Advertisement

GIS digital mapping of flood hazard in Jeddah–Makkah region from morphometric analysis

  • Faisal AlqahtaniEmail author
  • Atef A. Qaddah
Original Paper
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Floods are considered to be one of the natural disasters that seriously affect people’s lives and property every year. Although, delineation and determination of hydrologic basins and their morphometric parameters are difficult morphological tasks, GIS-based approach simplifies the investigation of various morphometric factors and helps to explore the correlation between the drainage morphometry and landform properties. The present study is aimed to investigate the spatial distribution of drainage basins around Jeddah–Makkah region and its surrounding areas (nearly 40,247 km2) using GIS spatial analysis. The morphometric parameters of these drainage basins and their channel systems were estimated and calculated. The computed morphometric parameters are categorized into the following three main groups: linear, aerial, and relief features. The documentation of these parameters was, then, used to evaluate and construct flood hazard map of the region. Flood hazard map assesses five classes with varying degrees (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high) of flood hazard zones. Such hydrological hazard is mostly due to the basin’s area and its highest relief ratio, relative relief, and ruggedness factor. The flood hazard map shows that the city of Jeddah is in a moderate to high flood hazard zone, but most of the areas surrounding it are in moderate flood hazard zone. This indicates that during heavy rainfalls, flash flood could be generated in these areas which can be severely affecting the city. In addition, this study shows a remarkable correlation between theoretical concepts, data sets, and field observations, predominantly highlighting the role of geology and geomorphology in influencing the basin morphometry and identity.

Keywords

GIS Remote sensing Morphometric parameters Drainage basin Flood hazard Jeddah–Makkah region 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at the King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Jeddah, under Grant No. (G-224-145-38). The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks the DSR for technical and financial support. We are also grateful to the staff members of the Geohazards Research Center (GRC) at KAU, for scientific and technical support. In addition, we thank the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) and the General Commission for Survey (GCS) for providing maps and other data that were used in this study. Appreciations go to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments regarding the manuscript. Special appreciation goes to the editors and technical editorial advisor for their valuable comments and advice.

References

  1. Agarwal CS (1998) Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Naugarh area of Varanasi district, U. P. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 26(4):169–175Google Scholar
  2. Akther H, Ahmed MS, Rasheed KBS (2009) Spatial and temporal analysis of groundwater level fluctuation in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Asian J Earth Sci 2:49–57Google Scholar
  3. Al Saud M (2010) Assessment of flood hazard of Jeddah area 2009, Saudi Arabia. J Water Resour Prot 2:839–847Google Scholar
  4. Al-Bassam AM, Zaidi FK, Hussein MT (2014) In: Ismail-Zadeh A, Urrutia-Fucugauchi J, Kijko A, Zaliapin I (eds) Extreme natural hazards, disaster risks and societal implications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Ghamdi KA, Elzahrany RA, Mirza MN, Dawod GM (2012) Impacts of urban growth on flood hazards in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. Int J Water Resour Environ Eng 4(2):23–34Google Scholar
  6. Allen RG, Raes LS (1988) Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. In: FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  7. Anyadike RNC, Phil-Eze PO (1989) Runoff response to basin parameters in South-eastern Nigeria. Geogr Ann 71A(1–2):75–84Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Basihy G, Masoud M, Bajabaa S, Zaidy S (2017) Hydrologic atlas for of Makkah Al-Mokramah region. Water Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Bisht S, Chaudhry S, Sharma S, Soni S (2018) Assessment of flash flood hazard zonation through geospatial technique in high altitude Himalayan watershed, Himachal Pradesh India. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 12:35–47Google Scholar
  11. Bradi WA, Sen Z, Al Zahrani MA, Ashgar AA (2010) Strategic groundwater storage in Wadi Khulays, Makkah Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Geological Survey Technical Report SGS-TR-2010-7, 25pGoogle Scholar
  12. Breilinger R, Duster H, Weingartner R (1993) Methods of catchment characterization by means of basin parameters (assisted by GIS)—empirical report from Switzerland: report, vol 120. UK Institute of Hydrology, pp 171–181Google Scholar
  13. Carlston CW (1963) Drainage density and streamflow. US Geological Survey Professional PaperGoogle Scholar
  14. Chavan VT, Gadge PS (2013) Morphometric analysis of Junana Mini Watershed Nandgoan (Kh.), Dist. Amravati, Maharashtra using GIS. Int J Sci Environ Technol 2(5):1072–1079Google Scholar
  15. Chorley RJ, Malm DE, Pogorzelski HA (1957) A new standard for estimating basin shape. Am J Sci 255:138–141Google Scholar
  16. Dar RA, Chandra R, Romshoo SA (2013) Morphotectonic and lithostratigraphic analysis of intermontane Karewa basin of Kashmir Himalayas, India. J Mt Sci 10(1):731–741Google Scholar
  17. Dawod GM, Mirza MN, Khalid A, Al-Ghamdi KA (2011) GIS-based spatial mapping of flash flood hazard in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. J Geogr Inf Syst 3:217–223Google Scholar
  18. Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M, Agwe J, Buys P, Kjekstad O, Lyon B, Yetman G (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. In: Disaster risk management series 5. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Easterbrook DJ (1993) Surface processes and landforms. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, p 325Google Scholar
  20. ESRI (2009) ARC user, 1st edn. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA http://www.esri.com. Accessed 15 Feb 2016
  21. Faniran A (1968) The index of drainage intensity—a provisional new drainage factor. Aust J Sci 31:328–330Google Scholar
  22. Geena GB, Ballukraya PN (2011) Morphometric analysis of Korattalaiyar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, India: a GIS approach. Int J Geomat Geosci 2(2):383–391Google Scholar
  23. Gravelius H (1914) Flusskunde. Goschen'sche Verlagshandlung, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenbaum D (1989) Hydrogeological applications of remote sensing in areas of crystalline basement. In: Proc Groundwater Exploration and Development in Crystalline Basement Aquifers, ZimbabweGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregory RJ, Walling DE (1973) Drainage basin form and processes: a geomorphological approach. Edward Arnold, London, p 456Google Scholar
  26. Gresillon JM (1991) Pour un modèle d’infiltration adapté à l’échelle d’un bassin. Soil water in the Sudano-Sahelian zone”, Proceedings of the Niamey workshop, IAHS Publ. 199Google Scholar
  27. Hajam RA, Hamid A, Dar NA, Bhat SU (2013) Morphometric analysis of Vishav drainage basin using geo-spatial technology (GST). Int Res J Geol Mining (IRJGM 2276-6618) 3(3):136–146Google Scholar
  28. Hardely RF, Schumm SA (1961) Sediment sources and drainage basin characteristics in upper Cheyenne river basin. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1531-B:10–19Google Scholar
  29. Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union 13:350–361Google Scholar
  30. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: a hydro-physical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56(3):275–370Google Scholar
  31. Ifabiyi IP (2004) A reduced rank model of drainage basin response to runoff in Upper Kaduna catchment of Northern Nigeria. Geo-Studies Forum 2(1):109–117Google Scholar
  32. Jain V, Sinha R (2003) Evaluation of geomorphic control on flood hazard through geomorphic instantaneous unit hydrograph. Curr Sci 85(11):26–32Google Scholar
  33. Jenson SK (1991) Applications of hydrologic information automatically extracted from digital elevation models. Hydrol Process 5:31–41Google Scholar
