Disaster Advances
13 (3) March (2020)
AHP based Flood Hazard Zonation and Risk Assessment
in the Bhagirathi River Basin, India
Gourav Piyush1, Kumar Rajesh2* and Gupta Akhilesh3
1. Department of Environmental Science, School of Basic Sciences and Research, Sharda University, U.P. INDIA
2. Department of Environmental Science, School of Earth Sciences, Central University of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan, INDIA
3. SPLICE, Department of Science and Technology, Technology Bhavan, New Delhi-110 016, INDIA
*rajesh.kumar@curaj.ac.in
Abstract
Bhagirathi River basin of Garhwal Himalaya has
witnessed several devastating floods in the recent past.
The aim of the study is to identify the flood vulnerable
zones of Bhagirathi River basin with the help of
multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) based analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) under geospatial
environment. Saaty’s nine parameters based
normalised arithmetic averages comparison matrix
have been used to calculate the consistency ratio (CR).
For this study, 0.06 CR value has been calculated that
indicates the realistic degree of consistency in the pair-
wise comparison study. The flood hazard zonation and
risk assessment map of Bhagirathi River basin have
been prepared on the basis of rank and weight based
on CR values. The risk analysis shows that 5.11% area
of the river basin is falling under a very high-risk zone
whereas 19.90 % area is found under high risk zone.
Most of the agricultural land (89%) is found under high
to very high-risk zone; contrary to the agricultural
status the maximum forest cover (99.24 %) falls under
moderate flood risk zone.
The demography analysis says that out of 690 villages,
616 (89 %) villages with 164,400 (80 %) populations
are falling under high to a very high-risk zone.
Educational institutions (831 with 81.2 % share),
hospitals/health centres (153 with 91.1 % share), and
road (1237.41 km with 91.3 % share) are falling under
high to very high flood risk hazard zone. There are 5
operational and 21 under construction hydropower
projects making a total capacity of 4163 MW
Bhagirathi River basin. These projects come under
high risk during flooding. The results of this study can
be very useful to the policy makers and government
organizations for flood forecasting, monitoring, risk
assessment, preparedness and rescue planning.
Keywords: Flood, Multi Criteria Decision Approach
(MCDA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Flood
Hazards, Geospatial, Bhagirathi basin.
Introduction
The natural hazard is a very common scenario in our earth
*Author for Correspondence
1
Vol.
system. Uncontrolled and unexpected human interference
due to developmental activities has increased the frequency
of hazards which causes destruction of life and property.
Globally the average annual loss by the natural hazards is
estimated as 314 billion US dollars and 88 million
populations were affected during the period of 1997-2017.38
The Himalayan mountain chain of south Asian region is
highly susceptible to natural hazards due to climate change,
geotectonic activities, uncontrolled population growth,
unplanned infrastructure devolvement and inadequate
natural resource management. The Himalayan Mountains
are fragile, so its degradation process also triggers
destructive events like rock fall and landslide and it becomes
worst in case of earthquakes incidences. Various studies on
Himalayan glaciers are being carried out for understanding
the glacial dynamics, glacial facies measurements30, glacio-
hydrology34. Micronutrient nanoparticles, trace metals15,27
and hydro-geochemical28 for understanding the weathering
process and rock dynamics in the glacial basins influence a
lot the glacier melt water quality.
During monsoons, the Himalayan regions are highly
susceptible for cloudburst and flash floods leading massive
mass movement in the existing river basin. Excessive
perception and high volume of water flow due to the melting
of snow and glaciers from upstream region of the basin are
responsible for the flood and flash flood to the lower region
of basin. Steep slopes and quasi-circular morphology of
mountain convert the floods into flash flood especially
during the high precipitation period.7,24,37,39
In the Himalayan region, floods occur when rainfall pouring
is more than 100 mm per hour in a small area for a long
duration that may cause rapid hydrologic response4. In
addition to this, the cloud burst also enhances water level of
basin and the water flow reaches up to its peak in very less
time which leads to major floods in area.5,12
In the Himalayan regions, the State of Uttarakhand has
experienced several tragic flood events that claimed
considerable loss of life, property and infrastructure for
example Vijaynagar Rudraprayag in Didihat Pithoragarh in
2007, Munsiyari Pithoragarh in 2009, Almora in 2010,
Kapkot in 2010, Asi Ganga Uttarkashi in 2012, Okhimath in
2012, Kedarnath tragedy in 2013 and Chamoli and
Pithoragarh in 2016.10,31
The Bhagirathi River basin of Uttarakhand has been the most
flood affected region in Indian Himalaya under natural
 Disaster Advances
hazard category due to high precipitation and rapid glacier
melt. It has been observed that the temperature of the hilly
districts of Uttarakhand has experienced enhanced warming
of 0.51oC within the last 100 years as compared to other
regions. The change in regional energy budget is the
alarming situation for the Himalayan population to reduce
impacts of flood.22
To recognize the extent of vulnerability towards the flood in
the region, an exercise has been carried out to find out the
flood vulnerable area of Bhagirathi River basin by using
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) or Multi-criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) under a geospatial environment.
MCDA is a mathematical technique based on numerical
algorithm and the results depend on its input criteria and the
assigned weight.17 The critical responsible factors for flood
like climatology, hydrology, geology, physiographic,
morphometric and anthropogenic activities were considered
for the identification of vulnerable areas under the MCDA.
The weight value is assigned to each factor in range of 1 to
9 to reflect their relative significance.
Further, to evaluate the effective factor for flood
vulnerability, MCDA has been combined with Geographic
Figure 1: Location map of Bhagirathi River basin showing glacial lakes, settlement, hydropower projects
(operational and under constructions) and roads.
2
Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)
Information System (GIS) which helps to provide more
accurate results for decisions makers.23,25,29,40 (The GIS
based Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is the most
suitable MCDA tool for flood vulnerable study which helps
in decision making on the basis of several criteria.9,29 The
AHP method has also been adopted in this study to assess
vulnerability to the flood.2,11,14,18
Study area
The Bhagirathi River basin lies between 30° 20' 17.1" to 31°
27' 26.46" N and 78° 9' 19.58" to 79° 24' 59.43" S in the
North region of Garhwal Himalaya of Uttarakhand State in
India. It originates from Gangotri glacier at Gaumukh and
merges with the Alaknanda River at Devprayag. The
geographical area of this basin is about 6170.82 km2and the
length of the river is 205 km. The climate of this basin is sub-
tropical type with temperature ranging from 0 °C to 30 °C.
The valley experiences the monsoon rain during July to
September. The highest rainfall is recorded in the month of
August of the monsoon period. The location map showing
glacial lakes, settlement, hydropower projects (operational
and under constructions) and roads has been shown through
fig. 1.
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Methodology and Data
The Bhagirathi river basin is highly vulnerable to hazard in
Garhwal Himalaya, it has a large concern of floods, therefore
an attempt has been made to prepare a flood hazard zonation
map to evaluate flood risk and its impacts on the river basin
based on nine causative physical factors such as drainage
system, intensity of perception, soil, land-use and land-
cover, slope, aspect, profile curvature, geology and
elevation. It is a mathematical method for translating weight
matrix into relative factor under geospatial environment. The
inputs for AHP are the pair wise comparison matrix and the
outputs will have relative weights for input factors.
The conceptual framework of AHP based flood hazard
zonation mapping and risk assessment under geospatial
environment are given in fig. 2. A flood hazard assessment
map has also been prepared to analyze the impact of flood
on local environment, population, infrastructure and various
amenities like roads, bridges, hydro-power plant, schools,
colleges and hospitals.1
A large amount of data is required for this kind of study as
there are several parameters together that trigger the flood.
The sources of all inputs data along with its detail has been
presented through table 1.

Figure 2: Conceptual framework of AHP based flood hazard zonation mapping and risk assessment
under geospatial environment

Table 1
Source input data used for flood hazard assessment in the Bhagirathi River basin of Uttarakhand State of India.
Data Type and Resolution Year Source
30 m (visible, NIR, SWIR), 8 may 2015, 21
LANDSAT-8, OLI https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov
15 m (panchromatic) April 2016
12.5 m spatial resolution
ALOS PALSAR DEM 27-Jul-10 https://www.asf.alaska.edu
(panchromatic)
Annual rainfall India water https://pmm.nasa.gov/trmm &
RAINFALL 1991 -2015
portal & TRMM https://www.indiawaterportal.org
GEOLOGY MAP 1:250,000 1989 GSI, 1989
SOIL MAP 1:250,000 2002 NBSSLUP, 2002

3
 Disaster Advances
For ease of understanding during GIS analysis, unique codes
have been assigned to each criterion like ‘RF’ for rainfall,
‘DR’ for drainage, ‘ST’ for soil type, ‘LC’ for land-use and
land-cover, ‘SL’ for slope, ‘AS’ for aspect, ‘GE’ for
geology, ‘PC’ for profile curvature and ‘EL’ for elevation.
Results and Discussion
Criteria selection and database generation: The selection
of appropriate criteria/factor for flood hazard zonation is the
most important part for AHP based multi criteria decision
analysis (MCDA).The AHP based MCDA in combination
with geographical information system (GIS) provides spatial
solution for complex multi aspects problems providing more
accurate numerical results, that can be a vital input for flood
management, planning and mitigation.21 There are nine
responsible factors such as drainage system, intensity of
rainfall, soil, land-use and land-cover, slope, aspect, profile
curvature, geology and elevation, were considered for the
flood hazard zonation and risk assessment of the Bhagirathi
River basin.
The drainage density and rainfall pattern maps of the study
area have been prepared to assess the drainage
characteristics. The drainage density has been calculated
from drainage network generated by 12.5 m ALOS
PALSAR DEM whereas the rainfall pattern map of 24 years
(from 1991 to 2015) has been derived by Tropical Rain
Measuring Mission (TRMM) and India water portal website
(Fig. 3a and 3b).
The land-use land-cover map of year 2015-16 has been
prepared from LANDSAT-8, OLI optical remote sensing
Figure 3: (a) Drainage density map and (b) average annual rainfall pattern of Bhagirathi River basin
4
Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)
data by supervised classification using ERDAS IMAGIN
processing software (Fig. 4). The soil map has been derived
from National Bureau of Soil Science and Land use Planning
(NBSS and LUP) of 2002 (Fig. 5) and the geology map (Fig.
6) has been updated based on the Geological Survey of India
(GSI) map of 1989.
The surface elevation (Fig. 7a), slope (Fig. 7b), aspect (Fig.
7c) and profile curvature (Fig. 7d) have also been delineated
by ALOS PALSAR 12.5 m spatial resolution digital
elevation model (DEM) using arc hydro tool in ArcGIS
software.
Criteria based weight assignment: The objective of this
study is to find out the flood vulnerable zones with the help
of MCDA based spatial decision under nine responsible
factors that trigger flood in the Bhagirathi River basin. These
factors are also called attributes and the performance of the
objective is equally dependent on these multiple attributes.
Weight assignment for flood responsible factors using multi
criteria decision method (MCDM) is decided under their
relative importance influencing the flooding.26
The expert’s advices are important to determine weights of
each criterion using the geometric mean method:
Geometric Means = ((X1)(X2)(X3)(X4)....(Xn))*1/n
where X and n are individual scores and sample size (number
of scores) respectively. AHP method is used to assign
relative weights on the basis of Saaty’s scale influence 1 to
9 (Table 2).
Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Figure 4: Land-use – land-cover map of Bhagirathi River basin of year 2015-16 prepared from LANDSAT-8,
OLI optical remote sensing data

Figure 5: Soil map of Bhagirathi River basin derived from National Bureau of Soil Science and Land use Planning
(NBSSLUP, 2002)

Figure 6: Geology map of Bhagirathi River basin based on the map by Geological Survey of India (GSI, 1989)

5
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Figure 7: GIS thematic layers derived from 12.5 m ALOS PALSAR DEM. (7a) surface elevation map, (7b) slope
map, (7c) aspect map and (7d) profile curvature map

Table 2 soil type (ST), land-use land-cover (LC), slope (SL), aspect
Gradation scale for quantitative comparison of (AS), geology (GE), profile curvature (PC) and elevation
alternatives29 (EL) with assigned weight have been presented through table
3.
Option Numerical value(s)
Equal 1 The value of each row is compared with each corresponding
Marginally strong 3 column to define the relative importance to obtain rating
Strong 5 values. For example, rainfall intensity is more important than
Very strong 7 land-use, soil and elevation that is why we have assigned
Extremely strong 9 gradation of 2 for land-use land-cover, 3 for soil and 4 for
Intermediate values to reflect elevation. The row of pair wise comparison matrix shows the
2, 4, 6, 8 importance of that factor in comparison to the corresponding
fuzzy inputs
column. The diagonal elements are equal to ‘1’in pair wise
Pair wise square comparison matrixes of nine criteria (9 x 9) comparison matrix.
under AHP method for rainfall (RF), drainage density (DR),

6
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Sensitivity analysis: The objective of this sensitivity
analysis is to find out the efficacy of the decision model with
the given criteria weights. This is used where uncertainty
persists, there are two important factors for considering
sensitivity - one is weight and another attribute. Assigning
weight is more important because they are in the form of
numbers and showing the decision makers confidence level.
For this study the priority vector values are calculated shown
in table 4.
After calculating the priority vector and relative criteria
weights, the final weightings are determined as the
normalized values of the Eigenvector and presented through
table 5. These weights are based on averages that provide an
approximation of the Eigenvector of the pair wise square
matrix. The determined Eigenvector is an estimation of the
relative weights of the criteria. The weights for all nine
thematic layers have been calculated as 0.214, 0.178, 0.147,
0.127, 0.106, 0.082, 0.066, 0.049 and 0.31 by calculating
nine parameters based pair wise index matrices (Table 5).

Table 3
Pair wise square comparison matrixes under AHP method for nine criteria of rainfall (RF), drainage density (DR),
soil type (ST), land-use land-cover (LC), slope (SL), aspect (AS), geology (GE), profile curvature (PC)
and elevation (EL).
RF DR ST LC SL AS GE PC EL
RF 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
DR 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
ST 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
LC 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
SL 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00
AS 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
GE 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00
PC 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 3.00
EL 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00

Table 4
Pair wise square comparison matrixes with priority vector values
RF DR ST LC SL AS GE PC EL Priority vector
RF 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.214
DR 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 0.178
ST 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.147
LC 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 0.127
SL 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 0.106
AS 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.082
GE 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.066
PC 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 1.00 3.00 0.049
EL 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.031
SUM 4.25 5.75 7.42 8.92 11.42 15.17 16.83 21.33 31.00 1

Table 5
Normalized matrixes showing weights of Bhagirathi River basin
RF DR ST LC SL AS GE PC EL Weights
RF 0.235 0.348 0.270 0.224 0.263 0.198 0.119 0.141 0.129 0.214
DR 0.118 0.174 0.270 0.224 0.175 0.198 0.178 0.141 0.129 0.178
ST 0.118 0.087 0.135 0.224 0.175 0.198 0.119 0.141 0.129 0.147
LC 0.118 0.087 0.067 0.112 0.175 0.132 0.178 0.141 0.129 0.127
SL 0.078 0.087 0.067 0.056 0.088 0.132 0.178 0.141 0.129 0.106
AS 0.078 0.058 0.045 0.056 0.044 0.066 0.119 0.141 0.129 0.082
GE 0.118 0.058 0.067 0.037 0.029 0.033 0.059 0.094 0.097 0.066
PC 0.078 0.058 0.045 0.037 0.029 0.022 0.030 0.047 0.097 0.049
EL 0.059 0.043 0.034 0.028 0.022 0.022 0.020 0.016 0.032 0.031
SUM 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

7
 Disaster Advances
Consistency Ratio (CR): The priority and normalize
matrices are showing the typical pair wise comparisons
matrixes of the factors as well as the weighted factors. There
is no common opinion on individual’s judgment on degree
of consistency achieved; Saaty29 suggested a thumb rule to
verify our opinion on calculated scoring called Consistency
Ratio (CR). The CR value ≤ 0.1 in the compression matrix
is accepted otherwise the matrix needs to be revised.
CR =CI/RI
where CR= Consistency Ratio, CI= Consistency Index, RI=
Random Inconsistency Index.
The consistency index (CI) is calculated as:
CI= (λ-n) / (n-1)
where λ = priority vector multiplied by each column total
(9.71); n= number of criteria/factor (9).
Hence,
CI= (9.71-9)/ (9-1)
CI= 0.09
In order to assess the Consistency Ratio (CR), Random
Indices for matrices of various sizes are used, the (RI) in
table 6 is the Random consistency index.
Table 6
Table of random Inconsistency index29
n RI n RI n RI
1 0.00 5 1.12 9 1.45
2 0.00 6 1.24 10 1.49
3 0.58 7 1.32 11 1.51
4 0.90 8 1.41 12 1.54
Consistency Ratio (CR) has been calculated by Satty’s
formula CR =CI/RI where RI is the random consistency
index whose value depends on the number (n) of factors
being compared; for n = 9, RI = 1.45 (Table 6).
CR= 0.09/1.41 = 0.06
The CR (0.06) less than 0.1 is indicative of a realistic degree
of consistency in the pair-wise comparison and as a result,
the weights 0.214, 0.178, 0.147, 0.127, 0.106, 0.082,0.066,
0.049 and 0.31 have been calculated for precipitation,
drainage, soil, land-use land-cover, slope, aspect, geology,
profile curvature and elevation respectively.
AHP based GIS data integration: For flood vulnerable
zonation mapping, Weighted Linear Combination (WLC)
method was adopted because of its application flexibility and
higher degree of accuracy probability maps.20 WLC is the
most commonly used decision rule in accordance to
8
Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)
aggregate the criteria.8 In weighted Lenoir combination
(WLC) method, the accuracy of result depends on expert’s
interface. It is a combination of weighted averages of
parameter decided by the experts. All nine criteria thematic
layers have been rated into five classes on the basis of their
degree of involvement to flood hazard, value ‘10’ is given
for very highly responsible rating for flooding, ‘8’ is highly
responsible for flood hazard, ‘6’ stands for moderately
responsible for flood hazard, ‘4’ is less responsible for flood
hazard and ‘2’ stands for very less responsible factor value
for flood hazard and accordingly the map is shown through
figures 8a to 8i.
As observed within nine physical parameters, the rainfall
intensity is the most responsible factor for flood hazard in
Bhagirathi River basin. The high rainfall intensity enhances
the chances of flood, the other parameters in association with
rainfall increase the risk factor of hazards, not only for flood
but also cloud burst and mass movement. Each criterion has
been sub classified into five value classes between ‘2’ to
‘10’, the value ‘10’denotes the highly sensitive for flood and
‘2’denotes the less sensitivity for flood. The AHP based
weights have been calculated for each criterion as per
Saaty’s28 pair wise comparison matrix (Table 7).
Weighted Linear Combination: All nine thematic layers
were integrated under geospatial environment to simulate
flood vulnerable areas (Fig. 8). The highest score is
representing more vulnerable areas where the lower score is
with the less vulnerable areas; each responsible parameter’s
rating is multiplied with its given weight and the weighted
averages are added as per Weighted Linear Combination
method to derive the final output map:
S = Σwixi x Πcj
where S – Composite suitability score, xi –Factor scores
(cells), wi – Weights assigned to each factor, cj – Constraints
(or Boolean factors), Σ – Sum of weighted factors and Π –
Product of constraints (1-suitable, 0-unsuitable).
Applying these in GIS raster calculator, we get:
S =((RF * 0.21) + (DR * 0.17) + (ST * 0.14) + (LC * 0.12)
+ (SL * 0.10) + (AS * 0.08)+ (GE * 0.6) + (PC * 0.04) + (EL
* 0.03) * cons_boolean (thematic layer representing 1 for
flood and ‘0’ for no flood).
RF, DR, ST, LC, SL, AS, GE, EL and cons_boolean
thematic layers representing the factors and constraints were
prepared. In ranking method, every criterion under
consideration is ranked in order of decision maker’s
preference. To generate criterion values for each evaluation
unit, each factor was weighted according to the estimated
significance for causing flood. The inverse ranking was
applied to these factors.
Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Table 7
Nine classes and their corresponding weights and ratings
Criteria Class Rating Weights
> 2214 10
2214-1609 8
Rainfall intensity (RI) 1609- 882 6 0.214
026 - 286 4
286 > 2
> 3.525 10
3.525 - 2.994 8
Drainage density (DR) 2.994 - 2.382 - 1.693 6 0.178
2.382- 1.693 4
1.693 > 2
Medium to deep, loamy soils, slightly to severely eroded
10
and moderate stoniness associated with rock outcrops
Medium to deep, loamy soils, severely eroded associated
8
with deep loamy soils
Shallow, loamy soils, moderately eroded and strong
stoniness associated with loamy - skeletal, severely 6
Soil type (ST) eroded and moderate stoniness 0.147
Shallow, loamy-skeletal soils, moderately eroded and
moderate stoniness associated with sandy skeletal soils, 4
severely eroded and moderate stoniness
Rock outcrops associated with shallow, loamy soils, very
severely eroded and strong stoniness, Glacier, associated 2
with rock outcrops
Wetlands/ Water bodies, Built-up 10
Agriculture 8
Landuse/ landcover (LU) Forest, Barren/ Uncultivable land 6 0.127
Grasslands/ Grazing Lands 4
Snow and Glaciers, Barren/ Uncultivable land 2
0-50 10
50-100 8
Slope (SL) 100-150 6 0.106
150-200 4
200 < 2
North 10
North-East 8
Aspect (AS) East 6 0.082
South-West 4
West 2
Pt1/3, Proterozoic III 10
Pt2, Proterozoic II 8
Geology (GE) Pt1, Proterozoic I 6 0.066
Pt3E, Proterozoic I, Vindhyan 4
Pt3, Pt3E, Granite & granitoid complex 2
Flat 10
Very Concave 8
Profile Curvature (PC) Concave 6 0.049
Convex 4
Very Convex 2
545-1921 10
1921-3001 8
Elevation (EL) meters 3001-4158 6 0.031
4158-5093 4
5093-6756 2

9
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Figure 8: Rating map of Bhagirathi River basin for AHP based GIS integration, (8a) rainfall intensity,
(8b) drainage density, (8c) soil type, (8d) land-use land-cover, (8e) slope, (8f) aspect, (8g) geology,
(8h) profile curvature and (8i) surface elevation.

Flash flood hazard zonation: The AHP based flash flood
hazard zonation analysis is the comprehensive illustration of
flood extent in the Bhagirathi River basin which has been
shown through figure 9. In addition, the cumulative impact
of a flash flood on inhabitation of downstream and
environment has also been evaluated in the Bhagirathi River
Basin and presented through figure 10.
The results of the analysis were verified with pre historic
flood events for four locations on the way from Uttarkashi
to Gangotri like Bhagirathi flash flood on 06.08.1978 (30.74
N, 78.53 E), Gyanshu nala flash flood on 25.06.1980 (30.73
N, 78.42 E), Uttarkashi flood event on 26.11.1991(30.73 N,
74.44 E) Asi Ganga flood on 30.03.2012 (30.81 N, 76.62 E).
The result of GIS based AHP analysis for flash flood hazard
zonation is more reliable because it is based on two
principles, first the root factors responsible for flooding and
second the multi criteria analytical hierarchy process in
geospatial environment. The combined approach of GIS and
MCA with consistency ratio (CR=0.06) validates the level
of accuracy more than 90% because as per Satty’s29
consistency ratio principle, the value 0.06 falls much below
the threshold value of 0.1 and it indicated a very high level
of consistency. The changing rainfall patterns in the basin
are one of the major factors for floods which have been
analyzed through 24 years rainfall pattern form 9991 to
2015, the frequency of average annual rainfall has been
observed increasing to more than 1300 mm in the years of

10
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

1991, 1993, 2012, 2013, and these historic years have
experienced the flood events.
For example, the average annual rain fall more than 1300
mm has been noticed as a major flood event in the year 1991
(26 December 1991, Uttarkashi flood), 1993 (30 July Kewer
Gadhera Almora flash flood), 2012 (3 August 2012, Asi
Ganga flash flood) and 2013 (12 June 2013 Kedarkharak
flood, and on 1 July 2013 Uttarkashi flood) in the last 24
years during monsoon seasons. These results have been
presented through figure 11 where high intensity rainfall in
low time period is responsible for aggravating the condition
of flash flood and the flood year has received a high amount
of annual rainfall (Figure 11).
Flood Susceptibility area distribution: The susceptibility
to flood or flash floods in the study area has shown that out
of 6170.82 km2 basin area, 315.40 km2 is very highly
susceptible to flood whereas 1228.10 km2 area is falling
under highly susceptible followed by 1180.12 km2, 1186.71,
km2 2260.50 km2 as moderately, low and very low
susceptibility respectively towards the risk under flood. The
result is also presented through figure 12.
Flood hazard zonation and risk assessment: For better
understanding, the flood hazard zonation map of Bhagirathi
river basis has been divided into two separate part: one is NE
part of the study area (Fig. 13 a) and the other one is SW part
of the study area (Fig. 13 b) on the basis of physiography and
climate.

Figure 9: Flood hazard zonation map of Bhagirathi River basin graded between very low to very high risk of flood.

Figure 10: Flood hazard risk zonation and assessment map of Bhagirathi River basin where the industrial
infrastructure and settlements are vulnerable to the flood depending on the intensity of flood

11
Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Average Annual Rainfall

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600 Average Annual Rainfall

400
200
0 1999
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 11: Average annual rainfall pattern from 1991 to 2015 source (IMD)

Flood Susceptibility area distribution of Bhagirathi River Basin

2500.00

2000.00
Area in km2

1500.00

1000.00

500.00

0.00
Very Low Moderate Very High
Low Risk High Risk
Risk Risk Risk
Area in km2 2260.50 1186.71 1180.12 1228.10 315.40

Figure 12: Flood susceptibility area distribution of Bhagirathi River basin showing various hazard categories
and the respective areas of the basin.

Figure 13: (a) NE part of flood hazard map (b) SW part of flood hazard map, showing the impact of flood on
settlements and hydropower projects along with glacier lake locations

12
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

The NE part of the basin is higher in altitude and it is covered
with glaciers. Because of harsh conditions, the vegetation is
very less as well as the habitation is very sparse. It has been
analyzed by the remote sensing techniques that 305glacier
lakes are mapped on the Gangotri glacier catchment, the
cumulative area of these lakes is about 1.55 km2.3
The SW part of the basin is the downstream part of
Bhagirathi River, there exists a large number of unplanned
habitation and infrastructure on both side of the Bhagirathi
river and its tributaries; during monsoon season this region
is highly vulnerable to flood and its associated hazards.
There are five operational hydropower projects of 1182 MW
installed capacity and 21 are under construction with
estimated capacity of 2981 MW (Fig. 1) in this region which
are of great concern, if flooding/flash flooding takes place.
This vulnerability assessment map is helpful for
preparedness in advance and devises management practices
to reduce the flood impact in lower catchment area.
Further to this, flood hazard risk assessment map (Fig. 10)
very clearly shows that lower part of Bhagirathi River basin
is highly vulnerable for flood hazards during monsoon. In
addition, the risk may increase due to cumulative effect of
glacier lakes bust out and cloud burst activities in the basin.
The total geographical area of Bhagirathi River basin is
6170.82 km2 and total 690 villages are situated in this basin.
The flood risk assessment map of the Bhagirathi River basin
shows that 25.10% (1543.49 km2) area is falling under high
risk zone while 5.11 % of total area (315.40 km2) falls into
very high-risk zone. The remaining 74.99 % of the area
(4627.33 km2) falls under moderately to low risk zone. The
overall contribution of agriculture and forest land in the
Bhagirathi River basin is 302.35 km2 (4.90%) and 3766.61
km2(61.04%) respectively. Total agricultural land is 302.35
km2. Most of the agricultural land of 269.10 km2 (89%) is
found under high to very high-risk zone. Out of the total
forest cover (3766.61 km2), the status of forest in the
Bhagirathi river basin is quite satisfactory as the maximum
forest cover 3737.97 km2(99.24 %) falls under a moderate
flood risk zone. However, only 0.68 % (25.75 km2) of the
forest is spread under high to very high-risk zone (Table 8).
The SW part of the Bhagirathi river basin is rich in
demography and infrastructure, this is the lower catchment
part of Bhagirathi River basin; during monsoon season the
vulnerability of this part is very high and the chances of
extreme events may increase the risk because of the
additional presence of hydropower reservoirs and glacier
lakes in the upper reaches. Out of 690 villages/settlements in
the basin, 616 (89 %) villages having 164,400 (80 %)
populations have been found under high to very high-risk
zone. To serve facilities for a total population of 204,725
(Census, 2011) in the Bhagirathi River basin, there are 1001
educational institutions (school/college), 168
hospitals/health centres, 89 villages and 1355 km of
connecting roads are developed by the Government and by
non-Government agencies.
After the flood risk hazard analysis on demography and
infrastructure of river basin, it has been found that 831 (81.2
%) educational institutes, 153 hospitals, 81 (91%) bridges
and 1237.41 km (91.3 %) of roads are falling under high to
very high flood risk hazard zone whereas 28,491 population
of 49 villages/settlement, 124 schools/ colleges, 9 hospitals,
84.03 km of road length and 4 bridges are found under
moderately flood risk zone (Table 9).
Conclusion
Bhagirathi basin of Uttarakhand has been witnessing the
devastating flood events for the last several years. The loss
of life, property and infrastructure under the flood/flash
flood conditions have retarded the economic growth of
people and entire developmental work in the basin.

Table 8
Flood risk hazard assessment of agriculture and forest land distribution in terms of area covered in the
Bhagirathi Basin of Uttarakhand state of India
Total Area
Flood Number Forest
under hazard Total Agriculture Agriculture Forest
S.N. Hazard of land
category Area (%) Land (km2) Land (%) land (%)
zone Villages (km2)
(km2)
Very Low
1 2260.5 36.63 25 0 0.00 0.33 0.01
Risk
2 Low Risk 1186.71 19.23 0 10.94 3.62 2.56 0.07
Moderate
3 1180.12 19.12 49 22.3 7.38 3737.97 99.24
Risk
4 High Risk 1228.1 19.9 473 219.58 72.62 20.85 0.55
Very High
5 315.4 5.11 143 49.52 16.38 4.9 0.13
Risk
Total 6170.82 100 690 302.35 100 3766.61 100

13
 Disaster Advances Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)

Table 9
Flood risk hazard assessment on demography and infrastructure of the Bhagirathi River basin, Uttarakhand, India

Educational
Flood Number of
Institutions Roads Hospital/Heal
S. N. Hazard Settlement/ Households Population Bridges
School/ km th Services
zone Village
College
Very Low
1 25 77 77 0 2 27.74 0
Risk
2 Low Risk 0 2240 11757 46 2 5.33 6
Moderate
3 49 5425 28491 124 4 84.03 9
Risk
4 High Risk 473 24935 118992 568 61 970.95 129
Very High
5 143 9865 45408 263 20 266.46 24
Risk
Total 690 42542 204725 1001 89 1355 168

This study brought forward the vulnerability map and
susceptibility to the flood under different conditions of
monsoonal behavior in terms of precipitation as well as the
other influential factors like drainage density, soil type, land-
use land-cover, slope, aspect, geology, profile curvature and
elevation. This is further influenced by the higher melting of
snow and glaciers under increased warming in the mountain
regions as well as the glacial lakes in the upper catchment of
the basin which contributes high discharge in the basin and
intensifies the flood.
The result in terms of identifying the flood vulnerable zone,
susceptible risk to different parts of the basin has been
presented through several maps and tables which are very
useful and the awareness will reduce the risk on life and
property. The analysis has been performed on multi criteria
decision approach (MCDA) under geospatial environment
and brought very authentic results compared with the earlier
flood hazards conditions in the basin. Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) has been used to calculate the weights of
responsible causative factors like drainage, perception, soil,
land-use land-cover, slope, aspect, profile curvature and
geology.
The priority weights assigned to the causative factors were
under the Saaty’s29 nine point parameter of analytic
hierarchy process (AHP).The value of consistency ratio
(CR) has been calculated as 0.06 and this has been
acceptable because it is below threshold value 0.10 and the
result gave the accuracy of more than 90 %.
under high to very high-risk zone. But contrary to the
agricultural status, the maximum forest cover 3737.97
km2(99.24 %) falls under moderate flood risk zone.
In the demography status as per the census 2011, there are
690 villages in the Bhagirathi River basin and 616 villages
having a population of 164,400 have been found under high
to very high-risk zone. The flood risk hazard analysis on
demography and infrastructure of river basin paints an
alarming picture that 813 educational institutes (81.2 %),
153 hospitals (91.1 %), 81 bridges and 1237.41 km of roads
(91.3 %) are falling under high to very high flood risk hazard
zone. However, 28, 491 population of 49 villages/settlement,
124 schools/colleges (12.4%), 9 hospitals (5.3%), 84.03 km
of the road (6.2 %) and 4 bridges are found under moderate
flood risk zone.
In addition, under the changing climate, the higher melt of
glaciers in the upper region is prone to the formation of lakes
(supraglacial of moraine dammed) and any chances of
bursting of these glaciers can increase the chances of flood
in the downstream catchment. The glaciers melt water has
additional impact together with the monsoonal rainfall in
flooding or sometimes my convert to flash flood in the form
of Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF). The SW part of the
basin is the downstream part of Bhagirathi River having
large habitation and infrastructural development in the form
of several hydropower projects. During monsoon season this
region is highly vulnerable for flood and its associated
hazards.

The results show that out of the total geographical area
(6170.82 km2) of Bhagirathi River basin, 44.13% (2723.62
km2) area of basin falls under flood risk zone in which
19.90% (1228.10 km2) are under high risk zone while 5.11
% (315.40 km2) of area falls under very high risk zone.The
remaining 74.99 % of the area (4627.33 km2) falls under
moderately to low risk zone. The overall contribution of
agriculture and forest land in the Bhagirathi River basin is
302.35 km2 (4.90%) and 3766.61 km2 (61.04%) respectively.
Most of the agricultural land of 269.10 km2 (89%) is found
There are five operational hydropower projects of 1182 MW
installed capacity and 21 are under construction with an
estimated capacity of 2981 MW (Fig. 9) in this region which
are of great concern in case of flood or flash flood. These
vulnerability assessment maps are helpful for preparedness
in advance and devise management practices to reduce the
impact in lower catchment area. Further to this, flood hazard
risk assessment map (Fig. 10) very clearly shows that the
lower part of the Bhagirathi River basin is highly vulnerable
to flood hazards during monsoon. In addition, the risk may

14
 Disaster Advances
increase due to the cumulative effect of glacier lakes burst
out and cloud burst activities in the basin. The combined
approaches of MCA and GIS are very useful for accurate
mapping and decision-making during flood events. The
results are very useful for policy makers, government
agencies and local administration for flood forecasting,
warning and risk assessment as well as preparedness for
rescue operations.
Acknowledgement
Authors are thankful to the Department of Environmental
Science, School of Basic Sciences and Research (Sharda
University, Greater Noida) for some of the facility and
support made available for the study. The accessibility of
Digital data including optical and elevation satellite data
available from USGS, Earth explorer, Alaska Satellite
Facility, Tropical Rainfall measuring mission is thankfully
acknowledged. The support by CHARIS project funded by
USAID is acknowledged for providing training on remote
sensing data at Dehradun, India and at Almaty, Kazakhstan.
The glaciological understanding in the laboratory and field
had been supported by MoES Project (MoES/ PAMC/
H&C/61/2015-PC-II, dated 29.03.2016) and DST project
(Ref. No. DST/CCP/NHC/159/2018 (G) dated 28.03.2019
under SPLICE-Climate Change Programme) at Sharda
University which is highly appreciated and thankfully
acknowledged.
References
1. Bajracharya S.R. and Shrestha A.B., Case studies on flash flood
risk management in the Himalayas in support of specific flash
flood policies Kathmandu, ICIMOD, www.icimod.org
/publications (2013)
2. Berritella M., Certa A., Enea M. and Zito P., An Analytical
Hierarchy Process for the evaluation of transport policies to reduce
climate change impacts, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Working
Papers, 12 (2007)
3. Bhambri R., Mehta M., Dobhal D.P. and Gupta A.K., Glacier
Lake Inventory of Uttarakhand, Wadia Institute of Himalayan
Geology, 1-78 (2015)
4. Borga M., Boscolo P. and Zanon Sangati M.,
Hydrometeorological analysis of the 29 August 2003 flash flood in
the Eastern Italian Alps, J. Hydrometeorology, 8, 1049-1067
(2007)
5. Borga M., Gaume E., Creutin J.D. and Marchi L., Surveying
flash floods: Gauging the ungauged extremes, Hydrol. Process, 22,
3883–3885 (2008)
6. Census of India 2011, Uttarakhand District Census Handbook
Uttarkashi http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/CensusData
2011.html
7. Das S., Ashrit R. and Moncrieff M.W., Simulation of a
Himalayan cloudburst event, J. Earth Syst. Sci., 3, 299–313 (2006)
8. Drobne S. and Lisec A., Multi-attribute decision analysis in GIS:
weighted linear combination and ordered weighted averaging,
Nature, 4, 28 (2009)
15
Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)
9. Emmanouloudis D., Myronidis D. and Ioannou K., Assessment
of Flood Risk in Thasos Island with the Combined Use of Multi-
criteria Analysis ΑHP and Geographical Information System,
Innovative Applications of Informatics in Agriculture and
Environment, 2, 103-115 ESRI (2008)
10. Ghildyal K., Rana S. and Singh K., Situation Report:
Uttarakhand-Cloud Burst, Sphere India, https://reliefweb.int/
report/india/india-situation-report-uttrakhand-cloud-burst-2nd-
july-2016 (2016)
11. Grandzol J.R., Improving the faculty selection process in
higher education: A case for Analytical Hierarchy Process, Assoc.
Inst. Res., 6(24), 2-13 (2005)
12. Gupta V., Dobhal D.P. and Vaideswaran S.C., August 2012
cloudburst and subsequent flash flood in the Asi Ganga, a tributary
of the Bhagirathi river, Garhwal Himalaya, India, Current Science,
105(2), 249-253 (2013)
13. Harrison S. and Qureshi M., Application of the analytic
hierarchy process to riparian revegetation policy options, Small-
scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 2(3), 441-458
(2003)
14. Ken V. and Mike G., The Forrester Wave: Enterprise Service
Bus, Q2 2006, BEA Systems (2006)
15. Kumar R., Kumar R., Singh A., Sinha R.K. and Kumari A.,
Nanoparticles in glacial melt water, Mater Today Proc, https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.10.037, 5(3P1), 9161-9166 (2018-
a)
16. Kumar R., Kumar R., Singh S., Singh A., Bhardwaj A., Kumari
A., Randhawa S.S. and Saha A., Dynamics of suspended sediment
load with respect to summer discharge and temperatures in Shaune
Garang glacierized catchment, Acta Geophys, Western Himalaya,
https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1160 0-018-0184-4 (2018b)
17. Linkov L.F., Satterstrom K., Steevens J., Ferguson E. and Pleus
C.R., Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk
assessment for nanomaterials, Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
9, 543-554 (2007)
18. Lori V., Review: ESB Suites, Networking Computing, CMP
Media LLC, March 10 (2006)
19. Malczewski J., GIS and Multicriteria decision analysis. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., United States of America, 177-192 (1999)
20. Malczewski J., On the use of weighted linear combination
method in GIS: common and best practice approaches, Trans GIS,
4(1), 5-22 (2000)
21. Malczewski J., A GIS-based approach to multiple criteria
group decision making, International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems, 10(8), 955-971 (1996)
22. Mishra A., Changing Temperature and Rainfall Patterns of
Uttarakhand, Int J Environ Sci Nat Res, 7(4), 90-95 (2017)
23. Mokarram M. and Hojati M., Using Ordered Weight Averaging
(OWA) for Multicriteria Soil Fertility Evaluation By GIS (Case
Study: Southeast Iran), Solid Earth Discuss, https://doi.org/
10.5194/se-2016-17 (2016)
 Disaster Advances
24. Nakamura F., Swanson F.J. and Wondzell S.M., Disturbance
regimes of stream and riparian systems- a disturbance-cascade
perspective, Hydrological Processes, 14, 2849-2860 (2000)
25. Papaioannou G., Vasiliades L. and Loukas A., Multi-Criteria
Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping,
Water Resour Manage, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0817-
6, 29, 399 (2015)
26. Pradhan B., Flood susceptible mapping and risk area
delineation using logistic regression, GIS and remote sensing,
Journal of Spatial Hydrology, 9(2), 1-18 (2010)
27. Kumar R., Kumar R., Singh A., Sinha R.K., Kumari A., Gupta
A. and Singh J., Distribution of trace metal in Shaune Garang
catchment: evidence from particles and nanoparticles, Materials
today: Proceedings, 15, 586-594 (2019a)
28. Kumar R., Kumar R., Singh A., Singh S., Bhardwaj A., Kumari
A., Kumar Sinha R.K. and Akhilesh Gupta A., Hydro-geochemical
analysis of melt water draining from Bilare Banga glacier, Western
Himalaya, Jr Acta Geophys, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-
00262-w (2019b)
29. Saaty T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority
Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)
30. Sam L., Bhardwaj A., Singh S. and Kumar R., Remote sensing
in glacier velocity estimation and a novel approach for debris
covered glaciers, Prog Phys Geogr., https://doi.org/10.1177/
0309133315 593894 (2015)
31. Satendra, Gupta A.K., Naik V.K., Saha Roy T.K., Sharma A.K.
and Dwivedi M., Uttarakhand Disaster 2013, NIDM, 23-24 (2015)
32. Seejata K., Yodying A., Wongthadam T., Mahavik N. and
Tantanee S., Assessment of flood hazard areas using Analytical
Hierarchy Process over the Lower Yom Basin, Procedia
Engineering, 212, 340-347 (2018)
16
Vol. 13 (3) March (2020)
33. Shrivastava K.N., Kuerashi H.A. and Shukla M.K., Geology
and Tectonics of Himalayas, special publication 26, Geological
Survey of India, PGIS-180, 2000-1989 (DSK II) (1989)
34. Singh S., Kumar R., Bhardwaj A., Kumar R. and Singh A.,
Changing climate and glacio-hydrology: a case study of Shaune
Garangbasin, Himachal Pradesh, Int Jr Hydrol Sci Technol.,
https://doi. org/10.1504/IJHST .2018.10010353 (2018)
35. Soils of India, NBSS Publication, 94 (2002)
36. Stein D., Bruno V., Steven V., Dietrich V., Bart D. and Filip
T., Throughput Evaluation of Different Enterprise Service Bus
Approaches, Conference on Software Engineering Research and
Practice, CSREA Press, 378-384 (2007)
37. Swanson F.J., Graham R.L. and Grant G.E., Some effects of
slope movements on river channels, Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Erosion, Debris Flow and Disaster
Prevention, Tokyo, 273-278 (1985)
38. UNISDR Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015, https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/gar (2019)
39. Wondzell S.M. and Swanson F.J., Floods, channel change, and
the hyporheic zone, Water Resources Research, 35(2), 555-567
(1999)
40. Yahaya S., Ahmed N., Abdalla R.F. and Multicriteria F.,
Analysis for Flood Vulnerable Areas in Hadejia-Jama’are River
Basin, Nigeria, European Journal of Scientific Research, 1, 71-83
(2010)
41. Yajima T., Nakamura F., Shimizu O. and Shibuya M., Forest
recovery after disturbance by the 1926 mud flow at Mount
Tokachi, Hokkaido, Japan, Research Bulletin of Experimental
Forestry Hokkaido University, 55(1), 216-228 (1998).
(Received 04th January 2020, accepted 05th February 2020)