water

Article
Identification of Potential Sites for a Multi-Purpose
Dam Using a Dam Suitability Stream Model
Zhenfeng Shao 1 , Zahid Jahangir 1, *, Qazi Muhammad Yasir 2, * , Atta-ur-Rahman 3
and Shakeel Mahmood 4
1 State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing,
Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China; [email protected]
2 School of Geographical Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
3 Department of Geography, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 25120, Pakistan; [email protected]
4 Department of Geography, Government College University Lahore, Lahore 54000, Pakistan;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Z.J.); [email protected] (Q.M.Y.); Tel.: +86-18702754297 (Z.J.);
+86-13104432863 (Q.M.Y.)




Received: 3 October 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 19 November 2020


Abstract: Optimal site selection of a dam is one of the crucial tasks in water resource management.
In this study, a dam suitability stream model (DSSM) is utilized to identify potential sites for
constructing multi-purpose dams. In DSSM, each input parameter is weighted using the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP), and then weighted overlay analysis is performed in a Geographical
Information System (GIS) environment. Compared to the previous studies, this study showed
different results based on the crucial parameter that is “stream order”. Two resultant site suitability
maps are prepared to differentiate the importance of stream order. Each of the resulting maps
visualizes four classes of suitability from highly suitable to least suitable. The proposed sites will
store water for a variety of uses at the local and regional level and reduce flood risk, which can be
very useful for hydrologists and disaster risk managers.

Keywords: DSSM; AHP; GIS; stream order; multi-purpose dam

1. Introduction
Multi-purpose dams facilitate human life by purveying water for household purposes,
irrigation activities, hydropower generation, and reducing flood risk [1]. The suitable site of
hydro-projects has the least pessimistic environmental impacts [2]. Therefore site suitability analysis
for the construction of the dam is crucial [3] by considering geographical properties like downstream
conditions [4], lakes [5], and geological hazards [6,7]. Water is one of the essential components of
all human activities and supports life [8]. The distribution of water has been uneven and further
disturb by global variability in climate [9]. Snow and glaciers melting due to the temperature rise
have increased the discharge of rivers and the frequency of Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs).
Similarly, variation in the amount and spatial pattern of rainfall has further intensified the magnitude
and frequency of floods in the areas which receive more precipitation and drought in arid regions [10].
To avoid such a disaster and for the sake of development, dams provide a sustainable amount of
benefits to humanity, such as flood risk mitigation, agriculture, and hydropower production [11,12].
Pakistan is one of those countries facing problems such as natural disasters, power crises, and water
scarcity. Pakistan has been facing power crises for which hydropower projects generate renewable,
environment-friendly energy sources. In Pakistan, 21% of gross domestic product (GDP), and 50% of
the economy rely on agriculture [13]. In this regard, water resource management is the most critical

Water 2020, 12, 3249; doi:10.3390/w12113249 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 3249 2 of 19

issue and need in many countries worldwide [14]. Spotting feasible sites for the multi-purpose dam is
a part of water resources management [1]. Moreover, building dams has a high fiscal cost; therefore,
positive feasibility is necessary.
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods can be utilized to solve such problems.
MCDM methods use several criteria to make a problem solving decision. There are many MCDM
methods and their applications in which the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the most
used methods [15]. AHP is the most potent and most straightforward technique for solving the most
crucial step of MCDM that is defining the weights of criteria [16]. The main steps involved in AHP
are identifying the problem, making a hierarchy of selected criteria, making the pairwise comparison
of chosen criteria, and weighing each criterion [17]. AHP facilitates decision-making under several
criteria rather than one criterion [15]. AHP has been used as a weighting method for Geographical
Information System (GIS)-based MCDM in many site suitability applications [18].
Previously many techniques have been applied to find potential sites for dams: multi-purpose earth
dam sites use AHP [1]; GIS, which included overlay, polygon intersection, and normalized cumulative
weighted index (NCWI) [19]; GIS spatial analysis for a valley by analyzing its shape, geometrical and
bathometric properties [20]; a geo-spatial information system for small hydropower [21]; automation
of the hydropower site identification process using a GIS-based computational program based on
remote sensing and regional streamflow data [22]; assessment of small dam sites’ suitability based
on satellite, climatological, and hydrological freely available data [23]; dam spots for flood control
based on remote sensing (RS) and GIS [24]. Locating reservoirs with GIS and RS, where two models,
Boolean and weighted linear combination (WLC), were comparatively evaluated [25].
However, most of the studies used the MCDM approach based on the amalgamation of GIS, RS,
and AHP to find a feasible site for suitable dam sites; some of them are [9,13,26,27]. Therefore, in this
study, we put forward a new model, DSSM, based on GIS, RS, and AHP as a weighting method to find
potential sites for the multi-purpose dam. As most of the studies [9,13,19–21,24,27,28] involved stream
and surface water as an essential parameter to determine potential sites for the dam as adequate water
is vital, which has to be stored and utilized for many purposes. The models used in the previous
research gave suitability maps but not directly on the streams according to their order of streams,
which is very important. Another aspect is that some studies included stream order as a parameter
in overlay analysis. However, the suitability map results were still all over the area, which is not
satisfactory. Moreover, high stream order with enough catchment area and a perfect V-shaped valley
are also considerable for dams’ cost-efficient development. This research is an effort to improve dam
site identification analysis and elaborates on the different results based on stream order. Therefore,
stream order is taken as the most crucial factor for this study.
The Panjkora River, situated in the Northwest of Pakistan, has enough capability where the
multi-purpose dam can prove beneficial. To achieve this aim, we proposed a new approach named the
dam suitability stream model (DSSM), which is based on GIS, remote sensing, and the theory of AHP,
where the following objectives given below are set for the model:

• To generate suitability maps

• To propose multi-purpose dam sites
• Evaluate each proposed dam site

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area

The Panjkora Basin is an essential physiographical unit situated in Eastern Hindu Kush,
Northwest Pakistan. Its major tributaries are the Gwaldai, Kohistan, Barawal, Dir, Jandool, and Bajaur
rivers. It flows from North to South and reaches the river Swat near Qalangi village [29]. It is roughly
113 km long and has a total catchment area of 5904 km2 . Geographically, it extends from 34◦ 390 30” to
35◦ 470 17” North latitude and 71◦ 130 8” to 72◦ 220 13” East longitude (Figure 1).
and downstream Wari, respectively. The scanty flood control embankment scheme, unorganized
land-use changes, and unconstrained growth of anthropogenic activities along the river have
increased the risk of flooding and the extent of potential damage to the study area [31]. Every year
even in normal conditions, rain-water and melt-water have been lost into the Swat River. Therefore
building
Water the3249
2020, 12, multi-purpose dam is needed to store water and generate power to meet local needs
3 of 19
and contribute to national needs regarding power and water.

Figure 1. Location map of the study area.

The basin is located between the two mountain ranges, i.e., the eastern and western ranges,
2.2. Data
dividing it separately from the Swat Basin and Kabul Basin. The elevation exceeds 4000 m.a.s.l,
The digital elevation model (DEM) of the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) having
where the mountains are covered with snow and several glaciers. The elevation of the basin ranges
30 m spatial resolution and Sentinel-2A satellite image having spatial resolution from 10 m to 60 m
from 437 m.a.s.l to approximately 5963 m.a.s.l south to north. Climatically, the temperature fluctuates
were downloaded from open-source geo-database of the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
between 16 ◦ C minimum and 32 ◦ C maximum in summer, while in winter, from December to
for 31 January 2018 and 27 May 2017, respectively. The rainfall data record of the Dir met station
February, the temperature drops below freezing point [30]. The annual variation in rainfall is between
(1971–2015), and Timergara met station was obtained from Pakistan Metrological Department
823 and 2149 mm. Almost every year, floods periodically occur, causing hydro-meteorological
regional office Peshawar. Discharge data of the past 30 years (1985–2015) of Talash gauging station
hazards, where flash flood and riverine flood are prominent in areas upstream Wari and downstream
Wari, respectively. The scanty flood control embankment scheme, unorganized land-use changes,
and unconstrained growth of anthropogenic activities along the river have increased the risk of flooding
and the extent of potential damage to the study area [31]. Every year even in normal conditions,
rain-water and melt-water have been lost into the Swat River. Therefore building the multi-purpose
dam is needed to store water and generate power to meet local needs and contribute to national needs
regarding power and water.

2.2. Data
The digital elevation model (DEM) of the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) having
30 m spatial resolution and Sentinel-2A satellite image having spatial resolution from 10 m to 60 m
were downloaded from open-source geo-database of the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
for 31 January 2018 and 27 May 2017, respectively. The rainfall data record of the Dir met station
(1971–2015), and Timergara met station was obtained from Pakistan Metrological Department regional
office Peshawar. Discharge data of the past 30 years (1985–2015) of Talash gauging station were
Water 2020, 12, 3249 4 of 19

Water 2020, 12, x 4 of 19

acquired from Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authority Peshawar. A geological map of the study
area was
wereobtained
acquired from the Geological
from Provincial Survey
Irrigation andof Pakistan.
Drainage Authority Peshawar. A geological map of
the study area was obtained from the Geological Survey of Pakistan.
2.3. Dam Suitability Stream Model
2.3. Dam Suitability Stream Model
The dam suitability stream model (DSSM) is proposed in this study based on the stream order for
The
identifying dam suitability
potential sites forstream model (DSSM)(Figure
dam construction is proposed in model
2). The this study based of
consists onseveral
the stream order
parameters in
for identifying potential sites for dam construction (Figure 2). The model consists of several
which streams and their order are considered as the main parameter. The DSSM has five significant
parameters in which streams and their order are considered as the main parameter. The DSSM has
stages, the 1st generation of parameters in raster layers taking the stream and their order into
five significant stages, the 1st generation of parameters in raster layers taking the stream and their
consideration (essential parameters); 2nd reclassification of all parameters; 3rd assigning weightage;
order into consideration (essential parameters); 2nd reclassification of all parameters; 3rd assigning
4th overaly analysis; 5th proposing
weightage; 4th overaly and
analysis; 5th evaluation
proposing and of dam sites
evaluation based
of dam on based
sites evaluation parameters.
on evaluation
Moreover,
parameters. Moreover, rainfall and discharge data are statistically analyzed. All the steps are in
rainfall and discharge data are statistically analyzed. All the steps are discussed
Sections 2.4–2.9.
discussed in Sections 2.4–2.9.

Figure2.2. Work
Figure Work flow
flowof
ofthis
thisstudy.
study.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 5 of 19
Water 2020, 12, x 5 of 19

2.4.
2.4. GenerationofofEssential
Generation EssentialParameters
Parameters

AA watershedmodeling
watershed modelingapproach
approach was was applied
applied in
in aa GIS
GIS environment
environmentby byusing
usingSRTM
SRTMDEM DEM [32]
[32]
to delineate the Panjkora River Basin. Strahler’s law [33] defined the stream order
to delineate the Panjkora River Basin. Strahler’s law [33] defined the stream order and we extractedand we extracted
the
the drainagenetwork
drainage networkofofthethePanjkora
Panjkora Basin.
Basin. Likewise,
Likewise, the
theslope
slopemap
mapgenerated
generatedfromfromDEM
DEMinin the
the
ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) located in Redlands, CA, USA)
ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) located in Redlands, CA, USA) environment,
environment, and the slope’s degree, was classified into five classes [24,28]. DEM itself is
and the slope’s degree, was classified into five classes [24,28]. DEM itself is considered as an elevation
considered as an elevation layer, which is organized into five classes. The satellite image is
layer, which is organized into five classes. The satellite image is processed and classified by using a
processed and classified by using a supervised image classification approach in ENVI 4.8. A land-
supervised image classification approach in ENVI 4.8. A land-use/land-cover (LULC) map is prepared
use/land-cover (LULC) map is prepared in five classes, including water bodies, agricultural land,
in five classes, including water bodies, agricultural land, barren land, forest cover, and settlements [25].
barren land, forest cover, and settlements [25]. The geological map is digitized and then saved as
The geological map is digitized and then saved as raster layers [34]. All the above criteria layers are
raster layers [34]. All the above criteria layers are shown in Figure 3. Moreover, the Euclidean
shown
distancein Figure
tool in 3. Moreover,
ArcGIS is used the
to Euclidean distance
build distance zonestool
frominStreams,
ArcGIS andis used
the to build
layer, distance
later zones
on, is used
from Streams,
instead and the
of stream layer,
order later
itself. Theon, is used distance
Euclidean instead of stream
layer orderasitself.
is named The Euclidean
the reciprocal distance
parameter of
layer
stream order. (Figure 4). Each criterion’s classification is based on the literature [9,13] and expert is
is named as the reciprocal parameter of stream order. (Figure 4). Each criterion’s classification
based on the
opinions literature GIS
(Geologists, [9,13] and expert
experts, opinions (Geologists, GIS experts, Geographers).
Geographers).

