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

net/publication/338526972

Flood Hazard Zonation of Bhagirathi River basin using Multi-Criteria

DecisionAnalysis in Uttarakhand, India

Article · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

13 1,932

4 authors, including:

Piyush Gourav Rajesh Kumar

Sharda University Sharda University
3 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS 88 PUBLICATIONS 2,294 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Piyush Gourav on 05 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 et
International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020)
ISSN No. (Print): 0975-8364
ISSN No. (Online): 2249-3255

Flood Hazard Zonation of Bhagirathi River Basin using Multi-Criteria

Decision-Analysis in Uttarakhand, India
1 2 3 4
Piyush Gourav , Rajesh Kumar , Akhilesh Gupta and Mohammad Arif
1
Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Environmental Science,
School of Basic Sciences and Research, Sharda University (Greater Noida), India.
2
Professor & HOD, Department of Environmental Science,
School of Earth Sciences, Central University of Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan), India.
3
Adviser & HOD, Strategic Programs, Large Initiatives and Coordinated Action Enabler (SPLICE)
and Climate Change Program, Department of Science and Technology,
Ministry of Science and Technology (Delhi) India.
4
Consultant, Green India Mission, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (Delhi), India.
(Corresponding author: Rajesh Kumar)
(Received 29 October 2019, Revised 02 December 2019, Accepted 09 December 2019)
(Published by Research Trend, Website: www.researchtrend.net)
ABSTRACT: Uttarakhand is the alpine Himalayan state which are highly vulnerable for natural disaster,
every year during monsoon floods claim number of casualty in terms of human property and infrastructure
loss. Flood hazard zoning is important to map the extent of flooding which is helpful in case of planning any
activities nearby river banks and valley portion of the river. The Bhagirathi River basin of Garhwal Himalaya
is highly susceptible to flood hazards. A GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis (GIS-MCDA) has been
implemented for the first time in Bhagirathi River basin using four physical parameters like land-use land-
cover, elevation, slope, and distance to river. It was observed by the spatial analysis that the risk is very high
up to 350 m distance along both sides of the river terraces. The results estimated that 16.7% area (1028.3
km 2) of the Bhagirathi River basin is vulnerable for flood hazards, 46323 population and 9753 households of
96 villages were identified as hotspots for flood hazard. A total of 160 km of the road length is found under
high to a very high category of the risk. This study would be very helpful to reduce the losses of life,
property, and infrastructure during floods in the future, the outcomes of the study can be used as a ready
reference to support the management and mitigation of rescue and rehabilitation policies of the banks of
river Bhagirathi.
Keywords: Remote Sensing, Flood damages, Mapping of hazard and risk, GIS, Bhagirathi River basin, Vulnerability.
Abbreviations: GIS, Geographical Information System; MCDA, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis; UNDP, United
Nation Development Programme; ICIMOD, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development; MOEF & CC,
Minatory of Environment, Forest & Climate Change; MNWDI, Modified Normalized Difference Water Index; NDWI,
Normalized Difference Water Index.
I. INTRODUCTION occur during the monsoon period because of the high
spatial and temporal variations in the precipitation.
Regional climatic conditions have a major effect on the Furthermore, the reducing capability of rivers to hold the
mountainous glacial environment. Flash floods are one
large volume of water under heavy siltation may change
of the biggest hazards related to the changing climate the direction of river flow. Glacial and cloud outbursts
and natural disasters in the world [1]. They are the aggravate common issues related to the increased
major sources of destruction to mankind lies in plains incidences of floods.
and river valleys [2]. One-third of the total land area, The Indian Himalayas are one of the most vulnerable for
including 82% of the total world population of 90 nations flooding due to change in climatic conditions and human
is directly prone to catastrophic flooding [3-6]. Similarly, interference. A number of studies have indicated that
one-eighth of India’s total geographical (40.0 million the rate of progressive warming of higher altitude region
hectares) area is prone to floods [7-9]. However, the
of the Himalaya is much higher than the rate of average
area under the risk of floods is increasing extensively in global warming (0.09°C per year). For the eastern
India with a rate of 0.014 million hectares annually Himalayas, the warming trend ranges from 0.1°C to
under the changing climatic scenarios [10]. Over a 0.06°C per year [11-16].
period of five decades (1953-2007), there was an Climate change is directly related to extreme weather
increase of 7.5 million-hectare area is getting affected changes in Himalayas as intense unpredicted rainfall
by the floods. that is leading to flash flood, cloud burst, mass
In India, about 30 million individuals are under the movement and debris flow [17].
threat of floods and contributed annually one-fifth (more According to the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology
than 1,500 individuals) of the world death count
(IITM), the recent rainfall pattern of the country shows
because of floods. The majority of flood events in India an increase in precipitation rate. The hilly regions like
Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 62
Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh received maximum
precipitation in Northwest monsoon (July-September),
which commonly causes natural calamities like cloud
burst that led to flash floods almost every year. In the
Himalayan region of India, the Bhagirathi River basin is
highly susceptible to flood hazard, the major incidents
were reported in years of 1978, 1980, 2000, 2009, 2012
and 2013, which caused widespread damage in the
river basin [18]. The Bhagirathi River originates at
Gaumukh (~ 4000 m) from the Gangotri glacier of
Himalaya in the Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand state
[19]. The river flows around 205 km from its origin to
merge with the Alaknanda River at Devprayag
(elevation 830m asl) being named as river Ganga
thereafter. The Bhagirathi River basin is spread over
6170.82 km2 within Garhwal Himalaya. Because of
active tectonics and fragile geomorphic condition, the
basin area is highly vulnerable to natural hazards and in Fig. 1. Location map of Bhagirathi River basin showing
consequence, during monsoon season the hydrologic water bodies, river, settlement, and roads.
process enhances the frequency of natural calamities.
Floods in the Bhagirathi river basin can be classified into The total area of the Bhagirathi basin is about 6170.82
two categories with flash flood and rapid flood. The flash km 2.Physiographically it is the part of Garhwal Himalaya
floods occur due to extreme downpour whereas and the and falls under the lower to higher Himalayan zone. The
rapid floods occur due to continuous downpour for climate of the study area is sub-tropical with the
several days [20]. Flood hazard mapping of this area is seasonal monsoon period of July to September, August
important to prevent and plan the risk with the help of as the wettest month during monsoon. As per the
various high-end computer programming where disaster thematic layer of census of India, 2011, a total of 690
can be predicted with high accuracy [21, 22]. Hence, villages fall under the study area that covers the total
there is a need for flood zonation of this river basin to population of 332541 individuals and 59115 households.
understand the threat of lives and socio-economic The road network within the basin area includes both
losses. For flood zonation, the GIS-based analysis is state and national highways covering a total length of
widely used due to its multidimensional spatial 224.6 km.
phenomena. It manages a large volume of spatial data GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (GIS-
very effectively [23-26]. MCDA) approach: In past studies, the impact of a
MCDA is a significant tool for mapping of flood natural hazard on socioeconomic parameters was done
risk/hazard zones in a river basin. This method is helpful using various statistical tools. GIS-based multi-criteria
particularly for flood management plans of remote decision approach method has been used the first time
settlements and population within the river basin [27]. in the Bhagirathi River basin by using four factors like
The study is focused to determine the spatial extent of land-use land-cover, elevation, slope, and distance from
flood hazard zones in the Bhagirathi River basin as well the river. The factors like hierarchical model structure
as in identifying the settlements at greater risk during and criteria weights, the application of the GIS-MCDA
flood events. The MCDA used to determine the spatial tool overcome the hindrance of various factors
extent of flood, and the GIS overlay analyses are used mentioned in the past studies [29]. For social and
to identify settlement under flood influence [28]. The economic vulnerability assessment towards flood risk,
analyses are based on four spatial parameters as the there is a limited scope available for the application of
distance to a river, land-use land-cover, slope, and spatial MCDA [30-32]. In this study, proximity analyses
elevation. The results identifies the hotspots areas of GIS tools were used to create a distance buffer from
under flood hazards including population, number of the main stream.
villages, households, educational institutions, hospitals, The topographic inputs like slope and elevation were
road network, and bridges. The outcomes of this study derived (Table 1) from 1 arc-second Digital Elevation
will help policy makers, scientists and local Model (DEM) of Shuttle Radar Topography Mission.
administration to take on-time preventive measures and A preliminary exercise was carried out for the selection
decision making to save total loss. of technology and assessment of flood hazards. After
successful analysis of several natural hazards [33-35]
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS and geo-environmental studies, the combination of
Study Area: The study area spread over Uttarkashi and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) along with GIS
Tehri Garhwal districts, Uttarakhand and some part of has to be found the most appropriate fundamental tool
Kinnaur district, Himachal Pradesh. The geographic for assessing the vulnerability and flood hazard due to
extent of Bhagirathi River basin is 30o16′ to 31°10′ accuracy and flexibility for decision-making.
North and 78°11′ to 79°17′ East, the basin is at the
North West region of Uttarakhand state (Fig. 1).

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 63

 Table 1: Data used for flood risk hazard zonation in The combination of NDVI and MNDWI is very useful to
the Bhagirathi River basin. extract “maximum water body” (Eqn. 3) from the digital
imageries [42].
Data Derived Maps Sources
NDWI = (Green − NIR)/(Green + NIR) (1)
8 May 2015 and 21
LANDSAT-8, OLI
Land-use Land
April 2016
MNDWI = (Blue − NIR)/(Blue + NIR) (2)
Cover The Index is used (I)
https://earthexplore
Distance to river (I) = NDWI + MNDWI (3)
r.usgs.gov/
SRTM DEM 11 February 2000
Elevation
1 arc-second (30 https://earthexplore
Slope
m) r.usgs.gov/
Census of
Village/ Settlement 2011/Google Map
690 point locations,
/Population/ http://www.censusi
224 Km road, & 84
Roads ndia.gov.in/2011ce
Bridge locations
nsus/dchb/DCHB.ht
ml
Historical flood
Location literature review
Events

The adoption of methodology for evaluating the flood

hazard is a fundamental step, it is important to identify
basic factors that are responsible for flooding in order to
create a reliable vulnerable flood map [36-39]. Before
performing the analysis, the secondary data was
collected from different sources. The methodology Fig. 3. Overlay of Bhagirathi River basin boundary on
framework is shown in through Fig. 2. LANDSAT-8, FCC of 8th May 2015.
Flood risk hazard analysis using GIS based multi-criteria decision analysis (GIS-MCDA) After delineation of river channel form satellite imagery
through visual image interpretation, a GIS-based
Data Collection proximity analysis was done to find out the distance
from the river to most affected areas during floods. The
Landsat-8, OLI (2015-16) SRTM DEM (1arc second) effect of flood is more visible up to the distance of 2000
Proximity Analysis Terrain Analysis meters from the main river stream showing more
vulnerability towards floods, therefore the study area is
Distance to river Land use-Land cover Slope Elevation classified into nine different classes of specific intervals
of distance (Table 2).
Rank and Wright Assignment (Applicable for all four layers)
Table 2: Proximity distance class distribution of
Normalised Rank and Weight (Individual/Total, for all four layer) Bhagirathi River basin.
Final Result (Landslide Hazard Zonation Map) Range of Proximity Distance Area
2 Area (%)
from River (m) (km )
Result Verification with Pre-historic Flood Events < 50 103.8 1.7
50-150 102.8 1.7
Impact Assessment and Identify Village, Population,
Household, Roads, Bridges under Risk 150-350 198.0 3.2
350-600 237.6 3.9
Fig. 2. Flow diagram of methodology used for GIS- 600-900 274.1 4.4
MCDA based flood hazard zonation mapping. 900-1250 308.0 5.0
1250-1650 337.6 5.5
Criteria Selected for Flood Vulnerability Mapping 1650-2000 284.9 4.6
(a) Distance to River: The impact of the flood is more > 2000 4324.1 70.1
on the river terraces/flood plains along the main river Total 6170.8 100
stream [40].
For this study, the river channel was delineated by the The range of nine thematic classes are 0 to 50, 50-150,
visual image interpretation of remote sensing data. A 150-350, 350-600, 600-900, 900-1250, 1250-1650,
digital band combination of near-infrared (NIR), Green 1650-2000, and more than 2000 m has been presented
and Blue bands of LANDSAT-8, OLI (Path/Row of through Fig. 4.
146/38 and 146/39, 15 m panchromatic resolution) (b) Land-use Land-cover: Land use and land cover are
optical satellite remote sensing imagery of 8th May 2015 the most important factor for flood vulnerability study.
and 21st April 2016 were also used [41] (Fig. 3). The water infiltration and the surface runoff are
The simple Normalized Difference Water Index, (NDWI) controlled by the density of vegetation cover and forest
does not differentiate shallow parts of the water (Eqn. cover. The areas of high forest density and high
1), therefore to delineate the whole water body the vegetation density are less susceptible because of the
Modified Normalized Difference Water Index, (MNDWI) high infiltration rate. Surface runoff is very high in urban
were used (Eqn. 2). and agricultural areas as compared to the forest areas
[43].

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 64

 Fig. 4. Proximity distance from the river channel.
The land-use land-cover map of the study area has
been derived from optical Landsat-8 (LOI) satellite
remote sensing imageries of 2015-16 (Fig. 5). There are
nine classes for land-use land-cover mapping using
supervised classification in ERDAS Imagine image
processing software (Table 3). Fig. 5. Land-use Land-cover map of Bhagirathi River
basin derived through Landsat-8 satellite imagery of the
Table 3: Land use/Land cover classes under the year 2015-16.
different characteristics of the Bhagirathi River
basin.

Area Area
Land-use Land-Cover Class 2
(km ) (%)
River/ Stream/ Canals/Lake/Ponds 44.4 0.7
Urban/Rural 3.1 0.1
Cropland 367.4 6.0
Fallow land 100.7 1.6
Scrub land 37.6 0.6
Evergreen/ Semi-evergreen
2338.9 37.9
Grassland/Grazing Land
Deciduous 93.2 1.5
Scrub Forest 47.2 0.8
Snow /Glaciers & Barren Rocky 3138.3 50.9
Total 6170.8 100

(c) Elevation: Elevation map of the study area is

derived from the 30 m digital elevation model (DEM) of
SRTM. The maximum and minimum elevation of the
Bhagirathi River basin is 6757 m and 545 m asl
respectively (Fig. 6).
(d) Slope: The Bhagirathi River originated from the Fig. 6. Elevation map of the Bhagirathi River basin in
snout (Gaumukh) of Gangotri glacier at a height of meter above sea level.
about 4000 m asl. The whole glaciated area is barren
rocky, devoid of vegetation and covered with snowfields This area is also extremely rugged and full of forests.
throughout the year. Between 3000 to 4000 m The river terraces, agriculture, and forest were seen at
elevation, the valley is filled with glacier derbies that the elevation of 1000 to 2000 m. The slope map of the
have very few and sparse alpine type vegetation. The river basin area is derived from the one arc second
steep valley was observed between the elevation of SRTM DEM. The study area shows a wide variety of
2000 to 3000 m with tremendous gorges and steep to a average slope from 3° to 69° with a mean of 32° (Fig.
dizzy height. 7).

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 65

For the analysis of the flood damage risk using GIS- m distance both sides from the main river course has
MCDA, the elevation and slope maps were classified been considered as flood risk zone.
2
into nine classes (Table 4 and 5). It may be noted that Out of the total basin, 29.9% (1846.7 km ) area is falling
each criterion has own significance in the special under flood risk zone covering up to 2000 m distance on
analysis. both sides of the river. The slope plays an important role
in flood hazard mapping in alpine areas.
The movement of water is very slow on the flat and low
gradient slopes and it accumulates for a longer time.
About 26.2% (1617.9 km2) area of the basin slope is
falling in the range between 0°-20°slopes. Land use of
the Bhagirathi River basin shows that the human activity
is comparatively more frequent in these three classes,
therefore the most susceptible land use classes for
floods are, (1) River/Stream/Canals/Lake/Ponds (2)
Urban/Rural (3) Cropland. About 6.7% (414.9 km2) of
the basin area is covered by these vulnerable classes.
The surface elevation plays an important role to identify
the flood damage risk zone, with this analysis the impact
of flood damage has been taken from 545 m to 1025 m
asl. Total 27.5 % (1161.9 km2) areas are falling under
the risk zone (Table 6).
Table 6: Criteria wise risk percentage and
associated area for flood vulnerability of Bhagirathi
River basin.
Area
Fig. 7. Slope map of Bhagirathi River basin represented Area
under
in the range of degree. Vulnerable class under
Criteria risk
under flood risk risk
area
Table 4: Slope classes and its area characteristics (%) 2
(km )
of the Bhagirathi River basin. 2000 m distance from
Distance to
both side of the river 29.9 1846.7
2 river
Slope Class(degree) Area (km ) Area (%) stream
Slope 0 to 20°slope 26.2 1617.9
<2 7.4 0.1 River / Stream /
2-3 19.1 0.3 Land use/land Canals/Lake/Ponds,
6.7 414.9
3-4 32.2 0.5 cover Urban/Rural, Cropland
4-5 38.5 0.6
5-6 49.9 0.8 Elevation 545 m to 1025 m asl 27.5 1161.9
6-10 346.9 5.6
10-15 488.1 7.9
To finalise the analysis, Rank (R) and Weight (W) for
15-20 635.9 10.3
each responsible criteria were assigned. For this study
> 20 4552.9 73.8 there are four criteria that have been selected for flood
risk vulnerable mapping, the criteria are the distance to
Table 5: Elevation classes and its area the river, land-use/land-cover, elevation, and slope. All
characteristics in the Bhagirathi River basin. the criteria parameters were classified into a scale of 1
to 9 as per user-defined rank under the geospatial
2
Elevation Class (meter) Area (km ) Area (%) environment. High rank (9) assigned for high-risk class
<545 1.9 0.0 and low rank (1) is assigned for no-risk class [44-46].
545-565 2.3 0.0 After assigning ranks for all four thematic layers, the
565-585 3.6 0.1 sum weight (W) of 10 was assigned after dividing all
585-605 2.8 0.1 four parameters as per the priority of importance.
605-725 23.8 0.4 Weight 4 assigned “distance to the river” due to its
725-825 66.0 1.1 importance as compared to the other three. As per the
825-925 431.8 7.0 importance, the weight for slope (3) elevation (2) and
925-1025 1161.9 18.8 Land-Use/Land cover (1) were assigned for assessment
> 1025 4476.8 72.6 of vulnerability.
Total 6170.8 100 After assigning Rank (R) and weight (W), the
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Normalized rating index (NRI) and Normalized weight
index (NWI) were calculated using the raster tool in
Zonation and ranking of area: The most important ArcGIS. NRI is the value of total Rank dividing with
criterion “distance to the river” shows that the most individual Rank, whereas NWI was calculated using
affected area is near the main river course including total weight dividing with individual weight (Table 7).
river banks, river terraces, and flood plains. Depending The GIS layer integration of NRI and NWI was done
on the physiography of the Bhagirathi River basin 2000 using weighted sum overlay analysis of spatial analysis
tool extension of ArcGIS.

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 66

Table 7: Criteria wise Normalised Rank Index (NRI) & Normalised Weight Index (NWI) calculation for thematic
classes.

Thematic Layer NRI NWI

Criterion Rank (r) Weight (w)
Category Class r/R w/1
< 50 9 0.20
50-150 8 0.18
150-350 7 0.16
350-600 6 0.13
Proximity form 600-900 5 0.11
4 0.4
River (Meter) 900-1250 4 0.09
1250-1650 3 0.07
1650-2000 2 0.04
> 2000 1 0.02
Total (R) 45 1.00
<2 9 0.20
2-3 8 0.18
3-4 7 0.16
4-5 6 0.13
5-6 5 0.11
Slope (Degree) 3 0.3
6-10 4 0.09
10-15 3 0.07
15-20 2 0.04
> 20 1 0.02
Total (R) 45 1.00
<545 9 0.20
545-565 8 0.18
565-585 7 0.16
585-605 6 0.13
605-725 5 0.11
Elevation (meters) 2 0.2
725-825 4 0.09
825-925 3 0.07
925-1025 2 0.04
> 1025 1 0.02
Total (R) 45 1.00
River/ Stream/
9 0.20
Canals/Lake/Ponds
Urban/Rural 8 0.18
Cropland 7 0.16
Fallow land 6 0.13
Scrub land 5 0.11
Evergreen/ Semi-
Land Use/Land
evergreen 1 0.1
Cover (Km2) 4 0.09
Grassland/Grazing
Land
Deciduous 3 0.07
Scrub Forest 2 0.04
Snow /Glaciers &
1 0.02
Barren Rocky
Total (R) 45 1.00

Identification of Flood vulnerability: Based on the Further, the flood risk index map of the study area was
various indicators, flood damage risk index map has classified into five categories using natural break
been prepared through ArcGIS by using the weighted classification method in ArcGIS, the classes were very
value (Table 7) of each parameter. In the flood index high risk (0.0133-0.049), high risk (0.049-0.074),
map, the range of vulnerability was from 0.013 to 0.168, medium risk (0.074-0.093), low risk (0.093-0.112) and
which means the lower value (0.013). Represents the no risk (0.113-0.168). The category wise risk map is
low-risk zone whereas the higher value (0.168) shown in Fig. 9.
represented the high risk (Fig. 8).

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 67

 area of river basin respectively. The details about the
flood damage risk vulnerable area are given in Table 8.
Extent of socio-economic loss: As per the Census of
India 2011, a thematic layer of 690 villages was
generated for the Bhagirathi River basin. The thematic
layers were superimposed on the flood risk vulnerability
map. It was found that 23 villages come under very
high-risk zone followed by 73 villages under the high-
risk zone, 109 villages under moderate, 275 under the
low risk and 210 villages under no risk (Table 8).
In terms of human threats and infrastructure, a total of
224400 individuals and 41638 households of 480
villages falls under the flood vulnerable zone in different
categories.
A total of 9625 individuals and 2036 households of 23
villages fall under the very high-risk flood hazard zone
whereas 36698 individuals and 7717 households of 73
Fig. 8. Flood risk index map of Bhagirathi River basin villages are under the high-risk zone. However, 77033
showing high and low index values. individuals and 11293 households of 109 villages are
falling under the moderate risk zone while 101044
individuals and 20592 households of 275 villages lie
under low-risk flood hazard zone. The majority of the
road i.e. 94.36 km lies under a very high-risk zone
followed by high risk (65.68 km), moderate risk (2.06
km) and low risk (58.18 km). It was also found that a
total of 81 bridges is lying under a moderate flood risk
zone to a very high flood risk zone in the study (Table
8).
The findings of this study were further revalidated
through ground-truthing and secondary data available in
official records of Uttarakhand state Govt. It was verified
that the overall 2100 km length of national highway and
1600 km of state highways have been damaged due to
natural hazards in the Garhwal region of Uttarakhand
throughout the year. The final GIS-MCDA based flood
risk hazard map was also verified through the available
literature (Fig. 10) related to four extreme historical
flood events i.e. Bhagirathi flood in (1978), Gyansu Nala
Fig. 9. Flood risk hazard map showing hotspot areas of
flash flood (1980), Uttarkashi flood (1991), Asi-Ganga
Bhagirathi River basin.
flood (2012), [47-49]. In (2013), the Mandakini,
It has been observed that the area lying near to the river Alakananda, Bhagirathi and other river basins have
channel is prone to very high flood risk and as we move experienced the flash flood, making a loss of 580
forward away from the river channel the risk decreases individuals and overall 900000 individuals were affected
gradually. During the assessment, it was observed that by the flood in Uttarakhand (Government of Uttarakhand
1028.28 km2 (16.7%) of basin area comes under flood 2013). It may be noted that 41638 households, 220.28
vulnerable zone. The very high-risk zone lies up to 350 km roads, and 84 bridges are under the threat of floods
m on both sides of the river channel which covers 91.27 in this study.
km 2 (1.5 %) area of the complete river basin. The high-
risk zone, moderately risk and low risk occupies 183.0
km 2 (3.0%), 382.62 km2 (6.2%) and 371.39 km2 (6.0%)
Table 8: final flood risk hazard area and its impact on village/settlement and roads (hotspots) of the
Bhagirathi River basin.
Vulnerable Vulnerable
Number of Length
Flood Hazard 2 Population Households No of
Area (km ) Area (%) Villages of Roads
Class (Census (Census Bridge
(Census 2011) in km
2011) 2011)
Very High Risk 91.3 1.5 23 9625 2036 94.4 42
High RISK 183.0 3.0 73 36698 7717 65.7 31
Moderate Risk 382.6 6.2 109 77033 11293 2.1 8
Low Risk 371.4 6.0 275 101044 20592 58.2 3
No Risk 5142.5 83.3 210 108141 17477 4.3 0
Total 6170.8 100 690 332541 59115 224.6 84

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 68

 Fig. 10. Historic flood locations overlay on Flood Risk hazard impact zonation map of Bhagirathi River Basin.
If flood event prevails, the total financial burden The majority of the road segments (i.e. 94.4 km) fall
overcomes the extent of damages caused by the floods under a very high-risk zone followed by high risk (65.7
will be approximately Rs. 124.08 billion INR for the km), moderate risk (2.06 km) and low risk (58.2 km). It
rehabilitation of houses, reconstruction/maintenance of was also found that a total of 81 bridges are lying under
roads and bridges. a moderate flood risk zone to a very high flood risk
zone.
IV. CONCLUSION
V. FUTURE SCOPE
The Indian Himalayan region is one of the most
vulnerable flood zones under the varying climatic The different natural hazards have damaged in terms of
conditions. The study on the Bhagirathi River basin life and property and seriously impacted the socio-
revealed that this location is highly vulnerable for flood economic status of the region in the past as reported in
as a natural hazard. An innovative approach, a GIS- the records of Uttarakhand state as well as the different
based MCDA technique has been used first time in this works of literature. This research output will be useful in
basin to carry out the flood extent estimation and the policy and planning for the preparedness, mitigation,
preparation of flood zonation map where four important and management for rescue and rehabilitation of the
factors like land-use land-cover, elevation, slope, and flood-affected population.
distance were considered. It was observed that the risk
is very high up to 350 m distance along both sides of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
river banks which covers 91.3 km2 area of the complete Authors are thankful to the Department
river basin. It may be noted that 1028.3 km2 of basin of Environmental Science, Sharda University, Greater
area falls under flood vulnerable zone. The high-risk Noida for the facility and support. We thankfully
zone, moderate risk, and low risk occupy 183.0 km2, acknowledge the support of the GIS Laboratory
382.7 km2, and 371.4 km2 area respectively. Within this supported by DST-FIST in the Department of
flood vulnerable area, there are 23 villages under very Environmental Science, Central University of Rajasthan
high-risk zone followed by 73 villages under the high- where some of the analysis has been performed. The
risk zone, 109 villages under moderate, 275 villages authors gratefully acknowledge the anonymous
under the low risk while 210 villages under no risk. In reviewers for providing their critical comments to
terms of socio-economic losses, a total of 224,400 improve the quality of this manuscript.
individuals and 41,638 households of 480 villages are
under the flood vulnerable area falling indifferent Conflict of Interest. Nil
categories.

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 69

REFERENCES Microflora. International Journal of Theoretical & Applied
Sciences, 10(1): 41-45.
[1]. Rao, K. D., Rao, V. V., Dadhwal, V. K., & Diwakar, [17]. Eriksson, M., Xu, J., Shrestha, A. B., Vaidya, R. A.,
P. G. (2014). Kedarnath flash floods: a hydrological and Santosh, N., & Sandström, K. (2009). The changing
hydraulic simulation study. Current Science, 598-603. Himalayas: impact of climate change on water
[2]. Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2002). Non-structural flood resources and livelihoods in the greater Himalayas.
protection and sustainability. Water International, 27(1), International centre for integrated mountain
3-13. development (ICIMOD).
[3]. UNDP, (2004). Reducing disaster risk: a challenge [18]. Chaudhuri, C., Tripathi, S., Srivastava, R., Misra.,
for development. United Nations Development A. (2015). Observation- and numerical-analysis-based
Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and dynamics of the Uttarkashi cloudburst. Ann. Geophys.,
Recovery, New York, 146.
33: 671–686.
[4]. Dilley, M., Chen, R. S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, [19]. Srivastava, D. (2012). Status report on Gangotri
A. L., & Arnold, M. (2005). Natural disaster hotspots: a glacier. Science and Engineering Research Board,
global risk analysis. World Bank Disaster Risk Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi,
Management Series, 5, 1-132.doi: 10.1007/978-3-322- Himalayan Glaciology Technical Report, 3, 21-25.
82113-3_1 [20]. Djordjević, S., Vojinović, Z., Dawson, R., & Savić,
[5]. Adhikari, P., Hong, Y., Douglas, K. R., Kirschbaum, D. A. (2014). Uncertainties in flood modelling in urban
D. B., Gourley, J., Adler, R., & Brakenridge, G. R. areas. In Applied uncertainty analysis for flood risk
(2010). A digitized global flood inventory (1998–2008): management, pp. 297-334.
compilation and preliminary results. Natural [21]. Bhatt, C. M., Rao, G. S., Manjushree, P., &
Hazards, 55(2), 405-422. Bhanumurthy, V. (2010). Space based disaster
[6]. Kumar, R., Singh, R. D., & Sharma, K. D. (2005). management of 2008 Kosi floods, North Bihar,
Water resources in India. Curr Sci. 89, 794-811. India. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote
[7]. Gupta, S., Javed, A., & Datt, D. (2003). Economics Sensing, 38(1), 99-108.
of flood protection in India. In Flood Problem and [22]. Büchele, B., Kreibich, H., Kron, A., Thieken, A.,
Management in South Asia, 28, 199-210. Springer, Ihringer, J., Oberle, P., & Nestmann, F. (2006). Flood-
Dordrecht. risk mapping: contributions towards an enhanced
[8]. Mohapatra, P. K., & Singh, R. D. (2003). Flood assessment of extreme events and associated
management in India. In Flood Problem and risks. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 6(4),
Management in South Asia, 28, 131-143. Springer, 485-503.
Dordrecht. [23]. Zerger, A. (2002). Examining GIS decision utility
[9]. Roy, P. S., Bhanumurthy, V., Murthy, C. S., & for natural hazard risk modelling. Environmental
Chand, T. K. (2008). Space for disaster management: modelling & software, 17(3), 287-294.
lessons and perspectives. J South Asia Disaster [24]. Bathrellos, G. D., Skilodimou, H. D., Chousianitis,
Stud, 1, 157-177. K., Youssef, A. M., & Pradhan, B. (2017). Suitability
[10]. Kumar, M. (2013). A geographical study of floods
estimation for urban development using multi-hazard
and flood management in India (Doctoral dissertation, assessment map. Science of the Total
MPhil dissertation, Department of Geography, Environment, 575, 119-134.
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, India). [25]. Tehrany, M. S., Pradhan, B., & Jebur, M. N.
[11]. Shrestha, A. B., Wake, C. P., Mayewski, P. A., & (2013). Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas
Dibb, J. E. (1999). Maximum temperature trends in the using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel
Himalaya and its vicinity: an analysis based on ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in
temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971– GIS. Journal of Hydrology, 504, 69-79.
94. Journal of climate, 12(9), 2775-2786.
[26]. Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS‐based multicriteria
[12]. Shrestha, A. B., & Devkota, L. P. (2010). Climate
decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International
change in the Eastern Himalayas: observed trends and
journal of geographical information science, 20(7), 703-
model projections. International Centre for Integrated
726.
Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
[27]. Fernández, D. S., & Lutz, M. A. (2010). Urban flood
[13]. Benn, D. I., Bolch, T., Hands, K., Gulley, J.,
hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using
Luckman, A., Nicholson, L. I., & Wiseman, S. (2012).
GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Engineering
Response of debris-covered glaciers in the Mount
Geology, 111(1-4), 90-98.
Everest region to recent warming, and implications for [28]. Samanta, S., & Koloa, C. (2014). Modelling coastal
outburst flood hazards. Earth-Science Reviews, 114(1-
flood hazard using ArcGIS spatial analysis tools and
2), 156-174. satellite image. Int. J. Sci. Res, 3, 961-967.
[14]. Change, C. (2010). India: A 4x4 Assessment—A
[29]. Kuhlicke, C., Scolobig, A., Tapsell, S., Steinführer,
Sectoral and Regional Analysis for 2030 s. Indian
A., & De Marchi, B. (2011). Contextualizing social
Network for Climate Change Assessment, Ministry of
vulnerability: findings from case studies across
Environment and Forests, Government of India.
Europe. Natural Hazards, 58(2), 789-810.
[15]. Sharma, A. (2017). Understanding Sustainable
[30]. Kienberger, S., Lang, S., & Zeil, P. (2009). Spatial
Approach on Eco-Design in Cold Climate – A Case
vulnerability units--expert-based spatial modelling of
Study. International Journal on Emerging Technologies, socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment,
(Special Issue-ICTOAD-2017), 8(1): 1-5. Austria. Natural Hazards & Earth System
[16]. Sharma, S. (2018). A brief Insight in to Impact of
Sciences, 9(3), 767-778.
Temperature rise due to Climate Change on Soil
Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 70
 [31]. Scheuer, S., Haase, D., & Meyer, V. (2011). [40]. Fernández, D.S., & Lutz, M.A. (2006). Urbanflood
Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using
economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Engineering
and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards geology, 111, 1-4.
an end point view of vulnerability. Natural [41]. Mishra, K., & Prasad, P. (2015). Automatic
Hazards, 58(2), 731-751. extraction of water bodies from Lands at imagery using
[32]. Farr, T. G., & Kobrick, M. (2000). Shuttle Radar perceptron model. Journal of Computational
Topography Mission produces a wealth of data. Eos, Environmental Sciences, 1-9.
Transactions American Geophysical Union, 81(48), 583- [42]. Xu, H. (2006). Modification of normalised
585. difference water index (NDWI) to enhance open water
[33]. Rashed, T., & Weeks, J. (2003). Assessing features in remotely sensed imagery. International
vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial journal of remote sensing, 27(14), 3025-3033.
multicriteria analysis of urban areas. International [43]. Norman, L. M., Huth, H., Levick, L., Shea Burns, I.,
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), Phillip Guertin, D., Lara‐Valencia, F., & Semmens, D.
547-576. (2010). Flood hazard awareness and hydrologic
[34]. Gamper, C. D., Thöni, M., & Weck-Hannemann, H. modelling at Ambos Nogales, United States–Mexico
(2006). A conceptual approach to the use of Cost border. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(2), 151-
Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis in natural hazard 165.
management. Natural Hazards and Earth System [44]. Michael, E. A., & Samanta, S. (2016). Landslide
Science, 6(2), 293-302. vulnerability mapping (LVM) using weighted linear
[35]. Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Lukić, D., & Marković, S. combination (WLC) model through remote sensing and
(2016). GIS-Fuzzy DEMATEL MCDA model for the GIS techniques. Modeling Earth Systems and
evaluation of the sites for ecotourism development: A Environment, 2(2), 88-102.
case study of “Dunavski ključ” region, Serbia. Land Use [45]. Kolat, Ç., Doyuran, V., Ayday, C., & Süzen, M. L.
Policy, 58, 348-365. (2006). Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation
[36]. Kia, M. B., Pirasteh, S., Pradhan, B., Mahmud, A. model using Geographical Information Systems based
R., Sulaiman, W. N. A., & Moradi, A. (2012). An artificial on Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Engineering
neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: geology, 87(3-4), 241-255.
Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environmental Earth [46]. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy
Sciences, 67(1), 251-264. Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation.
[37]. Yang, W., Sun, X., Deng, W., Zhang, C., & Liao, Q. Mc Graw-Hill: New York, NY, USA.
(2016). Fourier locally linear soft constrained MACE for [47]. JRDNA August (2013). India, Uttarakhand Disaster
facial landmark localization. CAAI Transactions on June 2013, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-
Intelligence Technology, 1(3), 241-248. documents/47229-001-sd-01.pdf.
[38]. Bathrellos, G. D., Karymbalis, E., Skilodimou, H. [48]. Faisal, A. F., & Faisal, N. A. (2015). Freezing Point
D., Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., & Baltas, E. A. (2016). Prediction of Minimally Processed Food with Different
Urban flood hazard assessment in the basin of Athens Sucrose Content, Biological Forum – An International
Metropolitan city, Greece. Environmental Earth Journal (Special Issue 2015), 7(2), 15-19.
Sciences, 75(4), 319-332. [49]. Upadhyay, K. K., Pandey, A. C., & Manzoor, J.
[39]. Dai, F. C., Lee, C. F., & Zhang, X. H. (2001). GIS- (2017). Impact of Dyes on the Chemistry of Water and
based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land-use its Implications: A Review. Bio-Bulletin, 3(1), 01-07.
planning: a case study. Engineering geology, 61(4),
257-271.

How to cite this article: Gourav, Piyush, Kumar, Rajesh, Gupta, Akhilesh and Arif, Mohammad (2020). Flood
Hazard Zonation of Bhagirathi River basin using Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis in Uttarakhand, India.
International Journal on Emerging Technologies, 11(1): 62–71.

Gourav et al., International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11(1): 62-71(2020) 71

View publication stats