Natural Hazards

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 219–236 | Cite as

Evaluating and classifying restrictions and hydrogeomorphic hazards for sustainable urban development planning in dry areas (case study: Birjand, South Khorasan Province, Iran)

  • Mahdi Saghafi
Original Paper


Urban, rural, and industrial regions located in natural settings need to be developed after a careful study of the natural features and hazards. Geomorphological investigations can reveal many high-risk natural hazards and limitations of such development. The aim of the present study was to investigate the hydrogeomorphological restrictions of physical development of Birjand and classify the study area based on the hazard factors. The information required for this study included a geomorphological map, morphological data, and 19 morphometric indicator layers of sub-basins in the area analyzed with GIS software. Different classes of hydrogeomorphological hazards of the area were obtained using a combination of geomorphological and hydrological features. Based on the results, 59% of the area was found to be in a moderate- to high-risk zone. The greatest risk was seen in the central parts and the southwestern end of the city. It was observed that most buildings, facilities, and communication links of the city lie in the flood-flow paths without any attention being paid to urban development limits.


Classification Hazards Hydrogeomorphology Sustainable development Birjand 


  1. Adel Z, Khorshiddoust A (2011) Application of geomorphology in urban planning: case study in landfill site selection. In: The 2nd international geography symposium GEOMED 2010. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 19:662–667Google Scholar
  2. Alcantara Ayala I (2002) Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in developing countries. J Geomorphol 47:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley R, Blanksby J, Chapman J, Zhou A (2007) Towards integrated approaches to reduced flood risk in urban areas. In: Ashley R, Gravin S, Pasche E, Vassilopoulous A, Zevenbergen C (eds) Advances in urban flood management. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 415–432Google Scholar
  4. Babar Md (2005) Hydrogeomorphology: fundamentals, applications and techniques. New India Publishing, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  5. Bae J, Nakai S, Ishida R (2004) A study on the landform classification based on the change of land use. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp 63–64 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  6. Baker VR, Kochel RC, Patton PC (1988) Flood geomorphology. Wiley Interscience, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballais JL, Garry G, Masson M (2005) Contribution of hydro geomorphological method to flood hazard assessment: the case of French Mediterranean region. C R Geosci 337(13):1120–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bisson RA, Lehr JH (2004) Modern groundwater exploration: discovering new water resources in consolidated rocks using innovative hydrogeologic concepts, exploration, drilling, aquifer testing and management methods. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brabyan L (1998) GIS analysis of macro landform. Presented at the 10th colloquium of the Spatial Information Research Center, University of Otego, New Zealand, and 16–19 November. P 257, pp 35–48Google Scholar
  10. Brewer CA (2005) Designing better maps: a guide for GIS users. ESRI Press, Redlands, p 220Google Scholar
  11. Brinson MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. WRP-DE–4, NTIS No. AD A270 053Google Scholar
  12. Brinson MM, Kruczynski WE, Lee LC, Nutter WL, Smith RD, Whigham DF (1994) Developing an approach for assessing the functions of wetlands. In: Mitsch WJ, Turner RE (eds) Wetlands of the world: biogeochemistry, ecological engineering, modelling and management. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Campanella TJ (2006) Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. J Am Plan Assoc 72:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dikau R (1989) The application of a digital relief model to landform analysis in geomorphology. In: Raper J (ed) Three dimensional application in geographic information systems. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 51–77Google Scholar
  15. Dunne T (1994) Hydrogeomorphology: an introduction. Trans Jpn Geomorphol Union 15A:1–4Google Scholar
  16. Dykes J, Maceachren AM, Kraak MJ (2005) Exploring geovisualization. International cartographic association. Elsevier, Oxford, p 710Google Scholar
  17. Guzzetti F, Tonelli G (2004) Information system on hydrological and geomorphological catastrophes in Italy (SICI): a tool for managing landslide and Flood hazards. Nat Hazard Earth, Syst Sci, pp 213–232Google Scholar
  18. Guzzetti F, Stark CP, Salvati P (2005) Evaluation of flood and landslide risk to the population in Italy. Environ Mang 36(1):15–36Google Scholar
  19. Hammond EH (1964) Analysis of properties in landform geography: an application to broad scale landform mapping. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 54:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geol Soc Am 56:275–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kenny R (1990) Hydro geomorphic flood hazard evaluation for semi-arid environments. J Eng Geol Lond 23:333–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirpich ZP (1940) Time of concentration of small watersheds. J Civ Eng 10(6):362Google Scholar
  23. Klimek K, Malik I, Owczarek P, Zygmunt E (2003) Historical flood evidence using geomorphological and dendrochronological records, Sudetes Mountains, Central Europe. In: Thorndycraft VR, et al (eds) Palaeofloods, historical data & climatic variability. Applications in flood risk assessment. Centro de Cincias Medioambientales, Madrid, pp 61–72Google Scholar
  24. Komendantova N, Mrzyglocki R, Mignan A, Khazai B, Wenzel F, Patt A, Fleming K (2014) Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: feedback from civil protection stakeholders. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 8:50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linkov I, Bridges T, Creutzig F, Decker J, Fox-Lent C, Kröger W, Lambert JH, Levermann A, Montreuil B, Nathwani J, Nyer R, Renn O, Scharte B, Scheffler A, Schreurs M, Thiel-Clemen T (2014) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat Clim Change 4:407–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahdavi M (2009) Applied hydrology, vol 2. Tehran University Publications, Tehran, p 424Google Scholar
  27. Montz BE, Gruntfest E (2002) Flash-flood mitigation: recommendations for research and applications. Environ Hazards 4:15–22Google Scholar
  28. Muller M (2007) Adapting to climate change water management for urban resilience. Environ Urban 19:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Okunishi K (1994) Concept and methodology of hydrogeomorphology. Trans Jpn Geomorphol Union 15:5–18Google Scholar
  30. Pasche E, Geisler TR (2005) New strategies of damage reduction in urban areas proned to flood. In: Szollosi-Nagy A, Zevenbergen C (eds) Urban flood management. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 101–117Google Scholar
  31. Peterson GN (2009) GIS cartography: a guide to effective map design. CRC Press, Taylor Francis Group, Boca Raton, p 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rajayi AH (1994) Application of geomorphology in land use planning and environment management. Ghomes Publications, Tehran, p 344Google Scholar
  33. Rajayi AH (2004) Application of physical geography in urban and rural planning. SAMT Publications, Tehran, p 405Google Scholar
  34. Rezaee Moghadam MH, Saghafi M (2005) Classification and analysis of landforms morphology using GIS and DEM methods. J Soc Hum Sci 17:750–790Google Scholar
  35. Rezaee Moghadam MH, Saghafi M (2007) Application of new techniques for classifications and analysis of geomorphologic hazards in Tabriz development. J Modarres 38:47–75Google Scholar
  36. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Google Scholar
  37. Saghafi M (2010) Geomorphology studies of Bagheran Mountains’ northern slope basins. Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, p 284Google Scholar
  38. Saghafi M, Rabiee Gasak M (2015) Spatial analysis of Birjand physical development hazards based on natural limitations and classification of the data using GIS and satellite images. Red Crescent Society of Southern Khorasan, Tehran, p 126Google Scholar
  39. Scheidegger AE (1994) Hazards: singularities in geomorphic systems. Geomorphology 10:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schumm SA (1956) The evolution of drainage systems and slopes in bad lands at Perth, Amboi, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67(5):597–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sidle RC, Onda Y (2004) Hydrogeomorphology: overview of an emerging science. Hydrol Process 18(4):597–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slaymaker O (1996) Geomorphic hazards. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  43. Smith RD, Ammann A, Bartoldus C, Brinson MM (1995) An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Wetlands research program technical report WRP-DE-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith M, Paron P, Griffiths J (2011) Geomorphological mapping: methods and applications. Developments in earth surface processes, vol 15. Elsevier, Oxford, p 610Google Scholar
  45. Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 33:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 439–476Google Scholar
  47. Taheri Behbahani M, Bozorg zadeh M (1996) Urban floods. Center of Studies and Researches of Architecture Publications, Tehran, p 536Google Scholar
  48. Teixeira J, Chamine HI, Espinha Marques J, Gomes A, Carvalho JM, Pe’rez-Alberti A, Rocha F (2010) Integrated approach of hydrogeomorphology and GIS mapping to the evaluation of ground water resources: an example from the hydromineral system of Caldas da Cavaca, NW Portugal. In: Paliwal BS (ed) Global groundwater resources and management, selected papers from the 33rd international geological congress, general symposium: hydrogeologyGoogle Scholar
  49. Tricart J (1961) Ge’omorphologie et eaux souterraines. IAHS Red Book Ser 56:22–27Google Scholar
  50. Wheater HS (2002) Progress and prospects for fluvial flood modeling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 360:1409–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain analysis: principles and applications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolman MG (1971) Evaluating alternative techniques of floodplain mapping. Water Resour Res 7:1383–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zahedi M (1999) Fuzzy sets theory and its application. University Books Publications, Tehran, p 205Google Scholar
  54. Zeraatkar Z (2012) Zoning of Shahrood rivers floods and Pole bagh in Birjand using HEC-RAS, ARC-GIS methods. Thesis for MA, Zabol University, Water and Soil Faculty, p 149Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyPayame Noor UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations