Advertisement

Comparison of three applied methods of groundwater vulnerability mapping: A case study from the Florina basin, Northern Greece

  • N. Kazakis
  • K. Voudouris
Part of the Environmental Earth Sciences book series (EESCI)

Abstract

Three different methods of intrinsic groundwater vulnerability mapping were applied in the alluvial aquifer of Florina basin (NW Greece), covering an area of 180 km2. Vulnerability maps were produced using the parametric methods DRASTIC, GOD, AVI and the results are compared and evaluated. The three methods use different number of parameters with different weight and produce relatively different results. The comparison between these methods shows that the GOD method has the stronger correlation with the other two methods and produces vulnerability maps comparable with DRASTIC and AVI method.

Keywords

Alluvial Aquifer Groundwater Vulnerability Vulnerability Class Aquifer Vulnerability Drastic Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Adamat RAN, Foster IDL, Baban SMJ (2003) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, Remote sensing and DRASTIC. Applied Geography 23, 303-324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty, RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. US Environmental Protection Agency, Report 600/2-85/018, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Zabet T (2002) Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability to contamination potential using the DRASTIC method. Environmental Geology 43, 203-208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Civita M (1994) Le carte della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi all’ inquinamento. Teoria and practica. (Aquifer pollution vulnerability maps). Pitarora Ed., Bologna (in Italian)Google Scholar
  5. Corniello A, Ducci D, Napolitano P (1997) Comparison between parametric methods to evaluate aquifer pollution vulnerability using a GIS: An example in the ‘Piana Campana’, southern Italy. In: Marinos P, Koukis G., Tsiambaos G., Stournaras G. (Eds) Engineering Geology and the Environment, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1721-1726Google Scholar
  6. Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In Van Duijvenbooden W, Waegeningh HG (eds) TNO Committee on Hydrological research, the Hague. Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants, Proc. Inf. 38, 69-86Google Scholar
  7. Gianneli Ch, Stamos Al, Stamos Ap, Voudouris K (2007) Surface and groundwater quality in Florina prefecture. Proc. 1st Conf. on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics (CEMEPE). Skiathos, June 24-28, 765-770Google Scholar
  8. Gogu RC, Hallet V, Dassargues A (2003) Comparison of aquifer vulnerability assessment techniques. Application to the Néblon river basin (Belgium). Env. Geology 44, 881-892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kazakis N (2008) Groundwater vulnerability assessment in Florina basin. MSc thesis, Dept. of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (in Greek)Google Scholar
  10. Martinez-Bastida JJ, Arauzp M, Valladolid M (2010) Intrinsic and specific vulnerability of groundwater in central Spain: the risk of nitrate pollution. Hydrogeology J. 18, 681-698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Panagopoulos G, Antonakos A, Lambrakis N (2005) Optimization of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeology Journal 14, 894-911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Polemio M, Casarano D, Limoni PP (2009) Karstic aquifer vulnerability assessment methods and results at a test site (Apulia, southern Italy). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9(4), 1461-1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stigter TY, Riberio L, Carvalho Dill, AMM (2006) Evaluation of an intrinsic and specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the S. Portugal. Hydrogeology J. 14, 79-99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Van Stempoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnerability index (AVI): a GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Can. Water Res. J. 18, 25-37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Voudouris K, Manos B et al. (2007) Development and utilization of vulnerability maps for the monitoring and management of groundwater resources in the ARCHIMED areas: Presentation of an INTERREG III B Project. Proc. of International Scientific Conference “Modern Management of Mine Producing, Geology and Environmental Protection (SGEM 2007)”. 11-15 June, Varna, BulgariaGoogle Scholar
  16. Voudouris K (2009) Assessing groundwater pollution risk in Sarigkiol basin, NW Greece. In: M. Gallo and M. Herrari (Eds) River Pollution Research Progress, Chapter 7, 265-281. Nova Science Publishers IncGoogle Scholar
  17. Voudouris K, Kazakis N, Polemio M, Kareklas K (2010) Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability using DRASTIC model and GIS in the Kiti aquifer, Cyprus. European Water 30, 13-24Google Scholar
  18. Vrba J, Zaporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. Int. Association of Hydrogeologists. Int. Contributions to Hydrogeology; 16. Verlag Heinz Heise, HannoverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Kazakis
    • 1
  • K. Voudouris
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geology, Laboratory of Engineering Geology and HydrogeologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations