Research paper

An integrated GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model to compute

groundwater vulnerability index for decision making
Dhundi Raj Pathak
*
, Akira Hiratsuka
Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka Sangyo University, 3-1-1 Nakagaito, Daito, Osaka 574-8530, Japan
Received 3 July 2009; revised 24 September 2009; accepted 30 October 2009
Abstract
This study highlights the computational technique of groundwater vulnerability index to identify the aquifers inherent capacity to become
contaminated beneting from fuzzy logic employing various hydrogeological parameters in the framework of Geographic Information Systems
(GIS). This is usually carried out by using GIS based overlay index method. DRASTIC is one of the widely used popular overlay index method
to compute groundwater vulnerability index over the large geographical areas involving a variety of hydrogeological settings. DRASTIC method
uses linear model to calculate vulnerability index and factors that pertinent to the groundwater vulnerability should be divided into ranges to
employ rating value to each range. This system is unable to demonstrate a continuous output of vulnerability index from the easiest to be
polluted to the most difcult to be polluted that is fuzzy nature of the groundwater vulnerability to contamination. In this paper, integrated GIS
based fuzzy pattern recognition model is developed to generate the continuous vulnerability function beneting from the same input parameters
of DRASTIC method. Moreover, vulnerability variation resulting from fuzzy and DRASTIC model with respect to any single input variable,
making other parameters constant, is computed taking the characteristics of selected hydrogeological settings to compare the output of fuzzy
model with DRASTIC index. The ability of GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model to generate continuous output of vulnerability index may
be considered as a pronounced advantage over DRASTIC method. Groundwater vulnerability map has been developed utilizing its output in
shallow groundwater aquifer of Kathmandu, Nepal as a case study. Finally, output of vulnerability models are tested by nitrate data which were
measured from ninety sources from shallow groundwater systems of study area. In large geographical areas with limited data, the groundwater
vulnerability maps provide important preliminary information to decision makers for many aspects of the regional and local groundwater
resources management and protection.
2010 International Association of Hydro-environment Engineering and Research, Asia Pacic Division. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Groundwater vulnerability map; GIS; Decision making; Fuzzy pattern recognition model; DRASTIC method; Nepal
1. Introduction
Groundwater is a globally important, valuable and renew-
able natural resource of water supply due to its relatively low
susceptibility to contamination in comparison to surface water
and its large storage capacity; however, it is under threat of
degradation both by inappropriate use and by contamination.
For e.g. the quality of groundwater in urban areas of devel-
oping countries, like Nepal has been deteriorating in recent
years mainly due to the high growth of population, unplanned
growth of cities, excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides in
agriculture land, no proper sewage system and poor disposal of
the wastewater both from household as well as industrial
activities.
Therefore, contaminationof groundwater has become a major
anxiety of planners, decision makers and water managers
involved with managing the quantity and quality of water in
relation to human health in recent years. The contamination of
groundwater however is a widespread problemand requires huge
investments for remediation. Therefore, it is important toidentify
which aquifer systems and hydrogeological settings are most
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: draj28@yahoo.com (D.R. Pathak).
1570-6443/$ - see front matter 2010 International Association of Hydro-environment Engineering and Research, Asia Pacic Division. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jher.2009.10.015
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
www.elsevier.com/locate/jher
vulnerable to contamination prior to implementing groundwater
monitoring program in large geographical areas. In recognition
of the need for effective and efcient methods for protecting
groundwater resources fromfuture contamination, scientists and
resource managers have sought to develop techniques for pre-
dicting which areas are more likely than others to become
contaminated as a result of activities at or near the land surface
(NRC, 1993). This concept has been widely termed to ground-
water vulnerability to contamination. It is the sensitivity of
groundwater quality to an imposed contaminant load, which is
determined by the intrinsic characteristics of the aquifer. The
groundwater vulnerability map based on aquifer vulnerability
index is the subdivision of the area into several hydrogeological
units with different levels of vulnerability which shows the
distribution of highly vulnerable areas, in which pollution is very
common because contaminants can reach the groundwater
within a very short time. In general, numerical groundwater
modeling is an important predictive tool for managing water
resources in aquifers (El Yaouti et al., 2008), nevertheless such
models employ sets of extensive eld measured data, which is in
fact, very costly and inefcient in large geographical areas for
preliminary groundwater resources management and protection
program. Due to the difculty in mathematical formalism and
lack of sufcient hydrogeologic and geochemical database at
regional scale, the quite conceptual method like generalized
knowledge base (GKB) approach may be appropriate.
In GKB approach, decision is made on the basis of general
hydrogeological knowledge of the contaminant transport in
aquifer media (Afshar et al., 2007). In order to tackle the
groundwater pollution and to protect its quality in a more
scientic and efcient way, many different methods based on
GKB approach have been developed to evaluate the ground-
water vulnerability to pollution such as GOD method (Foster,
1987), DRASTIC (Aller et al., 1987), SINTACS (Vrba and
Zaporozec, 1994), EPIK technique (Doeriger and Zwahlen,
1997). The most typical and popular method based on GKB
approach is the DRASTIC method, developed by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Aller et al.,
1987).
2. DRASTIC method
The DRASTIC acronym stands for the seven hydro-
geological parameters; depth to water, recharge, aquifer media,
soil type, topography (slope), impact on the vadose zone media
and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. Overlay and index
methods, such as DRASTIC, are relatively easy to implement
and require little data, but the result can be questioned because
these methods rely more on the judgment of the analyst than on
the actual hydrogeological processes (Frind et al., 2006). Gogu
et al. (2003) reported that different overlay and index methods
like DRASTIC applied to same hydrogeological system can
generate dramatically dissimilar results. Despite these criti-
cisms due to the lack of proper validation, this method has been
adopted in the various part of world (Barber et al., 1994; Lynch
et al., 1997; Babiker et al., 2005; Rahman, 2008). This method is
often modied to better address local issues or better represent
a local hydrogeologic setting (Merchant, 1994). Further,
different researchers modied this methodology for mapping
the intrinsic vulnerability of aquifers to better represent a local
hydrogeological setting (Zhang et al., 1996; Thirumalaivasan
et al., 2003; Denny et al., 2007; Gomezdelcampo and
Dickerson, 2008). Thirumalaivasan et al. (2003) developed
AHP-DRASTIC model to derive ratings and weights of modi-
ed DRASTIC model parameters for use in specic aquifer
vulnerability assessment studies. They applied Analytic Hier-
archy Process (AHP) to compute the ratings and weights of the
criteria and sub-criteria of all parameters used in the DRASTIC
model.
Recently, this popular GIS based overlay index method was
introduced in Nepal to estimate the vulnerability index of
shallow groundwater aquifer of Kathmandu (Pathak et al.,
2009). Further, sensitivity analysis was utilized to evaluate
the relative importance of model parameters and then revised
their weights, what is different from original DRASTIC
method, to better address local hydrogeological settings and
terrain characteristics of Kathmandu (Pathak et al., 2009). It
was the rst attempt to develop intrinsic groundwater
vulnerability map of Kathmandu Valley that provided only
a preliminary relative evaluation tool because of the some
limitations of adopted approach (DRASTIC method) and
insufcient input parameters. Therefore, it is noted that the
method and input parameters to produce the groundwater
vulnerability index should be improved to make reliable tool
for groundwater quality protection and decision making in this
region. In this context, this study focuses to develop more
reliable groundwater vulnerability map improving computa-
tional technique and input parameters. Moreover, output of
vulnerability model was validated by nitrate data measured
from ninety sources of shallow groundwater systems in
Kathmandu. In general, DRASTIC index uses linear model to
calculate the nal vulnerability index cumulating the product
of rating value (r) with its corresponding weight (w) of seven
hydrogeological parameters given by following relation:
V
i

7
i1
w
i
r
i
1
DRASTIC elected to use weight for each parameter based
on its relative signicance contributing to the pollution
potential (depth to groundwater 5; net recharge 4; aquifer
media 3; soil type 2; topography 1; impact on vadose
zone 5; and hydraulic conductivity 3). Either each factor
has been divided into ranges or media types and assigned
a rating from 1 to 10 based on their signicance to pollution
potential as shown as Tables 1 and 2.
Although, DRASTICis one of the most widely used standard
groundwater vulnerability method, it is unable to describe
a continuous transition fromthe easiest to be polluted to the most
difcult to be polluted that is fuzzy nature of the groundwater
vulnerability to contamination. In this method, the nature of the
vulnerability is taken into account by dividing the values of each
affecting factor into ranges and then giving to rating value to
each range. However, it should be noted that if a factor value can
64 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
be measured numerically, unlike the function of DRASTIC
index, the fuzzy system generates a continuous vulnerability
function. Hence, fuzzy approach can be used to assess the
groundwater vulnerability to contamination.
3. Fuzzy approach
Basically, this contribution aims to identify the aquifers
inherent capacity to become contaminated based on DRASTIC
system beneting from fuzzy concept in the frameworks of
GIS. As an example of vulnerability linguistic evaluation of
vulnerability, the more shallow the water table, the higher the
groundwater pollution potential and less the recharge rate, the
smaller the groundwater pollution potential. First introduced
by Zadeh (1965), fuzzy logic and fuzzy set theory have been
extensively used in ambiguity and uncertainty modeling in
decision making. The basic concept in fuzzy logic is quite
simple; statements are not only true or false but also
represents the degree of truth or degree of falseness for each
input. Fuzzy sets are characterized by membership functions.
Several approaches have been used to apply fuzzy set theory to
groundwater contamination problems, including fuzzy pattern
recognition and optimization technique (Zhou et al., 1999;
Chen and Fu, 2003), fuzzy rule-based systems (Uricchio
et al., 2004; Dixon, 2005; Gemitzi et al., 2006; Afshar et al.,
2007), fuzzy hierarchy model (Nobre et al., 2007). Zhou
et al. (1999) used a multi objective fuzzy pattern recognition
model and further, Chen and Fu (2003) developed the gener-
alized fuzzy pattern recognition model to evaluate ground-
water vulnerability, taking only the standard value matrix of
ve samples of the study area. However, the previous studies
lack to incorporate the continuous input parameters beneting
from fuzzy concept to generate continuous vulnerability index
for mapping of actual aquifer systems in watershed scale
utilizing the powerful spatial and visual capability of GIS.
Hence, in this study, GIS based two level fuzzy pattern
recognition model is developed to evaluate the degree of
vulnerability by means of natural language; the easiest to be
polluted to most difcult to be polluted. The owchart
presented in Fig. 1 clearly illustrates how GIS and vulnera-
bility models integrated to develop groundwater vulnerability
map using DRASTIC parameters.
3.1. Fuzzy pattern recognition model
Groundwater vulnerability assessment can be regarded as
pattern recognition problem in which, identication of the
vulnerability level to which a sample belongs according to
the seven factor values of the sample when compared with the
standard values obtained from DRASTIC method. Standard
values of two levels with regard to each factor are presented on
the basis of data in the DRASTIC system as shown as Table 3.
According to Table 3, standard value matrix of the factors is
given by
Table 1
DRASTIC standard ranges and ratings for DRASTIC factors that can be measured directly.
Depth to water table(D) Recharge (R) Topography (T) Hydraulic Conductivity (C)
Range (m) Rating Range (mm) Rating Range (%) Rating Range (m/d) Rating
0e1.5 10 0e51 1 0e2 10 0e4.1 1
1.5e4.6 9 51e102 3 2e6 9 4.1e12.2 2
4.6e9.1 7 102e178 6 6e12 5 12.2e28.5 4
9.1e15.2 5 178e254 8 12e18 3 28.5e40.7 6
15.2e22.5 3 >254 9 >18 1 40.7e81.5 8
22.5e30 2 >81.5 10
>30 1
Table 2
DRASTIC standard ratings value for parameters that cannot be measured directly.
Aquifer media (A) Soil type (S) Impact of Vadose Zone (I)
Range Rating Range Rating Range Rating
Massive shale 2 Thin or absent 10 Conning Layer 1
Metamorphic/Igneous 3 Gravel 10 Silt/Clay 3
Weathered Metamorphic/Igneous 4 Sand 9 Shale 3
Glacial Till 5 Peat 8 Limestone 6
Bedded Sandstone, Limestone and
Shale Sequences
6 Shrinking and/or
Aggregated Clay
7 Sandstone 6
Massive Sandstone 6 Sandy loam 6 Bedded Limestone, Sandstone, Shale 6
Massive Limestone 6 Loam 5 Sand and Gravel with signicant
Silt and Clay
6
Sand and Gravel 8 Silty Loam 4 Metamorphic/Igneous 4
Basalt 9 Clay Loam 3 Sand and Gravel 8
Karst Limestone 10 Muck 2 Basalt 9
Nonshrinking/
Nonaggregated Clay
1 Karst Limestone 10
65 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
F
_
0 25:4 10 10 0 10 81:5
30:5 0 2 1 18 1 0
_
T

_
f
i;h
_
2
where f
i,h
is the standard value of level h with regard to factor
i; i 1, 2.7 and h 1, 2. The level 1 and level 2 correspond
to easiest to be polluted and most difcult to be polluted in
term of linguistic variables respectively. According to Table 3,
higher the standard value, higher the level h for parameters; D
Fig. 1. Flow chart of methodology adopted to develop groundwater contamination potential map using DRASTIC and fuzzy pattern recognition model in
framework of GIS.
Table 3
Standard values of two levels with regard to each factor based on DRASTIC
system.
Factors D (m) R (mm) A S T (%) I C (m/d)
Level 1 0 254 10 10 0 10 81.5
Level 2 30.5 0 2 1 18 1 0
66 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
and T, while higher the standard value, lower the level h for
parameters; R, A, S, I and C. The membership degree of rst
level standard value with regard to linguistic concept easiest
to be polluted is supposed to be 1 and the membership degree
of the second level standard value i.e. most difcult to be
polluted in term of fuzzy concept supposed to be 0. The
membership degree of other levels varies from 0 to 1. The
membership degree, s
i,h
of f
i,h
with respect to easiest to be
polluted is computed by:
s
i;h

0
f
i;h
f
i;2
f
i;1
f
i;2
1
f
i;h
f
i;2
f
i;1
> f
i;h
> f
i;2
f
i;h
f
i;1
; f
i;1
< f
i;h
< f
i;2
3
where f
i,1
and f
i,2
are the standard values of the easiest to be
polluted and most difcult to be polluted, respectively. By
using Eq. (3), Eq. (2) can be transformed into membership
degree matrix of standard values, which given by:
S
_
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_
T
s
i;h
: 4
Considering the factor values of the samples in study area
from following factor value matrix:
X
_
x
ij
_
7xn
5
where x
ij
is the value of sample j with regard to factor i;
i 1,2,.,7; j 1,2,.nand n is total number of samples to be
evaluated. The factors in DRASTIC system can be classied
into two groups: A and B. In group A, the groundwater
vulnerability increases with increasing the value of factors,
whereas it is reverse in group B, the groundwater vulnerability
reduces when factor value increases. For the group A and B,
the membership degree of factors i.e. r
i,j
, can be calculated by
using the following Eqs. (6) and (7) respectively:
r
ij

_
_
_
0
x
ij
x
minj
x
maxj
x
minj
;
1
x
ij
x
minj
x
minj
< x
ij
< x
maxj
x
ij
x
maxj
6
r
ij

_
_
_
0
x
maxj
x
ij
x
maxj
x
minj
;
1
x
ij
x
maxj
x
minj
< x
ij
< x
maxj
x
ij
x
minj
7
where x
maxj
and x
minj
equal the maximum and minimum value,
respectively of factor i assigned in DRASTIC system. By
using Eqs. (6) and (7), Eq. (5) can be transformed into
membership degree matrix of factors:
R
_
r
ij
_
7xn
8
Each factor is of different importance in relation to
vulnerability, hence different weights are attributed to different
factors as shown as Table 4, which are usually normalized to
sum to one in the evaluation process. The weight vector is
denoted by:
w w
1
; w
2
; .; w
7

T
9
The distance of sample j to the level h can be described as:
d
hj

7
i1
_
w
i
_
r
ij
s
i;h
_
p p

_
10
where p is a distance parameter, when p 1, and p 2, the
distances are called Hamming and Euclidean distances
respectively, which are commonly used. Euclidean distance is
used in our case i.e. p 2. In the view of fuzzy sets theory, u
h,j
can be considered as a weight for distance d
hj
, so synthetically
weighted distance can better express difference between factor
value and level h in each sample, which is given as follow:
D
hj
u
h;j

7
i1
_
w
i
_
r
ij
s
i;h
_
p p

_
11
In order to acquire the optimized solution of u
h,j
, the
objective function is established with constraint

2
h1
u
h;j
1,
as follows:
min
_
F
_
u
h;j
_

2
h1
D
2
hj
_
12
Then, the Lagrange function can be derived as follows:
L
_
u
h;j
; l
j
_

u
2
h;j
d
2
hj
l
j
_

u
h;j
1
_
13
where l
j
is a Lagrange multiplier. Taking the partial deriva-
tives to the Lagrange function with respect to u
h,j
and l
j
and
setting the simultaneous equation equivalent to zero, i.e.
vL
_
u
h;j
; l
j
__
vu
h;j
0; vL
_
u
h;j
; l
j
__
vl
j
0 14
Solving Eq. (14), we get the formula for calculating the
membership degree of sample j that belongs to level h is:
u
h;j

_
d
2
hj

2
k1
d
2
kj
_
1
15
when d
hj
0, i.e. r
i,j
s
i,h
, which shows that sample
j completely belongs to level h, such that u
h,j
1.
Further, two level fuzzy pattern recognition model can be
dealt as a fuzzy optimization model, where, h 1, 2. Then, the
Table 4
Characteristics of selected hydrogeological unit for comparison of fuzzy
pattern recognition and DRASTIC model.
Factors Range Rating Weight Normalized
weight
D 4.6e9.1 m 7 5 0.217
R 178e254 mm 8 4 0.174
A Sand & Gravel 8 3 0.130
S Sand 8 2 0.087
T 0e2% 10 1 0.043
I e 8 5 0.217
C e 8 3 0.130
67 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
membership degree of sample j corresponding to level 1 that
represent the easiest to be polluted in term of linguistic
variables is computed by using Eqs. (4), (11), and (15), which
is given by:
u
1;j

_
_
_
_

7
i1
_
w
i
r
ij
w
i
_
2
_

_
1

7
i1
_
w
i
r
ij
w
i
_
2

7
i1
_
w
i
r
ij
_
2
_

_
_
_
_
_
1
16
Ultimately, we get,
u
i;j

_
1
_

7
i1
_
w
i
r
ij
w
i
_
2

7
i1
_
w
i
r
ij
_
2
_

_
_

_
1
17
Eq. (17) is 2-level fuzzy pattern recognition model, which is
used to evaluate the degree of groundwater vulnerability (that
represents the fuzzy concept easiest to be polluted) in each
sample of study area in the framework of GIS. According to
this model, higher the u
1,j
, the easiest to be polluted the
sample j.
4. Case study
4.1. Study area
The groundwater vulnerability map of Kathamndu Valley
was prepared which includes three major cities: Kathmandu,
Bhaktapur and Lalitpur. The total area of valley for the study is
about 350 square kilometers as shown as Fig. 2. The valley
consists of gentle hills and at lands at elevations of
1300e1400 m. The surrounding hills rise to more than 2000 m
in elevation Phulchoki to the south of the Valley has the
highest elevation at 2762 m. Average annual precipitation in
the Kathmandu Valley is around 1400 mm, about 80% of
which falls in the monsoon period during June and July.
Fig. 2. Location map of Kathmandu Valley (study area).
68 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
Within the valley, municipal and other water supplies depend
on monsoon rains and the stream and groundwater systems fed
by this precipitation. Surface runoff is high during the
monsoon and recharge to the shallow aquifers occurs mostly
along the basin margins, directly from precipitation and by
supply from a number of small rivers. However, recharge to
the deeper aquifers is considered to be limited, due to the
presence of clay beds that signicantly restrict downward
percolation. Because the Kathmandu Valley is a closed basin
with gentle slopes toward the center, groundwater ow is
assumed to be slow, particularly in the deeper aquifers.
The surface of the Kathmandu Valley is almost at but it has
buried bedrock surface with irregular shapes and high relief. The
depth of the Precambrian bedrock from the ground surface
ranges from tens of meters to more than 500 m. The thick
quaternary deposits consist of lacustrine and uvial deposits,
which have been eroded, however the original thickness of the
deposits is unknown. The basin ll sediments of Kathmandu
Valley are mainly divided into two formations; Quaternary and
Plio-pleistocene formation, each with different lithologic,
geotechnical properties (Shrestha et al., 1999). Based on the
engineering and environmental geological map of Kathmandu
Valley (Shrestha et al., 1998), the geological setting of
Kathmandu Valley with different formations is shown in Fig. 3.
The Quaternary formation, mainly formed by unconsolidated
materials/sediments, which consists of different four units;
recent alluvial soil, residual soil, colluvial soil and alluvial fan
deposit while the Plio-pleistocene formation consists of slightly
consolidated sediments and has different seven units; Tokha
formation, Gokarna formation, Chapagaon formation, Kalimati
formation, Kobgaon formation, Lukundol formation and Basal
boulder bed. The Quaternary formation, mainly formed by
unconsolidated materials/sediments, which consists of different
four units; recent alluvial soil, residual soil, colluvial soil and
alluvial fan deposit. The brief description of each formation has
been presented in previous work (Pathak et al., 2009).
By convention, the aquifers in the Kathmandu Valley can be
divided into shallow and deep systems. A shallow unconned
aquifer occurs at around 0e10 m depth and a deep conned
aquifer occurs at around 310e370 m (Khadka, 1993). Other
isolated groundwater storeys are situated at signicantly deeper
levels (Gautam and Rao, 1991). Groundwater from the shallow
aquifers is drawn from hand-dug wells, hand pumps or roar
pumps, whereas the deeper aquifers are exploited from deep
wells. Traditional stone spouts (locally known as dhunge dhara)
are also common, drawing water from shallow aquifers.
Fig. 3. Geological map of Kathmandu Valley.
69 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
Groundwater from both shallow and deeper aquifers has been
used extensively for drinking and industrial purposes. About
50% of the water used in the city of Kathmandu is derived from
groundwater (Jha et al., 1997; Khatiwada et al., 2002). Exploi-
tation of these aquifers, especially the shallow aquifer, has been
increased rapidly in recent years. The quality of water extracted
from such sources is under threat of degradation by contami-
nants because of the different anthropogenic activities, resulting
from rapid unplanned and haphazard urbanization of entire
valley. The urban growth detection was 10.86 square kilometers
from 1988 to 1997 (ICIMOD, 2000), which has been further
increased since then.
4.2. Model input parameters and groundwater
vulnerability index
All seven input data layers used in DRASTIC system were
generated and/or obtained from its original source as a point,
line, or polygon layer (Fig. 4). Then, all parameters contrib-
uting to groundwater vulnerability were converted from vector
(point, line, or polygon) to raster (grid) using the GIS. In raster
layer, space is subdivided into discrete cells with required
resolution. In this work, all input parameters for the DRASTIC
and fuzzy pattern recognition model were generated in seven
separate raster layers of 30 m30 m grid resolution (Fig. 5).
GIS techniques were utilized with the help of Eqs. (6) and (7)
to generate the continuous input layer of each DRASTIC
parameter.
Depth to water table was collected from borehole log infor-
mation, direct measurement of existing groundwater wells and
other secondary information. Both inverse distance moving
average interpolation technique and kriging were tested on the
measured depth to groundwater point data to generate raster
surface. However, the kriging technique was found to be suitable
to generate smooth surface. The membership degree value map
was computed using Eq. (7) and rating map was prepared by
assigning sensitivity rating values as 10 for depth (<1.5 m), 9
for depth (1.5e4.6 m), 7 for depth (4.6e9.1 m), 5 for depth
(9.1e15.2), 3 for depth (15.2e22.5 m), 2 for depth (22.5e30 m)
and 1 for depth (>30 m).
The shallow aquifer of the valley is recharged mainly by
direct inltration from precipitation therefore net recharge was
estimated by using following formula:
Net recharge rainfall evaporation runoff 18
Fig. 4. Example of developing model input parameters.
70 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
where rainfall map was prepared by interpolation mean of
annual precipitation (mm/year) from the 21 representative
rainfall stations in the Kathmandu Valley (DHM, 2006).
Evaporation data was used from only one station of the valley
recorded in international airport of Kathmandu (DHM, 2006).
Runoff was calculated on each pixel based on empirical
relation in which the runoff coefcients assumed to be 0.8 for
built up/urban area, 0.27 for forest, 0.25 for open eld/lawn,
0.4 for agricultural eld with clay, 0.3 for agricultural eld
with sand and 0.15 for water body and highly permeable
recent ood plain. Thus obtained recharge value from Eq. (18)
was used to calculate the membership degree value as well as
rating map to evaluate the degree of vulnerability.
The aquifer media map was developed based on various
sources regarding groundwater basin and geological formation
map of Kathmandu (Shrestha et al., 1998; JICA, 1990; Jha et al.,
1997). Rating value was assigned based on DRASTIC method.
The grid layer of soil media was generated from soil map
from Department of Survey, Nepal (NGIIP, 1994). The major
soil types available in study area are loamy, loamy skeletal and
loamy/bouldery. Hence, rating was assigned as according to
DRASTIC method based on the soil type.
The topographic contours map of 1:25000 scale (NGIIP,
1994) was digitized to construct slope map using 3D analyst
and spatial analyst in ArcGIS9.2. The slope was converted into
membership value using Eq. (7) and rating map also prepared
Fig. 5. Seven input raster layers to compute vulnerability index.
71 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
with assigning sensitivity rating as 10 for plain (<2%), 9 for
gentle (2e6%), 5 for moderate (6e12%), 3 for steep
(12e18%) and 1 for very steep (>18%).
The parameter, impact of vadose zone represents the
inuence of unsaturated zone above the water table, which
controls the passage and attenuation of the contaminated
material to the aquifer. The impact of vadose zone map layer
was prepared using geological formation and soil map of
Kathmandu Valley. This map was also veried using some
borehole log information from different part of valley. Rating
value was assigned according to DRASTIC method to
compute vulnerability index.
Aquifer hydraulic conductivity is the ability of the aquifer
formation to transmit water. It depends on the intrinsic
permeability of the material and on the degree of saturation.
Generally, the hydraulic conductivity is measured fromthe eld
pumping tests data. In this study, hydraulic conductivity values
were obtained frompumping test data (Metcalf and Eddy, 2000)
and have been interpolated to generate hydraulic conductivity
map of required resolution. According to Metcalf and Eddy
(2000), hydraulic conductivity of the study area is lower than
10 m/d that suggests hydraulic conductivity has less contribu-
tion to groundwater vulnerability to contamination in designed
study area. Hydraulic conductivity data was converted to fuzzy
Fig. 6. Illustration for how integrated GIS based fuzzy model compute different vulnerability value within same range of input parameters despite of DRASTIC
method.
72 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
membership value using Eq. (6) and rating value was assigned
according to DRASTIC method.
Finally, relative degree of vulnerability (i.e. vulnerability
index) of the each sample of the study area was calculated
using Eq. (17). The output of this model was utilized to
generate groundwater vulnerability map, where index value is
ranged from most difcult to be polluted to easiest to be
polluted in term of linguistic variables. Further, DRASTIC
index was computed using the Eq. (1) to compare the output of
fuzzy pattern recognition model.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Vulnerability variation in fuzzy pattern recognition
model
In DRASTIC method, all seven input raster layers are
divided into certain ranges to employ rating value to each
range then nal vulnerability index is computed. However, it
should be noted that if a factor value can be measured
numerically, unlike the function of DRASTIC index, the fuzzy
system generates a continuous vulnerability function. The
input parameters, which are very important to groundwater
vulnerability to contamination, such as depth to water table,
recharge, hydraulic conductivity and slope could be measured
numerically. Therefore, it is not necessarily to divide in certain
range to compute vulnerability index by assigning rating value
what is usually done in DRASTIC method. For e.g., rating
value 7 is assigned for depth 4.6e9.1 m range that implies
DRASTIC index is equal at any place at this range of water
depth however, vulnerability value may differ at water depth
of 4.6 m and 9.1 m. Fig. 6 illustrates an example how inte-
grated GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model compute
different vulnerability index value within same range of input
parameters at particular hydrogeological setting despite of
DRASTIC method.
The decision making model beneting from fuzzy logic,
which is also based on the knowledge of the DRASTIC system
hence its verication seems quite vital. Hence, this study
validates the models performance by comparing the results
with those of normalized DRASTIC index. Since maximum
and minimum values of the DRASTIC index are 226 and 23
respectively, then the normalized DRASTIC index may be
obtained as:
I
n
I
d
23=203 19
where I
n
and I
d
are normalized and computed DRASTIC
indices, respectively. To compare the output of the fuzzy model
with DRASTIC index, vulnerability variation resulting from
fuzzy and DRASTIC model with respect to any single input
variable, making other parameters constant, is computed taking
the characteristics of selected hydrogeological settings. The
characteristics of the seven factors of the selected hydro-
geological setting used for comparison study are shown in Table
4. The comparison between outputs of two models indicate that
the fuzzy system has continuous nature with respect to input
factors and unveils two upper and lower bound whereas the
output of DRASTIChas a discrete nature (Fig. 7aec). The fuzzy
index is higher than DRASTIC index however, both models
follow same trend. It is shown that by assigning ratings for
related factors falling into certain range, DRASTICmethod will
ignore the difference of factor values within the same range and
is unable to reect to the inuence the variation of hydro-
geological factors on the groundwater vulnerability. Since, the
model parameters are derived from the DRASTIC system,
similar results with that of DRASTICare expected, however, the
main difference is that fuzzy pattern recognition model can
generates a continuous vulnerability function unlike step
DRASTIC output function, which may be considered as
a distinct advantage over DRASTIC method.
Fig. 7. (a) Vulnerability variation of water depth in fuzzy pattern recognition
model and DRASTIC method. (b) Vulnerability variation of recharge in
fuzzy pattern recognition model and DRASTIC method. (c)Vulnerability
variation of topography in fuzzy pattern recognition model and DRASTIC
method.
73 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
5.2. Vulnerability map
Groundwater vulnerability index was computed using Eq.
(17) utilizing all developed input parameters in GIS frame-
works. Fig. 8a shows the relative degree of groundwater
vulnerability to contamination which was obtained from the
fuzzy pattern recognition model based on DRASTIC system.
The values extend from 0.24 to 0.87 i.e. most difcult to be
polluted to easiest to be polluted in term of linguistic
variables. Fig. 8b also shows the degree of groundwater
vulnerability to contamination in term of normalized
DRASTIC index, where the values vary from 0.29 to 0.79 with
the lowest possible rating being 0.29 and the highest rating
being 0.79. We categorized groundwater vulnerability map
into ve classes: very low, low, medium, high and very high by
introducing the higher the index, the greater the relative
pollution potential. Fig. 9 illustrates the number of samples
(pixels) corresponding to vulnerability output of fuzzy and
Fig. 8. (a) Groundwater contamination potential map based on vulnerability index computed from fuzzy pattern recognition model. (b) Groundwater contamination
potential map based on vulnerability index computed from DRASTIC method.
74 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
DRASTIC model in study area. A high index that corresponds
to easiest to be polluted in linguistic term, indicates the
capacity of the hydrogeologic environment and the landscape
factors to readily move waterborne contaminants into the
groundwater and consequently need to be managed more
closely. Low index i.e. most difcult to be polluted repre-
sents groundwater that is better protected from contaminant
leaching by natural environment.
The output of fuzzy model reveals especially northern part
of valley and recent alluvial deposits falls under very high
vulnerable that is about 28% of the total area. About 47, 21
and 4% of the valley was classied as high, medium and low
vulnerable area respectively. No area was found in the cate-
gory very low vulnerable. While in DRASTIC method, no area
was categorized as very high vulnerable zone nevertheless 58
and 38% of the area categorized as high and medium
vulnerable. Similarly, 4% of the total area is classied as low
vulnerable zone. The combination of the model parameters
that pertinent to groundwater vulnerability like very shallow
depth to water table (<10 m) in the most part of the study area
with almost at area (<2% slope) and high recharge rate in
study area led to this high pollution potential index from both
method. The lowest recharge was associated with urban land
while the dominant part of the study area had more than
254 mm/year. The results also indicate the rich groundwater
resources area; northern part of Kathmandu like, Gokarna
formation and highly permeable alluvial deposits are highly
susceptible for vulnerability in which, if pollution is common,
contaminants can reach the groundwater within a very short
time.
5.3. Validation of output of vulnerability model by eld
measured nitrate data
The modeled results should validate from eld observations
which is however quite difcult and expensive in large
geographical area. In this study, the output of vulnerability
models were tested using measured nitrate data from the
shallow aquifer of Kathmandu. Out of 90 water sources, 15
sources have higher concentrations, which exceeded United
State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines
of 10 mg/L as nitrateenitrogen (USEPA, 2009); however,
another 30 wells had impacted levels of nitrate between 2 and
10 mg/L. The sampled groundwater wells were overlaid on the
groundwater vulnerability map using GIS in order to see how
many wells with high concentration of nitrate are found in
different vulnerable zones. Groundwater vulnerability map
developed in this study based on aquifer characteristics do not
consider contaminants sources, loading and transport mecha-
nism into groundwater systems nevertheless it was encour-
aging to nd that majority of sampled sources which violated
USEPA limit value of nitrate are located in the high to very
high vulnerable zones for both models (Fig. 8a and b).
Although, few sampling wells were highly contaminated by
nitrate in some areas, DRASTIC predicted no area that was
categorized as very high vulnerable zone, which indicates it
could not predict vulnerability level more accurately (Fig. 8b).
However, fuzzy based method predicted sampling wells that
were highly contaminated by nitrate in very high vulnerable
zone. Fuzzy pattern recognition method predicted three and
six wells out of 15 contaminated wells as very high vulnerable
and high vulnerable respectively (Fig. 8a). From this result, it
Fig. 9. Frequency distribution of vulnerability index from fuzzy pattern and
DRASTIC model.
Fig. 10. Relationship between groundwater depth and nitrateeN in shallow aquifer of Kathmandu.
75 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
can be concluded that vulnerability predicted by fuzzy pattern
recognition method is more reliable than DRASTIC method. If
a watershed manager uses this result to conduct the ground-
water sampling strategy for potential contaminants by human
activities in the study area, this will be far more useful,
compared to results generated by conventional overlay index
method like DRASTIC.
In addition, the relationship between nitrate and ground-
water depth (one of the important parameters that pertinent to
groundwater vulnerability to contamination) indicates nitrate
concentration was, high it existed within the top 10 m and non
detectable amounts were found in deeper groundwater
(Fig. 10). As the groundwater wells are contaminated by
nitrate due to the anthropogenic activities from or nearby
ground surface, concentrations of nitrate should be higher at
wells of low water depth. However, signicant number of
wells which have a high concentration of nitrate is located in
the low vulnerable zones, especially areas that belongs old
urban setting of valley. Possible reasons that nitrate concen-
trations observed high values in old urban areas even catego-
rized as low vulnerable zones based on intrinsic vulnerability
index are due to the inadequate disposal of human and animal
waste and leach from septic tanks for a long time. In those
areas, many households use septic tanks and the proximity of
the septic tanks and the groundwater wells are not maintained,
where the nitrate could inltrate into the shallow aquifers.
6. Summary and conclusions
The overall goal of this study is twofold. First, it aims to
improve the methodology for the computation of groundwater
vulnerability index to generate contamination potential map by
incorporating the continuous nature of vulnerability to
contamination using DRASTIC parameters in large geograph-
ical area. Second, it brings up to date the input parameters of
vulnerability model and geochemical data to validate vulnera-
bility map of shallow groundwater aquifer of Kathmandu,
where more than half of the population depend on groundwater
sources to fulll their water demand. Generally speaking, there
is a continuous transition from easiest to the most difcult
aquifer to be polluted, which is in fact fuzzy nature of
groundwater vulnerability to contamination. In this regard,
integrated GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model generates
the continuous vulnerability function unlike step DRASTIC
index, which is in fact the pronounced advantage over
DRASTIC method. This approach could take fuzziness nature
of groundwater vulnerability (i.e. continuous transition from
easiest to the most difcult aquifer to be polluted) more ef-
ciently than DRASTIC method.
An integrated GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model
based on DRASTIC system can be applied to any aquifer
systems to predict groundwater vulnerability more efciently.
This approach has been applied to develop the groundwater
vulnerability map to shallow groundwater systems of Kath-
mandu Valley as case study. A comparison between the output
of fuzzy pattern recognition model and the DRASTIC was
accomplished. The fuzzy index is higher than DRASTIC index
however, both models follow same trend. The study shows that
75% and 58% of the valleys shallow groundwater aquifer is
under high to very high vulnerability to contamination from
fuzzy and DRASTIC method respectively which is the main
cause of concern for more than 2 million people living in
Kathmandu.
Moreover, the accuracy of the DRASTIC and fuzzy results
was evaluated by comparing the results with nitrate data
sampled from shallow groundwater aquifer of Kathmandu.
Fuzzy pattern recognition model predicted three and six wells
out of 15 contaminated wells as very high vulnerable and high
vulnerable respectively while DRASTIC predicted no area that
was categorized as very high vulnerable zone. From this result,
it can be concluded that vulnerability predicted by fuzzy
pattern recognition method is more reliable than DRASTIC
method. This result afrms the validation and reliability of an
integrated GIS based fuzzy pattern recognition model to some
extent, which reect an aquifers inherent capacity to become
contaminated. However, special emphasis should be given to
update model input parameters, loadings and fate of contam-
inants transport into groundwater systems to get the reliable
output for policy and decision making in groundwater
management in watershed scale. The groundwater vulnera-
bility maps developed in this study are signicant screening
tools in policy and decision making for many aspects of the
regional and local groundwater resources management and
protection.
References
Afshar, A., Marino, M.A., Ebtehaj, M., Moosavi, J., 2007. Rule-based fuzzy
system for assessing groundwater vulnerability. Journal of Environmental
Engineering ASCE 133 (5), 532e540.
Aller, L., Bennet, T., Lehr, H.J., Petty, J.R., Hackett, G., 1987. DRASTIC;
a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using
hydrogeologic settings. USEPA-600/2-87-035, 622 pp.
Babiker, I.S., Mohammed, A.A.M., Hiyama, T., 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 (1e3), 127e140.
Barber, C., Bates, L.E., Barron, R., Allison, H., 1994. Comparison of stan-
dardized and Region-specic methods assessment of the vulnerability of
Groundwater to pollution: A case study in an Agricultural catchment. In:
Proceedings of 25th IAH Congress water Down under, Melbourne,
Australia.
Chen, S.Y., Fu, G., 2003. A DRASTIC fuzzy pattern recognition methodology
for groundwater vulnerability evaluation. Hydrological Science Journal
48 (2), 211e220.
Denny, S.C., Allen, D.M., Journeay, J.M., 2007. DRASTIC-Fm: a modied
vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the
southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeology Journal
15 (3), 483e493.
Department of Hydrology and Metrology (DHM), 2006. Precipitation Records
of the Bagmati Zone (1999e2005). Ministry of Environment, Science and
Technology, Government of Nepal.
Dixon, B., 2005. Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy rule
based integrated tool. Applied Geography 25 (4), 327e347.
Doeriger, N., Zwahlen, F., 1997. EPIK: a new method for outling of
protection areas in karstic environment. International Symposium on Karst
Waters and Environmental Impacts, pp. 117e123.
El Yaouti, F., El Mandour, A., Khattach, D., Kaufmann, O., 2008. Modelling
groundwater ow and advective contaminant transport in the Bou-Areg
76 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77
unconned aquifer (NE Morocco). Journal of Hydro-environment
Research 2 (2008), 192e209.
Foster, S.S.D., 1987. Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution
risk and protection strategy. Proceedings and Information/TNO Committee
on Hydrological Research 38, 36e86.
Frind, E.O., Molson, J.W., Rudolph, D.L., 2006. Well vulnerability: a quantitative
approach for source water protection. Ground Water 44 (5), 732e742.
Gautam, R., Rao, G.K., 1991. Groundwater resources evaluation of the
Kathmandu Valley. Journal of Nepal Geological Society 7, 39e48.
Gemitzi, A., Petalas, C., Tsihrintzis, V.A., Pisinaras, V., 2006. Assessment of
groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a combination of GIS, fuzzy logic
and decision making techniques. Environmental Geology 49 (5), 653e673.
Gogu, R.C., Hallet, V., Dassargues, A., 2003. Comparison of aquifer vulner-
ability assessment techniques, application to the Neblon river basin
(Belgium). Environmental Geology 44 (8), 881e892.
Gomezdelcampo, E., Dickerson, J.R., 2008. A modied DRASTIC model for
sitting conned animal Feeding Operations in Williams County, Ohio,
USA. Environmental Geology 55 (8), 1821e1832.
Jha, M.G., Khadka, M.S., Shrestha, M.P., Regmi, S., Bauld, J., Jacobson, G.,
1997. The Assessment of Groundwater Pollution in the Kathmandu Valley,
Nepal. Report on Joint Nepal-Australia project 1995e96. Australian
Geological Survey Organization, Canberra, pp. 64.
JICA, 1990. Groundwater management project in Kathmandu Valley, Final
report, main report and supporting reports, November 1990.
Kathmandu Valley GIS database. Towards bridging the data gap, 2000.
MENRIS/ICIMOD.
Khadka, M.S., 1993. Groundwater quality situation in alluvial aquifers of the
Kathmandu Valley. AGSO. Journal of Australian Geology & Geophysics
14, 207e211.
Khatiwada, N.R., Takizawa, S., Tran, T.V.N., Inoue, M., 2002. Groundwater
contamination assessment for sustainable water supply in Kathmandu
Valley, Nepal. Water Science and Technology 46 (9), 147e154.
Lynch, S.D., Reynders, A.G., Schulze, R.E., 1997. A DRASTIC approach to
groundwater vulnerability in South Africa. South African Journal of
Science 93 (2), 59e65.
Merchant, J.W., 1994. GIS-based groundwater pollution hazard assessment:
a critical review of the DRASTIC model. Photogrammetry Engineering &
Remote Sensing 60 (9), 1117e1127.
Metcalf and Eddy, 18 February 2000. Urban Water Supply Reforms in the
Kathmandu Valley (ADB TA Number 2998-NEP), Completion Report. In:
Executive summary, main report and Annex 1 to 7, vols. I, II. Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. with CEMAT Consultants Ltd..
National Geographic Information Infrastructure Project (NGIIP), 1994.
Department of Survey, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nobre, R.C.M., Filho, O.C.R., Mansur, W.J., Nobre, M.M.M., Cosenza, C.A.
N., 2007. Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS,
modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 94,
277e292.
National Research Council (NRC), 1993. Ground Water Vulnerability
Assessment: Contamination Potential under Conditions of Uncertainty.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Pathak, D.R., Hiratsuka, A., Awata, I., Chen, L., 2009. Groundwater vulner-
ability assessment in shallow aquifer of Kathmandu Valley using GIS-
based DRASTIC model. Environmental Geology 57 (7), 1569e1578. doi:
10.1007/s00254-008-1432-8.
Rahman, A., 2008. A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater
vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh, India. Applied Geography 28
(1), 32e53.
Shrestha, O.M., Koirala, A., Karmacharya, S.L., Pradhananga, U.B.,
Pradhan, P.M., Karmacharya, R., Hanisch, J., Kerntke, M., Joshi, P.R.,
Steiner, L., Busch, K., Jnwali, B.M., Maske, N.D., Tuladhar, G.B.,
Kaphle, K.P., 1998. Engineering and Environmental Geological Map of
Kathmandu Valley. Scale 1:50000. Department of Mines and Geology,
Nepal.
Shrestha, O.M., Koirala, A., Hanisch, J., Busch, K., Kerntke, M., Jager, S.,
1999. A geo-environmental map for the sustainable development of the
Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Geo-journal 49 (2), 165e172.
Thirumalaivasan, D., Karmegam, M., Venugopal, K., 2003. AHP-DRASTIC:
software for specic aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC
model and GIS. Environmental Modeling and Software 18 (7), 645e656.
Uricchio, V.F., Giordano, R., Lopez, N., 2004. A fuzzy knowledge e based
decision support system for groundwater pollution risk evaluation. Journal
of Environmental Management 73 (3), 189e197.
United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. 2009 Edition
of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA 822-R-09-
011, Ofce of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, pp 18.
Vrba, J., Zaporozec, A., 1994. Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulner-
ability. In: International Contributions to Hydrology, vol. 16. Heinz Heise,
Hannover, 131 pp.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Journal of Information and Control 8 (3),
338e353.
Zhang, R., Hamerlinck, J.D., Gloss, S.P., Munn, L., 1996. Determination of
nonpoint-source pollution using GIS and numerical models. Journal of
Environmental Quality 25 (3), 411e418.
Zhou, H.C., Wang, G.L., Yang, Q., 1999. A multiobjective fuzzy pattern
recognition model for assessing groundwater vulnerability based on
DRASTIC system. Hydrological Science Journal 44 (4), 611e618.
77 D.R. Pathak, A. Hiratsuka / Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 63e77