Evaluation of flood susceptibility mapping using logistic regression and GIS conditioning factors

  • Ahmed E. M. Al-Juaidi
  • Ayman M. Nassar
  • Omar E. M. Al-Juaidi
Original Paper


This paper investigates the application of logistic regression model for flood susceptibility mapping in southern Gaza Strip areas. At first, flood inventory maps were identified using Palestinian Water Authorities data and extensive field surveys. A total of 140 flood locations were identified, of which 70% were randomly used for data training and the remaining 30% were used for data validation. In this investigation, six causing flood variables from the spatial database were prepared, which are digital elevation model (DEM), topographic slope, flow accumulation, rainfall, land use/land cover (LULC), and soil type. Then, comprehensive statistical analysis techniques including Pearson’s correlation, multicollinearity, and heteroscedasticity analyses were used, to ensure that the regression assumptions are not violated. The uniqueness of the current study is its inclusiveness of influential causing flood parameters and vigorous statistical analyses that led to accurate flood prediction. Quantitatively, the proposed model is robust with very reasonable accuracy. The prediction and success rates are 76 and 81%, respectively. The practical and unique contribution of this investigation is the generation of flood susceptibility map for the region. This is a very useful tool for the decision makers in the Gaza Strip to reduce human harm and infrastructure losses.


Flood susceptibility mapping Logistic regression Flood conditioning factors GIS Southern Gaza strip 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

Ahmed E. M. Al-Juaidi conducted the validation test and prepared the manuscript. Ayman M. Nassar analyzed the GIS maps. Omar E. M. Al-Juaidi performed the statistical analysis.


  1. Adiat K, Nawawi M, Abdullah K (2012) Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based elementary multi criteria decision analysis as a spatial prediction tool—a case of predicting potential zones of sustainable groundwater resources. J Hydrol 440–441:75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aish A, De Smedt F (2004) Modeling of a groundwater mound resulting from artificial recharge in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, Proceedings of the Second Israeli-Palestinian International Conference on Water for Life in the Middle East, October 10–14, 2004, Turkey, pp 114–122Google Scholar
  3. Akay H, Baduna Kocyigit M, Yanmaz AM (2018) Effect of using multiple stream gauging stations on hydrologic parameters and estimation of hydrograph of ungauged neighboring basin. Arab J Geosci 11:282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Agha M (1995) Environmental contamination of groundwater in the Gaza Strip. Environ Geol 25:109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Juaidi AE (2018) A simplified GIS based SCS-CN method for the assessment of land use change on runoff. Arab J Geosci 11:269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Juaidi AE, Kaluarachchi JJ, Kim U (2010) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Treated Wastewater Use for Agriculture in Water Deficit Regions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46(2):395–411Google Scholar
  7. Al-Juaidi AE, Kaluarachchi JJ,  Mousa AI (2014) Hydrologic-economic model for sustainable water resources management in a coastal aquifer. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 19(11):04014020Google Scholar
  8. Al-Juaidi AE, Rosenberg DE, Kalaruchchi JJ (2009) Water Management with wastewater treatment and reuse, desalination, and conveyance, to counteract climate change in the Gaza Strip. AWRA Specialty Conference on Climate Change, Anchorage, Alaska, 4–6 May 2009Google Scholar
  9. Al-Juaidi AE, Rosenberg DE, Kaluarachchi JJ (2011) Water management with wastewater treatment and reuse, desalination, and conveyance to counteract future water shortages in the Gaza Strip. Int J Water Resour Environ Eng 3(12):266–282Google Scholar
  10. Atkinson PM, Massari R (1998) Generalised linear modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Apennines, Italy. Comput Geosci 24(4):373–385Google Scholar
  11. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case in Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Landslides 1:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baduna Kocyigit M, Akay H, Yanmaz AM (2017) Effect of watershed partitioning on hydrologic parameters and estimation of hydrograph of an ungauged basin: a case study in Gokirmak and Kocanaz, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 10:331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaney NW, Herman JD, Reed PM, Wood EF (2015) Flood and drought hydrologic monitoring: the role of model parameter uncertainty. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:3239–3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chau KT, Chan JE (2005) Regional bias of landslide data in generating susceptibility maps; case of Hong Kong Island. Landslides 2:280–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chauhan S, Sharma M, Arora MK (2010) Landslide susceptibility zonation of the Chamoli region, Garhwal Himalayas, using logistic regression model. Landslides 7(4):411–423Google Scholar
  16. Chormanski J, Okruszko T, Ignar S, Batelaan O, Rebel KT, Wassen MJ (2011) Flood mapping with remote sensing and hydrochemistry: a new method to distinguish the origin of flood water during floods. Ecol Eng 37:1334–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chung CF, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 30:451–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dai FC, Lee FC, Tham LG, Ng KC, Shum WL (2004) Logistic regression modelling of storm-induced shallow landsliding in time and space on natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Bull Eng Geol Environ 63:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eicker F (1967) Limit theorems for regression with unequal and dependent errors. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pp 5982Google Scholar
  20. Fernando N, S Grimaldi S, Santini M, Petroselli A, Ubertini L (2008) Hydrogeomorphic properties of simulated drainage patterns using digital elevation models: the flat area issue. Hydrol Sci J 53(6):1176–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher FM et al (2005) Liquid assets: an economic approach for water management and conflict resolution in the middle east and beyond, resources for the future. Routledge, Washington, DC, p 272Google Scholar
  22. Gujarati DN (2004) Basic econometrics, 4th edn. The MacGraw Hill Company, New York City 1002 pGoogle Scholar
  23. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources—hydrologic analysis and interpretation: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap A3, 510 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Wiley, New York, p 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hsu T, Shih D, Chen W (2014) Destructive flooding induced by broken embankments along Linbian Creek, Taiwan, during typhoon Morakot. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 20(7):05014025,1–05014025,9Google Scholar
  26. Huber PJ (1967) The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pp 221–233Google Scholar
  27. Iwalewa TM, Elamin AS, Kaka SI (2016) A coupled model simulation assessment of shallow water-table rise in a Saudi Arabian coastal city. J Hydro Environ Res 12:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kia MB, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B, Mahmud AR, Sulaiman WN, Moradi A (2012) An artificial neural network model for flood simulation using GIS: Johor River Basin, Malaysia. Environ Earth Sci 67:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kleiber C, Zeileis A (2006) Applied Econometrics with R. User-2006 conference. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 22, 2007Google Scholar
  30. Konadu D, Fosu C (2009) Digital elevation models and GIS for watershed modelling and flood prediction—a case study of Acca Ghana. In: Appropriate Technologies for Environmental Protection in the developing world. Springer, pp 352–332Google Scholar
  31. Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2011) Flood management and GIS modelling method to assess flood-hazard areas—a case study. Hydol Sci J 56(2):212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J (2004) Applied linear regression models, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill IrwinGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee S, Pradhan B (2007) Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia using frequency ratio and logistic regression models. Landslides 4:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohlmacher G, Davis JC (2003) Using multiple logistic regression and GIS technology to predict landslide hazard in northeast Kansa, USA. Eng Geol 69:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Omid Rahmati O, Pourghasemi HR, Zeinivand H (2016) Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran. Geocarto Int 31(1):42–70Google Scholar
  36. Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) (2012) Status report of water resources in the occupied state of Palestine, year of flooding water harvesting, Annual water resources status report, 17 pGoogle Scholar
  37. Papadopoulou-Vrynioti K, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou KD, Kaviris G, Makropoulos K (2013) Karst collapse susceptibility mapping considering peak ground acceleration in a rapidly growing urban area. Eng Geol 158:77–88Google Scholar
  38. PEPA (1996) Gaza environmental profile, Part one-inventory of resources. Palestinian Environmental Protection Authority (PEPA), Gaza, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  39. Pourtaghi ZS, Pourghasemi HR (2014) GIS-based groundwater spring potential assessment and mapping in the Birjand Township, southern Khorasan Province, Iran. Hydrogeol J 2(3):643–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pradhan B (2010) Flood susceptible mapping and risk area delineation using logistic regression, GIS and remote sensing. J Spat Hydrol 9:1–18Google Scholar
  41. Pradhan B, Lee S (2009) Delineation of landslide hazard areas on Penang Island, Malaysia, by using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Environ Earth Sci, on-line first 60:1037–1054Google Scholar
  42. Sarhadi A, Soltan S, Modarres R (2012) Probabalistic flood inundation mapping of ungauged rivers: linking GIS techniques and frequency analysis. J Hydrol 458:68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schumann GJ, Bates PD, Neal JC, Andreadis KM (2014) Technology: fight floods on a global scale. Nature 507:169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shirzadi A, Saro L, Joo OH, Chapi K (2012) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran. Nat Hazards 64:1639–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tehrany MS, Lee MJ, Pradhan B, Jebur M, Lee S (2014a) Flood susceptibility mapping using integrated bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Environ Earth Sci 72:4001–4015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2014b) Flood susceptibility mapping using a novel ensemble weights-of-evidence and support vector machine models in GIS. J Hydrol 512:332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Mansor SH, Ahmed N (2015) Flood susceptibility assessment using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types. Catena 125:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch P, Woods R (2007) Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity. Geogr Compass 1(4):901–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yesilnacar EK (2005) The application of computational intelligence to landslide susceptibility mapping in Turkey [PhD thesis]. Melbourne: Department of Geomatics the University of Melbourne, 423 pGoogle Scholar
  51. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Sefry SA (2016) Flash flood susceptibility assessment in Jeddah city (Kindom of Saudi Arabia) using bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Environ Earth Sci 75(12)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed E. M. Al-Juaidi
    • 1
  • Ayman M. Nassar
    • 2
  • Omar E. M. Al-Juaidi
    • 3
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental Engineering DepartmentUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.Business and Finance Administration DepartmentUniversity college of Applied SciencesGazaPalestine

Personalised recommendations