SCIEPublish

Integrated GIS–MCDA (AHP) Framework for Groundwater Potential Mapping in Humid, Structurally Complex Watersheds

Article Open Access

Integrated GIS–MCDA (AHP) Framework for Groundwater Potential Mapping in Humid, Structurally Complex Watersheds

Author Information
1
Trihydro Corporation, Cincinnati, OH 45212, USA
2
Space Technology for Earth Applications Project Group, Space Generation Advisory Council, 1030 Vienna, Austria
3
Maurer Stutz, Peoria, IL 61604, USA
4
Lochmueller Group, 2821 West 7th Street, Suite 400, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA
5
School of Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering, Southern Illinois University, 1230 Lincoln Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901-6603, USA
6
Arcadis, 1330 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2250, Houton, TX 77056, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 22 January 2026 Revised: 24 February 2026 Accepted: 19 March 2026 Published: 24 March 2026

Creative Commons

© 2026 The authors. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Views:72
Downloads:13
Hydroecol. Eng. 2026, 3(1), 10001; DOI: 10.70322/hee.2026.10001
ABSTRACT: Mapping the potential of groundwater is important for managing water resources in a way that will last, especially when the climate changes, land use changes, and water demand rise. This study examines the integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodologies, focusing on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), and illustrates their implementation in the Fork Fish Creek watershed, a humid Appalachian headwater basin in West Virginia, USA. Although GIS–AHP methodologies are extensively utilized in semi-arid areas, their efficacy in humid, structurally intricate mountainous environments is still inadequately investigated. Using expert-based AHP weighting and GIS-based weighted overlay analysis, six thematic parameters were combined: rainfall, geology and soil characteristics, slope, drainage density, land use and land cover (LULC), and lineament density. The appropriate AHP consistency ratio (<0.1) showed that the weights were reliable. The resulting groundwater potential map divided the watershed into three zones: Good (6.7%), Moderate (76.5%), and Low (16.8%). The prevalence of Moderate potential indicates the impact of fragmented topography and drainage configuration, which limit groundwater storage despite sufficient precipitation. Validation encompassed an evaluation of hydrogeomorphic consistency and an additional comparison with USGS monitoring-well depth data, so offering empirical corroboration for the Moderate-dominated distribution. The results show that groundwater potential patterns vary greatly from one place to the next. They also show how useful GIS–MCDA frameworks may be for assessing groundwater in humid, data-poor mountainous areas.
Keywords: Groundwater potential mapping; GIS; MCDA; AHP; Watershed-scale assessment; Appalachian plateau; Remote sensing
TOP