Advertisement

Integrated framework for flood relief package (FRP) allocation in semiarid region: a case of Rel River flood, Gujarat, India

  • Nimrabanu Memon
  • Dhruvesh P. PatelEmail author
  • Naimish Bhatt
  • Samir B. Patel
Original Paper
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Flash flood is disastrous; it losses property and life. Its effect is intensified while it occurs in semiarid region because of less preparedness. The present case conferred about a flash flood in semiarid region in Gujarat which was affected by flood in 2015 and 2017. Massive loss of lives and properties has been observed after the event. Now, recuperating the region against flood losses, it was a prime requirement to distribute the flood relief packages to the flood-susceptible areas. To identify the flood hazards and flood risk and assess the flood vulnerability in Rel River catchment, the region is divided into 52 micro-watersheds using RS and GIS techniques. The morphology of the Rel River catchments has been explored using the morphometric analysis. The priority rank and category for each micro-watershed were assigned based on compound factor values, whereas compound factor was calculated using weighted sum analysis techniques. Flood hazard zone map was prepared, and flood vulnerability has been characterized from very low to very high. Furthermore, the multi-criteria analysis was used to calculate the risk factor for the basin and AHP-MCE method was used to find the normalized weights of each factor (LU/LC, CF, soil, slope, drainage density) that were significant to the flood disaster. The integration of flood hazard map along with these parameters helped to understand the sensitivity of flash floods at different locations within the study area. Flood risk map was further analyzed at village level, and it has been identified that 17 out of 39 villages were at high risk, 12 villages were at moderate risk and 10 villages were at low risk. The study helped to clearly identify villages vulnerable to flood risk where more relief and flood insurance packages need to be allotted. Thus, the present method and integrated approach would be a useful tool for the decision maker to distribute the flood relief package in flash flood-prone area.

Keywords

AHP Flash flood Flood hazard Morphometric RS GIS 

Abbreviations

AHP

Analytical hierarchy process

CR

Consistent ratio

DRIP

Dam Rehabilitation and Improvement Project

e

Eigen vector

EAP

Emergency action plan

FRP

Flood relief package

FHV

Flood hazards vulnerability

LU

Land use

LC

Land cover

Me

Eigen matrix

MCE

Multi-criteria evaluation

MWS

Microwater shed

NDVI

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

NDWI

Normalized Difference Water Index

n

Number of variables

PPR

Preliminary priority rank

RI

Random inconsistency

SAVI

Soil-adjusted vegetation index

SBI

Soil brightness index

SWAT

Soil and water assessment tool

WMP

Weight of morphometric parameter

λmax

Largest Eigen value

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Corresponding author would like to express his sincere thanks to PDPU for providing a support to execute work. The authors would like to thank Space Application Center—Indian Space Research Organization (SAC-ISRO), National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS & LUP), National Resources Information System, Survey of India (SOI), Central Water Commission (CWC), State Water Data Center (SWDC), Survey of India (SoI), Irrigation department for providing necessary data, facilities and support during the study period. Corresponding author would like to thank Himadri, Dhruvanshi, Mohini, Vishal Asnani and Prakher Mishr, undergraduate students department of civil Engineering PDPU for collection of data set.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author is thankful to the ORSP, PDPU and SAC-ISRO for providing the research grant to executing the work (Grant no: ORSP/R&D/SRP/2019/MPDP/007; SAC/EPSA/GHCAG/LHD/SARITA/01/19).

Supplementary material

11069_2019_3812_MOESM1_ESM.zip (4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 4069 kb)

References

  1. Abdelkareem M (2017) Targeting flash flood potential areas using remotely sensed data and GIS techniques. Nat Hazards 85:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal A, Narayan S (1991) State of India’s environment: floods. Center for Science and Environment, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  3. Aher P, Adinarayana J, Gorantiwar S (2014) Quantification of morphometric characterization and prioritization for management planning in semi-arid tropics of India: a remote sensing and GIS approach. J Hydrol 511:850–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aksoy H, Kirca VSO, Burgan HI, Kellecioglu D (2016) Hydrological and hydraulic models for determination of flood-prone and flood inundation areas. Proc Int Assoc Hydrol Sci 373:137–141Google Scholar
  5. Alexander G (1972) Effect of catchment area on flood magnitude. J Hydrol 16:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Altaf F, Meraj G, Romshoo SA (2013) Morphometric analysis to infer hydrological behaviour of Lidder watershed, Western Himalaya, India. Geogr J.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/178021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angillieri MYE (2008) Morphometric analysis of Colangüil river basin and flash flood hazard, San Juan. Argent Environ Geol 55:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Astaras TA, Soulakellis N (1992) Contribution of digital image analysis techniques on Landsat-5 TM imageries for drainage network delineation. A case study from the Olympus Mountain, W. Macedonia, Greece. In: Proceedings 18th annual conference of the remote sensing society, Dundee, pp 153–172Google Scholar
  9. 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 7:2469–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhatt S, Ahmed S (2014) Morphometric analysis to determine floods in the Upper Krishna basin using Cartosat DEM. Geocarto Int 29:878–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CEOS (2003) The use of earth observing satellites for hazard support: assessments and scenarios. Final report of the CEOS disaster management support group (DMSG), NovemberGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Y-R, Yeh C-H, Yu B (2011) Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process and the geographic information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain management in Taiwan. Nat Hazards 59:1261–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chopra R, Dhiman RD, Sharma P (2005) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in Gurdaspur district, Punjab using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soci Remote Sens 33:531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chorley RJ (ed) (1969) Introduction to fluvial processes. Methuen and Co., Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Choudhari P, Nigam GK, Singh SK, Thakur S (2018) Morphometric based prioritization of watershed for groundwater potential of Mula river basin, Maharashtra, India. Geol Ecol Landsc 2:256–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chowdary V, Ramakrishnan D, Srivastava Y, Chandran V, Jeyaram A (2009) Integrated water resource development plan for sustainable management of Mayurakshi watershed, India using remote sensing and GIS. Water Resour Manag 23:1581–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chowdary V, Chakraborthy D, Jeyaram A, Murthy YK, Sharma J, Dadhwal V (2013) Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using analytic hierarchy process technique and GIS. Water Resour Manag 27:3555–3571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Vaumas É (1961) Structure et Morphologie du Proche-Orient. Nouvel essai de synthèse et orientations de recherche (1er article). Revue de géographie alpine 49:225–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edet A, Okereke C, Teme S, Esu E (1998) Application of remote-sensing data to groundwater exploration: a case study of the Cross River State, southeastern Nigeria. Hydrogeol J 6:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emmanouloudis D, Myronidis D, Ioannou K (2008) Assessment of flood risk in Thasos Island with the combined use of multicriteria analysis AHP and geographical information system. Innov Appl Info Agric Environ 2:103–115Google Scholar
  21. Eze EB, Efiong J (2010) Morphometric parameters of the Calabar river basin: Implication for hydrologic processes. J Geogr Geol 2:18Google Scholar
  22. Faniran A (1968) The index of drainage intensity—a provisional new drainage factor. Aust J Sci 31:328–330Google Scholar
  23. Fernández D, Lutz M (2010) Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 111:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franci F, Bitelli G, Mandanici E, Hadjimitsis D, Agapiou A (2016) Satellite remote sensing and GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for flood hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 83:31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregory KJ, Walling DE (1973) Drainage basin form and processGoogle Scholar
  26. Guzzetti F, Tonelli G (2004) Information system on hydrological and geomorphological catastrophes in Italy (SICI): a tool for managing landslide and flood hazards. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. He Y, Xie H, Cui P, Wei F, Zhong D, Gardner J (2003) GIS-based hazard mapping and zonation of debris flows in Xiaojiang Basin, southwestern China. Environ Geol 45:286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56:275–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jain V, Sinha R (2003) Evaluation of geomorphic control on flood hazard through geomorphic instantaneous unit hydrograph. Curr Sci 85:1596–1600Google Scholar
  30. Javed A, Khanday MY, Ahmed R (2009) Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Javed A, Khanday MY, Rais S (2011) Watershed prioritization using morphometric and land use/land cover parameters: a remote sensing and GIS based approach. J Geol Soc India 78:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonkman S, Vrijling J (2008) Loss of life due to floods. J Flood Risk Manag 1:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumar Pradhan R, Srivastava PK, Maurya S, Kumar Singh S, Patel DP (2018) Integrated framework for soil and water conservation in Kosi River Basin. Geocarto Int.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2018.1520921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumar R, Kumar S, Lohani A, Nema R, Singh R (2000) Evaluation of geomorphological characteristics of a catchment using GIS. GIs India 9:13–17Google Scholar
  35. Kumar N, Singh SK, Pandey H (2018a) Drainage morphometric analysis using open access earth observation datasets in a drought-affected part of Bundelkhand, India. Appl Geomat 10:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kumar N, Singh SK, Singh VG, Dzwairo B (2018b) Investigation of impacts of land use/land cover change on water availability of Tons River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 4:295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lin Y-P, Verburg PH, Chang C-R, Chen H-Y, Chen M-H (2009) Developing and comparing optimal and empirical land-use models for the development of an urbanized watershed forest in Taiwan. Landsc Urban Plan 92:242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malik A, Kumar A, Kandpal H (2019) Morphometric analysis and prioritization of sub-watersheds in a hilly watershed using weighted sum approach. Arab J Geosci 12:118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maurya S, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Islam T, Han D (2016) Integrating soil hydraulic parameter and microwave precipitation with morphometric analysis for watershed prioritization. Water Resour Manag 30:5385–5405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merzi N, Aktas MT (2000) Geographic information systems (GIS) for the determination of inundation maps of Lake Mogan, Turkey. Water Int 25:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyer V, Scheuer S, Haase D (2009) A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany. Nat Hazards 48:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller VC (1953) Quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain area, Virginia and Tennessee Technical report (Columbia University Department of Geology); no 3Google Scholar
  43. Molina-Navarro E, Trolle D, Martínez-Pérez S, Sastre-Merlín A, Jeppesen E (2014) Hydrological and water quality impact assessment of a Mediterranean limno-reservoir under climate change and land use management scenarios. J Hydrol 509:354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1989) Source areas, drainage density, and channel initiation. Water Resour Res 25:1907–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1992) Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale. Science 255:826–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ozdemir H, Bird D (2009) Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environ Geol 56:1405–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pallard B, Castellarin A, Montanari A (2009) A look at the links between drainage density and flood statistics. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:1019–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patel DP, Dholakia MB, Naresh N, Srivastava PK (2012) Water harvesting structure positioning by using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 40:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patel DP, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Nandhakumar N (2015) Decision Support System integrated with Geographic Information System to target restoration actions in watersheds of arid environment: a case study of Hathmati watershed, Sabarkantha district, Gujarat. J Earth Syst Sci 124:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patton PC, Baker VR (1976) Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resour Res 12:941–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pidwirny M (2008) Stream morphometry. In: Cleveland CJ, editor, Draggan S, Topic editor. Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington (DC): Environmental Information Coalition (EIC) of the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). Available from: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Stream_morphometry
  52. Ratnam KN, Srivastava Y, Rao VV, Amminedu E, Murthy KSR (2005) Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis—remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 33:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reddy GPO, Maji AK, Gajbhiye KS (2004) Drainage morphometry and its influence on landform characteristics in a basaltic terrain, Central India-a remote sensing and GIS approach. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 6:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Romshoo SA, Bhat SA, Rashid I (2012) Geoinformatics for assessing the morphometric control on hydrological response at watershed scale in the Upper Indus Basin. J Earth Syst Sci 121:659–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roughani M, Ghafouri M, Tabatabaei M (2007) An innovative methodology for the prioritization of sub-catchments for flood control. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 9:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1980) Hierarchical analysis of behavior in competition: prediction in chess. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:180–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanyal J, Lu XX (2006) GIS-based flood hazard mapping at different administrative scales: a case study in Gangetic West Bengal, India. Singap J Trop Geogr 27:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67:597–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shaban A, Khawlie M, Abdallah C, Awad M (2005) Hydrological and watershed characteristics of the El-Kabir River, North Lebanon. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 10:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharma R, Sahai B, Karale R (1986) Identification of erosion-prone areas in a part of the Ukai catchment. In: Asian conference on remote sensing, 6 th, Hyderabad, India, pp 121–126Google Scholar
  61. Singh O, Kumar D (2018) Evaluating the influence of watershed characteristics on flood vulnerability of Markanda River basin in north-west India. Nat Hazards 96:1–22Google Scholar
  62. Sinha R, Bapalu GV, Singh LK, Rath B (2008) Flood risk analysis in the Kosi river basin, north Bihar using multi-parametric approach of analytical hierarchy process (AHP). J Indian Soc Remote Sens 36(4):335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith KG (1950) Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am J Sci 248:655–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sreedevi P, Owais S, Khan H, Ahmed S (2009) Morphometric analysis of a watershed of South India using SRTM data and GIS. J Geol Soc India 73:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013) Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards 68:569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT (ed) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 40–74Google Scholar
  67. Sui D, Maggio R (1999) Integrating GIS with hydrological modeling: practices, problems, and prospects. Comput Environ Urban Syst 23:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Syed NH, Rehman AA, Hussain D, Ishaq S, Khan AA (2017) Morphometric analysis to prioritize sub-watershed for flood risk assessment in Central Karakoram National Park using GIS/RS approach. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 4:367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taha MM, Elbarbary SM, Naguib DM, El-Shamy I (2017) Flash flood hazard zonation based on basin morphometry using remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study of Wadi Qena basin, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 8:157–167Google Scholar
  70. Tucker GE, Bras RL (1998) Hillslope processes, drainage density, and landscape morphology. Water Resour Res 34:2751–2764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Verstappen HT (1983) Applied geomorphology: geomorphological surveys for environmental development (No. 551.4 VER)Google Scholar
  72. Waikar M, Nilawar AP (2014) Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using geographical information system: a case study. Int J Multidiscipl Curr Res 2:179–184Google Scholar
  73. Yadav SK, Singh SK, Gupta M, Srivastava PK (2014) Morphometric analysis of Upper Tons basin from Northern Foreland of Peninsular India using CARTOSAT satellite and GIS. Geocarto Int 29:895–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yildiz O (2004) An investigation of the effect of drainage density on hydrologic response. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 28:85–94Google Scholar
  75. 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 62:611–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, School of TechnologyPandit Deendayal Petroleum University (PDPU)GandhinagarIndia
  2. 2.Computer Science and Engineering Department, School of TechnologyPandit Deendayal Petroleum University (PDPU)GandhinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations