Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 471–482 | Cite as

Land use change scenarios and associated groundwater impacts in a protected peri-urban area

  • Elias DimitriouEmail author
  • Elias Moussoulis
Original Article

Abstract

Land use changes in peri-urban areas are usually associated with significant impacts on groundwater resources due to alteration of the recharge regime as well as through the establishment of pollution sources. Quantifying the aforementioned impacts and assessing the vulnerability of the groundwater resources is an important step for the better management and protection of the aquifers. In the present study, a physically based, distributed hydrologic model has been used to identify the impacts from specific land use change scenarios in the protected area of Loutraki catchment. A vulnerability assessment method has been also implemented to provide a decision support tool to the land planning authorities and also hydrologic mitigation measures for the sustainable development of the area have been proposed. The hydrologic impacts of the land use scenarios include a 5% reduction in the annual recharge of the study aquifer for scenario 1 (doubling of the current urban areas) and 7% decrease for scenario 2 (tripling of the current urban areas). Nevertheless, these impacts can be minimised if small-scale artificial recharge infrastructure is developed and the land planning measures suggested through the vulnerability and recharge maps will be followed.

Keywords

Vulnerability Groundwater Protected aquifer Land use change Recharge Water pollution 

References

  1. Beven K (2001) How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling? The Dalton lecture. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 5(1):1–12Google Scholar
  2. Demetriou C, Punthakey JF (1998) Evaluating sustainable groundwater management options using the MIKE SHE integrated hydrogeological modelling package. Environ Model Softw 14(2–3):129–140Google Scholar
  3. Durand P, Gascuel-Odoux C, Cordier M-O (2002) Parameterisation of hydrological models: a review and lessons learned from studies of an agricultural catchment (Naizin, France). Agronomie 22:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goerfliger N, Jeannin PY, Zwahlen F (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 39:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kokkonen TS, Jakeman AJ (2001) A comparison of metric and conceptual approaches in rainfall-runoff modeling and its implications. Water Resour Res 37(9):2345–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McMichael EC, Hope SA, Loaiciga AH (2006) Distributed hydrological modelling in California semi-arid shrublands: MIKE SHE model calibration and uncertainty estimation. J Hydrol 317(3–4, 20):307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nobre RCM, Rotunno Filho OC, Mansur WJ, Nobre MMM, Cosenza CAN (2007) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS, modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. J Contam Hydrol 94(3–4, 7):277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Panagopoulos A, Voudouris K, Hionidi M, Koumantakis J (2002) Irrational water resources management impacts on the coastal aquifer system of Korinthia. In: Proceedings of international conference “Restoration and protection of the environment V”, July 2002, Skiathos, vol I, pp 419–426Google Scholar
  9. Refsgaard JC (1997) Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. J Hydrol 198:69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shaban Α, Khawlie Μ, Abdallah Ch (2006) Use of remote sensing and GIS to determine recharge potential zones: the case of Occidental Lebanon. Hydrogeol J 14:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Thompson JR, Refstrup SH, Gavin H, Refsgaard A (2004) Application of the coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 modelling system to a lowland wet grassland in southeast England. J Hydrol 293(1–4):151–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Zacharias I, Dimitriou E, Koussouris Th (2005) Integrated water management scenarios for wetland protection: application in Lake Trichonis. Environ Model Softw 20:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zwahlen F (2003) Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate aquifers’, Cost Action 620, Final ReportGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hellenic Centre for Marine ResearchInstitute of Inland WatersAnavissosGreece

Personalised recommendations