Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

An iterative runoff propagation approach to identify priority locations for

land cover change minimizing downstream river flood hazard
Karen Gabriels a, *, Patrick Willems b, Jos Van orshoven a
a
Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
b
Division of Hydraulics and Geotechnics, Department of Civil Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

H I G H L I G H T S

• A conceptual optimization framework is presented, integrating an efficient RR-model.

• Locations for LC changes to most effectively mitigate flood hazard are identified.
• Results stress the importance of LC changes enhancing infiltration in river valleys.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Local infiltration and surface runoff generation depends on local land use, soil type, antecedent soil water content
Optimization and slope, while runoff accumulation downstream is furthermore determined by re-infiltration along the flow
Land use change paths. Hence, land use changes can both mitigate and exacerbate runoff accumulation and flood hazard,
Off-site impact
providing an opportunity to identify optimal locations for land use changes. An optimization method is pre­
Overland flow
Rainfall-runoff
sented, encompassing the iterative application of a spatially explicit rainfall-runoff model. This method ranks
eligible locations (pixels) according to their modelled contribution to accumulated runoff downstream for a given
land use change and given rainfall events, thereby guaranteeing maximal or minimal impact. This method was
tested for two medium-sized catchments, located in Flanders, Belgium. Three land use changes were considered:
afforestation, sealing and practicing winter cover crops. Results show the considerable impact of these land use
changes and their locations on runoff accumulation at the outlet: afforestation of all eligible pixels reduces runoff
volumes with 67% to 84 %, cover crops reduce runoff volumes in winter with 42% to 37%, while sealing triples
runoff. The priority pixels have a larger impact on downstream runoff volume: afforesting or sealing the 20%
highest or lowest ranked pixels leads to a reduction of 71% to 54%, resp. an increase of 102% to 115%. These
priority pixels are characterized by high flow accumulation, highlighting the importance of enhancing the
infiltration capacity in river valleys. The presented procedure allows spatial planners to consider the impact of
local land use interventions to flood resistance downstream.

1. Introduction with high water storing and infiltration capacities have the potential to
mitigate downstream flood risks (Brogna et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2013;
Land cover types (LC) and their spatial configuration in the land­ Peel, 2009). Consequently, LC changes can be considered as intensifiers
scape may have strong effects on the watershed hydrology (Braud et al., or mitigators of flood hazards in the downstream parts of watersheds.
2013; Brown, Western, Mcmahon, & Zhang, 2013; Isik, Kalin, Schoon­ They should therefore be considered in the planning of flood resistant
over, Srivastava, & Lockaby, 2013; Lin, Verburg, Chang, Chen, & Chen, watersheds (Richert, Bianchin, Heilmeier, Merta, & Seidler, 2011; Wu,
2009; Verbeiren et al., 2012; Zorrilla-Miras et al., 2014). Sealed surfaces Bolte, Hulse, & Johnson, 2015).
inhibit infiltration and increase surface runoff, leading to runoff accu­ The hydrological impacts of LC changes are typically assessed by
mulation downstream and thus increased river flood frequency and in­ means of distributed hydrological models (Gao, Holden, & Kirkby, 2015;
tensity (Braud et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2009; Verbeiren et al., 2012). Lin, Hong, Wu, Wu, & Verburg, 2007; Verbeiren et al., 2012; Wu et al.,
Conversely, preservation and development of semi-natural ecosystems 2015). Due to their high computational times, these models are usually

* Corresponding author at: Celestijnenlaan 200e – bus 2411, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104262
Received 16 November 2020; Received in revised form 18 September 2021; Accepted 26 September 2021
Available online 5 November 2021
0169-2046/© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

applied to assess the impact of LC changes through scenario analyses, tool, three LC change types were considered for optimally mitigating
which require only a limited number of simulation runs (Jakeman & flood hazards at the studied watershed outlets: afforestation, soil sealing
Hornberger, 1993; Kalantari et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2007; Yu et al., and the implementation of winter cover crops. Afforestation and winter
2018). cover crops are LC changes that contribute to reducing runoff generation
Spatial optimization analyses, however, aim at identifying optimal and overland flow velocity, thereby lowering runoff volume (Brown
LC distributions based on one or more performance criteria (Seppelt & et al., 2013; Isik et al., 2013). Soil sealing is defined by the European
Voinov, 2003; Volk, Lautenbach, van Delden, Newham, & Seppelt, Commission as ‘the destruction or covering of soils by buildings, con­
2010). These optimal LC distributions can then further support spatial structions and layers of completely or partly impermeable artificial
planning, for example as input in collaborative stakeholder workshops material (e.g. asphalt, concrete…)‘ (Jones, Panagos, Barcelo, Bouraoui,
(Eikelboom, Janssen, & Stewart, 2015). However, these optimization Bosco, Dewitte, Gardi, Erhard, Hervás, Hiederer, Jeffery, Lükewille,
analyses assess a much bigger search space than scenario analyses, thus Marmo, Montanarella, Olazábal, Petersen, Penizek, Strassburger, Tóth,
requiring high numbers of model simulations (Volk et al., 2010). For this & Yigini, 2012). In contrast to afforestation and the implementation of
reason, spatial optimization analyses often rely on heuristic algorithms, winter cover crops, sealing soil surfaces will increase runoff volume by
for example genetic algorithms, limiting the search space and rather increasing runoff generation and overland flow velocity (Braud et al.,
approximating the global optimal solution (Lin et al., 2009; Seppelt & 2013).
Voinov, 2003; Yeo & Guldmann, 2010). Different constraints were implemented in each LC type change. In
We present an alternative methodology and tool aiming to support the soil sealing scenario, a pattern limitation constraint was imple­
spatial planning by finding priority locations in the landscape for LC mented. Moreover, to further exemplify the flexibility of the optimiza­
type changes to efficiently, thus requiring a minimal area, minimize tion framework, the LC type change scenarios were run for a winter and
accumulated runoff at a downstream location of interest. To this end, we summer rainfall event, with respectively wet soil moisture conditions
make use of a computationally efficient, raster-based Rainfall-Runoff and less vegetation cover at the start of the winter rainfall event, and dry
(RR) model (Gabriels, Willems, & Van Orshoven, 2021) that is inte­ soil and more vegetation cover before the summer event. The RR-model
grated in an iterative spatial optimization framework. parameters were subsequently adjusted to these soil and vegetative
With the RR-model, runoff generation is calculated based on the Soil cover conditions. In addition, the impact of LC type changes and their
Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method (USDA Natural locations in the landscape were also assessed for three uniform rainfall
Resource Conservation Service, 1986), an empirical, event-based events for standard CN values (USDA Natural Resource Conservation
method widely used due to its conceptual simplicity and ease of cod­ Service, 1986).
ing (Hawkins, Ward, Woodward, & Van Mullem, 2009; Li et al., 2017;
Sajikumar & Remya, 2015). Runoff is routed through the landscape as 2. Materials and methods
lateral overland flow, considering re-infiltration along its flow paths
through the re-infiltration algorithm of Van Loo (2018) and relying on 2.1. Rainfall-runoff (RR-)model
the Manning’s equation to calculate overland flow velocity. The RR-
model parameters CN and Manning’s roughness coefficient n can be The RR-model is a spatially explicit, raster-based model, imple­
adapted to respectively soil moisture conditions at the start of a rainfall mented for this study with a spatial resolution of 50 m × 50 m. This RR-
event and to the seasonal state of the vegetation cover. By accounting for model is outlined here briefly; further details on its derivation can be
re-infiltration, the RR-model considers spatial interactions between found in Gabriels et al., 2021). The RR-model calculates accumulated
raster cells in the same flow path. Consequently, the RR-model calcu­ runoff Qaccum [mm] from a rainfall event by routing runoff from each
lates both the runoff volume on-site, referring to the raster cell to which raster cell to the outlet, accounting for infiltration downstream. First, the
the LC change is applied, and the change in runon off-site, at a down­ model determines flow path and upstream area for every pixel by
stream location of interest, before and after the LC change to the raster computing flow direction and flow accumulation from a Digital Eleva­
cell (Gabriels et al., 2021). tion Model (DEM) using the D8 algorithm of Jenson and Domingue
With the iterative optimization framework in which the RR-model is (1988). Runoff and re-infiltration calculations are then performed,
integrated, it is possible to identify the locations in a watershed where starting with the most upstream pixels.
implementing certain LC type changes either maximizes runoff volume Runoff Q [mm] is determined based on the SCS-CN method (USDA
reduction or minimizes runoff volume increment at a downstream point Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1986), which uses dimension­
of interest. These locations are defined as the optimal locations in the less CN values, tabulated for average watershed conditions. These CN
landscape to implement these LC type changes regarding their impact on values are assigned to each raster cell based on its LC and soil properties.
accumulated runoff volume. From these CNs, the potential maximum retention S [mm] after runoff
Due to the RR-model’s computational efficiency, the optimization and initial abstraction Ia [mm] are derived. The initial abstraction rep­
framework can iteratively assess the search space of alternative loca­ resents interception, storage and infiltration on a raster cell before
tions (cells) and identify the optimal solution without having to rely on runoff is generated. The potential maximum retention entails the
heuristic algorithms. Whereas the impact of LC changes and its benefits maximum infiltration after runoff has started. The initial abstraction Ia is
are commonly assessed from an on-site perspective, determining the empirically defined in the SCS-CN method as a fraction λ of the
intrinsic suitabilitaty of locations (SEPA, 2016; Vanegas, Cattrysse, & maximum potential retention S (λ*S), set to 0.05 in the RR-model. The
Orshoven, 2012), with the proposed optimization framework the off-site tabulated CN values are subsequently conjugated to a λ of 0.05 (Hawkins
benefits at an area of interest, for instance a downstream, flood-prone et al., 2009).
location, can be determined. The CN values can then be adjusted to specific antecedent moisture
The methodology and tool were applied and tested in two water­ conditions (AMC). This was done according to the Soil and Water
sheds in the Flanders region of northern Belgium. Flanders provides an Assessment Tool (SWAT) procedure (Neitsch, Arnold, Kiniry, & Wil­
interesting study case, since it is both flood prone and highly urbanized. liams, 2011), increasing CN values for wet conditions with a high AMC
Approximately 5% of Flanders’ total area, and 3% of its built-up area, and lowering CN values for dry conditions with low AMC. The potential
have been flooded at least once since 1988 and one fifth of the built-up maximum retention S is then derived from these adjusted CNs:
area is situated in natural flood-prone areas (Poelmans, Rompaey, Nte­
geka, & Willems, 2011; Van Orshoven, 2001; Vlaanderen & Milieu­ S[mm] =
25400
− 254 (1)
maatschappij, 2017). CN
To demonstrate the applicability of the combined RR-optimization From the retention S and the initial abstraction Ia, runoff Q [mm] is

2
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

[m] R2/3 *s1/2

V = h (3)
s n

With Rh [m] the hydraulic radius, s [m/m] the slope and n [s/m1/3] the
Manning’s roughness coefficient. The excess infiltration Ired above the
maximum infiltration is added to the runoff Q, resulting in the accu­
mulated runoff Qaccum. A standard roughness coefficient n is assigned to
LC classes based on look-up tables (Arcement & Schneider, 1989; Eng­
man, 1986; Kalyanapu, Burian, & Mcpherson, 2009; Morgan et al.,
1998; Vieux, 2016). This standard n can be adjusted in the RR-model for
vegetated LC classes to account for an increased vegetation cover in
summer and decreased cover in winter (Table 1). For overland flow, the
hydraulic radius Rh approximates flow depth (McCuen, 1998). The
computationally efficient RR-model assumes for simplicity and analogue
to Van Loo (2018) a constant and uniform value for Rh, which is set, to 3
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the re-infiltration scheme (). mm in the catchments of the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek (Gabriels et al.,
adapted from Van Loo (2018) 2021).

2.2. Iteration framework

Table 1
Adjustments of Manning’s n for the vegetated LC classes to winter conditions
(high AMC) and summer conditions (low AMC) (Arcement & Schneider, 1989; The optimization framework (Fig. 2) iteratively integrates the RR-
Engman, 1986; Kalyanapu et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 1998; Vieux, 2016). model, ranking pixels based on accumulated runoff change at a down­
stream location of interest for different types of LC changes.
Land cover class Manning’s n
First, all pixels eligible for the LC type change are selected into the
Standard Winter Summer
candidate set. The pixels ineligible for the considered LC type change,
Arable (row/close-grown crops) 0.09 0.05 0.18 remain invariant throughout the iterations and make up the initial
Grassland (Meadows/Pasture) 0.15 0.12 0.2 context set. Accumulated runoff at the downstream point of interest is
Forest 0.4 0.35 0.5
then calculated by the RR-model. Next, pixel rank is determined through
a two-step iteration. In the first step, the RR-model calculates the dif­
ference in accumulated runoff at the point of interest for each candidate
pixel under the original and the alternative LC type. Based on the
computed runoff differences between the initial situation and the situ­
ation with an implemented LC change for each candidate pixel sepa­
rately, candidate pixels are intermediately ranked.
Secondly, the alternative LC type of the highest ranked pixels is
confirmed, and these pixels are subsequently removed from the candi­
date set and added to the context set as pixels with an updated LC type.
These two steps are repeated until all candidate pixels are processed
according to their rank, i.e. until all candidate pixels are included in the
context set, leaving the candidate set empty. All candidate pixels are
thus converted to the alternative LC type, unless the analysis is limited to
a fraction of the pixels in the ranked candidate set. Other constraints can
be applied to the candidate set, for example to implement pattern
limitations.
Accumulated runoff is calculated using the spatially explicit RR-
model, allowing for spatial interaction between raster cells in the
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the iterative optimization framework, iteratively assessing same flow path. A pixel’s rank therefore reflects its on-site characteris­
pixels in the candidate set based on accumulated runoff change at the down­ tics as Curve Number as a function of AMC and Manning’s n, as well as
stream Point Of Interest (POI) resulting from a LC type change. off-site characteristics of its upstream area and downstream flow path.
Due to spatial interaction, the LC change effect of connected, equally
calculated for each pixel: ranked pixels is less than those pixels’ combined runoff reduction. In
these situations, the alternative LC type is only applied to the most
(Ptot − Ia )2 downstream pixel, while the other connected pixels remain in the
Ptotal ≥ Ia : Q[mm] = (2)
Ptot − Ia + S candidate set.

Ptotal < Ia : Q[mm] = 0

2.3. Study areas
With Ptotal [mm] the sum of the event-based rainfall amounts P and the
incoming runoff Qinput from upstream pixels. The optimization method was applied to two study areas in Flanders,
Re-infiltration is calculated according to the method developed by Belgium: the catchments of the Maarkebeek river and of the Bellebeek
Van Loo (2018) (Fig. 1). This method interprets the infiltration Iori, river (Fig. 3). For the Bellebeek catchment, one of its subcatchments,
defined as Ptotal – Q, as an infiltration rate and calculates maximum namely the Hunselbeek subcatchment, had gauging data and was also be
infiltration I by multiplying this rate with the travel time of overland included in the RR-model validation task. The event-based RR-model
flow over the pixel. This travel time is derived from the flow velocity V accuracy was assessed with the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) (Nash &
[m/s], calculated by the Manning’s equation: Sutcliffe, 1970) for respectively 165, 164 and 124 rainfall events causing
a peak discharge in the Maarkebeek, Bellebeek and Hunselbeek

3
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 3. Location of the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek catchment and the subcatchment of the Hunselbeek in Flanders, Belgium.

Fig. 4. General land cover, derived from the 2012 land cover dataset (Vlaanderen, 2016), Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (; Vlaanderen, 2016) and derived slope (m/
m) map of the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) catchments.

catchments. Based on these events, the NSE of the model is 0.57 for the sufficiently accurate for a relative hydrological impact analysis of land
Maarkebeek catchment, 0.56 for the Bellebeek catchment and 0.66 for cover changes (Volk et al., 2010; Yeo & Guldmann, 2010). Full details
the Hunselbeek subcatchment (Gabriels et al., 2021). Though typically a concerning the validation of the RR-model can be found in Gabriels
higher NSE value of 0.8 is considered for good model performance et al., 2021).
(Ritter & Muñoz-Carpena, 2013), the RR-model was considered to be Located in the Upper Scheldt river basin, the Maarkebeek catchment

4
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of Conjugated Curve Number (CN) values (λ = 0.05) and Manning’s n in the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) catchments.

Fig. 6. Relative frequency (%) of the conjugated Curve Numbers and infiltration capacity (%) of the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek catchments.

has an area of 48 km2. It is a predominantly agricultural area, consisting 2000 to 2012, a land cover dataset from 2012 was used to determine
mainly of arable land. Forest and urban areas constitute around a tenth land cover context in the study area. Four land cover classes of urban,
of the Maarkebeek basin, hereby making it both the least urbanized and forest, grassland and arable land were generalised from this dataset
least afforested of the studied areas. The Bellebeek catchment (88 km2) (Fig. 4). Grasslands included meadows and pastures, while arable land
is about twice as large as the Maarkebeek catchment. Situated in the denotes regurarly ploughed land, sown with row or closely grown crops.
Dender river basin, it is mainly an agricultural area, though dominated This land cover data was combined with soil information and look-up
by grassland rather than arable land. A fifth of the catchment area is tables from USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1986 to
urbanized and around 15% is under forest. Soils in the Maarkebeek and assign and conjugate CNs (Fig. 5). Values for Manning’s n, shown in
Bellebeek watersheds have predominantly silt and silt-loam soil textures Fig. 5, were assigned based on the land cover data (Agentschap Infor­
(Dondeyne, Van Ranst, & Deckers, 2013). The Maarkebeek catchment matie Vlaanderen, 2016) and look-up tables (Engman, 1986; Kalyanapu
has the most pronounced undulating terrain (Fig. 4). et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 1998; Vieux, 2016), with the maximum value
As the RR-model was calibrated and validated based on data from of 0.4 assigned to forested areas and the lowest values (0.02–0.011)

5
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 7. The rainfall distribution of studied winter (high AMC) and summer (low AMC) events in the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) catchments.

Fig. 8. Conjugated CN values corrected for the high and low AMC events in the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) catchments.

assigned to sealed surfaces. The Manning’s n and topographic slope were high infiltration capacity in the Bellebeek watershed.
implemented in the Manning’s equation (Eq. (3)) to calculate overland
flow velocity for application in the RR-model.
2.4. Rainfall events and LC type changes
Fig. 6 compares the relative frequency of the pixels’ conjugated CN
and infiltration capacity, determined by the overland flow velocity for
The goal of the iterative optimization framework is to find the
the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek catchments. This figure reflects the
optimal locations in the study areas to implement changes of LC type or
catchments’ differences in terms of LC, soil and slope configurations,
management aiming to reduce runoff accumulation at a downstream
highlighting relatively higher CN values and more pixels with low and
area of interest. The optimization framework thus identifies locations

6
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Table 2 without pattern restrictions, while the sealing scenario features a dy­
Runoff volumes (RO vol.; hm3) at the outlet of the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek, namic candidate set, only including pixels neighbouring the growing
following the different rainfall events. sealed area. This constraint can be considered an application of the re­
Rainfall Maarkebeek Bellebeek gion growing concept (Vanegas, Cattrysse, & Van Orshoven, 2010).
RO vol. RO vol. (hm3) RO vol. RO vol. (hm3)
To study the effect of these LC change types on discharge volumes at
(hm3) Cover Crop (hm3) Cover Crop the catchment’s outlets, two rainfall events were selected for each
catchment: one high AMC, winter event and one low AMC, summer
High AMC, 3195.2 3774.9 13799.1 16505.4
winter event. The spatial rainfall distributions of these events were derived
Low AMC, 9876.2 8054.5 from rain gauge networks of the Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI)
summer and the Flanders Environment Agency (VMM) (Fig. 7) (Van Opstal, Tits,
30 mm, 7756.2 8021.6 24318.9 22696.1 Beckers, Elsen, Van Overtveld, & Batelaan, 2014). CN and Manning’s n
average
50 mm, 18405.2 17421.1 60705.1 52788.6
values (Table 1) were adjusted to the meteorological and seasonal
average conditions of these events. The corresponding AMC of these events were
100 mm, 53419.1 48434.8 180008.9 154014.0 derived from daily soil water balance simulation run by means of the
average ArcNEMO hydrological model (Van Opstal, Tits, Beckers, Van Over­
tveld, Batelaan, & Van Orshoven, 2013). The conjugated CN values,
adjusted for AMC (Fig. 8) were increased in case of the high AMC and
where maximum runoff reduction or minimum runoff increment is
lowered CN in the low AMC event.
achieved, while keeping the number of pixels of which the LC is changed
To assess the ranking consistency of the optimization results, the LC
to a minimum. As downstream points of interest, the studied catch­
type changes were also run for three uniformly distributed rainfall
ments’ outlets were selected. Three LC type changes were assessed:
events with total rainfall amounts of 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm. For
afforestation, sealing and implementation of winter cover crops. The
these events, scenarios were run with average watershed conditions,
afforestation and winter cover crop LC type changes illustrate a standard
implementing the conjugated, tabulated CN values and standard
implementation to rank candidate pixels with differing context sets

Fig. 9. The afforestation ranking results, expressed as accumulated runoff reduction per afforested pixel at the outlet [mm], for the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b)
catchments, for two rainfall events with high AMC and low AMC.

7
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 10. The afforestation ranking results, expressed as accumulated runoff reduction per afforested pixel at the outlet [mm], for the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek
(b) catchments, under three rainfall (P) events: 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm.

Manning’s n values. Only the the winter cover crop scenario imple­ 1986) and Manning’s n was decreased to 0.01 (Engman, 1986). Since
mented CN and n values adjusted to the conditions of the high AMC sealing pixels increases CN values and decreases Manning’s n, additional
rainfall events. The runoff volumes at the catchment outlets resulting sealed areas subsequently increase accumulated runoff. Therefore,
from these rainfall events and their meteorological and seasonal con­ pixels with the smallest increase in runoff were selected in each iteration
ditions are provided in Table 2. The low AMC rainfall event results in a to minimize the impact of sealing at the outlet. River and already urban
higher accumulated runoff volume at the Maarkebeek outlet due to the pixels were excluded from the candidate set and made up the initial
higher rainfall amounts, while in the Bellebeek catchment the high AMC context set. As a specific constraint, region growing was implemented: in
event results in a higher runoff volume, despite lower rainfall amounts. each iteration, only pixels neighbouring sealed pixels were considered in
In the afforestation scenario, sealed and river pixels were excluded the candidate set, mimicking the growing urban area. As a result, the
from the candidate set, as afforestion was deemed improbable at these candidate set in this LC type change is dynamic, removing sealed pixels
locations. Already afforested pixels were also not included in the to the context set and adding these pixels’ neighbours to the candidate
candidate set. Consequently, urban, river and already afforested pixels set, whereas for the other two scenarios, pixels can only be removed
made up the context set. The initial context set consisted of respectively from candidate sets.
4643 (24%) and 12,571 (36%) pixels in the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek In implementing winter cover crops, the optimization framework
catchment. All other pixels made up the candidate set, comprising indicates pixels under arable land where cover crops were most effective
14,570 pixels (76%) in the Maarkebeek catchment and 22,650 pixels in reducing accumulated runoff at the outlet. Only arable pixels were
(64%) in the Bellebeek catchments. Under afforestation, candidate included in the candidate set, hence the initial, invariable context set
pixels’ conjugated CN values were lowered to their respective CN values was made up of pixels with all other LC types. The candidate pixel set in
under forest in good condition (USDA Natural Resource Conservation this analysis thus consisted of respectively 7902 arable pixels (41%) and
Service, 1986) and the Manning’s roughness coefficient n was increased 8636 arable pixels (25%). This LC type change scenario was run only for
to 0.4 (Kalyanapu et al., 2009). For the high and low AMC events, the the high AMC winter rainfall event, meaning that initial CN and Man­
conjugated CNs were adjusted to specific AMC conditions and Man­ ning’s n values were adjusted to the circumstances in the high AMC
ning’s n was increased to 0.35 (winter) or 0.50 (summer) (Table 1). winter event for all rainfall events. First, CN values of arable land were
Decreasing a pixel’s CN values and increasing its Manning’s n leads to modified into those of bare soil (USDA Natural Resource Conservation
increased infiltration capacity and to decreased runoff generation. At Service, 1986) and conjugated. These CN values were then increased
each iteration, the pixel(s) with the highest accumulated runoff reduc­ according to the high AMC conditions and Manning’s n were decreased
tion at the outlet were selected for afforestation, labeled with its rank to the corresponding winter values (Table 1). After adjusting these
and moved from the candidate set to the updated context set. initial conditions, the optimization tool was run. Under cover crop, the
In the sealing scenario, the optimization tool determined the pixels conjugated, AMC-corrected CN values of bare soil were modified to their
where sealing resulted in the smallest runoff increment at the outlets. respective CN values under small grained crops in straight rows with
The initial candidate set consisted of 5362 pixels (28%) in the Maar­ crop residue present (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service,
kebeek catchment and 12,969 pixels (37%) in the Bellebeek catchment, 1986). The arable Manning’s n coefficient was increased from 0.05 to
while eventually respectively 15,994 pixels (83%) and 26,166 pixels 0.12 to account for the increased vegetation cover (Morgan et al., 1998).
(74%) were considered for sealing. Sealed pixels’ conjugated CN values These modifications have the same effect as afforestation: cover crops
were increased to 98 (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, lead to increased infiltration capacity and reduced runoff generation.

8
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 11. Standardized ranking of pixels considering their sealing in the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) catchments for the high and low AMC rainfall events.

Therefore, each iteration, cover crops were implemented in pixel(s) watersheds’ outlets by afforestation. Larger intervals between observa­
resulting in the highest runoff reduction at the outlet. tions in Fig. 13a indicate that multiple pixels were afforested simulta­
neously, since these pixels had equal downstream effects and did not
3. Results interact spatially with each other. After afforesting the full candidate set,
the outlet’s accumulated runoff at the Maarkebeek outlet decreased with
3.1. Afforestation approximately 84% (6485.7 hm3), 79% (14506.1 hm3) and 63%
(33554.9 hm3) for respectively 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm rainfall
The results of the afforestation LC type change are depicted in Fig. 9 events. At the Bellebeek’s outlet, accumulated runoff decreased with
for the high and low AMC rainfall events and in Fig. 10 for the uniformly 67% (16267.8 hm3), 60% (36424.6 hm3) and 40% (72250.3 hm3) for
distributed rainfall events. These results are visualized according to each corresponding 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm rainfall events.
candidate pixel’s reduction in accumulated runoff at the outlet. Runoff
reduction of lower ranked pixels was calculated after higher ranked
pixels had been afforested in previous iterations. For the high and low 3.2. Sealing
AMC events, the afforestation results (Fig. 9) reflect the runoff accu­
mulation in the watershed: the events with a higher runoff volume at the The results of sealing are depicted in respectively Figs. 11 and 12 for
outlet, respectively the low and high AMC events in the Maarkebeek and the AMC and uniform rainfall events. These figures show the standard­
Bellebeek, resulted in more pixels being afforested, with a higher runoff ized ranking rather than runoff increment, as the latter does not un­
volume reduction in the pixels bordering the river system. Fig. 10 re­ equivocally reflect pixel rank due to the region growing constraint; only
flects these findings as afforestation in the upstream, source areas results pixels neighbouring urban areas were considered in each iteration.
in runoff reduction at the outlet at higher rainfall and thus runoff Isolated pixels, bordered by rivers, were disregarded in the Bellebeek
amounts, even when areas surrounding the rivers have already been catchment. In the Maarkebeek watershed, no such pixels occur.
afforested in previous iterations. This shows a saturated infiltration ca­ In Fig. 11, rank 1 corresponds to an increment of 0 mm. The sealing
pacity of the afforested pixels downstream due to the high amount of of pixels with rank 1 for the studied event thus does not lead to an in­
accumulated runoff. crease in runoff at the outlet, as the additional runoff generated on-site
Fig. 14a shows the relative accumulated runoff decrease at the on these pixels re-infiltrates along the flow path to the off-site point of
interest. The final rank corresponds to a respective increase of 344.9 mm

