Journal Pre-proof

Comprehensive review of groundwater scarcity, stress and sustainability index-based

assessment

Haseeb Akbar, Pariyapat Nilsalab, Thapat Silalertruksa, Shabbir H. Gheewala

PII: S2352-801X(22)00059-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100782
Reference: GSD 100782

To appear in: Groundwater for Sustainable Development

Received Date: 10 December 2021

Revised Date: 26 April 2022
Accepted Date: 12 May 2022

Please cite this article as: Akbar, H., Nilsalab, P., Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S.H., Comprehensive
review of groundwater scarcity, stress and sustainability index-based assessment, Groundwater for
Sustainable Development (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100782.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Graphical Abstract

Review of
Groundwater
Groundwater Scarcity, Stress,
Hydrology & Sustainability
Indices

Top most
index

Combining the Index based on

Five withdrawal to
two existing

of
different recharge
groundwater
criteria
stress indices

ro
Groundwater footprint
based stress index

-p
.
.
.
re
Proposed
Indices
groundwater
ranking Aquifer water scarcity index
stress index
lP
na
ur
Jo
 1

1 Comprehensive review of groundwater scarcity, stress and sustainability index-based

2 assessment
3 Haseeb Akbar1,2, Pariyapat Nilsalab1,2, Thapat Silalertruksa3, Shabbir H. Gheewala1,2, *
4 1
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi,
5 Bangkok, Thailand
6 2
Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research
7 and Innovation, Bangkok, Thailand
8 3
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut's University of Technology
9 Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
10 *Corresponding author: shabbir_g@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th; Tel.: +66-2470-8309; Fax: +66-2872-9805.

11 Abstract

12 Groundwater, the world’s largest freshwater resource, is critically important for global food

of
13 security. Excessive groundwater extraction has led to issues such as groundwater sustainability,
14 scarcity, and stress; various indices have been developed for assessing them. The selection of the

ro
15 right index for the assessment is very important. Therefore, the existing index-based groundwater
16
-p
scarcity stress, and sustainability methods were reviewed to rank the indices based on scientific
re
17 criteria, to identify the gaps in the literature, and propose a way to bridge them. Analysis of the
18 review revealed that indices based on drivers pressures state impact response, and aggregation
lP

19 methods for groundwater sustainability were likely to yield more realistic outcomes and facilitated
na

20 better planning of groundwater-related issues. Based on the criteria ranking, the groundwater stress
21 index based on the groundwater footprint methodology secured the relatively uppermost rank. For
ur

22 future development, this study proposed an index by coupling two existing indices of the
Jo

23 groundwater footprint family to get more realistic outcomes. One deals with the quantity and
24 quality of groundwater and the other with quantity only but at a more detailed sub-system level. It
25 combines the advantages of the two indices of which it is composed while minimizing their
26 shortcomings.
27 Keywords: Groundwater scarcity; Groundwater stress; Groundwater sustainability; Ranking

28 1 Introduction

29 Water is one of the basic needs of mankind; variations in water resources have direct repercussions
30 on society (FAO, 2012). Water is absolutely necessary for sustainable development. Thus, the
31 United Nations recognized ensuring water security for everyone as one of the 17 sustainable
32 development goals (SDGs) – Goal 6 (UNSDSN, 2013). Total freshwater available on the Earth in
33 the form of liquid is mainly categorized into two classes, surface water and groundwater, which
34 are about 2% and 98%, respectively (Margat and van der Gun, 2013). Globally, 35% of total water
 2

35 withdrawal for human use comes from groundwater. For irrigation, domestic, and industrial use,
36 groundwater contributes 42%, 36%, and 27%, respectively (Döll et al. 2012). Dependence on
37 groundwater is more intense where surface water is scarce; obvious examples are hyper-arid and
38 arid regions that mainly depend upon groundwater resources to sustain human activities (Bhakar
39 and Singh, 2018; Rijsberman, 2006). The rapid increase in socioeconomic conditions in society,
40 changes in land use, and climate are the key factors responsible for the over-exploitation of
41 groundwater that can cause the depletion of groundwater resources (Foster et al. 2013;
42 Kundzewicz and Döll, 2009; Genxu et al. 2005). In addition to the over-utilization of groundwater,
43 another growing concern is groundwater quality degradation (Haritash et al. 2016). The depletion

of
44 and quality degradation of groundwater resources may lead to problems of groundwater
45 sustainability, scarcity, and stress which are explained below.

ro
46 Groundwater sustainability is defined as the maintenance and protection of groundwater and
47
-p
related ecosystems to balance current and future environmental, economic, and social requirements
re
48 (Gordon, 2011). Technically, water stress and scarcity are two different terms. Different scientists
lP

49 have defined water stress and scarcity in different ways (Damkjaer and Taylor, 2017; Schulte and
50 Morrison, 2014). That is why, a consortium of different well-reputed water organizations has tried
na

51 to standardize the definition of water-related terms (Schulte and Morrison, 2014). According to
52 Schulte and Morrison (2014), water scarcity deals only with the volumetric relationship between
ur

53 available water resources and human demand for water in an area. However, water stress deals
Jo

54 with the ability of available water resources to meet human and ecological needs. It considers other
55 physical features of water resources, viz., water quantity, quality, and accessibility. In other words,
56 water scarcity is a subset of water stress. However, sometimes the scientific community uses water
57 stress as a synonym for water scarcity (Pereira et al. 2002; Van Loon and Van Lanen, 2013).

58 Different groundwater indices (the term groundwater indices will be used generically when
59 referring to all the indices, viz., groundwater scarcity, stress, and sustainability, together) have
60 been developed to estimate groundwater scarcity, stress, and sustainability. However, it is still an
61 ongoing process and multiple groundwater indices are available based on different methodologies,
62 scope, and applicability. The availability of multiple groundwater indices creates confusion among
63 the policymakers to choose the right one for their needs (Steinemann et al. 2015). According to
64 the best knowledge of the authors, there is no specific guidance available to help the policymakers
 3

65 in choosing a suitable groundwater index. A couple of review studies have been conducted on the
66 topic of groundwater sustainability. A review by Elshall et al. (2020) outlined the concept and
67 evolution of groundwater sustainability within science and emerging policies and highlighted the
68 gaps between science and policy. Another review conducted by Gleeson et al. (2020) discussed
69 three points. The first was the importance and threats to groundwater resources and sustainability.
70 The second was to explain the connection of groundwater with various parts of the Earth system.
71 Finally, the importance of examining groundwater on a global scale was discussed. Recently, a
72 review study assessed the vulnerability of groundwater based on modeling approaches and indices.
73 Goyal et al. (2021) discussed the vulnerability of groundwater based on the DRASTIC (Depth to

of
74 the Water table, Net Recharge, Aquifer properties, Soil properties, Topography, Impact of Vadose
75 Zone, and Hydraulic Conductivity) index, and compared the numerical and indices-based

ro
76 methodologies and discussed their pros and cons. Different methods of groundwater vulnerability
77
-p
are also discussed by Kumar et al. (2015). The focus of the above reviews was on groundwater
re
78 sustainability and vulnerability. Moreover, they did not provide direction to the policymakers in
79 the selection of the most suitable index based on their needs. Therefore, the novelty of this study
lP

80 discusses the index-based groundwater stress, groundwater scarcity, and groundwater

na

81 sustainability methodologies, ranking the existing indices, and indicating the existing gaps.
82 Therefore, the objectives of this review were set as the following;
ur

83 - A review of groundwater indices along with pros, and cons, and explaining their application,
Jo

84 - prioritizing the existing groundwater indices based on different criteria,

85 - identification of existing gaps in the literature, and proposing an index to bridge the existing
86 gaps to minimize the uncertainty.

87 This study can be helpful for policymakers to choose the right index from a set of existing
88 groundwater indices according to their requirements. A detailed explanation of every step is given
89 in the latter part. The methodology for ranking the existing indices is expressed in section 2.
90 Overview and the application of the existing indices are expressed in section 3, and the conclusion
91 and future direction are given in section 4.

92 2 Materials and methods

93 This review was based on a thorough examination of previous literature in order to determine the
94 present status of the development of groundwater indices using various approaches. To preserve
 4

95 the review's quality, peer-reviewed articles were given priority in the review of the literature.
96 Secondly, reports from well-reputable international organizations on sustainability, stress, and
97 groundwater scarcity were examined. Moreover, some other sources of information (online
98 sources, departmental reports, and so on) were utilized to support the storyline. The advantages
99 and disadvantages of each groundwater index, as well as the application of each index, were
100 thoroughly examined. Then the existing groundwater indices were ranked based on different
101 criteria.

102 The groundwater indices identified in the literature were selected based on a variety of criteria to
103 assist policymakers in selecting the appropriate index. As mentioned in Section 2.1, five criteria

of
104 along with the corresponding sub-criteria were utilized for the prioritization of existing indices.

ro
105 Finally, research gaps in the literature were identified, and an index was proposed to address them.
106 The proposed index could provide more comprehensive, accurate, and realistic groundwater stress
107 insight.
-p
re
108 2.1 Selection of criteria and sub-criteria-based prioritization
lP

109 To avoid ambiguity in the selection of the most appropriate index among various options, a
na

110 framework for ranking has been provided for the user to select the most appropriate index based
111 on their needs. Groundwater indices were ranked based on five criteria; Tractability,
ur

112 Sophistication, Scientific robustness, Extendibility, and Transparency along with their
Jo

113 corresponding sub-criteria. These criteria were chosen based on recommendations in the literature
114 for evaluating an index (Wable et al. 2019; Keyantash and Dracup, 2002; Castro et al. 2018;
115 Steinemann et al. 2015). For each criterion, a score from one to five was assigned to all the
116 groundwater indices analyzed in this article. The weighted average of scores against each criterion
117 was used to determine the overall ranking of each index under consideration. Furthermore, the
118 scores were assigned based on criteria using a qualitative evaluation of groundwater parameters
119 found in the literature.

120 2.1.1 Criteria and sub-criteria

121 The definitions of each criterion and sub-criteria are listed in this section and a detailed explanation
122 of each criterion and their sub-criteria and the respective scores are given in Table 1.
 5

123 I. Tractability
124 It is concerned with the simplicity with which a mathematical solution can be obtained. The
125 tractability of a groundwater index depends upon multiple factors that can be defined as sub-
126 criteria of tractability (Wable et al. 2019). The average of its sub-criteria scores are used to
127 determine the tractability score. The explanation of the sub-criteria of tractability is as follows;

128 • Computational level deals with the ease to get the outcome of the mathematical model. If the
129 computation can be done accurately with basic mathematical skills, then it is scored a
130 maximum, on a scale from 1 to 5. On the other hand, if a complex mathematical model needs
131 to be used to get the output of an index and even then the outcome has some uncertainties, then

of
132 it was designated the minimum score.
•

ro
133 Data availability refers to the ease of data acquisition for an index. The maximum score is
134 given to the groundwater index against this sub-criterion if the data is available in worldwide
135
-p
databases without any further need for processing and is freely available. If the data need to be
re
136 collected with the help of a survey then it was assigned the minimum score.
•
lP

137 Number of parameters refers to the number of parameters involved in the development of an
138 index. The assigned score was maximum to an index if the number of parameters in an index
na

139 was less than three. On the other hand, if the number of parameters involved in an index is
140 more than ten, then the assigned score was minimum.
ur

141 II. Sophistication

Jo

142 It is a measure of the comprehensiveness of the groundwater index based on the theory that
143 underpins its development (Keyantash and Dracup, 2002). This criterion is further broken down
144 into three subcategories. The average of the three sub-criteria is used to get the score of this
145 criterion.

146 • Aspects involved refer to the characteristics involved in the groundwater index, viz.,
147 quantitative, qualitative, and socio-economics characteristics. If an index deals with every
148 aspect, viz., groundwater quantity, quality, and socio-economics of an area, then the maximum
149 score is assigned to that index. However, if an index deals with the groundwater quantity
150 (withdrawal and availability) even without considering the contribution of groundwater to the
151 environmental flow then the lowest score is assigned.
152 • Geographical scale deals with the geographical scope of an index; in other words, it refers to
153 the geographical applicability of an index. The highest score is given if the index is applicable
 6

154 worldwide and takes care of local details at the hydrological response unit (HRU) level. On
155 the other hand, the index is assigned the lowest score, if it is applicable to only a certain type
156 of geographical location and does not incorporate local details of an aquifer.
157 • Temporal scale reflects the temporal coverage of an index; the index is ranked at the topmost
158 position if the groundwater index represents the variation on a monthly basis. The lowest score
159 is assigned if the groundwater index does not specify the temporal resolution.

160 III. Scientific robustness

161 Scientific robustness relates to the reliability of the index within the scientific community (Castro
162 et al. 2018). Reliability is assessed based on recognition by the scientific community. If the index

of
163 has been published in peer-reviewed journals and further positive discussion has been done by the

ro
164 scientific community (review) then it is given a high score. However, the index is given the lowest
165 score if it has been published only in grey literature.

166 IV. Transparency

-p
re
167 This criterion is used for the communication of scientific results for upstream, midstream, and
lP

168 downstream audiences and how a threshold of an index is defined (Keyantash and Dracup, 2002).
169 Here, the upstream, midstream, and downstream audiences are scientists, decision-makers, and the
na

170 general public, respectively. The highest score is assigned to the index if it is easy to understand
171 for both the scientific community, decision-makers, and the general public as well, and also has
ur

172 defined threshold values, along with levels of severity (very low, high, extreme, etc.). On the other
Jo

173 hand, the lowest score is designated if an index is difficult to understand overall, its threshold value
174 is not properly defined, and the levels of level of severity are not given.

175 V. Extendibility
176 It is the degree to which the index may be extended across time to predict or forecast future
177 scenarios. Thus, the extendibility of an index is primarily dependent upon the availability of the
178 historical and the generation of future data used for the development of an index. The highest score
179 is given to an index if the availability of historical data and the future data projection are easy. The
180 lowest score is given if the historical data availability and projection are difficult.
 7

181 Table 1. Description of nine sub-criteria and score classifications for groundwater index ranking
Criteria Scientific
Tractability Sophistication Transparency Extendibility
robustness
Computation Data No. of Aspects Geographical Temporal Level of
Reliability Ease to extend
Score level availability parameters involved scale scale communication
Mathematical
solution obtained The upstream The historical and
Data collected Area specific Index
through complex Parameters Quantitative audience only & its future data
1 from field index, i.e., arid, No scale published in
numerical models involved ≥ 10 aspects only threshold value is in availability is
survey semiarid, etc. grey literature
with some grayscale difficult
uncertainty

f
The historical and

oo
Data collected
Mathematical Quantitative future data
from model The upstream
solution obtained aspect along availability is from
simulation or the Parameters audience only & its

r
through complex with the Conference difficult to medium
2 combination of involved from Country-level Annual threshold value is

-p
numerical models consideration of papers (one dataset
survey and 8 to 9 defined with only a
with less environmental availability is
ministerial single value

re
uncertainty flow difficult, the other is
departments
medium)

lP
Upstream and
Mathematical Data collected midstream audience The difficulty of
Parameters Quantitative, Annual but Ministerial /
solution obtained from related Watershed & its threshold historical and future
3 involved from and qualitative using VF* departmental

na
through simple ministry level value is defined data availability is
6 to 7 aspects as well reports
numerical models department with only a single medium
value
ur
Data Quantitative, The historical and
Mathematical accessibility along with the Upstream and future data
Jo

solution obtained through global Parameters consideration of Reports of midstream audience availability is from
4 through simple databases source involved from environmental Aquifer level Seasonal international & its threshold medium-easy (one
calculations with but need to 4 to 5 flow, and organizations value is rigorously dataset availability
high uncertainty process before qualitative defined is easy, the other is
use aspects medium)

Mathematical Hydrological
Data Quantitative, Index Till downstream
solution obtained response unit The historical and
accessibility Parameters qualitative, and published in a audience & its
5 through simple level & Monthly of future data
through global involved ≤ 3 socio-economic peer-reviewed threshold value is
calculations with applicable availability is easy
databases source aspects journal rigorously defined
less uncertainty globally

182 *VF = Variation factor accounting for the temporal variability of water availability
 8

183 3 An overview of groundwater indices

184 This section comprises a review of the existing groundwater indices. Groundwater indices can be
185 divided into three classes: (a) general groundwater scarcity and stress, (b) groundwater footprint,
186 and (c) groundwater sustainability indices. With the help of the review, the advantages and
187 disadvantages of each index are discussed.

188 3.1 Groundwater scarcity and stress indices

189 In this section, general groundwater scarcity and stress indices have been reviewed. The reviewed
190 indices were based on different methodologies and can be used for a variety of cases ranging from
191 the initial to the detailed assessment of an aquifer or region.

of
192 3.1.1 Groundwater scarcity index

ro
193 The groundwater scarcity index (Ig) is determined as the ratio of groundwater withdrawal (Gw) to
194 groundwater resources (Gr), as expressed in Equation 1 (Zeng et al. 2013).

195 𝐼𝑔 = -p
𝐺𝑤
(1)
re
𝐺𝑟
196 3.1.2 Aquifer water scarcity index
lP

197 The aquifer water scarcity index (AWSI) has been defined as the ratio of the actual groundwater
198 abstraction minus the allowable abstraction and the actual abstraction each month (Sanginabadi et
na

199 al. 2019). The AWSI is mathematically expressed in Equation 2.

200 AWSI = (Actual Abstraction − Allowable Abstraction)/Actual Abstraction (2)
ur

201 The actual groundwater abstraction is the difference between naturalized and observed
Jo

202 groundwater levels, whereas, the allowable groundwater abstraction is the difference between the
203 naturalized groundwater level and the safe yield. In Figure 1, the observed groundwater level and
204 naturalized groundwater level are represented with a solid line and dashed line, respectively. The
205 red line is showing the average normal situation or threshold level.

206
207 Fig. 1. Graphical representation of natural and anthropogenic influences on groundwater (Van
208 Loon and Van Lanen, 2013).
 9

209 3.1.3 Aquifer stress index (ASI)

210 Six evaluation criteria, viz., Water levels, Water quality, Groundwater pumping, Saltwater
211 intrusion, Recharge, and Land use are aggregated to determine the aquifer stress index (ASIA). For
212 each criterion, a rating score and weight are used to evaluate the stress level (Somaratne, 2019).
213 The ASIA is mathematically expressed in Equation 3.
𝑛
214 𝐴𝑆𝐼𝐴 = ∑ 𝑊𝑖 𝑟𝑖 (3)
𝑖=1

215 Where, parameters ‘r’ and ‘W’ are the ratings and weights respectively, assigned to each criterion
216 (i). Based on ASIA, the aquifer is classified into five levels. Threshold limits and classifications of
217 ASIA are given in detail in Table 2.

of
218 Table 2 Classification of the levels of severity of ASIA and droughtwater scarcity (DWS)

ro
Severity of scarcity None Mild Moderate Severe Extreme
ASIA index
ASIA ≤ 1 1 ≤ ASIA < 3 3 ≤ ASIA < 5 5 ≤ ASIA < 8 8 ≤ ASIA < 10

-p
(Somaratne, 2019)
DWS index
(Sanginabadi et al. 0 ≤ DWS < 1 1 ≤ DWS < 1.5 1.5 ≤ DWS < 2 2 ≤ DWS < 2.5 DWS ≥ 2.5
re
2019)
219
lP

220 3.1.4 Groundwater stress index based on withdrawal and recharge

221 Pfister et al. (2009) developed an index to estimate the freshwater stress based on the annual
na

222 freshwater withdrawals to hydrological availability ratio. Later on, Gomez and Pfister (2012)
ur

223 modified it to obtain the groundwater stress index. This groundwater stress index (WSIWTA) is
224 based on the annual average of groundwater withdrawal to groundwater recharge and is expressed
Jo

225 as shown in Equation 4. The plus point of this index is that it covers the temporal variability of the
226 groundwater resources. It is assumed that extreme water stress occurs when withdrawal exceeds
227 than recharge.
1
228 𝑊𝑆𝐼 𝑊𝑇𝐴 = (4)
1 + 99 ∙ 𝑒 −3.84∙𝑊𝑇𝐴_𝐺𝑊∙𝑉𝐹
229 Where:
230 WTA_GW is an average of groundwater withdrawal to groundwater recharge ratio, and VF is
231 the variation factor accounting for the temporal variability of water availability
232 VF can be estimated as the aggregated measure of the dispersion of the multiplicative standard
233 deviation of monthly (s*month) and annual precipitation (s*year), assuming a log-normal distribution
234 and considering precipitation data as expressed in Equation 5.
 10

√ln(s∗month )2 +ln(s∗year )2
235 VF = e (5)
236 3.1.5 Groundwater stress index based on consumption and recharge
237 The groundwater stress index (WSICTA) can also be calculated based on groundwater consumption
238 and recharge. Therefore, it can be defined as the ratio of the mean annual groundwater
239 consumption to groundwater recharge (Gomez and Pfister, 2012). Consumption to recharge-based
240 water stress index is mathematically expressed in Equation 6. Groundwater consumption is equal
241 to total groundwater withdrawal minus return flow from agricultural fields.
1
242 𝑊𝑆𝐼 𝐶𝑇𝐴 = (6)
1 + 99 ∙ 𝑒 −19∙𝐶𝑇𝐴_𝐺𝑊∙𝑉𝐹

of
243 Where;

ro
244 WSICTA Groundwater stress index based on groundwater consumption to recharge ratio
245 CTA_GW Mean annual groundwater consumption to groundwater recharge ratio
246 VF
-p
Variation factor accounting for the temporal variability of water availability
re
247 3.1.6 Aquifer stress index
lP

248 Aquifer stress index (AQSI) is expressed as the fraction of the available groundwater recharge
249 used for human water use (Wada and Heinrich, 2013). The AQSI uses a concept similar to the
na

250 groundwater footprint (GF) developed by Gleeson et al. (2012), but it is expressed as a
251 dimensionless unit rather than the area (m2). AQSI can be estimated by using Equation 7. An
ur

252 aquifer is considered under stress conditions if the AQSI ≥ 1.

Jo

GWA
253 AQSI = (7)
[(R Nat + R Irri ) − R Env ]
254 Where:
255 GWA is the groundwater abstraction for human water use, RNat is the natural groundwater recharge,
256 RIrri is the groundwater recharge by the agriculture return flow, and REnv is the groundwater
257 contribution to the environmental flow.
258 3.1.7 Droughtwater scarcity index
259 Sanginabadi et al. (2019) proposed a new index, namely, the droughtwater scarcity (DWS) index
260 by combining two existing indices (standardized groundwater index and the deficit rate). By using
261 the proposed index, it is possible to monitor both phenomena (drought and water scarcity)
262 simultaneously and determine the individual impact of natural and artificial factors on an aquifer’s
263 hydrological condition. The DWS index is mathematically expressed in Equation 8.
 11

264 DWS = log n1 (D) + Klog n2 (S) (8)

265 Where:
266 DWS is the droughtwater scarcity index and it is unitless, D is drought severity indicated by the
267 standardized groundwater index, and the value of D can be determined by using Equation 9.
268 (Kubicz, 2018; Bloomfield et al. 2015; Saghafian and Sanginabadi, 2020). S is the severity of
269 water scarcity indicated by the deficit rate, and the water deficit rate is mathematically defined
270 below in Equation 10. Moreover, K is a positive number that indicates the importance of water
271 deficit in relation to drought. The value of K is assumed to be 2 based on previous studies, n1 is
272 the number of drought conditions, and n2 is the number of water scarcity conditions. Threshold

of
273 limits and classifications of droughtwater scarcity are given in detail in Table 2.

ro
f(D) − μ
274 D= (9)
δ

-p
275 Where: re
276 D is the standardized groundwater index and it is unitless, f(D) is the normalized value of the
277 measured groundwater level,  is the average value of the normalized groundwater level, and  is
lP

278 the standard deviation of the normalized groundwater level.

279 The deficit rate is the ratio of the groundwater shortage and the groundwater demand. The deficit
na

280 rate is a unitless index (Huang and Chou, 2005), as expressed below in Equation 10.
ur

Groundwater shortage
281 Deficit Rate = (10)
Groundwater demand
Jo

282 3.2 Water stress indices based on groundwater footprint

283 The Water Footprint Network used the concept of water footprint that aims to account for the water
284 productivity of global freshwater as a limited resource (Marrison and Schulte, 2010; Farooq and
285 Gheewala, 2019). The water footprint of an individual, community, or business is defined as the
286 total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the
287 individual or community or produced by the business (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013). Groundwater
288 stress can be estimated by using the groundwater footprint concept.
289 3.2.1 Groundwater footprint index
290 Groundwater footprint (GF), introduced in 2012, is defined as the area required to sustain
291 groundwater use and groundwater-dependent ecosystem services of an aquifer or watershed, etc.
292 (Gleeson et al. 2012; Gleeson and Wada, 2013; Kourgialas et al. 2018). The groundwater footprint
293 can be estimated based on Equation 11. The ratio of groundwater footprint to aquifer area GF/A
 12

294 has been used for the groundwater stress index (Nayyeri et al. 2020; Pérez et al. 2019), as expressed
295 in Equation 12.
C
296 GF = A [ ] (11)
R−E
297 Where:
298 GF is the Groundwater footprint (m2), C is the area-averaged annual abstraction of groundwater
299 (m/day), R is the recharge rate (m/day), E is the groundwater contribution to environmental
300 streamflow (m/day), and A is the areal extent of any region of interest given in m2.
C
301 GF/A = [ ] (12)
R−E

of
302 GF/A>1 indicates unsustainable groundwater consumption that could affect groundwater

ro
303 availability, and GF/A≫1 indicates unsustainable groundwater mining, often groundwater

-p
304 recharged under past climatic conditions. A ratio of GF/A<1 represents sustainable groundwater
305 extraction (Gleeson et al. 2012).
re
3.2.2 Integrated groundwater footprint index
lP

306
307 Integrated groundwater footprint (iGF/A) was developed by incorporating water quality into the
308 groundwater footprint (Kourgialas et al. 2018). Groundwater stress can be estimated through the
na

309 iGF/A as expressed in Equation 13. It can be summarized that the Gleeson et al. (2012)
ur

310 methodology underestimates the groundwater stress value in cases where there are also significant
311 water quality issues.
Jo

A1 A2 An
312 iGF = GF ∗ [1 + n {CF1 + CF2 + ⋯ + CFn }] (13)
A A A
313 Where:
314 iGF is integrated groundwater footprint, n is the number of contaminants in the system, and CF is
315 (1…n): contamination factor for contaminant (j), with j=1,…,n. If the concentration of a specific
316 contaminant (j) is above a certain threshold (set as the maximum allowable concentration of the
317 contaminant in drinking water, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO)), then CFj is
318 considered equal to 1 (active), otherwise, it is considered as zero (inactive).
319 3.2.3 Groundwater footprint index at sub-systems level
320 Groundwater footprint assessment has been proposed at the sub-system level by Chen et al. (2020).
321 Three parameters of groundwater footprint, the average annual abstraction of groundwater (C),
322 recharge rate (R), and groundwater contribution to environmental streamflow (E) are estimated at
 13

323 the sub-system level. The estimation of recharge (R) at the sub-system level is obtained by adding
324 the groundwater recharge from rainfall recharge (Rr), river leakage recharge (Rl), canal return
325 supply (Rc), lateral inflow (Rli), and leakage yield (Rly) as expressed in Equation (14). The unit of
326 these terms is (m/day).
327 R = R r + R i + R c + R li + R ly (14)
328 The estimation of groundwater consumption (C) at the sub-system level can be obtained by the
329 summation of deep groundwater consumption (Cd) and shallow groundwater consumption (Cs) as
330 expressed in Equation (15). Shallow groundwater consumption is obtained by adding the shallow
331 groundwater withdrawal (Csgw), diving evaporation (Cde), phreatic-labeled evaporation (Cple),

of
332 lateral outflow (Clo), and leakage yield (Cly). Deep groundwater consumption is obtained by adding

ro
333 the exploitation of deep groundwater (Cdgw), lateral outflow (Clo), and leakage yield (Cly) as
334 expressed in Equation (16). The unit of groundwater consumption is (m/day).

335
-p
C = (Cd ) + (Cs ) (15)
re
336 C = (Csgw + Cde + Cple + Clo + Cly ) + (Cdgw + Clo + Cly ) (16)
lP

337 E is the groundwater's contribution to the environmental streamflow and its unit is m/day and it
338 can be obtained at the sub-systemic level by using Equation (17).
na

100×μ×A×∆h
339 E= (17)
ur

340 Where:
Jo

341 μ is the degree of water supply of the aquifer to the environment, A is the area, Δh is the duration
342 of groundwater recovery from the current level to the original level, and n is the recovery period
343 is assumed thirty years.
344 Groundwater footprint can be assessed at the sub-system level by substituting the values
345 of R, C, and E from (14), (16), and (17) respectively into Equation 12. The advantage of this
346 method is to estimate the parameters of groundwater footprint at the sub-system level which is not
347 possible through other methods. Based on GF/A, groundwater over-recovery levels and aquifer
348 health ratings are detailed in Table 3.
349
350
351
352
 14

353 Table 3. Groundwater over-recovery level and aquifer health rating Chen et al. (2020)
Level GF/A Degree of exploitation Degree of the health of groundwater
I ≤1 Aquifer repair Healthy
II 1~2 Mild over-exploitation Sub-unhealthy
III 2~5 Medium over-exploitation Unhealthy
IV >5 Heavy over-exploitation Very unhealthy
354
355 3.3 Groundwater sustainability index
356 In this category, five groundwater sustainability indices are discussed based on aggregating
357 indicators, drivers pressures state impact response (DPSIR) method, reliability resilience

of
358 vulnerability (RRV) method, modified RRV method, and blue groundwater sustainability index

ro
359 (BGWSI).

360
361
-p
3.3.1 Groundwater sustainability index based on aggregating indicators
Individual indicators are collected into a single index based on an underlying model of the
re
362 multidimensional concept being measured to create a composite indicator (Rovan, 2011).
lP

363 Guidelines on dealing with technical issues such as data selection, imputation, normalization, and
364 aggregation during the construction of composite indicators have been provided by Nardo et al.
na

365 (2008). Composite indicators have been used by hydrologists as well to evaluate groundwater
366 sustainability. For example, Singh and Bhakar (2020), Pandey et al. (2011), and Bui et al. (2019)
ur

367 applied groundwater sustainability index (GSIA) based on aggregating indicators. GSIA is very
Jo

368 flexible, it can be applied even in the area facing data scarcity issues. The GSIA is obtained by
369 aggregating the value of each indicator, and its attributed weight (Pandey et al. 2011). To represent
370 the GSIA from 0 to 1 scale is used; 1 represents the highest degree of sustainability, while 0
371 represents the worst degree of sustainability, and 0.5 represents the threshold value.
372 3.3.2 Groundwater sustainability index based on the DPSIR method
373 The DPSIR approach was formally developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
374 Development (OECD) to assess sustainability (Alexakis, 2021). This approach has often been used
375 to assess groundwater sustainability (GSID) (Jia et al. 2019; Li et al. 2011). For example, Borji et
376 al. (2018) discussed the different types of indicators related to each category of DPSIR. Different
377 indicators related to each category are shown in Figure 2 (Jia et al. 2019). The GSID is calculated
378 by taking the weighted average of indicators values related to each category (Wang et al. 2020).

379
 15

380
Response
381 • Water supply project
• Prohibition of the
382 development and extraction

383 Driver
• Economic activity
384 Industrial consumption patterns
Cultivated area
Cropping pattern
385 Impact
• Population
Per capita consumption • Groundwater table decline
386 • Infrastructure • Land subsidence

of
• Climate change
387

ro
388 Pressure

389
• Permeability
Rainfall-drought
-p
re
Vegetation change State
Land use change • Aquifer water balance
390
lP

• Water consumption and

wastewater
391 (Service-Agriculture-Industrial)
na

392 Fig. 2. A conceptual DPSIR framework for groundwater resources (Borji et al. 2018).
393
ur

394 3.3.3 Groundwater sustainability index based on RRV method

395 The sustainability of a groundwater system can also be defined as a function of performance
Jo

396 indicators; Reliability, Resilience, and Vulnerability (Loucks, 1997). In the case of groundwater
397 resources, reliability is defined as how frequently the system would be in the satisfactory domain.
398 Resilience is defined as the likelihood of groundwater storage recovering to its normal position
399 after an event. Resiliency indicates how quickly a system returns to a satisfactory condition after
400 an unsatisfactory event. Vulnerability is defined as a probabilistic measure that accounts for the
401 extent and magnitude of failure (Thomas, 2019; Mays, 2013; Hashimoto et al. 1982). The relative
402 sustainability of the system with respect to each of these criteria is higher when the reliability and
403 resilience are greater, and the vulnerability is smaller. Mathematical expressions of Reliability,
404 Resilience, and Vulnerability are given in Equations 18, 19, and 20, respectively. All these three
405 performance indicators are unitless.
 16

number of satisfactory conditions

406 Reliability = (18)
total number of conditions

number of times a satisfactory condition follows an unsatisfactory condition

407 Resilience = (19)
total number of unsatisfactory conditions

408 Vulnerability = ∑ 𝐹𝑆𝑗 𝑝𝑗 (20)

409 Where:
410 Sj refers to the magnitude of the event, pj refers to the probability of the severity of the magnitude
411 during the study period, and F is the average failure of the groundwater system. Groundwater
412 sustainability index (GSIRRV) based on reliability, resilience, and vulnerability can be calculated

of
413 as given in Equation 21 (Wang et al. 2019; Thomas et al. 2017; Thomas, 2019). To represent the

ro
414 GSIRRV from 0 to 1 scale is used; 0≤GSIRRV≤0.2 means extremely unsustainable, GSIRRV = 0.5 is
415 a threshold limit below which GSIRRV is unsustainable, and 0.75<GSIRRV≤1 means highly
416 sustainable.
-p
re
417 GSIRRV = REL × RES × (1 − VUL) (21)
lP

418 3.3.4 Groundwater sustainability index based on modified RRV method

419 The groundwater sustainability index (mGSIRRV) based RRV method was modified by Sandoval
na

420 et al. (2011). In the modified method geometric mean is used, as given in Equation 22, rather than
421 a simple multiplication of the performance indicators; RRV (Sandoval et al. 2011; Mays, 2013;
ur

422 Pedro-Monzonís et al. 2015; Ahmed et al. 2019). If a certain water user has 50% performance each
Jo

423 for reliability, resilience, and vulnerability, then the Groundwater sustainability calculated with
424 GSIRRV and mGSIRRV are 13% and 50%, respectively. That shows the mGSIRRV yields a more
425 reasonable estimate of groundwater sustainability as compared to the GSIRRV. The remaining pros
426 and cons are the same as the previously discussed index.
427 mGSIRRV = [REL × RES × (1 − VUL)]1/3 (22)

428 3.3.5 Blue groundwater sustainability index

429 The BGWSI is the ratio of the nonrenewable groundwater abstraction (NRGWA) and consumptive
430 blue groundwater use (CBGWU) (Wada and Bierkens, 2014). Blue groundwater sustainability
431 index can be determined by using CBGWU and NRGWA as expressed in Equation 23. The
432 CBGWU is the sum of groundwater consumption used by livestock, irrigation, domestic, and
433 industrial sectors. The term NRGWA is used when the abstraction of groundwater is more than the
434 recharge.
 17

NRGWA
435 BGWSI = (23)
CBGWU
436 A summary of the characteristics, pros and cons, and applicability of groundwater indices are given
437 in Table 4. After the review, it was found that most of the indices do not define the role of
438 modernization, climate change impacts, groundwater contribution to environmental flow1,
439 groundwater recharge from the river, canal, open channels, and other irrigation structures. A few
440 indices incorporated groundwater quality as an indicator. These above-mentioned drawbacks can
441 limit the applicability of these methodologies worldwide and the advantages of the indices can
442 make them favorable for some particular areas. Therefore, the applicability of each index under
443 review is mentioned in the next section.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

1
Environmental flows are defined as the quantity, timing, and quality of freshwater flows and levels necessary to
sustain aquatic ecosystems that, in turn, support human cultures, economies, sustainable livelihoods, and well-being
(Arthington et al. 2018).
 18

444 Table 4. Summary of the characteristics, pros and cons, and applications of groundwater indices
References Index Name Advantages Disadvantages Indicator threshold Explanation Application
• This index can be determined by the ratio of GW • This index gives better results only where the
Less accuracy withdrawal to resources. precipitation is the only or main source of GW
GW scarcity No water scarcity if
(Zeng et al. Simple & user in GW
2013) index (Ig) friendly recharge
the index value is • This index deals with the simple GW withdrawal recharge. Examples are the North-Western desert area
less than 0.4) to recharge. Here the GW recharge means natural of China, Rajasthan of India, Baluchistan of Pakistan,
estimation
GW recharge that comes from precipitation only. Iran, the Northern side of the African continent, etc.
• The situation of an aquifer under anthropogenic • The AWSI is a complex index; it requires
effects and natural state is called observed GW complicated modeling skills and expertise for
Good to check
Aquifer water Data-intensive, level and naturalized GW level, respectively computation.
(Sanginabadi the human
et al. 2019)
scarcity index
impact on the
only GW No mentioned clearly (Van Loon and Van Lanen, 2013). • However, this index is handy to use for investigation

f
(AWSI) quantity based •

oo
aquifer The safe yield is the amount of water that can be of the impact of human GW use on the aquifer such
withdrawn annually without producing undesired as; North China plain, Upper Ganges, Persian, North
results (Yihdego and Waqar, 2017). Arabian, Western Mexico, etc.

r
Data-intensive ASI at 1=No stress,
• Multiple evaluation criteria are aggregated to • The
Aquifer stress Index can be ASIA is defined with multiple indicators that deal

-p
and it does not 1-3=Low stress, 3-
(Somaratne, index modified, useful with water stress. However, this index is relatively
consider the 5=Moderate stress, 5- determine ASI For each criterion, a rating score
2019) aggregation for coastline A.
appropriate to use where the GW quality also

re
environmental 8=High stress, and 8- and weight are used to evaluate the stress level.
based (ASIA) areas contributes to GW stress.
flow 10=Extreme stress
• The WSIWTR is convenient to use where the seasonal

lP
fluctuations in precipitation are high or where the GW
GW stress WSIWTR at 0.9
• The WSIWTR is based on the annual average of stress variations are seasonal or where the season like
Temporal Less accurate GW withdrawal to recharge. the monsoon is the only precipitation season and the

na
index based on represents the
(Gomez and
withdrawal to
variability of in GW
threshold between • Temporal variability can be estimated as the remaining months are dry.
Pfister, 2012)
recharge
water recharge
severe and extreme aggregated measure of the dispersion of the • However, the GW recharge only includes natural
(WSIWTR)
availability estimation
ur water stress multiplicative standard deviation of monthly and recharge. That is why this index would not be very
annual precipitation. accurate in a dense agricultural region, or an area
Jo
having dense river and irrigation structures (canals,
open channels, etc.) such as the Indus basin.

Does not
• The WSICTA is based on the consumption to recharge
GW stress
discuss water
WSICTA at 0.9 • The WSICTA can be calculated based on GW index. This index is almost similar to the WSIWTR.
(Gomez and
index based on Temporal
quality
represents the consumption and recharge. • However, it is slightly superior in terms of accuracy
Pfister, 2012)
withdrawal to variability and
degradation
threshold between • GW consumption is equal to total GW in water budgeting. Therefore, this index may give
consumption return flow severe and extreme withdrawal minus return flow from agricultural better results in agriculture-dominant regions. But it
due to return
(WSICTA) water stress fields. does not include the water degradation during the
flow
return flow.
• The AQSI is a relatively comprehensive index
It can because it deals with the environmental flow, GW
overestimate recharge in a more sophisticated way.
(Wada and It incorporates
Heinrich,
Aquifer stress
environmental
the GW stress, the aquifer is under • The AQSI is the fraction of the available GW • This index is useful to apply in agricultural regions
index (AQSI) areas having stress if the AQSI ≥ 1 recharge used for human water use. and regions rich in flora and fauna. However, it can
2013) flow
rich surface overestimate the GW stress, in areas having rich
water resources surface water resources, or having dense rainwater
harvesting reservoirs.
 19

• The DWSI is the combination of two existing • The DWSI is a complex index for users and it requires
indices (standardized GW index and the deficit
professional skills in modeling. However, this index
Incorporate Requires rate).
Droughtwater gives results very close to reality (quantitatively).
(Sanginabadi
scarcity index
drought and complex No scarcity at DWS • By using the DWSI, it is possible to monitor both
• As it deals with both anthropogenic (stress) and
et al. 2019) water scarcity numerical <1 phenomena (drought and water scarcity)
(DWSI) natural (drought) factors as well, it is more useful in
simultaneously modeling simultaneously and determine the individual
regions having frequent droughts along with the stress
impact of natural and artificial factors on an
issues such as Iran, Southwest Pakistan, etc.
aquifer’s hydrological condition.

No stress if GF/A≤1 • The GF can be defined as the area required to • The GF index is user-friendly and it deals with GW
GW stress consumption, recharge, and environmental flow. It
It incorporates Underestimates System in stress if sustain GW use and GW dependent ecosystem
(Gleeson et al. index based on was applied globally.
environmental the value of GF/A>1 services of an aquifer or watershed, etc.
2012) GW footprint
flow GF/A System in extreme • The ratio of GW footprint to aquifer area GF/A
• However, it is recommended to use this index where
(GF) over-extraction is the main problem and there is no
stress if GF/A≫1

f
has been used for GW stress index.
water quality problem.

oo
• iGF/A covers water quality aspects along with
quantity. It recommends using World Health
• The iGF/A was developed by incorporating water

r
Does not cover Organization (WHO) standards for water quality.

-p
GW stress
It incorporates
the quality into the GF that was developed by • However, water quality standards should be selected
index based on accessibility of Gleeson et al. (2012). depending on the target audience. Water quality
(Kourgialas et water quality as No stress if iGF/A≤1

re
al. 2018)
Integrated GW
well
GW, and local • It can be summarized that the Gleeson et al. standards of WHO and Food and Agriculture
footprint details of an (2012) methodology underestimates the GW Organization of the United Nations (FAO) should be
(iGF/A)

lP
aquifer stress value in cases where there are also selected for human water use and agricultural water
significant water quality issues. use respectively (Baako et al. 2018).
• It is recommended to use where water quality and

na
over-extraction are the main problems.
• The GFs at the sub-system level is one of the most
• The GFs assessment has been proposed at the accurate GW indices on a qualitative basis. It is
ur
sub-system level by Chen et al. (2020). Three useful, especially for surface water-rich countries
parameters of GF, the average annual abstraction such as Thailand, Vietnam, Laos PDR, etc. It may
GW stress Deals with
Jo
Sub-system of GW, recharge rate, and GW contribution to also have better results where the river and irrigation
(Chen et al. index at sub- only GW No stress if the index
details of each environmental streamflow are estimated at the infrastructure are dense such as the Indus basin in
2020). system level quantity, not value is less than 1
parameter sub-system level. India and Pakistan.
based (GFs) quality
• It requires multiple datasets which may make it
difficult to use in developing countries where the data
is not so easily available. Secondly, it requires
modeling skills as well.
• Individual indicators are collected into a single
index based on an underlying model of the • The GSIA is one of the most comprehensive and
multidimensional concept being measured to flexible in use. It is a very useful index for
create a composite indicator (Rovan, 2011). policymakers to identify the hotspots in the aquifer
Aggregation-
(Pandey et al. based GW
Different
GSIA ≥ 0.5 represents • Guidelines on dealing with technical issues such causing the problem of sustainable GW use.
2011) sustainability
indicators can be Data-intensive
a sustainable aquifer as data selection, imputation, normalization, and • It can be applied in the different parts of the globe by
incorporated aggregation during the construction of composite modifying the selection of the indicators according to
index (GSIA)
indicators have been provided by Nardo et al. the area under consideration. For example, if the area
(2008). Composite indicators have been used by is along the coastline then there should have a
hydrologists as well to evaluate GW seawater intrusion indicator, etc.
sustainability GSIA.
 20

• The DPSIR is used to analyze interactions • The DPSIR method is one of the comprehensive
between human activities and environmental indices and it contains details of multiple indicators
systems and is commonly used to assess that can influence GW sustainability. It covers more
(Jia et al. DPSIR-based
sustainability. aspects than the GSIA.
2019; Li et al. GW Comprehensive
2011; Wang et sustainability and flexible
Data-intensive No mentioned clearly • The score for each indicator can be obtained with • It also has a wide range of applicability across the
al. 2020). index (GSID) the help of the following ways; quantitative data globe by modifying the indictor used according to the
was input directly and a scoring system of 1 to 5 desired area. It gives real insight into hotspot areas to
can be used or multi-criteria analysis can be used the policymakers. However, it needs massive data for
for qualitative data. the estimation.
A simple &
Less accurate
user-friendly
method & the & data from a • GSIRRV can be defined as a function of
performance indicators; Reliability, Resilience,
(Loucks, advantage of global database • GSIRRV method is one of the simple indices to use and
GW needs to be GSIRRV ≥ 0.5 and Vulnerability. Hashimoto et al. (1982)

f
1997; this index is the can be applied globally.
sustainability processed & it represents a defined the terms reliability, resilience, and

oo
Thomas,
index based on
data availability
does not sustainable aquifer vulnerability. • It can be applied where over-extraction is the main
2019; Mays, and users can problem.
2013)
RRV (GSIRRV)
download
include an • GSIRRV can be obtained by simple multiplication

r
required data assessment of of Reliability, Resilience, and one minus

-p
water quality Vulnerability.
from a global
database

re
GW
It does not deal mGSIRRV ≥ 0.5
(Sandoval et sustainability Simple & less • In the modified method geometric mean is used • The mGSI can be applied where over-extraction is

lP
with GW represents a RRV
al. 2011; index based on uncertain rather than a simple multiplication of the
quality sustainable aquifer the main problem.
Mays, 2013). modified RRV performance indicators; RRV.
(mGSIRRV)

na
Does not To represent the
account for BGWSI 0 to 1 scale
It considers the
renewable GW
ur
(Wada and Blue GW GW recharge & it may
is used, the higher the • The term non-renewable GW is used when the • The BGWSI considers GW recharge from
BGWSI value less
more accurately abstraction of GW is more than the recharge. precipitation and irrigation (agricultural fields).
Jo
Bierkens, sustainability overestimate the sustainability of
2014) index (BGWSI)
in agrarian
the index value GW abstraction and • The CBGWU is the sum of GW consumption by That is why it is more appropriate to use in
aquifers livestock, irrigation, domestic, and industrial. agrarian aquifers.
for the region the threshold not
rich in surface mentioned
water resources
445 WTR = Withdrawal and recharge, CTR= Consumption and recharge, RRV = Reliability, Resilience, Vulnerability, DPSIR = drivers pressures state impact response,
446 GW = Groundwater, CBGWU = consumptive blue groundwater use

447 Each groundwater index has its own characteristics, range of applications, pros and cons. However, some characteristics, range of
448 applications, pros and cons are the same among groundwater indices, which can confuse policymakers to choose the most suitable index
449 based on the available resources, characteristics, range of applications, pros and cons. Therefore, this issue was addressed by ranking
450 the groundwater indices based on five different criteria.
 21

451 The qualitative assessment of each index was done by passing through each criterion, using a scale of one to five for lowest and highest
452 scores respectively. The groundwater footprint index defined by Gleeson et al. (2012) secured the highest score based on the five criteria
453 under consideration. The groundwater stress index based on consumption to recharge defined by Gomez and Pfister (2012) and the
454 groundwater stress index based on withdrawal to recharge defined by Gomez and Pfister (2012) shared the second rank. On the other
455 hand, the aquifer water scarcity index defined by Sanginabadi et al. (2019) based on criteria for the groundwater scarcity assessment
456 was the least prioritized index because of lower tractability, sophistication, and transparency as compared to the other groundwater
457

f
indices under consideration. The score of each groundwater index against each criterion, sub-criterion is given in Table 5.

oo
458 Table 5. The score of each index against each criterion and sub-criterion

r
Criteria Scientific
Tractability Sophistication Transparency Extendibility

-p
robustness
Ranking
Computation Data No. of Aspects Geographical Temporal Level of Ease to
Reliability

re
Groundwater Indices level accessibility parameters involved scale scale communication extend
GW scarcity index (Ig) 4 5 5 1 3 2 5 2 4 3.53

lP
Aquifer water scarcity index (AWSI) 2 2 4 1 3 2 4 1 1 2.13
Aquifer stress index aggregation based
(ASIA) 4 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.13

na
GW stress index based on withdrawal
to recharge (WSIWTR) 4 5 ur 5 1 4 3 4 3 4 3.67
GW stress index based on withdrawal
to consumption (WSICTA) 5 5 4 1 4 3 4 3 4 3.67
Jo
Aquifer stress index (AQSI) 5 5 4 2 4 2 5 2 2 3.27
Droughtwater scarcity index (DWSI) 2 2 5 2 3 2 5 3 2 3.07
GW stress index based on GW
footprint (GF) 4 5 4 2 4 2 5 3 4 3.80
GW stress index based on Integrated
GW footprint (iGF/A) 5 4 4 4 4 2 5 3 2 3.53
GW stress index at sub-system level
based (GFs) 2 3 1 2 4 2 5 3 1 2.73
Aggregation-based GW sustainability
index (GSIA) 4 2 1 5 4 2 5 2 1 2.80
DPSIR-based GW sustainability index
(GSID) 4 2 1 5 4 2 5 2 1 2.80
GW sustainability index based on
RRV (GSIRRV) 4 4 5 1 4 2 5 3 2 3.33
GW sustainability index based on
modified RRV (mGSIRRV) 5 4 5 1 4 2 5 3 2 3.40
Blue GW sustainability index (BGWSI) 5 4 3 1 5 2 5 2 4 3.53
459
 22

460 4 Conclusion
461 Groundwater is a crucial resource for the socio-economic development of our societies. Thus, this
462 study evaluated different index-based methodologies to examine the issues related to groundwater
463 scarcity, stress, and sustainability. In any area/region, the selection of a suitable groundwater index
464 is vital for accurate assessment, followed by the development of effective strategies for the
465 mitigation of groundwater-related issues scarcity, stress, etc. To get realistic outcomes and better
466 planning, indices based on drivers pressures state impact response (DPSIR) and aggregation
467 methods for groundwater sustainability can be recommended to get more realistic outcomes and
468 better plaining groundwater-related issues across the globe.

of
469 Considering the five criteria of Tractability, Sophistication, Scientific robustness, Extendibility,

ro
470 and Transparency, the groundwater footprint index (GF) had the highest rank. It is the best in

-p
471 tractability, scientific robustness, and extendibility, and is second-best in transparency as
472 compared to the other exiting groundwater indices. However, the policymakers can also choose
re
473 the most suitable index for their specific needs (ease of use, comprehensive, etc.) based on the
lP

474 results of this study as provided in Table 5. A new index was proposed by combining the two
475 existing indices to minimize the uncertainty in the groundwater stress assessment.
na

476 This study proposed a modified groundwater footprint (mGF) index for assessing groundwater
ur

477 stress by coupling the methodologies of integrated groundwater footprint index (iGF/A) and
Jo

478 groundwater footprint index at subsystem level (GFs). The iGF/A covers quality aspects along with
479 quantity, but accuracy lacks. The accuracy can be obtained by using GFs, but it does not cover the
480 quality aspect of groundwater. The mGF provides the advantages of both indices (GFs and iGF/A)
481 in one and overcomes the shortcomings of both existing indices. Therefore, the results of mGF can
482 be more comprehensive and accurate than the existing ones. Moreover, the iGF used WHO
483 standards for water quality in the groundwater stress estimation. Applying the WHO drinking
484 water standards for water quality, especially in the aquifer where the main user is agriculture is not
485 appropriate. Using the WHO standards for the agricultural dominant aquifer can cause an
486 overestimation of groundwater stress. To avoid this problem, it is recommended that FAO
487 standards should be used in the agrarian dominant aquifer. The threshold values of different
488 contamination of drinking water can be accessed through the WHO platform and irrigation water
489 quality standards based on FAO can be accessed from the FAO platform.
 23

490 However, the drawbacks of the proposed index are the large data requirement and expertise
491 required for the computation. which may be a concern for developing countries. This drawback
492 can be overcome by generating the data with the help of numerical modeling.

493 A good water scarcity index should deal with water quantity, quality, and environmental flow. The
494 mGF index can also be a meaningful addition to the list of LCA-based water stress indices because
495 it carries all the qualities of a good water stress index. The proposed mGF index can also be very
496 helpful for policymakers to assess groundwater stress with more accuracy and inclusiveness.
497 Policymakers of water management, agriculture, and water conservation departments can use the
498 mGF index to cope with water stress issues. The proposed index can be more useful where the

of
499 river density is high, rich in flora and fauna, and dependence on groundwater is high as well.

ro
500 However, in future work, it is recommended to incorporate the physical and economic accessibility
501 indicators in the future development of the groundwater stress index. Because lack of accessibility
502
-p
to water can create difficulty in water use and thus influence water stress. Here, the indicator
re
503 accessibility refers to the level of ease to access the groundwater.
lP

504 Acknowledgments
na

505 The authors would like to thank the Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE)
506 and King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Petchra Pra Jom Klao Ph.D. Research
ur

507 Scholarship (KMUTT – NSTDA) for their financial support to accomplish this study.
Jo

508 References
509 Ahmed, K., Shahid, S., Demirel, M.C., Nawaz, N., Khan, N., 2019. The changing characteristics
510 of groundwater sustainability in Pakistan from 2002 to 2016. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 2485–2496.
511 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-02023-x
512 Alexakis, D.E., 2021. Linking DPSIR Model and Water Quality Indices to Achieve Sustainable
513 Development Goals in Groundwater Resources. Hydrol. 8(90), 1-16.
514 Arthington, A.H., Bhaduri, A., Bunn, S.E., Jackson, S.E., Tharme, R.E., Tickner, D., Young, B.,
515 Acreman, M., Baker, N., Capon, S., Horne, A.C., Kendy, E., McClain, M.E., Poff, N.L., Richter,
516 B.D. and Ward, S., 2018. The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental
517 Flows. Front. Environ. Sci. 6(45), 1-15.

518 Baako, H., Sadick, A., Awuah, K.O., Mahama, I., Obeng, A.S., 2018. Water Quality Appraisal in
519 Selected Rivers at Atiwa Forest in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Asian J. Environ. Eco. 8(3), 1-7.
520 DOI: 10.9734/AJEE/2018/v8i330076
 24

521 Bhakar, P., Singh, A.P., 2018. Groundwater Quality Assessment in a Hyper-arid Region of
522 Rajasthan, India. Nat. Resour. Res. 28, 505–522. doi:10.1007/s11053-018-9405-4
523 Bloomfield, J.P., Marchant, B.P., Bricker, SH., Morgan, R.B., 2015. Regional analysis of
524 groundwater droughts using hydrograph classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19(10), 4327–
525 4344. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4327-2015

526 Borji, M., Moghaddam, N., Malekian, A., Salajegheh, A., and Khalighi, S., 2018. Comprehensive
527 evaluation of groundwater resources based on DPSIR conceptual framework. Arab. J.
528 Geosci. 11, 158, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3453-2v

529 Bui, N.T., Kawamura, A., Bui, D.D., Amaguchi, H., Bui, D.D., Truong, N.T., Do, H.H.T., Nguyen,
530 C.T., 2019. Groundwater sustainability assessment framework: A demonstration of environmental
531 sustainability index for Hanoi, Vietnam. J. Environ. Manage. 241, 479-489.

of
532 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.117

ro
533 Castro, A.L.de., Andrade, E.P., Costa, M.de., Santos, T. de., Ugaya, C.M.L. de Figueirêdo,
534 M.C.B., 2018. Applicability and relevance of water scarcity models at local management scales:

-p
535 Review of models and recommendations for Brazil. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 72, 126–
536 136. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.004
re
537 Chen, X., Wang, P., Muhammad, T., Xu, Z., Li, Y., 2020. Subsystem-level groundwater footprint
538 assessment in North China Plain – The world’s largest groundwater depression cone. Ecol. Indic.
lP

539 117, 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106662

540 Damkjaer, S., Taylor, R., 2017. The measurement of water scarcity: Defining a meaningful
na

541 indicator, Ambio. 46(5), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0912-z

542 Döll, P., Hoffmann-Dobrev, H., Portmann, F.T., Siebert, S., Eicker, A., Rodell, M., Strassberg, G.
ur

543 and Scanlon, B.R., 2012. Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on
544 continental water storage variations. J. Geodyn. 59–60, 143–156.
Jo

545 Elshall, A. S., Arik, A. D., El-Kadi, A. I., Pierce, S., Ye, M., Burnett, K., Wada, C., Bremer, L.,
546 Chun, G., 2020. Groundwater sustainability: A review of the interactions between science and
547 policy. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab8e8c
548 FAO, 2012. Coping with water scarcity an action framework for agriculture and food security,
549 Rome, http://www.fao.org/3/i3015e/i3015e.pdf (accessed 22 June 2021).
550 Farooq, N., Gheewala, S.H., 2019. A review of two different methods for the estimation of water
551 footprint of crops, Bull. - Geol. Soc. Malays. 68, 85–90.
552 DOI:https://doi.org/10.7186/bgsm68201907
553 Foster, S., Chilton, J., Nijsten, G.J., Richts, A., 2013. Groundwater—a global focus on the local
554 resource, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5(6), 685–695.
555 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.010
556 Genxu, W., Lingyuan, Y., Lin, C., Kubota, J., 2005. Impacts of land use changes on groundwater
557 resources in the Heihe River Basin. J. Geogr. Sci. 15, 405–414.
558 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02892147
 25

559 Gleeson, T., Cuthbert, M., Ferguson, G., Perrone, D., 2020. Global Groundwater Sustainability,
560 Resources, and Systems in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Earth. Planet. Sci. 48, 431-463.
561 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-071719-055251
562 Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., 2013. Assessing regional groundwater stress for nations using multiple
563 data sources with the groundwater footprint, Environ. Res. Lett. 8(4), 1-9.
564 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044010
565 Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., van Beek, L.P.H., 2012. Water balance of global aquifers
566 revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature. 488, 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11295
567 Gomez, M., Pfister, S., 2012. VEOLIA-ETH collaboration on improving Water Stress Index
568 (WSI): Final report of phase 1, https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/baug/ifu/eco-
569 systems-design-dam/documents/downloads/reports-papers/ifu-esd-wsi_veolia_eth.pdf. (accessed
570 12 July 2021).

of
571 Gordon Groundwater Consultancy (Gordon Report). 2011. Sustainable Groundwater

ro
572 Management: Preliminary Approach for Assessing the Sustainability of Groundwater, submitted
573 to CCME Water Management Development Committee. p. 48

574
-p
Goyal, D., Haritash, A.K., Singh, S.K., 2021. A comprehensive review of groundwater
re
575 vulnerability assessment using index-based, modelling, and coupling methods.
576 J. Environ. Manage. 296, 113161.
lP

577 Haritash, A.K., Gaur, S., Garg, S., 2016. Assessment of water quality and suitability analysis of
578 River Ganga in Rishikesh, India. Appl. Water Sci. 6 (4), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-
na

579 014-0235-1.
ur

580 Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J.R., Loucks, D.P., 1982. Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability
581 criteria for water resource system performance evaluation. Water Resour. Res. 18(1), 14–20.
Jo

582 DOI:10.1029/WR018i001p00014

583 Huang, W.C., Chou, C.C., 2005. Drought early warning system in reservoir operation: Theory and
584 practice. Water Resour. Res. 41(11), 1-12. DOI:10.1029/2004WR003830

585 Jia, X., O’Connor, D., Hou, D., Jin, Y., Li, G., Zheng, C., Ok, Y.S., Tsang, D.C.W., Luo, J.,
586 2019. Groundwater depletion and contamination: Spatial distribution of groundwater resources
587 sustainability in China. Sci. Total Environ. 672, 551–562. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.457

588 Keyantash, J., Dracup, J.A., 2002. The Quantification of Drought: An Evaluation of Drought
589 Indices. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soci. 83(8), 1167–1180. doi:10.1175/1520-0477-83.8.1167

590 Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., Dokou, Z., Kokorogiannis, A., 2018. Groundwater footprint
591 methodology as policy tool for balancing water needs (agriculture & tourism) in water scarce
592 islands - The case of Crete, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 381–389.
593 DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.308
 26

594 Kubicz, J., 2018. The application of Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) to monitor drought in
595 surface and groundwaters. E3S Web of Conf. 44, 1-8. DOI:10.1051/e3sconf/20184400082

596 Kumar, P., Bansod, B.K.S., Debnath, S.K., Thakur, P.K., Ghanshyam, C. 2015. Index-based
597 groundwater vulnerability mapping models using hydrogeological settings: A critical evaluation.
598 Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 51, 38–49. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.02.001

599 Kundzewicz, Z.W., Döll, P., 2009. Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under climate change?
600 Hydrol. Sci. J. 54(4), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.4.665

601 Li, P.Y., Qian, H., Wu, J.H., 2011. Application of set pair analysis method based on entropy weight
602 in groundwater quality assessment -a case study in Dongsheng City, Northwest China. E-J. Chem.
603 8, 851–858. DOI:10.1155/2011/879683

of
604 Loucks, D.P., 1997. Quantifying trends in system sustainability. Hydrol. Sci. J. 42(4), 513–530.
605 DOI: 10.1080 / 02626669709492051

ro
606 Margat, J., van der Gun. J., 2013. Groundwater around the World. CRC Press/Balkema.
607
-p
Marrison, J., Schulte, P., 2010. An analysis of methods and tools for measuring water use and its
re
608 impacts California, USA, Pacific Institute of California, https://pacinst.org/publication/corporate-
609 water-accounting/. (accessed 22 August 2021).
lP

610 Mays, L.W., 2013. Groundwater Resources Sustainability: Past, Present, and Future. Water
611 Resour. Manag. 27(13), 4409–4424. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-013-0436-7
na

612 Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, H., Giovannini, E., 2008. Handbook
ur

613 on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Organisation for Economic
614 Cooperation and Development (OECD), Statistics Working Paper JT00188147, OECD, France
Jo

615 Nayyeri, M., Hosseini, S.A., Javadi, S., Ahmad, S., 2020. Spatial Differentiation Characteristics
616 of Groundwater Stress Index and its Relation to Land Use and Subsidence in the Varamin Plain.
617 Iran, Nat. Resour. Res. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09758-5

618 Pandey, V.P., Shrestha, S., Chapagain, S.K., Kazama, F., 2011. A framework for measuring
619 groundwater sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy. 14(4), 396–407.
620 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.03.008

621 Pedro-Monzonís, M., Solera, A., Ferrer, J., Estrela, T., Paredes-Arquiola, J., 2015. A review of
622 water scarcity and drought indexes in water resources planning and management. J. Hydrol. 527,
623 482–493. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.003

624 Pereira, L., Cordery, I., Iacovides, I., 2002. Coping with water scarcity, International Hydrological
625 Programme-VI, Tech. Doc. Hydrol. No. 58, UNESCO, Paris.
626 Pérez, A.J., Hurtado-Patiño, J., Herrera, H.M., Carvajal, A.F., Pérez, M.L., Gonzalez-Rojas, E.,
627 Pérez-García, J., 2019. Assessing sub-regional water scarcity using the groundwater footprint.
628 Ecol. Indic. 96, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.056
 27

629 Pfister, S., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater
630 Consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43(11), 4098–4104. doi:10.1021/es802423e

631 Rijsberman, F.R., 2006. Water scarcity: Fact or fiction?. Agric. Water Manag. 80(1-3), 5–22.
632 DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.001

633 Rovan, J., 2011. Composite Indicators. In: Lovric M. (eds) International Encyclopedia of
634 Statistical Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_15

635 Saghafian, B., Sanginabadi, H., 2020. Multivariate groundwater drought analysis using copulas.
636 Hydrol. Res. 51(4), 666-685. DOI: 10.2166/nh.2020.131

637 Sandoval, S.S., McKinney, D.C., Loucks, D.P., 2011. Sustainability index for water resources
638 planning and management J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 137, 381–390.

of
639 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000134

ro
640 Sanginabadi, H., Saghafian, B., Delavar, M., 2019. Coupled Groundwater Drought and Water
641 Scarcity Index for Intensively Overdrafted Aquifers. J. Hydrol. Eng. 24(4), 1-15.
642 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001764
-p
re
643 Schulte, P., Morrison, J., 2014. Driving Harmonization of Water-Related Terminology, Discussion
644 Paper https://ceowatermandate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/terminology.pdf (accessed 22
lP

645 September 2020).

646 Singh, A.P., Bhakar, P., 2020. Development of groundwater sustainability index: a case study
na

647 of western arid region of Rajasthan, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1-25.
648 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00654-9
ur

649 Somaratne, N., 2019. Assessing Aquifer Stress Index (ASI) Using Rating Method and Analytic
650 Hierarchy Process for a Coastal Unconfined Aquifer. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 9(1), 35-53.
Jo

651 https://doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v9n1p35
652 Steinemann, A., Iacobellis, S.F., Cayan, D.R., 2015. Developing and evaluating drought indicators
653 for decisionmaking. J. Hydrometeorol. 16(4),1793–1803.
654 Thomas, B.F., 2019. Sustainability indices to evaluate groundwater adaptive management: a case
655 study in California (USA) for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Hydrogeol. J. 27,
656 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1863-6
657 Thomas, B.F., Caineta, J., Nanteza, J., 2017. Global Assessment of Groundwater Sustainability
658 Based on Storage Anomalies. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44(22), 445–455. 10.1002/2017GL076005
659 UNSDSN, 2013. An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development, Report for the UN Secretary-
660 General (New York: United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network),
661 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/broaderprogress/pdf/130613-SDSN-An-Action-Agenda-for-
662 Sustainable-Development-FINAL.pdf. (accessed 15 October 2020).
 28

663 Van Loon, A.F., Van Lanen, H.A.J., 2013. Making the distinction between water scarcity and
664 drought using an observation-modeling framework. Water Resour. Res. 49(3), 1483–
665 1502. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20147
666 Vanham, D., Bidoglio, G., 2013. A review on the indicator water footprint for the EU28. Sci. Total
667 Environ. 26, 61–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.021

668 Wable, P.S., Jha, M.K. Shekhar, A., 2019. Comparison of Drought Indices in a Semi-Arid River
669 Basin of India. Water Resour. Res. 33, 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2089-z

670 Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2014. Sustainability of global water use: past reconstruction and
671 future projections. Environ. Res. Lett. 9(10), 1-17. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104003

672 Wada, Y., Heinrich, L., 2013. Assessment of transboundary aquifers of the world—vulnerability

of
673 arising from human water use. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024003. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024003

ro
674 Wang, B., Teng, Y., Wang, H., Zuo, R., Zhai, Y., Yue, W., Yang, J., 2020. Entropy weight method
675 coupled with an improved DRASTIC model to evaluate the special vulnerability of groundwater
676
-p
in Songnen Plain, Northeastern China. Hydrol. Res. 51(5), 1184-2020. DOI: 10.2166/nh.2020.056
re
677 Wang, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Zhao, W., Yang, Q., Liu, J., 2019. Evaluation of groundwater
678 sustainability in the arid Hexi Corridor of Northwestern China, using GRACE, GLDAS and
lP

679 measured groundwater data products. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 1-13.
680 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135829
na

681 2021).
682 Yihdego, Y., Waqar, M., 2017. The Move from Safe Yield to Sustainability and Manage Yield.
ur

683 Global J. Human Soc. Sci. 17(1), 25-29.

Jo

684 Zeng, Z., Liu, J., Savenije, H.H.G., 2013. A simple approach to assess water scarcity integrating
685 water quantity and quality. Ecol. Indic. 34, 441–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.012
Highlights

• It may help the policymakers to select the most suitable groundwater index.
• The groundwater indices were ranked based on the five different criteria.
• A new index was proposed for a more realistic groundwater stress assessment.
• Future research needs to add accessibility factor in index to improve the result.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo