Advertisement

Journal of Earth System Science

, Volume 121, Issue 4, pp 1011–1024 | Cite as

Modelling and analyzing the watershed dynamics using Cellular Automata (CA)–Markov model – A geo-information based approach

  • MUKUNDA D BEHERA
  • SANTOSH N BORATE
  • SUDHINDRA N PANDA
  • PRITI R BEHERA
  • PARTHA S ROY
Article

Improper practices of land use and land cover (LULC) including deforestation, expansion of agriculture and infrastructure development are deteriorating watershed conditions. Here, we have utilized remote sensing and GIS tools to study LULC dynamics using Cellular Automata (CA)–Markov model and predicted the future LULC scenario, in terms of magnitude and direction, based on past trend in a hydrological unit, Choudwar watershed, India. By analyzing the LULC pattern during 1972, 1990, 1999 and 2005 using satellite-derived maps, we observed that the biophysical and socio-economic drivers including residential/industrial development, road–rail and settlement proximity have influenced the spatial pattern of the watershed LULC, leading to an accretive linear growth of agricultural and settlement areas. The annual rate of increase from 1972 to 2004 in agriculture land, settlement was observed to be 181.96, 9.89 ha/year, respectively, while decrease in forest, wetland and marshy land were 91.22, 27.56 and 39.52 ha/year, respectively. Transition probability and transition area matrix derived using inputs of (i) residential/industrial development and (ii) proximity to transportation network as the major causes. The predicted LULC scenario for the year 2014, with reasonably good accuracy would provide useful inputs to the LULC planners for effective management of the watershed. The study is a maiden attempt that revealed agricultural expansion is the main driving force for loss of forest, wetland and marshy land in the Choudwar watershed and has the potential to continue in future. The forest in lower slopes has been converted to agricultural land and may soon take a call on forests occurring on higher slopes. Our study utilizes three time period changes to better account for the trend and the modelling exercise; thereby advocates for better agricultural practices with additional energy subsidy to arrest further forest loss and LULC alternations.

Keywords

Land use classification Choudwar transition probability transition area matrix 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The evaluation version of IDRISI software obtained from Clarke’s LAB is thankfully acknowledged. The financial support received from IIRS (ISRO), Dehradun under the umbrella of ISRO-GBP LULCC program for Indian river basins is thankfully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ademiluyi I A and Otun W O 2009 Spatial decision support systems (SDSS) and sustainable development of the third world; J. Sustain. Dev. Africa 10(4) 200–217.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson R, Hardy E E, Roach J T and Witmer R E 1976 A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data; USGS Professional Paper 964 (Sioux Falls, SD, Washington, DC USA), 28p.Google Scholar
  3. Bishaw B 2001 Deforestation and land degradation in the Ethiopian highlands: A strategy for physical recovery; Northeast African Studies 8 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisht B S and Tiwari P C 1996 Land-use planning for sustainable resource development in Kumaun Lesser Himlalaya – a study of the Gomli watershed; Int. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 3 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boerner R E J, Demers M N, Simpson J W, Artigas F J, Silva A and Berns L A 1996 Markov models of inertia and dynamic on two contiguous Ohio landscapes; Geogr. Anal. 28 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke K C and Gaydos J 1998 Loose-coupling a cellular automaton model and GIS: Long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore; Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 12 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geist H and Lambin E F 2002 Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation; BioScience 52 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kallali H, Anane M, Jellali S and Tarhouni J 2006 GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for potential wastewater aquifer recharge sites; Desalination 215 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lambin E F, Baulies X, Bockstael N, Fischer G, Krug T, Leemans R, Moran E F, Rindfuss R R, Sato Y, Skole D, Turner B L and Vogel C 1999 The change of land use in upriver regions of Yellow River, Land-use and land-cover change (LUCC): Implementation strategy, IGBP Report 48 IHDP Report No. 10, Stockholm, Bonn.Google Scholar
  10. Lambin E F, Turner B L, Geist H J, Agbola S B, Angelsen A, Bruce J W, Coomes O T, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George P S, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X B, Moran E F, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan P S, Richards J F, Skanes H, Stefeen W, Stone G D, Svedin U, Veldkamp T A, Vogel C and Xu J C 2001 The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths; Global Environ. Change 11 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liang G and Ding S 2006 Driving factors of forest landscape change in Yiluo River basin; J. Geogr. Sci. 16 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malczewski J 1999 GIS and multicriteria decision analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.).Google Scholar
  13. Mather J R and Sdasyuk G V 1991 Global change: Geographical approaches (Tucson Arizona USA: University of Arizona Press).Google Scholar
  14. National Research Council (NRC) Board on Sustainable Development, Policy Division, Committee on Global Change Research 1999, Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade (Washington DC: National Academy Press).Google Scholar
  15. Satty T L and Vargas L G 2001 Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process; Int. Ser. Oper. Res. Management Sci. 34b 1–352.Google Scholar
  16. Soe W M and Le W 2006 Multicriteria decision approach for land use and land cover change using Markov chain analysis and a cellular automata approach; Canadian J. Rem. Sens. 32 390–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sylvertown J, Hotlier S, Johnson J and Dale P 1992 Cellular automaton models of inter specific competition for space the effect of pattern on process; J. Ecol. 80 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomas H and Laurence H M 2006 Modeling and projecting land-use and land-cover changes with a cellular automaton in considering landscape trajectories: An improvement for simulation of plausible future states; EARSeL eProc. 5 63–76.Google Scholar
  19. Turner II B L, Skole D, Sanderson S, Fischer G, Fresco L and Leemans R 1995 Land use land cover change science/research plan (IGBP Report No. 35 and HDP Report No. 7).Google Scholar
  20. Wang X and Zhang C 2001 A dynamic modelling approach to simulating socioeconomic effects on landscape changes; Ecol. Model. 140 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang X and Lo C P 2002 Using a time series of satellite imagery to detect land use and cover changes in Atlanta, Georgia; Int. Remote Sens. 23 1775–1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang X, Yu X, Wu S, Zhang M and Li J 2007 Response of land use/coverage change to hydrological dynamics at watershed scale in the Loess Plateau of China; Acta Ecologica Sinica 27(2) 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • MUKUNDA D BEHERA
    • 1
  • SANTOSH N BORATE
    • 2
  • SUDHINDRA N PANDA
    • 2
  • PRITI R BEHERA
    • 2
  • PARTHA S ROY
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences (CORAL)Indian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia
  2. 2.School of Water ResourcesIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia
  3. 3.Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (ISRO)DehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations