Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
DOI 10.1007/s12665-011-1494-x
SPECIAL ISSUE
Protection of groundwater intended for human consumption:
a proposed methodology for defining safeguard zones
A. Jiménez-Madrid • F. Carrasco-Cantos •
C. Martı́nez-Navarrete
Received: 31 January 2011 / Accepted: 6 December 2011 / Published online: 28 December 2011
 Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Carbonate aquifers constitute a water reserve of
essential importance for human supply. For this, it is nec-
essary to establish suitable protection measures in order to
achieve the good status of groundwater bodies intended for
human supply according to the requirements of the Water
Framework Directive. The objective of this paper is to
present a methodology to define safeguard zones for the
protection of carbonate groundwater bodies intended for
human consumption. To do this, firstly the risk of ground-
water contamination is evaluated through a combination of
characterising pressures and the evaluation of the intrinsic
vulnerability to contamination. Secondly, the existing water
abstraction points are identified and their zones of contri-
bution are delineated in order to establish priorities when
defining protective measures in the region. Finally, the
existing wellhead protection areas and those defined
according to the proposed methodology must be integrated
into the delineated safeguard zones. The results obtained in
a carbonate groundwater body in southern Spain are con-
sistent with the existing quality data and they show the
percentage of land that must be protected to preserve the
quality of water intended for human consumption, thus
facilitating their future integration into adequate land use
planning tools.
A. Jiménez-Madrid (&)  C. Martı́nez-Navarrete
Geological Survey of Spain, C/Rı́os Rosas, 23,
28003 Madrid, Spain
e-mail: a.jimenez@igme.es
C. Martı́nez-Navarrete
e-mail: c.martinez@igme.es
F. Carrasco-Cantos
Hydrogeology Group, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
e-mail: fcarrasco@uma.es
Keywords Carbonate aquifers  Water framework
directive  Safeguard zone  Risk assessment 
Land use planning
Introduction
Overview
Groundwater constitutes a basic resource in Europe, which
is demonstrated in countries such as Austria, Germany,
Italy or Denmark where more than 70% of the population’s
water supply comes from groundwater (Martı́nez-Navarrete
et al. 2008). Carbonate aquifers are especially important in
the European continent from a human water supply point of
view given that they represent 35% of the surface area and
their resources make up 50% of the total water for supply
(COST 1995).
With the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (European
Union 2000) coming into effect, water protection has
turned into one of the priority environmental targets of
European policies. For this, it is necessary to develop
specific methodologies for carbonate materials that
improve the protection against contamination in order to
reach a good status regarding both quantity and quality of
groundwater bodies used for human consumption as
required by the WFD (Carrasco et al. 2008).
To establish an effective global protection measure for
groundwater bodies, it is highly advisable to specifically
consider the risk of contamination, which should be the
conceptual basis of the methodology for defining safeguard
zones in groundwater bodies intended for human con-
sumption, as established in several documents for a common
implementation of the WFD in the different Member States
(European Commission 2007). Furthermore, a knowledge
123
2392
of the distribution of drinking water abstraction points is
required as well as to define their zones of contribution in
order to focus these protective measures on them.
The COST Action 620 (Vulnerability and risk mapping
for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers) provided an
important milestone in the protection of karst aquifers. This
European approach to vulnerability, hazard and risk map-
ping proposed by COST Action 620 is based on an origin-
pathway-target model, which applies for both resource and
source protection. In this model, the groundwater contam-
ination risk is evaluated based on the potential sources of
contamination (origin) and vulnerability of the aquifer
(pathway). The target is the water, which has to be protected
(Daly et al. 2002; Zwahlen 2004).
Safeguard zones
Article 6 of the WFD requires there to be a registry of
protected areas within each river basin district (Annex
IV). These records shall include, among others, the
Drinking Waters Protection Areas (DWPAs), which are all
groundwater bodies used for the abstraction of drinking
water that provide an average of more than 10 m3 per day
or serve more than 50 persons, and those water bodies
destined for such use in the future. These defined DWPAs
will be the basic units for the establishment of safeguards
zones to protect water intended for human consumption
with the objective of focussing on the protection measures
that are determinant to comply with the requirements of the
WFD and the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC.
Fig. 1 Geographical and
hydrogeological setting of
Sierra de Cañete
123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
Safeguard zones are areas (that can be established option-
ally as contemplated in the WFD in article 7.3) whose scope
focusses on measures to protect groundwater with the aim of
avoiding the deterioration of water quality and reducing the
level of purification treatments required for human water
consumption. They are therefore equivalent to wellhead pro-
tection areas for groundwater bodies intended for human
consumption. Martı́nez-Navarrete et al. (2011) propose an
initial methodological approach to delineate these areas.
The objective of the present work is to propose a meth-
odological development to delimit safeguard areas as a
global measure of protection in all groundwater bodies
intended for human consumption. For this, the carbonate
aquifers of the Sierra de Cañete have been selected as a pilot
area because its resources are used to supply eight munic-
ipalities. Different thematic maps were elaborated using a
Geographical Information System (GIS). Spatial analysis
tools within ArcGis 9.3 software were used to overlay
layers, to assign values, and for joint data management.
Study area
The Sierra de Cañete is located in the western Mediterra-
nean, in southern Spain (Fig. 1). It constitutes a mountain
range, covering a surface area of approximately 55 km2
with a mean annual precipitation of over 1,000 mm.
Outcropping materials belong to the Subbetic and cor-
respond to Jurassic limestones and dolomites that have
been made permeable through fissures and karstification.
The karst is poorly developed. The most representative
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
exokarstic landform is the limestone pavement in Penibetic
materials. Very few areas of preferential infiltration exist
(such as dolines and uvalas) and only occasional small and
shallow sinkholes are present.
Due to tectonic causes, the Sierra de Cañete is divided
into several aquifers (compartments) (Fig. 1). These aqui-
fers are recharged by rainwater infiltration. Groundwater
flow occurs through fissures and conduits towards dis-
charge springs that are located at different topographic
heights according to aquifer divisions; it displays a mod-
erate karstic regime (Junta de Andalucı́a 2002).
Methodology
The development of this research was defined based on three
stages: the first stage focussed on the evaluation of the
groundwater contamination risk; in the second stage, it was
necessary to define zones of contribution of springs or wells
intended for human consumption with the aim to centralise
the protection measures; the third stage consisted in con-
sidering the existing wellhead protection areas and defining
the most important groundwater abstraction points.
Collecting and processing data
In Sierra de Cañete, the analysis and quantification of the
different parameters that are required to assess each of
the integral factors of the proposed methodology for the
protection of drinking water are described in detail
in Jiménez-Madrid (2011).
Parameters related to the protective layers found above
the aquifer were evaluated from the MAGNA geological
map edited by the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) at a
scale of 1:50,000 (Cruz-Sanjulián 1991), a lithostratigraphic
and permeability map at a scale of 1:200,000 (IGME
2006), a soil map from the LUCDEME project (Combat-
ing desertification in the Mediterranean area) at a scale of
1:100,000 (Map sheet 1037), a digital elevation model
10 9 10 m (Junta de Andalucı́a 2005) and a perma-
nent piezometric monitoring network of Sierra de Cañete
(Junta de Andalucı́a 2002).
In regards to the ways of infiltration and flow rates,
the land use map of Andalusia at a 1:25,000 scale (Junta
de Andalucı́a 2007), topographic maps, orthophotographs,
speleology and a geomorphological field analysis were
used. All the information sources used to evaluate each of
the factors of the methods discussed are shown with details
in Jiménez-Madrid et al. (2011). The variables have been
the focus of analysis and GIS tools have been used for
interpretation.
The information sources employed have been comple-
mented by field work campaigns that focussed on pressures
2393
identification, inventory of abstraction points for water sup-
ply, soil characterisation, lithology identification, delimitation
of recharge zones and preferential infiltration zones, as well as
geomorphologic analysis and karstic development analysis.
Groundwater contamination risk
The contamination risk assessment is the backbone and basis
of the proposed methodology. Characterisation should be
performed on the entire water body, and for this, both the
characterisation of pressures and the evaluation of the intrinsic
vulnerability to contamination should be performed.
The map of pressures in combination with vulnerability
mapping is an important tool for carrying out a contami-
nation risk assessment. Different methodologies exist for
their evaluation (Foster 1987; Civita and de Maio 1997;
Ducci 1999; Panagopoulos et al. 2006; Al-Hanbali and
Kondoh 2008; Saidi et al. 2009).
Intensity of pressures (IP index)
The potential for contamination associated with a particular
human activity depends on, among other factors, its nature,
type and amount of pollutant that can be released into the
natural environment, the contamination event duration and
frequency (Sánchez 2010). It is necessary to conduct a field
inventory as detailed as possible including the identification of
the activity, geographical location and its characterisa-
tion. Once this has been completed, the inventory should be
dynamic and under continual evolution (Mimi and Assi 2009).
Within the framework of COST Action 620 (De
Keteleare et al. 2004), a methodology to quantitatively
assess the pressure risk on groundwater in carbonate
aquifers was developed. It assigns a Hazard Index (HI) to
each potential hazard identified, which is calculated using
the following equation (and can vary between a minimum
value of 0 and a maximum of 120):
HI ¼ H ðweighting factorÞ  Qn ðranking factorÞ
 Rf ðreduction factorÞ:
The H value is defined by the method through a score
assigned by a committee of European experts, with values
that range between 10 and 100 for each activity (Zwahlen
2004). The other two factors, Qn and Rf, permit an increase
or decrease of the initial assessment. The Qn factor varies
between 0.8 and 1.2 depending on the quantity of pollutant
that could be released into the natural environment, whilst
the Rf factor expresses likelihood of a contamination event
to occur and assigns a value between 0 and 1. The product
of these three factors results in five levels of risk that range
from low classes (0–24) to very high classes (96–120).
The Hazard Index has been applied to different areas in
Europe with satisfactory results (Zwahlen 2004). It has also
123
2394
undergone some modifications (Nguyet and Goldscheider
2006; Sánchez 2010).
Based on this European approach, a new factor is pro-
posed here to characterise the risk of each identified pres-
sure, the IP factor (intensity of pressures). Its definition is
based on the following premises:
• Definition of the IP factor. This corresponds to the H
factor (weighting factor) of the original method.
• Removal of the Rf factor. This factor is difficult to
characterise because few objective criteria exist for its
quantification. It also has little effect on the outcome.
• Substitution of the Qn factor. The factor responsible for
assessing the intensity of a pollution event is replaced by a
threshold to assess the impact on contamination of an
activity compared to another one. The thresholds were
defined with a large safety limit based on data from the
EUROSTAT Statistical Office of the European Commis-
sion (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu), so that surpassing
the limit would imply an increase in the IP factor by 40%.
Similar ideas are presented by Belousova (2003), Ravbar
and Goldscheider (2007) and Sánchez (2010).
Once the existing pressures have been inventoried, they
are classified according to five categories of pressure
intensity by assigning a value ranging from 1 to 5
(Table 1), which are then integrated into the methodology
for delineating safeguard zones. Overlapping pressures are
characterised by the sum of their respective IP values.
Table 2 shows a summary of the list of the different
pressures associated with their intensities and defined
thresholds. Activities with a greater potential to contami-
nate can be differentiated even being the same type of
activity, also the IP index is indicated for when the
threshold is exceeded. A complete and detailed list is found
in Jiménez-Madrid (2011).
In view of this, the IP index corresponds to the stan-
dardised IP factor ranging 1–5. Only when the pressure
exceeds a certain threshold, the IP index is calculated by
multiplying the IP factor by 1.2 (increasing it by 40%):
IP Index = IP factor ðintensity values of a standard pressureÞ:
IP Index ¼ 1:4  IP factor ðpressures that exceed
a determined thresholdÞ
Table 1 IP index categories
Intensity of pressures IP index
0–19 (very low) 1
20–39 (low) 2
40–59 (moderate) 3
60–79 (high) 4
[80 (very high) 5
123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
Intrinsic vulnerability mapping (DRISTPI index)
The vulnerability of groundwater to contamination is its
susceptibility to contamination due to the impact of human
activities (Foster 1987). Vulnerability is a relative and
dimensionless property, and is difficult to measure. It is
possible to distinguish between the intrinsic vulnerability
and specific vulnerability of each pollutant (Vrba and
Zoporozec 1994).
Over time, several methods have been developed to
evaluate the intrinsic vulnerability to contamination based
on different methodological approaches. The most com-
mon methods (developed in the 1980s and 1990s) are the
following: GOD (Foster 1987), DRASTIC (Aller et al.
1987), AVI (Van Stempvoort et al. 1993), SINTACS
(Civita 1994), ISIS (Civita and de Regibus 1995), EPIK
(Dörfliger 1996) and Irish approach (Daly and Drew 1999).
Gogu and Dassargues (2000) provide an overview of the
most current methods.
In recent years, several methods have been specifically
developed for carbonate media, which has lead to an
increase in its application. The first one developed was the
EPIK method (Dörfliger 1996) followed by the PI method
(Goldscheider et al. 2000). Following the fundaments of
the second one, the COP method Vı́as et al. (2006) was
developed as well as an extension of it called COP ? K
(Andreo et al. 2008a) destined to assess the vulnerability of
the source through the possibility of including a new K
factor (Karst saturated zone). Recently, a Slovenian
Approach outstands (Ravbar and Goldscheider 2007)
together with the PaPRIKa method (Dörfliger and Plagnes
2009), which also include amendments that allow the
possibility of characterising the vulnerability of the source.
The DRISTPI index is a new method for assessing the
intrinsic vulnerability in all types of aquifers. Experience has
shown that intergranular and carbonate materials can be
found within a single groundwater body; for this reason, it is
necessary to develop a method that can be applied to all types
of mediums (Martı́nez-Navarrete et al. 2011). The aim is to
develop a single method based on the original DRASTIC
method characterised by a plurality of applications and
functionality. As a fundamental requirement, there are two
scenarios that need to be considered: scenario 1, which
relates to materials that are highly karstified, and scenario 2,
which extends over the rest of the area where there is a lower
degree of karstification. It also considers the removal of
parameters, the modification of ranges and weights and the
incorporation of a new ‘‘preferential infiltration’’ parameter,
which is specific for each scenario (Fig. 2).
In regards to the DRASTIC method, the factors A
(aquifer lithology) and C (hydraulic conductivity) have
been removed as it is intended that the transit of a possible
contaminant from the surface to the saturated zone
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406 2395

Table 2 Description of pressures

Pressures Intensity Threshold Intensity pressure
pressure (IP) surpassing threshold (IP)

Urban development infrastructures

Waste water
Urbanised areas with a sewage system 35 [500 inhabitants 49
Urbanised areas without a sewage system 70 [300 inhabitants 98
Municipal waste
Active solid urban waste landfill 50 [10,000 inhabitants serviced 70
Fuels
Petrol station 60 [60 m3 of storage capacity 84
Transport and traffic
Roads 40 [2,500 vehicles/day with a medium 56
daily traffic intensity
Airport 60 [5,000 flights per year 84
Industrial infrastructure
Mining
Mineral mines 70 [1,000 t/year of volume 98
Quarries and excavations
Active quarry 25 [5 ha of extraction surface area 35
Industry
Metallurgy, steelworks 40 [1,000 t/year of production 56
Abattoir 35 [1,000 t/year of production 49
Power plants
Nuclear plants 65 [150 m3 of storage space 91
Livestock
Intensive livestock 30 [500 livestock 42
Agriculture
Dryland agriculture 25 [5 ha surface area 35
Irrigated agriculture 30 [3 ha surface area 42
Value of the IP factor and definition of thresholds

(resource) will be characterised and these factors charac-
terise the horizontal movement of water and not the ver-
tical movement (Sinan and Razack 2009).
The D factor (depth of water) has different ranges and
weights according to the scenario where it is applied. In
scenario 1, the D factor ranges are those published in
Withowski et al. (2002) for the application of the DRAS-
TIC method in karst materials. The specific weight of 2
would be assigned as indicated by the SINTACS method
for these types of materials (Civita 1994). In karst aquifers,
transit times are rapid and infiltration occurs along pref-
erential pathways; this means that the thickness of the
vadose zone is not as important when it comes to protecting
the aquifer against a contamination event. In the case of
scenario 2, both the ranges and the specific weight are
taken from the original DRASTIC method.
The factors I (lithology of the vadose zone), S (soil) and
T (topography) are taken from the original DRASTIC
method (Aller et al. 1987) and are considered in the same
way for both scenarios.
With respect to the R factor, the classification proposed
by Withowski et al. (2002) was followed in both scenarios
for the application of the DRASTIC method in karst
materials. Recharge can be estimated by various methods
(Scanlon et al. 2002; Andreo et al. 2008b).
Based on past experience, this work proposes another
alternative to estimate recharge based on the infiltration
coefficient of the different materials present as proposed in
the ISIS method (Civita and de Regibus 1995), and from
effective precipitation. For this, values of precipitation and
actual evapotranspiration are used to calculate the effective
precipitation, which depending on the existing material
will reach the aquifer. Thus, a recharge value is given with
a spatial zoning:
Precipitation  Actual evapotranspiration
¼ Effective precipitation
Effective precipitation  Infiltration coefficient
¼ Recharge

123
2396
Fig. 2 Methodological
proposal of DRISTPI index
The proposed DRISTPI method is complemented by the
creation of a new factor called PI (preferential infiltration)
which is specific to each scenario. This factor identifies and
evaluates areas where rapid infiltration occurs both
naturally and artificially (dolines, poljes, quarries,
etc.). This factor is given a weight of 5 due to its
importance in the functioning of an aquifer.
Once all of the factors described have been characterised
for each of the defined scenarios, a vulnerability index is
obtained, which is divided into five classes according to the
ranges defined in Fig. 2.
Risk assessment (RI index)
Within the framework of COST Action 620, Hötzl et al.
(2004) established the risk of groundwater contamination
as the ratio between the vulnerability and the risk of
pressures, which has been applied in several areas with
satisfactory results (Andreo et al. 2006; Jiménez-Madrid
et al. 2010). The proposal made by the COST Action 620 is
relatively complex and requires specific and detailed data,
which may not be available in many countries, particularly
in developing countries (Nguyet and Goldscheider 2006).
As part of this work and based on indications set out in
COST Action 620, the Risk Index (RI) is defined to assess
the risk of groundwater contamination, which is deter-
mined as the product of the pressure index and the vul-
nerability assessment index.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
To integrate these two factors and achieve the proposed
RI index, the results obtained have to be reclassified into an
index that ranges between 1 (minimum) and 5 (maxi-
mum). The product of these two indices gives rise to five
categories of risk: very low risk, low risk, moderate risk,
high risk and very high risk (Table 3).
In this paper, the IP index (intensity of pressures) is pro-
posed in order to characterise the pressures and the DRISTPI
index for assessing vulnerability. The fundamentals of each
index are described in sections ‘‘Intensity of pressures (IP
index)’’ and ‘‘Intrinsic vulnerability mapping (DRISTPI
index)’’, respectively. However, it should be pointed out that
any existing methods that evaluate pressures and vulnera-
bility can be integrated into the proposed methodology for
the delineation of safeguard zones, provided that the results
of each index are reclassified into values between 1 and 5.
Distribution of abstraction points intended for human
consumption and definition of their zones
of contribution (ZOC)
In order to meet the requirements of the WFD, and to make
the protection measures feasible for land use planning, its
necessary to be aware of the distribution of water
abstraction points intended for human consumption and to
define their recharge areas.
For this purpose, firstly, a registry of the abstraction points
intended for human consumption should be created, where
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
Table 3 Risk index categories
their characteristics and location are to be addressed. Sec-
ondly, an analysis of the properties of the aquifer system and
the existing flow conditions should be carried out in order to
complete a detailed hydrogeological study. Once the above
steps have been taken, the zones of contribution of these
abstraction points should be delineated. Finally, as a com-
plementary measure, a hydrogeological water balance can be
carried out to validate the obtained zonation.
The zone of contribution is the area of land that con-
tributes to groundwater recharge by direct water infiltration
or by the infiltration of water courses (Bussard et al.
2006). It is a concept similar to the notion of a Zu capture
zone developed in Switzerland to protect groundwater from
diffuse pollution, which is based on the methodology
developed by the Bureau de Recherche Ge´ologique et
Minie`re (BRGM) for the delineation of abstraction points
contribution zones in basins in order to establish protective
measures (Vernoux et al. 2007).
Several works deal with the delineation of zones of
contribution and analyse the various outcomes (Ceric and
Haitjema 2005). Within the framework of this work, the
recommended definition to be used is the Methodological
Guide published by the BRGM (Vernoux et al. 2007).
In the case of karst aquifers, the characteristics of this
type of media as well as its two different ways of being
recharged (diffuse recharge by precipitation and sinkholes)
should be considered. The delimitation of zones of con-
tribution in this type of media should be performed with
analysis of the geological structure, hydrodynamic meth-
ods, natural (isotopes) and artificial tracer tests, topo-
graphic studies for the delineation of watersheds and/or
numerical models.
Wellhead protection areas
Wellhead protection areas have historically been defined
by using different concepts and principles. Moreno and
Martı́nez (1991) defined them as areas surrounding
abstraction points in which, in a progressive way, activities
or facilities that may pollute groundwater or affect the
water flow used for public supply are restricted or pro-
hibited. This is a measure broadly reflected in the water
2397
protection legislation of different countries in the European
Union, where the definition of its boundary has been
addressed differently (Bannerman 2000). However, the
establishment of the protection measures vary greatly
between European Union countries; for example, in Ger-
many, wellhead protection areas cover 20% of the country
(Vorreyer 1998), whilst in Spain, its establishment is
practically null (Martı́nez-Navarrete et al. 2008).
Many methods are used for the delineation of wellhead
protection areas whose fundaments, complexity, accuracy
and degree of uncertainty vary in their results, such as an
arbitrary or calculated fixed radius method, analytical
methods, flow/transport numerical models or hydrogeo-
logical methods, among others. Many of them are suitable
for establishing wellhead protection areas in aquifers with
intergranular porosity (Environment Agency 1998; Lalle-
mand–Barrès and Roux 1999; Martı́nez-Navarrete and
Garcı́a Garcı́a 2003). There are a restricted number of
methods available for application in karst and fissured
environments due to their great heterogeneity, making the
use of other tools necessary (Daly et al. 2002).
Wellhead protection areas must be considered in the
proposed methodology as they are an effective measure for
protecting abstraction points from contamination and its
definition requires detailed studies in the vicinity of the
abstraction points. For this, many methodologies exist and
they are mainly based on the calculation of transit
times. Therefore, wellhead protection areas that have been
defined, approved and are in effect should be directly
incorporated into the delineated safeguard zones. It will
also be necessary to conduct a detailed hydrogeological
study of abstraction points that are currently unprotected
and are considered as being significant by having a con-
siderable flow and supply a large population.
Delineation of safeguard zones
Therefore, it is necessary to establish a methodology that
considers and integrates the analysis of all these criteria
and enables Member States to take the necessary measures
to protect water quality so that at abstraction points, prior
to purification treatments, there is no significant deterio-
ration in water quality that could eventually require an
increase in purification treatments, and therefore the
requirements of the WFD can be accomplished.
The combination and integration of the three previously
mentioned blocks of analysis (contamination risk,
abstraction points for urban water supply and their zones of
contribution, and wellhead protection areas) according to
the principles described in Fig. 3 permits the delineation of
safeguard zones. For this, the contamination risk assess-
ment conducted for the entire water body is analysed
within the zones of contribution whilst wellhead protection
123
2398 Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406

areas are integrated directly into the safeguard zones. Five to demonstrate that the situation is being maintained or that
modalities of protection are differentiated: there is a sustainable improvement over time following the
delineation of safeguard zones and its restrictions (Euro-
• Safeguard zones with high restrictions. This includes
pean Union 2006). In the event that the imposed protection
areas with a very high contamination risk within the
measures on safeguard zones fail to prevent deterioration in
zones of contribution and the zoning of wellhead
the quality, and therefore breach the requirements of the
protection areas already defined and approved, as well
WFD, it will be necessary to restart the methodological
as the requirements set out in the methodology,
process to analyse possible errors in the evaluation of each
included within a transit time of one and 60 days.
of the factors involved.
• Safeguard zones with moderate restrictions. This
It should be noted that not all of the factors discussed in
includes areas with a high contamination risk within
the proposed methodology have a static nature like for
the zones of contribution and the zoning of wellhead
example the intrinsic aquifer vulnerability, which is an
protection areas already defined and approved, as well
inherent condition without temporal variation. Dynamic
as the requirements set out in the methodology,
factors exist such as the registration of abstraction points
included within a transit time of 4 years.
(and hence their zones of contribution) and pressures. This
• Safeguard zones with low restrictions. These areas
dynamic nature must be taken into account in the meth-
have a low and moderate contamination risk within the
odology, so that once the safeguard zones are defined, they
zones of contribution.
can be modified by the incorporation or removal of an
• Unrestricted zone. These are areas with a very low
abstraction point or a new pressure, which should involve
contamination risk within the zones of contribution. It
redefining the factors considered in the process of the
is not necessary to establish safeguard zones.
proposed methodology.
• Future safeguard zones. As indicated in the WFD,
To complete the safeguard zone delineation process,
protective measures must be established in areas where
the governmental body responsible for land use and
groundwater will possibly be destined to human
urban planning must take into account the definition,
consumption in the future. Therefore, this figure of
delineation and measures established by the safeguard
protection includes those areas with a high and very
zones in different planning tools as well as in new li-
high contamination risk that lie outside the previously
cences for drinking water abstraction points. It is there-
delineated zones of contribution.
fore necessary to equip governmental bodies with the
For the purpose of validation and verification of the necessary tools for the fulfilment of appropriate land
existing impacts, a monitoring survey is required in order management.

Fig. 3 Methodological
proposal of delimiting safeguard
zones

123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
Results
IP index map
Most of the identified pressures in Sierra de Cañete are
associated with contaminants of scarce harmfulness such as
the extension of dry land crops or livestock stables. The
pressures evaluated with high pressure correspond to
wastewater treatment plants and petrol stations, mainly due
to sewage dumping without tertiary treatments and the use
of hydrocarbons, respectively. Occasionally, high pressures
are also found in some pig farms and their slurry tanks.
These are one of the main pressures found in Sierra de
Cañete, where stockbreeding is carried out in certain areas,
and excrements, wash water along with drinking water and
feeding leftovers settle in tanks. These residues produce the
so-called slurry, which is characterised by its voluminous
accumulation, high organic matter content, and enrichment
in ammonia nitrogen and of microorganisms of faecal
origin. This slurry is commonly used as fertiliser by
stockbreeders and applied as irrigation, generally on
properties adjacent to these farms.
Once all the pressures had been inventoried, the inten-
sity of pressures index (IP index) was calculated in Sierra
de Cañete (Fig. 4). More than half of the land’s surface
(51.4% of the area) has a very low index due to the absence
of significant pressures. Most of the existing pressures are
designated with a low IP (45.4% of the area) due to the
prevalence of agricultural activities. Only in the case of
quarries, the established threshold was surpassed for
assessing the contamination intensity, which leads this
Fig. 4 Intensity of pressures
map according IP index
2399
pressure to be considered with a moderate IP. The exis-
tences of various pressures in the same area gives rise to
the sum of the respective IP values and therefore are to be
considered as areas with moderate, high and very high IP
values (2.2, 0.9 and 0.1% of the area, respectively); these
areas are mainly located in towns and their surroundings.
Comparative analysis of results
The results presented in this paper have been compared
with those previously obtained after applying the Hazard
Index (COST Action 620) in the same study area (Jiménez-
Madrid et al. 2010). The following improvements are
highlighted:
• With the new proposed IP index, an integrated spatial
distribution of pressures (linear, point and polygon) is
obtained by using GIS tools, which create a continuous
pressure map that covers the entire area.
• The definition of thresholds allows to objectively
differentiating the contaminating potential among the
same types of pressures.
• Overlapping various pressures in the same space is
evaluated by the sum of the pressure intensities,
respectively; this improves the characterisation of the
pressures in a given area.
DRISTPI index map
In Sierra de Cañete, the analysis and quantification of
different parameters to assess the vulnerability index
123
2400
following the DRISTPI index were carried out based on
different information sources (Jiménez-Madrid 2011). The
information sources employed have been complemented
with field work campaigns focussed on soil characterisa-
tion, lithology identification, location of quarries, delimi-
tation of recharge zones and preferential infiltration zones
as well as geomorphologic analysis and karstic develop-
ment analysis.
The DRISTPI index characterises the majority of Sierra
de Cañete (Fig. 5) with a moderate vulnerability (65% of
the area). The high and very high vulnerability classes
occupy between roughly 7% of the studied area whilst the
very low and low vulnerability classes extend over 27% of
the area.
In Sierra de Cañete, the two scenarios contemplated by
the method have been defined. Scenario 1 is represented by
Penibetic dolomites and limestones where the vadose zone
is very thick and there are zones of preferential infiltration
(karren fields in the Sierras del Padrastro and Padrastrillo
mountain ranges) with evidence of karstification. Scenario
2 extends over the rest of the study area.
Moderate vulnerability is located in dolomite outcrops,
with no preferential infiltration, with a great thickness of
the vadose zone and a leptosol soil type with a scarce
protective cover. The high vulnerability class is found in
Penibetic limestones located in karren fields in the Sierras
de Padrastro and Padrastrillo and in crushed stone quarries
that are found in the northwestern sector of the mountain
range. There is an adjacent zone with alluvial materials to
the north of the study area, which is characterised with a
Fig. 5 Vulnerability map
according to the DRISTPI index
123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
high vulnerability due to the reduced thickness of the
vadose zone.
Areas with very high vulnerability are not frequent and
are located in river beds due to the reduced thickness of the
vadose zone, the slight slope and the presence of permeable
(detrital) materials.
Areas with lower vulnerability correspond to outcrops of
low permeability materials that occupy marginal areas and
in fillings in the carbonate areas, mainly to the north of
Cañete la Real municipality and to the east of Alcalá del
Valle municipality.
Comparative analysis of results
In a previous study (Jiménez-Madrid 2011), a detailed
comparative analysis is given between different vulnera-
bility methods applied in Sierra de Cañete by using pro-
cessing and spatial statistics tools.
The spatial autocorrelation gives the relationship
between the differences of the spatial (non-spatial) attri-
butes of objects with the distance between the objects. For
example two objects, which are close together having also
very similar spatial descriptors, are highly spatially auto-
correlated. Two objects close together having also very
different spatial descriptors are not very spatially auto-
correlated. Hence, a negative spatial autocorrelation exists
when objects that are close together have very different
spatial attributes. In our case, the aspatial descriptor is the
vulnerability class (low, moderate, or high). This notion of
correlation can be used to measure the cross correlation
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
between two grids (two vulnerability maps). The correlation
index can be computed using the next formula (Gogu 2000):
Xn
cij
cij ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k¼1 Pn P
n
ðzi  zm Þ2  ðzj  zm Þ2
i¼1 j¼1
• n: the total number of cells in a grid: (number of
rows) 9 (number of columns)
• i: any cell on the first input grid
• j: any cell on the second input grid that is offset from
i location by the specified x, y offset
• zi: the value of the attribute of the cell i
• zj: the value of the attribute of the cell j
• zm: the mean value of the cell attribute
• cij: the similarities of i and j attributes: (zi-zm) 9 (zj-zm)
The resulting correlation index has values from -1 to 1.
If the two grids are highly cross-correlated, the index will
equal one. If the two grids are independent, the index is
zero, and if there is a strong negative correlation, the output
value will equal -1.
The DRISTPI method generally presents a high corre-
lation with other specific carbonate media methods applied
(PI, COP, PaPRIKa and Slovenian Approach), with a spatial
correlation index between 0.57 and 0.70. The highest value
of this index is obtained with the PaPRIKa method and
somewhat less with the Slovenian Approach (Table 4).
The results obtained after applying the DRISTPI method
in Sierra de Cañete show that there is a good character-
isation of the intrinsic vulnerability to contamination based
on existing hydrogeological knowledge. The definition of
two scenarios allows for its implementation in all media,
and the inclusion of the PI factor (preferential infiltration)
allows for the characterisation of areas where there is
preferential infiltration. Thus, Sierra de Cañete (mainly
assessed with a moderate vulnerability) has a high vul-
nerability class in karren fields, in quarries and in rivers in
contact with the aquifer and adjacent detrital areas.
RI index map
The contamination risk map resulting from the application
of the double-entry matrix considering the IP and DRISTPI
indices is shown in Fig. 6. According to the results
obtained with the RI index, Sierra de Cañete has a pre-
dominantly low risk of groundwater contamination (50.4%
of the area). The risk is minimal in outcrops of low per-
meable materials where there is a very low vulnerability
and pressures are nonexistent (18.9% of the area). The
moderate class of risk extends over 27.7% of the study area
and mainly covers the main carbonate outcrops and some
2401
Table 4 Spatial correlation index of the DRISTPI method
Study area Methods Spatial
correlation
index
Sierra de Cañete DRISTPI-PI 0.657
DRISTPI-COP 0.638
DRISTPI-SLOVENIAN 0.574
DRISTPI-PaPRIKa 0.701
areas around the population settlements with a high IP
index. High and Very High risk areas represent a small
percentage of the study area (2.9 and 0.1%, respectively).
These classes cover the area of quarries located in the
northwestern sector of the mountain range and the main
river channel (mostly due to a high DRISTPI index).
Water supply abstraction points and zones
of contribution
Table 5 shows the inventory of abstraction points for water
supply in the towns of Sierra de Cañete, carried out with
the objective to delineate their capture zones. There are ten
abstraction points made up of four springs and six water
wells.
The zones of contribution intended for human con-
sumption have been defined in terms of structural methods
(existence of faults and fractures) and hydrogeological
methods (piezometric differences and aquifer geome-
try). To complement this, natural tracers tests (isotopes in
water) were performed, whose results were in agreement
with the different areas delineated. A total of 82% of the
Sierra de Cañete area corresponds to abstraction point
capture zones (Fig. 7).
In order to validate the defined abstraction point capture
zones, their sizes were compared to data from a detailed
hydrogeological balance (Junta de Andalucı́a 2002). Results
are consistent between the two of them.
Safeguard zones
No defined wellhead protection areas exist in Sierra de
Cañete, for which, according to the proposed methodology,
safeguard zones have been defined by taking into account
the risk assessment performed together with the inventory
of water supply abstraction points and their zones of
contribution.
Figure 8 shows the delineated safeguard zones in Sierra
de Cañete set out to protect the quality of groundwater
intended for human consumption. Largely (67.2% of the
area), the studied area needs low restrictions to maintain
and preserve the good chemical status of waters. A total of
12.4% of the area does not require any restrictions to
123
2402 Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406

Fig. 6 Contamination risk map

according to the RI index

Table 5 Water supply abstraction points in Sierra de Cañete

Identification and nature Coordinates (UTM) Flow rate (l/s) Town supplied
X Y Z (m a.s.l.)

Majavea spring 318,325 4,096,375 520 30 Campillos

El Rocio well 319,075 4,095,900 538 10 El Saucejo
Ojo de la Laguna spring 314,175 4,090,925 672 35 Cañete la Real
El Berrillo spring 318,725 4,089,875 690 10 Cañete la Real
Cabrerizo well 319,850 4,096,100 540 30 Almargen
Nuevo Cabrerizo well 319,363 4,095,406 617 30 Almargen
La Nina well 321,700 4,093,625 690 15 Teba
Olvera well 307,500 4,085,725 655 25 Olvera
Alcalá well 307,325 4,086,025 645 20 Alcalá del Valle
Fuentepeones spring and well 318,200 4,087,300 675 15 Cañete la Real

safeguard water quality. The most restrictive measure,
moderate and high, occupy small percentages of the area
(2.3 and 0.1%, respectively). No future safeguard zones
were defined due to the absence of areas with a high
contamination risk that lie outside the defined abstraction
point capture zones.
It can be observed that the consideration of abstraction
points and their capture zones facilitate the designation of
the protective measures to be established according to the
groundwater contamination risk. In Sierra de Cañete, the
more restrictive measures should be applied in areas where
there are quarries and in rivers where water infiltration is
significant. Protection measures should also be established
over the rest of the areas with outcropping carbonate rocks,
although in this case the restrictions should be low because
even though they play and important role in aquifer
recharge, currently there are no contamination pressures.
Policy implications
The active cooperation among all actors involved is
essential in the definition of the measures and restrictions
that have to be taken, that will be in a later stage discussed
and modified within the public participation processes. The
implementation of the necessary measures involves the
participation of all authorities (Martı́nez-Navarrete et al.
2011).
In the studies carried out in this work, four types of
safeguard zones with different protection levels are con-
sidered: heavy restrictions (Specific measures to reduce the

123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406 2403

Fig. 7 Water supply

abstraction points and capture
zones (in grey is the digital
elevation model)

Fig. 8 Safeguard zones in

Sierra de Cañete (in grey is the
digital elevation model)

source of contamination as chemical substances, microbi-
ological and radiological contamination), moderate
restrictions (Suitable preventive measures focused on the
risks identified), low restrictions (Preventive measures) and
without safeguard zones restrictions. Codes of good agri-
cultural practice applicable). In this respect, it is appro-
priate to conduct studies that will generate a map of
permitted activities in relation to protect groundwater
destined for human consumption. In order that it is effec-
tive, this cartography must be binding on the land
management.
To finish the process, administrations with competences
in land use and urban planning will have to take into account
the definition and measures established for safeguard zones
in the drawing up of the planning instruments as well as in the
granting of the possible water abstractions licences. It is

123
2404
advisable to include these activities restrictions in the safe-
guard zones, doing adjustments in the WFD in order to
guarantee it’s common implementions in Europe.
The implementation of these safeguard measures will
trigger an economic impact mainly related to land use
change. The impact and value for their implementation will
vary according to the administration developing the action
and the territorial management scope. The economic
impact in turn will produce a social impact that may result
in territorial imbalances, which should be evaluated.
However, it is considered that delineating safeguard
zones to protect groundwater used for drinking water and
carrying out cartography of permitted activities as a pre-
ventive strategy is a highly useful tool. Furthermore, it is
beneficial to the population given that it allows for socio-
economic activities to be compatible with the required
protection of water quality.
Given that the social and economic factors that influence
the groundwater are dynamic, it is recommended that the
procedure for water planning and revisions takes into
account a redefinition of the safeguard zones, which in turn
is contemplated by the proposed methodology.
Conclusions
Water resources from carbonate groundwater bodies are
basic for the public water supply. The necessity to protect
these groundwaters from deterioration in quality due to
human activities is unquestionable, as reflected in the WFD.
Member States of the European Union have a lot of
flexibility to design and implement protective measures,
which has led to each of them to use different criteria and
zoning, even there are those cases where they have not
been defined. With the objective of forming a basis for a
common strategy in the implementation of the WFD, a
methodology for defining safeguard zones in presented
here, which is contemplated as optional by the directive, in
pursuit of establishing a comprehensive and integrated
protection measure of the groundwater bodies intended for
human consumption.
The proposed methodology consists of three blocks of
analysis. In the first place, it is necessary to assess the risk
of groundwater contamination for the entire water body by
using the characterisation of pressures and a vulnerability
assessment. The second block prioritises areas identified to
establish protective measures for existing abstraction
points and defining their zones of contribution. Finally, the
existing wellhead protection areas and those defined
according to the proposed methodology should be addres-
sed. The integration of all the criteria allows for the
delimitation of safeguard zones with different degrees of
restrictions.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
The DRISTPI index is proposed for assessing vulnera-
bility to contamination, the IP index for characterising the
intensity of pressures and the RI index for estimating the
contamination risk. Each of these criteria are based on
fundaments and methodologies proposed in COST Action
620 as this project was specifically created for groundwater
in carbonate aquifers (also applicable to other types of
media and surface water), they are in accordance with the
philosophy of the WFD to protect water resources and they
contemplate the various factors affecting each of the ana-
lysed criteria.
It should be pointed out that the proposed methodology
for defining safeguard zones is dynamic due to the possi-
bility of incorporating updated information and its versa-
tility, as even though different index are proposed here to
evaluate each of the related criteria to delineate safeguard
zones, any of the existing methods may be used.
Results obtained in Sierra de Cañete are consistent with
existing data and permit appropriate protection measures to
be introduced in the area in order to ensure the good quality
status of water intended for human consumption.
To complete the safeguard zoning process, the estab-
lished protected areas should be integrated into the relevant
policies affecting the territory. To do this, the establish-
ment of the different safeguard zones has to be accompa-
nied by a list of recommendations and restrictions to allow
for adequate land use planning. For this measure to be
effectively implemented, the development of a cartography
illustrating the permitted activities is also required. These
last aspects require, in the author’s opinion, some meth-
odological precisions that must be addressed with neces-
sary detail in future work.
Acknowledgments This work is a contribution to the Project I ? D
CGL2008-04938 from the Ministry of Science and Innovation of
Spain and to the Unit Partner ‘Advanced Hydrogeological Studies0
between Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) and Hydrogeology
Group of the University of Malaga (GHUMA).
References
Al-Hanbali A, Kondoh A (2008) Groundwater vulnerability assess-
ment and evaluation of human activity impact within the Dead
Sea groundwater basin, Jordan. Hydrogeol J 16(3):499–510
Aller L, Bennett T, Leer J, Petty J, Hacket G (1987) DRASTIC: a
standardised system for evaluating groundwater pollution
potential using hydrogeologic settings. US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Oklahoma, p 455
Andreo B, Goldscheider N, Vadillo I, Vı́as JM, Neukum C,
Brechenmacher J, Carrasco F, Hötzl H, Jiménez P, Perles MJ,
Sinreich M (2006) Karst groundwater protection: application of a
Pan-European approach in the pilot site of Sierra de Lı́bar (South
Spain). Sci Total Environ 357(1–3):54–73
Andreo B, Ravbar N, Vı́as JM (2008a) Source vulnerability mapping
in carbonate (karst) aquifers by extension of the COP method:
application to pilot sites. Hydrogeol J 17:749–758
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
Andreo B, Vı́as J, Durán JJ, Jiménez P, López-Geta JA, Carrasco F
(2008b) Methodology for groundwater recharge assessment in
carbonate aquifers: application to pilot sites in southern Spain.
Hydrogeol J 16:911–925
Bannerman RR (2000) Conflict of technologies for water and
sanitation in developing countries. In: Chorus I, Ringelband U,
Schlag G, Schmoll O (eds) Water, sanitation and health. IWA,
London, pp 167–170
Belousova AP (2003) Assessment of groundwater pollution risk as a
characteristic of the stability of its quality. Water Resour
33(2):219–232
Bussard T, Tacher L, Parriaux A, Maı̂tre V (2006) Methodology for
delineating groundwater protection areas against persistent
contaminants. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 39(1):97–109
Carrasco F, Sánchez D, Vadillo I, Andreo B, Martı́nez C, Fernández L
(2008) Application of the European water framework directive
in a Western Mediterranean basin (Málaga, Spain). Environ Geol
54:575–585
Ceric A, Haitjema H (2005) On using simple time-of-travel capture
zone delineation methods. Ground Water 49(3):408–412
Civita M (1994) La carte della vulnerability degli acquiferi all0 inqui-
namento. Teoria y Practica, Bologna
Civita M, de Maio M (1997) SINTACS Un sistema paramétrico per
La valutazione e la cartografia della vulnerabilità degli all0 in-
quinamento Metodologia e automazione. Bologna, p 191
Civita M, de Regibus C (1995) Sperimentazione di alcune metodol-
ogie per la valutazione della vulnerabilità degli aquiferi. Q Geol
Appl 3:63–71
COST 65 (1995) Hydrogeological aspects of groundwater protection
in karstic areas, Final report. European Commission, Report
EUR 16547. Brussels, Luxembourg, p 446
Cruz-Sanjulián J (1991) Hoja 1037. MAGNA Collection (IGME).
Madrid, p 30
Daly D, Drew D (1999) Irish methodologies for karst aquifer
protection. In: Beek B (eds) Hydrogeology and engineering
geology of sinkholes and karst. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 267–272
Daly D, Dassargues A, Drew D, Dunne S, Godscheider N, Neale S,
Popescu IC, Zwahlen F (2002) Main concepts of the European
Approach for (karst) groundwater vulnerability assessment and
mapping. Hydrogeol J 10:340–345
De Keteleare D, Hötzl H, Neukum C, Civita M, Sappa G (2004)
Hazard analysis and mapping. In: Zwahlen F (ed) COST action
620 final report. Brussels, Luxembourg, pp 86–105
Dörfliger N (1996) Advances in karst groundwater protection strategy
using artificial tracer test analysis on a multiattribute vulnera-
bility mapping (EPIK method). Doctoral thesis, University of
Neuchâtel, Suiza, p 308
Dörfliger N, Plagnes V (2009) Cartographie de la vulnerabilité des
aquifères karstiques, guide méthodologique de la méthode
PaPRIKa. BRGM RP-57527-FR. France, p 148
Ducci D (1999) GIS techniques for mapping groundwater contam-
ination risk. Nat Hazards 20:279–294
Environment Agency (1998) Policy and practice for the protection of
groundwater. USA, p 57
European Commission (2007) Guidance on groundwater in drinking
water protected areas. Guidance document n 16. Common
implementation strategy for the water framework directive.
Brussels, Luxembourg, p 34
European Union (2000) Water framework directive 2000/60/EC
European Union (2006) Groundwater directive 2006/118/EC
Foster S (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability,
pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Van Duijvenbooden W,
Van Waegeningh H (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater
to pollution, vol 38. The Hague, The Netherland, pp 69–86
2405
Gogu RC (2000) Advances in groundwater protection strategy using
vulnerability mapping and hydrogeological GIS databases.
Doctoral thesis, University of Lieja, Belgium, p 153
Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) Current trends and future challenges
in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overly and index
methods. Environ Geol 39(6):549–559
Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Höltz H (2000) The PI method–a
GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with
special consideration of karst aquifers. Zeitschrift fur ange-
wandte geologie 46(3):157–166
Hötzl H, Delporte C, Liesch T, Malik P, Neukum C, Svasta J (2004)
Risk mapping: hazard analysis and mapping. In: Zwahlen F (ed)
COST action 620 final report. European Commission, Brussels,
p 297
IGME (2006) Mapa litoestratigráfico y de permeabilidad de España a
escala 1:200.000. Madrid
Jiménez-Madrid A (2011). Methodological study for the establish-
ment of safeguard zones in carbonate groundwater body used for
human consumption. Application of the water framework
directive. Doctoral thesis, University of Málaga, España, p 436
Jiménez-Madrid A, Martı́nez-Navarrete C, Carrasco-Cantos F (2010)
Groundwater risk intensity assessment. Application to carbonate
aquifers of the western mediterranean (Southern Spain). Geodin
Acta 23(1–3):101–111
Jiménez-Madrid A, Carrasco F, Martienez C, Vernoux JF (2011)
Comparative analysis of intrinsic groundwater vulnerability
assessment methods for carbonate aquifers. Q J Eng Geol
Hydrogeol 44:361–371
Junta de Andalucı́a (2002) Estudio hidrogeológico de la Sierra de
Cañete (Málaga). Consejerı́a de Obras Públicas y Transportes,
Sevilla, p 271
Junta de Andalucı́a (2005). Digital elevation model terrain
Junta de Andalucı́a (2007). Land use planning. Scale 1:25.000.
Technical Guide
Lallemand–Barrès A, Roux JC (1999) Périmètres de protection des
captages d’eau souterraine destinée a la consommation humaine.
BRGM, France, p 334
Martı́nez-Navarrete C, Garcı́a Garcı́a A (2003) Wellhead protection
areas for water abstractions point. Methodology and application
to the territory. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid,
p 282
Martı́nez-Navarrete C, Grima Olmedo J, Durán Valsero JJ, Gómez
Gómez JD, Luque Espinar JA, n Gómez JA (2008) Groundwater
protection in Mediterranean countries after the European water
Framework directive. Environ Geol 54:537–549
Martı́nez-Navarrete C, Jiménez-Madrid A, Sánchez-Navarro I, Carrasco-
Cantos F, Moreno-Merino L (2011) Conceptual framework for
protecting groundwater quality. Water Resour Dev 27(1):219–235
Mimi ZA, Assi A (2009) Intrinsic vulnerability, hazard and risk
mapping for karst aquifers: a case study. J Hydrol 364(3–4):
298–310
Moreno L, Martı́nez C (1991) Guia metodológica para La elaboración
de perı́metros de protección de captaciones de aguas subterrá-
neas. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España, Madrid, p 290
Nguyet VTM, Goldscheider N (2006) A simplified methodology for
mapping groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk, and
its first application in a tropical karst area, Vietnam. Hydrogeol J
14:1666–1675
Panagopoulos G, Antonakos A, Lambrakis N (2006) Optimization of
the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment
via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeol J
16(6):894–911
Ravbar N, Goldscheider N (2007) Proposed methodology of vulner-
ability and contamination risk mapping for the protection of
karst aquifers in Slovenia. Acta Carsologica 36(3):461–475
123
2406
Saidi S, Bouri S, Dhia-Hamed Be, Anselme B (2009) A GIS-based
susceptibility indexing method for irrigation and drinking water
management planning: application to Chebba-Mellouche aqui-
fer, Tunisia. Agric Water Manag 96:1683–1690
Sánchez D (2010) Aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua
2000/60/CE en la cuenca hidrográfica del rı́o Guadalhorce
(Málaga). Caracterización inicial. Doctoral thesis, University of
Málaga, España, p 493
Scanlon BR, Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Choosing appropriate
techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol J
10:18–39
Sinan M, Razack M (2009) An extension to the DRASTIC model to
assess groundwater vulnerability to pollution: application to the
Haouz aquifer of Marrakech (Morocco). Environ Geol
57:349–363
Van Stempvoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnera-
bility index (AVI): a GIS compatible method for groundwater
vulnerability mapping. Can Water Resour J 18:25–37
Vernoux JF, Wuilleumier A, Dörfliger N (2007) Délimitation des
bassins d’alimentation des captages et de leur vulnérabilité vis-à-
vis des pollutions diffuses. Guide méthodologique. BRGM/RP-
55874-FR. France, p 75
123
Environ Earth Sci (2012) 65:2391–2406
Vı́as JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F, Vadillo I, Jiménez P
(2006) Proposed method for groundwater vulnerability mapping
in carbonate (karstic) aquifers: the COP method: application in
two pilot sites in Southern Spain. Hydrogeol J 14:912–925
Vorreyer C (1998) Delineating surface source water protection areas
in Germany: Source water assessment and protection 98. Dallas,
pp 61–64
Vrba J, Zoporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater
vulnerability. Hannover, p 131
Withowski AJ, Rubin K, Kowalezyk K, Rozkowski A, Wrobel J
(2002) Groundwater vulnerability map of the Chraznow karst-
fissured Triassic aquifer (Poland). Environ Geol 44:59–67
Zwahlen F (ed.) (2004) COST Action 620. Vulnerability and risk
mapping for the protection of carbonate (Karstic) Aquifers Final
report. Brussels, Luxembourg, p 297