Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Earthquake vulnerability in the Himalaya by integrated multi-criteria decision models

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

Abstract

Himalayan mountains are one of the most seismo-tectonically active zones on the surface of the earth. Recurring moderate and high magnitude earthquakes are not uncommon in this region. This paper maps the earthquake vulnerability in the region using integrated multi-criteria decision models. Factors which may influence vulnerability in a region can be categorized in social, geotechnical, structural, and physical parameters. We have used the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to determine the weights of various parameters, which were further used to develop earthquake vulnerability maps for the study area using the VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) methods. There is good correlation between the vulnerability estimated through AHP-VIKOR and AHP-GRA methods. Our analysis indicates that more than 12% area may be under high to very-high vulnerability, whereas more than 44% population, and about 43% buildings are highly vulnerable to hazards due to earthquakes. The results would be useful for various hazard mitigation and infrastructure planning agencies working in the region.

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

  • Aghataher R, Delavar MR, Nami MH, Samnay N (2008) A Fuzzy-AHP decision support system for evaluation of cities vulnerability against earthquakes. World Appl Sci J 3(1):66–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Alizadeh M, Hashim M, Alizadeh E, Shahabi H, Karami M, Beiranvand AP, Pradhan B, Zabihi H (2018a) Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model for seismic vulnerability assessment (SVA) of urban residential buildings. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 7:444. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7110444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alizadeh M, Alizadeh E, Asadollahpour Kotenaee S, Shahabi H, Beiranvand AP, Panahi M, Saro L (2018b) Social vulnerability assessment using an artificial neural network (ANN) model for earthquake hazard in Tabriz City, Iran. Sustainability 10(10):3376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Douglas J (2004) Magnitude calibration of North Indian earthquakes. Geophysical J Int 159(1):165–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asadi Y, Samany NN, Ezimand K (2019) Seismic vulnerability assessment of urban buildings and traffic networks using fuzzy ordered weighted average. J Mt Sci 16:677–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-017-4802-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia SC, Kumar RM, Gupta HK (1999) A probabilistic seismic hazard map of India and adjoining regions. Ann Geofis 42(6):1153–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilham R (2015) Raising Kathmandu. Nat Geosci 8:582–584. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIS (2002) IS 1893–2002 (Part 1) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1–General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

  • Boulos MNK (2003) Location-based health information services: A new paradigm in personalised information delivery. International J of Health Geographics 2(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-2-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown NA, Rovins JE, Feldmann-Jensen S, Orchiston C, Johnston D (2017) Exploring disaster resilience within the hotel sector: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty A, Joshi PK (2016) Mapping disaster vulnerability in India using analytical hierarchy process. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 7(1):308–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.897656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu WY, Tzeng GH, Li HL (2013) A new Hybrid MCDM Model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve E-Store business. Knowl-Based Syst 37:48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.06.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng J (1982) Control problems of Grey systems. Syst Control Lett 5(2):288–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng J (1988) Grey system book. Science and Technology Information Services: Windsor

  • Dewey JF, Cande S, Pitman WC (1989) Tectonic evolution of the India/Eurasia collision zone. Eclogae Geol Helv 82:717–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Kalaycioglu HS, Celik K, Kemec S, Ertugay K, Deniz A (2011) An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9808-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert A, Kerle N (2008) Urban social vulnerability assessment using object-oriented analysis of remote sensing and GIS data- a case study for Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Int. Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 37:1307–1312

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamzaçebi C, Pekkaya M (2011) Determining of stock investments with grey relational analysis. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9186–9195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haq AN, Marimuthu P, Jeyapaul R (2008) Multi response optimization of machining parameters of drilling Al/SiC metal matrix composite using grey relational analysis in the Taguchi method. The Int J of Adv Manufacturing Tech 37:250–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanzadeh R, Nedovi’c-Budi’c Z, Razavi AA, Norouzzadeh M, Hodhodkian H (2013) Interactive approach for GIS-based earthquake scenario development and resource estimation (Karmania hazard model). Comput Geosci 51:324–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.08.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini KA, Hosseini M, Jafari MK, Hosseinioon S (2009) Recognition of vulnerable urban fabrics in earthquake zones: A case study of the Tehran metropolitan area. J Seismol Earthq Eng 10:175–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) GIS-supported collaborative decision-making results of an experiment. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(1):48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Nizamuddin A, Sofyan H, Affan M (2019) Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh Province, Indonesia. Geosci Front 11:613–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G (2020) Earthquake vulnerability assessment in Northern Sumatra province by using a multi-criteria decision-making model. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaman H, Erden T (2014) Net earthquake hazard and elements at risk (NEaR) map creation for city of Istanbul via spatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Nat Hazards 73:685–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1099-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimzadeh S, Miyajima M, Hassanzadeh R, Amiraslanzadeh R, Kamel B (2014) A GIS-based seismic hazard, building vulnerability, and human loss assessment for the earthquake scenario in Tabriz. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:263–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo Y, Yang T, Huang G-W (2007) The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Comput Ind Eng 55:80–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu HC, Mao LX, Zhang ZY, Li P (2013) Induced aggregation operators in the VIKOR method and its application in material selection. Appl Math Model 37:6325–6338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.01.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J, Liu X (2014) Local ordered weighted averaging in GIS-based multi-criteria analysis. Spatial Sci 20(2):117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2014.904439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manshoori MR (2011) Evaluation of Seismic Vulnerability and failure modes for pipelines. Procedia Engineering 14:3042–3049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mardani A, Zavadskas E, Govindan K, Amat SA, Jusoh A (2016) VIKOR technique: a systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability 8(1):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins VN, e Silva DS, Cabral P (2012) Social vulnerability assessment to seismic risk using multi-criteria analysis: the case study of Vila Franca de Campo (Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal). Nat Hazards 62:385–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0084-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng Y, Malczewski J (2015) A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for evaluating accessibility to public parks in Calgary, Alberta. Human Geogr 9(1):29. https://doi.org/10.5719/hgeo.2015.91.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merciu C, Ianos I, Merciu G, Jones R, Pomeroy G (2018) Mapping accessibility for earthquake hazard response in the historic urban centre of Bucharest. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:2011–2026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath SK, Adhikari MD, Devaraj N, Maiti SK (2015) Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of Kolkata City, India. Nat Hazard 15:1103–1121. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-1103-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NPC (2015) Post-disaster need assessment, vol. A and B. Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyimbili PH, Erden T, Karaman H (2018) Integration of GIS, AHP, and TOPSIS for earthquake hazard analysis. Nat Hazards 92:1523–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3262-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade 2(1):5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European J of Operational Research 156:445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orchiston C (2012) Seismic risk scenario planning and sustainable tourism management: Christchurch and the Alpine Fault zone. J Sustain Tour 20:59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.617827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pal I, Nath SK, Shukla K, Pal DK, Raj A, Thingbaijam KKS, Bansal BK (2008) Earthquake hazard zonation of Sikkim Himalaya using a GIS platform. Nat Hazards 45:333–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panahi M, Rezaie F, Meshkani SA (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:969–979. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-1-4511-2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panjamani A, Bajaj K, Moustafa SSR, Al-Arifi NSN (2016) Relationship between intensity and recorded ground-motion and spectral parameters for the Himalayan region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1672–1689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman N, Ansary MA, Islam I (2015) GIS-based mapping of vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 13:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MM, Bai L, Khan NG, LI G (2017) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Himalayan-Tibetan region from Historical and instrumental Earthquake Catalogs. Pure Appl Geophys 175:685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1659-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashed T, Weeks J (2003) Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multi-criteria analysis of urban areas. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17:547–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/1365881031000114071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roark MS, Truman KZ, Gould PL (2000) Seismic vulnerability of airport facilities. 12WCEE

  • Ruddock A (2007) Hers and His: A Gendered Perspective on Disaster. Human Rights in Global Light 77.

  • Rupakhety R (2018) Seismotectonic and engineering seismological aspects of the Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake. In: Impacts and insights of the Gorkha earthquake, chapter 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812808-4.00002-X

  • Rygel L, O’Sullivan D, Yarnal BA (2006) Method for constructing a social vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 11:741–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-0265-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw 281

  • Schilderman T (2004) Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction: experiences with community-based approaches. Build Res Inf 32(5):414–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soe M, Ryutaro T, Ishiyama D, Takashima I, Charusiri, KWIP (2009) Remote sensing and GIS-based approach for earthquake probability map: a case study of the northern Sagaing fault area. Myanmar J Geol Soc Thail 29–46

  • Swinscow TDV (1997) In: Statistics at square one, 9th edn. University of Southampton, Campbell M J

    Google Scholar 

  • Szeliga W, Hough S, Martin S, Bilham R (2010) Intensity, magnitude, location, and attenuation in India for felt earthquakes since 1762. Bull of the Seism Society of Am 100(2):570–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker BB, Taylor-Noonan C, Tabbernor A et al (2014) A multi-criteria evaluation model of earthquake vulnerability in Victoria, British Columbia. Nat Hazards 74:1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1240-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieland M (2016) Safety aspects of sustainable storage dams and earthquake safety of existing dams. Engineering 2:325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2016.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, second ed, Routledge. Abingdon, UK:11–13

  • Wu W, Peng Y (2016) Extension of grey relational analysis for facilitating group consensus to an oil spill emergency management. Ann Oper Res 238(1):615–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xi-wei X (2010) Wenchuan earthquake induced landslides: an overview. Geological Rev 56(6):860–874

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2011) Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technol Econ Dev Econ 17:397–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang P, Yang Z, Gupta HK, Bhatia SC, Shedlock KM (1999) Global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP) in continental Asia. Ann Geofis 42(6):1167–2119

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India, and the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India for providing financial support through Ph.D. fellowship to the first author. We also extend our sincere thanks to various agencies for providing the data used in this study in the public domain. Our sincere thanks to the Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments on the original manuscript which significantly enhanced the overall quality of our work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences (CORAL), Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

    Sukanta Malakar & Abhishek K. Rai

Authors
  1. Sukanta Malakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhishek K. Rai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek K. Rai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malakar, S., Rai, A.K. Earthquake vulnerability in the Himalaya by integrated multi-criteria decision models. Nat Hazards 111, 213–237 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05050-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05050-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation