Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of weighting methods of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in evaluation of flood hazard index

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preparing a map of flood hazard is susceptibility an important step in flood risk management. Therefore, it is necessary to use methods that reduce errors and increase the accuracy of identifying flood hazard areas. This study was conducted to prepare a map of the flood hazard index (FHI) and evaluate subjective and objective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) weighting methods. Talar basin, which is located in the north of Iran, has been investigated as a case study for this research. Seven factors influencing flood, including elevation, slope, flow accumulation, distance from the river, rainfall intensity, land cover, and geology, were considered to create a flood hazard map. The weighting of these factors has been performed by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), sensitivity analysis of AHP (AHPS), Shannon Entropy (SE), and Entropy-AHP. The maps created with the data of past floods were validated with the Accuracy index and Kappa index methods. The results showed that the FHI-SE method was more accurate than others, with an accuracy value of 0.979. FHI-SEA, FHIS, and FHI methods were placed in the next priorities, respectively. Based on the SE method, the factors of distance from the river, elevation, and slope have respectively obtained the highest weight value in creating the flood hazard index map. Distance from river variable was classified separately for mountain and plain regions to reduce the overestimation of flood hazard areas in mountainous areas. The objective weighting method has provided higher accuracy than the subjective weighting method, such as AHP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akay H (2021) Flood hazards susceptibility mapping using statistical, fuzzy logic, and MCDM methods. Soft Comput 25(14):9325–9346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arabameri A, Rezaei K, Cerdà A, Conoscenti C, Kalantari Z (2019) A comparison of statistical methods and multicriteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran. Sci Total Environ 660:443–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arora A, Pandey M, Siddiqui MA, Hong H, Mishra VN (2021) Spatial flood susceptibility prediction in Middle Ganga Plain: comparison of frequency ratio and Shannon’s entropy models. Geocarto Int 36(18):2085–2116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avand M, Moradi H (2021) Spatial modeling of flood probability using geo-environmental variables and machine learning models, case study: Tajan watershed, Iran. Adv Space Res 67(10):3169–3186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bera S, Das A, Mazumder T (2022) Evaluation of machine learning, information theory and multicriteria decision analysis methods for flood susceptibility mapping under varying spatial scale of analyses. Remote Sens Applications: Soc Environ 25:100686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty S, Mukhopadhyay S (2019) Assessing flood risk using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and geographical information system (GIS): application in Coochbehar district of West Bengal, India. Nat Hazards 99:247–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen P (2019) On the diversity-based weighting method for risk assessment and decision-making about natural hazards. Entropy 21(3):269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen H, Ito Y, Sawamukai M, Tokunaga T (2015) Flood hazard assessment in the Kujukuri Plain of Chiba Prefecture, Japan, based on GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Nat Hazards 78:105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chicco D, Jurman G (2020) The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation. BMC Genomics 21(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury S, Basak A, Biswas S, Das J (2022) Flash flood susceptibility mapping using GIS-based AHP method. Spatial modelling of flood risk and flood hazards: societal implications. Springer, pp 119–142

  • Das S (2018) Geographic information system and AHP-based flood hazard zonation of Vaitarna basin, Maharashtra, India. Arab J Geosci 11(19):576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dash P, Sar J (2020) Identification and validation of potential flood hazard area using GIS-based multicriteria analysis and satellite data‐derived water index. J Flood Risk Manag 13(3):e12620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Brito MM, Evers M (2016) Multicriteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16(4):1019–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dou X, Song J, Wang L, Tang B, Xu S, Kong F, Jiang X (2018) Flood risk assessment and mapping based on a modified multi-parameter flood hazard index model in the Guanzhong Urban Area, China. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment 32:1131–1146

  • Dung NB, Long NQ, Goyal R, An DT, Minh DT (2022) The role of factors affecting flood hazard zoning using analytical hierarchy process: a review. Earth Syst Environ 6(3):697–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falah F, Rahmati O, Rostami M, Ahmadisharaf E, Daliakopoulos IN, Pourghasemi HR (2019) Artificial neural networks for flood susceptibility mapping in data-scarce urban areas. Spatial modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental sciences. Elsevier, pp 323–336

  • Feloni E, Mousadis I, Baltas E (2020) Flood vulnerability assessment using a GIS-based multicriteria approach—the case of Attica region. J Flood Risk Manag 13:e12563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbanian A, Kakooei M, Amani M, Mahdavi S, Mohammadzadeh A, Hasanlou M (2020) Improved land cover map of Iran using Sentinel imagery within Google Earth Engine and a novel automatic workflow for land cover classification using migrated training samples. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 167:276–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghizadeh A, Siahkamari S, Haghiabi AH, Rahmati O (2017) Forecasting flood-prone areas using Shannon’s entropy model. J Earth Syst Sci 126:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammami S, Zouhri L, Souissi D, Souei A, Zghibi A, Marzougui A, Dlala M (2019) Application of the GIS based multicriteria decision analysis and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping (Tunisia). Arab J Geosci 12:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam S, Tahir M, Parveen S (2022) GIS-based flood susceptibility mapping of the lower Bagmati basin in Bihar, using Shannon’s entropy model. Model Earth Syst Environ :1–15

  • Jahangir MH, Reineh SMM, Abolghasemi M (2019) Spatial predication of flood zonation mapping in Kan River Basin, Iran, using artificial neural network algorithm. Weather Clim Extremes 25:100215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Lewin J, Macklin M (2010) Flood series data for the later Holocene: available approaches, potential and limitations from UK alluvial sediments. Holocene 20(7):1123–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanani-Sadat Y, Arabsheibani R, Karimipour F, Nasseri M (2019) A new approach to flood susceptibility assessment in data-scarce and ungauged regions based on GIS-based hybrid multi criteria decision-making method. J Hydrol 572:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim F, Armin MA, Ahmedt-Aristizabal D, Tychsen-Smith L, Petersson L (2023) A review of hydrodynamic and machine learning approaches for flood inundation modeling. Water 15(3):566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazakis N, Kougias I, Patsialis T (2015) Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an index-based approach and Analytical Hierarchy process: application in Rhodope–evros region, Greece. Sci Total Environ 538:555–563

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khoirunisa N, Ku C-Y, Liu C-Y (2021) A GIS-based artificial neural network model for flood susceptibility assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(3):1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosravi K, Pourghasemi HR, Chapi K, Bahri M (2016) Flash flood susceptibility analysis and its mapping using different bivariate models in Iran: a comparison between Shannon’s entropy, statistical index, and weighting factor models. Environ Monit Assess 188:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosravi K, Shahabi H, Pham BT, Adamowski J, Shirzadi A, Pradhan B, Dou J, Ly H-B, Gróf G, Ho HL (2019) A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using multicriteria decision-making analysis and machine learning methods. J Hydrol 573:311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2017) A national scale flood hazard mapping methodology: the case of Greece–Protection and adaptation policy approaches. Sci Total Environ 601:441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kundzewicz ZW, Kanae S, Seneviratne SI, Handmer J, Nicholls N, Peduzzi P, Mechler R, Bouwer LM, Arnell N, Mach K (2014) Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives. Hydrol Sci J 59(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luu C, Von Meding J, Kanjanabootra S (2018) Assessing flood hazard using flood marks and analytic hierarchy process approach: a case study for the 2013 flood event in Quang Nam, Vietnam. Nat Hazards 90:1031–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoody Vanolya N, Jelokhani-Niaraki M (2021) The use of subjective–objective weights in GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis for flood hazard assessment: a case study in Mazandaran. Iran Geoj 86:379–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maranzoni A, D’Oria M, Rizzo C (2023) Quantitative flood hazard assessment methods: a review. J Flood Risk Manag 16(1):12855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merwade V, Cook A, Coonrod J (2008) GIS techniques for creating river terrain models for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environ Model Softw 23(10–11):1300–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan R (2005) Soil erosion and conservation. Blackwells. Oxford, UK

  • Mousavi SM, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Hosseini SM (2022) Comparison of statistical and mcdm approaches for flood susceptibility mapping in northern Iran. J Hydrol 612:128072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudashiru RB, Sabtu N, Abustan I, Balogun W (2021) Flood hazard mapping methods: a review. J Hydrol 603:126846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudashiru RB, Sabtu N, Abdullah R, Saleh A, Abustan I (2022) A comparison of three multicriteria decision-making models in mapping flood hazard areas of Northeast Penang, Malaysia. Natural hazards 112(3):1903–1939.

  • Napolitano P, Fabbri A (1996) Single-parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS. IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-Intern Assoc Hydrological Sciences 235 (235):559–566

  • Patel DP, Ramirez JA, Srivastava PK, Bray M, Han D (2017) Assessment of flood inundation mapping of Surat city by coupled 1D/2D hydrodynamic modeling: a case application of the new HEC-RAS 5. Nat Hazards 89:93–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pathan AI, Agnihotri PG, Patel D (2022) Integrated approach of AHP and TOPSIS (MCDM) techniques with GIS for dam site suitability mapping: a case study of Navsari City, Gujarat, India. Environ Earth Sci 81(18):443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pourghasemi HR, Mohammady M, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: Safarood Basin, Iran. CATENA 97:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmati O, Haghizadeh A, Stefanidis S (2016) Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based analytical hierarchy process for watershed prioritization; Gorganrood River Basin, Iran. Water Resour Manage 30:1131–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramkar P, Yadav SM (2021) Flood risk index in data-scarce river basins using the AHP and GIS approach. Nat Hazards 109(1):1119–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rong Y, Zhang T, Zheng Y, Hu C, Peng L, Feng P (2020) Three-dimensional urban flood inundation simulation based on digital aerial photogrammetry. J Hydrol 584:124308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. In: Kobe, Japan, p 69

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, vol 175. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Samela C, Albano R, Sole A, Manfreda S (2018) A GIS tool for cost-effective delineation of flood-prone areas. Comput Environ Urban Syst 70:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar D, Saha S, Mondal P (2022) GIS-based frequency ratio and Shannon’s entropy techniques for flood vulnerability assessment in Patna district, Central Bihar, India. Int J Environ Sci Technol 19(9):8911–8932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senan CP, Ajin R, Danumah JH, Costache R, Arabameri A, Rajaneesh A, Sajinkumar K, Kuriakose SL (2023) Flood vulnerability of a few areas in the foothills of the western ghats: a comparison of AHP and F-AHP models. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 37(2):527–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahiri Tabarestani E, Afzalimehr H (2021) Artificial neural network and multicriteria decision-making models for flood simulation in GIS: Mazandaran Province, Iran. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, pp 1–19

  • Shahiri Tabarestani E, Hadian S, Pham QB, Ali SA, Phung DT (2023) Flood potential mapping by integrating the bivariate statistics, multicriteria decision-making, and machine learning techniques. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 37 (4):1415–1430

  • Sitorus F, Brito-Parada PR (2020) A multiple criteria decision making method to weight the sustainability criteria of renewable energy technologies under uncertainty. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 127:109891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013) Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards 68:569–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2014) Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. J Hydrol 512:332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Mansor S, Ahmad N (2015) Flood susceptibility assessment using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types. CATENA 125:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempa K (2022) District flood vulnerability assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with historical flood events in Bhutan. PLoS ONE 17(6):0270467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng J, Jakeman AJ, Vaze J, Croke BF, Dutta D, Kim SJEM (2017) Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environmental modelling & software. 90: 201–216

  • Toosi AS, Calbimonte GH, Nouri H, Alaghmand S (2019) River basin-scale flood hazard assessment using a modified multicriteria decision analysis approach: a case study. J Hydrol 574:660–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm B, Ballesteros Cánovas JA, Macdonald N, Toonen WH, Baker V, Barriendos M, Benito G, Brauer A, Corella JP, Denniston R (2019) Interpreting historical, botanical, and geological evidence to aid preparations for future floods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 6(1):1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Chen X, Lu J (2022) Assessment of long and short-term flood risk using the multicriteria analysis model with the AHP-Entropy method in Poyang Lake Basin. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 75:102968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong J, Li J, Cheng W, Wang N, Guo L (2019) A GIS-based support vector machine model for flash flood vulnerability assessment and mapping in China. ISPRS Int J Geo-Information 8(7):297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Xu K, Lian J, Ma C, Bin L (2018) Integrated flood vulnerability assessment approach based on TOPSIS and Shannon entropy methods. Ecol Ind 89:269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Mazandaran, 47416-13534, Iran

    Reza Esmaili & Seyedeh Atefeh Karipour

Authors
  1. Reza Esmaili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seyedeh Atefeh Karipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Esmaili.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Hereby, authors consciously assure that for the manuscript the following is fulfilled: (1) This material is the original work of the authors and has not been published elsewhere. (2) The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. (3) The paper reflects the authors research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner. (4) The paper properly credits the meaningful contributions of co-authors. (5) All sources used are properly disclosed (correct citation). The study did not include human participants and / or animal. Therefore, ethical approval does not apply to this type of study and informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esmaili, R., Karipour, S.A. Comparison of weighting methods of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in evaluation of flood hazard index. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06541-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06541-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation