2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evidence and implications of groundwater mining in the Lusaka urban aquifers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Alternatively, Zambia enjoys higher water resources per capita terms though resource endowment bears little association with the importance of water conservation benefits as ranked by Kenyan and Zambian participants. Given their urban focus, the water conservation benefits identified by Zambian participants may well be linked to the increasing awareness to unsustainable groundwater abstraction in the aquifer serving Lusaka (Mpamba et al, 2008) though in relative terms this is minor compared to the water resource challenges facing Kenya. For example, in Nairobi piped water demand outstrips supply by 120,000 m 3 per day, a deficit that could be addressed in the short term by reducing the estimated 46 per cent losses in nonrevenue water rather than investing in storage infrastructure to capture increasingly, unpredictable water resources.…”
Section: Prospects For Water Security In Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, Zambia enjoys higher water resources per capita terms though resource endowment bears little association with the importance of water conservation benefits as ranked by Kenyan and Zambian participants. Given their urban focus, the water conservation benefits identified by Zambian participants may well be linked to the increasing awareness to unsustainable groundwater abstraction in the aquifer serving Lusaka (Mpamba et al, 2008) though in relative terms this is minor compared to the water resource challenges facing Kenya. For example, in Nairobi piped water demand outstrips supply by 120,000 m 3 per day, a deficit that could be addressed in the short term by reducing the estimated 46 per cent losses in nonrevenue water rather than investing in storage infrastructure to capture increasingly, unpredictable water resources.…”
Section: Prospects For Water Security In Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Groundwater recharge occurs primarily from November to April averaging 186 mm/yr, which is 27% of the annual rainfall (De Waele and Follesa, 2003;Nyambe and Maseka, 2000). Groundwater flow is generally southeast to northwest through Lusaka with branches of flow to the northeast and southwest (Museteka & Bäumle, 2009;Mpamba et al, 2008;Von Hoyer et al, 1978). These general, large-scale flow directions, however, are not definitive in a karstic system.…”
Section: Geology and Hydrogeology Of The Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lusaka sits on a plateau about 1,280 m above sea level (Bäumle & Kang'omba, 2012). The city area is underlain by a thick sequence of metasedimentary rocks of the Katanga Supergroup (Figure 1) (Maseka & Nyambe, 1999; Mpamba et al, 2008). The lowest geological unit is the Chunga Formation that comprises crystalline rock of low permeability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to De Waele et al [40], there are 3000-4000 private boreholes in Lusaka, most of which are not submitted to satisfactory monitoring. The water levels are threatened as well, by both over-abstraction following population growth and lack of rainfall; consequently abstraction is exceeding recharge [38,41]. Overall groundwater data has been identified as nonexistent or inadequate, as there is a lack of collaboration between all stakeholders [30].…”
Section: Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They were approximately 30 min long and relied on a list of questions as a basis for discussion. Two main topics were addressed that cover key decision-points, based on the aspects identified by Mpamba et al [41]: (1) borehole siting and drilling; and (2) on-going water levels and quality monitoring. The questions were targeted at characterising the participant's background, his/her understanding of information required for groundwater management, what information sources were used, what data was collected and what improvements the participant would like to see.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%