Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

, Volume 47, Issue 11, pp 1793–1815 | Cite as

Groundwater Potential Zone (GWPZ) for Urban Development Site Suitability Analysis in Bhopal, India

  • Anuj TiwariEmail author
  • Ankit Ahuja
  • Bramha Dutt Vishwakarma
  • Kamal Jain
Research Article


This study uses remote sensing, GIS and MCDA techniques for studying the availability of groundwater resources and their suitability for urban residential planning in Bhopal, the capital city of Madhya Pradesh, India. The first part of our research involves integration of nine different thematic layers in AHP to identify GWPZ. The study reveals that 13.51% of the area has very high, 13.77% of the area has high, 12.05% has medium-to-high, 27.61% of area has medium groundwater potential, while the remaining 33.05% has low groundwater potential. In the second part of the research, the resultant GWPZ is combined with eight different thematic layers for identifying suitable urban residential development sites. Urban residential site suitability map shows that only 16.97% of the area has very high suitability, 20.71% area has high suitability, 25.81% of the area has moderate suitability and 23.56% has low suitability, while the remaining 12.94% area is non-suitable.


Groundwater potential zone Urban residential site suitability analysis GIS Remote sensing MCDA 



The authors wish to thank the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, for providing the necessary facilities and our colleagues for their generous contribution and efforts, particularly Mr. Ritesh Srivastava, Mr. Pradeep Aswal, Mr. Deepak Tyagi and Miss Ritu Saini. We are extremely thankful to anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aayog, N. I. T. I. (2017). Government of India. Nourishing India—National Nutrition Strategy.Google Scholar
  2. Adiat, K. A. N., Nawawi, M. N. M., & Abdullah, K. (2012). Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based elementary multi criteria decision analysis as a spatial prediction tool: A case of predicting potential zones of sustainable groundwater resources. Journal of Hydrology, 440, 75–89.Google Scholar
  3. Adunlin, G., Diaby, V., & Xiao, H. (2015). Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expectations, 18(6), 1894–1905.Google Scholar
  4. Ahluwalia, I. J. (2011). Planning for urban development in India. ICRIER Paper, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), New Delhi.Google Scholar
  5. Ahluwalia, I. J., & Mohanty, P. K. (2014). Planning and markets for urban development in India. Urbanisation in India: Challenges, opportunities and the way forward (pp. 1–28).Google Scholar
  6. Al-Abadi, A. M., Al-Bhadili, S. A., & Al-Ghanimy, M. A. (2018). A comparative assessment of fuzzy logic and evidential belief function models for mapping artesian zone boundary in an arid region, Iraq. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 20(2), 497–519.Google Scholar
  7. Alley, W. M., Healy, R. W., LaBaugh, J. W., & Reilly, T. E. (2002). Flow and storage in groundwater systems. Science, 296(5575), 1985–1990.Google Scholar
  8. Al-Shalabi, M. A., Mansor, S. B., Ahmed, N. B., & Shiriff, R. (2006, October). GIS based multicriteria approaches to housing site suitability assessment. In XXIII FIG congress, shaping the change, Munich, Germany, October (pp. 8–13).Google Scholar
  9. Bathrellos, G. D., Skilodimou, H. D., Chousianitis, K., Youssef, A. M., & Pradhan, B. (2017). Suitability estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 119–134.Google Scholar
  10. Biswas, A. K. (2004). Integrated water resources management: A reassessment: A water forum contribution. Water International, 29(2), 248–256.Google Scholar
  11. CGWB Groundwater Year Book—India 2016–17 (Central Groundwater Board, Ministry of Water resources, Government of India, 2017).Google Scholar
  12. Boughriba, M., Barkaoui, A., Zarhloule, Y., Lahmer, Z., & Verdoya, M. (2010). Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping of the Angad transboundary aquifer using DRASTIC index method in GIS environment. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 3(2), 207–220.Google Scholar
  13. Bunruamkaew, K., & Murayam, Y. (2011). Site suitability evaluation for ecotourism using GIS & AHP: A case study of Surat Thani province, Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 269–278.Google Scholar
  14. Chandio, I. A., Matori, A. N., Lawal, D. U., & Sabri, S. (2011). GIS-based land suitability analysis using AHP for public parks planning in Larkana City. Modern Applied Science, 5(4), 177.Google Scholar
  15. Chandramouli, C., & General, R. (2011). Census of India 2011. Provisional population totals. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  16. De Feo, G., & De Gisi, S. (2014). Using MCDA and GIS for hazardous waste landfill siting considering land scarcity for waste disposal. Waste Management, 34(11), 2225–2238.Google Scholar
  17. De FSM Russo, R., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: A systematic review of literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1123–1132.Google Scholar
  18. Diaby, V., Campbell, K., & Goeree, R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A bibliometric analysis. Operations Research for Health Care, 2(1–2), 20–24.Google Scholar
  19. Elmahdy, S. I., & Mohamed, M. M. (2015). Probabilistic frequency ratio model for groundwater potential mapping in Al Jaww plain, UAE. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(4), 2405–2416.Google Scholar
  20. Emrouznejad, A., & Marra, M. (2017). The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): A literature review with a social network analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22), 6653–6675.Google Scholar
  21. Fashae, O. A., Tijani, M. N., Talabi, A. O., & Adedeji, O. I. (2014). Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the crystalline basement terrain of SW-Nigeria: An integrated GIS and remote sensing approach. Applied Water Science, 4(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  22. Flug, M., Seitz, H. L., & Scott, J. F. (2000). Multicriteria decision analysis applied to Glen Canyon Dam. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 126(5), 270–276.Google Scholar
  23. Gemitzi, A., Petalas, C., Tsihrintzis, V. A., & Pisinaras, V. (2006). Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: A combination of GIS, fuzzy logic and decision making techniques. Environmental Geology, 49(5), 653–673.Google Scholar
  24. Gumusay, M. U., Koseoglu, G., & Bakirman, T. (2016). An assessment of site suitability for marina construction in Istanbul, Turkey, using GIS and AHP multicriteria decision analysis. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(12), 677.Google Scholar
  25. Gupta, A. (2010). Urban roads of Bhopal city. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technolog, 4(6), 145–149.Google Scholar
  26. Gupta, A., & Singh, J. (2010). An investigation of reliability on remote sensing and GIS data as an aid to urban development plan: A case study on Bhopal. Institute of Town Planners, India Journal, 3, 90–100.Google Scholar
  27. Gupta, M., & Srivastava, P. K. (2010). Integrating GIS and remote sensing for identification of groundwater potential zones in the hilly terrain of Pavagarh, Gujarat, India. Water International, 35(2), 233–245.Google Scholar
  28. He, Q., Sun, S. Q., Wu, K. Y., Hu, S. H., & Nel, L. (2004). Determining the weighting coefficients of the indexes in the evaluation system of regional ecological security by the AHP method. Journal of Hefei University of Technology (Natural Science), 4, 433–437.Google Scholar
  29. Hofierka, J., Parajka, J., Mitasova, H., & Mitas, L. (2002). Multivariate interpolation of precipitation using regularized spline with tension. Transactions in GIS, 6(2), 135–150.Google Scholar
  30. Hoque, M. A. A., Phinn, S., Roelfsema, C., & Childs, I. (2017). Tropical cyclone disaster management using remote sensing and spatial analysis: A review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 345–354.Google Scholar
  31. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.Google Scholar
  32. Jaiswal, R. K., Mukherjee, S., Krishnamurthy, J., & Saxena, R. (2003). Role of remote sensing and GIS techniques for generation of groundwater prospect zones towards rural development: An approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24(5), 993–1008.Google Scholar
  33. Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2001). GIS for group decision making. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jenifer, M. A., & Jha, M. K. (2017). Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process, Catastrophe and Entropy techniques for evaluating groundwater prospect of hard-rock aquifer systems. Journal of Hydrology, 548, 605–624.Google Scholar
  35. Jha, M. K., Chowdary, V. M., & Chowdhury, A. (2010). Groundwater assessment in Salboni Block, West Bengal (India) using remote sensing, geographical information system and multi-criteria decision analysis techniques. Hydrogeology Journal, 18(7), 1713–1728.Google Scholar
  36. Jhariya, D. C., Kumar, T., Gobinath, M., Diwan, P., & Kishore, N. (2016). Assessment of groundwater potential zone using remote sensing, GIS and multi criteria decision analysis techniques. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 88(4), 481–492.Google Scholar
  37. Joubert, A. R., Leiman, A., de Klerk, H. M., Katua, S., & Aggenbach, J. C. (1997). Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: A comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Ecological Economics, 22(2), 123–140.Google Scholar
  38. Keeney, R. L., & Wood, E. F. (1977). An illustrative example of the use of multiattribute utility theory for water resource planning. Water Resources Research, 13(4), 705–712.Google Scholar
  39. Kumar, M., & Biswas, V. (2013). Identification of potential sites for urban development using GIS based multi criteria evaluation technique. A case study of Shimla municipal area, Shimla District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, 4(1), 45.Google Scholar
  40. Kumar, P. S., Delson, P. D., & Babu, P. T. (2012). Appraisal of heavy metals in groundwater in Chennai city using a HPI model. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 89(4), 793–798.Google Scholar
  41. Kumar, A., & Krishna, A. P. (2018). Assessment of groundwater potential zones in coal mining impacted hard-rock terrain of India by integrating geospatial and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Geocarto International, 33(2), 105–129.Google Scholar
  42. Kumar, S., & Kumar, R. (2014). Site suitability analysis for urban development of a Hill Town using GIS based multicriteria evaluation technique: A case study of Nahan Town, Himachal Pradesh, India. International Journal of Advanced Remote Sensing and GIS, 3(1), 516–524.Google Scholar
  43. Lall, S. V., Suri, A., & Deichmann, U. (2006). Household savings and residential mobility in informal settlements in Bhopal, India. Urban Studies, 43(7), 1025–1039.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, S., Song, K. Y., Kim, Y., & Park, I. (2012). Regional groundwater productivity potential mapping using a geographic information system (GIS) based artificial neural network model. Hydrogeology Journal, 20(8), 1511–1527.Google Scholar
  45. Liggett, J. E., & Talwar, S. (2009). Groundwater vulnerability assessments and integrated water resource management. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin, 13(1), 18–29.Google Scholar
  46. Machiwal, D., Jha, M. K., & Mal, B. C. (2011). Assessment of groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. Water Resources Management, 25(5), 1359–1386.Google Scholar
  47. Maithani, S., Arora, M. K., & Jain, R. K. (2010). An artificial neural network based approach for urban growth zonation in Dehradun city, India. Geocarto International, 25(8), 663–681.Google Scholar
  48. Masetti, M., Poli, S., & Sterlacchini, S. (2007). The use of the weights-of-evidence modeling technique to estimate the vulnerability of groundwater to nitrate contamination. Natural Resources Research, 16(2), 109–119.Google Scholar
  49. Matori, A. N., Lawal, D. U., Yusof, K. W., Hashim, M. A., & Balogun, A. L. (2014). Spatial analytic hierarchy process model for flood forecasting: An integrated approach. In IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science (Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 012029). IOP Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Mogaji, K. A. (2016). Combining geophysical techniques and multi-criteria GIS-based application modeling approach for groundwater potential assessment in southwestern Nigeria. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(16), 1181.Google Scholar
  51. Mogaji, K. A., Omosuyi, G. O., Adelusi, A. O., & Lim, H. S. (2016). Application of GIS-based evidential belief function model to regional groundwater recharge potential zones mapping in hardrock geologic terrain. Environmental Processes, 3(1), 93–123.Google Scholar
  52. Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R., & Mirfenderesk, H. (2015). Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 54–65.Google Scholar
  53. Mu, E., & Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2017). Understanding the analytic Hierarchy process. In Practical Decision Making; Springer Briefs in operations research (pp. 7–22). Berlin, Germany: Springer Cham.Google Scholar
  54. Nag, S. K., & Ghosh, P. (2013). Delineation of groundwater potential zone in Chhatna Block, Bankura District, West Bengal, India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environmental Earth Sciences, 70(5), 2115–2127.Google Scholar
  55. Nag, A., Ghosh, S., Biswas, S., Sarkar, D., & Sarkar, P. P. (2012). An image steganography technique using X-box mapping. In 2012 international conference on advances in engineering, science and management (ICAESM) (pp. 709–713). IEEE.Google Scholar
  56. Naghibi, S. A., Ahmadi, K., & Daneshi, A. (2017). Application of support vector machine, random forest, and genetic algorithm optimized random forest models in groundwater potential mapping. Water Resources Management, 31(9), 2761–2775.Google Scholar
  57. Naghibi, S. A., & Pourghasemi, H. R. (2015). A comparative assessment between three machine learning models and their performance comparison by bivariate and multivariate statistical methods in groundwater potential mapping. Water Resources Management, 29(14), 5217–5236.Google Scholar
  58. Nasiri, H., Boloorani, A. D., Sabokbar, H. A. F., Jafari, H. R., Hamzeh, M., & Rafii, Y. (2013). Determining the most suitable areas for artificial groundwater recharge via an integrated Promethee II-AHP method in GIS environment (case study: Garabaygan Basin, Iran). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(1), 707–718.Google Scholar
  59. Ozdemir, A. (2011). GIS-based groundwater spring potential mapping in the Sultan Mountains (Konya, Turkey) using frequency ratio, weights of evidence and logistic regression methods and their comparison. Journal of Hydrology, 411(3–4), 290–308.Google Scholar
  60. Pani, S., Chakrabarty, A., & Bhadury, S. (2016). Groundwater potential zone identification by analytical hierarchy process (AHP) weighted overlay in GIS environment: A case study of Jhargram block, Paschim Medinipur. International Journal of Remote Sensing and Geoscience, 5(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  61. Papamichail, K. N., & French, S. (2012). 25 years of MCDA in nuclear emergency management. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 24(4), 481–503.Google Scholar
  62. Paquette, J., & Lowry, J. (2012). Flood hazard modelling and risk assessment in the Nadi River Basin, Fiji, using GIS and MCDA. Australian Journal of Zoology, 30(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  63. Pardeshi, S. D., Autade, S. E., & Pardeshi, S. S. (2013). Landslide hazard assessment: recent trends and techniques. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 523.Google Scholar
  64. Park, S., Choi, C., Kim, B., & Kim, J. (2013). Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression, and artificial neural network methods at the Inje area, Korea. Environmental Earth Sciences, 68, 1443–1464. Scholar
  65. Peel, M. C., McMahon, T. A., & Pegram, G. G. S. (2009). Assessing the performance of rational spline-based empirical mode decomposition using a global annual precipitation dataset. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 465(2106), 1919–1937.Google Scholar
  66. Pietersen, K. (2006). Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA): A tool to support sustainable management of groundwater resources in South Africa. Water SA, 32(2), 119–128.Google Scholar
  67. Pinto, D., Shrestha, S., Babel, M. S., & Ninsawat, S. (2017). Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the Comoro watershed, Timor Leste using GIS, remote sensing and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique. Applied Water Science, 7(1), 503–519.Google Scholar
  68. Praharaj, S., Han, J. H., & Hawken, S. (2018). Urban innovation through policy integration: Critical perspectives from 100 smart cities mission in India. City, Culture and Society, 12, 35–43.Google Scholar
  69. Prasad, R. K., Mondal, N. C., Banerjee, P., Nandakumar, M. V., & Singh, V. S. (2008). Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS. Environmental Geology, 55(3), 467–475.Google Scholar
  70. Rahmati, O., Pourghasemi, H. R., & Melesse, A. M. (2016). Application of GIS-based data driven random forest and maximum entropy models for groundwater potential mapping: A case study at Mehran Region, Iran. Catena, 137, 360–372.Google Scholar
  71. Rahmati, O., Samani, A. N., Mahdavi, M., Pourghasemi, H. R., & Zeinivand, H. (2015). Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy process and GIS. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(9), 7059–7071.Google Scholar
  72. Ray, S. S., & Dadhwal, V. K. (2001). Estimation of crop evapotranspiration of irrigation command area using remote sensing and GIS. Agricultural Water Management, 49(3), 239–249.Google Scholar
  73. Reddy, B. P., Kelly, M. P., Thokala, P., Walters, S. J., & Duenas, A. (2014). Prioritising public health guidance topics in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Public Health, 128(10), 896–903.Google Scholar
  74. Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., Chica-Olmo, M., & Chica-Rivas, M. (2014). Predictive modelling of gold potential with the integration of multisource information based on random forest: A case study on the Rodalquilar area, Southern Spain. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(7), 1336–1354.Google Scholar
  75. Rouse Jr., J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., & Deering, D. W. (1973). Monitoring the vernal advancement and retrogradation (green wave effect) of natural vegetation. Prog. Rep. RSC 1978-1, Remote Sensing Center, Texas A&M University, College Station (NTIS no. E73-106393).Google Scholar
  76. Ruelland, D., Ardoin-Bardin, S., Billen, G., & Servat, E. (2008). Sensitivity of a lumped and semi-distributed hydrological model to several methods of rainfall interpolation on a large basin in West Africa. Journal of Hydrology, 361(1–2), 96–117.Google Scholar
  77. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  78. Şener, Ş., Sener, E., & Karagüzel, R. (2011). Solid waste disposal site selection with GIS and AHP methodology: A case study in Senirkent-Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 173(1–4), 533–554.Google Scholar
  79. Shaban, M. A., & Dikshit, O. (2002). Evaluation of the merging of SPOT multispectral and panchromatic data for classification of an urban environment. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(2), 249–262.Google Scholar
  80. Shekhar, S., & Pandey, A. C. (2014). Delineation of groundwater potential zone in hard rock terrain of India using remote sensing, geographical information system (GIS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) techniques. Geocarto International, 30(4), 402–421.Google Scholar
  81. Shekhar, S., & Pandey, A. C. (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. Geocarto International, 30(4), 402–421.Google Scholar
  82. Singh, K. P., Malik, A., Mohan, D., Singh, V. K., & Sinha, S. (2006). Evaluation of groundwater quality in northern Indo-Gangetic alluvium region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112(1–3), 211–230.Google Scholar
  83. Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., Pandey, A. C., & Gautam, S. K. (2013). Integrated assessment of groundwater influenced by a confluence river system: Concurrence with remote sensing and geochemical modelling. Water Resources Management, 27(12), 4291–4313.Google Scholar
  84. Sreedevi, P. D., Subrahmanyam, K., & Ahmed, S. (2005). The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. Environmental Geology, 47(3), 412–420.Google Scholar
  85. Srivastava, V. K. (1997). Study of drainage pattern of Jharia Coalfield (Bihar), India, through remote sensing technology. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 25(1), 41–46.Google Scholar
  86. Taroun, A., & Yang, J. B. (2011). Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: Potential usage for decision making and risk analysis in construction project management. The Built and Human Environment Review, 4, 155–166.Google Scholar
  87. Thokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., et al. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making: An introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  88. Wada, Y., Van Beek, L. P., Van Kempen, C. M., Reckman, J. W., Vasak, S., & Bierkens, M. F. (2010). Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(20), L20402.Google Scholar
  89. Wu, G., de Leeuw, J., Skidmore, A. K., Liu, Y., & Prins, H. H. (2010). Comparison of extrapolation and interpolation methods for estimating daily photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Geo-spatial Information Science, 13(4), 235–242.Google Scholar
  90. Yalcin, A. (2008). GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process and bivariate statistics in Ardesen (Turkey): Comparisons of results and confirmations. CATENA, 72, 1–12.Google Scholar
  91. Yalew, S. G., Van Griensven, A., & Van Der Zaag, P. (2016). AgriSuit: A web-based GIS-MCDA framework for agricultural land suitability assessment. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 128, 1–8.Google Scholar
  92. Yilmaz, I. (2009). Landslide susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio, logistic regression, artificial neural networks and their comparison: a case study from Kat landslides (Tokat—Turkey). Computers and Geosciences, 35(6), 1125–1138.Google Scholar
  93. Yilmaz, I. (2010). Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: Conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Environmental Earth Sciences, 61(4), 821–836.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geomatics Group, Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia
  3. 3.Bristol Glaciology CentreUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations