Comparative assessment of groundwater stress via footprint indices: Development of a revised framework with application to Yom and Nan basins, Thailand

Haseeb Akbar; Maarten S. Krol; Markus Berger; Jitti Mungkalasiri; Shabbir H. Gheewala

doi:10.1016/j.wse.2026.01.006

Volume 19 Issue 2

May 2026

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Water Science and Engineering > 2026 > 19(2): 161-171

Haseeb Akbar, Maarten S. Krol, Markus Berger, Jitti Mungkalasiri, Shabbir H. Gheewala. 2026: Comparative assessment of groundwater stress via footprint indices: Development of a revised framework with application to Yom and Nan basins, Thailand. Water Science and Engineering, 19(2): 161-171. doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2026.01.006

Citation:

Haseeb Akbar, Maarten S. Krol, Markus Berger, Jitti Mungkalasiri, Shabbir H. Gheewala. 2026: Comparative assessment of groundwater stress via footprint indices: Development of a revised framework with application to Yom and Nan basins, Thailand. Water Science and Engineering, 19(2): 161-171. doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2026.01.006

Citation:

Haseeb Akbar, Maarten S. Krol, Markus Berger, Jitti Mungkalasiri, Shabbir H. Gheewala. 2026: Comparative assessment of groundwater stress via footprint indices: Development of a revised framework with application to Yom and Nan basins, Thailand. Water Science and Engineering, 19(2): 161-171. doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2026.01.006

PDF( 0 KB)

Comparative assessment of groundwater stress via footprint indices: Development of a revised framework with application to Yom and Nan basins, Thailand

doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2026.01.006

a. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand;
b. Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10140, Thailand;
c. Multidisciplinary Water Management Group, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, PO Box 217, Enschede 7500 AE, the Netherlands;
d. Technology and Informatics Institute for Sustainability, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

Received Date: 2025-06-19
Accepted Date: 2026-01-11

Available Online: 2026-05-30

Abstract

Abstract

Groundwater resources are crucial sources of freshwater, underscoring the importance of comprehensive aquifer health assessment for improved management and sustainable utilization. In this study, a novel index for assessing groundwater stress, termed the revised groundwater footprint index, was developed. The new index was compared with earlier versions in a case study of the Yom and Nan river basins in Thailand. The primary strength of the new index lies in its capacity to reduce uncertainties in groundwater stress estimation by avoiding double-counting of contaminated areas, particularly in overlapping zones, and by addressing complexities associated with multiple pollutants. An earlier-version index, known as the integrated groundwater footprint index, calculated groundwater stress in the Yom and Nan river basins as 2.75 and 2.13, respectively, significantly exceeding the maximum permissible limit of 1. In contrast, the revised groundwater footprint index yielded much lower stress values of 0.69 and 0.63 in the Yom and Nan river basins, respectively, which more accurately reflected actual conditions. The novel index can serve as a valuable tool for enhanced assessment and management of groundwater resources, supporting progress toward United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6.4 (Water Stress).
- Groundwater stress,
- Groundwater footprint,
- Groundwater quality,
- Yom River Basin,
- Nan River Basin,
- Thailand

FullText(HTML)

References(46)

References

[1]	Akbar, H., Nilsalab, P., Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S.H., 2022. Comprehensive review of groundwater scarcity, stress and sustainability index-based assessment. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 18, 100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100782.
[2]	Alley, W.M., Clark, B.R., Ely, D.M., Faunt, C.C., 2018. Groundwater development stress: Global-scale indices compared to regional modeling. Groundwater 56(2), 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12578.
[3]	Bera, A., Mukhopadhyay, B.P., Chowdhury, P., Ghosh, A., Biswas, S., 2021. Groundwater vulnerability assessment using GIS-based DRASTIC model in Nangasai River Basin, India with special emphasis on agricultural contamination. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 214, 112085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112085.
[4]	Bera, A., Baranval, N.K., Kumar, R., Pal, S.K., 2024. Groundwater drought risk assessment in the semi-arid Kansai River Basin, West Bengal, India using SWAT and machine learning models. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26, 101254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101254.
[5]	Bera, A., Dutta, L., Pal, S.K., Kumar, R., Shukla, P.K., Alkhuraiji, W.S., Zhran, M., 2025. A hybrid approach for assessing aquifer health using the SWAT model, tree-based classification, and deep learning algorithms. Water 17(10), 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101546.
[6]	Bhakar, P., Singh, A.P., 2018. Groundwater quality assessment in a hyper-arid region of Rajasthan, India. Nat. Resour. Res. 28(2), 505-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-018-9405-4.
[7]	Chaiyat, N., Chaychana, C., Singharajwarapan, F.S., 2014. Geothermal energy potentials and technologies in Thailand. J. Fundam. Renew. Energy Appl. 4(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-4541.1000138.
[8]	Custodio, E., 1993. Hydrogeological and hydrochemical aspects of aquifer overexploitation. In: Selected Papers on Hydrogeology (Volume 3). Routledge, London, pp. 3-28.
[9]	Detla Thailand Group, 2018. The Rivers: Wikipedia Sourced Information Pack for Delta Thailand Group’s Major Operations Sites. Delta Electronics (Thailand) PCL, Bangkok. https://deltathailand.com/en/pdf/sustainable/SDSM/therivers.pdf.
[10]	Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F., Van Beek, L.P., 2012. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488(7410), 197-200. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11295.
[11]	Guzman, J.A., Moriasi, D.N., Gowda, P.H., Steiner, J.L., Starks, P.J., Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., 2015. A model integration framework for linking SWAT and MODFLOW. Environ. Model. Softw. 73, 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.011.
[12]	Ha, K., Ngoc, N.T.M., Lee, E., Jayakumar, R., 2015. Current Status and Issues of Groundwater in the Mekong River Basin. Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), CCOP Technical Secretariat, UNESCO Bangkok Office, Bangkok. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243616.
[13]	Hoekstra, A.Y., Hung, P.Q., 2002. Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of Virtual Water Flows between Nations in Relation to International Crop Trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11. UNESCO-IHE, Delft.
[14]	Hoekstra, A.Y., 2008. The water footprint of food. In: Forare, J. (Ed.), Water for Food. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Stockholm. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-WaterfootprintFood.pdf.
[15]	Hosseini, S.M., Parizi, E., Ataie-Ashtiani, B., Simmons, C.T., 2019. Assessment of sustainable groundwater resources management using integrated environmental index: Case studies across Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 676, 792-810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.257.
[16]	Jakeman, A.J., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R.J., Rinaudo, J.D., Ross, A., Arshad, M., Hamilton, S., 2016. Integrated groundwater management: An overview of concepts and challenges. In: Jakeman, A.J., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R.J., Rinaudo, J., Ross, A. (Eds.), Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges. Springer, Cham, pp. 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23576-9.
[17]	Karimi, D., Bahrami, J., Mobaraki, J., Missimer, T.M., Taheri, K., 2022. Groundwater sustainability assessment based on socio-economic and environmental variables: A simple dynamic indicator-based approach. Hydrogeol. J. 30(7), 1963-1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-022-02512-6.
[18]	Koontanakulvong, S., Suthidhummajit, C., 2015. The role of groundwater to mitigate the drought and as an adaptation to climate change in the Phitsanulok Irrigation Project, in the Nan Basin, Thailand. J. Teknol. (Sci. Eng.) 76(15), 89-95. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v76.5957.
[19]	Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., Dokou, Z., Kokorogiannis, A., 2018. Groundwater footprint methodology as policy tool for balancing water needs (agriculture & tourism) in water scarce islands-The case of Crete, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 381-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.308.
[20]	Mahdavi, T., 2021. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative sustainability of aquifers by groundwater footprint methodology: Case study: West Azerbaijan Province, Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 193(6), 368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09142-7.
[21]	Majidipour, F., Najafi, S.M.B., Taheri, K., Fathollahi, J., Missimer, T.M., 2021. Index-based groundwater sustainability assessment in the socio-economic context: A case study in the western Iran. Environ. Manage. 67(4), 648-666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01424-7.
[22]	Manivong, P., Bourgois, E., 2017. White Paper: Thai Sugarcane Sector and Sustainability. FairAgora. https://www.bonsucro.com/white-paperthai-sugarcane-industry-sustainability-released.
[23]	Margat, J., Van der Gun, J., 2013. Groundwater around the World: A Geographic Synopsis. CRC Press, Abingdon.
[24]	Mateo-Sagasta, J., Zadeh, S.M., Turral, H., Burke, J., 2017. Water Pollution from Agriculture: A Global Review. Executive Summary. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i7754e/i7754e.pdf.
[25]	Molina-Navarro, E., Bailey, R.T., Andersen, H.E., Thodsen, H., Nielsen, A., Park, S., Trolle, D., 2019. Comparison of abstraction scenarios simulated by SWAT and SWAT-MODFLOW. Hydrol. Sci. J. 64(4), 434-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1590583.
[26]	Nadee, S., Trelo-ges, V., Pavelic, P., Srisuk, K., 2012. Effect of water quality on infiltration rates from the ponding method of managed aquifer recharge: A case study from Ban Nong Na, Phitsanulok, Thailand. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 10(1), 68-77.
[27]	Nilsalab, P., Gheewala, S.H., Silalertruksa, T., 2017. Methodology development for including environmental water requirement in the water stress index considering the case of Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1002-1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.130.
[28]	Okoli, K., Mazzoleni, M., Breinl, K., Di Baldassarre, G., 2019. A systematic comparison of statistical and hydrological methods for design flood estimation. Hydrol. Res. 50(6), 1665-1678. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2019.188.
[29]	Olson, K.R., Kreznor, W., 2021. Managing the Chao Phraya River and Delta in Bangkok, Thailand: Flood control, navigation and land subsidence mitigation. Open J. Soil Sci. 11(4), 197-215. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2021.114011.
[30]	Petpongpan, C., Ekkawatpanit, C., Kositgittiwong, D., 2020. Climate change impact on surface water and groundwater recharge in northern Thailand. Water 12(4), 1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041029.
[31]	Petpongpan, C., Ekkawatpanit, C., Bailey, R.T., Kositgittiwong, D., 2021. Improving integrated surface water-groundwater modelling with groundwater extraction for water management. Hydrological Sciences Journal 66(10), 1513-1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1948549.
[32]	Pfister, S., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43(11), 4098-4104. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802423e.
[33]	Pratoomchai, W., Ekkawatpanit, C., Yoobanpot, N., Lee, K.T., 2022. A dilemma between flood and drought management: Case study of the Upper Chao Phraya flood-prone area in Thailand. Water 14(24), 4056. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14244056.
[34]	Richter, B.D., Davis, M.M., Apse, C., Konrad, C., 2012. A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res. Appl. 28(8), 1312-1321. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511.
[35]	Salim, N., Anziani-Vente, M., Madsen, D., Gourbesville, P., Antipolis, N.P., Gleick, P.H., Iceland, C., Shimabuku, M., Thulstrup, H.D., Grigg, N.S., et al., 2019. Water Security and the Sustainable Development Goals. UNESCO, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367904.locale=en.
[36]	Schulte, P., Morrison, J., 2014. Driving Harmonization of Water-Related Terminology. Pacific Institute, Oakland. https://ceowatermandate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/terminology.pdf.
[37]	Taheri, K., Missimer, T.M., Taheri, M., Moayedi, H., Mohseni Pour, F., 2020. Critical zone assessments of an alluvial aquifer system using the multi-influencing factor (MIF) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) models in western Iran. Nat. Resour. Res. 29(2), 1163-1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-019-09516-2.
[38]	UN, 2021. UN Summary Progress Update 2021: SDG 6-Water and Sanitation for All. UN-Water, Geneva. https://www.unwater.org/sites/default/files/app/uploads/2021/12/SDG-6-Summary-Progress-Update-2021_Version-July-2021a.pdf.
[39]	UN, 2023. Opening Headquarters Conference, World Leaders Stress Urgency of International Action to Protect Water as Basic Human Right, Common Denominator for Sustainable Development. UN, New York. https://press.un.org/en/2023/envdev2051.doc.htm.
[40]	UNESCO, 2017. Global Issues: Water. UNESCO, Paris. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/water.
[41]	UNESCO, 2022. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2022: Groundwater - Making the Invisible Visible; Executive Summary. UNESCO, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380721.
[42]	Wannasin, C., Brauer, C.C., Uijlenhoet, R., van Verseveld, W.J., Weerts, A.H., 2021. Daily flow simulation in Thailand Part I: Testing a distributed hydrological model with seamless parameter maps based on global data. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 34, 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100794.
[43]	World Bank, 2016. High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy. Executive Summary. World Bank, Washington DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5bf39931-836c-54da-953f-15d8330d87d3/content.
[44]	Yao, Y., Tian, Y., Andrews, C., Li, X., Zheng, Y., Zheng, C., 2018. Role of groundwater in the dryland ecohydrological system: A case study of the Heihe River Basin. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123(13), 6760-6776. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028432.
[45]	Yesilnacar, E., Topal, T.A.M.E.R., 2005. Landslide susceptibility mapping: A comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng. Geol. 79(3-4), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.02.002.
[46]	Zarei, B., Parizi, E., Hosseini, S.M., Ataie-Ashtiani, B., 2023. A multifaceted quantitative index for sustainability assessment of groundwater management: Application for aquifers around Iran. Groundwater International 47(3), 338-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2022.2036930.