sustainability
Article
Runoff Estimation in Ungauged Watershed and Sensitivity
Analysis According to the Soil Characteristics: Case Study of
the Saint Blaise Vallon in France
Gue-Tae Park, Song-Hee An and Dong-Woo Jang *
Citation: Park, G.-T.; An, S.-H.;
Jang, D.-W. Runoff Estimation in
Ungauged Watershed and Sensitivity
Analysis According to the Soil
Characteristics: Case Study of the
Saint Blaise Vallon in France.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169848
Academic Editor:
Giovanna Pappalardo
Received: 13 March 2022
Accepted: 28 July 2022
Published: 10 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169848
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Korea
* Correspondence: jdw@inu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-32-835-8085
Abstract: Water Resources Research announced that, as a result of global warming, the amount of
extreme torrential rain globally has increased steadily since the middle of the last century. To cope
effectively with climate change, it is important to use consistent and scientific water information
of water resources. In this study, we use a hydrological analysis of the Saint Blaise Vallon area to
indicate how the damage from natural disasters that may come in the future may be minimized. In
addition, a hydrological analysis and a numerical simulation model were implemented to estimate
runoff and runoff coefficients derived from a heavy rainfall event that caused serious damage to river
flooding. A runoff sensitivity analysis was conducted according to the soil parameters. In particular,
a method using the hydrological model and the hydrological sensitivity analysis were applied to the
target watershed, and the results of the peak outlet discharge were analyzed in time series so that
they could be used for flood prediction and disaster management. In addition, the flood discharge
and runoff coefficients during the flooding of the target watershed were presented through the study.
Keywords: MIKE 11; MIKE SHE; rainfall runoff; runoff coefficients; soil parameters sensitivity
analysis; ungauged sub-watershed
1. Introduction
Water is the most important natural resource for human life. However, due to repeated
and steady human activities, such as urbanization, industrial development, and population
growth, the climate has changed substantially. Water Resources Research announced that,
as a result of global warming globally, the amount of extreme torrential rain has increased
steadily since the middle of the last century [1]. To cope effectively with climate change, it
is important to use systematic and scientific water-resource information [2].
Flooding accidents in rivers due to torrential rains and floods occur frequently around
the world due to climate change [3–5]. In particular, various hydrological analysis studies
related to flood forecasting are being conducted to reduce the occurrence of flood damage
in rivers [6,7].
In the case of watersheds with water level and flow measurement facilities, the ac-
curacy of flood discharge prediction according to rainfall can be improved. However, in
the case of an unmeasured watershed, it is difficult to accurately estimate flood discharge,
and due to uncertainty, it is inevitably vulnerable to flood preparation. For runoff analysis
of unmeasured watersheds, studies using various statistical analysis techniques such as
hydrological image, a convolutional neural network (CNN), multiple linear regression,
and the kriging method * were performed [8,9]. Numerous studies have been conducted
to estimate runoff, and the MIKE SHE and HEC-HMS models have been the most widely
used [10–12].
According to the International Disaster Database, 2020, the Var River Basin in France
suffered from floods in 1994, 2000, 2011, 2015, and 2019. In addition, heavy rainfall in 2020
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
 to estimate runoff, and the MIKE SHE and HEC-HMS models have been the most widely
used [10–12].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 According to the International Disaster Database, 2020, the Var River Basin in France
2 of 16
suffered from floods in 1994, 2000, 2011, 2015, and 2019. In addition, heavy rainfall in 2020
caused significant flood damage in the Saint-Martin-Vésubie area of the Var River Basin,
as shown
caused in Figureflood
significant 1. damage in the Saint-Martin-Vésubie area of the Var River Basin, as
shown in Figure 1.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure1.1.2020
2020flood
flooddamage
damageininSaint-Martin-Vésubie:
Saint-Martin-Vésubie:(a)
(a)destruction
destructionofofresidence
residenceand
and(b)
(b)landslide.
landslide.

In
Inthis
thisstudy,
study,we weuse
useaahydrological
hydrologicalanalysis
analysisof ofthe
theSaint
SaintBlaise
BlaiseVallon
Vallonwatershed
watershedin in
France
Franceto todetermine
determinehow howto tominimize
minimizethe thedamage
damagefrom fromnatural
naturaldisasters
disastersthat
thatmaymayoccur
occur
in
inthe
thefuture.
future.However,
However, Saint
SaintBlaise Vallon
Blaise Vallonis aismountainous
a mountainous andand
ungauged
ungauged area.area.
An un-
An
gauged district refers to an area that has not been observed for several different reasons,
ungauged district refers to an area that has not been observed for several different reasons,
such
suchas associal,
social,political,
political,cost,
cost,or ortechnological
technologicalaspects
aspects[13].
[13].Accordingly,
Accordingly,the theSaint
SaintBlaise
Blaise
Vallon district is classified as an unmeasured area. The accurate calculation of runoff from
Vallon district is classified as an unmeasured area. The accurate calculation of runoff from
mountainous
mountainousareas areasisisone
oneof ofthe
themost
mostcomplicated
complicatedhydrological
hydrologicalprocesses.
processes.Therefore,
Therefore,ititisis
essential to consider the three main controlling factors, the vegetation, the contemplation
essential to consider the three main controlling factors, the vegetation, the contemplation
ofland
of landuse,use,and
andthetheclimate.
climate.Different
Differentcombinations
combinationsof ofthese
thesefactors
factorsdetermine
determinethe theamount
amount
and nature of complex runoff in mountainous
and nature of complex runoff in mountainous areas [14]. areas [14].
Tointerpret
To interpretnatural
naturaldisasters,
disasters,measured
measuredhydrological
hydrologicaldata dataare
arerequired,
required,but butthe
theSaint
Saint
Blaise Vallon watershed is an ungauged area, so there is a limitation
Blaise Vallon watershed is an ungauged area, so there is a limitation to the hydrological to the hydrological
datathat
data that can
can be
be collected.
collected. For
For the
the hydrological
hydrological analysis
analysisof ofungauged
ungaugedareas,
areas,ititisisessential
essentialto
use
to use topographical
topographical data that
data thatcancanbebe
extracted
extractedfrom
fromsatellite-image
satellite-image data rather
data ratherthan measured
than meas-
data [15–18]. In the past, the hydrological analysis of ungauged areas has been impossible.
ured data [15–18]. In the past, the hydrological analysis of ungauged areas has been im-
However, as topographical data such as the digital elevation model (DEM), soil type, and
possible. However, as topographical data such as the digital elevation model (DEM), soil
land-use type became available for collection, the hydrological prediction of ungauged
type, and land-use type became available for collection, the hydrological prediction of
areas became possible. In particular, MIKE SHE and MIKE 11 have been applied in various
ungauged areas became possible. In particular, MIKE SHE and MIKE 11 have been ap-
studies for the analysis of watershed runoff [19–23].
plied in various studies for the analysis of watershed runoff [19–23].
In this study, the hydrological analysis model (MIKE SHE) and hydraulic model
In this study, the hydrological analysis model (MIKE SHE) and hydraulic model
(MIKE 11) were used to calculate the runoff and runoff coefficients depending on the
(MIKE 11) were used to calculate the runoff and runoff coefficients depending on the fre-
frequency of precipitation in the Saint Blaise Vallon area.
quency of precipitation in the Saint Blaise Vallon area.
The importance of this study lies in the hydrological analysis of the unmeasured
The importance of this study lies in the hydrological analysis of the unmeasured wa-
watershed, and it suggests a way to improve the uncertainty in the runoff prediction.
tershed, and it suggests a way to improve the uncertainty in the runoff prediction. Sensi-
Sensitivity analysis has been widely used in the field of hydrological analysis [24–26], and
tivity
it hasanalysis
the featurehasof been
beingwidely
able toused in thethe
suggest field of hydrological
minimum analysis
and maximum [24–26],
range and it
of analysis
has the feature of being able to suggest the minimum
results due to the factor determination value through sensitivity analysis. and maximum range of analysis
results due to the factor determination value through sensitivity analysis.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Hydrological Model
In the past, the hydrological analysis of ungauged areas was impossible; however,
as topographical data such as DEM, land use, and soil type became available, together
with satellite photography, the hydrological prediction of ungauged areas became possible.
Hydrological analysis enables the prevention of future flood damage by estimating runoff
in ungauged areas using DEM, soil type, land use, and precipitation data.
A typical distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, was used in this study. MIKE
SHE [27] is an integrated hydrological model. All components of the hydrological cycle,
such as surface flow, evapotranspiration, groundwater flow, and infiltration, are incorpo-
 topographical data such as DEM, land use, and soil type became available, together with
satellite photography, the hydrological prediction of ungauged areas became possible.
Hydrological analysis enables the prevention of future flood damage by estimating runoff
in ungauged areas using DEM, soil type, land use, and precipitation data.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 A typical distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, was used in this study. MIKE 3 of 16
SHE [27] is an integrated hydrological model. All components of the hydrological cycle,
such as surface flow, evapotranspiration, groundwater flow, and infiltration, are incorpo-
rated into the model. It is also a physically distributed hydrologic model because it can
rated into the model. It is also a physically distributed hydrologic model because it can
handle parameters
handle parameters thatthat have
have related
related characteristics
characteristics of
of the
the watershed
watershed such such asas soil
soil type,
type,
vegetation type, distribution of topography, and geology. In addition, it can
vegetation type, distribution of topography, and geology. In addition, it can manage spatial manage spa-
tial variability in both physical characteristics and meteorological conditions
variability in both physical characteristics and meteorological conditions [28]. The MIKE [28]. The
SHE model consists of a number of modules, wherein each module represents a specifica
MIKE SHE model consists of a number of modules, wherein each module represents
specific hydraulic
hydraulic flow process.
flow process. The modules
The modules of MIKE of SHE
MIKEused
SHEinused
this in this study
study are topog-
are topography,
raphy, overland
overland flow, precipitation,
flow, precipitation, river
river flow, landflow,
use,land use, unsaturated
unsaturated flow, andflow, and saturated
saturated zone. As
zone. As mentioned above, MIKE SHE calculates the rainfall–runoff
mentioned above, MIKE SHE calculates the rainfall–runoff process in the watershedprocess in the water-
in a
sheddistributed
fully in a fully distributed and integrated
and integrated manner and manner and generates
generates river flowsriver
that flows thatoverland
consider consider
overland
flow, flow, and
interflow, interflow, and(Figure
base flow base flow
2). (Figure 2).

