Abstract
Floods, among the most frequent and severe hazards in the world, threaten the sustainability of the built environment by causing immense damage to infrastructures, buildings, economies, social activities and beyond all, cause loss of lives. Istanbul is the most densely populated industrial, commercial and cultural center of Turkey. Besides, the population of Istanbul has increased over the last decade since the city attracts immigrants from all over Turkey, along with other countries. Therefore, it is vital to prioritize the districts of Istanbul by determining flood risk mitigation strategies since flood risk management is carried out at district level units in local municipalities in Istanbul. In this study, a new hierarchical procedure that consists of thirteen flood vulnerability and hazard criteria is proposed for the generation of Istanbul’s district-based flood risk map. To obtain the criteria weights the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was adopted. The sensitivity analysis conducted in this study reveals the stability and robustness of the proposed fuzzy AHP model. Among all the criteria, land use and the return period of a storm event were found as the most significant criteria for vulnerability and hazard clusters, respectively. Criteria weights calculated through the fuzzy AHP method were integrated with the data taken from various institutions with respect to each district to calculate risk scores of the districts. Consequently, district risk scores were used to generate a flood risk map of Istanbul. The findings show that high-risk districts are mainly at the center and highly populated areas of the city. Moreover, the accuracy of the proposed approach was validated through observations of the significant flood events experienced in the last two decades. Thus, the fuzzy AHP method can be considered as advantageous to make a quick and regional flood risk assessment. In addition, the proposed approach is useful to mitigate flood risk along with allocating a fair budget to the local municipalities for flood risk mitigation measures. The findings of this research could also provide useful procedures for professionals of the water resources and local authorities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aher PD, Adinarayana J, Gorantiwar SD (2013) Prioritization of watersheds using multi-criteria evaluation through fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 15:11–18
Aladağ H, Işık Z (2019) Design and construction risks in BOT type mega transportation projects. Eng Constr Archit Manag 26:2223–2242. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2018-0351
Altunkaynak A, Bizimana H (2020) Prediction of flood hazard map based on hybrid fuzzy geographic information system and its application for Ayamama watershed. Int J Fuzzy Comput Model 3:16–32. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFCM.2020.10027697
Bertilsson L, Wiklund K, de Moura TI et al (2019) Urban flood resilience—a multi-criteria index to integrate flood resilience into urban planning. J Hydrol 573:970–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.06.052
Le BHT, Umamahesh NV, Rathnam EV (2019) High-resolution flood hazard mapping based on nonstationary frequency analysis: case study of Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Hydrol Sci J 64:318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1581363
Bourenane H, Bouhadad Y, Guettouche MS (2019) Flood hazard mapping in urban area using the hydrogeomorphological approach: case study of the Boumerzoug and Rhumel alluvial plains (Constantine City, NE Algeria). J Afr Earth Sci 160:103602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.103602
Budayan C (2019) Evaluation of delay causes for BOT projects based on perceptions of different stakeholders in Turkey. J Manag Eng 35:04018057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000668
Büyüközkan G, Feyzıoğlu O, (2004) A fuzzy-logic-based decision-making approach for new product development. Int J Prod Econ 90:27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00330-4
Chang CW, Wu CR, Lin HL (2009) Applying fuzzy hierarchy multiple attributes to construct an expert decision making process. Expert Syst Appl 36:7363–7368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.026
Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
Dahri N, Abida H (2017) Monte Carlo simulation-aided analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood susceptibility mapping in Gabes Basin (southeastern Tunisia). Environ Earth Sci 76:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6619-4
Dang NM, Babel MS, Luong HT (2011) Evaluation of food risk parameters in the Day River Flood Diversion Area, Red River Delta. Vietnam. Nat Hazards 56:169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9558-x
Darabi H, Choubin B, Rahmati O et al (2019) Urban flood risk mapping using the GARP and QUEST models: a comparative study of machine learning techniques. J Hydrol 569:142–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.002
Darko A, Chan APC, Ameyaw EE et al (2019) Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int J Constr Manag 19:436–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098
Das S (2018) Geographic information system and AHP-based flood hazard zonation of Vaitarna basin, Maharashtra, India. Arab J Geosci 11:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3933-4
De RR, Jalayer F, De Paola F et al (2020) From flood risk mapping toward reducing vulnerability: the case of Addis Ababa. Nat Hazards 100:387–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03817-8
Ekonomist (2019) Housing stock. https://www.ekonomist.com.tr/insaat/istanbulun-ilcelerinde-konut-stoku-ne-kadar.html. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
Endeksa (2020) Analysis of Istanbul. https://www.endeksa.com/tr/analiz/istanbul/. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
E-sehir (2020) Istanbul bus stops. https://www.e-sehir.com/turkiye-haritasi/istanbul-iett-otobus-duraklari.php%0A. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
Fedeski M, Gwilliam J (2007) Urban sustainability in the presence of flood and geological hazards: the development of a GIS-based vulnerability and risk assessment methodology. Landsc Urban Plan 83:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.012
Felsenstein D, Lichter M (2014) Social and economic vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise and extreme flooding. Nat Hazards 71:463–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0929-y
Freire P, Tavares AO, Sa L et al (2016) A local-scale approach to estuarine flood risk management. Nat Hazards 84:1705–1739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2510-y
Gigović L, Pamučar D, Bajić Z, Drobnjak S (2017) Application of GIS-interval rough AHP methodology for flood hazard mapping in Urban areas. Water (Switzerland) 9:1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060360
Güçlü YS, Şen Z (2016) Hydrograph estimation with fuzzy chain model. J Hydrol 538:587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.057
Gülbaz S, Kazezyılmaz-Alhan MC, Bahçeçi A, Boyraz U (2019) Flood modeling of Ayamama River watershed in Istanbul. Turk J Hydrol Eng 24:05018026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001730
Gurgun AP, Koc K (2020) Contractor prequalification for green buildings—evidence from Turkey. Eng Constr Archit Manag 27:1377–1400. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2019-0543
Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21:1553–1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9112-5
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4754-9
Hammond MJ, Chen AS, Djordjević S et al (2015) Urban flood impact assessment: a state-of-the-art review. Urban water J 12:14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.857421
Hategekimana Y, Yu L, Nie Y et al (2018) Integration of multi-parametric fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and GIS along the UNESCO World Heritage: a flood hazard index, Mombasa County, Kenya. Nat Hazards 92:1137–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3244-9
HGM (2014) Surface areas. https://www.harita.gov.tr/images/urun/il_ilce_alanlari.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
IBB (2009) Production of microzonation report and maps for Asia side. http://ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/SubSites/DepremSite/Documents/Asian_microzonation_prj%20summary.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–14345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143
ISKI (2020) Water resources. https://www.iski.istanbul/web/tr-TR/kurumsal/iski-hakkinda1/su-kaynaklari1. [Accessed 1 Apr 2020]
Jaafar HH, Ahmad FA, El Beyrouthy N (2019) GCN250, new global gridded curve numbers for hydrologic modeling and design. Sci data 6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0155-x
Jia Y, Ni G, Kawahara Y, Suetsugi T (2001) Development of WEP model and its application to an urban watershed. Hydrol Process 15:2175–2194. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.275
Konukcu BE, Karaman H, Şahin M (2017) Determination of building age for Istanbul buildings to be used for the earthquake damage analysis according tostructural codes by using aerial and satellite images in GIS. Nat Hazards 85:1811–1834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2666-5
Li GF, Xiang XY, Tong YY, Wang HM (2013) Impact assessment of urbanization on flood risk in the Yangtze River Delta. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:1683–1693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0706-1
Li M, Wu W, Wang J et al (2017) Simulating and mapping the risk of surge floods in multiple typhoon scenarios: a case study of Yuhuan County, Zhejiang Province, China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:645–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1238-2
Liu R, Chen Y, Wu J et al (2016) Assessing spatial likelihood of flooding hazard using naive Bayes and GIS: a case study in Bowen Basin, Australia. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30:1575–1590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1198-y
Lyu HM, Shen SL, Zhou A, Yang J (2019) Perspectives for flood risk assessment and management for mega-city metro system. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 84:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.019
Meshram SG, Alvandi E, Singh VP, Meshram C (2019) Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for prioritization of watersheds. Soft Comput 23:13615–13625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03900-z
Meshram SG, Alvandi E, Meshram C et al (2020) Application of SAW and TOPSIS in prioritizing watersheds. Water Resour Manag 34:715–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02470-x
MGM (2010) Statistics. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx. [Accessed 1 Apr 2020]
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2017) Flood management report. http://taskinyonetimi.tarimorman.gov.tr/_engine//_engine/file.axd?file=/Dokumanlar/Task%C4%B1n_Yonetimi.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
De MH, Van AJ, Aerts JCJH (2009) Flood maps in Europe –methods, availability and use. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:289–301. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-289-2009
Nefeslioglu HA, Sezer E, Gokceoglu C et al (2010) Assessment of landslide susceptibility by decision trees in the metropolitan area of Istanbul. Turk Math Probl Eng 1:901095. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/901095
Nigussie TA, Altunkaynak A (2019) Modeling the effect of urbanization on flood risk in Ayamama Watershed, Istanbul, Turkey, using the MIKE 21 FM model. Nat Hazards 99:1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03794-y
Özeyranlı Ergenç MN (2016) Study on development of 2000 years of disaster database for Istanbul. Dissertation, Kocaeli University
Özeyranlı Ergenç N, Barış Ş (2018) Prioritization of hazard profile for Istanbul using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Nat Hazards 90:325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3041-x
Ozger M (2015) Assessment of flood damage behaviour in connection with large-scale climate indices. J Flood Risk Manag 10:79–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12158
Papaioannou G, Loukas A, Vasiliades L, Aronica GT (2016) Flood inundation mapping sensitivity to riverine spatial resolution and modelling approach. Nat Hazards 83:117–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2382-1
Papaioannou G, Vasiliades L, Loukas A (2015) Multi-criteria analysis framework for potential flood prone areas mapping. Water Resour Manag 29:399–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0817-6
Perrone A, Inam A, Adamowski J, Sole A (2020) A participatory system dynamics modeling approach to facilitate collaborative flood risk management: a case study in the Bradano River. J Hydrol 580:124354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124354
Pham QV, Mirjalili S, Kumar N et al (2020) Whale optimization algorithm with applications to resource allocation in wireless networks. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 69:4285–4297. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2020.2973294
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: The Analytical Hierarchy Process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6281-2_31
Saaty TL (2004) Decision making—the Analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5
Salman AM, Li Y (2018) Flood risk assessment, future trend modeling, and risk communication: a review of ongoing research. Nat Hazards Rev 19:04018011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000294
Sepehri M, Malekinezhad H, Jahanbakhshi F et al (2020) Integration of interval rough AHP and fuzzy logic for assessment of flood prone areas at the regional scale. Acta Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-00398-9
Souissi D, Zouhri L, Hammami S et al (2019) GIS-based MCDM–AHP modeling for flood susceptibility mapping of arid areas, southeastern Tunisia. Geocarto Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1566405
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0639-5
Stoleriu CC, Urzica A, Mihu-Pintilie A (2020) Improving flood risk map accuracy using high-density LiDAR data and the HEC-RAS river analysis system: a case study from north-eastern Romania. J Flood Risk Manag 13:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12572
Suganthi L (2018) Multi expert and multi criteria evaluation of sectoral investments for sustainable development: an integrated fuzzy AHP, VIKOR/DEA methodology. Sustain Cities Soc 43:144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.022
Tang Z, Yi S, Wang C, Xiao Y (2018) Incorporating probabilistic approach into local multi-criteria decision analysis for flood susceptibility assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32:701–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1431-y
Tariq MAUR (2013) Risk-based flood zoning employing expected annual damages: the Chenab River case study. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:1957–1966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0730-1
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
Trakyanet (2019) Population statistics. https://www.trakyanet.com/istatistikler/nufus/yas-grubuna-gore-nufus/istanbul-yas-grubuna-gore-nufus.html. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
Turkish Statistical Institute (2019) Istanbul population. https://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1059. [Accessed 30 Mar 2020]
USGS (2020) Earth explorer. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
Üstün AK, Anagün AS (2016) Determination of importance weights of Istanbul’s districts using analytic hierarchy process. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 31:119–128. https://doi.org/10.17341/gummfd.08342
Vahidnia MH, Alesheikh AA, Alimohammadi A (2009) Hospital site selection using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. J Environ Manag 90:3048–3056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.010
Wang J (2015) Flood risk maps to cultural heritage: measures and process. J Cult Herit 16:210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.03.002
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
Wedley C (1990) Combining qualitative and quantitative analytic hierarchy approach. Socioecon Plann Sci 24:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(90)90028-6
Wu Y, Zhong P, Xu B et al (2017) Changing of flood risk due to climate and development in Huaihe River basin, China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:935–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1262-2
Yalçın M (2012) Designing to the spatial data infrastructure for disaster management-preparation phase, susceptible areas for flooding and overflow: example of Istanbul European site. Dissertation, Yildiz Technical University
Yang XL, Ding JH, Hou H (2013) Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis. Nat Hazards 68(2):657–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0642-x
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
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
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI), BIMTAS and Turkish State Meteorological Service (MGM) for their support. We would also like to show our gratitude to the experts for sharing the pearls of wisdom with us during this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ekmekcioğlu, Ö., Koc, K. & Özger, M. District based flood risk assessment in Istanbul using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 35, 617–637 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01924-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01924-8