See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341042773

Multi-criteria analytical hierarchical process based decision support system for

critical watershed prioritization of Andhiyarkhore catchment

Article · April 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 272

8 authors, including:

Gaurav Singh Surjeet Singh

Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation National Institute of Hydrology
51 PUBLICATIONS 277 CITATIONS 109 PUBLICATIONS 1,453 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rahul Jaiswal Veerendra KUMAR Chandola

National Institute of Hydrology Banaras Hindu University
108 PUBLICATIONS 1,715 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gaurav Singh on 30 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol. 47, No. 3, pp 263-272, 2019
Indian Journal of Soil Conservation
Online URL : http://indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijsc&type=home
Estd. 972
1

Multi-criteria analytical hierarchical process based decision support

system for critical watershed prioritization of Andhiyarkhore catchment
1, 2 3 3
Gaurav Singh ,⃰ Ram Mandir Singh , Surjeet Singh , Annamalai Ramalingam Senthil Kumar ,
Rahul Kumar Jaiswal4, Virendra Kumar Chandola2 and Anupam Kumar Nema2
1
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Vasad, Anand - 388306, Gujarat; 2Department of Farm Engineering,
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221005, Uttar Pradesh; 3National Institute of Hydrology (NIH),
Roorkee - 247667, Uttarakhand; 4Central India Hydrology Regional Centre, NIH, WALMI Campus, Bhopal - 462015, Madhya Pradesh.
*Corresponding author:
E-mail: gaurav.bhu09@gmail.com (Gaurav Singh)

ARTICLE INFO A B S T R AC T

Article history: This study presents the application of analytical hierarchical process based multi-
Received : July, 2019 criteria decision support tool for prioritization of critical areas of Andhiyarkhore
Revised : November, 2019 catchment for soil and water conservation (SWC) and management works. Fourteen
Accepted : December, 2019 different soil and water management parameters were calculated for each of the fifty-
one delineated watersheds in Andhiyarkhore catchment. The normalized values of
these parameters were arranged in a comparison matrix to assess corresponding
weights to prioritize the watersheds. The average annual soil loss had highest weight of
0.23 and elongation ratio the minimum weight of 0.01 at 9.66% consistency ratio (within
Key words: 10% limit). The highest priority for the SWC measures was obtained for SW-7 watershed
Groundwater recharge and lowest for SW-47 watershed. The average annual groundwater recharge estimated
Morphometric analysis in the Andhiyarkhore catchment was only 4.13% of average annual rainfall, which
Soil loss envisages need for SWC works in Andhiyarkhore catchment. Nine watersheds having
Sediment yield 325.7 km2 of the catchment have very high priority for undertaking SWC works.

1. INTRODUCTION watershed of Ramganga river basin in Uttarakhand state of

India, and have observed that remote sensing (RS) based
Land and water resource development programs are
morphological parameters are convenient and cost effective
generally envisaged on watershed basis for sustainable
for identifying areas highly vulnerable to soil erosion.
development (Shrimali et al., 2001). Soil and water conserva-
Shivhare et al. (2018) compared results of prioritization
tion (SWC) works cannot be taken simultaneously for an
based on morphological parameters, land use/land cover
entire catchment due to several resource constraints (Panda
(LU/LC) and universal soil loss equation (USLE) to identify
et al., 2005). Watershed prioritization is, therefore, essential
critical soil erosion prone areas of sub-watershed in lower
for identifying critical zones in catchment (Vittala et al.,
middle part of Ganga basin. The future land use changes
2004). Watershed prioritization using scientific criterions
impact on watershed prioritization by analytical hierarchi-
based on soil loss, sediment yield, morphological factors,
cal process studied by Kundu et al. (2017) for a part of
and groundwater recharge have been applied individually
Narmada river basin in Central India showed most of the
by several researchers in the past (Mishra and Nagarajan,
northern sub-watershed need high priority for efficient land
2010).
use management. The integration of soil hydraulic parame-
The sediment yield index method, given by All India ters, microwave precipitation and morphometric analysis
Soil and Land Use Survey (AIS&LUS, 1991), based watershed for watershed prioritization in Pahuj river basin in
prioritization of Benisagar reservoir catchment by Yadav et Bundelkhand region of India was carried out by Maurya et
al. (2015) showed that nearly 50% of the catchment needed al. (2016) for SWC works. Fuzzy analytical hierarchical
immediate attention for implementing SWC measures. process based multi-criteria decision support system was
Kandpal et al. (2018) have used geomorphologic parame- applied for watershed prioritization by Jaiswal et al. (2015)
ters for prioritization of hilly sub-watersheds in Chaukhutia in Benisagar reservoir catchment in Madhya Pradesh state
264 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019

of India, and observed that wide rectangular function is the Study Area and Data Sources
most effective one in determining weights of erosion hazard
The study was conducted for the Andhiyarkhore
parameters, with soil loss as the most sensitive, and
catchment, which is one of the catchments of Seonath river
circulatory ratio as the least sensitive parameter. The soil
basin of the Mahanadi river basin in Chhattisgarh state of
erosion estimation and prioritization of Khoslaya-Jhajhara
India. The basin extends between 21º45'33"to 22º30'16"N
watershed in North India using revised USLE by Chaudhary
latitudes and 81°01'57" to 81°37'39"E longitudes. The
and Kumar (2018) showed that 6.5% area of the watershed
Seonath river is east flowing with two major tributaries -
is highly prone to soil erosion. Mishra et al. (2019) applied
Hamp and Sakari - which traverse through this intermediate
fuzzy analytical hierarchical process decision support
catchment and join before Andhiyarkhore. The study area
system in environment of RS and GIS for Nagwan water-
has two gauging sites, namely, Hamp-Pandariya and Sakari-
shed of Hazribagh district, Jharkhand, India and found 19%
Goreghat located upstream on the river Hamp and Sakari,
area of watershed of very high priority for undertaking
respectively, and monitored by Water Resource Department,
SWC works. Jain and Ramsankaran (2019) developed a
Chhattisgarh. These two streams join before Andhiyarkhore
GIS based integrated multi-criteria modelling framework
gauging site located downstream which is monitored by the
for watershed prioritization in India following existing
Central Water Commission. The Andhiyarkhore catchment
watershed guidelines as well as the hydrological aspects in a
has an area of 2181 km2 with the boundary length of 322.73
holistic way.
km. The basin has a mean annual rainfall of 1292 mm (1980-
The watershed management needs for each agro- 2009). The index map showing location of Andhiyarkhore
ecological region of India are different, which depends on a catchment is shown in Fig. 1. The study area falls in three
number of spatially distributed interdependent complex districts namely, Kawardha, Durg and Bilaspur. Basin area
factors for any watershed (Chowdary et al., 2013). In order of 1877.02 km2, 302.69 km2and 1.09 km2 falls in Kawardha,
to make a better judgment for prioritizing the critical Durg and Bilaspur districts, respectively. Rainfall data of 30
watershed, it becomes important to include a set of spatially years (1980-2010) from eight rain-gauge stations (Chirapani,
distributed parameters. Recent developments have improved Pandariya, Kawardha, Nawagarh, Bodla, Rajnandgaon,
decision making tools significantly, which are used in Bemtara and Saroda) was used for this study. ASTER-DEM
resolving conflicts related to decision making process of spatial resolution 30 m downloaded from Earth Explorer
(Javanbarg et al., 2012). The Saaty's analytical hierarchical website of United States Geological Survey was used for
process (SAHP) is a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) delineation and extraction of drainage network. LANDSAT-
tool to decide priorities based on alternatives and judgement 8 satellite images (Row-33 Path-56 dated 23 February,
of the users (Saaty, 1980). This method involves defining an 2014) and (Row-33 Path-56 dated 15 November, 2014) of
unstructured problem, developing hierarchy, pairwise spatial resolution 30 m were used to develop LU/LC for the
comparison matrix, computation of relative weights, and Andhiyarkhore catchment. Data on soil properties was
consistency check to get a final priority (Lee et al., 2008). obtained from National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land
The SAHP in combination with geographical information Use Planning, New Delhi for estimation of soil erodibility in
system (GIS) is used in watershed planning (De Steiguer et the catchment.
al., 2003; Oyatoye et al., 2010), forest management
(Babaie-Kafaky et al., 2009), and identification of erosion
prone areas (Jaiswal et al., 2014). In this study, an attempt
was made to develop a Saaty's analytical hierarchical
process based MCDA tool by integrating the morphologi-
cal, hydrological and groundwater recharge parameters in
the environment of GIS for prioritizing the delineated
watersheds of Andhiyarkhore catchment in Chhattisgarh
state of India. The developed MCDA tool can be used for
identification of critical areas, and development of region
specific catchment area treatment plan for Andhiyarkhore
catchment.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The description of study area, data sources used for this
study, and different methods used for estimation of
morphological, hydrological and groundwater recharge
parameters for watershed prioritization in Andhiyarkhore Fig. 1. Location of Andhiyarkhore catchment in Chhattisgarh
catchment are given below in detail. state of India
 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019 265

Morphological Parameters Table: 1

General features of delineated watersheds in Andhiyarkhore
The watersheds were manually delineated based on catchment
second or third order stream using contour map of 10 m
Watershed Area of Average Total Total length
interval prepared from ASTER-DEM by data interpolation code watershed slope number of of streams
using Spatial Analyst Krigging tool in Arc-GIS 10.2. (ha) (%) streams (km)
General features such as area, average slope, and total SW-1 5637 8.23 19 43.93
number of streams and total length of streams in each of the SW-2 4951 9.24 15 32.72
delineated watershed are presented in Table 1. The standard SW-3 4518 7.17 18 34.55
procedure used for computation of morphometric parame- SW-4 2426 4.07 10 24.30
ters as drainage intensity, drainage density, length of SW-5 1216 5.58 9 10.41
SW-6 2038 7.78 10 15.46
overland flow, stream frequency, drainage texture, circula-
SW-7 2239 7.59 12 16.88
tory ratio, form factor, compactness constant, elongation SW-8 6689 7.28 24 49.34
ratio, and mean bifurcation ratio for each watershed of the SW-9 4482 4.17 19 35.38
Andhiyarkhore catchment are given in Table 2. SW-10 1390 4.25 6 13.41
SW-11 3725 2.42 19 35.01
Hydrological Parameters SW-12 5298 3.98 22 50.15
The average annual soil loss (SL) was estimated using SW-13 4434 4.37 19 35.19
revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) given by SW-14 6545 5.07 26 54.07
SW-15 4200 8.69 22 34.08
Renard et al. (1991).
SW-16 5767 7.60 26 45.67
SL = R × K × L × S × C × P ...(1) SW-17 5214 6.55 25 45.63
SW-18 2991 8.72 15 22.32
Where, SL is the computed average annual soil loss SW-19 4849 8.17 22 35.69
caused by sheet and rill erosion by water (t ha-1yr-1), R is SW-20 2410 7.93 9 17.58
rainfall erosivity factor (MJ mm h-1ha-1yr-1), K is soil erodibility SW-21 1954 4.50 9 20.52
factor (t ha h ha-1MJ-1mm-1), L is slope length factor SW-22 6801 6.58 30 60.74
SW-23 4471 1.97 20 44.31
(dimensionless), S is slope steepness factor (dimensionless), SW-24 8674 2.32 29 86.85
C is cover and management factor, and P is support practice SW-25 2888 1.38 12 25.69
factor (last two are dimensionless, and vary from 0 to 1). SW-26 1628 1.68 10 17.36
SW-27 3463 3.61 15 31.31
Sediment production rate (SPR), which is the volume of
SW-28 7186 0.91 24 64.48
sediment produced per unit drainage area per unit time, was SW-29 5103 0.79 17 51.92
estimated using the empirical relationship based on SW-30 2268 0.56 7 19.93
geomorphology suggested by Jose and Das (1982) as given SW-31 4700 0.95 19 47.18
below: SW-32 2751 0.52 9 25.51
SW-33 3751 0.88 9 32.02
log(SPR) = 4919.80 + 48.64 log(100 + Rf) – 1337.77 SW-34 2447 0.56 9 23.43
log(100 + Rc) – 1165.65 log(100 + Cc) ...(2) SW-35 2084 0.51 6 18.29
SW-36 4473 0.57 13 41.15
Where, SPR is the sediment production rate (ha-m 100 SW-37 5910 0.66 24 51.28
km yr-1), Rf is the form factor, Rc is the circulatory ratio, and
-2
SW-38 8703 0.73 24 79.84
Cc is the compactness coefficient. SW-39 5301 0.80 16 52.92
SW-40 4400 0.58 20 42.98
Sediment yield (Sy) model developed for Indian SW-41 5554 0.62 26 56.92
condition (Kumar, 1985; Rao and Mahabaleswara, 1990) SW-42 4996 0.62 19 41.13
was used for estimation of sediment yield for each water- SW-43 4507 0.71 16 35.32
SW-44 2761 0.61 9 22.14
shed as given below: SW-45 4599 0.58 16 39.41
Sy = 1.067 × 106 × P1.384 × A1.292 × Dd0.392 × S0.129 × F2.51 ...(3) SW-46 3729 0.61 10 33.82
SW-47 4224 0.61 11 37.67
...(4) SW-48 4308 0.56 13 30.66
SW-49 5023 0.56 14 45.72
SW-50 4908 0.66 23 42.68
Where, Sy is sediment yield (M m3×103yr-1), P is annual
SW-51 3529 0.70 10 27.64
precipitation (cm), A is watershed area (km2), Dd is drainage Minimum 1216.00 0.51 6.00 10.41
density (km km-2), S is average slope, F is the vegetative Maximum 8703.00 9.24 30.00 86.85
cover factor, F1 is area under reserved and protected forest, Mean 4276.73 3.27 16.39 37.31
SD 1721.94 3.04 6.52 16.10
F2 is unclassified forest area, F3 is cultivated area, F4 is grass Skewness 0.41 0.67 0.22 0.80
and / or pasture land area, and F5 is wasteland area. CV 0.40 0.93 0.40 0.43
266 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019

Table: 2
Estimation of morphological parameters of watersheds in Andhiyarkhore catchment
Morphological parameters Expressions Variables Reference
Drainage density Dd is drainage density (km/sq km), Lu is length of ith segment Horton, 1932
of drainage stream, n is number of segments, Au is catchment
area of corresponding stream order
Drainage intensity Di is drainage intensity, Fs is stream frequency (km-2), Dd is Horton, 1945
drainage density (km-1)
Drainage texture Dt is drainage texture, Nu is number of stream segment of Horton, 1945
order u, Pu is perimeter of basin of order u (km)
Stream frequency Fs is stream frequency (km-2), Dd is drainage density (km-1) Melton, 1958
Circulatory ratio Rc is circulatory ratio, Au is area of basin having stream of order Miller, 1953
u (km2), Ac is area of circle having perimeter equal to perimeter
of drainage basin of stream order u (km2)
Form factor Rf is shape factor, Au is area of basin (sq km), Lb is maximum Horton, 1932
basin length (km)
Compactness constant Cc is compactness constant, Pb is perimeter of basin (km), Pc Gravelius, 1914
is perimeter of circle having area equal to basin (km)
Elongation ratio Re is elongation ratio, De is diameter of circle having same area Schumn, 1956
as of given drainage basin (km), Lbm is maximum basin length (km)
Bifurcation ratio Rb is bifurcation ratio, Nu is number of stream segments of order Horton, 1945
u, Nu+1 is number of stream segments of next higher order
Length of overland flow Lg is length of overland flow, Dd is drainage density (km-1) Horton, 1945

Groundwater Recharge length of overland flow, stream frequency, drainage texture,

circulatory ratio, form factor, compactness constant,
The average annual groundwater recharge for various
elongation ratio, and mean bifurcation ratio), hydrological
watersheds in Andhiyarkhore catchment was estimated
parameters (average annual soil loss, sediment production
using groundwater water table fluctuation and specific yield
rate and sediment yield) and average annual groundwater
method given by Groundwater Estimation Committee
recharge parameter were rated on 1 to 9 scale, where 1
(1984).
indicated that two factors are equally important and 9
...(5) indicated that one factor is more important than other. The
S = WT × Sy ...(6) reciprocal of 1 to 9 (i.e. 1/1 and 1/9) showed that one is less
important than the other. Saaty's rating scale was used to
Where, G is annual ground water recharge (mm), S is allocate weights for different morphological, hydrological
change in ground water storage depth during pre and post and ground water recharge parameters depending on their
monsoon period (mm), WT is change in water table depth relative importance in SWC work (Table 3). Comparison
during pre and post-monsoon period (mm), Sy is specific matrix was filled for each of these parameters using Table 3
yield of the underlying aquifer in the area (dimensionless), with total judgement values to be nC2, which was equal to 98
DW is annual gross ground water draft during monsoon values. The diagonal elements of the comparison matrix
(mm), Rs is recharge from canal seepage during monsoon were reserved as 1. If the judgment value was to the left side
(mm), Rigw is recharge from recycled water from ground of 1, then for filling the upper triangular matrix, actual
water irrigation during monsoon (mm), Ris is recharge from judgment value was used. If the judgment value was to the
recycled water from surface water irrigation during right side of 1, then reciprocals of same were used. The
monsoon (mm), and Rf is rainfall (mm). lower triangular matrix was completed by taking reciprocal
of upper triangular matrix. In this way, comparison matrix
Saaty's Analytical Hierarchical Process (SAHP)
was calculated for SAHP. The comparison matrix priority
The SAHP is a multi-criteria decision analysis tool in vector was calculated as the normalized eigen vector of
which a matrix is prepared of pair-wise comparisons matrix, and was used to assign weights for different
between parameters affecting any decision. The morpho- morphological, hydrological and ground water recharge
logical parameters (drainage intensity, drainage density, parameters.
 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019 267

Table: 3
Saaty's rating scale
Intensity of importance Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally to the objective
3 Somewhat more important Experience and judgment slightly favour one over the other
5 Much more important Experience and judgment strongly favour one over the other
7 Very much more important Experience and judgment very strongly favour one over the other
9 Absolutely more important The evidence favouring one over the other is one of the highest possible validity
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values When compromise is needed

Consistency Check Where, Ni is the normalized value of a parameter for ith

The consistency of subjective judgment was checked watershed, Unor is the upper value in the standard scale (i.e.
by estimating consistency ratio, which is the comparison 1), Lnor is the lower value in the standard scale (i.e. 0), Uact
between consistency index and random consistency index. and Lact are the maximum and minimum values of parame-
The consistency ratio (CR) was computed using relation- ters, respectively, and Xi is the observed value of parameters
ship given by Saaty (1980). for ith watershed.
Computation of Weights
...(7)
The pairwise comparison matrix prepared for different
...(8) morphological, hydrological and ground water recharge
parameters is given in Table 5 and estimation of final
Where, CI is the consistency index (dimensionless), λmax weights for each parameter is given in Table 6.The final
is the principal eigen value obtained from priority matrix weight obtained of each morphological, hydrological and
(dimensionless), n is the size of the comparison matrix groundwater recharge was multiplied with the normalised
(dimensionless), RI is the random consistency index values of the different parameters estimated for each
(dimensionless), and CR is the consistency ratio watershed. The clustering technique used by (Jaiswal et al.,
(dimensionless). 2014) is used for grouping the delineated watershed into
Saaty (1980) has determined average random consis- different classes (i.e. very high, high, moderate, low and
tency index (RI) on the basis of various sample sizes n as very low priority). The scatter plot of the normalised values
given in Table 4. If the value of CR is smaller or equal to of the different morphological, hydrological and groundwa-
10%, the consistency is acceptable. If CR is greater than ter recharge parameters for different watershed leads to
10%, the subjective judgment needs to be revised. The RI in formation of clusters. These clusters are then formed into
combination with λmax is used for computation of CR, and if five classes with values ranging from 0 to 1. The values from
computed value is less than 10%, it establishes that 0.8 to 1.0 are assigned very high priority, 0.6 to 0.8 as high
decisions considered are consistent. priority, 0.4 to 0.6 as moderate priority, 0.2 to 0.4 as low
priority and 0-0.2 as very low priority.
Normalization of Morphological, Hydrological and
Groundwater Recharge Parameters 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The morphological, hydrological and groundwater The area of delineated watersheds in Adhiyarkhore
recharge parameters identified for watershed prioritization catchment varies from minimum of 1216 ha for SW-5 to
may vary in diverse range, and hence require normalization maximum of 8703 ha for SW-38, with mean watershed area
to restrict the variation in a defined range of 0 to 1 for of 4277 ha in Andhiyrakhore catchment (Table 1). The small
comparison amongst them. The standard methodology for watersheds are present near the north-western part of
normalization of different parameters used by Jaiswal et al. Ahdiyarkhore catchment, which may be due to higher slope
(2014) is given below: and drainage density. The average slope of watersheds
varies from minimum of 0.5% for SW-35, in the middle of
...(9) the catchment, to maximum of 9.2% for SW-2, in the

Table: 4
Random consistency index for different sample sizes
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.57
N = Sample size, RI = Random consistency index
268 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019

Table: 5
Comparison matrix for morphological, hydrological and groundwater recharge parameters in Adhiyarkhore catchment
SL Sy SPR G Di Dd Lg Fs Dt Rc Rf Cc Re Rb
SL 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 7 9 9 9 9 9
Sy 0.33 1 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 7 9 9 9 9
SPR 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 7 9 9 7
G 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 7 5
Di 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 7 3
Dd 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3
Lg 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 5 3 5 3
Fs 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 5 3 3
Dt 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 3 3
Rc 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 3 3
Rf 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 3 3 0.33
Cc 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 3 0.33
Re 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 0.33
Rb 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 3 3 3 1
Sum 3.50 6.52 9.44 12.69 17.54 20.27 25.07 29.87 34.67 41.33 58.67 65.33 70.00 50.00
SL is Average annual soil loss (t ha-1yr-1); Sy is Sediment yield (Mm3yr-1km-2); SPR is Sediment production rate (ha-m 100 km-2yr-1); G is Annual groundwater
recharge (mm); Di is Drainage intensity (dimensionless); Dd is Drainage density (km km-2); Lg is length of overland flow (km-1); Fs is Stream frequency
(km-2); Dt is Drainage texture (km-1); Rc is Circulatory ratio (dimensionless); Rf is Form factor (dimensionless); Cc is Compactness constant
(dimensionless); Re is Elongation ratio (dimensionless); Rb is Mean bifurcation ratio (dimensionless)

Table: 6
Computation of final weights for morphological, hydrological and groundwater recharge parameters in Andhiyarkhore catchment
SL Sy SPR G Di Dd Lg Fs Dt Rc Rf Cc Re Rb Eigen vector λ
SL 0.29 0.46 0.32 0.24 0.29 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.80
Sy 0.10 0.15 0.32 0.24 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.17 1.11
SPR 0.10 0.05 0.11 0.24 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 1.27
G 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.22
Di 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.08 1.34
Dd 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 1.31
Lg 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 1.33
Fs 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 1.29
Dt 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.18
Rc 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.16
Rf 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02 1.04
Cc 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.93
Re 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.79
Rb 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 1.13
Sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15.98
SL is Average annual soil loss (t ha-1yr-1); Sy is Sediment yield (Mm3yr-1km-2); SPR is Sediment production rate (ha-m 100 km-2yr-1); G is Annual groundwater
recharge (mm); Di is Drainage intensity (dimensionless); Dd is Drainage density (km km-2); Lg is length of overland flow (km-1); Fs is Stream frequency (km-
2
); Dt is Drainage texture (km-1); Rc is Circulatory ratio (dimensionless); Rf is Form factor (dimensionless); Cc is Compactness constant (dimensionless); Re
is Elongation ratio (dimensionless); Rb is Mean bifurcation ratio (dimensionless); E is principal eigen vector; λ is the final priority weights for different
soil and water management parameters

northern upper reach of the catchment, with mean slope of (Table 1). The variation in different morphological, hydrolog-
3.26% for the catchment (Table 1). In general, the number of ical and ground water recharge parameters across different
streams in different watersheds varies based on the area and watersheds of Andhiyarkhore catchment is given in Table 7.
slope of the watershed from minimum of 6 in SW-35 to The drainage intensity of watershed varies widely from 0.28
maximum of 30 in SW-22, with mean of 16 streams per (SW-33) to 0.86 (SW-5), indicating a spatial and temporal
watershed for the catchment (Table 1). The total length of difference in the drainage from each watershed (Table 7).
stream in each watershed varies from minimum of 10.4 km The drainage density varies from 0.66 (SW-2) to 1.06 (SW-
for SW-5 to maximum of 86.8 km for SW-25, with 37.3 km 26), and length of overland flow varies from 0.47 (SW-26)
mean length of streams per watershed in the catchment to 0.76 (SW-2) resulting in a poorly drained basin with a
 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019 269

Table: 7
Statistics of computed values of morphological, hydrological and groundwater recharge parameters for each watershed in Andhiyarkhore
catchment
Watershed code SL Sy SPR G Di Dd Lg Fs Dt Rc Rf Cc Re Rb
SW-1 26.80 1.13 1.91 98.94 0.43 0.78 0.64 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.26 1.42 0.57 2.75
SW-2 26.63 0.99 2.08 100.32 0.46 0.66 0.76 0.30 0.44 0.53 0.26 1.37 0.58 3.50
SW-3 59.13 1.14 1.32 85.87 0.52 0.76 0.66 0.40 0.49 0.43 0.24 1.53 0.56 2.63
SW-4 25.54 1.33 1.85 68.58 0.41 1.00 0.50 0.41 0.40 0.48 0.30 1.44 0.62 2.25
SW-5 20.35 0.89 0.74 66.38 0.86 0.86 0.58 0.74 0.44 0.37 0.18 1.65 0.47 2.00
SW-6 20.63 0.96 2.06 80.00 0.65 0.76 0.66 0.49 0.45 0.51 0.33 1.40 0.65 2.25
SW-7 39.51 0.79 2.24 82.89 0.71 0.75 0.67 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.41 1.28 0.72 2.75
SW-8 19.35 1.08 2.05 61.42 0.49 0.74 0.68 0.36 0.60 0.52 0.27 1.38 0.59 4.08
SW-9 26.32 1.11 0.07 63.84 0.54 0.79 0.63 0.42 0.40 0.25 0.21 1.98 0.51 3.25
SW-10 24.45 0.88 0.36 109.38 0.45 0.96 0.52 0.43 0.26 0.32 0.14 1.76 0.42 5.00
SW-11 23.27 0.40 0.31 96.63 0.54 0.94 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.31 0.38 1.80 0.70 4.50
SW-12 21.85 0.38 1.31 75.07 0.44 0.95 0.53 0.42 0.55 0.42 0.34 1.55 0.66 3.13
SW-13 37.50 0.54 0.43 71.44 0.54 0.79 0.63 0.43 0.46 0.33 0.34 1.75 0.66 3.25
SW-14 25.55 1.26 1.87 41.59 0.48 0.83 0.60 0.40 0.75 0.69 0.41 1.20 0.72 3.25
SW-15 16.29 0.93 2.37 61.39 0.65 0.81 0.62 0.52 0.76 0.62 0.56 1.27 0.84 3.13
SW-16 28.44 1.00 1.88 54.17 0.57 0.79 0.63 0.45 0.80 0.69 0.44 1.20 0.75 3.25
SW-17 16.74 1.49 2.36 77.58 0.55 0.88 0.57 0.48 0.75 0.58 0.47 1.31 0.77 3.15
SW-18 18.65 0.71 2.35 63.88 0.67 0.75 0.67 0.50 0.61 0.61 0.51 1.28 0.81 2.58
SW-19 20.63 0.78 2.48 63.28 0.62 0.74 0.68 0.45 0.70 0.62 0.64 1.27 0.90 2.85
SW-20 56.54 0.88 1.94 49.20 0.51 0.73 0.68 0.37 0.36 0.48 0.40 1.44 0.71 2.00
SW-21 44.00 0.91 2.20 46.72 0.44 1.05 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.56 0.32 1.33 0.64 2.00
SW-22 38.71 1.24 0.22 52.50 0.49 0.89 0.56 0.44 0.56 0.30 0.21 1.84 0.51 3.65
SW-23 20.42 1.20 2.18 67.82 0.45 0.99 0.51 0.45 0.69 0.68 0.64 1.22 0.90 3.42
SW-24 16.79 1.52 1.60 81.43 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.75 0.74 0.44 1.17 0.75 4.00
SW-25 10.35 1.29 1.42 56.44 0.47 0.89 0.56 0.42 0.55 0.76 0.46 1.14 0.77 2.75
SW-26 20.18 0.97 0.98 60.53 0.58 1.07 0.47 0.61 0.64 0.84 0.48 1.09 0.78 2.25
SW-27 33.89 1.14 1.64 80.04 0.48 0.90 0.56 0.43 0.49 0.46 0.26 1.48 0.58 3.50
SW-28 18.05 1.17 0.32 53.27 0.37 0.90 0.56 0.33 0.45 0.32 0.18 1.78 0.48 3.05
SW-29 7.33 1.68 2.32 66.87 0.33 1.02 0.49 0.33 0.51 0.58 0.43 1.31 0.74 2.92
SW-30 6.10 1.11 1.71 55.23 0.35 0.88 0.57 0.31 0.29 0.47 0.20 1.45 0.50 2.50
SW-31 15.63 1.19 0.02 58.14 0.40 1.00 0.50 0.40 0.36 0.21 0.17 2.16 0.47 3.25
SW-32 7.45 1.07 0.46 55.38 0.35 0.93 0.54 0.33 0.28 0.34 0.13 1.72 0.40 8.00
SW-33 15.43 1.01 0.05 51.68 0.28 0.85 0.59 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.09 2.03 0.34 8.00
SW-34 9.42 0.93 0.92 57.57 0.38 0.96 0.52 0.37 0.32 0.39 0.15 1.60 0.43 2.00
SW-35 9.67 0.73 0.84 49.58 0.33 0.88 0.57 0.29 0.23 0.38 0.20 1.63 0.50 5.00
SW-36 10.57 1.05 0.27 56.50 0.32 0.92 0.54 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.23 1.81 0.54 5.50
SW-37 8.41 1.46 1.70 61.61 0.47 0.87 0.57 0.41 0.60 0.47 0.27 1.47 0.59 3.38
SW-38 10.74 1.44 1.22 56.49 0.30 0.92 0.54 0.28 0.47 0.42 0.20 1.55 0.50 3.38
SW-39 11.01 1.38 2.18 59.47 0.30 1.00 0.50 0.30 0.47 0.58 0.30 1.32 0.62 2.75
SW-40 12.20 0.91 1.94 56.26 0.47 0.98 0.51 0.45 0.61 0.51 0.22 1.40 0.53 3.42
SW-41 11.63 1.00 1.68 45.60 0.46 1.02 0.49 0.47 0.84 0.73 0.52 1.17 0.82 3.00
SW-42 13.78 0.76 1.77 59.23 0.46 0.82 0.61 0.38 0.64 0.71 0.43 1.19 0.74 3.25
SW-43 13.97 0.87 0.44 71.22 0.45 0.78 0.64 0.36 0.39 0.33 0.15 1.73 0.44 3.75
SW-44 12.36 0.66 0.96 99.85 0.41 0.80 0.63 0.33 0.30 0.39 0.22 1.60 0.52 2.00
SW-45 13.46 0.73 2.02 101.97 0.41 0.86 0.58 0.35 0.48 0.51 0.29 1.40 0.61 2.38
SW-46 12.95 0.77 0.66 62.71 0.30 0.91 0.55 0.27 0.28 0.36 0.18 1.67 0.48 9.00
SW-47 13.17 0.79 0.16 63.14 0.29 0.89 0.56 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.18 1.88 0.48 2.50
SW-48 12.43 0.66 2.08 88.97 0.42 0.71 0.70 0.30 0.45 0.65 0.40 1.24 0.72 2.25
SW-49 10.81 0.83 2.01 83.65 0.31 0.91 0.55 0.28 0.40 0.52 0.23 1.38 0.54 6.00
SW-50 9.32 1.09 0.09 71.02 0.54 0.87 0.57 0.47 0.47 0.26 0.14 1.96 0.43 3.25
SW-51 12.49 0.83 0.19 84.52 0.36 0.78 0.64 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.18 1.86 0.48 2.25
Minimum 6.10 0.38 0.02 41.59 0.28 0.66 0.47 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.09 1.09 0.34 2.00
Maximum 59.13 1.68 2.48 109.38 0.86 1.07 0.76 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.64 2.16 0.90 9.00
Mean 19.94 1.00 1.34 68.38 0.46 0.87 0.58 0.40 0.48 0.48 0.31 1.51 0.61 3.45
SD 11.81 0.28 0.81 16.50 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.26 0.14 1.52
Skewness 1.61 0.15 -0.33 0.77 0.88 0.00 0.42 0.97 0.31 0.27 0.67 0.53 0.28 2.16
CV 0.59 0.28 0.60 0.24 0.26 0.11 0.12 0.24 0.34 0.33 0.45 0.18 0.23 0.44
SL is Average annual soil loss (t ha-1yr-1); Sy is Sediment yield (Mm3yr-1km-2); SPR is Sediment production rate (ha-m 100 km-2yr-1); G is Annual groundwater
recharge (mm); Di is Drainage intensity (dimensionless); Dd is Drainage density (km km-2); Lg is length of overland flow (km-1); Fs is Stream frequency
(km-2); Dt is Drainage texture (km-1); Rc is Circulatory ratio (dimensionless); Rf is Form factor (dimensionless); Cc is Compactness constant
(dimensionless); Re is Elongation ratio (dimensionless); Rb is Mean bifurcation ratio (dimensionless)
270 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019

delayed hydrologic response. The stream frequency varies groundwater recharge, whereas in central part of the
from 0.24 (SW-33) to 0.74 (SW-5) indicating poor drainage catchment the groundwater table is falling rapidly due to
development and more overland flow in the watersheds. huge exploitation by dense population and intensively
The drainage texture varies from 0.2 (SW-33) to 0.84 (SW- irrigated agricultural land.
41) indicating huge variation in the morphology of streams
The analytical hierarchical process comparison matrix
per unit area of watershed. The circulatory ratio varies from
of morphological, hydrological and groundwater recharge
0.21 (SW-31) to 0.83 (SW-26), which indicates no structural
parameters is filled based on the intensity of importance of
disturbance in the geology and poor control on hydrologic
different parameters with respect to each other using Saaty's
response of watersheds. The shape factor varies from 1.56
rating as given in Table 3. The random consistency index
(SW-23) to 10.76 (SW-33) and elongation ratio varies from
was obtained as 1.58 from Table 4 as the fourteen parame-
0.34 (SW-33) to 0.9 (SW-23), which signifies a huge
ters were considered for priority decision for Andhiyarkhore
variation in shape of watersheds. The compactness coefficient
catchment. The normalised values of different parameters
varies from 1.09 (SW-26) to 2.16 (SW-31), which indicates
used to determine normalized principal eigen vector and
coarse drainage pattern in watersheds. The mean bifurcation
computation of final weights for morphological, hydrologi-
ratio varies from 2 (SW-34) to 9 (SW-46), which specifies
cal and groundwater recharge parameter are presented in
that drainage is significantly affected by geology.
Table 5. The principal eigen value and consistency index
The mean annual soil loss from each watershed varies were estimated to be 15.98 and 0.152, respectively as given
from minimum of 6.10 t ha-1yr-1 for SW-30 to maximum of in Table 6. The consistency ratio for the existing comparison
59.13 t ha-1yr-1 for SW-3, with mean annual soil loss of 19.94 matrix was observed to be acceptable at 9.66% (within 10%
t ha-1yr-1 for Andhiyarkhore catchment (Table 7). The mean limit), and hence the final weights acquired were used for
annual soil loss is occurring at an average rate of 44.18 t ha-1 priority assessment. The average annual soil loss had
from 259.19 km2 (11.83%) from very high priority water- highest weight of 0.23 and elongation ratio the minimum
sheds, which are critically prone to soil erosion hazard. The weight of 0.01. The priority sequence of the parameters was
watersheds in northern part of the catchment with higher average annual soil loss, annual sediment yield, annual
slope and barren land use are more prone to soil erosion sediment production rate (hydrological parameters), annual
hazard. The sediment yield from the watershed varies from groundwater recharge and morphological parameters. The
minimum of 0.38 Mm3km-2yr-1 for SW-12 to maximum of values and statistics for the morphological, hydrological
1.68 Mm3km-2yr-1 for SW-29, with mean sediment yield of 1 and groundwater recharge parameters for each watershed
Mm3km-2yr-1 for Andhiyarkhore catchment. The mean sediment are given in Table 7. Based on the study, nine watersheds -
SW-18, SW-16, SW-26, SW-19, SW-5, SW-23, SW-15,
production rate of 2.19 ha-m 100 km-2yr-1 from 639.3 km2
(29.31%) under very high and high priority watersheds need SW-17, SW-7 - and covering an area of 325.70 km2 (15%) in
immediate attention for SWC works. The sediment yield Andhiyarkhore catchment can be classified as of very high
from watershed is directly affected by the morphological priority, and therefore urgently require SWC measures. The
parameters of the watershed. The sediment production rate very high priority watersheds are in north-western part of
the Andhiyarkhore catchment followed by high priority in
varies from minimum of 0.02 ha-m 100 km-2yr-1 for SW-31
northern and north-central parts of the catchment. The
to 2.48 ha-m 100 km-2yr-1 for SW-19, with mean sediment
details regarding the watersheds categorized in different
production rate of 1.34 ha-m 100 km-2yr-1 for Andhiyarkhore
priority classes alongwith corresponding total area in
catchment. The mean sediment yield of 1.6 Mm3km-2yr-1
Andhiyarkhore catchment are given in Table 8. The
from 137.77 km2 (6.31%) of very high priority watersheds prioritisation of the watersheds under different priority
need protection against sediment losses to downstream classes has been shown in Fig. 2.
areas of the Andhiyarkhore catchment. The sediment
production rate is directly proportional to land use in the 4. CONCLUSIONS
watershed and its morphology. The SAHP based decision support tool was found
The annual groundwater recharge for watershed varies acceptable in multi-criteria based watershed prioritization.
from minimum of 41.6 mm for SW-14 and maximum of This study shows that nine watersheds (SW-18, SW-16,
109.3 mm for SW-10, with mean annual groundwater SW-26, SW-19, SW-5, SW-23, SW-15, SW-17, SW-7) and
recharge of 68.3 mm for Andhiyarkhore catchment (Table covering an area of 325.70 km2 (15%) in Andhiyarkhore
7). The mean annual groundwater recharge for 849.79 km2 catchment have very high priority for SWC measures. The
(38.96%) area of the catchment is only 4.13% of average very high priority gets validated with high average annual
annual rainfall, which indicates that the groundwater soil loss, sediment yield, sediment production rate and poor
resources are depleting at a faster rate, which need to be groundwater recharge estimated in nine watersheds. The
augmented through artificial recharge. The north-western very high priority watersheds also have higher land slope,
part of the Andhiyarkhore catchment has poor natural more intense rainfall and dense drainage network ensuing
 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019 271

Table: 8
Watersheds under different priority class in Andhiyarkhore catchment
Priority Watersheds Area (km2)
Very High SW-18, SW-16, SW-26, SW-19, SW-5, SW-23, SW-15, SW-17, SW-7 325.7
High SW-4, SW-10, SW-37, SW-1, SW-11, SW-29, SW-21, SW-14, SW-27, SW-41, SW-6, SW-3, SW-24 569.3
Moderate SW-48, SW-49, SW-39, SW-9, SW-12, SW-13, SW-50, SW-45, SW-42, SW-20, SW-22, SW-25, SW-40, SW-8, SW-2 714.8
Low SW-30, SW-34, SW-33, SW-44, SW-28, SW-46, SW-43, SW-38, SW-32, SW-31 428.0
Very Low SW-47, SW-35, SW-51, SW-36 143.0
Total 2181.0

Fig. 2. Priority of delineated watersheds in Andhiyarkhore catchment

aggravated soil erosion and easy transportation of sediment. REFERENCES

A specifically developed catchment area treatment plan AIS&LUS. 1991. Methodology for Priority Delineation Survey. Ministry
entailing mechanical and biological measures is required to of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
be immediately implemented in these nine watersheds. Babaie-Kafaky, S., Mataji, A. and Sani, N.A. 2009. Ecological capability
assessment for multiple-use in forest areas using GIS-based
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS multiple criteria decision making approach. Am. J. Environ. Sci.,
5(6): 7-14.
The authors are thankful to the Director, Institute of Chaudhary, B.S. and Kumar, S. 2018. Soil erosion estimation and
Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, prioritization of Koshalya-Jhajhara watershed in North India. Indian
J. Soil Cons., 46(3): 305-311.
Uttar Pradesh; and, Director, National Institute of Hydrology, Chowdary, V. M., Chakraborthy, D., Jeyaram, A., Murthy, Y. K., Sharma, J.
Roorkee, Uttarakhand for providing laboratory facilities for R. and Dadhwal, V.K. 2013. Multi-criteria decision making approach
this study. The authors also acknowledge the support of for watershed prioritization using analytic hierarchy process
technique and GIS. Water Resour. Manage., 27(10): 3555-3571.
State Hydrology Data Centre, Water Resources Department,
De Steiguer, J.E., Duberstein, J., Lopes, V. 2003. The analytic hierarchy
Chhattisgarh; Central Water Commission, Mahanadi; Eastern process as a means for integrated watershed management. In: Proc.
Rivers Organization, Bhubaneswar, Odisha; National Bureau 1st Interagency Conference on Research on the Watersheds. US
of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, New Delhi; and, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Benson,
Arizona, pp 736-740.
United States Geological Survey, USA for providing the Gravelius, H. 1914. Grundrifi der gesamten Gewcisserkunde. Band I:
necessary hydro-meteorological data used for this study. Flufikunde (Compendium of Hydrology, Vol. I. Rivers, in German).
The author are also thankful to unknown reviewers and Goschen, Berlin, Germany.
editors for their suggestions regarding improvement of the Groundwater Estimation Committee. 1984. Norms for Groundwater
Assessment. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development:
manuscript for publication. Mumbai, India.
 272 Gaurav Singh et al. / Indian J. Soil Cons., 47(3): 263-272, 2019

Horton, R.E. 1932. Drainage-basin characteristics. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophy. Mishra, C.D., Jaiswal, R.K., Nema, A.K., Chandola, V.K., Chouksey, A.
Union, 13(1): 350-361. 2019. Priority Assessment of Sub-watershed Based on Optimum
Horton, R.E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage Number of Parameters Using Fuzzy-AHP Decision Support System
basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geolog. in the Environment of RS and GIS. J. Indian Soc. Remot. Sens.,
Soc. Am. Bull., 56(3): 275-370. 47(4): 603-617.
Jain, P. and Ramsankaran, R.A.A.J. 2019. GIS-based integrated multi- Mishra, S.S. and Nagarajan, R. 2010. Morphometric analysis and
criteria modelling framework for watershed prioritisation in India - A prioritization of sub-watersheds using GIS and remote sensing
demonstration in Marol watershed. J. Hydrol., 578: 124-131. techniques: a case study of Odisha, India. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci.,
1(3): 501.
Jaiswal, R.K., Ghosh, N.C., Lohani, A.K., Thomas, T. 2015. Fuzzy AHP
based multi crteria decision support for watershed prioritization. Oyatoye, E.O., Okpokpo, G.U. and Adekoya, G.A. 2010. An application of
Water Resour. Manage., 29(12): 4205-4227. analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to investment portfolio selection in
the banking sector of the Nigerian capital market. J. Econ. Int.
Jaiswal, R.K., Thomas, T., Galkate, R.V., Ghosh, N.C. and Singh, S. 2014.
Finan., 2(12): 321-335.
Watershed prioritization using Saaty's AHP based decision support
for soil conservation measures. Water Resour. Manage., 28(2): 475- Panda, S.S., Andrianasolo, H., Steele, D.D. 2005. Application of
494. geotechnology to watershed soil conservation planning at the field
scale. J. Environ. Hydrol., 13.
Javanbarg, M.B., Scawthorn, C., Kiyono, J. and Shahbodaghkhan, B.
2012. Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using Rao, H.S.S. and Mahabaleswara, H. 1990. Prediction of rate of sedimenta-
particle swarm optimization. Exp. Syst. Appl., 39(1): 960-966. tion of Tungabhadra reservoir. Proc. Sym. on Erosion, Sedimentation
and Resource Conservation. Dehradun, India, 1, 12-20.
Jose, C.S. and Das, D.C. 1982. Geomorphic prediction models for
sediment production rate and intensive priorities of watersheds in Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., Porter, J.P. 1991. RUSLE:
Mayurakshi catchment. In: Proc. of International Symp. on Revised universal soil loss equation. J. Soil Water Conserv., 46(1):
Hydrological Aspects of Mountainous Watersheds, School of 30-33.
Hydrology. UOR, Roorkee, 1: 15-23. Saaty, T.L. 1980. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory
Kandpal, H., Kumar, A., Reddy, C.P. and Malik, A. 2018. Geomorphologic with analytical hierarchical process. Pittusburgh: RWS
parameters based prioritization of hilly sub-watersheds using remote Publications, University of Pittsburgh, 6: 3-95.
sensing and geographical information system. J. Soil Water Conserv, Schumm, S.A. 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands
17: 232. at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geolog. Soc. Am. Bull., 67(5): 597-646.
Kumar, S. 1985. Reservoir Sedimentation. In: Proc. Short Term Course on Shivhare, N., Rahul, A.K., Omar, P.J., Chauhan, M.S., Gaur, S., Dikshit, P.
Planning. Design and Operation of Reservoirs. Patna University, K.S. and Dwivedi, S.B. 2018. Identification of critical soil erosion
India, 8p. prone areas and prioritization of micro-watersheds using geo-
Kundu, S., Khare, D. and Mondal, A. 2017. Landuse change impact on sub- informatics techniques. Ecolog. Eng., 121: 26-34.
watersheds prioritization by analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Shrimali, S.S., Aggarwal, S.P. and Samra, J.S. 2001. Prioritizing erosion-
Ecolog. Inform., 42: 100-113. prone areas in hills using remote sensing and GIS - A case study of the
Lee, A.H., Chen, W.C., Chang, C.J. 2008. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach Sukhna lake catchment, northern India. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ.
for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing Geoinfor., 3(1): 54-60.
industry in Taiwan. Exp. Syst. Appl., 34(1): 96-107. Vittala, S.S., Govindaiah, S., Gowda, H.H. 2004. Morphometric analysis
Maurya, S., Srivastava, P.K., Gupta, M., Islam, T., Han, D. 2016. of sub-watersheds in the Pavagada area of Tumkur district, South
Integrating soil hydraulic parameter and microwave precipitation India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J. Indian Soc. Remot.
with morphometric analysis for watershed prioritization. Water Sens., 32(4): 351.
Resour. Manage., 30(14): 5385-5405. Yadav, R.K., Jaiswal, R.K., Nema, A.K. and Chourasia, S. 2015. Sediment
Melton, M.A. 1958. Correlation structure of morphometric properties of Yield Index (SYI) based prioritization of Benisagar reservoir
drainage systems and their controlling agents. J. Geol., 66(4): 442- catchment area using remote sensing and GIS. Indian J. Soil Cons.,
460. 43(2): 115-119.
Miller, V.C. 1953. Quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin
characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee.
Technical Report (Columbia University, Department of Geology,
No. 3.

View publication stats