Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Sub-basin prioritization for assessment of soil erosion susceptibility in

Kangsabati, a plateau basin: A comparison between MCDM and
SWAT models
Raj Kumar Bhattacharya ⁎, Nilanjana Das Chatterjee, Kousik Das
Department of Geography, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West Bengal, India

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

• Four MCDM models of VIKOR, TOPSIS,

SAW and CF were applied for sub-
basins prioritization towards analysis
of erosion susceptibility (ES) using mor-
phometric parameters.
• SWAT model applied for estimation of
soil erosion and sediment yield using
hydrological parameters.
• Comparison amongst MCDM models
with SWAT demonstrated that only
VIKOR is accepted with SWAT model.

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

Article history: Kangsabati basin located in tropical plateau region faces multiple problems of soil erosion susceptibility (SES),
Received 12 February 2020 soil fertility deterioration, and sedimentation in reservoirs. Hence, identification of SES zones in thirty-eight
Received in revised form 14 May 2020 sub-basins (SB) for basin prioritization is necessary. The present research addressed the issue by using four
Accepted 14 May 2020
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models: VlseKriterijumska optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje
Available online 16 May 2020
(VIKOR), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), simple additive weighing
Editor: Ouyang Wei (SAW), compound factor (CF). To determine the best fitted method from MCDM for erosion susceptibility (ES),
a comparison has been made with Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), where fifteen morphometric param-
Keywords: eters were considered for MCDM, and meteorological data, soil, slope and land use land cover (LULC) were con-
Sedimentation sidered for SWAT model. Two validation indices of percentage change and intensity change were used for
Basin prioritization evaluation and comparison of MCDM results. With SWAT model performance, SWAT calibration and uncertainty
Flow discharge analysis programs (CUP) was used for sensitive analysis of SWAT parameters on flow discharge and sediment
Sediment load load simulation. The results showed that 23, 16, 18 SB have high ES; therefore they were given 1 to 3 ranks,
whereas 31, 37, 21SB have low ES, hence given 38 to 36 rank as predicted by MCDM methods and SWAT.
MCDM validation results depict that VIKOR and CF methods are more acceptable than TOPSIS and SAW. Calibra-
tion (flow discharge R2 0.86, NSE 0.75; sediment load R2 0.87, NSE 0.69) and validation (flow discharge R2 0.79,
NSE 0.55; sediment load R2 0.79, NSE 0.76) of SWAT model indicated that simulated results are well fitted with
observed data. Therefore, VIKOR reflects the significant role of morphometric parameters on ES, whereas SWAT
reflects the significant role of LULC, slope, and soil on ES. However, it could be concluded that VIKOR is more ef-
fective MCDM method in comparison to SWAT prediction.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rajgeovu10@gmail.com (R.K. Bhattacharya), nilanjana_vu@mail.vidyasagar.ac.in (N.D. Chatterjee), kousikvugeo@gmail.com (K. Das).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139474
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
1. Introduction
Soil is the most sustaining natural resource for all living organism,
and it determines geomorphic processes widely (Keesstra et al., 2016;
Ameri et al., 2018; Hembram and Saha, 2018). Sustainable agricultural
development and natural resource utilization both are largely deter-
mined by soil erosion; furthermore, this erosion is controlled by several
hydrological functions in the watersheds worldwide (Molla and
Sisheber, 2017; Arabameri et al., 2018). Weathering process leads to
disintegration of soil particles from allied rocks and minerals, and
eroded materials are entrained, transported and deposited to another
place by flowing water (Masselink et al., 2017; Hembram and Saha,
2018). Water is an important agent for soil erosion, land degradation
and deterioration of soil fertility from the topmost layer, and thus soil
erosion hampers the plant growth, sedimentation in river valley and
reservoir, delta generation in estuarine sites, which gives rationality
for sustainable human societies (Sharma et al., 2017; Ameri et al.,
2018). Indeed, ES at regional and global level, ended with several
types of environmental and economic consequences throughout the
world (Gayen et al., 2019); where such direct measurement techniques
like erosion pins, silt fences, and rainfall simulation are applied to deter-
mine the critical erosion sites (Nasre et al., 2013; Ameri et al., 2018). In
this context, analysis of drainage basin or watershed become more rel-
evant, and its several geo-environmental elements like lithologic, geo-
morphic, morphometric, land use land cover (LULC), and soil play
significant role in sustainable watershed management (Chauhan et al.,
2016; Balasubramanian et al., 2017; Bhattacharya et al., 2019b). More-
over, drainage basin play dominant role to determine the ES, surface
runoff, and sedimentation in channel, all of which are caused by various
erosional agents of water and wind, and thus are expressed various
landscape processes that signifies the effective morphometric charac-
terization (Patel et al., 2012, 2013; Ameri et al., 2018; Hembram and
Saha, 2018). Mathematical measurement of morphometric parameters
including three major aspects i.e. linear, areal and relief, are prime re-
quirements for prioritization of sub-watersheds or hydrological units
that can have considerable effects on land and water conservation in a
drainage basin (Aher et al., 2014; Rahaman et al., 2015; Ahmed et al.,
2018); where effective morphometric parameters are well analysed
the runoff volume, geomorphic landform, soil physical properties,
along with basin ES (Keesstra et al., 2014; Ameri et al., 2018;
Masselink et al., 2017).
Another three major dominant parameters like geology, topography,
and climate control the spatial distribution of flow system geometry,
drainage density and drainage patterns in a watershed (Mesa, 2006;
Ameri et al., 2018). In recent times, many research works showed that
advance effective remote sensing and GIS data like satellite imagery,
digital elevation model, plays wide role in extraction of morphometric
variables for watershed prioritization, as well as soil and water conser-
vation (Biswas et al., 1999; Chatterjee et al., 2014; Magesh et al., 2013;
Rai et al., 2017). Indeed, sub-basin prioritization signifies the geo-
environmental characteristics in each hydrological units following the
key driving variables: morphometric parameters (Aher et al., 2014;
Balasubramanian et al., 2017), lithological setup (Chauhan et al.,
2016), LULC (Altaf et al., 2014), groundwater potentiality (Deepika
et al., 2013), ES etc. (Ameri et al., 2018; Hembram and Saha, 2018).
For quantification of ES, many researchers used multi-criteria deci-
sion making (MCDM) techniques, which are applied for resolving
decision-making with high accuracy decision that are widely accepted
for accurate decision, where decision rank depends not only on single
criterion, but also taken some other significant criteria (Georgiou
et al., 2015; Govindan and Jepsen, 2016; Mulliner et al., 2016). Several
MCDM models including AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), ANP (An-
alytic Network Process) and VIKOR are also used for accurate decisions
(Saha, 2017); which are now combined as more effective tool for prior-
itization of sub-basin along with the integration of fuzzy logic tech-
niques (Aher et al., 2014; Kharat et al., 2016). Spatial distribution of
soil erosion vulnerability entirely depends on fundamental parameters
that are estimated with the link of systematic knowledge from alterna-
tive or effective parameters, as a result, high complexity forms are gen-
erated, which also created such hindrance on effective estimation of
potential soil erosion and accurate sub-basin priority (Abdul Rahaman
et al., 2015; Hembram and Saha, 2018). In contrast, for ES, application
of MCDM methods of SAW, VIKOR, TOPSIS, and CF helps to determine
the sub-basin prioritization using several morphometric parameters in
a drainage basin (Ameri et al., 2018). In India, most effective MCDM
methods such as fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (FAHP)
are applied to determine the soil erosion sensitive zones for sub-basin
prioritization, where adopted methods considered such morphometric
variables for effective control strategies in order to help soil conserva-
tion (Mekonnen et al., 2017; Hembram and Saha, 2018). However, the
previous studies show that MCDM methods give different results in
the same watershed following the previous studies, and create confu-
sion among the researchers to take rational decision, on the best
method for their study area.
On the other hand, several hydrological parameters in a drainage
basin, including runoff volumes, sediment delivery, sediment yield, po-
tential evapo-transpiration and ES are assessed by various hydrological
models (Kamble, 2001; Sridhar et al., 2018; Bhattacharya et al., 2020a,
2020b); Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) as one of them
which automatically extracted sub-basins boundary delineation
(Tripathi et al., 2003, 2006), and also estimate soil erosion (Ameri
et al., 2018), sediment delivery (Gassman et al., 2007), and all other hy-
drological parameters at sub-basin level (Vigiak et al., 2017; Anand
et al., 2018; Markhi et al., 2019).
Therefore, this study has made an effort to assess the accurate sub-
basins prioritization of a tropical plateau basin in order to ES in
Kangsabati basin, India using both models i.e. MCDM models (SAW,
VIKOR, TOPSIS, and CF) that is prepared from morphometric parame-
ters, and integrated hydrological model as SWAT that is prepared from
climatic characteristics, LULC, slope and soil parameters, and then
make a comparison among MCDM methods furthermore, effective
MCDM methods are selected by applying of SWAT model for estimation
of soil erosion susceptibility in each sub-basin units. Additionally, this
research offers two kinds of the validation process for better accuracy
of MCDM model performance, where first kind of validation has been
made through the intensity change, and second kind of validation is per-
centage change of basin rank of these methods, and best MCDM method
is validated by SWAT model in order to similarity percentage of erosion
priority rank. This study also attempts to identify the critical sub-basins,
where effective conservation strategy is needed to resist soil erosion or
land degradation, using complex decision approach.
2. Study area
Kangsabati basin is a tropical plateau basin with a total area of
9658km2, which is extended from 21°45′ N to 23°30′ N latitudes and
85°45′ E to 88°15′ E longitudes (Fig. 1a, b). The basin spreads over
four districts, namely, Purulia, Bankura, Paschim Midnapore and Purba
Midnapore. In order to lithological set up, oldest Archaean rock forma-
tion mainly granite-gneiss in upper basin makes elevated plateau
proper in Chota Nagpur (641 m), and laterite dominance in middle
basin makes undulating plateau fringe during pre-Cambrian era,
whereas laterite track of Tertiary-Quaternary formation in lower flood-
plain (5 m) allow huge alluvial deposition during Pleistocene to Holo-
cene era (Ghosh and Guchhait, 2015). Characteristic of climate in this
basin, is characterized by southwest tropical monsoon climate, where
mean rainfall ranges from 300 mm (drought prone) to 1650 mm
(humid or very high rainfall zone). Drainage pattern in this study area
is mainly dendritic to sub dendritic nature, where 1st order (5321),
2nd order (1254), 3rd order (298), 4th order (68), 5th order (22) and
6th order (8) are created hierarchical stream orders set-up following
Strahler's method. Morphometric status of Kangsabati basin
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474 3

