Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation to identify potential sites for soil

and water conservation techniques in the Ronquillo watershed,
northern Peru
Joachim Krois*, Achim Schulte 1
Institute of Geographical Sciences, Applied Geography, Environmental Hydrology and Resource Management, Freie Universität Berlin, Malteserstraße
74e100, 12249 Berlin, Germany

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: This study presents a method to identify and rank potential sites for soil and water conservation tech-
Soil and water conservation techniques niques. The method takes into account environmental site assessment criteria and a decision-making
(SWCTs)
method known as the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Spatial data is processed by applying a geographic
Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE)
Site assessment
information system and potential sites are ranked by a multi-criteria evaluation based on meteorologic,
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) hydrologic, topographic, agronomic and pedologic criteria. The method is applied to identify potential
Cajamarca sites for terraces and bund systems in the Ronquillo watershed, located in the northern Andes of Peru.
Peru The analysis indicates that 44% of the catchment area of the Ronquillo River is highly suited for the
implementation of terraces, and 24% of the catchment area is highly suited for the implementation of
bund systems. The preliminary identification of potential sites for soil and water conservation techniques
may be a useful tool in the execution of resource conservation programs.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction 2007). However, SWCTs primarily aim to minimize surface runoff

An important environmental task in arid and semi-arid land-
scapes is the improvement of land productivity by maximizing
water availability. In addition, the occurrence of episodic high-
intensity rainfall events calls for activities to mitigate soil erosion
in order to sustain agricultural productivity. An important role in
this challenge is played by indigenous techniques for soil and water
conservation (SWC), which have a long history in nearly all semi-
arid landscapes around the world (Bruins, Evenari, & Nessler,
1986; Prinz, 1996).
Most soil and water conservation techniques (SWCTs) aim to
reduce surface runoff or make a more optimal use of rainfall with
regard to crop production (Lesschen, 2007). SWCTs include water
harvesting (optimal use of excess overland flow for agriculture),
mechanical structures (e.g. contour bunds, terraces, check dams),
soil management and agronomic measures (e.g., cover crops,
tillage, mulching, vegetation strips, re-vegetation and agro-
forestry) (Critchley & Siegert, 1991; Hudson, 1987; Lesschen,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 (0)30 838 70245; fax: þ49 (0)30 838 70753.
E-mail addresses: krois@zedat.fu-berlin.de (J. Krois), achim.schulte@fu-berlin.de
(A. Schulte).
1
Tel.: þ49 (0)30 838 70253; fax: þ49 (0)30 838 70753.
and thus conserve soil and moisture in situ, whereas water har-
vesting techniques collect and concentrate surface runoff from a
larger area to improve plant growth in a smaller target area
(Critchley, Reij, & Willcocks, 1994; Oweis, Hachum, & Kijne, 1999).
A number of studies confirm the potential of SWCTs to enhance
water productivity (Kahinda, Rockström, Taigbenu, & Dimes, 2007;
Makurira, Savenije, Uhlenbrook, Rockström, & Senzanje, 2009;
Oweis & Hachum, 2006; Tian, Su, Li, & Li, 2003) and to reduce
surface runoff and soil erosion (Al-Seekh & Mohammad, 2009;
Alegre & Rao, 1996; Dehn, 1995; Gardner & Gerrard, 2003;
Hammad, Haugen, & Børresen, 2004).
The appropriate choice of an individual SWCT depends on site-
specific factors such as the amount of rainfall and its temporal
distribution, soil type and depth, land topography and local socio-
economic factors (Oweis et al., 1999). There is a growing need for
cost effective and time saving methods to identify areas that are
suitable for a designated SWCT. Geographic information systems
(GIS) fulfill this need by providing a framework for collecting,
storing, analyzing, transforming and displaying spatial and non-
spatial data (de Winnaar, Jewitt, & Horan, 2007). Various studies
present methods to assess the suitability of SWCTs for a given area
(Agarwal, Garg, & Garg, 2013; Kadam, Kale, Pande, Pawar, &
Sankhua, 2012; Kahinda, Lillie, Taigbenu, Taute, & Boroto, 2008;
Kahinda, Taigbenu, Sejamoholo, Lillie, & Boroto, 2009; Mbilinyi,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.006
0143-6228/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142
Tumbo, Mahoo, & Mkiramwinyi, 2007; Ramakrishnan,
Bandyopadhyay, & Kusuma, 2009; de Winnaar et al., 2007). How-
ever, none of them has yet focused on the Andean region.
We aim to develop a strategy for decentralized watershed
management and soil protection in the Ronquillo watershed,
located in the northern Andes of Peru, to improve water availability
and reduce overland flow, thus hindering soil erosion. An impor-
tant component of such a strategy is the implementation of SWCTs.
In the present study, a GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation (MCE)
technique is applied for preliminary site assessment in order to
identify and rank potential sites for SWCTs in the Ronquillo
watershed.
MCE techniques (often referred to as multi-criteria analysis)
evaluate the complex trade-offs between alternative choices with
different environmental and socioeconomic impacts (Carver, 1991)
or, in other words, they offer ‘to investigate a number of choice
possibilities in the light of multi-criteria’ (Voogd, 1983 cited in
Carver (1991)). In this study, the alternatives or possibilities are
represented by a particular SWCT, and accordingly, the multi-
criteria are represented by site-specific environmental factors.
The present study focuses on terraces and bund systems, which
are among the most frequently reported traditions of SWC
(Critchley et al., 1994). The design of the mechanical structures
depends on many factors, including slope, soil properties, and
rainfall, and ranges from rudimentary stone lines to sophisticated
terracing infrastructures (Bekele, Lemperiere, & Tulu, 2009;
Critchley & Siegert, 1991; Lesschen, 2007). Terraces and bund sys-
tems are similar in the sense that they both act as barriers to water
flow, intercept surface runoff, decelerate runoff velocity and
encourage infiltration (Dorren & Rey, 2004; FAO, 2000). In many
places the construction of terraces is more likely a response to the
need for level land for cultivation rather than to minimize erosion,
although it does that too (Evans, 2006).
Fig. 1. Overview map of the Ronquillo watershed.
Study area and related environmental problems
The study area is the Ronquillo watershed, located in the vicinity
of the city of Cajamarca, in the northern Andes of Peru (78.53 We
78.63 W and 7.11 Se7.19 S) (Fig. 1). With its western border at an
altitude of about 4000 m asl, the 42 km2 watershed forms the South
American Continental Water Divide. Thus, the Ronquillo watershed
is a headwater basin of the Amazon River. The pronounced seasonal
rainfall regime in the area of interest is a response to the seasonal
displacement of the Inner Tropical Convergence Zone and the South
Atlantic and South Pacific anticyclones. During rainy seasons (Oct.e
Apr.), water is an abundant commodity, whereas during dry sea-
sons water is scarce. In the region of Cajamarca and in the Peruvian
Andes in general, the interannual rainfall variability is high,
exceeding frequently plus and minus one standard deviation
(Lagos, Silva, Nickl, & Mosquera, 2008).
The water resources of the Ronquillo watershed are of special
interest for the city of Cajamarca, as one third of the total urban
water abstraction is provided by the discharge of the Ronquillo
River (Atkins, Calderon, Montoya, & Morales, 2005; EPS SEDACAJ
S.A., 2006). However, even today water demand surpasses water
availability during dry seasons, so water supply for end-users is
interrupted regularly within the dry season.
Methods and materials
Workflow
The site assessment procedure encompasses an MCE, which
consists of four subsequent steps (Fig. 2). First, input data sets are
transformed into vector or grid based spatial coverage maps, each
of them representing a particular criterion for the implementation
of SWCTs. Second, criteria maps are created by applying GIS
 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142 133

Fig. 2. Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) workflow chart. The MCE consists of four steps that include GIS and non-GIS procedures. The resulting suitability maps identify and rank
potential sites for the prioritized implementation of a particular soil and water conservation technique (SWCT).

procedures to reclassify the spatial coverage maps according to the
suitability level (SL) for each particular SWCT. Third, the relative
importance weight (RIW) of each criterion for each particular SWCT
is calculated by applying the pair-wise comparison matrix method,
known as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980).
Finally, the weighted overlay process (WOP), a routine for the
multi-criteria evaluation implemented in ArcGIS, is applied to
obtain suitability maps for each particular SWCT.
Main processing
Step 1 e input data preparation and pre-processing
As cited in Kahinda et al. (2008), the FAO lists six key factors that
should be included in the process of site assessment for SWCTs:
climate, hydrology, topography, agronomy, soils, and socioeco-
nomic aspects. We follow the recommendation of the FAO; how-
ever, we emphasize environmental factors and introduce rainfall as
a parameter for climate, direct runoff as a parameter for hydrology,
slope as a parameter for topography, land use as a parameter for
agronomy, and soil texture and soil depth as parameters for soils.
These parameters are frequently used to categorize the appropri-
ateness of SWCTs (e.g. Bekele et al., 2009; Critchley & Siegert, 1991)
and additionally are comparatively easy to obtain.
Rainfall data of five rain gauges, all located in the inter-Andean
valley of Cajamarca is incorporated in the site assessment proce-
dure (Fig. 1). The UNC-Cajamarca (2536 m asl), Augusto Weberba-
uer (2660 m asl), La Victoria (2625 m asl) and Ronquillo (3325 m
asl) rain gauges are maintained by Servicio Nacional de Meteorología
134 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142
e Hidrología del Perú (SENAMHI). The data sets are partly available
through the web page of SENAMHI (http://www.senamhi.gob.pe/).
Moreover, the data of Chamis rain gauge (3224 m asl) is incorpo-
rated in the present study. This rain gauge was installed in 2008 in
the course of the research project Conservation of Water and Soil
Resources in the Catchments of Chetillano and Ronquillo in the
northern Sierra of Peru (CASCUS) and is currently maintained by
the Universidad Nacional de Cajamarca.
In the present study the precipitation over an area is computed
on the basis of the rainfallealtitude relation, a relationship
observed as well in inter-Andean valleys of the southern Ecua-
dorian Andes (Celleri, Willems, Buytaert, & Feyen, 2007); however,
owing to the complex orography of the Andes and methodologic
difficulties of accurate estimation of spatial distribution of rainfall
(Buytaert, Celleri, Willems, Bièvre, & Wyseure, 2006; Rollenbeck &
Bendix, 2011), it remains difficult to define a unique relationship
between the amount of rainfall and elevation on a regional scale
(Celleri et al., 2007; Espinoza-Villar et al., 2009; Ronchail & Gallaire,
2006).
In order to estimate direct runoff and thus to obtain spatial
runoff coefficients the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve num-
ber (CN) method is applied (NRCS, 2004). The SCS-CN method was
developed in the mid-50s by the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, which is now the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Its most recent form was
published by NRCS in 2004:
ðP  Ia Þ2
Q ¼
P  Ia þ S
where Q is the direct runoff, P is rainfall, Ia is the initial abstraction
and S is the potential maximum retention. Equation (1) is valid for
P  Ia; otherwise Q ¼ 0.
The initial abstraction (Ia) represents losses due to surface
storage, interception and, most important, infiltration and is
defined as:
Ia ¼ lS
In this study, l is set to 0.2, according to NRCS guidelines. The
potential maximum retention S in mm is expressed in terms of the
dimensionless curve number (CN) through the relationship pre-
sented in Eq. (3).
25; 400
S ¼  254
CN
Curve numbers vary from 0 to 100 and express the runoff
response to a given rainfall event. Higher curve numbers indicate a
greater proportion of rainfall to be transformed into surface runoff
(NRCS, 2004). CN values can be obtained from tables provided by
NRCS (2004) for various Hydrologic Soil-Cover Complexes, a con-
ceptual framework that integrates soil characteristics, land cover,
and management conditions. On the basis of their hydrologic
response characteristics, different soil types are subsumed into four
(AeD) Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG). Subsequently, CN values are
assigned to a particular HSG according to land cover, as defined by
land cover type, land treatment, and hydrologic conditions. Finally,
the assessment of antecedent runoff conditions (ARC) determines
the selection of the CN value. Three ACR classes are defined: ACR I
accounting for dry, ACR III accounting for wet, and ACR II ac-
counting for medium antecedent runoff conditions (NRCS, 2004).
Because rainfall is fairly concentrated within the study area in the
rainy season and occurs almost daily, CN values for ACR III, which
are more representative for wet periods and thus higher ante-
cedent soil moisture, are chosen.
It is important to note that the SCS-CN method is only applicable
to single storm events (Ponce & Hawkins, 1996), so that it is inap-
propriate to use cumulated rainfall data, such as annual or season
means, in Eq. (1). However, the limiting temporal resolution of
three out of five rain gauges used in the present study hinders the
analysis of single rainfall events. To overcome this restraint, the
33%-exceedance probability of maximum daily rainfall is used to
model a single storm event.
Topographic data is provided by a digital elevation model (DEM)
of the ASTER sensor system. The DEM has a spatial resolution of
30  30 m. The slope angle for each cell is calculated with the
Spatial Analyst tool within the ArcGIS environment. The cell size of
the DEM defines the spatial resolution of the subsequent
computations.
Land use data is provided by Rohde (2012), who used Quickbird
data sets from 2003, 2004 and 2007 to obtain a land use map of the
Ronquillo catchment by combining visual and automated classifi-
cation methods. To avoid mixed land use classes, as provided by
Rohde (2012), the land use map is reclassified, which finally results
in seven different land use classes.
Information on the spatial distribution and physical character-
istics of soils is provided by Landa, Van Hoof, Poma, and Mestanza
(1978), ONERN (1975), Poma-Rojas (1989), Poma-Rojas and
Alcántara-Boñón (2010) and Poma-Miranda and Poma-Miranda
(2001).
Step 2 e the determination of suitability level (SL)
(1) The SL for each particular SWCT under consideration is obtained
through a literature survey by reviewing recommended environ-
mental boundary conditions for the successful implementation of
SWCTs. Several authors published boundary conditions and
boundary criteria for different SWCTs. For example, the manuals
and handbooks presented by Bekele et al. (2009), Critchley and
Siegert (1991), Hudson (1987) and Oweis et al. (1999) review a
number of SWCTs with respect to their appropriateness under
different climatic, topographic and pedologic boundary conditions.
Moreover, the contributions of Kahinda et al. (2008, 2009), Mbilinyi
(2)
et al. (2007) and Tumbo, Mbilinyi, Mahoo, and Mkiramwinyi (2006)
provide a methodologic approach to transfer the recommended
environmental boundary conditions into a suitability rating
framework.
Within the MCE, each environmental boundary criterion is
reclassified into a common preference scale according to its SL. The
suitability rating for any particular technique is expressed as a
(3)
numerical value or suitability score on a scale from 1 to 9 (Table 1).
This approach to score suitability levels and thus to standardize
boundary conditions, has been applied in habitat modeling
(Burnside, Smith, & Waite, 2002; Donovan, Rabe, & Olson, 1987;
Store & Jokimäki, 2003; Store & Kangas, 2001), land use suit-
ability and planning analysis (Gbanie, Tengbe, Momoh, Medo, &
Table 1
Numerical expression of suitability rating (e.g. Burnside et al., 2002) and scaling of
comparative importance (Saaty, 1990).
Numerical Suitability rating Comparative importance
expression
1 Not suitable Equal importance
3 Marginally suitable Moderate importance of one
over another
5 Moderately suitable Essential or strong importance
7 Highly suitable Very strong importance
9 Optimally suitable Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent
judgments
 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142
Kabba, 2013; Malczewski, 2004; Tudes & Yigiter, 2010), risk map-
ping (Fuller, Troyo, Alimi, & Beier, 2014), and the evaluation of water
harvesting sites (Kahinda et al., 2008; Mbilinyi et al., 2007; de
Winnaar et al., 2007). On the basis of the SL, criteria maps are
visualized, each of them representing the corresponding environ-
mental site assessment criterion.
Step 3 e the determination of the relative importance weight (RIW)
To assess the significance of each site assessment criterion, the
RIW of each criterion (rainfall, runoff coefficient, slope, land use,
soil texture and soil depth) is calculated by using the pair-wise
comparison matrix method, known as the Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess (AHP) (Saaty, 1977, 1980, 1990).
The AHP is a widely used multi-criteria decision-making tool for
decision makers and researchers, applied in numerous fields such
as planning, selecting the best alternative, resource allocations,
resolving conflict, optimizations, etc. (Vaidya & Kumar, 2006). The
criteria involved in the decision-making process are prioritized by
judging the dominance of one criterion over another. Therefore,
each criterion is assessed by arranging every possible pairing on a
ratio scale to express the comparative importance by numerical
values (Table 1). The scale ranges from 1/9 for ‘least valued than’, to
1 for ‘equal’, and to 9 for ‘absolutely more important than’ (Vaidya &
Kumar, 2006). The judgment on dominance of one criterion over
another is based on the authors expertise and a literature survey
(Bekele et al., 2009; Critchley & Siegert, 1991; Hudson, 1987;
Kahinda et al., 2008, 2009; Mbilinyi et al., 2007; Oweis et al.,
1999; Tumbo et al., 2006).
The resulting pair-wise comparison matrix is used to obtain the
Eigen value of each criterion, which represents its RIW (Saaty,
1990). In addition, the AHP provides a methodologic framework
to assess the consistency in the comparative importance judgment
made (Banai-Kashani, 1989) by computing and evaluating the
consistency ratio (CR):
ðlmax  nÞ=ðn  1Þ
CR ¼
RI
where lmax is the maximum Eigen value of the matrix, n is the
number of elements compared, and RI is the so-called random
consistency index, a value that depends on the number of elements
that are being compared (Saaty, 1980). Pair-wise judgment is
considered acceptable if CR  0.1 (Saaty, 1987).
Step 4 e suitability maps for SWCTs
Finally, the weighted overlay process (WOP) is applied to
construct suitability maps for a particular SWCT. The WOP is a
routine implemented in ArcGIS for optimal site selection or suit-
ability modeling by building an output grid that combines and
overlays multiple input layers (criteria maps) according to their
RIW. The overlay procedure is mathematically expressed as
X and 19.9%, respectively. However, less steep terrain is often allo-
SLIyj ¼ RIWyi $SLyi
where SLIyj is the suitability level index value for each corre-
sponding SWCT y, for a given cell j, RIWyi is the relative importance
weight of the input layer i (rainfall, runoff coefficient, slope, land
use, soil texture and soil depth) for each corresponding SWCT y, and
SLyi is the suitability level of the input layer i for each corresponding
SWCT y. The higher the SLIyj of a given cell j, the better suited it is for
the corresponding SWCT y. The SLI can be rated using the rating
vocabulary of Table 1.
135
Results
Data analysis and pre-processing of spatial data layers
Rainfall
The meteorologic data used in this study is summarized in
Table 2. Mean annual rainfall varies between 475 and 1003 mm.
Depending on locality, 80e88% of rainfall occurs during the rainy
season (Oct.eApr.). The amount of maximum daily rainfall and the
33%-exceedance probability of maximum daily rainfall vary from 30
to 67 mm and 15e27 mm, respectively. Both increase logarithmi-
cally with altitude (Fig. 3). The coefficient of determination is
higher for daily data (r2 ¼ 0.94) as compared to seasonal data
(r2 ¼ 0.77). The rainfallealtitude relation of the seasonal rainfall
forms the basis of the spatial rainfall coverage map, incorporated in
the MCE and the rainfallealtitude relation of the 33%-exceedance
probability of maximum daily rainfall is used as design rainfall for
the SCS-CN method.
Hydrology
The SCS-CN method is applied to compute direct runoff for the
catchment of the Ronquillo River. Therefore Eq. (1) is solved for
each raster cell, as defined by the spatial resolution of the DEM, by
setting precipitation (P) to design rainfall according to the rainfalle
altitude relation, shown in Fig. 4 and by calculating the parameters
Ia and S for each cell by applying Eqs. (2) and (4). CN values in Eq. (4)
are selected for each Hydrological Soil-Cover Complex as presented
in Table 3.
The resulting map in Fig. 4A compiles the direct runoff in mm for
each raster cell within the Ronquillo watershed, which corresponds
to the altitude-dependent design rainfall, defined as the 33%-ex-
ceedance probability of maximum daily rainfall. On the basis of the
direct runoff map as obtained by the SCS-CN method spatial runoff
coefficients are computed as the ratio of direct runoff and the
design rainfall (Fig. 4B).
The results show that for a large area of the Ronquillo watershed
the runoff coefficient ranges between 0.33 and 0.66 (Fig. 4B). This
(4)
finding is in good accordance with runoff coefficients of 0.23e0.60
during the rainy season (Jan.eApr.), as reported by Krois, Schulte,
Abendroth, and Schneider (2013), who delineated monthly runoff
coefficients on the basis of rainfall and runoff data for the Ronquillo
River basin. In addition the spatial pattern of the runoff coefficient
map shows that high runoff coefficients (>0.66) are expected in
areas characterized by scarce vegetation and that low runoff co-
efficients (<0.33) occur where a dense grassland vegetation cover
exists. Thus, supporting the recognition that a dense vegetation
cover diminishes direct runoff generation (Durán-Zuazo &
Rodríguez-Pleguezuelo, 2008).
Slope
Analysis of the ASTER-DEM shows a wide range of slope angles
within the Ronquillo watershed (Fig. 5). The frequency distribution
of slope angle of the Ronquillo watershed peaks at 15e25 , fol-
lowed by 11e15 and 7e11, corresponding to an area of 28.3, 20.4
(5)
cated at medium and high elevations, whereas steep terrain dom-
inates lower-lying areas close to the rivulets.
Land use
Spatial data on land use is provided by Rohde (2012). The map in
Fig. 6 shows seven different classes of land cover. The most
prominent land cover class is agricultural land. This class covers
34.6% of the catchment area and concentrates in the middle part of
the watershed, where rainfall and temperatures are most favorable
for agricultural activities. Owing to restricted data availability no
136 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142

Table 2
Meteorologic data used in this study.

Rain gauges Elevation (m asl) Mean annual Mean seasonal Maximum daily 33%-Exceedance probability of Length of record (days)
rainfall (mm) rainfall (mm) rainfall (mm) maximum daily rainfall (mm)

La Victoria 2618 475 396 30 15 2677

Augusto Weberbauer 2660 675 561 32 18 2677
UNC-Cajamarca 2678 708 569 32 19 983
Chamis 3224 1003 879 58 26 1369
Ronquillo 3313 827 732 67 27 795

where degraded soils hinder any productive use, and forests (3.5%),
which consist mainly of introduced species such as Eucalyptus
globulus, Pinus radiata and Pinus patula (Landa, Picard, & Velarde,
1975; Rohde, 2012; Sánchez-Gómez & Gillis, 1982; van den
Abeele, 1995).

Fig. 3. Rainfallealtitude relation for mean seasonal (Oct.eApr.) rainfall (triangles) and
33%-exceedance probability of maximum daily rainfall (filled circles) for the rain
gauges used in this study (see Table 2).
crop specific classification is made, although different crops like
corn (rye, oat, barley), potatoes and other varieties of Andean tu-
bers (e.g. oca (Oxalis tuberosa), ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus), mashua
(Tropaeolum tuberosum)) are cultivated (Becker & Utermöhlen,
1997; Tapia, 1997).
The second most common land use class is grassland. This land
cover class corresponds to 27.4% of the catchment area and is
allocated at high altitudes, where agricultural activities are con-
strained due to low temperature and wet meteorologic conditions.
Local communities use that area mainly for grazing purposes. Other
important land use classes are meadows (10%) and shrub lands
(7.6%), which are partly used for grazing, scarce vegetation (9.9%),
Soils
According to the nomenclature of the World Reference Base for
Soil Classification (FAO, 2006) the catchment area of the Ronquillo
River consists of six different soil types: Acrisol (4%), Regosol (6%),
Phaeozem (8%), Cambisol (11%), Leptosol (25%) and Andosol (46%).
Poma-Rojas and Alcántara-Boñón (2010) subdivide the Andosols
into Andosols (12%), Paramo-Andosols (28%) and Paramosols (5%).
They differ mainly in their parent rock material, so that Paramo-
Andosol is found above igneous and sedimentary deposits,
whereas Paramosol develops on sandstone, limestone and quartzite.
The spatial distribution of soils within the catchment of the
Ronquillo River is dichotomic. Andosols only occur in the highly
elevated western part of the watershed, which is characterized by
higher rainfall compared to the eastern part of the watershed
(Fig. 7). Moreover, these Andosols are similar to soils, often referred
to as ‘páramo soils’ (Buytaert, Sevink, De Leeuw, & Deckers, 2005;
Cabaneiro, Fernandez, Pérez-Ventura, & Carballas, 2008), which
are characterized by a very high water storage capacity (Buytaert,
Célleri, De Bièvre, et al., 2006; Buytaert, Wyseure, De Bievre, &
Deckers, 2005; Célleri & Feyen, 2009) and thus are very impor-
tant for dry season runoff generation (Krois et al., 2013). Except for
the Phaeozems, which are allocated at favorable locations such as
depression zones, the soils in the eastern part of the watershed are
shallow in depth and have lower water storage capacities, so the
rivulets draining the eastern sub catchments exhibit intermittent
stream flow (Krois et al., 2013).
Suitability modeling
The concluding step in the site assessment procedure is the
suitability modeling. The most suitable sites for SWCTs are identi-
fied by combining information of SL for each criterion and its RIW.

Fig. 4. A) Direct runoff of the Ronquillo watershed, obtained by the SCS-CN method for design rainfall, corresponding to the 33%-exceedance probability of maximum daily rainfall.
B) Runoff coefficient, computed as the ratio of direct runoff, as obtained by the SCS-CN method and the design rainfall.
 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142
Table 3
Curve number values of Hydrological Soil-Cover Complexes (HSCC) delineated for
the catchment of the Ronquillo River. Each figure corresponds to a CN for either
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C or D (for details see NRCS, 2004) represented within
the catchment of the Ronquillo River. CN values reflect antecedent runoff conditions
III (ARC III), which are more representative for wet periods and thus higher ante-
cedent soil moisture (NRCS, 2004).
Land use HSG-C HSG-D
Agriculture 95 96
Shrub land 92 94
Scarce vegetation 97 98
Grassland 88 91
Forest 89 93
Meadows 91 93
The selection of criteria bases on the recommendation of the FAO to
categorize the appropriateness of SWCTs (Kahinda et al., 2008).
Each criterion presented in Table 4 (rainfall, runoff coefficient,
slope, land use, soil texture and soil depth) is rated according to its
boundary conditions, derived by literature survey (Bekele et al.,
2009; Critchley & Siegert, 1991; Hudson, 1987; Kahinda et al.,
2008; Mbilinyi et al., 2007; Oweis et al., 1999; Tumbo et al.,
2006). The suitability rating is transformed into an SL, scaling
from 1 to 9, thus expressing a suitability rating from ‘not suitable’ to
‘optimally suitable’. One should note that the SL for terraces and
bunds are identical except for the criterion slope. The latter are
more appropriate on moderate slopes (<5 ), whereas terraces are
optimally suitable on steep slopes (18e30 ). The suitability of each
criterion with respect to the corresponding SWCT is visualized in
the form of criteria maps (Fig. 8).
To derive suitability maps for a given SWCT, the criteria maps
have to be related to the result of the AHP, where the relative
importance of each criterion is assessed. The AHP pair-wise matrix
for the criteria used in this study is presented in Table 5. The
relative importance weight of each criterion is represented by its
Eigen value. As seen in Table 5, the most important criterion for
decision-making is topography (39%), followed by soil properties
Fig. 5. Slope map of the Ronquillo watershed.
137
(29%), hydrology (14%), land use (14%) and rainfall (4%). The con-
sistency ratio (CR) of the pair-wise matrix, as evaluated by Eq. (4), is
0.008 and thus the judgments made and compiled in the pair-wise
matrix of Table 5 are acceptable.
Finally, the optimal sites for each particular SWCT are computed
by applying Eq. (5), whereby the SL for each particular SWCT and
the RIW of each criterion are combined. This procedure, known as
the weighted overlay process (WOP), results in a suitability level
index value (SLIyj) of a given cell j. The higher the SLI, the better
suited is the site for implementing the considered SWCT y.
Fig. 9 compiles the suitability assessment in form of maps for
terraces (Fig. 9A) and bunds (Fig. 9B). The analysis indicates that
44% of the catchment area of the Ronquillo River is highly suited
for the implementation of terraces and that 24% of the catchment
area is highly suited for the implementation of bund systems
(Table 6). Thus indicating that the catchment’s environmental
boundary conditions are in general fairly well suited for the
implementation of SWCTs. To what extent either terraces or bund
systems are better suited depends mainly on topography. As seen
in the slope map of the Ronquillo watershed (Fig. 5), a great
portion of the area is steep to very steep terrain, thus favoring
terrace systems over bund systems. Only a minor area of the
Ronquillo River basin is classified as ‘marginally suitable’, or in
case of river channels, water bodies or roads as ‘restricted’ (ter-
races: 8%, bund systems: 12%). Terraces and bunds are classified
‘moderately suitable’ for an area of 48% and 65%, respectively.
Thus, the results of the site assessment procedure indicate that
within the Ronquillo watershed an area of 27 km2, corresponding
to 64% of the total area, is apparently highly suitable for terraces
and/or bund systems.
Discussion and conclusion
The present study aims to apply a combined GIS and MCE
approach to identify and rank sites for the implementation of
SWCTs within the Ronquillo watershed in the northern Andes of
138 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142

Fig. 6. Reclassified land use map of the Ronquillo watershed on the basis of Quickbird data sets.
Modified from Rohde, 2012.

Peru. The analysis indicates that the Ronquillo watershed is in
general well suited for the implementation of terraces and bund
systems. Approximately 44% of the catchment area is highly suited
for the implementation of terraces, and 24% of the catchment area
is highly suited for the implementation of bund systems.
Although similar approaches have been applied elsewhere (Jabr
& El-Awar, 2004; Jothiprakash & Sathe, 2009; Kahinda et al., 2008;
Mbilinyi et al., 2007; Tudes & Yigiter, 2010; Tumbo et al., 2006; de
Winnaar et al., 2007), this is a new approach for Peru. The pro-
motion of SWCTs in the Peruvian Andes may alleviate the compe-
tition for water resources among the various productive sectors
(agriculture, mining, industry), which bears the seed for conflicts
and social unrest (Gifford, Kestler, & Anand, 2010; Triscritti, 2013).
In consideration of the smoldering social conflicts related to issues
of resource allocation, it is even more important to facilitate and
objectify the decision-making process.

Fig. 7. Soil classification of the Ronquillo watershed according to the nomenclature of the World Reference Base for Soil Classification (FAO, 2006). Spatial soil data provided by
Poma-Rojas (1989) and Poma-Miranda and Poma-Miranda (2001).
 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142 139

Table 4
Suitability levels for SWCTs (terraces and bunds).

Suitability rating Optimally suitable Highly suitable Moderately suitable Marginally suitable Not suitable Restricted

Suitability level 9 7 5 3 1 0
Rainfall (mm) 400e600 200e400 800e1000 100e200 0e100 e
600e800 1000e1200 >1200
Runoff coefficient >0.9 0.6e0.9 0.3e0.6 0e0.3 e e
Slope e terraces ( ) 18e30 10e18 > 30 5e10 2e5 0e2 e
Slope e bunds ( ) <2e5 5e10 10e18 18e30 >30 e
Soil depth (m) >1.0 0.5e1.0 0.3e0.5 0.2e0.3 <0.2 e
Soil texture (% clay content) 15e35 6e15 35e55 0e6 >55 e
Land use Agriculture Meadows, Shrub land, Grassland Forest e Infrastructure,
Scarce vegetation Water bodies

Fig. 8. Criteria Maps of each particular criterion for site assessment of SWCTs in the Ronquillo watershed.
140 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142

Table 5
AHP pair-wise matrix for the criteria used in this study. The relative importance weight (RIW) of each criterion is represented by its Eigen value. The consistency ratio
(CR) ¼ 0.008, thus the judgments made are acceptable (Saaty, 1987).

Rainfall Runoff coefficient Slope Land use Soil texture Soil depth Eigen value

Rainfall 1 1/3 1/7 1/3 1/5 1/3 0.04

Runoff coefficient 3 1 1/3 1 1 1 0.14
Slope 7 3 1 3 3 3 0.39
Land use 3 1 1/3 1 1 1 0.14
Soil texture 5 1 1/3 1 1 1 0.15
Soil depth 3 1 1/3 1 1 1 0.14

Fig. 9. Suitability site assessments for (A) terraces and (B) bunds. Water bodies, stream channels and roads are not suitable for terraces nor for bund systems and thus classified
‘restricted’.

The combination of MCE and GIS provides a rational, objective
and non-biased approach to the decision-making process and thus
may help to balance out conflicting position of different stake-
holders involved in the decision-making process. The use of a
defined hierarchic structure of decision criteria ensures the general
objectivity of the methodology. However, the determination of SL
and the development of the criteria RIWs are based on expert
preferences and thus remain subjective or ultimately even a po-
litical decision (Store & Jokimäki, 2003). Nevertheless, the MCE
approach is a highly flexible tool, which can be adapted to different
stakeholder-oriented tasks and thus may be applied for different
SWCTs, under various environmental settings (Schwilch,
Bachmann, & de Graaff, 2012).
The preliminary identification of potential sites for SWCTs is
useful for ongoing and/or future resource conservation programs.
Site assessment studies may be used for scenario development,
which serve as the basis of environmental modeling approaches to
assess the environmental impact and trade-offs of the proposed
measures (Krois & Schulte, 2013). However, one should be aware that
decision-making with regard to SWCTs ultimately affects land use
and land management practices, which in turn require long-term
investments (de Graaff et al., 2008). Thus, a preliminary site assess-
ment, as presented here, is to be considered as a first step within the
‘acceptance phase’, which may eventually lead to adoption of the
measure or finally to the ‘phase of continued use’ (de Graaff et al.,
2008). The actual adoption of SWCTs often depends on the pro-
gressiveness of the challenged households (Kessler, 2006), but as
Table 6
Suitability rating for terraces and bunds.
Suitability rating SLI e range Terraces Bunds
Area (km2) % Area (km2)
well on the economic benefit for the land owners as the investments
of construction and costs of maintenance need to be amortized by
increased or more sustainable productivity (Antle, Valdivia,
Crissman, Stoorvogel, & Yanggen, 2005; Posthumus & de Graaff,
2005; Tenge & Hella, 2005; Teshome, Rolker, & de Graaff, 2013).
The implementation of SWCTs triggers on-site effects, such as an
increased agricultural productivity or a reduced soil erosion, as well
as off-site effects affecting the watersheds hydrological functions.
As reported by Krois and Schulte (2013) the locally enhanced water
retarding capacity of SWCTs may cause the reduction in water
availability for downstream uses. Future site assessment studies for
SWCTs should therefore include costebenefit analysis to addi-
tionally address economic and environmental on-site and off-site
effects of the proposed measures.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ana Cecilia Angulo-Alva from El
Centro Ecuménico y Acción Social Norte (CEDEPAS Norte), Caja-
marca, Peru for helping us to prepare and conduct the research
activities. Special thanks go to Edwin Pajares-Vigo and to Carlos
Cerdán-Moreno for their continued assistance during the past
years. In addition, we thank Mirella Gallardo-Marticorena (GIZ-
Cajamarca), Antenor Florindez (Instituto Cuencas), Fresia Chunga-
Castro (CIPDER), Pablo Sánchez-Zevallos (ASPADERUC), Gaspar
Méndez-Cruz and Attilio Cadenillas-Martínez (Universidad Nacio-
nal de Cajamarca), SENAMHI-Cajamarca, EPS SEDACAJ S.A., the
provincial capital of Cajamarca, the district capital of Chetilla and
Magdalena, and all the Master and Bachelor students involved. This
research was generously financed by the Hans Sauer Foundation,
Germany.
%

Highly suitable 6.10e8.00 18.64 44 10.04 24

References
Moderately suitable 4.10e6.00 20.18 48 27.30 65
Marginally suitable 2.10e4.00 1.32 3 2.80 7 van den Abeele, J. (1995). Zonificación y Plantaciones Forestales en la Sierra Peruana.
Cajamarca, Peru: Asociación para el Desarrollo y la Investigación Forestal,
Not suitable/restricted 0e2.00 2.04 5 2.04 5
ADEFOR (in Spanish).
 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142
Agarwal, R., Garg, P., & Garg, R. (2013). Remote sensing and GIS based approach for
identification of artificial recharge sites. Water Resources Management, 1e19.
Al-Seekh, S. H., & Mohammad, A. G. (2009). The effect of water harvesting tech-
niques on runoff, sedimentation, and soil properties. Environmental Manage-
ment, 44(1), 37e45.
Alegre, J., & Rao, M. (1996). Soil and water conservation by contour hedging in the
humid tropics of Peru. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 57(1), 17e25.
Antle, J. M., Valdivia, R. O., Crissman, C. C., Stoorvogel, J. J., & Yanggen, D. (2005).
Spatial heterogeneity and adoption of soil conservation investments: integrated
assessment of slow formation terraces in the Andes. Journal of International
Agricultural Trade and Development, 1(1), 29e53.
Atkins, D., Calderon, C., Montoya, E., & Morales, E. (2005). Evaluation of water quality
in Cajamarca, Peru. Annual monitoring report 2004e2005. Washington, DC:
Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman.
Banai-Kashani, R. (1989). A new method for site suitability analysis: the analytic
hierarchy process. Environmental Management, 13(6), 685e693.
Becker, B., & Utermöhlen, H. (1997). Identificación de Especies en la Flora acom-
pañante en campos de Cultivos de los Andes. In M. Tapia (Ed.), Manejo Integral
de Microcuencas (pp. 67e75). Lima, Peru: Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP)
(in Spanish).
Bekele, S. A., Lemperiere, P., & Tulu, T. (2009). Training manual on agricultural water
management. Nairobi, Kenya.
Bruins, H., Evenari, M., & Nessler, U. (1986). Rainwater-harvesting agriculture for
food production in arid zones: the challenge of the African famine. Applied
Geography, 6(1), 13e32.
Burnside, N., Smith, R., & Waite, S. (2002). Habitat suitability modelling for
calcareous grassland restoration on the South Downs, United Kingdom. Journal
of Environmental Management, 65(2), 209e221.
Buytaert, W., Célleri, R., De Bièvre, B., Cisneros, F., Wyseure, G., Deckers, J., et al.
(2006). Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth-Science
Reviews, 79(1e2), 53e72.
Buytaert, W., Celleri, R., Willems, P., Bièvre, B. D., & Wyseure, G. (2006). Spatial and
temporal rainfall variability in mountainous areas: a case study from the south
Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Hydrology, 329(3e4), 413e421.
Buytaert, W., Sevink, J., De Leeuw, B., & Deckers, J. (2005). Clay mineralogy of the
soils in the south Ecuadorian páramo region. Geoderma, 127(1e2), 114e129.
Buytaert, W., Wyseure, G., De Bievre, B., & Deckers, J. (2005). The effect of land-use
changes on the hydrological behaviour of Histic Andosols in south Ecuador.
Hydrological Processes, 19(20), 3985e3997.
Cabaneiro, A., Fernandez, I., Pérez-Ventura, L., & Carballas, T. (2008). Soil CO2
emissions from Northern Andean Paramo ecosystems: effects of fallow agri-
culture. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(5), 1408e1415.
Carver, S. J. (1991). Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical infor-
mation systems. International Journal of Geographical Information System, 5(3),
321e339.
Célleri, R., & Feyen, J. (2009). The hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems:
importance, knowledge status, and perspectives. Mountain Research and
Development, 29(4), 350e355.
Celleri, R., Willems, P., Buytaert, W., & Feyen, J. (2007). Spaceetime rainfall vari-
ability in the Paute basin, Ecuadorian Andes. Hydrological Processes, 21(24),
3316e3327.
Critchley, W., Reij, C., & Willcocks, T. (1994). Indigenous soil and water conservation:
a review of the state of knowledge and prospects for building on traditions.
Land Degradation & Development, 5(4), 293e314.
Critchley, W., & Siegert, K. (1991). Water harvesting: A manual for the design and
construction of water harvesting schemes for plant production. Rome: FAO.
Dehn, M. (1995). An evaluation of soil conservation techniques in the Ecuadorian
Andes. Mountain Research and Development, 175e182.
Donovan, M. L., Rabe, D. L., & Olson, C. E., Jr. (1987). Use of geographic information
systems to develop habitat suitability models. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 574e579.
Dorren, L., & Rey, F. (2004). A review of the effect of terracing on erosion. In C. Boix-
Fayons, & A. Imeson (Eds.), Briefing papers of the 2nd SCAPE workshop (pp. 97e
108). Cinque Terre, Italy.
Durán-Zuazo, V. H., & Rodríguez-Pleguezuelo, C. R. (2008). Soil-erosion and runoff
prevention by plant covers. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,
28(1), 65e86.
EPS SEDACAJ S.A.. (2006). Plan Maestro Optimizado para las ciudades y localidades de
Cajamarca, Contumazá y San Miguel. Cajamarca: Empresa Prestadora de Servicio
de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Cajamarca (in Spanish).
Espinoza-Villar, J. C., Ronchail, J., Guyot, J. L., Cochonneau, G., Naziano, F., Lavado, W.,
et al. (2009). Spatio-temporal rainfall variability in the Amazon basin countries
(Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador). International Journal of Clima-
tology, 29(11), 1574e1594.
Evans, R. (2006). Sustainable practices to limit soil erosion: a review and discussion.
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture Veterinary Science Nutrition and Natural
Resources, 1.
FAO. (2000). Manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices (Vol.
8). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO. (2006). World reference base for soil resources 2006 (Vol. 103). Rome, Italy: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fuller, D., Troyo, A., Alimi, T., & Beier, J. (2014). Participatory risk mapping of malaria
vector exposure in northern South America using environmental and popula-
tion data. Applied Geography, 48, 1e7.
Gardner, R., & Gerrard, A. (2003). Runoff and soil erosion on cultivated rainfed
terraces in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Applied Geography, 23(1), 23e45.
141
Gbanie, S. P., Tengbe, P. B., Momoh, J. S., Medo, J., & Kabba, V. T. S. (2013). Modelling
landfill location using geographic information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA): case study Bo, Southern Sierra Leone. Applied Ge-
ography, 36, 3e12.
Gifford, B., Kestler, A., & Anand, S. (2010). Building local legitimacy into corporate
social responsibility: gold mining firms in developing nations. Journal of World
Business, 45(3), 304e311.
de Graaff, J., Amsalu, A., Bodnár, F., Kessler, A., Posthumus, H., & Tenge, A. (2008).
Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water
conservation measures in five developing countries. Applied Geography, 28(4),
271e280.
Hammad, A. A., Haugen, L. E., & Børresen, T. (2004). Effects of stonewalled terracing
techniques on soilewater conservation and wheat production under Mediter-
ranean conditions. Environmental Management, 34(5), 701e710.
Hudson, N. (1987). Soil and water conservation in semi-arid areas (Vol. 57). Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Jabr, W., & El-Awar, F. (2004). GIS & analytic hierarchy process for siting water
harvesting reservoirs. In Esri UC proceedings.
Jothiprakash, V., & Sathe, M. V. (2009). Evaluation of rainwater harvesting methods
and structures using analytical hierarchy process for a large scale industrial
area. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 1(6), 427e438.
Kadam, A. K., Kale, S. S., Pande, N. N., Pawar, N., & Sankhua, R. (2012). Identifying
potential rainwater harvesting sites of a semi-arid, basaltic region of western
India, using SCS-CN method. Water Resources Management, 26(9), 2537e2554.
Kahinda, J. M., Lillie, E., Taigbenu, A., Taute, M., & Boroto, R. (2008). Developing
suitability maps for rainwater harvesting in South Africa. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 33(8), 788e799.
Kahinda, J. M., Rockström, J., Taigbenu, A. E., & Dimes, J. (2007). Rainwater har-
vesting to enhance water productivity of rainfed agriculture in the semi-arid
Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32(15), 1068e1073.
Kahinda, J. M., Taigbenu, A., Sejamoholo, B., Lillie, E., & Boroto, R. (2009). A GIS-
based decision support system for rainwater harvesting (RHADESS). Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 34(13), 767e775.
Kessler, C. (2006). Decisive key-factors influencing farm households’ soil and water
conservation investments. Applied Geography, 26(1), 40e60.
Krois, J., & Schulte, A. (2013). Modeling the hydrological response of soil and water
conservation measures in the Ronquillo watershed in the Northern Andes of
Peru. In 6th International conference on water resources and environment research
(ICWRER) (pp. 147e184).
Krois, J., Schulte, A., Abendroth, S., & Schneider, M. (2013). Dry season runoff and
natural water storage capacity in the high Andean catchment of the river
Ronquillo in the Northern Sierra of Peru. Journal of Latin American Geography,
12(3), 59e89.
Lagos, P., Silva, Y., Nickl, E., & Mosquera, K. (2008). El Niño? Related precipitation
variability in Perú. Advances in Geosciences, 14, 231e237.
Landa, C., Picard, L., & Velarde, E. (1975). Eucalyptus globulus Labill. y Pinus radiata D.
Don. Recomendaciones para su utilización en plantaciones forestales en Cajamarca.
Cajamarca, Peru: Ministerio de Agricultura, Direción General Forestal y de
Fauna, Zona Agraria II (in Spanish).
Landa, E. C., Van Hoof, B. C., Poma, R. W., & Mestanza, N. J. (1978). Los suelos de la
cuenca del río Cajamarca. Cajamarca, (in Spanish).
Lesschen, J. P. (2007). Soil and water conservation practices. In J. Hooke, &
P. J. Sandercock (Eds.), Conditions for restoration & mitigation of desertified areas
using vegetation (RECONDES) (pp. 165e173). European Commission.
Makurira, H., Savenije, H., Uhlenbrook, S., Rockström, J., & Senzanje, A. (2009).
Investigating the water balance of on-farm techniques for improved crop pro-
ductivity in rainfed systems: a case study of Makanya catchment, Tanzania.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 34(1), 93e98.
Malczewski, J. (2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Progress in Planning, 62(1), 3e65.
Mbilinyi, B., Tumbo, S., Mahoo, H., & Mkiramwinyi, F. (2007). GIS-based decision
support system for identifying potential sites for rainwater harvesting. Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth, 32(15), 1074e1081.
NRCS. (2004). National engineering handbook, part 630 hydrology. Washington, D.C.:
United States department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
ONERN. (1975). Inventario, Evaluación y Uso Racional de los Recursos Naturales de la
Zona Sur del Departamento de Cajamarca (Vol. 1). Lima, Peru: Oficina Nacional de
Evaluacion de Recursos Naturales (in Spanish).
Oweis, T., & Hachum, A. (2006). Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for
improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North
Africa. Agricultural Water Management, 80(1), 57e73.
Oweis, T., Hachum, A., & Kijne, J. (1999). Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation
for improved water use efficiency in dry areas (Vol. 7). IWMI.
Poma-Miranda, J. C., & Poma-Miranda, R. d. l. C. (2001). Aplicación del Sistema de
Información Geográfica en la Generación y gestión de Información de Capacidades
de uso de los Suelos de la Intercuenca de los Ríos San Vincente y Porcón. Caja-
marca: Universidad Nacional de Cajamarca (in Spanish).
Poma-Rojas, W. (1989). Estudio de suelos del área del Proyecto Piloto de Ecosistemas
Andinos. Cajamarca: PPEA (in Spanish).
Poma-Rojas, W., & Alcántara-Boñón, G. H. (2010). Estudio de Suelos con fines de
Zonificación Ecologica Económica y Ordenamiento terretorial de la región Caja-
marca. Cajamarca: Gobierno Regional Cajamarca (in Spanish).
Ponce, V. M., & Hawkins, R. H. (1996). Runoff curve number: has it reached matu-
rity? Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 1(1), 11e19.
142 J. Krois, A. Schulte / Applied Geography 51 (2014) 131e142
Posthumus, H., & de Graaff, J. (2005). Costebenefit analysis of bench terraces, a case
study in Peru. Land Degradation & Development, 16(1), 1e11.
Prinz, D. (1996). Water harvesting e past and future. In L. S. Pereira (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of NATO advanced research workshop (pp. 135e144). Rotterdam: Bal-
kema. Vimeiro.
Ramakrishnan, D., Bandyopadhyay, A., & Kusuma, K. (2009). SCS-CN and GIS-based
approach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali Watershed,
Mahi River Basin, India. Journal of Earth System Science, 118(4), 355e368.
Rohde, S. A. (2012). Die Wasserverfügbarkeit im Flusseinzugsgebiet des Ronquillo
(nördliche Sierra Perus) und der Einfluss von Landnutzungsänderungen e eine
hydrologische Modellierung mit NASIM. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin (in
German).
Rollenbeck, R., & Bendix, J. (2011). Rainfall distribution in the Andes of southern
Ecuador derived from blending weather radar data and meteorological field
observations. Atmospheric Research, 99(99), 277e289.
Ronchail, J., & Gallaire, R. (2006). ENSO and rainfall along the Zongo valley (Bolivia)
from the Altiplano to the Amazon basin. International Journal of Climatology,
26(9), 1223e1236.
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal
of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234e281.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource
allocation.
Saaty, T. L. (1987). Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hi-
erarchy decision process. Decision Sciences, 18(2), 157e177.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European
Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9e26.
Sánchez-Gómez, J., & Gillis, M. (1982). Los Arboles e el Bosque y los Campesions.
Cajamarca, Peru: CICAFOR (in Spanish).
Schwilch, G., Bachmann, F., & de Graaff, J. (2012). Decision support for selecting SLM
technologies with stakeholders. Applied Geography, 34, 86e98.
Store, R., & Jokimäki, J. (2003). A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suit-
ability modeling. Ecological Modelling, 169(1), 1e15.
Store, R., & Kangas, J. (2001). Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert
knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 55(2), 79e93.
Tapia, M. (1997). Zonificación agroecológica basada en el Uso de la Tierra, el Con-
ocimiento Local y las Alternativas de Producción. In M. Tapia (Ed.), Manejo In-
tegral de Microcuencas (pp. 53e66). Lima, Peru: Centro Internacional de la Papa
(CIP) (in Spanish).
Tenge, A., & Hella, J. (2005). Financial efficiency of major soil and water conservation
measures in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Applied Geography, 25(4),
348e366.
Teshome, A., Rolker, D., & de Graaff, J. (2013). Financial viability of soil and water
conservation technologies in northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Applied Geog-
raphy, 37, 139e149.
Tian, Y., Su, D., Li, F., & Li, X. (2003). Effect of rainwater harvesting with ridge and
furrow on yield of potato in semiarid areas. Field Crops Research, 84(3), 385e
391.
Triscritti, F. (2013). Mining, development and corporateecommunity conflicts in
Peru. Community Development Journal, 48(3), 437e450.
Tudes, S., & Yigiter, N. D. (2010). Preparation of land use planning model using GIS
based on AHP: case study Adana-Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 69(2), 235e245.
Tumbo, S., Mbilinyi, B., Mahoo, H., & Mkiramwinyi, F. (2006). Determination of
suitability levels for important factors for identification of potential sites for
rainwater harvesting. In 7th WaterNet-WARFSA-GWP-SA symposium. Lilongwe,
Malawi.
Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of ap-
plications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1e29.
Voogd, H. (1983). Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. London:
Pion.
de Winnaar, G., Jewitt, G., & Horan, M. (2007). A GIS-based approach for identifying
potential runoff harvesting sites in the Thukela River basin, South Africa. Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32(15), 1058e1067.