Encyclopedia of GIS

2017 Edition
| Editors: Shashi Shekhar, Hui Xiong, Xun Zhou

Hydrologic Impacts, Spatial Simulation

  • Graeme Aggett
  • Chris McColl
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17885-1_574



Spatial simulation of future hydrologic impacts involves deterministic or probabilistic modeling approaches that attempt to simulate likely changes in hydrology, and subsequent hydrologic response (impacts) of these changes, for a particular study area. The modeling approach might be focused on understanding the spatial impacts of predicted hydrologic changes (e.g., rainfall intensity), and/or changes in parameters impacting rainfall-runoff response and flow routing (e.g., changing land use). The goal is to produce spatial (map) and other data outputs that can assist planners and managers better understand the spatial ramifications of an uncertain future. Where appropriate and possible, estimates of uncertainty should be embedded in the map output. This information might be used to develop more informed and hence effective land use plans, flood mitigation strategies, or management strategies for...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Aggett GR, Wilson JP (2007, in review) Creating and coupling a high-resolution DEM with a 1-D hydraulic model in a GIS for scenario-based assessment of avulsion in a gravel-bed river. GeomorphologyGoogle Scholar
  2. Beighley RE, Melack M, Dunne T (2003) Impacts of California’s climatic regimes and coastal land use change on streamflow characteristics. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(6):1419–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrough PA (1996) Natural objects with indeterminate boundaries. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London, p 345Google Scholar
  4. de Bruin S (2000) Querying probablistic land cover data using fuzzy set theory. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14(4):359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Luzio M, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2004) A GIS-coupled hydrological model system for the watershed assessment of agricultural nonpoint and point sources of pollution. Trans GIS 8(1):113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hunter GJ, Goodchild MF (1996) Communicating uncertainty in spatial databases. Trans GIS 1(1):13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kalin L, Hantush MM (2003) Evaluation of sediment transport models and comparative application of two watershed models (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Paper EPA/600/R-03/139). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  8. Legleiter CJ, Goodchild MF (2005) Alternative representations of in-stream habitat: classification using remote sensing, hydraulic modeling, and fuzzy logic. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19(1):29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liao H, Tim US (1997) An interactive modeling environment for non-point source pollution control. J Am Water Resour Assoc 3(3):591–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McColl C, Aggett G (2007) Land use forecasting and hydrologic model integration for improved land use decision support. J Env Manag 84:494–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller RC, Guertin DP, Heilman P (2004) Information technology in watershed management decision making. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40(2):349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moglen GE, Gabriel SA, Faria JA (2003) A framework for quantitative smart growth in land development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(4):947–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ogden FL, Garbrecht J, DeBarry PA, Johnson LE (2001) GIS and distributed watershed models II: modules, interfaces, and models. J Hydrol Eng 6(6):515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Hauck LM, Dugas WA (2001) Application of a watershed model to evaluate management effects on point and nonpoint source pollution. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 44(6):1559–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan R, Arnold J, Bednarz S (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part II: model application. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Suwanwerakamtorn R (1994) GIS and hydrologic modeling for the management of small watersheds. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf (ITC) 4(1994):343–348Google Scholar
  17. Swan D, Aggett G (2007, in review) Two-dimensional modeling of stream channel dynamics in the Naches river, Washington. Trans GISGoogle Scholar
  18. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2001) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS: user’s manual. USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Warwick JJ, Haness SJ (1994) Efficacy of ARC/INFO GIS application to hydrologic modeling. J Water Resour Plan Manag 120(3):366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whiteaker TL, Robayo O, Maidment DR, Obenour D (2006) From NEXRAD rainfall map to an inundation map. J Hydrol Eng 11(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

  1. Burrough PA (1989) Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. J Soil Sci 40:477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrough PA, van Gaans PFM, Hootsmans R (1997) Continuous classification in soil survey: spatial correlation, confusion and boundaries. Geoderma 77:115–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graeme Aggett
    • 1
  • Chris McColl
    • 2
  1. 1.Riverside Technology, Inc.Fort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyCentral Washington UniversityEllensburgUSA