‘enc ofthe Total nirnaent 22 (2022) 182486 ‘Contents lists avilable at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment ELSEVIER journs! homepage: www. elsevier.com/locate/seitoteny, Review Groundwater vulnerability assessment: A review including new statistical and hybrid methods ‘Nasrin Taghavi *, Robert K. Niven **, David J. Paull, Matthias Kramer * * Shoo gnengand fms Tea, he niyo or Seth We, aera ACT 250, Ari » Sol See The User of Sah We, are, ACT 260, Aoi te HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT + Aeview of groundwater vlpraily as sessment, nsluding index bse, proces based, saistal end hyd metiods. +The conep of groundwater vulnerabty lacks aces deinton inthe Merce, + Rayesian inference offers many advan tages for groundwater vulerabliy as sessment, but Is applications are very me, ARTICLE INFO ApSTRACT ‘ale The concept of groundwater erably was st ntodced in the 1970s in France wo ecognieseshve resin ‘eco 0 Sepamb 021 hich sure pallu oul ef groundwater, and to enable ots 0 devlop manageres: matbods far round ccd 20 aay 22 ‘ter protection against sue pallutants Since this tine, suereus methods have ben developed for groundwater Yu ‘erat essessment (GVA). These can be eareorized into our groups () overlay end indexbasd methods, i) rationing Sang 222 proces asd simuleion modes (i sata mesos, and) hybeidmaods. Ts work provides comprehensive bor Ja Vigo rue review oftadem GVA methods, which in contrast previous reviews examines the ast wo categories in deta Fst, the concept of rundwaterieriity ie Gefne, ten the major GVA methods are inoduced an ceed, Tie Kame inclnges dead cents of tata methods, ca can be subd no orthodox static, datacven and (Gruner vuberbly nese eycsian methods, nd thir avantges ad dsedventags 5 wel as modern hybrié methods tis concided that reiy nde tie ‘Bayesian inference ofers many advantages compared with other GVA methods Te combines theory and data o give Iroceshneé mee the poseros probes ofieent made wich canbe comin uted with new dat, Purthemoe sng Sinn es ‘the Bayesian approach its pshe to cleulate the probly ofa propestion, which is exacy what i needed 0 amin noe ‘ake decisions, However, despie the advantages of Bayesian inference, pplication to date ave been very iit Contents 1. tnxodueron 2 2 Defnton of grounder vlacaity 2 corny etar ‘bm oti niucada (RK. Men. np /bedoiorg/10.1016, cote 2022153486 (08-9597/Ceown Copyright © 2022 Published by Fever BY. Al igh reserved,Taha 3. Approaches to groundwater vulnerability assessment Bi. Hisockl review. . : 32. Ghsfistion of groundwater vunerablyssessment methods 321. Overiay and indexes meshods 322. Proceed methods 3.23, Steal methods 3.24, Hybrid methods 4. Gamparson of methods ‘3. Ganeason and fate challenges and (Ce aston contibation statement Reterenees Scie he Tl er 822202) 153486 1. introduction xGroundvrater is one of the most valuable sources of water supply for different purposes throughout the world (Jakeman et al, 2016: ‘Oueciraogo et al, 2019). However, ue to mismanagement, population ‘growth, and developments in urbanization, agricultural and industrial 3c- livites, this vita resource is subject co an increased risk of pollution (aster et, 2003; Constant ea, 2016). This increased isk of pollution, ‘on the one band, ad increasing reliance on groundwater each year, om the ‘other hand, leads to an urgent need to develop groundwater management plans to ensure sustainable use and protection of available groundwater re- sources (Aller eta, 1985; Machiwal etal, 2018). ‘The importance of groundwater protection was identified several de- cades ago in France (Albinet and Margat, 1970) and Germany (Sedleyer etal, 1992), and since chen many staies have examined groundwater pro- tection issues, each with diferent alms and scopes (Foster eta, 2018; ‘Ouedraogo et, 2019; Arey eal, 2019). The methods of groundwater vulnerability assessment (GVA) canbe categorized into the following four ‘groups (National Research, Council, 1995; Pavlis etal, 2010; Machiwal tal, 2018; Aslam et al, 2018) 4) Overlay and index-based methods, i) Proces‘nsed simulation modes, ii) Statistical methods, and §v) Hybrid methocs, Several reviews of GVA methods have previously been published (Gog and Dassargues, 2000; Pulls eta, 2010; Shira! et al, 2012: Soichetta ‘etal, 2013; van and Madl-Svonys, 2017; Goyal etal, 2021), OF these stud- Jes, Pali et al (2010) focused on methods used at the regional scale an and Madl-Szony (2017) investigated the methods suitable for karst agui- fers. Soricheta etal. (2013) compared several data-driven methods. Goyal eal. (2021) discussed three categories of methods used to assess groundwater pollution: () geostatistical interpolation and index-based ‘methods, (i) numerical modelings, an (i) coupling of GIS ané numerical ‘models. The remaining two reviews were narrowly focused, examining ‘only overlay and index-based methods (Gogu and Dassargues, 2000), and Geographic Information System (GIS)-based methods (Shirezi etal, 2012), While existing papers on this copie are primarily focused on overlay and index methods or process ased methods the aim of this manuscript is tw presenta comprehensive overview of GVA methods, including overlay and index-based methods, process-based methods, modern statistical and nya methoes ‘This work proceeds as follows. In Section 2, the concept of ground ‘water vulnerability is defined and discussed. The methods of GVA are Introduced and classified in Section 3, with detailed accounts of each category, including their advantages and disadvantages. In each sec- tion, the major challenges of GVA are highlighted, leading othe concl son in Section 5. 2. Definition of groundwater vulnerability The term “vulnerability” is derived from the Latin expression ‘ulnerabilis which implies easily harmed, hur, or attacked (Moraru and Hannigan, 2018; Enology Dictionary, 2021). However, the vulnerability ‘of groundwater in hydrology literature was not formally defined until the 1970s (Marga, 1968; lbinet and Mergat, 1970), wien twas forced by in “creasing groundwseter contamination across the slbe.Albine: and Margot (1970) defined groundwater vulnerability as the exposure ofthe water table to surface pollution. They used various parameces to determine the extent to which the water able is exposed to potion fom the ground su face. The frst map of groundwater vulnerability was then presented by ‘Abbinet and Margat (1970), for France. At that time, these authors did not attempt to undertake an inventory of pollution sourees or indicate the ‘areas already pollute in France; nor did they intend to show the types of ‘contaminants or their effects. However, using this map, twas possible to recognize sensitive aeas in which pollution could seriously affect ground ‘water, enabling others to develop management methods for its protection (Albin and Marga, 1970)-Sinee then, diferent definitions for groundwa ter vulnerability have been used. For example, itis defined by the "National Research, Counell (1983), pl as “the tendency of or keno for ontarnants to reach asperfed postion in the groundwater system afer it ‘duetion at some locaton above the uppermost aquifer. Viba and Zaporozee (1994), p27 have defined it as “an wins propery ofa groundwater system, depending on the sent ofthat sytem to urn and/or natal impacts". Al teratively, groundwater vulnerability can be defined asthe probability of ‘contaminant migration from the ground surface into the groundwater sys: tem (Machiwal etal, 20186). This definition leads to the statistical and hy- brid methods of GVA. As evident, the concept of groundwater vulnerability lacks a clear definition in the literature, and there has beea no commonly secepied understanding ofits meaning. Moreover, due to che abundance of available definition, every author needs to specify which definition they sein thelr study ‘The groundwater vulnerability is affected by many factors, including nat ural influences inthe region (rainfall, recharge), anthropogenic activities, (and-use type, the application of agricultural chemical, mining, and other similar activites inthe region), and the itrnsccharoterisis of te aquier ‘system (eg, depth to groundwater, topograpy, net recharge, and attenua tion capacity ofan aquifer system) (Pav tal, 2010)- Several researchers divided vulnersbilty assessment methods into two group: intrinsic vuler- ability and specific vulnerability (Vrba and Zaporozec, 1994; Moraru and annigac, 2018) The urs vlheabiliy refers to those properties of an aquifer shat influence the vertical passage of a pollutant toward groundva ter, suchas the inherent geological, hydrological, and hydrogeological char. acteristics, without focusing on aparculr typeof contaminant (Vrba and Zaporozee, 1994; Ibe etal, 2001; Daly ea, 2002) The specific mierably represents the vulnerability of ground ater toa specific ype of eomaminast ‘ora group of pollutants aking ito account properties ofthe contaminant such as biogeochemical attenuation processes and their relationship with various elements of intrinsic vulnerability (Doefigr et a, 1999; Gogu and Dasargves, 2000; Zwahlen, 2008). Wb and Zaporozec (1994) stated ‘hat this classification is cumbersome, as the incerpetation of pollutants or gins dieu Some researchers have agreed with this ertque (Daly et, 2002); however, others have found this classification to be convenient (Massimo, 2010; Moraru and Hannigan, 2018). Massimo (2010) agreed with the lassifcaon and further defined tree factors influencing the in teinsie vulnerability: "the ingestion process and the water travel time througtaht can unseuraed sone”, "the grundioter flow dynamics inthe saturated one", and “the residual concentration ofthe contaminant ast reaches the saturated ‘2m Massimo (2010) aso state thatthe evaluation ofthe specific vulner- ablty of an aquifer should be made case by case, according tothe chemical and physical properties of every existing contaminant. 3. Approaches to groundwater vulnerability assessment 3.1. Hira review ‘Since the 1970s, numerous methods have been wed to quantify the vul nerability of groundvrater to contamination. The fit map of groundwater vulnerability vas presented by Albnct and Margt (2970) for France based ‘on general geological and hydrogeological knowledge ofthe region. The DRASTIC method was then developed by Aller et al (1985) under a coop- ‘erative agreement between the National Water Well Association (NWWA) land the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This is nov the established GVA method in the U.., and the most recognized method worldwide Ie combines seven Factors of Depth to water (D), Re- charge (R), Aquifer media (A), Soil media (8), Topography (1), kmpaet of ‘vadose zone (i, and Hydraule conductivity (to calculate the vulnerable ity ofa region as an index. The GLA ("Geologisches Landesamt") method ‘was developed in Germany by Halting etal. (1995) to determine the ability ‘of the cover to protect groundwater in the uppermost aquifer. This metzod {ssimilar to tae DRASTIC method but is based onthe protective effect of te ‘overlying layers sbove groundwater and only considers the impact of the unsaturated zone. Thee protective layers are characerized inthis mechod icluding:1) topsoil, 2) subsoil and 3) rock layer. In addition, the EPIK method was introduced atthe Univesity of Neuchatel in Switeriand by Doeflge eta. (1999). I was the fst method to fous onthe properties ‘of karst aquifers and the fist method to include the “concentration of ‘ow as parameter, EPIK i method for intisie vulnerability mapping ‘of karst aquifers provided by springs or borcholes to determine the sensitv= ity of groundwater to pollutants at eatchment scale caused by anthropo- ‘genic activities. There are four parameters used in this method inluding Epikare (Ea highly fractured subsurface zone immediately under the ‘round surface caused by the dissolution or pressure release of rock near ‘ground surfaces, Protective cover (P), Inflation conditions (), and Karst network development (K) (Doerliger et a, 1998) ‘After the DRASTIC, GLA and EPIK methods, the so-called Furopean ap proach was developed by several European countries under he Fimework ‘of COST 620 (European Cooperation in the Field of Scenic and Techno- logical Research) to asses groundwater vulnerability in karst aguifers. The ‘research eam consisted of three working groups, each focusing on diferent ars of vulnerability assessment (Dal ctl, 2002). The fs group worked ‘on the intrinsic vlnerbiity, the second group onthe specific vlneraiity nd the third group on hazard mapping and risk assessment (Pavis et al, 2010). Their proposed approach was based on the hazaré-pathway-target motel and was intended tobe appropriately flexible tobe wed in diferent “karst regions but toe comprehensive enough to inlude ll European coo ditions and non-kaste aquifer (Daly eta, 2002). Based on the Buropean approach, a conceptal framework was developed for vulnerability ma ping dividing into two subdivisions: resource and source vulnerabily = sessment (Kavouri etal, 2012). The resource vulnerability assessment ‘considers the entre groundwater body, where the targets the water tale, ‘while source vulnerability assesment Focuses on protecting # particular spring or well (Ravbar and Goléscheider, 2007; Neukum and Azzam, 2000), The European approach doesnot identify hove to measure or catego- riz the factors or how to recognize vulnerability ratings (wahien, 2003), ‘ut is concepts have been applied in diflrent methods such as P method (Goldscheider et al, 2000) and COP method (Daly el, 2002) within ‘European courses The acronyms ofthe methods are discussed in more de- tal in Setion 3:2. Inarid and semi-arid regions of Asia, groundwater is also considered 25, an important souree for diferent types of water demands (Khosravi et al, 2018)- Several modifications ofthe DRASTIC method have been developed Sin of Tt Eien 822 (3028) 153486 ln these areas For example Alam etal. (2014) developed the DRASTICLU method adding the land use parameter tothe original DRASTIC method and applied i to the Central Ganga Plain Inca, “The overall clasfication of GVA methods is shown in isto Figures i, ‘These methods are examined inthe following subsections. 32, Clasifiaton of groundwater nerailty assessment maths 5.2.1. Overlay and index based methods Overlay and indexased methods also called empirical or qualitative methods) are the fist and most popular methods used for GVA (Pavl's et al, 2010; Moraru and Hannigan, 2018). These methods resemble rela tively simple qualitative and semiquantitative approaches that rely mostly on geological parameters In each method, numerical cores o ratings are assigned to diferent parameters, and their combination provides an index ofthe aquifers vulnerability (Focario, 2002; Pavlis eta, 2010; Massimo, 2010). Several overlay and index-based methods have been developed in different countries for various types of aquifers (eg, porous media and karst aquifers) and sce nationally accepted ‘According to Gogu and Dassargues (2000, the overlay and index-based methods ae distinguished by two subdivisions (List of Figures Fig. 1): (hydrogeological complex and stings (HCS) methods, and (i) parame ric syste (PS) methods, ICS methods are qualitative assesements ofthe vulnerebiity by inking several hydrogeological, hyarographica, and mer phological parameters that characterize the study region (Albinet an Margat, 1970; Gogu and Dassargues, 2000; Civita and De Maio, 2004). They are suitable for large areas and thematic maps and canbe produced st medium to large seale (Gogu an Dassargues, 2000). In contrast, PS ‘methods are based on the selection of epresentative parameters or ground wate vulnerability assessment A alo shown In List of Figure Fig 1, these can be divided into thre classes: () dhe Point Count System Model (PCS, (Ge Rating Systema (RS), and (i) the Matsx System (MS) (Pavlset al, 2010; Wachniew etal, 2016) The procedures forall PS methods are almost the same. The parameters in PSM and RS methods are combined by giving ‘hem arg range of values and then adding or multiplying these valves. 19 CSM meshods, weighting conficints are also appli tothe parameters values to balance their significance and reflect the relationship between the parameters. n contrast, in MS methods, a matrix i used to combine ‘he parameters (Pais tal, 2010) ‘detailed summary of overlay and indexcbased methods i given in “Table 1. This ineldes the definition ofeach method in terms ofthe param ers used, Itals includes the ace types fr which they an be used the type of groundwater vulnerability and the typeof protection. Because of the limited space available for this contribution, fra fll description of each method the reader ean refer to the sources mentioned in Table 1 ‘A summary ofthese methods, with an analysis oftheir advantages end disadvantages, is presented in Table 2 ‘Although the simplicity of overlay and indexhased methods has made them popular, they have several disadvantages. A major drawback i thelr subjectivity in the selection of required parameters, tei relationship t0 ‘he groundwater vulnerability, and the assignment of ratings and weights to the parameters (Aslam et a, 2018). The ratings and weights have been eriticized for not being objective (Moraru and Hannigan, 2018), and in ‘most studies, have been selected based on the experts ofthe researcher (Gogu etal, 2003). Only ina few approaches has the rating system relate to the hydrogeological properties ofthe aquifer (Moraru and Hannigan, 2018). Another disadvantage ofthe overlay and index-based methods i the inconsistency between methods when applied toa given area (Andreo ft a, 2006). Tis means thatthe cholce of method i erally important (avis etal, 2010). To overcome this problem, Gog and Dassargues (2000) proposed to crassaaidae diferent methods by comparing there sults, However, s mentioned by Neukum eal (2008), the vulnerability signed by different methods is usually expressed in qualitative terms such as low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ and a direct comparison of methods at one ste i difficult. For example, Neukcum etal. (2008) compared four ‘methods fora karst area of southwest Germany, with contradictory results.Taha Scie ef he Tl Bern 827202) 153486 Dea a =e Pan So Ta a apeoree aetan e | Lmn [a json, || aa | Ve sini jes Fig. 1. Claseifcatlon of GVA methods (“PCS pont count system mode, RS: ring ayer, MS: marx ye. ‘Overlay and index based methods also have fc in quantifying the un- certainty associated with vulnerability assessments (Gogu and Dassargues, 2000. Finally, these methods have been designed predominantly fr uncon- Fined aquifers, and are not suitable for confined aquifers (Morany and Hannigan, 2018), 3.2.2. Process base methods ‘Many researchers have argued that groundwater vulnerability ean rarely bbe predicted using the parameters of overlay and index hased methods (Gogu and Dassargues,2000; Rupert, 2001; van and Mael-Szony, 2017). For this ‘reason, process bared simulation methods were developed for GVA to take ‘nto account the hydrogeologic proceses within the sol. These methods are mostly based on the soltion of conservation las, incting mass trans Post, heat transport, physics of olds, and constitutive relations, to peedict, pollutant transport at oth spatial and temporal scales (Machiwal eta, 2018; Sehiosser eta, 2002). Many researchers have sucessfully integrate GS technology wit index ‘based and process-based simulation models Saka etal, 2018; Ravanbabls tal, 2018; Mfonka et al, 2018). The GIS applications are beneficial in groundwater quality studies, specifically for mapping spatial variations of pol- Jtants, anc forthe design of groundwater quality monitoring networks Jha tal, 2007). Meny moceliing packages and approaches have been applied to GVA, including LEACHM leaching, estimation, and chemistry model) (Hutson and Wagenet, 1988), RZWQM (root zone water quality model) (DeCoursey et a, 1998; Ma et al, 2001), MACRO 4.3 (larvs, 2001), MODPLOW (iarbaugh, 2005; Babu eta, 2017), PEMWASTE (inte element ‘model of waste through ssturated-unsaturated porous media) (Yeh and “Tripathi, 1981), HYDRUS-ID (Vogel etal, 1996; Simunck etal, 19996), and HYDRUS-20/30 (Simunek et al, 19994; Simumnek et aL, 2006; Siminek cal, 2012). The dfintions of these meshods are given in Table 3. For example, for process-based simulation using MODELOW, the aqui {er system is divided into cells using ato or three dimensional grid. The aquifer properties and all other feetares are then applied to these cells, ‘and the model is solved by running the program. The ourput data in the form of groundwater velocity, hydraulic head, and pollutant concentration Fields, can be viewed in ether two or three-dimensional forms (Harbaugh, 2008, Babu et al, 2017) “The main advantage ofthese methods over the overlay and Index-based methods is providing » quantitative estimation of groundwater vulnerail ity Inaddtion, the ability to predict contaminant transport at both spall and temporal sales distinguishes the process-based models from the index based methods. Another advantage of process-based models in comparison with overlay and indexbased methods is that while most ofthe former ‘methods focus on the protection of the resource, process-based methods ‘can determine both source and resource vanerability, using established si ‘entific laws (Moraru and Hannigan, 2018). In addition, process-based ‘models are considered to be more accurate than index-hased qualitative methods (Gogu and Dassargues, 2000), however, it mast be noted that, "hey have some important limitations. Most ofthe process-based models donot consider the existence of preferential groundwater flow, and assume fractured or karst aquifers as continvous porous media (Gog and Dassargues, 2000). This implies thatthe mean transit ime cannot correctly measure the distribution of transit imei the presence of preferential low. Several researchers have acknowledged this limitation (et, Logsdon (2002), Garis and Feng (2004), leading to studies of preferred low paths and the impact on water quality. However, these methods have been lim ted due to thelr need for considerable field data (achial ta, 20186) ‘whieh often is not available (Moraru and Hannigan, 2018). Therefore, these methods are nt truly eeliable when missing data must be estimated by indirect means (Gogu and Dassargues, 2000), The inital condtion fo these models are not always realistic and, in most cases are not avaliable inreal agricultural conditions. Severe assumptions can lead tomar errors ‘and decrease the accuracy of results (Shirazi et a, 2012; Machveal eta, 20186). Due to the need fr high-resolution data, these models tend 10 beN.Tahat eat Se he Tl ern 822202) 155485 rable Summary of te ovely wd indeed mtd o, Meied—MeiodPowsnein Kast Foch nine Spcle —awace Suse uo woe Geen _tulen ages euler wimablly wiieilly peancea pon 1 pusne row 5 ~ - ; CT) Paractesdphsonnte (eh ys in A (pny meat EWA ‘ved te handy an = mieten = we ere 2 ome cw Hea AH EAR, eter Percept (8, jose cove (ean) as ow vpn aK hes i ipetnecneck Sure te meget Lng el mmr 2m ra ae BDI Oelcimes ‘Parenter air ck Gon conto (0 dg eaten (0, pla presen oe Pere ‘hee ofhy.eaton rate wpe ema ene 4 fase cat : - - bw Cowie s, 060 ‘Peter bt ils an core 0, agi edi reg ts i nd tpg, ®~ EWR tape ana oe gb eto oh we pe cafe ar nga pron = wept em) same ae ~“— - Se (chaste Parameters spaces) (ea depth a roundwate,nfeton (, nonatio() (meats vata zone —~ PM alo, 2000) _tenaton pect, plo dla copes 1) enn sl atest capac) otro (A eat stated tone charac ony tae ae ora (hn We ag nd we epee eae pt (niin crn aon, xo wv ea + setae = £01 dime, 2305) ED) 7 baste Fe omc 209 Parmer omnis he aie hl pay ee ‘poe ne Oy aby tty taeda Tah = ange ean = we ste pronees) 8 fomeeea se - syed neexm etx (tern ‘eur: pn ar (sp nso anes epee BG pan ing = ‘orn Tone pmate a o orm - oe : _- : wt Peranetr perine ca epopph combo wih eetion anaes moe = io Score ann omer ceplan ogee cnt i geo nonin ee Eon 0 pas ream» : : : Seniio = (@ar9-- 4 Ginter Parc ows). cha. iho he lm Spey ssl “Varese an Salama maton a see near oa 38 Parmeter gous ager confinement (0), overt holy (0) 2 depth tn rose (0) bene Po pormete rata ‘Parameters: el soe, eho rund, pao be wade one, ae med, pt, nd etn ect Othe weg sed orth. Parameters: yale conduct ofeach fhe sine ayes abd he ies fhe ye = sunt he ements abo nite ‘he mtr son gibson hp. bons pos for hd presse condone rae condone gr ef Sl npc nm down to moth ea, W ie perelsan = ‘Seherock ype, Tithe hces of el dk coer toe the alr, nd nthe me of veri yer (toreand ot, 190) . (Geemproett 199) (ng 1995) etane Sas Parameters hye popes ofthe tock, epas(, ateaion ( sleover 199) wom st ae : - . - (Goldie Parameters ein fac Py preci over natn cmon ‘ral 2000) vo = . : = Grexour (@aty ett 2000) Parameters meteor (ven yes (0 prepaion 18 Sina RS " - . + nexcxmen staan Paremetere: veri ayer (0), ence of ow C), rcpt kant ear evel! 20 a — . ~ “ Sen z0x (Poston ant Parameters etn, pate oer rl, 2109) eS - : - : : (ayaa rer, Parameters sha emai and hes, al caress 1998) a * - . ate a, 2008) Parameter and shipment and hikes, permeniy,pray an heap othe brs, deg 9 applied only to small areas (eg, part ofan aquifer system) (Machiwal eta, 2018; Sajei-Hosscini et al, 2018). 3.23. Stata methods 1323.1. Historical review. The development of computer technology and the increasing availabilty of geo-environmental data have encouraged the use of statistical methods for GVA Soricheta etal, 2013). However, despite the fact thatthe vulnerability of groundwater is probabilistic, few re searchers have applied probebilstic methods for GVA (Mocaru and Hannigan, 2018). In general, statistical method range from simple deserip- tive statistics (eg, mean, median, and percentiles of eonceatration of con taminants} (Steichen etal, 1988; Ryker, 2001) to complex regression ‘analyses incorporating several predictor variables (eg. logistic regression (Tesoriezo and Voss, 1997, Frans etal, 2012), uzay ogie (Nadir tal, 2017a)). Simple descriptive statistics ae often used to summarize theN Taha Se he Tl Pen 822202) 159486 Table2 Advantages and dlndvanages of evray and index based methods No Mato Advantage Disha TDRASIIC Apacer coniiom by cag or adaling saa praca Lav inert! pron cone prosinan pres Glan a rom th mde moderate date demas (Rains aly 2007) 2007 nected Beto edie Vlei urderstiuted h 19 de no cor he een onan (aca 2189 poor pertain an ner (ve 2002) 2 PR bay toe applicable orange te pt region see (ve od (aly etl orks pes ait a, 2010} soe ect aoe neon 207) (ech narrated nove hicks) van a Seo, 207); gh ‘terete the ners of karte ha ave no et ote ‘ithe caer eae mopped on ura tae (age, {ots prea 2010) 3 RISKE aye van na Mal ons, 27) Not tnt Coan an Maton 2017) 4 KAGSTIK —TheARSTIC parser ae aplisietnonsartc arfthe regan (isa Saber ithe eihng parame (Dv et al, 2002) ed Madr 2017) 5 SIVTACS Ts fentie bcs ote us of varying eights elated othe ego Mainly oped wo Medan counts at sey wed Pie ‘ear ofthese; aplshie to area inva by acted drs Pv 2010) (20) beter ei tan DRASTIC a Mederanen conan (Yr phy, 2007) © YURAAS Sule for hh moan ger sstes ame, 2005) Nota et van an Mado 2017) 7 asticim Suitable fr fared apes taking no aroun ie, length and Cente na atl pana maprng poss (metho smiles emny fates Deny 2007) ‘bj inte weighing perms Gree a, 2012, Meant al, 218) 8 PRPRKKA —_Aplnblor uth source a resource protein (Dg