Project Report on

Tubewell Site Selection Using GIS and Multi Criteria Analysis in the Gulberg
Town, Lahore

Submitted as Assignment of
Environmental Modeling And Spatial Simulation
Submitted to:
Mr. Adeel Ahmad
Mr. Muhammad Asif Javad
Submitted by:
Rohila Tabasum
Muhammad Rehman
Kamran Baig
26 June 2016

SS015-01
SS011-22
SS011-21

College of Earth and Environmental Science

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE

ABSTRACT
Present study is about identifying tubewell sites for the Gulberg town with an area of 13.14 square
kilometers and projected population of 222462 persons in 2016, by developing tubewell site
suitability map using Geographic Information System (GIS) and Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP).The influencing factors considered as inputs for the development of the site suitability map
are (i) areas where water resources are scarce under environmental pressure, (ii) Ground water
quality (arsenic and TDS contamination) (iii) Ground water level. The factors and the classes
within each factor are assigned weight and rank values respectively. To avoid subjectivity, the
assignment of weight and rank values and the analysis have been executed by the application of
AHP method. Ultimately, a map for each criterion has been developed depicting suitable, less
suitable, least suitable and un-suitable areas with respect to each specific criterion. Afterwards,
these maps have been spatially overlaid which resulted in the development of a final map that
identifies most suitable, less suitable and un-suitable sites for tubewell.
Keywords: Geographical Information System, Analytic Hierarchy Process, site suitability map,
Ground water level, Tubewell, Gulberg

1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In many countries, groundwater is the primary resource for irrigation and domestic supply. For
this reason, preserving its availability and quality is crucial for the future (UNESCO 1998). One
of the major issues that need to be addressed by hydrogeological research concerns the definition
of the most suitable sites for the drilling of new boreholes, especially in areas where water
resources are scarce or under environmental pressure (Antonakos, Voudouris and Lambrakis 2014)
Present study uses GIS and spatial multi criteria analysis for tubewell site selection in rapidly
growing Gulberg Town Lahore.
1.1 Spatial Multi Criteria Analysis
Conventional multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques have largely been non-spatial.
The most significant difference between spatial multi-criteria decision analysis and the
conventional multi-criteria decision analysis is the explicit presence of a spatial component. Spatial
multi-criteria decision analysis therefore requires data with respect to geographical locations of
alternatives and/or geographical data on criterion values. GIS and MCDM are tools that can
support the decision makers in achieving greater effectiveness and efficiency in the spatial
decision-making process. The combination of multi-criteria evaluation methods and spatial
analysis is referred as spatial multiple criteria evaluation. SMCE is an important way to produce
policy relevant information about spatial decision problems to decision makers. (Sharifi and
Retsios, Site selection for waste disposal through spatial multiple criteria decision analysis. 2004).
1.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Analytical Hierarchy Process, the most widely used AHP Multi Criteria approach has been
developed by a renowned scholar the Thomas L. Saaty. This technique is extensively used in world
for effective decision making purposes (Saaty, A Scaling Method for Priorities in a Hierarchical
Structure 1977). This technique involves a mechanism to determine the relative weight of multiple
criteria in comparison to each criterion. Priorities of the criterion on the basis of their importance
are to be defined by the decision makers or experts in the absence of any quantitative ratings. Pair
wise comparison matrix is used to determine the relative importance of each factor on which basis
a number on scale is assigned to each factor. Weight and scores of each criterion among each other
is achieved by the Paired comparison matrix.
AHP is quite helpful in solving the complex sustainability issues and the difficulties regarding the
decisions which are decomposed into small components and are organized hierarchically. Paired
comparison approach is considered as most reliable technique because each individual trade-off is
included by the decision makers which increase the accuracy of the process and results (Ahmad,
et al. 2016).
AHP has been employed into the GIS-based land use suitability procedures (Marinoni 2004).

2. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Malczewski, J. (2006) surveyed the GIS based multicriteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA)
approaches using a literature review and classification of articles from 1990 to 2004 and concluded
that the integration of GIS and multicriteria decision analysis has attracted significant interest over
the last 15 years or so. He also stated that many spatial decision problems give rise to the GISbased multicriteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA).
Laaribi (1996), Malczewski(1999), Thill(1999), and Chakhar and Martel (2003) concluded that
these two distinctive areas of research, GIS and MCDA, can benefit from each other.
Imtiaz Ahmed Chandio, Mir Aftab Hussain Talpur, and Taufique Ahmed Qureshi used integrated
GIS (Geographic Information System) based MCDM (Multi-Criteria Decision Making) approach
to develop land suitability model for hillside development. They found that this approach can be
used as a policy tool in decision making of urban planning and development.
Andreas K., Antonakos, Konstantinos S., Voudouris, Nikolaos I. and Lambrakis (2014) used a
fuzzy spatial decision support system for drinking-water pumping bore holes and concluded that
the method of multi criteria analysis in combination with fuzzy logic is a useful tool for selecting
the best sites for new borehole drilling on a regional scale.
Manos B, Bournaris T, Papathanasiou J, Moulogianni C, and Voudouris KS (2007) concluded that
Geographic information systems (GIS) and decision support systems (DSS) offer strong facilities
for groundwater resources management.
Vacik and Lexer (2001) found that DSS featuring mechanisms for the input and use of spatial
information, as well as for the output of thematic maps, are known as spatial decision support
systems (SDSS). Hwang and Yoon (1981) and Zhu X, Healey RG, and Aspinall RJ (1998)
concluded that the SDSS could be based on multiple criteria decision-making technique.
Mohammed A. Sharifi and Vasilios Retsios used application of spatial multiple criteria evaluation
(SMCE) concepts and methods to support identification and selection of proper sites for waste
disposal.
Dano Umar Lawal, Abdul-Nasir Matori, Imtiaz Ahmed Chandio, and Abdul-Lateef Balogun
proposed framework for recreational park suitability using GIS and Multi-criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) for the main campus of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, which is located in
Skudai, Johor.

3. CHAPTER 3: MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area
Study area is located at Gulberg town, Lahore, as shown in figure 1. The geographical position of
study area is 3128'19.01"- 3132'39.14" North and 7419'35.65"- 7421'40.13" East. Total study
area for this research is taken 13.14 square kilometers.

Figure 1.Research Area of Gulberg town, Lahore

3.2 Material
The data were collected into two formats such as spatial from WASA, LDA Lahore and weights
(decision) by experts. The datasets were selected of this study such as study area boundary, water
contamination (Arsenic, total dissolved solid), existing tubwells and depth to water level.

3.3 Methods
Methodology applied for this study is shown in figure 2.Upcoming paragraph will elaborate all
these.
3.3.1 Structuring
In this step, the problem is structured, by identifying the alternatives, on which criteria the decision
should be based, and what is their impact. This study try to look for a site in the area where water
resources are scarce or under environmental pressure and where water level is not deep enough as
well as water quality is also good. In order to achieve this, three criteria viz. water quality; ground
water level, and served/un-served area were identified for site selection for a tubewell. These are
then the three alternatives from which a choice is made. Those are grouped and inserted into a
criteria tree in order to determine their impact.
i. Ground Water Quality
The choice of criteria is based on the assumption that ground water from any tubewell must attain
certain water quality standards, which will propose it as appropriate for any particular use
(domestic, irrigation, industrial).
To ensure water quality 18 sample points of TDS and Arsenic were interpolated by using IDW to
generate raster for each. These raster were converted into feature data sets on the basis of
contamination value by using Raster to Feature tool.
ii. Ground Water Level
The ground water level layer was prepared by considering the highest elevations of the static water
levels (Tadios 2013). Thus, for the observation of the static water level 20 existing tubewell have
been considered as ground water level (GWL) observation wells. The 20 sample points were
interpolated and feature dataset was generated similarly as explained above for water
contamination.
iii. Service Area
For tubewell site selection, a feature dataset is prepared having both served and un-served area by
using proximity analysis. Served /un-served area was calculated as follow:
Per capita water consumption= 90 Gallon (USGS)
1 US gallon= 3.78541 Liter
Per capita water consumption=90*3.78541 liter=340.6869 Liter
Tubewell running time in second= 16 hours=16*60*60=57600s
As tubewell capacity is in cusec therefore we will convert cusec into litters
1 cusec=28.317 Liter per second
4 cusec = 4 * 28.317 = 113.268 liters
2 cusec = 2 * 28.317 = 56.634 liters
Tube well discharged water per day =capacity(in liters) * Tubewell run time
Population served by a tubewell=Total discharge in liters per day/Per capita consumption
Population Density=Total Population /total area
Served area of a tube well = Total Population/Population density

 Applied Buffer for each tubewell=Sqrt(Served area of a tube well/)

Calculated buffer is applied on existing tubewell and served area is calculated. For calculating unserved area, served area is clipped from study area boundary. After that both served and un-served
area shapefiles were combined to generate a single shapefile using ArcGIS.
3.3.2
Standardization
In this step, each criterion is represented by a map of a different type, such as a classified map
(served /un-served area) or a value map (Arsenic, TDS and depth to groundwater level etc.). For
decision analysis the values and classes of all the maps were converted into a common scale. All
the shapefiles were ranked from 1 upto 9 and rasterization was done for each shapefile on the basis
of rank. Each raster was reclassified and thematic map is prepared which show partial
attractiveness for suitability for that specific criteria.
3.3.3
Weighing
All data integrated into the spatial database needed some manipulation and reclassification to
create a standard scoring method (Radiarta, Saitoh and Miyazono 2008).
The method is carried out in three steps. Firstly, pair-wise comparison of criteria is performed and
results are put into a comparison matrix (table 1). The matrix is populated with values from 1 to 9
and fractions from 1/9 to representing importance of one factor against another in the pair. The
values in the matrix need to be consistent, which means that if x is compared to y, it receives a
score of 5 (strong: importance), y to x should score 1/5 (little: unimportant). Something compared
to itself gets the score of 1 (equal importance). The linguistic explanation of scores is attached to
the table (table2). The next step is to calculate criterion weights. Firstly, values from each column
are summed and every element in the matrix is divided by the sum of the respective column. The
new matrix is called normalized pair-wise comparison matrix. Finally, an average from the
elements from each row of the normalized matrix is calculated. The consistency ratio is calculated
in order to make sure whether the comparison of criteria made by decision maker is consistent.
Weights received by this method are interpreted as average of all possible weights. Moreover, the
advantage of this method is that only two criteria need to be compared at a time (Malczewski, GIS
and multicriteria decision analysis 1999)
3.3.4
Suitability Assessment
Analyzed weights (Priority vector) were integrated into GIS using weighted summation method in
ArcGIS software and final suitability map is prepared.

4. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter summarizes the results of applied methodology for site selection for a tubewell. A
chain of analysis has been performed to evaluate the suitability of tubewell site. Water quality and
water level were interpolated and areas where water resources are scarce or under environmental
pressure were determined in order to define the most suitable, suitable and unsuitable areas.

Figure 2: Flow chart of study

4.1. Service Area Analysis

Service area analysis results in served and un-served areas. Served area was considered as suitable
and un-served area was considered as unsuitable. Figure 3(left) show resultant reclassified map for
served /un-served area.
Table 1: Pair wise comparison Matrix using AHP
Pair-Wise Comparison
Method (AHP)
Served/Unserved Area
Water Level
TDS
Arsenic
Sum

Served/Un-served
Area
1

1/6
1/8

Water
Level
4
1
1/5
1/7

TDS

Arsenic

6
5
1
1/5

8
7
5
1

Table 2: Scale ranges of weights for pairwise comparison matrix

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Equally preferred
Equally to moderately preferred
Moderately preferred
Moderately to strongly preferred
Strongly preferred
Strongly to very strongly preferred
Very strongly preferred
Very to extremely strongly preferred
Extremely preferred

SUM of
Row
19
13.25
6.37
1.47
40.08

Weight for
each factor
0.47
0.33
0.16
0.037
1

4.2.

Ground Water Quality Analysis

Arsenic

Presence of arsenic higher than permissible limit is a hot issue in the world in these days. The
world health organization (WHO) safe limit for arsenic in drinking water is 0.01mg/l or 10 ppb.
But it is different for India & Bangladesh viz. 50 ppb. So PSQCA has also fixed it at 50 ppb for
Pakistan. Pakistan is also facing this crisis and arsenic is reported higher than WMO guidelines
and standards. (Drinking Water Standard 2016).
Keeping in view the importance of this parameter for TWS evaluation, site for which arsenic value
0-20 ppb were considered suitable, 20-50 ppb as less suitable and greater than 50 ppb as not
suitable. Reclassified map for arsenic is shown in figure 3(right).

Figure 3: (Left): Service area analysis map, (Right) Reclassified Arsenic Map

Total Dissolved Solid (TDS)

The world health organization (WHO) safe limit for TDS in drinking water is 1000mg/l. (Drinking
Water Standard 2016).Keeping in view the importance of this parameter for TWS evaluation, site
for which TDS value less than 1-500mg/l were considered as suitable, 500-750 mg/l as less suitable
and greater than 750 mg/l as not suitable as shown in figure 4(left).

