Volume 13, Issue 2 (7-2025)
J Environ Health Eng 2025, 13(2): 158-178 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hasanvand M, Haghizadeh A, kamarehei B, Ghasemi L. Prioritization of Groundwater (Wells) Contamination Using Borda and Bargaining Algorithms in Khorramabad Aquifer. J Environ Health Eng 2025; 13 (2) :158-178
URL: http://jehe.abzums.ac.ir/article-1-1102-en.html
URL: http://jehe.abzums.ac.ir/article-1-1102-en.html
Professor, Department of Watershed Management Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran , Haghizadeh.a@lu.ac.ir
Abstract: (28 Views)
Background: A complex decision-making process that has to be done by examining several regional circumstances, giving priority to places for determining the possibility of using water resources with pollution potential. Therefore, managing water resources calls for the choice of the best decision-making technique for the growth and possible evaluation of areas vulnerable to future pollution. The current study looked at priority depending on pollution potential in the Khorramabad aquifer's groundwater resources.
Materials and Methods: Landsat 8 OLI sensor imagery was used to create a land use map for this study. Moreover, ArcGIS 10.3 and Envi 5.3 tools were used at several phases of creating the Khorramabad basin landuse map and validating the accuracy of the forecasted maps. Various Khorramabad well parameters were gathered and computed; depending on their relevance in generating pollution potential, they were input into the Borda and bargaining algorithms. They were then scored according to the parameters investigated.
Results: The two algorithms, Borda and bargaining, used inside game theory helped to find the most efficient parameters in the wells as well as the most important pollution possible sources. The most efficient parameters were those of carbonate with a score of 179.5, phosphate with a score of 135.5, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) with a score of 130.5, all of which were derived from the Borda scoring approach. The most successful parameters were carbonate, chloride, and sulfate by means of the bargaining algorithm.
Conclusion: Finally, the prioritization of water resources was presented using both methods; in the Borda approach, the Sarab Yas, Aliabad, and Balilvand wells had top priority. Game theory has been applied as a multi-dimensional solution in numerous decision-making sectors and eventually delivers a complete and managerial approach.
Materials and Methods: Landsat 8 OLI sensor imagery was used to create a land use map for this study. Moreover, ArcGIS 10.3 and Envi 5.3 tools were used at several phases of creating the Khorramabad basin landuse map and validating the accuracy of the forecasted maps. Various Khorramabad well parameters were gathered and computed; depending on their relevance in generating pollution potential, they were input into the Borda and bargaining algorithms. They were then scored according to the parameters investigated.
Results: The two algorithms, Borda and bargaining, used inside game theory helped to find the most efficient parameters in the wells as well as the most important pollution possible sources. The most efficient parameters were those of carbonate with a score of 179.5, phosphate with a score of 135.5, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) with a score of 130.5, all of which were derived from the Borda scoring approach. The most successful parameters were carbonate, chloride, and sulfate by means of the bargaining algorithm.
Conclusion: Finally, the prioritization of water resources was presented using both methods; in the Borda approach, the Sarab Yas, Aliabad, and Balilvand wells had top priority. Game theory has been applied as a multi-dimensional solution in numerous decision-making sectors and eventually delivers a complete and managerial approach.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/02/19 | Accepted: 2025/05/26 | Published: 2025/07/16
Received: 2025/02/19 | Accepted: 2025/05/26 | Published: 2025/07/16
References
1. Falah F, Daneshfar M, Ghorbaninejad S. Application of the Statistical Index Model in Groundwater Potential Mapping in the Khorramabad Plain. Journal of Water and Sustainable Development. 2017; 4(1): 89-98. (In Persian)
2. Tauqeer HM, Turan V, Iqbal M. Production of safer vegetables from heavy metals contaminated soils: the current situation, concerns associated with human health and novel management strategies. In Advances in bioremediation and phytoremediation for sustainable soil management: principles, monitoring and remediation (pp. 301-312). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2022a. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-89984-4_19]
3. Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Shayannejad M, Ghorbanizadeh-Kharazi H. Artificial neural network for modeling nitrate pollution of groundwater in marginal area of Zayandeh-rood River, Isfahan, Iran. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 2017; 21: 134-140. [DOI:10.1007/s12205-016-0572-8]
4. Akram R, Turan V, Hammad HM, Ahmad S, Hussain S, Hasnain A, Nasim W. Fate of organic and inorganic pollutants in paddy soils. Environmental pollution of paddy soils. 2018; 197-214. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-93671-0_13]
5. Tauqeer HM, Turan V, Farhad M, Iqbal M. Sustainable agriculture and plant production by virtue of biochar in the era of climate change. In Managing plant production under changing environment (pp. 21-42). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. 2022b. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-16-5059-8_2]
6. Akhtar N, Syakir Ishak MI, Bhawani SA, Umar K. Various natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for water quality degradation: A review. Water. 2021; 13(19): 2660. [DOI:10.3390/w13192660]
7. Panaskar DB, Wagh VM, Muley AA, Mukate SV, Pawar RS, Aamalawar ML. Evaluating groundwater suitability for the domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes in Nanded Tehsil, Maharashtra, India, using GIS and statistics. Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 2016; 9: 1-16. [DOI:10.1007/s12517-016-2641-1]
8. Sarker B, Keya KN, Mahir FI, Nahiun KM, Shahida S Khan, RA. Surface and ground water pollution: Causes and effects of urbanization and industrialization in South Asia. Scientific Review. 2021; 7(3): 32-41. [DOI:10.32861/sr.73.32.41]
9. Kumar A, Malyan SK, Kumar SS, Dutt D, Kumar V. An assessment of trace element contamination in groundwater aquifers of Saharanpur, Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 2019; 20, 101213. [DOI:10.1016/j.bcab.2019.101213]
10. Tilahun K. Merkel BJ. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia using DRASTIC. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2010; 59: 1485-1496. [DOI:10.1007/s12665-009-0134-1]
11. Rogers P. A game theory approach to the problems of international river basins. Water resources research. 1969; 5(4): 749-760. [DOI:10.1029/WR005i004p00749]
12. Abdoli G. Game theory and its applications (Static and dynamic games with complete information). Tehran: Jihad daneshgahi-Tehran university. 2011. (In Persian).
13. Liu Y, Hu Y, Hu Y, Gao Y, Liu Z. Water quality characteristics and assessment of Yongding New River by improved comprehensive water quality identification index based on game theory. Journal of environmental sciences. 2021; 104: 40-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.jes.2020.10.021]
14. Yang B, Lai C, Chen X, Wu X, He Y. Surface water quality evaluation based on a game theory-based cloud model. Water. 2018; 10(4): 510. [DOI:10.3390/w10040510]
15. Arshia A, Haghizadeh A, Tahmasebipour N, Zeinivand H. Prioritization of Sezar Subbasins in terms of flooding potentian using game theory. Iranian journal of Ecohydrology. 2018; 5(4): 1219-1231. (In Persian)
16. Tshamala AK, Musala MK, Kalenga GK, Wa Mumapanda HD. Assessment of surface water quality in Kakanda: detection of pollution from mining activities. 2021. [DOI:10.4236/jep.2021.129035]
17. Santonastaso GF, Di Nardo A, Creaco E, Musmarra D, Greco R. Comparison of topological, empirical and optimization-based approaches for locating quality detection points in water distribution networks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021; 28: 33844-33853. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-10519-3]
18. Bayat F, Didar TF, Hosseinidoust Z. Emerging investigator series: bacteriophages as nano engineering tools for quality monitoring and pathogen detection in water and wastewater. Environmental Science: Nano. 2021; 8(2): 367-389. [DOI:10.1039/D0EN00962H]
19. Zhang Y, Huo X, Luo Y. Prediction of groundwater pollution diffusion path based on multi-source data fusion. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2023; 10: 1116309. [DOI:10.3389/fenvs.2022.1116309]
20. Hashemi M, Peralta RC, Yost M. Balancing Results from AI-Based Geostatistics versus Fuzzy Inference by Game Theory Bargaining to Improve a Groundwater Monitoring Network. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2024; 6(3): 1871-1893. [DOI:10.3390/make6030092]
21. Moridi A.Game Theory in Water Quality Management. 2025. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.1007862 [DOI:10.5772/intechopen.1007862]
22. Beirnvand L, Afzali A. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to contamination in Khorramabad plain. 15th National Conference on Irrigation and Evaporation Reduction. Kerman. 2019. (In Persian)
23. Rezaei R, Maleli A, Safari M, Ghavami A. Evaluation of chemical contamination of ground water resource in the downstream areas of the buria site of Sanandaj city. Scientific journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. 2010; 15: 89-98.
24. Bolstad P, Lillesand TM. Rapid maximum likelihood classification. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing. 1991; 57(1): 67-74.
25. Madani K. Game theory and water resources. Journal of hydrology. 2010; 381(3-4): 225-238. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.11.045]
26. Suresh M, Sudhakar S, Tiwari KN, Chowdary VM. Prioritization of watersheds using morphometric parameters and assessment of surface water potential using remote sensing. Journal of the indian society of remote sensing. 2004; 32: 249-259. [DOI:10.1007/BF03030885]
27. Pacuit E. Voting methods. 2011.
28. Balinski M, Laraki R. A theory of measuring, electing, and ranking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007; 104(21): 8720-8725. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.0702634104]
29. Brams SJ, Kilgour DM. Fallback bargaining. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2001; 10: 287-316. [DOI:10.1023/A:1011252808608]
30. Baharad E, Nitzan S. The Borda rule, Condorcet consistency and Condorcet stability. Economic Theory. 2003; 22(3): 685-688. [DOI:10.1007/s00199-002-0318-3]
31. Pizzol L, Zabeo A, Critto A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A. Risk-based prioritization methodology for the classification of groundwater pollution sources. Science of the Total Environment. 2015; 506: 505-517. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.014]
32. Alvarado A, Esteller MV, Quentin E, Expósito JL. Multi-criteria decision analysis and GIS approach for prioritization of drinking water utilities protection based on their vulnerability to contamination. Water Resources Management. 2016; 30: 1549-1566. [DOI:10.1007/s11269-016-1239-4]
33. Oikonomidis D, Dimogianni S, Kazakis N, Voudouris K. A GIS/remote sensing-based methodology for groundwater potentiality assessment in Tirnavos area, Greece. Journal of Hydrology. 2015; 525: 197-208. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.056]
34. Lima ML, Romanelli A, Massone HE. Decision support model for assessing aquifer pollution hazard and prioritizing groundwater resources management in the wet Pampa plain, Argentina. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 2013; 185: 5125-5139. [DOI:10.1007/s10661-012-2930-4]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
