See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283509258

Role of Geomorphology In Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment of Karst

Article · April 2006

CITATION Reads

1 2,330

1 author:

Adji

Gadjah Mada University

129 PUBLICATIONS     121 CITATIONS    

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication Also are working on related projects Reviews These:

HOW TO PREDICT WATER RESOURCE DAMAGE Karst? view project

Bachelor Thesis View project Tjahyo

All content following this page was uploaded by Tjahyo Adji on November 6 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Role of Geomorphology In Vulnerability Assessment

Groundwater Karst

By Tjahyo Nugroho Adji

Karst Study Group, Faculty of Geography, Yogyakarta, 55281
Tel. : 62-8122967492; email: adji_bruang@yahoo.com

Abstract

Karst is a limestone rocky area and is known as a unique geomorphological region because of landform surface is
"pretty" and specific that can not be found in other geomorphological units. However, because it is easily soluble in water,
karst topography of subsurface water systems have the dominant form of hallways solusional and highly susceptible to
degradation, particularly against the contamination of underground water. This is due to the rapid flow of water and the lack of
a filter mechanism on loronglorong underground system. This paper discusses how the classification methods that have been
developed to assess the level of vulnerability to water pollution in the karst region and examines the role of geomorphological
parameters used in these methods. This paper will be preceded by a short description of the karst geomorphology and then
explores the many examples of how to classify the vulnerability of underground karst water, and provide justification for
contributing parameters used geomorphology. Keywords: methods, vulnerability karst geomorphology

preliminary

Discussing geomorphology karst areas can not be separated from its dominant rock is limestone (White, 1988).
Limestone is a sedimentary rock that is usually dominated by calcium carbonate in the form of the mineral calcite (Ford and
Williams, 1992). Furthermore, by Dreybrodt (1988) explained that the dominant chemical processes occur in limestone is a
leaching process that starts from the fall of rain water saturated with carbon dioxide gas and establish equilibrium in acidic
water as H 2 CO 3 ( carbonic acid). Because it is acidic, then the water will easily dissolve limestone and calcium cations and
anions leave bicarbonate dissolved in water. Because it is so, then the area is dominated by rocky limestone subsurface flow
system compared with the surface system. Meanwhile, the dissolution process, if it reaches a certain stage will bring another
type of topography commonly found elsewhere, known as karst topography type (Alpha, et. Al, 2002).

The term "karst" originally taken from a place name Krs in Slovenia (now located in the northwestern Yugoslavia), is
a typical of land
arid rocky (Short and Blair, 1986). Some historians also say the area close to the city of Trieste, Italy. From the typical
Indo-European word "kar" or "karra" or in Italian is "Carso" meaning rock and evolved into a karst or Kras (German). In the
world of education, karst term was first used in the field of earth science in school geography and geology in Vienna Austria,
around the mid-19th century (Sweeting, 1972; Ford and

64
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Williams, 1992). Some experts use as a term for the karst limestone terrain characterized by surface drains scarce, solum
local land-thin and only local, presence-sekungan closed basin (Dolin), and the presence of an underground drainage system
(Summerfield, 1991). Ford and Wiliam (1992) define more common as the hydrological characteristics of the terrain and
landforms caused by a combination of rock soluble and has a well developed secondary porosity.

In fact, according to Alpha, et. al, (2002) who developed a simulation model development of karst topography in the
tropics, describes that the layer of limestone in the tropics thicker and geomorphological produce a more spectacular
landforms such as hills are conical with a narrow valleys. Notching another morphology concern is the formation of micro-karst
morphology that is pinnacle / lapies / Karren who have a variety of sizes and add to the uniqueness of karst geomorphology in
the tropics.

Vulnerability Karst

Environmental vulnerabilities become known word and often appear in about the 1990s, including the word
vulnerability karst (Leibundgut, 1998). According to him, the research topics of karst aquifer vulnerability came to light as a
result of the development of karst drainage system that allows akufer karst has a high degree of vulnerability. Furthermore, by
Gunn (1986) defined the karst vulnerability reduction potential karst natural resources either in quality and quantity.

Leibundgut (1998) goes on to explain that tinggginya vulnerability to contamination of groundwater in karst region
compared to other regions is mainly due to the high value of the permeability of the secondary outcome leaching process
which yields a number of networks of underground water in the form of alleyways and channels both large ( conduit) and small
(fissure) and the lack of screening process ( filtering) contaminants. Then explained also by Foster (1987), that in general, karst
topography has a very thin layer of soil, so that the filtering and decomposition ( breakdown)

microorganisms and contaminants both physics and chemistry are usually very effective in the soil, becomes very small. In
fact, according to Smith (1993), the karst area with a thick layer of soil but there are a lot of river surface into the soil ( sinking
streams), the role of soil as a filter remains neglected (no). Furthermore also said that if the upstream region of karst areas are
not protected properly, it can be said that the contamination must have occurred in the downstream area. In short it can be
said that the vulnerability of karst very real and easily occur and to predict the distribution of kerentananannya not an easy job.
Furthermore, illustrated the vulnerability of karst aquifers is illustrated in Figure 1.

65
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Figure 1. Vulnerability of the karst aquifer Against Pollutants (Haryono, 2004).

Furthermore, according to Leibundgut (1998), in detail vulnerabilities ( vulnerability) The karst area can be grouped
into two: (1) intrinsic vulnerability ( intrinsic permeability), namely the vulnerability caused by the nature of the karst area itself
and (2) specific vulnerability ( the specific vulnerability), namely the vulnerability due to actual threats such as domestic waste,
land use, etc. According to Quinlan et al. (1991), the level of intrinsic susceptibility tergatung of factors as follows:

• Availability layer of soil which is very important as filtering pollutants zone

• Characteristic properties of infiltration ( diffuse). In karst covered by dense vegetation, hazard vulnerability levels are low,
while if many rivers that go into the ground ( point recharge) , then the danger level will be high vulnerability

• Epikarst development zone. Epikarst is a near-surface zone is the main place of groundwater storage

• The development of karst topography and system, more dominant fissure / diffuse ( loronglorong small) or conduit ( large
hallways).

These four factors are interrelated and varies spatially in a karst area, and also related to the flow and speed of
system water flows will be decisive in determining the level of danger of the vulnerability of karst.

Methods of Determining Vulnerability Karst

1. Method EPIK

EPIK method is a method that until now considered the most representative to map the distribution of karst aquifer
vulnerability to contamination. This method was first developed by Doerflinger and Zwahlen (1998) from the Center of
Hydrogeology, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland. EPIK is a multi parameter of the method that is E = epikarst, P =
Protective Cover, I = Infiltration and K = Karst Network which is a weighting factor to the vulnerability class a karst region. In
principle, this method is a method known as the Weighted Index Overlay by GIS which is a GIS-based method by means of an
overlay and scoring to determine the susceptibility zoning karst in the region.

66
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

The first parameter is epikarst (E). Epikarst, or better known as

subcutaneous zone is slightly below the solum soil layer which has a very high permeability values. Epikarst typically have a
thickness of between 0.5
up to 2 meters, but in some areas there could karst on reaching a depth of 5
up to 10 meters. Epikarst is the most important layer within a stratigraphic akuier karst because it is a water-storage media
before diatuskan to the underground river through the halls either diffuse atupun conduit (Ford and Williams, 1989). After this
epikarst zone vertically downwards actually reduced water savings due to reduced porosity / permeability of the secondary
rocks (Figure 2).

Furthermore, the criteria epikarst condition is further divided into three classes, namely E 1 ( The most vulnerable), E 2 ( intermediate),
and E 3 ( not vulnerable). Interestingly, ni epikarst condition grading according to Doerflinger and Zwahlen (1998) should be
based on
study geomorphological conditions karst area zoning epikarst previous identification purposes. class E 1 The most vulnerable
are characterized by a geomorphology which many have the valleys with the pit Ponor on the valley floor, the number of
process debris on the walls of the valley, such as the dominance of mikromorfologi karst Karren / lapies, doline considerable
presence, as well as fractures which pretty much on the surface morphology. While the class E 2 ( medium susceptibility) is
characterized by the many dry valleys and doline without the appearance of fissures and recharge point.