  34. Jolly JP (1982) A proposed method for accurately calculating sediment yields from reservoir deposition volumes, recent developments in the explanation and prediction of erosion and sediment yield. In: Proceedings of Exeter symposium, vol 137. IAHS Publication, pp 153–161Google Scholar
  35. Jones JAA (1999) Global hydrology: processes, resources and environmental management, vol 399. LongmanGoogle Scholar
  36. Kale VS, Gupta A (2001) Introduction to geomorphology. Orient Blackswan Private Limited, VijayawadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Kouli M, Vallianatos F, Soupios P, Alexakis D (2007) GIS-based morphometric analysis of two major watersheds, Western Crete, Greece. J Environ Hydrol 15(1):1–17Google Scholar
  38. Krishnamurthy J, Mani A, Jayaraman V, Manivel M (2000) Groundwater resources development in hard rock terrain—an approach using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2(3/4):204–215Google Scholar
  39. Leopold LB, Wolman MG (1957) River channel patterns: braided, meandering, and straight. US Geological Survey professional paper 282-BGoogle Scholar
  40. Mahtab A, Narender B, Ajai (2003) Satellite derived digital elevation model and terrain parameters—generation, accuracy assessment and validation. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 31(1):19–24Google Scholar
  41. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  42. Melton MA (1958) Correlation structure of morphometric properties of drainage system and their controlling agents. J Geol 66:442–460Google Scholar
  43. Mesa LM (2006) Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucuman, Argentina). Environ Geol 50:1235–1242Google Scholar
  44. Miller VC (1953) A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics on the Clinch Mountain area. Virginia and Tennessee, project NR, vol Tech Rep 3. Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, New York, pp 389–402Google Scholar
  45. Moor A, Al-Rehaili M (1989) Geological map of Makka Quadrangle sheet 21D. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, un-published M.A. thesis, University of Eastern MichiganGoogle Scholar
  46. Morisawa ME (1959) Relation of morphometric properties to runoff in the Little Mill Creek, Ohio Drainage Basin. (Colombia University, Dept. of Geol.) Technical report, 17, Office of Naval Research, Project NR. pp 389–442Google Scholar
  47. Moussa R (2003) On morphometric properties of basins, scale effects and hydrological response. Hydrol Process 17:33–58Google Scholar
  48. Nag SK (1998) Morphometric analysis using remote sensing techniques in the Chaka subbasin Purulia district West Bengal. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 26(1–2):69–76Google Scholar
  49. Nautiyal MD (1994) Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin, district Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 22(4):251–261Google Scholar
  50. Ogunkoya OO, Adejuwon JO, Jeje LK (1984) Runoff response to basin parameters in southwestern Nigeria. J Hydrol 72:67–84Google Scholar
  51. Okoko EE, Olujjinmi JAB (2003) The role of geomorphic features in urban flooding: the case of Ala River in Akure, Nigeria. Int J Environ Issues 1(1):192–201Google Scholar
  52. Pareta K, Pareta U (2012) Quantitative geomorphological analysis of a watershed of a Ravi River Basin, H.P. India. Int J Remote Sens GIS 1(1):41–56Google Scholar
  53. Peuquet D (1986) The use of spatial relationships to aid spatial database retrieval. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Seattle, WA., pp 459–471Google Scholar
  54. Ramsay, CR (1986) Geological map of the Rabigh quadrangle, sheet 22D, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian Deputy Ministry for Mineral Resources, Geoscience, Map GM-84 CGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodrique-Itrube I, Valdes JB (1979) The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response. Water Resour 15:1409–1420Google Scholar
  56. 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 12(3):659–686Google Scholar
  57. Rust BR (1978) A classification of alluvial channel systems. In: Miall AD (ed) Fluvial sedimentology. Canadian Soc Petrol Geol Mem, vol 5, pp 187–198Google Scholar
  58. Sahl M (1987) Geology of Makka Al Mukaramah City area. Saudi Arabian Deputy Ministry for Mineral Resources, report DGMR, p 238Google Scholar
  59. Sarma PK, Sarmah K, Chetri PK, Sarkar A (2013) Geospatial study on morphometric characterization of Umtrew River basin of Meghalaya, India. Int J Water Resour Environ Eng 5:489–498Google Scholar
  60. Schideggar AE (1970) Theoretical geomorphology, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, p 435Google Scholar
  61. Schumm SA (1954) The relation of drainage basin relief to sediment loss. Pub. International Association of Hydrology, IUGG, Tenth Gen. Assembly, Rome 1:216–219Google Scholar
  62. Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in Badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67:597–646Google Scholar
  63. Schumm SA (1963) Sinuosity of alluvial rivers on the Great Plains. Bull Geol Soc Am 74:1089–1100Google Scholar
  64. Schumm SA (1977) The fluvial system. Wiley-Interscience, New York, p 338Google Scholar
  65. Sherief Y (2008) Flash floods and their effects on the development in El-Qaá Plain Area in South Sinai, Egypt: a study in applied geomorphology using GIS and remote sensing. PhD dissertation, Mainz University, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  66. Shreve RL (1967) Infinite topologically random channel networks. J Geol 77:397–414Google Scholar
  67. Singh S, Singh MC (1997) Morphometric analysis of Kanhar River basin. Natl Geogr J India 43(1):31–43Google Scholar
  68. Smart S, Surkan AJ (1967) The relationship between mainstream length and area in drainage basins. Water Resour Res 3:963–973Google Scholar
  69. Smith KG (1950) Standards for grading textures of erosional topography. Am Jour Sci 248:655–668Google Scholar
  70. Soni S (2017) Assessment of morphometric characteristics of Chakrar Watershed in Madhya Pradesh, India using geospatial technique. Appl Water Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0395-2. ISSN 2190-5487Google Scholar
  71. Soni SK, Tripathi S, Maurya AK (2013) GIS based morphometric characterization of mini-watershed—Rachhar Nala of Anuppur District Madhya Pradesh. Int J Adv Technol Eng Res 3(3):32–38Google Scholar
  72. Sreedevi PD, Subrahmanyam K, Shakeel A (2005) The significance of morphometric analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. J Environ Geol 47(3):412–420Google Scholar
  73. Srivastava VK, Mitra D (1995) Study of drainage pattern of Raniganj Coalfield (Burdwan District) as observed on Landsat-TM/IRS LISS II imagery. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 23(4):225–235Google Scholar
  74. Strahler AN (1952) Dynamics basis of geomorphology. Geophys Soc Am Bull 63(9):923–938Google Scholar
  75. Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–920Google Scholar
  76. Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York Section 4–11Google Scholar
  77. Strahler AN (1968) Quantitative geomorphology. In: Fairbridge RW (ed) The encyclopedia of geomorphology. Reinhold Book Crop, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Strahler AN, Strahler AH (1989) Elements of physical geography, Fourth edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York, p 562Google Scholar
  79. Subyani AM, Al-Dakheel AM (2009) Multivariate geostatistical methods of mean annual and seasonal rainfall in southwest Saudi Arabia. Arab J Geosci 2(1):19–27Google Scholar
  80. Thornbury WD (1969) Principles of geomorphology, Second edn. Wiley & Sons, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  81. Tripathi S, Soni SK, Maurya AK (2013) Morphometric characterization and prioritization of sub-watershed of Seoni River in Madhya Pradesh through remote sensing and GIS technique. Int J Remote Sens Geosci 2(3):46–54Google Scholar
  82. Vandana M (2013) Morphometric analysis and watershed prioritization: a case study of Kabani River Basin, Wayanad District, Kerala, India. Indian J Geo-Marine Sci 42(2):211–222Google Scholar
  83. Vittala SS, Govindaiah S, Honne Gowda H (2004) Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in the Pavagada Area of Tumkur District, South India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 32(4):351–362Google Scholar
  84. Wang JH (1999) The study of food law in China. J Catastrophol 14(3):36–42Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geohazards Research CenterKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Petroleum Geology & Sedimentology, Faculty of Earth ScienceKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations