Pol. J. Environ. Stud. Vol. 21, No.

6 (2012), 1817-1824

Original Research
Flood Risk Assessment Using GIS
(Case Study: Golestan Province, Iran)

Mahsa Safaripour1*, Masoud Monavari1, Mehdi Zare2,

Zahra Abedi1, Alireza Gharagozlou3
1
Department of Environment, Graduate School of Environment and Energy, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, P.O.Box: 14155/4933, Tehran, Iran
2
Engineering Seismology, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IEES), Tehran, Iran
3
Geomatics College of National Cartographic Center of Iran, P.O.Box: 13185-1684, Tehran, Iran

Received: 12 October 2011

Accepted: 24 July 2012

Abstract

In recent years humans have endured increasing numbers of natural disasters, of which flooding is the
greatest and most common throughout the world. Iran is also exposed to floods, considering the severe dam-
age recently incurred in Golestan province, particularly Gorganroud watershed. Due to the importance of the
subject and lack of comprehensive studies on flood risk in the country's watersheds, it is crucial to perform
flood risk assessment using appropriate tools, such as Landsat ETM+ imaging and digital elevation model data
collections in geographic information system throughout the region. For this purpose, database maps of 6 sub-
watersheds in Gorganroud watershed were prepared in 5 layers affecting flooding in the region. By overlay-
ing and weighing three layers in GIS software, a layer of flood hazard intensity was obtained. Next, by means
of obtained numbers and scoring, the overuse layer priorities were determined. Then, these two flooding lay-
ers were overlaid with the help of a two-dimensional matrix, and the final map of flood risk was obtained.
Finally, it was found that Chelichay and Sarab Gorganroud, making up to 24.59% of the Gorganroud water-
shed, are the most risky sub-watersheds. In light of the fact that the data pertaining to Gorganroud watershed
have never been entirely used to sort out the risk priorities in the region, the new method presented in this paper
can lead to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding about what is really taking place in it.

Keywords: flood risk, two-dimensional matrix, Gorganroud Watershed, geographic information system

Introduction in northern and northeastern Iran, which was afflicted by a

powerful flood in August 2001 that killed 210 people and
During the past 20 years, worldwide natural disasters cost $31 million in damage. During 2002-11, there were
have resulted in the death of at least 3 million people, while also dangerous and smaller floods at the same places,
also adversely affecting nearly 800 million people [1]. It which led to a loss of $65 million and the deaths of 28 peo-
has been determined that 30 out of 40 natural disasters ple [4].
occur in Iran, where flooding has been highlighted as the “Flood risk” can bear different definitions as it refers to
most damaging one [2]. Additionally, Iran, as a country natural disasters, depending on their adverse impacts on
with a high rate of natural disasters, has suffered from the humans, lives, and the economy. However, flood risk can
loss of over $ 3.7 billion [3]. Flooding is dangerous, par- be discussed in terms of two elements: hazard and vulnera-
ticularly along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea and bility [5]. From the flood risk management point of view,
flood risk mapping is a crucial factor. Flood mapping is lim-
*e-mail: [email protected] ited to flood-prone hazard mapping [6]. Previously, some
1818 Safaripour M., et al.

flood-related studies for determining the hazard and risk of the following context). After collecting the data, the flood-
flood have investigated a history of flood frequencies. For plain layer was created using satellite images and a pseudo
instance, Lawrence [7] tested the ecological risk along with 3D radar model in the area. Then, through positioning, the
natural hazards, and studied 30 main specifications about situation of vulnerable villages and cities to flooding
risk to determine the one correlated with ecological risk. including 14 towns and 1,000 villages, was determined. In
Jiqun [8], using geographic information system (GIS), glob- preparing the flood-prone hazard layer, many factors can be
al positioning system (GPS), and other technologies in employed to determine the rate of flood hazards that are
China prepared a combined system for monitoring and eval- individually or collectively influential. However, in general
uating a flood. Sinnakaude [9] discussed making a flood this paper deals with five factors, including the number of
map in Pari River using Arcview software in the field of flood occurrences, life losses, financial losses, the popula-
AVHEC-6 extension. Yalcin [10] provided multi criteria tions vulnerable to flooding and density of residential cen-
evaluation methods for analyzing the regions vulnerable to ters for determining the flood hazard. Flood damages are
floods using ArcGIS software. Pistrika and Sakiris [11] the best indicators for flood hazard [19]. Due to their dif-
introduced a three-stage method for determining and evalu- ferent effects on all of the mentioned factors, the proper
ating the flood risk and vulnerability of flood-prone regions. scores were obtained based on the experts’ views and con-
Hansson [12] provided multi-criteria analysis for designing ditions of the watershed. Afterward, the rate of flood hazard
the strategic assessment of flood damage using computer- was determined according to the sum of scores. Similarly,
ized models. In Iran, Rowshan [13] studied the climate and considering the score of each factor and the quantitative
water analysis in endangered watersheds using runoff mod- values of flood hazard, classification indices were deter-
eling. Khodaei [14] developed a model for flood warning mined and flood classification was performed. According
systems and predicting flood occurrence in Golestan to the range of the total scores of above indices, the flood-
province. Saadat [15] also proposed a new classification in prone hazard layers were grouped in 7 categories. Upon
Golestan dam about changes in the geomorphology leading such criteria, the quantitative values for flood hazards were
to flooding in Iran. However, no studies have yet investigat- obtained, where extreme flood conditions indicated the
ed flood risk in the Gorganroud watershed using 5 signifi- flood hazard, and in normal conditions it was not necessary
cant factors: floodplain area, flood prone hazard, flood prone to conduct a flood control plan. Specific peak discharge
intensity, flood intensity and hazard, and overuse lands. intensity of hydrometric stations was used to determine
Therefore, it is necessary to prioritize the potential vulnera- flood intensity, so that first of all the stations were prepared
bility and hazard of regions to flooding [16]. Also, detailed for maximum specific discharge for a return period of 50
flood risk mapping is necessary to reduce the hazards of years as a flood-prone index. For comparing the sub-water-
flooding. Accordingly, GIS was applied as a tool for flood sheds, the specific discharge values of hydrometric stations
risk mapping. For this reason, the first step included collec- throughout the country, extracted from reasonable statistics,
tion of the geo data base, digitizing, and integration of col- were studied and grouped into 9 classes based on data quan-
lected data into the GIS based on previous studies and tal method.
methodologies. Then, Landsat-7 ETM+satellite images and As for making a layer for flood hazard and intensity of
SRTM (2000) as an accessible database were applied [17]. the watershed, the sub-watersheds were studied based on
The present study provides a new risk map model composed basic information, flood hazard and flood intensity, and by
of five main factors affecting the flood in Golestan in the studying the number and frequency of flood events in
form of five layers in GIS environment. Gorganroud watershed. Flood events during 1951-2008
[20] were recorded based to the collected data, and a map
Study Area of flood prone intensity was prepared. Overuse layer was
obtained using slope information, land use and suscepti-
Golestan province in the north of Iran has a long histo- bility to erosion in the GIS environment. This layer is of
ry of severe damage from and many people dying in floods high importance since people, by overusing the land
[16]. Gorganroud watershed of Golestan province is con- capacities, can result in flood occurrence, erosion, sedi-
sidered one of the largest watersheds located in northeast- mentation, and landslides. Therefore, after overlapping 3
ern Iran and southeastern of the Caspian Sea. This region, effective layers, including floodplain area, flood prone
with an area of 14,049 km2, is surrounded by many rivers, hazard, and flood prone intensity, 1 layer of prioritization
including the Gorganroud, Gharesou, Zav, Gharechay, and in the layer of flood hazard and intensity in sub-water-
Mohammadabad. This watershed is located in southeastern sheds was obtained. Then, by providing an overuse layer
of the Caspian Sea between longitudes 54º 2' and 56º 16' E and overlapping the layer of flood hazard and intensity
and latitudes 36º 34' and 37º 47' N [18]. with overuse layer and combining these 2 layers using a
2D matrix, the final layer of flood risk was obtained in 6
sub-watersheds of Gorganroud, with 3 final priority set-
Methodology ting for flood control as the first priority indicated by W1,
the second priority by W2, and the third priority by W3, so
According to the previous findings and field studies, that one can easily attain the flood risk map in the sub-
five layers have been made (as explained in details through watersheds (Fig. 1).
Flood Risk Assessment Using GIS... 1819

Results Table 1. Flood Plain area in Gorganroud sub-watersheds [20].

Sub-Watershed Flood Plain Area (Hectare)
Floodplain
Gharesou 39.49
Identification of the floodplain reveals that middle Payab Gorganroud 85.22
Gorganroud sub-watershed with an area of 107.76 km2
Middle Gorganroud 107.76
makes up most of the floodplain area and Chelichay,
including an area of 19.5 km2 covering the smallest portions Chelli Chay 19.5
of the floodplain area (Table 1, Fig. 2) [20]. Doogh 25.86

Flood Prone Hazard Sarab Gorganroud 56.36

The majority of villages fall in the territory of middle

Gorganroud (23 villages and 1 town), while the minority
of them fall in the territory of Gharesou (4 villages). being 11,971 ha, can be spotted in Gharesou and Payab
Moreover, a maximum population of about 420,525 has sub-watersheds within the Gorganroud watershed (Tables
been reported in Gharesou sub-watershed, while Sarab 2, 3, and 4, Fig. 3).
Gorganroud includes a minimum population of about
62,498. However, a minimum population of 3,532 vulner- Flood Prone Intensity
able to floods resides in Doogh sub-watershed, while the
maximum population vulnerable to floods is residing in According to the obtained results in the GIS environ-
Middle Gorganroud about 34,597. Maximum damage has ment and the following Tables (Tables 5 and 6) (Fig. 4), it
been inflicted on middle Gorganroud, Chelichay, Doogh, can be concluded that the flood prone intensity is related to
and Sarab sub-watersheds, while minimum damage has Chelichay sub-watershed with an area of 97,809 ha in the
been recorded in Payab Gorganroud. The minimum num- low class and also to the remaining sub-watersheds in very
ber of flood occurrences belongs to Gharesou and Middle low class with an area of 1,210,675 ha.
Gorganroud sub-watersheds. As shown in the flood-prone
hazard map, extreme class, being 13,362 ha, can be found Flood Hazard and Intensity
in Middle Gorganroud and Chelichay, hard class being
9,700 ha, can be witnessed in Doogh, moderate class, According to the statistics obtained for Gorganroud
being 14,856 ha, can be seen in Sarab, and low class, watershed and regarding the classification of flood intensi-


SRTM  ETM+Data GeologyMap SRTM ETM+Data Hydrology
Data
DEM  DEM

LandUse Susceptibilityto
SlopeMap Hill shade
Map  Erosion Drainage  Hillshade Cities& Flood
Villages Intensity
LandType
 Map
 FloodPlainMap

 GIS
 FloodDamage
 GIS

OverUse&LandUseMap
FloodHazard Intensity Map
LandUseprioritysettingmap
FloodHazard Intensity PrioritySettingMap
2DMatrix

FinalFloodRiskMap
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the methodology.
1820 Safaripour M., et al.

