktay A (2008) Mapping chlorophyll-a
through in-situ measurements and Terra ASTER satellite data.
Environ Monit Assess 157(1):375–382
Nobre RCM, Filho OCR, Mansur WJ, Nobre MMM, Cosenza CAN
(2007) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS,
modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. J Contam Hydrol 94:277–292
Özparlak H, Arsla G, Arslan E (2012) Determination of some metal levels
in muscle tissue of nine fish species from Beyşehir Lake, Turkey.
Turk J Fish Aquat Sci 12(4):761–770
Özturk EM, Dalkılıc H, Ergin A, Avşar OP (1987) Geology of southwest
Sultandağı and Anamasdagı. General Directorate of Mineral
Research and Exploration, Ankara, pp 81–91
Peel MC, Finlayson BL, Mc Mahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the
Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:
1633–1644
Pradhan B, Youssef AM (2010) Manifestation of remote sensing data and
GIS for landslide hazard analysis using spatial-based statistical
models. Arab J Geosci 3(3):319–326
Pradhan B, Singh RP, Buchroithner MF (2006) Estimation of stress and
its use in evaluation of landslide prone regions using remote sensing
data. Adv Space Res 37:698–709
Prasad RK, Mondal NC, Banerjee P, Nandakumar MV, Singh VS (2008)
Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the
application of GIS. Environ Geol 55(3):467–475
Rahmati O, Samani AN, Mahdavi M, Pourghasemi HR, Zeinivand H
(2015) Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran
using analytic hierarchy process and GIS. Arab J Geosci 8(9):7059–
7071
Razandi Y, Pourghasemi HR, Neisani NS, Rahmati O (2015) Application
of analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and certainty factor
models for groundwater potential mapping using GIS. Earth Sci Inf
8(4):867–883
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New
York, p 287
Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int
J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98
Saha D, Dhar YR, Vittala SS (2010) Delineation of groundwater devel-
opment potential zones in parts of marginal Ganga Alluvial Plain in
South Bihar. East India Environ Monit Assess 165:179–191
Saraf AK, Choudhury PR, Roy B, Sarma B, Vijay S, Choudhury S (2004)
GIS based surface hydrological modelling in identification of
groundwater recharge zones. Int J Remote Sens 25:5759–5770
Page 21 of 21 187
Shahid S, Nath SK, Kamal ASMM (2002) GIS integration of remote
sensing and topographic data using fuzzy logic for ground water
assessment in Midnapur District. India Geocarto Int 17:69–74
Shekhar S, Pandey AC (2015) Delineation of groundwater potential zone
in hard rock terrain of India using remote sensing, geographical
information system (GIS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
techniques. Geocar Int 30(4):402–421
Singh CK, Shashtri S, Singh A, Mukherjee S (2011) Quantitative model-
ing of groundwater in Satluj River basin of Rupnagar district of
Punjab using remote sensing and geographic information system.
Environ Earth Sci 62:871–881
Subba Rao N, Chakradhar GKJ, Srinivas V (2001) Identification of
groundwater potential zones using remote sensing techniques in
and around Guntur Town. Andhra Pradesh, India 29 (1&2):69–78.
Tan RR, Aviso KB, Huelgas AP, Promentilla MAB (2014) Fuzzy AHP
approach to selection problems in process engineering involving
quantitative and qualitative aspects. Process Saf Environ Prot
92(5):467–475
Teixeira J, Chaminé HI, Carvalho JM, Pérez-Alberti A, Rocha F (2013)
Hydrogeomorphological mapping as a tool in groundwater explora-
tion. J Maps 9(2):263–273
Teixeira J, Chaminé HI, Espinha Marques J, Carvalho JM, Pereira AJSC,
Carvalho MR, Fonseca PE, Pérez-Alberti A, Rocha F (2014) A
comprehensive analysis of groundwater resources using GIS and
multicriteria tools (Caldas da Cavaca, Central Portugal): environ-
mental issues. Environ Earth Sci 73(6):2699–2715
Tekin-Özan S (2008) Determination of heavy metal levels in water, sed-
iment and tissues of tench (Tinca tinca L., 1758) from Beyşehir Lake
(Turkey). Environ Monit Assess 145(1-3):295–302
Tseng ML, Lin YH, Chiu ASF, Chen CY (2008) Fuzzy AHP approach to
TQM strategy evaluation. IEMS 7(1):34–43.
Tweed SO, Leblanc M, Webb JA, Lubczynski MW (2007) Remote sens-
ing and GIS for mapping groundwater recharge and discharge areas
in salinity prone catchments, southeastern Australia. Hydrogeol J
15:75–96
Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s
priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:229–241
Wang TY, Yang YH (2009) A fuzzy model for supplier selection in
quantity discount environments. Expert Syst Appl 36(10):12179–
12187
Wang YM, Elhag TMS, Hua ZS (2006) A modified fuzzy logarithmic
least squares method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy
Sets Syst 157:3055–3071
Yang M, Khan FI, Sadiq R (2011) Prioritization of environmental issues
in off shore oil and gas operations: a hybrid approach using fuzzy
inference system and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Process Saf
Environ Prot 89(1):22–34
Yeh HF, Lee CH, Hsu KC, Chang PH (2009) GIS for the assessment of
the groundwater recharge potential zone. Environ Geol 58:185–195
Yimer F, Messing I, Ledin S, Abdelkadir A (2008) Effects of different
land use types on infiltration capacity in a catchment in the high-
lands of Ethiopia. Soil Use Manag 24(4):344–349