Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 96, Issue 1, pp 247–268 | Cite as

Evaluating the influence of watershed characteristics on flood vulnerability of Markanda River basin in north-west India

  • Omvir SinghEmail author
  • Dinesh Kumar
Original Paper
  • 228 Downloads

Abstract

The terrain characteristics determine the hydrological response behaviour of watershed systems and have serious effect on incidence and magnitude of floods. Assessment of floods in watershed systems is one of the most complex processes in hydrological investigations. Therefore, this study evaluates the influence of watershed terrain characteristics on flood vulnerability of Markanda River basin in north-west India based on geospatial techniques coupled with field data. This basin is subjected to frequent floods during monsoons (July–September) causing heavy damage to agriculture and other infrastructure. For this study, Cartosat-1-based digital elevation model was used as input data in geographic information system to delineate the Markanda basin and its sub-basins. Subsequently, various watershed characteristics (linear, areal, shape and relief) were selected, measured, calculated and interlinked to evaluate the degree of flood vulnerability. These selected characteristics were both directly and inversely proportional to flooding behaviour. The results of these parameters were analysed and categorized into three classes using simple statistical technique, and then, rank score was assigned to each class of all selected parameters depending on its relation to flood hazard. Apart from this, flood vulnerability was recognized and categorized into high, moderate and low degree of hazard. Analysis reveals that about 7, 21 and 72% area of the basin is vulnerable to high, moderate and low degree of floods, respectively. High flood vulnerable areas are located in upper reaches where about 2.8% of human population is settled. These reaches are characterized by steep slopes, impermeable and barren surfaces and high basin relief. The accuracy of vulnerable areas was assessed through secondary data pertaining to past floods damages such as number of affected villages, households and population, economic losses, relief released, crop damages and human casualties. The findings of this study can assist disaster managers in initiating the flood mitigation measures in highly vulnerable areas of Markanda basin in north-west India.

Keywords

Cartosat-1 Basin delineation Flood vulnerability Morphometry Geospatial technology North-west India 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank the anonymous reviewer for critical comments and constructive suggestions to improve the overall quality and presentation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Ahmed SA, Chandrashekarappa KN, Raj SK, Nischitha V, Kavitha G (2010) Evaluation of morphometric parameters derived from ASTER and SRTM DEM-a study on Bandihole sub-watershed basin in Karnataka. J Indian Soc Rem Sens 38(2):227–238Google Scholar
  2. Aksoy H, Kirea VSO, Burgan HI, Kellecioglu D (2016) Hydrological and hydraulic models for determination of flood prone and flood inundation areas. In: Proceedings of the international association of hydrological sciences, May 18–20, Bochum, Germany, pp 137–141Google Scholar
  3. Altaf F, Meraj G, Romshoo SA (2013) Morphometric analysis to infer hydrological behaviour of Lidder watershed, western Himalaya, India. Geogr J 2013:1–14Google Scholar
  4. Bajabaa S, Masoud M, Al-Amri N (2014) Flash flood hazard mapping based on quantitative hydrology, geomorphology and GIS techniques (case study of Wadi Al Lith, Saudi Arabia). Arab J Geosci 7:2469–2481Google Scholar
  5. Band LE (1986) Topographic partition of watersheds with digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 22(1):15–24Google Scholar
  6. Bates PD (2004) Remote sensing and flood inundation modelling. Hydrol Process 18(13):2593–2597Google Scholar
  7. Bhat SA, Meraj G, Pandit AK (2016) Assessing the influence of stream flow and precipitation regimes on water quality of the major inflow stream of Wular Lake in Kashmir Himalaya. Arab J Geosci 9(1):50Google Scholar
  8. Bhatt S, Ahmed SA (2014) Morphometric analysis to determine floods in the Upper Krishna basin using Cartosat DEM. Geocarto Int 29(8):878–894Google Scholar
  9. Bisht S, Chaudhary S, Sharma S, Soni S (2018) Assessment of flash flood vulnerability zonation through Geospatial techniques in high altitude Himalayan watershed, Himachal Pradesh, India. Rem Sens Appl Soc Environ 12:35–47Google Scholar
  10. Census of India (2011) Registrar general and census commission, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  11. Chopra R, Dhiman RD, Sharma PK (2005) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Rem Sens 33(4):531–539Google Scholar
  12. Creutin JD, Borga M, Gruntfest E, Lutoff C, Zoccatelli D (2013) A space and time framework for analyzing human anticipation of flash floods. J Hydrol 482:14–24Google Scholar
  13. DeGaetano AT (2009) Time-dependent changes in extreme-precipitation return-period amounts in the continental United States. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48(5):2086–2099Google Scholar
  14. Dottori F, Martina ML, Figueiredo R (2016) A methodology for flood susceptibility and vulnerability analysis in complex flood scenarios. J Flood Risk Manag 11(S2):S632–S645Google Scholar
  15. El Maghraby M, Masoud M, Niyazi B (2014) Assessment of surface runoff in arid, data scarce regions: an approach applied to Wadi Al-Hamd, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Saudi Arabia. Life Sci J 11(4):271–289Google Scholar
  16. Farhan Y, Anaba O (2016) Flash flood risk estimation of Wadi Yutum (Southern Jordon) watershed using GIS based morphometric analysis and remote sensing techniques. Open J Mod Hydrol 6(2):79–100Google Scholar
  17. Fenicia F, Kavetski D, Savenije HH, Clark MP, Schoups G, Pfister L, Freer J (2013) Catchment properties, function, and conceptual model representation: is there a correspondence? Hydrol Process 28(4):2451–2467Google Scholar
  18. Few R (2003) Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global threat. Progr Dev Stud 3(1):43–58Google Scholar
  19. Gardiner V (1990) Drainage basin morphometry. In: Goudie A (ed) Geomorphological techniques. Unwin Hyman, London, pp 71–81Google Scholar
  20. Ghoneim E, El-Baz F (2007) The application of radar topographic data to mapping of a mega-paleo drainage in the eastern Sahara. J Arid Environ 69(4):658–675Google Scholar
  21. Gregory KJ, Walling DE (1973) Drainage basin form and process: a geomorphological approach. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Gujree I, Wani I, Muslim M, Farooq M, Meraj G (2017) Evaluating the variability and trends in extreme climate events in the Kashmir Valley using PRECIS RCM simulations. Model Earth Syst Environ 3(4):1647–1662Google Scholar
  23. Hagget P (1956) Locational analysis in human geography. Edward Arnold Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Haq M, Akhtar M, Muhammad S, Paras S, Rahmatullah J (2012) Techniques of remote sensing and GIS for flood monitoring and damage assessment: a case study of Sindh province, Pakistan. Egypt J Rem Sens Space Sci 15(2):135–141Google Scholar
  25. Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union 13(1):350–360Google Scholar
  26. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydro physical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geol Soc Am 56(4):275–370Google Scholar
  27. Jonkman SN, Kelman I (2005) An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood disaster deaths. Disasters 29(1):75–97Google Scholar
  28. Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK (2008) Loss of life due to floods. J Flood Risk Manag 1(1):43–56Google Scholar
  29. Kia MB, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B, Mahmud AR, Sulaiman WNA, Moradi A (2012) An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 67(1):251–264Google Scholar
  30. Kumar R, Kumar S, Lohani AK, Nema PK, Singh RD (2000) Evaluation of geomorphological characteristics of a catchment using GIS. GIS India 9(3):13–17Google Scholar
  31. Kundzewicz ZW, Jania JA (2007) Extreme hydro-meteorological events and their impacts. From the global down to the regional scale. Geographia Polonica 80(2):9–23Google Scholar
  32. Mazzorana B, Hübl J, Fuchs S (2009) Improving risk assessment by defining consistent and reliable system scenarios. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(1):145–159Google Scholar
  33. Meraj G, Romshoo SA, Yousuf AR, Altaf S, Altaf F (2015) Assessing the influence of watershed characteristics on the flood vulnerability of Jhelum basin in Kashmir Himalaya. Nat Hazards 77(1):153–175Google Scholar
  34. Meraj G, Romshoo SA, Altaf S (2016) Inferring land surface processes from watershed characterization. In: Raju NJ (ed) Geostatistical and geospatial approaches for the characterization of natural resources in the environment: Challenges, processes and strategies. Springer, Cham, pp 741–744Google Scholar
  35. Meraj G, Romshoo SA, Ayoub S, Altaf S (2018) Geoinformatics based approach for estimating the sediment yield of the mountainous watersheds in Kashmir Himalaya, India. Geocarto Int 33(10):1114–1138Google Scholar
  36. Miller VC (1953) A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch mountain area. Columbia University, New York. Technical report 3. Proj. NR 389-402Google Scholar
  37. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1989) Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale. Science 255:826–830Google Scholar
  38. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1992) Source areas, drainage density, and channel initiation. Water Resour Res 25(8):1907–1918Google Scholar
  39. Ouma YO, Tateishi R (2014) Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water 6(6):1515–1545Google Scholar
  40. Ozdemir H, Bird D (2009) Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environ Geol 56(7):1405–1415Google Scholar
  41. Patton PC, Baker VR (1976) Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydro geomorphic controls. Water Resour Res 12(5):941–952Google Scholar
  42. Pradhan B (2010) Flood vulnerable mapping and risk area estimation using logistic regression, GIS and remote sensing. J Spat Hydrol 9(2):1–18Google Scholar
  43. Pradhan B, Abokharima MH, Jebur MN, Tehrany MS (2014a) Land subsidence susceptibility mapping at Kinta Valley (Malaysia) using the evidential belief function model in GIS. Nat Hazards 73(2):1019–1042Google Scholar
  44. Pradhan B, Hagemann U, Shafapour Tehrany M, Prechtel N (2014b) An easy to use ArcMap based texture analysis program for extraction of flooded areas from Terra SAR-X satellite image. Comput Geosci 63:34–43Google Scholar
  45. Rahman A, Khan AN (2011) Analysis of flood causes and associated socio-economic damages in the Hindi Kush region. Nat Hazards 59(3):1239–1260Google Scholar
  46. Rahman A, Khan AN (2013) Analysis of 2010 flood causes, nature and magnitude in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Nat Hazards 66(2):887–904Google Scholar
  47. Santangelo N, Santo A, Di Crescenzo G, Foscari G, Liuzza V, Sciarrotta S, Scorpio V (2011) Flood vulnerability assessment in a highly urbanized alluvial fan: the case study of Sala Consilina (southern Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(1):27–65Google Scholar
  48. Sarangi A, Madramootoo CA, Singh DK (2004) Development of ArcGIS assisted user interfaces for estimation of watershed morphologic parameters. J Soil Water Conserv 33:139–149Google Scholar
  49. Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slops in bad lands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67(5):597–646Google Scholar
  50. Singh N, Singh KK (2017) Geomorphological analysis and prioritization of sub-watersheds using Snyder’s synthetic unit hydrograph method. Appl Water Sci 7(1):275–283Google Scholar
  51. Singh P, Thakur J, Singh UC (2013) Morphometric analysis of Morar River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India, using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environ Earth Sci 68(7):1967–1977Google Scholar
  52. Strahler AN (1952) Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Bull Geol Soc Am 63(9):923–938Google Scholar
  53. Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 38(6):913–920Google Scholar
  54. Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 439–476Google Scholar
  55. Tarboton DG, Bras RL, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (1991) On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data. Hydrol Process 5(1):81–100Google Scholar
  56. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2014) Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble 362 weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. J Hydrol 512:332–343Google Scholar
  57. Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP, Abe G (2011) Morphometric analysis of the drainage system and its hydrological implications in the rain shadow regions, Kerala, India. J Geogr Sci 21(6):1077–1088Google Scholar
  58. Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP, Abe G, Kannan N (2012) Morphometrical analysis of two tropical mountain river basins of contrasting environmental settings, the southern Western Ghats, India. Environ Earth Sci 66(8):2353–2366Google Scholar
  59. Townsend PA, Walsh SJ (1998) Modelling floodplain inundation using an integrated GIS with radar and optical remote sensing. Geomorphology 21(4):295–312Google Scholar
  60. Vieceli N, Bortolin TA, Mendes LA, Bacarim G, Cemin G, Schneider VE (2015) Morphometric evaluation of watersheds in Caxias do Sul City, Brazil, using SRTM (DEM) data and GIS. Environ Earth Sci 73(9):5677–5685Google Scholar
  61. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Hassan AM (2011) Flash flood risk estimation along the St. Katherine Road, Southern Sinai, Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imagery. Environ Earth Sci 62(3):611–623Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyKurukshetra UniversityKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations