Investigation of Flood Hazard Susceptibility Using Various Distance Measures in Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
Source abstract
Abstract
In the present study, flood hazard susceptibility maps generated using various distance measures in the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) were analyzed. Widely applied distance measures such as Euclidean, Manhattan, Chebyshev, Jaccard, and Soergel were used in TOPSIS to generate flood hazard susceptibility maps of the Gökırmak sub-basin located in the Western Black Sea Region, Türkiye. A frequency ratio (FR) and weight of evidence (WoE) were adapted to hybridize the nine flood conditioning factors considered in this study. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and Seed Cell Area Index (SCAI) were used for the validation and testing of the generated flood susceptibility maps by extracting 70% and 30% of the inventory data of the generated flood susceptibility map for validation and testing, respectively. When the Area Under Curve (AUC) and SCAI values were examined, it was found that the Manhattan distance metric hybridized with the FR method gave the best prediction results with AUC values of 0.904 and 0.942 for training and testing, respectively. Furthermore, the natural break method was found to give the best predictions of the flood hazard susceptibility classes. So, the Manhattan distance measure could be preferred to Euclidean for flood susceptibility mapping studies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics · Hydrology and Drought Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Gazi University, Ankara 06570, Türkiye
Funding
Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
References (84)
Show source-provided references
1. Hydrometeorological analysis of July-2023 floods in Himachal Pradesh, India10.1007/s11069-024-06520-5 ↗
2. A clustering classification of catchment anthropogenic modification and relationships with floods10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139915 ↗
3. Anthropocene flooding: Challenges for science and society10.1002/hyp.13723 ↗
4. Assessment of soil erosion, flood risk and groundwater potential of Dhanari watershed using remote sensing and geographic information system, district Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, India10.1007/s13201-021-01450-0 ↗
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis-Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107415324 ↗
6. Development of a Sub-Pixel Analysis Method Applied to Dynamic Monitoring of Floods10.1080/01431161.2011.608091 ↗
7. Trif, S., Bilașco, Ș., Petrea, D., Roșca, S., Fodorean, I., and Vescan, I. (2023). Spatial modeling through GIS analysis of flood risk and related financial vulnerability: Case study: Turcu River, Romania. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13179869 ↗
8. Using remote sensing data for predicting potential areas to flash flood hazards and water resources
9. Rapid and robust monitoring of flood events using Sentinel-1 and Landsat data on the Google Earth Engine10.1016/j.rse.2020.111664 ↗
10. Flood modeling through remote sensing datasets such as LPRM soil moisture and GPM-IMERG precipitation: A case study of ungauged basins across Morocco10.1007/s12145-022-00904-6 ↗
11. Zoka, M., Psomiadis, E., and Dercas, N. (2018). The Complementary Use of Optical and SAR Data in Monitoring Flood Events and Their Effects. Proceedings, 2.10.3390/proceedings2110644 ↗
12. Sun, Q., Nazari, R., Karimi, M., Rabbani Fahad, M.G., and Peters, R.W. (2021). Comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment for Wastewater Treatment Plants under Extreme Storm Events: A Case Study for New York City, United States. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11156694 ↗
13. Flood damage and risk assessment for urban area in Malaysia10.2166/nh.2020.121 ↗
14. Monjardin, C.E.F., Senoro, D.B., Magbanlac, J.J.M., de Jesus, K.L.M., Tabelin, C.B., and Natal, P.M. (2022). Geo-accumulation index of Manganese in soils due to flooding in Boac and Mogpog Rivers, Marinduque, Philippines with mining disaster exposure. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12073527 ↗
15. Flood forecasting based on an artificial neural network scheme10.1007/s11069-020-04211-5 ↗
16. Khoirunisa, N., Ku, C.Y., and Liu, C.Y. (2021). A GIS-based artificial neural network model for flood susceptibility assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph18031072 ↗
17. Quantifying the Influences of Land Use and Rainfall Dynamics on Probable Flood Hazard Zoning10.24949/njes.v16i1.739 ↗
18. Aghenda, M., Labbaci, A., Hssaisoune, M., and Bouchaou, L. (2024, January 14–19). Flood susceptibility mapping using neural network based models in Morocco: Case of Souss Watershed (No. EGU24-3447). Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria.10.5194/egusphere-egu24-3447 ↗
19. Mashaly, J., and Ghoneim, E. (2018). Flash Flood Hazard Using Optical, Radar, and Stereo-Pair Derived DEM: Eastern Desert, Egypt. Remote Sens., 10.10.3390/rs10081204 ↗
20. Sarkar, R., Saha, S., Adhikari, B.R., and Shaw, R. (2024). An Ensemble of J48 Decision Tree with AdaBoost and Bagging for Flood Susceptibility Mapping in the Sundarbans of West Bengal, India. Geomorphic Risk Reduction Using Geospatial Methods and Tools. Disaster Risk Reduction, Springer.10.1007/978-981-99-7707-9 ↗
21. Flood susceptibility mapping using information fusion paradigm integrated with decision trees
22. Evaluating the application of the statistical index method in flood susceptibility mapping and its comparison with frequency ratio and logistic regression methods10.1080/19475705.2018.1506509 ↗
23. Xiong, J., Li, J., Cheng, W., Wang, N., and Guo, L. (2019). A GIS-based support vector machine model for flash flood vulnerability assessment and mapping in China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8070297 ↗
24. A novel approach for assessing flood risk with machine learning and multi-criteria decision-making methods10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103035 ↗
25. Flood susceptibility mapping using frequency ratio and weights-of-evidence models in the Golastan Province, Iran10.1080/10106049.2015.1041559 ↗
26. Assessment of flood susceptibility mapping using support vector machine, logistic regression and their ensemble techniques in the Belt and Road region10.1080/10106049.2022.2025918 ↗
27. Pusdekar, P.N., and Dudul, S.V. (2024, January 5–7). Flood Susceptibility Mapping and Accuracy Assessment of a River Floodplain Using Bivariate Statistical Methods and AHP Approach. Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Emerging Smart Computing and Informatics (ESCI), Pune, India.10.1109/ESCI59607.2024.10497420 ↗
28. Flood susceptibility analysis through remote sensing, GIS and frequency ratio model10.1007/s13201-018-0710-1 ↗
29. Efficiency exploration of frequency ratio, entropy and weights of evidence-information value models in flood vulnerability assessment: A study of raiganj subdivision, Eastern India10.1007/s00477-021-02115-9 ↗
30. Castedo, R., Isidro, M.L., and Moncoulon, D. (2023). Geohazards: Risk Assessment, Mitigation and Prevention, MDPI-Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.10.3390/books978-3-0365-9038-7 ↗
31. Flash-flood propagation susceptibility estimation using weights of evidence and their novel ensembles with multicriteria decision-making and machine learning10.1080/10106049.2021.2001580 ↗
32. Biswas, B., and Ghute, B.B. (2024). Analyzing Spatiotemporal Changes in Flood Risk Zones to Mitigate Flood Hazards in a Floodplain Area Using a GIS-Based AHP Technique. Flood Risk Management, Springer.10.1007/978-981-97-2688-2 ↗
33. The application of a Dempster-Shafer-based evidential belief function in flood susceptibility mapping and comparison with frequency ratio and logistic regression methods10.1007/s12665-018-7667-0 ↗
34. Evaluation of urban flood susceptibility through integrated Bivariate statistics and Geospatial technology10.1007/s10661-024-12676-1 ↗
35. Cao, Y., Jia, H., Xiong, J., Cheng, W., Li, K., Pang, Q., and Yong, Z. (2020). Flash flood susceptibility assessment based on geodetector, certainty factor, and logistic regression analyses in Fujian Province, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 9.10.3390/ijgi9120748 ↗
36. Yuan, X., Liu, C., Nie, R., Yang, Z., Li, W., Dai, X., Cheng, J., Zhang, J., Ma, L., and Fu, X. (2022). A comparative analysis of certainty factor-based machine learning methods for collapse and landslide susceptibility mapping in Wenchuan County, China. Remote Sens., 14.10.3390/rs14143259 ↗
37. Tu, Y., Zhao, Y., Dong, R., Wang, H., Ma, Q., He, B., and Liu, C. (2023). Study on Risk Assessment of Flash Floods in Hubei Province. Water, 15.10.3390/w15040617 ↗
38. Bui, D.T., Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Daggupati, P., Adamowski, J.F., Melesse, A.M., Pham, B.T., Pourghasemi, H.R., Mahmoudi, M., and Bahrami, S. (2019). Flood spatial modeling in northern Iran using remote sensing and gis: A comparison between evidential belief functions and its ensemble with a multivariate logistic regression model. Remote Sens., 11.10.3390/rs11131589 ↗
39. Ivan Ulloa, N., Chiang, S.H., and Yun, S.H. (2020). Flood proxy mapping with normalized difference sigma-naught index and Shannon’s entropy. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12091384 ↗
40. Flood susceptibility analysis and its verification using a novel ensemble support vector machine and frequency ratio method10.1007/s00477-015-1021-9 ↗
41. Flood susceptibility assessment using GIS-based support vector machine model with different kernel types10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.017 ↗
42. Identification of areas prone to flash-flood phenomena using multiple-criteria decision-making, bivariate statistics, machine learning, and their ensembles10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136492 ↗
43. Robustness, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of the TOPSIS method for quantitative climate change vulnerability: A case study of flood damage10.1007/s11269-016-1451-2 ↗
44. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) as a powerful tool for sustainable development: Effective applications of AHP, FAHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, and VIKOR in sustainability
45. Geographic information system and AHP-based flood hazard zonation of Vaitarna basin, Maharashtra, India10.1007/s12517-018-3933-4 ↗
46. Flood risk assessment using geospatial data and multi-criteria decision approach: A study from historically active flood-prone region of Himalayan foothill, India10.1007/s12517-021-07324-8 ↗
47. Enhancing Flood Risk Analysis in Harris County: Integrating Flood Susceptibility and Social Vulnerability Mapping10.1007/s41651-024-00181-5 ↗
48. Flood risk assessment and mapping using AHP in arid and semiarid regions10.1007/s11600-018-0233-z ↗
49. Fuzzy AHP in a knowledge-based framework for early flood warning10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.892.143 ↗
50. Flood risk zonation using multi-criteria spatial group fuzzy-AHP decision making and fuzzy overlay analysis10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W18-455-2019 ↗
51. Assessment of the performance of GISbased analytical hierarchical process (AHP) approach for flood modelling in Uttar Dinajpur district of West Bengal India10.1080/19475705.2022.2112094 ↗
52. Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India10.1016/j.gsf.2021.101206 ↗
53. Wang, Y., Hong, H., Chen, W., Li, S., Pamučar, D., Gigović, L., Drobnjak, S., Bui, D.T., and Duan, H. (2018). A hybrid GIS multi-criteria decision-making method for flood susceptibility mapping at Shangyou, China. Remote Sens., 11.10.3390/rs11010062 ↗
54. AHP and TOPSIS based flood risk assessment-a case study of the Navsari City, Gujarat, India10.1007/s10661-022-10111-x ↗
55. Erodibility prioritization of sub-watersheds using morphometric parameters analysis and its mapping: A comparison among TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW, and CF multi-criteria decision making models10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.210 ↗
56. A comparison of statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.021 ↗
57. Comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using multi-criteria decision-making analysis and machine learning methods10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073 ↗
58. A Flood Season Division Model Considering Uncertainty and New Information Priority10.1007/s11269-024-03838-4 ↗
59. A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modelling of GIS-based TOPSIS, VIKOR, and EDAS techniques in the Sub-Himalayan foothills region of Eastern India10.1007/s11356-022-23168-5 ↗
60. Integration of SWAT, SDSM, AHP, and TOPSIS to detect flood-prone areas10.1007/s11069-024-06483-7 ↗
61. Nguyen, H.X., Nguyen, A.T., Ngo, A.T., Phan, V.T., Nguyen, T.D., Do, V.T., Dao, D.C., Dang, D.T., Nguyen, A.T., and Nguyen, T.K. (2020). A hybrid approach using GIS-based fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS assessing flood hazards along the south-central coast of Vietnam. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10207142 ↗
62. Flood hazards susceptibility mapping using statistical, fuzzy logic, and MCDM methods10.1007/s00500-021-05903-1 ↗
63. Assessment of sustainable urban development based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Group fuzzy BWM, AHP, and TOPSIS–GIS10.1016/j.scs.2021.103402 ↗
64. Evaluation of bivariate statistical and hybrid models for the preparation of flood hazard susceptibility maps in the Brahmani River Basin, India10.1007/s12665-023-11069-w ↗
65. Delamaire, A., Juganaru-Mathieu, M., and Beigbeder, M. (2019, January 29–31). Correlation between textual similarity and quality of LDA topic model results. Proceedings of the 2019 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), Brussels, Belgium.10.1109/RCIS.2019.8877076 ↗
66. Disaster risk evaluation using factor analysis: A case study of Chinese regions10.1007/s11069-019-03742-w ↗
67. Axelsson, C., Giove, S., and Soriani, S. (2021). Urban Pluvial Flood Management Part 1: Implementing an AHP-TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Method for Stakeholder Integration in Urban Climate and Storm Water Adaptation. Water, 13.10.3390/w13172422 ↗
68. GeoClust: Feature engineering based framework for location-sensitive disaster event detection using AHP-TOPSIS10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118461 ↗
69. Usability analysis of different distance measures on TOPSIS
70. Kwon, N., Lee, J., Park, M., Yoon, I., and Ahn, Y. (2019). Performance Evaluation of Distance Measurement Methods for Construction Noise Prediction Using Case-Based Reasoning. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11030871 ↗
71. Costache, R., Pham, Q.B., Sharifi, E., Linh, N.T.T., Abba, S.I., Vojtek, M., Vojteková, J., Nhi, P.T.T., and Khoi, D.N. (2020). Flash-Flood Susceptibility Assessment Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Machine Learning Supported by Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12010106 ↗
72. Yanmaz, A.M. (2013). Applied Water Resources Engineering, Metu Press.
73. Alvan Romero, N., Cigna, F., and Tapete, D. (2020). ERS-1/2 and Sentinel-1 SAR Data Mining for Flood Hazard and Risk Assessment in Lima, Peru. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186598 ↗
74. DEM resolution effects on machine learning performance for flood probability mapping
75. How far spatial resolution affects the ensemble machine learning-based flood susceptibility prediction in data sparse region10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113344 ↗
76. Weights-of-evidence model applied to landslide susceptibility mapping in a tropical hilly area10.1080/19475705.2010.498151 ↗
77. 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 resources10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.028 ↗
78. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill.10.21236/ADA214804 ↗
79. Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications a State-of-the-Art Survey, Springer. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3 ↗
80. Domestic open-end equity mutual fund performance evaluation using extended TOPSIS method with different distance approaches10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.044 ↗
81. Chetty, M., Ngom, A., and Ahmad, S. (2008). Pattern Recognition in Bioinformatics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-88436-1 ↗
82. Application of true skill statistics as a practical method for quantitatively assessing CLIMEX performance10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109830 ↗
83. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS)10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x ↗
84. Landslide susceptibility mapping: A comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey)10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.02.002 ↗