2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Aquifer Vulnerability Using Drastic Model and GIS: A Case Study of Mysore City, Karnataka, India

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
17
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…3). The relationship can be: ... (10) and (11) are valid when the relationship between φ and ξ is linear, that is when 0.2 ≤ ξ ≤ 0.8 (Fig. 3).…”
Section: Phase Of the Vertical Magnetic Dipolementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…3). The relationship can be: ... (10) and (11) are valid when the relationship between φ and ξ is linear, that is when 0.2 ≤ ξ ≤ 0.8 (Fig. 3).…”
Section: Phase Of the Vertical Magnetic Dipolementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to this, dependence on groundwater is higher day after day because of the enormous population growth in coastal areas, [10] as they demand fresh water free of contaminants [11], knowing seasonal and special evolution of water in coast zones is useful for preventing seawater intrusion and to understand the vulnerability of a coastal environment [12]. As groundwater use has increased in coastal areas, so has the recognition that groundwater supplies are vulnerable to overuse and contamination.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most widely used method for vulnerability evaluation is DRASTIC because of its ease of use, minimal data requirements, and clear exposition of groundwater vulnerability [14]. The method has been widely used for regional vulnerability assessments in many countries such as the USA [15][16], China [17][18], Korea [19], Canada [20], India [21], Turkey [22], Tunisia [23], South Africa [24][25], and the Ivory Coast [26]. DRASTIC, as with other similar index methods, has many disadvantages: 1) so many variables are factored into the fi nal index that critical parameters in groundwater vulnerability may be masked by other parameters that have no bearing on vulnerability for a particular setting [27], 2) the results overestimate the vulnerability of porous media aquifers compared with aquifers in fractured media [28], and 3) the selection of the parameters is based on qualitative judgment and not quantitative studies [29][30].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly many approaches have been used to determine the aquifer protective capacity or aquifer vulnerability of an area. Overlay and index methods that combine specific physical characteristics that affect vulnerability, process-based methods consisting of mathematical models that approximate the behavior of substances in the subsurface environment (Adeyemo et al, 2015;Lathamani et al, 2015 andJavadi, et.al., 2017) and statistical methods that draw associations with areas where contamination is known to have occurred (Chen et. al., 2013 andArmengol, et.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%