Water 2011, 3, 254-290; doi:10.

3390/w3010254
OPEN ACCESS

water
ISSN 2073-4441
www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Article

Integrating Geographical Information Systems, Fuzzy Logic

and Analytical Hierarchy Process in Modelling Optimum Sites
for Locating Water Reservoirs. A Case Study of the Debub
District in Eritrea
Rodney G. Tsiko * and Tesfalem S. Haile

School of Geography, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK;
E-Mail: [email protected]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +44-7549834539.

Received: 20 December 2010; in revised form: 19 January 2011 / Accepted: 22 January 2011 /
Published: 3 March 2011

Abstract: The aim of this study was to model water reservoir site selection for a real world
application in the administrative district of Debub, Eritrea. This is a region were scarcity of
water is a fundamental problem. Erratic rainfall, drought and unfavourable
hydro-geological characteristics exacerbates the region‘s water supply. Consequently, the
population of Debub is facing severe water shortages and building reservoirs has been
promoted as a possible solution to meet the future demand of water supply. This was the
most powerful motivation to identify candidate sites for locating water reservoirs. A
number of conflicting qualitative and quantitative criteria exist for evaluating alternative
sites. Decisions regarding criteria are often accompanied by ambiguities and vagueness.
This makes fuzzy logic a more natural approach to this kind of Multi-criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA) problems. This paper proposes a combined two-stage MCDA
methodology. The first stage involved utilizing the most simplistic type of data aggregation
techniques known as Boolean Intersection or logical AND to identify areas restricted by
environmental and hydrological constraints and therefore excluded from further study. The
second stage involved integrating fuzzy logic with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
to identify optimum and back-up candidate water reservoir sites in the area designated for
further study.
Water 2011, 3 255

Keywords: water reservoir site; fuzzy logic; Multi-criteria Decision Analysis; Boolean
Intersection; Analytic Hierarchy Process

1. Introduction

The scarcity of water is a fundamental problem for Eritrea. Erratic rainfall exacerbates the country‘s
unfavorable hydro-geological characteristics. Eritrea‘s geology, combined with the climatic conditions
also affects the quality of the water—making it rich in salts and other natural pollutants [1]. The
country has only two perennial river systems, the Setit River, which forms the country‘s border with
Ethiopia and drains into the Nile basin, and the Gash Barka system, which collects the run-off water
from the highlands. All the other rivers in the country are seasonal and carry water only after rainfall,
which means that they are dry most of the year. As a result, the country has limited sources of fresh
surface water, and although groundwater can be tapped, quantity and quality is usually poor [2].
Although the official average annual rainfall is estimated at 400–500mm, it has been erratic and less
than above average for the last two years. The effect has been intense drought that is affecting
two-thirds of the country, with water levels in wells and boreholes at an all-time low. In addition, the
continuing repercussions of the 1998–2000 border war with Ethiopia resulted in 1.2 million internally
displaced people, straining the already fragile infrastructure, including water and sanitation. According
to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Human Development Report (HDR) data
of 2002, only 57% of the Eritrean population has access to potable water. In addition, less than 9% of
the population (3% in rural areas) has access to adequate sanitation services. Inadequate education in
hygiene and sanitation has lowered the population‘s sanitary standards even further. At only 3%,
Eritrea‘s rural sanitation is the second lowest in the world. Sanitation and hygiene promotion are not
emphasized much in national programs, in part due to the water supply crisis triggered by the drought.
Limited management and implementation capacity in both the public and private sectors is a major
constraint for increasing coverage. As a result of the shortage of adequate water supplies, Eritrea
continues to face a major public health problem caused by sickness and death from diarrhoea and other
water borne, sanitation and hygiene related diseases. These problems have been confronting most parts
of Eritrea for a long time and are today very evident in one of its administrative districts known
as Debub.
Water scarcity is one of the many challenges that people face in Debub. In most areas where water
sources are available, they are usually located far from human settlements. As a result, the people,
particularly women and children, have to walk for hours to reach shallow hand-dug wells or ponds,
which they share with animals. These water sources dry up for most part of the year, and even when
they are usable, they are often contaminated. As most of the time is spend looking for water, there is
very little time left for other activities, such as education or working in the fields. The most affected
have been those villages close to the Eritrea-Ethiopia border which were most severely affected by the
border conflict between the two countries. In order to improve the livelihood of the people in Debub,
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) are working with the Eritrean Water Resources Department (EWRD) and the
Water 2011, 3 256

locals to provide solar powered boreholes that can provide clean and safe water [3]. However, these
water sources are benefitting a small portion of the total population in the district as demand exceeds
supply. Consequently, the population of Debub is facing severe water shortages and building reservoirs
has been promoted as a possible solution to meet the future demand of water supply. For the purposes
of this research, reservoir means a construction that holds a volume of water and dam is the structure,
which holds back the water [4]. This definition signifies the importance of examining both the
reservoir and dam site locations, as one needs to know the capabilities of the foundations to withstand
the weight of both the volume of water in the reservoir and the materials for dam construction.
Therefore, choosing a suitable site is a crucial phase in reservoir construction. According to [5], a
well-selected site will not only give the optimum benefits but its aesthetic value may also create a
recreational area surrounding the reservoir.
Identification of an optimum reservoir site is a decision making process that involves the
consideration of diverse criteria. Prior to the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in 1972, decision-makers prioritized the economic importance of a reservoir over other
criteria. Since then, they have had to take into consideration the environmental impact of reservoirs, as
well as the technical design and social factors. Consequently, it is clear that during the
decision-making process, large volumes of data sets will have to be handled and analyzed. Taking
these factors into consideration and the fact that information about water resources and the
environment in general is inherently geospatial, [6], suggested the extensive use of Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) tools, concepts and technologies to provide a framework for information
integration, communication and collaboration, and decision support for the management of water
resources data.
Over the past few years GIS has established itself as an increasingly important tool for providing a
comprehensive means of managing and handling water resources data in a way that cannot be
accomplished manually. The large amount of data involved requires a GIS, as there may be thousands
of features having a location, associated attributes, and relationships with other features. According
to [7], GIS presents a means of browsing and reviewing the water resources data in color-coded
formats, at the same time, offering a data-reviewing capability which supports both quality control and
identification of errors. In addition, the visual capabilities offered by a GIS allows the user an
opportunity to gain a better understanding of any patterns and trends which may exist within the data
sets, in a way not possible if the data was represented only in tabular format. A GIS also provides
analysis capabilities. The attribute data can be accessed by software and used as input to various
modeling procedures to generate derived products that can be used to come up with decisions related
to water resource management. These decisions are typically guided by multiple objectives and
multiple stakeholder groups with divergent interests, which may involve technical, economic,
environmental or social issues. Therefore, it is clear that the issues to be considered in developing
efficient strategies to water resources management are numerous, and their relationships are extremely
complicated [8,9]. As a result, decision makers are now looking beyond just using the conventional
GIS tools, by integrating the efficient data manipulation and visual presentation capabilities of GIS
with Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a group of conventional and tailored techniques that
can aid decision–makers in dealing with the difficulties they encounter in handling large amounts of
complex information at the same time [8,10-12]. In MCDA, all parties are required to explicitly state
Water 2011, 3 257

their preferences through a structured process, making it possible to identify any areas of agreement or
disagreement. Because of its transparency, MCDA is now a preferred alternative when it comes to
making decisions involving more than one or more parties with multiple perspectives. In addition to
being transparent, MCDA is now considered as one of the better techniques around because it offers
accountability to decision procedures which according to [13] and [14] may otherwise have unclear
motives and rationale. Accountability is achieved by being able to explicitly state the reasons for
choosing an option and also being able to audit past decisions.
Since the 1960s the number MCDA techniques has increased. These techniques have provided
decision makers with limitless options for finding solutions in a multi-criteria environment. Several
researchers have conducted comparative studies of these techniques to a single problem in water
resources management. These studies have often shown that MDCA techniques are in close agreement
and there is no clear advantage to be gained in using one technique over the others [15,16]. One of
these most commonly applied techniques encountered whilst reviewing the relevant literature is the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which was introduced by [17]. The principle of AHP is to
systematically break down a problem into its smaller and smaller constituent parts and then guide
decision makers through a series of pairwise comparison judgments to express the importance of the
elements in the hierarchy [18,19]. These judgments are then translated to numbers, which are then
referred to as the weights. Assigning weights using pairwise comparison will most likely reduce bias in
the weights, making AHP a more effective MCDA technique [20,21]. Several authors have also
supported the way weights are assigned in the AHP technique, and have highlighted that it might be
the reason the pairwise comparison method was incorporated in the GIS Analysis Decision Support
module in the IDRISI32 raster based software package [22,23]. However, within the literature it is felt
that the conventional AHP technique of expressing decision maker‘s judgments in the form of single
numbers does not fully reflect a style of human thinking in the real-world system. There is some
inherent uncertainty and imprecision associated with the decision making process, which needs to be
adequately handled. This uncertainty can be linked to the characteristics of the decision maker. An
approach which can tolerate this vagueness or ambiguity is therefore required. According to [24], a
possible approach is to apply a special kind of vagueness called fuzziness, which is based on the fuzzy
set theory proposed by [25]. The fuzzy approach allows decision makers to give interval judgments,
which can capture a human‘s appraisal of ambiguity when complex multi-attribute decision making
problems such as water reservoir siting are considered. According to [26] and [27], integrating fuzzy
logic into the AHP process will give a much better and more exact representation between criteria and
alternatives. It is therefore the intent of this research to use a methodology that integrates GIS, fuzzy
logic and the traditional AHP to model optimum sites for locating water reservoirs in Debub, Eritrea.
To enhance the GIS-based Fuzzy AHP model to be used in this research, sensitivity analysis will be
used to assess its robustness and any uncertainties in the output results. This is a prerequisite since it
will help in determining the reliability of the model. We hope that findings from this study will serve
as a point of reference for a more detailed investigation into site selections and planning for reservoirs
in the Debub administrative district in Eritrea.
Water 2011, 3 258

2. Materials and Methods

This section describes the combined methodology used in this research. Firstly, a brief description
of the study site is given followed by a detailed description of the steps adopted in the methodology.
These include description and pre-processing of constraint and factor criteria; using Boolean
Intersection to identify unsuitable and suitable areas for further study; and integrating fuzzy logic with
the AHP to identify candidate sites within the suitable area.

2.1. Study Area

Debub is a 1st level administrative district in Eritrea, and is also known as the Southern region. This
region is situated at altitudes between 900 and 3,100 metres and lies along a portion of the national
border with Ethiopia. It shares its western border with the region of Gash-Burka, its north with Maakel
and its eastern with the Semienawi Keih Bahri region (Figure 1). The region has an estimated
population of 755, 379 spread over an area of around 8,000 square kilometres.

Figure 1. Study area.

Water 2011, 3 259

Climate in the study area is subtropical with distinct dry winters and rainy summer seasons. The
mean annual rainfall ranges between 300 and 700 mm with mean annual temperatures exceeding 22 oC.
The region receives rainfall from the southwest Monsoon, from April to September. Some of the rain
falls in April/May while the main rain starts in June, with the heaviest precipitation in July and August.
The region has two main rivers, Mereb and Beleza, whilst all the other rivers in the region are seasonal
and carry water only after rainfall, which means they are dry most of the year. As a result, the region
has limited sources of fresh surface water, and although groundwater can be tapped, quantity and
quality is usually poor. To meet future demands, the strategy is to harness as much seasonal water
flows as possible, store them, then direct them where they are needed. Agriculture is the main stay of
the population where the predominant farming system is small scale mixed production
(crops/livestock). Crop cultivation in the study area is predominantly subsistence based.

2.2. Data Collection

GIS data sets used in this study were extracted from 1:25,000 national topographical maps as well
as 1:250,000 geological maps. These include: permanent and seasonal river networks, geology and
location of faults, road network, soil types, location of forest, agricultural areas, distribution of rainfall,
urban and rural areas, political boundaries and a 50 meter resolution Digital Terrain Model (DTM),
from which the elevation and slope data layers were derived.

2.3. Steps of the Methodology

After collecting the above mentioned datasets, the methodology of this study was divided into a
two-stage process. The first stage involved utilizing the most simplistic type of data aggregation
techniques known as Boolean Intersection or logical AND to identify areas restricted by environmental
and hydrological constraints and therefore excluded from further study. The second stage involved
integrating fuzzy logic with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to identify candidate water
reservoir sites in the area designated for further study.

2.4. First Stage: Using Constraints to Identify Acceptable and Unacceptable Areas

This stage involved utilizing exclusionary criteria (also known as constraints) in preliminary
screening to exclude unacceptable areas for siting a water reservoir. These areas are locations where
due to environmental and hydrological concerns were rejected for the purpose of siting a water
reservoir. A diagrammatic representation of the steps taken to accomplish this first-stage is shown in
Figure 2.
Water 2011, 3 260

Figure 2. Steps to identify acceptable and unacceptable areas.

In this study, the constraints were; river network, agricultural areas and forest reserves. The
processing of input layers to create maps for the constraint criteria was carried out in IDRISI32, a raster
based software package. The data layers were first converted from vector to raster model, in a process
known as rasterization. Each data layer was then converted to a Boolean map by assigning an index
value of ―1‖ to areas deemed suitable for siting a water reservoir, while unsuitable areas were assigned
an index value of ―0‖. A detailed description of the constraint layers is discussed as follows.

2.4.1. River network

The basic consideration when planning to construct a water reservoir is that it must be located on a
river and not on dry land. The river network criterion (Figure 3a) was therefore used as a constraint.
An index value of ―1‖ was assigned to areas through which rivers in Debub pass, hence suitable for
constructing a reservoir, whilst the other areas, considered to be unsuitable, were assigned an index
value of ―0‖.
Water 2011, 3 261

Figure 3. Constraint criteria.

2.4.2. Agricultural areas

Up to 80% of the population in Debub depends on agriculture for their livelihood. The agricultural
system consists of rain fed crop systems using traditional methods with very low input levels; irrigated
systems using mainly spate irrigation to grow cereals, vegetables and citrus fruits (bananas and
mangos), and; agro-pastoralists (cattle, sheep and goats) and nomadic pastoralists systems (camels).
However, agriculture like many other sectors has been seriously affected by a combination of war,
recurrent droughts and degraded lands. This has led to severe food shortages, and by 2002, Debub‘s
agricultural sector was making a negative contribution to Eritrea‘s trade balance [28]. Currently, the
region relies heavily on imports and food aid. Taking this into consideration, this study ensured that all
Water 2011, 3 262

areas currently under rain fed or irrigated crop farming were excluded as potential reservoir sites. As a
result, all agricultural areas as shown in Figure 3b were assigned an index value of ―0‖ whilst the other
areas considered suitable were assigned an index value of ―1‖.

2.4.3. Forest reserves

In recent years, the disastrous environmental impact of large water reservoirs such as dams and
lakes has drawn heavy criticism. According to [29], experts now admit that clearing forest reserves to
make way for the construction of reservoirs is extremely destructive to our already fragile ecosystems
equilibrium. The negative impact is far-reaching, unpredictable, usually irreversible, and can neither be
adequately assessed nor quantified. The Debub region is semi–arid to arid, with rare patches of forest
cover (Figure 3c), which are already degraded and placed under increasing human and livestock
pressures for firewood, construction materials, grazing and agriculture. As a result, there is a need to
protect as much forest cover as possible so that there is no loss of any available rare species of flora
and fauna unique to the area. To put this into practice, areas covered by forests were assigned an index
value of ―0‖ to represent their unsuitability whilst the other areas considered to be suitable for locating
a water reservoir were assigned the index value ―1‖.

2.4.4. Creating an overall constraint map

After reducing the constraint maps to Boolean images, all the layers were assigned an equal weight
as they were considered to be equally important. The Boolean images were subsequently overlaid
consecutively; by using the Boolean Intersection or Logical AND technique available in the
Multi-criteria Evaluation (MCE) module of the IDRISI32 software package. This technique is
considered to be a very extreme form of decision making in which a location must meet every criterion
for it to be included in the decision set. According to [30], Boolean Intersection overlay selects
locations based on the most cautious strategy possible and hence considered a risk-averse technique. It
can be represented mathematically by Equation 1.

n
SI   bi (1)
i 1

where, SI is the overall suitability index value (0 or 1), b is the suitability index value for each
constraint criterion (0 or 1) and n is the number of constraint criteria.
The result was a single suitability Boolean map in Figure 4, showing areas restricted by
environmental and hydrological constraints and therefore excluded from the study area. It also shows
the areas identified for further consideration.
Water 2011, 3 263

Figure 4. Areas excluded from water reservoir siting.

2.5. Second Stage: Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP)

This second stage of the methodology adopted the use of the AHP to identify various potential sites
within the acceptable area identified for further study in Figure 4, according to their suitability for the
construction of a water reservoir. The AHP is an iterative technique, which consists of a number of
stages that can be modified to suit a particular problem. For this research, the stages followed in
implementing the AHP are shown in Figure 5.
Water 2011, 3 264

Figure 5. AHP model.

Water 2011, 3 265

2.5.1. Identifying the objective/s

These are statements relating to what the decision makers seek to achieve in a particular
circumstance. For this research, the objective was to identify suitable sites for constructing water
reservoirs whilst at the same time taking into consideration the various environmental, hydrological,
economic, social and institutional implications of choosing those particular locations.

2.5.2. Criteria description, application and pre-processing

Fourteen (14) criteria considered as factors affecting the location of a water reservoir were adopted
in this study. Taking into consideration that it is very difficult to acquire spatial information in
underdeveloped countries such as Eritrea, the selection of these criteria was also influenced by their
availability as GIS datasets. Data processing of all factor maps was done in the IDRISI32 software
package. Of the main input layers, the 90 meter DTM was in raster format, whilst the rest were vector
datasets. The raster dataset was imported into the IDRISI32 software package using the ARCRASTER
function. Five input layers, slope, elevation, risk of erosion, water discharge and wetness index were
then extracted or calculated from the 90 meter DTM. Slope was derived by using the SLOPE surface
analysis feature extraction function, whilst the DTM was taken as the representation of elevation since
it is a continuous surface made up of height values. An erosion risk map was created by identifying
areas of steep slopes and highly erosive soils, and then using the CROSSTAB function to produce a
map showing areas at risk of erosion where steep slopes and highly erosive soils coincide. The water
discharge layer was created by first creating a runoff grid from the DTM using the RUNOFF surface
analysis feature extraction function, and then using Equation 2 in order to have its units in m3/s.
3 2
Water disch arg e (m / s )  (runoff grid [m]  area of each pixel [m ]) /( 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 [ s]) (2)

To calculate the wetness index on a pixel by pixel basis, Kirkby‘s formula shown by Equation 3
was utilized.
a
Wetness index  ln( )
tan 
Where, a (upslope area )  runoff grid  area of each pixel ,
(3)
  slope grid in radians

IDRISI32 is primarily a raster based geo-software package, with most of its functions and commands
performing best on raster-based datasets. Vectors are mainly used to get data from other sources into
IDRISI32 and to serve as overlays for better visual orientation. In addition to this, since the slope,
elevation, risk of erosion, water discharge and wetness index data sets were already in raster format, it
was only logical for all vector datasets imported into IDRISI32 using the SHAPEIDR function, to be
converted to raster format in a process called rasterization. This was done by first creating a blank
raster grid using the INITIAL command. An existing grid (in this case, the DTM) was used to provide
the size of this new raster. The vector datasets were then rasterized onto the blank raster grid. For
vector datasets in which features were stored as points, lines or polygons, rasterization was achieved
by making use of the POINTRAS, LINERAS and POLYRAS commands respectively. Buffer zones
were then created around each data layer, to determine the safe distances at which a reservoir can be
Water 2011, 3 266

sited. To do this, the DISTANCE operator was first used to calculate the distances away from the
features in each layer. The RECLASS function was then used to determine the buffer zones, and
information regarding their sizes was compiled from case studies provided within the relevant
literature as cited in [5,29,31-33]. Each zone was assigned a class between 1 and 5 depending on its
suitability for siting a water reservoir. The higher the score is, the more suitable the area is for siting a
water reservoir. The data layers, their buffer sizes and class allocations are summarized in Table 1. A
detailed description of the data layers is found in [34].

Table 1. Summary of the input layers used in this research.

Layer name Source map Buffer zone Ranking
Slope 50 m DTM ≤ 12° 5
12°–20° 4
20°–25° 3
25°–30° 2
≥30° 1
Elevation 50 m DTM ≤1,300 m 1
≥2,600 m
1,300 m–1,600 m 2
1,600 m–2,000 m 3
2,000 m–2,400 m 4
2,400 m–2,600 m 5
Bedrock Type 1: 250,000 scale Geological map Archean Lower complex 1
Precamb-Undifferentiate 2
Basalt 3
Trias-sandstone 4
Quart-Conglomerates 5
Precamb-granitoids
Distance from fault lines 1: 250,000 scale Geological map ≤20km 1
20 km–30 km 2
30 km–40 km 3
40 km–50 km 4
≥50 km 5
Soil 1: 250,000 scale Geological map Livosol 5
Vertic-Cambisol 4
Cambisol 3
Fluvisol 2
Lithosol-Cambisol 1
Annual Rainfall 1: 25,000 scale topographical map 300 mm–500 mm 1
Water Discharge 50 m DTM 500 mm–700 mm 5
Water 2011, 3 267

Table 1. Cont.
Layer name Source map Buffer zone Ranking

Water Discharge 50m DTM ≤2 m3/s 1

3 3
2 m /s–10 m /s 2
3 3
10 m /s–26 m /s 3
26 m3/s–46 m3/s 4
≥46 m /s
3
5
Distance from main and secondary 1: 25,000 scale topographical map ≤500 m 1
tarmac roads ≥2,500 m
500 m–1,000 m 2
1,000 m–1,500 m 3
1,500 m–2,000 m 4
2,000 m–2,500 m 5
Distance from motorable dirty, gravel 1: 25,000 scale topographical map ≤1,000 m 5
roads and footpaths 1,000 m–2,000 m 4
2,000 m–3,000 m 3
3,000 m–4,000 m 2
≥4,000 m 1
Distance from urban areas 1: 25,000 scale topographical map ≤10.0 km 1
≥15.0 km
10.0 km–10.5 km 2
10.5 km–11.0 km 3
11.0 km–11.5 km 4
11.5 km–15.0 km 5
Distance from rural areas 1: 25,000 scale topographical map ≤5.0 km 1
≥10.0 km
≤5.0 km 2
≥10.0 km 3
5.0 km–5.5 km 4
5.5 km–6.0 km 5
Eritrea-Ethiopia border 1: 25,000 scale topographical map Senafe, Tsorona, Adi 1
Quala and Maimine
sub-districts
Other sub-districts 5

Criteria and their relevant buffer zones had to be identified from within the relevant literature
because at the time of carrying out this research, Eritrea did not have clearly defined regulations on
water reservoir siting. According to [28], water resources management projects in Eritrea used to be
run by the Water Resources Department (WRD), but are now managed at regional level after the
decentralization of services in 1996. These regional authorities do not have the capacity to run these
projects and in cases where they do, they often lack the necessary authority to make effective decisions
as there is no formal legislation at either national or regional level regarding water rights. As a result
ground rules for the actual water allocation and resources management are not clearly defined. Because
of the lack of a promulgated, effective water law, activities in the water sector are still uncoordinated.
Water 2011, 3 268

2.5.3. Establishing decision hierarchy

The decision hierarchy model of water reservoir siting was structured as in Figure 6. The hierarchy
consists of the main objective at the top (Water Reservoir Siting), followed by three levels of hierarchy.
The 14 criteria (also known as factors) used in this research were divided into four main groups;
environmental, hydrological, economic and institutional factors, to form the second hierarchy. These
were further split into ten factors of which, four were environmental (Topography, Geology, Soil and
Risk of erosion), three were hydrological (Annual rainfall, Water discharge and Wetness index), two
were economic (Distance from roads and Distance from settlements) and one was institutional
(Eritrea-Ethiopia border) to form the third hierarchy. The final hierarchy was formed by dividing the
topography, geology, distance from roads and distance from settlements factors. Topography was
divided into slope and elevation sub-factors. Geology was divided two sub-factors, bedrock type and
fault lines. The distance from roads factor was also divided into two, that is, distance from main and
secondary tarmac roads and distance from motorable dirty gravel roads and footpaths sub-factors.
Finally the distance from settlements factor was divided into the distance from urban areas and
distance from rural areas sub-factors. The examined criteria were selected based on the relevant
literature [5,29,31-33].

2.5.4. Constructing pairwise comparison matrices

Weights were applied to each criterion identified in Table 1 to reflect their relative importance. By
assigning quantitative weights it was possible to make important criteria have a greater impact on the
outcome than other criteria. There are a number of alternative techniques for assigning weights. In
ideal situations it is desirable to apply some or all of the techniques, however, practical constraints
limited the number of techniques used in this research to one, the pairwise comparison method. This
technique involves the comparison of each criterion against every other criterion in pairs. It can be
effective because it forces the decision maker/s to give thorough consideration to all elements of a
decision problem. By contemplating different consideration issues through personal experience,
knowledge and understanding of the decision making problem, a set of pairwise comparison matrices
were constructed for each of the lower hierarchical levels—one matrix for each element in the level
immediately above. An element in the higher hierarchical level was considered to be the governing
element for those in the lower level since it contributed to it or affected it in one way or the other. In
addition, in a complete simple hierarchy, every element in the lower level affects every element in the
upper level. Therefore, the elements in the lower level were then compared to each other based on their
effect on the governing element above. This yielded a square matrix of judgements; in which pairwise
comparison was done in terms of which element dominated the other. In the traditional AHP, these
judgements are then expressed as integers according to scale values 1–9 as summarised in
Table 2 [12].
Water 2011, 3 269

Figure 6. Hierarchy model for water reservoir siting.

Water 2011, 3 270

Table 2. Scale of relative importance.

Intensity of Definition Explanation
relative
importance
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the
objectives
3 Moderate importance of one over another Experience and judgment slightly favour one
activity over another
5 Essential or strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one
activity over another
7 Demonstrated importance An activity is strongly favoured and its
dominance is demonstrated in practice
9 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one activity over
another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation.
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate value between the two When compromise is needed.
adjacent judgments
Reciprocals of If an activity has one of the above
above non-zero numbers (e.g., 3) compared with a second
numbers activity, then the second activity has the
reciprocal value (i.e., 1/3) when compared
to the first.

However, within the literature it is felt that the conventional AHP technique of expressing decision
maker‘s judgements in the form of single numbers does not fully reflect a style of human thinking in
the real-world system. There is some inherent uncertainty and imprecision associated with the decision
making process, which needs to be adequately handled. This uncertainty can be linked to the
characteristics of the decision maker. An approach which can tolerate this vagueness or ambiguity is
therefore required. According to [24], a possible approach is to apply a special kind of vagueness
called fuzziness, which is based on the fuzzy set theory proposed by [25]. The fuzzy approach allows
decision makers to give interval judgements, which can capture a human‘s appraisal of ambiguity
when complex multi-attribute decision making problems such as water reservoir siting are considered.
This approach was adopted for this research, resulting in the uncertain comparison judgements being
represented by a special class of fuzzy numbers known as Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs). When
using TFNs, the decision maker‘s judgement is represented as an interval defined by three real
numbers or parameters, expressed as ( l , m , u ), where l is the lowest possible value, m is the
middle possible value and u is the upper possible value in the decision maker‘s interval judgement.
Each TFN is associated with a triangular membership function, which describes the TFN domain.
Triangular membership functions can be represented mathematically and graphically by Equation 4
and Figure 7 respectively as follows:
Water 2011, 3 271

 0 xl

 ( x  l ) /( m  l ) l  x  m
 A ( x)   (4)
(u  x) /(u  m) m  x  u

 0 xu

Figure 7. Fuzzy triangular number.

Using Equation 4, TFNs used to represent vague data were then defined in the order (l , m, u ) .
Linguistic variables, which are variables whose values are expressed in linguistic terms, were also used
by the decision makers in situations not well defined to be reasonably described by conventional
quantitative expressions [35,36]. The proposed TFNs and matching linguistic variables related to
Saaty‘s scale of preference values in Table 2, along with their membership functions are provided in
Table 3.
Table 3. Proposed TFNs, linguistic variables and membership functions.
Saaty’s scale Definition Membership function Domain TFNs scale (l , m, u ) Linguistic
of relative variables
importance

Just equal (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) Just equal

1 Equal  A ( x)  (3  x) /(3  1) 1 x  3 (1.0, 1.0, 3.0) Least

importance importance
3 Moderate  A ( x)  ( x  1) /(3  1) 1 x  3 Moderate
importance of  A ( x)  (5  x) /(5  3) 3 x5 importance
(1.0, 3.0, 5.0)
one over
another
5 Essential or  A ( x)  ( x  3) /(5  3) 3 x5 Essential
strong  A ( x)  (7  x) /(7  5) 5 x7 (3.0, 5.0, 7.0) importance
importance
7 Demonstrated  A ( x)  ( x  5) /(7  5) 5 x7 Demonstrate
(5.0, 7.0, 9.0)
importance  A ( x)  (9  x) /(9  7) 7 x9 importance
Water 2011, 3 272

Table 3. Cont.
Saaty’s scale Definition Membership function Domain TFNs scale (l , m, u ) Linguistic
of relative variables
importance
9 Extreme  A ( x)  ( x  7) /(9  7) 7 x9 (7.0, 9.0, 9.0) Extreme
importance importance
Reciprocals of If an activity Reciprocals of above;
1
above non- has one of the A1  (1 / u1 ,1 / m1 ,1 / l1 )
zero numbers above numbers
(e.g., 3)
compared with
a second
activity, then
the second
activity has the
reciprocal value
(i.e., 1/3) when
compared to the
first.

~
By using TFNs, the fuzzy judgement matrices A(a~ij ) , used to construct pairwise comparisons for
criteria at each level of the hierarchy, were of the form:
 (1,1,1) (l12 , m12 , u12 )  (l1n , m1n , u1n ) 
~  (l , m , u ) (1,1,1)  (l 2 n , m 2 n , u 2 n ) 
A  ( a~ij ) nn   21 21 21 
     
 n1 n1 n1
( l , m , u ) ( l n2 n2 , u n2 )
, m  (1,1,1) 

1
where a~ij  (l ij , mij , u ij )  a~ij  (1 / u ji ,1 / m ji ,1 / l ji ) for i , j  1,..., n and i  j.

The number of comparisons at each hierarchy level was determined by the formulae n(n  1) / 2 ,
where n is the total number of criteria.

2.5.5. Determining weights of criteria

After pairwise comparisons, the weights of the criteria were determined. Within the literature,
different methods have been proposed for determining weights of criteria in a fuzzy comparison matrix.
This research utilized the Fuzzy Extent Analysis (FEA) method proposed by [37]. The steps of [37]
FEA are as follows:

First step: Normalized values of row sums, also known as values of fuzzy synthetic extent where
computed for each of the of fuzzy judgement matrices in Tables 4–12, by making use of fuzzy
arithmetic operations and Equation 5.
Water 2011, 3 273

1
~ n  n n 
S i   a~ij     a~kj  (5)
j 1 k 1 j 1 
n
Where  denotes the extended multiplication of two fuzzy numbers. To obtain  a~
j 1
ij , the fuzzy

addition operation was applied to the fuzzy numbers in the fuzzy judgement matrices, such that,
n n n n
 a~ij  (  l j ,  m j ,  u j ) (6)
j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1
1
 n n 
To obtain  a~kj  , the fuzzy addition operation was applied to the column values in the
 k 1 j 1 
matrix obtained from Equation 6, followed by computation of the inverse of the resulting vector such
that,
 
1  
 n n ~ 
 n 
1 1 1
k1 j1 a kj    u
, n , n
 (7)
 
 k 1 k k1 k k1 k
m l

 
Step 2: This step involved taking two criteria at a time and then using their normalized TFN‘s obtained
from Equation 5, to determine the degree of possibility of one criterion fuzzy number‘s being greater
~ ~
than or equal to the other criteria fuzzy number‘s ( S i  S j ) . This can be represented by Equation 8
as follows:
~ ~ ~ ~
V ( S i  S j )  sup [min( S j ( x ), S i ( y ))]
y x (8)

Which can be equivalently expressed as,

 1 if mi  m j
 l j  ui
~ ~ 
V (Si  S j )   if l j  ui (9)
 ( m i  u i )  ( m j  l j )
 0 otherwise
~ ~
Where S i  (li , mi , u i ) and S j  (l j , m j , u j )
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In order to compare, S i and S j , both the values of V ( S i  S j ) and V ( S j  S i ) were computed.
~
Step 3: The basic principles in Step 2 were then extended to calculate the degree of possibility of, S i ,
~
of one criterion, being greater than all the other (n  1) convex fuzzy numbers, S j , of other criteria.
This can be defined as follows,
~ ~
V ( S i  S j | j  1,..., n; j  i ) (10)

By taking the minimum values in the degree of possibility sets created from Equation 10, it was
possible to determine a weight vector, w , as follows,
* * * T * ~ ~
w  ( d ( A1 ), d ( A2 ),..., d ( An )) , where d ( Ai )  min V ( S i  S j | j  1,..., n, j  i ) (11)
Water 2011, 3 274

~
Step 4: The normalized weight vectors for each fuzzy comparison matrix, A , at each level of the
hierarchy were then determined by normalizing the weight vector, w . In other literature‘s this process
is known as de-fuzzification and involves dividing each value in the weight vector, w , by their total
sum as follows,
~ ~
V ( S i  S j | j  1,..., n; j  i )
Wi  n , i  1,...n
~ ~ (12)
 V ( S k  S j | j  1,..., n; j  k )
k 1

The calculated weight (W) for each factor in the hierarchy is shown in the last column for
Tables 4 to 12.

Table 4. The pairwise comparison matrix A—B1—4.

A B1 B2 B3 B4 W
B1 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 3.0,5.0,7.0 5.0,7.0,9.0 0.47577462
B2 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 3.0,5.0,7.0 0.33803709
B3 0.14,0.20,0.33 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 0.15026848
B4 0.11,0.14,0.20 0.14,0.20,0.33 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 0.03591981
FCR = 0.016, A = Water reservoir site suitability, B1 = Environmental factors, B2 = Hydrological factors, B3 = Economic
factors, B4= Institutional factors, W is the weight of B1, B2, B3 and B4 to A.
V(SB1 ≥ SB2, SB3, SB4) = 1; V(SB2 ≥ SB1, SB3, SB4) = 0.710498; V(SB3 ≥ SB1, SB2, SB4) = 0.31584;
V(SB4 ≥ SB1, SB2, SB3) = 0.075498

Table 5. The pairwise comparison matrix B1—C1—4.

B1 C1 C2 C3 C4 W
C1 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 3.0,5.0,7.0 5.0,7.0,9.0 0.47577462
C2 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 3.0,5.0,7.0 0.33803709
C3 0.14,0.20,0.33 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 0.15026848
C4 0.11,0.14,0.20 0.14,0.20,0.33 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 0.03591981
FCR = 0.016, B1 = Environmental factors, C1 = Topography, C2 = Geology, C3 = Soil, C4 = Risk of erosion, W is the
weight of C1 - C4 to B1.
V(SC1 ≥ SC2, SC3, SC4) = 1; V(SC2 ≥ SC1, SC3, SC4) = 0.710498; V(SC3 ≥ SC1, SC2, SC4) = 0.31584;
V(SC4 ≥ SC1, SC2, SC3) = 0.075498

Table 6. The pairwise comparison matrix, B2—C5—7.

B2 C5 C6 C7 W
C5 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 3.0,5.0,7.0 0.573609394
C6 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 0.375520014
C7 0.14,0.20,0.33 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 0.050870592
FCR = 0.012, B2 = Hydrological factors, C5 = Annual rainfall, C6 = Water discharge, C7= Wetness Index, W is the
weight of C5 – C7 to B2.
V(SC5 ≥ SC6, SC7) = 1; V(SC6 ≥ SC5, SC7) = 0.654662; V(SC7 ≥ SC5, SC6) = 0.088685
Water 2011, 3 275

Table 7. The pairwise matrix, B3—C8, C9.

B3 C8 C9 W
C8 1,1,1 0.20,0.33,1.00 0.299775028
C9 1.0,3.0,5.0 1,1,1 0.700224972
FCR = 0.000, B3 = Economic factors, C8 = Distance from roads, C9 = Distance from settlements, W is the weight of C8
and C9 to B3.
V(SC8 ≥ SC9) = 0.428112; V(SC9 ≥ SC8) = 1

Table 8. The pairwise matrix, B4—C10.

B4 C10 W
C10 1,1,1 1
FCR = 0.000, B4 = Institutional factors, C10 = Eritrea – Ethiopia border, W is the weight of C10 to B4

Table 9. The pairwise comparison matrix, C1—D1, D2.

C1 D1 D2 W
D1 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 0.700224972
D2 0.20,0.33,1.0 1,1,1 0.299775028
FCR = 0.0000, C1 = Topography, D1 = Slope, D2 = Elevation, W is the weight of D1 and D2 to C1.
V(SD1 ≥ SD2) = 1; V(SD2 ≥ SD1) = 0.428112

Table 10. The pairwise comparison matrix, C2—D3, D4.

C2 D3 D4 W
D3 1,1,1 1.0,3.0,5.0 0.700224972
D4 0.20,0.33,1.00 1,1,1 0.299775028
FCR = 0.0000, C2 = Geology, D3 = Bedrock type, D4 = fault lines, W is the weight of D3 and D4 to C2
V(SD3 ≥ SD4) = 1; V(SD4 ≥ SD3) = 0.428112

Table 11. The pairwise comparison matrix, C8—D5, D6.

C8 D5 D6 W
D5 1,1,1 0.20,0.33,1.00 0.299775028
D6 1.0,3.0,5.0 1,1,1 0.700224972
FCR = 0.0000, C8 = Distance from roads, D5 = Distance from main and secondary roads, D6 = Distance from
motorable gravel, tracks, trench lines and footpaths, W is the weight of D5 and D6 to C8.
V(SD5 ≥ SD6) = 0.428112; V(SD6 ≥ SD5) = 1

Table 12. The pairwise comparison matrix, C9—D7, D8.

C9 D7 D8 W
D7 1,1,1 0.20,0.33,1.00 0.299775028
D8 1.0,3.0,5.0 1,1,1 0.700224972
FCR = 0.0000, C9 = Distance from settlements, D7 = Distance from urban areas, D8 = Distance from rural areas, W is
the weight of D7 and D8 to C9
V(S D7 ≥ S D8) = 0.428112; V(S D8 ≥ S D7) =1
Water 2011, 3 276

2.5.6. Calculating the Fuzzy Consistency Ratio

To determine whether consistency was maintained in assigning the weights as described in

section 2.5.5, a ratio known as the Fuzzy Consistency Ratio (FCR), was calculated. The algorithm used
in this research is that proposed by [38], which is based on the preference ratio concept. The steps of
the algorithm are as follows;
~
Step 1: A fuzzy matrix H was defined such that:
~
hij  w j  a~ij (13)
where w j is the weight for the jth criteria or attribute, for j  1,..., n , and a~ij are the TFN‘s in the fuzzy
judgement matrix.
~ ~
Step 2: hij values in each ith row of the matrix H were summed, as follows,

~ n ~
si   hij (14)
j 1
~
Step 3: i ( for i  1 to n) values were then calculated such that

s ~
~
i  i (15)
wi

Step 4: The Consistency Index (CI) was then calculated as follows:

1 ~
 ( i  n )
~ n
CI  , n is the dim ension of the fuzzy judgement matrix
(16)
n 1

Step 5: The FCR was then calculated using the following formula:
~
~ CI
FCR  (17)
RI

where RI is the random consistency index, which was obtained from Table 13.

Table 13. Random Indices for Consistency Check.

n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.51
n = dimension of judgement matrix
Step 6: Because TFN‘s were used to represent the vagueness in the judgement matrix, the FCR values
obtained from Equation 17 were in the form of a set with 3 values. The FCR was determined as a
preference ratio, which according to [39], is defined as the percentage of the ith fuzzy number within a
set being the most preferred one. This ratio is expressed by Equation 18 as follows.
i
R (i )  (18)


where i and  are values in the FCR set obtained from Equation 17.
Water 2011, 3 277

The preference ratio should be about 10%, or less for the weights to be acceptable, otherwise the
decision maker may need to re-examine the judgment process of assigning the weights. Fortunately,
the preference ratio values (also known as FCR values in this study) of all comparisons made for the
criteria at each hierarchical level (Tables 4 to 12) were lower than 10%, which indicated that the
weights were acceptable. This procedure sometimes requires several interaction and adjustment until
an acceptable consistency ratio is achieved. This could be done by revising the manner in which
questions are asked in making the pairwise comparisons. If this should fail to improve consistency then
it is likely that the problem should be more accurately structured; that is, grouping similar elements
under more meaningful criteria [40,41].

2.5.7. Calculating the final weights of each input layer

The weight (Wf) of every lastest factor in Figure 6 to the main objective of the hierarchy (A) was
calculated by normalizing the weight (W) of each factor shown in Tables 4 to 12. This was done by
multiplying the weight of a factor in the lower level by that of the element/s in the upper level as long
as they are directly related as in the hierarchical structure. For example, to get the final weight of the
slope input layer (represented by D1 in the hierarchy), the following formulae was used,
Final weight of D1  Weight of D1 to C1  Weight of C1 to B1  Weight of B1 to Objective A

This was done for all the input layers and the results are shown in Table 14. The sum of the final
weights is 1, a requirement which must be fulfilled during the process of assigning weights.

Table 14. Final criteria weights for all factors.

Goal A Hierarchy B Hierarchy C Hierarchy D Wf

A B1 C1 D1 0.15850397
D2 0.067857523
C2 D3 0.112616811
D4 0.048212659
C3 - 0.071493929
C4 - 0.017089732
B2 C5 - 0.193901251
C6 - 0.126939693
C7 - 0.017196147
B3 C8 D5 0.013503887
D6 0.03154285
C9 D7 0.03154285
D8 0.073678891
B4 C10 - 0.035919806
Wf is the final weight of each input layer
Water 2011, 3 278

2.5.8. Calculating the overall fuzzy consistency ratio

The overall fuzzy consistency ratio of the hierarchy was checked by multiplying each Consistency
Index (CI) by the priority of the corresponding criterion and adding them together. The result was then
divided by the same type of expression using the Random consistency Index (RI) corresponding to the
dimensions of each matrix weighted by the priorities as before. This is represented by
Equation 19 below.
 Wi CI i
i
FCR  (19)
 Wi RI i
i

The CI values for each pairwise comparison matrix in Tables 4–12 were obtained from Equation 16.
The corresponding RI values for each matrix were then obtained by looking them up in Table 13. By
inputting the weight, CI and RI values into Equation 19, an overall FCR of 0.018 was obtained. The
FCR was less than 0.10 and therefore consistency was achieved in determining the final weights of the
input layers.

2.5.9. Standardizing and ensuring correct polarity of input layers

Before aggregating the input layers in a MCDA process, they must be on the same scale. This
process in commonly known as standardization or normalization and involves assigning the same
dimensionless continuous scale, either 0–255 or 0–1, to all the input layers. According to [20], this
process expresses the unit of measurement of each factor map as belonging to a set ranging from 0.0 to
1.0 or 1 to 255, indicating a variation from non-belonging to complete-belonging (or least suitable to
most suitable). In this research, each input layer was divided into 5 classes, a process which helped to
standardize the layers since they all were now using the same 1–5 dimensionless scale, indicating a
variation from least suitable site to most suitable site. In addition, all the input layers had all the classes
representing the same levels of suitability in the same order, that is, class 1 representing least
suitability and class 5 being the most suitable. This ensured that all the input layers had the same
‗polarity‘ since the class levels were all increasing in the same direction (that is, low class value = bad
and high class value = good).

2.5.10. Aggregation

Once the criteria maps (factors and constraints) had been developed and the associated weights
assigned to each input layer, an evaluation (or aggregation) stage was undertaken to combine the
information from the various factors and constraints. The MCE module in the IDRISI32 software
package offers three methods for the aggregation of multiple criteria: Boolean Intersection, Weighted
Linear Combination (WLC), and the Ordered Weighted Average (OWA). WLC was chosen as the
method of aggregation at this stage of the research. As shown in Equation 20, this method multiplies
each standardised factor map by its factor weight then sums the results.
S   Wi xi where S  suitabilit y , Wi  weight of factor i, and xi  factor i (20)
Water 2011, 3 279

This process was done on a pixel by pixel basis and yielded a suitability map with the same range of
values as the standardized factor maps that were used. The factor maps were first converted to byte
binary format before being used in Equation 20. The result was then multiplied by the constraint map
from Figure 4 to ―mask out‖ the areas unsuitable for siting a water reservoir. The constraint map was a
binary coded image showing all areas in Debub were siting of a water reservoir was simply not
possible due to environmental and hydrological factors as zero (0) values whilst the other areas were
shown as one (1). Thus Equation 20 was modified as follows,
S   Wi xi  c j where c j  constra int j (21)

The final output of Equation 21 was a map showing a number of suitable sites for locating water
reservoirs in classes 1 to 5.

2.5.11. Sensitivity analysis

A success in the application of the decision model used in identifying the candidate water reservoir
sites was determined through sensitivity analysis. According to [42], sensitivity analysis is a
prerequisite for enhancing GIS-based MCDA since it determines the reliability of the models through
assessment of uncertainties in the output results. With growing interest in extending GIS to support
MCDA methods, sensitivity analysis is now crucial in model evaluation that tests the robustness of a
model and the extent of output variation when parameters are systematically varied over a range of
interest. In this research, sensitivity analysis was performed by changing each of the input criteria by
±5 percent increments. This method is known as ―One at a Time‖, better known as the OAT method. It
is easy to implement, computationally cheap and has been frequently applied in various fields where
models are employed [43].

2.5.12. Volume calculation

Following sensitivity analysis, sites in classes 5, 4 and 3 were then grouped together and considered
to be the best, whilst those in classes 2 and 1 were considered as the good sites. The result was a map
with sites divided into 2 discrete categories: best water reservoir sites and good water reservoir sites. In
addition to the criteria and constraints used in identifying candidate sites, reservoir siting is also
affected by the volume of water that can be stored at a particular location. To get the volume of water
that can be stored at a site, the methodology described by [44] was adopted. [44] developed an
area-volume relationship whose theoretical derivation was based on the shape of a reservoir as being a
square-based, top down pyramid that is diagonally cut in half as in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Reservoir model.

Source: [44]
Water 2011, 3 280

From Figure 8, the volume of a reservoir of any shape was then modelled and a formula was
derived as follows,
3 1.4367
Volume [m ]  0.00857  Area (22)

To determine the precision of the model, [44], utilized a widely used model efficiency measure
of [45] to evaluate the goodness of fit between measured and modelled volumes using Equation 22.
The results indicated that the model represented by Equation 22 explains 97.5% of the measured
variance despite the variety of reservoir shapes used in the research. It is because of this that
Equation 22 was used in this research to calculate the volume of water that could be stored at each site.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Candidate Water Reservoir Sites in Suitability Classes

This research was carried out to identify candidate sites for locating water reservoirs in the
administrative district of Debub in Eritrea. The final output of Equation 21, was the first map output
showing the candidate sites in 5 classes of suitability. Figure 9 shows the location of the sites, whilst
Table 15 summarizes the number of sites in each class.

Figure 9. Candidate water reservoir sites in suitability classes.

The spatial pattern of the identified sites in Figure 9 strongly reflects the influence of the river
network data layer, which was one of the three constraints used in this study. This led to all sites being
located along the perennial and seasonal rivers. In addition, the candidate sites also satisfied the other
two constraints used in this study as they are located outside the forest reserves and agricultural areas.
This is mainly due to the fact that the Boolean Intersection overlay technique used to combine the
Water 2011, 3 281

constraint data layers is considered to be a very extreme form of decision making in which a location
must meet every criterion for it to be included in the decision set. According to [30], Boolean
Intersection overlay selects locations based on the most cautious strategy possible and hence is
considered a risk-averse technique.

Table 15. Number of sites in each class.

Class Number of sites
1 7
2 11
3 18
4 2
5 4

In terms of individual locations, the sites are evenly distributed across the whole region. However,
when it comes to class distributions, the pattern is uneven. This is attributed mainly to the factors used
in the AHP and the resulting weights associated with them. Sites in class 4 and 5 are located along the
seasonal rivers in the south of the May Aini sub-district, and are in close proximity, with the maximum
distance between sites being 10 km. These locations are characterised by altitudes of between 2,000
and 2,600 metres, with suitable flat to moderate slopes of between 1° and 20°. In addition to the
combination of high shear strength metamorphosed quartzite, sandstone and basalt rocks in these
locations, the soils there are mainly very clayey, making them sticky when wet hence have poor
drainage, which makes them more suitable as solid foundations for a water reservoir. As for sites in
class 3, they are located in all the sub-districts and have the greatest number (18 in total) as shown in
Table 15. These are followed by sites in class 2, which are as nearly distributed as those in class 3
though fewer in total (11 sites). The least suitable sites (class 1) numbered 7 in total. They are confined
to sub-districts (Segneneity, Adi Keyh and Senafe) in the western part of the region were rainfall is
between 300 and 500 mm, slopes are very steep (30°–40°) and are prone to slope failure, altitude is
either too low (940–1,300 metres) or too high (2,600–3,008 metres), the soil is mainly course textured
and highly permeable sand and newly weathered and weathering soils with two fault lines cutting
across the area. Within the literature, the view is that areas inhibiting these characteristics should rarely
be used for the construction of large structures requiring a solid foundation, such as a water reservoir.
The candidate sites identified and shown in Figure 9 are on a continuous dimensionless scale
ranging from 1 to 5, indicating a variation from least suitable to most suitable site. This is one of the
characteristics of the Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) technique, which was used to aggregate
the constraints and factor maps used in this study. This technique was mainly chosen over others
because it avoids the hard decisions of defining any particular area as absolutely suitable or not, but
rather uses a continuous scale to represent suitability. According to [5], this technique is a much better
representation of the way major decisions are made in reality. This is also aided by the fact that the
WLC method allows weights to be assigned to factors. Weights were assigned to the factors using a
series of pairwise comparison judgments to express the relative strength of each of the factor maps.
Pairwise comparison allows one to consider two factors at a time, which reduces the complexity of the
decision making process. Assigning weights using pairwise comparison was more suitable than direct
Water 2011, 3 282

assignment of the weights, because one can check the consistency of the weights by calculating the
consistency ratio. The largest weight of relative importance was assigned to slope and least relative
importance to distance from main and secondary tarmac roads. This could be associated with the fact
that the slope of the land is a crucial factor as far as construction costs and safety are concerned,
because very steep slopes usually lead to higher excavation costs and are also susceptible to slope
failure. Assigning weights to factors allows them to trade-off or compensate each other, for example, a
high-factor weight can trade-off or compensate for poor scores on other factors, even if the unweighted
suitability score for that highly-weighted factor is not particularly good. This is possible whilst
maintaining variability in the continuous suitability data. In this research, a low suitability aggregate in
one factor for any given area was compensated for by a high suitability aggregate in another factor. For
example, areas with a slope factor with high suitability were compensated for by a low suitability in
the distance from small roads and fault lines factors. In the resultant image, that location had a high
suitability score. This gave more allowance in the selection for the suitability areas. Thus, the WLC
method is considered to be an averaging technique and balances between extreme risk taking and risk
aversion [22].
3.2. Decision Model Robustness
A success in the application of the decision model used in identifying the candidate water reservoir
sites in Figure 9 was determined through sensitivity analysis, which was performed by changing the
weight of each input criteria by ±5 percent increments. Table 16 represents the total number of sites in
each class relative to the changes in the weights of the input factor maps. Base is the output using the
original weights as shown in Table 16, D1 5% is the change in the slope factor map by 5 percent, and
so forth.

Table 16. Results of sensitivity analysis.

Criteria Weight increments Class
1 2 3 4 5
Base 7 11 18 2 4
D1 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
D2 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
D3 +5% 9 14 20 2 5
−-5% 7 11 16 4 5
D4 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
C3 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−-5% 7 11 18 2 4
C4 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
C5 +5% 11 14 22 5 2
−5% 5 11 15 2 3
C6 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
Water 2011, 3 283

Table 16. Cont.

Criteria Weight increments Class
1 2 3 4 5
Base 7 11 18 2 4
C7 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
D5 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
D6 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
D7 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4
D8 +5% 9 11 20 2 4
−5% 7 11 16 2 4
C10 +5% 7 11 18 2 4
−5% 7 11 18 2 4

With the aid of results from Table 16, it was seen that; there were no sites that moved more than one
suitability class from its original class in the base run; the annual rainfall factor (C5) had the highest
sensitivity, followed by bedrock type (D3) and distance from rural areas (D8) factors; the annual
rainfall factor (C5) was the most sensitive criterion, which caused greater suitability class
modifications when its weight was increased by +5%; class 3 appeared to be more sensitive to criteria
weight changes than the other classes. Despite the slight changes in the output results, the variation in
the weights of the input factor maps had a small impact on the number of sites in each of the five
classes, suggesting that the base results were independent of any changes in the weights of the input
layers. This highlighted the robustness of the model, and was a confidence building measure with
regard to the model credibility.

3.3. Final Suitability Maps

Following sensitivity analysis, sites in classes 5, 4 and 3 were then grouped together and considered
to be the best, whilst those in classes 2 and 1 were considered as the good sites. The result was a map
with sites divided into 2 discrete categories: best water reservoir sites and good water reservoir sites
(Figure 10).
Reservoir siting is also affected by the volume of water that can be stored at a particular location.
To calculate the volume of water that can be stored at each of the sites in Figure 10, the methodology
described by [44] was adopted. According to volume calculation, the best possible water reservoir sites
are shown in Figure 11a, whilst the good possible water reservoir sites are shown in Figure 11b. The
―best‖ candidate sites in Figure 11a are considered as the optimum locations for a water reservoir,
whilst the ―good‖ candidate sites in Figure 11b are the back-up sites. Back-up sites can be used if the
optimum sites are found to be unsuitable after further studies.
Water 2011, 3 284

Figure 10. Final suitability map.

Figure 11. (a) Best water reservoir sites; and (b) Good water reservoir sites.
Water 2011, 3 285

Figure 11. Cont.

The volumes in different classes in each sub-district are then summarised in Table 17. The best
reservoir sites account for 57.14% and the good reservoir sites account for 42.86% of the total number
of candidate sites identified. Furthermore, for both the best and good sites, most of the candidate
reservoir locations have volumes less than 1,000,000 m3, with the May Aini sub-district having most
optimum sites in this category. It can also be seen that, of the 12 sub-districts in Debub, Emni Haili,
May Aini and Mendefera do not have back-up sites, which may be used in case the optimum sites are
found to be unsuitable after further studies. However, the May Aini sub-district may take comfort from
the fact that it has 8 optimum candidate sites, of which some of them can be used as the back-up sites.
As the volume increases, only four optimum sites in four different sub-districts (Dekemhare, Maimine,
May Aini and Mendefera) have the potential to store more than 10,000,000 m3 of water.
Water 2011, 3 286

Table 17. Number of sites in each sub-district according to volume calculation.

Sub-district Best water reservoir sites Good water reservoir sites
6 7
2,500 < V < 1 × 10 < V 1 × 10 < V 2,500 < V 1 × 106 < V 1 × 107 < V
V > 5 × 107 V > 5 × 107
1 × 106 < 1 × 107 < 5 × 107 < 1 × 106 < 1 × 107 < 5 × 107
Adi Keyh 1 3
Adi Quala 1 1
Areza 1 1 2
Dbarwa 3 1
Dekemhare 1 1
Emni Haili 1
Maimine 1 1 1 3
May Aini 7 1
Mendefera 1
Segeneity 1 1 2
Senafe 1 2 1
Tsorona 1 1

Total 14 6 2 2 15 3 0 0

4. Summary and Conclusions

This research presented a case study that integrated GIS, fuzzy logic and the traditional AHP in
identifying optimum and back-up candidate sites for locating water reservoirs in the administrative
district of Debub, Eritrea. The process was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved utilizing
the most simplistic type of data aggregation techniques known as Boolean Intersection or logical AND
to identify areas restricted by environmental and hydrological constraints and therefore excluded from
the study area. Three constraints; forest reserves, agricultural areas and river network, were used in this
first stage. The second stage involved identifying candidate water reservoir sites in the remaining area
by integrating fuzzy logic and the traditional AHP, a decision making technique. Using AHP, a
hierarchy model was proposed to incorporate information from environmental, hydrological, economic
and institutional factors, and offer reference for water reservoir site selection in the future. Because this
study took into account criteria representing the views and values of different stakeholders, the process
by which the model selected water reservoir sites is suitable for other case studies, which require
multi-stakeholder engagement and community participation. According to [13], participatory
approaches are complimentary, not oppositional, to decision support tools such as the AHP. A total of
14 criteria were used as input into the AHP. Weights were assigned to each criterion to reflect their
relative importance. By assigning quantitative weights it was possible to make important criteria have
a greater impact on the outcome than other criteria. It was at this stage of the research were the
concepts of fuzzy logic were introduced. It was felt that assigning weights using single numbers was
not an appropriate abstraction of the way humans make judgements in reality. With fuzzy logic, it was
possible to adequately handle the inherent uncertainty and imprecision associated with the decision
making process of assigning weights. The fuzzy approach allowed judgements to be made as a set of
intervals in order to capture a human‘s appraisal of ambiguity when faced with complex multi-attribute
Water 2011, 3 287

decisions. Weights were assigned to the factors using a series of pairwise comparison judgment
matrices. Pairwise comparison allows one to consider two factors at a time, which reduces the
complexity of the decision making process. Assigning weights using pairwise comparison was more
suitable than direct assignment of the weights, because one can check the consistency of the weights
by calculating the consistency ratio. By allowing decision makers to explicitly state and weight their
decision criteria through a structured process, and making it possible to identify areas of agreement or
disagreement, the fuzzy AHP achieved transparency. It was also recognized that assignment of factor
weights was based on previous knowledge of the factor characteristics and those of the study area, as
well as the experience of the experts involved in the weight assignment process.
Before aggregating the criteria, a classification scheme was applied to each criterion, by assigning
buffer zones to suitability classes between 1 and 5, with 1 being the least suitable and 5 the most
suitable. Once all the criteria were appropriately classed, the WLC technique was chosen as the
appropriate method to aggregate the factors and constraints data layers. The output was the map shown
in Figure 9, showing candidate water reservoir sites on a continuous dimensionless scale ranging from
1 to 5, indicating a variation from least suitable to most suitable site. A total of 42 sites were identified.
As detailed in the methodology, sites in classes 5, 4 and 3 were then grouped together and
considered to be the best or optimum sites, whilst those in classes and 2 and 1 were considered as the
good or back-up sites. The result was the map shown in Figure 10, with sites divided into 2 discrete
categories: best water reservoir sites and good water reservoir sites. However, selection of suitable
water reservoir sites is also affected by the volume of water they can store. The methodology described
by [44] was adopted in the calculation of the possible volume of water that can be stored at a particular
site. The formulae required the use of the site area (Equation 22). In determining the areas, raster cells
had to be converted to vector polygons, a process which results in loss of information. This is an
indication that the calculated areas of the potential reservoir sites are an approximation of their true
area. Since errors tend to propagate, it is more likely that errors in determining the areas of reservoir
sites also introduced some error in the volume calculation. Thus, the calculated volumes of the sites are
an approximation of their true value.
In addition, according to [46], results from all MCDA methodologies are bound to be associated
with a certain amount of uncertainty, which emanates from the following elements: criterion
uncertainty, assessment uncertainty, and priority uncertainty. Additional uncertainty and errors can be
also linked to data sources and lineage. This research used data from different sources with different
levels of accuracy. For instance, the boundary of the agricultural areas map used in this study is
slightly different from the other map layers, and may have introduced errors such as slivers when
overlaid with other layers with polygon data features. Therefore, errors and uncertainty from any map
layer will propagate through the modelling process, and when combined with errors from other layers,
may root erroneousness in the final output (decision result) map. As a result, errors in the water
reservoir site suitability map can be seen as inherent errors from criterion map layers. Thus, it is
important to highlight that results obtained from this research should be taken with great care and more
should be done to try and quantify the errors.
It is unfortunate that field studies could not be carried out to verify and further investigate the
suitable sites identified in this research as the process was beyond the economic costs and capability of
the researchers. It is however important to realize that GIS analysis is not a substitute for field analysis;
Water 2011, 3 288

however, it does identify areas that are more suitable and directs efforts to these areas rather than areas
that are unsuitable or restricted by regulations or constraints. As a result, this work could be taken
further by conducting field validation in order to compare and technically evaluate all the candidate
sites in terms of their environmental impact assessment, from which the top ranking sites will undergo
further geotechnical and hydro-geological detailed investigations.

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our profound gratitude to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)—
Africover Project, for providing the datasets used in this study.

References

1. International Development Co-operation (IDC). Italian Co-operation in Eritrea: Water and

Sanitation; IDC: Rome, Italy, 2005.
2. Samii, R. IFAD Social Reporting Blog: Impact of Climate Change on Eritrean Agriculture Sector
[online]. Available online: http://ifad-un.blogspot.com/2009/12/impact-of-climate-change-on-
eritrean.html 2009 (accessed on 3 June 2010).
3. ICRC. ICRC Annual Report 2009, Eritrea: Villages in War-Affected Areas Get Clean Water
Powered by the Sun; ICRC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
4. Brassington, R. ‘Building a New Source’, in Finding Water: A Guide to the Construction and
Maintenance of Private Water Supplies, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1995;
pp. 72-115.
5. Baban, S.M.J.; WAN-YUSOF, K. Modelling optimum sites for locating reservoirs in tropical
environments. Water Resour. Manage. 2003, 17, 1-17.
6. Kopp, S. GIS For water resources: Now and into the future. Southwest Hydrol. 2004, 22-23.
7. Johnson, L.E. Geographical Information Systems in Water Resources Engineering; CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
8. Carver, S.J. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int. J.
Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1991, 5, 321-339.
9. Openshaw, S.; Carver, S.; Fernie, J. Britain’s Nuclear Waste: Safety and Siting; Belhaven Press:
London, UK, 1989.
10. Prato, T. Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 30,
207-222.
11. Bana e Costa, C.A.; Antiao da Silva, P.; Nunes Correira, F. Multicriteria evaluation of flood
control measures: the case of Ribeira do Livramento. Water Resour. Manage. 2004, 18, 263-283.
12. Malczewski, J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis; Wiley: Toronto, Canada, 1999.
13. Brown, K.; Adger, W.N.; Tompkins, E.; Bacon, P.; Shim, D.; Young, K. Trade-off analysis for
marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37, 417-434.
14. Joubert, A.R.; Leiman, A.; de Klerk, H.M.; Katau, S.; Aggenbach, J.C. Fynbos vegetation and the
supply of water: A comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost benefit analysis. Ecol.
Econ. 1997, 22, 123-140.
Water 2011, 3 289

15. Gershon, M.; Duckstein, L. Multiobjective river basin planning with qualitative criteria. Water
Resour. Res. 1983, 19, 295-296.
16. Ozelkan, E.; Duckstein, L. Analysing water resources alternatives and handling criteria by multi
criterion decision techniques. J. Environ. Manage. 1996, 48, 69-96.
17. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation;
McGraw-Hill International Book Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
18. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Process for the Measurement of
Intangible Criteria and for Decision Making. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the
Art Surveys; Figueira, J., Salvatore, G., Ehrgott, M., Eds.; Springer, Berlin Heidelberg: New York,
NY, USA, 2005; pp. 345-407.
19. Bana e Costa, C.A.; De Corte, J.M.; Vansnick, J.C. On the mathematical foundation of
MACBETH. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys; Figueira, J.,
Salvatore, G., Ehrgott, M., Eds.; Springer, Berlin Heidelberg: New York, NY, USA, 2005;
pp. 409-442.
20. Eastman, J.R. IDRISI Kilimanjaro: Guide to GIS and Image Processing; Clarke Labs, Clarke
University: Worcester, MA, USA, 2003.
21. Eastman, J.R.; Kyem, A.K.; Toledano, J.; Jin, W. GIS and Decision Making; UNITAR: Geneva,
Switzerland, 1983.
22. Eastman, J.R. IDRISI for Windows, Version 2.0: Tutorial Exercises, Graduate School of
Geography; Clarke Labs, Clarke University: Worcester, MA, USA, 1997.
23. Sener, B.; Suzen, M.L.; Doyuran, V. Landfill site selection by using geographical information
systems. Environ. Geol. 2006, 49, 376-388.
24. Mikhialov, L.; Tsvetinov, P. Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl.
Soft. Comput. 2004, 5, 23-33.
25. Zadeh, L.A. Fussy sets. Inform. Contr. 1965, 8, 338-353.
26. Akbari, V.; Rajabi, M.A.; Chavoshi, S.H.; Shams, R. Landfill site selection by combining GIS and
Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, case study: Bandar Abbas, Iran. World Appl. Sci. J. 2008,
3, 39-47.
27. Ocalir, E.V.; Ercoskun, O.Y.; Tur, R. An integrated model of GIS and fuzzy logic (FMOTS) for
location decisions of taxicab stands. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 4892-4901.
28. Food and Agriculture Organization (Content source); Jim Kundell (Topic Editor). Water profile of
Eritrea. In The Encyclopaedia of Earth; Cleveland, C.J., Eds.; Environmental Information
Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment: Washington, DC, USA,
September 2008. Available online: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_profile_of_Eritrea
(accessed on 19 July 2010).
29. Antares. SELANGOR DAM: A Titanic Environmental, Social, and Financial Disaster in the
Making. Available online: http://www.magickriver.net/dam.htm 1998 (accessed on 12 June 2010).
30. Eastman, J.R. IDRISI Andes Guide to GIS and Image Processing; Clarke Labs, Clarke University:
Worcester, MA, USA, 2006.
31. Whitis, G.N. Watershed Fish Production Ponds Guide to Site Selection and Construction.
Available online: http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/2/watershed-fish-production-ponds-guide-
to-site-selection-and-construction 2002 (accessed on 20 June 2010).
Water 2011, 3 290

32. Weaver, K.D.; Bruce, D.A. Dam Foundation Grouting; American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) Press: Virginia, VA, USA, 2007.
33. Bell, F.G. Environmental Geology Principles and Practice; Blackwell Science LTD: Oxford,
UK, 1998.
34. Haile, T.S. Water Reservoir Site Selection by Combining Geographical Information Systems and
Analytical Hierarchy Process: A Case Study of the Debub District in Eritrea. Unpublished MSc
Thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, September 2010.
35. Kaufmann, A.; Gupta, M.M. Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and Applications; Van
Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
36. Zimmermann, H.J. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, 2nd ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers:
London, UK, 1991.
37. Chang, D.Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996,
95, 649-655.
38. Modarres, M.; Sadi-Nezhad, S.; Arabi, F. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process using preference
ration: A case study for selecting management short course in a business school. Int. J. Ind. Eng.
Comput. 2010, 1, 173-184.
39. Modarres, M.; Sadi-Nezhad, S. Ranking fuzzy numbers by preference ratio. Fuzzy Set. System.
2001, 118, 429-436.
40. Albayrak, E.; Erensal, Y.C. Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve human
performance: An application of multiple criteria decision making problem. J. Intell. Manuf. 2004,
15, 491-503.
41. Quaddus, M.A; Siddigue, M.A.B. Modelling sustainable development planning: A multicriteria
decision conferencing approach. Environ. Int. 2001, 27, 2-3, 89-95.
42. Chen, Y.; Yu, J.; Shahbaz, K.; Xevi, E. A GIS-Based Sensitivity Analysis of Multi-Criteria
Weights. In Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, July
2009; pp.13-17.
43. Crosetto, M.; Tarantola, S. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS—based model
implementation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2001, 15, 415-437.
44. Liebel, J.; van de Giesen, N.; Andreini, M. Estimation of small reservoir storage capacities in a
semi-arid environment. A case study in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Phys. Chem. Earth 2005,
30, 448-454.
45. Nash. J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. A discussion of
principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10, 282-290.
46. Voogd, H. Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning; Pion Limited: London, UK,
1983.

© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).