IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v240y2020ics037837742030305x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Groundwater vulnerability assessment in different types of aquifers

Author

Listed:
  • Abu-Bakr, Heba Abd el-Aziz

Abstract

The concept of groundwater vulnerability is used in groundwater management and risk assessment. Among the parameters contributing to groundwater vulnerability are: depth to groundwater; net recharge rate; aquifer media; topography; vadose zone; hydraulic conductivity; aquifer thickness; and, pumping density rate in case of over-pumping. Groundwater is considered an important water resource in Egypt. Hence, this valuable source should be evaluated against its vulnerability to all possible pollution risks. In this research, three areas are selected and representing different aquifer types with different hydrogeological characteristics. The first area is Al-Minia governorate to represent the Nile valley region, which is underlain by the Nile valley aquifer. The second area is Wadi Al-Natrun to represent the Nile Delta fringes region, which is underlain by Moghra aquifer. The last area is El Kharga Oasis to represent Western desert region, which is underlain by Nubian Sandstone aquifer. A groundwater vulnerability maps for the three regions are produced using Microsoft Excel, Golden Software Surfer 12 and the analytical hierarchy process method (AHP) for rating and weighting the contributing eight parameters. The main outcome of this research is the vulnerability classification for each region supported by the corresponding vulnerability map. The study indicated that the highest weight is assigned to the depth to groundwater and soil media parameters while the lowest weight was assigned to the topography factor. The results indicated that, for Al-Minia study area, about 85% of the aquifer is classified as medium vulnerability and about 11% is low to medium and 4% is medium to high. For Wadi Al-Natrun study area, about 67% of the aquifer is classified as medium vulnerability and about 3.3% is low to medium and 28.7% is medium to high. For El Kharga Oasis study area, about 48.8% of the aquifer is classified as medium vulnerability and about 51.5% is low to medium.

Suggested Citation

  • Abu-Bakr, Heba Abd el-Aziz, 2020. "Groundwater vulnerability assessment in different types of aquifers," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:240:y:2020:i:c:s037837742030305x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037837742030305X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106275?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    3. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    4. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    5. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    6. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    7. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    8. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    12. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    13. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    14. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    15. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    16. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    17. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    18. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    20. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:240:y:2020:i:c:s037837742030305x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.