Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7250-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Flash Flood Risk Assessment for Kyushu Island, Japan

Mohammad Shehata1,2 · Hideki Mizunaga1

Received: 31 July 2017 / Accepted: 11 January 2018

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Using advanced geospatial analysis technologies, flash flood risk is assessed for the island of Kyushu, Japan. In this study,
the flash flood risk is redefined in terms of the flash flood potential index (FFPI) and the flash flood residential hazard
(FFRH). The island experiences rainy weather, especially in the summer (June–August), when catastrophic flash flood
events have historically occurred. Studies of the surface hydrological properties of the island are very rare and localized;
hence, geospatial techniques are most appropriate for the assessment process. The Soil Conservation Service rainfall-runoff
model was used to estimate hydrological responses on the island. Four factors were included in the flash flood assessment.
A multi-criteria analysis was carried out to map the FFPI and FFRH from the evaluation factors. The results show that the
highest flash flood risk occurs in the northern parts of the island, where the soil displays relatively low infiltration rates and
relatively high curve numbers, despite the comparatively low precipitation rates that occur there. The results indicate that
soil hydrological properties are the main driving forces of flash floods, especially in regions with low precipitation rates.
The results of this research are consistent with previous in situ measurements of runoff made at several sites on the island.
The results also show a strong geographic correlation with historical flash flood events on the island. This research validates
the use of geospatial analysis for large geographic regions where in situ measurements cannot be taken due to time or cost
constraints. The results of this study provide decision makers with the information needed to select a management strategy
to address possible future flash flood events that considers safety and water harvesting.

Keywords  Flash flood · DEM · Runoff · Risk assessment · Kyushu Island

Introduction floods are considered to be the most widespread, devastat-

Hydrological models usually focus on the physical param-
eters of catchment areas, which is an advantage of such
models, as noted by Ogden et al. (2000). One significant
application of hydrological modeling involves predicting and
monitoring flash floods and their hazards, especially in urban
areas (Wahid et al. 2016).
Flash floods can be defined as floods that begin within
a short period of time and typically display high peak dis-
charges; thus, such floods are usually caused by rainfall
events that have a 1-h duration (Elkhrachy 2015). Flash
* Mohammad Shehata
mohamed_shehata@sci.psu.edu.eg
1
Department of Earth Resources Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819‑0395,
Japan
2
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Port Said
University, Port Said 42522, Egypt
ing and abundant naturally occurring disasters; they result
from the complex interplay among geological, geomorpho-
logical and hydrological conditions (Gashaw and Legesse
2011) and produce drastic socioeconomic and environmental
consequences (Wu and Sidle 1995; Glade 1998). During the
last 3 decades, the number of significant flood events in the
world has increased substantially (Kourgialas and Karatzas
2011).
While it is true that field-based (in situ) measurements
provide accurate estimates of surface hydrological param-
eters and the associated flash floods, these field measure-
ments are time consuming, expensive and provide informa-
tion for limited geographic regions. Thus, through the use of
advances in remote sensing and geographic information sys-
tem (GIS) technologies, the spatial analysis of larger areas
becomes more reasonable, cost effective and time effective,
and adequate accuracy can be achieved.
The number of fields in the environmental and hydrologi-
cal sciences in which remote sensing and GIS technologies

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
76
  Page 2 of 20
are applied has grown considerably; examples include the
mapping of landslides, groundwater resources and flood
susceptibility (Khosravi et al. 2016). Several approaches
have been developed in hydrological studies to model flood
risk and hazards (Jayakrishnan et al. 2005; Bahremand et al.
2007). In hydrological modeling, a GIS can be applied as a
standalone application or as a component of a hydrological
model (Chormanski et al. 2008; Opolot 2013). Examples
of such models include the WetSpa (Wang et al. 1996; De
Smedt et al. 2000), HYDROTEL (Fortin et al. 2001), LIS-
FLOOD (De Roo et al. 2000), TOPMODEL (Quinn et al.
1991) and SWAT (Arnold et al. 1998) models. Most of these
models require data on land cover, land use, river discharge
rate, rainfall amount, surface roughness, elevations (supplied
as a DEM) and drainage basin size, among other quantities.
Remote sensing techniques can be used to obtain the spati-
otemporal information that must be entered into distributed
hydrological models (Chormanski et al. 2008).
Several studies have demonstrated the applicability of
using remotely sensed data coupled with GIS technologies in
hydrological models to simulate and predict floods (Opolot
2013). Such studies include Townsend and Walsh 1998;
De Roo et al. 2000; De Smedt et al. 2002; Usul and Turan
2006; Rahman 2006; Batelaan et al. 2007; Chormanski et al.
2008; Stancalie et al. 2009; Kabir et al. 2011; Santo et al.
2012; Tehrany et al. 2013; Špitalar et al. 2014; Elkhrachy
2015; Portugués-Mollá et al. 2016; and Taha et al. 2017.
The general idea of these studies is that remote sensing and
GIS technologies provide the spatial and temporal data that
distributed hydrological models require in order to simulate
the characteristics of surface hydrology (e.g., watersheds,
slopes, drainage patterns, flow directions and runoff) and
thus floods.
The flash flood risks for a specific geographic area can be
quantified in terms of the flash flood potential index (FFPI)
and the flash flood residential hazard (FFRH). The FFPI
represents the natural tendency of an area to produce flash
floods; this tendency is controlled by ground slope, land use,
soil type and surface hydrological parameters. Floods occur
when the precipitation rate exceeds the infiltration rate of the
soil, which is controlled by surface hydrological and hydro-
morphological parameters On the other hand, the FFRH rep-
resents a measure of the hazard to which residential areas are
subjected during flood events.
Kyushu Island has suffered numerous historical flood-
ing events. These events have resulted in both catastrophic
losses of life and severe damage to the infrastructure of the
island. The North Kyushu flood occurred in the northern
parts of Kyushu (i.e., Fukuoka, Saga, Kumamoto and Ōita
Prefectures) in June 1953. This flood left more than 2000
people dead, injured or missing and a million Japanese
citizens homeless (Chicago Tribune Archives website).
In July 2012, Ōita and Kumamoto prefectures, which lie
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76
in the northeastern and northwestern portions of Kyushu
Island, respectively, experienced a catastrophic flash flood
that claimed more than 32 victims, and more than 400,000
residents were placed under evacuation orders (Duan et al.
2014). Accordingly, a flash flood predictive model is needed
to enable the future management of flash flood risks on
Kyushu Island; this model will enable the adoption of strat-
egies for eliminating the hazards associated with flash floods
and water management.
The main objectives of this paper are to:
1. Produce a FFPI map for Kyushu Island that is based
on the surface hydrological parameters of this area and
displays the tendency of different geographic regions to
experience flash floods.
2. Produce a FFRH map to indicate urban areas that may
be subjected to flash floods.
3. Assess the applicability of geospatial analysis to flash
flood assessment in areas with geo-environmental condi-
tions like those of Kyushu Island.
Study area
Kyushu Island (Fig. 1) is the third largest island in Japan, and
it is located in the southwest of the main island of Honshu.
The island displays rough topography; the highest elevation on
the island reaches 1769 m, and Japan’s most active volcano,
Mt Aso (with an elevation of 1591 m), is located in central
Kyushu. Kyushu has a warmer climate than the main island of
Honshu. Although Kyushu does have some very fertile valleys,
the island contains a number of active rivers with a total length
of 1470 km. The longest such river is the Chikugo-Gawa River,
which has a length of approximately 113 km.
Precipitation records for the period from 2011 to 2015
were acquired from the aerodrome climatological records
provided by the Japan Meteorological Agency. Despite the
rainy conditions experienced by the island, the precipitation
regime on the island tends to be seasonal; higher precipita-
tion rates are recorded in the summer (June–August). The
island receives large amounts of precipitation that range
from 1650 mm/year in the northern parts to 3050 mm/year in
the southern parts. The maximum hourly and daily precipita-
tion rates are 101 mm/h and 252.5 mm/day, respectively. The
average monthly precipitation rate reaches 700 mm/month
during the rainy season, as measured in southern Kyushu,
whereas this quantity does not exceed 400 mm/month in the
northern parts of the island (Fig. 2).
The surface soil distribution on the island includes six soil
types. The soils on the island tend to be permeable to semiper-
meable in the southern parts, whereas the northern parts of the
island have soils with low permeability; thus, high surface run-
off occurs there. The soil distribution map was digitized from
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 3 of 20  76

Fig. 1  Rectified satellite image of Kyushu Island, Japan. Updated from topographic map of the island

a geologic map of the study area with a scale of 1:200,000 that
was obtained from the Geological Survey of Japan.
Data preparation
Land use/land cover (LULC) mapping
A land cover map was obtained from the Global Land
Cover Map (GLCM) provided by the Center for Global
Environmental Research. A land use map was obtained
from the vectorized version of the Global Map of Japan,
version 2.2, which was released in 2016 and is provided by
the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The dif-
ferent LULC classes were digitized to produce a map con-
sisting of polygons (Fig. 3). Some reference points were
selected across the island, and an accuracy assessment was
performed.
Hydrological soil groups (HSGs) mapping
Hydrological soil groups (HSGs) indicate the infiltra-
tion capacity of different soil types. According to USDA
(1986), four HSGs are identified. Type A soils display high
infiltration rates; type B soils display moderate infiltration

13
76
  Page 4 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

(a) (b)
300 3000

250 2500

200 2000

150 1500

100 1000

50 500

0 0
Fukuoka Saga Nagasaki KumamotoKagoshima Miyazaki

Max Daily precipitaon Max 1-hour precipitaon

(c)
800
700
600 Fukuoka
500
Saga
400
300 Nagasaki
200 Kumamoto
100
Miyazaki
0
Jan. Feb. March Kagoshima
April May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Fig. 2  Precipitation records collected from 2011 to 2015 at measuring stations distributed across the island. a The maximum daily and hourly
precipitation amounts (mm), b the annual precipitation amounts (mm) and c the average monthly precipitation amounts

rates; type C soils display slow infiltration rates; and type
D soils display very slow infiltration rates. Table 1 illus-
trates the HSGs that correspond to each soil type in the
study area. The HSG map (Fig. 4) shows the spatial dis-
tribution of HSGs A and C on the island. Soils with lower
infiltration capacities are concentrated in the northern
parts of the island. The majority of the island contains the
higher-infiltration HSG A, which is especially prevalent in
the central and southern parts of the island.
the surrounding high-relief regions, meaning that these
regions are particularly exposed to the threat of flooding.
Table 2 summarizes the datasets used in this research
and the source and provider of each dataset.
Data analysis
Hydro‑morphological and watershed analysis

The DEM of the area was resampled to a resolution of 30 m.

Ground surface slope
A slope map of the island was calculated from the DEM
layer using the Spatial Analyst tools provided in the Arc-
GIS software package developed by ESRI. The area dis-
plays rugged topography, and the slopes on the island
range from nearly horizontal surfaces in the northwestern
parts of the island to nearly vertical (86°) in the central
parts of the island. The flat regions receive water from
The morphological and hydrological parameters were deter-
mined from the resampled DEM. The watersheds and stream
network were identified using the Hydrology tools provided
in the Spatial Analyst tools of the ArcGIS software pack-
age developed by ESRI. The characteristics required for the
present study are flow directions, flow accumulation, catch-
ment areas, drainage lines and drainage points. The resulting
images indicate the drainage pattern on the island and the
catchment areas.

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 5 of 20  76

Fig. 3  Land use/land cover map of the study area

Curve number (CN) and runoff calculation

Table 1  Hydrological soil groups of the study area
Soil types HSG Area ­(km2) The curve number (CN) method is an empirical approach
that estimates the direct runoff from relationships between
Lithosols A 1444.03
land use and the hydrological soil groups (Lim et al. 2006).
Gley soils C 1508.60
Higher CN values indicate lower soil infiltration and higher
Andosols A 9406.35
runoff and vice versa. GIS techniques and the Soil Con-
Brown forest soils A 19,483.30
servation Service–curve number (SCS-CN) method were
Red forest soils C 5953.23
used in combination to estimate the surface runoff. In this
Regosols A 225.566
approach, GIS was used to create a spatial database that

13
76
  Page 6 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Fig. 4  Soil hydro-group distribution map in the study area

Table 2  Datasets used in this Dataset Source Provider

research
DEM Aster DEM mosaics USGS/earth explorer
Precipitation depth records Aerodrome climatological tables Japan Meteorological Agency
Soil map Geologic map of the study area Geological Survey of Japan
Land cover map Global Land Cover Map Center for Global Environmental Research
Land use map Global Map of Japan, version 2.2 Geospatial Information Authority of Japan

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 7 of 20  76
represents the hydrological characteristics of the watershed.
The watershed base map, land use and soil coverages of the
study area were created using GIS. The SCS-CN technique
requires two vector-based datasets that represent the HSGs
and the land use types. For the analysis process, different
land use classes were assigned different CNs. The land use
categories used for hydrological analysis, along with the
corresponding CNs for each land use–soil group combina-
tion (Mockus 1964), were obtained from the United States
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service (USDA-NRCS) (Appendix Table 6). The CN map
was then produced using the HEC-GeoHMS tools in the
ArcGIS software package developed by ESRI.
The surface runoff volume is a function of the CN and cli-
matic conditions. A rainfall database was thus incorporated
into the analysis to estimate the surface runoff volumes. The
United States Department of Agriculture and Soil Conser-
vation Service (USDA-SCS) method for the calculation of
surface runoff volume was applied. This method employs
the following equation:
(P − Ia)2
Q= , (1)
(P − Ia + S)
Here, Q is the accumulated runoff or rainfall excess in
mm; P is the rainfall depth in mm; Ia is the initial abstraction
in mm; and S is the potential maximum retention in mm.
According to the US Soil Conservation Service, Ia is
related to S as follows:
Ia = 0.2S. (2)
The term S is given by
25400
S= − 254, (3)
CN
where CN is the curve number. Equation (1) can be rewrit-
ten as
(P − 0.2S)
Q= . (4)
P + 0.8S
Flash flood assessment
Four raster datasets were prepared for this analysis. Specifi-
cally, these datasets included the slope layer derived from
the DEM, the soil layer, the LULC layer and the CN layer.
All of the datasets were resampled to a resolution of 30 m
using a bilinear method. A relative (ranked) FFPI ranging
from 1 to 10 was assigned to each layer, based on the layer
attributes associated with the hydrological response of each
category (Appendix Table 7). Using the Model Builder in
ArcGIS, a module integrating the four datasets was cre-
ated. The raster datasets were reclassified according to
their assigned ranks, and a weighting overlay technique was
applied according to the weight of each factor. The result-
ing grid represents the FFPI of the study area. To assess for
the flash flood hazard within the urban areas, the FFPI layer
was intersected with the land cover map of the study area.
Three levels of hazard were identified; the low-level FFRH
(indexed as 1) represents urban areas with FFPI values less
than 3; the moderate FFRH (indexed as 5) represents urban
areas with FFPI values ranging from 3 to 6; and the high-
level FFRH (indexed as 10) represents urban areas with FFPI
values that exceed 6.
Results and discussion
Land use/land cover (LULC) and soil mapping
The LULC on the island is represented by seven classes. Of
these classes, woodlands occupy the largest area, whereas
areas of bare soil have the smallest coverage. Urban areas
(i.e., built-up areas) are concentrated in the northeastern and
northwestern parts of the island; limited urban areas also
exist along the eastern coast of the island.
The HSGs were divided into two categories, type A and
type C soils. Type A soils dominate, and type C soils cover
the northern parts of the island and (to a lesser extent) the
eastern coast.
An accuracy assessment was performed for the LULC
classes and the soil-type classes. Table 3 shows the error
matrix of the LULC classes; the overall accuracy is 92.23%.
All of the measures of the producer’s and user’s accuracy
exceed 70%. The results of the accuracy assessment analysis
for the soil-type groups are presented in Table 4. The overall
accuracy of the soil-type classes is 84.44, and the producer’s
and user’s accuracies exceed 70%.
Watershed analysis
By defining the flow directions and flow accumulation, the
catchment boundaries (hydrological basins) and the stream
network in the study area were mapped. The total length of
streams is 5447 km, of which the longest is the Chikugo
River, which has a length of approximately 130 km. The area
is characterized by a dendritic drainage pattern. Twenty-
eight basins and more than 300 sub-basins were identified;
these basins and sub-basins have surface areas that range
from less than 1–2700 km2. Nine of the basins have aerial
extents that exceed 1000 km2. It is obvious that the larger
basins are associated with the river system on the island.
Curve numbers (CNs) and surface runoff
The CN values of watersheds are dependent on the surface
characteristics of the LULC and the physical properties of
13
76
  Page 8 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Table 3  Accuracy assessment analysis of the LULC classes

LULC class Reference points
Water Roads Urban (built up) Woodland Bare soil Grassland Agriculture Total User’s accuracy

Water 25 – – – – – – 25 100.0
Roads – 97 – – 2 – – 99 98.0
Urban (built up) – 3 118 – – – – 121 97.5
Woodland – – – 81 – 3 8 92 88.0
Bare soil – 3 2 – 21 – – 26 80.8
Grassland – – – 5 – 22 4 31 71.0
Agriculture – – – 3 1 2 63 69 91.3
Total 25 103 120 89 24 27 75 463
Producer’s accuracy 100.0 94.2 98.3 91.0 87.5 81.5 84.0

Table 4  Accuracy assessment of soil types

Soil types Reference points
Lithosols Gley soils Andosols Brown for- Red forest soils Regosols Total User’s accuracy
est soils

Lithosols 15 1 1 17 88.2
Gley soils 9 1 10 90.0
Andosols 2 12 14 85.7
Brown forest soil 1 18 2 21 85.7
Red forest soil 3 13 16 81.3
Regosols 2 1 9 12 75.0
Total 17 12 14 21 16 10 90
Producer’s accuracy 88.2 75.0 85.7 85.7 81.3 90.0

soils, which control hydrological processes that include the
transmission and storage of received water. The CN map
(Fig. 5) shows values that range from 30 to 100. The map
reveals that most of the study area displays relatively low CN
values (less than 70), whereas high CN values are mainly
concentrated in the northeastern part of Kyushu Island,
where type C soils are found.
The calculated runoff volumes (Fig. 6) show that the
southern parts of the island display higher runoff vol-
umes than the northern parts. These higher runoff volumes
result from climatic conditions, particularly precipitation
amounts, which are higher in the southern parts of the
island. To assess the resulting runoff volumes, the results of
this research were compared with the reported runoff vol-
umes for Kyushu Island. Table 5 shows the assessed runoff
volumes for the northern and southern portions of Kyushu
Island obtained in this study and from the literature. The
data from the literature consist of in situ measurements. It
is obvious that the results of this research show a strong cor-
relation with the previously measured data. The locations of
the comparison points were selected to be geographically
matched (i.e., in the same locations).
Flash flood risk maps
The purpose of creating this flash flood index is to analyze
the physiographic characteristics (slope, soil texture and
structure, LULC and CN) together to derive information
about the hydrological responses of different geographic
regions that produce flash floods. Two maps were generated
that represent the flood potential and flood hazard for urban
areas. The FFPI map (Fig. 7) was indexed using a range of
values extending from 1 to 10. The spatial distribution of
the index agrees relatively well with the slope distribution
in the study area. The highest FFPI values are concentrated
mainly in the northern parts of Kyushu Island and along
the coastal strip; the interior parts of the island exhibit low
flood potential. Despite their elevated runoff volumes, the
southern parts of the island show relatively low FFPI values.
The FFRH map (Fig. 8) was produced to enable assess-
ment of the hazards that urban areas are subjected to when
flash floods occur. The map shows values that range from
1 to 10. It is obvious that the coastal areas in the north-
ern and northwestern parts experience the greatest risk;
small areas on the eastern coast display similar conditions.
The regions of high risk depicted in Fig. 15 are strongly

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 9 of 20  76
Fig. 5  Curve number distribution in the study area
geographically correlated with the historical flash flood
events reported from the northern parts of the island. This
correlation validates the results of this study and dem-
onstrates the applicability of geospatial analysis for flash
flood prediction over geographically extensive areas.
Conclusions
The topography of the island of Kyushu is quite rough;
thus, the drainage pattern of the island is complex. Most
regions on the island contain relatively high slopes. In
conjunction with the high precipitation rates, these slopes
pose a danger to the residents of this highly important
island. The research findings can be summarized as
follows:
13
76
  Page 10 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Fig. 6  Average annual runoff amounts in mm year−1

Table 5  Annual water balance Kyushu

of Kyushu Island
Northern part Southern part
This study Duong et al. This study Shimizu et al. (2008)
(2015) and Asano et al.
(2011)

Annual rainfall (P) mm 1700 1761 3050 2997

Annual runoff (Q) mm 1060 1074 1750 1700
Annual loss (P–Q) mm 640 687 1300 1297
Runoff ratio (Q/P) % 62.35 60.9 57.3 56.7

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 11 of 20  76
Fig. 7  Flash flood potentiality index map of the study area
• The majority of the area is characterized by high infil-
tration rates (HSG A); however, limited regions in the
northern part of the island have low infiltration rates
(HSG C).
• The majority of the island displays low to moderate flash
flood potential. Elevated FFPI values are concentrated in
the coastal regions, especially along the northern part of
the island.
• The urban areas in the northern parts of the island
experience a high degree of flood risk, which is con-
firmed by past flooding in these areas. On the other
hand, the rest of the island is considered to be safe from
floods.
• The correlation between the results of this study and
previous in situ measurements confirm the applicabil-
ity of geospatial analysis in the accurate assessment
of hydrological parameters and flash flood hazards as
well. Such methods enable the monitoring of large
areas at reduced costs in terms of money and time.
13
76
  Page 12 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Fig. 8  Flash flood hazard index map of the study area

The results of this study provide decision makers and Appendix 1

urban planners with the information needed to select a
mitigation strategy to eliminate the hazards associated See Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
with flash floods and for harvesting the floodwaters.

Acknowledgements  This work was performed using funding provided

by the Cultural Affairs and Missions Sector, Ministry of Higher Educa-
tion, Egypt.

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 13 of 20  76

Fig. 9  Digital elevation model of the study

13
76
  Page 14 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Fig. 10  Average annual precipitation depth (mm) in the study area from 2011 to 2015

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 15 of 20  76

Fig. 11  Soil types distribution map of the study area

13
76
  Page 16 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Fig. 12  Ground surface slope map (in degrees) of the study area

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 17 of 20  76

Fig. 13  Simplified flow chart for watershed analysis in ESRI ArcGIS

Fig. 14  Module of calculating flash flood potential index (FFPI) for the study area

13
76
  Page 18 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76

Fig. 15  Hydrological pattern of the study area

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76 Page 19 of 20  76

Appendix 2 References

See Tables 6 and 7. Arnold JG, Srinivasan S, Muttaih RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area
hydrologic modeling and assessment. Part 1: model develop-
ment. J Am Water Res Assoc 34:73–87
Table 6  Land use categories and the associated CN values Asano S, Shimizu A, Kabeya N, Hagino H, Tamai K (2011) Statistical
report of hydrological observations at the Sarukawa experimental
Land use CN value corresponding to each hydrologi- watershed (January, 2001–December, 2005). Bull For For Prod
cal soil group Res Inst 407:49–71
A B C D Bahremand A, De Smedt F, Corluy J, Liu Y, Poorova J, Velcicka
L, Kunikova E (2007) WetSpa model application for assessing
Water 100 100 100 100 reforestation impacts on floods in Margecany–Hornad Water-
shed, Slovakia. Water Resour Manag 21(8):1373–1391
Roads 98 98 98 98
Batelaan O, Chormanski J, Canters F, Van de Voorde T (2007)
Urban (built up) 57 75 81 86 Improved distributed runoff modelling of urbanised catchments
Woodland 30 58 71 78 by integration of multi-resolution remote sensing. In: Proceed-
Bare soil 68 79 86 89 ing of the geoscience and remote sensing symposium, IGARSS
2007, IEEE 23–28 July 2007, pp 5021–5024
Grassland 68 79 86 89
Chormanski J, Van de Voorde T, Deroeck T, Batelaan O, Canters
Agriculture 67 77 83 89 F (2008) Improving distributed runoff prediction in urbanized
catchments with remote sensing based estimates of impervious
surface cover. Sensors 8:910–932
De Roo APJ, Wesseling CG, Van Deursen WPA (2000) Physically
Table 7  The weighted contribution from each layer in the FFPI based river basin modeling within a GIS: the LISFLOOD model.
model and the ranks of each layer category Hydrol Process 14:1981–1992
De Smedt F, Liu YB, Gebremeskel S (2000) Hydrologic modeling on
Layer Weight Category Rank
a catchment scale using GIS and remote sensed land use informa-
Slope 40 < 10° 1 tion. In: Brebbia CA (ed) Risk analysis II. WTI Press, Southamp-
ton, pp 295–304
10°–25° 3 De Smedt F, Liu YB, Qiao Y (2002) Prediction of floods with the Wet-
25°–35° 5 Spa model. Ann Wars Agric Univ SGGW Land Reclam 33:71–80
35°–55° 8 Duan W, He B, Takara K, Luo P, Nover D, Yamashiki Y, Huang W
> 55° 10 (2014) Anomalous atmospheric events leading to Kyushu’s flash
floods, July 11–14, 2012. Nat Hazards 73:1255–1267
Soil 20 A 1 Duong DT, Tachikawa Y, Yorozu K (2015) Application of a land sur-
C 7 face model for bias correction of runoff generation data from MRI-
LULC 20 Woodland 5 AGCM3. 2S Dataset. In: Thai Hydrologist Association (THA)
Bare soil 3 2015 international conference on climate change and water and
environment management in Monsoon Asia, Bangkok, Thailand
Built up 9 Elkhrachy I (2015) Flash flood hazard mapping using satellite images
Agriculture 7 and GIS tools: a case study of Najran City, Kingdom of Saudi
Grassland 7 Arabia (KSA). Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci 18(2):261–278
Water 4 Fortin JP, Turcotte R, Massicotte S, Moussa R, Fritzback J, Ville-
neuve JP (2001) Distributed watershed model compatible with
Roads 9
remote sensing and GIS data, I: description of model. J Hydrol
CN runoff 20 30–40 3 Eng 6:91–99
40–50 5 Gashaw W, Legesse D (2011). Flood hazard and risk assessment
50–60 6 using GIS and remote sensing in Fogera Woreda, Northwest
Ethiopia. In: Nile River Basin, Springer, Netherlands, pp
60–70 7
179–206
70–80 8 Glade T (1998) Establishing the frequency and magnitude of land-
80–90 9 slide-triggering rainstorm events in New Zealand. Environ Geol
90–100 10 35:160–174
Jayakrishnan R, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Arnold JG (2005) Advances in
the application of the SWAT model for water resources manage-
ment. Hydrol Process 19:749–762

13
76
  Page 20 of 20
Kabir A, Mahdavi M, Bahremand A, Noora N (2011) Application
of a geographical information system (GIS) based hydrological
model for flow prediction in Gorganrood river basin, Iran. Afr
J Agric Res 6:35–45
Khosravi K, Pourghasemi HR, Chapi K, Bahri M (2016) Flash flood
susceptibility analysis and its mapping using different bivari-
ate models in Iran: a comparison between Shannon’s entropy,
statistical index, and weighting factor models. Environ Monit
Assess 188(12):656
Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2011) Flood management and a GIS
modelling method to assess flood-hazard areas—a case study.
Hydrol Sci J 56(2):212–225
Lim KJ, Engel BA, Muthukrishnan S, Harbor J (2006) Effects of initial
abstraction and urbanization on estimated runoff using CN tech-
nology. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42(3):629–643
Mockus V (1964) Hydrologic soil-cover complexes. In: National engi-
neering handbook, part 630 hydrology. United States Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Ogden FL, Sharif HO, Senarath SUS, Smith JA, Baeck ML, Richard-
son JR (2000) Hydrologic analysis of the Fort Collins, Colorado,
flash flood of 1997. J Hydrol 228:82–100
Opolot E (2013) Application of remote sensing and geographical infor-
mation systems in flood management: a review. Res J Appl Sci
Eng Technol 6(10):1884–1894
Portugués-Mollá I, Bonache-Felici X, Mateu-Bellés JF, Marco-Segura
JB (2016) A GIS-based model for the analysis of an urban flash
flood and its hydro-geomorphic response. The Valencia event of
1957. J Hydrol 541:582–596
Quinn P, Beven K, Chevallier P, Planchon O (1991) The prediction of
hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological modeling using
digital terrain models. Hydrol Process 5:59–79
Rahman MZBA (2006) Digital surface model (DSM) construction and
flood hazard simulation for development plans in Naga City, Phil-
ippines. GIS Dev Malays 1(3):15–20
Santo A, Di Crescenzo G, Del Prete S, Di Iorio L (2012) The Ischia
island flash flood of November 2009 (Italy): phenomenon analysis
and flood hazard. Phys Chem Earth 49:3–17
13
View publication stats
Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) 77:76
Shimizu A, Miyabuchi Y, Shimizu T, Ogawa Y, Daimaru H, Sato T,
Takeshita M (2008) Statistical report of hydrological observations
at the Sarukawa experimental watershed (January 1987–Decem-
ber 2000). Bull For For Prod Res Inst 406:13–65
Špitalar M, Gourley JJ, Lutoff C, Kirstetter PE, Brilly M, Carr N (2014)
Analysis of flash flood parameters and human impacts in the US
from 2006 to 2012. J Hydrol 519:863–870
Stancalie G, Craciunescu V, Irimescu A (2009) Spatial data integra-
tion for emergency services of flood management. In: Jones JAA,
Vardanian TG, Hakopian C (eds) Threats to global water security.
NATO science for peace and security series C: environmental
security. Springer, Dordrecht
Taha MM, Elbarbary SM, Naguib DM, El-Shamy IZ (2017) Flash flood
hazard zonation based on basin morphometry using remote sens-
ing and GIS techniques: a case study of Wadi Qena basin, Eastern
Desert, Egypt. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 8:157–167
Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2013) Spatial prediction of flood
susceptible areas using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel
ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS. J
Hydrol 504:69–79
Townsend PA, Walsh SJ (1998) Modeling floodplain inundation using
an integrated GIS with radar and optical remote sensing. Geomor-
phology 21:295–312
Usul N, Turan B (2006) Flood forecasting and analysis within the Ulus
Basin, Turkey, using geographic information systems. Nat Haz-
ards 39:213–229
Wahid A, Madden M, Khalaf F, Fathy I (2016) Geospatial analysis
for the determination of hydro-morphological characteristics and
assessment of flash flood potentiality in arid coastal plains: a case
in southwestern Sinai, Egypt. Earth Sci Res J 20(1):E1–E9
Wang Z, Batelaan O, De Smedt F (1996) A distributed model for water
and energy transfer between soil, plants and atmosphere (WetSpa).
Phys Chem Earth 21:189–193
Wu W, Sidle RC (1995) A distributed slope stability model for steep
forested basins. Water Resour Res 31:2097–2110