Cited by 8Flood Risk Assessment and ManagementUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsHydrology and Watershed Management Studies

Hydrological impacts of land use - land cover change on urban flood hazard: A case study of the Jukskei River in Alexandra Township, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Open access
Mawasha, Tshepo Sylvester, Britz, Wilma·2022·South African Journal of Geomatics

Abstract

Flooding in urban areas is a major natural disaster causing damage to infrastructure, properties and loss of life. In urban areas the major causes behind the changing hydrological processes (i.e., floods) include topography, increase in precipitation due to climate change and change in land-use/land-cover (LULC) over time. The objective of this study is to evaluate the spatial and temporal LULC change impacts on flooding along the Jukskei River in Alexandra Township, Johannesburg, South Africa. The LULC images of 1987 MSS and 2015 OLI derived from Landsat satellite were pre-processed and classified using a supervised classification method. The analysis of LULC revealed that, there is an increase in built-up area from 934,2 ha to 1277,2 ha and reduction in intact and sparse vegetation from 190,5 ha to 62,4 ha and 380,8 ha to 142,1 ha, respectively, between the years 1987 and 2015. The flood depth map, velocity map and flood depth-velocity for different return periods and LULC scenarios have been developed by using an integrated approach of the Hydrological Engineering Centre-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) and the HEC-GeoRAS with the geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing data. From the analysis, it is observed that there is an increase in flood depth and flood velocity from 2,3 m to 3,0 m and 1,4 m/s to 3,4 m/s, whereas the depth-velocity for the last 28-years increased by 3,4 m2/s from 2,9 m2/s to 6,3 m2/s for the 1987 LULC and the 2015 LULC conditions, respectively. The flood hazard maps generated in this study can be used by local authorities and municipalities for flood disaster management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4314/sajg.v10i2.11

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mawasha, T. S., & Britz, W.
Venue
South African Journal of Geomatics
Published
2022-09-04
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
139-162
ISSN
2225-8531 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4294868893
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
South African Journal of Geomatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Keywords
urban flooding, land use and land cover change, flood hazard, inundation depth, flood velocity, built-up area expansion, vegetation loss, Alexandra Township, HEC-RAS, HEC-GeoRAS, flood hazard mapping, disaster management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review