Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

RIVA: a new proposed method for assessing intrinsic groundwater vulnerability

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A novel index-based method (RIVA) for the assessment of intrinsic groundwater vulnerability is proposed, based on the successful concept of the European approach (Zwahlen 2003) and by incorporating additional elements that provide more realistic and representative results. Its concept includes four main factors: accounting for the recharge to the system (R), the infiltration conditions (I), the protection offered by the vadose zone (V), and the aquifer characteristics (A). Several sub-factors and parameters are involved in calculation of the final intrinsic vulnerability index. However, even though RIVA is a comprehensive method that produces reliable results, it is not data intensive, does not require advanced skills in data preparation and processing, and may safely be applied regardless of aquifer type, prevalent porosity, geometric and geo-tectonic setup, and site-specific conditions. Its development has incorporated careful consideration of all key existing groundwater vulnerability methods and their critical aspects (factors, parameters, rating, etc.). It has studied and endorsed their virtues while avoiding or modifying factors and approaches that are either difficult to quantify, ambiguous to assess, or non-uniformly applicable to every hydrogeological setup. RIVA has been successfully demonstrated in the intensively cultivated area of Kopaida plain, Central Greece, which is characterized by a complex and heterogeneous geological background. Its validation was performed by a joint compilation of ground-truth monitoring-based data, in-depth knowledge of the geological structure, hydrogeological setup, regional hydrodynamic evolution mechanisms, and also by the dominant driving pressures. Results of the performed validation clearly demonstrated the validity of the proposed methodology to capture the spatially distributed zones of different vulnerability classes accurately and reliably, as these are shaped by the considered factors. RIVA method proved that it may be safely considered to be a fair trade-off between succeeded accuracy, and data intensity and investment to reach highly accurate results. As such, it is envisaged to become an efficient method of performing reliable groundwater vulnerability assessments of complex environments when neither resources occur nor time to generate intensive data is available, and ultimately be valorized for further risk assessment and decision-making processes related to groundwater resource management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen HD (1986) Late Quaternary of the Kopais basin, Greece: sedimentary and environmental history. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, p 282

  • Aller L, Bennet T, et al (1987) DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. National Water Well Association Dublin

  • Allouche N, Maanan M, Gontara M, Rollo N, Jmal I, Bour IS (2017) A global risk approach to assessing groundwater vulnerability. Environ Model Softw 88:168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreo B, Goldscheider N, Vadillo I, Vias JM, Neukum C, Sinreich M, Jimenez P, Brechenmacher J, Carrasco F, Hötzl H, Perles MJ, Zwahlen F (2006) Karst groundwater protection: First application of a Pan-European Approach to vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping in Sierra de Libar (Southern Spain). Sci Total Environ 357:54–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.05.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Antonakos AK, Lambrakis NJ (2007) Development and testing of three hybrid methods for the assessment of aquifer vulnerability to nitrates, based on the drastic model, an example from NE Korinthia, Greece. J Hydrol 333:288–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelo CAJ, Postma D (2005) Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution, 2nd edn. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Arauzo M, Martínez-Bastida JJ (2015) Environmental Factors Affecting Diffuse Nitrate Pollution in the Major Aquifers of Central Spain: Groundwater Vulnerability vs. Groundwater Pollution. Environmental Earth Sciences 1–16

  • Barzegar R, Moghaddam AA, Deo R, Fijani E, Tziritis E (2018) Mapping groundwater contamination risk of multiple aquifers using multi-model ensemble of machine learning algorithms. Sci Total Environ 621:697–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bear J (1972) Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Dover Publications

  • Burkart MR, Kolpin DW, Jaquis RJ, Cole KJ (1999) Agrichemicals in ground water of the Midwestern USA: relations to soil characteristics. J Environ Qual 28(6):1908–1915

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Busico G, Kazakis N, Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Voudouris K, Tadesco D (2017) A modified SINTACS method for groundwater vulnerability and pollution risk assessment in highly anthropized regions based on NO3− and SO42− concentrations. Sci Total Environ 609:1512–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Civita MV (1994) Le carte della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi all'inquinamento: teoria & pratica (Groundwater Vulnerability Maps to Contamination: Theory and Practice). Ed. Pitagora, Bologna, 325 pp

  • Civita M, De Maio M (1997) SINTACS. Un sistema parametrico per la valutazione e la cartografia della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi all’inquinamento: Metodologia e automatizzazione [SINTACS]: a parametric system for the assessment and mapping of the groundwater vulnerability to contamination: methodolgy and automation]. Ed. Pitagora, Bologna, 191 pp

  • Civita M, De Regibus C (1995) Sperimentazione di alcune metodologie per la valutazione della vulnerabilità degli aquiferi (in Italian). Quaderni di Geologia Applicata, Ed. Pitagora, Bologna, 3rd edn, pp 63-71

  • Connell LD, Van Den Daele G (2003) A quantitative approach to aquifer vulnerability mapping. J Hydrol 276(1-4):71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00038-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

  • Daly D, Dassargues A et al (2002) Main concepts of the “European approach” to karst- groundwater-vulnerability assessment and mapping. Hydrogeol J 10(2):340–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0185-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis A, Long A, Wireman M (2002) KARSTIC: a sensitivity method for carbonate aquifers in karst terrain. Environ Geol 42:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-002-0531-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Denny SC, Allen DM, Journeay JM (2007) DRASTIC–Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeol J 15:483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0102-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Descroix L, Viramontes D, Vauclin M, Gonzalez Barios JL, Esteves M (2001) Influence of soil surface features and vegetation on runoff and erosion in the Western Sierra Madre (Durango, Northwest Mexico). Catena 43(2):115–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00124-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerfliger N, and Zwahlen F (1997) Practical guide: Groundwater vulnerability mapping in karstic regions (EPIK). Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), Bern, p. 56

  • Doerfliger N, Jeannin PY et al (1999) Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method). Environ Geol 39(2):165–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (2020) CORINE Land Cover, Methodology and Nomenclature, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover. Accessed 2020

  • Erwin ML, Tesoriero AJ (1997) Predicting ground-water vulnerability to nitrate in the Puget Sound Basin. USGS Fact Sheet 061-97:1–4. https://doi.org/10.3133/fs06197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Focazio M, Reilly TE, Rupert MG, Helsel DR (2002) Assessing groundwater vulnerability to contamination: providing scientifically defensible information for decision makers. USGS Circ 1224

  • Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. Vulnerability Soil Groundw Pollut 38:69–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider N (2002) Hydrogeology and vulnerability of Karst systems – examples from the Northern Alps and Swabian Alb. Schr. Angew. PhD thesis. Geol. Karlsruhe, Vol.68, p.236

  • Goldscheider N (2005) Karst groundwater vulnerability mapping: application of a new method in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Hydrogeol J 13(4):555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-003-0291-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Hötzl H (2000) The PI method: a GIS based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of karst aquifers. Z Angew Geol Band 46, Heft 3:157–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Gazzete 16/6631 (1989) Definition of the upper and lower limits of the required water quantitates for the rational use of water in irrigation

  • Guo Q, Wang Y, Gao X, Ma T (2007) A new model (DRARCH) for assessing groundwater vulnerability to arsenic contamination at basin scale: a case study in Taiyuan basin, northern China. Environ Geol 52:923–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0534-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hölting B, Haertle T, Hohberger KH, Nachtigall KH, Villinger E, Weinzierl W, and Wrobel JP (1995) Konzept zur Ermittlung der Schutzfunktion der Grundwasseruberdeckung. Geologisches Jahrbuch, Reihe C, Heft 63, Hannover

  • Javadi S, Hashemy SM, Mohammadi K, Howard KWF, Neshat A (2017) Classification of aquifer vulnerability using K-means cluster analysis. J Hydrol 549:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.060

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannin PY, Cornaton F, Zwahlen F, Perrochet P (2001) VULK: a tool for intrinsic vulnerability assessment and validation. 7th Conference on Limestone Hydrology and Fissured Media, Besançon 20-22 Sept. 2001, Sci Tech Environ Mem. H. S., 13: 185-190

  • Jimenez-Madrid A, Carrasco F, Martinez C, Gogu RC (2013) DRISTPI, a new groundwater vulnerability mapping method for use in karstic and non-karstic aquifers. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 46:245–255. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2012-038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jury WA, Ghodrati M (1987) Overview of organic chemical environmental fate and transport modeling approaches. Reactions and movement of organic chemicals in soils. Proceedings of a Symposium of the Soil Science Society of America and the American Society of Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America, Atlanta, Georgia

  • Kavouri K, Plagnes V, Tremoulet J, Dörfliger N, Reijiba F, Marchet P (2011) PaPRIKA: a method for estimating karst resource and source vulnerability—application to the Ouysse karst system (southwest France). Hydrogeol J 19(2):339–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsi R, Stournaras G (2011) Groundwater vulnerability assessment in the Loussi polje area. N Peloponessus:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24076-8_39

  • Kralik M (2001) A strategy for protecting karst groundwater in Austria. Report BE-189, pp.99, Environmental Agency, Vienna

  • Kumar P, Bansod BKS, Debnath SK, Thakur PK, Ghanshyam C (2015) Index-based groundwater vulnerability mapping models using hydrogeological settings: a critical evaluation. Environ Impact Asses 51:38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis MA, Cheney CS, Ódochartaigh BÉ (2006) Guideline to permeability indices. British Geological Survey, Information products programme, open report CR/06/160N, p.29

  • Li X, Philp J, Cremades R, Roberts A, He L, Li L, Yu Q (2016) Agricultural vulnerability over the Chinese Loess Plateau in response to climate change: Exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Ambio 45(3):350–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin M, Ji D, Cui C, Sun Y, Su J, Xi B, Nixdorf E (2016) Groundwater Vulnerability Partition in Ashi River Basin. Res Environ Sci 29:1773–1781

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiwal D, Jha MK, Singh VP, Mohan C (2018) Assessment and mapping of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: current status and challenges. Earth Sci Rev 185:901–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margane A (2003) Guideline for groundwater vulnerability mapping and risk assessment for the susceptibility of groundwater resources to contamination. BGR and ACSAD, Damascus, 4, p. 177

  • Margat TJ (1968) Vulnérabilité des nappes d'eau souterraine à la pollution. BRGMPubli- cation, Orléans, France (68 SGL 198 HYD)

  • Milnes E (2011) Process-based groundwater salinisation risk assessment methodology: Application to the Akrotiri aquifer (Southern Cyprus). J Hydrol 399:29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mimi Z, Mahmoud N, Abu-Madi M (2012) A modified DRASTIC model for intrinsic vulnerability mapping for karst aquifers: A case study. Environ Earth Sci 66(2):447–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1252-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirus BB, Loague K (2013) How runoff begins (and ends): characterizing hydrologic response at the catchment scale. Water Resour Res 49:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1993) Ground water vulnerability assessment: contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris V (1993) The use of buffer zones to protect water quality: a review. Water Resour Manag 7:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owor M, Taylor RG, Tindimugaya C, Mwesigwa D (2009) Rainfall intensity and groundwater recharge: empirical evidence from the Upper Nile Basin. Environ Res Lett 4(3):035009 (6pp. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/035009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco FAL, Pires LMGR, Santos RMB, Sanches Fernandes LF (2015) Factor weighting in DRASTIC modeling. Sci Total Environ 505:474–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pagounis M, Gkertzos T, Gkatzogiannis A (1994) Hydrogeological research of Viotikos Kifissos River basin. Technical report, Institute of Geological and Mineral Research (IGME), Greece, p 94 (in Greek)

  • Panagopoulos A, Domakinis C, Arampatzis G, Charoulis A, Vrouhakis I, Panoras A (2015) Seasonal variations of aquifer intrinsic vulnerability in an intensively cultivated vulnerable basin in Greece, In: Innovative strategies and policies for soil conservation-advances in geoecology, (Eds) Fullen, M., Famadimu, J., Karyotis, Th., Noulas, Ch., Panagopoulos, A., Rubio, J., Gabriels, D. Catena 44:118–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulou K and Gournellos T (1993) Quantitative analysis of katavothraes at the ex-Lake Kopaida. Proceedings of 3rd Pan-Hellenic Geographic Conference, p.34-39 (in Greek)

  • Pavlis M, Cummins E (2014) Assessing the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution in Ireland based on the COST-620 Pan-European approach. J Environ Manag 133:162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.044

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petelet-Giraud E, Dörfliger N, Crochet P (2000) RISKE: méthode d’évaluation multicritère de la cartographie de la vulnérabilité des aquifères karstiques. Application aux systèmes des Fontanilles et Cent-Fonts (Herault, Sud de la France). Hydrogéologie 4:71–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Piñeros Garcet JD, Ordoñez A et al (2006) Metamodeling: theory, concepts and application to nitrate leaching modelling. Ecol Model 193(3–4):629–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.08.045

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pisciotta A, Cusimano G, Favara R (2015) Groundwater nitrate risk assessment using intrinsic vulnerability methods: A comparative study of environmental impact by intensive farming in the Mediterranean region of Sicily. Italy, Journal of Geochemcial Exploration 156:89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.05.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rao PSC, Hornsby AG, et al (1985) Indices for ranking the potential for pesticide contamination in groundwater. Proceedings of Soil Crop Science Society, Florida

  • Ravbar N, Goldscheider N (2007) Proposed methodology of vulnerability and contamination risk mapping for the protection of karst aquifers in Slovenia. Acta Carsologica 36(3):397–411. https://doi.org/10.3986/ac.v36i3.174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravbar N, Goldscheider N (2009) Comparative application of four methods of groundwater vulnerability mapping in a Slovene karst catchment. Hydrogeol J 17(3):725–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0368-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro L (2000) SI: a new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution. ERSHA/CVRM, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal

  • Rodriguez-Galiano V, Mendes MP, Garcia-Soldado MJ, Chica-Olmo M, Ribeiro L (2014) Predictive modeling of groundwater nitrate pollution using random forest and multisource variables related to intrinsic and specific vulnerability: a case study in an agricultural setting (Southern Spain). Sci Total Environ 477:189–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rupert MG (2001) Calibration of the DRASTIC ground water vulnerability mapping method. Groundwater 39(4):625–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02350.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1970) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 4:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz FW, Zhang H (2003) Fundamentals of groundwater. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha S, Kafle R, Pandey VP (2017) Evaluation of index-overlay methods for groundwater vulnerability and risk assessment in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Sci Total Environ 575:79–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkevich MG, Walter MT, Lembo AJ, Richards BK, Peranginangin N, Aburime SA, Steenhuis TS (2005) A GIS-based ground water contamination risk assessment tool for pesticides. Ground Water Monit R 25:82–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sophocleous M, Ma T (1998) A decision support model to assess vulnerability to salt water intrusion in the great bend prairie aquifer of Kansas. Groundwater 36:476–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02819.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan TP, Gao Y (2017) Development of a new P3 (probability, protection, and precipitation) method for vulnerability, hazard, and risk intensity index assessments in karst watersheds. J Hydrol 549:428–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teso RR, Poe MP et al (1996) Use of logistic regression and GIS modeling to predict groundwater vulnerability to pesticides. J Environ Qual 25(3):425–432. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1996.00472425002500030007x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Theocharopoulos SP (1992) Soil survey report of Viotia district. Soil Science Institute. Scale 1:100,000. Acreage 141,974 Ha, (in Greek)

  • Tiktak A, Boesten JJTI et al (2006) Mapping ground water vulnerability to pesticide leaching with a process-based metamodel of EuroPEARL. J Environ Qual 35(4):1213–1226. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Travis CC, Doty CB (1990) Can contaminated aquifers at Superfund sites be remediated? Environ Sci Technol 24(10):1464–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troiano J, Nordmark C et al (1997) Profiling areas of ground water contamination by pesticides in California: phase ii—evaluation and modification of a statistical model. Environ Monit Assess 45(3):301–319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005778719859

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tziritis EP (2008) Hydrogeochemical—environmental study of eastern Kopaida—Yliki karstic system and assessment of vulnerability with the use of geoinformatics. 3333, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, p 512

  • Tziritis EP (2009) Groundwater and soil geochemistry of Eastern Kopaida region, (Beotia, central Greece). Cent Eur J Geosci 1(2):219–226. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10085-009-0011-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tziritis EP (2010) Assessment of NO3-contamination in a karstic aquifer, with the use of geochemical data and spatial analysis. Environ Earth Sci 60(7):1381–1390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0274-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tziritis EP, Lombardo L (2017) Estimation of intrinsic aquifer vulnerability with index-overlay and statistical methods: The case of eastern Kopaida, central Greece. Appl Water Sci 7:2215–2229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0397-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture (1986) Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical Release 55 (TR-55) (Second Edition ed.). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division

  • United States Department of Agriculture (1999) Soil Taxonomy A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, 2nd edn. Agriculture Handbook, Number, p 436

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Stempvoort D, Ewert L and Wassenaar L (1992) AVI: a method for groundwater protection mapping in the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Regina, Saskatchewan: Prairie Provinces Water Board

  • Vías JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F, Vadillo I, Jiménez P (2002) Preliminary proposal of a method for vulnerability mapping in carbonate aquifers. In: Carrasco F, Durán JJ, Andreo B (eds) Karst and Environment. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja, Málaga, pp 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Vías JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F, Vadillo I, Jiménez P (2006) Proposed method for groundwater vulnerability mapping in carbonate (karstic) aquifers: the COP method. Application in two pilot sites in Southern Spain. Hydrogeol J 14(6):912–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0023-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vrba J, and Zaporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. IAH International Contributions to Hydrogeology, 16. FRG, Heise Verlag, Hannover

  • Wachniew P, Zurek AJ, Stumpp C, Gemitzi A, Gargini A, Filippini M, Rozanski K, Meeks J, Kvaerner J, Witczak S (2016) Toward operational methods for the assessment of intrinsic groundwater vulnerability: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 46(9):827–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2016.1160816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall F, Spencer E, Burt TP (2009) The effectiveness of nitrate vulnerable zones for limiting surface water nitrate concentrations. J Hydrol 370:21–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yu C, Yao Y, Hayes G, Zhang B, Zheng C (2010) Quantitative assessment of groundwater vulnerability using index system and transport simulation, Huangshuihe catchment, China. Sci Total Environ 408(24):6108–6116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zaporozec A, Aureli A, Conrad JE, Hirata R, Johansson P-O, Nonner JC, Romijn E, Weaver JMC (2002) Groundwater Contamination Inventory: a methodological guide. UNESCO IHP-VI Series Groundw 2:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwahlen F (ed) (2003) Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of Carbonate (karst) Aquifers. European Approach, COST Action 620, Final Report

Download references

Funding

This research is part of AqVuln project which has received funding by the Hellenic Ministry of Productive Reconstruction, Environment and Energy (YPAPEN) - action AgroETAK, Research and Development Innovation Projects (hosting institution, Soil and Water Resources Institute, Hellenic Agricultural Organization).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Soil and Water Resources Institute, Hellenic Agricultural Organization, 57400, Sindos, Greece

    Evangelos Tziritis, Vasilios Pisinaras, Andreas Panagopoulos & Georgios Arampatzis

Authors
  1. Evangelos Tziritis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vasilios Pisinaras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Panagopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georgios Arampatzis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.T. conceived the methodological approach, developed the basic theory, and performed the assessments/validations. A.P., G.A., and V.P. verified and optimized the methodology, contributed to the discussion parts, and revised the text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evangelos Tziritis.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All authors declare that there is no ethical violation in this manuscript. Also, this manuscript does not contain data belonging to others.

Consent to participate

All authors have confirmed that this has not been published elsewhere and is currently not considered to be published elsewhere.

Consent to publish

All authors agree that the article can be published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Xianliang Yi

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tziritis, E., Pisinaras, V., Panagopoulos, A. et al. RIVA: a new proposed method for assessing intrinsic groundwater vulnerability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 7043–7067 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10872-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10872-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation