WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 39, NO. 12, 1332, doi:10.

1029/2003WR002576, 2003

A physically based model for calculating contributing area on

hillslopes and along valley bottoms
John B. Lindsay
Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Received 9 August 2003; accepted 12 September 2003; published 3 December 2003.

[1] Most existing methods of calculating contributing area are unable to accurately

model the pattern of contributing area on hillslopes and along valley bottoms. This paper
describes a new flow algorithm, the adjustable dispersion routing algorithm (ADRA).
Rather than calculating contributing area using predetermined flow characteristics that are
insensitive to location in the landscape, ADRA predicts channel location and adjusts
flow characteristics accordingly. ADRA increases the degree of flow divergence downslope
from divides until a channel head is detected. Channel head locations are estimated on the
basis of a user-defined threshold of an area-slope function. Therefore the algorithm
overcomes the problems of aggregated flow on hillslopes and divergent flow along valley
bottoms. The pattern of catchment area produced by ADRA was compared with similar
patterns calculated using a similar flow algorithm for a variety of natural landscapes. ADRA
produced patterns of contributing area that were more consistent with the theory of channel
INDEX TERMS: 1824 Hydrology: Geomorphology (1625); 1848 Hydrology: Networks;
initiation.
1860 Hydrology: Runoff and streamflow; 1894 Hydrology: Instruments and techniques; KEYWORDS: flow
routing, contributing area, digital elevation models, stream network extraction, channel initiation
Citation: Lindsay, J. B., A physically based model for calculating contributing area on hillslopes and along valley bottoms,
Water Resour. Res., 39(12), 1332, doi:10.1029/2003WR002576, 2003.

1. Introduction
[2] Contributing area is the area upslope of a location in a
catchment from which runoff is captured. In practice, contributing area is calculated per unit contour length, referred to
as the specific catchment area, a. The utility of a as a surrogate
for runoff volume makes it an essential parameter for
modeling hydrologic, geomorphic, and other environmental
processes. Specific catchment area has been used to estimate
soil wetness [Beven and Kirkby, 1979], soil erosion and
deposition potential [Mitasova et al., 1996], and to extract
stream networks and watersheds [Jenson and Domingue,
1988] from digital elevation models (DEMs). Although
digital terrain data are now abundant and software packages
for analyzing these data are common, a remains inherently
difficult to estimate accurately [Gallant et al., 2000].
[3] Specific catchment area is calculated using flow
routing algorithms that direct and accumulate runoff over
DEMs. Flow routing algorithms differ in the way that they
calculate flow direction and in the method used to divide
flow between each downslope neighbor. Some authors have
categorized flow algorithms based on whether they allow
for divergence [e.g., Wolock and McCabe, 1995]. Hence
algorithms that are unable to disperse flow are single-flowdirection (SFD) algorithms, and those that are capable of
divergence are multiple-flow-direction (MFD) algorithms.
The most common SFD algorithm is referred to as steepest
descent or D8 [OCallaghan and Mark, 1984]. Commonly
used MFD algorithms include FD8 [Freeman, 1991; Quinn
et al., 1991], DEMON [Costa-Cabral and Burges, 1994],
and D1 [Tarboton, 1997].

[4] Most existing flow algorithms do not explicitly differentiate between catchment hillslopes and channels, which is
an important distinction given the contrast in geomorphic and
hydrological processes operating on both. SFD algorithms
are suited to modeling incisive channelized flow along valley
bottoms but are unable to simulate divergence on hillslopes.
MFD algorithms yield more realistic diffusive flow patterns
on divergent hillslopes, but often result in braiding along
valley bottoms. Braiding is an undesirable artifact that can
cause discontinuous stream networks [Gallant and Wilson,
2000] and inappropriately decrease a downstream [Quinn et
al., 1995]. The problem with existing flow algorithms is that
the amount of divergence is determined by local slope or
curvature without consideration of whether divergent flow is
appropriate given the relative position of each cell in the
landscape. The challenge in overcoming this problem is that
the flow algorithm must estimate channel network extent
during processing. This paper describes a flow routing
scheme that has been developed to address these issues.