4.3. Depth to Ground Water Level

A map layer representing the depth to groundwater level is given in figure 4(right). Areas underlain
by shallow (400-600 feet) groundwater table were considered as suitable, between 600-700 feet as
less suitable and 700-800 feet as least suitable.

Figure 4: (left) Reclassified TDS Map, (Right) Reclassified water level map

CONCLUSION
Through the analysis of multiple parameters layers, the tubewell sites were identified. Reclassified
layers were given weights that were determined first using pair-wise comparison method in AHP
which ultimately yielded a final map showing sites best suitable for Tubewell. The result revealed
672.525 meter square area as suitable, 5493.375 meter square as less suitable and 6975.225 meter
square as un-suitable.

Figure 5: Tubewell Site Suitability map

References
Ahmad, Adeel, Umar Javaid, Muhammad Asif Javed, Sajid Rashid Ahmad, Muhammad Abbas
Jaffri, and Mudassar Ashfaq. "Landfill Sites Identification Using GIS and Multi-Criteria
Method: A Case Study of Intermediate City of Punjab, Pakistan." Journal of Geographic
Information System 8 (2016): 40-49.
Antonakos, Andreas, K. Voudouris, and Nikolaos I. Lambrakis. "Site selection for drinkingwater pumping." Official Journal of the International, 2014: 1763-1776.
Chandio, Imtiaz Ahmed, Abdul Nasir Matori, Dano Umar Lawal, and Soheil Sabri. "GIS-Based
Land Suitability Analysis Using AHP for Public Parks Planning in Larkana City."
Modern Applied Science 5 (2011): 177-189.
CHANDIO, IMTIAZ AHMED, MIR AFTAB HUSSAIN TALPUR, and TAUFIQUE AHMED
QURESHI. "Integrated GIS-Based Site Selection of Hillside Development for Future
Growth of Urban Areas." Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering &
Technology 35, no. 2 (2016): 303-308.
Drinking Water Standard, Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority.PSQCA. Water
Pakistan. June 26, 2016. http://www.waterpakistan.com/drinking-water-standardpakistan-standards-and-quality-control-authority-psqca/ (accessed June 26, 2016).
Hwang, Ching-Lai, and Kwangsun Yoon. Multiple attribute decision makingmethods and
applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 1981.
LAARIBI, A., J.J. CHEVALLIER, and J.M. MARTEL. "A spatial decision aid: a multicriterion
evaluation approach." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 20 (1996): 351366.
Malczewski, Jacek. GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
Malczewski, Jacek. "GISbased multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature." 20, no.
7 (2006): 703-726.
Marinoni, Oswald. "Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in ArcGIS."
Computers & Geosciences 30 (2004): 637646.
Radiarta, I Nyoman, Sei-Ichi Saitoh, and Akira Miyazono. "GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation
models for identifying suitable sites for Japanese scallop (Mizuhopecten yessoensis)
aquaculture in Funka Bay,southwestern Hokkaido, Japan." Aquaculture 284 (2008): 127
135.
Saaty, T.L. "A Scaling Method for Priorities in a Hierarchical Structure." Journal of
mathematical psychology 15 (1977): 234-281.

Sharifi, Mohammed A., and Vasilios Retsios. "Site selection for waste disposal through spatial
multiple criteria decision analysis." Journal Of Telecomunication And Information
Technology, 2004: 28-38.
Tadios, T. "GIS-based Geotechnical Microzonation Mapping using Analytic Hierarchy Process:
a case study in Shire-Endasilasie City, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia." Momona Ethiopian
Journal of Science (MEJS) 5, no. 2 (2013): 101-116.
UNESCO. "Water: A Looming Crisis." Summary and recommendations of the Int. Conf.on
World Water Resources at the Beginning of the 21st century. Paris, 1998.
Vacik, H., and MJ. Lexer. "Application of a spatial decision support system in managing the
protection forests of Vienna for sustained yield of water resources." For Ecol Manag 143
(2001): 6576.
Zhu, X., R.G. Healey, and R.J. Aspinall. "A knowledge-based systems approach to design of
spatial decision support systems for environmental management." Environ Manage 22,
no. 1 (1998): 35-48.