Figure2.2.Conceptual
Figure ConceptualMIKE
MIKESHE
SHEmodel
model[27].
[27].

MIKE SHE
MIKE SHE models
models thethe following
followingprocesses
processesofofthethehydrological
hydrological system
system (Figure 2): 2):
(Figure in-
terception, snow
interception, snowmelt,
melt,infiltration,
infiltration,subsurface
subsurface flowflow in the saturated
in the saturated and and unsaturated
unsaturated
zones,evapotranspiration,
zones, evapotranspiration,surface surfaceflow,
flow,andandflow
flowininchannels
channelsand/or
and/orditches.
ditches. The
Thespatial
spatial
variationof
variation ofinput
inputdata
dataisisrepresented
representedin inaanetwork
networkof ofgrid
gridsquares
squaresthat
thatconstitute
constitutethethebasic
basic
computationalunit
computational unitofofthe
themodel.
model.EachEachgrid
gridsquare
squareisisdiscretized
discretizedin inthe
thevertical
verticalinto
intoaaseries
series
oflayers.
of layers.The
Theriver
rivernetwork
network is is assumed
assumed to run
to run along
along the the boundaries
boundaries of grid
of the the grid squares
squares [29].
[29].Rainfall interception is modeled using the Rutter accounting procedure, which consid-
ers theRainfall
maximum interception is modeled
storage capacity using
of the the Rutter
vegetation accounting
canopy. procedure,approxima-
The zero-inertia which con-
siderstothe
tions themaximum
St. Venantsstorage
equation capacity of the vegetation
were solved numerically canopy.
in two The zero-inertia
dimensions approxi-
for overland
mations
flow andtointheoneSt.dimension
Venants equation wereflow.
for channel solved numerically
The in two dimensions
one-dimensional for over-
Richards’ equation,
land flow
applied to aand in one dimension
representative for channel
grid square, was solvedflow.numerically
The one-dimensional Richards’
for the pressure equa-
head varia-
tion, applied to a representative grid square, was solved numerically for the pressure head
tion, which in turn is converted to the moisture content through the soil moisture-retention
curve [29].
Hydrological models simulate the motion of water and the transport of mass and
account for both spatial and temporal variations [30] after a system boundary is defined.
As the boundary information defined for a catchment, the movement of water can be
clarified through inter-relationships between each hydrological component and the inter-
relationship could be generalized as Equation (1) [31,32]:
P + GW i = SW o + ET + GW o + ∆ST (1)

where, P = precipitation; GW i = groundwater inflow from adjacent catchments; accord-

ingly, GW o = groundwater outflow from the catchment; SW o = surface water outflow;
ET = evapotranspiration; ∆ST = changes in soil storage
 lationship
lationship could
could be generalized
be generalized as Equation
as Equation (1) (1) [31,32]:
[31,32]:
+ 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
𝑃𝑃 +𝑃𝑃𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑖𝑖 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
𝑖𝑖 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 + ∆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
𝑜𝑜 + 𝑜𝑜𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜 + 𝑜𝑜∆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (1) (1)
where,
where, P =Pprecipitation;
= precipitation;
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑖𝑖 = groundwater
𝑖𝑖 = groundwater
inflow
inflow from
from adjacent
adjacent catchments;
catchments; accord-
accord-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 ingly, 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = groundwater outflow from the catchment; 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = surface water
ingly, 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜 = groundwater outflow from the catchment; 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜 = surface water outflow; 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜 outflow; = 16=
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
4 of
evapotranspiration; ∆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = changes in soil
evapotranspiration; ∆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = changes in soil storage storage

2.2.
2.2.2.2. Status
Status of Study
of Study Area Area
Status of Study Area
2.2.1.
2.2.1. StudyStudyAreaArea
2.2.1. Study Area
The The
Var Var River
River is isis the
in in the southeastern
southeastern part part
ofofof France.
France. The The controlling
controlling drainage-basin
drainage-basin
The Var River in the southeastern part France. The controlling drainage-basin
areaarea
is isis approximately
approximately 2800 2800
kmkmkm
2 2
2. The Var River is one of the main rivers in the French
. The VarVar River is one of of
thethe
main rivers in in
thethe
French
area approximately 2800 . The River is one main rivers French
Mediterranean
Mediterranean
Mediterranean Alps
Alps
Alps region.
region. TheThe
region. Thebasin
basin elevation
elevation
basin is 0–3100
is 0–3100
elevation m above
m above
is 0–3100 m sea sea
above level,
level,
seawithwith a steep
a steep
level, with a
slope
slope
steep distributed
distributed along
along thealong
slope distributed the branches
branches located in
located inlocated
the branches the
the middle middle
in theand and upper
upper
middle and areas
areas
upper of
of the the
areas catch-
catch-
of the
mentment[33].
catchment [33]. There
There are
[33]. are
fivefive
There aremajor
major tributaries
tributaries
five major (Upper
(Upper
tributaries Var, Var,
(Upper Vésubie,
Vésubie, Estéron,
Estéron,
Var, Vésubie, Tinée,
Tinée,
Estéron, and
andTinée, Lower
Lower and
Var)Var)
thatthat
Lower cross
Var) cross
fivefive
that cross sub-catchments
sub-catchments
five sub-catchments in this
in this in basin.
basin.
thisThe The specific
specific
basin. study
study
The specific areaarea
study is located
is area
located in the
in the
is located in
Lower
Lower
the Var,
Lower Var, which
which
Var, is aissub-catchment
which a sub-catchment
is a sub-catchment ininthe
in the theVar
Var River
Var River Basin
Basin
River called
called
Basin Saint
Saint
called Blaise
Blaise
Saint Vallon.
Vallon.
Blaise Vallon.
Figure
Figure
Figure 33shows
3 shows shows the
thethe location
location
location of the
of the
of the Var
VarVar River,
River,
River,and and
andFigureFigure
Figure 44represents
represents
4 represents the
thethe specific
specific scope
specific scope
scope of
of of
thisthis study.
study.
this study.

Figure
Figure 3.3.Location
Location
3. Location
Figure ofthe
of the
of the Var
VarVar river
river basin
basin
river [34].
[34].
basin [34].

Figure
Figure 4. River
4. River network
network and
andand topography
topography of Saint
of Saint Blaise
Blaise Vallon
Vallon [34].
[34].
Figure 4. River network topography of Saint Blaise Vallon [34].

Figure 4 (right) is the topography of Saint Blaise Vallon. A 5 m resolution of DEM

is provided by the city hall of Nice (Métropole Nice Côte d’Azur), and the topography
is presented using the ArcGIS and MIKE toolbox. The elevation of the highest point is
1411 m and the lowest point is 85 m. Input topography has a significant impact on runoff
estimation [34].
Figure 5 is the geological setting of the Var basin and its subbasins. White lines delimit
the sampled subbasins; colored squares represent sampling points, and red hashed areas
indicate the presence of quartz-bearing rocks.
Table 1 shows the physical characteristics of the Saint Blaise Vallon area. The average
slope in this area is 23.68◦ . As reported by the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, the
definition of a steep slope is when the slope is higher than 15◦ . Therefore, the Saint Blaise
Vallon area can be described as having a steep slope, which leads to sudden runoff.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848
provided by the city hall of Nice (Métropole Nice Côte d’Azur), and the topography is
presented using the ArcGIS and MIKE toolbox. The elevation of the highest point is 1411
m and the lowest point is 85 m. Input topography has a significant impact on runoff esti-
mation [34].
Figure 5 is the geological setting of the Var basin and its subbasins. White lines de-
limit the sampled subbasins; colored squares represent sampling points, and red hashed5 of 16
areas indicate the presence of quartz-bearing rocks.

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Geological
Geological information
information of
of the
the Var basin and
Var basin and its
its subbasins
subbasins [35].
[35].

Table 1. Geographical information of Saint Blaise Vallon area [34].

Table 1 shows the physical characteristics of the Saint Blaise Vallon area. The average
slope in this area is 23.68°. As reported by the Nashua Regional Planning Commission,
Location Area Sub-Watershed Length Average Slope Longest Flow Path
the definition of a steep slope is when the slope is higher than 15°. Therefore, the Saint
2 ◦
Saint Blaise Vallon Blaise Vallon area can be30,402
17.4 km described
m as having a steep23.7
slope, which leads to12,312
suddenm runoff.

Table
2.2.2. 1. Geographical
Soil information of Saint Blaise Vallon area [34].
Characteristics
Location AreaFor soil types Sub-Watershed
in this studyLength
area, soil dataAverage
with a Slope
high resolutionLongest
(500Flow
m × Path
500 m)
Saint Blaise Vallon 17.4 km
were obtained
2 from the30,402 m
U.S. Department of 23.7°
Agriculture (USDA). Table 12,312 m
2 shows the soil
types according to the serial number. Based on the USDA data, the Saint Blaise Vallon
area consists
2.2.2. of silt, clay loam, and silty clay loam. However, in a previous study [14]
Soil Characteristics
that included the same area, the optimized soil types of the Var area were described as
For soil types in this study area, soil data with a high resolution (500 m × 500 m) were
sand, clay, silt, and loam. As a result, the soil type proposed in this study was regarded
obtained
as the true from the U.S. Department
distribution. In addition, of field
Agriculture
surveys(USDA).
indicateTable
that the2 shows
Saint the soilVallon
Blaise types
according
area in thetodownstream
the serial number.
part can Based on the USDA
be assumed to be data,
sand the Saint
rather Blaise
than siltyVallon area con-
clay loam. The
sists of silt, clay loam, and silty clay loam. However, in a previous
soil-distribution process was therefore improved. Figure 6 shows the improvement study [14] that included
of the
the same distribution
soil-type area, the optimized soil types
in the study area. of the Var area were described as sand, clay, silt,
and loam. As a result, the soil type proposed in this study was regarded as the true distri-
bution. In addition,
Table 2. Adapted field surveys
soil hydraulic indicate
parameter that
values in the Saint
MIKE SHEBlaise
[34,36].Vallon area in the down-
stream part can be assumed to be sand rather
Soil Hydraulic Parameters Clay
than silty claySand
loam. The soil-distribution
Silt
process was therefore improved. Figure 6 shows the improvement of the soil-type distri-
Water content at saturation (kg/kg) 0.56 0.38 0.51
bution
Waterincontent
the study
at fieldarea.
capacity (kg/kg) 0.36 0.18 0.31
Water content at the wilting point (kg/kg) 0.22 0.08 0.11
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (m/s) 5.0 × 10−6 1.0 × 10−3 2.0 × 10−5

In this study area, the main soil type was clay, accounting for 71%. Figure 7 shows
the percentages of each soil type. It is expected that the runoff estimated will be mostly
affected by the hydraulic parameters of the sandy soil.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Sustainability 2022,
Sustainability 2022,14,
14,x9848
FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18 6 of 16

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Improvement of the soil-type distribution: (a) original and (b) improved [34].

In this study
(a) area, the main soil type was clay, (b)accounting for 71%. Figure 7 shows
the percentages of each soil type. It is expected that the runoff estimated will be mostly
Figure 6. Improvement of theof
soil-type distribution: (a) original
(a) and (b) improved
and (b) [34].
affected6.by
Figure the hydraulic
Improvement parameters
the soil-type ofdistribution:
the sandy soil. original improved [34].

In this study area, the main soil type was clay, accounting for 71%. Figure 7 shows
the percentages of each soil type. It is expected that the runoff estimated will be mostly
affected by the hydraulic parameters of the sandy soil.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.Distribution
Distributionrate of soil
rate typetype
of soil [34].[34].

The
Thesoil hydraulic
soil hydraulicparameters shownshown
parameters in Tablein
2 were
Tableadapted
2 werefrom previous
adapted research
from previous re-
[36]. [36].
search
Figure 7. Distribution rate of soil type [34].
Table 2.
2.2.3. Adapted
Usesoil hydraulic parameter values in MIKE SHE [34,36].
The Land
soil hydraulic parameters shown in Table 2 were adapted from previous research
[36]. Soil use
The land Hydraulic
applied Parameters
in this study was based Clay Sand
on satellite photographsSilt provided by
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
the cityWater
hall content
of NiceatCôte d’Azur. The
saturation (kg/kg) land-use data
0.56 (see Figure
0.38 8) comprises
0.51 satellite
Table 2. Adapted
photographs, soil hydraulic
delineation, parameter
mapping,values
andin MIKE
the SHE [34,36].
implementation of land use.
Water content at field capacity (kg/kg) 0.36 0.18 0.31
Soil
Water Hydraulic
content at theParameters
wilting point (kg/kg) Clay
0.22 Sand0.08 Silt
0.11
Water content at saturation (kg/kg)(m/s)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity 0.56
5.0 × 10−6 0.38
1.0 × 10−3 0.51
2.0 × 10−5
Water content at field capacity (kg/kg) 0.36 0.18 0.31
2.2.3.
WaterLand Use at the wilting point (kg/kg)
content 0.22 0.08 0.11
The landhydraulic
Saturated use applied in this study
conductivity was based
(m/s) 5.0on satellite1.0
× 10 −6 photographs
× 10 −3 provided
2.0 × 10−5 by
the city hall of Nice Côte d’Azur. The land-use data (see Figure 8) comprises satellite pho-
tographs,
2.2.3. delineation, mapping, and the implementation of land use.
Land Use
The land use applied in this study was based on satellite photographs provided by
the city hall of Nice Côte d’Azur. The land-use data (see Figure 8) comprises satellite pho-
tographs, delineation, mapping, and the implementation of land use.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Process
Processofofdetermining
determiningland useuse
land [34,37].
[34,37].

The land use provided by the city hall covered the entire Cote d’Azur area. A total of
788 different types of land use were identified in the Saint Blaise Vallon region. In this
study, the 788 land uses were classified into eight major types of land use and applied to
the MIKE SHE hydrological model. Figure 9 shows the reclassified land use in the sub-
watershed.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 Figure 8. Process of determining land use [34,37]. 7 of 16

The land use provided by the city hall covered the entire Cote d’Azur area. A total of
788 different types of land use were identified in the Saint Blaise Vallon region. In this
The land use provided by the city hall covered the entire Cote d’Azur area. A total of
study, the 788 land uses were classified into eight major types of land use and applied to
788 different types of land use were identified in the Saint Blaise Vallon region. In this study,
the788
the MIKE
landSHE
useshydrological model.
were classified Figure
into eight 9 shows
major types the reclassified
of land land usetointhe
use and applied the sub-
MIKE
watershed.
SHE hydrological model. Figure 9 shows the reclassified land use in the sub-watershed.

Figure9.9.Reclassified
Figure Reclassifiedland
landuse
useaccording
accordingto
tosatellite
satellite[34].
[34].

The
Thevalues
valuesapplied
appliedtotothe
theMIKE
MIKESHE
SHEmodel
model by
byland
land use
use are
areshown
shown ininTable
Table3.3.These
These
values
values are the leaf area index (LAI) and root (ROOT) and crop coefficients (KCs)and
are the leaf area index (LAI) and root (ROOT) and crop coefficients (KCs) andwere
were
provided by the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis laboratory. The LAI is the mean
provided by the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis laboratory. The LAI is the mean of
of leaves per unit of ground area. The typical range of LAI in mid-latitude forests or
leaves per unit of ground area. The typical range of LAI in mid-latitude forests or shrub-
shrublands is between 3 and 6 [38]. This depends on the type of vegetation and the season.
lands is between 3 and 6 [38]. This depends on the type of vegetation and the season. A
A small LAI value reduces leaf density, which results in a reduction in canopy evaporation.
small LAI value reduces leaf density, which results in a reduction in canopy evaporation.
The range of LAI in this study was a minimum of 0.8 and a maximum of 7.0.
The range of LAI in this study was a minimum of 0.8 and a maximum of 7.0.
Table 3. Land-use value according to the vegetation [34].

Vegetation LAI ROOT KC (−)

1 Residential Area 0.8 100 1.2
2 Grass 1.1 300 1.0
3 Grass + Tree 1.0–4.0 300–700 1.0
4 Forest B 7.0 800 1.0
5 Forest C 5.0 800 1.0
6 Forest M 6.0 800 1.0
7 Agriculture 1.5–5.0 200–1000 1.0
8 Water Body 0.8 100 1.2

ROOT is the root depth (in mm) of the crop or vegetation type. The simulated range
of root depth was 100 to 1000 mm. KC is the crop coefficient. The simulation used a KC
value in the range of 1.0 to 1.2.
The Strickler coefficient is a value that indicates the resistance to flow. This is de-
termined by the characteristics of the land-use type. Ma (2018) suggested the Stricker
coefficient shown in Table 4 through a comparison of the measured flow rate and the model
flow rate result from the Var river basin.
In the hydrological model, the Strickler coefficient values used were 2.0, 2.5, 20.0, 25.0,
and 50 m1/3 /s, depending on the land-use type. When transferred to the Manning n values,
these values became 0.5, 0.4, 0.05, 0.04, and 0.02, respectively.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 8 of 16

Table 4. Strickler Coefficient [34,36].

Land-Use Type Strickler Coefficient (m1/3 /s)

Residential Area 50.0
Grass 2.5
Grass + Tree 2.5
Forest B 2.0
Forest C 2.0
Forest M 2.0
Agriculture 25.0
Water 20.0

2.2.4. Meteorological Characteristics

In this study, all meteorological information was obtained from the National Meteoro-
logical Administration of France [39,40]. The average annual precipitation and monthly pre-
cipitation in the Var River Basin are approximately 1154 mm and 96 mm, respectively [13].
Most of the Var River Basin consists of mountainous areas, where precipitation varies
greatly by region [41]. Rainfall stations in the Saint Blaise Vallon area are only at Nice
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
airport. There is no data for Carros and Levens before 2020. Figure 10 shows the locations
of the rainfall stations near the Saint Blaise Vallon area.

Figure10.
Figure 10. Location
Location of
of rainfall
rainfallstations
stationsnear
nearthe
thestudy
studyarea
area[34].
[34].

Table55shows
Table showshistorical
historicalstatistics
statistics data
data from
from 1982
1982 to 2016
to 2016 at Nice
at Nice airport
airport rainfall
rainfall sta-
station.
tion. Table 6 shows average monthly precipitation at each rainfall gauge.
Table 6 shows average monthly precipitation at each rainfall gauge.
Table 5. Statistics from 1982 to 2016 at Nice airport station [40].
Table 5. Statistics from 1982 to 2016 at Nice airport station [40].
Return Period (Year) 5 10 20 30 50 75 100
Return Period
Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) 44.3 53.3 5 61.9 10 66.720 30
72.7 50 77.4 75 100
80.7
(Year)
Rainfall Intensity return period data from Meteo France was 100-year. With this return
The maximum
rainfall intensity44.3
period,(mm/h) 53.3
was approximately 61.9 66.7
80.7 mm/h. 72.7 77.4 80.7
The average monthly precipitation data are from the meteorological administration of
France.TheFor Carros and
maximum Levens,
return thedata
period collection of precipitation
from Meteo France wasdata beganWith
100-year. in 2020,
thisand at
return
Nice airport, it began in 1981. As of 2020, annual precipitation for Carros and Levens were
period, rainfall intensity was approximately 80.7 mm/h.
661.4 mm and 794.8 mm, respectively. For Nice airport, the average annual precipitation
was
Table733
6. mm (1981–2000).
Monthly This is approximately
average precipitation [39]. 57–68% of the average annual precipitation
in the entire Var River Basin.
The calculation methods for Nice Airport
the Carros
total precipitation volume, discharge, Levens
and runoff
Month [mm]
coefficient are as follows. The total1981–2000
precipitation volume2020
is (the sum of the 2020 year
specific
return period of precipitation) × 1/1000 × (the catchment area). The total discharge volume
January 69 25.3 15.2
is (the average hourly discharge) × 3600 × (the total number of simulation hours).
February 44.7 0.4 1.6
March 38.7 76 81.9
April 69.3 44.5 36.6
May 44.6 153.7 173
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 9 of 16

Table 6. Monthly average precipitation [39].

Nice Airport Carros Levens

Month [mm]
1981–2000 2020 2020
January 69 25.3 15.2
February 44.7 0.4 1.6
March 38.7 76 81.9
April 69.3 44.5 36.6
May 44.6 153.7 173
June 34.3 138.1 99.9
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
July 12.1 2.4 24.3
August 17.8 9.2 9.8
September precipitation was 733 mm73.1 16.3 of the average an-
(1981–2000). This is approximately 57–68% 10.8
October nual precipitation in the entire 132.8Var River Basin. 64.3 204.6
November The calculation methods
103.9for the total precipitation volume,6.4
discharge, and runoff co- 7
December efficient are as follows. The total precipitation volume is (the sum
92.7 124.8 of the specific year re- 130.1
turn period of precipitation) × 1/1000 × (the catchment area). The total discharge volume
Total Amountis (the average hourly discharge) 733 × 3600 × (the total number of661.4simulation hours).
794.8

3. Results and Discussion

3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Hydrological Analysis
The DEM used to derive the topographic results had a 10 m resolution. The return
3.1. Hydrological period
Analysis
precipitation used in this model was 10-, 25-, 50-, 75-, 100-, and 162-year (PMP,
probable maximum precipitation) return periods. Figure 11 shows the result of peak run-
The DEM used to derive the topographic results had a 10 m resolution. The return
off for different return periods of precipitation occurring in the Saint Blaise Vallon area
using MIKE
period precipitation used SHEin model.
this With 162-year return
model wasperiod10-, precipitation,
25-, 50-,the75-, peak 100-,
dischargeand 162-year (PMP,
occurred as 29.65 m /s. 3

probable maximumFor precipitation) return periods. Figure 11 shows thewa-result of peak runoff
the values of major factors in the hydrological analysis model of the target
tershed, the conditions used were from a previous study of the Var river watershed anal-
for different return periods of precipitation occurring in the Saint Blaise
ysis. Based on this, the probably maximum flood (PMF) of the target watershed was cal-
Vallon area using
MIKE SHE model. With
culated, and 162-year return
the results of runoff period
discharge precipitation,
for each the peak
return period of precipitation are discharge occurred
shown in Figure 11.
as 29.65 m3 /s.

(a) (b)

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 11. Discharge for different return periods of precipitation: (a) 10-year, (b) 25-year, (c) 50-year,
Figure 11. Discharge for different return periods of precipitation: (a) 10-year, (b) 25-year, (c) 50-year,
(d) 75-year, (e) 100-year, (f) 162-year [34].

(d) 75-year, (e) 100-year,

Table(f) 162-year
7 shows [34].results for various return periods of precipitation.
the parameter

Table 7. Parameter results for various return periods of precipitation [34].

For the values of major factors in the hydrological analysis model of the target water-
Return Period 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 75-Year 100-Year 162-Year
shed, the conditions used
Sub-Watershed Area (m)
were from a previous study of the Var river watershed analysis.
17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000
Based on this,
Total Precipitation the (m
Volume probably
) maximum
3,449,085
3 4,116,043 flood (PMF)
4,598,246 of the
4,866,924 target 5,423,077
5,076,444 watershed was calculated,
Total Discharge Volume (m ) 2,089,406 2,559,438 2,937,849 3,162,668 3,348,006
and the results of runoff discharge for each return period of precipitation are shown in
3 3,648,916
Peak discharge at 3rd peak (m /s) 2.51
3 6.21 12.83 17.99 26.36 29.65
Figure 11.
Runoff Coefficient 0.606 0.622 0.639 0.650 0.660 0.673

A hydrological analysis was conducted using several different return period precip-
itation data. The total discharge volume during the 10-year precipitation was 2,089,406
m3, and the total volume of precipitation was 3,449,085 m3. This means that 61% of water
is overland runoff, and 39% of water is infiltrated to the underground. Compared with
the maximum return period precipitation, the total volume of discharge during the 162-
year precipitation was 3,648,916 m3, and the total volume of precipitation was 5,423,077
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 10 of 16

Table 7 shows the parameter results for various return periods of precipitation.
Table 7. Parameter results for various return periods of precipitation [34].

Return Period 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 75-Year 100-Year 162-Year

Sub-Watershed Area (m) 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000 17,460,000
Total Precipitation Volume (m3 ) 3,449,085 4,116,043 4,598,246 4,866,924 5,076,444 5,423,077
Total Discharge Volume (m3 ) 2,089,406 2,559,438 2,937,849 3,162,668 3,348,006 3,648,916
Peak discharge at 3rd peak (m3 /s) 2.51 6.21 12.83 17.99 26.36 29.65
Runoff Coefficient 0.606 0.622 0.639 0.650 0.660 0.673

A hydrological analysis was conducted using several different return period precipita-
tion data. The total discharge volume during the 10-year precipitation was 2,089,406 m3 ,
and the total volume of precipitation was 3,449,085 m3 . This means that 61% of water is
overland runoff, and 39% of water is infiltrated to the underground. Compared with the
maximum return period precipitation, the total volume of discharge during the 162-year
precipitation was 3,648,916 m3 , and the total volume of precipitation was 5,423,077 m3 .
This means that 67% of water is overland flow, and 32% of water is infiltrated.
As a result of six return period hydrological analyses, the Pearson r value of total
precipitation volume and total discharge volume was 0.99, and the r values of total precipi-
tation volume and peak discharge was 0.96. It was found that the correlation between the
mutual factors was high.
In the case of an unmeasured watershed, it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy of
the hydrological analysis result because there is no actual data. Therefore, it is necessary to
propose the results of hydrological analysis according to the range of the main factors used
through sensitivity analysis.

3.2. Sensitivity Analysis

Collecting data on the sensitivity of soil properties is useful for model development
and application purposes. This can lead to more accurate values, better understanding,
and thus, reduced uncertainty in the results. A sensitivity analysis shows how a given
simulation model output depends on the input parameters.
To determine which parameters were the most sensitive in generating the model
output, a sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the soil-property values by up to
±30% of their original value. Then the simulated value of peak runoff was compared to
the original value.
First, the suggested value by Ma (2018) [35] was used as the standard to determine the
factor that responds most sensitively to the soil parameters and has the greatest influence
on the runoff change. Water content at saturation (θs ), water content at wilting point (θr ),
field capacity water content (θe ), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) were adjusted
upward by 30% to find sensitive soil parameters.
In the hydrological numerical simulation model, θs is the water content of the soil,
which is equal to the porosity. θe is the water content at which the vertical flow becomes
negligible. This is the water content that is reached when the soil can freely drain. However,
it is higher than the residual saturation, which is the minimum saturation obtained from
laboratory tests. θr means the lowest water content in which plants can extract water from
the soil. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) refers to the infiltration rate and has a
(m/s) dimension.
Usually, soil parameters are obtained based on laboratory experiments with field
samples. There are previous studies on field capacity (FC) and wilting point (WP) equa-
tions [34,42–46]. Table 8 shows the previous research equations for FC and WP. Table 8
shows the suggested FC and WP equations from previous researches.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 11 of 16

Table 8. Suggested FC and WP equation from previous research [34,42].

Gupta, S. C. and W. E. Larson [43]

FC θ = 0.003075 × SA + 0.005886 × SI + 0.008039 × CL + 0.002208 × OM − 0.1434 × BD
WP θ = −0.000059 × SA + 0.001142 × SI + 0.005766 × CL + 0.002228 × OM + 0.02671 × BD
SA, sand (%); SI, silt (%); CL, clay (%); OM, organic matter (%); BD, bulk density (g/cm3 ).
Rawls, W. J. et al. [44]
FC θ = 0.2576 − 0.0020 × SA + 0.0036 × CL + 0.0299 × OM
WP θ = 0.026 + 0.005 × CL + 0.0158 × OM
SA, sand (%); SI, silt (%); CL, clay (%); OM, organic matter (%)
Oliveira, L. B. et al. [45]
FC θ = 0.000333 × SI + 0.000387 × CL
WP θ = 0.000038 × SA + 0.000153 × SI + 0.000341 × CL − 0.030861 × BD
SA, sand (g kg−1 ); SI, silt (kg kg−1 ); CL, clay (kg kg−1 ); OM, organic matter (kg kg−1 ); BD, bulk density (kg dm−1 )
Reichert, J. M. et al. [46]
FC θ = 0.106 + 0.29 × (CL + SI) + 0.93 × OM − 0.048 × BD
WP θ = −0.04 + 0.15 × CL + 0.17 × (CL + SI) + 0.91 × OM + 0.026 × BD
SA, sand (kg kg−1 ); CL, clay (kg kg−1 ); OM, organic matter (kg kg−1 ); BD, bulk density (kg dm−3 ).

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

During the sensitivity analysis, only a single parameter was changed at a time,13while
of 18
the others remained unchanged during each sensitivity simulation. Figure 12 shows the
peak discharge results for increases of the θs , θe , θr , and Ks parameters.

80

70
Peak Discharge(m3/s)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
162-year θs (+30%) θe (+30%) θr (+30%) Ks(m/s) (+30%)
return period
peak Q

Figure12.
Figure 12.Peak
Peakdischarge
dischargeaccording
accordingto
tothe
the30%
30%increase
increaseof
ofparameters.
parameters.

Fromthe
From theresults
resultsininTables
Tables 9 and
9 and 10,10, it can
it can be seen
be seen thatthat
the the
most most sensitive
sensitive soil param-
soil parameters
etershave
that thatahave a significant
significant influence
influence on peakonrunoff
peak runoff
are θs are
andθθ𝑠𝑠 eand θ𝑒𝑒 in
in the the study
study area.peak
area. The The
peak runoff
runoff of θKs
of θr and 𝑟𝑟 and
wereKs were
30.04 m30.04 m /s and 31.67 m 3/s, respectively.
3 /s and3 31.67 m3 /s, respectively. There There
is no is no sub-
substantial
stantialcompared
change change compared to the peak
to the original original peak
runoff runoff result.
result.

Table 9. Standard soil parameter values [34,36].

Water Content at Field Capacity Water Content at

Ks (m/s)
Saturation (𝛉𝛉𝒔𝒔 ) Water Content (𝛉𝛉𝒆𝒆 ) Wilting Point (𝛉𝛉𝒓𝒓 )
Sand 0.38 0.18 0.08 1.0 × 10−3
Clay 0.56 0.36 0.22 5.0 × 10−6
Silt 0.51 0.31 0.11 2.0 × 10−5
Peak Discharge: 29.65 m3/s

Table 10. 30% Increased water content at saturation. (θ𝑠𝑠 ) [34].

Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 12 of 16

Table 9. Standard soil parameter values [34,36].

Water Content at Field Capacity Water Content at

Ks (m/s)
Saturation (θs ) Water Content (θe ) Wilting Point (θr )
Sand 0.38 0.18 0.08 1.0 × 10−3
Clay 0.56 0.36 0.22 5.0 × 10−6
Silt 0.51 0.31 0.11 2.0 × 10−5
Peak Discharge: 29.65 m3 /s

Table 10. 30% Increased water content at saturation. (θs [34].

Water Content at Field Capacity Water Content at

Ks (m/s)
Saturation (θs ) Water Content (θe ) Wilting Point (θr )
Sand 0.494 0.18 0.08 1.0 × 10−3
Clay 0.728 0.36 0.22 5.0 × 10−6
Silt 0.663 0.31 0.11 2.0 × 10−5
Peak Discharge: 7.01 m3 /s

For θs , when the 162-year return period of precipitation was applied, the peak dis-
charge was 7.01 m3 /s (see Table 10), which was 76% lower than the original peak discharge
runoff of 29.65 m3 /s (see Table 9). Table 11 shows 30% increased water content at field
capacity and its peak discharge result.
Table 11. 30% increased water content at field capacity (θe ) [34].

Water Content at Field Capacity Water Content at

Ks (m/s)
Saturation (θs ) Water Content (θe ) Wilting Point (θr )
Sand 0.38 0.234 0.08 1.0 × 10−3
Clay 0.56 0.468 0.22 5.0 × 10−6
Silt 0.51 0.408 0.11 2.0 × 10−5
Peak Discharge: 67.16 m3 /s

For θe , the maximum runoff discharge was 67.16 m3 /s (see Table 11). This is 127%
higher than the original peak runoff discharge (see Table 9).

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis for Water Content at Saturation and Field Capacity
The most sensitive soil parameters were found to be θs and θe . A sensitivity analysis
was performed on θs and θe to determine how the runoff is affected by these values.
Table 12 shows the peak discharge, total discharge volume, and runoff coefficient when θs
changes from 30% less to 30% more than the standard. Table 12 shows the range of change
in water content at saturation and its discharge results.
Table 12. Change range of water content at saturation (θs ) [34].

Range −30% −20% −10% Standard 10% 20% 30%

Sand 0.266 0.304 0.342 0.38 0.418 0.456 0.494
Clay 0.392 0.448 0.504 0.56 0.616 0.672 0.728
Silt 0.357 0.408 0.459 0.51 0.561 0.612 0.663
Peak Discharge [m3 /s] 76.76 69.07 53.82 29.65 14.7 9.2 7.01
Total Discharge Volume [m3 ] 5,427,160 4,961,485 4,344,082 3,648,917 3,000,136 2,509,572 2,137,722
Runoff Coefficient 1.0 0.915 0.801 0.673 0.553 0.463 0.394

The change range of θs was increased in 10% steps from 30% less to 30% more than
the standard to perform the sensitivity analysis. The runoff was 76.76 m3 /s when θs was
30% lower, and the lowest flow rate was 7.01 m3 /s when θs was 30% higher. The runoff
coefficients were 1 and 0.394, respectively. The total discharge volume was 5,427,160 m3 ,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 13 of 16

and 2,137,722 m3 , respectively, which was approximately 60% lower than the peak discharge
volume.
Table 13 shows the peak discharge, total discharge volume, and runoff coefficient
when the θe value changes from 30% less to 30% more than the standard.
Table 13. Range of change in water content at field capacity (θe ) [34].

Range −30% −20% −10% Standard 10% 20% 30%

Sand 0.126 0.144 0.162 0.18 0.198 0.216 0.234
Clay 0.252 0.288 0.324 0.36 0.396 0.432 0.468
Silt 0.217 0.248 0.279 0.31 0.341 0.372 0.403
Peak Discharge [m3 /s]
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9.8 12.88 18.72 29.65 45.42 58.74
15 of 18
67.16
Sustainability
Total Discharge 2022, 14, x FOR PEER
Volume [m3REVIEW
] 2,591,835 2,881,583 3,235,739 3,648,917 4,080,355 15 of 18
4,489,669 4,860,854
Runoff Coefficient 0.478 0.531 0.597 0.673 0.752 0.828 0.896
Runoff Coefficient 0.478 0.531 0.597 0.673 0.752 0.828 0.896
Runoff Coefficient 0.478 0.531
The range of 0.597change in θ0.673 0.752 0.828 0.896
e was also adapted in the same way as θs to perform the
3
The range of
sensitivity change inThe
analysis. θ was also adapted
runoff discharge in thewassame67.16
way as mθ /sto when
performθthewas 30% more, and
The range of change in θ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 was also adapted in 3the same way as θ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 to perform ethe
sensitivity
the lowestanalysis.
flow The runoff discharge
discharge was was
9.8 67.16
m m 3when
3 /s /s when θθe𝑒𝑒 was
was 30%
30% more,
lessand the the standard. The
than
sensitivity analysis. The runoff discharge was 67.16 m /s when θ𝑒𝑒 was 30% more, and the
lowest flow discharge was 9.8 m33/s when θ𝑒𝑒 was 30% less than the standard. The runoff
lowest flow discharge was 9.8 m /s when θ𝑒𝑒 was 30% less than the standard. The runoff discharge volume
runoff coefficients were 0.896 and 0.478, respectively. The total runoff
coefficients were 0.896 and 0.478, respectively. The total runoff discharge volume was
coefficients
was 4,860,854 were 0.896
m3 and and 32,591,853
0.478, respectively.
m3which The total runoff
, respectively, which discharge
was volume was
approximately 46% lower than
4,860,854 m33 and 2,591,853 m 3, respectively, was approximately 46% lower than the
4,860,854 m and 2,591,853 m , respectively, which was approximately 46% lower than the
peak
thedischarge volume. Involume.
peak discharge the simulation of the
In the hydrology model
simulation of theinhydrology
the Saint Blaise Val- in the Saint Blaise
model
peak discharge volume. In the simulation of the hydrology model in the Saint Blaise Val-
lon sub-watershed,
Vallon the two-layer
sub-watershed, the method
two-layerwas applied inwas the unsaturated
applied inflow the numerical
lon sub-watershed, the two-layer method wasmethod
applied in the unsaturated flow unsaturated
numerical flow numerical
simulation
simulation because it requires
because less data for
it requires an ungauged basin. The soil physical
basin. charac-
simulation because it requires less data less
for andata for an
ungauged ungauged
basin. The soil physical The soil physical charac-
charac-
teristics, including water content at saturation, wilting point, field capacity, and hydraulic
teristics, including
teristics, water water
including content content
at saturation, wilting point,wilting
at saturation, field capacity,
point, and hydraulic
field capacity, and hydraulic
conductivity were used for soil-characteristic sensitivity analysis in the hydrology model.
conductivity
conductivity werewere
used for soil-characteristic sensitivity analysis in the hydrology model.
Among them, the physical characteristics of the soil that had significant influence the
used for soil-characteristic sensitivity analysis in on hydrology model.
Among them, the physical characteristics of the soil that had significant influence on
the runoffAmongdischarge
them,werethe
water content at
physical saturation and field
characteristics of capacity.
the soil Figures
that had 13significant
and influence on
the runoff discharge were water content at saturation and field capacity. Figures 13 and
14the
show the
runoff water content
discharge at saturation and field capacity discharge variation, respec-
14 show the water contentwere water content
at saturation and field at saturation
capacity discharge andvariation,
field capacity.
respec- Figures 13 and 14
tively.
tively.
show the water content at saturation and field capacity discharge variation, respectively.

Figure 13. Flow discharge according to the rangeto

of water content
of at saturation [34]. at
Figure
Figure FlowFlow
13. 13. discharge
discharge according
according to the range ofthe range
water content water
at content
saturation [34]. saturation [34].

Figure 14. Flow discharge according to the range of water content at field capacity [34].
Figure 14. 14.
Figure FlowFlow
discharge according
discharge to the range
according toofthe
water content
range of at field capacity
water content[34].
at field capacity [34].
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In this study, the runoff and runoff coefficients of ungauged areas were calculated
In this study, the runoff and runoff coefficients of ungauged areas were calculated
using DHI MIKE series to predict and prevent future flood damage due to continuous
using DHI MIKE series to predict and prevent future flood damage due to continuous
climate change in the Saint Blaise Vallon region. The rainfall runoff discharge in the
climate change in the Saint Blaise Vallon region. The rainfall runoff discharge in the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 14 of 16

4. Conclusions
In this study, the runoff and runoff coefficients of ungauged areas were calculated
using DHI MIKE series to predict and prevent future flood damage due to continuous
climate change in the Saint Blaise Vallon region. The rainfall runoff discharge in the
unmeasured basin was calculated by performing hydrological analysis on the various
return periods for extreme precipitation.
Although flash floods have caused damage in many mountainous areas, it is difficult
to estimate the amount of runoff in unmeasured watersheds, and accurate prediction is
impossible. Therefore, a method for estimating the amount of runoff that can improve the
prediction accuracy and reduce uncertainty in the unmeasured watershed was suggested.
The proposed method and the range of sensitivity factors used can be applied to all
unmeasured watersheds and can be used for flood protection in mountainous area.
The proposed runoff calculation method is an improved approach from the runoff
calculation based on past empirical formulas and case studies. In addition, the research
results can contribute to the establishment of flood protection measures in the Saint Blaise
Vallon region. In particular, in order to reduce research uncertainty, the range of hydrologi-
cal factor values proposed by previous studies was compared and specifically limited so
that they could be continuously used in future research.
By using high-resolution DEM, it contributed to more accurate runoff calculation, and
through runoff with diversified return periods, it could be utilized for flood protection
and planning in the watershed. In particular, the range of possible runoff was limited
by applying the parameters of water content at saturation, wilting point, field capacity,
and hydraulic conductivity to various ranges, thereby resolving the uncertainty of runoff
analysis results.
Water content at saturation and field capacity were selected as the most sensitive
factors in the runoff discharge of the Saint Blaise Vallon region. The sensitivity analysis
result of this study is expected to be used when adjusting the runoff range when accurate
measurement data is collected in the target area in the future and can be used as basic data
for accurate hydrological analysis.
According to the sensitivity analysis results, the runoff sensitivity ranges of water
content at saturation and filed capacity were calculated. The runoff coefficient can be used
as an index of the flood area for extreme rainfall based on the derived runoff. The results of
the runoff analysis vary depending on the values of the factors used in the hydrological
analysis. And it is expected that the sensitivity analysis results of this study can be utilized
in other basins similar to this target area.
If data collection for the Saint Blaise Vallon catchment becomes sufficient in the future,
it is predictable that the accuracy of the simulation model will improve through comparison
with observed data. In particular, it is important to improve the soil-parameter estimation
method and to secure real hydrological data from the target area. It is expected that the
accuracy of this study can be improved when measuring the actual runoff discharge in the
target area for the correction of the hydrological model set-up.
Through this study, a numerical analysis methodology was proposed for estimating
hydrologic runoff in watersheds of mountainous regions. In the future, it can be used to
reduce the uncertainty of hydrological analysis in similar basins.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.-T.P. and D.-W.J.; methodology, G.-T.P.; software, G.-T.P.
and S.-H.A.; formal analysis, G.-T.P.; S.-H.A. and D.-W.J.; investigation, G.-T.P. and S.-H.A.; data
curation, G.-T.P.; writing—original draft preparation, G.-T.P.; writing—review and editing, G.-T.P.
and D.-W.J.; visualization, G.-T.P. and S.-H.A.; supervision, D.-W.J. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded
by the Korea government (MEST) (2018S1B2A1A01084699).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 15 of 16

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, D.W. Jang (author initials), upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: This study was carried out in collaboration with Laboratoire de Polytech Nice-
Sophia. Furthermore, this study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Papalexious, S.M.; Montanari, A. Global and regional increase of precipitation extremes under global warming. Water Resour. Res.
2019, 55, 4901–4914. [CrossRef]
2. Kang, D.H.; Jeung, S.J.; Kim, B.S. On study of runoff analysis using satellite information. J. Korean Soc. Disaster Secur. 2021, 14, 13–23.
3. Teng, J.; Jakeman, A.J.; Vaze, J.; Croke, B.F.W.; Dutta, D.; Kim, S. Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent
advances and uncertainty analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 90, 201–216. [CrossRef]
4. Cohen, S.; Brankenridge, G.R.; Kettner, A.; Bates, B.; Nelson, J.; McDonald, R.; Huang, Y.F.; Munasinghe, D.; Zhang, J. Estimating
floodwater depths from flood inundation maps and topography. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 54, 847–858. [CrossRef]
5. Nguyen, N.Y.; Ichikawa, Y.; Ishidaira, H. Estimation of inundation depth using flood extent information and hydrodynamic
simulations. Hydrol. Res. Lett. 2016, 10, 39–44. [CrossRef]
6. Dodov, B.A.; Georgiou, E.F. Floodplain morphometry extraction from a high-resolution digital elevation model: A simple
algorithm for regional analysis studies. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2006, 3, 3. [CrossRef]
7. Jones, J.W. Improved automated detection of subpixel-scale inundation—Revised dynamic surface water extent (DSWE) partial
surface water tests. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 374. [CrossRef]
8. Kim, D.Y.; Song, C.M. Developing a discharge estimation model for ungauged watershed using CNN and hydrological image.
Water 2020, 12, 3534. [CrossRef]
9. Ibrahim, B.; Wisser, D.; Barry, B.; Fowe, T.; Aduna, A. Hydrological predictions for small ungauged watersheds in the Sudanian
zone of the Volta basin in West Africa. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 4, 386–397. [CrossRef]
10. Singh, A.; Singh, S.; Singh, G.; Ganwar, A. Rainfall-runoff modeling using MIKE 11 NAM model for vinayakpur intercepted
catchment, Chhattisgarh. Indian J. Dryland Agric. Res. Dev. 2014, 29, 1. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, X.; Wang, D.W.; Chi, D.C.; Yang, N. Runoff simulation in semi-humid region by coupling MIKE SHE with MIKE 11. Open Civ.
Eng. J. 2015, 9, 840–845.
12. Halwatura, D.; Najim, M.M.M. Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ. Model.
Softw. 2013, 46, 155–162. [CrossRef]
13. Kang, K.K. Study on Terrain Data Creation and Flood Simulation in Un-Gauged Basin Using MODIS Satellite Image Information.
Master’s Thesis, University of Kangwon, Chuncheon, Korea, 2016.
14. Becker, A. Runoff processes in mountain headwater catchments: Recent understanding and research challenges. In Global Change
and Mountain Regions; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 23.
15. Zhang, S.; Pan, B. An urban storm-inundation simulation method based on GIS. J. Hydrol. 2014, 517, 260–268. [CrossRef]
16. Shen, X.; Wang, D.; Mao, K.; Anagnostou, E.; Hong, Y. Inundation extent mapping by synthetic aperture radar: A review. Remote
Sens. 2019, 11, 879. [CrossRef]
17. Cian, F.; Marconcini, M.; Ceccato, P.; Giupponi, C. Flood depth estimation by means of high-resolution SAR images and lidar
data. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 3063–3084. [CrossRef]
18. Pulvirenti, L.; Pierdicca, N.; Chini, M.; Guerriero, L. Monitoring flood evolution in vegetated areas using COSMO-skymed data:
The Tuscany 2009 case study. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2013, 6, 1807–1816. [CrossRef]
19. De Schepper, G.; Therrien, V.; Refsgaard, J.C.; He, X.; Kjaergaard, C.; Iversen, B.V. Simulating seasonal variations of tile drainage
discharge in an agricultural catchment. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 3896–3920. [CrossRef]
20. Yuan, S.; Li, Z.; Xu, G.; Gao, H.; Xiao, L.; Wang, F.; Wang, T. Influence of check dams on flood and erosion dynamic processes of a
small watershed in the loss plateau. Water 2019, 11, 834. [CrossRef]
21. Panda, R.K.; Pranmanik, N.; Bala, B. Simulation of river stage using artificial neural network and MIKE 11 hydrodynamic model.
Comput. Geosci. 2010, 36, 735–745. [CrossRef]
22. Minh, H.V.T.; Tri, V.P.D.; Ut, V.N.; Avtar, R.; Kumar, P.; Dang, T.T.T.; Hoa, A.V.; Ty, T.V.; Downes, N.K. A model-based approach
for improving surface water quality management in aquaculture using MIKE 11: A case of the Long Xuyen Quadangle, Mekong
Delta, Vietnam. Water 2022, 14, 412. [CrossRef]
23. Tansar, H.; Babur, M.; Karnchanapaiboon, S.L. Flood inundation modeling and hazard assessment in Lower Ping River Basin
using MIKE FLOOD. Arabian J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 934. [CrossRef]
24. Hall, J.W.; Tarantola, S.; Bates, P.D.; Horritt, M.S. Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration. J. Hydraul.
Eng. 2005, 131, 117–126. [CrossRef]
25. Xing, Y.; Shao, D.; Yang, Y.; Ma, X.; Zhang, S. Influence and interactions of input factors in urban flood inundation modeling: An
examination with variance-based global sensitivity analysis. J. Hydrol. 2021, 600, 126524. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9848 16 of 16

26. Savage, J.T.S.; Pianosi, F.; Bates, P.; Freer, J.; Wagener, T. Quantifying the importance of spatial resolution and other factors through
global sensitivity analysis of a flood inundation model. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 9146–9163. [CrossRef]
27. DHI. MIKE SHE User Manul Volume 1, 2; DHI: Hørsholm, Denmark, 2017.
28. Sahoo, G.B.; Ray, C.; De Carlo, E.D. Calibration and validation of a physically distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, to
predict streamflow at high frequency in a flashy mountainous Hawaii stream. J. Hydrol. 2006, 327, 94–109. [CrossRef]
29. Xevi, E.; Chriristiaens, K.; Espino, A.; Sewnandan, W. Calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis ofthe MIKE-SHE model
using the neuenkirchen catchment as case study. Water Resour. Manag. 1997, 11, 219–242. [CrossRef]
30. Mujumdar, P.; Kumar, D.N. Introduction. In Floods in a Changing Climate. s.l.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 1–4.
31. Cartwright, I.; Benjamin, G.; Harald, H. Chloride imbalance in a catchment undergoing hydrological change: Upper Barwon
River, southeast Australia. Appl. Geochem. 2013, 31, 187–198. [CrossRef]
32. Liu, Z.; Zhou, C. Hydrological and Chloride Transport Processes in a Small Catchment of the Norrstrom Basin: A MIKE SHE Modelling
Approach; KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Built Environment: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019.
33. Ma, Q.; Zavattero, E.; Du, M.; Vo, N.D.; Gourbesville, P. Assessment of high resolution tophgraphy impacts on deterministic
distributed hydrological model in extreme rainfall-runoff simulation. Procedia Eng. 2016, 154, 601–608. [CrossRef]
34. Park, G.T. A Study on Estimation of Runoff in Ungauged Sub-Watershed based on Soil Characteristics Sensitivity. Master’s Thesis,
Incheon National University, Incheon, Korea, 2022.
35. Mariotti, A.; Blard, P.H.; Charreau, J.; Petit, C.; Molliex, S.; Bourles, D.L. Denudation systematics inferred from in situ cosmogenic
10Be concentrations in fine (50–100 µm) and medium (100–250 µm) sediments of the Var River basin, southern French Alps. Earth
Surf. Dynam. 2019, 7, 1059–1074. [CrossRef]
36. Ma, Q. Deterministic Hydrological Modelling for Real Time Decision Support System: Application to the Var Catchment. Ph.D.
Thesis, Université Côte d’Azur, Nice, France, 2018.
37. Métropole Nice Côte d’Azur. La cartographie du mode d’Occupation du Sol MOS NCA; Métropole Nice Côte d’Azur: Nice, France, 2014.
38. Meter Group. Lai Theory and Practice Application Guide; Meter Group: Pullman, WA, USA, 2018; p. 9.
39. Meterological Administration of France. Available online: https://www.meteociel.fr/obs/clim/normales_records.php?code=60
88001 (accessed on 1 November 2021).
40. Meteo France. Durees de Retour de Fortes Precipitations Episode: 1 Heure−Méthode GEV Locale−Régionale; Météo−France: Paris,
France, 2018.
41. Kohler, T.; Maselli, D. Mountains and Climate Change: From Understanding to Action; Geographica Bernensia: Bern, Switzerland, 2009.
42. Ok, J.H.; Kim, D.J.; Han, K.H.; Jung, K.H.; Lee, K.D.; Zhang, Y.S.; Cho, H.R.; Hwang, S.A. Relationship between measured and
predicted soil water content using soil moisture monitoring network. Korean J. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 21, 297–306.
43. Gupta, S.C.; Larson, W.E. Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle size distribution, organic matter percent,
and bulk density. Water Resour. Res. 1979, 15, 1633–1635. [CrossRef]
44. Rawls, W.J.; Brakensiek, D.L.; Saxton, K.E. Estimation of soil water properties. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1982, 25,
1316–1320. [CrossRef]
45. Oliveira, L.B.; Riveiro, M.R.; Jacomine, P.K.T.; Rodrigues, J.J.V.; Marques, F.A. Funções de pedotransferência para predição da
umidade retida a potenciais específicos em solos do Estado de Pernambuco. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2002, 26, 315–323. [CrossRef]
46. Reichert, J.M.; Albuquerque, J.A.; Kaiser, D.R.; Reinert, D.J.; Urach, F.L.; Carlesso, R. Estimation of water retention and availability
in soils of Rio Grande do Sul. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2009, 33, 1547–1560. [CrossRef]