2. Background
[5] The FD8 algorithm is unique among existing flow
routing algorithms in that it is possible to adjust the overall
degree of divergence. The Freeman [1991] implementation
of FD8 calculates the fraction (F ) of a apportioned to each
downslope neighbor, i, by,
Fi

max0; tan Sip

8
P
max0; tan Sjp

j1

where S is the slope between cells. Summing Fiak for each

upslope neighbor k yields ai. A larger value of p results in a

Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.

0043-1397/03/2003WR002576$09.00

TNN

1-1

TNN

1-2

LINDSAY: TECHNICAL NOTE

Figure 1. Fraction of a received by two downslope neighbors of varying slopes using the Freeman
[1991] concentration parameter p.

greater fraction of a being apportioned to the lowest

neighbor. As p ! 1, F ! 1 for the neighbor of steepest
descent and F ! 0 for all other neighbors (Figure 1).
[6] Many implementations of FD8 use a value for p
between 1.1 6 but this practice results in a compromise
in terms of modeling flow divergence. That is, single p
values attempt to fit a catchment-wide average of flow
divergence that results in flow on hillslopes appearing too
convergent and braiding along valley bottoms. The same
problem of hard-wired flow properties, which are indifferent
to a cells location relative to the stream network, exists for
the DEMON and D1 algorithms. Some researchers have
suggested using hybrid flow algorithms to compensate
for these problems. For example, equation (1) can be
used on hillslopes until convergent topography is detected
[Freeman, 1991] or a channel initiation threshold (CIT)
catchment area is reached [Quinn et al., 1991], beyond
which a is calculated using the D8 SFD flow algorithm. One
criticism with this approach is that irregularities, or abrupt
changes, occur at the transition to channelized flow [Gallant
and Wilson, 2000]. Quinn et al. [1995] overcame this
problem by increasing p continuously downslope until the
CIT was reached, creating a downslope feedback between
the degree of flow divergence and a. An adjustable power
term determined how rapidly flow became convergent. This
pattern of increasingly convergent flow toward channel
heads is consistent with field observations [Quinn et al.,
1995].
[7] There are several problems, however, with using p to
adjust the degree of divergence. First, F is a nonlinear
function of p, and therefore changing p an equivalent
amount results in an unequal increase in the degree of flow
convergence (Figure 1). Furthermore, when the slopes to
neighboring cells are similar, substantial partitioning can
occur even when p is large. When two or more cells
have equal slopes, equation (1) will partition flow even
if p equals infinity (Figure 1). This problem is further
compounded by the practical limitation that large exponents
can cause overflow errors in most computers.

[8] In addition to these technical issues, the threshold a

used in the hybrid and Quinn et al. [1995] implementations
of FD8 may not be physically realistic. Montgomery and
Foufoula-Georgiou [1993] concluded that models with
constant critical support areas for channel maintenance
are theoretically and empirically less appropriate than
slope-dependent critical support areas. This is because
smaller contributing areas are needed to initiate channels
on steeper slopes. If overland flow is assumed to be the
mechanism for channel initiation, channel heads occur when
the basal shear stress (tb) exceeds the critical shear stress
of the ground surface (tcr). On the basis of a laminar
flow model, Montgomery and Foufoula-Georgiou [1993]
showed that the critical specific catchment area (acr)
required for tb > tcr is,
acr

C
tan q2

C / t3cr ; q1
r

where q is the local slope. C is a constant with units

of length, which is proportional to tcr3 and inversely
proportional to the steady state rainfall intensity, qr .
[9] On the basis of equation (2), the transition from
unchannelized to channelized flow occurs where
atan q2  C

Montgomery and Dietrich [1992] and Montgomery and

Foufoula-Georgiou [1993] found that this model could
predict channel head locations. Therefore equation (3) is an
empirical method for determining the channel network
extent, although scatter in the relation can result from the
spatial variation in tcr [Istanbulluoglu et al., 2002] and the
assumption that the channel network is in a state of longterm equilibrium. Equation (3) is only necessarily valid at
channel heads, i.e., a(tanq)2 can decrease downslope.
[10] On the basis of field observations, Montgomery and
Dietrich [1992] reported values of C between 25 m and

TNN

LINDSAY: TECHNICAL NOTE

1-3

Figure 2. Fraction of a received by two downslope neighbors of varying slopes using the ADRA
concentration parameter n.

200 m for the Tennessee Valley area of northern California.

Dietrich et al. [1993] and Montgomery and FoufoulaGeorgiou [1993] present several methods for estimating
C for different regions. One of the most practical of these
estimation methods is based on evidence that channel
head locations define the limit to convergent topography
[Montgomery and Dietrich, 1992]. Montgomery and
Foufoula-Georgiou [1993] suggest that an appropriate value
of C reflects the smallest value that does not result in the
extension of the channel network onto the surrounding
planar or divergent topography. Thus C is the smallest
value that does not result in feathering of the channel
network along headwater channels.

3. Adjustable Dispersion Routing Algorithm

(ADRA)
[11] The adjustable dispersion routing algorithm (ADRA)
was developed to address some of the problems with
existing algorithms. ADRA calculates Fi as,

Fi

B
max0; tan Si
max0; tan Si C
C
B
nBki  8
C
8
A
@
P
P
max0; tan Sj
max0; tan Sj
j1


n

t atan q2 < C
1 atan q2  C

where the transition function, t, is a curve that rises

monotonically upward such that t(0) = 0 and t(C) = 1.
Although other models may be suitable (e.g., a sigmoidal
curve), a linear transition function was used in this paper, of
the form:
t

atan q2
;
C

atan q2 < C

[13] Using the recursive drainage accumulation approach

[Mark, 1988; Freeman, 1991], a is calculated for a cell only
after each upslope neighbor has been solved. Thus, for any
cell i, a(tanq)2 and u are known for each upslope neighbor k
and ai = Fiak.

4. Flow Algorithm Comparison

tered, flow divergence is undesirable and all subsequent

downslope cells are treated as channel cells. Thus

j1

where the concentration parameter, u, ranges from zero to

one and k equals one for the first cell detected with the
maximum downward slope and zero for all other cells. For
the cell with the maximum downward slope, F(u) is a line
from S/S to one, and for all other cells with downward
slopes, F(u) is a line from S/S to zero (Figure 2).
[12] ADRA has been designed to vary u with the areaslope function a(tanq)2. If a cell has a low a(tanq)2 value
(i.e., a(tanq)2 < C) then it is above the channel head and a
low u should be used to divide a between downslope
neighbors. Similarly, a high a(tanq)2 value indicates channelized flow and u should equal one. Once C is encoun-

[14] ADRA was compared with the Quinn et al. [1995]

variable-p implementation of FD8, because this algorithm
produces the most logically consistent pattern of a (i.e.,
divergent flow on hillslopes and convergent flow in
valleys). Several researchers have used artificial surfaces
(e.g., planes and cones) to evaluate flow algorithms because
the actual contributing area is known for all locations [e.g.,
Freeman, 1991; Costa-Cabral and Burges, 1993; Tarboton,
1997]. However, this approach was inappropriate for evaluating ADRA and the Quinn et al. [1995] algorithm
because artificial surfaces lack stream channels. The only
alternative therefore was to compare the visual patterns of a
generated by both flow algorithms in a variety of natural
settings. Nevertheless, this approach offered valuable
insight into the applicability of ADRA because theory
indicates, at least qualitatively, what the spatial pattern of
a should look like.

TNN

1-4

LINDSAY: TECHNICAL NOTE

Figure 3. Patterns of catchment area calculated using ADRA and the Quinn et al. [1995] algorithm for
(a) a mountainous catchment in coastal Washington, (b) a moderately steep catchment in northern
Vermont, (c) a low-relief catchment in Texas, and (d) a low-relief catchment in Oklahoma.

LINDSAY: TECHNICAL NOTE

TNN

1-5

The three data points in Figure 4 with slopes greater than

60 resulted from missing data in the SRTM-1 data, which
occur on mountainsides. These missing data (given the
value of 32768) were filled during preprocessing, yielding
spurious cliff faces on the upslope side of the pit. These
sites are recognized as channel heads by ADRA despite
their small catchment areas because of their erroneously
high slopes. The Quinn et al. [1995] algorithm does not
include local slope in its estimation of channel extent and
therefore is not similarly susceptible to this type of error.
ADRA would not identify channel heads in these areas if
missing data were removed using an interpolation scheme
that approximates the original hillslope rather than using pit
filling.

5. Summary

Figure 4. Relation between slope and estimated catchment

area at channel heads.
[15] Four study catchments were identified in different
physiographic regions. These catchments represented
ranges in relief (i.e., 56 to 786 m) and climate (i.e., marine,
humid sub-tropical, humid continental, and midlatitude
dry). Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM-1) DEMs
[Farr and Kobrick, 2000] were used as the necessary input
to the flow algorithms. The original DEMs, with grid
resolutions of 1 arc-second, were projected into UTM
coordinates and resampled to 30 m grids. The vertical
precision of SRTM-1 DEMs is 1 m.
[16] ADRA and the Quinn et al. [1995] algorithm produced very similar patterns of a, with divergent flow on
hillslopes and fully convergent flow along valley bottoms
(Figure 3). Stream channels were evident in the flow
accumulation maps as single-cell wide networks of high
a-values. Braiding did not occur using either flow algorithm. Stream network extent was marked by gradually
increasing flow convergence near channel heads in each
study catchment. The differences between the flow accumulations maps produced by ADRA and the Quinn et al.
[1995] algorithm were most pronounced near valley heads
where the rate of downslope flow convergence and the
positioning and number of channel heads differed. These
dissimilarities were most apparent in Figure 3b because of
the large hillslopes and low drainage density of the Vermont
study catchment. Conversely, the differences between the
visual patterns of a produced by the two flow algorithms
were negligible for the low-relief catchment in Oklahoma
(Figure 3d), because of the relatively high drainage density
and little variation in slope.
[17] The relation between q and the estimated value of a
at channel heads is illustrated in Figure 4 for the mountainous catchment in Washington (Figure 3a). Figure 4 clearly
demonstrates that a varied inversely with slope for ADRA
while the Quinn et al. [1995] algorithm did not exhibit a
similar relation. Thus the spatial pattern of a derived using
ADRA was more consistent with the theory of channel
initiation. However, Figure 4 also demonstrates that ADRA
can be more susceptible to a particular type of DEM error.

[18] Most existing SFD and MFD routing algorithms are

inadequate for modeling contributing area over entire
catchments. Rather than basing the degree of divergence
on local slope alone, ADRA divides flow using local slope
and an estimate of the cells position relative to channel
heads. Thus, by incorporating a model of channel initiation
directly into the flow calculation, ADRA can model
catchment area on hillslopes and along valley bottoms.
The transition between hillslope and channel flow is based
on a physically realistic model, capable of locating channel
heads. Also, the proportion of the catchment area that a
cell receives is a linear function of the concentration
parameter, which has a range from zero to one. In contrast,
exponent based concentration parameters divide flow nonlinearly and range from zero to infinity. A comparison
between ADRA and the Quinn et al. [1995] flow algorithm, across a range of basin types, showed that the two
methods produce visually similar spatial patterns of a, but
differ in the representation of flow accumulation near
valley heads. ADRAs flow accumulation patterns were
found to be more consistent with the theory of channel
initiation. However, if DEMs contain missing data values,
ADRA can yield artifact channels because of erroneous
slopes. Thus care is needed to correctly handle missing
data values.
[19] Acknowledgments. The author thanks I. Creed and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and advice. This work was
supported by the Ontario Graduate Scholarship.

References
Beven, K. J., and M. J. Kirkby, A physically-based variable contributing
area model of basin hydrology, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 24(1), 43 69,
1979.
Costa-Cabral, M. C., and S. J. Burges, Digital elevation model networks
(DEMON): A model of flow over hillslopes for computation of contributing and dispersal areas, Water Resour. Res., 30(6), 1681 1692,
1994.
Dietrich, W. E., C. J. Wilson, D. R. Montgomery, and J. McKean, Analysis
of erosion thresholds, channel networks and landscape morphology using
a digital terrain model, J. Geol., 101, 259 278, 1993.
Farr, T. G., and M. Kobrick, Shuttle radar topography mission produces a
wealth of data, Eos Trans. AGU, 81, 583 585, 2000.
Freeman, T. G., Calculating catchment area with divergent flow based on a
regular grid, Comput. Geosci., 17(3), 413 422, 1991.
Gallant, J. C., and J. P. Wilson, Primary topographic attributes, in Terrain
Analysis: Principles and Applications, edited by J. P. Wilson and J. C.
Gallant pp. 51 86, John Wiley, Hoboken, N. J., 2000.
Gallant, J. C., M. F. Hutchinson, and J. P. Wilson, Future directions for
terrain analysis, in Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications, edited

TNN

1-6

LINDSAY: TECHNICAL NOTE

by J. P. Wilson and J. C. Gallant, pp. 423 427, John Wiley, Hoboken,

N. J., 2000.
Istanbulluoglu, E., D. G. Tarboton, R. T. Pack, and C. Luce, A probabilistic
approach for channel initiation, Water Resour. Res., 38(12), 1325,
doi:10.1029/2001WR000782, 2002.
Jenson, S. K., and J. O. Domingue, Extracting topographic structure from
digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 54(11), 1593 1600, 1988.
Mark, D. M., Network models in geomorphology, in Modelling Geomorphological Systems, edited by M. G. Anderson, John Wiley, Hoboken,
N. J., 1988.
Mitasova, H., J. Hofierka, M. Zlocha, and L. R. Iverson, Modelling topographic potential for erosion and deposition using GIS, Int. J. Geogr.
Info. Syst., 10(5), 629 641, 1996.
Montgomery, D. R., and W. E. Dietrich, Channel initiation and the problem
of landscape scale, Science, 255, 826 830, 1992.
Montgomery, D. R., and E. Foufoula-Georgiou, Channel network source
representation using digital elevation models, Water Resour. Res., 29(12),
3925 3934, 1993.

OCallaghan, J. F., and D. M. Mark, The extraction of drainage networks

from digital elevation data, Comput. Vision Graphics Image Processes,
28, 323 344, 1984.
Quinn, P., K. Beven, P. Chevallier, and O. Planchon, The prediction of
hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological modelling using digital
terrain models, Hydrol. Processes, 5, 59 79, 1991.
Quinn, P. F., K. J. Beven, and R. Lamb, The ln(a/tanB) index: How to
calculate it and how to use it within the TOPMODEL framework, Hydrol.
Processes, 9, 161 182, 1995.
Tarboton, D. G., A new method for the determination of flow directions and
upslope areas in grid digital elevation models, Water Resour. Res., 33(2),
309 319, 1997.
Wolock, D. M., and G. J. McCabe Jr., Comparison of single and multiple
flow direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters in
TOPMODEL, Water Resour. Res., 31(5), 1315 1324, 1995.



J. B. Lindsay, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario,

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2. ( jblindsa@uwo.ca)