MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411706811 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.200506

GIS- and Remote Sensing-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis for Rainwater Harvesting Site Selection: A Case Study of Wadi Sarkhar Watershed, Wasit, Iraq

2025· article· en· W4411706811 on OpenAlex
Sahar Mundher Resen, Abdulhussain A. Abbas, Zuhal Abdulhadi Hamza

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWadiRainwater harvestingWatershedSite selectionHydrology (agriculture)Remote sensingEnvironmental scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Water resource managementGeographyGeologyCartographyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to escalating water demand and the depletion of natural freshwater resources, the strategic identification of suitable sites for rainwater harvesting (RWH) has emerged as a sustainable approach to mitigate water scarcity and flood risks in arid and semi-arid regions.In this study, a geospatially integrated multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was conducted to delineate optimal RWH zones within the Wadi Sarkhar watershed, located in Wasit, Iraq.A total of eleven critical factors-encompassing hydrological, topographical, climatic, land use, and infrastructural parameters-were selected based on their relevance to runoff generation and storage potential.This included rainfall, runoff, evaporation, slope, land cover, soil type, proximity to roads and settlements, and stream orders (fifth to seventh).Weights were assigned to each criterion using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and the pairwise comparison matrix yielded a consistency ratio (CR) of 0.012, which is significantly below the accepted threshold of 0.1, indicating strong internal consistency.Spatial analysis and overlay operations were performed using ArcGIS 10.8, with the Raster Calculator employed to synthesize a final suitability map categorized into five classes: very high, high, moderate, low, and very low suitability.Results indicated that approximately 34.33% of the watershed area (435.14 km ) was classified as having high to very high suitability for RWH interventions, while the remaining 65.67% (834.41 km ) was deemed less favourable.A sensitivity analysis was also carried out to assess the robustness of the model by adjusting the weights of dominant criteria, confirming the model's resilience and reliability.The findings offer a robust spatial planning framework to inform policymakers, environmental engineers, and water resource managers in the development of region-specific RWH strategies that enhance water availability, reduce flood risk, and contribute to long-term ecological resilience.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it