Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPORT
Inventory of managed aquifer recharge sites in Europe: historical
development, current situation and perspectives
C. Sprenger
1
&N. Hartog
2
&M. Hernández
3
&E. Vilanova
4
&G. Grützmacher
5
&
F. Scheibler
6
&S. Hannappel
6
Received: 8 June 2016 /Accepted: 6 February 2017
#The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Different types of managed aquifer recharge
(MAR) schemes are widely distributed and applied on various
scales and for various purposes in the European countries, but
a systematic categorization and compilation of data has been
missing up to now. The European MAR catalogue presented
herein contains various key parameters collected from the
available literature. The catalogue includes 224 currently ac-
tive MAR sites found in 23 European countries. Large quan-
tities of drinking water are produced by MAR sites in
Hungary, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland,
Poland, Switzerland and France. This inventory highlights
that, for over a century, MAR has played an important role
in the development of European water supply and contributes
to drinking-water production substantially. This development
has occurred autonomously, with Btrial-and-error^within the
full range of climatically and hydrogeologically diverse con-
ditions of the European countries. For the future, MAR has the
potential to facilitate optimal (re)use and storage of available
water resources and to take advantage of the natural purifica-
tion and low energy requirements during MAR operations.
Particularly with respect to the re-use of wastewater
treatment-plant effluent and stormwater, which is currently
underdeveloped, the use of MAR can support the public ac-
ceptance of such water-resource efficient schemes.
Particularly for the highly productive and urbanized coastal
zones, where the pressure on freshwater supplies increases by
growing water demand, salinizationand increased agricultural
needs for food production (such as along the Mediterranean
and North Sea coasts), MAR is expected to be increasingly
relied on in Europe.
Keywords Artificial recharge .History of hydrogeology .
Future .Europe
Introduction
Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) describes the intentional
recharge and storage of water into an aquifer for subsequent
recovery or for environmental benefits. MAR can be used to
store and treat water in an appropriate aquifer from a variety of
source waters, including river water, treated effluent,
stormwater, desalinated seawater, rainwater, and even ground-
water from other aquifers. MAR is a cross-cutting technology
applicable for the drinking water supply, for processing water
for industry, for irrigation and for sustaining groundwater de-
pendent ecosystems. MAR relies on naturally occurring pro-
cesses in the subsurface such as mechanical filtering, sorption
and biodegradation, and is often applied in combination with
engineered treatment systems, as pre-treatment prior to re-
charge and post-treatment after recovery.
The European MAR catalogue presented herein contains
data from theliterature about the MAR type, coordinates,year
*C. Sprenger
christoph.sprenger@kompetenz-wasser.de
1
Kompetenzzentrum Wasser Berlin GmbH, Cicerostr. 24,
10709 Berlin, Germany
2
KWR - Watercycle Research Institute, Groningenhaven 7, 3433
PE Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
3
Cetaqua, Water Technology Center, Carretera d’Esplugues 75,
Cornellà de Llobregat, 08940 Barcelona, Spain
4
Amphos21 Consulting SL, Passeig de Garcia Fària, 49,
08019 Barcelona, Spain
5
Berliner Wasserbetriebe, Neue Jüdenstraße 1,
10179 Berlin, Germany
6
HYDOR Consult GmbH, Am Borsigturm 40,
13507 Berlin, Germany
Hydrogeol J
DOI 10.1007/s10040-017-1554-8
of first operation and closure, reason for closure, operational
scale, aquifer properties (hydraulic conductivity, target aquifer
thickness), horizontal aquifer passage, residence time during
subsurface passage, recovery rate/share of bank filtrate, source
water type and end-use. This catalogue is aimed at (1)
outlining the historical origins, (2) describing the current sit-
uation and (3) giving perspectives of future developments of
MAR in Europe.
Materials and methods
MAR classification
There is a large variety of different MAR types, which can be
classified based on the recharge and storage technique into
four major groups (Table 1).Enhanced infiltration techniques
rely on gravitational infiltration and percolation, and include
different surface-spreading methods (areal recharge), point/
line recharge and in-channel modifications. Surface-
spreading methods are among the simplest and most widely
applied MAR techniques. Insuch methods, the source water is
spread over a permeable land surface to enhance the infiltra-
tion and percolation to the groundwater body. Most of the
existing large-scale MAR sites in Europe make use of this
technique, and typically utilise infiltration ponds to increase
the groundwater availability. Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) de-
scribes the infiltration and percolation of reclaimed water
(treated wastewater) through soil and aquifer passage. Due
to the lower quality of source water, SAT systems are often
operated in wet and dry cycles to allow for maintenance (e.g.,
mechanical removal of clogging layer) or to restore aerobic
conditions in the infiltration zone. During point or line
recharge, source water is infiltrated either in elongated (e.g.,
shafts, drains) or punctual (e.g., abandoned dug wells, bore
holes) recharge structures.
In-channel modifications are structures or measures appli-
cable to stream or channel beds. Riverbed scarification is a
measure to enhance the riverbed recharge by mechanical re-
moval of the impermeable top layer in the riverbed. Sand
dams are constructed in non-perennial rivers where during
periods of high flow, the suspended solids in the stream flow
accumulate upstream of the dam over time. Runoff water can
easily infiltrate these highly permeable deposits, creating a
small-scale artificial aquifer upstream of the dam. Sand dams
are often found in Sub-Saharan countries.
Induced bank filtration (IBF) describes the infiltration of
surface water induced by pumping from a nearby well. In
opposite to bank filtration, which is occurring due to losing
river conditions, induced bank filtration emphasizes the pur-
poseful abstraction of surface water by wells. During bank
filtration, water quality improvement (treatment) of the in-
duced surface water is commonly observed. IBF sites often
consist of several wells situated in a line parallel or perpen-
dicular to the bank of the surface water body. Induced bank
infiltration sites are typically installed near perennial streams
and lakes that are in hydraulic contact with the adjacent
aquifer.
Well injection techniques are used where thick, low-
permeability strata overlie the target aquifer(s). Well injection
methods include aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), aquifer
storage transfer and recovery (ASTR) and aquifer storage
(AS). ASR is defined as Bthe storage of water in a suitable
aquifer through a well during times when water is available,
and the recovery of water from the same well during times
when it is needed^(Pyne 2005),whereasASTRincludesan
Tabl e 1 Classification and
overview of MAR types included
in the catalogue
Recharge technique and main MAR type Specific MAR type
Enhanced infiltration
Surface-spreading methods (areal recharge) Infiltration ponds
Soil aquifer treatment (SAT)
Excess irrigation, ditches, trenches, sprinkler irrigation
Point or line recharge Well/borehole infiltration
Reverse drainage, shaft recharge
In-channel modifications Check dams
Riverbed scarification
Sand dams
Induced bank filtration (IBF) Riverbank filtration
Lake bank filtration
Well injection Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)
Aquifer storage, transfer and recovery (ASTR)
Aquifer storage as hydraulic barriers (AS)
Enhanced storage Subsurface dams
Hydrogeol J
aquifer passage between the injection and abstraction well.
ASTR serves to bridge seasonal gaps in source water by stor-
ing water in times of excess and recovering it in times of
demand. The stored water is flowing according to the local
hydraulic gradient toward the point of abstraction. ASTR is
more appropriate in dry climates with pronounced seasonal
water availability, but is also found in moderate climatic
zones, e.g., the Netherlands. The increased transport compo-
nent for all injected water as compared to ASR, enhances the
removal potential for, e.g., bacteriological parameters. Also,
enhanced mixing with native groundwater will occur, which
can be seen as a positive or negative aspect, depending on
location-specific conditions.
Water storage to bridge seasonal gaps in water supply is
often the primary goal when applying this technique. Aquifer
storage (AS) primarily aims at groundwater replenishment in
the target aquifer, e.g., to counteract seawater intrusion. Sub-
surface dams, which are rarely used in Europe, do not lead to
additional recharge but enhanced groundwater storage where
required. This type is therefore classified as enhanced storage.
Other techniques such as rooftop water harvesting (also
called rainwater harvesting), is a method for collecting source
water (in this case rain) in the capture zone. Rooftop water
harvesting can be combined with injection or infiltration tech-
niques as per local conditions and requirements, and therefore,
is not considered as a MAR technique.
Data availability, coverage and limitations
The data presented herein were compiled mostly from scien-
tific publications (i.e., peer-reviewed papers, textbooks, PhD
theses) accounting for 42% of all literature sources. Web
pages of MAR operators account for 25%, presentations (both
talks and posters) for 14%, technical reports and documents
for 10%, reports from governmental and non-governmental
projects 4%, and personal communication with specialists
and operators, and newspaper articles account for 5%.
The European MAR catalogue does not claim to be a com-
prehensive database including all existing MAR sites in
Europe (which is virtually impossible). The lack of data for
some countries does not necessarily mean the lack of MAR
sites, but can rather be attributed to the fact that language
barriers restricted the literature research to languages spoken
by members of the author team (i.e., English, Spanish,
German, Polish, Dutch and French).
The database contains 278 MAR sites, out of which 56 sites
were shut down before 2013. In most cases, the reason for
closure is not reported, but many of the closed sites were used
as pilots for a limited period of time. At other sites, operation
has been suspended temporarily or was shut down entirely due
to economic, technical or political reasons.
Data presented herein build on reports from the DEMEAU
project (Hannappel et al. 2014), but have undergone
substantial changes. Selected data from the European MAR
catalogue are available on a web-based geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) platform and incorporated into a global
inventory of MAR sites developed by the International
Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC 2016).
Maps presented herein were created with the public domain
software QGIS 2.8.3; the coordinate reference system is
ETRS89, Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area.
Quality assurance and plausibility control
Several persons with various professional backgrounds con-
tributed to data acquisition. Besides the risk of typing error
during data entry, many other factors, e.g., false interpretation,
translation errors, outdated information sources, will chal-
lenge the quality of the collected data. Thus, following the
data acquisition period, various quality control measures were
carried out to ensure a high level of data integrity. Identified
outliers and conspicuous extreme values of the database’snu-
merical fields were double-checked using the respective ref-
erences. Besides these relatively simple statistical tests on in-
dividual fields, logical checks were performed between relat-
ed parameters in order to identify data gaps. Implausible or
unlikely combinations of parameter values were also checked
and corrected if necessary.
Results and discussion
Historical development of MAR in Europe
Information on the year of first operation and the year of
closure allows outlining the historical development of MAR
in Europe. The modern history of what is called MAR today
begins with two techniques which are most prominently rep-
resented in the MAR catalogue: (1) induced bank filtration
and (2) surface-spreading methods (Fig. 1).
The first reported MAR site in Europe was in Glasgow
(UK) where in the year 1810 the Glasgow Waterworks
Company constructed a perforated collector pipe parallel to
the Clyde River (Ray et al. 2002) and abstracted bank filtrated
water (BMI 1985; note this site is not shown in Fig. 1because
it seems to be historically isolated). This method was success-
ful at the beginning and many other cities in the UK (e.g.,
Nottingham, Perth, Derby, Newark; Ray et al. 2002)adopted
the idea; thus, the 1860s became the first heyday of Bnaturally
filtered water^in the UK (BMI 1985). However, many of
these early sites experienced problems with decreasing well
performance and had to be abandoned in later years (BMI
1985); nevertheless, the idea of Bnaturally filtered under-
ground water^was born and spread to continental Europe,
where it was soon adopted by cities in the Netherlands,
Belgium, Sweden, France, Austria and Germany. The
Hydrogeol J
scientific investigation of Bartificial underground water^in
Europe began with the water engineers Dupuy, Belgrand,
Salbach, Thiem and Richert in the late 19th century (Richert
1900). The progressing industrialization in the 19th century
and growing population in European cities presented the water
suppliers with new challenges. The traditional water supply
based on surface water was impaired by increasing contami-
nation from the new industries and improper sanitation. At
that time, based on the experiences in the UK, Thiem pro-
posed the application of riverbank filtration to cope with
degrading hygienic surface-water quality and increasing water
demand; thus, the pioneers of MAR in Germany can be found
at the industrialization hubs close to the Rhine River (e.g.,
Water Works Düsseldorf 1870), the Ruhr River (e.g., WW
Essen 1875), the Elbe River (e.g., WW Saloppe 1875, WW
Hosterwitz 1908) around Dresden, and in the Berlin area (e.g.,
WW Müggelsee, switched to groundwater in 1904–1909,
WW Tegel 1901–1903). To increase the abstracted water
quantity, many water works constructed infiltration ponds
which were often situated on the land side of the abstraction
well galleries. Similar to the development in Germany, river-
bank filtration (RBF) and infiltration ponds found application
in the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland—for example, in
the Netherlands, the first known RBF-based water supply was
reported to have started its operation in 1890 (Stuyfzand
1989). The first MAR site in Switzerland started its operation
in Basel BLangen Erlen^in 1912. Eastern European cities then
followed and in Hungary the first RBF site was installed north
of Budapest on a Danube island (Szentendre Island) in the
1920s (Homonnay 2002); to date, this MAR system is the
main drinking water source for Budapest (Homonnay 2002).
Additional RBF sites have been developed on other Danube
islands (e.g., Csepel) and nowadays several RBF sites exist
along the rivers of Raba, Drava, Ipoly, Sajo and Hernad
(Homonnay 2002). In Romania the MAR history starts with
the operation of the Iasi water supply system at the Moldova
River in 1911 and the cities of Cluj Napoca followed in 1935
with conjunctive use of RBF and infiltration ponds and Bacau
in 1961 (Rojanschi et al. 2002). In Finland the first water plant
using groundwater replenishment by infiltration ponds started
its operation in 1929 in Vaasa (Tapio et al. 2006). A few other
plants were developed before and after World War II, but the
systematic development of MAR in Finland started in the
1960s (Tapio et al. 2006). It is reported that in the year 1992
about 20 water suppliers relied on different MAR types main-
ly constructed in the 1970s and by 2002, already 25 operating
water works utilized MAR in Finland (Tapio et al. 2006).
Finally, Tapio et al. (2006) report that after several decades
of experience with MAR, this technique is continuously fa-
vored by water suppliers.
Research and development of well injection methods be-
gan in the 1960s. These early sites were mostly situated in the
Netherlands where pilot-scale trials began. Stuyfzand et al.
(2012) report that many of these early ASR sites have been
closed due to clogging problems. An exception is located in
Barcelona, Spain, where a dozen ASR wells were constructed
in the early 1970s and are still active today (Hernández et al.
2011). Here, the high transmissivity of the target aquifer (up to
40,000 m
2
/day) and low turbidity (<1 NTU) of source water
are key parameters associated with the good long-term system
performance (Hernández et al. 2015). Cleaning cycles consist
of pumping episodes of 15 days with a flow rate four times
higher than the injection flow (Azcon and Dolz 1978).
Maintenance strategies and clogging aspects are known to
be important to consider for MAR practices, but were only
rarely reported in the available literature for the European
sites. However, in addition to turbidity, as illustrated by the
example given, redox mixing and clay swelling are some of
Fig. 1 Outline of the historical
development of MAR in Europe
showing the number of MAR
sites opened or closed per decade
between the 1870s and 2000s
Hydrogeol J
the additional factors to consider with respect to clogging
risks, which may require pre-treatment prior to injection.
In-channel modifications have been practiced since the
1960s in the Llobregat River in the Barcelona area by riverbed
scarifications. Recently this technique experienced decreasing
infiltration rates and it is planned to stop or to modify current
practices in the near future. Currently this old technique is
operated together with other complementary MAR techniques
(ASR, infiltration ponds) in the Llobregat area of Spain
(Hernández et al. 2015).
Until today, the expression Bartificial recharge^has often been
used. In Europe, this term dates back to the early investigators
such as Richert (1900) and describes Bunderground^water
recharged by human activities. Later on in the late 1990s and
the beginning of the 21st century the term ‘managed aquifer
recharge’was introduced. Some authors reason that Bartificial
recharge^falsely implies that a somewhat artificial process oc-
curs (Dillon 2005), which can be misleading because the purifi-
cation in the subsurface relies on natural processes. Moreover,
the term MAR refers to the management of aquifer recharge,
which implies that risks are managed in a quantitative way.
Current situation of MAR in Europe
The catalogue includes 224 MAR sites active in the year 2013,
found in 23 European countries (Fig. 2).Most of the active
MAR sites are found in Germany (n= 64) followed by the
Netherlands (n= 41), France (n= 21), Finland (n= 14),
Sweden (n= 11), Switzerland (n= 10) and Spain (n= 10),
while in the other countries less than 10 active MAR sites
have been found. The most widespread MAR type is induced
bank filtration with 127 sites (57% of total active sites);
surface-spreading methods rank second among all MAR types
with 77 sites (34% of total active sites). Well injection
schemes form the third largest group of MAR types with 11
active sites (5% of total active sites) and 23 abandoned sites.
Active-point or line-recharge and in-channel modification
sites have been found 7 and 1 time(s), respectively.
Enhanced storage MAR types, i.e., sub-surface dams, were
not found in the literature for Europe.
The spatial occurrences of MAR sites and aquifer proper-
ties are shown in Fig. 3; these were derived from the
International Hydrogeological Map of Europe (‘IHME
1500’)asreportedinBGR&UNESCO(2014). IHME 1500
is a generalized hydrogeological map series covering the
European continent. Aquifer properties are displayed by their
hydraulic productivity and dominant rock type.
The overwhelming majority (n= 150) of MAR sites in-
cluded in the catalogue are situated in unconsolidated geolog-
ical formations. It is clearly visible that the most common
types of MAR are induced bank filtration and surface-
spreading methods, located in central and northern countries
where large perennial rivers and lakes exist. As shown by
IHME 1500, Sweden, Finland, Norway and some parts of
Denmark are characterized by local and limited groundwater
availability or even essentially no groundwater (Fig. 3). In the
Nordic countries, hard rock formations are widespread, while
hydraulically conductive formations occur as small unconsol-
idated glacial deposits (e.g., esker, sander). The occurrence of
conductive but small aquifers on one hand and the availability
of surface water on the other hand is a main driver for the
implementation of MAR (IAEA 2013). In the Nordic coun-
tries, surface-spreading methods dominate over induced bank
filtration, because surface-spreading methods allow for
groundwater replenishment to increase groundwater availabil-
ity. In the Nordic countries, a special kind of surface spreading
has been developed in the last years. Some sprinkling infiltra-
tion plants (n= 3) have been established, e.g., on forested
Fig. 2 Number of MAR sites and
types for European countries
(onlyMARsitesactivein2013
are shown)
Hydrogeol J
eskers in Finland (Helmisaari et al. 2005; Lindroos et al.
2002). Sprinkling irrigation (a subtype surface-spreading
method) is envisaged to sustain higher dissolved oxygen con-
centrations in the recharge water in order to avoid anoxic
conditions and associated dissolution of geogenic redox-
sensitive compounds during subsurface passage. Helmisaari
et al. (2005) also highlight that sprinkling irrigation does not
cause much disturbance of the environment because the re-
charge water is Bsprinkled directly onto the forest soil from a
network of pipes and therefore does not cause as much direct
disturbance to the vegetation and soil surface as, e.g., basin
recharge^. On the other hand, more land is required for sprin-
kling irrigation as compared to basin recharge, because the
recharge areas in the forests are operated in alternating wet/
dry cycles. Apart from different types of surface-spreading
methods in the Nordic countries, the MAR catalogue depicts
a number of IBF sites which are, in contrast to IBF sites, in
central Europe, mostly situated at lakes rather than rivers.
In central Europe—i.e., Belgium, the Netherlands,
Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia,
France etc.—MAR sites are usually found in productive un-
consolidated aquifers, e.g., in the North European plain in
North Germany and large parts of Poland, and along the major
rivers. Clusters of MAR sites can be seen in the Netherlands, in
Germany along the rivers Rhine and Elbe, in Berlin, and along
the Danube River in Austria, Slovakia and Hungary. Most of
the IBF sites from the catalogue are found in central Europe.
In the Mediterranean region—i.e., Spain, Italy and some
parts of France—IBF sites are only marginally found, but some
IBF sites are currently under development, e.g., in the Toscana
region near Lucca, Italy (Rossetto et al. 2015). In the
Mediterranean countries, mostly surface-spreading sites are
found, but also in-channel modifications and point/line re-
charge schemes. Surface-spreadingsites in this region are often
designed without point of recovery and mainly aim to replen-
ish the target aquifer, which is often used for agricultural pur-
poses. At a site in Portugal (Campina de Faro aquifer system),
river water was recharged through infiltration ponds in order to
improve native groundwater quality (Ferreira et al. 2007).
Source water type and end-use
Potential source water types for MAR are river and lakewater,
stormwater, reclaimed water (treated effluent), desalinated
Fig. 3 Overview of MAR sites in
Europe and simplified
hydrogeological formations
(Aquifer types reported in the
International Hydrogeological
Map of Europe,‘IHME 1500’,
BGR & UNESCO 2014)
Hydrogeol J
water, and even groundwater from other aquifers or drinking
water. The end-use describes the intended final usage of the
water from the MAR scheme and includes agricultural, do-
mestic (drinking water), environmental and industrial end-
uses. The number of MAR sites related to water end-use are
shown in Fig. 4.
Figure 4a shows that most MAR sites producing domestic
water rely on surface water as their source water, whereas
Fig. 4b shows which MAR type is producing for which end-
use type. It lies in the nature of MAR that multiple end-uses
may exist and a single end-use was sometimes difficult to
define. Some sites, for example, do not recover the recharged
water and the end-use is then attributed to the dominant usage
of the target aquifer—e.g., if the aquifer is mainly used for
drinking water abstraction, the end-use is then drinking water
production. An environmental end-use is realized when the
site is mainly for achieving environmental goals, e.g., sustain-
ing groundwater dependent eco-systems or counteracting sa-
linity ingress.
River and lake water are the most frequent source water
types utilized for domestic drinking water supply to a large
extent (Fig. 4a). The most frequent MAR type is induced
bank filtration and has obviously two primary water sources:
river and lake water (Fig. 4b). However, groundwater, which
is in many cases of bank filtration also a source, is not shown
here, despite the fact that native groundwater may contribute
significantly to the abstracted water. Reclaimed water as
source water is found at two active MAR sites. One MAR
site uses this source water type for agricultural purposes in
Spain (Ayuso-Gabella et al. 2011), and the other site pro-
duces domestic drinking water with reclaimed water in
Belgium (van Houtte et al. 2012). In Torreele/St-Andre
(Belgium), treated wastewater is infiltrated in a dune area.
The MAR system, in combination with advanced technical
pre-treatment, produces potable water in the range of 2.5 ×
10
6
m
3
/a (van Houtte and Verbauwhede 2008). Another ex-
ample for MAR using reclaimed water is found at the
Llobregat aquifer in Barcelona (Spain), where reclaimed wa-
ter was injected via injection wells to counteract seawater
intrusion (Ortuno et al. 2012). This hydraulic barrier was in
stand-by from 2011 (not shown in Fig. 4) due to financial
constraints. The main reason for stopping the injection was
the high costs of the (pre-)treatment of reclaimed water (a
15,000 m
3
/day plant of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
was constructed to improve reclaimed water quality before
injection). Apart from this clearly communicated usage of
reclaimed water by MAR, several other MAR sites exist
which use treated wastewater or a blend of fresh and treated
effluent water as source water. This de-facto use of reclaimed
water is often found at MAR sites situated downstream of a
sewage treatment plant, e.g., bank filtration at Berlin-Tegel
(Germany) or at the infiltration pond in Sant Vicenç dels
Horts (Spain).
MAR sites with a clear environmental end-use are rare and
account only for 1% (n= 3) of all active sites. In Germany, at
an open-pit lignite mine (Garzweiler near Cologne), different
surface-spreading techniques (e.g., infiltration shafts, wells)
are operated by the mining company to stabilize the water
table in order to preserve natural wetlands and swamps
(RWE Power 2006); the majority of the source water is
groundwater from the active mining area and it is then
transported through a pipe network (ca. 125 km lengths) to
the adjacent recharge areas to sustain the groundwater depen-
dent eco-systems.
Not all potential source water types have been found to be
utilized by European MAR sites. Stormwater run-off is not
found as source water for MARs in Europe, and industrial
end-use is found at three sites only (in Duisburg and
Cologne in Germany, where IBF schemes are operated by
industrial companies).
Fig. 4 a Source water types and
bMAR types, in relation to end-
uses for MAR sites in the
catalogue (only MAR sites active
in 2013 are included)
Hydrogeol J
Contribution of MAR to drinking water supply
The volumetric contribution of MAR-derived water to the
drinking water supply for European countries according to
the operational scale of MAR sites is shown in Fig. 5.The
operational scale gives insight into the total water quantity
produced by the MAR scheme. Currently about 190 MAR
sites in Europe produce drinking water (see Fig. 4) and are
operated by water utilities (mostly public bodies). The per-
centage contribution of MAR-derived drinking water to drink-
ing water supply is calculated with data from the European
Environmental Agency for the year 2007 (EEA 2010).
The contribution of MAR-derived water to drinking water
production varies greatly from country to country. In some
countries, e.g., Hungary or Slovakia, MAR water may con-
tribute ≥50% to the drinking water supply, while other coun-
tries, e.g., France, yield only 3% of their drinking water supply
from MAR. Countries with a share of MAR-derived drinking
water < 1% (e.g., Belgium or United Kingdom) are not shown
in Fig. 5.
Some of the largest MAR sites exist on islands in the
Danube River, upstream and downstream (IBF sites in
Csepel and Szentendre) of Budapest in Hungary. The installed
well capacity (indicating the operational scale) of these sites
arereportedtobe146and219×10
6
m
3
/a, respectively
(Grischek et al. 2002). Along with all other MAR sites in
Hungary included in the catalogue, the total drinking water
volume derived from MAR is about 327 × 10
6
m
3
/a, making
up ∼50% of the public water (total public water supply 661 ×
10
6
m
3
/a, EEA 2010). Laszlo and Literathy (2002) estimated
the share of riverbank filtrated water to the drinking water
supply to be around 40% (in total ∼470 × 10
6
m
3
/a), but the
source of these figures remain unclear. Also the Slovakian
public water supply relies on MAR to a large extent. The
sum of operational scale for all Slovakian MAR sites (entirely
IBF) makes up approx. 55% of total public water supply
(175 × 10
6
m
3
/a from a total 319 × 10
6
m
3
/a).
Especially in the Netherlands, different MAR types are
used for drinking water production to a large extent. The
sum of operational scale for all MAR sites producing drinking
water in the Netherlands is about 295 × 10
6
m
3
/a, contributing
about 24% to the public water supply (1,256 × 10
6
m
3
/a from
EEA 2010). According to the MAR catalogue,
The Netherlands water supply relies oninduced bank filtration
(7.7%), well injection (0.8%) and spreading methods (15%);
Stuyfzand (1989) estimated that approx. 7% of drinking water
was produced by IBF systems (valid for the year 1981), which
is quite similar to calculations from the MAR catalogue.
The catalogue includes 14 MAR sites from Finland with a
total operational scale of 667 × 10
6
m
3
/a. Total annual public
Fig. 5 Percentage contribution of
MAR-derived drinking water
(calculated from the MAR
catalogue) to public water supply
(taken from EEA 2010)for
European countries. Countries
with a MAR contribution <1% are
not shown. NO Norway, SE
Sweden, FI Finland, DK
Denmark, NL The Netherlands,
BE Belgium, DE Germany, PL
Poland, CZ Czech Republic, SK
Slovakia, AT Austria, SI Slovenia,
HU Hungary, CH Switzerland,
FR France, IT Italy, GB Great
Britain
Hydrogeol J
water supply in 2007 was 404 × 10
6
m
3
(EEA 2010), which
results in a contribution of 17% MAR water to public water
supply. In the literature, estimations for the contribution of
MAR water to the public water supply in Finland are in the
range of 13–15% from IBF and surface-spreading sites in
2003 (Tapio et al. 2006). Helmisaari et al. (2005) estimated
that MAR-derived water accounted for about 15% of the wa-
ter distributed by Finnish water works in 2005 and is likely to
increase to 20% by the year 2010. Figures from the MAR
catalogue come to quite similar estimations with 3% from
IBF and 13.5% from surface-spreading sites.
For Germany, the catalogue includes 59 active MAR sites
producing domestic water (42 sites with dominant induced
bank filtration and 17 sites with dominant surface spreading).
It should be noted that some water works, e.g., WW Flehe,
WW Staad and WW Holthausen in Düsseldorf, are combined
to a single site; hence, the real count of MAR sites is likely
higher. However, the sum of operational scale from MAR sites
in Germany producing drinking water makes up 746 × 10
6
m
3
/
a, which is about 14% of the total public water supply—public
water supply 5,371 × 10
6
m
3
/a from EEA (2010). Schmidt et al.
(2003) estimated that 16% of drinking water in Germany is
produced by IBF and surface-spreading sites. Other calcula-
tions are found in StatBund (2013)—IBF water makes up
7.8% and surface-spreading sites 9.2%, with a total contribu-
tion of 862 × 10
6
m
3
/a; both of these published figures are
slightly higher compared to calculations from the MAR cata-
logue, and may indicate some missing German MAR sites or
underestimated operational scale. On the other hand, the oper-
ational scale for MAR sites is often based on estimations rather
than exact measurements, and is therefore subject to variations.
However, by looking on the city scale, e.g., in Berlin, the MAR
catalogue includes eight active MAR sites producing about
135 × 10
6
m
3
/a of water, contributing 67% to the total water
supply—water supply in Berlin is 202 × 10
6
m
3
/a in 2006 tak-
en from Möller and Burgschweiger (2008). This proportion of
MAR water for Berlin water supply is comparable to estima-
tions from Schulze (1997), Hiscock and Grischek (2002)and
Massmann et al. (2008b), given as 70–75%.
The MAR catalogue includes eight sites producing domes-
tic water in France. The sum of operational scale from these
sites makes up approx. 3% of the public water supply in
France—total public water supply 5,861 × 10
6
m
3
/a from
EEA (2010). Other figures in the literature, such as 50% of
bank filtered water in France (Doussan et al. (1997) and ref-
erences therein), seem to exaggerate the share of MAR water
for public water supply. This large contrast may be explained
by different definitions of bank filtration among the countries.
In France, production wells which are situated in alluvial strata
were considered as surface water influenced and therefore
categorized as riverbank filtration wells. This rough simplifi-
cation may have led to the high share of RBF water, but the
actual figures are likely lower.
The MAR catalogue lists nine sites in Switzerland produc-
ing domestic water with a total operational scale of approx.
100 × 10
6
m
3
/a. Public water supply in 2007 was 981 ×
10
6
m
3
/a (EEA 2010) yielding 10% contribution of MAR
water. Diem et al. (2013) estimated that about 25–30% of
drinking water originates from induced bank filtration alone
in Switzerland. This catalogue entry comes to much lower
proportions for all MAR schemes together and it remains un-
clear how this large difference may be explained.
Aquifer properties and operational parameters
Aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity and thick-
ness of the target aquifer are highly important for MAR. Apart
from this hydraulic data, the catalogue classifies target aqui-
fers in consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers and aquifer
confinement (confined, semi-confined, and unconfined). The
target aquifers can further be differentiated by their specific
aquifer properties describing the geological genesis of the
aquifer (e.g., glacial, fluvial deposits) and the predominant
pore type (unconsolidated, fractured, and karstified).
Operational parameters are those parameters which can be,
at least within the hydrogeological boundaries, controlled by
the operator. Operational parameters include the lengths of the
horizontal aquifer passage and achieved recovery rates. The
horizontal aquifer passage is the modal distance between the
point of recharge (e.g., river banks during induced bank filtra-
tion or the injection well during ASTR) and the point of re-
covery (the abstraction well). The recovery rate describes the
volumetric ratio between the recharged and the recovered wa-
ter. Representative properties, expressed as the 10th and 90th
percentile, of target aquifer properties for surface spreading,
induced bank filtration and well injection are shown in
Table 2.
AsshownalreadyinFig.3, the overwhelming majority
of MAR sites are situated in unconsolidated geological stra-
ta. MAR sites situated in consolidated geological media are
found near London (UK) close to the Thames River where a
fissured chalk aquifer (limestone) is hydraulically connect-
ed to the overlying riverbed deposits and used for IBF
(Schijven et al. 2002). Other examples of MAR in consoli-
dated media can be found in the Salento region in Italy
(Ayuso-Gabella et al. 2011), some sites in Spain (Diaz
Murillo et al. 2002)orthelargeASTRschemeinnorth
London (Harris et al. 2005). Evidence of MAR systems in
karstified aquifers has not been found in the literature.
Based on the data included in the catalogue, it was observed
that MAR in consolidated aquifers is the exception in
Europe. It can be concluded that the complex flow condi-
tions and higher degree of heterogeneities (e.g., flow con-
duits, secondary porosity) require additional field investi-
gations—an example of a tracer test at an ASR site in fis-
sured chalk aquifer is given by Williams (2000). Moreover,
Hydrogeol J
the limited purification capacity in consolidated aquifers
compared to unconsolidated aquifers complicates the reali-
zation of MAR systems. Flow conduits may act as prefer-
ential flow paths which transport water with elevated flow
velocities, thereby decreasing the residence time of infiltrat-
ed water in the subsurface. Residence time is known to be a
crucial factor for many attenuation processes during MAR,
e.g., microbial transport (Schijven et al. 2002)orpharma-
ceutical residues (Massmann et al. 2008a); hence, the over-
whelming majority of MAR sites are situated in unconsoli-
dated aquifers. Geological formations such as fluviatile and
glacial sediments as well as aeolian deposits (e.g., in the
Netherlands, Belgium) are commonly utilized. MAR sites
situated in consolidated geological media are very rare and
no MAR site in karstified strata was found.
Out of 127 IBF sites, 60 have been reported to be under
unconfined conditions and 9 under semi-confined condi-
tions, and out of 77 surface-spreading sites, 29 have been
found to be under unconfined conditions and 4 semi-
confined (for the remaining no information was found).
Both MAR types require unconfined conditions and it must
be assumed that sites where this specific information was
not found are also under unconfined conditions. Well injec-
tion sites were often reported to be under confined condi-
tions—for example, the ASR site in Barcelona-Cornellà is
located between the phreatic aquifer (upstream) and the
confined aquifer (downstream).
Induced bank filtration and surface-spreading techniques
show a similar range of hydraulic conductivities. Well injec-
tion techniques indicate hydraulic conductivities approximate-
ly one order of magnitude lower, but the number of records is
relatively low. Target aquifer thicknesses are also similar be-
tween IBF and surface-spreading sites. This finding is not
surprising as many IBF and surface-spreading sites were de-
veloped conjunctively and are situated in the same aquifers.
The horizontal aquifer passage roughly relates to the
residence time of the infiltrated source water in the subsur-
face, but is not equal to the flow path. The horizontal aqui-
fer passage may also give insight on the share of source
water abstracted by the recovery well(s). As a rule of
thumb, a short horizontal aquifer passage within a thin
aquifer implies short residence times and high shares of
source water in the abstraction well. However, both param-
eters also depend on aquifer properties, well design and
operational parameter for a particular site, which makes it
challenging to assess residence times or share of source
water based on horizontal aquifer passage alone. The data
from the MAR catalogue show that IBF sites have a wide
range of horizontal aquifer passages, from a few tens of
meters—e.g., 20 m at the Eura IBF site in Finland
(Kivimäki 2001)—to even a few kilometers such as the
3.5 km at Aalst IBF site in the Netherlands (Stuyfzand
and Doomen 2004). Exceptionally long horizontal aquifer
passages are found in the Netherlands where well fields,
consisting of some 15–20 wells, are situated in a row per-
pendicular to the river bank. The horizontal distances re-
ported by Stuyfzand et al. (2006a,2006b)weremeasured
between the central part of the well field and the riverbank
during low flow conditions in summer. At other IBF sites,
the well fields are situated in a row parallel to the river or
lake bank—e.g., IBF in Berlin as described in Massmann
et al. (2004). IBF sites with short aquifer passage are usu-
ally characterised by high shares of bank filtrate—e.g.,
Remmerden in the Netherlands with 82% (Stuyfzand and
Doomen 2004). However, also IBF sites with long hori-
zontal aquifer passages (≥3000 m, e.g., Aalst, Kolff and
Druten) may abstract substantial shares of bank filtrate
(29–68%) in their recovery well(s) (Stuyfzand et al.
(2006a,2006b). Analogous to IBF, the surface-spreading
sites also show a wide range of horizontal aquifer passages,
Tabl e 2 Representative properties of target aquifers and operational parameters for induced bank filtration, surface spreading and well injection
techniques
Property MAR methodology
Induced bank filtration Surface spreading Well injection
(Hydro)geological properties
a
Unconsolidated, unconfined,
fluvio-glacial-detrital deposits
Unconsolidated, unconfined,
fluvio-glacial-detrital deposits
Unconsolidated, confined,
fluvio-glacial-detrital deposits
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
b
5.5 × 10
−4
–5.5 × 10
−3
(n= 67) 3.1 × 10
−4
–5.5 × 10
−3
(n= 28) 2.7 × 10
−5
–3.3 × 10
−4
(n=3)
Target aquifer thickness (m)
b
10–48 (n=69) 10–75 (n=28) 28–165 (n=5)
Horizontal aquifer passage (m)
b
50–1,270 (n=78) 40–682 (n=29) NA
Residence time during subsurface
passage (d)
b
27–300 (n=19) 15–150 (n=10) NA
Recovery rate/share of bank filtrate (%)
b
21–100 (n=36) 40–96 (n=4) NA
a
Majority of sites for the respective MAR type
b
10th and 90th percentile;
NA not applicable
Hydrogeol J
from30mataninfiltrationpondinPoland(Blazejewski
1983) to 1,450 m at a sprinkler irrigation site in Finland
(Lindroos et al. 2002). Only a little information about the
horizontal aquifer passage and achieved recovery rates for
well injection schemes was found and therefore not includ-
ed in Table 2.
The residence time during MAR is a critical parameter
to ensure sufficient attenuation of hygiene-related param-
eters and other undesired substances. From a hygiene per-
spective, a subsurface travel time of around 50–60 days
(in the UK 400 days are defined as the outer source pro-
tection zone) are often demanded by European directives
(Chave et al. 2006; DVGW 2006). Representative values
from the MAR catalogue shows that residence time for
some IBF sites can be substantially shorter than 50–
60 days. It has to be taken into account that travel-time
estimations are subject to large variations depending on
the assessment method applied. Travel time estimations
based on only hydraulic data must be considered less ac-
curate than estimations based on tracer breakthrough
curves. However, median values for IBF and surface-
spreading sites were calculated to be 70 and 55 days,
respectively.
Recovery rates for surface-spreading sites were often
not reported in the literature and found only at four sites.
Whenever possible, this value was calculated based on
information from the literature source, e.g., at the
Solleveld site (infiltration ponds in dune areas in the
Netherlands), the average annual abstracted water volume
is lower than the average annual infiltrated volume and
the overall recovery rate was approximated to be 90%.
For IBF systems, the share of bank filtrate describes the
volumetric ratio between bank filtrate and native ground-
water in the recovery well(s). Information about the share
of bank filtrate was found at 36 IBF sites and ranges from
minimum 10% to maximum 100%, resulting in represen-
tative values of 21–100% (10th and 90th percentile,
respectively).
Perspective of MAR in Europe and conclusions
For over a century, various forms of managed aquifer
recharge have been used in Europe. This development
has occurred autonomously, with Btrial-and-error^within
the full range of climatically and hydrogeologically di-
verse conditions of the European countries. Although,
over the years, the use of MAR has grown and spread
independently throughout Europe in support of the EU
strategy for resource and energy efficient water produc-
tion and management (EEA 2014), the benefits of MAR
could develop towards it becoming a Bfirst-option^in se-
curing water availability for the future. In the face of
numerous stresses on the availability of water such as
climate change, increased weather variability, salinization,
as well as increased urbanization of coastal zones and
emerging substances, MAR has the potential to facilitate
optimal (re)use and storage of available water resources
and to take advantage of the natural purification and low
energy requirements during MAR operations. Particularly
with respect to the re-use of wastewater treatment-plant
effluent and stormwater, which is currently underdevel-
oped, the use of MAR can support the public acceptance
of such water-resource efficient schemes.
In developing water availability strategies in the face of
numerous challenges, Europe is not alone; worldwide, MAR
is being considered as an integral and essential technique to
meet objectives and demands for the future—e.g., Sheng and
Zhao (2014); Megdal et al. (2014); Dillon et al. (2010). As
globally, the pressure on freshwater supplies increases by
growing water demand, intensified by continued urbanization,
increased agriculturalneeds for food production and the desire
to preserve ecosystem integrity, MAR is expected to be in-
creasingly relied on.
The most densely populated and (economically) productive
regions of the world are in the coastal zones, particularly in
Europe along the Mediterranean Sea and the North Sea. It was
estimated that about half of the world’s population lives within
200 km of a coastline (UN 2010). While these areas produce
many economic benefits, the associated high water demand
puts tremendous pressure on freshwater resources and coastal
ecosystems, leading to problems like seasonal water shortage,
overexploitation of groundwater resources, saltwater intru-
sion, and disappearance of wetlands. Further economic
growth, population increase, and climate change will aggra-
vate these problems, ultimately blocking the sustainable de-
velopment of coastal zones in industrialized, emerging, and
developing countries (EC 2012); therefore, in 2015, water
crises were identified as the main global risk (WEF 2015).
Traditionally, aboveground solutions such as construction
of reservoirs or saltwater desalination are often sought to solve
freshwater problems. However, the subsurface may provide
more robust, effective, sustainable, and cost-efficient freshwa-
ter management solutions—for instance, artificial recharge of
aquifers with temporary freshwater surpluses is increasingly
applied worldwide for water storage and treatment (Dillon
et al. 2010). Typically, artificial recharge in unconfined aqui-
fers is used to increase volumetric water availability by filling
part of the overlying unsaturated zone. In (semi)confined
aquifers, however, artificial recharge can also increase water
availability by displacing native groundwater that is not suit-
able or less suitable for use than the water source available for
storage. In fact, ASR and ASTR have been in confined/semi-
confined aquifers, in Europe and beyond. Depending on the
intended use, a wide range of water quality parameters—e.g.,
the presence of manganese, Antoniou et al. (2014)—can make
Hydrogeol J
native groundwater less suitable; however, in recent years,
particular attention has been on the artificial recharge of fresh-
water in water-stressed areas with brackish or saline native
groundwater (Ward et al. 2007,2009). These studies have
highlighted the impact of the density difference between the
injected fresh and native saline water on recovery efficiencies,
and recent advances using either horizontal or multiple par-
tially penetrating wells enable the improved recovery in both
confined and unconfined saline aquifers (Zuurbier et al.
2014a,b,2016).
During data compilation for the MAR catalogue, it was
realized that clear economic case studies of European MAR
sites are often not available. Economic feasibility can be eval-
uated using cost-benefit analysis, but site specifics and multi-
ple benefits of MAR are often challenging to monetize. The
lack of data for economic feasibility of the various types of
MAR due to the wide range of benefits is considered to be a
major barrier for implementation; however, recent non-
European studies about MAR economics related to water re-
use (Vanderzalm et al. 2015), and conceptual frameworks for
MAR economics including methods for monetizing typical
MAR benefits (Maliva 2014), are readily applicable to
European sites.
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) for instance can be a
successful technique for storage and recovery of both potable
and irrigation water (Maliva and Missimer 2010); however, as
in other areas in the world, it has not reached its full potential
in Europe. The advantages of ASR consist of the limited space
requirement above ground, the lack of losses by evaporation,
the protection from atmospheric, biologic and anthropogenic
contamination, and the protection from earthquake damage—
for example, in the Netherlands, this increased ASR reliability
is very much welcomed with the prospects of longer periods
of drought, despite an increase in yearly gross precipitation
(KNMI 2014) induced by climate change, while water is in-
creasingly recognized as a scarce resource (WEF 2015). The
need for water harvesting and storage is therefore expected to
increase; furthermore, an increase in extreme rainfall events is
expected in the Netherlands (KNMI 2014; Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute 2014), which will require better ex-
ploitation of aboveground water reservoirs for retention of
intense rainfall. ASR provides the means to lower the levels
of these reservoirs by early infiltration once potential extreme
rainfall events are predicted, and to provide retention, without
having to discharge (and loose) the water to the sea. Therefore,
the water remains available for later times of demand, while
the unrecoverable part can counteract the ongoing saliniza-
tion. Another European example from the coastal zone is
Spain (e.g., the Llobregat aquifer in Barcelona) where MAR
is considered as a promising technique to be implemented at a
large scale using reclaimed water to improve groundwater
availability without compromising surface-water availability
for direct users.
Acknowledgements This study has received funding from the 7th
Framework Programme of the European Union under the grant agree-
ment number 308339 within the DEMEAU project.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-
priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Antoniou EA, Hartog N, van Breukelen BM, Stuyfzand PJ (2014)
Aquifer pre-oxidation using permanganate to mitigate water quality
deterioration during aquifer storage and recovery. Appl Geochem
50:25–36
Ayuso-Gabella N, Page D, Masciopinto C, Aharoni A, Salgot M,
Wintgens T (2011) Quantifying the effect of managed aquifer re-
charge on the microbiological human health risks of irrigating crops
with recycled water. Agric Water Manag 99:93–102
Azcon A, Dolz J (1978) Estudio de la recarga artificial mediante pozos en
Cornellà [Study of artificial recharge by wells in Cornellà]. XII
Curso Internacional Hidrología Subterránea [XII International
Course Subsurface Hydrology], FCIHS, Barcelona
BGR & UNESCO (eds.) (2014): International Hydrogeological Map of
Europe 1:1,500,000 (IHME1500). Digital map data v1.1. Hannover/
Paris.
Blazejewski M (1983) Perspektywy Wykorzystania Sztucznej Infiltracji W
Uzadatnianiu Zanieczyszonych Wod Powierzchniowych W Polsce W
Swietle Dotychczasowych Doswiadczen [Perspectives of artificial re-
charge to treat contaminated groundwater in Poland]. Sztuczna
infiltracja w uzdatnianiu WOD powierzchniowych [Experiences with
artificial recharge]. Instytut Ksztaltowania Srodowiska (Institute of
Environmental Science) –Poznan, Poland, pp 7–12
BMI (1985) Künstliche Grundwasseranreicherung: Stand der Technik
und des Wissens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Bundesministerium des Inneren [Artificial groundwater replenish-
ment: stateof the technology and knowledge in the Federal Republic
Germany, Ministry of the Interior]. Schmidt, Berlin
Chave P, Howard G, Schijven J, Appleyard S, Fladerer F, Schimon W
(2006) Groundwater protection zones. In: Schmoll O, Howard G,
Chilton J, Chorus I (eds) Protecting groundwater for health: manag-
ing the quality of drinking-water sources. IWA, London
Diaz Murillo JM, de la Orden G, Lopez Geta JA, Rubio Campos A,
Gonzalez Ramon Martin Machuca A (2002) Lessons from ground-
water recharge projects in Spain: management of aquifer recharge
for sustainability. In: Dillon P (ed) International Symposium on
Artificial Recharge of Groundwater (ISMAR), Adelaide,
September 2002, pp 393–398
Diem S, Schrirmer M, von Rohr MR, Kohler H-P, Hering JG, von Gunten
U (2013) Qualität des Uferfiltrats: Einfluss der Klimabestimmten
Variablen Temperatur und Abfluss [Quality of bank filtrate: influ-
ence of the climate induced variables temperature and discharge].
Aqua & Gas 11, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland, 21 pp
Dillon P (2005) Future management of aquifer recharge. Hydrogeol J 13:
313–316
Dillon P, Toze S, Page D, Vanderzalm J, Bekele E, Sidhu J, Rinck-Pfeiffer
S (2010) Managed aquifer recharge: rediscovering nature as a lead-
ing edge technology. Water Sci Technol 62:2338–2345
Doussan C, Poitevin G, Ledoux E, Detay M (1997) River bank filtration:
modelling of the changes in water chemistry with emphasis on ni-
trogen species. J Contam Hydrol 25:129–156
Hydrogeol J
DVGW (2006) Richtlinien für Trinkwasserschutzgebiete; Teil 1:
Schutzgebiete für Grundwasser - Arbeitsblatt W 101. Deutscher
Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches [Guidelines for drinking water
protection zones, part 1: protection zones for groundwater. Issue
W101. German Association for Gas and Water]. DVGW, Bonn,
Germany
EC (2012) A blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources. European
Commission, Brussels, Belgium
EEA (2010) European Environmental Agency Core Set Indicator CSI 18,
based on data from Eurostat data table: annual water abstraction by
source and by sector. European Environmental Agency,
Copenhagen
EEA (2014) Performance of water utilities beyond compliance: sharing
knowledge bases to support environmental and resource-efficiency
policies and technical improvements. European Environmental
Agency, Copenhagen
Ferreira JPL, Oliveira M, Diamantino C, João Moinante M, Medeiros A
(2007) DELIVERABLE 31: inventory of alternative water sources
for each test site. In: GABARDINE Project: groundwater artificial
recharge based on alternative sources of water—advanced integrat-
ed technologies and management. National Laboratory for Civil
Eng., Lisbon
Grischek T, Schoenheinz D, Worch E, Hiscock K (2002) Bank-filtration
in Europe: an overviewof aquifer conditions and hydraulic controls.
In: Dillon P (ed) Management of aquifer recharge for sustainability:
proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Artificial
Recharge of Groundwater, Adelaide, September 2002. CRC, Boca
Raton, FL, pp 485–488
Hannappel S, Scheibler F, Huber A, Sprenger C (2014) M11.1
Characterization of European Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR)
sites: analysis. DEMEAU. http://demeau-fp7.eu/. Accessed
February 2017
Harris SJ, Adams MJ, Jones MA (2005) NLARS: evolution of an artifi-
cial recharge scheme. ISMAR5, Berlin, June 2005
Helmisaari HS, Derome J, Hatva T (2005) Artificial recharge in Finland
through basin and sprinkling infiltration: soil process, retention time
and water quality. International Symposium on Management of
Aquifer Recharge, Berlin
Hernández M, Camprovín P, Bernat X, Massana J, Castelló J (2015) ASR
en Barcelona: Nuevo régimen de operación para hacer frente a
nuevos escenarios [ASR inBarcelona: New operating regime to deal
with new scenarios]. IV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Agua La
precipitación y los procesos erosivos, Cordoba, October 2015
Hiscock KM, Grischek T (2002) Attenuation of groundwater pollution by
bank filtration. J Hydrol 266:139–144
Homonnay Z (2002) Use of bank filtration in Hungary. In: Ray C (ed)
Riverbank filtration: understanding contaminant biogeochemistry
and pathogen removal. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Germany, pp 221–228
IAEA (2013) Using isotopes for design and monitoring of artificial re-
charge systems. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IGRAC (2016) Global MAR Inventory, International Groundwater
Resources Assessment Centre. https://www.un-igrac.org/special-
project/global-mar-inventory. Accessed 1 Nov 2016
Kivimäki AL (2001) Site description Jokioinen, Forssa and Eura,
Finland, Artificial recharge of groundwater. EC project ENV4-
CT95-0071, EC, Brussels, pp 23–25
KNMI (2014) Climate Change scenarios for the 21st Century: a
Netherlands perspective. In: van den Hurk B, Siegmund P, Klein
Tank A (eds) Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt,
The Netherlands
Laszlo F, Literathy P (2002) Laboratory and field studies of pollutant
removal. In: Ray C (ed) Riverbank filtration: understanding contam-
inant biogeochemistry and pathogen removal. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, pp 229–234
Lindroos A-J, Kitunen V, Derome J, Helmisaari H-S (2002) Changes in
dissolved organic carbon during artificial recharge of groundwater
in a forested esker in southern Finland. Water Res 36:4951–4958
Maliva RG (2014) Economics of managed aquifer recharge. Water 6(5):
1257–1279
Maliva RG, Missimer TM (2010) Aquifer storage and recovery and man-
aged aquifer recharge using wells: planning, hydrogeology, design
and operation. Methods in Water Resources Evolution.
Schlumberger, Houston, TX
Massmann G, Knappe A, Richter R, Pekdeger A (2004) Investigating the
influence of treated sewage on groundwater and surface water using
wastewater indicators in Berlin, Germany. Acta Hydrochim
Hydrobiol 32:336–350
Massmann G, Dünnbier U, Heberer T, Taute T (2008a) Behaviour and
redox sensitivity of pharmaceutical residues during bank filtration:
investigation of residues of phenazone-type analgesics.
Chemosphere 71:1476–1485
Massmann G, Sültenfuß J, Dünnbier U, Knappe A, Taute T, Pekdeger A
(2008b) Investigation of groundwater residence times during bank
filtration in Berlin: a multi-tracer approach. Hydrol Process 22:788–
801
Megdal S, Dillon P, Seasholes K (2014) Water banks: using managed
aquifer recharge to meet water policy objectives. Water 6:1500
Möller K, Burgschweiger J (2008) Wasserversorgungskonzept für Berlin
und für das von den BWB versorgte Umland (Entwicklung bis
2040) [Water supply concept for Berlin and the surrounding area
(development until 2040) supplied by BWB]. BWB, Berlin
Ortuno F, Molinero J, Custodio E, Juárez I, Garrido T, Fraile J (2012)
Seawater intrusion barrier in the deltaic Llobregat aquifer
(Barcelona, Spain): performance and pilot phase results. SWIM21
- 21st Salt Water Intrusion Meeting 21, Azores, Portugal, June 2010,
pp 135–138
RWE Power (2006) Ökologie im Nordrevier: Wasser für die
Feuchtgebiete [Ecology in the Nordrevier: water for the wetlands].
RWE Power, Essen, Germany
Pyne D (2005) Aquifer storage recovery: a guide to groundwater recharge
through wells. ASR Systems, Gainesville, FL
Ray C, Schubert J, Linsky RB, Melin G (2002) Introduction. In: Ray C
(ed) Riverbank filtration: improving source-water quality. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Richert JG (1900) On artificial underground water. C. E. Fritze’sRoyal
Book-Store, Stockholm
Rojanschi V, Mlenajek L, Stanciulescu M (2002) Riverbank filtration in
water supply: old solutions, new problems. In: Ray C (ed)
Riverbank filtration: understanding contaminant biogeochemistry
and pathogen removal. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp
235–245
Rossetto R, Barbagli A, Borsi I, Mazzanti G, Vienken T, Bonarim E
(2015) Site investigation and design of the monitoring system at
the Sant’Alessio Induced RiverBank Filtration plant (Lucca, Italy).
Rend Online Soc Geol Ital 35:248–251
Royal Netherlands MeteorologicalInstitute (2014) KNMI’14 climate sce-
narios for the Netherlands: guideline for professionals in climate
adaptation. KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands, 34 pp
Schijven J, Berger P, Miettinen I (2002) Removal of pathogens, surro-
gates, indicators, and toxins using riverbank filtration. In: Ray C,
Melin G, Linsky RB (eds) Riverbank filtration: improving source-
water quality. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 73–116
Schmidt CK, Lange FK, Brauch H-J, Kühn W (2003) Experiences with
riverbank filtration and infiltration in Germany. DVGW-Water
Technology Center (TZW), Karlsruhe, Germany, 17 pp
Schulze D (1997) Wassermengenwirtschaft im Ballungsraum Berlin
[Water quantity economy in the conurbation area Berlin]. Arch
Nat Lands 35:289–300
Hydrogeol J
Sheng Z, Zhao X (2014) Special issue on managed aquifer recharge:
powerful management tool for meeting water resources challenges.
J Hydrol Eng. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE. 1943-5584.0001139
StatBund (2013) Öffentliche Wasserversorgung und öffentliche
Abwasserentsorgung: öffentliche Wasserversorgung [Public water
supply and public sanitation: public water supply]. Statistisches
Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, Germany
Stuyfzand PJ (1989) Hydrology and water quality aspects of Rhine bank
groundwater in the Netherlands. J Hydrol 106:341–363
Stuyfzand PJ, Doomen A (2004) The Dutch experience with MARS
(Managed Aquifer Recharge and Storage): a review of facilities,
techniques and tools. KIWA NV, Rijswijk, The Netherlands
Stuyfzand P, Juhàsz-Holterman MA, de Lange W (2006a) Riverbank
filtration in the Netherlands: well fields, clogging and geochemical
reactions. In: Hubbs SA (ed) Riverbank filtration hydrology.
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 119–153
Stuyfzand PJ, Juhasz-Holterman MHA, de Lange WJ (2006b) Riverbank
filtration hydrology. In: Hubbs SA (ed) Riverbank filtration hydrol-
ogy. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 119–153
Stuyfzand PJ, Nienhuis P, Antoniuou A, Zuurbier K (2012) Haalbaarheid
van ondergrondse berging via A(S/T)R in Hollands kustduinen
[Feasibility of underground storage through A (S/T) R in Dutch
coastal dunes]. KWR, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
Tapio SK, Annukka Lipponen M, Rönkö EKT (2006) Groundwater use
and policy in community water supply in Finland. Hydrogeol J 14:
69–78
UN (2010) United Nations atlas of the oceans. UN, New York
van Houtte E, Verbauwhede J (2008) Operational experience with indi-
rect potable reuse at the Flemish Coast. Desalination 218:198–207
van Houtte E, Cauwenberghs J, Weemaes M, Thoeye C (2012) Indirect
potable reuse via managed aquifer recharge in the Torreele/St-Andre
project. In: Kazner C, Wintgens T, Dillon P (eds) Water reclamation
technologies for safe managed aquifer recharge. IWA, London, pp
33–33
Vanderzalm JL, Dillon PJ, Tapsuwan S, Pickering P, Arold N, Bekele
EB, Barry KE, Donn MJ, McFarlane D (2015) Economics and
experiences of managed aquifer recharge (MAR) with recycled
water in Australia. Australian Water Recycling Centre of
Excellence, Brisbane
Ward JD, Simmons CT, Dillon PJ (2007) A theoretical analysis of mixed
convection in aquifer storage and recovery: how important are density
effects? J Hydrol 343:169 –186. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.06.011
Ward JD, SimmonsCT, Dillon PJ, Pavelic P (2009)Integrated assessment
of lateral flow, density effects, and dispersion in aquifer storage and
recovery. J Hydrol 370:83–99. doi:10.1016/ j.hydrol.2009.02.055
WEF (2015) Global risks 2015. World Economic Forum, Davos,
Switzerland
Williams A (2000) Using an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) trial as a
large-scale tracer test. TraM’2000, Liege, Belgium
Zuurbier K, Kooiman J, Groen M, Maas B, Stuyfzand P (2014a) Enabling
successful aquifer storage and recovery of freshwater using horizon-
tal directional drilled wells in coastal aquifers. J Hydrol Eng 20:
B4014003
Zuurbier KG, Zaadnoordijk WJ, Stuyfzand PJ (2014b) How multiple
partially penetrating wells improve the freshwater recovery of coast-
al aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems: a field and modeling
study. J Hydrol 509:430–441
Zuurbier KG, Hartog N, Stuyfzand PJ (2016) Reactive transport impacts
on recovered freshwater quality during multiple partially penetrating
wells (MPPW-)ASR in a brackish heterogeneous aquifer. Appl
Geochem 71:35–47
Hydrogeol J
