Submitted:
21 April 2023
Posted:
23 April 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research area
2.2. Satellite imageries
2.3. Geographic Information System (GIS)
2.4. Assessment system
3. Results
3.1. Water sources analysis
3.2. Manager-oriented water resources allocation
3.3. Farmers-oriented water resources allocation
4. Discussion
4.1. Implementation of irrigation association of Kaohsiung
4.2. Limitation and suggestion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cheng, C. L., & Liao, W. J. (2011, December). Current situation and sustainability of water resource in Taiwan. In Proceedings of 1st Asian Water Saving Council Conference (Vol. 141148).
- Hwang, J.-S. The development and management policy of water resources in Taiwan. Paddy Water Environ. 2003, 1, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, G.; Avdan, U. Object-based water body extraction model using Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2017, 50, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y. N., Luo, J., Shen, Z., Hu, X., & Yang, H. (2014). Multiscale water body extraction in urban environments from satellite images. IEEE Journal of selected topics in applied earth observations and remote sensing, 7(10), 4301-4312.
- Li, J.; Ma, R.; Cao, Z.; Xue, K.; Xiong, J.; Hu, M.; Feng, X. Satellite Detection of Surface Water Extent: A Review of Methodology. Water 2022, 14, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarp, G.; Ozcelik, M. Water body extraction and change detection using time series: A case study of Lake Burdur, Turkey. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2017, 11, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rithin Paul Reddy, K., Srija, S. S., Karthi, R., Geetha, P. (2020). Evaluation of water body extraction from satellite images using open-source tools. In Intelligent Systems, Technologies and Applications: Proceedings of ISTA 2018 (pp. 129-140). Springer Singapore.
- Rishikeshan, C.A.; Ramesh, H. An ANN supported mathematical morphology based algorithm for lakes extraction from satellite images. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 2018, 24, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Hamid, R.; Fuentes, H.R. Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in water resources: A review. Water Resour. Manag. 1996, 10, 251–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knox, J.; Weatherfield, E. The Application of GIS to Irrigation Water Resource Management in England and Wales. Geogr. J. 1999, 165, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochola, W. O. , & Kerkides, P. (2003). A spatial decision support system for water resources hazard assessment: Local level water resources management with GIS in Kenya. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 7(1), 32-46.
- Singh, P.; Gupta, A.; Singh, M. Hydrological inferences from watershed analysis for water resource management using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Egypt. J. Remote. Sens. Space Sci. 2014, 17, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdary, V.M.; Ramakrishnan, D.; Srivastava, Y.K.; Chandran, V.; Jeyaram, A. Integrated Water Resource Development Plan for Sustainable Management of Mayurakshi Watershed, India using Remote Sensing and GIS. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 1581–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Guo, S.; Zhang, C.; Guo, P. An interval multiobjective approach considering irrigation canal system conditions for managing irrigation water. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maina, M.; Amin, M.; Yazid, M. Web geographic information system decision support system for irrigation water management: a review. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B — Soil Plant Sci. 2014, 64, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kganyago, M.; Odindi, J.; Adjorlolo, C.; Mhangara, P. Evaluating the capability of Landsat 8 OLI and SPOT 6 for discriminating invasive alien species in the African Savanna landscape. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation 2018, 67, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsyth, A. T., Gibson, L. A., & Turner, A. A. (2014). Assessment of SPOT 6 imagery for mapping the invasive alien plant species Pinus spp. in a mountainous area of the Western Cape. In Proceedings of the Second AfricaGEO Conference (pp. 1-12).
- Mondejar, J.P.; Tongco, A.F. Near infrared band of Landsat 8 as water index: a case study around Cordova and Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, Philippines. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2019, 29, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gichamo, T.; Popescu, I.; Jonoski, A.; Solomatine, D. River cross-section extraction from the ASTER global DEM for flood modeling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2012, 31, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gui, R.; Song, W.; Pu, X.; Lu, Y.; Liu, C.; Chen, L. A River Channel Extraction Method Based on a Digital Elevation Model Retrieved from Satellite Imagery. Water 2022, 14, 2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomlinson, R. F. (1989). Presidential address: Geographic information systems and geographers in the 1990s. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 33(4), 290-298. [CrossRef]
- Kamal, R. M. , & Amin, M. S. M. (2010). GIS-based irrigation water management for precision farming of rice. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 3(3), 27-35.
- Mohammadi, N. K. (2019). A Review on GIS in Irrigation and Water Management. vol, 8, 854-857.
- Yousaf, W.; Awan, W.K.; Kamran, M.; Ahmad, S.R.; Bodla, H.U.; Riaz, M.; Umar, M.; Chohan, K. A paradigm of GIS and remote sensing for crop water deficit assessment in near real time to improve irrigation distribution plan. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 243, 106443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.-F.; Lee, H.-S.; Wang, D.W. Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach. J. Inf. Sci. 2009, 35, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, W. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramezani, F. , Nikoo, M., & Nikoo, M. (2015). Artificial neural network weights optimization based on social-based algorithm to realize sediment over the river. Soft Computing, 19, 375-387.
- Hall, M. (2007). A decision tree-based attribute weighting filter for naive Bayes. In Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXIII: Proceedings of AI-2006, the Twenty-sixth SGAI International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 59-70). Springer London.





| Distance to water sources (50%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of water sources | Distance | ||||
| < 100 m | 100 - 200m | 200 - 300m | 300 - 400m | > 400m | |
| Score | |||||
| Ponds(50%) | 50 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 |
| Main channel(50%) | 50 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 |
| Tributes (40%) | 40 | 32 | 24 | 16 | 8 |
| Streams(30%) | 30 | 24 | 18 | 12 | 6 |
| Hydraulic head (50%) | |||||
| Distance | Score | ||||
| < 1 m | 50 | ||||
| 1 – 30 m | 40 | ||||
| 31 – 60 m | 30 | ||||
| > 60 m | 10 | ||||
| Distance to water sources (25%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of water sources | Distance | ||||||
| < 100 m | 100 - 200m | 200 - 300m | 300 - 400m | > 400m | |||
| Score | |||||||
| Ponds(25%) | 25 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | ||
| Main channel(25%) | 25 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | ||
| Tributes (20%) | 20 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | ||
| Streams(15%) | 15 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | ||
| Hydraulic head (25%) | |||||||
| Distance | Score | ||||||
| < 1 m | 25 | ||||||
| 1 – 30 m | 20 | ||||||
| 31 – 60 m | 15 | ||||||
| > 60 m | 5 | ||||||
| Values of crops (15%) | |||||||
| Types of crops | Price (NTD / kg) | Score | |||||
| Longan | 53 | (53/53*15)=15 | |||||
| Litchi | 42 | (42/53*15)=12 | |||||
| Guava | 30 | (30/53*15)=8.5 | |||||
| Banana | 25 | (25/53*15)=7 | |||||
| Pineapple | 18 | (18/53*15)=5 | |||||
| Water demands of crops (15%) | |||||||
| Types of crops | Water demand (Ton / 1000m2) | Score | |||||
| Longan | 17.92 | {15/(17.92/17.92)}=15 | |||||
| Litchi | 35.84 | {15/(35.84/17.92)}=7.5 | |||||
| Guava | 53.76 | {15/(53.76/17.92)}=5 | |||||
| Banana | 17.92 | {15/(17.92/17.92)}=15 | |||||
| Pineapple | 35.84 | {15/(35.84/17.92)}=7.5 | |||||
| Soil (20%) | |||||||
| Types of soils | Retention capacity (Rank) | Score | |||||
| Red soil | 2 | 17 | |||||
| Colluvial soil | 7 | 2 | |||||
| Masonry soil | 6 | 5 | |||||
| Alluvial soil | 5 | 8 | |||||
| Clay soil | 1 | 20 | |||||
| Hydraulic head < 1 m | ||
|---|---|---|
| Crops | Cost (NTD/kg) | Profit priority (%) |
| Longan | 4.32 | 99.01 |
| Litchi | 4.61 | 99.98 |
| Guava | 13.93 | 89.07 |
| Banana | 27.00 | 90.99 |
| Pineapple | 27.00 | 85.77 |
| Hydraulic head from 1 m to 30 m | ||
| Crops | Cost (NTD/kg) | Profit priority (%) |
| Longan | 4.52 | 98.96 |
| Litchi | 4.66 | 99.98 |
| Guava | 14.16 | 88.88 |
| Banana | 27.80 | 90.66 |
| Pineapple | 27.80 | 85.08 |
| Hydraulic head from 30 m to 60 m | ||
| Crops | Cost (NTD/kg) | Profit priority (%) |
| Longan | 4.82 | 98.90 |
| Litchi | 4.72 | 99.98 |
| Guava | 14.50 | 88.49 |
| Banana | 29.00 | 90.32 |
| Pineapple | 29.00 | 84.13 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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/).