Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Search
Collections
Journals
About
Contact us
My IOPscience
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 024009
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024009)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 143.167.193.149
This content was downloaded on 17/10/2016 at 10:29
IOP PUBLISHING
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024009
E-mail: amm@bgs.ac.uk
1. Introduction
A M MacDonald et al
2. Methods
Groundwater occurrence depends primarily on geology, geomorphology/weathering and effective rainfall (both current
and historic). The interplay of these three factors gives rise
to complex hydrogeological environments with innumerable
variations in aquifer transmissivity (the permeability of the
rocks integrated over thickness); effective porosity (the total
porosity minus the volume taken up by water bound to clays
or more rarely held in isolated unconnected pore spaces),
saturated thickness of aquifers; and groundwater recharge.
Direct measurements of transmissivity and effective porosity
are scarce for much of Africa (Adelana and MacDonald
2008). Instead we use proxies for these parameters which
have been found to be effective surrogates in data limited
areas. For transmissivity, we use reported borehole yields
(termed aquifer productivity). Although borehole yields are
2
A M MacDonald et al
(a)
A M MacDonald et al
(b)
Figure 2. Groundwater storage for Africa based on the effective porosity and saturated aquifer thickness. Panel (a) shows a map of
groundwater storage expressed as water depth in millimetres with modern annual recharge for comparison (Doll and Fiedler 2008).
Panel (b) shows the volume of groundwater storage for each country; the error bars are calculated by recalculating storage using the full
ranges of effective porosity and thickness for each aquifer, rather than the best estimate. Annual renewable freshwater availability (FAO
2005) generally used in water scarcity assessments is shown for comparison.
A M MacDonald et al
Best estimate
Rangea
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
C African Rep
Chad
Congo
Congo, DRC
Cote dIvoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
The Gambia
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
91 900
17 100
718
17 700
978
47
1560
4240
46 000
6730
38 300
241
171
55 200
48
333
12 700
1200
1400
541
1180
8840
285
86
99 500
1060
269
27 100
23 400
7410
6290
7720
35 800
11 800
49
12 500
327
12 300
17 400
63 200
24
5250
748
297
7580
339
6800
3950
2010
56 000243 000
780046 500
3202000
956058 300
3193330
8183
6674810
1 90013 100
26 600112 000
3 35018 300
18 600103 000
491020
35546
36 000130 000
20147
941120
434039 300
4994190
3694418
1331935
7422824
409023 300
78936
25333
64 600234 000
2074160
91885
10 60087 000
10 50067 200
397020 700
268420 300
352024 600
19 00094 700
571033 600
6198
828029 100
160850
521034 500
640056 100
37 100151 000
6104
204017 900
4981750
102879
4 91018 100
731270
377021 400
143012 300
9067230
4. Conclusions
A M MacDonald et al
References
(a)
(b)
Acknowledgments
This paper is published with the permission of the Executive
Director of the British Geological Survey (NERC). The
research was funded by grants from the UK Department for
International Development.
c BGS/NERC 2012
6
A M MacDonald et al