The Impact of Spatiotemporal Changes in Land Development (1984–2019) on the Increase in the Runoff Coefficient in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq
<p>Study area.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Flow chart of the applied methodology in the study.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The soil classes in the study area.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Topography and delineated sub-basins over the study area.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) maps of the studied area for the years (<b>a</b>) 1984, (<b>b</b>) 1994, (<b>c</b>) 2004, (<b>d</b>) 2014 and (<b>e</b>) 2019.</p> "> Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) maps of the studied area for the years (<b>a</b>) 1984, (<b>b</b>) 1994, (<b>c</b>) 2004, (<b>d</b>) 2014 and (<b>e</b>) 2019.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Outflow hydrograph for p = 10% rainfall.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Change in the runoff coefficient in each sub-basin in the study period.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>The evolution of built-up areas from 1984 to 2019.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Difficulty in moving (photo taken by Soran Hassan Jazě). (<b>b</b>) A municipality wheel loader transports officers to a national bank near West Erbil emergency hospital (photo taken from NRT official social media page).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Workflow
2.3. Remote Sensing Data Acquisition
2.4. Image Pre-Processing
2.5. Image Classification
2.6. Image Post-Processing
2.7. Hydrological Modeling Using HEC-HMS
3. Results
3.1. LULC Accuracy Assessment
3.2. LULC Results and Change Detection
3.3. Influence of Urbanization on the Flash Flood Potential
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The results revealed that between 1984 and 2004, bare land and built-up areas steadily increased, while between 2004 and 2019, built-up areas soared by almost 245% (from just 55.823 to 136.658 km2). Permeable areas like agricultural land and vegetation steadily decreased from 1984 to 2019. Only between 2014 and 2019 did vegetation areas increase, especially in the downstream area of the city. In our opinion, these changes are related to farming types in these areas, and the remote sensing data showed the class as vegetation;
- Three factors (economic, social and political) influenced the LULC changes in the studied area. For instance, after 2004, the KRI generally, and especially Erbil, enjoyed a decade of prosperity and development due to many factors such as stable security, local and international investment, and the successful implementation of some of the American free market-based developmental policies;
- The influence of urbanization on the flood peak discharge, runoff volume and runoff coefficient were investigated for the depth of storm rainfall at the probability distribution of 10%, which is equal to 71.16 mm under different urbanization scenarios. The simulations showed that urban development could considerably aggravate flooding caused by a given storm due to the hindrance of natural drainage and decreasing permeability;
- As it is obvious in the analysis, parallel to urban development, the runoff volume and peak discharge increased as well. Therefore, the probability of more flash floods in the city is increasing likewise. If the authorities do not take steps related to adopting a new strategy in order to stop urban flash floods, such flash floods will target areas that are denser in urban development and population.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Du, P.; Liu, P.; Xia, J.; Feng, L.; Liu, S.; Tan, K.; Cheng, L. Remote sensing image interpretation for urban environment analysis: Methods, system and examples. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 9458–9474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hussein, K.; Alkaabi, K.; Ghebreyesus, D.; Liaqat, M.U.; Sharif, H.O. Land use/land cover change along the Eastern Coast of the UAE and its impact on flooding risk. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2020, 11, 112–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duncan, J.; Stow, D.; Franklin, J.; Hope, A. Assessing the relationship between spectral vegetation indices and shrub cover in the Jornada Basin, New Mexico. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1993, 14, 3395–3416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fromard, F.; Vega, C.; Proisy, C. Half a century of dynamic coastal change affecting mangrove shorelines of French Guiana. A case study based on remote sensing data analyses and field surveys. Mar. Geol. 2004, 208, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muttitanon, W.; Tripathi, N. Land use/land cover changes in the coastal zone of Ban Don Bay, Thailand using Landsat 5 TM data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26, 2311–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawat, J.; Biswas, V.; Kumar, M. Changes in land use/cover using geospatial techniques: A case study of Ramnagar town area, district Nainital, Uttarakhand, India. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2013, 16, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zubair, A.O. Change Detection in Land Use and Land Cover Using Remote Sensing Data and GIS (A Case Study of Ilorin and Its Environs in Kwara State). Available online: https://www.geospatialworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OpeyemiZubair_ThesisDOC.doc (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Gautam, N.; Chennaiah, G.C. Land-use and land-cover mapping and change detection in Tripura using satellite LANDSAT data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1985, 6, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- König, H.J.; Schuler, J.; Suarma, U.; McNeill, D.; Imbernon, J.; Damayanti, F.; Dalimunthe, S.A.; Uthes, S.; Sartohadi, J.; Helming, K. Assessing the impact of land use policy on urban-rural sustainability using the FoPIA approach in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1991–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swangjang, K.; Iamaram, V. Change of land use patterns in the areas close to the airport development area and some implicating factors. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1517–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tian, Y.; Yin, K.; Lu, D.; Hua, L.; Zhao, Q.; Wen, M. Examining land use and land cover spatiotemporal change and driving forces in Beijing from 1978 to 2010. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 10593–10611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weng, Q. Land use change analysis in the Zhujiang Delta of China using satellite remote sensing, GIS and stochastic modelling. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 64, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Y.; Zhang, K.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, H. Examining land-use/land-cover change in the Lake Dianchi Watershed of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau of southwest China with remote sensing and GIS techniques: 1974–2008. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 3843–3865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weng, Q. Thermal infrared remote sensing for urban climate and environmental studies: Methods, applications, and trends. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2009, 64, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, Q.; Lu, D.; Schubring, J. Estimation of land surface temperature–vegetation abundance relationship for urban heat island studies. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 89, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topaloğlu, R.H.; Sertel, E.; Musaoğlu, N. Assessment of classification accuracies of sentinel-2 and landsat-8 data for land cover/use mapping. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2016, 41, 1055–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, M.C.; Loveland, T.R. A review of large area monitoring of land cover change using Landsat data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 122, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masek, J.G.; Huang, C.; Wolfe, R.; Cohen, W.; Hall, F.; Kutler, J.; Nelson, P. North American forest disturbance mapped from a decadal Landsat record. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 2914–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, N.E.; Huang, C.; Goward, S.N.; Powell, S.; Rishmawi, K.; Schleeweis, K.; Hinds, A. Validation of North American forest disturbance dynamics derived from Landsat time series stacks. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussein, S.O.; Kovács, F.; Tobak, Z.; Abdullah, H.J. Spatial distribution of vegetation cover in Erbil city districts using high-resolution Pléiades satellite image. Acta Geogr. Debrecina Landsc. Environ. 2018, 12, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamad, R. A remote sensing and GIS-based analysis of urban sprawl in Soran District, Iraqi Kurdistan. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Houghton, R.A. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus B 2003, 55, 378–390. [Google Scholar]
- Dewan, A.M.; Yamaguchi, Y. Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh: Using remote sensing to promote sustainable urbanization. Appl. Geogr. 2009, 29, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewan, A.M.; Yamaguchi, Y. Using remote sensing and GIS to detect and monitor land use and land cover change in Dhaka Metropolitan of Bangladesh during 1960–2005. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 150, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jat, M.K.; Garg, P.K.; Khare, D. Monitoring and modelling of urban sprawl using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2008, 10, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mundia, C.N.; Aniya, M. Dynamics of landuse/cover changes and degradation of Nairobi City, Kenya. Land Degrad. Dev. 2006, 17, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aburas, M.M.; Ho, Y.M.; Ramli, M.F.; Ash’aari, Z.H. Monitoring and assessment of urban growth patterns using spatio-temporal built-up area analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, J.M.; Marsh, S.H.; Smith, M.J. A comparison between London and Baghdad surface urban heat islands and possible engineering mitigation solutions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 29, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wałęga, A.; Radecki-Pawlik, A.; Cupak, A.; Hathaway, J.; Pukowiec, M. Influence of Changes of Catchment Permeability and Frequency of Rainfall on Critical Storm Duration in an Urbanized Catchment—A Case Study, Cracow, Poland. Water 2019, 11, 2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szydlowski, M. Mathematical modelling of flash floods in natural and urban areas. In Transboundary Floods: Reducing Risks through Flood Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 143–153. [Google Scholar]
- Zope, P.; Eldho, T.; Jothiprakash, V. Impacts of land use–land cover change and urbanization on flooding: A case study of Oshiwara River Basin in Mumbai, India. Catena 2016, 145, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.; Khan, S.J.; Aslam, I.; Khan, Z. Simulation of the impacts of land-use change on surface runoff of Lai Nullah Basin in Islamabad, Pakistan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 102, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.N.; Kepner, W.G.; Mehaffey, M.H.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, R.C.; Goodrich, D.C.; Kim Devonald, K.; Heggem, D.T.; Miller, W.P. Integrating landscape assessment and hydrologic modeling for land cover change analysis 1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2002, 38, 915–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanyal, J.; Densmore, A.; Carboneau, P. Analyzing the effect of land-use/cover changes at sub-catchment levels on downstream flood peaks: A semi-distributed modeling approach with sparse data. Catena 2014, 118, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szpakowski, W.; Szydłowski, M. Evaluating the Catastrophic Rainfall of 14 July 2016 in the Catchment Basin of the Urbanized Strzyza Stream in Gdańsk, Poland. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szydłowski, M.; Mikos-Studnicka, P.; Zima, P.; Weinerowska-Bords, K.; Hakiel, J.; Szawurska, D. Stormwater and snowmelt runoff storage control and flash flood hazard forecasting in the urbanized coastal basin. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering WMHE, Brno, Czech Republic, 8–10 September 2015; pp. 141–150. [Google Scholar]
- Abdouli, K.A.; Hussein, K.; Ghebreyesus, D.; Sharif, H.O. Coastal Runoff in the United Arab Emirates—The Hazard and Opportunity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, P.; Bohloul, A.; Hosein, M. The effect of the land use/cover changes on the floods of the Madarsu Basin of Northeastern Iran. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2010, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Apollonio, C.; Balacco, G.; Novelli, A.; Tarantino, E.; Piccinni, A.F. Land use change impact on flooding areas: The case study of Cervaro Basin (Italy). Sustainability 2016, 8, 996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Batunacun; Nendel, C.; Hu, Y.; Lakes, T. Land-use change and land degradation on the Mongolian Plateau from 1975 to 2015—A case study from Xilingol, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 1595–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaul, H.A.; Sopan, I. Land use land cover classification and change detection using high resolution temporal satellite data. J. Environ. 2012, 1, 146–152. [Google Scholar]
- Superczynski, S.D.; Christopher, S.A. Exploring land use and land cover effects on air quality in Central Alabama using GIS and remote sensing. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 2552–2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharif, H.O.; Al-Juaidi, F.H.; Al-Othman, A.; Al-Dousary, I.; Fadda, E.; Jamal-Uddeen, S.; Elhassan, A. Flood hazards in an urbanizing watershed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2016, 7, 702–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hameed, H.M. Estimating the effect of urban growth on annual runoff volume using GIS in the Erbil sub-basin of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Hydrology 2017, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nanekely, M.; Scholz, M.; Al-Faraj, F. Strategic framework for sustainable management of drainage systems in semi-arid cities: An Iraqi case study. Water 2016, 8, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goel, M.K. Runoff Coefficient. In Encyclopedia of Snow, Ice and Glaciers; Singh, V.P., Singh, P., Haritashya, U.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 952–953. [Google Scholar]
- Mustafa, A.M.; Muhammed, H.H.; Szydłowski, M. Extreme rainfalls as a cause of urban flash floods; a case study of the Erbil-Kurdistan region of Iraq. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus 2019, 18, 113–132. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, R.I.; Mushatat, S.A.; Abdelmonem, M.G. Erbil. Cities 2015, 49, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasin, S. Influence of Modernity Versus Continuity of Architectural Identity on House Facade in Erbil City, Iraq. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Salahaddin_Baper2/publication/329337353_INFLUENCE_OF_MODERNITY_VERSUS_CONTINUITY_OF_ARCHITECTURAL_IDENTITY_ON_HOUSE_FACADE_IN_ERBIL_CITY_IRAQ/links/5c024af1a6fdcc1b8d4d6bf3/INFLUENCE-OF-MODERNITY-VERSUS-CONTINUITY-OF-ARCHITECTURAL-IDENTITY-ON-HOUSE-FACADE-IN-ERBIL-CITY-IRAQ.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Eastman, J. IDRISI Kilimanjaro Guide to GIS and Image Processing. Manual Version. Available online: http://academic.uprm.edu/~jchinea/cursos/gis/lectesc/Kilimanjaro%20Manual.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Bailly, J.; Arnaud, M.; Puech, C. Boosting: A classification method for remote sensing. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2007, 28, 1687–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currit, N. Development of a remotely sensed, historical land-cover change database for rural Chihuahua, Mexico. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2005, 7, 232–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, J.R. Thematic information extraction: Pattern recognition. Introd. Digit. Image Process. Remote Sens. Perspect. 2005, 337–406. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.