Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgnh20

Flood vulnerability assessment of the upper Cross

River basin using morphometric analysis

Nkpa M. Ogarekpe , Ekpe A. Obio , Imokhai T. Tenebe , PraiseGod C. Emenike

& Chidozie C. Nnaji

To cite this article: Nkpa M. Ogarekpe , Ekpe A. Obio , Imokhai T. Tenebe , PraiseGod C.
Emenike & Chidozie C. Nnaji (2020) Flood vulnerability assessment of the upper Cross River
basin using morphometric analysis, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11:1, 1378-1403, DOI:
10.1080/19475705.2020.1785954

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2020.1785954

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 23 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 858

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgnh20
GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK
2020, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 1378–1403
https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2020.1785954

Flood vulnerability assessment of the upper Cross River

basin using morphometric analysis
Nkpa M. Ogarekpea, Ekpe A. Obiob, Imokhai T. Tenebec,d, PraiseGod C. Emenikee
and Chidozie C. Nnajif,g
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Cross River University of Technology, Calabar, Nigeria;
b
Department of Agronomy, Cross River University of Technology, Calabar, Nigeria; cIngram School of
Engineering, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA; dCritical Infrastructure Division, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX, USA; eDepartment of Civil Engineering, Covenant
University, Ota, Nigeria; fDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria;
g
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cross River, which originates from Cameroon, flows through sev- Received 2 December 2019
eral communities in Nigeria. The population upsurge and settle- Accepted 10 April 2020
ments near the river channel, however, portends the possibility of
KEYWORDS
natural hazards such as floods. Floods within the upper Cross
Flood; vulnerability; Cross
River basin (UCRB) have resulted in the loss of lives and property. River; basin; morphometric
The importance of flood studies, therefore, cannot be overempha- analysis; assessment
sized. This study evaluated the influence of sub-basins on the
flooding of the main channel in the UCRB using morphometric
analysis. The UCRB was delineated into sub-basins using Shuttle
Radar Topographic Mission Digital Elevation Model. The drainage
network and morphometric parameters were extracted using
QSWAT installed as a plugin in QGIS. Based on the compound
factors computed from morphometric parameters that directly
impact runoff, the UCRB was categorized into three flood vulner-
ability zones namely: high vulnerability (10.93–13.10), moderate
vulnerability (8.75–10.92), and low vulnerability (6.57–8.74). The
analysis revealed that sub-basins 18, 10, 8, 17, 1, 6, 15, and 13
have greater potentials to attain peak discharge in a short period,
therefore, the instantaneous high runoff contribution of their trib-
utaries to Cross River. The results of this study provide useful
information for the effective mitigation and management of the
flood vulnerabilities of the UCRB.

1. Introduction
The impacts of flooding on the environment and the ecosystem within the flooded
region, including lives and property, are enormous. Hydrologically, a flood occurs
when the drainage basin experiences an unusually intense or prolonged water-input
event and resulting streamflow rate exceeds the channel capacity (Dingman 2008). In

CONTACT Nkpa M. Ogarekpe nkpaogarekpe@crutech.edu.ng

ß 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1379

addition to the impact of the flood on people and properties, the effects of flood on
wildlife and livestock health (Dumas 2011); local landscape and habitats (Livingstone
2013) have been reported. Changnon (1985) stated that floods are the most destruc-
tive natural hazard in the United States. The narrative is not different in many coun-
tries, Nigeria and Cameroon inclusive. Floods are the most common and recurring
natural disaster in Nigeria (Federal Government of Nigeria [FGN] 2013) and
Cameroon’s coastal regions (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies [IFRC] 2001).
There is presently widespread interest with regards to flood vulnerability studies
due to the impacts of flood, particularly on lives and property. Consequently, various
methods of flood vulnerability assessment have been developed. The methods vary
with each approach having a unique theoretical background and framework. The
choice of approach utilized is dependent on the available data such as detailed topo-
graphic, hydrographic and economic information of the area (Nasiri et al. 2016). The
conventional methods can be categorized into four groups: curve method, disaster
loos data method, computer modeling methods, and indicator-based methods (Nasiri
et al 2016). In the past, researches have been carried out on flood susceptibility: by
integrating statistical, machine learning and multi-criteria decision analysis, including
artificial neural network (ANN), logistic regression (LR), frequency ratio (FR), and
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Rahman et al. 2019); using compromise program-
ming (CP) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Vogel 2016); using morphomet-
ric analysis (Adnan et al. 2019). The morphometric analytical approach was adopted
for the study under review.
Morphometric analysis entails the determination of linear, areal and relief charac-
teristics of a drainage basin. Morphometric analyses have aided the description of
processes such as flooding, erosion and mass movement (Baumgardner 1987). Eze
and Efiong (2010) examined the morphometric parameters of the Calabar River Basin
with emphasis on the implications on the hydrology of the basin. The study opined
that the anthropogenic activities that perhaps negatively impact the stream network
be discouraged (Eze and Efiong 2010). Morphometric analyses have been utilized in
understanding the operating processes, landform characteristics of watersheds:
Colang€ uil river basin (Angillieri 2008); AmbilOdha rivulet (Gabale and Pawar 2015);
watershed in Parbhani district of Maharashtra (Waikar and Nilawar 2014); Wailapalli
watershed (Sreedevi et al. 2009). The morphometric characteristics and bathymetry
mapping of lake Dal have been carried out using geospatial techniques (Nishikanth
et al. 2018).
In the past, the overall flood potentials of drainage basins have been determined
using morphometric analysis. Bhatt and Ahmed (2014) studied floods in the upper
Krishna basin while Bhat et al. (2019) assessed the upper Jhelum basin using morpho-
metric parameters. Bhatt and Ahmed (2014) extracted morphometric parameters for
the upper Jhelum basin. The compound factor approach was used in determining the
sub-basins which cause flooding in the main Krishna River (Bhatt and Ahmed 2014).
Bhat et al. (2019) extracted the drainage network and morphometric parameters for
the upper Jhelum basin. The researches by Bhatt and Ahmed (2014) and Bhat et al.
(2019) revealed that the compound factor and the compound value, respectively, are
1380 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

in principle the same thing as both assigned sub-basins with highest numeric values
as high priority while those with lowest numeric values as low priority. Alam et al.
(2018) categorized the flood vulnerability of Srinagar city in terms of percentage of
the city at risk (high risk, moderate risk and low risk). Ozdemir and Bird (2009) eval-
uated the influence of morphometric parameters of sub-basins on the flooding of the
main channel in Havran River Basin using two drainage networks derived from dif-
ferent sources. The study revealed that sub-basins with flood mitigation structures
comparatively had less influence to produce floods on the main channel (Ozdemir
and Bird 2009).
The advances in science and technology, particularly space satellites vis-a-vis
remote sensing and the improved processing ability of the microcomputers, have in
no small way eased the analysis of watersheds in respect of morphometric analyses.
Researches have acknowledged the automated extraction of topographic and morpho-
metric parameters from DEM using GIS and hydrologic models as a practicable alter-
native to erstwhile traditional surveys and manual evaluation of topographic maps
(Magesh et al. 2012; Das et al. 2016). Geoprocessing operations, which include the
extraction and analysis of hydrologic information from topography, are performed by
QSWAT via a suite of programs called Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation
Models (TauDEM) (Tarboton 1997; Tesfa et al. 2011; Wilson 2012). QSWAT being a
plugin, utilizes QGIS tools and functions including the Geospatial Data Abstraction
Library (GDAL).
The paucity of previous researches detailing the flood vulnerabilities of the upper
Cross River basin necessitated this study. In addition, the population upsurge, which
has resulted to the expansion of human settlements beyond the erstwhile boundaries
of communities within the study area, the modification of some reaches due to the
construction of roads/bridges, alluvial depositions etc. are some flood risk factors
within the UCRB. Contrary to the practice of using maps obtained via boots on the
ground surveys, this article, in line with the current trend, utilized the approach of
Geographic Information System (GIS), Remote Sensing (RS) and GIS application soft-
ware (QGIS) in the morphometric analysis of the UCRB. In respect of this study, the
importance of offsite acquisition of requisite data is enormous; some of which include
time saving, low-cost and acquisition of data of inaccessible areas, especially in third
world countries. This study, therefore, investigated the linear, areal and relief mor-
phometric characteristics of the UCRB, with the following specific objectives: To
evaluate the influence of sub-basins on the flooding of the main channel in the
UCRB using morphometric parameters derived from SRTM DEM and to produce a
flood vulnerability map of the UCRB showing higher to lower order of sub-basins
which influence floods in Cross River.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area
The Cross River Basin (CRB) is located in Southeastern Nigeria and Western
Cameroon. Cross River originates from Cameroon, flows through Nigeria and drains
into the Atlantic Ocean. The CRB covers an area of 53,590 km2 (Folorunshona and
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1381

Figure 1. The upper Cross River basin located in southeastern Nigeria and western Cameroon shown
with weather stations. Source: Shutter Radar Topographic Mission ( http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/); Author.

Awosika 2014). Most of Cross River basin lies within Nigeria, between longitudes
7
500 and 9
280 East and latitudes 4
280 and 6
550 North (Water Supply and
Sanitation Reform Programme [WSSSRP II] 2016). The last 80 kilometers of the river
is characterized by flow through swampy rainforest with numerous creeks and forms
an inland delta near its confluence with Calabar River (Maritime Organization of
West and Central Africa [MOWCA], n.d.). The delta empties into a broad estuary
which it shares with a few smaller rivers (Chisholm, 1911). The average annual rain-
fall varies from 1,760 mm in the northern part of the state to 3,100 mm in the south-
ern part (WSSSRP II 2016). The gauged part of the watershed, which represents the
upper Cross river basin (UCRB), was delineated using the approach of Geographic
Information System. The upper Cross River basin lies within Nigeria and Cameroon,
between longitudes 7
330 and 10
060 East and latitudes 4
550 and 7
260 North. The
UCRB drains parts of several States and localities namely: Benue, Ebonyi, Cross
River, Kogi, Enugu States in Nigeria and Manyu, Momo, Lebialem, Kupe-
Manenguba, Ndian in Cameroon. The UCRB has an area of 35,942.84 km2. The
delineated watershed was used to clip out the datasets. This was considered necessary
to lay emphasis on the area under review. The location map is shown in Figure 1.
The watershed experiences a tropical wet-and-dry climate based on Koppen’s climate
classification. Rainfall within the UCRB is a principal climatic variable marked with alter-
nation of wet and dry seasons in most areas. In most of the southeastern parts of
Nigeria, the rainy season which usually begin in February or March as moist Atlantic air,
1382 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

Figure 2. Annual maximum rainfall data of weather stations within the study area. Source:
National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Texas, USA (http://globalweather.tamu.edu/); Saha et
al., 2010; Saha et al., 2014.

receives between 2,000 and 3,000 millimeters of rain per year (NBS 2011). There are two
seasons – the wet and dry seasons. Rainfall occurs during the wet season
(April–October) with two distinct peaks in June/July and September/October. A short
dry season usually called ‘August break’ separate the peaks. The dry season lasts from
November through March. The climate of Cameroon varies across the country. Figure 2
shows the maximum annual rainfall of 21 weather stations (p5291, p5294, p5297, p5591,
p5594, p5597, p5888, p5891, p5894, p5897, p6184, p6188, p6191, p6194, p6197, p6484,
p6488, p6491, p7081, p7084, p7088) within the study area. The rainfall data of the wea-
ther stations were obtained for a period of 36 years, spanning the time frame between
1979 and 2014. The rainfall datasets were obtained from the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP), Texas, USA (http://globalweather.tamu.edu/).
The variability of the topography of the UCRB as obtained from the SRTM DEM
shows that the UCRB consist of low-lying and high mountainous areas, ranging from
16 to 2728 m above mean sea level (Figure 1). Most of the low-lying areas are in
Nigeria while the mountains are situated in Cameroon.
The land use and land cover (LULC) map of the study area (shown in Figure 3)
shows that the predominant LULC by percentage of watershed are savanna (SAVA
63.36%), Dryland Cropland and Pasture (CRDY 14.33%), Cropland/Woodland Mosaic
(CRWO 9.95%), and Evergreen Broadleaf Forest (FOEB 8.22%). The other LULC by per-
centages of watershed are Urban and Built-up Land (URMD 0.02%), Cropland/Grassland
Mosaic (CRGR 0.36%), Grassland (GRAS 1.20%), Shrubland (SHRB 0.52%), Deciduous
Broadleaf Forest (FODB 0.95%), Water Bodies (WATR 0.21%), Wooded Wetland
(WEWO 0.82%), and Barren or Sparse Vegetated (BSVG 0.07%).
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1383

Figure 3. Land use and land cover map of the upper Cross River basin. Source: Extracted from
WaterBase http://www.waterbase.org/download_data.html.

Figure 4 details the different soil types within the study area based on the Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation classifications. The distribution
of the soils by percentage of watershed are as follows: Nd16-2-3a-1553 (28.75%),
Ne17-1582 (28.10%), Af12-1-2a-1018 (13.84%), Af1-1016 (6.43%), Ne3-b-1590
(5.52%), Fo9-bc-1174 (5.51%), Ap15-1a-1068 (4.51%), Fh1-ab-1157 (2.45%), Bf6-1105
(0.12%), G2-2-3a-1193 (0.64%), Nd10-3b-1546 (0.55%), Tv12-b-1710 (0.66%), Ne1-
1577 (0.79%), Bh8-bc-1109 (0.30%), Nd5-1a-1567 (0.56%), Af13-1a-1021 (0.03%),
Gh4-a-1214, (0.69%), and Lf43-1a-1471 (0.55%). The predominant soils are the
Dystric Nitosols, Eutric Nitosols, and Ferric Acrisols. Acrisols and Nitosols have sig-
nificant amount of clay. The Dystric Nitosols within the UCRB consist of medium to
fine texture particles, with gentle undulating relief.
1384 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

Table 1. Morphometric parameters and computational procedure.

S/NO Morphometric parameters Computation Procedure Reference Description
1 Stream Order (Su) Hierarchical Strahler (1957) Linear parameter
2 Stream Number (Nu) Nu ¼ N1 þ N2 þ … þNn Schumn (1956) Linear parameter
3 Stream Length (Lu) Lu ¼ L1 þ L2 þ … þLn Horton (1945) Linear parameter
4 Bifurcation Ratio (Rb) Rb ¼ Nu/(Nu þ1) Schumn (1956) Linear parameter
5 Form Factor (Ff) Ff ¼ A/Lb2 Horton (1932) Areal parameter
6 Circularity Ratio (C) C ¼ 4pA/P2 Miller (1953) Areal parameter
7 Compactness Index (c) c ¼ 0.2821 P/冑A Horton (1932) Areal parameter
8 Drainage Density (Dd) Dd ¼ P Lu/A Horton (1932) Areal parameter
9 Drainage Texture (Td) Td ¼ Nn/P Horton (1945) Areal parameter
10 Elongation Ratio (Eb) Eb¼ [冑(A/p)]/L
P b Schumm (1956) Areal parameter
11 Stream Frequency (Fs) Fs ¼ Nn/A Horton (1932) Areal parameter
2
12 Lemniscate ratio (K) K¼Lb /4A Chorley et al. (1957) Areal parameter
13 Basin relief (Hr) Hr ¼ H  h Hardley and Schumm Relief parameter
14 Relief ratio (Rr) Rr ¼ Hr/Lb Schumm (1956) Relief parameter
15 Ruggedness number (Rn) Rn ¼ Hr x Dd Melton (1957) Relief parameter

2.2. Geology of the study area

The lithology of the study area consists of Precambrian and Phanerozoic up to con-
temporary formations as shown in Figure 5. The varieties of hard formations by per-
centage of watershed include the volcanic (9.03%), basement complex (17.08%),
igneous-volcanic (0.75%), igneous – younger granite (0.24), Precambrian basement
(22.28%). The varieties of the other formations by percentage of watershed include
the sedimentary: largely Cretaceous – tertiary (5.88%), Lower Benue Basin -
Sedimentary – Cretaceous (44.71%), and unconsolidated (0.03%). The predominant
formation is sedimentary (with gentle gradient) to the west and a variety of hard
rocks (with steep gradient) to the east (Cameroon).
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2019)
reported that Six Local Governments Areas (LGAs) within Cross River State were
affected by flood. It is worrisome to note that in 2014, the floods in Cross River State
affected eight LGAs, leaving several people displaced (NBS 2016). There is, therefore,
a need to understand the physical characteristics of the UCRB with regards to the
potential of the sub-basins to flooding on the main channel. The study of the mor-
phometric parameters, which culminates in the determination of the flood potential
of drainage basins, lends itself as a useful tool.

2.3. Model input data

The model input data were remotely obtained from different sources. The DEM was
obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/).
CGIAR-CSI SRTM v4.1 DEM, which was released in August, 2008 (Jarvis et al.
2008), was processed to provide seamless topography surfaces by filling the no data
using interpolation methods described by Reuter et al. (2007). The 90 m DEM
obtained was used for the watershed delineation. The delineation was carried out
considering an outlet at 8.25
E and 6.05
N (Hydrologic station). All the spatial analy-
ses were carried out using QGIS (versions 2.6) set to WGS 84/UTM Zone 32 N
Coordinate Reference System. The LULC map was obtained from the WaterBase web-
site (http://www.waterbase.org/download_data.html), whereas the soil map was
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1385

Table 2. Morphometric parameters of the upper Cross River basin.

Stream Total
Strahler Stream length, Lu Total length
Sub-basin order, u number, Nu (km) orders (km) A (km2) P (km) Lb (km) H (m asl) h (m asl)
1 1 38 164.84 75 377.72 1594.77 337.61 73.20 1783 76
2 12 80.03
3 24 126.48
4 1 6.37
2 1 2 15.66 3 22.48 94.07 73.27 16.62 622 39
2 1 6.82
3 1 4 4.12 7 36.05 155.06 104.54 28.27 203 22
2 2 14.21
3 1 17.72
4 1 3 9.67 5 20.17 81.04 60.01 14.1 103 24
2 2 10.51
5 1 2 14.38 3 21.32 61.26 68.13 17.02 123 24
2 1 6.94
6 1 7 23.82 13 41.27 159.02 80.27 14.88 271 32
2 5 9.38
3 1 8.07
7 1 5 26.79 9 41.14 138.51 83.95 15.75 258 74
2 3 12.96
3 1 1.39
8 1 434 2037.30 867 4198.46 16264.44 965.39 161.59 1247 23
2 217 1166.01
3 104 518.20
4 76 353.31
5 25 86.33
6 11 37.30
9 1 47 188.14 93 376.16 1520.32 339.13 75.63 1324 28
2 23 96.78
3 23 91.24
10 1 54 242.16 107 466.46 1875.61 320.9 61.51 1978 61
2 28 135.23
3 11 46.09
4 14 42.99
11 1 7 36.54 13 65.26 254.58 120.41 25.11 466 74
2 5 28.31
3 1 0.41
12 1 3 19.68 5 25.66 118.06 86.16 19.48 460 60
2 2 5.97
13 1 19 91.72 37 208.86 731.21 217.41 46.06 1121 58
2 9 87.10
3 9 30.04
14 1 20 98.80 39 180.62 697.03 212.98 50.96 1030 26
2 12 45.64
3 7 36.18
15 1 14 54.26 27 108.78 433.2 168.8 37.21 1030 37
2 9 34.57
3 4 19.95
16 1 6 24.21 11 57.523 210.40 134.21 30.95 842 52
2 3 15.95
3 2 17.36
17 1 100 436.11 199 905.28 3326.56 478.27 109.1 1670 43
2 57 281.49
3 18 81.02
4 24 106.67
18 1 197 842.87 393 1821.04 7039.51 676.04 121.65 2728 52
2 111 576.31
3 41 215.61
4 25 106.40
5 19 79.85
1386 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

Figure 4. The upper Cross River basin soil map. Source: Extracted from Soil Maps and Databases |
FAO SOILS PORTAL | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

obtained from the Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations website http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-sur-
vey/soil-maps-and-databases/en/. The climatic data and the Weather Generator pro-
gram were obtained from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP), Texas, USA (http://globalweather.tamu.edu/).

2.4. Model setup

The discretization of the UCRB and the congruent sub-basins that makeup the basin
was carried out using a threshold area of 10 km2. Slope classes of 0  5%, 5  10%,
10  25%, and >25% were utilized for the HRU creation step. In order to reduce the
model complexity, processing and simulation time, the multiple HRU option of
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1387

Figure 5. Geology of the upper Cross River basin. Source: Extracted from the British Geological
Survey Africa Groundwater.

filtering by land use, soil and slope was used for the creation of HRU. HRUs with
less than 5% unique combination of land use, soil and slope range were eliminated.
SWAT model utilizes the LULC map, soil map and DEM in conjunction with the cli-
matic data in the creation of the Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) and the water
balance modelling. The water balance of the catchment area simulated at the HRU
level enabled the routing of the runoff to the reaches of the sub-basins and then to
the channels.

2.5. Morphometric analysis

The determination of the drainage, flow direction, flow accumulation, slope, aspect,
hill shade, and the morphometric parameters of the UCRB and its congruent sub-
basins was enabled by TauDEM of QSWAT1.2. These were generated consequent
upon the model input data, SWAT model and the model setup described above. The
requisite morphometric parameters include the stream length (Lu), stream number
1388 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

(Nu), stream order (Su), area of the sub-basins (A), minimum (h), and maximum (H)
elevations. Geoprocessing techniques in QGIS were used for the determination of the
sub-basin length (Lb) and perimeter (P). The computation of the derived parameters
was carried out using the equations shown in Table 1.
Where Nu is the total number of stream of a given order, Nuþ1 is the total number
of stream of next higher order, Lu is the total stream length of all orders (km), A is
area of the sub-basin (km2), Lb is the maximum basin length (km), P is the perimeter
of the basin (km), Dd is the drainage density (km/km2).
The criterion for the selection of the derived morphometric parameters in Table 1
was based on their direct relationships with runoff. Implying that higher values of
these parameters are consequential to greater runoff. The delineation of the upper
Cross river basin yielded eighteen significant sub-basins.

2.6. Compound factor

In order to determine the flood vulnerability of the sub-basins, the derived parame-
ters in respect of the linear, areal and relief parameters were weighted on a scale of
1–18. It is noteworthy to mention that only morphometric parameters that directly
correlate with runoff were selected for the computation of the Compound factors.
The choice of the range of weightages was based on the number of sub-basins within
the basin. Higher weightages were assigned to sub-basins with higher derived param-
eter values. Hence, sub-basins with the highest derived parameter values were
assigned a weightage of 18, whereas sub-basins with the second highest derived par-
ameter values were assigned a weightage of 17 and so on. The sub-basins with the
least derived parameter values were assigned a weightage of 1. The compound factors
of the sub-basins were calculated by determining the averages of the weightages of all
the derived parameters. The compound factors were computed using Eq. (1).

ðWRbm þ WFs þ WDd þ WTd þ Wc þ WFf þ WC þ WEb þ Wk þ WHr þ WRn þ WRr þ WTSn þ WSu Þ
CF ¼
n
(1)

where CF is the Compound factor; WRbm is the weightage of the mean bifurcation
ratio; WFs is the weightage of the stream frequency; WDd is the weightage of the
drainage density; WTd is the weightage of drainage texture; Wc is the weightage of the
compactness index; WFf is the weightage of the form factor; WC is the weightage of
the circularity ratio; WEb is the weightage of the elongation ratio; WK is the weightage
of Leminscate ratio; WHr is the weightage of the basin relief; WRn is the weightage of
the ruggedness number; WRr is the weightage of the ruggedness number; WRr is the
weightage of the relief ratio; WTNu is the weightage of the total stream number; WSu
is the weightage of the stream order; n is the number of parameters
Based on the range of the compound factors, the basin was categorized into three
flood vulnerability zones namely: high vulnerability, moderate vulnerability, and low vul-
nerability. Sub-basins with high compound factors are of high priority while those with
moderate-to-low compound factors are categorized moderate-to-low priority zones.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1389

2.7. Drainage characteristics of the upper Cross River basin

The Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models tools were utilized for the delin-
eation of the UCRB including the computation of the flow path (directions) and
slope. The eighteen sub-basins contributing flow to Cross River were delineated as
well. The stream networks and links of the sub-basins were generated using a discret-
ization threshold area of 10 km2. Generally, the drainage pattern of the upper Cross
River basin consists of an interplay of dendritic, trellis and parallel drainage patterns
(Figure 6). The trunk of the river close to the outlet under review (at Obubra) is a
sixth-order stream (Strahler’s method). Strahler (1952) ordering system allows for
comparative analysis of drainage basins and was therefore adopted in this study. Part
of the mountainous ranges of Cameroon are drained into Cross River. The tributaries
have different lengths ranging from 0.092 km of Sub-basins 8 and 18 (smallest
stream) to 30.090 km of Sub-basins 8 (largest stream). The tributaries flow over dif-
ferent types of geologic formations. The southeastern section of the UCRB consists of
hard and rocky formations with relatively steeper gradients compared to the north-
western section, which has sedimentary formations with a gentle gradient.

3. Results and discussion

The morphometric parameters of the upper Cross River basin under review are pre-
sented in Table 2, while Table 3 shows the computation of the bifurcation ratios.
Table 4 depicts the computed parameters in respect of linear, areal and
relief parameters.

3.1. Stream order (Su)

Strahler (1952) ordering system was adopted for this study. This ordering system is
hierarchical and therefore shows the position of a stream in the hierarchy of tributa-
ries (Strahler, 1952). The determination of the stream order is fundamental to under-
standing the drainage characteristics of the catchment area (Horton 1945; Strahler
1957). Costa (1987) opined that the discharge and flow velocity increase with increase
in stream order. For the study under review, the results revealed that sub-basin 8 has
a sixth-order stream, sub-basin 18 has a fifth-order stream, while sub-basins 1, 10,
and 17 have fourth-order streams (Table 2). The rest have second to third-order
streams. Hence, the tributaries of the sub-basins 1, 8, 10, 17, and 18 have the poten-
tial to develop comparatively significant discharge vis-a-vis flooding downstream of
the main channel of Cross River, whereas the reverse is the case for the other sub-
basins. It was observed that sub-basins 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, and 18 have more first-order
stream segments than the other sub-basins. Except for sub-basin 8, the rest of the
sub-basins mainly have hard-rock formations underneath them. High frequencies of
first-order streams have been observed in the hilly regions, which point towards ter-
rain density and compacted nature of the bedrock lithology (Pande and Moharir,
2017). Irrespective of the lithology of sub-basin 8, made up of the Lower Benue Basin
– Sedimentary – Cretaceous formation, the high frequency of first-order stream
1390 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

Figure 6. Drainage map of the upper Cross River basin. Source: Author.

segments can be attributed to the high topography still undergoing erosion and
denudation (Table 2).

3.2. Stream number (Nu)

Stream number (Nu) is the count of stream segments of a particular order (Strahler
1957). The variability of the stream number in relation to the stream order (Strahler
method) yielded inverse trends. Generally, the number of streams gradually decreases
with the increase in stream order (Sreedevi et al. 2009; Pande and Moharir 2017;
Bhat et al. 2019). The potential for the development of flash flooding in sub-basins
with high values of first order streams after intense rainfall has been reported (Chitra
et al. 2011). For the UCRB, relatively high (867) stream numbers were obtained for
sub-basin 8 compared to sub-basin 18 (393), indicating that sub-basin 8 attains near
instantaneous peak discharge during rainstorm events (Table 2). On the account of
stream number, sub-basin 18 also contributes significant discharge to Cross River,
albeit not as much as sub-basin 8. This assertion is reached due to the direct correl-
ation of high stream numbers with high discharge (Sreedevi et al. 2009; Pande and
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1391

Table 3. Bifurcation ratios.

Sub-basin I/II II/III III/IV IV/V V/VI
1 3.17 0.50 24.00
2 2.00
3 2.00 2.00
4 1.50
5 2.00
6 1.40 5.00
7 1.67 3.00
8 2.00 2.09 1.37 3.04 2.27
9 2.04 1.00
10 1.93 2.55 0.79
11 1.40 5.00
12 1.50
13 2.11 1.00
14 1.67 1.71
15 1.56 2.25
16 2.00 1.50
17 1.75 3.17 0.75
18 1.77 2.71 1.64 1.32

Moharir 2017; Bhat et al. 2019). The physiographic and structural conditions of the
sub-basins are largely responsible for the variations in order and size of tributaries
(Pande & Moharir 2017).

3.3. Bifurcation ratio (Rb)

The role of Rb in respect of the peakedness of the runoff has been reported (Jain and
Sinha 2003). The Rb of 2 is obtained for flat terrain and 3–4 for mountainous terrain
(Horton 1945). The variation in Bifurcation Ratio values reflects the differences in
stage of geomorphic development and topographic variations (Lattif and Sherief
2012). For this study, the variability of Rb between orders of the sub-basins varies
from 0.50 to 24 (Table 3). The results show that sub-basins 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 17 have
Rb values between orders above 3, consequently, their high potential for flash flooding
during rainstorm events due to short basin lag. In other words, the influence of sub-
basins 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 17 on the flooding of the main channel in the UCRB is com-
paratively higher than those of the other sub-basins, considering Rb. Mountainous
and highly dissected terrains have been reported to yield Rb values above 3, conse-
quently, comparatively higher discharge potential (Horton 1945; Eze and Efiong
2010). The variability of the geological and lithological controls account for the vary-
ing Rb values between stream orders. The rest have Rb ranging from 0.50 to 2.71,
suggesting that the terrain is flat. The low Rb for sub-basin 12 suggests delayed
hydrograph peak with a comparatively lower potential for flash flooding during rain-
storm events. Low flood potentiality has been reported for low Rb values (Bhat et al.
2019; Mahala 2020).

3.4. Stream frequency (Fs)

Stream frequency (Fs) is the count of stream segments, irrespective of the order, per
unit area (Horton 1945). Stream frequency is one of the criteria used for the morpho-
metric classification of watersheds, and controls the runoff pattern, sediment yield,
 1392

Table 4. Derived parameters of the upper Cross River basin.

Mean Total
birfucation Stream Drainage Drainage Compactness Form Circulatory Elongation Leminscate Basin Ruggedness Relief Stream Stream
Sub-basin ratio (Rbm) frequency (Fs) density (Dd) texture (Td) index (c) factor (Ff) ratio (C) ratio (Eb) ratio (K) relief (Hr) number (Rn) ratio (Rr) number (TNu) order (su)
1 9.22 0.05 0.24 0.22 2.38 0.30 0.18 0.31 0.84 1707 404.30 23.32 75 4
N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

2 2.00 0.03 0.24 0.04 2.13 0.34 0.22 0.33 0.73 583 139.29 35.08 3 2
3 2.00 0.05 0.23 0.07 2.37 0.19 0.18 0.25 1.29 181 42.08 6.40 7 3
4 1.50 0.06 0.25 0.08 1.88 0.41 0.28 0.36 0.61 79 19.66 5.60 5 2
5 2.00 0.05 0.35 0.04 2.46 0.21 0.17 0.26 1.18 99 34.46 5.82 3 2
6 3.20 0.08 0.26 0.16 1.80 0.72 0.31 0.48 0.35 239 62.03 16.06 13 3
7 2.33 0.06 0.30 0.11 2.01 0.56 0.25 0.42 0.45 184 54.64 11.68 9 3
8 2.15 0.05 0.26 0.90 2.14 0.62 0.22 0.45 0.40 1224 315.96 7.57 867 6
9 1.52 0.06 0.25 0.27 2.45 0.27 0.17 0.29 0.94 1296 320.66 17.14 93 3
10 1.75 0.06 0.25 0.33 2.09 0.50 0.23 0.40 0.50 1917 476.75 31.17 107 4
11 3.20 0.05 0.26 0.11 2.13 0.40 0.22 0.36 0.62 392 100.49 15.61 13 3
12 1.50 0.04 0.22 0.06 2.24 0.31 0.20 0.31 0.80 400 86.92 20.53 5 2
13 1.56 0.05 0.29 0.17 2.27 0.34 0.19 0.33 0.73 1063 303.63 23.08 37 3
14 1.69 0.06 0.26 0.18 2.28 0.27 0.19 0.29 0.93 1004 260.17 19.70 39 3
15 1.90 0.06 0.25 0.16 2.29 0.31 0.19 0.32 0.80 993 249.34 26.69 27 3
16 1.75 0.05 0.27 0.08 2.61 0.22 0.15 0.26 1.14 790 215.98 25.53 11 3
17 1.89 0.06 0.27 0.42 2.34 0.28 0.18 0.30 0.89 1627 442.77 14.91 199 4
18 1.86 0.06 0.26 0.58 2.27 0.48 0.19 0.39 0.53 2676 692.25 22.00 393 5
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1393

and other hydrological parameters of the drainage basin (Pande & Moharir 2017).
Generally, Fs highly correlates with scanty vegetation, impervious sub-surface, high
relief and low infiltration capacity (Reddy et al. 2004; Shaban et al. 2005). For the
UCRB, the Fs values for the eighteen sub-basins vary from 0.03 to 0.08 per km2
(Table 4). The low values of Fs are generally due to the interplay of the high perme-
ability of the underlying sedimentary formation in the north-western sections of the
basin (Figure 6), and the dense vegetation of a section of the eastern regions (Figure
4) and the predominance of medium to fine texture nitosols (Figure 5) within the
UCRB. Sub-basin 6 has the highest Fs value due to the underlying tertiary igneous
formation, resulting in high impermeability. Sub-basin 2 has the lowest Fs value due
to the underlying sedimentary formation, resulting to low runoff during rainfall.

3.5. Drainage density (Dd)

The drainage density (Dd) measures the proximity, in terms of closeness, of the
stream channels within a basin (Horton 1945; Bhat et al. 2019). The Dd values are
normally high in the regions of impermeable subsurface material, sparse vegetation
and mountainous relief implying high flood volumes and vice versa (Pallard et al.
2009). The drainage density Dd portrays the landscape dissection, discharge potential,
infiltration capacity of the land, climatic conditions, and vegetation cover of the basin
(Verstappen 1983; Patton 1988; Macka 2001; Reddy et al. 2004). For the UCRB, all
the sub-basins have Dd values ranging from 0.22 to 0.35 (Dd < 1 km/km2) implying
low discharge contributions during periods of flood (Table 4). Sub-basin 12 has the
lowest Dd value due to the composition of the geologic formation and the LULC,
coupled with the gentle relief of the sub-basin (Figures 1, 3 and 5). The Lower Benue
Basin – Sedimentary-Cretaceous and the Sedimentary: Largely Cretaceous-Tertiary
formations underlie sub-basin 12, in addition to the LULC characteristics which is
made up of CRDY (62.29%) and CRWO (11.61%). In the past, previous researches
have reported various Dd trends (Strahler 1964; Toy 1977; Morisawa 1985; Gardiner
1995; Macka 2001; Sreedevi et al. 2009; Bhat et al. 2019).

3.6. Relief ratio (Rr)

Bhatt and Ahmed (2014) stated that high Rr values imply short basin lag time, instant
flow velocity, high peak discharge, high erosion, and sediment yield. It denotes the
ratio of the basin relief to the maximum basin length. The Rr of the UCRB varies
from 5.6 to 35.08 (Table 4). Sub-basin 2 has the highest value of Rr, suggesting that it
has steep slopes, therefore, attaining peak flows with comparatively short basin lag
time (Gopalakrishna et al. 2004; Altin and Altin 2011). Due to the high values of Rr,
the sub-basins of the UCRB contribute maximum discharge in a short period and
therefore cause flood in the lower parts of the basin. The assertion that the intensity
of flow of water correlates with the relief ratio (Bhat et al. 2019) further buttresses
the contribution of sub-basin 2 to the flow in Cross River, considering Rr. There is
also the likelihood of erosion consequent on the high Rr values (Bhatt and Ahmed
2014). The least Rr value was obtained for Sub-basin 4, suggesting that the terrain is
1394 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

near flat and consequently, contributing the least with regards to flooding within
the UCRB.

3.7. Drainage texture (Td)

The drainage texture (Td) depends on various factors such as climate, rainfall, vegeta-
tion, rock and soil type, infiltration capacity, relief, and stage of development (Smith
1950). Td is the ratio of the sum of the number of streams of all orders to the perim-
eter and is classified as follows: coarse texture (less than 4 per km), intermediate tex-
ture (between 4 and 10 per km), fine texture (between 10 and 15 per km), and very
fine texture (greater than 15 per km) (Smith 1950). The Td of the UCRB is coarse as
it varies from 0.4 to 0.90 (Table 4). Therefore, in consonance with the assertion of
Angillieri (2008) that coarse texture drainage basins have large basin lag time, the
UCRB has large basin lag time. This trend is perhaps consequent upon the interplay
of the high permeability of the underlying sedimentary formation and the dense vege-
tation of some sections within the UCRB. Unconsolidated formations covered by
vegetation free surface yield fine texture while consolidated formations have coarse
texture (Sreedevi et al. 2009).

3.8. Form factor (Ff)

Form factor (Ff) is an areal parameter and therefore depicts the outline of a basin.
Basins that are likely to produce peak flows in short duration characteristically have
high Ff values and vice versa (Youssef et al. 2011). Ff indicates the flow characteristics
of a basin (Castillo et al. 1988). The Ff of a perfect circle is usually less than 0.7854
(Bali et al. 2012). The Ff values of the UCRB range from 0.19 to 0.72 (Table 4). The
sub-basins with low Ff values indicate elongated shape. Elongated shape basins are
usually associated with low peak discharge occurring over a long duration while sub-
basins with high Ff suggest circular nature with high peak discharge occurring over a
short duration (Howard 1990; Youssef et al. 2011). For the UCRB, sub-basin 3
yielded the lowest Ff while sub-basin 6 has the highest Ff. Based on the results, sub-
basin 3 has an elongated shape, with peak discharge occurring over a long duration
while sub-basin 6 is circular in shape, with peak flows occurring in a short duration.
Managing the flood flows of a circular basin is difficult compared to that of an elon-
gated basin. Therefore, the more circular a basin is, the greater the flood potentiality
of the basin.

3.9. Ruggedness number (Rn)

Rn being associated with basin relief implies that high values are impacted by steep
slopes resulting to faster surface runoff and shorter time of concentration (Patton
1988). Patton and Baker (1976) opined that basins with high Rn values, with fine
drainage texture might be expected to have high flood potential. High Rn value indi-
cates that the area is in primary stage of geomorphic development or denudation
activity (Mahala 2020). Sub-basin 18 yielded the highest Rn value of 692.25 (Table 4).
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1395

This is evidently due to the high relief of sub-basin 18, therefore having the highest
possibility of surface runoff and susceptibility to erosion. Also, the high value of Rn
of sub-basin 18 indicates a youthful stage of geomorphic development. Sub-basin 18
is also prone to down-cutting erosion of unconsolidated soil, associated with youthful
geomorphic development stage, consequently resulting to increased flow. Sub-basin 4
had the lowest Rn, because of low relief and therefore with less surface run-
off potential.

3.10. Elongation ratio (Eb)

Elongation ratio is the ratio of diameter of a circle having the same area as that of
the basin to the maximum basin length (Schumm 1956). Typically, Eb ranges from 0
to 1, where Eb value of 0 depicts an elongate basin while Eb value of 1 represents a
circular basin (Bhat et al. 2019). Circular basins yield high Eb values, consequently
yielding peak discharge in a short period compared to low basins with low Eb values
(Potter and Faulkner 1987; Singh and Singh 1997; Masoud 2016). The low Eb values
obtained for the UCRB revealed that most of the sub-basins that constitute the water-
shed are elongated in nature, with values ranging from 0.25 to 0.48 (Table 4). Sub-
basin 3 has the lowest Eb value indicating the elongated nature of the sub-basin. On
the contrary, sub-basin 6 has the highest Eb value, indicating its relative oval nature
when compared to sub-basin 3. Therefore, sub-basin 6 is more vulnerable to flood
peak discharge considering that is has shorter lag time when compared to sub-basin
3. The results of Eb, sub-basin 3 being elongated and sub-basin 6 being oval in
nature, are in consonance with the results yielded by the form factor.

3.11. Lemniscate ratio (K)

Lemniscate approximates real watershed shapes than circles (Chorley et al. 1957).
Lemniscate ratio values <0.5 imply that the basin shape is most likely circular, and
fully elongated for basins with K values > 2 (Bhat et al. 2019). The K values of the
UCRB range from 0.35 to 1.29 (Table 4). Sub-basin 3 has the highest K value; indi-
cating that the sub-basin is elongated in nature compared to the other sub-basins. On
the contrary, sub-basin 6 has the least K value, indicating its relative circular nature
when compared to sub-basin 3. Therefore, sub-basin 6 is more vulnerable to flood
peak discharge considering that is has short lag time, implying short time of concen-
tration of flow from the remotest parts of the sub-basin. The circular basins are more
prone to erosion than the elongate basins because of short time of concentration
compared to that in elongated ones (Morgan 2005). Therefore, sub-basin 6 has higher
influence on the flooding of the main channel considering the outcome of the results
of K. The trend of the results obtained for K are consistent with those obtained for
Eb, consequently, the correctness of the set indices for the respective parameters.
1396 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

3.12. Compactness index (c)

The compactness index (c) describes the lack of conformity of a basin shape from a
standard circle (Wentz 2010). The compactness index (c) of a watershed is influenced
by the climate, vegetation, lithology and provides insights on the infiltration charac-
teristics of the watershed (Bhat et al. 2019). Circular basins have c value equal 1,
yielding peak discharge in shortest time of concentration compared to basins with
deviations from circular shapes (c greater than 1) with corresponding long time of
concentration of peak discharge (Altaf et al. 2013). For the study under review, sub-
basin 6 has the lowest c value (Table 4), which implies high runoff and short lag time
(Altaf et al. 2013). Sub-basin 16 has the highest c value and therefore, low runoff and
longer lag time when compared to sub-basin 6. The outcome of the results of c yield-
ing sub-basin 6 as being circular in shape, is consistent with the results obtained for
C, Eb ,and Ff (Table 4).

3.13. Circularity ratio (C)

Circularity ratio (C) is the ratio of the basin area to the area of a circle having the
same circumference as the perimeter of the basin (Miller 1953). The circularity ratio
is influenced by various factors such as stream frequency, drainage density, climate,
geological structure, slope, relief, LULC among others (Altaf et al. 2013). Circular
shaped basins have high C values while low C values are associated with elongated
basins (Sreedevi et al. 2005; Altaf et al. 2013). Also, circular basins yield shortest time
of concentration before peak flow occurs in the basin and vice versa for basins with
deviations from circular shapes (Altaf et al. 2013). For the study area under review,
sub-basin 6 has the highest C value, suggesting that it is circular in nature, therefore
comparatively having the potential to cause peak flows in shorter duration (Table 4).
Sub-basins 1,3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 have low C values, and are there-
fore elongated in nature, with longer basin lag in comparison to sub-basin 6 (Table
4). The results of C are consistent with the results obtained for Eb and Ff.

3.14. Basin relief (Hr)

The usefulness and relevance of the basin relief (Hr) has been underscored in past
researches (Horton 1945; Strahler 1964). The hydrologic significance of basin relief
and the gradients of the channels and basin have in the past been taken into cogni-
zance as having direct relationship with river discharge (Sherman 1932; Benson 1964;
Murphey et al. 1977). Hr provides useful information that enhances the understand-
ing of the geomorphological characteristics of basins (Raux et al. 2011). Steep slopes
and high stream gradients result to instant runoff and high flood peaks (Patton,
1988). Very steep slopes result to high flow velocities, with short time of concentra-
tion resulting to low infiltration leading to higher flood peaks. The Hr values of the
UCRB for the sub-basins studied range from 79 to 2676 m (Table 4). The high Hr
value of sub-basin 18 indicates high runoff and low infiltration during rain–storm
events and vice versa for sub-basin 4. High Hr portends the possibility of erosion,
consequently, significant sediment load. The geologic composition of sub-basin 18
Table 5. Prioritization of sub-basin influence on Cross River.
Mean Stream Drainage Form Basin Total Stream Stream
birfucation frequency density Drainage Compactness factor Circulatory Elongation Leminscate relief Ruggedness Relief number order
Sub-basin ratio (Rbm) (Fs) (Dd) texture (Td) index (c) (Ff) ratio (C) ratio (Eb) ratio (K) (Hr) number (Rn) ratio (Rr) (TNu) (su) Priority
1 18 4 3 13 15 7 4 7 12 16 15 14 13 16 11.21
2 14 1 4 1 6 10 13 10 9 8 8 18 4 14 8.57
3 14 3 2 4 14 1 5 1 18 3 3 3 6 15 6.57
4 6 15 7 6 2 13 17 13 6 1 1 1 5 14 7.64
5 14 5 18 2 17 2 2 2 17 2 2 2 4 14 7.36
6 17 18 13 10 1 18 18 18 1 5 5 8 9 15 11.14
7 16 17 17 7 3 16 16 16 3 4 4 5 7 15 10.43
8 15 9 10 18 7 17 12 17 2 13 13 4 18 18 12.36
9 7 14 5 14 16 4 3 4 15 14 14 9 14 15 10.57
10 10 12 6 15 4 15 15 15 4 17 17 17 15 16 12.71
11 17 7 9 8 5 12 14 12 7 6 7 7 9 15 9.64
12 6 2 1 3 8 8 11 8 11 7 6 11 5 14 7.21
13 8 6 16 11 9 11 10 11 8 12 12 13 11 15 10.93
14 9 11 12 12 11 5 8 5 14 11 11 10 12 15 10.43
15 13 16 8 9 12 9 7 9 10 10 10 16 10 15 11.00
16 10 8 15 5 18 3 1 3 16 9 9 15 8 15 9.64
17 12 13 14 16 13 6 6 6 13 15 16 6 16 16 12.00
18 11 10 11 17 10 14 9 14 5 18 18 12 17 17 13.07
GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK
1397
1398 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

Figure 7. Flood vulnerability map of the upper Cross River Basin showing higher to lower order of
sub-basins which influence floods in Cross River. Source: Author.

(volcanic  29.23%, Precambrian Basement  57.91%, Sedimentary: largely

Cretaceous-Tertiary  12.71%, Unconsolidated  0.15%) suggests that the sediment
loads would perhaps be comprised of regoliths, sediments due to down-cutting ero-
sion of unconsolidated soil etc., as most of the sub-basin is made of hard-rock. In the
event of volcanic eruption, sediment loads would include ash, cinders and the other
major products of volcanic eruption.

3.15. Compound factor and flood vulnerability map development

The morphometric parameters that have direct relationship with runoff were utilized
for the computation of the compound factors of the sub-basins. In other words, the
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1399

higher their values, the greater the runoff. Therefore, the compound factors were
computed using the following parameters: stream order, stream number, mean bifur-
cation ratio, elongation ratio, drainage density, drainage texture, relief ratio, rugged-
ness number, stream frequency, form factor, basin relief, compactness index,
lemniscate ratio, and circulatory ratio.
Based on the obtained compound factors (Table 5), the UCRB was categorized
into three flood vulnerability zones namely: high vulnerability (10.93–13.10), moder-
ate vulnerability (8.75–10.92), and low vulnerability (6.57–8.74). In respect of the
influence on the flooding of the main channel of the UCRB, sub-basins with high ele-
vations, for which precambrian or igneous formations underlie, contributed more
runoff compared to low-lying areas, for which permeable formations underlie. The
sub-basins with greater runoff, low permeability and infiltration capacity were catego-
rized as high flood vulnerability zones while the moderate-to-low vulnerability zones
are low lying (with respect to elevations) with sedimentary formations, characterized
by high permeability and infiltration capacity with lower runoff.
The results of the compound factors in respect of the linear, areal and relief
parameters revealed that sub-basins 18, 10, 8, 17, 1, 6, 15 and 13 have comparatively
greater potential to cause flooding in the UCRB due to having the greater tendency
to attain peak discharge in a short period, therefore the high runoff contribution of
their tributaries to the Cross River (Table 5). Sub-basin 18 has the greatest run off
generation potential due to high values of Hr, Rn, Td, Ff, Eb, Rr, Rb, Dd, Fs, c, TNu, Su
among other relatively high values of the morphometric parameters. The other sub-
basins contribute moderate-to-low flows to Cross River due to their moderate-to-low
values of morphometric parameters. The results were mapped in GIS and are pre-
sented in Figure 7.

4. Conclusion and recommendation

The determination of the flood potentiality of the UCRB using a nexus of linear, areal
and relief morphometric parameters provides a useful approach for the evaluation of
the influence of the congruent sub-basins on the flooding of the main channel.
The UCRB consists of an interplay of dendritic, trellis and parallel drainage pat-
terns, with lengths of tributaries ranging from 0.092 km in Sub-basins 8 and 18
(smallest stream) to 30.090 km in Sub-basins 8 (largest stream). The variability in
stream segments orders and size of tributaries were due to the physiographic and
structural conditions of the sub-basins. The prioritization of the sub-basins influence
on Cross River was carried out considering morphometric parameters that directly
correlate with runoff. Based on the results of the compound factors, the UCRB was
categorized into three flood vulnerability zones namely: high vulnerability, moderate
vulnerability and low vulnerability. In respect of the influence on the flooding of the
main channel of the UCRB, sub-basins with high elevations, for which hard-rock for-
mations underlie, contributed more runoff compared to low-lying areas, for which
permeable formations underlie
Flooding within the UCRB can be mitigated through structural and non-structural
methods. The construction of a dam at the outlet of the sub-basins with high flood
1400 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

potentiality will practically attenuate the flow, thereby reducing the possibility of
flooding on the main channel. The use of various flood mitigation methods is recom-
mended for sub-basins 10, 8, 17, 1, 6, 15, and 13, due to their high runoff contribu-
tions to the main channel. The mitigation of flooding does not equate absolute
prevention as the low-lying areas will generally receive flows. Therefore, to ensure the
protection of settlements and developments downstream, there is the need for the
adoption of global best practices in respect of flood vulnerability management of
the UCRB.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Reviewers for the positive impacts of their thoughts and
suggestions.
The datasets presented in this article were obtained from various sources. We thank the
various establishments and their partners for promoting high standards of data as well as the
respectiveGovernments for the continuous funding of these establishments.

Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal rela-
tionships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References
Adnan MSG, Dewan A, Zannat KE, Abdullah AYM. 2019. The use of watershed geomorphic
data in flash flood susceptibility zoning: a case study of the Karnaphuli and Sangu river
basins of Bangladesh. Nat Hazards. 99(1):425–448.
Alam A, Bhat MS, Farooq H, Ahmad B, Ahmad S, Sheikh AH. 2018. Flood risk assessment of
Srinagar city in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Int J Dis Res Built Environ. 9(2):114–129.
Altaf F, Meraj G, Romshoo SA. 2013. Morphometric analysis to infer hydrological behaviour
of Lidder Watershed, Western Himalaya.
Altin TB, Altin BN. 2011. Drainage morphometry and its influence on landforms in volcanic
terrain, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 19:732–740.
Angillieri MYE. 2008. Morphometric analysis of Colang€ uil river basin and flash flood hazard,
San Juan, Argentina. Environ Geol. 55:107–111.
Bali R, Agarwal KK, Ali SN, Rastogi SK, Krishna K. 2012. Drainage morphometry of
Himalayan Glacio-fluvial basin, India: hydrologic and neotectonic implications. Environ
Earth Sci. 66(4):1163–1174.
Baumgardner R. 1987. Morphometric studies of sub-humid and semiarid drainage basin. In:
Texas Panhandle and Northeastern New Mexico. University of Texas Bureau of Economic
Geology, Austin, Report of Investigations; p. 163.
Bhat MS, Alam A, Ahmad S, Farooq H, Ahmad B. 2019. Flood hazard assessment of Upper
Jhelum basin using morphometric parameters. Environ Earth Sci. 78(2):54.
Bhatt S, Ahmed SA. 2014. Morphometric analysis to determine floods in the Upper Krishna
basin using Cartosat DEM. Geocarto Int. 29(8):878–894.
Benson MA. 1964. Factors affecting the occurrence of floods in the Southwest. USGS Water
Supply Paper. 1580-D, 1–72.
Castillo V, Segovia AD, Alonso SG. 1988. Quantitative study of fluvial landscapes, case study
in Madrid, Spain. Landsc Urban Plan. 16(1-2):201–217.
Changnon SA. 1985. Research agenda for floods to solve a policy failure. American Society of
Civil Engineers. Proceedings, J Water Resour Plan Manag. 111(1):54–64.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1401

Chitra C, Alaguraja P, Ganeshkumari K, Yuvaraj D, Manivel M. 2011. Watershed characteris-

tics of Kundah sub-basin using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int J Geomatics Geosci.
2 (1):311–335.
Chorley RJ, Malm DEG, Pogorzelski HA. 1957. A new standard for estimating basin shape.
Am J Sci. 255(2):138–141.
Costa JE. 1987. Hydraulics and basin morphometry of the largest flash floods in the conter-
minous United States. J Hydrol. 93(3-4):313–338.
Das S, Patel PP, Sengupta S. 2016. Evaluation of different digital elevation models for analyz-
ing drainage morphometric parameters in a mountainous terrain: a case study of the Supin-
Upper Tons Basin, Indian Himalayas. Springerplus. 5(1):1544.
Dingman SL. 2008. Physical hydrology (2nd ed.). Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Dumas D. 2011. Wildlife hit hard by Queensland floods. Australian Geographic. Retrieved
from https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/01/wildlife-hit-hard-by-queens-
land-floods/
Eze BE, Efiong J. 2010. Morphometric parameters of the Calabar River basin: implication for
hydrologic processes. J Geogr Geol. 2:18–26.
Federal Government of Nigeria. 2013. NIGERIA post-disaster needs assessment 2012 floods.
Abuja: Federal Government of Nigeria.
Folorunshona R, Awosika L. 2014. Morphological characteristics of the Bonny and Cross River
(Calabar) estuaries in Nigeria: Implications for navigation and environmental hazards. In:
Diop S, Barusseau J, Descamps C, editors. The land/ocean interactions in the coastal zone
of West and Central Africa. Springer; Switzerland, p. 87–96.
Gabale SM, Pawar NR. 2015. Quantitative morphometric analysis of AmbilOdha (Rivulet) in
Pune, Maharashtra, India. IOSR J Environ Sci Toxicol Food Technol. 9(7):2319–2399.
Gardiner V. 1995. Channel networks: progress in the study of spatial and temporal variations
of drainage density. In: Gurnell A, Petts GE, editors. Changing river channels. New York:
Wiley; p. 65–85.
Gopalakrishna GS, Kantharaj T. Balasubramaniam 2004. Morphometric analysis of Yagachi
and Hemavathi river basins, around Alur taluk, Hassan district, Karnataka, India. J Appl
Hydrol. 17(1):9–17.
Howard AD. 1990. Role of hypsometry and planform in basin hydrologic response. Hydrol
Process. 4(4):373–385.
Horton RE. 1932. Drainage basin characteristics. Trans AGU. 13(1):350–361.
Horton RE. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydro-physical
approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull. 56(3):275–370.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2001. Cameroon: floods and
land slides – information bulletin. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies. France, Retrieved January 27, 2019.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2019. Nigeria: Floods -
Emergency Plan of Action (EPoA). Abuja: International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies. Retrieved January 17, 2019, from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/
files/resources/MDRNG028do.pdf.
Jain V, Sinha R. 2003. Evaluation of geomorphic control on flood hazard through geomorphic
instantaneous unit hydrograph. Curr Sci. 85:1596–1600.
Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E. 2008. Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4,
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Available from: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.
org.
Lattif AA, Sherief Y. 2012. Morphometric analysis and flash floods of Wadi Sudr and Wadi
Wardan, Gulf of Suez, Egypt: using digital elevation model. Arab J Geosci. 5(2):181–195.
Livingstone A. 2013. Alberta Floods: assessing the human, environmental and economic
impacts. The Toronto Star.
Macka Z. 2001. Determination of texture of topography from large scale contour maps.
Geografski Vestnik. 73(2):53–62.
1402 N. M. OGAREKPE ET AL.

Mahala A. 2020. The significance of morphometric analysis to understand the hydrological

and morphological characteristics in two different morpho-climatic settings. Appl Water Sci.
10(1):33.
Magesh NS, Chandrasekar N, Kaliraj S. 2012. A GIS based automated extraction tool for the
analysis of basin morphometry. Bonfring Int J Ind Eng Manag Sci. 2(1):32–35.
Maritime Organization of West and Central Africa [MOWCA]. n.d. Retrieved 2019-09-20
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_River (Nigeria)
Masoud MH. 2016. Geoinformatics application for assessing the morphometric characteristics’
effect on hydrological response at watershed (case study of Wadi Qanunah, Saudi Arabia).
Arab J Geosci. 9(4):280.
Melton MA. 1957. An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties,
and geomorphology, Technical Report No. 11, Office of Naval Research Project NR 389-
042. Department of Geology, Columbia University, New York.
Miller VC. 1953. A quantitative geomorphologic study of drainage basin characteristics in the
clinch mountain area. Virginia and Tennessee Columbia University, Department of
Geology, Technical Report, No. 3, Contract N6 ONR 271–300.
Morisawa M. 1985. Rivers: form and process. New York: Longman; p. 222.
Morgan RPC. 2005. Soil erosion and conservation. New York: Blackwell Publishing.
Murphey JB, Wallace DE, Lane LJ. 1977. Geomorphic parameters predict hydrograph charac-
teristics in the Southwest. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 13(1):25–38.
Nasiri H, Mohd Yusof MJ, Mohammad Ali TA. 2016. An overview to flood vulnerability
assessment methods. Sustain Water Resour Manag. 2(3):331–336.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2011. Annual abstracts of statistics. Nigeria: National Bureau of
Statistics.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2016. Annual abstracts of statistics. Nigeria: National Bureau of
Statistics.
Nishikanth CV, Vasudevan S, Balamurugan P, Selvaganapathi R. 2018. Morphometry charac-
teristics delineation and bathymetry mapping of Lake Dal, Kashmir valley, India using geo-
spatial techniques. Int J Multidiscip. 3(7):216–220.
Ozdemir H, Bird D. 2009. Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks
derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environ Geol. 56(7):
1405–1415.
Pallard B, Castellarin A, Montanar A. 2009. A look at the links between drainage density and
flood statistics. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 13(7):1019–1029.
Pande CB, Moharir K. 2017. GIS based quantitative morphometric analysis and its consequen-
ces: a case study from Shanur River Basin, Maharashtra India. Appl Water Sci. 7(2):
861–871.
Patton PC. 1988. Drainage basin morphometry and floods. In: Baker VR, Kochel RC, Patton
PC, editors. Flood geomorphology. USA: Wiley; p. 51–65.
Patton PC, Baker VR .1976. Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to
diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resour Res. 12:941–952.
Potter KW, Faulkner EB. 1987. Catchment response time as a predictor of flood quantiles. J
Am Water Resour Assoc. 23(5):857–861.
Rahman M, Ningsheng C, Islam MM, Dewan A, Iqbal J, Washakh RMA, Shufeng T. 2019.
Flood susceptibility assessment in Bangladesh using machine learning and multi-criteria
decision analysis. Earth Syst Environ. 3(3):585–601.
Raux J, Copard Y, Laignel B, Fournier M, Masseï N. 2011. Classification of worldwide drainage
basins through the multivariate analysis of variables controlling their hydro sedimentary
response. Glob Planet Change. 76(3-4):117–127.
Reddy GPO, Maji AK, Gajbhiye KS. 2004. Drainage morphometry and its influence on land-
form characteristics in a basaltic terrain, Central India—a remote sensing and GIS approach.
Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf. 6(1):1–16.
Reuter HI, Nelson A, Jarvis A. 2007. An evaluation of void filling interpolation methods for
SRTM data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 21(9):983–1008.
 GEOMATICS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISK 1403

Saha S, Moorthi S, Pan H, Wu X, Wang J, et al. 2010. The NCEP climate forecast system
reanalysis. Bulle of the Am Mete Soci. 91:1015–1057.
Saha S, Moorthi S, Wu X, Wang J, et al. 2014. The NCEP climate forecast system version 2.
Jour of Clim. 27:2185–2208.
Schumm SA. 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy,
New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull. 67(5):597–646.
Shaban A, Khawlie M, Abdallah C, Awad M. 2005. Hydrological and watershed characteristics
of the El-Kabir River, North Lebanon. Lakes Reserv Res Manag. 10(2):93–101.
Sherman LK. 1932. The relation of hydrographs of runoff to size and character of drainage
basin. Trans AGU. 13(1):332–339.
Singh S, Singh MC. 1997. Morphometric analysis of Kanhar river basin. Natl Geogr J India.
43(1):31–43.
Smith KG. 1950. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am J Sci. (9)248:
655–668.
Sreedevi PD, Subrahmanyam K, Ahmed S. 2005. The significance of morphometric analysis
for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled terrain. Environ Geol.
47:412–420.
Sreedevi PD, Owais S, Khan H, Ahmed S. 2009. Morphometric analysis of a watershed of
South India using SRTM data and GIS. J Geol Soc India. 73(4):543–552.
Strahler AN. 1952. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geol Soc America Bull. 63(9):923–938.
Strahler AN. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Am Geophys Union
Trans. 38:912–920.
Strahler AN. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In:
Chow VT, editor. Handbook of applied hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill; p. 4.39–4.76.
Tarboton DG. 1997. A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas
in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res. 33(2):309–319.
Tesfa TK, Tarboton DG, Watson DW, Schreuders KAT, Baker ME, Wallace RM. 2011.
Extraction of hydrological proximity measures from DEMs using parallel processing.
Environ Model Softw. 26(12):1696–1709.
Toy TJ. 1977. Hillslope form and climate. Geol Soc Am Bull. 88(1):16–22.
Verstappen H. 1983. Applied geomorphology. Enschede: ITC
Verstappen H. 1983. Applied geomorphology: geomorphological surveys for environmental
development. New York: Elsevier.
Vogel R. 2016. Methodology and software solutions for multicriteria evaluation of floodplain
retention suitability. Cartography Geogr Inf Sci. 43(4):301–320.
Waikar ML, Nilawar AP. 2014. Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using geographical
information system: a case study. Int J Multidiscip Curr Res. 2:178–184.
Water Supply and Sanitation Reform Programme Phase II: Cross River (2016). Retrieved from
https://wsssrp.org/crossriver.
Wilson JP. 2012. Digital terrain modeling. Geomorphology. (1)137:107–121.
Wentz EA. 2010. A shape definition for geographic applications based on edge, elongation,
and perforation. Geogr Anal. 32(2):95–112.
Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Hassan AM. 2011. Flash flood risk estimation along the St. Katherine
road, southern Sinai, Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite imagery. Environ
Earth Sci. 62(3):611–623.