Search in KarstBase
High alpine karst plateaus are recharge areas for major drinking water resources in the Alps and many other regions. Well-established methods for the vulnerability mapping of groundwater to contamination have not been applied to such areas yet. The paper characterises this karst type and shows that two common vulnerability assessment methods (COP and PI) classify most of the areas with high vulnerability classes. In the test site on the Hochschwab plateau (Northern Calcareous Alps, Austria), overlying layers are mostly absent, not protective or even enhance point recharge, where they have aquiclude character. The COP method classifies 82% of the area as highly or extremely vulnerable. The resulting maps are reasonable, but do not differentiate vulnerabilities to the extent that the results can be used for protective measures. An extension for the upper end of the vulnerability scale is presented that allows identifying ultra vulnerable areas. The proposed enhancement of the conventional approach points out that infiltration conditions are of key importance for vulnerability. The method accounts for karst genetical and hydrologic processes using qualitative and quantitative properties of karst depressions and sinking streams including parameters calculated from digital elevations models. The method is tested on the Hochschwab plateau where 1.7% of the area is delineated as ultra vulnerable. This differentiation could not be reached by the COP and PI methods. The resulting vulnerability map highlights spots of maximum vulnerability and the combination with a hazard map enables protective measures for a manageable area and number of sites.
A comparative test of two vulnerability mapping methods (COP and PaPRIKa) specifically dedicated to for karst aquifers was carried out on two Mediterranean carbonate aquifers. The vulnerability maps obtained for each aquifer present important differences. To identify and determine the origin of these differences, the results were statistically analyzed using sensitivity analysis, coefficients of determination and scatter graphs. In addition, the global vulnerability (Gv) parameter was used to measure the general vulnerability of the aquifer and to compare the results obtained. This statistical analysis led us to conclude that the main cause of differences between these two methods used to assess aquifer vulnerability lie in the relative importance of the parameters employed in calculating the vulnerability index. For the PaPRIKa method, the variable related to infiltration (slope and karst features) has the most influence, with less weight being assigned to the protective capacity of layers overlying the aquifer. For the COP method, the most influent variable is defined by the layers overlying the aquifer, together with infiltration characteristics, determined by the relative importance of different forms of infiltration in each aquifer. The vulnerability mappings performed using the COP method present greater coherence with the known hydrogeological behavior of the study areas, especially the Spanish aquifers. Nevertheless, further hydrogeological investigations are needed, such as ones to validate the obtained vulnerability maps.