Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024)

Risk Assessment of Attabad lake Outburst Flooding using integrated Hydrological and Geo-spatial Approach

Shakeel Mahmood
Department of Geography, Governemnt College University Lahore

Published 2024-03-31


  • Attabad Lake,
  • Flood,
  • Risk,
  • Vulnerability,
  • Exposure,
  • HEC-GeoRAS,
  • Land Slide Lake
  • ...More

How to Cite

Noor, S., Mahmood, S., & Habib, W. (2024). Risk Assessment of Attabad lake Outburst Flooding using integrated Hydrological and Geo-spatial Approach. Advanced Geomatics, 4(1), 57–67. Retrieved from https://publish.mersin.edu.tr/index.php/geomatics/article/view/1322


Attabad Lake is a debris dammed lake in Gojal valley, Pakistan. It is likely to outburst because of the geological and hydro-meteorological settings of the region. This study is an effort to assess the Attabad Lake outburst flooding using integrated hydrological and geo-spatial approach. Both primary and secondary date have been utilized to achieve objectives of the study. The onset of such a hazard is dependent on the intensity and frequency of rainfall, the melting of glaciers, River Hunza discharge, type of soil, extent of mass movement, and the seismic activity as the region lies on an active fault line. The vulnerability of the forty-eight villages downstream can be easily assessed on the basis of various parameters of social, economic, and structural nature which include type and size of house, size of household, male to female ratio, monthly income and expenditure and the estimated damage cost. Considering the parameters of house type, occupation and access to safe place, there are around 21 villages that are highly vulnerable including Askurdas, Budalas, Chaprot, Dadimal, Garelt, Ghamadas, Guoro, Guvachi, Hakuchar, Isfahan, Jehgot, Maiun, Miachar, Minapin, Phakkar, Pissan, Rabbat, Sarat, Shayyar, Sumayyar and Thol. The exposed elements are basically divided into three categories of structural, social and economic exposure. The socially exposed elements are the household size which is an average of five persons per household. The structural elements exposed are the 48 villages and 8 bridges. The economic exposure can be gauged on the basis of monthly income which is less than PKR 30,000 for almost 80% of the population in the downstream region. In case of flooding, only the house damage cost is averaged at PKR 1,50,000 for the houses of more than 76 percent houses. The Gumbel frequency estimated the probability for 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200 years. It shows that as the return period increases, the chances of flooding decreases, but there is increase in flow discharge even with the decreasing probability of occurrence of flood. The return period of 5 years has 20 percent chances of inundation. However, this decreases to only 0.5% in two centuries but with the flood discharge of 2170 m3/s. The dam breach concludes that over 35, 46, and 63 km of the surrounding area is at risk with 10,739 m3/s, 44,904 m3/s and 175,145 m3/s of flood discharge for 25, 50 and 100 percent dam breach, respectively.


  1. Aerts, J. C., Botzen, W. J., Clarke, K. C., Cutter, S. L., Hall, J. W., Merz, B., ... & Kunreuther, H. (2018). Integrating human behaviour dynamics into flood disaster risk assessment. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), 193-199.
  2. Alderman, K., Turner, L. R., & Tong, S. (2012). Floods and human health: a systematic review. Environment international, 47, 37-47.
  3. Baker, V. R., Kochel, R. C., & Patton, P. C. (1988). Flood geomorphology. In Flood geomorphology. Wiley-Inter-science.
  4. Bilal, M., Shah, S. A., & Alvi, S. A. (2015). Impact of Attabad landslide lake on upstream population and infrastructure. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(1), 58-65.
  5. Bout, B., Tang, C., Westen, C., & Jetten, V. (2018, April). Simulating multi-stage landslide dam breach flooding in a multi-hazard model. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 20, p. 9252).
  6. Chen, K. T., Chen, X. Q., Hu, G. S., Kuo, Y. S., Huang, Y. R., & Shieh, C. L. (2019). Dimensionless Assessment Method of Landslide Dam Formation Caused by Tributary Debris Flow Events. Geofluids, 2019.
  7. Chen, X., Cui, P., You, Y., Cheng, Z., Khan, A., Ye, C., & Zhang, S. (2017). Dam-break risk analysis of the Attabad landslide dam in Pakistan and emergency countermeasures. Landslides, 14(2), 675-683.
  8. Dong, J. J., Tung, Y. H., Chen, C. C., Liao, J. J., & Pan, Y. W. (2011). Logistic regression model for predicting the failure probability of a landslide dam. Engineering Geology, 117(1-2), 52-61.
  9. Guerrero, J., Gutiérrez, F., García-Ruiz, J. M., Carbonel, D., Lucha, P., & Arnold, L. J. (2018). Landslide-dam paleolakes in the Central Pyrenees, Upper Gállego River Valley, NE Spain: timing and relationship with deglaciation. Landslides, 15(10), 1975-1989.
  10. Gull, A., Liaqut, A., & Mahmood, S. (2023). Landslide Risk Assessment using Geo-spatial Technique: A study of District Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Advanced Geomatics, 3(2), 47-55.
  11. Hossain, I., & Hossain, M. F. (2018). Studies on the Causes and Impacts of Landslide: A Comparative Study of Rangamati and Bandarban Hilly District, Bangladesh. A Journal for Social Development, 8(1), 165-174.
  12. Huggett R.J., Fundamentals of Geomorphology, 2011, Routledge
  13. Hussain, A., Sagin, J., & Chun, K. P. (2018). A Remote Sensing Contribution to Flood Modelling in an Inaccessible Mountainous River Basin.
  14. Hussain, M. A., Shuai, Z., Moawwez, M. A., Umar, T., Iqbal, M. R., Kamran, M., & Muneer, M. (2023). A Review of Spatial Variations of Multiple Natural Hazards and Risk Management Strategies in Pakistan. Water, 15(3), 407.
  15. Khaleghi, S., & Mahmoodi, M. (2017). Assessment of flood hazard zonation in a mountainous area based on gis and analytical hierarchy process. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 12(1), 311-322.
  16. Khan, A. F. (2022, December). Increasing Risk of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) as a Consequence of Climate Change in the Himalayan Region. In 5th World Congress on Disaster Management (pp. 405-412). Routledge.
  17. Kreutzmann, H., & Watanabe, T. (2017). Geoscientific studies on the Attabad landslide and lake in the Karakoram mountains. Journal of Mountain Science, 14(2), 256-265.
  18. Leandro, J., Hotta, C. I., Pinto, T. A., & Ahadzie, D. K. (2022). Expected annual probability of infection: A flood-risk approach to waterborne infectious diseases. Water Research, 219, 118561.
  19. Li, C., Liu, M., Hu, Y., Shi, T., Qu, X., & Walter, M. T. (2018). Effects of urbanization on direct runoff characteristics in urban functional zones. Science of the Total Environment, 643, 301-311.
  20. Liu, W., Carling, P. A., Hu, K., Wang, H., Zhou, Z., Zhou, L., ... & Zhang, X. (2019). Outburst floods in China: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 102895.
  21. Lyu, H. M., Shen, S. L., Zhou, A., & Yang, J. (2019). Perspectives for flood risk assessment and management for mega-city metro system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 84, 31-44.
  22. Lyu, H. M., Wang, G. F., Shen, J. S., Lu, L. H., & Wang, G. Q. (2016). Analysis and GIS mapping of flooding hazards on 10 May 2016, Guangzhou, China. Water, 8(10), 447.
  23. Mahmood, S. (2019). Flood Risk Modelling and Management in Panjkora Basin, Eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan (Doctoral dissertation, University of Peshawar, Peshawar.).
  24. Mahmood, S., Rahman, A. U., & Shaw, R. (2019). Spatial appraisal of flood risk assessment and evaluation using the integrated hydro-probabilistic approach in Panjkora River Basin, Pakistan. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 191(9), 573.
  25. Mahmood, S., & Rahman, A. U. (2019a). Flash flood susceptibility modeling using geo-morphometric and hydrological approaches in Panjkora Basin, Eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan. Environmental earth sciences, 78, 1-16.
  26. Mahmood, S., & Rahman, A. U. (2019b). Flash flood susceptibility modelling using geomorphometric approach in the Ushairy Basin, eastern Hindu Kush. Journal of Earth System Science, 128, 1-14.
  27. Paliaga, G., Faccini, F., Luino, F., Turconi, L., & Bobrowsky, P. (2019). Geomorphic processes and risk related to a large landslide dam in a highly urbanized Mediterranean catchment (Genova, Italy). Geomorphology, 327, 48-61.
  28. Shabbir, W., Omer, T., & Pilz, J. (2022). The impact of environmental change on landslides, fatal landslides, and their triggers in Pakistan (2003–2019). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
  29. Shah, S. S., & Rana, I. A. (2023). Institutional challenges in reducing disaster risks in the remote city of Hindukush-Karakorum-Himalayan (HKH) region, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103581.
  30. Shakeel, M., & Zhang, H. (2017). Landslide susceptibility mapping using a decision tree classifier: a case study of attabad landslide lake, Hunza valley, Pakistan. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 4(1), 1-16.
  31. Slater, L. J. (2016). To what extent have changes in channel capacity contributed to flood hazard trends in England and Wales? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41(8), 1115-1128.
  32. Slater, L. J., Singer, M. B., & Kirchner, J. W. (2015). Hydrologic versus geomorphic drivers of trends in flood hazard. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(2), 370-376.
  33. Tariq, M. A. U. R., & Van de Giesen, N. (2012). Floods and flood management in Pakistan. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 47, 11-20.
  34. Tembata, K., & Takeuchi, K. (2019). Floods and exports: an empirical study on natural disaster shocks in Southeast Asia. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 3(1), 39-60.
  35. UNISDR, 2004, Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives, United Nations, Geneva
  36. United Nations, Total Disaster Risk Management: Good Practices, 2009, Asian Disaster Reduction Center (5)
  37. Yin, B., Zeng, J., Zhang, Y., Huai, B., & Wang, Y. (2019). Recent Kyagar glacier lake outburst flood frequency in Chinese Karakoram unprecedented over the last two centuries. Natural Hazards, 95(3), 877-881.
  38. Young D.A., Stearley R.F. (2008). The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth, IVP Academic, p. 45.