Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:109 | Cite as

Developing a fuzzy optimization model for groundwater risk assessment based on improved DRASTIC method

  • Seyedeh Mahboobeh Jafari
  • Mohammad Reza NikooEmail author
Original Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Groundwater pollution is a serious threat to water resources which attracts hydrologists attention for sustainable management. Comprehensive assessment of groundwater vulnerability, however, requires uncertainty analysis in conjunction with a proper method to determine prone areas to contaminants. This paper provides a new fuzzy optimization methodology using improved DRASTIC method to model groundwater vulnerability risk assessment which considers uncertainties embedded in the input parameters, optimizes the weights and modifies the rates of the model simultaneously. To better represent hydrogeological characteristics of an area, the rating scores of original DRASTIC method is modified using Wilcoxon test considering nitrate concentration (as the main interfering pollutant in the study area). Spearman correlation coefficient between vulnerability indices and nitrate concentration is used as a factor to measure how well improved DRASTIC performs for vulnerability assessment as compared to the original method. The results show that the correlation coefficient significantly increased from 0.573 to 0.789. To address uncertainties associated with the input and output of the model, reduced fuzzy transformation method (FTM) is empowered by genetic algorithm (GA) to consider uncertainties associated with input parameters as well as optimizing weights of improved DRASTIC model. The results show how correlation coefficient changes at different uncertainty levels. Considering uncertainties in the inputs, correlation coefficient changes from 0.746 to almost 0.758 at α-cut level equal to 0 in comparison with that of equal to 1. Comparison of the risk maps of improved DRASTIC and fuzzy model at different uncertainty levels reveals that the model performs robustly under uncertainties mainly since the vulnerability trend and more importantly the severity of vulnerability indices have not changed remarkably. Based on these maps, east and southeastern parts of the study area are highly susceptible to contamination where intense industrial and agricultural activities can be seen. This framework provides helpful information for decision-makers to consider risk assessment at different uncertainty levels as it offers a continuous range of vulnerability indices rather than fixed ones. Also, vulnerability risk assessment maps demonstrate vulnerability trend throughout the area for further controlling or remedying actions of groundwater network.

Keywords

DRASTIC Groundwater vulnerability risk assessment Fuzzy transformation method Genetic algorithm 

Notes

Supplementary material

12665_2019_8090_MOESM1_ESM.docx (547 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 547 KB)

