Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01618-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Land suitability assessment for surface irrigation development

at Ethiopian highlands using geospatial technology
Yonas Gebresilasie Hagos1,2 · Mequanent Abathun Mengie1 · Tesfa Gebrie Andualem2,5 · Mesenbet Yibeltal3,6 ·
Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh4 · Diress Yigezu Tenagashaw2 · Guna Hewa5

Received: 6 December 2021 / Accepted: 7 March 2022 / Published online: 4 April 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Irrigation development necessitates suitable lands for higher yield production and the development of long-term irriga-
tion systems. The purpose of this research was to identify appropriate irrigation lands for irrigation in the Minch Yekest
watershed in West Amhara, Ethiopia. Geospatial and multi-criteria decision-making techniques were used in this study. For
land suitability analysis for surface irrigation, slope, land use, altitude, distance from the water source, soil characteristics,
and available water storage capacity parameters were used. To find the best location for surface irrigation, the values were
weighted and combined using the weighted overlay tool. The irrigation land suitability of each physical land parameter
was classified into four suitability classes (S1, S2, S3, and N) based on the Food and Agricultural Organization guideline.
According to the findings, 63% of the watershed area is highly suitable, 6.25% is moderately suitable, 28.69% is marginally
suitable, and 2.06% is not suitable for the aforementioned purposes. The methodological approach and study findings could
help policymakers make better decisions when developing irrigation projects in Ethiopia.

Keywords Ethiopia · GIS · Land suitability · Surface irrigation · Multi-criteria decision

Introduction optimal use of land for higher production and profit. This
entails making decisions about how to use land resources.
The use of land resources is becoming more common in Irrigated land produces approximately 40% of the world's
order to fulfill the needs of the world's rising population. agricultural output (Albaji et al. 2008), but only 6 million
The urgent need for land resource optimization is required ha (4%) of Sub-Saharan Africa's total cultivated area is irri-
to meet rising food demand and resource utilization trends gated (Kadigi et al. 2019). According to the World Bank's
(Kutter et al. 1997). The primary goal of land use planning, collection of development indicators compiled from offi-
according to the UN report (FAO 1993), is to achieve the cially recognized sources, Ethiopia's agricultural irrigated
land was 2.0807 percent in 2018. Crop production increases
* Tesfa Gebrie Andualem irrigable land for long-term production, maximizing irriga-
[email protected] tion practice (English et al. 2002).
Land evaluation for irrigation suitability was concerned
1
Irrigation, Drainage and Flood Control Sector, Ethiopian with overall land performances, including landforms, cli-
Construction Design and Supervision Works Corporation,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia mate, vegetation, and soils, for assessing land productivity
2 when the land is used for specified purposes under a speci-
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering,
Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia fied management system (SYS et al. 1991; Davidson 1992;
3 FAO 2007). The evaluation of land suitability is critical in
School of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, Bahir Dar
Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia sustaining and developing land use on a spatial scale. It is
4 used to identify geographical patterns and levels of bio-
Thuyloi University, 175 Tay Son, Dong Da, Hanoi, Vietnam
physical factors, as well as to assess the potential capacity
5
UniSA-STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, of land and its long-term use for irrigation. The suitability
SA 5000, Australia
analysis leads to effective resource management through
6
Department of Environmental and Energy Engineering, sound policies and planning, which improves the long-term
Yonsei University, Wonju 26493, Republic of Korea

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
98 Page 2 of 11 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98

management of the land resource. As a result, evaluating It is located between 10° 25′ 19″ and 10° 28′ 17″ North and
land resources is critical for agricultural development plan- 37° 18′ 13″ and 37° 23′ 58″ East (Fig. 1). The study area's
ning (Ashraf and Normohammadan 2011). In contrast, altitude ranges from 1671 to 2132 m.a.s.l. and the range of
unorganized use of natural resource scarcity, land resource slope from 0 to 220 percent. The mean annual minimum
obliteration, and associated socioeconomic issues occur as and maximum air temperatures in the area are 10.3 °C and
a result of inappropriate land use. Because land evaluation 20.1 °C, respectively. In the study region, the mean annual
promotes rational land use planning and the appropriate and rainfall varies between 900 and 1800 mm.
sustainable use of natural resources, it is an important aspect The major soil types of the Minch Yekest catchment are
of the solution to the land-use problem. Lithic Leptosols and Humic Nitisols, with Lithic Leptosols
Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDA) methods (clay loam) occurring in the upper part of the catchment
include the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1980), covering an area of 1018.83 ha and Humic Nitisols (clay) is
Topsis (Chen 2000), Electre (Tzeng and Huang 2011), and occurring in the lower part of the catchment covering an area
Grey theory (zcan et al. 2011). AHP is an MCDA method of 2302.61 ha. Farmland, grassland, forest land, and shrub
used for assessing and analyzing land-use suitability. AHP land cover 1530.27 ha, 59.30 ha, 1528.56 ha, and 203.31 ha
entails multiple selections within a hierarchical system based of the Minch Yekest watershed, respectively. Farmers' main
on the significance and weight of the parameters in com- crops include wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), maize (Zea
parison with one another (Saaty 1980). It is critical to use mays L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and teff (Eragrostis tef).
a hierarchical approach to develop a specific relationship
between a large numbers of criteria. The system uses scoring
and a pair-wise comparison matrix to determine the relative Data collection
significance of factors on a level. For assessing land suit-
ability, an integrated approach of remote sensing (RS), Geo- To achieve the study's objectives, various data inputs
graphical Information System (GIS), and MCDA techniques (Table 1) were gathered from the study area and various
was used (Negash and Seleshi 2004). Several researchers sources, including land use data from Ethiopia's Ministry
(Joerin et al. 2001; Cengiz and Akbulak 2009; Mustafa et al. of Water, Irrigation, and Energy, meteorological data from
2011; Adhikary et al. 2015; Worqlul et al. 2015; Zolekar the National Meteorological Agency (NMA), ASTER DEM
and Bhagat 2015; Aldababseh et al. 2018) have used GIS downloaded from the USGS website, and soil data obtained
to create land suitability maps in their research areas. The from the website of the Harmonized World Soil Database
land suitability evaluation is critical in developing a land-use (HWSD) (Nachtergaele et al. 2010). Following the collection
map based on irrigation potential on a spatial basis (Diallo of data, additional analysis is carried out. To complete the
et al. 2016). The irrigation potential can be assessed by investigation efficiently, ArcGIS 10.3.1, Excel, and ERDAS
incorporating Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in the Arc- Imagine 2014 were used.
GIS environment and employing the weight overlay rule
(Hussien et al. 2019; Gurara 2020; Chen et al. 2010). The
assessment of land suitability for irrigation is critical for Data analysis
designing and implementing worthwhile irrigation projects
and increasing agricultural production. So far, no research The necessary information was acquired from multiple
has been conducted in this area to determine whether the sources, and the potential suitability of the area for surface
land is suitable for surface irrigation. As a result, the main irrigation was determined using the ArcGIS Spatial Ana-
objective of this study was to determine the suitability of lyst Toolbox's Weighted Overlay tool, which is based on
land for surface irrigation by considering various factors Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.
based on their influence on surface irrigation development The major factors were developed and weighted to deter-
such as slope, altitude, soil texture, soil drainage, soil depth, mine land suitability (Ceballos-Silva and López-Blanco
available water storage capacity, land use/land cover, and 2003; Hamere and Teshome 2018). The key irrigation suit-
distance from water sources. ability criteria (Table 2) addressed during this study were
slope, altitude, soil texture, soil drainage, soil depth, avail-
able water storage capacity, land use/land cover, and distance
Materials and methods from water sources (Girma et al. 2020; Kassaye et al. 2019;
Yohannes and Soromessa 2018; Yalew et al. 2016; Bagher-
Description of the study area zadeh and Gholizadeh 2016; Pramanik 2016). Finally, using
the Weighted Overlay tool of the Spatial Analyst Toolbox
The research was carried out in the West Amhara Region's in the ArcGIS 10.3.1 environment, the reclassified and
Minch Yekest catchment, covering a total area of 3321.44 ha.

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98 Page 3 of 11 98

Fig. 1  depicts the location of the research area

Table 1  Sources of data

Data type Original Spatial resolution Source of data Derived map
sources format

Soil map Vector 1:250,000 MoWIE/HWSD V: 1.2 Soil texture, soil drainage, soil depth and avail-
able water storage capacity
DEM Raster 30 m USGS portal: Slope, altitude and distance from water sources
http://​www.​earth​explo​rer.​usgs.​gov
LULC data Raster 30 m MoWIE Land use/cover
*
DEM: Digital elevation model; LULC: Land use/land cover; MoWIE: Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Energy of Ethiopia; HWSD: Harmo-
nized World Soil Database Version 1.2; NMA: National Meteorological Agency

weighted factor maps are overlaid, and the final irrigation it provides important information about the many con-
suitability map is generated. straints and potential opportunities for land use that are
being investigated based on land capabilities.
Land suitability factors for surface irrigation
Soil
Land suitability classification is the process of evaluat-
ing and classifying specific areas of land based on their Soil is an important factor in determining an area's suit-
suitability for specific uses (FAO 1976). This type of land ability for agriculture and long-term irrigation (Sultan
suitability analysis is crucial for development because 2013; USDIBR 2003). The irrigation suitability of the soil

13
98 Page 4 of 11 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98

Table 2  Studies on land suitability evaluation

Author Methods Crop Criteria

Girma et al. 2020 GIS and AHP General agriculture Land use/land cover, soil, slope, and proximity to water
sources
Kassaye et al. 2020 GIS and AHP General agriculture Soil pH, soil type, soil drainage, soil depth, AWSC, imperme-
able layer, electrical conductivity (ECe), cation-exchange
capacity (CEC), phase, organic carbon, texture classes, an
obstacle to root, land use/land cover, slope, and distance
Nasir et al. 2019 GIS and AHP General agriculture Slope, texture, depth, drainage characteristics, land use/cover,
and distance to the water source
Yohannes and Soromessa 2018 GIS and AHP Barley & Wheat Soil depth, soil texture, soil drainage (permeability), soil
erosion, slope, aspect, altitude fertility and soil chemi-
cal characteristics (pH, cation-exchange capacity (CEC),
electrical conductivity (EC), organic matter (OM), available
phosphorus, total nitrogen, and calcium carbonate), climatic
parameters (temperature and rainfall) and accessibly (dis-
tance from road and water point)
Hailu and Quraishi 2017 GIS and AHP General agriculture Slope, soil texture, depth, drainage characteristics, soil type,
and land use/cover
Yalew et al. 2016 GIS and AHP General agriculture Soil moisture, stoniness, soil group, water resources, eleva-
tion, slope, soil depth, distance from roads
Bagherzadeh and Gholizadeh 2016 Parametric and TOP- Wheat Soil, texture, electrical conductivity (ECe), exchangeable
SIS approaches using sodium percentage (ESP), ­CaCO3, Gravel, Soil depth,
GIS organic carbon (OC), pH, Climate, Slope, Drainage, Flood-
ing, Gypsum
Pramanik 2016 GIS and AHP General agriculture Slope, Elevation, Aspect, land use/ land cover (LULC), Soil
moisture, Drainage, Transport network, Soil characteristics,
Geology
Akıncı et al. 2013 GIS and AHP General agriculture Soil group, land use capability class (LUCS), land use
capability sub-class (LUCSS), soil depth, slope, aspect,
elevation, erosion, other soil properties

was determined using the revised FAO/UNESCO soil map and drainage requirements. The slope of the area was cal-
of the East Africa classification system (FAO 1997; Dent culated using a 20 m resolution DEM and classified into
and Young 1981). Different soil characteristics, such as four groups based on the FAO (1996) and USDIBR (2003)
soil texture, drainage, depth, and available water storage classification systems as 0–2, 2–5, 5–8, and > 8 percent.
capacity (AWSC), were used to determine whether or not
soil was suitable for irrigation (USDIBR 2003). The depth Distance from the water source
of the soil profile from the top to the layer of obstacles for
roots is critical for determining land suitability for irriga- One of the fundamental criteria for determining land suit-
tion. Deep soils are important for anchoring plant nutrients ability for irrigation is the proximity of the water source
and promoting plant growth. (Paul et al. 2020). The distance from the water source was
determined and categorized into three classes using ArcGIS
10.3 (0–0.721 km, 0.721–1.442 km, and 1.442–2.163.5 km).
Topographic factors
Land use/land cover
The study area's topographic features (slope and altitude)
were used to assess land suitability. The altitude was Another important factor used is land use, which was
divided into two classes: 1671–2000 m and 2000–2132 m, obtained from the Ethiopian mapping agency. The primary
with 1596.44 ha (48.06 percent) and 1725.00 ha (51.94 land use types found in the study area are farmland, grass-
percent) coverage, respectively (Table 8). The slope has a land, shrub land, and forest land. Expert judgment was used
direct impact on irrigation methods, erosion susceptibil- to divide the land use classes into four categories of suit-
ity, land development, soil tillage, agricultural machine ability (S1, S2, S3, and N).
use, design of on-farm irrigation systems, plant adaptation,

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98 Page 5 of 11 98

Structure of the land suitability classification highly suitable to not suitable based on the suitability of
land characteristics to various crops. According to FAO
The land suitability classes of the Food and Agricul- (1976, 1983), land suitability maps are divided into two
tural Organization describe the degrees of suitability of categories: suitable (S) and unsuitable (N). Based on their
a given type of land for a specific use (FAO 1976). The benefits and limitations, these orders are further classified
FAO (1976, 2007) proposed a method for evaluating land into three and two classes, respectively: highly suitable
suitability in terms of suitability ratings ranging from (S1), moderately suitable (S2), marginally suitable (S3),

Table 3  Land suitability classification

FAO symbol Suitability Description Land index

Class S1 Highly suitable Land having no significant limitations to the sustained application of a given use, or only 75–100
minor limitations that will not significantly reduce productivity or benefits and will not raise
inputs above an acceptable level
Class S2 Moderately suitable Land having limitations which in the aggregate are moderately severe for sustained applica- 50–75
tion of a given use; the limitations will reduce productivity or benefits and increase required
inputs to the extent that the overall advantage to be gained from the use, although still attrac-
tive, will be appreciably inferior to that expected on Class S1 land
Class S3 Marginally suitable Land having limitations which in the aggregate are severe for sustained application of a given 25–50
use and will so reduce productivity or benefits, or increase required inputs, that this expendi-
ture will be only marginally justified
N Not suitable Land which has qualities that appear to preclude sustained use of the kind under consideration 0–25

Fig. 2  Overall Conceptual Framework used in the study

13
98 Page 6 of 11 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98

temporarily not suitable S4 (N1), and permanently not assigns weights based on three principles: decomposition,
suitable S5 (N2) (Table 3). comparative judgment, and priority synthesis (Eldrandaly
The overall conceptual methodology employed during 2007). AHP was used in the multi-criteria decision-making
study presented in Fig. 2. Table 4 depicts the weights given approach, which constructs a matrix of pairwise compari-
to each of the contributing parameters and its classes. sons between the parameters affecting land suitability for
agricultural purposes. A scale of 1 to 9 is used in AHP to
Weight assignment using the AHP indicate whether the two factors are equally important or
one is more important than the others. Reciprocals of one
The analytical hierarchy process was assigned weights to to nine (1/1 and 1/9) indicate that one is less important than
each contributing factor (AHP). AHP adopted a procedure the other (Table 5).
that identifies and classifying criteria in order to assess the To find the eigenvalues, which represent the parameter
context of the spatial planning decisions (Vogel 2008). AHP weights, a pair-wise comparison of contributing factors was

Table 4  Land suitability factor rating for irrigation

Main factor Sub factor Factor rating Source
S1 S2 S3 N

Topography Slope (%) 0–2 2–5 5–8 >8 Mandal et al. 2018,
USDIBR (2003)
Altitude (m) 2000–3000 1500–2000 3300–3800 < 1500 or > 3800 FAO (1984)
or 3000–3300
Soil Drainage class Well Moderately well Imperfectly Poor Nachtergaele et al.
(2009)
Depth (cm) > 100 (Very deep) 50–100 (Moder- 10–50 (Shallow) < 10 (Very shal- Mandal et al. 2018
ately deep) low)
Texture L–SiCL, C SiL, SCL, CL SL LS, Si–L Nasir et al. (2019)
AWSC (mm/m) > 100 75–100 15–75 < 15 USDIBR (2003)
Distance Euclidian distance 0—721 721—1442 1442—2163 – Equal interval
from water (m)
source
LU/LC LU/LC Farmland Grassland Barren & shrub Constraints (Forest, Yohannes and
land built-up, water, Soromessa,
wetland) (2018)

where, SiL = silty-loam, SCL = silty-clay, LS = loamy-sand, L = loam, SL = sandy-loam,C = clay, CL = clay loam, Si = silt

Table 5  Saaty’s scale in AHP (Saaty 1980)

Importance scale Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderately importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another
5 Strongly more important/Much more important Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
7 Very strongly/Far more important Demonstrated importance an activity is strongly favored and its
dominance demonstrated in practice
9 Extremely more important The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest
possible order of affirmation
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments When compromise is needed
Reciprocals Values for inverse comparison

Table 6  Values of random index n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(RI)
RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98 Page 7 of 11 98

performed and normalized. The random consistency indi- Results and discussion
ces (RI) (Table 6) developed by Saaty (1980) were used to
determine the consistency ratio (CR), which measures the Weight of land suitability parameters
degree of consistency.
Consistency index (CI) computed using the formula For land suitability analysis, the distance from the water
below: source (Euclidian distance), soil depth, and slope were
given the most weight (Table 7). For various reasons, such
𝜆max − n
CI = as access to water and minimizing power consumption for
n−1
the pump, land located closer to water sources (rivers) was
λmax is the largest eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison deemed more suitable for surface irrigation. Soil depth influ-
matrix and n is the number of classes. ences agricultural production by determining the potential
Then, CR is given by the following formula (Saaty 1980): for rooting depth. Surface irrigation was prioritized over
deep soil, and vice versa. Subsurface irrigation was prior-
CI itized in low slope to flat areas, while steep slopes were
CR =
RI deemed unsuitable for surface irrigation.
where RI is ratio index/average value of CI for random Surface irrigation was prioritized in areas with the great-
matrices using Saaty scale. est available water storage capacity (AWSC) (Table 7).
The respective weights of the determinant thematic Surface irrigation was deemed highly and moderately suit-
maps were determined using multi-criteria decision anal- able for clay and clay loam textured soils, respectively. As
ysis (Table 7). Expert knowledge and a review of related a result, in this study, clay textured soil was assigned a high
literature were used to weight the land suitability evalua- relative influence value (Table 8). Weights are assigned
tion factors (Arabameri et al. 2018; Pramanik 2016; Akıncı based on the theme feature's characteristics and its relation-
et al. 2013). The AHP method was used to calculate the ship to irrigation suitability. The geometric mean and nor-
normalized weights of the individual themes and their vari- malized weights were calculated using the weights assigned
ous layers. The pairs of criteria Ci (in the row) and Cj (in the to each feature and a pairwise comparison of the feature
column) were considered based on the following criteria: (1) classes.
which criterion was more important, Ci or Cj, and (2) how
much the said criterion is more important relative to the less Land and soil characteristics of the watershed
important criterion. The normalized weights were calculated
by dividing each Ci (row value) by the total column value. In this study, approximately 74.81 percent of the area was
The consistency ratio (CR) was determined to be 2.9% which found to be above an 8 percent slope. According to USDIBR
is less than 10%, indicating a reasonable level of consistency (2003) and Mandal et al. (2018), landscapes with 1–2 per-
in the pair-wise comparison. The AHP technique demon- cent slope are 95 percent suitable, 2–5 percent slope are
strated reasonable accuracy and could be used for spatial 90 percent suitable, 5–8 percent slope are 80 percent suit-
land suitability evaluation. able, and more than 8 percent slope are 70 percent suitable
for none terraced slopes. The distance between irrigable

Table 7  Pairwise comparison matrix for assessing the relative relevance of eight factors
Euclidian Depth Slope AWSC Texture Drainage class LU/LC Altitude Average weights Weights (%)
distance

Euclidian distance 1 0.331 33.1

Depth 0.5 1 0.231 23.1
Slope 0.33 0.5 1 0.157 15.7
AWSC 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 0.106 10.6
Texture 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 0.071 7.1
Drainage class 0.17 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 0.048 4.8
LU/LC 0.14 0.17 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 0.033 3.3
Altitude 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 0.024 2.4
CR = 2.9%
Consistency is acceptable

13
98 Page 8 of 11 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98

Table 8  Factors for surface irrigation land suitability assessment

Main factor Criteria Classes Suitability Local Global Area coverage (ha) Area
weight (%) weight (%) coverage
(%)

