Premium
Modification of the DRASTIC Framework for Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability Zones
Author(s) -
Barzegar Rahim,
Asghari Moghaddam Asghar,
Norallahi Shahrokh,
Inam Azhar,
Adamowski Jan,
Alizadeh Mohammad Reza,
Bou Nassar Jessica
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
groundwater
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1745-6584
pISSN - 0017-467X
DOI - 10.1111/gwat.12919
Subject(s) - wilcoxon signed rank test , groundwater , vulnerability (computing) , environmental science , statistics , range (aeronautics) , nitrate , soil science , mathematics , hydrology (agriculture) , computer science , geology , materials science , ecology , mann–whitney u test , biology , geotechnical engineering , computer security , composite material
The DRASTIC technique is commonly used to assess groundwater vulnerability. The main disadvantage of the DRASTIC method is the difficulty associated with identifying appropriate ratings and weight assignments for each parameter. To mitigate this issue, ratings and weights can be approximated using different methods appropriate to the conditions of the study area. In this study, different linear (i.e., Wilcoxon test and statistical approaches) and nonlinear (Genetic algorithm [GA]) modifications for calibration of the DRASTIC framework using nitrate (NO 3 ) concentrations were compared through the preparation of groundwater vulnerability maps of the Meshqin‐Shahr plain, Iran. Twenty‐two groundwater samples were collected from wells in the study area, and their respective NO 3 concentrations were used to modify the ratings and weights of the DRASTIC parameters. The areas found to have the highest vulnerability were in the eastern, central, and western regions of the plain. Results showed that the modified DRASTIC frameworks performed well, compared to the unmodified DRASTIC. When measured NO 3 concentrations were correlated with the vulnerability indices produced by each method, the unmodified DRASTIC method performed most poorly, and the Wilcoxon–GA–DRASTIC method proved optimal. Compared to the unmodified DRASTIC method with an R 2 of 0.22, the Wilcoxon–GA–DRASTIC obtained a maximum R 2 value of 0.78. Modification of DRASTIC parameter ratings was found to be more efficient than the modification of the weights in establishing an accurately calibrated DRASTIC framework. However, modification of parameter ratings and weights together increased the R 2 value to the highest degree.