Production of Flood Risk Maps of Inebolu Basin Using Different Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Methods

Abstract

Flood events, which are considered as natural disasters, cause significant loss of life and property throughout the world. In order to be fully prepared for the flood, which is a disaster of meteorological origin, it is necessary to create flood risk susceptibility maps. Flood risk susceptibilities are values determined by considering different criteria that may cause flooding. Determining the weights of these criteria is also a problem that needs to be addressed. Due to the hierarchical structure of the aforementioned criteria, the problem of determining flood risk sensitivity was deemed suitable to be modeled as a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem, and a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) based model was used in this study. The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in basin studies is increasing day by day. Geographic Information Systems are used to collect, process and analyze existing data in order to identify potential risk areas. In this study, flood risk susceptibility maps of the İnebolu Basin, located within the borders of Kastamonu province in the west of the Black Sea Region of Turkey, were created by using different fuzzy analytic hierarchy process methods and the obtained results were compared with each other.

Keywords

• AHP
• Fuzzy AHP
• Flood
• Flood Risk Maps
• GIS

Kaynakça

1. Abari M K, Nilchi A N, Nasri M, Hekmatpanah M (2012). Target market selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) methods. African Journal of Business Management, Vol.6(20), pp. 6291-6299. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2626
2. Abdel-Kader MG, Dugdale D (2001). Evaluating investments in advanced manufacturing technology: A fuzzy set theory approach, British Accounting Review, 33, 455–489. https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0177.
3. Awasthı A, Govından K, Gold S (2018). Multi-tier Sustainable Global Supplier Selection Using a Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR Based Approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013
4. Bonacci O, Ljubenkov L, Roje-Bonacci T (2006). Karst flash floods: an example from the Dinaric karst (Croatia). Natu¬ral Hazards and Earth System Sci. 6 (2), 195-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-6-195-2006
5. Bouamrane A, Derdous O, Dahri N, Tachi SE, Boutebba K, Bouziane MT (2022). A comparison of the analytical hierarchy process and the fuzzy logic approach for flood susceptibility mapping in a semi-arid ungauged basin (Biskra basin: Algeria), International Journal of River Basin Management, 20:2, 203-213, DOI: 10.1080/15715124.2020.1830786
6. Buckley JJ (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets systems, 17, 233–247.
7. Chaghooshi A J, Safari H, Fathi MR (2012). Integration of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy GTMA for Location Selection of Gas Pressure Reducing Stations: A Case Study. Journal of Management Research, 4 (3), 152-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v4i3.1751
8. Chang DY (1992). Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision, Optimization Techniques and Applications, 1, 342. Chang, DY (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 95, 649–655. ÇEM (2013). General Directorate of Combating Desertification and Erosion, İnebolu Basin Soil Database and Mapping Study Final Report. Ankara.

9. Demirel K (2018). The place and ımportance of ırrıgatıon systems ın ınfrastructure works. Changing and Developing Lapseki Urban Infrastructure. Health A., Editor, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart university, Çanakkale, pp.45-55.
10. Deng H (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. International journal of approximate reasoning. 21, 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0888-613X(99)00025-0
11. Dengiz O, Saygin F, İmamoğlu A (2016). Determination of physiographic factors, different soil classes based on st/wrb and mapping in İnebolu watershed. International Geography Symposium, 13-14 October, Ankara.
12. Dölek İ (2015). Identification of the Areas Susceptible to Flooding and Overflows in Sungu and its Surrounding (Muş), lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, volume: 31, pp:258-280.
13. Duran O (2011). Computer-aided Maintenance Management Systems Selection Based on a Fuzzy AHP. Approach. Advances in Engineering Software, 42(10), 821–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.05.023.
14. Ekmekcioğlu Ö, Koc K, Özger M (2021a). District based flood risk assessment in Istanbul using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 35:617–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01924-8.
15. Ekmekcioğlu Ö, Koc K, Özger M (2021b). Stakeholder perceptions in flood risk assessment: A hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach for Istanbul, Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 60 (2021) 102327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102327.
16. Ertan A, Özelkan E, Karaman M (2021). Determination of Flood Areas in Geographic Information Systems Platform Using Analytical Hierarchy Process: A case study in Çanakkale- Karamenderes Basin. Journal of Research in Atmospheric Science, 3(2), pp 1-9. http://doi.org/10.29228/resatmsci.56883
17. Felix TS, Kumar, Tiwari MK, Lau HCW, Choy K.L (2008). Global Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy-AHP Approach. International Journal of Production Research, 46:14, 3825-3857, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600787200
18. Görcelioğlu E (2003). Flood and Avalanche Control. Istanbul University, Faculty of Forestry publications, Publication No: 4415 Istanbul.
19. Gu X, Zhu Q (2006). Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Method Based On Eigenvector Of Fuzzy Attribute Evaluation Space. Decision Support Systems. volume 41(2), pp 400-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.08.001
20. Güler D, Yomralıoğlu T (2018). GIS and fuzzy ahp based area selectıon for electrıc vehıcle chargıng statıons. ISPRS TC IV Mid-term Symposium on 3D Spatial Information Science –The Engine of Change, Delft, Hollanda, 01-05 October. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-249-2018
21. Güner H (2005). Fuzzy AHP and ıts application to the supplier selection problem for a business. Pamukkale University Institute of Science and Technology, Unpublished Master Thesis, pp.146, Denizli.
22. Hoque M Al-Amin, Ahmed N, Pradhan B, Roy S (2019). Assessment of coastal vulnerability to multi-hazardous events using geospatial techniques along the eastern coast of Bangladesh. Ocean&Coastal Management. 181(1) November. 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104898
23. Kadıoğlu M (2008). Risk Management for floods, landslides and avalanches. The basic principles of disaster damage reduction, p 251-276, JICA turkey office, publication no:2
24. Kafalı M, Özkök M, Çebi S (2014). Evaluation of Pipe Cutting Technologies in Shipbuilding. Brodogradnja, 65(2), pp. 33‐48.
25. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003). Multi-Criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics information management, 16(6), 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503367
26. Kaptanoğlu D, Özok F (2006). A fuzzy model for academic performance evaluation. ITU Journal/D Engineering, volume:1, pp: 193-204.
27. Kilincci O, Onal SA (2011). Fuzzy AHP Approach for Supplier Selection in a Washing Machine Company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9656–9664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.159
28. Kourgialas N N, Karatzas G P (2011). Flood management and a GIS model¬ling method to assess flood-hazard areas—a case study. Hydrological Sci¬ences Journal 56 (2), 212-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.555836
29. Lee SK, Mogi G, Lee SK, Hui KS, Kim JW (2010). Econometric Analysis of the R&D Performance in the National Hydrogen Energy Technology Development for Measuring Relative Efficiency: The Fuzzy AHP/DEA Integrated Model Approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(6), 2236-2246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.01.009
30. Leung L C, Cao D (2000). On Consistency and Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 124(1), 102-113, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00118-6.
31. Lin HF (2010). An Application of Fuzzy AHP for Evaluating EourseWebsite Quality. Computers & Education, 54(4), pp:877-888, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.017
32. Liou TS, Wang MJ (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 50(3), 247-255, https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-Q