Topography Slope (%) 0–2 S1 46.7 15.6 87.60 2.64

2–5 S2 27.7 286.96 8.64
5–8 S3 16 462.00 13.91
>8 N 9.5 2484.88 74.81
Altitude (m) 1671–2000 S2 33.3 2.4 1578.80 47.53
2000–2132 S1 66.7 1742.64 52.47
Soil Drainage class Moderately well S2 66.7 4.8 2302.61 69.33
Imperfectly S3 33.3 1018.83 30.67
Depth (cm) 100 S2 75 23.1 2302.61 69.33
10 S3 25 1018.83 30.67
Texture Clay S1 66.7 7.1 2302.61 69.33
Clay loam S2 33.3 1018.83 30.67
AWSC (mm/m) 150 S1 75 10.6 2302.61 69.33
15 S3 25 1018.83 30.67
Distance Euclidian distance (m) 0–721 S1 54 33.1 3029.53 91.21
from water 721–1442 S2 29.7 280.00 8.43
source
1442–2163.5 S3 16.3 11.91 0.36
LU/LC LU/LC Farm land S1 56.4 3.3 1530.27 46.07
Grassland S2 25.8 59.30 1.79
Shrubland S3 10.9 203.31 6.12
Forest land N 6.9 1528.56 46.02

land and rivers in the study area ranges from 0 to 2.16 km. 203.31 ha (6.12%), and 1528.56 ha (46.02%), respectively
Irrigated areas should be as close to rivers or other water (Table 8).
sources as possible. Areas with slopes ranging from 0 to 2% were given
The depth of the soil ranges from 10 to 100 cm. About high weights (S1 class) because they effectively infiltrate
2302.61 ha (69.33%) of the area has a soil depth of water to reach the crop root zone. Areas with slope per-
100 cm with clay texture, while the remaining 1018.83 ha centages greater than 8 were deemed unsuitable because
(30.67%) has a soil depth of 10 cm with clay loam texture they tend to runoff rather than reach the crop root zone
(Table 8). The soil in the study area was moderately well (Fig. 3 and Table 8).
and imperfectly draining. Soil drainage in a specific area
can be classified into four types, according to Nachter- Irrigation land suitability
gaele et al. (2010). These are well, moderately well,
imperfectly well, and poorly drained. Drainage ensures Due to the small Euclidian distance from the water source,
that the soil is aerated properly. Excess or standing water deep soil depth, flat slope, and high available water storage
on the land can choke the crops. According to USDIBR capacity, the upstream and central parts of the area were
(2003), available water storage capacity (AWSC) is found to be highly suitable for surface irrigation on the land
divided into four categories: > 100 mm/m, 75–100 mm/m, suitability map. The northwest parts of the watershed, on the
15–75 mm/m, and 15 mm/m. AWSC of > 100 mm/m and other hand, were found to be unsuitable for surface irriga-
15–75 mm/m are found in approximately 69.33% and tion (Fig. 4). The watershed 2092.59 ha (63.0%), 207.62 ha
30.67% of the study area, respectively (Table 8). (6.25%), 952.83 ha (28.69%), and 68.40 ha (2.06%) were
Farmland, grassland, shrub land, and forest land found to be highly suitable, moderately suitable, marginally
were identified as the area's four land use/land cover suitable, and not suitable, respectively, out of a total area of
classes, covering 1530.27 ha (46.07%), 59.30 ha (1.79%), 3321.44 ha (Table 9 and Fig. 4).

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98 Page 9 of 11 98

Fig. 3  Factors map and degree of suitability to assess the ideal location for surface irrigation: a Distance from water sources, b Soil Depth, c
Slope, d Available water storage capacity, e Soil Texture, f Drainage, g Land use/ land cover, h Altitude

Fig. 4  Land suitability map for

agriculture

13
98 Page 10 of 11 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98

Table 9  The distribution of land suitability classes for agricultural References

purpose in the study area

Suitability Area (ha) Percentage Adhikary PP, Chandrasekharan H, Trivedi SM, Dash CJ (2015) GIS
applicability to assess spatio-temporal variation of groundwa-
Highly suitable (S1) 2092.59 63.00 ter quality and sustainable use for irrigation. Arab J Geosci
Moderate suitable (S2) 207.62 6.25 8(5):2699–2711
Akıncı H, Özalp AY, Turgut B (2013) Agricultural land use suit-
Marginally suitable (S3) 952.83 28.69 ability analysis using GIS and AHP technique. Comput Electron
Not suitable (N) 68.40 2.06 Agric 97:71–82
Total 3321.44 100 Albaji M, Landi A, Boroomand Nasab S, Moravej K (2008) Land
suitability evaluation for surface and drip irrigation in Shavoor
Plain Iran. J Appl Sci 8(4):654–659
Aldababseh A, Temimi M, Maghelal P, Branch O, Wulfmeyer V
(2018) Multi-criteria evaluation of irrigated agriculture suit-
Conclusion ability to achieve food security in an arid environment. Sustain-
ability 10(3):803
The land suitability analysis for irrigation is critical for irri- Arabameri A, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaei K (2018) Iden-
gation development and future planning. The assessment of tification of erosion-prone areas using different multi-criteria
decision-making techniques and GIS. Geomat Nat Haz Risk
land suitability for surface irrigation aids in decision-making
9(1):1129–1155
and agricultural development planning. Using different the- Ashraf S, Normohammadan B (2011) Comparing FAO methods to
matic maps, remote sensing and GIS were integrated with estimate wheat productivity potential in Damghan plain of Iran.
the AHP for evaluating land suitability in the study area. World Appl Sci J 13(8):1787–1792
Bagherzadeh A, Gholizadeh A (2016) Modeling land suitability
The weights of thematic layers were assigned based on their
evaluation for wheat production by parametric and TOPSIS
land suitability characteristics, then they were overlaid and approaches using GIS, northeast of Iran. Model Earth Syst
integrated for surface irrigation. According to the data, about Environ 2(3):1–11
63% of the entire land is extremely suitable, indicating the Ceballos-Silva A, Lopez-Blanco J (2003) Delineation of suitable areas
for crops using a multi-criteria evaluation approach and land
possibility of agricultural and irrigation project develop- use/cover mapping: a case study in Central Mexico. Agric Syst
ment. This suggested that large area coverage could be used 77(2):117–136
for small and medium-scale irrigation projects. This method- Cengiz T, Akbulak C (2009) Application of analytical hierarchy pro-
ology, along with additional and modified parameters, can be cess and geographic information systems in land-use suitability
evaluation: a case study of Dümrek village (Çanakkale, Turkey).
used in future studies in various parts of the country. Before Int J Sust Dev World 16(4):286–294
designing and constructing irrigation projects, development Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making
agents and policymakers could use this technique of suit- under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9
ability analysis. Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-
criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ
Model Softw 25(12):1582–1591
Davidson DA (1992) The evaluation of land resources. Longman Sci-
Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. entific and Technical, UK
Dent D, Young A (1981) Soil survey and land evaluation. George Allen
Declarations & Unwin, Australia
Diallo MD, Wood SA, Diallo A, Mahatma-Saleh M, Ndiaye O, Tine
AK, Guisse A (2016) Soil suitability for the production of rice,
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
groundnut, and cassava in the peri-urban Niayes zone, Senegal.
interest.
Soil Tillage Res 155:412–420
Eldrandaly K (2007) Expert systems, GIS, and spatial decision mak-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- ing: current practices and new trends. Expert Syst Res Trends
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 8:207–228
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long English MJ, Solomon KH, Hoffman GJ (2002) A paradigm shift in
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, irrigation management. J Irrig Drain Eng 128(5):267–277
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes FAO (1996) An interactive multi-criteria analysis for land resource
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are appraisal. Italy, Rome
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated FAO (1976) Food and agricultural organization of the United Nations:
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in a framework for land evaluation. Soils Bulletin Rome, Rome
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not FAO (1983) Guidelines for the preparation of irrigation and drainage
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will projects. Revised version
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a FAO (1984) Land evaluation: technical report 5, Part III. Crop envi-
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. ronmental requirements; Report prepared for the Government
of Ethiopia by FAO acting as executing agency for the UNDP,
Rome, Italy
FAO (1993) Guidelines for land use planning; FAO development series
1. FAO: Rome, Italy, p 96

