Terrain Characterization for Land Suitability Analysis of the

Igo River Basin, Eastern Himalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, India

J.S. Rawat1*, R.C. Joshi2 and Gibji Nimachow3

1
Department of Geography, Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh-791111, India
2
Department of Geography, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttrakhand, India
3
Department of Geography, Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh-791111, India

Abstract

Terrain characterisation is a process through which fractal nature of terrain and its biophysical processes are quantified or
attributed into thematic layers. The synthesis of thematic layers results different terrain units or land suitability class which is
important for planning, land-use and land management. This paper attempts to carry out terrain analysis and land suitability
classification of the Igo River basin, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh (India). The terrain characteristics are generated
into physical, morphological, hydrological and other remote sensing based thematic layers. The Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation
(SMCE) module is used to standardize and weigh the data. The final output, a composite index map, is sliced into three suitability
categories as highly suitable (S1), moderately suitable (S2) and marginally suitable (S3). S1 and S2 occupy 96.50 km2 (31.45%)
and 56.34 km2 (18.36%) area respectively while S3 constitutes 154 km2 area forming 50.19% of the study area. The terrain
characterization based land suitability classification using remote sensing, Geographical Information System (GIS) and SMCE
is very significant in the mountainous and inaccessible area like Arunachal Pradesh.

Keywords : DEM, Terrain Analysis, Land Suitability, SMCE, Remote Sensing, Arunachal Pradesh

1. Introduction
Terrain consists of the physiography, lithology, morphometry,
soil geography and to some extends land cover (Meijerink,
1988). The abiotic attributes (relief, geological or
geomorphological processes, lithology, soil, etc) and
hydrological condition complemented by vegetation/land-
cover types characterises the terrain, (Van Zuidam, 1985).
Terrain analysis for land suitability is a process through
which fractal nature of terrains along with various biophysical
processes are quantified or attributed into thematic layers.
These thematic layers containing information of local land
system are then synthesized through an overlay function in
Geographical Information System (GIS) which helps in
delineating different suitability classes of terrain. The
resultant terrain units presented in the form of map and report
are meaningful to a local user (Ceballos-Silva and Lopez-
Blanco 2003a). Quantification of terrain for land suitability
necessitates compilation of data on requirements of landuse/
landcover, determination of biophysical potentials and
identification of more or less homogeneous land mapping
units (Kilic, et al., 2005). Thus, land suitability analysis is an
inventory on land resources in terms of limitations and
potentials which is useful in land management and planning.
The process of land suitability classification is the evaluation
and grouping of specific areas of land in terms of their
suitability for a defined use (Chen et al., 2010; Bhagat et al.,
2009). The objective of land evaluation is to predict inherent
capacity of a land unit to support a specific landuse for long
period of time without deteriorating, in order to minimize the

2009 AARS, All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author: jsr_06@rediffmail.com
Phone: 919863388150 Fax: 91-360-2277889
 Terrain Characterization for Land Suitability Analysis of the Igo River Basin, Eastern Himalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, India
socio-economic and environmental costs (de la Rosa 2000).
Since the dawn of agriculture and industrial revolution, the
pattern of human development rate and consumption of
world resource has brought unprecedented change on earth.
In many areas the earths surface is bearing scars of thousand
years of human interferences. Moreover, about three-quarters
of the land surface is already unsuitable for crop cultivation,
suffering from severe constraints of being too cold (13%),
too dry (27%), too steep (12%) or having poor soil (40%)
(Bhagat et al., 2009). The global concern about food security,
quality of future life and growing awareness of environmental
degradation is posing serious question to the achievements
of science (Lashkar, 2003). Evaluation of land resource, their
management and planning, therefore, has become an
important component of sustainability throughout the world
(Hall et al., 2000). The concept sustainable development
popularized by World Commission on Environment and
Development (1987) and Earth Summits (1992 and 1997) is
interpreted in several ways by various disciplines. Application
of this sustainability principle in land resource management
underscores both ecological suitability and economical
viability (Van Lier, 1994).
The Food and Agricultural Organization (1976) proposes an
approach for land suitability evaluation in terms of suitability
ratings from highly suitable to not suitable based on the
suitability of land characteristics. Hopkins (1977) presents a
comparative evaluation of alternative methods of assessing
land suitability. Anderson (1987) surveys different methods
of land potentiality/suitability analysis ranging in degrees of
Figure 1. Locational Map of the Study Area
computational and analytical sophistication. Steiner (1983,
1987) reviews land evaluation and site assessment (LESA)
using USDA-recommended standards. According to FAO
(1993) Land suitability evaluation and agricultural land use
planning is very necessary and is the basic information for
right decision making afterward (Van Chuong 2008).
Suitability analysis generally involves determining an
appropriate approach to combine these factors. The principal
problem of suitability analysis is to measure both the
individual and cumulative effects of the different factors.
Some approaches of combining the factors are composite
rating including weighted composite rating (Anderson
1987), weighted factor method (Hopkins 1977), various
multi-criteria approaches such as compromise programming
(Pereira and Duckstein 1993), Prioritized Land Use
Suitability (Xiang and Whitley 1994), modified weighted
factor (Diamond and Wright 1988), etc. Martin and Saha
(2001), Boonyanuphap et al., (2004), Kilic et al., (2005),
Chen et al., (2010), Pirbalouti and Golparvar (2008), Bhagat
et al., (2009), etc., uses Remote Sensing and GIS for land
suitability classification. On the other hand, Prakash (2003),
Keshavarzi et al., (2010), Hartati and Sitanggang (2010),
etc., employs fuzzy technique to assess land suitability for
different crops while Pereira and Duckstein (1993), Lashkar
(2003), Ceballos-Silva and Lopez-Blanco (2003a), Geneletti
(2007), Van Chuong (2008), etc makes use of Multi-criteria
Spatial Evaluation in GIS.
FAO (1976 and 1985) proposes land suitability analysis
mainly for crops which is based on factors like crop
 Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, Vol.10,No.4 (2010)

requirement and limitations, management, land development
conservation and socio-economic conditions. However, the
present study focuses overall land suitability classification
on terrain parameters for Igo river basin in Arunachal
Pradesh (India) using GIS and Spatial Multi-Criteria
Evaluation (SMCE) system. Since various morphological,
hydrological and physical terrain conditions sets different
degree of limitation or potentialities on a parcel of land for
its general use, it is assumed that these terrain characters, by
and large, helps in determining the most suitable and
sustainable use of the land particularly in the hilly area like
Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Study Area
For this study, the Igo River basin in the West Siang District
of Arunachal Pradesh is delineated using Survey of India
Topographical Maps (Figure 1). Bounded by 27o 46 36 N
to 27o 57 17N latitude and 94o 35 35 E to 94o 54 39 E
longitude, Igo basin covers about 306 km2 area. Southern
part of the study area comprises Kimin and Dafla formations
(loose conglomerate, shale and sandstone) of Outer Himalaya
corresponding Miocene to Pleistocene. A tectonic belt i.e.
Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) passes through the middle of
the study area delineating Lesser Himalaya from Outer
Himalaya. The maximum area contains rocks of Lesser
Himalaya belonging to Paleoproterozoic and Lower Permian
periods. Dolimestone of Bomdila group occurs in the north-
eastern part, Chilliepam formation of Lower Gondwana
group is found in the western tip while the remaining parts of
Lesser Himalaya consist of Miri formation. Physiographically,
undulating hills of low to moderate altitude forms maximum
parts of the area with scattered patches of plain lands along
river corridors. On an average, the area receives 2370 mm
annual rainfall with mean minimum temperature between
7.9 C in the month of January to 22.4 C in July and the
mean maximum temperature fluctuating from 16.4 C to
28.5 C in the January and August respectively. The sub-
tropical evergreen, tropical evergreen, tropical semi-
evergreen and moist deciduous forests form the natural
vegetation in study area.
There are 15 settlements in the study area, which are mainly
villages. They are Garu, Garu Camp, Rilu, Tapo, Igo Camp,
New Dari, Old Dari, Dali, Dali Hydel, Dali Camp, Ichi,
Chisi, Padi and Rimi. The distant villages, like Tapo, New
Dari, Old Dari and Ichi, are connected by village road or
foot-path tracks. Other settlements are found along the road

Table 1. Materials used for land Suitability Analysis

Table 1: Materials used for land Suitability Analysis
Terrain Parameters Source Resolution
Geology Kumar 1997 10 m (digitized)
Physiography and Soil Natural Resource Atlas (Arunachal Pradesh) 10 m (digitized)
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Contour Digitisation from Topographical Map 10 m
Slope in percent DEM Processing 10 m
Relative Relief DEM Processing 10 m
Slope Aspect DEM Processing 10 m
Slope Shape DEM Processing 10 m
Generic Landforms DEM Processing 10 m
Shape Complexity Index DEM Processing 10 m
Mean Curvature DEM Processing 10 m
Annual Average Rainfall Average annual rainfall point interpolation 10m
Drainage Density Drainage vector map from Topographical Map 10 m (digitized)
Flow length DEM Processing 10 m
Topographic wetness Index DEM Processing 10 m
Sediment Transport Index DEM Processing 10 m
Bifurcation Ratio Drainage Vector processing 10 m
Relief Ratio Drainage Vector processing 10 m
Elongation Ratio Drainage Vector processing 10 m
Circularity Ratio Drainage Vector processing 10 m
Landuse Landcover Image Processing (IRS 1D1 LISS2 III) 10 m (Resampled)
Lineaments Image Processing (IRS 1D LISS III) 10 m (Resampled)
Landslide ITC3 Landslide Index Method Analysis 10 m
Soil Loss USDA4 USLE5 Analysis 10 m

Note:
Note:1. IRS1D1D
1. IRS stands
stands for Remote
for Indian IndianSensing
Remote Sensing
1D satellite 1D2.satellite
series; LISS standseries; 2. Image
for Linear LISSScaning
stand for
Sensor; 3. ITC stands for International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation,
Linear Image Scaning Sensor; 3. ITC stands for International Institute for Geo-Information
Netherlands; 4. USDA means United States Department of Agriculture; and 5. USLE means Universal Soil
Science and Earth Observation, Netherlands; 4. USDA means United States Department of
Loss Equation.
Agriculture; and 5. USLE means Universal Soil Loss Equation.

Table 2: Spectral characteristics of IRS 1D LISS III data

Spectral Bands Nominal Spectral Location Wavelength (m) Spatial Swath (in Scale
Resolution km)
Band2 Green 0.52 - 0.59 23.5 m 141 1:250,000
 Terrain Characterization for Land Suitability Analysis of the Igo River Basin, Eastern Himalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, India

which cut across study area. The inhabitants being tribal

communities predominantly practice traditional slash-and-
burn method of cultivation known as jhum cultivation along
the hillslopes and settled wet rice cultivation in the plains of
river corridors.

