Comparative application of four methods of groundwater vulnerability mapping in a Slovene karst catchment (original) (raw)

Proposed methodology of vulnerability and contamination risk mapping for the protection of karst aquifers in Slovenia

Acta Carsologica, 2007

On the basis of work accomplished by the European COST Action 620, a comprehensive approach to groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk assessment is proposed, taking into account the special characteristics of Slovene karst aquifer systems. The Slovene Approach is consistent with national environmental legislation and enables comparison across European countries. The method integrates temporal hydrological variability in the concept of groundwater vulnerability and offers a new possibility to combine surface and groundwater source and resource protection, which required the development of a new K factor (karst groundwater flow within the saturated zone). The risk analysis considers intrinsic vulnerability, contamination hazards and the importance of the source or resource. It has been first applied to the Podstenjšek springs catchment in southwestern Slovenia and validated by means of two multi-tracer tests with a total of six injection points. The resulting vulnerability, hazard and risk maps are plausible, and the validation confirmed the vulnerability assessment at the representative sites that were selected for tracer injection. The maps provide improved source protection zones and make it possible to identify land mismanagement and to propose better practices for future planning.

Karst water management in Slovenia in the frame of vulnerability mapping

Acta Carsologica, 2006

Slovene karst sources are of great national importance for drinking water supply. Since karst aquifer systems are very susceptible to contamination, these sources require appropriate and careful managing. Unfortunately, in the acts of Slovene legislation, the special characteristics of water flow within karst regions are not very seriously taken into consideration in determining the criteria for karst water sources protection. In contrast, in some other countries, the concept of groundwater vulnerability mapping has been successfully used for protection zoning and land use planning in karst. Regarding the differences between particular karst aquifer systems, data availability and economic resources, different methods of karst water vulnerability assessment and mapping have already been developed. Already these methods have been many times tested and implemented in different test sites worldwide. However, experience in application using different methodologies for vulnerability mapping of karst aquifers is very modest in Slovenia. The present paper deals with potential methodological problems that might arise while applying the most commonly used methods for karst water vulnerability assessment to Slovene karst regions.

Application of Methods for Resource and Source Vulnerability Mapping in the Orehek Karst Aquifer, SW Slovenia

J. Mudry et al. (eds.), H2Karst Research in Limestone Hydrogeology, Environmental Earth Sciences,

Abstract In a shallow karst aquifer in SW Slovenia assessment of groundwater and drinking water source vulnerability has been performed using different methods. The small, but well defined, Orehek karst is mainly drained by the no longer exploited orentan spring. The recharge area of the spring is well karstified, densely wooded, and covered by thin soils. Besides precipitation, the pring is additionally recharged by temporally active sinking streams. To assess the vulnerability, two methods, COP+K and Slovene approach, have been applied. Both methods provide tools for assessing vulnerability in carbonate rocks. They both ank among very sophisticated methods that require vast amounts of data, time, and financial and technical resources. Both ethods share the same methodological procedure and consider the same type of information, categorized by the same factors. On the other hand, the scoring, classification and weighting of individual arameters between the methods are different. Consequently, the resulting maps differ significantly. Major differences between the results are identified and discussed.

which should be used for any reference to this work 1 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY OF VULNERABILITY AND CONTAMINATION RISK MAPPING FOR THE PROTECTION OF KARST AQUIFERS IN SLOVENIA

2014

Nataša Ravbar & Nico Goldscheider: Proposed methodology of vulnerability and contamination risk mapping for the protection of karst aquifers in Slovenia On the basis of work accomplished by the European COST Action 620, a comprehensive approach to groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk assessment is proposed, taking into account the special characteristics of Slovene karst aquifer systems. The Slovene Approach is consistent with national environmental legislation and enables comparison across European countries. The method integrates temporal hydrological variability in the concept of groundwater vulnerability and offers a new possibility to combine surface and groundwater source and resource protection, which required the development of a new K factor (karst groundwater flow within the saturated zone). The risk analysis considers intrinsic vulnerability, contamination hazards and the importance of the source or resource. It has been first applied to the Podstenjšek spring...

Karst Groundwaters Vulnerability Assessment Methods

2016

A major socio-economic and scientific issue is represented by karst hydrostructures vulnerability mapping, which qualitatively and quantitatively highlights their exposure degree. Two research trends have been developed, one taking into account the environment features exclusively – the aquifer and protective cover type, permeability, aquifer depth, recharge rate, etc. (intrinsic vulnerability), the other focused on the types and quantities of pollutants (specific vulnerability). MAGIERA (2000) described and compared 69 methods, grouped in 5 types: hydrogeological complex and setting methods, index models and analogical relations (AF, AVI, Ekv, ∆hT’), parametric system models (DRASTIC, DWSAP, SINTACS, EPPNA, GOD, EPIK, REKS, PI, GSI, GLA), mathematical models (VULK, FAVA) and statistical methods (CALVUL). However, it is also possible to classify the methods on the basis of other criteria, such as scale (local, regional, national), aim (land use planning, protection zoning, site asse...

Evaluation of Water Resources Exploitation in a Karst Region Using Intrinsic Vulnerability Assessment

2018

Groundwater vulnerability assessment is of crucial importance for land use/cover management. Some methods have been proposed specifically for the karst hydrogeological settings. Among them, COP and PaPRIKa, as two commonly applied recent methods, were adopted for the resource vulnerability assessment of a humid temperate karst region, north of Iran. Comparison of water bacterial content and distribution of vulnerability classes within the catchments for nine springs suggests that PaPRIKa got some higher level of validity, showing more consistency to the catchment properties. Vulnerability class of "very low" was absent in the PaPRIKa map, while the "low", "moderate", "high", and "very high" classes comprised 31.7, 48.7, 12.4, and 7.2 percent of the total region, respectively. Distribution of vulnerability classes within the spring catchments was also surveyed. Importantly, the catchment area of the largest spring, namely Sefidab, whi...