Recently, a class E 3 ( low vulnerability) sufficiently characterized by at least the surface of the river into the soil. Then, by
Doerflinger and Zwahlen (1998) described that in order to determine the susceptibility class epikarst zone is done by mapping
the geomorphology and the use of aerial photographs. The scale of the object used is 1; 5000; 1: 1: 10000 and 1: 25000
dependent kedetailan desired information.

Figure 2. The concept epikarst as karst reservoir (Haryono, 2004)

The second parameter is P or Protective Cover, or more specifically is the thickness of the soil which acts as a filter
material

67
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

contaminants before entering the karst aquifer. Determination of thick soil can also be approached with geomorphological
zoning considering there are several parameters that control the genesis soil geomorphology such as slope, type of parent
rock, and geomorphological processes.

The next parameter is I or Infiltration Condition. The size of the first depends on the type of soil dam terrain
morphology. The same soil types with different slopes will generate value different infiltration capacity. As a result, the size of
the infiltration value also depends on the morphology of the terrain and the nature of the soil is formed. According to
Doerflinger and Zwahlen (1998), the determination of the amount of value I usually approached in the survey to determine Zones
of Concentrated Infiltration. Zone major infiltration center is usually associated also with parameters such as slope
geomorphology and land use and the possibility of river swallowed ( shallow hole / Ponor) which can be approximated by a
topographic map interpretation.

The last parameter is K or karstic Network which according to Doerflinger and Zwahlen (1998) used to be
approached by the analysis of flood hydrograph and kemograf on spring-spring, and also by using water tracing. If the value is
higher K means that the danger level is also high vulnerability for

conduit has developed and established a network of dominant than the hallway that is diffuse ( small).

2. Method Attributed Sinks

This method was developed by Plan et al. (2003) from the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Vienna,
Austria. In early writings, Plan et al. (2003), quoting from Goldscheider et al. (2000) and Doerflinger and Zwahlen (1999)
explains that the morphology and characteristics of infiltration process is very important in order to assess the vulnerability of
karst groundwater. Furthermore, explained also that the basin karst ( sink) ( Figure 3) is one of the characteristics of karst
geomorphology should most often be considered when assessing the vulnerability of karst aquifers due to the following
factors:

• Rainwater that falls will accumulate in depressions, karst directly into the conduit system through Ponor

• In karst basin ( sink), contaminants are not filtered through the zone will go into the soil and underground drainage system
quickly without re-refining process ( purification).

• Each sink has a catchment area that is proportional to the amount of water going into the ground.

• The topography of subsurface water zones in the zone will be in harmony with the topography epikarst pemukannya.

Judging from the name of the method ( Attributed Sinks) then the most important thing to do is take inventory where
geomorphology karst valleys (Figure 3).

68
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Figure 3. As the Karst Basin Street Entry of Pollutants (Plan et al.,

2003)

Figure 4. Identification and Ponor Karst Basin

(Plan et al., 2003)

This method has been tested further in the karst region Northern Alps that has a karst geomorphology complex
phenomena such as doline, lapies / Karren, Polje, Ponor, springs, which poisisinya already mapped systematically, including
the presence of 900 caves in this region. The essence of this method is actually charted concentration

karst valleys and the possibility of Ponor

therein, as shown in Figure 4.

69
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Furthermore, in order to model spatially may be assisted by GIS software for:

• Creating a profile DEM (Digital Elevation Model)

• Calculating the catchment area of ​each basin (sinks)

• Check the field, to distinguish where the karst basin and which are not Lastly, do pengkelasan on the basis of the
existence and characteristics of basins karst geomorphology obtained from the model, and then divided into 4 classes
karst pollution vulnerability are:

• Grade 1 (mild): Regions with a density rarely sinks to the dominance of surface flow (Figure 5-green)

• Class 2 (somewhat heavy): Regions with small sinks distribution, pretty much, no surface flow but not much (Figure
5-gray)
• Grade 3 (severe): Regions with a little hollow but very large (several hundred meters in diameter). (Figure 5-blue)

• Class 4 (very severe): Regions with many Polje, basin, and ponorponor middle with a distribution deal (Figure
5-red).

Figure 4. Identification Vulnerability Classes Based On Presence Basin Karst

(Plan, et al. 2003)

3. Method VURAAS

This method was developed by Cichocki and Zojer (2005) is the method of evaluating vulnerability in a karst area
based on GIS. VURAAS is

70
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

an acronym which stands for Vulnerability and Risk Analysis in Alpine Aquifer System ( This method be developed first in
the karst region Alpine). VURAAS according to Cichocki and Zojer (2005) is used to reconstruct the flow of water that
infiltrated from the surface and then to the karst aquifer. Uruturutan parameters analyzed were input (P), and infiltration (I),
exfiltrasi (E) and the final validation (A). Factor E is considered a way to validate factor

Line I. stream to be reconstructed by VURAAS be clarified objectively with the help of hydrogeological data interpretation, and water
tracing ( isotope, hydrochemical, etc.) on the springs, runoff into the karst aquifer, and the water that infiltrated into the ground.

a. Input factor (P)

Factor P is showing the extent of effective rainfall and other factors, which in turn is the initial value of other
parameters, particularly the factors I and E. To determine the value of P, according to Cichocki and Zojer (2005), should
consider a few things and that The most important are:

• slope to determine the amount of runoff

• geomorphology surface (karst development) to determine the extent of the rain and runoff will be entered
into the soil from this factor is very clear that the knowledge of geomorphology is very important to define the magnitude
of the P factor in addition to other factors such as land cover for evapotranspiration and global claim conditions. So it
can be defined as follows:

Input (P) = P - Eta - Ao + (RZ)

Where, P = rain

Eta = evapotranspiration runoff Ao = RZ = retention

and use of water

b. Factor I (Infiltration)

The primary objective of the study is the first factor to determine if there are other paths percolation of water flow at
the time both in the upper layer of carbonate rocks, as well as in karst aquifers, thus:

Infiltration (I) = UZ. A. GWR

UZ = cover the unsaturated zone A

= Characteristic GWR = percolation infiltration of

groundwater recharge

To define this factor, the experiment in the field, especially mapping land morphology, and defines the karst flow
system that may be done. The latter can be done by creating a relationship between the results of calculation of infiltration,
GWR, and calculation of springs discharge on a catchment area of ​rain is expected.

71
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

c. Exfiltrasi factor (E)

This Exfiltrasi actually is an expected value can represent a system of water flow in a karst catchment area defined
as follows:

Exfiltration (E) = flow hydrograph. deposits. water travel time of course, to define the E factor we need the data
hydrograph throughout the year and then separated between the basic flow and immediate flow. The basic assumption is
the water flow coming from infiltration.

d. Validation (A)

Validation was conducted to determine the overall water system in a catchment and re-define the values ​of the
factor I, E, and P. At this stage of field measurements can be done by performing tracer test (from the zone of infiltration into
the spring) and the use of materials isotope.

4. Other Methods

Other methods such as defining Intrinsic Vulnerability ( Ianchu, et al., 2005) and the use of M etode Static ( Matthieu
et al., 2005) in fact always has a modifier factor score vulnerabilities are always dependent on the nature of the karst
geomorphology especially slope and basin as well as the existence of lobanglobang connecting surface and subsurface
systems

Conclusion

From the study of methods for defining vulnerability karst region of the pollutant, can be briefly concluded that
knowledge of the unique karst geomorphology or the key differentiator is the level of vulnerability of karst areas of possible
contaminated by pollutants. Although, typically knowledge of karst morphological detail is often overlooked by those who
engaged in the field of hydrology of karst, especially who cultivate karst hidrogeokimia specifications. This is due to their view
that the chemical composition of karst groundwater is due to the dominance of the interaction between water and rock.

But, in fact, the surface morphology of karst areas will affect the circulation of water systems in karst or in other
words, the size of the components of groundwater karst (infiltration, autogenic allogenik, recharge immediately, etc.) is highly
dependent on the distribution and much-at least Ponor, river the ingested, basin diameter, doline, Polje, etc. Well, this is what
seems to have been recognized by those who have developed a method for defining vulnerability in karst areas that it can not
be separated from the geomorphology karst surface detail.