9
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 12. Standardized ranking of pixels considering their sealing in the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) catchments for three rainfall amounts (P) of 30, 50 and
100 mm.

and 400.2 mm for the high and low AMC event in the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek watersheds are depicted in Fig. 13 for the high AMC
catchment. In the Bellebeek catchment, rank 1 also corresponds to an rainfall event and the uniform 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm rainfall
increment of 0 mm, while the final rank corresponds to an increase of events.
respectively 379.9 mm and 392.1 mm for the high and low AMC events. Fig. 14c shows the accumulated runoff decrease (%) at the catchment
Fig. 10 shows more pixels in rank 1 for respectively the high and low outlets according to the percentage of candidate (arable) pixels under
AMC events in the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek catchments. These events cover crop. Though the arable area in the Maarkebeek watershed (19.8
correspond to the rainfall events with the lowest runoff accumulation at km2) is similar to the one in the Bellebeek watershed (21.6 km2), arable
the outlet. land constitutes a bigger portion of the Maarkbeek catchment (41%)
Fig. 12 shows the results for the uniform rainfall events of 30, 50 and compared to the Bellebeek catchment (25%). For a rainfall event of 30
100 mm. For these rainfall amounts, rank 1 corresponds to an increment mm, 50 mm and 100 mm, accumulated runoff at the Maarkebeek outlet
of respectively 0 mm, 1.6 mm and 5.8 mm, while the final rank corre­ decreases with respectively 41.8% (3354.9 hm3), 37.8% (6593 hm3) and
sponds to an increase of 181, 184.3 and 186.7 mm in the Maarkebeek 27.6% (13384.5 hm3) after full implementation of cover crops, while the
catchment. In the Bellebeek catchment, rank 1 corresponds to an decrease at the Bellebeek outlet is respectively 37.3% (8466.1 hm3),
increment of respectively 0 mm, 0.3 mm and 4.4 mm and the final rank 31.2% (16470.4 hm3) and 19.6% (30241.2 hm3).
corresponds to an increase of respectively 184, 185.9 and 187.4 mm for
30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm events. The results of the uniform rainfall 4. Discussion
events (Fig. 12) indicate that for events of 30 mm, mainly afforested
areas are highly efficient in retaining runoff water, so that their cutting The proposed optimization framework was applied to identify the
and sealing must be avoided. These afforested areas have lower runoff most effective locations in the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek watersheds for
contribution and higher infiltration capacity than arable land or pas­ afforestation, winter cover crop implementation and soil sealing to
tures, therefore, removing and sealing forests has a higher impact. As maximize the decrease or minimize the increase of runoff accumulation
rainfall increases, the impact of sealing increases, while afforested pixels at the outlet. The afforestation results illustrate that a higher runoff
are still selected last, as well as pixels situated in river valleys. volume reduction is achieved by increasing downstream infiltration
Fig. 14b shows the accumulated runoff increase at the outlets due to capacity rather than by lowering upstream runoff generation. The
sealing of all candidate pixels. The accumulated runoff at the Maarke­ afforestation analyses (Fig. 13a) indicate a notable runoff volume
beek outlet increases approximately by 201% (15595.8 hm3), 120% decrease at the outlets. The sharpest decline in runoff accumulation is
(22177.1 hm3) and 59% (31400.4 hm3) after a 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 found after afforesting the highest ranked candidate pixels. The 20%
mm rainfall events, while the runoff volume at the Bellebeek outlet in­ highest ranked pixels in the candidate sets constitute respectively 2914
creases with 217% (52709.8 hm3), 122% (74109.9 hm3) and 58% pixels and 4530 pixels in the Maarkebeek and Bellebeek catchments.
(103521.3 hm3) for corresponding rainfall amounts. After afforesting these pixels, the outlets’ runoff volume is reduced with
respectively 5531.4 hm3 (71%), 9930.8 hm3 (54%) and 15477.5 hm3
(29%) in the Maarkebeek and runoff volume decreases with 13196.9
3.3. Winter cover crop hm3 (54%), 22414.2 hm3 (37%) and 32478.6 hm3 (18%) in the Belle­
beek for 30, 50 and 100 mm rainfall events. The relative runoff volume
The winter cover crop implementation results for the Maarkebeek

10
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 13. The ranking results for winter cover crop implementation, expressed as the accumulated runoff reduction [mm] at the outlet of the Maarkebeek (a) and
Bellebeek (b) catchments, for the high AMC rainfall event and 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm rainfall (P) events.

11
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 14. The accumulated runoff (%) at the catchment outlets after afforestation (a), sealing (b) and winter cover crop implementation (c) for three rainfall events
(30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm).

reduction is therefore higher in the Maarkebeek catchment, while the hm3 (24%) for the respectively 30 mm, 50 mm and 100 mm rainfall
absolute reduction is higher in the Bellebeek catchment. These differ­ events, while runoff volume increases with 27,878 hm3 (114.6 %),
ences are explained by the larger catchment size of the Bellebeek and 34284.9 hm3 (56.5 %) and 42198.5 hm3 (23.4%) in the Bellebeek
differences in CN and infiltration capacity (Fig. 5). The candidate set of catchment.
pixels for afforestation in the Maarkebeek catchment consists predomi­ The winter cover crop implementation results in a similar reduction
nantly of arable pixels, 41% of the catchment, compared to 25% arable per pixel as afforestation, explained by the initially higher CN and lower
pixels in the Bellebeek catchment. As arable land is assigned a higher CN Manning’s n implemented in the cover crop scenario due to the AMC
value and lower Manning’s n, the decrease in CN and increase in infil­ correction. However, the total reduction at the outlet (Fig. 14c) is
tration capacity after afforestation is higher for arable land compared to smaller than the afforestation scenario, mainly due to the smaller
grassland, resulting in less runoff generation and increased infiltration. candidate set in the winter cover crop scenario.
The sealing results show more pixels having a higher runoff contri­ Ranking consistency over the uniform rainfall events is assessed by
bution to the outlet with increasing rainfall. The increment per pixel is standardizing the ranks and determining their standard deviation and
higher in the low AMC events, explained by the initially lower CNs and average rank (Fig. 15). These figures indicate a low standard deviation,
higher Manning’s n values, leading to a larger runoff increment due to a and therefore high consistency, for pixels with low and high average
larger increase in CN and decrease in Manning’s n. Fig. 14b shows that ranks, which is reflected in Fig. 16a: pixels with high (1–20) or low
full sealing of the candidate set of pixels results in a considerable (80–100) average ranks are consistently ranked either high or low across
accumulated runoff increase at the outlets, tripling the outlets’ runoff the different rainfall events. Therefore, the optimization results consis­
volume for a 30 mm rainfall event and increasing runoff accumulation tently prioritize areas in the river valleys for afforestation and cover crop
with more than 50% in both catchments for a 100 mm rainfall event. The implementation. Afforesting these areas results in the steepest decrease
steepest increase results from sealing the lowest ranked pixels. After in accumulated runoff at the outlet. Fig. 16b shows that the highest
sealing the 20% lowest ranked pixels, runoff volume at the Maarkebeek ranked pixels for afforestation and cover crop implementation are
outlet increases with 7919.5 hm3 (102%), 9967.5 hm3 (54%), 13046.7 located in areas with higher flow accumulation, while the lowest ranked

12
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 15. The average standardized ranks and its standard deviations for the Maarkebeek (a) and Bellebeek (b) watersheds, averaged for 30, 50 and 100 mm rainfall
events and for three LC type changes.

pixels are characterized by low flow accumulations. The reverse pattern in river valleys and its significance in mitigating overland flow accu­
is observed for the sealing scenario: pixels with high flow accumulation mulation. Our results thus reflect the main findings of the LC allocation
are ranked lowest for sealing. Subsequently, sealing these lowest ranked optimization presented in Yeo and Guldmann (2010), combining a
pixels results in the steepest runoff volume increase (Fig. 14b), indi­ heuristic algorithm with a SCS-CN based RR-model to find LC allocations
cating the important buffering function of these pixels. The results also minimizing peak storm runoff at the watershed outlet. Their analysis
indicate that the required buffer area increases when the rain storm allocated urban land upstream and away from rivers, while woods and
volume increases. Higher rainfall amounts require more pixels to infil­ grassland were allocated along rivers, buffering urban land. These
trate the increased runoff, resulting in a higher standard deviation in the findings reflect the importance of integrated approaches using natural
ranks of these pixels (Fig. 15a). This analysis shows the consistency of processes in spatial planning to mitigate flood risks. Such integrated
the pixel ranking, independent from pattern limitations. Though no approaches are emerging as cost-effective alternatives to traditional
pattern limitation was implemented in the afforestation and cover crop grey infrastructure, as exemplified by the EU’s Water Framework
scenario, the ranking results clearly indicate that the priority locations Directive (Directive /60/EC2000, 2000) and Floods Directive (Directive
for both land cover type changes show a pattern, as pixels with high flow /60/EC2007, 2007), focusing on natural water retention measures such
accumulation are consistently ranked highest. as floodplain restoration and afforestation. The Flanders’ regional
The optimization results thus show the considerable impact of the planning policy also emphasizes the role of river valleys for water
considered LC type changes and their locations in the landscape on river storage in the landscape (Vlaanderen, 2018). In the management plans
discharge, thereby clearly highlighting the infiltration potential present for Upper Scheldt and Dender river basins, which the Maarkebeek and

13
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Fig. 16. Boxplots of the standardized ranks’ standard deviations (a) and flow accumulation (b) derived from the average pixel rank of afforestation, sealing and cover
crop implementation in the Bellebeek and Maarkebeek catchments.

Bellebeek watersheds are part of, afforestation and adjustments in Currently, maximisation of runoff accumulation decrease or mini­
agricultural management are proposed as measures to increase the ba­ misation of runoff accumulation increase are the only objectives
sins’ water holding capacity (Coördinatiecommissie Integraal Water­ considered by the optimization in this study. In future research, the
beleid, 2016a; Coördinatiecommissie Integraal Waterbeleid, 2016b). framework can be extended to a multi-objective optimization consid­
The results presented in this paper show that it is possible to prioritize ering both on-site and off-site characteristics of LC change types, e.g. by
these LC type changes at a watershed scale in order to achieve most considering groundwater recharge, carbon storage or biodiversity pro­
effectively this management goal. motion. By incorporating the spatially variable cost of LC interventions,
The presented optimization framework employed a computationally this framework can include budget constraints, i.e. finding locations to
efficient and spatially explicit RR-model to find locations to implement minimize runoff accumulation at a minimum cost or budget. This multi-
LC type or land management changes to most effectively reduce runoff objective optimization can be implemented as proposed by Vanegas
accumulation at a downstream point of interest. Because the optimiza­ et al. (2010), who found that the most effective pixels for a certain LC
tion tool can be adjusted to specific LC conditions and changes, it is type change do not necessarily correspond with the most efficient ones
possible to bring in additional information, e.g. information about in budgetary terms.
agricultural parcels on which cover crops are already implemented,
thereby assessing the effectiveness of additional winter crops to reduce 5. Conclusions
runoff accumulation. The computational efficiency of the RR-model
allowed it to be integrated in an iterative optimization approach, The optimization framework presented in this paper identifies lo­
while being sufficiently accurate to assess the impact of LC type changes cations in watersheds to implement LC type changes in order to mitigate
with a NSE of 0.57 and 0.56 for respectively the Maarkebeek and Bel­ runoff accumulation and reduce flood hazards at a downstream point of
lebeek catchment. interest. The ranking results indicate how to achieve a maximum effect
The RR-model calculates runoff on a pixel level based on the popular, on runoff accumulation with intervention on a minimum number of
empirical SCS-CN method (Hawkins et al., 2009; Kalantari et al., 2014; pixels. It thereby provides highly relevant, spatially explicit information
Li et al., 2017; Sajikumar & Remya, 2015) and incorporates re- to spatial planners and policy makers for flood hazard mitigation and
infiltration along the flow path through the algorithm of Van Loo sustainable landscape management. The spatially explicit RR-model
(2018), determining overland flow velocity using Manning’s equation. calculates accumulated runoff by combining the SCS-CN method
Consequently, the RR-model allows for spatial interaction, thus incor­ (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1986) with the re-
porating off-site effects of LC type changes on runoff accumulation. infiltration scheme of Van Loo (2018). By combining these two
Though the RR-model takes into account AMC, this event-based model methods, spatial interaction and off-site effects of LC changes are taken
ignores temporal effects by lumping runoff generation in time, calcu­ into account. Moreover, the RR-model parameters can be adjusted to
lating accumulated runoff volume after a rainfall event. The RR-model specific meteorological and seasonal conditions. The accuracy of the RR-
was calibrated to a spatial resolution of 50 m, assessing LC changes model is moderate with an NSE of approximately 0.5, but considered
with sufficient detail and computational efficiency (Gabriels et al., sufficiently accurate for comparison purposes.
2021). To assess LC change impacts on a finer spatial or temporal res­ This raster-based RR-model was integrated in a conceptual optimi­
olution, considering temporal variations in short-duration rainfall in­ zation framework, adjusting model parameters to simulate LC type
tensity and land cover (e.g. tillage), the optimization tool’s output can changes and iteratively ranking pixels at a watershed scale according to
be used as input in a scenario analysis using more complex, less their downstream runoff reduction or increment. Consequently, the
computationally efficient hydrological models, calculating a full soil optimization framework can be a valuable tool to integrated spatial
water balance on a finer spatial scale, such as MIKE SHE (Kalantari et al., planning approaches aiming to reduce flood hazard.
2014) or SWAT (Yu et al., 2018). The optimization framework was implemented for two watersheds in

14
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Flanders and for three LC type changes: afforestation, sealing and winter Agentschap Informatie Vlaanderen, & Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij. (2017). Recent
overstroomde gebieden. http://www.geopunt.be/catalogus/datasetfolder/6BC263E
cover crop implementation; each demonstrating different capabilities of
B-F4DF-4B16-963B-840CD2EFAACF.
the adaptable framework. In finding the most effective afforestation Arcement, G. J., & Schneider, V. R. (1989). Guide for Selecting Manning’s Roughness
locations, constraints on feasible LC type changes were implemented. Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains.
The sealing LC type change employed a region growing algorithm, only Braud, I., Breil, P., Thollet, F., Lagouy, M., Branger, F., Jacqueminet, C., Kermadi, S., &
Michel, K. (2013). Evidence of the impact of urbanization on the hydrological regime
considering pixels in the candidate set neighbouring already urbanized of a medium-sized periurban catchment in France. Journal of Hydrology, 485, 5–23.
pixels. In the cover crop implementation, the RR-model parameters took https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.049
account of the seasonal conditions in winter, lacking vegetation cover Brogna, D., Vincke, C., Brostaux, Y., Soyeurt, H., Dufrêne, M., & Dendoncker, N. (2017).
How does forest cover impact water flows and ecosystem services? Insights from
and with higher soil moisture content. The simulation results demon­ “real-life” catchments in Wallonia (Belgium). Ecological Indicators, 72, 675–685.
strate the considerable impact on runoff accumulation at the down­ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.011
stream points of interest of the LC type changes and the locations where Brown, A. E., Western, A. W., Mcmahon, T. A., & Zhang, L. (2013). Impact of forest cover
changes on annual streamflow and flow duration curves. Journal of Hydrology, 483,
they are implemented. Afforestation considerably reduces runoff accu­ 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.031
mulation: at the Maarkebeek outlet (48 km2), accumulated runoff is Coördinatiecommissie Integraal Waterbeleid. (2016). Stroomgebiedbeheerplan voor de
reduced with 63% of the initial volume after a rainfall event of 100 mm, Schelde 2016-2021: Bekkenspecifiek deel Bovenscheldebekken. https://www.inte
graalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheerplanne
while at the Bellebeek outlet (88 km2) runoff accumulation is reduced n-2016-2021/documenten/Bovenscheldebekken.pdf.
with 40% for the same event. Afforestation in river valleys most effi­ Coördinatiecommissie Integraal Waterbeleid. (2016). Stroomgebiedbeheerplan voor de
ciently reduces accumulated runoff volume at the outlet of the catch­ Schelde 2016-2021: Bekkenspecifiek deel Denderbekken. https://www.inte
graalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-2
ments. The sealing simulations result in a considerable increase of
016-2021/documenten/Denderbekken.pdf.
accumulated runoff of more than 50% at the watersheds’ outlets. Sealing Departement Omgeving Vlaanderen. (2018). Strategische Visie Beleidsplan Ruimte
pixels at higher elevation, on the plateau, results in a minimal increase Vlaanderen.
of runoff accumulation at the outlet. Directive 2000/60/EC. (2000). Establishing a framework for Community action in the
field of water policy. European Parliament, Council of the European Union.
The results thus consistently highlight the importance of the infil­ http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/oj.
tration capacity of areas in the landscape where flow is concentrating, i. Directive 2007/60/EC. (2007). The assessment and management of flood risks. European
e. the river valleys. Areas to prioritize afforestation and avoid sealing are Parliament, Council of the European Union. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2
007/60/oj.
located in the valleys, in the path of concentrated flow to the rivers. Dondeyne, S., Van Ranst, E., & Deckers, J. (2013). The soil map of the Flemish region
Afforesting and sealing these areas leads to respectively the highest converted to a World Reference Base legend: the inland regions.
decrease and increase in runoff accumulation. These findings underpin Eikelboom, T., Janssen, R., & Stewart, T. J. (2015). A spatial optimization algorithm for
geodesign. Landscape and Urban Planning, 144, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the importance of spatial policies focusing on integrated approaches, as landurbplan.2015.08.011
reflected in the EU’s Water Framework Directive (Directive/60/EC2000, Engman, E. T., & ASCE, M. (1986). Roughness Coefficients for Routing Surface Runoff.
2000) and Floods Directive (Directive/60/EC2007, 2007), as well as in Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 112(1), 39–53.
Gabriels, K., Willems, P., & Van Orshoven, J. (2021). Performance evaluation of spatially
Flanders’ new spatial planning policy. The presented optimization distributed, CN-based rainfall-runoff model configurations for implementation in
framework can therefore serve as valuable input for the implementation spatial land use optimization analyses. Journal of Hydrology, 602(November),
of nature- and land management based solutions in spatial planning to 126872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126872
Gao, J., Holden, J., & Kirkby, M. (2015). A distributed TOPMODEL for modelling impacts
reduce flood hazards.
of land-cover change on river flow in upland peatland catchments. Hydrological
Processes, 29(13), 2867–2879. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.v29.1310.1002/
CRediT authorship contribution statement hyp.10408
Hawkins, R. H., Ward, T. J., Woodward, D. E., & Van Mullem, J. A. (2009). Curve
Number Hydrology: State of the Practice. ASCE Publications.
Karen Gabriels:Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal Isik, S., Kalin, L., Schoonover, J. E., Srivastava, P., & Lockaby, B. G. (2013). Modeling
analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visuali­ effects of changing land use/cover on daily streamflow: An Artificial Neural Network
and curve number based hybrid approach. Journal of Hydrology, 485, 103–112.
zation, Funding acquisition,Patrick Willems:Conceptualization, Meth­ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.032
odology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,Jos Van orshoven: Jakeman, A. J., & Hornberger, G. M. (1993). How much complexity is warranted in a
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, rainfall-runoff model? Water Resources Research, 29(8), 2637–2649. https://doi.org/
10.1029/93WR00877
Supervision. Jenson, S. K., & Domingue, J. O. (1988). Extracting topographic structure from digital
elevation data for geographic information system analysis. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 54(11), 1593–1600.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Jones, A., Panagos, P., Barcelo, S., Bouraoui, F., Bosco, C., Dewitte, O., Gardi, C., Erhard,
M., Hervás, J., Hiederer, R., Jeffery, S., Lükewille, A., Marmo, L., Montanarella, L.,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Olazábal, C., Petersen, J., Penizek, V., Strassburger, T., Tóth, G., … Yigini, Y. (2012).
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence The State of Soil in Europe: A contribution of the JRC to the EEA Environment State
and Outlook Report – SOER 2010. https://doi.org/10.2788/77361.
the work reported in this paper. Kalantari, Z., Lyon, S. W., Folkeson, L., French, H. K., Stolte, J., Jansson, P. E., &
Sassner, M. (2014). Quantifying the hydrological impact of simulated changes in
Acknowledgments land use on peak discharge in a small catchment. Science of the Total Environment,
466–467, 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.047
Kalyanapu, A. J., Burian, S. J., & Mcpherson, T. N. (2009). Effect of land use-based
This research was funded by the research foundation FWO (Fonds surface roughness on hydrologic model output. Journal of Spatial Hydrology, 9(2),
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek) through PhD grant SB/1S01217N to 51–71.
Li, S., Gitau, M., Bosch, D., Engel, B. A., Zhang, L., & Du, Y. (2017). Development of a soil
Karen Gabriels. Land use data (Agentschap Informatie Vlaanderen, moisture - based distributed hydrologic model for determining hydrologically based
2016), elevation data (Agentschap Informatie Vlaanderen, 2016) and critical source areas. Hydrological Processes, 31(20), 3543–3557. https://doi.org/
soil information (Dondeyne et al., 2013) are available through the 10.1002/hyp.11276
Lin, Y.-P., Hong, N.-M., Wu, P.-J., Wu, C.-F., & Verburg, P. H. (2007). Impacts of land use
geoportal (www.geopunt.be) of the Flemish Information Agency. change scenarios on hydrology and land use patterns in the Wu-Tu watershed in
Northern Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 111–126. https://doi.org/
References 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.007
Lin, Y.-P., Verburg, P. H., Chang, C.-R., Chen, H.-Y., & Chen, M.-H. (2009). Developing
and comparing optimal and empirical land-use models for the development of an
Agentschap Informatie Vlaanderen, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, & Watlab. (2006).
urbanized watershed forest in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(3-4),
DHM-Vlaanderen, raster, 5 m. http://www.geopunt.be/catalogus/datasetfolde
242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.003
r/B5C62D89-A0C4-4228-B359-6FCAB7020C50.
McCuen, R. H. (1998). Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall.
Agentschap Informatie Vlaanderen. (2016). Bodembedekkingskaart (BBK), 5m resolutie,
Morgan, R. P. C., Quinton, J. N., Smith, R. E., Govers, G., Poesen, J., Auerswald, K.,
opname 2012. http://www.geopunt.be/catalogus/datasetfolder/cbd76a37-02
Chisci, G., Torri, D., Styczen, M. E., & Folly, A. J. V. (1998). The European Soil Erosion
7a-48ed-a5fe-012d5f6db55b.

15
K. Gabriels et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (2022) 104262

Model (EUROSEM): Documentation and user guide. Silsoe College: Cranfield van de Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij door het Departement Aard- en
University. Omgevingswetenschappen (KU Leuven) en de Bodemkundige Dienst van België.
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models: Van Orshoven, J. (2001). Van nature overstroombare en recent overstroomde gebieden
Part I – A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), 282–290. in Vlaanderen. Proceedings of the Study Day on ‘“Space for Water, The Best
Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Soil and Water Insurance Against Flooding,”’ 1–22.
Assessment Tool: Theoretical Documentation, Version 2009 (p. (p. 647)). College Vanegas, P., Cattrysse, D., & Orshoven, J. V. (2012). Allocating reforestation areas for
Station, Texas: Texas Water Resources Institute. sediment flow minimization: An integer programming formulation and a heuristic
Peel, M. C. (2009). Hydrology: Catchment vegetation and runoff. Progress in Physical solution method. Optimization and Engineering, 13, 247–269. https://doi.org/
Geography, 33(6), 837–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133309350122 10.1007/s11081-011-9138-2
Poelmans, L., Rompaey, A. V., Ntegeka, V., & Willems, P. (2011). The relative impact of Vanegas, P., Cattrysse, D., & Van Orshoven, J. (2010). Budget constraint in reforestation
climate change and urban expansion on peak flows: A case study in central Belgium. meant for minimizing sediment load at a watershed outlet. Proceedings of the
Hydrological Processes, 25(18), 2846–2858. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8047 International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2010, III,
Richert, E., Bianchin, S., Heilmeier, H., Merta, M., & Seidler, C. (2011). A method for 2174–2179.
linking results from an evaluation of land use scenarios from the viewpoint of flood Verbeiren, B., Van De Voorde, T., Canters, F., Binard, M., Cornet, Y., & Batelaan, O.
prevention and nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), (2012). Assessing urbanisation effects on rainfall-runoff using a remote sensing
118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.001 supported modelling strategy. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Ritter, Axel, & Muñoz-Carpena, Rafael (2013). Performance evaluation of hydrological Geoinformation, 21(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.08.011
models: Statistical significance for reducing subjectivity in goodness-of-fit Vieux, B. E. (2016). Distributed Hydrologic Modeling Using GIS. Springer Science+Business
assessments. Journal of Hydrology, 480(February), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Media.
jhydrol.2012.12.004 Volk, M., Lautenbach, S., van Delden, H., Newham, L. T. H., & Seppelt, R. (2010). How
Sajikumar, N., & Remya, R. S. (2015). Impact of land cover and land use change on Can We Make Progress with Decision Support Systems in Landscape and River Basin
runoff characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 460–468. https:// Management? Lessons Learned from a Comparative Analysis of Four Different
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.041 Decision Support Systems. Environmental Management, 46(6), 834–849. https://doi.
SEPA. (2016). Natural Flood Management Handbook. Edinburgh: Scottish Environment org/10.1007/s00267-009-9417-2
Protection Agency. Wu, H., Bolte, J. P., Hulse, D., & Johnson, B. R. (2015). A scenario-based approach to
Seppelt, R., & Voinov, A. (2003). Optimization methodology for land use patterns — integrating flow-ecology research with watershed development planning. Landscape
Evaluation based on multiscale habitat pattern comparison. Ecological Modelling, 168 and Urban Planning, 144, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00138-8 landurbplan.2015.08.012
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. (1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Yeo, I.-Y., & Guldmann, J.-M. (2010). Global spatial optimization with hydrological
Watersheds: Technical Release 55. https://doi.org/Technical Release 55. systems simulation: Application to land-use allocation and peak runoff
Van Loo, M. (2018). Human environment interactions in the past: modeling ancient crop minimization. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14, 325–338. https://doi.org/
yields in a mediterranean environment. Doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven. 10.5194/hess-14-325-2010
Van Opstal, M., Tits, M., Beckers, V., Van Overtveld, K., Batelaan, O., Van Orshoven, J., Yu, D., Xie, P., Dong, X., Su, B., Hu, X., Wang, K., & Xu, S. (2018). The development of
et al. (2013). ArcNEMO, a new spatially distributed nutrient emission model to land use planning scenarios based on land suitability and its influences on eco-
quantify N and P losses from agriculture to surface waters. LUWQ2013, Land Use hydrological responses in the upstream of the Huaihe River basin. Ecological
and Water Quality:Reducing Effects of Agriculture. Modelling, 373(2018), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.01.010
Van Opstal, M., Tits, M., Beckers, V., Elsen, A., Van Overtveld, K., Batelaan, O., et al. Zorrilla-Miras, P., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P. L., &
(2014). Vernieuwde kwantificering van de verliezen van N en P vanuit de landbouw Montes, C. (2014). Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case
naar het oppervlaktewater. Eindrapport, mei 2014. Studie uitgevoerd in opdracht study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning, 122,
160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.013

16