Groundwater is considered as one of the essential natural resources stored beneath the earth surface by infiltration through various rock layers. Groundwater potential supplies almost 30% of fresh water in the world, and in general, 65% of groundwater is used for agricultural irrigation, 25% as drinking water, and the remaining 10% is utilized as industrial water. The main aim of this study is to delineate groundwater potential zones in the central Antalya province, Turkey using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and frequency ratio (FR). Seven thematic layers including lithology, slope, drainage density, landcover/landuse, lineament density, rainfall, and soil depth were considered as influencing parameters to run these models. The preparation of all geospatial datasets was carried out in GIS environment and Google Earth Engine. Besides, some authorized relevant web portals were also tried for obtaining the required spatial data. The findings of analysis by AHP and FR models show that Muratpasa, Kepez, and eastern Dosemealti in the eastern part of study area are characterized by high potentiality of groundwater, while the regions in southern, western parts covered by igneous rocks and other less permeable sediments, also featured by high and steep slopes are followed by low or very low groundwater potential. Consequently, the results from both models were assessed using receiver operating curve (ROC) and area under curve (AUC) for validation. The validation in this study confirms the higher effectivity of results achieved by FR than the AHP model.
2). Given the statement: "The validation in this study confirms the higher effectivity of results achieved by FR than the AHP model", how consistent between ROC and AUC results and the results achieved by FR than the AHP model and if the results created by ROC and AUC are true, what accuracy for results achieved by FR than the AHP model?
Thank you for your nice comments.
1. Normally, these two curve models are widely used for validation and predication in each disciplines. With take the reviewed literature into consideration, these two curve models have extensively been used in groundwater potential mapping for validation over the various parts as well. Therefore, this can itself show the valid accuracy of AUC and ROC.
2. Without the validation, from the final map of AHP and FR, it can also be concluded that the results from FR is more reliable than AHP. Because, considering the lithology of the area which has the highest importance in groundwater potentiality, alluvium and travertine must be the areas where the moderate and high groundwater infiltration might be occurred, respectively. Therefore, the result by FR precisely highlighted moderate and high potential zones accompanied by the alluvium and travertine, while, the AHP result mixed up the potential categories in some regions. The ROC and RUC were examined to more validate our claims. Hopefully, the results of curves also show the same regularity.
Regards,
