4.6 Article

Evaluation of hydrologic data obtained from a local groundwater monitoring network in a metropolitan city, Korea

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Volume 19, Issue 13, Pages 2525-2537

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5689

Keywords

urban groundwater; local groundwater monitoring network; water level; metropolitan city; Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the late 1980s, dramatic increases in water use caused over-exploitation of groundwater resources and deterioration of water quality in Seoul metropolitan city. To monitor changes in quantity of groundwater resources and their quality, the metropolitan government established a local groundwater monitoring network in 1997 consisting of 119 monitoring wells. Groundwater resources in the urban area were affected by various human activities, including underground construction such as subways, pumping for public or private water use, leaky sewer systems and pavements. The variation patterns of the groundwater levels were mainly classified into four types, reflecting natural recharge due to rainfall events during the wet season, artificial recharge from leaky sewer or water supply systems, and heavy groundwater pumping for drainage or flood control purposes at underground construction sites. Significantly decreasing trends of groundwater levels in the suburbs of Seoul indicate groundwater use for various agricultural activities. Subway construction lowered the water level by an average of 25 m. Electrical conductivity values showed a wide range, from 100 to 1800 mu S/cm (mean 470 mu S/cm). Groundwater temperature generally showed a stable pattern, except for some sensitive increases at relatively shallow monitoring wells. Detailed analysis of the monitored groundwater data would provide some helpful implications for optimal and efficient management of groundwater resources in this metropolitan city. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available