Relationship between design floods and land use land cover (LULC) changes in a tropical complex catchment

  • Jabir Haruna AbdulkareemEmail author
  • Wan Nor Azmin SulaimanEmail author
  • Biswajeet PradhanEmail author
  • Nor Rohaizah Jamil
GCEC 2017
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Global Sustainability through Geosciences and Civil Engineering


Rainfall characteristics are directly related to the climate of a basin, but this can only be noticed after a long period. Human activities, such as deforestation, tend to play a major role in transforming the land use land cover (LULC). Knowledge of the relationship between design floods and LULC is important in modeling and designing watershed management strategies. A study was conducted in the Kelantan River basin, Malaysia, to determine the impact of past and present LULC changes on peak discharge and runoff volumes. To achieve this, the basin was delineated into four catchments (Galas, Pergau, Nenggiri, and Lebir) due to its size and increased precision. Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model was calibrated based on December 20–30th, 2014, flood in Kelantan. Flood hydrographs corresponding to 1984, 2002, and 2013 LULC conditions were simulated, and relative changes in peak discharge and runoff volume were determined for different return periods (2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years). Results of LULC analysis showed that Galas recorded highest deforestation (54.35%). When the four catchments were compared with respect to highest contribution of outlet peak discharge, Lebir under 2013 LULC condition was the highest with 2847.70 m3/s. This was followed by Nenggiri (2196.90 m3/s), Galas (1252.7 m3/s), and Pergau (328.7 m3/s), all under the 2013 LULC condition. Results of unit response approach applied based on 50-year return period to the catchments for ranking their sub-basins revealed that the novel fa index developed in this study provides a better way of ranking sub-basins with respect to their contribution to the outlet and therefore is recommended for use. Methodologies developed in this study may be useful to land use planners from around the world which when applied can provide alternatives that will minimize the adverse effects of floods.


Design floods Land use land cover changes Kelantan River basin GIS HEC-HMS 



The authors wish to thank the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), Ampang, Malaysia, for the hydrological data and the Department of Agriculture (DOA), Malaysia, for the soil map as well as the LULC maps.

Funding information

This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) 2015-1 from the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia.

Supplementary material

12517_2018_3702_MOESM1_ESM.docx (974 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 974 kb)


  1. Adnan NA, Atkinson PM (2011) Exploring the impact of climate and land use changes on streamflow trends in a monsoon catchment. Int J Climatol 31(6):815–831. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adnan, N. A., Atkinson, P. M., Yusoff, Z. M., & Rasam, A. R. A. (2014a). Climate variability and anthropogenic impacts on a semi-distributed monsoon catchment runoff simulations. Proceedings—2014 IEEE 10th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and Its Applications, CSPA 2014, 178–183. doi:
  3. Adnan, N. A., Basarudin, Z., & Omar, N. C. (2014b). Variation in hydrological responses estimation simulations due to land use changesGoogle Scholar
  4. N A Ahmad. (2004). Flood analysis of Sg. Galas at Dabong, Kelantan by using the HEC-HMS software. University Tunn Hussein Onn MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Ali M, Khan SJ, Aslam I, Khan Z (2011) Simulation of the impacts of land-use change on surface runoff of Lai Nullah Basin in Islamabad, Pakistan. Landsc Urban Plan 102(4):271–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amini A, Ali TM, Ghazali AHB, Aziz A a, Akib SM (2011) Impacts of land-use change on streamflows in the Damansara Watershed, Malaysia. Arab J Sci Eng 36(5):713–720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basarudin Z, Adnan NA, Latif ARA, Tahir W, Syafiqah N (2014) Event-based rainfall-runoff modelling of the Kelantan River Basin. IOP Confer Ser: Earth Environ Sci 18:12084. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnet MP, Barroux G, Martinez JM, Seyler F, Moreira-Turcq P, Cochonneau G, Melack JM, Boaventura G, Maurice-Bourgoin L, León JG, Roux E, Calmant S, Kosuth P, Guyot JL, Seyler P (2008) Floodplain hydrology in an Amazon floodplain lake (Lago Grande de Curuaí). J Hydrol 349(1–2):18–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronstert A, Niehoff D, Brger G, Bronstert A, Niehoff D, G B (2002) Effects of climate and land-use change on storm runoff generation: present knowledge and modelling capabilities. Hydrol Process 16(2):509–529. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen Y, Xu Y, Yin Y (2009) Impact of land use change scenarios on storm-runoff generation in Xitiaoxi basin, China. Quatern Int 208(1–8):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DID (Drainage and Irrigation Department). (2000). Annual flood report of DID for Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewen J, Parkin G (1996) Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts. 1. Method. J Hydrol 175(1-4):583–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghorbani-Dashtaki, S., Homaee, M., & Loiskandl, W. (2016). Towards using pedotransfer functions for estimating infiltration parameters, 6667(April). doi:, 1477, 1488
  14. Halwatura D, Najim MMM (2013) Environmental modelling & software application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ Model Softw 46:155–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ibrahim-Bathis K, Ahmed SA (2016) Rainfall-runoff modelling of Doddahalla watershed—an application of HEC-HMS and SCN-CN in ungauged agricultural watershed. Arab J Geosci 9:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jang TI, Kim HK, Im SJ, Park SW (2010) Simulations of storm hydrographs in a mixed-landuse watershed using a modified TR-20 model. Agric Water Manag 97(2):201–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalita, D. N. (2008). A study of basin response using HEC-HMS and subzone reports of CWC. In 13th National Symposium on Hydrology with focal theme on “Inflow Forecasting during Extremes”. doi:
  18. Koutroulis AG, Tsanis IK (2010) A method for estimating flash flood peak discharge in a poorly gauged basin: case study for the 13–14 January 1994 flood, Giofiros basin, Crete, Greece. Journal of Hydrology 385(1–4):150–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noori N, Kalin L, Sen S, Srivastava P, Lebleu C, Hec-hms FÁ (2016) Identifying areas sensitive to land use/land cover change for downstream flooding in a coastal Alabama watershed. Reg Environ Chang 16:1833–1845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olang LO, Furst J (2011) Effects of land cover change on flood peak discharges and runoff volumes: model estimates for the Nyando River Basin, Kenya. Hydrol Process 25:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pradhan, B. (2009). Flood susceptible mapping and risk area delineation using logistic regression, GIS and remote sensing Biswajeet. J Spat Hydrol Vol.9,No.2 Fall 2009, 9(2)Google Scholar
  22. Pradhan B, Youssef AM (2011) A 100-year maximum flood susceptibility mapping using integrated hydrological and hydrodynamic models: Kelantan River Corridor, Malaysia. J Flood Risk Manag 4(3):189–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pradhan B, Shafiee M, Pirasteh S (2009) Maximum flood prone area map RADARSAT images and GIs: Ke. Int J Geoinformatics 5(2):11–23. Google Scholar
  24. Saadatkhah N, Kassim A, Lee LM (2015) Hulu Kelang, Malaysia regional mapping of rainfall-induced landslides using TRIGRS model. Arab J Geosci 8(5):3183–3194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saghafian B, Khosroshahi M (2005) Unit response approach for priority determination of flood source areas. J Hydrol Eng 10(4):270–277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saghafian B, Farazjoo H, Bozorgy B, Yazdandoost F (2008) Flood intensification due to changes in land use. Water Resour Manag 22(8):1051–1067. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinnakaudan SK, Ab Ghani A, Ahmad MSS, Zakaria NA (2003) Flood risk mapping for Pari River incorporating sediment transport. Environ Model Softw 18(2):119–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suriya S, Mudgal BV (2012) Impact of urbanization on flooding: the Thirusoolam sub watershed—a case study. J Hydrol 412–413:210–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2013) Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS. J Hydrol 504:69–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. USACE-HEC. (2010). Hydrologic modeling system, HEC-HMS user’s manual. United States Army Corp of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering CentreGoogle Scholar
  31. Wan, I. (1996). Urban growth determinants for the state of Kelantan for the state’s policy makersGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang S, Kang S, Zhang L, Li F, Wang S, Kang S, Zhang L, F L (2008) Modelling hydrological response to different land-use and climate change scenarios in the Zamu River basin of northwest China. Hydrol Process 22(14):2502–2510. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang X, Yu X, Wu S, Zhang M, Li J, Xiaoming Z, Xinxiao Y, Manliang Z, L J (2007) Response of land use/coverage change to hydrological dynamics at watershed scale in the Loess Plateau of China. Acta Ecol Sin 27(2):414–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental StudiesUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)SerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science, Institute for Agricultural Research/Faculty of AgricultureAhmadu Bello UniversityZariaNigeria
  3. 3.Centre for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems (CAMGIS), Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations