REVIEW OF INPUT SELECTION CRITERIA; COMPARISON OF POPULAR METHODS USED IN WATER STRESS ANALYSIS.

Open Access

Year : 2024 | Volume :12 | Special Issue : 02 | Page : 311-319
By

Kasiviswanadham P,

Sanjeet Kumar,

Mrinmoy Majumdernd,

  1. Research Scholar Department of Civil Engineering, KLEF University, India Andhra Pradesh India
  2. Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering, KLEF University, India Andhra Pradesh India
  3. Asst.professor School of Hydro-informatics Engg, National Institute of Technology Agartala Tripura India

Abstract

This paper examines input variables and their respective selection criteria intended for application in methodologies addressing water scarcity. It presents a comparative analysis of prominent approaches utilized in assessing water stress within urban contexts, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Geographic Overlay Decision (GOD), and System for Integrated Assessment of City Transformation towards Sustainability (SINTACTS). The principal aim is to scrutinize prevailing input parameters employed in water stress analyses, ensuring standardized accuracy and comprehensive coverage, particularly at the national level. The effectiveness of these methods is acknowledged at broader scales, suggesting finer-level applicability through careful consideration of data suitability, especially in diverse hilly terrains. Additionally, the paper discusses strategies to enhance the quality and precision of analyses to accommodate city and district-level assessments by harnessing highly precise spatial and non-spatial data. By offering a methodological framework that enhances the precision and dependability of water stress evaluations within urban landscapes, this review contributes pertinent insights to urban planning and water resource management

Keywords: Water Stress, AHP, MCDM, Urban Planning, Water resource management.

[This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer and Composites(jopc)]

How to cite this article: Kasiviswanadham P, Sanjeet Kumar, Mrinmoy Majumdernd. REVIEW OF INPUT SELECTION CRITERIA; COMPARISON OF POPULAR METHODS USED IN WATER STRESS ANALYSIS.. Journal of Polymer and Composites. 2024; 12(02):311-319.
How to cite this URL: Kasiviswanadham P, Sanjeet Kumar, Mrinmoy Majumdernd. REVIEW OF INPUT SELECTION CRITERIA; COMPARISON OF POPULAR METHODS USED IN WATER STRESS ANALYSIS.. Journal of Polymer and Composites. 2024; 12(02):311-319. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2024/view=160104

Full Text PDF Download


Browse Figures

References

  1. Bhadran A, Girishbai D, Jesiya NP, Gopinath G, Krishnan RG, Vijesh VK. A GIS based Fuzzy-AHP for delineating groundwater potential zones in tropical river basin, southern part of India. Geosystems and Geoenvironment. 2022;1(4).
  2. Rivera Vázquez BI, Salcedo Sánchez ER, Esquivel Martínez JM, Gómez Albores MÁ, Gómez Noguez F, Gutiérrez Flores C, et al. Use of Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Identify Potential Rainwater Harvesting Sites: Design and Financial Strategies in Taxco de Alarcón, Southern Mexico. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2023;15(10).
  3. Rubio-Aliaga A, García-Cascales MS, Sánchez-Lozano JM, Molina-Garcia A. MCDM-based multidimensional approach for selection of optimal groundwater pumping systems: Design and case example. Renew Energy. 2021;163.
  4. Lyu HM, Yin ZY. An improved MCDM combined with GIS for risk assessment of multi-hazards in Hong Kong. Sustain Cities Soc [Internet]. 2023 Apr;91:104427. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2210670723000380
  5. Kawashima H. Role of satellite remote sensing in monitoring system for environmental disasters related to water resources. 2002.
  6. US Geological Survey. USGS program updates. 2019;
  7. Gašparović M, Jogun T. The effect of fusing Sentinel-2 bands on land-cover classification [Internet]. Vol. 39, International Journal of Remote Sensing. Taylor & Francis; 2018. 822–841 p. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1392640
  8. Remote N, Centre S, Roy PS. Land Surface Water Index ( LSWI ) response to rainfall and NDVI using the MODIS vegetation index product International Journal of Remote Land Surface Water Index ( LSWI ) response to rainfall and NDVI using the MODIS Vegetation Index product. 2010.
  9. Patel P, Mehta D, Sharma N. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability using the GIS approach-based GOD method in Surat district of Gujarat state, India. Water Pract Technol. 2023 Feb 1;18(2):285–94.
  10. Asadabadi MR, Chang E, Saberi M. Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). Cogent Eng. 2019 Jan 1;6(1).
  11. Akbar H, Nilsalab P, Mungkalasiri J, Varnakovida P, Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH. Prioritizing major factors affecting groundwater stress using multi-criteria decision methods. Groundw Sustain Dev. 2023;23.
  12. Rokhmana CA. The Potential of UAV-based Remote Sensing for Supporting Precision Agriculture in Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sci [Internet]. 2015;24:245–53. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.03.032
  13. Martínez-Carricondo P, Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Mesas-Carrascosa FJ, García-Ferrer A, Pérez-Porras FJ. Assessment of UAV-photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation of ground control points. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2018;72:1–10.
  14. Reyes Gómez VM, Gutiérrez M, Nájera Haro B, Núñez López D, Alarcón Herrera MT. Groundwater quality impacted by land use/land cover change in a semiarid region of Mexico. Groundw Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2017;5(June):160–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2017.06.003
  15. Chirala U, Pedada B. Hydrogeomorphology, NDWI and, NDVI of the Meghadrigedda Sub-Watersheds for Optimal Utilization of Resources, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-India Using Landsat Data 2000 and sentinel Data 2020. International Journal of Geosciences. 2021;12(06):584–604.
  16. Malthus TR, Stimson SC, O’Flaherty N, Valenze D, Wrigley EA, Binmore K, et al. An essay on the principle of population: The 1803 edition. An Essay on the Principle of Population: The 1803 Edition. 2018;1–588.
  17. Jaafar J, Abdul Aziz NA, Othman Z, Syed Aris SR, Koon LW, Baki A, et al. The Sustainable Development Goals 6: A Pilot Study on The Readiness of Bukit Perdana Residents Utilizing Recycled Wastewater as Potable and Non-Potable Water. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. 2023 Feb 18;12(1).
  18. Febres GL. A Proposal about the Meaning of Scale, Scope and Resolution in the Context of the Information Interpretation Process [Internet]. Vol. 7, Axioms. 2018. Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/axiomsArticle
  19. Siu-Ngan Lam Dale Quattrochi NA. On the Issues of Scale, Resolution, and Fractal Analysis in the M,apping Sciences*. Vol. 88. 1992.
  20. Smith A, Tetzlaff D, Kleine L, Maneta M, Soulsby C. Quantifying the effects of land use and model scale on water partitioning and water ages using tracer-aided ecohydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2021 Apr 26;25(4):2239–59.
  21. Yousefi P, Naser G, Mohammadi H. Estimating High Resolution Temporal Scale of Water Demand Time Series-Disaggregation Approach (Case Study). Vol. 3, EPiC Series in Engineering. 2018.
  22. Brown O, Barchyn TE. S PATIAL ACCURACY OF UAV- DERIVED ORTHOIMAGERY AND TOPOGRAPHY : COMPARING PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODELS PROCESSED WITH DIRECT GEO-REFERENCING. 2016;70(1):21–30.
Special Issue Open Access Review Article
Volume 12
Special Issue 02
Received April 23, 2024
Accepted May 8, 2024
Published June 27, 2024
Views: 32

Check Our other Platform for Workshops in the field of AI, Biotechnology & Nanotechnology.
Learn more
Check Out Platform for Webinars in the field of AI, Biotech. & Nanotech.
Learn more