Figure
Figure 3. 3.Essential
Essentialparameters:
parameters: (a)
(a) stream order
order (b)
(b) slope
slope (c)
(c)elevation
elevation(d)
(d)land
landuse
useand
andland
landcover
cover
(LULC)
(LULC) (e)(e) geology.
geology.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 6 of 19
Water 2020, 12, x 6 of 19

Figure
Figure 4. 4.Reciprocal
Reciprocalparameter
parameterofofstream
streamorder
orderororEuclidean
Euclideandistance
distance(a)
(a)distance
distancefrom
fromthe
thestreams
streams(b)
(b) reclassified
reclassified rasterraster
layer.layer.

2.5. Reclassification
2.5. Reclassification
The
The raster
raster criteria layers were
criteria layers werereclassified
reclassified using
using the the reclassification
reclassification tool
tool in in ArcGIS.
ArcGIS. The
The reclassification
reclassification is performed
is performed on on raster
raster layers
layers to to classify
classify them
them into
into four
four classes
classes except
except geological,
geological,
classified
classifiedinto
intothree
threepossible
possiblecategories
categories according
according to expert
expert opinions.
opinions.The Thepixel
pixelsize
sizeofofeach
eachlayer
layer
is is
kept
keptasas3030mm× ×3030mm(Figure
(Figure5).
5).For
For suitable
suitable site
site identification,
identification, allallthese
theseparameters
parametersare areconsidered
considered
during
during theanalysis
the analysisofofpotential
potentialdam
damsites
sites(Table
(Table 1).
1).

Table1.1.Reclassified
Table Reclassified layers
layers and their
their preference
preferencevalue.
value.
S.No
S.No CriteriaCriteria Classes Classes
PreferencePreference Value
Value Suitability
Suitability
1st order Restricted
O
1st order 2nd order Restricted
(Least)
O
Stream order 2nd order 3rd order 1 (Least)
Less
Stream order 3rd order 4th order 1 3 Less
Moderate
4th order 5th order 3 5 Moderate
High
1
5th order <500 5 5 High
High
1 500–1000 3 Moderate
<500 5 High
Euclidean distance or Buffered streams (m) 1000–1500 1 Less
Euclidean distance 500–1000 3 Moderate
1500–3000 Restricted
or Buffered streams 1000–1500 1 0 Less
>3000 (Least)
(m) 1500–3000 Restricted
<8 0 5 High
>3000 8–15 3
(Least)
Moderate
2 Slope (degree) <8 15–30 5 1 Less
High
8–15 30–45 3 Restricted
Moderate
0
2 Slope (degree) 15–30 45> 1 (Least)
Less
30–45 1000–2000 5 High
Restricted
2000–3000 0 3 Moderate
3 Digital Elevation Model (m) 45> (Least)
3000–4000 1 Less
<1000 0 Restricted
Water 2020, 12, 3249 7 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

S.No Criteria Classes Preference Value Suitability

1000–2000 5 High
2000–3000 3 Moderate
Digital Elevation
3 3000–4000 1 Less
Model (m)
<1000 Restricted
0
4000> (Least)
Water 2020, 12, x Agriculture Restricted 7 of 19
0
Settlement (Least)
Land cover Forest 4000> 1 (Least)
Less
4
Agriculture Restricted
Waterbody 3 0 Moderate
Settlement (Least)
Barren land 5 High
4 Land cover Forest 1 Less
Quaternary Alluvium Waterbody 1 3 Less
Moderate
Utror Volcanics Barren land 5 High
Quaternary Alluvium
Dir met sediments 1 Less
Utror Volcanics 3 Moderate
Kashala and Marghuzar
Dir met sediments
Peshmal schist 3 Moderate
5 Geology Kashala and Marghuzar
Kohistan batholith
Peshmal schist
Kamila amphibolite
5 Geology Kohistan
Chilas complex batholith
Kamila amphibolite 5 High
Swat and Mansehra
Shao Chilas complex
5 High
Swat and Mansehra
Indus suture melange
Shao
Indus suture melange

Figure5.5.Reclassified
Figure Reclassifiedlayers:
layers: (a) stream order
order (b)
(b) slope
slope(c)
(c)elevation
elevation(d)
(d)LULC
LULC(e)(e)geology.
geology.

2.6. Rainfall and Discharge Data

Average monthly rainfall data of 30 years from 1981 to 2010 are analyzed, and obtained from
the Dir and Timergara met stations. The winter rainfall source is western depression, whereas
Monsoon winds are the primary source of rainfall in summer. Rainfall is more prominent in winter
than in summer. Similarly, the study area receives more rain in March, 234 mm upstream, and 244
mm in downstream areas (Figures 6 and 7).
Water 2020, 12, 3249 8 of 19

2.6. Rainfall and Discharge Data

Average monthly rainfall data of 30 years from 1981 to 2010 are analyzed, and obtained from the
Dir and Timergara met stations. The winter rainfall source is western depression, whereas Monsoon
winds are the primary source of rainfall in summer. Rainfall is more prominent in winter than in
summer. Similarly, the study area receives more rain in March, 234 mm upstream, and 244 mm in
downstream areas (Figures 6 and 7).
Water 2020,
Water 2020, 12,
12, xx 88 of
of 19
19

250
250
200
200
(mm)
Rainfall (mm)

150
150
Rainfall

100
100
50
50
00

Figure
Figure
Figure 6. Average
6. Average
6. Average monthlyprecipitation
monthly
monthly precipitation (1981–2010)
precipitation (1981–2010) atat
(1981–2010)at Dir Met
Dir
Dir station.
Met
Met station.
station.

300
300
250
250
(mm)
Rainfall (mm)

200
200
150
Rainfall

150
100
100
50
50
00

Figure
Figure
Figure 7. Average
7. Average
7. Average monthlyprecipitation
monthly
monthly precipitation at
precipitation at the
atthe Timergara
theTimergara
Timergaramet
met
metstation.
station.
station.

The highest
The highest
The highest discharges
discharges
discharges of the
of
of the the Panjkora
Panjkora
Panjkora River
River
River werewere
were recorded
recorded
recorded at
at at
the the
the Talash
Talash
Talash gaugestation
gauge
gauge stationfor
station for30
for 30years
30
years from
from 1985
1985 to
to 2015
2015 (Figure
(Figure 8).
8). The
The results
results reveal
reveal that
that ever
ever highest
highest discharge
discharge was
was recorded
recorded in in
from years
1985 to 2015 (Figure 8). The results reveal that ever highest discharge was recorded in July 2010.
July 2010.
July 2010. This
This highest
highest peak
peak shows
shows disastrous
disastrous 2010-flood
2010-flood due due to
to the
the 4-day
4-day wet
wet spell
spell (27–30
(27–30 July),
July),
This highest peak shows
where aa massive
disastrous
massive quantity
quantity of
2010-flood
of fresh
fresh water
duelost,
water was
to the
was lost,
4-daydamage
wet spell
causing damage
(27–30
and could
July),
could not
where
not be
be stored
a massive
stored for
for
where causing and
quantity of use
future fresh water
due was
to lack
lack of lost,
dams.causing damage
Similarly, andeven
each year
year could not be stored
in normal
normal for future
conditions, use and
rain-water duemelt-
to lack of
future use due to of dams. Similarly, each even in conditions, rain-water and melt-
dams.water
Similarly,
water have eachlosing.
have been
been year even
losing. in normal
Moreover,
Moreover, conditions,
antecedent
antecedent rain-waterslope
rainfall influences
rainfall influences andstability,
slope melt-water
stability, which
whichhave
alsobeen
also causes
causes losing.
Moreover, antecedent
landslides [35].
landslides rainfall
[35]. Therefore, influences
Therefore, building slope stability,
building aa multi-purpose
multi-purpose dam which
dam is also
is needed
needed to causes
to store landslides
store water.
water. [35]. Therefore,
building a multi-purpose dam is needed to store water.
Discharge data
Discharge data at
at Talash
Talash gauging
gauging station
station in m33/s
in m /s
2.7. Analytic Hierarchy
25 Process (AHP) Analysis
25
(cumecs)
Discharge (cumecs)

Extream
Extream
20
AHP has been used
20 as a weighting method for GIS-based MCDM for site suitability analysis [18].
Therefore, this study15 also used AHP for assigning weights to each criterion. We used the AHP
15
Discharge

regarding the multi-purpose

10
10
dam site suitability (Figure 9). According to the fundamental scale
(Table 2), the pairwise comparison is applied to determine each criterion’s weight [36]. The whole
55
process is divided into five steps; pairwise comparison of criteria with expert opinions, aggregation of
00

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Highest
Highest discharge
discharge recorded
recorded at
at Talash
Talash gauging
gauging station
station in
in cubic
cubic meter
meter per
per second.
second.
 Figure 7. Average monthly precipitation at the Timergara met station.

The highest discharges of the Panjkora River were recorded at the Talash gauge station for 30
years from 1985 to 2015 (Figure 8). The results reveal that ever highest discharge was recorded in
July2020,
Water 2010. This highest peak shows disastrous 2010-flood due to the 4-day wet spell (27–30 July),
12, 3249 9 of 19
where a massive quantity of fresh water was lost, causing damage and could not be stored for
future use due to lack of dams. Similarly, each year even in normal conditions, rain-water and melt-
expert
wateropinions,
have been forming
losing. the preference
Moreover, matrix (Table
antecedent rainfall3), finding aslope
influences normalized
stability,matrix
which(Table 4) from
also causes
the preference matrix, and calculation of consistency ratio. All the steps are
landslides [35]. Therefore, building a multi-purpose dam is needed to store water. discussed below.

Discharge data at Talash gauging station in m3/s

25
Discharge (cumecs)

Extream
20
15
10
Water 2020, 12, x 9 of 19
5
2.7. Analytic Hierarchy
0 Process (AHP) Analysis
AHP has been used as a weighting method for GIS-based MCDM for site suitability analysis
[18]. Therefore, this study also used AHP for assigning weights to each criterion. We used the AHP
regarding the multi-purpose dam site suitability (Figure 9). According to the fundamental scale
(Table 2), the pairwise comparison is applied to determine each criterion’s weight [36]. The whole
process is divided into five steps; pairwise comparison of criteria with expert opinions, aggregation
Figure
of expert 8.8.Highest
Highest
opinions,
Figure discharge
forming recorded at
the preference
discharge recorded atmatrix
Talash(Table
Talash gauging
3),station
gauging findingin
station inacubic meter
meterper
normalized
cubic second.
matrix
per (Table 4)
second.
from the preference matrix, and calculation of consistency ratio. All the steps are discussed below.

Objective
Final
weights

Yes

Consistency
check

Normalized
matrix
Questionnaire No

Preference
matrix
Individual
judgment
method Aggregation

Pairwise
comparison

Stream Slope Elevation LU/LC Geology

Criteria order
(DEM)

Attributes Attributes Attributes Attributes Attributes Attributes

Figure
Figure 9. Analytichierarchy
9. Analytic hierarchy process
process (AHP)
(AHP)asasweighting
weightingmethod.
method.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 10 of 19

Table 2. Saaty’s pairwise comparison scale.

Intensity of Importance/Judgments Numeric Value

Equal importance 1
Equal to moderate importance 2
Moderate importance 3
Moderate to strong importance 4
Strong importance 5
Strong to very strong importance 6
Very strong importance 7
Very strong to extremely strong importance 8
Extreme importance 9
Source [36].

Table 3. Pairwise comparison matrix with intensity judgments (preference matrix).

Criteria Stream Order Slope DEM Land Use Geology

Stream order 1 3 2 3 4
Slope 1/3 1 2 3 5
DEM 1/2 1/2 1 2 3
Land use 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2
Geology 1/4 1/5 1/3 1/2 1
Sum of all 2.416 5.033 5.833 9.5 15
Each entity’s division by the total sum of their column in the preference matrix gave the normalized matrix (Table 4).
Where the weights calculated using formulas given as. Average = (sum of each row)/5. Weights used in overlay
analysis = (average) × 100.

Table 4. Normalized matrix.

Criteria Stream Order Slope DEM Land Cover Geology Average Weight
Stream order 0.413 0.596 0.342 0.316 0.267 0.39 39
Slope 0.138 0.199 0.342 0.316 0.333 0.27 27
DEM 0.206 0.099 0.171 0.210 0.2 0.18 18
Land cover 0.138 0.066 0.086 0.105 0.133 0.10 10
Geology 0.113 0.093 0.056 0.052 0.067 0.06 6

The pairwise comparison of each criterion with the other is the most crucial step of this study.
Therefore, the judgment of the appropriate values for each criterion is critical. In this regard,
we considered some knowledge from the literature [9,13,16] and interviewed relevant filed (GIS,
geology, geography and hydrology) experts individually to discuss each criterion’s importance over the
other. Eight experts were interviewed using the individual judgment method, two experts per field. [37].
The numeric values used for judgments were taken from Table 2. A questionnaire was used to simplify
the process, the same as the preference table (Table 3). The geometric mean are shown in Table 3,
the final values assigned to each criterion [37]. According to our study, stream order obtained the
highest importance, and slope, and elevation received moderate values. Where geology mostly consists
of igneous geological formations, therefore, it obtained the lowest value.
Finally, the preference matrix (Table 3) is generated according to Table 2 with the literature and
expert opinions. The scale values are used from equal importance to strong importance (Table 2),
having numerical values of 1 to 5. The reason to keep the scale value up to 5 is that we used the same
scale value 1 to 5 in the weighted overlay analysis tool; thus, we made the scales as close as possible.

Consistency Ratio
The validity of the calculated weights is given by the evaluation using a numerical index called
the consistency ratio “CR” Equation (1). The CR is defined as the ratio between the consistency index
Water 2020, 12, 3249 11 of 19

“CI” and Random Index “RI”. CI is given by Equation (2), where RI is the standard value (Table 5)
according to the number of criteria used in various research activities [17].

CR = CI/RI (1)

Table 5. Consistency indices for a randomly generated matrix.

Number of Criteria (n) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

RI 0 0.52 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41

CI is given.
CI = λmax − n/n − 1 (2)

where λmax (Table 6) is the product between the column-wise sum in pairwise comparison matrix and
the average weights from the normalized matrix and “n” is the number of criteria used in the AHP.

Table 6. Calculation of consistency index (CI).

Column Wise Sum of Criteria Criteria Average Product of Both Columns

2.416 0.39 0.94
5.033 0.27 1.35
5.833 0.18 1.04
9.5 0.10 0.95
15 0.06 0.9
λmax = 5.18

The resulting CR value is 0.04 that is acceptable. CR exceeding 0.1 is not reliable, and the entire
exercise starts again unless the resulting value is less than 0.1. CR proves our measured matrix of
preferences, and the estimated weights are trustworthy.

2.8. Overlay Analysis

Aggregation of all criterion layers is performed to find suitability maps using a weighted overlay
tool in the ArcGIS. Weights from Tables 1 and 4 are assigned to “scale value” and “influence%” options
in the tool, respectively. All the raster layers with 30 m × 30 m spatial resolution with their calculated
weights are input. Firstly, overlay analysis included stream order itself. Secondly, the Euclidean
distance layer is used as a reciprocal of stream order.

2.9. Proposed Dam Sites and Evaluation

To evaluate and study the profile of proposed dam sites, nine parameters, including 3D surface
area, 2D surface area, max. volume, elevation of dam base, the elevation of dam surface, dam height,
dam width, catchment area, and contour closeness, are used. Contours are generated with a difference
of 25 m from the DEM. A triangulated irregular network (TIN) was created using the contours to
find 3D surface area and Volume. 3D The analyst tool in ArcGIS is used to find out the cross-section
(height and width), which also exemplifies graphical representation. Hydrological tools are applied for
measuring the catchment area.

3. Results

3.1. Suitability Maps and Stream Importance

The results have shown two different suitability maps for dam sites named as “suitability on
stream” (Figure 10a) and “overall suitability” (Figure 10b). There are four classes as “High, moderate,
less, and least suitable” in both maps.
 best suitable area, e.g., lower reaches with a more suitable slope. The first map, considering all
parameters on streams and its surroundings, is more considerable and has shown results in the
basin’s upper reaches. The upper reaches are also appropriate for achieving multi-purposes, i.e.,
agriculture usage, flood control, hydropower, etc. Lower reaches having more settlements and high
flood
Water 2020,risk zone [38]. Therefore, suitability on stream gave better results as compared to overall
12, 3249 12 of 19
suitability.

Figure 10. Suitability maps: (a) suitability on stream (b) overall suitability.
Figure 10. Suitability maps: (a) suitability on stream (b) overall suitability.
The first map was obtained by including stream order in overlay analysis as a reclassified raster
layer with a pixel size as other layers, i.e., 30 m × 30 m. Here, the highest weight was given to the
stream order with a pixel size of 30 m. Thus, the analysis picked the suitable pixels on the streams,
but at the same time, the surrounding area was also considered as other layers, i.e., slope, elevation,
LULC, and geology.
The second map was obtained by including the Euclidean distance layer as a reciprocal of the
stream order layer in the analysis. In the Euclidean distance reclassified layer, the distance from the
streams was classified into four classes, and all other parameters included were the same as in the first
map. Unlike the first resultant map, suitability zones were found all over the study area, including the
areas with no streams, but for the dam construction, the availability of water is a vital necessity.
The second resultant map showed a huge suitable area in the lower reaches where the stream order
was very low. There is no doubt that it might have considered all other parameters to find the best
suitable area, e.g., lower reaches with a more suitable slope. The first map, considering all parameters
on streams and its surroundings, is more considerable and has shown results in the basin’s upper
reaches. The upper reaches are also appropriate for achieving multi-purposes, i.e., agriculture usage,
flood control, hydropower, etc. Lower reaches having more settlements and high flood risk zone [38].
Therefore, suitability on stream gave better results as compared to overall suitability.

