Flood hazard susceptibility areas mapping using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), Frequency Ratio (FR) and AHP-FR ensemble based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS): a case study for Kastamonu, Türkiye

Yilmaz, Osman Salih

doi:10.1007/s11600-022-00882-9

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Flood hazard susceptibility areas mapping using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), Frequency Ratio (FR) and AHP-FR ensemble based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS): a case study for Kastamonu, Türkiye

Autorzy

Yilmaz Osman Salih

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

https://www.springer.com/journal/11600

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1007/s11600-022-00882-9

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Global climate change brings with it various natural disasters. In particular, natural disasters such as foods destroy nature and human resources. The food disaster in Kastamonu province, primarily striking Bozkurt district and many other districts in Türkiye on August 11, 2021, causing both life and material losses, has been one of the most devastating disasters in the Black Sea region. In this study, various geospatial and statistical methods were used to produce food hazard susceptibility maps of Kastamonu province. In order to evaluate the food risk in Kastamonu, eleven different variables, i.e. rainfall, slope, elevation, distance from stream, land-use-land cover, lithology, curvature plan, curvature profile, Topographic Wetness Index, Stream Power Index and Normalised Differences Vegetation Index were used. Flooded areas were determined by the Modified Normalised Water Index (MNDWI) on the Google Earth Engine platform using Remote Sensing techniques. Flood points determined on the calculated MNDWI image are divided into 70% training and 30% testing dataset. Geographical Information Systems-based Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Frequency Ratio (FR), and ensemble AHP-FR were used in the creation of food hazard susceptibility maps. The maps were divided into five classes: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. On the map classified using AHP-FR, areas in high and very high sensitivity classes were calculated as 128.72 km2 and 6.89 km2 , respectively. These calculated areas constitute 0.99% and 0.05% of the entire region. On the other hand, part of Kastamonu province with an area of 484.07 km2 was determined as a moderate-risk area. This area covers 3.71% of the entire province. The remaining part of the province, with an area of 8729.39 km2 and 3697.30 km2 , is classified as very low and low, respectively. These areas cover 66.91% and 28.34% of the entire province, respectively. The study’s accuracy was tested using the receiver operating characteristic curves method. Area under curve values for AHP, FR, and AHP-FR were calculated as 0.965, 0.989, and 0.992, respectively. According to these values, using the AHP-FR ensemble gave more successful results than the other two methods.

Słowa kluczowe

flood hazard susceptibility analytical hierarchy process AHP frequency ratio FR Geographical Information System GIS remote sensing

podatność na zagrożenie powodziowe metoda analizy hierarchicznej AHP współczynnik częstotliwości FR System Informacji Geograficznej GIS teledetekcja

Wydawca

Instytut Geofizyki PAN
Springer

Czasopismo

Acta Geophysica

Rocznik

2022

Tom

Vol. 70, no 6

Strony

2747--2769

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 95 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Yilmaz Osman Salih

osmansalih.yilmaz@cbu.edu.tr

Demirci Vocational School, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45900 Manisa, Turkey

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4632-9349

Bibliografia

1. Ali SA, Khatun R, Ahmad A, Ahmad SN (2019) Application of GIS-based analytic hierarchy process and frequency ratio model to flood vulnerable mapping and risk area estimation at Sundarban region, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 5:1083–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-019-00593-z
2. Ali SA, Parvin F, Pham QB et al (2020) GIS-based comparative assessment of flood susceptibility mapping using hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach, naïve Bayes tree, bivariate statistics and logistic regression: a case of Topľa basin. Slovakia Ecol Indic 117:106620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106620
3. Arya AK, Singh AP (2021) Multi criteria analysis for flood hazard mapping using GIS techniques: a case study of Ghaghara River basin in Uttar Pradesh. India Arab J Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06971-1
4. Astola H, Häme T, Sirro L et al (2019) Comparison of Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 imagery for forest variable prediction in boreal region. Remote Sens Environ 223:257–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.01.019
5. Avand M, Moradi H, lasboyee MR, (2021) Using machine learning models, remote sensing, and GIS to investigate the effects of changing climates and land uses on flood probability. J Hydrol 595:125663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125663
6. Bargaoui ZK, Chebbi A (2009) Comparison of two kriging interpolation methods applied to spatiotemporal rainfall. J Hydrol 365:56–73
7. Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology/Un modèle à base physique de zone d’appel variable de l’hydrologie du bassin versant. Hydrol Sci J 24:43–69
8. Bilgen G, Balci E, Kalca YM (2022) On-site investigation of the flood disaster that occurred on 11.08.2021 in the Bozkurt district of Kastamonu. FBU-DAE 2:20–35
9. Bralewski A, Bralewska K (2022) Publicly available data-based flood risk assessment methodology: a case study for a floodplain in poland. Water (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010061
10. Busico G, Giuditta E, Kazakis N, Colombani N (2019) A hybrid GIS and AHP approach for modelling actual and future forest fire risk under climate change accounting water resources attenuation role. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247166
11. Cabrera JS, Lee HS (2020) Flood risk assessment for davao oriental in the Philippines using geographic information system-based multi-criteria analysis and the maximum entropy model. J Flood Risk Manag 13:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12607
12. Cai S, Fan J, Yang W (2021) Flooding risk assessment and analysis based on gis and the tfn-ahp method: a case study of chongqing, china. Atmosphere (basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050623
13. Cao C, Xu P, Wang Y et al (2016) Flash flood hazard susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and statistical index methods in coalmine subsidence areas. Sustain 8:948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090948
14. Chattaraj D, Paul B, Sarkar S (2021) Integrated multi-parametric analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and geographic information system (GIS) based spatial modelling for flood and water logging susceptibility mapping: a case study of english bazar municipality of Malda, West Bengal, India. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-399
15. Daneshparvar B, Nezami SR, Feizi A, Aghlmand R (2022) Comparison of results of flood hazard zoning using AHP and ANP methods in GIS environment : a case study in Ardabil province. Iran J Appl Res Water Wastewater 9:1–7
16. Das S (2019) Comparison among influencing factor, frequency ratio, and analytical hierarchy process techniques for groundwater potential zonation in Vaitarna basin, Maharashtra, India. Groundw Sustain Dev 8:617–629
17. Dejen A, Soni S (2021) Flash flood risk assessment using geospatial technology in Shewa Robit town, Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ 7:2599–2617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-01016-0
18. Eliküçük S, Polat ZA (2021) Identifying key factors affecting foreigners’ choice on real estate acquisition: the case of İzmir City. Turkey Land Use Policy 107:105512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105512
19. Elvis BWW, Arsène M, Théophile NM et al (2022) Integration of shannon entropy (SE), frequency ratio (FR) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in GIS for suitable groundwater potential zones targeting in the Yoyo river basin, Méiganga area. Adamawa Cameroon J Hydrol Reg Stud 39:100997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.100997
20. Faccini F, Luino F, Paliaga G et al (2018) Role of rainfall intensity and urban sprawl in the 2014 flash flood in Genoa City, Bisagno catchment (Liguria, Italy). Appl Geogr 98:224–241
21. Faregh W, Benkhaled A (2021) GIS-based multicriteria approach for flood risk assessment in Sigus city, east Algeria. Arab J Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07314-w
22. Fatahi Nafchi R, Yaghoobi P, Reaisi Vanani H et al (2021) Eco-hydrologic stability zonation of dams and power plants using the combined models of SMCE and CEQUALW2. Appl Water Sci 11:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01427-z
23. Feyisa GL, Meilby H, Fensholt R, Proud SR (2014) Automated water extraction Index: a new technique for surface water mapping using landsat imagery. Remote Sens Environ 140:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.08.029
24. Ghasempour F, Sekertekin A, Kutoglu SH (2021) Google Earth Engine based spatio-temporal analysis of air pollutants before and during the first wave COVID-19 outbreak over Turkey via remote sensing. J Clean Prod 319:128599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128599
25. Gudelj M, Gašparović M, Zrinjski M (2018) Accuracy Analysis of The Inland Waters Detection. In: SGEM Vienna Green 2018
26. Gudiyangada Nachappa T, Kienberger S, Meena SR et al (2020) Comparison and validation of per-pixel and object-based approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk 11:572–600
27. Ha H, Bui QD, Nguyen HD et al (2022) A practical approach to flood hazard vulnerability and risk assessing and mapping for Quang Binh province Vietnam. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02041-4
28. Ha J, Kang JE (2022) Assessment of flood-risk areas using random forest techniques: busan metropolitan city. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05142-5
29. Hammami S, Dlala M, Zouhri L et al (2019) Application of the GIS based multi-criteria decision analysis and analytical hierarchy process ( AHP ) in the flood susceptibility mapping ( Tunisia ). Arab J Geosci 12:1–16
30. Hang HT, Hoa PD, Tru VN, Phuong NV (2021) Landslide susceptibility mapping along National Highway-6, Hoa Binh Province, Vietnam using frequency ratio model and gis. Int J Geomate 21:84–90. https://doi.org/10.21660/2021.85.j2222
31. Hasanloo M, Pahlavani P, Bigdeli B (2019) Flood risk zonation using a multi-criteria spatial group fuzzy-ahp decision making and fuzzy overlay analysis. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci—ISPRS Arch 42:455–460. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W18-455-2019
32. Hasanuzzaman M, Mandal MH, Hasnine M, Shit PK (2022) Groundwater potential mapping using multi-criteria decision, bivariate statistic and machine learning algorithms: evidence from Chota Nagpur Plateau, India. Appl Water Sci 12:1–16
33. He Y, Wang C, Chen F et al (2019) Feature comparison and optimization for 30-m winter wheat mapping based on landsat-8 and sentinel-2 data using random forest algorithm. Remote Sens 11:535. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11050535
34. Huang W, DeVries B, Huang C et al (2018) Automated extraction of surface water extent from sentinel-1 data. Remote Sens 10:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050797
35. Javadinejad S, Eslamian S, Ostad-Ali-Askari K (2021) The analysis of the most important climatic parameters affecting performance of crop variability in a changing climate. Int J Hydrol Sci Technol 11:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHST.2021.112651
36. Jeyaseelan AT (2003) Droughts & floods assessment and monitoring using remote sensing and GIS. Satell Remote Sens GIS Appl Agric Meteorol 291
37. Jia H, Chen F, Pan D et al (2022) Flood risk management in the Yangtze River basin—comparison of 1998 and 2020 events. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 68:102724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102724
38. Karra K, Kontgis C, Statman-Weil Z, et al (2021) Global land use / land cover with Sentinel 2 and deep learning. In: 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS. pp 4704–4707
39. Khaing TW, Tantanee S, Pratoomchai W, Mahavik N (2021) Coupling flood hazard with vulnerability map for flood risk assessment: a case study of nyaung-u township in Myanmar. GMSARN Int J 15:127–138
40. Khoirunisa N, Ku CY, Liu CY (2021) A GIS-based artificial neural network model for flood susceptibility assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031072
41. Khosravi K, Nohani E, Maroufinia E, Pourghasemi HR (2016) A GIS-based flood susceptibility assessment and its mapping in Iran: a comparison between frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence bivariate statistical models with multi-criteria decision-making technique. Nat Hazards 83:947–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2357-2
42. Kia MB, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B et al (2012) An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 67:251–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1504-z
43. Kumar P, Garg V, Mittal S, Murthy YVNK (2021) GIS-based hazard and vulnerability assessment of a torrential watershed. Springer, Netherlands
44. Li L, Nahayo L, Habiyaremye G, Christophe M (2022) Applicability and performance of statistical index, certain factor and frequency ratio models in mapping landslides susceptibility in Rwanda. Geocarto Int 37:638–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2020.1730451
45. Liang J, Xie Y, Sha Z, Zhou A (2020) Modeling urban growth sustainability in the cloud by augmenting Google Earth Engine (GEE). Comput Environ Urban Syst 84:101542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101542
46. Luu C, Pham BT, Van PT et al (2021) GIS-based ensemble computational models for flood susceptibility prediction in the Quang Binh Province. Vietnam J Hydrol 599:126500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126500
47. Malik S, Pal SC, Arabameri A et al (2021) GIS-based statistical model for the prediction of flood hazard susceptibility. Springer, Netherlands
48. Manan WAA, Rashid ASA, Rahman MZAA, Khanan MFA (2022) Assessment on Recent Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Methods: A Review. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing, p 12032
49. McFeeters, (1996) The use of the normalized difference water indexMcFeeters. Int J Remote Sens 17:1425–1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169608948714
50. Melese T, Belay T, Andemo A (2022) Application of analytical hierarchal process, frequency ratio, and Shannon entropy approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping using geospatial technology: the case of Dejen district, Ethiopia. Arab J Geosci 15:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-09672-5
51. Mersha T, Meten M (2020) GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping and assessment using bivariate statistical methods in Simada area, Northwestern Ethiopia. Geoenvironmental Disasters 7:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-020-00155-x
52. Moazzam MFU, Vansarochana A, Rahman AU (2018) Analysis of flood susceptibility and zonation for risk management using frequency ratio model in District Charsadda, Pakistan. Int J Environ Geoinformatics 5:140–153. https://doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.407260
53. Mojaddadi H, Pradhan B, Nampak H et al (2017) Ensemble machine-learning-based geospatial approach for flood risk assessment using multi-sensor remote-sensing data and GIS. Geomatics, Nat Hazards Risk 8:1080–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1294113
54. Najafi MR, Zhang Y, Martyn N (2021) A flood risk assessment framework for interdependent infrastructure systems in coastal environments. Sustain Cities Soc 64:102516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102516
55. Nsangou D, Kpoumié A, Mfonka Z et al (2022) Urban flood susceptibility modelling using AHP and GIS approach: case of the Mfoundi watershed at Yaoundé in the South-Cameroon plateau. Sci African 15:e01043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e01043
56. Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Shayan M (2021) Subsurface drain spacing in the unsteady conditions by HYDRUS-3D and artificial neural networks. Arab J Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08336-0
57. Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Shayannejad M, Ghorbanizadeh-Kharazi H (2017) Artificial neural network for modeling nitrate pollution of groundwater in marginal area of Zayandeh-rood River, Isfahan. Iran KSCE J Civ Eng 21:134–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0572-8
58. Ouma YO, Tateishi R (2014) Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water (switzerland) 6:1515–1545. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6061515
59. Patel NN, Angiuli E, Gamba P et al (2015) Multitemporal settlement and population mapping from landsat using google earth engine. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 35:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.09.005
60. Polat ZA, Alkan M, Sürmeneli HG (2017) Determining strategies for the cadastre 2034 vision using an AHP-based SWOT analysis: a case study for the turkish cadastral and land administration system. Land Use Policy 67:151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.004
61. Radwan F, Alazba AA, Mossad A (2019) Flood risk assessment and mapping using AHP in arid and semiarid regions. Acta Geophys 67:215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-018-0233-z
62. Rincón D, Velandia JF, Tsanis I, Khan UT (2022) Stochastic flood risk assessment under climate change scenarios for toronto. Canada Using CAPRA Water 14:227. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020227
63. Rouse JW, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deering DW (1974) Monitoring Vegetation Systems in the Great Plains with Erts. In: NASA Spec. Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space p 309
64. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281
65. Saha AK, Agrawal S (2020) Mapping and assessment of flood risk in Prayagraj district, India: a GIS and remote sensing study. Nanotechnol Environ Eng 5:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41204-020-00073-1
66. Sahana M, Patel PP (2019) A comparison of frequency ratio and fuzzy logic models for flood susceptibility assessment of the lower Kosi River Basin in India. Environ Earth Sci 78:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8285-1
67. Saleh A, Yuzir A, Sabtu N (2022) Flash flood susceptibility mapping of sungai pinang catchment using frequency ratio. Sains Malaysiana 51:51–65
68. Samanta S, Pal DK, Palsamanta B (2018) Flood susceptibility analysis through remote sensing, GIS and frequency ratio model. Appl Water Sci 8:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0710-1
69. Sarhadi A, Soltani S, Modarres R (2012) Probabilistic flood inundation mapping of ungauged rivers: linking GIS techniques and frequency analysis. J Hydrol 458–459:68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.039
70. Sarkar D, Mondal P (2020) Flood vulnerability mapping using frequency ratio (FR) model: a case study on Kulik river basin, Indo-Bangladesh Barind region. Appl Water Sci 10:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1102-x
71. Sarkar D, Saha S, Mondal P (2021) GIS-based frequency ratio and shannon’s entropy techniques for flood vulnerability assessment in Patna district, Central Bihar. India Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03627-1
72. Sepehri M, Malekinezhad H, Hosseini SZ, Ildoromi AR (2019) Assessment of flood hazard mapping in urban areas using entropy weighting method: a case study in Hamadan city. Iran Acta Geophys 67:1435–1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-00342-x
73. Shafapour Tehrany M, Kumar L, Neamah Jebur M, Shabani F (2019) Evaluating the application of the statistical index method in flood susceptibility mapping and its comparison with frequency ratio and logistic regression methods. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk 10:79–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1506509
74. Siahkamari S, Haghizadeh A, Zeinivand H et al (2018) Spatial prediction of flood-susceptible areas using frequency ratio and maximum entropy models. Geocarto Int 33:927–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2017.1316780
75. Siddayao GP, Valdez SE, Fernandez PL (2014) Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in spatial modeling for floodplain risk assessment. Int J Mach Learn Comput 4:450–457. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijmlc.2014.v4.453
76. Souissi D, Zouhri L, Hammami S et al (2020) GIS-based MCDM–AHP modeling for flood susceptibility mapping of arid areas, southeastern Tunisia. Geocarto Int 35:991–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1566405
77. Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013) Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytichierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards 68:569–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0639-5
78. Suppawimut W (2021) GIS-based flood susceptibility mapping using statistical index and weighting factor models. Environ Nat Resour J 19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.32526/ennrj/19/2021003
79. Swain KC, Singha C, Nayak L (2020) Flood susceptibility mapping through the GIS-AHP technique using the cloud. ISPRS Int J Geo-Information. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9120720
80. Tadesse D, Suryabhagavan KV, Nedaw D, Hailu BT (2022) A model-based flood hazard mapping in Itang District of the Gambella region, Ethiopia. Geol Ecol Landsc 00:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2021.2022833
81. Taromideh F, Fazloula R, Choubin B, et al (2022) Urban flood risk assessment : integration of decision making and machine learning. Preprints https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202201.0133.v1
82. Tayyab M, Zhang J, Hussain M et al (2021) Gis-based urban flood resilience assessment using urban flood resilience model: A case study of peshawar city, khyber pakhtunkhwa, pakistan. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13101864
83. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2015) Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29:1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1021-9
84. Thanh DQ, Nguyen DH, Prakash I et al (2020) GIS based frequency ratio method for landslide susceptibility mapping at da Lat City, Lam Dong Province. Vietnam. Vietnam J Earth Sci 42:55–66. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7187/42/1/14758
85. Trinh T, Luu BT, Le THT et al (2022) A comparative analysis of weight-based machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Ha Giang area. Big Earth Data. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964471.2022.2043520
86. Ullah K, Zhang J (2020) GIS-based flood hazard mapping using relative frequency ratio method: A case study of panjkora river basin, eastern Hindu Kush, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 15:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229153
87. Umar M, Khan SN, Arshad A et al (2022) A modified approach to quantify aquifer vulnerability to pollution towards sustainable groundwater management in irrigated indus basin. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(18):27257–27278
88. Vajeethaveesin T, Panboonyuen T, Lawawironjwong S et al (2022) A performance comparison between GIS-based and neuron network methods for flood susceptibility assessment in ayutthaya province. Trends Sci 19:1–19. https://doi.org/10.48048/tis.2022.2038
89. Vilasan R (2021) Evaluation of the Prediction Capability of AHP and F _ AHP Methods in Flood Susceptibility Mapping of Ernakulam District ( India )
90. Wang Y, Li Z, Tang Z, Zeng G (2011) A GIS-based spatial multi-criteria approach for flood risk assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China. Water Resour Manag 25:3465–3484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9866-2
91. Wijitkosum S, Sriburi T (2019) Fuzzy AHP integrated with GIS analyses for drought risk assessment: a case study from upper Phetchaburi River basin. Thailand Water 11:939
92. Xu H (2006) Modification of normalised difference water index (NDWI) to enhance open water features in remotely sensed imagery. Int J Remote Sens 27:3025–3033. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160600589179
93. Zheng Q, Lyu HM, Zhou A, Shen SL (2021) Risk assessment of geohazards along Cheng-Kun railway using fuzzy AHP incorporated into GIS. Geomatics, Nat Hazards Risk 12:1508–1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2021.1933614
94. Zhou B, Okin GS, Zhang J (2020) Leveraging Google Earth Engine (GEE) and machine learning algorithms to incorporate in situ measurement from different times for rangelands monitoring. Remote Sens Environ 236:111521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111521
95. Zou Q, Zhou J, Zhou C et al (2013) Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:525–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-0598-5

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-ae5b5604-684b-42c1-a3d2-d9152acce6a8