Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8090-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Developing a fuzzy optimization model for groundwater risk

assessment based on improved DRASTIC method
Seyedeh Mahboobeh Jafari1 · Mohammad Reza Nikoo1

Received: 4 September 2018 / Accepted: 18 January 2019 / Published online: 5 February 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Groundwater pollution is a serious threat to water resources which attracts hydrologists attention for sustainable manage-
ment. Comprehensive assessment of groundwater vulnerability, however, requires uncertainty analysis in conjunction with a
proper method to determine prone areas to contaminants. This paper provides a new fuzzy optimization methodology using
improved DRASTIC method to model groundwater vulnerability risk assessment which considers uncertainties embedded
in the input parameters, optimizes the weights and modifies the rates of the model simultaneously. To better represent hydro-
geological characteristics of an area, the rating scores of original DRASTIC method is modified using Wilcoxon test con-
sidering nitrate concentration (as the main interfering pollutant in the study area). Spearman correlation coefficient between
vulnerability indices and nitrate concentration is used as a factor to measure how well improved DRASTIC performs for
vulnerability assessment as compared to the original method. The results show that the correlation coefficient significantly
increased from 0.573 to 0.789. To address uncertainties associated with the input and output of the model, reduced fuzzy
transformation method (FTM) is empowered by genetic algorithm (GA) to consider uncertainties associated with input
parameters as well as optimizing weights of improved DRASTIC model. The results show how correlation coefficient changes
at different uncertainty levels. Considering uncertainties in the inputs, correlation coefficient changes from 0.746 to almost
0.758 at α-cut level equal to 0 in comparison with that of equal to 1. Comparison of the risk maps of improved DRASTIC
and fuzzy model at different uncertainty levels reveals that the model performs robustly under uncertainties mainly since
the vulnerability trend and more importantly the severity of vulnerability indices have not changed remarkably. Based on
these maps, east and southeastern parts of the study area are highly susceptible to contamination where intense industrial
and agricultural activities can be seen. This framework provides helpful information for decision-makers to consider risk
assessment at different uncertainty levels as it offers a continuous range of vulnerability indices rather than fixed ones. Also,
vulnerability risk assessment maps demonstrate vulnerability trend throughout the area for further controlling or remedying
actions of groundwater network.

Keywords DRASTIC · Groundwater vulnerability risk assessment · Fuzzy transformation method · Genetic algorithm

Introduction

Climate change is no longer considered as a future issue,

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this so many countries worldwide are dealing with its conse-
article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1266​5-019-8090-x) contains quence which is mainly prolonged drought events. This has
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. led to serious water crises and severe groundwater abstrac-
tion. Groundwater as an important source of water supply,
* Mohammad Reza Nikoo
nikoo@shirazu.ac.ir especially in regions suffering from lack of surface water,
is under a remarkable potential of contamination. Once
Seyedeh Mahboobeh Jafari
s.mahboobehjafari@gmail.com groundwater is polluted, it is hard and costly to treat or stop
the expansion of contaminated zone. Accordingly, an effi-
1
School of Engineering, Department of Civil cient monitoring strategy should be applied for sustainable
and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, management of groundwater resources.
Iran

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
109 Page 2 of 16
In this regard, Margat (1968) introduced a term in
hydrogeology, namely vulnerability which is defined as the
possibility of percolation and diffusion of pollutants into
groundwater networks. As a result of the need for an effi-
cient and reliable method for the assessment of groundwater
vulnerability, several methods are introduced. Among them,
DRASTIC is the most commonly used method which is
widely applied around the world. This method takes impor-
tant and representative parameters for groundwater vulner-
ability assessment into account and assigns them different
rating scores and weights regarding their contribution to
groundwater susceptibility to contaminants. However, due
to the subjectivity of input parameters and local variations
in hydrogeological characteristics from region to region,
DRASTIC has been modified to provide a more accurate
assessment. In most cases, the original DRASTIC was modi-
fied by applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Zhang
et al. 1996; Thirumalaivasan et al. 2003; Denny et al. 2007;
Gomezdelcampo and Dickerson 2008; Sener and Davraz
2013; Neshat et al. 2014) and or Wilcoxon test (1945; Pana-
gopoulos et al. 2006; Huan et al. 2012; Neshat et al. 2014;
Jafari and Nikoo 2016) to modify rating scores. Also, pro-
viding additional layers such as land use pattern or even
omitting basic layers based on expert judgment have become
prevalent (Bazimenyera and Zhonghua 2008; Mohammadi
et al. 2009; Pathak and Hiratsuka 2011; Iqbal et al. 2015a;
Vaezihir and Tabarmayeh 2015; Arezoomand Omidi Lan-
grudi et al. 2016; Nadiri et al. 2017). All the mentioned
studies concluded that the improved DRASTIC method is
capable of reliable assessment of groundwater vulnerabil-
ity. However, a major drawback to this model can be sim-
ply about the rating scores of input parameters which are
reported as explicit and fixed sets that any variation in input
parameters will not result in the output variation. In addi-
tion, while a reliable groundwater vulnerability assessment
requires a dense set of input data, it is often sparse or even
might be measured by low-quality technologies.
Therefore, if DRASTIC method is going to be known as
an effective tool in the realm of groundwater vulnerability
risk assessment, the following should be taken into account:
(a) modifying the rating scores and weights of input param-
eters based on hydrogeological attributes of the study area
and (b) considering the uncertainty and imprecision embed-
ded in input data. Fuzzy techniques have been prevalently
used to confront uncertainties in groundwater vulnerability
modeling (Dixon 2005; Rahman 2008; Mohammadi et al.
2009; Moslemi Naeni and Salehipour 2011; Rezaei et al.
2013; Fijani et al. 2013; Iqbal et al. 2015a, b; Subagadis
et al. 2016; Nadiri et al. 2017). Afshar et al. (2007) used
the pseudo-trapezoidal membership function along with
Mamdani inference method and central gravity defuzzi-
fication methods to define linguistic terms for DRASTIC
indices. Mohammadi et al. (2009) used a fuzzy system and
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109
applied in Tehran-Karaj aquifer, which revealed a drawback
in the original DRASTIC method. The original DRASTIC
classified the low potential areas for becoming polluted as
moderate ones. Rezaei et al. (2013) used fuzzy DRASTIC
to prepare vulnerability maps based on three critical cases
(minimum, maximum and mean annual values). Some inves-
tigate application of artificial intelligence (AI) methods with
fuzzy DRASTIC (Barzegar et al. 2016) or by applying a
supervised committee machine with artificial intelligence
(SCMAI) to original DRASTIC (Fijani et al. 2013). Also,
Nadiri et al. (2017) investigate an integration of SCFL meth-
ods which are Supervised Committee (SC), Machine and
Fuzzy Logic (FL) with DRASTIC method. Their results
revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) methods coupled
with fuzzy-based approach can better model uncertainty and
vulnerability index based on an improvement in correlation
index. Considering this literature, algorithm-based tech-
niques have rarely been utilized as an approach for improv-
ing fuzzy DRASTIC models which makes a research case
to develop a simple yet efficient framework to link fuzzi-
ness, weight optimization and rate modification of original
DRASTIC method. To the best knowledge of authors, no
studies have been dedicated to develop a fuzzy optimiza-
tion model based on an improved DRASTIC method to con-
sider weight optimization based on hydrogeological char-
acteristics of the area which can be applied anywhere. This
study aims to first modify the rating scores of DRASTIC
method and second to develop a new fuzzy optimization
model to incorporate the mentioned involved uncertainties
and optimize the weights of the improved DRASTIC model
(obtained from the first step) using genetic algorithm (GA)
simultaneously. The proposed methodology can address the
mentioned gaps in the literature review by a simple and effi-
cient framework. Using GA for optimizing fuzzy DRASTIC
model leads to obtaining the maximum feasible correlation
index between vulnerability indices and nitrate concentra-
tion with regard to hydrogeological characteristics of the
area as well as considering uncertainty in acquiring data.
In a complementary step, the outputs can be linked with
ArcGIS for preparing fuzzy vulnerability maps to delineate
contaminant migration or prone areas to pollutants at the
site as well as reporting spatially continuous vulnerability
index at different uncertainty degrees. This paper continues
by presenting the proposed methodology and case study in
Sect. 2. Additionally, Sects. 3 and 4 are devoted to results
and conclusion, respectively.
Methodology
The fundamental concept of groundwater vulnerability
assessment is preparing vulnerability maps to character-
ize the spatial distribution of prone areas to contaminants.
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109
For accurate vulnerability index, however, a high density
of accurate field data is required which is contrary to real-
istic conditions. Therefore, this study attempts to develop a
new fuzzy optimization model to incorporate uncertainties
related to imprecision of input parameters. This methodol-
ogy can also determine how well the model will perform
under uncertainties associated with input parameters. Fig-
ure 1 shows the overall flowchart of the proposed methodol-
ogy. Details about each step are provided in the following
subsections.
Vulnerability assessment
DRASTIC
Based on what was mentioned before, DRASTIC method is
chosen for groundwater vulnerability assessment developed
by Aller et al. (1987) for the US Environmental Protection
Agency (US-EPA). DRASTIC is an acronym for seven
hydrogeological parameters, namely Depth to groundwa-
ter, Net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topogra-
phy, Impact of vadose zone and Hydraulic Conductivity.
These parameters are representative factors for hydrogeo-
logical characteristics of aquifers which are easy to col-
lect. Each parameter has a predetermined weight and rating
score, which differs from 1 to 5 and 1 to 10, respectively
(Table 1). An increase in weight and/or rate values implies
that a parameter or a class of that contributes more to vulner-
ability index calculation. DRASTIC vulnerability index (VI)
can be calculated by the following equation:
∑
7
VI = (wi ri ), (1)
i=1
where w is the weight and r is the rating score assigned to
the ith parameter. It should be noted that in the present study,
Piscopo method is used to evaluate the net recharge index by
the following equation (Piscopo 2001):
Net recharge index = Slope(%) + Rainfall (%)
+ Soil permeability index. (2)
Piscopo rating scores and the final recharge indices can
be found in Table 2.
Improved DRASTIC
As the literature survey shows, modifications of rating scores
can lead to a better correlation index between vulnerabil-
ity indices and nitrate concentration (known as a common
indicator pollutant). Following a previous study (Jafari and
Nikoo 2016) in which different methods of modifications
are considered over the area with similar hydrogeological
Page 3 of 16 109
characteristics, Wilcoxon rank-sum nonparametric test (Wil-
coxon 1945) as the best choice of rate modification approach
is applied. In this method, rating scores are modified using
the mean of nitrate concentration of each class reducing to
a ten-grade scale (Panagopoulos et al. 2006). Basically, the
rates of DRASTIC method are on the decreasing trend with
respect to different ranges of a parameter, let us say soil
media or topography (Table 1). Logically, a class of a param-
eter contributing more to vulnerability index is associated
with higher nitrate concentration. Thus, first of all, the mean
nitrate concentration of samples lying in different classes of
DRASTIC parameters should be calculated. Then classes
with the highest mean of nitrate concentration are given 10
as the rating value. Rating values of other classes can be sim-
ply modified using linear interpolation based on their mean
nitrate concentration and the highest nitrate concentration
of a parameter. The concept behind this is paying attention
to the fact that developer of DRASTIC method introduced
rates of different parameters in regard to his assessment and
calibration in the US. So, as DRASTIC parameters might be
differently characterized throughout the world (for instance,
sandy type of soil might be associated with more porosity
in Chile as compared to another part in Iran), rating scores
should be modified based on hydrogeological characteristics
of a given area. It should be mentioned that if there are no
samples available lying in a class of a parameter, the original
rate of DRASTIC can be assigned. Accordingly, improved
DRASTIC can be calculated using Eq. (1) with modified
rating scores. For more information, interested readers are
pointed to Jafari and Nikoo (2016).
Fuzzy optimization analysis
While the aim of vulnerability assessment is to provide help-
ful information on susceptible areas to contaminants, it lacks
incorporating uncertainties involved with input parameters.
Based on fuzzy logic (Zadeh 1965), each imprecise or fuzzy-
property parameter is potential to be described by a member-
ship function. In this regard, two different Fuzzy Transforma-
tion Methods (FTM), namely reduced and general FTM, can
be applied based on the nature of the problem that whether it
is monotonic or not, respectively (Hanss 2003). In this study,
based on the results of monotonicity of the problem, only the
reduced FTM is explained. The reduced form of FTM can
reduce the computational costs to a great extent but requires a
condition (monotonicity of problem) to be fulfilled. In detail,
the reduced FTM requires the output of fuzzy-parameterized
model to be monotonic with regard to all uncertain parameters.
In the reduced FTM, only different combination of lower and
upper values of uncertain parameters is considered for further
analysis. However, in the original FTM, all the values in the
range of lower and upper limit are considered since the prob-
lem is not monotone (Hanss 2003).
13
109 Page 4 of 16 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109

Start

Preparing input raw data for DRASTIC method STEP 1

D R A S T I C NO -3

Calculating original DRASTIC vulnerability index using Eq. 1 STEP 2

Measuring correlation coefficient between

Is it
vulnerability indices and nitrates
satisfactory1? Yes
concentration to determine the efficiency of
the method No

Objective 1: Improving DRASTIC method STEP 3

Choose another method

2
Application of a method for modifying rating scores (Wilcoxon test is used here )

Calculating improved DRASTIC vulnerability index based on modified rating scores

Measuring correlation coefficient between Is it

vulnerability indices and nitrates satisfactory3? No
concentration Yes

Objective 2: Fuzzy optimization analysis STEP 4

Determining the most uncertain input parameter using one-parameter-at-a-time sensitivity analysis

Calculating upper and lower bound of uncertain parameters at different α–cut levels

Integrating reduced fuzzy transformation method (FTM) with genetic algorithm (GA) optimization
model for obtaining optimized weights at different α–cut levels

Objective 3: Developing vulnerability maps

STEP 5
Preparing spatial distribution of prone areas to contaminants at different α–cut levels

1
: Based on interpretation of different values of
correlation coefficient (refer to section 2.2) End
2
: Please refer to section 2.1.2
3
: Higher correlation value as compared to one in
step 2

Fig. 1  Flowchart of the proposed methodology for developing a fuzzy optimization model for groundwater vulnerability assessment

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109 Page 5 of 16 109

Table 1  Rating and weight DRASTIC parameters Range/type Rating scores Weight
scores of original DRASTIC
(Adapted from Aller et al. 1987) Depth to groundwater (m) > 30.4 1 5
22.8–30.4 2
15.2–22.8 3
9.1–15.2 5
4.6–9.1 7
1.5–4.6 9
0–1.5 10
Net recharge See Table 2 See Table 2 4
Aquifer media Massive shale 2 3
Metamorphic/igneous 3
Weathered metamorphic igneous 4
Glacial till 5
Bedded sandstone, limestone 6
Massive sandstone 6
Massive limestone 8
Sand and gravel 8
Basalt 9
Karst limestone 10
Soil media No shrinking clay 1 2
Muck 2
Clay loam 3
Silt loam 4
Loam 5
Sandy loam 6
Shrinking clay 7
Peat 8
Sand 9
Gravel 10
Thin or absent 10
Topographic slope (%) > 18 1 1
12–18 3
6–12 5
2–6 9
0–2 10
Impact of vadose zone Confining layer 1 5
Silt/clay 3
Shale 3
Limestone 3
Sandstone 6
Bedded limestone, sandstone 6
Sand and gravel with silt and clay 6
Sand and gravel 8
Basalt 9
Karst limestone 10
Hydraulic conductivity (m/d) 0.4–4.1 1 3
4.1–12.3 2
12.3–28.7 4
28.7–41 6
41–82 8
> 82 10

13
109 Page 6 of 16 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109

Table 2  Recharge rating scores Slope (%) Rainfall (mm) Permeability index Recharge index
based on Piscopo method
(Piscopo 2001) Range Rate Range Rate Range Rate Range Rate

> 33 1 < 500 1 Low 2 3–5 1

10–33 2 500–700 2 Moderate 3 5–7 3
2–10 3 700–850 3 Moderate to high 4 7–9 5
<2 4 > 850 4 High 5 9–11 8

In an FTM, each fuzzy parameter can be denoted as The decomposed and transformed form of the outputs O ̃ can
Pi (i = 1, 2, 3, … , n) and each can be decomposed to a set be represented by the arrays 𝛿̂(j) (j = 0, 1, 2, … , m − 1) where
Pi of m + 1 intervals Φi (j = 1, 2, 3, … , m) known as α-cut
j
its kth element is
(Hanss 2003). Therefore, each fuzzy parameter is as follows:
{ } k ̂(j)
𝛿
(j) (j)
= F (k Ẑ 1 , k Ẑ 2 , … , k Ẑ n(j) ), (9)
Pi = Φ(0) i
, Φ(1)
i
, … , Φ(m)
i
i = 1, 2, … , n, (3)
where the kth element of array Φi is k Ẑ i . Finally, the
(j) (j)

[ ] decomposed form of fuzzy-valued result can be obtained

where
(j) (j) (j)
Φi = a i , b i ,
(j)
a i ⩽ bi
(j)
j = 0, 1, 2, … , m. considering the following forms:
(4) [ ]
(j) (j)
Each Φi can be transformed to a specific number of arrays
(j) 𝛿 (j) = a1 , b1 j = 0, 1, … , m, (10)
for each level of membership function 𝜇j (j = 0, 1, … , m). In
fuzzy logic, a membership function is expressed as a degree {
a(j) = min(a(j+1) , k 𝛿̂(j) )
of an appurtenance to a system which is mostly triangular k
j = 0, 1, … , m − 1, (11)
membership function. For each parameter as the value of Pi b(j) = max(b(j+1) , k 𝛿̂(j) )
k
increases, the degree of membership increases from 0 to 1 and
then decreases from 1 to 0. However, regardless of the type of
membership function, a form of array Φi for reduced FTM
(j) a(m) = min(k 𝛿̂(m) ) = max(k 𝛿̂(m) ) = b(m) . (12)
k k
can be presented as follows:
Current transformation contains all possible combination of
⎛ 2i−1 pairs ⎞ lower and upper bounds of fuzzy parameters. For more details
⎜⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⎟ and applications of reduced and general FTM, refer to Hanss
= ⎜𝛼i , 𝛽i 𝛼i , 𝛽i , … , 𝛼i , 𝛽i ⎟,
(j) (j) (j) (j) (j) (j) (j)
Φi (5) and Klimke (2004), Alizadeh et al. (2017) and Pourshahabi
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ et al. (2018).
⎝ ⎠ To calculate VI, the fuzzy concept is utilized in an optimi-
zation framework using GA. For each α-cut level, different
possible scenarios of combinations of lower and upper values
⎛ ⎞ of uncertain parameters are considered to be fed into the opti-
⎜ (j) (j) ⎟
where
(j)
𝛼i = ⎜ai , … , ai ⎟, (6) mization model to find the optimized weights of improved
⎜⏟⏞⏞⏞⏟⏞⏞⏞⏟⎟ DRASTIC model. In simple terms, the objective function
⎝ 2n−i elements ⎠
of the model is to find the optimized weights of improved
DRASTIC model while considering uncertainties of four input
⎛ ⎞ parameters and maximizing the correlation index between VIs
(j) ⎜ (j) (j) ⎟ and nitrate concentration.
and, 𝛽i = ⎜bi , … , bi ⎟, (7)
⎜⏟⏞⏞⏞⏟⏞⏞⏞⏟⎟ Maximize C = correlation (VI, Ni)
⎝ 2n−i elements ⎠
(13)
Subject to ∶ 1 ⩽ wj ⩽ 5, j = 1, 2, … , 7,
where ai and bi are the lower and upper values of the
(j) (j)

interval at each α-cut level of 𝜇j for the ith fuzzy parameter, ∑N

respectively. Arguably, the fuzzy-parameterized optimiza- 6 d2
C = 1−
i=1 i
, (14)
tion model can be defined as follows which is separately n (n2 − 1)
solved for each P̃ i:
̃ = F ( P̃ 1 , P̃ 2 , ..., P̃ n ).
O (8) di2 = RVIi − RNii , (15)

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109
where C and w are objective function and the weights of
improved DRASTIC model, respectively. It should be noted
that Spearman correlation coefficient is used rather than the
commonly used Pearson correlation factor mainly since it
is not restrained by conditions such as having normally dis-
tributed parameters. This type of correlation factor consid-
ers the differences in the statistical rank of two given vari-
ables which is represented by d . Consequently, RVI , RNi and
n denote the rank of VI, nitrate concentration sorted from
the lowest to the highest values and the number of samples,
respectively. Moreover, the efficiency of the original and
improved DRASTIC models is evaluated based on Spearman
correlation coefficient between modified/DRASTIC VI and
nitrate concentration (known as the main interfering pollut-
ant in the area). Correlation values range from − 1 to 1 which
means ideal high negative and positive association, respec-
tively. Therefore, if the correlation coefficient reaches a
value closer to 1 or − 1, one can judge how well the applied
method is performing as compared to the original DRAS-
TIC method. An accepted guideline for the interpretation
of correlation coefficient is as follows (Ratner 2009): (a)
0 indicates no relationship between the variables, (b) the
range of 0 to 0.3 indicates a weak positive association, (c)
a value between 0.3 and 0.7 indicates moderate association
and (d) values between 0.7 and 1 imply a strong relationship.
This interpretation can be applied to negative ranges as well.
However, the association is in the negative form.
Fig. 2  Location of Shiraz plain and sampling points
Page 7 of 16 109
Study area
The case study for this research is Shiraz plain where
groundwater supplies almost 80% of the city of Shiraz’s
domestic water demand. Shiraz plain is located in Fars
province in the southwestern part of Iran. This plain is a
part of Maharloo Lake basin, which lies between longi-
tude 52°29ʹ to 52°36ʹE and altitude 29°33ʹ to 29°36ʹN.
The availability of valuable natural resources in this plain
has attracted many industrial and agricultural activities so
far. In this regard, aquifers of this area are highly prone to
contamination while they provide potable water demands.
Shiraz plain has an area about 300 km2 and is surrounded
by Baba-koohi and Kaftarak mountains in the north and by
Maharloo Lake in the south. The average height of this area
is 1540 m above the sea level and the topographic slope
is from northwest to southeast. Average annual precipita-
tion is measured around 365 mm, which mostly falls during
Decembers and Februarys. As a result, surface runoff is at
the highest level during this period. In a geological view, the
plain consists of clay layers, alluvial sediments and Asmari
formations (Baghapour et al. 2016). Nitrate is selected as an
indicator pollutant for calibration of DRASTIC model due
to its dangerous nature and as the most interfering pollutant
throughout the study area. Analysis and sampling of DRAS-
TIC parameters and nitrate concentration are measured in 30
monitoring wells within the area. Figure 2 shows the study
area and location of sampling points as well.
13
109 Page 8 of 16 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109

Results and discussion
Vulnerability assessment
As a first step toward addressing uncertainties, DRASTIC
VI should be calculated for each well based on Table 1 and
Eq. (1). The spatial distribution of original rating scores
(based on Table 1) of different DRASTIC parameters
throughout the study area is presented in Fig. S1 of supple-
mentary material. As mentioned before, the Spearman corre-
lation coefficient between nitrate concentration and original
DRASTIC is considered as a criterion for evaluating the
efficiency of the model using Eq. 14. The measured correla-
tion coefficient (0.573), however, shows a poor assessment
of groundwater vulnerability in aquifers of Shiraz plain. To
increase the reliability of the model, the rating scores should
be modified regarding hydrogeological characteristics of the
area. To this end, Wilcoxon test as a strong method of rate
modifier is taken into account. Table 3 presents the mean
of nitrate concentration and its relevant modified rating
score for each class of DRASTIC parameters. The correla-
tion coefficient between improved DRASTIC VI calculated
with modified rating scores and nitrate concentration reveals
a remarkable increase from 0.573 to 0.789. The Spearman
correlation plots between original and improved DRASTIC
models and nitrate concentration considering 30 monitoring
wells are presented in Fig. 3.
Figure 4 shows the graphical differences between VIs
calculated by original and improved DRASTIC model
associated with each monitoring well in the study area in
correspondence with its nitrate concentration. In the first
look, it might seem that the improved DRASTIC model
overestimates the vulnerability indices, but as can be seen,
the trend of improved DRASTIC is much more similar to the
trend of nitrate concentration than the original DRASTIC.
For instance, based on nitrate concentration in well number

Table 3  Modified DRASTIC DRASTIC parameter Range Mean of nitrate Original rate Modified rate
rating scores after application of concentration
Wilcoxon test (1945) (mg/L)

Depth to groundwater (m) > 30 24.46 1 4.2

22–30 29.15 2 5.71
15–22 51.06 3 10
9–15 33.55 5 6.57
4.5-9 27.70 7 5.42
1.5–4.5 41.01 9 8.03
0–1.5 45.31 10 8.87
Net Recharge 7–9 26–71 5 3.92
>9 66.69 7 10
Aquifer media Clay 25.14 1 6.26
Clay, gypsum 21.79 2 5.43
Sand, clay 40.13 3 10
Gravel, clay 30.02 4 7.48
Sand, clay, gravel 39.48 5 9.83
Soil media Clay loam 59.12 3 10
Sandy loam 24.34 6 4.12
Thin or absent 52.03 10 8.80
Topographic slope (%) 6–12 60.96 5 10
2–6 59.80 9 9.81
0–2 29.13 10 4.78
Impact of vadose zone Clay 24.85 1 5.27
Clay, silt 35.49 2 7.52
Gravel, sand, clay 47.16 4 10
Hydraulic conductivity (m/day) > 100 54.67 10 8.92
50–100 34.30 8 5.60
35–50 60.96 6 9.95
15–35 61.26 4 10
5–15 30.48 2 4.98
>5 24.33 1 3.97

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109 Page 9 of 16 109

Fig. 3  Spearman correlation plot between (a) original and (b) improved DRASTIC model and nitrate concentration

Modified DRASTIC Standard DRASTIC Nitrates concentration

250 140

120
200

Nitrates concentration (mg/L)

100
Vulnerability index

150
80

60
100

40
50
20

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Well number

Fig. 4  Vulnerability indices calculated by original (Standard) and improved DRASTIC model and nitrate concentration for each monitoring well
of Shiraz plain

27, improved DRASTIC evaluates vulnerability closer to
reality than original DRASTIC since high nitrate concen-
tration implies more vulnerable land. In other words, nitrate
concentration is measured as the highest among monitor-
ing wells which should result in the highest VI. However,
original DRASTIC fails to present such outcome while the
improved model is capable of providing VIs in agreement
with nitrate concentration. Based on what has been men-
tioned, Wilcoxon test can be concluded as a proper method
for adjusting the rating scores.
Figure 5 is prepared to map the spatial distribution of
prone areas detected based on improved DRASTIC model
using Kriging method by ArcGIS. This figure provides proof
for the rationality of using Wilcoxon test as the detected
vulnerable areas are in agreement with where the industrial
and/or agricultural activities can be densely found. In other
words, the eastern and southeastern parts of the study area,
where host city sewage and industrial plants, are highly
possible to be contaminated by pollutants. In contrast, the
northern part of Shiraz plain is not contributing to ground-
water contamination mainly since these parts are regarded
as residential areas.
Fuzzy optimization DRASTIC model
As noted before, uncertainty is associated with the input
parameters and consequently with the model output. First,
the most uncertain parameters should be defined. Based on

13
109 Page 10 of 16
Fig. 5  Groundwater vulnerability map of Shiraz plain based on
improved DRASTIC model
the one-parameter-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity analysis, the
values of one input parameter change while other parameters
are considered constant. The sensitivity is then calculated
by dividing the percentage of change in the output to the
input. The results of OAT analysis are detailed in Table 4.
As can be seen, the most sensitive parameters are as fol-
lows: I > D > A > R > C > S > T. Taking expert judgment into
account along with the aforementioned result, net recharge,
aquifer media, impact of vadose zone and hydraulic conduc-
tivity are selected as the most contributing uncertain param-
eters in VI calculation. It should be noted that as we can
have a relatively accurate measure of depth to groundwater
in the monitoring wells, this parameter is not considered as
an uncertain parameter.
Second, the monotony of objective function (correlation
coefficient) over the considered uncertainty intervals for
input parameters should be tested as a key part of utiliz-
ing reduced FTM. In this study, the fuzzy interval of each
uncertain parameter at α-cut level equal to zero is divided
into six scenarios to be checked out for the monotony of
objective function. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the reduced
FTM can be applied due to the monotonous correlation
coefficient over the six scenarios of all fuzzy parameters.
Therefore, five α-cut levels of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1 are
considered for fuzzy membership function of each individual
uncertain parameter. An α-cut level is regarded as a range
of values (known also as fuzzy intervals) to be considered
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109
Table 4  Results of one-parameter-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity anal-
ysis to determine the most contributing uncertain parameters in
groundwater vulnerability assessment
OAT sensitivity analysis (%)
Parameter associated Mean SD* CV**
with a change
D 22.63 5.58 24.65
R 13.25 3.47 26.26
A 17.25 3.73 21.67
S 7.57 2.12 28.06
T 3.79 1.17 30.93
I 24.51 4.91 20.04
C 10.97 3.25 29.70
*Standard deviation
**Coefficient of variation
as input data with α percent confidence level to develop a
fuzzy optimization DRASTIC model. Figure 7 presents the
fuzzy membership function of uncertain input parameters in
different monitoring wells.
Due to the mentioned monotony, the reduced form of
FTM can be applied. Thus, the lower and upper values at
each α-cut level can be calculated considering “Fuzzy opti-
mization analysis”. Since there are 4 fuzzy parameters, 16
(= 24) and 4 (= 14) combinations of upper and lower val-
ues can be generated for α-cut levels equal to 0–0.75 and 1,
respectively. In this study, GA optimization model is inte-
grated with reduced fuzzy transformation approach which
results in optimal weights for the improved DRASTIC
model to reliably monitor VI throughout the study area in
conjunction with embedded uncertainties. By running GA,
optimized weights of the model are computed for each α-cut
level. Arguably, there are 64 (= 16 × 4) weights for each
parameter and 64 VIs for each well. These generated weights
differ significantly from the original weights introduced by
Aller (1987) since this approach determines the important
parameters in VI calculation by maximizing the correlation
coefficient between DRASTIC indices and nitrate concentra-
tion and consequently assigning higher weights to them. In
other words, by optimizing weights using this approach, the
model is modified further regarding hydrogeological aspects
of area for more accuracy of vulnerability determination.
For instance, aquifer media and impact of vadose zone
were assigned higher and lower weights as compared to their
initial weights, respectively. The maximum, minimum and
mean of optimized weights at each α-cut level are presented
in Table 5. For instance, the membership functions of VIs
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109 Page 11 of 16 109

a 0.792 b 0.794

0.793
0.791
0.792

Correlation coefficient
Correlation coeffiecient

0.79 0.791

0.79
0.789
0.789

0.788 0.788

0.787
0.787
0.786

0.786 0.785
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scenario Scenario

c 0.798 d 0.792

0.795 0.791

Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficient

0.792 0.79

0.789 0.789

0.786 0.788

0.783 0.787

0.78 0.786
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scenario Scenario

Fig. 6  The monotonous objective function over six scenarios of the fuzzy parameters a net recharge, b aquifer media, c impact of vadose zone
and d hydraulic conductivity

for the well numbers 1, 7, 19 and 30 are illustrated in Fig. 8,
which shows how intervals of vulnerability indices change
in correspondence to α-cut levels. For example, the derived
interval varies between 88.63 and 129.67 at α = 0 in well
number 7. Figure 9 indicates the trend of aquifer vulnerabil-
ity to contaminants and shows how vulnerability differs over
different α-cut levels. In addition, the membership function
of correlation index is represented in Fig. 10. As can be
seen in Fig. 10, the correlation index varies between 0.746
and 0.758 at α = 0 and it is 0.753 at α = 1. Increase in the
degree of membership causes smaller interval and it implies
lower uncertainties too. By comparing this correlation index
(0.753) to the correlation index of improved DRASTIC
(0.789), robustness of the model can be concluded even
under uncertainties. Therefore, this modification is proper
to evaluate groundwater vulnerability reliably in reality.
Summary and conclusion
In this paper, an integrated framework is developed to assess
groundwater vulnerability in conjunction with fuzzy analy-
sis regarding uncertainties associated with input parameters.
The proposed methodology is able to consider groundwater
vulnerability risk assessment utilizing the most commonly
used method in the world, namely DRASTIC. Based on the
literature review, this method is highly subjective to hydro-
geological characteristics of area that should be modified for
reliable assessment. In this regard, Wilcoxon test is applied
to original DRASTIC to modify rate scores with respect to
nitrate concentration in monitoring wells. Nitrate concentra-
tion is known as the most interfering pollutant in the study
area due to its dangerous nature and the type of industrial
and agricultural activities taking place in Shiraz plain. The

13
109 Page 12 of 16 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109

a b
Well # 1 Well #7 Well # 19 Well # 30 Well # 1 Well #7 Well # 19 Well # 30

1 1

0.75 0.75

Fuzzy degree
Fuzzy degree

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Net recharge Impact of vadose zone

c d
Well # 1 Well #7 Well # 19 Well # 30 Well # 1 Well #7 Well # 19 Well # 30

1 1

0.75 0.75
Fuzzy degree

Fuzzy degree
0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hydraulic conductivity Aquifer media

Fig. 7  Fuzzy membership function for fuzzy input parameters a net recharge, b impact of vadose zone, c hydraulic conductivity and d aquifer
media

correlation coefficient between original/improved DRASTIC
and nitrate concentration shows that this approach is effec-
tive to take a step forward in more accurate groundwater risk
assessment (by an increase from 0.573 to 0.789).
On the other hand, uncertainties are an unavoidable part
of a research when it comes to human judgment or assess-
ment tools. Therefore, by taking fuzziness into considera-
tion, the results can more efficiently reflect the fuzzy nature
of groundwater vulnerability assessment and the effects of
hydrogeological parameters. This methodology links an
optimization engine (GA) to the fuzzy analysis (reduced
FTM) to meet two objectives including modifying weights
of improved DRASTIC parameters and considering uncer-
tainties of input parameters simultaneously. The output is
also coupled with ArcGIS to generate risk maps of prone
areas to contaminants in continuous spatial form in each
level of fuzziness for more accurate decision-making rather
than relying on crisp-based outputs. These maps reveal that
the east and southeastern parts of Shiraz plain are remark-
ably susceptible to contaminants as these parts are associ-
ated with intense industrial and agricultural activities. The
proposed methodology can be used for any case across the
world as it has the ability to take the fuzzy nature of the
groundwater into account for reliable vulnerability risk
assessment using improved DRASTIC method.

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109 Page 13 of 16 109

Table 5  Minimum, average and DRASTIC parameter α-Cut levels

maximum of generated weights
by optimization of fuzzy model α=0 α = 0.25 α = 0.5 α = 0.75 α=1
at different α-cut levels
D
Min 1.76 1.05 1.18 1.41 3.58
Ave 3.28 3.57 3.02 3.51
Max 4.92 4.86 4.73 4.96
R
Min 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99
Ave 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99
Max 5.00 4.99 4.99 4.99
A
Min 1.61 1.66 1.71 1.77 1.83
Ave 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.83
Max 2.14 2.02 1.96 1.90
S
Min 1.33 1.35 1.38 1.09 4.27
Ave 3.29 3.38 2.87 3.53
Max 4.97 4.92 4.83 4.79
T
Min 1.39 1.82 1.11 1.41 3.97
Ave 2.82 3.36 2.94 3.04
Max 4.92 4.87 4.12 4.97
I
Min 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ave 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C
Min 2.88 2.91 2.93 2.95 2.98
Ave 3.04 3.02 3.02 3.02
Max 4.03 3.78 3.77 4.96

Fig. 8  The membership func- 1

tion of vulnerability indices for
well numbers 1, 7, 19 and 30 0.8
Fuzzy degree

0.6
Well #1
Well #7
0.4
Well #30
Well #19
0.2

0
70 90 110 130 150 170
Vulnerability index

13
109 Page 14 of 16 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109

Fig. 9  Groundwater vulnerability maps for different α-cut levels a α = 0, b α = 0.5 and c α = 1

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109
1 Gomezdelcampo E, Dickerson JR (2008) A modified DRASTIC model
0.8
Fuzzy degree
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Huan H, Wang J, Teng Y (2012) Assessment and validation of
0.744 0.746 0.748 0.75 0.752 0.754 0.756
Correlation coefficient
Fig. 10  The membership function of correlation index
References
Afshar A, Mariño MA, Ebtehaj M, Moosavi J (2007) Rule-
based fuzzy system for assessing groundwater vulner-
ability. J Environ Eng 133:532–540. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9372(2007)133:5(532)
Alizadeh MR, Nikoo MR, Rakhshandehroo GR (2017) Hydro-envi-
ronmental management of groundwater resources: a fuzzy-based
multi-objective compromise approach. J Hydrol. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2017.06.011
Aller L, Lehr JH, Petty R (1987) A standardized system to evaluate
ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings.
Natl Water Well Assoc 20
Arezoomand Omidi Langrudi M, Khashei Siuki A, Javadi S, Hashemi
SR (2016) Evaluation of vulnerability of aquifers by improved
fuzzy drastic method: case study: Aastane Kochesfahan plain
in Iran. Ain Shams Eng J 7:11–20. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2015.11.013
Baghapour MA, Fadaei Nobandegani A, Talebbeydokhti N et al (2016)
Optimization of DRASTIC method by artificial neural network,
nitrate vulnerability index, and composite DRASTIC models
to assess groundwater vulnerability for unconfined aquifer of
Shiraz Plain, Iran. J Environ Health Sci Eng 14:13. https​://doi.
org/10.1186/s4020​1-016-0254-y
Barzegar R, Moghaddam AA, Baghban H (2016) A supervised com-
mittee machine artificial intelligent for improving DRASTIC
method to assess groundwater contamination risk: a case study
from Tabriz plain aquifer, Iran. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess
30:883–899. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0047​7-015-1088-3
Bazimenyera JDD, Zhonghua T (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC
model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aqui-
fer in Hangzhou–Jiaxing–Huzhou Plain, China. Res J Appl Sci
3:550–559
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. Hydro-
geol J 15:483–493. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1004​0-006-0102-8
Dixon B (2005) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy
rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25:327–347. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apgeo​g.2005.07.002
Fijani E, Nadiri AA, Asghari Moghaddam A et al (2013) Optimiza-
tion of drastic method by supervised committee machine artificial
intelligence to assess groundwater vulnerability for Maragheh-
Bonab plain aquifer, Iran. J Hydrol 503:89–100. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2013.08.038
Page 15 of 16 109
for siting confined animal feeding operations in Williams County,
Ohio, USA. Environ Geol 55:1821–1832. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
s0025​4-007-1133-8
Hanss M (2003) Simulation and analysis of fuzzy-parameterized mod-
els with the extended transformation method. In: Annual confer-
ence of the North American fuzzy information processing soci-
ety—NAFIPS, pp 462–467
Hanss M, Klimke A (2004) On the reliability of the influence measure
in the transformation method of fuzzy arithmetic. Fuzzy Sets Syst
143:371–390. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0165​-0114(03)00163​-5
0.758 0.76 groundwater vulnerability to nitrate based on a modified
DRASTIC model: a case study in Jilin City of northeast China.
Sci Total Environ 440:14–23. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2012.08.037
Iqbal J, Gorai AK, Katpatal YB, Pathak G (2015a) Development of
GIS-based fuzzy pattern recognition model (modified DRASTIC
model) for groundwater vulnerability to pollution assessment. Int J
Environ Sci Technol 12:3161–3174. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1376​
2-014-0693-x
Iqbal J, Pathak G, Gorai AK (2015b) Development of hierarchical
fuzzy model for groundwater vulnerability to pollution assess-
ment. Arab J Geosci 8:2713–2728. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1251​
7-014-1417-8
Jafari SM, Nikoo MR (2016) Groundwater risk assessment based on
optimization framework using DRASTIC method. Arab J Geosci
9:742. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1251​7-016-2756-4
Margat J (1968) Groundwater vulnerability to contamination.
68,BRGM, Orleans, France. In: Massone et al. (2010). Enhanced
groundwater vulnerability assessment in geological homogene-
ous areas: a case study from the Argentine Pampas. Hydrogeol
J 18:371–379
Mohammadi K, Niknam R, Majd VJ (2009) Aquifer vulnerability
assessment using GIS and fuzzy system: a case study in Teh-
ran-Karaj aquifer, Iran. Environ Geol 58:437–446. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0025​4-008-1514-7
Moslemi Naeni L, Salehipour A (2011) Evaluating fuzzy earned value
indices and estimates by applying alpha cuts. Expert Syst Appl
38:8193–8198. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.165
Nadiri AA, Sedghi Z, Khatibi R, Gharekhani M (2017) Mapping vul-
nerability of multiple aquifers using multiple models and fuzzy
logic to objectively derive model structures. Sci Total Environ
593–594:75–90. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.03.109
Neshat A, Pradhan B, Dadras M (2014) Groundwater vulnerabil-
ity assessment using an improved DRASTIC method in GIS.
Resour Conserv Recycl 86:74–86. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​
nrec.2014.02.008
Panagopoulos GP, Antonakos AK, Lambrakis NJ (2006) Optimization
of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assess-
ment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeol
J 14:894–911. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1004​0-005-0008-x
Pathak DR, Hiratsuka A (2011) An integrated GIS based fuzzy pattern
recognition model to compute groundwater vulnerability index
for decision making. J Hydrol Environ Res 5:63–77. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jher.2009.10.015
Piscopo G (2001) Groundwater vulnerability map explanatory notes,
Lachlan catchment. NSW, Department of Land and Water Con-
servation, Parramatta
Pourshahabi S, Nikoo MR, Raei E, Adamowski JF (2018) An entropy-
based approach to fuzzy multi-objective optimization of reser-
voir water quality monitoring networks considering uncertain-
ties. Water Resour Manag 32:4425–4443. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
s1126​9-018-2073-7
13
109 Page 16 of 16
Rahman A (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing ground-
water vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh, India. Appl
Geogr 28:32–53. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEOG ​ .2007.07.008
Ratner B (2009) The correlation coefficient: its values range between
1/1, or do they. J Targeting Meas Anal Mark 17:139–142. https​://
doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5
Rezaei F, Safavi HR, Ahmadi A (2013) Groundwater vulnerabil-
ity assessment using fuzzy logic: a case study in the Zayan-
dehrood aquifers, Iran. Environ Manag 51:267–277. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0026​7-012-9960-0
Sener E, Davraz A (2013) Assessment of groundwater vulnerabil-
ity based on a modified DRASTIC model, GIS and an analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) method: the case of Egirdir Lake
basin (Isparta, Turkey). Hydrogeol J 21:701–714. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1004​0-012-0947-y
Subagadis YH, Schütze N, Grundmann J (2016) A fuzzy-stochastic
modeling approach for multiple criteria decision analysis of cou-
pled groundwater-agricultural systems. Water Resour Manag
30:2075–2095. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1126​9-016-1270-5
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:109
Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M, Venugopal K (2003) AHP-DRAS-
TIC: software for specific aquifer vulnerability assessment using
DRASTIC model and GIS. Environ Model Softw 18:645–656.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/S1364​-8152(03)00051​-3
Vaezihir A, Tabarmayeh M (2015) Total vulnerability estimation for
the Tabriz aquifer (Iran) by combining a new model with DRAS-
TIC. Environ Earth Sci 74:2949–2965. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1266​5-015-4327-5
Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom-
etr Bull 1:80. https​://doi.org/10.2307/30019​68
Zadeh LT (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Zhang R, Hamerlinck JD, Gloss SP, Munn L (1996) Determination
of nonpoint-source pollution using GIS and numerical models.
J Environ Qual 25:411. https​://doi.org/10.2134/jeq19​96.00472​
42500​25000​30005​x
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.