3.2. Multi-Purpose Proposed Dam Sites

Two dam sites have been proposed based on the first results, suitability on stream. While considering
both suitability maps, five other sites were tested, out of which four sites in the lower reaches selected
for the test based on the second resultant map, overall suitability. All the five sites could not pass the
evaluation criteria to propose the sites, and were therefore named “unsatisfactory sites.” There are
negative results for unsatisfactory sites such as no V-shaped valley to construct a dam wall, low stream
order, small catchment area, settlements, etc. In proposed sites, Dam site 1 is mainly in the highly
 3.2. Multi-Purpose Proposed Dam Sites
Two dam sites have been proposed based on the first results, suitability on stream. While
considering both suitability maps, five other sites were tested, out of which four sites in the lower
reaches selected for the test based on the second resultant map, overall suitability. All the five sites
could not pass the evaluation criteria to propose the sites, and were therefore named
Water 2020, 12, 3249 13 of 19
“unsatisfactory sites.” There are negative results for unsatisfactory sites such as no V-shaped valley
to construct a dam wall, low stream order, small catchment area, settlements, etc. In proposed sites,
Dam site
suitable zone 1 for
is mainly in the highly
dam construction, suitable
where Damzone
site 2for
liesdam construction,
between high andwhere Damsuitable
moderate site 2 lies
zone
between
based high andonmoderate
on suitability suitable
stream (Figure 11).zone
Bothbased
sites on
weresuitability
evaluated on stream (Figure
based on 11). Both sites
the evaluation were
parameters,
evaluated
which based onin
are discussed thethe
evaluation parameters, which are discussed in the next section.
next section.

Figure
Figure11. Proposeddam
11. Proposed damsites
sites
(a) (a)
damdam
sitessites
with with suitability
suitability on stream
on stream (b) dam(b) dam
sites withsites with
overall
overall suitability.
suitability.

3.3.
3.3.Evaluation
EvaluationofofProposed
ProposedDam
DamSites
Sites
The
Theproposed
proposed sites are are
sites evaluated
evaluated based on the
based onparameters listed listed
the parameters in Table in7,Table
and their
7, andvisualized
their
form is shown in figures (Figures 12–15). In Table 7, the values of the essential
visualized form is shown in figures (Figures 12–15). In Table 7, the values of the essential parameters are also
shown for both the proposed dam sites. Site 1 is on the stream of the larger highest
parameters are also shown for both the proposed dam sites. Site 1 is on the stream of the larger order (stream order
5),highest
which order
also has a larger
(stream catchment
order 5), which area (Figure
also has a 12) as compared
larger catchment to site(Figure
area 2 where 12)the
as stream
comparedorder
to is
4 (Figure 14). the
site 2 where Volumetrically,
stream ordersiteis 4 2(Figure
is more extensive,
14). which is
Volumetrically, also
site 2 iseconomically
more extensive, more suitable
which is alsofor
constructing
economically themore
damsuitable
wall as for
a cross-section
constructing (Figure
the dam15) showing
wall less width than
as a cross-section (Figuresite15)
2 (Figure
showing 13).
less
Site width
1 lies than
in the site 2 zone
moderate (Figure 13). Site
of geology, 1 lies
where in the moderate
metasedimentary rock zone
existsof (Dirgeology, where
metasediments).
Dirmetasedimentary
metasediments rock exists (Dir
are mostly metasediments).
composed of slates but Diraremetasediments
strong enough aretomostly composed
resist the of
water from
slates but are strong enough to resist the water from percolation.
percolation. Site 2 lies in the high zone of geology consisting of volcanic rocks. Site 2 lies in the high zone of
geology consisting of volcanic rocks.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 14 of 19
Water
Water 2020,
2020, 12,
12, xx 14
14 of
of 19
19

Figure 12.
12. Evaluation
Figure 12. Evaluation parameters
Evaluation parameters for
parameters for Dam
Dam site 1: (a)
site 1: (a) catchment
catchment area
catchment area (b)
(b) elevation
elevation (c) triangulated
(c) triangulated
triangulated
irregular network (TIN) (d) slope (e) contours
contours (f)
(f) LULC
LULC (g)
(g) 3D
3D view.
view.
irregular network (TIN) (d) slope (e) contours (f) LULC (g) 3D view.

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Cross-section
Figure 13. Cross-section area
Cross-section area of
area of Dam
of Dam site
Dam site 1.
site 1.
1.
Water 2020, 12, x 15 of 19
Water 2020, 12, 3249 15 of 19
Water 2020, 12, x 15 of 19

Figure
Figure14.14.
Evaluation
Evaluation parameters
parameters for
parametersfor Dam
forDam site
site2:2:
Damsite (a)
2:(a) catchment
(a)catchment area
catchmentarea
area (b)
(b) elevation
elevation
(b) (c)
(c)(c)
elevation TINTIN
TIN(d)(d) slope
slope
(d) slope(e)
(e) contours
contours
(e) (f)(f)
(f) LULC
contours LULC(g) (g)
LULC 3D(g)3D
3Dview.
view.
view.

Figure 15. Cross-section area of Dam site 2.

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Cross-section
Cross-section area
area of
of Dam
Dam site
site 2.
2.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 16 of 19

Table 7. Evaluation and essential parameters of dam sites.

S.No Evaluation Parameters Dam 1 Dam 2 Essential Parameters Dam 1 Dam 2

1 3D Surface area (m2 ) 8,186,840.85 12,589,480.68 Barren 23.74 25.90
2 2D surface area (m2 ) 7,468,419.79 11,132,673.38 Agriculture 46.25 35.75
3 Max volume (m3 ) 572,532,394.56 1,127,977,779.13 LULC in % Forest 13.53 18.88
4 Elevation of base (m) 1312–1428 1472–1570 Settlement 15.24 18.52
5 Elevation of surface (m) 1500 1700 Water 1.24 0.95
6 Dam height (m) 188 228 Stream order 5 4
7 Dam width (m) 750 650 Slope (degree) <15 <15
8 Catchment area (km) 1742.06 1451.6 Average elevation (m) 1423 1598
Between moderate
9 Contour closeness High Very high Geological stability High
and high

4. Discussion
In this study, hydro-meteorological, geological, land cover, and geo-morphometric characteristics
are analyzed of the Panjkora River Basin and suitable sites for construction of multi-purpose dams.
This study involved the essential parameters for dam suitability analysis and evaluation parameters
for evaluating the proposed dam sites. Among the essential parameters of the model, stream order is
crucial to ensure enough water availability that can be stored by the dam for many purposes. This study
systemized the entire location analysis process by developing the dam suitability stream model (DSSM)
by utilizing GIS, RS, and AHP, while enhancing the findings’ accuracy.
The model gave two types of suitability map, which were further analyzed, and we proposed
two final dam sites. The proposed dam sites are in the upper reaches that fulfil the multi-purpose.
Lower reaches consist of more settlements, e.g., Timergara is the central city in the lower reaches.
As every river consists of the population living near the river, which is essential for life, but dam
sites can also provide different benefits to the area, e.g., fishing industry, use of water for the marble
industry, etc. Moreover, lower reaches are also a high flood hazard zone [38]. In 2010, a destructive
flood disaster caused many deaths and economic losses, especially in the lower reaches. Therefore,
the construction of these sites will prove to reduce flood disasters. Another advantage is the provision
of water in the lower regions for agricultural production. The selection of these sites is considered the
dam’s purposes, and all the parameters are analyzed to obtain the best possible area and conditions.
However, some parameters have not been taken into account that can influence the site suitability
performance, such as economic performance, site accessibility, etc. The developed technique
can be utilized alongside traditional approaches to ascertain new dam construction locations to
increase efficiency and save time and resources. Future research can focus on high-resolution DEM,
high-resolution satellite and aerial images, and advanced methods such as machine learning and deep
learning to retrieve the model’s parameters in order to strengthen the model’s accuracy.

5. Conclusions
A new model DSSM is being proposed in the current study based on integrating GIS, remote sensing,
and AHP to spot a feasible site for constructing a multi-purpose dam in the Panjkora Basin, northwest of
Pakistan. The selection of sites for multi-purpose dams involves several factors. Therefore, DSSM can
utilize all factors combined with streams and their order in an efficient way to solve this problem.
DSSM uses AHP to assign weights for each criterion, where the highest weight is given to the most
crucial parameter of the DSSM model, named as stream order.
Overlay analysis aggregates all the essential parameters in the form of raster maps with their
concern calculated weights that resulted in the suitability maps. The results showed two types of
suitability map, i.e., “suitability on stream” and “overall suitability” based on stream order and
Euclidean distance (distance from streams), respectively. Each of the maps showed four suitability
classes (highly suitable, moderately suitable, less suitable and least suitable). Two sites were proposed
based on the first suitability map for multi-purpose dam construction, and each site is evaluated in a
GIS environment using evaluation parameters.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 17 of 19

The proposed sites are feasibly located where the whole region of the Panjkora river basin will
yield multi-benefits such as flood reduction, water for agriculture, fish industry, and hydropower
generation. Developing countries like Pakistan badly need such initiatives where an extensive amount
of water is being wasted and causes disasters.
For further studies, it is recommended that high-resolution datasets will increase the accuracy
of the study. Other parameters with streams and their order can also be included to improve model
efficiency, depending on the area and analysis conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.S., Z.J. and Q.M.Y.; Methodology and software, Z.S., Z.J., Q.M.Y.;
Formal analysis, Z.S., Z.J., Q.M.Y.; Hydrological assessment. Z.J., Q.M.Y. and S.M.; Writing—Original draft
preparation, Z.J., Q.M.Y.; review and editing, Z.S., A.-u.-R.; S.M.; Supervision, Z.S., A.-u.-R.; All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Key R&D plan on strategic international scientific and
technological innovation cooperation special project under Grant 2016YFE0202300, the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grants 41771452, 41771454, and 41890820, the Natural Science Fund of Hubei Province
in China under Grant 2018CFA007.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thanks the anonymous reviewers for their hard work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yasser, M.; Jahangir, K.; Mohmmad, A. Earth dam site selection using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP):
A case study in the west of Iran. Arab. J. Geosci. 2013, 6, 3417–3426. [CrossRef]
2. Ledec, G.; Quintero, J.D. Good dams and bad dams: Environmental criteria for site selection of hydroelectric
projects. In Latin America and Caribbean Region Sustainable Development Working Paper; No. 16; World Bank
Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; p. 21.
3. Ramakrishnan, D.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Kusuma, K.N. SCS-CN and GIS-based approach for identifying
potential water harvesting sites in the Kali Watershed, Mahi River Basin, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009,
118, 355–368. [CrossRef]
4. Wen, Z.; Yang, H.; Zhang, C.; Shao, G.; Wu, S. Remotely sensed mid-channel bar dynamics in downstream of
the three Gorges Dam, China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 409. [CrossRef]
5. Zhou, Y.; Ma, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Feng, L.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, K.; Brookes, J.D.; Jeppesen, E. Influence of the
three Gorges Reservoir on the shrinkage of China’s two largest freshwater lakes. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2019,
177, 45–55. [CrossRef]
6. Niu, R.; Zhang, L.; Shao, Z.; Cheng, Q. Web-based geological hazard monitoring in the three gorges area of
China. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 73, 709–719. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, Y.; Hu, R.; Lu, W.; Li, D.; Zhou, C. Modeling coupled processes of non-steady seepage flow and
non-linear deformation for a concrete-faced rockfill dam. Comput. Struct. 2011, 89, 1333–1351. [CrossRef]
8. Araujo, A.S.R.; Ribeiro, M.F.M.; Enzveiler, A.; Schenkel, P.; Fernandes, T.R.G.; Partata, W.A.; Irigoyen, M.C.;
Llesuy, S.; Belló-Klein, A. Myocardial antioxidant enzyme activities and concentration and glutathione
metabolism in experimental hyperthyroidism. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2006, 249, 133–139. [CrossRef]
9. Dai, X. Dam Site Selection Using an Integrated Method of AHP and GIS for Decision Making Support in
Bortala, Northwest China. Master’s Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2016.
10. Ali, K.; Bajracharyar, R.M.; Raut, N. Advances and Challenges in Flash Flood Risk Assessment: A Review.
J. Geogr. Nat. Disasters 2017, 7. [CrossRef]
11. Hecht, J.S.; Lacombe, G.; Arias, M.E.; Dang, T.D.; Piman, T. Hydropower dams of the Mekong River basin:
A review of their hydrological impacts. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 285–300. [CrossRef]
12. Bizzi, S.; Pianosi, F.; Soncini-Sessa, R. Valuing hydrological alteration in multi-objective water resources
management. J. Hydrol. 2012, 472–473, 277–286. [CrossRef]
13. Iftikhar, S.; Hassan, Z.; Shabbir, R. Site Suitability Analysis for Small Multipurpose Dams Using Geospatial
Technologies. J. Remote Sens. GIS 2016, 5. [CrossRef]
14. Bouman, B.A.M. A conceptual framework for the improvement of crop water productivity at different spatial
scales. Agric. Syst. 2007, 93, 43–60. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 3249 18 of 19

15. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.D.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making
techniques and their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Istraz. 2015,
28, 516–571. [CrossRef]
16. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26.
[CrossRef]
17. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sci. Iran. 2002, 9, 215–229. [CrossRef]
18. Estoque, R.C. Analytic hierarchy process in geo-spatial analysis. In Progress in Geospatial Analysis; Springer:
Berlin, Germany, 2012; ISBN 9784431540007.
19. Padmavathy, A.S.; Ganesha Raj, K.; Yogarajan, N.; Thangavel, P.; Chandrasekhar, M.G. Checkdam site
selection using GIS approach. Adv. Sp. Res. 1993, 13, 123–127. [CrossRef]
20. Salih, S.A.; Al-Tarif, A.S.M. Using of GIS Spatial Analyses to Study the Selected Location for Dam Reservoir
on Wadi Al-Jirnaf, West of Shirqat Area, Iraq. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2012, 4, 117–127. [CrossRef]
21. Yi, C.S.; Lee, J.H.; Shim, M.P. Site location analysis for small hydropower using geo-spatial information
system. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 852–861. [CrossRef]
22. Larentis, D.G.; Collischonn, W.; Olivera, F.; Tucci, C.E.M. Gis-based procedures for hydropower potential
spotting. Energy 2010, 35, 4237–4243. [CrossRef]
23. Forzieri, G.; Gardenti, M.; Caparrini, F.; Castelli, F. A methodology for the pre-selection of suitable sites for
surface and underground small dams in arid areas: A case study in the region of Kidal, Mali. Phys. Chem. Earth
2008, 33, 74–85. [CrossRef]
24. Saleh Alatawi, E.A. Dam Site Selection Using Remote Sensing Techniques and Geographical Information
System to Control Flood Events in Tabuk City. J. Waste Water Treat. Anal. 2015, 6. [CrossRef]
25. Baban, S.M.J.; Wan-Yusof, K. Modelling optimum sites for locating reservoirs in tropical environments.
Water Resour. Manag. 2003, 17, 1–17. [CrossRef]
26. Bui, Q.B. Locating suitable dam site along the tien yen river, quang ninh province by employing GIS and
multi-criteria analysis. In Proceedings of the 31st Asian Conference on Remote Sensing 2010, ACRS 2010,
Hanoi, Vietnam, 1–5 November 2010; Volume 1, pp. 358–373.
27. Jamali, I.A.; Mörtberg, U.; Olofsson, B.; Shafique, M. A Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach for Locating
Suitable Sites for Construction of Subsurface Dams in Northern Pakistan. Water Resour. Manag. 2014,
28, 5157–5174. [CrossRef]
28. Singh, J.P.; Singh, D.; Litoria, P.K. Selection of suitable sites for water harvesting structures in Soankhad
watershed, Punjab using remote sensing and geographical information system (RS&GIS) approach—A case
study. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2009, 37, 21–35. [CrossRef]
29. Auden, J.B.; Dichter, D. The North-West Frontier of West Pakistan: A Study in Regional Geography; Clarendon
Press: Oxford, UK, 1969; Volume 135, p. 94.
30. Mahmood, S.; Khan, A.u.H.; Mayo, S.M. Exploring underlying causes and assessing damages of 2010 flash
flood in the upper zone of Panjkora River. Nat. Hazards 2016, 83, 1213–1227. [CrossRef]
31. Mahmood, S.; Khan, A.u.H.; Ullah, S. Assessment of 2010 flash flood causes and associated damages in Dir
Valley, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 16, 215–223. [CrossRef]
32. Khan, A.; Richards, K.S.; Parker, G.T.; McRobie, A.; Mukhopadhyay, B. How large is the Upper Indus Basin?
The pitfalls of auto-delineation using DEMs. J. Hydrol. 2014, 509, 442–453. [CrossRef]
33. Strahler, A.N. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1957,
38, 913–920. [CrossRef]
34. Lashkaripour, G.R.; Ghafoori, M. The engineering geology of the Tabarak Abad Dam. Eng. Geol. 2002,
66, 233–239. [CrossRef]
35. Tang, D.; Li, D.Q.; Cao, Z.J. Slope stability analysis in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area considering effect of
antecedent rainfall. Georisk 2017, 11, 161–172. [CrossRef]
36. Saaty, T.L. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; MacGraw-Hill Co.:
New York, NY, USA, 1980.
Water 2020, 12, 3249 19 of 19

37. Saaty, T.L. Group Decision Making and the AHP. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 1989.
38. Mahmood, S.; Rahman, A.u. Flash flood susceptibility modeling using geo-morphometric and hydrological
approaches in Panjkora Basin, Eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).