This study aims to predict land use and land cover (LULC) changes for the years 2030 and 2050 using Markov models, and subsequently assess the impacts of these changes on water resources in the Wadi Soummam watershed, Algeria, employing the HEC–HMS model. The research compares five LULC maps (2005, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2050) to identify variations over the years. The results indicate a notable increase in urbanization, accompanied by a reduction in agricultural and forested areas, leading to a decline in overall vegetation cover. Forests and grasslands experienced a consistent decrease between 2020 and 2050, while urban areas expanded. These LULC alterations have significant implications for the water resources in the study area. From 2030 to 2050, the average annual water yield witnessed an increase of 38.6 m3/s for the 10-year return period event and 70.8 m3/s for the 100-year return period event. Conversely, peak flows exhibited a decline for various return periods between 2005 and 2015, followed by an increase from 2015 to 2020 due to the impact of LULC changes. For instance, the peak flow for the 10-year return period in 2005 was 1651.1m3/s, which decreased to 1604.5 m3/s in 2015, but rose to 1632.8 m3/s in 2020.

  • The effect of land use/land cover change on hydrological responses is assessed.

  • The study's analysis revealed that changes in LULC have implicit effects on the water balance components when using the HEC–HMS model.

  • The approach used has been approved and provides actionable information that will allow stakeholders and decision-makers to make important decisions about natural resource planning and management.

Floods are among the most common natural disaster phenomena on Earth (Abdelkebir et al. 2021). Floods are caused by several factors, the most famous of which are climate change and unregulated urban growth (Tesfaw et al. 2023). Floods can result in human and economic losses, which causes a deterioration of the standard of living for people and disrupts even the efforts of countries to achieve sustainable development (Mokhtari et al. 2023). Experts and researchers, supported by decision-makers in various fields, have explored and valued modern methods and strategies for assessing and defining the frequency of floods as a first step, and as a second step proposing effective flood control strategies, and as a final step proposing effective strategies for protection and prediction from flash floods. Flood event analysis is important for assessing and understanding catchment hydrological response. To predict the hydrologic response of a catchment, we have performed hydrological modeling using a Geographic Information System (GIS) to extract the main inputs for the simulation.

We used a rainfall runoff model in our study to describe the relationship between rain and runoff. There are numerous models available, each with its own set of strengths, weaknesses, and operating conditions including: HEC–HMS model, Cross-wavelet analysis, SWAT model and Deep learning method for forecasting (Derdour et al. 2018; Sertel et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2022; Ghaderpour et al. 2023).

We selected Hydrologic Engineering Centers Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC–HMS), designed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, one of the most well known of these models in the rainfall runoff process (USACE).

The purpose of the HEC–HMS mathematical model is to approximate the entire hydrologic phase of a dendritic catchment. In either natural or regulated watersheds, the model can simulate rainfall–runoff and watershed routing processes. It helps to predict peak flows, runoff volumes, and hydrographs in the basin (Mokhtari et al. 2016). The hydrographs produced by the program can be used in water supply studies such as flood forecasting, water distribution, urban drainage planning, and reservoir design. The shift in LULC coupled with irregular urbanization would undoubtedly contribute to the emergence of floods (Apollonio et al. 2016). The effects of changes in LULC in the catchment could be estimated using a combination of HEC–HMS and GIS to understand the increase in stream flow in river systems (Ramly & Tahir 2016).

Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability and efficiency of the HEC–HMS model to assess the impact of LULC change in various regions around the world (Ali et al. 2011; Zope et al. 2016; de Moraes et al. 2018; Koneti et al. 2018; Hu & Shrestha 2020; Azizi et al. 2021).

The HEC–HMS model was selected for this study because it was found to be accurate in evaluating the hydrological response of the catchment for event simulation. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of land use change on the hydrological response of a Soummam Catchment with event rainfall. This research is critical because the Wadi Soummam watershed is one of the Soummam basin's raw water sources.

The Soummam watershed is primarily composed, on the left bank, of Oligocene formations intersected by lower Cretaceous formations and Miocene formations appearing in the downstream area along the riverbank. Generally, significant alluvial terraces cover the foothills, except in the region of Sidi-Aïch where the Cretaceous formations extend into the riverbed. On the right bank, it is mostly composed of middle and upper Cretaceous formations. The climate in the area is predominantly Mediterranean. The Soummam valley experiences a humid climate with slight seasonal temperature variations. On the plateaus of Sétif and Bouira, the climate is continental and dry, characterized by cold winters and hot summers. The southern part of the Sétif plateau ranges from sub-humid to semi-arid.

Predicting future changes in LULC and their effects on the hydrological cycle necessitates the use of various models and tools. These can include:

  • - Remote sensing data and image analysis to track changes in land cover over time.

  • - Land use change models that simulate future scenarios based on past trends, demographic and socioeconomic factors, and policy measures.

  • - Hydrological models that calculate the effects of LULC changes on the water cycle, such as precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, and groundwater recharge.

The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the applicability of the integrated CA-Markov hybrid model within a GIS software. The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of CA-Markov hybrid models in predicting land use changes, specifically focusing on predicting land use changes in the Oued Soummam watershed for the years 2030 and 2050. This prediction was carried out using the CA-Markov model and its impacts on hydrological responses were evaluated through the utilization of the HEC–HMS hydrological model.

The outcomes of these predictions can help inform decision-making and to mitigate the effects of LULC changes on the hydrological cycle, such as increased runoff and flooding, decreased water availability, and altered water quality. It is critical to consider multiple scenarios as well as account for uncertainties and unforeseeable events. Furthermore, effective strategies for sustainable land use and water management require close collaboration among hydrologists, ecologists, planners, and other stakeholders.

Description of the study area

The Soummam watershed is in northern Algeria, between longitudes 3°38′ and 5°38′ East and latitudes 35°38′ and 36°45′ North. The Soummam watershed runs along a north-east-south-west axis. It is composed of three main regions: the plateaus of Sétif, the plateaus of Bouira and the valley of the Soummam valley. It is limited

  • to the North by the mountains of the great Kabylie (Djurdjura massif)

  • to the East by the mountains of the small Kabylie

  • to the South by the mountains of Bibans and Mansourah, to the South-East by the foothills of the Hodna;

  • to the West by the Isser and Sebaou rivers. It has a very irregular shape.

