Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Erodibility prioritization of sub-watersheds using morphometric

parameters analysis and its mapping: A comparison among TOPSIS,
VIKOR, SAW, and CF multi-criteria decision making models
Alireza Arab Ameri a, Hamid Reza Pourghasemi b,⁎, Artemi Cerda c
a
Department of Geomorphology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
c
Soil Erosion and Degradation Research Group, Departament de Geografia, Universitat de València, Spain

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Erodibility prioritization of sub-

watersheds using morphometric pa-
rameters analysis.
• Applying four MCDM models for priori-
tization of sub-watersheds on erosion.
• Erosion susceptibility mapping using
Vikor, TOPSIS, SAW, and CF models.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Soil erosion, every year imposes extensive damages to human beings by means of reducing soil productivity and
Received 20 August 2017 filling reservoirs from sedimentation in Ghaemshahr Basin in Mazandaran Province, (Iran); therefore, identifying
Received in revised form 19 September 2017 prone areas to soil erosion for preventive measures is essential in this basin. In this research, erodibility prioriti-
Accepted 19 September 2017
zation of sub-watersheds of Ghaemshahr Basin has done using morphometric parameters analysis and different
Available online 12 October 2017
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) models such as simple additive weighing (SAW), VlseKriterijumska
Editor: D. Barcelo optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS), and compound factor (CF). For this purpose, Advanced Space Thermal Emission Radiometer (ASTER),
Keywords: a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with spatial resolution of 30 m used for extraction and analysis of 23 morpho-
Morphometric parameters metric parameters including basic, linear, shape, and landscape. For validation of the MCDM methods, the indices
Prioritization of percentage of changes and intensity of changes were used. The results of prioritization of sub-watersheds in-
Multi-criteria decision making dicated that in TOPSIS and CF models, sub-watershed 30 with 0 and 13.33 scores are located in first rank, respec-
Ghaemshahr Basin tively, which is known as the most prone sub-watersheds to erosion. Also, results showed that sub-watersheds in
terms of susceptibility to erosion, in CF model has an one category namely Low; meanwhile, in TOPSIS and VIKOR
models show four classes including low, moderate, high, and very high. In contrast, for SAW model there are
three classes of moderate, high, and very high susceptibility. In general, the results showed that morphometric
parameters have high efficiency in identification of erosion-prone areas and also VIKOR method has higher pre-
dictive accuracy than TOPSIS, SAW, and CF models.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hr.pourghasemi@shirazu.ac.ir (H.R. Pourghasemi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.210
0048-9697/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1386 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400
1. Introduction
Soil is a valuable natural resource for the humankind and soil erosion
determines the Earth landforms (Kouli et al., 2009). Soil is the key re-
source to achieve the Planet sustainability such as the Goals of the Unit-
ed Nations for sustainability shown (Keesstra et al., 2016b). Soil erosion
is a process in which separated soil particles, aggregates and rock frag-
ments are detached, transported and deposited, and then placed in
new areas by water (Masselink et al., 2017). Soil erosion is a serious en-
vironmental issue around the world that has affected the lives and as-
sets of millions of people and needs to find solutions (Keesstra et al.,
2016b, b; Cerdà et al., 2017, 2017, 2017) that must be based in nature-
base strategies (Keesstra et al., 2018). After a century of scientific re-
search there are unknown issues to be researched such as García-Ruiz
et al. (2017) shown in his literature review. To solve and develop new
research is relevant for Geomorphology as a Global Science (García-
Ruiz, 2015). Soil erosion by water creates a severe degradation to the
soil (Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2016, 2017, 2017) and reduces soil produc-
tivity by removing fertile topsoil, as well as reducing plant growth, fill-
ing valleys and reservoirs from sedimentation, and delta formation in
coastal areas (Dudal, 1981; Biswas et al., 2015) and is relevant for the
sustainability of the human societies (Mol and Keesstra, 2012; Sharma
et al., 2017). In order to assessment the environmental and economic
consequences of soil erosion and in order to conduct management
plans to deal with, quantitative data of soil erosion and the determina-
tion of prone areas to erosion at regional and global scales is required
(Alexakis et al., 2013; Nasre et al., 2013; Shit et al., 2015). This is a com-
plementary research to the direct measurement with plots, erosion
pins, silt fences and rainfall simulation experiments (Lassu et al., 2015;
Cerdà et al., 2017; Fernández-Raga et al., 2017). Drainage basin is
known as the source of materials that are transported by the fluvial sys-
tem, and this is reflected in the forms, which are the result of the erosion
process, which is the transfer of surface runoff and sediments to a chan-
nel, which provides a basis for morphometric analysis (Chopra et al.,
2005; Patel et al., 2012, 2013).
Morphometry is the result of basic measurements and mathematical
analysis of land surface configuration, shape, and dimensions of land-
forms (Adinarayana et al., 1995; Srivastava, 2003; Jang et al., 2013).
The effectiveness of the drainage network morphometric is very impor-
tant in understanding the processes of landform formation, soil physical
properties, and erosion characteristics (Agarwal, 1998; Rudraiah et al.,
2008; Malik et al., 2011; Okumura and Araujo, 2014, Rodrigo-Comino
et al., 2016) as determines the runoff discharge such as land manage-
ment do (Keesstra et al., 2014; Masselink et al., 2017). The drainage net-
work pattern, density, and geometry of the flow systems are primarily
controlled by three attributes including topography, climate, and geolo-
gy (Frissel et al., 1986; Mesa, 2006). The characteristics of the drainage
network reflect the effect of changing these determinants from one lo-
cation to another one (Pike, 2000). In the last decade, the morphometric
analysis of drainage networks has been used in various fields such as as-
sessment of natural resources and environmental hazards, especially
the sudden flooding (Ozdemir and Bird, 2009; Arnous et al., 2011), eval-
uation of groundwater potential and hydrologic behavior of watersheds
(Esper Angillieri, 2008), and prioritizing watersheds in order to protect
water and soil resources (Singh et al., 2008).
Recently, researches have shown that remote sensing (RS) and GIS
tools have high efficiency and effectiveness for watershed development,
management, and prioritization of sub-watersheds for soil and water
conservation (Ratnam et al., 2005; Rudraiah et al., 2008; Pandey et al.,
2009; Malik et al., 2011; Chatterjee et al., 2013; Okumura and Araujo,
2014). The numerical analysis of drainage networks is also considered
as a principal technique for watershed characterization, morphometric
analysis of drainage basins, and stream networks. Morphometric analy-
sis can be implemented by computation basic, linear, shape, and land-
scape parameters of drainage networks (Patel et al., 2013; Gajbhiye
et al., 2014). In the recent decades, many researchers have focused on
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques for solving complex
decision-making. In this manner of decision making for optimization of
model, instead of using a one criterion, several criteria used to increase
the accuracy of decisions (Georgiou et al., 2015; Govindan and Jepsen,
2016; Mulliner et al., 2016). The application of MCDM methods in vari-
ous fields of Human Resource Management (HRM) has been demon-
strated in a number of literatures (Mohanty and Mahapatra, 2014;
Celik et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2015; Chitsaz and Banihabib, 2015).
The main goal of this study is to assess the applicability of morpho-
metric parameters using SAW, VIKOR, TOPSIS, and CF models in order
to prioritize sub-watersheds of Ghaemshahr Basin in term of suscepti-
bility to erosion. These models have many benefits that include ideal
and negative ideal solution, pair-wise comparisons and non-
compensatory decision making (Arunachalam et al., 2015;
Chithambaranathan et al., 2015; Chitsaz and Banihabib, 2015; Mandal
et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015; Peng,
2015). Soil erosion cause serious environmental problems like reduce
soil productivity and filling reservoirs from sedimentation in the
Ghaemshahr Basin. Our research will provide significant information,
which can assist decision makers in formulating more effective soil,
and water conservation plans for the Ghaemshahr Basin in Mazandaran
Province in the future. The use of multi-criteria decision making models
and morphometric parameters in identifying areas that are sensitive to
erosion will be definitive to develop new strategies to control the soil
erosion and will make them more efficient (Mekonnen et al., 2017).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The Ghaemshahr Basin with a total area of 1637 km2 is located
43 km southwest of the city of Sari in Mazandaran Province (Iran).
The study area lies between the latitudes of 35°44′ to 36°09′N, and lon-
gitudes of 52°36′ to 53°23′E (Fig. 1). The maximum elevation of the
study area is located in the southwest with a height of 3877 m.a.s.l.,
and the minimum height is in the northeast with a height of
476 m a.s.l. There are 193 rural settlements within the basin (Fig. 1).
2.2. Erodibility and mapping
Erodibility prioritization of sub-watersheds of Ghaemshahr Basin
using different MCDM techniques is presented as a flowchart in fig. 2.
In this research, since hydrological units are the basis for studying mor-
phometric parameters; so, using stream networks, topographic maps
with 1:50,000-scale (20 m contour interval), and ASTER data attempted
to clarify the boundaries of hydrological units for determining sub-
watersheds. In the next step, the ranking of the streams was carried
out according to the stream rankings system provided by Strahler
(1957). In general, ASTER data used for extraction of basin parameters
(basin area, basin perimeter, stream order, number of streams, basin
length, stream length, and mean stream length), linear parameters
(mean bifurcation ratio, drainage density, stream frequency, texture
ratio, length of overland flow, infiltration number, and constant of chan-
nel maintenance), shape parameters (form factor, shape factor, elonga-
tion ratio, compactness coefficient, and circularity ratio), and landscape
parameters (ruggedness number, basin relief, relief ratio, and slope de-
gree). The morphometric parameters were calculated using the
ArcGIS10.4 and ArcHydro tools according to Table 1. Before computing
the morphometric parameters using the ArcHydro tools, pre-
processing and preparing of ASTER DEM implemented in ArcGIS10.4.
Pre-processing steps consisted of DEM reconditioning, assign stream
slope, sink evaluation, fill sinks, flow direction, and flow accumulation,
respectively. Subsequently, extraction and analysis of the morphomet-
ric parameters in each of the sub-watersheds were ranked using
multi-criteria decision making methods such as TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW,
and compound factor (CF). At final, soil erosion susceptibility map was
 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400 1387

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

prepared using all four methods in the study area and validation of 3) Computation of the weight of the criteria. The advantage of the
models done using indices of percentage of changes and intensity of VIKOR model is that the evaluation of all criteria does not require expert
changes. The softwares used in this research is ArcGIS10.4, Archydro review; but, also raw data can be used. In this study, the weight of each
tools, and SAGA-GIS v.3.0.0. criterion was calculated using the AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process)
method in Expert Choice software (Ren et al., 2015). AHP is based on
2.3. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques pair-wise comparisons and its details are given in Saaty (1977).
4) Computation a weighted normalized matrix by multiplying the
2.3.1. VIKOR model normal matrix in the weight of each criterion as Eq. (2) (Huang et al.,
The VIKOR method as well-known MCDM technique at first intro- 2009; Sanayei et al., 2010):
duced by Opricovic and Tzeng (2004) which emphasized on selection
and ranking of alternative sets of conflicting criteria (Opricovic and V ij ¼ Rij  w j ð2Þ
Tzeng, 2004). The VIKOR method for rating options can be described
in the following steps (Huang et al., 2009): where, Vij is weighted normalized decision matrix element, Rij is a nor-
1) Formation of decision matrix as following: malized decision matrix element, and wj is weight of criteria calculated
2 3 using the AHP model.
a11 a12 … a1n
6 a21 5) Determine the best value (V∗j ) and the worst value (V− j ) of all the
6 a22 … a2n 7
7
D¼6 : 7 standard functions (j = 1,2, …,n): if the i-th criterion is a profit criterion,
6 : : 7
4 : : : 5 its maximum value is more relevant to the purpose, then V+ j = max Vij

am1 am2 … amn and V−J = min Vij.

6) Computing the values Si (Utility index) and Ri (regret Index) as
2) Calculating the normalized decision matrix by linear method as Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively:
Eq. (1):
X
n    
Si ¼ L1;i ¼ W j V j −V ij = V j −V −
j ð3Þ
Xij
Rij ¼ PM ð1Þ i¼1
1 Xij
" #
Xn    
where, Rij is a normalized decision matrix element and xij is the i-th al- Ri ¼ L∞;i ¼ max W j V j −V ij = V j −V −
j ð4Þ
ternative performance in j-th criteria. i¼1
1388 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400

Fig. 2. Flowchart the used method in the study area.

where, V∗j = max Vij and V−j = min Vij for maximizing criteria, and Wj is where, A1 and A2 are the alternatives with first and second position in
the weight of the criterion j. ranking list and N is the number of the criteria.
7) Computing the values Q by Eq. (5) (El-Santawy, 2012): C2: Alternative that has the rank 1 in Q, must also had the rank 1 in S
and R, or both of them. If condition C2 is not satisfied, ranking of alter-
ðSi −S− Þ ðRi −R− Þ natives would be A1, A2, …, Am which Am is determined by the following
Qi ¼ V   − þ ð1−V Þ  ð5Þ
ðS −S Þ ðR −R− Þ equation:

where, S− = min Si, S∗ = max Si, R− = min Ri, R∗ = max Ri, and ν is in- 1
ðAm Þ−Q ðA1 Þb ð7Þ
troduced as a weight of the strategy of the maximum group utility or the N−1
majority of criteria. This parameter could be valued as 0–1 and when the
ν N 0.5, the index of Q will tend to majority rule. If condition C1 was not satisfied, A1 and A2 would be selected as the
8) Ranking the alternatives was sorted by considering the values of S, best solution (Opricovic and Tzeng, 2004, 2007).
R, and Q. The best alternative has the least value of these three parameters.
9) The highest ranked alternative in Q parameter would be the best 2.3.2. TOPSIS model
alternative if the two following conditions were satisfied: TOPSIS is one of the distance-based methods and was first intro-
duced by Hwang and Yoon (1981). The main source of TOPSIS is the cal-
1 culation of Euclidean distance of decision making alternatives from
C1 : Q ðA2 Þ−Q ðA1 Þ≥ ¼ ð6Þ
N−1 positive ideal solution (PIS) and negative ideal solution (NIS) (Hwang
 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400 1389

Table 1 Table 1 (continued)

Computation of basic, linear, shape, and landscape morphometric parameters.
Morphometric formula References
Morphometric formula References Parameters
Parameters 
Compactness coefficient Cc ¼ P pffiffiffiffi Horton (1945)
2 πA
Basin Area (A) Plan area of the watershed (km2) Horton (1945) (Cc)
GIS software analysis
Basin perimeter (P) Perimeter of watershed (km) GIS Horton (1945) P = perimeter of the basin (km)
software analysis A = area of the basin (km2)
Stream order (U) Hierarchical rank Horton (1945) .
Circularity ratio (Rc) Miller (1953)
Rc ¼ 4  π  A 2
Number of streams Total stream number of all orders Strahler (1957) P
(Nu) GIS software analysis
Basin length (Lb) Length of basin (km)/GIS software Nooka Ratnam
A = area of the bain (km2)
analysis et al. (2005)
P = perimeter (km)
Lb = 1.321 × A0.568   
Ruggedness number Rn ¼ Dd  Bh 1000 Moore et al., 1991
A = area of the basin (km2)
(Rn)
Stream length (Lu) Length of the stream (km) Horton (1945)
Mean stream length  Horton (1945)
LSM ¼ Lu Nu
(Lsm) Bh = basin relief
Dd = drainage density
Basin relief (Bh) Bh = h − h1 Horton (1945)
Lu = total stream length of all
H = Maximum height
orders
H1 = minimum height
Nu = total no. of stream segments 
Relief ratio (Rh) Rh ¼ Bh L Schumm (1956)
of order “u” b

GIS software analysis

Bifurcation ratio (Rb)  Schumm (1956)
Rb ¼ Nu Nu þ1
Bh = basin relief
Lb = basin length
Slope (S) B Nautiyal (1994)
Nu +1 = no. of segments of the S ¼ phffiffiffi  100
next higher order A
Drainage density (Dd)  Horton (1945)
Dd ¼ Lu A
(km/km2)
Bh = basin relief
A = area of the basin (km2)
Lu = total stream length of all
orders (km)
A = area of the watershed (km2)

Stream frequency (Fu) F u ¼ Nu A Horton (1945) and Yoon, 1981). In TOPSIS model, the preferred alternative is the alter-
(no./km2) native that has the least distance from the positive ideal solution (PIS)
and the higher distance from the negative ideal solution (NIS). The re-
Nu = total no. of streams of all
orders sult of these two distances is expressed in the form of closeness coeffi-
A = area of the basin (km2) cient. Accordingly, an alternative which has a higher closeness
Mean bifurcation ratio Rbm = average of bifurcation ratio Strahler, 1964 coefficient is known as the preferred alternative (Liou and Wang,
(Rbm) of all orders 1992; Kannan, 2009).
Texture ratio (T)  Horton (1945)
T ¼ Nu P The TOPSIS method for rating options can be described as following
(no./km2)
(Hwang and Yoon, 1981):
Nu = total no. of streams of all 1) Calculating the normalized decision matrix as Eq. (8):
orders
P = perimeter (km) aij
Length of Overland 
Lo ¼ 1 2Dd Horton (1945) Rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm ð8Þ
2
Flow (Lo) (km) i¼1 aij

Dd = drainage density
Infiltration number (If) If = Fu × Dd Faniran (1968) where, Rij is a normalized decision matrix element and aij is the i-th al-
Fu = Stream frequency ternative performance in j-th criteria.
Dd = drainage density 2) Calculation of the weighted normalized decision matrix as Eq. (9):
Constant of channel A Horton (1945)
C ¼ Pi¼1
maintenance (C)
i¼n Lu V ij ¼ Rij  w j ð9Þ

A = area of the basin (km2) where, Vij is weighted normalized matrix element, Rij is normalized ma-
Lu = total stream length of all trix elements, and Wj is weight of criteria j.
orders (km)
Form factor (Rf)
.
Horton (1945)
3) Determining the positive ideal solution (PIS) and negative ideal
Rf ¼ A 2
Lb solution (NIS) as Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively:
n    o
A = area of the basin (km2) Aþ ¼ maxV ij jj∈J ; minV ij jj∈J CË ⃒i ¼ 1; 2; …m
Lb2 = square of the basin length n o
Shape factor (Bs) 2
.
Nooka Ratnam ¼ Vþ þ þ
1 ; V 2 ; …; V j ; …; V n þ ð10Þ
B s ¼ Lb
A et al. (2005)
n    o
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
. A− ¼ minV ij jj∈J ; maxV ij jj∈ J CË ⃒i ¼ 1; 2; …m
Elongation ratio (Re)
Re ¼ 1:128 A
Schumm (1956) n o
Lb ¼ V− − −
1 ; V 2 ; …; V j ; …; V n ð11Þ

A = area of the basin (km2) where, j and J´ are related to increasing and decreasing criteria,
Lb = basin length
respectively.
1390 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400

4) Measuring the ideal and negative ideal solution distance as where,Ai is the final weight of each option, Rij is the score of the i-th al-
Eqs. (12) and (13), respectively: ternative with respect to the j-th criteria, and wj is weight of criteria
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi using the AHP model (Ma et al., 1999).
uX
u n  2
diþ ¼t V ij −V⁺ j ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m ð12Þ 2.3.4. Compound factor (CF)
j¼1
This model is based on the principles of knowledge-driven model-
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ling (Todorovski and Džeroski, 2006) and converts the qualitative un-
uX
u n  2 derstanding of a phenomenon by scientific knowledge into a
di− ¼t V ij −V j ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m ð13Þ quantitative estimation. In this method, the total number of ranks
j¼1
assigned is based on the number of options. The average of the ranks
of all the parameters is designated as compound value and represents
5) The final step involved the calculation of the closeness coefficient the collective impact of all the parameters (Altaf et al., 2014). This
of the alternatives to the ideal solution as Eq. (14). This amount is vari- model calculated as Eq. (20) (Altaf et al., 2014):
ous between zero and one. The alternatives with higher closeness coef-
ficient are the superiors.  X
n
CF ¼ 1 n
R ð20Þ
i¼1
di−
cliþ ¼ ; 0≤cliþ ≤1; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m ð14Þ
diþ þ di−
Where CF is Compound value, R is rank of options, and n is number
where, cli+ is closeness coefficient, di+ is positive ideal solution (PIS), of parameters.
and di− is negative ideal solution (NIS).
2.4. Validation of models
2.3.3. SAW model
The most widely used method in multi-criteria decision making In this study, two indices of percentage of changes (Eq. 20) and in-
(MCDM) models is SAW (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Podvezko, 2006). In tensity of changes (Eq. 21) were used to evaluate and compare the re-
this method, the score of each option is obtained by aggregating the sults of the models with each other (Badri, 2003):
values of that option in different criteria, taking into account the weight
N−Ncanstant
of each criterion, so that relative weights are given directly by the deci- ΔP ¼  100 ð21Þ
N
sion maker (Sargaonkar et al., 2010). The SAW method for rating op-
tions can be described as following: PN rank i ðr1Þ
1) Normalization of initial matrix to the calculated decision matrix as I¼1
rank i ðr2Þ
Eq. (15). ΔI ¼ ð22Þ
N
Xij
Rij ¼ PM ð15Þ where, ΔP is percentage of changes, N is number of alternatives, Ncanstant
1 Xij is number of alternatives with the same rank, ΔI is intensity of changes,
rank i (r1) is rank of alternative in the first method, rank i (r2) is rank of
where, Rij is the normalized weight of the j-th criterion, m is the num- alternative in second method.
ber of the criteria, and Xij are the initial weights.
2) Determination of values Rij = Rmin ij or Rij = Rmax.
ij 3. Results and discussions
Rij = Xij if the efficiency index is minimized, Rij = Rmax
min
ij if the effi-
ciency index is maximized. 3.1. Morphometric analysis
3) Normalized values of reliability of indices as Eqs. (16) and (17),
respectively: The watershed morphometry provides a complete description of the
connections between different processes on the earth's surface and var-
X ij ious components of the earth's system such as geomorphology, hydrol-
Rij ¼ ð16Þ
X max
ij ogy, and geology (Ifabiyi and Eniolorunda, 2012). In addition,
characteristics of the drainage system of the basin have a great influence
if the efficiency index is maximized. on its penetration and runoff capacity (Sharma et al., 1985). Some of the
morphometric parameters are considered directly as indicators of soil
X min
ij erosion and are named as erosion risk assessment parameters including
Rij ¼ ð17Þ
X ij basic, linear, shape, and landscape parameters. In this study, quantita-
tive analysis of Ghaemshahr Basin and its 36 sub-watersheds (Fig. 1)
if the efficiency index is minimized. were carried out to evaluate the morphometric characteristics of the
5) Calculation of the weighted normalized decision matrix as drainage network and their soil erosion susceptibility. In this regard,
Eq. (18): 23 morphometric parameters that represent the basic, linear, shape,
and landscape characteristics of the watershed were investigated.
V ij ¼ Rij  w j ð18Þ
3.2. Basic parameters
where, Vij is weighted normalized decision matrix element, Rij is the
score of the i-th alternative with respect to the j-th criteria, and wj is The results of computation of basic morphometric parameters are
weight of criteria using the AHP model. shown in Table 2. Based on stream order, Ghaemshahr Basin was classi-
4) The final step in the SAW method is data integration that the final fied as a 5th order (Fig. 3) with an area of 1637 km2 and perimeter of
score of each option will acquire according to Eq. (19): 517 km. The total number of streams in the mentioned basin is 2220.
The total length of the streams in various orders is 1549.50 km. Extrac-
X tion of the number and length of drainage networks from DEM is related
Ai ¼ Rij  w j ð19Þ to resolution of DEM and cell threshold. The higher accuracy of the
 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400 1391

Table 2 reverse geometric relationship is represented in the form of straight

Computation of basic parameters for Ghaemshahr Watershed. lines when the logarithm of the values of the stream number is plotted
Sub-watershed Basin Basin Number of Basin Stream on a regular graph (Fig. 4). It is clear that the number of streams gradu-
perimeter area streams length length ally decreases with the increase of stream order. Changes in the rank of
1 51.391 104.111 125 18.486 112.8 the streams depend heavily on the morphological and structural fea-
2 29.383 34.404 42 9.856 33.7 tures of the watershed.
3 37.195 62.198 98 13.796 60.2
4 31.652 57.155 85 13.149 73.8
3.3. Linear parameters
5 42.772 63.883 77 14.008 54.6
6 41.630 79.821 108 15.897 73.6
7 33.267 52.949 79 12.591 44.2 3.3.1. Drainage density (Dd)
8 56.563 129.121 176 20.890 139.3 The lower drainage density of any watershed indicates that it has
9 27.425 42.256 55 11.077 38.3 permeable subsurface material, good vegetation cover, and low relief
10 24.196 29.662 41 9.060 33.1
11 19.257 15.568 26 6.282 14.4
and vice versa (Harlin and Wijeyawickrema, 1985). In the Ghaemshahr
12 26.706 37.720 53 10.385 33.2 Basin, the lowest amount of drainage density has been observed in the
13 38.976 76.909 111 15.565 74.0 sub-watershed 26 (0.697 km), which indicates that this sub-
14 20.837 22.977 38 7.836 20.6 watershed has the highest permeability among other sub-watersheds,
15 31.523 38.645 49 10.529 33.8
or if the drainage density parameter is considered alone, has the highest
16 21.548 28.512 40 8.858 25.4
17 32.856 67.361 93 14.436 59.6 resistance to erosion. In contrast, sub-watershed 4 with the highest
18 25.955 35.328 47 10.005 33.0 drainage density (1.291 km) has the highest susceptibility to soil ero-
19 19.488 19.071 27 7.050 18.7 sion. In general, sub-watersheds 10, 2, 8, 29, 21, 19, 1, 22, 36, 3, 33, 13,
20 22.207 25.049 35 8.230 22.2 18, 11, 35, 6, 24, 9, 14, 16, 20, 17, 30, 12, 25, 15, 23, 28, 5, 32, 27, 7, 37
21 23.430 25.025 37 8.226 24.7
were assigned ranks 2 to 35, respectively.
22 24.235 27.476 38 8.674 26.8
23 27.229 37.085 46 10.285 32.0
24 35.886 76.410 101 15.507 70.4 3.3.2. Stream frequency (Fu)
25 29.852 44.257 50 11.372 38.8 The stream frequency has inverse relationship with permeability
26 11.691 7.030 12 3.999 4.9
and direct relation to the roughness of the watershed (Montgomery
27 30.827 32.218 29 9.495 27.0
28 27.526 43.930 62 11.324 37.8 and Dietrich, 1992). High stream frequency values indicate that the wa-
29 31.061 59.848 91 13.498 59.2 tershed has a rocky surface and low permeability capacity, which helps
30 45.948 76.414 106 15.508 67.3 to further erosion and vice versa. The stream frequency in the
31 13.875 10.925 8 5.137 8.0 Ghaemshahr Basin is varies from 0.732 for sub-watershed 31 to 1.706
32 48.554 56.066 64 13.007 47.9
for sub-watershed 26. These results indicated that sub-watershed 26
33 12.455 9.420 16 4.722 9.1
34 28.212 35.118 42 9.972 28.4 has the lowest penetration capacity and therefore has the highest sus-
35 37.693 48.068 71 11.918 44.4 ceptibility to erosion, but sub-watershed 31 has the least susceptibility
36 22.214 24.965 42 8.215 24.3 to erosion.
Sum 1085.517 1636.956 2220.000 398.843 1549.500

3.3.3. Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm)

digital elevation model and the lower threshold values has the greater
the number and length of the extracted streams. Details of the charac-
teristics of the streams in the Ghaemshahr Basin confirmed the first
law of Horton (Horton, 1945). This law indicates that the number of dif-
ferent streams in the watershed tends to be reversed geometrically. This
It shows the structural complexity and permeability of the land has a
negative correlation with the permeability of the watershed. High
values of the mean bifurcation ratio represent the peak of the initial
hydrograph with flood potential, which leads to high soil degradation
(Howard, 1990). The relationship of mean bifurcation ratio with erosion
susceptibility of an area is same as drainage density and stream

Fig. 3. Drainage order of study area.

1392 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400
Fig. 4. The relationship between the number of streams and their order (Horton's first law).
frequency. The Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) in the Ghaemshahr Basin
is different from 3.13 for sub-watershed 1 to 24.40 for sub- watershed
30. According to the results, sub-watershed 30 has the most susceptible
to erosion in the study area.
3.3.4. Texture ratio (T)
Texture ratio (T) is as one of the main concepts of geomorphology of
drainage basin. Texture ratio depends on a number of natural factors
such as climate, rainfall, vegetation, rock type and soil, penetration ca-
pacity, and soil evolutionary stage. According to Smith (1950), texture
ratio is classified into four categories: rough (lower than 4), moderate
(10–4), soft (over 10), and super-soft (N 15). According to this classifica-
tion, the texture ratio of the Ghaemshahr Basin is roughly (1.916). High
levels of texture ratio indicate the presence of soft rocks with low resis-
tance to erosion. The amount of texture ratio in Ghaemshahr Basin indi-
cates low sensitivity of the basin to erosion. The maximum amount of
texture ratio related to sub-watershed 8 with a value of 3.11, indicates
the highest sensitivity of this watershed to erosion, and in contrast,
sub-watershed 31 with texture ratio of 0.576, has the lowest sensitivity
to erosion.
3.3.5. Constant of channel maintenance (C)
The constant of channel maintenance index reflects the penetrability
and control of the flow transmission to the watershed. This parameter
has a direct correlation with erosion. The constant of channel mainte-
nance in the Ghaemshahr Basin between 0.774 (minimum) for sub-
watershed 4 to 1.43 (maximum) for sub-watershed 26. The results
showed that sub-watershed 26 is more erodibility than others.
3.3.6. Length of overland Flow (Lo)
Length of overland flow is one of the most important independent
variables that affect the hydrological and physiographic development
of the watershed (Horton, 1932). The values of this parameter are di-
rectly related to the average slope of the channel, and on steep slopes
it is less and more in gentle slopes. The sub-watershed 4 with highest
Lo (0.645) was assigned as rank 1 which indicated that it has the highest
potential to erode the land in a single stretch and has the highest
susceptibility to erosion. The lowest Lo was observed in sub-
watershed 26 (0.348); so, it has the least susceptible to erosion.
3.3.7. Infiltration number (If)
This factor plays an important role in the characteristics of the
basin's permeability and directly depends on the runoff capacity of the
watershed. The relationship between the infiltration number values
and the sensitivity to erosion of the watershed is inverse. The infiltration
number in the Ghaemshahr Basin is recorded from minimum 0.536 for
sub-watershed 31 to maximum 1.92 for sub-watershed 4. Therefore,
sub-watershed 4 has the most sensitivity to erosion.
3.4. Shape parameters
3.4.1. Elongation ratio (Re)
Re generally varies from 0.6 to 1.0 and is associated with climate and
geology. Values close to 1.0 are related to regions with very low relief,
whereas those values of 0.6 to 0.8 are associated with high relief and
steep ground slopes, respectively (Dar et al., 2013). In this study, sub-
watershed 26 with the highest Re (0.748) showed the least sensitivity
to erosion and in contrast, sub-watershed 87 with the least Re (0.613),
has most susceptible to erosion.
3.4.2. Circularity Ratio (Rc)
The Rc is generally influenced by many features such as the length
and frequency of streams, geological structures, climates, roughness,
and slope. High values of Rc represent the circular shape of the water-
shed, high roughness, and permeability of the surface, so the low values
of Rc indicate the elongation of the watershed, low roughness, and im-
penetrability of the surface. The sub-watershed 32 with the lowest
amount of Rc (0.298) because of its lowest permeability, has the highest
sensitivity to erosion.
3.4.3. Form Factor (Rf)
This parameter has inverse relationship with erosion, in this way;
the lowest form factor values are most sensitive to erosion. The values
of the form factor extracted for the Ghaemshahr sub-watersheds are
 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400 1393

low, so that varies from the minimum (0.295) for the sub-watershed 8
to the maximum (0.439) for sub-watersheds 26. So, sub-watershed 8
has the most sensitivity to erosion due to having the lowest form factor.
3.4.4. Shape Factor (Bs)
The rate of sediment and water production along with the length
and roughness of the drainage network is largely affected by its shape.
Therefore, in terms of response to erosion, Bs behaves like an Rf.
Among all sub-watersheds, the lowest Bs (1.75) was observed in sub-
watershed 26 and had the highest contribution to erosion.
3.4.5. Compactness Coefficient (Cc)
The Cc is directly related to the watershed penetration capacity.
Therefore, the effect of this parameter on erosion is similar to the Bs
and Rf. The lowest Cc obtained for sub-watershed 17 with the value of
1.12, which indicates that it has the lowest infiltration capacity and
therefore the highest sensitivity to erosion.
3.5. Landscape parameters
3.5.2. Slope (S)
The slope of the watershed is a hydrologic-related morphometric
factor that indicates the amount of runoff and runoff concentration
(Mesa, 2006). The steep slopes have higher surface runoff and lower
penetration rates (Verstappen, 1983). The maximum slope of the sub-
watersheds is related to sub-watershed 11 (43.31°) which has the
highest sensitivity to erosion and the lowest slope is for sub-
watershed 2 (12.12°) which is not prone for erosion.
3.5.3. Ruggedness number (Rn)
Rn is used to calculate the flood potential of streams (Patton and
Baker, 1976). This parameter represents the geometric features of the
watershed. The Rn has a direct correlation with erodibility, so that
with increasing values of this parameter, erodibility also increases. The
Rn for the sub-watershed of the Ghaemshahr Basin is different from
the minimum (0.660) for the sub-watershed 26 to the maximum
(2.53) for the sub-watershed of 30. As a result, sub-watershed 30 has
the most sensitivity to erosion.

3.5.1. Basin relief (Bh)

The difference in elevation between the highest and lowest points in
a basin indicates the Bh of the watershed. There is strong correlation be-
tween the hydrological characteristics and overall Bh in a drainage basin
(Schumm, 1956). The Bh is an indicator of the total slope of drainage
basin, as well as the severity of erosion processes that operate on the
slopes of a watershed. This parameter has a direct correlation with ero-
sion. The Bh in the Ghaemshahr Basin is varies from minimum 0.947 for
sub-watershed 26 to maximum 2.87 for sub-watershed 30.
3.5.4. Relief ratio (Rh)
The Rh, which is directly related to the slope of the streams and the
earth's surface, affects hydrological processes and the erosion of the wa-
tershed. Rh, as well as Rn, has a direct correlation with the erodibility of
the watershed. The highest amount of Rh related to sub-watershed 11
(0.272) and its lowest value is for sub-watershed 2 (0.066). Therefore,
sub-watershed 11 has the highest susceptibility to erosion compared
to other sub-watersheds.

Table 3
Extraction of linear, shape, and landscape parameters.
a
Dd Fu Rbm T C Lo If Re Rc Rf Bs Cc Bh S Rn Rh

1 0.98 1.22 3.33 1.43 1.02 0.49 1.20 0.67 0.50 0.30 3.49 1.40 1.23 23.14 1.33 0.14
2 1.08 1.20 7.33 2.43 0.92 0.54 1.30 0.62 0.50 0.35 5.63 1.41 1.36 12.04 1.33 0.07
3 0.97 1.58 3.93 2.63 1.03 0.48 1.53 0.65 0.56 0.33 4.51 1.32 1.64 20.85 1.59 0.12
4 1.29 1.49 14.42 2.69 0.77 0.65 1.92 0.65 0.72 0.33 4.35 1.17 1.12 14.85 1.45 0.09
5 0.85 1.21 8.06 1.80 1.17 0.43 1.03 0.64 0.44 0.33 4.56 1.50 2.09 26.15 1.79 0.15
6 0.92 1.35 5.97 2.59 1.08 0.46 1.25 0.63 0.58 0.32 5.02 1.30 1.87 20.92 1.72 0.12
7 0.83 1.49 11.61 2.37 1.20 0.42 1.25 0.65 0.60 0.33 4.21 1.28 1.98 27.24 1.65 0.16
8 1.08 1.36 10.54 3.11 0.93 0.54 1.47 0.61 0.51 0.30 6.18 1.39 2.03 17.86 2.19 0.10
9 0.91 1.30 12.56 2.01 1.10 0.45 1.18 0.66 0.71 0.34 3.81 1.18 2.04 31.44 1.85 0.18
10 1.12 1.38 10.43 1.69 0.90 0.56 1.54 0.68 0.64 0.36 3.27 1.24 1.90 34.90 2.12 0.21
11 0.92 1.67 7.50 1.35 1.08 0.46 1.54 0.71 0.53 0.39 2.48 1.37 1.71 43.31 1.58 0.27
12 0.88 1.41 7.06 1.98 1.14 0.44 1.24 0.67 0.66 0.35 3.63 1.22 1.67 27.24 1.47 0.16
13 0.96 1.44 8.30 2.85 1.04 0.48 1.39 0.64 0.64 0.32 4.94 1.24 2.38 27.15 2.29 0.15
14 0.90 1.65 8.50 1.82 1.12 0.45 1.48 0.69 0.66 0.37 2.93 1.22 1.84 38.30 1.65 0.23
15 0.87 1.27 10.12 1.55 1.14 0.44 1.11 0.67 0.49 0.35 3.67 1.42 2.20 35.36 1.92 0.21
16 0.89 1.40 6.57 1.86 1.12 0.45 1.25 0.68 0.77 0.36 3.22 1.13 1.57 29.37 1.40 0.18
17 0.88 1.38 7.12 2.83 1.13 0.44 1.22 0.64 0.78 0.32 4.67 1.12 2.01 24.51 1.78 0.14
18 0.93 1.33 8.56 1.81 1.07 0.47 1.24 0.67 0.66 0.35 3.53 1.22 1.86 31.26 1.74 0.19
19 0.98 1.42 7.10 1.39 1.02 0.49 1.39 0.70 0.63 0.38 2.71 1.25 1.56 35.70 1.53 0.22
20 0.89 1.40 6.20 1.58 1.13 0.44 1.24 0.69 0.64 0.37 3.04 1.24 1.91 38.08 1.69 0.23
21 0.99 1.48 5.50 1.58 1.01 0.49 1.46 0.69 0.57 0.37 3.04 1.31 1.26 25.21 1.24 0.15
22 0.98 1.38 6.48 1.57 1.03 0.49 1.35 0.68 0.59 0.37 3.17 1.29 1.54 29.32 1.50 0.18
23 0.86 1.24 8.64 1.69 1.16 0.43 1.07 0.67 0.63 0.35 3.61 1.25 1.71 28.13 1.48 0.17
24 0.92 1.32 9.29 2.81 1.09 0.46 1.22 0.64 0.75 0.32 4.93 1.15 2.55 29.19 2.35 0.16
25 0.88 1.13 7.01 1.67 1.14 0.44 0.99 0.66 0.62 0.34 3.89 1.26 1.82 27.39 1.60 0.16
26 0.70 1.71 6.83 1.03 1.43 0.35 1.19 0.75 0.65 0.44 1.76 1.23 0.95 35.72 0.66 0.24
27 0.84 0.90 7.33 0.94 1.19 0.42 0.75 0.67 0.43 0.36 3.39 1.52 1.80 31.76 1.51 0.19
28 0.86 1.41 8.81 2.25 1.16 0.43 1.21 0.66 0.73 0.34 3.88 1.16 1.66 25.05 1.43 0.15
29 0.99 1.52 6.17 2.93 1.01 0.49 1.50 0.65 0.78 0.33 4.43 1.12 1.64 21.19 1.62 0.12
30 0.88 1.39 24.41 2.31 1.14 0.44 1.22 0.64 0.45 0.32 4.93 1.47 2.88 32.92 2.53 0.19
31 0.73 0.73 4.00 0.58 1.37 0.37 0.54 0.73 0.71 0.41 2.13 1.18 1.04 31.46 0.76 0.20
32 0.85 1.14 9.50 1.32 1.17 0.43 0.98 0.65 0.30 0.33 4.31 1.82 2.26 30.13 1.93 0.17
33 0.97 1.70 7.33 1.28 1.04 0.48 1.64 0.73 0.76 0.42 1.99 1.14 1.21 39.46 1.17 0.26
34 0.81 1.20 5.88 1.49 1.24 0.40 0.97 0.67 0.55 0.35 3.52 1.33 1.41 23.74 1.14 0.14
35 0.92 1.48 6.79 1.88 1.08 0.46 1.36 0.66 0.42 0.34 4.03 1.52 1.46 21.09 1.35 0.12
36 0.97 1.68 5.41 1.89 1.03 0.49 1.64 0.69 0.64 0.37 3.04 1.24 0.98 19.61 0.95 0.12
a
Drainage density (Dd), Stream frequency (Fu), Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm), Texture ratio (T), constant of channel maintenance (C), Length of overland Flow (Lo), Infiltration number (If),
Elongation ratio (Re), Circularity ratio (Rc), Form factor (Rf), Shape factor (Bs), Compactness Ccoefficient (Cc), Basin relief (Bh), Slope (S), Ruggedness number (Rn), and Relief ratio (Rh).
1394 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400

Fig. 5. The weight of each of the parameters with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).

3.6. Erodibility prioritization of sub-watershed by TOPSIS, VIKOR, and SAW
models
Morphometric analysis of drainage basins has been successfully im-
plemented in order to prioritization of sub-watershed at different scales
(Biswas et al., 1999; Sureh et al., 2004; Nooka Ratnam et al., 2005;
Prasad et al., 2008; Jain and Das, 2010; Patel et al., 2012, 2013; Abdul
Rahaman et al., 2015; Farhan and Anaba, 2016). In this research, in
order to priority of study area, morphometric parameters of the risk of
erosion associated with the linear, shape, and landscape characteristics
of the watershed were used (Patel et al., 2013). Linear and landscape pa-
rameters have a direct correlation with erosion (Biswas et al., 1999;
Nooka Ratnam et al., 2005). In contrast, shape parameter, have an in-
verse relationship with erosion, such that the lower the number of
these parameters, the more sensitive to erosion (Patel and Dholakia,
2010; Patel et al., 2012). For example, in the drainage density parame-
ter, which is a linear parameter, the sub-watershed with the highest
drainage density receives the first rank and sub-watershed that obtain-
ed as the lowest drainage density receives the last rank.
After computation of the Linear, Shape and landscape morphometric
parameters (Table 3) and preparing the decision matrix which was the
first step in implementing multi-criteria decision making models,
normalization of the data was done. The criteria used in this study
have different measurement units (such as slope, drainage density,
stream frequency, etc.), which should be normalized to solve this prob-
lem. In this research, the linear method (Eq. 8) was used for normaliza-
tion of the data in the TOPSIS model by vector method and Eqs. 1 and 15
for VIKOR and SAW models, respectively.
The next step was to determine the weight of the criteria. In this re-
search, using AHP method, the weight of each criterion was calculated
(Fig. 5). The incompatibility rate for the final matrix is 0.042, which is
acceptable, because is smaller than 0.1 (Saaty, 1977). The results of
weighting the effective morphometric parameters on erodibility using
the AHP method showed that the mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm), slope
(S), and infiltration number (If) parameters with scores of 0.180,
0.148, and 0.123 have the greatest effect on erodibility of the sub-
watersheds. These results are in line with results of Patel et al. (2012,
2013); Abdul Rahaman et al. (2015); Farhan and Anaba (2016). In con-
trast, elongation ratio (Re), form factor (Rf), and shape factor (Bs) with
the lowest scores (0.015, 0.122 and 0.10) had the least impact on erod-
ibility of the study area. Also, stream frequency (Fu), drainage density
(Dd), relief ratio (Rh), ruggedness number (Rn), constant of channel
maintenance (C), compactness coefficient (Cc), circularity ratio (Rc),
texture ratio (T), basin relief (Bh), and length of overland flow (Lo)

Fig. 6. Classification of sub-watershed to erodibility using VIKOR model.

 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400 1395

Fig. 7. Classification of sub-watershed to erodibility using TOPSIS model.

are in the following ranks. After determining the weight of the criteria,
the weighted normalized decision matrix was calculated for three
MCDM models according to Eqs. 2 (VIKOR), 9 (TOPSIS), and 18
(SAW). Subsequently, the best and worst values in VIKOR model
(Eq. 10) and positive and negative ideal solutions for TOPSIS model
(Eq. 11) are given in Table 5. By the way, results of utility index, regret
index, and ranking of sub-watersheds according to VIKOR model was
done using Eqs. 3 to 5 (Table 6). Also, results of calculation of distance
from positive and negative ideals and closeness coefficient of the op-
tions to the ideal solution in the TOPSIS model calculated using Eqs. 12
to 14 and is presented in Table 7. Also, the final weights of each sub-
watershed using SAW technique were calculated using the sum of
weighted normalized matrix rows based on Eq. 19 (Table 6).
The results of prioritization of the sub-watersheds in term of their
sensitivity to erosion showed that in the VIKOR model, sub-
watersheds 31, 26, and 34 with the lowest score (0, 0.322, and
0.327) located in rank 1 to 3 and have most susceptible to erosion, re-
spectively. In contrast, sub-watersheds 20, 10, and 33 with scores of
0.745, 0.899, and 1 included in the last rank and have shown the least
sensitivity to erosion. On the other hands, results of SAW model
showed that sub-watersheds 33, 35, and 26 with the highest score
(0.798, 0.730, and 0.715) located in rank 1 to 3 and have most sus-
ceptible to erodibility, respectively. In contrast, sub-watersheds 17,
5, and 34 with scores of 0.564, 0.540, and 0.535 specified in the last
rank and have shown the least sensitivity to erosion. Finally, accord-
ing to TOPSIS model, sub-watersheds 32, 36, and 35 with the highest

Fig. 8. Classification of sub-watershed to erodibility using SAW model.

1396 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400

Table 4
Erodibility prioritization of sub-watershed by combination factor method (CF).

Dd Fu Rbm T C Lo If Re Rc Rf Bs Cc Bh S Rn Rh Cf Rank Priority

1 8 29 36 29 29 8 26 23 8 2 14 29 31 28 30 28 22.4 34 Low
2 3 31 18 9 34 3 15 2 7 23 35 30 29 36 29 36 21.3 31 Low
3 11 6 35 7 26 11 6 9 12 9 28 25 22 32 18 32 18.1 18 Low
4 1 9 2 6 36 1 1 11 30 11 26 7 33 35 25 35 16.8 10 Low
5 29 30 15 20 7 30 31 8 4 8 29 33 6 23 9 24 19.1 21 Low
6 17 23 30 8 20 17 17 3 14 3 34 23 13 31 12 33 18.6 19 Low
7 32 8 4 10 4 33 18 13 16 13 24 21 10 21 14 21 16.4 9 Low
8 4 22 5 1 33 4 9 1 9 1 36 28 8 34 4 34 14.6 4 Low
9 19 26 3 13 18 19 28 17 28 17 20 9 7 12 8 13 16.1 8 Low
10 2 20 6 21 35 2 5 25 22 25 12 15 12 8 5 7 13.9 3 Low
11 15 4 16 31 22 15 4 33 10 33 4 27 19 1 19 1 15.9 7 Low
12 23 15 22 14 12 25 21 19 26 19 18 11 20 20 24 19 19.3 22 Low
13 13 12 14 3 24 13 11 4 21 4 33 16 3 22 3 23 13.7 2 Low
14 20 5 13 18 17 20 8 31 27 31 6 10 15 3 15 4 15.2 6 Low
15 26 27 7 27 10 27 29 18 6 18 19 31 5 7 7 8 17.0 13 Low
16 21 16 26 17 16 21 16 26 34 26 11 3 24 15 27 15 19.6 25 Low
17 23 21 20 4 14 23 23 7 36 7 30 1 9 26 10 27 17.6 14 Low
18 14 24 12 19 23 14 19 21 25 21 16 12 14 13 11 11 16.8 11 Low
19 7 13 21 30 30 7 12 32 19 32 5 18 25 6 20 6 17.7 16 Low
20 22 17 28 25 15 22 20 28 23 28 9 14 11 4 13 5 17.8 17 Low
21 6 10 32 24 31 6 10 29 13 29 8 24 30 24 31 22 20.6 28 Low
22 9 19 27 26 28 9 14 27 15 27 10 22 26 16 22 14 19.4 23 Low
23 27 28 11 22 9 28 30 20 18 20 17 19 18 18 23 17 20.3 27 Low
24 18 25 9 5 19 18 24 6 32 6 31 5 2 17 2 18 14.8 5 Low
25 24 34 23 23 11 26 32 15 17 15 22 20 16 19 17 20 20.9 29 Low
26 35 1 24 34 1 36 27 36 24 36 1 13 36 5 36 3 21.8 33 Low
27 31 35 17 35 5 32 35 24 3 24 13 34 17 10 21 10 21.6 32 Low
28 28 14 10 12 8 29 25 16 31 16 21 6 21 25 26 25 19.6 24 Low
29 5 7 29 2 32 5 7 10 35 10 27 2 23 29 16 30 16.8 12 Low
30 22 18 1 11 13 24 22 5 5 5 32 32 1 9 1 12 13.3 1 Low
31 34 36 34 36 2 35 36 34 29 34 3 8 34 11 35 9 25.6 36 Low
32 30 33 8 32 6 31 33 12 1 12 25 36 4 14 6 16 18.7 20 Low
33 12 2 19 33 25 12 2 35 33 35 2 4 32 2 32 2 17.6 15 Low
34 33 32 31 28 3 34 34 22 11 22 15 26 28 27 33 26 25.3 35 Low
35 16 11 25 16 21 16 13 14 2 14 23 35 27 30 28 29 20.0 26 Low
36 10 3 33 15 27 10 3 30 20 30 7 17 35 33 34 31 21.1 30 Low

score (0.773, 0.509, and 0.507) given in rank 1 to 3 and have most
susceptible to erosion, respectively. By the way, sub-watersheds
13, 7, and 29 located in the last rank with scores of) 0.227, 0.223,
0.222) and have shown the least sensitivity to erosion. After ranking
the sub-watersheds, in terms of erosion and loss of natural resources,
the study area classified to four categories including low (0–0.25),
moderate (0.25–0. 5), high (0.5–0.75), and very high (0.75–1) ero-
sion susceptibility. According to VIKOR and TOPSIS models (Figs. 6
and 7) sub-watershed are located in four categories including low,
moderate, high, and very high and according to SAW model (Fig. 8)
sub-watershed are located in three categories include moderate,
high, and very high.

Fig. 9. Classification of sub-watershed to erodibility using CF model.

 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400 1397

Table 5
Computation of the best and worst values, PIS, and NIS indicators in VIKOR and TOPSIS models, respectively.

Dd Fu Rbm T C LO If Re Rc Rf Bs Cc Bh S Rn Rh

TOPSIS A+ 0.25 0.28 4.80 0.80 0.20 0.12 0.36 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.20 0.55 4.45 0.56 0.03
A− 0.13 0.12 0.66 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.06 1.63 0.32 0.18 1.24 0.15 0.01
VIKOR X+
j 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
X−
j 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Erodibility prioritization of sub-watershed by CF method
Compound factor method is one of the best approaches to compare
land surface processes between similar entities such as watersheds.
Due to this reason it has been extensively used by various researchers
for sustainable planning and management of sub-watersheds in regions
of data scarcity (Altaf et al., 2014). In this research, compound factor
(CF) values for each sub-watershed are obtained by aggregating all
rankings of linear, shape, and landscape parameters and then dividing
them to number of parameters based on Eq. 20. The sub-watershed
that receives the lowest CF is ranked first in terms of priority and has
the highest erosion (Patel et al., 2012). Finally, all sub-watersheds are
classified into four groups in terms of erosion sensitivity according to
the amount of compound factor: very high sensitivity (5–5.9), high sen-
sitivity (6–6.9), moderate sensitivity (7–7.9) and low sensitivity (8–8.9)
(Nooka Ratnam et al., 2005). The results of prioritization of the sub-
watersheds by the CF method are shown in Table 4. The results indicat-
ed that sub-watersheds 30, 13, and 10 with the lowest CF value (13.31,
13.68, and 13.87) located in rank 1 to 3, respectively, whereas sub-
watersheds 1, 34, and 31 with the highest amount of CF (22.37, 25.31,
Table 6
Prioritization of sub-watersheds using VIKOR and SAW models.
VIKOR SAW
and 62.25) located in the last rank, respectively. The results of the clas-
sification of sub-watersheds in terms of erodibility showed that the
whole study area located in the class of low sensitivity to erosion
(Fig. 9). This model compared to other MCDM models such as TOPSIS,
VIKOR, and SAW, has some disadvantages such as it assigns a lumped
value for a parameter of an entity as well as it can only be used in a com-
parative study as has been done in this research. Further, it also mea-
sures same weightage to all the parameters involved, which in some
cases can exaggerate the final output. There is a need that the research
carried out here will be compared to the research developed by other
research groups to shed light into the connectivity of the flows as this
will contribute to understand why some areas of the watersheds are
contributing with more sediments than others (Poeppl and Maroulis,
2016). This is a relevant issue as it is not enough that the detachment
of the sediments will be very efficient such is in the agriculture land
(Cerdà et al., 2017), there is also a need to have a good connection to
transport the materials along the watersheds (Parsons et al., 2015).
This is why the research of Masselink et al. (2016) is relevant to achieve
a good understanding of the transport of materials along watershed and
basins using connectivity components.
The results of the prioritization of sub-watersheds using multi-
criteria decision making (MCDM) models indicated that the erosion of
Table 7
Prioritization of sub-watersheds using TOPSIS model.

(Si) (Ri) Qi Rank Priority Ai Rank Priority di+ di− cli+ Rank Priority

1 0.821 0.180 1 36 Low 0.541 33 High 1 1.1752 0.3458 0.2274 32 Low

2 0.657 0.148 0.7011 32 Moderate 0.531 35 High 2 1.1960 0.2422 0.1684 36 Low
3 0.562 0.175 0.7199 33 Moderate 0.592 26 High 3 1.1786 0.2998 0.2028 35 Low
4 0.461 0.135 0.4485 10 High 0.672 7 High 4 0.9045 0.5872 0.3937 15 Moderate
5 0.583 0.140 0.5907 20 Moderate 0.592 27 High 5 0.9428 0.4600 0.3279 24 Moderate
6 0.590 0.158 0.6738 30 Moderate 0.579 30 High 6 1.0991 0.3157 0.2231 33 Low
7 0.496 0.109 0.3741 4 High 0.655 13 High 7 0.7755 0.5977 0.4353 9 Moderate
8 0.513 0.121 0.4393 8 High 0.637 15 High 8 0.9911 0.4336 0.3044 26 Moderate
9 0.478 0.101 0.3221 2 High 0.673 6 High 9 0.6795 0.7050 0.5092 2 High
10 0.406 0.120 0.3274 3 High 0.715 3 Very high 10 0.7359 0.7225 0.4954 4 Moderate
11 0.386 0.145 0.4140 6 High 0.730 2 Very high 11 0.8447 0.8712 0.5077 3 High
12 0.556 0.148 0.5994 22 Moderate 0.608 23 High 12 0.9632 0.4785 0.3319 23 Moderate
13 0.477 0.138 0.4753 12 High 0.663 11 High 13 0.9204 0.5049 0.3542 18 Moderate
14 0.414 0.136 0.4050 5 High 0.711 4 Very high 14 0.8048 0.7629 0.4866 6 Moderate
15 0.485 0.122 0.4172 7 High 0.665 8 High 15 0.7528 0.7158 0.4874 5 Moderate
16 0.552 0.153 0.6132 24 Moderate 0.614 19 High 16 0.9614 0.5238 0.3527 19 Moderate
17 0.556 0.148 0.5981 21 Moderate 0.609 21 High 17 0.9998 0.4219 0.2967 27 Moderate
18 0.510 0.136 0.4991 13 High 0.643 14 High 18 0.8549 0.5959 0.4107 12 Moderate
19 0.481 0.148 0.5230 15 Moderate 0.663 10 High 19 0.8875 0.6827 0.4348 11 Moderate
20 0.484 0.156 0.5593 18 Moderate 0.660 12 High 20 0.9183 0.7234 0.4406 8 Moderate
21 0.562 0.162 0.6629 28 Moderate 0.598 25 High 21 1.0539 0.4219 0.2859 28 Moderate
22 0.535 0.153 0.6003 23 Moderate 0.621 18 High 22 0.9667 0.5205 0.3500 20 Moderate
23 0.572 0.135 0.5580 17 Moderate 0.601 24 High 23 0.8866 0.5279 0.3732 17 Moderate
24 0.484 0.129 0.4470 9 High 0.663 9 High 24 0.8549 0.5705 0.4003 14 Moderate
25 0.603 0.149 0.6485 27 Moderate 0.577 31 High 25 0.9676 0.4715 0.3276 25 Moderate
26 0.531 0.150 0.5829 19 Moderate 0.634 16 High 26 0.9083 0.7000 0.4353 10 Moderate
27 0.632 0.146 0.6655 29 Moderate 0.564 32 High 27 0.9141 0.5787 0.3877 16 Moderate
28 0.558 0.133 0.5386 16 Moderate 0.609 22 High 28 0.9172 0.4742 0.3408 22 Moderate
29 0.546 0.156 0.6220 25 Moderate 0.611 20 High 29 1.0802 0.3455 0.2423 31 Low
30 0.321 0.062 0 1 Very high 0.798 1 Very high 30 0.3464 1.1846 0.7737 1 Very high
31 0.744 0.175 0.8992 35 Low 0.488 36 Moderate 31 1.0732 0.5686 0.3463 21 Moderate
32 0.563 0.127 0.5184 14 Moderate 0.621 17 High 32 0.8369 0.5795 0.4091 13 Moderate
33 0.423 0.146 0.4563 11 High 0.709 5 Very high 33 0.8614 0.7877 0.4776 7 Moderate
34 0.659 0.158 0.7457 34 Moderate 0.535 34 High 34 1.0592 0.3785 0.2633 29 Moderate
35 0.586 0.151 0.6390 26 Moderate 0.585 29 High 35 1.0567 0.3396 0.2432 30 Low
36 0.575 0.162 0.6788 31 Moderate 0.586 28 High 36 1.1287 0.3225 0.2222 34 Low
1398 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400

Table 8 method of VIKOR with a change percentage of 64.58 has more efficiency
Percentages of change in models. and accuracy than the CF, TOPSIS, and SAW methods with the percent-
CF TOPSIS SAW VIKOR Sum age of changes 66.66, 27.25, and 19.63, respectively. Also, the results of
CF 80.556 88.889 88.889 0 64.583
the evaluation of the intensity of changes (Table 9) showed that the
TOPSIS 88.889 88.889 0 88.889 66.667 VIKOR model had the highest rate of change (1.65), whereas TOPSIS
SAW 83.333 0 88.889 88.889 65.278 SAW, and CF methods with intensity of changes 1.40, 1.2, and 1 placed
VIKOR 0 83.333 88.889 80.556 63.194 in the next rank. With regard to the values of the percentage of changes
and the intensity of the changes, it can be stated that the VIKOR model
has been more accurate than the other models.
the study area is not very high, So that, in the CF model, 100 percentages
and in TOPSIS model 83 percentages of watersheds is located in class of
low erosion susceptibility. One of the most important reasons is the 4. Conclusion
presence of dense forest cover in the region. Land cover (LC) has conse-
quential effects on the drainage patterns and erosion susceptibility of a The present study showed that the ASTER DEM with GIS technique is
watershed (Altaf et al., 2014). High vegetation density and high propor- a suitable tool for geomorphometric analysis, sub-watershed determi-
tion of root biomass are greatly effective in reduced erosion rate (Badar nation, and extraction of its morphometric parameters. Comparison of
et al., 2013), Furthermore, Trunk of trees and herb of the small plants TOPSIS, SAW, VIKOR, and CF models using percentage of changes and
avoid direct and severe collision of the rain drops with the surface of intensity of changes indices showed that VIKOR model was more accu-
ground, Thus reducing erosion (Romshoo and Rashid, 2012).Vegetation rate for prioritization of sub-watersheds. In general, sub-watersheds in
affects some parameters such as soil moisture, evaporation- term of sensitivity to erosion in the CF model classified into a class
transpiration, and infiltration (Romshoo and Rashid, 2012). namely low sensitivity, meanwhile in VIKOR and TOPSIS models classi-
Considering that there is a strong relationship between slope and fied into four classes including low, moderate, high, and very high and in
soil erosion and slope has a strong influence in soil erosion (Ahmad the SAW model, observed only three classes of very high, high, and
Rather et al., 2017) and steep slopes increase the soil erosion (Tucker moderate ranks. The results of the superior method (VIKOR) showed
and Bras, 1998). Sub-watersheds of 30, 31, 32, and 33 despite having that, 41.74 km2 (4.66%) located in the class of high erosion sensitivity,
more vegetation than other sub-watersheds, because of high slope, 574.75 km2 (33.46%) in the high sensitivity class, 825.88 km2 (54.93%)
have a more soil erosion susceptibility than others. Of course, the impact in the moderate sensitivity class, and 11.33 km2 (6.93%) in the class of
of other parameters cannot be ignored. Morphometric parameters that low sensitivity. Considering the high sensitivity of Ghaemshahr Basin
have positive correlate with soil erosion, such as linear (Dd, Fu, Rbm, in relation to erosion, it is recommended that the necessary conserva-
T, C, Lo, and If) and landscape (Bh, S, Rn, and Rh) parameters, High tion measures be taken to minimize soil erosion, reduce sediment pro-
values of these parameters have increased the erodibility of sub- duction in the reservoir, stabilize the steep slopes against landslide,
watersheds and parameters that have negative correlate to erodibility and reduce the future flood potential. The present study showed that
such as form parameters (Re, Rc, Rf, Bs, and Cc) low values of these pa- GIS and RS techniques in combination with MCDM methods such as
rameters have increased the erodibility of sub-watersheds. These re- TOPSIS, SAW, VIKOR, and CF can be used by decision-makers and plan-
sults are in line with results of Gajbhiye et al. (2014); Younus et al. ners of soil and water resources to make appropriate decisions for soil
(2016). The results of Dd, Fu, and Rbm indicate that southwestern of erosion control. Prioritization of sub-watersheds is considered as a prag-
watershed because of rocky surface, high topography and poor vegeta- matic methodology that can be applied in the management of water-
tion cover have higher Dd, Fu, Rbm and northeastern of watershed be- sheds, and the conservation of water resources.
cause of permeable subsurface material and good vegetation cover
have lower Dd, Fu, Rbm. Results of Drainage texture (T) showed that
values of this parameter in the total of sub-watershed because of pres- References
ence of rough rocks with high resistance to erosion was low and total
Abdul Rahaman, S., Abdul Ajeez, S., Aruchamy, S., Jegankumar, R., 2015. Prioritization of
of sub-watersheds located in very fine class. Low values of constant sub-watersheds based on morphometric characteristics using fuzzy analytical hierar-
channel maintenance (C) in the watershed indicate high infiltration chy process and geographical information system—a study of Kallar Watershed.
Tamil Nadu. Aquatic Procedia. 4, 1322–1330.
rate, low erodibility, permeability, and low surface runoff. The shape pa-
Adinarayana, J., Krishna, R.N., Rao, K., 1995. An integrated approach for prioritization of
rameters of the watershed and sub-watersheds indicates that they ten- watersheds. J. Environ. Manag. 44, 375–384.
dency to be circulated in most cases, from which it can be inferred that Agarwal, C.S., 1998. Study of drainage pattern through aerial data in Naugarh area of Va-
they will be less capable of erosion and decrease sediment transport ranasi district. U.P. J of Indian Soc of Rem Sensing. 26, 169–175.
Ahmad Rather, M., Satish Kumar, J., Farooq, M., Rashid, H., 2017. Assessing the influence of
load. Landscape values of the watershed showed that this parameter de- watershed characteristics on soil erosion susceptibility of Jhelum basin in Kashmir
crease from southwestern to northeastern which is related to great va- Himalayas. Arab. J. Geosci. 10, 59.
riety in geomorphologic units, structural features and lithology. Alexakis, D.D., Hadjimitsis Diofantos, G., Athos, A., 2013. Integrated use of remote sensing,
GIS and precipitation data for the assessment of soil erosion rate in the catchment
area of Yialias in Cyprus. Atmos. Res. 131, 108–124.
3.8. Validation of models Altaf, S., Meraj, G., Ahmad Romshoo, S., 2014. Morphometry and land cover based multi-
criteria analysis for assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan
watershed. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 8391–8412.
The results of the evaluation of the methods using the percentage of Arnous, M., Aboulela, H., Green, D., 2011. Geo-enviornmental hazards assessment of the
changes and the intensity of the changes are shown in Tables 8 and 9. North Western Gulf of Suez. Egypt. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 15, 37–50.
The results of Table 8 (percentage change index) indicated that the Arunachalam, A.P.S., Idapalapati, S., Subbiah, S., 2015. Multi-criteria decision making tech-
niques for compliant polishing tool selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 79, 519–530.
Badar, B., Romshoo, S.A., Khan, M.A., 2013. Integrating biophysical and socioeconomic in-
formation for prioritizing watersheds in a Kashmir Himalayan lake: a remote sensing
Table 9 and GIS approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 185, 6419–6445.
Intensity of the changes in models. Badri, S.A., 2003. Models of rural planning. Pamphlets Practical Lesson in Geography and
Rural Planning. Payame Noor University, p. 126.
CF TOPSIS SAW VIKOR Sum
Biswas, H., Raizada, A., Mandal, D., Kumar, S., Srinivas, S., Mishra, P.K., 2015. Identification
CF 4.545 1.145 1.145 1.254 1 of areas vulnerable to soil erosion risk in India using GIS methods. Solid Earth. 6,
TOPSIS 5.205 1.728 1.071 1 1.405 1247–1257.
SAW 5.066 1.958 1 1.082 1.026 Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S., Desai, V.R., 1999. Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on mor-
phometric analysis of drainage basin: a remote sensing and GIS approach. Journal of
VIKOR 6.025 1 1.703 1.668 1.654
the Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 27, 155–166.
 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400
Celik, E., Aydin, N., Gumus, A.T., 2014. A multi-attribute customer satisfaction evaluation
approach for rail transit network: a real case study for Istanbul. Turkey. Transp. Policy.
36, 283–293.
Cerdà, A., Borja, M.E.L., Úbeda, X., Martínez-Murillo, J.F., Keesstra, S., 2017. Pinus halepensis
M. versus Quercus ilex subsp. Rotundifolia L. runoff and soil erosion at pedon scale
under natural rainfall in Eastern Spain three decades after a forest fire. For. Ecol.
Manag. 400, 447–456.
Cerdà, A., Keesstra, S.D., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Novara, A., Pereira, P., Brevik, E., Giménez-
Morera, A., Fernández-Raga, M., Pulido, M., di Prima, S., Jordán, A., 2017. Runoff initi-
ation, soil detachment and connectivity are enhanced as a consequence of vineyards
plantations. J. Environ. Manag. 202:268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2017.07.036.
Cerdà, A., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Giménez-Morera, A., Keesstra, S.D., 2017. An economic, per-
ception and biophysical approach to the use of oat straw as mulch in Mediterranean
rainfed agriculture land. Ecol. Eng. 108, 162–171.
Chatterjee, S., Krishna, A.P., Sharma, P., 2013. Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vulner-
ability at watershed level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river basin. En-
vironmental Earth Sciences 71 (1), 357–374.
Chen, F.H., Tzeng, G.H., Chang, C.C., 2015. Evaluating the enhancement of corporate social
responsibility websites quality based on a new hybrid MADM model. Int. J. Inf.
Technol. Decis. Mak. 14, 697–724.
Chithambaranathan, P., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., Palaniappan, P.K., 2015. Service
supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid MCDM
approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 166, 163–176.
Chitsaz, N., Banihabib, M.E., 2015. Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making
models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag. 29,
2503–2525.
Chopra, R., Dhiman, R.D., Sharma, P.K., 2005. Morphometric analysis of sub-watersheds in
Gurdaspur District, Punjab Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. Journal of the
Indian Society of Remote Sensing 33, 531–539.
Dar, R.A., Chandra, R., Romshoo, S.A., 2013. Morphotectonic and lithostratigraphic analysis
of intermontane Karewa basin of Kashmir Himalayas, India. J. Mt. Sci. 10 (1),
731–741.
Dudal, R., 1981. An evaluation of conservation needs. In: Morgan, R.P.C. (Ed.), Soil Conser-
vation: Problems and Prospects. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 3–12.
El-Santawy, M.F., 2012. A VIKOR method for solving personnel training selection problem.
Int. J. Comput. Sci. 1 (2), 9–12.
Esper Angillieri, M., 2008. Morphometric analysis of Colanguil River Basin and flash flood
hazard, San Juan. Argentina. Environmental Geology 55, 107–111.
Faniran, A., 1968. The Index of Drainage Intensity—A Provisional New Drainage Factor.
Aust. J. Sci. 31, 328–330.
Farhan, Y., Anaba, O., 2016. A remote sensing and GIS approach for prioritization of Wadi
Shueib Mini-Watersheds (Central Jordan) based on morphometric and Soil erosion
susceptibility analysis. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 8, 1–19.
Fernández-Raga, M., Palencia, C., Keesstra, S., Jordán, A., Fraile, R., Angulo-Martínez, M.,
Cerdà, A., 2017. Splash erosion: a review with unanswered questions. Earth Sci.
Rev. 171, 463–477.
Frissel, C.A., Liss, W.J., Warren, C.E., Hurley, M.D., 1986. A hierarchical framework for
stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ.
Manag. 10, 199–214.
Gajbhiye, S., Mishra, S., Pandey, A., 2014. Prioritizing erosion-prone area through morpho-
metric analysis: an RS and GIS perspective. Appl Water Sci 4, 51–61.
García-Ruiz, J.M., 2015. Why geomorphology is a global science. Cuadernos De
Investigacion Geografica 41 (1):87–105. https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.2652.
García-Ruiz, J.M., Beguería, S., Lana-Renault, N., Nadal-Romero, E., Cerdà, A., 2017. Ongo-
ing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 28 (1), 5–21.
Georgiou, D., Mohammed, E.S., Rozakis, S., 2015. Multi-criteria decision making on the en-
ergy supply configuration of autonomous desalination units. Renew. Energy 75,
459–467.
Govindan, K., Jepsen, M.B., 2016. ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on method-
ologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250, 1–29.
Harlin, J.M., Wijeyawickrema, C., 1985. Irrigation and groundwater depletion in Caddo
County, Oklahoma. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 21 (1), 15–22.
Horton, R., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins;
hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 56,
275–370.
Horton, R.E., 1932. Drainage basin characteristics. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 13,
350–361.
Howard, A.D., 1990. Role of hypsometry and planform in basin hydrologic response.
Hydrol. Process. 4 (4), 373–385.
Huang, J.J., Tzeng, G.H., Liu, H.H., 2009. A revised VIKOR model for multiple criteria deci-
sion making - the perspective of regret theory. In Cutting-Edge Research Topics on
Multiple Criteria Decision Making. 35, pp. 761–768.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applica-
tions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p. 225.
Ifabiyi, I.P., Eniolorunda, N.B., 2012. Watershed characteristics and their implication for
hydrologic response in the upper Sokoto basin, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Ge-
ology. 4 (2), 147.
Jain, M.K., Das, D., 2010. Estimation of sediment yield and areas of soil erosion and depo-
sition for watershed prioritization using GIS and remote sensing. Water Resour.
Manag. 24, 2091–2112.
Jang, T., Vellidis, G., Hyman, J.B., Brooks, E., Kurkalova, L.A., Boll, J., Cho, J., 2013. Model for
prioritizing best management practice implementation: sediment load reduction. En-
viron. Manag. 51, 209–224.
Kannan, G., 2009. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of re-
verse logistics provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1, 28–36.
1399
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., Cerdà, A., 2018. The
superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosys-
tem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610, 997–1009.
Keesstra, S., Pereira, P., Novara, A., Brevik, E.C., Azorin-Molina, C., Parras-Alcántara, L.,
Jordán, A., Cerdà, A., 2016a. Effects of soil management techniques on soil water ero-
sion in apricot orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 551, 357–366.
Keesstra, S.D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., Montanarella, L.,
Quinton, J.N., Pachepsky, Y., van der Putten, W.H., Bardgett, R.D., Moolenaar, S., Mol,
G., Jansen, B., Fresco, L.O., 2016b. The significance of soils and soil science towards re-
alization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2:111–128.
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016.
Keesstra, S.D., Temme, A.J.A.M., Schoorl, J.M., Visser, S.M., 2014. Evaluating the hydrolog-
ical component of the new catchment-scale sediment delivery model LAPSUS-D.
Geomorphology 212, 97–107.
Kouli, M., Soupios, P., Vallianatos, F., 2009. Soil erosion prediction using the Revised Uni-
versal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in a GIS framework, Chania, Northwestern Crete.
Greece. Environ Geol. 57, 483–497.
Lassu, T., Seeger, M., Peters, P., Keesstra, S.D., 2015. The Wageningen rainfall simulator:
set-up and calibration of an indoor nozzle-type rainfall simulator for soil erosion
studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 26 (6), 604–612.
Liou, T.S., Wang, M.J.J., 1992. Fuzzy weighted average: an improved algorithm. Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 3, 307–315.
Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Lu, C., Chen, Y.Z., 2015. Evaluating health-care waste treatment technol-
ogies using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making model. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
41, 932–942.
Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Zhen, L., Fan, X.J., 2014. A novel hybrid multiple criteria decision making
model for material selection with target-based criteria. Mater. Des. 60, 380–390.
Ma, J., Fan, Z.P., Huang, L.H., 1999. A subjective and objective integrated approach to de-
termine attribute weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 112, 397–404.
Malik, M., Bhat, M., Kuchay, N.A., 2011. Watershed based drainage morphometric analysis
of Lidder catchment in Kashmir valley using Geographical Information System. Re-
cent Res in Sci and Tech. 3 (4), 118–126.
Mandal, S., Singh, K., Behera, R., Sahu, S., Raj, N., Maiti, J., 2015. Human error identification
and risk prioritization in overhead crane operations using HTA, SHERPA and fuzzy
VIKOR method. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 7195–7206.
Masselink, R., Temme, A.J.A.M., Giménez, R., Casalí, J., Keesstra, S.D., 2017. Assessing
hillslope-channel connectivity in an agricultural catchment using rare-earth oxide
tracers and random forests models. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica. http://
doi.org/10.18172/cig.3169
Masselink, R.J., Heckmann, T., Temme, A.J., Anders, N.S., Gooren, H., Keesstra, S.D., 2017. A
network theory approach for a better understanding of overland flow connectivity.
Hydrol. Process. 31 (1), 207–220.
Masselink, R.J.H., Keesstra, S.D., Temme, A.J.A.M., Seeger, M., Giménez, R., Casalí, J., 2016.
Modelling discharge and sediment yield at catchment scale using connectivity com-
ponents. Land Degrad. Dev. 27 (4):933–945. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2512.
Mekonnen, M., Keesstra, S.D., Baartman, J.E., Stroosnijder, L., Maroulis, J., 2017. Reducing
sediment connectivity through man-made and natural sediment sinks in the Minizr
Catchment, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 28 (2), 708–717.
Mesa, L.M., 2006. Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucumam,
Argentina). Environ. Geol. 50 (8), 1235–1242.
Miller, V., 1953. A Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in the
Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee. Project NR 389-402. Technical Report
3. Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, New York.
Mohanty, P.P., Mahapatra, S., 2014. A compromise solution by VIKOR method for ergo-
nomically designed product with optimal set of design characteristics. Procedia
Mater. Sci. 6, 633–640.
Mol, G., Keesstra, S.D., 2012. Soil science in a changing world. Current Opinions in Envi-
ronmental Sustainability. 4, 473–477.
Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., 1992. Channel initiation and the problem of landscape
scale. Science 255, 826–830.
Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B., Ladson, A.R., 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydro-
logical, geomorphological and biological applications. Hydrol. Process. 5 (1), 3–30.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., Maliene, V., 2016. Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for the
Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability. 59 pp. 146–156.
Nasre, R.A., Nagaraju, M.S.S., Srivastava, R., Maji, A.K., Barthwal, A.K., 2013. Soil erosion
mapping for land resources management in Karanji watershed of Yavatmal district,
Maharashtra using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Indian J Soil Cons. 41 (3),
248–256.
Nautiyal, M.D., 1994. Morphometric analysis of drainage basin, district Dehradun, Uttar
Pradesh. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing. 22 (4), 252–262.
Nooka Ratnam, K., Srivastava, Y.K., Venkateshwara Rao, V., Amminedu, E., Murthy, K.S.R.,
2005. Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model
and morphometric analysis—remote sensing and GIS perspecative. Journal of the
Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 33, 25–38.
Okumura, M., Araujo, A.G., 2014. Long-term cultural stability in hunter–gatherers: a case
study using traditional and geometric morphometric analysis of lithic stemmed bifa-
cial points from Southern Brazil. J. Archaeol. Sci. 45, 59–71.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156 (2), 445–455.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2007. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking
methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 178, 514–529.
Ozdemir, H., Bird, D., 2009. Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks
derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environ. Geol. 56,
1405–1415.
Pandey, A., Mathur, A., Mishra, S.K., Mal, B.C., 2009. Soil erosion modeling of a Himalayan
watershed using RS and GIS. Environ. Earth Sci. 59 (2), 399–410.
1400 A.A. Ameri et al. / Science of the Total Environment 613–614 (2018) 1385–1400
Parsons, A.J., Bracken, L., Peoppl, R., Wainwright, J., Keesstra, S.D., 2015. Introduction to
special issue on connectivity in water and sediment dynamics. In Press in Earth Sur-
face Processes and Landforms https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3714.
Patel, D., Dholakia, M., Naresh, N., Srivastava, P., 2012. Water harvesting structure posi-
tioning by using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-watersheds
through morphometric analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. Journal of the Indian Society
of Remote Sensing. 40, 299–312.
Patel, D., Gajjar, C., Srivastava, P., 2013. Prioritization of Malesari Mini-Watersheds
through morphometric analysis: a remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environ.
Earth Sci. 69, 2643–2656.
Patel, D.P., Dholakia, M., 2010. Feasible structural and non-structural measures to mini-
mize effect of flood in Lower Tapi Basin. International Journal WSEAS Transactions
of Fluid Mechanics. 3, 104–121.
Patton, P.C., Baker, V.R., 1976. Morphometry and floods in small drainage basins subject to
diverse hydrogeomorphic controls. Water Resour. Res. 12 (5), 941–952.
Peng, Y., 2015. Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of
MCDM methods. Ann. Oper. Res. 234, 95–110.
Pike, R.J., 2000. Geomorphometry: diversity in quantitative surface analysis. Prog. Phys.
Geogr. 24, 1–20.
Podvezko, V., 2006. Neapibrėžtumo įtaka daugiakriteriniams vertinimams. Verslas: teorija
ir praktika 7 (2), 81–88.
Poeppl, R.,E. Maroulis, J., Keesstra, S.D., 2016. Geomorphology. A Conceptual Connectivity
Framework for Understanding Geomorphic Change in Human-impacted Fluvial Sys-
tems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.07.033
Prasad, R.K., Mondal, N.C., Banerjee, P., Nandakumar, M.V., Singh, V.S., 2008. Deciphering
potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS. Environ.
Geol. 55, 467–475.
Ratnam, K.N., Rao, V.V., Amminedu, E., 2005. Check Dam Positioning by Prioritization of
Micro-watersheds Using SYI Model and Morphometric Analysis - Remote Sensing
and GIS Perspective. 33(1) pp. 25–38.
Ren, J., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Zuliani, F., Scipioni, A., 2015. Prioritization of bioethanol
production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and
multi-criteria decision making. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 842–853.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Iserloh, T., Lassu, T., Cerdà, A., Keestra, S.D., Prosdocimi, M., Brings, C.,
Marzen, M., Ramos, M.C., Senciales, J.M., Ruiz Sinoga, J.D., Seeger, M., Ries, J.B., 2016.
Quantitative comparison of initial soil erosion processes and runoff generation in
Spanish and German vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 565:1165–1174. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.163.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Martínez-Hernández, C., Iserloh, T., Cerdà, A., 2017. The contrasted
impact of land abandonment on soil erosion in mediterranean agriculture fields.
Pedosphere https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60441-7.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Wirtz, S., Brevik, E.C., Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D., Ries, J.B., 2017. Assessment of
agri-spillways as a soil erosion protection measure in Mediterranean sloping
vineyards. J. Mt. Sci. 14:1009–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-016-4269-8.
Romshoo, S.A., Rashid, I., 2012. Assessing the impacts of changing land cover and climate
on Hokersar wetland in Indian Himalayas. Arab. J. Geosci. 7, 143–160.
Rudraiah, M., Govindaiah, S., Vittala, S.S., 2008. Morphometry using remote sensing and
GIS techniques in the sub-basins of Kagna River Basin, Gulbarga District, Karnataka.
India. J of Indian Soc of Rem Sensing. 36, 351–360.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol.
15, 59–62.
Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S.F., Yazdankhah, A., 2010. Group decision making process for sup-
plier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 24–30.
Sargaonkar, A., Rathi, B., Baile, A., 2010. Identifying potential sites for artificial groundwa-
ter recharge in sub-watershed of River Kanhan. India. Environ. Earth Sci. 6, 1–10.
Schumm, S., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy.
New Jersey. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 67, 597–646.
Sharma, N.K., Singh, R.J., Mandal, D., Kumar, A., Alam, N.M., Keesstra, S., 2017. Increasing
farmer's income and reducing soil erosion using intercropping in rainfed maize-
wheat rotation of Himalaya, India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 43–53.
Sharma, R., Sahai, B., Karale, R.L., 1985. Identification of erosion-prone areas in a part of
the Ukai catchment. Proceedings, Sixth Asian Conference on Remote Sensing. Nation-
al Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad, pp. 121–126.
Shit, P.K., Nandi, A.R., Bhunia, G.S., 2015. Soil erosion risk mapping using RUSLE model on
Jhargram sub-division at West Bengal in India. Model Earth Syst Environ. 1 (28),
1–12.
Singh, O., Sarangi, A., Sharma, M., 2008. Hypsometric integral estimation methods and its
relevance on erosion status of North-Western Lesser Himalayan Watersheds. Water
Resour. Manag. 22, 1545–1560.
Smith, K., 1950. Standards for grading texture of erosional topography. Am. J. Sci. 248 (9),
655–668.
Srivastava, V.K., 2003. Role of GIS in natural resources management. In: Thakur, B. (Ed.),
Perspectives in Resource Management in Developing Countries. Concept Publishing
Company, New Delhi, pp. 479–484.
Strahler, A., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union 38, 913–920.
Strahler, A., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel network.
In: Chow, V. (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York,
pp. 439–476.
Sun, P., Liu, Y., Qiu, X., Wang, L., 2015. Hybrid multiple attribute group decision-making
for power system restoration. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 6795–6805.
Sureh, M., Sudhakar, S., Tiwari, K.N., Chowdary, V.M., 2004. Prioritization of watersheds
using morphometric parameters and assessment of surface water potential using re-
mote sensing. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 32, 249–259.
Todorovski, L., Džeroski, S., 2006. Integrating knowledge driven and data-driven ap-
proaches to modeling. Ecol. Model. 194 (1), 3–13.
Tucker, G.E., Bras, R.L., 1998. Hill slope processes, drainage density and landscape mor-
phology. Water Res. 34 (10), 2751–2764.
Verstappen, H., 1983. Applied Geomorphology: Geomorphological Surveys for Environ-
mental Development. Elsevier, New York.
Younus, I., Qusay, A., Balsam, S., Arsalan, A., 2016. Drainage network extraction and mor-
phometric analysis using remote sensing and GIS mapping techniques (Lesser Zab
River Basin, Iraq and Iran). Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1243.