Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Flood risk assessment in the Kosi megafan using multi-criteria

decision analysis: A hydro-geomorphic approach
Kanchan Mishra, Rajiv Sinha
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India

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

Article history: Floods are one of the most devastating natural events that lead to enormous and recurring loss of life,
Received 27 March 2019 properties, and resources around the globe. In India, floods remain a major hazard during the monsoon
Received in revised form 2 September 2019 season in many parts of the country but most seriously in the flat and monotonous Gangetic plains in the
Accepted 6 September 2019
Himalayan foreland. One of the most flood-prone rivers in India is the Kosi in north Bihar, eastern India,
Available online 12 September 2019
which also forms the largest active megafan in the world. The Kosi River is known as the “sorrow of Bihar”
because of its anomalous behavior and the damage it causes due to frequent floods in this region. This
Keywords:
study evaluates the flood hazard and flood vulnerability as separate entities and combines them to assess
Flood risk reduction
Flood hazard
the flood risk in the Kosi megafan region. Geomorphological, hydrological, and socio-economic data have
Flood vulnerability been integrated in a GIS framework using a multi-criteria decision tool called the Analytical Hierarchy
Multi-criteria decision making Process (AHP) to generate a process-based flood risk map for 105 blocks (administrative units) of both
Analytical hierarchy process Nepal and India (Bihar). Such maps should encourage soft engineering solutions for flood mitigation
aimed at minimizing the consequences of flooding and reducing flood risks. This study has significant
implications for developing measures and plans that will help government and relief agencies in the
identification of flood-prone areas and for planning emergency management strategies in this region.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Floods are the most common natural disasters, and their fre-
quency, magnitude and the cost of damage are on the rise all over
the world. According to the European Commission (2007), a flood
can be defined as “a natural phenomenon that results in the tem-
porary submerging of a land with water that does not occur under
normal conditions”. The current understanding is that they are nat-
urally occurring events and hence cannot be prevented completely;
however, floods have serious consequences such as displacement of
people, loss of lives, damage to the property as well as the environ-
ment (IFRC, 2002; Yahaya et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2011; Tsakiris,
2014).
Excessive rainfall is considered as the primary cause of flooding
(Billi et al., 2015; Courty et al., 2018) but, anthropogenic inter-
ventions in a river basin such as the increase in settlement areas,
population growth, and economic assets over low-lying plains
enhance the risk to flooding considerably (Schmitt et al., 2004;
European Commission, 2007; Mbow et al., 2008; Billi et al., 2015).
An increase in flood risk has also been attributed to inadequate land
use planning, poor floodplain management, inadequate drainage
most commonly in cities, and inadequate river reservoir manage-
ment (Tingsanchali, 2012; Erena and Worku, 2018). Floods cause
about one-third of all deaths, injuries, and damages from natural
disasters (Askew, 1997).
In alluvial fan settings, floods are considered to be a major
hazard that begins from the apex of the fan and move fiercely down-
stream carrying a large amount of sediment load (Coe et al., 2003;
Garfí et al., 2007; Merheb et al., 2016). The alluvial fan region is
fairly susceptible to flood damage caused by high- velocity water,
inundation, scour and undermining of buildings, the impact of
mud, debris, and boulders, sediment burial, and landscape ero-
sion. Large floodplains, having a low channel to valley width
ratio, and low stream power are mostly prone to long-duration
flooding (Nanson and Croke, 1992; Ferguson and Brierley, 1999).
Some of these settings have fine-grained cohesive floodplains
with paleochannel belts along with several landforms that are
highly ‘connected’ hydrologically (Mertes, 1997; Burt et al., 2002;
Poole, 2002). During floods, the complete inundation of the flood-
plains begins with these paleochannels (Arnaud-Fassetta et al.,
2009) and the hydrological connectivity increases further (Sinha
et al., 2013). In distal floodplains, the geomorphic features such
as crevasses, meander scrolls, oxbow lakes, and other abandoned
channels get reoccupied representing high surface connectivity
that results in flooding and sediment dispersal (Gomez et al.,
1997).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106861
0169-555X/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Further, a rapid bank erosion of the alluvial channels because of
loose, unconsolidated sediments force the channel to shift. Also,
bed aggradation and mid-channel bar formation encourage the
overbank flooding and channel shifting. Channels may shift perma-
nently because of the lateral bar accumulation (sedimentological
readjustments) and bank failure. High sedimentation within and
close to the channel raises and the bed resulting in ‘superelevated’
channels (Mackey and Bridge, 1995) triggering avulsions (Jones and
Schumm, 2009) through breaching of channel banks or embank-
ments and large scale inundation of the fan areas may occur.
Considering the fact that floods are natural phenomena and even
though they cannot be completely mitigated, their risk can be min-
imized. Flood risk mapping and assessment are considered as the
vital components for flood risk reduction that can provide easily
readable maps of areas susceptible to floods and enable the pol-
icy planners to prioritize the mitigation effort effectively to reduce
damage to property, lives, as well as economic losses (Bapalu and
Sinha, 2005; Forkuo, 2011; Wang et al., 2011).
In north Bihar plains of eastern India, floods constitute a major
hazard as several rivers draining this region frequently inundate
large areas causing severe loss of life and property (Sinha, 1998;
Sinha and Jain, 1998; Pandey et al., 2010). The Kosi river draining
from Tibet and Nepal is one of the most important rivers draining
the plains of north Bihar and this paper evaluates the flood risk in
the Kosi alluvial fan region using a GIS-based multi-criteria decision
method, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
2. Flood risk concept: a systemic approach from hazard to
risk
The concept of natural risk assessment is not unique (Tsakiris,
2014) but a globally used concept. The terms ‘floods’, ‘flood hazard’,
‘flood losses’ and ‘flood risk’ cover a broad range of phenomena and
emphasize the negative economic losses and social consequences
of floods. At a conceptual level, there are three components of flood
risk:
a) Hazard: the threatening natural event including its probabil-
ity/magnitude of occurrence
b) Exposure: the values/humans that are present at the location
involved
c) Vulnerability: the lack of resistance to damaging/destructive
forces.
Thus, within an identified flood hazard area there may be the
same exposure or risk of flooding, but a wide range of vulnerability.
Flood risk is therefore defined as a function and a product of the
hazard and vulnerability (Ologunorisa, 2001).
Risk = Hazard(H)xVulnerability(V) (1)
Where, hazard defines the magnitude of the phenomenon, the
probability of its occurrence and the extent of its impact; vulner-
ability includes the probability of loss or damage of any physical,
structural, or socio-economic element to a natural hazard.
Thus, the flood risk combines both natural as well as anthro-
pogenic factors, and therefore, it requires precise information
about the spatial extent of flooding areas. This can be achieved
using multiple data layers which become a potential source of
information for developing more reliable flood management and
mitigation strategies. Among several multi-criteria decision anal-
ysis (MCDA) approaches, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
developed by Saaty (1980) is one of the best known and most widely
used approach (Yahaya et al., 2010; Orencio and Fujii, 2013) for
flood susceptibility mapping (Grünthal et al., 2006; Sinha et al.,
2008; Zou et al., 2013; Budhakooncharoen and Dhabhisara, 2014;
Papaioannou et al., 2014; Chakraborty and Joshi, 2016; Danumah
et al., 2016; Chakraborty and Mukhopadhyay, 2019), and hydrology
and water resource management (Lee et al., 2000; Rahman et al.,
2012). This approach involves a pairwise comparison matrix cal-
culating the weights for various factors affecting the flood hazard
as well as vulnerability (Papaioannou et al., 2014; Chakraborty and
Joshi, 2016; Ghosh and Kar, 2018; Chakraborty and Mukhopadhyay,
2019). It assumes complete aggregation among several criteria and
derivatives. i.e. evaluating, integrating, and ranking of the vari-
ous conflicting factors at a certain degree of information. It also
helps in modeling situations of uncertainty with minimal bias and
maintaining the inherent nature of any evaluation measures. It also
provides a more flexible, low cost, and easily understandable solu-
tion for complicated decision-making problems (Saaty, 1980).
3. Study area description
The Kosi is one of the largest tributaries of the Ganges (Fig. 1)
and drains an area of ∼52,731 km2 including the parts of Tibet,
Nepal, and India. Some of the tributaries of the Kosi system, such
as the Arun, and the Bhote Kosi, originate in the Tibet autonomous
region of China. The Sun Kosi and Tamor and their tributaries orig-
inate in the Higher Himalaya but majorly flow through the Lesser
Himalayan region. The combined flow of the Sun Kosi, Arun, and
Tamor (called Sapt Kosi hereafter) flows through the Barahkshetra
gorge for about 15 km before emerging at Chatara in Nepal and then
entering the plains of north Bihar in India.
The state of Bihar in eastern India is one of the highly flood-
prone states with an average rainfall of 1205 mm and 53 rainy
days annually (Ghosh and Mukhopadhyay, 2014). The gentle topo-
graphic gradient (0.01◦ to 0.05◦ ) and the large variation in water
volume in the rivers cause extensive flooding in the Bihar plains.
During normal years, the rivers carry 10–20 times more water dur-
ing the monsoon than in winter, but during times of intense rainfall
in the catchment areas, the discharge in these rivers may increase
a hundred-fold. The Kosi River, in particular, has also been notori-
ous for changing its course and a dominantly westward movement
across ∼150 km of the alluvial plains has been documented in ∼200
years (Gole and Chitale, 1966; Wells and Dorr, 1987; Chakraborty
et al., 2010). Such frequent channel movements and exception-
ally high sediment flux of 101 Mt/yr at Chatara (Sinha et al., 2019)
have generated a major landscape in the Kosi alluvial plains – a
megafan (Gohain and Parkash, 1990), largely located in north Bihar
plains. The megafan surface is characterized by numerous aban-
doned channels that flow only in the monsoon period and generally
allow the safe passage of floodwater.
In recent decades, however, the construction of embankments,
canals, roads, and railway tracks cross-cutting these channels has
not only impeded the natural flow leading to dis-connectivity and
severe waterlogging in many areas (Kumar et al., 2014), but has
also increased the inundation period significantly (Pandey et al.,
2010). The most recent breach in 2008 at Kusaha, 12 km upstream
of the Kosi barrage (Fig. 2a), resulted in large-scale flooding that
affected more than 300,000 people in Nepal and north Bihar (Sinha,
2008, 2009). This breach occurred at a fairly moderate discharge
of 4078 m3 /s, compared to the design discharge of 26,901 m3 /s
for the embankment (Sinha et al., 2013), but still resulted in an
unprecedented flood and damage to infrastructure (Fig. 2b, c). This
is because the breach occurred in a proximal region of the fan where
slopes are higher and the channel was in a ‘superelevated’ condition
(Fig. 2d) due to excessive siltation over the years (Sinha et al., 2014).
Several seepage channels (Fig. 2e) also contributed to toe erosion
of the embankment that eventually failed. Initially, the flood wave
propagated mostly as unconfined, sheet flow, but later expanded
to a broad zone through significant flow widening and branching
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Fig. 1. Satellite image showing the Kosi megafan region; inset figure shows the entire Kosi basin and the major tributaries draining from Nepal and Tibet.
of flow (Majumdar and Ghosh, 2017) as several paleochannels got
reconnected (Sinha et al., 2013). Several barriers in the form of arti-
ficial structures (Fig. 2b) further added to lateral expansion of flow
and large scale inundation and deposition of extensive sand sheets
(Fig. 2f) in addition to delaying the joining of the main flow to the
Ganga river (Kumar et al., 2014).
The present study is focused on the alluvial plains of the Kosi
River, the megafan surface, which covers an area of 11, 839 km2 in
Nepal and India (Fig. 1). Here, satellite data and field data were used
to map the flood hazard at the block level and was further validated
with the available flood inundation map. Similarly, census statis-
tics and field survey data were used to derive the socio-economic
parameters such as population density, female population density
and household density for vulnerability analysis at the block level.
The flood risk map at the block level was derived by combining flood
hazard and flood vulnerability indices. The results of this study can
serve as the basis for developing measures and plans that will help
the government and relief agencies in the identification of flood-
prone areas and for planning flood management strategies in this
region.
4. Data used and methods
Flood risk assessment not only considers the hydrological
extremes but includes far more complex processes characterized
by a large number of physical (hazard) events and anthropogenic
3
(vulnerability) factors (Alexander, 2000; Hooke and Mant, 2000;
Adger, 2006). The long-term data availability (Frazier, 2012) and
the spatial scale of analysis are crucial for the flood risk assessment.
Most often, the local aspects of analysis are overlooked at regional
and national level assessments (Jha and Gundimeda, 2019).
Keeping in view the spatial extent and the data availability at
the block level, the flood risk assessment of the Kosi fan region has
been carried out by considering different factors that influence the
flood hazard and vulnerability. These factors are converted to the-
matic layers using remote sensing and ancillary datasets such as
satellite imageries, topographic maps, block-level boundary maps,
census data (2011), road network map, Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission Digital Elevation Model data (SRTM DEM), rainfall data,
and Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) data for river
road intersection (see supplementary section S1 for details). Fig. 3
presents the sequence of operations for database generation and
the following sections describe the methodology followed for var-
ious analyses.
4.1. Satellite data analysis
Extensive use of satellite-based remote sensing data for map-
ping and topographic analyses were used for the study of flood risk
assessment in the alluvial part of the Kosi basin. (See supplemen-
tary Tables S1 and S2). Primarily, Landsat–8 OLI (Operational Land
Imager) data for the year 2013 (140/14 and 140/42) have been used
4 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861

Fig. 2. (a) Satellite image illustrating 2008 avulsion channel and deposits; (b) a partially disconnected paleochannel was flooded during 2008 event and destroyed the poorly
designed bridge; (c) Damaged road and associated infrastructure after the 2008 floods; (d) Superelevated condition of the Kosi river along the western embankment due to
excessive siltation; (e) Seepage channel along the eastern embankment of the Kosi river; (f) Extensive sand sheet deposited during the 2008 avulsion.