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:98 Page 11 of 11 98

FAO (1997) Irrigation potential in Africa: a basin approach. FAO Land Negash W, Seleshi B (2004) GIS based irrigation suitability analysis.
and Water Bulletin 4 J Water Sci Technol 8:55–61
FAO (2007) Land evaluation. Rome Paul M, Negahban-Azar M, Shirmohammadi A, Montas H (2020)
Girma R, Gebre E, Tadesse T (2020) Land suitability evaluation for Assessment of agricultural land suitability for irrigation with
surface irrigation using spatial information technology in Omo- reclaimed water using geospatial multi-criteria decision analysis.
Gibe River Basin, Southern Ethiopia. Irrig Drain Syst Eng. https://​ Agric Water Manag 231:105987
doi.​org/​10.​37421/​idse.​2020.9.​245 Pramanik MK (2016) Site suitability analysis for agricultural land use
Gurara MA (2020) Evaluation of land suitability for irrigation develop- of Darjeeling district using AHP and GIS techniques. Model Earth
ment and sustainable land management using ArcGIS on Katar Syst Environ 2(2):56
Watershed in Rift Valley Basin, Ethiopia. J Water Resour Ocean Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority
Sci 9(3):56–63 setting, resources allocation. McGraw, New York, p 281
Hailu T, Quraishi S (2017) GIS based surface irrigation suitability Sultan D (2013) Assessment of irrigation land suitability and develop-
assessment and development of map for the low land Gilo Sub- ment of map for the fogera catchment using GIS, South Gondar.
Basin of Gambella. Ethiop Civ Environ Res 9(5):21–27 Asian J Agric Rural Dev 3(1):7–17
Hamere Y, Teshome S (2018) Land suitability assessment for major SYS C, Van Ranst E, and DEBAVEYE J Land evaluation. Part I:
crops by using GIS-based multi-criteria approach in Andit Tid principles in land evaluation and crop production calculations.
watershed. Ethiop Cogent Food Agric 4(1):1470481 Agricultural Publications nr. 7, GADC, Brussels, Belgium, 1991
Hussien K, Woldu G, Birhanu S (2019) A GIS-based multi-criteria land Tzeng GH, Huang JJ (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: meth-
suitability analysis for surface irrigation along the Erer Watershed, ods and applications. CRC Press, USA
Eastern Hararghe Zone. Ethiop East Afr J Sci 13(2):169–184 USDIBR (United State Development of the Interior Bureau of Rec-
Joerin F, Thériault M, Musy A (2001) Using GIS and outranking mul- lamation) (2003) Technical guidelines for irrigation suitability
ticriteria analysis for land-use suitability assessment. Int J Geogr land classification. Technical Service Center Land Suitability and
Inf Sci 15(2):153–174 Water Quality Group, Denver, Colorado
Kadigi RM, Tesfay G, Bizoza A, Zibadou G, Zilberman D (2019) Vogel R (2008) A software framework for GIS-based multiple criteria
Irrigation and water use efficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa. Gates evaluation of land suitability. In: 11th AGILE international con-
Open Res 3(587):587 ference on geographic information science, University of Girona,
Kassaye KT, Boulange J, Saito H, Watanabe H (2020) Monitoring Spain, pp 1–12
soil water content for decision supporting in agricultural water Worqlul AW, Collick AS, Rossiter DG, Langan S, Steenhuis TS (2015)
management based on critical threshold values adopted for Assessment of surface water irrigation potential in the Ethiopian
Andosol in the temperate monsoon climate. Agric Water Manag highlands: The Lake Tana Basin. CATENA 129:76–85
229:105930 Yalew SG, Van Griensven A, van der Zaag P (2016) AgriSuit: a web-
Kutter A, Nachtergaele FO, Verheye WH (1997) The new FAO based GIS-MCDA framework for agricultural land suitability
approach to land use planning and management, and its applica- assessment. Comput Electron Agric 128:1–8
tion in Sierra Leone. ITC J 3(4):278–283 Yohannes H, Soromessa T (2018) Land suitability assessment for major
Mandal B, Dolui G, Satpathy S (2018) Land suitability assessment crops by using GIS-based multi-criteria approach in Andit Tid
for potential surface irrigation of river catchment for irrigation watershed. Ethiop Cogent Food Agric 4(1):1470481
development in Kansai watershed, Purulia, West Bengal. India Zolekar RB, Bhagat VS (2015) Multi-criteria land suitability analysis
Sustain Water Resour Manag 4(4):699–714 for agriculture in hilly zone: remote sensing and GIS approach.
Mustafa AA, Singh M, Sahoo RN, Ahmed N, Khanna M, Sarangi A, Comput Electron Agric 118:300–321
Mishra AK (2011) Land suitability analysis for different crops: a
multi criteria decision making approach using remote sensing and Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
GIS. Researcher 3(12):61–84 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Nachtergaele F, van Velthuizen H, Verelst L, Batjes NH, Dijkshoorn
K, van Engelen VWP and Montanarela L (2010) The harmonized
world soil database. In: Proceedings of the 19th world congress of
soil science, soil solutions for a changing world, Brisbane, Aus-
tralia, 1–6 August 2010, pp 34–37

13