Using the AHP method to evaluation of aquifer potential pollution in geographical information system (GIS)

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/02/2015
Views (278) Download (11)

Using the AHP method to evaluation of aquifer potential pollution in geographical information system (GIS)

Mostafa Molaie Papkiyadeh, Ali Saremi, Abolhassan Modarreszadeh Barzoki, Amirpouya Sarraf
J. Bio. Env. Sci.6( 2), 367-375, February 2015.
Certificate: JBES 2015 [Generate Certificate]


In this paper, Eshtehard plain pollution potential calculated by the AHP method and compared with the results of DRASTIC method. Seven parameters data were prepared and entered in GIS system. This data include the depth to water table, net recharge, aquifer media, soil, topography, De saturated media and conductivity. In this investigation, with slight changes in this method’s parameters to calculate net recharge (called Piscopo), better results have been obtained for the study area in Iran. The results of performance the DRASTIC model, shows that aquifer vulnerability index which got from ranks and weights each parameters sum, minimum is 74 and the maximum is 185.The average of index is calculated 129 in the plain. Also by AHP method, with consideration of four parameters, such as: conductivity, depth to water table, precipitation, slope and comparison the parameters two by two, the weight of each parameter had obtained. So accordingly, a new model had present to evaluation the aquifer vulnerability. The average of vulnerability in Eshtehard plain is 56 percent by this model.


Alwathaf Y, Mansouri BE. 2011. Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability Based on GISand ARCGIS Methods: A Case Study of the Sana’a Basin (Yemen). Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 3, 845-855.

Abdulla Rawabdeh M, Nadhir Al-Ansari A, Ahmed Al-Taani A, Knutsson S. 2013. A GIS-Based Drastic Model for Assessing Aquifer Vulnerability in Amman-Zerqa Groundwater Basin, Jordan. Engineering, 5, 490-504.

Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M, Venugopal K. 2003. AHP-DRASTIC: Software for Specific Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Using DRASTIC Model and GIS. Environmental Model & Software. 18 (7), 645-656.

Gogu R, Dassargues A. 2000. Current Trends and Future Challenges in Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Us-Eng Overly and Index Methods. Environmental Geology. 36 (6), 549-559.

Doerfliger N, Jeannin PY, Zwahlen F. 1999. Water Vulnerability Assessment in Karstic Environment: A New Method of Defining Protection Areas Using a Multi Attribute Approach and GIS Tools (EPIK Method). Environmental Geology. 39 (2), 165-176.

Vias JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F. 2005. A Comparative Study of Four Schemes for Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping in a Diffuse Flow Carbonate Aquifer Under Mediterranean Climatic Condition. Environmental Geology. 47 (4), 586-595.

Melloul AJ, Collin M. 1998. A Proposed Index For Aquifer Water Quality Assessment: The Case of Israel’s Sharon Region. Journal of Environmental Management. 54 (2), 131-142.

Al-Zabet T. 2002. Evaluation of Aquifer Vulnerability to Contamination Potential Using the DRASTIC Method. Environmental Geology. 43 (1-2), 203-208.

Al-Adamat AN, 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. Applied Geography. 23 (4), 303-324.

Mendoza JA, Barmen G. 2006. Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability on the Rio Artiguas Basin, Nicaragua. Environmental Geology. 50 (4), 569-580.

Wang Y, Merkel BJ, Li Y, Ye H, Fuabd S, Ihm D. 2007. Vulnerability of Groundwater in Quaternary Aquifers to Organic Contamination: A Case Study on Wuhan City, China. Environmental Geology. 53 (3), 479-484.

Rahman A. 2008. A GIS Based DRASTIC Model for Assessing  Groundwater  Vulnerability  in  Shallow Aquifer in Aligarh, India. Applied Geography. 28 (1), 32-53.