References

  1. Afshar A, Mariño MA, Ebtehaj M, Moosavi J (2007) Rule-based fuzzy system for assessing groundwater vulnerability. J Environ Eng 133:532–540.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2007)133:5(532) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alizadeh MR, Nikoo MR, Rakhshandehroo GR (2017) Hydro-environmental management of groundwater resources: a fuzzy-based multi-objective compromise approach. J Hydrol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aller L, Lehr JH, Petty R (1987) A standardized system to evaluate ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. Natl Water Well Assoc 20Google Scholar
  4. Arezoomand Omidi Langrudi M, Khashei Siuki A, Javadi S, Hashemi SR (2016) Evaluation of vulnerability of aquifers by improved fuzzy drastic method: case study: Aastane Kochesfahan plain in Iran. Ain Shams Eng J 7:11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baghapour MA, Fadaei Nobandegani A, Talebbeydokhti N et al (2016) Optimization of DRASTIC method by artificial neural network, nitrate vulnerability index, and composite DRASTIC models to assess groundwater vulnerability for unconfined aquifer of Shiraz Plain, Iran. J Environ Health Sci Eng 14:13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40201-016-0254-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barzegar R, Moghaddam AA, Baghban H (2016) A supervised committee machine artificial intelligent for improving DRASTIC method to assess groundwater contamination risk: a case study from Tabriz plain aquifer, Iran. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30:883–899.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1088-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazimenyera JDD, Zhonghua T (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Hangzhou–Jiaxing–Huzhou Plain, China. Res J Appl Sci 3:550–559Google Scholar
  8. Denny SC, Allen DM, Journeay JM (2007) DRASTIC-Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeol J 15:483–493.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0102-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon B (2005) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25:327–347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2005.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fijani E, Nadiri AA, Asghari Moghaddam A et al (2013) Optimization of drastic method by supervised committee machine artificial intelligence to assess groundwater vulnerability for Maragheh-Bonab plain aquifer, Iran. J Hydrol 503:89–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomezdelcampo E, Dickerson JR (2008) A modified DRASTIC model for siting confined animal feeding operations in Williams County, Ohio, USA. Environ Geol 55:1821–1832.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-1133-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanss M (2003) Simulation and analysis of fuzzy-parameterized models with the extended transformation method. In: Annual conference of the North American fuzzy information processing society—NAFIPS, pp 462–467Google Scholar
  13. Hanss M, Klimke A (2004) On the reliability of the influence measure in the transformation method of fuzzy arithmetic. Fuzzy Sets Syst 143:371–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(03)00163-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huan H, Wang J, Teng Y (2012) Assessment and validation of groundwater vulnerability to nitrate based on a modified DRASTIC model: a case study in Jilin City of northeast China. Sci Total Environ 440:14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iqbal J, Gorai AK, Katpatal YB, Pathak G (2015a) Development of GIS-based fuzzy pattern recognition model (modified DRASTIC model) for groundwater vulnerability to pollution assessment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:3161–3174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-014-0693-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iqbal J, Pathak G, Gorai AK (2015b) Development of hierarchical fuzzy model for groundwater vulnerability to pollution assessment. Arab J Geosci 8:2713–2728.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1417-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jafari SM, Nikoo MR (2016) Groundwater risk assessment based on optimization framework using DRASTIC method. Arab J Geosci 9:742.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2756-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Margat J (1968) Groundwater vulnerability to contamination. 68,BRGM, Orleans, France. In: Massone et al. (2010). Enhanced groundwater vulnerability assessment in geological homogeneous areas: a case study from the Argentine Pampas. Hydrogeol J 18:371–379Google Scholar
  19. 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 58:437–446.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1514-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moslemi Naeni L, Salehipour A (2011) Evaluating fuzzy earned value indices and estimates by applying alpha cuts. Expert Syst Appl 38:8193–8198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nadiri AA, Sedghi Z, Khatibi R, Gharekhani M (2017) Mapping vulnerability of multiple aquifers using multiple models and fuzzy logic to objectively derive model structures. Sci Total Environ 593–594:75–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neshat A, Pradhan B, Dadras M (2014) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using an improved DRASTIC method in GIS. Resour Conserv Recycl 86:74–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Panagopoulos GP, Antonakos AK, Lambrakis NJ (2006) Optimization of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeol J 14:894–911.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-005-0008-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pathak DR, Hiratsuka A (2011) An integrated GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model to compute groundwater vulnerability index for decision making. J Hydrol Environ Res 5:63–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2009.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piscopo G (2001) Groundwater vulnerability map explanatory notes, Lachlan catchment. NSW, Department of Land and Water Conservation, ParramattaGoogle Scholar
  26. Pourshahabi S, Nikoo MR, Raei E, Adamowski JF (2018) An entropy-based approach to fuzzy multi-objective optimization of reservoir water quality monitoring networks considering uncertainties. Water Resour Manag 32:4425–4443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2073-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahman A (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh, India. Appl Geogr 28:32–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEOG.2007.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratner B (2009) The correlation coefficient: its values range between 1/1, or do they. J Targeting Meas Anal Mark 17:139–142.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rezaei F, Safavi HR, Ahmadi A (2013) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using fuzzy logic: a case study in the Zayandehrood aquifers, Iran. Environ Manag 51:267–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9960-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 21:701–714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-012-0947-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Subagadis YH, Schütze N, Grundmann J (2016) A fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for multiple criteria decision analysis of coupled groundwater-agricultural systems. Water Resour Manag 30:2075–2095.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1270-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M, Venugopal K (2003) AHP-DRASTIC: software for specific aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC model and GIS. Environ Model Softw 18:645–656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00051-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vaezihir A, Tabarmayeh M (2015) Total vulnerability estimation for the Tabriz aquifer (Iran) by combining a new model with DRASTIC. Environ Earth Sci 74:2949–2965.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4327-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometr Bull 1:80.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zadeh LT (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang R, Hamerlinck JD, Gloss SP, Munn L (1996) Determination of nonpoint-source pollution using GIS and numerical models. J Environ Qual 25:411.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1996.00472425002500030005x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations