Content uploaded by Alain Dassargues
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alain Dassargues
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract In order to achieve some consistency in the es-
tablishment of groundwater intrinsic vulnerability maps
in Europe, a new approach is proposed by Working
Group 1 of the European COST Action 620 on “Vulnera-
bility mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst)
aquifers”. A general procedure is offered which provides
consistency while allowing the required flexibility for
application to a continent and under conditions of vary-
ing geology, scale, information availability, time, and re-
sources.
The proposed methodology is designed to be clearly
more physically based than the existing vulnerability-
mapping techniques. It takes the specificity of the karstic
environments into account without necessarily excluding
the applicability to other geological conditions. Com-
bined “core factors” for overlying layers and for concen-
tration of flow account for the relative protection of
groundwater from contamination while taking into ac-
count any bypass of the overlying layers.
A precipitation factor is distinguished for describing
characteristics of the input of water to the system. Differ-
entiation is made between groundwater resource intrinsic
vulnerability mapping and source intrinsic vulnerability
mapping. For the latter, a factor describing the karst net-
work development is relevant. This short technical note
describes a first step in the work program of Working
Group 1 of the COST Action 620. Future steps are now
in progress to quantify the approach and to apply it in
various European pilot areas.
Résumé Pour atteindre, au niveau européen, une certai-
ne cohérence dans l’établissement de cartes de vulnéra-
bilité des eaux souterraines, une approche originale est
proposée par le Groupe de Travail 1 de l’Action euro-
péenne COST 620 “Cartographie de la vulnérabilité pour
la protection des aquifères carbonatés (karstiques)”. La
procédure générale présentée ici est très flexible afin de
permettre des applications dans tout un continent, pour
différentes conditions géologiques, à des échelles varia-
bles, et à l’aide de données et de ressources diverses.
La méthodologie proposée est conçue pour être plus
compatible avec la physique des processus que ne le sont
les méthodes existantes de cartographie de la vulnérabili-
té. Elle tient compte des spécificités des milieux karsti-
ques sans pour autant exclure son applicabilité dans
d’autres contextes géologiques. Des facteurs principaux
tenant compte des couches supérieures et de la concen-
tration des flux d’infiltration permettent de tenir compte
du degré relatif de protection des eaux souterraines en te-
nant compte de toutes les infiltrations préférentielles
possibles qui évitent les couches supérieures protectri-
ces.
Un facteur dit précipitation est distingué pour décrire
les caractéristiques de l’entrée d’eau dans le système.
Une différence est faite entre les cartes de vulnérabilité
intrinsèque des ressources en eaux souterraines et les
cartes de vulnérabilité intrinsèque relatives à une source
ou émergence. Pour ce dernier type de cartes, un paramè-
tre décrivant le développement du réseau karstique est
pris en compte. Cette note technique succincte décrit le
premier pas de la démarche du Groupe de Travail 1 de
l’Action COST 620. Des étapes suivantes concernant
une quantification plus précise des paramètres et l’appli-
D. Daly
Geological Survey of Ireland, Beggars Bush,
Haddington Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
A. Dassargues (✉) · I.C. Popescu
Hydrogeology, Department of Georesources,
Geotechnologies and Building Materials (Geomac),
University of Liege, 19 Sart-Tilman, 4000 Liège, Belgium
e-mail: Alain.Dassargues@ulg.ac.be
Tel.: +32-4-3662376, Fax: +32-4-3662817
A. Dassargues
Hydrogeology, Institute for Earth Sciences,
Catholic University of Leuven, Redingenstraat 16,
3000 Leuven, Belgium
D. Drew · S. Dunne
Geography Department, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
N. Goldscheider
Department of Applied Geology, University of Karlsruhe,
Kaiserstrasse 12, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
S. Neale
Environment Agency Wales, Welsh Region, Rivers House,
St. Mellons Business Park, CF4 OLT Cardiff, UK
F. Zwahlen
CHYN, University of Neuchâtel, Rue E. Argand 11,
2007 Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Main concepts of the “European approach”
to karst-groundwater-vulnerability assessment and mapping
D. Daly · A. Dassargues · D. Drew · S. Dunne
N. Goldscheider · S. Neale · I. C. Popescu · F. Zwahlen
Published in Hydrogeology Journal, 10, issue 2, 340-345, 2002
which should be used for any reference to this work
1
cation pratique sur différentes zones pilotes européennes
sont maintenant en cours de réalisation.
Resumen El Grupo de Trabajo 1 de la Acción Europea
COST 620, dedicado a la confección de una “Cartografía
de la vulnerabilidad para la protección de acuíferos car-
bonatados (kársticos)”, ha propuesto un nuevo enfoque
orientado a lograr más coherencia en el establecimiento
de mapas de vulnerabilidad intrínseca de las aguas subte-
rráneas en Europa. Se ofrece un procedimiento genérico
que proporciona coherencia a la par que permite la flexi-
bilidad suficiente para su aplicación en un continente y
en condiciones variables de geología, escala, disponibili-
dad de información, tiempo y recursos.
La metodología propuesta se basa más en los funda-
mentos físicos del problema que las técnicas existentes
de cartografía de la vulnerabilidad. Se considera la espe-
cificidad de los medios kársticos, sin excluir necesaria-
mente su aplicabilidad a condiciones geológicas distin-
tas. Se combina “factores fundamentales” de las capas
superiores y de la concentración del flujo para tener en
cuenta la protección relativa de las aguas subterráneas
frente a la contaminación, incluyendo potenciales vías de
flujo preferencial.
El método utiliza un factor de precipitación para des-
cribir las características del agua de entrada al sistema.
Se diferencia entre cartografía de vulnerabilidad intrínse-
ca de los recursos subterráneos y cartografía de la vulne-
rabilidad intrínseca de la fuente. En relación con ésta,
hay un factor esencial que describe el desarrollo de la
red kárstica. Esta breve nota técnica describe la primera
fase de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo 1 de la Acción
COST 620. Actualmente, se está desarrollando las fases
siguientes con el fin de evaluar el enfoque y aplicarlo en
distintas áreas piloto de Europa.
Keywords Groundwater vulnerability · Karst · Intrinsic
vulnerability · Vulnerability mapping
Introduction
At present, each country in Europe has developed or is
developing new regulations and decision-making frame-
works for protecting groundwater quality. These are usu-
ally based on two main concepts: protection of the
groundwater source and of the groundwater resource. In
practice, these are often supported by source protection
zones and groundwater vulnerability maps respectively
(Gogu 2000).
Carbonate rocks, many of which are karstic, underlie
35% of Europe. Over wide areas, karst waters form the
only available natural resource for drink-water supply.
Karst is one of the most challenging environments in
terms of groundwater and engineering problems, involv-
ing many uncertainties because the nature of the porosity
and permeability of soluble rocks is not easily predicted.
In fact, karstic aquifers are characterised by a dual or tri-
ple porosity and permeability, often in the matrix or in-
tergranular voids and always in fractures and solutional
conduits.
Carbonate aquifers are especially vulnerable to vari-
ous human impacts because water can move rapidly
through fissures widened by dissolution, sinking streams
provide direct entry points to groundwater, with little or
no attenuation of contaminants, and the soil cover is of-
ten thin or absent. Therefore, special strategies are re-
quired in order to preserve the optimum quantity and
quality of karst waters. The management of this resource
is recognised in Europe as a high priority.
Issued in 1991 and concluded in 1995, the COST
Action 65 (COST is the acronym for “European Cooper-
ation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research”)
was devoted to the topic “Hydrogeological aspects of
groundwater protection in karstic areas”. Based on na-
tional studies, this action established a complete invento-
ry of regulations and made recommendations for man-
agement measures.
Vulnerability maps have become more and more an
essential part of groundwater protection strategies and a
valuable tool in environmental management. However,
applying different methods for mapping vulnerability at
any one study site usually gives quite different results
(Gogu 2000), showing the need for more flexible and
physically based methods. An overview of different ex-
isting methods is given in Gogu and Dassargues (2000),
and previously in Vrba and Zaporozec (1994). The fol-
lowing references pertain to each of the methods: EPIK,
Doerfliger et al. (1999); DRASTIC, Aller et al. (1987);
the so-called German method, Hölting et al. (1995) and
von Hoyer and Söfner (1998); ISIS, Civita and De
Regibus (1995); GOD, Foster (1987) and Robins et al.
(1994); SEEPAGE, Navulur and Engel (1997); AVI, Van
Stempvoort et al. (1993); SINTACS, Civita (1994);
REKS, Malík and Svasta (1998); the so-called Irish ap-
proach, Daly and Drew (1999); the so-called Hungarian
system, Madl-Szonyi and Fule (1998); and the so-called
PI method, Goldscheider et al. (2000).
COST Action 620, which began in 1997 and which
builds on the results obtained in COST Action 65, propos-
es an objective methodology for “intrinsic” and “specific”
vulnerability assessment and mapping in karstic environ-
ments, taking into account potential risks. Another impor-
tant goal of this Action is to achieve some European level
of consistency in the establishment of vulnerability and
risk mapping, taking into account specific regional envi-
ronmental variations as well as the different stages of eco-
nomic development and scientific investigation of karst.
General Concept of the European Approach
The European approach intends to be broad enough to
encompass all European conditions but sufficiently flexi-
ble to be customised for individual karstic regions
(COST 620 internal report 1999). Even if the method is
karst-centred, it ought to have the potential to consider
all aquifer types in a unified methodology. Last but not
2
least, rather than being too prescriptive, the method
should provide guidance for possible approaches, allow-
ing for local conditions, information availability, time,
and resources (COST 620 internal report 2000).
The suggested method for groundwater vulnerability
assessment and mapping is based on the following defi-
nition of intrinsic vulnerability: Intrinsic vulnerability is
the term used to define the vulnerability of groundwater
to contaminants generated by human activities. It takes
account of the inherent geological, hydrological, and hy-
drogeological characteristics of an area, but is indepen-
dent of the nature of the contaminants.
Intrinsic vulnerability differs from specific vulnerabil-
ity, the latter being used to define the vulnerability of
groundwater to a particular contaminant or group of con-
taminants. It takes account of the properties of the con-
taminants and their relationships with the various com-
ponents of intrinsic vulnerability.
Vulnerability is a concept which cannot be defined in
a rigorous way. Nevertheless, the first objective is to dif-
ferentiate “zones” of different degrees of groundwater
vulnerability to contamination (or differing likelihood of
contamination if a pollution event occurs). This implies a
quantification of the concept, even if in practice it is not
always possible to verify the results in the field.
As intrinsic vulnerability does not refer to a specific
contaminant, only the properties which are relevant for
all types of contaminants are considered. Conceptually,
three basic aspects have to be considered in order to
quantify intrinsic vulnerability: (1) advective transport
time; (2) relative quantity of contaminants which can
reach the target (a portion of the contaminants may never
reach the target but might leave the catchment in surface
runoff); and (3) physical attenuation (dispersion, dilu-
tion, dual porosity effects, etc.).
The proposed “European approach” is based on the
hazard–pathway–target model:
1. Hazards are the activities and developments which
pose a threat to groundwater. The “hazard” is taken to
originate at the ground surface (potential release of a
contaminant).
2. The “target” can be the groundwater resource as a
whole, or a source/abstraction point. Accordingly, dif-
ferent vulnerability maps may be defined. This ap-
proach provides both a resource intrinsic vulnerability
map and a karstic source intrinsic vulnerability map.
For resource-vulnerability mapping, the groundwater
of the karst aquifer as a whole is considered, with the
target being the groundwater surface. This can be the
water table where the potentiometric surface is within
the limestone, or alternatively it may be the top of the
bedrock where the water table or potentiometric sur-
face is in overlying geological materials. For source-
vulnerability mapping the target is a pumping well
or a spring issuing from an aquifer (GSI 1999;
Goldscheider et al. 2000).
3. The “pathway” includes everything between the
ground surface (point of release of contaminants) and
the target. All factors influencing vulnerability have
to be evaluated. For resource vulnerability, the path-
way is the vertical path through any overlying layers.
For source vulnerability, horizontal-flow paths in the
aquifer are also taken into account.
System and Processes Conceptualisation
In describing the relative protective function of the dif-
ferent layers between the land surface and groundwater,
the first factor takes into account the properties of any
overlying layers in terms of advective transport time
and physical attenuation. This is called the “overlying
layers factor” (the O factor; COST 620, internal report
2000).
A pollution event occurring at the ground surface can
reach groundwater in different ways (Fig. 1). The con-
taminant can move through the layers between the soil
surface and groundwater by infiltration and subsequent
percolation. Alternatively, preferential and concentrated
infiltration can occur at swallow holes, thus bypassing
the overlying layers. Also, in areas characterised by run-
off (down slopes or where streams flow onto karstic
aquifers from non-carbonate-rock areas), contaminated
water can move to another location where it can infiltrate
into the ground at swallow holes or dolines and bypass
all or a part of the overlying layers. These processes are
conceptualised in a factor called “flow concentration”
(the C factor). The C factor of the European approach
Fig. 1 Illustration of the “European approach” to mapping
groundwater vulnerability: for resource-vulnerability mapping, the
groundwater surface is the target; for source-vulnerability map-
ping, the spring or pumping well is the target. The precipitation re-
gime (Pfactor) is responsible for water-flow rates within the
system; the overlying layers (Ofactor) consist of up to four layers:
(1) topsoil, (2) subsoil, (3) non-karstic bedrock, and (4) unsaturat-
ed karstic bedrock, combined with the concentration of flow
(Cfactor), account for the relative protection of the groundwater
from contamination, taking into account any bypass. In addition,
the karst network development (Kfactor) is relevant for source-
vulnerability mapping
3
is almost identical to the I factor of the PI method
(Goldscheider et al. 2000).
For source-vulnerability assessment, the advective
transport time and physical attenuation must also be con-
sidered in the saturated zone. This is taken into account
with a factor K describing the saturated karstic network
behaviour.
Precipitation (the P factor) is an external “stress” ap-
plied to the geological environment. Except for surface
water–groundwater interactions, no recharge and vertical
seepage of water towards the groundwater is possible
without rainfall or snowmelt. So this P factor will have
to be combined with the factors C and O (or C, O, and K,
depending on the target).
After adequate combination of these factors, a general
validation of the results should be undertaken. This pro-
cess, using data not used in the groundwater-vulnerabili-
ty-assessment method and characterising the overall be-
haviour of the system, acts as quality assurance.
Overlying-Layers Factor: O
The overlying layers are those located between the land
surface and the groundwater. They can consist of up to
four types of layers (Hölting et al. 1995; COST 620 in-
ternal report 2000; Goldscheider et al. 2000):
1. Topsoil – the biologically active zone of weathering,
composed of minerals, organic substances, water, air,
living matter, roots (the A and B pedological hori-
zons);
2. Subsoil – granular, unconsolidated material, like sand,
gravel, and clay;
3. Non-karstic bedrock – non-karstic rock, like sand-
stone, schist, shale, and basalt;
4. Unsaturated karstic bedrock – the epikarst (if present)
is considered as a part of this layer (COST 620, inter-
nal report 2000).
Each layer is not always present. A possible extreme sit-
uation could occur when only one karstified layer exists.
There may be instances when some of these layers may
be usefully separated into several sublayers.
The value to be given to the O factor must reflect the
protective capacity of the overlying layers. Accordingly,
the data to be collected are of two types: (1) key data
(those which should actually be considered to directly
assess the O factor): layer thicknesses, hydraulic-con-
ductivity values (depending on water content), effective-
porosity values (depending on water content), macropo-
rosity and/or fissuring, fracturing/karstification (hetero-
geneity); and (2) other data (data from which the main
data can be assessed): grain-size distribution, lithological
content, soil type, vegetation indicators, drainage den-
sity.
Flow-Concentration Factor: C
Infiltration may occur in a relatively diffuse way through
the overlying layers, without significant flow-concentra-
tion points at the soil (land) surface. On the other hand,
and especially in karst systems, surface water and possi-
ble contaminants can very quickly reach the groundwater
by concentrated recharge via dolines, shafts, and espe-
cially swallow holes. Consequently, the protective func-
tion provided by the overlying layers is completely
bypassed at these places and partially bypassed within
their catchments (COST 620, internal report 2000;
Goldscheider et al. 2000).
The C factor represents the flow concentration, de-
pending on (1) the presence of karst features or other
places which concentrate infiltration flow; and (2) the
parameters which control runoff, including slope, vege-
tation, and physical soil properties.
The C factor represents the degree to which precipita-
tion is concentrated towards places where fast infiltration
can occur. If the infiltration occurs diffusely without sig-
nificant concentration of flow, the C factor is not an is-
sue as the overlying layers are not bypassed. On the oth-
er hand, precipitation can be concentrated and the over-
lying layers can be completely bypassed by a swallow
hole through which surface water and possible contami-
nants directly enter the karst aquifer. In such a case, the
C factor is a significant issue in determining vulnerabili-
ty. Catchment areas of sinking streams are assigned in-
termediate values of C. Basically, it is considered that
the O factor should be multiplied by the C factor. Conse-
quently, even an area covered with thick and low-perme-
ability overlying layers (high O factor) turns out to be
vulnerable if it discharges by surface runoff towards a
swallow hole or sinking stream (low C factor). An ap-
proach to quantifying C could be to choose it in an inter-
val between 0 and 1; however, the methods of quantify-
ing the values of these parameters will be considered
during the next stage of COST Action 620.
Karst-Network Factor: K
For assessing the karstic source (well or spring) intrinsic
vulnerability, a factor taking into account the karst net-
work of the mostly saturated aquifer is needed. The “ver-
tical” pathway (from the soil to the groundwater) must
be combined with the mostly horizontal pathway through
the saturated karstic bedrock to the source being consid-
ered (GSI 1999; Goldscheider et al. 2000).
A classification system previously developed (COST
620, internal report 2000) for karst aquifers has been
adopted. It is based on a general description of the bed-
rock, giving a range of possibilities from porous carbon-
ate-rock aquifers to highly karstified networks (Table 1).
By characterising the different types of flow (migration
mechanisms) and the matrix-storage capacity (physical
attenuation), a more detailed classification of the aquifer
can be derived if required. This K factor is very similar
to the K factor of the EPIK method (Doerfliger et al.
1999).
The description “slow active conduit network” re-
flects conduit systems which are not extensive and not
very efficient in draining the aquifer. “Fast active con-
4
duit system” implies an extensively developed karst net-
work which is efficient in draining the aquifer. The ma-
trix characteristics of the bedrock have been included, as
the interaction between the conduits and the matrix may
be sufficient to change the behaviour of the aquifer and
hence the attenuation potential.
The means of assessing the karst network factor are
the following: (1) geology, geomorphology; (2) cave and
karst maps; (3) groundwater-tracing results; (4) pump-
ing-tests results; (5) hydrochemistry, geochemistry; (6)
remote sensing and geophysical prospecting; (7) bore-
hole data and geophysical-logging results; (8) bedrock
sampling and laboratory experiments; and (9) calibrated
modelling results.
Precipitation Factor: P
This factor should reflect not only the total quantity of
precipitation, but also the frequency, duration, and inten-
sity of extreme events, which can have a major influence
on the quantity and rate of infiltration. Through the de-
pendency of the hydraulic-conductivity and effective-
porosity values on the water content, the advective trans-
port times and physical attenuation processes are influ-
enced by the prevailing precipitation characteristics in
the region concerned.
Four possible general scenarios can be considered:
humid climate with extreme events, humid climate with-
out extreme events, dry climate with extreme events, and
dry climate without extreme events.
Quality Assurance: Validation
The philosophy underlying such analysis, which is sup-
posed to assess the whole system, is that it acts as an in-
dependent evaluation to be used as a means of compari-
son with the vulnerability maps. It is a “reality check”
utilising tools which evaluate the whole system. It also
provides a means of incorporating data from methodolo-
gies which have traditionally been used in karst hydrolo-
gy (COST 620, internal report 2000). The use of data
which were not previously used in the factors evaluation
allows this general validation procedure to be carried
out.
In practice, quality assurance is introduced to consid-
er how the vulnerability assessment reflects what is
known of the entire hydrological system supplying the
source. The quality assurance or validation assessment
can be done with the use of different kinds of data, such
as (COST 620, internal report 2000) (1) hydrograph,
graphs of chemical properties, bacteriology; (2) tracer
techniques; (3) water balance; (4) calibrated numerical
simulations; and (5) analog studies.
Intrinsic-Vulnerability Maps
The resource-intrinsic-vulnerability map is obtained by
applying the system stress factor P on the combination of
the O and C factors (core factors). Vulnerability assess-
ment at a site is also achieved by combining these fac-
tors. The additional combination with the K factor pro-
vides the source (karstic) intrinsic vulnerability map.
Fig. 2 is a diagrammatic cross section showing the distri-
bution of the factors which result in the map. The quali-
ty-assurance test is used a posteriori for checking the
vulnerability assessment and mapping.
Table 1 Classification system for the karst aquifers (adapted from COST 620, internal report 2000). The increasing degree of karstifi-
cation and concentration of flow within the aquifer is from left to right
Fractured and intergranular system Solutionally-enlarged fissures Conduit systems
Inter- Fractures High Low No Slow active conduit network Fast active conduit network
granular matrix matrix significant
flow High Low storage storage matrix High Low No High Low No
matrix matrix storage matrix matrix significant matrix matrix significant
storage storage storage storage matrix storage storage matrix
storage storage
Fig. 2 Diagrammatic cross section showing distribution of factors
which result in the production of intrinsic vulnerability maps
(modified after Goldscheider et al. 2000)
5
References
Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ (1987) Drastic: a standard-
ized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential us-
ing hydrogeological settings. US Environ Prot Agency Rep
EPA-600/2-87-035, 622 pp
Civita M (1994) Le carte della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi all’in-
quinamento. Teoria e practica [Aquifer vulnerability map to
pollution. Theory and application]. Pitagora, Bologna:13
Civita M, De Regibus C (1995) Sperimentazione di alcune met-
odologie per la valutazione della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi
[Experimentation of a methodology for mapping the value of
the aquifer vulnerability]. Pitagora, Bologna, Q Geol Appl 3:
63–71
Daly D, Drew D (1999) Irish methodologies for karst aquifer pro-
tection. In: Beck B (ed) Hydrogeology and engineering geolo-
gy of sinkholes and karst. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 267–272
Doerfliger N, Jeannin PY, 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 39(2):165–176
Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability,
pollution risk and protection strategy. In: van Duijvenbooden
W, van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and
groundwater to pollutants. Proc Inf TNO Comm Hydrol Res
38, pp 69–86
Gogu RC (2000) Advances in groundwater protection strategy us-
ing vulnerability mapping and hydrogeological GIS databases.
PhD Thesis, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Liège,
Belgium, 153 pp
Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) Current trends and future chal-
lenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay
and index methods. Environ Geol 39(6):549–559
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
Hannover 46(2000)3:157–166
GSI (1999) Groundwater protection schemes. Dept Environ Local
Gov, Environ Prot Agency, Geol Surv Ireland, Dublin, 24 pp
Hölting B, Haertle T, Hohberger K-H, Nachtigall KH, Villinger E,
Weinzierl W, Wrobel J-P (1995) Konzept zur Ermittlung der
Schutzfunktion der Grundwasserüberdeckung [Concept to as-
sess the protective function of the layers above the groundwa-
ter surface]. Geol Jahrb Hannover C63:5–24
Madl-Szonyi J, Fule L (1998) Groundwater vulnerability assess-
ment of the SW Trans-Danubian central range. Environ Geol
35:9–17
Malik P, Svasta J (1998) Groundwater vulnerability maps for the
areas with karst-fissure and fissure aquifers (in Slovak). Arch
Geol Surv, Slovak Republic
Navulur KCS, Engel BA (1997) Predicting spatial distributions of
vulnerability of Indiana state aquifer systems to nitrate leach-
ing using a GIS. Purdue University, USA, Lafayette Res Rep,
11 pp
Robins N, Adams B, Foster S, Palmer R (1994) Groundwater vul-
nerability mapping: the British perspective. Hydrogéologie
3:35–42
Van Stempvoort D, Evert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnera-
bility index: a GIS compatible method for groundwater vul-
nerability mapping. Can Water Resour J 18:25–37
von Hoyer M, Söfner B (1998) Groundwater vulnerability map-
ping in carbonate (karst) areas of Germany. Fed Inst Geosci
Nat Resources, Hannover, Archiv no°117854, 38 pp
Vrba J, Zaporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater
vulnerability. Heinz Heise, Hannover, Germany, Int Assoc Hy-
drogeol, Int Contrib Hydrogeol 16
Next Steps to be Considered in the
“European Approach”
Now the work is directed to the following developments:
1. Methods of quantifying/categorising factors;
2. Defining a way of combining and weighting the dif-
ferent factors with respect to the underlying physical
processes (i.e. migration and physical attenuation pro-
cesses);
3. Defining the different meteorological scenarios and
their respective influence for combining P, on one
hand, with O and C factors on the other hand;
4. Applying the proposed method to various European
test sites which have different meteorological, hydro-
logical, geological, and hydrogeological conditions;
the approach allows data of varying quality/reliability
to be used in individual cases, and it is necessary to
be able to estimate how good the assessment of vul-
nerability is, based on the quality of the data input;
5. Using the assessment of the factors to compartmental-
ise the range of hydrogeological settings and condi-
tions into 4–5 vulnerability categories;
6. Revising the approach based on the results from the
test sites.
Concluding Comments
The main concepts of the “European approach” for karst
groundwater-vulnerability assessment and mapping out-
lined in this report represent a consensus view of hydro-
geologists and karst specialists from about 15 European
countries. It provides a simple, yet sound, conceptual
framework for vulnerability assessment and mapping
for both karst and non-karst hydrogeological environ-
ments. It also provides a broad framework which takes
account of the variability and conditions within Europe,
although it is also likely to be applicable outside
Europe. It may assist in the implementation of the EU
Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) by
providing a consistent approach to considering and de-
scribing the vulnerability component of river-basin dis-
trict characterisation.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to all colleagues,
participants of the COST 620 Action (http://www.lgih.ulg.ac.be/
cost), for engaging in useful discussions during the meetings.
Also, the authors acknowledge the COST Program of the DG XII
of the European Commission for financing these meetings.
6