33. Ogato GS, Bantider A, Abebe K, Geneletti D (2020). Geographic information system (GIS)-Based multicriteria analysis of flooding hazard and risk in Ambo Town and its watershed, West shoa zone, oromia regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, Volume 27, 100659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100659
34. Önsoy H (2008). The importance of hydrology in urbanization, 5th World Water Forum Regional Preparation Process Turkey Regional Water Meetings: Flood, Flood and Landslide Conferences Proceedings, pp.38-42.
35. Özdemir H (2008). Comparison of Gumbel and Log Pearson type III distributions in flood frequency analysis of Havran river (Balıkesir). Journal of Geographical Sciences,, 6 (1), 41-52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil_0000000081
36. Özdemir Ü, Güneroğlu A (2017). Quantitative Analysis of the World Sea Piracy by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodologies. International Journal of Transport Economics, in progress. 44(3), pp.427-448 http://doi.org/10.19272/201706703004
37. Özhan S (2004). Havza Amenajmanı. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Yayınları, İ.Ü. Yayın No:4510, Orman Fakültesi Yayın No: 481; ISBN: 975–404–739-1 İstanbul.
38. Öztürk D (2009). Determination Of Flood Vulnerability Using Gis Based Multi Criteria Decision Anaysis Methods-A Case Study: South Marmara Basın. Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, Ph.D. Thesis, pp 161, Istanbul,
39. Rahmati O, Zeinivand H, Besharat M (2015). Flood Hazard Zoning İn Yasooj Region, Iran, Using GIS And Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7 (3): 1000-1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2015.1045043
40. Saaty TL (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Pro¬cess. McGraw-Hill, New York
41. Selçuk L, Selçuk AS, Kasapoğlu D (2016). Urban Flood Susceptibility Assessment of Central Districts of Van Province, Turkey, Using Geographic Information System (GIS)-Based Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Bulletin of the Earth Sciences Application and Research Centre of Hacettepe University, 37(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.17824/yrb.00247
42. Si T, Chunbo W, Liu R, Guo Y, Yue S, Ren Y (2020). Multi-criteria comprehensive energy efficiency assessment based on fuzzy-AHP method: A case study of post-treatment technologies for coal-fired units. Energy, Volume 200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117533
43. Sinha RGV, Bapalu GV, Singh LK, Rath B (2008). Flood risk analysis in the Kosi River Basin, North Bihar using multi-parametric approach of AHP. Indian Journal of Remote Sensing, 36, 293-307.
44. Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013). Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Natural Hazards, 68(2):569-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0639-5
45. Steiner FR, Butler K (2007). Planning and Urban Design Standards. Hoboken N.J.: J. Wiley, New Jersey, 448p.
46. Sunkar M, Tonbul S (2010). Rısk analyses of flood and torrent events for the basın of ıluh creek (Batman). ISSN:1306-3111, e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, Volume: 5, Number: 4, Article Number: 4A0033, pp.: 255-273.
47. Tanrıverdi M (2019). Determination of flood areas of şanlıurfa provincial center by multi-criteria decision analysis based on geographic ınformation systems (GIS), Harran University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Department of Civil Engineering, pp63.
48. Tas E (2018). Evaluation of Flood Risk Potential Using Geographical Information Systems Techniques: A Case Study of Afyonkarahisar Cay Stream Watershed, Climate Change and Environment, 3, (1) 68–74.
49. Tasri A, Susilawati A (2014). Selection among renewable energy alternatives based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in Indonesia. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, volüme 7, pp 34-44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.02.008.
50. Tella A, Balogun AL (2020). Ensemble fuzzy MCDM for spatial assessment of flood susceptibility in Ibadan, Nigeria. Natural Hazards, 104:2277–2306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04272-6
51. Tokgözlü A, Özkan E (2018). Application of AHP Method in Flood Risk Maps: Aksu River Basin Example, SDU Faculty Of Arts And Scıences Journal Of Socıal Scıences, NO: 44, PP. 151-176.
52. Uludağ AS, Doğan H (2016). A Service Quality Application Focusing on the Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods, Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of The Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 6(2), pp. 17-47
53. URL1, http://www.mgm.gov.tr/arastirma/dogal-afetler.aspx?s=taskinlar , (Accessed; 27.02.2018).
54. URL2, https://tr.climate-data.org/, (Accessed; 11.01.2022).
55. Uşkay S, Aksu S (2002). Floods in Our Country, Causes, Damages and Measures to be Taken, TMH - Turkey Engineering News, Vol.420-421-422.
56. Wang Y-M, Luo Y, Hua Z (2008). On The Extent Analysis Method For Fuzzy AHP And İts Applications. European Journal Of Operational Research, 186, 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.050
57. 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 Manage, 25:3465–3484. DOI 10.1007/s11269-011-9866-2