Waterlogging Risk Mapping Using Remote Sensing and Field Data (Case Study: Qazvin)
Subject Areas : Article frome a thesisHamed Mansoori 1 , Vahid Yazdani 2
1 - گروه علوم و مهندسی آب- مجتمع آموزش عالی تربت جام
2 - گروه علوم و مهندسی آب- مجتمع آموزش عالی تربت جام
Keywords: GIS, Sensitivity analysis, Remote sensing, aquifer vulnerability and risk, wetland,
Abstract :
Protecting the quality of groundwater due to frequent usage of this resource in various sectors including agriculture, industry and drinking water is of great importance. One of the ways to prevent pollution of groundwater is identifying the vulnerable aquifers and land management. In this paper, four indicators, namely :(AVI, GOD, DRASTIC and SINTACS) have been used to delineate volnerable areas on Qazvin plain of groundwater pollution. The data and information used in this article include satellite images for mapping land use and designated wetlands areas, maps whit scale of 1: 25,000 for georeferencing satellite images and control points, groundwater depth information during different years, amount of rainfall in the region, transmissivity capability and apparent resistivity of the aquifer layer, depth to bedrock, soil texture, surface area, soil permeability, slope (use the map DEM), the thickness and the texture of aquifer layer, hydraulic conductivity parameters, soil texture of the unsaturated area, net recharge parameters and land use. Because of the importance of wetlands and land use parameters in determining the potential risk and vulnerability, these conditions have been identified using satellite imagery.Threshold method and control points, were used to determine the inunalated areas of the plain hosbeen.The phreatic surfacehas was composition and the ordinary kriging method which was achieved below the critical level. As the normal vulnerability factor contains effective parameters, it was selected as an indicator for vulnerability classification was selected. Vulnerability classes based on these indices were divided into 6 categories, without the risk of contamination, very low vulnerability, low, low-to-moderate, moderate-to-high and high, whit the contribution of each class to the total area was 2.38, 20.73, 72.22, 20.5, 5.95 and 0.05 percent, respectively.
1) Al-adamat, R.A.N., Foster, I.D.L and Baban, S.M.J. 2003. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS and Remote sensing and DRASTIC, Applied Geography:32-40.
2) Aller, L., Bennet, T., Lehr, J.H., Petty, R.J. and Hackett, G. 1987. DRASTIC A standardized systemfor evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeological settings. National Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, 266 pp: 165-173.
3) Bai, L., Wang, Y. and Meng, F. 2011. Application of DRASTIC and extension theory in the groundwater vulnerability evaluation. Water and Environment Journal: 381-391.
4) Bagherzadeh, S., Kalantari, N., Rahimi, M. and Daneshiyan, H. 2011. Using GIS to Analyze Single-Parameter Sensitivity of SINTACS and DRASTIC Methods for Assessing the Vulnerability of Groundwater Resources in Behbahan Plain, Geomatics National Conference. (In Persian).
5) Castaneda, C. and Herrero, J. 2005. Landsat monitoring of playa-lakes in the SpanishMonegros desert, J. Arid Environments 63: 497–516
6) Chowdary, V. M., Chandran, R.V., Neeti, N.; Bothale, R.V., Srivastava, Y.K. and Ingle, P. 2008. Assessment of surface and sub-surface waterlogged areas in irrigation command areas of Bihar state using remote sensing and GIS, Agricultural Water Management: 754-766.
7) Civita, M. 1994. Le carte dellavulnerabilità degli acquiferi all’inquinamento [Vulnerability map of aquifer contamination]. Teoria andpractica, Pitagora, Bologna, Italy
8) Civita, M. and De Regibus, C. 1995. Sperimentazione di alcune metodologie per la valutazionedella vulnerabilità degli aquifer, Development of a methodology for theassessment of aquifer vulnerabilità, Q Geol. Appl Pitagora, 3:63-71.
9) Daneshkar Arasteh, P. 2007. Using Satellite Images to Identify Water Resistance and Soil Salinity (Case Study in Sistan Plain), Proceedings of the Fourth Drainage Workshop, National Irrigation and Drainage Committee of Iran (In Persian).
10) Doerfliger, N., Jeannin, P.Y. and Zwahlen, F. 1997. Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: A new method of defining protection areas.
11) Doerfliger, N. and Zwahlen, F. 1998. Practical guide, groundwater vulnerability mapping in karstic regions EPIK”, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests andLandscape(SAEFL), Bern, 56 pp
12) Foster, S. 1987. Fundamental concepts inaquifer vulnerability, pollution risk andprotection strategy. In: Duijvenbooden W van, Waegeningh, HG van (Eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants, Proceedings andInformation”, vol 38. TNO Committee on HydrologicalResearch, The Hague: 69-86.
13) Goossens, R. and Devliegher, B. 1997. Monitoring, simulation and prediction of soil salinity and waterlogging risk using remote sensing and GIS on provinciall evel (Ismailia, Egypt):43-50.
14) Hasiniaina, F., Zhou, J. and Guoyi, L. 2010. Regional assessment of groundwater vulnerability in Tamtsag basin, Mongolia using drastic model. Journal of American Science: 65-78.
15) Indo-DutchNetwork Project (IDNP), 2002. AMethodology for Identification ofWaterlogging and Soil Salinity Conditions Using RemoteSensing, Published byCentralSoil Salinity Research Institute
16) Lee, S. 2003. Evaluation of waste disposal site using the DRASTIC system in s outhern Korea EnvIRON Geol 44: 654-664.
17) Jafari A. 2004. The Great Culture of Gytology (Geographic Terminology), GITASHENASI Publishing, Second Edition. (In Persian).
18) McFarlane, Don J. and Williamson, D. 2002. An overview of water logging and salinityin southwestern Australia as related to the ‘Ucarro’ experimental catchment, AgriculturalWater Management 53:5–29
19) Napolitano, P. and Fabbri, A.G. 1996. Single-parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS, HydroGIS 96: Application of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resouces Management (Proceedings of the Vienna Conference, April 1996). IAHS Publ.235:559-566.
20) Piscopo, G., Please, P. and Sinclair, P. 2001. Macquarie Catchment groundwatervulnerability map Explanatory Notes. Department of Land andWaterConservation, NewSouth Wales.
21) Rundquist, O. T., Camur, M. Z. and Yazicigil, H. 2001. Statewide groundwater-vulnerability assessment in -Nebraska using the DRASTIC/GIS Model. Geocarto Int 2: 51 – 58.
22) Rathore, D.S., Sanjay, K.j. and Chaudhry, A. 2001. RemoteSensing and GIS applications in zonation of water logging in irrigation command”,National Institute of Hydrology Jalvigyan Bhawan
23) Secunda, S., Collin, M. L. and Melloul, A.J. 1998. Groundwater vulnerability assessment using a composite model combining DRASTIC with extensive agricultural land use in Israel’s Sharon region. Journal of Environmental Management, 54:39-57.
24) Shamsaee, A. 2003. Hydraulic flow of water in porous media, Amir Kabir University of Technology, groundwater, Volume II. (In Persian).
25) Stempvoort, D., Evert, L. and Wassenaar, L. 1993. Aquifer vulnerability index: A GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping, Can Water Res 37:18-25
26) Remesan, R. and Panda, R.K. 2008. Groundwater vulnerability assessment, riskmapping, and nitrate evaluation in a small agriculturalwatershed: Using theDRASTICmodel and GIS, Environmental Quality Management 17:53-75.
27) Sener, E. and Davraz, A. 2012. 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). Hydrogeology Journal, DOI 10.1007/s10040-021-0947-y.
28) Thirumalaivasan, D., Karmegam, M. and Venugopal, K. 2003. AHP-DRASTIC: software for specific aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC model and GIS. Environmental Modelling and Software 18: 645-656
29) Williamson, M. 2001. Cambridge Dictionary of Space Technology, Cambridge University Press, First Edition.
_||_