Fig. 3. Flow chart illustrating the methodology followed for this work. The complete hierarchies of the decision factors for flood hazard and vulnerability assessment are
shown.

for the geomorphic mapping prepared by onscreen digitization of landform evolution in Kosi megafan, a dynamic geomorphic map-
the georeferenced satellite images. The digitization of various geo- ping has been done based on the elements of image interpretation
morphic features was based on the visual interpretation of the user i.e. (a) size, shape, tone, texture, association, and pattern; (b) super-
with the aid of the different band combinations. To understand imposition of features, and (c) preservation and proximity scale of
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861 5

Table 1
Geomorphic units, their characteristics, and elements of image interpretation.

Geomorphic units Geomorphic characteristics Identification criteria on satellite images

Active channel Active channel (AC) are the results of reworking by fluvial
processes during high flow events. The active channel
include only channel-like features (i.e. elongated, appear
to have been carved by flowing water); other water bodies
are classified within the floodplain. The area in the active
channel occupied by water, bars, and exposed channel bed.
This element defined as the portion of the river and flood
plain inundated both ends connects to the main channel
Channel bars Channel bars develop during low flow discharge stage. It
appears as the elevated features in between the flow path
of the river channel. Vegetated bars and Moist Sand bars
have been classified separately
Meander scar Meander scar are the remnants of a highly sinuous
meandering river, which once get cut-off from the main
river channel. Ox bow lakes often ends up with meander
scar.
Paleochannels The river channels, which might have been active in the
near past. In present, it is filled with alluvium, gravels, and
sands or with tills.
Minor active channels and These are the important tributaries to the main stream;
associated flood plains associated flood plains have formed by the overtopping of
water on both side of river channel.
Avulsion channel and avulsion Avulsion channels formed during the August 2008 breach
channel deposit has been mapped separately on the post-avulsion image;
widespread sand around these channels have been
mapped as avulsion deposits.
Water logged area and sandy areas These features are identified in the low depressed areas
of high moisture where stagnant water bodies have been found and the
areas that have high moisture condition but water do not
stagnate
Color: Dark Blue to light blue color.
Shape/size: Elongated, narrow and appear to have been
carved by flowing water.
Color/ Tone: Greenish and bright color
Vegetated bars: dark red in color in between the river
channel with coarse texture.
Dry bars: cyanish in color with smooth texture.
Pattern: They are randomly arranged within the river
channel
Shape: crescentic arcuate shape,
Color: uniform and dark tone, isolated occurrences
depressed relief characteristics.
Pattern: Curvilinear pattern.
An abandoned meander scar often filled by vegetation and
deposition, but still discernable especially from air.
Tone: identified from medium to dark bluish tone,
Pattern: curvilinear pattern, and uniform to continuing of
older stream.
Association: occurs with a distinct orientation of the
vegetation.
Color: dark to light blue color.
Flood plain appears light greenish.
Color: dark green to light cyanish tone;
Sand sheet: very bright tone and whitish color.
Color: shades of greenish to bluish in FCC image.
Tone: dark tone in the image.

the image (Table 1). These key elements helped to analyze the land-
forms in the light of their physical appearances and occurrences
which, in turn, have proved useful in understanding their gene-
sis (Baker, 1988). Apart from delineating the various geomorphic
features to prepare a geomorphic map, we have used the distance
to active channels (DAC) as an important parameter for flood haz-
ard analysis. A separate DAC map was prepared for the main Kosi
River channel and the paleochannels on the megafan surface. These
channels were buffered by considering the distance up to which
damage to life and property can be significant. Additionally, the
planform morphology of the main channel of the Kosi River from
Chatara to Baltara was mapped using multi-temporal Landsat satel-
lite imageries. Based on a series of maps between 1972, 1980, 1990,
2009 and 2016, the average bar area /channel area (BA/CA) ratio
was calculated at reach scale to identify the reaches with excessive
aggradation.
The SRTM 90 m DEM version 2 made available from the USGS
Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) centre for the year
2009 was used for topographic mapping. The SRTM DEM was used
to generate a slope map of the study area with the help of ArcGIS
tool called slope, the extension tool of the Data Management Tools.
In addition, flood inundation maps based on MODIS
250 m bands obtained from Dartmouth Flood Observa-
tory (http://www.dartmouth.edu/∼floods/) for the period of
1999–2009 were used for a comparison of the present hazard map.
4.2. Rainfall data analysis
The rainfall data were obtained from the Tropical Rainfall Mea-
suring Mission (TRMM), which is available on a nearly global scale
for 12 years starting from 1998 to 2009. It offers a high spatial and
temporal resolution compared to the other global satellite-derived
rainfall products such as GPCP, CMAP, and CPC-Global available at
the global scale (2.5◦ - 0.5◦ ). The TRMM (2b31) data with a spa-
tial resolution of 0.25◦ was used for the generation of the rainfall
map and extracted for the given study area using ArcGIS. The data
were resampled to match with the other data sets using cubic
convolution that involves continuous data resampling. For classifi-
cation, the natural break of the histogram was considered, so that
the distribution of the rainfall is similar to the TRMM map before
resampling.
4.3. Census data and population statistics
The variables for the socio-economic and physical dimensions
were derived from the information available in the 2011 Census at
the block level for both India (http://www.censusindia.gov.in) and
Nepal (https://data.humdata.org). Apart from the total population,
female population was considered as an important parameter. The
female population has been considered as a vulnerable commu-
nity because a large proportion of this population is still engaged
in the traditional role of homemakers, and they lack the indepen-
dence, training and decision-making abilities to cope up with the
disaster or calamities. The total number of households and literacy
rates, available at the block level for both Bihar and Nepal, were
also extracted for the study area and these datasets were further
processed to generate spatial maps used for the flood vulnerability
analysis.
4.4. Road network density mapping
The megafan surface of the Kosi has a dense network of fast-
developing road network, which runs mostly in an east-west
direction traversing across the flow direction of the active pale-
6 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Table 2
Land use land cover areal statistics in the Kosi alluvial plains.
Class Name Area (sq.km) Percentage of area covered
River / waterbodies 513.82 4.34
Agriculture 7217.413 60.96
Forest (closed and open forest) 20.90 0.18
Current fallow / Bare soil 4046.02 34.18
Built-up 40.85 0.35
Total 11839 100
ochannels (Kumar et al., 2014). The road network for the year 2010
was vectorised using the satellite images of LANDSAT TM and LISS-
3, and cross-checked with the Cartosat-I data and the Google Earth
Imagery (Kumar et al., 2014). A road network density (Rd) map was
created considering a radius of 3 km as the minimum distance for
safer evacuation/distance to a household to a road in the present
study area. Besides, the river-road intersection points were also
mapped and a density map was created. It is noted that the present
study area has a much lesser number of metalled roads as the main
district roads (MDR), state highways (SH) and national highways
(NH) in comparison to a very dense network of local/minor roads.
This results in a very large number of intersections between roads
and rivers and a high road network density in several parts.
4.5. Landuse and landcover (LULC) maps
The LULC maps for the north Bihar region obtained from the
National Remote sensing Centre (NRSC) and for parts of Nepal from
ICIMOD, Nepal for 2010 were integrated and reclassified into five
major classes namely, (a) forest; (b) agriculture; (c) current fallow
/ bare soil; (d) built-up; and (e) river. The present classification
scheme is based on the regrouping of the different LULC classes
using the functional attributes. For example, the forest cover class
includes the areas covered by broad-leaved trees but the seasonal
cropping such as Rabi or Kharif and Zaid remains fallow in one or
the other season, Hence, the current fallow includes the fallow areas
due to seasonal copping along with bare soil. Similar reclassification
has been done with agriculture (double-triple crops, grassland, and
shrubland), and water bodies (active channels and water bodies).
Table 2 shows the percentage of different reclassified LULC present
in the Kosi basin.
4.6. Field validation
An extensive field visit was carried out in September 2012 for the
collection of topographic points and ground validation in the Kosi
basin. Various geomorphic features mapped from satellite images
were validated with the ground observations during the field visit.
Also, a total of 350 data points for river-road (Ri-Rd) intersection
were collected throughout the study area using DGPS to verify the
(dis)connectivity between and river and road network. It is impor-
tant to note here that many of these roads/bridges are not properly
designed to provide enough waterway for floodwaters during the
monsoon period (e.g. Fig. 2b) and sometimes the paleochannels
are completely blocked. Out of 350 points surveyed by us, 155
intersection points were characterized as partially or totally dis-
connected in terms of the movement of water and sediment flux
(Kumar et al., 2014). These disconnected points are mostly along
the major impermeable roads running across the basin. Finally, the
Ri-Rd intersection density for each block was estimated and further
regrouped into major classes.
4.7. GIS framework for data analysis
The spatial data used for the development of the flood risk maps
were obtained from various sources and were subjected to pre-
processing operations such as layer stacking, geo-referencing and
co-registration, histogram equalization and matching to improve
the quality of the images for better interpretation. Different
thematic layers were integrated on a GIS platform using the Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) or often called Multi-Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) (Linkov et al., 2004) technique that con-
tains a regulated set of methods that help to make a critical decision
based on several criteria orbiting that decision. The MCDA methods
are very well suited in situations when a decision has to be based
on numerous and disagreeing evaluations. The Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) is one of the most widely used methods that was
developed by Saaty (1980) and involves the decomposition of the
problem into a hierarchy that captures the essential elements of
the processes and controlling factors. The primary goal in our case
is the flood risk assessment of the Kosi megafan area that forms the
topmost level of the hierarchy. Fig. 3 shows the complete hierar-
chy constructed for flood hazard and flood vulnerability assessment
based on our understanding of the problem to derive the flood risk
map. The next level is the generation of the decision matrix of the
hazard and vulnerability indicators followed by the elements/sub-
factors of each decision factor (Tables 3 and 4). The choice of the
decision factors and their sub factors is based on the available liter-
ature and understanding of the hazard and vulnerability in a given
region.
In AHP analysis, the first step is to develop the pairwise com-
parison matrix at each decision level using the scale (Table S3)
developed by Saaty (1980). This scale utilizes a basic sequence of
absolute numbers from 1 to 9 for each pair to represent the indi-
vidual preferences (Saaty, 2008) in the upper half of the matrix (e.g.
Table 3). In the lower half of the matrix, the pairing is assigned a rat-
ing equal to the reciprocal of the value of the corresponding pair in
the upper matrix based on the decision maker’s subjectivity, expe-
rience, and knowledge in an intuitive and natural way (Saaty and
Vargas, 2000). The decision makers involved are the area experts,
stakeholders from academia, local governments and the local com-
munity members during prioritization of the decision factors.
The second step is to determine the element weight for each
decision factor and sub-factors, called Estimated Eigen (EE) value,
by multiplying together the elements in each row of the matrix and
then taking the Nth root of that product for each element using the
Eq. (2).

N
Estimated Eigen value (EE) of each element = aa *ab *ac *ad *aN
(2)
Where, aa , ab , ac , aN are the values of the row elements and N is the
number of the row elements.
The third step is to obtain the sum of EE values in a column
and compute the Relative Importance Weights (RIW) for each row
element of that decision factor using the Eq. (3).

N
aa *ab *ac *ad *aN
Relative Importance Weight (RIW) = (3)
EE1 + EE2 + EE3 + EE4 + EEN
Where EE1 , EE2 , EE3 , EEN are the Estimated eigen value of each
element.
In the final step, the flood hazard index (FHI) or flood vulnera-
bility index (FVI) for each parameter is calculated by aggregating
the RIWs at each level of the hierarchy using the Eq. (4).
N2
FHI/FVI = RIW2i *RIW3ij (4)
i=1
Where, N2 = the number of level 2 decision factor; RIWi 2 = relative
importance weight of level 2 decision factor i; RIWij 3 = relative
importance weight of level 3 sub-factor j of level 2 decision factor
i (Siddique et al., 1996).
In practice, the expression of the decision-makers involves some
fuzziness that may lead to some inconsistency in the matrix. So, the
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861 7

Table 3
Calculation of relative importance weightage (RIW) for level 2 decision factors and level 3 sub-factors.

HAZARD FACTORS (LEVEL 2)

Decision Factors R S DAC BA/CA G EE RIW

Rainfall (R) 1 3 4 5 7 3.35 0.54

Slope (S) 1/3 1 3 4 5 1.46 0.24
Distance to active Channel (DAC) 1/4 1/3 1 3 5 0.79 0.13
Bar area /Channel area (BA/CA) 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 3 0.40 0.06
Geomorphology (G) 1/7 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 0.19 0.03
␭max = 5.31; C.I = 0.08; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.069

a) Rainfall (mm/year) (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 1801-2500 1551 – 1800 1351-1550 1201 – 1350 600 – 1200 EE RIW

1801-2500 1 2 3 5 6 2.83 0.42

1551 – 1800 1/2 1 3 4 5 1.97 0.29
1351-1550 1/3 1/3 1 3 4 1.06 0.16
1201 – 1350 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 3 0.55 0.08
600 – 1200 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 0.31 0.05
␭max = 5.31; C.I = 0.057; R.I = 1.12;CR = 0.051

b) Distance to active channel map (m) (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 0-500 (Very High) 500-1500 (High) 1500-3000 (Moderate) >3000(Low) EE RIW

0-500(Very high) 1 2 4 5 2.51 0.48

500-1500 (High) 1/2 1 4 5 1.78 0.34
1500-3000 (Moderate) 1/4 1/4 1 3 0.66 0.12
>3000 (Low) 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 0.34 0.06
␭max = 4.19; C.I = 0.062; R.I = 0.90; CR = 0.069

c) Slope (in degree) (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factors 0.00 - 0.080 0.81 - 0.300 0.301 - 0.670 0.671 - 0.900 0.901 - 8.380 EE RIW

0.00 - 0.080 1 2 3 5 7 2.91 0.43

0.81 - 0.300 1/2 1 3 4 5 1.97 0.29
0.301 - 0.670 1/3 1/3 1 3 4 1.06 0.16
0.671 - 0.900 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 3 0.55 0.08
0.901 - 8.380 1/7 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 0.30 0.04
␭max = 5.20; C.I = 0.051; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.045

d) Average BA/CA ratio (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factors 4.842 – 6.100 3.292 – 4.842 1.561 – 3.292 1.111 – 1.561 0.370 – 1.111 EE RIW

4.842 – 6.100 (V.high) 1 2 3 5 6 2.83 0.42

3.292 – 4.842 (high) 1/2 1 3 4 6 2.05 0.30
1.561 – 3.292 (Moderate) 1/3 1/3 1 3 4 1.06 0.16
1.111 – 1.561 (Low) 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 2 0.51 0.07
0.370 – 1.111 (V.Low) 1/6 1/6 1/4 1/2 1 0.32 0.05
␭max = 5.11; C.I = 0.027; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.024

e) Geomorphology (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor Water logged areas Active channel Abandoned channel Sand sheets Bars Alluvial fan EE RIW

Water logged areas 1 3 5 6 5 7 3.83 0.43

Active channel 1/3 1 4 5 5 7 2.48 0.28
Abandoned channel 1/5 1/4 1 2 3 4 1.03 0.12
Sand bodies 1/6 1/5 1/2 1 3 3 0.73 0.08
Bars 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 2 0.46 0.05
Megafan surface 1/7 1/7 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 0.31 0.03
␭max = 6.36; C.I = 0.073; R.I = 1.24; C.R = 0.059

*EE = Estimated Eigen value; ␭max = largest eigenvalue; C.I = Consistency Index; R.I = random inconsistency index; C.R = consistency ratio.

likelihood of a matrix being realistic is determined by computing Where n is the number of criteria and ␭max (largest eigen value)
the consistency ratio (C.R.). is the sum of the products between each element of the RIW and
column totals of the matrix of decision factors. A reasonable level
C.R = C.I ⁄R.I (5) of consistency in the pairwise comparisons is assumed if the con-
sistency ratio (C.R) < 0.10, while C.R ≥ 0.10 indicates inconsistent
Where R.I is the random inconsistency index as defined by Saaty judgments (Siddayao et al., 2015).
(1980) that depends on the sample size as shown in Table S4. C.I is We have calculated the consistency ratio for the hazard factors
the Consistency Index defined as: (Level 2) as well as the sub-factors (Level 3). A similar exercise was
done for computing the flood vulnerability index (FVI), and finally,
max − n the flood risk assessment was done by multiplying the two maps.
C.I = (6)
n−1
8 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861

Table 4
Calculation of Relative Importance Weightage for Level 2 decision Factors and Level 3 sub factors.

VULNERABILITY FACTORS (LEVEL 2)

Decision Factor PD HD FD LULC Lr Rd Ri-Rd EE RIW

Population Density (P) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.38 0.34

Household density (HD) 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 7 2.37 0.24
Female Density(FD) 1/3 1/2 1 3 4 5 7 1.83 0.19
LULC 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 2 3 4 0.94 0.10
Literacy rate (Lr) 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/2 1 3 5 0.71 0.07
Road density (Rd) 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 4 0.44 0.04
River Road Intersection (Ri-Rd) 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/4 1/5 1/4 1 0.23 0.02
␭max = 7.49; C.I = 0.083; R.I = 1.32; C.R = 0.063

a) Population density(No of Persons /Sq.km) (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 1151 - 1700 981 - 1150 821 – 980 431 – 820 0.00 – 430 EE RIW

1151 - 1700 1 2 4 5 7 3.09 0.45

981 - 1150 1/2 1 3 4 5 1.97 0.29
821 – 980 1/4 1/3 1 3 4 1.00 0.14
431 – 820 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 3 0.55 0.08
0.00 – 430 1/7 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 0.30 0.04
␭max = 5.22; C.I = 0.056; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.050

b) Household density(No of houses /Sq.km) (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 231- 295 191 - 230 161 - 190 81 - 160 0 - 80 EE RIW

231- 295 1 2 3 5 7 2.91 0.41

191 - 230 1/2 1 3 5 7 2.21 0.31
161 - 190 1/3 1/3 1 3 5 1.11 0.16
81 - 160 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 3 0.53 0.07
0 - 80 1/7 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 0.27 0.04
␭max = 5.22; C.I = 0.049; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.044

c) Female density (No of females /Sq.km) (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 531 – 840 461 – 530 391 – 460 211 – 390 0.00 – 210 EE RIW

531 – 840 1 2 4 5 8 3.17 0.44

461 – 530 1/2 1 3 5 7 2.21 0.30
391 – 460 1/4 1/3 1 4 5 1.11 0.15
211 – 390 1/5 1/5 1/4 1 3 0.50 0.07
0.00 – 210 1/8 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 0.26 0.04
␭max = 5.26; C.I = 0.065; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.058

d) Landuse-Landcover classes (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor Built-up Agriculture Current fallow/ Bare soil Forest cover River/Waterbodies EE RIW

Built-up 1 2 4 5 7 2.56 0.40

Agriculture 1/2 1 3 4 6 1.82 0.28
Current fallow/ Bare soil 1/4 1/3 1 4 5 1.09 0.17
Forest cover 1/5 1/4 1/4 1 3 0.58 0.09
River/Waterbodies 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/3 1 0.34 0.05
␭max = 5.29; C.I = 0.074; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.066

e) Road network density(LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 0.0018 - 0.0033 0.0012-0.0018 0.0008 - 0.0012 0.0004 - 0.0008

0.000 - 0.0004 EE RIW

0.0018 - 0.0033 1 2 3 5 6 2.83 0.42

0.0012-0.0018 1/2 1 3 4 6 2.05 0.30
0.0008 - 0.0012 1/3 1/3 1 3 4 1.06 0.16
0.0004 - 0.0008 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 3 0.55 0.08
0.0000 - 0.0004 1/6 1/6 1/4 1/3 1 0.30 0.04
␭max = 5.21; C.I = 0.053; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.047

f) Literacy rate (LEVEL 3)

Decision Factor 0 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 55 56 - 65 66 - 96 EE RIW

0 - 20 1 2 4 5 7 3.09 0.44
21 - 50 1/2 1 3 5 6 2.14 0.31
51 - 55 1/4 1/3 1 4 3 1.00 0.14
56 - 65 1/5 1/5 1/4 1 2 0.46 0.07
66 - 96 1/7 1/6 1/3 1/2 1 0.33 0.05
␭max = 5.20; C.I = 0.051; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.045
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Table 4 (Continued)
g) River- Road intersection density(LEVEL 3)
Decision Factor 0.0397 – 0.0631 0.0221 – 0.0396
0.0397 – 0.0631 1 2
0.0221 – 0.0396 1/2 1 3
0.0121 – 0.0220 1/3 1/3
0.0033– 0.0120 1/5 1/5
0.00 - 0.0032 1/7 1/6
␭max = 5.21; C.I = 0.053; R.I = 1.12; C.R = 0.047
*EE = Estimated Eigen value; ␭max = largest eigenvalue; C.I = Consistency Index; R.I = random inconsistency index; C.R = consistency ratio.
5. Results and analysis
5.1. Hazard indicators
In the present context, flood hazard represents the probabil-
ity of a location that will suffer from a flooding event based on
the hydrological and geomorphological attributes of the region.
Five hazard parameters have been selected for the present study
namely, geomorphology, bar area/channel area ratio, rainfall, slope,
and distance to active channels (Table 3).
5.1.1. Geomorphology (G)
The geomorphic map of the Kosi alluvial plains based on the
satellite image of the year 2013 is shown in Fig. 4. Based on
the distribution of geomorphic elements and the understanding
of the modern processes, six major geomorphic units have been
identified, namely (a) active channel, (b) abandoned channels, (c)
waterlogged areas, (d) sand bodies, (e) bars, and (f) alluvial fan sur-
face (Table 1). The active channel belt is defined by the major river
Kosi and the associated channel bar deposits. Stable bars covered
with grass are classified as vegetated sand bars. Some are moist
due to frequent inundation and some are dry as high sedimenta-
tion changes the flow path and direction. The alluvial fan surface is
the most dominant unit which is monotonously flat and is marked
by paleochannels that are formed due to the migration of the main
channel of the Kosi River (now embanked). The paleochannels are
identified from their dark tone with the curvilinear orientation of
vegetation. Several of these paleochannels flow during the mon-
soon period and actively transport water and sediments. Several
linear sand deposits are the remnants of recent avulsions such as
the one in 2008 (Fig. 2f). Large patches of waterlogged areas are
distinct which mark the low-lying back swamp areas in associ-
ation with the former channels. Many of these areas have dried
out but can still be picked up on the satellite images due to high
surface moisture. Some of the waterlogged patches are anthro-
pogenic, formed due to the disconnection of flow paths by roads and
railway tracks (discussed later). Adjacent to the eastern embank-
ment, widespread waterlogged areas represent the water seepage
through the embankment. Over the years, these seepages have
combined to form well-defined channels on the megafan surface
and one of them is flowing along the eastern embankment (Figs. 2e,
4 ).
It is important to note that the overall geomorphology of the Kosi
megafan does not influence or trigger the floods directly but the
presence of individual geomorphic features influences the potential
of flooding and duration of inundation in a given region. Therefore,
the geomorphology has been ranked the lowest in the hierarchy
in comparison to the other factors (Table 3a). The specific geomor-
phic units (Fig. 4) have varied potential in terms of flood hazard, and
hence, they were ranked accordingly for GIS analysis. For example,
the areas close to the active channels or paleochannels are more
prone to flooding. The waterlogged areas increase the inundation
period significantly in this region (Pandey et al., 2010) as compared
9
0.0121 – 0.0220 0.0033– 0.0120 0.00 - 0.0032 EE RIW
3 5 7 2.91 0.42
5 6 2.14 0.31
1 3 5 1.11 0.16
1/3 1 3 0.53 0.08
1/5 1/3 1 0.28 0.04
to far areas. Hence, the weightage for the different geomorphic
classes for level 3 sub-factors defined accordingly (Table 3).
5.1.2. Bar area /Channel area (BA/CA)
The Kosi river is known for the rapid and frequent changes in
its planform. Fig. 5a shows a representative planform map for 2009
and similar maps were created for multiple years (1972–2016) from
repetitive satellite imageries to understand the dynamics of the
channel as well as channel bars over the years. Systematic planform
dynamics of the Kosi river has been presented elsewhere (Sinha
et al., in press) and here we use the data on temporal variation in
planform represented by the ratio of the bar area to channel area
(BA/CA) computed for each 5 km long reach (Fig. 5b). Reaches with
a high BA/CA ratio indicate the zones of severe channel aggradation
and in some of these reaches, the channel is in a ‘superelevated’ con-
dition thereby increasing the risk of breaching and flooding (Sinha
et al., 2014). Fig. 5c shows the reach-scale BA/CA ratio map classi-
fied into five zones to indicate the severity of aggradation. This map
is superimposed with the recorded breaching events in recent years
(Mishra, 2006). It is particularly interesting to note that most of the
locations of breaching fall in reaches with high to moderate val-
ues of BA/CA ratio representing hotspots of aggradation (Fig. 5c).
This suggests that the reaches with high BA/CA ratios are high-
risk zones in terms of potential breaching and flooding. For AHP
analysis, the weightage factors were decided accordingly very high
BA/CA ratios were given higher weightage followed by high and
moderate values in the level 3 sub-factors (Table 3). The BA/CA map
of the Kosi basin shows that Supaul district falls in a very high aggra-
dation zone where some of the major breaching events e.g. Joginia
(1991), Dalwa (1963), Kunnauli (1967) and Bhatania (1974) have
occurred. In contrast, the reaches falling in Saharsa district have
the low BA/CA ratios and hence lower weightages were assigned
to these reaches. The BA/CA is an important parameter that gov-
erns the reach scale channel morphology and hence this factor was
ranked higher than the overall fan geomorphology parameter in
the level 2 hierarchy (Table 3a).
5.1.3. Rainfall (R)
Rainfall in an area, coupled with terrain characteristics, deter-
mines the total surface runoff during the monsoon period. It is one
of the major factors that significantly contributes to the flooding in
any river basin and large floods are often triggered by a high rainfall
event. Annual rainfall of the Kosi megafan region is fairly anoma-
lous and ranges from 600 mm/yr to 2500 mm/yr. The rainfall map
(Fig. 6a) shows that a major part of the Kosi megafan falls within
the region of the average rainfall of ∼1350 mm/yr to ∼2500 mm/yr.
The upper part of the Kosi megafan that lies in Nepal receives a
high amount of rainfall (∼1200 to ∼2500 mm/yr) annually due to
proximity to the mountains. The parts of the megafan that lie in
north Bihar plains receive a comparatively lower amount of rain-
fall annually (∼600 to∼2200 mm/yr) but there are patches of high
rainfall zones along the northern and eastern peripheries and in the
middle part of the megafan (Fig. 6a).
10 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861

Fig. 4. Geomorphic map of Kosi megafan based on satellite imageries (Landsat-8, 2013) showing major geomorphic features. The Kosi river flows at the western edge of the
megafan.

Fig. 5. (a) Map showing detailed planform morphology of the Kosi channel (2009), (b) Reach-wise plot of BA/CA ratio for different years (1972–2016), (c) Average BA/CA (bar
area/channel area); green stars on the map represent the breaching points in recent years (1963–2008) and several of them fall in reaches with high BA/CA ratio (shown in
red) reflecting severe aggradation.

Due to high rainfall, high surface runoff is generated and flat
alluvial fan region is inundated. Also, high sediment flux from the
catchment during the rainfall and limited accommodation space
in the channel encourages siltation and therefore breaching and
flooding. Hence, rainfall has been given the highest weightage in
comparison to the other factors in the level 2 hierarchy for com-
puting the flood hazard index (Table 3). In the case of the level 3
hierarchy, weightages were assigned as per the rainfall classes as
shown in Fig. 5a. Table 3 shows the calculation of the relative impor-
tance weightage (RIW) and the consistency index (C.I.) for rainfall
(level 3 sub-factors).
5.1.4. Slope (S)
The length and the steepness of the topographic slope (S) affect
the flow and inundation of the particular area. For example, the
low-lying area with a low slope angle will be inundated first as
compared to the high slope area during flooding and vice versa
(Sharada et al., 1997; Sauer, 2002; Yalcin and Akyurek, 2004; Butler
et al., 2006). Fig. 6b shows the classified slope map of the Kosi basin
based on the SRTM DEM (Table 3b). The study area is mostly dom-
inated by the flat topography with a slope varying from 0.00◦ to
8.38◦ (Fig. 6b). In the present study, the areas with a slope of less
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Fig. 6. Thematic layers used for the assessment of flood hazard of the Kosi megafan region: (a) rainfall map, (b) slope map, and (c) distance to active channel.
than 0.3◦ show the water logging condition, or water bodies with
patches of moist areas.
The Kosi megafan surface has a very flat topography with a
small slope variation (0.00◦ – 8.38◦ ). Such flatness slows down the
flood flows considerably and inundates a large area. During the
Kusaha floods of 2008, a significant widening and branching of
flows (Majumdar and Ghosh, 2017) in the mid fan region resulted
in a ∼15-20 km wide sheet flow (Sinha, 2009). This also resulted in
the re-establishment of hydrological connectivity of several pale-
ochannels on the megafan surface (Sinha et al., 2013) expanding
the area of inundation even further. Therefore, the low slope areas
were given higher weightage and vice versa for computing the flood
hazard index (Table 3).
5.1.5. Distance to active channels (DAC)
Proximity to active channels translates into a higher poten-
tial to flood hazards (Ghosh and Kar, 2018). Once the inundation
emanates from the river channel, it expands to the areas proxi-
mal to the channel and then diminishes (Kazakis et al., 2015). In
other words, as the distance from the active channel increases, the
flood hazard decreases. Fig. 6c shows the DAC map computed by
buffering of 500 m on both sides of the channels on the megafan
surface. Apart from the main channel of the Kosi River, there are
numerous paleochannels on the Kosi megafan surface (Fig. 4). These
long, meandering and radiating channels flow over low gradients
and have easily erodible banks. During flooding, dam break or
embankment breach, they provide the main conduit for the pas-
sage for floodwater and sediments and increase the probability
of flood occurrence (Ologunorisa and Abawua, 2005; Butler et al.,
2006). Therefore, the DAC has been considered as the second most
important factor in flood hazard assessment. Accordingly, higher
weightages were assigned to areas closer (0–500 m) to the pale-
ochannels on the megafan surface compared to the areas farther
(500–1500 m) from them (Table 3b).
5.2. Vulnerability indicators
In the present context, flood vulnerability represents the degree
of potential harm under certain conditions of socio-economic and
infrastructural susceptibility and resilience capacity in a particular
region over a specific time. The different indicators used for flood
vulnerability are based on their presence, absence and functional
relation with the flood hazard (Fig. 7a-f and Table 4).
11
5.2.1. Population density (P)
The population at risk is one of the main factors that need to be
considered to evaluate the vulnerability to floods in a given area.
The population density is an indicator of potential danger to human
life and health – a central point of flood impact assessment. Higher
the population density, the higher is the probability of loss of life
and property (Kandilioti and Makropoulos, 2012). Population dis-
tribution relates to the spread of people over land. The vulnerability
to floods depends upon the different levels of technical, social, cul-
tural and economic characteristics of the population group that in
turn determine the ability to protect from the negative impacts
of floods. Sensitivity to flood risk would be expected to be higher
for the populations with poor basic living conditions such as over-
crowding, malnutrition, and inadequate access to health services.
To quantify the economic assets under potential threat, the block-
wise population density (number of individuals per unit area) has
been chosen as an important variable for flood vulnerability anal-
ysis.
The classified population map based on the census 2011 data
(Fig. 7a) shows 41 blocks with very low and low population density
(< 820 persons/km2 ) mostly located in the northern and north-
western fringe of the study area. There are 26 blocks out of 29 blocks
with moderate population density (∼821 – 980 persons/km2 ) sit-
uated in the eastern and southeastern parts of the Kosi megafan
region. Special attention should be paid to the areas with high to
very high population density (∼981 – 1700 persons/km2 ) covering
35 blocks, mostly concentrated in the western and southwestern
parts.
The population density was given the highest weightage
(Table 4) for flood vulnerability analysis as it serves as a proxy for
the cost of life and property in a given region that may be at risk due
to floods. In case of the disasters with similar severity, more people
will be affected in a highly populated area compared to a less popu-
lated area (Pandey et al., 2010). The socio-economic interventions
such as buildings, road, village, etc. are the outcome of the pop-
ulation growth and they contribute significantly to the flood risk.
Table 4 shows the relative importance weightage for population
density for level 2 decision factors as well as level 3 sub-factors.
5.2.2. Household density (Hd)
Next to the population density, the household density (Hd) is
a factor which directly influences vulnerability in the inundated
areas as well as in the low lying areas because of the potential
12 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Fig. 7. Thematic layers used for the assessment of flood vulnerability of the Kosi megafan region: (a) population density map, (b) Household density map, (c) female density
map, (d) Literacy rate map, (e) LULC map, (f) Ri-Rd density map, and (g) Road network density map.
increase of building’s exposure to flooding (Tapsell et al., 2002;
Cardona, 2005). The proximity of households in an area follow-
ing the floods also leads to the transfer of adverse health issues
from person to person (Tapsell et al., 2002). To map the household
density (Fig. 7b) in the study area, the number of houses/km2 of the
area was calculated using the census data of the year 2011. Based on
the classified household density map, 29 blocks comprise moderate
household density (151–190 houses/km2 ), out of which 24 blocks
lie in the eastern part of the Kosi megafan trending north-south
direction of the basin. Similarly, there are 39 blocks with high to
very high household density (191–295 houses/km2 ), out of which
32 blocks lie in the western part of the basin. It is also noted that
37 blocks are associated with very low to low household density
(0–160 houses/km2 ) in the north and northwestern fringe of the
Kosi basin. Table 4 shows the relative importance weightage for
the household density for level 2 decision factors next to the popu-
lation density. In level 3 sub-factors, a lower weightage was given
to the low household density and vice versa (Table 4).
5.2.3. Female population density (F)
Among the vulnerable population group, women have a higher
perception of risk and need to be better prepared for action during
floods (Fekete, 2009). According to previous studies, flooding has
differential impacts on men and women (Tapsell et al., 2002). How-
ever, women can have more difficulty during recovery, often due to
lower income and greater family care and responsibilities (Hewitt,
1997; Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete, 2009). Several factors such as
the lack of interdependence and decision making power, cultural
restriction on clothing, and lack of mobility of women to access the
information and services also inhibit the ability of women to adapt
to the flood risk. In the study area, a flood occurs during monsoon
season, and women being the home dwellers become vulnerable
as they lack the necessary resources to respond and recover from
the disasters. Based on the census data of 2011, the female density
map (Fig. 7c) shows 38 blocks with very high to high female den-
sity (461–840 females/km2 ) and most of them are concentrated in
the western part of the Kosi basin along the north-south direction
with 5 blocks on the eastern fringe. The opposite is the case with
a moderate female density of (391–460 females/km2 ). Out of 30
blocks showing moderate female density, 21 blocks fall in the east-
ern part and 9 blocks in the western and south-western part of the
basin. A total of 37 blocks show low and very low female density
(0–390 females/km2 ) and most of them lie on the north and north-
western fringe of the Kosi basin. To assess the vulnerability, higher
weightages were assigned to the blocks with higher female popula-
tion density, and vice versa. Table 4c shows the relative importance
weightage for female density for level 2 decision factors as well as
level 3 sub-factors.
5.2.4. Literacy rate (Lr)
The literacy rate is defined as the percentage of literate persons
over the entire population at the block level. In general, a literate
population can understand the nature and severity of a hazardous
event better and can respond more quickly. Thus, it plays a key role
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
in the individual’s empowerment and resilience capacity to over-
come the physical barriers and natural hazards (Pandey et al., 2010;
Ghosh and Kar, 2018). Fig. 7d shows that the literacy rate distribu-
tion is quite variable e.g., 30 blocks with low and very low literacy
rate (0–50 %) lie in the south-eastern and south-western part, and
40 blocks with moderate literacy rate (51–55 %) mostly cover the
central part of the Kosi megafan. Further, 35 blocks with higher
literacy rate (56–96 %) are concentrated in the north and north-
western parts of the Kosi basin as well as on the southern fringe
in the downstream reaches. Table 4 shows the relative importance
weightage for literacy rate for level 2 (Table 4) decision factors as
well as for level 3 sub-factors (Table 4). The blocks with higher lit-
eracy rates are less vulnerable as the population here has a higher
capacity to cope up with the floods. Therefore, a lower weightage
has been assigned to these blocks. Also, since this parameter is a
sub-set of the population density and household density, this has
been given a lower ranking in the level 2 decision hierarchy.
5.2.5. Landuse and landcover (LULC)
The nature and the extent of the LULC have strong control over
the runoff characteristics of the river and its catchment areas.
The removal of vegetation directly increases the runoff volume
in comparison to well-vegetated land covers that in turn influ-
ence the infiltration and saturated hydraulic conductivity via roots
and pores. The urbanization also increases the probability of flood
occurrence (Sharada et al., 1997; Yalcin and Akyurek, 2004; Schmitt
et al., 2004; Butler et al., 2006).
As a consequence of its influence on hydrology, the LULC also
impacts the flood characteristics in a given region (Kourgialas and
Karatzas, 2011; Rogger et al., 2016). Among the different LULC
types, forest and built-up areas differ vastly in their abilities to
intercept rainfall and prevent flooding (Duo et al., 2018). Forest
and lush vegetation favor infiltration, whereas the urban and pas-
ture areas enhance the overland flow of water (Kazakis et al., 2015).
The Kosi basin is agriculture-dominated and a significant intensifi-
cation of agriculture over the past 40–50 years has been observed
in this region (Uddin et al., 2015).
Based on the reclassified LULC map (Fig. 7e) of the Kosi basin,
Table 2 lists the statistics for the major LULC classes. A major part of
the Kosi basin comprises agricultural land (shrubland, agriculture,
grassland, double/triple crop) that accounts for ∼61 % of the total
area. Current fallow/bare soil class includes the areas that remain
dormant in one or the other season along with the other bare soil
surface. It accounts for ∼34 % of the total area, next to agriculture.
The river and other waterbodies represent only ∼4 % of the total
area. Built-up areas and agricultural areas are more prone to flood
hazard than the current fallow/bare lands and marshy areas (Ghosh
and Kar, 2018). Therefore, based on the LULC map (Fig. 7e) as well as
statistics (Table 2), these two classes were given the highest weigh-
tage for computing flood vulnerability. Table 4 shows the relative
importance weightage for LULC for level 2 decision factors as well
as for level 3 sub-factors.
5.2.6. River-road (Ri-Rd) intersection
The Ri-Rd intersection in the Kosi megafan region has increased
significantly over the years and a direct manifestation of this has
been observed in the increase of waterlogged areas through time
(Kumar et al., 2014). Waterlogging is a slow-spreading hazards on
its own (Broad et al., 2010; Pandey et al., 2010), and its influence
on the inundation during floods and backwater effect makes it even
more important in terms of flood vulnerability analysis. While the
waterlogged areas have already been considered in the geomor-
phology layer for flood hazard analysis, here we use the Ri-Rd
density map (Fig. 7f) as a separate layer to emphasize the vulnera-
bility aspect. Out of 105 blocks in the Kosi megafan region, 66 blocks
have the values ranging from 0.00-0.0032 (least affected areas), 18
13
blocks fall in the low affected zone (0.0033-0.0120), 9 blocks are
characterised by moderate values of Ri-Rd density (0.0121-0.0220),
and the remaining 12 blocks fall in severe to very severe class of
Ri-Rd density (0.0221-0.0631).
The Ri-Rd density contributes to drainage congestion as it
obstructs the flow of water during floods as was witnessed in the
Kosi basin during 2008 flood (Kumar et al., 2014). Hence, it has a
moderate impact on flood vulnerability. Higher is the Ri-Rd density,
more is the drainage congestion and higher is the flood vulnera-
bility. Table 4 shows the relative importance weightage for Ri-Rd
intersection for level 2 decision factors as well as level 3 sub-factors.
5.2.7. Road network density (Rd)
During flooding, the availability of major roads such as main dis-
trict roads (MDR), state highways (SH), and national highways (NH)
plays an important role, especially in rescue and relief operation.
Besides, they also act as temporary flood shelters (Hazarika et al.,
2015; Ghosh and Kar, 2018). In the study area, there are very few
NH, SH, and MDR that can be considered reliable during the mon-
soon season. A major part of the basin is covered by local/minor
roads that cannot withstand the flood impact and are washed away
during flooding. Considering the negative impact of the local roads
and their availability in the study area, the road network density
(Fig. 7g) values were assigned to the different classes according to
the distance from the roads and types of roads. As per availabil-
ity and impact to vulnerability, higher weightage was given to the
higher density of the kuccha (non-metalled) roads (as it leads to
more vulnerable situations) and vice versa. Table 4 shows the RIW
for road network density map for level 2 decision factors as well as
level 3 sub-factors.
5.3. GIS integration of data layers and the generation of flood risk
map
5.3.1. Flood hazard map for the Kosi basin using AHP
Five thematic layers, namely geomorphology, slope, rainfall, dis-
tance to the active channel, and BA/CA ratio have been integrated to
generate flood hazard index (FHI), taking into account their relative
weights. After the decision matrix was created and RIWs computed,
it was followed by the computation of consistency index (C.I) and
consistency ratio (C.R) (Table 3), and these values were found to be
satisfactory (C.R ≤ 0.10 or ≤ 10 %). Based on the RIW values (Table 3),
the FHI was computed by the arithmetic overlay of all the decision
factors as follows:
FHI = 0.54 × R + 0.24 × S + 0.13 × DAC
+ 0.06 × BA/CA + 0.03 × G (7)
The final FHI map (Fig. 8a) obtained at pixel/cell level shows
a continuous value ranging from 0.042 – 0.05 and displays a sig-
nificant spatial variability. To map the area under different FHI, the
final hazard map was classified into four major categories (Fig. S1a)
based on natural Jenks classification. Our analysis suggests that 12 %
(1392 km2 ) of the area is consistently subjected to flood hazard, 21
% undergoes frequent flood hazard, 34 % suffers occasional flood
hazard, while 32 % (3830 km2 ) is least/seldom flooded. Further,
these classes were used to classify the blocks under different FHI
groups (Fig. S2) to identify the susceptibility of each block towards
flood hazard. We note that a total of 70 out of 105 blocks fall in very
high to moderate FHI class, which amounts to 67 % of the total area
of the Kosi megafan. Based on the classified FHI map and block-
wise FHI zonation map, three prominent areas of high to very high
flood hazard have been identified for e.g., (a) parts of Madhuban,
Singhiya, Laukahi, Harinagar, Kosi Tappu, Dewaganj, Kaptanganj,
Basantpur, on the northern fringe of the Kosi megafan; (b) parts
14 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Fig. 8. (a) Flood hazard map, (b) Flood vulnerability map, and (c) Classified flood risk map of Kosi megafan region produced after the AHP analysis.
of Madhepura, Muraliganj, Shankarpur, Singheshwar blocks in the
central part; and (c) parts of Korha, Katihar, Pranpur, and Amd-
abad blocks in the southeastern part of the Kosi megafan. Analysis
of the individual thematic layers suggests that the regions with
high to very high FHI are associated with high rainfall, a dense
network of active channels (running parallel to the main chan-
nel) and extremely low slope. During high rainfall, a breach in
the embankment or seepages through the embankments quickly
transport the overflow to the several converging paleochannels as
witnessed during the 2008 floods (Sinha, 2009; Sinha et al., 2013,
2014). Also, the overflows fail to return to the main channel due
to the convex topography of the megafan surface and inundate the
low-lying areas. The examples of moderate FHI include parts of Kis-
hanpur, Supaul, Kishanpur, Supaul, Nauhatta, and Mahishi blocks
that are associated with the main channel, where siltation within
the embankment leads to superelevation and flooding through
breaching. Several breaching events are associated with moder-
ate FHI zones (Fig. 5c). The areas that lie along the eastern flank
of the embankment show low FHI as they fall in low to moderate
rainfall zone with a comparatively higher slope to its surrounding
areas (Fig. S1a). The low FHI includes the parts of Kishanpur, Supaul,
Nauhatta, Satar Kataya, Simri-Bakhtiyarpur, and Mahishi blocks. In
addition to this, Beladur, Kishanganj, Chausa, are some of the blocks
in the southern part of the basin having low FHI.
5.3.2. Comparison of flood hazard map
The final flood hazard map was compared to the Dartmouth
Flood Observatory (DFO) dataset (Fig. S1a,b), between 1999 and
2009, and past breaches (Fig. 5c). This dataset mostly consists of
images from sensors Terra- MODIS and Aqua-MODIS at 250 m spa-
tial resolution (Brakenridge et al., 2006). It has been suggested
that the MODIS-derived flood inundation maps may underestimate
flooded areas because the image acquisition was not systematic
before 2011 (Dottori et al., 2016). Also, the detection of flood extent
can be hindered by cloud cover, although this can be compensated
by the cumulative approach used by the DFO (Brakenridge et al.,
2006, 2013; Westerhoff et al., 2013).
Comparing the classified FHI map with the MODIS flood inunda-
tion map, high FHI values for blocks such as Basantpur, Pratapganj,
and Narpatganj in the northern fringe, and Muraliganj, Madhepura
in the central part match well with the major inundation pattern
between years 1999 – 2009. However, the blocks such as Salkhua,
Beladur and Chausa in the southwestern part of the Kosi megafan
low FHI show inundation in all consequent years. In the eastern part
of the Kosi megafan, the blocks such as Araria, Kasba, Korha, and
Pranpur show high FHI but show no inundation / considerably low
inundation limit. This suggests that MODIS can only capture maxi-
mum flooding stages, which also signifies that inundation maps are
not the only parameter to define the flood hazard in most parts of
the Kosi basin.
5.3.3. Flood vulnerability map of the Kosi basin using AHP
Seven thematic layers namely the population density, house-
hold density, female population density, LULC, Ri-Rd intersection
density, literacy rate, and road network density were used to gen-
erate the flood vulnerability index (FVI). Although maps of the
individual components of vulnerability can be useful, it is much
easier to assess the flood vulnerability throughout the study area,
if multi-dimensional components can be integrated into a single
measure. In the present work, the socio-economic and infrastruc-
tural susceptibilities were determined by the population density,
female population, household density, LULC types, and Ri-Rd inter-
sections. Also, the literacy rate and road network density have been
considered as the resilience elements that strengthen the coping
capacities of natural hazards. Similar to FHI, the RIWs were com-
puted and the consistency ratio (C.R) was found to be satisfactory
(i.e. C.R ≤ 0.10 or ≤ 10 %) (Table 4). Finally, based on the RIW values
(Table 4), the flood vulnerability index (FVI) was obtained from the
formula given as:
FVI = 0.34 × P + 0.24 × Hd + 0.19 × F + 0.10 × LULC + 0.07 × Lr
+ 0.04 × Ri − Rd + 0.02 × Rd (8)
To map the area percentage under different vulnerability class,
the FVI map was reclassified under four major categories (Fig S1c).
Our analysis shows that ∼30 % (3541 km2 ) of the study area is under
high and very high FVI, 46 % (5507 km2 ) under moderate FVI, and
24 % (2791 km2 ) under low FVI. Further, these classes were used
to map the blocks under different FVI groups (Fig. S3) to identify
that susceptibility of each block to flood vulnerability. The most
vulnerable regions are located in the western and south-western
parts of the Kosi megafan including blocks such as Pipra, Sahar
Kataya, Madhepura, Sonbarsha, Kishanganj, and Chausa (Fig. S1c).
Highly vulnerable zones match with very high population density,
high household density, high female density, and low to moder-
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
ate literacy rates. Along with this, high road network density due
to local/minor roads and moderate to high drainage congestion
in these regions make them more vulnerable to flood hazard. The
blocks showing moderate and low FVI values can also be explained
along similar lines.
5.3.4. Flood risk map
A flood risk map of the Kosi basin was prepared by combining
the flood hazard and flood vulnerability maps (Ouma and Tateishi,
2014; Yagoub, 2015):
FRI(Flood Risk Index) = FHI × FVI (9)
In this study, the FHI and FVI maps were multiplied in the model
builder to generate the flood risk map of the Kosi megafan region
that was further classified into four categories using natural Jenks
criteria (Fig. 8c). Further, each block was also categorized under
four categories to identify the susceptibility of each block toflood
risk (Fig. 9).
The classified flood risk map (Fig. 9) shows that 6 % (752 km2 )
of the Kosi megafan region falls in very high FRI category e.g.
Ramnagar-Butaha, Harinagar, and Dewaganj from the north,
Singheshwar from the central part, and Mansi from the southwest-
ern part. The high FRI category corresponds to areas with high FHI
and high FVI. Fig. 9 shows that 2482 km2 of the Kosi megafan region
(∼21 %) falls under this category e.g. some parts of Pratapganj from
the north, Jalagarh and Pranpur Araria in the eastern part, Madhep-
ura in the central, Khagaria, Sonbarsa, Kishanganj, and Biharganj in
the south-western part. The moderate FRI category includes a fairly
high proportion of the Kosi megafan region, ∼35 % (4140 km2 ) and
some of the important blocks include Narpatganj and Muraliganj
with high FHI and moderate FVI and Chausa, and Nauhatta, Pipra,
Kharik blocks with low FHI but high FVI. Most of these blocks have
moderate to high population density, dominated by agricultural
land and moist areas but are located close to the active channels
that increase the flood risk. The remaining part of the Kosi megafan
region (∼38 %, 4464 km2 ) is categorized as low FRI associated with
low rainfall, low population density or located farther from the
main Kosi river or paleochannels.
6. Discussion
Flood hazard map of Kosi basin based on integrated hydro-
geomorphological methods should prove to be more effective over
standard hydrological and hydraulic models on various counts.
Firstly, the hydro-geomorphological approach in the present
study combines the physical (geomorphological) criteria with
hydro-meteorological data to emphasize the process-based under-
standing and overcomes the necessity of dense hydrological data
as required by hydraulic modelling of floods. Secondly, the classical
overbank flooding does not occur any longer in the Kosi megafan
region as the river is embanked on both sides and flooding is mostly
triggered by breaching events followed by inundation through the
propagation of floods through paleochannels. The fact that such
breaching can occur even at low discharges and primarily depend
on thresholds driven by geomorphic criteria such as superelevation,
the hydraulic models are not sufficient for such studies. Thirdly,
we combine the flood hazard assessment with the vulnerability
assessment in the Kosi basin based on social, economic, and phys-
ical dimensions to develop the flood risk maps. Flood vulnerability
is one of the most significant components in flood damage assess-
ment and risk management (Connor and Hiroki, 2005). We need
to develop a better perception of vulnerability, as this can lead to
promoting the concept of resilience towards floods (Klein et al.,
2003).
15
6.1. Implications for flood management
Our analysis covered 105 blocks in Nepal and Bihar (India) with
a total area of 11, 839 km2 of the Kosi megafan region. One of the
key stages in flood management is the identification of areas with
potential flood risk (Sanyal and Lu, 2003; Nasiri et al., 2016) as a
function of flood hazard and flood vulnerability. This assessment is
also very important for the government, non-governmental orga-
nizations (NGO’s), and other planners to prioritize the allocation
of resources for flood mitigation. Also, this provides knowledge of
the spatial extent of the inundation limit for the evacuation exer-
cises, insurance companies as well as relief providers (Brivio et al.,
2002). Our analysis suggests that ∼27 % of the total area of the Kosi
megafan falls under high and very high risk zone, followed by mod-
erate risk areas (∼35 %), and low risk areas (∼38 %) (Fig. 8c). From
the flood mitigation point of view, ∼62 % of the total area needs to
be addressed. The classified maps and block wise zonation (Figs. 7g
and 8 c) also provide information about roads that may or may
not be accessible and the areas suitable for camping during flood
periods.
This work has allowed us to analyze ’vulnerability’ as a central
concept in the way to understand disasters, magnitude, and their
impact (Bankoff et al., 2004; Schwab, 2011). Therefore, this has sig-
nificant implications for designing sustainable flood management
strategies. Integrating vulnerability in flood risk assessment has
provided information on the location of the sites with particular
resources such as communities, natural environment, or property,
which are susceptible to a catastrophic event that could result
in deaths, injuries, pollution, or other destructions. Hazards that
strike in areas with low vulnerability will not become disasters
(Quarantelli, 1998; Birkmann et al., 2013). However, most hazards
occur in developing or under-developed regions or in areas with
a high population density, poor infrastructure, and a limited or no
disaster preparedness plan. For example, some parts of Basantpur,
Koshi Tappu, and Narshingtappu blocks in the northern part show
high to very high FHI but do not contribute to high FRI as the FVI
is low in these blocks. Thus, it can be concluded that high FHI does
not necessarily translate into high flood risk.
Sustainable flood management strategies tend not to eliminate
flood risk but to mitigate/manage them (Tingsanchali, 2012). In
general, the flood risk management can be decomposed into (a)
preparedness/readiness towards the potential risk turning to dis-
aster both at individual and society level; (b) development of the
activities (i.e., the advance planning and preparedness) to cope up
with the response of the unprecedented risk; and (c) immediate
response measures to be implemented to recover after the emer-
gency (Tingsanchali, 2012; Nasiri et al., 2016).
Based on the risk maps that have emerged from the present
study, we suggest a set of activities for flood management in the
Kosi basin that may be grouped into structural and non-structural
measures and these are discussed next.
6.2. Structural measures
Structural measures mainly involve storing, diverting and
confinement of floodwater (Nasiri et al., 2016). Broadly, these mea-
sures include various methods of river restoration, rehabilitation
or denaturalization, flood prevention, and riverbed maintenance
(Bravard et al., 1999; Habersack and Piégay, 2007). Even though
structural measures are not ideal for this region, the current level
of existing interventions in this region makes it necessary to pro-
tect, maintain, monitor, and modify, if necessary, these structures
to safeguard a large population living close by. Some of the recom-
mendations that emerge from our work include the following:
16 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Fig. 9. Block wise flood risk zonation of the Kosi megafan region. A total of 105 blocks have been categorised into low, moderate, high and v. high flood risk.
(i) Removal/upgradation of interventions for safe passage of floodwa-
ters: The Ri-Rd intersection density map for the Kosi megafan
region (Fig. 7f) shows a high degree of drainage congestion in
the blocks such as Raniganj, Patharghat, Banmakhi, Saurbazar,
Pipra, and Madhepura primarily due to construction of roads
and railway networks without proper waterways. Significant
parts of these blocks with high population and household den-
sity fall in high to moderate risk zones, and therefore, our first
recommendation is to identify these problematic interventions
and to carry out desirable modifications in their placings and
design for safe passage of floodwaters.
(ii) Evaluation and monitoring of flood protection structures: The
physical infrastructures such as embankments provide an
acceptable degree of protection in conjunction with alter-
native means of risk reduction (Samuels, 2006). The Kosi
embankment is no exception but this has also resulted in the
confinement of a highly dynamic system over a large dis-
tance. Now that a large population lives very close to these
embankments, it is neither feasible nor practical to remove
themdespite their negative impacts on the river system. There-
fore, we recommend that a comprehensive ‘embankment
health monitoring’ program should be initiated as per the inter-
national guidelines (Environment Agency, 2006; Morris et al.,
2007; Utili et al., 2015) particularly focussing on the vulnera-
ble reaches identified in this work. However, this must be done
in conjunction with other measures suggested below to derive
long-term benefits.
(iii) Channel improvements in highly aggrading areas: Due to
embankment and barrage construction, major changes in the
flow and channel morphology have occurred over the last 5
decades leading to the ‘superelevation’ of a channel in several
reaches of the Kosi and breaching of embankments (Fig. 5c).
Therefore, it is important to restore the natural condition in
these ‘hotspots’ of aggradation through strategic dredging.
(iv) Use of paleochannels as conduits for water flow during flood
events: The use of paleochannels on the Kosi megafan surface
can provide efficient passage of flood flow but these are often
blocked or disconnected leading to widespread inundation as
witnessed during the August 2008 floods (Sinha, 2009; Sinha
et al., 2013). An efficient engineering solution to utilise these
paleochannels with simple hydraulic structures such as a spill-
way can not only allow safe passage of floodwaters but would
also reduce the excessive pressure on the main channel during
high flows. It is strongly recommended that a pilot project be
initiated on a few selected sites to reactivate the paleochannels
and distribute the flood flows.
6.3. Non-structural measures
Non-structural measures allow the individual or a community
to cope more effectively with flood risk. From the socio-economic
and institutional point of view, these measures involve much lesser
physical intervention and their environmental impact is relatively
small (Kang et al., 2009). For the effectiveness of these measures,
a collective effort and cooperation must be established between
the local communities and the government authorities (Kang et al.,
2009). In the context of the Kosi basin, the following non-structural
measures are suggested based on this study:
(i) (i) Regulatory mechanisms - floodplain zoning and policy recom-
mendations: Floodplain management can reduce the risk to
an acceptable limit through strategic plans about where,
what, and how to develop the floodplain. Numerous active
and abandoned channels on the Kosi megafan surface often
serve as the conduit for floods in the nearby low-lying
areas (Fig. 3a). Therefore, in conjunction with the recom-
mendation of using these paleochannels for safe passage of
floodwaters, it is also important to create a buffer zone along
these channels (floodplain zoning) particularly in the high-
risk blocks (Fig. 8c) that should be kept free of the population
during monsoon. Floodplain zoning will also help in strate-
gic urbanization and landuse planning (discussed next) to
minimize the flood risk in this region.
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
(ii) Land-use planning and enforcement of land-use restrictions:
Coupled with floodplain zoning, regulatory policies related
to landuse planning should also be promoted to designate
the areas for specific uses such as residential, business,
industrial, or agriculture. Based on our analysis (Fig. 8c), the
blocks such as Madhepura, Muraliganj, and Singheshwar are
classified as high-risk zones and should be designated for
low occupancy uses. Areas with moderate risk zones such as
Nauhatta and Pipra, and Supaul can be managed by ‘living
with floods’ approach which may include improvement of
drainage network and reduction in impervious surfaces.
(iii) Architectural approaches: Keeping in view that a large num-
ber of human lives are lost due to collapse of buildings
and other infrastructures during floods, it is highly recom-
mended to formulate the flood-resilient building codes with
reference to the construction material, structural features
of the construction, and occupancy and use of the building
at a given location (Kang et al., 2009). In high-risk blocks
such as Kumarkhand, Saurbazar, Patharghat, and Sonbarsa
(Fig. 8c), architectural measures as mentioned above includ-
ing considerations of the maximum permissible elevation of
the buildings may be implemented to mitigate the flood risk.
(iv) Flood insurance: In areas of high vulnerability due to high
population density and low economic groups, flood insur-
ance is an important factor in reducing the financial risk for
individuals, or societies to flood risk. Areas with very high to
high FHI and FVI typically develop the greatest risk, and they
need to be taken up at top priority. The government should
formulate the flood insurance system for the people living in
these flood risk areas that should cover the loss and damage
from floods.
(v) Capacity building for flood resilience: Another aspect to
reduce the physical vulnerability of the people is through
capacity building for resilience. It can be achieved by ensur-
ing the educational programmes and training on flood risk
reduction for the local communities. Along with this, the
installation of early flood warning systems and a regular dis-
semination of information to the communities can reduce
the loss of life and property significantly (Tingsanchali, 2012;
Khunwishit et al., 2018). An effective flood management
strategy should also include the construction/upgradation of
roads and the provision of evacuation plan and flood shelter.
Food and medicine should also be considered in the evacu-
ation plan.
7. Conclusions
Flood risk assessment of the Kosi megafan region presented
in this paper has combined a hydro-geomorphic approach that is
highly flexible and adaptable with scarce hydrological data, with
the vulnerability assessment based on socio-economic data. Major
conclusions from this study are the following:
1 High rainfall, low slope, and dense network of active channels are
recognized as the most critical factors for flood hazards resulting
in ∼67 % of the Kosi megafan region prone to flood hazard.
2 High FVI in several blocks is mainly the outcome of high
population agglomeration which ultimately affects the other
socio-economic variables such as household density, changes in
landuse pattern, literacy rate and female density in the region.
3 Combining FHI and FVI, ∼62 % of the Kosi megafan region is under
high to moderate flood risk. Most of these areas are marked by
high population density and concentration of economic assets,
crops, and lack of resilience to minimize the hazardous situations.
17
4 This study also highlights the fact that hazard and vulnerability
indicators have differential impacts, for example, high flood haz-
ard does not necessarily lead to high flood risk, if the vulnerability
is low. This has important implications for preparedness to cope
with flood hazards.
Acknowledgments
This work is a part of the Ph.D. thesis of Kanchan Mishra,
who is supported by a fellowship provided by the Indian Institute
of Technology Kanpur, and the author thankfully acknowledges
this support. The work presented in this paper was supported
through funding from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, New Delhi
and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Develop-
ment (ICIMOD), Kathmandu. The ICIMOD gratefully acknowledges
the support of its core donors: the governments of Afghanistan,
Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar,
Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, and Switzerland. This paper was
finalized while one of the authors (RS) was supported by COFUND
fellowship at Durham University, UK and Institute de Physique du
Globe (IPG), Paris.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found,
in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.
2019.106861.
References
Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 268–281, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2006.02.006.
Alexander, D., 2000. Confronting Catastrophe: New Perspectives on Natural Disas-
ters. Terra and Oxford University Press, Harpenden, UK and New York.
Arnaud-Fassetta, G., Astrade, L., Bardou, E., Corbonnois, J., Delahaye, D., Fort, M.,
Gautier, E., Jacobs, N., Peiry, J.L., Piégay, H., Penven, M.J., 2009. Géomorphologie
fluviale et gestion des risques fluviaux. Geomorphol. Reli. Process Environ. 15,
109–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/geomorphologie.7554.
Askew, A.J., 1997. Water in the international decade for natural disaster reduction.
In: Destructive Water: Water-Caused Natural Disasters, Their Abatement and
Control. IAHS Publication 239.
Baker, V., 1988. Flood erosion. In: Baker, Victor R., Craig Kochel, R., Patton, Peter C.
(Eds.), Flood Geomorphology. Wiley-Interscience, pp. 81–95.
Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D., 2004. Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,
Development, and People. Earthscan Publications, http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/
9781849771924.
Bapalu, V., Sinha, R., 2005. GIS in Flood Hazard Mapping: A Case Study of Kosi
River Basin, India [WWW Document]. GIS Dev., http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.
2.1.1492.2720.
Billi, P., Alemu, Y.T., Ciampalini, R., 2015. Increased frequency of flash floods in Dire
Dawa, Ethiopia: Change in rainfall intensity or human impact? Nat. Hazards 76,
1373–1394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1554-0.
Birkmann, J., Schneiderbauer, S., Pelling, M., Keiler, M., Kienberger, S., Carreño, M.L.,
Welle, T., Cardona, O.D., Zeil, P., Alexander, D., Barbat, A.H., 2013. Framing vul-
nerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Nat. Hazards 67,
193–211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0558-5.
Brakenridge, G.R., Anderson, E., Caquard, S., 2006. Flood Inundation Map DFO 2003-
282. Dartmouth Flood Observatory, Hanover, USA [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.dartmouth.edu/∼floods/2003282.html.
Brakenridge, G.R., Syvitski, J.P.M., Overeem, I., Higgins, S.A., Kettner, A.J., Stewart-
Moore, J.A., Westerhoff, R., 2013. Global mapping of storm surges and the
assessment of coastal vulnerability. Nat. Hazards 66, 1295–1312, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-012-0317-z.
Bravard, J., Kondolf, G.M., Piégay, H., 1999. Environmental and societal effects of
channel incision and remedial strategies. In: Darby, S.E., Simon, A. (Eds.), Incised
River Channels: Processes, Forms, Engineering and Management.
Brivio, P.A., Colombo, R., Maggi, M., Tomasoni, R., 2002. Integration of remote sensing
data and GIS for accurate mapping of flooded areas. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23,
429–441, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160010014729.
Broad, G., Campbell, D., Frazier, T., Howe, P., Murtinho, F., Reyes Hernandez, H., 2010.
Visualization of Slow-Developing Hazards Visualization of Slow-Developing
Hazards: Influencing Perceptions and Behaviors to Facilitate Adaptation Plan-
ning. [White paper]. Institute for the Integration of Research on Climate Change
and Hazards in the Americas, Panama City, Panama and Washington, D.C,
National Science Foundation Award# OISE-0921613 to Association of American
Geographers.
18 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Budhakooncharoen, S., Dhabhisara, B., 2014. Determination of the weighting factors
of criteria influencing highway flooding using multi criteria analysis based on
an analytic hierarchy process. In: WIT Transactions on Information and Com-
munication Technologies. WIT Press, pp. 451–463, http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/
RISK140381.
Burt, T.P., Bates, P.D., Stewart, M.D., Claxton, A.J., Anderson, M.G., Price, D.A., 2002.
Water table fluctuations within the floodplain of the River Severn, England. J.
Hydrol. 262, 1–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00567-4.
Butler, D., Kokkalidou, A., Makropoulos, C.M., 2006. Supporting the siting of new
urban developments for integrated urban water resource management. In:
Integrated Urban Water Resources Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp. 19–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4685-5 3.
Cardona, O.D., Available at 2005. Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management—
Main Technical Report. IDB/IDEA Program of Indicators for Disaster Risk Man-
agement, National University of Colombia, Manizales http://idea.unalmzl.edu.
co.
Chakraborty, A., Joshi, P.K., 2016. Mapping disaster vulnerability in India using ana-
lytical hierarchy process. Geomatics. Nat. Hazards Risk 7, 308–325, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.897656.
Chakraborty, S., Mukhopadhyay, S., 2019. Assessing flood risk using analytical hier-
archy process (AHP) and geographical information system (GIS): application in
Coochbehar district of West Bengal, India. Nat. Hazards, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s11069-019-03737-7.
Chakraborty, T., Kar, R., Ghosh, P., Basu, S., 2010. Kosi megafan: historical records,
geomorphology and the recent avulsion of the Kosi River. Quat. Int. 227,
143–160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.12.002.
Coe, J.A., Ellis, W.L., Godt, J.W., Savage, W.Z., Savage, J.E., Michael, J.A., Kibler, J.D.,
Powers, P.S., Lidke, D.J., Debray, S., 2003. Seasonal movement of the Slumgullion
landslide determined from global positioning system surveys and field instru-
mentation, July 1998-March 2002. Eng. Geol. 68, 67–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0013-7952(02)00199-0.
Connor, R.F., Hiroki, K., 2005. Development of a method for assessing flood vulner-
ability. Water Sci. Technol.
Courty, L., Rico-Ramirez, M., Pedrozo-Acuña, A., 2018. The significance of the spatial
variability of rainfall on the numerical simulation of urban floods. Water 10, 207,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w10020207.
Cutter, Susan L., Boruff, Bryan J., Lynn Shirley, W., 2003. Social vulnerability to envi-
ronmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 242.
Danumah, J.H., Odai, S.N., Saley, B.M., Szarzynski, J., Thiel, M., Kwaku, A., Kouame,
F.K., Akpa, L.Y., 2016. Flood risk assessment and mapping in Abidjan dis-
trict using multi-criteria analysis (AHP) model and geoinformation techniques,
(cote d’ivoire). Geoenviron. Disast. 3, 10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40677-016-
0044-y.
Dottori, F., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Alfieri, L., Hirpa, F.A., Feyen, L., 2016. Development
and evaluation of a framework for global flood hazard mapping. Adv. Water
Resour. 94, 87–102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.05.002.
Duo, E., Chris Trembanis, A., Dohner, S., Grottoli, E., Ciavola, P., 2018. Local-scale post-
event assessments with GPS and UAV-based quick-response surveys: a pilot
case from the Emilia-Romagna (Italy) coast. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 18,
2969–2989, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2969-2018.
Environment Agency, Bristol, U.K. 2006. Condition Assessment Manual. Rep.
DR166 03 SD01.
European Commission (EC), 2007. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 October, 2007 on the assessment and management of
flood risks. Off. J. Eur. Union L288, 27–34.
Erena, S.H., Worku, H., 2018. Flood risk analysis: causes and landscape based mit-
igation strategies in Dire Dawa city, Ethiopia. Geoenviron. Disast. 5, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1186/s40677-018-0110-8.
Fekete, A., Mar 2009, unpublished 2009. Report on “Disaster Preparedness in South
Caucasus”, Armenia. PN 07.2050.8-001.00 GTZ. Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn.
Ferguson, R.J., Brierley, G.J., 1999. Levee morphology and sedimentology along the
lower Tuross River, south-eastern Australia. Sedimentology 46, 627–648, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1999.00235.x.
Forkuo, E.K., 2011. Flood hazard mapping using aster image data with
GIS. Int. J. Geomat. Geosci. 1, 932–950, https://doi.org/ISSN 0976
-4380.
Frazier, T.G., 2012. Selection of scale in vulnerability and resilience assessments. J.
Geogr. Nat. Disast. 2, 2–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2167-0587.1000e108.
Garfí, G., Bruno, D.E., Calcaterra, D., Parise, M., 2007. Fan morphodynamics and slope
instability in the Mucone River basin (Sila Massif, southern Italy): Significance
of weathering and role of land use changes. Catena 69, 181–196, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2006.06.003.
Ghosh, T., Mukhopadhyay, A., 2014. Natural Hazard Zonation of Bihar (India) using
Geoinformatics. Springer Briefs in Earth Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-04438-5 2.
Ghosh, A., Kar, S.K., 2018. Application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood
risk assessment: a case study in Malda district of West Bengal, India. Nat. Hazards
94, 349–368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3392-y.
Gohain, K., Parkash, B., 1990. Morphology of the Kosi Megafan. In: Rachoki, A.,
Church, M. (Eds.), Alluvial Fans: a Field Approach. John Willey and Sons Ltd,
Chichester, UK, pp. 151–178.
Gole, C.V., Chitale, S.V., 1966. Inland delta building activity of Kosi river. J. Hydraul.
Div. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 92, 111–126.
Gomez, B., Phillips, J.D., Magilligan, F.J., James, L.A., 1997. Floodplain sedimenta-
tion and sensitivity: summer 1993 flood, Upper Mississippi River Valley. Earth
Surf. Process Landforms 22, 923–936, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-
9837(199710)22:10<923::AID-ESP763>3.0.CO;2-E.
Grünthal, G., Thieken, A.H., Schwarz, J., Radtke, K.S., Smolka, A., Merz, B., 2006. Com-
parative risk assessments for the city of Cologne - Storms, floods, earthquakes.
Nat. Hazards 38, 21–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-8598-0.
Habersack, H., Piégay, H., 2007. Challenges in river restoration in the Alps and their
surrounding areas. In: Habersack, H., Piégay, H., Rinaldi, M. (Eds.), Gravel-Bed
River 6: From Process Understanding to River Restoration. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 703–737.
Hazarika, N., Das, A.K., Borah, S.B., 2015. Assessing land-use changes driven by river
dynamics in chronically flood affected Upper Brahmaputra plains, India, using
RS-GIS techniques. Egypt J. Remote Sens. Sp. Sci. 18, 107–118, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.02.001.
Hewitt, K., 1997. Regions of Risk: A geographical Introduction to Disasters. Longman,
Essex, U.K.
Hooke, J.M., Mant, J.M., 2000. Geomorphological impacts of a flood event on
ephemeral channels in SE Spain. Geomorphology 34, 163–180, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0169-555X(00)00005-2.
IFRC, 2002. Toolbox for Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Disaster Prepared-
ness. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Jha, R.K., Gundimeda, H., 2019. An integrated assessment of vulnerability to floods
using composite index – a district level analysis for Bihar, India. Int. J. Disaster
Risk Reduct., 101074, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101074.
Jones, L.S., Schumm, S.A., 2009. Causes of avulsion: an overview. In: Smith, N.D.,
Rogers, J. (Eds.), Fluvial Sedimentology VI. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK,
pp. 171–178.
Kandilioti, G., Makropoulos, C., 2012. Preliminary flood risk assessment: the case of
Athens. Nat. Hazards 61, 441–468, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9930-
5.
Kang, S.J., Lee, S.J., Lee, K.H., 2009. A study on the implementation of non-structural
measures to reduce urban flood damage -Focused on the survey results of the
experts-. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 8, 385–392, http://dx.doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.
8.385.
Kazakis, N., Kougias, I., Patsialis, T., 2015. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a
regional scale using an index-based approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process:
Application in Rhodope-Evros region, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 555–563,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.055.
Khunwishit, S., Choosuk, C., Webb, G., 2018. Flood resilience building in Thailand:
assessing progress and the effect of leadership. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 9, 44–54,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0162-0.
Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., Thomalla, F., 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How
useful is this concept? Environ. Hazards 5, 35–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
hazards.2004.02.001.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2011. Flood management and a GIS modelling
method to assess flood-hazard areas—a case study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56, 212–225,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.555836.
Kumar, R., Jain, V., Prasad Babu, G., Sinha, R., 2014. Connectivity structure of the Kosi
megafan and role of rail-road transport network. Geomorphology 227, 73–86,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.04.031.
Lee, Y.W., Bogardi, I., Kim, J.H., 2000. Decision of water supply line under uncertainty.
Water Res. 34, 3371–3379.
Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., 2004. Multi-criteria decision analysis: a frame-
work for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Linkov, I.,
Ramadan, A.B. (Eds.), Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision
Making. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences 38. Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 15–54.
Mackey, S.D., Bridge, J.S., 1995. Three-dimensional model of alluvial stratigraphy;
theory and applications. J. Sediment. Res. 65, 7–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/
D42681D5-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Majumdar, D., Ghosh, P., 2017. Characteristics of the Drainage Network of the Kosi
Megafan, India and Its Interaction With the August 2008 Flood Flow, 440. Geo-
logical Society, London, Special Publications, pp. 307–326, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1144/SP440.9.
Mbow, C., Diop, A., Diaw, A.T., Niang, C.I., 2008. Urban sprawl development and
flooding at Yeumbeul suburb (Dakar-Senegal). Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2, 75–88.
Merheb, M., Moussa, R., Abdallah, C., Colin, F., Perrin, C., Baghdadi, N., 2016. Hydro-
logical response characteristics of Mediterranean catchments at different time
scales: a meta-analysis. Hydrol. Sci. J. 61, 2520–2539, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02626667.2016.1140174.
Mertes, L.A.K., 1997. Documentation and significance of the perirheic zone on inun-
dated floodplains. Water Resour. Res. 33, 1749–1762, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
97WR00658.
Mishra, D.K., 2006. Trapped Between the Devil and Deep Waters. Peoples, Science
Institute (PSI), Dehradun.
Morris, M., Dyer, M., Smith, P., Falkingham, J., Simms, J., 2007. Management of Flood
Defences. R&D Rep. FD2411, Defra/Environment Agency (EA), London.
Nanson, G.C., Croke, J.C., 1992. A genetic classification of floodplains. Geomorphology
4, 459–486.
Nasiri, H., Mohd Yusof, M.J., Mohammad Ali, T.A., 2016. An overview to flood vulner-
ability assessment methods. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2, 331–336, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40899-016-0051-x.
Ologunorisa, T.E., Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis 2001. An Assessment of Flood Risk in
the Niger Delta, Nigeria. University of Port-Harcourt, Nigeria, pp. 303.
Ologunorisa, T.E., Abawua, M.J., 2005. Flood risk assessment: a review. J. Appl. Sci.
Environ. Manag. 9 (1), 57–63.
 K. Mishra and R. Sinha / Geomorphology 350 (2020) 106861
Orencio, P.M., Fujii, M., 2013. A localized disaster-resilience index to assess coastal
communities based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Int. J. Disaster Risk
Reduct. 3, 62–75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.11.006.
Ouma, Y.O., Tateishi, R., 2014. Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using
integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case
study assessment. Water 6, 1515–1545, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w6061515.
Pandey, A.C., Singh, S.K., Nathawat, M.S., 2010. Waterlogging and flood hazards vul-
nerability and risk assessment in Indo Gangetic plain. Nat. Hazards 55, 273–289,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9525-6.
Papaioannou, G., Vasiliades, L., Loukas, A., 2014. Multi-criteria analysis framework
for potential flood prone areas mapping. Water Resour. Manag. 29 (2), 399–418,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0817-6.
Poole, G.C., 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the
river discontinuum. Freshw. Biol. 47, 641–660, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.
1365-2427.2002.00922.x.
Quarantelli, E.L., 1998. What Is a Disaster? Routledge, New York, 312 pp.
Rahman, M.M., Singh Arya, D., Goel, N.K., Mitra, A.K., 2012. Rainfall statistics evalua-
tion of ECMWF model and TRMM data over Bangladesh for flood related studies.
Meteorol. Appl. 19, 501–512, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/met.293.
Rogger, M., Agnoletti, M., Alaoui, A., Bathurst, J.C., Bodner, G., Borga, M., Chaplot, V.,
Gallart, F., Glatzel, G., Hall, J., Holden, J., Holko, L., Horn, R., Kiss, A., Quinton, J.N.,
Leitinger, G., Lennartz, B., Parajka, J., Peth, S., Robinson, M., Salinas, J.L., Santoro,
A., Szolgay, J., Tron, S., Viglione, A., 2016. Land use change impacts on floods at
the catchment scale: challenges and opportunities for future research. Water
Resour. Res., 5209–5219, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020723.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv.
Sci. 1, 83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2000. Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Samuels, P.G., 2006. The European perspective and research on flooding. In: Knight,
D.W., Shamseldin, A.Y. (Eds.), River Basin Modelling for Flood Risk Mitigation.
CRC press, Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 21–58.
Sauer, V.B., 2002. USGS, The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3:
A Computer Program for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods
for Ungaged Sites. Water-resources Investigations, Report 02, 4168., pp.
8–10.
Schmitt, T.G., Thomas, M., Ettrich, N., 2004. Analysis and modeling of flooding in
urban drainage systems. J. Hydrol. 299 (3–4), 300–311.
Schwab, K., 2011. WEF GCR Report 2011-12.
Sanyal, J., Lu, X.X., 2003. Map Asia 2003 Poster Session Application of GIS in Flood
Hazard Mapping: A Case Study of Gangetic Map Asia 2003 Poster Session.
Sharada, D., Kaveri Devi, D., Prasad, S., Kumar, S.S., 1997. Modelling flash flood hazard
to a railway line: a GIS approach. Geocarto Int. 12 (3), 77–82.
Siddique, M.Z., Jess, W.E., Baxter, E.V., 1996. Landfill siting using geographic infor-
mation system: a demonstration. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 122 (6), 515–523.
Siddayao, G.P., Valdez, S.E., Fernandez, P.L., 2015. Modeling flood risk for an urban
CBD using AHP and GIS. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 5, 748–753, http://dx.doi.org/
10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.604.
Sinha, R., 1998. On the controls of fluvial hazards in the north Bihar plains, eastern
India. In: Maund, J.G., Eddleston, M. (Eds.), Geohazards in Engineering Geology.,
15. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, pp.
35–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.ENG.1998.015.01.04.
Sinha, R., Jain, V., 1998. Flood Hazards of North Bihar Rivers. Indo-Gangetic plains
Memoirs-Geological Society of India, pp. 27–52.
19
Sinha, R., 2008. Kosi: Rising waters, dynamic channels and human disasters. Econ.
Political Weekly 43 (46), 42–46.
Sinha, R., Bapalu, G.V., Singh, L.K., Rath, B., 2008. Flood risk analysis in the Kosi river
basin, north bihar using multi-parametric approach of AHP. J. Indian Soc. Remote
Sens., 293–307.
Sinha, R., 2009. The Great avulsion of Kosi on 18 August 2008. Current Sci. 97 (3),
429–433.
Sinha, R., Gaurav, K., Chandra, S., Tandon, S.K., 2013. Exploring the channel con-
nectivity structure of the August 2008 avulsion belt of the Kosi River, India:
application to flood risk assessment. Geology 41, 1099–1102, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1130/G34539.1.
Sinha, R., Sripriyanka, K., Jain, V., Mukul, M., 2014. Avulsion threshold and planform
dynamics of the Kosi River in north Bihar (India) and Nepal: a GIS framework.
Geomorphology 216, 157–170, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.03.
035.
Sinha, R., Gupta, A., Mishra, K., Tripathi, S., Nepal, S., Wahid, S.M., Swarnkar, S., 2019.
Basin-scale hydrology and sediment dynamics of the Kosi river in the Himalayan
foreland. J. Hydrol. 570, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.051.
Sinha, R., Gaurav, K., Mishra, K., Gupta, S., (In press). The Kosi megafan:Morphology,
dynamics and sedimentology. In: Wilkinson, J. Latrubesse, E.W. (eds.). Megafans.
Cambridge University Press.
Tapsell, S.M., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Tunstall, S.M., Wilson, T.L., 2002. Vulnerability
to flooding: health and social dimensions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys.
Eng. Sci. 360, 1511–1525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1013.
Tingsanchali, T., 2012. Urban flood disaster management. Procedia Eng. 32, 25–37,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1233.
Tsakiris, G., 2014. Flood risk assessment: concepts, modelling, applications. Nat. Haz-
ards Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 1361–1369, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-1361-
2014.
Uddin, K., Shrestha, H.L., Murthy, M.S.R., Bajracharya, B., Shrestha, B., Gilani, H., Prad-
han, S., Dangol, B., 2015. Development of 2010 national land cover database for
the Nepal. J. Environ. Manage. 148, 82–90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2014.07.047.
Utili, S., Castellanza, R., Galli, A., Sentenac, P., 2015. Novel approach for health mon-
itoring of earthen embankments. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141, 1–19, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001215.
Wang, Y.Z., Tang, Li.Z., Zeng, G., 2011. A GIS-Based spatial multi-criteria approach for
flood risk assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China. Water
Resour. Manag. 25, 3465–3484.
Wells, N.A., Dorr, J.A., 1987. Shifting of Kosi River, northern India. Geology 15,
204–207.
Westerhoff, R.S., Kleuskens, M.P.H., Winsemius, H.C., Huizinga, H.J., Brakenridge,
G.R., Bishop, C., 2013. Automated global water mapping based on wide-swath
orbital synthetic-aperture radar. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 651–663.
Yagoub, M.M., 2015. Spatio-temporal and hazard mapping of Earthquake in UAE
(1984–2012): remote sensing and GIS application. Geoenviron. Disast. 2 (1),
1–14.
Yahaya, S., Ahmad, N., Abdalla, R.F., 2010. Multi-criteria analysis for flood vulnerable
areas in Hadejia-Jama’are River basin, Nigeria. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 42 (1), 71–83.
Yalcin, G., Akyurek, Z., 2004. Analysing flood vulnerable areas with multicriteria
evaluation. In: XXth ISPRS Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–23 July.
Zou, Q., Zhou, J., Zhou, C., Song, L., Guo, J., 2013. Comprehensive flood risk assess-
ment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch.
Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 27, 525–546, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-
0598-5.