The Soummam estuary is the final part of the Oued Soummam, which is part of the Soummam watershed (Figure 1(a)), in fact it is the third large river in Algeria, and it results from the upstream junction of two rivers.
Figure 1

(a) Overview of the Soummam watershed. (b) Geographical location of the Wadi Soummam watershed.

Figure 1

(a) Overview of the Soummam watershed. (b) Geographical location of the Wadi Soummam watershed.

Close modal

The result of the confluence of two important wadis upstream of Akbou is the Oued Boussellam, which flows from the Setifian plateau (Fermatou) and is oriented toward the east, and the Oued Sahel, which flows from Bouira and is oriented toward the west. It flows into the Mediterranean Sea at Bejaia after running through the entire Soummam valley, which appears as a sinuous strip oriented South-West, North-East. It has an average flow of 25 m3/s, but its floods are violent and devastating. It drains a large catchment area of 9,125 km2, and its minor bed develops in a valley between two mountainous massifs: Tizi-Ouzou to the north-west and Bejaia and the Bibans chain to the south-east.

Wadi Soummam's watershed is part of the Soummam basin (Figure 1(b)). It is situated in the estuary Soummam basin at an average altitude of 747.27 m. It has a drainage area of 1,059.21 km2. Wadi Soummam flows for more than 75 km, reaching an altitude of 1,683 m, with the lowest point at the outlet at 11 m. The valley bottom has an average length of about 2 km and can be as short as 100 m upstream of Sidi-Aich and a widening of 4–5 km in the region of El-Kseur and the Bejaia plain.

Methodology

The study's major building blocks were classified as spatial data processing and hydrological modeling. Land cover change detection and geographical data processing have dominated spatial data processing. The hydrological modeling was then used to investigate the effects of land cover change on flood characteristics. Figure 2 depicts a schematic representation of the study's general methodology.
Figure 2

Flowchart of the methodology.

Figure 2

Flowchart of the methodology.

Close modal

Digital elevation model (DEM)

In hydrological modeling, the use of digital elevation models (DEM) is considered a necessity to extract the geomorphological and topographic parameters of the study catchment, some of which will be inputs to the simulation model concerned. In our study, a DEM known as Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) (Figure 3) with a resolution of 30 m was downloaded from the NASA site https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. The degree of clarity of the digital elevation model depends on the type of satellite and the period of capturing this image, in addition to the type of algorithms used during the extraction of the satellite image (Şen 2019). This satellite image was processed and analyzed by the GIS program to extract the previously mentioned parameters.
Figure 3

The digital elevation model of the study area.

Figure 3

The digital elevation model of the study area.

Close modal

Land use land cover

The Landsat images used to obtain LULC for 2005, 2015, and 2020 were obtained from the Earth Explorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. The three-period map was divided into four categories. Figure 4 depicts the built area, grasslands, agricultural land, and forest.
Figure 4

LULC of the study area (2005, 2015, and 2020).

Figure 4

LULC of the study area (2005, 2015, and 2020).

Close modal

Soil map and hydrological groups

As a first step, we obtained a soil map from the World Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) at https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/faounesco-soil-map-of-the-world/en/, which revealed that the study watershed is made up of three different types of soil: Limon Sablo-Argileux and Loamy Sand (Figure 5). Integrating the land use map with the soil map is required to calculate Curve Number (CN), an important parameter in the rainfall–runoff transfer function in the hydrological model (Figure 6). The lag time, impermeability and initial abstraction parameters were also derived as main inputs for the simulation (Table 1). The focus is on the CN for its direct effect on the simulation output, i.e., flow and volume, unlike other parameters that have a weak effect.
Table 1

Characteristics of the sub-watersheds

Sub-watershedsSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5
Length L (km) 8.00 8.66 21.25 17.65 19.50 
Area (km249.31 131.27 194.14 385.49 299.00 
Perimeter (km) 32.18 61.11 72.72 125.23 94.17 
Minimum height Hmin (m) 11.00 26.00 32.00 68.00 111.00 
Maximum height Hmax (m) 929.00 1,297.00 1,617.00 1,629.00 1,683.00 
Average height Haverage (m) 306.51 747.27 635.40 670.04 667.62 
Slope (m/m) 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.08 
Concentration time Tc (min) 45.55 43.99 114.14 92.55 103.67 
Lag time min 27.33 26.39 68.48 55.53 62.20 
Curve number CN 2005 77.00 75.33 78.64 77.66 77.00 
Curve number CN 2015 75.71 74.33 77.82 77.30 76.10 
Curve number CN 2020 77.43 75.67 78.91 76.67 77.30 
Potential maximum retention S 2005 75.87 83.18 68.99 73.07 75.87 
Initial abstraction IA 2005 (mm) 15.17 16.64 13.80 14.61 15.17 
Potential maximum retention S 2015 81.49 87.72 72.39 74.59 79.77 
Initial abstraction IA 2015 (mm) 16.30 17.54 14.48 14.92 15.95 
Potential maximum retention S 2020 74.04 81.67 67.89 77.29 74.59 
Initial abstraction IA 2020 (mm) 14.81 16.33 13.58 15.46 14.92 
Sub-watershedsSW1SW2SW3SW4SW5
Length L (km) 8.00 8.66 21.25 17.65 19.50 
Area (km249.31 131.27 194.14 385.49 299.00 
Perimeter (km) 32.18 61.11 72.72 125.23 94.17 
Minimum height Hmin (m) 11.00 26.00 32.00 68.00 111.00 
Maximum height Hmax (m) 929.00 1,297.00 1,617.00 1,629.00 1,683.00 
Average height Haverage (m) 306.51 747.27 635.40 670.04 667.62 
Slope (m/m) 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.08 
Concentration time Tc (min) 45.55 43.99 114.14 92.55 103.67 
Lag time min 27.33 26.39 68.48 55.53 62.20 
Curve number CN 2005 77.00 75.33 78.64 77.66 77.00 
Curve number CN 2015 75.71 74.33 77.82 77.30 76.10 
Curve number CN 2020 77.43 75.67 78.91 76.67 77.30 
Potential maximum retention S 2005 75.87 83.18 68.99 73.07 75.87 
Initial abstraction IA 2005 (mm) 15.17 16.64 13.80 14.61 15.17 
Potential maximum retention S 2015 81.49 87.72 72.39 74.59 79.77 
Initial abstraction IA 2015 (mm) 16.30 17.54 14.48 14.92 15.95 
Potential maximum retention S 2020 74.04 81.67 67.89 77.29 74.59 
Initial abstraction IA 2020 (mm) 14.81 16.33 13.58 15.46 14.92 
Figure 5

The soil map and hydrological groups of the Wadi Soummam watershed.

