Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of GIS-based models for mapping aquifer vulnerability in hard-rock terrains

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aquifer vulnerability assessment plays a vital role in identifying the areas/regions which are highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. The main intent of this study is to modify original DRASTIC and DRASTIC-P models by adding two exogenous factors [‘land use/land cover’ (LU) and ‘lineament density’ (LD)] which significantly influence groundwater contamination. The performances of original DRASTIC and DRASTIC-P (agricultural DRASTIC) models were compared with those of six modified forms of these models, viz., ‘DRASTIC-LD’, ‘DRASTIC-LU’, ‘DRASTIC-LDLU’, ‘DRASTIC-P-LD’, ‘DRASTIC-P-LU’ and ‘DRASTIC-P-LDLU’. The results of these models were validated with two scientifically sound and pragmatic approaches: (i) using the single water-quality parameter as a source of groundwater contamination (Approach I), and (ii) using multi-water quality parameters causing groundwater contamination (Approach II). Moreover, the sensitivity of these models was analyzed to identify most influential parameters in each case. The results revealed that irrespective of the models employed more than 50% of the study area falls under ‘High’ and ‘Very High’ vulnerability zones. The Approach I validation results indicated that the ‘DRASTIC-P-LDLU’ model performs the best with an accuracy of 61% and 68% with respect to nitrate and chloride concentrations, respectively, followed by the DRASTIC-LDLU model (respective accuracy = 59% and 61%). The results of model validation using Approach II also confirmed that among the eight models, the ‘Specific’ aquifer vulnerability predicted by the ‘DRASTIC-P-LDLU’ model (accuracy = 30%)  is reasonably more accurate than DRASTIC-LDLU (accuracy = 29.7%) and DRASTIC-P-LU (accuracy = 29.6%) models. Hence, it is recommended to assess ‘Specific’ aquifer vulnerability instead of ‘Intrinsic’ aquifer vulnerability. The results of the model sensitivity analyses also indicated that ‘lineament density’ and ‘land use/land cover’ are the most significant parameters for vulnerability assessment.

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahada CPS, Suthar S (2018) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Southern Punjab, India. Model Earth Syst Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0449-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Abadi AM, Al-Shammaa AM, Aljabbari MH (2017) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing intrinsic groundwater vulnerability in northeastern Missan governorate, southern Iraq. Appl Water Sci 7(1):89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Adamat RAN, Foster IDL, Baban SMJ (2003) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, remote sensing and DRASTIC. Appl Geogr 23(4):303–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. Doc. EPA/600/2–87/035. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Almasri MN (2008) Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Gaza coastal aquifer, Palestine. J Environ Manag 88(4):577–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Zabet T (2002) Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability to contamination potential using the DRASTIC method. Environ Geol 43(1):203–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Awawdeh MM, Jaradat RA (2010) Evaluation of aquifers vulnerability to contamination in the Yarmouk River basin, Jordan based on DRASTIC method. Arab J Geosci 3(3):273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiker IS, Mohamed AA, 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(1):127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiker IS, Mohamed AA, Hiyama T (2007) Assessing groundwater quality using GIS. Water Resour Manag 21(4):699–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai L, Wang Y, Meng F (2012) Application of DRASTIC and extension theory in the groundwater vulnerability evaluation. Water Environ J 26(3):381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Env Res Risk Assess 30(3):883–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brindha K, Elango L (2015) Cross comparison of five popular groundwater pollution vulnerability index approaches. J Hydrol 524:597–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CGWB (2008) District Groundwater Brochure, Tiruchirappalli District, Tamil Nadu. South Eastern Coastal Region, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, New Delhi

  • Chen SY, Fu GT (2003) A DRASTIC-based fuzzy pattern recognition methodology for groundwater vulnerability evaluation. Hydrol Sci J 48(2):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheremisinoff NP (2017) Groundwater remediation: a practical guide for environmental engineers and scientists. Scrivener Publishing, Massachusetts, 416 pp

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chitsazan M, Akhtari Y (2009) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kherran Plain, Khuzestan, Iran. Water Resour Manage 23(6):1137–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ckakraborty S, Paul PK, Sikdar PK (2007) Assessing aquifer vulnerability to arsenic pollution using DRASTIC and GIS of North Bengal Plain: a case study of English Bazar Block, Malda District, West Bengal, India. J Spat Hydrol 7(1):101–121

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0102-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Focazio MJ, Reilly TE, Rupert MG, Helsel DR (2002) Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination: providing scientifically defensible information for decision makers. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Circular No. 1224. USGS, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Frind E, Molson J, Rudolph D (2006) Well vulnerability: a quantitative approach for source water protection. Ground Water 44(5):732–742

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh T, Kanchan R (2016) Aquifer vulnerability assessment in the Bengal alluvial tract, India, using GIS based DRASTIC model. Mod Earth Syst Environ 2(3):15–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo Q, Wang Y, Gao X, Ma T (2007) A new model (DRARCH) for assessing groundwater vulnerability to arsenic contamination at basin scale: a case study in Taiyuan basin, northern China. Environ Geol 52(5):923–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N (2014) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC method in Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh. Int J Recent Technol Eng 3(3):36–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Using groundwater levels to estimate recharge. Hydrogeol J 10(1):91–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez-Espriu A, Reyna-Gutierrez JA, Sanchez-León E, Cabral-Cano E, Carrera-Hernandez J, Martínez-Santos P, Macías-Medrano S, Falorni G, Colombo D (2014) The DRASTIC-Sg model: an extension to the DRASTIC approach for mapping groundwater vulnerability in aquifers subject to differential land subsidence, with application to Mexico City. Hydrogeol J 22(6):1469–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman IP, Palmer RC, Bellamy PH, Hollis JM (2005) Validation of an intrinsic groundwater pollution vulnerability methodology using a national nitrate database. Hydrogeol J 13(5–6):665–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Sci Total Environ 440:14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javadi S, Kavehkar N, Mousavizadeh MH, Mohammadi K (2011) Modification of DRASTIC model to map groundwater vulnerability to pollution using nitrate measurements in agricultural areas. J Agric Sci Technol 13(2):239–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenifer MA, Jha MK (2018) Comprehensive risk assessment of groundwater contamination in a weathered hard-rock aquifer system of India. J Cleaner Prod 201:853–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jha MK, Peiffer S (2006) Applications of remote sensing and GIS technologies in groundwater hydrology: past, present and future. BayCEER, Bayreuth, pp 111–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaliraj S, Chandrasekar N, Peter ST, Selvakumar S, Magesh NS (2015) Mapping of coastal aquifer vulnerable zone in the south west coast of Kanyakumari, South India using GIS-based DRASTIC model. Environ Monit Assess 187(1):4073–5000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan A, Khan HH, Umar R, Khan MH (2014) An integrated approach for aquifer vulnerability mapping using GIS and rough sets: study from an alluvial aquifer in North India. Hydrogeol J 22(7):1561–1572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konikow L, Kendy E (2005) Groundwater depletion: a global problem. Hydrogeol J 13(1):317–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar P, Thakur PK, Bansod BK, Debnath SK (2016) Assessment of the effectiveness of DRASTIC in predicting the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination: a case study from Fatehgarh Sahib district in Punjab, India. Environ Earth Sci 75(10):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leduc C, Bosch AP, Remini B (2017) Anthropization of groundwater resources in the Mediterranean region: processes and challenges. Hydrogeol J 25(6):1529–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodwick WA, Monson W, Svoboda L (1990) Attribute error and sensitivity analysis of maps operation in geographical information systems-suitability analysis. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 4(4):413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubianetzky TA, Dickson SE, Guo Y (2015) Proposed method: incorporation of fractured rock in aquifer vulnerability assessments. Environ Earth Sci 74(6):4813–4825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machiwal D, Jha MK, Singh VP, Mohan C (2018) Assessment and mapping of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: current status and challenges. Earth Sci Rev 185:901–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margat J (1968) Groundwater vulnerability to contamination. Publication 68, Bureau of Geological and Mining Research, Orleans

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Bastida JJ, Arauzo M, Valladolid M (2010) Intrinsic and specific vulnerability of groundwater in central Spain: the risk of nitrate pollution. Hydrogeol J 18(3):681–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza JA, Barmen G (2006) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in the Río Artiguas basin. Nicar Environ Geol 50(4):569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondal NC, Adike S, Anand Raj P, Singh VS, Ahmed S, Jayakumar KV (2018) Assessing aquifer vulnerability using GIS-based DRASTIC model coupling with hydrochemical parameters in hard rock area from Southern India. In: Singh V, Yadav S, Yadava R (eds) Groundwater. water science and technology library, vol 76. Springer, Singapore, pp 67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Moratalla A, Gomez-Alday JJ, Sanz D, Castano S, Heras JDL (2011) Evaluation of a GIS-based integrated vulnerability risk assessment of the Mancha Oriental system (SE Spain). Water Resour Manag 25(14):3677–3697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad AM, Zhonghuaa T, Dawooda AS, Earla B (2015) Evaluation of local groundwater vulnerability based on the DRASTIC index method in Lahore. Pakistan Geofís Int 54(1):67–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Napolitano P, Fabbri AG (1996) Single-parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS. HydroGIS 96: application of geographic information systems in hydrology and water resources management. In: Proceedings of the Vienna conference, April 1996, pp. 559–566

  • National Research Council (1993) Groundwater vulnerability assessment: predictive relative contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 211 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobre RCM, Filho ROC, Mansur WJ, Nobre MMM, Cosenza CAN (2007) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. J Contam Hydrol 94(3):277–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRSC (2012) National geomorphological and Lineament mapping on 1:50,000 scale, Natural Resources Census Project, National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC). Indian Space Research Organization, Hyderabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Riberio L (2000) IS: um novo índice de susceptibilidade de aquíferos á contaminação agrícola. In: (In French) (SI: a new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution). Internal report. ER-SHA/CVRM, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, p 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundquist DC, Peters AJ, Di L, Rodekohr DA, Ehrman RL, Murray G (1991) Statewide groundwater vulnerability assessment in Nebraska using the DRASTIC/GIS model. Geocarto Int 6(2):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupert MG (2001) Calibration of the DRASTIC ground water vulnerability mapping method. Ground Water 39(4):625–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghfam S, Hassanzadeh Y, Nadiri AA, Zarghami M (2016) Localization of groundwater vulnerability assessment using catastrophe theory. Water Resour Manag 30(13):4585–4601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saida S, Tarik H, Abdellah A, Farid H, Hakim B (2017) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to Nitrate based on the optimised DRASTIC models in the GIS environment (Case of Sidi Rached Basin, Algeria). Geosciences 7(2):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saidi S, Bouri S, Dhia HB (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 

  • Sarikhani R, Kamali Z, Dehnavi AG, Sahamieh RZ (2014) Correlation of lineaments and groundwater quality in Dasht-e-Arjan Fars, SW of Iran. Environ Earth Sci 72(7):2369–2387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secunda S, Collin ML, Melloul AJ (1998) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using a composite model combining DRASTIC with extensive agricultural land use in Israel’s Sharon region. J Environ Manag 54(1):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SoE (2009) State of environment Report. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi

  • Stark SL, Nuckols JR, Rada J (1999) Using GIS to investigate septic system sites and nitrate pollution potential. J Environ Health 61(8):15–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigter TY, Ribeiro L, Carvalho Dill AMM (2006) Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinization and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeol J 14(1–2):79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thapinta A, Hudak PF (2003) Use of geographic information systems for assessing groundwater pollution potential by pesticides in Central Thailand. Environ Int 29(1):87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M, Venugopal K (2003) AHP-DRASTIC: software for specific aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC model and GIS. Environ Model Softw 18(7):645–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirkey P, Gorai AK, Iqbal J (2013) AHP-GIS based DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability to pollution assessment: A case study of Hazaribag district, Jharkhand, India. Int J Environ Prot 2(3):20–31

    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 Soc India 73(2):193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2002) Groundwater contamination inventory: a methodological guide. In: International hydrological programme, Project 3.1. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France, pp 161

  • Vrba J, Zoporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. International association of hydrogeologists: international contributions to hydrogeology, vol 16. Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover, 129 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang JL, Yang YS (2008) An approach to catchment-scale groundwater nitrate risk assessment from diffuse agricultural sources: a case study in the Upper Bann, Northern Ireland. Hydrol Process 22(21):4274–4286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Merkel BJ, Li Y, Ye H, Fu S, Ihm D (2007) Vulnerability of groundwater in Quaternary aquifers to organic contaminants: a case study in Wuhan City. China Environ Geol 53(3):479–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1996) Water quality assessments: a guide to use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring, Second edn. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2017) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first addendum. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2010) Deep wells and prudence: towards pragmatic action for addressing groundwater overexploitation in India. World Bank Report-51676, Washington, D.C

  • Wu W, Yin S, Liu H, Chen H (2014) 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 

  • WWAP (2012) The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: managing water under uncertainty and risk. World Water Assessment Program (WWAP). UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu C, Zhang B, Yao Y, Meng F, Zheng C (2012) A field demonstration of the entropy-weighted fuzzy DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment. Hydrol Sci J 57(7):1420–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zektser IS (2000) Groundwater and the environment: applications for the global community. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou J, Li G, Liu F, Wang Y, Guo X (2010) DRAV model and its application in assessing groundwater vulnerability in arid area: a case study of pore phreatic water in Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, Northwest China. Environ Earth Sci 60(5):1055–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to various government agencies such as Geological Survey of India, Central Groundwater Board as well as Institute for Water Studies, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, for providing the data necessary for this study. In addition, we are very thankful to the three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments and suggestions. The financial support received from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), New Delhi, is also gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Water Resources, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

    M. Annie Jenifer

  2. AgFE Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

    Madan K. Jha

Authors
  1. M. Annie Jenifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madan K. Jha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Annie Jenifer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jenifer, M.A., Jha, M.K. Comparative evaluation of GIS-based models for mapping aquifer vulnerability in hard-rock terrains. Environ Earth Sci 77, 672 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7821-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7821-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation