Environmental Earth Sciences

, 75:1474 | Cite as

Groundwater vulnerability assessment for the karst aquifer of Tanour and Rasoun springs catchment area (NW-Jordan) using COP and EPIK intrinsic methods

  • Ibraheem HamdanEmail author
  • Armin Margane
  • Thomas Ptak
  • Bettina Wiegand
  • Martin Sauter
Original Article


Groundwater vulnerability maps were constructed for the surface water catchment area of Tanour and Rasoun spring (north-west of Jordan) using the COP and EPIK intrinsic groundwater vulnerability assessment methods. Tanour and Rasoun springs are the main water resources for domestic purposes within the study area. A detailed geological survey was carried out, and data of lithology, karst features, precipitation, vegetation and soil cover, etc. were gathered from various sources for the catchment area in order to determine the required parameters for each method. ArcGIS software was used for map preparation. In the resulting COP vulnerability map, spatial distribution of groundwater vulnerability is as follows: (1) high (37%), (2) moderate (34.8%), (3) low (20.1%), and (4) very low (8.1%). In the EPIK vulnerability map, only two out of four vulnerability classes characterize the catchment area: very high vulnerable areas (38.4%) and moderately vulnerable areas (61.6%). Due to limited soil thickness, the low vulnerability class is absent within the catchment. The high percentage of very high to moderately vulnerable areas displayed by both the COP and EPIK vulnerability assessment methods are reflected by different pollution events in Tanour and Rasoun karst springs especially during the winter season. The high sensitivity of the aquifer to pollution can be explained by different factors such as: thin or absent soil cover, the high development of the epikarst and karst network, and the lithology and confining conditions of the aquifer.


Karst aquifer Groundwater vulnerability assessment EPIK COP Jordan 



The doctoral position of Ibraheem Hamdan was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) via the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) special programme (NaWaM), and study scholarships and research Grants 14 (56322373).


  1. Abdelhamid G (1993) Geological map of JARASH [map]. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources—Natural Resources Authority (geology directorate). National mapping project, sheet No. (3154-I). 1 sheet: 1:50.000Google Scholar
  2. Abdelhamid G (1995) The geology of Jarash area—map sheet (3154-I), Bulletin 30. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources—Natural Resources Authority (geology directorate), JordanGoogle Scholar
  3. Daly D, Dassargues A, Drew D, Dunne S, Goldscheider N, Neale S, Popescu IC, Zwahlen F (2002) Main concepts of the “European approach” to karst-groundwater-vulnerability assessment and mapping. Hydrogeol J 10:340–345. doi: 10.1007/s10040-001-0185-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1998) Practical guide-groundwater vulnerability mapping in karstic region (EPIK)-application to groundwater protection zone. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and landscape (SAEFL), BernGoogle Scholar
  5. Doerfliger N, Jeannin P-Y, 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 J 39(2):165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foster S, Hirata R (1988) Groundwater pollution risk assessment—a methodology using available data. Pan American Center for Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences (CEPIS), PeruGoogle Scholar
  7. Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) Sensitivity analysis for the EPIK method of vulnerability assessment in a small karstic aquifer, Southern Belgium. Hydrogeol J 8:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldscheider N (2002) Hydrogeology and vulnerability of karst systems—examples from the northern Alps and the Swabian Alb. Dissertation, University of KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldscheider N (2003) The concept of groundwater vulnerability. In: Zwahlen F (ed) COST action 620-vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers. Final report, pp 5–9Google Scholar
  10. 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 46(3):157–166Google Scholar
  11. Hamdan I (2016) Characterization of groundwater flow and vulnerability assessment of karstic aquifers—development of a travel time based approach and application to the Tanour and Rasoun spring catchment (Ajloun, NW-Jordan). Dissertation, University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamdan I, Wiegand B, Toll M, Sauter M (2016) Spring response to precipitation events using δ18O and δ2H in the Tanour catchment, NW Jordan. Isot Environ Health Stud 52(6):682–693. doi: 10.1080/10256016.2016.1159205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hobler M, Margane A, Almomani M, Subah A (2001) Groundwater Resources of northern Jordan. Vol. 4 Contributions to the hydrogeology of northern Jordan. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) and Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), JordanGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeannin PY, Cornaton F, Zwahlen F, Perrochet P (2001) VULK: a tool for intrinsic vulnerability assessment and validation. In: 7th conference on limestone hydrology and fissured media, Besanc on 20–22 September 2001. Sci Tech Environm Mém 13:185–188 (cited in Vias et al. 2006)Google Scholar
  15. JMD (Jordan Meteorological Department) (2014) Daily minimum and maximum temperature data for Ras Munif station (AH0003) for the time period between 1980 and 2013 (soft copy). Amman, JordanGoogle Scholar
  16. Klimchouk A (1997) The natural and principal characteristics of epikarst. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Speleology La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerlands, 10-17.8.1997, Vol. 1 (cited in Golscheider 2000)Google Scholar
  17. Margat J (1968) Vulnérabilité des nappes d’eau souterraine à la pollution. BRGM-publication 68 SGL 198 HYD; Orléans (cited in Goldscheider, 2003)Google Scholar
  18. MoA (Ministry of Agriculture) (1994) National Soil Map and Land Use Project. The soil of Jordan, level 2: semi detailed studies. Volume 2: main report, hunting technical services in association with Soil Survey and Land Research Centre, JordanGoogle Scholar
  19. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2013a) Jordan water sector facts and figures 2013. 1st edn, JordanGoogle Scholar
  20. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2013b) Daily minimum and maximum temperature data for Ras Munif station (AH0003) for the time period between 1969 and 1979 (soft copy). Amman, JordanGoogle Scholar
  21. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2014a) Daily rainfall data for Ras Munif station (AH0003) for the time period between 1968/1969 and 2013/2014 (soft copy). Amman, JordanGoogle Scholar
  22. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2014b) Wells lithology and pumping test data (soft copy). Amman, JordanGoogle Scholar
  23. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2015a) Monthly averages springs discharge for Tanour, Rasoun and Beida Springs for the time period between 1963 and 2014 (soft copy). Amman, JordanGoogle Scholar
  24. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2015b) Monthly production values for Tanour and Rasoun Springs for the time period between 1996 and 2014 (soft copy). Amman, JordanGoogle Scholar
  25. MWI (Ministry of Water and Irrigation) (2016) Groundwater policy. Accessed Mar 2016
  26. Pronk M, Goldscheider N, Zopfi J, Zwahlen F (2009) Percolation and particle transport in the unsaturated zone of a karst aquifer. Ground Water 47(3):361–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00509.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sililo OTN, Saayman IC, Fey MV (2001) Groundwater vulnerability to pollution in urban catchments. Report to the Water Research Commission, WRC Project No. 1008/1/01. Water research commission, ISBN 1868457834. University of Cape Town, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  28. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2015) Overview about Jordan. Accessed Mar 2015
  29. USGS earth explorer (2014a) ASTER digital elevation model 30 m resolution. Accessed June 2014
  30. Vias 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 (ed) Karst and environment, pp 75–83 (cited in Vias et. al. 2003)Google Scholar
  31. Vias JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F, Vadillo I, Jiménez P (2003) The COP method. In: Zwahlen F (ed) COST action 620-vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers. Final report, pp 163–171Google Scholar
  32. Vias JM, Andreo B, Perles M, 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. doi: 10.1007/s10040-006-0023-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vrba J, Zoporozec A (eds) (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability, 16th edn. International Contributions to Hydrogeology (IAH), HannoverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ibraheem Hamdan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Armin Margane
    • 2
  • Thomas Ptak
    • 1
  • Bettina Wiegand
    • 1
  • Martin Sauter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Geology, Geoscience CentreGeorg-August-University GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR)HannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations