IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p2202-d1352365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Groundwater Potential Zones Utilizing Geographic Information System-Based Analytical Hierarchy Process, Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje, and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Methods: A Case Study in Mersin, Türkiye

Author

Listed:
  • Mehmet Özgür Çelik

    (Geomatics Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Mersin University, 33343 Mersin, Türkiye)

  • Lütfiye Kuşak

    (Geomatics Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Mersin University, 33343 Mersin, Türkiye)

  • Murat Yakar

    (Geomatics Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Mersin University, 33343 Mersin, Türkiye)

Abstract

The indiscriminate use of surface water has heightened the demand for groundwater supplies. Therefore, it is critical to locate potential groundwater sources to develop alternative water resources. Groundwater detection is tremendously valuable, as is sustainable groundwater management. Mersin, in southern Türkiye, is expected to confront drought shortly due to increased population, industry, and global climate change. The groundwater potential zones of Mersin were determined in this study by GIS-based AHP, VIKOR, and TOPSIS methods. Fifteen parameters were used for this goal. The study area was separated into five categories. The results show that the study area can be divided into “Very High” zones (4.98%, 5.94%, 7.96%), followed by “High” zones (10.89%, 10.32%, 16.50%), “Moderate” zones (60.68%, 52.41%, 51.56%), “Low” zones (21.28%, 28.53%, 20.90%), and “Very Low” zones (2.18%, 2.80%, 3.07%) in turn. Data from 60 wells were used to validate potential groundwater resources. The ROC-AUC technique was utilized for this. It was seen that the performance of the VIKOR model is better than that of the AHP and TOPSIS (76.5%). The findings demonstrated that the methods and parameters used are reliable for sustainable groundwater management. We believe that the study will also help decision makers for this purpose.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehmet Özgür Çelik & Lütfiye Kuşak & Murat Yakar, 2024. "Assessment of Groundwater Potential Zones Utilizing Geographic Information System-Based Analytical Hierarchy Process, Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje, and Technique for Order Prefe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-27, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2202-:d:1352365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2202/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2202/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    2. Peiyue Li & Hui Qian & Jianhua Wu, 2018. "Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water to reduce soil salinization in the Yinchuan Plain, North-West China," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 337-353, May.
    3. Yalpir, Sukran & Sisman, Suleyman & Akar, Ali Utku & Unel, Fatma Bunyan, 2021. "Feature selection applications and model validation for mass real estate valuation systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. Soyoung Park & Se-Yeong Hamm & Hang-Tak Jeon & Jinsoo Kim, 2017. "Evaluation of Logistic Regression and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline Models for Groundwater Potential Mapping Using R and GIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    7. Duong Hai Ha & Phong Tung Nguyen & Romulus Costache & Nadhir Al-Ansari & Tran Phong & Huu Duy Nguyen & Mahdis Amiri & Rohit Sharma & Indra Prakash & Hiep Le & Hanh Bich Thi Nguyen & Binh Thai Pham, 2021. "Quadratic Discriminant Analysis Based Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Groundwater Potential Modeling and Mapping," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(13), pages 4415-4433, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    2. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    3. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    4. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    5. Styliani Karamountzou & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2023. "Suitability and Sustainability Assessment of Existing Onshore Wind Farms in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    7. Rudimar Caricimi & Géremi Gilson Dranka & Dalmarino Setti & Paula Ferreira, 2022. "Reframing the Selection of Hydraulic Turbines Integrating Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy VIKOR Multi-Criteria Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Dragan Pamučar & Ibrahim Badi & Korica Sanja & Radojko Obradović, 2018. "A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    10. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    11. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    12. Chia-Liang Lin & Jwu-Jenq Chen & Yu-Yu Ma, 2023. "Ranking of Service Quality Solution for Blended Design Teaching Using Fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS in the Post-COVID-19 Era," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, March.
    13. Susmaga, Robert & Szczȩch, Izabela & Zielniewicz, Piotr & Brzezinski, Dariusz, 2023. "MSD-space: Visualizing the inner-workings of TOPSIS aggregations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(1), pages 229-242.
    14. Oliveira, Gilson Adamczuk & Tan, Kim Hua & Guedes, Bruno Turmina, 2018. "Lean and green approach: An evaluation tool for new product development focused on small and medium enterprises," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 62-73.
    15. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    16. Warunvit Auttha & Pongrid Klungboonkrong, 2023. "Evaluation of the Transport Environmental Effects of an Urban Road Network in a Medium-Sized City in a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-34, December.
    17. Tingting Li & Dan Zhao & Guiyun Liu & Yuhong Wang, 2022. "How to Evaluate College Students’ Green Innovation Ability—A Method Combining BWM and Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    19. Mir Seyed Mohammad Mohsen Emamat & Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota & Mohammad Reza Mehregan & Mohammad Reza Sadeghi Moghadam & Philippe Nemery, 2022. "Using ELECTRE-TRI and FlowSort methods in a stock portfolio selection context," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-35, December.
    20. Yanjin He & Hosang Jung, 2018. "A Voting TOPSIS Approach for Determining the Priorities of Areas Damaged in Disasters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2202-:d:1352365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.