Figure 5

The soil map and hydrological groups of the Wadi Soummam watershed.

Close modal
Figure 6

Curve number (CN) of the Wadi Soummam watershed (2005, 2015, and 2015).

Figure 6

Curve number (CN) of the Wadi Soummam watershed (2005, 2015, and 2015).

Close modal

HEC–HMS model

The HEC–HMS was developed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers around the turn of the century (Matt 2004). It is widely used by researchers and engineers for its many properties in modeling and solving common water-related problems, as it can model and predict flood simulations for event periods and long time series periods, as well as simulate soil erosion and water quality (Figure 7).
Figure 7

HEC–HMS software interface.

Figure 7

HEC–HMS software interface.

Close modal

HEC–HMS is a semi-distributed rainfall–runoff model that can simulate a single study catchment, as in our case, or several catchments at the same time.

The HEC–HMS model is made up of four main model components: the base model, the meteorological model, the control specifications, and the input data (Gebre 2015).

In our study, we used the Soil Conservation Service–Curve Number (SCS–CN) approach for loss assessment, as well as the SCS unit hydrograph method for transformation and the dynamic wave method for channel routing. The SCS CN method employs the two equations shown below (Shrestha 2019):
(1)
(2)
As described in Equation (3), the preceding equation's parameter S is converted into a dimensionless parameter CN that varies in a more conceptually reasonable range of 0–100 (Abushandi & Merkel 2013):
(3)
where P indicates total rainfall (mm); Q indicates direct runoff (m3/s); Ia indicates initial abstraction (mm); S indicates potential maximum retention;
SCS Unit Hydrograph created a direct flow model that incorporates the translation of precipitation into surface runoff. Because there is no base flow in the study area, th the base flow module was not used. The transform technique requires a lag time determination as an input. The SCS established a relationship between the concentration time (Tc) and the lag time (Tlag). Sub-basin parameters such as topography and reach length can be used to approximate the time of concentration (Kirpich's formula, Giandotti formula and Passini formula).
(4)
Kirpich's formula:
(5)
where L indicates the reach length (m); S indicates the slope (%);
Giandotti formula:
(6)
where L indicates the reach length (km); A indicates area (km2); Haverage indicates average height; Hmin indicates minimum height; Tc indicates concentration time in hours.
Passini Formula:
(7)
where L indicates the reach length (km); A indicates area (km2); I indicates the slope (m/m); Tc indicates concentration time in hours.

Model calibration and validation

To judge the dependability of the simulation outputs, such as flow and volume, the model's performance must be evaluated. This is accomplished in two ways: first, by visually comparing the simulated and observed flow and volume, and second, by calculating statistical parameters such as the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (NSE) (Mills 2001), coefficient root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R2). This procedure is in parallel with the procedure for exploring the most sensitive parameters of the simulation output. In our case, for example, we found that the most sensitive parameters are: Curve Number, Lag Time, and Impermeability.
(8)
(9)
(10)
where Qi,Obs is the observed flow; Qi,Sim is the simulated flow at time t= I; is the average observed discharge; N is the number of observations.

The rain data

Rain should be considered for each event in the form of rainfall depth that fell on the watershed during the day where this event occurred, which we associate with one of the four NRCS distributions each time. In our case, we were restricted to the following dates: (01–10/05/2005) - (03–14/09/2005) - (21–31/05/2005) and (17–30/05/2005).

Markov model in LULC change

With recent advances in geographic information systems (GIS), it is now possible to integrate land use change models into GIS. Cellular automata and hybrid models are most commonly used for land use change modeling (Breuer et al. 2006). We use a hybrid CA-Markov model integrated into GIS software to predict future land use change based on historical spatiotemporal data. A primary goal of this study was to demonstrate the utility of hybrid CA-Markov models in predicting land use change. We intended to use a CA Markov Model to predict land use change in the Wadi Soummam Basin between 2030 and 2050.

The Markov model has been widely used in ecological modeling (Brown et al. 2000). To predict how a specific variable changes over time, the Markov model considers previous states. The Markov model's applicability in land use change modeling is promising due to its ability to quantify not only the states of conversion between land use types but also the rate of conversion among land use types (Sang et al. 2011). A homogeneous Markov model for predicting land use change can be represented mathematically as:
(11)
And
(12)
where L(t + 1) and L(t) are the land use status at time t + 1 and t, respectively.

and , j = 1,2, ……, m)) is the transition probability matrix.

A major step in the Markov model is obtaining a primary matrix and transition probability matrix (Pij). As a result, the Markov forecast model is expressed as shown in Equation (11).
where Pn is the state probability and P(0) is the primary matrix (Adegbola et al. 2021).

Markov chain and CA- Markov for LULC modeling and prediction

We discovered a significant change in LULC from 2005 to 2020, as shown in Figure 8, indicating an increase in the percentage of built-up area. Logically, this increase has led to a decrease in the percentage of agricultural and grasslands. This increase is mainly due to the rapid population growth that has led to irregular urbanization. As for the decrease in the percentage of crops, trees and bare soil, it is due to the change in climate, including droughts that the region has experienced in recent decades.
Figure 8

Area of the land cover categories for 3 years.

Figure 8

Area of the land cover categories for 3 years.

Close modal
Figure 9

Projected land use land cover for 2020.

Figure 9

Projected land use land cover for 2020.