3. Data use and Methodology

The litho-structural characteristics are carried out following
Kumar (1997), which is compared with satellite images and
cross checked during field survey. Since there is no
meteorological station in the study area, rainfall data in the
surrounding stations are used for interpolation. Similarly,
physiography and soil information are digitized from the
Natural Resource Atlas of Arunachal Pradesh. Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) is created by interpolating digitized
contours combined with spot heights of Survey of India
(SOI) Topographical Maps. ITC methodology of Hengl et
al., (2003) is followed to optimize DEM and to remove the
Table
artifacts. Filtered DEM with 1: Materials
a pixel size used form
of 10 land Suitability
is then used Analysis
for the extraction Teof rrainmorphological
Parameters and hydrological
Source Resolution
parameters. Besides, Figure 2. Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)
Geolobasin
gy morphometry and Kumdrainage
ar 1997 10 m (digitized)
pattern analysis arePhysiography
carried out and with
Soil the help Natural
of drainage
Resource Atlas (Arunachal Pradesh) 10 m (digitized)
vector layer digitized fromElevation
Digital SOI Maps.
Model (DEM) Contour Digitisation from Topographical Map 10 m
Slope in percent DEM Processing adequate ground truthing, 10 m at every stage, the area is classified
The IRS 1D multi-spectral LISS
Relative Relief III 8 bits data of path/row
DEM Processing into different landuse/landcover
10 m categories with an overall
113/052 on 16th November
Slope Aspect 2002 (Table 2) is used for
DEM Processing accuracy of 73.81%. 10 m
preparing landcoverSraster
lope Shalayer.
pe The NormalizedDDifference
EM Processing 10 m
Vegetation Index (NDVI)
Generic Landandfordifferent
ms colour Dcomposites
EM Processing The lineament map 1is 0 mderived using LIN algorithm in the
are obtained from Band2,
Shape ComBand3
plexity Inand
dex Band4 of DELISS
M ProceIII.
ssing PCI Geomatica and 1lineament 0m density is calculated in raster
NDVI is used for masking
Mean Curvatvegetative
ure and non-vegetative
DEM Processing format. Landslide Hazard 10 m Zonation is carried out following
areas. The vegetative Annuallayer
AverageisRainfall
converted into Average annual rainfall landslide
fraction index method
point interpolation 10m of ITC, Netherlands. The factors
Drainage Density
vegetation cover in percentage Drainage vector
(Ve) following relationship of map from used are slopeMapgradient,
Topographical slope length, slope aspect, slope
10 m (digitized)
Flow length
the Zhang et al., (2002): Ve = 93.07466*NDVID+ EM Processing
8.79815. type, generic landforms, 10 m physiography, geology, lineament
Topographic wetness Index
On the basis of Ve (canopy density) four classes DofEM Processing
forest are distance, road distance, 10 m drainage distance, altitudinal zone
Sediment Transport Index DEM Processing and landuse/landcover. 10 m The soil loss intensity is obtained
obtained using the classification scheme of Forest Survey of
Bifurcation Ratio Drainage Vector processing using Universal Soil Loss 10 m Equation (USLE) developed by
India. These are Dense Forest (density > 70%), Drainage
Relief Ratio
Moderately Vector processing 10 m
Dense Forest (40 toElongation
70%), RatioOpen Forest (10 toDrainage 40%)Vector
and processingUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
10 m
Scrub Forest (density < 10%). The non-forest layer is treated Wischmeier and Smith, (1978). Since DEM is prepared with
Circularity Ratio Drainage Vector processing 10 m
separately to classifyLanduse
into settlement a pixel size of 10 m and all its derivates by default inherits
Landcover area, road, water Image bodies,
Processing (IRS 1D1 LISS2 III) 10 m (Resampled)
and cultivated area,Linusing
eaments False Color Composite (FCC), this property, all other
Image Processing (IRS 1D LISS III)
raster layers are resampled in 10 m
10 m (Resampled)
Normalized Difference LandslideWater Index and Hybrid 3 Color pixel
ITC Landslide Index Method Analysis
size for raster analysis.
10 m
Composite (HCC). HCC Soil LoisssPCA1 (First PrincipalUComponent
SDA4 USLE5 Analysis 10 m
of Band 1, Band 2, Band 3 and Band 4 of LISS III), Ratio1 Finally, terrain analysis is performed using SMCE Module.
(Band 3/ Band 2 of IRSNote: LISS
1. IRS III
1D stands
) and for Indian (Band
Ratio2 Remote 3/Band Theseries;
Sensing 1D satellite whole raster
2. LISS standdata cubeImage
for Linear of the above mentioned terrain
Scaning
characters
Sensor; 3. ITC stands for International Institute for Geo-Information
1) passed through Netherlands;
red, green 4.and blue respectively. With are submitted
Science to
and Earth SMCE module in three sub-sets
Observation,
USDA means United States Department of Agriculture; and 5. USLE means Universal Soil
Loss Equation.

Table 2: Spectral characteristics of IRS 1D LISS III data

Table 2: Spectral characteristics of IRS 1D LISS III data
Spectral Bands Nominal Spectral Location Wavelength (m) Spatial Swath (in Scale
Resolution km)
Band2 Green 0.52 - 0.59 23.5 m 141 1:250,000
Band3 Red 0.62 - 0.68 23.5 m 141 1:250,000
Band4 Near Infrared 0.77 - 0.86 23.5 m 141 1:250,000
Band5 Shortwave Infrared 1.55 - 1.70 70.5 m 148 1:50,000
 Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, Vol.10,No.4 (2010)

Table 3. Terrain Characters on selected Parameters

Table 3: Terrain Characters on selected Parameters
Parameters Category Area (km2) Area (%)
Geology Dolimestone 67.04 21.85
Chilliepam 18.88 6.15
Miri 136.38 44.45
Dafla 30.4 9.91
Kimin 54.12 17.64
Generic Landforms Channel 13.61 4.44
Pit 2.51 0.82
Plain 8.87 2.89
Ridge 11.69 3.81
Slope 267.4 87.15
Peak 2.74 0.89
Physiography Gently Sloping 10.06 3. 28
MdMs1 0.79 0.26
MdMsMe2 243.55 79.38
MdMsSe3 16.16 5.27
Highly Dissected 11.88 3.87
Severely Dissected 15.25 4.97
River 9.13 2.97
Slope (%) <3 Very Gently Sloping 3.95 1.29
3-5 Gently Sloping 4.57 1.49
5 - 15 Moderately Sloping 15.35 5.00
15 - 35 Steeply Sloping 57.38 18.70
35 - 100 Very Steeply Sloping 204.63 66.69
> 100 Extremely Steep 20.95 6.83
Relief < 20 Very Low 19.07 6.22
(in m/0.01 km2) 20 - 60 Low 99.67 32.48
60 - 100 Moderate 124.45 40.56
100 - 140 High 51.32 16.73
> 140 Very High 12.32 4.02
Slope Aspect 337.5 - 22.5 North 43.07 14.04
22.5 - 67.5 North-East 39 12.71
67.5 - 112.5 East 32.41 10.56
112.5 - 157.5 South-East 53.02 17.28
157.5 - 202.5 South 38.94 12.69
202.5 - 247.5 South-West 33.63 10.96
247.5 - 292.5 West 24.42 7.96
292.5 - 337.5 North-West 42.34 13.80
Slope Shape < -0.5 Convex Slope 68.79 22.42
-0.5 - 0.5 Straight Slope 166.34 54.21
> 0.5 Concave Slope 71.7 23.37
Shape Complexity Index < 1.5 Very Simple 3.76 1.23
1.5 3.0 Simple 17.5 5.70
3 4.5 Moderately Complex 24.33 7.93
4.5 6.0 Complex 127.65 41.60
> 6.0 Highly Complex 133.6 43.54
Drainage Density (in m/0.01 km2) 0 87.22 28.42
0-100 Very Low 55.2 17.99
100-200 Low 54.32 17.70
200-300 Moderate 77.01 25.10
300-400 High 24.12 7.86
> 400 Very High 8.96 2.92
Flow Length 0 6.87 2.24
(in m) 10-50 37.62 12.26
50 - 100 45.8 14.93
100 - 200 85.69 27.93
200 - 300 63.69 20.76
300 - 500 56.14 18.3
500 - 1000 10.51 3. 42
> 1000 0.51 0.17
Compound Topographic Index <2 Very Low 0.02 0.01
2-4 Low 38.23 12.46
4-6 Moderate 196.44 64.02
6-8 High 56.55 18.43
>8 Very High 15.6 5.08
Sediment Transport Index <5 Very Low 33.92 11.05
5 - 10 Low 41.53 13.54
10 - 20 Moderate 94.3 30.73
20 - 40 High 95.76 31.21
> 40 Very High 41.32 13.47
Landuse Settlement 0.82 0.27
Road 0.59 0.19
Settled Cultivation 4.97 1.62
Jhum Cultivation 8.91 2.90
Dense Forest 129.56 42.23
Moderately Dense Forest 67.81 22.1
Open Forest 83.81 27.32
Scrub Forest 6. 1 1.99
Water Body 4.26 1.39
 6-8 High 56.55 18.43
>8 Very High 15.6 5.08
Sediment Transport Index <5 Very Low 33.92 11.05
Terrain Characterization for Land Suitability Analysis
5 - 10 ofLthe
ow Igo River Basin, Eastern Himalaya,
41.53 Arunachal
13.54 Pradesh, India
10 - 20 Moderate 94.3 30.73
20 - 40 High 95.76 31.21
> 40 Very High 41.32 13.47
Landuse Settlement 0.82 0.27
Road 0.59 0.19
Settled Cultivation 4.97 1.62
Jhum Cultivation 8.91 2.90
Dense Forest 129.56 42.23
Moderately Dense Forest 67.81 22.1
Open Forest 83.81 27.32
Scrub Forest 6. 1 1.99
Water Body 4.26 1.39
Lineament Density 0 152.1 49.57
2
(in m/ 0.06 km ) 0-50 Very Low 16.35 5.33
50-100 Low 16.99 5.54
100-200 Moderate 33.31 10.86
200-400 High 81.31 26.5
>400 Very High 6. 77 2. 21
Landslide < -6 Very Low 4.21 1.37
(Index) -6 -3 Low 21.48 7.00
-3 -1 Moderately Low 91.19 29.72
-1 0 Moderate 91.68 29.88
01 High 68.17 22.22
12 Very High 24.89 8.11
25 Extremely High 5. 22 1.7 0
Soil Loss 0.01-1 Very Slight 119.67 39.00
(ton ha-1 y-1) 1-10 Slight 33.51 10.92
10-20 Moderately Slight 33.04 10.77
20-50 Moderate 72.34 23.58
50-100 Severe 28.13 9. 17
100-200 Very Severe 9.88 3.22
>200 Extremely Severe 10.27 3.35

Note:
Note:1. 1.
MdMsMdMsstands
stands for
for Moderately Dissected Moderate
Moderately Dissected Moderate Slope;
Slope; 2. MdMsMe
2. MdMsMe standsstands
for for
Moderately Dissected Steep Slope moderate erosion; and 3. MdMsSe means Moderately
Moderately Dissected Steep Slope moderate erosion; and 3. MdMsSe means Moderately Dissected
Dissected
Steep SlopeSteep Slope
severe severe erosion
erosion

i.e. morphological, hydrological and other. They are further
grouped into constrains or factors and cost or benefits,
standardize and weighed in a criteria tree ( Figure 2). The
final output is a composite index map which is sliced into
three suitability categories as highly suitable (S1), moderately
suitable (S2) and marginally suitable (S3).
4. Result and Discussion
4.1. Terrain Characteristics
The result of the terrain characterization, as presented in
Table 3, shows that slope comprises more than 87% of the
area, only about 3% is plain and rest are ridges, peak, pits,
etc. Physiographically, moderately dissected steep slope
moderate erosion constitutes 79.38% of the area. On the
basis of texture the main soil types are fine loamy, coarse
loamy, loamy skeletal, clayey, fine loamy mixed. Altitude
ranges from 202 to 1780 m with a mean height 798.6. The
maximum occurring elevation is 380 m. The relative relief in
100 x 100 m dimension ranges from 0 to 230.80 m with an
average of 59.32 and maximum experienced relief of 60 m.
Although, range of slope magnitude varies from 0 to
572.30%, maximum slope is found in the lower values with
mean 54.31% and mode 66.50%. The standard deviation of
30.74 and coefficient of variation 56.60 suggests wide
variation in slope. The mean value of slope aspect represents
southern declination, while modal value indicates the
northern aspect. The values of shape complexity index shows
that maximum areas have highly complex to complex terrain
which together constitutes about 85% area.
The analysis of spatial arrangement of drainage revealed
dendritic pattern as most common drainage pattern associated
with Lower Gondwana rocks which indicate homogeneous
lithologies and uniform resistance. The sub-parallel trellis is
observed along the MBT and Siwalik group resembling
simple folds characterized by parallel anticlinal ridges and
synclinal valleys. The master streams have frequent right-
angled bends along fault lines and tributaries maintain
parallelism to MBT displaying structural control. The
rectangular pattern occurs in the northern dolomite areas
which are likely to have faults and joints controlling the
courses of streams with wide spacing and perpendicular
bends. Chisi River flowing between parallel ridges displays
a rib like pattern. The straight lateral streams are due to
slope factor and short distance between ridges to longitudinal
valley stream. Besides, there are several examples of streams
resembling radial patterns influenced by isolated hills and
peaks along the ridges.
Both stream numbers and stream lengths in Igo river basin
and its sub-basins maintain law of inverse geometric series
with stream orders. The bifurcation ratio (Rb) up to 3rd/4th
 Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, Vol.10,No.4 (2010)

Table 4. Drainage Basin Morphometry

Table 4: Drainage Basin Morphometry
Area Perimeter Lb1 Db2
Basin h3 (m) d4 Rh5 Re6 Rc7 F8
(km2) (km) (km) (km)
Ichi 37.11 30.36 12.04 11.97 1321.6 6.87 0.11 0.57 0.51 4.18
Sike 8.50 16.16 5.55 5.34 829.4 3.29 0.16 0.59 0.41 4.35
Kudo 39.12 28.21 10.41 10.41 1343.9 7.06 0.13 0.68 0.62 7.03
Dachi 14.15 17.11 6.32 6.34 981.4 4.24 0.15 0.67 0.61 4.03
Sikki 17.82 20.07 7.27 6.82 1244.3 4.76 0.18 0.65 0.56 4.88
Siggi 23.73 26.39 8.29 7.35 1244.2 5.50 0.17 0.66 0.43 4.72
Tumru 20.24 19.99 7.36 7.26 1130.4 5.08 0.16 0.69 0.64 3.90
Rimi 7.24 12.31 3.95 3.92 846.1 3.04 0.22 0.77 0.60 3.87
Upper Igo 50.26 37.82 15.22 14.29 1362.9 8.00 0.10 0.53 0.44 6.27
Middle Igo 32.70 31.90 9.77 8.43 1148.2 6.45 0.14 0.66 0.40 5.17
Lower Igo 55.96 40.28 11.90 9.65 1059.0 8.44 0.11 0.71 0.43 4.40
Igo 306.84 102.44 31.82 30.27 1578.1 19.76 0.05 0.62 0.37 5.08
Note: 1. Lb = Maximum Basin Length; 2. Db = Longest dimension of Basin parallel to Principal Stream; 3. h =
total relief; 4. d = Diameter of the Circle having equal area as the basin; 5. Rh = Relief Ratio; 6. Re = Elongation
Ratio; 7. Rc = Circularity Ratio; and 8. F= Stream Frequency

Table 5: Land Suitability Categories

order of all basins Composite
is concentrated towards higher Area
valuesArea Among the landcover Remark
categories, settlements occupy 0.27%
showing poor integration Categories
Index between streams. Beyond (km2) these(%) and road cover 0.19% areas. The wet rice fields concentrated
orders the ratio shows more Highly
0.57-0.86 stream integration
Suitable (S1) with low
96.50 31.45 along valley
Land having bottom limitations
no significant forms 1.62% area where as shifting
to sustained
application
values. However, the weighted mean Rb of Igo basin is 3.86 cultivations along the slope or ridges constitute 2.90% of the
Moderately Suitable Land having limitations which in aggregate are
ranging between 2.76 to 5.17 (S2)
0.29-0.57 in the sub-basins. The stream
56.34 18.36 study area. The maximum area of
moderately severe for sustained application the basin is found under
length ratio of Igo basin and
0.00-0.29
its tributary
Marginally basins
Suitable vary slightly
154.00 50.19 the
Landdense
having forest spreading
limitations which in over 42.23%,
aggregate are moderately dense
along the successive orders(S3)because of the varying severe for sustained application
forest covers 22.10%, open forest 27.32% and scrub forest
Total 306.84 100.00
topography and slope. The relief ratio, as shown in Table 4, constitutes 1.99% area. The lineament density under 250 m
is high in the sub-basins like Rimi, Sikki, Siggi and Sike grids (0.063 km2) varies from 0 to 790.9 m. About 50% of
which lie along faults and thrusts showing high intensity of area falls under no lineaments category with lineament
degradational processes. The elongation ratio suggests density 0. The maximum area falls under high lineament
strong relief and steep slopes which ranges from 0.5 to 0.8. density varying from 200 to 400 m which comprises 26.50%.
Similarly, the circulatory ratio indicates youthful stage of About 11% of the area has moderate lineament density
dissection in Igo basin and sub-basins. Only four sub-basins ranging from 100 to 200 m. Due to the undulating topography
(Kudo, Dachi, Tumru and Rimi) have slightly circular basins and loose lithology, Igo basin experiences frequent
indicating a matured stage of dissection. landslides. About 30% area falls under each moderately low
and moderate landslide category followed by high landslide
The drainage density in 100 m grids (0.01 km2) ranges from category covering 22% area. The very high and extremely
0 to 891.4 m with an average density of 88.92 m and standard high landslide together constitutes about 10% of the area.
deviation 150.29. Value 0 indicates no stream which Similarly, very high annual soil loss occurs in Igo river basin
constitutes 28% area followed by moderate stream density which ranges from 0.01 to above 770 ton ha-1 year-1. Although
covering 25% (Table 2). Very high density with stream maximum area falls under very slight soil loss of below 1 ton
length more than 400 m covers only 2.92% area. The flow ha-1 year-1 followed by 24% area under moderate soil loss of
length, a measure of distance travelled by runoff and 20 to 50 ton ha-1 year-1, severe to extremely severe together
transported soil mass along the slope, ranges from 0 to 1582 constituting 15% area experience soil loss to the tune of 100
m in Igo River Basin. More than a quarter (27.93%) to 200 ton ha-1 year-1 and above.
experiences the overland flow length varying in between 100
to 200 m followed by 21% area having 200 to 300 m and 4.2. Land Suitability Classification
18% area experiencing 300 to 500 m overland flow. The
Compound Topographic Index (CTI), a measure of runoff The synthesis of physical, morphological, hydrological and
concentration or moisture distribution, ranges from 1 to 14 in other remote sensing based parameters through composite
the study area. However, 64% area falls under 4 to 6 value index of SMCE results into three suitability classes (Figure
categorized as moderate CTI. Only 5% area experiences 3). These suitability classes represent the three suitability
more than 8 CTI value. The Sediment Transport Index (STI) degrees of FAO (1976). Accordingly, the classes are named
expressing relative effects of topography on soil loss ranges as highly suitable (S1), moderately suitable (S2) and
from 0 to 481 with an average of 23.54 and standard deviation marginally suitable (S3). The composite index ranging from
of 22.50. About 61% of the study area experiences moderate 0.576 to 0.86 are grouped under S1 category (Table 5). It
and high STI value. covers 96.50 km2 area forming 31.45% of the basin. The
 Terrain Characterization for Land Suitability Analysis of the Igo River Basin, Eastern Himalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, India

Figure 3: Land Suitability

composite index varying from 0.29 to 0.57 has been assigned category is relatively higher than S1 and less severe than S3.
S2 class which occupies 56.34 km2 area forming 18.36% of However, in S3 there are severe limitations and constraints
the total. The areas having composite index from 0 to 0.29 on the land for its sustainable application to any type of use.
are named as S3. S3 covers almost half of the study area
accounting 154 km2. This is mainly because of the rugged Land suitability indices reflect inherent capacity of the land
nature of topography with high gradient of slopes. (Braimoh et al., 2004). In well applicable land suitability
approach subtle differences in land characteristic is of the
Land suitability classification carried out by Ceballos-Silva major interests (Keshavarzi et al., 2010). Further, the
and Lpez-Blanco (2003a & b); Van Chuong (2008); multiple integration options in GIS are of immense use for
Pirbalouti and GolparvarTable(2008); Martin
4: Drainage andMorphometry
Basin Saha (2009); data integration and overlay analysis to obtain better, faster
Bhagat et al., (2009); Keshavarzi (2010) Area focuses
Perimeteron theLbcrop
1
Db and
2 cost-effective assessment for judicious utilization and
requirement using climate,Basin
soil properties h3 (m)
slope (km) allocation d4 natural
of Rh5 resources
Re6 Rc7(ChenF8 et al., 2010; Martin and
(km2) and(km) relief or(km)
parameters. On the otherIchi hand Chen37.11 et al., (2010)
30.36conducts
12.04 11.97 Saha 2009).
1321.6 6.87S1 0.11
is characterized
0.57 0.51 4.18 by gentle to very gentle
biophysical evaluationSikeof land suitability8.50 for
16.16irrigation
5.55 5.34 slope,829.4 very3.29 low0.16 to low 0.59 relief,
0.41 least
4.35 severe soil loss and
Kudo
intensification or extensification on 39.12
five criteria 28.21
like 10.41
slope, 10.41 landslide
1343.9 7.06 0.13 0.68 0.62 7.03
hazards, etc. The areas with gentle slope are found
Dachi 14.15 17.11 6.32 6.34 981.4 4.24 0.15 0.67 0.61 4.03
soil texture, depth to water
Sikki table, electrical
17.82 conductivity
20.07 7.27 of 6.82
to be ideal
1244.3
for shifting cultivation. In Dali, Chisi and Padi,
4.76 0.18 0.65 0.56 4.88
ground water and hydraulic
Siggi conductivity 23.73 of soil. Similar
26.39 8.29 to 7.35 people 1244.2 grow 5.50fruits,
0.17 palm0.66 tree0.43(Livistona
4.72 jenkinsiana Griff -
the result of Chen et al., (2010), S120.24
Tumru in the present
19.99 study7.36 is 7.26 locally1130.4 called5.08Toko)0.16 and bamboo
0.69 0.64 along
3.90 the gentle to moderate
mainly concentrated in Rimi
the valley plains 7.24and S3 12.31 3.95
in extremely 3.92 slope areas3.04
846.1 in S1. 0.22Plain0.77and0.60gently3.87sloping areas along the
Upper Igo 50.26 37.82 15.22 14.29 1362.9 8.00 0.10 0.53 0.44 6.27
steep slope and ruggedMiddle
topography. The valley 31.90plains being ridges are used for growing chilly as cash crop through
Igo 32.70 9.77 8.43 1148.2 6.45 0.14 0.66 0.40 5.17
good in soil depth, wellLower
drained,
Igo and conveniently
55.96 40.28 irrigated
11.90 9.65 shifting
1059.0 cultivation.
8.44 0.11 However,0.71 0.43in 4.40 the higher reaches and far
are used for paddy cultivation.
Igo S2 mainly
306.84 occurs between
102.44 31.82S1 30.27 off1578.1areas such19.76 gentle
0.05 slope
0.62 ridges
0.37 5.08are still covered by dense
and S3 in patches and sometimes
Note: 1. Lb = Maximum parallel to other
Basin Length; 2. Db =two forest.of In
Longest dimension BasinS2, slope
parallel is moderately
to Principal Stream; 3. h =steep to steep, relief is
categories. The degree total
andrelief; 4. d = Diameter
magnitude of the Circle having
of constraints equal area asmoderate,
in this and
the basin; 5. Rh the Ratio;
= Relief hazards6. Re =are less severe. Although some
Elongation
Ratio; 7. Rc = Circularity Ratio; and 8. F= Stream Frequency

Table 5: Land SuitabilityTable 5: Land Suitability Categories

Categories
Composite Area Area Remark
Categories
Index (km2) (%)
Land having no significant limitations to sustained
0.57-0.86 Highly Suitable (S1) 96.50 31.45
application
Moderately Suitable Land having limitations which in aggregate are
0.29-0.57 56.34 18.36
(S2) moderately severe for sustained application
Marginally Suitable Land having limitations which in aggregate are
0.00-0.29 154.00 50.19
(S3) severe for sustained application
Total 306.84 100.00
 Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, Vol.10,No.4 (2010)
areas are already brought under the human use (mainly
shifting cultivation), the major chunk is still under forest.
However, the density of the forest cover in many cases is not
up to the level to ensure protection of soil loss hazards
especially in open and scrub forests. S3 is constrained by the
combination of unfavourable factors like very steep to
extremely steep slope, high to very high relief, high soil loss
due to shifting cultivation, landslide hazard controlled by
structure or often triggered by anthropogenic activities and
areas covered by water bodies (river bed including flood
plains). Although some pockets are under dense forest cover;
but to bring these areas under particular land use is cost
prohibitive. Due to the high cost and hard nature of terrain
the degree of human interference in this category is already
very low. However, some portions have their genesis to
anthropogenic causes especially those patches highly
affected by severe soil loss and landslide hazards. The
magnitude of the soil loss is very high ranging from 50 to
above 200 ton ha-1 year-1.
SMCE of climate, soil and relief environment-components is
useful to delineate suitable areas for production and the
SMCEGIS combination has potentiality to provide a
rational, objective and non-biased approach for making
decisions in agricultural applications (Ceballos-Silva and
Lopez-Blanco 2003b). Terrain characterisation (Table 3)
shows that in Igo basin about 5% of the total area is under the
effective use for settlement and agriculture while another
29% area is under open and scrub forests which are
cumulative result of recurrent shifting cultivation and
extraction of forest product. The result of present land
suitability, on the other hand, shows about 50% area under
highly suitable and moderately suitable category. This shows
the potentiality of extension for different landuse practices.
The S1 in the valley plain can be retained for wet rice
cultivation with some improved support practices (Chen et
al., 2010). However, in study area maximum area under
cultivation is used for shifting cultivation which is associated
with high rates of soil loss and sometime landslides. The
traditional protection methods in jhum are not adequate to
prevent top soil erosion. Unfortunately, concentration of the
most erosive rain also coincides with early stage of
jhumming. On the other hand, jhum has become rather a
cultural choice and lifestyle than merely an agricultural
practice for its being deeply rooted in tradition, belief, taste,
festivals, legends and myths of the tribal communities
(Rawat et al., 2010). It is due to this fact any alternative to
shifting cultivation is not acceptable to tribal people in
Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, the need of the hour is to
improve jhum on scientific basis with more conservation
measures for protection of environment and land
management. The extension of silvi pastoral system,
sericulture cum agro-forestry, and other methods of multi-
storied agro-forestry could serve as an environmentally
suitable and economically viable practice in the hilly parts of
the study area.
6. Conclusion
The land suitability classification based on terrain parameters
like morphological, hydrological and other physical
parameters gives satisfactory result. Each land suitability
category is expressed in terms of the degree of limitation and
potentials of selected parameters for its sustainable
application. GIS based terrain characterization and its
application for land suitability assessment is a new approach
which may serve as effective tool for land use planners and
land management bodies. There has been very scanty works
carried out in Arunachal Pradesh and data for many variables
are not available. Thus land suitability classification on
terrain characters using GIS and remote sensing would be
very effective and useful way of land assessment for the
mountainous and inaccessible area like Arunachal Pradesh.
The SMCE allows integration and synthesis of large numbers
of terrain data and provides land suitability classes as per the
desired criteria and goal. In comparison to the conventional
GIS-based analysis, SMCE is more flexible, easy and
efficient for handling large size data cube in different sets
and sub-sets. Since the jhum is predominant practice in
Arunachal Pradesh accompanied by other different method
of cultivation, this study demonstrates the overall land
suitability classification. This approach can be extended to a
crop based or cultivation-type based suitability assessment
and for other land use planning. Determination of the
parameters and their weighing is vital because they directly
influence the evaluation result. Hence, adequate precision is
required to be accorded while selecting parameters,
standardizing and weighing parameters for the defined goal.
Acknowledgments
This paper is a part of the Ph D thesis of Mr. J.S. Rawat
under the Supervision of Prof. R.C. Joshi, DEAN,
Environmental Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono
Hills, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh (India). Authors are
thankful to Department of Science & Technology, Ministry
of Science and Technology; Government of India for
providing Senor Research Fellowship to Mr. Rawat in a
Research Project entitled An Assessment of Soil Loss using
GIS which facilitated the accomplishment of Rawats Ph D
work.
References
Anderson, L.T. (1987). Seven methods for calculating land
capability/suitability, Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Report No. 402. Chicago, USA: American Planning
Association.
Bhagat R.M., Singh S., Sood C., Rana R.S., Kalia V., Pradhan
S., Immerzeel W. and Shrestha B. (2009). Land Suitability
Analysis for Cereal Production in Himachal Pradesh
 Terrain Characterization for Land Suitability Analysis of the Igo River Basin, Eastern Himalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, India
(India) using Geographical Information System. Journal
of Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37, 233-240.
Boonyanuphap J., Wattanachaiyingcharoen D. and Sakurai
K. (2004). GIS-based land suitability assessment for
Musa (ABB group) plantation. Journal of Applied
Horticulture, 6(1), 3-10.
Braimoh A. K. and Stein A. (2004). Land evaluation for
Maize based on Fuzzy set and interpolation. Journal of
Environmental Management, 33(2), 226238.
Ceballos-Silva A. and Lpez-Blanco J. (2003a). Evaluating
biophysical variables to identify suitable areas for oat in
central Mexico: A multi-criteria and GIS approach.
Agricuture Ecosystem and Environment Journal, 95, 371-
377.
Ceballos-Silva A. and Lopez-Blanco J. (2003b). Delineation
of suitable areas for crops using a Multi-Criteria
Evaluation approach and land use/cover mapping: a case
study in Central Mexico. Agricultural Systems, 77, 117
136
Chen Y., Khan S. and Paydar Z. (2010). To Retire or Expand?
A fuzzy GIS-based spatial multi-criteria evaluation
framework for irrigated agriculture. Irrigation and
Drainage, 59(2), 174-188.
de la Rosa D. (2000). MicroLEIS 2000: Conceptual
Framework, Instituto de Recursos Naturalesy
Agrobiologia, CSIC, Avda. Spain: Reina Mercedes.
Diamond J.T. and Wright J. (1988). Design of an integrated
spatial information system for multi-objective land use
planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, 15, 205214.
FAO (1976). A Frame Work for Land Evaluation, Soils
Bulletin No. 32. Rome: UNO-FAO.
FAO (1985). Guidelines: Land Evalustion for Irrigated
Agriculture, Soil Bulletin No. 55. Rome: UNO-FAO.
Forest Survey of India (2008). Ministry of Environment &
Forest, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, http://www.
fsi.nic.in/, accessed as on 20th March 2008.
Geneletti D. (2007). An approach based on spatial
multicriteria analysis to map the nature conservation
value of agricultural land. Journal of Environmental
Management, 83, 228235.
Hall M., Hall C.A.S. and Taylor M. (2000). Geographical
Modelling the synthesis of a GIS and simulation
Modelling. In Hall C.A.S. (Ed.), Quantifying Sustainable
Development (177-202). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hartati S. and Sitanggang I.S. (2010). A Fuzzy Based
Decision Support System for Evaluating Land Suitability
and Selecting Crops. Journal of Computer Science, 6 (4),
417-424.
Hengl, T., Gruber, S. and Shrestha, D.P. (2003). Digital
Terrain Analysis in Ilwis, Lecture notes and user guide.
The Netherlands: ITC.
Hopkins L.D. (1977). Methods of generating land suitability
maps: A comparative evaluation. Journal of American
Institute of Planners, 43(4), 386400.
ITC (1997). ILWIS Applications Guide, Department of Land
Resource and Urban Sciences, International Institute for
Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences. The Netherlands:
ITC.
ITC (2001). ILWIS 3.0 Users Guide, Department of Land
Resource and Urban Sciences, International Institute for
Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences. The Netherlands:
ITC.
Keshavarzi A., Sarmadian F., Heidari A. and Omid M.
(2010). Land Suitability Evaluation Using Fuzzy
Continuous Classification (A Case Study: Ziaran Region).
Modern Applied Science, 4(7), 72-81.
Kilic S., Evrendilek F., Senol S. and Elik I.C. (2005).
Developng a Suitability Index for Land uses and
Agricultural Land Covers: A Case Study in Turkey.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 102, 323
335
Kumar, G. (1997). Geology of Arunachal Pradesh. Bangalore:
Geological Society of India.
Laskar, A. (2003). Integrating GIS and Multicriteria
Descision Making Techniques for Land Resource
Planning, M Sc Thesis, submitted in International Institute
for Geo-Informatics and Earth Observation Enschede.
The Netherlands: ITC.
Martin D. and Saha S. K. (2009). Land evaluation by
integrating remote sensing and GIS for cropping system
analysis in a watershed. Current Science, 96(4), 569-575.
Meijerink A.M.J. (1988). Data acquisition and data capture
through terrain mapping units. ITC Journal, 1, 23-44.
Pereira J.M. and Duckstein L. (1993). A multiple criteria
decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability
analysis. International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems, 7, 407424.
Pirbalouti A.G. and Golparvar A. (2008). Evaluating Agro-
Climatologically Variables to Identify Suitable Areas for
 Asian Journal of Geoinformatics, Vol.10,No.4 (2010)

Rapeseed in Different Dates of Sowing by GIS approach.

American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences,
3(4), 656-660.

Prakash, T.N. (2003). Land Suitability Analysis for

Agricultural Crops: A Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision
Making Approach, MSc Thesis. The Netherlands: ITC.

Rawat J.S., Riba Bomchak and Rina Tenya (2010). Jhumming

a traditional lifestyle than merely a cultivation method.
Current Science, 98(8), 998-999.

Steiner F. (1983). Resource suitability: Methods for analysis.

Environmental Management, 7(5), 401420.
Steiner F. (1987). Agricultural land evaluation and site
assessment in the United States: An introduction.
Environmental Management, 11(3), 375377.

Van Chuong, H. (2008). Multicriteria Land Suitability

Evaluation For Crops Using GIS at Community Level in
Central Vietnam with case study in Thuy Bang-Thua
Thien Hue province, International Symposium on Geo-
Informatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in
Earth and Allied Sciences, 2008.

Van Lier H.N. (1994). Land use planning in perspective of

sustainability: an introduction. In Van Lier H.N., Jaarsma
C.F., Jurgens C.R. and De Buck A.J. (Eds.), Sustainable
landuse planning (1-9). Amsterderm: Elsevier.

Van Zuidam, R. A. (1985). Areal Photo Interpretation in

Terrain Analysis and Geomorphological Mapping. The
Hague: Smits Publisher.

Wischmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D. (1978). Predicting

rainfall-erosion losses, a guide book to conservation
planning, Agriculture Handbook 537. Washington D.C.:
USDA.

World Commission on Environment and Development

(1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Xiang W. and Whitley D.L. (1994). Weighting land suitability

factors by the PLUS Method. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design, 21, 273304

Zhang X., Drake N. and Wainwright J. (2002). Scaling land

surface parameters for global-scale soil erosion. Water
Resource Research, 38 (9), 1170-1180.