## 3 Results and Discussion
### Morphometric Parameters Analysis
All sub-catchments were clustered into following three priority classes based on the range of compound factor (Cf) values and according to the natural breaks method (Figure 23): high priority (31.78-52.77), moderate priority (52.78-71.55), and low priority (71.56-95.55). According to the above-mentioned classification based on morphometric parameters, 36% of the sub-catchments were classified as high priority, 26.4% of the sub-catchments were classified as moderate priority, and 37.6% of the sub-catchments were classified as low priority. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Priority Based On**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Cathment** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Soil Loss Estimation**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Scenario 1** & **Scenario 2** & **Scenario 5** & **Scenario 6** \\ \hline Kakodikianos & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ Pelekaniotis & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Priority based on soil loss estimation and morphometric parameter analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Linear Parameters**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Shape Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound Factor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Priority**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Rb** & **Dd** & **Fu** & **T** & **Lo** & **Rf** & **Bs** & **Re** & **Cc** & **Rc** \\ \hline Kakodikianos & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1.6 & 2 \\ Pelekaniotis & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1.4 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Prioritization of catchments based on morphometric parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Mean Soil Erosion Rate (2020)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Kakodikianos** & **Pelekaniotis** \\ \hline Scenario 1 & R-GPM, C-lit & 2.92 & 2.19 \\ Scenario 2 & R-GPM, C-ndvi & 4.72 & 4.52 \\ Scenario 5 & R-in situ, C-lit & 1.8 & 2.14 \\ Scenario 6 & R-in situ, C-ndvi & 2.54 & 4.06 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Mean soil erosion rates for each catchment. On the other hand, the priority levels of the sub-catchments based on mean soil erosion rates are illustrated in the following figure (Figure 24). Three soil erosion classes, namely low, medium, and high, were categorized based on the natural breaks method. The highest priority indicates the greatest degree of erosion in a particular sub-catchment, meaning it requires soil conservation practices. The integration of the results from the morphometric analysis method and the RUSLE was achieved by overlaying the produced maps in order to identify the common sub-catchments falling under each priority category (Table 17). Based on the linear and shape morphometric parameter analysis, the prioritization results at the catchment scale showed that Pelekaniotis catchment was more prone to soil erosion than Kakodikianos catchment. This finding seemed to be consistent with the result from the RUSLE model implemented with R-factor values derived from in situ data and C-factor values derived from literature and _NDVI_ data, respectively (scenarios 2 and 6). At the sub-catchment scale, the morphometric parameters analysis demonstrated that 36% of the sub-catchments were ranked as high priority, meaning high erosion risk. Through integration of the results of the morphometric analysis and RUSLE implemented with C-factor values derived from _NDVI_ and R-factor values derived from GPM and in situ data, respectively, 6% of the sub-catchments were classified as high priority. These sub-catchments were located in relatively steep slope areas (averaging around 41%). The evaluation of the morphometric parameters at the sub-catchment scale is more advantageous, since this detects the most soil erosion-prone areas that require the implementation of soil and water conservation practices.