Quantitative Morphometric Analysis and Prioritization of Sub-Watersheds for Soil Erosion Susceptibility: A Comparison between Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and Compound Parameter Analysis Method

Shantha Kumar Dhanush (), M. Mahadeva Murthy and A. Sathish
Additional contact information
Shantha Kumar Dhanush: University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK
M. Mahadeva Murthy: University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK
A. Sathish: University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK

Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), 2024, vol. 38, issue 4, No 21, 1587-1606

Abstract: Abstract The identification of critical sub-watersheds susceptible to soil erosion risk is the preliminary step in any watershed management plan. To achieve this goal, it is crucial to prioritize sub-watersheds based on morphometric characteristics. This study was performed on the Upper Shimsha-1 watershed using a digital elevation model to quantify the morphometric parameters. The stream network was extracted using ArcGIS software, and the watershed was delineated into 16 sub-watersheds (denoted as SW1–SW16). Two approaches, namely, the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and compound parameter analysis, were employed to prioritize sub-watersheds using 18 parameters highly related to soil erodibility. The FAHP score ranged from 0.145 (lowest priority) to 0.795 (highest priority), classifying sub-watersheds into ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ classes occupying 10.76%, 27.23% and 62.01% of the total area, respectively. The compound parameter values ranged from 6.05 (highest priority) to 10.77 (lowest priority), and the ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ classes occupied 31.84%, 16.49% and 51.67% of the total area, respectively. Common sub-watersheds identified as ‘high’ priority by both methods were SW14 and SW15, accounting for 10.76%, whereas under the ‘low’ priority class, SW1, SW8, SW9, SW11, SW12 and SW16 accounted for 42.66% of the total area. Consequently, eight sub-watersheds were found to be common in both prioritization methods corresponding to their respective priority classes. Through this investigation, the integration of GIS technology, morphometry and prioritization methods has proven to be indispensable in watershed management and soil conservation efforts. The findings further emphasize the urgent need for attention from decision-makers toward critical sub-watersheds.

Keywords: Multi-criteria decision-making; FAHP; Soil conservation; Hypsometric analysis; Upper Shimsha-1 watershed (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-024-03741-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:waterr:v:38:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11269-024-03741-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11269

DOI: 10.1007/s11269-024-03741-y

Access Statistics for this article

Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) is currently edited by G. Tsakiris

More articles in Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) from Springer, European Water Resources Association (EWRA)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().