IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zib/zbnmjg/v5y2021i1p6-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Integration Of Gis, Ahp, And Remote Sensing Methods For Potential Areas Groundwater: Case Study For Pontian District, Johor, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Mohd Sahrul Syukri

    (Faculty of Technology Management and Business, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor)

  • Narimah Samat

    (Section of Geography, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 11800 Minden, Penang)

  • Mohd Hasmadi Ismail

    (Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400 Serdang, Selangor.)

Abstract

In Malaysia, production and conservation of groundwater are essential to the ecosystem’s climate and sustainability. The decline of groundwater level data is a related problem for managing water supplies in the Pontian District, Johor, particularly in rural areas. With demand for household water, agriculture and industrial use is still increasing. Studies-based Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) have gained more advantages in groundwater exploration as it is rapid knowledge about the research and development tool. Therefore, the present study has conducted an example of mapping potential groundwater zones in the Pontian District, Johor, and assessing the factors leading to explore future groundwater opportunities. To identify possible groundwater areas, RS data and GIS are being used, and the data collected by the Department of Mineral and Geoscience Malaysia (JMG). The present study utilized integration between GIS through analytical hierarchy process techniques (AHP). Five different maps were prepared and studied for the potential groundwater area, such as Roughness, Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), Elevation, Curvature, and Slope. Weights in all the thematic maps assigned to each class using the AHP method on their characteristics and potential water capability. The production accuracy has checked using groundwater prospects information, and the process is approximately 87.5 percent accurate. The resulting map of groundwater capacity was graded into five groups-very good, good, moderate, low, and very low. The analysis shows that about 57.3 percent of the area occupies the low potential groundwater area. The potential zones of good and moderate groundwater are observed in 1.28 percent and 18.94 percent, respectively. Only in minimal areas is the area under perfect potential areas registered. The results from this study can be useful in the preparation and growth planning of related agencies in Malaysia, for possible groundwater exploration to provide a fast system and cost reduction and a shorter period.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohd Sahrul Syukri & Narimah Samat & Mohd Hasmadi Ismail, 2020. "The Integration Of Gis, Ahp, And Remote Sensing Methods For Potential Areas Groundwater: Case Study For Pontian District, Johor, Malaysia," Malaysian Journal of Geosciences (MJG), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 5(1), pages 6-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:zib:zbnmjg:v:5:y:2021:i:1:p:6-11
    DOI: 10.26480/mjg.01.2021.06.11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://myjgeosc.com/download/1438
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26480/mjg.01.2021.06.11?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    2. Deepesh Machiwal & Madan Jha & Bimal Mal, 2011. "Assessment of Groundwater Potential in a Semi-Arid Region of India Using Remote Sensing, GIS and MCDM Techniques," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(5), pages 1359-1386, March.
    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. Tarun Kumar & Amar Gautam & Tinu Kumar, 2014. "Appraising the accuracy of GIS-based Multi-criteria decision making technique for delineation of Groundwater potential zones," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(13), pages 4449-4466, October.
    2. Imran Jamali & Ulla Mörtberg & Bo Olofsson & Muhammad Shafique, 2014. "A Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach for Locating Suitable Sites for Construction of Subsurface Dams in Northern Pakistan," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(14), pages 5157-5174, November.
    3. Atul Kumar & Malay Pramanik & Shairy Chaudhary & Mahabir Singh Negi & Sylvia Szabo, 2023. "Geospatial multi-criteria evaluation to identify groundwater potential in a Himalayan District, Rudraprayag, India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1519-1560, February.
    4. Jha, Madan K. & Chowdary, V.M. & Kulkarni, Y. & Mal, B.C., 2014. "Rainwater harvesting planning using geospatial techniques and multicriteria decision analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 96-111.
    5. Emna Boughariou & Nabila Allouche & Fatma Ben Brahim & Ghada Nasri & Salem Bouri, 2021. "Delineation of groundwater potentials of Sfax region, Tunisia, using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process, frequency ratio, and weights of evidence models," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 14749-14774, October.
    6. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    7. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    8. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    9. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    10. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    11. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    12. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    13. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    15. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    17. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    18. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    19. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    20. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.

    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:zib:zbnmjg:v:5:y:2021:i:1:p:6-11. 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: Zibeline International Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://myjgeosc.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.