Table 2. Range of scores to the different factors of flood hazard. Overuse Lands
Flood Hazard Factors Score
Much of the overused lands belong to Sarab and
Flood occurency 10 Chelichay, having an area of 53,601 ha (class I); the aver-
Human Losses 40 age amount is possessed by Middle Gorganroud and
Doogh, with an area of 22,318 ha (class II); and the least is
Loss of Flood 25
located in Gharesou and Payab sub-watersheds, with an
Population 15 area of 25,629 ha (class III). The classification criterion has
been indicated in Table 8. Moreover, Fig. 6 shows the pri-
Residential Density 10
orities of overused lands layer obtained based in their area.
Total Scores 100

Discussion
ty and flood hazard, it was determined that areas of about Following this stage, the flood hazard and intensity layer
342,000 and 447,000 ha are exposed to moderate hazard. was overlapped with the overuse layer using 2D matrix.
According to the information collected over the past 56 Consequently, the final layer was obtained and the final flood
years, Chelichay and Doogh sub-watersheds in this area risk map for 6 sub-watersheds was determined (Table 9). The
are exposed to high flood hazard and can be classified in results indicated that Chelichay and Sarab Gorganroud sub-
the first class, while Middle Gorganroud and Sarab watersheds are the most risky sub-watersheds in terms of
Gorganroud sub-watersheds are in the second class, and floods, as in Chelichay sub-watershed both flood hazard and
Payab Gorganroud and Gharesou sub-watersheds fall in intensity and overuse necessitate assigning the first priority
the third class of flood hazard and intensity (Table 7, Fig. on flood control. Comparatively, Sarab Gorganroud sub-
5). watershed is in the second class based on flood hazard and

Cities
Villages
Flood Plain

Fig. 2. Flood Plain map in Gorganroud sub-watersheds [20].

Area (Hectare)

Extreme
Hard
Semi Hard
Moderate
Nearly Low
Low
Normal

Fig. 3. Flood Hazard map in Gorganroud sub-watersheds.

Flood Risk Assessment Using GIS... 1821

Table 3. Flood hazard scores classification. The results also indicate that Chelichay and Sarab sub-
Class of Flood Priority of Flood watersheds are exposed to high levels of flood risk cover-
Range of Scores ing about 7.48% and 17.11% of the Gorganroud watershed
Hazard Hazard
area, respectively, and should be considered as top priorities
Normal 10> N
in flood harnessing. Approximately 18.64% and 17.03% of
Nearly Low 10-25 VI the total watershed in Dough and Middle Gorganroud sub-
Low 25-40 V watersheds have moderate flood risk. Finally, 26.35% and
13.36% of the watershed in Payab and Gharesou sub-water-
Moderate 40-55 IV sheds have low flood risk (Fig. 7).
Semi Hard 55-70 III
Hard 70-85 II Conclusions
Extreme 85< I
Having an overall look at Gorganroud watershed, one
can mention the necessity for the protection of forests,
conducting watershed projects and reviving the vegetation
intensity and in the first class based on overused lands. Sub- with respect to the density of vegetation and animals, pre-
watersheds of Middle Gorganroud and Doogh are in the sec- venting changes to land usage and sloppy lands from for-
ond class and Gharesou and Payab is in the third class for est to the agricultural lands, preventing erection of roads
flood control, and the highest vulnerability to these sub- and highways, strategic environmental assessments, and
watersheds is due to flood hazard and intensity. environmental impact assessment. The purpose of this

Table 4. Flood hazard classification based on scores range in Gorganroud watershed.

Human Economic Flood Flood Total Class of
Sub-Watershed Population
Losses Losses Density Occurrence Scores Hazard
Gharesou 4 17.5 3.75 1 10 35.26 Low
Payab Gorganroud 4 13.75 6 5.5 8.5 37.75 Low
Middle Gorganroud 40 25 6 7 10 88 Extreme
Chelli Chay 40 25 12.75 2.5 5.5 85.75 Extreme
Doogh 40 25 3.75 2.5 5.5 76.75 Hard
Sarab Gorganroud 4 25 6 4 7 46 Moderate

Area (Hectare)

0.401-0.55
0.551-0.70
0.701-1
>1
m3/s/Km2
0-0.88 Petty
0.088-0.16 Very Low
0.161-0.24 Low
0.241-0.32 Nearly Low
0.321-0.40 Moderate
Fig. 4. Flood intensity map in Gorganroud sub-watersheds.
1822 Safaripour M., et al.

Table 5. Index classification of flood Intensity. Table 6. Flood intensity classification in Gorganroud sub-
watersheds.
Flood Intensity Flood Control Variety Range of Flood
Classification Priority Intensity (m3/s/km2) Sub-Watershed Specific Peak Discharge Flood Intensity
Minimal N 0-0.0880 Gharesou 0.143 Very Low
Very Low VIII 0.0880-0.16 Payab Gorganroud 0.113 Very Low
Low VII 0.161-0.24 Middle Gorganroud 0.128 Very Low
Nearly Low VI 0.241-0.32 Chelli Chay 0.236 Low
Moderate V 0.321-0.40 Doogh 0.118 Very Low
Nearly Heavy IV 0.401-0.55 Sarab Gorganroud 0.105 Very Low
Heavy III 0.551-0.70
Extreme II 0.701-1
Critical I >1 this research, however, six sub-watersheds of
Gorganroud were more completely investigated by tak-
ing into account the overuse layer and flood hazard inten-
sity as important factors in the flood risk of the region,
study is to determine the sub-watersheds of Gorganroud which in turn can be an effective step toward determining
watershed exposed to high flood risk using the ArcGIS the risk factors of the watershed as well as ascertaining
software. As far as the literature search reveals, most of the high risk sub-watersheds to help prevent and harness
the flood risk studies are based on flood plain, flood their destructive flooding and impede the annual prob-
prone hazard, and the probability of flood occurrence. In lems of similar watersheds. In future studies, it would be

Flood Hazard Flood Intensity

Extreme Low
Hard Very Low
Moderate
Low

Fig. 5. Flood hazard and Intensity map in Gorganroud sub-watersheds.

Area (Hectare)

Extreme
Hard
Semi Hard

Fig. 6. Map of overuse Land in Gorganroud sub-watersheds.

Flood Risk Assessment Using GIS... 1823

Table 7. Priority setting of flood hazard and intensity in Gorganroud sub-watersheds (3 class).
Priority of Flood Priority of Flood Priority of Flood
Sub-Watershed Flood Hazard Flood Intensity
Hazard Intensity Hazard Intensity
Gharesou Low Very Low III III 3
Payab Gorganroud Low Very Low III III 3
Middle Gorganroud Extreme Very Low I III 2
Chelli Chay Extreme Low I II 1
Doogh Hard Very Low I III 2
Sarab Gorganroud Moderate Very Low II III 2

Table 8. Overuse lands area in Gorganroud sub-watersheds. Table 9. Flood risk priority setting in Gorganroud watersheds.
Sub-Watershed Area (Hectare) Over Use Priority Priority of Final
Over Use
Sub-Watershed Flood Hazard Priority
Gharesou 6,496 3 Priority
Intensity setting
Payab Gorganroud 19,133 3 Gharesou 3 3 3
Middle Gorganroud 11,588 2 Payab Gorganroud 3 3 3
Chelli Chay 28,089 1 Middle Gorganroud 2 2 2

Doogh 10,730 2 Chelli Chay 1 1 1

Sarab Gorganroud 25,512 1 Doogh 2 2 2

Sarab Gorganroud 2 1 1

better to take other flood-related factors (such as envi-

ronmental ones) into account in order achieve a more
References
comprehensive risk system. Furthermore, various organi-
1. HOSSEINI B., MEHDIYAR L. Applied strategic planning
zations involved in flooding issues can be identified, and
in crisis management, Aid and save learning and reduction
their roles in preventing flooding in the region can be of disaster impacts, international conference of crisis man-
determined. agement, 2006.

OVERUSE PRIORITY SETTING

FLOOD HAZARD & INTENSITY
MAP
PRIORITY SETTING MAP

W1

W2
FINAL PRIORITY SETTING MAP
W3
(FLOOD RISK MAP)

Fig. 7. Final Flood risk map of Gorganroud sub-watersheds.

1824 Safaripour M., et al.

2. SHAKER M., HOSSEINI H. Aid and save learning and Resources Association, Chania, Crete- Greece,14-16 June,
reduction of disaster impacts, international conference of 2007.
crisis management, 2006. 12. HANSSON K., DANIELSON M., EKENBERG L.
3. NAIENI K., ARDALAN A. Project final report early warn- Assessment of a flood management framework,
ing information management, Early warning system for International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1, (25-
flash floods in Golestan Province, Iran, 2006. 37), 2008.
4. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 13. ROWSHAN G.R., MOHAMMADI H., NASRABADI T.,
ORGANIZATION, Soil conservation & watershed manage- HOVEIDI H., BAGHVAND A. The role of climate study in
ment research institute, Gorganroud watershed floodplain, analyzing flood forming potential of water basins, Int J of
245, 2004-2006. Env Res., 1, (3), 231, 2007.
5. DANG N.M., BABEL M.S., LUONG H.T. Evaluation of 14. KHODAEI H. Optimizing flood warning system using
flood risk parameters in the Day River flood Diversion area, value engineering, M.S. Thesis, University of Tehran,
Red River Delta, Vietnam, Nat Hazard, Springer, doi: Natural Disaster Department, 2006 [In Persian].
10.1007/s11069-010-9558-x, 2010. 15. SAADAT H., BONNEL R., SHARIFI F., MEHUYS G.,
6. DE MOEL H., VAN ALPHEN J., AERTS J.C.J.H. Flood NAMDAR M., ALE-EBRAHIM S. Landform classification
maps in Europe – methods, availability and use, from digital elevation model and satellite imagery,
doi:10.5194/nhess-9-289-2009. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci., Geomorphology, 100, 453, 2008.
9, (2), 289, 2009. 16. OMIDVAR B., KHODAEI H. Using value engineering to
7. LAWRENCE J., XELROD A., TIMOTHY M. N. optimize flood forecasting and flood warning systems:
Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards, Decision Golestan and Golabdare watersheds in Iran as case studies,
Research, Journal of Risk Research, 2, (1), 31, 1999. Nat Hazards., 47, 281, 2008.
8. JIQUN Z., CHENGHU Z., KAIQIN X., MASATAKA W. 17. SIDERIS M. observing and changing earth: proceeding of
Flood disaster monitoring and evaluation in China, the 2007, international association of geodesy symposia,
Environmental Hazards, 4, 33, 2002. Perugia, Italy, Springer, 133, 2008.
9. SINNAKAUDAN S.K., GHANI A.A., AHMAD M.S.S., 18. VARVANI J., FEIZNIA S., MAHDAVI M., ARAB
ZAKARIA N.A. Flood risk mapping for Pari River incorpo- KHEDRI M. Regional analysis of suspended sediment
rating sediment transport, Environ. Model. Softw., 18, 119, using Regression Equation in Gorganroud watershed,
2003. Journal of Iran natural resources, 55, (1), 2002.
10. YALCIN G., AKYUREK Z. Analyzing flood vulnerable 19. CHANG H., FRANCZYK J., KIM C. what is responsible
areas with multicriteria evaluation, XXth International for increasing flood risks, Nat Hazards, 48, 339, 2009.
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Congress, 20. FOREST RANGE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
2004. ORGANIZATION, Flood workgroup, Gorganroud water-
11. PISTRIKA A., TSAKIRIS G. Flood Risk Assessment: A shed, national plan of natural resource and watershed man-
Methodological Framework, Water Resources Management: agement aspects in Iran, engineering & evaluation plan
New Approaches and Technologies, European Water office, 1991-2008.