Page 90 - AJWEP-22-5

Fan, et al.

Figure 3. Flowchart of the methodology employed in this study
Abbreviations: AHP: Analytic hierarchy process; GWPZ: Groundwater potential zone.

provide high storage and discharge capacity, Ideal locations are those with minimal exposure to
reduce technical challenges, and lower operational surface or subsurface contamination sources, such
costs, thereby supporting stable, long-term intake as positions upstream of industrial discharge areas or
operations. urban wastewater outlets. Areas with naturally good
(ii) Proximity to river recharge: The distance between water quality and situated away from problematic
the groundwater source and the river directly lithologies (e.g., quicksand layers that may cause
influences the volume of induced recharge. Sites clogging or turbidity) are assigned a score of 1. In
located closer to the river can effectively intercept contrast, polluted or geologically vulnerable areas
recharge from river water and are assigned a score that require complex treatment or pose long-term
of 1. In contrast, sites farther from the river are less reliability issues are assigned a score of 0.
capable of capturing river recharge and receive a (v) Geological stability: The selection of a geologically
score of 0. Especially in zones with unconsolidated stable site is vital to prevent hazards such as land
sediment, selecting intake locations adjacent to the subsidence, collapses, fractures, or landslides.
river enhances recharge potential and overall water Sites with stable lithological conditions and
availability. low geological risk are assigned a score of 1. In
(iii) Interference avoidance: Avoiding hydraulic and contrast, sites located in geohazard-prone areas are
operational interference with existing water intakes scored as 0 due to potential impacts on construction
and discharges is essential for sustainable resource feasibility, cost, and operational safety. Geological
management. Sites that are spatially separated stability ensures structural integrity and supports
from current water usage points (e.g., industrial or reliable groundwater development.
agricultural wells, municipal intakes, or drainage (vi) Comprehensive factors: Beyond hydrological
outlets) are assigned a score of 1, as they reduce and geological considerations, comprehensive
the risk of resource conflicts, contamination, and factors such as economic feasibility, safety, and
mutual interference. In contrast, sites located potential for future expansion are also evaluated.
near such facilities receive a score of 0 due to Sites located closer to the target water supply
the potential for operational complications and area can reduce pipeline construction costs, while
increased management challenges. those with shallow or artesian aquifers have
(iv) Water quality assurance: Ensuring high and stable lower intake and pumping expenses. Options with
water quality is a critical factor in site selection. favorable performance across economic, safety, and

Volume 22 Issue 5 (2025) 84 doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025260208