Reference
Alpha, TR, Galloway, JP, Tinsley, JC, 2002, Karst Topography Computer Animations
and Paper Model, Open-File Report 97-536-A, , US. Department of the Interior
US Geological Survey
Cichoki, G., Zojer, H. 2005, VURAAS-Vulnerability and Risk Analysis in Alpine Aquifer
System, In: Water Resources and Environmental Problems in Karst- Proceedings of the International Conf. and Field
Seminars & Dirty Belgrade / Serbia and Montenegro,
IAH of Serbia and Montenegro

72
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Doerfliger, N. and Zwahlen, F. 1998. Practical Guide, Groundwater Vulnerability

Mapping in karstic regions (EPIK). Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), Bern, 56 pp.

Doerflinger, N. & Zwahlen, F., 1998: P raxishilfe: K artierungder

Vulnerabilität in Karstgebieten (Methode EPIK) 56 p.BUWAL, Bern.
Dreybrodt, W., 1988, Process in Karst Systems-Physics, Chemistry, and Geology,
Springer-Verlag, Bremen Ford, D. and Williams, P. 1992. Karst geomorphology and Hydrology, Chapman and

Hall, London
Foster, SSD, 1987, Fundamental Concepts in Aquifer Vulnerability, Pollution, Risk
and Protection Strategy. in: Vulnerabilty of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants
(Ed. By. W. Van Duijvenbooden), 69-86, Committee on Hydrological Research TNO, The Hague, Proceedings and
Information no. 38 Gunn, J., 1986, Solute Process and Karst Landform. in: Solute Process ( ed. by ST

Trudgill), 363-437. Wiley, Chickester, UK.

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. f. angew.Geol., 46, p.
157-166.
Haryono, E., 2004, Friendly Living With Karst region, Special Publication Forum
Karst Goenoeng Sewoe, Yogyakarta
Iianchu, O., Mihai, P., & Daniel, S. 2005, Intrinsic Vulnerability of Cotetul Dobrestilor
Karst Aquifer (Bihor Mountain, Romania), In: Water Resources and Environmental Problems in Karst- Proceedings of
the International Conf. and Field Seminars & Dirty Belgrade / Serbia and Montenegro, IAH of Serbia and Montenegro
Leibundgut, C., 1998, Karst Hydrology (Proceedings of Workshop W2), Rabat, Morocco,

IAHS Publication no. 247

Matthieu, F., Nicolas, M., Ludivine, D., Michel, B., Joel, R. and Dupont, J., 2005,
Characterization of the Transport Properties of Karst Aquifer by Means of Multitable Analysis: The Static Method, In: Water
Resources and Environmental Problems in Karst- Proceedings of the International Conf. and Field Seminars & Dirty
Belgrade / Serbia and Montenegro, IAH of Serbia and Montenegro

Plan, P., Decker, K. & Faber, R., 2003, Attributed Sinks, a GIS-Tool quantifying
Vulnerability morphological Parameters in karstic Catchment Areas, Department of Geological Sciences of the
University of Vienna, Austria
Quinlan, JF, Smart, PLSchindel, GM, Alexander, ECJr, Edwards, AJ Smith,
AR, 1991, the Recommended Administratuve Regulatory Definition of Karst Aquifer, Principles for Classification of
Carbonate aquifers and Practical Evaluation of Vulnerability of Karst Aquifer. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conf. On
Hydrogeology, geology and Management of Groundwater in karst terrains, 573-635. National Water Well Association,
Dublin, Ohio.

Short, NM, Blair, RW 1986. geomorphology from Space, NASA Publication.

http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/wpk/geos/GEO_HOME_PAGE.html
Smith, DI, 1993, The Nature of Karst Aquifer and Their Susceptibility to Pollution. in:
Karst terrains. Environmental Changes and Human Impact ( ed. by PW Williams), 41-58. Catena Supplement 25,
Cremlingen-Desteldt. Summerfield, MA, 1991, Global geomorphology, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

73
 Citation: Gunung Sewu, Indonesian Cave and Karst Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, April 2006

Sweeting, MM, 1972, Karst landforms, Macmillan, London. Trudgil, S., 1985, Limestone geomorphology, Longman, New York.
White, WB, 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrain. Oxford University

Press, New York

74

View publication
publication stats stats
view