-H.; Skidmore, A.; Van Oosten, H. Integration of classification methods for improvement of land-cover map accuracy. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2002, 56, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dissanayake, D.; Morimoto, T.; Ranagalage, M.; Murayama, Y. Land-use/land-cover changes and their impact on surface urban heat islands: Case study of Kandy City, Sri Lanka. Climate 2019, 7, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ranagalage, M.; Wang, R.; Gunarathna, M.; Dissanayake, D.; Murayama, Y.; Simwanda, M. Spatial forecasting of the landscape in rapidly urbanizing hill stations of South Asia: A case study of Nuwara Eliya, Sri Lanka (1996–2037). Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scharffenberg, W.A.; Fleming, M.J. Hydrologic Modeling System-HEC-HMS-User’s Manual-Version 2.1. Available online: https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/documentation/CPD-74A_2001Jan.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Manual, U.U.S. Geospatial Hydrologic Modelling Extension, HEC-GeoHMS, Version 1.1. Available online: https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-geohms/documentation/HEC-GeoHMS11.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Ponce, V.M.; Hawkins, R.H. Runoff curve number: Has it reached maturity? J. Hydrol. Eng. 1996, 1, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrestha, M.N. Spatially distributed hydrological modelling considering land-use changes using remote sensing and GIS. In Proceedings of the Map Asia Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17–19 July 2003; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Story, M.; Congalton, R.G. Accuracy assessment: A user’s perspective. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1986, 52, 397–399. [Google Scholar]
- Tung, F.; LeDrew, E. The determination of optimal threshold levels for change detection using various accuracy indexes. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1988, 54, 1449–1454. [Google Scholar]
- Szpakowski, W.; Szydłowski, M. Probable Rainfall in Gdańsk in View of Climate Change. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Cir. 2018, 3, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KRG. Ministry of planning. In Statistic Year Book; Regional Statistical Office: Erbil, Iraqi; Available online: http://www.krso.net/files/articles/120814020503.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Jiang, D.; Huang, Y.; Zhuang, D.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, X.; Ren, H. A simple semi-automatic approach for land cover classification from multispectral remote sensing imagery. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e45889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blackman, N.J.M.; Koval, J.J. Interval estimation for Cohen’s kappa as a measure of agreement. Stat. Med. 2000, 19, 723–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sabr, C. A study on the urban form of Erbil city (the capital of Kurdistan region) as an example of historical and fast growing city. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Rev. CD-ROM 2014, 3, 325–340. [Google Scholar]
- Jongerden, J.; Wolters, W.; Dijkxhoorn, Y.; Gür, F.; Öztürk, M. The Politics of Agricultural Development in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region in Iraq (KRI). Sustainability 2019, 11, 5874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Jameel, A.; Al-Yaqoobi, D.; Sulaiman, W. Spatial configuration of Erbil Citadel: Its potentials for adaptive re-use. In Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium, London, UK, 13–17 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Huong, H.T.L.; Pathirana, A. Urbanization and climate change impacts on future urban flooding in Can Tho city, Vietnam. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nirupama, N.; Simonovic, S.P. Increase of flood risk due to urbanisation: A Canadian example. Nat. Hazards 2007, 40, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saghafian, B.; Farazjoo, H.; Bozorgy, B.; Yazdandoost, F. Flood intensification due to changes in land use. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22, 1051–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suarez, P.; Anderson, W.; Mahal, V.; Lakshmanan, T. Impacts of flooding and climate change on urban transportation: A systemwide performance assessment of the Boston Metro Area. Transp. Res. Part. D Transp. Environ. 2005, 10, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hakiel, J.; Szydłowski, M. Interaction Between Storm Water Conduit Flow and Overland Flow for Numerical Modelling of Urban Area Inundation. In Hydrodynamic and Mass Transport at Freshwater Aquatic Interfaces: 34th International School of Hydraulics; Rowiński, P., Marion, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 23–34. [Google Scholar]
- Szydłowski, M. Hydraulic analysis of causes of washout of Gdynia-Orłowo sea-shore during the flood in the Kacza river estuary. Pol. Marit. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Satellite | Sensor_ID | Path/Row | No. Bands | Date of Acquisition | Grid Cell Size (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Landsat 4-5 TM C1 Level-1 | LT51690351984167XXX02 | 169/35 | 7 | 15 June 1984 | 30 |
Landsat 4-5 TM C1 Level-1 | LT51690351994226RSA00 | 169/35 | 7 | 14 August 1994 | 30 |
Landsat 7 ETM+ C1 Level-1 | LE71690352004198ASN01 | 169/35 | 9 | 16 July 2004 | 30 |
Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS C1 Level-1 | LC81690352014201LGN01 | 169/35 | 11 | 20 July 2014 | 30 |
Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS C1 Level-1 | LC81690352019183LGN00 | 169/35 | 11 | 2 July 2019 | 30 |
Years | Water | Built-up | Bare Land | Agriculture | Vegetation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Producer’s Accuracy (%) | 1984 | 100 | 98.88 | 62.99 | 78.69 | 94.74 |
User’s Accuracy (%) | 86.00 | 88.00 | 80.00 | 96.00 | 72.00 | |
Overall Classification Accuracy (%) | 84.40 | |||||
Kappa Statistics (%) | 80.50 | |||||
Producer’s Accuracy (%) | 1994 | 100 | 98.80 | 57.25 | 80.70 | 97.73 |
User’s Accuracy (%) | 77.00 | 82.00 | 79.00 | 92.00 | 86.00 | |
Overall classification Accuracy (%) | 83.20 | |||||
Kappa Statistics (%) | 79.00 | |||||
Producer’s Accuracy (%) | 2004 | - | 99.04 | 68.21 | 81.02 | 99.07 |
User’s Accuracy (%) | - | 82.40 | 82.40 | 88.80 | 85.60 | |
Overall Classification Accuracy (%) | 84.80 | |||||
Kappa Statistics (%) | 79.73 | |||||
Producer’s Accuracy (%) | 2014 | - | 95.28 | 83.85 | 77.78 | 93.69 |
User’s Accuracy (%) | - | 80.80 | 87.20 | 95.20 | 83.20 | |
Overall Classification Accuracy (%) | 86.60 | |||||
Kappa Statistics (%) | 82.13 | |||||
Producer’s Accuracy (%) | 2019 | - | 95.37 | 83.21 | 84.83 | 95.45 |
User’s Accuracy (%) | - | 82.40 | 91.20 | 98.40 | 84.00 | |
Overall Classification Accuracy (%) | 89.00 | |||||
Kappa Statistics (%) | 85.33 |
LULC Category | 1984 | 1994 | 2004 | 2014 | 2019 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area (km2) | |||||
Water | 2.537 | 2.387 | - | - | - |
Built-up | 30.751 | 44.283 | 55.823 | 119.101 | 136.658 |
Bare land | 129.337 | 149.191 | 161.863 | 186.572 | 158.347 |
Agriculture | 276.966 | 257.919 | 252.363 | 175.781 | 167.288 |
Vegetation | 68.756 | 54.568 | 38.298 | 26.893 | 46.054 |
LULC Category | Runoff Curve Number for Different Soil Groups | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |
Water | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Built Up | 77 | 85 | 90 | 92 |
Bare Land | 68 | 79 | 86 | 89 |
Agriculture | 65 | 76 | 84 | 88 |
Vegetation | 43 | 65 | 76 | 82 |
Sub-Basins | Years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1984 | 1994 | 2004 | 2014 | 2019 | |
W330 | 81.12 | 81.81 | 83.74 | 86.14 | 86.15 |
W350 | 83.89 | 83.99 | 84.57 | 86.07 | 86.10 |
W360 | 84.39 | 85.58 | 86.15 | 87.74 | 87.84 |
W380 | 84.84 | 85.26 | 85.62 | 87.02 | 86.96 |
W390 | 85.03 | 86.31 | 87.07 | 87.52 | 87.44 |
W440 | 83.49 | 83.53 | 83.68 | 84.06 | 83.83 |
W450 | 84.92 | 85.15 | 85.70 | 87.21 | 87.20 |
W480 | 82.95 | 83.71 | 83.44 | 85.01 | 85.23 |
W500 | 82.21 | 82.28 | 82.17 | 82.68 | 82.44 |
W510 | 84.20 | 84.38 | 84.18 | 84.39 | 83.79 |
W540 | 83.55 | 83.64 | 83.51 | 83.73 | 83.19 |
W560 | 83.10 | 83.71 | 83.47 | 84.52 | 84.21 |
W570 | 82.37 | 83.44 | 83.12 | 83.59 | 82.83 |
W590 | 82.75 | 82.97 | 82.79 | 83.18 | 82.93 |
W620 | 83.21 | 83.89 | 83.82 | 84.32 | 83.96 |
Sub-Basin | LULC | Area (km2) | (%) Change in LULC | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1984 | 1994 | 2004 | 2014 | 2019 | 1984–2004 | 2004–2019 | ||
W330 | Water | 0.854 | 1.025 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.762 | 2.206 | 2.696 | 16.932 | 19.301 | +253.72 | +2178.28 | |
Bare Land | 5.843 | 14.292 | 21.413 | 29.678 | 25.958 | +266.48 | +77.79 | |
Agriculture | 29.296 | 20.035 | 24.719 | 4.972 | 5.155 | −15.62 | −66.78 | |
Vegetation | 16.323 | 15.521 | 4.251 | 1.498 | 2.664 | −73.96 | −9.72 | |
Total Area (km2) | 53.078 | |||||||
W350 | Water | 0.036 | 0.002 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 3.333 | 4.163 | 5.681 | 16.387 | 21.182 | +70.46 | +465.14 | |
Bare Land | 12.965 | 12.467 | 19.114 | 33.339 | 25.371 | +47.43 | +48.26 | |
Agriculture | 46.222 | 46.396 | 40.575 | 17.280 | 18.666 | −12.22 | −47.40 | |
Vegetation | 7.542 | 7.070 | 4.728 | 3.092 | 4.878 | −37.32 | +1.99 | |
Total Area (km2) | 70.097 | |||||||
W360 | Water | 0.553 | 0.597 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.919 | 2.619 | 3.584 | 10.787 | 13.042 | +290.01 | +1029.29 | |
Bare Land | 3.468 | 11.200 | 12.087 | 11.249 | 7.593 | +248.56 | −129.59 | |
Agriculture | 16.694 | 7.953 | 9.266 | 2.977 | 3.677 | −44.50 | −33.48 | |
Vegetation | 4.079 | 3.344 | 0.776 | 0.699 | 1.400 | −80.98 | +15.31 | |
Total Area (km2) | 25.712 | |||||||
W380 | Water | 0.001 | 0.013 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 5.621 | 6.935 | 8.647 | 13.931 | 14.428 | +53.83 | +102.83 | |
Bare Land | 7.730 | 7.224 | 6.353 | 7.232 | 6.761 | −17.81 | +5.27 | |
Agriculture | 10.229 | 9.926 | 9.282 | 3.511 | 2.939 | −9.26 | −62.00 | |
Vegetation | 3.424 | 2.907 | 2.723 | 2.332 | 2.877 | −20.45 | +4.50 | |
Total Area (km2) | 27.005 | |||||||
W390 | Water | 0.175 | 0.145 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 9.845 | 14.216 | 16.450 | 20.655 | 23.027 | +67.09 | +66.80 | |
Bare Land | 4.758 | 11.270 | 12.197 | 13.073 | 8.367 | +156.33 | −80.48 | |
Agriculture | 19.722 | 11.188 | 11.493 | 5.535 | 6.600 | −41.72 | −24.81 | |
Vegetation | 7.933 | 5.613 | 2.292 | 3.169 | 4.439 | −71.10 | +27.06 | |
Total Area (km2) | 42.432 | |||||||
W440 | Water | 0.715 | 0.398 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.421 | 0.496 | 1.052 | 4.559 | 5.655 | +149.79 | +1092.74 | |
Bare Land | 14.171 | 16.943 | 21.560 | 20.381 | 18.803 | +52.14 | −19.45 | |
Agriculture | 28.335 | 25.929 | 20.874 | 18.471 | 17.225 | −26.33 | −12.88 | |
Vegetation | 0.347 | 0.223 | 0.503 | 0.578 | 2.306 | +44.82 | +518.91 | |
Total Area (km2) | 43.988 | |||||||
W450 | Water | 0.002 | 0.018 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 7.715 | 11.196 | 14.386 | 20.695 | 22.026 | +86.47 | +99.03 | |
Bare Land | 8.209 | 9.412 | 6.848 | 7.685 | 6.645 | −16.58 | −2.48 | |
Agriculture | 19.366 | 12.792 | 13.140 | 8.281 | 7.050 | −32.15 | −31.45 | |
Vegetation | 3.530 | 5.404 | 4.448 | 2.161 | 3.101 | +26.01 | −38.14 | |
Total Area (km2) | 38.822 | |||||||
W480 | Water | 0.006 | 0.017 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.412 | 0.412 | 0.501 | 3.074 | 3.984 | +21.62 | +844.98 | |
Bare Land | 2.728 | 3.442 | 3.759 | 5.422 | 5.020 | +37.81 | +46.22 | |
Agriculture | 10.135 | 10.704 | 9.620 | 6.254 | 5.592 | −5.08 | −39.75 | |
Vegetation | 3.032 | 1.739 | 2.433 | 1.563 | 1.717 | −19.77 | −23.60 | |
Total Area (km2) | 16.313 | |||||||
W500 | Water | 0.167 | 0.022 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.117 | 0.053 | 0.137 | 1.495 | 1.607 | +16.92 | +1256.92 | |
Bare Land | 8.689 | 8.331 | 7.939 | 7.928 | 8.351 | −8.63 | +4.74 | |
Agriculture | 7.570 | 8.710 | 8.875 | 7.691 | 6.380 | +17.24 | −32.96 | |
Vegetation | 1.278 | 0.704 | 0.869 | 0.706 | 1.481 | −31.96 | +47.90 | |
Total Area (km2) | 17.820 | |||||||
W510 | Water | 0.001 | 0.028 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.410 | 0.275 | 0.500 | 3.173 | 4.655 | +22.20 | +1014.51 | |
Bare Land | 25.180 | 23.697 | 22.507 | 21.094 | 17.429 | −10.62 | −20.17 | |
Agriculture | 24.115 | 27.329 | 27.149 | 25.700 | 23.766 | 12.58 | −14.03 | |
Vegetation | 2.027 | 0.404 | 1.576 | 1.765 | 5.882 | −22.25 | +212.48 | |
Total Area (km2) | 51.732 | |||||||
W540 | Water | 0 | 0.120 | - | - | - | 0 | - |
Built-up | 0.344 | 0.358 | 0.521 | 1.378 | 1.278 | +51.57 | +220.16 | |
Bare Land | 9.729 | 8.786 | 9.393 | 10.290 | 8.258 | −3.45 | −11.67 | |
Agriculture | 18.395 | 19.655 | 18.356 | 16.514 | 17.271 | −0.22 | −5.90 | |
Vegetation | 0.607 | 0.156 | 0.805 | 0.893 | 2.267 | +32.64 | +241.10 | |
Total Area (km2) | 29.075 | |||||||
W560 | Water | 0.023 | 0.005 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.109 | 0.354 | 0.426 | 1.441 | 1.348 | +290.91 | +847.11 | |
Bare Land | 7.691 | 7.992 | 6.161 | 7.881 | 7.113 | −19.90 | +12.38 | |
Agriculture | 15.518 | 16.963 | 18.141 | 18.059 | 18.073 | +16.91 | −0.44 | |
Vegetation | 5.179 | 3.206 | 3.793 | 1.139 | 1.986 | −26.76 | −34.88 | |
Total Area (km2) | 28.520 | |||||||
W570 | Water | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 0 | - |
Built-up | 0.189 | 0.264 | 0.252 | 0.517 | 0.578 | +33.33 | +172.38 | |
Bare Land | 1.503 | 1.158 | 0.536 | 0.952 | 1.054 | −64.31 | +34.43 | |
Agriculture | 5.664 | 7.253 | 7.664 | 7.268 | 6.115 | 35.32 | −27.36 | |
Vegetation | 2.532 | 1.212 | 1.435 | 1.151 | 2.141 | −43.33 | 27.91 | |
Total Area (km2) | 9.887 | |||||||
W590 | Water | 0 | 0.001 | - | - | - | 0 | - |
Built-up | 0.098 | 0.137 | 0.149 | 0.662 | 0.766 | +52.29 | +628.44 | |
Bare Land | 2.908 | 2.078 | 1.101 | 0.848 | 1.945 | −62.15 | +29.03 | |
Agriculture | 13.808 | 15.264 | 15.896 | 16.425 | 14.231 | 15.12 | −12.06 | |
Vegetation | 3.956 | 3.290 | 3.623 | 2.835 | 3.828 | −8.40 | 5.16 | |
Total Area (km2) | 20.769 | |||||||
W620 | Water | 0.003 | 0.003 | - | - | - | −100 | - |
Built-up | 0.408 | 0.499 | 0.717 | 3.166 | 3.498 | +75.94 | +682.12 | |
Bare Land | 13.628 | 10.655 | 10.617 | 9.240 | 9.427 | −22.09 | −8.74 | |
Agriculture | 11.525 | 17.570 | 17.003 | 16.593 | 14.267 | 47.52 | −23.74 | |
Vegetation | 6.710 | 3.547 | 3.936 | 3.273 | 5.081 | −41.34 | 17.08 | |
Total Area (km2) | 32.273 |
Sub-Basins | Runoff (mm)/Runoff Coefficient | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1984 | 1994 | 2004 | 2014 | 2019 | ||||||
W330 | 26.58 | 0.37 | 27.72 | 0.39 | 30.99 | 0.44 | 35.42 | 0.50 | 35.42 | 0.50 |
W350 | 27.28 | 0.38 | 27.47 | 0.39 | 28.55 | 0.40 | 31.49 | 0.44 | 31.54 | 0.44 |
W360 | 31.52 | 0.44 | 33.68 | 0.47 | 34.74 | 0.49 | 37.84 | 0.53 | 38.03 | 0.53 |
W380 | 32.15 | 0.45 | 32.91 | 0.46 | 33.59 | 0.47 | 36.25 | 0.51 | 36.12 | 0.51 |
W390 | 31.40 | 0.44 | 33.82 | 0.48 | 35.31 | 0.50 | 36.22 | 0.51 | 36.05 | 0.51 |
W440 | 30.56 | 0.43 | 30.63 | 0.43 | 30.88 | 0.43 | 31.55 | 0.44 | 31.14 | 0.44 |
W450 | 30.59 | 0.43 | 31.03 | 0.44 | 32.08 | 0.45 | 35.06 | 0.49 | 35.04 | 0.49 |
W480 | 29.31 | 0.41 | 30.59 | 0.43 | 30.13 | 0.42 | 32.87 | 0.46 | 33.28 | 0.47 |
W500 | 28.60 | 0.40 | 28.71 | 0.40 | 28.53 | 0.40 | 29.38 | 0.41 | 28.97 | 0.41 |
W510 | 31.73 | 0.45 | 32.04 | 0.45 | 31.68 | 0.45 | 32.06 | 0.45 | 31.02 | 0.44 |
W540 | 30.34 | 0.43 | 30.51 | 0.43 | 30.29 | 0.43 | 30.65 | 0.43 | 29.73 | 0.42 |
W560 | 28.47 | 0.40 | 29.53 | 0.41 | 29.11 | 0.41 | 30.97 | 0.44 | 30.41 | 0.43 |
W570 | 28.53 | 0.40 | 30.32 | 0.43 | 29.78 | 0.42 | 30.58 | 0.43 | 29.30 | 0.41 |
W590 | 22.98 | 0.32 | 23.40 | 0.33 | 23.07 | 0.32 | 23.79 | 0.33 | 23.33 | 0.33 |
W620 | 29.99 | 0.42 | 31.14 | 0.44 | 31.03 | 0.44 | 31.90 | 0.45 | 31.27 | 0.44 |
Outlet | 27.40 | 0.39 | 28.26 | 0.40 | 28.97 | 0.41 | 30.97 | 0.44 | 30.66 | 0.43 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mustafa, A.; Szydłowski, M. The Impact of Spatiotemporal Changes in Land Development (1984–2019) on the Increase in the Runoff Coefficient in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081302
Mustafa A, Szydłowski M. The Impact of Spatiotemporal Changes in Land Development (1984–2019) on the Increase in the Runoff Coefficient in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(8):1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081302
Chicago/Turabian StyleMustafa, Andam, and Michał Szydłowski. 2020. "The Impact of Spatiotemporal Changes in Land Development (1984–2019) on the Increase in the Runoff Coefficient in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq" Remote Sensing 12, no. 8: 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081302