Fig. 1. Study area: a sub basin boundary demarcation, b SWAT drainage outlet.
4 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
demonstrated that there has significant correlation with drainage, geol-
ogy, soil, geomorphic landscape and land cover in order to ES
(Bhattacharya et al., 2019b). Weaken soil profile, low vegetable cover
and prominent rill gullies formation makes high ES in upper basin,
whereas dominant laterite tract, steep slope, and agricultural practices
creates mild susceptibility in undulating intermediate basin, but dense
vegetation, presence of conservation practices resisted ES in the lower
basin (Bhattacharya et al., 2020b).
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Data sources
Geospatial data sources i.e. Survey of India (SOI) 1:50000-scale topo-
graphical maps (73I/10,11,12,13,73J/9,15,73N/2,3,4,5,7,8), 30 m spatial
resolution Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Digital Elevation
Model (DEM), 80 Ground Control Points (GCP) from Google Earth,
were taken for extraction of morphometric parameters at sub-basin
level. In SWAT model, various weather datasets including temperature,
humidity, wind speed, solar radiation at 12 grid points in Kangsabati
basin were automatically collected from climate forecasting system re-
analysis (CFSR) world climatic database (1970–2014) (http://
globalweather.tamu.edu/). While rainfall database has been modified
with thirty five years average dataset (1980–2015) of sixteen local
rain gauge stations in this basin as provided by Indian Meteorological
Department (IMD), for getting better accuracy of model. Average rain-
fall datasets were further fed into SWAT database through the incorpo-
ration with nearest CFSN grid points. In term of spatial resolution scale,
temperature data was only available with coarser resolution scale of
1″ × 1″ (approximately 110 km × 110 km), but other weather databases
were available with finer resolution scale of 0.25″ × 0.25″ (approxi-
mately 27.5 km × 27.5 km), respectively (Himanshu et al., 2019). Fur-
thermore, DEM, Thematic Mapper (TM), Landsat Operational Land
Imager (OLI) image (2016), and soil sheet (Indian Council of Agriculture
Research) were used to classify the topographical expression, spatial
pattern of LULC and soil distribution map in Kangsabati basin. Stream
hydrological datasets like sediment concentration, sediment load, sedi-
ment transport rate etc. are not available in this basin except flow dis-
charge is available in Mohanpur and Mukutmonipur station, however,
to adjust SWAT-CUP calibration and validation, flow discharge (record
data) and sediment load (field estimation) at monthly time-scale,
were collected at Mohanpur station during 2010–2015. Fig. 2 represents
methodological flow chart to obtain the rank of ES in each sub-basin fol-
lowing different MCDM methods and SWAT model.
Fig. 2. Methodological flow chart.
3.2. Drainage estimation
Data processing phase involved with two major steps, where first
step comprises on scanning georeferences and image rectification.
After that, rectified images were converted into resembled sheet, passes
with masking and mosaic processes, derived from Universal Transverse
Mercator Projection of WGS 1984 (45°N) using Arc GIS 10.2. Second
step comprises of boundary demarcation for extraction of stream num-
ber and its contributing area of specific outlets, flow direction, and flow
accumulation in each DEM pixel, using ArcSWAT tools. In order to attain
high accuracy value, SRTM DEM was used for comparison and clarifica-
tion of sub-basin boundary with topographical maps, and extracted
three dominant morphometric aspects i.e. basin shape, linear and land-
scape. Table 1 presents the measuring techniques of nineteen major
morphometric parameters following such literature. After extracting
morphometric parameters, four MCDM methods of TOPSIS, VIKOR,
SAW, and CF were applied to predict the sub-basins priority for estimat-
ing ES in Kangsabati basin at sub-basin level, retrieved from their vali-
dated results of percentage change and intensity change. In contrary,
SWAT model was applied to estimate the flow discharge and sediment
load, as well sediment yield for the assignment of actual sub-basin pri-
ority rank, and then make a comparison between effective MCDM
methods and SWAT model.
3.3. Multi-criteria decision-making models (MCDM)
3.3.1. VIKOR model
Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) is
used for comprising of alternative conflicting criteria based on ranking
sets under optimizing complex systems, introduced by Opricovic and
Tzeng (2004). Performance of VIKOR method as closeness of ideal is en-
tirely depended on well organization following nine steps (Huang et al.,
2009; Ameri et al., 2018).
(i) First step mainly involved with comparison of decision matrix to
summarize as follows:
2 3
x11 x12 x1n
6 7
6 7
D¼6
6 x21 x22 x2n 7
7
4 5
xm1 xm2 xmn
(ii) Second step involved with computation of normalized decision
matrix using Linear method as Eq. (1) (Ameri et al., 2018):
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474 5

Table 1
Computation method of linear, areal and relief morphometric parameters.

Aspects Formula Where Sources

Linear aspect
Basin length (L) L = 1.32A0.363 L = basin length (km), A = area of the basin (km2) Nooka et al. (2005)
Stream order (u) Hierarchical rank Strahler (1964)
Mean stream length (Lsm) Lu Lsm = mean stream length, Lu = total stream length of order ‘u’ Nu = total no. of stream segments Strahler (1964)
Lsm ¼
Nu of order ‘u’
Stream length ratio (Rl) Lu RL = stream length ratio, Lu = total stream length of order ‘u’, Lu-l = the total stream length of its Horton (1945)
RL ¼
Lu−1 next lower order
Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) Rbm = average of bifurcation ratios of all orders Strahler (1952)
Drainage density (D) Lu D = drainage density, Lu = total stream length of all orders, A = area of the basin (km2) Horton (1932, 1945)
D¼
AP
Stream frequency (Fs) Nu Fs = stream-frequency, ∑Nu = total no. of streams of all orders, A = area of the basin (km2) Horton (1945,1932)
Fs ¼
A
Drainage texture (T) TS = D × Fs T = drainage-texture, D = drainage-density, Fs = stream frequency Horton (1945)
Constant of channel 1 C = constant of channel maintenance, Dd = drainage density Schumm (1956)
C¼
maintenance (C) D
Length of overland flow (Lo) 1 Lo = length of overland flow, Dd = drainage density Horton (1945)
Lo ¼ D
2
Infiltration number (If) If = Fs × D Fs = stream frequency; D = drainage density Faniran (1968)

Shape aspect
Form factor (Ff) A Ff = form factor, A = area of the basin (km2), L = basin length (km) Horton (1932, 1945)
Ff ¼
L2
Circularity ratio (Rc) 4πA Rc = circularity ratio, π = 3.14, A = area of the basin (km2), P = perimeter (km) Miller (1953); Strahler
RC ¼
P2 (1964)
Shape factor (Bs) L2 Bs = shape factor, L = basin length (km), A = area of the basin (km2) Horton (1932)
BS ¼
A
Compactness co-efficient 0:282 IP Cc = compactness coefficient, P = perimeter (km), A = area of the basin (km2) Gravelius (1914)
Cc ¼
(Cc) A0:5

Relief aspect
Basin relief (R) R=H−h R = basin relief, H = maximum elevation in meter, h = minimum elevation in meter Schumm and Hadley
(1961)
Relief ratio (Rr) Rr = R/L Rr = relief ratio, R = basin relief, L = longest axis in kilometre Schumm (1956)
Ruggedness number (Rn) ðR  DÞ Rn = ruggedness number, R = basin relief, Dd = drainage density Schumm (1956)
Rn ¼
K K = a conversion constant 1000 when relative relief is expressed in meter and drainage density in
kilometre/square kilometre.
Mean slope (S) R R = basin relief; A = basin area (km2) Nautiyal (1994)
s ¼ pffiffiffi  100
A

 
Rij Xn W j x −xij
Pij ¼ PM ð1Þ j
Si ¼ L1i ¼   ð3Þ
I Rij
j−1 xj −x−j
where Pij means element of normalized decision matrix and Rij mean i-  3
2
th alternative sets in j-th criteria. X n W j V −Vij
j
Ri ¼ Lij ¼ max4   5 ð4Þ
(iii) Third stage comprises of weight assignment for each requiring i¼1 Vj −V−j
criteria using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). VIKOR
method also helps to re-evaluate all criteria, makes pair wise where wi mean jth criterion weight that means relative importance of
comparison, using Saaty's (1978) method in Expert Choice soft- criteria, V⁎j mean maximum Xij, and V⁎j mean minimum V− j .
ware.
(iv) After that, weighted normalized matrix has been computed (vii) Computation the value of Qi following i = 1, 2…m as Eq. (7) (El-
through the multiplying normal matrix in each criterion weight, Santawy, 2012):
given by Huang et al. (2009) and Sanayei et al. (2010) as Eq. (2):    
S j −S R j −R
Qj ¼ V þ ð1−vÞ  ð5Þ
ðS−S Þ ðR−R Þ
Tij ¼ Pij  W j ð2Þ
where S ⁎ mean minimum S j , S mean maximum S j , R ⁎ mean
where Tij means element of the weighted normalized decision matrix, minimum of R i , R means minimum of R i , and V as introductory
Pij means element of normalized decision matrix and Wj mean com- weight strategy of maximum group utility (S j ) and maximum
puted weight criteria given by AHP model. criteria (Rj). Q value generally ranges from 0 to 1; in terms of range
value, v N 0.5 denotes that trend value of Q index reaches in
(v) Fifth stage mainly involved with the determination of best value majority rule.
(X-j) and worst value (X̶j) of all standard criteria functions; if j =
1, 2…n: where j-th criterion as most benefited criterion for the (viii) Alternative rank order has considered as sorting measurement
causes of maximum j-th value. This criterion becomes more rel- from S, R and Q values, where suitable alternative values are
evant for this purpose. Then X-j = max ƒij, ƒ̶ ij = min ƒij. assigned from least value of three major parameters.
(vi) Purpose of this stage is to compute maximum group utility index (ix) Two conditions are used to determine the best alternative value
(Si) and minimum individual regret index of opponent group from highest rank order of Q values as follow Eq. (6) (El-
values (Ri) following respective Eqs. (3) and (4): Santawy, 2012; Ameri et al., 2018):
6 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

C1 or Acceptable advantage: vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

uX
u n  2
1 di− ¼t Vij −V j ≤i ¼ 1; 2; …; m ð13Þ
C1 : Q ðA2 Þ−Q ðA1 Þ≥ ð6Þ j¼1
N−1

where A1, A2 means first and second alternative position in the ranking
(v) Purpose of the final step, is detect closeness coefficient of alterna-
list; N is the number of alternative criteria.
tives from ideal solution ranges 0 to 1 using Eq. (14). Superior
C2 or Acceptable stability in decision making: In terms of satisfaction
values are estimated from higher relative closeness alternative
level, alternative rank values are assigned as rank 1 in Q, S and R or both
values.
of them. On the contrary or unsatisfactory level, ranking order of alter-
native value would be assigned as A1, A2 …Am where Am measured
di−
by following Eq. (7): Cliþ ¼ ; 0 ≤Cliþ ≤1; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m ð14Þ
diþ þ di−
1
ðAm Þ−Q ðA1 Þb ð7Þ where Cli+ mean closeness coefficient, di+ mean positive ideal solution
N−1
(PIS) and di- mean negative ideal solution (NIS).
According to Opricovic and Tzeng (2004, 2007), A1 and A2 must be
selected for best solution, where outcome of C1 does not satisfy. 3.3.3. SAW model
This is another leading MCDM method, which assigned score in each
3.3.2. TOPSIS model option, and obtained by aggregating values in different criteria. Relative
Technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution weights are taken for assigning each criteria score using decision maker
(TOPSIS) is a distance-based method, presented by Hwang and Yoon (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Sargaonkar et al., 2011). Simple Additive
(2012). Principle of TOPSIS indicates that measurement of alternative Weighting (SAW) model estimated rating option following consecutive
choice has been computed by Euclidean distance from shortest distance steps as.
of positive ideal solution (PIS) and largest distance of negative ideal so- (i) Decision matrix is used for the determination of normalized ini-
lution (NIS). In this context, closeness coefficient is used to express the tial matrix (Rij) of j-th criterion as Eq. (15) (Ameri et al., 2018):
results of PIS and NIS distances. In order to closeness coefficient value,
preferred alternative value is taken as a higher coefficient value from a Xij
set of alternatives (Liou and Wang, 1992; Kannan et al., 2009). This Rij ¼ PM ð15Þ
model has detected rating option following some calculation steps I Xij

(Hwang and Yoon, 1981):

where Xij mean initial weights and M means criteria number.
(i) This step estimated normalized decision matrix (rij) as Eq. (8):
(ii) This step involved mainly determined the relation as Rij = Rmin
ij
aij or Rij = Rmax
ij
rij ¼ PJ ð8Þ
√ j¼1
a2ij
Two different relation can be obtained from normalized weight,
where rij presents normalized decision matrix element and aij mean al- where minimum value in efficiency index represent as Rij = Rmin
ij , and

ternative performance of i-th under j-th criteria. maximum value in efficiency index represent as Rij = Rmax
ij .

(ii) This step computed as weighted normalized decision matrix (Vij) (iii) Consistency index helps to determine as normalized value fol-
following Eq. (9): lowing Eq. (16) (maximum efficiency index) and Eq. (17) (min-
imum efficiency index):
Vij ¼ Wi  rij ð9Þ
Xij
Rij ¼ ð16Þ
Where rij mean normalized matrix elements and Wj mean weight of j-th Xmax
ij
criteria.
(iii) This step computed the PIS and NIS using Eqs. (10) and (11) Xmin
ij
Rij ¼ ð17Þ
(Ameri et al., 2018) Xij

  
maxV ij V ij (iv) The purpose in this step is determining the weighted normalized
Aþ ¼ ; min ∈JEÞi ¼ 1; 2; …; m ¼ fV1þ; V2þ; ………Vnþg
j∈ J j decision matrix (Vij) following Eq. (18):
ð10Þ
Vij ¼ Rij  W j ð18Þ
  
minVij maxVij
A− ¼ i ¼ 1; 2; …:; m ¼ fV1−; V2−; …:Vj…Vng
j∈J j∈J where Wj mean criteria weight of Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)
ð11Þ model.
(v) Final step of SAW model involved mainly data integration, ac-
where j mean benefitted criteria and J mean cost criteria, respectively.
quired from final score value in each option (Ai) following
(iv) This step computed as separation measures from ideal solution Eq. (19) (Ma et al., 1999; Ameri et al., 2018):
using Euclidean distance (n-dimension). Separation from ideal X
distance of PIS and NIS measured as following Eqs. (12) and (13) Ai ¼ Rij  W j ð19Þ

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n  2 3.3.4. CF model
diþ ¼t Vij −Vþj ≤i ¼ 1; 2; …; m ð12Þ Compound factor (CF) is an important MCDM methods, which is
j¼1
used for subject base conversion phenomena obtaining from two
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
estimation of logical learning estimation and knowledge-driven frame-
work codes based numerical estimation (Todorovski and Džeroski,
2006; Ameri et al., 2018; Hembram and Saha, 2018). In this study, CF
method was applied for assignment of rank order in each estimated
morphometric parameters that are incorporated with ES. Therefore, col-
lective impacts of all parameters on SES are represented by compound
factor, estimated from average rank values of all parameters (Altaf
et al., 2014). CF is determined as Eq. (20):
1X
pn
CF ¼ R ð20Þ
n i¼1
where R denote parameters rank value, pn denote watershed rank from
each parameter.
CF is estimated rank order or erosion priority scale of sub-basin level
from fifteen morphometric parameters in thirty-eight sub-basins of
Kangsabati basin. According to Patel et al. (2012) and Balasubramanian
et al. (2017), high ES has corresponded with maximum compound
value of areal and linear aspect, which is given rank 1 and second highest
compound value is given rank 2 and others in same assigning manner.
While high ES has corresponded with minimum compound value of
shape aspect, which is given rank 1 and so on.
3.3.5. Validation of MCDM models
Percentage change and intensity change are uses for the assessment
of validation performance and comparison among four MCDM methods
results that are predicted SES at sub-basin level (Badri, 2003; Ameri
et al., 2018).
Percentage of changes is expressed as Eq. (21):
N−Nconstant
ΔP ¼  100 ð21Þ
N that are fixed at every parameter range. In this research, ten parameters
where ΔP denote percentage of changes, N denote alternative numbers,
and Nconstant denote alternative numbers of same rank.
Intensity of changes is expressed as Eq. (22):
N rank i ðr1Þ
∑i−1
rank i ðr2Þ
ΔI ¼ ð22Þ
N
where ΔI denote intensity of changes, r1 denote first method of alterna-
tive rank, and r2 denote second method of alternative rank.
3.4. SWAT parameter estimation
Several predominant parameters like weather condition, topo-
graphic characteristic, soil properties, and land use land cover
(LULC) were required for successful set-up and run the SWAT
model on a monthly time-scale (1.1.2010–31.12.2015) using the
ArcSWAT interface (Neitsch et al., 2011; Markhi et al., 2019). Data-
base of slope, soil and LULC distribution map over the thirty-eight
sub-basins including 12,387 HRUs are presented in Fig. 3a, b, c.
The unique combinations of LULC and soil type were separately
represented by two different HRU. 5% of slope, 5% of soil and 5%
of LULC were assigned as user threshold values for the determina-
tion of in HRU tool box. Other important data sets like weather da-
tabases including rainfall, temperature, and evaporation etc. were
extracted from IMD and CFSR World weather gridded database.
On the other hand, hydrological data sets of monthly flow dis-
charge or outflow data and sediment load were collected from
Mohanpur station, only available monthly flow discharge data set
was and collected from Irrigation Office of Paschim Medinipur,
but there is no record of any observed data on sediment load. In
this context, total sediment load (QT) was computed from field ob-
servation database of nine fluvial and sediment hydraulic variables
(average flow velocity, water depth, weight of specific water,
7
kinematic viscosity of water, gravity acceleration, sediment diame-
ter, weight of specific sediment, shear velocity, bed shear stress) in
Mohanpur station. Total sediment load was calculated in ton unit
using fluid weight of Ackers and White (1973) method
(Bhattacharya et al., 2019a); furthermore, those results were com-
paring with the SWAT simulation results. Moreover, sediment load
data sets helped in SWAT sensitivity analysis, including calibration
and validation test on observed and simulated sediment load. Total
Sediment load (QT) has measured from Eq. (23):
Q T ¼ Q :X ð23Þ
where Q denote water discharge, X denote sediment
concentration.
3.4.1. Model sensitive and calibration
Sensitive analysis of SWAT parameters must be needed for the de-
termination of significant contribution on model outputs that are mea-
sured by ranking method (Holvoet et al., 2005; Markhi et al., 2019). In
this context, SUFI-2 (sequential uncertainty fitting approach) is used
for large calibration performance with the presence of minimum num-
ber of iterations and high calibration capacity (Yang et al., 2008). SWAT-
CUP software is adopted for the methodological set-up of SUFI-2
(Abbaspour, 2013; Arnold et al., 2012). Flow discharge and sediment
load parameters rank are assigned from SWAT parameters in global sen-
sitive analysis, where statistical indices i.e. co-efficient of determination
(R2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias (PBIS) are used for
SWAT model performance evaluation as goodness of fit of simulated re-
sults with observed values (Abbaspour et al., 2004; Rice, 2006). Accord-
ing to Neitsch et al. (2011), SWAT manual provided such default values
were considered for monthly flow discharge simulation, and ten param-
eters were considered for sediment load simulation at monthly time-
scale accurately based on literature review on these parameters in sim-
ilar hydrological characteristics in drainage basin (Bokan, 2015; Mittal
et al., 2016; Welde, 2016; Romagnoli et al., 2017; Asl-Rousta and
Mousavi, 2019; Sridhar et al., 2018; Himanshu et al., 2019; Markhi
et al., 2019). Based on sensitive analysis, best sensitive parameters are
selected for the analysis of calibration and validation performance in
SWAT model using p-value (Mittal et al., 2016). P-value means fraction
values of observed discharge data under 95 Percent Prediction Uncer-
tainty (95PPU) band, which ranges from 0 to 1 (Vaghefi et al., 2013;
Mittal et al., 2016). In this study, P-value of b0.05 was considered for se-
lection of sensitive parameters in calibration and validation analysis. To
determine the calibration and validation of results, iteration steps were
required to find out the optimum values for two different times (Yang
et al., 2008). Therefore, the calibration (1.1.2010–31.12.2013) and vali-
dation (1.1.2014–31.12.2015) tests between observation and simula-
tion data were applied to determine the model performance. In this
context, Mohanpur gauge station was taken for this purpose to make a
comparison between observed data and SWAT simulated results for
both flow discharge and sediment load estimation.
3.4.2. Model evolution and validation
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency criterion (NSE) was used for the determina-
tion of calibration result in observation data (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970).
This well-known statistical criterion provided the coefficient determi-
nation (R2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency criterion (NSE), and percent bias
(PBIAS) values that were obtained from Eqs. (24), (25), (26), respec-
tively.
n
∑i¼1 ðY obs −Z obs ÞðY sin −Z sin Þ
R2 ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn ð24Þ
2 2
1 ðY obs −Z obs Þ i ðY sin −Z sin Þ
8 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

" n #
∑ ðY −Zsim Þ2 n
∑i¼1 ðY obs −Y sin Þ2
NSE ¼ 1− Pni¼1 obs 2
ð25Þ PBIAS ¼ Pn  100% ð26Þ
i¼1 ðYobs −Zobs Þ i Y obs

Fig. 3. SWAT parameter estimation: a slope, b soil and c land use and cover.
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
Fig. 3 (continued).
where Ysin denote simulated value, and Yobs denote observed value; Zobs
refer to mean of observed value as n; and Zsin refer to mean of simulated
values as n.
4. Result
4.1. Morphometric parameters and its role on ES
Basin morphometric parameters play significant role to determine
the earth system processes in surface, incorporating geomorphology,
geology and hydrological sets-up (Ifabiyi and Eniolorunda, 2012;
Balasubramanian et al., 2017). Moreover, relief and drainage system in
the entire basin, have great influence on soil erosion vulnerability,
whereas three major morphometric aspects like linear, relief and
shape, have control the runoff volume and infiltration capacity
(Sharma et al., 1986; Hembram and Saha, 2018). This basin area is ex-
tended to 6480 km2 with perimeter of 3306 km2, and texture with
6971 stream number, including 833 km2 stream lengths. 5321 first
stream order were identified in high erosion prone sites in the entire
catchment area. According to erosion rate, fifteen morphometric pa-
rameters were taken from thirty-eight sub-basins to assign the priority
rank of ES. Detailed analysis of morphometric parameters in Kangsabati
basin can be seen in the supplementary result of ‘morphometric analy-
sis’ section.
Sub-basin prioritization has been done following such relation as
morphometric parameters, geological set-up, and others geo-
environmental parameters with ES, which also successfully done by
several researchers: Biswas et al. (1999), Nooka et al. (2005), Patel
et al. (2012, 2013), Ameri et al. (2018), Bhattacharya et al. (2019b).
Three different morphometric aspects i.e. linear, shape and relief, in-
cluding fifteen parameters, have significant relation with ES. According
to Biswas et al. (1999) and Nooka et al. (2005), ES is positively
9
correlated with all linear and relief morphometric parameters, whereas
Patel et al. (2012) and Patel and Dholakia (2010) denoted that all shape
parameters are inversely correlated with ES. In order of erosion priority
rank, this study considered maximum value of mean bifurcation ratio
and relief ratio that were assigned as highest rank and minimum
value of those parameters assigned as lowest rank.
4.2. Weight assigning in each morphometric parameters using AHP method
In this research, weight assignment in each criterion was computed
from final matrix table that was prepared from fifteen morphometric pa-
rameters using AHP method. According to Saaty (1978), weight assign-
ment becomes accepted; if incompatibility rate in a final matrix is lower
than 0.1. In this study, consistency index (CI) and randomness index
(RI) in comparison matrix table is 0.08 and 1.59, respectively; however,
incompatibility rate of final matrix become 0.054; therefore, weight as-
signment of effective morphometric parameters on ES are within
acceptable range (Table 2). In addition, weight assignment of fifteen mor-
phometric parameter in matrix table showed that mean bifurcation ratio
(0.191), mean slope (0.151), infiltration number (0.129) and stream fre-
quency (0.107) have high significant effects on ES. In contrast, minimum
value of shape factor (0.010), form factor (0.014), and length of overland
flow (0.015) have least effects on ES (Fig. 4). Moreover, drainage density
(0.087), relief ratio (0.069), ruggedness number (0.059), compact coeffi-
cient (0.048), constant channel maintenance (0.043), circular ratio
(0.03), drainage texture (0.029), and basin relief (0.02) have moderate ef-
fects on ES, respectively. Therefore, it is a point that all morphometric pa-
rameters have not same significant impacts on ES.
4.2.1. Erosion priority at sub-basin level using MCDM model
After the weight assignment, all morphometric parameters were cal-
culated for the preparation of decision matrix and data normalization
10 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

Table 2
Computation of composition matrix table (C) following normalized criteria.

Rmb S If Fs D Rr Rn C Cc Rc T R Lo Ff Bs Criteria weights % Remarks

Rmb 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 1 0.191 19.10% Consistency (accepted)

S 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 6 5 7 8 8 9 2 0.151 15.10% 5%
If 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 3 0.129 12.90% Lambda
Fs 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 4 6 6 7 8 4 0.107 10.70% 16.21949815
D 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 5 0.087 8.70% CI
Rr 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 6 7 6 0.069 6.90% 0.087107011
Rn 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 0.059 5.90%
C 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 2 4 4 5 6 8 0.048 4.80% Randomness Index, RI
Cc 1/5 1/2 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 9 0.043 4.30% 1.59
Rc 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 1 3 3 3 5 10 0.03 3.00%
T 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 1 2 3 3 4 11 0.029 2.90% Consistency ratio
R 1/7 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2 2 4 12 0.02 2.00% CI/RI
Lo 1/8 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 1 3 13 0.015 1.50% =0.054784284
Ff 1/9 1/8 1/7 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 1 2 14 0.014 1.40%
Bs 1/9 1/9 1/8 1/8 1/7 1/7 1/6 1/6 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 15 0.01 1.00%

Rbm-mean bifurcation ratio, S-mean slope, If-infiltration number, Fs-stream frequency, D-drainage density, Rr-relief ratio, Rn-ruggedness number, C-constant of channel maintenance, Cc-
compactness coefficient, Rc-circularity ratio, T-drainage texture, R-basin Relief, Lo-length of overland flow, Ff-form factor, Bs-shape factor.

that are essential for priority rank of VIKOR, TOPSIS, SAW, and CF
models. In this study, fifteen morphometric parameters were used for
the computation of priority rank in each sub-basin, where all data sets
were normalized to prepare the rank value in four different MCDM
methods. Linear vector method was used for the computation of data
normalization in TOPSIS model (Eqs. (8)–(14)), whereas data normali-
zation of VIKOR and SAW models were computed following Eqs. (1)–
(7), (15)–(19) (Ameri et al., 2018). In VIKOR model, best and worst
values in each criterion helps to normalization of regret levels; however,
based on perspective of regret theory, only best values in each criterion
play dominant role to determine the regret levels, and worst values in
each criterion play dominant role to determine the effective role of nor-
malized S and R values on regret levels (Huang et al., 2009). In this
study, best and worst values are calculated in Table 3 using Eqs. (1)–
(2), whereas utility index, regret index both were determined the prior-
ity rank as ascending order in the thirty-eight sub-basins using Eqs. (3)–
(5) (Table 3). In TOPSIS model, positive value, negative value and
Euclidean distance between them were calculated using Eqs. (8)–(13)
and is presented in Table 3. While closeness coefficient options of
ideal solution of TOPSIS model was done using Eq. (14). On the other
hand, final weights of normalized matrix row in each sub-basin were
calculated for SAW model according to Eq. (19). In contrast, CF values
in each sub-basin were assigned through the calculation of rank value
from fifteen parameters; finally summation of all values was divided
by such parameter numbers according to Eq. (20). Sub-basin priority
has been assigned as descending manner, that means, lowest CF given
as first rank for high ES, and highest CF given as last rank for low ES in
Table 4 (Patel et al., 2012; Altaf et al., 2014; Bhattacharya et al., 2019b).
In VIKOR model, sub-basin priority has incorporated with ES, which
showed that least compound values of SB 23 (0.144), 16 (0.155), 18
(0.156) are given highest rank as 1 to 3 for their high ES, while more
compound values of SB 31 (0.999), 24 (0.811), 37 (0.808) are given low-
est rank as 38 to 36 for their low ES (Fig. 5a). In TOPSIS model, there is
positive relation between compound value and assigned rank value
based on erosion sensitivity. In particular, maximum values of SB 23
(0.734), 16 (0.689), 18 (0.58) are assigned highest rank as 1 to 3 for
most sensitivity to erosion, while minimum values of SB 21 (0.205),
24 (0.213), 37 (0.526) are assigned lowest rank as 38 to 36 for their
least sensitivity to erosion (Fig. 5b). Based on positive relation between
final scores and ES, in SAW model, maximum final scores of SB 23
(0.767), 16 (0.682), 18 (0.6127) are given highest rank as 1 to 3, while
SB 31 (0.276), 37 (0.278), 21 (0.287) are given lowest rank as 38 to
36, respectively. It is a point that sub-basins with more complex score
have high sensitivity to erosion, and sub-basins with least final score
have low sensitivity to erosion (Fig. 5c). On the other hand, according
to CF model, least compound value of SB 23 (12.40), 18 (12.67), 14
(12.73) are assigned rank as 1 to 3 for their high ES, in contrast, more
compound values of SB 37 (26.40), 31 (25.47), 23 (25) are given rank
as 38 to 36 for their least sensitivity to erosion, respectively (Table 4).
Based on ES and loss of natural resources, all priority rank of MCDM

Fig. 4. The weight of each of the parameters with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474 11

models (except CF) are well categorized into four classes i.e. very high

0.002871
0.01978
(0.75–1), high (0.5–0.75), moderate (0.25–0.5) and low (b0.25) in

0.069
Rr
thirty-eight sub-basins (Ameri et al., 2018). In this study, four categories

0
(very high, high, moderate and low) in VIKOR model, three categories
(high, moderate and low) in TOPSIS model, and three categories (very

0.000996
0.02245
high, high and moderate) in SAW model are identified (Fig. 5a, b, c).

0.059
Rn
On the other hand, based on compound values from selected morpho-

0
metric parameters, CF model has classified into four categories i.e.
very high (N100), high (50–75), medium (25–50) and low (N25). In

0.006958
0.001229
this study, only two CF categories of moderate and low are identified

0.02
in the thirty-eight sub-basins (Fig. 5d). According to rank values,
R

0
MCDM priority classes showed that moderate class (55%) is most dom-
inant than low (19%), high (18%) and very high classes (8%) in VIKOR
0.001298
0.0082
model; high class (71%) is most dominant than moderate (13%) and
0.03
Rc

low classes (16%) in TOPSIS; and maximum moderate class (79%) has
0

dominated in SAW model than high (18%) and very high classes (3%),
respectively. In contrast, low class (92%) has reaches dominant position
0.004673
0.011747

than medium class (8%) in CF model. Therefore, ES distribution is not

0.043
Cc

same in four different MCDM methods in the entire Kangsabati basin.

0

However, MCDM method denoted that moderate and low erosion clas-
ses are predominant categories throughout the basin.
0.001326
0.002097

0.01
Bs

4.2.2. MCDM models validation

0

Two different evaluation methods of percentage change and inten-

sity change were used for the determination of MCDM models effi-
0.001703
0.002694

ciency. Percentage change result showed best efficiency of CF method

0.014

with high accuracy value (68.42) than VIKOR (57.89), TOPSIS (42.11),
Ff

and SAW methods (31.28) (Table 5), whereas intensity change denoted
that VIKOR method is more efficient with high accuracy (3.165) than
0.017744
0.002738

TOPSIS (3.097), CF (3.087) and SAW methods (3.085), respectively

0.048

(Table 6). According to percentage change and intensity change of

C

MCDM validation test, it is the point that CF and VIKOR have the best ef-
ficiencies with high accuracy values than other methods.
0.066244
0.000357
0.129

4.3. SWAT model

If

4.3.1. Sensitivity, calibration and validation analysis on flow discharge and

0.004512
0.000696
Computation of the best and worst values, PIS, and NIS indicators in VIKOR and TOPSIS models, respectively.

sediment load
0.015
Lo

In general, SWAT model performance is evaluated by three different

0

analysis of sensitivity, calibration, and validation from assigned param-

eters (Welde, 2016). In this study, sensitive analysis was done in a Latin
0.022503
0.000132

hypercube sampling at 12 intervals, where twenty parameters were

0.029

considered for flow discharge and sediment load estimation. 1000 iter-
0
T

ations were used for the determination of following parameters, where

500 iterations for flow parameters (10 × 50 per iteration), and 500 iter-
0.044262
0.001081

ations for sediment parameters (10 × 50 per iteration) were required

0.107

with the help of SWAT-CUP software. Table 7 denotes maximum, mini-

Fs

mum and fitted values of ten sensitive parameters for flow discharge
simulation. Table 8 denotes maximum, minimum and fitted values of
0.047162
0.004092

ten parameters for sediment load simulation. Sensitivity analysis re-

0.151

veals that CN2.mgt (number of SCS runoff curve in moisture condition

0
S

II) is more sensitive followed by GWQMN.gw (occurring of return

flow for threshold depth of water) in flow discharge calibration and val-
0.026172
0.004039

idation. While R_SPEXP.bsn (exponent parameter for calculating sedi-

0.087

ment recent rained in channel sediment) is more sensitive followed

D

by R__SLSUBBSN.hru (average slope length) in sediment load calibra-

0.053817

tion, but HRU_SLP.hru (average slope steepness) is more sensitive

followed by R_SPEXP.bsn in sediment load validation. After the success-
0.191
Rbm

ful run of calibration procedure on sensible parameters, Tables 7 and 8

0

both are indicated that the SWAT model has sensibly explained of hy-
drological processes in Kangsabati basin. During calibration period (Jan-
Xj+
V+

Xj-
V-
Morphometric

uary 2010-Decembar 2013), observed versus model simulated

coefficient of regression (R2) values of 0.86 and 0.87 for flow discharge
parameters

and sediment load (Table 9; Fig. 6a, b, c, d), respectively; Nash-Sutcliffe

TOPSIS

VIKOR
Table 3

efficiency criterion (NSE) values of 0.75 and 0.69 for flow discharge and
sediment load, respectively; denotes well acceptable range (Moriasi
12 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

Table 4
Morphometric based assigned ranking and compound value in Kangsabati basin.

SB Rbm D S Fs T Lo If C Ff Bs Cc Rc R Rn Rr Compound parameter Final priority

2 9 34 18 11 9 17 30 4 35 37 2 28 5 16 17.13 13
1
3 8 28 22 16 8 16 31 9 30 28 11 27 2 2 16.07 10
2
6 16 38 20 8 16 21 23 3 36 32 7 35 15 37 20.87 22
3
12 20 36 14 18 20 19 19 11 28 36 3 37 18 35 21.73 27
4
5 17 37 13 12 17 13 22 5 34 38 1 31 12 36 19.53 19
5
9 10 29 15 9 10 12 29 7 32 30 9 23 1 5 15.33 7
6
7 12 32 16 6 12 15 27 6 33 29 10 26 6 14 16.73 12
7
14 11 26 11 19 11 9 28 22 17 26 13 34 11 15 17.80 14
8
17 19 30 19 21 19 22 20 15 24 33 6 36 17 26 21.60 26
9
19 13 27 21 22 13 20 26 27 12 27 12 38 20 24 21.40 24
10
11 14 35 17 17 14 18 25 10 29 35 4 33 13 30 20.33 21
11
8 15 33 12 13 15 11 24 8 31 34 5 32 14 31 19.07 17
12
4 6 31 7 2 6 7 33 2 37 31 8 16 4 25 14.60 6
13
13 3 18 5 3 3 4 36 13 26 4 35 14 7 7 12.73 3
14
16 21 24 8 7 21 8 18 14 25 6 33 18 10 8 15.80 8
15
10 1 20 2 5 1 2 38 17 22 25 14 20 8 17 13.47 4
16
22 7 19 6 14 7 6 32 34 5 9 30 29 16 1 15.80 8
17
15 5 15 3 4 5 3 34 24 15 5 34 15 9 4 12.67 2
18
23 37 21 27 29 37 29 2 37 2 22 17 30 36 6 23.67 31
19
26 28 14 25 26 28 26 11 29 10 13 26 19 23 18 21.47 25
20
30 34 23 30 30 34 31 5 20 19 14 25 25 30 22 24.80 35
21
27 26 22 29 27 26 28 13 19 20 7 32 24 28 29 23.80 32
22
1 2 25 1 1 2 1 37 1 38 21 18 1 3 34 12.40 1
23
36 33 17 33 34 33 33 6 28 11 19 20 22 31 19 25.00 36
24
27 24 4 24 25 24 24 15 30 9 8 31 7 25 13 19.33 18
25
18 18 5 10 15 18 10 21 21 18 16 23 3 19 27 16.13 11
26
37 31 6 32 36 31 32 8 36 3 12 27 17 32 20 24.00 34
27
20 23 3 9 20 23 14 16 35 4 15 24 11 24 28 17.93 15
28
23 27 12 26 24 27 25 12 25 14 1 38 9 27 23 20.87 22
29
25 22 7 23 23 22 23 17 31 8 17 22 11 22 12 19.00 16
30
38 36 10 38 38 36 38 3 33 6 11 28 21 35 11 25.47 37
31
31 25 2 28 28 25 27 14 32 7 23 16 8 26 9 20.07 20
32
32 32 13 34 33 32 34 7 16 23 24 15 4 33 21 23.53 29
33
34 38 8 36 35 38 37 1 26 13 3 36 6 37 10 23.87 33
34
32 29 11 31 32 29 30 10 23 16 10 29 5 34 32 23.53 29
35
29 4 1 4 10 4 5 35 38 1 2 37 10 21 3 13.60 5
36
34 35 16 37 37 35 36 4 18 21 18 21 13 38 33 26.40 38
37
20 30 9 35 31 30 35 9 12 27 20 19 2 29 38 23.07 28
38
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474 13

et al., 2007). During validation period (January 2014-Decembar 2015),
observed versus model simulated R2 values of 0.79 and 0.79 for flow dis-
charge and sediment load, respectively; NSE values of 0.55 and 0.76 for
flow discharge and sediment load, respectively; showed recommend-
able range (Moriasi et al., 2007). In addition, PBIAS values of −19.9
and 34.6 for flow discharge and sediment load calibrations, respectively;
−29 and 10.2 for flow discharge and sediment load validations, respec-
tively; demonstrated that average performance level of SWAT model
has underestimated of flow discharge by 19.9% and 29% during
calibration and validation period, respectively, however; overestimated
of sediment load by 34.6% and 10.2% during calibration and validation
period (Table 9), respectively. In summary results of calibration test,
mean and standard deviation values of observed and simulated flow
discharge are 25.45 and 35.63, and mean and standard deviation values
of observed and simulated sediment load are 11,270.16 and 14,224.11,
respectively. In summary results of validation test, mean and standard
deviation values of observed and simulated flow discharge are 20.32
and 30.77, and mean and standard deviation values of observed and

Fig. 5. Classification of sub-watershed to erodibility using MCDM models: a VIKOR, b TOPSIS, c SAW and d CF.
14 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

Fig. 5 (continued).

simulated sediment load are 14,655.22 and 18,284.36, respectively.

Table 5
Fig. 6 indicated that the observation value of monthly flow discharge be-
Percentages of change in models.
comes more or less similar with simulated monthly flow discharge,
CF VIKOR TOPSIS SAW SUM whereas observed values of sediment load (ton/month) has greater
CF 0 94.736 89.473 84.21 68.421 than the simulated value at Mohanpur station, during the calibration
VIKOR 94.736 0 84.21 78.947 57.894 and validation phases. Therefore, based on all statistical indices of cali-
TOPSIS 89.473 84.21 0 68.421 42.105 bration and validation, simulated results are considered as goodness
SAW 84.21 78.947 68.421 0 31.578
of fit with observed data.
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474 15

Table 6 helps to accumulate of high sediment yield (Bhattacharya et al.,

Intensity of change in models. 2020a). In terms of ES at sub-basin level, monthly sediment yield prior-
CF VIKOR TOPSIS SAW SUM ity is classified into four classes i.e. low (b0.69 m ton/ha), moderate
CF 0 1.044 1.025 1.018 3.087
(0.70–0.93 m ton/ha), high (0.94–1.17 m ton/ha) and very high
VIKOR 1.053 0 1.06 1.052 3.165 (N1.17 m ton/ha). According to assigned rank of simulated sediment
TOPSIS 1.033 1.061 0 1.003 3.097 yield, very high erosion priority class mainly concentrated in SB 13,
SAW 1.026 1.056 1.003 0 3.085 16, 18, 19, 23, while high erosion priority class concentrated in SB 2, 6,
14, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28 and 31, respectively (Fig. 8). In addition, SB 1,
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 24, 29, 30, 32 and 34 having monthly sediment
yield of 0.70–0.93 m ton/ha comes under moderate erosion priority
4.3.2. Sediment yield analysis and its sub-basin prioritization class, and SB 1, 3, 4, 5,7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 24, 29, 30, 32 and 34 having
Suspended sediment load and its movement in stream has entirely monthly sediment yield of 0–0.69 m ton/ha comes under low erosion
depended on several hydraulic variables like stream discharge, water- priority class. Therefore, it is pointed that amount of sediment yield
shed slope, including flow and sediment regime characteristics are fully dependent with ES level throughout the basin.
(Sridhar et al., 2018; Bhattacharya et al., 2020a). Huge sediment load
helps to accumulation of sediment yield at sub-basin level where
SWAT model is applied to estimate the amount of yield following 4.4. Comparison between MCDM model and SWAT model
some considerable hydrological parameters (Welde, 2016). In
Kangsabati basin, monthly simulated sediment yield of SWAT model is MCDM results showed that most of the sub-basins fall under moder-
classified into five categories i.e. very low (b0.56 m ton/ha), low ate ES class, predicted by VIKOR (55%), TOPSIS (71%) and SAW methods
(0.57–0.83 m ton/ha), middle (0.84–1.08 m ton/ha), high (79%), in contrast, CF method predicted that nearly 92% area are consid-
(1.09–1.38 m ton /ha) and very high (1.39–1.88 m ton/ha), respectively. ered as low ES class in Kangsabati basin. Validation result of MCDM
Fig. 7 showed that most of the basin area come under low to medium methods demonstrated that prediction of VIKOR and CF methods are
sediment yield priority class, whereas high and very high sediment within acceptable range; however, there is no single model that can
yield classes are mainly concentrated at outlets or confluence points. be acceptable for ES. In this context, based on assigning the priority
Generally, absences of flow discharge, low drainage density and lower rank from simulated sediment yield in thirty-eight sub-basins, SWAT
catchment area helps to generate low sediment yield, while presence model is used to select the effective MCDM methods on ES. In this
of confluence points, high drainage density and large catchment area study, SWAT model predicted that moderate to low ES classes are

Table 7
Sensitive parameters and its fittest values of flow discharge after calibration using SUFI 2.

Parameter Definition Reference Fitted Minimum Maximum

name value value value

R_CH_N2.rte Manning's ‘n’ value for the main channel Mittal et al. (2016); Himanshu et al. (2019); Markhi et al. (2019) −0.05 −0.068 0.11
R_TLAP.sub Temperature lapse rate Asl-Rousta and Mousavi (2019) −6.46 −7.22 −3.65
R_GWHT.gw Initial groundwater height (m) Markhi et al. (2019) 5.01 −1.89 5.72
R_PLAPS.sub Precipitation lapse rate Asl-Rousta and Mousavi (2019) −182.56 −199.1 186.83
R_TIMP.bsn Snow pack temperature lag factor Asl-Rousta and Mousavi (2019) 0.78 0.59 0.98
R_SNOCOVMX. Maximum snow water content that corresponds to Asl-Rousta and Mousavi (2019) 140.9 107.65 230.16
bsn 100% snow cover
R_CN2.mgt Number of SCS runoff curve in moisture condition Romagnoli et al. (2017); Mittal et al. (2016); Himanshu et al. 0.103 0.08 0.13
II (2019)
V_ALPHA_BF. Ground water recession curve for base flow alpha Mittal et al. (2016); Sridhar et al. (2018); Himanshu et al. (2019) 1.26 1.08 1.41
gw factor
V_GW_DE Groundwater delay time from bottom root zone to Romagnoli et al. (2017); Mittal et al. (2016); Himanshu et al. 42.89 −56.13 121.61
LAY.gw shallow aquifer (2019)
V_GWQMN. Occurring of return flow for threshold depth of Romagnoli et al. (2017); Mittal et al. (2016); Sridhar et al. (2018); 1.65 1.39 2.18
gw water Himanshu et al. (2019)

Table 8
Sensitive parameters and its fittest values of sediment discharge after calibration using SUFI 2.

Parameter name Definition Reference Fitted Minimum Maximum

value value value

R_SPCON.bsn Calculation of linear factor for maximum amount of channel Bokan (2015); Welde (2016); Markhi et al. 0.0033 −0.0037 0.0059
sediment re-entrained (2019)
R__USLE_K (..).sol USLE soil erodibility factor Bokan (2015); Himanshu et al. (2019); 0.32 0.049 0.35
Welde (2016)
R_SPEXP.bsn Exponent parameter for calculating sediment recent rained in Bokan (2015); Welde (2016) 1.19 1.08 1.28
channel sediment
R_USLE_C {..}. USLE cropping factor for strip cropped fields Bokan (2015); Welde (2016) 0.27 0.04 0.33
plant.dat
R__BIOMIX.mgt Biological mixing efficiency Bokan (2015); Himanshu et al. (2019) 0.85 0.60 1.31
R__RSDIN.hru Initial residue cover [kg/ha] Bokan (2015) 4518.76 381.1 10,161
R__CH_COV1.rte Channel erodibility factor Bokan (2015) 0.35 0.25 0.64
R__CH_COV2.rte Channel cover factor Bokan (2015); Welde (2016); Himanshu 1.08 0.55 1.2
et al. (2019)
R__SLSUBBSN.hru Average slope length Bokan (2015); Himanshu et al. (2019) −44.18 −48.11 54.19
R_HRU_SLP.hru Average slope steepness Bokan (2015); Welde (2016) 0.005 −0.59 0.31
16 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

Table 9 throughout the basin. These susceptible classes are major sediment
Model performance for simulation of flow discharge and sediment concentration at source sites where huge sediment load supply helps to vast accumula-
Mohanpur station (2010–2015).
tion of sediment yield. Therefore, VIKOR method is an effective MCDM
Parameters Flow discharge Sediment load model, which helps to identify the erosion-prone sites, sediment load
Calibration Validation Calibration Validation supply, and sediment yield accumulation throughout the basin.
2
R 0.86 0.79 0.87 0.79
NSE 0.75 0.55 0.69 0.76 5. Discussion
PBIAS −19.9 −29 34.6 10.2
Mean 25.45 20.32 11,270.16 14,655.22 Morphometric parameters are not considered as only key factors for
Standard deviation 35.63 30.77 14,224.11 18,284.36 the determination of ES, but other dominant geo-environmental param-
Time step Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly
Iterations 500 500
eters such as LULC, soil erodibility, slope length-steepness, lithology,
geomorphic set-up, etc. are also important (Chauhan et al.,2016;
Bhattacharya et al., 2019b). In comparison between MCDM methods
predominant (62%) than high and very high erosion susceptible classes and SWAT model, effective MCDM methods are helpful to identify the
(38%) throughout the basin where annual stream discharge and annual significant role of morphometric parameters on ES; furthermore, linear
average sediment load are 19.23m3/s and 12,312 ton, during and aerial aspects are positively correlated with ES (Nooka et al., 2005;
2010–2015. After successful validation of MCDM methods, results indi- Bhattacharya et al., 2019b), but shape aspects are inversely correlated
cated that VIKOR and CF methods are in acceptable range; in contrast, with ES (Patel et al., 2012, 2013). In contrary, when preparing sediment
calibration and validation results of SWAT model are good fit with ob- yield distribution map from seven considerable factors: LULC, slope, soil,
served data. In order to ES priority rank, VIKOR model nearly matches ground water depth, run off volume, precipitation lapse rate and chan-
with SWAT model, according to both model predictions, moderate to nel hydro-morphogenetic properties (Markhi et al., 2019; Himanshu
low erosion classes are considered as more dominant classes et al., 2019), SWAT model also helps to assess ES in each sub basin.

Fig. 6. Monthly calibration and validation at Mohanpur station: a calibration of flow discharge (m3s−1), b validation of flow discharge (m3s−1), c calibration of sediment load (ton/month)
and d validation of sediment load (ton/month).
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
Fig. 6 (continued).
Therefore, in this study, LULC and morphometric parameters are consid-
ered for ES assessment following the validation performance of MCDM
and SWAT models, respectively. In terms of response to erosion priority,
land covers like laterite with barren land, wasteland, and settlement are
positively related to ES, while agricultural land, dense forest, pasture
land are inversely related to ES (Altaf et al., 2014).
Based on MCDM validation performances; TOPSIS, SAW and CF does
not give satisfactory results due to disadvantages of unavailable data
sets for all decision-making problems and assumption based relative
weight assignment in each variables (Khosravi et al., 2019). In contrast,
VIKOR method has given better results than other MCDM methods,
which are validated by SWAT model for its advantages: hierarchical for-
mulating issue, pair wise comparison using expert quantitative and
qualitative knowledge, and assessment of compatibility and incompati-
bility decision (Saaty, 1980; Arabameri et al., 2019).
SWAT and VIKOR helps to understand the role of LULC and morpho-
metric properties on ES in Kangsabati basin. In spite of dense vegetation
cover and pasture land, SB 13, 16, 18, 23 are more susceptible to erosion
due to maximum values of linear morphometric parameters (mean bi-
furcation ratio, drainage density, drainage texture, stream frequency)
and relief morphometric parameters (slope, ruggedness index, relief
17
ratio, basin relief) as well as minimum values of basin form parameters
(form factor, shape factor, compact coefficient and circular ratio)
(Fig. 9). In contrast, despite the presence of barren land, double crop
practice and dense settlement, SB 38, 36, 35 faces are of low ES category
due to minimum values of linear and relief parameters as well as max-
imum values of basin parameters. Moreover, moderate erosion suscep-
tible class in rest thirty one sub-basins has dominant susceptibility due
to maximum coverage of barren land, pasture land, and generic agricul-
tural practices, on the other hand, morphometric parameters allowed
same susceptible class in those sub-basins. As a result, maximum sedi-
ment yield deposition is found in SB 13, 16, 18, 23 with an average
value of 1.27 m ton/ha, and minimum sediment yield deposition is
found in SB 38, 36, 35 with an average value of 0.5 m ton/ha, respec-
tively. Furthermore, rest of the sub-basins reaches in moderate sedi-
ment yield class with an average value of 0.8073 m ton/ha. Thus,
based on the above discussion, it can be said that among all the available
MCDM methods for ES, VIKOR model is more pragmatic for ES in respect
to simulated sediment yield rank as predicted by SWAT. In order to ES
and sediment yield deposition at sub-basin level, in this study demon-
strated that VIKOR is fittest MCDM model for suitable selection of best
and worst values from morphometric parameters using normalize
18 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474

Fig. 7. Sediment Yield (SY) distribution zone using SWAT model.

decision matrix of AHP, maximum group utility index, minimum regret parameters. Therefore, VIKOR model is useful MCDM method to prepare
index of opposite group value, as well as assessment of compatibility rational sub-basin prioritization from linear normalize ranking of all
and incompatibility decision among effective morphometric morphometric parameters. Moreover, VIKOR method helps to identify

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

 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
Fig. 9. Priority base soil erosion susceptibility location in SB 13, 2, 23, 36 of Kangsabati basin.
the five critical sub-basins that are most sensible to erosion due to pres-
ence of responsible morphometric parameters in line with the results of
Bhattacharya et al. (2020a). On the other hand, SWAT parameters helps
to determine the significant role of morphometric parameters on ES in
response to sediment yield deposition throughout the basin. Therefore,
it can be stated that morphometric parameters are considered as crucial
contributing parameters for ES generation in this plateau fringe basin,
followed by LULC patterns, climate, and soil characteristic. These agree-
ments are validated with the findings of Biswas et al. (1999), Hembram
and Saha (2018), Sridhar et al. (2018). Based on literature review in in-
troduction, previous researchers have presented sub-basin prioritiza-
tion in order to ES using MCDM methods; however, there is no
hydrological model to measure the significant role of hydrological pa-
rameters like runoff volume, sediment load, sediment concentration,
etc. on sub-basin prioritization. In this context, there is research gap in
previous studies of sub-basin prioritization. Present study tried to ad-
dress this research gap using a comparison between MCDM and SWAT
models. In term of ES, present study humbly argues that effective mor-
phometric and hydrological parameters are prerequisite for sub-basin
prioritization in any region in the world as assigned by VIKOR and
SWAT models. Moreover, both models reveal that all morphometric
and hydrological parameters are not equally significant in every sub-
basin as they have own characteristics.
19
The findings in this research might help to identify critical sub-
basins where ES has been found most severe with the presence of re-
sponsible factors, thus VIKOR and SWAT could provide important tools
for planner or policy maker to take rational strategies for soil and
water conservation in watershed management.
6. Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that ES is a sensitive criterion to de-
termine the sub-basin prioritization using a comparison among MCDM
methods (VIKOR, TOPSIS, SAW, and CF). On the other hand, effective
MCDM methods are selected by applying of SWAT model. Extraction
of morphometric parameters from SRTM DEM is required to assign
the priority rank on ES for MCDM models, on the other hand, the spatial
distribution of LULC, slope, and soil, including twenty sensitive parame-
ters, are required for SWAT model estimation that is predicted the sim-
ulated sediment yield as well as ES in thirty-eight sub-basins of
Kangsabati basin. To evaluate the MCDM model validation performance
on ES, percentage and intensity change are tested, and performance of
SWAT model is determined using calibration and validation test on
flow discharge and sediment load. According to priority class of ES pre-
dicted by MCDM, ES is divided into four different classes including very
high, high, medium and low class. In MCDM methods, VIKOR method
20 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
predicted that moderate and lower erosion classes are dominated than
high and very high classes, whereas TOPSIS method predicted that high
and very high classes are most dominated than medium and lower clas-
ses, respectively. In addition, SAW model predicted that moderate class
is predominated class than high and very high classes, but lower class is
most dominated in CF model. Although, lower class is completely absent
in SAW method, while very high and high classes are almost absent in
CF method. In contrary, SWAT model predicted that moderate and low
erosion classes are much more dominant than high and very high clas-
ses using simulated sediment yield distribution map where superior
sediment yield in each sub basins are corresponded with high erosion
priority class. Finally, MCDM validation results demonstrated that
VIKOR and CF model have more acceptable range, while calibration
and validation results of SWAT model has acceptable range that
means simulated results are well fitted with observed data. Among all
the effective MCDM methods, prediction of VIKOR model matches
with SWAT speculation. It is seen that moderate erosion class represents
dominant position throughout the basin when we apply it on fifteen
morphometric parameters, and SWAT model applying on twenty sensi-
tive parameters of flow discharge and sediment load. This susceptible
class leads to the supplied average value of sediment load as well as ac-
cumulation of sediment yield. Therefore, VIKOR model is an effective
MCDM model, which helps to identify erosion-prone sites and recom-
mends on mitigation measure to protect erosion especially in critical
sub-basins.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Raj Kumar Bhattacharya: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Nilanjana Das Chatterjee:
Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Kousik Das: Software, Valida-
tion, Visualization, Investigation.
Declaration of competing interest
We are no conflict of interest in this work.
Acknowledgement
Authors are thankful to the Department of Science and Technology
India for funding the Department of Geography, Vidyasagar University,
and Irrigation Office of Paschim Medinipur and Bankura, District Land &
Land Reforms officer of the Paschim Midnapore and Bankura districts,
WB for providing the flow discharge and rainfall data sets. We are grate-
ful to five anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and sug-
gestions which were immensely benefitted to improve our manuscript
during revision process.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139474.
References
Abbaspour, K.C., 2013. SWAT-CUP 2012. SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Program—A
User Manual https://swat.tamu.edu/media/114860/usermanual_swatcup.pdf.
Abbaspour, K.C., Johnson, C.A., Van Genuchten, M.T., 2004. Estimating uncertain flow and
transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J.
3 (4), 1340–1352. https://doi.org/10.2113/3.4.1340.
Ackers, P., White, W.R., 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis. J. Hydraul.
Div. 99, hy11.
Aher, P.D., Adinarayana, J., Gorantiwar, S.D., 2014. Quantification of morphometric charac-
terization and prioritization for management planning in semi-arid tropics of India:
remote sensing and GIS approach. J. Hydrol. 511, 850–860.
Ahmed, R., Sajjad, H., Husain, I., 2018. Morphometric parameters-based prioritization of
sub-watersheds using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process: a case study of lower
Barpani Watershed, India. Nat. Resour. Res. 27 (1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11053-017-9337-4.
Altaf, S., Meraj, G., Romshoo, S.A., 2014. Morphometry and land cover based multi-criteria
analysis for assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan water-
shed. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186 (12), 8391–8412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-
014-4012-2.
Ameri, A.A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Cerda, A., 2018. Erodibility prioritization of sub-
watersheds using morphometric parameters analysis and its mapping: a comparison
among TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW, and CF multi-criteria decision making models. Sci. Total
Environ. 613, 1385–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.210.
Anand, J., Gosain, A.K., Khosa, R., 2018. Prediction of land use changes based on land
change modeler and attribution of changes in the water balance of Ganga basin to
land use change using the SWAT model. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 503–519. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.017.
Arabameri, A., Pradhan, B., Pourghasemi, H.R., Rezaei, K., 2018. Identification of erosion-
prone areas using different multi-criteria decision-making techniques and GIS.
Geomatics, Natural Hazards, and Risk 9 (1), 1129–1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19475705.2018.1513084.
Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerdà, A., Conoscenti, C., Kalantari, Z., 2019. A comparison of sta-
tistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibil-
ity in Northern Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.01.021.
Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Srinivasan, R., Williams, J.R., Haney, E.B., Neitsch, S.L., 2012. Soil as-
sessment tool theoretical documentation, version 2005. Grassland, Soil and Water
Research Laboratory—Agricultural, Temple.
Asl-Rousta, B., Mousavi, S.J., 2019. A TOPSIS-based multicriteria approach to the calibration of
a basin-scale SWAT hydrological model. Water Resour. Manag. 33 (1), 439–452.
Badri, S.A., 2003. Models of rural planning. Pamphlets Practical Lesson in Geography Rural
Planning. 2. Payame Noor University, p. 126 (299-312).
Balasubramanian, A., Duraisamy, K., Thirumalaisamy, S., Krishnaraj, S., Yatheendradasan,
R.K., 2017. Prioritization of subwatersheds based on quantitative morphometric anal-
ysis in lower Bhavani basin, Tamil Nadu, India using DEM and GIS techniques. Arab.
J. Geosci. 10 (24), 552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0247-3.
Bhattacharya, R., Dolui, G., Chatterjee, N.D., 2019a. Effect of instream sand mining on hy-
draulic variables of bedload transport and channel planform: an alluvial stream in
South Bengal basin, India. Environ Earth Sci 78 (10), 303. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-019-8267-3.
Bhattacharya, R.K., Chatterjee, N.D., Das, K., 2019b. Multi-criteria-based sub-basin prioriti-
zation and its risk assessment of erosion susceptibility in Kansai–Kumari catchment
area, India. Appl Water Sci 9 (4), 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0954-4.
Bhattacharya, R.K., Das Chatterjee, N., Das, K., 2020a. In: Shit, P.K., et al. (Eds.), Estimation
of Erosion Susceptibility and Sediment Yield in Ephemeral Channel Using RUSLE and
SDR Model: Tropical Plateau Fringe Region, India Gully Erosion Studies from India
and Surrounding Regions, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23243-6_10.
Bhattacharya, R.K., Chatterjee, N.D., Das, K., 2020b. Land use and land cover change and its
resultant erosion susceptible level: an appraisal using RUSLE and logistic regression
in a tropical plateau basin of West Bengal, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–36
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00628-x.
Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S., Desai, V.R., 1999. Prioritisation of sub watersheds based on mor-
phometric analysis of drainage basin: a remote sensing and GIS approach. J Indian Soc
Remot 27 (3), 155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991569.
Bokan, L.T., 2015. Simulation of Sediment Yield Using SWAT Model: A Case of Kulekhani
Watershed. Master’s thesis. NTNU.
Chatterjee, S., Krishna, A.P., Sharma, A.P., 2014. Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vul-
nerability at watershed level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river basin,
Jharkhand, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 71 (1), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-013-2439-3.
Chauhan, P., Chauniyal, D.D., Singh, N., Tiwari, R.K., 2016. Quantitative geo-morphometric
and land cover-based micro-watershed prioritization in the Tons river basin of the lesser
Himalaya. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (6), 498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5342-x.
Deepika, B., Avinash, K., Jayappa, K.S., 2013. Integration of hydrological factors and demarca-
tion of groundwater prospect zones: insights from remote sensing and GIS techniques.
Environ. Earth Sci. 70 (3), 1319–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2218-1.
El-Santawy, M.F., 2012. A VIKOR method for solving personnel training selection problem.
Int. J. Comput. Sci. 1 (2).
Faniran, A., 1968. The index of drainage intensity—a provisional new drainage factor.
Aust. J. Sci. 31, 328–330.
Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H., Arnold, J.G., 2007. The soil and water assessment
tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans.
ASABE 50 (4), 1211–1250.
Gayen, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., Saha, S., Keesstra, S., Bai, S., 2019. Gully erosion susceptibil-
ity assessment and management of hazard-prone areas in India using different ma-
chine learning algorithms. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.02.436.
Georgiou, D., Mohammed, E.S., Rozakis, S., 2015. Multi-criteria decision making on the en-
ergy supply configuration of autonomous desalination units. Renew Energ 75,
459–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.09.036.
Ghosh, S., Guchhait, S.K., 2015. Characterization and evolution of laterites in West Bengal:
implication on the geology of northwest Bengal Basin. Transactions 37 (1), 93–119.
Govindan, K., Jepsen, M.B., 2016. ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on method-
ologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250 (1), 1–29.
Gravelius, H., 1914. Grundriß der gesamten Gewasserkunde, Band 1: Flußkunde. Com-
pendium of Hydrology, I. pp. 265–278.
Hembram, T.K., Saha, S., 2018. Prioritization of sub-watersheds for soil erosion based on
morphometric attributes using fuzzy AHP and compound factor in Jainti River
basin, Jharkhand, Eastern India. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–28 https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10668-018-0247-3.
 R.K. Bhattacharya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 734 (2020) 139474
Himanshu, S.K., Pandey, A., Yadav, B., Gupta, A., 2019. Evaluation of best management
practices for sediment and nutrient loss control using SWAT model. Soil Tillage Res.
192, 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.04.016.
Holvoet, K., van Griensven, A., Seuntjens, P., Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2005. Sensitivity analysis
for hydrology and pesticide supply towards the river in SWAT. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30 (8-10), 518–526.
Horton, R.E., 1932. Drainage basin characteristics. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 13,
350–361. https://doi.org/10.1029/TR013i001p00350.
Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins:
Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geo Soc Am 56, 275–370.
https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2.
Huang, J.J., Tzeng, G.H., Liu, H.H., 2009, June. A revised VIKOR model for multiple criteria
decision making-the perspective of regret theory. International Conference on Multi-
ple Criteria Decision Making. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 761–768.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applica-
tions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p. 225.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 2012. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applica-
tions a State-of-the-art Survey. 186. Springer Science & Business Media. https://
www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540105589.
Ifabiyi, I.P., Eniolorunda, N.B., 2012. Watershed characteristics and their implication for
hydrologic response in the upper Sokoto basin, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Ge-
ology 4 (2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.5539/jgg.v4n2p147.
Kamble, A.M., 2001. Hydrological Modeling for Micro Watersheds Using SWAT Model
(Chhattisgarh) for dissertation of the M. Tech. degree.
Kannan, G., Pokharel, S., Kumar, P.S., 2009. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS
for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (1), 28–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.004.
Keesstra, S.D., Temme, A.J.A.M., Schoorl, J.M., Visser, S.M., 2014. Evaluating the hydrolog-
ical component of the new catchment-scale sediment delivery model LAPSUS-D.
Geomorphology 212, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.04.021.
Keesstra, S.D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., ... Bardgett, R.D.,
2016. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Na-
tions Sustainable Development Goals. Soil https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016.
Kharat, M.G., Kamble, S.J., Raut, R.D., Kamble, S.S., Dhume, S.M., 2016. Modeling landfill
site selection using an integrated fuzzy MCDM approach. Model Earth Syst Environ
2 (2), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0106-x.
Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Pham, B.T., Adamowski, J., Shirzadi, A., Pradhan, B., ... Hong, H.,
2019. A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using multi-
criteria decision-making analysis and machine learning methods. J Hydrol 573,
311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073.
Liou, T.S., Wang, M.J.J., 1992. Fuzzy weighted average: an improved algorithm. Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 49 (3), 307–315.
Ma, J., Fan, Z.P., Huang, L.H., 1999. A subjective and objective integrated approach to de-
termine attribute weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 112 (2), 397–404.
Magesh, N.S., Jitheshlal, K.V., Chandrasekar, N., Jini, K.V., 2013. Geographical information
system-based morphometric analysis of Bharathapuzha river basin, Kerala, India.
Appl Water Sci 3 (2), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-013-0095-0.
Markhi, A., Laftouhi, N., Grusson, Y., Soulaimani, A., 2019. Assessment of potential soil ero-
sion and sediment yield in the semi-arid N′ fis basin (High Atlas, Morocco) using the
SWAT model. Acta Geophys 67 (1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-
00251-z.
Masselink, R.H., Temme, A.J.A.M., Giménez Díaz, R., Casalí Sarasíbar, J., Keesstra, S.D., 2017.
Assessing hillslope-channel connectivity in an agricultural catchment using rare-
earth oxide tracers and random forests models. Cuadernos de Investigación
Geográfica 2017, n° 43 (1), pp. 19–39. https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.3169.
Mekonnen, M., Keesstra, S.D., Baartman, J.E., Stroosnijder, L., Maroulis, J., 2017. Reducing
sediment connectivity through man-made and natural sediment sinks in the Minizr
catchment, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 28 (2), 708–717. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ldr.2629.
Mesa, L.M., 2006. Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucuman, Argentina).
Environ. Geol. 50 (8), 1235–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0297-y.
Miller, V.C., 1953. Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in the
Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee. Technical report. Columbia University.
Department of Geology no. 3.
Mittal, N., Bhave, A.G., Mishra, A., Singh, R., 2016. Impact of human intervention and cli-
mate change on natural flow regime. Water Resour. Manag. 30 (2), 685–699.
Molla, T., Sisheber, B., 2017. Estimating soil erosion risk and evaluating erosion control
measures for soil conservation planning at Koga watershed in the highlands of
Ethiopia. Solid Earth 8 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-8-13-2017.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.L., 2007.
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed
simulations. Trans. ASABE 50 (3), 885–900.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., Maliene, V., 2016. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the
assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59, 146–156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A
discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10 (3), 282–290.
Nasre, R.A., Nagaraju, M.S.S., Srivastava, R., Maji, A.K., Barthwal, A.K., 2013. Soil erosion
mapping for land resources management in Karanji watershed of Yavatmal district,
Maharashtra using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Indian Journal of Soil Conser-
vation 41 (3), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-010-0055-1.
Nautiyal, M.D., 1994. Morphometric analysis of drainage basin, district Dehradun, Uttar
Pradesh. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing. 22 (4), 252–262.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., 2011a. Soil and Water Assessment Tool
Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute https://
swat.tamu.edu/media/99192/swat2009-theory.pdf.
21
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., King, K.W., 2011b. Soil and water as-
sessment tool theoretical documentation—version 2009 Soil and water research lab-
oratory, agricultural research service. US Department of Agriculture, Temple, p. 647.
Nooka, R.K., Srivastava, Y.K., Venkateshwara, Rao.V., Amminedu, E., Murthy, K.S.R., 2005.
Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model and
morphometric analysis—remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote
Sens 33 (1), 25–38.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156 (2), 445–455. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2007. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking
methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 178 (2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
Patel, D.P., Dholakia, M.B., 2010. Feasible structural and non-structural measures to min-
imize effect of flood in Lower Tapi Basin. WSEAS Trans Fluid Mech 3, 104–121.
Patel, D.P., Dholakia, M.B., Naresh, N., Srivastava, P.K., 2012. Water harvesting structure
positioning by using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-
watersheds through morphometric analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. J Indian Soc
Remot 40 (2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0147-6.
Patel, D.P., Gajjar, C.A., Srivastava, P.K., 2013. Prioritization of Malesari mini-watersheds
through morphometric analysis: a remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environ.
Earth Sci. 69 (8), 2643–2656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2086-0.
Rahaman, S.A., Ajeez, S.A., Aruchamy, S., Jegankumar, R., 2015. Prioritization of sub water-
shed based on morphometric characteristics using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
and geographical information system–a study of Kallar Watershed, Tamil Nadu.
Aquat Pr 4, 1322–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.172.
Rai, P.K., Mohan, K., Mishra, S., Ahmad, A., Mishra, V.N., 2017. A GIS-based approach in
drainage morphometric analysis of Kanhar River Basin, India. Appl Water Sci 7 (1),
217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0238-y.
Rice, J., 2006. Mathematical statistics and data analysis, cengage learning.
Romagnoli, M., Portapila, M., Rigalli, A., Maydana, G., Burgués, M., García, C.M., 2017. As-
sessment of the SWAT model to simulate a watershed with limited available data
in the Pampas region, Argentina. Sci. Total Environ. 596, 437–450.
Saaty, T.L., 1978. Exploring the interface between hierarchies, multiple objectives and fuzzy
sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1 (1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(78)90032-5.
Saaty, T., 1980. The analytic process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation.
McGraw, New York.
Saha, S., 2017. Groundwater potential mapping using analytical hierarchical process: a
study on Md. Bazar Block of Birbhum District, West Bengal. Spat. Inf. Res. 25 (4),
615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-017-0127-1.
Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S.F., Yazdankhah, A., 2010. Group decision making process for sup-
plier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (1),
24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.04.063.
Sargaonkar, A.P., Rathi, B., Baile, A., 2011. Identifying potential sites for artificial ground-
water recharge in sub-watershed of river Kanhan, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 62 (5),
1099–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0598-z.
Schumm, S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth
Amboy, New Jersey. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 67 (5), 597–646.
Schumm, S.A., Hadley, R.F., 1961. Progress in the Application of Landform Analysis in
Studies of Semiarid Erosion (No. 437). [US Geological Survey].
Sharma, R., Sahai, B., Karale, R.L., 1986. Identification of erosion-prone areas in a part of
the Ukai catchment. Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, 6 th, Hyderabad, India,
pp. 121–126.
Sharma, N.K., Singh, R.J., Mandal, D., Kumar, A., Alam, N.M., Keesstra, S., 2017. Increasing
farmer’s income and reducing soil erosion using intercropping in rainfed maize-
wheat rotation of Himalaya, India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 43–53. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.026.
Sridhar, P., Kumari, P., Ganapuram, S., 2018. Assessment and planning for integrated river
basin management using remote sensing, SWAT model and morphometric analysis
(case study: Kaddam River Basin, India). Geocarto Int, 1–31 https://doi.org/
10.1080/10106049.2018.1489420.
Strahler, A.N., 1952. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 63 (9), 923–938.
Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel net-
works. Handbook of Applied Hydrology.
Todorovski, L., Džeroski, S., 2006. Integrating knowledge-driven and data-driven ap-
proaches to modeling. Ecol. Model. 194 (1–3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2005.10.001.
Tripathi, M.P., Panda, R.K., Raghuwanshi, N.S., 2003. Identification and prioritisation of
critical sub-watersheds for soil conservation management using the SWAT model.
Biosyst. Eng. 85 (3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1537-5110(03)00066-7.
Tripathi, M.P., Raghuwanshi, N.S., Rao, G.P., 2006. Effect of watershed subdivision on sim-
ulation of water balance components. Hydrological Processes: An International Jour-
nal 20 (5), 1137–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5927.
Vaghefi, A.S., Mousavi, S.J., Abbaspour, K.C., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., 2013. Analyses of the
impact of climate change on water resources components, drought and wheat yield
in semiarid regions: Karkheh River Basin in Iran. Hydrol. Process. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hyp.9747.
Vigiak, O., Malagó, A., Bouraoui, F., Vanmaercke, M., Obreja, F., Poesen, J., Habersack, H., Fehér,
J., Grošelj, S., 2017. Modelling sediment fluxes in the Danube River Basin with SWAT. Sci.
Total Environ. 599, 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.236.
Welde, K., 2016. Identification and prioritization of subwatersheds for land and water man-
agement in Tekeze dam watershed, Northern Ethiopia. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research 4 (1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2016.02.006.
Yang, J., Reichert, P., Abbaspour, K.C., Xia, J., Yang, H., 2008. Comparing uncertainty anal-
ysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J. Hydrol. 358
(1-2), 1–23.