See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225653483

A Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria for

Groundwater Quality Protection

Article  in  Water Resources Management · April 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s11269-010-9767-9

CITATIONS READS

20 2,081

6 authors, including:

Amr Fadlelmawla Hamdy I El-Gamily

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
6 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   247 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amitabha Mukhopadhyay Vincent Kotwicki

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
59 PUBLICATIONS   670 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   307 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Updating the Military Topographic Maps of Scale 1:25,000, Ministry of Defense, Kuwait View project

Research activity between Kuwait University and Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamdy I El-Gamily on 06 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Water Resour Manage (2011) 25:1677–1697
DOI 10.1007/s11269-010-9767-9

A Land Surface Zoning Approach Based

on Three-Component Risk Criteria for Groundwater
Quality Protection

A. Ahmed Fadlelmawla · Mahmoud Fayad · Hamdi El-Gamily ·

Tarik Rashid · Amitabha Mukhopadhyay · Vincent Kotwicki

Received: 5 November 2009 / Accepted: 7 December 2010 /

Published online: 11 January 2011
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Protecting the quality of groundwater is a necessity that requires significant

restrictions on land use. Because such restrictions are of complex socio-economic
consequences, they should be carefully adjusted to the spatially varied protection
needs. This paper describes the development of a series of maps designed to facilitate
groundwater protection decisions according to land surface zoning. The zoning was
based on attributes descriptive of the basic elements of risk (hazard, exposure and
consequences) to groundwater quality in Kuwait to provide basis for adjusting the
protective regulations to the needs. Standardized maps of the major categories of
potentially hazardous activities were prepared using ArcGIS. A country scale map
combining and ranking all the hazardous activities was prepared using the USEPA’s
hazard ranking system (HRS). The intrinsic vulnerability of the groundwater was
mapped using the DRASTIC model. The relative value of the groundwater was
mapped according to the three-component criteria of current and future dependence
on groundwater, as well as interaction with environmental resources, which were
adapted from USEPA criteria for prioritizing the protection/remediation funds.
Agricultural activities and oil-related industries were ranked the most hazardous
activities in Kuwait. The patterns of the intrinsic vulnerability seemed to be dictated
by the depth to the groundwater and the material of the unsaturated zone. Decision
making tools were produced by combining the above maps as follows: (1) vulnera-
bility and hazard maps to produce the risk map, (2) risk and value maps to produce
the value weighted risk map, and (3) vulnerability and value maps to produce release
consequences map. The produced maps should serve the purposes of identifying all
potential monitoring targets, prioritizing of funds allocation for monitoring or other
corrective actions, and adjusting the land use restrictions to the needs as well as
allocating future potentially hazardous land use, respectively. Benefits of including
the groundwater value in the criteria for protecting the resource were illustrated by

A. A. Fadlelmawla (B) · M. Fayad · H. El-Gamily · T. Rashid ·

A. Mukhopadhyay · V. Kotwicki
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait
e-mail: afadl@kisr.edu.kw1
1678 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

comparing the decisions that would be logically made based on schemes with and
without groundwater value as part of the criteria.

Keywords GIS · Vulnerability · Kuwait · Land use · Hazard ranking ·

Groundwater value

1 Introduction

It is generally agreed that groundwater protection is essentially the man-made

measures, in the form of land use regulations, that complement the aquifer’s natural
protection. In contrast, approaches that define land use regulations vary widely
according to local conditions, including hydrology, socio-economy and sometimes
politics. Research efforts in this area were mostly directed in three broad channels:
relative aquifer vulnerability determination, delineation of source protection area,
and devising a regional scheme that combines various tools.
The term “Vulnerability” was introduced in the late sixties (Margat 1968). Since
then, the term was used in the context of spatial variations of the protection provided
by the natural environment, while the implication was the relative susceptibility of
aquifer to pollution. A vulnerability map is a basic component of any protection
program as it identifies the geographical distribution of relative susceptibility to
pollution. It could also be a stand-alone tool for adjusting the land use restrictions to
the needs, future allocation of hazardous land use or allocation of monitoring wells.
However, this would require limiting the scale of application to single groundwater
value and/or single land use.
Three categories of methodology are typically used for mapping groundwater
vulnerability. These are: a) overlay and index methods, b) process-based methods
and c) statistical methods (Vrba and Zaporozec 1994; NRC 1997). Each of these
categories works out best under specific sets of conditions. Despite being criticized
for a number of shortcomings (Garrett et al. 1989; Vrba and Zaporozec 1994; Foster
and Skinner 1995), the DRASTIC model (Aller et al. 1987), an overlay and index
method, remains the most popular intrinsic vulnerability mapping method. This is
perhaps due to the fact that the advantage of lesser methodological uncertainties
that the other two methods have is often offset by their extensive data requirements.
There are numerous applications of this method in the literature (Seller and Canter
1980; Le Grand 1983; Durnford et al. 1990; Rupert 1999; Fritch et al. 2000; Shukla
et al. 2000; Zabet 2002; Babiker et al. 2005; Panagopoulos et al. 2006; Antonakos and
Lambrakis 2007; Pochon et al. 2008; Almasri 2008; Chitsazan and Akhtari 2009) that
include intrinsic and pollutant-specific mapping as well as calibrations of the method.
In source or wellhead protection, very strict land use restrictions are imposed
on the “capture zone” of drinking water wells. Significant volume of research on
the delineation of the “capture zone” can be found in the literature (Stichler et al.
2008; Fadlelmawla and Dawoud 2006; Van de Boogaard et al. 1993; Cleary and
Cleary 1991; Van den Brink et al. 2008; Johnson and Belitz 2009; Kunstmann and
Kastens 2006; Nel et al. 2009) that ranges in sophistication from simple fixed radius
to numerical and stochastic modeling. Delineating wellhead protection area and
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1679

subsequently restricting its land use is very useful at the local communities scale or
within a larger protection scheme.
Devising country scale strategy for groundwater protection requires a scheme
of tools that are applicable at the regional scale and can provide consistent and
defendable spatial distribution of restrictions. This scheme should be capable of
providing regional answers to questions such as where to monitor? Where to place
future hazardous activities? And how to prioritize protection funds allocation? There
is significantly less (compared to the above categories) literature discussing this
aspect of groundwater protection. Foster and Skinner (1995) suggested a scheme
for the protection of the groundwater in UK. With the intention of keeping their
scheme as simple as possible they suggested two factors to be considered for land
surface zoning, intrinsic vulnerability for the entire land surface overlaid by source
protection for the catchment area. Misstear and Daly (2000) discussed the Irish
groundwater protection strategy, which is similar to the British approach in the land-
surface zoning, but having somewhat different approach in mapping the vulnerabil-
ity. Andreo et al. (2006) presented the first application of the Pan-European scheme
for protecting karst groundwater. The scheme includes vulnerability mapping, hazard
(potential pollution sources) mapping and ranking, and combining the previous two
maps to produce a risk map. Mimi and Assi (2009) presented another application of
the Pan-European scheme at parts of the Gaza strip.
In this paper, regional scale groundwater protection is addressed using risk
assessment principles as basis for land-surface zoning for the state of Kuwait.
However, unlike the previous applications, in this paper, all three elements of risk
(Smith 1998): exposure, hazard, and value (as indicator of consequences) were taken
into consideration. While subjectivity is practically unavoidable for regional scale
schemes, the authors believe that the more comprehensive application of the risk
principle enabled a more defendable land-surface zoning.

2 Context

Kuwait (Fig. 1) is situated in a gentle undulating plain, broken by occasional low

hills, escarpments and depressions. The land surface generally slopes northeastward
with an average inclination of 1/500. This flatness implies high potential for water
accumulation on the ground surface and consequently percolation to the groundwa-
ter (one of the aquifer vulnerability parameters). This potential is, however, offset
by other climatic conditions. The country is characterized by an extended, dry, hot
windy summer climate. Its climatic aridity is manifested by extreme diurnal and
monthly variations in air temperature. A statistical summary of meteorological data
for the period 1962–1989 indicates that the average air temperature ranged between
7◦ C in January 1964 and 39.3◦ C in July 1989. The annual mean rainfall value is
105.6 mm with very high inter-annual variability (lowest mean recorded value was
23 mm in 1960 and the highest was 242 mm in 1976). Precipitation occurs mostly
during December and January with averages of 24.1 mm and 18.2 mm, respectively
(Al-Sulaimi et al. 1997). These conditions suggest insignificant recharge, which is
of important relevance to this study (recharge is one of the aquifer’s vulnerability
parameters). The only exception to this statement is the northern parts of the
1680 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Fig. 1 General map of Kuwait and major categories of land use

country where the occasional intensive rainstorms and the presence of extensive
drainage networks are facilitating considerable runoff and subsequently significant
recharge.
Al-Sulaimi et al. (1992) defined three main aquifers in Kuwait: Kuwait Group,
Dammam Formation and Rus Formation, from top to bottom. In this study the
focus is on the upper most aquifer, Kuwait Group (KG) as typically the case when
protecting the groundwaters from surface originating pollutants. The Kuwait Group
aquifer is generally subdivided into three formations, from bottom upwards: Ghar
(mostly sandstone), Lower Fars (calcareous sandstone and shale) and Dibdibba
(sand and gravel, this formation exist only in the northern parts of the country).
Transmissivities of the KG range widely from 100 m2 /day in the south to more than
1,000 m2 /day in the north. The limited available reports (Parsons 1963; Fahmi et al.
1964) on the specific yield of the KG gave a range of 12 to 15%. Infiltration rates is
ranging between 23 to 25 cm/h in the northern territories, while there are no records
for the infiltration rate in the southern parts of the country. The potentiometric head
for the year 2000 of the KG is presented in Fig. 2. The direction and gradient of
flow within the KG aquifer essentially follows the stratigraphic dip and is in a north-
easterly direction (Fig. 2). It is noteworthy that with recharge to the KG originating at
the Saudi territories thousands of kilometers away, there is practically no correlation
between the water levels of KG and the rainy seasons. The flow regime is described
by the gradient shown as contours of groundwater elevation. The gradient steepens
in the south-east to Kuwait Bay and reflects discharge to the Arabian Gulf. In the
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1681

