Learning from multiple frameworks for aquifer vulnerability mapping and multiple modelling practices in groundwater vulnerability mapping studies

IF 5.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 WATER RESOURCES
Ata Allah Nadiri, Zeynab Abdollahi, Zahra Sedghi, Rahman Khatibi, Rahim Barzegar
{"title":"Learning from multiple frameworks for aquifer vulnerability mapping and multiple modelling practices in groundwater vulnerability mapping studies","authors":"Ata Allah Nadiri,&nbsp;Zeynab Abdollahi,&nbsp;Zahra Sedghi,&nbsp;Rahman Khatibi,&nbsp;Rahim Barzegar","doi":"10.1007/s13201-025-02573-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Learning from multiple frameworks (MF) in vulnerability mapping of aquifers and from multiple models (MM) is a novel research case tested in this paper by inclusive multiple modelling (IMM) practices. Each framework relates to multiple consensually selected data layers with an appropriate scoring system, which reflects intrinsic variances in the data layers and MF is particularly appropriate to shallow and patchy study areas. The IMM strategy is implemented at three levels: At Level 1, three frameworks (e.g., DRASTIC, SINTACS and GODS) are selected to map the vulnerability of a study area; At Level 2: inclusivity is achieved by employing the modelled output from Level 1 models as inputs for two additional machine learning models (e..g, support vector machine and multilayer perceptron) at Level 2. At Level 3: the outputs from these two models are combined using another model (e.g., random forest). The findings provide evidence that the Level 3 model produces more ‘defensible’ performance metrics by extracting information from all the models at Levels 1 and 2 with a better potential for learning from each output. The modelling results at Level 1 are ‘fit-for-purpose’, those at Level 3 are defensible and those at 2 are in between. For the patchy and shallow study area, the vulnerability maps at the higher level of the strategy are found to be more defensible than those at lower levels.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8374,"journal":{"name":"Applied Water Science","volume":"15 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13201-025-02573-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Water Science","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-025-02573-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Learning from multiple frameworks (MF) in vulnerability mapping of aquifers and from multiple models (MM) is a novel research case tested in this paper by inclusive multiple modelling (IMM) practices. Each framework relates to multiple consensually selected data layers with an appropriate scoring system, which reflects intrinsic variances in the data layers and MF is particularly appropriate to shallow and patchy study areas. The IMM strategy is implemented at three levels: At Level 1, three frameworks (e.g., DRASTIC, SINTACS and GODS) are selected to map the vulnerability of a study area; At Level 2: inclusivity is achieved by employing the modelled output from Level 1 models as inputs for two additional machine learning models (e..g, support vector machine and multilayer perceptron) at Level 2. At Level 3: the outputs from these two models are combined using another model (e.g., random forest). The findings provide evidence that the Level 3 model produces more ‘defensible’ performance metrics by extracting information from all the models at Levels 1 and 2 with a better potential for learning from each output. The modelling results at Level 1 are ‘fit-for-purpose’, those at Level 3 are defensible and those at 2 are in between. For the patchy and shallow study area, the vulnerability maps at the higher level of the strategy are found to be more defensible than those at lower levels.

从含水层脆弱性制图的多种框架和地下水脆弱性制图研究中的多种建模实践中学习
本文通过包容性多重建模(IMM)实践对含水层脆弱性映射中的多重框架(MF)和多重模型(MM)学习进行了研究。每个框架涉及多个共识选择的数据层和适当的评分系统,这反映了数据层的内在差异,MF特别适用于浅层和不完整的研究领域。IMM策略分三个级别实施:在第一级,选择三个框架(例如DRASTIC、SINTACS和GODS)来绘制研究区域的脆弱性图;在第2级:包容性是通过使用第1级模型的建模输出作为两个额外的机器学习模型的输入来实现的。g,支持向量机和多层感知机)在Level 2。在第3级:使用另一个模型(例如,随机森林)将这两个模型的输出组合起来。研究结果提供了证据,表明第3级模型通过从第1级和第2级的所有模型中提取信息,产生了更“可辩护”的绩效指标,从每个输出中学习的潜力更大。第1级的模型结果是“符合目的”,第3级的模型结果是站得住脚的,第2级的模型结果介于两者之间。对于斑块状和浅层的研究区域,研究发现,较高层次的脆弱性图比较低层次的脆弱性图更具防御能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Water Science
Applied Water Science WATER RESOURCES-
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
268
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信