Environmental Geology

, 57:231 | Cite as

Assessing the impacts of land use changes on watershed hydrology using MIKE SHE

  • Sangjun Im
  • Hyeonjun Kim
  • Chulgyum KimEmail author
  • Cheolhee Jang
Original Article


A fully distributed, physically-based hydrologic modeling system, MIKE SHE, was used in this study to investigate whole-watershed hydrologic response to land use changes within the Gyeongancheon watershed in Korea. A grid of 200 × 200 m was established to represent spatial variations in geology, soil, and land use. Initial model performance was evaluated by comparing observed and simulated streamflow from 1988 to 1991. Results indicated that the calibrated MIKE SHE model was able to predict streamflow well during the calibration and validation periods. Proportional changes in five classes of land use within the watershed were derived from multi-temporal Landsat TM imageries taken in 1980, 1990 and 2000. These imageries revealed that the watershed experienced conversion of approximately 10% non-urban area to urban area between 1980 and 2000. The calibrated MIKE SHE model was then programmed to repeatedly analyze an artificial dataset under the various land use proportions identified in the Landsat TM imageries. The analysis was made to quantitatively assess the impact of land use changes (predominantly urbanization) on watershed hydrology. There were increases in total runoff (5.5%) and overland flow (24.8%) as a response to the land use change.


MIKE SHE Streamflow Hydrologic impact Land use change Satellite imageries 


  1. Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connell PE, Rasmussen J (1986a) An introduction to the European hydrological system-Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 1: history and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. J Hydrol 87:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connell PE, Rasmussen J (1986b) An introduction to the European hydrological system-Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 2: structure of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. J Hydrol 87:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bathurst JC (1986) Physically-based distributed modeling of an upland catchment using the Systeme Hydrologique Europeen. J Hydrol 87:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beven KJ (1989) Changing ideas in hydrology: the case of physically-based models. J Hydrol 105:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beverly C, Bari M, Christy B, Hocking M, Smettem K (2005) Predicted salinity impacts from land use change: comparison between rapid assessment approaches and a detailed modeling framework. Aust J Exp Agric 45(11):1453–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calder IR (1992) Hydrologic effects of land use change. In: Maidment DR (ed) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute) (1999) MIKE SHE water movement: user manual, Hørsholm, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  8. Engman ET (1986) Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff. J Irrig Drain Eng 112(1):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewen J, Parkin G (1996) Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts. 1. Method. J Hydrol 175:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO (1998) Crop evapotranspiration, FAO irrigation and drainage Paper No. 56, RomeGoogle Scholar
  11. Feyen L, Vázquez R, Christiaens K, Sels O, Feyen J (2000) Application of a distributed physically-based hydrological model to a medium size catchment. Hydro Earth Syst Sci 4(1):47–63Google Scholar
  12. Fohrer N, Haverkamp S, Eckhardt K, Frede HG (2001) Hydrologic response to land use changes on the catchment scale. Phys Chem Earth 26(7–8):577–582Google Scholar
  13. Grayson RB, Moore ID, McMahon TA (1992) Physically based hydrologic modeling, 1. A terrain-based model for investigative purposes. Water Resour Res 28:2639–2658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henriksen HJ, Troldborg L, Nyegaard P, Sonnenborg TO, Refsgaard JC, Madsen B (2003) Methodology for construction, calibration and validation of a national hydrological model for Denmark. J Hydrol 280(1):52–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hundecha Y, Bárdossy A (2004) Modeling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model. J Hydrol 292:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Im S, Brannan KM, Mostaghimi S (2003) Simulating hydrologic and water quality impacts on an urbanizing watershed. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(6):1465–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jain SK, Storm B, Bathurst JC, Refsgaard JC, Singh RD (1992) Application of the SHE to catchments in India: Part 2. Field experiments and simulation studies with the SHE on the Kolar subcatchment of the Narmada River. J Hydrol 140:25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jayatilaka CJ, Storm B, Mudgway LB (1998) Simulation of water flow on irrigation bay scale with MIKE-SHE. J Hydrol 208:108–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. KICT (Korea Institute of Construction Technology) (2003) Operation and research on the hydrological characteristics of the experimental catchment. KICT Report No. 2003-051, Goyang, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  20. Klöcking B, Haberlandt U (2002) Impact of land use changes on water dynamics: a case study in temperature meso and macroscale river basin. Phys Chem Earth 27:619–629Google Scholar
  21. Kristensen KJ, Jensen SE (1975) A model for estimating actual evapotranspiration from potential evapotranspiration. Nord Hydro 6:170–188Google Scholar
  22. Kuczera G, Raper GP, Brah NS, Jayasuriya MD (1993) Modelling yield changes after strip thinning in a mountain ash catchment: an exercise in catchment model validation. J Hydrol 150:433–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lørup JK, Refsgaard JC, Mazvimavi D (1998) Assessing the effect of land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statistical tests and hydrological modeling: case studies from Zimbabwe. J Hydrol 205:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCuen RH (2002) Modeling hydrologic change: statistical methods, Lewis PublishersGoogle Scholar
  25. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation. ARS, TXGoogle Scholar
  27. Oogathoo S (2006) Runoff simulation in the Canagagigue Creek watershed using the MIKE SHE model. McGill University, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  28. RDA (Rural Development Administration) (1992) The Korea soil database. RDA Report No. 13, Suwon, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  29. RDA (2005) The experimental report of crop growth and yield, Suwon, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  30. Refsgaard JC (1997) Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. J Hydrol 198:69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Refsgaard JC, Storm B (1995) MIKE SHE In: Singh VP (ed) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications CO, USA, pp 806–846Google Scholar
  32. Refsgaard JC, Seth SM, Bathurst JC, Erlich M, Storm B, Jørgensen GH, Chandra S (1992) Application of the SHE to catchments in India; Part I. General results. J Hydrol 140:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rutter AJ, Kershaw KA, Robins PC, Morton AJ (1971) A predictive model of rainfall interception in forests. I. Derivation of the model from observations in a plantation of Corsican pine. Agric Meteorol 9:367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sahoo GB, Ray C, De Carlo EH (2006) Calibration and validation of a physically distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, to predict streamflow at high frequency in a flashy mountainous Hawaii stream. J Hydrol 327:94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Siriwardena L, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2006) The impact of land use change on catchment hydrology in large catchments: the Comet River, central Queensland, Australia. J Hydrol 326:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thanapakpawin P, Richey J, Thomas D, Rodda S, Campbell B, Logsdon M (2007) Effects of landuse change on the hydrologic regime of the Mae Chaem river basin, NW Thailand. J Hydrol 334:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson JR, Sørenson HR, Gavin H, Refsgaard A (2004) Application of the coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 modelling system to a lowland wet grassland in southeast England. J Hydrol 293:151–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vázquez RF, Feyen J (2003) Effect of potential evapotranspiration estimates on effective parameters and performance of the MIKE SHE-code applied to a medium-size catchment. J Hydrol 270:309–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wegehenkel M (2002) Estimating of the impact of land use changes using the conceptual hydrological model THESEUS-a case study. Phys Chem Earth 27:631–640Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sangjun Im
    • 1
  • Hyeonjun Kim
    • 2
  • Chulgyum Kim
    • 2
    Email author
  • Cheolhee Jang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest Sciences, Research Institute for Agriculture and Life SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Hydrology Research DivisionKorea Institute of Construction TechnologyGyeonggi-doKorea

Personalised recommendations