Fig. 2 Groundwater potentiometric heads for Kuwait Group aquifer (uppermost aquifer). The
figure also shows the flow directions of the groundwater

north-east the gradient flattens in response to dense brines that act as no or low
flow boundaries. The flat gradient infers some flow, which is probably reflected by
groundwater discharge to coastal sabkhahs (a sabkhah is a salt pan or groundwater
discharge zone).
Groundwater in the KG is ranging from brackish (<4,000 mg/l TDS) at the south
of the country to hyper-saline (>100,000 mg/l TDS) at the northeastern coast (Fig. 3).
Very limited fresh groundwaters are occurring as lenses at the northern watershed.
The main usages of groundwater in Kuwait are: ≈ 8% of domestic water (i.e.
mixed with desalinated seawater), majority of the irrigation water (agriculture and
landscapes), and strategic water reserve (freshwater accumulations in the northern
areas). Pollutants with anthropogenic origin include nitrogen compounds, coliform
bacteria and hydrocarbons. These pollutants were correlated, through a number of
studies (Al-Awadi et al. 2000; Akber et al. 2002; Al-Senafy et al. 2003; Fadlelmawla
et al. 2006) to specific anthropogenic sources namely irrigated agriculture, landfills,
and spillage of oil due to oil fields fires during the Iraqi invasion (1990–1991). It
may be noted here that the pollutants due to anthropogenic activities should not be
limited to the above cases as these represent the investigated sources only. Other
uninvestigated sources may also have impacts on the groundwater quality.
Land use in Kuwait (Fig. 1) is limited to urban areas at the Arabian Gulf coast,
oil wellfields, brackish groundwater fields, limited agricultural farms, and limited
industrial activities (mostly oil related). The rest of the land is essentially barren.
1682 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Fig. 3 Iso-TDS map for Kuwait Group aquifer

3 Approaches

Hazard ranking: In order to rank the hazard, the land use characteristics that
determine the likelihood of affecting the groundwater quality had to be identified
and evaluated in relative terms. For this purpose, the conceptual framework of
the hazard ranking system (HRS) described by the USEPA (1990) was utilized
as basis for identifying these characteristics. The HRS identifies the characteristics
that determine the potential of a site to pollute each of four pathways that can
ultimately affect human beings. These pathways are: groundwater, surface water,
soil, and air. For obvious reasons, groundwater is considered the relevant pathway.

Table 1 Importance weights Characteristic Importance weight

for the components of the
ranking criteria Type of containment 1.0
Position of release 0.5
Volume of liquid 0.66
Concentration of liquid 0.5
Mobility of pollutant 0.66
Spatial extent 0.5
Evidence of pollution 0.66
Multiple pollutants 0.33
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1683

Table 2 Importance weights Factor Importance weight

for DRASTIC factors (Aller
et al. 1987) Depth to groundwater 5
Net surface recharge 4
Aquifer media 3
Soil media 5
Topography 3
Impact of vadose zone media 4
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer 2

As the HRS is designed for evaluating the hazard to humans with groundwater is
only a pathway, minor adaptation had to be made. This adaptation led to identifying
the components/characteristics of the hazard as follows: the likelihood of pollutants
released from a land use to reach and affect the quality of the groundwater system
(based on mobility of released substance, its concentration, position and volume
of release), the spatial nature of potential release (point versus nonpoint source)
and the likelihood of release (efficiency of containment system). An arbitrary rating
scale ranging from 0 to 5 (0 indicating no-hazard and 5 most hazardous) is assigned
to the various forms of each characteristic of the hazard (e.g. different types of
containment systems were given descending rates according to their efficiency)
in Appendix. It is important to note that those rates are relative and cannot be
transferred from one map to another. Importance weights using a simplification
of ratio estimation procedure as described in Malczewski (1999) are assigned to
the various characteristics of the hazard (Table 1). The logic behind the weights
is based on categorizing the hazard characteristics as follows: characteristics that
can eliminate the hazard (i.e. an efficient containment system would eliminate the
hazard regardless of the other characteristics of the land use), characteristics that
can influence the potential of hazard (volume of liquid and mobility of pollutants),
and characteristics that affect the magnitude of pollution rather than its potential
(position of release, concentration of liquid, and spatial extent of hazard). The first
and the last are the most and the least important, respectively. Additionally, and to
accommodate special situations, secondary criteria are also used in the ranking. In
the secondary criteria, additional hazardousness points are given to the two special
cases of multiple pollutants and availability of field evidence of pollution.
Vulnerability mapping: Groundwater vulnerability was mapped using the DRAS-
TIC model (Aller et al. 1987). The DRASTIC technique is a numerical rating

Table 3 Degree of dependency Degree of dependency Rate

on groundwater
Complete dependence 3
Significant dependence 2
Some dependence 1
No dependence 0
Dependency category Weight
Domestic/commercial 4
Agricultural 2
Landscape and private gardens 1
Strategic reserve 3
1684 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Table 4 Rates assigned to TDS (mg/l) Salinity category Rate

TDS categories
0–2,000 Fresh 4
2,000–5,000 Brackish 3
5,000–10,000 Saline 2
>10,000 Hyper-saline 1

scheme, which has been developed for evaluating the potential for groundwater
pollution in given areas according to their hydrogeological setting. This technique
is built upon seven factors thought to be representative of the aquifer vulnerability:
Depth to groundwater, Recharge, Aquifer material, Soil, Topography, Impact of
vadose zone (i.e. unsaturated material) and hydraulic Conductivity. These factors
could be evaluated through field measurements or numerical models calibration.
These values are then converted to rates using the standard tables prepared by the
approach developers. The DRASTIC index is determined by summing the total of
multiplying each factor weight (Table 2) by its point rating. The higher DRASTIC
index indicates greater aquifer vulnerability (Canter 1997):
Criteria for estimating relative groundwater value: The criteria are based on three
factors (current dependence on groundwater, the potential future dependence on
groundwater and interaction with environmental resources). These factors were
adapted to the needs of this study from the criteria developed by the EPA-New
England for prioritizing the protection/remediation funds. The following para-
graphs elaborate on these factors, their rating system and application to the study
area.
• The current dependence on groundwater is rated according to the degree of
the community dependence on the groundwater at specific area of the aquifer
(Table 3). Also the type of dependency is factored in as weights assigned to the
various types of dependencies (Table 3). Rates for multiple dependencies are
estimated through simple summation.
• The quality of the groundwater is used as a measure of the potential of future
dependency on the resource. The quality of the groundwater is evaluated
based on its natural state as well as the degradation of its usability due to
contamination. In applying this measure, the former is represented by the total
dissolved solids content (Table 4) then overlaid by the latter represented by
evidence of surface originating contamination events (Table 5). Together these
two criteria were considered less important than the current dependency of the
community on the groundwater, accordingly a weight of 1.5 was given to each of
them.
• Another aspect of the value/importance of the groundwater is the fact that
welfare of other environmental resources is tied to that of the groundwater.

Table 5 Rates of categories of Category Rate

confidence in contamination
events Evidently polluted 1
Suspected pollution 2.5
Natural quality 4
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1685

Table 6 Rates of interactions Affected environmental resource Interaction with bay water
with environmental resources
Kuwait bay 2
Arabian gulf 1
Humans 3
Soil/edible crops 2

Interchange with gulf water, potential human exposure, and interaction with
soil/crops are the types of interactions considered in this evaluation (Table 6).
This criterion was given a weight of 1.

4 Data Preparations

Maps representing the major categories of land use in Kuwait (waste disposal, oil
related activities, industrial activities, urban development and agricultural activities)
were prepared from various sources (field data, hard copy maps, satellite images, and
others). Being from various sources, these maps had to be reproduced in uniform
digital format. The collected maps were scanned and geometrically corrected using
the Kuwait Transverse Mercator (KTM) map projection. Afterwards, the needed
features from each map were digitized and converted into digital format using
ArcGIS v. 9.3.1 (ESRI 2007). After digitizing, different editing techniques were
applied to correct, georeference, build topology and add the attribute data sets.
Finally, the edge matching function was used to match the different map sheets

Fig. 4 One of the industrial areas of Kuwait as an example of the produced hazards maps
1686 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

into GIS layer representing specific land use. Also, the remotely sensed data was
geometrically corrected using the KTM map projection. Then, the needed features
from satellite data were extracted using the on-screen digitizing technique (e.g.
Fig. 4). Data needed for the application of the DRASTIC model were all based on
field measurements from previous studies, except for the recharge values which were
obtained from the calibration of a numerical model for the study area (Al-Otaibi
et al. 2007). The data were converted into rates for each of the parameters using the
standard tables provided by the DRASTIC model. Interpolation using geostatistical
interpolator (Simple Kriging method) were conducted to produce rating contour
maps.

5 Results and Discussions

5.1 Basic Risk Elements Maps

The hazardous map: Using the aforesaid criteria, the various land uses were eval-
uated and subsequently ranked by multiplying the rates of the land use hazardous
characteristics by their weights according to the following equation.

Hazard Index = CSr CSw + Pr Pw + Vr Vw + Cr Cw + Mr Mw + Sr Sw

+ Er Ew + MPr MPw

where CS = containment system, P = position of release, V = volume of liquid, C =

concentration of liquid, M = mobility of pollutant, S = spatial extent, E = evidence
of pollution, and MP = multiple pollutants.
Table 7 shows the results of the ranking process. The hazard index (weighted
sum of the characteristic rates for specific land use) had 14 different values, ranging
between 12 and 34 with an average of 26 and standard deviation of 6. Based on the
produced hazard index, each of the layers representing the various land uses were
assigned a value and fitted in one country scale map representing all the hazards
(Fig. 5). Simple summation of hazard index was used wherever overlapping of two
or more land uses occurred. The final index ranged from 19 to 110. With minor
exceptions, all hazardous land uses are within the eastern part of Kuwait. Also, it can
be seen that the northern watersheds, especially Al-Raudhatain and Umm Al-Aish
are exposed to the hazard of the oil fields as well as contaminated soils. The highest
hazard index is at the Shuiba area (at the shoreline south of Kuwait bay) where
petrochemical industries, heavy industries and oil refinement activities are taking
place. The urban groundwaters are mostly exposed to the threat of leakage from
the wastewater network, which is close to the average index for individual land uses,
however it is at the lower end of the combined index (i.e. final index after summing
up the overlaps). Some parts within the urban area are exposed to higher threats
where other hazardous land uses are overlapping with the wastewater network (i.e.,
industrial areas, gasoline stations). It is noteworthy that as this map is composed
of full GIS layers, zooming to examine the details of a specific activity is possible
(i.e. including access to database descriptive of the details).
Vulnerability map: Utilizing the capabilities of the ArcGIS, the maps representing
the ratings for the seven DRASTIC parameters were multiplied by their relative
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1687

Table 7 Results of applying the ranking criteria on the major land use in Kuwait
Broad category Types within the category Specific land uses Hazard index
Ag. activities Agricultural farms Abdally farms 34
Wafra farms 34
Sulibiya farms 34
Landscape House gardens 34
Roadside greeneries 34
Parks 34
Industrial activities Factories and workshops Shuwaikh 14
Subhan 12
Sulibiya 18
Amghara 13
Shuiba west 19
Oil related activities Refineries Ahmadi refinery 31
Mina AbdAllah refinery 31
Shuiba refinery 31
Oil fields Burgan 26
Raudhatain 26
Umm Al-Aish 26
Wafra 25
Sabrya 25
Manageesh 25
Ratqa 25
Gasoline stations 54 stations 22
Oil industrial complexes Shuiba east 34
Waste disposal activities Sewerage network Kuwait City 26
Ahmadi 26
Landfills Sulibiya 24
Mina AbdAllah 24
Seventh Ring Road 33
Amghara 29
Jahra 24
Treatment plants Rega 19
Sulibiya 19

weights and added up at pixel level, according the following equation, to produce the
vulnerability map (Fig. 6).

Dr Dw + Rr Rw + Ar Aw + Sr Sw + Tr Tw + Ir Iw + Cr Cw = vulnerability index

where D = depth to groundwater, A = aquifer material, S = soil, T = topography,

I = impact of vadose zone, C = conductivity, r = rating for area being evaluated and
w = importance weight for factor.
The vulnerability index ranged between 28 and 143 (28 being the least vulnerable
areas of the map). The map shows that the northern and southern parts of the country
are the most vulnerable. This is mostly due to relatively shallow (i.e. compared to
most of the country) groundwater levels (25 to 40 m below ground level), as well
as low attenuation capacity unsaturated zone at the northern territories, and near
surface groundwater levels (i.e. water rise/logging problems at urban and agricultural
areas) at the mid-east and southern parts of the country. Most of the middle part of
the country is within the medium to high vulnerability range. Most of the brackish
1688 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Fig. 5 Land use hazard ranking covering industrial, urban, waste-disposal and agricultural activities

Fig. 6 Intrinsic vulnerability map for Kuwait Group aquifer according to DRASTIC model. The
map also highlights the least vulnerable areas as potential areas for future hazardous land use
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1689

water wellfields are at low to medium vulnerability areas. The exception to the
previous statement is Al-Atraf wellfield, which should be given special protection
measures as it sits within high vulnerability area. The western part and part of the
center of the country have either low or low to medium vulnerability. Comparing
the produced map to the rating maps, it can be seen that most of the vulnerability
patterns may be correlated to the depth to groundwater (Fig. 7), the material of the
vadose zone (Fig. 8) and the aquifer material (Fig. 9). The rest of the factors had little
and localized impacts on the overall vulnerability patterns. This is probably due to
the limited spatial variability in the latter factors.
Value/importance map: Using the aforementioned criteria, three layers were
prepared, using ArcGIS, representing the rates of the elements of groundwater
value/importance. Those layers were combined on the basis of equal weights to
produce the final value map. The map (Fig. 10) shows that higher value groundwaters
are presented as a band roughly at the vertical axis of the country extending from the
northern Kuwaiti-Iraqi borders down to the southern Kuwaiti-Saudi borders. This
band covers the agricultural farms of Abdaly, the main depressions of the north
(where potential freshwater reserves are present) and the brackish water wellfields.
The value of the groundwater decreases gradually toward the east and west where
the least valuable groundwaters are present at the eastern boarders of the country,
mostly due to high salinity, evident pollution and lack of dependency. The most
valuable groundwater is at the brackish water wellfields where relatively low salinity,
multipurpose complete dependency, and pristine quality are prevailing.

Fig. 7 Rating of depth to groundwater for KG aquifer according to DRASTIC model

1690 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Fig. 8 Rating of unsaturated zone material for KG aquifer according to DRASTIC model

5.2 Decision Support Maps

Decision support maps were produced by combining the basic maps for risk assess-
ment (vulnerability, hazard and value maps) as follows: vulnerability and hazard
maps to produce basic risk map, basic risk and groundwater value maps to produce
the value-weighted risk map, and vulnerability and groundwater value maps to
produce release consequences map. These maps were produced using ArcGIS on
the basis of normalized scales and equal weights for the basic risk assessment maps.
It is worth noting that the basic risk map, being formed of two maps, was given twice
the weight of the groundwater value map.
Figure 11 shows the produced basic risk map, which clearly shows that the ground-
waters at most risk are at the northern watersheds where the highest exposure (i.e.,
highest intrinsic vulnerability) is compounded with the highly hazardous activities
of oil production. Similar levels of risk, however over less spatial extent, are seen
at the southern areas where relatively high exposure is compounded by agricultural
activities at Al-Wafra and the oil production at Burgan field. Another significant
risk area is located at the bay where wastewater leakages, watering of landscapes
and private gardens watering and industrial activities are taking place. The safest
groundwaters, on the other hand, are at the western and south central part of the
country where the exposure is at its minimum and no hazardous activities are taking
place. This map should serve as one of the bases for identifying national monitoring
network targets.
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1691

Fig. 9 Rating of aquifer material for KG aquifer according to DRASTIC model

Fig. 10 Relative groundwater value for KG aquifer

1692 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Fig. 11 Basic groundwater pollution risk map (areas at most risk are highlighted)

The value-weighted risk map, which was produced to serve prioritizing the cor-
rective/preventive measures, is shown in Fig. 12. The map has obvious resemblance
to the basic risk map while most of the main patterns of the value map cannot be
seen; most obvious being the absence of the distinct pattern of north-south band of
higher value groundwater that essentially does not exist in the new map. This bias to
the basic risk map over the value map is considered logical, since the former map has
twice the weight of the latter. Nonetheless, the effect of the value map is still visible,
however, in the relative risk levels rather than the patterns. Examples include the
reduced relative risk at Al-Sabriya oil field due to the low value groundwaters and
the overall reduction in the relative risk along the coast.
The relative consequences of release map (Fig. 13), on the other hand, is fairly
reflecting the patterns of its two base maps (groundwater vulnerability and value).
Overall, the highest consequences of release were at the northern watersheds
and most of the brackish groundwater wellfields. The severest consequences were
specifically at the Al-Raudhatain and Umm Al-Aish depressions, some areas of
Umm-Gudayer wellfield and Sulaibiya wellfield.
This map can serve two purposes, namely providing scientifically-based defend-
able spatial distribution of land use restrictions and allocation of future hazardous
activities. The earlier may be achieved by dividing the consequences scale into a num-
ber of categories that would dictate the strictness of the land use restriction package
to be applied at the areas under such consequences categories. Nonetheless, special
considerations are needed as follows. Due to the dynamics of water production, the
exposure of groundwaters at the wellfields vicinity is extended to all surface hazards
within the wellfields capture zone, requiring special considerations. While the map
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1693

Fig. 12 Value-weighted groundwater pollution risk map (areas at most risk are highlighted)

will indeed suggest the highest level of restrictions at the areas of water production,
other areas where there is no need for such a special consideration will, as well, fall
under the same restriction category. Therefore, and for the sake of confining the land
use restrictions to where it is absolutely needed, wellhead protection is recommended
to complement land surface zoning criteria described by the pollution consequences.
In this approach, water production wells/wellfields are surrounded by zones where
special protection measures are applied. The rest of the land may be zoned and
regulated according to pollution consequences as suggested earlier. Delineating the
well head protection area (WHPA) should be determined using numerical modeling
of solute transport. For practicality, wells field, rather than individual wells, should
be assigned a collective WHPA. It is important to note that the suggestion of WHPA
is intended for the brackish wellfields and northern depressions only. Wells used for
agricultural production at Abdally, Wafra and Sulibyiah should be treated similar to
the rest of the country.
In order to test the impact of including groundwater value in the criteria on
land use decisions, a comparison is made between the decisions that could be made
with and without the groundwater value as part of the land surface zoning criteria.
For the monitoring/corrective actions prioritization decisions may be based on the
risk map (value map not part of the criteria, Fig. 11) or the value-weighted risk
map (value map being part of the criteria, Fig. 12). While there is an agreement
between the two approaches on the general locations, the latter is more precise
in delineating the high priority areas. Correspondingly, identifying the locations
for potentially hazardous future land use map be based on the vulnerability map
(value map not included in the criteria, Fig. 6), or the release consequences map
1694 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

Fig. 13 Relative consequences of release (potential locations for future hazardous land use are
highlighted)

(value map being part of the criteria, Fig. 13). In this case, the differences in the
decisions are more fundamental. The vulnerability map is showing significantly
more locations for future hazardous land uses, some of these are located within the
brackish groundwater production wellfields (where groundwater is contributing to
≈ 8% of the domestic water). Knowing that the presented vulnerability categories
are only relative and not absolute (i.e. the least vulnerable area on the map is not
necessarily invulnerable to surface-originating pollutants), making such a decision
could be of dire consequences. On the other hand, the release consequences map has
avoided these wellfields on the basis of higher value water.

6 Concluding Remarks

This study adapted the notion of land surface zoning as a mean for adjusting
the protection measures to the spatially varied needs. In applying this notion, the
principles of risk assessment were utilized as defendable basis for zoning. Unlike
the previous studies that were based on two risk elements (exposure and hazard),
the groundwater value as the third element of risk has been included in this work.
Such an addition has proven to be significant for making more sensible groundwater
protection decisions.
The produced maps can facilitate the following protection decisions: identify
all monitoring needs, prioritize monitoring/corrective actions, and allocate future
hazardous development. Due to the dynamics of water production, special care
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1695

should be given to groundwater production fields and their surroundings. Well head
protection areas should be delineated for such fields with a more strict set of landuse
restrictions assigned to those areas.
In order to further facilitate the use of this scheme by decision makers, a
computerized GIS-based decision support package could be prepared utilizing the
maps produced in this study.

Acknowledgements The authors are expressing their gratitude to the Kuwait Foundation for the
Advancement of Sciences and Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research for co-sponsoring this work.
We also wish to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive comments.

Appendix

Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Table 8 Rates for various Type of containment system Rate

containment systems
Barrel (indoor) 0
Barrel (outdoor) 1
Pond/pit 2
Pipe/tank 3.5
No containment system 5

Table 9 Rates for the position Position of release Rate

of release relevant to ground
surface Ground surface 3.5
Subsurface (2–5 m below surface) 5

Table 10 Rates for the liquid Volume of liquid Rate

volume handled in the land use
Small 1
Significant 3.5
Large 5

Table 11 Rates for the Concentration of handled liquid Rate

concentration of the handled
liquid in the land use Low 1
Significant 3.5
Large 5

Table 12 Rates for the Mobility of potential contaminants Rate

mobility of the potential
contaminants Low 1
Significant 3.5
Large 5

Table 13 Rates for the spatial Spatial extent of land use Rate
extent of the land use
Limited 1
Significant 3.5
Large 5
1696 A.A. Fadlelmawla et al.

References

Akber A, Viswanathan M, AlSenafy M, Rashid T (2002) Assessment of long-term pollution for the
groundwater of Raudhatain and Umm Al-Aish areas (Phase II), Main Report (Parts I and II).
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Report No. KISR6451, Kuwait
Al-Awadi E, Mukhopadhyay A, Akber A, Quinn M, Hadi K (2000) Investigations of the occurrence
of trace metals, hydrocarbons, and microbes in the groundwater of Kuwait. Kuwait Institute for
Scientific Research, Report No. KISR5768, Kuwait
Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr J, Petty R, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standard system for eval-
uating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. EPA/600/2-85/018, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
OK
Almasri MN (2008) Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Gaza coastal aquifer,
Palestine. J Environ Manag 88:577–593
Al-Otaibi M, Fadlelmawla A, Azrag E, Hadi K, AlSenafy M (2007) Optimum Utilization Strategy
for the Fresh Groundwater Lenses at Raudhatain Field, Phase II (WM017C). Kuwait Institute
for Scientific Research, Report No. KISR8672, Kuwait
Al-Senafy M, Fadlelmwala A, Al-Fahad K, Malallah F, Al-Khalid A, Al-Yakout A (2003) Evaluation
of the potential impacts of selected municipal landfills on groundwater quality of Kuwait. Kuwait
Institute for Scientific Research, Report No. KISR6955, Kuwait
Al-Sulaimi J, Al-Rabaa S, Fourniguet J, Amer A, Assem A, Al-Awadi E (1992) Assessment of
groundwater resources in kuwait using remote sensing technology, Vol 2: Remote Sensing
Application. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research. Report No. KISR 4038, Kuwait
Al-Sulaimi J, Khalaf FJ, Mukhopadhyay A (1997) Geomorphological analysis of paleo drainage
systems and their environmental implications in the desert of Kuwait. Environ Geol 29(1/2)
Andreo B, Goldscheider N, Vadillo I, Vias JM, Neukum C, Sinreich M, Jimenez P, Brechenmacher
J, Carrasco F, Hotzl H, Perles MJ, Zwahlen F (2006) Karst groundwater protection: first appli-
cation of a Pan-European approach to vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping in the Sierra de
Libar (South Spain). Sci Total Environ 357:54–73
Antonakos A, Lambrakis N (2007) Development and testing of three hybrid methods for the
assessment of aquifer vulnerability to nitrates, based on the drastic model, an example from
NE Korinthia, Greece. J Hydrol 333:288–304
Babiker IS, Mohamed MAA, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing
aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu, central Japan. Sci Total Environ 345:127–
140
Canter LW (1997) Environmental impact assessment, 2nd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill Inc, New York
Chitsazan M, Akhtari Y (2009) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in
Kherran plain, Khuzestan, Iran. Water Resour Manag 23(6):1137–1155
Cleary TC, Cleary RW (1991) Delineation of wellhead protection areas: theory and practice. Water
Sci Technol 24(11):239–250
Durnford D, Thompson K, Elerbrook D, Loftis J, Davies G (1990) Screening methods for ground
water pollution potential from pesticides use in Colorado agriculture: Colorado Water Resources
Research Institute, Fort Collins. Complete Report, pp 157–165
ESRI (2007) ArcGIS version 9.3
Fadlelmawla A, Al-Senafy M, Al-Khalid A, Al-Fahad K (2006) Groundwater quality alterations in
the vicinity of liquid and solid waste landfills. Kuwait J Sci Eng 33(1):83–99
Fadlelmawla AA, Dawoud MA (2006) An approach for delineating drinking water wellhead protec-
tion areas at the Nile Delta, Egypt. J Environ Manag 79:140–149
Foster S, Skinner A (1995) Groundwater protection: the science and practice of land surface zoning.
Groundwater quality: remediation and protection (Proceedings of the Prague Conference).
IAHS Publ. no. 225
Fritch T, Mcknight C, Yelderman J, Arnold J (2000) An aquifer vulnerability assessment of the
Paluxy aquifer, Central Texas, USA, using GIS and modified DRSTIC approach. Environ
Manage 25:337–345
Garrett P, William JS, Rossoll CF, Tolman AL (1989) Are groundwater vulnerability classification
systems workable?. In National Ground Water Association Columbus Proceedings of the
FOCUS Conference on Eastern Regional Ground-Water Issues, Kitchener, Ont., Canada,
pp 329–343
Land Surface Zoning Approach Based on Three-Component Risk Criteria 1697

Johnson TD, Belitz K (2009) Assigning land use to supply wells for the statistical characterization
of regional groundwater quality: correlating urban land use and VOC occurrence. J Hydrol.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.056
Kunstmann H, Kastens M (2006) determination of stochastic well head protection zones by direct
propagation of uncertainties of practical tracks. J Hydrol 323:215–229
Le Grand H (1983) A standardized system for evaluating waste disposal sites. NWWA Report,
Worhington
Malczewski J (1999) Multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York
Margat J (1968) Vulnerabilite des nappes d’eau souterraine a la pollution [Ground water vulnera-
bility to contamination]. Bases de la cartographic, (DOC.) BRGM, 68 SGL 198 HYD, Oreleans,
France [in French]
Mimi ZA, Assi A (2009) Intrinsic vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping for karst aquifer: a case
study. J Hydrol 364:298–310
Misstear B, Daly D (2000) Groundwater protection in a Celtic region: the Irish example. Geol Soc,
Lond, Spec Publ 182:53–65
Nel J, Xu Y, Batelaan O, Brendonck L (2009) Benefit and implementation of groundwater protection
zoning in South Africa. Water Resour Manag 23(14):2895–2911
NRC (1997) Valuing ground water: economic concepts and applications. Washington, committee
on valuing groundwater, WSIB (Water Science and Technology Board), Commission on Geo-
sciences, Environment and Resources (CGER). National Research Council. National Academy
Press, Washington DC
Panagopoulos G, Antonakos A, Lambrakis N (2006) Optimization of the DRASTIC method
for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS.
Hydrogeol J 14:894–911
Pochon A, Tripet JP, Kozel R, Meylan B, Sinreich M, Zwahlen F (2008) Groundwater protection in
fractured media: a vulnerability-based approach for delineating protection zones in Switzerland.
J Hydrol 16:1267–1281
Rupert MG (1999) Improvements to the DRASTIC groundwater vulnerability mapping method. US
Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-066-99
Seller L, Canter L (1980) Summary of selected groundwater quality impact assessment methods.
NCGWR Report 80-3, Norman
Shukla S, Mstaghimi S, Shanholt V, Collins M, Ross B (2000) A country-level assessment of ground-
water contamination by pesticides. Ground Water Monit Rev 20(1):104–119
Smith K (1998) Environmental hazard: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge, New York
Stichler W, Maloszewski P, Bertleff B, Watzel R (2008) Use of environmental isotopes to define the
capture zone of a drinking water supply situated near a dredge lake. J Hydrol 362:220–233
USEPA (1990) Hazard ranking system; final rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington DC
Van de Boogaard HFP, Hoogkamer MJ, Heemink AW (1993) Parameter identification in particle
models. Stoch Hydrol 7:109–130
Van den Brink C, Zaadnoordijk WJ, Van der Grift B, de Ruiter PC, Griffioen JG (2008) Us-
ing a groundwater quality negotiation support system to change land-use management near a
drinking-water abstraction in the Netherlands. J Hydrol 350:339–356
Vrba J, Zaporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. International Asso-
ciation of Hydrologists International Contributions to Hydrology, vol 16. Heise, Hannover
Zabet T (2002) Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability to contamination potential using the DRASTIC
method. Environ Geol 43:203–208

View publication stats