Groundwater vulnerability assessment at SW Rhodope aquifer system in NE Greece

Kallioras, Andreas; Pliakas, F.; Skias, Stylianos G.; Gkiougkis, Ioannis

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24076-8_41

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date there is not any specific method to define the vulnerability in karst coastal aquifers. Literature mostly considers methods for coastal porous aquifers (or porous aquifer systems) of limited thickness and extension [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] that mainly represent variations of the original GALDIT method [26,27]. GALDIT is the acronym for Groundwater occurrence, Aquifer hydraulic conductivity, water Level above mean sea level, Distance from the coastline, Impact status of existing seawater intrusion and aquifer Thickness, selected as vulnerability indicators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Temperature as an Indicator of the Vulnerability of Karst Coastal Aquifers

Fidelibus

Pulido−Bosch

2018

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal karst aquifers show a three-dimensional vulnerability, which consists of the whole of the “intrinsic vulnerability” and the “groundwater vulnerability to seawater intrusion”. The results of a study carried out in the Salento karst coastal aquifer (southern Italy) show that temperature, as well as being a reliable tracer of groundwater flow, is also an effective indicator of vulnerability in anisotropic media. The trend of isotherms related to a cross-section of the aquifer thermal field, combined with geological, geomorphological, and hydrogeological information, allows the role of faults and dolines in the mass transport from ground surface to be inferred. Isotherm trends may also give information on the permeability distribution along faults. A specific temperature value evidence the saltwater top, thus indicating the groundwater vulnerability to salinization.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Temperature as an Indicator of the Vulnerability of Karst Coastal Aquifers

Fidelibus

Pulido−Bosch

2018

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its calculation is determined by two parameters, the topographic slope (s) and vegetation (v). Based on the method's developers [26], the classification of "s" is made according to the approaches of [55][56][57], as shown in Table S4 in the supplementary documents.…”

Section: F Sub-factor Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis of Tirnavos Basin, Central Greece: An Application of RIVA Method

Vrouhakis

Tziritis²,

Stamatis

et al. 2022

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A novel index-based method (RIVA) for assessing intrinsic groundwater vulnerability was applied to Tirnavos basin (central Greece) to assess the susceptibility to surface-released contamination. Data from field surveys, previous studies, and literature were used to calculate the factors that compile the RIVA method. The aggregated results delineated the spatial distribution of groundwater vulnerability from very low to very high. The modelled results were successfully validated with ground-truth values of nitrates obtained from 43 boreholes. Overall, the modelled and the monitored values match more than 80%, indicating the successful application of the RIVA method. Few deviations were observed in areas dominantly affected by lateral crossflows and contamination from adjacent areas. RIVA proved an efficient method in terms of accuracy, data intensity, and investment to reach highly accurate results. Overall, RIVA proved to be a robust tool for reliable groundwater vulnerability assessments and could be further exploited for risk assessment and decision-making processes in the context of groundwater resource management.

show abstract

“…It was designed for large areas and applied over several aquifer types (porous-karstic-mixed) (e.g. Baalousha 2016;Fijani et al 2013;Kallioras et al 2011;Kazakis et al 2015;Khan et al 2010;Michalopoulos and Dimitriou 2018;Metni et al 2004;Neukum et al 2015;Panagopoulos et al 2006;Sadat-Noori and Ebrahimi 2016;Salemi et al 2011;Shirazi et al 2012;Werner et al 2012). SINTACS and PI are equally comprehensive with respect to the number of parameters they include but they are not as commonly used (Kumari et al 2016).…”

Section: Gva Model Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GOD model is used mostly in regions where vulnerability variations are large within a small area (Ahmed et al 2018;Polemio et al 2009). The GALDIT and WMCDSS models have not been adequately tested in a karstic environment (Allouche et al 2017;Chachadi et al 2005;2002;2001;Elewa et al 2013;Kallioras et al 2011;Kardan Moghaddam et al 2017;Kura et al 2014;Lobo-Ferreira et al 2007;Najib et al 2012;Saidi et al 2014;Selmi 2013). In this study, the performance of the generalized vulnerability model (DRASTIC) was evaluated along with a karst-specific vulnerability model (EPIK) (Baalousha 2016;Doerfliger et al 1999;Hammouri and El-Naqa 2008;Kazakis et al 2015;Kumar et al 2015;Neukum et al 2008) to compare their skill in assessing groundwater vulnerability to seawater intrusion.…”

Section: Gva Model Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can groundwater vulnerability models assess seawater intrusion?

Momejian

Najm

Alameddine

et al. 2019

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the uncertainty associated with two commonly used GIS-based groundwater vulnerability models, DRASTIC and EPIK, in assessing seawater intrusion, a growing threat along coastal urban areas due to overexploitation of groundwater resources. For this purpose, concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in groundwater samples at three pilot areas along the Eastern Mediterranean were compared with mapped vulnerability predictions obtained through DRASTIC and EPIK. While field measurements demonstrated high levels of groundwater salinity depending on the density of urbanization, both vulnerability assessment methods exhibited a limited ability in capturing saltwater intrusion dynamics. In the three pilot areas, DRASTIC was only able to predict correctly between 8.3 and 55.6 percent of the salinity-based water quality ranges, while EPIK's predictions ranged between 11.7 and 77.8 percent. This emphasizing that conventional vulnerability models perform poorly when anthropogenic impacts induce lateral flow processes such as seawater intrusion caused primarily by vertical groundwater extraction.

show abstract

Groundwater vulnerability assessment at SW Rhodope aquifer system in NE Greece

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Groundwater Temperature as an Indicator of the Vulnerability of Karst Coastal Aquifers

Groundwater Temperature as an Indicator of the Vulnerability of Karst Coastal Aquifers

Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis of Tirnavos Basin, Central Greece: An Application of RIVA Method

Can groundwater vulnerability models assess seawater intrusion?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About