Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing groundwater vulnerability and its inconsistency with groundwater quality, based on a modified DRASTIC model: a case study in Chaoyang District of Beijing City

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (DRASTIC) model based on a geographic information system (GIS) is the most widely adopted model for the evaluation of groundwater vulnerability. However, the model had its own disadvantages in various aspects. In this work, several methods and the technologies have been introduced to improve on the traditional model. The type of the aquifer was replaced by the thickness of the aquifer, and the index of topography was removed. The indexes of the exploitation of the groundwater and the type of land use that reflected the special vulnerability were added to the system. Furthermore, considering the wideness of the study area, the fixed weights in the DRASTIC model were not suitable. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method and an entropy weight (Ew) method were introduced to calculate the weights of parameters. Then, the Spearman Rho correlation coefficients between IVI and the Nemerow synthetical pollution index (NI) of the groundwater quality were significantly improved, after the four steps of modification. The level differences with little gaps between Nemerow comprehensive pollution indexes and groundwater vulnerability occupied the proportion of the area from 75.68 to 84.04%, and finally, a single-parameter sensitivity analysis for the two models was used to compute the effective weights of these parameters. By comparison, the DRMSICEL model seems to perform better than the DRASTIC model in the study area. And the results show discrepancies between the vulnerability indices and groundwater quality as indicated by existence of vulnerable areas with bad water quality and vice versa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Amoush H, Hammouri NA, Zunic F, Salameh E (2010) Intrinsic vulnerability assessment for the alluvial aquifer in the northern part of Jordan Valley. Water Resour Manag 24(13):3461–3485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aller L, Bennet T, Leher JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydro-geological settings. EPA 600/2-87-035. USEPA, Washington, DC, p 622

    Google Scholar 

  • Anane M, Abidi B, Lachaal F, Limam A, Jellali S (2013) GIS-based DRASTIC, pesticide DRASTIC and the susceptibility index (SI): comparative study for evaluation of pollution potential in the Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer, Tunisia. Hydrogeol J 21(3):715–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiker IS, Mohamed MAA, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, Central Japan. Sci Total Environ 345:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker LA (1992) Introduction to nonpoint source pollution in the United States and prospects for wetland use. Ecol Eng 1:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1997) EPIK: a new method for outlining of protection areas in karstic environment. In: Int. Symp. On Karst Waters and Environmental Impacts. Antalya, Turkey, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 117–123

  • Expósito JL, Esteller MV, Paredes J, Rico C, Franco R (2010) Groundwater protection using vulnerability maps and wellhead protection area (WHPA): a case study in Mexico. Water Resour Manag 24(15):4219–4236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Van Duijvenbooden W, Van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants. Proc. Int. Conf. at Woordrijk aan Zee, The Netherlands 30 March-3 April pp 69–86

  • Fritch TG, McKnight CL, Yelderman JC, Arnold JG (2000) An aquifer vulnerability assessment of the Paluxy aquifer, Central Texas, USA, using GIS and a modified DRASTIC approach. Environ Manag 25(3):337–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javadi S, Kavehkar N, Mohammadi K, Khodadi A, Kahawita R (2011) Calibration DRASTIC using field measurements, sensitivity analysis and statistical method to assess groundwater vulnerability. Water Int 36(6):719–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li XN, Zhou CS, Zhou XD (2014) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in Xiaodian District of Taiyuan City based on Ew-AHP-SIM. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University 47(1):12–17 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liggett JE, Talwar S (2009) Groundwater vulnerability assessments and integrated water resource management. Watershed Manag Bull 13(1):18–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Margat J (1968) Vulnerabilité des nappes d’eau souterrainea la pollution [Contamination vulnerability mapping of groundwater]. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minieres, Orleans

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi K, Niknam R, Majd VJ (2009) Aquifer vulnerability assessment using GIS and fuzzy system: a case study in Tehran-Karaj aquifer, Iran. Environ Geol 58(3):437–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody R, Ast JAV (2012) Implementation of GIS-based applications in water governance. Water Resour Manag 26(2):517–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moratalla Á, Gómez-Alday JJ, Sanz D, Castaño S, Heras JDL (2011) Evaluation of a GIS-based integrated vulnerability risk assessment for the Mancha Oriental System (SE Spain). Water Resour Manag 25:3677–3697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neshat A, Pradhan B, Pirasteh S, Zulhaidi H, Shafri M (2014) Estimating groundwater vulnerability to pollution using a modified DRASTIC model in the Kerman agricultural area. Iran Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-013-2690-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobre RCM, Filho OCR, Mansur WJ, Nobre MMM, Cosenza CAN (2007) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. J Contam Hydrol 94:277–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos GP, Antonkos AK (2006) Optimizations of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeol J 14(6):894–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei F, Safavi HR, Ahmadi A (2013) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using fuzzy logic: a case study in the Zayandehrood aquifers, Iran. Environ Manag 51(1):267–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins NS, Chilton PJ, Cobbing JE (2007) Adapting existing experience with aquifer vulnerability and groundwater protection for Africa. J Afr Earth Sci 47:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saidi S, Bouri S, Ben Dhia H (2010) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping of the Hajeb-jelma aquifer (Central Tunisia) using a GIS-based DRASTIC model. Environ Earth Sci 59(7):1579–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sener E, Davraz A (2013) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability based on a modified DRASTIC model, GIS and an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method: the case of Egirdir Lake basin (Isparta, Turkey). Hydrogeol J 21(3):701–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umar R, Ahmed I, Alam F (2009) Mapping groundwater vulnerable zones using modified DRASTIC approach of an alluvial aquifer in parts of central Ganga plain, western Uttar Pradesh. J Geol Sci India 73(2):1931–1201

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Stempvoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1992) AVI: a method for groundwater protection mapping in the prairie provinces of Canada. Prairie Provinces Water Board, Regina, SK

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Q, Fan ZL, Zhang ZW, Zhou WF (2014a) Evaluation and zoning of groundwater hazards in Pingshuo No. 1 underground coal mine, Shanxi Province, China. Hydrogeol J 22(7):1693–1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu WY, Yin SY, Liu HL, Chen HH (2014b) Groundwater vulnerability assessment and feasibility mapping under reclaimed water irrigation by a modified DRASTIC model. Water Resour Manag 28(5):1219–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin LH, Hou GC, Tao ZP, Li Y (2010) Origin and recharge estimates of groundwater in the Ordos Plateau, People’s Republic of China. Environ Earth Sci 60(8):1731–1738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin LH, Zhang EY, Wang XY, Wenninger J, Dong JQ, Guo L, Huang JT (2013) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in the Ordos plateau, China. Environ Earth Sci 69(1):171–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou HC, Wan GL, Yang Q (1999) A multi-objective fuzzy pattern recognition model for assessing groundwater vulnerability based on the DRASTIC system. Hydrol Sci J 44(4):611–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwahlen F (2004) Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers, final report (COST action 620). European Commission, Directorate-General XII Science. Research and Development, Brussels 297

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the National 973 Program of China (2015CB452701), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51379215), the China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (No. ZJ1224), and the Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin (No. 2014QN01). The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and the editor whose valuable comments and suggestions have greatly improved the quality of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, 100038, China

    Jing Hao, Yangwen Jia, Hao Wang, Cunwen Niu & Yongde Gan

  2. Key Laboratory of Beijing for Water Quality Science and Water Environment Recovery Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

    Jing Hao, Yongxiang Zhang & Yicheng Gong

  3. State Key Laboratory of Hydro-Science and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

    Yicheng Gong

Authors
  1. Jing Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yongxiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yangwen Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cunwen Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yongde Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yicheng Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yongxiang Zhang or Yangwen Jia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hao, J., Zhang, Y., Jia, Y. et al. Assessing groundwater vulnerability and its inconsistency with groundwater quality, based on a modified DRASTIC model: a case study in Chaoyang District of Beijing City. Arab J Geosci 10, 144 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-2885-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-2885-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation