Prioritization of Flood Inundation sub-watersheds of Maharlo Watershed in Fars Province Using Morphometric Parameters and VIKOR Decision Making Model | ||
| مجله اکوهیدرولوژی | ||
| Article 8, Volume 5, Issue 3, October 2018, Pages 813-827 PDF (1.01 M) | ||
| Document Type: Research Article | ||
| DOI: 10.22059/ije.2018.244246.763 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mahdis Amiri1; Hamidreza Pourghasemi* ; Alireza Arabameri2 | ||
| 1M.Sc student in Shiraz University | ||
| 2PhD Student in Geomorphology, Tarbiat Modares University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| The current study aims to prioritize of spatial flooding of Maharlo Sub-watersheds using morphometric parameters and VIKOR decision model. So, to select 13 morphometric parameters including slope, drainage density, stream frequency, constant of channel maintenance, drainage texture rate, ruggedness number, circularity ratio, compactness coefficient, relief ratio, stream length, form factor, elongation ratio, and coefficient of shape, and 1 climatic parameter including rain have been used to determine the weight of the parameters of the AHP. The results showed that the morphometric parameters such as slope and drainage density, and the climatic parameter of the rain, with values of (0.206, 0.165 and 0.134) had the most weight and effect on flood event, while the least weight and consequently the least effect on the coefficient is related to shape (0.122) factor. Also, for prioritizing used from 53 sub-watersheds based on VIKOR decision model. The results showed that sub-watershed 34 based on prioritization of flood first ranked (0.082), The second sub- watershed 31 (0.110) and sub- watershed 12 third ranked (0.129) given specialty, which must have to be prioritized for management operations. While sub-watershed 42 has the last ranked (1) in prioritization of flood, which is indicate low sensitivity to flood events. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Prioritization of flood; Morphometry parameters; Analysis Hierarchical Process; Vikor Model; Maharlo Watershed | ||
| References | ||
|
[1]. Badri B, Zare R, Honarbakhsh A, Atashkhar, F. Prioritization of flood potential Beheshtabad Sub- watershed. Journal of Geographical Studies. 2016; 48(1): 143-158 [Persion]. [2]. Dovonce E. A physically based distrinbuted hydrologic model. Master of Science Thesis, the Pennsylvania State University; 2000. [3]. Amani M, Najafi nejad A. Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds based on Morphometric Analysis, GIS and RS Techniques: Lohandar Watershed, Golestan Province. Journal of Watershed Management Research. 2014; 9(5): 1-15 [Persion]. [4]. Mohammadi A, Ahmadi H. Prioritizing Sub-watershed to aim present management Watershed Reduction Programs (case study: Marof watershed). Journal of Geography of the land. 2011; 29: 69-77. [Persion] [5]. Aher P, Adinarayana J, Gorantiwar SD. Quantification of morphometric characterization and prioritization for management planning in semi-arid tropics of India: A remote sensing and GIS approach. Journal of Hydrology. 2014; 511. 850-860. [6]. Kumar R, Kumar S, Lohani A, Nema R, Singh R. Evaluation of geomorphological characteristics of a catchment using GIS. GIS India. 2000; 9(3): 13–17. [7]. Leskens JG, Brugnach M, Hoekstra AY, Schuurmans W. Why are decision flood disaster management so poorly supported by information from flood models. Environmental Modeling & Software. 2014; 53: 53-61. [8]. Kolawole OM, Olayami A.B, Ajayi KT. Managing Flood in Nigerian Cities: Risk Analysis and Adaptation Options-Ilorin City as a Case Study. Scholars Research Library. 2011; 3(1): 17-24. [9]. Tingsanchali T. Urban flood disaster management. Procedia Engineering. 2012; 32: 25-37. [10]. Djrodjetive B, Bruck, S. System Approach to the Selection of Priority Areas of Erosion Control with Emphasis on the Implication of the Water Resources Subsystem. River Sedimentation Conference, Beijing, CHINA. 1989; 1547-1554. [11]. Chowdary VM, Chakraborthy D, Jeyaram A, Krishna Murthy YVN, Sharma JR, Dadhwal VK. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Watershed Prioritization Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique and GIS. Water Resource Management. 2013; 27; 3555-3571. [12]. Jang T, Vellidis G, Hyman JB, Brook E, Kurkalova LA. Impact of socioeconomic factors on synoptic assessment for prioritizing BMP implementation to reduce sediment load. In: ASABE Annual International Meeting Louisville, Kentucky. 2011; 7-10. [13]. Badar B, Romshoo SA, Khan MA. Integrating biophysical and socioeconomic information for prioritizing watersheds in a Kashmir Himalayan lake: a remote sensing and GIS approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2013; 185: 6419-6445. [14]. Melton MA. Correlations structure of morphometric properties of drainage systems and their controlling agents. Journal of Geology. 1958; 66: 442-460. [15]. Zehtabian GH, Ghodosi J, Ahmadi H, Khalili zade M. Investigate the priority of the flood potential of the watershed and determine the flood generating (Case study: Marme watershed, Fars province). Physical Geography Research Quarterly. 2009; 6: 27-38. [Persion] [16]. Grohmann CH. Morphometric analysis in geographic information systems: applications of free software GRASS and R Star. Computer and Geoscience. 2004; 30 (10): 1055-1067. [17]. Khan M, Gupta V, Moharana P. Watershed prioritization using remote sensing and geographical information system: a case study from Guhiya, India. Journal of Arid Environments. 2001; 49; 465-475. [18]. Biswas S, Sudhakar S, Desai VR. Remote sensing and geographic information system based approach for watershed conservation. Survey Engineering. 2002; 128: 108 - 124. [19]. Thakkar A, Dhiman S. Morphometric analysis and prioritization of miniwatersheds in a Mohr watershed, Gujarat using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal of the Indian society of Remote Sensing. 2007; 35 (4). 313–321. [20]. Sharma S, Tignath S, Mishra S. Morphometric analysis of drainage basin using GIS approach. JNKVV Res J. 2008; 42(1). 88–92. [21]. Saghafian B, Farazjoo H, Bozorgy B, Yazdandoost F. Flood intensification due to changes in land use. Water Resources Management, 2008; 22. 1051-1067. [Persion] [22]. Avinash K, Jayappa K, Deepika B. (2011). Prioritization of sub-basins based on geomorphology and morphometric analysis using remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) techniques. Geocarto International. 2011; 26(7): 569-592. [23]. Chandrashekara H, Lokeshb K, Sameenac M, roopad J, rangannae G. GIS –Based Morphometric Analysis of Two Reservoir Catchments of Arkavati River, Ramanagaram District, Karnataka. Aquatic Procedia, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER RESOURCES, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING (ICWRCOE 2015). 2015; 4: 1345 – 1353. [24]. Jee Omar P. Geomatics Techniques Based Significance of Morphometric Analysis in Prioritization of Watershed. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology and Engineering. 2015; 4(1): 24-13. [25]. Fallah M, Mohammadi M, Kavian K. Prioritization of Sub-watershedsusing Morphometric and LandUse change Analysis. Ecohydrology. 2015; 3(2): 261-274. [Persian] [26]. Rahmati O, Tahmasebipour N, Pourghasemi HR. Sub-watershed flooding prioritization using morphometric and correlation analysis (Case study: Golestan Watershed). Ecohydrology. 2015; 2. 151-161. [Persian] [27]. Razavi zade S, Shahedi K. Tleghan Sub-watershed flooding prioritization using From the combination AHP and TOPSIS. Quarterly journal of natural resources ecosystems of Iran. 2017; 7(4): 33-46. [Persian] [28]. Adhami M, Sadeghi HM. Sub-watershed prioritization based on sediment yield using game theory. Journal of hydrology. 2016; 541: 977-987. [29]. Arab Ameri AR, Pourghasemi HM, Cerda A. Erodibility prioritization of sub-watersheds using morphometric parameters analysis and its mapping: A comparison among TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW, and CF multi-criteria decision making models. Science of the Total Enviroment. 2017; 613-614: 1385-1400. [30]. Mesbah H, Shafei F, Fakhari zade E. Prediction of the Effect of Watershed Implementation on Flood in Maharlou Watershed, Case Study: Sadra sub-watershed. Second conference management watershed and water resources, Kerman, Iran. 2004; 1-4. [Persian] [31]. Javed A, Khanday MY, Ahmed R. Prioritization of watersheds based on morphometric and landuse analysis using RS and GIS techniques. Journal of the Indian society of Remote Sensing. 2009; 37: 261-274. [32]. Pandey A, Chawdary VM, Mal BC. Identification of critical erosion prone areas in the small agricultural watershed using USLE, GIS and RS. Water Resource Manage. 2007; 21: 729-746. [33]. Horton RE. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrological approach to quantitative morphology. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America. 1945; 56: 275–370. [34]. Srivastava VK. Role of GIS in natural resources management. In: Thakur, B. (Ed.), Perspectives in Resource Management in Developing Countries. Concept Publishing Company. New Delhi. 2003; 479–484. [35]. Schumn SA. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badland, at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America. 1956; 67. 597–646. [36]. Horton RE. Drainage basin characteristics. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 1932; 13. 350–361. [37]. Chen LY, Wang TC. Optimizing partners choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategicdecision of fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of. Production Economics. 2009; 120(1): 1-12. [38]. Opricovic S, Tzeng G. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods, European Journal of Operational Research. European Journal of Operational Research. 2006;, pp 514-529. [39]. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mc Graw Hill Company, New York. 1988; 350 pp. [40]. Görener A, Toker K, Uluçay K. Application of combined SWOT and AHP: a case study for a manufacturing firm. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 58: 525-534. [41]. Malczewski J. spatial multi criteria decision analysis In: J. ctill(Ed), Multicriteria decision making and analysis: a geographic information sciences approach. Brook field, VT: Ashgate poblishing; 1999. [42]. Esmaeili R, Jokar E, Roshan neko P. Determination of Flooding potential using TOPSIS method. Physical Geography Research Quarterly. 2016; 31(9): 77-87. [Persian] [43]. Khayri Zadeh M, Maleki J, Hamid A. Flood hazard zonation using ANP model in mardagh chay basin. Quantitative Geomorphology. 2012;1 (3): 39-56. [Persian] [44]. Ahmed F, Srinivasa Rao K. Prioritization of Sub-watersheds based on Morphometric Analysis using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System Techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing and GIS, 2015; 4(2): 51-65. [45]. Altaf S, Meraj G, Romshoo S. Morphometry and land cover based multi-criteria analysis for assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2014; 86(12): 8391-8412. [46]. Dar R, Chandra R, Romshoo S. Morphotectonic and Lithostratigraphic analysis of Intermontane Karewa basin of Kashmir Himalayas, India. Journal of Mountain Science, 2013; 10(1): 1–15. [47]. Strahler AN. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow, V.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. 1964; Section 4-11. [48]. Abedini M, Fathi jokendan R. The zoning of flood Suseptibility in the Gorganrod watershed based on GIS. Hydrogeomorphology. 2016; 7:1-17. [Persian] [49]. Soleimani Sardoo, F. Priority of effective regions on flood peak by using of RS & GIS Techniques and HEC-HMS model at Halilrud, Isfahan University of Technology. Faculty of Natural Resources; 2009.[ In Persian]. [50]. Inanlou H. Time and Place priority of flooding in in Kooshak Abad sub watersheds using HEC-HMS model. Master Thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, pp 76. 2006.[ In Persian] [51]. Nasiri Ghidari A, Montazeri AA Momeni M. Ensemble AHP and TOPSIS in determination of relative weights of criteria and assessment of drainage and irrigation networks. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage. 2010; 4(2): 284-296.[ In Persian] [52]. Hlaing k, Haruyama S, Maung A. Using GIS-based distributed soil loss modeling and morphometric analysis to prioritize watershed for soil conservation in Bago river basin of Lower Myanmar. Front. Earth Science. 2008; 2 (4): 465–478. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 749 PDF Download: 628 |
||