Page 92 - AJWEP-22-5

Fan, et al.

groundwater may indicate ineffective attenuation Table 1. Constructed judgment matrix for
capacity or legacy contamination, thereby determining indicator weights
undermining source suitability despite favorable Analytic K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8
hydraulic conditions. hierarchy
(viii) Groundwater depth (K8): The depth to groundwater process
influences pumping costs, recharge rates, and the K1 1 1/5 1/4 2 2 1/7 1/4 1/3
hydraulic connection with surface water bodies. K2 5 1 3 7 5 1/3 2 3
Greater depths increase required pumping lift and K3 4 1/3 1 5 5 1/3 2 3
may induce vertical flow from confining units,
potentially affecting both K3 and the migration K4 1/2 1/7 1/5 1 1/3 1/5 1/3 1/2
of contaminants. Moreover, as groundwater depth K5 1/2 1/5 1/5 3 1 1/5 1/4 1/2
increases, the influence of river recharge becomes K6 7 3 3 5 5 1 2 3
more attenuated, suggesting a nonlinear and site- K7 4 1/2 1/3 3 4 1/2 1 2
dependent relationship between K8 and both K1 K8 3 1/3 1/3 2 2 1/3 1/2 1
and K6 in practical intake performance. Notes: K1 – K8 represent the following indicators: K1: Minimum
river discharge during the dry season ; K2: Riverbed permeability;
These interdependencies underscore the importance K3: Aquifer hydraulic conductivity; K4: Aquifer thickness; K5:
of a systems-thinking approach in evaluation model Presence of continuous impermeable layers; K6: River water
construction. Rather than treating each indicator as quality; K7: Groundwater quality; K8: Groundwater depth.
independent, this study acknowledges key functional
linkages – particularly between K2 and K3, as well collectively determine the permissible groundwater
as between K6 and K7. Although this version of the intake capacity. In addition, K8 primarily affects the cost
model applies additive weighting through AHP, future and operational stability of water intake, resulting in a
enhancements may incorporate correlation analysis, moderate level of influence. A comprehensive analysis
interaction terms, or multivariate statistical techniques of the importance of the eight evaluation indicators
(e.g., principal component analysis or factor analysis) reveals the following descending order of influence:
to quantitatively capture these interrelationships and K7 > K8 > K1 > K6 > K2 > K3 > K4 > K5.
reduce redundancy. Such refinements would further
improve the internal consistency and predictive 3.2.2. Calculation of the judgment matrix
reliability of the suitability assessment framework. In this study, a judgment matrix constructed from
statistical data is used to quantify the relative importance
3.2. Determination of evaluation weights or influence of various factors. By conducting
3.2.1. Construction of the judgment matrix pairwise comparisons among the factors and assigning
Based on the qualitative indicators, one or more river corresponding values, a positive reciprocal matrix is
sections are selected as potential groundwater source formed. Subsequently, the relative weight vector of
sites. Subsequently, a weighting analysis was conducted each factor is obtained through weight calculation and a
for all the identified quantitative indicators; however, the consistency check.
qualitative indicators were excluded from this process. Based on the importance of the eight quantitative
The quantitative indicators were categorized into three indicators, the judgment matrix is constructed: 33
groups: water quantity, water quality, and groundwater
ij
depth. The constructed judgment matrix for determining A a
the weights is presented in Table 1. 14 13 / 1 1 71 51 42 2
/
/
/
/
Based on Table 1, K7, as the direct determinant of
water supply site viability, exerts the most significant 2 3 5 1 3 / 1 3 7 5
/
influence on site selection. If K7 fails to meet the 2 3 4 13 13 / 1 5 5

required standards, the construction of a water source 13 12 1/221 51 71 51 13/ /
/
/
/
/
site is considered unsuitable. In contrast, river water 14 12 12 15 15 15 3/ / / / / / 1 (I)
undergoes natural purification during its infiltration into
aquifers, thus exerting a relatively lower impact on site 2 3 7 1 3 3 5 5

/
/
/
selection. The river’s low-flow runoff and the volume of 1 2 4 1 21 21 33 4
groundwater reserves, as primary sources of recharge, 1// 2 1 3 / 1 31 31 32 2

/
/
Volume 22 Issue 5 (2025) 86 doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025260208