Page 93 - AJWEP-22-5

Evaluation of riverbank water suitability

The term a represents the importance of the i-th plays a decisive role in determining the suitability of
ij
indicator relative to the j-th indicator. Based on this, riverbank groundwater sources for water intake, thereby
the eigenvalue M of the judgment matrix for each i-th receiving the highest weight.
i
row, corresponding to the j-th indicator, is calculated as
follows: 3.2.3. Calculation of the judgment matrix
m In the AHP, consistency checking of the judgment
i

M u ij , 1 , ,, 2 3 n (II) matrix is a critical step to ensure the rationality of the
ij
j1 weight assignment. In this study, the CR, consistency
By calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors index (CI), and the average random index (RI) were
of the judgment matrix, the weight vector W for each employed to evaluate the consistency of the pairwise
i
indicator is obtained: 34,35 comparison matrix. The Delphi method was adopted
for two rounds of anonymous scoring and feedback to
W = n M i (III) ensure convergence. If the CR is <0.1, the consistency
i
The consistency ratio (CR) of the judgment matrix is of the judgment matrix is considered acceptable.
then calculated. If CR is <0.1, the matrix is considered According to Table 3, the judgment matrix
to exhibit satisfactory consistency; otherwise, it must demonstrates satisfactory consistency (n = 8; RI = 1.41;
be revised. Based on the weights of each indicator and λ = 8.541; CI = 0.081; CR = 0.057), indicating that the
their corresponding values, the comprehensive score is assigned weights are reasonable.
calculated: 36-38 3.2.4. Indicator classification and scoring
S 8 i1 W X i (IV) Based on relevant domestic and international studies on
i
the classification and scoring of impact indicators for
39
where X represents the specific value of the i-th water source site selection, and taking into account,
i
indicator, while S denotes the comprehensive score of the specific characteristics of riverside water intake
the i-th indicator. sites, a scoring standard for the evaluation index system
The vector W = (W ,W ,W ,…W ) is normalized, as of water intake adaptability in such areas has been
1
i
3
2
n
shown in Table 2. established, as shown in Table 4.
i
W W /( m W ) (V) 3.2.5. Calculation of evaluation scores
i
i1 i
Based on the classification criteria presented in
Based on Table 2, the total weight of the evaluation Table 4, each quantitative indicator was categorized
indicators is normalized to 1, with each weight reflecting and assigned a corresponding score, resulting in
the relative importance of the corresponding indicator an individual evaluation value for each indicator.
within the overall assessment framework. The eight Subsequently, a weighted summation was performed
quantitative indicators, ranked in descending order based on the indicator weights provided in Table 2. The
of their weight proportions, are as follows: K7 (29%) comprehensive score S for all quantitative indicators
> K8 (22%) > K1 (16%) > K6 (13%) > K2 (8%) of the riverside water intake site was then calculated
> K3 (5%) > K4 (4%) > K5 (3%). Among these, K7 using equation IV. Considering the geomorphological

Table 2. Weights of the evaluation indicators for riverside water intake suitability, derived from
calculations based on equations I‑V
Evaluation indicator K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8
Weights 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.29 0.22
Notes: K1 – K8 represent the following indicators: K1: Minimum river discharge during the dry season; K2: Riverbed permeability;
K3: Aquifer hydraulic conductivity; K4: Aquifer thickness; K5: Presence of continuous impermeable layers; K6: River water quality;
K7: Groundwater quality; K8: Groundwater depth.
Table 3. Consistency evaluation of the judgment matrix

Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Random index 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.52

Volume 22 Issue 5 (2025) 87 doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025260208