Volume 12, Issue 46 And 795 (9-2025)
Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards 2025, 12(46 And 795): 1-18 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Gholizade V, Saffari A, Ahmadabadi A, Karam A. Vulnerability assessment of Mashhad plain aquifer using the combination of DRASTIC and SI models. Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards 2025; 12 (46 and 795) : 1
URL: http://jsaeh.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3334-en.html
URL: http://jsaeh.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3334-en.html
1- kharazmi University
2- kharazmi University ,saffari@khu.ac.ir
2- kharazmi University ,
Abstract: (3947 Views)
Introduction: Assessing the vulnerability and pollution of the aquifer is necessary for the management, development and allocation of land use, quality monitoring, prevention and protection of groundwater pollution. The purpose of this research is to identify and analyze the qualitative vulnerability of the Mashhad plain aquifer in order to monitor and manage underground water resources and prevent its future pollution.
Methodology: Mashhad plain is located in the northeast of Iran between Binaloud and Hezarmasjed mountains and in the watershed of the Kasfroud river, and its area is 2527 square kilometers. In this research, the vulnerability of the Mashhad Plain aquifer was evaluated with DRASTIC and SI models, and ArcGIS was used to analyze the parameters and prepare the vulnerability map. DRASTIC model is one of the overlap and index methods. In this method, the seven measurable parameters for the hydrogeological system include the depth of the groundwater level(D), net recharge(R), aquifer environment(A), soil environment(S), topography(T), Impact of the unsaturated Zone(I) and hydraulic conductivity(C) is used. The ratings for the sub-layers of each criterion vary from one to ten depending on their impact on the vulnerability potential. In SI method, five parameters of groundwater depth(D), net recharge (R), aquifer lithology(A), topography(T) and landuse(LU) are used for aquifer vulnerability. After preparing the SI model layers and weighting each of the layer classes using the functions available in the ArcGIS, the sensitivity index is obtained from the weighted sum of the mentioned parameters.
Conclusion: Study area is divided into four zones with very low vulnerability(21.85%), low(32.09%), medium to low(31.05%) and medium to high vulnerability(14.59%). Also, based on the results of the SI model, the study area is divided into five areas with very low vulnerability(0.4%), low(24.63%), medium to low(23.98%), medium to high(18.71%) and high vulnerability(32.25%). In general, the vulnerability of the aquifer increases from the southeast to the northwest.For verification, statistical method and calculation of correlation coefficient between vulnerability maps and TDS layer was used in TerrSet software and the results showed that both DRASTIC and SI models have high accuracy in zoning the vulnerability of Mashhad plain aquifer, so that the correlation coefficient of vulnerability maps with index The quality of TDS in Drastic model is (0.996) and in SI model (0.995); Therefore, the results of the following research can be used in environmental assessments and analysis of various pollutions and can be used as a basis for management decisions.
Methodology: Mashhad plain is located in the northeast of Iran between Binaloud and Hezarmasjed mountains and in the watershed of the Kasfroud river, and its area is 2527 square kilometers. In this research, the vulnerability of the Mashhad Plain aquifer was evaluated with DRASTIC and SI models, and ArcGIS was used to analyze the parameters and prepare the vulnerability map. DRASTIC model is one of the overlap and index methods. In this method, the seven measurable parameters for the hydrogeological system include the depth of the groundwater level(D), net recharge(R), aquifer environment(A), soil environment(S), topography(T), Impact of the unsaturated Zone(I) and hydraulic conductivity(C) is used. The ratings for the sub-layers of each criterion vary from one to ten depending on their impact on the vulnerability potential. In SI method, five parameters of groundwater depth(D), net recharge (R), aquifer lithology(A), topography(T) and landuse(LU) are used for aquifer vulnerability. After preparing the SI model layers and weighting each of the layer classes using the functions available in the ArcGIS, the sensitivity index is obtained from the weighted sum of the mentioned parameters.
Conclusion: Study area is divided into four zones with very low vulnerability(21.85%), low(32.09%), medium to low(31.05%) and medium to high vulnerability(14.59%). Also, based on the results of the SI model, the study area is divided into five areas with very low vulnerability(0.4%), low(24.63%), medium to low(23.98%), medium to high(18.71%) and high vulnerability(32.25%). In general, the vulnerability of the aquifer increases from the southeast to the northwest.For verification, statistical method and calculation of correlation coefficient between vulnerability maps and TDS layer was used in TerrSet software and the results showed that both DRASTIC and SI models have high accuracy in zoning the vulnerability of Mashhad plain aquifer, so that the correlation coefficient of vulnerability maps with index The quality of TDS in Drastic model is (0.996) and in SI model (0.995); Therefore, the results of the following research can be used in environmental assessments and analysis of various pollutions and can be used as a basis for management decisions.
