Projecting land use growth and associated impacts on hydrological balance through scenario-based modelling in the Subarnarekha basin, India

Figures & data

Figure 1. Index map of the Subarnarekha basin

Table 1. List of explanatory variables exploring the dynamics of land-use changes in Subarnarekha basin

Category	Explanatory variables	Description	Source
Geophysical	Elevation	Generated from SRTM DEM in ArcMap	Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)
	Slope
Proximity	Distance to major roads	Euclidean distances (km)	Open Street Map
	Distance to major cities
	Distance to major airports
	Distance to streams
	Distance to rail network
	Distance to reservoir
Socio-economic	Population	Interpolated in ArcMap from the district-scale data	India Stats
	Population density
	Literacy rate

Figure 2. Schematization of the methodology

Table 2. Measures of performance evaluation used during streamflow simulation

		NSE	R^2	Ln(NSE)	RMSE (m^3/s)	PBIAS (%)	SD (m^3/s)
Jamshedpur	Calibration	0.76	0.83	0.61	196	−14	410
	Validation	0.67	0.74	0.59	230	−21	490
Ghatshila	Calibration	0.82	0.88	0.62	214	−17	512
	Validation	0.75	0.79	0.56	248	−4.5	502

Figure 3. (a) Time-series plot during calibration at Jamshedpur; (b) time-series plot during validation at Jamshedpur; (c) scatter plot during calibration/validation at Jamshedpur; (d) time-series plot during calibration at Ghatshila; (e) time-series plot during validation at Ghatshila; (f) scatter plot during calibration/validation at Ghatshila

Table 3. Percent coverage of LULC classes during 1989–2011

LULC class	Year
	1989	1994	2006	2011
Dense forest	25.69	21	20.35	18.97
Water bodies	1.26	0.57	0.99	0.83
Scrubland	21.06	24.36	25.15	25.94
Built-up area	0.98	2.6	3.23	3.63
Agricultural land	51.27	49.85	49.15	49
Barren land	0.71	1.58	1.11	1.1

Figure 4. Variation in evapotranspiration (ET), overland flow (OF), runoff (Runoff), and infiltration (INF) for the period 1989–2011

Figure 5. BAU scenario: (a) predicted LULC map for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (b) percent coverage of LULC classes for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (c) variation of evapotranspiration (ET), overland flow (OF), runoff (Runoff), and infiltration (Inf) for the period 2011–2050

Figure 6. SG scenario: (a) predicted LULC map for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (b) percent coverage of LULC classes for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (c) variation of evapotranspiration (ET), overland flow (OF), runoff (Runoff), and infiltration (Inf) for the period 2011–2050

Figure 7. EG-1 scenario: (a) predicted LULC map for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (b) percent coverage of LULC classes for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (c) variation of evapotranspiration (ET), overland flow (OF), runoff (Runoff), and infiltration (Inf) for the period 2011–2050

Figure 8. EG-2 scenario: (a) predicted LULC map for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (b) percent coverage of LULC classes for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (c) variation of evapotranspiration (ET), overland flow (OF), runoff (Runoff), and infiltration (Inf) for the period 2011–2050

Figure 9. SG EG scenario: (a) predicted LULC map for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (b) percent coverage of LULC classes for 2030, 2040, and 2050; (c) variation of evapotranspiration (ET), overland flow (OF), runoff (Runoff), and infiltration (Inf) for the period 2011–2050