Close modal

The increase in forest area can be explained by a combination of active reforestation efforts, natural land conversion dynamics, policy changes, and urban planning strategies that incorporate green spaces. These factors collectively contribute to the observed and predicted growth in forest areas over the years. In particular, conservation and reforestation policies implemented by the government have played a crucial role. Targeted reforestation programs, funded by local and international initiatives, have helped restore degraded ecosystems. Additionally, education and awareness campaigns for local communities have encouraged active participation in forest protection and restoration. Natural dynamics, such as ecological succession, have also favored forest regeneration in certain areas. Sustainable agricultural practices and crop rotation have reduced the impact on agricultural lands, allowing some areas to revert to a forested state.

Finally, the integration of green spaces into urban planning strategies has not only improved the quality of life for residents but also contributed to the increase in urban and peri-urban forest areas. These measures have created ecological corridors that facilitate biodiversity and carbon sequestration, thus enhancing the environmental resilience of the region.

Primary matrix for Wadi Soummam watershed

The primary matrix is based on the calculated areas of the Landsat images' land use types. Table 2 shows the area statistics calculated for 2005, 2015, and 2020. Figures 68 depict the distribution of the land use class for these years, while Figure 8 depicts a graphical representation of the land use class for ease of interpretation and Figure 9 shows predicted LULC. Figure 8 highlights the progressive nature of the built-up areas as well as the declining nature of wetlands. P(o) = [473.39, 171.91, 385.74, 26.61] for further analysis with transition probability matrices in the generation of future LULC.

Table 2

Area statistics for the years 2005, 2015, and 2020

LULC classesArea (km2)
200520152020
Forest 355.73 433.87 473.39 
Grasslands 243.16 217.35 171.91 
Agricultural 434.49 381.13 385.74 
Built-up area 24.88 24.98 26.61 
LULC classesArea (km2)
200520152020
Forest 355.73 433.87 473.39 
Grasslands 243.16 217.35 171.91 
Agricultural 434.49 381.13 385.74 
Built-up area 24.88 24.98 26.61 

The entire watershed is clearly dominated by developed land, which includes residential and commercial services. This could be attributed to population growth, as well as other factors mentioned previously that draw people to the city center. In 15 years, the developed areas' land coverage has increased from 24.88 to 26.61 km2. This rapid increase in built-up areas over a short period of time implies a reduction in the catchment's percolation and flood storage capacity, resulting in a recent increase in flood events and extent. This is concerning, which is why this study is necessary. Increased urbanization means less forest cover and wetlands.

Matrix of transition probability for the Wadi Soummam watershed

The transition probability is defined as the rate of transition from one state to another over a given time period. It is calculated using the annual average transition rate of a specific land use and land cover type. Table 3 depicts a transition matrix for four land use types from 2005 to 2015. The transition probability of land use type in 2020 converted into land use type in 2030 and 2050 was calculated using Equation (11). Tables 35 show the primary transition probability matrix for four types of land use from 2005 to 2015, 2005 to 2020, and 2020 to 2040.

Table 3

Transition matrix 2005–2015

20052015
ForestGrasslandsAgriculturalBuilt-up area
Forest 0.449 0.131 0.395 0.025 
Grasslands 0.343 0.227 0.420 0.011 
Agricultural 0.439 0.156 0.390 0.015 
Built-up area 0.563 0.163 0.194 0.080 
20052015
ForestGrasslandsAgriculturalBuilt-up area
Forest 0.449 0.131 0.395 0.025 
Grasslands 0.343 0.227 0.420 0.011 
Agricultural 0.439 0.156 0.390 0.015 
Built-up area 0.563 0.163 0.194 0.080 
Table 4

Transition matrix 2005–2020

20052020
ForestGrasslandsAgriculturalBuilt-up area
Forest 0.389 0.157 0.432 0.021 
Grasslands 0.433 0.138 0.412 0.016 
Agricultural 0.481 0.160 0.340 0.019 
Built-up area 0.472 0.147 0.361 0.021 
20052020
ForestGrasslandsAgriculturalBuilt-up area
Forest 0.389 0.157 0.432 0.021 
Grasslands 0.433 0.138 0.412 0.016 
Agricultural 0.481 0.160 0.340 0.019 
Built-up area 0.472 0.147 0.361 0.021 
Table 5

Transition matrix 2020–2040

20202040
ForestGrasslandsAgriculturalBuilt-up area
Forest 0.850 0.150 0.000 0.000 
Grasslands 0.050 0.850 0.050 0.050 
Agricultural 0.050 0.050 0.850 0.050 
Built-up area 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.850 
20202040
ForestGrasslandsAgriculturalBuilt-up area
Forest 0.850 0.150 0.000 0.000 
Grasslands 0.050 0.850 0.050 0.050 
Agricultural 0.050 0.050 0.850 0.050 
Built-up area 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.850 

Based on the transition matrix shown in Table 3, the probability that forest areas remain forests over a period of 10 years is 44.9%. The probability of conversion from forests to grasslands and agricultural areas is 13.1 and 39.5%, respectively. For grasslands, the probability of remaining grasslands is 22.7%, while the probabilities of conversion to forests and agricultural areas are 34.3 and 42%, respectively. Agricultural areas have a 39% probability of remaining agricultural. The probability of conversion from agricultural areas to forests is 43.9%, and to grasslands, it is 15.6%.

Regarding built-up areas, they have an 8% chance of remaining the same. However, there is also a significant probability of conversion to forests (56.3%), grasslands (16.3%), and agricultural areas (19.4%).

Model validation

The CA–Markov model was used for future LULCs, where the kappa coefficient values were determined to be within −1 to 1. The value descriptions kappa ≤ 0.5, 0.5 ≤ kappa ≤ 0.75, and 0.75 ≤ kappa < 1 indicate a low exception, a medium exception, and a very high exception (Vázquez-Quintero et al. 2016; Kundu et al. 2021). These values are represented by Equations (13)–(15).
(13)
(14)
(15)
where is no data, M(m) is medium grid cell level data, and P(p) is the complete grid cell data.
To validate the model, the soft and hard LULC patterns in 2020 were first simulated using the LULC maps from 2005 and 2015. The Kappa statistic for quantity and location was calculated by comparing the hard simulation to the 2020 reference map. According to the statistics, the Kno value is 88%, the K location value is 90%, the K location strata value is 90%, and the K standard is 86%. All of the Kappa index values are greater than 86%, indicating good agreement between the simulated and observed LULC maps (Mandrekar & Sargent 2010; Gharaibeh et al. 2020; Girma et al. 2022). When the cell quantity of the same category of 2020 projected differs from the cell quantity of 2020 observed, this is referred to as quantity disagreement. Location disagreement will occur wherever the location of a cell in the same category of 2020 projected differs from the location of a cell in 2020 observed (Gharaibeh et al. 2020) (Figure 10).
Figure 10

The Kappa statistic was calculated by comparing the hard simulation to the 2020 reference map.

Figure 10

The Kappa statistic was calculated by comparing the hard simulation to the 2020 reference map.

Close modal

Future land use change prediction

Markov chain analysis was used to predict future LULC in 2030 and 2050. Figure 11 depicts projected digitized land use and land cover maps of the Wadi Soummam watershed for different future scenarios. Table 6 depicts the outcome of historical and projected land use and land cover. Table 7 shows the percentage conversion of the result. For ease of interpretation, Figure 10 summarizes all of the results obtained from the classified images presented in Table 7. It is important to note that the observed and predicted 2020 columns in Table 7 were used to validate the model. The 2020 prediction was derived from observed data from 2005 to 2015 and compared to observed 2020 data. The observed data were then used to predict the 2030 and 2050 years after the model was validated with the Kappa efficiency indices.
Table 6

Area statistics of past and predicted LULC

Land use typeArea (km2) Observed
Area (km2) Predicted
200520152020202020302050
Forest 355.73 433.87 473.39 439.17 485.39 480.77 
Grasslands 243.16 217.35 171.91 220.17 176.53 172.79 
Agricultural 434.49 381.13 385.74 381.24 385.98 367.65 
Built-up area 24.88 24.98 26.61 24.98 26.61 53.31 
Land use typeArea (km2) Observed
Area (km2) Predicted
200520152020202020302050
Forest 355.73 433.87 473.39 439.17 485.39 480.77 
Grasslands 243.16 217.35 171.91 220.17 176.53 172.79 
Agricultural 434.49 381.13 385.74 381.24 385.98 367.65 
Built-up area 24.88 24.98 26.61 24.98 26.61 53.31 
Table 7

Past and predicted LULC represented as a percentage

Land use typeArea (%) Observed
Area (%) Predicted
200520152020202020302050
Forest 33.61 41.03 44.76 41.21 45.17 44.74 
Grasslands 22.98 20.56 16.25 20.66 16.43 16.08 
Agricultural 41.06 36.05 36.47 35.78 35.92 34.22 
Built-up area 2.35 2.36 2.52 2.34 2.48 4.96 
Land use typeArea (%) Observed
Area (%) Predicted
200520152020202020302050
Forest 33.61 41.03 44.76 41.21 45.17 44.74 
Grasslands 22.98 20.56 16.25 20.66 16.43 16.08 
Agricultural 41.06 36.05 36.47 35.78 35.92 34.22 
Built-up area 2.35 2.36 2.52 2.34 2.48 4.96 
Figure 11

Projected land use land cover for 2030 and 2050.

Figure 11

Projected land use land cover for 2030 and 2050.

Close modal
The integration of the LULC 2030 and LULC 2050 land use map with the soil map is necessary to deduce an important parameter in the rainfall–runoff transfer function in the respective model, which is the curve number, to create CN 2030 and CN 2050 (Figure 12). The focus is on CN for its direct effect on the simulation results, i.e., flow rate and volume, in contrast to the other parameters which have a relative effect.
Figure 12

Curve number (CN) of the Wadi Soummam watershed for 2030 and 2050.

Figure 12

Curve number (CN) of the Wadi Soummam watershed for 2030 and 2050.

Close modal

HEC–HMS modeling and prediction

Five storm events were selected in our study, two for pre-calibration and one for calibration and two for validation, these events correspond to the flow data of the stream data of the same date. The hydrograph was used to estimate initial flow based on discharge data obtained at the Wadi Soummam flow gauge. The impermeability of the study area was estimated using a GIS and a satellite image. Watershed factors such as initial abstraction and lag time must be adjusted to achieve the best match between simulated and observed flow. The model's output flows were calibrated using observed stream flow. The optimization option in HEC–HMS was used to calibrate the model. All parameters must have initial values at the start of the optimization. In HEC–HMS, starting values for the lag time were determined, and the initial abstraction in the research region was assumed to be 20.36 mm. To compare a calculated hydrograph to an observed hydrograph, HEC–HMS computes a goodness-of-fit index. The objective function of HEC–HMS algorithms is to find model parameters that provide the best value of an index (US Army Corps of Engineers 2018). The calibration and validation results, as well as the statistical parameters calculated from the simulation outputs for flow and volume, are shown in the following section of the results and discussion.

Following the successful calibration and validation of the HEC–HMS model, the volume and flow were calculated for different return periods (10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years) for the concerned periods, namely 2005, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2050.

Results of simulation

Initially, we performed a HEC–HMS model simulation using the data in Table 1 and the precipitation data from 06/17–30/2005 to obtain the simulated flood hydrograph for the period 06/17–30/2005. Figure 13 and Table 8 show that there was no conformity between the two simulated and observed flood hydrographs, which necessitated model calibration.
Table 8

Results of model simulation

EventQpObserved (m3/s)Qpsimulated (m3/s)Difference %Evaluation the performance of the model
NashR2RMSE
17–30/05/2005 28 19.1 31.78 −0.002 0.90 1.56 
EventQpObserved (m3/s)Qpsimulated (m3/s)Difference %Evaluation the performance of the model
NashR2RMSE
17–30/05/2005 28 19.1 31.78 −0.002 0.90 1.56 
Figure 13

Flood hydrographs of event 17–30/06/2005 after simulation.

Figure 13

Flood hydrographs of event 17–30/06/2005 after simulation.

Close modal

Results of calibration

To obtain optimal values for the model parameters, a calibration for the May 21–31, 2005 event was performed using the objective function on the peak flow.

The calibration results show that the objective function value, optimized parameter values, peak flows, and simulated volume all vary depending on the event, the type of rainfall chosen, and the transfer function. The model calibration results are shown in the tables below (Figure 14, Tables 9 and 10).
Table 9

Optimized parameter set used for HEC–HMS model validation on wadi soummam watershed

Parameters Optimized valuesInitial abstraction IA (mm)Curve number CNImpervious
Sub-watershed 01 15.17 77 20 
Sub-watershed 02 16.64 75 20 
Sub-watershed 03 13.80 78.64 20 
Sub-watershed 04 15.17 77 20 
Sub-watershed 05 20.8 75.33 20 
Parameters Optimized valuesInitial abstraction IA (mm)Curve number CNImpervious
Sub-watershed 01 15.17 77 20 
Sub-watershed 02 16.64 75 20 
Sub-watershed 03 13.80 78.64 20 
Sub-watershed 04 15.17 77 20 
Sub-watershed 05 20.8 75.33 20 
Table 10

Results of model calibration

EventQpObserved (m3/s)Qpsimulated (m3/s)Difference %Evaluation the performance of the model
NashR2RMSE
21–31/05/2005 93 88.20 05.16 0.81 0.92 0.62 
EventQpObserved (m3/s)Qpsimulated (m3/s)Difference %Evaluation the performance of the model
NashR2RMSE
21–31/05/2005 93 88.20 05.16 0.81 0.92 0.62 
Figure 14

Flood hydrographs of event 21–31/05/2005 after calibration.

Figure 14

Flood hydrographs of event 21–31/05/2005 after calibration.

Close modal

Model validation

We get the following results by applying the parameter set defined in Table 8 to events. his optimized parameter set is made up of accepted and realistic parameter values, such as the case of concentration time equal to that calculated by Kripich's method, and CN value that is very close to that estimated by land use map and soil type. Figure 15 depicts flood hydrograph graphs for various events.
Figure 15

Flood hydrographs of events after model validation.

Figure 15

Flood hydrographs of events after model validation.

Close modal

Table 9 shows that with the new optimized parameter set, the model was able to correctly reproduce the peak flow for the events of September 23–26, 1994 and September 03–04, 2005. The performance criteria used to quantify the level of achievement of these various objectives are NASH, R2, and RMSE. These provide overall assessments of the flood reconstruction. The model is validated based on the results in Table 11.

Table 11

Results of model validation

EventQpObserved (m3/s)Qpsimulated (m3/s)Difference %Evaluation the performance of the model
NashR2RMSE
01–10/05/2005 86 78 9.30 0.85 0.94 1.64 
03–14/09/2005 32.2 25.2 21.74 0.78 0.90 0.62 
EventQpObserved (m3/s)Qpsimulated (m3/s)Difference %Evaluation the performance of the model
NashR2RMSE
01–10/05/2005 86 78 9.30 0.85 0.94 1.64 
03–14/09/2005 32.2 25.2 21.74 0.78 0.90 0.62 

Prediction of the future behavior of the Wadi Soummam watershed

Nobody denies that climate change and land use alter hydrological processes and disrupt the natural flow of the environment. Thus, those in charge of planning and making decisions must understand how human activities like urban growth and deforestation and reforestation upstream of the watershed will affect the downstream environment.

This section attempts to repurpose the HEC–HMS model that was originally applied to the Wadi Soummam watershed in order to estimate its response to changing land use in 2005, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2050.

The first scenario uses land cover to simulate the effect of rainfall events with different return periods on the discharge hydrograph at the Wadi Soummam station in 2005, 2015, and 2020. As a result, we replaced the event's average rainfall depth with depths estimated by statistical laws (Table 12).

Table 12

Rainfall height evaluated for the Wadi Soummam watershed for various return periods

Return period (year)Estimated value (mm)
10 67.3 
20 77 
50 89.6 
100 132 
Return period (year)Estimated value (mm)
10 67.3 
20 77 
50 89.6 
100 132 

The simulation results in Table 13 and the graphs in Figures 1618 show the values predicted by the HEC–HMS model for the ‘pic’ hydrographs and runoff volume of the Wadi Soummam trough. They demonstrate, among other things, a linear correlation between the two variables and rainfall of R = 0.99. In order to prevent friction expected from immersing measuring equipment from the inlet to the outlet, support for the equipment will need strengthening for their protection and implementing structural measures capable of supporting the simulated volumes.
Table 13

Predicted values of peak flow Qp and volume V at Wadi Soummam watershed

LULCT= 10 ans
T= 20 ans
T= 50 ans
T= 100 ans
Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)
2005 1,651.1 32,623.9 2,074.6 40,268.3 2,657.1 50,708.3 4,617.6 86,396.4 
2015 1,604.5 31,825.6 2,019.5 39,333.3 2,592.2 49,610.1 4,684.4 87,102.1 
2020 1,632.8 32,466.6 2,053.5 40,085.4 2,632.7 50,495.0 4,740.6 88,349.8 
LULCT= 10 ans
T= 20 ans
T= 50 ans
T= 100 ans
Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)
2005 1,651.1 32,623.9 2,074.6 40,268.3 2,657.1 50,708.3 4,617.6 86,396.4 
2015 1,604.5 31,825.6 2,019.5 39,333.3 2,592.2 49,610.1 4,684.4 87,102.1 
2020 1,632.8 32,466.6 2,053.5 40,085.4 2,632.7 50,495.0 4,740.6 88,349.8 
Figure 16

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2005.

Figure 16

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2005.

Close modal
Figure 17

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2015.

Figure 17

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2015.

Close modal
Figure 18

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2020.

Figure 18

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2020.

Close modal

According to Table 14 and Figures 1618, we observe the effect of land use (LULC 2005, LULC 2015 and LULC 2020) on the variation of flows and volumes for different return periods. As an indication, the peak flow in 2005 is equal to 1,651.1 m3/s, in 2015 is 1,604.5 m3/s and in 2020 are 1,632.8 m3/s and for volumes, there is a remarkable variation between 2005 and 2020.The impact of rainfall events with different return periods on the flood hydrograph at the Wadi Soummam station is simulated in the second scenario using the LULC land use for the forecast years 2030 and 2050.

Table 14

Peak flow Qp and volume V predictions for the Wadi Soummam watershed

LULCT= 10 ans
T= 20 ans
T= 50 ans
T= 100 ans
Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)
2030 1,587.8 31,611.7 2,001.3 39,100.0 2,572.5 49,355.9 4,662.3 86,800.6 
2050 1,626.4 32,351.7 2,046.8 39,956.0 2,625.7 50,349.2 4,733.1 88,162.2 
LULCT= 10 ans
T= 20 ans
T= 50 ans
T= 100 ans
Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)Q (m3/s)V (1,000 m3)
2030 1,587.8 31,611.7 2,001.3 39,100.0 2,572.5 49,355.9 4,662.3 86,800.6 
2050 1,626.4 32,351.7 2,046.8 39,956.0 2,625.7 50,349.2 4,733.1 88,162.2 

The simulation results in Table 14 and the graphs in Figures 19 and 20 show the values predicted by the HEC–HMS model for the ‘pic’ hydrographs and runoff volume of the Wadi Soummam trough. They demonstrate, among other things, a linear correlation between the two variables and rainfall of R = 0.99. In order to prevent friction expected from immersing measuring equipment from the inlet to the outlet of the watershed, these outcomes require additional safeguards. and implementing structural measures capable of supporting the simulated volumes.
Figure 19

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2030.

Figure 19

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2030.

Close modal
Figure 20

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2050.

Figure 20

Flood hydrographs for various events and return periods for LULC 2050.

Close modal

In Table 14, we see an increase in peak flow and volume for different return periods, demonstrating the effect of LULC on the hydrological response in the Wadi Soummam watershed. Knowing that we used the same rainfall amounts, we can clearly see that the peak flow has increased by about 39 m3/s (2030–2050) for the 10 year return period and by 70.8 m3/s for the 100 year return period.

The study conducted focused on the impact of land use changes on the future behavior of the Wadi Soummam watershed. This study is part of a series of research addressing the same topic. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of hydrological analysis and flood prediction in semi-arid regions. Among the previous studies, Derdour et al. (2021) examined the Ain Sefra watershed and successfully utilized the HEC–HMS model to simulate flood discharges. The model incorporated the storm frequency method, the SCS curve number for loss estimation, and the SCS unit hydrograph method for runoff simulation. The results demonstrated good agreement between simulated and observed values, indicating satisfactory performance in simulating runoff. In another study, Kastali et al. (2022) focused on the self-calibration of the HEC–HMS model, considering the uncertainty in the rating curve in the Allala watershed. By employing a Bayesian-based segmented BaRatin rating curve, the study revealed that accounting for rating curve uncertainty had a significant impact on model calibration parameters. This approach enhanced the model's capability to predict hourly flow hydrographs. Additionally, Haddad & Remini (2021) examined extreme runoff events during intense precipitation in the Koudiet Rosfa watershed using the HEC–HMS model. The study employed the Curve Number (CN) method to estimate excess precipitation and a parametric unit hydrograph model to calculate direct runoff. The model's performance in replicating observed hydrographs was evaluated using various measures, demonstrating its effectiveness in managing extreme runoff events. These studies underscore the importance of hydrological modeling and the potential of the HEC–HMS model in semi-arid regions. By accurately simulating runoff processes and accounting for uncertainties, these models contribute to improved water resource management and assessment of flood risks.

Changes in LULC are one of the factors that affect the water balance of watersheds by altering the magnitude of surface runoff. The Markov model tool was used to forecast LULC changes in 2030 and 2050, and the HEC–HMS tool was used to assess the impact of LULC changes on water resources in the Wadi Soummam watershed. The research included evaluating the HEC–HMS model, detecting LULC changes, and assessing the impact. The impact of LULC changes on water resources was successfully evaluated using available data. The model's overall performance was satisfactory. The NSE values were greater than 0.80, which is greater than the minimum requirement for using the model for further analysis. We simulated, calibrated, and validated the study using available flow data, and then demonstrated the current and future impact of LULC changes on peak flows and volumes for various return periods.

According to the findings of this study, changes in LULC have an impact on water resources in the study area. Changes in LULC have an implicit effect on hydrological response and will continue to have an impact on natural resource management and development. The built-up area in 2005, which accounts for 2.35% of the total area of the watershed, rises to 4.96% by 2050, while agricultural land decreases by about 7% between 2030 and 2050.

The predictions' outcomes can help inform decision-making and mitigate the effects of LULC changes on the hydrological cycle, such as increased runoff and flooding, decreased water availability, and altered water quality. It is important to consider multiple scenarios and to account for uncertainties and unpredictable events. Additionally, close collaboration between hydrologists, ecologists, planners, and other stakeholders is critical for developing effective strategies for sustainable land use and water management.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by E.M. and B.A. The first draft of the manuscript was written by E.M. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Abdelkebir
B.
,
Maoui
A.
,
Mokhtari
E.
,
Engel
B.
,
Chen
J.
&
Aboelnour
M.
2021
Evaluating low-impact development practice performance to reduce runoff volume in an urban watershed in Algeria
.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
14
(
9
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07178-0
.
Abushandi
E.
&
Merkel
B.
2013
Modelling rainfall runoff relations using HEC-HMS and IHACRES for a single rain event in an arid region of Jordan
.
Water Resources Management
27
(
7
),
2391
2409
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0293-4
.
Adegbola, P. A., Adewumi, J. R. & Obiora-Okeke, O. A.
2021
Application of Markov chain model and ArcGIS in land use projection of ala river catchment, akure, Nigeria
.
Nigerian Journal of Technological Development
18
(
1
),
30
38
.
Ali
M.
,
Khan
S. J.
,
Aslam
I.
&
Khan
Z.
2011
Simulation of the impacts of land-use change on surface runoff of Lai Nullah Basin in Islamabad, Pakistan
.
Landscape and Urban Planning
102
(
4
),
271
279
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.006
.
Apollonio, C., Balacco, G., Novelli, A., Tarantino, E. & Piccinni, A. F.
2016
Land use change impact on flooding areas: The case study of Cervaro Basin (Italy)
.
Sustainability
8
(
10
),
996
.
Azizi
S.
,
Ilderomi
A. R.
&
Noori
H.
2021
Investigating the effects of land use change on flood hydrograph using HEC-HMS hydrologic model (case study: Ekbatan Dam)
.
Natural Hazards
109
(
1
),
145
160
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04830-6
.
Breuer
L.
,
Huisman
J. A.
&
Frede
H. G.
2006
Monte Carlo assessment of uncertainty in the simulated hydrological response to land use change
.
Environmental Modeling and Assessment
11
(
3
),
209
218
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-006-9051-9
.
Brown
D. G.
,
Pijanowski
B. C.
&
Duh
J. D.
2000
Modeling the relationships between land use and land cover on private lands in the Upper Midwest, USA
.
Journal of Environmental Management
59
(
4
),
247
263
.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0369
.
de Moraes
T. C.
,
dos Santos
V. J.
,
Calijuri
M. L.
&
Torres
F. T. P.
2018
Effects on runoff caused by changes in land cover in a Brazilian southeast basin: Evaluation by HEC-HMS and HEC-GEOHMS
.
Environmental Earth Sciences
77
(
6
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7430-6
.
Derdour
A.
,
Bouanani
A.
&
Babahamed
K.
2021
Hydrological modeling in semi-arid region using hec-hms model. Case study in Ain Sefra watershed, Ksour mountains (sw- Algeria)
.
Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences
9
(
2
),
1027
1049
.
https://doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v9i2.27
.
Gebre
S. L.
2015
Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation of upper blue Nile River Basin
.
Journal of Waste Water Treatment & Analysis
6
(
2
).
https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7587.1000199
.
Ghaderpour
E.
,
Mazzanti
P.
,
Mugnozza
G. S.
&
Bozzano
F.
2023
Coherency and phase delay analyses between land cover and climate across Italy via the least-squares wavelet software
.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation
118
,
103241
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2023.103241
.
Gharaibeh
A.
,
Shaamala
A.
,
Obeidat
R.
&
Al-Kofahi
S.
2020
Improving land-use change modeling by integrating ANN with Cellular Automata-Markov Chain model
.
Heliyon
6
(
9
),
e05092
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05092
.
Haddad
A.
&
Remini
B.
2021
Extreme rainfall-runoff events modeling by HEC-HMS model for Koudiet Rosfa watershed, Algeria
.
GeoScience Engineering
67
(
4
),
144
155
.
https://doi.org/10.35180/gse-2021-0060
.
Hu
S.
&
Shrestha
P.
2020
Examine the impact of land use and land cover changes on peak discharges of a watershed in the midwestern United States using the HEC-HMS model
.
Papers in Applied Geography
6
(
2
),
101
118
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2020.1732447
.
Kastali
A.
,
Zeroual
A.
,
Zeroual
S.
&
Hamitouche
Y.
2022
Auto-calibration of HEC- HMS model for historic flood event under rating curve uncertainty. Case study: Allala Watershed, Algeria
.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
26
(
1
),
482
493
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1051-4
.
Koneti
S.
,
Sunkara
S. L.
&
Roy
P. S.
2018
Hydrological modeling with respect to impact of land-use and land-cover change on the runoff dynamics in Godavari river basin using the HEC-HMS model
.
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
7
(
6
).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7060206
.
Mandrekar
S. J.
&
Sargent
D. J.
2010
Predictive biomarker validation in practice: Lessons from real trials
.
Clinical Trials
7
(
5
),
567
573
.
Matt
F.
2004
Description of the Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) and Application to Watershed Studies. Smart Technical Notes Collection, September, ERDC/TN SMART-04-3, U.S. Army Engineer Research an
.
Mills
G.
2001
Ireland's water budget – model validation and a greenhouse experiment
.
Irish Geography
34
(
2
),
124
134
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00750770109555783
.
Mokhtari
E. H.
,
Remini
B.
&
Hamoudi
S. A.
2016
Modelling of the rain-flow by hydrological modelling software system HEC-HMS-watershed's case of Wadi Cheliff-Ghrib, Algeria
.
Journal of Water and Land Development
30
(
1
),
87
100
.
https://doi.org/10.1515/jwld-2016-0025
.
Mokhtari, E., Mezali, F., Abdelkebir, B., & Engel, B.
2023
Flood risk assessment using analytical hierarchy process: A case study from the Cheliff-Ghrib watershed, Algeria
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
14(3), 694–711. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.316
.
Ramly
S.
&
Tahir
W.
2016
Isfram 2015
.
Isfram
2015
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0500-8
.
Sang
L.
,
Zhang
C.
,
Yang
J.
,
Zhu
D.
&
Yun
W.
2011
Simulation of land use spatial pattern of towns and villages based on CA-Markov model
.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling
54
(
3–4
),
938
943
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.11.019
.
Şen
Z.
2019
Earth systems data processing and visualization using MATLAB
.
Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01542-8
Sertel
E.
,
Imamoglu
M. Z.
,
Cuceloglu
G.
&
Erturk
A.
2019
Impacts of land cover/use changes on hydrological processes in a rapidly urbanizing mid-latitudewater supply catchment
.
Water (Switzerland)
11
(
5
).
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051075
.
Shrestha
P.
2019
Impacts of Land Use and Land Cover Changes on Hydrological Regimes of the Richland Creek Watershed in Southern Illinois Using a GIS-Based Hydrologic Model
.
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
,
Edwardsville
.
Tesfaw
B. A.
,
Dzwairo
B.
&
Sahlu
D.
2023
Assessments of the impacts of land use/land cover change on water resources: Tana Sub-Basin, Ethiopia
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.303
.
US Army Corps of Engineers
.
2018
Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS, User's Manual
.
Hydrologic Engineering Centre
, .
Vázquez-Quintero
G.
,
Solís-Moreno
R.
,
Pompa-García
M.
,
Villarreal-Guerrero
F.
,
Pinedo-Alvarez
C.
&
Pinedo-Alvarez
A.
2016
Detection and projection of forest changes by using the Markov Chain Model and cellular automata
.
Sustainability
8
(
3
),
236
.
Xu
A.
,
Tian
M. W.
,
Firouzi
B.
,
Alattas
K. A.
,
Mohammadzadeh
A.
&
Ghaderpour
E.
2022
A new deep learning restricted boltzmann machine for energy consumption forecasting
.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
14
(
16
),
1
12
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610081
.
Zope
P. E.
,
Eldho
T. I.
&
Jothiprakash
V.
2016
Impacts of land use-land cover change and urbanization on flooding: A case study of Oshiwara River Basin in Mumbai, India
.
Catena
145
,
142
154
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.009
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).