ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ETHIOPIAN INSTITUTE OF WATER RESOURCES

The Effect of Land Degradation/Rehabilitation

on the Flow Characteristics of Jemma Sub-basin

Netsanet Kifle

Research Supervisor
Belete Berhanu (PhD)

September 2021
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 The Effect of Land Degradation and
Rehabilitation on the Flow Characteristics of
Jemma Sub-basin

Netsanet Kifle

Thesis Submitted to Ethiopian Institute of Water Resources, Addis Ababa

University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters
of Science in Water Resources Engineering and Management (Surface
Hydrology Major)

September 2021
Certification
I, the undersigned, certify that I read and hear by recommend for acceptance by Ethiopian
Institute of water Resource, Addis Ababa University a Thesis entitled “The Effect of Land
Degradation/Rehabilitation on the Flow Characteristics of Jemma Sub-basin” in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resource
Engineering and Management (Surface Water Hydrology Major).
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ETHIOPIAN INSTITUTE OF WATER RESOURCES

The Effect of Land Degradation/Rehabilitation

on the Flow Characteristics of Jemma Sub-basin

Netsanet Kifle Gashareba

Name and signature of Members of the Examining Board

Belete Berhanu (PhD) __________ ___________
Advisor Signature Date

__________ ___________

Examiner Signature Date

__________ ___________

Examiner Signature Date

Declaration

This thesis is my original work and has not been submitted as a partial
requirement for a degree in any university.

_________________________

Netsanet Kifle Gashareba

The thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as
university advisor.

_________________________

Belete Berhanu (PhD)

 Dedicated to the late

Dr. Azage Gebreyohannes, one of the few people I know with sincere and kind heart.
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to thank the Almighty God who has never left me alone in my entire
life.

I am totally indebted to the late Dr. Azage Gebreyohannes, I am honored to know you in my
life. You cared beyond extent about the completion of this research. You cared a lot about
your country. The level of encouragement and family-like support I got from you pushed me
forward. You will always remain in my heart.

This work would not have been completed without the valuable support from my supervisor
Dr. Belete Berhanu. Your professional guidance and follow up helped me a lot. I learnt a lot
from your expertise knowledge which you shared with generosity.

My special gratitude goes to my wife(Abnet Shimeles) and my son(Ezana Netsanet). I know I

worked on this research at the expense of my family time. I know both of you sacrificed a lot.
Ezu, you are the backbone of my life and my drive to live. Abuti, you keep your vow and
support me in great deal in the entire path of my life. “A virtuous woman is a crown to her
husband”, Proverbs 12:4. Thank you so much and God bless you.

I would like to thank and forward my appreciation to Ethiopian Mapping Agency, Ethiopian
National Metrological Agency (NMA), Ethiopian Basin Studies Authority, Ethiopian Water
and Land Resource Center (AAU), Ethiopian National Statistics Agency for providing me the
necessary data. My special and deep thanks to Tibebu Kassawmar (phD) and Amare (phD)
from Ethiopian Water and Land Resource Center for their respectful treatment and provision
of classified land use/land cover maps.

I specially would like to thank Zemenu, Chala, and Samuel for sharing their expertise and
valuable comments. Last not least, Mr. Sun (my boss) thank you for arranging my working
hours so that I can finish this research.

Finally, thank you all my family members especially Mariawit Shimeles, Ephrata Addisalem,
and Chalew Kifle for supporting me to reduce my load in different ways.
Abstract
Ethiopia highlands are known for their dense population and high rate of soil erosion, which
significantly lead it to degraded environment. After the long period tolerance of the effect of
land degradation on life and flow characteristics in the past many consecutive years, the
government and non-governmental organizations have restarted a restoration plan to
rehabilitate the degraded environment starting from 2001. However, the effect of this
rehabilitation program and the previous degradation were not well quantified. This research
tries to evaluate the effect of land degradation and rehabilitation on the flow characteristics
of rivers in Jemma sub-basin using the land cover change indicator as suggested by
UNCCD(UNCCD, 2016) as a means of detecting degradation. Therefore, the study
quantifies the land cover changes of the basin for three different years; 1986, 2010, and 2016
and evaluates the land use change indicators with 1986 to 2010 and 2010 to 2016.

The study considered LULC maps in 1986, 2010, and 2016. In 1986, the main land coverage
in the Jemma sub-basin was agriculture, grassland, shrubs, forests and barren land, with
coverage rates of 51.69%, 17.36%, 15.07%, 9.51% and 5.71%, respectively. Compared to
the coverage in 1986, it was found that grassland, forest, and bush/shrubs decreased by
20.22%, 23.13%, and 55.61%, respectively in 2010. Agriculture and barren land coverage
was increased by 10.47% and 109.98% respectively. The period from 1986 to 2010 was a
period of decline in vegetation coverage, especially forest and bush/shrub coverage. It
indicates there was land degradation in this period. In 2016, the land coverage rates of
forest, bush/shrubs and grassland increased by 44.32%, 6.88%, and 2.31%, respectively, and
the reduction of agricultural land and barren land was 2.03% and 2.0%, respectively. This is
the period of restoration of forest and bush/shrub cover and the natural system of the basin
rehabilitated. .

Hydrologic modeling with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was carried out to
determine the impact of these changes on the hydrological response of the Jemma sub-basin.

From 1986 to 2010, the peak flow was increased by 12.96%, and the base flow decreased by
41.6%. On the contrary, the peak flow in 2010-2016 decreased by 20.13%, and the base flow
increased by 94.0%. Therefore, the study justified that land degradation increases the peak
flow that cause flooding and decreases the base flow, which lead to water stress in the dry
season. The opposite also signifies that rehabilitation increases the base flow and reduces
the peak flow. It benefits the inhabitants by reducing scarcity of water in the dry season,
flooding and land damage during the rainy season.

Keywords: Land use/land cover, streamflow, peak flow, base flow, SWAT, Jemma sub-
basin
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................v
Abstract................................................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................xii
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................2
1.3 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................3
1.4 Research Questions...............................................................................................................3
1.5 Objectives of the Research....................................................................................................3
1.5.1 General Objective...............................................................................................................3
1.5.2 Specific Objectives..............................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................5
2.2 Land Use/Land Cover Change................................................................................................5
2.3 Trend of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Ethiopian Highlands/Upper Blue Nile Basin/........5
2.4 Impact of LULC Change on Streamflow Characteristics.........................................................7
2.5 Detecting and Quantifying Land Degradation with LULC Change Indicator...........................7
2.6 Hydrological Modeling...........................................................................................................8
2.7 Hydrological Modeling for Assessing LULC Impact on Runoff................................................9
2.8 SWAT Model........................................................................................................................10
2.9 Related Works.....................................................................................................................11
2.9.1 Hydrological Responses to Change in Land Use/Cover and Management: Gado
Catchment (Begashaw, 2016)......................................................................................................11
2.9.2 The Impact of Land Use/ Land Cover Change on Catchment Hydrology and Water Quality
of Legedadi-Dire Catchments, Ethiopia(Aduna, 2009).................................................................11
2.9.3 Hydrologic Response to Land Use/Land Cover Change in the Upper Gidabo
Watershed(Belihu et al., 2020)....................................................................................................12
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................13
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA......................................................................................................13
3.1 Location, Topography and Area...........................................................................................13
3.2 Administrative Weredas and Population.............................................................................15
3.3 Rainfall.................................................................................................................................15
3.4 Temperature........................................................................................................................16
3.5 Evaporation..........................................................................................................................16
3.6 Hydrology.............................................................................................................................16
3.7 Land use/Land Cover...........................................................................................................16
3.8 Slope....................................................................................................................................17
3.9 Soil and Geology..................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................................19
DATA DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................19
4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................19
4.2 Data Description..................................................................................................................19
4.2.1. Spatial Input Data for SWAT.............................................................................................19
4.2.2. Climate Input Data for SWAT...........................................................................................21
4.2.3. Generating Missed Data...................................................................................................24
4.3 Data Quality Test.................................................................................................................25
4.3.1. Consistency Test...............................................................................................................25
4.3.2. Outliers Test.....................................................................................................................27
CHAPTER FIVE......................................................................................................................................29
METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................29
5.1. Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................29
5.2. Materials and Data Used.....................................................................................................29
5.3. Land Cover Classification.....................................................................................................30
5.4. Land Use/Land Cover Change Analysis................................................................................30
5.5. Hydrological Modeling.........................................................................................................32
5.6. SWAT Hydrological Modeling...............................................................................................32
5.7. SWAT Model Hydrological Components..............................................................................33
5.7.1. Hydrology.........................................................................................................................33
5.7.2. Surface Runoff Volume Computation...............................................................................34
5.7.3. Potential Evapotranspiration............................................................................................35
5.8. SWAT Model Input...............................................................................................................36
5.8.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM).........................................................................................36
 5.8.2. Soil Data...........................................................................................................................36
5.8.3. Weather Data...................................................................................................................38
5.8.4. Hydrological Data.............................................................................................................38
5.9. Model Setup........................................................................................................................39
5.9.1. Watershed Delineation....................................................................................................39
5.9.2. Hydrologic Response Unit Definition................................................................................39
5.9.3. Writing Input Tables for SWAT.........................................................................................40
5.9.4. SWAT Simulation..............................................................................................................41
5.9.5. SWAT Sensitivity Analysis.................................................................................................41
5.9.6. Model Calibration and Validation.....................................................................................42
5.9.7. Model Performance Evaluation........................................................................................43
5.9.7.1. The Nash-Sutcliffe Model Efficiency (NSE)...............................................................43
5.9.7.2. The Coefficient of Determination (R2 )....................................................................43
5.9.7.3. The Percent of Bias Error (PBIAS).............................................................................44
CHAPTER SIX........................................................................................................................................45
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................45
6.1 Evaluation of Land Use/ Land Cover....................................................................................45
6.1.1. Land Use/ Land Cover of 1986.........................................................................................45
6.1.2. Land Use/Land Cover of 2010..........................................................................................46
6.1.3. Land Use/ Land Cover of 2016.........................................................................................48
6.2 Detection of Land Degradation in Period (1986 – 2010)......................................................49
6.2.1. Land Use Land Cover Change in Period (1986 – 2010).....................................................49
6.2.2. Land Degradation Indicators in Period (1986 – 2010)......................................................52
6.3 Land Use/Land Cover Change in Period (2010 – 2016)........................................................53
6.3.1. Land Use Land Cover Change in Period (2010 – 2016).....................................................53
6.3.2. Land Restoration in Period (2010 – 2016)........................................................................55
6.4 Land Use/Land Cover Analysis Summary.............................................................................56
6.5 Hydrological Modeling Results.............................................................................................58
6.5.1. Sensitivity Analysis Result................................................................................................58
6.5.2. Calibration Result.............................................................................................................59
6.5.3. Model Validation..............................................................................................................59
6.6 Effect of LULC Change on Characteristics of Streamflow.....................................................60
6.6.1. Change in Annual Peak Flow (Degradation).....................................................................63
6.6.2. Change in Base flow.........................................................................................................65
CHAPTER SEVEN..................................................................................................................................68
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................68
7.1. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................68
7.2. Recommendation................................................................................................................69
7.3. Limitation.............................................................................................................................69
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................70
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................75
Appendix I - Population density of Weredas in Jemma Sub-basin......................................................75
Appendix II – Maximum Annual peak flow (Range 1988 – 2015) for RobiGumero............................76
Appendix III: Maximum of annual peak flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for RobiGumero........76
Appendix IV: Maximum of annual peak flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for RobiGumero.......77
Appendix V: High Flow duration curve for High flow (Annual max flow) condition for RobiGumero
.............................................................................................................................................................77
Appendix VI: Annual peak flow (Range 1988 – 2015) for RobiGumero.............................................78
Appendix VII: Maximum of annual peak flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for RobiGumero......78
Appendix VIII: Annual maximum (peak) flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016 for RobiGumero..................79
Appendix IX: High Flow duration curve for High flow (Annual max flow) condition for RobiGumero
.............................................................................................................................................................79
Appendix X: Annual minimum flow (Range 1988 – 2015) for RobiGumero.......................................80
Appendix XI: Maximum of annual base flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for RobiGumero........80
Appendix XII : Annual minimum flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016 for RobiGumero..............................81
Appendix XIII : Low flow duration curve with different land use conditions for RobiGumero...........81
Appendix XIV – Land use/land cover Changes (1986-2010 and 2010-2016).....................................82
List of Figures

Figure 1: Schematic of hydrologic cycle simulated in SWAT (Amatya et al., 2013).............................10

Figure 2: Location of Jemma watershed..............................................................................................13
Figure 3: Elevation of Jemma sub-basin..............................................................................................14
Figure 4 : Location map of Jemma sub-basin Weredas.......................................................................14
Figure 5: Population density in Jemma sub-basin(Yilma and Awulachew, 2009)................................15
Figure 6: Land use/ land cover map of Jemma sub-basin (1986).........................................................17
Figure 7: Slope classification for Jemma Watershed...........................................................................18
Figure 8: Spatial input data for SWAT /Jemma sub-basin/..................................................................20
Figure 9: Weather stations /Jemma sub-basin/....................................................................................23
Figure 10: Representative station points selected by SWAT weather generator /Jemma sub-basin/....25
Figure 11: Consistency Test for Five Stations With Double Mass Curve (AK=Alem Ketema, GT =
Gohatsion, DB = Debrebirhan, MM = Mehalmeda)...........................................................................26
Figure 12: Outlier detection for Precipitation of August for Alem Ketema station..............................27
Figure 13: Outlier detection for maximum temperature of December for DebreBirhan.....................28
Figure 14: Methodological Conceptual Framework (Belihu et al., 2020)...........................................29
Figure 15: Workflow Chart of SWAT model adopted from (Chandra et al., 2014)..............................32
Figure 16: Soil map of Jemma sub-basin............................................................................................37
Figure 17: Daily discharge record of hydrological data at the outlets of Robi Gumero Watershed
(1990- 2009-2008)...............................................................................................................................38
Figure 18: LULC Map (Jemma - 1986)..............................................................................................46
Figure 19: LULC Map (Jemma - 2010)..............................................................................................47
Figure 20: LULC Map (Jemma - 2016)..............................................................................................49
Figure 21: Agricultural Land Coverage...............................................................................................50
Figure 22: Bush/Shrubs Land Coverage..............................................................................................50
Figure 23: Grass Land Coverage.........................................................................................................54
Figure 24: Monthly observed and simulated streamflow in m3 /s for the calibrated months on Robi
Gumero................................................................................................................................................59
Figure 25: Monthly observed and simulated stream flow in m3 /s for the validated months on Robi
Gumero................................................................................................................................................60
Figure 26 : Simulated flow for the period 1986 to 2015 (two years warm-up period) using the 1986
LULC...................................................................................................................................................61
Figure 27: Simulated flow for the period 1986 to 2015 (two years warm-up period) using the 2010
LULC...................................................................................................................................................61
Figure 28: Simulated flow for the period 1986 to 2015 (two years warm-up period) using the 2016
LULC...................................................................................................................................................62
Figure 29: Annual maximum (peak) flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016.....................................................64
Figure 30: High Flow duration curve for High flow (Annual max flow) condition..............................64
Figure 31 : Annual minimum flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016................................................................66
Figure 32 : Low flow duration curve with different land use conditions..............................................66
List of Tables

Table 1: Hydrological stations within Jemma sub-basin and hydrological data availability status....21
Table 2: List of metrological stations..................................................................................................22
Table 3: Rainfall and temperature missing data summary (stations in bold are selected)...................23
Table 4: FAO soil classification of Jemma sub-basin..........................................................................37
Table 5: The most sensitive parameters obtained from sensitivity analysis.........................................42
Table 6: LULC Area Coverage (Jemma – 1986).................................................................................45
Table 7 : LULC Area Coverage (Jemma – 2010)................................................................................47
Table 8: LULC Area Coverage (Jemma – 2016).................................................................................48
Table 9: LULC change transition matrix(1986-2010).........................................................................51
Table 10: Summary of LULC Change from 1986 to 2010....................................................................51
Table 11: Land Cover change matrix as indicator of land degradation..............................................52
Table 12: LULC net change (gain-loss) matrix (1986 – 2010)............................................................53
Table 13 : Summary of LULC Change from 2010 to 2016...................................................................55
Table 14: LULC Change transition matrix (2010-2016).....................................................................55
Table 15: LULC net change (gain-loss) matrix (2010 – 2016)............................................................55
Table 16: Summary of LULC Change (From 1986 to 2010 and From 2010 to 2016).........................56
Table 17 : Jemma sub-basin maps showing LULC.............................................................................57
Table 18: The most sensitive parameters obtained from sensitivity analysis.......................................58
Table 19 : Values of R2, NSE and PBIS................................................................................................60
Table 20: Annual peak flow (Range 1988 – 2015)...............................................................................63
Table 21: Maximum of annual peak flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016).........................................63
Table 22: Annual minimum flow (Range 1988 – 2015)........................................................................65
Table 23: Maximum of annual base flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016).........................................65
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
The population of Ethiopia continues to grow. The population has reached to 112 million in
2020 according to World Bank. This population growth has affected the country’s land cover,
especially the afforestation and vegetation cover of the land. On the other hand, population
growth directly increases the demand for food, thereby expanding agricultural land. In
addition, the fact that the rural communities use wood as the primary source of power plays
an important role in forest reduction. As the population grows, the number of animals also
grows in rural areas. This in turn will lead to the expansion of pastures at the expense of the
afforestation and vegetation.

This negative phenomenon is worse in Ethiopian highlands. One of the reasons for this is the
dense settlement of the population as compared to lowlands. In Ethiopia, the density of
population settlement depends on the altitude, 76% of the population settled in the highland
where the elevation is above 1600m above sea level while the total area of this highland is
only 37% of the total area of the country. Less than 24% of the country’s population is living
in provinces with an average elevation less than 1600m a.s.l, which occupies more than 64%
of the total area of the country(Hurni et al., 2005).

The population pressure in the highlands force agricultural land to expand to the higher
elevation zone originally covered by vegetation. The expansion of the agricultural land also
extends to the lower part of the highlands, where the amount of the annual rainfall is marginal
for rain fed agriculture. In both cases, the expansion of the agricultural land is at expense of
deforestation of the existing forest or bush/shrubs(Wolde-Mariam, 1991).

Recurrent drought and famine has also occurred in Ethiopian highlands in the last 60 years.
One of these parts of the country is Jemma sub-basin in North Shoa, where this study was
conducted. After the drought and famine of the 1970 th G.C, Jemma sub-basin had been under
the rehabilitation and reafforestation program during the Derge Regime. This program had
achieved satisfactory result especially in closure of some slopes which were formerly barren
land or a cultivated and overgrazed land. These areas were covered with dense bushes and
grass after the implementation of the reafforestation program (Wolde-Mariam, 1991).

1
Analysis of historical data indicates that there was a substantial increase of runoff in the 20 th
century from Ethiopian highlands into the upper Blue Nile Basin due to increased population
and land degradation(Hurni et al., 2005). The Jemma Basin as part of the upper Blue Nile is
degraded due to the increase in population and animal numbers. In fact, some districts have
been suffering from famine at different occasions in the last 60 years.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Northern Ethiopia highlands are known for their dense population and highly degraded
environment. Jemma sub-basin is located in the south eastern part of the Upper Blue Nile and
its elevation is between 1181 and 3516 where 94.64% of the total area is above 1500m above
sea level, which makes it classified as highland. Jemma is no different than other Northern
highlands of Ethiopia when it comes to the reduced forestation, expanded agricultural land,
high population and vulnerability to drought and famine.

According to the information obtained from the zone administration, during the change of
government in 1991 and for many consecutive years, there was a continuous deforestation
and extension of agricultural land. This human act mainly affected and reduced the area of
forests, bush/shrubs and grasslands, and increased the area coverage of agricultural land and
barren land. This phenomenon, in addition to the pressure of population growth, is also the
cause of land degradation in the Jemma sub-basin. In 2001, the government and non-
governmental organizations have restarted a restoration plan to rehabilitate the degraded
environment. The execution of this plan involved land management measures, reforestation
and closure of some marginal lands/slopes and supported by the participation of the
community in the area. However, it is difficult to quantify the extent of land degradation and
rehabilitation in the basin also its effect on the hydrological conditions (flow characteristics
of basin/sub-basins. This research tried to identify the land degradation/rehabilitation with the
land use change indicator and evaluate the effects of degradation and rehabilitation on flow
characteristic in Jemma Sub basins.

Although, the change in the characteristic of river flow is the results of multiple parameters, it
is possible to quantify the changes of the high flow and low flow in the river based on the
changes of land use changes in the sub-basin (River flow). The increase of agricultural lands
and barren lands in the land use/cover changes analysis is a good indicator for
degradation(Zewdie and Csaplovics, 2016). Similarly, the increase of forest, shrub/bush
lands or grass lands also serves as the indicator for rehabilitation. The quantification of the

2
flow characteristics with the changes of these land cover changes can be used as a tool for
evaluating the effect of land degradation or rehabilitation on the flow characteristics. An
earlier study in the Blue Nile Basin, where the Jemma river is located, found that forest-
covered test plot generated 5 to 30 times more surface runoff than degraded plot(Hurni et al.,
2005).

It is vital to quantify the effect of degradation and rehabilitation of land on stream flow
characteristics to figure out how a stream flow characteristic is affected by these phenomena.
This study tries to quantify and determine the impact of LULC change, and hence a
worsening or improving degradation on the flow of Jemma sub-basin assuming other factors
that could have impact on the flow characteristic are constant.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The findings of this research will serve as supportive information for effective land and water
resource planning and management. It will also serve as a secondary data and information
source for further scientific research works.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What land use/land cover changes occurred between 1986 - 2010 and 2010 - 2016 at
Jemma sub-basin?
2. Which land phenomenon (land degradation or restoration) was detected between 1986 –
2010 and 2010 – 2016?
3. What is the impact of land use/land cover change on the flow characteristics of Jemma
sub-basin?

1.5 Objectives of the Research

1.5.1 General Objective
The general objective of this research is to identify land degradation/rehabilitation of Jemma
sub-basin with land use/land cover change indicator and assess the hydrologic responses of
the sub-basin to land degradation/rehabilitation between 1986 – 2010 and 2010 – 2016.

3
1.5.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the research are:
 To quantify the land use/land cover change in Jemma sub-basin within the ranges of
the study period.
 To identify land phenomena (degradation or restoration) of Jemma sub-basin within
the ranges of the study period.
 To assess the hydrologic response of Jemma sub-basin to the land use/land cover
change in order to evaluate the effects of land degradation and rehabilitation on the
flow characteristics of Jemma Sub-Basin.

4
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims at presenting review of related literatures to describe general overview of
land use/land cover change and its impact on surface runoff. The LULC change and its
impact in Ethiopia context are also summarized based on existing literatures.

Review of related works is also included.

2.2 Land Use/Land Cover Change

It is a common practice to use the terms land use and land cover interchangeably. However,
the two terms could be defined in a precise manner and their relationship can be described.
According to FAO, land cover is broadly defined as “the observed biophysical cover on
Earth’s surface”, though in strict sense, it should only refer to the description of vegetation
and man-made features excluding bare soil and bare rocks. However, land cover commonly
refers to what covers the surface of the earth which could be forest, grass land, water or even
bare soil(Horning, 2004). On the other hand, land use directly refers to the purpose the land
serves such as agricultural land, or recreation area(Horning, 2004).

In simple terms, land use/land cover change is defined as modification of Earth’s terrestrial
surface by human activities(Hassan et al., 2016). Land cover changes are mainly induced by
the nature of the usage of land. For example, one of the reasons why deforestation occurs is
the expansion of agricultural land which in turn is a result of population growth. The
magnitude of global land cover change is significantly large in the last three centuries. The
global cropland expansion since 1850 resulted in the conversion of 6 million km 2 of
forests/woodlands and 4.7 million km2 of savannas/grasslands/steppes(Ramankutty and
Foley, 1999). Causes of LULC change include population growth, population settlement,
agricultural expansion, urbanization and social and economic factors.

2.3 Trend of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Ethiopian

Highlands/Upper Blue Nile Basin/
LULC change is a global observable fact and Ethiopia is no exception. This is exhibited with
the fact that the forest area of the country had been reduced to 3% in 2001 which was
estimated to be 40% a century ago(Bishaw, 2001). The World Bank indicator also shows that

5
forest area coverage of Ethiopia is reduced by almost 3.5% within the 20 years elapsed
between 1990 and 2020. Deforestation is evidently one of the LULC change components.

According to (Gessesse and Bewket, 2014), the forest area in the highlands of the country
had been reduced to 15% in 2014 from 40% a century ago.

(Regasa et al., 2021) conducted a comprehensive review of 25 articles published between

2011 and 2020, which focuses on LULC changes in Ethiopian basins. The report’s review
results show that in the past few decades, in most of the studied basins, agricultural land,
water bodies, commercial farms, buildings/settlements and bare/rock outcrops have increased
in a dramatic manner, while forests, pastures and shrubs reduced.

A number of studies have been conducted to evaluate the changes in LULC and its impact
from different perspectives in basins of the Upper Blue Nile. For example, a study of three
basins found in Upper Blue Nile showed that between 1982 and 2016/17, natural vegetation
coverage decreased while cultivated land coverage increased (Belihu et al., 2020). An
analysis of LULC change in Modjo watershed (central highlands of Ethiopia) between 1973
and 2007 showed 74.3% reduction in forest coverage and an increase of 36.2% in cultivated
land(Gessesse and Bewket, 2014). Unlike most of the researches, (Bewket, 2002) reported
that between 1957 and 1998, one of the Blue Nile River Basin, namely the Chemoga Basin,
had forest coverage increasing at a rate of 11 hectares per year, increasing farmland and
decreasing grassland. The increase in forest coverage is attributed to the afforestation plan of
the Derge regime.

The main driving forces of land use/land cover dynamics are reported as population growth,
poverty, and lack of strong institutional and technological support, lack of strong LULC
policies and lack of technologies that suit farmers’ socio-economic and natural
circumstances(Dinka and Chaka, 2019). The land use policy in Ethiopia in the 1970s for food
self-sufficiency is listed as one of the causes of sharp decrement for forest and grass lands
and increment for farm and shrubs lands in Adei watershed(Dinka and Chaka, 2019).

Population growth is stated as an undeniable cause of deforestation due to the fact that forests
recede and give way to farming and grazing land(Wolde-Mariam, 1991). This is supported by
a recent research that concludes LULC change and population change have a strong
relationship in Ethiopia. It was further explained how population increases result in the need
for cultivated land, grazing land, fuel wood and settlement areas which in turn causes

6
deforestation(Genet, 2020). In fact, the population growth and the resulting deforestation is
worse in Ethiopian highlands between 1950 and 2000 where by the population was increased
by a factor of 4 (16 million to 65 million)(Alemu, 2015).

2.4 Impact of LULC Change on Streamflow Characteristics

Changes in land use and land cover in a watershed can seriously affect the hydrological
characteristics of the watershed by changing the characteristics of the watershed and
groundwater. It is actually one of the key drivers responsible for changing the hydrology of
the watershed. Understanding the hydrological processes associated with land use/land cover
(LU/LC) changes is crucial for decision makers (Getu Engida et al., 2021; Saddique et al.,
2020).

Different studies demonstrated the effect of LULC change on streamflow nature in various
basins of Ethiopia. An increase in surface runoff of 2.7 and 2.3 mm y-1 was reported for Gum
Selassa and Maileba catchments (Northern Ethiopia) respectively between 1964 – 2006 due
to the changes in land use/land cover(Gebresamuel et al., 2010). Though the long-term trend
of the total annual rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands has not changed significantly in the past
30-50 years, it is found that the surface runoff of the cultivated land or the degraded test site
is 5-30 times more than that of the forest test site. The tests were carried out on small test
plots (30 square meters) and micro catchment areas (73-673 hectares) in the highlands of
Ethiopia and Eritrea(Hurni et al., 2005).

2.5 Detecting and Quantifying Land Degradation with LULC Change

Indicator
Land degradation is defined as “a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or
indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as
long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity,
ecological integrity or value to humans”(Olsson, L., H. Bhadwal, A. Cowie, K. Delusca, D.
Flores-Renteria, K. Hermans, E. Jobbagy, W. Kurz, D. Li, et al., 2009).

Since land degradation is a complex matter, it is quite difficult to quantify its extent. In line
with this, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) established a
global indicator framework to provide the necessary methods, data and expertise to monitor
and report on land degradation. This indicator is defined based on only three sub-indicators,
which are “Trends in land cover”, “Trends in land productivity”, and “Trends in carbon
stocks (above and below ground) (UNCCD, 2016). The indicator is calculated by integrating

7
the sub-indicators using a one-out-all-out (1OAO) method, in which a significant reduction or
negative change in any one of the three sub-indicators is considered to comprise land
degradation.

Changes in the sub-indicators are depicted as: (i) Positive or improving; (ii) Negative or
declining; or (iii) Stable or unchanging. Since the computation involves a one-out-all-out
method, if one of the sub-indicators is declining or negative (or stable when degraded in the
baseline or previous reporting period) for a particular land unit, then it may be considered
potentially degraded (Sims, N.C., Newnham, G.J., England, J.R., Guerschman, J., Cox,
S.J.D., Roxburgh, S.H., Viscarra Rossel, R.A., Fritz, and S. and Wheeler, 2021). This implies
a decline in land use/land cover solely can indicate the existence and extent of land
degradation since the technique of computing the degradation indicator allows the possibility
of leaving out the other two if the a negative change of one of the sub-indicators is
substantial.

2.6 Hydrological Modeling

A model is a simplified representation of the real-world system. The application of a given
model depends on the purpose for which the modeling is made(Moradkhani and Sorooshian,
2008). A model’s quality is determined by its ability to give results close to reality by using
the least parameters and model complexity. Runoff model can be defined as a set Equations
that help estimate runoff as a function of various parameters used to describe the watershed
feature(Devia et al., 2015).

The concept of watershed models is explained by Singh and Fervert (2006). According to
them, watershed models simulate natural processes of the flow of water, sediment, chemicals,
nutrients, and microbial organisms within watersheds, as well as quantify the impact of
human activities on these processes (V P Singh; Donald K Frevert, 2006).

Typical tasks for hydrological simulation models include: modeling of gauged catchments
(e.g. modeling of river behavior, real-time flood forecasting, adjusting and evaluation of
water resource management); runoff estimation of ungauged catchments; effects of rivers’
activity (erosion, sedimentation); prediction of catchment response to changed conditions
(e.g. land use change, climate change) and water quality investigations (e.g. nutrients,
migration of microbes, salinity and alkalinity of soils, acid precipitation, nonpoint source
pollution).

8
2.7 Hydrological Modeling for Assessing LULC Impact on Runoff
Surface runoff is precipitation that does not infiltrate into the soil and runs across the land
surface into surface waters (streams, rivers, lakes or other reservoirs) (Perlman, 2016).
Surface runoff varies by time and location, with about one-third of the precipitation that falls
on land turning into runoff; the other two-thirds is evaporated, transpired, or infiltrated into
the soil (Perlman, 2016). By returning excess precipitation to the oceans and controlling how
much water flows into stream systems, runoff is important in balancing the hydrological
cycle.

Modeling runoff helps to better understand hydrological phenomena and how changes affect
the hydrological cycle (Xu, 2002). The runoff model visualizes what happens in the water
system due to changes in previous surfaces, vegetation, and meteorological events. Devia et
al. (2015) defines a runoff model as a set of equations that help estimate the amount of
rainfall converted into runoff as a function of various parameters used to describe the
watershed.

Simulating surface runoff is not an easy task because the calculations are complex and
involve many interrelated variables. The general components of the model include inputs,
governing equations, boundary conditions or parameters, model process and output (Singh,
1995). Surface runoff modeling is used to understand catchment yield and response, estimate
available water volume, change over time, and forecast(Vaze et al., 2012).

9
2.8 SWAT Model
SWAT stands for Soil and Water Assessment Tool. It is a watershed or river basin scale
model developed by Dr. Jeff Arnold for the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS). It
focuses on the impact of land management practices on water, sediment and agricultural
chemical yields in large complex watersheds with varying soils, land use and management
conditions over long periods of time(Neitsch et al., 2005).

SWAT is a physically based and computationally efficient model whose first version was
created in the early 1990s. It basically simulates the hydrologic cycle (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Schematic of hydrologic cycle simulated in SWAT (Amatya et al., 2013)

The SWAT model has been widely used across the globe. A study that reviewed SWAT
model application in Africa indicated the popularity of the model in researches made in
Africa and particularly in Ethiopia (Akoko et al., 2021). It was reported in the same study that
SWAT was successfully applied for watershed management in Africa though the challenge of
data availability/gaps is stated as the major challenge.

10
2.9 Related Works
2.9.1 Hydrological Responses to Change in Land Use/Cover and
Management: Gado Catchment (Begashaw, 2016)
This research basically assesses the land use/land cover change of Gado catchment between
1987 and 2014 and its hydrologic response. The Gado catchment (size of 1114 km 2) is
located in the Amhara region and its topography is dominated by highland(Begashaw, 2016).

The study employed an integrated approach of digital image processing of satellite data and
hydrological model (SWAT) to achieve its objectives. Supervised image classification using
ERDAS Imagine software was used to analyze the land cover change of the study catchment
which resulted in four land cover classes namely forest, cultivated and settlement,
grass/grazing land and shrubs and bush land. Streamflow was simulated with the help of
hydrological modeling using SWAT model.

It was reported that during the 28 years interval (1987-2014), bush and shrubs, grass/grazing,
forest land coverage was decreased by 59.63 %, 30.72 %, 87.86 % respectively while
cultivated and settlement land coverage showed an increment of 259.16 %. With respect to
this change, catchment hydrological responses exhibited an increase in mean annual
discharge from 19.62m3/s to 20.09m3/s throughout the selected period of this study. It was
concluded that the LULC change implied a significant increase in mean annual discharge and
hence the change of the river flow regime of the Gado catchment between 1987-2014.

2.9.2 The Impact of Land Use/ Land Cover Change on Catchment Hydrology
and Water Quality of Legedadi-Dire Catchments, Ethiopia(Aduna,
2009)
The study assesses the impact of environmental changes on the hydrology and water quality
of the LegeDadi-Dire catchments specifically land cover change and the effect of the changes
on the hydrology and water quality of the catchment by integrating ArcView GIS and SWAT
model.

The study shows that the change in actual LULC is caused by the streamflow, sediment yield
and other water quality parameters for Dire catchment, whereas it is caused by the land use
on the periphery of the reservoir experiencing over grazing and traditional farming for
Legedadi catchment.

11
The researcher has compared four scenarios. It is observed that runoff was highest from
agricultural lands and it is increased by area of agricultural land. Due to urbanization effect, a
49.9% increase in run-off is noticed in the third scenario in Legedadi area. Land cover
changes without climate change increase runoff by 3.4-49.9% and 14.9-15.3% for Legedadi
and Dire catchments respectively.

It was also observed that there was a 50% increase in agricultural land, which resulted in rise
of base sediment yield rate of the catchments. The application of agricultural inputs such as
fertilizer has shown an increase in turbidity.

2.9.3 Hydrologic Response to Land Use/Land Cover Change in the Upper

Gidabo Watershed(Belihu et al., 2020)
This study evaluated land use and land cover changes (LULCC) effects on stream flow of the
upper Gidabo Watershed, Ethiopia. The study area is located in eastern highlands of the main
Gidabo watershed in the southern rift valley Lake Basins of Ethiopia having a drainage area
of 539.6 km2. The highlands are densely populated.

Satellite imageries of 1985, 2000, and 2018, Digital Elevation Model, climate and streamflow
records were analyzed. Syntheses of SWAT and SWAT-CUP algorithms have been done
using ArcSWAT. Seven types of land use were identified, with agriculture and forestry being
the main land use (64%). LULCC described the increase in agricultural land and urban
settlements at the expense of forests and grasslands by 59.8% and 28.7%, respectively. The
impact of land dynamics on hydrological response shows that surface runoff and
evapotranspiration have increased by 9.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The flow rate in the rainy
season increased by 5.6%, while the flow rate in the dry season decreased by 12.7%. Changes
in surface flow, especially in the dry season, require close intervention in land use
management and water resources utilization.

12
 CHAPTER THREE
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
3.1 Location, Topography and Area
Jemma sub-basin is part of the north central high land located in North Shoa zone. It is one of
the major tributaries of Abay basin found in the south eastern part of upper Blue Nile as
shown in the below (Figure 2).

The Jemma sub-basin covers an area of approximately 15,000 square kilometers with an
altitude range from 1040 to 3814m a.s.l. The elevation of more than 90% of the basin area is
above 1500m a.s.l. This makes Jemma one of the sub-basins found in the Ethiopian
highlands. The topography of Jemma sub-basin includes flat terrain (Plato), valleys and
escarpments.

Figure 2: Location of Jemma watershed

13
 Figure 3: Elevation of Jemma sub-basin

Figure 4 : Location map of Jemma sub-basin Weredas

14
3.2 Administrative Weredas and Population
Twenty five weredas are located within the Jemma sub-basin. The total population of the
weredas 3,665,842 people (Yilma and Awulachew, 2009).The population density indicated in
Appendix (1)

Figure 5: Population density in Jemma sub-basin(Yilma and Awulachew, 2009)

3.3 Rainfall
Rainfall in the Jemma sub-basin has a bimodal pattern, namely summer from June to
September (locally called “kiremit”), and spring from March to May (locally called “Belg”)
(Worku et al., 2021). According to the Ethiopian National Meteorological Service (NMSA),
the annual rainfall in the Jemma sub-basin is between 700-1400 mm.

As part of the Central Highland of Ethiopia, the rainfall In Jemma Sub-Basin is driven by the
moisture from Indian Ocean, equatorial east Pacific, Gulf of Guinea, Mediterranean region,
and Arabian Peninsul(Seleshi and Zanke, 2004;Viste and Sorteberg, 2013). Among the
stations in the Jemma Sub-Basin, Andit-tid and Lemi stations have higher annual rainfall
while Wereilu and Mehalmeda stations receive lower annual rainfall (Worku et al., 2019)

15
3.4 Temperature
The temperature in the sub-basin is mild, where the average annual temperature ranges from
9 ◦C to 24 ◦C. The annual maximum and minimum temperature in the sub basin varies
between 150C - 310C and 10C -150C respectively. The temperature along the river is relatively
high, the highest is 240C-310C and minimum of 90C -150C(Yilma and Awulachew, 2009).

3.5 Evaporation
The potential evapotranspiration (PET) of the subbasin is generally between 1182 mm and
1947 mm per year. PET is higher along the river where there is high temperature and is larger
than 1700mm/year. The PET in the eastern highlands of the basin is low, below 1400
mm/year(Yilma and Awulachew, 2009).

3.6 Hydrology
The Jemma sub-basin has multiple watersheds, which flow from the highlands to the main
routes in different directions. Jemma flows westward and merges with Abbay at an altitude of
1,040m a.s.l. The Beressa River, Robi-Gumero, Mofer Weha, Addbay and Chacha are some
of the tributaries of this sub-basin. Beressa (with an area of 220 km 2, and elevation 2700-
3650m) and Robi-Gumero (with an area of 887 km2 and elevation of 2300-3000) are the two
main tributaries. Beressa is located in the upper middle and the latter is located in the lower
middle. The Jemma sub-basin contributes 14% of the total annual flow of the Upper Blue
Nile Basin (Yilma and Awulachew, 2009). The total depth of the Jemma sub-basin is
422mm.

3.7 Land use/Land Cover

The main land use land cover in the Jemma sub-basin is agriculture and pasture or grassland.
Land use/land cover types in the Jemma River Basin include agricultural land (56.72%),
pasture (14.64%), bare land (10.45%), shrub land (6.44%), woodland (6.05%) and woodland
(1.20%). The rest of the land is covered by African alpine vegetation, eucalyptus plantations
and water bodies(Worku et al., 2021). See .

16
 Figure 6: Land use/ land cover map of Jemma sub-basin (1986).

3.8 Slope

It is one of the factors which influence surface runoff velocity. Higher slope result in higher
velocity of flow, therefore the water will travel quickly to reach the river outlet. For this
study, DEM of 30x30m resolution is processed to derive slope of the watershed pixel by pixel
using ArcGIS 10.7. Then, the average slope and major slope classes based on(FAO, 1998) are
determined to understand its topographical characteristics are done. On the slope map
generated from DEM in Figure 7 indicates highest slope which consists of 30-51%. Most of
the area is having a slope ranging from 1 to 8%.

17
 Figure 7: Slope classification for Jemma Watershed

3.9 Soil and Geology

The dominant soil in the basin are Eutric Vertisols and Eutric Leptosols. Some of the soil
types of the sub-basin are Eutric Vertisols (28.07%), Lithic Leptosols (37.44%), Chromic
Lixisols (8.07%), PellicVertisols (6.82), Haplic Luvisols (5.79%), and Haplic Acrisols (6.82).
Eutric Fluvisols, Umbric Nitisols and Alic Niti sols cover a small fraction of the sub-basin
(Yilma and Awulachew, 2009;.Worku et al., 2021).

The geology of the sub-basin is mainly dominated by Basalt and Sandstone. Along the river
bed are Amba Aradam Sand Stone and Adigrat Sand Stone(Yilma and Awulachew, 2009).

18
 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is dedicated to present information about the source of the data, the data quality
test carried out and the data analysis.

It elaborates how the input data for the modeling was prepared.

4.2 Data Description

SWAT modeling requires various types of input data. It is possible to divide the input data
we used for the SWAT modeling in this research into two, namely spatial and climate data.
These data elements are described in the sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

4.2.1. Spatial Input Data for SWAT

The spatial input data used in this study are digital elevation model (DEM), land use/land
cover map and soil map (Figure 8).

4.2.1.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

A digital elevation model (DEM) is an important spatial input for automatic extraction of
topographic parameters for the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)(Buakhao and
Kangrang, 2016). Digital elevation model data plays an important role in SWAT. The
topographic attributes of the sub-basin, including area, slope and slope length, are all derived
from DEM. It is also used to process drainage pattern of the watershed, stream lengths,
widths of channel within the watershed and classification of the elevation of the catchment in
different interval.

The study area DEM was extracted from A30m by 30m DEM of Ethiopia which is obtained
from Ethiopian Mapping Agency. Arc GIS 10.4 is used to process the digital elevation
Model.

4.2.1.2. Land Use/Land Cover Map

The land use and land cover (LULC) map of a watershed is a critical input to the Soil and
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. It is one of the major factors in the hydrologic
process of a watershed. Surface runoff, evapotranspiration, percolation, surface erosion and
other process in the hydrologic response of a catchment are dependent on the land use land
cover of the area. The land use land cover of a watershed together with is soil type and

19
property greatly affects the excess precipitation, recharge to the ground water system and the
storage in the soil layers.

For this study, the classified and arranged land use land cover maps of the study area are
obtained from Water and Land Resource Center (WLRC), Addis Ababa University. The land
use/land cover maps of the year 1986, 2010 and 2016 are used in the study.

4.2.1.3. Soil Data

The soil chemical and physical property with its depth and location in a watershed affects the
hydrologic process of catchment. The soil data is one of the input data required by the SWAT
model to simulate and predict the stream flow or the water quality of watershed. The soil map
of the study area is extracted from major Soils of the world database (FAO, 1995) and Digital
soil map of the world database and Derived Soil Properties from (FAO, 1998) using the
shape file obtained from Water and Land Resource Center (WLRC), Addis Ababa University.

The chemical and physical properties of the soil in the watershed and its depth and location
will affect the hydrological process of the watershed. Soil data is one of the input data
required by the SWAT model to simulate and predict watershed flow or water quality. The
soil map of the study area is extracted from the “The Harmonized World Soil Database”
(FAO, 1995) and Digital Soil Map of the World and derived soil properties (FAO, 1998),
using shape files obtained from Water and Land Resource Center (WLRC), Addis Ababa
University.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8: Spatial input data for SWAT /Jemma sub-basin/

20
(a) DEM (b) LULC map (c) Soil map

21
4.2.2. Climate Input Data for SWAT
The climate input data used for SWAT modeling are described in sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2.

4.2.2.1. Streamflow Data

During the SWAT modeling process, an observed stream flow data is needed to calibrate and
validate the model in order to predict runoff.

Hydrological data of Abay basin was acquired from Ethiopian Basin Research Department of
the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR). Eleven hydrological gauging stations were found
within the Jemma sub-basin which are listed in Table 1. However, river flow data at most
stations are either incomplete or not available in the soft copy files collected.

Table 1: Hydrological stations within Jemma sub-basin and hydrological data availability status

Data Availability
S. No RIV_LAKE SITE KM2 X_COORD Y_COORD
Status

 1986 - 2013

1 BERESSA Nr. DEBRE 211 557046.97 1068970.37

(29 years
complete )

 1998 - 2000

2 WIZER Nr. MEHAL 22.5 574473.59 1130920.77

(3 years
complete)

 1986 - 1999

(13 years
3 CHACHA @ CHACHA 41.8 551582.74 1053483.39 complete)

 2000 - 2005
(3-4 days/year)

4 SHY Nr. MEHAL 67.5 562422.07 1133108.83  1982 – 1988

 1985 Jan-Aug, 3
months are

22
 missing)
 2002- 2007

5 GEBREGURA Nr. DEGOL 162 527363.04 1151860.56 No data

6 JOGOLA @ WEREILU 30.6 547040.51 1169572.88 No data

7 ALELTU Nr. MUKA 447 494514.46 1066716.06 No data

8 ROBI JIDA Nr. MUKA 762 500000.00 1064504.44 No data

 1990 – 2009
9 ROBIGUMER Nr. LEMI 887 500000.00 1077771.82 (19 years
complete)

10 JEMMA Nr. LEMI 5412 489037.77 1096569.08 No data

11 WENCHIT Nr. ALEM 4090.6 475894.85 1114265.69 No data

Beressa and RobiGumer have 29 and 19 years complete data and have better amount of data
as compared to other stations. Even though amount of Beressa’s data is significantly larger
than RobiGumer’s, the latter station was selected. This decision attributed to the fact that
Beressa has smaller area coverage and it is found in the upstream. Thus, the Robi Gumoro's
stream flow data from 1990 to 2007 was used as SWAT input in this research.

4.2.2.2. Weather Data

The other time series data that needs to be input to SWAT is weather data. The daily records
of precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity are the data
that SWAT needs as input. Such data for Jemma sub-basin was collected from National
Meteorological Service Agency (NMSA), which contains eight stations namely Alem
Ketema, Debrebirhan, Fiche, Gohatsion, Gunde Meskel, Mehal Meda, Sheno and Wereilu
(Table 2 and Figure 9). The record of some of the stations is incomplete and discontinuous.
Some weather stations only contain rainfall data. The other group includes maximum and
minimum temperature in addition to the rainfall data. Some others have variables such as

23
humidity, sunshine time, and wind speed besides rainfall, and maximum and minimum
temperature.

Table 2: List of metrological stations

ALTITUD
ID STATION LONG LAT E

1 Debrebirhan 39.50 9.63 2750.00

10.5
2 Woreilu 39.45 8 2690.00

3 Fiche 38.70 9.80 2750.00

10.0
4 Gohatsion 38.23 3 2550.00

5 Sheno 39.30 9.33 2655.00

10.0
6 Alem Ketema 38.99 6 2204.00

10.3
7 Mehal Meda 39.66 1 3084.00

10.2
8 Gunde Meskel 38.69 3 2504.00

24
 Figure 9: Weather stations /Jemma sub-basin/
The collected data was analyzed to identify the percentage of missing data and its continuity.
The percentage of missing data is computed by dividing the total number of missed daily
records by the total number of days as suggested in (Abebe et al., 2020). In fact, five out of
eight stations are selected based on the result of this analysis and their proximity. The result
of the analysis is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Rainfall and temperature missing data summary (stations in bold are selected)
Percentage
S.No Period of Percentage
Station Missing
. record Missing /Rainfall/
/Temperature/
1 Alem Ketema 1986- 2015 8.48% 21.45%
2 DebreBirhan 1986- 2015 2.44% 2.11%
3 Fiche 1986- 2015 15.29% 42.4%
4 Goha Tsion 1986- 2015 1.89% 1.88%
5 Gunde Meskel 1986- 2015 59.95% 67.36%
6 Mehal Meda 1986- 2015 7.99% 7.99%
7 Sheno 1986- 2015 11.06% 19.53%
8 Wereilu 1986- 2015 50.06% 100%

The stations Fiche, Gunde Meskel and Wereilu are automatically discarded because of the
large amount of missed data. DebreBirhan, Goha Tsion and Mehal Meda are the best stations
in terms of missed data which is less than 17%. Alem Ketema and Sheno stations have a total
of about 30% missed data.

25
Therefore, Alem Ketema, Debrebirhan, Gohatsion, Mehal Meda and Sheno are stations that
were picked and used in the modeling.

4.2.2.3. Humidity, Sunshine Hours and Wind Speed

Data for humidity, sunshine hours and wind speed are also available for the various stations
in different extents. It was found that it is preferable to use the weather generator of SWAT
generate these data for the five stations. The data used for this purpose consists of data from
1824 stations from all over Ethiopia for 38 years.

4.2.3. Generating Missed Data

As mentioned earlier, the rainfall and temperature (maximum and minimum) observation data
at the five stations contain missing data. In addition, the humidity, sunshine hours and wind
speed data at the same sites are incomplete in large extent.

Therefore, these missing data need to be filled. It was decided to employ the weather
generator component of SWAT to fill the missed data of rainfall and temperature. On the
other hand, the available observed data of humidity, sunshine hours and wind speed was
discarded and SWAT’s weather generator was used to generate it.

The SWAT weather generator requires an input file. The input file and its parameters are
described in the SWAT manual(M. et al., 2013). There are 128 parameters in total, which
constitute the statistical data required to generate representative daily climate data for the
sub-watershed. Each of these parameters needs to be calculated for each representative
station.

This study used the SWAT weather generator input file (.wgn file) prepared for Ethiopia
National Grid for 38 years, which consists of a total of 1824 stations. These stations cover the
entire Ethiopia. SWAT automatically selects 17 stations as representative stations based on
the distance from the Jemma sub-catchment, as shown in Figure 10. Three of the stations are
located at the edge of the sub-basin, while the others are located in the sub-basin.

26
 Figure 10: Representative station points selected by SWAT weather generator /Jemma sub-basin/

4.3 Data Quality Test

4.3.1. Consistency Test

Inconsistency of hydrology and rainfall data could happen for different reasons such as
replacement of old instruments by a new one, shifting of rain gauge stations, and change of
observer or occurrence of observational error.

Inconsistency for the annual rainfall data for each of the five stations is checked with the
double mass curve method. The results are illustrated in Figure 11. We found the data to be
consistent.

27
 R2 =0.999486
12

10

8
Cumulative GT

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cumulative All Stations

28
 R2 = 0.999817 R2 = 0.999302
35000 30000

30000 25000
25000

Cumulative Sheno
20000
Cumulative AK

20000
15000
15000
10000
10000

5000 5000

0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Cumulative All Stations (mm) Cumulative All Stations

R2 = 0.999727 R2 =0.999075
30000 30000

25000 25000

20000
Cumulative MM

20000
umulative DB

15000 15000

10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Cumulative All Stations Cumulative All Stations

Figure 11: Consistency Test for Five Stations With Double Mass Curve (AK=Alem Ketema,
GT = Gohatsion, DB = Debrebirhan, MM = Mehalmeda)

4.3.2. Outliers Test

An outlier is an unusually large or small observation. Outliers could be erroneous data or
correct extreme values(Lez-Rouco, 2001). Managing outliers needs a careful decision.
Automatically eliminating extreme outliers may lead to loss of extreme event information
while keeping such outliers in the data will affect further processing.

An attempt to identify and correct extreme outliers for the precipitation and temperature data
were performed by computing threshold value with the following equation(Trenberth and
Paolino, 1980)(Peterson et al., 1998).

29
 pout =q0.75 +3 IQR.................................................................... Equation (1)

As it resists outliers, the IQR has been used for quality control of climate data(Eischeid et al.,
1995). Values exceeding Pout are replaced by this limit. This approach reduces the bias caused
by outliers, while retaining information on extreme events(Barnett and Lewis, 1994).

In order to identify extreme outliers in precipitation and temperature data, the records of each
month of all years were filtered. Then, the threshold is calculated based on the filtered data,
so outlier values are detected and corrected (replaced by the threshold).

Sample outlier tests are illustrated in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

100

80

60

40 Precipitation
Outlier
Linear (Outlier)
20 L.Outlier
Linear (L.Outlier)
0

-20

-40
2/18/1982 6/15/1994 10/10/2006 2/4/2019

Figure 12: Outlier detection for Precipitation of August for Alem Ketema station

35

30

25
Max Tempreature
Outlier
20 Linear (Outlier)
L.Outliner
Linear (L.Outliner)
15

10
2/18/1982 10/28/1995 7/6/2009 3/15/2023 11/21/2036

30
Figure 13: Outlier detection for maximum temperature of December for DebreBirhan

31
 CHAPTER FIVE
METHODOLOGY
To assess the effect of LULC change on the streamflow characteristics of Jemma sub-basin,
SWAT modeling coupled with remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS)
was used. This methodology allows simulating the characteristics of the runoff of the sub-
basin under different scenarios. The scenarios are constructed by applying different
combinations of parameters of the hydrologic process.

5.1. Conceptual Framework

The methodological conceptual framework of this research is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Methodological Conceptual Framework (Belihu et al., 2020)

5.2. Materials and Data Used

Materials and data used in this research are listed below. The types of the collected data and
its analysis are detailed in Chapter three of the same document.

32
  GIS
 Satellite image data and maps
 Hydro meteorological data
 GPS SWAT
 SWAT-CUP
 Soil map
 Land use land cover map
 DEW02

5.3. Land Cover Classification

Understanding and analyzing the LULC change of the sub-basin between the considered
periods is one of the main tasks in the research. Determining the classification categories of
the land cover is a prerequisite step for this task.

The land cover classification system that is used in this research was drawn from the three
land use/land cover maps (1986, 2010 and 2016) of the study area obtained from the
Ethiopian Land and Water center (AAU). These maps were already classified. Analysis of
these maps showed that ten land cover classifications were used to describe the land cover of
the Jemma sub-basin. They are agricultural land, forest land, grass land, cultivated land,
water bodies, settlements, wet land and shrub land.

5.4. Land Use/Land Cover Change Analysis

In the context of remote sensing, change detection refers to the process of identifying
differences in land characteristics by observing land characteristics at different times. Change
detection techniques are broadly classified into two: pre-classification and post-classification
detection methods(Lu et al., 2004). The pre-classification techniques apply various
algorithms directly  to multiple dates of satellite imagery to generate ‘‘change'' vs. ‘‘no-
change'' maps. These techniques locate where changes took place but do not provide
information on the nature of the change. Post-classification comparison methods use separate

33
classifications of images acquired at different times to produce difference maps. ‘‘From–to''
change information can be generated telling us how much change occurred or what areas
changed from ___ to ___.

Land use/land cover maps of 1986, 2010 and 2016 of Jemma sub-basin classified in a
standard manner were received from Ethiopian Land and Water Resource Center (AAU) with
the consent of the institute. Therefore, post-classification comparison approach has been
employed to analyze the change in land use/land cover between 1986 and 2010. This was
followed by carrying out the same type of comparison between 2010 and 2016. The post-
classification comparison involved in this research encompasses generating the area and
percentage conversion matrix where the magnitude of change (MC) and the percentage of
change (PC) are computed according to the following equations.

MC ( km2 )= Ai −A f ----------------------------------------------------- Equation (1)

Ai −A f
PC ( % )= ( Ai )× 100--------------------------------------------- Equation (2)

The resulting matrix would serve as an input to determine the extent of land degradation sub-
indicator as suggested by (UNCCD, 2016; Sims, N.C., Newnham, G.J., England, J.R.,
Guerschman, J., Cox, S.J.D., Roxburgh, S.H., Viscarra Rossel, R.A., Fritz, and S. and
Wheeler, 2021). Following the guidelines recommended by the UNCCD, the extent of land
degradation or rehabilitation was determined between 1986 -2010 and 2010-2016.

34
5.5. Hydrological Modeling
Analyzing the change in streamflow characteristics within the selected period is another main
task in this research. Hydrological modeling with SWAT is employed to simulate the
streamflow characterstics and to study its relationship with land use/land cover change at
Jemma sub-basin.

SWAT is a river basin, or watershed, scale model developed to predict the impact of land
management practices on water, sediment, and agricultural chemical yields in large, complex
watersheds with varying soils, land use, and management conditions over long periods of
time(M. et al., 2013).

5.6. SWAT Hydrological Modeling

The SWAT model is a physical based model that can simulate the quality and quantity of
surface water and groundwater, and can provide high-quality spatial descriptions by dividing
the basin into multiple sub-basins. The SWAT model operates on various types of inputs and
it is required to follow step by step procedures to do the simulation (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Workflow Chart of SWAT model adopted from (Chandra et al., 2014)

35
In this research, ArcSWAT Version 10.41 is used to deal with SWAT modeling. ArcSWAT
ArcGIS extension is a graphical user interface for the SWAT model and offers different
functionalities in a user friendly way. Setting up the model, providing the necessary input,
running the simulation and generating outputs can be done in an interactive way with this
useful extension.

5.7. SWAT Model Hydrological Components

Watershed hydrology modeling can be viewed as having two major components. The first
component referred as the land phase controls the amount of water, sediment, nutrient and
pesticide loadings to the main channel in each sub-basin. This division controls canopy
storage, infiltration, redistribution, evapotranspiration, lateral subsurface flow, surface runoff,
ponds, tributary channels and return flow. The second component of the modeling process is
routing phase of the hydrologic cycle that can be defined as the movement of water,
sediments, nutrients and organic chemicals through the channel network of the watershed to
the outlet(Neitsch et al., 2005).

5.7.1. Hydrology
The land phase of the hydrologic cycle for Jemma sub-basin was simulated with SWAT,
which was developed based on the water balance equation as depicted in (Equation (3)).

t
SW t =SW o +∑ Rday −Qsurf −E a−w seep −Qgw ------------------------------- Equation (3)
i=1

In which,

SW t is the final soil water content (mm water),

SW o is the initial soil water content in day i (mm water),

t is the time (days),

Rday is the amount of precipitation in day i (mm water),

Q surf is the amount of surface runoff in day i (mm water),

Ea is the amount of evapotranspiration in day i (mm water),

36
 w seep is the amount of water entering the vadose zone from the soil profile in day i
(mm water), Q gwis the amount of return flow in day i (mm water)

5.7.2. Surface Runoff Volume Computation

Surface runoff is the amount of precipitation which falls on the ground and is excess of the
infiltration. As it is the major component of the hydrologic cycle, SWAT is capable of
simulating the surface runoff volumes and peak runoff rates.

SWAT provides two surface runoff computation methods:

(1) Modification of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number (CN)
method (USDA, Soil Conservation Service , 1972): The CN method was initially
developed for small agricultural watersheds and the CN varies non-linearly with
the moisture content of the soil. It drops to zero as the soil approaches the
wilting point and increases to near 100 as the soil approaches saturation.
(2) The Green and Ampt infiltration method (Green, W.H. and Ampt, G.A., 1911):
This method requires sub-daily precipitation data for calculating infiltration and
surface runoff.

In this study, the SCS curve number method was used to estimate surface runoff because of
the unavailability of sub daily precipitation data for Green & Ampt method. This method
applies the equation (Equation (4)) which is an empirical model developed after extended
studies involving rainfall-runoff from small rural watersheds in the US:

2
( Rday −I a )
Qsurf = ----------------------------------------------------------Equation (4)
( Rday −I a +S )

Where:

Q surf is accumulated runoff or rainfall excess (mm water),

Rday is rainfall depth for the day (mm water),

I a is an initial abstraction which includes surface storage, interception and infiltration

prior to runoff (mm water),

S is a holding /retention/ parameter (mm water).

37
The holding parameter varies spatially due to changes in soils, land use, management and
slope and temporally due to changes in soil water content. It is mathematically expressed as:

S=25.4 ( 100
CN
−10 ) -------------------------------------------------------- Equation (5)

Where: CN is the curve number for the day. CN is a function of land use, practice, soil
permeability, soil hydrologic group. . The initial abstraction, Ia, is commonly approximated as
0.2S and the equation becomes:

2
( Rday −0.2 s )
Qsurf = -------------------------------------------------------- Equation (6)
( R day +0.8 S )

Runoff will only occur when Rday > Ia Curve number is based on the soils and land uses in
the watershed.

5.7.3. Potential Evapotranspiration

Evapotranspiration is a collective term that includes all processes by which water in the liquid
or solid phase at or near the earth’s surface becomes water vapor(Neitsch et al., 2005).
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is defined as the rate at which evapotranspiration would
occur from a short green crop, completely shading the ground, of uniform height and never
short of water(Penman, 1956) such as grass or alfalfa which is 0.5m in height.

SWAT incorporates three models for estimating PET: the Penman-Monteith model(Monteith,
1965; (Allen, 1986; Allen et al., 1989). Priestley-Taylor method(Priestley and Taylor, 1972)
and Hargreaves model(Hargreaves and Samani, 1985). These methods vary in the amount of
required inputs. The penman-Monteith method requires solar radiation, air temperature,
relative humidity and wind speed. The priestly-Taylor method requires solar radiation, air
temperature and relative humidity. The Hargreaves method requires only air temperature.

Since the collected weather data contains a limited amount of solar radiation, relative
humidity and wind speed data, the Hargreaves method(Hargreaves and Samani, 1985) is
chosen to calculate the potential evapotranspiration. This method is expressed as:

λ E o=0.0023 . H o . ( T mx −T mn ) 0.5 ( T́ av +17.8 ) Equation(7)

38
Where:

λ is the latent heat of vaporization (MJKg-1)

Eo is the potential evapotranspiration (mmd -1)

H o is the extra – terrestrial radiation (Mjm-2d-1)

T m x is the maximum air temperature for a given day(0C)

T mn is the minimum air temperature for a given day(0C)

T́ av is the mean air temperature for a given day (0C)

5.8. SWAT Model Input

ArcSWAT breaks the hydrologic modeling process into four main steps: Watershed
Delineation, Hydrologic Response Unit (HRU) Analysis, Weather Data Definition and
SWAT simulation including sensitivity analysis and calibration.

5.8.1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

The digital elevation model (DEM) is the basic and the initial input data which is used when
modeling with ArcSWAT. It is a geospatial data used by the ArcSWAT to describe the
location and elevation of points, to delineate the boundary of the watershed, to define the
slope of the surface and its length, and to define the steam network of the catchment.

Jemma sub-basin was delineated using a DEM with spatial resolution of 30*30 that was
obtained from Ethiopian Mapping Agency. In order to have a reasonable number of sub
watersheds, different threshold values were tried and the sub-basin is finally delineated into
73 sub-watersheds. Robi Gumoro gauging station is manually added.

5.8.2. Soil Data

39
The soil data of the watershed is one of the required input data for a SWAT model. The soil
input data comprises of the shape file of the Jemma sub-basin with the soil classification,
location and area covered by each type. The shape file with the soil and other information
was downloaded from FAO_UNESCO global soil map (url:
http://www.fao.org/nr/land/soil/digital soil map of the world/eu/). The file was arranged in
ArcSWAT input format (Figure 16 and Table 4).

Figure 16: Soil map of Jemma sub-basin

Table 4: FAO soil classification of Jemma sub-basin

S.No Area share(%) SWAT-Code

1 53.33 Be9-3c-26
2 0.07 Qc10-1c-167
3 8.81 Be48-3c-18

40
4 18.11 Qc2-1bc-176
5 7.55 Ne13-3b-158
6 11.78 Vp14-3a-286
7 0.35 Ne10-3b-154

41
5.8.3. Weather Data
As described in chapter three of the same document, the available weather data was examined
and analyzed to make reasonable decisions on how to use it as SWAT input.

Five stations with reasonable data quality were selected. In addition to the quality of data,
proximity was considered as a parameter while choosing the stations. These stations are
Alem Ketema, Debrebirhan, Gohatsion, Mehal Meda and Sheno.

The missed data from precipitation and temperature were generated by the SWAT weather
generator using the weather generator input file prepared for Ethiopia National grid.
Likewise, the weather generator was used to generate humidity, sunshine hours and wind
speed data.

5.8.4. Hydrological Data

Measured hydrological data from gauged stations is used for calibration and validation in
SWAT modeling. Eleven gauging stations are found within the Jemma sub-basin according
to the hydrological data of Abay basin obtained from Basin Research Department of the
Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR). The river flow data collected in softcopy from the
same institute however contains data with acceptable quality only for Beressa and Robi
Gumero stations. For this study, Robi Gumero whose streamflow data is visualized in Figure
17 is considered due to its location and the area it covers.

Figure 17: Daily discharge record of hydrological data at the outlets of Robi Gumero
Watershed (1990- 2009-2008)

42
43
5.9. Model Setup

The model setup consists of five steps: watershed delineation, sub-basin delineation, HRU
definition, parameter sensitivity analysis, and calibration and validation (Setegn et al., 2008).

5.9.1. Watershed Delineation

Watershed delineation is the primary step in creating the SWAT model. By delineating the
watershed, the model defines the boundary of the watershed where all the area included in the
boundary drains to the outlet. The SWAT model in this work used A 30m by 30m DEM to
delineate the boundary and the overall topographic condition of the watershed.

After delineating the watershed boundary and defining the flow direction, SWAT created the
streams and outlet with the default threshold. With the default threshold, the SWAT model
divides the Jemma sub-basin into 27 sub watersheds. In order to have better resolution, the
default threshold is substituted by lower value and the number of the sub watersheds was
increased to 73. Since it is possible to define outlets and inlet of predefined points, the
Robigumoro gauging station was manually added as an outlet point to the Robi-Guomoro
watershed. Then, SWAT delineated the sub watersheds and calculated the sub watershed
parameters.

At this stage, the Jemma sub-basin is divided into 73 watersheds. Once the delineation is
finished, a detailed report (topographic report) is added to the project and several layers will
be added to the current map, including: basin, watershed, reach, outlet, and monitoring point.

44
The layers added to the map contain the parameters of the watershed(s)
characterization(Neitsch et al., 2005).

5.9.2. Hydrologic Response Unit Definition

As discussed earlier, surface runoff is a hydraulic response of a watershed which depends on

many processes and parameters. The hydraulic response of watershed for a given
precipitation depends on several factors. Land use/cover, soil type, and slope are among the
major factors. In order to have better simulated result from the model, SWAT divides the
watershed into sub watersheds. However, a watershed does not have a homogeneous soil or
land cover or slope most of the time. To accommodate this in the modeling process and have
a result with better accuracy, SWAT employs a strategy in which the sub watersheds are
further divided into smaller plots of land with homogeneous soil, land cover and slope. This
smaller unit is Hydrologic Response Unit (HRU). The Hydrologic Response Unit is the
smallest area or unit which has a unique value of slope/land use/soil type and responds in a
unique way.

In order to define HRUs, SWAT needs an input data with defined format that would be
loaded manually or automatically. The pre-classified land use land/cover and soil map
together with a lookup table need to be prepared and uploaded to the SWAT model. The
model will reclassify and partition the sub watersheds into smaller plots by categorizing
homogenous plots into the same category.

Using the LULC/soil map and slope input data, SWAT further partitioned the 73 watersheds
of Jemma sub-basin into 659 HRUs.

45
5.9.3. Writing Input Tables for SWAT

Once the HRUs are defined, it is necessary to provide weather input data to the SWAT
model. Weather data consists of time series data of precipitation, temperature (maximum and
minimum), wind speed, sunshine hours and relative humidity. Weather data is collected from
the ground station where the data has been recorded as per the time scale specified. The
Jemma sub-basin, like many of the sub-basins in Ethiopia has a limited number of ground
stations.

Weather data from five selected stations was rearranged into a format suitable for SWAT. To
fill the gap of missed data in the precipitation and temperature data as well as to generate
other scarce data components such as relative humidity, wind speed and sunshine hours, the
Weather Generator module of ArcSWAT based on weather generator input file prepared for
national grid in Ethiopia was used.

Finally, the SWAT Input Tables command opens up an interface to manage the creation of
ArcSWAT geodatabase tables that store values for SWAT input parameters.

5.9.4. SWAT Simulation

46
After uploading the input data and creating the geodatabase, the model is ready to run. Except
for the following parameters, most of the parameters remain the default, and the simulation
was made to run.

 Date range: between 1979 and 2016 including a two years warm up period
 Printout setting: monthly
 Rainfall distribution: skewed normal distribution
 PET computation method: Hargreaves method
 Channel water routing: Variable storage method

After running, the SWAT output was imported into an Access database and saved in the
Scenario folder. Stream output data is normally stored in the 7th column of the Access table.
The output flow of any of the 73 sub-basins can be extracted for the entire simulation cycle.
You can extract the initial simulation result of the outlet point from the seventh column, and
compare the result with the observation data to understand the trend of the simulated data and
the observed data. All model output data was stored in the Textinout folder in the Scenario
folder.

5.9.5. SWAT Sensitivity Analysis

Streamflow of a watershed is dependent on various variables and processes that exist in the
hydrologic cycle of the watershed. The hydrologic response, the stream flow in the case of
this study, in watershed depends on the process that undergoes in that particular watershed
and on the parameters that affects the process. It is important to carry out sensitivity analysis
before calibration to identify parameters that will be applied to calibrate the model.
Sensitivity analysis is a process to analyze or observe the effect of a change in the value of a
certain parameter on the output of a watershed. Parameters which affect the flow output and
the level of their effect are determined through sensitivity analysis.

47
A set of twenty six parameters that affect the flow generation in great deal were selected
based on studies undertaken for different locations within the Upper Blue Nile(Begashaw,
2016; Worku et al., 2021; Sultana, 2019). However, a parameter which is sensitive for a
certain watershed may not have the same level of effect in another watershed.
The 12 parameters most sensitive to the Jemma watershed are determined based on the p-test
and t-test among the 26 parameters. A t-test determines the relative significance of each parameter
and ranks the parameter based on the absolute values (i.e. larger the absolute values, more
sensitive the parameter is) whereas p-test determines the sensitivity of the parameter (i.e.
value closes to zero has more significance (van Griensven et al., 2012). The most sensitive
parameters are shown below in Table 5.

Table 5: The most sensitive parameters obtained from sensitivity analysis

Min Max
Rank Parameter Parameter description File Value Value

1 CN2 Curve number *.mgt -0.25 0.25

Base-flow alpha factor

2 ALPHA_BF (days) *.gw 0 1

Threshold water depth in

the shallow aquifer
required for return flow to
3 GWQMN occur (mm) *.gw 0 5000

4 GW_DELAY Groundwater delay (days). *.gw 0 500

5 SOL_BD(..) Moist bulk density. *.sol 0.9 2.5

Saturated hydraulic
6 SOL_K(..). conductivity *.sol 0 2000

48
 7 HRU_SLP Average slope steepness *.sol 0 1

Soil evaporation
8 ESCO compensation factor *.hru 0 1

Available water capacity

9 SOL_AWC(..) of the soil (mm) *.sol 0 1

Manning’s “n” value for

10 OV_N overland flow *.hru 0.01 30

Groundwater revap
11 GW_REVAP coefficient *.gw 0 500

12 SLSUBBSN Average slope length *.hru 10 150

5.9.6. Model Calibration and Validation

Calibration of a steamflow model is a process of optimization of the simulated output with

the observed value of the same streamflow in time series. The optimization is done by
varying the input parameters value within the given maximum and minimum value. Model
validation is testing of calibrated model results with independent data set without any further
adjustment(Neitsch et al., 2012) .

The model calibration and validation was done on the Robi Gumero watershed for which an
observed data of the period 1990 to 2008 is available. The model calibration was done for the
period from 1990 to 2002. The validation of the model was done for the period 2003 to 2008
keeping all the parameters the same as the calibration of the model.

49
Calibration of the model parameters is done using the SWATCUP with SUFI-2 algorithm
using monthly streamflow data. Thirteen parameters were selected out of twenty six after a
sensitivity test. The model was also validated on the same watershed. The validation was
done with the observed data from 2003 to 2008 keeping all the parameters for the calibration
the same.

5.9.7. Model Performance Evaluation

Modeling of a streamflow is a process of simulating the natural flow through a computational

method. There are several statistical indicators to measure the goodness-fit of a SWAT
model. In this study, three statistical indicators Nash-Sutcliffe model Efficiency (NSE),
coefficient of determination (R2 ) and percent of bias error (PBIAS) are used.

5.9.7.1. The Nash-Sutcliffe Model Efficiency (NSE)

Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient measures the efficiency of the model by relating the goodness-of-
fit of the model to the variance of the measured data (Equation 8), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies
can range from −∞ to 1. An efficiency of 1 corresponds to a perfect match of simulated
discharge to the observed data. An efficiency of 0 indicates that the model predictions are as
accurate as of the mean of the observed data, whereas an efficiency less than zero (−∞ < NSE
< 0) occurs when the observed mean is a better predictor than the model.

-----------------------------------------------Equation (8)

Where:

𝑄𝑚 is the measured discharge,

𝑄𝑠 is the simulated discharge, and

50
 𝑄̅𝑚 is the average measured discharge.

5.9.7.2. The Coefficient of Determination (R2 )

R2 describes the proportion of the variance in measured data by the model. It is the magnitude
linear relationship between the observed and the simulated values. R 2 ranges from 0 (which
indicates the model is poor) to 1 (which indicates the model is good), with higher values
indicating less error variance, and typical values greater than 0.6 are considered acceptable
.The R2 coefficient is calculated using the following equation (Equation 9):

--------------------------------------- Equation (9)

Where:

Si – simulated value,

Sav – average simulated value,

Oi – observed value, and

Oav – average observed value.

5.9.7.3. The Percent of Bias Error (PBIAS)

PBIAS is used to estimate the model error as stated in Equation 3.30.It measures the average tendency
of the simulated data to be larger or smaller than the observations. The optimum value is zero, where
low magnitude values indicate better simulations. Positive values indicate model underestimation and
negative values indicate model overestimation and given as;

51
 ----------------------------------------- Equation (10)

Where:

𝑂𝑖 denotes the observed value at the month j,

𝑆𝑖 is the simulated value

52
 CHAPTER SIX
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Evaluation of Land Use/ Land Cover
The land use/land cover of the sub basin analysis is based on three land use/cover maps
extracted from the national land use/cover maps developed by Water and Land Resources
Center (WLRC), Addis Ababa University.

6.1.1. Land Use/ Land Cover of 1986

The land use/cover map of the Jemma sub-basin (Figure 18) suggests that 51.69% of the area
is dominantly covered with agriculture. Grass land is the second biggest component which
covers 17.36% of the total area. Bush/shrubs, forest, barren land and settlement cover
15.07%, 9.51%, 5.71 and 0.26 % of the total area of the sub-basin respectively.

Table 6: LULC Area Coverage (Jemma – 1986)

% of total
Land cover
area

Forest cover 9.51%

Barren 5.71%

Settlement 0.26%

Grass land 17.36%

Bush/shrubs 15.07%

Agriculture 51.69%

Water 0.01%

Wet land 0.12%

53
 Figure 18: LULC Map (Jemma - 1986)

6.1.2. Land Use/Land Cover of 2010

It is observed from the 2010 land use/cover map of the Jemma sub-basin (Figure 19) that
57.1% of the area is covered with agriculture. Grass land is the second biggest coverage
which covers 13.85 % of the total area. Bush/shrubs, forest, barren land and settlement
cover .9 %, 7.31%, 11.99 and 0.32 % of the total area of the sub-basin respectively.

54
Table 7 : LULC Area Coverage (Jemma – 2010)

% of total
Land cover
area

Forest cover 7.31%

Barren 11.99%

Settlement 0.32%

Grass land 13.85%

Bush/shrubs 6.69%

Agriculture 57.10%

Water 0.01%

Wet land 2.73%

55
 Figure 19: LULC Map (Jemma - 2010)

6.1.3. Land Use/ Land Cover of 2016

As illustrated in Figure 20, more than half of the area (55.94%) was covered by agriculture.
Grass land which covers 14.17 % is the second largest portion. Bush/shrubs covers 7.15 % of
the total area of the sub basin. Forest, Barren land and settlement covers 10.55 %, 11.75 and
0.42 % of the total area of the sub-basin respectively.

Table 8: LULC Area Coverage (Jemma – 2016)

% of total
Land cover
area

56
Forest cover 10.55%

Barren 11.75%

Settlement 0.42%

Grass land 14.17%

Bush/shrubs 7.15%

Agriculture 55.94%

Water 0.01%

Wet land 0.00%

57
 Figure 20: LULC Map (Jemma - 2016)

6.2 Detection of Land Degradation in Period (1986 – 2010)

6.2.1. Land Use Land Cover Change in Period (1986 – 2010)
Comparing the maps of 1986 and 2010 reveals the fact that there is an evident coverage
change which results from human activity particularly deforestation following the regime
change.

During this period, the share of the agricultural coverage rose from 51.687% to 57.1% and
the share of the forest coverage fell from 9.506 % to 7.31% (Figure 21). Barren land coverage
was increased from 5.708% to 11.99% while settlement was increased from 0.23% to 0.32%.

58
Then again, the grassland and bush/shrubs coverage dropped from 17.35 % to 13.85% and
from 15.06 % to 6.691% respectively (Figure 22).

Agricultural land (1986) Agricultural land (2010)

Figure 21: Agricultural Land Coverage

Bush Land (1986) Bush Land (2010)

Figure 22: Bush/Shrubs Land Coverage

59
 Table 9: LULC change transition matrix(1986-2010)
LULC in Area LULC in 2010 ( km2)
1986 (km2) Forest Agri. Barren Grass Bush Settlement
Forest 1421.9 395 423.99 131.47 135.71 313.92 13.52
Agri. 7979.0 210.97 6809.40 267.526 442.604 156.056 6.127922
Barren 846.01 32.58 205.178 470.99 93.793 36.6506 0.163091
Grass 2562.47 76.85 870.56 297.732 1031.02 50.8761 1.506591
Bush/Shrub 2267.59 359.19 482.769 645 322 436.18 0
Note: The bold numbers indicate the total area of the unchanged proportion of the specific
class.
Part of the grass land was changed into agricultural land at the flatter terrain (region) of the
sub-basin area (Abbichu_Genea, Qimmbibi and Angolelaterana weredas). See Table 9.

Bush/shrubs lands were mainly converted to barren land (Figure 22 and Table 9) particularly
in the valley of the tributaries of the Jemma river sub-basin (Mafud, Mezezo, Mojana
Wadera, Mama Midir, Lalo Midir weredas).

The expansion of the farm land both to the higher and lower elevation zones as a result of the
continuous population growth and migration is noted(Wolde-Mariam, 1991). According to
the information obtained from the zone administration office, the major changes occurred
during the regime change (1991 -1993) and the agricultural land was mainly expanded in the
lower reaches of the Jemma river sub-basin at the expense of the forest, bush/shrubs and
grass land.(Table 9)

On the one hand, the increase of the agricultural land, barren land and settlement, on the other
hand, the decrease of the forest land, grass land and bush/shrubs affected the peak flow in the
wet season and the base flow in the dry season. The LULC change from 1986 to 2010 is
summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: Summary of LULC Change from 1986 to 2010

Land cover % of total area in 1986 % of total area in 2010 % change 1986 to 2010

Forest cover 9.51% 7.31% -23.13%

60
 Barren 5.71% 11.99% 109.98%

Settlement 0.26% 0.32% 23.08%

Grass land 17.36% 13.85% -20.22%

Bush/shrubs 15.07% 6.69% -55.61%

Agriculture 51.69% 57.10% 10.47%

Water 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%

6.2.2. Land Degradation Indicators in Period (1986 – 2010)

Land degradation could be viewed from multiple aspects and one of the elements of land
degradation is deforestation and reduced vegetation cover. These factors which are
considered as a result of increased population are stated to be the main causes of land
degradation in Ethiopia.

Based on this contextual definition, the following matrix of land transition was defined to
indicate land degradation. This matrix was adapted from the general guidelines of UNCCD
and modified in small extent in order to make it match the land classification scheme used in
this study (Table 11).

Table 11: Land Cover change matrix as indicator of land degradation

FINAL CLASS
ORIGINAL
Agriculture
CLASS Forest Barren Land Grass Land Bush/Shrubs Settlement
Land
Vegetation Vegetation
Forest STABLE Deforestation Deforestation Deforestation
Loss Loss
Reforestation/ Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
Bush/Shrub STABLE
Afforestation Loss Loss Loss Loss
Reforestation/ Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
Grass STABLE
Afforestation Loss Loss Gain Loss

The transitions in red indicate a worsening of land degradation while the green colored
transitions mark an improvement. The transitions are defined as follows:

a) Stable: No change

61
b) Afforestation: “establishment of forest on land that is considered to not have been
forest previously”(FAO, 2008)
c) Reforestation: “planting of forest on land that was forest but has been out of forest
cover for a certain duration”(FAO, 2008).
d) Deforestation: “change in land cover from forest (plantation or natural forest) to non-
forest”(FAO, 2008).
e) Vegetation Loss: a tendency of decrease in vegetation covers considering its
prolonged stay throughout the year.
f) Vegetation Gain: a tendency of increase in vegetation cover considering its long-term
stay throughout the year.

62
 Table 12: LULC net change (gain-loss) matrix (1986 – 2010)
LULC in Area LULC in 2010 ( km2)
1986 (km2) Forest Agri. Barren Grass Bush Settlement
Forest 1421.9 -213.02 -98.89 -58.86 +45.27 -11.85
Agri. 7979.0 +213.02 -62.35 +427.96 +326.71 -6.128
Barren 846.01 +98.89 +62.35 +203.94 +608.35 -0.16
Grass 2562.47 +58.86 -427.96 -203.94 +271.12 -1.51
Bush/Shrub 2267.59 -45.27 -326.71 -608.35 -271.12 0
Note: Negative values show a reduction in net effect of the original class in the expense of
the final class. Cells of the table are filled with red and blue color by overlapping this matrix
with land degradation indicator matrix in Table 11. Red cells indicate worsening of land
degradation, and green cells show improvement of land degradation.

The net change (gain – loss) as presented in Table 12 shows that forest class loses to
agriculture, barren, grass and settlement and it gains from bush/shrubs land. However, what it
gains from bush (45.27km2) does not make up for what it loses (382.62 km2 in total),
resulting in reduction in forests. On the other hand, agriculture gains from forest cover, grass
and bush/shrubs while it loses to barren land. According to the land degradation indicator
matrix (Table 11), this will lead to a reduction in vegetation cover, which leads to land
degradation. Grass class loses to agriculture and barren while it gains from forest and bush.
Bush/shrubs loses to all classes and barren class gains from all of them.

The deterioration of land degradation from 1986 to 2010 can be seen in the significant
deforestation and vegetation loss (Table 12). Therefore, according to the LULC change sub-
indicator introduced by UNCCD, a conclusion can be drawn that land degradation has
worsened during this period.

6.3 Land Use/Land Cover Change in Period (2010 – 2016)

6.3.1. Land Use Land Cover Change in Period (2010 – 2016)
The grass land is reinstated particularly in the south western part of the Jemma sub-basin
where the land is flat. The coverage rose from 13.85% (2010) to 14.17% (2016). See Figure
23.

63
 Grass Land 2010 Grass Land 2016

Figure 23: Grass Land Coverage

Agricultural land coverage is decreased from 57.1% to 55.94%. On the contrary, forest
coverage is increased from 7.31% to 10.55%. The reversing process namely the rehabilitation
program had a significant impact and the re-covered area superseded the original coverage
rate in 1986 which was only 9.51%.

Bush/shrubs land coverage rate is likewise improved to 7.15% from 6.69% while barren land
coverage is reduced to 11.75% from 11.99%. This indicates the positive impact of
rehabilitation program on bush/shrubs and barren cover.

The positive change on the forest cover and other related land use types indicate there was an
impact full rehabilitation program with reforestation and closure of degraded area in the sub
basin. It results in the reinstatement of the land use/land cover that can be seen from the map
of 2016 as compared to 2010.

The summary of LULC change among the classes is illustrated in Table 13.

64
 Table 13 : Summary of LULC Change from 2010 to 2016

Land cover % of total area in 2010 % of total area in 2016 % change 2010 to 2016

Forest cover 7.31% 10.55% 44.32%

Barren 11.99% 11.75% -2.00%

Settlement 0.32% 0.42% 31.25%

Grass land 13.85% 14.17% 2.31%

Bush/shrubs 6.69% 7.15% 6.88%

Agriculture 57.10% 55.94% -2.03%

Water 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%

6.3.2. Land Restoration in Period (2010 – 2016)

To examine the status of land degradation between 2010 and 2016, the class change
conversion matrix and the net change are computed and presented in Table 14 and Table 15
respectively.

Table 14: LULC Change transition matrix (2010-2016)

LULC in Area LULC in 2016 ( km2)
2010 (km2) Forest Agri. Barren Grass Bush Settlement
Forest 1087.88 644.67 188 106.36 42.98 87.66 6.78
Agri. 8923.57 324.45 7409.80 327.77 507.36 227.78 6.91
Barren 1819.07 147.14 305.82 1110.17 118.515 131.017 0.84
Grass 2061.06 95.64 452.89 140.59 1147.84 203.23 1.10
Bush/Shrub 1001.54 306.99 175.41 112.03 42.24 357.16 0.38

The net change matrix is overlapped with the land degradation indicator matrix in Table 11 to
assess the status of the land degradation.

Table 15: LULC net change (gain-loss) matrix (2010 – 2016)

65
 LULC in Area LULC in 2016 ( km2)
2010 (km2) Forest Agri. Barren Grass Bush Settlement
Forest 1087.88 +136.45 +40.78 +52.66 +219.33 -2.89
Agri. 8923.57 -136.45 -21.95 -54.47 -52.37 -5.24
Barren 1819.07 -40.777 +21.95 +22.08 -18.98 -0.71
Grass 2061.06 -52.66 +54.47 -22.08 -160.99 -0.27
Bush/Shrub 1001.54 -219.33 +52.37 +18.98 +160.99 -0.20
Note: Red color indicates worsening land degradation and green color represents an
improvement.
Forest class gains from agriculture, barren, grass and bush and loses to settlement in very
small amount as compared to what it gains from the other classes. On the other hand,
agriculture loses to all classes while barren loses to forest and bush but gains from
agricultural land and grass. Bush/shrubs loses to forest and gains from agriculture, barren and
grass, both of which are indicators of vegetation cover gain.

The positive change on the forest cover and other related land use types indicate there was an
impact full rehabilitation program with reforestation and closure of degraded area in the sub
basin. It results in the reinstatement of the land use/land cover that can be seen from the map
of 2016 as compared to 2010. The positive net effects on forest cover, and bush cover and the
negative effect on agriculture indicate the improvement of the land degradation (land
restoration).

The rehabilitation program, increased the percentage of forest, bush/shrub, and grassland
coverage, and reduced the percentage of agricultural land and barren land.

6.4 Land Use/Land Cover Analysis Summary

The summary of the analysis in sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 is presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Summary of LULC Change (From 1986 to 2010 and From 2010 to 2016)

% of % of % of %
% of % change
total total total change
Land cover total area 1986 to
area in area in area in 2010 to
in 1986 2010
2010 2010 2016 2016

Forest cover 9.51% 7.31% -23.13% 7.31% 10.55% 44.32%

66
 Barren 5.71% 11.99% 109.98% 11.99% 11.75% -2.00%

Settlement 0.26% 0.32% 23.08% 0.32% 0.42% 31.25%

Grass land 17.36% 13.85% -20.22% 13.85% 14.17% 2.31%

Bush/shrubs 15.07% 6.69% -55.61% 6.69% 7.15% 6.88%

Agriculture 51.69% 57.10% 10.47% 57.10% 55.94% -2.03%

Water 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%

Similarly, Land use/land cover maps of the years 1986, 2010 and 2016 are shown in Table 17
to show the LULC change.

67
 Table 17 : Jemma sub-basin maps showing LULC
1986 2010 2016

Agricultural
Land

Bush Land

Grass Land

Forest Land

Barren Land

68
6.5 Hydrological Modeling Results
6.5.1. Sensitivity Analysis Result
The input parameters in the SWAT model are variables that affect a process in the hydrologic
system of a watershed. There are multiple processes in a given watershed. These processes
are represented by parameters. Referring to previous works and literatures, it is found that
there are 26 parameters which affect runoff.

After having the simulated stream flow using SWAT model, sensitivity analysis was
performed for the 26 parameters using SWAT-CUP with the application of SUF_2.Then, the
range of the sensitivity of the parameters was determined using Global Sensitivity Analysis.
Twelve parameters were considered for the calibration as per the order of their sensitivity as
shown in Table 18.

Table 18: The most sensitive parameters obtained from sensitivity analysis

Min Max
Rank Parameter Parameter description File Value Value

1 CN2 Curve number *.mgt -0.25 0.25

Base-flow alpha factor

2 ALPHA_BF (days) *.gw 0 1

Threshold water depth in the

shallow aquifer required for
3 GWQMN.gw return flow to occur (mm) *.gw 0 5000

4 GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days). *.gw 0 500

5 SOL_BD(..).sol Moist bulk density. *.sol 0.9 2.5

Saturated hydraulic
6 SOL_K(..).sol conductivity *.sol 0 2000

69
 7 HRU_SLP.hru Average slope steepness *.sol 0 1

Soil evaporation
8 ESCO.hru compensation factor *.hru 0 1

Available water capacity of

9 SOL_AWC(..).sol the soil (mm) *.sol 0 1

Manning’s “n” value for

10 OV_N.hru overland flow *.hru 0.01 30

Groundwater revap
11 GW_REVAP.gw coefficient *.gw 0 500

12 SLSUBBSN.hru Average slope length *.hru 10 150

6.5.2. Calibration Result

The model was set out and calibrated with an observed data from Robi GumeroRiver, which
is a sub watershed of the Jemma River. The data covers from 1990 to 2002 (Figure 24).

The hydrograph of the observed and simulated flow have the objective functions with the
value 0.64 for R2, 0.56 for NSE and -19 for PBIAS and all are in the acceptable limit.
Streamflow ( m3/s)

70
Figure 24: Monthly observed and simulated streamflow in m3 /s for the calibrated months on
Robi Gumero.

6.5.3. Model Validation

Validation is a method of checking and evaluating the degree of certainty of the model and it
is done using an independent set of observed data. Under this study, the validation is done
using the data from Robi Gumero Watershed in the period of 2003 to 2008. The final result of
validation is presented in Figure 25.

71
 Streamflow (m3/s)

Figure 25: Monthly observed and simulated stream flow in m3 /s for the validated months on
Robi Gumero

The values of coefficient of determinations (R2), the Nash-Sutcliffe simulation efficiency

(ENS) and PBIAS became 0.59, 0.55 and 4.3 respectively after the validation (Table 19).

Table 19 : Values of R2, NSE and PBIS

R2 NSE PBIS Period
Calibration 0.64 0.56 -19 1900- 2002
Validation 0.59 0.55 4.3 2003-2007

72
6.6 Effect of LULC Change on Characteristics of Streamflow

Simulation of the stream flow was done for the Jemma River with a calibrated and validated
SWAT model, specifically the annual peak flow and the annual minimum flow (the base
flow) were observed and analyzed while all parameters were kept constant.

The result of the simulation for the period from 1986 to 2015 with the three different LULC
of 1986, 2010 and 2016 is presented in graphs shown in Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28
respectively. It was observed that the response of the streamflow (the peak and the
minimum/baseflow/) is different for each of the years.

Figure 26 : Simulated flow for the period 1986 to 2015 (two years warm-up period) using the
1986 LULC

73
Figure 27: Simulated flow for the period 1986 to 2015 (two years warm-up period) using the
2010 LULC

Figure 28: Simulated flow for the period 1986 to 2015 (two years warm-up period) using the
2016 LULC

6.6.1. Change in Annual Peak Flow (Degradation)

To understand how the LULC change affects the annual peak flow, the maximum discharge
for each of the three LULC (1986, 2010 and 2016) simulations was computed. This is done
by picking the maximum value among the maximum of each year in the period 1988-2015
for each LULC simulation. Table 20 and Table 21 show the annual peak flow values for each
year in the range 1988-2015 and the maximum peak flow of the whole range for 1986, 2010
and 2016 LULC respectively.

Table 20: Annual peak flow (Range 1988 – 2015)

Max Max Max
Year of of of
1998 928.70 992.70 969.40
1986 2010 2016
1988 581.90 852.53 748.10 1999 1231.45 1196.41 905.30

1989 780.40 923.60 629.10 2000 782.90 997.30 712.70

1990 758.10 831.24 728.10 2001 1006.00 1166.39 766.40

1991 923.40 1298.05 562.30 2002 860.70 902.14 695.70

1992 769.10 1167.40 488.50 2003 476.10 750.75 701.50

1993 592.80 610.10 478.70 2004 750.00 834.30 662.10

1994 725.80 978.14 781.70 2005 619.10 713.80 760.30

1995 745.90 732.70 517.50 2006 930.50 1174.63 1225.97

1996 701.70 796.79 603.45 2007 880.10 1320.00 779.90

1997 601.60 1019.04 731.00 2008 740.10 887.90 998.50

74
 2009 873.90 948.23 853.90

2010 737.20 1013.00 422.60

2011 872.30 1346.21 953.60

2012 806.30 1346.21 904.80

2013 743.20 969.49 848.60

2014 761.90 970.47 599.20

2015 484.20 597.41 720.60

Max FLOW 1231.45 1346.21 1225.97

Table 21: Maximum of annual peak flow
(LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016)
Year
1986 2010 2016
(LULC)
Streamflow 1231.45 1346.20 1225.97
(m3/s)

The graph in Figure 29 shows the trend of the maximum yearly flow for the three LULC
(1986, 2010 and 2016). A flow duration curve was also prepared and shown in Figure 30.

Figure 29: Annual maximum (peak) flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016

75
 Figure 30: High Flow duration curve for High flow (Annual max flow) condition
The high flow conditions with the 2010 LULC are higher than both of the other years,
according to the annual peak flow graph (Figure 29) and flow duration curve (Figure 30),
indicating that land use changes from 1986 to 2010 result in land degradation. As a result,
river flow conditions are becoming increasingly high. The high flow curve of 2016 is, on the
other hand, the lowest of all. This is a clear indication that the rehabilitation work in the basin
brings about changes in the flow conditions of the basin by reducing the high flows of the
rivers.

6.6.2. Change in Base flow

The change in base flow as a result of the LULC change is also analyzed. The analysis is
done by first computing the minimum annual flow (also called the base flow) for each year of
the range 1986 – 2015 from the three LULC simulations. Then, the minimum of the range
1986 – 2015 for each simulation is determined. The results of these processes are listed in
Table 22 and Table 23.
Table 22: Annual minimum flow (Range 1988 – 2015)

Min of Min of Min of 1992 5.367 3.740 4.198

Year
1986 2010 2016
1988 2.980 1.932 3.667 1993 2.829 1.630 2.587

1989 9.713 1.491 5.296 1994 2.364 1.487 2.389

1990 4.880 1.323 2.205 1995 5.518 1.720 8.140

1991 3.823 1.211 2.508 1996 12.730 3.186 9.231

76
 1997 5.971 1.837 12.070

1998 6.511 3.574 7.721

1999 8.180 1.283 2.011

Table 23: Maximum of annual base flow
2000 11.035 1.617 3.849 (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016)
Year
2001 13.090 2.669 8.023 1986 2010 2016
(LULC)
2002 5.852 1.005 3.131 Streamflow 13.09 7.37 16.75
(m3/s)
2003 5.181 1.435 9.595

2004 5.059 1.312 2.431

2005 9.291 2.972 3.311

2006 11.045 4.415 16.750

2007 5.010 2.341 2.875

2008 5.214 1.429 4.899

2009 2.211 1.200 2.225

2010 4.900 3.810 6.385

2011 5.324 2.605 6.679

2012 12.440 1.722 2.744

2013 6.351 4.510 12.802

2014 10.500 7.370 14.166

2015 2.963 1.609 3.858

MAX Base
Flow 13.09 7.37 16.75

77
A graph showing the trend of the minimum flow and the flow duration curve are shown in
Figure 31 and Figure 32.

Figure 31 : Annual minimum flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016

Figure 32 : Low flow duration curve with different land use conditions

As indicated in Figure 31 and Figure 32, the annual low flow duration curve of the three land
use conditions clearly indicates that the base flow at 2010 becomes the lowest in whole time,
while the base flow in the year 1986 and 2016 interchangeable above and lower each other.
If we compare it with the percentage of the forest covers in these years, the forest cover at
2010 is very low, which describe clearly the flow conditions. Whenever the forest cover
decreases in a given basin, the base flow of the river also decreases radically. It is one of the
clear indications of land degradation in the base up to the year 2010. The changes after the
year 2010 show that the base flow conditions improved, which indicates recover of the forest

78
cover in the basin. It signifies the benefits of the afforestation programs the Ethiopian
government is undertaking.

79
 CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1. Conclusion
Quantifying and understanding the relationship between LULC change and streamflow
characteristics helps not only to relate the two mentioned factors but also to indirectly relate
land degradation/rehabilitation to the flow characteristics of the watershed. This is justified
by the fact that LULC change is one of the acceptable indicators of degradation or the
opposite(UNCCD, 2016). It also helps as an input to formulate policies that prevent land
degradation and to move forward with land rehabilitation practices such as the ongoing, green
Ethiopia government initiatives.

LULC changes of Jemma sub-basin between 1986-2010 and 2010-2016 was analyzed as an
indicator of land degradation/rehabilitation. Then, SWAT model was run to simulate the
stream flow of Jemma sub-basin with the 1986, 2010 and 2016 LULC for the entire study
period.

From the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

 During the first period 1986 to 2010, the grassland, forest land and bush/shrubs
coverage was reduced by 20.22%, 23.13% and 55.61% respectively while the
coverage of agricultural and barren land was increased by 10.47% and 109.98%
respectively. The conversion pattern indicated that reduction in forest and vegetation
cover was a result of agricultural land expansion and increase in barren land. Thus,
This could be marked as a period of land degradation.
 Between 2010 and 2016, an increase in the land cover of the forest, bushes/shrubs,
and grassland (44.32%, 6.88%, and 2.31%, respectively) and a decrease in
agricultural land and barren land (2.03% and 2.0% respectively) were observed. It
could be concluded that what was observed in this period is the exact opposite of what
happened during 1986-2010 period. Thus, this period can be identified as a
rehabilitation period for the forest and bush/shrubs.
 From 1986 to 2010 (when degradation was detected), the peak flow was increased by
12.96%, and the base flow decreased by 43.1%. On the contrary, the peak flow in
2010-2016 decreased by 20.13%, and the base flow increased by 60.66%. Thus, land

80
 degradation increases the peak flow and reduces the base flow. On the other hand,
rehabilitation increases the base flow and reduces the peak flow.

7.2. Recommendation
 It is recommended to put in more effort to establish more observation stations and
collect data with better quality and quantity to improve the efficiency and accuracy of
the model.
 Based on the result of this research, further analysis can be done by developing
different scenarios particularly regarding the forest cover and its location with respect
to the elevation and population settlement.

7.3. Limitation
 Other factors such as environmental changes, geology and soil type are not considered
when the impact of LULC change on streamflow was studied.

81
REFERENCES

Aduna, T., 2009. THE IMPACT OF LAND USE/ LAND COVER CHANGE ON
CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY OF LEGEDAD‐DIRE
CATCHMENTS. Addis Ababa University.
Akoko, G., Le, T.H., Gomi, T., Kato, T., 2021. A Review of SWAT Model Application in
Africa. Water 13, 1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091313
Alemu, B., 2015. The Effect of Land Use Land Cover Change on Land Degradation in the
Highlands of Ethiopia 14.
Allen, R.G., 1986. A Penman for all seasons. J. Irrig. and Drain Engng., ASCE 112(4): 348-
368.
Allen, R.G., M.E, J., J.L, W., R.D., B., 1989. Operational estimates of evapotranspiration.
Agron.J. 81: 650-662.
Amatya, D.M., Green, C., Saleh, A., Dai, Z., Youssef, M., Williams, R., Bosch, D.,
Chescheir, G.M., Sun, G., Skaggs, R.W., Trettin, C., Vance, E., Nettles, J., Tian, S.,
2013. Review of nitrogen fate models applicable to forest landscapes in the southern
U.S. Transactions of the ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers) 5656, 1731–1757. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.56.10096
Barnett, V., Lewis, T., 1994. Outliers in Statstical Data, 3rd Edition. ed. J. Wiley and Sons.
Begashaw, B.S., 2016. Catchment Hydrological Responses to Change in Land Use/Cover and
Management: A Case Study in Gado Catchment. Addis Ababa University.
Belihu, M., Tekleab, S., Abate, B., Bewket, W., 2020. Hydrologic response to land use land
cover change in the Upper Gidabo Watershed, Rift Valley Lakes Basin, Ethiopia.
HydroResearch 3, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydres.2020.07.001
Bewket, W., 2002. Land Cover Dynamics Since the 1950s in Chemoga Watershed, Blue Nile
Basin, Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development 22, 263–269.
https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0263:LCDSTI]2.0.CO;2
Bishaw, B., 2001. Deforestation and Land Degredation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A
Strategy for Physical Recovery. Northeast African Studies 8, 7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1353/nas.2005.0014
Buakhao, W., Kangrang, A., 2016. DEM Resolution Impact on the Estimation of the Physical
Characteristics of Watersheds by Using SWAT. Advances in Civil Engineering 10.

82
Devia, G.K., Ganasri, B.P., Dwarakish, G.S., 2015. A Review on Hydrological Models.
Aquatic Procedia 4, 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.126
Dinka, M.O., Chaka, D.D., 2019. Analysis of land use/land cover change in Adei watershed,
Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Water and Land Development 41, 146–153.
https://doi.org/10.2478/jwld-2019-0038
Eischeid, J., Baker, B., Karl, T.R., Diaz, H., 1995. The Quality Control of Long-Term
Climatological Data Using Objective Data Analysis. Journal of Applied Meteorology
34, 2787–2787. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0450(1995)034<2787:TQCOLT>2.0.CO;2
FAO, 2008. Proceedings: FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products, Forty-
ninth session. Bakubung, South Africa.
FAO, 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources.
Gessesse, B., Bewket, W., 2014. Drivers and Implications of Land Use and Land Cover
Change in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia: Evidence from Remote Sensing and
Socio-demographic Data Integration 23.
Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temprature.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 1: 96-99.
Hassan, Z., Shabbir, R., Ahmad, S.S., Malik, A.H., Aziz, N., Butt, A., Erum, S., 2016.
Dynamics of land use and land cover change (LULCC) using geospatial techniques: a
case study of Islamabad Pakistan. SpringerPlus 5, 812.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2414-z
Horning, N., 2004. Land cover classification methods. American Museum of Natural History,
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Version 1.0, 21.
Hurni, H., Tato, K., Zeleke, G., 2005. The Implications of Changes in Population, Land Use,
and Land Management for Surface Runoff in the Upper Nile Basin Area of Ethiopia.
Mountain Research and Development 25, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-
4741(2005)025[0147:TIOCIP]2.0.CO;2
Lez-Rouco, J.F.G., 2001. Quality Control and Homogeneity of Precipitation Data in the
Southwest of Europe. JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 14, 15.
Lu, D., Mausel, P., Brondízio, E., Moran, E., 2004. Change detection techniques.
International Journal of Remote Sensing 25, 2365–2401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000139863

83
M., W., R., S., M., D.L., J., A., 2013. ARCSWAT INTERFACE FOR SWAT2012, USER’S
GUIDE. BLACKLAND RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER TEXAS
AGRILIFE RESEARCH 720 EAST BLACKLAND ROAD - TEMPLE, TEXAS
76502 , GRASSLAND, SOIL AND WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY USDA
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE 808 EAST BLACKLAND ROAD -
TEMPLE, TEXAS 76502.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and the environment: In the state and movement of water
in livng organizms. XIXth Symposium. Soc for Exp. Biol., Swansea, Cambridge
University Press 205–234.
Moradkhani, H., Sorooshian, S., 2008. General Review of Rainfall-Runoff Modeling: Model
Calibration, Data Assimilation, and Uncertainty Analysis, in: Sorooshian, S., Hsu, K.-
L., Coppola, E., Tomassetti, B., Verdecchia, M., Visconti, G. (Eds.), Hydrological
Modelling and the Water Cycle, Water Science and Technology Library. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-
77843-1_1
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Srinivasan, R., Williams, J.R., Haney, E.B., 2012.
Input/Output Documentation. Texas Water Resources Institute.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., 2005. SOIL AND WATER
ASSESSMENT TOOL THEORETICAL DOCUMENTATION 494.
Olsson, L., H. Bhadwal, A. Cowie, K. Delusca, D. Flores-Renteria, K. Hermans, E. Jobbagy,
W. Kurz, D. Li, D.J. Sonwa, L. Stringer, Barbosa, S., 2009. Land Degradation. In:
Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas
fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-
Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van
Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal
Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].
Penman, H.L., 1956. Evaporation: An introductory survey. Netherland Journal of
Agricultural Science 4: 7-29.
Priestley, C.H.B., Taylor, R.J., 1972. On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation
using large scale parameters. Mon. Weather. Rev. 100: 81–92.

84
Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 1999. Estimating historical changes in global land cover:
Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027.
https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GB900046
Seleshi, Y., Zanke, U., 2004. Recent Changes in Rainfall and Rainy Days in Ethiopia.
International Journal of Climatology 24, 973–983. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1052
Sims, N.C., Newnham, G.J., England, J.R., Guerschman, J., Cox, S.J.D., Roxburgh, S.H.,
Viscarra Rossel, R.A., Fritz,, S. and Wheeler, 2021. Good Practice Guidance. SDG
Indicator 15.3.1, Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area.
Sultana, R., 2019. Application of SWAT Model for Estimating Runoff in Upper Nile River
Basin. EJEST. https://doi.org/10.33422/EJEST.2019.09.35
Trenberth, K., Paolino, D., 1980. The Northern Hemisphere Sea-Level Pressure Data Set:
Trends, Errors and Discontinuities. Monthly Weather Review 108, 855–872.
UNCCD, 2016. Framework and Guiding Principles for a Land Degradation Indicator 20.
V P Singh; Donald K Frevert, 2006. Watershed models. Taylor & Francis Group.
van Griensven, A., Ndomba, P., Yalew, S., Kilonzo, F., 2012. Critical review of SWAT
applications in the upper Nile basin countries. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 3371–3381.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3371-2012
Vaze, J., Jordan, P., Beecham, R., Frost, A., Summerell, G., 2012. Guidelines for rainfall-
runoff modelling: Towards best practice model application 47.
Viste, E., Sorteberg, A., 2013. Moisture transport into the Ethiopian highlands: MOISTURE
TRANSPORT INTO THE ETHIOPIAN HIGHLANDS. Int. J. Climatol. 33, 249–263.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3409
Wolde-Mariam, M., 1991. Suffering Under God’s Environment: A Vertical Study of the
Predicament of Peasants in North-Central Ethiopia. African Mountain Association
and Geographica Bernensia, Institute of Geography, University of Berne.
Worku, G., Teferi, E., Bantider, A., Dile, Y.T., 2021. Modelling hydrological processes under
climate change scenarios in the Jemma sub-basin of upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
Climate Risk Management 31, 100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100272
Xu, C., 2002. Textbook of Hydrologic Models. Uppsala University, Sweden.
Yilma, A.D., Awulachew, S.B., 2009. Characterization and Atlas of the Blue Nile Basin and
its Sub basins. International Water Management Institute.

85
Zewdie, W., Csaplovics, E., 2016. Identifying Categorical Land Use Transition and Land
Degradation in Northwestern Drylands of Ethiopia. Remote Sensing 8, 408.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8050408

86
APPENDICES

Appendix I - Population density of Weredas in Jemma Sub-basin

% Increase
Population Populatio Area Density Density
Station from 1994 to
(1994) n (2016) (hectar) (1994) (2016)
2016
Gishe rabel 51,283 71,783 6,222.82 8.241113681 11.53543793 39.97426048
Jama 107,365 148,168 10,532.66 10.19352846 14.06747752 38.00400503
GERA MIDIRNA
133,542 141,294 15,091.50 8.848821012 9.362487577 5.804915308
KEYA GEBRIEL
WEREMO
73,809 110,770 7,861.07 9.389184622 14.09096425 50.07654893
WAJETUNA MIDA
Mama midirna -
104,113 100,676 8,821.45 11.80225072 11.41263236
lalo 3.301220789
MAFUD MEZEZO
-
MOJANA 135,978 81,929 6,729.39 20.20658633 12.17480336
39.74834164
WADERA
Dera 139,661 227,914 15,112.50 9.241423886 15.08115998 63.19086932
HIDABU ABOTE 64,809 105,191 4,734.72 13.68802357 22.216928 62.30924717
Degem 84,718 125,191 5,926.33 14.2951781 21.12452656 47.77379069
Jarso 89,410 179,136 12,545.55 7.126830968 14.27885015 100.353428
Wuchalena jido 102,382 123,284 10,327.56 9.913470398 11.93737458 20.41569807
berehna aleltu 121,081 67,619 3,295.28 36.74378914 20.51996827 -44.1539135
kembibit 77,967 95,930 6,185.29 12.60523969 15.50939043 23.03923455
ANGOLELATERAN
88,117 155,041 5,078.50 17.35100655 30.52892638 75.94902232
A ASAGIRT
Debre birhan 38,717 113,693 11,152.57 3.471576195 10.19433098 193.6513676
Abichuna gena 59,340 94,066 5,993.95 9.899985786 15.69349617 58.52039097
SIYADEBIRNA -
122,473 68,154 10,581.87 11.57385445 6.440639781
WAYU ENSARO 44.35181632
Moretna jiru 77,226 110,867 6,541.63 11.80530736 16.94790629 43.56175381

87
Appendix II – Maximum Annual peak flow (Range 1988 – 2015) for RobiGumero
Max of Max of Max of
Year 1986 2010 2016
1988 36.96 69.63 46.24
1989 42.93 39.89 34.68
1990 60.85 96.94 69.64
1991 48.19 39.31 22.86
1992 63.05 71.26 55.01
1993 58.58 73.74 51.76
1994 47.57 40.41 27.28
1995 64.5 54.85 35.91
1996 51.34 67.53 45.88
1997 50.44 80.52 56.26
1998 32.07 58.64 50.09
1999 46.65 79.75 62.07
2000 47.29 68.53 61.47
2001 45.73 70.33 47.56
2002 76.36 87.15 62.43
2003 58.58 73.74 50.04
2004 42.63 65.73 50.82 Appendix III: Maximum of annual peak
2005 62.65 48.51 33.01 flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for
2006 62.65 48.51 45.16 RobiGumero
2007 44.4 63.5 44.49 Year
1986 2010 2016
2008 51.15 64.05 43.97 (LULC)
2009 51.47 94.28 77.42 Streamflow
85.82 96.94 77.42
2010 42.71 63.5 39.46 (m3/s)
2011 41.31 61.34 41.34
2012 38.97 74.49 62.49
2013 58.39 84.1 62.57
2014 85.82 56.94 42.96
2015 37.7 66.19 46.67
Max Flow 85.82 96.94 77.42

88
Appendix IV: Maximum of annual peak flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for
RobiGumero
Streamflow (m3/s)

89
Appendix V: High Flow duration curve for High flow (Annual max flow) condition for
RobiGumero

90
Appendix VI: Annual peak flow (Range 1988 – 2015) for RobiGumero

Max of Max of Max of

Year 1986 2010 2016
1988 36.96 69.63 46.24
1989 42.93 39.89 34.68
1990 60.85 96.94 69.64
1991 48.19 39.31 22.86
1992 63.05 71.26 55.01
1993 58.58 73.74 51.76
1994 47.57 40.41 27.28
1995 64.5 54.85 35.91
1996 51.34 67.53 45.88
1997 50.44 80.52 56.26
Appendix VII: Maximum of annual peak
1998 32.07 58.64 50.09
flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for
1999 46.65 79.75 62.07
2000 47.29 68.53 61.47 RobiGumero
2001 45.73 70.33 47.56 Year
1986 2010 2016
2002 76.36 87.15 62.43 (LULC)
Streamflow
2003 58.58 73.74 50.04 85.82 96.94 77.42
(m3/s)
2004 42.63 65.73 50.82
2005 62.65 48.51 33.01
2006 62.65 48.51 45.16
2007 44.4 63.5 44.49
2008 51.15 64.05 43.97
2009 51.47 94.28 77.42
2010 42.71 63.5 39.46
2011 41.31 61.34 41.34
2012 38.97 74.49 62.49
2013 58.39 84.1 62.57
2014 85.82 56.94 42.96
2015 37.7 66.19 46.67
Max Flow 85.82 96.94 77.42

91
Appendix VIII: Annual maximum (peak) flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016 for RobiGumero
Streamflow (m3/s)

92
Appendix IX: High Flow duration curve for High flow (Annual max flow) condition for
RobiGumero

93
Appendix X: Annual minimum flow (Range 1988 – 2015) for RobiGumero
Min of Min of Min of
Year
1986 2010 2016
1988 0.0099 0.0202 0.0227
1989 0.0152 0.0236 0.0282
1990 0.0098 0.0280 0.0776
1991 0.0471 0.0496 0.0598
1992 0.0182 0.0001 0.0007
1993 0.0969 0.1107 0.2544
1994 0.0772 0.0660 0.0885 Appendix XI: Maximum of annual base
1995 0.1790 0.0054 0.0096 flow (LULC of 1986, 2010 and 2016) for
1996 0.1585 0.0115 0.0152
RobiGumero
1997 0.0344 0.0067 0.0091
1998 0.1001 0.0285 0.0444 1986 2010 2016
1999 0.0216 0.0121 0.0154 Streamflow
0.3589 0.2095 0.4065
2000 0.1631 0.0208 0.0678 (m3/s)
2001 0.0112 0.0295 0.0825
2002 0.0743 0.0335 0.0534
2003 0.1533 0.1832 0.1667
2004 0.0142 0.0576 0.1150
2005 0.1834 0.1241 0.1154
2006 0.1834 0.1241 0.1154
2007 0.0460 0.2071 0.4065
2008 0.0223 0.0117 0.0117
2009 0.2693 0.1640 0.0719
2010 0.0274 0.0851 0.1492
2011 0.0056 0.0071 0.0087
2012 0.0357 0.0268 0.1774
2013 0.0139 0.2095 0.1799
2014 0.3589 0.0466 0.0412
2015 0.0137 0.0166 0.0234
Max Base
0.3589 0.2095 0.4065
Flow

94
Appendix XII : Annual minimum flow for 1986, 2010 and 2016 for RobiGumero
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20 1986
0.15 2010
2016
0.10
0.05
0.00

Appendix XIII : Low flow duration curve with different land use conditions for RobiGumero

95
Appendix XIV – Land use/land cover Changes (1986-2010 and 2010-2016)

i) Agricultural Land

1986 2010 2016

96
ii) Bush Land

1986 2010 2016

97
iii) Grass Land

1986 2010 2016

98
iv) Forest Land

1986 2010 2016

99
v) Barren Land

1986 2010 2016

100