Article number: 1
Type of Study: Applicable |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/09/5 | Accepted: 2023/06/20 | Published: 2024/09/11
Received: 2022/09/5 | Accepted: 2023/06/20 | Published: 2024/09/11
References
1. Abu-Bakr, H. A. E. A. 2020. Groundwater vulnerability assessment in different types of aquifers. Agricultural Water Management, 240: 106275 [DOI:10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106275]
2. Alizadeh, A. 2011. Principles of applied Hydrology. 33nd edition, Mashhad, Imam Reza University Press (In Persian)
3. Aller, L; Bennet, T., Lehr, J.H., Petty, R.J and Hackett, G. 1987. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings, EPA/600/2-87/035, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ada, Oklahoma, PP: 19-25.
4. Aller, L. 1985. DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. US Environmental Protection Agency [DOI:10.1021/bk-1986-0315.ch008]
5. Almasri, M.N and Kaluarachchi, J.J. 2005. Modular neural networks to predict the nitrate distribution in ground water using the on- ground nitrogen loading and recharge data. Environmental Molelling& Software. 22: 851- 871 [DOI:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.05.001]
6. Almasri, M. 2008. Assessment of Intrinsic Vulnerability to Contamination for Gaza Coastal Aquifer. Palestine, Journal of Environmental Management. 88: 577-593 [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.022]
7. Aneesh T; DaNair; A. M, Prasad, K. R and Srinivas, R. 2022. Groundwater vulnerability assessment of an urban coastal phreatic aquifer in India using GIS-based DRASTIC model. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 100810. [DOI:10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100810]
8. Babiker, I. S; Mohamed, M. A, Hiyama, T, and Kato, K. 2005. A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. Science of the Total Environment, 345(1-3): 127-140 [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.11.005]
9. Bordbar, M; Neshat, A and Javadi, S. 2019. A new hybrid framework for optimization and modification of groundwater vulnerability in coastal aquifer. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 26(21): 21808-21827. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-019-04853-4]
10. Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Company. New York. 480
11. Brand, F.S and Jax, K. 2007. Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object. Ecology and Society. 12, 23 [DOI:10.5751/ES-02029-120123]
12. Civita, M. 1994. Le carte della vulnerabilit'a degli acquiferi all'inquinamiento: Teoria e pratica [Contamination Vulnerability Mapping of the Aquifer: Theory and Practice]. Quaderni di Tecniche di Protezione Ambientale, Pitagora.
13. Folke, C. 2006. "Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses", Global Environmental Change, Vol.16, 3: 253-267. [DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002]
14. Gallopín, Gilberto C. 2006.Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity, Global Environmental Change.16(16):293-303 [DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004]
15. Mohammadi, Z; Zare, M and Sharifzade, B. 2012. Delineation of groundwater salinization in a coastal aquifer, Bousheher, South of Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences. 67(5), 1473-1484 [DOI:10.1007/s12665-012-1591-5]
16. Niknam, R; Mohammadi, K. and Majd, Vahid. Johari. 2007. "Groundwater Vulnerability Evaluation of Tehran-Karaj Aquifer Using DRASTIC Method and Fuzzy Logic", Iran Water Resources Research. 2: 39-47
17. Ozler, M. H. 2003. Hydrochemistry and salt-water intrusion in the Van aquifer, east Turkey. Environmental Geology, 43(7), 759-775 [DOI:10.1007/s00254-002-0690-0]
18. Piscopo, G. 2001. Groundwater vulnerability map, explanatory notes, Castlereagh Catchment, NSW, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Australia.
19. Plymale CL and Angle MP. 2002. Groundwater Pollution Potential of Fulton County. Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water. Water Resources Section. Groundwater Pollution Potential, Report (45)
20. Pourmoghadas, H., 2002. A study of ground water quality in Lenjana township of Isfahan province. Journal of School of Public Health and Institute of Public Health Research, 4, 31-40. (In Persian)
21. Rahman, A. 2008. A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh. India. Applied geography. 28(1): 32-53 [DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2007.07.008]
22. Ribeiro, L. 2000. SI: a new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution. ERSHA/CVRM, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal
23. Samadi J. 2015. Assessment of Kashan Aquifer-Land Use Composite Vulnerability Impact on Groundwater Pollution Using DRASTIC Method and Degradation Model. IranWater Resources Research. 11(1): 13-21 (in Persian)
24. Stigter, T. Y; Ribeiro, L and Dill, A. M. M. 2006. Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeology journal. 14(1): 79-99. [DOI:10.1007/s10040-004-0396-3]
25. Thapinta, A and P. Hudak. 2003. Use of geographic information systems for assessing groundwater pollution potential by pesticides in Central Thailand. Environmental International. 29: 87-93 [DOI:10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00149-6]
26. Todd, P.K. 1980. Ground water, Hydrology. Kluwer Academic Publisher. 400p
27. Turner et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci, 100 (14): 8074-8079. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1231335100]
28. Voudouris. K; Nazakis. N, Polemio. M and Kareklas. K. 2010. Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability using the DRASTIC model and GIS in the Kiti aquifer. Cyprus. European Water. 30:13-24
29. Wen, X; Jun W and Jianhua Si. 2009. A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing shallow groundwater vulnerability in the Zhangye Basin. northwestern China. Environmental Geology. 57:1435-1442 [DOI:10.1007/s00254-008-1421-y]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
