Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3534-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Impact of urbanization on hydrological processes

under different precipitation scenarios

Wenbin Zang1,2 · Shu Liu2 · Shifeng Huang2 · Jiren Li2 · Yicheng Fu1 · Yayong Sun2 ·
Jingwei Zheng2

Received: 5 August 2018 / Accepted: 14 November 2018 / Published online: 14 February 2019
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
According to analysing the trends of land use changes in the upper reaches of Minjiang
River in the past 30 years and precipitation in the last 50 years, nine types of simulation
scenarios were constructed for different precipitation conditions and urbanization develop-
ment processes. Based on the “five sub-basin selection principles” and “two simulation
results evaluation indicators” proposed, the paper studied the influence of the urbaniza-
tion process on hydrological processes under different precipitation conditions using the
SWAT model. The primary conclusions are as follows: (1) the simulation results under
the two kinds of land use transfer scenarios show the same laws: (a) when forest land (or
grassland) is transferred to urban land, actual evapotranspiration (ET), soil water content
(SW), amount of water percolating out of root zone (PERC) and groundwater contribution
to streamflow (GW_Q) show a decreasing trend, and the reduction in watershed hydro-
logical indexes is manifested as “high precipitation > average precipitation > low precipi-
tation”. Moreover, surface runoff (SURQ), water yield (WYLD) and annual runoff show
an increasing trend, and the increment in SURQ shows “high precipitation > average pre-
cipitation > low precipitation”, while the increment in WYLD and the simulated annual
runoff show “low precipitation > average precipitation > high precipitation”. (b) Through
analysis of the contribution of unit proportion transfer (CUPT) of watershed hydrological
indicators, “SURQ > PERC > GW_Q > ET > SW” is observed in all precipitation scenarios.
(2) Comparing simulation results between the two kinds of land use transfer scenarios:
the CUPT variations of ET, SURQ and WYLD and the contribution of unit area transfer
variations of daily flood peak and annual runoff both show “forest land transfer to urban
land > grassland transfer to urban land”. Finally, two special phenomena observed in the
analysis of the simulation results were discussed. The study results can provide a scientific
basis for urban planning and construction for reducing the impact on urban flood.

Keywords Urbanization · Land use change · Precipitation scenario · SWAT model

* Shifeng Huang
huangsf@iwhr.com
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1234 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

1 Introduction

Since the twenty-first century, global extreme weather has become more frequent
(Hirabayashi et al. 2013). Climate change has a profound impact on the Earth system
(People’s Daily 2012; Lesk et al. 2016). In 2012, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) released a report on the merits and demerits of the most comprehensive
assessment of the impact of climate change on floods and other extreme disasters (IPCC
2012). The assessment results indicate that extreme weather will lead to increased risk
of flooding (IPCC 2012). The European Commission released a flood guideline to guide
flood risk management in EU member states, which explicitly pointed out that the risk
assessment must pay attention to the impact of climate change (European Commission
2007). The climate change in China shows a considerable similarity to the global change
through the analysis of climate data in the past 100 years (Ding et al. 2007).
Human endeavours, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry, min-
ing, industry, business, transportation, sightseeing and various construction projects,
are a series of activities used by different types of people to survive and improve their
living standards (Ye et al. 2001). Human beings affect the hydrological cycle by chang-
ing the river channel (Liu et al. 2014), changing the underlying surface (Zhao et al.
2013), excessive exploitation of groundwater (Kaushal et al. 2017) and other activi-
ties (Cornelissen et al. 2013; Ellis and Ramankutty 2008). Urbanization is one of the
most important factors in human activities affecting hydrological processes (Zhang
2012). The process of urbanization changes the characteristics of the underlying surface
(Breuer et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2014). In particular, the increase in impervious area
brought by urbanization has greatly affected the process of runoff and concentration on
urban surfaces (Song et al. 2014). Urbanization brings a range of environmental chal-
lenges as a direct result of the biochemical and physical changes to hydrological sys-
tems (Zheng et al. 2003; Fletcher et al. 2013).
Hydrological modelling plays a notably important role in assessing the impact of
land use changes and climate changes on hydrological systems (Fletcher et al. 2013;
Dwarakish and Ganasri 2015; Piao et al. 2007). Onstad and Jamieson (1970) proposed
a hydrological model to study the impact of land use changes on runoff first. Since then,
more and more hydrological models have been used in these studies, such as Soil and
Water Assessment Tool model (SWAT) (Sajikumar and Remya 2015), Variable Infiltra-
tion Capacity model (VIC) (Hengade and Eldho 2016), TOPgraphy-based hydrological
model (TOPMODEL) (Dietterick et al. 1999) and Xin’anjiang model (Xian et al. 2017).
Many scholars (Sajikumar and Remya 2015; Jayakrishnan et al. 2005; Zhou et al. 2013)
believe that the runoff simulation accuracy of SWAT is better. It is one of the more
mature hydrological models in the world and one of the most widely used distributed
hydrological models.
At present, scholars (He et al. 2013; Chu et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2015; Akhter and Hewa
2016) have examined the impact of urbanization on river peak flow and average runoff.
However, the studies on hydrological effects of urbanization seldom take climate change
into account, nor the horizontal comparison between urbanization scenarios. In this paper,
the SWAT model will be used to study quantitatively the impact of urbanization on water-
shed and river hydrological processes under different precipitation conditions. The differ-
ent hydrological responses of different types of urbanization will also be analysed. In this
paper, “five sub-basin selection principles” and “two simulation results evaluation indica-
tors” are proposed, which will help other scholars carry out similar research.

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1235

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study site

The upstream of the Minjiang River, primarily from the source of Minjiang River to Zip-
ingpu Reservoir, was chosen as the whole study area. The area includes the counties of
Wenchuan, Li, Mao, Heishui and Songpan in Aba Tibetan and Qiang autonomous prefec-
ture, Sichuan province, China.
The study area is located in northern Sichuan province, eastern Aba autonomous pre-
fecture and in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau region. Beichuan, An and Mianzhu counties are
to the east of the study area, Chongqing and Dayi counties are to the south, Hongyuan and
Maerkang counties are to the west, and Jiuzhaigou and Ruoergai counties are to the north.
The area of the basin is approximately 230 thousand ­km2. The longitude is from 102°36′E
to 103°58′E, and the latitude is from 30°46′N to 33°09′N. The location of the study area is
shown in Fig. 1.

2.2 Materials

Daily precipitation data for 1977–1980 from seventeen rainfall stations, about 50 years of
daily weather data (precipitation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, average
wind speed, relative humidity and solar radiation) from five weather stations (Wenchuan,
Li, Mao, Heishui and Songpan) and daily runoff data for 1977–1980 from seven hydrologi-
cal sites (Zipingpu, Shengliba, Zhenjiangguan, Heishui, Shaba, Zagunao and Shouxi) were
collected in the paper.
DEM data were collected from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
with a spatial resolution of 30 metres (Fig. 2), and soil data from Institute of Soil Sci-
ence, Chinese Academy of Sciences (1:1 million, shapefile data). In addition, the paper
also obtained land use data with a spatial resolution of 1 km in 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000,
2005, 2010 and 2015 [raster data, the dataset was provided by Data Center for Resources
and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (RESDC) (http://www.resdc​
.cn)] (Fig. 3).

2.3 Methodology

The SWAT model (Neitsch et al. 2011) is a distributed watershed hydrological model
developed by the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Agency (USDA-
ARS) in the 1990s. The model has a strong physical basis, and it is suitable for complex
river basins with different soil types, land use patterns and management conditions. The
model has a wide range of research. Scholars have conducted many studies by utilizing this
model, primarily for such applications as exploring and improving the model, uncertainty
research of the hydrological model, hydrological scale research, lack of data hydrological
simulation, climate change simulation, land use/vegetation cover change simulation, water
resource evaluation and management, non-point source pollution simulation, sediment
simulation and agricultural management.
Based on an analysis of the land use change trend in the upper reaches of Minjiang River
from 1980 to 2015, land transfer scenarios in the process of urbanization and precipitation

13
1236 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Fig. 1  Map of the upstream of Minjiang River

scenarios were constructed. Next, this paper studied the impact of urbanization processes on
hydrological processes under different precipitation scenarios with the SWAT model.
The relative error of flood total volume (Dv), the Nash–Suttcliffe coefficient (Ens) (Nash
and Sutcliffe 1970) and the coefficient of correlation (R2) (Nagelkerke 1991) were chosen as
goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate the performance of the SWAT model, as shown in Eqs. (1),
(2) and (3):
100(P − O)
Dv (%) = (1)
O

∑n
(Oi − Pi )2
Ens = 1 − ∑i=1
n (2)
̄ 2
(Oi − O)
i=1

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1237

Fig. 2  The spatial distribution information of terrain

2
⎡ ∑n � �� � ⎤
⎢ ̄ Pi − P̄
Oi − O ⎥
(3)
2 i=1
R = ⎢� � ⎥
� � � �
⎢ ∑n O − O ̄ 2 ∑n Pi − P̄ 2 ⎥
⎣ i=1 i i=1 ⎦

where O and P represent measured flood total volume and calculated flood total volume,
respectively; Oi and Pi represent measured flood peak and calculated flood peak, respec-
tively when the data sequence is i; O and P are the mean value of measured flood peak and
mean value of calculated flood peak, respectively; n is the length of data sequence.

13
1238 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Fig. 3  The spatial distribution information of land use. a 1980; b 1990; c 1995; d 2000; e 2005; f 2010; g
2015

2.4 Trend analysis of land use changes in the last 30 years

Land use data from 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 were analysed statisti-
cally. The information on land use area in the upper reaches of Minjiang River from 1980
to 2015 is shown in Table 1. According to Table 1, the area of forest land and grassland
accounted for more than 97% of the upper reaches of Minjiang River from 1980 to 2015.

2.4.1 Analysis of construction land change tendency

The change trend of construction land area in the upper reaches of Minjiang River from
1980 to 2015 is shown in Fig. 4. Overall, the area of construction land declined from
1980 to 1990, and 1990–2015 showed a gradual upward trend with a dramatic increase in
2010–2015. Specific to the subcategories: (1) the change trend of urban land was the same
as that of construction land. (2) The change trend of area of rural residential land was the

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1239

Table 1  Statistical information of land use area in the upstream of Minjiang River from 1980 to 2015; unit:
­km2
Land use Year
Code Name 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

1 Cultivated land 595 529 518 608 556 547 545

112 Hilly paddy field 0 3 1 3 3 0 0
113 Plain paddy field 4 1 2 1 1 1 1
121 Upland dry land 591 505 492 584 534 528 544
122 Hilly arid land 0 8 11 4 2 2 0
123 Plain dry land 0 2 3 4 4 4 0
124 >25° sloping land 0 10 9 12 12 12 0
2 Forest land 10,237 10,489 10,424 10,228 9996 10,006 9998
21 Woodland 3939 4625 4555 3943 3745 3756 3761
22 Shrubland 5063 5352 5369 5034 4932 4922 4909
23 Sparse woodland 1194 484 482 1210 1269 1277 1282
24 Other woodland 41 28 18 41 50 51 46
3 Grassland 11,728 11,552 11,623 11,726 11,995 11,979 11,968
31 High coverage grassland 2832 1553 2223 2840 2935 2942 2933
32 Middle coverage grassland 8488 9548 8967 8477 8600 8579 8577
33 Low coverage grassland 408 451 433 409 460 458 458
4 Water area 45 38 42 43 42 54 62
41 River 3 4 1 3 3 3 3
42 Lake 18 12 14 16 16 16 16
43 Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 12 20
44 Permanent glacier snow 24 22 27 24 23 23 23
5 Construction land 12 9 12 13 19 19 32
51 Urban land 3 2 4 4 6 6 6
52 Rural residential land 9 7 8 9 13 12 15
53 Other construction land 0 0 0 0 0 1 11
6 Unused land 10 10 8 9 19 22 22
64 Wetlands 9 10 8 9 10 10 10
65 Bare land 1 0 0 0 2 3 3
66 Bare rocky texture 0 0 0 0 7 9 9
Total 22,627 22,627 22,627 22,627 22,627 22,627 22,627

same as that of construction land from 1980 to 2015, and from 2005 to 2010. (Analysis
shows the area reduction of rural residential land may be affected by the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.) (3) There was no monitoring of other construction land in 1980–2005, while
the area increased rapidly in 2010–2015.

2.4.2 Analysis of Woodland Change Tendency

The forest land in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River was dominated by shrubland
and woodland. The change trend of forest land area in the upper reaches of Minjiang River
from 1980 to 2015 is shown in Fig. 5. In general, the area of forest land increased from

13
1240 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Fig. 4  Tendency of construction land area in the upper reaches of Minjiang River from 1980 to 2015

Fig. 5  Tendency of Woodland area in the upper reaches of Minjiang River from 1980 to 2015

1980 to 1990 and gradually decreased from 1990 to 2005, while it was basically stable
in 2005–2015. Specific to the subcategories: (1) the area change trends of woodland and
shrubland were basically the same as that of forest land. (2) The area of sparse wood-
land decreased in 1980–1990, gradually increased in 1995–2005 and remained stable in
1990–1995 and 2005–2015. (3) The area of other woodland accounts for less than 0.5% of
forest land area, and its area change was very small from 1980 to 2015. This change had
little effect on the overall change of forest land.

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1241

2.4.3 Analysis of grassland change tendency

The area of middle coverage grassland was dominant with more than 70% of the grass-
land area in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River. The tendency of grassland area in
the upper reaches of Minjiang River from 1980 to 2015 is shown in Fig. 6. In general,
the area of grassland decreased from 1980 to 1990, increased substantially from 1990
to 2005, and remained stable in 2005–2015. Specific to the subcategories: (1) the area
of high coverage grassland declined by nearly half in 1980–1990, basically increased
in 1990–2005 and remained stable in 2005–2015. (2) The area of middle coverage
grassland increased remarkably in 1980–1990, decreased in 1990–2000, increased in
2000–2005 and remained stable in 2005–2015. (3) The area of low coverage grassland
accounts for less than 5% of the grassland area, and the area was basically unchanged
from 1980 to 2015.

2.5 Construction of scenarios

Based on an analysis of land use area change trends in the upper reaches of the Minji-
ang River in the last 30 years, the paper studied the influence of the urbanization process
on hydrological processes under different precipitation conditions. Considering that forest
land and grassland occupied almost all of the area of the upper reaches of Minjiang River,
it is more meaningful to study the effect of urbanization of forest land or grassland transfer
to urban land on the impact of hydrological processes. The paper constructed nine types
of research scenarios to study quantitatively the impact of urbanization on watershed and
river hydrological processes under different precipitation conditions (Table 2).
According to research results in the literature (Huang et al. 2015), the precipitation
of 1977–1980 belongs to a plain water year in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River.
In this paper, three precipitation scenarios were established. Observed precipitation in
1977–1980 was suggested as the baseline scenario, while high precipitation scenario
was increased by 20%, and low precipitation scenario was reduced by 20%.

Fig. 6  Tendency of grassland area in the upper reaches of Minjiang River from 1980 to 2015

13
1242 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Table 2  Nine research scenarios

Land transfer scenario Precipitation scenarios
High precipitation Average precipitation Low precipitation

Original land use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Forest land transfer to urban land Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
Grassland transfer to urban land Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9

2.6 Research indicators

Combined with the two concepts of contribution of unit transfer proposed in this paper,
hydrological indicators of watershed and river were used for quantitative analysis of
the influence of different precipitation scenarios of city urbanization on hydrological
processes.

2.6.1 Watershed hydrological indicators

The main watershed hydrographic indicators were used in the study as follows (Arnold
et al. 2011):

1. Actual evapotranspiration (ET): Actual evapotranspiration from the sub-basin during

the time step (mm).
2. Soil water content (SW): Amount of water in the soil profile at the end of the time period
(mm).
3. Amount of water percolating out of root zone (PERC): Water that percolates past the
root zone during the time step (mm). There is potentially a lag between the time the
water leaves the bottom of the root zone and reaches the shallow aquifer. Over a long
period of time, this variable should equal groundwater percolation.
4. Surface runoff (SURQ): Surface runoff contribution to streamflow during time step (mm
­H2O).
5. Groundwater contribution to streamflow (GW_Q): Water from the shallow aquifer that
returns to the reach during the time step (mm).
6. Water yield (WYLD): The net amount of water that leaves the sub-basin and contributes
to streamflow in the reach during the time step (mm ­H2O).

2.6.2 River hydrological indicators

The main river hydrographic indicator used in this paper was as follows (Arnold et al.
2011):

1. Average daily streamflow into reach (FLOW_IN): Average daily streamflow into reach
during time step ­(m3/s).

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1243

2.6.3 Contribution of unit transfer

1. The contribution of unit proportion transfer (CUPT): To facilitate quantitative descrip-

tion of the impact of land use change on watershed hydrological indicators, and the
horizontal analysis of simulated results between the two types of land transfer scenarios,
the contribution of unit proportion transfer is defined as the variation of ET, SW, PERC,
SURQ, GW_Q and WYLD, while the land use for every 10% of the sub-basin is trans-
ferred to urban land. The formula of CUPT is as follows:

WHI1 − WHI0
CUPT = ∗ St (4)
10% ∗ S
where WHI0 is watershed hydrological indicators (ET, SW, PERC, SURQ, GW_Q and
WYLD) of simulated results in original land use; WHI1 is watershed hydrological indi-
cators (ET, SW, PERC, SURQ, GW_Q and WYLD) of simulated results when the land
use of the sub-basin is transferred to urban land; St is the area of land use which is
transferred to urban land; and S is the area of selected sub-basin.

2. The contribution of unit area transfer (CUAT): To facilitate quantitative description

of the impact of land use change on river hydrological indicators, and the horizontal
analysis of simulated results between the two types of land transfer scenarios, the con-
tribution of unit area transfer is defined as the variation of FLOW_IN, while the land use
for every 100 km2 of the sub-basin is transferred to urban land. The formula of CUAT
is as follows:

RHI1 − RHI0
CUAT = ∗ St (5)
100
where RHI0 is river hydrological indicator (FLOW_IN) of simulated results in original
land use; RHI1 is river hydrological indicator (FLOW_IN) of simulated results when
the land use of the sub-basin is transferred to urban land; St is the area of land use
which is transferred to urban land ­(km2).

3 Results and discussion

3.1 SWAT model construction and calibration

3.1.1 SWAT model construction

Based on the DEM data, land use data and soil data mentioned earlier, an underlying
model of the upper reaches of Minjiang River was constructed. The study set 100 km2
as the threshold of catchment area in river network extraction, and the slope was divided
into five grades according to 0–10%, 10–25%, 25–50%, 50–100%, > 100% (taking into
account the suitable slope for urban land is 25% or less). The multiple hydrological
response units (HRUs) way was selected in HRU division. The minimum threshold ratio

13
1244 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Fig. 7  The spatial distribution of hydrometeorological station and sub-basin division

of the soil type to slope type was 10%, and the minimum threshold ratio of land use
type was 0% (that is, all land use types were considered in HRU division). The model
divided 114 sub-basins (Fig. 7) and 2653 HRUs.
Rainfall data (from seventeen rainfall stations and five weather stations) and tem-
perature data (from five weather stations) were input as model weather conditions. Con-
struction of a weather generator utilizing five weather stations from 1957 to 2008 was
used to simulate the average wind speed, relative humidity, and solar radiation in the
upper reaches of Minjiang River. The Skewed Normal method was used to simulate
the spatial distribution of precipitation data. The Penman/Monteith model was used for
evaporation simulation. The SCS model was selected for a runoff producing simulation.
The Muskingum law was selected for concentration simulation.

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1245

3.1.2 Land use transfer scenarios in SWAT model

To facilitate the quantitative study of the impact of “forest land transfer to urban land”
and “grassland transfer to urban land” in the urbanization process on watershed and river
hydrological processes, this paper chooses a sub-basin according to the following princi-
ples (abbreviated as “five sub-basin selection principles”): (1) the selected sub-basin should
contain the county town of 5 counties in the upper reaches of Minjiang River. (2) Referring
to the literature (Sichuan Institute of Urban Planning & Design 1999), the greatest suitable
slope for urban land is 25%. To facilitate horizontal comparative analysis between the two
land transition scenarios, the proposed sub-basin with slope below 25% should has both
forest land and grassland areas. (3) The soil types of HRUs in the sub-basin selected for
“forest land transfer to urban land” or “grassland transfer to urban land” should belong
to the same soil hydrological unit. (4) To ensure the accuracy of the quantitative analysis,
the area of selected forest land HRUs or grassland HRUs should not be too small; the area
should be more than 10 ­km2, and the proportion of the sub-basin should be greater than
1%. (5) The selected forest land HRUs or grassland HRUs should belong to the same slope
level (0–10% or 10–25%).
According to the above principles, No. 84 sub-basin (Maoxian county seat) was selected
as the research object (Fig. 8). The total area of No. 84 sub-basin was 68 401.0 ha, includ-
ing 41 HRUs. The HRUs information is shown in Table 3. The construction of two urbani-
zation process scenarios: (1) forest land transfer to urban land: No. 1904 HRU and No.
1914 HRU were transferred to No. 1928 HRU. Next, the area of No. 1928 HRU is 2
298.4 ha, accounting for sub-basin area of 3.36%. (2) Grassland transfer to urban land: No.
1919 HRU and No. 1926 HRU were transferred to No. 1928 HRU. Then, the area of No.
1928 HRU is 1 310.5 ha, accounting for sub-basin area of 1.92%.

3.1.3 Model calibration and verification

The warm-up period of this SWAT model was 1977, the model calibration period was
1978–1979, and the validation period was 1980. The paper analysed the sensitivity of the
parameters by SWAT-CUP tool. Next, the six most sensitive parameters (Cn2, Canmx,
Gwqmn, Alpha_Bf, Revapmn and Esco) were selected to calibrate this SWAT model by

Fig. 8  The comparison of SWAT model simulation and observed monthly discharge at Shengliba station

13
 Table 3  List of HRUs in No. 84 sub-basin in the upper reaches of Minjiang River
1246

Code Lucc Composition Area (ha) Proportion (%) Code Lucc Composition Area (ha) Proportion (%)
(Lucc/soil/slope) (Lucc/soil/slope)

13
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) = (4)*100/68,401 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) = (4)*100/68,401

1901 Forest-Mixed FRST/anzon- 3189.6 4.66 1922 Pasture PAST/shihuixing- 3321.9 4.86
grang/50-100 hetu/25-50
1902 FRST/anzon- 1976.0 2.89 1923 PAST/zaohetu/25-50 1815.1 2.65
grang/25-50
1903 FRST/heizhantu/25-50 2935.2 4.29 1924 PAST/zaohetu/50-100 2817.7 4.12
1904 FRST/heizhantu/10-25 1115.2 1.63 1925 PAST/zongrang/50-100 3679.2 5.38
1905 FRST/ 2973.1 4.35 1926 PAST/zongrang/10-25 838.5 1.23
heizhantu/50-100
1906 FRST/shihuixing- 6225.2 9.1 1927 PAST/zongrang/25-50 2923.9 4.27
hetu/50-100
1907 FRST/shihuixing- 3760.1 5.5 1928 Residential–high URHD/zaohetu/10-25 16.1 0.02
hetu/25-50 density
1908 FRST/zaohetu/0-10 888.3 1.3 1929 URHD/zaohetu/0-10 109.9 0.16
1909 FRST/zaohetu/10-25 1127.6 1.65 1930 Residential–med/low URML/shihuixing- 2.0 0.01
density hetu/50-100
1910 FRST/zaohetu/25-50 1447.1 2.12 1931 URML/shihuixing- 5.0 0.01
hetu/25-50
1911 FRST/zaohetu/50-100 1424.9 2.08 1932 URML/shihuixing- 2.0 0.01
hetu/10-25
1912 FRST/zongrang/50-100 5028.9 7.35 1933 URML/zaohetu/25-50 15.2 0.02
1913 FRST/zongrang/25-50 3881.6 5.67 1934 URML/zaohetu/10-25 26.4 0.04
1914 FRST/zongrang/10-25 1183.1 1.73 1935 URML/zaohetu/0-10 26.4 0.04
1915 Pasture PAST/anzon- 1451.2 2.12 1936 Winter wheat WWHT/shihuixing- 224.3 0.33
grang/25-50 hetu/10-25
1916 PAST/anzon- 2181.4 3.19 1937 WWHT/shihuixing- 438.3 0.64
grang/50-100 hetu/50-100
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257
 Table 3  (continued)
Code Lucc Composition Area (ha) Proportion (%) Code Lucc Composition Area (ha) Proportion (%)
(Lucc/soil/slope) (Lucc/soil/slope)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) = (4)*100/68,401 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) = (4)*100/68,401

1917 PAST/anzon- 479.3 0.7 1938 WWHT/shihuixing- 693.5 1.01

grang/100-9999 hetu/25-50
1918 PAST/ 1885.2 2.76 1939 WWHT/zaohetu/25-50 584.0 0.85
heizhantu/50-100
1919 PAST/heizhantu/10-25 472.0 0.69 1940 WWHT/zaohetu/10-25 259.1 0.38
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

1920 PAST/heizhantu/25-50 1521.6 2.22 1941 WWHT/zao- 391.9 0.57

hetu/50-100
1921 PAST/shihuixing- 5064.1 7.4
hetu/50-100
1247

13
1248 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Table 4  Simulation accuracy of Simulation scenario ENS R2 Dv (%)

month runoff
Zhenjiangguan
Calibration period 0.67 0.90 0.5
Validation period 0.86 0.95 1.57
Shengliba
Calibration period 0.85 0.89 − 4.25
Validation period 0.91 0.97 − 6.7
Heishui
Calibration period 0.82 0.91 − 8.9
Validation period 0.79 0.88 − 13.72
Shaba
Calibration period 0.85 0.89 − 12.59
Validation period 0.82 0.94 − 14.15

Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE-UA) method. The comparison of SWAT model simula-
tion and observed monthly discharge at Shengliba station is shown in Fig. 8. The simula-
tion results of the model calibration and validation period evaluated by the indicators ENS,
R2 and |Dv| are shown in Table 4. Table 4 shows that the accuracy of the runoff simulation
is very good. It proves the SWAT model can be applied in hydrological modelling of the
upstream of Minjiang River.

3.2 Simulation results analysis

3.2.1 Forest land transfer to urban land

Hydrological simulations of daily scale, monthly scale and annual scale were carried out
under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios for “forest land transfer to urban land”
based on the SWAT model in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River. The simulation
results were statistically analysed; the responses of the main river hydrological indicators in
“forest land transfer to urban land” under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios’ annual
scale simulation are shown in Table 5, and the responses of the main river hydrological
indicators in “forest land transfer to urban land” under the three kinds of precipitation sce-
narios’ daily scale, monthly scale and annual scale simulations are shown in Table 6.

(a) Watershed hydrological analysis

The results (Table 5) under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios show: (1) with
increasing precipitation, the annual scale simulation results for ET, SW, PERC, SURQ,
GW_Q and WYLD increase. (2) When forest land is transferred to urban land, ET, SW,
PERC and GW_Q show a decreasing trend, and the reduction in watershed hydrological
indexes is manifested as “high precipitation > average precipitation > low precipitation”.
Meanwhile, SURQ and WYLD show an increasing trend, and the increment of SURQ
shows “high precipitation > average precipitation > low precipitation”, while the increment
of WYLD shows “low precipitation > average precipitation > high precipitation”. (3) The
CUPT of the watershed hydrological index shows “SURQ > PERC > GW_Q > ET > SW” in
the three kinds of precipitation scenarios.

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1249

Table 5  Responses of the main watershed hydrological indicators in “forest land transfer to urban land”
under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios’ annual scale simulation; unit: mm
Item ET SW PERC SURQ GW_Q WYLD

High precipitation
Original land use 352.882 65.197 124.417 6.860 103.140 237.370
Forest land transfer to urban land 351.513 64.823 119.314 14.824 98.289 238.735
Change ­valuea − 1.369 − 0.374 − 5.103 7.964 − 4.851 1.365
CUPT − 4.074 − 1.113 − 15.187 23.702 − 14.438 4.063
Trend Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
Average precipitation
Original land use 331.042 56.563 77.886 3.441 59.117 159.211
Forest land transfer to urban land 329.678 56.275 74.692 9.116 56.162 160.656
Change value − 1.363 − 0.288 − 3.193 5.675 − 2.954 1.445
CUPT − 4.058 − 0.858 − 9.504 16.889 − 8.793 4.301
Trend Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
Low precipitation
Original land use 295.931 46.431 41.031 1.267 25.000 95.041
Forest land transfer to urban land 294.597 46.282 39.405 5.003 23.573 96.495
Change value − 1.333 − 0.149 − 1.626 3.736 − 1.427 1.454
CUPT − 3.968 − 0.444 − 4.838 11.118 − 4.248 4.326
Trend Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
a
Change value: Compared with original land use, watershed hydrological indicators change under “forest
land transfer to urban land”; positive sign means an increase, negative means a reduction

(b) River hydrological analysis

The results (Table 6) under three precipitation scenarios show the following: (1) with
increasing precipitation, the simulation results for annual runoff, monthly runoff and daily
flood peak increased. (2) Based on the annual scale model, the change trend of annual run-
off amount shows “low precipitation > average precipitation > high precipitation” when for-
est land transfers to urban land. (3) Monthly scale simulation results show that the monthly
runoff increases in February–July, decreases in October and January and remains stable in
August and September. (4) The change trend of daily flood peak shows “high precipita-
tion = average precipitation > low precipitation”.

3.2.2 Grassland transfer to urban land

In view of “grassland transfer to urban land”, the paper carried out research similar to the
“forest land transfer to urban land”. The simulation results were statistically analysed, and
the responses of the main watershed hydrological indicators in “grassland transfer to urban
land” under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios’ annual scale simulation are shown
in Table 7; the responses of the main river hydrological indicators in “grassland transfer to
urban land” under the three types of precipitation scenarios’ daily scale, monthly scale and
annual scale simulations are shown in Table 8.

(a) Watershed hydrological analysis

13
 1250

Table 6  Response of the main river hydrological indicators in “forest land transfer to urban land” under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios’ daily scale, monthly scale

13
and annual scale simulations; unit: ­m3/s
FLOW_IN High precipitation Average precipitation Low precipitation
Original Forest land Change CUAT​ Original Forest land Change CUAT​ Original Forest land Change CUAT​
land use transfer to value land use transfer to value land use transfer to value
urban land urban land urban land

Daily simu- 1755 1757 2.000 8.702 1304 1306 2.000 8.702 903.1 904.7 1.600 6.961
lated flood
peak
Average
runoff
January 24.057 24.047 − 0.010 − 0.044 16.587 16.583 − 0.003 − 0.015 9.893 9.891 − 0.002 − 0.007
February 20.470 20.477 0.007 0.029 14.003 14.007 0.003 0.015 8.581 8.582 0.001 0.004
March 51.787 51.817 0.030 0.131 37.720 37.743 0.023 0.102 24.117 24.130 0.013 0.058
April 126.133 126.200 0.067 0.290 93.477 93.553 0.077 0.334 62.227 62.290 0.063 0.276
May 257.733 257.933 0.200 0.870 192.433 192.600 0.167 0.725 127.100 127.233 0.133 0.580
June 391.167 391.333 0.167 0.725 296.000 296.100 0.100 0.435 199.200 199.300 0.100 0.435
July 508.967 509.100 0.133 0.580 393.833 393.933 0.100 0.435 264.933 265.067 0.133 0.580
August 379.167 379.100 − 0.067 − 0.290 293.600 293.567 − 0.033 − 0.145 193.467 193.467 0.000 0.000
September 507.600 507.600 0.000 0.000 395.467 395.500 0.033 0.145 271.100 271.100 0.000 0.000
October 356.300 356.167 − 0.133 − 0.580 278.033 277.933 − 0.100 − 0.435 189.567 189.500 − 0.067 − 0.290
November 199.867 199.833 − 0.033 − 0.145 154.200 154.133 − 0.067 − 0.290 102.157 102.127 − 0.030 − 0.131
December 86.210 86.183 − 0.027 − 0.116 61.273 61.263 − 0.010 − 0.044 36.980 36.977 − 0.003 − 0.015
Annual 243.376 243.404 0.028 0.121 186.265 186.289 0.024 0.105 124.575 124.603 0.029 0.125
runoff
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1251

Table 7  Response of the main watershed hydrological indicators in “grassland transfer to urban land” under
the three kinds of precipitation scenarios’ annual scale simulation; unit: mm
Item ET SW PERC SURQ GW_Q WYLD

High precipitation
Original land use 352.882 65.197 124.417 6.860 103.140 237.370
Grassland transfer to urban land 352.165 64.988 121.541 11.279 100.408 238.087
Change value − 0.717 − 0.209 − 2.876 4.418 − 2.733 0.717
CUPT − 3.733 − 1.089 − 14.977 23.012 − 14.233 3.736
Trend Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
Average precipitation
Original land use 331.042 56.563 77.886 3.441 59.117 159.211
Grassland transfer to urban land 330.347 56.413 76.034 6.610 57.405 159.955
Change value − 0.694 − 0.150 − 1.851 3.169 − 1.711 0.743
CUPT − 3.616 − 0.780 − 9.642 16.507 − 8.913 3.872
Trend Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
Low precipitation
Original land use 295.931 46.431 41.031 1.267 25.000 95.041
Grassland transfer to urban land 295.237 46.313 40.062 3.365 24.154 95.812
Change value − 0.694 − 0.119 − 0.969 2.098 − 0.846 0.771
CUPT − 3.613 − 0.618 − 5.045 10.925 − 4.405 4.014
Trend Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase

The results (Table 7) under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios show: the simula-
tion result’s change trends for ET, SW, PERC, SURQ, GW_Q and WYLD in the “grass-
land land transfer to urban land” scenario are the same as those in “forest land transfer to
urban land”.

(b) River hydrological analysis

The results (Table 8) under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios show: the simu-
lation result’s change trends for annual runoff and daily flood peak under the “grassland
land transfer to urban land” scenario are the same as those under “forest land transfer to
urban land”. In addition to individual months, the monthly runoff under the “grassland land
transfer to urban land” scenario is largely consistent with that in the “forest land transfer to
urban land” scenario.

3.3 Comparative analysis of the two kinds of land use transfer scenarios

Comparing the simulation results for the two types of land transfer scenarios, the CUPT
variations of the main watershed hydrological indicators are shown in Fig. 9, while the
CUAT variations of the main river hydrological indicators are shown in Fig. 10. The main
watershed hydrological indicators from the simulation results under the two types of land
transfer scenarios are comparatively analysed: (a) the CUPT variations of ET, SURQ and
WYLD, based on annual scale simulation, show “forest land transfer to urban land > grass-
land transfer to urban land”, while the CUAT variations of daily flood peak and annual

13
 1252

Table 8  Response of the main river hydrological indicators in “grassland land transfer to urban land” under the three kinds of precipitation scenarios’ daily scale, monthly

13
scale and annual scale simulations; unit: ­m3/s
FLOW_IN High precipitation Average precipitation Low precipitation
Original Grassland Change CUAT​ Original Grassland Change CUAT​ Original Grassland Change CUAT​
land use transfer to value land use transfer to value land use transfer to value
urban land urban land urban land

Daily simu- 1755 1756 1.000 7.631 1304 1305 1.000 7.631 903.1 903.6 0.500 3.815
lated flood
peak
Average
runoff
January 24.057 24.053 − 0.003 − 0.025 16.587 16.587 0.000 0.000 9.893 9.892 − 0.001 − 0.008
February 20.470 20.473 0.003 0.025 14.003 14.007 0.003 0.025 8.581 8.581 0.001 0.005
March 51.787 51.803 0.017 0.127 37.720 37.733 0.013 0.102 24.117 24.123 0.007 0.051
April 126.133 126.200 0.067 0.509 93.477 93.520 0.043 0.331 62.227 62.263 0.037 0.280
May 257.733 257.833 0.100 0.763 192.433 192.500 0.067 0.509 127.100 127.167 0.067 0.509
June 391.167 391.233 0.067 0.509 296.000 296.000 0.000 0.000 199.200 199.267 0.067 0.509
July 508.967 509.033 0.067 0.509 393.833 393.933 0.100 0.763 264.933 265.033 0.100 0.763
August 379.167 379.100 − 0.067 − 0.509 293.600 293.567 − 0.033 − 0.254 193.467 193.467 0.000 0.000
September 507.600 507.600 0.000 0.000 395.467 395.500 0.033 0.254 271.100 271.067 − 0.033 − 0.254
October 356.300 356.233 − 0.067 − 0.509 278.033 278.000 − 0.033 − 0.254 189.567 189.533 − 0.033 − 0.254
November 199.867 199.833 − 0.033 − 0.254 154.200 154.133 − 0.067 − 0.509 102.157 102.140 − 0.017 − 0.127
December 86.210 86.197 − 0.013 − 0.102 61.273 61.267 − 0.007 − 0.051 36.980 36.977 − 0.003 − 0.025
Annual 243.376 243.387 0.011 0.086 186.265 186.275 0.010 0.077 124.575 124.591 0.016 0.122
runoff
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1253

Fig. 9  The CUPT variation barplot of main watershed hydrological indicators between the two types of
land transfer scenarios

Fig. 10  The CUAT variation barplot of main river hydrological indicators between the two types of land
transfer scenarios

runoff show “forest land transfer to urban land > grassland transfer to urban land”. (b) The
CUPT of SW, PERC and WYLD, based on annual scale simulation, and the CUAT of sim-
ulated monthly runoff do not show a clear trend of change.

(a) Watershed hydrological analysis

As shown in Fig. 9, the main watershed hydrological indicators’ CUPT variations

under the two types of land transfer scenarios are comparatively analysed: (1) the annual
scale simulation results for ET, SURQ and WYLD show “forest land transfer to urban
land > grassland transfer to urban land”, and the value of the difference between them

13
1254 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

is 0.342 mm, 0.690 mm and 0.327 mm, respectively, in the high precipitation scenario;
0.441 mm, 0.382 mm, 0.429 mm in the average precipitation scenario; and 0.355 mm,
0.193 mm, 0.312 mm under the low precipitation scenario. (2) The CUPT of SW, PERC
and WYLD do not show a clear trend of change.

(b) River hydrological analysis

As shown in Fig. 10, the main river hydrological indicator’s CUAT variations under the
two types of land transfer scenarios are comparatively analysed: (1) the simulated annual
runoff shows “forest land transfer to urban land > grassland transfer to urban land”, and
the value of the difference between them is 0.028 m3/s in the high precipitation scenario,
0.034 m3/s in the average precipitation scenario and 0.003 m3/s in the low precipitation
scenario. (2) The trend of simulated monthly runoff does not show a consistent trend. (3)
The change trend of the daily flood peak is the same as that of the simulated annual runoff,
and the value of the difference between the two scenarios is 0.471 m3/s, 1.071 m3/s and
3.146 m3/s, respectively, in the high precipitation scenario, average precipitation scenario
and low precipitation scenario.

3.4 Discussion

In the analysis of the simulation results, there are two special phenomena.

1. When comparing the CUAT of river hydrological indicator simulated results between
the two kinds of land transfer scenarios, the monthly runoff simulation results do not
show a consistent trend. The results of the preliminary analysis should be related to the
law of growth of trees and grasses, while the effects of different crops on water demand
and hydrological cycle in different growth stages are different.
2. In the analysis of simulation results for the two kinds of land transfer scenarios, the
variation of daily flood peak under the high precipitation scenario is the same as that in
the average precipitation scenario based on daily scale simulation. After analysis, it was
found that this was caused by the SWAT model’s river channel flow output accuracy.

4 Conclusions

Based on the “five sub-basin selection principles” and “two simulation results evaluation
indicators” proposed, which can help other scholars carry out similar research, the paper
studied the influence of the urbanization process on hydrological processes under different
precipitation conditions using the SWAT model. The results were analysed in a multidi-
mensional way which can provide a scientific basis for urban planning and construction for
reducing the impact on urban flood.
In the study, we find all the two kinds of land use transfer scenarios show the same
laws: (a) with an increase in precipitation, the values of ET, SW, PERC, SURQ, GW_Q
and WYLD increase under annual scale watershed simulation. Meanwhile, the simula-
tion results for annual runoff, monthly runoff and daily flood peak also increase. (b) When
forest land (or grassland) is transferred to urban land, ET, SW, PERC and GW_Q show
a decreasing trend, and the reduction in watershed hydrological indexes is manifested
as “high precipitation > average precipitation > low precipitation”. Meanwhile, SURQ,

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1255

WYLD and annual runoff show an increasing trend, and the increment of SURQ showed
“high precipitation > average precipitation > low precipitation”, whereas the increment
in WYLD and annual runoff showed “low precipitation > average precipitation > high
precipitation”. (c) Analysis of the CUPT of the watershed hydrological indicators shows
“SURQ > PERC > GW_Q > ET > SW” in all precipitation scenarios. (d) The change trend
of daily flood peak shows “high precipitation = average precipitation > low precipitation” in
both kinds of land transfer scenarios.
In addition, compared with grassland, the variations of ET, SURQ and WYLD are
greater when forest land transfer to urban land. However, the variations of daily flood peak
and annual runoff are just the opposite.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the support of the projects of the 13th Five-year Plan of National
Scientific Research and Development (Nos. 2017YFC0405803, 2017YFC1502704, 2016YFC0803107,
2016YFC0803109), the IWHR Research & Development Support Program (No. JZ0145B032017) and the
National Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41501415, 51420105014). The authors would like to thank
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Data Center for Resources and Environmental
Sciences (RESDC) and Institute of Soil Science (ISSCAS), Chinese Academy of Sciences(CAS) for provid-
ing data.

Author contributions WZ, SH and JL conceived and designed the experiments; WZ and SL performed the
experiments; YS and JZ analysed the data; WZ and YF wrote the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Akhter MS, Hewa GA (2016) The use of PCSWMM for assessing the impacts of land use changes on hydro-
logical responses and performance of WSUD in managing the impacts at Myponga Catchment, South
Australia. Water 511(8):1–17. https​://doi.org/10.3390/w8110​511
Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR, Haney EB, Neitsch SL (2011) Soil & water assessment
tool. Input/output documentation, 3rd edn, pp 444–446
Breuer L, Huisman JA, Willems P, Bormann H, Bronstert A, Croke BFW, Frede HG, Gräff T, Hubrechts
L, Jakeman AJ, Kite G, Lanini J, Leavesley G, Lettenmaier DP, Lindström G, Seibert J, Sivapalan
M, Viney NR (2009) Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling
(LUCHEM). I: model intercomparison with current land use. Adv Water Resour 32(2):129–146
Chen Y, Zhou H, Zhang H, Du GP, Zhou JH (2015) Urban flood risk warning under rapid urbanization.
Environ Res 139:3–10. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envre​s.2015.02.028
Chu ML, Knouft JH, Ghulam A, Guzman JA, Pan Z (2013) Impacts of urbanization on river flow frequency:
a controlled experimental modeling-based evaluation approach. J Hydrol 495:1–12
Commission European (2017) Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the European
Union 288:27–34
Cornelissen T, Diekkrüger B, Giertz S (2013) A comparison of hydrological models for assessing the
impact of land use and climate change on discharge in a tropical catchment. J Hydrol 498(19):221–236
Dietterick BC, Lynch JA, Corbett ES (1999) A calibration procedure using topmodel to determine suitability
for evaluating potential climate change effects on water yield. J Am Water Resour As 35(2):457–468
Ding YH, Ren GY, Shi GY, Gong P, Zheng XH, Zhai PM, Zhang DE, Zhao ZC, Wang SW, Wang HJ, Luo
Y, Chen DL, Gao XJ, Dai XS (2007) National assessment report of climate change(I):climate change
in china and its future trend. Adv Clim Change Res 2(1):3–8
Dwarakish GS, Ganasri BP (2015) Impact of land use change on hydrological systems: a review of current
modeling approaches. Cogent Geosci 1:1115691. https​://doi.org/10.1080/23312​041.2015.11156​91
Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol
Environ 6:439–447. https​://doi.org/10.1890/07006​2

13
1256 Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257

Fletcher TD, Andrieu H, Hamel P (2013) Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology
and its consequences for receiving waters: a state of the art review. Adv Water Resour 51(1):261–279
He Y, Lin K, Chen X (2013) Effect of land use and climate change on runoff in the dongjiang basin of south
China. Math Probl Eng 2013(1):14–26. https​://doi.org/10.1155/2013/47142​9
Hengade N, Eldho TI (2016) Assessment of LULC and climate change on the hydrology of Ashti Catch-
ment, India using VIC model. J Earth Syst Sci 125(8):1–12
Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, Koirala S, Konoshima L, Yamazaki D, Watanabe S, Kim H, Kanae S (2013)
Global flood risk under climate change. Nat Clim Change 3(9):816–821. https​://doi.org/10.1038/nclim​
ate19​11
Huang SF, Zang WB, Xu M, Li XT, Xie XC, Li ZM, Zhu JS (2015) Study on runoff simulation of the
upstream of Minjiang River under future climate change scenarios. Nat Hazards 75(2):139–154
IPCC (2012) Chapter 3 changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment.
In: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation.Cam-
bridge University Press, 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, USA, pp 109–230
Jayakrishnan R, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Arnold JG (2005) Advances in the application of the SWAT model
for water resources management. Hydrol Process 19(3):749–762
Kaushal SS, Gold AJ, Mayer PM (2017) Land use, climate, and water resources—global stages of interac-
tion. Water 9(815):1–10. https​://doi.org/10.3390/w9100​815
Lesk C, Rowhani P, Ramankutty N (2016) Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production.
Nature 529:84–87. https​://doi.org/10.1038/natur​e1646​7
Liu C, Zhan C, Xia J, Cao J (2014) Review on the influences of climate change and human activities on
runoff. J Hydraul Eng 45(4):379–385, 393
Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika
78:691–692. https​://doi.org/10.1093/biome​t/78.3.691
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of prin-
ciples. J Hydrol 10:282–290. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255​-6
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil & water assessment tool. Theoretical documen-
tation (Version 2009), pp 3–23
Onstad CA, Jamieson DG (1970) Modeling the effects of land use modifications on runoff. Water Resour
Res 6(5):1287–1295
People’s Daily (2012) Why waterlogging occurred frequency in Chinese big cities. 2012-7-24(4)
Piao SL, Friedlingstein P, Ciais P, Noblet- Ducoudré ND, Labat D, Zaehle S (2007) Changes in climate and
land use have a larger direct impact than rising ­CO2 on global river runoff trends. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 104(39):15242–15247. https​://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.07072​13104​
Sajikumar N, Remya RS (2015) Impact of land cover and land use change on runoff characteristics. J Envi-
ron Manag 161(1):460–468
Sichuan Institute of Urban Planning & Design (1999) Code for vertical planning on urban field (CJJ 83-99).
China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, China, p 6
Song XM, Zhang JY, Wang GQ, He RM, Wang XJ (2014) Development and challenges of urban hydrol-
ogy in a changing environment: II: urban stormwater modeling and management. Adv Water Sci
25(5):752–764
Xian LJ, Mu ZX, Jiang HF, Lslom I (2017) Study on impact of climate change on runoff in Pyandj River
Basin. Yellow River 39(3):20–23,27
Ye DZ, Fu CB, Ji JJ, Dong WJ (2001) Orderly human activities and subsistence environment. Adv Earth Sci
16(4):453–460
Zhang JY (2012) The vital problem for the urbanization and urban hydrology today. Hydro-Sci Eng 1:1–4
Zhang JY, Song XM, Wang GQ, He RM, Wang XJ (2014) Development and challenges of urban hydrology
in a changing environment: I: hydrological response to urbanization. Adv Water Sci 25(4):594–605
Zhao A, Zhu X, Shi P, Pan Y (2013) Review on hydrological response to urbanization at home and abroad.
J China Hydrol 33:6–22
Zheng H, Ouyang ZY, Zhao TQ, Li ZX, Xu WH (2003) The impact of human activities on ecosystem ser-
vices. J Nat Resour 18(1):118–126
Zhou F, Xu Y, Chen Y, Xu CY, Gao Y, Du J (2013) Hydrological response to urbanization at different
spatio-temporal scales simulated by coupling of CLUE-S and the SWAT model in the Yangtze River
Delta region. J Hydrol 485:113–125

13
Natural Hazards (2019) 99:1233–1257 1257

Affiliations

Wenbin Zang1,2 · Shu Liu2 · Shifeng Huang2 · Jiren Li2 · Yicheng Fu1 · Yayong Sun2 ·
Jingwei Zheng2
Wenbin Zang
zangwenbin@aliyun.com
Shu Liu
fcds2001@iwhr.com
Jiren Li
lijiren@iwhr.com
Yicheng Fu
swfyc@126.com
Yayong Sun
sunyayong6@126.com
Jingwei Zheng
zhjw@iwhr.com
1
State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycles in River Basin, China Institute
of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China
2
Research Center on Flood and Drought Disaster Reduction of Ministry of Water Resources, China
Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China

13