See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270818665

Assessing the influence of watershed

characteristics on the flood vulnerability of
Jhelum basin in Kashmir Himalaya

Article in Natural Hazards · January 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-1605-1

CITATIONS READS

18 844

5 authors, including:

Shakil Ahmad Romshoo Gowhar Meraj

University of Kashmir Department of Ecology, Environment and Re…
160 PUBLICATIONS 770 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 107 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sadaff Altaf Farrukh Altaf

University of Kashmir CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modelling and …
6 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wetland Mapping of Jammu and Kashmir View project

Extreme climatic events View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shakil Ahmad Romshoo on 22 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nat Hazards
DOI 10.1007/s11069-015-1605-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Assessing the influence of watershed characteristics

on the flood vulnerability of Jhelum basin in Kashmir
Himalaya

Gowhar Meraj • Shakil A. Romshoo • A. R. Yousuf • Sadaff Altaf •

Farrukh Altaf

Received: 5 April 2014 / Accepted: 1 January 2015

! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract In Himalayan region, it is very important to generate detailed terrain infor-

mation for identifying the causes of natural hazards such as debris flows, debris floods, and
flash floods, so that appropriate corrective measures are initiated for reducing the risk of
the people and property to these disasters. Basic watershed morphometrics coupled with
the land-cover and slope information are useful for assessing the hazard vulnerability. The
terrain characteristics govern the surface hydrology and have profound influence on the
incidence and magnitude of natural hazards, particularly floods. The present work is a
comparative study of two watersheds of Jhelum basin (upper Indus basin in Kashmir). In
this research, we make an integrated use of the Linear Imaging Self-Scanner satellite data
and Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer digital elevation
model, supported with extensive field information, in a GIS environment for assessing the
surface hydrological behavior of Lidder and Rembiara watersheds of the Jhelum basin.
Knowledge-driven modelling approach has been used to evaluate the runoff potential of
the watersheds to assess the flood vulnerability downstream. The results revealed that
Lidder watershed exhibits lesser basin lag time compared to Rembiara watershed for a
storm event. Further, due to higher population density in the Lidder downstream, this
watershed is also socially more vulnerable to flooding than Rembiara. The methodology
and results of this study shall help in formulating better flood mitigation strategies in this
part of the Himalayan region, where the observation network of hydrometeorological and
other land surface parameters is either missing or very scanty.

G. Meraj (&) ! S. A. Romshoo ! S. Altaf ! F. Altaf

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Kashmir,
Hazratbal, Srinagar 190006, Jammu and Kashmir, India
e-mail: gowharmeraj@gmail.com

G. Meraj ! A. R. Yousuf
Department of Environmental Science, University of Kashmir,
Hazratbal, Srinagar 190006, Jammu and Kashmir, India

A. R. Yousuf
National Green Tribunal, Government of India, New Delhi, India

123
 Nat Hazards

Keywords Kashmir Himalaya ! Jhelum basin ! Hydrology ! Morphometry ! Runoff

potential ! Flood vulnerability

1 Introduction

Natural hazards in the form of floods and debris flows pose major threat to the people
living in the high mountain regions (Watson and Haeberli 2004). During the last few
decades, there has been an increase in the frequency of cataclysmic natural hazards par-
ticularly those that are triggered by water, such as floods in the mountainous regions of the
globe (Sepúlveda and Padilla 2008; Korup and Clague 2009). The main reasons for the
observed increase in these hazards are attributed to increase in the global temperature due
to the effects of climate change; population growth and inhabitation in the high slope
zones; loss of wetlands, deforestation, and unrestrained land-use change (Berz et al. 2001;
McBean 2004; IPCC 2007; Peduzzi et al. 2009; Meraj et al. 2012; Bhat et al. 2013, 2014;
Romshoo and Rashid 2014). Himalayas are especially affected by floods, as they have the
precipitous relief, witness heavy torrential rainstorms, frequent cloud bursts, and have a
history of natural hazards amplified by melting of snow and glaciers (Ebi et al. 2007).
Hence, floods are the major physical threats to the sustainable development in the
Himalaya (Ives 2004). During 1954–1990, more than 2,700 billion rupees were spent on
flood control measures in India, but in this period, the annual flood damage increased by
nearly 40 times and the annual flood-affected areas increased by 1.5 times (Agarwal and
Narain 1996). The valley of Kashmir is one of the most vulnerable flood hazard-prone
Himalayan regions in India (Sen 2010; Meraj et al. 2013). Historically, Kashmir Hima-
layan region has witnessed heavy casualties and loss of property due to flooding (Singh and
Kumar 2013).
Due to the inadequacy of the data necessary for understanding the mountainous land
surface and hydrological processes, the assessment of floods is often hindered in Himalaya
(Mirza 2005). Moreover, the application of physically based models is limited due to the
complex nature of the related events as well as the limitation of the observational data
(Chaponnière et al. 2008; Romshoo et al. 2012). As an alternative, assessments are usually
qualitative, based on the evaluation of the terrain characteristics, the surface hydrological
characterization, and the experience gained through previous events (Costa 1988; Costa
and Schuster 1988; Haeberli et al. 1989; Dutto and Mortara 1992; Clague and Evans 1994).
Surface hydrological behavior is one of the main drivers behind floods (Barredo and
Engelen 2010). It is rapid or delayed hydrological response, which often makes a water-
shed vulnerable to flooding and is a function of the watershed characteristics like geo-
morphology, topography, land use–land cover, geology, and soil (Romshoo et al. 2012).
Morphometric parameters such as stream order, drainage density, stream frequency, and
elongation ratio play a key role in governing the surface hydrology of the watershed (Chow
1964; Strahler 1964; Ward and Robinson 2000; Hudson and Colditz 2003). Further, during
storm events, topography is presumed to be the primary factor controlling the hydrological
response of a watershed (Brasington and Richards 1998) and is also major cause for
triggering debris flows and landslides (Bates and De Roo 2000; Zaz and Romshoo 2012).
Besides land cover, other terrain characteristics such as geology, soil, and geomorphology
have a significant influence upon the surface hydrological behavior of a watershed, since it
is largely related to its permeability and water-holding capacity (Barry and Chorley 1998;

123
Nat Hazards

Ward and Robinson 2000; Rashid et al. 2011). Deforestation can amplify the vulnerability
and magnitude of floods, landslides, and mass movements, particularly in the mountainous
regions (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Arnell 2002). Hence, it is very important to holistically
assess the watershed characteristics in order to analyze the hydrological response of
watersheds, to come up with better understanding of the processes involved in the
occurrence of floods (Simonovic and Li 2003).
In this research, we have evaluated watershed characteristics (drainage, land cover, and
slope) that make the downstream areas of a watershed prone to flooding (Bhat and
Romshoo 2009; Diakakis 2011; Meraj et al. 2013). The study has been carried out in the
two watersheds of the Jhelum basin (upper Indus basin), i.e., Lidder and Rembiara. The
former is a right-bank tributary watershed of the Jhelum basin in the greater Himalayan
range and latter is the left-bank tributary in the Pir Panjal range. This study has used a
comparative qualitative index (total runoff score) in the two watersheds to determine the
extent and magnitude of the flood vulnerability downstream. It is very important to assess
the relative flood vulnerability in the left- and right-bank tributary watersheds of the
Jhelum basin, since both the sides have demonstrated different flood vulnerability due to
the differential socio-geoenvironmental setting. These two watersheds are the represen-
tative watersheds among the 24 watersheds of the Jhelum basin. The study is based on the
integrated use of satellite remote sensing, geographic information system (GIS), and
detailed field observation techniques for better understanding of the influences of water-
shed characteristics on hydrological processes and flooding. The findings of this research
shall be of tremendous practical use in planning flood hazard management and mitigation
strategies in the Himalaya in general and Kashmir Himalaya in particular, as there is
scarcity of ground-based observational data which often hampers the parameterization of
the more complex physically based flood models (Van De Wiel et al. 2011; Romshoo et al.
2012; Altaf et al. 2014).

2 Geologic setting of the study area

The unique geomorphologic setup of the Jhelum basin with heterogeneous lithology and
varied hydrological conditions renders the basin all the more vulnerable to natural hazards
particularly flooding. Keeping in view the above facts, two representative watersheds of
the Jhelum basin—Lidder and Rembiara, on either banks of the axial river Jhelum—were
chosen for the detailed studies involving morphometry, land cover, and slope analysis in
order to understand their influences on the surface hydrological behavior. Figure 1 shows
the location of the two representative watersheds chosen for this study.
The Rembiara watershed falls in Pir Panjal range, and predominantly, two geologic
formations, viz. Panjal trap and Karewa group of formations, occur in this watershed.
Panjal trap lies on the top of the agglomerate slates and almost forms the central axis of
the Pir Panjal range, where they attain a maximum thickness of about 100 m. Panjal
traps consist mainly of basic rocks and a few intermediate and acidic rocks. Basic types
are mainly basalt and andesitic basalt, while as acidic and intermediate rocks are rep-
resented by augite–andesite, trachyte, keraphyre, rhyolite, and acidic tuffs. The other
dominant formation, i.e., Karewa group of formations, covers extensive areas in the
watershed. The lower part of Karewa group is known as Hirpur formation. The litho-
logical constituents of the group are clay, sandy clay, sand, conglomerate, and lignite.
The Lidder watershed falls in the Greater Himalayan range and is the first major right-
bank tributary of the Jhelum River. It comprises of various geologic formations. Among

123
 Nat Hazards

Fig. 1 Location of the Lidder and Rembiara watersheds. The upper left inset shows a map of the Jhelum
basin. Its location with respect to the Indian Territory is shown as a green star on the Political map of India
at the upper right inset. Locations of some of the important landmarks are shown as black stars. The map
coordinates are in the UTM 43 (North) World Geodetic System (WGS-1984) reference system

all the watersheds of Jhelum basin, Lidder is mostly bedrock river. Shale slate greywacke
is the oldest formation of the region and occupies considerable area of the watershed.
The shale–greywacke group is overlain by the thick pile of quartzites and sandstone of
various types intercalated with limestone beds (Raza et al. 1978; Wadia 1979; Husain
1998).

3 Materials and methods

For accomplishing the research objectives outlined for this research, a number of
approaches were employed that included the use of satellite remote sensing data, digital
elevation data, and detailed field observations integrated in a knowledge-driven analytical
framework using geospatial tools.

3.1 Data sets

Survey of India (SOI) topographic maps of 1967 (1:50,000 scales), Indian Remote Sensing
(IRS) P6 Linear Imaging Self-Scanning (LISS III) data with 23.5-m spatial resolution of
October 21, 2008, and Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiom-
eter (ASTER) 30-m resolution digital elevation model (DEM) were used in this study.

123
Nat Hazards

Geometric correction of the IRS LISS III satellite data was done using SOI topographic
map of 1967 at 1:50,000 scale as the reference map. More than 75 ground control points
(GCPs) on the satellite image as well as on the topographic maps were used to derive a first
(affine)-order polynomial transformation. Root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.45 was
achieved. A nearest-neighbor interpolation method was used to resample the image into a
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection, zone 43 North (Deepika et al. 2014).

3.2 Morphometry

Morphometric parameters were derived using drainage generated from ASTER 30 m

GDEM (Engelhardt et al. 2012; Altaf et al. 2013). Arc Hydro algorithm has been used for
drainage generation and is logical, efficient, and consistent compared to the manual
approach of morphometry evaluation from natural drainage. A detailed procedure for
extracting drainage using Arc Hydro has been discussed by Youssef and Pradhan (2011). It
incorporates the existing streams and lakes into the DEM for drainage analysis through a
process termed as DEM manipulation. For this purpose, natural drainage present on the
SOI topographic map was digitized and used to manipulate the DEM. For the proper
determination of the flow direction and flow accumulation, DEM sinks were also identified
and filled. Based on the cumulative number of the upstream cells draining into each cell,
stream networks in both the watersheds were defined (O’Callaghan and Mark 1984). We
used a critical threshold of 0.06, which represents the 6 % area in the watershed, for
defining streams. The critical threshold is the minimum upstream drainage required to
initiate a stream. Areas of the watersheds were evaluated by calculating the geometry of
the derived watershed polygons (Fig. 2a, b). The length of the watershed was calculated by
summing the length of the main stream channel and the distance from the top of the main
channel to the watershed boundary (Altaf et al. 2013). For stream ordering, Strahler’s
scheme was used, which was originally introduced by Horton and later on modified by
Strahler (1952), Schumm (1956), and Singh (1980). The formulae used for the derivation
of the relevant morphometric parameters are given in Table 1. Some of the basic
parameters used for the extraction of the morphometric parameters are shown in Table 2.

3.3 Land-cover (LC) classification

Land-cover information is imperative for assessing several land surface processes

including surface hydrology (Rashid and Romshoo 2012; Badar et al. 2013a, b). Land-
cover information was extracted from the IRS LISS III satellite data using maximum
likelihood supervised classification algorithm (Fu 1976; Jensen 1996; Tso and Mather
2001; Mortan 2007; Murtaza and Romshoo 2014). While choosing the best training
samples for known land-cover types, various image enhancement techniques were applied
taking cognizance of the available ground truth information. A specific classification
scheme was devised so that the classes generated could be functionally linked to the
surface hydrological behavior. Seven such LC classes were identified, viz. impervious
surface, wasteland, agriculture, forest, pasture, shrub, and snow. Perennial water (alpine
lakes and stream) was also classified (Fig. 3a, b). The generated LC was validated in the
field, using 400 field verification points (Table 3). Estimation of the assessment of accu-
racy of the classified map is essential to determine its authenticity. Kappa coefficient, being
one of the best indicators of accuracy of LC (Foody 2002), was used for accuracy
assessment and is mathematically represented as (Murtaza and Romshoo 2014).

123
 Nat Hazards

123
 Nat Hazards

b Fig. 2 Stream order map a Lidder watershed b Rembiara watershed. According to the Strahler’s stream
ordering scheme, Lidder is a seventh order watershed and Rembiara is a sixth order watershed

Table 1 Formulae used for the calculation of morphometric parameters

Parameters Formulae Reference

Stream order (U) Hierarchical rank (Strahler scheme) Horton (1945)

Stream length (Lu) Length of the stream Strahler
(1964)
Bifurcation ratio Rb = Nu/Nu ? 1; where Rb = bifurcation ratio; Nu = total no. Schumm
(Rb) of stream segments of order ‘‘u’’; Nu ? 1 = number of (1956)
segments of the next higher order
Mean bifurcation Rbm = average of bifurcation ratios of all orders Strahler
ratio (Rbm) (1957)
Drainage density (D) D = Lu/A; where D = drainage density; Lu = total stream length Horton (1932)
of all orders; A = area of the watershed (km2)
Stream frequency Fs = Nu/A; where Fs = stream frequency; Nu = total no. of Horton (1932)
(Fs) streams of all orders; A = area of the watershed (km2)
Drainage texture (Rt) Rt = Nu/P; where Rt = drainage texture; Nu = total no. of Horton (1945)
streams of all orders; P = perimeter (km)
Elongation ratio (Re) Re = 2/Lb sqrt (A/p); where Re = elongation ratio A = area of Schumm
the watershed (km2); p = ‘‘Pi’’ value, i.e., 3.14; (1956)
Lb = watershed length
Length of overland Lg = 1/D 9 2; where Lg = length of overland flow; Horton (1945)
flow (Lg) D = drainage density
Constant channel C = 1/D; where D = drainage density Schumm
maintenance (C) (1956)
Shape index (Sw) Sw = Lb2/A; where Lb = Watershed length; A = Area of Horton (1945)
watershed
Compactness Cc = P c/P u; where Pc = perimeter of watershed; Suresh et al.
coefficient (Cc) Pu = perimeter of circle of watershed area (2004)

Table 2 Basic watershed char-

Parameter Lidder Rembiara
acteristics used for the calcula-
tion of morphometric parameters
Basin area A (km2) 1,261.76 664.61
Basin perimeter P (km) 240.25 176.52
Basin length Lb (km) 70.54 64.27
Maximum stream order U 7 6
Total number of streams Nu 7,759 307
Total stream length Lu (km) 3,689.161 665.80

( )
X
r X
r X
r
k¼ N ðXii Þ % N ðXiþ ! Xþi Þ =N 2 % ðXiþ ! Xþi Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

where r is the number of rows in error matrix; Xii is the number of observations in row
i and column i; Xi? is the total of observations in row i; X?II is the total of observations in
column i; and N is the total number of observations included in the matrix.

123
 Nat Hazards

123
 Nat Hazards

b Fig. 3 Hydrological land-cover classes map a Lidder watershed b Rembiara watershed. A agriculture,
F forest, IS impervious surface, P pasture, S snow, Sh shrub, W water, WL wasteland

Table 3 Accuracy assessment of land cover for both Lidder and Rembiara watersheds
Reference data

A W F IS S P WL Row total User’s

accuracy

Classification data
A 101 3 2 106 95.28
W 46 1 1 48 95.83
F 3 1 68 72 94.44
IS 111 1 2 114 97.37
S 2 16 18 88.89
P 1 20 21 95.24
WL 2 19 21 90.48
Column total 106 47 75 112 16 21 23 400
Producer’s accuracy 95.28 97.87 90.67 99.11 100.00 95.24 82.61
Overall accuracy = [(101 ? 46 ? 68 ? 111 ? 16 ? 20 ? 19)/400] 9 100 = 95.25 %
A agriculture, W water, F forest, IS impervious surface, S shrub, P pasture, WL wasteland
Bold numbers here gives emphasis on the diagonal total, that is used to calculate the overall accuracy of the
land cover generated

3.4 Slope analysis

Topographical information was generated using ASTER 30 m GDEM (Tarboton 1989). In

order to determine the significance of the slopes in aiding the flow of water, we have
adopted a standard slope classification (NRCC 1998). This classification has scientifically
established the relationship between runoff and slope of a given area. The areas of both the
watersheds were categorized into the following 10 slope classes: Level (0"–0.3"), nearly
level (0.3"–1.1"), very gentle slope (1.1"–3.0"), gentle slope (3.0"–5.0"), moderate slope
(5.0"–8.5"), strong slope (8.5"–16.5"), very strong slope (16.5"–24"), extreme slope (24"–
35"), steep slope (35"–45"), and very steep slope (45"–90") (Fig. 4a, b).

3.5 Comparative evaluation of runoff potential of the two watersheds

For assessing the combined role of all the parameters of morphometry, land cover, and
slope on the hydrological behavior at watershed scale, we devised a runoff score meth-
odology. This method is based on the principles of knowledge-driven modelling and
converts the established scientific knowledge-based understanding of a phenomenon into a
quantitative estimation (Todorovski and Džeroski 2006). However, it has certain disad-
vantages, such as it assigns a lumped value for a parameter and can only be used in a
comparison study, similar to what has been done in this research. It also imparts equal
weightage to all the involved parameters, which can possibly, in some cases, exaggerate
the results. However, in the absence of robust numerically or physically based approaches
that often rely on the detailed estimation and parameterization of the processes, this

123
 Nat Hazards

123
 Nat Hazards

b Fig. 4 Hydrological slope classes map a Lidder watershed b Rembiara watershed. NRCC 1998 slope
categories: Ll (0o-0.3o), NLI (0.3o-1.1o), VGS (1.1o-3.0o), GS (3.0o-5.0o), MS (5.0o-8.5o), SS (8.5o-16.5o),
VSS (16.5o-24o), ES (24o-35o), SS (35o-45o) and VStS (45o-90o)

Table 4 Knowledge-driven evaluation of total runoff (TR) from all the parameters of morphometry, slope,
and LC
Parameters Lidder Runoff score Rembiara Runoff score

Morphometry (values)
Drainage density 2.92 2 1.00 1
Stream frequency 5.34 2 0.46 1
Mean bifurcation ratio 4.74 2 3.59 1
Drainage texture 28.06 2 1.73 1
Length of overland flow 0.17 2 0.50 1
Elongation ratio 0.57 2 0.42 1
Constant channel maintenance 0.25 2 0.14 1
Compactness coefficient 1.91 2 1.93 1
Shape index 3.94 2 7.14 1
Land cover (% area)
Agriculture 16.35 2 35.83 1
Impervious surface 19.97 2 5.55 1
Forest 34.04 1 20.85 2
Wasteland 4.22 2 1.68 1
Pasture 2.13 2 1.08 2
Shrub 13.98 1 15.71 1
Snow 8.40 1 15.89 2
Slope (% area)
Level (0"–0.3") 0.04 2 0.1 1
Nearly level (0.3"–1.1") 0.72 2 1.73 1
Very gentle slope (1.1"–3.0") 4.19 2 10.13 1
Gentle slope (3.0"–5.0") 5.58 2 13.41 1
Moderate slope (5.0"–8.5") 8.65 2 19.22 1
Strong slope (8.5"–16.5") 13.98 1 20.69 2
Very strong slope (16.5"–24") 14.41 2 11.98 1
Extreme slope (24"–35") 24.60 2 13.66 1
Steep slope (35"–45") 18.42 2 6.92 1
Very steep slope (45"–90") 9.42 2 2.17 1
Total runoff score (TR) 48 30
Total runoff score summation of both the watersheds = 78
% TR of Lidder = 61.53
% TR of Rembiara = 38.46
% difference in the TR between Lidder and Rembiara = 23.07

method is one of the best to compare land surface processes between watersheds (Altaf
et al. 2014). Due to this reason, it has been extensively used by various workers for
sustainable planning and management of sub-watersheds in regions of data scarcity

123
 Nat Hazards

(Chakraborti 1991; Adinarayana 2003; Ratnam et al. 2005; Javed et al. 2009; Londhe et al.
2010; Chen et al. 2011; Mosbahi et al. 2012; Saghafian et al. 2013; Altaf et al. 2014).
Each runoff score reflects the comparative runoff potential of the two watersheds. For
morphometry, LC, and slope parameters, score 2 was assigned when the parameter depicts
maximum runoff potential among the two watersheds and score 1 was assigned when the
parameter depicts minimum runoff potential. The sum of the scores of all the parameters of
a watershed represents the collective impact of all the parameters on the runoff potential of
that watershed (Table 4). It is denoted as total runoff (TR) and mathematically can be
represented as
X
n
TR ¼ S
i¼1

where TR = total runoff score of the watershed, Si = score of a particular watershed for a
parameter, n = number of parameters.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Morphometric analysis

Watershed morphometry shows lumped or semi-distributed characteristics of the

watershed. Watershed hydrology is greatly affected by its morphometry (Tucker and
Bras 1998). Infiltration and runoff characteristics of a watershed are the governing
factors in shaping its drainage pattern (Sharma et al. 1985; Dar et al. 2013). Runoff
potential has a direct relationship with many of the morphometric parameters such as
drainage density, stream frequency, mean bifurcation ratio, drainage texture, and elon-
gation ratio (i.e., greater the values of these parameters greater is, the runoff potential of
the watershed and vice versa). Whereas some parameters such as length of overland
flow, circulatory ratio, form factor, basin shape, and compactness coefficient have an
inverse relation with runoff potential. In order to investigate the collective role of dif-
ferent morphometric parameters on the surface hydrology, between the two watersheds,
the higher value of a morphometric parameter, which has a direct relationship with
runoff potential, was assigned score 2 and corresponding lower value of the other
watershed was assigned score 1. Whereas those parameters that have an inverse rela-
tionship with the runoff potential, the lower value was assigned score 2 and higher value
was assigned score 1. In view of the morphometry results, Lidder watershed scored 2 and
Rembiara watershed scored 1 for all the morphometric parameters (Table 4). Mor-
phometry of Lidder and Rembiara watersheds is shown in Table 4, and its hydrological
importance is discussed in some detail below.

4.1.1 Stream order (U)

The main stride in the drainage basin analysis is the description of the stream orders
(Horton 1945). According to the Strahler (1964) ordering scheme, Lidder is seventh-order
watershed and Rembiara is fifth-order watershed. Since higher stream order is associated
with more discharge and higher velocity of the stream flow, it is deduced that the surface
runoff and sediment load from Lidder is more as compared to Rembiara watershed.

123
Nat Hazards

4.1.2 Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm)

The possibility of variations in watershed geometry and lithology introduces unequal

bifurcation ratio from one order to the next and tends to be constant throughout the
succession (Romshoo et al. 2012). Rbm of Lidder watershed is 4.74 and that of Rembiara
watershed is 3.59. Higher Rbm in case of Lidder specifies early hydrograph peak during
the storm events for this watershed compared to Rembiara (Rakesh et al. 2000).

4.1.3 Drainage density (Dd)

Hydrology of a watershed fluctuates considerably in response to the changes in the drainage

density (Yildiz 2009). Drainage density of Lidder watershed is higher (2.92 km/km2) than
that of Rembiara watershed (1.00 km/km2). Higher Dd of Lidder watershed insinuates
impermeable subsurface material, sparse vegetation, and mountainous relief for this water-
shed, and lower Dd for Rembiara watershed reveals that it has permeable subsurface material,
good vegetation cover, and low relief. Consequently, high Dd in case of Lidder reflects that it
has a highly dichotomized drainage basin with a quite rapid hydrological response to rainfall
events compared to Rembiara watershed (Melton 1957a, b).

4.1.4 Stream frequency (Fs)

Stream frequency is highly correlated to permeability, infiltration capacity, and relief of

watersheds (Montgomery and Dietrich 1989, 1992). Fs of Lidder watershed is very high
(5.34) compared to Rembiara watershed (0.46). High Fs of Lidder specifies that it has rocky
terrain and thus has very low infiltration capacity compared to Rembiara, and hence, it is
associated with early discharge peak that could result in flashfloods as compared to Rembiara
watershed that shall take some time to peak because of the lower runoff rates.

4.1.5 Length of overland flow (Lg)

Length of overland flow affects the hydrological and geomorphic development of drainage
basins (Horton, 1932). Among the two watersheds, length of overland flow is highest in
Rembiara watershed (0.50) compared to Lidder watershed (0.17). Higher Lg of Rembiara
watershed indicates that it has gentler slopes and longer flow paths compared to Lidder
watershed. In other words, it means that in Lidder watershed, surface runoff will take less
time to reach the outlet, thereby making it more vulnerable to the flooding compared to the
Rembiara watershed.

4.1.6 Elongation ratio (Re)

Elongation ratio of Lidder and Rembiara watersheds is 0.56 and 0.45, respectively. The results
indicate that Rembiara watershed is comparatively more elongated than Lidder watershed
(Strahler 1964). Hence, Lidder will comparatively attain hydrograph peak quicker than Rem-
biara watershed and thus increase its vulnerability to flooding in the event of stormy rainfall.

4.1.7 Shape index (Sw)

Shape of a watershed essentially affects the water and sediment yield from the drainage
basin. Shape index of Lidder (3.94) is lower than that of Rembiara (7.14), which specifies

123
 Nat Hazards

that Lidder will exhibit shorter basin lag time as compared to Rembiara watershed, thereby
attaining peak flow in comparatively shorter duration of time, making Lidder downstream
more vulnerable to flooding than Rembiara.

4.1.8 Compactness coefficient (Cc)

Compactness coefficient of Lidder and Rembiara is 1.91 and 2.05, respectively. Com-
pactness coefficient expresses the relationship of a basin with that of a circular basin
having the same area. Circular basin yields the shortest time of concentration before peak
flow occurs in the basin. If Cc = 1, then the basin completely behaves as a circular basin.
Cc [ 1 indicates that the basin has more deviation from the circular nature. Higher values
of Cc for Rembiara watershed indicate more deviation from the circular nature than Lidder.
Therefore, Rembiara will have the longest time of concentration before attaining peak flow
compared to Lidder watershed, making the latter more susceptible to flooding.

4.1.9 Drainage texture (Rt)

Drainage texture of Lidder is very high (28.05) as compared to Rembiara (1.74). It is because
of the very high number of streams in case of Lidder watershed (7,759) than in Rembiara
watershed (307). Infiltration capacity of a watershed determines its Rt. Authors have clas-
sified Rt into five classes such as: very coarse (\2), coarse (2–4), moderate (4–6), fine (6–8),
and very fine ([8) (Altaf et al. 2013). According to this classification, Lidder watershed falls
in very fine Rt class, whereas Rembiara has very coarse drainage texture. Since very coarse
texture watersheds have large basin lag time followed by coarse, fine, and very fine texture
classes, it clearly indicates that Lidder watershed has shorter basin response time as compared
to the Rembiara watershed, making its downstream vulnerable to flooding.

4.1.10 Constant channel maintenance (C)

The reciprocal of the drainage density (D) is the constant of channel maintenance (C), and
it signifies how much drainage area is required to maintain a unit length of stream.
Constant channel maintenance (C) for Lidder and Rembiara is 0.34 and 1.00, respectively.
Lower C in case of Lidder watershed indicates that it has weak or very low-resistant soils,
sparse vegetation, and mountainous terrain. Higher C for Rembiara watershed shows that it
is associated with resistant soils, good vegetation, and comparably plain terrain. It again
reaffirms that for Lidder basin, lag time is less compared to Rembiara and thus making its
downstream comparatively more vulnerable to flooding.

4.2 Land cover (LC)

The type and distribution of land cover has profound impact on the surface hydrology and
other land surface processes (Romshoo et al. 2012). The differences in the extent and type
of LC shall considerably affect flooding patterns and magnitude in the two watersheds
(Matheussen et al. 2000; Fohrer et al. 2001; Quilbe et al. 2006). Land cover was verified by
extensive ground truth of 400 samples for post-field correction. The overall accuracy and
kappa coefficient of the LC was 95.25 % and 0.89, respectively (Table 3). In order to relate
LC with surface hydrology, percent area of the LC class was used as an indicator for
determining and assigning scores. Between the two watersheds, the watershed having the

123
Nat Hazards

maximum percentage of a class which has a direct relationship with runoff (e.g., imper-
vious surface) was assigned score 2, and the minimum percentage of the same class in the
other watershed was assigned score 1. Similarly, if the presence of a class delays runoff
(e.g., agriculture), lower percentage of such a class was assigned score 2 and the watershed
which possesses the higher percentage of the same class was assigned score 1 (Table 4).
The percent area description of LC and the scoring criteria for individual classes is dis-
cussed in some more details below.
Seven hydrologically important classes were identified and classified, viz. impervious
surface, wasteland, agriculture, forest, pasture, shrub, and snow. In impervious surface, LC
class soil is either altogether absent (e.g., exposed rock) or the soil is anthropogenically
shielded as in the case of settlements. The contributing runoff potential from this category
is highest. Lidder watershed with comparatively higher percentage of impervious surface
(19.97 %) was assigned score 2 and the Rembiara watershed was assigned score 1 for
relatively low impervious LC. Wasteland is any unutilized/degraded piece of land. Such
lands contribute significantly toward surface runoff due to the soil compaction. Therefore,
score 2 was assigned to Lidder watershed due to higher percentage of wasteland (4.22 %),
and score 1 was assigned to Rembiara watershed with only 1.68 % of area under this LC
category. Agricultural lands are topographically flat and have very high infiltration
capacity or conversely very low runoff potential. Also, infiltration is further enhanced due
to crop roots that act as pathways to the movement of water during infiltration. These two
factors are collectively responsible for very low runoff potential from areas under agri-
culture LC. Lidder watershed with lower percentage of agricultural LC of about 16.35 %
was assigned score 2, and Rembiara watershed with 35.83 % of agricultural LC was
assigned score 1. Land under forests also acts as retarder for surface runoff. Lidder
watershed comparatively has a higher percentage of land under forests (34.04 %); there-
fore, it was assigned score 1, and Rembiara watershed with 20.85 % of land under forests
was assigned score 2. Pasture lands act as mat on the land surface and enhance infiltration
and decrease surface runoff. Both the watersheds have almost equal but low percentage of
land under this category (2.13 % in case of Lidder and 1.08 % in case of Rembiara), and
therefore, both the watersheds were assigned same score, i.e., 2. Shrub lands cover the land
surface and therefore delay runoff from the watershed. Since both the watersheds had
almost equal and higher percentage of land under this category (13.98 % in case of Lidder
and 15.19 % in case of Rembiara), hence both the watersheds were assigned same score,
i.e., 1. The snow in both watersheds was classified from the October satellite image and
thus is perennial snow cover. Since snow is the source of perennial surface runoff, Lidder
watershed with lower percentage of about 8.40 % was assigned score 1 and Rembiara
watershed with higher percentage of about 15.89 % under this category was assigned score
2 (Table 4).

4.3 Slope analysis

Watershed hydrology is strongly influenced by the hill slope processes (Tucker and Bras
1998). Both the watersheds have been categorized into 10 slope classes. The slope classes
were specifically chosen for assessing the impact of slope on runoff rates. Both the
watersheds have considerable proportions of area under all the designated slope classes. In
Lidder watershed, maximum area of 309.12 km2 falls in slope range of 24"–35" while as
the minimum area of 0.51 km2 falls in the slope range of 0"–0.3", which indicates that only
0.04 % of total area of the basin is falling in lowest slope category and 24.6 % of total area
of the basin falls under the highest slope categories. In contrast, for Rembiara watershed,

123
 Nat Hazards

Fig. 5 a Villages vulnerable to flooding in Lidder watershed. The model-based floodplain (MBF) in both c
the watersheds is shown as magenta color on the Landsat ETM ? image of September 10, 2014. The blue
tones in the image are the flood-inundated areas as of September 10, 2014. On this date, majority of the flood
waters from these villages had moved downstream towards the central Kashmir region (Srinagar). b Villages
vulnerable to flooding in Rembiara watershed. The September 10, 2014 Landsat ETM ? image shows
considerable number of villages, still under flooding and within the model-based floodplain (MDF) of this
watershed

major area of 137.48 km2 falls in slope range of 8.5"–16.5" while an area of 0.65 km2 falls
in slope range of 0"–0.3" indicating that only 0.01 % of total area of the basin is falling in
level slope category of the catchment and 20.69 % of total area of the basin falls under the
very steep slope category (Table 4). The steep slope zones are indication of the quick
runoff during rains or storm events (Tucker and Bras 1998).
There is a significant relationship between the slope and the contributing runoff area
(Willgoose 1996). As in case of land cover, for assessing the impact of slope on flooding,
the scoring was adopted on the basis of percent area in the specific slope class. It was also
assumed that runoff in a particular slope class remains same in both the watersheds.
Moreover, the watershed which has the maximum percent area in slope categories below
8.5" has more plainer areas (as is case in Rembiara watershed) or conversely it will possess
lower runoff potential and thus was assigned score 1. The watershed which has the
maximum percent area in slope categories above 8.5" was assigned score 2. The complete
scoring scheme for all the parameters is shown in Table 4.

4.4 Assessing downstream flood vulnerability of the Lidder and Rembiara watersheds

Flood vulnerability assessment of the two watersheds was performed by the summation of
the runoff scores of all the influencing parameters related to morphometry, land cover, and
slope. Analysis of the runoff scores revealed that for Lidder watershed, TR is 48. For
Rembiara, it is 30, i.e., 23.07 % lesser than Lidder (Table 4). From runoff score analysis, it
is clear that Lidder will have the quickest hydrological response to a rainfall or storm event
as compared to Rembiara. On the basis of this analysis, it is implicit that for a same
intensity storm event, Lidder will comparatively show quick surface runoff than Rembiara
or in other words basin lag time is lesser in Lidder than Rembiara. Lesser basin lag time is
an indicator of the higher flood vulnerability of the downstream areas of the watershed. It is
therefore concluded that the downstream areas in Lidder are more vulnerable to flooding
than those of Rembiara. The study reveals that about 140,822 persons falling in 37 villages
in the downstream areas of Lidder are under high flood risk compared to only 79,399
persons inhabiting 51 villages downstream of Rembiara watershed (Census of India,
Bureau: J&K 2011) (Fig. 5a, b). This suggests that, besides increased physical vulnera-
bility, Lidder watershed is also socially more vulnerable to flooding than Rembiara (Zhang
and You 2014). Further, the model-based floodplains (MBF) of the two watersheds, as
shown in Fig. 5a, b, were completely inundated, during the September 2014 devastating
floods observed in Kashmir valley, thus validating the floodplain extents vis-a-vis the
villages identified and delineated in this research. As shown in Fig. 6, the blue tones in the
middle of the September 10, 2014 Landsat ETM? image of the Jhelum basin are the flood-
inundated areas. However, several parts of the MBF in North Kashmir region could not be
validated, as the 2014 floodwaters did not reach thus far because of the numerous breaches
of the Jhelum River upstream, inundating vast areas of the South and Central Kashmir to
greater depths.

123
Nat Hazards

123
 Nat Hazards

Fig. 6 Satellite image of the Landsat ETM ? dated September 10, 2014 showing the flood-inundated areas
of the Kashmir valley. The blue tones are the flood waters. Model-based floodplain (MBF) is shown as black
outline surrounding the flooded areas. The Lidder and Rembiara watersheds are shown as red outline. Many
prominent flooded landmarks are indicated as yellow dot callouts. River Jhelum’s normal course is shown as
green line in the middle of the MBF of the Jhelum basin

In light of the research findings from this research, it is suggested that the reckless and
unplanned urbanization of the floodplains and conversion of wetlands in the Jhelum basin
need to be stopped forthwith. This practice is the single most important reason responsible
for enhanced extreme flooding event of the September 2014 in Jhelum. There is an urgent
need for developing a robust strategy for the restoration of wetlands in the basin, dredging
of the Jhelum River and construction of an alternate flood channel to divert the extreme
flood waters to Wular Lake.
Further since, the runoff score approach for assessing the hydrological response is a
qualitative approach and thus needs to be validated by simulating runoff regimes at
watershed scale using physically based hydrological models and then correlating the model
simulations with the TR score generated for that watershed. However, the lack of the
appropriate hydrometeorological observation stations all over the Kashmir Himalaya and
particularly in the studied watersheds hinders the quantification of various hydrological
processes and their validation. The availability of the discharge data is vital for validating

123
Nat Hazards

and calibrating the hydrological simulation models. It is therefore of utmost importance

that a network of hydrometeorological and river discharge stations is established all over
the basin to promote better prediction of the flooding mechanism. Till the observation
network is established in this mountainous region, the integrated analysis of the mor-
phometric, land cover, and topographic analysis for characterizing the hydrological
behavior of the Kashmir Himalayan watersheds, as demonstrated in this study, might be
the sensible alternative.

5 Conclusions

This study assessed the impact of morphometry, land cover, and slope on flood vulnerability
in the downstream areas of Lidder and Rembiara watersheds of the Jhelum basin. Mor-
phometry indicated that Lidder watershed attains peak discharges quicker than Rembiara
watershed. Since there is a close relationship between the morphometric parameters and the
mean annual flood (Carlston 1963), it is safely concluded that Lidder watershed is more prone
to flooding compared to the Rembiara watershed. Moreover, from land-cover analysis, it is
concluded that the Lidder watershed, with comparatively lower percentage of infiltration-
favorable land-cover types, will generate more surface runoff compared to the Rembiara
watershed. Further, Lidder watershed has more precipitous and topographically rugged ter-
rain compared to the Rembiara watershed that has extensive areas with flat or near flat terrain.
This topographic situation has tremendous influence on the flow regimes of the two water-
sheds making Lidder more vulnerable to flooding. Consequently, Lidder shows lesser basin
lag time compared to Rembiara. From the analysis of these results, it is concluded that during
heavy rain spells, downstream of Lidder watershed should be more vulnerable to flooding
than the downstream of the Rembiara watershed. Moreover, the differential topographic
attribution in the two watersheds is going to have differing influences on the transport of water
and sediments. As a result, the impacts on the flooding shall also vary and shall depend among
other things, on the amount and pattern of the precipitation. This research demonstrates that
the differential geomorphologic, morphometric, topographic, and land-cover characteristics
of these two watersheds have a strong influence on the hydrological functionality and
response. In the absence of adequate instrumentation and field data, these are unswerving and
reliable indicators to infer hydrological information including flooding and flood vulnera-
bility at the watershed scale (Patton 1988).

Acknowledgments This research work has been accomplished under a research grant provided by the
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (DST-GOI) for the project titled ‘‘Integrated
Flood vulnerability Assessment for Flood Risk Management and Disaster Mitigation.’’ The authors express
their gratitude to the funding agency for the financial assistance. The authors further express gratefulness to
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier version of the man-
uscript that greatly improved its content and structure.

References

Adinarayana J (2003) Spatial decision support system for identifying priority sites for watershed manage-
ment schemes. In: First interagency conference on research in the watersheds (ICRW), Benson,
pp 405–408
Agarwal A, Narain S (eds) (1996) Floods, floodplains and environmental myths. State of India’s environ-
ment: a citizen report. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi

123
 Nat Hazards

Altaf F, Meraj G, Romshoo SA (2013) Morphometric analysis to infer hydrological behaviour of Lidder
watershed, western Himalaya, India. Geogr J 2013, Article ID 178021, 2013 (178021), 14 pages
Altaf S, Meraj G, Romshoo SA (2014) Morphometry and land cover based multi-criteria analysis for
assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan watershed. Environ Monit Assess.
doi:10.1007/s10661014-4012-2
Arnell N (2002) Hydrology and global environmental change. Prentice-Hall, Harlow
Badar B, Romshoo SA, Khan MA (2013a) Modeling the catchment hydrological response in a Himalayan
lake as a function of changing land system. Earth Syst Sci 112(2):434–450
Badar B, Romshoo SA, Khan MA (2013b) Integrating biophysical and socioeconomic information for
prioritizing watersheds in a Kashmir Himalayan lake: a remote sensing and GIS approach. Environ
Monit Assess 185:6419–6445
Barredo JI, Engelen G (2010) Land use scenario modeling for flood risk mitigation. Sustainability
2(5):1327–1344
Barry RG, Chorley RJ (1998) Atmosphere, weather and climate, 7th edn. Routledge, London/New York,
p 409
Bates PD, De Roo APJ (2000) A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. J Hydrol
236:54–77
Berz G, Kron W, Loster T, Rauch E, Schimetschek J, Schmieder J et al (2001) World map of natural
hazards—a global view of the distribution and intensity of significant exposures. Nat Hazards
23(2–3):443–465
Bhat SA, Romshoo SA (2009) Digital elevation model based watershed characteristics of upper watersheds
of Jhelum basin. J Appl Hydrol XXI(2):23–34
Bhat SA, Meraj G, Yaseen S, Bhat AR, Pandit AK (2013) Assessing the impact of anthropogenic activities
on spatiotemporal variation of water quality in Anchar lake, Kashmir Himalayas. Int J Environ Sci
3(5):1625–1640
Bhat SA, Meraj G, Yaseen S, Pandit AK (2014) Statistical assessment of water quality parameters for
pollution source identification in Sukhnag stream: an inflow stream of lake Wular (Ramsar Site),
Kashmir Himalaya. J Ecosyst 2014, Article ID 898054, 18 pages
Bosch JM, Hewlett JD (1982) A review of catchment experiments to determine the effects of vegetation
changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 55:3–23
Brasington J, Richards K (1998) Interactions between model predictions, parameters and DTM scales for
TOPMODEL. Comput Geosci 24:299–314
Carlston CW (1963) Drainage density and stream flow; US Geological Survey Professional Report No.
422C
Chakraborti AK (1991) Sediment yield prediction and prioritization of watershed using remote sensing data.
In: Proceedings of the 12th Asian conference on remote sensing, Singapore
Chaponnière A, Boulet G, Chehbouni A, Aresmouk M (2008) Understanding hydrological processes with
scarce data in a mountain environment. Hydrol Process 22(12):1908–1921
Chen L, Qian X, Shi Y (2011) Critical area identification of potential soil loss in a typical watershed of the
three Gorges reservoir region. Water Resour Manage 25(13):3445–3463
Chow VT (1964) Hand book of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York
Clague JJ, Evans SG (1994) Formation and failure of natural dams in the Canadian cordillera. Geol Surv
Can Bull 464:35
Costa JE (1988) Floods from dam failures. Flood geomorphology. Wiley, New York, pp 439–463
Costa JE, Schuster RL (1988) The formation and failure of natural dams. Geol Soc Am Bull 7:1054–1068
Dar RA, Chandra R, Romshoo SA (2013) Morphotectonic and Lithostratigraphic analysis of Intermontane
Karewa basin of Kashmir Himalayas, India. J Mt Sci 10(1):1–15
Deepika B, Kumar A, Katihalli SJ (2014) Impact of estuarine processes and hydro-meteorological forcing
on landform changes: a remote sensing, GIS and statistical approach. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/
s12517-014-1264-7
Diakakis M (2011) A method for flood hazard mapping based on basin morphometry: application in two
catchments in Greece. Nat Hazards 56(3):803–814
Dutto F, Mortara G (1992) Rischi conessi con la dinamica glaciale nelle Alpi Italiane. Geografia Fisica
Dinamica Quaternaria 15:85–99
Ebi KL, Woodruff R, von Hildebrand A, Corvalan C (2007) Climate change-related health impacts in the
Hindu Kush-Himalayas. EcoHealth 4(3):264–270
Engelhardt BM, Weisberg PJ, Chambers JC (2012) Influences of watershed geomorphology on extent and
composition of riparian vegetation. J Veg Sci 23:127–139
Fohrer N, Haverkamp S, Eckhardt K, Frede HG (2001) Hydrologic response to land use changes on the
catchment scale. Phys Chem Earth (B) 26:577–582

123
Nat Hazards

Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ
80(1):185–201
Fu KS (1976) Pattern recognition in remote sensing of the Earth resources. IEEE Trans Geosci Electron
14(1):10–18
Haeberli W, Alean JC, Müller P, Funk M (1989) Assessing the risks from glacier hazards in high mountain
regions: some experiences in the Swiss Alps. Ann Glaciol 13:77–101
Horton RE (1932) Drainage basin characteristics. Trans Am Geophys Union 13:350–361
Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrological approach to
quantitative geomorphology. Bull Geol Soc Am 56:275–370
Hudson PF, Colditz RR (2003) Flood delineation in a large and complex alluvial valley, lower Panuco basin,
Mexico. J Hydrol 280:229–245
Husain M (ed) (1998) Geography of Jammu and Kashmir, 2nd edn. Rajesh Publication, New Delhi
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate Change, impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, et al (eds) Contribution Group II to the fourth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Ives JD (2004) Himalayan perceptions: environmental change and the well-being of mountain peoples.
Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group), London
Javed A, Khanday MY, Ahmed R (2009) Prioritization of subwatersheds based on morphometric and land-
use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:261–274
Jensen J (1996) Introduction to digital image processing: a remote sensing perspective, 1st edn. Prentice
Hall, New York
Korup O, Clague JJ (2009) Natural hazards, extreme events, and mountain topography. Quatern Sci Rev
28(11):977–990
Londhe S, Nathawat MS, Subudhi AP (2010) Erosion susceptibility zoning and prioritization of mini
watersheds using Geomatics approach. Int J Geomat Geosci 1(3):511–528
Matheussen B, Kirschbaum RL, Goodman IA et al (2000) Effects of land cover change on stream flow in the
interior Columbia river basin (USA and Canada). Hydrol Process 14(5):867–885
McBean G (2004) Climate change and extreme weather: a basis for action. Nat Hazards 31(1):177–190
Melton MA (1957a) Geometric properties of mature drainage systems and their representation in an E4
phase space. J Geol 66:35–54
Melton MA (1957b) An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface, properties and
geomorphology, technical report 11. Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, Geography
Branch, New York
Meraj G, Romshoo SA, Yousuf AR (2012) Geoinformatics approach to qualitative forest density loss
estimation and protection cum conservation strategy- a case study of Pir Panjal range, J&K, India. Int J
Curr Res Rev 04(16):47–61
Meraj G, Yousuf AR, Romshoo SA (2013) Impacts of the Geo-environmental setting on the flood vul-
nerability at watershed scale in the Jhelum basin; M Phil dissertation, University of Kashmir, India
http://dspaces.uok.edu.in/jspui//handle/1/1362
Mirza MMQ (2005) Hydrologic modeling approaches for climate impact assessment in South Asia. Climate
Change and Water Resources in South Asia, Balkema Press, Leiden, pp 23–54
Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1989) Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale. Science
255(5046):826–830
Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1992) Source areas, drainage density, and channel initiation. Water Resour
Res 25(8):1907–1918
Mortan JC (2007) Image analysis, classification and change detection in remote sensing, with algorithms for
ENVI/IDL. CRC press, Taylor & Francis Group, London
Mosbahi M, Benabdallah S, Boussema MR (2012) Assessment of soil erosion risk using SWAT model. Arab
J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-012-0658-7
Murtaza KO, Romshoo SA (2014) Determining the suitability and accuracy of various statistical algorithms
for satellite data classification. Int J Geomat Geosci 4(4):585–599
National Research Council Canada, Canada. Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch (NRCC)
(1998) The Canadian system of soil classification. Canadian Agricultural Services Coordinating
Committee. In: Soil Classification Working Group (ed), NRC Research Press, p 149
O’Callaghan JF, Mark DM (1984) The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput
Vis Graph Image Process 28:323–344
Patton PC (1988) Drainage basin morphometry and floods. In: Baker VR, Kochel RC, Patton PC (eds) Flood
geomorphology. Wiley, New York, pp 51–64

123
 Nat Hazards

Peduzzi P, Dao H, Herold C, Mouton F (2009) Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural
hazards: the Disaster Risk Index. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(4):1149–1159
Quilbe R, Rousseau AN, Duchemin M, Poulin A, Gangbazo G, Villeneuve JP (2006) Selecting a calculation
method to estimate sediment and nutrient loads in streams: application to the Beaurivage River
(Quebec, Canada). J Hydrol 326:295–310
Rakesh K, Lohani AK, Sanjay K, Chattered C, Nema RK (2000) GIS based morphometric analysis of Ajay
river basin up to Srarath gauging site of South Bihar. J Appl Hydrol 14(4):45–54
Rashid I, Romshoo SA (2012) Impact of anthropogenic activities on water quality of Lidder River in
Kashmir Himalayas. Environ Monit Assess 185:4705–4719
Rashid M, Lone M, Romshoo SA (2011) Geospatial tools for assessing land degradation in Budga district,
Kashmir Himalaya. Indian J Earth Syst Sci 120(3):423–433
Ratnam NK, Srivastava YK, Rao VV, Amminedu E, Murthy KSR (2005) Checkdam positioning by pri-
oritization micro-watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis—remote sensing and GIS
perspective. J India Soc Remote Sens 33(1):25–38
Raza M, Ahmad A, Mohammad A (1978) The valley of Kashmir: a geographical interpretation. Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Romshoo SA, Rashid I (2014) Assessing the impacts of changing land cover and climate on Hokersar
wetland in Indian Himalayas. Arab J Geosci 7(1):143–160
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(3):659–686
Saghafian B, Golian S, Elmi M, Akhtari R (2013) Monte Carlo analysis of the effect of spatial distribution of
storms onprioritization of flood source areas. Nat Hazards 66:1059–1071
Schumm SA (1956) The evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Bull Geol Soc Am 67:597–646
Sen D (2010) Flood Hazards in India and management strategies. In natural and anthropogenic. Springer,
The Netherlands
Sepúlveda SA, Padilla C (2008) Rain-induced debris and mudflow triggering factors assessment in the
Santiago cordilleran foothills, Central Chile. Nat Hazards 47(2):201–215
Sharma R, Sahai B, Karale RL (1985) Identification of erosion-prone areas in a part of the Ukai catchment.
In: Proceedings, sixth Asian conference on remote sensing, National Remote Sensing Agency, Hy-
derabad, pp 121–126
Simonovic SP, Li L (2003) Methodology for assessment of climate change impacts on large-scale flood
protection system. J Water Resour Plan Manag 129(5):361–371
Singh OP (1980) Geomorphology of drainage basins in Palamau upland. In: Ram Bhadur Mandal, Vishwa
Nath Prasad (eds) Recent trends and concepts in geography. Concept Publishing, New Delhi,
pp 229–247
Singh O, Kumar M (2013) Flood events, fatalities and damages in India from 1978 to 2006. Nat Hazards
69(3):1815–1834
Strahler AN (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Bull Geol Soc Am
63:1117–1142
Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union
38:913–920
Strahler AN (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks, Sec. 4–11. In:
Chow VT (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New-York
Suresh M, Sudhakara S, Tiwari KN, Chowdary VM (2004) Prioritization of watersheds using morphometric
parameters and assessment of surface water potential using remote sensing. J Indian Soc Remote Sens
32(3):249–259
Tarboton DG (1989) The analysis of river basins and channel networks using digital terrain data, Sc.
D. Thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge
Todorovski L, Džeroski S (2006) Integrating knowledge-driven and data-driven approaches to modeling.
Ecol Model 194(1):3–13
Tso B, Mather PM (2001) Classification methods for remotely sensed data. Taylor and Francis, London,
pp 186–229
Tucker GE, Bras RL (1998) Hill slope processes, drainage density and landscape morphology. Water Resour
Res 34(10):2751–2764
Van De Wiel MJ, Coulthard TJ, Macklin MG, Lewin J (2011) Modelling the response of river systems to
environmental change: progress, problems and prospects for palaeo-environmental reconstructions.
Earth Sci Rev 104(1):167–185
Wadia DN (1979) Geology of India, 4th edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co, New Delhi
Ward RC, Robinson M (2000) Principles of hydrology, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead

123
Nat Hazards

Watson RT, Haeberli W (2004) Environmental threats, mitigation strategies and high mountain areas.
Mountain areas: a global resource. Ambio 13:2–10
Willgoose G (1996) A statistic for testing the elevation characteristics of landscape simulation models.
J Geophys Res 99(13):987–996
Yildiz O (2009) An investigation of the effect of drainage density on hydrologic response. Turk J Eng
Environ Sci 28(2):85–94
Youssef AM, Pradhan B (2011) Flash flood risk estimation along the St. Katherine road, southern Sinai,
Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imagery. Environ Earth Sci 62(3):611–623
Zaz S, Romshoo SA (2012) Assessing the geoindicators of land degradation in the Kashmir Himalayan
region, India. Nat Hazards 64:1219–1245
Zhang YL, You WJ (2014) Social vulnerability to floods: a case study of Huaihe River Basin. Nat Hazards
71(3):2113–2125

123
View publication stats