Natural Resources Research, Vol. 16, No.

2, June 2007 (
2007)

DOI: 10.1007/s11053-007-9038-5

Development and Implementation of a Bayesian-based

Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida

Jonathan D. Arthur,1,4 H. Alex R. Wood,2 Alan E. Baker,2 James R. Cichon,2

and Gary L. Raines3

Received 15 February 2007; accepted 15 February 2007

Published online: 2 June 2007

The Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA) was designed to provide a tool for
environmental, regulatory, resource management, and planning professionals to facilitate
protection of groundwater resources from surface sources of contamination. The FAVA
project implements weights-of-evidence (WofE), a data-driven, Bayesian-probabilistic
model to generate a series of maps reflecting relative aquifer vulnerability of Floridas
principal aquifer systems. The vulnerability assessment process, from project design to map
implementation is described herein in reference to the Floridan aquifer system (FAS). The
WofE model calculates weighted relationships between hydrogeologic data layers that
influence aquifer vulnerability and ambient groundwater parameters in wells that reflect
relative degrees of vulnerability. Statewide model input data layers (evidential themes)
include soil hydraulic conductivity, density of karst features, thickness of aquifer confine-
ment, and hydraulic head difference between the FAS and the watertable. Wells with
median dissolved nitrogen concentrations exceeding statistically established thresholds serve
as training points in the WofE model. The resulting vulnerability map (response theme)
reflects classified posterior probabilities based on spatial relationships between the evidential
themes and training points. The response theme is subjected to extensive sensitivity and
validation testing. Among the model validation techniques is calculation of a response theme
based on a different water-quality indicator of relative recharge or vulnerability: dissolved
oxygen. Successful implementation of the FAVA maps was facilitated by the overall project
design, which included a needs assessment and iterative technical advisory committee input
and review. Ongoing programs to protect Floridas springsheds have led to development of
larger-scale WofE-based vulnerability assessments. Additional applications of the maps in-
clude land-use planning amendments and prioritization of land purchases to protect
groundwater resources.
KEY WORDS: Floridan, aquifer, vulnerability, Florida, Bayesian, weights-of-evidence (WofE).

INTRODUCTION
1
Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionFlorida Geo-
logical Survey, 903 W. Tennessee St., Tallahassee, FL 32312,
In many regions of the world, water-quality
USA. declines are the result of anthropogenic activities
2
Advanced Geospatial, Inc., 2441 Monticello Dr., Suite 600, Tal- that threaten groundwater sustainability. For more
lahassee, FL 32303, USA. than three decades, regulatory, growth-manage-
3
US Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Team, MS ment, and land-use planning agencies at all levels
176, c/o Mackay School of Mines University of Nevada at Reno,
Reno, NV 89557, USA.
of government have focused on groundwater pro-
4
To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail: jonathan. tection. These efforts have become more effective
arthur@dep.state.fl.us with improved characterization of the natural

93
1520-7439/07/0600-0093/0
2007 International Association for Mathematical Geology
94
hydrogeologic system and increased collaboration
between policy makers and geoscientists. Among
the scientific resources required in this process are
maps of aquifer vulnerability. Application of these
maps can minimize risk of groundwater contamina-
tion through the implementation of developmental
standards, of best management practices, restrictions
on high-impact land uses, and natural area conser-
vation programs and public education. To facilitate
lasting and practical groundwater resource protec-
tion, geoscientists are encouraged to work closely
with planning and regulatory officials while devel-
oping vulnerability assessment models, recognizing
that the assessment is not an end product, but Bureau (press release CB-05-52) projects that Flor-
rather a dynamic and crucial component of a larger
effort to enhance water-resource protection.
Using a Geographic Information System (GIS),
a relatively new application of a Bayesian probabi-
listic approach, weights-of-evidence (WofE; Raines,
Bonham-Carter, and Kemp, 2000), was imple-
mented to develop aquifer vulnerability assessments
in Florida. The modeling technique and results are
described herein as well as the overall aquifer
vulnerability assessment process from project design
to map implementation. Discussion of the model in
context of the overall project helps underscore
factors involved in successful implementation of the
assessment toward more effective water-resource
protection. The maps are intended to serve as sci-
entifically defensible planning and best manage-
ment practice tools to minimize adverse impacts on
groundwater quality.
Floridas Water Quality Challenge: Karstic Aquifers
and a Growing Population
Relative to most regions of the United States,
Floridas aquifers are among the most vulnerable to
surface sources of contamination (Berndt and oth-
ers, 1998). Florida is comprised of a Paleocene and
younger carbonate platform overlain by variably
permeable siliciclastic materials. The terrain is
characterized by paleoshoreline features, fluvial and
internally drained watersheds, karst topography and
rapid timescales of groundwater/surface-water ex-
change. Evidence of karst is widespread, including
more than 700 springs (Scott and others, 2004),
thousands of cave systems (Kincaid and others,
2004) and tens of thousands of sinkholes. Most sur-
face-water bodies in Florida receive groundwater
baseflow (Winter and others, 1998), which resides in
Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines
three principal aquifer systems: the surficial aquifer
system, the intermediate aquifer system or the Flo-
ridan aquifer system (FAS).
Aquifer protection in Florida is critically
important, resulting not only from the states vul-
nerable hydrogeologic setting, but also because
more than 90% of Floridas drinking water comes
from groundwater (Marella, 2004). In Florida, the
average person uses more than 140 gallons of
groundwater per day (Solley and others, 1998).
Floridas population exceeds 17.8 million (U.S.
Census, 2005), and increases an average of 1,060
people per day (Vogel, 2006). The U.S. Census
idas population will increase by 79.5% between 2000
and 2035. Moreover, according to Visit Florida
Research (2006), the state had more than 83 million
visitors in 2005.
While water-resource managers in Florida are
exploring alternative drinking-water supplies such as
desalination, reservoirs, and managed underground
storage, regulatory and planning agencies and elec-
ted officials have become increasingly aware of the
need to manage growth and land use to minimize
potential contamination of aquifers. A heightened
awareness with regard to increase in nutrients issu-
ing from Floridas springs (Florida Springs Task
Force, 2000; Scott, 2002) helped strengthen the link
between land-use planning and groundwater pro-
tection, especially in spring-recharge basins
(springsheds). For example, the following language
was adopted into Florida law in 2004: The Legis-
lature further finds that springs and groundwater
once damaged by overuse can be restored through
good stewardship, including effective planning
strategies and best management practices to pre-
serve and protect the spring and its springshed.
Prudent land use planning decisions can protect and
improve quality and quantity, as well as upland re-
sources of a springshed. Managing land use types
and their allowable densities and intensities of
development, followed by specific site planning to
further minimize impacts, rank as an important
goal (369.315 [2] Florida Statutes [F.S.]).
PREDICTING AQUIFER VULNERABILITY
In this paper, aquifer vulnerability is defined
as the tendency or likelihood for contaminants to
reach the top of a specified aquifer system after
introduction at land surface based on existing
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida
knowledge of natural hydrogeologic conditions
(modified from National Resource Council [NRC],
1993). An appropriate model on which the vulner-
ability assessment is based must be able to address
data gaps, variably resolved spatial data coverages
(i.e. resolutions that differ by orders of magnitude)
and the complex and dynamic nature of hydrogeo-
logic systems. Essential to the assessment are the
three laws of groundwater vulnerability: (1) all
groundwater is vulnerable, (2) uncertainty is inher-
ent in all vulnerability assessments, and (3) the
obvious may be obscured and the subtle indistin-
guishable (NRC, 1993).
DRASTIC ORIGINS
An early and significant groundwater protection
resource for environmental managers and planners
in the United States was DRASTIC, a methodology
designed to identify areas of relative vulnerability to
anthropogenic contamination based on hydrogeo-
logic characteristics (Aller and others, 1985). The
components of DRASTIC include: Depth-to-
watertable, net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil
media, Topography, Impact of the vadose zone, and
hydraulic Conductivity of the aquifer. Implementa-
tion of DRASTIC mapping has been useful and has
increased awareness with regard to aquifer protec-
tion; however, the modeling technique has several
shortcomings (Soller, 1992; Merchant, 1994; Ross
and others, 2004). In a coastal plain hydrogeologic
setting dominated by karst topography, results of
DRASTIC modeling overemphasize topography
and do not account for karst features, which are
significant contributors to aquifer vulnerability (e.g.,
Arthur and others, 2003; Beck and Jenkins, 1988;
COST Action 65, 1995; Doerfliger, Jeannin, and
Zwahlen, 1999). Sinkholes, for example, may func-
tion as unobstructed shortcuts that allow surface
contamination to enter an aquifer system.
MODEL TYPES
Models of aquifer vulnerability generally fall
into five broad categories: index, simulation, statis-
tical (i.e., probabilistic, experimental), empirical and
hybrid models (Bonham-Carter, 1994; Focazio and
others, 2002; NRC, 1993; Rupert, 1997, 1999). Index
models, such as DRASTIC combine spatial data
layers (i.e., maps reflecting different parameters) by
95
calculating a weighted score. Many variants of this
index method exist (e.g., Edet, 2004; Navulur, Engel,
and Mamillapalli, 1995; Rupert, 1997). Simulation
models consider the role of hydrologic and hydrog-
eologic processes such as transport and dispersion
(e.g., Connell and van den Dale, 2003; Huaming and
Wang, 2004; Stewart and Loague, 2003). Multivari-
ate, fuzzy logic, neural networks and probability
analyses are among the statistical group of models.
Nolan (2001), for example, applied logistic regres-
sion to U.S. Geological Survey National Water-
Quality Assessment data to assess aquifer suscepti-
bility to contamination. An R-mode factor analysis
was used by Lawrence and Upchurch (1982) to
associate water-quality analyses in terms of pro-
cesses affecting aquifer recharge, such as carbonate
dissolution, ion exchange in confining sediments,
and land use. Dixon and others (2001) are among
researchers applying a neural network approach to
predicting vulnerability with an emphasis on soil
structure. Witkowski and others (2003) applied a
hybrid approach by using MODFLOW calibration
parameters as input data for a DRASTIC-type index
model. An emerging statistical approach involves
application of Bayesian probability (Alberti and
others, 2001; Cichon and others, 2005; Masetti, Poli,
and Sterlacchini, 2005, 2007). Empirical models
focus on properties of geologic media comprising
the aquifer, such as sorption capacity (Bekesi
and McConchie, 2000) or grain size (Bekesi and
McConchie, 2002). The fifth model-type, hybrid, is
simply any combination of these other methods.
This cross section of studies underscores the diver-
sity of approaches available for aquifer vulnerability
assessments.
Although these types of models describe the
framework on which vulnerability assessments are
based, the manner in which input information is
considered falls into a different classification:
knowledge driven or data driven. Knowledge-driven
models (also known as expert models) rely on
expert scientific opinion, insight and perhaps anec-
dotal information. Data-driven models are based on
measured observations. DRASTIC, for example, is a
knowledge-driven index model.
METHODS
The Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment
(FAVA) project was designed to address the con-
cerns outlined here regarding the need for a more
96
advanced series of maps that reflect relative aquifer
vulnerability in Florida using a data-driven approach.
A more comprehensive understanding of the project
and implementation of the WofE-derived assessment
is facilitated by description of selected details,
including expert review during the project, assess-
ment of end-user needs and model selection criteria.
Throughout the development of the FAVA
project, a policy of adaptive management was
implemented. Part of this process involved the
assembly and collective input from a multiagency
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Project
TAC members participated through semiannual
workshops, provided technical review of interim
model outputs from pilot studies, and generally
served as a sounding board as the project pro-
gressed. The TAC members were points of contact
for agency resources (i.e., GIS coverages and raw
data). Expertise among TAC members included
water quality, hydrologic modeling, hydrogeology,
and land-use planning. Three members of the com-
mittee had first-hand experience in development of
the Florida DRASTIC model. As feedback from the
TAC was received, course corrections in the data taminant travel time to top of the aquifer system; (2)
development and project plans were made.
A Delphi study also was completed to reach
consensus among a subgroup of potential end-users
(land-use planners) regarding aspects of the overall
assessment (Ferguson, 2002). The study included a
comparison of relative anticipated benefits of the
project as compared to DRASTIC. Delphi-study
results included the development of a list of criteria
that potential end-users believed would maximize
usefulness of the assessment:
 Appropriate list of parameters
 Sensitivity of scale (e.g., GIS grid-cell size
adequate to represent karst)
 Address and reduce uncertainties
 Well-documented methodology
 Easy to upgrade given future data
 Easy to comprehend
 Clarity in presentation of results
 Use of existing data
In addition, the following model selection
criteria were identified by the TAC:
 Easy to explain
 Meet identified end-users needs
 GIS format (scaleable, updateable and
flexible)
Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines
 Scientifically defensible results
 Results can be validated by hydrochemistry
Model Selection
Several models were evaluated relative to the
above criteria as potential frameworks upon which
FAVA maps would be developed. There was con-
sensus among the investigators and the TAC that an
index model or a purely knowledge-driven model
would introduce relatively higher bias compared to a
data-driven (i.e., statistical or empirical) model.
Moreover, index models are difficult to evaluate in
terms of validation and co-dependent input data.
A pilot study was initiated to evaluate different
modeling techniques in three Florida counties with
diverse hydrogeologic settings (Baker and others,
2002). Three models were ultimately considered: (1)
a semi-empirical model applying composite vertical
hydraulic conductivity (Kv) and influence of proxi-
mal karst features to estimate conservative con-
a fuzzy-logic model utilizing expert knowledge; and
(3) WofE. Upon completion of vulnerability maps
for pilot study areas using all three methods, the
WofE model was determined to best fit the estab-
lished criteria. The fuzzy logic model is knowledge-
driven, rather than primarily data-driven, and did
not meet the easy to explain criterion. The
empirical model was excluded because of requisite
assumptions of vertical hydraulic conductivity for
large areas. Further details regarding the develop-
ment and assessment of these models is described in
Arthur and others (2007, in review). The aquifer
vulnerability assessment model applied in this study
is WofE, implemented in Arc Spatial Data Modeler
(ArcSDM; Kemp and others, 2001), an extension to
ESRIs ArcView (3.x). More recent versions of
ArcSDM (Sawatzky and others, 2004) have been
developed for ESRIs ArcGIS (8.x and 9.x).
Weights-of-Evidence (WofE) and Bayes Rule of
Probability
Use of the WofE modeling technique involves
the combination of diverse spatial data that are used
to describe and analyze interactions and generate
predictive models (Bonham-Carter, 1994; Raines,
Bonham-Carter, and Kemp, 2000). Weights-of-
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida
evidence is a data-driven model that utilizes known
occurrences as model training sites to create maps
from weighted input data layers and reduce some of
the inherent bias that can be associated with
knowledge-driven models. Masetti, Poli and Ster-
lacchini (2005) describe historical GIS application of
WofE for mineral-potential mapping, and note
that only recently has the model been applied
to aquifer vulnerability assessments. Weights-of-
evidence is based on Bayes Rule of Probability with
an assumption of conditional independence. The
model is implemented in a log-linear form so the
weights from the evidential themes can be added.
The model combines the weights of the predictor
variables from the input data to express a proba-
bility that a unit cell will contain a training point
(Bonham-Carter, 1994).
Components of a WofE Analysis
Delineation of a study area (i.e., aquifer system
areal extent) is the critical first step in implementing
a WofE-based aquifer vulnerability assessment be-
cause the identified area is used in the calculation of
weights and probabilities throughout the modeling
process. Water-quality data from wells serve as
model training points (known occurrences of aquifer
vulnerability) which are combined with spatial data
layers, or evidential themes, representing hydrogeo-
logic factors such as soil hydraulic conductivity,
karst features, thickness of confinement, etc. A prior
probability is calculated by dividing the number of
training points by the total study area, which is
characterized by unit cells of a predetermined size.
The prior probability represents the probability that
a training point will occupy any given unit area
within that study area, prior to the input of evidence.
Weights calculated in WofE establish spatial asso-
ciations between training points and evidential
themes. Following weights calculations, evidential
themes are generalized (as two or more classes) to
reveal the areas having relative degrees of spatial
association with training points. Upon completion of
the WofE analysis, the response theme output rep-
resents the spatial distribution of posterior proba-
bilities (i.e., probability that a unit area contains a
training point based on input evidential themes).
Higher posterior probability values indicate that an
area is more likely to contain a training point,
whereas lower posterior probability values indicate
that an area is less likely to contain a training point.
97
Bonham-Carter (1994) provides further details of
the WofE technique.
RESULTS
Although the FAVA project included vulnera-
bility assessments for Floridas three major aquifer
systems, this paper focuses on the FAS (Fig. 1) to
illustrate the major components of WofE modeling:
training points, evidential themes and the response
theme. Implementation of the assessment is de-
scribed in the Discussion. In the FAS WofE analysis,
the unit area was 1 km2 and the calculated prior
probability equaled 0.0013. The final response theme
grid cell size is 900 m2, which is dictated by the most
highly resolved evidential theme.
Training Points
In FAVA, training points are based on water-
quality analyses from wells that represent ambient
(background) groundwater quality conditions
throughout the study area. At the time the project
began, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) ambient groundwater monitor-
ing network provided the most comprehensive
dataset that had undergone significant quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC), including con-
sistent sampling and analytical protocols. Available
water-quality parameters that reflect some measure
of relative aquifer recharge (i.e., vulnerability) were
evaluated. Although dissolved oxygen and tritium
are useful parameters in this regard, dissolved
nitrogen is among the highest precision and most
widely available water-quality parameters in the
networks database. Naturally occurring nitrogen is
generally considered ubiquitous at land surface;
further, relatively low dissolved nitrogen concen-
trations occur in well-protected (i.e., effectively
confined or less vulnerable) aquifer systems. As
such, dissolved nitrogen in ambient groundwater is a
good indicator of relative recharge or vulnerability
(Navulur, Engel, and Mamillapalli, 1995).
A training point set of dissolved nitrogen con-
centrations was derived from more than 780 wells in
the ambient network. Median dissolved nitrogen
concentrations were calculated to represent each
training point (monitor-well location) in the model.
An upper fence statistical analysis justified re-
moval of 152 outlier median values, which likely
98
Figure 1. Floridan aquifer system (FAS) WofE study area.
represented non-ambient conditions (i.e., anthropo-
genic sources). The dissolved nitrogen concentration
at the 75th percentile of the distribution (0.036 mg/
L) represents the threshold above which median
concentrations are considered to reflect aquifer
vulnerability. A final data set of 148 wells (median
concentrations within the upper 25th percentile)
comprise the training points for the FAS WofE
model.
Model Evidence
Several evidential themes were considered
during iterative runs of the WofE model, including
surface geology, soil drainage, soil hydraulic con-
ductivity, aquifer head difference, vadose zone
lithology, aquifer confinement thickness, karst fea-
ture density, and other relevant spatial data sets. In
the final analysis, evidential themes representing soil
hydraulic conductivity, karst features, thickness of
aquifer confinement, and hydraulic head difference
between watertable and potentiometric surface were
Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines
used as input in the FAS FAVA model. These
coverages provided a minimal degree of overlapping
information (i.e., conditional independence; see also
Discussion). Details regarding development of these
statewide coverages (i.e., well data analyses, polygon
attribution, surface kriging, watertable linear
regression, etc.) are described in Arthur and others
(2007, in review).
Development and QA/QC of these statewide
spatial coverages, along with the development of a
statewide 15-m digital elevation model (DEM), ab-
sorbed a majority of financial resources available for
this project. Although not an evidential theme, the
DEM was of critical importance as it was utilized to
calculate statewide depth to water, confinement
thickness and identify closed topographic depres-
sions. The latter coverage was refined significantly to
serve as a proxy for karst feature density. Data used
for development of evidential themes have English
and metric units, depending on the data type. The
DEM, for example, is in meters whereas confine-
ment thickness is in feet. Although mixed units
are included in this report, the GIS platform and
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida
ArcSDM are transparent to these variables, thus no
need exists for standardization.
Soil hydraulic conductivity is a measure of the
rate at which water travels through the soil horizon
(Fig. 2A). Areas with high soil hydraulic conduc-
tivity are normally associated with higher aquifer
vulnerability. The WofE analysis indicated that the
highest and most significant contrast in hydraulic
conductivity occurs at 19.7 inches/hour, indicating
that a binary classification using this value best re-
flects the spatial relation between this parameter and
training points (Fig. 2B). Areas underlain by soil
hydraulic conductivity ranging from 0.1 to 19.7 in/hr
are associated with areas of lower vulnerability
based on the location of training points, whereas
areas underlain by soil hydraulic conductivity
exceeding 19.7 in/hr are associated with areas of
higher vulnerability.
Areas in close proximity to a closed topo-
graphic depression (Fig. 2C), a proxy for karst-fea-
ture density, (or effective karst, Arthur and others,
2006, 2007) are associated with higher aquifer vul-
nerability, as these features tend to provide prefer-
50 25 0
50 25 0
Soil Hydraulic Conductivity
(in/hr)
20.0
0.1
STATSGO data used
A B
Closed Topographic
Depressions
C D
Figure 2. Evidential themes and their generalizations based on WofE weights analysis: A, soil hydraulic conduc-
tivity; B, binary classification of soil hydraulic conductivity; C, closed topographic depressions; D, binary classifi-
cation of karst-feature density.
99
ential pathways for infiltration of contaminants to an
aquifer system from land surface. The WofE analysis
indicated that a binary classification was justified.
Based on the location of training points relative to
the closed topographic depressions, areas greater
than 3,420 m from effective karst are associated
with areas of lower vulnerability (Fig. 2D). Areas
located within 3,420 m of a karst feature are
associated with high vulnerability.
In Florida, aquifer confinement overlying the
FAS occurs in the form of the Intermediate Aquifer
System/Intermediate Confining Unit (Southeastern
Geological Society, 1986). This confinement
(Fig. 2E) reduces flow of groundwater where it is
thick and laterally continuous between the overlying
aquifer (or land surface) and the FAS. Areas
underlain by relatively thin to absent confining
sediments are associated with higher aquifer vul-
nerability. The results of the WofE analysis for this
evidential theme justified delineation of a multi-class
theme (Fig. 2F): (1) areas underlain by greater than
451 feet of confinement; (2) areas underlain by be-
tween 160 and 451 feet of confinement; and (3) areas
50
Miles
50
Kilometers
Soil Hydraulic Conductivity
(in/hr)
19.7 - 20.0
0.1 - 19.7
Karst Features (meters)
0 - 3,420
> 3,420
100 Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines

50 25 0 50
Miles
50 25 0 50
Kilometers
Confinement Thickness (ft)
1 -100
701 - 800
101 - 200 Confinement Thickness (ft)
801 - 900
201 - 300
901 - 1,000 (feet)
301 - 400
1,001 - 1,100 0 - 160
401 - 500
1,101 - 1,200 160 - 451
501 - 600
601 - 700 1,201 - 1,226 >451
Area outside of IAS extent; subject to
local and variable confining conditions

E F

Water Table - FAS Head Difference

(feet)
-89 - -50 46 - 60 Head Difference (feet)
-49 - -30 61 - 80
-8 to 224
-29 - -20 81 - 100
-19 - 0 101 - 120 -89 to -8
0 - 20 121 - 140
21 - 30 141 - 175
31 - 45 176 - 224

G H

Figure 2 (continued). Evidential themes and their generalizations based on WofE weights analysis: E, aquifer
confinement thickness; F, multi-class confinement thickness; G, hydraulic head difference between watertable
and the FAS potentiometric surface; negative values indicate areas where FAS potentiometric surface exceeds
watertable elevation; and H, binary classification of hydraulic head difference.

underlain by less than 160 feet of confinement, the
latter class being associated with more vulnerable
areas.
Areas where the calculated watertable eleva-
tion exceeds the FAS potentiometric surface
(Fig. 2G; hydraulic head difference) indicate the
potential for increased downward recharge to the
FAS, which is associated generally with higher
aquifer vulnerability. The WofE analysis supported
a binary classification for this evidential theme
(Fig. 2H), where a hydraulic head difference greater
than ) 8 ft is associated with areas of higher vul-
nerability.
Response Theme
After numerous iterations of the WofE model
were completed to optimize selection and general-
ization of evidential themes and response-theme
confidence, the final response theme was generated.
As noted, the response theme reflects the probabil-
ity that a unit area contains a training point based on
the spatial relationships between the evidential
theme classifications and the training points, which
are reflected in the calculated weights (Wl, W2, and
W3; Table 1). Aquifer confinement thickness has
three weights because it was a multiclass theme
(n = 3), whereas the other evidential themes were
binary classifications. The larger absolute values of
the negative weights (W2 and W3 for confinement
thickness and W2 for other evidential themes)
indicate that the response theme is a better predictor
of where training points are not likely to occur. In
other words, the FAS response theme more strongly
predicts where the FAS is less vulnerable to con-
tamination rather than where it is more vulnerable
to contamination. Contrast (Table 1) is a measure of
correlation of each evidential themes relative
importance with respect to the model output (i.e.,
strength in predicting locations of training points).
The highest contrast value corresponds to aquifer
confinement, meaning this evidence shares the
greatest association with the training points and was
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida 101

Table 1. Weights-of-Evidence Output Parameters

Evidential Theme W1 W2 W3 Contrast Condence

Aquifer Confinement 0.4127 ) 1.7500 ) 2.7121 3.1248 3.1136

Karst-Feature Density 0.4794 ) 1.1573 1.6367 7.0812
Hydraulic Head Difference 0.2736 ) 1.5470 1.8206 5.2923
Soil Hydraulic Conductivity 0.7336 ) 0.0529 0.7865 2.7967

therefore the primary determinant in predicting
areas of relative vulnerability. Soil hydraulic con-
ductivity had the least influence on the model out-
put. Confidence provides a useful measure of
significance of the contrast because of the uncer-
tainties of the weights and areas of possible missing
data (Raines, 1999). All confidence values in Table 1
exceed approximately a 99.5% level of significance
based on Student t-test values.
Figure 3 reveals step-wise increases in posterior
probability when compared with increasing cumu-
lative area. Based on input from the TAC, potential
end-users and assessment of Figure 3, posterior
probabilities reflected in the FAS response theme
were generalized into three classes (Figs. 3 and 4A).
Although additional classes could have been se-
lected, too many or too few classes of vulnerability
may be difficult for the end user to interpret or
implement. Higher posterior probabilities indicate
that an area is more likely to be vulnerable to con-
tamination. The highest posterior probability class
generally corresponds with areas of thinner confin-
0.01000
ing sediments, dense closed topographic depression
distribution, positive hydraulic head difference, and,
to a lesser degree, high soil hydraulic conductivity.
The overall test of conditional independence
(CI) of the WofE analysis equals 0.64, which falls
outside of the ideal range (1.0 0.15). Expert
knowledge, including TAC input, supports the con-
clusion that evidential themes do not provide sig-
nificantly redundant information. In such situations,
application of logistic regression is appropriate to
address inflated posterior probabilities associated
with non-ideal conditional independence (Agterberg
and others, 1993). Nearly identical response themes
from WofE analyses with and without the logistic
regression option also support the application of this
technique.
Sensitivity and Validation
Among the many strengths of the WofE tech-
nique is self-validation, which results from use of the

More Vulnerable

0.0013
Posterior Probability

0.00100
Vulnerable

0.00029

0.00010

Less Vulnerable

0.00001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cumulative Area (%)

Figure 3. Vulnerability of contamination class breaks, represented by dashed lines, are

based on prior probability (0.00130) and occurrence of significant increase in probability
relative to cumulative area.
102 Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines

Relative Vulnerability
Confidence
More Vulnerable
< 95%
Vulnerable
95% - 99%
Less Vulnerable > 99%
Surface Water Bodies

A B
N

50 25 0 50 Miles

50 25 0 50 Kilometers

Relative Vulnerability Relative Vulnerability

More Vulnerable More Vulnerable
Vulnerable Vulnerable
Less Vulnerable Less Vulnerable
Surface Water Bodies Surface Water Bodies

C D

Figure 4. A, Three-class relative vulnerability of FAS based on posterior probability values (dissolved nitrogen); B,
confidence map based on results in A; C, response theme sensitivity based on random 75% subset of original training points
(dissolved nitrogen); and D, response theme validation applying dissolved oxygen training points.

training point data set. Of the 148 training points,
the location of 121 (82%) were correctly predicted
by the analysis (i.e., the points occur in areas where
the posterior probability exceeds the prior proba-
bility). Additional assessment of model output,
however, is necessary to improve defensibility of the
results and facilitate implementation. For the FAS
response theme in the FAVA project, this includes:
(1) comparison of land use with posterior probability
to assess potential bias; (2) a calculated confidence
map; (3) use of a random 75% subset of training
points; (4) comparison of dissolved nitrogen values
with posterior probability; (5) comparison with a
response theme based on a different training point
set (dissolved oxygen); and (6) technical review by
the TAC (see Methods) and scrutiny through
numerous professional presentation venues. With
regard to item (l) a qualitative, non-statistical com-
parison of land use relative to posterior probability
demonstrated lack of a notable relationship. Only
one land-use classification, upland forests, slightly
exceeded the prior probability by 0.0001. The con-
fidence map (Fig. 4B) corresponding to the FAS
response theme, and generated for item (2), indi-
cates that more than 80% of the study area exceeds
95% confidence as calculated by the WofE analysis.
In addition to the iterative WofE analyses that
helped identify the most appropriate evidential
themes, sensitivity analysis of the final response
theme was accomplished by using a random 75%
subset of the original training points in an otherwise
identical WofE analysis. The resulting response
theme (Fig. 4C) was compared to the original FAS
response theme using spatial statistics. Assessment
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida
Figure 5. Relation between three-class relative vulnerability (as posterior prob-
ability) and dissolved nitrogen in FAS (R2 = 0.9346).
of the two responses yielded a kappa correlation
coefficient of 0.84 (1.00 equals perfect correlation),
indicating almost perfect agreement (Landis and
Koch, 1977). An area-weighted Spearmans Rank
correlation coefficient for the original FAS response
theme and the random subset response theme equals
0.985, which is significant at a 99% confidence level.
A useful validation tool involves assessment of
dissolved nitrogen relative to posterior probabilities
in the three-class response theme. As expected,
increasing posterior probabilities (e.g., increased
relative vulnerability) correspond with increasing
concentrations of dissolved nitrogen in ambient
groundwater of the FAS (Fig. 5). Aside from this
technique and critical review the results by the TAC,
perhaps the most convincing validation of the
assessment is comparison of the FAS response
theme with that of an independent water-quality
parameter indicative of recharge or vulnerability:
dissolved oxygen (Fig. 4D). Almost perfect agree-
ment (Landis and Koch, 1977) exists between the
two response themes based on calculation of the
kappa coefficient (0.811). A 99% level of confidence
exists based on an area-weighted Spearmans Rank
correlation coefficient (0.997) for the FAS response
theme and the dissolved oxygen response theme.
DISCUSSION
Aquifer vulnerability assessments have a broad
application potential. With this benefit comes the
103
potential for misapplication and misinterpretation
because many end-users do not have scientific, or
more specifically, geoscience backgrounds. The FAS
vulnerability assessment, although strengthened by
various sensitivity and validation methods, has cer-
tain limitations and associated caveats about which
the end-users must be informed. Fundamental
among these issues are:
 Results of the assessment reflect a snapshot
of relative vulnerability of the aquifer system
using best available data at the time during
which the model was completed in March,
2005.
 Strictly speaking, because of the nature of the
WofE methodology, the response theme is a
map of relative vulnerability of the FAS to
dissolved nitrogen; contaminant-specific
maps can be generated, which may yield
widely differing results.
 The conceptual model is based on infiltra-
tion of a conservative contaminant from
land surface to the top of the FAS, given
hydrogeological characteristics of the natu-
ral system. As a result, if groundwater
contamination risk is the ultimate goal,
additional factors such as loading/discharge,
groundwater flow gradients, transport,
dilution, chemical transformation of con-
taminants (i.e., volatilization, denitrification,
etc.) also should be taken into consider-
ation.
104
 The assessment does not apply to surface-
water bodies including groundwater dis-
charge areas, such as seeps or springs.
 The response theme is as accurate as the most
detailed evidential theme and as inaccurate
as the least detailed evidential theme. As
discussed next, an appropriate scale at which
to apply the maps is approximately 1:110,000.
 Results of the assessment are not intended to
replace site-specific investigations of aquifer
vulnerability.
 Disturbed lands (e.g., mined areas), closed
basins that encompass recharge wells, re-
cently formed sinkholes, and regions of sig-
nificant potentiometric-surface depression
because of historic groundwater mining are
among the factors that may result in under-
prediction of relative vulnerability.
 The model results reflect vulnerability of the
natural system (i.e., intrinsic vulnerability)
and do not account for human activities. For
example, the presence of a leaky under-
ground storage tank, or contaminant plume
does not, by definition, affect the vulnerabil-
ity of the aquifer system, although their
occurrence has the potential to impact the
quality of groundwater. The results of the
analysis can be overlain with known contam-
inated sites in a susceptibility analysis to
visualize which of these sites occurs in more
vulnerable areas and therefore have a greater
potential to impact groundwater.
Based on the premise that all aquifers are vul-
nerable to contamination (NRC, 1993), the three
classes reflected in FAS response theme (Fig. 4A)
are labeled less vulnerable, vulnerable, and more
vulnerable, the latter corresponding to higher pos-
terior probabilities. No classification exists stating
that the FAS is not vulnerable. Moreover, the des-
ignations emphasize that the map shows relative
degrees of vulnerability, which are supported by
Table 2. Approximation of Appropriate Applied Scale for the Response Theme
Evident Theme Applied Scale*
Aquifer Confinement 1:150K
Karst-Feature Density 1:24K
Hydraulic Head Difference 1:150K
Soil Hydraulic Conductivity 1:20K
Estimated applied scale
*Subjective.
Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines
quantitative probabilities. In a more conservative
sense, the maps reflect favorability with regard to
hydrogeologic conditions that are conductive to in-
creased aquifer vulnerability.
The question of an appropriate scale in which to
apply the assessment results often arises. Given that
the response theme is a GIS coverage with a small
cell size, there may be a tendency for the end-user to
make decisions at this large scale. Contrast values
for each evidential theme can be used to estimate an
appropriate applied scale for the vulnerability map.
Normalized contrast values provide scaled weights
for each theme. These weights can be multiplied by
published or applied (i.e., approximate) scales for
each evidential theme. The weighted (re-scaled)
map scales can then be summed (Table 2). This
qualitative approach suggests that application of the
FAS FAVA map is appropriate at a scale of
1:110,000. Examples of land-use planning activities
at this scale include determination of potential sites
for landfills, pipelines and residential areas using
septic systems.
Another aspect of scale is the study area, which
is important with regard to resolution of the re-
sponse theme. Several advantages exist with regard
to larger scale aquifer vulnerability assessments as
compared to the statewide assessment developed in
the FAVA project. Evidential themes are likely to
be of higher resolution as the study area is reduced.
For example, the DEM on which spatial evidence
may be based can take advantage of light detection
and ranging (LIDAR) data as opposed to a coarser
DEM. Arthur and others (2007) provide a compar-
ison of closed topographic depressions based on 7.5-
minute quadrangle maps versus LIDAR coverage to
emphasize the opportunity for significant data
refinement. Moreover, assessment of karst-related
features in large-scale studies can be field-validated
and classified with respect to depression type (i.e.,
water-filled sinkhole, karst windows, cover-collapse
sinkholes, etc.). Other data sets that may only be
available at the subregional scale include lineaments
Contrast Normalized contrast Contributing scale factor
3.12 0.42 63,000
1.64 0.22 5,300
1.82 0.25 37,500
0.79 0.11 2,200
1:110,000
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida
and cave (dry and saturated) maps. Training-point
data also may exhibit greater spatial density and
contain more constituents. In such situations, the
training data set may be expanded further or refined
to include temporal changes in water quality or al-
low use of more ideal parameters such as tritium.
Minimal refinements in evidential theme resolution,
when applied in larger scale WofE study areas, can
yield a more highly resolved response theme (Ci-
chon and others, 2005).
The WofE methodology as applied to aquifer
vulnerability provides a highly adaptable, scalable,
and useful tool for refinement of ongoing ground-
water resource protection programs. Because the
assessments are based on snapshots of best available
data, the results are static representations and
should be updated periodically as new or more re-
fined data becomes available. New or refined evi-
dential hydrogeological data may reveal more
complex or highly resolved patterns of vulnerability.
IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION
Although several geoscientists recognize the
inherent vulnerability of aquifers as well as the
concepts of model uncertainty and aquifer hetero-
geneity, many end-users of the assessment may have
a tendency to seek black and white solutions or decision matrix to identify priority areas for pur-
apply the vulnerability maps at scales larger than
scientifically defensible. This inclination may be
driven by program needs or may be related to mis-
conceptions about resolution of the assessment.
Successful implementation of vulnerability assess-
ments requires education, which should be viewed as
a process rather than an event. Opportunities for
education of end-users can be sought through
interaction with planning and regulatory agencies
and professional associations in disciplines of envi-
ronmental health, drinking water, groundwater,
land-use planning, growth management, agriculture
and natural resource conservation, management,
and protection. Key elements of the education pro-
cess include workshops, presentations and written
materials that minimize technical jargon while
explaining fundamental pre-requisite concepts
such as map scale and resolution, principals of
hydrogeology and modeling. Once this foundation
of knowledge is conveyed, advanced concepts such
as description of the specific modeling technique,
scientific defensibility of the assessment, and
appropriate application of the assessment are more
105
likely to be fully understood. Successful implemen-
tation also is significantly enhanced through inter-
action with forward-thinking decision makers who
are open to adaptive management.
Design and completion of the FAVA project
facilitated implementation within various local and
state programs in part because of the membership
and role of the TAC. The Florida Department of
Community Affairs (FDCA), an agency represented
on the TAC, administers Floridas growth-manage-
ment program and statewide land-use planning
activities. The FDCA developed a guideline docu-
ment in partnership with the FDEP: Protecting
Floridas Springs: Land Use Planning Strategies and
Best Management Practices (FDCA and others,
2002). The FAVA project is referenced therein as a
resource in development of springs protection plans.
Water quality concerns regarding Wekiva Springs
(near Orlando, Florida) provide a more specific
example of FAVA implementation. At the request
of the FDEP, the FAVAWofE methodology was
applied to produce an aquifer vulnerability assess-
ment of the Wekiva area (Cichon and others, 2005).
In 2006, the FDEP incorporated the Wekiva
assessment results in a rule outlining waste-water
management requirements in the area.
Additional applications include use of the
FAVA maps to rank aquifer recharge as part of a
chase under the states land conservation program
Florida Forever (Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
2006). In addition, the FDEP applies FAVA maps
during source-water assessments (e.g., municipal
well-head protection) and review of land-use
amendments in the context of groundwater protec-
tion. The FAVA maps are being applied similarly by
the Florida Department of Health to identifying
priority areas of concern for potable-well contami-
nation by point and nonpoint nitrate contamination
sources. That department is considering use of the
vulnerability assessments to guide requisite levels of
sewage treatment and sewage disposal activities.
Results of the FAVA project can be applied as
a surrogate for aquifer recharge, a concept that has a
strong presence in Florida law, for example:
 Chapter 373.0395 F.S groundwater recharge
areas
 Chapter 163.3177(6)(c) F.S. Comprehensive
planshigh recharge areas
 Chapter 369.315 (2) F.S.pertaining to
groundwater and springshed protection.
106
Related federal-level references include the
Environmental Protection Agency Source Water
Assessment and Protection program and the Safe
Water Drinking Act, both of which prescribe aquifer
protection.
Aquifer vulnerability maps also may be applied
in environmental risk assessments. Murray and
Rogers (1999), for example note that groundwater
vulnerability mapping provides a starting point for
quantifying anticipated environmental risk at a
particular site and can help identify those sites that
merit additional information. In lieu of specific site
information, this can serve as a proxy for anticipated
future clean-up costs. Additionally, this method can
be used by other stakeholders in the recycling of
industrial sites (a.k.a. brownfield redevelopment) to
estimate the anticipated liability of sites (Stiber,
Small, and Fischbeck, 1998).
Several Florida county government agencies are
preparing to initiate FAVA-WofE based on projects
to support local land-use planning and groundwater
protection programs. Some of these projects are
underway. Integration of the FAVA maps may oc-
cur in activities such as well-head protection, delin-
eation of animal carcass disposal sites, the design of
groundwater monitoring plans and public education
to promote stewardship of groundwater resources.
Moreover, WofE model outputs can produce con-
taminant-specific vulnerability maps, and may be
coupled with groundwater flow models (i.e.,
groundwater susceptibility models), which would
provide an even more powerful tool for aquifer
protection.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful for the constructive
comments by reviewers of this paper: Richard
Deadman, Florida Department of Community Af-
fairs, Tim Hazlett, Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc., and Sam
Upchurch, SDII Global, Inc. We are also thankful
for invaluable input by the FAVA TAC, members of
which are listed in Arthur and others (2007). Sug-
gestions by Marco Masetti, Department of Earth
Sciences, University of Milan, Italy also were help-
ful. Financial support for this project was provided
by the Division of Water Resource Management,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
which administered funds originating from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program.
Arthur, Wood, Baker, Cichon, and Raines
REFERENCES
Agterberg, F. P., Bonham-Carter, G. F., Cheng, Q., and Wright,
D. F., 1993. Weights of evidence modeling and weighted lo-
gistic regression for mineral potential mapping. in Davis, J.
C., and Herzfeld, U. C., eds., Computers in Geology, 25 years
of Progress: Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, p. 1332.
Alberti, L., De Amicis, M., Masetti, M., and Sterlacchini, S., 2001,
Bayes rules and GIS for evaluating sensitivity of ground-
water to contamination: Proc. Intern. IAMG Conference
2001-Cancun, Mexico, unpaginated.
Aller, L., Bennett, T., Lehr, J. H., and Petty, R. J., 1985,
DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluation of
ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic set-
tings: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/2-
85/018, 63 p.
Arthur, J. D., Cichon, J. R., Baker, A. E., Wood, H. A. R., and
Rudin, A., 2003, The Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assess-
ment (FAVA) model: A tool for aquifer protection in karst
settings (abst.): The 16th National Cave and Karst Manage-
ment Symposium; http://www.nckms.com/abstracts.htm, last
accessed 10 August 2006.
Arthur J. D., Baker A. E., Cichon J. R., Wood H. A. R., and
Rudin A., 2007, Florida, Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment
(FAVA): Contamination potential of Floridas principal
aquifer systems: Florida Geol. Survey Bull. 67, in review.
Baker, A. E., Cichon, J. R., Arthur, J. D., and Raines, G. L., 2002,
Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA) (abst.):
Geol. Soc. America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, no. 6,
p. 346.
Beck, B. F., and Jenkins, D. T., 1988, Potential for groundwater
pollution of the Floridan aquifer, based upon surficial
drainage, karst development, and, overburden characteristics:
Florida Sinkhole Research Institute, Univ. Central Florida,
Map Series 87-88-1, scale 1:250,000, 15 sheets.
Bekesi, G., and McConchie, J., 2000, Empirical assessment of the
influence of the unsaturated zone of aquifer vulnerability,
Manawatu region, New Zealand: Ground Water, v. 38, no. 2,
p. 193199.
Bekesi, G., and McConchie, J. A., 2002, The use of aquifer media
characteristics to model vulnerability to contamination,
Manawatu region, New Zealand: Hydrogeology Jour., v. 10,
p. 322331.
Berndt M. P., Oaksford, E. T., Mahon, G. L., and Schmidt, W.,
1998, Groundwater, in Fernald, E. A., and Purdum, E. D.,
eds., Water Resources Atlas of Florida: Florida State Univ.,
Inst. Public Affairs, 312 p.
Bonham-Carter, G. F., 1994, Geographic Information Systems for
geoscientists, modeling with GIS: Pergamon Press, Oxford,
398 p.
Cichon J. R., Baker A. E., Wood H. A. R., and Arthur J. D., 2005,
Wekiva aquifer vulnerability assessment. Florida Geol. Sur-
vey Rept. Invest. No.104, 36 p.
Connell, L. D., and van den Daele, G., 2003, A quantitative
approach to aquifer vulnerability mapping: Jour. Hydrology,
v. 276, no. 14, p. 7188.
COST Action 65, 1995, Hydrogeological aaects of groundwater
protection in karstic areas final report: European Com-
mission, Rept. EUR 16574 EN, Directorat-General: Science,
Research and Development, Brussel, Luxemburg, 446 p.
Dixon, B., Scott, H. D., Brahana, J. V., Mauromoustakos, A., and
Dixon, J. C, 2001, Application of neuro-fuzzy techniques to
predict ground water vulnerability in northwest Arkansas:
Arkansas Water Resource Center, Univ. Arkansas, Publ. No.
PUB-183, 64 p.
Doerfliger, N., Jeannin, P. -Y., and Zwahlen, F., 1999, Water
vulnerability assessment in karst environments: A new
method of defining protections areas using a multi-attribute
A Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida
approach and GIS tools (EPIK method): Environmental
Geology, v. 39, no. 2, p. 165176.
Edet, A. E., 2004, Vulnerability evaluation of a coastal plain sand
aquifer with a case example from Calabar, southeastern
Nigeria: Environmental Geology, v. 45, no. 8, p. 10621070.
Ferguson, S., 2002, DRASTIC vs FAVAA comparison of two
available methodologies for aquifer protection in Florida: A
case study in Orange County: unpubl. research paper, Florida
State Univ., 67 p.
Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA), Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and 1000 Friends
of Florida, 2002, Protecting Floridas springs land-use
planning and best management practices, 124 p., http://
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/publications/springsmanual.pdf,
last accessed 24, September 2006.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2006, Florida Forever Conser-
vation Needs Assesment Tech. Rept., Version 2.1, 116 p.,
http://www.fnai.org/PDF/FF_CAN_technical_report.pdf, last
accessed 5, October 2006.
Florida Springs Task Force, 2000, Floridas Springs, in Harnett, F.
M., ed., Strategies for Protection & Restoration, 59 p. http://
www.dep.state,fl.us/springs/reports/FloridaSpringsReport.pdf
last accessed 10, September 2006.
Focazio, M. J., Reilly, T. E., Rupert, M. G., and Helsel, D. R.,
2002, Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination:
Providing scientifically defensible Information for decision
makers: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ., v. 1224, p. 33.
Huaming, G., and Wang, Y., 2004, Specific vulnerability assess-
ment using the MLPI model in Datong city, Shanzi province,
China: Environmental Geology, v. 45, no. 3, p. 401407.
Kemp, L. D., Bonham-Carter, G. F., Raines, G. L., and Looney,
C. G., 2001, Arc-SDM: Arcview extension for spatial data
modeling using weights of evidence, logistic regression, fuzzy
logic and neural network analysis, http://www.ige.unicamp.br/
sdm/defaultSDM e.htm, last accessed 4, October 2006.
Kincaid, T. R., Denizman, C., Arthur, J. D., and Hazlett, T., 2004,
The Florida cave database: A GIS of underwater caves for
hydrogeological characterizations (abst.): Geol. Soc. America
Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 2, p. 85.
Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G., 1977, The measurement of
observer agreement for categorical data: Biometrics, v. 33,
p. 159174.
Lawrence, F. W., and Upchurch, S. B., 1982, Identification of
recharge areas using factor analysis: Groundwater, v. 20, no.
6, p. 680687.
Marella R. L., 2004, Water withdrawals, use discharge, and trends
in Florida, 2000: U.S. Geol. Survey Scientific Invest. Rept.,
v. 20045151, 50 p.
Masetti, M., Poli, S., and Sterlacchini, S., 2005, Aquifer vulnera-
bility assessment using weights of evidence modeling tech-
nique: Application to the province of Milan, northern Italy:
Proc. IAMG05. GIS and Spatial Analysis, v. 1, p. 499504.
Masetti, M., Poli, S., and Sterlacchini, S., 2007, The use of the
weights-of-evidence modeling technique to estimate the
vulnerability of groundwater to nitrate contamination: Nat-
ural Resources Research, v.16, no.2, this issue, doi: 10.1007/
s11053-007-9045-6.
Merchant, J. W., 1994, GIS-based groundwater pollution hazard
assessment; a critical review of the DRASTIC model: Pho-
togrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 60, no. 9,
p. 11171127.
Murray, K. S., and Rogers, D. T., 1999, Groundwater vulnerability,
Brownfield Redevelopment and Land Use Planning: Jour.
Environmental Planning and Management, v. 42, p. 801810.
National Research Council (NRC) 1993, Ground water vulnera-
bility assessment: Predicting relative contamination potential
under conditions of uncertainty: National Acad. Press,
Washington, 204 p.
107
Navulur, K. C. S., Engel, B. A., and Mamillapalli, S., 1995,
Groundwater vulnerability evaluation to nitrate pollution on
a regional scale using GIS, in Applications of GIS to the
Modeling of Non-Point Source Pollutants in the Vadose
Zone, SSSA Spec. Publ. No. 48, ASA-CSSA-SSSA Bou-
youcos Conference (Mission Inn, Riverside, CA) 20 p.
Nolan, B. T., 2001, Relating nitrogen sources and aquifer sus-
ceptibility to nitrate in shallow ground waters of the United
States: Ground Water, v. 39, no. 2, p. 290299.
Raines, G. L., 1999, Evaluation of weights of evidence to predict
epithermal-gold deposits in the great basin of the western
United States: Natural Resources Research, v. 8, no. 4,
p. 257276.
Raines, G. L., Bonham-Carter, G. F., and Kemp, L., 2000, Pre-
dictive probabilistic modeling using ArcView GIS: ArcUser,
v. 3, no. 2, p. 4548.
Ross, M., Martel, R., Lefebvre, R., Parent, M., and Savard, M.,
2004, Assessing rock aquifer vulnerability using downward
advective times from a 3D model of surficial geology: A case
study from the St. Lawrence Lowlands, Canada: Geofsica
Internacional, v. 43, no. 4, p. 591602.
Rupert, M. G., 1997, Nitrate (NO2+NO3N) in ground water of
the upper Snake River Basin, Idaho and western Wyoming,
1991-95: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Invest.
Rept. 97-4174, 47 p.
Rupert, M. G., 1999, Improvements to the DRASTIC ground-
water vulnerability Mapping method: U.S. Geol. Survey Fact
Sheet FS-066-99, 6 p.
Sawatzky, D. L., Raines, G. L., Bonham-Carter, G. F., and
Looney, C. G., 2004, ARCSDM3.1: ArcMAP extension for
spatial data modeling using weights of evidence, logistic
regression, fuzzy logic and neural network analysis. http://
www.ige.unicamp.br/sdm/ArcSDM31/default_e.htm, last acc-
essed 5 October, 2006.
Scott. T. M, 2002, Floridas springs in jeopardy: Geotimes,
May, 2002, http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/may02/feature_
springs.html, last accessed 12 September, 2006.
Scott, T. M., Means, G. H., Meegan, R. P., Means, R. C.,
Upchurch, S. B., Copeland, R. E., Jones, J., Roberts, T., and
Willet, A., 2004, Springs of Florida: Florida Geol. Survey
Bull. No. 66, 377 p.
Soller, D. R., 1992, Applying the DRASTIC Model a review of
county-scale maps: U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. 92
297, 36 p.
Stiber, N. A., Small, M. J., and Fischbeck, P. S., 1998, The rela-
tionship between historic industrial site use and environ-
mental contamination: Jour. Air & Waste Management
Assoc., v. 48, no. 9, p. 809818.
Stewart, I. T., and Loague, K., 2003, Development of type transfer
functions for regional-scale nonpoint source groundwater
vulnerability assessments: Water Resources Research, v. 39,
no.12, SBH17.
Southeastern Geological Society, 1986, Hydrogeological units of
Florida: Florida Geol. Survey Spec. Publ. No. 28, 8 p.
U.S. Census Bureau: State and County Quick Facts, 01-Feb-2005,
15:48:47 EST, http://www.census.gov.
Witkowski, A. J., Rubin, K., Kowalczyk, A., Ro_zkowski, A., and
Wrobel, J., 2003, Groundwater vulnerability map of the
Chrzanow karst-fissured Triassic aquifer (Poland): Environ-
mental Geology, v. 44, no. 1, p. 5967.
Visit Florida Research, 2006, http://www.media.visitflorida.org/
about/research/, last accessed 10, September 2006.
Vogel, M., 2006, Good Migrations: Florida Trend, http://
www.floridatrend.com/article.asp?id=5795, last accessed 24,
September 2006.
Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., and Alley, W. M.,
1998, Ground water and surface waterA single resource:
U.S. Geol. Survey Circ., v. 1139, p. 79.